is ungrateful for the smaller Cambridge edition of the Septuagint), but the plan of such a work permits it to be little more than a register of results attained, and the variety of its workmanship, the lack of common canons of judgment, the absence of the foundation-laying which the completed preliminary studies will, let us hope, some time supply, and the very limited space that can be given to critical apparatus or textual argument, all make its character, in this regard, of necessity provisional.' Meanwhile something might be done by the commentators. 'How much may be accomplished within the limits of a commentary has become clear through Professor Moore's recent work on Judges, in which thorough examination of the facts and mastery of their details, delicate perception and discrimination in using the facts, and sober cautious judgment, are as manifest in the critical remarks on the text as they are in the exegetical matter.' The next set of problems with which the Old Testament student has now to deal are literary problems. And first of all there are the problems of which the theological dogs of war are still in pursuit. With these Professor Brown is not particularly concerned at present. For it has more than once happened that science has learned to regard as a necessary postulate what defenders of the faith are just beginning to take alarm at, as a suggestion of the Evil One.' So Professor Brown will touch upon only one phase of this conflict-the so-called appeal to archæology.' Professor Brown does not quote Professor Sayce, who once remarked that the kings of Assyria were brazen-faced liars on their monuments. But he says that the witness of archæology is still historical witness, and has to be sifted and interpreted just as any other historical witness has to be. Its advantage lies in its antiquity; its disadvantage in the proportionate difficulty of its interpretation. 'It is in a high degree trustworthy, but often in a high degree unintelligible, or of doubtful meaning.' 'But one of the crudest of mistakes in using archæology as a conservative ally is made when it is employed to win a battle in literary criticism. It is not equipped for that kind of fighting. It has its proper place in the determination of historical facts, but a very subordinate place, or none at all, in the determination of literary facts. To attempt to prove by archæology that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, is simply grotesque. The question is, not whether Moses could write, it is whether he did write certain books which there is strong internal and historical ground for holding he did not write; and on this point Archæology has nothing to say, nor is it likely that she will have anything to say. We only discredit a most useful, often surprisingly useful, handmaid of truth, when. we set her a task for which she is in no way prepared.' There are other questions that are raised in a more scientific spirit. There are difficulties that to the most scientific criticism are difficulties still. And now Professor Brown passes quickly to name the questions that, within the science itself and by its most conspicuous adherents, are still recognised as unsettled. And, first of all, is the now widely accepted name of 'Hexateuch' a mistake? The name was given when it was seen that the same documents which were found in the first five books passed also into Joshua. No one denies that they pass into Joshua. The question is not, have we extended the designation too far? but, have we extended it far enough? In other words, do the same documents J and E, which are traced through the Hexateuch, run on through Judges, Samuel, and Kings; and, instead of 'Hexateuch,' ought we, trying to be perfectly accurate, to speak of the 'Dekateuch' rather? Professor Brown will not tell us whether we ought or not. It is a matter 'not yet fully determined.' But 'even in the present situation of somewhat tentative opinion on this point, we can see how large the interest is which attaches to the inquiry.' More positive is Professor Brown's position on a question that is more disquieting. For he thinks that criticism in its progress is diminishing the amount of pre-exilic Hebrew literature that has come down to us, and increasing proportionately the exilic and post-exilic, particularly the latter. 'Observation of details,' says Professor Brown, -'observation of details, and a growing historical and literary sense, combine to produce the evident result, that national disaster gave the greatest impulse to the crystallisation of literature, and that most of our Old Testament in its present form, as well as a much larger original part of it than was supposed even by free critics a few years ago, is of date subsequent to the fall of Jeru- light has yet been thrown. salem.' eminent scholarship, in recent numbers of THE EXPOSITORY TIMES. It is therefore of special interest to us to note that Professor Brown sees no sufficient reason yet for abandoning its essential historicity. But the place in which the difficulty lies is often misapprehended. The Babylonian elements are easily accepted. These it seems unlikely that any Israelite in any period would have invented, and, in the absence of conclusive proof to the contrary, Dr. Brown is prepared to find them true. It is to the Abrahamic episode that uncertainty attaches. The Abrahamic episode is to the Hebrew writer the kernel of the whole matter. And on that part of the story no new Other matters still unsettled are the traces of the Editor's hand in the Old Testament, the disintegration of Isaiah, especially of the second part, and the existence of Davidic psalms. But it is evident that to Dr. Brown of deeper interest for the moment than any of these is the nature of the literature that passed through the hands of the Chronicler. At the winter meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Dr. Torrey of Andover read part of a paper in which he argued that of the books which we name Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, the only original historical source is the memoirs of Nehemiah; there are no memoirs of Ezra, and all the rest is the work of the Chronicler. Dr. Brown has not heard the whole of the argument, and he will not pronounce on imperfect knowledge. But it is an inquiry of immense interest, and the result to which it has led Dr. Torrey emphasises, with emphasis new and exceeding, the necessity of submitting to the most minute and searching scrutiny every particle of the old Hebrew collection which has reached us.' 'With that Professor Brown passes to the problems that are historical. The fourteenth chapter of Genesis is one of these. That chapter has been the subject of no little discussion, and that by The other historical problem to which Professor Brown refers is perhaps for the moment the most keenly interesting of all Old Testament questions. Two years ago a Dutch theologian, Professor Kosters, the successor of Professor Kuenen, published a pamphlet in which he doubted or denied the return from the Captivity under Cyrus. It is astonishing to find Dr. Brown falling in with that. He does not do so absolutely. But he says that, inasmuch as the most familiar statements about the return in Cyrus' time cannot be traced farther back than the Chronicler, and the silence of the prophets is opposed to it, the position that no such return took place is one that cannot be disregarded--one that has very much in its favour. The romance of Palestine exploration is like the romance of foreign missions. On a certain occasion in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland a member of Assembly spoke of the halo of romance that attached to mission work abroad. Dr. Duff of India was present. He rose and told that member what the romance of foreign missions came to, and the General Assembly has never forgotten the incident. Professor Porter of Beirût has just been telling us what the romance of Palestine exploration means. Professor Porter left Beirût in August last to go to Jerusalem and see the work that Dr. Bliss is doing there. He had read the reports which every quarter Dr. Bliss has written of the progress of the work. And he had no doubt found them interestSo he went to While I was carried on in the hill within ing and sometimes even romantic. Jerusalem to see the work itself. there,' he says, 'work was being several different places, some on the Augustinian property, and others in the Tyropoon Valley below. It required much travelling up and down the steep hill to visit the various gangs of workmen, give directions, and keep everything fully in hand. The sun that beats down into the Tyropcon Valley in August is merciless, and the odours that arise from the open drain that pours its fœtid stream down from the city are most pungent, especially when reinforced by the carcases of mules and donkeys which find there a restingplace. It is a relief to escape from such an atmosphere, and burrow in the shafts and tunnels.' But then the discoveries? Yes, if there were discoveries. Read the reports and see. The Palestine explorer is surely a man of faith no less than the foreign missionary. And it sometimes seems as if, like the foreign missionary, his faith must be sorest tried in the writing of his reports. That he has to write them, write them every quarter, write them fully, even elaborately, to the length of many pages of the Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund, and not a discovery to speak of! Well, scarcely ever a discovery. There is one this quarter, perhaps. Dr. Bliss describes it fully. The committee notes it in their introductory paragraphs. These are the committee's words:- 'Dr. Bliss's excavations in the Tyropcon Valley have brought to light a very remarkable stone stairway, forming part of a road leading down from the city past the Pool of Siloam. This stairway is 24 feet broad, and on its eastern side is a parapet, apparently constructed to prevent passengers falling over the scarp which exists there. The steps are thirty-four in number, so far as discovered. They are almost 7 inches in height, and are arranged in a system of wide and narrow treads alternately, the wide treads measuring between 4 and 5 feet in breadth, and the narrow ones about one foot and a quarter. The stones comprising these stairs are well jointed, and finely polished by footwear.' That is the discovery. It is not much, you say. No, it is not much, if you have been looking for the covered colonnade which Solomon made to take him to the temple on Sabbath, or even, as Professor Hull seems bold enough to do, for the sacred vessels of the temple itself. It is not much. And even though the committee is ready to remind us of the stairs that go down from the city of David,' where Shallun, the son of Colhozeh (Neh. iii. 15) repaired the fountain-gate, they do not suggest that these are the stairs, they only suggest that 'possibly they may be on the same site.' So Palestine exploration, like foreign missions, can never live on romance. But, being still pursued, as at first it was undertaken, in the single-eyed service of the truth, it will still find willing supporters. Psalm cí. BY PROFESSOR K. BUDDE, D.D., STRASSsburg. REGARDING the contents and the aim of this Psalm in the main there has always been agreement. The singer or speaker describes the sentiments by which he is animated in his own walk, the principles which, in dealing with others, he recognises and means to recognise. He will have none but morally good persons forming his entourage, all the wicked he will remove far from him-nay, he will unsparingly exterminate them from the city of Jahweh. The speaker is thus an inhabitant of Jerusalem, and there occupies undoubtedly a leading position; if he is not king, at any rate he exercises a king's authority. Who is he? According to the title, David; and this opinion long held the field. Others have preferred to identify the speaker with Hezekiah. In recent times, under the influence of the manifestly late composition of the Psalm, attempts have been made to discover a Maccabæan chief to whom its words would be applicable. On the ground of the coincidence between the language of 1 Macc. 973 and v.8 of the Psalm, Hitzig fixes upon Jonathan ; while the still more exact coincidence between this verse and 1 Macc. 1414. 36 has led Cheyne to fix upon Simon. But in both these passages may it not be that the form of expression has been chosen with the eye on our Psalm, in which one found a speculum principum, the description of the theocratic king as he should be (cf. Delitzsch, and Cheyne, The Book of Psalms)? Finally, some have gone so far as to explain away the prince altogether, and leave nothing but 'the ideal of an Israelite, or the ideal community' (so, e.g., Baethgen). All these divergent opinions do not, however, affect the exegesis, regarding which a rare unanimity has prevailed from the earliest times down to our own day. On this account one feels that it is almost a pity to introduce a discord into such a pleasant harmony. But does the exegesis of the Psalm really encounter so few difficulties as to justify such unanimity? I leave out of account the lastmentioned of the above interpretations, for it is easy to show that at all events it does not answer to the original intention, and is possible only on the theory of a transferred sense. But can even a king speak of himself in the terms we meet with in this Psalm? Take v.4— A false heart shall remain far from me. Of the wicked man will I know nothing. Or v.1 He shall not dwell within my house who practises deceit ; He who speaks lies shall not stand before mine eyes. Who, then, is this knower of hearts who can thus distinguish dispositions? Nothing certainly could be desired better than that subjects should be able to boast of such a ruler. But a king who speaks thus about himself would thereby run great risk of becoming a prey to flatterers and hypocrites. Moreover, the expressions, 'he shall dwell with me,' 'he shall minister to me,' he shall not dwell in my house,' betray a self-consciousness which might be pronounced exaggerated even in a king, for they simply presuppose that to minister to him, etc., constitutes the summum bonum which every man will eagerly covet. To cut off evildoers is again all very well, but that he is to do this every morning (v.8) sounds oddly enough. If we ask, on the other hand, of whom all these expressions are used elsewhere, the answer is easy. One recalls the affinity of our Psalm with the Proverbs. We may compare v.4a and v.2a with Prov. 1120, and v.5 with Prov. 165. Both passages in Proverbs commence with An abomination to Jahweh (nayin) is he who is of a false heart, he who is of a haughty spirit,' and the first proceeds, 'but well-pleasing to Him is he whose walk is unimpeachable' (cf. vv.2.6 of the Psalm). The SS, NS, 'I cannot endure,' of v.5 is found in this sense elsewhere, only in the mouth of Jahweh (Isa. 113, similarly Jer. 4422). The N of v.a finds its parallels in the utterances of Jahweh in Ps. 16 317 3718, Amos 32, Hos. 135, and the In Ps. 55 we * לֹא יִגְרְךְ רַע *5 .whole line in Ps לא־יכון לנגד עיני exact parallel to v.7b have an which may be supplemented by reference to Ps. 10228. In Ps. 55b we have the evil-doers of * In the citations from the Psalms the verses are numbered as in the English (not the Hebrew) text. Ps. 1018; in v. we read that Jahweh cuts off liars just as in 1015 (cf. v.7). To dwell in the house of Jahweh (vv.6. 8) is the earnest longing of every pious Israelite (Ps. 236 [read ] 27 84; 57 268 6613; cf. 528 5514 8410 9218 1341 1352, and further, 243 151 54 etc.). בְּקֶרֶב בֵּיתִי With the of v.7 we may compare Ps. 489, the apa in our Psalm being required to make up the proper length of the verse. To minister to Jahweh as a priest (n, v.6) is the highest prerogative of the Israelite, and Jahweh Himself determines who may claim it (Ezek. 4319 4415f.). He it is also who exterminates (npyn, vv.5. 8) the wicked (cf. Ps. 545 9423 14312). As to the 'every morning' (v.8), we may compare for the form, Isa. 332, Lam. 323; and for the idea, Job 3812-15. Such references might be greatly multiplied, but what we have adduced should be quite sufficient. Only if Jahweh Himself is the speaker, only if He is the 'I' of the Psalm, do the whole contents of the latter yield a satisfactory sense, and show themselves to be in complete harmony with the language of the Psalter, as well as of the Proverbs and of the Old Testament in general. When I say the whole contents, I do not, of course, mean in the form in which these have come down to us. No difficulty need be found, indeed, in 'the city of Jahweh' (v.), for Jahweh Himself might well use that expression about Jerusalem. But Jahweh could never 'walk in the innocence of His heart within His house' (v.2). It is interesting to note that Hitzig here proposed the emendation, within Thy (Jahweh's) house.' This is materially but not formally correct. Rather must the subject be changed into the third person, namely, aban, or better aban, and ia, instead of s and Further, in v.3 we must punctuate instead of 7, and instead of the false form niy we must read as in v.7 y. For everywhere else it is the persons who follow a certain course of conduct that are spoken of, and not the conduct itself; even in v. y is not 'wickedness', but 'the wicked man.' In this way the personal walk of the speaker, of which there can be no question in the case of Jahweh, is no longer an element in the contents of the Psalm. * The textual emendation proposed in v.2 may be * Both the forms we propose correspond to the reading in v.7, and the second of them was read in v.3 by the Septuagint and Jerome. tested by its ability to remove the one serious I will instruct thee concerning the right way, He who walks in the innocence of his heart I set not before Mine eyes Him who commits transgression I hate, i, Our Psalm was afterwards transformed into something quite different, whether this was due to corruption, or misunderstanding, of the text, or to deliberate intention. There is nothing impossible in this last supposition. If the piece was to be used as a temple-song, the continuous speaking of Jahweh might appear unsuited for this purpose. But we cannot decide the question. Our judgment regarding v. must similarly remain in suspense. As it stands at present, it does not fit the Kina-measure which prevails throughout the Psalm, because the second line is too long by one word. But this is easily remedied by reading . If the verse belonged to the original composition, a verse introducing the speech of Jahweh must have been dropped out after it. This is perhaps the simplest solution. When attention has been once called to the correct interpretation of this Psalm, one will find it |