The Book of the Psalms. By A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Cambridge Bible, 1901. Pp. Books IV. and V., Psalms xc.-cl. The Book of Proverbs. Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text, with Notes by the late A. Pp. 864. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament herausgegeben. Von Dr. W. Nowack, etc. Esra, Nehemia und Esther, übersetzt und erklärt von D. C. Siegfried. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht; London: Williams & Norgate, 1901. Pp. 176. Price M.3.80. THE concluding volume of the Psalms in the Cambridge Bible is a good example of the careful scholarship which for the most part characterises that series. The introduction deals with the whole Psalter; although it accepts the principles of modern criticism, it shows a certain bias in favour of traditional views. It is, however, only right to say that the evidence is stated with scrupulous fairness, and that the conclusions are given as, for the most part, probable rather than certain. Many of the titles, we are told, cannot be reconciled with the contents and language of the Psalms to which they are prefixed". But several psalms are held to be pre-exilic. Great stress is laid on the arguments for the existence of Davidic Psalms, and David is held to have 66 been the founder of the Psalter, but we cannot find-in the introduction at any rate (cf. below)-any explicit statement that the author is convinced that any given psalm is the work of David. He regards it as "doubtful whether any Psalms date from the Maccabæan period". One new piece of evidence adduced is the presence in the Hebrew Ecclesiasticus of a psalm which is largely a cento of phrases from Book V. of our Psalter. Hence, it is argued, the Psalter was complete before the composition of Ecclesiasticus in B.C. It is interesting to note that Professor Kirkpatrick accepts the recently discovered portions of the book as belonging to the original Hebrew, and not to a re-translation from the versions; but we doubt whether the text of these sections is good enough to be followed in such a case against the Septuagint. Our author evidently has little faith in the various theories which "discover a metrical system in the Psalms, on the basis of quantity, or of number of syllables or accents" (p. lx.). There is a very sensible discussion of the Imprecatory Psalms, the gist of which is given in the following paragraph: "It is important to observe that they are not dictated merely by private vindictiveness. . . . While it would perhaps be too much to say that they contain no tinge of human passion (for the Psalmists were men of infirmity, and inspiration does not obliterate personal character), they rise to a far higher level. They spring ultimately from zeal for God's cause, and they express a willingness to leave vengeance in the hands of Him to whom it belongs. Retribution is desired and welcomed as part of the Divine order." Professor Kirkpatrick's views as to the authorship and the titles are best illustrated by the separate introductions prefixed to the individual psalms. He seems inclined to discover pre-exilic psalms in these last two books, to an extent which would not be sanctioned by most modern critics, or, as we think, by the available evidence. Nevertheless he usually sets aside the statements of the titles. He does not ascribe xc. to Moses, or cxxvii. to Solomon; of the seventeen psalms assigned by the titles to David, he only accepts ci. Of Psalm cx. he writes, "If we are free to choose, it seems best to regard the Psalm as addressed to David "-and therefore not spoken by David as our Lord's words are supposed to imply. In his introduction to this psalm Professor Kirkpatrick shows clearly that the authority of Christ is in no way involved in the question of its authorship. He quotes, with obvious. approval, "the words of Bishop Thirlwall as given by Bishop Perowne, 'we are left very much in the same position with regard to the Psalm as if our Lord had not asked these questions about it". The recently published edition of Proverbs in Dr. Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old Testament is simply a critical text with notes, for the most part, on the textual criticism. As in other volumes, the authors and editor have not been able to refrain from inserting here and there miscellaneous information which they have come across in their study of the text. But the questions of the composition of the book, and of the date and authorship of its various sections are not dealt with. No doubt these subjects are reserved for the English translation in the Polychrome Bible; but, as one special object of the series is to exhibit conspicuously the mode in which the books are composed, the text should have been furnished with headings and other indications of the authors' views. These are entirely absent. Several passages are merely represented by . . ., as being "corrupted beyond emendation," e.g., xiv. 7, which R. V. translates, "Go into the presence of a foolish man, and thou shalt not perceive in him the life of knowledge". This method is far better than printing an impossible reading or a purely speculative conjecture as if it were the true text. Toy's emendation should have been noticed in v. 2, and some reference should have been made to the uncertainty of the text in xxxi. 1. In the list of books on pp. 31, 32 we miss Cheyne's Job and Solomon. Assuming the correctness of the view taken here and in the Polychrome Chronicles that tôra is connected with the Assyrian tertu, we doubt whether it is rightly called a Babylonian loanword, any more than "Church" in English is a German loanword from "Kirche". In his Esra, Nehemia und Esther Professor Siegfried supports E. Meyer as against Kosters in accepting the substantial historicity of the account of the Return and the genuineness of the documents in Ezra iv.-vii. He rejects the decree of Cyrus (Ezra ii. 2-4). In the translation different kinds of type are used to indicate the various documents; we have not been able to discover any table giving a key to the varieties of type; but the reader will have no great difficulty in constructing one for himself from the introduction. With regard to Esther our author follows Zimmern, Jensen, and Wildeboer in holding that the story is an adaptation of a Babylonian myth; that Mordecai is to be identified with Marduk, Esther with Ishtar, and Haman with the Elamite deity Humman. The original myth described the victory of the gods of Babylonia over those of Elam. We could have wished for a fuller treatment of the problem of this adaptation of a foreign myth to Jewish use. Purim is held to have been a feast in honour of the dead, and to have been connected with the primitive worship of ancestors rather than with the prophetic Jahwistic religion - neither God nor Jahwoh is mentioned in the book. Possibly the original myth was connected with a Persian feast for the dead, and the Jews borrowed the story because it seemed suitable for a similar function. The composition of the book is assigned to the Maccabæan period. The extreme brevity of the introduction is no doubt responsible for the absence of any discussion of the many difficulties of this position. Would a Jew of that period have adapted a Gentile myth? If he had would he have chosen a story which depicted his countrymen on friendly terms with a heathen master? It is true that Siegfried's view is also held by Cornill, Kautzsch, Wildeboer and others; but we should be inclined to follow Driver in assigning the book to the earlier Greek period. W. H. BENNETT. The Progess of Dogma. By James Orr, M.A., D.D., Glasgow. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1901. Cr. 8vo, pp. 365. Price 7s. 6d. THE Progress of Dogma is a series of lectures which Professor Orr delivered in the autumn of 1897, before the Western Theological Seminary, Alleghany, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., and the Christian Public, as the fourth course in a series of lectures provided for by the Elliot Lectureship Fund. "It need not be said," says the lecturer in his preface, "that no attempt is made to deal exhaustively with the History of Doctrine. The design of the lectures goes no further than to provide broad outlines, which may suffice to illustrate the principles expounded at the commencement, and serve as an introduction to the subject." The class of readers whose needs Dr. Orr endeavours to meet are those "who, without being professed scholars, feel an intelligent interest in the trend of theological thought throughout the centuries". One object of the lectures is to combat certain of the positions taken up by Harnack in his History of Dogma; but in other respects the material of the lectures is the accumulation of years of thought and study. Within the limits thus imposed upon himself, Professor Orr has produced a valuable, timely and most interesting contribution to an important subject; and though he says that the volume "is not intended for proficients but for learners," there will probably be few proficients who will not feel that even they have much to learn from such a luminous and even fascinating treatment of the subject. The idea running through the lectures, which gives the volume its distinctive mark, is the relation of dogma to its history, and the parallelism of the logical and historical development. "How dogma has shaped itself in history, what law has guided its development, and what abiding value |