by Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 85), and Asc., made the Psalm purely moral or tropological, whereas Arg. fits it to David's life. Hence, though. the same general lesson appears in both, they are probably unrelated except by common derivation from the Psalm itself.

xii, Introd. (DTMP). With the reappearance of the Prophetic interpretation in the Arg., the full fourfold scheme reappears in the Introd. The Davidic sentence is from the Vulgate title, In finem, psalmus Dauid, and Arg. (a), with the same transference from Hezekiah to David noted in Ps. iv.

Arg. The departure here from Theodore is absolute. A fragment of the original Hypothesis in Migne, confirmed by Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 92), and Asc., shews that Theodore made the Psalm purely Davidic, connecting it with David's penitence for his sin with Bathsheba. The long heading in Asc. discusses the object of the penitential Psalms, and emphasizes that in all such Psalms a tropological purpose is always to be assumed in addition to the Davidic or prophetic occasion ('Consequenter ergo ista et si qua sunt alia huiusmodi beati Dauid dicta psalmis probantur inserta, quia poterant plurimum utilitatis conferre lecturis ; docent enim quod debeat modus confessionis adhiberi', &c.) Cf. Ps. iv, xxviii, and xxxi.

xiii, Introd. (DTMP). Of the four interpretations, the Davidic is from the Vulgate title, In finem, psalmus Dauid, and the Psalm itself; the mystical from Arg. (b); and the prophetic from Arg. (a). Bruce notices (p. 79) the mistake made in calling Rab-shakeh (2 Kings xviii, xix) king of the Assyrians.

Arg. Arg. (a) agrees here with Theodore as represented by Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 93), and Asc.; and we have besides the evidence of the original Hypothesis to Ps. lii, recovered by Lietzmann, that Theodore referred this Psalm to Hezekiah and his dealings with Rab-shakeh. Section (c), here placed first, is taken from pseudo-Jerome; it is a note on the word insipiens of v. 1. This far-fetched allusion to Nabal, the rich fool, gave an additional connexion between the Psalm and the rich young ruler of Matt. xix 16-26, who is mentioned in Arg. (b) and in the Rubric (see Neale, i 184); but the principal ground for the connexion was of course the parallel between vv. 2 and 4 of the Psalm and Matt. xix 17.

xiv, Introd. (D PTM). Beside the four usual methods of interpretation the Introd. has a trace of a fifth, the anagogical' (ēce reste, &c.). The Davidic feature, coming from the Vulgate title, In finem, psalmus Dauid, together with an addition adapted from the words of Arg. (a) about the people in captivity, and the prophetic and mystical clauses from Arg. (a) and Arg. (b) respectively, are in accordance with the customary method. The tropological and anagogical clause, on

the other hand, seems drawn from some orthodox commentary on the first verse of the Psalm; thus for example Cassiodorus :—

'Sed intuere quam pulcherrime uarios se sensus apta uerba distinguant. In tabernaculo, dicitur, quis habitat de illo qui adhuc in huius saeculi agone contendit, in monte quis requiescit? Quando iam unusquisque fidelium post labores huius saeculi aeternae pacis securitate reficitur.'

And similarly Augustine, pseudo-Jerome, and Remi.

Arg. That Arg. (a) again offers a spurious interpretation is shewn by a comparison with Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 93), and Asc., all of which agree in relating the Psalm to Hezekiah. It is noteworthy that this is the only case where the new interpretation chosen for Arg. (a) is Exilic. Possibly it is to be explained as a confusion arising from an awkward condensation of such a heading as we find in Asc.; for Asc. here is rather obscure, and its reference to a 'captivity', though meaning the threatened one of Senacherib in Hezekiah's time, might easily have been misunderstood to mean the Great Captivity :

'Nam et Dauid, ut omnem filiis Israhel spem noxiae securitatis incideret, quae per hoc, quod recenti Dei auxilio extra periculum omne constituerant, ac de metu fuerant captiuitatis erepti, poterat eorum sensus adtollere, ut uidelicet de se magna sentirent, ac non parui apud Deum meriti esse crederent, ne ergo, abiecta omni sollicitudine uitae melioris, in otium se desidiamque laxarent, hunc psalmum cecinit.'

xv, Introd. (D PTM). Of the four usual interpretations, the Davidic is in accord with the Vulgate title, In tituli inscriptione, ipsi Dauid; the prophetic with Arg. (a), and the mystical with Arg. (b).

Arg. This is the last of the non-Theodorean argumenta occurring among the first fifty Psalms, except in the case of Ps. xxxvii, where, as we shall see, it is due to a special cause. The spurious interpretation selected is as usual that of Hezekiah, the details being evidently gathered from the Psalm itself. For the genuine interpretation we have an abundance of evidence, this being one of the comments condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The original Hypothesis, apparently complete, is cited in Migne from Cord.; a full Latin version is given in Asc.; and in Syriac we have Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 77, 92), and the recently recovered Isod., from which the entire comment on this Psalm is translated by Diettrich (pp. 104-108). Like the ninth, Theodore made this Psalm Davidic, spoken in the name of the people returning thanks for the national victory over their neighbours that had occurred in David's time. The passage condemned by the council, which is preserved in its Acts (cap. xxi) and in Vigilius, was Theodore's comment on vʊ. 10 and 11; in explaining these famous verses he departed from the orthodox interpretation of them as a direct Messianic prophecy, regarding them primarily as a figurative reference to David's earthly

trials, with only a secondary application, through his heretical theory of 'types', to Christ's death and resurrection; cf. Kihn, pp. 138 and 160 ff. Thus the Davidic character of the original interpretation is put beyond all doubt. But of the cloud of ancient controversy surrounding the Psalm both the compiler of our present Arg. and the A.-S. translator were evidently unaware; and not without its humorous aspect is the way in which, in the Introd., the orthodox mystical interpretation, the heretical Davidic interpretation, and a perfectly new Hezekiah interpretation are all innocently combined.

xvi, Introd. (DTM). A threefold interpretation is given, the prophetic being absent from both Arg. and Introd. The Davidic clause agrees with the Vulgate title, Oratio Dauid, and Arg. (a).

Arg. Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 92), and Asc. agree with Arg (a) in making the Psalm purely Davidic. The Arg., however, is general in its terms, and in its wording has little resemblance to the other sources, which assign the Psalm definitely to the time of David's persecution by Saul.

xvii, Introd. (DTM). Again the interpretation is threefold. The Davidic clause and Arg. (a) are both in agreement with the Vulgate title, In finem, puero Domini Dauid, qui locutus est ad Dominum uerba cantici huius in die qua eripuit eum Dominus de manu Saul et de manu omnium inimicorum eius, et dixit. There is no necessary conflict, as Bruce thinks (p. 80), between Vulgate title and Arg. as to the date of its composition by David, for the phrase in die qua does not designate any particular day.

Arg. Contrary to his custom, Theodore here seems to have given full credit to the Vulgate title. Besides Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 92), and Asc., we have here for the first time the other Latin commentary (Amb.Tur.) found in the Ambrosian MS C. 301 inf. and MS F. iv 1, fasc. 5, University of Turin. To the Davidic interpretation of Sach. and Barh., Asc. and Amb.-Tur. add an express notice of agreement with the Vulgate title and mention the occurrence, with variations, of the Psalm in the book of the Kings' (2 Sam. xxii). The text of Amb.-Tur. is much fuller than that of Asc., and perhaps translates the original without abbreviation. There is nothing to indicate with which of the other two Latin texts the brief abstract of Arg. (a) is the more closely connected.

xviii, Introd. (Dogmatic). Here, as at Ps. viii, xliv, and xlix, the translator drops his usual fourfold or threefold scheme and gives but a single interpretation. In all these cases the intention seems to be to mark the Psalm off as directly didactic and doctrinal, whereas the large majority of the Psalms are conceived as dramatic, composed in character, as suitable expressions of pious thought and feeling not only for David

at the time of composition, but also for repetition at many later periods of sacred and church history. Exactly this distinction is made by Theodore (see Notes xxxvi, Introd.), except that Theodore conceived many Psalms to have been composed by David with no reference to his own circumstances, but in prophetic adaptation to some later personage of history such as Hezekiah or the Maccabeans, whereas the translator made all such Psalms primarily Davidic.

The source here was doubtless the Vulgate title, In finem, psalmus Dauid, and Arg. (a), although the latter is freely paraphrased, and a different purpose assigned to the creation; the divergence was probably due, as Bruce suggests (p. 80), to the obscurity of the Latin.

Arg. The providential interpretation is found also in Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 84), and the two other Latin texts. The words of Arg. (a) reappear almost exactly in both the other Latin texts, but a closer examination shews that it is slightly closer to Asc.; cf. Amb.-Tur. :—

In praesenti psalmo beatus Dauid institutae a Deo creaturae ordinem narrat, ipsius etiam creatoris providentiam operum adserit testimonio, atque ab elimentorum ordinatione opificem nititur adprobare, qui ex hoc ipso multam curam hominum se habere signauit, dum ita elimenta componit, ut per ipsa possit agnosci'; Asc., Proprium argumentum eius est institutae a Deo creaturae ordinem pandere, aperire causam, per haec adprobare prouidentiam Dei, qui ex hoc ipso multam curam hominum se habere monstrauit, dum ita elimenta a se creata componit, ut per ipsa possit cognosci.'

It may be noted that the readings dum and per adopted in our text of Arg. are supported by both the other versions. Before the passage cited there occurs in Asc. a curious comment on the use made of this Psalm by the Apostle (Rom. x 18): Hunc quoque psalmum ad Euangelium transferre Apostolus abusus in oportunitate sententiae, dixit, In omnem terram exiit sonus eorum.' The words are quite in the spirit of Theodore (cf. his comment on xv 10), but are probably the insertion of the reviser, since they do not appear in Amb.-Tur. They are also omitted in Arg. In Amb.-Tur., on the other hand, there is added a condemnation of the sceptical denial of creation and providence, which is omitted in Asc. and Arg.

xix, Introd. (D PTM). The Vulgate title is In finem, psalmus Dauid. The Davidic clause, as usual, adapts the details applied in Arg. (a) to Hezekiah. In the mystical clause, derived of course from Arg. (c), the translator characteristically substitutes the concrete apostolos for the general term ecclesia (cf. xxii, Introd.).

Arg. Arg. (a) agrees with Asc., from which it might have been abstracted, as also with Sach. and Barh. (Bthg. v 93).

xx, Introd. (DPTM). The Vulgate title is In finem, psalmus Dauid. As in the preceding, the translator makes the people speak the words of

the Psalm. Bruce (p. 81) derives the mystical clause from the Explanatio: Hic psalmus Domini Saluatoris primo incarnationem et postea deitatis facta decantat.' But it is also possible that the Arg. contained a section (b), now lost, as at Ps. vii, which supplied the Messianic interpretation.

Arg. The Hezekiah interpretation is found also in Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 93), and Asc. Of the two occasions mentioned in Arg., the Syriac headings give only the slaughter of the Assyrians; but Asc. mentions also the cure of Hezekiah's sickness.

xxi, Introd. (DT M). This is one of the two Introds. (xxi, xxvi) recovered in the Vitellius MS. The Vulgate title is In finem, pro assumptione matutina, psalmus Dauid.

Arg. As testimony for Theodore's interpretation we have Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 78, 92), Isod., Asc., Amb.-Tur., and, this being one of the comments condemned by the Council, a long passage from the Commentary (on vv. 2, 17, and 19) preserved in the Acts and in Vigilius. The heretical theory of 'types' which was responsible for his condemnation appears clearly in the heading given in Asc.:

'Domini ultima in cruce oratio docuit ad quem debeat hic psalmus referri, qui tamen suis temporibus habuit figuram illius historiae quae narrat Dauid coniuratione Abisolon in erumnas coactum, in quibus positus hoc carmen uice orationis cecinit.'

Cf. also the passage cited from the Acts of the Council (cap. xxii) by Kihn (p. 161):

Neque enim in ore eius, Sed et ipse

'Quod enim psalmus nullatenus conuenit Domino, certum est. erat Domini Christi, qui peccatum non fecit, nec inuentus est dolus dicere, Longe a salute mea uerba delictorum meorum (v. 2). Dominus, dum secundum communem hominum legem in passione opprimeretur, Deus meus, Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti? (v. 2) emisit uocem; et Apostoli, Diuiserunt sibi uestimenta mea, et super uestimentum meum miserunt sortem (v. 19), ad eum traxerunt, manifeste quoniam quod supra modum dictum fuerat prius a Dauid propter illata ei mala, hoc ex operibus euenit in Domino Christo, cuius et uestimenta diuiserunt et sorti tunicam subiecerunt.'

The recently discovered commentary of Isod., from which this Psalm is translated in full by Diettrich (p. 108), gives at length Theodore's refutation of the orthodox directly Messianic interpretation, and a long note to the same effect is found in Amb.-Tur. The heading of Amb.Tur., on the other hand, unlike that of Asc., has no such clause; and hence it was probably inscribed here by the author of Asc. to reconcile matters with the orthodox interpretation. It is likewise unmentioned in the very brief Arg. (a), which might have been abstracted from either of the other two Latin headings. The A.-S. translator must consequently have been quite unaware of the thin ice over which he was skating.