frequently in the Second Division (31 times), than in the First (10 times), or Third (8 times).

This use of Elohim cannot be explained on internal grounds. It stands precisely as Jehovah does elsewhere, and not unfrequently the substitution leads to awkwardness of expression. Thus, for example, Ps. 1. 7 is taken from Ex. xx. 2; “I am God thy God" is clearly the equivalent of "I am Jehovah thy God"; lxviii. 1, 2, 7, 8 are based upon Num. x. 35; Judg. v. 4, 5, 31; lxxi. 19 is from Ex. xv. 11; and in each case Elōhim takes the place of Jehovah. More striking still is the fact that in two Psalms which are repeated from Book I (liii=xiv; lxx=xl. 13 ff.), the alteration is made, though in Ps. lxx Jehovah still occurs twice.

To what then is this peculiarity due? Is it characteristic of a particular style of writing? or is it the work of an editor or compiler?

It seems certain (1) from the alteration in Psalms adopted from Book I, (2) from the variety of the sources from which the Psalms in this group are derived, that the change is, in part at least, due to the hand of an editor. It may no doubt have been the usage of certain writers. It has been suggested that it was

a custom in the family of Asaph, connected possibly with the musical or liturgical use of the Psalms. But even if the peculiarity was due in some instances to the author, there can be little doubt that, in the group as a whole, it is due to the. collector or editor.

It seems clear also that the substitution of Elōhim for Jehovah was not due to the superstitious avoidance of the use of the Sacred Name in later times1. The Elohistic collection is by no means the latest part of the Psalter. Books IV and V are composed of Psalms the majority of which are unquestionably of later date than those in the Elohistic group. But in these books the name Jehovah is used throughout, with the exceptions noted above. The compiler of Book V knew the Elohistic Psalms in their present form: and so apparently did the com

1 The use of Elōhīm as a proper name, without the article, must be distinguished from the use of Elohim with the article (D) in some of the later books of the O.T., e.g. Chronicles and Ecclesiastes.

piler of Ps. lxxxvi, in the appendix to the Elohistic collection, as may be inferred from a comparison of v. 14 with liv. 4 f.

The suggestion has been made that the compiler's object was to shew that the God of Israel was not merely a national God, and to counteract the Jewish spirit of exclusiveness1. Another suggestion is that the collection was thus adapted for the use of the exiles and Israelites in the dispersion, with a view to avoid the repetition of the Sacred Name in a heathen land2. But no positive result can be arrived at. The relation of the 'Elohistic' Psalms to the 'Elohistic' documents in the Pentateuch3 is also an obscure question, which needs further investigation.

The argument for the original independence of the three divisions which is derived from the use of the names of God is corroborated:

(a) By the repetition in the Second Division of Psalms found in the First, and in the Third of Psalms found in the Second. Thus liii=xiv: lxx=xl. 13 ff.: cviii=lvii. 7-11, lx. 5—12.

(b) By the note appended to Ps. lxxii, "The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended." This note, whether taken over from an earlier collection by the editor of Books II and III, or inserted by him, appears to shew that he knew of no more Davidic Psalms, or at any rate that his collection contained no more. Clearly therefore his collection must have been independent of Books IV and V, which contain several more Psalms ascribed to David.

(c) By the difference already noticed in regard to titles. In this respect the Third Division is markedly distinguished from the First and Second. In these the Psalms with but few easily explained exceptions have titles, giving the name of the author or the collection from which the Psalm was taken, in many cases the occasion, and some musical or liturgical description or direction. But in the Third Division the majority of the

1 Cp. Ottley, Aspects of the O.T., p. 191.

2 Only in the Temple, according to Jacob (ZATW, 1896, p. 158), was

the Sacred Name JHVH pronounced.

3 On these see Driver, Lit. of O. T.o, pp. 116 ff.

4 Cp. Job xxxi. 40.

Psalms are anonymous; musical and liturgical directions are rare; and titles of the obscure character of many of those in Divisions I and II are entirely absent. Moreover the musical term Selah, which occurs 17 times in Division I, and 50 times in Division II, is found but four times in Division III, and then in two Psalms ascribed to David (cxl, cxliii).

(d) By the character of the contents of the three divisions. Speaking broadly and generally, the Psalms of the First Division are personal, those of the Second, national, those of the Third, liturgical. There are numerous exceptions, but it is in the First Division that personal prayers and thanksgivings are chiefly to be found: in the Second, prayers in special times of national calamity (xliv, lx, lxxiv, lxxix, lxxx, lxxxiii, lxxxix), and thanksgivings in times of national deliverance (xlvi, xlvii, xlviii, lxxv, lxxvi, lxv-lxviii): in the Third, Psalms of praise and thanksgiving for general use in the Temple services (xcii, Xcv-c, cv-cvii, cxi-cxviii, cxx- —cxxxvi, cxlvi—cl).

The various steps in the formation of the Psalter may have been somewhat as follows:

(1) An original collection, which bore the name Psalms (or, Prayers) of David, from its first and greatest poet, though poems by other writers were not excluded from it. It has already been suggested (p. xxxii) that the general title of the collection was subsequently transferred to each separate Psalm in the First Group which was taken from it.

(2) The formation of another 'Davidic' collection, and the two Levitical hymnaries belonging to the families of Korah and Asaph.

(3) The 'Elohistic' collection was formed by the union of selections of Levitical Psalms from the Korahite and Asaphite hymnaries with another selection of 'Davidic' Psalms, and 'Elohistically' edited.

(4) To this collection was subsequently added an appendix of Korahite and other Psalms (lxxxiv-lxxxix), which were not altered by the Elohistic editor.

(5) Other collections grew up, perhaps to some extent simultaneously with the preceding stages, and these were united in the Third Division, with a gleaning of earlier Psalms, some of

which were believed to have been written by David, or were taken from a collection bearing his name.

(6) Finally, the various collections were united in the complete Psalter.

The date of these collections cannot be determined with certainty. Reasons have been given (p. xlvii f.) for thinking that the Psalter was practically complete by about 200 B.C.; and Psalms in the Third Division were known to the chronicler a century earlier. The Second Division contains some Psalms of the period of the Monarchy; but others cannot be earlier than the Exile and Return (e.g. lxxxv). Even the First Division was probably not completed in its present form till after the Exile, though the grounds upon which Psalms in Book I are referred to the post-exilic period are less positive and convincing.

The opinion is gaining ground that "the Psalter, in all its parts, is a compilation of the post-exilic age1," but this does not exclude the possibility that pre-exilic collections of Psalms existed, side by side with prophetic and historical books. Their extent however cannot now be determined2.

The arrangement of the Psalms in the several books appears to have been determined partly by their arrangement in the smaller collections from which they were taken, where their order may have been fixed by considerations of date and authorship; partly by similarity of character and contents; partly by liturgical usage. Thus for example, we find groups of Maschil Psalms (xliii-xlv, lii—lv, lxxxviii, lxxxix), and Michtam Psalms (lvi-lx). Resemblance in character may account for the juxtaposition of 1 and li: xxxiii takes up xxxii. 11: xxxiv and xxxv both speak of 'the angel of Jehovah,' who is mentioned nowhere else in the Psalter. The title of xxxvi links it to xxxv. 27 ('servant of the LORD'): that of lvi may connect it with lv. 6. Pss. cxi-cxviii and cxlv-cl are liturgical groups.

1 Driver, Lit. of O.T., p. 386; cp. Davison, Praises of Israel, p. 29.

2 The statement in 2 Macc. ii. 13 that "Nehemiah founding a library gathered together...the writings of David” (Tà TOû Aavid), may preserve a true tradition that he had some part in the compilation of the Psalter, but what it was is quite uncertain.

CHAPTER VI.

THE FORM OF HEBREW POETRY.

ANCIENT Hebrew poetry possesses neither metre nor rhyme1. Its essential characteristic is rhythm, which makes itself apparent both in the rhythmical cadence of each separate clause, and in the rhythmical balance of clauses when they are combined in a verse.

The Hebrew language is characterised by a vigorous terseness and power of condensation which cannot be preserved in English. Hence the clauses of Hebrew poetry are as a rule short. They consist sometimes of two words only, most frequently of three words, but not seldom of more than three words.

The rhythm of the clause often reflects the thought which it expresses. Thus, for example, the lively animated rhythm of the opening stanza (vv. 1-3) of Ps. ii vividly suggests the tumultuous gathering of the nations; while the stately measure of v. 4 presents the contrast of the calm and unmoved majesty of Jehovah enthroned in heaven. Or again, the evening hymn Ps. iv sinks to rest in its concluding verse with a rhythm as reposeful as the assurance which it expresses. A peculiar rhythm known as the elegiac or Qinah rhythm, in which each line is divided by a caesura into two unequal parts, was employed in dirges, and sometimes in other poems. It is found in Lam. i-iv, and occasionally in the Psalter, e.g. in Ps. xix. 7 ff.

1. When Philo, Josephus, Eusebius, Jerome, and other early writers, compared Hebrew poetry with Greek and Latin metres, and spoke of hexameters and pentameters, sapphics, or trimeter and tetrameter iambics, they were using familiar language loosely. Various attempts have been made to discover a metrical system in the Psalms, on the basis of quantity, or of number of syllables or accents. Most of them involve the abandonment of the Massoretic vocalisation, and invoke the aid of a whole arsenal of licences.' Happily they do not concern the English reader.

Rhyme is found occasionally (e.g. viii. 3 [Heb. 4]; cvi. 4—7), but it appears to be accidental rather than intentional, and is never systematically employed. Both rhyme and metre have been used in medieval and modern Jewish poetry from the 7th cent. A.D. onwards.