Aids to the Devout Study of Criticism

Front matter

Google to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

Part I. THE DAVID-NARRATIVES Part II. THE BOOK OF PSALMS BY THB RBV

T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D.

ORIBL PROFBSSOR OP THB INTERPRBTATION OP HOLY SCRIPT URB IN THE UNIVERSITY OP OXFORD ; CANON OF ROCHESTER

T. fisher'unwin

PATERNOSTER SQUARE

MDCCCXCII

I

I '

Preface

The need of a distinctly critical and yet simply and devoutly Christian treatment of the Old Testament for educated persons was forcibly brought home to me when in 1886 I first went into summer residence as a Canon of Rochester. I found an open field, and the only question was whether with an experience gathered first in the university and then in a country parish I could do anything for the busy but thoughtful population of a large town. What I tried to do for such persons I have told them sermon-wise in some pages of this volume (see Part II., Chap, ii.), and I will only say here that one course of sermon-studies, published under the title of The Hallowing of Criticism^ had the good fortune to be recommended by the beloved Bishop Thorold (then of Rochester, now of Winchester) to his South London clergy. I now publish in a revised and less homivi PREFACE, letical form, and with the addition of much interwoven illustrative matter, not only the chief of last year's cathedral sermons (those on David and on Psalm li.), but also a selection from those of several previous summers, and I offer them, not only, nor even chiefly, to churchmen of the diocese of Rochester, but to those who, in whatever place or of whatever communion, are pursuing in a devout spirit the critical study of the Scriptures. In short, I venture (encouraged by the opinion of so experienced a teacher as Canon Bernard of Salisbury') to hope that what I prepared in the first instance for Rochester may be useful in its present enlarged form to those who take part in the * higher religious education ' elsewhere. The critical analysis of the Books of Samuel happens, for instance, to be at

present accessible in no other book. Oxford, Easter Monday^ 1892.

Note. — i. The following abbreviations are employed : — Var, j5., * Variorum Bible.* A,D.^ * Travels in Arabia Deserta,' by C. M. Doughty.

2 vols.

B.L.^ * Bampton Lectures on the Psalter.' 2. All the Psalm-studies except those on Ps. li. were originally published in the Expositor. The critical matter, however, and the introductory notes, etc. , are new.

* This opinion only relates to the studies published in the Expositor, See Note.

Contents

PAGE

PREFACE ...... V

PART I,— THE DAVID-NARRATIVES,

Part Ii.— The Book Of Psalms

II. THE INSPIRATION OF THE PSALMISTS . I41

III. PSALM LI. . . -165

IV. THE SAME . . 1 83 V. THE SAME . . . -199

VI. PSALM XXXII. . . . . 218

VII. PSALM VIII. ..... 231

NOTE ON PSALMS VIII. AND XXIII. . 244 viii CONTENTS,

CHA'P. PAGE

VIII. PSALM XVI. ..... 248

NOTE ON PS. XVII. 15 . . . 269

IX. PSALM XXIV. . . . . -275

X. PSALMS XXVL AND XXVIII. . . . 29 1

XI. PSALM LXIII. ..... 308

XII. PSALM LXVIII. .... 323

NOTE ON PS. LXVIII. . . -341

XIII. PSALM LXXXVL .... 342

XIV. PSALM LXXXVII. .... 356 XV. PSALMS CXIII.-CXVIII. . . 375

NOTE ON PS. ex. . 391

PART I.

THE DAVID-NARRATIVES.

Chapter I. How The Book Of Samuel Arose

Careful narrative composition received a strong impulse from the romantic and varied career of David. His predecessor, however heroic, had the limitations of his striking individuality. David, on the other hand, though not as Protean as Edward Irving makes him, was both morally and intellectually flexible and many-sided. He is in fact a national or even a racial type— *le type le plus etonnant peutetre, et le plus achev6 de la nature s^mitique dans ses belles et dans ses mauvaises parties.' ^ The early story-tellers were dimly conscious of this, and, with all their admiration for David's splendid qualities, were far from concealing his darker side. If 'sincerity' be, as Dean Jackson represents,^ a criterion of inspira-

THE DAVID-NARRATIVES.

tion, the authors or compilers of the biography of David certainly deserve to be called inspired.

It is almost needless to add that the life of David, like the Book (not Books ^) of Samuel in which it is contained, is of composite origin, and not of equal historical value throughout. At first, as might be expecte'd, the facts of historical or semi-historical tradition and the fictions of a reverent imagination are commingled. It is often so with the early history of the great men of antiquity. But pass on to the period of David's outlawry, and a change becomes visible in the narrative. Its details are so full of primitive naturalness, and so minutely true to the physical features of the scenes of David's wanderings,2 that we cannot help deriving the accounts from a* very early source, even if wc no longer have the traditions in the most original form. Lastly, that important group of narratives which begins with David's generosity to Mephibosheth and ends with the execution of Shimei (2 Sam. ix.-xx., i Kings i., ii.) takes a still higher rank, and stands alone among the continuous narrative sections of the Old Testament for picturesqueness, psychological insight, and

* As in the case of Kings, the division into two books comes from the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and was first transferred to the Hebrew Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1517-18).

* See Conder's paper on the Scenery of David's Outlaw Life (Pal. Fund Stattmenty Jan. 1875, p. 4*> &c. ; reprinted in the Memoirs).

ffOlV THE BOOK' OF SAMUEL AROSE.

above all historical accuracy. Its author deserves our warmest thanks, for he respects the great king so much that he ventures to record even his errors and his sins.

But we cannot study the biography of David by itself. From his first public appearance to the death of Saul, his story blends with the tragic record of his predecessor. We must therefore inquire what manner of man Saul was. Leaving behind us the * broad rich harvest-fields ' of the later narratives, we must ascend to the * misty highlands * of the remoter past ; in short, we must regard the story of Saul's earlier period as the introduction to the life of David. We shall thus obtain an unforced division of the Book of Samuel into three parts, viz., i Sam. i.-xv. (Samuel and Saul), i Sam. xvi.-2 Sam. viii. (Saul and David), 2 Sam. ix.-i Kings ii. (David and the troubles of the succession). The critical analysis of the book is attended with less difficulty than that of the Hexateuch, but it is only within the last few years that it has reached sufficiently definite results. I give here the results of Kautzsch (well known to many by his own and Socin's excellent analytic edition of Genesis) from his new translation of the Old Testament,^ prefixing an explanation of the signs.

* Die heilige Schrift des A. T,^ FVeiburg i. B., 1891 (in progress).

Je denotes an old account of David, written most probably in Jerusalem, and dating from the time of Solomon or Rehoboam.

Da^ another account of David, also written in Judah, and dating from the loth or 9th century.

Sy a Judahite or Benjamite account of Saul, contemporary with the preceding. 5 and Da may have one and the same author.

55, an account of Samuel and Saul, composed, probably in N. Israel, of different traditional elements, and about contemporary with the prophet Hosea.

£, a narrative of the 8th or 9th century, composed in the northern kingdom.

Ju denotes the editor of the Book of Judges in its earlier form. He is post-Deuteronomic.

Dt^ the changes introduced into the story of Samuel and Saul under the influence of Deutcronomy.

?, passages of uncertain origin.

R^ the editor or editors of the Books of Samuel in their present form.

I Sam.

HOW THE BOOK OF SAMUEL AROSE. 7

>. 12. 14,47-51-

2 Sam.

2,13. 55. 1, 6-16.

DL 7. I Kings 2, 1-9.

/?. 1, 5. 8 (older basis), i Kings 2, 10-12 (and

elsewhere).

There is one striking result of the composite origin of Samuel to which it is fitting to refer at this point — I mean the coexistence, here and there, of two different accounts of one and the same fact. These accounts may either be variants of the same tradition, or may represent almost or entirely different views of what actually occurred. There seem to be eleven pairs of these ' doublets/ as they have been called. Here is a list of them with comments (in which a denotes the former narrative, b the latter).

(i) I Sam. X. 10-12 — xix. i8-xx. \a. The origin of the proverb, * Is Saul also among the prophets ' ?

(2) I Sam. xvi. 15-22 = xvii. i-xviii. 4 (part). How David was introduced to Saul.

(3) I Sam. xvii. i-xviii. 4 (part) -- 2 Sam. xxi. 19. The slaying of Goliath of Gath.

(4) I Sam, xviif. 10, 11 -xix. 9, 10. How Saul cast a spear at David.

(5) I Sam. xix. 1-7 — xx. i^xxi. i. How Jonathan tried to save David.

(6) I Sam. XX. 11-23, 42 -^ xxiii. 16-18. The religious covenant of brotherhood between David and Jonathan.

(7) I Sam. xxi. 10-15 [Hcb., 11-16] — xxvii., xxviii. I, 2, xxix. David's residence at Gath.

(8) I Sam. xxiv. - xxvi. How David in his wanderings spared Saul's life.

(9) I Sam. xxxi. — 2 Sam. i. 1-16. The death of Saul.

IIOIV THE BOOK' OF SAMUEL AKOSE.

(10) I Sam. IX. i-x. i6, 2ji (following the Sept. ; see R.V. marg.), xi. i-ir, 15 -viiL, x. 17-27^, xii. How Saul became king.

(11) I Sam. X. 8, xiii. 7^-15^7 ^ xv. The rejection of Saul.

(i) S, to which a belongs, represents Samuel as the seer and priest of Ramah ; for the prophets mentioned in X. 5, 10 have no connexion with Samuel. R, who has inserted b into the composite Book of Samuel, thinks of Samuel as * a prophet ' and as the head of a ' school of prophets.' The statement in xix. 24 that Saul and Samuel met on this occasion differs from that in xv. 35 (S). The story of David's wanderings gains greatly by the omission of b (and also no doubt by the omission of chap, xx., and xxi. 11-16). According to SS, upon whom we must here rely, David fled from Gibeah of Benjamin, not northward to Ramah, but first to Nob and then to Adullam.

(2) Many attempts have been made from a non-critical point of view to explain the inconsistency. Thus Chandler, the opponent of Pierre Bayle, in his Life of David (i. 73), remarks, * Saul did not inquire who David was, but whose son, because it was of importance to him to know of what family he was, as he had promised to give him his own daughter to wife, if he should conquer the Philistines.' Chandler lo THE DA VJD-NARRA TIVES.

here supposes that Saul knew David's name and person, but not his parentage. But Saul knew both, according to xvi. 21, 22. Comp. however Stanley, art. * David,' Bible Dict^ i. 403, and, for critical solutions, Driver, Introd.y pp, 169, 170; and see below, p. 78.

(3) It is difficult to suppose with Kirkpatrick (in 1 881) that tradition knew of two giants called Goliath. Obviously there are two distinct accounts, and that in 2 Sam. must be the more ancient one (see p. 81). If it be asked, how the slaying of Goliath came to be transferred from Elhanan to David, there is a simple answer. It is well known that the unconscious legend-making faculty is wont to rob less favoured heroes of their great deeds for the benefit of popular favourites. But in this particular case the transference may have been facilitated by the circumstance that Elhanan was *the son of D6do of Bethlehem ' (2 Sam. xxiii. 24, i Chron. xi. 26). Now D6do was probably a more archaic form of David ; DQdu appears from the Tell el-Amama Tablets to have been in use in Palestine in the 15th century B.C. {Records of the Past, N.S., iii. 69). It is no decisive objection to this that in 2 Sam. xxi. 19 (cf I Chron. xx. 5) the Elhanan who slew Goliath is called the son of Jair {not Jaare-orcgim ; see Driver ad loc) ; for one of these two names

HOW THE BOOK" OF SAMUEL AROSE. n was probably the name of a more distant ancestor. Note also that David and his men really fought with the Philistines at Ephes-dammim (see p. 8i, note *).

(4) If with Kucnen and Wellhausen we adopt the Greek text of xviii. 6-30 (which is much shorter than the Hebrew, and lacks vv, 10, 1 1), this is not a genuine case of 'doublets,* Budde however (p. 219) has well defended the opposite view. Certainly the analysis accounts for the coexistence of the two narratives,

(5) a and b are variants of the same tradition ; b however interrupts and so far spoils the narrative (SS), which, after describing Michal's ingenuity, says, * But David had fled and escaped * (xix. 18^), and should then continue, * And David came to Nob * (xxi. 2).

(6) The covenant between the two friends was variously related (cf p. 48, note % Not liking to lose b^ R made a place for it by means of the connecting verses 14 and 15.

(7) xxi. 10-15 is a much less detailed description than xxvii. &c., and the occasion which it gives for David's flight to Gath has less convincingness than that given in the latter. The writer probably wished to supplant the other narrative in the interests of David's patriotism. His story is however not a pure invention. The feigned madness of David (like that of Odysseus) is one of those legendary features in which the people — the great legend-maker — delights, and the humorous tinge of the story cannot be mistaken. The later narrative (i.e. xxi. 1 1-16) was preferred by the author or authors of the headings of Psa. xxxiv. and Ivi.

(8) Bayle's argument {Diet., iv. 542) to show that a and b relate to the same occurrence may still be read. The doubting philosopher deserves credit for his insight ; see also Driver (p. 171) and especially Budde (p. 227), Kuenen (p. 371). Budde seems right in holding that b is more recent (i.e. belongs to a more recent document) than a, which is not inconsistent with the fact that many points in this version of the tradition are more original than those of its fellow. Budde has also shown that xxv. 2-44 should properly come after xxiii. 28. It received its present position to separate the * doublets * in a and b, Saul has been called off from his pursuit of David by an incursion of the Philistines; David however remains in the wilderness of Maon. It is there (viz. at Carmel, now Kurmul) that the scene of the story of Nabal lies, and the reader will at once see how naturally this finely told story is followed by the narrative in a. On chaps, xxv. and xxvi., see further pp. 60-62.

(9) Of these two inconsistent reports, the former is evidently the more credible (cf Wellhausen, Die Composition &c., p. 254 ; Stade, Gesch., p. 258). b

HO IV THE BOOK OF SAMUEL AROSE, 13

(with its discrepant account of Saul's death) was substituted by the editor for a short passage of Da, relating how David received the bearer of the evil tidings (see 2 Sam. iv. 10, Da), So Budde.

(10), (11) One can see here that the peculiarities of the later narrative correspond to a new religious theory respecting the times of Saul. The * spirit of, the times ' must from the first have had an effect on the form of tradition. We cannot therefore be surprised if some earnest men, desirous to edify their own age, in perfect good faith allowed a still larger scope to this potent influence. They were the predecessors of the author of Chronicles and of the later Midrash '-writers. A failure to observe this altogether vitiates M. Renan's account of early prophetism {Histoirey i. 381, 382), in which i Sam. ix. i-x. 16 and xii. are utilized together, as if they stood on precisely the same level. For the right view, see Driver, pp. 165-6, and Wellhausen, Prolegomena^ p. 260 &c. (chap. vii.).

The reader will, I hope, understand the necessity for this preliminary chapter, which supplements the brief consideration of the authorities for the life of David in chap. ii. (see p. 22, beginning * In opposition to this destructive criticism '). It would obviously

» On * Midrash,' see Driver, p. 497 ; Graetz, History of the Jeivs^ ii. 332- be an anachronism to construct a life of David out of unsifted material. Analytic criticism must precede every historical sketch w/ietfier of Old or of New Testament times. What follows from the neglect of this canon may be seen from an essay by the headmaster of Mill Hill School on * Carnage in the Old Testament/^ After a quiet hour of prayer and thanksgiving which * almost ache with humility and pathetic acknowledgment of mercy/ another episode (he remarks) is related with a strange and seemingly unfeeling brevity. David smites the Moabitcs, and having their army in his power, he slays after the battle in cold blood two out of three of them with details impossible to repeat. Reading the Book of Samuel in school, Mr. Vince felt that he must face this antithesis as he best could. He tells us how he sought to explain it ; but his explanation is too violent to be satisfactory. The real answer is that supplied by the above analysis, viz. that chaps, vii. and viii. come from different sources, and that the former is not history, but an imaginative glorification of history (see below, p. 26). In respect of literary insight one must agree with the sceptical critic Bayle^ rather than his orthodox opponents Crousaz and Chandler. Poor Bayle had not indeed the courage of his opinions ;

* See abstract in Expository Times ^ Dec. 189 1, p. 99.

* Historical Dictionary (Lond. 1736), iv. 533.

JlOfV THE BOOK OF SAMUEL AROSE, 15

indeed, as he says himself, his talent was only that of doubting.^ Therefore he failed where we may trust in God to succeed. For true criticism must be constructive.

Among the chief aids to the student are Prof. R. Smith's article* David ' in the EncycL Brit,, and Dillmann's in Schenkel's Bibel- Lexicon, Kamphausen's article, PhilisUr uttd Hebriier zur Zeit Davids in Stade's ZeUschrife, 1886, pp. 43-97 rectifies some serious misapprehensions. On the critical analysis, comp. Kautzsch (as above) with Wellhausen, Die Compositioti des HexcUetichs &c. (1889), p. 250 &c. ; Kuenen, Ofiderzoek &c., ed. 2, I. (1887), p. 386 &c. ; Comill, * Zur Quellenkritik * &c. in Konigsbergtr Studien^ I. (1887), pp. 25-59; and his Einleitung (1891), p. ill &c. ; Budde, Die Bikher Richter und Samuel &c. (1890), p. 210 ; Kittel, * Die pentateuch. Urkunden,' &c., in Tkeoi. Studien ntid Kriiiken, 1892, pp. 44-71. Some of the most essential critical points are well brought out in Dr. Driver's Introdtution (1891), pp. 162-174, where the author was greatly hampered by limited space (see my art. in Expositor^ Feb. 1892, pp. 110-112). See also his Notes on the Hebrew Text of Sam uet {iSgo), Duncker's History (vol. ii.) is able, l3ut his narrative needs adjustment to the analysis.

Chapter II. The Character Of David

Acts xiii. 22, 23. — And when he had removed him [Saul], he raised up David to be their king ; to whom also he bare witness, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who shall do all my will. Of this man's seed hath God according to promise brought unto Israel a saviour, Jesus.

The biographic narratives arc for many of us the most interesting part of the Old Testament ; an attack upon any of their heroes excites our liveh'est indignation. And yet as soon as we attempt to repel such attacks, whether with the pen, or, as in our large towns we must, with the living voice, we find it a much tougher piece of work than we had supposed ; and even among our Church-students some of the best profess themselves dissatisfied with the conventional solutions of difficulties. In dealing with these circumstances it is not enough to adhere to traditional plans ; we must move with the times.

We shall be * verily guilty concerning our brother/ if we allow him to drift among the icebergs of doubt for want of an intelligent knowledge of the Bible. Indeed the whole Christian family will be injured, if we do not discover some better way of preserving true reverence for the Old Testament, and more especially for its narratives. But is there any way left which might be tried in popular teaching ? Yes ; there is one which has until lately been neglected ; it is to throw upon the Old Testament the full light of critical research. God has put it into the heart of an increasing number of Christian scholars to apply improved methods to the study of the Scriptures, and they wish now to turn their results to account in the practical service of the Church. It is but too certain that our popular religion needs simplifying, and that the defence of Christian truth against infidelity needs strengthening, and these objects can, it would seem, be promoted by a league between inquiring Christian people on the one hand and the scholars of whom I spoke on the other. In our great centres of population, where attacks upon the Bible are most frequent and most dangerous, such a league seems specially required. Its object will be to apply modern methods of study to the Old Testament with just sufficient precision to bring out the gradualness of divine revelation, to emphasize and i8 THE DA VID-NARRA TIVES.

illustrate the essential facts and truths of the Scriptures, and to solve the difficulties and correct the misapprehensions of infidel objectors.

But some timid Christian may ask, Had I not better leave this study to those who have to meet infidel objectors in controversy? May I not, by being too venturesome, expose my own faith to too severe a shock ? Historical truth may be good, but spiritual truth is better ; why should I not be content with the one thing needful ? To which I would reply, with heart-felt sympathy, that vital faith in spiritual truth cannot be imperilled by historical inquiry into its records, that on the contrary there are few better aids to faith than a historical view of the progress of revelation, such as the higher study of the Bible presents to us. Of this we may truly say that it is in some sense * the beginning of wisdom ' ; acquire this lore, and you will more safely speculate concerning the mysteries of nature and of human life. And thus on all accounts I would invite educated laymen to join this new league, and * study the elements of this fascinating subject. It is a post of honour to which our new England invites them — one in which they may repel with more effect the attacks of irreligion, and at the same time lay the foundation of a better and a purer religious knowledge for the coming age.

The teachers no doubt are comparatively few, and have but scanty means of communicating with their disciples. Among these, books and periodicals stand in the first place ; lectures only in the second. May we also mention sermons ? We not only may, but must. In our changing circumstances we urgently require a greater variety of preaching. And more especially in our cathedrals, where all classes may expect to find a spiritual home, must this requirement be satisfied. To us therefore who minister in these sacred fanes the Apostle of the Gentiles repeats to-day his stirring exhortation, * Covet earnestly the best gifts.' And among these gifts surely the ability to do justice to the Old Testament, and to instil into educated ' people a more intelligent reverence for it, is to be included. For what I speak of now is not mere lectures, but sermons, that is addresses which lead up to a personal application of spiritual truth. Let all things in the church be done, as St. Paul says, * unto edifying,' i.e. with a view to building up the spiritual life. The devout and churchly spirit of such a preacher as I am imagining will be strong enough to give a distinctive tone to his instruction. His discourses, taken one with another, will be so bathed in the love of Christ and the Church ; his historical statements will be so softened by the close neighbourhood of spiritual truth, that every candid hearer.

however simple, may leave the church with a sense that this is the work of God. By such a mode of action, which implies a constant looking upward for help, Christian truth has every needed safeguard, and the historical study of the Bible will be deprived of the terribleness with which a distant view may have invested it. It is in fact one among many modern fulfilments of that New Testament saying. According as each hath received a gift^ even so minister the same among yourselves, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God,^

I return now to our text. It brings together in a most effective way the Messiah and the Messiah's greatest ancestor, and it suggests a painful reflexion. Whereas the rich humanity of the former is revealing itself more and more to our delighted gaze, the attractive features of the latter are still half blotted out by a traditional theory of no critical value. Let me quote a few passages from the splendid exposition of this theory given by Thomas Carlyle's early friend, the great preacher Edward Irving. David, according to him, had an unique experience and an uniquely comprehensive nature. *The hearts of a hundred men strove and struggled together within the continent of his single heart.* He *had that brilliant galaxy of natural gifts, that rich and varied educa-

* I Pet. iv. 10.

tion, in order to fit him for executing the high office to which he was called by the Spirit, of giving to the Church universal forms of spiritual feeling. And though we neither excuse his acts of wickedness, nor impute them to the temptation of God ... we will also add that by his loss the Church hath gained ; and that if he had not passed through every valley of humiliation, and stumbled upon the dark mountains, we should not have had a language for the souls of the penitent, or an expression for the dark troubles which compass the soul that feareth to be deserted by its God.' ^ Now every one of us, 1 hope, has an affectionate admiration for Edward Irving, and a sincere reluctance to blame him. Nor need we censure him in this particular, for he lived before the new conception of history had established itself in England. But is it natural for those who both know and love history, and consider Bible history, not less than English and even more than Roman and Grecian, a part of the birthright of every thinking person, to go on representing David as a kind of supernatural being, who neither morally nor intellectually was governed by the same laws as ourselves, or at any rate as a medley of irreconcileable elements? And even if it be natural, is it als6 safe? If we could answer, Yes, we might perhaps excuse this

' Miscellanies from Irving (1865), p. 455.

indolent folding of our hands to sleep. But no, it is very far from safe. For those who have no restraining scruples, and would crush the delicate wings of an illusion with a sledge-hammer, are already in the field. A vulgar criticism for the vulgar, and a refined one for the refined, are being directed against the reputation of the son of Jesse. They agree in denying that the old revei:ence for David has any foundation, and require that this outwork of Bible religion should be, not reconstructed on an improved plan, but altogether demolished.

In opposition to this destructive criticism it will be the object of the popular league to which I referred so to criticize as to edify or build up the Church. Prove all things^ hold fast that zvhich is goody says St Paul.i And what does the command, * Prove all things * mean when addressed to us ? It means in this connexion, Examine and compare the different Biblical records of the life of David. It means further. Do not assume that they all say the same thing, nor that you are bound to find out some way of making them do so, nor that you may disregard any detail in the earliest records which militates against the highest view of David's character. These assumptions were actually made by a writer who flourished about 700 years after David, — the author of the Books

' I Thess. V. 21.

of Chronicles.' Though fully inspired as a religious teacher of his own time, and a worthy representative of the Jewish Church, it is only in some outlying parts of his work that he can safely be followed in statements of facts unsupported by the earlier books." We shall see presently how, to harmonize the two ancient traditions of the slaughter of Goliath, he invents a brother of Goliath with an impossible name (p. 81). We shall also find that, in his zeal for the * man after God's heart,' he omits David's great sin and much besides, and transforms him into the image of a saint of his own time. In the third century B.C. this was possible ; it is not so at the end of the nineteenth after Christ. We probably feel that one who is so highly honoured in the New Testament as David cannot have been (as some represent) a bandit who for selfish ends seized the crown,^ but there are many of his actions which we must admit to be quite inconsistent with the saintly character. The Chronicler's general view of the life of David is too improbable and too discordant with that of the early records to influence us. And still less may we follow