Слике страница
PDF
ePub

later editor or compiler making free use of ancient materials and working them up into new forms.1

But there is no need to rely entirely upon this argument. The objections brought against the inscriptions may be an- ' swered singly as well as en masse. We have already summed them up as three in number. On the first of them, the argument from style, we do not propose to dwell at any great length. Criticism from style alone is confessedly very precarious. It has been tried, and been found wanting in a number of instances where the material seemed to afford far surer grounds to hope for a successful result than has ever been considered the case with the Psalter. For example, Mosheim 2 and others long ago raised doubts whether the Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp were the genuine work of the Saint to whom it was ascribed, urging, that in style it differed considerably from the other six Epistles, which they were willing to accept. Years passed on, and the discovery of the Syriac version dispelled these doubts for ever, the Epistle to Polycarp now standing as one of the three undisputed writings of the Martyr-Bishop of Antioch. A still more striking example is found in the Laws' of Plato: the style, we are told, differs in several respects from that of the other Dialogues, (1) in the want of character, power, and lively illustration; (2) in the frequency of mannerisms; (3) in the form and rhythm of the sentences; and (4) in the use of words. And yet-in spite of this formidable internal evidence-the Laws are accepted by the Master of Balliol as the genuine work of the philosopher whose name they have always borne. Most of our readers may know the admirable use that has been made of this example by Dr. Pusey, in his Introduction to Zechariah, but for the sake of some to whom it may be new, we quote a portion :

'German acuteness has found out reasons why the treatise should rot be Plato's. Those reasons are plausible, as most untrue things As put together carefully by one who yet attaches no weight to them, they look like a parody of the arguments produced by

are.

[ocr errors]

1 For example, in 1 Chr. xvi. 27 we find the word

of the parallel passage in Ps. xcvi. 6. Now

substituted for only occurs

elsewhere in Nehem. viii. 10, and in the Chaldee portion of Ezra, vi. 16. Hence it is a natural inference that this late word was substituted by the Chronicler for the original. And if such an alteration can be shown in one instance, there is no reason why we should hesitate to allow the possibility of similar changes elsewhere.

2 Eccl. Hist. cent. I. p. ii. c. iii.-'I cannot help looking upon the authenticity of the Epistle to Polycarp as extremely dubious, on account of the difference of style' (the italics are our own).

Germans to take to pieces books of Holy Scripture. Mutatis mutandis, they have such an absurdly ludicrous resemblance, that it provokes a smile. Some fifty years ago, there was a tradition at Göttingen, where Heyne had lived, that he attributed the non-reception of the theories as to Homer in England to the English Bishops, who "apprehended that the same principle would be applied to Holy Scripture." Now, for half a century more, both sets of critics have had full scope. The classical sceptics seem to me to have the advantage. Anyone, who knew but a little of the uncritical criticism, applied to the sacred books, could imagine, what a jubilee of triumph it would have occasioned, could such differences as those pointed out between "the Laws" and other treatises of Plato, have been pointed out to detach any book of Holy Scripture from its traditional writer. Yet it is held inadequate by one, of whom an admirer said, that "his peculiar mode of criticism cut the very sinews of belief." . . . The accuracy of the criticisms is not questioned; the statements are not said to be exaggerated; yet they are held invalid. The question then comes with great force to the conscience: "Why, rejecting arguments so forcible as to a treatise of Plato, do I accept arguments very inferior as to such or such a book of the Old or New Testament-certain chapters of Isaiah, or Ecclesiastes, or these chapters of Zechariah, or the Epistle to the Hebrews, or the Revelation of S. John the Divine-except on grounds of theology, not of criticism, and how am I true to myself in rejecting such arguments as to human books and accepting them as to Divine books? " '1

...

With regard to the second head, that of language, beyond the general answer given above to all objections on this head as on the other two, we may fairly claim that Hebrew scholars shall be agreed among themselves before they ask us to accept their verdict. And when we find that one Psalm (xvi.), which Ewald assigns to the time of the Captivity, is accepted by Hitzig as the genuine work of David, while another (cx.) which Ewald allows to be Davidic, is consigned by Hitzig to the Maccabean period, we may be excused if we hesitate before accepting the language as an infallible guide; and our hesitation is confirmed by the discovery that 'whilst De Wette, describing Ps. cxli. as a "very original and therefore difficult Psalm," holds it to be one of the oldest in the collection, Maurer, almost on the same grounds, sets it down as belonging to a comparatively late period.'

2

There only remain the comparatively few (so-called) Aramaisms and Chaldaisms, which are often confidently reckoned on as affording convincing evidence of late date. But even here 'grammatici certant, et adhuc sub judice lis est.' It has never yet been proved (and probably never will 2 Perowne, vol. ii. p. 444 (ed. 3).

1 Minor Prophets, p. 510.

2

1

be) that such forms as the shortened relative (for) the chirek compaginis, or the (so-called) Aramaic pronominal suffix, afford any clue whatever to the date of the composition in which they occur; and we are glad to see that the Dean of Peterborough speaks of the opinion that 'a tendency to Aramaisms is to be regarded as evidence of a variation merely of dialect, perhaps the dialect of North Palestine,' as a supposition which seems not to be wholly without foundation.' 4

The third head, that of supposed Anachronisms, requires somewhat fuller treatment. In all these cases the burden of proof lies upon those who maintain the existence of such errors; and when we come to examine the so-called proof, we often find that it resolves itself into mere conjecture and supposition on the part of the critic. In English we should not speak of a tent as a 'house' or 'temple,' therefore, argues the critic, David cannot have done so ; therefore, those Psalms wherein the terms 'house of God' and 'temple' occur are falsely attributed to him; and therefore, the inscriptions are of no value. Again, the catastrophe of the Babylonish Captivity was so overwhelming that to us it obscures all the previous troubles of the nation, and throws them entirely into the shade. When we speak of 'the Captivity,' that in Babylon is always understood by the term; therefore, the critic implies, the Hebrews must have meant the same; therefore, it is impossible that David could have prayed that God would 'turn the captivity of Judah'; and therefore, again the inscriptions are of no value. Once more-the wall of Jerusalem was rebuilt after the Captivity, and in the Book of Nehemiah we hear a great deal about 'building the wall of Jerusalem'; therefore, when this expression occurs in the Psalms it must allude to the rebuilding of the wall; and therefore, Ps. li. (or at least the last two verses of it) belongs to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah; and therefore, the inscription assigning it to David is a dim and worthless tradition. In case we should be thought to have exaggerated, we subjoin a few specimens of argument from The Psalms, chronologically arranged by

1 On this see the exhaustive and convincing remarks of Dr. Pusey, Minor Prophets, p. 250; and on the subject of Aramaisms generally, ib. 249-251, 401, 402.

2 This occurs in Ps. cx. 4: a Psalm which even Ewald allows to be David's.

3 See Ps. ciii. 3. The forms occur in some other Psalms, generally set down as late ones; but they are also found in 2 Kings iv. 1-7, a fact that is highly perplexing to those who treat them as evidence of date. 4 Vol. ii. p. 431. Cf. Jennings, vol. ii. p. 174.

Four Friends,' who are by far the gravest offenders in this respect. Of Ps. xxvii. we are told that 'the fourth verse in its present form must have been written after the Temple was built' (p. 68); while in the introduction to Ps. xxiii. we are gravely told that 'the mention of "God's house" in this, as in the twenty-seventh Psalm, requires that both alike, at least in their present shape, should be assigned to a period subsequent to the building of the Temple' (p. 70). On p. 439 we are informed that 'internal criticism has shewn that many of the existing superscriptions are unquestionably erroneous;' and as specimens, it is mentioned that 'it is impossible to conceive that David could write in the fourteenth Psalm, "When Jehovah turneth the captivity of His people, then shall Jacob rejoice," or that at any period of his life he could have used the words contained in the last two verses of the fifty-first Psalm.' Still more curious is the information conveyed in the introduction to this fifty-first Psalm (p. 194):— 'At the time when this Psalm was written, the rites of the ceremonial law, while still suggesting the metaphors of the Psalmist, have fallen into abeyance, for the city and Temple have been overthrown.' One is really inclined to wonder whether the 'Four Friends' have some secret source of information, some ancient document describing in full the circumstances under which the Psalms were composed; but no— they refer us to verses 18 and 19 of the Psalm itself, as the source of this remarkable piece of information! We would gently suggest that the verses in question contain no mention. whatever of the temple, and that the Psalmist himself must surely have been unaware that 'the rites of the ceremonial law had fallen into abeyance' when he wrote the sixteenth verse, ‘Thou desirest no sacrifice, else would I give it Thee.1

Let us turn from theories to facts. With regard to the expressions 'temple,' and 'house of God,' they are, as we are glad to see, noted both by the Dean of Peterborough and by Mr. Jennings, equally applicable to the Tabernacle as to the Temple of Solomon. (1) The word rendered temple (?') properly means a palace, in which sense it occurs three times in the Psalter (xlv. 9, 16; cxliv. 12), and frequently in other books (eg. 1 Kings xxi. 1, 'the palace of Ahab'; 2 Kings xx. 18, 'the palace of the King of Babylon' 2). Now the

is

1 On this verse Dr. Kay aptly quotes from Hammond:- The truth the Mosaical law allows no reconciliation, no sacrifice, for such wilful sins' (Heb. x.).

2 Other instances are Prov. xxx. 28; Is. xiii. 22; xxxix. 7; Dan. i. 4; Nahum ii. 7.

Tabernacle in its day, as the seat of Jehovah's presence, was quite as much His palace as was the Temple in later years, and therefore it need excite no surprise that the term should be applied to it, not only in Davidic Psalms, but (as is unquestionably the case) in I Sam. i. 9, and iii. 3. (2) Nor does the expression 'house of God' by any means necessarily denote a building of solid masonry, as the 'Four Friends' seem to imagine, for the same word house (na) is applied to the tent of Abraham (Gen. xvii. 12, 13, 27; cf. xviii.1); to the fir trees, as the home of the stork (Ps. civ. 17); and to the place where Jacob first rested on his flight towards Haran (Gen. xxviii. 17), 'How dreadful is this place! this is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven'; cf. verse 22 :-'This stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house.' Further, the term is as a matter of fact applied to the Tabernacle in eleven passages, outside the Psalter, where no one can by any possibility doubt its meaning. The passages are the following:Exod. xxiii. 19; xxxiv. 26; Deut. xxiii. 18; Josh. vi. 24; ix. 23; Judges xviii. 31; xix. 18; 1 Sam. i. 7, 20; iii. 15; and Sam. xii. 24. We commend them to the notice of the 'Four Friends,' in the hope that a careful study of them may induce them to modify their language should another edition of their work ever be called for.

[ocr errors]

We pass on to consider the expression 'turn the captivity.' It is found in the Psalter some four times in all-viz., xiv. 7; liii. 7; lxxxv. 2; and cxxvi. 4. In the last of these passages there can be no reasonable doubt that it does refer to the Babylonish Captivity, and it may have the same reference in Ps. lxxxv., though the expressions there used would equally well apply to the narrative contained in 2 Chr. xxviii. 5-20.1 But Pss. xiv. and liii. are both attributed to David. What then are we to say of the verse, When the Lord turneth the captivity of His people: then shall Jacob rejoice, and Israel shall be glad '? Simply this, that the expression is a proverbial one, suited to any period of national depression, for it means no more than restore to prosperity, and has not necessarily the slightest connexion with the Babylonish Captivity. The first passage in our Bibles where it occurs is Deut. xxx. 3, 'The Lord thy God will turn thy captivity,' but this, we shall perhaps be told, is a passage of late date, and therefore not to be relied on. We pass on, therefore, to the next occurrence

1 Though the actual word captivity (naw) does not occur in this passage, yet the kindred word is found in verse 17, and the verb nay is used no less than three times (verses 5, 8, 17).

« ПретходнаНастави »