Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

'assertion.' As to the second part, I cannot suppose that Bp. BROWNE, by using the phrase 'purely Elohistic Psalms,' meant to exclude one of the most decidedly Elohistic Psalms of the whole Psalter, viz. Ps.lxviii (E.31,A.7,J.4), because it contains Jehovah' four times; for then his reasoning would not be candid. Yet this Psalm, at any rate, is reckoned by De WETTE, as among the oldest relics of Hebrew Poetry.' HUPF. III.p.201.

So, too, HITZIG, though he does not allow that any of the Psalms of Book II are as old as David's age, I.p.255, yet says of Ps.xlix, which is 'purely Elohistic,' that its style is 'condensed, cramped, and rough,' and it belongs to the 'time of the old, unbroken Hebraism,' p.268.

In fact, inasmuch as Bp. BROWNE finds these 'peculiar marks of antiquity' in Ps.cxxxviii-cxlv-most of which, as we have seen, are ascribed by the four most eminent critics of the day to very late times, it is plainly impossible to place any great confidence in his judgment in respect of the present question. Yet we shall carefully examine all his statements, which might be thought to be of any consequence in this discussion.

25. V. Of those which are ancient and strongly Jehovistic, I would mention especially, vii, ix,x,xii,xvi,xvii,xviii,xxxii,xxxiv, xxxv.xxxvi,xxxviii, xxxix, lxxxiv,cxl, cxli,cxlii,cxliv,' p.59.

Ans. Here, then, are eighteen Psalms, which Bishop BROWNE 'mentions especially': they may be regarded, therefore, as the strongest instances which he is able to produce of ancient Jehovistic Psalms. Let us look more closely at the list.

The first six of them have been already considered by us (22); and we saw that EWALD assigns four of them, HUPFELD three at least, OLSHAUSEN five, to very late dates.

In (21) we saw also that cxl,cxli, were ascribed by all of OLSHAUSEN, HITZIG, HUPFELD, EWALD, and exliv, by the first three of these critics, to very late dates. And Ps.cxlii is merely a Jehovistic copy of the (as we suppose, ancient) Elohistic Psalm lvii.

Thus, at a stroke, we have pretty well disposed of ten of the eighteen.

As to the other eight, viz. xviii,xxxii,xxxiv, xxxv,xxxvi,xxxviii,xxxix,lxxxiv, — EWALD assigns to a late date xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi,xxxviii,xxxix,lxxxiv;

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

So that by one or more of these four eminent critics every one of these eighteen especially 'ancient' Psalms of Bishop BROWNE is ascribed to a late date.

26. I myself have said that xviii, xxxviii, lxxxiv, may be Davidic Psalms; as to the rest I have said nothing, as I can trace no signs of time in them whatever. But the reader will see at once, from the judgments of the above distinguished critics, how little dependence can be placed on Bishop BROWNE's mere assertion, that these are ancient Jehovistic Psalms,-and how impossible it is that they can really exhibit those 'unquestionable notes of great antiquity in their character

and style,' which Bishop BROWNE finds in them-'especially in such as ix, x, xii, xvi, xvii, xxxii,' p.59—but which not even one of these scholars has noticed. Nay, out of these very six, just named ‘especially' as being ancient in style and character, Ewald gives ix, x, to the 'post-Exilic' period, xvi, xvii, to the times of the later kings, and HUPFELD decides against the early origin of ix, x, xii. And whereas Bishop BROWNE says, p.59, 'Ps.vii must have been written before the death of Saul,' 'Ps.xxxiv has the characteristics of an ancient Psalm in its style and diction,' we find that EWALD, HITZIG, and OLSHAUSEN all refer the latter of these two Psalms to a late date, as OLSHAUSEN does the former, while LUTHER and others assign it to the latter part of David's life. Others again, as HUPFELD, agree with me in saying that there is nothing in the Psalm itself to decide the question.' In fact, it would seem that there is scarcely a single one of Bp. BROWNE's seventeen Psalms (not considering exlii) which contains these 'peculiar marks' so distinctly, as to allow any two of these four critics to place it even in the Davidic age. Nay, Mr. PEROWNE himself assigns Ps.xxxiv, one of Bishop BROWNE'S 'especially' ancient Psalms, an acrostic Psalm, 'probably to the later period of the history-perhaps, to the time of the Exile!' p.117.

[ocr errors]

27. VI. Of those which are more recent and Elohistic, I refer to xlii, xliv, xlv, 1, li, lx, lxii, lxiii, lxxii, lxxiv, lxxviii, lxxix, lxxx, lxxxii, lxxxiii, cxiv,' p.59.

Ans. Here, again, are sixteen Psalms, of which I might readily allow six, viz. lxxiv, lxxviii, lxxix, lxxx, lxxxii, lxxxiii, to be post-Exilie,—as Ewald, Hitzig, OLSHAUSEN maintain, and as in fact I have allowed lxxiv, lxxix, to be,—since it is admitted that in that age the Elohistic Books of Ezra and Nehemiah were written. But, from examination of the contents, I think it possible that several of these may be of the Davidic age. And so KIMCHI, LUTHER, GROTIUS, MICHAELIS, CALVIN, regard Ps.lxxxiii as Davidic; and, in the case of Ps.lxxviii, the 'orthodox' HENGSTENBERG pronounces the following severe judgment upon such views as those of Bishop BROWNE,' To deny that this Psalm belongs to the age of David, manifests an utter misunderstanding of its contents,' II.p.452, Eng. Vers.

28. I repeat, then, it is of no consequence whatever to my argument whether further examination shall lead me, or not, to agree more closely with the particular views of EWALD, &c., with regard to these six Psalms of Book III. But there are now left ten for consideration; and we might expect that here, at least, we should find Bishop BROWNE making his very confident assertions on unquestionable grounds. Yet of these ten Psalms, which Bishop BROWNE declares to be recent Elohistic Psalms, Mr. PEROWNE assigns two, li, lxiii, to the Davidic age,-as to lx he says, 'It is not certain that the Psalm belongs to David,'-two more, xlv and lxxii, he assigns to Solomon's reign-possibly, the beginning of it— whereas I give them to the latter part of David's,-in the case of four others, xlii, xliv, 1, lxii, he does not attempt to settle the date,-and as to cxiv he does not express himself in Vol. I of his work, the only volume as yet published. Thus, it will be seen that even Mr. PEROWNE does not assign any single one of Bishop BROWNE's nine 'more recent' Elohistic Psalms of Book II, to a later date than the time of Solomon, and two of them at least he gives to the age of David.

But the looseness of Bishop BROWNE's statements and reasonings is best shown by the fact that, whereas on p.59 he reckons Ps.lx as more recent and Elohistic,' yet on p.61 he himself argues as if this Psalm were rightly assigned by its Title (in accordance with my view) to the fifteenth year of David's reign, and he admits also the probable or possible Davidie origin of Ps.li, lxii, lxiii, lxxii, only assigning them to a late part of David's life,—to which I make no objection whatever, as far as my view is concerned, though, perhaps, I should not in all cases assent to his arguments.

I may add that EWALD and others regard xliv, lx, lxxii, cxiv, as post-Exilic Psalms, which my view would readily allow.

29. VII. 'Ps.xliv is not ascribed to David: it is impossible to find any period of David's reign, or any events in it, to which its language would be applicable. Though Bishop COLENSO would gladly place it as early as possible, he only asks the question, May not the Psalm have been written in David's time?' If it were written by David, of which there is neither proof nor trace, it must have been written when David was king, and when, as king, he had suffered from severe affliction and defeat; that is to say, it must have been, at the earliest, very late in David's reign; for there were no such sufferings early in that reign.' p.60.

Ans. I really cannot understand how Bishop BROWNE could have allowed himself to write the words which I have above italicised. It is true, I have not committed myself to bold untenable assertions in respect of the dates of Psalms which I knew to be uncertain. And, in deference to the judgment of eminent critics, HUPFELD, EWALD, and others, I put my suggestion in the form of a question. But I went on to discuss the matter at full length in (II.370-372), and showed most distinctly what my own conviction was, observing 'If this view be correct, this Psalm also must have been composed by David in the early part of his reign.

[ocr errors]

30. But Bishop BROWNE's language is the more surprising, because I had quoted in full the opinion of HENGSTENBERG, who points out clearly the very occasion to which the words of the Psalm seem exactly to refer, viz. the time when David, as king, had suffered from severe affliction and defeat,' in the early part of his reign, at the hand of the Edomites, and when Joab 'went up to bury the slain,' 1K.xi.16,—that is, the slain of Israel, left dead upon the field or smitten in their flight, for, of course, he did not go up to bury the slain of Edom. Bishop BROWNE, it would seem, has entirely overlooked this fact in David's history.

[ocr errors]

31. VIII. 'Ps.xlv. . . is generally thought to have been written when Solomon was married to Pharaoh's daughter. Bishop COLENSO would assign it to the wedding of Solomon to Naamah,* the mother of Rehoboam, which must have taken place during David's lifetime: but even this computation would place it at

* This view derives strong support from the fact, that in the LXX, 1K.xii.24, Naamah is actually said to have been 'the daughter of Hanun, son of Nahash, king of the children of Ammon,' by which circumstance all the allusions in the Psalm, as I have shown in (II.376), are fully explained.

the very end of David's life. By that time it is admitted that Jehovism had not only become prevalent but universal, and yet the name Jehovah never occurs here.' p.60.

Ans. It is not admitted that, towards the end of David's reign, the use of Jehovah was universally prevalent to such an extent, that 'Elohim' might not still be used, and used exclusively, by some pious poet, three times together, as it is in this Psalm. On the contrary, we have had instances of the Jehovistie writer of Genesis, in this very age, employing 'Elohim' exclusively, as in G.xxxiii.5,10,11. In fact, it may rather be questioned, as I have said (II.442), whether any thoroughly Jehovistic Psalms were written in the age of David.

32. IX. Bishop BROWNE's remarks, on p.62, upon the 'Psalms of Asaph' in Book III, are altogether beside the mark-except that of endeavouring to raise prejudice to serve instead of argument, by speaking of David's having 'written just after he had learned the fable of the Exodus from its forger Samuel,'-words which I indignantly reject as Bishop BROWNE's, not my own. If he can prove all these Psalms to be post-Exílic, as I have shown some of them to be, I am quite content. And as to Ps.lxxviii, I must leave him to settle the matter with the orthodox HENGSTENBERG, only contrasting their two judgments; 'There is, therefore, nothing really to assign this Psalm to David, and everything to prove that it is late,' BROWNE, p.62; To deny that this Psalm belongs to the age of David, manifests an utter misunderstanding of its contents,' HENGST.II.p.452.

[ocr errors]

When, however, he observes, p.63, Ps.lxxxiii is referred by KIMCHI, VENEMA, and others, to the wars of the Ammonites, &c. against Jehoshaphat: and Bishop COLENSO seems to think this probable: Elohim occurs four times, Jehovah twice,'I must say that I have not recognised as probable any such view as the above. On the contrary, while admitting, as I was bound to do, that such a view was possible, I have given reasons for believing that the Psalm belongs to the Davidie age, II. p.319, in accordance with the views of LUTHER, MICHAELIS, and GROTIUS.

33. X. 'Here I would call attention to the fact that, whilst Bishop COLENSO has examined at length Books II, III, V, of the Psalter, he has taken scarcely any notice of Book I. Yet in many respects Book I is the most instructive of all. It is true the superscriptions but seldom assign the date. But the whole Book is Davidic: all but three of the Psalms in it are ascribed to David: all have the character of David's writing. Moreover, none of the Five Books has so generally and so markedly an archaic style and diction; and the very fact of its standing the first of the five makes it probable that it was esteemed the oldest. Now, if we look at Bishop COLENSO's own Tables, we shall find that in this, to all appearance, the most ancient part of the whole Psalter, Jehovah occurs four times to Elohim once.' p.63.

Ans. Here, again, all is bold and general assertion. Bishop BROWNE can write thus sweepingly and confidently from a superficial view of the matter. I venture to say that he could not have done so, if he had studied, one by one,

minutely and carefully, the whole Book of Psalms, as I think he was bound to have done, before entering the lists in this manner against me. What are the facts of the case? Mr. PEROWNE, who has thoroughly studied the Psalms of Books I and II, who writes from a point of view by no means friendly to myself, and who repeats Bishop BROWNE's statement as to my having 'taken scarcely any notice of Book I,' yet himself (as we have seen) pronounces definitely as to the early date of two only of the forty-one Psalms of Book I; while with respect to the thirty-nine others, he either merely assumes them to be Davidic because of the Titles, or is altogether silent as to their age, or assigns them to a time below the Captivity.

34. As to the 'markedly archaic style and diction' which, according to Bishop BROWNE, characterise all the Psalms of this Book-' the whole Book is Davidicall but three of the Psalms in it are ascribed to David-all have the character of David's writing,'-the reader will be able to judge for himself by this time how far Bishop BROWNE's judgment as to style and diction can be relied on. Surely, if these characteristics were so distinctly marked, we should not find EWALD assigning four of them, ix, x, xxxiii, xxxvii, to a time after the Captivity,—(and among these are two, ix, x, which Bishop BROWNE twice quotes especially, as 'exhibiting peculiar marks-unquestionable notes of high antiquity')—and twentythree more to the times after David, most of them to the times of later kingsincluding again eight, xii, xvi, xvii, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxviii, xxxix, of Bishop BROWNE'S 'especially' ancient and archaic Psalms.

35. The insinuation, therefore, that I have purposely passed by the Psalms of Book I in my examination of the Psalter, because it would not have suited my purpose to consider them too closely, is quite unfounded, and unworthy of either Bishop BROWNE or Mr. PEROWNE. I have considered them, in (II.444), as fully as the other Books, and have said all that I thought it necessary to say about them. And I have allowed, as it perfectly consists with my views to allow, that some of the Psalms of this Book may be Davidic, 'ancient, archaic'; though I do not see one, which I feel compelled to place at an earlier age than Ps.lxviii or Ps.lx. If Bishop BROWNE would produce clear and decisive evidence to show that there are undoubtedly such older Psalms, this would be more to the purpose than indulging in rash and sweeping assertions, and unfair insinuations.

36. As to the notion that Book I, because it stands first, must necessarily be regarded as containing the oldest Psalms,-for this is what Bp. BROWNE must mean for the purposes of his argument, by saying that it is to all appearance the most ancient part of the Psalter,' since it would make nothing for his view to say that it is merely the first set of Psalms that was collected—it falls to the ground at once, if the view of Mr. PEROWNE, as well as of EWALD and others, be true that Book I contains some Psalms written after the Exile.

[ocr errors]

37. XI. Bp. BROWNE, after having devoted many pages to the above discussions, at last comes to consider particularly those single Psalms, on which the Bishop lays most stress,' and proceeds as follows, p.64 :—

« ZurückWeiter »