Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-03-18

and h. inferred IN ene NIX INSTANCE - ~
kines Of Israel. what ara commonly taken
- xssstsnic paasaesa
But the modern spirit and method q
his work best appear In his commentsry
upon the Psaln,s. He distinctly denied
the accuracy Of their traditional titles
and corrected them BY the light Of their
own evidence, Judged by their contents.
The general testimony OF the most COM
petent scholarship OF to-day Is against tne
authority OF these titles. Hupheld says
they are wholly worthless. Certainly NJ
MANY instances they do not conform 10
the matter treated In the psalms tney
describe. and not fnfrequently there are
historical references In the text wnicn
forbid the possibility Of their having been
written as they stand In the time OK tneir
peputed author.
There are psalms as certainly belonging
to the period Of the Babylonian exile ana
after It as any literature Of to-day, con-
tanning references to the scenes or tne
American revolution belongs to that era
or the time succeeding It. Indeed, some
of these psalms are so descriptive OK
events In the Maccabean period--i e., as
late as the second century before Christ
period by such critics as Hitzig, Olshau.
sen. Lengerke, Reuss, and others. Even
Calvin thought that three OF the psalms
(A, "A, and 7O were possibly Maccabean.
Robertson Smith says that can entirely
fresh treatment of the Psalter by sober.
critical commentator is urgently needed.
(See Encyclopaedia Britannicsl) But the
propriety of this brief survey or modern
commentary on the psalms consists IN
its connection with the researches Of DR..
Bruce as reported in his dissertation. 1t
Is most interesting to note the agreement
between early and late scholarship on
the subject OF the authorship and original
application Of the psalms.
DIR. Bruce shows that the weight OF
competent authority Is In favor Of as
signing the Paris Psalter to the eleventh
century. In spite Of all temptations to
identify the scribe or writer Of the manu-
scripts who calls himself Wulfwinus with
the scribe Of the Anglo-Saxon version or
st. johns gospel. Wulfwi. or writer,
after giving the reasons for and against
the hypothesis, leaves the matter where
the evidence leaves 1t, undecided.
In his story OF the manuscript DR..
Bruce shows us how really thrilling a
plain statement OF the yicissitude3 OF a
precious manuscript may be. Jean. Duke
of Berry Q3i0-14l6), brother OF Charles
w., of France, once owned this book. 1t
Is supposed to have come into his posses
sion during his residence as hostage In
England Just after the peace OF Bretigny
Q26U. He gave 1t to the Sainte Chapelle
at Bourges in 1905. The rich Ornamental
ton of the book attracted the cupidity OF
the soldiers. and 1t lost some of it's ex-
ternal glory In the sack of Bourges In los2.
In l70S this volume was still at the Sainte
Chapelle OF Bourges-one OF the few books
left there. 1.-The place where they were
stored was used as a poultry house. The
books. left open on the desks, were In
pitiable condition. One of them was the
Paris Psalter." The manuscript finally
passed into the possession of the Biblto-
theque du Roi now the National Library
of France. An inquiry into the probable
date and authorship OF the prose division
of the Anglo-SaNon version concludes that
It was written in the late ninth or early
tenth century, and was the work or
some unknown cccIesiastic. TS!e Latin
rubrics or prefaces which head the
Psalms IN the Paris Psalter are said TO
be- full OF barbarisms. the true key to
the correction OF which DR.. Bruce finds
in the Latin commentary on the Psalms
entitled I'm PsalmOrum Librum Lac
gess."
This book. once enormously regarded as
the work OF the Venerable Bede," con-
tains the full text OF which the rubrlcs
of the Paris Psalter are fragments. The
arguments preiixed to each Psalm in the
EXCUSES are given in two divisions-O,
a historical Interpretation; (2). a mystical
Interpretation. in close conformity to the
medieval spirit. The writer OF these
rubrics evidently preferred the mystical
Interpretation, but he had before him in
the first fifty psalms the historical intro
auctions of the Anglo-Saxon. DIR. Bruce
| supports his views of Exegess as fur
| nlshing the material for the rubrc, by
| a comparison OF passages from both. and
he explains the four-fold application OF
the Psalms CD to David, C2) TO some other
historical character. evidently referred to
| In the Psalms, 90 to any man, az to
| Christ.
But DR.. Bruce does not stop when he
has found the immediate source OF the
Paris Psalter--he proceeds 10 trace the
Anglo-Saxon introductions to their ulti-
| mate source. He finds that the historical
interpretations OF the Psalps, which dis
tinguished Exegesis from all Latin COM
mentaries of the middle ages coincide
with those OF syrac commentary on
the Psalms In the Royal Library of Ber-
| lin. Professor L. Baethgen has proved
| that the Syriac commentary represents
an eptome OF the commentary Of Theo-
dore of Mopsuestia "a. d. 3J0-i2s). The
most marked characteristic OF Theodore's
method was the principle Of interpreting
| the Psalms according TO their historical
meaning, in contradistinction 10 the prin-
| ciple of mystical OF allegorical interpreted
| ton, which, originating at an early period
L IAxx~ nd
by the example OF Origen. was so uni
versally practiced during the middle ages.
IL Is, this distinction which, eSer since
| the beginning of modern scientific criti-
| cism. seems TO have given to Theodore's
works In this field the first place among
| ancient commentators ON the Bible. But
| the very feature which commends him TO
modern scholarship made him obnoxious
| to ancient orthodoxy, and his WORKS
| were no more approved by the mystical
| and allegorical schools of his day than IS
the higher criticism to-day by the de-
| scendants Of those who slew the scholars.
| Thirteen hundred years after Theodore
| issued his commentary stray copy Oh
| IL in Syriac was found In an obscure
| HISTORIAN village In the Valley OF the
Tfgris, and to-day it proves to be the one
ancient example OF the modern method
| of interpreting the Psalms. The only
drawback to this praise Is the curious
! theory which Theodore shared with the
| age in which he lived that David wrote
the very psalms which refer to a later
period than his own in spirit Oh
prophecy. .1,
When we find that Theodore referred
at least seven OF the Psalms to the Macca-
bean period, five or six hundred years
after David lived. for their historical set
ting, we hardly know which to be more
surprised at-the historic sense OF the IN
| terpre,er or his belief In the capacity OF
| the Psalmist to anticipate the details Oh
a distant age long before 1t was born.
| But it Is not enough for our conscien-
| tious scout of the dim past, as we may
/ fairly call DR.. Bruce, to establish the IN
| innate connection between the Paris
| Psalter and In Psalmorum Librum Exege-
| sis. and, back of that, the derivation OF
| the peculiar augmentation OF the latter
| from the Syriac epitome, and that again
| from Theodore of Mopsuestia; he finds 1t
needful to explain the appearance OF q
heterodox system Of Interpretation In a
book so carefully orthodox. according to
medieval standards, as this very Exegesis
! Is In other respects. Without giving all
| the steps In this further quest We may say
| that DIR. Bruce succeeds In making II
| seem most probable that Exegesis, which
| passed for a time as a work OF Bede, was
| really the work OF a Benedictine monk
named Ambrose Autpert. who wrote a
| commentary on the Psalms In the eighth
| ca.t,,rxt THE xyiaua Of rbaofora waro