REFORMED THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

A TRANSLATOR WALKS INTO A BAR:

THE CASE FOR “SON” AS A LEGITIMATE TRANSLATION OF PSALM 2:12

SUBMITED TO DR. RICHARD BELCHER IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

POETS OT512

BY GARRETT SPITZ

MAY 7, 2015

1

I. INTRODUCTION

Jesus indicates that he was written about in the “Law of Moses and the Prophets

and the Psalms” (Luke 22:44).1 Some commentators who have made an effort to apply this

Biblical truth to their exegesis of Old Testament texts have been criticized for trying to find

Jesus under every rock. The criticism is a valid one when it ignores the original human

author’s intended meaning and the immediate historical context of the passage. At the

same time, for those who take Jesus’ words as authoritative and believe in a divine author,

it would make sense for there to be instances in the Old Testament when the initial

meaning of a text was unclear and remained that way until it was ultimately fulfilled at a

later date.

That God reveals himself in a progressive and gradual way is evidenced in the Gospel

of John when more than once John records that the disciples did not understand something

Jesus said until later when he was resurrected or glorified (John 2:22; 12:16). Elsewhere

Peter writes that when the prophets of the Old Testament inquired about the details of the

fulfillment of God’s prophesies that, “it was revealed to them that they were serving not

themselves but you” (1 Pet 1:12). Though they would not fully understand all of God’s

prophesies, greater understanding would come with the Holy Spirit anointed preaching of

the good news after the resurrection.

A nuanced approach is therefore necessary when it comes to applying these

exegetical principles to a text from the Old Testament that appears to refer directly to Jesus

Christ. When you add a high degree of confusion over the original language of that text into

1 Unless otherwise noted, all subsequent Bible quotes will come from the English Standard Version.

2

the mix, it makes for a heated debate and such is the case for Ps 2:12. The verse is

interpreted a number of different ways but one of the most common ways it is translated in

English Bibles today is “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his

wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him” (Ps 2:12). The point of

greatest difficulty is the first part of the verse which has also been translated as, “kiss

purity,” “take hold of discipline,” “kiss his feet,” “remove with trembling weapons of iron,”

“worship him and harken to the word,” “cleave to him with trembling,” “men of the grave,”

and “you who forget him who buries.”

On the whole, this is a multifaceted translation problem and all aspects of it cannot

be dealt with in this paper.2 While there is confusion over that which gets translated as

“kiss,” the purpose of this paper is to focus instead on the point of greater debate and that

is the word that gets translated as “son”. Given my limited expertise with the original

language and the complexity of the problem, the focus of this paper will narrow in on the

one word from the Masoretic Text (MT) that has been translated into many English

translations today as “son” in Ps 2:12.

Robert G. Bratcher and William D. Reyburn argue that translating the word as “son”

negatively turns the Hebrew text into a Christian text.3 It is also argued that few scholars

today would support such an impossible translation and that it should be abandoned.4 It is

possible that the desire of some commentators to find Jesus under every rock of the Old

2 This is especially true considering the fact that I have only one semester of Introduction to Biblical Hebrew

under my belt from my undergraduate days, which were over ten years ago. 3 Robert Bratcher and William Reyburn, A Handbook on Psalms (New York: United Bible Society, 1991) 31. 4 Bratcher and Reyburn, Handbook, 31; Alan Robinson, “Deliberate but Misguided Haplography Explains Psalm

2” ZAW 89 (1977) 421-422; A. Cohen, ed., The Psalms (London: Whitefriars, 1974) 7.

3

Testament can overly influence their translation and exegesis in ways that lead to

conclusions that should be abandoned. That however is not the case in regard to Ps 2:12.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that the word “son” should continue to be included

among the best possible translation options for Ps 2:12.

II. THE BASIC MESSAGE OF PSALM 2

Before moving any further in the argument it is first necessary to briefly explain the

context of the text in question. Psalm 2 is often coupled with the first psalm as an

introduction to the psalter. While Psalm 1 focuses on an individual living in an evil world,

Psalm 2 instead focuses on God’s community living in a world where they will face evil

opposition.5 More specifically, it focuses on God’s response to this evil by detailing his

installation of a king and it is therefore considered to be a royal psalm.6

While several ideas have been proposed to explain the specific historical situation

that brought the psalm about and no consensus has been reached, it is most helpful to note

the psalm’s likely connection to God’s covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7.7 In that portion of

historical narrative, God reminds David of what he has done for him in the past and what he

will do for him in the future. He will make David’s name and kingdom great. In regard to

David’s offspring God says, “He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the

throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” (2 Sam

7:13-14a). This would be most immediately and directly be fulfilled in David’s son, Solomon

5 James Luther Mays, Psalms (Int; Westminster: John Knox, 1994) 44. 6 Gerald Cooke, “The Israelite King as Son of God” ZAW 32 (1961) 205. 7 Richard P. Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms (Glasgow: Christian Focus, 2012) 123.

4

but it ultimately also had broad implications for David’s line as a whole. The application of

sonship to David’s line makes the connection to Psalm 2 clear.

Psalm 2 begins (vv.1-3) by describing the strategic rebellion of the nations against

both God and his anointed king. It goes on (vv.4-6) to describe God’s response of “divine

derision,” warning of coming wrath, and emphatic statement that he has installed his king.8

God’s anointed king then speaks (vv.7-9) and recalls the words that God stated at his

installation where God clearly identifies him as “my Son.” This sonship language refers to a

legal relationship in that the king represents the covenant relationship between God and

the people of Israel.9 The king also recalls how God promised to give him the nations as his

heritage and the ends of the earth as his possession and how as the anointed king he will

rule the nations and be an instrument of judgment.

In the final verses of the psalm (vv. 10-12) the kings of the nations are warned of

coming judgment and are invited to respond with submission. The exact nature and more

precisely the direction of this submission will be significantly impacted by how one

translates verse 12. If the specific word in question is translated as “son,” then the

submission would be directed towards both God and his anointed king. Some of the

alternate translations instead result in the submission being directed towards God

exclusively.10 The direction of the submission as it pertains to the translation of verse 12 will

be addressed more directly later in the paper.

8 Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72 (TOTC; London: Inter-Varsity, 1973) 51.

9 Belcher, Messiah, 124.

10 Artur Weiser, The Psalms (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962) 115; J. Dyneley Prince “Notes on

Psalm ii. 11-12 and on ‘OREN, Isaiah xliv.14” JBL 1 (1900) 3.

5

III. CHALLENGES TO “SON” IN PSALM 2:12

That God refers to his anointed king as “my Son” in Ps 2:7 is not contested. The place

of disagreement and confusion is five verses later where many English Bibles translate

another word as “son.” There are several reasons for the disagreement over the use of the

word “son” in verse 12, the chief of which being that such a translation depends upon the

writer using the Aramaic word for son (bar) instead of the Hebrew word for son (ben),

which he used only a few verses earlier. Opponents of this translation argue that it does not

make sense for the author to use the Hebrew word for “son” and the Aramaic word for

“son” in the same psalm.

If the word was originally intended to be interpreted as the Aramaic bar, then it

would be an example of an aramaism. An aramaism can be defined as a form that is more

common to Aramaic and less common to Hebrew.11 Some reject the “son” translation

because they believe aramaisms to be uncommon in Hebrew literature, especially from a

text written early in the monarchy, which some believe this psalm to be.12 Alan Robinson

speculates that such an aramaism could be “perhaps feasible” if an Aramaic speaking scribe

edited the text at a later date.13

It has also been pointed out that bar lacks a definite article and that the simple “kiss

son” would sound just as awkward to the original readers as it does to English speakers

today.14 Because of this and the earlier use of the Hebrew word for son, Hans-Joachim

11 Ian Young et al., An Introduction to Approaches and Problems (vol 1. of Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts;

London: Equinox, 2008) 208. 12 Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-15 (WBC 19; Waco: Word, 1983) 64. 13 Robinson, “Haplography,” 421. 14

Kidner, Psalms, 53.

6

Kraus concludes that the word that gets translated as “son” is actually an “unintelligible

aramaism” and that the text is corrupt and requires editing in order to be correctly

interpreted.15

Another argument made is that translating the word as “son” does not make sense

given the context of the psalm. Artur Weiser says that such a translation “scarcely renders a

satisfactory translation given the context.”16 Robinson similarly argues that the idea of

kissing God’s anointed king “is not very satisfactory in the context.”17 Both contest that the

context indicates that the submission should be directed towards God and not towards his

anointed king.

Finally, it has also been pointed out that throughout history there has been

confusion over how this word should be accurately translated. The very early translation of

this text in the Septuagint (LXX) reads as, “lay hold of instruction.”18 Allan K. Jenkins also

notes how Jerome considered the phrase in the MT to be ambiguous and that he opted

against “son” so that “Jews could have no grounds for criticism” but that Erasmus, who

relied heavily upon Jerome’s interpretation, chose to include “son” in his translation

because he wanted to “press every interpretative possibility into the service of Christian

appropriation and contemporary application.”19 Given this and all the other previously

mentioned unique characteristics and challenges surrounding this verse, it is

understandable why there is confusion over how Psalm 2:12 should be translated.

15 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59 (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 124-125. 16 Weiser, Psalms, 115. 17

Robinson, “Haplography”, 422. 18 Marco Treves, “Two Acrostic Poems” VT 15: 1 (1965) 83. 19 Allan K. Jenkins, “Erasmus’ Commentary on Psalm 2,” in Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures (vol. 2, ed. Ehud

Ben Zvi; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2006) 260.

7

IV. THE CASE FOR SON (BAR) IN PSALM 2:12

While there is a good amount of ambiguity over how to translate this verse, there

simply is not enough evidence to dismiss “son” from being a respectable translation. On the

contrary, there is good reason for it to continue to be considered among the best of the

available translations. The reasons for which will be presented here.

Despite definite points of confusion and ambiguity throughout this history of this

verse’s interpretation there have also been many who have translated it as “son” or who

have at least considered it a worthwhile option. As was mentioned in the previous section,

Jerome considered the passage ambiguous and even though he ended up translating the

verse “worship in purity,” he was torn between that and “worship the son.”20 In the 13th

century Rabbi David Kimchi also identified “son” as a possible translation.21 Like Jerome,

Erasmus in the 16th century also struggled with the same tension over the passage except

he decided to include “son” in his translation.22 Not long after that John Calvin commented

on the passage by writing, “Some interpreters expound it, ‘kiss or embrace what is pure,’

which is a strange and rather forced interpretation. For my part, I willingly retain the name

of son, which answers well to a former sentence where it was said, ‘Thou art my Son, this

day have I begotten thee.’”23 Martin Luther interpreted it the same way.24

More recently, even though Franz Delitzsch gets cited by more than one critical

scholar as being the lone supporter of the “kiss the son” translation, both he and J.J.

20

Jenkins, “Erasmus,” 259. 21

David Kimchi, On the First Book of Psalms (Bungay: Richard Clay and Sons, 1919) 17. 22

Jenkins, “Erasmus,” 260. 23 John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, (trans. J. Anderson; Grand Rapids: WM.B. Eerdmans, 1963)

24-25. 24 Treves, “Acrostic Poems,” 83.

8

Steward Perowne made the case for “kiss the son” in their respective commentaries which

were written in the 1880s. In 1920 they were followed by Samuel Mercer, who also came to

the same conclusion.25 Peter Craigie included a compelling defense of “kiss the son” in his

1983 commentary and many other contemporary scholars maintain translations that use

the word “son” to this day.26 Based solely on the weight of how this verse has been

translated throughout history, those opposed to translating it as “son” are the ones who

bear the burden of proof for why it should be translated any other way.

That being stated, the case should not be built on the history of this verse’s

translation alone. The other challenges remain to be addressed, the first of which is the

apparent oddity of an Aramaic word in a Hebrew psalm. For someone with little exposure to

Hebrew literature it would be very understandable to see the inclusion of an Aramaic loan

word as a little odd. It is important to note however that such aramaisms are fairly common

in Hebrew literature. The very same Aramaic word (bar) is translated as “son” in Prov 31:2.

These aramaisms are so common that Ian Young considers bar in verse 12 to be one of

three aramaisms present in Psalm 2.27

It has still been argued however that such aramaisms would have not been common

at the early date when Psalm 2 was written. Firstly, it should be noted that there is very

little certainty when psalm 2 was written so the alleged early date should not lead us to

25 Samuel A. B. Mercer, “Kiss the Son - Psalm 2:12,” ATR 2:4 (1920) 324-25. 26 Samuel Terrien, The Psalms (Grand Rapids: W.m.B. Eerdmans, 2003) 86; Allen P. Ross, Commentary on the

Psalms, (vol. 1; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011) 25; James Montgomery Boice, Psalms (Grand Rapids: Bakerbooks, 1994) 364; Ian Young et al., A Survey of Scholarship, a New Synthesis and a Comprehensive Bibliography (vol 2. of Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts; London: Equinox, 2008) 52; George Gunn, “Psalm 2 and the Reign of the Messiah,” BSac 169 (2012) 427; Craigie, Psalms, 64. 27 Ian Young et al., Survey, 52; Barnabas Lindars, “Is Psalm ii an Acrostic Poem,” VT 17 (1967) 60–67. Banabus

Linders argues that there are at least two aramaisms in Psalm 2.

9

abandon bar as a possible aramaism.28 For the sake of argument however, let’s

momentarily assume that we did know that it was written early in the monarchy. Even still,

that does not make it any less likely that bar would have been used as an aramaism. Young

writes, “Scholars in previous generations often concluded that Aramaic or Aramaic-like

features in certain psalms were a sure indication of a late date of composition. However,

many now recognize that aramaisms in and of themselves are essentially devoid of

chronological implications.”29 Essentially, we should not conclude any apparent conflict

based on the potential dating of this psalm and it having aramaisms in it. In fact, it is now

known that Aramaic was widely used in Syria-Palestine as early as the ninth century B.C.

and therefore it would be reasonable to think that it could have been used as an aramaism

in Psalm 2 even if it were written early in the monarchy.30

The question of why the author would use an aramaism still remains. Why would

they use the Aramaic word for “son” in verse 12 when the Hebrew word was sufficient just

a few verses earlier? The explanation for this is rooted in the context of each verse. In verse

7 the anointed king is recalling the words of God directed to him at his installation. The God

of the Israelites is speaking to an Israelite and therefore uses a Hebrew word. In verse 12

however, the psalmist is addressing the kings of the foreign nations, admonishing them to

submit. It is believed that the writer deliberately used the Aramaic word bar in order to

“dramatize his poetic intent.”31 It has also been pointed out that another reason why bar

28

Craigie, Psalms, 64. 29

Young, Survey, 50. 30

Craigie, Psalms, 64. 31

Craigie, Psalms 64.

10

may have been chosen was to avoid the dissonance that would have occurred if the Hebrew

word for “son” were used in the verse, which would have resulted in ben pen.32

In regards to the broader meaning of the psalm, commentators agree that the end

of the psalm (vv.10-12) is a warning and invitation for the kings of the nations to submit to

God. They disagree however as to the exact direction of this submission. Some believe that

the submission should solely be to God and therefore reject the translation of “son” in verse

12 for contextual reasons. However, when you examine the psalm in its entirety, it makes a

great deal of sense for the submission to be directed towards both God and his anointed

king. By the submission being directed towards both God and his anointed, it creates an

appropriate parallel to the rebellion against both God and his anointed that is detailed in

the psalms earliest verses (vv. 1-3). Notice the italicized parallels below.

vv. 2 vv. 10-12a The kings of the earth set themselves, and

the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord

and against his Anointed…

Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth.

Serve the Lord with fear… Kiss the Son…

When these sections are compared, a consistent pattern can be seen between the rebellion

at the beginning of the psalm and the submission at its end. As one reads verses 10-12a,

they would recognize the repeated pattern from earlier in the psalm and anticipate a

reference to God’s anointed king after “kiss,” which is exactly where we find the Aramaic

word bar. To not have a reference to God’s anointed king in verse 12 would break the

pattern set in verse 2.

32 Franz Delitzsch, Psalms (trans. F. Bolton, vol. 5 in Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes; Grand

Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1986) 97-98.

11

Furthermore, when you take into account God’s emphatic declaration that he has

set his king on Zion in the center of the psalm, these parallels at the beginning and end of

the psalm make even more sense as evidence for the reasonable nature of the “son”

translation. Weiser critically argues that the anointed king is not being referred to in verse

12 and also that in the final verses there is “no further mention of the king of Zion, not even

a single word.”33 While the word that gets translated as “son” is likely the last explicit

reference to the anointed king of Zion in the psalm, the final verses most definitely continue

to refer to his role in judgment.

During his installation God tells the anointed king, “You shall break (or rule) them

with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel” (Ps 2:9) and then at the

end of the psalm the psalmist writes, “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the

way, for his wrath is quickly kindled” (Ps 2:12a). The consistent focus of the entire psalm is

not exclusively on God but instead it is on both God and his anointed king who will be an

instrument of God’s rule and judgment. The beginning of the psalm details the opposition

to both of them, the middle of the psalm details God’s installation of the king and

emphasizes the king’s role as ruler and judge, and the psalm then concludes with the

warning and invitation to submit to both God and his anointed king. Of all the possible

translations, the “son” translation makes the most sense given the psalms overall context.

Additional light can be shed on this issue by examining how Psalm 2 has been

referenced in the New Testament. While there are numerous allusions to Psalm 2 in the

New Testament, there are also several explicit quotations. In Acts 4 after Peter and John are

33

Weiser, Psalms, 115.

12

released from custody the believers together declare how through the mouth of David the

Holy Spirit said, “Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the

earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against

his Anointed” (Acts 4:25b-26). They go on to indicate that Psalm 2 was fulfilled when both

Herod and Pontius Pilate opposed God’s holy servant Jesus. Later in Acts while Paul is at

Antioch, he gives a speech in which he says that God’s promises have been fulfilled in Jesus

and as an example he says, “as also it is written in the second Psalm, ‘You are my Son, today

I have begotten you’” (Acts 13:33b). The author of Hebrews also quotes this same verse

from Psalm 2 to demonstrate how Jesus is superior to angels and how he did not appoint

himself but was appointed by God the Father (Heb 1:5; 5:5). Ps 2:9 is also quoted three

times in Revelation in reference to Jesus’ authority to rule and judge the nations (Rev 2:27;

12:5; 19:15).

These usages of Psalm 2 in the New Testament indicate that while the original

author’s intended meaning of the psalm was to refer to the earthly king of Israel, the

broader and fuller meaning of the psalm intended by the divine author was ultimately to

refer typologically to the divine Son of God who would fulfill Psalm 2 in a way that no

earthly ruler ever could. Jaime A. Grant points out that the sharp distinction between the

king described in Psalm 2 and the actual king of Israel or the lack thereof during certain

times of Israel’s history would result in a degree of “eschatological expectation” for a king

still to come.34 While the psalm refers directly to the king of Israel as God’s son in the sense

that he represents the divine, it also presents the son-king as a symbol that will come to

34

Jaime A. Grant, “The Psalms and the King,” in Interpreting the Psalms (ed. David Firth and Philip S. Johnston; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005) 112.

13

fruition at some future point in history.35 Since the psalm was intended by God to point

towards Jesus as God the Son in this typological way, it seems reasonable that the word in

question in verse 12 could be appropriately translated as “son” in the sense that it keeps it

consistent not only with its own immediate surrounding context of the psalm but also with

the broader Biblical context of how Psalm 2 is interpreted in the New Testament.

V. THE ALTERNATIVES TO “SON” IN PSALM 2:12

Since the primary objective of this paper is to argue for the continued acceptance of

“son” as one of the most viable options for translation of Ps 2:12, it is necessary to briefly

examine the alternative options as well as their respective shortcomings. Those who reject

bar as an aramaism, must find some other way to make sense of the text. One of the most

common solutions is to treat the word bar as the Hebrew word which means pure, which

results in English translations like “kiss sincerely,” “offer pure homage,” and “pay homage in

purity.”36 However it is also argued that “pure” cannot be used as an adverb here.37

The LXX’s translation (“lay hold of instruction”) has been dismissed as a translation

that “cannot be extracted from the Hebrew text.”38 Another common alternative

translation is “kiss his feet.”39 This translation is based on the assumption that the MT is

corrupt and that the solution is to amend it by exchanging the last two words of verse 11

35

Belcher, Messiah, 128. 36

Charles Augustus Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, The Book of Psalms (vol.1, ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976) 17; R. Raymond Apple, “David Kimchi’s Response to Christianity in his Psalm commentary,” Australian Association of Jewish Studies Conference, 15 February 2010, < http://www.oztorah.com/2010/02/david-kimchis-response-to-christianity-in-his-psalm-commentary/> (7 May 2015); J.J. Steward Perowne, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1966) 120; Cohen, The Psalms, 7; Kidner, Psalms, 52; Kimchi, Psalms, 17; Jerome as cited in Jenkins, “Erasmus,” 259. 37

Delitzsch, Psalms, 97-98; Prince, “Notes,” 2. 38

Kidner, Psalms, 52. 39

Weiser, Psalms, 109; Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 125.

14

with the first two words of verse 12. But this has been dismissed as a “precarious

conjecture.”40 Alan Robinson’s translation “and remove with trembling weapons of iron” is

based on the assumption of a corrupt text as well and he believes that the mistake was

caused by a case of misguided haplography on the part of a scribe. “Worship him and

harken to the word” is yet another proposal that relies on the text being corrupt in the

sense that it requires that a scribe failed to copy some words.41 The translation “cleave to

him with trembling” simply dismisses bar as an unintended example of dittography.42 The

translations “men of the grave” from Mitchell Dahood and “you who forget him who

buries” from William Holladay rely upon a complicated rearranging of the text as well as the

revocalization of certain words and the incorporation of insights from the Ugaritic

language.43

VI. CONCLUSION

While the alternative translations for “son” in Ps 2:12 are not out of the question,

some of them require a significant amount of speculation and an unfortunate degree of

gymnastics with the original text and therefore cannot be held to with a high degree of

exegetical certainty. Of the proposed alternative translations, the one that requires the

least amount of speculation and fits the overall context of the psalm the best are those that

translate bar as pure. The majority of translators throughout history have either translated

it this way or as “son”. Several have been on the fence between the two options. As J.J.

Steward Perowne concludes:

40

Kidner, Psalms, 52. 41 Treves, “Acrostic Poems,” 83. 42

Prince, “Notes,” 3. 43

Craigie, Psalms, 64.

15

We must therefore either render (with the Syr.) “do homage to the Son,” or (with Jerome) “proffer pure homage, worship in purity.” Both translations are admissible. Nor does it seem very important which we adopt, though the interpretation of this clause has sometimes been debated, as if the Messianic character of the Psalm depended upon it. But that must be determined by the general scope of the Psalm, not by a single phrase; not to mention that verses 6-7 are quite as emphatic as verse 12.44

Psalm 2 is a powerful psalm that was intended to give hope to God’s people throughout

time. The exegetical danger of trying to find Jesus under every rock of the Old Testament is

a valid one but as has been demonstrated, this psalm’s typological reference to Christ is not

dependent on how verse 12 is translated. The psalm can therefore continue to provide

hope for God’s people today using any of the proposed alternative translations. That being

said, just because we do not need to read “son” in verse 12 in order to grasp God’s power

and the significance of his anointed king, it does not mean that we should so easily dismiss

the translation either.

Ps 2:12 has rightfully been called a crux; a puzzling or difficult problem, and an

unsolved question. I do not propose that translating bar as “son” is the silver bullet that will

untie the Gordian knot. I only propose that there is enough evidence for it and enough

problems with the alternative translations for it to continue to be considered among our

best options.

44

Perowne, Psalms, 120.