It is plain, also, (at least, for Bp. BROWNE and Mr. PEROWNE,) that he lived in the early part of David's reign, when all good men must have known and used the name Jehovah, if it really originated as the Pentateuch states, and was recognised, as all the history (written in later days) would imply, from the time of Moses downwards, as the covenant-Name of the God of Israel. This phenomenon, as we have said, is fully explained by the supposition that the name did not so originate-that it was a name first introduced among them, for higher religious purposes, in later days than those of the Exodus,-most probably in the days of Samuel. What other rational account can be given of the matter? Bp. BROWNE gives up the point in despair, and says, p.67, 'We are not bound to explain all the anomalies in the use of the names Elohim and Jehovah by the different sacred writers.' Mr. PEROWNE says, p.lxxxiv, 'No probable explanation of the phenomenon has yet been given.'

53. I retain the conviction that the explanation, which I have given, is the probable and the true one. But if not-what then? If all Bp. BROWNE's reasoning had been as sound as I have shown it to be unsound and fallacious,—if he had been able to produce triumphantly Psalm after Psalm decidedly Jehovistic and yet of ancient date-more ancient than that of Ps.lxviii-Psalms in which the 'marks of high antiquity' were indisputable, and in which also there were plain signs of a style identical with that of later Elohistic Psalms, so that these were apparently written by the same author-if thus, by real substantial argument of this kind, he had demolished my theory about the general greater antiquity of the Psalms of Book II, he would have only struck away one of the subsidiary props of my main conclusion. I have exposed, as I conceive, the weakness of the reasonings which he has himself advanced, though they were 'very likely to impose upon all such as mistake the unknown for the magnificent,' p.v. But I am still open to conviction. I shall

are according to him, p.71, 'in their present form younger than Solomon,' and according to OORT, Het Menschenoffer in Israel, p.123, 'transfer us into the very same age as Deuteronomy.'

Thus the formula in question, and its kindred formulæ, appear to be in every instance the special property of the Deuteronomist. On the other hand, in the other portions of the Pentateuch we have always 'Ark of the Testimony,' E.xxv.22, xxvi.33,34, xxx.6,26, xxxi.7, xxxix.35, xl.3,5,21, N.iv.5, vii.89, Jo.iv.16o, comp. 'Tabernacle of the Testimony,' E.xxxviii. 21, N.i.50,53,53, ix. 15,x.11,xvii.7,8,xviii. 2, 'Vail of the Testimony,' L.xxiv. 3,-not one of which phrases is used by the Deuteronomist.

From the above phenomena, it seems to be almost certain that the passage N.x.33-36, is really, as I had conjectured, of later origin than Ps.lxviii,—but of Deuteronomistic origin, instead of merely Jehovistic, as suggested in (II.408). And a further confirmation of this may be seen, perhaps, in the fact that in N.x.36, we have 'ten thousand,' as in D.xxxii.30, xxxiii. 2,17, and only twice besides in the Pentateuch, viz. G.xxiv.60, which we have already assigned to the Deuteronomist (145), and L.xxvi.8, which we believe (as above) to be also due to the same writer.

carefully review and reconsider the question as to the ages of the different Psalms, with such aids as the researches of the great modern critical school will supply. And, of course, it is possible that I may be brought by sounder arguments to see that the ground which I have taken, and still maintain, on this particular point is untenable. I should not then have the corroboration from the Psalms, which I now claim. I should not have the satisfaction of accounting rationally for a perplexing phenomenon. But the other grounds, on which my conclusions are based, would remain as strong as ever. And as to the remarkable phenomena in the Psalms, I should have the same right as Bp. BROWNE has exercised, to say-'I am not bound to explain' the anomalous use of the Sacred Names in the Psalms.

54. I will add only one more remark. In maintaining that Ps.lx and Ps.lxviii, and probably also Ps.li, are really Psalms of the Davidic age, I am maintaining strictly the traditionary view: and I do so conscientiously, with the strong conviction, which has not been shaken as yet by any arguments which I have seen advanced to the contrary, that these three Psalms-at all events, two of them— are certainly Davidic Psalms. But, whoever admits this, must admit also, as it seems to me, that these Psalms exhibit very strong evidence in favour of my theory as to the later introduction of the Name Jehovah into the religious history of Israel.

55. But so, too, with regard to the Pentateuch itself, in maintaining that the Elohistic and Jehovistic narratives date from as early a time as that of SAUL and DAVID, I am maintaining also, as far as possible, the traditionary view. I am carrying back the composition of the main portions of the story of the Exodus to a time when some real reminiscences of the march through the wilderness-some veritable traces of the Laws and Institutions which they brought with them into Canaan-might be expected to be still retained in Israel,—instead of, with some eminent modern critics, ascribing them to a much lower date, when all such traditions must have been lost, or have become utterly untrustworthy. In short, the question among critical scholars is now-not whether the Elohist lived at an earlier time than that of Samuel, but-whether he must not be placed in a later age than that to which, for the reasons given in this volume, in accordance mainly also with BOEHMER's conclusions, I have with some confidence assigned him.

305

APPENDIX III.

ON THE NAME IAO.

(Translated and abridged from MOVERS's Phönizie, Chap.xiv,p.539–558.)

1. This mysterious Being, to whom we have already referred at different times, belongs to the Phœnician Religion; and his name is indicated as Phoenician by the ancients themselves in the passages quoted below from JOHANNES LYDUS and CEDRENUS.

2. We shall first, however, lay at the base of our enquiry the important extract from MACROBIUS, Saturn.i.18, which we here produce in its proper connection. 'Orpheus manifestly declares the Sun to be Dionysos in the following verse:-Ηλιος, ὃν Διόνυσον ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσιν,

[Helios (the Sun), whom men surname Dionysos.]

That verse, indeed, is more complete and decisive; but this of the same poet is more elaborate:

Εἷς Ζεύς, εἷς ̓Αΐδης, εἷς Ηλιος, εἷς Διόνυσος,

[One Zeus, one Aïdēs, one Helios, one Dionysos.]

The authority of this verse rests upon an oracle of the Clarian Apollo, in which another name also of the Sun is given, who in these same sacred lines is called 'Ia, IAO. For the Clarian Apollo, having been consulted as to which of the gods was to be considered to be the one who is called IAO, pronounced thus:Οργια μὲν δεδαῶτας ἐχρῆν νηπενθέα κεύθεν,

Ενδ ̓ ἀπάτῃ παύρῃ σύνεσιν καὶ νοῦς ἀλαπαδνός.
Φράζεο τὸν πάντων ὕπατον θεὸν ἔμμεν Ιαώ,

Χείματι μέν τ' Αίδην, Δία τ' εἴαρος ἀρχομένοιο,

Ηέλιον δὲ θέρους, μετοπώρου δ ̓ ἁβρὸν Ἰαώ,*

[It was right that those knowing should hide the ineffable orgies; for in a little deceit there is prudence and an adroit mind. Explain that IAO is the Most High God of all,-in winter Aïdes, and Zeus in commencing spring, and Helios in summer, and at the end of autumn tender IAO.]

The meaning of this oracle, the interpretation of the deity, and the name,

LOBECK, Aglaophamus, p.461, reads here "Adwviv for 'láw ('Iaú, 'Iaw),

according to which IAO signifies Father Bacchus and the Sun, has been worked out by CORNELIUS LABEO in a book, entitled 'Concerning the Oracle of the Clarian Apollo"

3. From the time when JABLONSKY pretended that this oracle of the Clarian Apollo was merely a composition of a Christian gnostic living in Egypt, it has been, and is still, regarded generally by theologians as spurious. (Comp. THOLUCK, Litter. Anzeiger, 1832, p.222, COLLN, Bibl. Theologie, i.p.102, VATKE, B. Theologie, i.p.669, HENGSTENBERG, Beitr. ii.p.219, GESENIUS, Thes. ii.p.557.) Ia coming to this conclusion, they have assumed that this IAO is the same as the Hebrew IHVH; and they have taken no notice whatever of the passages out of LYDUS and CEDRENUS.

4. But here they have lost sight altogether of the fact, that a spurious apocryphal writing out of this workshop could never have attained the distinction that a CORNELIUS LABEO should have written a special commentary on it. This remark has been already made by LOBECK, Aglaoph. p.461; and he has added also very justly that the beautiful, well-rounded, versification of the oracle contrasts too much with the rude halting verses of apocryphal productions of this kind, to allow of our deriving it from so stupid a source.

5. JABLONSKY's reasons are also very unimportant, and altogether unworthy of mention. And, in fact, his whole argumentation proceeds only from the desire to snatch up here a notice for Egyptian mythology, according to which, forsooth, the 'tender IAO' would be Harpocrates. (Comp. PRICHARD, Egypt. Myth. p.111.) I will spare myself the space that would be required for its formal contradiction; since each of my readers will at once contradict it for himself, when placed in the right point of view for forming a judgment as to this oracle and the other notices about IAO, by means of the comparison and critical valuation of them, which will here be given.

6. First, we see generally from the oracle of the Clarian Apollo, which is here quoted by MACROBIUS as explaining the nature of the unknown IAO,-who also, according to him, is no other than Helios or Dionysos,—that this name IAO was of There was a mysterious kind. a great fondness for such names in eastern religions. And so in Egypt Hermes had an ineffable name (CICERO de Nat. Deor. iii.22, Schömann); and whoever attained to the knowledge of the true name of the Moon-goddess was a 'child of death.'

7. JAMELICHUS, in his work De Mysterüs, speaks repeatedly of such mysterious (Egyptian or Chaldæan) Divine Names. In reply to Porphyry he remarks that they were not names without meaning, ǎonua óvóuara.' 'The signification of some,' he says, vii.4, 'had been imparted by the gods themselves, as, in fact, the Egyptian Deity, Thoth, had, according to Plutarch, composed a book about them: but others were too holy for their meaning to be made known. Those, however, which could be understood by men, gave explanation about the might and order in rank of the gods, and through them the soul was led-up to the Deity.'

8. JAMBLICHUS adds yet further that there was another mysterious reason, why the secret names of the gods were (Assyrian) Chaldæan or Egyptian. 'The Assyrians

or Egyptians were holy nations, and their language was a holy language, the language of the gods; and it was fitting that men should also address the gods in a language known to them.'

To such mysterious names belong, for instance, Meû, Opeû, Môp, Þôp, Teû§, Zâ, Ζῶν, Θέ, Λοῦ, Χρι, Γε, Ζε, Ων, &c. GALE On Jamblichus, p.290.

9. Next, we see from the oracle of Apollo that IAO was 'the Most High God of all,' and was in reality the Sun-Deity, in a fourfold signification, with which may, perhaps, be compared the fact, that according to a statement of EUSTATHIUS, Baal was represented with four faces, (MUNTER, Rel. der Karth. p.40), and that Manasseh also is said to have erected in the temple at Jerusalem an image of Jupiter with four faces (SUIDAS, Mavaσons).

In a wider signification of the name, then, IAO was the Sun-God in the four seasons. But, in a narrower sense, åßpòs 'Iaw, 'the tender 140,' is given as the title of the autumnal Sun.* And that this 'tender IAO' is Adonis, admits of no doubt whatever.

10. In the first place, the description itself, 'tender IAO,' suits Adonis, to whom this epithet is especially applied:

Κέκλιται ἁβρὸς ̓́Αδωνις ἐν εἵμασι πορφυρέοισι.-ΒΙΟΝ, Idyl. 1.79.

[Reclined is tender Adonis in purple v.stments.]

̓́Αλλοι δ ̓ ἁβρὸν Αδωνιν ἐπευφήμισαν ἀοιδοί.—PROCL. ad Solm, v.24.
[And other singers celebrated the tender Adonis.]

And he is also very commonly called åyvòs "Adwvis, holy Adonis, (see below and comp. THEOCRITUS, XV.128).

Again, it is only true, if used of Adonis, that IAO, according to its wider signification, is the Sun-God, and in its narrower, the harvest-Deity, as we have seen already (Mov. Phön. vii), and expressly as to the latter point with reference to the worship of Adonis at Antioch and Byblus.

11. Further, Adonis was actually named in Byblus and in Lebanon 'the Most High God,' exactly as here IAO is styled in the oracle.

Thus SANCHONIATHON names the god, who in Byblus was called pre-eminently 'the Most Great of the gods,' Agrueros, whose symbol, he says, was carried about upon a wagon drawn by oxen, and in his usual manner he ascribes to him the invention of forecourts to houses and the use of caverns. And who can be meant

here but Adonis?

12. First, Byblus was the sacred town of Adonis (iepá èσri Toû 'Adávidos,' STRABO, xvi.p.364,) and was named from him in consequence 'the holy Byblus, (ECKHEL, iii.p.361). Here was the chief seat of his worship; his myth was here localised; and he was honoured by the stream being named from him 'Adonis.' It is now called by the Arabs Nahr Ibrahim, the stream of Abraham,'-doubtless, because Adonis was formerly called 7 ș, Ab-ram, ‘high father,' or 'Paμàs ó

* LOBECK, as we have seen, note p.305, reads "Adwviv for 'Iaw in the fifth line of the oracle, and so identifies at once IAO with Adonis.