evidence is barely noticed, and the critic claims in these verses a license that he dares not claim elsewhere, and demands liberty to accept or reject at his pleasure, in accordance with the dictates of what he is pleased to term 'internal evidence.' And what is the character of this internal evidence of which we hear so much? Is it such that we can with any confidence commit ourselves to its guidance, discarding what all must allow to be the most ancient traditions? If so, it will surely lead all commentators to the same result. We may fairly ask for something like a consensus of interpreters before we trust ourselves to it; but this is precisely what we cannot have. We will take Ps. lxviii. as an example. The title tells us that it is by David; a statement repeated by the Targum, LXX., Aquila, Syriac and other Versions. This we are now told carries no authority; and we are bidden to discard the tradition, and tax our ingenuity to discover a fitting occasion for this Titan among Psalms,' as it has not inaptly been called. We turn to the Commentators to seek their help.

'It is reckoned by some to the later (Gesenius, Ewald, Hupfeld); by others to the latest (Rudinger, Reuss, Ölshausen); by others still to the most ancient monuments of Hebrew poetry (De Wette, Böttcher, Hengstenberg, Hitzig, and Delitzsch)'!.... It has been actually placed in the times of the Maccabees (Olshausen), especially with reference to the consecration of the Temple, 1 Macc. v. (Rudinger), in the time of the rule of the Ptolemies or the Seleucidae (Reuss), in the period of the Exile, or shortly afterwards (Ewald, Köster, Hupfeld), in the time of the struggle of Josiah with the Egyptian king, Necho (Thenius), of Hezekiah with the Assyrians (Kimchi, Böttcher), of the confederate kings Jehoshaphat and Joram with Moab and Edom, 2 Kings iii. (Hitzig), and in the time of Solomon (De Wette)'!1

What can we think of a method of criticism that in the hands of eleven Commentators leads to seven different results!

To show that the example given is not a solitary one, we subjoin a few more. Ps. xiv. we read in our Bibles is a Psalm of David; but we are assured by Olshausen that it belongs to the Maccabean period, by Ewald that it was written during the Babylonish Captivity; and while Hitzig would make us believe that it comes from Jeremiah, the Dean of Peterborough tells us that there is nothing in the Psalm which can lead us to fix its date or authorship precisely.' Ps. xxvii. is also, according to the title, of Davidic authorship. This again Hitzig would persuade us is due to the fertile pen of Jeremiah, while Olshausen finds in it two Psalms, both of

1 Moll, in Lange's Bibelwerk.

the Maccabean date. Ewald for once is in agreement with Olshausen, in so far that he sees in this two Psalms, only he would place them both in the time of the Kingdom, the first half (ver. 1-7) shortly after the reign of David, and the second (ver. 8-16) in the century before the Babylonish Captivity, and De Wette regards the whole poem as a general Psalm of lamentation of some Hebrew in later times.' We give one more instance: Ps. xc. that 'Psalm of Eternity,' the Prayer of Moses, the man of God.' This is placed by Ewald after the time of David, in the days of the Monarchy; by Köster and Maurer during the Babylonish Captivity; and by Hitzig in the age of the Maccabees! Verbum sap. To those of our readers who are tempted to try this method of fixing the date of the Psalms from internal evidence, we can only repeat the often-quoted advice to bachelors about to marry-Don't!

The examples given above sufficiently prove the uncertainty of the method now so much in vogue, and show that if it is to supersede the appeal to the historical evidence of the titles, we are to be left to the caprice of the individual critic, who constantly needs the caution of Bishop Butler, that 'suppositions are not to be looked upon as true, because not incredible,' and the sober reminder of the same judicious writer, that 'mere guess, supposition, and possibility, when opposed to historical evidence, prove nothing, but that historical evidence is not demonstrative.' 2 But we would not be misunderstood. It is not meant to assert that internal evidence is of no value whatever. It has its legitimate use, only in the case of the Psalms this is reduced to a minimum (1) by the fact, that in the majority of them we have historical evidence of their dates; and where this is the case, we have no right to proceed in disregard of it, for the office of internal evidence is to decide either in the absence of such historical testimony, or in those cases where it is insufficient or counterbalanced by opposing evidence from without: and (2) by the fact that only fragmentary accounts of Jewish history have come down to us. It is often taken for granted that the Psalms must all have been originally composed for some occasions of which we have full details in the series of historical books from Samuel to Esther; but there seems to be no reason why this should be so. Even in the life of David, which is more fully recorded than any other, there must have been countless incidents worthy of giving birth to Psalms of which no traces have been preserved, and in the

1 Analogy, pt. 1. c. iii.

2 Ib. pt. II. c. vii.

later history of the Kingdom, we have complete evidence that this was the case-evidence that comes to us occasionally from ancient secular historians, but more often in the shape of voices from the tomb, the records of the past, treasures disinterred from the mounds of Mesopotamia, a literature dug out of the earth, and the enigmas of the hieroglyphic, hieratic, and cuneiform characters now for the first time revealed. (3) There is yet another reason that makes us distrustful of taking the verdict of modern critics on the age and occasion of particular Psalms. It is that the language of the Psalms is ordinarily perfectly general, and suits many different occasions equally well. In very few instances is it precise and definite enough to warrant the conclusion that it refers to some particular emergency; more often the expressions used adapt themselves with a marvellous facility to a hundred different occasions. Indeed, it has been acutely remarked that they would not be the Psalms unless this were so. The varied experiences of the Church for nearly two thousand years have not yet succeeded in exhausting this wondrous adaptability of language and expression to occasions and scenes widely differing in externals and surroundings, and yet all equally fitted to give birth to the sublimest hymns that ever flowed from the lips of the sweet Psalmist of Israel. This is the peculiarity of the Psalter,' says S. Ambrose, 'that everyone can use its words as if they were peculiarly and individually his own.' And who is there that can hear unmoved the Psalms for the eighteenth evening of the month, bearing in mind the passage of Laud's History of his Troubles that speaks of his last service in the Chapel of Lambeth Palace, after his arrest, and on the eve of his committal to the Tower? 'The Psalms for the day,' he writes, 'gave me much comfort, and were observed by some friends then present as well as myself. And upon the comfort I then received I have every day since (unless some urgent business prevented me), read over both these Psalms, and God willing purpose to do so every day of my life.' 3

2

Why, the Psalms in question might have been written by Laud himself!

'O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth: Thou God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew Thyself.

1 e.g. The Scythian invasion of Palestine in the time of Joshua, recorded by Herodotus, i. 103-6. Of this there is no hint whatever in the historical books of the Old Testament, though it has left tolerably clear traces upon the writings of Jeremiah (i. 13; vi. I sq.), and Ezekiel (xxxviii., xxxix).

2 Pss. xciii., xciv.

3 Laud's History of his Troubles, p. 74.

Arise, Thou judge of the world: and reward the proud after their deserving.

Lord, how long shall the ungodly: how long shall the ungodly triumph?

:

How long shall all wicked doers speak so disdainfully and make such proud boasting?

Blessed is the man whom Thou chastenest, O Lord: and teachest him in Thy law;

That Thou mayest give him patience in time of adversity: until the pit be digged up for the ungodly.

For the Lord will not fail His people : neither will He forsake His inheritance;

Until righteousness turn again unto judgement: all such as are true in heart shall follow it.

Who will rise up with me against the wicked: or who will take my part against the evil-doers?

If the Lord had not helped me: it had not failed but my soul had been put to silence.

But when I said, My foot hath slipt: Thy mercy, O Lord, held

me up.

In the multitude of the sorrows that I had in my heart: Thy comforts have refreshed my soul.

Wilt thou have any thing to do with the stool of wickedness: which imagineth mischief as a law?

They gather them together against the soul of the righteous: and condemn the innocent blood.

:

But the Lord is my refuge and my God is the strength of my confidence.

He shall recompense them their wickedness, and destroy them in their own malice: yea, the Lord our God shall destroy them.'

Enough has now been said, we trust, to show the inadequacy of internal evidence to give us any certain clue to the dates and occasions of the Psalms, at least as a general rule. But it may be urged that though constructively this internal evidence is of small value, yet destructively it wields enormous powers powers amply sufficient to overthrow the historical and traditional evidence derived from the titles. We propose, therefore, to advance a few reasons that make us as loth to commit ourselves to its guidance in this wholesale work of destruction as in the more agreeable task of building up, and assigning suitable occasions for the composition of the Psalms.

The reasons that lead the majority of modern critics to reject the inscriptions appear to be three in number, (1) considerations of style, (2) language, and (3) supposed anachronisms. To all such objections there is a general answer that

seems perfectly satisfactory, and yet has been strangely overlooked and neglected. The objections could only be conclusive were it maintained, on the other side, that the Psalms had in every case come down to us in the exact form in which they were originally composed. But, apart from the fact, to which our modern Hymn-books bear such striking testimony, that hymns and Psalms designed for public use are, of all compositions, the most liable to change and alteration, we have convincing proof that among the Jews of old, it was recognised as perfectly legitimate for a later poet to take up, repeat, alter, and adapt the words of an earlier one. The charge of plagiarism is entirely an invention of modern times; and few things are more striking in the ancient Scriptures than the way (we had almost said the wholesale way) in which later writers embody in their works the words of earlier ones with no acknowledgment whatever. This is seen, again and again, in the Prophetical books,' and on turning to the Psalter, we find it exemplified there still more remarkably. Thus, the whole of Ps. xiv. appears again in the second book as Ps. liii., having evidently been adapted to suit some later occasion. latter part of Ps. xl. (ver. 13-17) has been detached from its context, and is presented to us again as a separate Psalm (lxx.); while Ps. cviii. is a composite one, consisting of lvii. 8-12 and lx. 5-12. The xvith chapter of 1 Chronicles presents a yet more striking instance. We find there a composite Psalm, every verse of which is taken from some part or other of the Psalter (viz. ver. 8-22 from Ps. cv. 1-15; ver. 23-33 from Ps. xcvi.; and ver. 34-36 from Ps. cvi. ver. 1, 47, 48).

The

Since then, there is this convincing evidence of alteration and adaptation in the case of some at least of the Psalms, we think that (the external testimony to the titles being, as it is, overwhelming) we should be justified in setting aside anachronisms, Aramaisms, &c. as insufficient to prove anything concerning the date of the original Psalm: there is always a possibility, in some cases a probability, that they are due to a

1 For example, the passage in Micah iv. ver. 1-3, is identical with Is. ii. ver. 2-4, and it is hard to say which Prophet has borrowed from the other. Nahum i. 15 is taken from Is. lii. 7, and Jonah's hymn of thanksgiving, c. ii., teems with quotations from the Psalms (see the Speaker's Commentary, vol. vi. p. 583). We would remind our readers that this free use of previously existing materials is characteristic of the writers of the New Testament, as well as of those of the Old Covenant, e.g. much of the Magnificat was evidently suggested by a reminiscence of Hannah's song in I Sam. ii. ver. 1-10; and S. Peter in his 2nd Epistle c. ii. borrows largely from the General Epistle of S. Jude.