{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_7168/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_7168","id":"gutenberg_7168","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7168","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Old Testament -- Introductions","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"This eBook was produced by Anne Folland, Tiffany Vergon, Charles Franks\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT\n\nBy\n\nJOHN EDGAR McFADYEN, M.A. (Glas.) B.A. (Oxon.)\n\n\n_Professor of Old Testament Literature and Exegesis, Knox College,\nToronto_\n\n\n\nTo My Pupils Past and Present\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThis _Introduction_ does not pretend to offer anything to\nspecialists. It is written for theological students, ministers, and\nlaymen, who desire to understand the modern attitude to the Old\nTestament as a whole, but who either do not have the time or the\ninclination to follow the details on which all thorough study of it\nmust ultimately rest. These details are intricate, often perplexing,\nand all but innumerable, and the student is in danger of failing to\nsee the wood for the trees. This _Introduction_, therefore,\nconcentrates attention only on the more salient features of the\ndiscussion. No attempt has been made, for example, to relegate every\nverse in the Pentateuch[1] to its documentary source; but the method\nof attacking the Pentateuchal problem has been presented, and the\nlarger documentary divisions indicated.\n[Footnote 1: Pentateuch and Hexateuch are used in this volume to\nindicate the first five and the first six books of the Old Testament\nrespectively, without reference to any critical theory. As the first\nfive books form a natural division by themselves, and as their\nliterary sources are continued not only into Joshua, but probably\nbeyond it, it is as legitimate to speak of the Pentateuch as of the\nHexateuch.]\n\nIt is obvious, therefore, that the discussions can in no case be\nexhaustive; such treatment can only be expected in commentaries to\nthe individual books. While carefully considering all the more\nimportant alternatives, I have usually contented myself with\npresenting the conclusion which seemed to me most probable; and I\nhave thought it better to discuss each case on its merits, without\nreferring expressly and continually to the opinions of English and\nforeign scholars.\n\nIn order to bring the discussion within the range of those who have\nno special linguistic equipment, I have hardly ever cited Greek or\nHebrew words, and never in the original alphabets. For a similar\nreason, the verses are numbered, not as in the Hebrew, but as in the\nEnglish Bible. I have sought to make the discussion read continuously,\nwithout distracting the attention--excepting very occasionally-by\nfoot-notes or other devices.\n\nAbove all things, I have tried to be interesting. Critical\ndiscussions are too apt to divert those who pursue them from the\nabsorbing human interest of the Old Testament. Its writers were men\nof like hopes and fears and passions with ourselves, and not the\nleast important task of a sympathetic scholarship is to recover that\nhumanity which speaks to us in so many portions and so many ways\nfrom the pages of the Old Testament. While we must never allow\nourselves to forget that the Old Testament is a voice from the\nancient and the Semitic world, not a few parts of it--books, for\nexample, like Job and Ecclesiastes--are as modern as the book that\nwas written yesterday.\n\nBut, first and last, the Old Testament is a religious book; and an\n_Introduction_ to it should, in my opinion, introduce us not\nonly to its literary problems, but to its religious content. I have\ntherefore usually attempted--briefly, and not in any homiletic\nspirit--to indicate the religious value and significance of its\nseveral books.\n\nThere may be readers who would here and there have desiderated a\nmore confident tone, but I have deliberately refrained from going\nfurther than the facts seemed to warrant. The cause of truth is not\nserved by unwarranted assertions; and the facts are often so difficult\nto concatenate that dogmatism becomes an impertinence. Those who know\nthe ground best walk the most warily. But if the old confidence has\nbeen lost, a new confidence has been won. Traditional opinions on\nquestions of date and authorship may have been shaken or overturned,\nbut other and greater things abide; and not the least precious is\nthat confidence, which can now justify itself at the bar of the most\nrigorous scientific investigation, that, in a sense altogether unique,\nthe religion of Israel is touched by the finger of God.\n\nJOHN E. McFADYEN.\n\nENGELBERG, SWITZERLAND.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nTHE ORDER OF THE BOOKS\n\nGENESIS\n\nEXODUS\n\nLEVITICUS\n\nNUMBERS\n\nDEUTERONOMY\n\nJOSHUA\n\nTHE PROPHETIC AND PRIESTLY DOCUMENTS\n\nJUDGES\n\nSAMUEL\n\nKINGS\n\nISAIAH\n\nJEREMIAH\n\nEZEKIEL\n\nHOSEA\n\nJOEL\n\nAMOS\n\nOBADIAH\n\nJONAH\n\nMICAH\n\nNAHUM\n\nHABAKKUK\n\nZEPHANIAH\n\nHAGGAI\n\nZECHARIAH\n\nMALACHI\n\nPSALMS\n\nPROVERBS\n\nJOB\n\nSONG OF SONGS\n\nRUTH\n\nLAMENTATIONS\n\nECCLESIASTES\n\nESTHER\n\nDANIEL\n\nEZRA-NEHEMIAH\n\nCHRONICLES\n\n\n\n\nTHE ORDER OF THE BOOKS\n\nIn the English Bible the books of the Old Testament are arranged,\nnot in the order in which they appear in the Hebrew Bible, but in\nthat assigned to them by the Greek translation. In this translation\nthe various books are grouped according to their contents--first the\nhistorical books, then the poetic, and lastly the prophetic. This\norder has its advantages, but it obscures many important facts of\nwhich the Hebrew order preserves a reminiscence. The Hebrew Bible\nhas also three divisions, known respectively as the Law, the\nProphets, and the Writings. _The Law_ stands for the Pentateuch.\n_The Prophets_ are subdivided into (i) the former prophets, that\nis, the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings,\nregarded as four in number; and (ii) the latter prophets, that is,\nthe prophets proper--Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve\n(i.e. the Minor Prophets). _The Writings_ designate all the rest\nof the books, usually in the following order--Psalms, Proverbs, Job,\nSong of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel,\nEzra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.\n\nIt would somewhat simplify the scientific study even of the English\nBible, if the Hebrew order could be restored, for it is in many ways\ninstructive and important. It reveals the unique and separate\nimportance of the Pentateuch; it suggests that the historical books\nfrom Joshua to Kings are to be regarded not only as histories, but\nrather as the illustration of prophetic principles; it raises a high\nprobability that Ruth ought not to be taken with Judges, nor\nLamentations with Jeremiah, nor Daniel with the prophets. It can be\nproved that the order of the divisions represents the order in which\nthey respectively attained canonical importance--the law before 400\nB.C., the prophets about 200 B.C., the writings about 100 B.C.--and,\ngenerally speaking, the latest books are in the last division. Thus\nwe are led to suspect a relatively late origin for the Song and\nEcclesiastes, and Chronicles, being late, will not be so important a\nhistorical authority as Kings. The facts suggested by the Hebrew\norder and confirmed by a study of the literature are sufficient to\njustify the adoption of that order in preference to that of the\nEnglish Bible.\n\n\n\n\nGENESIS\n\n\nThe Old Testament opens very impressively. In measured and dignified\nlanguage it introduces the story of Israel's origin and settlement\nupon the land of Canaan (Gen.--Josh.) by the story of creation,\ni.-ii. 4_a_, and thus suggests, at the very beginning, the\nfar-reaching purpose and the world-wide significance of the people and\nreligion of Israel. The narrative has not travelled far till it\nbecomes apparent that its dominant interests are to be religious and\nmoral; for, after a pictorial sketch of man's place and task in the\nworld, and of his need of woman's companionship, ii. 4_b_-25,\nit plunges at once into an account, wonderful alike in its poetic\npower and its psychological insight, of the tragic and costly[1]\ndisobedience by which the divine purpose for man was at least\ntemporarily frustrated (iii.). His progress in history is, morally\nconsidered, downward. Disobedience in the first generation becomes\nmurder in the next, and it is to the offspring of the violent Cain\nthat the arts and amenities of civilization are traced, iv. 1-22.\nThus the first song in the Old Testament is a song of revenge,\niv. 23, 24, though this dark background of cruelty is not unlit by a\ngleam of religion, iv. 26. After the lapse of ten generations (v.)\nthe world had grown so corrupt that God determined to destroy it by a\nflood; but because Noah was a good man, He saved him and his household\nand resolved never again to interrupt the course of nature in judgment\n(vi.-viii.). In establishing the covenant with Noah, emphasis is laid\non the sacredness of blood, especially of the blood of man, ix. 1-17.\nThough grace abounds, however, sin also abounds. Noah fell, and his\nfall revealed the character of his children: the ancestor of the\nSemites, from whom the Hebrews sprang, is blessed, as is also Japheth,\nwhile the ancestor of the licentious Canaanites is cursed, ix. 18-27.\nFrom these three are descended the great families of mankind (x.)\nwhose unity was confounded and whose ambitions were destroyed by the\ncreation of diverse languages, xi. 1-9.\n[Footnote 1: Death is the penalty (iii. 22-24). Another explanation of\nhow death came into the world is given in the ancient and interesting\nfragment vi. 1-4.]\n\nIt is against this universal background that the story of the\nHebrews is thrown; and in the new beginning which history takes with\nthe call of Abraham, something like the later contrast between the\nchurch and the world is intended to be suggested. Upon the sombreness\nof human history as reflected in Gen. i.-xi., a new possibility breaks\nin Gen. xii., and the rest of the book is devoted to the fathers of\nthe Hebrew people (xii.-l.). The most impressive figure from a\nreligious point of view is Abraham, the oldest of them all, and the\nstory of his discipline is told with great power, xi. 10-xxv. 10.\nHe was a Semite, xi. 10-32, and under a divine impulse he migrated\nwestward to Canaan, xii. 1-9.\n\nThere various fortunes befell him--famine which drove him to Egypt,\nperil through the beauty of his wife,[1] abounding and conspicuous\nprosperity--but through it all Abraham displayed a true magnanimity\nand enjoyed the divine favour, xii. 10-xiii., which was manifested\neven in a striking military success (xiv.). Despite this favour,\nhowever, he grew despondent, as he had no child. But there came to\nhim the promise of a son, confirmed by a covenant (xv.), the symbol\nof which was to be circumcision (xvii.); and Abraham trusted God,\nunlike his wife, whose faith was not equal to the strain, and who\nsought the fulfilment of the promise in foolish ways of her own,[2]\nxvi., xviii. 1-15. Then follows the story of Abraham's earnest but\nineffectual intercession for the wicked cities of the plain--a story\nwhich further reminds us how powerfully the narrative is controlled\nby moral and religious interests, xviii. 16-xix. Faith is rewarded\nat last by the birth of a son, xxi. 1-7, and Abraham's prosperity\nbecomes so conspicuous that a native prince is eager to make a\ntreaty with him, xxi. 22-34. The supreme test of his faith came to\nhim in the impulse to offer his son to God in sacrifice; but at the\ncritical moment a substitute was providentially provided, and\nAbraham's faith, which had stood so terrible a test, was rewarded by\nanother renewal of the divine assurance (xxii.). His wife died, and\nfor a burial-place he purchased from the natives a field and cave in\nHebron, thus winning in the promised land ground he could legally\ncall his own (xxiii). Among his eastern kinsfolk a wife is\nprovidentially found for Isaac (xxiv.), who becomes his father's\nheir, xxv. 1-6. Then Abraham dies, xxv. 7-11, and the uneventful\ncareer of Isaac is briefly described in tales that partly duplicate[3]\nthose told of his greater father, xxv. 7-xxvi.\n[Footnote 1: This story (xii. 10-20) is duplicated in xx.; also in\nxxvi. 1-11 (of Isaac).]\n[Footnote 2: The story of the expulsion of Hagar in xvi. is\nduplicated in xxi. 8-21.]\n[Footnote 3: xxvi. 1-11=xii. 10-20 (xx.); xxvi. 26-33=xxi. 22-34.]\n\nThe story of Isaac's son Jacob is as varied and romantic as his own\nwas uneventful. He begins by fraudulently winning a blessing from\nhis father, and has in consequence to flee the promised land,\nxxvii.-xxviii. 9. On the threshold of his new experiences he was\ntaught in a dream the nearness of heaven to earth, and received\nthe assurance that the God who had visited him at Bethel would\nbe with him in the strange land and bring him back to his own,\nxxviii. 10-22. In the land of his exile, his fortunes ran a very\ncheckered course (xxix.-xxxi.). In Laban, his Aramean kinsman, he\nmet his match, and almost his master, in craft; and the initial\nfraud of his life was more than once punished in kind. In due time,\nhowever, he left the land of his sojourn, a rich and prosperous man.\nBut his discipline is not over when he reaches the homeland. The past\nrises up before him in the person of the brother whom he had wronged;\nand besides reckoning with Esau, he has also to wrestle with God. He\nis embroiled in strife with the natives of the land, and he loses his\nbeloved Rachel (xxxii.-xxxv.).\n\nInto the later years of Jacob is woven the most romantic story of\nall--that of his son Joseph (xxxvii.-l.)[1] the dreamer, who rose\nthrough persecution and prison, slander and sorrow (xxxvii.-xl.) to\na seat beside the throne of Pharaoh (xli.). Nowhere is the providence\nthat governs life and the Nemesis that waits upon sin more dramatically\nillustrated than in the story of Joseph. Again and again his guilty\nbrothers are compelled to confront the past which they imagined they\nhad buried out of sight for ever (xlii.-xliv.). But at last comes the\ngracious reconciliation between Joseph and them (xlv.), the tender\nmeeting between Jacob and Joseph (xlvi.), the ultimate settlement of\nthe family of Jacob in Egypt,[2] and the consequent transference of\ninterest to that country for several generations. The book closes\nwith scenes illustrating the wisdom and authority of Joseph in the\ntime of famine (xlvii.), the dying Jacob blessing Joseph's sons\n(xlviii.), his parting words (in verse) to all his sons (xlix.), his\ndeath and funeral honours, l. 1-14, Joseph's magnanimous forgiveness\nof his brothers, and his death, in the sure hope that God would one\nday bring the Israelites back again to the land of Canaan, l. 15-26.\n[Footnote 1: xxxvi. deals with the Edomite clans, and xxxviii. with\nthe clans of Judah.]\n[Footnote 2: In one version they are not exactly in Egypt, but near\nit, in Goshen (xlvii. 6).]\n\nThe unity of the book of Genesis is unmistakable; yet a close\ninspection reveals it to be rather a unity of idea than of execution.\nWhile in general it exhibits the gradual progress of the divine\npurpose on its way through primeval and patriarchal history, in\ndetail it presents a number of phenomena incompatible with unity of\nauthorship. The theological presuppositions of different parts of\nthe book vary widely; centuries of religious thought, for example,\nmust lie between the God who partakes of the hospitality of Abraham\nunder a tree (xviii.) and the majestic, transcendent, invisible\nBeing at whose word the worlds are born (i.). The style, too,\ndiffers as the theological conceptions do: it is impossible not to\nfeel the difference between the diffuse, precise, and formal style\nof ix. 1-17, and the terse, pictorial and poetic manner of the\nimmediately succeeding section, ix. 18-27. Further, different\naccounts are given of the origin of particular names or facts:\nBeersheba is connected, e.g. with a treaty made, in one case,\nbetween Abraham and Abimelech, xxi. 31, in another, between Isaac\nand Abimelech, xxvi. 33. But perhaps the most convincing proof that\nthe book is not an original literary unit is the lack of inherent\ncontinuity in the narrative of special incidents, and the occasional\ninconsistencies, sometimes between different parts of the book,\nsometimes even within the same section.\n\nThis can be most simply illustrated from the story of the Flood\n(vi. 5ff.), through which the beginner should work for himself-at\nfirst without suggestions from critical commentaries or introductions--as\nhere the analysis is easy and singularly free from complications;\nthe results reached upon this area can be applied and extended to\nthe rest of the book. The problem might be attacked in some such way\nas follows. Ch. vi. 5-8 announces the wickedness of man and the\npurpose of God to destroy him; throughout these verses the divine\nBeing is called Jehovah.[1] In the next section, _vv_. 9-13, He\nis called by a different name--God (Hebrew, _Elohim_)--and we\ncannot but notice that this section adds nothing to the last;\n_vv_. 9, 10 are an interruption, and _vv_. 11-13 but a\nrepetition of _vv_. 5-8. Corresponding to the change in the\ndivine name is a further change in the vocabulary, the word for\n_destroy_ being different in _vv_. 7 and 13. Verses 14-22\ncontinue the previous section with precise and minute instructions\nfor the building of the ark, and in the later verses (cf. 18, 20)\nthe precision tends to become diffuseness. The last verse speaks of\nthe divine Being as God (Elohim), so that both the language and\ncontents of _vv_. 9-22 show it to be a homogeneous section.\nNote that here, _vv_. 19, 20, two animals of every kind are to\nbe taken into the ark, no distinction being drawn between the clean\nand the unclean. Noah must now be in the ark; for we are told that\nhe had done all that God commanded him, _vv_. 22, 18.\n[Footnote 1: Wrongly represented by _the Lord_ in the English\nversion; the American Revised Version always correctly renders by\n_Jehovah_. _God_ in v. 5 is an unfortunate mistake of A.V.\nThis ought also to be _the Lord_, or rather _Jehovah_.]\n\nBut, to our surprise, ch. vii. starts the whole story afresh with a\ndivine command to Noah to enter the ark; and this time, significantly\nenough, a distinction is made between the clean and the unclean-seven\npairs of the former to enter and one pair of the latter (vii. 2). It\nis surely no accident that in this section the name of the divine\nBeing is Jehovah, _vv_. 1, 5; and its contents follow naturally\non vi. 5-8. In other words we have here, not a continuous account,\nbut two parallel accounts, one of which uses the name God, the other\nJehovah, for the divine Being. This important conclusion is put\npractically beyond all doubt by the similarity between vi. 22 and vii. 5,\nwhich differ only in the use of the divine name. A close study of the\ncharacteristics of these sections whose origin is thus certain will\nenable us approximately to relegate to their respective sources other\nsections, verses, or fragments of verses in which the important clue,\nfurnished by the name of the divine Being, is not present. Any verse,\nor group of verses, e.g. involving the distinction between the clean\nand the unclean, will belong to the _Jehovistic_ source, as it is\ncalled (J). This is the real explanation of the confusion which\nevery one feels who attempts to understand the story as a unity. It\nwas always particularly hard to reconcile the apparently conflicting\nestimates of the duration of the Flood; but as soon as the sources\nare separated, it becomes clear that, according to the Jehovist, it\nlasted sixty-eight days, according to the other source over a year\n(vii. 11, viii. 14).\n\nBrief as the Flood story is, it furnishes us with material enough to\nstudy the characteristic differences between the sources out of\nwhich it is composed. The Jehovist is terse, graphic, and poetic; it\nis this source in which occurs the fine description of the sending\nforth of the raven and the dove, viii. 6-12. It knows how to make a\nsingularly effective use of concrete details: witness Noah putting\nout his hand and pulling the dove into the ark, and her final return\nwith an olive leaf in her mouth. A similarly graphic touch,\ninteresting also for the sidelight it throws on the Jehovist's\ntheological conceptions is that, when Noah entered the ark, \"Jehovah\nclosed the door behind him,\" vii. 16. Altogether different is the\nother source. It is all but lacking in poetic touches and concrete\ndetail of this kind, and such an anthropomorphism as vii. 16 would\nbe to it impossible. It is pedantically precise, giving the exact\nyear, month, and even day when the Flood came, vii. 11, and when it\nceased, viii. 13, 14. There is a certain legal precision about it\nwhich issues in diffuseness and repetition; over and over again\noccur such phrases as \"fowl, cattle, creeping things, each after its\nkind,\" vi. 20, vii. 14, and the dimensions of the ark are accurately\ngiven. Where J had simply said, \"Thou and all thy house,\" vii. 1,\nthis source says, \"Thou and thy sons and thy wife and thy sons'\nwives with thee,\" vi. 18. From the identity of interest and style\nbetween this source and the middle part of the Pentateuch, notably\nLeviticus, it is characterized as the priestly document and known to\ncriticism as P.\n\nThus, though the mainstay of the analysis, or at least the original\npoint of departure, is the difference in the names of the divine\nBeing, many other phenomena, of vocabulary, style, and theology, are\nso distinctive that on the basis of them alone we could relegate\nmany sections of Genesis with considerable confidence to their\nrespective sources. In particular, P is especially easy to detect.\nFor example, the use of the term Elohim, the repetitions, the\nprecise and formal manner, the collocation of such phrases as \"fowl,\ncattle, creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth,\" i. 26 (cf.\nvii. 21), mark out the first story of creation, i.-ii. 4_a_, as\nindubitably belonging to P. Besides the stories of the creation and\nthe flood, the longest and most important, though not quite the only\npassages[1] belonging to P are ix. 1-17 (the covenant with Noah),\nxvii. (the covenant with Abraham), and xxiii. (the purchase of a\nburial place for Sarah). This is a fact of the greatest significance.\nFor P, the story of creation culminates in the institution of the\nSabbath, the story of the flood in the covenant with Noah, with the law\nconcerning the sacredness of blood, the covenant with Abraham is sealed\nby circumcision, and the purchase of Machpelah gives Abraham legal\nright to a footing in the promised land. In other words the interests\nof this source are legal and ritual. This becomes abundantly plain in\nthe next three books of the Pentateuch, but even in Genesis it may be\njustly inferred from the unusual fulness of the narrative at these\nfour points.\n[Footnote 1: The curious ch. xiv. is written under the influence of\nP. Here also ritual interests play a part in the tithes paid to the\npriest of Salem, v. 20 (i.e. Jerusalem). In spite of its array of\nancient names, xiv. 1, 2, which have been partially corroborated by\nrecent discoveries, this chapter is, for several reasons, believed\nto be one of the latest in the Pentateuch.]\n\nWhen we examine what is left in Genesis, after deducting the\nsections that belong to P, we find that the word God (Elohim),\ncharacteristic of P, is still very frequently and in some sections\nexclusively used. The explanation will appear when we come to deal\nwith Exodus: meantime the fact must be carefully noted. Ch. xx.,\ne.g., uses the word Elohim, but it has no other mark characteristic\nof P. It is neither formal nor diffuse in style nor legal in spirit;\nit is as concrete and almost as graphic as anything in J. Indeed the\nstory related--Abraham's denial of his wife--is actually told in\nthat document, xii. 10-20 (also of Isaac, xxvi. 1-11); and in\ngeneral the history is covered by this document, which is called the\nElohist[1] and known to criticism as E, in much the same spirit, and\nwith an emphasis upon much the same details, as by J. In opposition\nto P, these are known as the prophetic documents, because they were\nwritten or at least put together under the influence of prophetic\nideas. The close affinity of these two documents renders it much\nmore difficult to distinguish them from each other than to\ndistinguish either of them from P, but within certain limits the\nattempt may be successfully made. The basis of it must, of course,\nbe a study of the duplicate versions of the same incidents; that is,\nsuch a narrative as ch. xx., which uses the word God (Elohim) is\ncompared with its parallel in xii. 10-20, which uses the word\nJehovah, and in this way the distinctive features and interests of\neach document will most readily be found. The parallel suggested is\neasy and instructive, and it reveals the relative ethical and\ntheological superiority of E to J. J tells the story of Abraham's\nfalsehood with a quaint na\u00efvet\u00e9 (xii.); E is offended by it and\nexcuses it (xx.). The theological refinement of E is suggested not\nonly here, xx. 3, 6, but elsewhere, by the frequency with which God\nappears in dreams and not in bodily presence as in J (cf. iii. 8).\nSimilarly the expulsion of Hagar, which in J is due to Sarah's\njealousy (xvi.), in E is attributed to a command of God, xxi. 8-21;\nand the success of Jacob with the sheep, which in J is due to his\nskill and cunning, xxx. 29-43, is referred in E to the intervention\nof God, xxxi. 5-12. In general it may be said that J, while\nreligious, is also natural, whereas E tends to emphasize the\nsupernatural, and thus takes the first step towards the austere\ntheology of P.[2]\n[Footnote 1: In this way it is distinguished from P, which, as we\nhave seen, is also Elohistic, but is not now so called.]\n[Footnote 2: A detailed justification of the grounds of the critical\nanalysis will be found in Professor Driver's elaborate and admirable\n_Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_, where\nevery section throughout the Hexateuch is referred to its special\ndocumentary source. To readers who desire to master the detail, that\nwork or one of the following will be indispensable: _The Hexateuch_,\nedited by Carpenter and Battersby, Addis's _Documents of the Hexateuch_,\nBacon's _Genesis of Genesis_ and _Triple Tradition of the Exodus_,\nor Kent's _Student's Old Testament_ (vol. i.)]\n\nJ is the most picturesque and fascinating of all the sources-attractive\nalike for its fine poetic power and its profound religious insight.\nThis is the source which describes the wooing of Isaac's bride (xxiv.),\nand the meeting of Jacob and Rachel at the well, xxix. 2-14; in this\nsource, too, which appears to be the most primitive of all, there are\nspeaking animals--the serpent, e.g., in Genesis iii. (and the ass in\nNum. xxii. 28). The story of the origin of sin, in every respect a\nmasterpiece, is told by J; we do not know whether to admire more the\nease with which Jehovah, like a skilful judge, by a few penetrating\nquestions drives the guilty pair to an involuntary confession, or\nthe fidelity with which the whole immortal scene reflects the eternal\nfacts of human nature. The religious teaching of J is extraordinarily\npowerful and impressive, all the more that it is never directly\ndidactic; it shines through the simple and unstudied recital of\nconcrete incident.\n\nIt is one of the most delicate and not the least important tasks of\ncriticism to discover by analysis even the sources which lie so\nclose to each other as J and E, for the literary efforts represented\nby these documents are but the reflection of religious movements.\nThey testify to the affection which the people cherished for the\nstory of their past; and when we have arranged them in chronological\norder, they enable us further, as we have seen, to trace the\nprogress of moral and religious ideas. But, for several reasons, it\nis not unfair, and, from the beginner's point of view, it is perhaps\neven advisable, to treat these documents together as a unity:\n_firstly_, because they were actually combined, probably in the\nseventh century, into a unity (JE), and sometimes, as in the Joseph\nstory, so skilfully that it is very difficult to distinguish the\ncomponent parts and assign them to their proper documentary source;\n_secondly_, because, for a reason to be afterwards stated,\nbeyond Ex. iii. the analysis is usually supremely difficult; and,\n_lastly_, because in language and spirit, the prophetic\ndocuments are very like each other and altogether unlike the\npriestly document. For practical purposes, then, the broad\ndistinction into prophetic and priestly will generally be\nsufficient. Wherever the narrative is graphic, powerful, and\ninteresting, we may be sure that it is prophetic,[1] whereas the\npriestly document is easily recognizable by its ritual interests,\nand by its formal, diffuse, and legal style.\n[Footnote 1: If inconsistencies, contradictions or duplicates appear\nin the section which is clearly prophetic, the student may be\npractically certain that these are to be referred to the two\nprophetic sources. Cf. the two derivations of the name of Joseph in\nconsecutive verses whose source is at once obvious: \"_God_\n(Elohim) has taken away my reproach\" (E); and \"_Jehovah_ adds\nto me another son\" (J), Gen. xxx. 23, 24. Cf. also the illustrations\nadduced on pp. 13, 14.]\n\nThe documents already discussed constitute the chief sources of the\nbook of Genesis; but there are occasional fragments which do not\nseem originally to have belonged to any of them. There were also\ncollections of poetry, such as the Book of Jashar (cf. Josh. x. 13;\n2 Sam. i. 18), at the disposal of those who wrote or compiled the\ndocuments, and to such a collection the parting words of Jacob may\nhave belonged (xlix.). The poem is in reality a characterization of\nthe various _tribes; v_. 15, and still more plainly _vv_.\n23, 24, look back upon historical events. The reference to Levi,\n_vv_. 5-7, which takes no account of the priestly prerogatives\nof that tribe, shows that the poem is early (cf. xxxiv. 25); but the\ndescription of the prosperity of Joseph (i.e. Ephraim and Manasseh),\n_vv_. 22-26, and the pre-eminence of Judah, _vv_. 8-12,\nbring it far below patriarchal times--at least into the period of\nthe Judges. If _vv_. 8-12 is an allusion to the triumphs of\nDavid and _vv_. 22-26 to northern Israel, the poem as a whole,\nwhich can hardly be later than Solomon's time--for it celebrates\nIsrael and Judah equally--could not be earlier than David's; but\nprobably the various utterances concerning the different tribes\narose at different times.\n\nThe religious interest of Genesis is very high, the more so as\nalmost every stage of religious reflection is represented in it,\nfrom the most primitive to the most mature. Through the ancient\nstories there gleam now and then flashes from a mythological\nbackground, as in the intermarriage of angels with mortal women, vi.\n1-4, or in the struggle of the mighty Jacob, who could roll away the\ngreat stone from the mouth of the well, xxix. 2, 10, with his\nsupernatural visitant, xxxii. 24. It is a long step from the second\ncreation story in which God, like a potter, fashions men out of\nmoist earth, ii. 7, and walks in the garden of Paradise in the cool\nof the day, iii. 8, to the first, with its sublime silence on the\nmysterious processes of creation (i.). But the whole book, and\nespecially the prophetic section, is dominated by a splendid sense\nof the reality of God, His interest in men, His horror of sin, His\npurpose to redeem. Broadly speaking, the religion of the book stands\nupon a marvellously high moral level. It is touched with humility-its\nheroes know that they are \"not worth of all the love and the faithfulness\"\nwhich God shows them, xxxii. 10; and it is marked by a true inwardness-for\nit is not works but implicit trust in God that counts for righteousness,\nxv. 16. Yet in practical ways, too, this religion finds expression in\nnational and individual life; it protests vehemently against human\nsacrifice (xxii.), and it strengthens a lonely youth in an hour of\nterrible temptation, xxxix.\n9.\n\n\n\n\nEXODUS\n\n\nThe book of Exodus--so named in the Greek version from the march of\nIsrael out of Egypt--opens upon a scene of oppression very different\nfrom the prosperity and triumph in which Genesis had closed. Israel\nis being cruelly crushed by the new dynasty which has arisen in\nEgypt (i.) and the story of the book is the story of her redemption.\nUltimately it is Israel's God that is her redeemer, but He operates\nlargely by human means; and the first step is the preparation of a\ndeliverer, Moses, whose parentage, early training, and fearless love\nof justice mark him out as the coming man (ii.). In the solitude and\ndepression of the desert, he is encouraged by the sight of a bush,\nburning yet unconsumed, and sent forth with a new vision of God[1]\nupon his great and perilous task (iii.). Though thus divinely\nequipped, he hesitated, and God gave him a helper in Aaron his\nbrother (iv.). Then begins the Titanic struggle between Moses and\nPharaoh--Moses the champion of justice, Pharaoh the incarnation of\nmight (v.). Blow after blow falls from Israel's God upon the\nobstinate king of Egypt and his unhappy land: the water of the Nile\nis turned into blood (vii.), there are plagues of frogs, gnats,\ngadflies (viii.), murrain, boils, hail (ix.), locusts, darkness\n(x.), and--last and most terrible of all--the smiting of the first-born,\nan event in connexion with which the passover was instituted. Then\nPharaoh yielded. Israel went forth; and the festival of unleavened\nbread was ordained for a perpetual memorial (xi., xii.); also the\nfirst-born of man and beast was consecrated, xiii. 1-16.\n[Footnote 1: The story of the revelation of Israel's God under His\nnew name, Jehovah, is told twice (in ch. iii. and ch. vi.).]\n\nIsrael's troubles, however, were not yet over. Their departing\nhost was pursued by the impenitent Pharaoh, but miraculously delivered\nat the Red Sea, in which the Egyptian horses and horsemen were\noverwhelmed, xiii. l7-xiv. The deliverance was celebrated in a\nsplendid song of triumph, xv. 1-21. Then they began their journey\nto Sinai--a journey which revealed alike the faithlessness and\ndiscontent of their hearts, and the omnipotent and patient bounty\nof their God, manifested in delivering them from the perils of\nhunger, thirst and war, xv. 22-xvii. 16. On the advice of Jethro,\nMoses' father-in-law, God-fearing men were appointed to decide for\nthe people on all matters of lesser moment, while the graver cases\nwere still reserved for Moses (xviii.)[1]The arrival at Sinai\nmarked a crisis; for it was there that the epoch-making covenant\nwas made--Jehovah promising to continue His grace to the people,\nand they, on their part, pledging themselves to obedience. Thunder\nand lightning and dark storm-clouds accompanied the proclamation\nof the ten commandments,[2] which represented the claims made by\nJehovah upon the people whom He had redeemed, xix.-xx. 22. Connected\nwith these claims are certain statutes, partly of a religious but\nmuch more of a civil nature, which Moses is enjoined to lay upon the\npeople, and obedience to which is to be rewarded by prosperity and\na safe arrival at the promised land, xx. 23-xxiii. 33. This section\nis known as the Book of the Covenant, xxiv. 7. The people unitedly\npromised implicit obedience to the terms of this covenant, which was\nthen sealed with the blood of sacrifice. After six days of\npreparation, Moses ascended the mountain in obedience to the voice\nof Jehovah (xxiv.).\n[Footnote 1: This chapter is apparently misplaced. In Deut. i. 9-18\nthe incident is set just before the _departure from_ Sinai (cf.\ni. 19). It may therefore originally have stood after Ex. xxxiv. 9 or\nbefore Num. x. 29.]\n[Footnote 2: Or rather, the ten words. In another source, the\ncommands are given differently, and are ritual rather than moral,\nxxxiv. 10-28 (J).]\n\nAt this point the story takes on a distinctly priestly complexion,\nand interest is transferred from the fortunes of the people to the\nconstruction of the sanctuary, for which the most minute directions\nare given (xxv.-xxxi.), concerning the tabernacle with all its\nfurniture, the ark, the table for the shewbread, the golden\ncandlestick (xxv.), the four-fold covering for the tabernacle, the\nwood-work, the veil between the holy and the most holy place, the\ncurtain for the door (xxvi.), the altar, the court round about the\ntabernacle, the oil for the light (xxvii.), the sacred vestments for\nthe high priest and the other priests (xxviii.), the manner of\nconsecration of the priests, the priestly dues, the atonement for\nthe altar, the morning and evening offering (xxix.), the altar of\nincense, the poll-tax, the laver, the holy oil, the incense (xxx.),\nthe names and divine equipment of the overseers of the work of\nconstructing the tabernacle, the sanctity of the Sabbath as a sign\nof the covenant (xxxi.).\n\nAfter this priestly digression, the thread of the story is resumed.\nDuring the absence of Moses upon the mount, the people imperilled\ntheir covenant relationship with their God by worshipping Him in the\nform of a calf; but, on the very earnest intercession of Moses they\nwere forgiven, and there was given to him the special revelation\nof Jehovah as a God of forgiving pity and abounding grace. In the\ntent to which the people regularly resorted to learn the divine will,\nGod was wont to speak to Moses face to face, xxxii. 1-xxxiv. 9.\nThen follows the other version of the decalogue already referred\nto--ritual rather than moral, xxxiv. l0-28--and an account of the\ntransfiguration of Moses, as he laid Jehovah's commands upon the\npeople, xxxiv. 29-35. From this point to the end of the book the\natmosphere is again unmistakably priestly. Chs. xxxv.-xxxix,\nbeginning with the Sabbath law, assert with a profusion of detail\nthat the instructions given in xxv.-xxxi. were carried out to the\nletter. Then the tabernacle was set up on New Year's day, the divine\nglory filled it, and the subsequent movements of the people were\nguided by cloud and fire (xl.).\n\nThe unity of Exodus is not quite so impressive as that of Genesis.\nThis is due to the different proportion in which the sources are\nblended, P playing a much more conspicuous part here than there.\nWithout hesitation, more than one-fourth of the book may be at once\nrelegated to this source: viz. xxv.-xxxi., which describe the\ntabernacle to be erected with all that pertained to it, and xxxv.-xl.,\nwhich relate that the instructions there given were fully carried out.\nThe minuteness, the formality and monotony of style which we noticed\nin Genesis reappear here; but the real spirit of P, its devotion to\neverything connected with the sanctuary and worship, is much more\nobvious here than there. This document is also fairly prominent in\nthe first half of the book, and its presence is usually easy to detect.\nThe section, e.g., on the institution of the passover and the festival\nof unleavened bread, xi. 9-xii. 20, is easily recognized as belonging\nto this source. Of very great importance is the passage, vi. 2-13,\nwhich describes the revelation given to Moses, asserting that the\nfathers knew the God of Israel only by the name El Shaddai, while the\nname of Jehovah, which was then revealed to Moses for the first time,\nwas unknown to them. The succeeding genealogy which traces the descent\nof Moses and Aaron to Levi, vi. 14-30, and Aaron's commission to be\nthe spokesman of Moses, vii. 1-7, also come from P. This source also\ngives a brief account of the oppression and the plagues, and the\nprominence of Aaron the priest in the story of the latter is very\nsignificant. In E the plagues come when _Moses_ stretches out\nhis hand or his rod at the command of Jehovah, ix. 22, x. 12, 21; in\nP, Jehovah says to Moses, \"Say unto _Aaron_, 'Stretch forth thy\nhand' or 'thy rod,'\" viii. 5, 16.\n\nThe story to which we have just alluded, of the revelation of the\nname Jehovah, is also told in ch. iii., where it is connected with\nthe incident of the burning bush. Apart from the improbability of\nthe same document telling the same story twice, the very picturesque\nsetting of ch. iii, is convincing proof that we have here a section\nfrom one of the prophetic documents, and we cannot long doubt which\nit is. For while one of those documents (J), as we have seen, uses\nthe word Jehovah without scruple throughout the whole of Genesis,\nand regards that name as known not only to Abraham, xv. 7, but even\nto the antediluvians, iv. 26, the other regularly uses Elohim. This\nprophetic story, then, of the revelation of the name Jehovah to\nMoses, must belong to E, who deliberately avoids the name Jehovah\nthroughout Genesis, because he considers it unknown before the time\nof Moses. This very fact, however, greatly complicates the\nsubsequent analysis of the prophetic documents in the Pentateuch;\nbecause, from this point on, both are now free to use the name\nJehovah of the divine Being, and thus one of the principal clues to\nthe analysis practically disappears.[1] Considering the affinity of\nthese documents, it is therefore competent, as we have seen, to\ntreat them as a unity.\n[Footnote 1: Naturally there are other very important and valuable\nclues. e.g, the holy mount is called Sinai in J and Horeb in E.]\n\nThe proof, however, that both prophetic documents are really present\nin Exodus, if not at first sight obvious or extensive, is at any\nrate convincing. In one source, e.g. (J), the Israelites dwell by\nthemselves in a district called Goshen, viii. 22 (cf. Gen. xiv. 10);\nin the other, they dwell among the Egyptians as neighbours, so that\nthe women can borrow jewels from them, iii. 22, and their doors have\nto be marked with blood on the night of the passover to distinguish\nthem from the Egyptians, xii. 22. Again in J, the people number over\n600,000, xii. 37; in E they are so few that they only require two\nmidwives, i. 15. Similar slight but significant differences may be\nfound elsewhere, particularly in the account of the plagues. In J,\ne.g., Moses predicts the punishment that will fall if Pharaoh\nrefuses his request, and next day Jehovah sends it: in E, Moses\nworks the wonders by raising his rod. In Exodus, as in Genesis, J\nreveals the divine through the natural, E rather through the\nsupernatural. It is an east wind, e.g., in J, as in the poem, xv.\n10, that drives back the Red Sea, xiv. 21a (as it had brought the\nlocusts, x. 13); in E this happens on the raising of Moses' rod,\nxiv. 16. Here again, as in Genesis, we find that E has taken the\nfirst step on the way to P. For this miracle (in E) at the Red Sea,\nwhich in J is essentially natural, and miraculous only in happening\nat the critical moment, is considerably heightened in P, who relates\nthat the waters were a wall unto the people on the right hand and on\nthe left, xiv. 22.\n\nThese three great documents constitute the principal sources of the\nbook of Exodus; but here, as in Genesis, there are fragments that\nbelong to a more primitive order of ideas than that represented by\nthe compilers of the documents (cf. iv. 24-26); there is, besides\nthe two decalogues, a body of legislation, xx. 23-xxiii. 33; and\nthere is a poem, xv. 1-18. _The Book of the Covenant_, as it is\ncalled, is a body of mainly civil but partly religious law,\npractically independent of the narrative. The style and contents of\nthe code show that it is not all of a piece, but must have been of\ngradual growth. The 2nd pers. sing., e.g., sometimes alternates with\nthe pl. in consecutive verses, xxii. 21, 22. Again, while some of\nthe laws state, in the briefest possible words, the official penalty\nattached to a certain crime, xxi. 12, others are longer and\nintroduce a religious sanction, xxii. 23, 24, and a few deal\ndefinitely with religious feasts, xxiii. 14-19, obligations, xxii.\n29-31, or sanctuaries, xx. 23-26. In general, the code implies the\nsettled life of an agricultural and pastoral people, and the\ncommunity for which it is designed must have already attained a\ncertain measure of organization, as we must assume that there were\nmeans for enacting the penalties threatened. A remarkably\nhumanitarian spirit pervades the code. It mitigates the lot of the\nslave, it encourages a spirit of justice in social relations, and it\nexhibits a fine regard for the poor and defenceless, xxii. 21-27. It\nprobably represents the juristic usages, or at least ideals, of the\nearly monarchy.\n\n_The Song of Moses_, xv. 1-18, also appears to belong to the\nmonarchy. The explicit mention of Philistia, Edom and Moab in\n_vv_. 14, 15 imply that the people are already settled in\nCanaan, and the sanctuary in _v. 17b_ is most naturally, if not\nnecessarily, interpreted of the temple. The poem appears to be an\nelaboration of the no doubt ancient lines:\n\n  Sing to Jehovah, for He hath triumphed gloriously;\n  The horse and his rider He hath thrown into the sea (xv. 21).\n\nThe religious, as opposed to the theological, interest of the book\nlies entirely within the prophetic sources. Here the drama of\nredemption begins in earnest, and it is worked out on a colossal\nscale. From his first blow struck in the cause of justice to the day\non which, in indignation and astonishment, he destroyed the golden\ncalf, Moses is a figure of overwhelming moral earnestness. Few books\nin the Old Testament have a higher conception of God than Exodus.\nThe words of the decalogue are His words, xx. 1, and the protest\nagainst the calf-worship (xxxii.-xxxiv.) is an indirect plea for His\nspirituality. But the highest heights are touched in the revelation\nof Him as merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in\ngoodness and truth, xxxiv. 6--a revelation which lived to the latest\ndays and was cherished in these very words by the pious hearts of\nIsrael (cf. Pss. lxxxvi. 15; ciii. 8; cxi. 4; cxlv. 8).\n\n\n\n\nLEVITICUS\n\n\nThe emphasis which modern criticism has very properly laid on the\nprophetic books and the prophetic element generally in the Old\nTestament, has had the effect of somewhat diverting popular\nattention from the priestly contributions to the literature and\nreligion of Israel. From this neglect Leviticus has suffered most.\nYet for many reasons it is worthy of close attention; it is the\ndeliberate expression of the priestly mind of Israel at its best, and\nit thus forms a welcome foil to the unattractive pictures of the\npriests which confront us on the pages of the prophets during the\nthree centuries between Hosea and Malachi. And if we should be\ninclined to deplore the excessively minute attention to ritual, and\nthe comparatively subordinate part played by ethical considerations\nin this priestly manual, it is only fair to remember that the hymn-book\nused by these scrupulous ministers of worship was the Psalter-enough\nsurely to show that the ethical and spiritual aspects of religion,\nthough not prominent, were very far from being forgotten. In xvii.-xxvi.\nthe ethical element receives a fine and almost surprising prominence:\nthe injunction to abstain from idolatry, e.g., is immediately preceded\nby the injunction to reverence father and mother, xix. 3,4. Indeed,\nch. xix. is a good compendium of the ethics of ancient Israel; and,\nwhile hardly to be compared with Job xxxi., still, in its care for the\nresident alien, and in its insistence upon motives of benevolence and\nhumanity, it is an eloquent reminder of the moral elevation of Israel's\nreligion, and is peculiarly welcome in a book so largely devoted to the\nexternals of the cult.\n\nThe book of Leviticus illustrates the origin and growth of law.\nOccasionally legislation is clothed in the form of narrative--the\nlaw of blasphemy, e.g., xxiv. 10-23 (cf. x. 16-20)--thus suggesting\nits origin in a particular historical incident (cf. I Sam. xxx. 25);\nand traces of growth are numerous, notably in the differences\nbetween the group xvii.-xxvi. and the rest of the book, and very\nancient heathen elements are still visible through the\ntransformations effected by the priests of Israel, as in the case of\nAzazel xvi. 8,22, a demon of the wilderness, akin to the Arabic\njinns. Strictly speaking, though Leviticus is pervaded by a single\nspirit, it is not quite homogeneous: the first group of laws, e.g.\n(i.-vii.), expressly acknowledges different sources--certain laws\nbeing given in the tent of meeting, i. 1, others on Mount Sinai,\nvii. 38. The sections are well defined--note the subscriptions at\nthe end of vii. and xxvi.--and marked everywhere by the scrupulous\nprecision of the legal mind.\n\nThere is no trace in Leviticus of the prophetic document JE. That\nthe book is essentially a law book rather than a continuation of the\nnarrative of the Exodus is made plain by the fact that that\nnarrative (Ex. xl.) is not even formally resumed till ch. viii.\n\n\nI. LAWS OF SACRIFICE (i.-vii.)\n\n_(a) For worshippers_, i.-vi. 7. Laws for the burnt offering of\nthe herd, of the flock, and of fowls (i.). Laws for the different\nkinds of cereal offerings--the use of salt compulsory, honey and\nleaven prohibited (ii.). Laws for the peace-offering--the offerer\nkills it, the priest sprinkles the blood on the sides of the altar\nand burns the fat (iii.) For an unconscious transgression of the\nlaw, the high priest shall offer a bullock, the community shall\noffer the same, a ruler shall offer a he-goat, one of the common\npeople shall offer a female animal (iv.). A female animal shall be\noffered for certain legal and ceremonial transgressions; the poor\nmay offer two turtle doves, or pigeons, or even flour, v. 1-13.\nSacred dues unintentionally withheld or the property of another man\ndishonestly retained must be restored together with twenty per cent.\nextra, v. 14-vi. 7.\n\n_(b) For priests_, vi. 8-vii. 38. Laws regulating the daily\nburnt offering, the cereal offering, the daily cereal offering of\nthe high priest, and the ordinary sin offering, vi. 8-30. Laws\nregulating the guilt offering, the priests' share of the sacrifices,\nthe period during which the flesh of sacrifice may be eaten, the\nprohibition of the eating of fat and blood (vii.).\n\n\nII. THE CONSECRATION OF THE PRIESTHOOD (viii.-x.)\n\nThis section is the direct continuation of Exodus xl., which\nprescribes the inauguration of Aaron and his sons into the priestly\noffice. Laws regulating the consecration of the high priest and the\nother priests--washing, investiture, anointing, sin offering, burnt\noffering, with accompanying rites (viii., cf. Exod. xxix.). The\nfirst sacrificial service at which Aaron and his sons officiate--the\nbenediction being followed by the appearance of Jehovah's glory\n(ix.). The first violation of the law of worship and its signal\npunishment, x. 1-7. Officiating priests forbidden to use wine,\nx. 8-11. Priests' share of the meal and peace offerings, x. 12-15.\nAn error forgiven after an adroit explanation by Aaron (law in\nnarrative form), x. 16-20.\n\n\nIII. LAWS CONCERNING THE CLEAN AND THE UNCLEAN (xi.-xvi.)\n\nThis section appropriately follows x. 10, where the priests are\nenjoined to distinguish between the clean and the unclean. Laws\nconcerning the animals which may or may not be eaten--quadrupeds, fish,\nbirds, flying insects, creeping insects, reptiles--and pollution\nthrough contact with carcasses (xi.). Laws concerning the purification\nof women after childbirth (xii.). Laws for the detection of leprosy\nin the human body, xiii. 1-46, and in garments, xiii. 47-59. Laws for\nthe purification of the leper and his re-adoption into the theocracy,\nxiv. 1-32. Laws concerning houses afflicted with leprosy, xiv. 33-57.\nLaws concerning purification after sexual secretions (xv.). The laws\nof purification are appropriately concluded by the law for the great day\nof atonement, with regulations for the ceremonial cleansing of the high\npriest and his house, the sanctuary, altar, and people (xvi.). Two\noriginally independent sections appear to be blended in this chapter-one\n(cf. _vv._ 1-4) prescribing regulations to be observed by the high\npriest on every occasion on which he should enter the inner sanctuary,\nthe other with specific reference to the great day of atonement.\n\n\nIV. LAW OF HOLINESS (xvii.-xxvi.)\n\nThis section, though still moving largely among ritual interests,\ndiffers markedly from the rest of the book, partly by reason of its\nhortatory setting (cf. xxvi.), but especially by its emphasis on the\nethical elements in religion. It has been designated the Law of\nHoliness because of the frequently recurring phrase, \"Ye shall be\nholy, for I, Jehovah, am holy,\" xix. 2, xx. 26--a phrase which,\nthough not peculiar to this section (cf. xi. 44), is highly\ncharacteristic of it. Animals are to be slaughtered for food or\nsacrifice only at the sanctuary xvii. 1-9; the blood and flesh of\nanimals dying naturally or torn by beasts is not to be eaten, xvii.\n10-16. Laws regulating marriage and chastity with threats of dire\npunishment for violation of the same (xviii.). Penalties for Moloch\nworship, soothsaying, cursing of parents and unchastity (xx.), with\na hortatory conclusion, xx. 22-24, similar to xviii. 24-30.\n\nCh. xix. is the most prophetic chapter in Leviticus, and bears a\nclose analogy to the decalogue, _vv_. 3-8 corresponding to the\nfirst table, and _vv_. 11-18 to the second. The holiness which\nJehovah demands has to express itself not only in reverence for\nHimself and His Sabbaths, but in reverence towards parents and the\naged; in avoiding not only idolatry and heathen superstition, but\ndishonesty and unkindness to the weak. The ideal is a throroughly\nmoral one. A modern reader is surprised to find in so ethical a\nchapter a prohibition of garments made of two kinds of stuff mingled\ntogether _v_. 19; no doubt such a prohibition is aimed at some\nheathen superstition--perhaps the practice of magic.\n\nLaws concerning priests and sacrifices (xxi., xxii.). The holiness\nof the priests is to be maintained by avoiding, as a rule (without\nexception in the case of the high priest), pollution through corpses\nand participation in certain mourning rites, and by conforming to\ncertain conditions in their choice of a wife. The physically\ndeformed are to be ineligible for the priesthood (xxi.). Regulations\nto safeguard the ceremonial purity of the sacred food: imperfect or\ndeformed animals ineligible for sacrifice (xxii.). In ch. xxiii.,\nwhich is a calendar of sacred festivals, the festivals are\nenumerated in the order in which they occur in the year, beginning\nwith spring--the passover, regarded as preliminary to the feast of\nunleavened bread; the feast of weeks (Pentecost) seven weeks\nafterwards; the new year's festival, on the first day of the seventh\nmonth; the day of atonement; and the festival of booths. There are\nsigns that the section dealing with new year's day and the day of\natonement, _vv_. 23-32, is later than the original form of the\nrest of the chapter dealing with the three great ancient festivals\nthat rested on agriculture and the vintage. Of kindred theme to this\nchapter is ch. xxv.--the sacred years--(_a_) the sabbatical\nyear: the land, like the man, must enjoy a Sabbath rest, _vv_.\n1-7; _(b_) the jubilee year, an intensification of the Sabbatical\nidea: every fiftieth year is to be a period of rest for the land,\nliberation of Hebrew slaves, and restoration of property to its\noriginal owners or legal heirs, _vv_. 8-55. In xxiv. 1-9, are\nregulations concerning the lampstand and the shewbread; the law, in\nthe form of a narrative, prohibiting blasphemy, _vv_. 10-23, is\ninterrupted by a few laws concerning injury to the person,\n_vv_. 17-22.\n\nThe _laws of holiness_ conclude (xxvi.) with a powerful\nexposition of the blessing which will follow obedience and the curse\nwhich is the penalty of disobedience. The curse reaches a dramatic\nclimax in the threat of exile, from which, however, deliverance is\npromised on condition of repentance.\n\nCh. xxvii. constitutes no part of the Law of Holiness--note the\nsubscription in xxvi. 46. It contains regulations for the commutation\nof vows (whether persons, cattle or things) and tithes-commutation\nbeing inadmissible in the case of firstlings of animals fit for\nsacrifice and of things and persons that had come under the ban.\n\nSpecial importance attaches to the Law of Holiness, known to\ncriticism as H (xvii.-xxvi.). In its interest in worship, it marks a\nvery long advance on the Book of the Covenant (Exod. xxi.-xxiii.),\nand it would seem to stand somewhere between Deuteronomy and the\npriestly codex. It is profoundly interested, like the former, in the\nethical side of religion, and yet it is almost as deeply concerned\nabout ritual as the latter. But though it may be regarded as a\npreliminary step to the priestly code, it is clearly distinguished\nfrom it, both by its tone and its vocabulary: the word for idols,\ne.g. (things of nought), xix. 4, xxvi. 1, does not occur elsewhere\nin the Pentateuch. It specially emphasizes the holiness of Jehovah;\nas has been said, in H He is the person _to whom_ the cult is\nperformed, while the question of _how_ is more elaborately\ndealt with in P. There are stray allusions which almost seem to\npoint to pre-exilic days; e.g. to idols, xxvi. 30, Moloch being\nexplicitly mentioned, xviii. 21, xx. 2; and the various sanctuaries\npresupposed by xxvi. 31 would almost seem to carry us back to a\npoint before the promulgation of Deuteronomy in 621 B.C.; but on the\nother hand the exile appears to be presupposed in xviii. 24-30,\nxxvi. 34. This code, like all the others in the Old Testament, was\nno doubt the result of gradual growth--note the alternation of 2nd\npers. sing. and pl. in ch. xix.--but the main body of it may be\nplaced somewhere between 600 and 550 B.C. The section bears so\nstrong a resemblance to Ezekiel that he has been supposed by some to\nbe the author, but this is improbable.\n\nIt is easy to see how the minuteness of the ritual religion of\nLeviticus could degenerate into casuistry. Its emphasis on externals\nis everywhere visible, and its lack of kindly human feeling is only\ntoo conspicuous in its treatment of the leper, xiii. 45, 46. But\nover against this, to say nothing of the profound symbolism of the\nritual, must be set the moral virility of the law of holiness--its\nearnest inculcation of commercial honour, reverence for the aged,\nxix. 32, and even unselfish love. For it is to this source that we\nowe the great word adopted by our Saviour, \"Thou shalt love thy\nneighbour as thyself,\" xix. 18, though the first part of the verse\nshows that this noble utterance still moves within the limitations\nof the Old Testament.\n\n\n\n\nNUMBERS\n\n\nLike the last part of Exodus, and the whole of Leviticus, the first\npart of Numbers, i.-x. 28--so called,[1] rather inappropriately,\nfrom the census in i., iii., (iv.), xxvi.--is unmistakably priestly\nin its interests and language. Beginning with a census of the men of\nwar (i.) and the order of the camp (ii.), it devotes specific\nattention to the Levites, their numbers and duties (iii., iv.). Then\nfollow laws for the exclusion of the unclean, v. 1-4, for\ndetermining the manner and amount of restitution in case of fraud,\nv. 5-10, the guilt or innocence of a married woman suspected of\nunfaithfulness, v. 11-31, and the obligations of the Nazirite vow,\nvi. 1-21. This legal section ends with the priestly benediction, vi.\n22-27. Then, closely connected with the narrative in Exodus xl., is\nan unusually elaborate account of the dedication gifts that were\noffered on the occasion of the erection of the tabernacle (vii.).\nThis quasi-historical interlude is again followed by a few sections\nof a more legal nature--instructions for fixing the lamps upon the\nlampstand, viii. 1-4, for the consecration of the Levites and their\nperiod of service, viii. 5-26, for the celebration of the passover,\nand, in certain cases, of a supplementary passover, ix. 1-14. Then,\nwith the divine guidance assured, and the order of march determined,\nthe start from Sinai was made, ix. 15-x. 28.\n[Footnote 1: In the Greek version, followed by the Latin. This is\nthe only book of the Pentateuch in which the English version has\nretained the Latin title, the other titles being all Greek. The\nHebrew titles are usually borrowed from the opening words of the\nbook. The Hebrew title of Numbers is either \"And he said\" or \"in the\nwilderness\"; the latter is fairly appropriate--certainly much more\nso than the Greek.]\n\nAt this point, the old prophetic narrative (Exod. xxxii.-xxxiv.),\ninterrupted by Exodus xxxv. 1-Numbers x. 28, is resumed with an\naccount of the precautions taken to secure reliable guidance through\nthe wilderness, x. 29-32, and a very interesting snatch of ancient\npoetry, through which we may easily read the unique importance of\nthe ark for early Israel, x. 33-36. The succeeding chapters make no\npretence to be a connected history of the wilderness period; the\nincidents with which they deal are very few, and these are related\nrather for their religious than their historical significance, e.g.\nthe murmuring of the people, the terrible answer to their prayer for\nflesh, the divine equipment of the seventy elders, the magnanimity\nof Moses (xi.), and the vindication of his prophetic dignity (xii.).\nBefore the actual assault on Canaan, spies were sent out to\ninvestigate the land. But the people allowed themselves to be\ndiscouraged by their report, and for their unbelief the whole\ngeneration except Caleb (and Joshua)[1] was doomed to die in the\nwilderness, without a sight of the promised land (xiii., xiv.). The\nthread of the narrative, broken at this point by laws relating to\nofferings and sacrifices, xv. 1-31, the hallowing of the Sabbath,\nxv. 32-36, and the wearing of fringes, xv. 37-41, is at once resumed\nby a complicated account of a rebellion against Moses, which ended\nin the destruction of the rebels, and in the signal vindication of\nthe authority of Moses, the privileges of the tribe of Levi, and the\nexclusive right of the sons of Aaron to the priesthood (xvi.,\nxvii.). Again the narrative element gives place to legislation\nregulating the duties, relative position and revenues of the priests\nand Levites (xviii.) and the manner of purification after defilement\n(xix.).\n[Footnote 1: Caleb alone in JE, Joshua also in P.]\n\nThese laws are followed by a section of continuous narrative. Moses\nand Aaron, for certain rebellious words, are divinely warned that\nthey will not be permitted to bring the people into the promised\nland--a warning which was followed soon afterwards by the death of\nAaron on Mount Hor. Edom haughtily refused Israel permission to pass\nthrough her land (xx.). Sore at heart, they fretted against God and\nMoses, and deadly serpents were sent among them in chastisement, but\nthe penitent and believing were restored by the power of God and the\nintercession of Moses. Then Israel turned north, and began her career\nof conquest by defeating Sihon, king of the Amorites, and Og, king of\nBashan (xxi.). Her success struck terror into the heart of Balak, the\nking of Moab; he accordingly sent for Balaam, a famous soothsayer,\nwith the request that he would curse Israel (xxii.). Instead, however,\nhe foretold for her a splendid destiny (xxiii., xxiv.). But the reality\nfell pitifully short of this fair ideal, for Israel at once succumbed\nto the seductions of idolatry and impurity,[1] and the fearful punishment\nwhich fell upon her for her sin was only stayed by the zeal of Phinehas,\nthe high priest's son, who was rewarded with the honour of perpetual\npriesthood, xxv. 1-15. Implacable enmity was enjoined against Midian,\nxxv. 16-18.\n[Footnote 1: Moabite idolatry, and intermarriage with the Midianites--\nultimately, it would seem, the same story. JE gives the beginning of\nit, _vv_. 1-5, and P the conclusion, _vv_. 6-18.]\n\nFrom this point to the end of the book the narrative is, with few\nexceptions, distinctly priestly in complexion; the vivid scenes of\nthe older narrative are absent, and their place is taken, for the\nmost part, either by statistics and legislative enactments or by\nnarrative which is only legislation in disguise. A census (xxvi.)\nwas taken at the end, as at the beginning of the wanderings (i.),\nwhich showed that, except Caleb and Joshua, the whole generation had\nperished (cf. xiv. 29, 34). Then follow sections on the law of\ninheritance of daughters, xxvii. 1-11, the announcement of Moses'\nimminent death and the appointment of Joshua his successor, xxvii.\n12-23, a priestly calendar defining the sacrifices appropriate to\neach season (xxviii., xxix.), and the law of vows (xxx.). In\naccordance with the injunction of xxv. 16-18 a war of extermination\nwas successfully undertaken against Midian (xxxi.). The land east of\nthe Jordan was allotted to Reuben, Gad and the half tribe of\nManasseh, on condition that they would help the other tribes to\nconquer the west (xxxii.). Following an itinerary of the wanderings\nfrom the exodus to the plains of Moab (xxxiii.) is a description of\nthe boundaries of the land allotted to the various tribes (xxxiv.),\ndirections for the Levitical cities and the cities of refuge\n(xxxv.), and, last of all, a law in narrative form, determining that\nheiresses who possessed landed property should marry into their own\ntribe (xxxvi.).\n\nEven this brief sketch of the book of Numbers is enough to reveal\nthe essential incoherence of its plan, and the great divergence of\nthe elements out of which it is composed. No book in the Pentateuch\nmakes so little the impression of a unity. The phenomena of Exodus\nare here repeated and intensified; a narrative of the intensest\nmoral and historical interest is broken at frequent intervals by\nstatistical and legal material, some of which, at least, makes hardly\nany pretence to be connected with the main body of the story. By far\nthe largest part of the book comes from P, and most of it is very\neasy to detect. No possible doubt, e.g., can attach to i.-x., 28, with\nits interest in priests, Levites, tabernacle and laws. As significant\nas the contents is the style which is not seldom diffuse to tediousness,\ne.g., in the account of the census (i.), the dedication gifts (vii.),\nor the regulation of the movements of the camp by the cloud, ix. 15-23.\nCh. xv., with its laws for offerings, sacrifices and the Sabbath,\nch. xvii., with its vindication of the special prerogatives of the\ntribe of Levi, and chs. xviii., xix., which regulate the duties and\nprivileges of priests and Levites, and the manner of purification, are\nalso unmistakable. Chs. xxvi.-xxxi., as even the preliminary sketch of\nthe book would suggest, must, for similar reasons, also have the same\norigin. To P also clearly belong xxxiii. and xxxiv. with their statistical\nbent, and xxxv. and xxxvi. with their interest in the Levites and\nlegislation. Besides these sections, however, the presence of P is\ncertain--though not always so easily detected, as it is in combination\nwith JE--in some of the more distinctively narrative sections, e.g. in\nthe account of the spies (xiii., xiv.), of the rebellion against the\nauthority of Moses and Aaron (xvi.), of the sin of Moses and Aaron,\nxx. 1-13, and of the settlement east of the Jordan (xxxii.). About\nsuch narratives as the death of Aaron, xx. 22-29, or the zeal and\nreward of Phinehas, xxv. 6-18, there can be no doubt.\n\nWith the exception of a few odd verses, all that remains, after\ndeducting the passages referred to, belongs to the prophetic\nnarrative (JE). The radical difference in point of style and\ninterests between JE and P occasionally extends even to their\naccount of the facts. The story of the spies furnishes several\nstriking illustrations of this difference. In JE they go from the\nwilderness to Hebron in the south of Judah, xiii. 22, in P they go\nto the extreme north of Palestine, xiii. 21. In JE Caleb is the only\nfaithful spy, xiii. 30, xiv. 24, P unites him with Joshua, xiv.\n6,38. In JE the land is fertile, but its inhabitants are invincible,\nin P it is a barren land. The story of the rebellion of Korah,\nDathan and Abiram is peculiarly instructive (xvi.). It will be\nnoticed that Dathan and Abiram are occasionally mentioned by\nthemselves, _vv_. 12, 25, and Korah by himself, _vv_. 5,\n19. If this clue be followed up, it will be found that the rebellion\nof Dathan and Abiram is essentially against the authority of Moses,\nwhom they charge with disappointing their hopes, _vv_. 13, 14.\nOn the other hand, the rebellion headed by Korah is traced to two\nsources:[1] it is regarded in one of these as a layman's protest\nagainst the exclusive sanctity of the tribe of Levi, _v_. 3,\nand, in the other, as a Levitical protest against the exclusive\nright of the sons of Aaron to the priesthood, _vv_. 8-11.\nPerhaps the most striking difference between JE and P is in the\naccount of the ark. In JE it goes before the camp, x. 33 (cf. Exod.\nxxxiii. 7), in P the tabernacle, to which it belongs, is in the\ncentre of the camp, ii. 17, which is foursquare.\n[Footnote 1: Two strata of P are plainly visible here.]\n\nMuch more than in Genesis, and even more than in Exodus have J and E\nbeen welded together in Numbers--so closely, indeed, that it is\nusually all but impossible to distinguish them with certainty; but,\nhere, as in Exodus, there are occasional proofs of compositeness.\nThe apparent confusion of the story of Balaam, e.g. (xxii.), in\nwhich God is angry with him after giving him permission to go, is to\nbe explained by the simple fact that the story is told in both\nsources. This duplication extends even to the poetry in chs. xxiii.\nand xxiv. (cf. xxiv. 8, 9, xxiii. 22, 24).\n\nThere is not a trace of P in the Balaam story. All the romantic and\nreligious, as opposed to the legal and theological interest of the\nbook, is confined to the prophetic section (JE); and it greatly to\nbe regretted that more of it has not been preserved. The structure\nof the book plainly shows that it has been displaced in the\ninterests of P, and from the express reference to the \"ten times\"\nthat Israel tempted Jehovah, xiv. 22, we may safely infer that much\nhas been lost. But what has been preserved is of great religious,\nand some historical value. Of course, it is not history in the\nordinary sense: a period of thirty-eight years is covered in less\nthan ten chapters (x. II-xix.). But much of the material, at least\nin the prophetic history JE, rests on a tradition which may well\nhave preserved some of the historical facts, especially as they were\noften embalmed in poetry.\n\nThe book of Numbers throws some light on the importance of ancient\npoetry as a historical source. It cites a difficult fragment and\nrefers it to the book of the wars of Jehovah, xxi. 14, it confirms\nthe victory over Sihon by a quotation from a war-ballad which is\nreferred to a guild of singers, xxi. 27, it quotes the ancient words\nwith which the warriors broke up their camp and returned to it\nagain, x. 35, 36, and it relieves its wild war-scenes by the lovely\nSong of the Well, xxi. 17, 18. Probably other episodes in the books\nof Numbers, Joshua and Judges (e.g. ch. v.) ultimately rest upon\nthis lost book of the wars of Jehovah. The fine poetry ascribed to\nBalaam, which breathes the full consciousness of a high national\ndestiny, may belong to the time of the early monarchy, xxiv. 7,\nperhaps to that of David, to whom xxiv. 17-19 seems to be a clear\nallusion. The five verses that follow Balaam's words, xxiv. 20-24,\nare apparently a late appendix; the mention of Chittim in _v_.\n24 would almost carry the passage down to the Greek period (4th\ncent. B.C.), and of Asshur in _v_. 22 at least to the Assyrian\nperiod (8th cent.), unless the name stands for a Bedawin tribe (cf.\nGen. xxv. 3).\n\nHistorically P is of little account. This is most obvious in his\nnarrative of the war with Midian (xxxi.), in which, without losing a\nsingle man, Israel slew every male in Midian and took enormous\nbooty. It is suspicious that the older sources (JE) have not a\nsingle word to say of so remarkable a victory; but the impossibility\nof the story is shown by the fact that, though all the males are\nslain, the tribe reappears, as the assailant of Israel, in the days\nof Gideon (Jud. vi.-viii.). The real object of the story is to\nillustrate the law governing the distribution of booty, xxxi. 27--a\nlaw which is elsewhere traced, with much more probability, to an\nordinance of David (I Sam. xxx. 24). From this unhistorical, but\nhighly instructive chapter, we learn the tendency to refer all\nIsrael's legislation, whatever its origin, to Moses, and the further\ntendency to find a historical precedent, which no doubt once\nexisted, for the details of the legislation. It is from this point\nof view that the narratives of P have to be considered. The story of\nthe fate of the Sabbath-breaker is simply told to emphasize the\nstringency of the Sabbath law, xv. 32-36, the particular dilemma in\nix. 6-14 is created, as a precedent for the institution of the\nsupplementary passover, the case of the daughters of Zelophehad\nserves as a historical basis for the law governing the property of\nheiresses (xxxvi.). In other words, P is not a historian; his\nnarrative, even where it is explicit, is usually but the thin\ndisguise of legislation.\n\nAs in Genesis and Exodus, almost every stage in the development of\nthe religion of Israel is represented by the book of Numbers.\nThrough the story in xxi. 4-11 we can detect the practice of\nserpent-worship, which we know persisted to the time of Hezekiah (2\nKings xviii. 4); and the trial by ordeal, v. 11-31, though in its\npresent form late, represents no doubt a very ancient custom. P\nthrows much light on the usages and ideas of post-exilic religion.\nBut it is to the prophetic document we must go for passages of\nabiding religious power and value. Here, as in Exodus, the character\nof Moses offers a brilliant study--in his solitary grandeur, patient\nstrength, and heroic faith; steadfast amid jealousy, suspicion and\nrebellion, and vindicated by God Himself as a prophet of\ntranscendent privilege and power (xii. 8). Over against the narrow\nassertions of Levitical and priestly prerogative (xvi., xvii), which\nreflect but too faithfully the strife of a later day, is the noble\nprayer of Moses that God would make all the people prophets, and put\nHis spirit upon them every one, xi. 29.\n\n\n\n\nDEUTERONOMY\n\n\nOwing to the comparatively loose nature of the connection between\nconsecutive passages in the legislative section, it is difficult to\npresent an adequate summary of the book of Deuteronomy. In the first\nsection, i.-iv. 40, Moses, after reviewing the recent history of the\npeople, and showing how it reveals Jehovah's love for Israel,\nearnestly urges upon them the duty of keeping His laws, reminding\nthem of His spirituality and absoluteness. Then follows the\nappointment, iv. 41-43--here irrelevant (cf. xix. 1-l3)--of three\ncities of refuge east of the Jordan.\n\nThe second section, v.-xi., with its superscription, iv. 44-49, is a\nhortatory introduction to the more specific injunctions of xii.-xxviii.,\nand deals with the general principles by which Israel is to be governed.\nThe special relation between Israel and Jehovah was established on the\nbasis of the decalogue (Ex. xx.), and with this Moses begins, reminding\nthe people of their promise to obey any further commands Jehovah might\ngive (v.). But as the source of all true obedience is a right attitude,\nIsrael's deepest duty is to love Jehovah, serving Him with reverence,\nand keeping His claims steadily before the children (vi.). To do this\neffectively, Israel must uncompromisingly repudiate all social and\nreligious intercourse with the idolatrous peoples of the land, and\nJehovah their God will stand by them in the struggle (vii). In the\npast the discipline had often indeed been stern and sore, but it had\ncome from the hand of a father, and had been intended to teach the\nspiritual nature of true religion; worldliness and idolatry would\nassuredly be punished by defeat and destruction (viii.). And just as\ndeadly as worldliness is the spirit of self-righteousness, a spirit\nas absurd as it is deadly; for Israel's past has been marked by an\nobstinacy so disgraceful that, but for the intercession of Moses, the\npeople would already have been devoted to destruction,[1] ix. 1-x. 11.\nTrue religion is the loving service of the great God and of needy men,\nand it ought to be inspired by reverent fear. Obedience to the\ndivine commands will bring life and blessing, disobedience will be\npunished by the curse and death, x. 12-xi.\n[Footnote 1: Ch, x. 6-9 is an interpolation; _vv_. 6, 7 a\nfragment of an itinerary relating the death of Aaron, and _vv_.\n8, 9 the separation of the tribe of Levi to priestly functions.]\n\nThis hortatory introduction is succeeded by the specific laws which\nform the main body of the book (xii.-xxvi., xxviii.). Roughly they\nmay be classified as affecting (_a_) religious (xii.-xvi.),\n(_b_) civil (xvii.-xx.), and (_c_) social (xxi.-xxv.)\nlife, the religious being made the basis of the other two.\n\n(_a_) As the true worship is jeopardized by a multiplicity of\nsanctuaries, these sanctuaries are declared illegal, and their\nparaphernalia are to be destroyed; worship is to be confined\nhenceforth to one sanctuary (xii.), and every idolatrous person and\ninfluence are to be exterminated (xiii.). The holiness of the people\nis to be maintained by their abstaining from the flesh of certain\nprohibited animals[1] xiv. 1-21, and the sacred dues such as the\ntithes, xiv. 22-29, and firstlings, xv. 19-23, are regulated.\nReligion is to express itself in generous consideration for the poor\nand the slave, xv. 1-18, as well as in the three annual pilgrimages\nto celebrate the passover, the feast of weeks, and the feast of\nbooths, xvi. 1-17.\n[Footnote 1: This section is not altogether in the spirit of Deut.\nand is found with variations in Lev. xi. If it is not a late\ninsertion in Deut. from Lev., probably both have borrowed it from an\nolder code.]\n\n(_b_) Besides the local courts there is to be a supreme central\ntribunal, xvi. 18-20, xvii. 8-13. No idolatrous symbols are to be\nused in the Jehovah worship; idolatry is to be punished with death,\nxvi. 21-xvii. 7. The character and duties of the king are defined,\nand his obligation to rule in accordance with the spirit of Israel's\nreligion, xvii. 14-20; the revenues and privileges of the Levitical\npriests are regulated and the high position and function of the\nprophets are defined in opposition to the representatives of\nsuperstition in heathen religion (xviii.). Following the laws\naffecting the officers of the theocracy are laws--which finely\ntemper justice with mercy--concerning homicide, murder and false\nwitness[1] (xix.). A similar combination of humanity and sternness\nis illustrated by the laws--whether practicable or not--regulating\nthe usages of war, xx., with which may be taken xxi. 10-14.\n[Footnote 1: Kindred in theme is xxi. 1-9, dealing with the\nexpiation of an uncertain murder.]\n\n(_c_) The laws in xxi-xxv. are of a more miscellaneous nature\nand deal with various phases of domestic and social life--such as\nthe punishment of the unfilial son, the duty of neighbourliness, the\nprotection of mother-birds, the duty of taking precautions in\nbuilding, the rights of a husband, the punishment of adultery and\nseduction, the exclusion of certain classes from the privilege of\nworship, the cleanliness of the camp, the duty of humanity to a\nrunaway slave, the prohibition of religious prostitution, the\nregulation of divorce, the duty of humanity to the stranger, the\nfatherless and the widow, and of kindness to animals, the duty of a\nsurviving brother to marry his brother's childless widow, the\nprohibition of immodesty, etc.\n\nBy two simple ceremonies, one of thanksgiving, the other a\nconfession of faith, Israel acknowledges her obligations to\nJehovah[1] (xxvi.), and the great speech ends with a very impressive\nperoration in which blessings of many kinds are promised to\nobedience, while, with a much greater elaboration of detail,\ndisaster is announced as the penalty of disobedience (xxviii.). In\nchs. xxix,, xxx., which are of a supplementary nature, Moses briefly\nreminds the people of the goodness of their God, and warns them of\nthe disaster into which infidelity will plunge them, though--so\ngracious is Jehovah--penitence will be followed by restoration. In a\npowerful conclusion he sets before them life and death as the\nrecompense of obedience and disobedience, and pleads with them to\nchoose life.\n[Footnote 1: Ch. xxvii., which, besides being in the 3rd person,\ninterrupts the connection between xxvi. and xxviii., can hardly have\nformed part of the original book. It prescribes the inscription of\nthe law on stones, its ratification by the people, and the curses to\nbe uttered by the Levites.]\n\nThe speeches are over, and the narrative of the Pentateuch is\nresumed. In a few parting words, Moses encourages the people and his\nsuccessor Joshua, who, in xxxi. 14, 15, 23, receives his divine\ncommission, and finally gives instructions for the reading of the\nlaw every seven years, xxxi. 1-13. Verses 16-30 (except 23)\nconstitute the preface to the fine poem known as the _Song of\nMoses_, xxxii. 1-43, which celebrates, in bold and striking\nwords, the loving faithfulness of Jehovah to His apostate and\nungrateful people.[1] This poem, after a few verses in which Moses\nfinally commends the law to Israel and himself receives the divine\ncommand to ascend Nebo and die, is followed by another known as the\n_Blessing of Moses_ (xxxiii.). In this poem, which ought to be\ncompared with Gen. xlix., the various tribes are separately\ncharacterized in language which is often simply a description[2]\nrather than a benediction, and the poem concludes with an\nenthusiastic expression of joy over Israel's incomparable God. The\nbook ends with an account of the death of Moses (xxxiv.).\n[Footnote 1: The song must be much later than Moses, as it describes\nthe effect, _v_. 15ff., on Israel of the transition from the\nnomadic life of the desert, _v_. 10, to the settled\nagricultural life of Canaan, and expressly regards the days of the\nexodus as long past, _v_.7. It is difficult to say whether the\nenemy from whom in _vv_. 34-43, the singer hopes to be divinely\ndelivered are the Assyrians or the Babylonians: on the whole,\nprobably the latter. In that case, the poem would be exilic;\n_v_. 36 too seems to presuppose the exile.]\n[Footnote 2: These descriptions--to say nothing of _v_.4 (Moses\ncommended _us_ a law)--are conclusive proof that the poem was\ncomposed long after Moses' time. Reuben is dwindling in numbers,\nSimeon has already disappeared (as not yet in Gen. xlix). Judah is\nin at least temporary distress, and the banner tribe is Ephraim,\nwhose glory and power are eloquently described, _vv_.13-17.\nLevi appears to be thoroughly organized and held in great respect,\n_vv_. 8-ll. The poem must have been written at a time when\nnorthern Israel was enjoying high prosperity, probably during the\nreign of Jeroboam II and before the advent of Amos (770 B.C.?).]\n\nDeuteronomy is one of the epoch-making books of the world. It not\nonly profoundly affected much of the subsequent literature of the\nHebrews, but it left a deep and abiding mark upon Hebrew religion,\nand through it upon Christianity.\n\nThe problem of its origin is as interesting as the romance which\nattached to its discovery in the reign of Josiah (621 B.C.).\nGenerally speaking, the book claims to be the valedictory address of\nMoses to Israel. But even a superficial examination is enough to\nshow that its present form, at any rate, was not due to Moses. The\nvery first words of the book represent the speeches as being\ndelivered \"on the other side of the Jordan\"--an important point\nobscured by the erroneous translation of A.V. Now Moses was on the\neast side, and obviously the writer to whom the east side was the\nother side, must himself have been on the west side. The law\nproviding for the battlement on the roof of a new house, xxii. 8,\nshows that the book contemplates the later settled life of cities or\nvillages, not the nomadic life of tents; and the very significant\nlaw concerning the boundary marks which had been set up by \"those of\nthe olden time,\" xix. 14, is proof conclusive that the people had\nbeen settled for generations in the land.\n\nThe negative conclusion is that the book is not, in its present\nform, from the hand of Moses, but is a product, at least several\ngenerations later, of the settled life of the people. But it is at\nonce asked, Do the opening words of the book not commit us expressly\nto a belief in the Mosaic authorship, in spite of the resultant\ndifficulties? Is it not explicitly said that these words are his\nwords? The answer to this question lies in the literary freedom\nclaimed by all ancient historians. Thucydides, one of the most\nscrupulous historians who ever wrote, states, in an interesting\npassage, the principles on which he composed his speeches (i. 22):\n\"As to the various speeches made on the eve of the war or in its\ncourse, I have found it difficult to retain a memory of the precise\nwords which I heard spoken; and so it was with those who brought me\nreports. But I have made the persons say what it seemed to me most\nopportune for them to say in view of each situation; at the same\ntime I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of\nwhat was actually said.\" This statement represents the general\npractice of the ancient world; the conditions of historical veracity\nwere satisfied if the speech represented the spirit of the speaker.\nAnd this, as we shall see, is eminently true of the book of\nDeuteronomy, which is an eloquent exposition and application of\nprinciples fundamental to the Mosaic religion. If, on the other\nhand, it be urged that the book contains deliberate assertions that\nit was written by Moses--e.g., \"when Moses had made an end of\nwriting the words of this law in a book,\" xxxi. 24, cf. 9--the\nsimple reply is that this very phrase, \"all the words of this law,\"\nis elsewhere used of a body of law so small that it can be inscribed\nupon the memorial stones of the altar to be set up on Mount Ebal,\nxxvii. 3.\n\nWe are free, then, to consider the date of Deuteronomy by an\nexamination of the internal evidence. The latest possible date for\nthe book, as a whole, is determined by the story of its discovery in\n621 B.C. (2 Kings xxii., xxiii.). There can be no doubt that the\nbook then discovered by the priest Hilkiah, and read by the\nchancellor before the king, was Deuteronomy. It is called the book\nof the covenant (2 Kings xxiii. 2), but it clearly cannot have been\nthe Pentateuch. For one thing, that was much too long; the book\ndiscovered was short enough to have been read twice in one day (2\nKings xxii. 8, 10). And again, the swift and terrible impression\nmade by it could not have been made by a book so heterogeneous in\nits contents and containing romantic narratives such as the\npatriarchal stories. Nor again can the discovered book have been\nExodus xxi.-xxiii., though that is also called the book of the\ncovenant (Exod. xxiv. 7); for some of the most important points in\nthe succeeding reformation are not touched in that book at all. It\nis clear from the narrative in 2 Kings xxii. ff. that the book must\nhave been a law book; no other meets the facts of the case but\nDeuteronomy, and this meets them completely. Point for point, the\ndetails of the reformation are paralleled by injunctions in\nDeuteronomy--notably the abolition of idolatry, the concentration of\nthe worship at a single sanctuary (xii.), the abolition of\nwitchcraft and star-worship, and the celebration of the passover.\nSome of these enactments are found in other parts of the Pentateuch,\nbut Deuteronomy is the only code in which they are all combined. 621\nB.C. then is the latest possible date for the composition of\nDeuteronomy.\n\nIt is possible, however, to fix the date more precisely. The most\nremarkable element in the legislation is its repeated and emphatic\ndemand for the centralization of worship in \"the place which Jehovah\nyour God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there,\"\nxii. 5. Only by such a centralization could the Jehovah worship be\ncontrolled which, at the numerous shrines scattered over the\ncountry, was being stained and confused by the idolatrous practices\nwhich Israel had learned from the Canaanites. This demand is\nrecognized as something new, xii. 8. In the ninth and eighth\ncenturies, when the prophetic narratives of Genesis were written,[1]\nthese shrines, which were the scenes of an enthusiastic worship, are\nlovingly traced back to an origin in patriarchal times. As late as\n750-735 B.C., Amos and Hosea, though they deplore the excesses which\ncharacterized those sanctuaries, and regard their worship as largely\nimmoral, do not regard the sanctuaries themselves as actually\nillegal; consequently Deuteronomy must be later than 735. But the\nsituation was even then so serious that it must soon have occurred\nto men of practical piety to devise plans of reform, and that the\nonly real remedy lay in striking the evil at its roots, i.e. in\nabolishing the local shrines. The first important blow appears to\nhave been struck by Hezekiah, who, possibly under the influence of\nIsaiah, is said to have removed the high places (2 Kings xviii. 4),\nand the movement must have been greatly helped by the immunity which\nthe temple of Jerusalem enjoyed during the invasion of Judah by\nSennacherib in 701 B.C. But the singular thing is that no appeal was\nmade in this reformation to a book, as was made in 621, and as it is\nnatural to suppose would have been made, had such a book been in\nexistence. Somewhere then between Hezekiah and Josiah we may suppose\nthe book to have been composed.\n[Footnote 1: See below]\n\nThe most probable supposition is that the reformation of Hezekiah\ngave the first impulse to the legislation which afterwards appeared\nas Deuteronomy. But in the terrible reign of his son Manasseh, the\nefforts of the reformers met with violent and bloody opposition.\nJudah was under the iron heel of Assyria, and, to the average mind,\nthis would prove the superiority of the Assyrian gods. Judah and her\nking, Manasseh, would seek in their desperation to win the favour of\nthe Oriental pantheon, and this no doubt explains the idolatry and\nworship of the host of heaven which flourished during his reign even\nwithin the temple itself. It was just such a crisis as this that\nwould call out the fierce condemnation of the idolatrous high places\nwhich characterizes Deuteronomy (cf. xii.) and create the imperative\ndemand for such a control of the worship as was only possible by\ncentralizing it at Jerusalem. During this period, too, such a book\nmay very well have been hidden away in the temple by some sorrowing\nheart that hoped for better days. It is improbable in itself (cf.\nxviii. 6-8), and unjust to the narrative in 2 Kings xxii., xxiii.,\nto suppose that the book was written by those who pretended to find\nit. It was really lost; had it been written during the earlier part\nof Josiah's reign, there was nothing to hinder its being published\nat once. In all probability, then, the book was in the main written\nand lost during the reign of Manasseh (_circa_ 660 B.C.). It\nhas been observed that in some sections the 2nd pers. sing, is used.\nin others the pl., and that the tone of the plural passages is more\naggressive than that of the singular; the contrast, e.g., between\nxii. 29-31 (thou) and xii. 1-12 (you) is unmistakable. We might,\nthen, limit the conclusion reached above by saying that the passages\nin which a milder tone prevails probably came from Hezekiah's reign,\nand the more aggressive sections from Manasseh's.\n\nThis date agrees with conclusions reached on other grounds\nconcerning other parts of the Pentateuch. The prophetic narratives J\nand E were written in or before the eighth century B.C., the\npriestly code (P) is, broadly speaking, post-exilic.[1] Now if it\ncan be proved that Deuteronomy knows JE and does not know P, the\nnatural inference would be that it falls between the eighth and the\nsixth or fifth century. But this can easily be proved, for both in\nits narrative and legislative parts, Deuteronomy rests on JE. As an\nillustration of the former, cf. Deuteronomy xi. 6, where only Dathan\nand Abiram are the rebels, not Korah as in P (cf. Num. xvi, 12, 25);\nas an illustration of the latter, cf. the law of slavery in Exodus\nxxi. 2ff. with that in Deuteronomy xv. 12-18, which clearly rests\nupon the older law, but deliberately gives a humaner turn to it,\nextending its privileges, e.g., to the female slave.\n[Footnote 1: See below.]\n\nAgain in many important respects the legislation of Deuteronomy\neither ignores or conflicts with that of P. It knows nothing, e.g.,\nof the forty-eight Levitical cities (Num. xxxv.); it regards the\nLevite, in common with the fatherless and the widow, as to be found\neverywhere throughout the land, xviii. 6. It knows nothing of the\nprovision made by P for the maintenance of the Levite (Num. xviii.);\nit commends him to the charity of the worshippers, xiv. 29. Above\nall it knows nothing of P's very sharp and important distinction\nbetween priests and Levites (Num. iii., iv.); any Levite is\nqualified to officiate as priest (cf. the remarkable phrase in\nxviii. 1, \"the priests the Levites\"). Deuteronomy must, therefore,\nfall before P, as after JE.\n\nA not unimportant question here arises: What precisely was the\nextent of the book found in 621 B.C.? Certainly the legislative\nsection, xii.-xxvi., xxviii., possibly the preceding hortatory\nsection, v.-xi., but in all probability not the introductory\nsection, i. i-iv. 40. These three sections are all approximately\nwritten in the same style, but i. i-iv. 40 has more the appearance\nof an attempt to provide the legislation with a historical\nintroduction summarizing the narrative of the journey from Horeb to\nthe borders of the promised land. Certain passages, e.g. iv. 27-31,\nseem to presuppose the exile, and thus suggest that the section is\nlater than the book as a whole. The discrepancy between ii. 14,\nwhich represents the generation of the exodus as having died in the\nwilderness, and v. 3ff. hardly makes for identity of authorship; and\nthe similarity of the superscriptions, i. 1-5, and iv. 44-49, looks\nas if the sections i.-iv. and v.-xi. were originally parallel.\nWhether v.-xi. was part of the book discovered is not so certain.\nMuch of the finest religious teaching of Deuteronomy is to be found\nin this section; but, besides being disproportionately long for an\nintroduction, it repeatedly demands obedience to the \"statutes and\njudgments,\" which, however, are not actually announced till ch.\nxii.; it seems more like an addition prefixed by one who had the\ncommandments in xii.-xxvi. before him. Ch. xxvii., which is\nnarrative and interrupts the speech of Moses, xxvi, xxviii., besides\nin part anticipating xxviii. 15ff., cannot have formed part of the\noriginal Deuteronomy. On the other hand, xxviii. was certainly\nincluded in it, as it must have been precisely the threats contained\nin this chapter that produced such consternation in Josiah when he\nheard the book read (2 Kings xxii.). The hortatory section that\nfollows the legislation (xxix., xxx.), is also probably late, as the\nexile appears to be presupposed, xxix. 28, xxx. 1-3. On this\nsupposition, too, the references to the legislation as \"this book,\"\nxxix. 20, 21, xxx. 10, are most naturally explained.\n\nThe publication of the book of Deuteronomy was nothing less than a\nprovidence in the development of Hebrew religion. It was\naccompanied, of course, by incidental and perhaps inevitable evils.\nBy its centralization of worship at the Jerusalem temple, it tended\nto rob life in other parts of the country of those religious\ninterests and sanctions which had received their satisfaction from\nthe local sanctuaries; and by its attempt to regulate by written\nstatute the religious life of the people, it probably contributed\nindirectly to the decline of prophecy, and started Israel upon that\nfatal path by which she ultimately became \"the people of the book.\"\nBut on the other hand, the service rendered to religion by\nDeuteronomy was incalculable. The worship of Jehovah had been\npowerfully corrupted from two sources; on the one hand, from the\nearly influence of the Canaanitish Baal worship, practically a\nnature-worship, which set morality at defiance, xxiii. 18; and on\nthe other, from her powerful Assyrian conquerors. Idolatry not only\ncovered the whole land, it had penetrated the temple itself (2 Kings\nxxiii. 6). The cause of true religion was at stake. There had been\nsporadic attempts at reform, but Deuteronomy, for the first time,\nstruck at the root by rendering illegal the worship--nominally a\nJehovah, but practically a Baal worship--which was practised at the\nlocal sanctuaries.\n\nAgain Deuteronomy rendered a great service to religion, by\ntranslating its large spirit into demands which could be apprehended\nof the common people. The book is splendidly practical, and formed a\nperhaps not unnecessary supplement to the teaching of the prophets.\nSociety needs to have its ideals embodied in suggestions and\ncommands, and this is done in Deuteronomy. The writers of the book\nlegislate with the fervour of the prophet, so that it is not so much\na collection of laws as \"a catechism of religion and morals.\"\nDoubtless the prophets had done the deepest thing of all by\ninsisting on the new heart and the return to Jehovah, but they had\noffered no programme of practical reform. Just such a programme is\nsupplied by Deuteronomy, and yet it is saved from the externalism of\nbeing merely a religious programme by its tender and uniform\ninsistence upon the duty of loving Jehovah with the whole heart.\n\nThe love of Jehovah to Israel--love altogether undeserved, ix. 5,\nand manifested throughout history in ways without number--demands a\nhuman response. Israel must love Him with an uncompromising\naffection, for He is one and there is none else, and she must\nexpress that love for the God who is a spirit invisible, iv. 12, by\ndeeds of affection towards the creatures whom God has made, even to\nthe beasts and the birds, xxv. 4, but most of all to the needy--the\nstranger, the Levite, the fatherless and the widow. Again and again\nthese are commended by definite and practical suggestions to the\ngenerosity of the people, and this generosity is expected to express\nitself particularly on occasions of public worship. Religion is felt\nto be the basis of morality and of all social order, and therefore,\neven in the legislation proper (xii.-xxviii.), to say nothing of the\nfine hortatory introduction (v.-xi.), its claims and nature are\npresented first. The book abounds in profound and memorable\nstatements touching the essence of religion. It answers the\nquestion, What doth thy God require of thee? x. 12. It reminds the\npeople that man lives not by bread alone, viii. 3. It knows that\nwealth and success tend to beget indifference to religion, viii.\n13ff., and that chastisement, when it comes, is sent in fatherly\nlove, viii. 5; and it presses home upon the sluggish conscience the\nduty of kindness to the down-trodden and destitute, with a sweet and\nirresistible reasonableness--\"Love the sojourner, for ye were\nsojourners in the land of Egypt,\" x. 19.\n\n\n\n\nJOSHUA\n\n\nThe book of Joshua is the natural complement of the Pentateuch.\nMoses is dead, but the people are on the verge of the promised land,\nand the story of early Israel would be incomplete, did it not record\nthe conquest of that land and her establishment upon it. The divine\npurpose moves restlessly on, until it is accomplished; so \"after the\ndeath of Moses, Jehovah spake to Joshua,\" i. 1.\n\nThe book falls naturally into three divisions: (_a_) the\nconquest of Canaan (i.-xii.), (_b_) the settlement of the land\n(xiii.-xxii.), (_c_) the last words and death of Joshua\n(xxiii., xxiv.). This period seems to be better known than that of\nthe wilderness wanderings, and, especially throughout the first\ntwelve chapters, the story moves forward with a firm tread. On the\ndeath of Moses, Joshua assumes the leadership, and makes\npreparations for the advance (i.). After sending men to Jericho to\nspy and report upon the land (ii.), the people solemnly cross the\nJordan, preceded by the ark (iii.); and, to commemorate the miracle\nby which their passage had been facilitated, memorial stones are set\nup (iv.). After circumcision had been imposed, v. 1-9, the passover\ncelebrated, v. 10-12, and Joshua strengthened by a vision, v. 13-15,\nthe people assault and capture Jericho (vi.). This initial success\nwas followed by a sharp and unexpected disaster at Ai, for which\nAchan, by his violation of the law of the ban, was held guilty and\npunished with death (vii.). A renewed assault upon Ai was this time\nsuccessful.[1] (viii.). Fear of Israel induced the powerful\nGibeonite clan to make a league with the conquerors (ix.). Success\ncontinued to remain with Israel, so that south (x.) and north, xi.\n1-15, the arms of Israel were victorious, xi. 16-xii.\n[Footnote 1: The book of Joshua describes only the southern and\nnorthern campaigns; it gives no details concerning the conquest of\nCentral Palestine. This omission is apparently due to the\nDeuterouomic redactor, who, in place of the account itself, gives a\nbrief idealization of its results in viii. 30-35.]\n\nMuch of the land remained still unconquered, but arrangements were\nmade for its ideal distribution. The two and a half tribes had\nalready received their inheritance east of the Jordan, and the rest\nof the land was allotted on the west to the remaining tribes.\nJudah's boundaries and cities are first and most exhaustively given;\nthen come Manasseh and Ephraim, with meagre records, followed by\nBenjamin, which again is exhaustive, then by Simeon, Zebulon,\nIssachar, Asher, Naphtali and Dan (xiii.-xix.). Three cities on\neither side of Jordan were then set apart as cities of refuge for\ninnocent homicides, and for the Levites forty-eight cities with\ntheir pasture land, xx. 1-xxi. 42. As Israel was now in possession\nof the land in accordance with the divine promise, xxi. 43-45,\nJoshua dismissed the two and a half tribes to their eastern home\nwith commendation and exhortation, xxii. 1-8. Incurring the severe\ndispleasure of the other tribes by building what was supposed to be\na schismatic altar, they explained that it was intended only as a\nmemorial and as a witness of their kinship with Israel, xxii. 9-34.\n\nThe book concludes with two farewell speeches, the first (xxiii.)\ncouched in general, the second xxiv. 1-23, in somewhat more\nparticular terms, in which Joshua reminds the people of the goodness\nof their God, warns them against idolatry and intermarriage with the\nnatives of the land, and urges upon them the peril of compromise and\nthe duty of rendering Jehovah a whole-hearted service. The people\nsolemnly pledge themselves to obedience, xxiv. 23-28. Then Joshua's\ndeath and burial are recorded, and past was linked to present in the\nburial of Joseph's bones (Gen. 1. 25) at last in the promised land,\nxxiv. 29-33.\n\nThe documentary sources which lie at the basis of the Pentateuch are\npresent, though in different proportions, in the book of Joshua, and\nin their main features are easily recognizable. The story of the\nconquest (i.-xii.) is told by the prophetic document JE, while the\ngeographical section on the distribution of the land (xiii.-xxii.)\nbelongs in the main to the priestly document P. Joshua, in common\nwith Judges, Samuel (in part) and Kings, has also been very plainly\nsubjected to a redaction known to criticism as the Deuteronomic,\nbecause its phraseology and point of view are those of Deuteronomy.\nThis redactional element, which, to any one fresh from the study of\nDeuteronomy, is very easy to detect, is more or less conspicuous in\nall of the first twelve chapters, but it is especially so in chs. i.\nand xxiii., and it would be well worth the student's while to read\nthese two chapters very carefully, in order to familiarize himself\nwith the nature of the influence of the Deuteronomic redaction upon\nthe older prophetico-historical material. Very significant, e.g.,\nare such phrases as \"the land which Jehovah your God giveth you to\npossess,\" i. 11, Deuteronomy xii. 1: equally so is the emphasis upon\nthe law, i. 7, xxiii. 6, and the injunction to \"love Jehovah your\nGod,\" xxiii. 11.\n\nThe most serious effect of the Deuteronomic influence has been to\npresent the history rather from an ideal than from a strictly\nhistorical point of view. According to the redaction, e.g., the\nconquest of Canaan was entirely effected within one generation and\nunder Joshua, whereas it was not completely effected till long after\nJoshua's death: indeed the oldest source frankly admits that in many\ndistricts it was never thoroughly effected at all (Jud. i. 27-36). A\ntypical illustration of the Deuteronomic attitude to the history is\nto be found in the statement that Joshua obliterated the people of\nGezer, x. 33, which directly contradicts the older statement that\nIsrael failed to drive them out, xvi. 10. The Deuteronomist is, in\nreality, not a historian but a moralist, interpreting the history\nand the forces, divine as well as human, that were moulding it. To\nhim the conquest was really complete in the generation of Joshua, as\nby that time the factors were all at work which would ultimately\ncompel success. The persistency of the Deuteronomic influence, even\nlong after the priestly code was written, is proved by xx. 4-6,\nwhich, though embodied in a priestly passage, is in the spirit of\nDeuteronomy (cf. Deut. xix.). As this passage is not found in the\nSeptuagint, it is probably as late as the third century B.C.\n\nP is very largely represented. Its presence is recognized, as usual,\nby its language, its point of view, and its dependence upon other\nparts of the Pentateuch, demonstrably priestly. While in the older\nsources, e.g., it is Joshua who divides the land, xviii. 10, in P\nnot only is Eleazar the priest associated with him as Aaron with\nMoses (Exod. viii. 5, 16), but he is even named before him (xiv. 1,\ncf. Num. xxxiv. 17). It is naturally also this document which\nrecords the first passover in the promised land, v. 10-12. The\ncities of refuge and the Levitical cities are set apart (xx., xxi.)\nin accordance with the terms prescribed in a priestly chapter of\nNumbers (xxxv.). The prominence of Judah and Benjamin in the\nallocation of the land is also significant. The section on the\nmemorial altar, xxii. 9-34, apparently belonging to a later stratum\nof P, is clearly stamped as priestly by its whole temper--its\nformality, _v_, 14, its representation of the \"congregation\" as\nacting unanimously, _v_. 16, its repetitions and stereotyped\nphraseology, and by the prominence it gives to \"Phinehas the son of\nEleazar the priest,\" _vv_. 30-32. That this document in Joshua\nwas partly narrative so well as statistical is also suggested by its\nvery brief account of Achan's sin in ch. vii., and of the treachery\nand punishment of the Gibeonites, ix. l7-2l--an account which may\nwell have been fuller in the original form of the document.\n\nThe most valuable part of Joshua for historical purposes is\nnaturally that which comes from the prophetic document, which is the\noldest. It is here that the interesting and concrete detail lies,\nnotably in chs. i.-xii., but also scattered throughout the rest of\nthe book in some extremely important fragments, which indicate how\nsevere and occasionally unsuccessful was the struggle of Israel to\ngain a secure footing upon certain parts of the country.[1] Many of\nthe difficulties revealed by a minute study of i.-xii. make it\nabsolutely certain that the prophetic document is really composite\n(JE), but owing to the thorough blending of the sources the analysis\nis peculiarly difficult and uncertain. That there are various\nsources, however, admits of no doubt. The story of the crossing of\nthe Jordan in chs. iii., iv., if we follow it carefully step by\nstep, is seen to be unintelligible on the assumption that it is a\nunity. In iii. 17 all the people are already over the Jordan, but in\niv. 4, 5, the implication is that they are only about to cross. Ch.\niv. 2 repeats iii. 12 almost word for word. In iv. 9 the memorial\nstones are to be placed in the Jordan, in iv. 20 at Gilgal. In vii.\n25_b_, 26_a_, Achan alone appears to be stoned, in\n_v_. 25_c_ the family is stoned too. A similar confusion\nprevails in the story of the fall of Jericho (vi.). In one version,\nIsrael marches six days silently round the city, and on the seventh\nthey shout at the word of Joshua; on the other, they march round\nseven times in one day, and the seventh time they shout at the blast\nof the trumpet.\n[Footnote 1: Cf. xv. 14-19, 63; xvi. 10; xvii. 11-18; xix. 47.]\n\nEnough has been said to show that the prophetic document, as we have\nit, is composite, though there can seldom be any manner of certainty\nabout the ultimate analysis into its J and E constituents. There is\nreason to believe that most of the isolated notices of the struggle\nwith the Canaanites scattered throughout xiii.-xxii. and repeated in\nJudges i. are from J, while ch. xxiv., with its interest in Shechem\nand Joseph, and its simple but significant statement, \"They\npresented themselves before _God_ (Elohim),\" xxiv. 1, is almost\nentirely from E.\n\nIt used to be maintained, on the strength of a phrase in v. 1--\"until\n_we_ were passed over\"--that the book of Joshua must have been\nwritten by a contemporary. But the true reading there is undoubtedly\nthat given by the Septuagint--until _they_ passed over-which\ninvolves only a very slight change in the Hebrew. On what, then, do\nthe narratives of the book really rest? The answer is suggested by\nx. 12, 13, where the historian appeals to the book of Jashar in\nconfirmation of an incident in Joshua's southern campaign. Doubtless\nthe whole battle was described in one of the war-ballads in this\nfamous collection (cf. Jud. v.), and it is not unreasonable to suppose\nthat other narratives in the book of Joshua similarly rest upon other\nballads now for ever lost. The capture of Jericho, e.g., may well have\nbeen commemorated in a stirring song which was an inspiration alike\nto faith and patriotism.\n\nIf, however, it be true that the book of Joshua has thus a poetic\nbasis, it is only fair to remember that its prose narratives must\nnot be treated as bald historical annals; they must be interpreted\nin a poetic spirit. There is the more reason to insist upon this, as\na later editor, by a too inflexible literalism, has misinterpreted\nthe very passage from the book of Jashar to which we have alluded.\nWhat the precise meaning of Joshua's fine apostrophe to sun and moon\nmay be, is doubtful--whether a prayer for the prolongation of the\nday or rather perhaps a prayer for the sudden oncoming of darkness.\nThe words mean, \"Sun, be thou still,\" and if this be the prayer, it\nwould perhaps be answered by the furious storm which followed. But,\nin either case, the appeal to the sun and moon to lend their help to\nIsrael in her battles is obviously poetic--a fine conception, but\ngrotesque if literally pressed. This, however, is just what has been\ndone by the editor who added x. 14, and thus created a miracle out\nof the bold but appropriate imagery of the poet. Similarly it is not\nnecessary to suppose that the walls of Jericho fell down without the\nstriking of a blow on the part of Israel, for this too may be\npoetry. It may be just the imaginative way of saying that no walls\ncan stand before Jehovah when He fights for His people. That this is\nthe real meaning of the story, and that there was more of a struggle\nthan the poetical narrative of ch. vi. would lead us to believe, is\nmade highly probable by, the altogether incidental but very explicit\nstatement in xxiv. 11, \"The men of Jericho _fought_ against\nyou.\"\n\nWith its large geographical element the book of Joshua is not\nparticularly rich in scenes of direct religious value; yet the whole\nnarrative is inspired by a sublime faith in the divine purpose and\nits sure triumph over every obstacle. In particular, the story of\nthe Gibeonites suggests the permanent obligation of reckoning with\nGod in affairs of national policy, ix. 14, while Gilgal is a\nreminder of the duty of formally commemorating the beneficent\nprovidences of life (iii., iv.). The story of Achan reveals the\nnational bearings of individual conduct and the large and disastrous\nconsequences of individual sin. The valedictory addresses of Joshua\nare touched by a fine sense of the importance of a grateful and\nuncompromising fidelity to God. But perhaps the greatest thing in\nthe book is the vision of the heavenly leader encouraging Joshua on\nthe eve of his perilous campaign, v. 13-15, a noble imagination,\nfitted to remind those who are fighting the battles of the Lord that\nthey are sustained and aided by forces unseen.\n\n\n\n\nTHE PROPHETIC AND PRIESTLY DOCUMENTS\n\n\nOf the three principal documents, J, E and P, to whose fusion is due\nthe account of Israel's origin and early history contained in the\nHexateuch, nothing can be known except by inference; but within\ncertain limits their date and origin may be fixed. In Genesis, J and\nE alike love to trace the sacred places of the Hebrews to some\nrevelation or incident in the life of the patriarchs. Now from the\nprominence assigned to Hebron in J, together with the r\u00f4le assigned\nto Judah in the story of Joseph, xxxvii. 26, and the special\ninterest in Judah displayed by Genesis xxxviii., it may be inferred\nthat J originated in Judah; while the special attention paid in E to\nthe sanctuaries of the northern kingdom, such as Shechem and Bethel,\nis not unreasonably held to imply that E originated in Israel.\n\nIt is impossible to assign more than an approximate date to the\norigin of these documents, but they can hardly be earlier than the\nmonarchy, which is clearly alluded to in Genesis xxxvi. 31. Such\nincidental statements as that the Canaanite was _then_ in the\nland, xii. 6, xiii, 7, imply that by the author's time the situation\nhad changed; and, as their subjection was not attained till the time\nof Solomon (1 Kings ix. 21) the documents can hardly be earlier than\nthat. The sanctuaries glorified in the Pentateuch are the very\nsanctuaries at which a sumptuous but misguided worship was practised\nas late as the eighth century, in the days of Amos and Hosea (cf.\nAmos iv. 4; Hosea xii. II); but, generally speaking, the conception\nof God found in the prophetic history, though as robust and intense\nas that of the early prophets, is more primitive. It is not afraid\nof anthropomorphisms (Gen. iii. 8; Exod. iv. 24), and theophanies,\nand it has not very clearly grasped the idea that God is spirit. On\nthese grounds alone it would not be unfair to place the prophetic\ndocuments somewhere between Solomon and Amos. J probably belongs to\nthe ninth century, and E, which, as we saw reason to believe, was\nlater, to the eighth.\n\nP takes us into a totally different world. The witchery of the\nprophetic documents has disappeared; poetry has given place to\nlegislation, theophany to ritual, religion to theology. From the\nlate historical books, such as Ezra-Nehemiah, we learn that legalism\ndominated post-exilic religion to an extent out of all proportion to\nwhat can be proved, or what is probable, for pre-exilic times; and\nit would be natural to suppose that another writing, such as P,\ndominated by precisely the same spirit, is a product of the same\ntime. This supposition becomes a practical certainty in the light of\ntwo or three facts. Firstly, in not a few respects P is at variance\nwith the legislative programme drawn up by the exilic prophet\nEzekiel (xl.-xlviii.). Now if P had been in existence, such a\nprogramme would have been unnecessary, and, in any case, Ezekiel\nwould hardly have ventured to contradict a code which enjoyed so\nvenerable a sanction and bore the honoured name of Moses. It is\neasier to suppose that Ezekiel's programme is a tentative sketch,\nwhich was modified and improved upon by the authors of P. Again\nthere was every inducement during and immediately after the exile to\nformulate definitely the ritual practice of pre-exilic times, and to\nmodify it in the direction of existing or future needs. So long as\nthe temple stood, custom could be trusted to take care of the ritual\ntradition, but the violent breach with their country and their past\nwould impose upon the exiles the necessity of securing those\ntraditions in permanent and accessible form. P is therefore referred\nalmost unanimously by scholars to the exilic and early post-exilic\nage, and may be roughly put about 500 B.C.\n\nThe documents J, E and P, which, for convenience, we have treated as\nif each were the product of a single pen, represent in reality\nmovements which extended over decades and even centuries. The\nJehovist, e.g., who traces the descent of shepherds, musicians, and\nworkers in metal to antediluvian times (Gen. iv. 19-22), cannot be\nthe Jehovist who told the story of the Flood, which interrupted the\ncontinuity of human life. These distinctions are known to criticism\nas Jl, J2, etc.; but, though they stand for undoubted literary\nfacts, it is altogether futile to attempt, on this basis, an\nanalysis of the entire document into its component parts. The\npresence of several hands may also be detected, though not so\nreadily, in E. Most scholars suppose J to precede E, but one or two\nreverse the order. The truth is that there are passages in J\ninspired by splendid prophetic conceptions, which must be later than\nthe earliest edition of E; and the moment it is recognized that a\nlong period elapsed before either document reached its present form,\nthe question of priority becomes relatively unimportant.\n\nP is even more obviously the result of a long process marked by\nrepeated additions and refinements. Numbers xviii. 7, e.g., implies\nthat ordinary priests might pass within the vail, whereas in\nLeviticus xvi. this is possible only to the high priest, and even to\nhim only once a year. Exodus xxix. 7 represents only the high priest\nas anointed, Exodus xxviii. 41 the other priests as well. The\nsection in Exodus xxx. 1-10 on the altar of incense must be later\nthan the list in xxvi. 31-37, where it is not mentioned. The age,\ntoo, at which the Levites might enter upon their service appears to\nhave been repeatedly changed; in Numbers iv. 3 it is put at thirty\nyears, in viii. 24 at twenty-five (and i Chron. xxiii. 24 at\ntwenty). All this only shows the unceasing attention that was paid\nby the priests to the problem of worship; and the length of the\nperiod over which this attention was spread may be inferred from the\nfact that, even in the third century B.C., as we know from the\nSeptuagint, the Hebrew text of Exodus xxxv.-xl. was not absolutely\nfixed.\n\nWe may conceive the composition of the Pentateuch to have passed\nthrough approximately the following stages. Earliest of all and\nfundamental to all come the ancient traditions and the ancient\npoetry, such as the book of the wars of Jehovah, and the book of\nJashar. Upon this basis, during the monarchy men of prophetic spirit\nin both kingdoms--not improbably at the sanctuaries--wrote the\nhistory of the Hebrew people. These documents, J and E, were\nsubsequently combined into a single history (JE), possibly in the\nseventh century, though how long, if at all, J and E continued to\nenjoy an independent existence we have no means of knowing. During\nthe exile, the book of Deuteronomy was added (JED). Its influence,\nas we have seen, is very prominent in Joshua, and occasionally\ntraceable even in the earlier books (cf. Gen. xviii. 19, xxvi. 5).\nAfter the exile P was incorporated, and the Hexateuch had assumed\npractically its present form about the middle of the fifth century\nB.C.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGES\n\n\nFor the understanding of the early history and religion of Israel,\nthe book of Judges, which covers the period from the death of Joshua\nto the beginning of the struggle with the Philistines, is of\ninestimable importance; and it is very fortunate that the elements\ncontributed by the later editors are so easily separated from the\nancient stories whose moral they seek to point. That moral is most\nelaborately stated in ii. 6-iii. 6, which is a sort of programme or\npreface to iii. 7-xvi. 31, which constitutes the real kernel of the\nbook of Judges--chs. xvii.-xxi., as we shall see, being a supplement\nand i. 1-ii. 5 an introduction. Briefly stated, the moral is this:\nin the ancient history, unfaithfulness to Jehovah was regularly\nfollowed by chastisement in the shape of foreign invasion, but when\nthe people repented and cried to Jehovah He raised up a leader to\ndeliver them. Unfaithfulness, chastisement; penitence, forgiveness.\nThis philosophy of history, if such it can be called, had of course\nthe practical object of inspiring the people with a sense of the\nimportance of fidelity to Jehovah. Both the ideas and the\nphraseology of this passage, ii. 6-iii. 6, are unmistakably those of\nDeuteronomy: therefore here, as in Joshua, we speak of the\nDeuteronomic redaction.\n\nThe moral expressed in the preface and repeated in a less elaborate\nform elsewhere, vi. 7-10, x. 6-16, is amply illustrated by the\nstories that follow--the stories of Othniel, Ehud, Deborah and\nBarak, Gideon, Jephthah and Samson. This does not exhaust the list\nof judges, but it exhausts the list of those whose stories are used\nto illustrate the Deuteronomic scheme. The story of Abimelech, e.g.\n(ix.), has no such preface or conclusion as these six have; neither\nhas the notice of Shamgar in iii. 31; the preface is also lacking in\nthe very bald notices of the five minor judges, x. 1-5, xii. 8-15.\nIt is clear, therefore, that they fell without the original\nDeuteronomic scheme; but it is equally clear that the later editors\nof the book intended to represent the period by twelve judges,\nAbimelech being apparently reckoned a judge, though he is not called\none. Another computation, which ignored Abimelech, reached the\nnumber twelve by adding Shamgar, iii. 31, whom a comparison of iii.\n31 with iv. 1 shows not to have belonged to the original book; the\nname was probably suggested by v. 6_a_.\n\nChs. xvii.-xxi., which consist of two appendices (xvii., xviii, the\norigin of the sanctuary at Dan, and xix.-xxi., the vengeance of\nIsrael on Benjamin for the outrage at Gibeah), also clearly fell\nwithout the Deuteronomic redaction: the section is untouched either\nby the language or ideas of Deuteronomy. Further, these chapters are\nclearly out of place where they stand; for, generally speaking, the\norder of the book is chronological, beginning with the death of\nJoshua and ending with the Philistine invasion which lasted on into\nthe days of Samuel, whereas both stories in the appendix refer to\nquite an early period, two of the characters named being the\ngrandsons of Moses and Aaron respectively (xviii. 30, xx. 28).[1]\n[Footnote 1: In ch. xviii. 30 the word now read as Manasseh was\noriginally Moses.]\n\nThe introduction, i. I-ii. 5, also plainly falls without the scheme,\nfor the book proper, ii. 6ff., is a direct continuation[1] of Joshua\nxxiv. 27, and i. i-ii. 5 really duplicates, in the main, accounts\nand isolated notices scattered through Joshua xv., xvi., xvii., xix.\nThe incidents related in these chapters are assigned to Joshua's\nlifetime; the phrase with which the book of Judges begins--\"It came\nto pass _after the death of Joshua_\"--is clearly a later\nattempt to connect the two books, and inconsistent with ii. 6ff.,\nwhich carries the story back to a period before Joshua's death.\n[Footnote 1: 2 Ch. ii. 6, 7=Josh. xxiv. 28, 31; Jud. ii. 8, 9=Josh.\nxxiv. 29, 30.]\n\nThe original book of Judges, then, as edited by the Deuteronomist,\nis represented[1] by ii. 6-xv., minus the notices of Shamgar,\nAbimelech and the minor judges. The moral pointed by the redaction,\nvaluable as it may be, is not always suggested by the history. The\nredaction assigns the national misfortunes to idolatry, though only\nonce is idolatry mentioned with reprobation in the ancient stories\nthemselves, vi. 25-32. The redaction shows a further indifference to\nhistory in giving a national[2] turn to the tale of apostasy and\ndeliverance, whereas the original stories show that the interests\nare really not as yet national, but only tribal. The chronology of\nthe book--which is also part of the redaction--with its round\nnumbers, 20, 40, 80, etc., appears to contain an artificial element,\nand to form part of the scheme indicated in i Kings vi. 1, which\nassigns 480 years, i.e. twelve generations, to the period between\nthe exodus and the building of the temple. Many considerations make\nit practically certain that the periods of the judges, which are\nrepresented as successive, were often really synchronous, and that\ntherefore the period covered by the entire book is only about two\ncenturies.\n[Footnote 1: Note that ch. xv. 20 was apparently designed to\nconclude the story of Samson, raising the suspicion that ch. xvi.\n(with a similar conclusion) was added later.]\n[Footnote 2: Cf. iii. 12. The children of Israel did evil again in\nthe sight of Jehovah, and Jehovah strengthened Eglon the King of\nMoab against _Israel_; so _vv_. 14, 15, etc.]\n\nThere is reason to believe that the original Deuteronomic book of\nJudges included the stories of Eli and Samuel, and ended with I\nSamuel xii. It is expressly said in Judges xiii. 5 that Samson is to\n_begin_ to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines,\nand it is reasonable to suppose that the completion of the\ndeliverance was also related; besides, Samuel's farewell address\ncontains many reminiscences of the familiar formulae of the book of\nJudges (I Sam. xii. 9ff.) and an appropriate summary of the teaching\nand some of the facts of that book (cf. _v_. 11). It is easy to\nimagine, however, why the stories of Eli and Samuel were ultimately\nseparated from the book of Judges: partly because they were felt to\nbe hardly judges in the old sense of defenders, deliverers--Eli was\na priest, and Samuel a prophet--and still more because the story of\nSamuel, at any rate, was bound up with the history of the monarchy.\n\nThe book received its present form from post-exilic redactors. This\nis rendered certain by the unmistakable marks of the influence of\nthe priestly code in chs. xx., xxi. The unanimity with which Israel\nacts, the extraordinarily high numbers,[1] the prominence of such\nwords as \"congregation,\" constitute indubitable evidence of a\npriestly hand. Some post-Deuteronomic hand, if not this same one,[2]\nadded the other appendix, xvii., xviii., the introduction, i.-ii. 5,\nand the sections in the body of the book already shown to be\nlate.[3]. The motives which prompted these additions were varied.\nWith regard to the minor judges, e.g., some suppose that the object\nwas simply to make up the number twelve; but generally speaking, the\nmotive for the additions would be the natural desire to conserve\nextant relics of the past. The introduction, and appendix, though\nadded late, contain very ancient material. Many of the historical\nnotices in ch. i. are reproductions of early and important notices\nin the book of Joshua, though with significant editorial additions,\nusually in honour of Judah; [Footnote: Cf. ch. i. 8, which\ncontradicts i. 21; and i, 18, which contradicts i. 19.] and the\nstory of the origin of the sanctuary at Dan, with its very candid\naccount of the furniture of the sanctuary and the capture of the\npriest, is obviously very old. Doubtless also there is a historical\nelement in xix.-xxi., though it has been seriously overlaid by the\npriestly redaction--possibly also in the notices of the minor\njudges.\n[Footnote 1: Ch. xx. 2 (of. Num. xxxi.). Contrast Jud. v. 8.]\n[Footnote 2: Note the phrase in both stories. \"In those days there\nwas no king in Israel,\" xviii. i, xix. I.]\n[Footnote 3: Shamgar iii. 31; Abimelech (ix); minor judges, x. 1-5,\nxii. 8-15; Samson (xvi.)]\n\nThis raises the question of the sources and historical value of the\nstories in the body of the book, which, as we have seen, are very\neasily separated from the redactional elements. Indeed, as those\nelements are confined to the beginning and the end of the stories,\nwe may assume that the stories themselves were not composed by the\nredactors, but already reached them in a fixed and finished form.\nFurther, it is important to note that, just as in the prophetic\nportions of the Hexateuch, duplicates are often present--very\nprobably in the stories of Ehud, iii. 12ff., Deborah and Barak\n(iv.), Abimelech (ix.), and Micah (xvii., xviii.), but certainly in\nthe story of Gideon[1] (vi.-viii.). According to the later version,\nGideon is the deliverer of Israel from the incursions of the\nMidianites, and the princes slain are Oreb and Zeeb, vii. 24-viii.\n3; according to the earlier version, viii. 4-21, which is on a\nsmaller scale, Gideon, accompanied by part of his clan, takes the\nlives of Zebah and Zalmunna to avenge his brothers, whom they had\nslain. In the case of duplicated stories, the Deuteronomic redactors\napparently found the stories already in combination, so that the\noriginal constituent documents must be further back still. As the\nnarratives, with their primitive religious ideas and practices and\ntheir obvious delight in war, are clearly the echo of an early time,\nwe shall be safe in relegating the original documents, at the\nlatest, to the eighth or ninth century B.C. It is a point on which\nunanimity has not yet been reached, whether these documents are the\nJehovist and Elohist of the Hexateuch; but considering the fact that\nthe older notices in i.-ii. 5, on account of the prominence of Judah\nand for other reasons, are usually assigned to J, and that some of\nthe characteristics of these two documents recur in the course of\nthe book, the hypothesis that J and E are continued at least into\nJudges must be regarded as not improbable.\n[Footnote 1: In the story of Jephthah, ch. xi. 12-28, which\ninterrupt the connexion and deals with Moab, not with Ammon, is a\nlater interpolation.]\n\nFortunately we are able in one case to trace the source of a story.\nThe story of Deborah and Barak is told in chs. iv. and v. Ch. 5, which\nis so graphic that it must have come from a contemporary-one had almost\nsaid an eye-witness--is undoubtedly the older form of the story, as it\nis in verse. Partly on the basis of this poem ch. iv. has been built\nup, and the account of Sisera's death in this chapter, iv. 21, which\ndiffers from that in v. 26, 27, rests on a misunderstanding of the\nsituation in v. 26. Here we see the risks which the ballads ran when\nturned into prose, but more important is it to note the poetical origin\nof the story. Probably ch. v. originally belonged to such a collection\nas the book of the wars of Jehovah or the book of Jashar, and it is\nnatural to suppose that other stories in the book of Judges--e.g. the\nexploits of Gideon--may have similarly originated in war-ballads.\n\nThe religion of the book of Judges is powerful but primitive. The\nideal man is the ideal warrior. Grim tales of war are told with\nunaffected delight, and the spirit of God manifests itself chiefly\nin the inspiration of the warrior. Gideon and Micah have their\nidols. Chemosh and Dagon are as real, though not so powerful, as\nJehovah. Unlike the redaction, the earlier tales are not given to\nmoralizing, and yet once at least the moral is explicitly pointed,\nix. 56ff. But elsewhere the power of religion in life is suggested,\nnot by explicit comment, but rather by the naturalness with which\nevery interest and activity of life are viewed in a religious light.\nNowhere is this more obvious than in the priceless song of\nDeborah[1] (v.). Israel's battles are the battles of Jehovah; her\ntriumph is His triumph. The song is inspired by an intense belief in\nthe national God, but there was little that was ethical in the\nreligion of the period. Jephthah offers his child in sacrifice. Jael\nis praised for a murder which was a breach of the common Semitic law\nof hospitality. By revealing, however, so candidly the meagre\nbeginnings of Israel's religion, the book of Judges only increases\nour sense of the miracle which brought that religion to its\nincomparable consummation in the fulness of the times.\n[Footnote 1: The song is not necessarily and not probably composed\nby Deborah. In v. 12 she is addressed in the 2nd person, and\n_v_. 7 may be similarly read, \"Till _thou_, Deborah, didst\narise.\"]\n\n\n\n\nSAMUEL\n\n\nAlike from the literary and the historical point of view, the\nbook[1] of Samuel stands midway between the book of Judges and the\nbook of Kings. As we have already seen, the Deuteronomic book of\nJudges in all probability ran into Samuel and ended in ch. xii.;\nwhile the story of David, begun in Samuel, embraces the first two\nchapters of the first book of Kings. The book of Samuel is not very\nhappily named, as much of it is devoted to Saul and the greater part\nto David; yet it is not altogether inappropriate, as Samuel had much\nto do with the founding of the monarchy. The Jewish tradition that\nSamuel was the author of the book is, of course, a palpable fiction,\nas the story is carried beyond his death.\n[Footnote 1: Two books in the Greek translation, as in modern\nBibles; originally one in the Hebrew, but two from the year 1517\nA.D.]\n\nThe book deals with the establishment of the monarchy. Its ultimate\nanalysis is very difficult; but, if we regard the summary notices in\n1 Samuel xiv. 47-51 and 2 Samuel viii. as the conclusion of\nsections--and this seems to have been their original intention--the\nbroad outlines are clear enough, and the book may be divided into\nthree parts: the first (1 Sam. i.-xiv.) dealing with Samuel and\nSaul, the second (i Sam. xv.-2 Sam. viii.) with Saul and David, and\nthe third (2 Sam. ix.-xx., concluding with I Kings i., ii.) with\nDavid, xxi.-xxiv. being, like Judges xvii.-xxi., in the nature of an\nappendix.\n\nThe book opens in the period of the Philistine wars. Samuel's birth,\ncall and influence are described (I Sam. i.-iii.), and the\ndisastrous defeat which Israel suffered at the hand of the\nPhilistines. Jehovah, however, asserted His dignity, and the ark,\nwhich had been captured, was restored to Israel (iv.-vii.). But the\nperil had taught Israel her need of a king, and, by a providential\ncourse of events, Saul becomes the chosen man. He gains initial\nsuccesses (viii.-xiv.).\n\nBut, for a certain disobedience and impetuosity, his rejection by\nGod is pronounced by Samuel, and David steps upon the arena of\nhistory as the coming king. His successes in war stung the\nmelancholy Saul, who at first had loved him, into jealousy; and the\ntragedy of Saul's life deepens. Recognizing in the versatile David\nhis almost certain successor, he seeks in various ways to compass\nhis destruction, but more than once David repays his malice with\ngenerosity. Saul's persecution, however, is so persistent that David\nis compelled to flee, and he takes refuge with his country's enemy,\nthe Philistine king of Gath. At the decisive battle between Israel\nand the Philistines on Gilboa, Saul perishes. Soon afterwards, David\nis made king of Judah; and emerging successfully from the subsequent\nstruggle with Saul's surviving son, he becomes king over all Israel,\nseizes Jerusalem, and makes it his civil and religious capital (1\nSam. xv.-2 Sam. viii.).\n\n The story of his reign is told with great power and candour, and is\nfull of the most diverse interest--his guilty passion for Bathsheba,\nwhich left its trail of sorrow over all his subsequent career, the\ndissensions in the royal family, the unsuccessful rebellion of his\nson Absalom, the strife between Israel and Judah (2 Sam. ix.-xx.).\nThe story is concluded in 1 Kings i., ii., by an account of the\nintrigue which secured the succession of Solomon, and finally by the\ndeath and testament of David. The appendix, which interrupts the story\nand closes the book of Samuel (xxi.-xxiv.) consists of (_a_) two\nnarratives, with a dominant religious interest, which chronologically\nappear to belong to the beginning of David's reign--the atonement by\nwhich Jehovah's anger, expressed in famine, was turned away from the\nland, xxi. 1-14, and the plague which, as a divine penalty, followed\nDavid's census of the people (xxiv.); (_b_) two psalms--a song\nof gratitude for God's gracious deliverances (xxii.=Ps. xviii.), and\na brief psalm expressing confidence in the triumph of justice,\nxxiii. 1-7; (_c_) two lists of David's heroes and their deeds,\nxxi. 15-22, xxiii. 8-39.\n\nIn the book of Samuel, even more distinctly than in the Hexateuch,\ncomposite authorship is apparent. Little or no attempt has been made\nby the redactor[1] to reduce, by omissions, adaptations, or\ncorrections, the divergent sources to a unity, so that we are in the\nsingularly fortunate position of possessing information which is\nexceedingly early, and in some cases all but contemporary, of\npersons, events and movements, which exercised the profoundest\ninfluence on the subsequent history of Israel. The book has been\ntouched in a very few places by the Deuteronomic redactor--not to\nanything like the same extent as Judges or Kings. The few points at\nwhich he intervenes, however, are very significant; his hand is\napparent in the threat of doom pronounced upon Eli's house (1 Sam.\nii. 27-36),[2] in the account of the decisive battle against the\nPhilistines represented as won for Israel by Samuel's intercession\n(1 Sam. vii. 3-16), in Samuel's farewell address to the people (1\nSam. xii.) and--most important of all--in Nathan's announcement to\nDavid of the perpetuity of his dynasty (2 Sam. vii.). A study of\nthese passages reveals the didactic interest so characteristic of\nthe redactors.\n[Footnote 1: \"Come and let us _renew_ the kingdom,\" 1 Sam. xi.\n14, is a redactional attempt to reconcile the two stories of the\norigin of the monarchy.]\n[Footnote 2: Cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 9; Deut, xviii. 6-8.]\n\nSuch a book as Samuel offered little opportunity for a priestly\nredaction, but it has been touched here and there by a priestly\nhand, as we see from 1 Samuel vi. 15, with its belated introduction\nof the Levites to do what had been done already, v. 14, and from the\nvery significant substitution of \"all the Levites\" for \"Abiathar\" in\n2 Samuel xv. 24, cf. 29.\n\nThe composite quality of the book of Samuel could hardly fail to\nstrike even a careless observer. Many of the events, both important\nand unimportant, are related twice under circumstances which render\nit practically impossible that two different incidents are recorded.\nTwo explanations are given, e.g., of the origin of the saying, \"Is\nSaul also among the prophets?\" I Sam. x. 11, xix. 24. Similarly, the\nstory of David's magnanimity in sparing Saul's life is twice told (1\nSam. xxiv., xxvi.), and there is no allusion in the second narrative\nto the first, such as would be natural, if not necessary, on the\nassumption that the occasions were really different. There are also\ntwo accounts of David's sojourn among the Philistines and of his\nspeedy departure from a situation fraught with so much peril (1 Sam.\nxxi. 10-15, xxvii., xxix.). Of course there are not unimportant\ndifferences between these two narratives: the voluntary departure of\nthe one story becomes a courteous, though firm, dismissal in the\nother; but in the light of so many other unmistakable duplicates, it\nis hard to believe that these are not simply different versions of\nthe same story. There are two accounts of the death of Saul:\naccording to the one, he committed suicide (1 Sam. xxxi. 4),\naccording to the other he was slain by an Amalekite (2 Sam. i. 10).\nThe Amalekite's story may, of course, be fiction, but it is not\nnecessary to suppose this.\n\nThe differences between the duplicate accounts are sometimes so\nserious as to amount to incompatibility. In one document, e.g.,\nteraphim are found in the house of a devout worshipper of Jehovah, 1\nSam. xix. 13, in another they are the symbol of an idolatry which is\ncomparable to the worst of sins, 1 Sam. xv. 23. Again, there is no\nreason to doubt the statement in the apparently ancient record of\nthe deeds of David's heroes, that Elhanan slew Goliath of Gath, 2\nSam. xxi. 19. But if this be so, what becomes of the elaborate and\nromantic story of i Samuel xvii., which claims this honour for\nDavid? The difficulty created by this discrepancy was felt as early\nas the times of the chronicler, who surmounts it by asserting that\nit was the brother of Goliath whom Elhanan slew (1 Chron. xx. 5).\nConnected with this story are other difficulties affecting the\nrelation of David to Saul. In this chapter, Saul is unacquainted\nwith David, 1 Samuel xvii. 56, whereas in the preceding chapter\nDavid is not only present at his court, but has already won the\nmonarch's love, xvi. 21. The David of the one chapter is quite\nunlike the David of the other; in xvi. 18 he is a mature man, a\nskilled and versatile minstrel-warrior, and the armour-bearer of the\nking; in xvii. 38, 39, he is a young shepherd boy who cannot wield a\nsword, and who cuts a sorry figure in a coat of mail. Many of these\nundoubted difficulties are removed by the Septuagint[1] which omits\nxvii. 12-31 ,41, 50, 55-xviii. 5, and the question is raised whether\nthe Septuagint omitted these verses to secure a more consistent\nnarrative, or whether they were wanting, as seems more probable, in\nthe Hebrew text from which the Greek was translated. In that case\nthese verses, which give an idyllic turn (cf. ch. xvi.) to the story\nof David, may have been added after the Greek version was written,\ni.e, hardly earlier than 250 B.C., and a curious light would thus be\nshed upon the history of the text and on the freedom with which it\nwas treated by later Jewish scholars. Equally striking and important\nare the conflicting conceptions of the monarchy entertained in the\nearlier part of the book. One source regards it as a blessing and a\ngift of Jehovah; the first king is anointed by divine commission \"to\nbe prince over my people Israel, and he shall save my people out of\nthe hand of the Philistines,\" 1 Sam. ix. 16; the other regards the\nrequest for an earthly king as a rejection of the divine king, and\nthe monarchy as destined to prove a vexation, if not a curse\n(viii.). Centuries seem to separate these conceptions--the one\nexpressing the exuberant enthusiasm with which the monarchy was\ninitiated, the other--perhaps about Hosea's time (cf. Hosea viii.\n4)--reflecting the melancholy experience of its essential\nimpotence.[2]\n[Footnote 1: The Greek text of Samuel is often of great value. In 1\nSam. xiv. 18 it preserves the undoubtedly original reading, \"bring\nhither _the ephod_, for he carried the ephod that day before\nIsrael,\" instead of \"Being hither the ark of God.\" and in _ v_.\n41 the Greek version makes it clear that the Urim and Thummim were\nthe means employed to determine the lot.]\n[Footnote 2: If other proof were wanted that the book is not an\noriginal literary unit, it might be found in the occasional\ninterruption of the natural order. 2 Sam. xxi.-xxiv. is the most\nextensive and obvious interruption. But 2 Sam. iii. 2-5 is also out\nof place, it goes with v. 6-16. So I Sam. xviii. 10, 11, which is\nreally a duplication of xix, 9, 10 is psychologically inappropriate\nat so early a stage.]\n\nThese considerations suggest that at any rate as far as 2 Samuel\nviii.--for it is universally admitted that 2 Samuel ix.-xx. is\nhomogeneous--there are at least two sources, which some would\nidentify, though upon grounds that are not altogether convincing,\nwith the Jehovist and Elohist documents in the Hexateuch. One of\nthese sources is distinctly early and the other distinctly late, and\nthe early source contains much ancient and valuable material. Its\nrecognition of Samuel as a local seer willing to tell for a small\npiece of money where stray asses have gone, its enthusiastic\nattitude to the monarchy, its obvious delight in the splendid\npresence and powers of Saul, its intimate knowledge of the ecstatic\nprophets, its conception of the ark as a sort of fetish whose\npresence insures victory--all these things bespeak for the document\nthat relates them a high antiquity. The other document represents\nSamuel as a great judge and virtual regent over all Israel, it has a\nwide experience of the evils of monarchy, it idealizes David, and it\nregards Saul as a \"rejected\" man. It is possible that these\ndocuments, in their original form, were biographical--Saul being the\nchief hero in the one and David in the other. A biography of Samuel,\nwhich may or may not have included the story of the war with the\nPhilistines (I Sam. iv.-vii. 2), possibly existed separately, though\nin its present form it is interwoven with the story of Saul.\n\nIt would be difficult to overpraise the literary and historical\ngenius of the writer who in 2 Samuel ix.-xx. traces the checkered\ncourse of David's reign. He has an unusually intimate knowledge of\nthe period, a clear sense of the forces that mould history, a\ndelicate insight into the springs of character, and an estimable\ncandour in portraying the weakness as well as the strength of his\nhero. The writer's knowledge is so intimate that one is tempted to\nsuppose that he must have been a contemporary; and yet such a phrase\nas \"to this day,\" 2 Sam. xviii. 18, unless it be redactional, almost\ncompels us to come lower down. Probably, however, it is not later\nthan the time of Solomon, whose reign appears to have been marked by\nliterary as well as commercial activity.[1]\n[Footnote l: The Book of Jashar, whose latest known reference comes\nfrom the reign of Solomon (cf. p.102), is supposed by some to have\nbeen edited in that reign.]\n\nThe last four chapters, which interrupt the main narrative, contain\nsome ancient and some late material. The two tales, xxi. 1-14,\nxxiv., which have much in common, were preserved because of their\nreligious interest; and although part of ch. xxiv. (cf. _vv_.\n10-14) is in the later style, both stories throw much welcome light\non the early religious ideas of Israel. Of the poems 2 Samuel xxii.\nin its present form can hardly be David's,[1] and the same doubt may\nbe fairly entertained with regard to xxiii. 1-7. Even if _v_. 1\nbe not an imitation of Numbers xxiv. 3, 15, it is hardly likely that\nDavid would have described himself in terms of the last clause of\nthis verse. The eschatological complexion of _vv_. 6, 7 also\nsuggests, though perhaps it does not compel, a later date; further,\nit is not exactly in favour of the Davidic authorship of either of\nthese psalms that they are found in a section which was obviously\ninterpolated later.[2] On the other hand, there can be no reasonable\ndoubt that the incomparable elegy over Saul and Jonathan in 2 Samuel\ni. 19-27 is David's. Poetically it is a gem of purest ray; but,\nthough its position in the book of Jashar[3] shows that it was\nregarded as a religious poem, it strikes no distinctively religious\nnote. The little fragment on the death of Abner, 2 Sam. iii. 33ff.,\nis also no doubt his.\n[Footnote 1: See pp. 247, 248.]\n[Footnote 2: The song of Hannah, 1 Sam. ii. 1-10, is proof that later\neditors inserted poems at points which they deemed appropriate. If\nthe \"anointed king,\" for whom prayer is offered in _v_. 10, be\none of the historical kings, then the Ps. is pre-exilic; if the\nMessianic king of the latter days, post-exilic. But in neither case\ncould the prayer be Hannah's, as there was no king yet. The clause in\n_v_. 5--\"the barren hath borne seven\"--suggested the interpolation\nof the poem at this point.]\n[Footnote 3: This may either mean the book of the upright or brave,\ni.e. the heroes of Israel, or it may mean the book of Israel herself.]\n\nThe book of Samuel offers a large contribution to our knowledge of\nthe early religion of Israel. It presents us with a practical\nillustration of the rigorous obligations of the ban (1 Sam. xv.), of\nthe effects of technical holiness (1 Sam. xxi. 4, 5), of the\nappearance of the images known as teraphim (1 Sam. xix. 13), of the\nusages of necromancy (1 Sam. xxviii.), of the peril of unavenged\nbloodshed (2 Sam. xxi.), of the almost idolatrous regard for the ark\n(1 Sam. iv.), of the nature of the lot (1 Sam. xiv. 41, lxx.), of\nthe place of fasting and the inviolability of oaths (1 Sam. xiv.).\nTo the student of human nature, the book is peculiarly rich in\nmaterial. The career of David and still more that of Saul--David\nwith his weakness and his magnanimity, and Saul, a noble character,\nruined by jealousy and failure combined working upon a\npredisposition to melancholy--present a most fascinating\npsychological study. The ethical interest, too, though seldom\nobtruded, is always present. In the parable of Nathan, it receives\ndirect and dramatic expression; but the whole story of David's reign\nis haunted by a sense of the Nemesis of sin.\n\n\n\n\nKINGS\n\n\nThe book[1] of Kings is strikingly unlike any modern historical\nnarrative. Its comparative brevity, its curious perspective, and-with\nsome brilliant exceptions--its relative monotony, are obvious to the\nmost cursory perusal, and to understand these things is, in large\nmeasure, to understand the book. It covers a period of no less than\nfour centuries. Beginning with the death of David and the accession\nof Solomon (1 Kings i., ii.) it traverses his reign with considerable\nfulness (1 Kings iii.-xi.), then carries on the history of the\nmonarchy in both countries from the disruption to the fall of the\nnorthern kingdom (1 Kings xii.-2 Kings xvii.), and traces the story\nof Judah from that point to the exile (2 Kings xviii.-xxv.).\n[Footnote 1: Originally and till 1517 A.D. Kings was reckoned in the\nHebrew Bible as one book. The Greek translation reckons it as two\nbooks, which it entitles the third and fourth books of the kingdoms,\nthe first two being represented by the two books of Samuel.]\n\nDuring this period events of epoch-making importance in politics and\nreligion were taking place. In it literary prophecy was born, trade\nand commerce arose with their inevitable cleavage of society into\nthe rich and the poor, the northern kingdom disappeared as a\npolitical force, and many of her people were carried into exile.\nJudah was dominated in turn by Assyria and Babylonia, with the\nresult that her religious usages were profoundly affected by theirs.\nBut of all this we learn very little from the book of Kings. Most of\nwhat we do know of the inner history of the period comes from the\nprophets. To understand the state of society, e.g. in the time of\nJeroboam II, we go not to the book of Kings but to Amos and Hosea.\n\nAgain the perspective is strange. It is not only that brief reigns\nlike those of Shallum and Pekahiah (2 Kings xv.) are dismissed in a\nverse or two, but even long and very important reigns, such as that\nof Jeroboam II. (2 Kings xiv. 23-29). Omri, the father of Ahab, was,\nwe know, a much more important person than the few verses devoted to\nhim in I Kings xvi. 21-28 would lead us to suppose. The reign of\nAhab himself, on the other hand, is dealt with at considerable\nlength (I Kings xvi. 29-xxii. 40), and Solomon receives no less than\nnine chapters (I Kings iii.-xi.). The stories of Jeroboam I (I Kings\nxii.), Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii.-xx.), Josiah (2 Kings xxii. ff.) are\ntold with comparative fulness. Whenever the narrative begins to\nexpand it is plain that the interest of the author is predominantly\nand almost exclusively religious; in other words, his aim is to\nwrite not a political, but an ecclesiastical history. This at once\nexplains his insertions and omissions. Omri's reign was not marked\nby anything of conspicuous importance to religion, while it was\nunder Ahab that the great struggle of Jehovah worship against\nBaalism took place. Solomon is of unique importance, as he was the\nfounder of the temple. Hezekiah's career touches that of the prophet\nIsaiah, while his reign and Josiah's are marked by attempts at\nreligious reform. The author is writing for men who have access to\nrecords of the political history, and to these \"chronicles of the\nkings of Israel and Judah,\" as they are called, he repeatedly refers\nreaders who are interested in the political facts.\n\nFinally, though some of the narratives--notably the Elijah group-are\ndramatic and powerful to the last degree, the book has not, generally\nspeaking, that flexibility and movement which we are accustomed to look\nfor in a modern historian. It has been artificially conformed to a\nscheme. The various kings are introduced and dismissed and their reigns\nare criticized, in set formulae, and these formulae are Deuteronomic.\nWith the exception of Hezekiah, all the kings before Josiah are implicitly\ncondemned for worshipping upon the high places; and the centralization of\nthe worship at Jerusalem was, as we have already seen, the chief feature\nof the Deuteronomic legislation. The book of Kings, like Joshua, Judges\nand Samuel (in part), has been subjected to a Deuteronomic redaction, of\nwhich the most obvious feature is the summary notice and criticism\nof the various kings. This redaction cannot have taken place earlier\nthan 621 B.C. (the date of the publication of Deuteronomy) nor later\nthan 597 B.C., as the reference to the chronicles of the kings of\nJudah ceases with the reign of Jehoiakim, 2 Kings xxiv. 5. Parts of\nthe book presuppose that the temple is still standing, I Kings viii.\n29, and the exile not yet an accomplished fact. There was, however,\na later redaction some years after the pardon of Jehoiachin in 561\nB.C. (2 Kings xxv. 27), and sporadic traces of this are seen\nthroughout the book, parts of which clearly imply the exile, 1 Kings\nviii. 46, 47, and the destruction of the temple, 1 Kings ix. 7, 8.\nThese redactions are known to criticism as D and D2 respectively.\n\nOn none of the historical books has the influence of Deuteronomy\nbeen so pervasive as on Kings. The importance of the Deuteronomic\nlaw receives emphatic reiteration, 1 Kings ii. 3, 4, ix. 1-9, and\nonce that law is cited practically word for word, 2 Kings xiv. 6;\ncf. Deut. xxiv. 16. Naturally the affairs of the temple as the\nexclusive seat of the true worship receive considerable attention.\nThis explains the elaborate treatment accorded to the reign of\nSolomon, who founded the temple, and to the description of the\ntemple itself (1 Kings vi.); and on his prayer of dedication the\nDeuteronomic influence is very conspicuous (1 Kings viii.). It is\nalso unmistakable in the chapter which concludes the story of the\nnorthern kingdom and attempts to account for the disaster (2 Kings\nxvii.). The chapter presents what may be called a Deuteronomic\nphilosophy of history, corresponding to the scheme which is thrown\ninto the forefront of the book of Judges (ii. 6-iii. 6). Traces of a\nhand that is still later than the second Deuteronomic redaction are\nto be found here and there in the book; e.g., in 1 Kings viii. 4,\nthe Levites are a later insertion to satisfy the requirements of the\npost-exilic priestly law--the words are not supported by the\nSeptuagint. Here we see the influence of the priestly point of view,\nbut the traces are far too few to justify us in speaking of a\npriestly redaction; the course which such a redaction would have\ntaken we see from the book of Chronicles. But that the book was\ntouched by post-exilic hands is certain; 1 Kings xiii. 32 actually\nspeaks of \"the cities of Samaria,\" a phrase which implies that\nSamaria was a province, as it was not till after the exile.\n\nIt is fortunate that one of the longest, most important, and\nimpressive sections of the book--the Elijah and Elisha narratives (1\nKings xvii.-2 Kings viii., xiii. l4-2l)--has not been touched by the\nDeuteronomic redaction. The Elijah narratives not only recognize the\nexistence of altars all over the land, 1 Kings xix. 10, but the\ngreat contest between Jehovah and Baal is actually decided at the\nsanctuary on Carmel, xviii. 20, a sanctuary which, by the\nDeuteronomic law, was illegal. Again, the advice given by Elisha to\ncut down the fruit trees in time of war, 2 Kings iii. 19, is in\ndirect contravention of the Deuteronomic law (Deut. xx. 19). These\nnarratives must precede the redaction of the book by a century and a\nhalf or more, and we have them pretty much as they left the hand of\nthe original writers. A post-exilic hand, however, is evident in 1\nKings xviii. 31, 32_a_. To a later age, which believed in the\nexclusive rights of Jerusalem, the altar on Carmel, which was said\nto be repaired by Elijah, _v._ 30, was naturally an offence; so\nthe repairing of this old altar is represented as the erection of a\nnew and special one, typical of the unity of Israel. The lateness of\nthe insertion is further proved by its containing a quotation from P\n(Gen. xxxv. 10).\n\nAs the book was redacted by Judean writers, it is not unnatural that\nthe summary notices of the kings of Judah are more elaborate than\nthose of Israel. In the former case, but not in the latter, the age\nof the king at his accession and the name of his mother are\nmentioned. One curious feature of these notices is that the\nstatement of a king's accession, whether in Israel or Judah, is\nalways accompanied by a statement of the corresponding year in the\ncontemporary reign of the sister kingdom. The notices conform to\nthis type: \"In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam, king of\nIsrael, began Azariah, son of Amaziah, king of Judah, to reign,\" 2\nKings xv. 1. It is practically certain that these synchronisms, as\nthey are called, are not contemporary but the work of the redactors.\nThere is no reason to suppose that the kings of either country would\nhave dated their own reigns with reference to the other; besides,\nthe synchronisms do not strictly agree with the other chronological\nnotices of the reigns. The period between the division of the\nkingdoms and the fall of Samaria is estimated as 260 years in the\nstory of the kings of Judah, but only as 242 in the case of Israel.\nProbably the original documents contained the number of years in the\nreign, and the dates of the more important events; but the\nsynchronisms represent an artificial scheme created by the redactor.\nTraces of such a system are present in 1 Kings vi. 1, according to\nwhich 480 years, i.e. twelve generations of forty years each,\nelapsed between the exodus and the building of the temple.\n\nSo much for the redaction; what, then, were the sources of the\nredaction? Three are expressly mentioned--the book of the acts of\nSolomon, 1 Kings xi. 41, the book of the chronicles of the kings of\nIsrael, and the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah. The\nnature of these books may be inferred, partly from the facts\nrecorded in our book of Kings, and especially from the facts in\nsupport of which they are cited. They seem to have contained, e.g.,\naccounts of wars, conquests, conspiracies, buildings, 1 Kings xiv.\n19, xv. 23, xvi. 20, but it is not probable that they were official\nannals. There was indeed a court official whose name is sometimes\ntranslated \"the recorder,\" 2 Sam. viii. 16, 1 Kings iv. 3. But\nbesides the probable inaccuracy of this translation,[1] it is very\nunlikely that, in the northern kingdom at any rate, with its\nfrequent revolutions, court annals were continuously kept; the\nannalist could hardly have recorded the questionable steps by which\nhis monarch often succeeded to the throne, though doubtless official\ndocuments were extant, capable of forming material for the\nsubsequent historian. But in any case, the chronicles to which the\nbook of Kings refers cannot have been official annals; it is assumed\nthat they are accessible to everybody, as they would not have been\nhad they been official chronicles. They were in all probability\nfinished political histories, something like the elaborate section\ndevoted to Solomon in our present book of Kings. The chronicles of\nthe kings of Israel and Judah probably formed, not one book, as has\nbeen supposed, but two; the same event, e.g., the campaign of\nHazael, is sometimes mentioned in two distinct and independent\nconnections, 2 Kings x. 32, xiii. 3, cf. xii. 18f.--a fact which\nfurther suggests that the redactor treated his sources with at least\ncomparative fidelity.\n[Footnote 1: The word strictly means \"one who calls to mind,\" and\nwould appropriately designate an official who brought the affairs of\nthe kingdom before the king.]\n\nThe book of Kings, as we have seen, concentrates attention almost\nexclusively on the religious elements in the history, and these were\ndetermined largely by the prophets. It is not surprising, therefore,\nthat many of the longer sections deal with the utterances or\nactivities of prophets at critical junctures of the history. The\npart played by Ahijah at the time of the disruption of the kingdom,\nby Elijah in the great struggle between Baal and Jehovah worship, by\nElisha during the Aramean assaults upon Israel, by Isaiah at the\ninvasion of Sennacherib--these and similar episodes are dealt with\nso fully as to suggest that biographies of the prophets, written\npossibly by literary members of the prophetic order, were at the\ndisposal of the redactors of the book of Kings. Temple affairs are\nalso discussed, from the days of Solomon to Josiah (I Kings vi.\nvii., 2 Kings xi., xii., xvi., xxii., xxiii.), with a sympathy and a\nminuteness which almost suggest the inference that a regular temple\nhistory was kept; but occasional statements which are anything but\nflattering to the priests (2 Kings xii. 7, 15) render the inference\nsomewhat precarious.\n\nBesides the chronicles and biographies, there are hints that the\nredactors had access to other sources. The words in which Solomon\ndedicated the temple, only partially preserved in the Hebrew, are,\nby a very probable emendation of the Greek text, taken from the book\nof Jashar:--\n\n  The sun hath Jehovah set in the heavens,\n  He himself hath determined to dwell in the darkness.\n  And so I have built Thee an house to dwell in,\n  Even a place to abide in for ever and ever.\n  (1 Kings viii. 12, 13; Septuagint, _v._ 53).\n\nAgain, 1 Kings xx., xxii. appears to come from a different source\nfrom the Elijah narratives in 1 Kings xvii.-xix., xxi. The former\nsection takes a distinctly more favourable view of Ahab than the\nElijah stories do, and, unlike them, it alludes to Ahab seldom by\nname, but usually as \"the king of Israel\"; further, in it the great\nprophet of the period is Micah rather than Elijah. Both these groups\nof narrative belong no doubt to the northern kingdom.[1]\n[Footnote 1: Chs. xx., xxii. obviously so; but no less xvii.-xix.,\nxxi., for in 1 Kings xix. 3 Beersheba is described as belonging to\nJudah. A Judean writer would not have appended such a note.]\n\nIt is important to consider the value of the sources of the book of\nKings. We have already seen that the redactor occasionally deals\nwith them in a spirit of praiseworthy scrupulousness, repeating the\nsame fact from different sources, and making no attempt to dovetail\nthe one narrative into the other. Sometimes the sources have been\ndemonstrably followed word for word, phrases like _to this day_\nbeing used of situations which had passed away by the time the book\nwas redacted.[1] The facts, though lamentably meagre, have usually\nthe appearance of being thoroughly trustworthy; the quotation from\nthe book of Jashar is no doubt as genuine as it is interesting, and\nthe brief account of the submission of Hezekiah to the tribute\nimposed by Sennacherib, 2 Kings xviii. 14-16, is supported by the\nAssyrian records. But it is evident that the history does not always\nrest upon contemporary sources, and that early events and\npersonalities are touched with the colours of legend or romance.\nMuch of the story of Solomon, e.g., is unmistakably historical--his\nluxury, his effeminacy, his commerce, his unscrupulousness. But\nthere are stories of another sort which, on the face of them, must\nbe decades, if not centuries, later than Solomon's reign. \"There\ncame no more,\" we are informed, \"such abundance of spices as those\nwhich the queen of Sheba gave to king Solomon\" (1 Kings x. 10). The\nage of Solomon is clearly long past, and his glory has been enhanced\nby the lapse of time; for \"silver was nothing accounted of in the\ndays of Solomon,\" x. 21. Tales are told of his almost fabulous\nrevenue, x. 14, which can hardly be reconciled with the story of his\nloan from Hiram, ix. 14. The story of Solomon is really a\ncompilation, and its various elements are by no means all of the\nsame historical value.\n[Footnote 1: E.g., 1 Kings xii. 19 implies the existence of Israel,\nand 2 Kings viii. 22 (Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah\nunto this day) ignores the later conquest of Edom by Amaziah, xiv.\n7.]\n\nThe career of Elisha is also seen through the colours of a rich and\nreverent imagination. It is, in the main, intended to be a replica\nof Elijah's, and many of his miracles are obviously suggested by\nhis. The story of Elisha's resuscitation of the dead child is an\nexpansion of the similar story told of Elijah (2 Kings iv., 1 Kings\nxvii.), and his miracle wrought in behalf of the widow, 2 Kings iv.\n1-7, is modelled on a similar miracle wrought by Elijah, 1 Kings\nxvii. 8-16. There is further an element of magic in his miracles\nwhich differentiates them from Elijah's, and throws them more upon\nthe level of mediaeval hagiography; such, e.g., as the floating of\nthe iron upon the water, or the raising of a dead man by contact\nwith the prophet's bones. The Elijah narratives, on the other hand,\nrepresent a higher type of religious thought. The figure of that\ngreat prophet may also have been glorified by tradition, but in any\ncase his was a personality of the most commanding power. He was\nindeed fortunate in his biographer; his story is told with great\ndramatic and literary art. In its account of the struggle with the\ngreed of Ahab and the licentiousness of Baalism, it sheds a\nbrilliant light upon one of the most crucial epochs of Hebrew\nhistory. Even this story, however, is not all of a piece. There is\nlinguistic and other evidence that the chapter (2 Kings i.), in\nwhich two companies of fifty men are consumed by fire from heaven at\nthe word of Elijah, is very late. In the story, which is rather\nmechanical and lacks the splendid dramatic power of the other Elijah\nstories, the prophet is only a wonder-worker, and his action is not\ndetermined by any moral consideration. It was not so much the spirit\nof Elijah himself, but rather that of the late redactor, that Jesus\nrebuked, when He said to His disciples, who quoted the prophet's\nconduct for a precedent, \"Ye know not what spirit ye are of.\"\n\nPerhaps the chapter of least historical value in the book of Kings\nis that in which Jeroboam I is condemned and denounced for his\nidolatry at Bethel (1 Kings xiii.). It contains an unparelleled\ninstance of predictive prophecy: Josiah is foretold by name three\ncenturies before he appears, _v._ 2. The difficulty of this\nprediction is so keenly felt that one orthodox commentator feels\nconstrained to dispose of it by assuming that the name is to be\ntaken, not as a proper name, but in its etymological sense as one\nwhom \"Jehovah supports,\" The sudden withering of the hand and its\nequally sudden restoration to health are hardly more surprising than\nthe definite prediction of the fate of the idolatrous priests,\n_v._ 2,--a prediction which appears to be fulfilled to the\nletter, 2 Kings xxiii. 16-18. But when we examine the account of the\nfulfilment, we find that the passage is later than its context[1]\nand inconsistent with it. The conduct of the \"old prophet,\" whose\nlying counsel is attributed to an angel, is, morally considered,\ndisreputable, and it is surely no accident that the man of God,\nwhose message and fate are thus strangely told, is anonymous,\nthough, as the opponent of the famous Jeroboam I, the leader of the\ndisruption, he ought to have been well known. The vagueness and\nimprobabilities of the story can only be accounted for by its very\nlate date. Fortunately we are able to show that the story is, at the\nearliest, post-exilic. As we have already seen, there is an allusion\nin _v_. 32 to the cities of Samaria, which implies that Samaria\nwas a province, and stamps the passage at once as post-exilic. Even\nwithin the post-exilic period, it probably falls quite late--a\nprecursor of the book of Chronicles. The historical spirit is in\nabeyance, and edification is the only consideration. The story is a\nlate attempt to illustrate the great truth that God's word is\nimmutable and must be uncompromisingly obeyed.\n[Footnote 1: Verse 16, in which the bones are burned on the altar,\ncontradicts _v._ 15, in which the altar is already destroyed.]\n\nThe religious value of the book of Kings is general rather than\nparticular. There are individual sections of great religious power\nand value--most of all the great group of Elijah narratives; but the\nbook has been shorn, by the thoroughness of the redaction, of much\nthat would have been of the deepest interest to the modern student\nof Israel's religious no less than political development. Taken as a\nwhole, it has a certain melancholy grandeur. Beginning in the\nsplendid glitter of Solomon's reign, the monarchy passed with\nunsteady gait across the centuries, menaced by foes without and\nwithin, and ended at last in the irretrievable disaster of exile.\nBut through the sombre march of history, a divine purpose was being\naccomplished. The disaster which swallowed up the nation renewed and\nspiritualized the religion, and thus the seeming loss proved great\ngain.\n\n\n\n\nISAIAH\n\n\nCHAPTERS I-XXXIX\n\nIsaiah is the most regal of the prophets. His words and thoughts are\nthose of a man whose eyes had seen the King, vi. 5. The times in\nwhich he lived were big with political problems, which he met as a\nstatesman who saw the large meaning of events, and as a prophet who\nread a divine purpose in history. Unlike his younger contemporary\nMicah, he was, in all probability, an aristocrat; and during his\nlong ministry (740-701 B.C., possibly, but not probably later) he\nbore testimony, as unremitting as it was brilliant, to the\nindefeasible supremacy of the unseen forces that shape history, and\nto the quiet strength that comes from confidence in God.\n\nDuring this period three events stand out as of unique importance:\nthe coalition--due to fear of Assyria--formed by Aram and Israel\nagainst Judah in 735 B.C. (vii. 1-ix. 6), the capture of Samaria by\nthe Assyrians in 721 B.C., and the deliverance of Jerusalem in 701\nB.C. from the menace of Sennacherib. In these and in all crises,\nIsaiah's message was a religious one, but instinct, as the sequel\nshowed, with political wisdom. It rested ultimately upon the vision\nwith which his ministry had been inaugurated--the vision of the\nKing, the Lord of hosts, upon a throne high and lifted up, whose\nglory filled the whole earth.\n\nThe King was \"holy,\" partly, no doubt, in the ethical sense--for the\nman of unclean lips is afraid in His presence--but also partly in\nthe older sense of being separated, elevated, lifted above the\nchances and changes of humanity. Holiness here is almost equivalent\nto majesty, it is the other side of the divine glory; and it is this\nthought that inspires the message of Isaiah with such serene\nconfidence. His God is on the throne of the universe: He is the Lord\nof hosts. His purposes concern not only Judah, but the whole world,\nxiv. 26, and His kingdom must eventually come. Therefore it is that\nwhen, at the news of the confederacy of Aram and Israel against\nJudah, \"the heart of Ahaz and his people shook as shake the forest\ntrees before the wind,\" vii. 2, Isaiah remains firm as a rock; for,\nto paraphrase his own great alliterative words, \"Faith brings\nfixity,\" vii. 9b. This word of his early ministry is also one of his\nlatest (701): \"he who believeth shall not give way,\" xxviii. 16.\nThat is the precious foundation stone that abides unshaken amid the\nshock of circumstance, and can bear any weight that may be thrown\nupon it. This, then, is Isaiah's great contribution to religion: he\nis before all things, the prophet of faith. \"In quietness and\nconfidence your strength shall be,\" xxx. 15.\n\nIt is easy from this point of view to understand the scorn which\nIsaiah heaps upon the common objects of men's trust, whether ships,\nwalls or towers (ii.), lip-worship, xxix. 13f., or the gorgeous\nservices of the sanctuary, cunning diplomacy or the projected\nalliance with Egypt or Assyria (xxx.). Isaiah is the sworn foe of\nmaterialism: the contrast between human and divine resource is to\nhim nothing less than infinite. \"The Egyptians are men, and not God;\nand their horses flesh, and not spirit,\" (xxxi. 3). It is in harmony\nwith this insistence upon the supremacy of the spiritual that Isaiah\nregarded religion as separable not only from political form, but\neven from ecclesiastical organization; for (if the text of viii.\n16_b_ can be trusted) he committed his message not to the\ncontemporary church, but to a few disciples, transforming thereby\nthe existing conception of the church, and taking a step of\nimmeasurable significance for the development of true religion.\n\nThe majesty and originality of Isaiah's thought have their\ncounterpart in his language. Very powerful, e.g., is his description\nof the Assyrian army--\n\n  See! hastily, swiftly he comes,\n    None weary, none stumbling among them,\n  The band of his loins never loosed,\n    The thong of his shoes never torn.\n  His arrows are sharpened,\n    His bows are all bent.\n  The hoofs of his horses are counted as flint,\n    And his wheels as the whirlwind.\n  His roar is like that of the lioness.\n    And like the young lions he roars,\n  Thundering, seizing the prey,\n  And bearing it off to a place of security.\n  v. 26-29.\n\nThe book is full of poetry as fine as this. Whether describing the\nmighty roar of the sea, xvii. 12-14, or Jehovah's power to defend\nIsrael, xxxi. 4, or singing a tender vineyard song (v.); Isaiah is\nequally at home. He effects his transitions with consummate skill:\nnote, e.g., the swift application he makes of the parable of the\nvineyard, v. 5-7, or the scathing retort he makes to those who\ncomplain of the monotony and repetition of his message (xxviii.\n11).[1]\n[Footnote 1: The real irony of this passage, xxviii. 10-13, can only\nbe appreciated in the Hebrew.]\n\nThe prophecies that fall within the first thirty-nine chapters are\npractically all on a very high religious and literary level; yet it\nis all but universally conceded that they are not entirely from the\nhand of Isaiah. Some prophecies, e.g. xiii., xiv., may be nearly two\ncenturies later than his time, others, e.g. xxiv.-xxvii, four or six;\nindeed large sections or fragments of the book are relegated by the\nmore radical critics to the second century B.C. and connected with the\nMaccabean times. But even the more conservative scholars admit that\nseveral oracles of Isaiah have been worked over by later hands,\npossibly by pupils, and that isolated sections, e.g. xxiv.-xxvii.,\nhave to be relegated to the post-exilic age, and even to a comparatively\nlate period within that age. These questions can only be settled, if at\nall, by exegetical, theological and historical considerations, for which\nthis is not the place; but in sketching the contents of the various\nprophecies, the more probable alternatives will be indicated, where a\nsolution is important.\n\nIt is plain that the present order of the book is not strictly\nchronological; otherwise it would have begun with the inaugural\nvision which now appears in ch. vi. Generally speaking, there are six\nmore or less sharply articulated divisions in the first thirty-nine\nchapters, i.-xii., xiii.-xxiii., xxiv.-xxvii., xxviii.-xxxiii.,\nxxxiv.-xxxv., xxxvi.-xxxix.\n\n\nChs, i.-xii. _Prophecies concerning Judah, Jerusalem (and\nIsrael_)\n\nThe first division, like the fourth, deals in the main with Judah\nand Jerusalem. As the next division, xiii.-xxiii., deals with\nforeign peoples, i.1 can serve as a preface only to the first\ndivision and not to the whole book. The prophecy opens with an\narraignment of Judah, intensely ethical in spirit. It was placed\nhere, not because it was first in point of time, but as a sort of\nfrontispiece; for, though the different sections of the ch., e.g.\n_vv_. 2-9, 10-20, may come from different times, the first at\nany rate implies the ravaging of Judah, i. 7, and appears to point\nto the invasion of Sennacherib in 701 B.C.: it would thus be one of\nthe latest in the book. The land is wasted, the body politic\ndiseased, i. 1-9; the people seek the favour of their God by\nassiduous and costly ceremony, which the prophet answers by an\nappeal for a moral instead of a ritual service, _vv_. 10-20.\nBut, as injustice and idolatry are rampant, they will be surely\npunished, _vv_. 21-31.\n\nAs a foil to this picture of the depravity of Zion, a foil also to\nthe immediately succeeding description of her pride and idolatry, is\nthe beautiful vision of Zion in the issue of the days, ii. 2-5, as\nthe city to which all nations shall resort for religious\ninstruction, and their obedience to the expressed will of the God of\nZion will usher in a reign of universal peace. The passage appears,\nwith an additional verse, in Micah iv. 1-5, where it seems to be\npreserved in a more original form; yet Isaiah can hardly have\nborrowed it from Micah, who was younger than he. It used to be\nsupposed that both adopted it from an older poet. But the contents\nof the oracle, assigning as it does a world-wide significance to\nZion, its temple, and its _torah_, while not absolutely\nincompatible with Isaianic authorship, rather point to a post-exilic\ndate. We are the more at liberty to assume that the passage was\nlater inserted as a foil to the preceding description of Zion as\nSodom, as neither in Isaiah nor in Micah does it fit the context.\n\nThe general theme of ii.-iv. is the divine judgment which will fall\non all the foolish pride of Judah. How it will come, Isaiah does not\nsay--the prophecy is one of the earliest (735?)--but the storm that\nwill sweep across the land will reveal the impotence of superstition\nand idolatry and material resources of every kind, ii. 6-22. All the\nsupports of Judah's political life will be taken away: indeed, the\nleaders are either so weak or rapacious that the country is already\nas good as ruined, iii. 1-15; and the women, who are as guilty as\nthe men, will also be involved in their doom, iii. 16-iv. 1.\nStrangely enough, this eloquent threat of judgment ends in a vision\nof comfort and peace, iv. 2-6. The land is one day to be wondrously\nfruitful, her people to be cleansed and holy, and the glory of\nJehovah will be over Zion as a shelter and shade. The theological\nimplications of this last passage seem late, and it was probably\nappended by another hand than Isaiah's as a contrast and\nconsolation.\n\nThen follows a lament, in the form of a vineyard song, which\nskilfully ends in a denunciation of Judah, the vineyard of Jehovah,\nv. 1-7, merging thereafter into a sixfold woe, pronounced upon her\nrapacious land-holders, drunkards, sceptics, enemies of the moral\norder, worldly wise men, besotted and unjust judges, v. 8-24. This\nis fittingly followed by the announcement that Jehovah will summon\nagainst Judah the swift, unwearied and invincible hosts of Assyria,\nv. 25-30.\n\nIn the noble vision (740 B.C.) which inaugurated his prophetic\nministry (vi.), Isaiah saw the glorious Jehovah attended by seraphim\nand received from Him the call to go forth and deliver his message\nto an unbelieving people. This vision appropriately introduces the\nprophecies proper in vii.-xii.; but it is practically certain that\nthough the vision itself was early, the account of it is later. The\nhopelessness of his prospective ministry looks rather like the\nretrospect of a disappointing experience. Though Isaiah elsewhere\nexpresses his faith in the salvation of a remnant, this chapter\nasserts the utter annihilation of the people, _vv_. 11-13_ab_.\nAn attempt has been made to relieve the gloom in the last clause of\nthe chapter, _v_. 13 _c_, by a comparison of the stump of\nthe tree that remained, after felling, to the holy seed; but this\nclause, which is wanting in the Septuagint, and utterly blunts the\nkeen edge of the prophecy, is no part of the original chapter.\n\nThe next section, vii. i-ix. 6, plunges us into the war which the\nallied arms of Aram and Israel waged against Judah in 735, doubtless\nin the desire to force her to join a coalition against Assyria.\nIsaiah, vii. 1-17, seeks to reassure the faith of the trembling king\nAhaz; and when Ahaz refuses to put the prophetic word to the test,\nIsaiah boldly declares that the land will be delivered from the\nmenace before two or three years are over; and many a child--or it\nmay be some particular child--soon to be born, will be given the\nname Immanuel, and will thereby bear witness to the faith that,\ndespite the stress of invasion, God will not forget His people, but\nthat He \"is with us.\"[1] To the same period, but probably not the\nsame occasion, belongs the prophecy of the devastation of Judah by\nAssyria, vii. 18-25. But the blow is to fall first, and within two\nor three years, on Aram and Israel, with their respective capitals.\nIt did not fall so quickly as Isaiah had expected: Damascus was\nindeed taken in 732, but Samaria not till 721: in spirit, however,\nif not in the letter, the prophecy was fulfilled, viii. 1-4. The\nunbelief of Judah will also be punished by the hosts of Assyria, but\nthe ultimate purpose of Jehovah will not be frustrated, viii. 5-10.\nHe alone is to be feared, and no combination of confederate kings\nneed alarm, viii. 11-15. The prophet commits his message to his\ndisciples, and with patience and confidence looks for vindication to\nthe future, viii. 16-18. Desperate days would come, viii. 19-91, but\nthey would be followed by a brilliant day of redemption when Jehovah\nwould remove the yoke from the shoulder of His burdened people by\nsending them a glorious prince with the fourfold name.\n[Footnote 1: vii. 8_b_]\n\nThis latter prophecy, ix. 2-7, has been denied to Isaiah, but\napparently with insufficient reason. The passage falls very\nnaturally into its context. The northern districts of Israel (ix. 1)\nhad been ravaged by Assyria in 734 B.C. (2 Kings xv. 29), and upon\nthis darkness it is fitting that the great light should shine; and\nthe yoke to be broken might well be the heavy tribute Judah was now\nobliged to pay. There are undoubted difficulties, e.g. the mention\nof a Davidic king, ix. 7, after a specific reference to the fortunes\nof Israel over which the Davidic king had no jurisdiction; and it is\nprobable that we do not possess the oracle in its original form or\ncompleteness. But, in any case, the vision of the righteous and\nprosperous king ruling over a delivered people fittingly closes this\nseries of somewhat loosely connected oracles.\n\nThe next section, ix. 8-x. 4, forms a very artistic whole,\nconsisting of four strophes, each of four verses,[1] concluding with\nthe refrain--\n\n  For all this His wrath is not turned,\n  And His hand is stretched out still.\n\nThe poem, which falls about 734, lashes the pride and ambition of\n_Israel_ (not Judah) and threatens her people with loss of\nterritory and population, anarchy and civil war. The passage was\nprobably originally followed by v. 26-29, which has a similar\nrefrain, and which, with its vivid description of the terrible\nAssyrian army, would form an admirable climax to this poem.\n[Footnote 1: Ch. ix. 8 is an introduction and _v_. 13 an\ninterpolation.]\n\nChs. x. 5-xii. 6. Assyria, then, is the instrument with which\nJehovah chastises Israel. But because she executes her task in a\nspirit of presumption and pride, she in her turn is doomed to\ndestruction; but the remnant of Jehovah's people will be saved, x.\n5-27. The gradual approach of the Assyrians to Jerusalem is then\ndescribed in language full of word-play, _vv_, 28-32, which\nforcibly reminds us of a very similar passage in Isaiah's\ncontemporary Micah, i. 10-15. This chapter is probably about twenty\nyears later than those that immediately precede it. There is an\nobvious advance in the prophet's attitude to Assyria, and the boast\nin _vv_. 9-11 carries the chapter later than the fall of\nSamaria (721) and Carchemish (717). It is even possible that the\ndescription of the Assyrian advance in vv. 28-32 implies\nSennacherib's campaign in Judah in 701.\n\nAfter the destruction of the enemy before Jerusalem in x. 33, 34\nfollows an enthusiastic description of the Messianic king--of his\nwisdom and justice, and of the universal peace which will extend\neven to the animal world, xi. 1-9. It is the counterpart of ix. 2-7,\nthough here again, and perhaps with more reason, the Isaianic\nauthorship has been doubted. The peculiar emphasis upon the equipment\nwith the spirit is hardly, in these ethical relationships, demonstrably\npre-exilic, and the \"stem\" out of which the shoot is to grow suggests\nthat the monarchy had fallen, but the word may possibly be used to\nindicate its decadent condition. In any case, there seems very little\ndoubt that the rest of the section, xi. 10-xii. 6, strikingly appropriate\nas it is in this place, is post-exilic. It describes how in the Messianic\ndays just pictured, theexiles of Israel and Judah will be gathered from\nthe ends of the earth to their own land, where their near neighbours will\nall be vanquished, xi. 10-16. Then follows a simple song of gratitude for\nthe redemption Jehovah has wrought, xii. The presuppositions of the\ndispersion here described are not such as fit into Isaiah's time; they\nwould not even apply to the conditions after the fall of Jerusalem and\nthe exile of Judah in 586, still less to the fall of Samaria and the\nexile of Israel in 72l--the passage must be post-exilic. But though much\nlater than Isaiah's time it forms a very skilful conclusion to the first\ndivision of his book, and is an admirable counterpart to the gloomy\nscenes of ch. i.\n\n\nChs. xiii.-xxiii. _Prophecies concerning foreign nations_\n\nChs. xiii. 1-xiv. 23. The Downfall of Babylon. The oracle concerning\nBabylon, the first of the series of oracles concerning foreign nations,\nis one of the most magnificent odes in literature. A day of destruction\nto be executed by the Medes is coming upon Babylon the proud (xiii.)\nand the exiles will return to their own land, xiv. 1-3. The triumph\nsong that follows discloses a weird scene in the underworld, where the\nfallen king of Babylon receives an ironical welcome from the shadow-kings\nof the other nations. There can be no doubt that this prophecy is not by\nIsaiah. It glows with a passionate hatred of Babylon; but the Babylon\nwhich figured in the days of Isaiah (xxxix.) was only a province of\nAssyria, not an independent and oppressive world-power; nor would its\ndestruction have meant the return of the exiles of northern Israel. The\nsituation is plainly that of the period during the later exile of\nJudah _before_ the capture of Babylon by Cyrus in 538, as the\nhorrors which the poet anticipated (xiii. 15f.) did not take place.\n\nIn the spirit of ch. x., xiv. 24-27 proclaims the invincible triumph\nof Jehovah's purpose and the destruction of the Assyrians in the\nland of Judah. The assassination of Sargon in 705 B.C. was the cause\nof wild rejoicing throughout the western vassal states: the joy of\nPhilistia is rebuked by the prophet in _vv_. 28-32 with the\nwarning that worse is yet in store--an allusion, no doubt, to an\nexpected Assyrian invasion. If this be the theme of the passage,\n_v_. 28 can hardly be correct, as Ahaz had died ten or twenty\nyears before.\n\nChs. xv., xvi. Oracle concerning Moab. The subscription to this\nprophecy, xvi. 13, indicates that we have here an older prophetic\noracle, given \"heretofore.\" Strictly speaking, it is not so much a\nprophecy as an elegy over the fate of Moab whose land had been\ndevastated by an invader from the north. The fugitives, arriving in\nEdom, send in vain for help to the people of Judah. Who the invader\nwas it is hard to say--possibly Jeroboam II of Israel, whose\nconquests were extensive (2 Kings xiv. 25; Amos vi. 14). The oracle,\nbesides being diffuse, is altogether destitute of higher prophetic\nthought, and is certainly not Isaiah's, though he adapted it to the\nexisting situation and foretold a similar and speedy devastation of\nMoab, no doubt at the hands of the Assyrians, xvi. 14.\n\nCh. xvii. I-II. This prophecy concerning Aram and Israel falls, no\ndoubt, within the period when these two countries were leagued\nagainst Judah, about 735. The doom of Aram is to be utter\ndestruction; that of Israel, all but utter destruction.\n\nIn the next two passages, xvii. 12-14, xviii., Isaiah appears to\nreturn to his favourite theme of the sure destruction of the\nAssyrians, though they are not mentioned by name. In xvii. 12-14\ntheir hosts are compared to the noise of many waters, while in\nxviii. their doom is announced by the prophet in answer to an\nembassy sent by the Ethiopians, who were alarmed at the prospect of\nan invasion by the Assyrians, doubtless under Sennacherib.\n\nCh. xix. Oracle concerning Egypt. For Egypt the prophet announces a\ndoom of civil war, oppression at the hands of a hard master, and\npublic and private distress which will issue in despair, _vv_.\n1-17. In their terror, however, the Egyptians will cry to Jehovah,\nwho will reveal Himself to them and be in consequence honoured and\nworshipped on Egyptian soil. Then a triple alliance will be formed\nbetween Egypt, Assyria and Israel, and they shall all be Jehovah's\npeople, _vv_. 18-25.\n\nThe dream of such an alliance is very attractive and not too bold for so\noriginal a thinker as Isaiah. But the passage is beset by difficulties.\nThe attitude to Egypt appears to be much friendlier in _vv_. 18-25\nthan in _vv_. 1-17; and it seems quite impossible to find within\nIsaiah's age a place for five (=several?) Hebrew-speaking cities in\nEgypt, _v_. 18, whereas such a reference would excellently fit the\nlater post-exilic time when there were extensive Jewish colonies in\nEgypt. If the city specially mentioned at the end of the verse be, as\nit seems to be, either Sun-city (Heliopolis) or Lion-city (Leontopolis)\nthen it would not be unnatural to find, in the next verse, with its\nworship of Jehovah upon Egyptian soil, a reference to the founding of a\ntemple at Leontopolis by Onias in 160 B.C. In that case, Assyria in\n_v_. 23 stands, as occasionally elsewhere, for Syria, from which\nIsrael had suffered more severely during the second century B.C. than\nthe earlier Israel from Assyria; and the dream of Palestine, Syria,\nand Egypt, united in the worship of the true God, would be just as\nstriking and generous in the second century as in the eighth. At\nfirst, _v_. 19 seems to tell powerfully in favour of the\nIsaianic authorship, as the massebah (pillar) here regarded as\ninnocent was proscribed a century after Isaiah by the Deuteronomic\nlaw (Deut. xii. 3). But the Egyptian Jews may not have been so\nstringent as the Palestinian, or we may even suppose that the\n\"pillar\" has here nothing to do with worship, but stands, for some\nother purpose, on the boundary line. There is no adequate reason,\nhowever, why _vv_. 1-17, or at least _vv_. 1-15, should\nnot be assigned to Isaiah.\n\nIn ch. xx. (711 B.C., cf. _v_. 1, capture of Ashdod) Isaiah indicates\nin symbolic prophecy--which, however, was not fulfilled--that the people\nof Egypt and Ethiopia would be deported by the Assyrians. The prophet's\nobject was to dissuade the people of Judah from the Egyptian alliance\nwhich they were contemplating.\n\nThe theme of xxi. 1-10 is the same as that of xiii., xiv.--the\nimpending fate of Babylon--and the passages may be almost\ncontemporary. Warriors of Elam and Media are sent against Babylon,\nand the issue is awaited with tremulous excitement, till at last the\nwatchman proclaims the welcome news, \"Babylon is fallen, is fallen.\"\nThe importance here aligned to Babylon and her fall, the express\nmention of Elam and Media, _v_. 2, as her assailants, and the\ndescription of Jehovah's people as \"threshed\" point unmistakably to\nthe last years of the exile, after the rise of Cyrus in 549, and\nbefore the fall of Babylon in 538, so that the passage cannot be\nfrom Isaiah. With this seems to go the next little enigmatic oracle\nconcerning Edom, xxi. 11, 12, whose fate, as affected by the fall of\nBabylon, is as yet uncertain. The desert tribes, xxi. 13-17, will\nalso be affected by the general upheaval and be driven from the\nregular caravan routes.\n\nCh. xxii. is the only chapter in this division (xiii.-xxiii.) which is\nnot concerned with foreign nations. It probably owes its place here to\nits peculiar superscription which conforms to the other superscription\nin xiii.-xxiii. In this chapter the prophet laments and very sternly\nrebukes the frivolity of the people of Jerusalem--whether shortly before\nthe invasion of Sennacherib or after his retreat, it is hard to say.\nTrusting in their armour and fortifications they give the rein to their\nappetites, but he solemnly declares that their sin will be punished with\ndeath.\n\nUnique among the oracles of Isaiah are the two pieces, xxii. 15-18\nand 19-25, which deal with persons. Shebna, one of the court\nofficials and probably a foreigner, is threatened with exile and the\nconsequent loss of his office: probably he championed the policy of\nan Egyptian alliance. His place will be taken, according to Isaiah,\nby Eliakim, who, curiously enough, is threatened in his turn.\nProbably _vv_. 19-23 are an adaptation of 2 Kings xviii. 18,\nwhere Eliakim is holding an office here held by Shebna, while Shebna\nis only a scribe.\n\nA prophetic lament over Tyre (xxiii.) concludes the oracles dealing\nwith the foreign peoples. The glad ancient merchant city will be\nbrought to silence, _vv_. 1-14, though after seventy years she\nis to be revived, and the proceeds of her traffic are to be enjoyed\nby the people of Jerusalem, _vv_. 15-18. There was a siege of\nTyre during Isaiah's time, but it is probably not that which is\ncelebrated here, as the poem lacks the nobility and grandeur of the\nprophet's style. If the oracle is held to imply the conquest of\nTyre, it would require to be brought down to the time of Alexander\nthe Great; but it may well be only an anticipatory lament and\ntherefore earlier, contemporary perhaps with a similar oracle of\nEzekiel concerning the siege of Tyre (Ez. xxvi.-xxviii.) Verses 15-18\nare clearly dependent on Jeremiah's view of the duration of the\nChaldean oppression (Jer. xxv. 11, xxix. 10); and the whole chapter\nmay be exilic.\n\n\nChs. xxiv.-xxvii. _Late prophecy concerning the glorious issue of\nsome world-catastrophe_.\n\nThis section is very peculiar, obscure, and in the Old Testament\naltogether unique. Contemporary historical facts are seen now in the\nlurid light of fear, more often in the more brilliant light of\neschatological hopes. In ch. xxiv. a great catastrophe is impending.\nThe world is weary, and joy has vanished. The city (Jerusalem?) is\ndesolate. Something has happened to revive Jewish hopes and kindle\nhigh expectations as to the issue of the coming calamity, but in the\nimmediate future new woes are impending--the earth will reel; on that\nday, however, Jehovah will suddenly punish the powers supernatural and\nterrestrial, and come down to reign in glory on Mount Zion. Then (xxv.)\nfollows an enthusiastic song of praise, because a certain strong city\n(unnamed) has been laid low. A great banquet is prepared on Zion for\nall the sorrow-ridden nations of the world--emblem of their reception\ninto the Kingdom of God--tears are wiped from every eye, and, with their\nreproach removed, the Jews praise their God for the victory. Another\nsong of praise follows in xxvi. 1-xxvii. 1 for the power with which\nJehovah has defended His own city, and laid her proud rival low. The\nwicked will not learn from the divine judgments; but, while they are\ndestroyed, not only do Jehovah's own people increase, but their dead are\nrestored to life, to participate in His glorious kingdom; and the dragon\nis smitten. Then follows xxvii. 2-6, a song of the vineyard-counterpart\nto v. l-7--which praises Jehovah's care for Judah, with whom He is angry\nno more. Her rival shall become a desolation, but she herself shall be\nforgiven and re-established, if only she remove all signs of heathen\nworship, and from the ends of the earth her exiled sons shall gather\nto worship at Jerusalem.\n\nThe origin of this piece is wrapped in obscurity; and it would seem\nthat the author, for some reason, deliberately concealed the\nhistorical situation. It is not even certain that the piece is a\nunity: the song, e.g., in xxv. 1-5 interrupts the description of\njudgment, and the connection is occasionally loose. There is no clue\nto what is meant by the strong city which is to be overthrown. It is\nplain, however, that the writer lived in Palestine, doubtless in or\nnear Jerusalem, xxv. 6, 7, at a time when the Jews were scattered\nthroughout many lands, xxiv. 14-16, xxvii. 12, 13, and when there\nwere at least three great world powers, xxvii. 1. This could hardly\nhave been earlier than the end of the Persian period, and probably\nthe tidings that rang from the isles of the sea, xxiv. 14, 15, were\nthose of the victorious advance of Alexander the Great. No earlier\ndate would suit the theological implications of the passage: e.g.\nthe judgment upon the hosts of heaven, xxiv. 21, 22 (cf. Dan. xi.),\nthe resurrection from the dead, xxvi. 19, the banquet of the nations\non Zion, xxv. 6. The style of the passage is nearly as peculiar as\nits thought, it abounds in assonance and alliteration. It is\nassigned by some to the close of the second century B.C.; but, in\nany case, it can hardly be earlier than the later half of the fourth\ncentury B.C., and may well express the wild expectations to which\ndisappointed Jewish hearts were lifted by the conquests of\nAlexander.\n\n\nChs. xxviii.-xxxiii. _Prophecies concerning Judah and Jerusalem\n_\n\nWe now return to the undoubted prophecies of Isaiah. This group\nbegins with a woe, xxviii. 1-4, pronounced not long before the fall\nof Samaria in 721 B.C., ending in two verses, 5, 6, presenting\nanother outlook, apparently by a later hand. In _vv_. 7-22,\nprobably about the time of the Egyptian alliance, Judah is also\nthreatened for the drunkenness of her leaders, and for the false\nconfidence which leads the people scornfully to close their ears to\nprophetic instruction. The interesting little section which follows,\n_vv_. 23-29, shows how the farmer adapts his methods to the\nparticular work he has to do. The connection, however, is anything\nbut obvious: it may be intended as a reminder to the sceptics of\nJudah that the divine penalties, though slow, v. 19, are sure; or it\nmay be meant to suggest that God's judgments are tempered with\nmercy. To the same period belongs the prophecy of the distress that\nis to be inflicted on Ariel, i.e. Jerusalem, by \"a great multitude\nof all the nations,\" clearly Sennacherib's army, xxix. 1-15; but in\na prophecy, probably much later, which is dramatically appended to\nit, a promise of redemption and restoration is held out, xxix. 16-24.\n\nIn xxx., xxxi., also before the invasion of Sennacherib, the prophet\ndenounces the folly of trusting the impotent aid of Egypt, when\ntheir real strength lay in quietly trusting their God: for Jehovah\nwill smite the Assyrian with a mysterious blow and defend his dear\nJerusalem. Though such promises undoubtedly fall within the range of\nIsaiah's message, the ideas and the general tone of xxx. 18-26 are\nsufficient to place that passage almost certainly in the post-exilic\nperiod. Against the background of calamity in the two preceding\nchapters, xxxii. 1-8 throws up a picture--whether from Isaiah's or a\nlater hand--of the Messianic age, when rulers would be just and\ncharacter transformed. The imminent desolation of Jerusalem, with\nwhich the women are threatened, is again immediately contrasted with\nthe fruitfulness and security of the land, when the spirit will be\npoured out from on high, xxxii. 9-20.\n\nThis group is closed by a song of triumph (xxxiii.) over the\nprospective annihilation of the foreign foes who have crushed\nIsrael, by the glorious God who defends Jerusalem. There is much in\nthe passage, especially towards the end, _vv_. 19-21, which\nlooks as if the Assyrians were the enemy, and the prophecy, like\nmost of those in this group, fell shortly before Sennacherib's\ninvasion. But, besides lacking the vigour of Isaiah's acknowledged\nprophecies, the passage contains ideas which are hardly his: e.g.\nthe sinners in Zion, _v._ 14, are not to be destroyed but\nforgiven, _v_. 24. The allusion to the king in _v_. 17, if\nthe text is correct, helps us little, as the king may be Jehovah.\nThere is a growing conviction that the passage is post-exilic, some\nscholars even bringing it down to the Maccabean times, about 163\nB.C.\n\n\nChs. xxxiv., xxxv. _Prophecy concerning the redemption and return\nof Israel._\n\nA fitting conclusion to the whole book--ignoring xxxvi.-xxxix.,\nwhich is an historical appendix--is afforded by the picture of the\nworld-judgment, the redemption of Israel, and the destruction of her\nenemies in xxxiv., xxxv. Edom is singled out as the special object\nof Jehovah's vengeance, xxxiv. 5-17; and, in contrast to her\ndesolation, is the blessedness of Israel, returning to her own land\nacross the blossoming wilderness with exceeding joy. Ch. xxxv., at\nany rate, seems to point to the return of the exiles from Babylon,\nand ch. xxxiv. may also without violence be fitted into this time.\nThe Jews never forgot or forgave the Edomites for their cruelty on\nthe occasion of the destruction of Jerusalem (Lam. iv. 21ff., Ps.\ncxxxvii. 7) and the joy of their own redemption would be heightened\nby the ruin of Edom (Mal. i. 2-5). If, however, xxxiv. 16 implies,\nas we are not bound to believe, a fixed prophetic canon, the\nchapters would be very late, falling somewhere within the second\ncentury B.C. More probably they were written, like xiii., xiv.,\ntowards the end of the exile.\n\n\nxxxvi.-xxxix. _Historical Appendix_\n\nSeparating the earlier from the later of the two great divisions of\nthe book of Isaiah (i.-xxxv., xl.-lxvi.) stands a purely historical\nsection, practically identical with and probably borrowed from 2\nKings xviii. l3-xx. 19, which finds its place here, no doubt simply\nbecause of its connection with the prophet Isaiah. It tells the\nstory of Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, his insulting demands,\nwhether transmitted through the Rabshakeh (xxxvi.) or by letter\n(xxxvii.), of Hezekiah's terror and Isaiah's divine word of\nreassurance, and of the ultimate departure of the Assyrian army. Ch.\nxxxviii. contains Isaiah's prophecy to Hezekiah of his recovery from\nsickness, with the king's song of gratitude. This is followed by\nanother prophecy of the Babylonian exile, occasioned by an embassy\nsent to Hezekiah by Merodach Baladan, king of Babylon (xxxix.).\n\nThis account omits the very important statement in 2 Kings xviii.\n14-16 of the heavy tribute paid by Hezekiah to the King of Assyria,\nand inserts the psalm of Hezekiah, xxxviii. 9-20, which is no doubt\nlater than the redaction of the book of Kings as it is not found\nthere, and is, in all probability, a post-exilic psalm. It is not\ncertain whether the accounts in xxxvi. 1-xxxvii. 9_a_ and\nxxxvii. 9_b_-37 are simply parallel versions of the same\nincident, or refer to two different campaigns. In the distinctly\nprophetical portion, xxxvii. 22ff, though there is much that recalls\nIsaiah, the passage in its present form can hardly be his. Ch.\nxxxvii. 26, e.g. would be a pertinent appeal to Israel, but hardly\nto Sennacherib; it rests, no doubt, on the later Isaiah (xl. 28,\nxlvi. 11). The prophecy of exile to _Babylon_, xxxix. 6, 7, is\nnot natural at a time when Assyria, not Babylon, was the enemy.\nAgain, xxxvii. 33, which denies that even an arrow would be shot, is\nhardly reconcilable with Isaiah's prophecy of an arduous siege for\nthe city, xxix. 1-4. Further, the minute prediction that Hezekiah's\nlife would be prolonged for fifteen years is not in the manner of\nIsaiah, nor indeed of any of the great prophets, whose precise\nnumbers, where they occur, are to be interpreted as round numbers\n(e.g. seventy years in Jer. xxv. 11, xxix. 10); and the story of the\nreversal of the shadow on the sun-dial reflects the later conception\nof the prophet as a miracle-worker (cf. I Kings xiii. 3-6). The\nsection, in its present form, must be post-exilic.\n\n\nCHAPTERS XL.-LV.\n\nWith ch. xl. we pass into a different historical and theological\natmosphere from that of the authentic prophecies of Isaiah. The very\nfirst word, \"Comfort ye,\" strikes a new note: in the main, the\nmessage of Isaiah had been one of judgment. Jerusalem and the cities\nof Judah are in ruins, xlv. 13. The people are in exile in the land\nof the Chaldeans, xlvii. 5, 6, from which they are on the point of\nbeing delivered, xlviii. 20. The time of her sorrow is all but over,\nxl. 2; and her redemption is to come through a great warrior who is\ntwice expressly named as Cyrus, xliv. 28, xlv. 1, and occasionally\nalluded to as a figure almost too familiar to need naming, xli. 25,\nxlv. 13. He it is who is to overthrow Babylon, xlviii. 14. Such,\nthen, is the situation: the exile is not predicted, it is\npresupposed, and the oppressor is not Assyria, as in Isaiah's time,\nbut Babylon. Now it is a cardinal, indeed an obvious principle, of\nprophecy that the prophet addresses himself, at least primarily, to\nthe situation of his own time. Prophecy is a moral, not a magical\nthing; and nothing would be gained by the delivery of a message over\na century and a half before it was needed, to a people to whom it\nwas irrelevant and unintelligible.\n\nThe literary style of these chapters also differs widely from that\nof Isaiah. No doubt there are points of contact, notably in the\nfondness for the phrase, \"the holy One of Israel\"--a favourite\nphrase of Isaiah's and rare elsewhere. The influence of Isaiah is\nunmistakable, but the differences are no less striking. Isaiah\nmounts up on wings as an eagle: the later prophet neither mounts nor\nruns, he walks, xl. 31. He has not the older prophet's majesty; he\nhas a quiet dignity, and his tone is more tender. Nor has he\nIsaiah's exuberance and fertility of resource: the same thoughts are\nrepeated, though with pleasing and ingenious variations, over and\nover again. All his characteristic thoughts already appear in the\nfirst two chapters: the certainty and joy of Israel's redemption,\nthe omnipotence of Jehovah and the absurdity of idolatry, the call\nof Cyrus to execute Jehovah's purpose, the ultimate design of that\npurpose as the bringing of the whole world, through redeemed Israel,\nto a knowledge of the true God.\n\nThe theological ideas of the prophecy are different from those of\nIsaiah. Unique emphasis is laid on the creative power of Jehovah,\nand this thought is applied to the case of forlorn Israel with\noverwhelming effect; for it is none other than the eternal and\nomnipotent God that is about to reveal Himself as Israel's redeemer,\nin fulfilment of ancient words of prophecy, xliv. 7, 8. This very\nattitude to prophecy marks the book as late; it would not be\npossible in a pre-exilic prophet. But the most original conception\nof the book is one which finds no parallel whatever in Isaiah, viz.\nthe suffering servant of Jehovah. This servant is the exclusive\ntheme of the four songs, xlii. 1-4, xlix. 1-6, l. 4-9, lii. l3-liii.\n12; but more or less he is involved in the whole prophecy. The\nfunction of the servant is to give light to the Gentiles--in other\nwords, to bring the world to a knowledge of Jehovah (cf. xlii. 1,\nxlv. 14).\n\nWho is the servant? The difficulty in answering this question is\ntwofold: (i.) while the servant is often undoubtedly a collective\nterm for the people of Israel, xli. 8, xliv. 1, 2, the descriptions\nof him, especially in the songs alluded to, are occasionally so\nintimately personal as to seem to compel an individual\ninterpretation (cf. liii.). But in this connection we have to\nremember the ease with which the Oriental could personify, and apply\neven the most personal detail to a collective body. \"Grey hairs are\nupon him,\" says Hosea, vii. 9, not of a man but of the nation; and\nIsaiah himself, i. 6, described the body politic as sick from the\ncrown of the head to the sole of the foot (cf. Ezek. xvi., xxiii).\nClearly, therefore, individual allusions do not necessarily compel\nan individual interpretation; and there is no reason in the nature\nof the case, and still less in the context, to assume a reference to\nany specific individual. The songs are an integral part of the\nprophecy: the function of the servant is the same, and the servant\nmust also be the same in both. Indeed one passage in the second\nsong, xlix. 3, expressly identifies the servant with Israel; and in\nliii., an intensely personal chapter, where the servant, after\ndeath, is to rise again and take his place victoriously in the\nworld, the collective interpretation of the servant as Israel,\nemerging triumphantly from the doom of exile, is natural, if not\nnecessary.\n\nBut (ii.) admitting that the servant is everywhere Israel, a new\ndifficulty emerges. The terms in which he is described are often\napparently contradictory. At one time he is blind and deaf, xlii. 18, 19;\nat another he is Jehovah's witness and minister to the blind and deaf,\ni.e. to the heathen world, xliii. 8-10, xlii. 7. This contrast, which\nruns through the prophecy, is simply to be explained as a blending of\nthe real and the ideal. The people contemplated are in both cases the\nsame; but, at one time, the prophet contemplates them as they are,\nunreceptive and irresponsive to their high destiny; at another, he\nregards them in the light of that destiny--called, through their\nexperience of suffering and redemption, to bring the world to a saving\nknowledge of the true and only God.\n\n_Chapters xl.-xlix._ fall somewhere about 540 B.C.-between\nthe decisive victories of Cyrus over the Lydians in 546 (cf. xli. 1-5)\nand the capture of Babylon in 538. The prophecy opens with a word\nof consolation. The exile of Judah is all but over, her redemption\nis very nigh; for the eternal purpose of Jehovah must be fulfilled,\nxl. 1-11, He is a God whose power and wisdom are beyond all imagining,\nand He will be the strength of those who put their trust in Him\n(xl. 12-3l).[1] For He has raised up a great warrior from the north-east\n(cf. xli. 2, 25), i.e. Cyrus, through whom Israel's happy return to\nher own land is assured (xli. 1-20). Israel's God is the true God; for\nHe alone foretold this day, as no heathen god could ever have done,\nxli. 21-29. The mission of His servant Israel is to spread the knowledge\nof His name throughout the world, and that mission must be fulfilled,\nxlii. 1-9. Let the world rejoice, then, at the glorious redemption\nJehovah has wrought for His people, xlii. 10-17; for their sorrow,\nxlii. 18-25, and their redemption alike, xliii. 1-7, spring from a\ndeep purpose of love. Israel is now fitted to be Jehovah's witness\nbefore the world, for her impending deliverance from Babylon is more\nmarvellous than her ancient deliverance from Egypt, xliii. 8-21. Her\ngrievous sins are freely forgiven, xliii. 22-28, and soon she shall\nenter upon a new and happy life, xliv. 1-5, for her God, the eternal\nand the only God,[2] forgives and redeems, xliv. 6-23.\n[Footnote 1: Between xl. 19 and 20 probably xli. 6, 7 should be\ninserted.]\n[Footnote: Ch. xliv. 9-20, though graphic, is diffuse, and\ninterrupts the context: it is probably a later addition.]\n\nThe deliverance of Israel is to be effected through Cyrus, who is\nhonoured with the high titles, \"Shepherd and Messiah of Jehovah,\"\nxlv. 1, and assured by him of a triumphant career, for Israel and\nthe true religion's sake, xliv. 24-xlv. 8. Those who are surprised\nat Jehovah's call of the foreign Cyrus are sternly reminded that\nJehovah is sovereign and can call whom He will, xlv. 9-13, and the\nultimate object of His call is that through the redemption of Israel,\nwhich he is commissioned to effect, all men shall be saved, and the\nworship of Jehovah established throughout the whole world, xlv. 14-25.\nIn xlvi. the impotence of the Babylonian gods to save themselves when\nthe city is taken by Cyrus is contrasted with the incomparable power\nof Jehovah as shown in history, and in His foreknowledge of the future,\nand made the basis of a warning to Israel to cast away despondency.\nThen follows a song of triumph over Babylon, the proud and luxurious,\nwhose doom all her magic and astrology cannot avert (xlvii.). Ch. xlviii.\nstrikes in places a different note from that of the previous chapters.\nThey are a message of comfort; and, where the people are censured, it\nis for lack of faith and responsiveness. In this chapter, on the other\nhand, the tone is in places stern, almost harsh, and the people are\neven charged with idolatry. Probably an original prophecy of\nDeutero-Isaiah has been worked over by a post-exilic hand. This chapter\nis in the nature of a summary. It emphasizes Jehovah's fore-knowledge\nas witnessed by the ancient prophecies and their fulfilment in the\ncoming deeds of Cyrus; and the section fittingly closes with a ringing\nappeal to Israel to go forth out of Babylon.[1]\n[Footnote 1: Ch. xlviii. 22 is probably borrowed from lvii. 21,\nwhere it is in place, to divide xl.-lxvi. into three equal parts.]\n\n_Chapters xlix.-lv._ presuppose the same general situation as\nxl.-xlviii.; but whereas the earlier chapters deal incidentally with\nthe victories of Cyrus and the folly of idolatry, xlix.-lv. concentrate\nattention severely upon Israel herself, which is often addressed as\nZion. The group begins with the second of the \"servant\" songs, xlix. 1-6,\nits theme being Israel's divine call, through suffering and redemption,\nto bring the whole world to the true religion. In earnest and beautiful\nlanguage Israel is assured of restoration and a happy return to her own\nland, of the rebuilding of her ruins, and the increase of her population;\nand no power can undo this marvellous deliverance, for Jehovah, despite\nHis people's slender faith, is omnipotent, xlix. 7-l. 3. In l. 4-9 the\nservant tells of the sufferings which his fidelity brought him, and his\nconfidence in Jehovah's power to save and vindicate him.[1] The glorious\nsalvation is near and sure; let Israel but trust in her omnipotent God\nand cast away all fear of man, li. 1-16. Bitter has been Jerusalem's\nsorrow, but now she may break forth into joy, for messengers are\nspeeding with good tidings of her redemption, li. l7-lii. 12. The fourth\nand last song of the servant, lii. l3-liii. 12, celebrates the strange\nand unparalleled sufferings which he bore for the world's sake-his\ndeath, resurrection, and the consequent triumph and vindication of his\ncause. In fine contrast to the sufferings of the servant acquainted\nwith grief is the joy that follows in ch. liv.--joy in the vision of\nthe restored, populous and glorious city, or rather in the everlasting\nlove of God by which that redemption is inspired.[2] Nothing remains\nbut for the people to lay hold, in faith, of the salvation which is\nso nigh, and which is so high above all human expectation (lv.).\n[Footnote 1: Ch. 1. 10, 11 are apparently late.]\n[Footnote 2: From liv. 17 and on we hear of the \"_servants_ of\nJehovah,\" not as in xl.-liii., of the _servant_.]\n\n\nCHAPTERS LVI.-LXVI.\n\nThe problem of the origin and date of this section is one of the\nmost obscure and intricate in the Old Testament. The general\nsimilarity of the tone to that of xl.-lv. is unmistakable. There is\nthe same assurance of redemption, the same brilliant pictures of\nrestoration. But, apart from the fact that, on the whole, the style\nof lvi.-lxvi. seems less original and powerful, the situation\npresupposed is distinctly different. In xl.-lv., Israel, though\noccasionally regarded as unworthy, is treated as an ideal whole,\nwhereas in lvi.-lxvi. there are two opposed classes within Israel\nitself (cf. lvii. 3ff., 15ff.). One of these classes is guilty of\nsuperstitious and idolatrous rites, lvii. 3ff., lxv. 3, 4, lxvi. 17,\nwhereas in xl.-lv. the Babylonians were the idolaters, xlvi. 1.\nAgain, the kind of idolatry of which Israel is guilty is not\nBabylonian, but that indigenous to Palestine, and it is described in\nterms which sometimes sound like an echo of pre-exilic prophecy,\nlvii. 5, 7 (Hos. iv. 13)--so much so indeed that some have regarded\nthese passages as pre-exilic.\n\nThe spiritual leaders of the people are false to their high trust,\nlvi. 10-12. This last passage implies a religious community more or\nless definitely organized--a situation which would suit post-exilic\ntimes, but hardly the exile; and this presumption is borne out by\nmany other hints. The temple exists, lvi. 7, lx. 7, 13, but religion\nis at a low ebb. Fast days are kept in a mechanical spirit, and are\nmarred by disgraceful conduct (lviii.). Judah suffers from raids,\nlxii. 8, Jerusalem is unhappy, lxv. 19, her walls are not yet built,\nlx, 10. The gloomy situation explains the passionate appeal of\nlxiii. 7-lxiv. to God to interpose--an appeal utterly unlike the\nserene assurance of xl.-lv.: it explains, too, why threat and\npromise here alternate regularly, while there the predominant note\nwas one of consolation.\n\nIn its general temper and background, though not in its style, the\nchapters forcibly recall Malachi. There is the same condemnation of\nthe spiritual leaders (lvi. 10-12; Mal. i. ii.), the same emphasis\non the fatherhood of God (lxiii. 16, lxiv. 8; Mal. i. 6, ii. 10,\niii. 17), the same interest in the institutions of Judaism (lvi.),\nthe same depressed and hopeless mood to combat. From lx. 10 (lxii.\n6?) it may be inferred that the book falls before the building of\nthe walls by Nehemiah--probably somewhere between 460 and 450 B.C.\nThis conclusion, of course, is very far from certain; it is not even\ncertain that the chapters constitute a unity. Various scholars\nisolate certain sections, assigning, e.g., lxiii.-lxvi. to a period\nmuch later than lvi.-lxii., others regarding xlix.-lxii. as written\nby the same author as xl.-xlviii., but later and other different\nconditions, others referring lvi.-lxii. to a pupil of Deutero-Isaiah,\nwho wrote not long after 520 (cf. Hag., Zech.).\n\nTo complicate matters, the text of certain passages of crucial\nimportance seems to be in need of emendation (cf. lxiii. 18); and it\nis practically certain that there are later interpolations. One can\nsee how intricate the problem becomes, if Marti is right in denying\nso important a passage as lxiv. 10-12 to the author of the rest of\nthe chapter, and assigning it to Maccabean times. But, though there\nare undoubted difficulties in the way, it seems not impossible to\nregard lvi.-lxvi. as, in the main, a unity, and its author as a\ncontemporary of Malachi. In that case, the superstitious and\nidolatrous people, whose presence is at first sight so surprising in\nthe post-exilic community, would be the descendants of the Jews who\nhad not been carried into exile, and who, being but superficially\ntouched, if at all, by the reformation of Josiah, would perpetuate\nancient idolatrous practices into the post-exilic period.\n\n This prophecy begins with a word of assurance to the proselytes and\neunuchs that, if they faithfully observe the Sabbath, they will not\nbe excluded from participation in the temple worship, lvi. 1-8. But\nthe general situation (in Judah) is deplorable. The spiritual\nleaders of the community are indolent and fond of pleasure, men of\nno conscience or ideal (cf. Mal. ii.), with the result that the\ntruly godly are crushed out, lvi. 9-lvii. 2, and the old immoral\nidolatry is rampant, lvii. 3-13. The sinners will therefore be\npunished, but the godly whom they have persecuted will be comforted\nand saved, lvii. 14-21. The people, who have been zealously keeping\nfast-days, are surprised and vexed that Jehovah has not yet honoured\ntheir fidelity by sending happier times: the prophet replies that\nthe real demands of Jehovah are not exhausted by ceremonial, but lie\nrather in the fulfilment of moral duty, and especially in the duty\nof practical love to the needy (lviii.). It is not the impotence of\nJehovah, but the manifold sins of the people, that have kept back\nthe day of salvation, lix. 1-15; but He will one day appear to\npunish His adversaries and redeem the penitent and faithful, lix.\n16-21. Then the city of Jerusalem shall be glorious: her scattered\nchildren shall stream back to her, her walls shall be rebuilt by the\ngifts of the heathen nations, and she shall be mistress of the\nworld, enjoying peace and light and prosperity (lx.). Again the good\nnews is proclaimed: the Jews shall be, as it were, the priests of\nJehovah for the whole world, Jerusalem shall be secure and fair and\npopulous (lxi., lxii.). But if Judah is thus to prosper, her enemies\nmust be destroyed, and their[1] destruction is described in lxiii.\n1-6, a unique and powerful song of vengeance.\n[Footnote 1: The enemy is not Edom alone. Instead of \"from Edom and\nBozrah\" in lxiii. 1_a_ should be read, \"Who is this that comes\n_stained with red_, with garments redder than a _vine-dresser's_?\"]\n\nA very striking contrast to all this dream of victory and\nblessedness is presented by lxiii. 7-lxiv. 12, in which the people\nsorrowfully remind themselves of the brilliant far-off days of the\nExodus when the Spirit was with them--the Spirit whom sin has now\ndriven away--and passionately pray that Jehovah, in His fatherly\npity, would mightily interpose to save them.[1] The devotees of\nsuperstitious cults are threatened with destruction, lxv. 1-7, while\nbrilliant promises are held out to the faithful--long and happy life\nin a world transformed, lxv. 8-25. Again destruction is predicted\nfor those who, while practising superstitious rites, are yet eager\nto build a temple to Jehovah to rival the existing one in Jerusalem;\nwhile the faithful are comforted with the prospect of victory,\nincrease of population and resources, and the perpetuity of their\nrace (lxvi.).\n[Footnote 1: Professor G. A. Smith refers this prayer to the period\nof disillusion after the return and before the new religious impulse\ngiven by Haggai and Zechariah--about 525 B.C. ]\n\n\n\n\nJEREMIAH\n\n\nThe interest of the book of Jeremiah is unique. On the one hand, it\nis our most reliable and elaborate source for the long period of\nhistory which it covers; on the other, it presents us with prophecy\nin its most intensely human phase, manifesting itself through a\nstrangely attractive personality that was subject to like doubts and\npassions with ourselves. At his call, in 626 B.C., he was young and\ninexperienced, i. 6, so that he cannot have been born earlier than\n650. The political and religious atmosphere of his ministry was\nalike depressing. When it began, the Scythians were overrunning\nWestern Asia, and Judah was the vassal of Assyria, as she continued\nto be till the fall of Nineveh in 606 B.C. Josiah, in whose reign\nJeremiah began his ministry, was a good king; but the idolatries of\nhis grandfather Manasseh had only too surely left their mark, and\nthe reformation which was inaugurated on the basis of Deuteronomy\n(621) had produced little permanent result. Idolatry and immorality\nof all kinds continued to be the order of the day, vii. 9 (about\n608). The inner corruption found its counterpart in political\ndisaster. The death of Josiah in 609 at Megiddo, when he took the\nfield, probably as the vassal of Assyria, against the king of Egypt,\nwas a staggering blow to the hopes of the reformers, and formed a\npowerful argument in the hands of the sceptics. The vassalage of\nAssyria was exchanged for the vassalage of Egypt, and that, in four\nyears, for the vassalage of Babylonia, whose supremacy over Western\nAsia was assured by her victory on the epoch-making field of\nCarchemish (605).\n\nThere was no strong ruler upon the throne of Judah during the years\npreceding the exile. Jehoahaz, the successor of Josiah, deposed by\nthe Egyptians and exiled after a three months' reign, xxii. 10-12,\nwas succeeded by the rapacious Jehoiakim (608-597), who cared\nnothing for the warning words of Jeremiah (xxxvi.), and his\nsuccessor Jehoiachin, who was exiled to Babylon after a three\nmonths' reign, was followed by the weak and vacillating Zedekiah,\nwho reigned from 597 to 586, when Jerusalem was taken and the\nmonarchy perished. The priests and prophets were no more faithful to\ntheir high office than the kings. The prophets were superficial men\nwho did not realize how deep and grievous was the hurt of the\npeople, xxiii. 9-40, and who imagined that the catastrophe, if it\ncame, would speedily be reversed, xxviii.; and the priests reposed a\nstubborn confidence in the inviolability of the temple (xxvi.) and\nthe punctiliousness of their offerings, vii. 21, 22.\n\nJeremiah, though he came of a priestly family, knew very well that\nthere was no salvation in ritual. He saw that the root of the evil\nwas in the heart, which was \"deceitful above all things and\ndesperately sick,\" xvii. 9, and that no reformation was possible\ntill the heart itself was changed. It was for this reason that he\ncalled upon the people to circumcise their heart, iv. 4, and to\nsearch for Jehovah with all their heart, xxix. 13.\n\nIt would be interesting to know what was Jeremiah's attitude to the\nlaw-book discovered and published in 621, but unfortunately the\nproblems that gather round the authenticity of the text of Jeremiah\nare so vexatious that we cannot say with certainty. On the one hand,\nwe know that, though at that time a prophet of five years' standing,\nhe was not consulted on the discovery of the book (2 Kings xxii.\n14); on the other hand, xi. 1-14 explicitly connects him with an\nitinerant mission throughout the province of Judah for the purpose\nof inculcating the teaching of \"the words of this covenant,\" which\ncan only be the book of Deuteronomy. But there is fairly good reason\nfor supposing that this passage, which is diffuse, and very unlike\nthe poems that follow it, _vv_. 15, 16, 18-20, is one of the\nmany later scribal additions to the book. Even if Jeremiah did\nsupport the Deuteronomic movement, he must have felt, in the words\nof Darmesteter, that \"it is easier to reform the cult than the\nsoul,\" and that the real solution would never be found in the\nstatutes of a law-book, but only in the law written upon the heart,\nxxxi. 31-33. Here again, this great prophecy of the law written upon\nthe heart, has been denied to Jeremiah--by Duhm, for example: but at\nany rate, it is conceived in the spirit of the prophet.\n\nIt is unfortunate that some of the noblest utterances on religion in\nthe book of Jeremiah have been, for reasons more or less convincing,\ndenied to him: e.g. the great passage which looks out upon a time\nwhen the dearest material symbols of the ancient religion would no\nlonger be necessary; days would come when men would never think of\nthe ark of the covenant, and never miss it, iii. 16. But even if it\ncould be proved that these words were not Jeremiah's, it was a sound\ninstinct that placed them in his book. He certainly did not regard\nsacrifice as essential to the true religion, or as possessing any\nspecially divine sanction, vii. 22, and the thinker who could utter\nsuch a word as vii. 22 is surely on the verge of a purely spiritual\nconception of religion, if indeed he does not stand already within\nit. If the temple is not indispensable, vii. 4, neither could the\nark be.\n\nThis severely spiritual conception of religion is but the outcome of\nthe intensely personal religious experience of the prophet. There is\nno other prophet whose intercourse with the divine spirit is so\ndramatically portrayed, or into the depths of whose heart we can so\nclearly see. He speaks to God with a directness and familiarity that\nare startling, \"Why hast Thou become to me as a treacherous brook,\nas waters that are not sure?\" xv. 18. He has little of the serene\nmajesty of Isaiah whose eyes had seen the king. His tender heart,\nix. 1, is vexed and torn till he curses not only his enemies, xi.\n20ff., but the day on which he was born, xx. 14-18. He did not\nchoose his profession, he recoiled from it; but he was thrust into\nthe arena of public life by an impulse which he could not resist.\nThe word, which he would fain have hidden in his heart, was like a\nburning fire shut up in his bones, and it leaped into speech of\nflame, xx. 9.\n\nAs a poet, Jeremiah is one of the greatest. He knows the human heart\nto its depths, and he possesses a power of remarkably terse and\nvivid expression. Nothing could be more weird than this picture of\nthe utter desolation of war;--\n\n  I beheld the earth,\n    And lo! it was waste and void.\n  I looked to the sky,\n    And lo! its light was gone.\n  I beheld the mountains,\n    And lo! they trembled.\n  And all the hills\n    Swayed to and fro.\n  I beheld (the earth)\n    And lo! there was no man,\n  And all the birds of the heaven\n    Had fled.\n  iv. 23-25.\n\nA world without the birds would be no world to Jeremiah. Of singular\npower and beauty is the lament which Jeremiah puts into the mouths\nof the women:--\n\n  Death is come up at our windows,\n    He has entered our palaces,\n  Cutting off the children from the streets\n    And the youths from the squares.\n\nThen the figure changes to Death as a reaper:--\n\n  There fall the corpses of men\n    Upon the face of the field,\n  Like sheaves behind the reaper\n    Which none gathers up.\n  ix. 21, 22.\n\nThe book appropriately opens with the call of Jeremiah, and\nrepresents him as divinely preordained to his great and cheerless\ntask before his birth. In two visions he sees prefigured the coming\ndoom (i.) and the prophecies that immediately follow, though but\nloosely connected, appear to come from an early stage of his\nministry, and to be elicited, in part, by the inroads of the\nScythians--the enemy from the north.\n\nFalse to the love she bore Jehovah in the olden time, Israel has\nturned for help to Egypt, to Assyria, and to the impotent Baals with\ntheir licentious worship, ii, 1-iii. 5; but[1]if in her despair and\nmisery she yet turns with a penitent heart to Jehovah, the prophet\nassures her of His readiness to receive her, iii. 19-iv. 4. The rest\nof ch. iv. contains several poems of remarkable power. The Scythians\nare coming swiftly from the north, and Jeremiah's patriotic soul is\ndeeply moved. He sees the desolation they will work, and counsels\nthe people to gather in the fortified cities. The scene changes in\nv. and vi. to the capital, where Jeremiah's tender and unsuspecting\nheart has been harrowed by the lack of public and private\nconscience; and again the land is threatened with invasion from the\nswift wild Scythian hordes.\n[Footnote 1: Ch. iii. 6-18 contains much that is altogether worthy\nof Jeremiah, especially the great conception in v. 16 of a religion\nwhich can dispense with its most cherished material symbols. It\ninterrupts the connection, however, between vv. 5 and 19, and\ncuriously regards Israel as the northern kingdom, distinct from\nJudah, whereas in the surrounding context, ii. 3, iii. 23, Israel\nstands for Judah. The difference is suspicious. Again, v. 18 would\nappear to presuppose that Judah is in exile or on the verge of it,\nwhich would make the passage among the latest in the book. If it is\nJeremiah's, it must be much later than its context.]\n\nThe following chapter (vii.) introduces us to the reign of\nJehoiakim.[1] The prophet strenuously combats the confidence falsely\nreposed in the temple and the ritual: the former is but a den of\nrobbers, the latter had never been commanded by Jehovah, and neither\nwill save them. With sorrowful eyes Jeremiah sees the coming\ndisaster, and he sings of it in elegies unspeakably touching (viii.-x.:\ncf. viii. 18-22, ix. 21, 22).[2]\n[Footnote 1: The scene in ch. vii. is very similar to, if not\nidentical with that in ch. xxvi., which is expressly assigned to the\nbeginning of Jehoiakim's reign (608).]\n[Footnote 2: Ch. ix. 22 is directly continued by x. 17. Of the three\npassages intervening, ix. 23, 24 (the true and false objects of\nconfidence) and ix. 25, 26 (punishment of those uncircumcised in\nheart or flesh) are both in the spirit of Jeremiah, but they cannot\nbelong to this context. Ch. x. 1-16, on the other hand, can hardly\nbe Jeremiah's. Its theme is the impotence of idols and the\nomnipotence of Jehovah--a favourite theme of Deutero-Isaiah (cf. Is.\nxl.), and it is elaborated in the spirit of Is. xliv. 9-20. The\nwarning not to fear the idols is much more natural if addressed to\nan exilic audience than to Jeremiah's contemporaries. It may be\ntaken for granted that the passage is later than Jeremiah.]\n\nIn ch. xi. Jeremiah is divinely impelled to undertake an itinerant\nmission throughout Judah in support of the Deuteronomic legislation,\nbut he is warned that, for their disobedience, the people will be\novertaken by disaster, which he must not intercede to avert, xi. 1-17.\nA cruel conspiracy formed against him by his own townsmen raises\nperplexities in his mind touching the moral order, but he is\nreminded that still harder things are in store, xi. l8-xii. 6. Then\nfollows a poem, xii. 7-13, lamenting the desolation of the land,\nthough who the aggressors are it is hard to say; but, in vv. 14-17,\na passage possibly much later, there is an ultimate possibility of\nrestoration both for Judah and her ravaged neighbours, if they adopt\nthe religion of Judah. In ch. xiii. which possibly belongs to\nJehoiachin's short reign, 597 B.C. (cf. v. 18 with 2 Kings xxiv. 8),\nthe utter and incurable corruption of the people is symbolically\nindicated to Jeremiah, who announces the speedy fall of the throne\nand the sorrows of exile.\n\nThe elements that make up chs. xiv.-xvii. are very loosely\nconnected. Generally speaking, the situation of the people is\ndesperate. The doom--already inaugurated in the form of a drought-is\nhastening on; no excuse will be accepted and no intercession can avail.\nIn a bold and striking poem, xv. 10-21, Jeremiah complains of his\nbitter and lonely fate, and is reassured of the divine support. In view\nof the impending misery he is forbidden to marry, and more and more he\nis thrown back upon Jehovah as his absolute and only hope.[1]\n[Footnote 1: Ch. xvii. 19-27 is almost certainly post-exilic, and\nprobably belongs to Nehemiah's time (about 450). Jeremiah nowhere else\nemphasizes the Sabbath, and it would be very unlike him to represent\nthe future prosperity of Judah as conditional upon the people's\nobservance of a single law, especially one not distinctively ethical.\nSuch emphasis on the Sabbath suggests the post-exilic church\n(cf. Neh. xiii.; Is. lviii.).]\n\nChs. xviii.-xx. A chance sight of a potter refashioning a spoiled\nvessel suggests to Jeremiah the conditional nature of prophecy. But\nas Judah remains obstinate, the threat must be irretrievably\nfulfilled. The proclamation of this truth in the temple court led to\nhis imprisonment. On his release he distinctly and deliberately\nannounces the exile to Babylon, and then breaks out into a\npassionate cry, which rings with an almost unparalleled sincerity,\nover the misery of his life, especially of that prophetic life to\nwhich he had been mysteriously but irresistibly impelled.\n\nCh. xxi. 1-10, one of the latest pieces in the book, contains\nJeremiah's answer to the question of Zedekiah relative to the issue\nof the siege of Jerusalem, which had already begun (588). Then\nfollow two sections, one dealing with kings, xxi. 11-xxiii. 8, the\nother with prophets, xxiii. 9-40. The former, after an introduction\nwhich emphasizes the specific functions of the king, deals\nsuccessively with Jehoahaz (=Shallum), Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin,\nJehoiakim's oppressive methods being pointedly contrasted with the\nbeneficent regime of his father Josiah; and against the present\nincompetence of the rulers and misery of the monarchy is thrown up a\npicture of the true king and the Messianic days, xxiii. 5-8. The\nlatter section, xxiii. 9-40, denounces the prophets for their\nimmorality, their easy optimism and their lack of independence.\n\nIn ch. xxiv., which falls in Zedekiah's reign, after the first\ndeportation (about 596 B.C.), it is symbolically suggested to\nJeremiah that the exiles are much better than those who were allowed\nto remain in the land, and their ultimate fate would be infinitely\nhappier. The battle of Carchemish in 605 showed that Babylonian\nsupremacy was ultimately inevitable; to this year belongs ch. xxv.,\nin which Jeremiah definitely announces the duration of the exile as\nseventy years. Many lands beside Judah would be included in the\ndoom, and finally Babylon itself would be punished.\n\nChs. i.-xxv. represent in the main the words of Jeremiah; we now\ncome to a group of narratives by Baruch, xxvi.-xxix. Ch. xxvi.\nrelates how a courageous sermon of Jeremiah's (608 B.C.) provoked\nthe hostility of the professional clergy, and nearly cost him his\nlife. Chs. xxvii.-xxix. show how the calm wisdom of Jeremiah met the\nambitions and hopes cherished by his countrymen at home and in exile\nduring the reign of Zedekiah.[1] In view of a coalition that was\nforming against Babylon in Western Asia, he announces that the\nsupremacy of Nebuchadrezzar is divinely ordained, and any such\ncoalition is doomed to failure (xxvii.). That supremacy will last\nfor many a day; and a strange fate overtakes the shallow prophet who\nsupposes that it will be over in two years (xxviii.). The exiles are\ntherefore advised by Jeremiah in a letter to settle down contentedly\nin their adopted land, though the letter naturally rouses the\nresentment and opposition of the superficial prophets among the\nexiles (xxix.).\n[Footnote 1: In ch. xxvii. 1, for \"Jehoiakim\" read \"Zedekiah,\" cf.\n_vv_. 3, 12. ]\n\nThe next four chapters, xxx.-xxxiii., are full of promise: they look\nout upon the restoration, in which, despite the seeming hopelessness\nof the prospect, Jeremiah never ceased to believe. It is a voice\nfrom the dark days of the siege of Jerusalem, 587 (xxxii. 1ff.); but\nthe present sorrow is to be followed by a period of joy, when the\ncity will be rebuilt, and the mighty love of Jehovah will express\nitself in the restoration not only of Judah but of Israel, a love to\nwhich there will be a glad spontaneous response from men who have\nthe divine law written in their hearts. This prophecy of the new\ncovenant is one of the noblest and most daring conceptions in the\nOld Testament, very naturally appropriated by our Lord and the\nauthor of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xxx., xxxi.). So confident was\nJeremiah in the divine assurance that Palestine would one day be\nfreed from the Babylonian yoke that, even during the siege of the\ncity, he purchased fields belonging to a kinsman, and took measures\nto preserve the title deeds (xxxii.). Ch. xxxiii. still further\nconfirms the assurance of restoration.\n\nThere can be no doubt that Jeremiah both believed in and announced\nthe restoration: the very straightforward story in ch. xxxii., which,\nby the way, throws considerable light on the psychology of prophecy,\nis proof enough of that. But there can be equally little doubt that\nthe section xxx.-xxxiii. did not come, as it stands, from the hand\nof Jeremiah. Many verses have no doubt been needlessly suspected:\nthe attitude to northern Israel in ch. xxxi., especially vv. 4, 5,\npractically forbids a reference of these verses to post-exilic\ntimes. But xxxi. 7-l4--the glad return--is exactly in the spirit of\nDeutero-Isaiah, and appears to be dependent upon him. Whatever doubt,\nhowever, may be attached to these sections, it is practically certain\nthat the concluding section, xxxiii. 14-26, which has a special word\nof promise, not only for the house of David, but for the Levitical\npriests, is not Jeremiah's. The verses are wanting in the Septuagint,\nand so were not in the Hebrew copy from which that translation was\nmade; but more fatal still to their authenticity is their attitude to\nthe priests and offerings. The religion advocated by Jeremiah was a\npurely spiritual one, which could dispense with temple and sacrifice\n(ch. vii.). \"To the false prophets,\" as Robertson Smith has said, \"and\nthe people who followed them, the ark, the temple, the holy vessels,\nwere all in all. To Jeremiah they were less than nothing, and their\nrestoration was no part of his hope of salvation.\" It is very significant\nin this connection that the Septuagint omits the restoration of the holy\nvessels in xxvii. 22.\n\nFrom the ideal pictures of the last group, ch. xxxiv. flings us back\ninto the stern reality. The city and the king alike are doomed, and\ntheir fate is thoroughly justified by the treachery displayed\ntowards the Hebrew slaves, who were compelled by their masters to\nreturn to the bondage from which, in the stress of siege, they had\nemancipated them.\n\nThe next chapter, xxxv., carries us back to the reign of Jehoiakim,\nand, in an interesting and important passage, contrasts the\nfaithfulness of the Rechabites to the commands of their ancestor\nJonathan with the popular disregard of Jehovah.\n\nThe long section which follows (xxxvi.-xlv.) is almost purely\nhistorical. It comes in the main from Baruch, but it has been\nexpanded here and there by subsequent writers; e.g. xxxix. 4-13 is\nnot found in the Septuagint; the importance of Jeremiah is\nheightened in this passage by his being the object of the special\ncare of Nebuchadrezzar, vv. 11ff., whereas in all probability his\nfate was decided, not by the king, but by his officers (ci. 3, 13,\n14). But after making every deduction, these chapters remain as a\nhistorical source of the first rank. The section begins by revealing\nthe reckless impiety of Jehoiakim in burning the prophecies of\nJeremiah in 605 B.C., but the other chapters gather round the siege\nof Jerusalem, eighteen years later, and the events that followed it.\nThey describe the cruel and successive imprisonments of the prophet\nfor his fearless and seemingly unpatriotic proclamation of the\nBabylonian triumph, the pitiful vacillation of the king, the final\ncapture of the city, the appointment of Gedaliah as governor of\nJudah, his assassination and the attempt to avenge it, the\nconsequent departure of many Jews to Egypt against the advice of\nJeremiah, who was forced to accompany them, the prophet's\ndenunciation of the idolatry practised in Egypt and announcement of\nthe conquest of that land by Nebuchadrezzar. The section closes\n(xlv.) with a word of meagre consolation to Baruch, whose courage\nwas giving way beneath the strain of the times.\n\nThe interest attaching to the oracles against the foreign nations\n(xlvi.-li.) is not very great, as, for good reasons, the\nauthenticity of much--some say all--of the section may be disputed,\nand with the exception of the oracle against Egypt, they are\nlacking, as a whole, not only in distinctness of situation, but also\nin that emotion and originality so characteristic of Jeremiah.\n\nThe whole group (except the oracle against Elam, xlix. 34-39, which\nis expressly assigned to Zedekiah's reign) is suggested by\nreflection on the decisive influence which the battle of Carchemish\nwas bound to have on the fortunes of Western Asia, xlvi. 2.\nNebuchadrezzar is alluded to, either expressly, xlix. 30, or\nfiguratively, xlviii. 40, as the instrument of the divine vengeance.\nIn the Septuagint, this group of oracles appears between xxv. 13 and\nxxv. 15, a chapter likewise assigned to the year of the battle of\nCarchemish, xxv. 1. Ch. xlvi. contains two oracles against Egypt,\nthe first of which, at least vv. 1-12, is graphic and powerful, and\nthe second, _vv._ 13-26, announces the conquest of Egypt by\nNebuchadrezzar, which took place in 568 B.C. The vengeance upon\nEgypt, _v._ 10, in which the writer evidently exults, may be\nvengeance for the defeat of Josiah at Megiddo.[1] A certain vigour\nalso characterizes the oracle against the Philistines (xlvii.), and\nthe conception of the enemy \"out of the north,\" _v._ 2, is a\nfamiliar one in Jeremiah.\n[Footnote 1: Ch. xlvi. 27, 28, hardly in place here, were borrowed\nfrom xxx. 10f. and doubtless added later.]\n\nEven if, however, these oracles could be rescued for Jeremiah, those\nthat follow are, in all probability, nothing but later literary\ncompilations resting upon a close study of the earlier prophetical\nliterature. The oracle against Moab (xlviii.) besides being\nunpardonably diffuse, is essentially an imitation of the old oracle\npreserved in Isaiah xv., xvi. The oracle against Ammon, xlix. 1-6,\nis followed by another against Edom, _vv._ 7-22, which again\nborrows very largely from Obadiah. Doom is further pronounced on\nDamascus, _vv._ 23-27, Kedar and Hazor, _vv._ 28-33, and,\nabout seven years later, on Elam, _vv._ 34-39. It is not,\nindeed, impossible that Jeremiah should have uttered a prophetic\nword concerning at least some of these nations--witness his reply to\nthe ambassadors of the neighbouring kings in ch. xxvii.--though the\nrelevance of Elam in such a connection is hard to see; but it is\nvery improbable that a writer and thinker so independent as Jeremiah\nshould have borrowed in the wholesale fashion which characterizes\nthe bulk of this group of oracles. The oracle against Egypt might be\nhis, not impossibly the oracle against the Philistines also; but the\ngroup as a whole, consisting of seven oracles--omitting the oracle\nagainst Elam, which, by its date, falls outside--appears to be a\nlater artificial composition, utilizing the more familiar names in\nxxv. 19-26, and expanding the hint in vv. 15-17 that the nations\nwould be compelled to drink of the cup of the fury of Jehovah.\n\nThe climax of the foreign oracles is that against Babylon (l.-li.\n58). This prophecy is written with great vigour and intensity and\ncharacterized by a tone of triumphant scorn. A nation from the\nnorth, l. 3, explicitly designated as the Medes, li. 11, is to\nassail Babylon and reduce her to a desolation. Jehovah's people are\nurged to leave the doomed city; with sins forgiven they will be led\nback by Jehovah to their own land, and the poet contemplates with\nglowing satisfaction the day when Babylon the destroyer will be\nherself destroyed.\n\nThis oracle purports to be a message which Jeremiah sent with an\nofficer Seraiah, who accompanied King Zedekiah to Babylon (li. 59).\nThere is no probability, however, that the oracle was written by\nJeremiah. Doubtless the prophet foretold the destruction of Babylon,\nxxv. 10, but his attitude to that great power in this oracle is\naltogether different from what we know it to have been, judging by\nother authentic oracles of this period (xxvii.-xxix.). There he\ncounsels patience--it is the false prophets who hope for a speedy\ndeliverance--here there is an eager expectancy which amounts to\nimpatience. But the contents of the oracle show that it cannot\nbelong to the year to which it is assigned. The temple is already\ndestroyed, l. 28, li. 11, so that the exile is presupposed, and\nindeed the Medes are definitely named as the executors of vengeance\nupon Babylon. All this carries us down to the conquests of Cyrus and\nthe close of the exile, indeed to the time of Isaiah xl.-lv. The\noracle bears a striking resemblance both in spirit and expression to\nIsaiah xiii., and might well come from the same time (about 540). It\nmay, however, be later. Not only is it diffuse in expression and\nslipshod in arrangement, but it borrows extensively from other\nexilic or post-exilic parts of the book of Jeremiah (cf. li. 15-19\nwith x. 12-16, l. 44-46 with xlix. 19-21), late exilic parts of\nIsaiah (cf. Jer. l. 39ff, with Isa. xiii. 19-22), and from Ezekiel\n(cf. Jer. li. 25 with Ezek. xxxv. 3). Besides, the author appears to\nhave no clear conception of the actual situation, as he seems to\nregard Israel and Judah as living side by side in Babylon, l. 4, 33.\nIn all probability the oracle against Babylon is a post-exilic\nproduction inspired by the yearning to see the ancient oppressors\nnot only humbled, but destroyed.\n\nThe oracle just discussed is supposed to be an expansion of the\nmessage given by Jeremiah, in writing, to Seraiah, li. 60a, when he\nwent with the king to Babylon. But though this narrative, li. 59-64,\npossibly rests on a basis of fact, it cannot have come, in its\npresent form, from Jeremiah, for it presupposes the preceding oracle\nagainst Babylon, which has just been shown not to be authentic.\n\nWith the composition of ch. lii., which narrates the capture of\nJerusalem and the exile of the people, Jeremiah had nothing whatever\nto do. The chapter, except _vv._ 28-30, which is additional, is\nsimply taken bodily from 2 Kings xxiv. 18-xxv. 30, with the omission\nof the account of the appointment and assassination of Gedaliah (2\nKings xxv. 22-26) as that story had already been fully told in\nJeremiah xl.-xliii.\n\nThe Greek version of Jeremiah is of more than usual interest and\nimportance. It is about 2,700 words, or one-eighth of the whole,\nshorter than the Hebrew text, though it has about 100 words or so\nnot found in the Hebrew. The order, too, is occasionally different,\nnotably in the oracles against the foreign nations (xlvi.-li.),\nwhich in the Septuagint are placed between xxv. 13 and xxv. 15\n(verse 14 being omitted). After making every deduction for the usual\nnumber of mistakes due to incompetence and badly written\nmanuscripts, it has to be admitted that, in certain respects, the\nGreek text is superior to the Hebrew. This is especially plain if we\nexamine its omissions. Considering the later tendency to expand, its\nrelative brevity is a point in its favour; but, when we examine\nparticular cases, the superiority of the Septuagint, with its\nomissions, is evident at once.\n\nCh. xxvii., e.g., is considerably longer in the Hebrew than in the\nGreek text; but the additions in the Hebrew text represent Jeremiah\nas interested in the temple vessels and prophesying their\nrestoration to the temple when the exile was over, in a way that is\nutterly unlike what we know of Jeremiah's general attitude to the\nmaterial symbols of religion. Similarly, xxxiii. 14-26, which\npromises, among other things, that there would never be lacking a\nLevitical priest to offer burnt offerings, is wanting in the\nSeptuagint; here again the Greek must be regarded as more truly\nrepresenting Jeremiah's attitude to sacrifice (vii. 22). It would,\nof course, be unfair to infer from this that the briefer readings of\nthe Septuagint were invariably superior to the longer readings of\nthe Massoretic text, for it can be shown that the Greek translators\noften omitted or passed lightly over what they did not understand;\nnevertheless, their omissions often indicate a better and more\noriginal text.\n\nWith regard to the oracles against the foreign nations, there can be\nlittle doubt that their position in the Hebrew text is to be\npreferred to that of the Greek. A certain plausibility attaches to\nthe Greek text which places them after xxv. 13, the last clause of\nwhich--\"that which Jeremiah prophesied against all the nations\"--is\ntaken as a title; but, besides completely breaking up the\nsurrounding context, whose theme is altogether Judah, the Greek\nposition of the oracles is exceedingly clumsy, preceding as it does\nthe enumeration in xxv. 15-29, which it might indeed follow, but\ncould not reasonably precede. Further the Hebrew arrangement of the\noracles within this group is much more probable than the Greek. The\nformer appropriately reserves the oracle against Babylon to the end,\nthe latter places it third, i.e. among the nations which are to be\npunished by Babylon herself, xxv. 9.\n\nWe possess some direct information about the composition of the book\nof Jeremiah, but the present arrangement is marked by considerable\nconfusion, and can in no case be original. A glance at the contents\nof consecutive chapters is enough to show that the order is not\nrigorously chronological. Ch. xxv., e.g., falls in 605 B.C., whereas\nthe preceding chapter is at least eight years later (cf. xxiv. 1,\n8). Ch. xxi. 1-10, which reflects the period of the siege of\nJerusalem, is one of the latest passages in the book (587 B.C.).\nThere are occasional traces of a topical order: e.g. chs.\nxviii., xix., give lessons from the potter, xxi. 9-xxiii. 8 is a\nseries of prophecies concerning kings, xxiii. 9-40 another\nconcerning prophets. Chs. xxx.-xxxiii. gather up the prophecies\nconcerning the restoration. Chs. xxxvii.-xliv. constitute a\nnarrative dealing with the siege of the city and events immediately\nsubsequent to it. Here we touch one of the striking peculiarities of\nthe book of Jeremiah that much of it is purely narrative. Again, in\nthe narrative portion, sometimes the prophet speaks himself in the\nfirst person, as in the account of his call (i.), sometimes he is\nspoken of in the third, xxviii. 5.\n\nThis suggests that some passages are more directly traceable to\nJeremiah than others, and the clue to this fact is to be found in\nthe interesting story told in ch. xxxvi. There we are informed that\nJeremiah dictated to his disciple Baruch the scribe the messages of\nhis ministry since his call twenty-one years before. After being\nread before the public gathering at the temple, and then before the\ncourt, they were destroyed by the king, Jehoiakim; but the messages\nwere rewritten by Baruch, and many similar words, we are told, were\nadded, xxxvi. 32. It is clear that the book written by Baruch to\nJeremiah's dictation cannot have been very long, as it could be read\nthree times in one day, but it is impossible to say what precisely\nwere its constituent elements. Roughly speaking, they must be\nconfined to chs. i.-xxv., as the following chapters (except xlvi.-li.)\nare either narrative, like xxvi.-xxix., xxxvii.-xliv., or, if\nprophetic words of Jeremiah, come from a later date (cf. xxx.-xxxiii.,\nxxxii. 1). But the book cannot have included all of i.-xxv.,  for,\nas we have seen, parts of this section are later than 605, when the\nbook was first dictated (cf. xxiv., xxi. 1-10), and some are very\nlate (cf. x. 1-16, exilic at the earliest, and xvii. 19-27, post-exilic).\nThe difficulty of determining the constituents is increased by the\nfact that several of the chapters are undated (e.g. xiv. 1-xvii. 18).\nNo doubt most of chs. i.-xii. and much of xiii.-xxv. were included\n within the original book dictated.\n\nIt is further important to note that the book was dictated; that is\nto say, it was not written by Jeremiah's own hand, and it was\ndictated from memory, though very possibly on the basis of notes.\nObviously we cannot in any case have in these few chapters more than\na summary of the words spoken during a ministry which at that time\nhad already covered twenty-one years. The strong personal feeling\nwhich animates so much of Jeremiah's early prophecies, especially\nthe poetry, we owe directly to his own dictation. The narrative\nsections, in which he is spoken of in the third person, but most of\nwhich obviously came from some one who was thoroughly conversant\nwith the prophet's life, we owe, no doubt, to the faithful Baruch,\nwho clearly held the prophet's words not only in respect, but in\nreverence, xxxvi. 24. The biography, which, in its earlier chapters,\nassumes a somewhat annalistic form, xxvi. i, xxviii. i, xxix. i,\ndevelops an easy and flowing style when it comes to deal with the\nsiege of Jerusalem (xxxvii.-xliv.). Speaking very generally, the\nbiography covers chs. xxvi.-xlv. (except xxx., xxxi., xxxiii.).\n\nBut long after Baruch was in his grave, the book of Jeremiah\ncontinued to receive additions. Some of these, from exilic and\npost-exilic times, we have already seen (of, 1., li.). A relatively\nlarge literature grew up around the book of Jeremiah: 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21\neven quotes as Jeremiah's a prophecy which does not occur in our\ncanonical book at all. (cf. Lev. xxvi. 34f). Often those who added\nto the book had no clear imagination of the historical situation\nwhatever; one of them represents Jeremiah as addressing the\n_kings_ of Judah--as if they had all lived at the same time--on\nthe question of the Sabbath day (xvii. 20, cf. xix. 3). The extent\nof these additions has already been illustrated by comparison with\nthe Septuagint, and very often the passages which are not supported\nby the Greek text are historically the least trustworthy, cf. xxxix.\n11, 12. These different recensions of the original text attest the\nwide popularity of the book; an Aramaic gloss in x. 11 shows the\nliberties which transcribers took with the text, the integrity of\nwhich suffered much from its very popularity. The interest of the\nlater scribes was rather in homiletics than in history, and very\nprobably most of the writing that seems tedious and diffuse in the\nbook of Jeremiah is to be set down to the count of these teaching\nscribes. Jeremiah was a very gifted poet, with unusual powers of\nemotional expression, and it is greatly to be regretted that his own\nmessage has been so inextricably involved in the inferior work of a\nlater age.\n\n\n\n\nEZEKIEL\n\n\nTo a modern taste, Ezekiel does not appeal anything like so\npowerfully as Isaiah or Jeremiah. He has neither the majesty of the\none nor the tenderness and passion of the other. There is much in\nhim that is fantastic, and much that is ritualistic. His\nimaginations border sometimes on the grotesque and sometimes on the\nmechanical. Yet he is a historical figure of the first importance;\nit was very largely from him that Judaism received the\necclesiastical impulse by which for centuries it was powerfully\ndominated.\n\nCorrupt as the text is in many places, we have in Ezekiel the rare\nsatisfaction of studying a carefully elaborated prophecy whose\nauthenticity is practically undisputed and indisputable. It is not\nimpossible that there are, as Kraetzschmar maintains, occasional\ndoublets, e.g. ii. 3-7 and in. 4-9; but these in any case are very\nfew and hardly affect the question of authenticity. The order and\nprecision of the priestly mind are reflected in the unusually\nsystematic arrangement of the book. Its general theme might be\nbroadly described as the destruction and the reconstitution of the\nstate, the destruction occupying exactly the first half of the book\n(i.-xxiv.) and the reconstitution the second half (xxv.-xlviii.).\n\nThe following is a sketch of the book. After five years of residence\nin the land of exile, Ezekiel, through an ecstatic vision in which\nhe beholds a mysterious chariot with God enthroned above it,\nreceives his prophetic call to the \"rebellious\" exiles (i., ii.),\nand is equipped for his task with the divine inspiration; that task\nis partly to reprove, partly to warn (iii.). At once the prophet\naddresses himself thereto, announcing the siege of Jerusalem and the\ncaptivity of Judah--Israel has already been languishing in exile for\na century and a half (iv.).[1] The threefold fate of the inhabitants\nis described (v.), and a stern and speedy fate is foretold for the\nmountain land of Israel (vi.) and for the people (vii.). How\ndeserved that fate is becomes too pathetically plain in the\ndescriptions of the idolatrous worship with which the temple is\ndesecrated (viii.) and in chastisement for which the inhabitants are\nslain (ix.) and their city burned (x.). Jehovah solemnly departs\nfrom His desecrated temple (xi.).\n[Footnote 1: For 390 in iv. 5 the Septuagint correctly reads 190,\nand this includes the forty years of Judah's captivity.]\n\nThis general theme of the sin and fate of the city is continued with\nvariations throughout the rest of the first half of the book. The\nhorrors of the siege and exile are symbolically indicated, xii. 1-20,\nand the false prophets and prophetesses, xiii. 17, are reproved and\ndenounced for encouraging, by their shallow optimism, the unbelief\nof the people, xii. 21-xiv. 11. For the judgment will assuredly come\nand no intercession will avail, xiv. 12-23. Israel, in her misery,\nis like the wood of the vine, unprofitable to begin with, and now,\nbesides, scarred and burnt (xv.); her whole career has been one of\nconsistent infidelity--Israel and Judah alike (xvi.). And her kings\nare as perfidious as her people-witness Zedekiah's treachery to the\nking of Babylon (xvii.). But contrary to prevalent opinion, the present\ngeneration is not atoning for the sins of the past; every man is free\nand responsible and is dealt with precisely as he deserves--the soul\nthat sinneth, _it_ shall die (xviii.). Then follows a beautiful\nelegy over the princes of Judah--Jehoahaz taken captive to Egypt, and\nJehoiachin to Babylon (xix.).\n\nThe third cycle (xx.-xxiv.) is, in the main, a repetition of the\nsecond. From the very day of her election, Israel has been\nunfaithful, giving herself over to idolatry, immorality, and the\nprofanation of the Sabbath (xx.). But the devouring fire will\nconsume, and the sharp sword of Nebuchadrezzar will be drawn, first\nagainst Jerusalem, and then against Ammon (xxi.). The corruption of\nJerusalem is utter and absolute--princes, priests, prophets, and\npeople (xxii.); and this corruption has characterized her from the\nvery beginning--Samaria and Jerusalem, the northern and southern\nkingdoms alike (xxiii.). So the end has come: the filth and rust of\nthe empty caldron--symbolic of Jerusalem after the first deportation\nin 597 B.C.--will be purged away by a yet fiercer fire. The besieged\ncity is at length captured, and, like the prophet's wife, it\nperishes unmourned (xxiv.).\n\nThe ministry of judgment, so far as it concerns Jerusalem, is now\nover, and Ezekiel is free to turn to the more congenial task of\nconsolation and promise. But a negative condition of the restoration\nof Israel is the removal of impediments to her welfare, and next to\nher own sins her enemies are the greatest obstacle to her\nrestoration; it is with them, therefore, that the following\nprophecies are concerned.\n\nThe seven oracles in chs. xxv.-xxxii. (587-586 B.C., cf. xxvi. 1,\nexcept xxix. 17-21 in 570 B.C.) are directed against Ammon, Moab,\nEdom, Philistia (xxv.), Tyre, xxvi. 1-xxviii. 19, Sidon, xxviii. 20-26,\nand Egypt (xxix.-xxxii.). Tyre and Egypt receive elaborate attention;\nthe other peoples are dismissed with comparatively brief notice. The\ngeneral reason assigned for the destruction of the smaller peoples in\nxxv. is their vengeful attitude to Israel. Ammon in particular is\nsingled out for her malicious joy over the destruction of the temple\nand her mockery of the captive Jews. The destruction of these people\nis no doubt to be brought about indirectly, if not directly, as in the\ncase of Tyre, xxvi. 7, and Egypt, xxix. 19, by Nebuchadrezzar. The\noracle against Tyre is one of Ezekiel's most brilliant compositions. The\nglorious city is to be stormed and destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar (xxvi.),\nand her  fall is celebrated in a splendid dirge, in which she is\ncompared to a noble merchant ship wrecked by a furious storm upon the\nhigh seas (xxvii.); her proud prince will be humbled to the ground\n(xxviii.). Egypt is similarly threatened with a desolating invasion\nat the hands of Nebuchadrezzar; the conquest of that country is to be\nhis recompense for his failure, contrary to Ezekiel's expectations, to\ncapture Tyre (xxix.). The day of Jehovah draws nigh upon Egypt (xxx.);\nlike a proud cedar she will be felled by the hand of Nebuchadrezzar\n(xxxi.), and her fall is celebrated in two dirges--one in which Pharaoh\nis compared to a crocodile; the other, weird and striking, describes\nthe arrival of the slain Egyptians in the world below (xxxii.).\n\nWith the disappearance of Israel's enemies, one of the great\nobstacles to her restoration has been removed; but the greatest\nobstacle is in Israel herself. She has been stiff-necked and\nrebellious: now that the prophet's words have proved true,[1] each\nindividual for himself must give heed to his warning voice, not\nmerely consulting him, but obeying him (xxxiii.). Then Jehovah will\nmanifest His grace in many ways. He will send them an ideal king,\nunlike the mercenary rulers of the past, who had plundered the flock\n(xxxiv.). He will destroy the unbrotherly Edomites (xxxv.) and bless\nHis people Israel with the peaceful possession of a fruitful land,\nand with the better blessing of the new heart (xxxvi.). Finally, He\nwill wake the people, who are now as good as dead, to a new life,\nand unite the long sundered Israel and Judah under one sceptre for\never (xxxvii.). In the final assault which will be made against His\npeople by the mysterious hordes of Gog from the north, He will\npreserve them from danger, and multitudes of the assailants will\nfall and be buried in the land of Israel (xxxviii., xxxix.).\n[Footnote: In xxxiii. 21 the _twelfth_ year should be the\neleventh (cf. xxvi. 1). The news of the fall of Jerusalem would not\ntake over a year to travel to Babylon.]\n\nProbably the book originally ended here: but from Ezekiel's point of\nview, the remaining chapters (xl.-xlviii.) are thoroughly integral\nto it, if indeed they be not its climax. The people are now redeemed\nand restored to their own land: the problem is, how shall they\nmaintain the proper relations between themselves and their God? The\nunorganized community must become a church, and an elaborate\norganization is provided for it. The temple, with its buildings, is\ntherefore first minutely described, as that is to be the earthly\nresidence of the people's God; then the rights and duties of the\npriests are strictly regulated: and lastly the holy land is so\nredistributed among the tribes that the temple is practically in the\ncentre.\n\nChs. xl.-xliii. embrace the description and measurement of the\ntemple, with its courts, gateways, chambers, decorations, priests'\nrooms and altar. When all is ready, Jehovah solemnly enters, xliii.\n1-12, by the gate from which Ezekiel had in vision seen Him leave\nalmost nineteen years before, x. 19. The sanctity of the temple\nwhere Jehovah is henceforth to dwell must be scrupulously\nmaintained, and this is secured by the regulations in xliv.-xlvi.\nThe menial services of the sanctuary, which were formerly performed\nby foreigners, are to be henceforth performed by Levites. Then\nfollow regulations determining the duties and revenues of the\npriests, the territory to be occupied by them, also by the Levites,\nthe city and the prince; the religious duties of the prince, and the\nrite of atonement for the temple. The whole description is a\nstriking counterpart to the earlier vision of the desecration of the\ntemple (viii.). The last section (xlvii., xlviii.) deals with the\nland which in these latter days is to share the redemption of the\npeople. The barren ground near the Dead Sea is to be made fertile,\nand the waters of that sea sweet, by a stream issuing from\nunderneath the temple. The land will be redistributed, seven tribes\nnorth and five south of the temple, and the city will bear the name\n\"Jehovah is there\"--symbolic of the abiding presence of the people's\nGod.\n\nWhatever be the precise meaning of the much disputed \"thirtieth\nyear\" in i. 1, Ezekiel was born probably about or not long before\nthe time Jeremiah began his ministry in 626 B.C. As a young man, he\nmust have heard Jeremiah preach, and this, coupled with the fact\nthat some of Jeremiah's prophecies were in circulation about eight\nyears before Ezekiel went into exile (605-597) explains the profound\ninfluence which the older prophet plainly exercised upon the\nyounger. With Jehoiachin and the aristocracy, Ezekiel was taken in\n597 to Babylon, where he lived with his wife, xxiv. 16, among the\nJewish colony on the banks of the Chebar, one of the canals\ntributary to the Euphrates, i. 3.\n\nNever had a prophet been more necessary. The people left behind in\nthe land were thoroughly depraved, xxxiii. 25ff., the exiles were\nnot much better, xiv. 3ff.--they are a rebellious house, ii. 6; and\neven worse than they are the exiles who came with the second\ndeportation in 586, xiv. 22. Idolatry of many kinds had been\npractised (viii.); and now that the penalty was being paid in exile,\nthe people were helpless, xxxvii. 11. For six years and a half--till\nthe city fell--Ezekiel's ministry was one of reproof; after that, of\nconsolation. The prophet becomes a pastor. His ministry lasted at\nleast twenty-two years, the last dated prophecy being in 570 (xxix.\n17); for thirteen years before the writing of chs. xl.-xlviii. in\n572 B.C. there is no dated prophecy, xxxii. 1, 17, so that this\nsketch of ecclesiastical organization, pathetic as embodying an old\nman's hope for the future, stands among his most mature and\ndeliberate work. His absolute candour is strikingly shown by his\nrefusal to cancel his original prophecy of the capture of Tyre by\nNebuchadrezzar, xxvi. 7, 8, which had not been fulfilled; he simply\nappends another oracle and allows the two to stand side by side,\nxxix. 17-20.\n\nIt is obvious that in Ezekiel prophecy has travelled far from the\nmethods, expressions and hopes that had characterized it in the days\nof Amos and Isaiah, or even of Ezekiel's immediate predecessor and\ncontemporary, Jeremiah. In these books there are visions, such as\nthose of Amos, vii. 1, viii. 1, ix. 1, and symbolic acts like that\nof Isaiah, xx. 2, walking barefoot; but there such things are only\noccasional, here they abound. Their interpretation, too, is beset by\nmuch uncertainty. Some maintain that the symbolic actions, unless\nwhen they are obviously impossible, were really performed; others\nregard them simply as part of the imaginative mechanism of the book.\nThe dumbness, e.g., with which Ezekiel was afflicted for a period,\niii. 26, xxiv. 27, xxxiii. 22, and which has been interpreted as \"a\nsense of restraint and defeat,\" may very well have been real, and\nconnected, as has been recently supposed, with certain pathological\nconditions; but it is hardly to be believed that he lay on one side\nfor 190 days[1] (iv. 5). Again, though the curious action\nrepresenting the threefold fate of the inhabitants of the city in\nch. v. is somewhat grotesque, it is not absolutely impossible; but\nit is difficult to see how the command to eat bread and drink water\n\"with trembling\" can be taken literally, xii. 18. As the first\nsymbolic action in the book--the eating of the roll, iii. 1-3--must\nbe interpreted figuratively, it would seem not unfair to apply this\nprinciple to all such actions. It is even applied by Reuss to the\nvery circumstantial story of the death of the prophet's wife, xxiv.\n15ff., which he characterizes as an \"easily deciphered hieroglyph.\"\n[Footnote 1: So the Septuagint.]\n\nAgain, in spite of their highly elaborated detail, the visions\nappeal, and are intended to appeal, rather to the mind than to the\neye. Such a vision as that of the divine chariot in ch. i. could not\nbe transferred to canvas; and if it could, the effect would be\nanything but impressive. Regarded, however, as a creation of the\nintellectual imagination, suggesting as it does certain attributes\nof God, and clothing them with a mysterious and indefinable majesty,\nit is not without an impressiveness of its own.\n\nA similar sense of unreality has been held to pervade the speeches.\nIt has been asserted that they are simply artificial compositions,\nnever addressed and not capable of being addressed to any audience\nof living men. Certainly one can hardly conceive of the last\nchapters, with their minute description of the temple buildings,\nofficers and ceremonies, as forming part of a public address; and\nsome even of the earlier chapters, e.g. xvi., xxiii., do not suggest\nthat living contact with an audience which invests the earlier\nprophets with their perennial dramatic interest. At the same time,\nto regard him simply as an author and in no sense as a public man\nwould undoubtedly be to do him less than justice, cf. xi. 25. He was\nin any case a pastor--a new office in Israel, to which he was led by\nhis overwhelming sense of the indefeasible importance of the\nindividual (iii. 18ff., xviii., xxxiii.). But--especially in his\nearlier ministry, till the fall of the city--he was prophet as well\nas pastor, with a public message of condemnation very much like that\nof his predecessors. His reputation as a prophet naturally rose with\nthe corroboration which his words had received from the fall of the\ncity, xxxiii. 30, but even before this it must have been high, as we\nfind him frequently consulted, viii. 1, xiv. 1, xx. 1; and though\nbehind the real audience he addresses, we often cannot help feeling\nthat his words have in view that larger Israel of which the exiles\nform a part (cf. vi.), the chapters, as they now stand, are no doubt\nin most cases expansions of actual addresses. This view is\nstrengthened by the precision of the numerous chronological notices,\ncf. viii. 1.\n\nThere is another important aspect in which the contrast between\nEzekiel and the pre-exilic prophets is very great: viz. in his\nattitude to ritual. Every one of them had expressed in emphatic\nlanguage the relative, if not the absolute, indifference of ritual\nto true religion (Amos v. 25, Hos. vi. 6, Isa. i. 11ff., Mic. vi. 6-8).\nNo one had expressed himself in language more strong and unmistakable\nthan Ezekiel's contemporary, Jeremiah. Yet Ezekiel himself devotes no\nless than nine chapters to a detailed programme for the ecclesiastical\norganization of the state after the return from exile (xl.-xlviii.).\nWith some justice Lucien Gautier has called him the \"clerical\" prophet,\nand Duhm goes so far as to say that he annihilated spontaneous and\nethical religion. This, as we shall see, is a grave exaggeration; but\nthere can be no doubt that in Ezekiel the centre of gravity of prophecy\nhas shifted. He threw ritual into a prominence which, in prophecy, it\nhad never had before, and which, from his day on, it successfully\nmaintained (cf. Hag., Zech., Mal.).\n\nIt is difficult to estimate justly the importance to Hebrew religion\nof the new turn given to it by Ezekiel: it seems to be, and in\nreality it is, a descent from the more purely spiritual and ethical\nconception of the earlier prophets. But two things have to be\nremembered (1) that, for the situation contemplated by Ezekiel, such\na programme as that which he drew up was a practical religious\nnecessity. The spiritual atmosphere in which Jeremiah drew his\nbreath so freely was too rare for the average Israelite. Religious\nconceptions had to be expressed in material symbols. The land and\nthe temple had been profaned by sin (viii.); after the return, their\nholiness must be secured and guaranteed, and Ezekiel's legislation\nmakes the necessary provision by translating that idea into specific\nand concrete applications.\n\nBut (2) though ritual interests are very prominent towards the close\nof the book, they do not by any means exhaust the religious\ninterests of Ezekiel. If not very frequently, at any rate very\ndeliberately and emphatically, he asserts the ethical elements that\nare inseparable from true religion and the moral responsibility of\nthe individual (iii., xviii., xxxiii.). Indeed, the background of\nxl.-xlviii. is a people redeemed from their sin. The worshippers are\nthe redeemed; and even in this almost exclusively ritual section\nethical interests are not forgotten, xlv. 9ff. In interpreting the\nmind of the man who sketched this priestly legislation, it is surely\nunfair to ignore those profound and noble utterances touching the\nnecessity of the new heart, xviii. 31, xxxvi. 26, and the new\nspirit, xi. 19, utterances which have the ring of some of the\ngreatest words of Jeremiah.\n\nIt must be admitted, however, that Ezekiel did not fully realize the\nimplications of these profound words: he at once proceeds to apply\nthem in a somewhat mechanical way, which suggests that his religion\nis a thing of \"statutes and judgments,\" if it is also a thing of the\nspirit, xxxvi. 27 (cf. xx. 11, 13), and this tendency to a\nmechanical view of things is characteristic of the prophet. Even in\nthe great chapter asserting the responsibility of the individual\n(xviii.) something of this tendency appears in the isolation of the\nvarious periods of the individual life from each other. It shows\nitself again in his description of the river that issues from under\nthe threshold of the temple, xlvii. 3-6. His imagination, which was\nconsiderably influenced by Babylonian art, is undisciplined. Images\nare worked out with a detail artistically unnecessary, and\naesthetically sometimes offensive (xvi., xxiii.). On the other hand\nthe book is not destitute of noble and chastened imaginations. The\nweird fate of Egypt in the underworld, xxxii. 17-32, the glory of\nTyre and the horror which her fate elicits (xxvii.) are described\nwith great power. Nothing could be more impressive than the vision\nof the valley of dry bones--the fearful solitude and the mysterious\nresurrection (xxxvii.). Ezekiel's imaginative power perhaps reaches\nits climax in his vision of the destruction of Jerusalem and her\nidolatrous people. On the judgment day we see the corpses of the\nsinners, slain by supernatural executioners, lying silently in the\ntemple court, the prophet prostrate and sorrowful, and the angel\ndeparting with glowing coals to set fire to the guilty city, ix. i-x. 7.\n\nThe two chief elements in later Judaism practically owe their origin\nto Ezekiel, viz. apocalypse and legalism. The former finds\nexpression in chs. xxxviii, xxxix., where, preliminary to Israel's\nrestoration, Gog of the land of Magog--an ideal, rather than, like\nthe Assyrians or Babylonians, an historical enemy of Israel--is to\nbe destroyed. We have already seen how prominent the legalistic\ninterest is in xl.-xlviii., but it is also apparent elsewhere.\nEzekiel, e.g., lays unusual stress upon the institution of the\nSabbath, and counts its profanation one of the gravest of the\nnational sins, xx. 12, xxii. 8, xxiii. 38. The priestly interests of\nEzekiel are easily explained by his early environment. He belonged\nby birth to the Jerusalem priesthood, i. 3, xliv. 15, and he\nreceived his early training under the prophetico-priestly impulse of\nthe Deuteronomic reformation.\n\nFrom the critical standpoint, the book of Ezekiel is of the highest\nimportance. Chs. xl.-xlviii. fall midway between the simpler\nlegislation of Deuteronomy, and the very elaborate legislation of\nthe priestly parts of the Pentateuch. This is especially plain in\nthe laws affecting the priests and the Levites.\n\nIn Deuteronomy no distinction is made between them; there the phrase\nis, \"the priests the Levites\" (Deut. xviii. 1); in the priestly code\n(cf. Num. iii., iv., v.) they are very sharply distinguished, the\nLevites being reserved for the more menial work of the sanctuary.\nNow the origin of this distinction can be traced to Ezekiel,\naccording to whom the Levites were the priests who had been degraded\nfrom their priestly office, because they had ministered in\nidolatrous worship at the high places, xliv. 6ff., whereas the\npriests were the Zadokites who had ministered only at Jerusalem. The\nnatural inference is that, at least in this respect, the priestly\nlegislation of the Pentateuch is later than Ezekiel. A close study\nof chs. xl.-xlviii. enables us to extend this inference. Between\nEzekiel and that legislation there are serious differences (cf.\nxlvi. 13, Exod. xxix. 38, Num. xxviii. 4), which, as early as the\nbeginning of the Christian era, gave much perplexity to Jewish\nscholars. \"According to the traditional view,\" as Reuss has said,\n\"Ezekiel would be reforming, not Israel, but Moses, the man of God,\nand the mouth of Jehovah Himself.\" We have no alternative, then, but\nto suppose that Ezekiel is earlier than the priestly legislation of\nthe Pentateuch, and that this sketch in xl.-xlviii. prepared the way\nfor it.\n\nIn Ezekiel the older prophetic conception of God has undergone a\nchange. It has become more transcendental, with the result that the\nlove of God is overshadowed by His holiness. It is of His grace, no\ndoubt, that the people are ultimately saved; but, according to\nEzekiel, He is prompted to His redemptive work not so much out of\npity for the fallen people, xxxvi. 22, but rather \"for His name's\nsake,\" xx. 44--that name which has been profaned by Israel in the\nsight of the heathen, xx. 14. The goal of history is, in Ezekiel's\never-recurring phrase, that men may \"know that I am Jehovah.\"\nCorresponding to this transcendental view of God is his view of man\nas frail and weak--over and over again Ezekiel is addressed as\n\"child of man\"--and history has only too faithfully exhibited that\ninherent and all but ineradicable weakness. While other prophets,\nlike Hosea and Jeremiah, had seen in the earlier years of Israel's\nhistory, a dawn which bore the promise of a beautiful day, to\nEzekiel that history has from the very beginning been one unbroken\nrecord of apostasy (xvi., xxiii.). On the other hand, Ezekiel laid a\nwholesome, if perhaps exaggerated, emphasis on the possibility of\nhuman freedom. A man's destiny, he maintained, was not irretrievably\ndetermined either by hereditary influences, xviii. 2ff., or by his\nown past, xxxiii. 10f. Further, Jeremiah had felt, if he had not\nsaid, that the individual, not the nation, is the real unit in\nreligion: to Ezekiel belongs the merit of supplementing this\nconception by that other, that religion implies fellowship, and that\nindividuals find their truest religious life only when united in the\nkingdom of God (xl.-xlviii.).\n\n\n\n\nHOSEA\n\n\nThe book of Hosea divides naturally into two parts: i.-iii. and iv.-xiv.,\nthe former relatively clear and connected, the latter unusually\ndisjointed and obscure. The difference is so unmistakable that i.-iii.\nhave usually been assigned to the period before the death of Jeroboam II,\nand iv.-xiv. to the anarchic period which succeeded. Certainly Hosea's\nprophetic career began before the end of Jeroboam's reign, as he predicts\nthe fall of the reigning dynasty, i. 4, which practically ended with\nJeroboam's death.[1] But i.-iii. seem to be the result of long and\nagonized meditation on the meaning of his wedded life: it was not at\nonce that he discovered\nGomer to be an unfaithful wife, i. 2, and it must have been later\nstill that he learned to interpret the impulse which led him to her\nand threw such sorrow about his life, as a word of the Lord, i. 2.\nThese chapters were probably therefore written late, though the\nexperiences they record were early.\n[Footnote 1: Zechariah his son reigned for only six months.]\n\nOf the date, generally speaking, of iv.-xiv. there can be no doubt:\nthey reflect but too faithfully the confusion of the times that\nfollowed Jeroboam's death. It is a period of hopeless anarchy. Moral\nlaw is set at defiance, and society, from one end to the other, is\nin confusion, iv. 1, 2, vii. 1. The court is corrupt, conspiracies\nare rife, kings are assassinated, vii. 3-7, x. 15. We are\nirresistibly reminded of the rapid succession of kings that followed\nJeroboam--Zechariah his son, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah.\nGilead, however, is still part of the northern kingdom, vi. 8, xii.\n11, so that the deportation effected by Tiglath Pileser in 734 B.C.\nhas not yet taken place (2 Kings xv. 29). Further, there is no\nmention of the combination of Israel and Aram against Judah; and, as\nHosea was a very close observer of the political situation, his\nsilence on this point may be assumed to imply that his prophecies\nfall earlier than 735. The date of his prophetic career may safely\nbe set about 743-736 B.C. In chs. i. and iii. Hosea reads the\nexperiences of his wedded life as a symbol of Jehovah's experience\nwith Israel. Gomer bore him three children, to whom he gave names\nsymbolic of the impending fate[1] of Israel, i. 1-9. The faithless\nGomer abandons Hosea for a paramour, but he is moved by his love for\nher to buy her out of the degradation into which she has fallen, and\ntakes earnest measures to wean her to a better mind. All this Hosea\nlearns to interpret as symbolic of the divine love for Israel, which\nrefuses to be defeated, but will seek to recover the people, though\nit be through the stern discipline of exile (iii.). Ch. ii. elaborates\nthe idea, suggested by these chapters, of Israel's adultery, i.e. of\nher unfaithfulness to Jehovah, of the fate to which it will bring her,\nand of her redemption from that fate by the love of her God.[2]\n[Footnote 1: Chs. i. 10-ii. 1 interrupts the stern context with an\noutlook on the Messianic days, considers Judah as well as Israel,\npresupposes the exile of Judah, and anticipates ii. 21-23. It can\nhardly therefore be Hosea's; nor can i. 7, which is quite irrelevant\nand appears to be an allusion to the deliverance of Jerusalem from\nSennacherib in 701 B.C.]\n[Footnote 2: It is much more satisfactory to interpret i., iii. as a\nreal experience of Hosea, and not simply as an allegory. If it be\nobjected, on the one hand, that the names of the last two children\nare not probable names, it may be urged, on the other, that Gomer\nseems to be an actual name, for which no plausible allegorical\nmeaning has been suggested.]\n\nIt is quite impossible even to attempt a summary of iv.-xiv., partly\nbecause of the hopeless corruption of the text in very many\npassages, partly from the brevity and apparently disjointed nature\nof the individual sections. Possibly this is due, in large measure,\nto later redactors of the book, or to the fragmentary reports of the\nprophet's addresses; perhaps, however, it also expresses something\nof the abrupt passion of his speeches, which, as Kautzsch says, were\n\"more sob than speech.\" The general theme of this division appears\nin its opening words, \"There is no fidelity or love or knowledge of\nGod in the land,\" iv. 1.\n\nThat knowledge of God is in part innate and universal: it is\nknowledge of _God_, and not specifically of Jehovah--not\nknowledge of a code, but fidelity to the demands of conscience. It\nwas, however, the peculiar business of the priests to proclaim and\ndevelop that knowledge; and for the deplorable perversity of Israel,\nthey are largely held responsible, iv. 6. The worship of Jehovah,\nwhich ought to be a moral service, vi. 6, is indistinguishable from\nBaal worship (ii.) and idolatry. Upon the calf, the symbol under\nwhich Jehovah was worshipped, and upon those who worship Him thus,\nHosea pours indignant and sarcastic scorn, viii. 5, 6, x. 5, xiii.\n2. Ignorance of the true nature of God is at the root of the moral\nand political confusion. It is this that leads the one party to\ncoquet with Egypt and the other with Assyria, vii. II, viii, 9, xi.\n5, xii. 1, and the price paid for Assyrian intervention was a heavy\none (2 Kings xv. 19, 20, cf. Hosea v. 13). The native kings, too,\nare as impotent to heal Israel's wounds as the foreigners, vii. 7,\nx. 7; and though it might be too much to say that Hosea condemns the\nmonarchy as an institution, viii. 4, the impotence of the kings to\nstem the tide of disaster is too painfully clear to him, x, 7, 15.\n\nWhether Hosea ever alludes to Judah in his genuine prophecies is\nvery doubtful. Some of the references are obvious interpolations\n(cf. i. 7), and for one reason or another, nearly all of them are\nsuspicious: in vi. 4, e.g., the parallelism (cf. _v_. 10)\nsuggests that _Israel_ should be read instead of _Judah_.\nBut there can be no doubt that the message of Hosea is addressed in\nthe main, if not exclusively, to northern Israel. It is her land\nthat is _the_ land, i. 2, cf. 4, her king that is \"our king,\"\nvii. 5, the worship of her sanctuaries that he exposes, and her\npolitics that he deplores.\n\nIf Amos is the St. James of the Old Testament, Hosea is the St.\nJohn. It is indeed possible to draw the contrast too sharply between\nAmos and Hosea, as is done when it is asserted that Amos is the\nchampion of morality and Hosea of religion. Amos is not, however, a\nmere moralist; he no less than Hosea demands a return to Jehovah,\niv. 6, 8, v. 6, but he undoubtedly lays the emphasis on the moral\nexpression of the religious impulse, while Hosea is more concerned\nwith religion at its roots and in its essence. Thus Hosea's work,\nbesides being supplementary to that of Amos, emphasizing the love of\nGod where Amos had emphasised His righteousness, is also more\nfundamental than his. There is something of the mystic, too, in\nHosea: in all experience he finds something typical. The character\nof the patriarch Jacob is an adumbration of that of his descendants\n(xii.), and his own love for his unfaithful wife is a shadow of\nJehovah's love for Israel (i.-iii.).\n\nHis message to Israel was a stern one, probably even sterner than it\nnow reads in the received text of many passages, e.g., xi. 8, 9. He\nrepresents Jehovah as saying to Israel: \"Shall I set thee free from\nthe hand of Sheol? Shall I redeem thee from death? Hither with thy\nplagues, O death! Hither with thy pestilence, O Sheol! Repentance is\nhidden from mine eyes,\" xiii. 14. But it is too much to say with\nsome scholars that the sternness is unqualified and to deny to the\nprophet the hope so beautifully expressed in the last chapter. There\nwere elements in Hosea's experience of his own heart which suggested\nthat the love of Jehovah was a love which would not let His people\ngo, and ch. xiv. (except _v_. 9) may well be retained, almost\nin its entirety, for Hosea. His passion, though not robust, like\nthat of Amos, is tender and intense, xi. 3, 4: as Amos pleads for\nrighteousness, he pleads for love (Hos. vi. 6), _hesed_, a word\nstrangely enough never used by Amos; and it is no accident that the\ngreat utterance of Hosea--\"I will have love and not sacrifice,\" vi.\n6--had a special attraction for Jesus (Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7).\n\n\n\n\nJOEL\n\n\nThe book of Joel admirably illustrates the intimate connection which\nsubsisted for the prophetic mind between the sorrows and disasters\nof the present and the coming day of Jehovah: the one is the\nimmediate harbinger of the other. In an unusually devastating plague\nof locusts, which, like an army of the Lord,[1] has stripped the\nland bare and brought misery alike upon city and country, man and\nbeast--\"for the beasts of the field look up sighing unto Thee,\" i.\n20--the prophet sees the forerunner of such an impending day of\nJehovah, bids the priests summon a solemn assembly, and calls upon\nthe people to fast and mourn and turn in penitence to God. Their\npenitence is met by the divine pity and rewarded by the promise not\nonly of material restoration but of an outpouring of the spirit upon\nall Judah,[2] which is to be accompanied by marvellous signs in the\nnatural world. The restoration of Judah has as its correlative the\ndestruction of Judah's enemies, who are represented as gathered\ntogether in the valley of Jehoshaphat--i.e. the valley where\n\"Jehovah judges\"--and there the divine judgment is to be executed\nupon them.\n[Footnote 1: Some regard the locusts as an allegorical designation\nfor an invading army. But without reason: in ii. 7 they are\n_compared_ to warriors, and the effect of their devastations is\ndescribed in terms inapplicable to an army.]\n[Footnote 2: The sequel, in which the nations are the objects of\ndivine wrath, shows that the \"all flesh,\" ii. 28, must be confined\nto Judah.]\n\nThe theological value of the book of Joel lies chiefly in its clear\ncontribution to the conception of the day of Jehovah. As Marti says,\n\"The book does not present one side of the picture only, but\ncombines all the chief traits of the eschatological hope in an\ninstructive compendium\"--the effusion of the spirit, the salvation\nof Jerusalem, the judgment of the heathen, the fruitfulness of the\nland, the permanent abode of Jehovah upon Zion. These features of\nthe Messianic hope are, in the main, characteristic of post-exilic\nprophecy; and now, with very great unanimity, the book is assigned,\nin spite of its position near the beginning of the minor prophets,\nto post-exilic times.\n\nA variety of considerations appears to support this date. Judah is\nthe exclusive object of interest. Israel has no independent\nexistence, and, where the name is mentioned, it is synonymous with\nJudah, ii. 27, iii. 2, 16. Further, the people are scattered among\nthe nations, iii. 2, and strangers are not to pass through the\n\"holy\" Jerusalem any more, iii. 17. The exile and the destruction of\nJerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 B.C. appear therefore to be\npresupposed. But the temple has been rebuilt; there are numerous\nallusions to priests and to meal and drink offerings, i. 9, 13, ii.\n14,17, and an assembly is summoned to \"the house of Jehovah your\nGod,\" i. 14: the reference to the city wall, ii. 9, would bring the\ndate as late as Nehemiah in the fifth century. Other arguments,\nthough more precarious, are not without weight, e.g., the ease and\nsmoothness of the language, the allusion to the Greeks, in. 6, the\nabsence of any reference to the sin of Judah,[1] the apparent\ncitations from or allusions to other prophetic books.[2]\n[Footnote 1: Though it may be implied in ii. 12f ]\n[Footnote 2: Obad. _v_. 17, Jo. ii. 32; Amos i. 2, Jo. iii. 16;\nAmos ix. 13, Jo. iii. 18; Ezek. xlvii. 1ff., Jo. iii. 18.]\n\nThe effect of this cumulative argument has been supposed to be\noverwhelming in favour of a post-exilic date. Recently, however,\nBaudissin, in a very careful discussion, has ably argued for at\nleast the possibility of a pre-exilic date. Precisely in the manner\nof Joel, Amos iv. 6-9 links together locusts and drought as already\nexperienced calamities. Both alike complain of the Philistine and\nPhoenician slave-trade. The enemies--Edom, Phoenicia, Philistia,\niii. 4, l9--fit the earlier period better than the Persian or Greek.\nIn the ninth century, Judah was invaded by the Philistines and\nArabians according to the Chronicler (2 Chron. xxi. 16ff.), whose\nstatements in such a matter there is no reason for doubting, and\nJerusalem may then have suffered: in any case, we know that the\ntreasures of temple and palace were plundered as early as Rehoboam's\ntime (1 Kings xiv. 25ff.), and this might be enough to satisfy the\nallusion in Joel iii. 17. Again, if Joel is smooth, Amos is not much\nless so; and linguistic peculiarities that seem to be late might be\ndue to dialect or personal idiosyncrasy. With regard to the argument\nfrom citations, it would be possible to maintain that Joel's simple\nand natural picture of the stream from the temple watering the\nacacia valley, iii. 18, was not borrowed from, but rather suggested\nthe more elaborate imagery of Ezekiel, xlvii. For these and other\nreasons Baudissin suggests with hesitation that a date slightly\nbefore Amos is by no means impossible.[1]\n[Footnote 1: It is interesting to note that Vernes, Rothstein and\nStrack have independently reached the conclusion that chs. i., ii.\nhave a different origin from iii., iv. In the former, the state\nstill exists, and the calamity is a plague of locusts; in the\nlatter, no account is taken of the locusts--it is a time of national\ndisaster. The reasons, however, are hardly adequate for denying the\nunity of the book.]\n\n\nThe question is much more than an academic one, for on the answer to it\nwill depend our whole conception of the development of Hebrew prophecy.\nSacerdotal interests, e.g., here receive a prominence in prophecy which\nwe are accustomed to associate only with the period after the exile.\nHere again, the promises are for Judah, the threats for her enemies--an\nattitude also characteristic of post-exilic prophecy: it is customary\nto deny to the pre-exilic prophets any word of promise or consolation\nto their own people. Obviously if the priest and the element of promise\nhave already so assured a place in the earliest of the prophets, the\nordinary view of the course of prophecy will have to be seriously\nmodified. The lack of emphasis displayed by Joel on the ethical aspect\nof religion, which has been made to tell in favour of a late date,\nmight tell equally well in favour of a very early one. Indeed, the\nbook is either very early or very late; and, if early, it represents\nwhat we might call the pre-prophetic type of Israel's religion, and\nespecially the non-moral aspirations of those who, in Amos's time,\nlonged for the day of Jehovah, and did not know that for them it meant\nthick darkness, without a streak of light across it (Amos v. 18). On\nthe whole, however, the balance leans to a post-exilic date. The Jewish\ndispersion seems to be implied, iii. 2. The strange visitation of\nlocusts suggests to the prophet the mysterious army from the north,\nii. 20, which had haunted the pages of Ezekiel (xxxviii., xxxix.);\nand in this book, prophecy (i., ii.) merges into apocalyptic (iii.,\niv.).\n\n\n\n\nAMOS\n\n\nAmos, the first of the literary prophets, is also one of the\ngreatest. Hosea may be more tender, Isaiah more serenely majestic,\nJeremiah more passionately human; but Amos has a certain Titanic\nstrength and rugged grandeur all his own. He was a shepherd, i. 1,\nvii. 15, and the simplicity and sternness of nature are written deep\nupon his soul. He is familiar with lions and bears, iii. 8, v. 19,\nand the terrors of the wilderness hover over all his message. He had\nobserved with acuteness and sympathy the great natural laws which\nthe experiences of his shepherd life so amply illustrated, iii. 15.,\nand his simple moral sense is provoked by the cities, with the\nimmoral civilization for which they stand. With a lofty scorn this\ndesert man looks upon the palaces, i. 4, etc., the winter and the\nsummer houses, iii. 15, in which the luxurious and rapacious\ngrandees of the time indulged, and contemplates their ruin with\nstern satisfaction.\n\nThose were the days of Jeroboam II, i. 1, and, as the period is\nmarked by an easy self-assurance, and the ancient boundaries of\nIsrael are restored, vi. 14 (cf. 2 Kings xiv. 25, 28), Amos belongs,\nno doubt, to the latter half of his reign, probably as late as 750\nB.C., for he knows, though he does not name, the Assyrians, vi. 14,\nand he finds in their irresistible progress westwards an answer to\nthe moral demands of his heart, Israel's exhausting wars with the\nArameans were now over. Aram herself had been weakened by the\nrepeated assaults of Assyria, and Israel was enjoying the dangerous\nfruits of peace. Extravagance was common, and drunkenness, no less\namong the women than the men, iv. 1. The grossest immorality is\nassociated even with public worship, ii. 7, and religion is being\neaten away by the canker of commercialism, viii. 5. The poor are\ndriven to the wall, and justice is set at defiance by those\nappointed to administer it, ii. 6, v. 7. Such was the society,\nbrilliant without and corrupt within, into which Amos hurled his\nstartling message that the God who had chosen them, iii. 2, guided\ntheir history, ii. 9, and sent them prophets to interpret His will,\nii. 11, would punish them for their iniquities, iii. 2.\n\nIt is not certain whether the unusually skilful disposition of the\nbook of Amos is due to himself or to a much later hand.[1] It has\nthree great divisions: (_a_) the judgment (i., ii.), (_b_)\nthe grounds of the judgment (iii.-vi.), (_c_) visions of judgment,\nwith an outlook on the Messianic days (vii.-ix.). In chs. i., ii., with\nhis sense of an impartial and universal moral law, Amos sees the\njudgment sweep across seven countries in the west--Aram, Philistia,\nPhoenicia, Edom, Ammon, Moab and Israel.[2] The sins denounced are,\ne.g., the barbarities of warfare and the cruelties of the slave trade;\nbut Amos dwells with special emphasis and detail on the sins of Israel,\nas that is the country to which, though a Judean, he has been specially\nsent, vii. 10, 15.\n[Footnote 1: Note the refrains in i., ii., cf. i. 3, 6; iii.-vi. are\nheld together by three \"hears,\" iii. 1, iv. 1, v. 1, and apparently\nby three \"woes,\" v. 7 (emended text), v. 18, vi. 1; so the visions\nin vii.-ix. are introduced by \"Thus hath (the Lord Jehovah) shown\nme.\"]\n[Footnote 2: It is difficult to believe that the colourless oracle\nagainst Judah, ii. 4, 5, couched in perfectly general terms, is\noriginal. Doubts that are not unreasonable have also been raised\nregarding the oracle against Edom, i. 11, 12.]\n\nIn the next section (_b_) he begins by asserting that Israel's\nreligious prerogative will only the more certainly ensure her\ndestruction, and justifies his threat of doom by his irrepressible\nassurance of having heard the divine voice, iii. 1-8. The doom is\ndeserved because of the rapacity, luxury, iii. 9-15, and\ndrunkenness, iv. 1-3, nor will their sumptuous worship save them,\niv. 4, 5. Warnings enough they have had already, but as they have\nall been disregarded, God will come in some more terrible way, iv.\n6-13. Then follows a lament, v. 1-3, and an appeal to hate the evil\nand seek God and the good, v. 4-15; otherwise He will come in\njudgment and the \"day of Jehovah,\" for which the people long, will\nbe a day of storm and utter darkness, v. 16-20. To-day, as in the\ntime of the Exodus, Jehovah's demands are not ritual but moral, and\nthe neglect of them will end in captivity, v. 21-27. The luxury and\nself-assurance of the people are again scornfully denounced, and the\ndoom of exile foretold (vi.).\n\n(_c_) Then follow visions of destruction from locusts and\ndrought, vii. 1-6, the vision of the plumbline, symbolical of the\nstraightness to which Israel has failed to conform, vii. 7-9, the\nvision of the summer fruit, which, by a play upon words, portended\nthe end, viii. 1-3, and the vision of the ruined temple, ix. 1-7.\nThese visions are interrupted by the exceedingly interesting and\ninstructive story of the encounter of the prophet with the\nsupercilious courtier-priest of Bethel, and Amos's fearless\nreiteration of his message, vii. 10-17; and also by the section\nviii. 4-14, with its exposition of the evils and its threats of\njudgment--a section more akin to iii.-vi. than to vii.-ix. The book\nconcludes with an outlook on the redemption and prosperity which\nwill follow in the Messianic age, ix. 8-15. It is hardly possible\nthat this outlook can be Amos's own. In one whose interest in\nmorality was so overwhelming, it would be strange, though perhaps\nnot impossible, that the golden age should be described in terms so\nexclusively material; but the historical implications of the passage\nare not those of Amos's time. It is further an express contradiction\nof the immediately preceding words, ix. 2-5, in which, with dreadful\nearnestness, the prophet has expressed the thought of an inexorable\nand inevitable judgment from which there is no escape. Besides,\nwhile Amos addresses Israel, this passage deals with Judah,\npresupposes the fall[1] of the dynasty (cf. _v_. 11) and the\nadvent of the exile (ix. 14, 15).[2]\n[Footnote 1: Even if only the decay were pre-supposed, the words\nwould be quite inapplicable to the long and prosperous reign of\nUzziah, i. 1.]\n[Footnote: The authenticity of a few other passages, cf. viii. 11,\n12, has been doubted for reasons that are not always convincing.\nMost doubt attaches to the great doxologies, iv. 13, v. 8, 9, ix. 5,\n6. The utmost that can be said with safety is that these passages\nare in no case necessary to the context, while v. 8, 9 is a distinct\ninterruption, but that the conception of God suggested by them, as\nomnipotent and omnipresent, is not at all beyond the theological\nreach of Amos.]\n\nAmos must have had predecessors, ii. 11; but even so the range and\nboldness of his thought are astonishing. History, reflection and\nrevelation have convinced him that Israel has had unique religious\nprivileges, iii. 2; nevertheless she stands under the moral laws by\nwhich all the world is bound, and which even the heathen\nacknowledge, iii. 9--Amos has nothing to say of any written law\nspecially given to Israel--and by these laws she will be condemned\nto destruction, if she is unfaithful, just as surely as the\nPhilistines and Phoenicians (i.). Indeed, so sternly impartial is\nAmos that he at times even seems to challenge the prerogative of\nIsrael. The Philistines and Arameans had their God-guided exodus no\nless than Israel, and she is no more to Jehovah than the swarthy\npeoples of Africa, ix. 7. The universal and inexorable claims of the\nmoral law have never had a more relentless exponent than Amos; and,\nthough there is in him a soul of pity, vii. 2, 5, it was his\npeculiar task, not to proclaim the divine love, but to plead for\nsocial justice. God is just and man must be so too. Perhaps Amos's\nmessage is all the more daring and refreshing that he was not a\nprofessional prophet, vii. 14. His culture, though not formal, is of\nthe profoundest. He is familiar with distant peoples, ix. 7, he has\nthought long and deeply about the past, he knows the influences that\nare moulding the present. The religion for which he pleaded was not\na thing of rites and ceremonies, but an ideal of social justice--a\njustice which would not be checked at every step by avarice and\ncruelty, but would flow on and on like the waves of the sea, v. 24.\n\n\n\n\nOBADIAH\n\n\nThe book of Obadiah--shortest of all the prophetic books--is\noccupied, in the main, as the superscription suggests, with the fate\nof Edom. Her people have been humbled, the high and rocky fastnesses\nin which they trusted have not been able to save them. Neighbouring\nArab tribes have successfully attacked them and driven them from\ntheir home (_vv_, 1-7).[1] This is the divine penalty for their\ncruel and unbrotherly treatment of the Jews after the siege of\nJerusalem, _vv_. 10-14, 15_b_. Nay, a day of divine\nvengeance is coming upon all the heathen, when Judah will utterly\ndestroy Edom, and once again possess all the land, north, south,\neast and west, that was formerly theirs, and the kingdom shall be\nJehovah's, _vv_. 15_a_, 16-21.\n[Footnote 1: Verses 8, 9, which imply that the catastrophe is yet to\ncome, and speak of Edom in the third person, appear to be later than\nthe context. For \"thy mighty men, O Teman,\" in _v_. 9_a_,\nprobably we should read, \"the mighty men of Teman.\"]\n\n\nThe date of the prophecy seems to be fixed by the unmistakable\nallusion in _vv_. 11-14 to the capture of Jerusalem by\nNebuchadrezzar in 586 B.C.--an occasion on which the Edomites\nabetted the Babylonians (Ezek. xxxv.; Lam. iv. 21 ff.; Ps. cxxxvii.\n7). But the case is gravely complicated by the similarity, which is\nmuch too close to be accidental, between Obadiah 1-9 and the oracle\nagainst Edom in Jeremiah, xlix. 7-22 (especially _vv_. 14-16,\n9, 10, 7, 22); and, though in one or two places the text of Obadiah\nis superior (cf. Ob. 2, 3; Jer. xlix. 15, 16), the resemblance is\nsuch that the passage in Jeremiah must be dependent on Obadiah. Now\nthe date assigned to Jeremiah's oracle is 605 B.C. (xlvi. 2); but\nobviously Jeremiah could not adopt in 605 a prophecy which was not\nwritten till 586. A way out of this difficulty has usually been\nsought in the assumption that both prophets have made use, in\ndifferent ways, of an older oracle against Edom, _vv_. 1-9 or\n10. But there is no adequate reason for separating _vv_. 11-14,\nwhich must refer to the capture of Jerusalem in 586, from _vv_.\n1-7. The assumption just mentioned becomes quite unnecessary when we\nremember that Jeremiah xlix. 7-22, as we have already seen, is\nprobably, at least in its present form, from a period very much\nlater than Jeremiah. The priority therefore rests with Obadiah,\nwhose prophecy has been utilized in Jeremiah xlix.\n\nIn _vv_. 1-7 the catastrophe is not predicted for Edom, it has\nalready fallen: it was probably an earlier stage of the Bedawin\nassaults, whose desolating effect upon Edom is described in Malachi\ni. 1-5, and must therefore be relegated to a period about the middle\nof the fifth century. We are probably not far from the truth in\ndating Obadiah 1-14 about 500 B.C. The memory of Edom's cruelty\nwould still rankle a generation after the return.\n\nBut in _vv_. 15_a_, 16-21 the literary and religious\ncolouring is different; _vv_. 1-14 is marked by a certain\ngraphic vigour, _vv_. 15-21 is diffuse. The judgment of Edom in\n_vv_. 1-14 is in _vv_. 15-21 made only an episode in a\ngreat world-judgment. Above all, in _v_. 1 the nations are to\nexecute this judgment, in _v_. 15 they are to be the victims of\nit. Further, _vv_. 19, 20 seem to imply an extensive dispersion\nof the Jews. Probably, therefore, this passage expresses the bold\neschatological hopes of a later time, when Judah was to be finally\nredeemed and the heathen annihilated. The section may be later than\nthe oracle in Jeremiah xlix, as no use is made of it there.\n\n\n\n\nJONAH\n\n\nThe book of Jonah is, in some ways, the greatest in the Old\nTestament: there is no other which so bravely claims the whole world\nfor the love of God, or presents its noble lessons with so winning\nor subtle an art. Jonah, a Hebrew prophet, is divinely commanded to\npreach to Nineveh, the capital of the great Assyrian empire of his\nday. To escape the unwelcome task of preaching to a heathen people,\nhe takes ship for the distant west, only to be overtaken by a storm,\nand thrown into the sea, when, by the lot, it is discovered that he\nis the cause of the storm. He is immediately swallowed by a fish, in\nthe belly of which he remains three days and nights (i.). Then\nfollows a prayer: after which the prophet is thrown up by the fish\nupon the land (ii.). This time he obeys the divine command, and his\npreaching is followed by a general repentance, which causes God to\nspare the wicked city (iii.), whereat Jonah is greatly displeased;\nbut, by a new and miraculous experience, he is taught the shame and\nfolly of his anger, and the infinite greatness of the divine love\n(iv.).\n\nOn the face of it, the narrative is not meant to be strictly\nhistorical. Its place among the prophetic books shows that its\nimportance lies, not in its facts, but in the truths for which it\npleads. Much detail is wanting which we should expect to find were\nthe narrative pure history, e.g. the name of the Assyrian king, the\nresults of Jonah's mission, etc. Other circumstances stamp it as\nunhistorical: considering the poor success the Hebrew prophets had\nin their own land, such a wholesale conversion of a foreign city,\neven if such a visit as Jonah's were likely, must be regarded as\nextremely improbable, to say nothing of the impossibility of the\nanimals fasting and wearing sackcloth, iii. 7, 8. The miraculous\nfish and the miraculous tree which grew up in a single night forbid\nus to look for history in the book. Nineveh's fame is a thing of the\npast, iii. 3; the book is written after, probably long after, its\nfall in 606 B.C. The lateness of the book and its remoteness from\nthe events it records, are proved in other ways. Its language has\nthe Aramaic flavour of the later books, and such a phrase as \"the\nGod of heaven,\" i. 9, only occurs in post-exilic literature. It\ncontains several reminiscences of late books[1] (e.g. Joel?), and\nits ideas are most intelligible as the product of post-exilic times,\nespecially if it be regarded as a protest against a loveless and\nnarrow-hearted type of Judaism. All the conditions point to a date\nnot much, if at all, earlier than 300 B.C.\n[Footnote 1: There are many points of contact between the prayer in\nJonah ii. and the Psalter; but the prayer must be later than the\noriginal book of Jonah. It is in reality not a prayer but a psalm of\ngratitude, and is quite inappropriate to Jonah's horrible situation\nin the belly of the fish. Even if the metaphors from the sea were\ninterpreted literally, they would not be applicable to Jonah's case;\ne.g., \"the weeds were wrapped about my head,\" _v_. 5. The\nPsalm, which is partly, but not altogether, a compilation, must have\nbeen inserted here by a later hand, hardly by the author of the\nbook, who would have noticed the impropriety of it.]\n\nJonah is himself a historical character; there is no reason to doubt\nthat the prophet, in whose time Nineveh is standing, i. 2, is\ncontemporary with the Jonah mentioned in 2 Kings xiv. 25 as living\nin the reign of Jeroboam II, and prophesying the restoration of\nIsrael to its ancient boundaries. It may have been as the\nrepresentative of an intense and exclusive nationalism that he was\nchosen as the hero of this book. Here and there the story trenches\non Babylonian and Greek legend, but the spirit, if not also the\nform, is altogether the author's own.\n\nThe book abounds in religious suggestion; even its incidental\ntouches are illuminating. It suggests that man cannot escape his\ndivinely appointed destiny, and that God's will must be done. It\nsuggests that prophecy is conditional; a threatened destruction can\nbe averted by repentance. It is peculiarly interesting to find so\ngenerous an attitude towards the religious susceptibilities and\ncapacities of foreigners: in this we are reminded of Jesus' parable\nof the good Samaritan. The foreign sailors cry, in their perplexity,\nto their gods, and end by acknowledging the God of Israel; the\npeople of Nineveh repent at the prophet's preaching. All this forms\na splendid foil to the smallness and obstinacy of Jonah. With his\nmean views of God, he would not only exclude the heathen from the\ndivine mercy, but rejoice in their destruction. In this the prophet\nis typical of later Judaism, with its longing for the annihilation\nof the nations as the obverse of the redemption of Zion. This\nattitude was greatly encouraged by the rigorous legislation of Ezra;\nand Jonah, like Ruth, may be a protest against it, or at least\nagainst the bigotry which it engendered. If Israel is, in any sense,\nan elect people, she is but elected to carry the message of\nrepentance to the heathen; and the book of Jonah is indirectly,\nthough not perhaps in the intention of the author, a plea for\nforeign missions.\n\nThe greatest lesson of the book is skilfully reserved to the end,\niv, 2, 10, 11. It is that God is patient and merciful, that He loves\nall the world which He created, that His love stretches not only\nbeyond the Jews and away to distant Nineveh, but even down to the\nanimal creation. He hears the prayer of the foreign sailors, He\ndelights in the repentance of Nineveh, He cares for the cattle, iv.\n11. This book is the Old Testament counterpart to \"God so loved the\nworld.\"\n\n\n\n\nMICAH\n\n\nMicah must have been a very striking personality. Like Amos, he was\na native of the country--somewhere in the neighbourhood of Gath; and\nhe denounces with fiery earnestness the sins of the capital cities,\nSamaria in the northern kingdom, and Jerusalem in the southern. To\nhim these cities seem to incarnate the sins of their respective\nkingdoms, i. 5; and for both ruin and desolation are predicted, i.\n6, iii. 12. Micah expresses with peculiar distinctness the sense of\nhis inspiration and the object for which it is given; he is\nconscious of being filled with the spirit of Jehovah to declare unto\nJacob his transgression and unto Israel his sin, iii. 8. In his\nringing sincerity, he must have formed a strange contrast to the\nprophets who regulated their message by their income, iii. 5, and\npreached to a people whose conscience was slumbering, a welcome\ngospel of materialism, ii. 11.\n\nThe words of Micah must have burned themselves into the memories, if\nnot the consciences, of his generation; for more than a hundred\nyears after--though doubtless by this time the prophecy was written--we\nfind his unfulfilled prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem\nalluded to by the elders who pled for the life of Jeremiah, xxvi.\n17ff. It is certain from this reference that he prophesied during\nthe reign of Hezekiah; whether also under Jotham and Ahaz (Mic. i.\n1) is not so certain, and depends upon whether his prophecy of the\ndestruction of Samaria, i. 6, was made before, or as seems equally\npossible, after the capture of that city in 721 B.C. At any rate his\nmessage was addressed to Judah, and must have fallen (at least i.-iii.)\nbefore 701 B.C.--the year in which the city was saved beyond all\n expectation from an attack by Sennacherib, iii. 12.\n\nMicah begins by describing the coming of Jehovah. He is coming in\njudgment upon Samaria and Jerusalem, the wicked capitals of wicked\nkingdoms, i. 1-9; and in the difficult verses, i. 10-16, the\ndevastating march of the enemy through Judah is allusively described.\nThe judgment is thoroughly justified--it is due to the violent and\ngrasping spirit of the wealthy, who do not scruple to crush the poor\nand defenceless, ii. 1-11. The prophet then[1] brings his charge in\ndetail against the leaders of the people--officials, judges, priests,\nprophets--accuses them of being mercenary and time-serving, and ends\nwith the terrible threat that the holy hill will one day be made a\n desolation (iii.).\n[Footnote 1: Ch. ii. 12, 13, which interrupt the stern address of\nthe prophet, ii. 11, iii. 1 with a promise which implies that Israel\nis scattered, are probably exilic; they can hardly be Micah's.]\n\nThese chapters are assigned almost unanimously to Micah. But serious\ncritical difficulties are raised in connection with the rest of the\nbook. Chs. iv. and v. constitute a section by themselves, and may be\nconsidered separately. Their general theme is the certainty of\nsalvation, but it is quite clear that they do not form an original\nunity; iv. 1-4, e.g., with its generous attitude to the foreign\nnations, is inconsistent with iv. 11-13, which predicts their\ndestruction. Again, iv. 10 describes a siege of Jerusalem, which is\nto issue in exile, iv. 11-13, a siege which is to end in the\nannihilation of the besiegers. Similar difficulties characterize ch.\nv; in _vv_. 7-9, 15 the enemies are to be destroyed.\n\nNo consecutive outline of the chapters is possible in their present\ndisconnected form. Ch. iv. 1-5 describes the Messianic age, in which\nthe nations will come to Jerusalem to have their cases peacefully\narbitrated, iv. 6-8 promise that those scattered (in exile) will be\ngathered again, and the kingdom of Judah restored. Siege of\nJerusalem, exile, and redemption, iv. 9, 10. Unsuccessful siege of\nJerusalem and annihilation of the enemy, iv. 11-13. Another siege:\nIsrael's suffering, v. 1. Promise of a victorious king, v. 2-4.\nJudah's victory over Assyria, v. 5, 6 and all her enemies, v. 7-9.\nAll the apparatus of war and idolatry will be removed from the land,\nv. 10-14, and vengeance taken on the enemy, v. 15.\n\nThe summary shows how disjointed the chapters are. They may not\nimpossibly contain reminiscences or even utterances of Micah; e.g.\nthe prediction of the fatal siege, v. 1, or of the overthrow of\nidolatry, v. 10-14. But many elements could not possibly be Micah's:\ne.g. iv. 8 implies that the kingdom of Judah is already a thing of\nthe past. iv. 6 postulates the exile,[1] and the prophecy of exile\nto Babylon, iv. 10, would be unnatural in Micah's time, when Assyria\nwas the dominant power.[2]  Again it is exceedingly improbable that\nMicah would have blunted the edge of his terrible threat in iii. 12\nby following it up with so brilliant a promise as iv. 1-4,\nespecially as not a word is said about the need of repentance. The\nstory in Jeremiah xxvi. 17ff. raises the legitimate doubt whether\nMicah's prophecy, which was certainly one of threatening, iii. 12,\nalso contained elements of promise. On the whole it seems best to\nassume that the fine picture of the glory and importance of Zion in\nthe latter days, iv. 1-4, was set by some later writer as a foil to\nthe stern threat with which the original prophecy closed, cf. Isaiah\nii. 1-4. Chs. iv. and v. may be regarded as a collection of\nprophecies emphasizing the certainty of salvation and intended to\nsupplement i.-iii.\n[Footnote 1: This might conceivably, though not very naturally,\nrefer to the deportation of _Israel_ in 721.]\n[Footnote 2: Some retain iv. 9, 10 for Micah, and assume either that\nthe Babylon clause is a later interpolation, or that Babylon has\ndisplaced another proper name.]\n\nChs. vi. and vii. take us again into another atmosphere, more like\nMicah's own. The people, who attempt to defend themselves against\nJehovah's charge of ingratitude on the plea that they are ignorant\nof His demands, are reminded that those demands are ancient and\nsimple: justice, love as between man and man, and a humble walk with\nGod, vi. 1-8. But instead, dishonesty and injustice are rampant\neverywhere, and the judgment of God is inevitable, vi. 9-16. The\nprophet laments the utter and universal degradation of the people,\nwhich has corrupted even the intimacies of family life, vii. 1-6. In\nthe rest of the chapter the blow predicted has already fallen; in\ntheir sorrow the people await the fulfilment of Jehovah's purpose in\npatience and faith, pray to Him to restore the land which once was\ntheirs on the east of the Jordan, and thus to compel from the\nheathen an acknowledgment of His power. He is the incomparable God\nwho can forgive and restore, vii. 7-20.\n\nThe accusations and laments of these two chapters come very strangely\nafter the repeated promises of chs. iv. and v.; and if the whole book\nhad been by Micah, it is hardly possible that this order should have\nbeen original. Probably these chapters were appended to Micah's book\nbecause of several features which they have in common with i.-iii.:\nnotice, e.g., the prominence of the word \"hear,\" i. 2, iii. 1, 9,\nvi. 1, 9, Most scholars agree with Ewald in supposing that these\nchapters--at any rate vi. i-vii. 6--come from the reign of Manasseh.\nThe situation is that of i.-iii., only aggravated: the reference to\nAhab, vi. 16, with whom Manasseh is compared in 2 Kings xxi. 3, points\nin the same direction. Even if written in this reign, Micah may still\nhave been the author; but the general manner of the chapters and the\nindividuality they reveal appear to be different from his. But,\nconsidering their noble insistence upon the moral elements in religion\n(esp. vi. 6-8) they are, if not his, yet not inappropriately appended\nto his book. The concluding section, however, vii. 7-20, is almost\ncertainly post-exilic. The punishment has come, therefore the exile is\nthe earliest possible date. But there are exiles not only in Babylon,\nbut scattered far and wide throughout the world, vii. 12, and there is\nthe expectation that the walls of Jerusalem will be rebuilt, vii. 11.\nAs this took place under Nehemiah, the section will fall before his\ntime (500-450 B.C.). This passage of promise and consolation is a foil\nto vi. 1-vii. 6, intended to sustain the same relation to that section\nas iv., v. to i.-iii.\n\nThus many hands appear to have contributed to the little book of\nMicah, and the voices of two or three centuries may be heard in it:\nearlier words of threatening and judgment are answered by later\nwords of hope and consolation. But wherever else the true Micah is\nto be found--and his spirit at any rate is certainly in vi. 6-8--he\nis undoubtedly present in i.-iii. It is a peculiar piece of good\nfortune that we should possess the words of two contemporary\nprophets who differed so strikingly as Micah the peasant and Isaiah\nthe statesman. Unlike Isaiah, Micah has nothing to say about foreign\npolitics and their bearing upon religion; he confines himself\nseverely to its moral aspects, and like Amos, that other prophet of\nthe country, hurls his accusations and makes his high ethical\ndemands, with an almost fierce power, iii. 2, 3. His prophecy\njustifies his claim to speak in the power and inspiration of his\nGod, iii. 8.\n\n\n\n\nNAHUM\n\n\nPoetically the little book of Nahum is one of the finest in the Old\nTestament. Its descriptions are vivid and impetuous: they set us before\nthe walls of the beleaguered Nineveh, and show us the war-chariots of\nher enemies darting to and fro like lightning, ii. 4, the prancing\nsteeds, the flashing swords, the glittering spears, iii. 2,3. The\npoetry glows with passionate joy as it contemplates the ruin of cruel\nand victorious Assyria.\n\nIn the opening chapter, i., ii. 2, Jehovah is represented as coming\nin might and anger to take vengeance upon the enemies of Judah, whom\nHe is to destroy so completely that not a trace of them will be\nleft; and Judah, now delivered, will be free to worship her God in\npeace. In ch. ii. the enemy, through whom Assyria's destruction is\nto be wrought, is at the gates of Nineveh, _v_. 8, in all the\nfierce pomp of war. The city is doomed, the defenders flee,\neverywhere is desolation and ruin, the ravenous Assyrian lion is\nslain by the sword. It is because of her sins that this utter ruin\nis coming upon her, iii. 1-7, nor need she think to escape; for the\npopulous and all but impregnable Thebes (No-Amon) was taken, and\nNineveh's fate will be the same. Already the people are quaking for\nfear, some of the strongholds of Assyria are taken; it is time to\nprepare to defend the capital. But there is no hope, her doom is\nalready sealed, iii. 8-19.\n\nFrom the historical implications of the prophecy, which belongs, as\nwe shall see, to the seventh century, and also from definite\nallusions (cf. i. 15), Nahum must have been a Judean; and, of the\nthree traditions concerning Elkosh his birthplace, which place it\nrespectively in Mesopotamia, in Galilee, and near Eleutheropolis in\nsouthern Judah, the last must be held to be very much the most\nprobable. Within certain limits, the date is easy to fix. Ch. iii.\n8-10, which are historically the most concrete verses in the\nprophecy, imply the capture of Thebes, which we now know to have\nbeen taken by the Assyrians in 663 B.C. On the other hand, Nineveh\nhas not yet fallen: the theme of the prophecy is just the certainty\nof its fall. It was taken by the Medians under Kyaxares, leagued\nwith Nabopolassar of Babylon in 606 B.C. The prophecy therefore\nfalls between 663 and 606.\n\nThe fixing of the precise date depends on two considerations: (1)\nwhether the allusion to Thebes in iii. 8-10 implies that its capture\nwas very recent, and (2) whether we must suppose that the prophecy\nwas inspired by a definite historical situation. It is usually felt\nthat the reference to Thebes implies that the memory of its capture\nis fresh, and that the prophecy must stand very near it--not later\nperhaps than 650; and just about this time there was a Babylonian\nrebellion against Assyria. This date must be regarded as by no means\nimpossible. On the whole, however, a later date appears to be\ndistinctly more probable The last few verses, iii. 12f., 18f., imply\nthe thorough weakness, disorganization and impending dissolution of\nthe Assyrian empire, and so early a date as 650 hardly meets the\ncase. We must apparently come down to the time when the fate of\nNineveh was obviously inevitable and her conqueror was on the way,\nii. 1. Probably Marti is not far from the truth in suggesting 610\nB.C. The reference to Thebes is intelligible even at this later\ndate, when we remember that the capture of so strong a city, already\nfamous in Homer's time, must have left an indelible impression on\nthe mind of Western Asia. It is no doubt abstractly possible that\nthe prophecy is not intimately connected with any historical\nsituation, and therefore might be much earlier; but to say nothing\nof the concreteness of the detail, such a supposition would be\naltogether contrary to the analogy of Hebrew prophecy. When Jehovah\nreveals His secret to the prophets, it is because He is about to do\nsomething (Amos iii. 7).\n\nThe concreteness of detail just alluded to is characteristic only of\nthe second and third chapters. Ch. i., however, is confessedly\nvague, and moves for the most part along the familiar lines of\ntheophanic descriptions. It is not plain in i. (cf. ii. 8) who are\nthe enemies to be destroyed, as i. 1 is probably a later addition.\nFurther, as far as _v_. 10 the prophecy is alphabetic: this\ncircumstance has given rise to the view that i., ii. 2 originally\nformed a complete alphabetic psalm whose second half has either been\nworked over, or displaced by i. 11-15, ii. 2, the object of the\npsalm being to present a general picture of the judgment into which\nthe particular doom of Nineveh is fitted, and to give the prophecy a\ntheological complexion which it appeared to need. The acknowledged\nvagueness of the chapter and the demonstrably alphabetic nature of\nat least part of it, certainly render its authenticity very\ndoubtful.\n\nThe theological interest of Nahum is great. It is the first prophecy\ndealing exclusively with the enemies of Judah. There is a hint of\nthe sin of Nineveh, but little more than a hint, iii. 1, 4; she is\nthe enemy and oppressor of Judah, and that is enough to justify her\ndoom. Whether we accept the earlier or the later date for the\nprophecy, the reign of Manasseh or that of Josiah, the moral\ncondition of Judah herself was deplorable enough, and so clear-eyed\na prophet as Jeremiah saw that her doom was inevitable. Nahum\nprobably represents the sentiment of narrowly patriotic party, which\nregarded Jerusalem as inviolable, and Jehovah as a jealous God ready\nto take vengeance upon the enemies of Judah.\n\n\n\n\nHABAKKUK\n\n\nThe precise interpretation of the book of Habakkuk presents unusual\ndifficulties; but, brief and difficult as it is, it is clear that\nHabakkuk was a great prophet, of earnest, candid soul, and he has\nleft us one of the noblest and most penetrating words in the history\nof religion, ii. 4_b_. The prophecy may be placed about the\nyear 600 B.C. The Assyrian empire had fallen, and by the battle of\nCarchemish in 605 B.C., Babylonian supremacy was practically\nestablished over Western Asia. Josiah's reformation, whose effects\nhad been transient and superficial, lay more than twenty years\nbehind. The reckless Jehoiakim was upon the throne of Judah, a king\nwho regarded neither the claims of justice (Jer. xxii. 13-19) nor\nthe words of the prophet (Jer. xxxvi. 23), and his rebellion drew\nupon him and his land the terrible vengeance of Babylon, first in\n601 B.C., then in 597.\n\nThe prophet begins by asking his God how long the lamentable\ndisorder and wrong are to continue, i. 1-4. For answer, he is\nassured that the Chaldeans are to be raised up in chastisement, who,\nwith their terrible army, will mockingly defy every attempt to check\ntheir advance, i. 5-11, But in i. 12-17 the prophet appears to be\nconfounded by their impiety; they have been guilty of barbarous\ncruelty--how can Jehovah reconcile this with His own holiness and\npurity? The prophet finds the answer to his question when he climbs\nhis tower of faith; there he learns that the proud shall perish and\nthe righteous live. The solution may be long delayed, but faith sees\nand grasps it already: \"The just shall live by his faithfulness,\"\nii. 1-4. Then follows a series of woes, ii. 5-20, which expand the\nthought of ii. 4_a_--the sure destruction of the proud. Woes\nare denounced upon the cruel rapacity of the conquerors, their\nunjust accumulation of treasure, their futile ambitions, their\nunfeeling treatment of the land, beasts and people, and finally\ntheir idolatry. In contrast to the stupid and impotent gods\nworshipped by the oppressor is the great God of Israel, whose temple\nis in the heavens, and before whom the earth is summoned to silence,\nii. 20. For He is on His way to take vengeance upon the enemies of\nHis people, as He did in the ancient days of the exodus, when He\ncame in the terrors of the storm and overthrew the Egyptians. His\ncoming is described in terms of older theophanies (Jud. v., Deut.\nxxxiii.); and this \"prayer,\" as it is called in the superscription,\nconcludes with an expression of unbounded confidence and joy in\nJehovah, even when all customary and visible signs of His love fail\n(iii.).\n\nSimple and coherent as this sequence seems to be, it is, in reality,\non closer inspection, very perplexing. Ch. i. 1-4 reveals a picture\nof confusion within Judah, but it is impossible to say whether it is\nforeigners who are oppressing Judah as a whole, or powerful classes\nwithin Judah itself that are oppressing the poor. Perhaps the latter\nis the more natural interpretation. In that case, the Chaldeans are\nraised up to chastise the native oppressor, i. 5-11. This section,\nhowever, has fresh difficulties of its own; _vv_. 5, 6 suggest\nthat the Chaldeans are not yet known to be a formidable power, they\nare only about to be raised up, _v_. 6, and what they will do\nis as yet incredible, _v_. 5. The minute description which\nfollows, however, looks as if their military appearance and methods\nwere thoroughly familiar. Assuming that i. 12-17 is the continuation\nof i. 5-ll--and the descriptions are very similar--the Chaldeans,\nwhose coming was the answer to the prophet's prayer, now constitute\na fresh problem; they swallow up those who are more righteous than\nthemselves, _v_. 13, i.e. Judah. It cannot be denied that such\na characterization of Judah sounds strange after the charge levelled\nat her in i. 1-4, unless we assume an interval of time between the\nsections, or at least that in i. 12-17, Judah is regarded as\nrelatively righteous, i.e. in comparison with the Chaldeans.\n\nThe situation is further complicated by the very close resemblance\nthat prevails between i. 1-4 and i. 12-17. The very same words for\n_righteous_ and _wicked_ occur in i. 13 as in i. 4; do they\nor do they not designate the same persons? If they do, then, as in\ni. 12-17, the wicked oppressor is almost certainly the Chaldean and\nthe righteous is Judah, and we shall have to interpret the confusion\npictured in i. 2-4 as due to the Chaldean suzerainty, and perhaps to\nassign the section to a period after the first capture of Jerusalem\nin 597 B.C. In that case, as it is obvious that the Chaldeans could\nnot be raised up to execute divine judgment upon themselves, the\nsection, i. 5-11, would have to be regarded as an independent piece,\nwhether Habakkuk's or not, announcing the rise of the Chaldeans, and\nnot inappropriately placed here, considering that the sections on both\nsides of it have the Chaldeans for their theme. On the other hand,\nhowever, it may be urged that the identification of the righteous and\nwicked in i. 13 with i. 4, though natural,[1] is not necessary; and by\ndenying it the prophecy becomes distinctly more coherent. The wrong done\nby Judah, i. 1-4, is avenged by the coming of the Chaldeans, i. 5-11;\nthey, however, having overstepped the limits of their divine commission,\nonly aggravate the prophet's problem, i. 12-17, and he finally finds the\nsolution on his watch-tower, in the assurance that somehow, despite all\n seeming delay, the purpose of God is hastening on to its fulfilment, and\nthat the moral constitution of the world is such as to spell the ultimate\nruin of cruelty and pride and the ultimate triumph of righteousness,\nii. 1-4. His faith was historically justified by the fall of the\nBabylonian empire in 538 B.C.\n[Footnote 1: Some scholars feel so strongly that the historical\nbackground of i. 1-4 and i. 12-17 is the same, that they regard the\nlatter section as the direct continuation of the former. Budde,\nfollowed by Cornill, ingeniously supposes that the oppressor in\nthese two sections is the Assyrian (about 615 B.C.), and it is this\npower that the Chaldeans, i. 5-11, are raised up to chastise. These\nscholars put i. 5-11 after ii. 4 as a historical amplification of\nits moral and more indefinite statement. But the strength of\nHabakkuk rather seems to lie in this, that he abandons the immediate\nhistorical solution, i. 5, and is content with the moral one, ii. 4,\nthough no doubt he believes that the moral solution will realize\nitself in history.]\n\nThe authenticity[1] of some of the woes in ch. ii. may be contested,\ne.g. _vv._ 12-14, which appears to be a partial reproduction of\nJer. li. 58, Isa. xi. 9. It is very improbable that ch. iii. is\nHabakkuk's: it is not even certain that the poem is a unity. The\nsituation in _vv._ 17-19 (especially _v._ 17) seems\ndifferent from that in the rest of the chapter: there an enemy was\nfeared, here rather infertility. Again the general temper of the ode\nis hardly that of ii. 3, 4. There the vision was to be delayed, here\nthe interposition seems to be impatiently awaited and expected soon.\nIf \"thine anointed\" in iii. 13 refers to the people--and the\nparallelism makes this almost certain--then the days of the monarchy\nare over and the poem cannot be earlier than the exile. Probably, as\nthe superscription, subscription, and threefold _Selah_\nsuggest, we have here a post-exilic psalm. The psalm, however, is\nfittingly enough associated with the prophecy of Habakkuk. Its\nbelief in the accomplishment of the divine purpose and its emphasis\non a faith independent of the things of sight, are akin in spirit,\nthough not in form to ii. 4.\n[Footnote 1: Marti explains the book thus: (_a_) i. 2-4,\n12_a_, 13, ii. 1-4, a psalm, belonging to the fifth or perhaps\nthe second century, giving the divine answer to the plaint that\njudgment is delayed; (_b_) i. 5-11, 12_b_, 14-17, a\nprophecy about 605 B.C. dealing with the effect of the battle of\nCarchemish; (_c_) ii. 5-19, the woes: about 540, when the\nChaldean empire is nearing its end; (_d_) iii., a post-exilic\npsalm.]\n\nPatience and faith are the watch-words of Habakkuk, ii. 3, 4. There\nwas a time when he had expected an adequate historical solution to\nhis doubts in his own day, i. 5; but, as he contemplates the immoral\nprogress of the Chaldeans, he recognizes his difficulty to be only\naggravated by this solution, and he is content to commit the future\nto God. He is comforted and strengthened by a larger vision of the\ndivine purpose and its inevitable triumph--if not now, then\nhereafter. \"Though it tarry, wait for it, for it is sure to come, it\nwill not lag behind.\" That purpose wills the triumph of justice, and\nthough the righteous may seem to perish, in reality he lives, and\nshall continue to live, by his faithfulness.\n\n\n\n\nZEPHANIAH\n\n\nIf the Hezekiah who was Zephaniah's great-great-grandfather, i. 1,\nwas, as is probable, the king of that name, then Zephaniah was a\nprince as well as a prophet, and this may lend some point to his\ndenunciation of the princes who imitated foreign customs, i. 8. He\nprophesied in the reign of Josiah, i. 1, and the fact that he censures\nnot the king but the king's children, i. 8, points to the period when\nJosiah was still a minor (about or before 626 B.C.). With this\ncoincides his description of the moral and religious condition of\nJudah, which necessitates a date prior to the reformation in 621.\nIdolatry, star-worship and impure Jehovah-worship are rampant,\ni. 4, 5, 9. The rich are easy-going and indifferent to religion,\nsupposing that God will leave the world to itself, i. 12. The people\nof Jerusalem are incorrigible, iii. 2, reckless of the lessons that\nGod has written in nature and history, iii. 5ff.; their leaders--princes,\nprophets, priests--are immoral or incompetent. The prophecy may be\nplaced between 630 and 626, and the prophet must have been a young man.\n\nTo this idolatrous and indifferent people he announces the speedy\ncoming of the day of Jehovah, whose terrors he describes with a\ncertain solemn grandeur (i.). The judgment is practically\ninevitable, i. 18, but it may perhaps yet be averted by an earnest\nquest of Jehovah, ii, 1-3. That judgment will sweep along the coast\nthrough the Philistine country, ii. 4-7, and on to Egypt, and\nafterwards turn northwards and utterly destroy Assyria with her\ngreat capital Nineveh, ii. 12-15. Again the prophet turns to\nJerusalem, and for the sins of her people and their leaders\nproclaims a general day of judgment, from which, however, the humble\nwill be saved, iii. 1-13 (except _vv_. 9, 10.). The book ends\nwith a fine vision of the latter days, when the dispersed of Judah\nwill be restored to their own land, and rejoice in the omnipotent\nlove of their God, iii. 14-20.\n\nThe prophecy presents a very impressive picture of the day of Jehovah,\nbut it cannot all be from the pen of Zephaniah. Besides adopting a\nvery different attitude towards Jerusalem from the rest of the prophecy,\niii. 14-20 clearly presupposes the exile, _v_. 19, towards the end\nof which it was probably written. Ch. ii. 11, iii. 9, 10, containing\nideas which are hardly earlier than Deutero-Isaiah, are also probably\nexilic or post-exilic. The oracle against Moab and Ammon, ii. 8-10,\ncountries which lay off the line of the Scythian march southwards from\nPhilistia, _v_. 7, to Egypt, _v_. 12, are for linguistic,\ncontextual, and other reasons, also probably late.\n\nProphecy has practically always an historical occasion, and the\nthought of the black and terrible day of Jehovah was no doubt\nsuggested to Zephaniah by the formidable bands of roving Scythians\nwhich scoured Western Asia about this time, sweeping all before them\n(Hdt. i. 105). They do not seem to have touched Judah; but it is not\nsurprising that men like Jeremiah and Zephaniah should have regarded\nthem as divinely ordained ministers of vengeance upon Jehovah's\ndegenerate people.\n\n\n\n\nHAGGAI\n\n\nThe post-exilic age sharply distinguished itself from the pre-exilic\n(Zech. i. 4), and nowhere is the difference more obvious than in\nprophecy. Post-exilic prophecy has little of the literary or moral\npower of earlier prophecy, but it would be very easy to do less than\njustice to Haggai. His prophecy is very short; into two chapters is\ncondensed a summary, probably not even in his own words, of no less\nthan four addresses. Meagre as they may seem to us, they produced a\ngreat effect on those who heard them.\n\nThe addresses were delivered between September and December in the\nyear 520 B.C. The people were suffering from a drought, and in the\nfirst address, i. 1-11, Haggai interprets this as a penalty for\ntheir indifference to religion--in particular, for their neglect to\nbuild the temple. The effect of the appeal was that three weeks\nafterwards a beginning was made upon the building, i. 12-15. The\npeople, however, seem to be discouraged by the scantiness of their\nresources, and a month afterwards Haggai has to appeal to them\nagain, reminding them that with the silver and the gold, which are\nHis, Jehovah will soon make the new temple more glorious than the\nold, ii. 1-9. Two months later the prophet again reminds them that,\nas their former unholy indifference had infected all their life with\nfailure, so loyal devotion to the work now would ensure success and\nblessing, ii. 10-19; and on the same day Haggai assures Zerubbabel a\nunique place in the Messianic kingdom which is soon to be ushered\nin, ii. 20-23.\n\nThe appeals of Haggai and Zechariah were successful (Ezra v. 1, vi.\n14), and within four years the temple was rebuilt (Ezra vi. 15). It\nwas now the centre of national life, and therefore also of prophetic\ninterest. Haggai was probably not himself a priest, but in so short\na prophecy his elaborate allusion to ritual is very significant, ii.\n11ff. This prophecy, like pre-exilic prophecy, was no doubt\nconditioned by the historical situation. The allusion to the shaking\nof the world in ii. 7, 22, appears to be a reflection of the\ninsurrections which broke out all over the Persian empire on the\naccession of Darius to the throne in 521 B.C.; and probably the Jews\nwere encouraged by the general commotion to make a bold bid for the\nre-establishment of an independent national life. That they\ncherished the ambition of being once more a political as well as a\nreligious force, seems to be suggested by the frequency with which\nHaggai links the name of Zerubbabel, of the royal line of Judah,\nwith that of Joshua the high priest; and, in particular, by the\nextraordinary language applied to him--in ii. 23 he is the elect of\nJehovah, His servant and signet. Clearly he is to be king in the\nMessianic kingdom which is to issue out of the convulsion of the\nworld.\n\nIt cannot be safely inferred from ii. 3 that Haggai was among those\nwho had seen the temple of Solomon and was therefore a very old man.\nSimple as are his words, his faith is strong and his hope very bold.\nConsidering the meagre resources of the post-exilic community, it is\ntouching to note the confidence with which he assures the people\nthat Jehovah will bring together the treasures of the world to make\nHis temple glorious.\n\n\n\n\nZECHARIAH\n\n\nCHAPTERS I-VIII\n\nTwo months after Haggai had delivered his first address to the\npeople in 520 B.C., and a little over a month after the building of\nthe temple had begun (Hag. i. 15), Zechariah appeared with another\nmessage of encouragement. How much it was needed we see from the\npopular despondency reflected in Hag. ii. 3, Jerusalem is still\ndisconsolate (Zech. i. 17), there has been fasting and mourning,\nvii. 5, the city is without walls, ii. 5, the population scanty, ii.\n4, and most of the people are middle-aged, few old or young, viii.\n4, 5. The message they need is one of consolation and encouragement,\nand that is precisely the message that Zechariah brings: \"I have\ndetermined in these days to do good to Jerusalem and to the house of\nJudah; fear not,\" viii. 15.\n\nThe message of Zechariah comes in the peculiar form of visions, some\nof them resting apparently on Babylonian art, and not always easy to\ninterpret. After an earnest call to repentance, i. 1-6, the visions\nbegin, i. 7-vi. 8. In the first vision, i. 7-17, the earth, which\nhas been troubled, is at rest; the advent of the Messianic age may\ntherefore be expected soon. The divine promise is given that\nJerusalem shall be graciously dealt with and the temple rebuilt. The\nsecond is a vision, i. 18-21, of the annihilation of the heathen\nworld represented by four horns. The third vision (ii.)--that of a\nyoung man with a measuring-rod--announces that Jerusalem will be\nwide and populous, the exiles will return to it, and Jehovah will\nmake His abode there.\n\nThese first three visions have to do, in the main, with the city and\nthe people; the next two deal more specifically with the leaders of\nthe restored community on its civil and religious side, Zerubbabel\nthe prince and Joshua the priest. In the fourth vision (iii.) Joshua\nis accused by the Adversary and the accuser is rebuked--symbolic\npicture of the misery of the community and its imminent redemption.\nJoshua is to have full charge of the temple, and he and his priests\nare the guarantee that the Branch, i.e. the Messianic king (Jer.\nxxiii. 5, xxxiii, 15), no doubt Zerubbabel (Zech, iii. 8, vi. 12;\nHag. ii. 23), is coming. In the fifth vision (iv.)[1] the prophet\nsees a lampstand with seven lamps and an olive tree on either side,\nthe trees representing the two anointed leaders, Zerubbabel and\nJoshua, enjoying the divine protection.\n[Footnote 1: Except vv. 6b-10a, which appears to be a special\nassurance, hardly here in place, that Zerubbabel would finish the\ntemple which he had begun.]\n\nThe next two visions elaborate the promise of iii. 9: \"I will remove\nthe iniquity of that land,\"--and indicate the removal of all that\ntaints the land of Judah, alike sin and sinners. The flying roll of\nthe sixth vision, v. 1-4, carries the curse that will fall upon\nthieves and perjurers; and in the somewhat grotesque figure of the\nseventh vision, v. 5-11, Sin is personified as a woman and borne\naway in a closed cask by two women with wings like storks, to the\nland of Shinar, i.e. Babylon, there to work upon the enemy of Judah\nthe ruin she has worked for Judah herself. In the last vision, vi.\n1-8, which is correlate with the first--four chariots issuing from\nbetween two mountains of brass--the divine judgment is represented\nas being executed upon the north country, i.e. the country opposed\nto God, and particularly Babylonia.\n\nThe cumulative effect of the visions is very great. All that hinders\nthe coming of the Messianic days is to be removed, whether it be the\ngreat alien world powers or the sinners within Jerusalem itself. The\npurified city will be blessed with prosperity of every kind, and\nover her civil and religious affairs will be two leaders, who enjoy\na unique measure of the divine favour. In an appendix to the visions\nvi. 9-15, Zechariah is divinely commissioned to make a crown for\nZerubbabel (or for him and Joshua)[1] out of the gold and silver\nbrought by emissaries of the Babylonian Jews, and the hope is\nexpressed that peace will prevail between the leaders--a hope\nthrough which we may perhaps read a growing rivalry.\n[Footnote 1: It seems practically certain that the original prophecy\nin _v_. 11 has been subsequently modified, doubtless because it\nwas not fulfilled. The last clause of _v_. 13--\"the counsel of\npeace shall be between them _both\"_--shows that two persons\nhave just been mentioned. The preceding clause must therefore be\ntranslated, not as in A. V. and R. V., \"and _he_ shall be a\npriest upon his throne,\" as if the office of king and priest were to\nbe combined in a single person, but \"and _there_ shall be\" (or,\nas Wellhausen suggests, \"and _Joshua_ shall be\") \"a priest upon\nhis throne,\" (or no doubt more correctly, with the Septuagint, \"a\npriest _at his right hand_\"). As two persons are involved, and\nthe word \"crowns\" in v. 11 is in the plural, it has been supposed\nthat the verse originally read, \"set the crowns _upon the head of\nZerubbabel and_ upon the head of Joshua.\" On the other hand, in\n_v_. 14 the word \"crown\" must be read in the singular, and\nshould probably also be so read in _v_. 11 (though even the\nplural could refer to one crown). In that case, if there be but one\ncrown, who wears it? Undoubtedly Zerubbabel: he is the Branch, iii.\n8, and the Branch is the Davidic king (Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15).\nThe building of the temple here assigned to the Branch, vi. 12, is\nelsewhere expressly assigned to Zerubbabel, iv. 9. It is, therefore,\nhe who is crowned: in other words, v. 11, may have originally read,\n\"set it _upon the head of Zerubbabel._\" Whether we accept this\nsolution or the other, it seems certain that the original prophecy\ncontemplated the crowning of Zerubbabel. As the hopes that centred\nupon Zerubbabel were never fulfilled, the passage was subsequently\nmodified to its present form.]\n\nThe concluding chapters of the prophecy (vii., viii.), delivered two\nyears later than the rest of the book, vii. 1, are occupied with the\nethical conditions of the impending Messianic kingdom. To the\nquestion whether the fast-days which commemorated the destruction of\nJerusalem are still to be observed, Zechariah answers that the\nancient demands of Jehovah had nothing to do with fasting, but with\njustice and mercy. As former disobedience had been followed by a\ndivine judgment, so would obedience now be rewarded with blessing,\nfast-days would be turned into days of joy and gladness, and the\nblessing would be so great that representatives of every nation\nwould be attracted to Jerusalem, to worship the God of the Jews.\n\nIn Zechariah even more than in Haggai it is clear that prophecy has\nentered upon a new stage.[1] There is the same concentration of\ninterest upon the temple, the same faith in the unique importance of\nZerubbabel. But the apocalyptic element, though not quite a new\nthing, is present on a scale altogether new to prophecy. Again, the\ntranscendence of God is acutely felt--the visions have to be\ninterpreted by an angel. We see, too, in the book the rise of the\nidea of Satan (iii.) and of the conception of sin as an independent\nforce, v. 5-11. The yearning for the annihilation of the kingdoms\nopposed to Judah, i. 18-21, has a fine counterpart in the closing\nvision, viii. 22, 23, of the nations flocking to Jerusalem because\nthey have heard that God is there. The book is of great historical\nvalue, affording as it does contemporary evidence of the drooping\nhopes of the early post-exilic community, and of the new manner in\nwhich this disappointment was met by prophecy. But, though Zechariah's\nmessage was largely concerned with the building of the temple, and\nwas delivered for the most part in terms of vision and apocalyptic,\nthe ethical elements on which the \"former prophets\" had laid the\nsupreme emphasis, were by no means forgotten, viii. 16, 17.\n[Footnote 1: Zechariah himself is conscious of the distinction, which\nis more than a temporal one, between himself and the pre-exilic\nprophets: notice the manner of his allusion to the \"former prophets,\"\ni. 4, vii. 7, 12.]\n\n\nCHAPTERS IX.-XIV.\n\nPractically all the distinctive features of the first eight chapters\ndisappear in ix.-xiv. The style and the historical presuppositions\nare altogether different. There are two new superscriptions, ix. 1,\nxii. 1, but there is no reference to Zerubbabel, Joshua, or the\nsituation of their time. There the immediate problem was the\nbuilding of the temple; here, more than once, Jerusalem is\nrepresented as in a state of siege. A sketch of the contents will\nshow how unlike the one situation is to the other.\n\nThe general theme of ix. 1-xi. 3 is the destruction of the world-powers\nand the establishment of the kingdom of God. Judgment is declared at\nthe outset upon Damascus, Phoenicia and Philistia, while Jerusalem is\nto enjoy the divine protection and to be the seat of the Messianic King,\nix. 1-9. Greece, the great enemy, will be overcome by Judah and Ephraim,\nwho are but weapons in Jehovah's hand, ix. 10-17. Then follows[1] a\npassage in which \"the shepherds\" are threatened with a dire fate. Judah\nreceives a promise of victory, and Ephraim is assured that her exiles\nwill be gathered and brought home from Egypt and Assyria to Gilead and\nLebanon; the cedars of Lebanon and the oaks of Bashan--types perhaps of\nforeign rulers--will be laid low, x. 3-xi. 3.\n[Footnote 1: Ch. x. 1, 2 appears to stand by itself. It is an\ninjunction to bring the request for rain to Jehovah and to put no\nfaith in teraphim and diviners.]\n\nThe next section is of a different kind. In it the prophet is\ndivinely commissioned to tend the flock which has been neglected and\nimpoverished by other shepherds. To this end he takes two staves,\nnamed Favour and Unity, to indicate respectively the favour enjoyed\nby Judah in her relations with her neighbours, and the unity\nsubsisting between her and Israel (or Jerusalem, according to two\ncodices); and thus invested with the instruments of the pastoral\noffice he destroyed three shepherds in a short time. But the flock\ngrew tired of him, and, in consequence he broke the staves, i.e. the\nrelations of favour and unity were ruptured. A foolish and careless\nshepherd is then raised up, who abuses the flock, and over him a woe\nis pronounced, xi. 4-17, more minutely defined in xiii. 7-9, which\nappears to have been misplaced. Jehovah will slay the shepherd and\nscatter the sheep; a third of the flock after being purified by fire\nwill constitute the people of Jehovah.\n\nThe next section, xii. 1-xiii. 6, introduces us to a siege of\nJerusalem by the heathen, abetted by Judah. Suddenly, however, Judah\nchanges sides; by the help of Jehovah they destroy the heathen, and\nJerusalem is saved, xii. 1-8. Then the people and their leaders are\nmoved by the outpouring of the spirit to confess and entreat\nforgiveness for some judicial murder which they have committed and\nwhich they publicly and bitterly lament, xii. 9-14. The prayer is\nanswered; people and leaders are cleansed in a fountain opened, with\nthe result that idolatry and prophecy of the ancient public type are\nabjured, xiii. 1-6.\n\nThe theme of the last section also (xiv.) is a heathen attack upon\nJerusalem, but this time the city is destroyed and half the\ninhabitants exiled. Then Jehovah intervenes, and by a miracle upon\nthe Mount of Olives the rest of the people effect their escape, and\nJehovah Fights with all His angels against the heathen. Those\nglorious Messianic days, when Jehovah will be King over all the\nearth, will know no heat or cold, or change from light to darkness.\nJerusalem will be secure and the land about her level and fruitful,\nwatered east and west by a living stream. Those who have made war\nagainst her will waste away, while the rest of the world will make\npilgrimages to the holy city to worship Jehovah and celebrate the\nfeast of booths. Then the mighty war-horses, once the object of His\nhatred, will be consecrated to His service, and the number of\npilgrims will be so great that every pot in the city and in the\nprovince of Judah will be needed for ceremonial purposes.\n\nFew problems in the Old Testament are more perplexing than that of the\norigin and relation of the sections composing, ix.-xiv. to one another.\nThe utmost that can be said with comparative certainty is that the\nprophecy, in its present form, is post-exilic, while certain elements\nin it, especially in ix.-xi., are, if not pre-exilic, at any rate\nimitations or reminiscences of pre-exilic prophecy. Many scholars even\ndeny that ix.-xiv. is a unity and assign it to at least two authors.\nThough the superscription in xii. 1, which seems to justify this\ndistinction, was probably added, like Malachi i. i, by a later hand,\nthe presence of certain broad distinctions between ix.-xi. and\nxii.-xiv. can hardly be denied. In the former section, Ephraim is\noccasionally mentioned in combination with Judah, cf. ix. 13; in the\nlatter, Judah alone is mentioned, and partly, on the strength of this,\nthe former section is assigned to a period between Tiglath Pileser's\ninvasion of the north of Palestine in 734 (xi. 1-3) and the fall of the\nnorthern kingdom in 721, while the latter is assigned to a period between\nthe death of Josiah in 609, to which the mourning in Megiddo is supposed\nto allude, xii. 11, and the fall of the southern kingdom in 586.\n\nEven within these sections there are differences which are held to\nbe incompatible with the unity of each section. The most notable\ndifference is perhaps that affecting the siege of Jerusalem. In ch.\nxii. the heathen are destroyed before Jerusalem, while the city\nitself remains secure; in ch. xiv. the houses are rifled, the women\nravished, and half of the people go into captivity before Jehovah\nintervenes to protect the remainder. These and other differences are\nunmistakable, yet it may be questioned whether they are so serious\nas to be fatal to the unity of the whole section, ix.-xiv. It is not\nimpossible that they may be due to the eclectic spirit of an author\nwho gathered from many quarters material for his eschatological\npictures. Besides, the sections which have been by some scholars\nrelegated to different authors, occasionally seem to imply each\nother. The general assault on Jerusalem in ch. xii., e.g., is the\nnatural result of the breaking of the staves, Favour and Unity, in\nch. xi. But, even if ix.-xiv. be a unity, it is well to remember, as\nCornill reminds us, that there is \"much in these chapters which will\never remain obscure and unintelligible, because our knowledge of the\nwhole post-exilic and especially of the early Hellenic period is\nextremely deficient.\"\n\nThis leads to the question of date. The last section (xii.-xiv.) at\nany rate is obviously post-exilic. The idea of the general assault\non Jerusalem is undoubtedly suggested by Ezekiel xxxviii.; the\ncuriously condemnatory attitude to prophecy in xiii. 2-6 would have\nbeen impossible in pre-exilic times; the phrase, \"Uzziah _king of\nJudah_,\" xiv. 5, rather implies that the dynasty is past, and the\nreference to the earthquake in his reign has the flavour of a\nlearned reminiscence.[1] These and other circumstances practically\nnecessitate a post-exilic date, and the objection based upon xii. 11\nfalls to the ground, as that verse alludes, in all probability, not\nto lamentations for the death of Josiah, which would no doubt have\ntaken place in Jerusalem, but to laments which accompanied the\nworship of the Semitic Adonis. Nor can any objection be grounded\nupon the allusion to idolatry in xiii. 2, as idolatry persisted into\npost-exilic times.[2]\n[Footnote 1: Even if the earliest possible date (about 600) for this\nsection be accepted, the earthquake had taken place a century and a\nhalf before.]\n[Footnote 2: Cf. Job xxxi. 2eff. and perhaps also Ps. xvi.]\n\nIf ix.-xiv. be a unity, a definite _terminus a quo_ is provided\nin ix. 13 by the mention of the Greeks, whose sons are opposed to\nthe sons of Zion. Such a relation of Jews to Greeks is not\nconceivable before the time of Alexander the Great, and this fact\nalone would throw the prophecy, at the earliest, into the fourth\ncentury B.C. But there are other facts which seem to some to make\nfor a pre-exilic date: e.g. the mention of Judah and Ephraim\ntogether, ix. 13 (cf. ix. 10), seems to presuppose the existence of\nboth kingdoms, and Egypt and Assyria are placed side by side, x. 10,\n11, precisely in the manner of Hosea (ix. 3, xi. 5). But these\nfacts, significant as they may seem, are by no means decisive in\nfavour of a pre-exilic date. Assyria was the first great world power\nwith which Israel came into hostile contact, and the name was not\nunnaturally transferred by later ages to the hostile powers of their\nown day--to Babylon in Lam. v. 6, to Persia in Ezra vi. 22, and\npossibly to Syria in Isaiah xxvii. 13. Consequently, in a context\nwhich assigns the passage, at the earliest, to the Greek period,\nAssyria and Egypt would very naturally designate the Seleucid and\nPtolemaic kingdoms respectively, and the prophecy might be safely\nrelegated to the third century, B.C.[1] The allusion to Ephraim is\nnot incompatible with this date, for the prophecy presupposes a\ngeneral dispersion, x. 9, which must be later than the fall of Judah\nin 586, considering that residence in Egypt, x. 10, is implied (cf.\nJer. xlii.-xliv.). Nothing more need be implied by the allusion to\nEphraim than that there will be a general restoration of all the\ntribes that were once driven into exile and are now scattered\nthroughout the world.\n[Footnote 1: Marti puts it as late as 160. One of the most important\nclues would be furnished by xi. 8--\"I cut off the three shepherds in\none month\"--if the reference were not so cryptic. Advocates of a\npre-exilic date find in the words an allusion to three successors of\nJeroboam II. of Israel--Zechariah, Shallum and some unknown\npretender (about 740); others, to the rapid succession of high\npriests before the Maccabean wars (about 170). One month probably\nsignifies generally a brief time.]\n\nIf chs. ix.-xiv. belong to the third century B.C., they give us an\ninteresting glimpse into the aspirations and defects of later Judaism.\nThey reveal an unbounded faith in the importance of Jerusalem, and in\nthe certainty of its triumph over the assaults of heathenism; on the\nother hand, they are inspired by a fine universalism, xiv. 16ff. But\nthis universalism has a distinctly Levitical and legalistic colouring,\nxiv. 21. Membership in the kingdom of God involves abstinence from\nfood proscribed by the Levitical law, ix. 7; and even for the heathen\nthe worship of Jehovah takes the form of the celebration of the feast\nof booths, xiv. 16. There is in the prophecy a noble appreciation of the\nworld-wide destiny of the true religion, but hardly of its essentially\nspiritual nature.\n\n\n\n\nMALACHI\n\n\nIt is not inappropriate that Malachi,[1] though not the latest of\nthe prophets, should close the prophetic collection. The concluding\nwords of this book, which predict the coming of the great prophet\nElijah, iv. 5f, and the apocalyptic tone of Malachi, show that\nprophecy feels itself unable to cope adequately with the moral\nsituation and is conscious of its own decline. Here, as in Haggai,\ninterest gathers round ritual rather than moral obligation, though\nthe latter is not neglected, iii. 5, and the religion for which\nMalachi pleads is far from being exhausted by ritual. He takes a\nlofty view, approaching to Jesus' own, of the obligations of the\nmarriage relation, ii. 16; and perfunctory ritual he abhors, chiefly\nbecause it expresses a deep-seated indifference to God and His\nclaims, iii. 8. The clergy or the laity who offer God their lame or\nblemished beasts are guilty of an offence that goes deeper than\nritual. Their whole ideal of religion and service is insulting; they\nhave forgotten that Jehovah is \"a great King,\" i. 14.\n[Footnote 1: Ch. i. 1 is late, modelled, like Zech. xii. 1 on Zech.\nix. 1. The word Malachi has no doubt been suggested by\n_Malachi_ in iii. i (= my messenger). The prophecy is really\nanonymous.]\n\nThe prophecy of Malachi is closely knit together. Addressing a people\nwho doubt the love of their God, he begins by pointing-strangely\nenough from the Christian standpoint, but intelligibly enough from\nthat of early post-exilic Judaism--to the desolation of Edom, Judah's\nenemy (cf. Obadiah) in poof of that love, i. 2-5; and asks how Judah\nhas responded to it. The priests present inferior offerings, thus\nforming, in their insulting indifference, a strange contrast to the\nuntutored heathen hearts all the world over, which offer God pure\nservice; they have put to shame the ancient ideals, i. 6-ii. 9. The\npeople, too, are as guilty as the priests; for they had divorced\ntheir faithful Jewish wives who had borne them children, and married\nforeign women who were a menace to the purity of the national religion,\nii. 10-16. Those who are beginning to doubt the moral order because\nJehovah does not manifestly interpose as the God of justice, are\nassured by the prophet that the Lord, preceded by a messenger, is on\nHis way; and He will punish, first the unfaithful priests, and then\nthe unfaithful people, ii. 17-iii. 5. His apparent indifference to the\npeople is due to their real indifference to Him; if they bring in the\ntithes, the blessing will come, iii. 6-12. As before, ii. 17ff., the\ndespondent are assured that Jehovah has not forgotten them; He is\nwriting their names in a book, and when He comes in judgment, the\nfaithful will be spared, and then the difference between the destinies\nof the good and the bad will be plain for all to see. The wicked shall\nbe trampled under foot, and upon the dark world in which the upright\nmourn shall arise the sun, from whose gentle rays will stream healing\nfor bruised minds and hearts, iii. 13-iv. 4. Before that day Elijah\nwill come to heal the dissensions of the home, iv. 5, 6. (cf. ii. 14).\n\nThe atmosphere of the book of Malachi is very much like that of\nEzra-Nehemiah. The same problems emerge in both--foreign marriages,\nneglect of payment of tithes, etc. But the allusion to the presents\ngiven the governor, i. 8, shows that the book was not written during\nthe governorship of Nehemiah, who claims to have accepted no\npresents (Neh. v. 14-18). On the other hand, the state of affairs\npresented by the book is inconceivable after the measures adopted by\nEzra and Nehemiah; therefore, Malachi must precede them. Probably\nhowever, not by much; it was Malachi and others like-minded who\nprepared the way for the reformation, and his date may be roughly\nfixed at 460-450 B.C. Consistently with this, the priests are\ndesignated Levites, ii. 4, iii. 3, as in Deuteronomy; the book must\ntherefore precede the priestly code which sharply distinguishes\npriests and Levites.\n\nThere is an unusual proportion of dialogue in Malachi. Good men are\nperplexed by the anomalies of the moral order, and they are not\nafraid to debate them. Malachi's solution is largely, though not\nexclusively, iii. 8-12, apocalyptic; and though in this, as in his\nemphasis on the cult, iii. 4, and his attitude to Edom, i. 2ff., he\nstands upon the level of ordinary Judaism, in other respects he\nrises far above it. Coming from one to whom correct ritual meant so\nmuch, his utterance touching heathen worship is not only\nrefreshingly, but astonishingly bold. In all the Old Testament,\nthere is no more generous outlook upon the foreign world than that\nof i. 11. Though the priests of the temple at Jerusalem insult the\nname of Jehovah and are wearied with His service, yet \"from sunrise\nto sunset My name is great among the (heathen) nations, and in every\nplace pure offerings are offered to My name; for great is My name\namong the heathen, saith Jehovah of hosts.\"\n\n\n\n\nPSALMS\n\n\nThe piety of the Old Testament Church is reflected with more\nclearness and variety in the Psalter than in any other book of the\nOld Testament. It constitutes the response of the Church to the\ndivine demands of prophecy, and, in a less degree, of law; or,\nrather, it expresses those emotions and aspirations of the universal\nheart which lie deeper than any formal demand. It is the speech of\nthe soul face to face with God. Its words are as simple and\nunaffected as human words can be, for it is the genius of Hebrew\npoetry to lay little stress upon artifices of rhyme and rhythm. By\nits simple device of parallelism, it suggests a rhythm profounder\nthan the sound of any words--the response of thought to thought, the\ncalling of deep to deep, the solemn harmonies that run throughout\nthe universe. Whether the second thought of a verse is co-ordinate\nwith the first, as--\n\n  Let us break their bands asunder,\n  And cast away their cords from us, ii 3.\n\nor contrasted with it, as--\n\n  Jehovah knows the way of the righteous,\n  But the way of the ungodly shall perish, i. 6,\n\nthe resulting parallelism is essentially simple, and the Hebrew poet\ncan express his profoundest thoughts and feelings with lucidity and\nfreedom. It is the depth and sincerity of its emotion, coupled with\nthis unrivalled simplicity of expression that has given the Psalter\nits abiding-place in the religious history of humanity.\n\nWith the partial exception of Psalm xlv., which is a marriage song,\nthe songs of the Psalter are exclusively religious. Indeed most of\nthe poetry of the Old Testament is religious; the Song of Deborah,\ne.g. (Jud. v.), or the Psalm of Hezekiah (Isa. xxxviii.). But, from\nscattered hints it is abundantly plain that, especially before the\nexile, Hebrew poetry must have ranged over a wide variety of themes.\nSo far as we know, the Hebrews never had an epic; and though a\ncertain epic power is occasionally suggested by the extant\nliterature, it may be doubted whether the Hebrew genius, which was\nessentially lyrical, would have been capable of the long sustained\neffort demanded by a great epic. But the lyrical genius of the\nHebrew found abundant opportunity in life's common joys, sorrows and\nactivities. Victories in battle were celebrated in ballads, which\nmade the blood leap, love songs were sung at weddings, and dirges\nwere chanted over the dead. The labour of drawing water, of reaping\nthe fields or gathering the vintage, was relieved by snatches of\nsong. There was all this and more, but it has nearly all perished,\nleaving little more than an echo, because the men who compiled and\nedited the Old Testament were dominated by an exclusively religious\ninterest.\n\nBut if the interest of the Psalter be exclusively religious, we have\nno reason to complain of its variety. From the deepest despair to\nthe highest exaltation, every mood of the soul is uttered there.\nMany a classification of the Psalter has been attempted, e.g. into\n(_a_) psalms of gladness, such as thanksgiving (xlvi.),\nadoration (viii.); (_b_) psalms of sadness, such as lamentation\n(lxxiv.), confession (li.), supplication (cii.); (_c_) psalms\nof reflection, such as the occasional didactic poetry (cxix.), or\ndiscussions of the moral order (lxxiii.). But in the nature of the\ncase, no classification can ever hope to be completely satisfactory,\nif for no other reason than that the psalms, being for the most part\nlyrics, are often marked by subtle and rapid changes of feeling,\npassing sometimes, as in Psalm xxii., from the most touching laments\nto the most daring expressions of hope and gladness. The following\nclassification, though exposed, as all such classifications must be,\nto the charge of cross-division, will afford a working basis for the\nstudy of the Psalter:--\n\n(1) Psalms of Adoration, including (_a_) adoration of God for\nHis revelation in nature, viii., xix. 1-6, xxix., civ.; (_b_)\nadoration of Him for His love to His people, xxxiii., ciii., cxi.,\ncxiii., cxv., cxvii., cxlvii.; (_c_) praise of His glorious\nkingdom, cxlv., cxlvi., ending with the call to universal praise,\ncxlviii., cl.\n\n(2) Psalms of Reflection (_a_) upon the moral order of the\nworld, ix., x., xi., xiv., xxxvi., xxxvii., xxxix., xlix., lii.,\nlxii., lxxiii., lxxv., lxxxii., xc., xcii., xciv.; (_b_) upon\nDivine Providence, xvi., xxiii., xxxiv., xci., cxii., cxxi., cxxv.,\ncxxvii., cxxviii., cxxxiii., cxxxix., cxliv. 12-15; (_c_) on\nthe value of Scripture, i., xix. 7-14, cxix.; (_d_) on the\nnature of the ideal man, xv., xxiv. 1-6, l.\n\n(3) Psalms of Thanksgiving, most of them for historical\ndeliverances, e.g. from the exile, or from the Syrians in the second\ncentury B.C., xxx., xl., xlvi., xlviii., lxv., lxvi., lxvii.,\nlxviii., lxxvi., cxvi., cxviii., cxxiv., cxxvi., cxxix., cxxxviii.,\ncxliv. 1-11, cxlix.\n\n(4) Psalms in Celebration of Worship, v., xxiv., 7-10, xxvi.,\nxxvii., xlii.-xliii., lxxxiv., cxxii., cxxxiv.\n\n(5) Historical Psalms (_a_) emphasizing the unfaithfulness of\nthe people, lxxviii., lxxxi., cvi.; (_b_) emphasizing the love\nor power of God, cv., cxiv., cxxxv., cxxxvi.\n\n(6) Imprecatory Psalms, lviii, lix., lxix., lxxxiii., cix., cxxxvii.\n\n(7) Penitential Psalms, vi., xxxii., xxxviii., li., cii., cxxx.,\ncxliii.\n\n(8) Psalms of Petition (_a_) prayers for deliverance,\npreservation or restoration, iii., iv., vii., xii., xiii., xvii.,\nxxv., xxxi., xxxv., xli., xliv., liv., lv., lx., lxiv., lxxi.,\nlxxiv., lxxvii., lxxix., lxxx., lxxxv., lxxxvi., lxxxviii., cxx.,\ncxxiii., cxxxi., cxl., cxli., cxlii; (_b_) answered prayers,\nxxii., xxviii., lvi., lvii.\n\n(9) Royal Psalms (_a_) king's coronation, xxi.; (_b_)\nmarriage, xlv.; (_c_) prayers for his welfare and success, xx.,\nlxi, lxiii.; (_d_) his character, lxxii., ci.; (_e_)\ndominion, ii., xviii., cx.; (_f_) yearning for the Messianic\nKing, lxxxix., cxxxii.\n\n(10) Psalms concerning the universal reign of Jehovah, i.e.\nMessianic psalms in the largest sense of the word, xlvii., lxxxvii.,\nxciii., xcv., xcvi., xcvii., xcviii., xcix., c.\n\nThe Psalter has plainly had a long history. In its present form it\nobviously rests upon groups, which in turn rest upon individual\npsalms, that are no doubt often far older than the groups in which\nthey stand. Like the Pentateuch, and perhaps in imitation of it, the\nPsalter is divided into five books, whose close is indicated, in\neach case, by a doxology (xli., lxxii., lxxxix., cvi.), except in\nthe case of the last psalm, which is itself a doxology (cl.). This\ndivision appears to have been artificially effected. Psalm cvii.,\nwhich starts the last book, goes naturally with cv. and cvi., which\nclose the fourth book; and the circumstance that the number of\npsalms in the fourth book corresponds exactly with that of the\nthird, raises a strong suspicion that the break was deliberately\nmade at Psalm cvi. It is very probable, too, that the doxology at\nthe close of Psalm cvi. (cf. 1 Chron. xvi. 36), which differs\nsomewhat from the other doxologies, was originally intended as a\ndoxology to that psalm only, and not to indicate the close of the\nbook. In any case, the contents of books 4 and 5, which are very\nlargely liturgical, are so similar that they may be practically\nconsidered as one book.\n\nBooks 2 and 3 may also be similarly regarded; for whereas in books\n1, 4 and 5 the name of the divine Being is predominantly Jehovah, in\nbooks 2 and 3 it is predominantly Elohim (God), and there can be no\ndoubt that these two books, at least as far as Ps. lxxxiii., have\nbeen submitted to an Elohistic redaction. Psalm xiv., _e.g._,\nreappears in the 2nd book as Psalm liii. in a form practically\nidentical, except for the name of God, which is Jehovah in the one\n(xiv.) and Elohim in the other (liii.); the change is, therefore,\nundoubtedly deliberate. This is also made plain by the presence of\nsuch impossible phrases as \"God, thy God,\" xlv. 7, 1. 7, instead of\nthe natural and familiar \"Jehovah, thy God.\" Whatever the motive for\nthe choice of this divine name (Elohim) may be, it is so thoroughly\ncharacteristic of books 2 and 3 that they may not unfairly be held\nto constitute a group by themselves. In this way the Psalter falls\ninto three great groups--book I (i.-xli.), which is Jehovistic,\nbooks 2 and 3 (xlii.-lxxxix.), which are Elohistic, and books 4 and\n5 (xc.-cl.), which are Jehovistic..\n\nThese greater groups rest, however, upon other smaller ones, some formally\nacknowledged, e.g. the so-called Psalms of Ascent or Pilgrim psalms\n(cxx.-cxxxiv.), the Psalms of David, Psalms of the Korahites (xlii.-xlix.,\netc.), Psalms of Asaph (lxxiii.-lxxxiii., etc.), and others not so obvious\nin a translation, e.g. the Hallelujah Psalms, cxi.-cxiii., cxlvi.-cl.\nThese groups must often have enjoyed an independent reputation as\ngroups, and even been invested with a certain canonical authority, for\noccasionally the same psalm appears in two different groups (xiv.=liii.,\nxl. 13-17=lxx., cviii.=lvii. 7-11 +lx. 6-12). Such repetition proves that\nthe final editors did not consider themselves at liberty to make any\nchange within the groups. The principle of the arrangement of individual\npsalms within the group was probably not a scientific one: e.g. xxxiv.\nand xxxv. seem to be placed together for no other reason than that both\nrefer to \"the angel of Jehovah,\" xxxiv. 7, xxxv. 5. Sometimes a psalm\nhas been wrongly divided into two (cf. xlii., xliii., originally one\npsalm) and occasionally two psalms have been united, usually for\nreasons that are transparent (so perhaps xix., the revelation in the\nheavens and the revelation in the Scriptures, and xxiv., the entrance\nof Jehovah into His temple, and the essential conditions for the\nentrance of man).\n\nThe original order of the groups themselves appears to have been\ndislocated. Whoever added the subscription to Psalm lxxii. can hardly\nhave been aware of the eighteen psalms which, in the subsequent books\nof the Psalter, are ascribed to David; nor is it natural to suppose\nthat the Asaphic (l.) and Korahitic psalms (xlii.-xlix.) stood in the\nsecond book when that subscription was written. It is not improbable\nthat Psalms xlii.-l. originally belonged to the third book, along\nwith the Asaphic group, lxxiii.-lxxxiii., and that lxxii. 20, \"The\nprayers of David the son of Jesse are ended,\" was intended as the\nsubscription of all the Davidic psalms that had then been collected\n(Book I, except Pss. i., ii., x., xxxiii., and book 2, Pss. li.-lxx.).[1]\nThe first two books originally represented a Davidic hymn-book; they\nprobably represent, as a whole, the oldest part of the Psalter.\n[Footnote 1: Psalms i. and ii. were placed at the beginning as\nprefatory to the whole Psalter. They deal with the two cardinal\npoints of Judaism--the law and the Messianic hope. Psalms ix. and x.\noriginally constituted _one_ alphabetic psalm, and xxxiii. is\nascribed to David in the Septuagint.]\n\nThe problem of the authorship of the Psalms is one of the thorniest\nin the Old Testament. One hundred psalms are ascribed to definite\nauthors: one is ascribed to Moses (xc.), seventy-three to David, two\nto Solomon (lxxvii., cxxvii.); and yet there are not a few scholars\nwho maintain that, so far from any psalm being Mosaic, or even\nDavidic, there is not a single pre-exilic psalm in the Psalter, and\nthe less radical critics do not allow more than thirty or forty. The\nquestion must be settled entirely upon internal evidence, as the\nsuperscriptions, definite as they often are, are never demonstrably\nreliable, while some of them are plainly impossible. To begin with,\ndoubt attaches to the meaning of the Hebrew preposition in the\nphrase, \"Psalm _of_ David.\" It is the same preposition as that\nrendered by _for_ in the phrase, \"For the chief musician,\" and\nas in this phrase authorship is out of the question, it may be\nseriously doubted whether it is implied in the phrase rendered\n\"Psalm of David.\" This doubt is corroborated by the phrase, \"Psalms\nof the sons of Korah.\" Plainly all the Korahites did not cooperate\nin the composition of the psalms so superscribed; and the most\nnatural inference is that the phrase does not here designate\nauthorship, but that the psalm is one of a collection in some sense\nbelonging to or destined for the Korahitic guild of temple-singers.\n[1] In that case the phrase would have a liturgical sense, and the\nparallel phrase \"of (or for) David,\" might have to be similarly\nexplained. It must be confessed, however, that whatever the actual\norigin of the superscription, \"of (or for) David,\" it certainly came\nto be regarded as implying authorship--the many historical notices\nin the superscriptions of Psalms li.-lx. are proof enough of that;\nand no other explanation is possible of the superscription \"of\nMoses\" in Psalm, xc (cf. Is. xxxviii. 9, the writing of Hezekiah).\n[Footnote 1: It is not absolutely impossible that the phrase might\npoint to a collection composed by this guild, cf. \"Moravian\nbrethren.\" But the other supposition is more likely.]\n\nIn later times, then, authorship was plainly intended by the\nsuperscriptions. But it is quite certain that the superscriptions\nthemselves are no original and integral parts of the psalms. In the\nSeptuagint they occasionally differ from the Hebrew, assigning\npsalms that are anonymous in the Hebrew (xcv., cxxxvii.) to David,\nor to other authors (e.g., cxlvi.-cxlviii. to Haggai and Zechariah.)\nThe ease with which psalms were, without warrant, ascribed to David\nmay be seen from the Greek superscription to Psalm xcvi. \"When the\nhouse [i.e. the temple] was being built after the captivity; a song\nof David\": in other words, an admittedly post-exilic psalm is\nascribed to David. The superscriptions were added probably long\nafter the psalms, and there is no reason to suppose that the Hebrews\nwere exempt from the uncritical methods and ideas which\ncharacterized the Greek translators. That they shared them is\nabundantly proved by the historical superscriptions. One at least\n(Ps. xxxiv.) in substituting the name of Abimelech (Gen. xx.) for\nAchish (1 Sam. xxi.) shows either ignorance or carelessness, and\ncasts a very lurid light on the reliability of the superscriptions.\nThe contents of other psalms are manifestly irreconcilable with the\nassumed authorship: Asaph, e.g., whom the Chronicles regards as a\ncontemporary of David (1 Chron. xvi 7), laments in Psalms lxxiv.,\nlxxix. the devastation of the temple, which was not at that time in\nexistence. The principles on which the superscriptions were added\nwere altogether superficial and uncritical. Psalm cxxvii. is\nascribed to Solomon, chiefly because its opening verse speaks of the\nbuilding of the house, which was understood to be the temple. So\nPsalm lxiii. is described as \"a psalm of David when he was in the\nwilderness of Judah,\" simply on the strength of the words, \"My soul\nthirsteth for thee in a dry and weary land where no water is\"--words\nwhich are taken literally, though they were undoubtedly intended\nmetaphorically. A parallel case is that of the psalm inserted in\nJonah ii., obviously a church psalm whose figurative language has\nbeen too literally pressed.\n\nEnough has been said to show that the superscriptions are later than\nthe psalms themselves, and often, if not always, unreliable; we are\ntherefore wholly dependent upon internal evidence, and the criteria\nfor Davidic authorship must be sought outside the Psalter. The only\nabsolutely undisputed poems of David's are the elegy over Saul and\nJonathan in 2 Samuel i. and the lament over Abner (2 Sam. iii. 33,\n34). There is no means of proving that 2 Samuel xxii. (=Ps. xviii.)\nand 2 Samuel xxiii. 1-7 are David's, as they are interpolated in a\nsection of Samuel which is itself an interpolation (xxi.-xxiv.),\ninterrupting as it does the continuity of 2 Samuel xx. and I Kings\ni. The data offered by the elegy are much too slender to enable us\nto decide whether any particular psalm is David's or not. Some have\nventured to ascribe a dozen psalms or so to him on the strength of\ntheir peculiar vigour and originality, but obviously all such\ndecisions must be altogether subjective. What is certain is that\nDavid was an accomplished musician (1 Sam. xvi. 18) and a great poet\n(2 Sam. i.), a man of the most varied experience, rich emotional\nnature and profound religious feeling, a devoted worshipper of\nJehovah, and eager to build Him a temple; and it is not impossible\nthat such a man may have written religious songs, but in the nature\nof the case it can never be proved that he wrote any of the songs in\nthe Psalter. Psalm xviii. has been by many assigned to him with\nconsiderable confidence because of the support it is thought to\nreceive from its appearance in a historical book; but besides the\nfact that this support, as we have seen, is slender, the psalm can\nhardly, at least in its present form, have come from David. The\nsuperscription assigns it to a later period in his life when he had\nbeen delivered from all his enemies; but at that time he could not\nhave looked back over the past, stained by his great sin, with the\ncomplacency which marks the confession in vv. 20-24. Others have\nsupposed that xxiv. 7-10, with its picture of the entrance of\nJehovah through the \"ancient gates,\" may well be his. It may be, if\nthe gates are those of the city; but if, as is more probable, they\nare the temple gates, then the psalm must be long after the time of\nSolomon. In the quest for Davidic psalms we can never possibly rise\nabove conjecture. Later ages regarded David as the father of sacred\nsong, just as they regarded Moses as the author of Hebrew law.\n\nThere can be little doubt, however, that there are pre-exilic psalms\nor fragments in the Psalter. From Psalm cxxxvii. 3, 4 we may safely\ninfer that already, by the time of the exile, there were songs of\nJehovah or songs of Zion. We cannot tell what these songs were like;\nbut when we remember that for nearly two centuries before the exile\ngreat prophets had been working--and we cannot suppose altogether\nineffectually, for they had disciples--it is difficult to see why,\ngranting the poetic power which the Hebrew had from the earliest\ntimes, pious spirits should not have expressed themselves in sacred\nsong, or why some of these songs may not be in the Psalter.\n\nWe appear to be on tolerably sure ground in at least some of the\n\"royal\" psalms. Doubtless it is often very hard to say, as in Psalms\nii., lxxii., whether the king is a historical figure or the\nMessianic King of popular yearning; and possibly (cf. lxxii.) a\npsalm which originally contemplated a historical king may have been\nin later times altered or amplified to fit the features of the ideal\nking. Other psalms, again (e.g., lxxxix., cxxxii.), clearly are the\nproducts of a time when the monarchy is no more. But there remain\nothers, expressing, e.g. a wish for the king's welfare (xx., xxi.),\nwhich can only be naturally referred to a time when the king was on\nthe throne. It is not absolutely impossible to refer these to the\nperiod of the Hasmoneans, who bore the title from the end of the\nsecond century B.C.; but the history of the canon renders this\nsupposition extremely improbable. The contents of these psalms are\nnot above pre-exilic possibility, and their position in the first\nbook would, generally speaking, be in favour of the earlier date.\nPsalm xlv. also, which celebrates the marriage of a king to a\nforeign princess, seems almost to compel a pre-exilic date.\n\nSome scholars, struck by the resemblance between many of the\nsorrowful psalms and the poetry of Jeremiah, have not hesitated to\nascribe some of them to him (cf. xl. 2). Such a judgment is\nnecessarily subjective, but there can be little doubt that Jeremiah\npowerfully influenced Hebrew religious poetry. The Greek\nsuperscriptions, again, which assign certain psalms to Haggai and\nZechariah, though doubtless unreliable, are of interest in\nsuggesting the liturgical importance of the period following the\nreturn from the exile. This period seems to have produced several\npsalms. Psalm cxxvi,, with its curiously complex feeling, apparently\nreflects the situation of that period, and the group of psalms which\nproclaim Jehovah as King, and ring with the notes of a \"new song,\"\nwere probably composed to celebrate the joy of the return and the\nresumption of public worship in the temple (xciii., xcv.-c., cf.\nxcvi. 1). The history of the next three centuries is very obscure,\nand many a psalm which we cannot locate may belong to that period;\nbut the psalms which celebrate the law (i., xix. 7ff., cxix.) no\ndoubt follow the reformation of Ezra in the fifth century.\n\nIt is not probable that there are many, if any, psalms later than\n170-165 B.C. in the Maccabean period; some deny even this\npossibility, basing their denial on the history of the canon. But if\nthe book of Daniel, which belongs to this same period, was admitted\nto the canon, there is no reason why the same honour should not have\nbeen conferred upon some of the psalms. The Maccabean period was\nfitted, almost more than any other in Israel's history, to rouse the\nreligious passion of the people to song; and, as the possibility\nmust be conceded, the question becomes one of exegesis. Exegetically\nconsidered, the claims of at least Psalms xliv., lxxiv., lxxix.,\nlxxxiii. are indubitable. They speak of a desolation of the temple\nin spite of a punctilious fulfilment of the law, a religious\npersecution, a slaughter of the saints, a blasphemy of the holy\nname. No situation fits these circumstances so completely as the\npersecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 B.C., and\nthese psalms betray many remarkable affinities with passages in the\nfirst book of the Maccabees. As long ago as the fifth century A.D.\nthe sharp-sighted Theodore of Mopsuestia believed that there were\nseventeen Maccabean psalms; Calvin admitted at least three. It may\nbe safely concluded, then, that the Psalter brings us within about a\ncentury and a half of the Christian era.\n\nThe criteria for determining the date of a psalm are few and meagre.\nThe Psalter expresses the piety of more than half a millennium, and\neven the century cannot always be fixed. The language is often\ngeneral, and the thoughts uttered would be as possible and\nappropriate to one century as another. Nearly forty years ago\nN\u00f6ldeke maintained that there were psalms of which we could not say\nwith any definiteness to what period they belonged between 900 and\n160 B.C. He himself referred Psalm ii. to Solomon, which had been\nreferred by Hitzig to Alexander Jannaeus (105-78 B.C.). Even where\nthe historical implications may seem fairly certain, there may be\nmore than one legitimate interpretation. Psalm xlvi., e.g., which is\nusually regarded as a song of triumph sung after the departure of\nSennacherib, is by some interpreted eschatologically; Zion is the\nideal Zion of the latter days, and the stream that makes her glad is\nthe stream of Paradise. Some psalms, of course, have their origin\nstamped very legibly upon them. Psalm cxxxvii. e.g., clearly implies\nthat the exile is not long over. The presence of Aramaisms in a\npsalm is a fairly sure indication of a relatively late date. Within\ncertain limits, also, its theological ideas may be a guide, though\nwe know too little of the history of these ideas to use this\ncriterion with much confidence. Still, so elaborate an emphasis on\nthe omnipresence of God as we find in Psalm cxxxix. is only possible\nto a later age, and this inference is more than confirmed by its\nhighly Aramaic flavour. Both these considerations render its\nascription to David utterly untenable.\n\nThe question was raised long ago and has been much discussed in\nrecent times, whether the subject of the Psalter is the individual\nor the church; and till very recently the opinion has been gaining\nground that the experience and aspiration of the Psalter are not\npersonal and individual, but that in it is heard the collective\nvoice of the church. Many difficulties undoubtedly disappear or are\nlessened on this interpretation, e.g., the bitterness of the\nimprecatory psalms, or the far-reaching consequences attached in\nother psalms (cf. xxii., xl.) to the deliverance of the singer. Till\nthe exile, the religious unit was the nation, and the collective use\nof the singular pronoun is one of the commonest phenomena in Hebrew\nliterature. The Decalogue is addressed to Israel in the 2nd pers.\nsing., in Deuteronomy the 2nd pers. sing, alternates with the pl.,\nin the priestly blessing (Num. vi. 24ff.) Israel is blessed in the\nsingular. In Deutero-Isaiah, the servant of Jehovah is undoubtedly\nto be interpreted collectively, and in many of the psalms the\ncollective interpretation is put beyond all doubt by the very\nexplicit language of the context:\n\n  Much have they afflicted me from my youth up,\n  Let _Israel_ now say, cxxix. 11\n\nAll this is true, and there are probably more collective psalms in\nthe Psalter than we have been accustomed to believe. But it would be\nridiculous to suppose that every psalm has to be so interpreted. Some\nof the psalms were originally written without any view to the temple\nservice, and they must have expressed the individual emotion of the\nsinger.[1] Besides, Jeremiah had shown or at least suggested that\nthe real unit was the individual; the teaching of Ezekiel and the\nbook of Job are proof that the lesson had been well learned; and,\nalthough the post-exilic church may have felt its solidarity and\nrealized its corporate consciousness as acutely as the pre-exilic\nnation, the individual, as a religious unit, could never again be\nforgotten. He had come to stay; and if, in many psalms, the general\nvoice of the church is heard, it is equally certain that many  others\nutter the emotions and experiences of individual singers.\n[Footnote 1: That Psalms, now collective, were originally\nindividual, and subsequently altered and adapted to the use of the\ncommunity is seen, e.g., in the occasional disturbance of the order\nin alphabetical psalms (ix., x.). ]\n\nThe Psalter, or part of it, was used in the temple service[1]-witness\nthe numerous musical and liturgical superscriptions (cf. superscr. of\nPs. xcii.)--though the people probably did no more than sing or utter\nthe responses (cvi. 48). It would be difficult to estimate the\nimportance of the Psalter to the Old Testament Church. It was the\nsupport of piety as well as the expression of it; and, to a worship\nwhich laid so much stress upon punctilious ritual and animal sacrifice,\nthe Psalter, with its austere spiritual tone, its simple passion for\nGod, and its bracing sense of fellowship with the Eternal, would come\nas a wholesome corrective. Almost in the spirit of the older prophets\n(Hos. vi. 6) animal sacrifice is relegated to an altogether subordinate\nplace (xl., l., li.), if it is not indeed rebuked: the sacrifice dear\nto God is a broken spirit. Thus the Psalter was a mighty contribution\nin one direction, as the synagogue in another, to the development of\nspiritual religion. It kept alive the prophetic element in Israel's\nreligion, and did much to counteract the more blighting influences of\nJudaism. The place of the law is occasionally recognized (i., xix. 7ff.),\nonce very emphatically (cxix.), but it is honoured chiefly for its moral\nstimulus. It is not, as in later times, an incubus; it is still an\ninspiration.\n[Footnote 1: The addition of the last verse to the alphabetic\npsalms, xxv. and xxxiv., adapts these psalms, whether originally\nindividual or collective, to the temple service.]\n\nThere are tempers in the Psalter which are anything but lovely-hatred\nof enemies, protestation of self-righteousness, and other utterances\nwhich prevent it from being, in its entirety, the hymn-book of the\nChristian Church. Historically these things are explicable and perhaps\ninevitable, but the glory of the Psalter is its overwhelming sense of\nthe reality of God. The men who wrote it counted God their Friend; and\nalthough they never forgot that He was the infinite One, whose home is\nthe universe and who fills the vast spaces of history with His\nfaithfulness and His justice, He was also to them the patient and\nloving One, who preserves both man and beast, under the shadow of whose\nwings the children of men may rest with quietness and confidence, and\nbefore whom they could pour out the deepest thoughts and petitions of\ntheir hearts, in the assurance that He was the hearer of prayer, and\nthat His tender mercies were over all His works. He was to them the\nsource of all strength and consolation and vision. In His light they\nsaw light; and in their noblest moments--whatever they might lose or\nsuffer--with Him they were content. In Luther's fine paraphrase of\nPsalm lxxiii. 25, \"If I have but Thee, I ask for nothing in heaven or\nearth.\"\n\n\n\n\nPROVERBS\n\n\nMany specimens of the so-called _Wisdom Literature_ are\npreserved for us in the book of Proverbs, for its contents are by no\nmeans confined to what we call proverbs. The first nine chapters\nconstitute a continuous discourse, almost in the manner of a sermon;\nand of the last two chapters, ch. xxx. is largely made up of\nenigmas, and xxxi. is in part a description of the good housewife.\n\nAll, however, are rightly subsumed under the idea of wisdom, which\nto the Hebrew had always moral relations. The Hebrew wise man seldom\nor never gave himself to abstract speculation; he dealt with issues\nraised by practical life. Wise men are spoken of almost as an\norganized guild, and coordinated with priests and prophets as early\nas the time of Jeremiah (xviii. 18), but the general impression made\nby the pre-exilic references to the wise men is that they exercised\ncertain quasi-political functions and hardly correspond to the wise\nmen of later times who discussed issues of the moral life and\ndevoted themselves to the instruction of young men (Prov. i. 4, 8).\n\nMost of the important types of thought of the wise men are represented\nin the book of Proverbs. There are proverbs proper, a few of the\npopular kind, but most of them bearing the stamp of deliberate art,\nand dealing with the prudent conduct of life (x.-xxix.); there are\nspeculations of a more general kind on the nature that wisdom which\nis the guide of life (i.-ix.); and there is scepticism (cf. Eccles.)\nrepresented by the words of Agur (xxx. 1-4). The book, as a whole, might\nbe described as a guide to the happy life, or, we might almost say, to\nthe successful life--for a certain not ignoble utilitarianism clings\nto many of its precepts. The world is recognized as a moral and orderly\nworld, and wisdom is profitable unto all things. The wisdom which the\nwise man manifests in contact with life and its exigencies is but a\ncounterpart of the divine wisdom which, in one noble passage, is the\nfellow of God and more ancient than creation (viii.).\n\nThere is not a little literary power in the book. Very beautiful is\nWisdom's appeal to the sons of men, and her invitation to the\nbanquet (viii., ix.). The isolated proverbs in x.-xxix. are usually\nmore terse and powerful than they appear in the English translation.\nThere are flashes of humour too:\n\n  As a ring of gold in a swine's snout,\n  So is a fair woman without discretion, xi. 22.\n  Withhold not correction from thy son,\n  Though thou smite him with the rod, he will not die, xxiii. 13.\n\nThey deal with life upon its average levels: there is nothing of the\nprophetic enthusiasm, but they are robust and kindly withal.\n\nNot without reason has the book been called \"a forest of proverbs,\"\nfor at any rate in the body of it it is practically impossible to\ndetect any principle of order. Usually the sayings in x.-xxix. are\ndisconnected, but occasionally kindred sayings are gathered into\ngroups of two or more verses; and sometimes it would seem as if the\nprinciple of arrangement was alphabetic, several consecutive verses\noccasionally beginning with the same letter, e.g., xx. 7-9, xxii. 2-4.\n There are eight divisions--\n\n(_a_) i.-ix. (of which i. 1-6 is no doubt designed as an\nintroduction to the whole book, and vi. 1-19 is probably an\ninterpolation): an impressive appeal to secure wisdom and avoid\nfolly, especially when she appears in the guise of the strange\nwoman. Wisdom's own appeal and invitation.\n\n(_b_) x.-xxii. 16. A series of very loosely connected proverbs\nin couplets, x.-xv. being chiefly antithetic (cf. x. 1, xv. 1) and\nxvi. 1-xxii. 16 chiefly synthetic (cf. xvi. 16).\n\n(_c_) xxii. 17-xxiv. 22, designated as \"the words of the wise,\"\ncontaining a few continuous pieces (cf. xxiii. 29-35 on drunkenness)\nand addressed, like i.-ix., to \"my son,\" cf. xxiii. 15, 26.\n\n(_d_) xxiv. 23-34, probably little more than an appendix to\n(_c_), and also containing a continuous piece (cf. _vv._\n30-34 on sloth).\n\n(_e_) xxv.-xxix. A series, in many respects resembling\n(_6_), of loosely connected sayings. This section, especially\nxxv.-xxvii., contains more proverbs in the strict sense, i.e.\nsayings without any specific moral bearing, e.g. xxv. 25.\n\n(_f_) xxx. The words of Agur, of a sceptical and enigmatical\nkind, worked over by an orthodox reader (cf. _vv_. 5, 6, which\nreprove _vv_. 2-4).\n\n(_g_) xxxi. 1-9. Words addressed to king Lemuel (whom we cannot\nidentify) by his mother.\n\n(_h_) xxxi. 10-31. An alphabetic poem in praise of the good\nhousewife.\n\nClearly the book makes no pretence to be, as a whole, from Solomon.\nIf we except i. 1-6, which is introductory to the whole book, only\n(_b_) and (_e_) are assigned to Solomon: the other\nsections--except the last, are deliberately assigned to others,\n(_c_) and (_d_) expressly to \"the wise.\" The ascription of\nthe whole book to Solomon, which seems to be implied by its opening\nverse, and which, if genuine, would render the fresh ascription in\nx. 1 unnecessary, is no doubt to be explained as the similar\nascription of the Psalms to David or the legislation to Moses. He\nwas the \"wise man\" of Hebrew antiquity, and he is expressly said in\n1 Kings iv. 32 to have spoken 3,000 proverbs. The implication of\nthat passage (cf. _v_. 33) is that those proverbs consisted of\ncomparisons between men and trees or animals: that supposition is\nmet by some (cf. vi. 6) but not by many in the book. There are not\nlikely then to be many of his proverbs in our book; but not\nimpossibly there may be some. Ch. xxv. 1 is indeed very explicit,\nbut that notice is, on the face of it, late. The fact that Hezekiah\nis called not simply king, but king of Judah, seems to point to a\ntime--at the earliest the exile--when the kingdom of Judah was no\nmore; so that this notice would be about a century and a half after\nHezekiah's time, and Hezekiah is more than two centuries after\nSolomon. Obviously many of the proverbs in x.-xxix. could not have\nbeen Solomon's. The advice as to the proper demeanour in the\npresence of a king (xxv. 6, 7) would not come very naturally from\none who was himself a king (cf. xxiii.1ff.); nor, to say nothing of\nthe praises of monogamy, would he be likely so to satirize his own\ngovernment as he would do in xxix. 4: \"He whose exactions are\nexcessive ruins the land.\"\n\nThe question may, however, be fairly raised whether the proverbs,\nthough as a whole not Solomonic, may yet be pre-exilic; and here two\nquestions must be kept apart--the date of the individual proverbs\nand the date of the collections or of the book as a whole. Now it is\nvery probable that some of the proverbs are pre-exilic. The\nreferences to the king, e.g.--kindly in x-xxii., and more severe in\nxxv-xxix.--might indeed apply to the Greek period (fourth and third\ncenturies B.C.), but are equally applicable to the pre-exilic\nperiod; and many of the shrewd observations on life might come\nequally well from any period. But there can be little doubt that the\ngroups in their present form are post-exilic. The sages do their\nwork on the basis of the achievements of law and prophecy.[1] The\ngreat prophetic ideas about God are not discussed, they are\npresupposed; while the \"law\" of xxviii. 4, 7, 9, as in Psalm cxix.,\nappears to be practically equivalent to Scripture, and would point\nto the fifth century at the earliest. True, there are sayings quite\nin the old prophetic spirit, to the effect that character is more\nacceptable to God than ritual and sacrifice, xxi. 3, 27, xv. 8, xvi.\n6; but this would be an equally appropriate and almost more\nnecessary warning in post-exilic times, especially upon the lips of\nmen whose profession was in part that of moral education.\n[Footnote 1: The text of xxix. 18_a_ is too insecure (cf.\nSeptuagint) to justify us in saying that prophecy still exists. ]\n\nThere is no challenge of idolatry, such as we should expect if the\nbook were pre-exilic, and monogamy is everywhere presupposed. Indeed\nit is very remarkable that no mention is made of Israel, or of any\ninstitutions distinctly Israelitic. Its subject is not the nation,\nbut the individual, and its wisdom is cosmopolitan. Now though this\nappeal to man rather than Israel, this emphasis on the universal\nconscience, can be traced as far back as the eighth century[1] (Amos\niii. 9), the thoroughgoing application of it in Proverbs suggests a\nlarger experience of international relationships, which could hardly\nbe placed before the exile, and was not truly developed till long\nafter it, say, in the Persian or Greek period. This is peculiarly\ntrue of chs. i-ix., which was probably an independent piece,\nprefixed to x.-xxix., to gather up their sporadic elements of wisdom\nin a comprehensive whole, and to secure an adequate religious basis\nfor their maxims which were, in the main, ethical. It is not\nnecessary to suppose that the personification of wisdom in ch. viii.\nis directly influenced by Greek philosophy, but the whole\nspeculative manner of the passage points to a late, even if\nindependent, development of Jewish thought. The last two chapters\nare probably the latest in the book, which, while it must be earlier\nthan Ben Sirach (180 B.C.), who distinctly adapts it, is probably\nnot earlier than 300 B.C.\n[Footnote 1: Micah vi. 8, \"He that showed thee, _O man_, what\nis good,\" is also a saying of far-reaching significance in this\nconnection.]\n\nThe value of this much-neglected book is very great. It is easy of\ncourse to point to its limitations--to show that it hardly, if ever\n(ix. 18?) looks out upon another world, but confines its\ncompensations and its penalties to this, xi. 31, or to discover\nutilitarian elements in its morality, in. 10, or mechanical features\nin its conception of life, xvi. 31. But it would be easy to\nexaggerate. The sages know very well that a good name is better than\nwealth, xxii. 1, and that the deepest success of life is its\nconformity to the divine wisdom (i.-ix.). While most of the maxims\nare purely ethical, it has to be remembered that to the Hebrew\nmorality rests upon religion: the introductory section (i.-ix.)\nthrows its influence across the whole book, the motto of which is\nthat the fear of Jehovah is the basis of knowledge and its chief\nconstituent, i. 7. Besides, many of the maxims themselves are\nspecifically religious, e.g., \"He that oppresseth the poor\nreproacheth his Maker,\" xiv. 31, \"He that hath pity on the poor\nlendeth to Jehovah,\" xix. 17. On the more purely moral side, besides\ngiving a welcome glimpse into ancient Hebrew society, it is rich in\napplications to modern life. Slander and revenge are severely\ndenounced; and earnest and repeated warnings are lifted up in\ndifferent parts of the book against wine and women (v., xxiii.,\nxxxi.). Care for animals is inculcated, xii. 10, and love to\nenemies, xxv. 21., in words borrowed by the New Testament--a notable\nadvance on Leviticus xix. 18.\n\nIn one or two respects the book is of peculiar interest and value to\nthe modern world. It is more interested, e.g., in practice than in\ncreed. Its creed is very simple, little more than a general fear of\nJehovah; but this receives endless application to practical life.\nAgain, the appeal of the book is, on the whole, not to revelation,\nbut to experience, and it meets the average man and woman upon their\nordinary level. Its appeal is therefore one which cannot be evaded,\nas it commends itself, without the support of revelation, to the\nuniversal moral instincts of mankind. Again, its emphasis upon the\nmoral, as opposed to the speculative, is striking. Immediately after\na passage which approaches as near to metaphysical speculation as\nany Old Testament writer ever approaches, viii. 22-31, comes a\ndirect, tender and personal appeal. Lastly, there is an almost\nmodern sense of the inexorableness of law in the solemn reminder\nthat those who refuse and despise the call of wisdom will be left\nalone and helpless when their day of trouble comes, i. 22ff. But the\nsternness is mitigated by a gentler thought. Like a gracious lady,\nwisdom, which is only one aspect of the divine Providence, pleads\nwith men, yearning to win them from their folly to the peace and\nhappiness which are alone with her; and even suffering is but one of\nthe ways of God, a confirmation of sonship, and even a manifestation\nof His love.\n\n  Whom Jehovah loveth, He reproveth,\n  Even as a father the son in whom he delighteth, iii. 12.\n\nThis is perhaps the profoundest note in the book of Proverbs. A book\nso rich in moral precept and religious thought may well claim to\nhave fulfilled its programme: \"to give prudence to the simple, to\nthe young man knowledge and discretion,\" i. 4.\n\n\n\n\nJOB\n\n\nThe book of Job is one of the great masterpieces of the world's\nliterature, if not indeed the greatest. The author was a man of\nsuperb literary genius, and of rich, daring, and original mind. The\nproblem with which he deals is one of inexhaustible interest, and\nhis treatment of it is everywhere characterized by a psychological\ninsight, an intellectual courage, and a fertility and brilliance of\nresource which are nothing less than astonishing. Opinion has been\ndivided as to how the book should be classified, whether as epic,\ndramatic or didactic poetry. It is didactic at any rate in the sense\nthat the poet, who wrote it with his heart's blood, intended to read\nhis generation a much-needed lesson on the mysterious discipline of\nlife; and it is dramatic, though not in the ordinary sense--for in\nthe poetry proper there is no development of action--yet in the\nsense that it vividly pourtrays the conflict of minds, and the clash\nof conventional with independent opinion.\n\nThe story of the book is easily told. The prologue (i., ii.)\nintroduces Job as a pattern of scrupulous piety, and therefore, in\naccordance with the ancient view, a prosperous man. In the heavenly\ncouncil, the Satan insinuates that, if the prosperity be withdrawn,\nthe piety will also disappear. Jehovah, sure of His servant Job,\ngrants the Satan permission to deprive Job of all that he\n_has_, in order that he may discover what he _is_. Job\nsustains the four fierce blows, which stripped him of all, with\nbeautiful resignation. The Satan is foiled. He now insinuates that\nthe trial has not been severe enough: only his property has been\ntouched--not his person. With Jehovah's permission a second assault\nis made, and Job is smitten with the incurable and loathsome disease\nof leprosy, so that he is without hope in the world. He has nothing\nbut God--will God be enough? Again Job sustains his trial in noble\nand ever-memorable words; and the Satan is foiled again. Then three\nof Job's friends--great sheikhs--come to express their sorrow.\n\nThen follow three cycles of speeches between Job and his friends\n(iii.-xiv.; xv.-xxi.; xxii.-xxxi).\n\n_First cycle_. Job begins by lamenting his birthday and longing\nfor death (iii.). Eliphaz, a man of age and wisdom, with much\ncourtesy and by an appeal to a revelation which had been given him\nin the night, seeks to reconcile Job to his lot, reminding him that\nno mortal man can be pure in the sight of God, and assuring him of\nrestoration, if he accepts his suffering as discipline (iv., v.).\nJob rejects this easy optimism and expresses his longing for a\nspeedy death, as life on the earth is nothing but a miserable\nwarfare (vi., vii.). Bildad, annoyed at Job's challenge of God's\njustice, asserts the sure destruction of evildoers, but implicitly\nconcedes, at the end, that Job is not an evil-doer, by promising him\na bright future (viii.). Job then grows ironical. Of course, he\nsays, God is always in the right. Might is right, and He is\nalmighty, destroying innocent and guilty alike. He longs to meet\nGod, and to know why He so marvellously treats the creature He so\nmarvellously made (ix., x.). Zophar bluntly condemns Job's bold\nwords and urges repentance, but, like his friends, foretells the\ndawn of a better day for Job, though his very last words are ominous\nand suggestive of another possibility (xi.). Job, with a sarcastic\ncompliment to the wisdom of his friends, claims the right to an\nindependent judgment and challenges the whole moral order of the\nworld. Better be honest--God needs no man to distort the facts for\nHim. Job longs for a meeting, in which God will either speak to him\nor listen to him. But, as no answer comes, he laments again the\npathos of life, which ends so utterly in death (xii.-xiv.).\n\n_Second cycle_. Eliphaz, concluding that Job despises religion,\ndescribes in vigorous terms the fate of the godless (xv.). Job\ncomplains of his fierce persecution by God, and appeals, in almost\nthe same breath, against this unintelligible God to the righteous\nGod in heaven, who is his witness and sponsor; but again he falls\nback into gloom and despondency (xvi., xvii.). Bildad answers by\ndescribing the doom of the wicked, with more than one unmistakable\nallusion to Job's case (xviii.). Job is vexed. He breaks out into a\nlament of his utter desolation, the darkness of which, however, is\nshot through with a sudden and momentary gleam of assurance that God\nwill one day vindicate him (xix.). Not so, answers Zophar: the\ntriumph of the wicked is short (xx.). Job, in a bold and terrible\nspeech, assails the doctrine of the friends, challenges the moral\norder, and asserts that the world is turned upside down (xxi.).\n\n_Third cycle_. To the friends Job now seems to be condemned out\nof his own mouth, and Eliphaz coolly proceeds to accuse him of\nspecific sins (xxii.). This drives Job to despair, and he longs to\nappear before the God whom he cannot find, to plead his cause before\nHim. Why does He not interpose? and again follows a fierce challenge\nof the moral order (xxiii., xxiv.). The arguments of the friends are\nbeing gradually exhausted, and Bildad can only reply by asserting\nthe uncleanness of man in presence of the infinite majesty of God\n(xxv., xxvi.). In spite of this Job asserts his integrity, xxvii. 1-6.\nZophar repeats the old doctrine of the doom of the wicked, xxvii. 7-23.\nThen Job rises up, like a giant, to make his last great defence. He\npictures his former prosperity and his present misery, and ends, in a\nchapter which touches the noblest heights of Old Testament morality,\nwith a detailed assertion of the principles that governed his conduct\nand character. With one great cry that the Almighty would listen to\nhim, he concludes (xxix.-xxxi.).\n\nThe Almighty does listen; and He answers--not by referring to Job's\nparticular case, still less to his sin, but by questions that\nsuggest to Job His own power, wisdom, and love, and the ignorance\nand impotence of man, xxxviii., xxxix., xl. 2, 8-14. Job humbly\nrecognizes the inadequacy of his criticism in the light of this\nvision of God, xl. 3-5, xlii. 2-6, and with this the poem comes to\nan end.\n\nThe epilogue, xlii. 7-17, in prose, describes how Jehovah severely\ncondemned the friends for the words they had spoken, commended His\nservant Job for speaking rightly of Him, and restored him to double\nhis former prosperity.\n\nIt is obvious that we have here a religious and not a philosophical\ndiscussion. Indeed it is hardly a discussion at all; for, though the\npsychological interest of the situation is heightened by every\nspeech, there is practically no development in the argument. The\nfriends grow more excited and unfair, Job grows more calm and\ndignified; but so far as argument is concerned, neither he nor they\naffect each other--the author meaning to suggest by this perhaps the\nfutility of human discussion.\n\nThe problem of the book of Job has been variously defined. In one\nform it is raised by the question of Satan, i. 9, \"Doth Job fear God\nfor naught?\" which is the Hebrew way of saying, \"Is there such a\nthing as disinterested religion?\" But the body of the book discusses\nthe problem under a wider aspect: how can the facts of human life,\nand especially the sufferings of the righteous, be reconciled with\nthe justice of God? With delicate skill the author has suggested\nthat this problem is a universal one; not Israel alone is perplexed\nby it, but humanity. To indicate this, he puts his hero and his\nstage outside the land of Israel. Job is a foreign saint, and Uz is\non the borders of the Arabian desert.\n\nThe ancient theory of retribution was very simple: every man\nreceived what he deserved--the good prosperity, the bad misfortune.\nIn its national application, this principle was obviously more or\nless true, but every age must have seen numerous exceptions in the\nlife of the individual. The exceptions, however, were not felt to be\nparticularly perplexing, because, till the exile, the individual was\nhardly seriously felt to be a religious unit: his personality was\nmerged in the wider life of the tribe or nation. But the exile,\nwhich saw many of the best men suffer, forced the question to the\nfront; and the explanation then commonly offered was that they were\nsuffering for the sins of the fathers. Ezekiel denied this and\nmaintained that the individual received exactly what he deserved\n(xviii.): it is well with the righteous and ill with the wicked. The\nfriends of Job in the main represent this doctrine, Eliphaz\nappealing to revelation, Bildad to tradition, and Zophar to common\nsense. The author of the book of Job desires, among other things, to\nexpose the inadequacy of this doctrine. Job, a good man--not only on\nhis own confession (xxxi.), but on the express and repeated\nadmission of God Himself, i. 8, ii. 3--is overwhelmed with\ncalamities which cannot be explained by the imperfections which are\ninherent in all men, and which Job himself readily admits vii. 21.\nHow are such sufferings to be reconciled with the justice of God?\n\nThe problem had to be solved without reference to the future world.\nTo a steady faith in immortality, which can find its compensations\notherwhere, there is no real problem; but it is certain that, though\nthere are scattered hints, xiv. 13, xix. 25ff.--which, however, many\ninterpret differently--of a life after death, this belief is not\nheld by Job (or by the author) tenaciously, nor offered as a\nsolution, for the lamentations continue to the end. The solution, if\nthere is any, the author must find in this world. It would seem that\nno definite solution is offered, though there are not a few profound\nand valuable suggestions.\n\n(1) The prologue, e.g., suggests that the sufferings of earth find\ntheir ultimate explanation in the councils of heaven. What is done\nor suffered here is determined there. (2) Again the prologue\nsuggests that suffering is a test of fidelity. Job has proved his\nessential and disinterested goodness, besides glorifying the name of\nthe God, who trusted him, by standing fast. (3) The friends make\ntheir shallow and conventional contribution to the solution: from\nthe doctrine--whose strict and universal truth Job denied--that sin\nwas always followed by suffering, they inferred the still more\nquestionable doctrine that suffering was punishment for sin. In\nestimating the views of the friends, it should never be forgotten\nthat Jehovah, in the epilogue, condemns them as not having spoken\nthe thing that is right, xlii. 7, 8. Of course, though inadequate,\nthey are not always absolutely wrong; and Eliphaz expresses a truth\nnot wholly inapplicable to Job's case--at least to the Job of the\nspeeches--when he insists on the disciplinary value of suffering, v.\n17 ff.\n\n(4) If a real solution is offered anywhere, one would most naturally\nlook for it in the speeches of Jehovah (xxxviii. ff.); and at first\nsight they are not very promising. Their effect would most naturally\nbe rather to silence and overwhelm Job than to convince him; and to\nsome they have suggested no more than that the contemplation of\nnature may be a remedy for scepticism. But their object is\nprofounder than that. By heightening the sense of the mystery of the\nuniverse, they show Job the folly, and almost the impertinence, of\nexpecting an adequate answer to all his whys and wherefores. A man\nwho cannot account for the most familiar facts of the physical world\nis not likely to explore the subtler mysteries of the moral world.\nBut there is more. The divine speeches suggest that God is not only\nstrong--Job knew that very well (ix.)--but wise, xxxviii. 2, and\nkind, feeding even the ravenous beasts, xxxviii. 39, and tenderly\ncaring for the waste and desolate place where no man is, xxxviii.\n26. The universe compels trust in the wisdom and love of God. (5)\nThe epilogue, too, shows how the suffering hero was rewarded and\nvindicated. The reward we shall discuss afterwards; but it is with\nfine instinct that the epilogue represents Job as a man so powerful\nwith God that his prayer is effectual to save his erring friends,\nand four times within two verses, xlii. 7 f, Jehovah calls him \"My\nservant Job.\" Therein lies his real vindication, rather than in the\nreward of the sheep and the oxen.\n\nThe book clearly intends to suggest that in this world it is vain to\nlook for exact retribution. From calamity it is unjust to infer\nspecial or secret sin: the worst may happen to the best. Again,\nthere is such a thing as disinterested goodness, a goodness which\nbelieves in and clings to God, when it has nothing to hope for but\nHimself. But the book may also be fairly regarded as a protest\nagainst contemporary theology; and, in its present form, at any\nrate, it suggests that God loves the independent thinker. The\nfriends are orthodox, but shallow; \"Who ever perished, being\ninnocent?\" iv. 7. They are so wedded to their theories that even the\noldest and wisest among them cruelly invents falsehoods to support\nthem (xxii.). Job replies to theories by facts. He is a man of\nindependent observation and judgment, his mouth must \"taste for\nitself,\" xii. 11. He is bold sometimes almost to blasphemy, he\naccuses God of destroying innocent and guilty alike, ix. 22, and\ndoes not scruple to parody a psalm, vii. 17 f. Yet he does this\nbecause he must be true to facts, whatever comes of theories: he\nmust cling to the God of conscience against the God of convention.\n\nIn discussing the scheme of the book and the solution it offers of\nthe problem of suffering, we have not yet taken into account the\n_speeches of Elihu_ (xxxii.-xxxvii.). The value and importance\nof these have been variously estimated, the extremes being represented\nby Duhm, who characterizes them as the childish effusions of some\nbombastic rabbi, and Cornill, who calls them \"the crown of the book\nof Job.\" It is not without good reason that the authenticity of this\nsection has been doubted. After the dramatic appeal at the close of\nJob's splendid defence, it is natural to suppose that Jehovah appears;\nand when He does appear (xxxviii.), His speech is expressly said to be\nan answer to Job. Elihu is completely ignored, as he is not only in\nthe prologue but also in the epilogue, xlii. 7. The latter omission\nwould be especially strange, if he is integral to the book. As his\nspeech is not condemned, it is natural to infer from the silence\nthat it is implicitly commended. In that case, however, we have two\nsolutions--the Elihu speeches and the Jehovah speeches. But there is\npractically nothing new in the Elihu speeches: in emphasizing the\ngreatness of God, they but anticipate the Jehovah speeches, and in\nemphasizing the disciplinary value of chastisement, they but amplify\nthe point already made by Eliphaz in v. 17ff., and most summarily\nexpressed in xxxvi. 15. Almost the only other assertion made is\nthat, as against Job's contention, God does speak to men--through\ndreams, sickness, angels, etc. The lengthy description in which\nElihu is introduced, and the mention of his genealogy, are very\nunlike the other introductions. The literary art of the section is,\nspeaking generally, inferior to that of the rest of the book. It is\nimitative rather than creative. Elihu takes about twenty verses to\nannounce the simple fact that he is going to speak, though there\nmight be a dramatic propriety in this, as he is represented as a\nyoung man. Further, the language is more Aramaic than the rest of\nthe book. Cornill, however, defends the section as offering the real\nsolution of the problem. \"If a man recognizes the educative\ncharacter of suffering and takes it to heart, the suffering becomes\nfor him a source of infinite blessing, the highest manifestation of\ndivine love.\" But it seems rather improbable that the true solution\nshould be put into the lips of a young man, who said he was ready to\nburst if he did not deliver himself of his speech, xxxii. 19. Apart\nfrom the fact that it is more natural to look for the solution in\nthe speeches of Jehovah, and that the Elihu speeches, in condemning\nJob, disagree with the epilogue, which commends him, the arguments\nagainst their authenticity seem much more than to counterbalance the\nlittle that can be said in their favour; and in all probability they\nare an orthodox addition to the book from the pen of some later\nscholar who was offended by Job's accusations of God and\nprotestations of his own innocence.\n\nThe authenticity of the _prologue and epilogue_ has also been\nquestioned, some scholars asserting that they really form the\nbeginning and end of an older (pre-exilic) book of Job, the body of\nwhich was replaced by the speeches in our present book. The question\nis far from unimportant, as on it depends, in part, our conception\nof the purpose of the author of the speeches. Against the idea that\nthe prologue and epilogue are from his hand are these\nconsiderations. They are in prose, while the body of the book is in\nverse. Again, the name of God in the prologue and epilogue is\nJehovah; elsewhere, with one exception, which is probably an\ninterpolation, xii. 9, it is El, Eloah, Shaddai, as if Jehovah were\npurposely avoided.[1] In xix. 17_b_, where the true translation\nis \"Mine evil savour is strange to the sons of my body,\" the\nchildren are regarded as living:[2] while in the prologue they are\ndead. But more serious is the fact that the Job of the prologue\nseems to differ fundamentally from the Job of the speeches. The\nformer is patient, submissive, resigned; the latter is impatient,\nbitter, and even defiant. Further, the epilogue represents Jehovah\nas commending Job and condemning the friends without qualification,\nwhereas it may be urged that, in the course of the speeches, the\nfriends were not always wrong, nor was Job always right, and that it\nis impossible that his merciless criticisms of the moral order could\nhave passed without divine rebuke: much that Job said would have\ndelighted the Satan of the prologue. These considerations have led\nto the supposition that, in the original book, Job maintained\nthroughout the spirit of devout resignation which he showed in the\nprologue, while it was the friends who accused God of cruelty and\ninjustice. A bolder and profounder thinker of a later age attacked\nthe problem independently on the basis of the old story, and\ninserted his contribution, iii.-xlii. 6, between the prologue and\nthe epilogue, thus giving a totally different turn to the story.\n[Footnote 1: Ch. xxxviii. i, being introductory to the speeches of\nJehovah, should hardly be counted.]\n[Footnote 2: See, however, viii. 4, xxix. 5, so that xix. 17_b_\nmay be due to forgetfulness.]\n\nThis view is ingenious, but does not seem necessary.\nPsychologically, there is no necessary incompatibility between the\nJob of the prologue and the Job of the speeches. It must not be\nforgotten that months have elapsed between the original blow and the\nlamentations, vii. 3--months in which the brooding mind of the\nsufferer has had time to pass from resignation to perplexity, and\nalmost to despair. Again, the words of Job are not to be taken too\nseriously; they are, as he says himself, the words of a desperate\nman, vi. 26, and the commendation in the epilogue may be taken to\napply rather to his general attitude than to his particular\nutterances. Some kind of introduction there must undoubtedly have\nbeen; otherwise the speeches, and especially Job's repeated\nasseverations of his innocence, are unintelligible. The literary\npower and skill of the prologue is as great as that of the speeches:\ndramatically, the swift contrast between the happy family upon the\nearth and the council of gods in heaven, or the rapid succession of\nblows that rained upon Job the moment that Satan \"went forth from\nthe presence of Jehovah,\" is as effective as the psychological\nsurprises in which the book abounds. The language is slightly in\nfavour of a post-exilic date, and the conception of Satan appears to\nbe somewhat in advance of Zechariah iii. 1 (520 B.C.). On the whole\nit seems fair to conclude that the great poet who composed the\nspeeches also wrote the prologue, though of course his material lay\nto hand in a popular, and not improbably written story.\n\nWith the prologue must go at least part of the epilogue, xlii. 7-9;\nfor the author's purpose is to characterize the two types of thought\nrepresented by the discussion and to vindicate Job. More doubt may\nattach to the concluding section, _vv_. 10-17, which represents\nthat vindication as taking the form of a material reward. A Western\nreader is surprised and disappointed: to him it seems that the\nauthor has \"fallen from his high estate,\" and has failed to be\nconvinced by his own magnificent argument. But, as we have already\nsaid, the real vindication of Job is the efficacy of his prayer, and\nthe material reward is, in any case, not much more than a sort of\npoetic justice. It is indeed an outward and visible sign of the\nrelation subsisting between Job and his God; but it is hard to\nbelieve that the genius who fought his way to such a solution as\nappears in xxxviii., xxxix., would himself have laid much stress\nupon it. Yet it is not inappropriate or irrelevant. Job's sufferings\nhad their origin in Satan's denial of his integrity; and now that\nSatan has been convinced--for Job clings in the deepest darkness to\nthe God of his conscience--it is only just that he should be\nrestored to his former state.\n\nIt is not certain that ch. xxviii. with its fine description of\nwisdom, which is neither to be found in mine nor mart, is original\nto the book. It does not connect well either with the preceding or\nthe following chapter. The serenity that breathes through ch.\nxxviii. would not naturally be followed by the renewed lamentations\nof xxix., and it would further be dramatically inappropriate for a\nman in agony to speak thus didactically. It is a sort of companion\npiece to Proverbs viii.; it is too abstract for its context, and\nlacks its almost fierce emotion.\n\nDoubt also attaches to the sections descriptive of _the\nhippopotamus and the crocodile_, xl. l5-xli. The defence is that,\nas the earlier speeches of God, xxxviii. xxxix., were to convince\nJob of his ignorance, so these are to convince him of his impotence.\nBut the descriptions, though fine in their way (cf. xli. 22), do not\nstand on the same literary level as those of xxxviii., xxxix. These\nare brief and drawn to the life--how vivid are the pictures of the\nwar-horse and the wild ass!--those of xl., xli. are diffuse and\nsomewhat exaggerated. Of course Oriental standards of taste are not\nours; still the difference can hardly be ignored. It is worthy of\nnote, too, that the word leviathan in xli. 1 is used in a totally\ndifferent sense from iii 8, where it is the mythological (sea?)\ndragon. The author appears to have travelled widely and the book\nbetrays a knowledge of Egypt (cf. pyramids, iii. 14; papyrus, viii.\n11; reed ships, ix. 26; phoenix, xxix. 18), but it is not without\nsignificance that all his other animal pictures are drawn from the\ndesert--the lion (iv.), the wild ass, the war-horse. On the whole,\nit is hardly probable that these long descriptions, rather\nunnecessarily retarding, as they do, the crisis between Jehovah and\nJob for which the sympathetic reader is impatiently waiting, are\noriginal to the book.\n\nCertain redistributions of the speeches seem to be necessary. Ch.\nxxvi. is conceived in a temper thoroughly unlike that of Job at this\nstage, while it closely resembles that of xxv. As ch. xxv. would be\nan unusually short speech, it is probable that xxv. and xxvi. should\nboth be given to Bildad. That there is something wrong is plain from\nthe fresh introduction to xxvii. 1 (cf. xxix. 1), a phenomenon which\ndoes not elsewhere occur and which, if xxvi. is Job's, should be\nunnecessary. Again in xxvii. 7-23 Job turns completely round upon\nhis own position and adopts that of the friends. It has been said\nthat he \"forgets himself sufficiently in ch. xxvii. to deliver a\ndiscourse which would have been suitable in the mouth of one of the\nfriends.\" Surely such an explanation is as impossible as it is\npsychologically unnatural: in all probability _vv_. 7-23 ought\nto be given to Zophar--the more probably as xxvii. 13 is very like\nxx. 19, which is Zophar's. This would have the further advantage of\naccounting for the fresh introduction to xxix. (especially if we\nallow xxviii. to be a later addition).\n\nProbably xxxi. 38-40, which constitute, at least to an Occidental\ntaste, an anticlimax in their present position, should be placed\nafter _v_. 32, and xl. 3-5 (followed by xlii. 2-6) after xl. 6-14.\n\nThe date of the book of Job is not easy to determine. Ch. xii. 17\nshows a knowledge of the dethronement of kings and the exile of\npriests and nobles which compels a date at any rate later than the\nfall of the northern kingdom (721 B.C.) more probably also of the\nsouthern. The reference in Ezekiel, xiv. 14, 20, to Job should not\nbe pressed, as it involves only a knowledge of the man, not\nnecessarily of any book, still less of our book. Nor can much be\nmade of the parody of Psalm viii. 4 in Job vii. 17, as we have no\nmeans of fixing precisely the date of the psalm. Job's lament and\ncurse in ch. iii. are strikingly similar to Jeremiah xx. 14-18, and\nthere can be little doubt that the priority lies on the side of the\nprophet. Jeremiah was in no mood for quotation, his words are brief\nand abrupt. The book of Job is a highly artistic poem, and it is\nmuch more probable that Job iii. is an elaboration of the passionate\nwords of Jeremiah than that Jeremiah adapted in his sorrow the\nlonger lament of Job. This circumstance would bring us down to a\ntime, at the earliest, very near the exile.\n\nAt this point it has to be noted that the discussion of the moral\nproblem in the book of Job is in advance of Jeremiah or Ezekiel.\nAgainst the explanation that the children's teeth are set on edge\nbecause their fathers have eaten sour grapes, Ezekiel has nothing to\noffer but a rather mechanical doctrine of strict retribution (ch.\nxviii.). The book of Job represents a further stage, when that\ndoctrine was seen to be untenable; and the whole question is again\nboldly raised and still more boldly discussed. This would carry the\ndate below Ezekiel. As the problem in Job is individual, and only\nindirectly, if at all, a national one--\"there was _a man_ in\nthe land of Uz\"--the book cannot be earlier than the exile.\n\nBut further, there is an unmistakable similarity between the temper\nof this book and that of the pious in the time of Malachi. \"Every\none that doeth evil is good in the sight of Jehovah, and He\ndelighteth in them. Where is the God of justice?\" Malachi ii. 17. We\nmight fancy we heard the voice of Job; and almost more plainly in\nMalachi iii. 14, \"It is vain to serve God, and what profit is it\nthat we have kept His ordinance?\" Equally striking is the similarity\nbetween the dialectic temper in Job and Malachi. Everywhere in\nMalachi occur the phrases, \"Ye have said, yet ye say,\" etc. Good men\nhave not only raised the problem of the moral order, as Habakkuk and\nJeremiah had done: they are formally discussing it--exactly the\nphenomenon which we have in Job and do not have in pre-exilic times.\nIf it be asked why, in that case, there is no trace of influence of\nDeutero-Isaiah's solution, the answer is that, in any case, that\nsolution stands without serious influence on the subsequent\ndevelopment of religious thought in the Old Testament.\n\nAgain, the peculiar boldness of the discussion suggests a post-exilic\ndate. Jeremiah is also very bold, xii. 1, but it is a different type of\naudacity that expresses itself in the book of Job. Unlike Ecclesiastes\nin practically everything else, Job is like it in being a sustained and\nfearless challenge of the phenomena of the moral world. A post-exilic\ndate, and perhaps not a very early one, would seem to be suggested by\nthese phenomena. It is the product not only of an unhappy man, but of\nan unhappy time, when life is a warfare, vii. 1, and good men are\nbitter in heart. This date is borne out by the angelology of the book,\nv. 1, and by its easy use of mythology, iii. 8, xxvi. 5--a mythology\nwhich is felt to be completely innocuous, because monotheism is secure\nbeyond the possibility of challenge. It is practically certain that the\nbook falls before Chronicles (_circa_ 300 B.C.) as in 1 Chronicles\nxxi. 1, Satan is a proper name, whereas in Job the word is still an\nappellative--he is \"the Satan.\". Where the evidence is so slender\ncertainty is impossible; but there is a probability that the book may\nbe safely placed somewhere between 450 and 350 B.C. One could conceive\nit to be, in one sense, a protest against the legalistic conception of\nreligion encouraged by the work of Ezra, and this would admirably fit\nthe date assigned.\n\n\n\n\nSONG OF SONGS\n\n\nThe contents of this book justify the description of it in the\ntitle, i. 1, as the \"loveliest song\"--for that is the meaning of the\nHebrew idiom \"song of songs.\" It abounds in poetical gems of the\npurest ray. It breathes the bracing air of the hill country, and the\npassionate love of man for woman and woman for man. It is a\nrevelation of the keen Hebrew delight in nature, in her vineyards\nand pastures, flowers and fruit trees, in her doves and deer and\nsheep and goats. It is a song tremulous from beginning to end with\nthe passion of love; and this love it depicts in terms never coarse,\nbut often frankly sensuous--so frankly sensuous that in the first\ncentury its place in the canon was earnestly contested by Jewish\nscholars. That place was practically settled in 90 A.D. by the Synod\nof Jamnia, which settled other similar questions; and about 120 A.D.\nwe find a distinguished rabbi maintaining that \"the whole world does\nnot outweigh the day when the Song of Songs was given to Israel;\nwhile all the _Writings_ are holy, the song is holiest of all.\"\nThis extravagant language suggests that the canonicity of the song\nhad been strenuously contested; and it may have been a latent sense\nof the secular origin of the song that led to the prescription that\na Jew must not read it till he was thirty years of age. Its place in\nthe canon was no doubt secured for it by two considerations, (i) its\nreputed Solomonic authorship, (ii) its allegorical interpretation.\n\nThe reception of the book in the Canon led, as Siegfried has said,\nto the most monstrous creations in the history of interpretation. If\nit be by Solomon, and therefore a holy book, it must be a\ncelebration of divine love, not of human. So it was argued; and the\ntheme of the book was regarded as the love of Jehovah for Israel.\nChristian interpreters, following this hint of their Jewish\npredecessors, applied it to the love of Christ for His church or for\nthe individual soul. The allegorical view of the poem has many\nparallels in the mystic poetry of the East, and it even finds a\nslender support in Hosea's comparison of the relation of Jehovah to\nIsrael as a marriage relationship; but taking into account the\ngeneral nature of the poem, and the tendencies of the Hebrew mind,\nit may be fairly said that the allegorical interpretation is\naltogether impossible. Any love poem would be equally capable of\nsuch an interpretation.\n\nAnother view, first hinted at in a phrase of Origen, is that the\nbook is a drama, a view which has held the field--not without\nchallenge--for over a century. There is much in the language of the\nsong to suggest this: it is obvious, e.g., that there is occasional\ndialogue, i. 15, 16, ii. 2, 3, but the actual story of the drama was\nvery far from clear. The older view was that it was a story of\nSolomon's love for a peasant girl, and of his redemption from his\nimpure loves by his affection for her. But as in viii. 11 f. and\nelsewhere, Solomon is spoken of by way of contrast, room must be\nmade for a third person, the shepherd lover of the peasant maid;\nand, with much variety of detail, the supporters of the dramatic\ntheory now adhere in general to the view that the poem celebrates\nthe fidelity of a peasant maid who had been captured and brought to\nSolomon's harem, but who steadily resisted his blandishments and was\nfinally restored to her shepherd lover. The book becomes thus not a\ntriumph of love over lust, but of love over temptation. The story is\nvery pretty; but the objections to it and to the dramatic view of\nthe book are all but insuperable. It must be confessed that, to\narrive at such a story at all, a good deal has to be read between\nthe lines, and interpreters usually find what they bring; but the\nmost fatal objection to it is that the text in vi. 12, on which the\nwhole story turns--the maiden's surprise in the orchard by the\nretinue of the king--is so disjointed and obscure that the attempt\nto translate it has been abandoned by many competent scholars.\n\nApart from that, the story can hardly be said to be probable. \"She,\nmy dove, is but one,\" vi. 9, would sound almost comical upon the\nlips of one who possessed the harem of vi. 8. But in any case, it is\nalmost inconceivable that Solomon would have taken a refusal from a\npeasant girl: Oriental kings were not so scrupulous. Again, it is\nvery hard to detect any progress on the dramatic view of the book.\nCh. viii. with its innocent expression of an early love, follows ch.\nvii., which is sensuous to the last degree. Further, in the absence\nof stage directions, every commentator divides the verses among the\ncharacters in a way of his own: the opening words of the song, i.\n2_a_, may be interpreted in three or four different ways, and\nequal possibilities of interpretation abound throughout the song. Of\ncourse the difficulties are not quite so great in the Hebrew as in\nthe English (e.g. i. 15 must be spoken by the bridegroom and i. 16\nby the bride), but they are great enough. Again, how are we to\nconceive of so short a play--ll6 lines--being divided into acts and\nscenes? for the scenes are continually changing, and the longest\nwould not last more than two minutes. It would not be fair to lay\ntoo much stress upon the fact that there is no other illustration of\na purely Semitic drama; that would be to argue that, if a thing did\nnot happen twice, it did not happen once. Nevertheless, coupled with\nthe untold difficulties and confusions that arise from regarding the\nsong as a drama, the absence of a Semitic parallel is significant.\n\nThe true view of this perplexing book appears to be that it is, as\nHerder called it, \"a string of pearls\"--an anthology of love or\nwedding songs sung during the festivities of the \"king's week,\" as\nthe first week after the wedding is called in Syria. Very great\nprobability has been added to this view by the observations of\nSyrian customs made by Wetzstein in his famous essay on \"The Syrian\nThreshing-board,\" and first thoroughly applied by Budde to the\ninterpretation of the Song. Syrian weddings, we are told, usually\ntook place in March, ii. 11ff. The threshing-floor is set on a sort\nof platform on the threshing-board covered with carpets and pillows;\nand upon this throne, the \"king and queen,\" i.e. the bride and\nbridegroom, are seated, while the guests honour them with song, game\nand dance. This lasts for seven days (cf. Gen. xxix. 27; Jud. xiv.\n12); and the theory is that in the Song of Songs we have specimens\nof the songs sung on such an occasion. In particular, it is\npractically certain that vi. 13-vii. 9 is the song which\naccompanied the \"sword-dance\" (as the last words of vi. 13 should\nprobably be translated) performed by the bride on the eve of her\nwedding day. This would explain the looseness of the arrangement, no\nspecial attempt being made to unify the songs, though it may be\nconceded that the noble eulogy of love in viii. 6, 7, as it is the\nfinest utterance in the book, was probably intended as a sort of\nclimax.\n\nThe king, then, is not Solomon, but the peasant bridegroom, who\nenjoys the regal dignity, and even the name of Israel's most\nsplendid monarch, iii. 7, 9, for the space of a week. Ch. iii. 11,\nwith its reference to the bridegroom's crown (cf. Isa. lxi. 10), is\nall but conclusive proof that the hero is not king Solomon, but\nanother sort of bridegroom. His bride, perhaps a plain country girl,\ncounts for the week as the maid of Shulem, vi. 13, i.e. Abishag,\nonce the fairest maid in Israel (vi. 1, I Kings i. 3). So throughout\nthe \"king's week\" everything is transfigured and takes on the\ncolours of royal magnificence: the threshing-board becomes a\npalanquin, and the rustic bodyguard appear as a band of valiant\nwarriors, iii. 7, 8. There is a charming naivete, and indeed\nsomething much profounder, in this temporary transformation of those\nhumble rustic lives. We are involuntarily reminded of scenes in _A\nMidsummer Night's Dream_. This view of the book has commended\nitself to scholars like N\u00f5ldeke, who formerly championed the\ndramatic theory, though two of the latest writers[1] have argued\nskilfully against it.\n[Footnote 1: Harper, in the Cambridge Bible \"Song of Songs,\" and\nRothstein, in Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_.]\n\nThe following may be taken as an approximate division of the songs,\nthough some of the longer sections might easily be regarded as a\ncombination of two or three songs. The bride praises the bridegroom,\nmodestly depreciates her own beauty, and asks where her bridegroom is\nto be found, i. 2-8. Each sings the other's praises: the happiness of\nthe bride, i. 9-ii. 7. A spring wooing, ii. 8-17. The bride's dream,\niii. 1-5. The bridegroom's procession, iii. 6-11. The charms of the\nbride, iv. 1-v. 1. The beauty of the bridegroom, v. 2-vi. 3. Praise of\nthe bride, vi. 4-12. Praise of the bride as she dances the sword-dance,\nvii. 1-10. The bride's longing, vii. 11-viii. 4. The incomparable power\nof love, viii. 5-7. The bride's proud reply to her brothers, viii. 8-10.\nThe two vineyards, viii. 11, 12. Conclusion, viii. 13, 14.\n\nThe immortal verses in praise of love, viii. 6, 7, show that, in\nspite of its often sensuous expression, the love here celebrated is\nnot only pure but exclusive; and the book, which once was regarded\nas a satire on the court of Solomon, would in any case make in\nfavour of monogamic sentiment, and tend to ennoble ideals in a\ncountry where marriage was simply regarded as a contract.\n\nThe mention of Israel's ancient capital Tirzah in vi. 4 (if the text\nbe correct) as a parallel to Jerusalem, would alone be enough to\nbring the date below Solomon's time (cf. 1 Kings xiv. 17, xvi. 23).\nBut it is no doubt much later. The Persian word _pardes_ in iv.\n13 appears to imply the Persian period, and is used elsewhere only\nin post-exilic books (Neh. ii. 8; Eccles. ii. 5). Indeed the word\n_appirion_ in iii. 9 appears to be the Hebraized form of a\nGreek word _phoreion_, and if so would almost necessarily imply\nthe Greek period, though the Hebrews may have been acquainted with\nGreek words, through the Greek settlements in Egypt, as early as the\nsixth century B.C. Many of the words and constructions, however, are\ndemonstrably late and Aramaic; and the linguistic evidence alone\n(unless we assume an earlier book to have been worked over in later\ntimes) would put the Song hardly earlier than the fourth century\nB.C. Yet the fact that though a secular writing, it is in Hebrew and\nnot Aramaic, which was rapidly gaining ground, shows that it can\nhardly be brought down much later. On the whole, probably it is to\nbe placed somewhere between 400 and 300; and its sunny vivacity thus\nbecomes a welcome foil to the austerity of the post-exilic age. If\nthis argument is sound, it follows that the book cannot have been by\nSolomon. The superscription, i. 1, was no doubt added by a later\nhand on the basis of the many references to Solomon in the book,\niii. 7-11, viii. 11 f, and of the statement in 1 Kings iv. 32 that\nhe was the author of 1,005 songs.\n\nWhere the songs were composed we cannot tell. The scenes they\nreflect so vividly are rather those of Israel than of Judah, but the\nrepeated allusions to the daughters of Jerusalem would be most\nnaturally explained if the songs came from Jerusalem or its\nneighbourhood. With this agree the references to Engedi, Heshbon,\nKedar, while the northern places mentioned, Lebanon, Hermon, Gilead,\nDamascus, are such as would be familiar, at any rate, by reputation,\nto a Judean.\n\n\n\n\nRUTH\n\n\nGoethe has characterized the book of Ruth as the loveliest little\nidyll that tradition has transmitted to us. Whatever be its didactic\npurpose--and some would prefer to think that it had little or none-it\nis, at any rate, a wonderful prose poem, sweet, artless, and persuasive,\ntouched with the quaintness of an older world and fresh with the scent\nof the harvest fields. The love--stronger than country--of Ruth for\nNaomi, the gracious figure of Boaz as he moves about the fields with a\nword of blessing for the reapers, the innocent scheming of Naomi to\nsecure him as a husband for Ruth--these and a score of similar touches\nestablish the book for ever in the heart of all who love nobility and\nromance.\n\nThe inimitable grace and tenderness of the story are dissipated in a\nsummary, but the main facts are these. A man of Bethlehem, with his\nwife Naomi and two sons, is driven by stress of famine to Moab,\nwhere the sons marry women of the land. In course of time, father\nand sons die, and Naomi resolves to return home. Ruth, one of her\ndaughters-in-law, accompanies her, in spite of Naomi's earnest\nentreaty that she should remain in her own land. In Bethlehem, Ruth\nreceives peculiar kindness from Boaz, a wealthy landowner, who\nhappens to be a kinsman of Naomi; and Naomi, with a woman's happy\ninstinct, devises a plan for bringing Boaz to declare himself a\nchampion and lover of Ruth. The plan is successful. A kinsman nearer\nthan Boaz refuses to claim his rights by marrying her, and the way\nis left open for Boaz. He accordingly marries Ruth, who thus becomes\nthe ancestress of the great King David.\n\nWhy was this story told? The question of its object is to some\nextent bound up with the question of date; and for several reasons,\nthis appears to be late. (1) In the Greek, Latin and modern Bibles,\nRuth is placed after Judges; in the Hebrew Bible it is placed\ntowards the end, among the _Writings_, i.e. the last division,\nin which, speaking generally, only late books appear. Had the book\nbeen pre-exilic, it is natural to suppose that it would have been\nplaced after Judges in the second division. Some indeed maintain\nthat this is its original position; but it is easier to account for\nits transference from the third division to the second, as a foil to\nthe war-like episodes of the judges, than for its transference from\nthe second to the third. (2) The argument from language is perhaps\nnot absolutely decisive, but, on the whole, it is scarcely\ncompatible with an early date. Some words are pure Aramaic, and some\nof the Hebrew usages do not appear in early literature, e.g.,\n\"fall,\" in the sense of \"fall out, issue, happen,\" iii. 18. (3) The\nopening words--\"In the days when the judges judged,\" i. 1--suggest\nnot only that those days are past, but that they are regarded as a\ndefinite period falling within an historical scheme. The book must\nbe, at any rate, as late as David--for it describes Ruth as his\nancestress, iv. l7--and probably much later, as the implication is\nthat it is a great thing to be the ancestress of David. The\nreverence of a later age for the great king shines through the\nsimple genealogical notice with which the story concludes.[1] (4)\nFurther, the old custom of throwing away the shoe as a symbol of the\nabandonment of one's claim to property, a custom familiar in the\nseventh century B.C. (Deut. xxv. 9f.) is in iv. 7 regarded as\nobsolete, belonging to the \"former time.\" The cumulative effect of\nthese indications is strongly to suggest a post-exilic date. Not\nperhaps, however, a very late one: a book as late as the Maccabean\nperiod would hardly have reflected so kindly a feeling towards the\nforeigner (cf. Esther).\n[Footnote 1: Probably iv. 18-22 is a later addition, but that does\nnot affect the general argument (cf. _v_.17).]\n\nThe story probably rests upon a basis of fact. David's conduct in\nputting his parents under the protection of the king of Moab (I Sam.\nxxii. 3, 4) would find its simplest explanation, if he had been\nconnected in some way with Moab, as the book of Ruth represents him\nto have been; whereas a later age would hardly have dared to invent\na Moabite ancestress for him, had there been no tradition to that\neffect.\n\nThe object of the book has been supposed by some to be to commend\nthe so-called levirate marriage. This is improbable: not so much\nbecause the marriage was not strictly levirate, since neither Boaz\nnor the kinsman was the brother-in-law of Ruth--it would be fair\nenough to regard this as a legitimate extension of the principle of\nlevirate marriage, whose object was to perpetuate the dead man's\nname--but rather because this is a comparatively subordinate element\nin the story.\n\nThe true explanation is no doubt to be sought in the fact that Ruth\nthe Moabitess is counted worthy to be an ancestress of David; and,\nif the book be post-exilic, its religious significance is at once\napparent. It was in all probability the dignified answer of a man of\nprophetic instincts to the rigorous measures of Ezra, which demanded\nthe divorce of all foreign women (Ezra ix. x, cf. Neh. xiii. 23ff.);\nfor it can hardly be doubted that there is a delicate polemic in the\nrepeated designation of Ruth as _the Moabitess_, i. 22, ii. 2,\n6, 21, iv. 5, 10--she even calls herself the \"stranger,\" ii. 10. It\nwould be pleasant to think that the writer had himself married one\nof these foreign women. In any case, he champions their cause not\nonly with generosity but with insight; for he knows that some of\nthem have faith enough to adopt Israel's God as their God, i. 16,\nand that even a Moabitess may be an Israelite indeed. Ezra's severe\nlegislation was inspired by the worthy desire to preserve Israel's\nreligion from the peril of contagion: the author of Ruth gently\nteaches that the foreign woman is not an inevitable peril, she may\nbe loyal to Israel and faithful to Israel's God. The writer dares to\nrepresent the Moabitess as eating with the Jews, ii. l4--winning by\nher ability, resource and affection, the regard of all, and counted\nby God worthy to be the mother of Israel's greatest king. The\ngenerous type of religion represented by the book of Ruth is a much\nneeded and very attractive complement to the stern legalism of Ezra.\n\n\n\n\nLAMENTATIONS\n\n\nThe book familiarly known as the Lamentations consists of four\nelegies[1] (i., ii., iii., iv.) and a prayer (v.). The general theme\nof the elegies is the sorrow and desolation created by the\ndestruction of Jerusalem[2] in 586 B.C.: the last poem (v.) is a\nprayer for deliverance from the long continued distress. The elegies\nare all alphabetic, and like most alphabetic poems (cf. Ps. cxix.)\nare marked by little continuity of thought. The first poem is a\nlament over Jerusalem, bereft, by the siege, of her glory and her\nsanctuary, i. 1-11, though the bitter and comfortless doom which she\nbewails in i. 12-22, is regarded as the divine penalty for her sin,\ni. 5, 8. Similarly in ii. 1-10 her sorrow and suffering are admitted\nto be a divine judgment. Her shame and distress are inconsolable,\nii. 11-17, and she appeals to her God to look upon her in her agony,\nii. 18-22. The third poem, probably the latest in the book,\nrepresents the city, after a bitter lament, iii. 1-21, as being\ninspired, by the thought of the love of God, to submission and hope,\niii. 22-36. A prayer of penitence and confession, iii. 37-54, is\nfollowed by a petition for vengeance upon the adversaries, iii. 55-66.\nThe fourth poem, like the second, offers a very vivid picture of the\nsorrows and horrors of the siege: it laments, in detail, the fate of\nthe people, iv. 1-6, the princes, iv. 7-11, the priests and the prophets,\niv. 12-16, and the king, iv. 17-20, and ends with a prophecy of doom\nupon the Edomites, iv. 21, 22, who behaved so cruelly after the siege\n(Ps, cxxxvii. 7). In the last poem the city, after piteously lamenting\nher manifold sorrows, v. 1-18, beseeches the everlasting God for\ndeliverance therefrom, v. 19-22.\n[Footnote 1: In the Hebrew elegiac metre, as in the Greek and Latin,\nthe second line is shorter than the first--usually three beats\nfollowed by two.]\n[Footnote 2: An unconvincing attempt has been made to refer the last\ntwo chapters to the Maccabean age--about 170 B.C.]\n\nA very old and by no means unreasonable tradition assigns the\nauthorship of the book to Jeremiah. In the Greek version it is\nintroduced by the words--which appear to go back to a Hebrew\noriginal--\"And it came to pass, after Israel had been led captive\nand Jerusalem made desolate, that Jeremiah sat down weeping, and\nlifted up this lament over Jerusalem and said.\" This view of the\nauthorship is as old as the Chronicler, who in 2 Chronicles xxxv. 25\nseems to refer the book to Jeremiah, probably regarding iv. 20,\nwhich refers to Zedekiah, as an allusion to Josiah. Chs. ii. and iv.\nespecially are so graphic that they must have been written by an\neye-witness who had seen the temple desecrated and who had himself\ntasted the horrors of a siege, in which the mothers had eaten their\nown children for very hunger. The passionate love, too, for the\npeople, which breathes through the elegies might well be Jeremiah's;\nand the ascription of the calamity to the sin of the people, i. 5,\n8, is in the spirit of the prophet.\n\nNevertheless, it is not certain, or even very probable, that\nJeremiah is the author. Unlike the Greek and the English Bible, the\nHebrew Bible does not place the Lamentations immediately after\nJeremiah but in the third division, among the _Writings_, so\nthat there is really no initial presumption in favour of the\nJeremianic authorship. Again, Jeremiah could hardly have said that\n\"the prophets find no vision from Jehovah,\" ii. 8, nor described the\nvacillating Zedekiah as \"the breath of our nostrils,\" iv. 20, nor\nattributed the national calamities to the sins of _the\nfathers_, v. 7 Other features in the situation presupposed by ch.\nv. appear to imply a time later than Jeremiah's, v. 18,20, and it is\nvery unlikely that one who was so sorely smitten as Jeremiah by the\ninconsolable sorrow of Jerusalem would have expressed his grief in\nalphabetic elegies: men do not write acrostics when their hearts are\nbreaking. When we add to this that chs. ii. and iv. which stand\nnearest to the calamity appear to betray dependence on Ezekiel (ii.\n14, iv. 20, Ezek. xxii. 28, xix, 24, etc.) there is little\nprobability that the poems are by Jeremiah.\n\nIt is not even certain that they are all from the same hand, as,\nunless we transpose two verses, the alphabetic order of the first\npoem differs from that of the other three, and the number of\nelegiacs--three--in each verse of the first two poems, differs from\nthe number--one--in the third, and two in the fourth. In the third\npoem each letter has three verses to itself; in the other three\npoems, only one.\n\nCh. iii. with its highly artificial structure and its tendency to\nsink into the gnomic style, iii. 26ff., is probably remotest of all\nfrom the calamity.[1] Considering the general hopelessness of the\noutlook, chs. ii. and iv. at any rate, which are apparently the\nearliest, were probably composed before the pardon of Jehoiachin in\n561 B.C. (2 Kings xxv. 27) when new possibilities began to dawn for\nthe exiles. 580-570 may be accepted as a probable date. The calamity\nis near enough to be powerfully felt, yet remote enough to be an\nobject of poetic contemplation. The other poems are no doubt later:\nch. v. may as well express the sorrow of the returned exiles as the\nsorrow of the exile itself. More than this we cannot say.\n[Footnote 1: The intensely personal words at the beginning of ch.\niii. are, no doubt, to be interpreted collectively. The \"man who has\nseen affliction\" is not Jeremiah, but the community, Cf. _v_.\n14, \"I am become the laughing stock of all nations\" (emended text).\nCf. also _v_. 45.]\n\nThe older parts of the book, whether written in Egypt, Babylon, or\nmore probably in Judah, are of great historic value, as offering\nminute and practically contemporary evidence for the siege of\nJerusalem (cf. ii. 9-12) and as reflecting the hopelessness which\nfollowed it. Yet the hopelessness is by no means unrelieved. Besides\nthe prayer to God who abideth for ever, v. 19, is the general\nteaching that good may be won from calamity, in. 24-27, and, above\nall, the beautiful utterance that \"the love of Jehovah never\nceases[1] and His pity never fails,\" iii. 22.\n[Footnote 1: Grammar and parallelism alike suggest the emendation on\nwhich the above translation rests.]\n\n\n\n\nECCLESIASTES\n\n\nIt is not surprising that the book of Ecclesiastes had a struggle to\nmaintain its place in the canon, and it was probably only its\nreputed Solomonic authorship and the last two verses of the book\nthat permanently secured its position at the synod of Jamnia in 90\nA.D. The Jewish scholars of the first century A.D. were struck by\nthe manner in which it contradicted itself: e.g., \"I praised the\ndead more than the living,\" iv. 2, \"A living dog is better than a\ndead lion,\" ix. 4; but they were still more distressed by the spirit\nof scepticism and \"heresy\" which pervaded the book (cf. xi. 9 with\nNum. xv. 39).\n\nIn spite of the opening verse, it is very plain that Solomon could\nnot have been the author of the book. Not only in i. 12 is his reign\nrepresented as over--I _was_ king--though Solomon was on the\nthrone till his death, but in i. 16, ii. 7, 9, he is contrasted with\nall--apparently all the kings--that were before him in Jerusalem,\nthough his own father was the founder of the dynasty. There is no\nprobability that Solomon would have so scathingly assailed the\nadministration of justice for which he himself was responsible, as\nis done in iii. 16, iv. i, v. 8. The sigh in xii. 12 over the\nmultiplicity of books is thoroughly inappropriate to the age of\nSolomon.\n\nIndeed the whole manner in which the problem is attacked is\ninappropriate to so early a stage of literary and religious\ndevelopment. But it was by a singularly happy stroke that Solomon\nwas chosen by a later thinker as the mouthpiece of his reflections\non life; for Solomon, with his wealth, buildings, harem,\nmagnificence, had had opportunity to test life at every point, and\nhis exceptional wisdom would give unique value to his judgment.\n\nEcclesiastes is undoubtedly one of the latest books in the Old\nTestament. The criteria for determining the date are chiefly three.\n(1) _Linguistic_. Alike in its single words (e.g., preference\nfor abstract nouns ending in _\u00fbth_) its syntax (e.g., the\nalmost entire absence of waw conversive) and its general linguistic\ncharacter, the book illustrates the latest development of the Hebrew\nlanguage. There are not a few words which occur elsewhere only in\nChronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther: there are some pure Aramaic\nwords, some words even which belong to the Hebrew of the Mishna.\nEven if we allow an early international use of Aramaic, the corrupt\nHebrew of the book would alone compel us to place it very late. Some\nhave sought to strengthen the argument for a late date from the\npresence of Greek influence on the _language_ of the book,\ne.g., in such phrases as \"under the sun,\" \"to behold the sun,\" \"the\ngood which is also beautiful,\" v. 18; but, probable as it may be, it\nis not certain that there are Graecisms in the language of\nEcclesiastes.[1]\n[Footnote 1: Cf. A. H. McNeile, _Introduction to Ecclesiastes_,\np. 43.]\n\n(2) _Historical_. There is much interesting detail which is\nclearly a transcript of the author's experience: the slaves he had\nseen on horseback, x. 7, the poor youth who became king, iv. 13-16\n(cf. ix. 14ff.). These incidents, however, are too lightly touched,\nand we know too little of the history of the period, to be able to\nlocate them definitely. The woe upon the land whose king is a child,\nx. 16, has been repeatedly connected with the time of Ptolemy V.\nEpiphanes (205-181 B.C.), the last of his house who ruled over\nPalestine and who at his father's death was little over four years\nold. However that may be, the general historical background is\nunmistakably that of the late post-exilic age. The book bears the\nstamp of an evil time, when injustice and oppression were the order\nof the day, iii. 16, iv. 1, v. 8, government was corrupt and\ndisorderly and speech dangerous, x. 20. The allusions would suit the\nlast years of the Persian empire (333); but if, as the linguistic\nevidence suggests, the book is later, it can hardly be placed before\n250 B.C., as during the earlier years of the Greek period, Palestine\nwas not unhappy.\n\n(3) _Philosophical_. The speculative mood of the book marks it\nas late. Though not an abstract discussion--the Old Testament is\nnever abstract--it is more abstract than the kindred discussion in\nthe book of Job. It is hard to believe that Ecclesiastes was not\naffected by the Greek philosophical influences of the time. If it be\nnot necessary to trace its contempt of the world to Stoicism, or its\ninculcation of the wise enjoyment of the passing moment directly to\nEpicureanism, at least an indirect influence can hardly be denied.\nGreek thought was spreading as the Greek language was; and the\nscepticism of Ecclesiastes, though not without parallels in earlier\nstages of Hebrew literature, yet here assumes a deliberate,\nsustained and all but philosophic form, which finds its most natural\nexplanation in the profound and pervasive influence of Greek\nphilosophy--an influence which could hardly be escaped by an age in\nwhich books had multiplied and study been prosecuted till it was a\nburden, xii. 12.\n\nThis \"charming book,\" as Renan calls it, has in many ways more affinity\nwith the modern mind than any other in the Old Testament. It  is weary\nwith the weight of an insoluble problem. With a cold-blooded frankness,\nwhich is not cynical, only because it is so earnest, it faces the stern\nfacts of human life, without being able to bring to their interpretation\nthe sublime inspirations of religion. More than once is the counsel\ngiven to fear God, but it is not offered as a _solution_ of the\nriddle. The world is crooked, i. 15, vii. 13, and no change is possible,\niii. 1-8. It is a weary round of contradictions, birth and death, peace\nand war, the former state annihilated by the latter; and by reason of the\nfixity of these contradictions and the certainty of that annihilation,\nall human effort is vain, iii. 9. It is all alike vanity--not only the\nmeaner struggles for food and drink and pleasure (ii.) but even the\nnobler ambitions of the soul, such as its yearning for wisdom and\nknowledge. Whether we turn to the physical or the moral world it is\nall the same. There is no goal in nature (i.): history runs on and\nruns nowhere. All effort is swallowed up by death. Man is no better\nthan a beast, iii. 19; beyond the grave there is nothing. Everywhere\nis disillusionment, and woman is the bitterest of all, vii. 26. The\nmoral order is turned upside down. Wrong is for ever on the throne.\nProvidence, if there be such a thing, seems to be on the side of\ncruelty. Tears stand on many a face, but the mourners must remain\nuncomforted, iv. 1. The just perish and the wicked live long, vii.\n15. The good fare as the bad ought to fare, and the bad as the good,\nviii. 14. Better be dead than live in such a world, iv. 2; nay,\nbetter never have been born at all, vi. 3. For all is vanity: that\nis the beginning of the matter, i. 2, it is no less the end, xii. 8.\nOver every effort and aspiration is wrung this fearful knell.\n\nSad conclusion anywhere, but especially sad for a Jew to reach!\nIndeed he contradicts some of the dearest and most fundamental\ntenets of the Jewish faith. Many a devout contemporary must have\nbeen horrified at the dictum that man had no pre-eminence above a\nbeast, or that the world, which he had been taught to believe was\nvery good (Gen. i, 31) was one great vanity. The preacher could not\nshare the high hopes of a Messianic kingdom to come, of resurrection\nand immortality, which consoled and inspired many men of his day. To\nhim life was nothing but dissatisfaction ending in annihilation. If\nthis is not pessimism, what is?\n\nBut is this all? Not exactly. For \"the light is sweet, and a pleasant\nthing it is for the eyes to behold the sun,\" xi. 7. Over and over\nagain the counsel is given to eat and drink and enjoy good, ii. 24;\nand despite the bitter criticism of woman already alluded to, a wife\ncan make life more than tolerable, ix. 9. Nor does the book display\nthe thorough-going rejection of religion which the previous sketch of\nit would have led us to expect. It is pessimistic, but not atheistic;\nnay, it believes not only in God but in a judgment, iii. 17, xi. 9_b_,\nthough not necessarily in the hereafter. There is considerable\nextravagance in Cornill's remark that \"never did Old Testament piety\ncelebrate a greater triumph than in the book of Ecclesiastes\"; but\nthere is enough to show that the book is, after its own peculiar\nmelancholy fashion, a religious book. It is significant, however,\nthat the context of the word God, which only occurs some twenty times,\nis often very sombre. He it is who has \"given travail to the sons of\nmen to be exercised therewith,\" i. 13, iii. 10, cf. esp. iii. 18.\nAgain, if the writer has any real belief in a day of judgment, why\nshould he so persistently emphasize the resultlessness of life and\ndeny the divine government of the world? \"The fate of all is the\nsame-just and unjust, pure and impure. As fares the good, so fares the\nsinner,\" ix. 2. This is a direct and deliberate challenge of the law\nof retribution in which the writer had been brought up. It may be\nurged, of course, that his belief in a divine judgment is a postulate\nof his faith which he retains, though he does not find it verified by\nexperience. But such words--and there are many such--seem to carry us\nmuch farther. Here, then, is the essential problem of the book. Can\nit be regarded as a unity?\n\nAlmost every commentator laments the impossibility of presenting a\ncontinuous and systematic exposition of the argument in\nEcclesiastes, or Qoheleth, as the book is called in the Hebrew\nBible.\n\nThe truth is that, though the first three chapters are in the main\ncoherent and continuous, little order or arrangement can be detected\nin the rest of the book. Various explanations have been offered.\nBickell, e.g., supposed that the leaves had by some accident become\ndisarranged--a supposition not wholly impossible, but highly\nimprobable, especially when we consider that the Greek translation\nreads the book in the same order as the Hebrew text. Others suppose\nwith equal improbability that the book is a sort of dialogue, in\nwhich each speaker maintains his own thesis, while the epilogue,\nxii. 13f, pronounces the final word on the discussion. One thing is\ncertain, that various moods are represented in the book: the\nquestion is whether they are the moods of one man or of several.\nBaudissin thinks it not impossible that, \"apart from smaller\ninterpolations, the book as a whole is the reflection of the\nstruggle of one and the same author towards a view of the world\nwhich he has not yet found.\"\n\nNote the phrase \"apart from interpolations.\" Even the most cautious\nand conservative scholars usually admit that the facts constrain\nthem to believe in the presence of interpolations: e.g., xi. 9b and\nxii. la are almost universally regarded in this light. The\ndifficulties occasioned by the book are chiefly three. (1) Its\nfragmentary character. Ch. x.; e.g., looks more like a collection of\nproverbs than anything else. (2) Its abrupt transitions: e.g., vii.\n19, 20. \"Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more than ten men that are in\na city: for there is not a righteous man on the earth.\" This may be\nanother aspect of (1). But (3) more serious and important are the\nundoubted contradictions of the book, some of which had been noted\nby early Jewish scholars. E.g., there is nothing better than to eat\nand drink, ii. 24; it is better to go to the house of mourning than\nto the house of feasting, vii. 2. In iii. 1-8 times are so fixed and\ndetermined that human labour is profitless, iii. 9, while in iii. 11\nthis inflexible order is not an oppressive but a beautiful thing. In\nviii. 14, ix. 2 (cf. vii. 15) the fate of the righteous and the\nwicked is the same, in viii. 12, 13, it is different: it is well\nwith the one and ill with the other. In iii. 16, which is radically\npessimistic (cf. _vv_. 18-21), there is no justice: in iii. 17\na judgment is coming. Better death than life, iv. 2, better life\nthan death, ix. 4 (cf. xi. 7). In i. 17 the search for wisdom is a\npursuit of the wind: in ii. 13 wisdom excels folly as light\ndarkness. Ch. ii. 22 emphasizes the utter fruitlessness of labour,\niii. 22 its joy. These contradictions are too explicit to be\nignored. Indeed sometimes their juxtaposition forces them upon the\nmost inattentive reader; as when viii. 12, 13 assert that it is well\nwith the righteous and ill with the wicked, whereas viii. 14 asserts\nthat the wicked often fare as the just should fare and vice versa;\nand that this is the author's real opinion is made certain by the\noccurrence of the melancholy refrain at the end of the verse.\n\nDifferent minds will interpret these contradictions differently.\nSome will say they are nothing but the reflex of the contradictions\nthe preacher found to run through life, others will say that they\nrepresent him in different moods. But they are too numerous,\nradical, and vital to be disposed of so easily. There can be no\ndoubt that the book is essentially pessimistic: it ends as well as\nbegins with Vanity of Vanities, xii. 8; and this must therefore have\nbeen the ground-texture of the author's mind. Now it is not likely\nto be an accident that the references to the moral order and the\ncertainty of divine judgment are not merely assertions: they can\nusually, in their context, only be regarded as protests--as\nprotests, that is, against the context. That is very plain in ch.\niii., where the order of the world, _vv_. 1-8, which the\npreacher lamented as profitless, _vv_. 9, 10, is maintained to\nbe beautiful, _v_. 11. It is equally plain in iii. 17, which\nasserts the divine judgment, whereas the context, iii. 16, denies\nthe justice of earthly tribunals, and effectually shuts out the hope\nof a brighter future by maintaining that man dies[1] like the beast,\n_vv_. 18-21.\n[Footnote 1: Ch. iii. 21 should read: \"Who knoweth the spirit of\nman, _whether_ it goeth upward?\" This translation involves no\nchange in the consonantal text and is supported by the Septuagint.]\n\nOf a similar kind, but on a somewhat lower religious level are the\nfrequent protests against the preacher's pessimistic assertions of\nthe emptiness of life and the vanity of effort. For the injunction\nto eat and drink and enjoy the fruits of one's labour may, in their\ncontexts, also be fairly considered not simply as statements, but as\nprotests (cf. v. 18-20 with v. 13-17); for this glad love of life\nwas thoroughly representative of the ancient tradition of Hebrew\nlife (cf. Jeremiah's criticism of Josiah, xxii. 15.) Doubtless these\nprotests could come from the preacher's own soul; but, considering\nall the phenomena, it is more natural to suppose that they were the\nprotests of others who were offended by the scepticism and the\npessimism of the book, which may well have had a wide circulation.\n\nIt now only remains to ask whether books regarded as Scripture ever\nreceived such treatment as is here assumed. Every one acquainted\nwith the textual phenomena of the Old Testament knows that this was\na common occurrence. The Greek-speaking Jews, translating about or\nbefore the time at which Ecclesiastes was written, altered the simple\nphrase in Exodus xxiv. 10, \"They saw the God of Israel,\" to \"They saw\nthe place where the God of Israel stood.\" In Psalm lxxxiv. 11 they\naltered \"God is a sun (or pinnacle?) and shield\" to \"God loves mercy\nand truth.\" They altered \"God\" to \"an angel\" in Job xx. 15, \"God will\ncast them (i.e., the riches) out of his belly\"; or even to \"an angel\nwill cast them out of his house.\" These alterations have no other\nauthority than the caprice of the translators, acting in the interests\nof a purer, austerer, but more timid theology. At the end of the Greek\nversion of the book of Job, which adds, \"It is written that Job will\nrise again with those whom the Lord doth raise,\" we see how deliberately\nan insertion could be made in theological interests. The liberties which\nthe Greek-speaking Jews thus demonstrably took with the text of\nScripture, we further know that the Hebrew-speaking Jews did not\nhesitate to take. A careful comparison of the text of such books as\nSamuel and Kings with Chronicles[1] shows that similar changes were\ndeliberately made, and made by pious men in theological interests. We are\nthus perfectly free to suppose that the original text of Ecclesiastes,\nwhich must have given great offence to the stricter Jews of the\nsecond century B.C., was worked over in the same way.\n[Footnote 1: Cf., e.g., the substitution of Satan in 1 Chron. xxi. 1\nfor Jehovah in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1.]\n\nIt would be impossible to apportion the various sections or verses\nof the book with absolute definiteness among various writers; in the\nnature of the case, such analyses will always be more or less\ntentative. But on the whole there can be little doubt that the\noriginal book, which can be best estimated by the more or less\ncontinuous section, i.-iii., was pervaded by a spirit of almost, if\nnot altogether, unqualified pessimism. This received correction or\nrather protest from two quarters: from one writer of happier soul,\nwho believed that the earth was Jehovah's (Ps. xxiv. 1) and, as\nsuch, was not a vanity, but was full of His goodness; and from a\npious spirit, who was offended and alarmed by the preacher's\ndangerous challenge of the moral order, and took occasion to assure\nhis readers of the certainty of a judgment and of the consequent\nwisdom of fearing God. On any view of the book it is difficult to\nsee the relevance of the collection of proverbs in ch. x.\n\nIf this view be correct, the epilogue, xii. 9-14, can hardly have\nformed part of the original pessimistic book. The last two verses,\nin particular, are conceived in the spirit of the pious protest\nwhich finds frequent expression in the book; and it is easy to\nbelieve that the words saved the canonicity of Ecclesiastes, if\nindeed they were not added for that very purpose. The reference to\nthe commandments in _v_. 13 is abrupt, and almost without\nparallel, viii. 5. Again, the preacher, who speaks throughout the\nbook in the first person, is spoken of here in the third, _v_.\n9; and, as in no other part of the book, the reader is addressed as\n\"my son\" _v_. 12 (cf. Prov. i. 8., ii. 1, iii. 1).\n\nThe value of Ecclesiastes is negative rather than positive. It is\nthe nearest approach to despair possible upon the soil of Old\nTestament piety. It is the voice of a faith, if faith it can be\ncalled, which is not only perplexed with the search, but weary of\nit; but it shows how deep and sore was the need of a Redeemer.\n\n\n\n\nESTHER\n\n\nThe spirit of the book of Esther is anything but attractive. It is\nnever quoted or referred to by Jesus or His apostles, and it is a\nsatisfaction to think that in very early times, and even among Jewish\nscholars, its right to a place in the canon was hotly contested. Its\naggressive fanaticism and fierce hatred of all that lay outside of\nJudaism were felt by the finer spirits to be false to the more\ngenerous instincts that lay at the heart of the Hebrew religion; but\nby virtue of its very intensity and exclusiveness it as all the more\nwelcome to average representatives of later Judaism, among whom it\nenjoyed an altogether unique popularity, attested by its three Targums\nand two distinct Greek recensions[1]--indeed, one rabbi places it on\nan equality with the law, and therefore above the prophets and the\n\"writings.\"\n[Footnote 1: It is probable also that the two decrees, one commanding\nthe celebration for two days, ix. 20-28, the other enjoining fasting\nand lamentations, ix. 29-32, are later additions, designed to incorporate\nthe practice of a later time.]\n\nThe story is well told. The queen of Xerxes, king of Persia, is\ndeposed for contumacy, and her crown is set upon the head of Esther,\na lovely Jewish maiden. Presently the whole Jewish race is\nimperilled by an act of Mordecai, the foster-father of Esther, who\nrefuses to do obeisance to Haman, a powerful and favourite courtier.\nHaman's plans for the destruction of the Jews are frustrated by\nEsther, acting on a suggestion of Mordecai. The courtier himself\nfalls from power, and is finally hanged on the gallows he had\nprepared for Mordecai, while Mordecai \"the Jew\" is exalted to the\nplace next the king, and the Jews, whom the initial decree had\ndoomed to extermination, turn the tables by slaying over 75,000 of\ntheir enemies throughout the empire, including the ten sons of\nHaman. In memory of the deliverance, the Purim festival is\ncelebrated on the 14th and 15th of the month Adar.\n\nThe popularity of the book was due, no doubt, most of all to the\npower with which it expresses some of the most characteristic, if\nalmost most odious, traits of Judaism; but also in a measure to its\nattractive literary qualities. The setting is brilliant, and the\ndevelopment of the incident is often skilful and dramatic, The\nelevation of Mordecai, due to the simple accident of the king's\nhaving passed a sleepless night, the unexpected accusation of Haman\nby Esther, the swift and complete reversal of the situation by which\nHaman is hanged upon his own gallows and Mordecai receives the royal\nring--the general sequence of incidents is conceived and elaborated\nwith considerable dramatic power.\n\nThe large number of proper names, the occasional reference to\n chronicles, ii. 23, vi. 1, and the precise mention of dates, combine\nto raise the presumption that the book is real history; but a glance\nat the facts is sufficient to dispel this presumption. The story falls\nwithin the reign of Xerxes--about 483 B.C., but the hero Mordecai is\nrepresented as being one of the exiles deported with Jehoiachin in\n597 B.C. This is a manifest impossibility. Equally impossible is it\nthat a Jewish maiden can have become the queen of Persia, in the face\nof the express statement of Herodotus (iii. 84) that the king was\nbound to choose his consort from one of seven noble Persian families.\nThese impossibilities are matched by numerous improbabilities. It is\nimprobable, e.g., that Mordecai could have had such free intercourse\nwith the harem, ii. 11, unless he had been a eunuch, or in the palace,\nii. 19, unless he had been a royal official. It is improbable that\nXerxes would have announced the date of the massacre months beforehand,\nimprobable that he would later have sanctioned so indiscriminate a\nslaughter of his non-Jewish subjects, and most improbable of all that\nthe Jews, who were in the minority, should have slain 75,000 of their\nenemies, who cannot be supposed to have been defenceless. It is much\nmore likely that this wholesale butchery took place chiefly in the\nauthor's imagination, though doubtless the wish was father to the\nthought. Clearly he wrote long after the events he claims to be\ndescribing, and the sense of historical perspective is obscured where\nit is not lost. The Persian empire is a thing of the relatively distant\npast, i. 1, 13, and though the author is acquainted with Persian\ncustoms and official titles, it is significant that the customs have\nsometimes to be explained. The book is, in fact, not a history, but\na historical novel in miniature.\n\nIts date is hard to fix, but it must be very late, probably the\nlatest in the Old Testament. In spite of its obvious attempt to\nreproduce the classic Hebrew style, the book contains Aramaisms,\nlate Hebrew words and constructions, and the language alone stamps\nit as late. Still more decisive, however, is its sentiment. Its\nintensely national pride, its cruel and fanatical exclusiveness, can\nbe best explained as the result of a fierce persecution followed by\na brilliant triumph; and this condition is exactly met by the period\nwhich succeeded the Maccabean wars (135 B.C. or later). The book,\nwith its Persian setting, may indeed have been written earlier in\nPersia; but it more probably represents a phase of the fierce\nPalestinian Judaism of the last half of the second century B.C. It\nhas been suggested with much probability that Haman is modelled on\nAntiochus Epiphanes; between their murderous designs against the\nJews there is certainly a strong resemblance, iii. 9, 1 Macc. i. 41,\niii. 34-36.\n\nThe object of the book appears to have been twofold: to explain the\norigin of the Purim festival, and to glorify the Jewish people. The\nreal explanation of the festival is shrouded in mystery. The book\ntraces it to the triumph of the Jews over their enemies and connects\nit with _Pur_, ix. 26, supposed to mean \"lot\"; but no such\nPersian word has yet been discovered. Doubtless, however, the book\nis correct in assigning the origin of the festival to Persia. A\nfestival with a somewhat dissimilar name--Farwardig\u00e2n--was held in\nPersia in spring to commemorate the dead, and there may be just a\nhint of this in the fasting with which the festival was preceded,\nix. 31, cf. 1 Sam. xxxi. 13, 2 Sam. i. 12. The Babylonians had also\nheld a new year festival in spring, at which the gods, under the\npresidency of Marduk, were supposed to draw the lots for the coming\nyear: this may have been the ultimate origin of the \"lot,\" which is\nrepeatedly emphasized in the book of Esther, iii. 7, ix. 24, 26. In\nother words, the Jews adopted a Persian festival, which had already\nincorporated older Babylonian elements; for there can be little\ndoubt that the ultimate ground-work of the book is Babylonian\nmythology. Esther is so similar to Istar, and Mordecai to Marduk,\nthat their identity is hardly questionable; and in the overthrow of\nHaman by Mordecai it is hard not to see the reproduction of the\noverthrow of Hamman, the ancient god of the Elamites, the enemies of\nthe Babylonians, by Marduk, god of the Babylonians. This supposition\nleaves certain elements unexplained--Vashti, e.g., is without\nBabylonian analogy, but it is too probable an explanation to be\nignored; and it goes to illustrate the profound and lasting\ninfluence of Babylonia upon Israel. The similarity of the name\nEsther to Am_estr_is, who was Xerxes' queen (Hdt. vii. 114, ix.\n112) may account for the story being set in the reign of Xerxes.\n\nA collateral purpose of the book is the glorification of the Jews.\nIn the dramatic contest between Haman the Agagite and Mordecai the\nJew, the latter is victor. He refuses to bow before Haman, and\nProvidence justifies his refusal; for the Jews are born to dominion,\nand all who oppose or oppress them must fall. Everywhere their\nsuperiority is apparent: Esther the Jewess is fairer than Vashti,\nand Mordecai, like Joseph in the old days, takes his place beside\nthe king.\n\nWhat we regretfully miss in the book is a truly religious note. It\nis national to the core; but, for once in the Old Testament,\nnationality is not wedded to a worthy conception of God. Too much\nstress need not be laid on the absence of His name--this may have\nbeen due to the somewhat secular character of the festival with its\ngiving and receiving of presents--and the presence of God, as the\nguardian of the fortunes of Israel, is presupposed throughout the\nwhole story, notably in Mordecai's confident hope that enlargement\nand deliverance would arise to the Jews from one place, if not from\nanother, iv. 14. But the religion of the book--for religion it is\nentitled to be called--is absolutely destitute of ethical elements.\nIt is with a shudder that we read of Esther's request for a second\nbutchery, ix. 13; and all the romantic glamour of the story cannot\nblind us to its religious emptiness and moral depravity. In a\ngeneration which had smarted under the persecution of Antiochus and\nshed its blood in defence of its liberty and ancestral traditions,\nsuch bitter fanaticism is not unintelligible. But the popularity of\nthe book shows how little the prophetic elements in Israel's\nreligion had touched the people's heart, and how stubborn a\nresistance was sure to be offered to the generous and emancipating\nword of Jesus.\n\n\n\n\nDANIEL\n\n\nDaniel is called a prophet in the New Testament (Matt. xxiv. 15). In\nthe Hebrew Bible, however, the book called by his name appears not\namong the prophets, but among \"the writings,\" between Esther and\nEzra. The Greek version placed it between the major and the minor\nprophets, and this has determined its position in modern versions.\nThe book is both like and unlike the prophetic books. It is like\nthem in its passionate belief in the overruling Providence of God\nand in the sure consummation of His kingdom; but in its peculiar\nsymbolism, imagery, and pervading sense of mystery it stands without\na parallel in the Old Testament. The impulse to the type of prophecy\nrepresented by Daniel was given by Ezekiel and Zechariah. The book\nis indeed rather apocalyptic than prophetic. The difference has been\nwell characterized by Behrmann. \"The essential distinction,\" he\nremarks, \"between prophecy and apocalyptic lies in this: the\nprophets teach that the present is to be interpreted by the past and\nfuture, while the apocalyptic writers derive the future from the\npast and present, and make it an object of consolatory hope. With\nthe prophets the future is the servant and even the continuation of\nthe present; with the apocalyptic writers the future is the\nbrilliant counterpart of the sorrowful present, over which it is to\nlift them.\" This will be made most plain by a summary of the book\nitself.\n\nChs. i.-vi. are narrative in form; chs. vii.-xii. are prophetic or\napocalyptic--they deal with visions. Curiously enough ii. 4-vii. 28,\nfor no apparent reason, are written in Aramaic. In ch. i. Daniel and\nhis three friends, Jewish captives at the court of Babylon, prove\ntheir fidelity to their religion by refusing to defile themselves\nwith the king's food. At the end of three years they show themselves\nsuperior to the \"wise\" men of the empire. Then (ii.) follows a dream\nof Nebuchadrezzar, in which a great image was shivered to pieces by\na little stone, which grew till it filled the whole world. Daniel\nalone could retell and interpret the dream: it denoted a succession\nof kingdoms, which would all be ultimately overthrown and succeeded\nby the everlasting kingdom of God. Ch. iii. deals not with Daniel\nbut with his friends. It tells the story of their refusal to bow\nbefore Nebuchadrezzar's colossal image of gold, and how their\nfidelity was rewarded by a miraculous deliverance, when they were\nthrown into the furnace of fire. The supernatural wisdom of Daniel\nis again illustrated in ch. iv., where he interprets a curious dream\nof Nebuchadrezzar as a token that he would be humbled for a time and\nbereft of his reason. Ch. v. affords another illustration of the\nwisdom of Daniel, and of the humiliation of impiety and pride, this\ntime in the person of Belshazzar, who is regarded as\nNebuchadrezzar's son. Daniel interprets the enigmatic words written\nby the mysterious hand on the wall as a prediction of the overthrow\nof Belshazzar's kingdom, which dramatically happens that very night.\nCh. vi. is intended to teach how precious to God are those who trust\nHim and scrupulously conform to the practices of true religion\nwithout regard to consequences. Daniel is preserved in the den of\nlions into which he had been thrown by the cruel jealousy of the\nofficials of Darius' empire.\n\nWith ch. vii. Daniel's visions begin. Four great beasts are seen\ncoming up out of the sea, which, according to Babylonian mythology,\nis the element opposed to the divine. The last of the beasts,\nespecially cruel and terrible, had ten horns, and among them a\nlittle horn with human eyes and presumptuous lips. Then is seen the\ndivine Judge upon His throne, and the presumptuous beast is judged\nand slain. Before this same Judge is brought one like a son of man,\nwho comes with the clouds of heaven--this human and heavenly figure\nbeing in striking contrast to the beasts that rise out of the sea.\nDaniel is informed that the beasts represent four kingdoms, whose\ndominion is to be superseded by the dominion of the saints of the\nmost High, i.e. by the kingdom of God, which will be everlasting. In\na second vision (viii.) a powerful ram is furiously attacked and\noverthrown by a goat. The angel Gabriel explains that the ram is the\nMedo-Persian empire, and the goat is the king of Greece, clearly\nAlexander the Great. From one of the four divisions of Alexander's\nempire, a cunning, impudent and impious king would arise who would\nabolish the daily sacrifice and lay the temple in ruins, but by a\nmiraculous visitation he would be destroyed. In ch. ix. Daniel,\nafter a fervent penitential prayer offered in behalf of his sinful\npeople, is enlightened by Gabriel as to the true meaning of\nJeremiah's prophecy (xxv. 11f., xxix. 10f.) touching the desolation\nof Jerusalem. The seventy years are not literal years, but weeks of\nyears, i.e. 490 years. During the last week (i.e. seven years) there\nwould be much sorrow and persecution, especially during the last\nhalf of that period, but it would end in the utter destruction of\nthe oppressor.\n\nIn another vision (x.-xii.) Daniel is informed by a shining one of a\nstruggle he had had, supported by Michael, with the tutelary angel\nof Persia; and he makes a revelation of the future. The Persian\nempire will be followed by a Greek empire, which will be divided\ninto four. In particular, alliances will be formed and wars made\nbetween the kings of the north (no doubt Syria) and the south\n(Egypt). With great elaboration and detail the fortunes of the king\nof the north, who is called contemptible, xi. 21, are described: how\nhe desecrates the sanctuary, abolishes the sacrifice, cruelly\npersecutes the holy people, and prescribes idolatrous worship. At\nlast, however, he too perishes, and his death is the signal that the\nMessianic days are very soon to dawn. Israel's dead--especially\nperhaps her martyred dead--are to rise to everlasting life, and her\nenemies are also to be raised to everlasting shame. Well is it for\nhim who can possess his soul in patience, for the end is sure.\n\nTwo facts are obvious even to a cursory inspection of the contents\nof Daniel (1), that certain statements about the exilic period,\nduring which, according to the book, Daniel lived, are inaccurate;\nand (2) towards the close of the book and especially in ch. xi.,\nwhich represents a period long subsequent to Daniel, the visions are\ncrowded with minute detail which corresponds, point for point, with\nthe history of the third and second centuries B.C., and in\nparticular with the career of Antiochus Epiphanes (xi. 21-45).\n\n(1) Among the unhistorical statements the following may be noted.\nThere was no siege and capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar in 605\nB.C., as is implied by i. 1 (cf. Jer. xxv. 1, 9-11), nor indeed\ncould there have been any till after the decisive battle of\nCarchemish, which brought Western Asia under the power of Babylon.\nAgain, Belshazzar is regarded as the son of Nebuchadrezzar (v.),\nthough he was in reality the son of Nabunaid, between whom and\nNebuchadrezzar three monarchs lay. Nor is there any room in this\nperiod of the history (538 B.C.) for \"Darius the Mede,\" v. 31; the\nconquest of Babylon threw the Babylonian empire immediately into the\nhands of Cyrus, and the impossible figure of Darius the Mede appears\nto arise through a confusion with the Darius who recaptured Babylon\nafter a revolt in 521, and perhaps to have been suggested by\nprophecies (cf. Isa. xiii. 17) that the Medes would conquer Babylon.\nAgain, though in certain passages the Chaldeans represent the people\nof that name, v. 30, ix. 1, in others (cf. ii. 2, v. 7) the word is\nused to denote the wise men of Babylon--a use demonstrably much\nlater than the Babylonian empire and impossible to any contemporary\nof Daniel. Such a seven years' insanity of Nebuchadrezzar as is\ndescribed in Daniel iv. is extremely improbable; equally improbable\nis the attitude that Nebuchadrezzar in his decree (iii.) and\nconfession (iv.) and Darius in his decree (vi.) are represented as\nhaving adopted towards the God of the Jews.\n\n(2) Concerning the immediately succeeding period--from Cyrus to\nAlexander--the author is apparently not well informed. He knows of\nonly four Persian kings, xi. 2 (cf. vii. 6). Ch. xi. 5-20 gives a\nbrief _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the relations between the kings of the north\nand the kings of the south--which, in this context, after a plain\nallusion in _vv_. 3, 4 to Alexander the Great and the divisions\nof his empire, can only be interpreted of Syria and Egypt. From\n_v_. 21, however, to the end of ch. xi. interest is\nconcentrated upon one particular person, who must, in the context,\nbe a king of the north, i.e. Syria. The direct reference in\n_v_. 31 to the pollution of the sanctuary, the temporary\nabolition of sacrifice, and the erection of a heathen altar, put it\nbeyond all doubt that the impious and \"contemptible\" monarch is none\nother than Antiochus Epiphanes. This conclusion is confirmed by the\ndetails of the section, with their unmistakable references to his\nEgyptian campaigns, _vv_. 25-28, and to the check imposed upon\nhim by the Romans, _v_. 30, in 168 B.C.\n\nThe phenomenon then with which we have to deal is this. A book\nsupposed to come from the exile, and to announce beforehand the\npersecutions and ultimate triumph of the Jewish people in the second\ncentury B.C. is occasionally inaccurate in dealing with the exilic\nand early post-exilic period, but minute and reliable as soon as it\ntouches the later period. Only one conclusion is possible--that the\nbook was written in the later period, not in the earlier. _It is a\nproduct of the period which it so minutely reflects_, 168-165\nB.C. The precise date of the book depends upon whether we regard\nviii. 14 as implying that the dedication of the temple by Judas\nMaccabaeus in 165 B.C. is a thing of the past or still an object of\ncontemplation. In any case it must have been written before the\ndeath of Antiochus in 164 (xi. 45). Like all the prophets, the\nauthor of Daniel addresses his own age. The brilliant Messianic days\nare always the issue of the existing or impending catastrophe; and\nso it is in Daniel. The redemption which is to involve the\nresurrection is to follow on the death of Antiochus and the\ncessation of the horrors of persecution--horrors of which the author\nknew only too well.[1]\n[Footnote 1: Daniel is fittingly chosen as the hero of the book and\nthe recipient of the visions, as he appears to have enjoyed a\nreputation for piety and wisdom (Ezek. xiv. 14, 20, xxviii. 3).\nEzekiel's references to him, however, would lead us to suppose that\nhe is a figure belonging to the gray patriarchial times, rather than\na younger contemporary of his own.]\n\nThus the belief in the late date of the book is reached by a study\nof the book itself, and is not due to any prejudice against the\npossibility of miracle or predictive prophecy. But the late date is\nconfirmed by evidence of other kinds, especially (1) linguistic, and\n(2) theological. (1) There are over a dozen Persian words in the\nbook, some even in the Babylonian part of the story. These words\nwould place the book, at the earliest, within the period of the\nPersian empire (538-331 B.C.). Further, within two verses, iii. 4,\n5, occur no less than five Greek words (herald, harp, trigon,\npsaltery and bagpipe), one of which, _psanter\u00een_, by its change\nof l (psa_l_terion) into n, betrays the influence of the\nMacedonian dialect and must therefore be later than the conquests of\nAlexander, and another, _symphonia_, is first found in Plato.\nThough it is not impossible that the names of the other musical\ninstruments may have been taken over by the Semites from the Greeks\nat an early time, these words at any rate practically compel us to\nput the book, at the earliest, within the Greek period (i.e. after\n331 B.C.). Further, the Hebrew of the book has a strongly Aramaic\nflavour. It is not classical Hebrew at all, but has marked\naffinities, both in vocabulary and syntax, with some of the latest\nbooks in the Old Testament, such as Chronicles and Esther.\n\n(2) The theology of Daniel undoubtedly represents one of the latest\ndevelopments within the Old Testament. The transcendence of God is\nemphasized. He is frequently called \"the God of Heaven,\" ii. 18, 19,\nand once \"heaven\" is used, as in the later manner (cf. Luke xv. 18)\nalmost as a synonym for \"God,\" iv. 26. As God becomes more\ntranscendent, angels become more prominent: they constitute a very\nstriking feature in the book of Daniel--two of them are even named,\nGabriel and Michael. Very singular, too, and undoubtedly late is the\nconception that the fortunes of each nation are represented and\nguarded in heaven by a tutelary angel, x. 13ff. 20.\n\nThe view of the future life in xii. 2, 3 is the most advanced in the\nOld Testament: not only the nation but the individuals shall be\nraised, and of the individuals not only the good (cf. Isa. xxvi. 14,\n19) but the bad, to receive the destiny which is their due. These\nfacts so conclusively suggest a late date for the book that it is\nunnecessary to emphasize Daniel's prayer three times a day with his\nface towards Jerusalem, vi. 10, though this is not without its\nsignificance.[1]\n[Footnote 1: It is worthy of notice that the reference to \"the\nbooks\" from which the prophecy of Jeremiah is quoted in ix. 2 seems\nto imply that the prophetic canon of Scripture was already closed;\nand this was hardly the case before 200 B.C.]\n\nThe interpretation of this difficult book loses much of its\ndifficulty as soon as we recognize it to be a product of the time of\nAntiochus Epiphanes. It is best to begin with ch. xi, for there the\nallusions are, in the main, unmistakable and undeniable. Antiochus\nis the last of the kings of the north, i.e. Syria, regarded as one\nof the divisions of the Greek empire of Alexander the Great. Without\nenigma or symbolism of any kind, the Persian empire is mentioned in\nxi. 2 as preceding the Greek, and in _v_. 1 as being preceded\nby the Median, which in its turn had been preceded by the\nBabylonian. Here, then, in the plainest possible terms, is a\nsuccession of four empires--Babylonian, Median, Persian, Greek--the\nlast to be succeeded by the kingdom of God (ch. xii.); and with this\nkey in our hand we can unlock the secret of chs. vii. and ii.\n\nIn ch. vii. the four kingdoms, represented by the four beasts and\ncontrasted with the humane kingdom which is to follow them, are no\ndoubt these very same kingdoms, as are also the four kingdoms of ch.\nii., symbolized by the different parts of the colossal image of\nNebuchadrezzar's dream: the little stone which destroys the image is\nagain the kingdom of God. In ch. viii. the ram with the two unequal\nhorns is the Medo-Persian empire, and the goat which overthrows the\nram is symbolic of the Greek empire, founded by Alexander.\n\nThese great features of the book are practically certain. It is\nfurther extremely probable that, in spite of a noticeable difference\nin the context, the \"little horn\" of viii. 9 is the same as the\nlittle horn of vii. 8, 20: the detail of both descriptions--the war\nwith the saints, the destruction of the temple, the abolition of the\nsacrifice--is an undisguised allusion to Antiochus Epiphanes in his\npersecution of the faithful Jews and his efforts to extirpate their\nreligion. The one like a son of man in vii. 13 is almost certainly\nnot the Messiah: coming as he does with the clouds of heaven, he is\nthe symbol of the kingdom of God, in contrast to the beasts, which\nemerge from the ungodly sea and symbolize the empires of this world.\nAgain, his being \"like a man\"--for this is probably all that the\nphrase means--is meant to suggest that the kingdom of God is\nessentially human and humane, in contrast to the four preceding\nkingdoms, which are essentially brutal and cruel. This\ninterpretation, which the contrasts practically necessitate, is made\nas certain as may be by _vv_. 18, 22, 27, where the kingdom and\ndominion, which in _v_. 13 are assigned to one like a son of\nman, are assigned in similar terms to \"the people of the saints of\nthe most High,\" i.e. the faithful Jews.\n\nThe passages whose interpretation is least certain occur in ch. ix.\nIn each of two consecutive verses, _vv_ 25f., is a reference to\nan \"anointed one\"--a different person being intended in each case.\nThe question of their identity involves the further question of the\nprecise interpretation of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. In ix.\n2 Daniel is reminded by a study of Jeremiah (xxv. 11f., xxix. 10) of\nthe prophecy that the desolation of Jerusalem would last for seventy\nyears. But it is not over yet.[1] Gabriel then explains, _v_.\n24, that the years are in reality weeks of years, i.e. by the\nseventy years prophesied by Jeremiah are really meant 490 years. The\nperiod of seventy weeks, thus interpreted, is further subdivided in\n_vv_. 25, 26 (a passage almost unintelligible in the Authorized\nVersion) into three periods, viz. seven weeks (=forty-nine years),\nsixty-two weeks, and one week (=seven years).\n[Footnote 1: Another incidental proof that the book is late. In the\ntime presupposed by it for the activity of Daniel, the seventy years\nhad not yet expired, and so there could have been no problem.]\n\nWith the first and last periods there is no difficulty. Starting\nfrom 586 B.C., the date of the exile, forty-nine years would bring\nus to 537, just about the time assigned to the edict of Cyrus, which\npermitted the Jews to return and rebuild their city. Cyrus would\nthus be \"the anointed, the prince,\" and it is an interesting\ncorroboration of this view that Cyrus is actually called the\nanointed in Isaiah xlv. 1. Now, as the book ends with the\nanticipated death of Antiochus in 164 B.C., the last week would\nrepresent the years 171 to 164; and in 171 the high priest, who, as\nsuch, would naturally be an anointed one, was assassinated.\nAttention is specially called to the sorrows of the last half of the\nlast week, when the sacrifice would be taken away. This corresponds\nalmost exactly with the suspension of the temple services from 168\nto 165; and this period, again, is that which is elsewhere\ncharacterized as \"a time, and times, and half a time,\" i.e. three\nand a half years (vii. 25, xii. 7), or \"2,300 evenings-mornings,\"\ni.e. 1,150 days (viii. 14) or 1,290 or 1,335 days (xii. 11, 12).\nThese varying estimates of the period, not differing widely,\nprobably suggest that the book was written at intervals, and not all\nat once. The beginning and the close of the seventy weeks or 490\nyears are thus satisfactorily explained; but the period between 537\nand 171 represents 366 instead of 434 years, as the sixty-two weeks\ndemand. Probably the simplest explanation of the difficulty is that\nduring much of this long period the Jews had no fixed method of\ncomputing time. Also it ought not to be forgotten that the numbers\nare, in any case, partly symbolical, and ought not to be too\nstrictly pressed. For the purposes of the author, the first and last\nperiods are more important than the middle.\n\nThe precise interpretation of the enigmatic writing on the wall\n(_mene_, _tekel_, _peres_, v. 28) is uncertain. It\nhas been cleverly explained as equivalent to \"a mina (=60 shekels),\na shekel and a part\" (i.e. about sixty-two) and regarded as a\ncryptogram for Darius, who, according to _v_. 31, was on the\neve of destroying Belshazzar's kingdom. More probably it simply\nmeans \"number, weigh, divide\"--the ambiguity being caused by the\ndifferent possibilities of pointing and therefore of precisely\ninterpreting these words, which were of course unpointed in the\noriginal. Further, in the word _peres_ (divide), there is a\nveiled allusion to the Persians.\n\nIt is difficult to account for the fact that part of the book, ii.\n4-vii., is written in Aramaic. It has been supposed that the author\nbegan to use that language in ii. 4, either because he regarded that\nas the language spoken by the wise men, or because they, being\naliens, must not be represented as speaking in the sacred tongue;\nand that, having once begun to use it, and being equally familiar\nwith both languages, he kept it up till he came to the more purely\nprophetic part of the book, in which he would naturally recur to the\nmore appropriate Hebrew. Ch. vii., on this view, is difficult to\naccount for, as it, no less than viii.-xii., is prophetic; and we\nshould then have to assume, rather unnaturally, that the vision in\nch. vii. was written in Aramaic because it so strongly resembled the\ndream of ch. ii. Besides it is not certain that the word \"in\nAramaic\" in ii. 4 is meant to suggest that the wise men spoke in\nthat language: it may have originally been only a marginal note to\nindicate that the Aramaic section begins here, just as vii.\n28_a_ may indicate the end of the section. Some have supposed\nthat part of a book originally Hebrew was translated into the more\npopular Aramaic, or that part of a book originally Aramaic was\ntranslated into the sacred Hebrew tongue. The difficulty in either\ncase is to account reasonably for the presence of Aramaic in that\nparticular section which does not coincide with either of the main\ndivisions of the book (narrative or apocalyptic), but appears in\nboth (i.-vi., vii.-xii.). Probably, as Peters has suggested, the\nAramaic portion represents old and popular folk-stories about Daniel\nand his friends, that language being retained because in it the\nstories were familiarly told, while for the more prophetic or\napocalyptic message the sacred language was naturally used. Ch.\nvii., however, presents a stumbling-block on any view of the Aramaic\nsection. The Aramaic of the book is that spoken when the book was\nwritten: it was certainly not the language spoken by the Babylonian\nwise men. It is most improbable that they would have used Aramaic at\nall; and if they had, it would not have been the dialect of the book\nof Daniel, which is a branch of western Aramaic, spoken in and\naround Palestine.\n\nIn spite of its somewhat legendary and apocalyptic form, the\nreligious value of Daniel is very high. It is written at white heat\namid the fires of persecution, and it is inspired by a passionate\nfaith in God and in the triumph of His kingdom over the cruel and\npowerful kingdoms of the world. Its object was to sustain the tried\nand tempted faith of the loyal Jews under the fierce assaults made\nupon it by Antiochus Epiphanes. Never before had there been so awful\na crisis in Jewish history. In 586 the temple had been destroyed,\nbut that was practically only an incident in or the consequence of\nthe destruction of the city; but Antiochus had made a deliberate\nattempt to exterminate the Jewish religion. It was to console and\nstrengthen the faithful in this crisis that the book was written.\nThe author reminds his readers that there is a God in heaven, and\nthat He reigns, iv. 26. He bids them lift their eyes to the past and\nshows them how the fidelity of men like Daniel and his friends was\nrewarded by deliverance from the lions and the flames. He bids them\nlift their eyes to the future, the very near future: let them only\nbe patient a little longer, xii. 12, and their enemies will be\ncrushed, and the kingdom of God will come--that kingdom which shall\nknow no end.\n\nIt is of especial interest that Antiochus died at the time when our\nauthor predicted he would, in 164 B.C., though not, as he had\nanticipated, in Palestine, xi. 45. In the kingdom that was so\nswiftly coming, the lives that had been lost on its behalf would be\nfound again: the martyrs would rise to everlasting life. The\nnarrative parts have an application to the times not much less\nimmediate than the apocalyptic. The proud and mighty, like\nNebuchadrezzar, are humbled: the impious, like Belshazzar, who drank\nwine out of the temple vessels, are slain. Any contemporary, reading\nthese tales, would be bound to think of Antiochus, who had\ndemolished the temple and suspended the sacrifices. So Daniel's\nrefusal to partake of the king's food was well calculated to\nencourage men who had been put to the torture for declining to eat\nswine's flesh.\n\nMan's extremity is God's opportunity. However cruel the sufferings\nor desperate the outlook, yet the Lord is mindful of His own, and He\nwill Himself deliver them. For one of the most impressive features\nof the book is its utter confidence in God and its refusal to appeal\nto the sword (Ps. cxlix. 6). It counsels to patience, xii. 12.\nWithout human hands, God's kingdom comes, ii. 34, and His enemies\nare destroyed, viii. 25. In the most skilful way, the book reaches\nits splendid climax. It moves steadily on, from a distant past in\nwhich God's servants had been rewarded and His enemies crushed, down\nthrough the centuries in which successive empires were all\nunconsciously working out His predetermined plan, and on to the\ndarkest days in history--so dark, because the glorious and\neverlasting kingdom of God was so soon to dawn.\n\n\n\n\nEZRA-NEHEMIAH\n\n\nSome of the most complicated problems in Hebrew history as well as\nin the literary criticism of the Old Testament gather about the\nbooks of Ezra and Nehemiah. Apart from these books, all that we know\nof the origin and early history of Judaism is inferential. They are\nour only historical sources for that period; and if in them we have,\nas we seem to have, authentic memoirs, fragmentary though they be,\nwritten by the two men who, more than any other, gave permanent\nshape and direction to Judaism, then the importance and interest of\nthese books is without parallel in the Old Testament, for nowhere\nelse have we history written by a contemporary who shaped it.\n\nIt is just and practically necessary to treat the books of Ezra and\nNehemiah together. Their contents overlap, much that was done by\nEzra being recorded in the book of Nehemiah (viii.-x.). The books\nare regarded as one in the Jewish canon; the customary notes\nappended to each book, stating the number of verses, etc., are\nappended only to Nehemiah and cover both books; the Septuagint also\nregards them as one. There are serious gaps in the narrative, but\nthe period they cover is at least a century (538-432 B.C.). A brief\nsketch of the books as they stand will suggest their great\nhistorical interest and also the historical problems they involve.\n\nIn accordance with a decree of Cyrus in 538 B.C. the exiled Jews\nreturn to Jerusalem to build the temple (Ezra i.). Then follows a\nlist of those who returned, numbering 42,360 (ii.). An altar was\nerected, the feast of booths was celebrated, and the regular\nsacrificial system was resumed. Next year, amid joy and tears, the\nfoundation of the temple was laid (iii.). The request of the\nSamaritans for permission to assist in the building of the temple\nwas refused, with the result that they hampered the activity of the\nJews continuously till 520 B.C. (iv, 1-5, 24). Similar opposition\nwas also offered during the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, when\nthe governor of Samaria formally accused the Jews before the Persian\ngovernment of aiming at independence in their efforts to rebuild the\ncity walls, and in consequence the king ordered the suspension of\nthe building until further notice, iv. 6-23. Under the stimulus of\nthe preaching of Haggai and Zechariah, the real work of building the\ntemple was begun in 520 B.C. The enterprise roused the suspicion of\nthe Persian governor, who promptly communicated with Darius. The\nJews had appealed to the decree of Cyrus granting them permission to\nbuild, and this decree was found, after a search, at Ecbatana.\nWhereupon Darius gave the Jews substantial support, the buildings\nwere finished and dedicated in 516 B.C., and a great passover feast\nwas held (v., vi.).\n\nThe scene now shifts to a period at any rate fifty-eight years later\n(458 B.C.) Armed with a commission from Artaxerxes, Ezra the scribe,\nof priestly lineage, arrived, with a company of laity and clergy, at\nJerusalem from Babylon, with the object of investigating the\nreligious condition of Judah and of teaching the law (vii.). Before\nleaving Babylon he had proclaimed a fast with public humiliation and\nprayer, and taken scrupulous precautions to have the offerings for\nthe temple safely delivered at Jerusalem. When they reached the\ncity, they offered a sumptuous burnt-offering and sin-offering\n(viii.). Soon complaints are lodged with Ezra that leading men have\nbeen guilty of intermarriage with heathen women, and he pours out\nhis soul in a passionate prayer of confession (ix.). A penitent mood\nseizes the people; Ezra summons a general assembly, and establishes\na commission of investigation, which, in about three months,\nconvicted 113 men of intermarriage with foreign women (x.).\n\nThe history now moves forward about fourteen years (444 B.C.).\nNehemiah, a royal cup-bearer in the Persian palace, hears with\nsorrow of the distress of his countrymen in Judea, and of the\ndestruction of the walls of Jerusalem (Neh. i.). With the king's\npermission, and armed with his support, he visited Jerusalem, and\nkindled in the whole community there the desire to rebuild the walls\n(ii.). The work was prosecuted with vigour, and, with one exception,\nparticipated in by all (iii.). The foreign neighbours of Jerusalem,\nprovoked by their success, meditated an attack--a plan which was,\nhowever, frustrated by the preparations of Nehemiah (iv.). Nehemiah,\nbeing interested in the social as well as the political condition of\nthe community, unflinchingly rebuked the unbrotherly treatment of\nthe poor by the rich, appealing to his own very different conduct,\nand finally induced the nobles to restore to the poor their\nmortgaged property (v.). By cunning plots, the enemy repeatedly but\nunsuccessfully sought to secure the person of Nehemiah; and in\nfifty-two days the walls were finished (vi.). He then placed the\ncity in charge of two officials, taking precautions to have it\nstrongly guarded and more thickly peopled (vii.).\n\nAt a national assembly, Ezra read to the people from the book of the\nlaw, and they were moved to tears. They celebrated the feast of\nbooths, and throughout the festival week the law was read daily\n(viii.). The people, led by the Levites (under Ezra, ix. 6, lxx.),\nmade a humble confession of sin (ix.), and the prayer issued in a\ncovenant to abstain from intermarriage with the heathen and trade on\nthe Sabbath day, and to support the temple service (x.).\n\nThe population of the city was increased by a special draft,\nselected by lot from those resident outside, and also by a body of\nvolunteers (xi.). After a series of lists of priestly and Levitical\nhouses, one of which[1] is carried down to the time of Alexander the\nGreat, xii. 1-26, the walls were formally dedicated, and steps were\ntaken to secure the maintenance of the temple service and officers,\nxii. 27-47. On his return to Jerusalem in 432 B.C. Nehemiah enforced\nthe sanctity of the temple, and instituted various reforms,\naffecting especially the Levitical dues, the sanctity of the\nSabbath, and intermarriage with foreigners, xiii.\n[Footnote 1: According to Josephus, Jaddua (Neh. xii. 22) was high\npriest in the time of Alexander (about 330 B.C.?).]\n\nThe difficulties involved in this presentation of the history are of\ntwo kinds--inconsistencies with assured historical facts, and\nimprobabilities. Perhaps the most important illustration of the\nformer is to be found in Ezra iii. There not only is an altar\nimmediately built by the returned exiles--a statement not in itself\nimprobable--but the foundation of the temple is laid soon after,\niii. 10, and the ceremony is elaborately described (536 B.C.). The\nfoundation is also presupposed for this period elsewhere in the book\n(cf. v. 16, in an Aramaic document). Now this statement is at least\nformally contradicted by v. 2, where it is expressly said that,\nunder the stimulus of the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah, who did\nnot prophesy till 520 B.C., Zerubbabel and Joshua _began_ to\nbuild the house of God. This is confirmed by the very explicit\nstatements of these two prophets themselves, whose evidence, being\ncontemporary, is unchallengeable. Haggai gives the very day of the\nfoundation, ii. 18, and Zechariah iv. 9 says, \"The hands of\nZerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house.\" It is not\nimpossible to surmount the difficulty by assuming that the laying of\nthe foundation in 536 B.C. was a purely formal ceremony while the\nreal work was not begun till 520; still, it is awkward for this view\nthat the language of two contemporary prophets is so explicit. And\nin any case, the statement in Ezra v. 16 that \"since that time (i.e.\n536) even until now (520) hath the temple been in building\" is not\neasy to reconcile with what we know from contemporary sources; the\nwhole brunt of Haggai's indictment is that the people have been\nattending to their own houses and neglecting Jehovah's house, which\nis in consequence desolate (Hag. i. 4, 9).\n\nThe most signal illustration of the improbabilities that arise from\nthe traditional order of the book lies in the priority of Ezra to\nNehemiah. On the common view, Ezra arrives in Jerusalem in 458 B.C.\n(Ezra vii. 7, 8), Nehemiah in 444 (Neh. ii. 1). But the situation\nwhich Ezra finds on his arrival appears to presuppose a settled and\norderly life, which was hardly possible until the city was fortified\nand the walls built by Nehemiah; indeed, Ezra, in his prayer,\nmentions the erection of the walls as a special exhibition of the\ndivine love (Ezra ix. 9). Further, Nehemiah's memoirs make no\nallusion to the alleged measures of Ezra; and, if Ezra really\npreceded Nehemiah, it is difficult to see why none of the reformers\nwho came with him from Babylon should be mentioned as supporting\nNehemiah. Again, the measures of Nehemiah are mild in comparison\nwith the radical measures of Ezra. Ezra, e.g. demands the divorce of\nthe wives (Ezra x. 11ff.), whereas Nehemiah only forbids\nintermarriage between the children (Neh. xiii. 25). In short, the\nwork of Nehemiah has all the appearance of being tentative and\npreliminary to the drastic reforms of Ezra. The history certainly\ngains in intelligibility if we assume the priority of Nehemiah, and\nthe text does not absolutely bind us. Ezra's departure took place\n\"in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king\" (Ezra vii. 7). Even if\nwe allow that the number is correct, it is just possible that the\nking referred to is not Artaxerxes I (465-424), but Artaxerxes II\n(404-359). In that case, the date of Ezra's arrival would be 397\nB.C.; in any case, the number of the year may be incorrect.\n\nAny doubt which might arise as to the possibility of so serious a\ntransformation is at once met by an indubitable case of misplacement\nin Ezra iv. 6-23. The writer is dealing with the alleged attempts of\nthe Samaritans to frustrate the building of the temple between 536\nand 520 B.C. (Ezra iv. 1-5), and he diverges without warning into an\naccount of a similar opposition during the reigns of Xerxes (485-465)\nand Artaxerxes (465-424) (Ezra iv. 6-23), resuming his interrupted\nstory of the building of the temple in ch. v. The account in iv. 6-23\nis altogether irrelevant, as it has to do, not with the temple, but\nwith the building of the _city_ walls, iv. 12.\n\nSuch peculiarities and dislocations are strange in a historical\nwriting, and they are to be explained by the fact that the book of\nEzra-Nehemiah is not so much a connected history as a compilation.\nThe sources and spirit of this compilation we shall now consider.\nFirst and of surpassing importance are (_a_, _b_) what are\nknown as the I-sections--verbal extracts in the first person, from\nthe memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah:--\n\n(_a_) Ezra vii. 27-ix., except viii. 35, 36.\n\n(_b_) Neh. i.-vii. 5, xii. 27-43, xiii. 4-31.\n\n(_c_) Other sections, though they are not actually extracts from\nthe memoirs, appear to rest directly on them: cf. Ezra vii. 1-10, x.,\nNeh. viii.-x. In these sections Ezra is spoken of in the third person.\n\n(_d_) Of great interest and importance are the Aramaic\nsections, Ezra iv. _7b_-vi. 18 and vii. 12-26, involving\ncorrespondence with the Persian court or royal rescripts.\n\n(_e_) Finally, there are occasional lists, such as Neh. xii. 1-26_a_,\nor Neh. vii. 6-69, a list of the returning exiles, incorporated in the\nmemoirs of Nehemiah from some earlier list and borrowed in Ezra ii.\n\nThese are the chief sources, but there can be no doubt that they\nwere compiled--that is put together and in certain cases worked\nover--by the Chronicler. That suspicion is at once raised by the\nfact that Ezra-Nehemiah is a strict continuation of the book of\nChronicles,[1] though in the Hebrew Bible Chronicles appears last,\nbecause, having to compete with Samuel and Kings, it won its\ncanonical position later than Ezra-Nehemiah. But apart from this,\nthe phraseology, style and point of view of the Chronicler are very\nconspicuous. There is the same love of the law, the same interest in\nLeviticalism, the same joy in worship, the same fondness for lists\nand numbers. He must have lived a century or more after Ezra and\nNehemiah; he looks back in Neh. xii. 47 to \"the days of Nehemiah,\"\nand he must himself have belonged to the Greek period. One of his\nlists mentions a Jaddua, a high priest in the time of Alexander the\nGreat. He speaks of the king of _Persia_ (Ezra i. 1), and of\nDarius _the Persian_[2] (Neh. xii. 22), as one to whom the\nPersian empire was a thing of the past; contemporaries simply spoke\nof \"the king,\" Ezra iv. 8.\n[Footnote 1: Note that the opening verses of Ezra are repeated at\nthe end of Chronicles to secure a favourable ending to the book--the\nmore so as that was the last book of the Hebrew Bible.]\n[Footnote 2: In Ezra vi. 22 Darius is even called the king of\nAssyria.]\n\nMany of the peculiarities of the book are explained the moment it is\nseen to be a late compilation. The compiler selected from his\navailable material whatever suited his purpose; he makes no attempt\nto give a continuous account of the period. He leaves without\nscruple a gap of sixty years or more[1] between Ezra vi. and vii. He\ninterpolates a comment of his own in the middle of the original\nmemoirs of Nehemiah.[2] He transcribes the same list twice (Ezra\nii., Neh. vii.), which looks as if he had found it in two different\ndocuments. He gives passages irrelevant settings (cf. Ezra iv. 6-23).\nHe passes without warning from the first person in Ezra ix. to the\nthird person in Ezra x., showing that he does not regard himself\nas the slave, but as the master, of his material. Whatever may be\nthought of the view that he has reversed the chronological order of\nEzra and Nehemiah, the book undoubtedly contains misplaced passages.\nEzra x. is a very unsatisfactory conclusion to the account of Ezra,\nwhereas Neh. viii.-x., which deal with the work of Ezra and its\nissue in a covenant, form an admirable sequel to Ezra x., and have\nalmost certainly been misplaced.\n[Footnote 1: Unless we take into account the brief misplaced section\nin iv. 6-23.]\n[Footnote 2: Cf. especially xii. 47 with its reference to \"the days\nof Nehemiah,\" whereas in xii. 40, xiii. 6, etc., Nehemiah speaks in\nthe first person. Ch. xii. 44-47 at least belongs to the\nChronicler.]\n\nWe cannot be too grateful to him for giving intact the vivid and\nextremely important account of the activity of Nehemiah the layman\nin Nehemiah's own words (i.-vii. 5); at the same time, his own\ninterests are almost entirely ecclesiastical. Unlike Ezra (viii.\n15ff.), he says little of the homeward journey of the exiles in 537,\nbut much of the temple vessels (Ezra i.) and of the arrangements for\nthe sacrificial system, iii. 4-6. He dwells at length on the laying\nof the foundation stone of the temple, iii. 8-13, on the Samaritan\nopposition to the building, iv. 1-5, on the passover festival at the\ndedication of the temple when it was finished, vi. 19-22. He\namplifies the Nehemiah narratives at the point where the services\nand officers of the temple are concerned.\n\nThe influence of the Chronicler is unmistakable even in the Aramaic\ndocuments, whose authenticity one would on first thoughts expect to\nbe guaranteed by their language. Aramaic would be the natural\nlanguage of correspondence between the Persian court and the western\nprovinces of the empire, and these official documents in Aramaic one\nmight assume to be originals; but an examination reveals some of the\neditorial terms that characterize the Hebrew. A decree of Darius is\nrepresented as ending with the prayer that \"the God that hath caused\nHis name to dwell there (i.e. at Jerusalem) may overthrow all kings\nand peoples that shall put forth their hand to destroy this house of\nGod which is at Jerusalem\" (Ezra vi. 13). To say nothing of the\nfirst clause, which has a suspicious resemblance to the language of\nDeuteronomy, such a wish addressed to the God of the Jews is\nanything but natural on the lips of a Persian. Again, there are\nseveral distinctively Jewish terms of expression in the rescript\ngiven by Artaxerxes to Ezra, e.g. the detailed allusion to\nsacrifices in Ezra vii. 17. This, however, might easily be explained\nby assuming that Ezra himself had had a hand in drafting the\nrescript, which is not impossible.\n\nThe question, however, is for the historian a very serious one: how\ngreat were the liberties which the Chronicler allowed himself in the\nmanipulation of his material? It is interesting in this connexion to\ncompare his account of the decree of Cyrus on behalf of the Jewish\nexiles in Ezra i. 2-4 with the Aramaic version in vi. 3-5, which has\nall the appearance of being original. The difference is striking.\nCyrus speaks in ch. i. as an ardent Jehovah worshipper; but the\nsubstance of the edict is approximately correct, though its form is\naltogether unhistorical and indeed impossible. The Chronicler's\nidealizing tendency is here very apparent; and it is not impossible\nthat this has elsewhere affected his presentation of the facts as\nwell as the form of his narrative. In the light of the very plain\nstatements of the contemporary prophets Haggai and Zechariah, we are\njustified in doubting whether, in Ezra iii., the Chronicler has not\nantedated the foundation of the temple. To him it may well have\nseemed inconceivable that the returned exiles should--whatever their\nexcuse--have waited for sixteen years before beginning the work\nwhich to him was of transcendent importance.\n\nIt is possible, too, that prophecy may have influenced his\npresentation of the history. He throws into the very forefront a\nprophecy of Jeremiah (xxv. 12), and regards the decree of Cyrus as\nits fulfilment (Ezra i. 1). He may also have had in mind the words\nof the great exilic prophet who had represented Cyrus as issuing the\ncommand to lay the foundation of the temple (Isa. xliv. 28); and he\nmay in this way have thrown into the period immediately after the\nreturn activities which properly belong to the period sixteen years\nlater. But it is perfectly gratuitous, on the strength of this, to\ndoubt, as has recently been done, the whole story of the return in\n537 B.C. Those who do so point out that the audience addressed by\nHaggai, i. 12, 14, ii. 2, and Zechariah viii. 6, is described as the\nremnant of the people of the land--that is, it is alleged, of those\nwho had been left behind at the time of the captivity. No doubt the\nbetter-minded among these would lend their support to the efforts of\nHaggai and Zechariah to re-establish the worship, but this community\nas a whole must have been too dispirited and indifferent to have\ntaken such a step without the impulse supplied by the returned\nexiles. The devotion of the native population to Jehovah, not great\nto begin with--for it was the worst of the people who were left\nbehind--must have deteriorated through intermarriage with heathen\nneighbours (Neh. xiii., Ezra ix. x.); and without a return in 537 on\nthe strength of the edict of Cyrus, the whole situation and sequel\nare unintelligible. The Chronicler's version of the decree of Cyrus\nthrows a flood of light upon his method. It cannot be fairly said\nthat he invents facts; he may modify, amplify and transpose, but\nalways on the basis of fact. His fidelity in transcribing the\nmemoirs of Nehemiah is proof that he was not unscrupulous in the\ntreatment of his sources.\n\nIt remains to consider briefly the value of these sources. The\nauthenticity of the memoirs of Nehemiah is universally admitted.\nSimilar phrases are continually recurring, e.g. \"the good hand of my\nGod upon me,\" ii. 8, 18, and the whole narrative is stamped with the\nimpress of a brave, devout, patriotic and resourceful personality.\nThe authenticity of the memoirs of Ezra has been disputed with\nperhaps a shadow of plausibility. The language of the memoirs\ndistinctly approximates to the language of the Chronicler himself,\nthough this can be fairly accounted for, either by supposing that\nthe spirit and interests of Ezra the priest were largely identical\nwith those of the Chronicler, or that the Chronicler, recognizing\nhis general affinity with Ezra, hesitated less than in the case of\nNehemiah to conform the language of the memoirs to his own. But more\nserious charges have been made. It has been alleged that the account\nof the career of Ezra has been largely modelled on that of Nehemiah,\nas that of Elisha on Elijah, and that legendary elements are\ntraceable, e.g. in the immense wealth brought by Ezra's company from\nBabylon (Ezra viii. 24-27). These reasons do not seem altogether\nconvincing. The Chronicler stood relatively near to Ezra. Records\nand lists were kept in that period, and he was no doubt in\npossession of more first-hand documentary information than appears\nin his book. There is no obvious motive for the writer who so\nfaithfully transcribed the memoirs of Nehemiah, inventing so vivid,\ncoherent and circumstantial a narrative for Ezra in the first person\nsingular (Ezra vii. 27-ix.).\n\nThe question of the Ezra memoirs raises the further question of the\nAramaic documents. The memoirs are immediately preceded by the\nAramaic rescript of Artaxerxes permitting Ezra to visit Jerusalem\nfor the purpose of reorganizing the Jewish community (Ezra vii. 12-26).\nDoubt has been cast upon the authenticity of this document on the\nstrength of its undeniably Jewish colouring; but this, as we have seen,\nis probably to be explained by the not unnatural assumption that Ezra\nhimself had a hand in its preparation. Its substantial authenticity\nseems fully guaranteed by the spontaneous and warm-hearted outburst of\ngratitude to God with which Ezra immediately follows it (Ezra vii. 27ff):\n\"Blessed be Jehovah, the God of our fathers, who hath put such a thing\nas this in the king's heart,\" etc. A similar criticism may be made in\ngeneral on the Aramaic document, Ezra iv. _7b_-vi. 18. It is certain,\nas we have seen, that the document has been retouched by the Chronicler;\nbut the whole passage and especially the royal decrees are substantially\nauthentic. Attention has been called to the Persian words which they\ncontain, though this alone is not decisive, as they might conceivably\nbe due to a later author; but the authenticity of the decree of Cyrus\nis practically guaranteed by the story that it was discovered at\nEcbatana (Ezra vi. 2). Had it been a fiction, the scene of the discovery\nwould no doubt have been Babylon or Susa.\n\nAfter making allowance, then, for the Chronicler's occasionally\ncavalier treatment of his sources, we have to admit that the sources\nthemselves are of the highest historical value, though in order to\nsecure a coherent view of the period, they have, in all probability,\nto be rearranged. No rearrangement can be considered as absolutely\ncertain, but the following, which is adopted by several scholars,\nhas internal probability:--\n\nEzra i.-iv. 5, iv. 24-vi., followed by about seventy years of\nsilence (516-444 B.C.). Neh. i.-vi., Ezra iv. 6-23, Neh. vii. 1-69\n(= Ezra ii.), Neh. xi., xii., xiii. 4-31, Ezra vii., viii., Neh.\nvii. 70-viii., Ezra ix.-x. 9, Neh. xiii. 1-3, Ezra x. 10-44, Neh.\nix., x.\n\nDespite their enormous difficulties, Ezra-Nehemiah are a source of\nthe highest importance for the political and religious history of\nearly Judaism. The human interest of the story is also great--the\nproblems for religion created by intermarriage (Neh. xiii. 23ff.,\nEzra ix., x.), and the growth of the commercial spirit (Neh. xiii.\n15-22). The figure of Ezra, though not without a certain devout\nenergy, is somewhat stiff and formal; but the personality revealed\nby the memoirs of Nehemiah is gracious almost to the point of\nromance. Seldom did the Hebrew people produce so attractive and\nversatile a figure--at once a man of prayer and of action, of clear\nswift purpose, daring initiative, and resistless energy, and endowed\nwith a singular power of inspiring others with his own enthusiasm.\nHe forms an admirable foil to Ezra the ecclesiastic; and it is a\nmatter of supreme satisfaction that we have the epoch-making events\nin his career told in his own direct and vigorous words.\n\n\n\n\nCHRONICLES\n\n\nThe comparative indifference with which Chronicles is regarded in\nmodern times by all but professional scholars seems to have been\nshared by the ancient Jewish church. Though written by the same hand\nas wrote Ezra-Nehemiah, and forming, together with these books, a\ncontinuous history of Judah, it is placed after them in the Hebrew\nBible, of which it forms the concluding book; and this no doubt\npoints to the fact that it attained canonical distinction later than\nthey. Nor is this unnatural. The book of Kings had brought the history\ndown to the exile of Judah; and the natural desire to see the history\ncarried from its new starting point in the return and restoration\nthrough post-exilic times is met by the book of Ezra-Nehemiah, to\nwhich there was no rival, whereas Chronicles had a rival in the\nexisting and popular books of Samuel and Kings.\n\nThe book, whose name _Chronicles_ is borrowed by Luther from\nJerome, is very late. Ezra-Nehemiah with which Chronicles goes must\nbe, as we have seen,[1] as late as Alexander the Great; but the\nlateness of Chronicles can be proved without going beyond the book\nitself. The Hebrew text of 1 Chron. iii. 19ff. carries the date six\ngenerations beyond Zerubbabel (520 B.C.), that is, at the earliest,\nto 350 B.C., while the Greek text postulates eleven generations,\nwhich would compel us to come as late as 250 B.C. We shall not go\nfar astray if we consider the date as roughly 300 B.C. It is thus\nseven centuries later than the reign of David, with whose\necclesiastical enterprises it deals so elaborately, and about two\nand a-half centuries from the exile, with which it closes. The\ndistance of the record from the events has to be borne in mind when\nestimating its religious spirit and historical value.\n[Footnote: See p. 355.]\n\nThe book of Chronicles is an ecclesiastical history in a sense very\nmuch more severe than the book of Kings; on every page it reflects\nthe ritual interests which were predominant when the book was\nwritten. To it the only history worth recording is the history of\nJudah. The first ten chapters are occupied with the preparation for\nthat history, and the rest of the book (i Chron. xi.-2 Chron.\nxxxvi.) with the history itself from the coronation of David to the\nexile. Israel is the apostate kingdom; she had revolted alike from\nJudah and Jehovah, and had been swept for her sins into exile, from\nwhich she never emerged again. The Chronicler makes a man of God say\nto Amaziah, \"Jehovah is not with Israel,\" 2 Chron. xxv. 7, and this\nexactly represents his own attitude. He therefore all but absolutely\nignores the history of the northern kingdom, touching upon it only\nwhere it is in some special way implicated in the history of Judah.\n\nThis practically exclusive attention of the Chronicles to Judah is\nbased upon her unique religious or rather ecclesiastical importance.\nIn Judah God made Himself known as nowhere else (cf. Ps. lxxvi. 1,\n2); she was the religious metropolis of the world (Ps. lxxxvii.);\nJerusalem was the capital of Judah, and the temple was the centre of\nJerusalem. Therefore the temple and its affairs completely dwarf all\nother interests. Not only is the story in Kings of its building and\ndedication by Solomon repeated and expanded (2 Chron. i.-ix.), but\nthe story of David's reign (1 Chron. xi.-xxix.) is almost entirely\nmonopolized by an account of the arrangements which he made for the\ntemple ordinances and the material which he collected for the\nbuilding. He is said to have given Solomon a plan of the temple with\nall its furniture and sundry other details, the pattern of which he\nis said to have himself received from the hand of God (xxviii).\nEvery opportunity is taken in the course of the history to dwell\nwith an affectionate elaboration of detail on the temple services or\nfestivals; and the resultant contrast between the corresponding\naccounts of the same reign in Kings and Chronicles is often very\nsingular--nowhere more so than in the story of Hezekiah, most of\nwhich is devoted to an account of the great passover held in\nconnexion with the reformation (2 Chron. xxix., xxx.).\n\nThe Chronicler betrays, if possible, even more interest in the\nLevites than in the priests. It is a Levite who is moved by the\nSpirit to encourage Jehoshaphat before the battle (2 Chron. xx. 14),\nand special attention is called to their enthusiasm at the\nreformation of Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix. 34). The Chronicler also\ndisplays exceptional interest in the musical service--in his\naccount, e.g., of the inauguration of the temple and of the\npassovers of Hezekiah and Josiah; so that it has been not\nunreasonably conjectured that the author was himself a Levite and\nmember of one of the guilds of temple singers or musicians.\n\nSince, then, the interests of the Chronicler are so undeniably\necclesiastical, the question may be fairly raised how far his\nnarrative is strictly historical. It must be confessed, e.g., that\nthe impression made by his account of David is distinctly unnatural\nand improbable, in the light of the graphic biography in 1 and 2\nSamuel. It is not a supplementary picture, but an altogether\ndifferent one. The versatile minstrel-warrior of the earlier books\nis transformed into a saint, whose supreme aim in life is the\nservice of religion; and this transformation is thoroughly\ncharacteristic of the Chronicler. He deals with his literary sources\nin the most sovereign fashion, and adapts them to his theories of\nProvidence. His omissions, e.g., are very significant. He has\nnothing to say of David's adultery, nor of Solomon's idolatry, nor\nof the intrigues by which he succeeded to the throne, nor of the\ntribute of silver and gold which Hezekiah paid Sennaccherib (2 Kings\nxviii. 14-16). It may be urged in extenuation of his silence that\nhis public were already familiar with these stories in the books of\nSamuel and Kings; but he repeats so many sections from these books\nword for word that his failure to repeat the sections which militate\nagainst his heroes can only be regarded as part of a deliberate\npolicy. Especially must this be maintained in the light of his\nnumerous modifications or contradictions of his sources. David's\nsons, he tells us, were chief about the king (1 Chron, xviii. 17);\nhe cannot allow that they were priests, as 2 Sam. viii. 18 says they\nwere. Nor can he allow that Solomon offered his dedicatory prayer\nbefore the altar (1 Kings viii. 22)--that was the place for the\npriest--so he erects for him a special platform in the midst of the\ncourt, from which he addresses the people (2 Chron. vi. 13).\n\nThe motive of these changes is obviously respect for the priestly\nlaw. Sometimes the motive is to glorify his heroes or to magnify\ntheir enthusiasm or devotion. Where, e.g. in 2 Sam. xxiv. 24 David\npays Araunah fifty shekels of silver for the ground on which the\ntemple was afterwards built, in 1 Chron. xxi. 25 he pays 600 shekels\nof gold. Similarly, in 1 Kings ix. 11 Solomon gives Hiram certain\ncities in return for a loan; in 2 Chron. viii. 2 it is Hiram who\ngives Solomon the cities. David accumulates 100,000 talents of gold\nand 1,000,000 of silver for the building of the temple (1 Chron.\nxxii.)--a fabulous and impossible sum when we remember that Solomon\nhimself had only 666 talents of gold yearly (1 Kings x. 14). In 2\nSam. xxi. 19 Elhanan is the hero who slays Goliath; the Chronicler\nsees that this conflicts with the romantic story of David (1 Sam.\nxvii.) and therefore makes Elhanan slay the brother of Goliath (1\nChron. xx. 5). In 2 Kings xxii., xxiii., the reformation of Josiah\nfollows very naturally upon the finding of the law in the eighteenth\nyear of the king, but the Chronicler represents the reformation as\ntaking place in his twelfth year, i.e. as soon as he came of age (2\nChrori. xxxiv. 3). He still, however, dates the finding of the law\nin his eighteenth year (cf. 8), i.e. _six years after the\nreformation_, and thus throws the history into an impossible\nsequence, apparently for no other object than to illustrate the\nyouthful devotion of his hero-king. He is not even always consistent\nwith himself; following Kings (1 Kings xv. 14, xxii. 43) he says\nthat Asa and Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places (2 Chron.\nxv. 17, xx. 33), and yet he had just before told us that they did (2\nChron, xiv. 5, xvii. 6) as, on his theory,--being good kings, they\nshould. The motive for the change is usually obvious. In 2 Sam.\nxxiv. 1 Jehovah had tempted David to number the people. This is\nintolerable to the more advanced theology of the Chronicler, so he\nascribes the impulse to Satan (1 Chron. xxi. 1). A similar\ntransformation may be seen in his notice of the doom of Saul. In 1\nSam. xxviii. 6 it is implicitly said that Saul earnestly sought to\ndiscover the divine will; in 1 Chron. x. 14 this is roundly denied-he\ndid not inquire of Jehovah.\n\nThese and similar transformations, amounting sometimes to\ncontradictions of the original sources, are due to a religious\nmotive, and they appear to be made in perfectly good faith. The\nChronicler is a religious man who, unlike Job, finds no perplexities\nin the moral world, but everywhere a precise and mechanical\ncorrespondence between character and destiny. Not only is piety\nrewarded by prosperity, but prosperity presupposes piety. The most\npious kings have the most soldiers. David has over a million and a\nhalf, Jehoshaphat over a million, while Rehoboam has only 180,000.\nManasseh's long reign of fifty-five years--a stumbling-block, on the\nChronicler's theory--has to be explained by his repentance (2 Chron.\nxxxiii. 11ff.). Religious explanations are everywhere assigned for\nfacts. Josiah's defeat and death are the penalty of his disobedience\nto the word of God which came to him through the Egyptian king (2\nChron. xxxv. 21ff). So Uzziah's leprosy is the divine punishment of\nhis pride in presuming to offer incense despite the protests of the\npriests (2 Chron. xxvi. 16ff.), The Chronicler sees the hand of God\nin everything; He is the immediate arbiter of all human destiny.\nThat is why rewards and punishments are so swift and just and sure.\nThe divine control of human affairs is most conspicuously seen in\nthe Chronicler's account of battles, where the human warriors count\nfor nothing. God fights or causes a panic among the enemy; the\nwarriors do little more than shout and pursue (2 Chron. xiii. 15,\nxx.). The battle-scenes show how little imagination the Chronicler\npossessed; clearly he had never seen a battle, and he has no\nconception of one (cf. Num. xxxi.). He thinks nothing of describing\na conflict between 400,000 Judeans and 800,000 Israelites, in which\nhalf a million of the latter were slain (2 Chron. xiii.). It is all\nso different from the stirring and life-like tales of the Judges or\nthe Maccabees.\n\nIn the face of these historical improbabilities, what are we to make\nof the Chronicler's continual appeal to his sources? These are\nostensibly of two kinds: (_a_) historical, (_b)_\nprophetical. (_a_) He frequently refers to the book of the\nkings of Israel and Judah, the book of the kings of Judah and\nIsrael, the book of the kings of Israel, and the history of the\nkings of Israel. No doubt one book is cited under these different\ntitles. The history of Manasseh, e.g., is said to be recorded in the\nhistory of the kings of Israel (2 Chron. xxxiii. 18); clearly this\ncannot be northern Israel, as Manasseh was a king of Judah. What,\nthen, was this book of the kings of Israel and Judah? At first we\nare strongly tempted to regard it as our canonical book of Kings.\nThat book was already over two centuries in existence and must have\nbeen familiar; not only are whole sections copied from it by the\nChronicler verbatim, but occasionally passages which he adopts\npresuppose other passages which he has omitted; e.g. he follows 2\nSam. v. 13 in asserting that David took _more_ wives (1 Chron.\nxiv. 3), though the word \"more\" has no meaning in his context; in\nhis source it points naturally enough back to 2 Sam. iii. 2-5. There\ncan be no doubt, then, that the canonical books of Samuel and Kings\nconstituted one of his sources.\n\nYet it is almost equally certain that that is not the book to which\nhe continually refers his readers. The \"book of Jehu,\" which\nrecorded the history of Jehoshaphat, is said to be incorporated in\nthe book of the Kings of Israel (2 Chron. xx. 34); it is not,\nhowever, in our canonical Kings. Neither is the prayer of Manasseh\n(2 Chron. xxxiii. 18), nor are the genealogies referred to in 1\nChron. ix. 1. Again, for further information about Jotham the reader\nis referred to the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chron.\nxxvii. 7), when, as a matter of fact, the Chronicler has more to\ntell about him than our book of Kings (2 Kings xv. 32-38). Clearly,\nthen, the book so frequently cited is not the canonical book of\nKings. What sort of production it was may be inferred from the\nreference in 2 Chron. xxiv. 27 to the \"_midrash_ of the book of\nthe Kings.\" Doubtless the book in question was a midrash, i.e. an\nedifying commentary on the history, of the sort preserved in the\nvery late story of 1 Kings xiii. The tendency towards midrash, which\nso powerfully affected the later Jewish mind, appears as early as\nthe stories of Elisha. (_b_) Prophetic sources are also\nfrequently cited or alluded to, e.g. the books of Samuel, Nathan,\nGad (1 Chron. xxix. 29), the prophecy of Ahijah, the book of\nShemaiah, the book of Iddo (2 Chron, xii. 15), the vision of Isaiah\n(2 Chron. xxxii. 32), etc. Probably, however, these were not\nindependent prophetic works. The reference to the \"_midrash_ of\nthe prophet Iddo\" (2 Chron. xiii. 22) suggests that these works,\nlike the history of the kings, were midrashic; in all probability\nthey were simply extracts from the midrashic book of Kings already\nalluded to. Practically all the prophets to whom books are ascribed\nin Chronicles are mentioned in the canonical books, and probably\nthey were regarded as the authors of the sections in which their\nnames occur, so that the books of Samuel, Nathan and Gad would be\nnone other than the relevant portions of Samuel and Kings, or of the\nmidrash of these books. Thus the Chronicler's imposing array of\ncitations may be without injustice reduced to two books--the\ncanonical book of Kings (or Genesis to Kings) and the midrash to\nthose books.\n\nThese facts have led many to deny all value whatever to the\nChronicler's unsupported statements. But such a condemnation is too\nsweeping. The genealogies in 1 Chron. i.-ix., though they no doubt\nreceived many later additions, probably rest on good sources, and\nthere are other notices bearing, e.g., on the fortifications of\nRehoboam (2 Chron. xi.), Jotham (2 Chron. xxvii.), etc., on Uzziah's\nenterprise in peace and war (2 Chron. xxvi. 5-15), on Judah's border\nwarfare (2 Chron. xvii. 11, xxi. 16, xxvi. 7, xxviii. 17f), etc.,\nwhich do not display the Chronicler's characteristic tendencies and\nappear to be authentic. On the whole, however, the historical value\nof Chronicles must be rated low. Nor is its religious value high.\nIts attitude to the problems raised by the moral order is\nexceedingly mechanical, and with one noble exception (2 Chron. xxx.\n18, 19), its general conception of religion is ritualistic. But it\nis a valuable monument of the Judaism of the third century B.C., and\nwe learn from it to appreciate the daring independence of such books\nas Job and Ecclesiastes.","title":"Introduction to the Old Testament","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":94824}