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