really exist. The editors and compilers were not likely either to include any psalm which was too much opposed to their own conceptions, or to refrain from giving to any old psalm which they did desire to preserve a careful religious revision. Thus, as Prof. Briggs says (and he points out that, so far as prayer-books, liturgies and hymns are concerned, even modern editors have acted on similar lines), 'they had greater interest in editing the Psalms for public worship than in preserving their original form and meaning.'t Hence, even if the groundwork of some psalms is, let us say, older than the sixth century, it is very doubtful whether their religious ideas can be rightly used to illustrate an earlier age.

Wellhausen wrote: The strong family likeness which runs through the Psalms forbids our distributing them among periods of Israelitish history widely separated in time and fundamentally unlike in character.' This characteristically plain and unqualified statement is somewhat exaggerated; but that, in spite of subordinate varieties of view, there are profounder agreements can hardly be denied.

What, then, and of what nature, are these agreements? To answer this question, whether directly or indirectly, it will be well first to ask another. When we want to estimate the date of any Old Testament book as a whole, or of any portion of such book-the Law, for example, or the Proverbs or the Psalter or 'Kings'-we have first of all to ask: What is the relation of this book, or of any particular section of this book, to the prophets and to their teaching? More especially what is its relation to that group of prophets which extended from

* Many of the Psalms in their original form were composed as an expression of private devotion. These features remained even after they were adapted by editorial revision for use in the Synagogues. Many others were composed for use in public worship in the Synagogues (where the ceremonies of religion were reduced to a minimum). . . . Only a few of the Psalms were composed for, or even adapted to, worship in the Temple. ... Furthermore, local and temporal references were gradually eliminated by editorial revision from the older Psalms, making them more and more appropriate for worship' (Briggs, vol. i, p. xcv).

The changes made in the text of Psalms by their being adopted and adapted for use in the Temple (and, perhaps, also in the Synagogues) are well discussed and set forth in detail by Beer in his excellent essay, 'Individual und Gemeindepsalmen' (1894)—a book still well worth reading.

Amos to Deutero-Isaiah, or, roughly, from 740 to 540 B.C.? For, unless all our most cherished conclusions are false, it is the prophets who were the great fashioners and creators of the Israelite and Jewish religion; it is their doctrines and their teaching which have left an indelible mark and stamp upon every other section of the Old Testament scriptures-upon Law, upon History, upon the Psalms, upon the Proverbs.

What, then, in brief and general terms, were the religious achievements of the prophets in those two hundred years from 740 to 540 B.C.? First and foremost comes Monotheism. There is one God not only for Israel, but for the world. He is the Creator and the Ruler of all. And this God is not only one, but unique. He is perfect in righteousness, supremely just, compassionate and loving. Though God of the whole world, He is, in a special sense, the God of Israel. He has chosen the people of Israel for the sake of their ancestors, for His own name's sake, for the spread of His greatness and His oneness. And from the Israelites, His servants and children, He demands a single-hearted and exclusive service. No material representation of Him is permitted. No idols are allowed, no images, whether of Him, the true God, or of any other, false, lesser, or unreal divinity. His true service is not found or rendered in sacrifices or offerings, but in the service of man; in righteousness, in justice, in compassion, in lovingkindness. This one God punishes iniquity and rewards virtue; that is the fundamental principle of His rule; and it is applied to Israel no less than to the nations around Israel. But, while Israel shall be chastised for his sins, a future of glory, of prosperity, and of peace, shall ultimately be his. In those latter days inward virtue and outward happiness shall correspond and abound. Israel shall be predominant in the world, but the nations-or what is left of themshall all know and reverence Israel's God, and find in the knowledge and in the worship of Him their salvation and their peace.

Now, if we find all these teachings illustrated in the Psalter; if there is hardly a psalm that does not imply or contain one or other of them; if, with certain compromises and weakenings (such as we also observe in the Law), all

are more or less in evidence, and if some of them are even expanded and developed; then the Psalter, and, for the matter of that, each component part of the Psalter, can hardly be older than the prophets. For it was not the psalmists (so far as we can judge) who were the creators of these high teachings, but the prophets. As Amos spoke, so did not speak David. Nor can we be content to say that the anterior limit for the Psalter, in its present form, must be as early as 750 B.C.; for the teaching of the prophets must be given time to be accepted and absorbed. Hence, if some of our psalms are preexilic, they can hardly go back further than about a century before the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586. Roughly, then, we may, according to this canon, assign our oldest psalms to the beginning of the seventh century B.C. And, if we allot the youngest to about the years 170-130 B.C., we shall get a stretch of some 550 years for the composition of the whole book. It is probable that no other canons of criticism can be expected greatly to modify or invalidate these two limiting dates.

Driver, the cautious and the learned, himself more or less accepted and laid down the self-same canon :

'When the Psalms are compared with the prophets, the latter seem to show, on the whole, the greater originality; the psalmists, in other words, follow the prophets, appropriating and applying the truths which the prophets proclaimed, and bearing witness to the effects which their teaching exerted upon those who came within range of its influence.' †

From somewhat different considerations, derived mainly from a survey of the internal history of Hebrew psalmody, its classes and characteristics, Kittel and Gunkel, however anxious they are to allow the possibility of much older psalms, arrive at practically the same conclusions. A few psalms are, somewhat tentatively, reserved, either in their present, or in their unedited and original (and therefore unknown) form, for

The possibility that David, from a religious point of view, might have been competent to write some of our existing psalms is very ably, but hardly convincingly, put forward by Kittel in his article Psalmen,' in the Protestantische Realencyklopädie, xvi, pp. 206–208.

+ 'Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,' 9th Ed. p. 384.

the pre-prophetic period. But the great majority are post-prophetic, while the majority of this majority, says Kittel, belong unquestionably' to the post-exilic period, and especially to the centuries of Jewish contact with heathen, and above all with Hellenic, ways and life.' With this verdict we may concur.

It is interesting to observe the various ways in which the psalms reflect the teachings of the prophets, or apply them. Monotheism is assumed. The phase of conflict is, broadly speaking, over. In a large number of cases we may trace the influence, and hear the echoes, of Isaiah xl-lv; and, even where this is not the case, the monotheistic basis seems equally secured. Other gods and idols are here and there referred to, but chiefly in irony and derision; the idea of any rival to Yahweh does not enter the writers' minds. The character, moreover, of this one and unique God is represented in accordance with prophetic teaching. The Lord is righteous and loves righteousness; He is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works; He is compassionate: He is loving: He is faithful.

But the psalmists not only reproduce this teaching; they apply it. And it is just here where a real and important difference comes in, according as the 'I' of the Psalter is interpreted to mean what it says, or is given a rigidly 'national' or 'collective' interpretation. Phrases such as, 'My soul pants after Thee, O God, as the hart pants after the water brooks,' mean something very different, and very much less spiritual, if the 'I' is not intended to be the writer, but only the community; the cry, Create in me a clean heart, O God,' has a very much poorer significance, if it is not the heart of the writer which thus calls out unto God, but is only a dramatic and fictitious utterance put into the mouth of Israel. In the one case, we have the record of a genuine spiritual experience; in the other, an elegant and ingenious suggestion. Moreover, the very meaning of a pure heart or of a contrite spirit differs according as it is applied to an individual or to a community. We have only to turn to Wellhausen's interpretation of the famous 51st psalm (in the Polychrome or 'Rainbow' Bible) to see to what a comparatively low spiritual level a rigid application of the congregational or collective meaning of the

'I' has reduced this glorious psalm. Happily the arguments of Kittel, Gunkel, Balla and others can set our minds at rest on this point. Though the 'I' is sometimes representative and sometimes collective' (for Balla in his thoroughgoing denials goes too far), yet, in the great spiritual psalms, there need be no doubt that it is not only an individual who has written the poem, but one who is telling of his own experiences and his own personal feelings and convictions.

The psalmists, then, may be said to apply the teaching of the prophets to the religious life of the individual. To the prophets the two responding poles of religion are God and society. To many of the psalmists the two poles are God and the soul. They deal with the intimate relation of the individual man to God, such as the prophets had depicted Him. They experiment with the prophets' God; they have experience of Him.

'The Lord is my shepherd,' not merely the shepherd of Israel. And He is not only the soul's shepherd; many other familiar metaphors are used to express His relation to the individual Israelite. He is rock, stronghold, fortress, shield; He is a hiding place and a refuge; under His sheltering wings a man can feel himself secure and at rest. God quenches fear. For, if the Lord is my strength, of whom need I be afraid? God is near and findable; call upon Him, and He will reveal Himself. As a weaned child with his mother, so can the tired spirit repose in God. For He gives peace and composure; He cures fretfulness and restlessness; in the multitude of a man's cares, God's comforts can uplift his soul. He heals the broken-hearted; He binds up their wounds. God is light, and the source of light; in His light we can see light. Above all, God is a joy; to experience His nearness, to commune with Him, is happiness unique and incomparable. He satisfies the longing soul. They who trust in Him are glad. 'In the shadow of Thy wings I rejoice. My soul follows hard after Thee: Thy right hand upholds me.' The omniscient and omnipresent God is also a God whose lovingkindness, faithfulness, and righteousness, extend from heaven to earth.* In His presence is fulness

* No sacred book of any nation has solved this fundamental problem of all religion, how to preserve at the same time the Infinity and the