TRENCH ON PROVERBS.
(Vol. viii., pp. 387. 519.)
The error, which Luther was the first to fall into, in departing from the anciently received version of Ps. cxxvii. 2., Mendelsohn adopted; but no translator of eminence has followed these two Hebraists; although some critics have been carried away by their authority to the proper Jewish notion of "gain," and not sleep, being the subject. Luther's version—"Denn seinen Freunden gibt er es schlafend"—was certainly before the revisers of our authorised version of James I.; but was rejected, I consider, as ungrammatical and false: ungrammatical, because the transitive verb "give" (gibt) has no accusative noun; and false, because he supplies, without authority, the place of the missing noun by the pronoun "it" (es), there being no antecedent to which this it refers. Mendelsohn omits the it in his Hebrew comment, supplied however unauthorisedly by Mr. Margoliouth in his translation of such comment. But Mendelsohn introduces the "es" (it), in his German version (Berlin, 1788, dedicated to Ramler), without however any authority from the Hebrew original of this Psalm. He is therefore at variance with himself. And, farther, he has omitted altogether the important word
כֵּן
(so or thus), rendered "denn" (for) by Luther.
As to the "unintelligible authorised version," I must premise that no version has yet had so large an amount of learning bestowed on it as the English one; indeed it has fairly beaten out of the field all the versions of all other sections of Christians. The difficulty of the English version arises from its close adherence to the oriental letter; but if we put the scope of this Psalm into the vernacular, such difficulty is eliminated.
Solomon says, in this Psalm: "Without Jehovah's support, my house will fall: if He keep this city, the watch, with its early-risings, late-resting, and ill-feeding, is useless: thus He (by so keeping or watching the city himself) gives sleep to him whom He loves." The remainder of the Psalm refers to the increase of population as Jehovah's gift, wherein Solomon considers the strength of the city to consist. The words in Italics correspond precisely in sense with those of the authorised version—"For so He giveth His beloved sleep;" and the latter is supported fully by all the ancient versions, and, as far as I can at present ascertain, by all the best modern ones.
T. J. Buckton.
Lichfield.
What is there unintelligible in the authorised translation of Psalm cxxvii. 2., "He giveth His beloved sleep?" It is a literal translation of three very plain words, of the simplest grammatical construction, made in accordance with all the ancient versions. A difficulty there does indeed exist in the passage, viz. in the commencing word
כן
; but this word, though capable of many intelligible meanings, does not enter into the present question. Since the great majority of critics have been contented to see no objection to the received translations, it is perfectly allowable to maintain that the proposed rendering makes, instead of removing, a difficulty, and obscures a passage which, as generally understood, is sufficiently lucid. Hengstenberg's difficulty is, that the subject is not about the sleep, but the gain. But is not sleep a gain? Can we forget the ὕπνου δῶρον of Homer? that is, sufficient, undisturbed sleep, rest. Hengstenberg's remark, that all, even the beloved, must labour, is a mere truism. The Psalmist evidently opposes excessive and over-anxious labours, interfering with natural rest, to ordinary labour accompanied with refreshing sleep. The object of his censure is precisely the μέριμνα which forms the subject of our Lord's warning; who censures not due care and providence, but over-anxiety. Burkius rightly remarks, that
שנא
is antithetical to surgere, sedere, dolorum. Hammond observes, with far more clearness and good sense than Hengstenberg,
"For as to the former of these, wicked men that incessantly moil, and cark, and drudge for the acquiring of it, and never enjoy any of the comforts of this life, through the vehement pursuit of riches, are generally frustrated and disappointed in their aims: whereas, on the contrary, those who have God's blessing thrive insensibly, become very prosperous, and yet never lose any sleep in the pursuit of it."
Bishop Horne agrees; his remarks having evident reference to Hammond's. So Bishop
Horsley, more briefly, but with his usual force: "You take all this trouble for your security in vain, whilst He gives His beloved sleep." Dr. French and Mr. Skinner adhere to the same sense in their translation, and pertinently refer to Psalms iii. and iv., in which the Psalmist, though beset by enemies, lies down and takes his rest, defended by God his Keeper. So far, indeed, from seeing anything unintelligible, I see no obscurity, either of expression or connexion, in this view, but very great obscurity in the double ellipsis now proposed. In the received translation we have a transitive verb, and a noun, obviously its accusative, according to the natural sequence and simple construction of the Hebrew language. In the proposed rendering we must understand an accusative case after giveth (i.e. bread, as Rosenmüller and others observe), and a particle before sleep. The transitive verb has no subject; the noun nothing to govern it. We must guess at both.
As for the alleged instances of ellipses, I maintain they are not analogous. I cannot call to mind any which are; and if any of your correspondents would show some they would do good service. Hengstenberg's examples of
צרב
,
בקר
, &c. are surely not in point. We have a similar ellipsis, often used in idiomatic English, morning, noon, and night; but who would say sleep, instead of in sleep, or while asleep? The ellipses in the Psalms, in the Songs of Degrees themselves, are very numerous, but they are of a different nature; and neither the position nor the nature of the word
שנא
warrants that now defended, as far I can remember.
May I remark, by the way, that the Psalm falls rather into three strophes than into two. The first speaks of the raising up of the house, and of the city (an aggregation of houses), protected by the Almighty. The last is in parallelism to the first, though, as often happens, expanded; and speaks of the raising up of the family, and of the family arrived at maturity, the defenders of the city, through the same protecting Providence. The central portion is the main and cardinal sentiment, viz. the vanity of mere human labour, and the peace of those who are beloved of God.
John Jebb.
There is a proverb which foretells peril to such as interpose in the quarrels of others. But as neither Mr. Trench, nor E. M. B., nor Mr. Margoliouth, have as yet betrayed any disposition to quarrel about the question in dispute, a looker-on need not be afraid of interposing.
The Query, about the solution of which they differ, is the proper mode of rendering the last clause of v. 2. Ps. cxxvii. In our Liturgy and Bible it is rendered, "For so He giveth His beloved sleep;" of which E. M. B. says, "It seems to me to be correct;" though he justly observes that "He will give" would be more close. Mr. Trench appears to have rendered it, "He giveth His beloved in their sleep." Mr. Margoliouth says "the words should be, He will give to His beloved whilst he [the beloved] is asleep." In each case the Italics, as usual, designate words not existing in the Hebrew text.
When expositors would get through a difficult passage, their readers have, not unfrequently, the vexation of finding that a word of some importance has been ignored. Such has been the case here with the little word
כן
, which introduces the clause. Its ordinary meaning is so; and the office of the word so, in such a position, is to lead the remind to revert to what has been previously said, as necessary to the proper application of what follows. Now, the Psalmist's theme was the vanity of all care and labour, unless the Lord both provide for and watch over His people; for so He will give His beloved sleep—that happy, confiding repose which the solicitude of the worldly cannot procure. This is, surely, intelligible enough and even if
כן
may be translated for (which Noldius, in his Concordantia Particularum, affirms that it here may, adducing however but one dubious instance of its being so used elsewhere, viz. Jeremiah xiv. 10.), or if the various reading,
כי
, be accepted, which would mean for, our version of the clause will be quite compatible with either alteration.
In this concentrated proposition are contained, the mode of giving, so; the character of the recipient, his beloved; and we reasonably expect to be next told what the Lord will give, and the text accordingly proceeds to say, sleep. Whereas, if either Mr. Trench's or Mr. Margoliouth's version of the clause could properly be accepted, the gift would remain entirely unmentioned; after attention had been called to the giver, to his mode of giving, and to the recipient who might expect his bounty. But whilst Mr. Trench is constrained to interpolate in their, apparently unconscious that the Hebrew requires beloved to be in the singular number, Mr. Margoliouth translates
שׁנא
as if it were a participle, which Luther seems also to have heedlessly done. Yet unless
שׁנא
be a noun, derived with a little irregularity from
ישׁן
, he slept, it has nothing to do with sleep. It cannot be the participle of
ישׁן
, for that verb has a participle in the usual form, not wanting the initial
י
, which occurs in several places in the Old Testament, and is used by Mendelsohn in the very sentence Mr. Margoliouth has quoted from that Jewish expositor. The critic who will not acknowledge
שׁנא
to be a noun in this clause, is therefore tied up to translating it as either the participle or the preterite of
שׁנא
, to change, or to repeal, and would thus make the clause really unintelligible.
Henry Walter.
N. B. inquires, whether the translation of Psalm cxxvii. 2. adopted by Mr. Trench has the sanction of any version but that of Luther. I beg leave to inform him that the passage was translated in the same manner by Coverdale: "For look, to whom it pleaseth Him He giveth it in sleep." De Wette also, in modern times, has "Giebt er seinen Geliebten im Schlafe."
Vatablus, in his Annotations, approves of such a rendering: "Dabit in somno dilectis suis." It has also been suggested in the notes of several modern critics.
Not one of the ancient versions sanctions this translation.
The sense of the passage will be much the same whichever of these translations be adopted. But the common rendering appears to me to harmonise best with the preceding portion of it.
S. D.