especially the expression 'be smitten before those hating you,' N.xiv.42, with similar expressions occurring only (in the Pentateuch) in D.i.42,xxviii.7,25, and L.xxvi.17.

And L.xxvi, again, is, as we believe, a Deuteronomistic insertion; and at all events it is pronounced by KUENEN, Eng. Ed. p.207, to be of later origin than L.xviii-xx, while these three chapters are, according to him, p.71, 'in their present form younger than Solomon,' and, according to OORT, het Menschenoffer in Israel, p.123, 'transfer us into the very same age as Deuteronomy.'

Thus the formula in question, with its kindred formulæ, appears to be in every instance the special property of the Deuteronomist.

On the other hand, in the other portions of the Pentateuch we have always 'Ark of the Testimony,' E.xxv.22,xxvi.33,34,xxx.6,26,xxxi.7,xxxix.35,xl.3,5,21, N.iv.5, vii.89, Jo.iv.16; comp. also 'Tabernacle of the Testimony,' E.xxxviii. 21, N.i.50, 53,53,ix.15,x.11,xvii.7,8,xviii.2, 'Vail of the Testimony,' L.xxiv.3,-not one of which phrases is used by the Deuteronomist.

Hence it seems that N.x.33-36 is of Deuteronomistic origin, a conclusion confirmed by the fact that in N.x.35 we have the Pihel form, those hating thee,' as in D.xxxii.41, xxxiii.11, nowhere else in the Pentateuch; and in N.x.36 'ten thousand,' as in D.xxxii.30, xxxiii.2,17, and only twice besides in the Pentateuch, viz. G.xxiv.60, which we have shown to be (probably) Deuteronomistic (P.V.Anal.145), and L.xxvi.8, also, apparently, due to the same writer.

APPENDIX III.

THE LATER ORIGIN OF THE SONG OF DEBORAH, JU.V.1-31.

The following are the arguments which seem to us decisive against placing the date of the origin of this Song in the time of the Judges.

—no elaborate highly

(i) There are no genuine poems of any length in the Bible,— finished compositions like this,-which date from an earlier age than that of David. The poems in Genesis are all due to the Jehovist of David's time, (see note 27); the Mosaic origin of the Hymn of Moses, E.xv.1-18, is admitted by Prof. KUENEN to be doubtful (see also note 27); the prophecies of Balaam, from the reference to David himself and his conquests in N.xxiv.17-19, cannot date from an earlier time than that of David; the 'Song of Moses,' D.xxxii. 1-43, and the 'Blessing of Moses,' D.xxxiii. 1-29, belong to the still later age of the Deuteronomist. Thus we have nothing comparable to the 'Song of Deborah' in the Mosaic age, nor any poem besides whatever, that is even ascribed to the time of the Judges-except the 'Song of Hannah,' 18.ii.1-10, which is manifestly a Psalm of a later time, that has been adapted to her case, though very clumsily,-see especially v.10, 'He shall give strength unto His king, and exalt the horn of His anointed,' which could have had no meaning in her days. But, if such a splendid poem as the 'Song of Deborah' was really composed

in the very midst of the time of the Judges, and has been handed down to us in so complete and accurate a form, it would seem very strange and almost inconceivable that no traces of any other similar composition, by the same or some other writer, should have been preserved in the traditions of the people.

(ii) The fact that this Song is said to have been sung by Deborah and Barak, v.1, militates at once against the notion of its genuineness. For how can we conceive Barak to have taken any part in singing it?

(iii) Some expressions of the Song are identical with those of Ps.lxviii, as shown by the italics below.

v.3, To JHVH I will sing, I will sing-praise to v.4, Sing to Elohim, sing-praise to His Name.

JHVH.

v.4, JHVH, in Thy going forth from Seir,

In Thy marching from the field of Edom,
The earth trembled, the heavens also dropped,
The clouds also dropped water.

v.5, Before JHVH the mountains melted,

That Sinai before JHVH, the Elohim of Israel. v.12, Lead-captive Thy captivity.

v.7, Elohim, in Thy going-forth, before Thy people,

In Thy marching in the wilderness, v.8, The earth trembled, the heavens too dropped,

Before Elohim,

That Sinai before Flohim, the Elohim of Israel. v.18, Thou leddest-captive captivity.

It seems certain from the above that either the Psalmist had before him the Song of Deborah, or the writer of the Song had before him the words of the Psalm. And, that the latter was most probably the case, is seen from the fact that the 'Elohim' of the Psalm is everywhere changed to 'JHVH' in the Song: for it is far more likely that a later writer should change 'Elohim' into ‘JHVH,' than that the Psalmist should have changed 'JHVH,' the name of the covenant-God of Israel, into 'Elohim '-nay, should have changed 'JHVH, the Elohim of Israel,' into 'Elohim, the Elohim of Israel.'

Besides which, v.7,8, of the Psalm are manifestly part of the context. On the other hand, in the Song there is an appearance of an expansion of the words of the Psalm: thus the expressions from Seir,' 'from the field of Edom,' of the Song, seem equivalent to the simple phrase, 'in the wilderness,' of the Psalmist, and the additional statements, 'the clouds also dropped water,' 'the mountains melted,' are merely amplifications of the words of the Psalm, and the first of them rather a superfluous tautology.

We conclude, therefore, that the Song was written after the Psalm,—that is, after the twelfth year of David's reign, P.V.213.*

(iv) The fact that no reproach is thrown on Judah, as on Reuben, Gilead, Dan, and Asher, for not taking part in this war with the Canaanites, may be explained, perhaps, by this circumstance, that the writer lived under David, and under the sovereignty of the tribe of Judah. It can hardly be sufficiently explained by the distance of Judah from the scene of conflict, or even from this tribe being closely occupied with the Philistines (P.V.190); since Reuben was, surely, equally removed, and doubtless had also its fears from hostile neighbours as well as Judah.

* This agrees, of course, with the view expressed in P.V.App.II.49-52, as to the later origin of the name JHVH, and its gradual introduction into the religious history of Israel, and tends to support that view, but is itself altogether independent of it.

Simeon also is not named, either as being almost absorbed in Judah, or as being insignificant in numbers in the writer's time: see P.V.App.I.

(v) The fact that the tribe of Levi is not mentioned, and that not a word is put into the mouth of the Prophetess having reference to the Priesthood, Ark, or Tabernacle, seems to be decisive against the historical truth of the story in the Pentateuch. At the time when this Song was written, it is plain, the Levites could not have filled any important office in Israel. Hence it was most probably composed at some time during the reign of David, before the Temple was built, and the Priesthood had gained a more dignified position.

(vi) The language in v.8, 'Was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?' seems to refer to the early times of Saul and Samuel, 18.xiii.19-22, of which a lively tradition was still retained in the age of David. And the expression in v.10, Ye that ride on white asses,' suits the same time, as asses or mules were used by chief persons, 18.xxv.20, 2S.xvi.2, xvii.23, xix.26, 2S.xiii. 29, 1K.i.33,38,44, down to the time of Solomon, when horses seem to have been first used commonly in Israel, 1K.x.26,28,29.

APPENDIX IV.

THE COMPOSITE CHARACTER OF THE STORY OF GIDEON, JU.VI-IX.

(i) In ix Gideon is always called Jerubbaal, v.1,2,5,5,16,19,24,28,57, of which v.24,57, may be by the Compiler; whereas in vi,vii,viii, we have always 'Gideon,' (eleven times,) except in vi.32, where the name Jerubbaal is derived; and so in vii, viii, after this giving of the surname, he is still called 'Gideon' always (twentyeight times), except in vii. 1, 'Jerubbaal, who is Gideon,' viii.35, 'the house of Jerubbaal-Gideon,' and viii. 29, where Jerubbaal occurs simply, as in ix,—' and Jerubbaal, the son of Joash, went and dwelt in his own house.' It seems likely, therefore, that ix, for the most part, and probably also viii.29, are from one author, and vi,vii,viii, for the most part, from another, or, at least, from one writing at another time.

(ii) The above conclusion is confirmed by finding that in ix 'Elohim' is always used as the Personal Name for the Deity, v.7,9,13,23,56,57, (v.57, perhaps, as before, by the Compiler), never 'Jehovah': whereas in vi, vii, viii, 'Jehovah' is used forty times, and ‘Elohim,' as a Personal Name, only in vi36,39,40, vii.14, viii.3, (though it occurs also as an appellative, 'Jehovah, the Elohim of Israel,' vi.8, ‘Jehovah your (thy, their) Elohim,' vi.10,26, viii.34, 'angel of Elohim,' vi.20,) and of these five instances two, vii.14, viii.3, occur in a formula, which was almost proverbial (see P.V.p.194, note), 'Elohim gave.'

It would seem as if vi.36-40, and perhaps vii.1, introducing Gideon's surname 'Jerubbaal,' may be part of the same document as ix, and the rest of vi,vii,viii, for the most part, may be the product of another hand or of another age. This would explain also why Gideon, after the appearance of the angel of Jehovah in vi.11-24, still doubts and requires a sign in v.36-40.

(iii) Prof. KUENEN observes, i.p.210-'vi-viii exhibits so great an agreement with the Jehovistic passages of the Pentateuch, that STÄHELIN has been able to suppose that the Jehovist is the author of these chapters. This inference may go too far: it is noticeable that the agreement in question is wholly wanting in ix. This fact also leads us to ascribe to that chapter a different origin from the foregoing.'

But is the agreement in question wholly wanting in ix? Comp.ix.2, ‘I am your bone and your flesh,' with G.xxix. 14, 'Surely thou art my bone and my flesh'; and comp. also ix.3, 'for they said, He is our brother,' v.18, 'for he is your brother,' with G.xxix.15, 'for that thou art my brother.' May not Ju.ix really be, as STÄHELIN supposes, due to the Jehovist, as well as Ju.vi-viii, but have been written at an earlier period than the main portions of the latter chapters—written, for instance, about the time, in the early or middle part of David's life, in which the second set of Jehovistic insertions in Genesis (J2) were written (see P.V.287), to which G.xxix belongs, and in which he has used 'Elohim' very predominantly, or written at a yet earlier time, in the reign of Saul, when (J1) was composed, in which he has used 'Elohim,' as here, exclusively?

But, however this may be, it is plain that the story of Gideon is a composite account, due either to different authors, or to the same author writing at different times and vi.25-32 belongs apparently to the later set of insertions. If these, in accordance with our conjecture above, were written by the Jehovist at a later part of his career, e.g. in the latter part of David's reign, it is possible that in that age he may have already come to dislike the use of the name 'Baal,' inasmuch as the worship of the Baal (JHVH) in various parts of the land conflicted greatly with the effort to establish a purer worship of Jehovah on Mount Zion. It may be, therefore, that what did not offend him thirty or forty years before, when he wrote the original story of Jerubbaal,—at a time when Saul, Jonathan, and David, in the presence of Samuel and his followers, could call their sons without compunction by the name of the Baal,-was no longer tolerable. Hence, in rewriting a portion of the narrative, he may have sought to explain away the meaning of the name Jerubbaal, as expressing Gideon's devotion to the Baal, by making it arise out of an act of his, which was intended to put down the worship of the Baal and establish that of Jehovah.

This would agree with the fact that after David's time we do not find any of the kings of Judah or Israel-even the worst kings-calling their sons by the name of the Baal. It is supported also by the circumstance, mentioned already, as proving the dislike of the Prophets of David's age and afterwards for the name 'Baal,' that in no single psalm or prophecy, except Hos.ii.16, is ‘Baal' used as a synonym for Jehovah. Dr. OORT's view of the substitution of Jerubbesheth' for 'Jerubbaal' in 28.xi.21, as being intended to suppress the fact of his name having been originally compounded with 'Baal,' seems hardly tenable. For how could this unpleasant fact have been concealed, if they wrote (with Dr. OORT) 'Shame-defender' for 'Baal-defender,' or rather, as we suppose, 'Shame-strives' for 'Baal-strives'? And the same remark applies to the change of Eshbaal, Meribbaal, and Baalyadah, into Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth, and Elyadah. Clearly, in the case of the first two of these the change was made from a desire to censure, not to conceal, the fact in question, which the substituted 'Bosheth' would immediately betray,'the Bosheth' being actually used for the Baal' in Jer.iii.24, xi.13, Hos.ix.10;

comp. naloxúvn of the LXX, 1K.xviii.19,25, Jer.iii. 24, Hos.ix. 10, while in Jer.xi.13 they represent the Bosheth' of the Heb. Text by Báaλ.

From the above it might even be supposed that the changes in question might have been made as early as the time of the Deuteronomist. But we must here draw attention to the following phenomenon.

=

In the LXX version of 2S.v.14-16 we have the names of twenty-four sons of David, 'born to him in Jerusalem,' and among these are 'Exidaé – Elyadah, and Baaλiáo, compounded with Baal. But on examination it will be seen that this list is in reality only a double list of nearly the same twelve names, some of them strangely corrupted. The Heb. Text of the same passage has only eleven names; but in 1Ch.xiv.4-7 it has thirteen, which appear also in the LXX; and the LXX list of twenty-four names in 2S.v.14-16 is formed by the combination of these two lists of eleven and thirteen, as appears below.

Thus Baaλuál is evidently no new name compounded with Baal, but only a corruption of Baalyadah.

Now, it is mainained by Prof. Dozy that 'Baalyadah' was changed by the later Scribes into 'Elyadah' in 2S.v.16, but left standing in 1Ch.xiv.7, because the Books of Samuel were much more generally read than the Books of Chronicles (Dozy, p.38). And this seems to be confirmed by the following facts. In the LXX version of 2S.v.14-16, we find 'Exidaé and Baaλiμáo, that is, manifestly, both Elyadah and Baalyadah: so that the LXX translators found, probably, Elyadah in one copy of Samuel and Baalyadah in another. But the LXX has 'Jerubbaal' in 2S.xi.21 as well as in 1S.xii.11,-showing, apparently, that 'Jerubbaal' was the original reading in both passages, and that the change into 'Jerubbesheth' had been made in the Heb. Text of 2S.xi.21 at so late a time, that it had not found its way into the MSS. which the Greek translators used. There can be little doubt, therefore, that these alterations were made, as Prof. Dozy after GEIGER supposes, by Jewish Scribes after the Captivity.