Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

title should be correct. In Ps.cxli.7, we read 'Our bones are scattered at the grave's mouth, as when one cutteth and cleaveth wood upon the earth,' which words can scarcely be referred, as they are by some, to the massacre of the Priests at Nob, notwithstanding the ingenious argument that the Hebrew hip, 'at the grave's mouth,' can be read, with a change of vowel-points,

' at the mouth of Saul.' The Syrian Title says that the Psalm was written when David escaped from Saul's javelin, which struck the wall. But it is not likely that David would have imprecated upon Saul, 'the Lord's anointed,' such judgments as these, 'Let burning coals fall upon them, let them be cast into the fire, into deep pits, that they rise not again,' Ps.cxl.10. And it is most unlikely that he should have written Jehovistic Psalms like these, at the very time when we are sure he was writing decidedly Elohistic Psalms, often without the word Jehovah occurring at all in them. These Psalms may have been written by David in the latter part of his life; but, if so, the occasion on which he wrote them is unknown, for they cannot fairly be assigned to the time of Absalom's rebellion.

Ps.cxliii(E.1,J.4) is ascribed to David, and, according to the LXX, Vulg., Eth., and Arab., was written with reference to Absalom's rebellion in the later part of his life.

Ps.cxliv (E.2,J.4) is ascribed to David, perhaps rightly, as it contains the expressions in v.2, 'Who subdueth my people under me,' and in v.10, 'Who delivereth David His servant from the peril of the sword.' It resembles very much Ps.xviii, and, like it, may be one of his later Psalms.

Ps.cxlv (E.1,J.9), which is the last Psalm ascribed, or attributed, to David, is supposed to have been composed by David towards the close of his life.' Bagster's Bible.

448. The result of our examination is that there is not a single Jehovistic Psalm, which there is any reasonable ground for assigning to the earlier part of David's life. Even admitting many Jehovistic Psalms to be David's on the uncertain warrant of their Titles only, yet all of these may be assigned, and some of them must be assigned, to the later part of his reign, at the time of, or after, the rebellion of Absalom, in the sixty-third year of his life. On the other hand, we have undeniable evidence that, in the earlier and middle parts of his life, he wrote certainly some Psalms, and probably many, which are decidedly Elohistic. Hence, whether the Jehovistic Psalms were composed by David or not, it is certain that, when he wrote those earlier Psalms, e.g., Ps.lxviii (E.31,J.4,A.7), he could have had no such idea of the sacredness of the Name

Jehovah, and the paramount privilege and duty of using it in obedience to the Divine command, as the Pentateuch, upon the ordinary view of its historical character, would lead us to expect, at all events, in the case of a man so pious and welltrained as David, and one who had been from his youth up in closest intimacy with the Prophet Samuel. It seems absolutely impossible that, while other persons, as the history teaches,Eli, 1S.ii.24,25, and Samuel, 1S.xii(J.32,E.4), and Jonathan, 1S.xx.12-23(J.9,E.1)—more common persons also, as Naomi and Ruth, R.i, Boaz and his reapers, R.ii.4, Hannah, 1S.ii.1-10 (J.9,E.2), Abigail, 1S.xxv.26-31(J.7,E.1), - nay, even the heathen Philistines, 1S.vi.2,8, xxix.6,- were using freely the sacred Name of Jehovah, yet David himself used it so sparingly that in several of his Psalms it appears not at all.

449. It is true, the history puts the word in David's mouth much more frequently than Elohim, 1S.xxiv.6,10,12,15(J.8,E.0), xxvi.9-24(J.15,E.0)—that is to say, the history represents David as using constantly the name Jehovah, and scarcely the name Elohim at all, at the very time when he was hiding in the wilderness, and writing, apparently, Psalm after Psalm, in which Elohim occurs continually, and Jehovah scarcely at all. Nay, the history makes the Philistine king Achish swear familiarly by Jehovah, 1S.xxix.6, 'Surely, as Jehovah liveth, thou hast been upright.' But this is only one sign, among others, that the history in the Books of Samuel was composed at a later date, when the name Jehovah was undoubtedly in common use, and was, therefore, put by the writer in the mouth of every one. David's own Psalms are, surely, the best possible proof of the actual state of things at the time when he lived. And the simple fact, that David wrote one such Psalm as Ps.li, or Ps.lx, or Ps.lxviii, in the earlier part of his life, is enough to establish the point now in question, provided that there is no Psalm of opposite character, that is, no decidedly Jehovistic Psalm, which contains strong internal evidence of having been

written by David in the same part of his life. I have looked for such a Psalm in vain.

450. And let it be observed once more that the argument would hold good, with respect to any of the Psalms in Book II, which bear distinct signs of an early date, even if they had not been written by David. There are those Psalms; and they are undeniably early Psalms, that is to say, such a Psalm as Ps.lx must, as it appears to me, from its internal character, have been written in David's time. This was the only time that can be thought of, in the history of the Hebrew monarchy, when it could be said that Gilead and Manasseh, Ephraim and Judah, were all under one sway, except the time of Solomon; and the references to Moab, Edom, and Philistia, in v.8, as well as the whole tone of the Psalm, do not agree with the age of Solomon, but do with the age of David. This Psalm, then, and the others of a similar kind, must, it would seem, have been written by some pious person or persons of those days, whether David or not. And the writer, or writers, it is plain, could not have been in the habit, at that time, of using familiarly the name Jehovah. It could not, therefore, have been commonly employed in the devotions of pious men in those days. And, if so, it could not have been freely in use before those days; and, above all, it could not have been known and recognised as the name which Almighty God Himself had revealed to Moses, and specially sanctioned as the name, by which He would be hereafter known in Israel.

334

CHAPTER XIX.

THE JEHOVISTIC NAMES. IN THE BOOK OF JUDGES.

451. THE inference from the above seems to be plain, in complete accordance with our previous supposition, viz. that the Name Jehovah had been but newly formed, or, at least, newly adopted and introduced, by some great, wise, and patriotic master-mind — very probably, SAMUEL'S at the time when David came to the throne, with the special purpose, probably, of consolidating and maintaining the civil and religious unity of the Hebrew tribes, under the new experiment of the kingdom. As the facts, which we have been here considering, so far from being in any way at variance with the conclusion, to which we had already come on other clear grounds, as to the unhistorical character of the Mosaic narrative, are, on the contrary, quite in accordance with it, we cannot, as before said, suppose that the Name Jehovah really originated in the way described in E.iii and E.vi. Yet, we repeat, it must have been introduced at some period or other of the history of the Hebrew tribes, as the word Unkulunkulu must have come into use, in some intelligible and natural manner, if we only knew the story of it, among the Zulus, or as the word uDio is now being introduced among them.

452. From the doubt which exists as to the proper vowelsounds, with which this Name should be enunciated, it has been suggested that it may be, perhaps, a word of foreign origin,

*

cognate, perhaps, with the Sanscrit Dyaus, from which is derived the Greek Zeus, Atós, and the Latin Ju, which appears in Ju-piter, Jov-is, and that this word may have been adopted among the Hebrews, being first corrupted into the form n, yěhu, and so referred to the Hebrew root . In fact, one very common form of the Name is A, yah, or an, yahu. One strong objection to this theory appears to lie in the fact that the Sanscrit word, and its derivations, have all an initial sound of d, which the Hebrew has not. But, however this may be, whether the word 'Jehovah' be a corruption of a foreign word, or originated by some great authority among the Hebrews themselves, it must have been gradually brought into popular use,-doubtless, in a great measure, by means of such Psalms as these.

453. HENGSTENBERG, however, writes as follows, i.253:

“The assumption that (Elohim) is the earlier, and in? (Jehovah) the later, Divine Name, may be considered as almost universal. We feel ourselves justified, on philological grounds alone, in decidedly contradicting this view. We have shown that the word Я, havah, even in the Pentateuch, appears to have become obsolete. With the exception of the single passage which has been noticed, it is not to be found in Genesis. Of a future there is no trace. In the explanation of in E.iii no notice is taken of, havah, but, hayah, is used exactly as ♫, khayah, in the explanation of, khavvah, Eve, G.iii.20. Unless persons pronounce (which few will venture to do) the Pentateuch in all its parts to be spurious, so that no inference can be drawn from it respecting the state of the language in the time of Moses, they will be forced to carry back the formation and introduction of the Name beyond the Mosaic age, from which another important consequence will follow, that the idea of the Israelitish national God' cannot be the fundamental idea.'

Ans. According to our view, havah, may have been, in the time of Samuel, a somewhat unusual form of the verb. If it had been obsolete, Isaiah could hardly have used it three centuries afterwards, hěvi, 'be thou,' Is.xvi.4. We have in.

also ì, havvath, Pr.x.3, in, hoveh, Ecc.ii.22, &c., from the same root

454. And this view seems to be confirmed, when we examine the names mentioned in the historical books, which follow the

* The word (@eós) occurs in most of the kindred languages, Sanscr. deva, Lat. deus, divus, &c., and was originally the same as Zeús, Zdeús, Aiós.' — LIDDELL and SCOTT's Lexicon.

-

« ZurückWeiter »