PSALMS IX. AND X. 293
tion and omission. In so far, therefore, as they
involve such transpositions I find the theories
of Bickell, Cheyne, and, in a less degree, of Duhm,
improbable. For example, on Bickell's theory,
among the textual corruptions are the following :
(1) ix. 20, 21 have been added to the original
poem ; (2) the original strophe consisted of
x. 3 (now somewhat expanded) + x. 4 + x. 5 a,
and has shifted from its original position so as
to follow the 5 strophe, x. 1, 2; (3) the n and s
strophes have fallen out clean after x. 5 b (from
Mvrm), x. 6 which constitute the original m
strophe. But all this involves this rather im-
probable combination of accidents: (1) the posi-
tion of initial n in the present text at the correct
distance before initial twrqfp is pure accident,
for on the theory it is not the original initial;
(2) the l of x. 1 is the original initial, but it has
only retained its position at the correct interval
after initial y by a lucky combination of changes:
the assumed interpolation of ix. 20, 21 would
have removed it four lines too far from initial
but this was neutralised by four lines exactly
of the strophe getting misplaced after the l
strophe; (3) by accident eight consecutive lines
(the n and s strophes) drop out between x. 6 and 7
without any such break in the sense as would
indicate so considerable a loss.
Dr. Cheyne's reconstruction assumes frequent
expansion of the text through the intrusion of