where it affected only foreigners, as the Arabians in 2Ch.xxvi.7. The passage would now run- —until they came to Gedor-Baal, to the east of the Valley '-where the name 'Gedor-Baal,' would be used by a prolepsis, as e.g. 'Ebenezer' is used in 1S.iv.1, v.1, before the name is given in 18.vii.12.

42. We have now finished the examination of the passage in Chronicles, though we have by no means exhausted the proofs of Prof. Dozy's position. We have done enough, however, to show the very great importance of his researches, and to commend his book to the attention of English students. It will be seen that his view, as to the worship of Baal having been prevalent in Israel in the time of Saul, and having been most probably established by the Simeonites at Mecca, accords entirely with our own conclusions, which are quite independent of his, and do not on all points agree with them.

left in the less-studied Book of Chronicles, 1Ch. viii.33,34, ix.39,40, xiv.7), are changed into Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth, Elyadah, 2S.ii.8, &c. iv.4, &c.v.16. This appears to have been done by the later scribes. Dozy, p.43, note.

279

APPENDIX II.

THE ELOHISTIC AND JEHOVISTIC PSALMS CONSIDERED, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE REMARKS OF REV. J. J. S. PEROWNE AND

THE BISHOP (HAROLD BROWNE) OF ELY.

1. We have seen in the body of this volume (302), that the Elohist abstains altogether from using the name Jehovah during the whole of Genesis, and only employs it after he has introduced it as revealed supernaturally to Moses in E.vi.2-7. The Second Elohist-whether a different writer from the Jehovist, or the Jehovist himself, as we believe, in the first stage of his literary labour-likewise abstains from using the name Jehovah throughout the Book of Genesis. The Jehovist, in those Jehovistic passages, which appear to have been first written by him *—that is, as we suppose, after he had already written those ascribed to the Second Elohistuses the name Jehovah, but not very freely; and the Second Jehovist uses it once. But in his later additions the Jehovist uses the name 'Jehovah' habitually, and in his latest almost exclusively, as the Personal Name for the Deity.

2. This is, of course, quite in accordance with our view as to the later introduction of the name Jehovah. We suppose that, when the first supplementary insertions were made, this Name was not common in the mouth of the people at large; and the writer therefore naturally adhered to the example which he had before him of the Elohist, his predecessor, in abstaining wholly from the employment of it in the inconsiderable additions made by him at this time to the Book of Genesis. When the next series of interpolations was made, after a further lapse of ten or fifteen years, the name was becoming more familiar; and, accordingly, it drops

* Among these we reckon the remarkable passage G.xxi.33, where he records that Abraham 'planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of Jehovah, El Everlasting,'- -an expression for the Divine Being, which occurs nowhere else in the Pentateuch, and reads almost as a formula of a transition from the older name (Elohim) to the new (Jehovah); and xliii.14,xlix.25 where he uses the old name 'El Shaddai,' which occurs only with the Elohist elsewhere in the whole Bible, except Ez.x.5, though ‘Shaddai' is used occasionally, but very rarely, except in the Book of Job.

occasionally from the writer's pen. Once more, in still later years, he takes in hand the manuscript, with the purpose of making some further important additions; and now the name is so fully recognised as the Great Name of Israel's God, that he decides to break through altogether the plan of the original writer, and sets the origin of the Name Jehovah far back in the earliest ages. Hence he first inserts G.ii.4-iii.24, in which he couples 'Jehovah' twenty times with 'Elohim,' to show that the Being spoken of under each name is one and the same; then in G.iv he drops Elohim,' and henceforward habitually uses 'Jehovah' as the Proper Name of the Deity.

3. It is observable also that in the passages ascribed to the Elohist and Second Elohist we never find any phrase such as Elohim of Abraham,' 'Elohim of Isaac,' 'Elohim of my (thy, his, your, their) father,' 'thy Elohim,' except in the promise xvii.8 (E), ‘I will be their Elohim,'—all which phrases seem to belong to a time, when 'Jehovah' had been recognised as the name of the national Deity of Israel, and when it was desired to show that this same Jehovah' had been the Stay and Strength of their fathers of old in the days of their sojournings. And this, indeed, was substantially true. The Being, the 'Living God,'-whom any of their pious forefathers served, in whom any of them trusted-was the same then as nowthe El Everlasting'-'the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever'-by whatever Name He might be called among men.

4. But the phenomenon here observed, of the Name Jehovah' being gradually used by the Jehovist with greater frequency as time progressed with him, is exactly the same as that which we have noticed in Part II with respect to the Book of Psalms. It was there shown that in those Psalms, which from internal evidence appear to be of the oldest date, ‘Jehovah' is not used at all, or is used very sparingly, ‘Elohim' being almost constantly employed: while in the later Psalms 'Jehovah' is used with much greater frequency, and at last almost exclusively. The difficulty in treating this question arose, we found, from our great uncertainty as to the age of most of the Psalms, the Titles being generally untrustworthy, and the internal evidence not sufficiently decisive to fix the date of their composition.

5. In fact in the whole Book of Psalms there were only two, as it seemed to us, which could with a certain degree of confidence be assigned to the age of David. Others might, and probably did, belong to it. But the evidence in their case was not conclusive; and it was felt to be unsafe to found any argument upon it. Only with respect to Ps.lx and Ps.lxviii it seemed to us impossible to assign any other age for their composition than the middle part of David's life. And, of these two Psalms, Ps.lx contained Elohim' exclusively (E. 5,J.0), and Ps.lxviii contained 'Elohim' thirty-one times, and 'Adonai' seven times, but Jehovah' only four times. We argued that here was a strong indication-especially in the last grand Psalm, written apparently for some great public occasion, and in fact, as is generally supposed, for that of the bringing-up of the Ark in David's time to the Tabernacle on Mount Zion-that the name ‘Jehovah' was not in common popular use at the time when these Psalms were written. It seemed impossible that Psalms exhibiting

such phenomena could have been composed by any pious writer, if the case had been otherwise in the age in which they lived, i.e. if the Name Jehovah' had been fully recognised in their days and habitually employed-at least, by devout and earnest men, such as the writer (or writers) of these Psalms must have been-as the One True Name of the God of Israel.

6. I see no reason whatever at present to abandon the above position: rather, I am strongly confirmed in the conviction that the argument in question is sound, and will bear investigation. It is true that my position on this point has been violently assailed-and somewhat ungenerously, as it seems to me, by some, who were better able than others to appreciate the labour which has been spent by me on this enquiry, and the honest effort which I have made to search after the truth. In Part II I have gone fully into the question with respect to each of these two Psalms, and have not only given at length the reasons for my own views, but have set before the reader those also of HUPFELD, EWALD, OLSHAUSEN, and HENGSTENBERG, the writers whose opinions on the subject it seemed at that time most necessary to consider. I have nothing to change in that portion of my Work, and nothing to withdraw or alter, except on one point of no importance, as noted below. But some additional comments have since come into my hands from writers entitled to respect, and I think it right to submit them here to the reader's consideration, with my own remarks upon them.

7. The Rev. J. J. S. PEROWNE writes generally upon this subject as follows, Psalms I.p.lxxxiv:—

'No probable explanation of this phenomenon has yet been given. EWALD supposes that the collector of the Second Book purposely changed the name throughout all these Psalms from Jehovah to Elohim, influenced, perhaps, by the same sort of superstitious feeling, which prevents the modern Jews from uttering the sacred Name Jehovah. But there is no foundation for such an hypothesis, nor is it consistent with the fact that the later Psalms have by preference the name Jehovah.*

The attempts of HENGSTENBERG and others, and recently of some English critics, [among others, of most of my opponents, Ed.] to show that the two names are always used with reference to their distinct meaning,-'Jehovah' as the covenantGod of Israel, 'Elohim' as God, the creator and governor of the world,―must be regarded as equally unsatisfactory. One fact entirely overthrows it, viz. that the same Psalm appears both in a Jehovistic and Elohistic recension.

'Bishop COLENSO's theory is the most extravagant of all. As, according to him, Samuel introduced the name Jehovah, so this name is first found in the later Psalms of David,' and in those portions of the Pentateuch which are later than Samuel, the Elohistic Psalms being earlier than the Jehovistic sections of the

* Still less does it accord with the fact, that 'Jehovah' occurs repeatedly in the Psalms of Book II itself, e. g. xlvi(E.7,J.3), xlvii(E.8, J.2), xlviii(E.8,J.2), lv(E.6,J.2), lix(E.9,J.3), lxviii(E.31,J.4), lxix(E.10,J.5), lxx(E.3, J.2), lxxi(E.9,J.3).-Ed.

Pentateuch. But all the facts are against such a theory. The Psalms of the First Book, (which he scarcely notices,) are by the consent of all critics the earliest in the collection," , and these are Jehovistic. Many of David's later Psalms (as li,lx,kxiii, &c.) are Elohistic, many of his earlier Jehovistic." Other Psalms of the age of Hezekiah, (or at the earliest of Jehoshaphat), as xlvi-xlviii, and Psalms confessedly of the period of the Exile," are Elohistic. How impossible it is to contend that Elohim is a mark of antiquity in a Psalm, Jehovah of a more recent date! This has been well argued by Prof. HAROLD Browne (now Bishop of ELY) in his Reply to Bishop COLENSO.10 His criticisms, both on the Psalms and on the Pentateuch, are, I rejoice to find, on many important points, confirmatory of my own.'

8. To the above I reply as follows.

(1) I have not stated that the name Jehovah is first found in the later Psalms of David': on the contrary, it is found four times in lxviii, which I maintain to be a Psalm out of the fourteenth year of David's reign, and earlier than lx, which does not contain Jehovah at all. What I have maintained may be stated thusThere is not a single Psalm containing ‘Jehovah' predominantly, which can be shown from internal evidence to be certainly older than Ps.lxviii.

(2) Nor have I said that Jehovah is 'first found in those portions of the Pentateuch which are later than Samuel'; for I have argued that Samuel used it himself in the later portions of the Elohistic narrative.

(3) Nor have I maintained that the Elohistic Psalms are earlier than the Jehovistic sections of the Pentateuch': for some of the Elohistic Psalms of Book II-i.e. Psalms in which 'Elohim' is used predominantly-contain repeatedly 'Jehovah,' (as I have shown above, note, p.281), and therefore might have been even written by the Jehovist himself.

(4) My theory' is this, that Elohistic Psalms, such as lx and lxviii, in which Jehovah occurs not at all, or occurs very rarely in comparison with 'Elohim,' cannot have been written at a time when Jehovah was universally recognised, as the most high and holy name of the God of Israel. I believe these Psalms to belong to the Davidic age. I conclude therefore that in that age the name 'Jehovah,' though it had been for some time used by some devout persons as the name of Israel's God, had not yet acquired universal currency. And I maintain that the facts' are not against such a theory,' while it accords thoroughly with the conclusions, to which I have been led by other perfectly distinct processes of reasoning.

(5) In my First Edition of Part II, I had examined on p.324,326-328, all the Psalms of Book I, which seemed to me to 'exhibit any signs of the time when they were composed.' I have subsequently with great care gone through all the Psalms of this Book again; and, in an Appendix to the later editions of Part II, I have made some additional remarks upon Psalms xvii,xxxv,xxxvi,xl. And I now

* It will be seen by any one, who has followed my reasoning with any attention, that Mr. PEROWNE has greatly mistaken and misstated my theory, as is shown also below.-Ed.