'helped to chant' the words as originally written, 'when the procession with the ark wound its way up the hill of Zion.' There remain now three special reasons urged by Bishop Colenso for the priority of the Psalm, which will require consideration, in addition to those more general arguments concerning the change of the divine names just discussed.

1. It is said, that 'v.1 of the Psalm is closely connected with the words that follow, and has all the appearance of being an original utterance, poured forth by the same impulse which gave birth to them.'

Ans. The closeness of the connection simply amounts to this.-That which is stated in v.1 in simple prose, is repeated in v.2 in poetical metaphor, and completed in v.3 by a contrast with the good, and their relations to God. 'Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered; let them also that hate him flee before him. As smoke is driven away, drive them away; as the melting of wax before fire, let the wicked perish at the presence of God. But let the righteous rejoice, let them exult before God; yea, let them be jubilant in rejoicing.' An expansion certainly quite as natural and probable, if v.1 were a quotation, as if it were original. It is to be noted also, that the antithesis in Nu.x 35-6 is maintained by the watchword used on encamping, 'Return, Jehovah, upon the myriads of Israel', not as here by the direct contrast of the evil and the good. Had the author of the Pentateuchal narrative copied the first watchword from this Psalm would he not more probably have used the whole of the passage, which seemed so complete and closely connected'?

2. It is said that 'in the Psalm we have the older grammatical forms

יָנְסוּ יָפְצוּ אֹיְבֶיךָ where the other has יָנוּסוּ יָפוּצוּ אוֹיְבָיו

Ans. The difference, it will be observed, merely consists in the manner of writing the vowels and, whether with or without the , and does not in any way affect the sense. It is asserted that the insertion of is the more

ancient way of writing, and may therefore be regarded as a reliable sign of date. Passing over the a priori improbability, that the language should have undergone so notable a change within the few years which Bishop Colenso supposes to have intervened between the composition of the Psalm and the passage in Numbers, a point he seems entirely to have overlooked, we may reply to this as follows.

(i.) The manner of writing these vowels is one of the points upon which manuscripts frequently differ, so that we can never be quite sure which way the original document was written. It is remarkable that in this very passage (Ps.lxviii.2) several Hebrew Mss. read Y as in Nu.x.35, and not the 'older form'.

(ii) The first word mentioned enemy', is found twice besides in the same Psalm (v.22,24), and on both occasions according to the more modern form, and not 'the older'. Both in fact occur commonly in David's Psalms, but the modern form most frequently.

(iii.) This old form is found in seven places in the Pentateuch, Ex.xv.6,9, Lev.xxvi. 25, Nu.xxxv.23,Dt.xxxii.27,42,xxxiii.27. All of which Bishop Colenso would regard as written after Ps.lxviii.; four, indeed, as coming from the hand of Jeremiah.

(iv.) It is found besides, in Judges 5 times, Job twice, 1 Kings 3 times, 1 Chronicles 4 times, 2Chronicles 5 times, Proverbs twice, Psalms of David's age 24 times, later Psalms 11 times (three of these are in Ps.lxxiv. which is admitted by Bishop Colenso to have been written during the captivity at Babylon), Isaiah twice, Jeremiah 3 times, Lamentations 8 times, Ezekiel once, Micah once, Hosea once, Nahum once, Ezra twice, Nehemiah 3 times, Esther once. All of which ought consequently to be regarded as of earlier date than Nu.x.35.

(v.) The second word mentioned scatter', is found in this old form only here in the Psalms. It occurs also in Gen.xi.4; once in 2Chronicles, twice in Jeremiah, twice in Ezekiel, once in Zephaniah, and twice in Zechariah. In all 10 times, 8 of which date either in or after the reign of Josiah.

(vi.) The third mentioned word D flee', is nowhere else found according to this 'older form' in the Psalms of David. It occurs, however, 11 times in the Pentateuch, Gen.xix. 20,Ex.xiv.25, xxi.13,Nu.xxxv.15,26,32, Deut.xix.3,4,5,xxviii.7,25.

(vii.) Besides these instances it is found, in Joshua 4 times, Judges once, 2Samuel 4 times, 1Kings once, 2Kings once, 1Chronicles twice, 2Chronicles once, Proverbs once, later Psalms twice, Isaiah 4 times, Jeremiah 3 times, Amos 3 times.

(viii.) On the whole, these older forms' of the three words in question occur 19 times in the Pentateuch, 12 times in other historical books probably composed before the reign of David, 31 times in David's Psalms and the historical books of the same period, 74 times in writings certainly later. A pretty clear proof that they are no indications of time whatever. 3. This Psalm contains the ancient name of God, 'Shaddai' (the Almighty) v.14.

Ans. This name is to be found in many of the later books, e.g. Ruth,i.20, 21, Is.xiii.6,Ezek.i.24,x.5,Joel,i.15, besides Ps.xci.1 (a Jehovistic one), and Nu.xxiv.4,16. Its occurrence cannot therefore be regarded as any sign of date.

No satisfactory evidence of priority being thus discoverable on behalf of the Psalm, let us look at the matter from the other point of view, and see what grounds there are for assigning it to a later date than the Pentateuch. These may be briefly summed up as follows.

1. The Psalm contains the expression 'my God, my King'

(v.24), a title which is common in writings of the time of David and later, but which is not once found in the Pentateuch.

2. The opening verse is not the only part of the Psalm which reminds us of the Pentateuch. v.33-4. To him that rideth (2) upon the heavens of heavens of old (D); lo, he doth send out his voice, a voice of might. Ascribe ye might unto God; his excellency (N) is over Israel, and his might in the sky' (p), are strikingly like Deut.xxxiii.26-7. There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth () upon the heavens in thy help, and in his excellency (IN) on the sky('pņi). The God of ancient times (D) is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.' Here, without any direct quotation, is an amount of similarity, which makes it highly probable that one was taken from the other. The blessing of Moses is certainly the simpler of the two, and therefore probably the more ancient.

3. There is also another clear case of quotation, this time from the book of Judges. In the song of Deborah and Barak, Jud.v. 4-5, we read as follows; 'Jehovah, when thou wentest out of Seir, when thou marchedst out of the field of Edom, the earth shook, the heavens dropped, the thick clouds also dropped water. Mountains flowed down from before Jehovah, that Sinai from before Jehovah God of Israel.' In Ps.lxviii.7-8 we have, 'God, when thou wentest out before thy people, when thou marchedst through the waste, the earth shook, the heavens also dropped from before God; that Sinai from before God, the God of Israel.' The points of divergence it will be seen are, (1.) the change of Jehovah for Elohim; (2.) the substitution of general expressions, thy people,' 'the waste,' for particular names, 'Seir,' 'the field of Edom;' (3.) the expansion of the idea of rain being given from God, in v.9 of the Psalm, 'Showers of abundance thou, O God, didst send about; thine inheritance, when weary, thou didst establish,' in place of the

*It is found 20 times in the Psalms, 4 times in Isaiah, 4 times in Jeremiah, 3 times in Zechariah, and once in Malachi.

abrupt transition in the song. Bishop Colenso naturally regards the first of these differences as decisive for the priority of the Psalm. But after all that has been said it were unnecessary further to combat this position. It stands upon the same footing as the quotation in v.1, and must be judged in the same way. The other points of difference are certainly in favour of the priority of the song. A yet farther quotation from the same source is to be found in v.18, thou capturedst captives,' a phrase suggested doubtless by the expression in Jud.v.12, 'capture thy captives, thou son of Abinoam.' This would serve to establish Ps.lxviii. as later, not only than the Pentateuch, but also than the book of Judges.*

6

Looking back now upon the whole of our investigations concerning the Psalms, we see in every part the strongest ground, not only for rejecting Bishop Colenso's theory as to the origin of the name Jehovah, and the Samuelistic authorship of the earlier portions of the Pentateuch, but also for believing implicitly in the pre-Davidic origin of the whole volume, and even of some of its historical successors. It matters not whether we inquire into the general characteristics of the Psalms, and their usage of the divine names, or whether we minutely examine the peculiarities of one selected instance, the conclusion to be deduced is still the same. The name Jehovah must have been introduced long before the days of David, the Pentateuch must have been in existence before his accession to the throne.

*The objection made by Bishop Colenso, that it is unlikely that David should have borrowed so many passages of his song from other documents, is one which refutes itself; since it is surely quite as unlikely that three writers (according to his theory), two of them poets of as high standing as David, should have drawn upon this one Psalm for materials, and neglected all the others, as that David should have culled from them choice passages of ancient poetry to enrich his own composition, and carry back his hearers to those early times to which such frequent allusion is made.

CHAPTER V.

SIGNS OF TIME IN THE FIRST FOUR BOOKS.

(BISHOP COLENSO, PART II., CHAP. V.-VI., P. 198-222.)

LEAVING now, for a time, the discussion of the origin and date of the name Jehovah, with which the two last chapters have been principally concerned, we proceed to consider the third division of Bishop Colenso's argument for post-Mosaic authorship,—that founded upon the occurrence in the Pentateuch of anachronisms and other similar signs of later origin (see p.40-1); merely omitting for convenience' sake those which concern the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua, which will find place further on.

These signs of later date, are divided by Bishop Colenso into two classes, according to their importance and conclusiveness, the latter part being, he admits, capable of some explanation consistent with the generally received notion of the date of the Pentateuch, the former, we must suppose, he would say, not. We shall consider them seriatim.

1. In Ex.xxx.13,xxxviii.24,25,26, the 'shekel of the Sanctuary' is mentioned as well-known, before the Sanctuary was in existence.

This has been already fully considered and refuted (Hist. Charact. Pent. p.51 note). The phrase is introduced as used by God when giving directions about the construction of the Sanctuary, and the tax which was to be levied for its establishment. The shekel is not referred to as well-known, but rather as something new, since its weight (20 gerahs) is carefully defined. A circumstance very unlikely to have occurred had the passage been