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.