Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/167

 the God, whose glory the heavens reflect, has also glorified Himself in the earth and in man; and the situation of the poet is this, that he has the moon and stars before his eyes: how then could he wish that heaven to be made glorious whose glory is shining into his eyes! It is just as impracticable to take תּנה as a contraction of נתנה, like תּתּה   2Sa 22:41, = נתתּה, as Ammonius and others, and last of all Böhl, have done, or with Thenius (Stud. u. Krit. 1860 S. 712f.) to read it so at once. For even if the thought: “which (the earth) gives (announces) Thy glory all over the heavens” is not contrary to the connection, and if נתן עז, Psa 68:34, and נתן כבוד, Jer 13:16, can be compared with this נתן הוד, still the phrase נתן הוד על means nothing but to lay majesty on any one, to clothe him with it, Num 27:20; 1Ch 29:25; Dan 11:21, cf. Psa 21:6; and this is just the thought one looks for, viz., that the name of the God, who has put His glory upon the heavens (Psa 148:13) is also glorious here below. We must, therefore, take תּנה, although it is always the form of the imper. elsewhere, as infin., just as רדה occurs once in Gen 46:3 as infin. (like the Arab. rı̆da a giving to drink, lı̆da a bringing forth - forms to which לדה and the like in Hebrew certainly more exactly correspond). תּנה הודך signifies the setting of Thy glory (prop. τὸ τιθέναι τὴν δόξαν σου) just like דּעה את־ה the knowledge of Jahve, and Obad. Psa 8:5, שׂים קנּך, probably the setting of thy nest, Ges. §133. 1. It may be interpreted: O Thou whose laying of Thy glory is upon the heavens, i.e., Thou who hast chosen this as the place on which Thou hast laid Thy glory (Hengst.). In accordance with this Jerome translates it: qui posuisti gloriam tuam super caelos. Thus also the Syriac version with the Targum: dejabt (דיהבת) shubhoch 'al shemajo, and Symmachus: ὃς ἔταξας τὸν ἔπαινόν σου ὑπεράνω τῶν οὐρανῶν. This use of the nomen verbale and the genitival relation of אשׁר to תּנה הודך, which is taken as one notion, is still remarkable. Hitzig considers that no reasonable man would think and write thus: but thereby at the same time utterly condemns his own conjecture תּן ההודך (whose extending of glory over the heavens). This, moreover, goes beyond the limits of the language, which is