Page:03.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.B.vol.3.LaterProphets.djvu/232

the second, and it would naturally occur to him to supply from his own resources the continuation which had been already taken away and made use of” (Hitz. l.c.). A similar phenomenon is the recurrence of the second half of Psa 40:17. as an independent psalm, Psa 70:1-5. “But it is also readily seen,”continues Hitzig, “how easily the psalmist might separate the last three verses from each other (1Ch 16:34-36 of the Chronicle), and set them as a frame round Ps 106. 1Ch 16:34 is not less suitable in the Chronicle for the commencement of a paragraph than in Ps 107, which Psa 107:6 would admit of no continuation, but was the proper end. On the other hand, we can scarcely believe that the chronicler compiled his song first from Ps 105, then from Psa 96:1-13, and lastly from Ps 106, striking off from this latter only the beginning and the end.”
Finally, if we compare the text of our hymn with the text of these psalms, the divergences are of such a sort that we cannot decide with certainty which of the two texts is the original. To pass over such critically indifferent variations as פּיהוּ, 1Ch 16:12, for פּיו, Psa 105:5; the omission of the nota acc. את, 1Ch 16:18, compared with Psa 105:10, and vice versa in Psa 96:3 and 1Ch 16:24; היּער עצי, 1Ch 16:33, instead of היּער כּל־עצי, Psa 96:12, - the chronicler has in יצחק, 1Ch 16:16, instead of ישׂחק, Psa 105:9, and יעלץ, 1Ch 16:32, instead of יעלז, Psa 96:12, the earlier and more primitive form; in תּרעוּ אל בּנביאי, 1Ch 16:22, instead of תּרעוּ אל לנביאי, Psa 105:15, a quite unusual construction; and in יום אל מיּום, 1Ch 16:23, the older form (cf. Num 30:15), instead of ליום מיּום, Psa 96:2, as in Est 3:7; while, on the other hand, instead of the unexampled phrase לעשׁקם אדם הנּיח, Psa 105:14, there stands in the Chronicle the usual phrase לאישׁ הנּיח, and שׂדי dna , in Psa 96:12 is the poetical form for the השּׂדה of 1Ch 16:32. More important are the wider divergences: not so much ישׂראל זרע, 1Ch 16:13, for אברהם זרע, Psa 105:6, in which latter case it is doubtful whether the עבדּו refers to the patriarchs or to the people, and consequently, as the parallelismus membrorum demands the latter references, ישׂראל is clearly the more correct and intelligible; but rather than the others, viz., זכרוּ, 1Ch 16:15, for זכר, Psa 105:8; since זכרוּ not only corresponds to the זכרוּ of 1Ch 16:11, but alto to the use made of the song for the purposes stated in the Chronicle; while, on the contrary, זכר of the psalm corresponds to the object of the psalm, viz., to exalt the covenant grace shown to the patriarchs. Connected with this also is the