Mss. and early editions by Schiller Szinessy, Cambridge, 1883. The most important of later commentaries was by Obadiah Sforno, teacher of Reuchlin, Venice, 1586; Amsterdam, 1724.

§ 52. The Reformation involved a great revival of Biblical study, and especially of the Psalter, the chief book of the OT The allegorical method was pushed in the background by the Humanists in the interests of the grammatical sense, and so by Roman Catholics as well, and Protestants who were influenced by them. The chief difference was that the Protestants resorted to the Hebrew text as the original supreme authority, the Roman Catholics based themselves on the Vulgate Version, and interpreted it in submission to the authority of the Church and the Fathers. The successors of the Reformers fell back into pedantic and dogmatic methods.

The Humanists revived the study of the ancient languages and the ancient literatures, and thus the grammatical and literary study of the original texts was employed over against the allegorical method. Lyra and the Jewish Commentators were used more than the Christian Commentators of the Middle Ages. The Protestant Reformers were great exegetes. Luther began his academic lectures with an exposition of the Psalter in 1513. These lectures were published by Seidemann in 1876, under the title, Dr. Martin Luther's erste und älteste Vorlesungen über die Psalmen aus den Jahren 1513-1516 nach der eigenhändigen lateinischen Handschrift Luthers auf der Königlichen öffentlichen Bibliothek zu Dresden. Reuchlin published his Auslegung der sieben Psalmi poenitentiales, 1512; Bugenhagen, his in lib. Psalmorum, 1524; Bucer (Aretius), Psalmorum libri 5, 1526. Calvin's Commentary on the Psalms, 1564, was by far the best up to his own time. Other commentators of the time of the Reformation were Pellican, 1532; Münster, 1534-1535; Musculus, 1550; Castalio, 1551+; Marloratus, 1562. The Moravian Rüdinger also issued a valuable Commentary in 1580–1581. The Protestants of the next generation fell back from the vital principle of the Reformers and became dependent on Protestant rules of faith, and were dogmatic and pedantic in their Commentaries. In the following lists, I give, so far as I know, the first edition; when there were subsequent editions, it is indicated by +. The works of Selnecker, 1581; Moller, 1573; Menzel, 1594; Gesner, 1609; Piscator, 1646+; Quistorp, 1648; Amyraldus, 1662; Bakius, 1664+; Geier, 1668+; Carlov, 1672+, though with valuable and useful material are reactionary and of no permanent value. The Roman Catholics vied with the Protestants in the sixteenth century in their work on the Psalter: Clarius, 1542+; Vatablus, 1545; Palisse, 1548; Cajetan, 1530; Campensis, 1533+; Flaminius, 1558; Gennebradus, 1577 +; Jansenius, 1586. In the early seventeenth century R. C. exegetes employed better

INTERPRETATION SINCE THE REFORMATION

cvii

methods, and were more able and fruitful than Protestants, as is evident in Agellius, 1606+; Faber Stapulensis, 1609; Lorinus, 1612+; Bellarmin, 1611+; Mariana, 1619+; Torinus, 1632 +; Muis, 1636+; Corderius, 1643+; Drexelius, 1643; Hulsius, 1650; Heser, 1654 +.

§ 53. In the middle of the seventeenth century the English Puritans emphasized grammatical and practical exegesis; Grotius, Hammond and the Arminians, the historical method; Cocceius and the Federalists, the allegorical. The dogmatic method still prevailed to some extent.

Ainsworth is the prince of Puritan Commentators. His Commentary on the Pss., issued in 1626, is a monument of learning. He was too much influenced by Rabbinical subtilties, but he employed the grammatical method with great practical skill. Thomas Smith, Thomas Pierson, and especially William Gouge issued practical commentaries introducing a long and valuable series in Great Britain. Hugo Grotius in Holland and Henry Hammond in England revived the Humanistic spirit and laid stress on the literal and historical sense. The Commentaries on the Pss. of Grotius, 1645, and of Hammond, 1653, especially the latter, introduce a new epoch in the interpretation of the Psalter. Cocceius, the founder of the Federal School of Holland, 1660, revived the allegorical method, but with sobriety and practical sense. The Criticorum Sacrorum, 1660, sums up the chief material of previous authors, using Munster, Vatablus, Castalio, Clarius, Drusius, and Grotius. This was followed by Poole's Synopsis Criticorum, 1669, which uses Muis, Geier, Ainsworth, Hammond, Rivetus, Cocceius, Genebradus, Calovius. The Biblia Magna, 1643, and the Biblia Maxima, Paris, 1660, both by John de la Haye, are a magnificent summing up of R. C. exegesis, embracing a thorough study of texts and Vrss., and the expositions of Nic. de Lyra, Gagnae, Estii, Menochii, and Tirini. Vol. VI. of the latter contains the Psalter. There was then a lull in work on the Pss. which continued for a century. We may mention, however, the R. C., Le Blanc, 1682 +; Ferrandus, 1683; Bossuet, 1691; Berthier, 1788+; Calmet, 1791 +; Camponi, 1692+; the Protestants, Bythner, 1664; J. H. Michaelis, 1720; Clericus, 1731; Venema, 1762.

§ 54. The study of the Psalter was enriched through the work of Kennicott upon the text and of Hare and Lowth upon Hebrew poetry, connected in all these with original work upon the Psalter which influenced all subsequent scholars.

I have already called attention to the work of Hare, Lowth, and Kennicott on the text and Hebrew Poetry. These scholars carried on the grammatical and historical exegesis of Grotius and Hammond. Lowth in his notes

attached to Merrick's Version, 1768, supported also by an Anonymous, made contributions which were often original and of great value. Kennicott, in his notes on the Psalms, 1772, also greatly advanced the study of the Psalter. All this material was used by Street, 1790, with independent and excellent judgment, resulting in the best Commentary on the Psalms of the eighteenth century. Bishop Horsley, 1815 (posthumous), inherited their spirit. These scholars are the real fathers of a large number of emendations of the text and of new interpretations for which later scholars, especially Germans, have received the credit. Many practical commentaries of great value appeared in this period, such as Henry, 1710; Horne, 1771; Gill, 1774–1776. The Commentaries of Dathe, 1787, and especially Rosenmüller, 1798–1804, represented this period in Germany.

§ 55. The study of the Psalter has been improved in the last century by a more comprehensive and thoroughgoing study of all the material by Textual Criticism, Higher Criticism, Historical Criticism, and Biblical Theology, with a just estimate of Exegesis in its different phases.

De Wette, 1811+, began this most fruitful period, and was followed by Ewald, 1836+, both with remarkable critical sagacity and profound historical sense. Hitzig, 1836+, and Olshausen, 1853 +, opened wide the field of Textual Criticism; Hupfeld, 1855 +, and Böttcher, 1864, grammatical and lexicographical exegesis. Delitzsch, 1859 +, shows a deep spiritual sense and a thorough understanding of the genius of the ancient Hebrew people. Hengstenberg, 1842+, is the father of the reactionaries. On these princes of modern German exegesis a great number of scholars build. Among these we may mention on the continent of Europe: Tholuck, 1843+; Köster, 1837; Vaihinger, 1845; Reuss, 1879+; Grätz, 1882-1883; Hirsch, 1882; Moll, 1884 +; Schultz, 1888 +; Bachmann, 1891; Bäthgen, 1892 +; Wellhausen, 1895; Duhm, 1899; Valeton, 1903. Among R. C. scholars, we may mention Alioli, 1832+; Aigner, 1850; Schegg, 18572; Crelier, 1858; Rohling, 1871; Thalhofer, 18895. Migne, Cursus Completus, 1841, and Cornely, Knabenbauer, and Hammelauer in Cursus Completus, 1885, give a thesaurus of interpretation of many scholars, ancient and modern. Many British and American interpreters of the Pss. have been reactionary in the spirit of Hengstenberg, such as Phillips, 1846; Neale, 1860; Wordsworth, 1867; Alexander, 1868+; Murphy, 1875; Cowles, 1872. The Puritan spirit was inherited in Spurgeon, 1870, and Barnes, 1871. Perowne, 1864 +, deserves the credit for the introduction into the English-speaking world of the modern spirit, which indeed is only a rebuilding on the work of the older English scholars of the eighteenth century. The following Commentators deserve mention: The Psalms Chronologically arranged by Four Friends, 1867; Kay, 1871; Cook, 1873; Jennings and Low, 1875; Burgess, 1879; Aglen, 1884; Cheyne, 1888+;

Maclaren, 1893-1894 +; Montefiore, 1901; Kirkpatrick, 1903; W. T. Davidson, 1903+; Ehrlich, 1904. Cheyne and Kirkpatrick are preëminent, the former for his brave investigation of the most difficult problems and his generous recognition of the work of other scholars, the latter for his sound judgment and excellent exegetical method. These scholars easily outrank all their predecessors. Their occasional faults and failures are cordially overlooked in view of their magnificent contributions to Biblical Science.

§ 56. English Versions of the Psalms began with Wycliffe in 1382. The Version of Coverdale of 1535, revised for the great Bible of 1539, has been used since as the Version of the Book of Common Prayer. The Version of 1611 was made from the Hebrew, with a limited study of other versions. It supplanted all other English Versions except that of PBV. The Version of 1885 was a revision of that of 1611, in closer conformity to the Massoretic text. The R. C. Version is that of Douay.

John Wycliffe made the first English translation of the Bible from the Vulgate Version, 1382. It was revised by John Purvey in 1388 (v. Forshall and Madden's text, 4 v., 1850; Skeats, reprint of Purvey's revision in 1879). Coverdale published a translation of the whole Bible in 1535. His translation of the Psalter was taken up into Matthew's Bible in 1537, and into the Great Bible in 1539-1541. Coverdale, in his dedicatory Epistle to the King and in Prologue, states that he had followed largely five sundry interpreters; to judge from internal evidence, the Vulgate, Luther, the Zurich Version, Pagninus, and Tyndale, the latter not giving the Psalter. The Zurich Version was completed in 1529 by Zwingli, Pellican, Leo Juda, and others. Pagninus' version was a translation of the Psalter into Latin (1527). The Psalter of the PBV. is from the last revision of the Great Bible of 1540 (v. Westcott, The Paragraph Psalter; Earle, The Psalter of 1539 a Landmark in English Literature, 1892; Driver, The Parallel Psalter, Int. 19042; Fry, Description of the Great Psalter, 1865). The Genevan Version of 1560 was translated into English and used by the Puritans from that time onward. The Bishop's Bible of 1568 was used in the scriptural readings in the Church of England, but not in the recitations of the Psalter. In 1611 the Authorized Version was made by a select company of scholars under the authority of the crown. It displaced all other Vrss. for Protestants in the public and private reading of the Scripture: but did not succeed in displacing the Vrs. of the Great Bible in the recitation of the Psalter. The Roman Catholics continued to adhere to the Douay Version, which was a literal translation of the Vulgate, whereas the AV. was translated from the Hebrew. The AV. has maintained its hold on the English Protestant world until the present time. The RV. of 1885, prepared by a joint British and American Committee, under the authority

of the convocation of Canterbury, has thus far been unable to replace it. The RV. is a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew text of Ben Asher; but it is literalistic and pedantic. It was prepared in a period of transition of Hebrew scholarship and does not satisfy the present conditions of OT. scholarship or the needs of the Church or people. Furthermore, it does not sufficiently consider the Ancient Vrss., and is not based on a revision of the Hebrew text. The margin of the RV. gives the most important part of the work of the Revisers and is of great value. Several independent versions have been made in recent times: 'John De Witt, 1884; T. K. Cheyne, 1888; Furness, 1898; S. R. Driver, The Parallel Psalter, 19042 (an important and valuable revision of PBV.). The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1903, gave a new and excellent translation from the Massoretic text. There is no sound reason why Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Jews should not unite and agree in a Version far better than any that has yet been made.

Many metrical versions of the Psalter have been made for use in Christian worship in the service of song, the chief of which are those of Sternhold and Hopkins, and Tate and Brady, used in England; Rouse, used in Scotland; and Watts, used by the Nonconformists of England and their children in America. From a literary point of view the most valuable paraphrase is still that of Merrick, 1765. The fault of all these versions is that they are based either upon English Versions or the Massoretic text. None of them were made with any knowledge whatever of the measures of Hebrew poetry. It is now quite possible to reproduce the poetry of the Psalms in essentially the same measures in English poetry. Scholars who have the poetic gift should undertake this task, which when accomplished will greatly enlarge the use of the Psalter for English-speaking peoples, and enrich their devotion, public and private, with a finer literary flavour.