Full text of "A critical introduction to the Old Testament"

A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION

TO THE

OLD TESTAMENT

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY

A Critical Introduction to the New Testament.
By ARTHUR SAMUEL PKAKE, D.D.

Faith and its Psychology.

By the Rev. WILLIAM R. INGE, D.D.

Philosophy and Religion.

By the Rev. HASTINGS RASHDALL, D.Litt. (Oxon.)&gt; D.C.L.
(Durham), F.B.A.

Revelation and Inspiration.
By the Rev. JAMES ORR, D.D.

Christianity and Modern Social Issues.

By WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, F.B.A., D.D.. D.Sc.

A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament.
By the Rev. GEORGE BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., D.Litt.

History of Christian Thought from the Apostolic Age

to the Reformation.
By HERBERT B. WORKMAN, D.Litt.

History of Christian Thought from the Reformation

to Kant.
By A. C. McGiFFERT, Ph.D., D.D.

History of Christian Thought since Kant.
By the Rev. EDWARD CALDWELL MOORE, D.D.

The Christian Hope: A Study in the Doctrine of the

Last Things.
By W. ADAMS BROWN, Ph.D., D.D.

The Theology of the Gospels.
By JAMES MOFFATT, D.D., D.Litt.

The Text and Canon of the New Testament.

By ALEXANDER SOUTER, D.Litt.

A CRITICAL
INTRODUCTION TO THE

OLD TESTAMENT

GEORGE BUCHANAN GRAY

D.U., D.IJTT.

PKOFESSOR OF HliBKEW AND OLD TESTAMENT KXEGKSIS
IN MANSFIELD COLLEGE, OXFORD

LONDON: DUCKWORTH & CO.

3 HENRIETTA ST. COVENT GARDEN
1913

PREFACE

IN spite of the fact that it is customary to bind it in a
single volume, the Old Testament contains a considerable
body of literature. Yet, if that literature were simply
and unquestionably the product of the small number of
authors recognised by tradition, though there would be
a place for histories of Hebrew literature, there would be
little or none for what it has become customary to call
critical introductions.

But tradition is no longer really accepted even by
conservative scholars : they may, indeed, maintain, for
example, that the Pentateuch is the work of Moses, but
they recognise at the same time that it has received
additions from later hands than his, additions, too, of
considerably greater extent than the record of Moses
death, which even Jewish tradition admitted, though
not unanimously, to have been written by another.

The inquiries, then, with which critical introductions
are concerned, are necessary, and the real difficulty is to
do justice to them within the compass of a small volume.
What I have attempted is to show first of all that a
problem exists, that tradition is inadequate to explain
the facts which are revealed by any careful study of the
several books. The actual solution of the various problems
can often be but very partial ; and the answers to many
of the questions that arise tentative, and far from certain.
To many of the problems many different solutions or
variations of the same solution have been given. It

vi CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT

would have been impossible to give even an inadequate
account of all of these, and I determined to devote my
allotted space to as full a presentation of the evidence
as possible, and an indication of one or two of the more
probable conclusions, or at least of the direction in which
such conclusions must be sought. Under the circum
stances I felt it best to take upon myself in most cases the
responsibility for the conclusions suggested, lest for lack
of space I might do injustice to the form in which other
scholars have previously presented them. For this
reason, there is less allusion in the body of the work to
other scholars than there would otherwise have been ;
and it is all the more important, therefore, to state here
once for all that beyond the selection and presentation of
the material, and now and again, perhaps, a fresh turn to
an argument, this volume lays no claim to originality, and
that the names of scholars in whose footsteps I have
followed, or of whose work I have availed myself, will
be found, if not in the main body of the work, in the
Bibliography at the end.

I have written my book throughout with a view to being
intelligible to those who are unfamiliar with Hebrew.
For a just estimate of the often very important linguistic
evidence a knowledge of Hebrew is, indeed, necessary :
but for the most part I have confined myself to indicating
the general character and significance of this evidence,
and would refer the reader who wishes to consider it more
fully to the larger work of Dr. Driver in which it is so
admirably collected and interpreted. For the rest, though
the subject can doubtless be better pursued by making a
constant use of the Hebrew Bible, the arguments can, I
believe, be sufficiently followed with the help of a good
translation ; and though, wherever possible, it will be

PREFACE vii

wise to make use of a more critical translation, such as
some of the more recent commentaries and other works
mentioned in the Bibliography contain, the Revised Version,
which is for all critical study incomparably superior to the
Authorised Version, will in general suffice, especially if care
ful use is made of the margins, which contain so much of
the most valuable work of the Revisers.

The several books are discussed in the order in which
they stand in the English Bible, with three exceptions,
and these will, I trust, cause no inconvenience : I have
grouped Ruth with Esther at the end of the historical
books, Lamentations with the non-prophetical, poetical
books, and reserved Daniel for the last chapter.

Chapter xiv. is reprinted with some slight alterations,
and the omission of sections on the titles and religious
characteristics of the Psalter (which would not have fallen
within the scope of the present work), from the article
4 Psalms in Dr. Hastings s Dictionary of the Bible in One
Volume. I take this opportunity of gratefully acknow
ledging the courtesy of the publishers, Messrs. T. and T.
Clark, who kindly gave me permission to reproduce these
portions of the article.

G. BUCHANAN GRAY.

September 1912.

CONTENTS

fAOK

PREFACE . , V

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY ..... ,1

CHAPTER II

HISTORICAL LITERATURE I INTRODUCTORY . , 7

CHAPTER III

THE PENTATEUCH : TRADITION AND CRITICISM . , ,13

CHAPTER IV

THE PENTATEUCH : ITS SOURCES . 18

CHAPTER V

THE PENTATEUCH : DATES OF THE SOURCES , . 31

CHAPTER VI

THE PENTATEUCH : ITS ORIGINS AND THE HISTORY OF ITS

GROWTH . . . . . . .39

CHAPTER VII

THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS : (1) JOSHUA AND JUDGES . 52

CHAPTER VIII

THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS : (2) I. II. SAMUEL . . 66

CHAPTER IX

THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS : (3) I. II. KINGS . . 76

x CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT
CHAPTER X

FAGS

THE LATER HISTORICAL BOOKS : (1) I. II. CHRONICLES . 87

CHAPTER XI

THE LATER HISTORICAL BOOKS : (2) EZRA AND N EHEMIAH . 97

CHAPTER XII

RUTH AND ESTHER ... . 108

CHAPTER XIII

JOB ...... 115

CHAPTER XIV

PSALMS ..... . 128

CHAPTER XV

PROVERBS . . . . . , .142

CHAPTER XVI

ECCLESIASTES ... ... 149

CHAPTER XVII

THE SONG OF SONGS . . . . . ,155

CHAPTER XVIII

LAMENTATIONS . . . . . , .163

CHAPTER XIX

THE PROPHETIC LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY . . . 168

CHAPTER XX

ISAIAH ........ 178

CHAPTER XXI

JEREMIAH . . . 189

CONTENTS
CHAPTER XXII

EZEKIEL ......

PAOK

. 198

CHAPTER XXIII

THE TWELVE PROPHETS

. 203

HOSEA ...

. 204

JOEL . .

. 207

AMOS . .

. 210

OEADIAH .....

. 213

JONAH .....

. 215

MICAH .....

. 217

NAHUM .....

. 220

HABAKKUK

. 221

ZEPHANIAH ....

. 225

HAGQAI .....

. 226

ZECHARIAH

. 227

MALACH1 .

231

CHAPTER XXIV

DANIEL .... ... 233

BIBLIOGRAPHY ,.,,.. 240

IKDKX . . , 249

A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO
THE OLD TESTAMENT

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

BEFORE the New Testament was written, the Old Testament
formed the sacred Scriptures of the Christian community ;
for Christianity, springing out of Judaism, had from its
birth these sacred Scriptures of the earlier religion. It
was but gradually that a selection from the literature
written by members of the Christian community itself
acquired an authoritative and sacred character, and so
became part of the Christian Scriptures ; and, even then,
the distinction between what had first ranked as Scriptures,
and what only later acquired the same authoritative
character, was kept clear. This distinction has never
been obliterated, and the division of the Christian Bible
into Old Testament and New Testament is a standing
witness to an important historical fact.

The Old Testament, the Jewish Bible, had itself had a
similar history, though this is unfortunately concealed in
the English version in much the same way that the history
of the Christian Bible would have been concealed, if the
Old and New Testaments, instead of being kept distinct,
had been fused, and the Gospels and Acts, as historical
books, placed among the historical books of the Old Testa
ment. On the other hand, the Hebrew Bible both by its
title and its arrangement bears witness to its history : to
an original collection of Scriptures, the Law, there was
added, first a collection of prophetic writings, and then

2 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

another more miscellaneous collection. The Hebrew
Bible is entitled Law, Prophets, Writings from these
three collections of which it consists : and these three parts
stand in the following order, and contain respectively
the following books :

i. Law. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deutero
nomy.

ii. Prophets. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve.

iii. Writings. Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs,
Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah,
Chronicles.

Not only, however, is the Old Testament a collection of
sacred Scriptures ; it is also a corpus of Hebrew literature,
including all that survives of what was written before the
Exile (586 B.C.), and much of what was written between
the Exile and the Christian era. But much else that was
written in this later period, though not included in the
Canon, also survives, and even in a special study of the
canonical books, it is important constantly to bear in mind
the existence of extra-canonical literature, and to compare
the examples of any type of literature within the Canon
with other examples of the same types that survive with
out the Canon Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, for example,
with Proverbs and Job, Enoch and the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs with Daniel, the Psalms of Solomon
with the canonical Psalter, Tobit and Judith with Esther.

Little even of the canonical literature was written with
any immediate intention that it should form part of a
sacred book ; and consequently an enquiry into the origin
and history of this literature has two quite distinct ques
tions, or sets of questions, to consider : the one question
is how and when did the Jewish community accept this
literature as sacred and authoritative ; the other question
is how and when were the contents of this literature written.
The present volume is immediately concerned with the
second only of these questions ; the first, the question of

i.] INTRODUCTORY 3

the Canon, is reserved for another volume of the series. Yet
the two questions though distinct are in certain respects
related, and it may be convenient to record here the con
clusions which many have reached and in which the present
writer concurs. Parts of the * Law were accepted as an
authoritative book as early as Josiah s Reformation in
621 B.C. ; the whole, or substantially the whole, Law was
so accepted by 444 B.C. ; the 4 Prophets became part of
Jewish Scripture not improbably soon after 250 B.C, ; and
the * Writings gradually obtained the same position within
the next two or three centuries.

Christianity, like Islam, had from the first a sacred
book. It was otherwise with the Hebrews. The Hebrew
religion had already had a long history before its adoption
in 621 B.C. of an authoritative document ; and a long
period during which religious life was moulded by custom,
or by the words of priest or prophet expounding the will
of God, preceded the period when that which was written
in the law of Moses became the regular norm. Much of
the contents of the Old Testament was written in the
earlier period before the religion of the Hebrews could in
any sense be called a book religion.

Again, though the contents of the New, like that of the
Old, Testament were not originally intended to form a
sacred volume, yet they were the literary expression of a
community that was created and maintained by other
than national ties ; they sprang out of the conditions and
circumstances, and aimed at satisfying the needs, of a
religious community. And in this respect, too, the Old
Testament is different : parts of it, indeed, and the
setting of the whole, are products of post-exilic Judaism, a
community which is often described, and with substantial
accuracy, as religious rather than national. But in part
also the Old Testament consists of the remnants of the
earlier national literature of the Hebrews ; and however
great may have been the genius of the Hebrews for religion,
and however large the part played by religion in literature
even while the Hebrew nation existed, the national genius

4 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

certainly expressed itself also in literature that was either
in no sense religious, or that was but little affected by
religion. David s elegies over Saul and Jonathan and
over Abner are not religious poems, nor was Jotham s
parable intended to point any religious lesson.

The Old Testament, then, consists of (1) the remnants
of a national literature selected and probably adapted for
the needs of a community that had become, or was becom
ing, far more religious than national in its character, and
was passing; or had passed, through the transition from a
bookless to a book religion ; and (2) literature that was
the product of this later religious community. Since even
this later literature was not written in the first instance to
form part of the sacred Book, it, too, may have seemed to
call for adaptation when it was ultimately included in it.
Whether such adaptation either of the earlier national
or the later religious literature actually took place, and to
what extent in different cases, must be left for subsequent
consideration ; but in attempting any critical inquiry
into the origin of the Old Testament it is important con
stantly to bear in mind that it does not, like the Koran,
consist of the work of a single man, the founder of a religion,
nor, like the New Testament, of the literary product of
not more than two generations of a religious community,
but of all that remains of the national literature of the
Hebrews down to the fall of the state in 586 B.C., together
with a large part of what remains of the literature produced
by the Jewish religious community, whether in Palestine
or abroad, between 586 and c. 150 B.C.

Two methods of dealing with this literature are possible :
we might, starting with the earliest period, attempt to show
how all that survives of each period sprang out of and
reflects the circumstances of that period, and so write a
history of Hebrew literature ; but before that can be done
it is necessary to determine, as far as is possible, the date
at which and the circumstances under which these several
elements came into being : it is this preliminary and .
analytic process that we have here to follow. Yet even

L] INTRODUCTORY 6

this can only be followed to a certain distance within the
limits of the present volume ; for the literature is in large
part anonymous and of uncertain date, and most of the
books that compose the Old Testament appear to have
reached the form in which we have received them by more
or less lengthy and complicated processes of combination,
abbreviation, annotation, and rearrangement, which would
take long to describe, even if critical analysis had succeeded
in rendering these processes in all respects clear and
certain : as a matter of fact, as soon at all events as
we pass beyond the main processes, we are faced with
much uncertainty which gives rise to many theories ;
these it would take still longer to state and discuss at all
exhaustively.

Over against the more or less probable, and sometimes
conflicting, conclusions which have been drawn from a
critical study of the Old Testament, there is still not in
frequently set what is described as Jewish tradition, or
traditional views. In detail these must be left to be
referred to as occasion arises ; but it will be convenient
at the outset to cite the important summary of Jewish
tradition, or, to speak more properly, of Rabbinic criticism
(between c. 200 and 500 A.D.), contained in the Talmudic
tractate Baba Bathra (146. I5a.) : this passage makes a
perfectly definite statement with regard to the writing of
each book of the Old Testament ; according to it Moses
was the earliest and Ezra the latest of those who wrote
the Scriptures : it reads as follows :

Moses wrote his own book, and the section about Balaam
and Job. Joshua wrote his own book, and eight verses
in the Torah. Samuel wrote his own book, and the Books
of Judges and Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalms
at the direction of the ten elders, the first man, Melchizedek,
and Abraham, and Moses, and Heman, and Jeduthun, and
Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his
own book, and the Book of Kings and Lamentations.
Hezekiah and his company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of
Songs, and Ecclesiastes. The men of the Great Synagogue

6 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

wrote Ezekiel, and the Twelve (Minor Prophets), Daniel,
and the Roll of Esther. Ezra wrote his own book and the
genealogies in Chronicles down to his own time.*

This passage contains the prevailing Rabbinic opinion,
but what follows indicates clearly that it was opinion not
derived from any continuous tradition, but based on a very
crude criticism, and that it was not on all points undisputed.
Thus the conclusion that Joshua wrote eight verses of the
Law, viz. Deut. xxxiv. 5-12, rests on the inference that it
was not possible that Moses should in his lifetime have
written the words " And he died there " ; on the contrary
another Rabbi argued that when it was said, * Take this
book of the law/ the book must have been complete, and
consequently that Moses wrote the Law down to the very
end. Verily, up to this point [at which Moses death is
recorded] the Almighty dictated and Moses wrote ; but
from that point onwards the Almighty dictated, and Moses
wrote with tears. It was also inferred that the statement
in Joshua of Joshua s death was added by Eleazar, of
Eleazar s death by Phinehas and the elders, and the
statement of Samuel s death in Samuel by Gad and Nathan.

The crudeness of the criticism underlying this Rabbinic
opinion may be judged from a further illustration : Job
was contemporary with Moses, for the same Hebrew
particle, epho, occurs in Job xix. 23 and Ex. xxxiii. 16, and
Moses wrote the book of Job, for Job expresses the wish
that his words were inscribed in a book (Job xix. 23), and
Moses is called the inscriber (Deut. xxxiii. 21).

ii.] HISTORICAL LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY

CHAPTER II

HISTORICAL LITERATURE: INTRODUCTORY

BATHER more than half of the Old Testament is history ;
included in the historical books is also all that survives of
Hebrew law. Before examining the several books in detail
it will be convenient to take a survey of the scope of them
as a whole, and also to consider in the light of the whole
certain methods of Hebrew historians.

Opening with narratives of the Creation and early history
of the world, the Pentateuch rapidly narrows down to a
record of Israel, and the history is carried as far as the first
stage of the Israelite conquest of Canaan and the death of
Moses ; Joshua and Judges carry on the story of conquest
and settlement to the eve of the establishment of the
monarchy ; the establishment of the monarchy and the
history of the people under it to its fall in 586 B.C. is
recorded in Samuel and Kings.

Chronicles is a parallel history : it, too, starts with the
first man, Adam, and it, too, rapidly narrows down to the
history of the chosen people and, narrower in this respect
than the other series of books, after the death of Solomon,
to the history of the kingdom of Judah only. The narrative
is carried rather further than in Kings, to the return from
captivity in 537 B.C. From the point at which Chronicles
breaks off, Ezra and Nehemiah carry on the story down to
the age of Ezra and Nehemiah, i.e. to the year 432 B.C.

There remain two books which are not associated in the
Hebrew Bible with any of those just mentioned, but which
are included in the E. V. in the historical section of the Old
Testament : these are (1) Ruth, which relates an episode

8 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

in the period of the Judges relating to an ancestress of
David ; and (2) Esther, which relates an episode in the life
of the Jews in Persia at a time immediately previous to
Ezra and Nehemiah. Ruth and Esther within, like the
similar books of Judith and Tobit without, the Canon thus
stand outside both of the two series of narratives which
bring down the history of Israel, in the one case to 586,
in the other to 432 B.C.

The second of the two great series of narratives
Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah is not independent of the
first, but in large part rests upon it, and there is no better
or surer way to an understanding of the methods of a Hebrew
historian than by a comparison of corresponding parts of
Chronicles and of Samuel or Kings. The later writer, with
an earlier work before him, was content to copy out word
for word passages of the earlier work without any particular
acknowledgment that he was so doing ; at times also he ab
breviated, at times he expanded ; at times he intro
duced purely verbal modifications ; at times he introduced
modifications that greatly affected the sense of the original.
A fuller discussion of those methods, as illustrated by
Chronicles, will be found below (ch. x.), but it is im
portant before approaching the special problems of other
historical books to study carefully some examples of
the method actually followed by a Hebrew historian
in composing a historical narrative. Subjoined are
extracts in parallel columns from Samuel and Chronicles :
the variations in Chronicles from the source are italicised.

2 Sam. x. 1-5. 1 Chr. xix. 1-5.
1 And it came to pass after * And it came to pass after
this, that the king of the children this, that Nahash the king of
of Ammon died, and Hanun his the children of Ammon died, and
son reigned in his stead. 2 And his son reigned in his stead.
David said, I will shew kindness 2 And David said, I will shew
unto Hanun the son of Nahash, kindness unto Hanun the son
as his father shewed kindness of Nahash, because his father
unto me. So David sent by the shewed kindness to me. So
hand of his servants to com- David sent messengers to com
fort him concerning his father, fort him concerning his father.

n.] HISTORICAL LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY

2 Sam. x. 1-5.

And David s servants came into
the land of the children of
Ammon. 3 But the princes of
the children of Ammon said
unto Hanun their lord, Thinkest
thou that David doth honour
thy father, that he hath sent
comforters unto thee ? hath not
David sent his servants unto
thee for the sake of searching
the city, and to spy it out, and
to overthrow it ? 4 So Hanun
took David s servants, and
shaved off the one half of their
beards, and cut off their gar
ments in the middle, even to
their buttocks, and sent them
away. 6 Then (certain persons)
told David. And he sent to meet
them ; for the men were greatly
ashamed. And the king said,
Tarry at Jericho until your
beards be grown, and then
return.

1 Chr. xix. 1-5.

And David s servants came unto
the land of the children of Am
mon to Hanun to comfort him.

3 But the princes of the children
of Ammon said to Hanun

, Thinkest thou that David
doth honour thy father, that he
hath sent comforters unto thee ?
Are not his servants come unto
thee for to search, and to over
throw, and to spy out the land ?

4 So Hanun took David s ser
vants, and shaved them,

and cut

off their garments in the middle,
even to their hips, and sent them
away. 6 Then (certain persons)
went and told David how the
men were served. And he sent
to meet them ; for the men
were greatly ashamed. And the
king said, Tarry at Jericho until
that your beards be grown, and
then return.

2 Sam. xxiv. 1-10.

1 And again the anger of
Yahweh was kindled against
Israel, and he moved David
against them, saying, Go, num
ber Israel and Judah. 2 And
the king said to Joab, the cap
tain of the host, which was with
him, Go now to and fro through
all the tribes of Israel, from Dan
even to Beer-sheba, and muster
ye the people, and so I shall
know the number of the people.
3 And Joab said unto the king,
Now Yahweh thy God add
unto the people an hundred
times so many more as ever they
be, and may the eyes of my

1 Chr. xxi. 1-8.

1 And

Satan stood up against
Israel, and moved David to
number Israel.

2 And David said to Joab and
to the captains of the people,

number Israel from Beer-sheba
even to Dan ; and bring me
word, that I may know the num
ber of them.

3 And Joab said ,

Yahweh add

unto his people an hundred
times so many more as
they be ; (but), my lord

10 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

2 Sam. xxiv. 1-10.

lord the king see it : but why
hath my lord the king delight
in this thing. * And (yet) the
king s word prevailed against
Joab, and against the captains
of the host. And Joab and the
captains of the host went out
from the presence of the king,
to muster the people of Israel.
8 And they passed over Jordan,
and pitched in Aroer, on the
right side of the city that is in
the middle of the valley of Gad,
and unto Jazer. 6 Then they
came to Gilead, and to the land
of Tahtim-hodshi ; and they
came to Dan-jaan, and round
about to Zidon, 7 and came to
the stronghold of Tyre, and to
all the cities of the Hivites, and
of the Canaanites : and they
went to the south of Judah,
at Beer-sheba. 8 And (so) they
went to and fro through all
the land, and came to Jeru
salem at the end of nine months
and twenty days. 8 And Joab
gave up the number of the
muster of the people unto the
king : and (the number of)
Israel was 800,000 valiant men
that drew sword ; and the men
of Judah were 500,000 men.

10 And David s heart smote him
after that he had numbered the
people. And David said unto
Yahweh, I have sinned greatly
in that I have done: but DOW,

1 Chr. xxi. 1-8.

the king, are they not all my
lord s servants ? Why doth my
lord require this. Why will he
be a cause of guilt unto Israel?
4 But the king s word prevailed
against Joab

. And Joab
went
out

and

went up and down through all
Israel, and came to Jeru
salem

. B And Joab

gave up the number of the
muster of the people unto
David. And (the number of)
all Israel was 1,100,000

men that drew

sword : and Judah was 470,000
men that drew sword. * But
Levi and Benjamin he mustered
not among them : for the king s
word was abominable to Joab.
7 And God was displeased with
this thing : and (so) he smote
Israel.

8 And David said unto
God, I have sinned greatly in that
I have done this thing : but now,

XL] HISTORICAL LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY 11

2 Sam. xxiv. 1-10. 1 Chr. xxi. 1-8.

O Yahweh, put away. I beseech put away, I beseech

thee the iniquity of thy servant : thee, the iniquity of thy servant ;
for I have done very foolishly. for I have done very foolishly.

Whether the author of Chronicles had other sources
which he treated in the same way as he treated the earlier
series of historical books still surviving in the Old Testa
ment, now copying word for word, now introducing modifi
cations, is a question which must be deferred ; but in
any case we cannot watch his treatment of such sources,
for they have perished.

But how would a Hebrew historian have proceeded, if he
had been working with two or more narratives of the same
events ? The question cannot be answered by reference to
any Hebrew historical work of which such multiple sources
survive ; but we can watch the method adopted by a later
Semite in a work which found most favour with Semitic,
and, in particular, with Syrian readers. The Diatessaron
of Tatian (f c. A.D. 150) is a life of our Lord composed
by piecing together passages from four parallel sources
to wit, the four Gospels. The following passage, cited
from Mr. Hamlyn Hill s translation, consists of the
following extracts from the sources : Matt. iii. 13 ; Luke iii.
23a. ; John i. 29-31 ; Matt. iii. 14-15 ; Luke iii. 21a. ; Matt. iii.
16b. ; Luke iii. 22a. ; Matt. iii. 17 ; John i. 32-56 :

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto
John to be baptized of him. And Jesus was about thirty
years of age, and was supposed to be the son of Joseph.
Now John saw Jesus coming unto him, and saith, This is
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
This is he of whom I said, After me shall come a man, which
is preferred before me, for he is before me. And I knew
him not ; but that he may be made manifest to Israel,
for this cause am I come baptizing in water. Now John
was forbidding him, saying, I have need to be baptized of
thee, and comest thou to me ? Jesus answered him, and
said, Suffer it now : thus it becometh us to fulfil all

12 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

righteousness. Then he suffered him. And when all the
people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized; and he
went up straightway from the water : and the heaven was
opened unto him. And the Holy Spirit descended upon
him in the form of a dove s body : and lo, a voice from
heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased. And John bare witness, saying, Furthermore I
saw the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven ; and it
abode upon him.

Nor are the methods which we can actually observe,
having both the later works and their sources before us,
in the case of Chronicles and Tatian s Diatessaron, in any
way singular in Semitic literature. Arabic literature
affords many examples of the same methods, and instruc
tive illustrations of the method from Arabic writers have
been given both by Professor Guidi l and Professor
Bevan. 2

In Chronicles the passages derived from the earlier
works and the matter peculiar (so far as we know) to
Chronicles are sharply distinguished in style ; conse
quently where in other works we find marked differences
of style, in the light of the proved methods of Semitic
writers, it will be an obvious and probable hypothesis,
that the difference is due to the incorporation of passages,
or even of sentences merely, from an earlier work.

1 Revue Biblique, 1906, pp. 509-519,

2 Historical Methods iu the Old Testament in Cambridge Biblical Essays.
ed. H. B. Swete, 1905,

in.] THE PENTATEUCH : TRADITION AND CRITICISM 13

CHAPTER III

THE PENTATEUCH: TRADITION AND CRITICISM

THE Pentateuch is a single work which after its completion
was divided into five parts : these parts received from the
Greek translators the distinctive names, Genesis, Exodus,
Lsviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. In Jewish usage the
single term Torah, Law, covers the whole, and that the
five sections are parts of a single whole is further implied
by the Jewish term for them the five-fifths of the law.

Within the Pentateuch, indeed, according to modern
critical theory, many different books or works are frag-
mentarily preserved; but no book postulated by this
theory coincides with any of the five divisions of the
Pentateuch.

Among the independent or older works included in the
Pentateuch are books of law, and from these the Jewish
title for the whole is derived ; yet the Pentateuch as a
whole, though entitled the Law, is in form a history
containing law rather than law containing history.

Opening with the Creation of the world, the narrative
in Genesis passes rapidly through the story of the early
stages in the history of mankind, to follow with greater
particularity the fortunes of Abraham and his descendants,
and of these principally the line of Isaac, Israel (or Jacob),
and the twelve sons of Israel. So far Genesis. Exodus
carries on the narrative of Israel s descendants ; their
enslavement in Egypt, their release, their journey to Sinai,
and their reception of the Law. Then follows a long
section mainly consisting of laws and instructions (Ex. xx.-
Kum. x. 10). The narrative is resumed with the departure

14 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

from Sinai (Num. x. 11 ff.), the subsequent wanderings in
the wilderness, and the conquest of Eastern Canaan ;
and then, after another long section of law that occupies
the central part of Deuteronomy, it closes with the death
and burial of Moses.

One thing would appear to follow at once and of necessity
from this brief survey of the work, viz., that Moses was not
its author, but that it was written after his death. And
the necessity of this conclusion did not escape the Jewish
Rabbis whose opinion has been already cited (p. 5) ; but
they attempted to turn the force of it by a very simple
hypothesis : Moses wrote the whole Torah with the ex
ception of the narrative of his death, and that was added
by Joshua ; or in other words, the Torah was the work of
two writers, though the contribution of the second was
exiguous. Even this admission was challenged, and some
Rabbis continued to maintain that the whole law was
written by Moses, including the narrative of his death and
burial ; for, with less acuteness than Hobbes, they had not
perceived that * it were a strange interpretation to say Moses
spake of his own sepulchre, though by prophecy, that it
was not found to that day wherein he was yet living.

The Rabbinic opinion just discussed is obviously not
pure tradition ; there was no tradition that Joshua wrote
the eight verses recording the death of Moses ; but it is
criticism (and, however slight, yet correct so far its negation
is concerned) playing upon a long-established method of
speech according to which the law was the law of Moses, so
that citations from it were described indifferently as from
the law or from Moses.

How far back can this method of speech be traced ?
What exactly did it imply ? What is the age of, and how
explicit is, the tradition that associates Moses with the
Pentateuch ?

In the New Testament the name of Moses is cited not
only for individual laws (e.g. Matt. viii. 4, xix. 7, xxii., 24 ;
Mark vii. 10 ; 1 Cor. ix. 9), but also for narratives (Mark
xii. 26) in the Pentateuch. And in several passages

ra.] THE PENTATEUCH : TRADITION AND CRITICISM 15

Moses/ or * the law of Moses/ is used in such connections
that we may safely understand them to be modes of refer
ence to the entire Pentateuch, see e.g. Luke xvi. 29, 31 ;
2 Cor. iii. 15 ; Acts xxviii 23 ; cp. John i. 45.

In the later books of the Old Testament also, we find
frequent references to a written work that is called * the
law of Moses/ the book of Moses/ or the book of the
law of Moses/ and in some of these it is probable, or at
least possible, that the entire Pentateuch is intended : see
e.g. 2 Chron. xxiii. 18, xxv. 4, xxxv. 12 ; Ezra iii. 2, vi. 18 ;
Neh. xiii. 1 ; Dan. ix. 11, 13. In books, parts of which are
earlier than those just cited, we find similar references :
see 1 Kings ii. 3 ; 2 Kings xiv. 6 ; Josh. viii. 31 f., xxiii. 6.
But in the first place, the date at which such passages were
written is an open question, and secondly the implication
of them is uncertain ; they do not necessarily imply a book
co-extensive with the Pentateuch ; they would be com
pletely explicable, if a book of law pure and simple, un-
mingled with narrative, existed. We cannot, therefore,
leaving the date involved open, even assert that the tradi
tion that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is as ancient as
the earliest of these references ; all we can say is that a
tradition existed at such date that Moses was the author
of a book of the law.

But there probably underlay all these references the
tacit understanding that Moses was as closely associated
with the whole as with any part of the whole referred to :
it may be that the manner of speech in question arose in
the first instance because a given literary work contained
* laws of Moses/ though it was not at first considered to be
in its entirety, in its accompanying narratives, for example,
the work of Moses ; but, be this as it may, those who
subsequently used or heard the phrases, the law of Moses/
the book of Moses/ in so far as they thought of the matter
at all, must have thought of Moses as the author of the
whole ; it was only the critical minds of Jewish Rabbis
that excepted the closing section, and inferred that it was
the work of another.

16 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

Beyond this slight and obvious criticism no considerable
advance was made for centuries. But in the twelfth
century A.D. the distinguished Jewish scholar Ibn Ezra
drew attention to certain passages which indicated that the
non-Mosaic element in the Pentateuch was much more
considerable than the earlier Rabbinic criticism had ad
mitted. His words, in which he prudently abstained from
explicitly drawing a conclusion, are : If you penetrate
the secret of the twelve [i.e. probably the twelve verses
recording Moses death], also of " And Moses wrote "
(Ex. xxiv. 4 ; Num. xxxiii. 2 ; Deut. xxxi. 9, 22), and
" The Canaanite was then in the land " (Gen. xii. 6), and
" In the mountain of the Lord he appears " (Gen. xxii. 14),
and " his bedstead was a bedstead of iron " (Deut. iii. 11),
you will discover the truth.

It is not possible here to follow the history of critical
observation, but by degrees attention was drawn to a
number of passages which were obviously of non-Mosaic
authorship, and some of them obviously also of post-Mosaic
origin. The closing section of Deuteronomy must have
been written after the death of Moses ; the list of Edomite
kings (Gen. xxxvi. 31-43) that reigned before there reigned
any king over the children of Israel must have been
written at least as late as Saul, the first Hebrew king ;
Gen. xiv. 14, which alludes to Dan at least as late as the
period of the Judges, when the ancient city of Laish first
received the name Dan (Judges xviii. 29) ; such statements
as the Canaanite was then in the land (Gen. xii. 6, xiii. 7)
after the period of the Judges when the Canaanites still
continued to be an important part of the population of the
land (Judges i. 27, 29, 32, 33). There are also other archse-
ological notices which point scarcely less conclusively, if
not quite so obviously and immediately, to the post-Mosaic
age : Og, according to the story, was a contemporary of
Moses, but his bed in Rabbath is to the writer of Deut. iii. 11
a curious relic of a bygone age. See also Deut. ii. 10-12,
20-23.

A slight extension of the old Rabbinic theory might

m.] THE PENTATEUCH : TRADITION AND CRITICISM 17

suffice to explain isolated phenomena of the kind referred
to in the preceding paragraph, and if observation had
discovered nothing more than these, it would be a possible
hypothesis that a work of Moses had been slightly expanded
and glossed by one or more later writers. But such a theory
loses all probability as soon as a further point, which Ibn
Ezra appears to have appreciated, is also duly considered.
Throughout the Pentateuch, except in speeches placed in
his mouth, Moses is spoken of in the third person. There
are, of course, analogies in literature, such as the Com
mentaries of Caesar, for an author speaking of himself in the
third person, and if there were no indications of post-
Mosaic date in the work, it might be reasonable to continue
to consider the possibility of Moses being its author ; but
as we have seen there are numerous indications of post-
Mosaic origin. Moreover, it is to be observed that Moses,
no less than Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is throughout
treated as a figure in the history of a past age : judgment
is passed upon him in an entirely objective way : the
man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were
upon the face of the earth (Num. xii. 3).

In brief, the Pentateuch itself makes no claim to be the
work of Moses. On the other hand, reference is made in
certain passages to records which were written by Moses,
and in some of these passages it is more or less clearly
intimated that the records in question are incorporated in,
or form, to some extent, the basis of, the Pentateuchal
narrative : see Ex. xvii. 14, xxiv. 4, xxxiv. 27 ; Num. xxxiii.
2 ; Deut. xxxi. 9-13, 22, 24-26. But in view even of the
evidence already adduced the conclusion is scarcely to be
avoided that the narrative incorporating Mosaic records
is not itself Mosaic, and this conclusion is independently
suggested by a fuller consideration of the sources of the
Pentateuch to which we must now pass.

18 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

CHAPTER IV

THE PENTATEUCH: ITS SOURCES

THE Pentateuch is a narrative at first of the history of
mankind, and then of the descendants of Abraham, and in
particular of the Israelites, down to the death of Moses.
Into this narrative are introduced at divers places bodies
of law. These laws are commonly introduced as having
been spoken to Moses, and many of them could be regarded,
for anything that the narrative of the Pentateuch says to
the contrary, as having been first written as part of that work.
But in Ex. xxiv. 4, Deut. xxxi. 9 ff., there are unmistakable
allusions to laws now in the Pentateuch having been written
prior to the narrative that refers to them. Thus the
Pentateuch draws upon, if indeed it does not actually
incorporate, previously independent legal documents.

Further, the Pentateuch contains poems attributed to
several different authors the song of Lamech (Gen. iv. 23 f.),
the curse of Noah (Gen. ix. 26 f.), a divine oracle (Gen.
xxv. 23), the blessings of Isaac (Gen. xxvii. 27-29, 39 f.),
the blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix. 2-27), the song of Moses
Ex. xv. 1-18), the song of Miriam (Ex. xv. 21), a poetical
fragment cited from the Book of the Wars of Yahweh
(Num. xxi. 14 f.), a folk-song (Num. xxi. 17 f.), a psean
recited by the professional reciters (Num. xxi. 27-30), songs
of Balaam (Num. xxiii. 7-10, 18-24, xxiv. 3-9, 15-24), the
song of Moses (Deut. xxxii. 1-43), the blessing of Moses
(xxxiii. 1-29).

To a considerable extent, then, the Pentateuch is a
compilation from previously existing material written
legal documents, and poems, of which some at least had

iv.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS SOURCES 19

already been committed to writing (Num. xxi. 14). But
what of the main narrative of the Pentateuch ? Obviously
no writer could have written a narrative extending over
thousands of years out of his own personal knowledge :
he must have written it either from hearsay, or on the basis
of written historical documents. In the latter case it
would be reasonable to expect that he pursued the historical
method discussed in chapter ii., and therefore that, as he
certainly incorporated the actual words of previously
existing legal documents and poems, so he also incorporated
the actual words of previously written historical narratives.
If he actually did so, the different documents incorporated
in, and his own contributions to, the narrative should be
more or less clearly distinguishable by differences of style
and points of view. If such differences of style were
limited to the narrative of the pre-Mosaic age, the fact
would create some presumption in favour of the theory
that Moses, or a contemporary of his, composed the
narrative down to his age from documents, but the narrative
of his own age from his own personal knowledge ; on the
other hand, if the differences extend throughout the entire
work down to the death of Moses, if in particular the narra
tive of Moses death is, though distinguishable in style from
some parts, indistinguishable from others, we should
necessarily find in this fact independent proof that Moses,
though he may have been the author of works cited in it,
was not the author of the Pentateuch itself.

Starting from the assumption that Moses was the author
of the Pentateuch, Jean Astruc in the eighteenth century
was the first to attempt a systematic literary analysis of
the narratives of Genesis together with Ex. i.-ii., where
alone in the Pentateuch, on the prevailing assumption of
Mosaic authorship, it was reasonable either to suspect or to
admit the incorporation of previously existing historical
narratives. In his work, published in 1753, and entitled
Conjectures sur les mimoires originaux dont il paroit que
Moyse s est servi pour composer le livre de la Genese, he
argued that Genesis was mainly derived from two docu-

20 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

ments, one of which was characterised by its use of the
divine term Elohim (God), and the other by its use of the
Hebrew proper name for God Yahweh.

In spite of some recent attempts to show that the Hebrew
textual tradition in respect of the use of the divine names
is thoroughly untrustworthy, Astruc s conjectures, though
very inadequate, have been, so far as his fundamental
thesis is concerned, strongly confirmed by subsequent
observation : the historical narrative of Genesis, though not
of Genesis alone, is composite, not simple ; it rests on
previously existing sources ; and these sources were not
merely consulted for information, but were in large measure
cited word for word, even as are the books of Samuel and
Kings largely cited word for word in Chronicles (pp. 8-11).

Jean Astruc, an upholder of the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch, used the differences in the use of the divine
names as his clue to the documents on which Genesis rested.
Yet it would be quite a delusion to suppose that the theory
that the narrative of the Pentateuch is not a simple
narrative, but that it is throughout compiled from more
than one previously existing document, rests merely, or
even principally, on the differing use of the divine names.
The theory that different documents are incorporated in
the Pentateuch rests on a vastly wider basis ; it is only
the degree of detail with which the incorporated documents
can be separated from one another that would be affected
even if recent attempts to prove the complete untrust-
worthiness of the textual tradition of the divine names had
been successful ; but this they have not been. There are,
it is true, a few passages in which the Jewish and Samaritan
recensions of the Hebrew text differ from one another, one
reading Yahweh, the other Elohim ; but the agreement of
these two recensions in the vast majority of cases is strong
proof of the substantial accuracy of the tradition in this
matter. It is true, again, that the Greek version often has
0os where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, and Kvpios where
the Hebrew has Elohim, though the normal Greek equiva
lents are Kt /nos for Yahweh and 0eo$ for Elohim ; true, also,

iv.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS SOURCES 21

that in most cases the Greek MSS. differ among themselves,
so that there is more or less uncertainty in determining
whether the original Greek text read the one or the other
term, and whether it agreed with or differed from the
Hebrew text. But before, in a case of this kind, a version
can be used either in support of or against evidence in the
original language, it is necessary to determine the idiosyn
crasies of the version. Was Kvpios not only the normal,
but the invariable equivalent of Elohim adopted by the
original translators ? As a matter of fact there are reasons
for believing that KV/HOS was not in all cases used in the
version where Yahweh stood in the Hebrew.

The general conclusion that the narrative of the Hexa-
teuch is composite, and results from methods similar to
those employed in Chronicles, in Tatian s Diatessaron and
in many other specimens of Semitic literature (see ch. ii.),
rests on a group of phenomena which may be classified
with illustrations as follows :

1. The same incidents or episodes are narrated more
than once, and sometimes with inconsistent variations.
Thus the story of Creation is told in Gen. i.-ii. 4a, and
again in ii. 4b-22 : in the first story, man (male and female)
is represented as the final and crowning work of creation ;
in the second, man (male) is created before plants or animals
or woman. The change of Jacob s name to Israel is re
corded in Gen. xxxii. 27 f., and also in Gen. xxxv. 10 ; the
death of Aaron on mount Hor is recorded in Num. xxxiii. 38,
and his death at Moserah in Deut. x. 6b ; the separation of
Levi from the rest of the tribes in Num. iii. 5 ff. (cp. viii.),
and in Deut. x. 8. Some repetitions might indeed be
attributed to the fact that similar incidents actually
occurred twice. Yet this hypothesis is no natural, even
where it is an abstractly possible, explanation of any of the
foregoing, or of the three records of the laughter that gave
its name to Isaac (Gen. xvii. 17-19, xviii. 12, xxi. 6), the
two narratives of Hagar s expulsion from Abraham s tent
(xvi. 4-14, xxi. 9-21), the two narratives of the revelation of
the name of Yahweh to Moses (Ex. iii. 14 f., vi. 2 f.), the two

22 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

narratives of the appointment of Aaron as Moses* prophet
or spokesman (Ex. iv. 10-16, vi. 29-vii. 2), or of many
others.

2. Within narratives at present continuous, differences
occur that point to a fusion (such as regularly takes place
in Tatian s Diatessaron) of originally independent narratives
of the same event. Such are the statements in the story
of the Flood that the rain was upon the earth forty days
and forty nights (Gen. vii. 12), and that the waters pre
vailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days (vii. 24) ;
and again the commandment to Noah to take into the ark
one pair of each of all the kinds of animals (vi. 19), and the
commandment in vii. 2 to take seven (pairs) of all kinds of
clean, and one pair of all kinds of unclean animals.

So again in the story of the Spies we find conflicting
descriptions of the extent of country that was visited, and
of the report which the Spies brought back ; according
to Num. xiii. 2, 21 the Spies were commanded to spy out,
and they actually spied out, the whole land of Canaan
from the southern border to the entrance of Hamath on
the far northern border (cp. e.g. Num. xxxiv. 8) of what
was subsequently the land of Israel and Judah ; according
to Num. xiii. 17b-22 they were to go up into the Negeb,
i.e. the dry country in the south of Judah, and they did
actually go as far north as Hebron, which, however, lies
some twenty-five miles south of Jerusalem, itself situated
in the south of the land of promise. The report of the Spies
was, according to Num. xiii. 26-28, that the land was
fertile, but its inhabitants invincible, and its cities im
pregnable ; according to Num. xiii. 33 the Spies reported
that the land was insufficiently productive to support its
inhabitants.

3. Very marked differences of style and diction are
observable in different parts of the narrative : moreover,
such differences of style coincide with the limits of such
repetitions of episodes as have been given under (1), or
with the parts of continuous narratives (see under 2) that
conflict with one another in substance. For example,

iv.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS SOURCES 23

throughout Gen. i.-ii. 4a the word bdra, to create, is
repeatedly used ; in Gen. ii. 4b-22 the same idea is expressed
several times, but by different words asah or yasar. Again
in Ex. iv. 10-16 (mold, one form of the Hebrew pronoun
of the first person, occurs five times, but the other form,
ani, does not occur once, whereas in Ex. vi. 29-vii. 3 ani
occurs four times, but anoki not once. So also in the
conflate story of the Flood male and female in Gen. vi. 19,
vii. 16 is zakar un e kebah, but in vii. 2 the male and his
female is ish tif ishto, literally a man and his wife. The
last illustration serves also as one among many differences
extending beyond vocabulary to general characteristics of
style ; of two stories of the same episode one is often
characterised by greater vividness or picturesqueness ; so
in the story of the Spies over against the bald command
to spy out the land (Num. xiii. 2, 17a), stands the more
detailed, vivid, and picturesque terms of the commission
in xiii. 17b-20.

4. Differences in religious conceptions also characterise
sections that are distinguished from one another both as
being independent narratives of the same incident, and as
marked by difference of style and diction. In Gen. i.-ii. 4a.
creation proceeds simply and directly by the fiat of God ;
in Gen. ii. 4a.-15 creation proceeds, so to speak, by experi
ment ; it is only by experiment that it is discovered that
man requires woman as his mate. Noticeable in the story
of the Flood is the ignoring in part of it of the distinction
between clean and unclean animals.

Thus far we have seen that the Pentateuch rests on
previously existing poems, on previously existing legal
documents, and on previously existing historical narratives.
At this point it will be convenient to give illustrations of
these further facts : (1) as the narrative of the Pentateuch
contains conflicting statements of fact, so the laws of the
Pentateuch contain conflicting rules of practice ; (2) as
differences of style accompany different narratives of the
same incident, so also they accompany different laws
on the same subject ; (3) certain groups of laws are

24 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

associated with certain groups of narratives by a common
standpoint, or common features of style.

The laws of Ex. xxi. 1-6 and Deut. xv. 12-18, in spite of
some slight differences, agree in permitting the Hebrews
to hold a fellow Hebrew as a bond-servant (R.V. marg.),
or slave, for a period of years, and in certain cases for life ;
but Lev. xxv. 39-46 absolutely forbids the enslavement of
Hebrews for any period, and permits only that of foreigners.

As the Pentateuch contains three laws of slavery, so
also it contains three laws of homicide : on the main
point, that intentional and accidental homicide are to be
differently treated, all three are in agreement ; but on
the procedure they differ : according to Ex. xxi. 12-14
the homicide who takes refuge at the altar is, if a
wilful murderer, not to be allowed, but, if his act was
accidental, he is to be allowed, the asylum of the altar (im
plicit in v. 13, cp. v. 14). Deut. xix. 1-13 and Num. xxxv.
9-24 agree as against Exodus in saying nothing about
Yahweh s altar, but in enjoining the setting apart of a
certain definite numbers of cities in which the accidental
homicide is to remain secure, not forfeiting his life, whereas
the wilful murderer, though he flees for refuge to one of
these cities, is to be delivered up to death. The law in
Numbers is certainly more full and detailed than in
Deuteronomy, and certain differences between the two
are probably implicit, but these cannot be discussed here.

As illustrations of differences of style accompanying
differences of law on the same subject, we may note that
the technical term, cities of refuge/ which occurs several
times in Num. xxxv. 9-34, is never used in Deuteronomy,
though the law there also refers several times to cities
that were to serve as a refuge. Note also the different
modes of expressing the absence of intention : * if a man
lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand (Ex. xxi.
13), through error (Num. xxxv. 11, 15), unawares
(Deut. xix. 4) ; so in the law of the slaves note the varia
tions : a Hebrew (Ex. xxi. 2), thy brother the Hebrew *
(Deut. xv. 12), thy brother (Lev. xxv. 39).

IV.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS SOURCES 25

The laws of tithe in Num. xviii. 21-32, Deut. xiv. 22-29,
partly because they conflict so remarkably with one another
in substance, offer relatively few points in which similarity
and distinction of style can be tested ; but they afford an
illustration of one point of difference which recurs again
and again when the laws in Deuteronomy are compared
with laws elsewhere. In Deut. xiv. 22-29 the phrase
Yahweh thy God occurs seven times; in Num. xviii. 21-32
neither this nor the variant Yahweh your God/ which the
prevailing use there of the plural would have required,
occurs a single time ; on the other hand, Yahweh } simply,
which occurs not once in Deut. xiv. 22-29, occurs five
times in Num. xviii. 21-32.

The last-mentioned point of style will also serve as a
good illustration of the way in which one group of laws
and narratives is marked off from another group ; the use
of Yahweh thy (our, your) God occurs upwards of three
hundred times in Deuteronomy, in the historical retrospect
(see e.g. i. 19-46, ii. 26-37) as well as in the laws ; the phrases
occur, though with far less frequency, elsewhere. Common,
again, to laws and narratives in Deuteronomy, but occurring
nowhere else, is the combination of the three terms corn
and wine and oil (e.g. vii. 13, xiv. 23) ; and with all thy
(your) heart and with all thy (your) soul occurs nine times
in Deut. (e.g. iv. 29, vi. 5, xiii. 3), but nowhere else in the
Pentateuch.

At this stage of our discussion when no attempt has yet
been made to indicate more than an occasional analysis of
the narrative of the first four books of the Pentateuch,
it would be impossible even to illustrate adequately the
stylistic links between elements in these narratives and
any of the laws ; but it may even now prove suggestive
to draw attention to certain peculiar or characteristic
usages in Gen. i.-ii. 4a which do not recur, for example,
in the different account of Gen. ii. 4b-22, nor in the laws
of Ex. xxi.-xxiii., but do recur in laws in Leviticus ; we
may notice, then, after its (their) kind ten times in Gen. i.
(e.g. v. 11) and also in Lev. xi. 14, 15, 16, 19 ; the verb to

26 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

swarm (R.V. bring forth abundantly, creep ) in Gen. i.
20, and also in Lev. xi. 29, 41, 42, 43, 46, and the cognate
noun swarming things (in R.V. variously rendered) in
Gen. i. 20 and also in Lev. v. 2, xi. 10, 20 ; for food
(l e ochlah) in Gen. i. 29-30 and also in Lev. xi. 39, xxv. 6 ;
* male and female/ as in the phrase of Gen. vi. 19, but
not of Gen. vii. 2 (see above p. 23), in Gen i. 27 and also
in Lev. iii. 1, 6, xii. 7, xv. 33.

It is impossible here to reproduce and discuss further
the actual details of style which have been observed and
classified ; but as a result of investigation it has been
found that the Pentateuch can be analysed into three
great masses of matter easily distinguishable from one
another in style : one style is found to separate off nearly
the whole of Deuteronomy from the rest of the Pentateuch ;
it pervades practically the whole of that book except the
poem inch, xxxiii., a few verses in ch. xxxi. (14 f., 23) and
most of ch. xxxiv., but appears, at most, very sporadically
elsewhere in the Pentateuch. Another style marks off
most of the concluding parts of Exodus (chs. xxv.-xxxi.,
xxxiv. 29- xl. 38), the whole of Leviticus, Num. i.-x. 28, and
considerable parts of Genesis (including i. 1-ii. 4a), of the
first half of Exodus, and of the remainder of Numbers. Easily
distinguishable in style from either of the foregoing, and
at the same time in some measure bound together by
common qualities, is practically all that remains of the
Pentateuch. On the other hand, along with common
features, there are also some differences in this remain
der. For these three main elements in the Pentateuch, or
for the writers severally responsible for them, it is now
customary to use the symbols D, P, JE, viz. D for all (save
the slight exceptions indicated) of Deuteronomy, P for
Leviticus and all thereto related, JE for the remainder,
the two elements in which remainder are separately
indicated by J and E.

But the same three types of style re-appear in the book
of Joshua, and it seems that the narrative of that book
rests upon the same main sources as the narrative of the

iv.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS SOURCES 27

Pentateuch. For this reason the Pentateuch with Joshua
is frequently comprehended under the term Hexateuch.
Yet it is very doubtful whether the Pentateuch with
Joshua ever constituted an independent literary work ; if
it did so, at some stage in the history, Joshua must have
been removed from this larger work ; but of this process
we have no evidence, nor even indirect proof.

This, then, we may say : the Pentateuch is the final
literary unity known alike to Jewish and Samaritan
tradition ; the Jews subsequently adopted Joshua with
many other books as Scripture though not as part of the
Law ; the Samaritan Scriptures consisted of the Pentateuch
alone. At the same time, the sources underlying the
Pentateuch and Joshua are common ; in other words,
the scope of the sources and of the final literary unities
is not the same ; the Pentateuch carries down the history
no further than the death of the law-giver Moses, the
sources were histories of national origins, and carried down
the story to the settlement in Canaan, and some of them
perhaps to a yet later period (see below pp. 62-73).

The extent of D in the Pentateuch has already been
indicated (p. 26). In Joshua, according to Dr. Driver s
analysis, the following passages are derived from D 2 (see
below p. 42), i., ii. 10, 11 ; iii. 2-4, 6-9 ; iv. lib, 12, 14, 21-
24 ; v. 1, 4-7 ; viii. 30-35 ; ix. 1, 2, 9b, 10, 24, 25, 27b ; x.
8, 12a, 14b, 25, 28-43 (xi. 2f., 6f., 8b.) ; xi. 10-23 ; xii.,
xviii. 7 (xx. 4, 5, 6) ; xxi. 43-45 ; xxii. 1-6 (7-8) ; xxiii.
xxiv. lib, 13, 31.

Again, according to Dr. Driver s analysis, the parts of
the Hexateuch derived from P are :

Genesis i. 1-ii. 4a ; v. i.-28, 30-32 ; vi. 9-22 ; vii. 6, 11,
13-16a, 17a (except forty days), 18-21, 24; viii. l-2a, 3b-5,
13a, 14-19 ; ix. 1-17, 28-29 ; x. 1-7, 20, 22f, 31f. ; xi. 10-27,
31-32 ; xii. 4b, 5 ; xiii. 6, llb-12a ; xvi. la, 3, 15, 16 ; xvii.,
xix. 29 ; xxi. Ib, 2b-5 ; xxiii, xxv. 5-lla, 12-17, 19-20, 26b ;
xxvi. 34-35 ; xxvii. 46-xxviii. 9 ; xxix. 24, 29 (fragments
in xxx. la, 4a, 9b, 22a) ; xxxi. 18b ; xxxiii. 18a ; xxxiv.
l-2a, 4, 6, 8-10, 13-18, 20-24, 25 (partly), 27-29 ; xxxv.

28 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

9-13, 15, 22b-29 ; xxxvi. (in the main) ; xxxvii. 1, 2a,
xli. 46 ; xlvi. 6-27 ; xlvii. 5-6a (LXX.), 7-11, 27b-28 ; xlviii.
3-6, 7 ? xlix. la, 28b-33 ; 1. 12-13.

Exodus i. 1-5, 7, 13, 14 ; ii. 23b-25 ; vi. 2-vii. 13, 19, 20a ;
vii. 21b-22 ; viii. 5-7, 15b-19 ; ix. 8-12 ; xi. 9, 10 ; xii.
1-20, 28, 37a, 40, 41, 43-51 ; xiii. 1, 2, 20 ; xiv. 1-4, 8-9,
15-18, 21a, 21c-23, 26, 27a, 28a, 29 ; xvi. 1-3, 6-24, 31-36 ;
xvii. la ; xix l-2a ; xxiv. 15-18a ; xxv. 1-xxxi. 18a ;
xxxiv. 29-35 ; xxxv.-xl.

Leviticus i.-xvi. (xvii.-xxvi. largely H : see p. 41), xxvii.

Numbers i. 1-x. 28, 34 ; xtii. l-17a, 21, 25, 26 (to Paran) ;
xiii. 32a ; xiv. (1, 2), 5-7, 10, 26-30, 34-38 ; xv, xvi. la,
2b-7a; (7b-ll) (16, 17), 18-24, 27a, 32b, 35 (36-40),
41-50 ; xvii.-xix., xx. la (to month), 2, 3b-4, 6-13, 22-29 ;
xxi. 4a (to HOT), 10, 11 ; xxii. 1 ; xxv. 6-18 ; xxvi.-
xxxi, xxxii. 18, 19, 28-32 (with traces in xxxii. 1-17, 20-
27) ; xxxiii. -xxxvi.

Deuteronomy i. 3 ; xxxii. 48-52 ; xxxiv. la (in the main),
5b, 7a, 8, 9.

Joshua iv. 13, 15-17, 19 ; v. 10-12 ; vii. 1 ; ix. 15b, 17-21 ;
xiii. 15-32 ; xiv. 1-5 ; xv. 1-13, 20-44, 48-62 ; xvi. 4-8 ;
xvii. la, 3, 4, 9a, 9c-10a ; xviii. 1, 11-28 ; xix. 1-8, 10-46,
48-51 ; xx. 1-3 (except and unawares ), 6a (from until
to judgment), 7-9 ; xxi. 1-42 (xxii. 9-34).

As already observed, practically the whole of the re
mainder of the Pentateuch, when D and P have been
eliminated, in so far as it rests on sources and is not editorial,
is derived from JE. It must suffice here to define in detail
only some of the longer, or more important, or more easily
distinguishable passages derived from the separate sources,
Jand E. To J may be ascribed substantially all that re
mains, after the removal of P (see above), of Gen. i.-xiii.,
xvi., xviii., xix., xxiv.-xxvi., xlvi. 28-xlvii. 31 (except xlvii.
12), xlix. 1-1. 14; Ex. viii. 1-ix. 7 ; also Gen. xxxviii., xxxix.,
xiii. 38-xliv. 34 (except xliii. 14 and the last sentence of
xliii. 23); Ex. iii. 2-4 (to see), 5, 7, 8, 16-18 5 iv. 1-6;
v. 5-vi. 1 ; x. 1-11. To E may be ascribed Gen. xx. 1-17 ;
xxi. 6-32 ; xxii. 1-13, 19 ; xl. 1-xlii. 37 (except xl. Ib, 3b,

iv.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS SOURCES 29

15b ; xli. 14 ; xlii. 27-28) ; xlv. 1-xlvi. 5 (in the main) ;
Ex. ii. 1-14 ; iii. 1, 4b, 6, 9-15, 19-22 ; xviii. (in the main).

Much even of the analysis as here indicated of the
composite JE into its components, J and E, would, indeed,
become uncertain, if the argument from the differing use
of Yahweh and Elohim were proved unsound (see above
p. 20), though the separation of the Pentateuch into the
three sources JE, P, and D would remain substantially
unaffected. But in concluding this discussion of the sources
and the analysis it may be convenient briefly to indicate a
little more fully what the argument from the use of the
divine names is, and how far it carries us.

The Pentateuch itself gives us reason to expect a dis
crimination in the use of the divine names, for as to the
origin and use of the divine name Yahweh two theories
are directly stated or implied. According to Gen. iv. 26 (J)
familiarity with the name Yahweh extends back to the
early days of mankind ; after the birth of Adam s grandson
Enosh it is recorded that then men began to call upon the
name of Yahweh. According to Ex. vi. 2 (P), on the other
hand, the name Yahweh was unknown to the Hebrews
before the time of Moses : And God spake unto Moses, and
said unto him, I am Yahweh ; and I appeared unto
Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob as El Shaddai, but
by my name Yahweh I was not made known to him. In
Ex. iii. 13-15 (E) we have a different account of the revela
tion to Moses, which nevertheless agrees with Ex. vi. 2 in
representing Yahweh as a name unknown to the Hebrews
before Moses ; Ex. vi. 2 directly asserts that it was un
known to them before, and Ex. iii. 13-16 shows us the name,
so to speak, in the making.

We have thus three accounts of the origin of the name,
pointing, as other threefold repetitions point, to at least
three sources underlying the Pentateuchal narrative.
According to one of these sources the name was primeval ;
according to the other two it was first revealed to the
Hebrews in the days of Moses. Now an accurate and
particular writer who held the latter theory might reason-

30 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

ably be expected to avoid the use of Yahweh before his
story of the revelation of the name, using instead the general
term God (Elohim), or other names which he regarded as
primeval, such as El Shaddai. We might surmise, there
fore, that the narratives in Genesis and Ex. i. ii. which use
Yahweh are from the author of the theory implied in
Gen. iv. 26, and narratives that use Elohim from one of
the other two sources, but from which of the two this
criterion by itself could not of course determine. As a
matter of fact without the use of this criterion P, the
author of Ex. vi. 2, can be easily distinguished from JE.
The use of the divine names is, therefore, only of im
portance in distinguishing throughout Genesis and in Ex.
i. ii. the work of J, the Yah wist, who held by the primeval
antiquity of the name Yahweh, from that of E, the Elohist,
who held that it was first revealed to Moses. After the
revelation to Moses P naturally enough employs Yahweh ;
and so does E to some extent, though throughout his work he
seems to betray a relative preference for Elohim. The use
of the criterion, which is of limited value in Genesis and
Ex. i. ii., becomes almost negligible in the rest of the Hexa-
teuch. Astruc met with the success that he did in his
analysis of Genesis, because in Genesis J, on the one hand,
and P and E, on the other, appear to have been remarkably
consistent in their use of Yahweh and Elohim respectively :
he could not go further and distinguish the three main
sources of Genesis because the single criterion only sufficed
to distinguish two, and even had he been free from the
assumption of Mosaic authorship he would have been
unable to distinguish sources at all in the later parts of the
Pentateuch, because the criterion ceases to be of consistent
applicability after Ex. iii., vi.

v.] THE PENTATEUCH : DATES OF THE SOURCES 31

CHAPTER V

THE PENTATEUCH: DATES OF THE SOURCES

LEAVING over till the next chapter the question whether
D and P are respectively the works of a single writer, and
JE of two writers and no more, we shall here inquire how
far, and by what kinds of argument, it is possible to deter
mine either the relative or the absolute dates of what in
any case may be regarded as the main work comprehended
under the symbols D and P and J and E.

One point follows immediately, if the conclusion (p. 26)
be sound that the sources of the Pentateuch reappear in
Joshua ; if P and J and E related the story of the settle
ment after the death of Moses, they are necessarily one and
all post-Mosaic.

In greater detail D falls first for discussion. In the
year 621 B.C. a book of the law was found in the Temple
at Jerusalem, and, as a result, great changes in religious
practice took place. Such in brief is the story of 2 Kings
xxii.-xxiii.

We turn to Deuteronomy, and we find within it
a book of the law that enjoins what Josiah effected :
for example, the law enjoins the destruction of the high
places, and Josiah destroyed them ; the law prescribes that
all sacrifices shall be offered in one place only, and Josiah
did his best by destroying altars outside Jerusalem to
secure that all sacrifices should be offered on the Temple
altar in Jerusalem ; the law forbids the Passover to be
observed in any of the gates/ i.e. the (provincial) cities,
and commands that it shall be observed in one place only ;
in 621 the Passover was observed in Jerusalem (2 Kings

32 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

xxii. 23), and thus for the first time in history was it kept
according to the recently discovered book of the covenant
(2 Kings xxiii. 21, 22).

In spite of the fact that in form Deuteronomy consists
of speeches of Moses and does not define Jerusalem by
name as the one place in which the people were to sacrifice,
it is not surprising that some even of the early Christian
Fathers, including Jerome, already identified the Book of
the Law discovered in 621 with the book of Deuteronomy.

It may be that the book discovered was not the whole
of Deuteronomy as we now possess it ; a part might more
easily have been read twice (2 Kings xxii. 8, 10) in a short
time than the whole of it. But it is altogether improbable
that the book discovered was the entire Pentateuch ; not
only is it unlikely that the book was so large ; but some
parts of the Pentateuch contain laws conflicting with the
very laws that guided Josiah s practice, and a long
miscellaneous work such as the whole Pentateuch would
have been far less likely than Deuteronomy to create the
terror of the king : Deuteronomy, even in its present extent,
consists mainly of laws and of admonitions, and particularly
of warnings as to what will befall those who fail to act
upon the laws.

But how long before 621 had the book been written ?
The narrative gives us no direct answer to the question,
nor is it of the first importance to determine it. Other
evidence confirms the more important conclusion that it
was first published then. For example, from this time
onward, the singularly well-marked style of Deuteronomy
affects other writers, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah,
the compiler of Kings. On the other hand, the prophetic
writings of the eighth century, of Hosea, Amos, Isaiah,
Micah, show no traces of it.

If, then, D makes its first appearance in Jewish history
towards the end of the seventh century B.C., when did JE
and P do so ? before or after ?

That JE is prior to D is a matter of general agreement ;
and the now prevalent critical opinion is that P is poste-

v.] THE PENTATEUCH : DATES OF THE SOURCES 33

rior to D ; but down to the last quarter of the nineteenth
century the prevalent critical opinion, of which Ewald
may be cited as an outstanding exponent, was that
P was prior to D, and indeed the earliest of the documents.
To the theory, then, that the chronological order of the
documents was P, JE, D has succeeded the theory (of
Graf and Wellhausen) that the order is JE, D, P. Since
it is impossible to discuss this question of date in any way
exhaustively here, it will be best to dwell mainly on the
line of argument that has brought about this change in
critical judgment.

The earlier critical school was led to postulate the
priority of P mainly by the consideration that P forms
with its systematic arrangement and chronological scheme
the groundwork of the whole a very precarious argument,
for, as we shall see, the frameworks of the books of Judges
and Kings are certainly later than much of the narrative
of these books, which is derived from earlier sources.

The now prevalent critical opinion that P is the latest
of the three main documents rests largely on a comparison
of the three codes with the actual course of history, so far
as that is known. Such a comparison shows (1) that the
practice of the Hebrews prior to the seventh century follows
the laws in JE (i.e. mainly Ex. xx.-xxiii) ; (2) that the
practice of the Jews at the Reformation of Josiah, and
subsequently, changes from earlier practice in the direction
of the laws of D, where they differ from those of JE ; and
(3) that the practice of the Jews from the time of Ezra
onwards follows P, where this is in conflict with the laws
of JE or D.

Our knowledge of the history is incomplete ; and con
sequently it is impossible to find records of practice
in regard to innumerable details in the laws. Moreover,
certain laws remained constant throughout, as we can see
from the repetition of some laws without material alteration
in successive law-books ; and many laws and regulations,
which first appear in literature in a late code of laws, may
nevertheless have existed long before : even the latest law-

34 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

book contains much ancient material, and perpetuates,
with or without modification, many ancient practices.

The argument, then, is limited to laws that differ in the
extant codes ; and the argument can only be fully carried
through where the recorded history refers to difference of
practice corresponding to difference of laws. One or two
illustrations must suffice.

In Ex. xx. 24-26 we find a law regulating the structure
of altars on which burnt-offerings and other sacrifices were
to be offered ; these altars must be of earth or undressed
stones, but may not be built of hewn stone ; these alterna
tive regulations tacitly imply a multiplicity of legitimate
altars, and the same assumption underlies the last part of
v. 24 : every place that has been the scene of a theophany
will be likely to have its altar at which the Hebrew may
sacrifice and receive a blessing from God. Early Hebrew
practice follows this law : there were many altars, such
as that improvised by Saul at Michmash (1 Sam. xiv. 33 ff),
or that on which Solomon offered burnt- offerings in the high
place at Gibeon (1 Kings iii. 4). Moreover, Elijah regards
the destruction of Yahweh s (many) altars as a sin (1 Kings
xix. 14), and himself repairs the altar on Carmel (1 Kings
xviii. 30). So also in the narrative of JE we find approving
allusions to the construction of altars by the patriarchs
(e.g. Gen. xii. 7, 8).

Deuteronomy (xii.) enjoins the destruction of all
Canaanite altars, forbids the offering of burnt- offerings in
a multiplicity of places, strictly limiting the offering of
such offerings and the discharge of other similar religious
ritual to a single place. In practice Josiah carries out this
law (2 Kings xxiii.). Law and practice have so completely
changed that the destruction of altars, which to Elijah in
the ninth century was a sin, is in Josiah at the end of
the seventh century a meritorious act.

In P there is neither direct prohibition of many altars,
nor direct command to confine sacrifices to a single place ;
but it is throughout assumed that legitimate sacrifice can
only be offered on the one altar built in accordance with the

v.] THE PENTATEUCH : DATES OF THE SOURCES 35

instructions given at Sinai. The narrative of P is, more
over, very significant. In marked contrast to JE, P records
no instance of an altar used by the Patriarchs ; he records
theophanies to them (e.g. Gen. xvii. 1), but no act of
sacrifice by them.

While there were many altars, there was ample means
of asylum (Ex. xxi. 13, 14) ; for in actual early practice
the altar was the place of asylum (1 Kings i. 50). With the
abolition of all altars but one, it became necessary to
invent fresh asylums : hence the cities of D s law
(Deut. xix. 1-13), the cities of refuge of P (Num. xxxv.
9-34).

With regard to the extent of the priesthood we find
three differences in Hebrew practice, or in Hebrew theory
of what was legitimate : (1) it is not limited even to the
tribe of Levi, though a preference for a Levite as priest
might exist (Judges xvii. 5, 13) ; (2) the priesthood was
limited to the tribe of Levi, but co-extensive with it ; any
Levite could exercise priestly functions ; against this
limitation Jeroboam offended in making non-Levitical
priests (1 Kings xii. 31); (3) the priesthood was limited to a
section of the Levites : this was the practice from the time
of Ezra onwards ; priests and Levites were thus no longer
synonymous terms : all priests were Levites, but not all
Levites were priests. No law regulating or recognising
the earliest practice exists ; for the laws of JE do not define
the priesthood ; but in D, the law tacitly approves the
second stage of practice ; priests and Levites are co
extensive terms (Deut. xviii. 1 and elsewhere). D dis
tinguishes, indeed, two classes of Levites, those living in
the capital and those living in the provincial cities, but
expressly secures to the latter as well as to the former
the right of exercising priestly functions (Deut. xviii. 6-8).
The third stage of practice follows the laws of P, which
sharply mark off the priests, as sons of Aaron the Levite,
from all other Levites (Ex. xxviii., xxix ; Num. iii.).

In this particular instance we can trace the transition
from D to P through a document of known date, to wit

36 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

the book of Ezekiel (592-571) ; in Ezek. xliv. 6-16 Ezekiel
takes a survey of the past and lays down rules for the
future : he looks back to the conditions tacitly assumed
and approved in Deuteronomy, and still continuing to his
own day : all Levites have been priests, some exercising
priestly functions in the provincial cities, some (the sons
of Zadok) in Jerusalem ; unlike D, Ezekiel lays down that
the country Levites shall no longer exercise priestly
functions, but shall become subordinate officials of the
Temple. We thus see in Ezekiel the origin late in history
of a distinction which P carries back to the giving of the
law at Sinai. The significance of Ezek. xliv. 6-16 has,
like everything else, been questioned ; if it has been
correctly indicated here, this passage by itself would
prove the posteriority of P to D.

The practice in the matter of slavery down to the Exile
follows the laws of JE and D, and conflicts with that of P
(see p. 24) ; Hebrews were held by their fellow Hebrews
in slavery (2 Kings iv. 1-7 ; Jer. xxxiv. 8 if.).

We may proceed now from the question of the relative
antiquity of JE, D, and P to consider how closely it is
possible to determine the absolute dates of JE and P ;
D, as we have already seen, first appears in Jewish history
in 621 B.C.

As * the book of the law in 2 Kings xxii. appears to be
D (in whole or in part), so the book of the law of Moses/
which, according to Neh. viii., was read by Ezra on several
successive days (in 444 B.C.) to a public gathering of the
Jews, appears to be, or to have included, P (in whole or in
part) : for in consequence, the people observe the feast of
booths for eight days (Neh. viii. 14-18) as the law of P
(Lev. xxiii. 36) required, not merely for the seven days fixed
by D (Deut. xvi. 13).

The composition of P would thus fall between 621, the
date of D, and 444, when it was publicly read by Ezra.
In style there are marked similarities to Ezekiel ; in view
of the relation already discussed as existing between the
theories of the priesthood in Ezekiel and P, we must

v.] THE PENTATEUCH : DATES OF THE SOURCES 37

conclude that Ezekiel has influenced P and not vice versa.
The common working hypothesis is that P was composed in
Babylon about 500 B.C.

The closer determination of the date of JE is more
difficult ; but even the combined work JE may be, and
certainly the separate narratives J and E and the law book
(Ex. xx.-xxiii.) are, earlier than D. In style, the narratives
resemble the early sources of Judges, Samuel, and Kings
(see below, pp. 62, 73), both generally in their vividness and
picturesqueness as contrasted with the dry style of P, and
in respect of certain usages that point to an earlier period,
such as the relative preference for the pronominal form
dnoki and the use of the old Canaanite names for the
months in place of which P, in common with writers from
the sixth century onwards, defines the months by number.
But the style does not serve to define the dates of those
works at all closely ; it would be natural in works of
the eighth or ninth centuries B.C., but also a century or
two earlier, and, on the other hand, scarcely inconceivable
somewhat later.

The laws have in view a settled agricultural people, with
fields and vineyards in the possession of individuals, and
provide for a fallow year once in seven (Ex. xxii. 5 f.,
xxiii. 10 f.). Similarly such an anachronism as speaking of
Canaan as the land of the Hebrews in Gen. xl. 15, and
such modes of speech as occur, e.g., in Gen. xii. 6, xiii. 7
(cp. p. 16), and Num. xxii. 41 (cp. Judges x. 4) are most
naturally, if not alone, explicable by the assumption that
J and E were written long after the settlement in Canaan.
In Josh. x. 13, a source, the book of Jashar, is cited which
also contained a poem of David (2 Sam. i. 17). The age
of the book of the wars of Yahweh (Num. xxi. 14 f.), or
of the songs cited in JE, cannot be exactly determined ;
but the mode of reference in Num. xxi. 14, 27 rather sug
gests that the days of Moses lie far behind.

The age to which J and E are commonly assigned is
therefore that of the early monarchy after David (c. 1000
B.C.) and before the prophets of the eighth century B.C.,

38 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

who perhaps allude to these narratives : they certainly
allude to traditions incorporated in them (Am. ii. 9 ; Hos.
xii. 3 f., 12 f.), and certainly also represent a more advanced
religious point of view.

As to the relative age of J and E opinion differs, and the
question cannot even be satisfactorily discussed apart from
the question of the unity of each source. As to the place of
origin there is also difference of opinion as regards J,
though it is commonly held to have been composed in
Judah : Judah in J s narrative of Joseph takes the lead,
though Reuben, who in E takes the lead, was by common
consent Jacob s eldest born ; and there are other more or
less clear indications that Judah holds the upper place in
the affections of this writer. E, whose work gives promin
ence to famous places of the northern kingdom, such as
Shechem and Bethel, and to the Ephraimite hero Joshua,
is more generally regarded as belonging to the northern
kingdom.

vi.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS ORIGINS 39

CHAPTER VI

THE PENTATEUCH: ITS ORIGINS AND THE
HISTORY OF ITS GROWTH

IN chapter iii. it was argued that the Pentateuch is not the
work as it stands of Moses ; in chapter iv. that it can be
analysed into three main constituent elements, now denoted
by the symbols JE, D, P, each of which consisted (even as
now fragmentarily preserved in the Pentateuch), in part of
narrative, in part of law ; in chapter v. some of the lines
of arguments have been indicated by which the conclusion
is reached that J and E are works of the period of the early
monarchy, that D was first published in 621, and P com
posed about 500. It has also been pointed out that
included in, or in addition to, these three main sources, we
find in the Pentateuch a number of poems attributed to
different persons living at widely different periods.

By what processes were these various elements brought
together ? How are these various elements related to one
another ? How complex are works such as JE, D, P which
analysis in the first instance discriminates ? On what do
the earliest narratives rest ? These and other questions
have naturally arisen and have naturally also received
different answers. All that can be here attempted is to
indicate the more important evidence available, and, in
brief outline, the form which such answers should probably
take.

And first the question of the unity of the sources, and here,
again, in the first instances of P. As over against D and
JE the style of all that is comprehended under P is sharply
defined ; but within P certain smaller variations of style

40 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

have been observed ; in themselves they might prove little,
but within P certain differences of law have been discerned,
and certain suspicions awakened that even in the narrative
of P there can be distinguished what is original and what
secondary. A transitional theory in the last century
ventured, indeed, to separate by several centuries the entire
narrative of P from the laws of P ; but the similarities of
style between laws and narrative are too significant to
admit of such a theory surviving ; moreover, the very
narrative of P is by its dominant interest most intimately
connected with the laws : it is pre-eminently a history of
the origin of the sacred institutions of the Jews of the
Sabbath at Creation, of circumcision in the time of Abraham,
of the divine name Yahweh in the days of Moses, of the
priesthood and the sacrificial system at Sinai, of the cities
of refuge, and the sacred cities of the Levites.

But it is possible that the original narrative of P, written,
say, c. 500 B.C., was later expanded. For example, Num.
vii. 1-88, which in its wearisome repetition might almost
pass for a parody of the style of P, appears to be an addition
of a writer familiar (vv. 5-9) with the functions ascribed
to the several divisions of Levi in Num. iii. ; yet chrono
logically it should precede Num. i. (cp. Num. vii. 1, 10 with
Ex. xl. 2, 17). Again, in Num. xvi. we have grafted on
to a story from the main narrative of P, which records a
revolt of representatives of the whole people against the
Levites, represented by Aaron and Moses, in vindication of
their equal holiness, certain additions (xvi. 8-11, 36-40), the
object of which is to condemn non-Aaronic Levites for
seeking the priesthood.

When we turn to the legal parts of P we are faced with
two possibilities, and in all probability have to reckon with
two actual facts : the compiler of P may have incorporated
in his work laws previously formulated, deriving them
straight from some priestly code of laws ; on the other
hand, after the compilation of P circumstances may have
necessitated change of practice, and a law regulating the
change may have been interpolated in P ; or laws prior to

vi.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS ORIGINS 41

P, but not at first incorporated in it, may have been
inserted later for greater completeness.

A distinct element, now embedded in, and even in parts
interwoven with, P, has generally been recognised in Lev.
xvii.-xxvi. : the major part of these chapters is distin
guished by marked peculiarities of style and motive :
on account of one of its characteristics, the prominence
given to holiness, which appears as the leading motive of
the whole, this code has been termed the Law of Holiness ;
it is denoted by the symbol H or P h , and may have been
written early in the Exile.

It is perfectly possible that other laws, such as those
regulating the different kinds of sacrifice in Lev. i.-iii.,
may have been already formulated before they were
incorporated in the historico-legal work, P.

An example of conflicting regulations within P, pointing
to the presence of additions to the main work, is afforded
by the comparison of Num. iv. 3 and viii. 23-26 : the
one passage defines the age of Levitical service as from
thirty to fifty, the other as from twenty-five to fifty.

For these different strata of P different symbols have
been employed such as P 1 , P 2 , P 3 , etc., but it is obviously
difficult to determine the exact number of different con
tributors to this part of the Pentateuch, or to distribute
it in detail among such different contributors. The
important general conclusion is that P in its entirety is a
historico-legal work, compiled probably about 500 B.C.,
on the basis largely of previously existing Temple practice,
and perhaps incorporating previously formulated laws of
that practice, to which later writers, sharing the same
fundamental religious ideas and belonging to the same
school as the author of the main work, made more or less
extensive additions.

We turn next to D. Here again a general homogeneity
of style marks off the whole from JE and P ; but (1) it
may be questioned whether the book of the law, read
and re-read on the day of its discovery (2 Kings xxii. 8, 10),
was so large a work as Deuteronomy, and there is no

42 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

reason for supposing that it contained the passages marked
by the same style in Joshua ; (2) Deuteronomy itself gives
indications of having been expanded : iv. 44-v. 2 reads
less like a resumption of i. 3-6 than an independent com
mencement ; and possibly different final orations or con
clusions may be detected towards the close of the book,
note e.g. the parallelism of chs. xxviii. and xxix 2-xxx. 20,
and that the latter passage is probably the work of one
who, living a generation or so later than 621, had actually
witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, and the captivity
of the people, and the desolation of the land by the
Babylonians.

A theory that meets these and other facts is, that the
original book of Josiah s Reformation did not include more
than iv. 44-xxvi. together with ch. xxviii., and that this
work (specifically D 1 ) was enlarged by a fresh introductory
discourse, i. 1-iv. 43 and other matter by one or more
writers of the same school (D 2 ).

But whatever the extent of D in its original form, on
what did it rest ? Whence were the laws it contains
derived ? Whence the material worked up into the
opening and concluding orations ?

If the laws contained in D were without exception
related to the changes wrought at the reformation that
followed its discovery, they might be explained as the
sole and immediate work of the author of the book. But
the scope of the laws is extensive : the aim of the book is
to regulate the whole of life on the basis of prophetic
teaching ; and for this purpose it abrogates certain old
laws in favour of new laws intended to secure the
centralisation of worship, and to make due provision for
consequential changes (e.g. Deut. xii. 20-22) ; but it also
perpetuates many old laws that were not out of harmony
with the new conditions aimed at, but had sprung out of
old custom, and had proved to be in the interests of
orderly and brotherly social life. A considerable part of
the laws of D are directly drawn from the earlier code in
Ex. xx.-xxiii., the bulk of which (with the exception of

vi.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS ORIGINS 43

Ex. xxi. 18-xxii. 15) re-appears in Deuteronomy, sometimes
verbatim, sometimes expanded with a view especially to
enforce the teaching of the book. And it is probable that
many other laws, such as those in xxi. 10-xxv. 16, had
been previously formulated, if not also previously written.

The narratives or orations in the book also obviously rest
for their information, and to some extent also even for their
phraseology, on known sources, viz. J and E ; or, perhaps
exclusively, and certainly in the main, on E, some of the
characteristics of which source, such as the use of the
name Horeb (not Sinai) for the mount of the law, thus
become characteristics also of Deuteronomy.

Of dependence on P there is no trace either in the laws
or the orations of D ; and for a perfectly obvious reason,
if the conclusion that P is a century or more later than
D is correct. The question of the more exact relation of
D to JE cannot be pursued here ; it must suffice to hint
that if the dependence of D is on E to the exclusion of
J, then it would follow that J and E had not yet been
combined, or, at least, that the combined work was not
followed by D ; and if, further, E was compiled in the
northern kingdom, and J in the south, a certain pre
sumption in favour of a theory that has occasionally
been suggested, viz. that D was composed in the northern
kingdom, would arise. But whether that presumption
would be of much weight as against the difficulties that
would beset such a theory is another question.

We reach, finally, the earliest main sources, J and E.
Do these symbols cover each a single writer only ? On
what does each rest ? The first question is not rendered
easier of discussion by the fact that we cannot reconstruct
either work with anything like the completeness, or
degree of probability, with which we can reconstruct
either P or D. In the first place, as already indicated,
the analysis of the complex JE into the two elements J
and E is itself often difficult and uncertain ; then again
there are indications of some departure from the order of
the contents of the original works in the order in which

44 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

the excerpts from these works now stand in the Pentateuch ;
and finally it is highly probable that less relatively of J
and E has been preserved than of P.

Here it must suffice to say that the presence within the
same source of similar incidents, and of passages marked
by respectively more or less advanced theological con
ceptions, are among the types of evidence that have led
many to postulate earlier and later writers of the same
school (J 1 , J 2 , E 1 , E 2 ), so that while J 1 E 1 may have been
written as early as c. 900 and c. 750 respectively, J 2 E 2 will
represent additions as late, in some cases, as the seventh
century. In other words, J and E should be understood
not as symbols for individuals and their respective works,
but for schools and products of schools.

However we interpret the symbols J and E, it is obvious
that to some extent the writers in question had books
relating to the past or containing laws at their disposal :
see e.g. Num. xxi. 14 ; Josh. x. 13 ; cp. Ex. xxiv. 4, 7.
But we have certainly no proof that either J or E rested to
anything like the same extent as D (pp. 42, 43) on a literary
basis ; and it is probable that as a matter of fact they
did not, but that in the main J and E represent the
literary origins of the Pentateuch. The basis of J and E
was probably, in the main, oral ; each of these works
was the first attempt to reduce to writing the stories of
the origin of the world, of the patriarchs, of the earliest
history of the people, as these had been wont to be told
at local shrines, such as Shechem, Hebron, Bethel, which
many of these stories serve to celebrate, or by wandering
minstrels or reciters. Those who committed these stories
to writing, connecting them, if they had not already been
so connected, in cycles, and giving to them or enhancing
their religious significance, adorned their work also with
songs, some of which had been written, and some of which
they had learned from the mouths of professional
reciters (cp. p. 18).

These works also contained laws, and in this respect they
resembled D and P ; but there is a difference : D of necessity

vi.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS ORIGINS 45

contained laws, for its purpose was to regulate society and
in some important respects anew ; P was a history of the
sacred institutions of the Hebrews, among which the law
of Moses and in particular the developed and elaborate
sacrificial system stood pre-eminent ; but neither J nor
E was written to effect a change in society, nor was either
limited or even primarily devoted to the history of institu
tions ; each is a story of the past of the nation and of
Yahweh s dealings with it ; it is as one of Yahweh s gifts
to the nation that the laws are introduced. But J and E
were not written in days of change, and the laws introduced
into them were not new laws : they had been in part at
least already committed to writing ; they may in part also
represent the first written form of ancient case law, as it
gradually established itself at one or other of the priestly
and judicial centres.

In any case the legal part of (J)E is not all of the same
character, nor probably all of the same origin. The most
important difference in character is between the words
and the judgments (Ex. xxiv. 3) ; the words are abso
lute commands of which the best known are the ten
words (or commandments) in Ex. xx. 3-17, but of which
Ex. xxxiv. 10-26 ; xx. 23-26 ; xxii. 18-22, 28-31 ; xxiii. 1-3
are further examples ; the judgments are hypothetical
instructions for cases that, having doubtless often arisen
in the past, were likely to recur ; this latter type of Hebrew
law, which has a most striking ancient parallel in the far
older Babylonian code of Hammurabi, occurs in Ex. xxi.
2-14, 18, 36 ; xxii. 1-17, 25 f. ; xxiii. 4 f., and reappears
in parts of Deut. (e.g. xxii. 13 ff.).

Along both lines, that of local story and consuetudinary
law, the pre-literary origins of JE stretch back into the
dim and distant past : some of the law may well enough
run back to the age of Moses, some of it may rest on
local custom among the predecessors of the Hebrews in
Canaan, just as we know that some of the stories in
Genesis (Creation, the Flood) run back to a distant past
in Babylonian history.

46 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

From these remote origins it is necessary to turn for
a moment to some elements in the Pentateuch that
have not yet been considered, and some of which belong
either certainly or possibly to the latest period of its
history.

Of the date and origin of the poetry incorporated in the
Pentateuch, it is not possible to speak at length here.
Most of it, as cited on p. 18, occurs at present in JE, and
probably stood originally in either J or E, and on that
account must be regarded as at least as early as those early
sources in which it was included. Gen. xlix. is probably as
late as the reign of David, for it is familiar with Judah
as the tribe of the ruler (v. 10) ; but not necessarily much
later ; Deut. xxxiii. is later than Gen. xlix., for in it Levi
has ceased to be a secular and has become a sacred tribe,
the tribe of Reuben is nearly extinct, and Simeon is
not mentioned, probably because it had already become
extinct ; but the poem indicates throughout no sense of
present or imminent national disaster, takes small notice of
Judah, but magnifies the two divisions of Joseph, viz.
Ephraim and Manasseh, and therefore was most probably
written in the northern kingdom before the fatal advance
of Assyria westwards, which began in 745 B.C. A similar
sense of national security and prosperity dominates the
first four songs of Balaam, for which on this ground the
same inferior limit may be set as for Deut. xxxiii. ; the
allusion to the monarchy in Num. xxiv. 7, 17 points to a date
at least as late as Saul. The product of a later age is to be
discovered in Deut. xxxii. 1-43, for here the sense of national
disaster is conspicuously present, and the poem is scarcely
earlier than the end of the seventh century B.C. The
priests blessing in P (Num. vi. 24-26) may also belong to
this period, and be an expression of the centralisation
effected by Josiah ; or it may be earlier. The curse of
Noah (Gen. ix. 24 f), the divine oracle in Gen. xxv. 23, the
Song of Miriam in Ex. xv. 21, are scarcely the work of the
author of the prose setting in which they now occur, but are
of a greater antiquity which cannot be closely defined.

vi.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS ORIGINS 47

On the other hand the Song of Moses, which now appears in
Ex. xv. 1-18, and may be regarded as an expansion of the
couplet attributed to Miriam (note Ex. xv. lb=xv. 21), may
be the product of a much later writer living, perhaps, little
if at all before the Exile.

There remains for brief consideration a prose passage
that stands somewhat isolated and is in some respects of
unique character : this is Gen. xiv. In style it stands apart
from JE, D, and P, and not less so in its presentation of
Abraham, who here only in the Pentateuch appears as a
warrior, the conqueror of mighty kings of the East, blessed
by the mysterious and otherwise unknown Melchizedek,
king of Salem, but proudly refusing, in the consciousness
that his riches came from elsewhere, to receive the slightest
acknowledgment by way of gift from the king of Sodom.
On account of the more or less exact correspondence of the
names of the Eastern kings Amraphel, Arioch, and Tidal, with
the now famous Hammurabi (c. 2000 B.C.), Eriaku of Larsa
and Tudchula, son of Gazza, whose existence is attested by
inscriptions, and of the genuine Elamitic form of the name
Chedorlaomer, it has frequently been attempted of late to
maintain that the passage is of extremely ancient origin and
in all respects to be accepted as historical. But along with
the presence of such indications of relatively late date as
the use of the name Dan (see p. 16), there are many other
features in the passage that render such a view difficult, not
to say impossible, to maintain ; the use of Salem (cp. Ps.
Ixxvi. 2) for Jerusalem is probably a pseudo- archaism, for
Jerusalem itself in the form Urusalimu is already the
name of the city in the earliest contemporary reference
to it (Tell el-Amarna Tablets, c. 1400 B.C.) ; and various
points of style, including some affinities with P, suggest
that, at all events in its present form, Gen. xiv. is no earlier
than Ezekiel, and probably enough later still. The passage
is best regarded as a Midrash (cp. p. 95), based on some
accurate information with regard to Babylonian and other
early rulers, and possibly some further accurate information
about the period of these rulers, but composed for the pur-

48 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

pose of magnifying the great patriarch, and bringing him
into relation with Jerusalem.

Our survey of the literary elements that have coalesced
in the Pentateuch, undergoing in the process more or less
modification, is now all but complete. There remains for
consideration the nature of the process or processes of co
alescence, and the extent of the modifications involved ; in
other words, the question of what editor or editors brought
together the sources, and how far such editors adhered to
the method adopted by Tatian in the Diatessaron (p. 11),
of arranging freely and interweaving, but making little or
no change by way of omission or addition, or how far such
editors adopted the method of the author of Chronicles,
who cites much verbatim from the source, but also adds,
omits, and changes (cp. pp. 8-11).

Between the distant pre-literary origins of the Pentateuch
and the latest literary elements that we have yet considered
there lies a period of something approaching a thousand
years. Of the history of the growth from those origins to
the complete work, we have practically no external evidence
apart from the narratives of 2 Kings xxii.-xxiii. and Neh.
viii. Whatever theory of that history we form must rest
on internal evidence, and this is often ambiguous, and in
many points, even so, of the scantiest. It is not surprising
that different theories have been framed, and that none
can be regarded as certain.

The simplest theory, possible in the abstract but im
probable, would be that a single editor in the fifth century
B.C. brought together all the different elements that
analysis discovers, and that till then had continued to
exist apart. But a theory that is to do justice to facts and
probabilities must certainly be more complex than that :
more than one editor or redactor must be assumed. But
this question of editors is closely associated with the
question already considered of the possible existence of
different strata in the sources denominated J, E, D, P ; for
if it be assumed that an editor R ja combined J and E, and
in combining made additions of his own, the work of R JK

vi.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS ORIGINS 49

and J 2 , where the latter stands for expansions of J, may
be almost indistinguishable. The extent of difference be
tween some different theories can be readily estimated, and
understood to be slight, if this is borne in mind.

It is impossible to examine, in any detail here, work
which appears to be editorial rather than derived from a
source ; moreover, it must be remembered that work
which at one point must be regarded as editorial becomes
itself a source when editorial additions or modifications are
cited indiscriminately with words of an earlier source by
a later editor.

It will perhaps be convenient to say all that our limi
tations permit on this point in connection with a synthetic
and historical summary based on the previous analytical
discussion.

The ultimate origins of the Pentateuch are oral songs
that were recited before they were written down, stories
of the past that had long been told with characteristic
differences in different localities before they were welded
into a fixed oral cycle, and later into literary form, laws
that had been formulated, but were at first handed down
orally from generation to generation of priests, at the several
sanctuaries. These oral origins belong to the eighth and
ninth and many earlier centuries ; and even as late as the
seventh century, or later still, D and P, may have drawn
afresh from fixed oral tradition laws that had not pre
viously been written.

Books of songs may have existed as early as David s
time, or even earlier, though one of those actually cited in
the Pentateuch was certainly not earlier than the age of
David. Written law existed as early as the eighth century
(cp. Hos. viii. 12). From these books of song, and books
of law, the earliest narratives preserved in the Pentateuch
drew ; but in the main J and E are the earliest literary
form of the stories told in them. J was, perhaps, com
posed c. 900 in the southern kingdom, E, perhaps, about
750 in the northern kingdom. Both J and E may have
received expansions while they continued distinct works,

50 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

and such expansions may be termed J 2 and E 2 respectively.
How early J and E were combined is uncertain ; but if, as
is probable, they were combined independently of D, the
editor who combined them, and any additions he made in
so doing, may be conveniently described as R*" 8 . D was
published in 621 ; further work of the same school written
within the next generation or so (D 2 ) appears in Joshua
and to some extent in Deuteronomy. D, and some pas
sages (e.g., Deut. i.) which possibly belong to D 2 , are
certainly based on E, possibly also on J ; if exclusively on
E, then probably JE was not yet combined, and R JE was
later than D, and probably also than D 2 ; and indeed
the possibility would remain that J, E, D were brought to
gether by a single editorial hand, R JBD , and that R JB had
no separate existence ; but if D can be shown to rest on J
also, then probably, and if on R JE , then certainly, the
union of JE took place prior to 621, say c. 650 B.C.

The old prophetic narratives JE, either separately, or
more probably already combined, were next united with D,
and at the same time here and there slightly expanded or
modified by a member or members (R D ) of the Deuteronomic
school, the resultant work being JED. This work carried
down the narrative to the settlement in Canaan, and
contained much of what now stands in Josh, i.-xii., xxii.-
xxiv. This editorial process may be assigned to the sixth
century B.C.

The last main editorial stage in the history of the Penta
teuch consisted of the combination of so much of JED and
so much of P as dealt with the history down to the death
of Moses ; this was the work of an editor (R p ), whose method
was to fit excerpts from JED into the framework of P.
This process took place (shortly) after rather than before
444 B.C.

JEDP represents, approximately, the complete Penta
teuch ; yet after the union of the four main works, addi
tions such as Gen. xiv., and some of P s , such as Ex. xxxv.-
xl., which latter chapters also survive in an extensively
and significantly different form in the LXX., were not im-

vi.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS ORIGINS 61

probably added. In view of the variations in the LXX., it
is doubtful whether the argument can be too rigidly pressed
that the Samaritan schism must have taken place in 432,
that after that date the Samaritans would neither have
accepted as their sacred book the Jewish law, nor any
additions subsequently made to the Jewish law previously
adopted by them, and that, therefore, all that is common to
the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Jewish law (i.e., sub
stantially the entire work) is as early as 432 B.C. As com
pared with the Jewish the Samaritan recension shows
certain variations, such as reading Gerizim in place of Ebal
in Deut. xxvii. 4, and the expansion of the narrative in
certain places by the addition to it of passages found else
where. For example, Deut. i. 6-8 is inserted after Num.
x. 10. These changes were probably introduced by the
Samaritans at the time of, or later than, the schism.

52 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

CHAPTER VII

THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS:
(1) JOSHUA AND JUDGES

THE later historical narrative contained in Chronicles,
Ezra, and Nehemiah is probably a single work. On the
other hand, of the books that contain the earlier narrative,
not only does the Pentateuch stand apart, but the books
of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, in spite of certain
connecting links, attained substantially their present form
by different editorial processes. Yet those editorial
processes, though different, have so much in common
that Judges, Samuel, and Kings, and to some extent
Joshua, remain as the expression of a school dominated
by the ideas and style of D (pp. 26, 31), and sharply dis
tinguished from Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, which is a
work dominated by the ideas, and, in some measure, by the
style of P (pp. 26, 34 f.). In spite of some minor annotations
or modifications made from the standpoint of P, (Joshua),
Judges, Samuel, and Kings substantially represent his
tory as apprehended by, and its significance for, the Jews
at the end of the seventh and in the sixth century B.C. ;
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah the same history interpreted by
Jews of about 300 B.C. While, then, the books of Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, and Kings cannot in detail be discussed
together, for they are not a single work, and, though edited
from a similar religious standpoint, have not undergone
exactly the same editorial processes, two further facts which
help to give them a certain closeness of connection and simi
larity of character must be constantly borne in mind : (1)
these books, one and all, rest on sources : as the Chronicler

vn.] JOSHUA AND JUDGES 53

embodied large extracts of Samuel and Kings in his work,
so the authors or compilers of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and
Kings each embodied large extracts from yet earlier works
in their own ; and (2) the divisions in these sources do not
appear to have coincided with the divisions represented by
the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Bangs ; in other
words, two or more of these books cite from the same
sources : Joshua and Judges cite certain identical passages
from an older source (p. 54) ; and it is probable that
Samuel incorporates parts of a source also used in Judges
(cp. pp. 67, 69), and Kings parts of a source used in Samuel
(p. 85). So much in general may be safely said and will be
substantiated below ; but within the compass of the
present work it will be impossible to enter into all the
details which would illustrate more fully this closeness
of connection.

One further general consideration may be stated :
when we compare Chronicles with Samuel and Kings, we
find that the modifications introduced by the later writer
entirely change the impression given, or the meaning in
tended, by the earlier source which he cites ; it is necessary
to remember that, though, not having the sources, we can
never absolutely prove it, the earlier historical narratives
of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings may also, through
modifications of their sources, have handed on to later
times a story really different in some of its implications
from that which stood in these sources.

Though Joshua and Judges must certainly be regarded as
distinct works, it will be convenient to discuss them in the
first instance together.

The opening words of Joshua are, And it came to pass
after the death of Moses ; the opening words of Judges
are, And it came to pass after the death of Joshua. If
we could regard Joshua and Judges as two parts of the same
work dealing with two epochs, the lifetime of Joshua and
the period that began with his death, the similarity of these
openings would have a sufficiently obvious explanation in
common authorship. But Joshua and Judges are not the

64 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

work of the same author, and we may attribute the opening
words of Judges to an attempt, by bringing together the
books of Joshua and Judges, to obtain as far as possible
a continuous history of Israel ; not improbably this link
is due to those who established the second part of the
Hebrew canon, the prophets.

Unfortunately the opening clause of Judges creates an
impression of more exact continuity than is justified by the
contents of the books of Joshua and Judges : Judges is in
reality no direct continuation of Joshua : it is, in part at
least, parallel to it. The farewell, death, and burial of
Joshua are recorded with a summarising account of what
followed, not only at the end of the book of Joshua (xxiv.
28-33), but also in Judges, and that not at the beginning as
though to establish a continuity or to recall an original
continuity of the books, 1 but in ii. 6-10 ; what precedes
Judges ii. 6, viz. i. 1-ii. 5, at least, is not, as the opening
clause of Judges suggests, subsequent to what is related
at the end of Joshua, but prior to it, and parallel with the
first part of Joshua : a detail confirms this obvious
conclusion : Gilgal, the headquarters of the Hebrews after
the passage of Jordan (Josh. iv. 19 ; v. 10 ; ix. 6 ; x. 9 ;
xiv. 6) is still such in Judges ii. 1 though it had ceased to
be so in Josh, xviii. 1, xxiv. Further, with Josh. xvi. 10,
cp. Judges i. 29 ; with Josh. xvii. 11-13, cp. Judges i. 27 f. ;
with Josh. xix. 46, 47, cp. Judges xviii. i. 34; and with
Josh. xv. 63, cp. Judges i. 2.

The parallelism of the books is, however, in reality much
greater : they are throughout differing accounts of one and
the same historical movement the effective occupation of
Canaan by the Hebrews : according to the book of Joshua
the whole of the Hebrews formed a single army under
Joshua ; the entire land of promise 2 was rapidly conquered,
and then distributed among the twelve tribes ; accord
ing to Judges i. the several tribes acting separately, or one
or two together, attacked different parts of the country ;

1 Cp. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22 f. =Ezr i. 1-3, and see p. 97.
Josh. xi. 16-xiii. 6; xii. 43-45.

vn.] JOSHUA AND JUDGES 55

at first their success was very partial, and it was but gradu
ally that they became masters of even the greater part of
the country. But Judges i. is substantially in agreement
with much of the remainder of the book, for this deals with
the changing fortunes of the tribes, now attacking, now
subject to, now obtaining temporary relief from the
Canaanites or others, till one and all have secured settle
ment in the districts which they subsequently retained.
It is not till towards the close of the book (xvii., xviii.) that
Dan makes good its position, yet not till then did the
effective occupation of Canaan by the Hebrews even
approach completion ; in other words Judges xviii. carries
down the historical development no further than, if indeed
as far as, Joshua xxiv. ; and thus the two books are in
reality parallel narratives.

JOSHUA

The title of the book of Joshua defines the subject, not
the author, of it. Joshua is the outstanding figure in it ;
under his leadership Western Canaan is conquered, under
his direction the land of promise is divided among the
twelve tribes. The book may be briefly summarised as
follows :

i.-xii. Conquest of Western Canaan. The book opens
immediately after the death of Moses : Joshua has suc
ceeded Moses in the command of the people, who are still
on the east of Jordan. Jordan is crossed and other
preliminaries to the attack on Jericho, the city commanding
the Jordan valley, are carried out (i.-iv.). The Israelites
encamp at Gilgal, and capture Jericho (v., vi.). Stages
in the Conquest of Southern Palestine : capture of Ai (vii. 1-
viii. 29), submission of the Gibeonites (ix.), defeat of the
kings of Jerusalem and other cities of the south (x.).
Inserted in the midst of these is a brief reference, not
indeed to the conquest itself, but to a step which implies
the previous conquest of Central Palestine, viz. the building
of an altar on Mount Ebal (viii. 30-35). More briefly is

56 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

described the conquest of Northern Palestine (xi. 1-15).
Then follows a summary of conquest, and a list of
thirty conquered kings, mostly of places in the south,
but also of places in Central and Northern Palestine
(xi. 16-xii. 24).

xiii.-xxi. Division of the conquered land among the
twelve tribes as follows : (a) the two and a half Eastern
tribes, xiii. ; (6) the Western tribes ; in the South,
Caleb- Judah (xiv. f.), Benjamin and Simeon (xviii. 11-
xix. 9) ; in Central Palestine, Ephraim and half-Manasseh
(xvi. f .) ; in the North, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali,
Dan (xix. 9-48). Then follows the appointment of
cities of refuge (xx.), and the allotment of Levitical
cities (xxi.).

xxii.-xxiv. Conclusion. The conquest and distribution
of the land being complete, Joshua dismisses to their
homes with his blessing the Eastern tribes, who had
co-operated in the Conquest of the West (xxii.), takes
farewell of the people, dies and is buried (xxiii. f.).

It is obvious from the conclusion that this book was
written neither by Joshua, nor within his lifetime. The
closer determination of date and character must rest
mainly on conclusions reached in chapters iii.-vi., for
Joshua is intimately connected, through its use of the same
sources, with the Pentateuch. But there are certain
entirely independent considerations that suggest so much
at least as this : the book was written long after the age
of Joshua, and in Judah. (1) The presentation of the
Hebrew settlement in Canaan as the result of a rapid and
complete conquest appears to be due to the idealising of
long past events : the book of Joshua must on this account
be judged much later than the age which gave birth to
the account in the first chapter, and to the stories that
form the substance, of the book of Judges : for the account
in Judges, in its broad features, accords, the representation
that dominates Joshua is entirely at conflict, with what
the conditions and historical movements prevailing about
1400 B.C., and revealed to us by the contemporary Tell

vn.] JOSHUA 57

el-Amarna tablets, would lead us to expect the nature of
the Hebrew settlement, which took place somewhat later,
actually to have been. (2) In Josh. xv. 63 we read :
1 But the Jebusite(s), the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the
children of Israel were unable to dispossess ; and (so)
the Jebusite has dwelt with the children of Judah
in Jerusalem until this day. With the substitution of
* Benjamin for Judah these words recur in Judg. i. 21.
Probably in both books the words are cited from a common
and ancient source ; in any case there is no probability that
Judges borrows from Joshua ; and so in Joshua at least
the words are a quotation. But these words throw back
the (partial) conquest to a past age, which is tacitly con
trasted with the present day. That we should infer
from a comparison with 2 Sam. v. 4-10, which relates
David s capture of Jerusalem, that the present day of
Josh. xv. 63=Judg. i. 21 was, though later than Joshua,
yet earlier than David is by no means certain ; Jebusites
continued to live in Jerusalem after David s capture of
it (2 Sam. xxiv. 18 ff.). In any case the book which cites
the passage must be later than the source it cites, and
consequently the product of an age later certainly than
Joshua, possibly also later than David. (3) The reference
to the book of Jashar (x. 13) certainly implies a date later
than David, for that book contained, among others, poems
of David (2 Sam. i. 18). (4) Interest in South Palestine
and specifically in Judah dominates the book. The hero
himself is indeed an Ephraimite (xix. 49 f, xxiv. 30) ; but
if we consider the book of Joshua as a whole, this cannot
be said to receive emphasis ; what was doubtless a datum
of tradition is accepted, but in no way magnified, by the
author of the book. On the other hand, both in the
account of the Conquest and in that of the division of the
land the South is dealt with much more fully, and the
district of Judah is more minutely described than that of
any other tribe. The conquest of Central Palestine,
the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh, is entirely
omitted, and it is only at the end of the book that this

58 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

district comes into any prominence ; and then almost of
necessity, for Joshua naturally goes to his own country
to make his farewell and die.

Presupposing the conclusions of the criticism of the
Pentateuch we may formulate a theory of the origin of
Joshua as follows : early narratives (J, E), written perhaps
in the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. respectively, carried
down the history of God s guidance of His people to the
point at which it culminated in the settlement of the
people in the land that God had promised them ; a later
work (P), written about 500 B.C., carried down the history
to the same point. In the earlier narratives the Conquest
of Canaan was represented as gradual ; but an editor,
D 2 (p. 42), though drawing mainly on these sources (J, E),
so modified them by large additions of his own, that, in
spite of some tell-tale fragments left unmodified, the new
narrative as a whole gave the impression that the conquest
was rapid and complete. This work was subsequently
expanded by another editor (R p ), who inserted brief
passages * from P into the story of the conquest, and
much more extensive passages 2 from the same source
into the story of the distribution of the land.

JUDGES

Saul (c. 1050 B.C.) was the first Hebrew king ; the time
before Saul forms, therefore, an epoch of a distinct char
acter : it is the pre-monarchic period in the history of
the Hebrews in Canaan. This period, with the exception
of its closing years, is the subject of the book of Judges ;
and since the period extended over at least some generations
the book of Judges cannot be a contemporary record of
all the events described in it. But, further, the book in

i iv. 13, 15-17, 19 ; v. 10-12 ; vii. 1 ; ix. 15b, 17-21. See Driver, Introduction
to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 159.

a xiii. 15-32 ; xiv. 1-5 ; xv. 1-13, 20-44 (45-47), 48-62 ; xri. 4-8 ; xvii. la,
3, 4, 7, 9a, 9c-10a ; xviii. 1, 11-28 ; xix. 1-8, 10-46, 48-51 ; xx. 1-3 (except
and unawares ); xx. 6a (to judgment ), 7-9 (cp. LXX.); xxi. 1-42 (xxii.
9-34). See Driver, I. c.

vn.] JUDGES 59

its present form is very much later than the period
which is the subject of it ; there are several allusions in
it to the monarchy, 1 and one (xviii. 30) unmistakable
allusion to the captivity of Northern Israel in the eighth
century B.C. A closer examination and analysis of the
book suggests other sufficiently probable and more precise
conclusions.

Judges consists of three unequal and dissimilar sections :
(1) i. 1-ii. 5, introduction : the partial conquest of Canaan
by the Hebrew tribes ; (2) ii. 6-xvi. 31, stories of the
Deliverers or Judges of Israel ; (3) xvii.-xxi., an appendix,
containing other stories of the pre-monarchic period.

The theory now commonly held is that the central
portion of the book (ii. 6-xvi. 31) contains a history of the
period of the Judges written about 600 B.C., and that
this history was subsequently (say c. 400 B.C.) expanded into
the form of the present book by prefixing (a) ch. i., (b) ii.
1-5, and by appending chs. xvii.-xxi., and probably by
making certain insertions (see below, p. 63). All three
sections of the book alike incorporate a large amount of
material derived from sources very much earlier than
600 B.C. The general nature of the reasons for this theory
will become clear from a somewhat fuller examination of
certain characteristics of the book, and in particular of
ii. 6-xvi. 31.

The central section (ii. 6-xvi. 31) of Judges consists of
brief notices or longer narratives of a number of people,
who judged or ruled Israel, fitted into a moralising and
chronological framework as follows :

1 xYii. 6, xviii. 1, xix. 1, xxi. 25.

60 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [en.

Period of

(a) pre

Framework

Notice or
Narrative

Name of
Judge, etc.

Tribe or
locality
of Judge

Preceding
Oppressor

ceding
oppres
sion, (b)

Judge-

bhip

ii. (6), 7, (8-10), 11-23

(iii. 1-6)

(iii. 7-11)

Othniel

Caleb

Aram-

a. 8

Naharaim

b. 40

iii. 12-15 a, iii. 29 f.

iii. 15 6-28

Ehud

Benjamin

Moab

a. 18

b. 80

iii. 31

Sharngar

Philistines

iv. 1-3, v. 31 b

ir. 4-v. 30 a

/ Deborah
\ Barak

Ephraim
Naphtali

( N. Cana-
\ anites

a."20
b. 40

(vi, 1-10), viii. 28,

vi. 11-viii. 27 a

Gideon,

Manasseh

Midian

a. 7

33-5

ix.

followed

b. 40

by his son
Abimelech

b. 3

x. If.

Tola

Isaachar

...

ft. 23

x. 3-5

Jair

Gilead

b. 22

(r. 6-18) (iii. 7)

xi. 1-xii. 6

Jephthah

Gilead

Ammon

a. 18

6. 6

xii. 8-10

Ibzan

Bethlehem

...

b. 7

xii. 11-12

Elon

Zebulon

b. 10

xii. 13-15

Abdon

Ephraim

...

6. 8

xiii. 1, xv. 20 (xri.

xiii. 2-xv. 19

Samson

Dan

Philistines

a. 40

31b)

xvi.

b. 20

Total . 410 years

The author of the framework had a very clear theory of
the period and expressed it clearly : after the death of
Joshua, the Israelites proved disloyal to Yahweh ; Yahweh
punished them by delivering them into the hand of their
enemies, but, as often as they cried to him for help, raised
up a deliverer, who overthrew the oppressor and gave the
people peace for a long period. The tenses in ii. 18 f., a
passage which states the theory summarily, are frequenta-
tives : the entire period, according to this general state
ment of the writer, consisted of recurrent cycles of sin,
punishment, penitence, deliverance and peace of periods
of oppression closing in a cry to God for help, moments of
deliverance, and periods of freedom and prosperity closing
in forgetfulness of God.

The periods of enslavement and freedom consist in

vn.J JUDGES 61

several instances of 40, or 40 X 2, or -- years ; the total

of 410 years added to the date of Saul (c. 1050) would
carry back the beginning of the period into the fifteenth
century B.C., when, as the contemporary Tell el-Amarna
tablets indicate, the Hebrew tribes were not yet settled in
Canaan. The chronology of the book must, therefore, be
regarded as an incorrect and artificial scheme.

But the chronology is not the only artificial element in
the framework : the judges are not only fitted into a
definite and exact chronological sequence, they become
one and all deliverers or rulers of all Israel : they judge
Israel, and under them the land, i.e., the entire land of all
the Hebrew tribes, enjoys rest. Yet when we pass from
the introductory and closing remarks into the heart of the
stories of the several judges, the judges appear as tribal or
local heroes : e.g., Samson, according to the framework,
judged (all) Israel ; but his exploits are confined to a
small district in the south-west of the land of Israel. And
similarly Gideon is the deliverer and ruler of central
Palestine. Deborah and Barak, indeed, summoned to
their aid most of the tribes of Israel (though not Judah) :
yet their exploit was a deliverance, at least primarily, of
Northern Palestine : and there is no indication either in the
story of ch. iv., or the poem of ch. v., that either Barak or
Deborah continued to judge the whole people, or to rule
over the whole land.

The tone and style of the framework bring it into close
relation with Deuteronomy ; if the publication of Deuter
onomy is rightly placed in 621, the editing of old stories of
the judges in a manner and with additions that point the
moral of the reforming school of Josiah s reign may be with
probability placed about 600 B.C.

The stories incorporated in and forming the bulk of this
Deuteronomic history of the Judges appear themselves to
have been drawn from different sources : this is most
obvious in the two accounts of Deborah and Barak ; one
of these (ch. iv.) is in prose, the other (ch. v.) is in verse,

62 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

and there are material, as well as these formal, differences
between the two accounts. The song in ch. v. is the
oldest element in the book of Judges, and not improbably
the oldest surviving piece of Hebrew literature : it appears
to have been composed by a contemporary of the events
described, and these must have occurred about 1100 B.C.
From v. 7, as rendered in R. V., it might, indeed, be inferred
that Deborah herself was the composer of the song ; but
that verse should rather read, until thou, Deborah, didst
arise, till thou didst arise, etc., or until Deborah
arose . . . arose (so the most ancient versions). Else
where in the poem Deborah is addressed (v. 12), or spoken
of in the third person (v. 15).

The stories of Samson are homogeneous, and are derived
from a source that has affinities, and is by some identified,
with the source so largely drawn upon in the Hexateuch
and known as J (ninth century B.C., see p. 37). From the
same source may be derived the story of Ehud, and parts of
the stories of Gideon and Abimelech ; but in these last
stories the extracts from this source are combined with
extracts from another source (e.g., ix. 1-21, 42-55) having
some affinities with, and again by some identified with,
the source E (eighth century B.C., p. 44) of the Pentateuch.
For fuller details, reference must be made to the critical
commentaries on the book.

The question has arisen : Did the Deuteronomic editor
himself combine these different sources, or did he make
use of an earlier pre-Deuteronomic book of Judges in which
the combination had already taken place ? The latter
alternative is not improbable, and may be kept in view
in considering some further peculiarities of the central
section of the present book.

A reference back to the contents of the book as given on
p. 60 will show that six only of the stories are really fitted
into the framework ; only in the case of Othniel, Ehud,
Deborah-Barak, Gideon, Jephthah and Samson have we
all three data that the scheme of the framework requires,
viz. (1) a foreign oppression before the appearance of the

vn.] JUDGES 63

judge, (2) the length of this oppression, and (3) the length of
the period of rest that followed the deliverance. The brief
notice of Shamgar mentions indeed an oppressor, but
neither gives the origin of the judge, nor defines the period
either of oppression or rule. The judgeships of Jair, Ibzan,
Elon and Abdon follow no period of oppression : nor is
either the nature or the period of the preceding oppres
sion stated in the notice of Tola. And the long story of
Abimelech stands also free of the framework. In brief,
within the central portion of the present book of Judges
we have sections which, like the Introduction (i. 1-ii. 6)
and the Appendix (xvii.-xxi.), stand free of the framework.
It may be that all these sections alike, and not merely the
Introduction and Appendix, were absent from the Deutero-
nomic book of Judges. Then we may frame a more
detailed theory of the origin and history of our book as
follows :

Oral stories of the pre-monarchic period, and songs
composed at that period, were in circulation in Israel
during the earlier monarchic period : some of these were
collected and written down in various literary works
during, say, the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. In the
seventh century, a writer drawing on more than one
of such literary sources, and himself perhaps providing
a chronological framework, and generalising the local
leaders into rulers of all Israel, composed what we may
term the pre-Deuteronomic book of Judges : this con
tained the greater part of what now stands in Judges
(apart from the Deuteronomic framework), and not impro
bably stories also of the last judges, Eli and Samuel, some
of which now appear in 1 Samuel. About 600 B.C. the
Jewish editor of the Deuteronomic book of Judges extracted
from the pre-Deuteronomic book of Judges the stories
of (Othniel), Ehud, Deborah-Barak, Gideon, Jephthah,
Samson, placed the notice of the Calebite, i.e. Jewish, hero,
Othniel, whom the earlier work had noticed, if at all, but
scantly, at the place of honour at the head of the series of
judges, and provided the whole with its moralising and

64 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

generalising framework. Both books lived on, the more
extensive and less moralising pre-Deuteronomic, and the
smaller but more moralising Deuteronomic, books of Judges,
till another editor expanded the Deuteronomic book by
adding much that had been omitted from it of the pre-
Deuteronomic work. One object which he had in view
was to produce a work on * the Twelve Judges of Israel.
For this purpose he added the five brief and similar notes
on the five judges mentioned in x. 1-5, xii. 8-15, and the
longer story of Abimelech who is implied by x. 1 to have
formed one of the series of deliverers or judges. Yet later
some reader of the book of the Twelve Judges, thinking
Abimelech no true member of the series, completed the
number twelve by introducing the short note on Shamgar
who (like Samson) delivered from the Philistines ; but
perhaps he inserted his note not where it now stands in
iii. 31, but after xvi. 31, where certain MSS. of the LXX.
read, And after Samson arose Shamgar etc.

The other additions made by the editor of * the Book of
the Twelve Judges may have included ch. xvi., for it
would be easy to explain the curious way in which xv. 15
anticipates xvi. 31b, if we suppose that the Deuteronomic
editor brought his story to an end with the concluding
formula in xv. 20.

The Introduction (i. 1-ii. 5) and Appendix (xvii.-xxi.),
together with certain sections within ii. 6-xvi. 31, show no
trace of the peculiar Deuteronomic tone and style of the
author of the framework. In the main both Introduction
and Appendix seem to go back ultimately to an early source
having affinities with the early Hexateuchal source J (see
also p. 27). But in chs. xix.-xxi. (more especially chs.
xx.-xxi.) the story derived from this old source appears to
have been extensively modified by a writer of Midrashic
(cp. p. 95) tendencies : in parts of the story Israel acts
together as a single man ; this particular trait by itself
might suggest a Deuteronomic editor (cp. Joshua, Deutero
nomic book of Judges) ; but the phraseology suggests the
influence of a still later school, that, namely, of P of the

vn.] JUDGES 66

Hexateuch ; Israel is, as in Ex. xii. 3 and frequently in P,
1 the congregation, and allusion is made to Aaron s grand
son Phinehas (xx. 28). Following this clue we may, if P
is correctly dated c. 500 B.C., fix the date of the history of
the Twelve Judges with Introduction and Appendix about
400 B.C.

66 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

CHAPTER VIII

THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS: (2) 1 AND 2 SAMUEL

THE historical work entitled Samuel was originally, as it
continued to be in Hebrew MSS., and in printed editions
of the Hebrew Bible prior to 1517 A.D., an undivided
narrative. In the Septuagint, on the other hand, it is
divided into two books ; and these are by title closely
connected with Kings : 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings
are in the Septuagint, 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kingdoms (Jerome :
Kings).

The subject of Samuel is the establishment of the Hebrew
monarchy : it is at the same time a record of three lives
that overlap, viz., of (a) Samuel priest, seer, prophet,
judge, 1 Sam. i.-xii. ; (b) Saul king, 1 Sam. xiii.-xxxi. ;
(c) David king, 2 Sam. The work has also been differ
ently divided so as to bring out a dramatic characteristic
of it ; 1 Sam. i.-vii. depicts Samuel superseding Eli ;
1 Sam. viii.-xv. Saul superseding Samuel ; 1 Sam. xvi.-2 Sam.
viii. David superseding Saul ; and 2 Sam. ix.-l Kings ii.
David s sons superseding David.

The history of the monarchy begun in Samuel is com
pleted in Kings ; Samuel and Kings together relate the
establishment of the monarchy and the history of the
Hebrew people under it. The common subject, the
common title, and the fact that the last days and death
of David are related not in Samuel but in Kings suggest
an intimate connection between Samuel and Kings, if
not indeed an original unity.

But the period which from one standpoint may be
regarded as that of the establishment of the monarchy is,

vm.] SAMUEL 67

regarded from another, the conclusion of the period of the
Judges. Samuel was the king-maker, and as such stands
at the head of the history of the monarchy recorded in
Samuel and Kings ; he was also, together with his sons
(1 Sam. vm. 1), the last of the judges, whose history forms
the subject of the book of Judges : Samuel judged Israel
forty (LXX. twenty) years (1 Sam. iv. 18), or, as it is other
wise put, all the days of his life (1 Sam. vii. 15).
Moreover, the monarchy arose in the conflict of the
Hebrews with the Philistines, and the opening stages or
scenes of that conflict are recorded not in Samuel, but in
Judges.

Thus Samuel is intimately connected both with Judges
and Kings : it is the complement to the one, the prelude to
the other work. This fact becomes significant when we
attempt to trace the original history of the books of Samuel.

The period covered by Samuel is nearly the equivalent of
two long lives : it extends from the days immediately
preceding the birth of Samuel to the days immediately
preceding the death of David, and the years common to
the lives of Samuel and David scarcely exceeded twenty-
five. Approximately, then, the period covered by Samuel
is a century, say, from about 1070, or, as others put it,
1050, to about 970 B.C. It follows that Samuel, unlike
Kings, covers a period that could fall within a couple of
memories ; it might, so far as this consideration alone is
concerned, have been written from the direct knowledge of
an old man at the close of David s reign, and the information
given to him by his father. Again, Samuel, unlike Kings,
does not regularly refer to sources as containing information
about the past which the author is describing : the one
source cited by name is the book of Jashar : 1 this is said to
have contained David s elegy over Saul and Jonathan.
Other poems or poetical fragments, certainly or presumably
not the work of the author of Samuel, are the song of
Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 1-10), the women s distich (1 Sam. xviii.
7,xxi. 11, xxix. 5), David s elegy over Abner (2 Sam. iii.33f.),
i 2 Sam. i. 18 ; cp. Jos. x. 13.

68 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [en.

Ps. xviii. (=2 Sam. xxii.), David s last words (2 Sam. xxiii.
1-7) ; but no source is cited for any of these, nor is it
necessarily implied that the author knew of them in written
form.

Is it, then, possible, that Samuel was written by a con
temporary of David ? It is, of course, impossible that
Samuel himself wrote the book (see p. 5), for more than
half of it describes the period subsequent to the death of
Samuel. But in its present form it cannot even have been
written by any other contemporary, elder or younger, of
David ; for in 1 Sam. xxvii. 6 we read that Ziklag per-
taineth unto the kings of Judah unto this day ; and the
author of these words obviously lived after the disruption
of the monarchy that followed the death of Solomon, and
after there had already been several kings of the separate
kingdom of Judah. Moreover, in 1 Sam. xxx. 25, 2 Sam. vi. 8
the days of David are regarded as belonging to a past age.
Affinities in thought and expression with Deuteronomy
point to the influence on parts of the book of the seventh
or even of the sixth century ; see e.g. 1 Sam. ii. 27-36.

But if the compilation of Samuel must be placed centuries
after the death of David, it is possible and, indeed, highly
probable, that there are embedded in these books records
much less remote from the period which they describe ;
for, in spite of the absence of references to sources, the
occurrences of duplicate narratives and some disorder
and lack of continuity indicate somewhat clearly that the
author of Samuel, like the authors of Judges, Kings, and
Chronicles, incorporated in his own work large parts of
earlier works.

Down to the end of 1 Sam. vii. the order and
development of events is not conspicuously broken, nor
is there any obvious duplication of narratives, though a
closer examination may discover reasons for questioning the
homogeneity of even this section of the work, and for con
cluding that much is of considerably earlier origin than the
late passage at the end of the second chapter (ii. 27-36).

It is not, however, until we reach the account of how

vin.] SAMUEL 69

Saul became king (1 Sam. 8-12) that it becomes quite
evident that Samuel is based, in part at least, on two
records that regarded the same events from different
standpoints. And not only is the narrative based on two
different records, but it consists almost entirely of
alternating extracts from them. It will be found that
chs. viii., x. 17-24 1 , xii. tell the story in question in one
way ; chs. ix.-x. 16, 2 xi. 1-11 3 in another ; for brevity
of reference the last-named passages may be referred to as
A, the former as B. Briefly summarised, so as to bring
out the more significant differences, these two stories run
as follows : according to A, Saul in search of his father s
asses comes to Samuel, not as it would have seemed to
him at the time through a mere accident, but led by
Yahweh, who had the previous day (ix. 16) told Samuel
to expect him, and, when he came, to anoint him leader
or prince (n e gid) ; for, by means of Saul, Yahweh intends
to deliver his people from the Philistines, who are now
oppressing them, 4 and against whom they have cried to
him, 5 not (as in viii. 5, 19 f.) specifically for a king,
but, as those who have been wronged, for help. Samuel,
thus warned, receives Saul with honour, anoints him
leader (x. 1), and tells him that the spirit of Yahweh will
invade him and that, thereafter, he is to seize the (first)
opportunity of exercising his leadership (x. 7). A month
or so later 6 this opportunity presents itself, and Saul
seizes it : he delivers Jabesh-Gilead from the assault and
threats of the Ammonites (xi. 11) : thereupon the people
make Saul king at Gilgal (xi. 15). The subsequent narra
tives of chs. xiii. 7 and xiv. relate how Saul carried out
the main purpose for which Yahweh had selected him
(ix. 16) by delivering the people from the Philistines.

In story B we find the same dramatis persons Yahweh,
Samuel, Saul, the people but the attitudes and motives of

i Or x. 17-27 (to present ) 2 Perhaps omitting x. 8.

Reading in x. 27 b, xi. 1, And it came to pass after about a month that
Nahash the Ammonite, etc. (so LXX.).

* Cp. Judg. x. 7. 6 Cp. Judg. x. 16. xi. 1 LXX. ; see note 3.

7 In ch. xiii. rets. 8-15a, 19-22 may be later.

70 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

the several actors are entirely different. The starting
point here is not Yahweh s solicitude for his people, but
the blindness of the people to their own peculiar destiny
and privileges which leads them into a treasonable dis
regard of the existing sovereignty of Yahweh (viii. 7, x. 19),
so that they demand a king that they may be like the
nations (viii. 5). The occasion of this demand is the
evil conduct of Samuel s sons, whom in his old age he had
appointed his deputies to judge the people. Samuel is
offended at the demand, but Yahweh, though he treats
it as treasonable, grants it, at the same time instructing
Samuel to draw for the people a vivid picture of all the
tyrannical acts of kings (viii. 9 ff.). Samuel summons
the people to Mizpah (x. 17), and there discovers, by means
of successive lots (x. 19-21), whom Yahweh has chosen to
be king. Having thus served as Yahweh s instrument in
satisfying the demand of the people, and presenting them
with a king (xii. 1), Samuel takes farewell of the people ;
he promises that in future Yahweh will overlook their
treason (xii. 12, 19 f.), if they and their king obey him
(xii. 14) ; but a thunderstorm in harvest is brought about
at Samuel s invocation to bring home to them the wicked
ness they have committed (xii. 17). Saul does not obey
Yahweh (ch. xv., especially v. 22) ; he is, therefore,
rejected, and if ch. xv. was, as it may well have been, the
immediate sequel to ch. xii., then according to story B, Saul
was no sooner king than he provoked Yahweh s anger and
was rejected by him. The brief allusion to the war with
Amalek in xiv. 48 breathes a different spirit.

Thus the story of the origin of the monarchy is
characterised not merely by duplications, nor even merely
by such apparent inconsistency of details as the statement
in xi. 15, that the king-making took place at Gilgal, and in
x. 17 that it took place at Mizpah. The story as it now
stands is alternately dominated by two entirely different
judgments of the Hebrew monarchy : the kingship appears
now as an unsolicited blessing given by Yahweh to his
people for their comfort and help, now as a thing coveted

vm.] SAMUEL 71

by the people, and, in response to their demand, given to
them indeed by Yahweh, but as a means of chastisement,
for the king will treat them ill (viii. 9 ff.).

A difference such as this indicates that the present
narrative is a combination of two narratives originally
distinct. To the person who combined these narratives,
or to some later hand, we may attribute some superficial
attempts to connect the two, such as the clause inserted
in B, and when ye saw that Nahash, the King of Ammon,
came against you (xii. 12), which refers back to an
incident related in A (xi.), but not in B.

Duplication of mutually discordant narratives is scarcely
less evident in the account of the choice of David and of
his introduction to Saul. According to one story (A), 1
David is first introduced to Saul as a skilful harpist who
is to charm away the melancholia of the king, and who is,
thereafter, like other brave men, whom Saul was con
stantly watching to discover, employed by Saul also
against the Philistines (xiv. 52) : by his striking success
he wins popular favour, but at the same time excites the
envy of the king, who, utilising David s affection for his
daughter Michal, endeavours by a stratagem to get rid of
him : the stratagem fails, and David marries Michal.
According to the other story (B), 2 David, while yet unknown
to Saul or his court, first distinguishes himself in the con
flict with the Philistines by slaying Goliath (contrast 2 Sam.
xxi. 19), and in consequence of this success is from that
time forward attached to the court. Here, too, David
arouses popular favour and the fear of the king ; the
king s stratagem is more vaguely alluded to, but in this
story Saul breaks his promise, and when the time comes
withholds from David the hand of his daughter, here
called Merab, and gives her to another.

Again chs. xxiv. and xxvi. are more probably two
different versions of a popular story than records of two
similar, but distinct, series of events.

1 1 Sam. xiv. 52 ; xvi. 14-23 ; xviii. 5-11, 20-30

2 1 Sam. xvii. -xviii. 4 ; xviii. 13-19.

72 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

Obviously, two such sources as the phenomena which
have just been observed indicate need not throughout
have covered precisely the same ground ; each may have
treated of matters that were left unnoticed in the other.
On the other hand, it would be conceivable that A and
B in chs. viii.-xv. and in chs. xvi.-xix. were not derived
from the same two works, but that more than two sources
were drawn upon in these and other chapters. Yet, as a
matter of fact, the greater part of 1 and 2 Samuel may be
divided up into narratives that are at least related to A,
and narratives related to B, whether that relation be
throughout one due to identity of authorship, or merely
to the similarity of style and standpoint shared by two
or more writers of the same school.

Belonging to, or related to, A are (following Budde s
analysis, but without noting here glosses and minor
intrusions), 1 Sam. ix.-x. 7, 9-16; xi. 1-11, 14, 15; xiii.
1-7, 15 (from And Saul )-18, 23 ; xiv. 1-46, 52 ; xvi. 14-23 ;
xviii. 5-11, 20-30 ; xx. 1-4, 18-39 ; xx. 42 ; xxii. 1-5, 6-9, 11-
19, 21-23 ; xxiii. 1-14, 19-28 ; xxiv. 1-20, 23 (from And
Saul ) ; xxv. 2-44 ; xxvii. 1-xxviii. 15 ; xxviii. 19 (from
and on the morrow ) -25 ; xxix.-xxxi. ; 2 Sam. i. 1-4, 11,
12, 17-27 ; ii. 1-v. 3 ; v. 6-25 ; vi. viii. 7-18 ; ix.-xii. 7
(to the man ), 9 (from thou hast smitten ), 13-31 ;
xiii.-xiv. 24 ; xiv. 28-33 ; xv.-xx. 22 ; xxi. 15-22 ; xxiii.
5-39 ; xxiv.

Related to B are 1 Sam. i., ii. 11-26 ; iii. 1-10, 15-21 ;
iv. (omitting 15, 22 and last clause of v. 18) ; v. vi.
(omitting lib, 15, 17, 18c) vii.-viii. 1-22 (down to
king ); x. 17-24; xii. 1-11, 12 (from and ye said ) ;
xv., xvii. 1-11, 14-58 ; xviii. 1-4, 12-19 ; xix. (mostly),
xxi. 2-10 ; xxiii. 14 (from and Saul )-18 ; xxvi. ; 2 Sam.
i. 6-10, 13-16 ; vii.

Of these two sources or groups of sources, B appears
to be, or to include, the more recent ; for the attitude to
the monarchy found in A is most naturally explained if
the writer belonged to the earlier days of that institution
before disillusionment had become complete and widely

vni.] SAMUEL 73

prevalent, and similarly the attitude in B is that to
be expected after disillusionment had set in. Again the
story of Goliath in B appears to postulate a longer or
shorter interval between A and B, during which a
celebrated feat of David s reign, attributed in the first
instance, as it still is in A, to one of David s servants,
became transformed into an act of personal prowess on
the part of David himself in his youth while Saul was still
reigning.

If we pass from the question of relative to that of absolute
dates, it may be observed that A was certainly written
after David s death if it included either 1 Sam. xxvii. 6 or
1 Kings i., ii. (in the main), and it probably included both,
and almost certainly even if it included neither : the narra
tives in 2 Sam. ix.-xx. refer to a period in David s life when
his children were already mature and capable of acting
against him politically, and the lists in xxiii. 8-39 seem to
be lists of a reign and period that is closed. On the other
hand, there is a freshness and vividness about the stories,
and an absence of indication of prolonged development of
tradition that favour a date not very remote from the
events described. With this accords the attitude to the
monarchy and the style. The source, or sources, denoted
by A may well be as early as, or even considerably earlier
than, c. 800 B.C.

B, later than A, may well be as late as, or later than,
Hosea (c. 750-740 B.C.), whose judgment of the monarchy
(Hos. xiii. 11) is similar. To the same date certain affini
ties of style that have been detected between B and the
Pentateuchal source E would also point ; see Driver,
Introduction, p. 177.

The question whether A and B respectively represent
a single source, or more than one, hangs together with the
question of the nature and purpose of those sources. Were
they biographies of Samuel, Saul, David ? In this case
each biography in each series might be the work of a dif
ferent hand. Or were they narratives of the origins of the
monarchy ? If they were, unity of source in either case

74 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

is sufficiently probable. The discussion of the question
cannot be carried further here.

It remains to consider briefly certain other points in the
history of the books of Samuel ; and as a preliminary to this,
one or two remarkable features of Samuel in its present
form. Both at the end of what is now the first and at the
end of the second book, the order is strange. 1 Sam.
xxviii. 3-25 is obviously misplaced ; for (1) it relates the
eve of the battle of Gilboa (vers. 4, 19), and is thus the
introduction not to chs. xxix., xxx., but to ch. xxxi. ; (2)
in xxviii. 4 Saul and the Philistines are encamped at
Gilboa and Shunem respectively, i.e., at some four miles
distance from one another, in readiness for battle, whereas
in xxix. 1 the Philistines have proceeded no further than
Aphek, which lay in the plain of Sharon, a good day s
march at least from Gilboa, and not till xxix. 11 do they
reach Jezreel just under Gilboa.

More curious still is the position of 2 Sam. xxi.-xxiv.,
and also the arrangement of the sections within these
chapters. The sections are as follows :

(a) xxi. 1-14, Yahweh punishes David s land with

famine, but listens to David s prayer.

(b) xxi. 15-22, details of the wars with the Philistines.

(d) xxiii. 1-8, another poem : David s last words.

(e) xxiii. 8-39, heroes in the war with the Philistines,

and other soldiers of David.

(/) xxiv., Yahweh again punishes David s land, this
time with pestilence, which, however, in answer
to David s prayer, he stays. Note xxiv. 1 con
tinues xxi. 14b ; cp. also xxiv. 25.

Now it is obvious that of these sections a and /, b and e,
c and d respectively are most intimately connected with
one another, and so much so that it looks as if b and e must
first have been inserted between a and /, and then c and d
between b and e. Again, the section as a whole looks like
an appendix to the account of David s reign in 2 Sam. i.-xx.,

vm.] SAMUEL 75

or an interpolation, if 2 Sam. i.-xx. and 1 Kings i., ii.
be treated as continuous ; for whereas 2 Sam. xx.
and the immediately preceding chapters deal with an
advanced period in David s reign and life, and naturally
lead up to the account of his last days in 1 Kings i. ii.,
2 Sam. xxi. 1-14 clearly, and 2 Sam. xxiv., possibly, belong
to a much earlier period of the king s reign ; so also do the
wars with the Philistines.

Other instances of misplacement have also been surmised,
and it has been suggested by Mr. S. A. Cook that even
2 Sam. ix.-xx. is neither homogeneous nor in order ; but
that Absalom s revolt belonged to a relatively early, the
Ammonite war to a later, period of the reign, and that we
should approximate more nearly to the meaning of the
sources of 2 Sam. by re-arranging thus, ii.-iv. (Ishbaal),
ix. Meribaal ; xiii.-xx., Absalom s revolt ; x.-xii. Ammonite
war ; and by referring v.-viii. and xxi. -xxiv. to a separate
source.

76 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

CHAPTER IX

THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS : (3) 1 AND 2 KINGS

KINGS, like Samuel, was originally a single undivided work.
The existing division into two books, which is as ancient as
the Greek version, unlike the similar division of Samuel,
corresponds to no marked turn in the history, but divides
the narrative in the middle of the unimportant reign of
Ahaziah of Israel.

Kings must have been written during or after the Exile,
for it brings the history down to the fall of the monarchy
and the Exile (586 B.C.), and in 2 Kings xxv. 27 ff. the
release of Jehoiachin in 561 B.C. and his subsequent life
are summarily referred to. Moreover, 1 Kings iv. 24 was
written by one to whom Gaza is beyond l the River
(Euphrates), i.e. by one who, probably having settled as a
captive in Babylon in 597 or 586 B.C., was at the time living
east of the Euphrates. Other pre-suppositions of Exile may
be found in 2 Kings xvii. 19 f. ; xxiii. 26 f., if not also in
certain passages that are given in the form of prophecies ;
see 1 Kings ix. 7-9 ; 2 Kings xx. 17 f. ; xxi. 10-15 ; xxii.
15-20.

Since no return from Exile is recorded, it is possible that
the writer, who recorded the release of Jehoiachin, wrote
before the release of the people as a whole in 538 B.C.

Kings is a history of the Hebrew Monarchy from the
death of David and the accession of Solomon (c. 970 B.C.) to
its extinction in 586. Incorporated at places into this
history of the monarchy are narratives concerning the

i See R.V. marg. : the rendering of A.V. and R.V. text is quite
illegitimate.

ix.] KINGS 77

prophets ; and, even apart from these special narratives,
though the subject of the book is the monarchy, its
standpoint is prophetic, or, to speak more specifically,
Deuteronomic.

The work falls naturally into three divisions :

(1) 1 Kings i. 1 (ii. 12)-xi. Solomon (c. 970-930).

(2) 1 Kings xii.-2 Kings xvii. The Divided Monarchy

(c. 930-722).

(3) 2 Kings xviii.-xxv. The Jewish Monarchy (722-

586).

In the first and third section a simple chronological
method was possible, and to this extent was adopted that
the reigns of the successive Jewish kings are dealt with
successively and separately. In the second section the
difficulty that always presents itself when separate histories
are treated together had to be met ; and the writer s
method is as follows : starting with Jeroboam, the first
king of the northern kingdom after the Disruption, he
carries the narrative of this reign to a close; and, then
turning to Judah, continues the history of Judah
through the reigns of Rehoboam, Abijam and Asa, i.e.
down to the end of the reign of the last king who was to
any extent contemporary with Jeroboam. The commence
ment of Rehoboam s reign coincided with that of Jeroboam ;
with Abijam (i. xv. 1) the writer begins, and with (xv. 9)
Asa continues, what was to be his regular method of dating :
the accession of each king is dated by reference to the year
of the king then reigning in the sister kingdom. Having
related the history of all Jewish kings in any degree con
temporary with Jeroboam, the writer now describes the
reigns of all kings of Israel in any degree contemporary
with Asa, king of Judah : these are Nadab (xv. 25), Baasha
(xv. 33), Elah (xvi. f.), Zimri (xvi. 15), Omri (xvi. 21),
Ahab (xvi. 2a).

The effect of the method just described is that Jehosha-
phat is introduced as the reigning king of Judah into a
narrative of the northern kingdom (1 Kings xxii. 2) before

78 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

the commencement of his reign has been formally recorded
(xxii. 41) in the narrative of the southern kingdom.

The simultaneous deaths of Joram king of Israel and
Ahaziah king of Judah at the hands of Jehu, who succeeded
to the throne of Israel (2 Kings ix.), called for some modifica
tion of the method ; for Jehu could not be said to have begun
to reign in year # of a reigning king of Judah, nor Athaliah
(2 Kings xi. 1) in year a; of a reigning king of Israel.
The writer meets the case by inserting the reigns of Jehoram
and Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kings viii. 26-29) before, 1 and not,
as his method in normal circumstances would have re
quired, after the end of the reign of Joram of Israel.

Occasionally a narrative falls outside the regnal scheme :
thus the account of Elijah s death (2 Kings ii.) is inserted
between the records of Ahaziah s death and the accession
of his successor (2 Kings i. 17 f., iii. i. f.). So also the ac
count of Elisha s death (2 Kings xiii. 14-21) falls between the
death of Joash (2 Kings xiii. 13) and the accession of
Jeroboam (2 Kings xiv. 23).

The author of a history extending over several centuries
may for the last few years of it write out of his own personal
knowledge of events, but for the most part he must be
dependent on sources. Of what sources did the writer of
Kings avail himself, and how did he use them ? From our
examination of other Hebrew historical works we should be
prepared to expect that he has incorporated, with little or
no modification, extracts from the sources at his command ;
and the marked difference in style between different parts
of Kings confirms this expectation. Just as little as the
Chronicler does the author of Kings freely compose his
narrative in its entirety ; he composes a framework into
which he (or, as some hold, a later editor) inserts, with or
without modifications, extracts from various sources.
The framework consists in part of facts, such as a king s
age at accession, length of reign and so forth, which the
author obtained from statements in his sources or by
inference from such statements, and in part of his reflections

1 Yet see also 2 Kings ix. 29.

ix.] KINGS 79

on the facts, such as his judgments on the character of the
several kings.

It will be convenient to examine first the framework, and
then to consider the sources named, or used unnamed, by
its author or by later scribes who have brought the work
into its present form.

The exact extent of the framework or free composition
of the author of Kings may be open to some doubt, but the
framework proper, the scheme which holds the whole book
together, is clear : it consists of certain similar sections or
formulae that occur regularly in connection with the several
reigns, and constitute the minimum notice taken of any
reign ; the amount of additional matter introduced into
this framework differs greatly for different reigns.

These recurring formulae occur with some variations of
form and completeness, which are admirably and exhaus
tively tabulated by Dr. Burney in his Notes ... on Kings,
pp. x ff.; but normally the contents of the formulae are as
follows :

1. At the beginning of a reign of a king of Judah the
formula gives :~

(a) A synchronism of the date of accession with the
regnal year of the reigning king of Israel (neces
sarily omitted after the fall of the northern king
dom, which took place in the reign of Hezekiah) ;

(6) King s age at accession ;

(d) The name of the king s mother ;

(e) A judgment on the king s character.

2. At the beginning of a reign of a king of Israel the
formula gives :

(a) A synchronism with the reigning king of Judah ;

(b) The length of the king s reign ;

general terms, (/?) by comparison with the sinful
Jeroboam.

80 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

3. At the end of a reign, whether of a king of Judah or
Israel, the full formula gives :

(a) The source in which further information may be

obtained ;

(b) Notice of the king s death and burial ;

Solomon s reign is not introduced by a formula ; instead,
judgment after the manner of formula 1 is passed on him
in 1 Kings iii. 3, xi. 4-6, and the statement of the length of
his reign is inserted (1 Kings xi. 42) in the middle of the
concluding formula (1 Kings xi. 41-43) : cp. 1 Kings ii. 10 f .
of David.

Typical examples may be found of formula 1 in 1 Kings
xxii. 41-43 ; 2 Kings xv. 1-4 ; of formula 2 in 1 Kings xv.
33 f. ; of formula 3 in 1 Kings xvi. 5 f . ; 2 Kings xv. 6, 7.
Formula 3 is entirely lacking at the end of the reigns of
Athaliah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah of Judah,
and of Jehoram and Hoshea of Israel, and the formula is
more often incomplete at the end of a king of Israel s reign
than at the end of a king of Judah s.

If the free composition of the author of Kings were limited
to these formulae, it would be simplest to suppose that he
lived after the fall of the Jewish kingdom in 586 B.C., for
the reign of the last king is, like the rest, introduced by
formula 1 (2 Kings xxiv. 18-20), which, since it gives the
length of the reign, implies that the author outlived it.
But there is an alternative possibility : the author of the
main part of the framework may have lived before the
Exile, and his work may have been extended by a supple-
menter who adopted the formulae used in the main body of
the work for the additional reigns which he recorded. In
view of this possibility it is necessary to consider how
nearly the date of the main body of the framework can be
determined independently of this consideration ; and the
conclusion suggested is that the main body of the frame
work was written after the date of Josiah s reformation in
621 B.C., for the judgments passed on the several kings of

ix.] KINGS 81

Israel and Judah are judgments determined by the centralis
ation of worship in Jerusalem which formed the leading
objective of the reformation ; stated otherwise, the
standpoint of the framework is throughout, as is also the
phraseology, Deuteronomic. Consequently all the kings
of Israel except Shallum, on whom no formal judgment
is passed, are judged to have done evil, because they
failed to reverse the action of Jeroboam who, by cutting
off the northern kingdom from the south, cut it off also
from access to the sanctuary in Jerusalem.

There are other parts of Kings besides the formulae that
are more or less clearly Deuteronomic in tone and temper as
well as in style ; and some of these, such as Solomon s
prayer, which is markedly Deuteronomic (1 Kings viii.
15-53), and others (1 Kings xi. 36 ; 2 Kings viii. 19 ;
1 Kings ix. 3), seem to imply that the kingdom of Judah,
or the Davidic monarchy, or the Temple, still existed, and
consequently that the passages in question were written
before 586 B.C. Certain passages, too, by referring to
conditions which, strictly speaking, ceased at the Exile,
as continuing unto this day, seem to imply that they were
written before those conditions ceased to exist, i.e. before
the Exile ; see 1 Kings viii. 8, ix. 21, xii. 19 ; 2 Kings viii.
22, xvi. 6 ; but if 2 Kings viii. 22 implies a date prior to
586, 1 Kings xii. 19 should imply a date prior to 722.
In several cases either the inference as to pre-exilic date
is precarious, or the connection of the passage with the
framework uncertain.

Into the minuter analysis of the parts of Kings which
may be regarded as Deuteronomic and not earlier than
621 B.C., it is impossible to enter here. But it may be con
venient to give the passages assigned by Stade either
(a) to the author of the framework whom he calls the
Epitomist, or (6) to other writers of the Deuteronomic
school ; these passages are (a) 1 Kings iii. Ib, 3, 4a ; viii.
11-13 ; ix. llb-13, 16, 17a, 20, 26-28 ; x. 28 f. ; xi. la, 3,
7 f., 9a, 41-43 ; xii. 1 f., 25-28a, 29-31 ; xiii. 33b, 34 ; xiv.
19-31 (mainly) ; xv. (except v. 3) ; xvi. 5 f., 8-11, 14-34 ;

82 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

xxii. 39-46, 61-54 ; 2 Kings i. (17), 18 ; iii. 1-3 ; viii. 16-18,
20-29 ; x. 28 f., 32, 34-36 ; xii. 1-4, 18-22 ; xiii. 1-3, 7-11,
22, 25a ; xiv. 1-5, 15 f., 18-21, 23, 24, 26-29 ; xv. 1-xvi.
3 ; xvi. 5 f., 19 f. ; xvii. 1-6, 21-23 ; xviii. 1 f., 5-7, 9-11,
13, 16 ; xx. 20, 21 ; xxi. 1, 2a, 16-20, 23-26 ; xxii. 1 f. ;
xxiii. 24 f., 28-37 ; xxiv. 5 f. ; (b) ii. 1-12, 27 ; iii. la,
2, 15; v. 16-19; vi. 11-14; vii. 47-50; viii. 9, 14-24,
26, 28-32, 35-66; ix. 1-9; xi. Ib, 2, 4, 29-31, 33-38;
xii. 15 ; xiv. 21 (in part) ; xv. 4 ; xvi. 33b ; 2 Kings
viii. 19; x. 30 f. ; xiii. 4-6, 12 f., 23, 25b ; xiv. 6;
xvi. 3b, 4 ; xvii. 7-14, 15b-18, 34b-40 ; xxi. (1-15), 21 f. ;
xxiii. 3b, 26 f . ; xxiv. 2-4, 7-10, 12, 15-19; xxv. 1-15,
18-28, 30.

To some, though probably not to all, of the written sources
on which he drew in compiling his work, the author refers
by name. These named sources may be considered first :
they are three : (1) the book of the acts (dibr&) of Solomon,
which is cited in 1 Kings xi. 41 for the reign of Solomon ;
(2) the book of the Chronicles (dibri hayydmim) of the kings of
Israel, which is cited, first in 1 Kings xiv. 19, and seventeen
times in all, for the reigns of all kings of the northern
kingdom except Jehoram and Hoshea ; (3) the book of the
Chronicles of the king 8 of Judah, which is cited first in
1 Kings xiv. 29, and fifteen times in all, for the reigns of all
the kings of Judah except Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoahaz,
Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah.

The kind of information likely to be found in what the
Hebrews called a book of chronicles/ or, more literally
rendered, a book of the affairs of the days, might be
inferred from 1 Chron. xxvii. 24 ; Neh. xii. 23, which men
tion chronicles containing statistical and genealogical
material : the particular kind of material actually con
tained in the sources named by the author of Kings can be
inferred from the brief descriptions given by him : these
sources recorded illustrations of Solomon s wisdom (1 Kings
xi. 41), or of a king s might (1 Kings xxii. 45 and other
passages) ; they gave details of a king s conquests (2 Kings
xiv. 28), of the water- works he constructed (2 Kings xx. 20),

ix.] KINGS 83

of the cities he built (1 Kings xxii. 39 f.), of the costly palace
he may have erected (1 Kings xxii. 39), or of the conspiracy
by which he may have won his way to the throne (1 Kings
xvi. 20 ; 2 Kings xv. 15) ; and, once, one of these sources is
referred to for a record of the sin which the king sinned
(2 Kings xxi. 17).

Many details of the kind just indicated may well have
been recorded at the time in royal records, such as that of
Mesha, king of Moab, inscribed on what is known as the
Moabite stone, and it is commonly held that the court
official, whose duty it was to keep such records, is mentioned
under the name of the mazkir (E. V. recorder) in 2 Sam.
viii. 16, xx. 24 ; 1 Kings iv. 3 ; 2 Kings xviii. 18-37 ;
2 Chron. xxxiv. 8. Be this as it may, the author of Kings
does not refer to these primary and contemporary records,
but to comprehensive works based upon them : except in
the case of Solomon he refers not to the chronicle or record
of a particular king, but to works containing, in the one case,
records of (all) the kings of Israel, and, in the other, records
of (all) the kings of Judah. As to the date at which these
two comprehensive works were composed, much the same
question arises as in the case of Kings itself : it would be
simplest to infer that the book of the chronicles of the kings
of Israel was compiled after the fall of the northern
kingdom in 722, and the book of the chronicles of the kings
of Judah after 586 ; but an alternative theory is possible,
viz., that such comprehensive works were compiled in each
kingdom after several kings had already reigned, and that
they were subsequently added to.

Babylonian literature contains a work similar in character
to that just inferred. The Babylonian chronicle is a record
of political events in the reigns of the kings of Babylon from
745-668 B.C. A few lines from the opening of this work
may suffice to illustrate the similarity of the Babylonian
work, which exists in a copy made in the fifth century B.C.,
and the Hebrew chronicles, the nature of which is inferred
from the allusion to them in Kings. The Babylonian
chronicle opens thus :

84 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

In the third year of Nabonassar, king of Babylon, Tiglath-
pileser took his seat on the throne in Assyria. In the same
year he marched against Akkad and plundered the cities of
Rapiku and Khamranu. The gods of the city of Shapazza he
carried away.

During the reign of Nabonassar, Borsippa separated itself
from Babylon. The battle of Nabonassar against Borsippa is
not recorded.

In the fifth year of Nabonassar, Ummanigash took his seat
on the throne in Elam.

In the fourteenth year Nabonassar fell ill and died in
his palace. Nabonassar ruled fourteen years over Babylon.
Nadinu, his son, took his seat on the throne in Babylon. In
the second year Nadinu was killed in a revolt. Nadinu reigned
two years in Babylon. Shuniukin, a governor of the province,
a rebel, took his seat on the throne. 1

Chronicles of the kings would probably be confined to the
record of political events ; it is altogether unlikely that they
would also contain long narratives in which prophets, not
kings, play the chief part ; yet Kings contains such narra
tives. 2 When we add to this negative consideration the fact
that these narratives are distinguished by peculiarities of
style, 3 we may safely infer that the author of Kings neither
derived them from the chronicles which he so frequently
mentions, nor composed them himself : they are derived
from other written works compiled, perhaps, by prophets,
and, as the diction is commonly supposed to indicate, in
the northern kingdom, before its fall in 722 B.C. But just
as the author of Chronicles certainly modifies his extracts
from Samuel and Kings (pp. 8-11, 89-91), so the compiler,
who incorporated these stories, almost certainly also modi
fied them more or less.

A third type of source has not improbably contributed to

1 From Cuneiform Parotids to the Old Testament (1912), by R. W. Rogers,
who gives a translation of the Chronicle in full (pp. 208-219)

3 The narratives in question are probably not all derived from one fiource :
one group may be found in 1 Kings xvii.-xix. ; xxi. ; 2 Kings i. 2-17a ; ii. ; iv. ;
v. ; vi. 1-7 ; viii. 1-15 ; ix. 1-10, 28 ; xiii. 14-29 ; another in 1 Kings xx. ; xxii.
1-38 ; 2 Kings ii. 3, 4-27 ; vi. 8-33 ; vii. (xiv. 8-14) ; see Burney, pp. 210-215.

3 C. F. Burney, Notes . . . Kings, p. 208 f . S. R. Driver, Introduction
to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 188 u.

ix.] KINGS 85

the present form of Kings : the full details concerning the
Temple given not only in 1 Kings vi., vii., but also in
2 Kings xi. 4 ff. ; xii. 4-16 ; xvi. 10-18 ; xxii. 3 if., cannot
with any probability be traced back to the same source
as the prophetic narratives, nor with much probability to
the royal chronicles : we may more safely infer the use
of Temple records.

It is altogether improbable that a writer who consulted
and cited from sources throughout the whole of the rest
of his work wrote the account of David s last days (1 Kings
i. f .) out of his own head ; yet none of the sources already
enumerated seem to lie at the basis of that narrative, but
rather sources which were used in the compilation of
Samuel (see above p. 73).

Kings has reached us in two recensions, the one that of
the Hebrew text and the English versions, the other that
of the LXX. It is probable that neither recension retains
the exact form which the book had assumed about 550 B.C.,
but that each in some measure reflects modifications,
whether of arrangement, addition, or omission, which the
book underwent after the Exile. The order of the last four
chapters of 1 Kings (xix., xxi., xx., xxii.), and the shorter
form of 1 Kings viii. 1-11 in the LXX. are examples of
variations in which it is probable that the Greek recension
represents an earlier form of the book than the Hebrew
recension. Some of the matter absent from the Greek but
present in the Hebrew text bears clear signs of the influence
of P (p. 26), and on this ground these additions to the text
may be assigned to a date at least as late as the fifth
century B.C. Examples of these additions are (1) and
all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers (houses)
of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem,
in viii. 1 ; (2) * and the priests and Levites brought them
up (R. V. even these did the priests, etc.), in viii. 4 ;
(3) * the congregation of, in viii. 5.

The diagram given below represents the main stages in
the history of the Book of Kings ; the broken line on the
right represents an alternative theory according to which

86 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

the stories of the prophets did not become associated with
the annalistic and didactic (Deuteronomic) parts of Kings
till after the Exile.

Tempfe Records

Hoy a I Records
(From Solomon C.970B.C.
onwards)

Prophetic Narratives

(partly at least before

722 B.C.)^

Acrs of- Chronicles of Chronicles
Solomon. Kings of Juda/i. of Kings

Framework, c. 600 B.C.

Supplement, c 550 B.C.

Later Additions
( Deuterono/nic)

Additions
(PriesHyJ

Hebrew Recension

Greek Recension

x.] CHRONICLES 87

CHAPTER X

THE LATER HISTORICAL BOOKS: (1) CHRONICLES

THE first and second books of Chronicles are merely two
sections of one work, though the division, like the corre
sponding division of Kings, is already found in the Greek
version.

But even the two books of Chronicles do not represent
the entire extent of the original work ; for of this work the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah almost certainly formed the
last sections (p. 97) ; but, since this conclusion rests on
the converging evidence of several features common to
these books it will be convenient to consider Chronicles
and Ezra-Nehemiah in the main separately, not basing argu
ments as to the date and character of Chronicles exclusively
on evidence drawn from Ezra-Nehemiah, nor vice versa.

The narrative of Chronicles is carried down to the first
year of Cyrus (2 Chron. xxxvi. 22), i.e. 537 B.C., and it
necessarily follows that the work is post-exilic. But it is
possible to go further and to say that the book was com
piled somewhat late in the post-exilic period not earlier than
c. 400 B.C., and more probably about 300, or even perhaps
200 B.C. Two pieces of evidence in Chronicles itself may
be noted here : (1) in 1 Chron. iii. 19-24, the genealogy of
David is carried down to the sixth generation, or, if we
prefer the text of the Greek version, to the eleventh genera
tion, after Zerubbabel (fl. 520 B.C.) ; if we allow twenty
years only to a generation, and follow the Hebrew text,
this would carry us down to c. 400 as the earliest date at
which Chronicles can have been composed ; if we follow
the Greek text and allow thirty years to the generation

88 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

we obtain c. 190 B.C. as the earliest date ; (2) in 1 Chron.
xxix. 7 the anachronism by which a sum of money is given
in terms of the Persian coin daric named after Darius I.
(522-485 B.C.), shows that that coin had long been intro
duced, and that the writer lived at earliest far on in the
Persian period (538-332 B.C.). Even if Ezra-Nehemiah
were not part of the same work, the occurrence in Chronicles
and in Ezra-Nehemiah of similar linguistic peculiarities
would point to the books belonging to much the same
period, and Ezra-Nehemiah must certainly be dated later
than 400 B.C.

Chronicles divides naturally into three sections, as
follows :

(1) 1 Chron. i.-ix. : a thin thread of history from

Adam to Saul, given in the form of genealogies :
viz. i. 1-33, Adam to Isaac ; 24-58, Isaac s
descendants through Esau ; ii.-ix. Isaac s de
scendants through Israel.

(2) 1 Chron. x.-2 Chron. ix. (in all twenty-nine

chapters) : a history of the united monarchy
over all Israel from the death of Saul to the
death of Solomon.

Saul is scarcely more than allusively referred to :
David is the true leader even in Saul s lifetime
(1 Chron. xi. 2=2 Sam. v. 2).

(3) 2 Chron. x.-xxxvi. : a history of Judah only, from

the disruption of the monarchy to the captivity
(586 B.C.), and the Restoration (537 B.C.).

In Ezra-Nehemiah the history is carried down from 537-
432 B.C.

In the first division of his work the Chronicler is dependent
in part on the Pentateuch in (substantially) its complete
form ; he quotes from, or his information is based on,
passages belonging to both JE and P ; what lay before
him was the combined work JEDP (cp. p. 50). So, for
example, 1 Chron. i. 5-7=Gen. x. 2-4 (P) ; i. 8-16:=Gen.
x. 6-7 (P)+Gen. x. 8, 13-18a (J) ; i. 17-23=Gen. x. 22, 23

x.] CHRONICLES 89

(P)+Gen. x. 24-29 (J). Other parts of 1 Chron. i. are
condensations of parts of Genesis which so much pre
suppose familiarity with Genesis that they would be un
intelligible without a knowledge of the earlier work : the
lists of names in vers. 1-4 and 24-27, for example, rest on
Gen. v. (P), xi. 10-26 (P).

In other parts of 1 Chron. i.-ix. the author is dependent
on Joshua, Samuel or Kings ; for example, 1 Chron. iii.
1-9 is drawn from 2 Sam. iii. 2-5 ; v. 14-16 : in yet other parts
the information is not derived from any known source.

The scope and purpose of Chronicles can be best discerned
by observing what parts of Samuel and Kings the author
fails to reproduce, and what additions he makes, whether
of his own or drawn from other sources. It must suffice
to refer here to the larger omissions and additions, and also
to a few of the smaller omissions or modifications, by way
of illustrating the writer s dominant interests.

The most extensive omission made in citing from the
earlier sources is the entire history of the northern king
dom : this carries with it the omission of the great pro
phetic narratives about Elijah and Elisha which play so
conspicuous a part in Kings. The only allusion to Elijah
is in 2 Chron. xxi. 12, which is not derived from Kings ;
and Elisha is not mentioned at all.

But from the history even of the united monarchy as
told in Samuel, there are also extensive omissions. The
life and reign of Saul are neglected ; only the story of his
death (1 Chron. x. 1-12=1 Sam. xxxi.) is reproduced, and
this in order to lead up to the moral peculiar to the Chroni
cler (1 Chron. x. 13 f.). Then 2 Sam. i.-iv., with its record
of David s affection for the great though fallen, but to the
Chronicler the merely wicked, king, and of David s long
wars with the house of Saul are entirely passed over ; so
also is 2 Sam. v. 4 f., recording the length of David s reign
over Judah only before he became king of all Israel. The
effect of these omissions is striking, and was probably
intended : had we only 1 Chron. x., xi. 1-9, and no other
narrative in Samuel, we should suppose that David, crowned

90 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

at Hebron immediately after Saul s death, moved at once
to Jerusalem, becoming immediately and without opposition
king of all Israel. In the same way the abortive attempts
to interfere with Solomon s succession, recorded in 1 Kings
i.-ii. 11, are omitted in Chronicles.

The story of David s wars with the Ammonites (1 Sam.
x. 1-19; xi. 1, 26, ; xii. 30 f.) is reproduced in 1 Chron. xix. 1-
xx. 3 ; but the whole of the remainder of the long section
in Samuel (2 Sam. ix.-xx) in which this narrative stands,
but which is in the main a record of the court and family
life of David, the king s failings, and the dissensions in his
family, is omitted.

Of the longer additions made in Chronicles to the narra
tive of Samuel and Kings, we may note : (1) 1 Chron. xv.
1-24; xvi. 4-42 (of which xvi. 8-36 is from Ps. cv., xcvi., and
cvi.) : this is an amplification of the story of the re
moval of the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. vi.) ; according to the
additions in Chronicles, David concludes that the disaster
attending the first attempt to bring up the ark to Jerusalem
was due to the absence of Levites, and provides Levites
who on this occasion bear the ark, thus carrying out the
law of Moses (1 Chron. xv. 12-15).

(2) A second and yet longer addition is 1 Chron. xxii. 2-
xxix. 30, of which 1 Chron. xxix. 23a, 27 (=1 Kings ii.
12a 11) is alone drawn from known sources. This section is
almost exclusively devoted to the numbers and duties of the
Levites, the priests, and other persons attached to the Temple
(chs. xxiii.-xxvi.), and David s instructions to Solomon and
the people touching the Temple (chs. xxii., xxviii., xxix.).

(3) Another long addition (2 Chron. xvii. lb-19, xix.
1-xx. 30) occurs in the record of Jehoshaphat s reign,
and here, too, Levites are conspicuous ; for example, the
Levites sing and the Jewish army conquers.

In a large number of other but smaller additions, more
over, Levites are introduced ; or, again, Levites take the
place of other actors in the early story. See e.g. 1 Chron.
xiii. 1-5 (=2 Sam. vi. 1) ; 2 Chron. xiii. 2-22 ; viii. 12-16
(an expansion of 1 Kings ix. 25).

x.] CHRONICLES 91

While not merely the stories of Elijah and Elisha, which
necessarily went with the history of the northern kingdom,
but other stories of the prophets in Samuel or Kings are
omitted (2 Sam. xii.-Nathan), or abbreviated (2 Kings
xviii.- xx. -Isaiah), many longer or shorter stories of
prophets otherwise unknown are added ; and in these
the prosperity that awaits good conduct in a king, and
the adversity that awaits bad conduct, are mainly dwelt
on : see e.g. 2 Chron. xii. 5-8 ; xv. 1-15 ; xvi. 7-10. Other
moralising additions also occur with frequency : see e.g.
2 Chron. xii. 2b ; xxi. lOb ; xxii. 7-9.

A short but characteristic and significant addition
occurs in 2 Chron. i. 3b-6a : the story in 1 Kings iii. 4-13
of Solomon s sacrifice in Gibeon presented a problem to
the Chronicler ; how could a king legitimately sacrifice
at Gibeon, if David had already removed to Jerusalem
not only the ark, but the tent which contained it, and the
one legitimate altar before the tent, which Bezalel had built
in the wilderness (Ex. xxxi. 1-9; xxxviii. 1-7 P) ? He meets
the problem by the theory that, though the ark had gone,
tent and altar had remained at Gibeon : on this altar
accordingly, and not in the great high place (1 Kings
iii. 4), was the sacrifice offered. Other illustrations of
small modifications may be seen in the parallel passages
cited on pp. 8-11.

Chronicles, then, is a history of the Jews and of Levi,
with a genealogical introduction relating Judah and
Levi to their place in Israel, and Israel to the world at
large, and tracing also the development of the tribe of
Levi into its different sections of priests, Levites, singers.
Nearly half the genealogical introduction, and substantially
the whole of the remainder of the work are devoted to
Judah and Levi. But not only is the writer s interest
exclusively fixed on the Jews together with the Levites ;
in the history of the Jews it chiefly centres on the Temple
and the sacred classes. The work, from the conclusion of
the genealogies onwards, is based on Samuel and Kings :
these sources are largely reproduced, but also freely

92 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

treated : outgrown theological ideas are effaced, as we see
when Satan replaces Yahweh in 1 Chron. xxi. 1 (=2 Sam.
xxiv. 1) ; the history is persistently moralised, even at
the expense of much loss of the vividness of the earlier
sources ; for example, a veil is drawn over David s political
struggles, his moral failings, the intrigues that disturbed
the close of his reign and interfered with the undisputed
succession of Solomon ; David in Chronicles is the typically
pious king, who wastes no words of praise or generous
feelings on sinful Saul, becomes king without difficulty
over all Israel, reigns to the end undisturbed by family
or internal disturbances, and passes on the succession
undisputed to Solomon. He wages some wars, indeed,
but mainly devotes himself to religious and ecclesiastical
matters, in which he acts scrupulously according to the
commands of the late priestly legislation (P). And the
way in which the character of David is recreated is
but the most extreme example of the writer s method
elsewhere.

What we have in Chronicles, then, is a restatement
of the earlier history of Judah as conceived by one who
held that the late priestly legislation (P) was of Mosaic
origin, and consequently already in force in the time of
David, and necessarily, therefore, carried out by him and
all pious kings. The same writer as he passed on (in
Ezra-Neh.) into post-exilic times, when the priestly legis
lation actually came into force, naturally found records
that told a story more intelligible to him as it stood, and
called for less correction and amplification.

As a document, then, that preserves the spirit, and the
moral, religious and ecclesiastical ideals of the Jews about
300-200 B.C., Chronicles is invaluable, and most so, because
then its meaning is most clearly expressed, when we can
watch the author modifying those earlier sources which
we still possess. But as an independent source for pre-
exilic history Chronicles is of far more limited value, and
needs to be used with the greatest caution, though
additional statements (e.g. 2 Chron. xxvi. 9 f.), which do

x.] CHRONICLES 93

not appear in any way to express the dominant interests
of the writer, or to be overmuch coloured with the con
ditions of his own age, may rest on lost documents, and
preserve correct information.

What, then, were the sources of Chronicles ? Chronicles
consists in large part, as we have seen, of extracts from the
books of Samuel and Kings, and is based to a less extent
on the Pentateuch and Joshua. Does Chronicles also
contain extracts from other sources now lost ? If so, to
what extent, and what were the character of these
sources ?

An examination shows that the author or compiler
refers either to a large number of sources, or to a smaller
number of sources cited under a large variety of titles,
in which fuller accounts of what he is recording may be
found. These titles or forms of reference are as follows :

1. The book of the Kings of (preposition) Judah and

Israel : n. xvi. 11.

2. The book of the Kings of (genitive) Judah and

Israel : n. xxv. 26 ; xxviii. 26. See also No. 15
below.

3. The book of the Kings of Israel and Judah : n. xxvii.

7 ; xxxv. 27; xxxvi. 8; cp. I. ix. 1 (LXX.).

4. The Midrash of the book of the Kings : n. xxiv. 27.

5. The Midrash of the prophet Iddo : IT. xiii. 22.

6. The history (Hebrew, words or acts] of the kings of

Israel : n. xxxiii. 18.

6b. The book of the Kings of Israel : see No. 11. ; cp.
i., ix. 1 (MT).

7. The history (Hebrew words) of Samuel the seer : I.

xxix. 29.

8. The history of Nathan the prophet : I. xxix. 29 ; n.

ix. 29.

9. The history of Gad the vision-seer : i. xxix. 29.
10. The history of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo

the vision-seer for reckoning by genealogies :
n. xii. 15.

94 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OB.

11. The history of Jehu, the son of Hanani, which is

inserted in the book of the Kings of Israel :
ii. xx. 34.

12. The history of ... (the reading of the definition

of the history is uncertain) : n. xxxiii. 19.

13. The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite : n. ix. 29.

14. The visions of Iddo (the name is corrupt in Hebrew),

the vision-seer concerning Jeroboam, the son of
Nebat : n. ix. 29.

15. The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, the prophet,

in the book of the Kings of Judah and Israel :
n. xxxii. 32.

References of a different type from the foregoing are :

16. The rest of the history of Uzziah, first and last,

Isaiah, the son of Amoz, wrote : n. xxvi. 22.

17. The (book of the) chronicles of King David : I.

xxvii. 24.

18. The later history of David : i. xxiii. 27 : but this

rendering is doubtful, and the meaning of the
Hebrew ambiguous.

19. The lamentations : n. xxxv. 25 (see p. 165).

20. i. v. 17 seems to imply familiarity with a genea

logical register of the eighth century.

The references to the source or sources numbered 1-15
are introduced by a formula which appears with several
slight variations : e.g. l And the rest of the acts (Hebrew,
" words ") of Amaziah, the first and the last, are they not
written in . . . ? Occasionally the formula is, * And behold
the acts, etc. In either case, but especially in the first, the
reference is in form a reference to a source in which further
details may be found, rather than to the sources whence
the Chronicler has drawn verbatim, or in substance, his
own narrative. But there is little doubt that the refer
ence covers both facts : that the Chronicler has drawn on
the source in question, and that further information may
be found there. But what are these sources ?

x.] CHRONICLES 95

It can scarcely be questioned that numbers 1-3 are
merely various forms of the title of one and the same book ;
nor can there be much doubt that number 6 is yet another
name for the same work. The vision of Isaiah (number 15)
may once have been a distinct work, but it is definitely cited
as forming part of number 2.

Nor again can there be any doubt that the books referred
to in numbers 1-3, 6, 11, 15, like the canonical books of
Kings, contained the history of the kings of Israel as
well as of Judah ; for otherwise the reference to Israel in
the titles, although the work is referred to for information
about kings of Judah exclusively, would be inexplicable.

If now we consider (1) that the Chronicler cites for each
reign subsequent to Solomon only a single source, and
(2) that the vision of Isaiah (number 15) and the history
of Jehu (number 11) are clearly cited as parts of the book
of the kings of Judah and Israel, and (3) that for the reigns
of David and Solomon, for each of which three special
references are given, the general work is not cited, and if
(4) we compare 2 Chron. xxxiii. 19 (R. V. margin) with
ver. 18, we may hold it probable that numbers 7-14 are,
like number 15, merely specific references to sections of the
same comprehensive work the book of the kings of
Israel and Judah (numbers 1-3, 6).

Were even the Midrash of the book of Kings (number 4)
and the Midrash of Iddo (number 5) distinct works ?
It is, at least, possible that they were not, for why just for
the reigns of Joash and Abijah should the Chronicler refer
to the Midrash, and for all other reigns to the work on
which the Midrash was based ?

But the term Midrash is significant whether the Midrash of
the book of the kings of Israel was one of the main sources,
or only an occasional source, of Chronicles. Midrash, from
the root drsh, to search out, investigate, is a term familiar
in the later, post-biblical Jewish literature for the large
inferential development of Scripture themes, or histories,
by which lacunae were filled up or difficulties removed by
searching out, or exploring to its depths, the words of

96 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

Scripture. No better example of one type of Midrash could
be cited than the passage already discussed (p. 91), in which
it is inferred that the one legitimate altar remained at Gibeon
till Solomon s days. In other cases Midrash may weave an
entirely fresh story round a name, as when in the apocryphal
addition to the book of Daniel the story of Susannah
supplies what was missing in the book of Daniel, a reason
for the name Daniel, i.e. * God is my judge.

A Midrash on the books of Kings would, then, probably
be a work based on the canonical book of Kings and
amplified by exegetical inferences and edifying details or
stories told to enhance the glory or the moral significance
of some of the persons or events in the original work.

On the whole, it seems most probable that Chronicles
rests mainly on two sets of sources : (a) the canonical
books from Genesis to Kings ; (b) a single work covering
the history of Israel and Judah. This second source is not
identical with Samuel and Kings for it is appealed to
(e.g. in 1 ix. 1 ; 2 xxvii. 7; xxxiii. 18) for facts not now at least
to be found in those books ; nor is it the separate and dis
tinct sources in which the histories of Israel and Judah
were related separately, and which had been used by the
author of the canonical Kings.

The question has arisen whether it is necessary to assume
the direct use by the Chronicler of (a), i.e. the canonical
books at all, and whether the extracts from those books did
not come to him through (b). This question cannot be
pursued here, but it may be said that in that case most of
what has been said of the author of Chronicles is then
applicable to the author of this source, and that relatively
little beyond compilation is then to be attributed to the
final editor. An important point, however, to bear in mind
is that all parts of Chronicles not derived from the canonical
books share the same strongly marked and peculiar late
style.

XL] EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 97

CHAPTER XI

THE LATER HISTORICAL BOOKS:
(2) EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

EZRA and Nehemiah are in reality not two distinct books,
but sections of one and the same book. In Hebrew MSS.
and in Hebrew references to the Canon they form one work
entitled, or ascribed to, Ezra. In the Greek Bible they also
form one work entitled 2 Esdras, i.e., the second book of
Ezra ; and 1 Esdras, or the first book of Ezra, is (in the
main) a different recension of parts of Ezra and Nehemiah
(see p. 106). In the Vulgate, 2 Esdras of the Greek, i.e.
Ezra and Nehemiah of the English, Bible is divided into
two parts corresponding to the division in the English
Bible into Ezra and Nehemiah, but under the titles of
1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, while 1 Esdras of the Greek Bible
and of the English Apocrypha becomes in the Vulgate
3 Esdras. 4 Esdras of the Latin MSS., which forms part
of the English Apocrypha under the name of 2 Esdras, is
an apocalyptic work having no connection beyond the
name with any of the other books entitled Ezra or Esdras.
Further, it is, as already stated (p. 87), practically certain,
and it is generally admitted, that Ezra and Nehemiah,
which are the direct continuation of Chronicles, originally
formed part of that work. The closing verses of Chronicles
(2 Chron. xxxvi. 22 f .) are identical with the opening verses of
Ezra (i. 1-3 to go up ) ; there is a striking similarity in style
between all those parts of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah
which are not reproduced word for word from the sources
used by the compiler ; the dominant interest throughout
is in the same subjects the Temple and the Temple-
worship, the priesthood, genealogies, statistics ; and the

98 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

date at which Ezra-Nehemiah was written can be shown
independently to be much the same as that of Chronicles.

The date at which Ezra-Nehemiah was written is not
earlier, but need not be later, than about 300 B.C. The
generation that succeeded the return from the Exile and
lived c. 500 B.C., and the generation of Ezra and Nehemiah
(c. 460-430 B.C.) are coupled together as periods that are
(long) past (Neh. xii. 26). In Neh. xii. 11, 22 reference is
made to Jaddua the great-grandson of Eliashib, Nehemiah s
contemporary (Neh. xiii. 28). The Persian Empire, which
was overthrown by Alexander the Great in 332, is to the
author of these books already a thing of the past : for so
only can we account for the addition of the words * of
Persia to * the king in Ezra i. 1 ; iii. 7; iv. 3 ; vii. 1 : this
became natural, if not necessary, when c the king un
defined would have meant to a Jewish reader a king that
was not Persian ; but we have abundant evidence that it
was not customary to use such a definition while the
Persian Empire lasted ; thus Haggai (i. 1,15) and Zechariah
(vii. 1) call the ruling monarch simply Darius the king,
and the same usage is found in the sources of Ezra and
Nehemiah (Ezra iv. 8, 11 ; v. 5 ; vi. 3), which in their turn
look back to an independent kingdom of Babylon as a thing
of the past and consequently speak of Nebuchadnezzar as
king of Babylon (Ezra v. 12). So again in the business
documents on papyrus discovered at Assouan, and written
in the fifth century B.C., the date is always given in the
form, * year ... of Xerxes (or Artaxerxes, or Darius) the
king ; the words * of Persia are never added. And in the
Elephantine papyrus (Sachau Pap. 1), written in 408/7, B.C.,
we read of Darius the king ; so in lines 13, 14, which read,
1 And already in the days of the king(s) of Egypt had our
fathers built this temple . . . and when Cambyses entered
Egypt, etc., the native kingdom of Egypt is a thing of the
past, but Cambyses who, though he lived more than a
century before the letter was written, belonged to the still
reigning dynasty, did not need to be, and was not, described
as the Persian.

The period covered by Ezra and Nehemiah is, accord-

XL] EZRA AND NEHEMTAH 99

ing to the chronological statements of the book, from the
first year of Cyrus (Ezra i. 1) to the thirty-second year
of Artaxerxes (Neh. xiii. 6). The thirty-second year
of Artaxerxes is in itself an ambiguous date, for it might
refer to 433 B.C., the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes i.
(Longimanus), or to 372 B.C., the thirty-second year of
Artaxerxes n. (Mnemon) ; but the Artaxerxes of Neh.
xiii. 6, since he was a contemporary of Nehemiah, must
also have been the contemporary of Sanballat (B^JD,
Neh. iv. 1 ; xiii. 28-34) ; and Sanballat was either dead, or
at least belonged to the older generation alive, in the year
408/7 ; for in that year the Jews of Elephantine addressed
a letter to Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat
(D^fcUD), the Governor of Samaria (Papyrus Sachau, i. 29).
The books of Ezra and Nehemiah thus contain a record
of the history of just over one hundred years 537-433 B.C.,
into which there enter occasional allusions to later persons
or events ; but the record is not a sustained and continuous
narrative ; there are long gaps in the history, and at least
one curious misplacement. Dates are given in these books
by the years of the Persian kings, the corresponding dates
B.C., and the references are as follows :

1 Cyrus 537 B.C. Ezra i. 1 (cp. v. 13,

vi. 3).

2 of the Return 536 Ezra iii. 8
Darius, until the until 522 Ezra iv. 5.

reign of
Xerxes, beginning 485 Ezra iv. 6.

of the reign of
Artaxerxes between 465 Ezra iv. 7-23

and 425
2 Darius 520 Ezra iv. 24.

6 Darius 516 Ezra vi. 15.

7 Artaxerxes 458 Ezra vii. 7 f. (cp.

vii. 1-9, viii. 31).
20 Artaxerxes 445 Neh., ii. 1 (so also, ?

by error, in i. 1).
32 Artaxerxes 433 Neh. xiii. 6.

100 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

Thus the sixteen years from 536 to 520 B.C. are dis
missed with a mere summarising reference (Ezra iv. 5, 24),
for the verses that intervene between Ezra iv. 5 and iv. 24
refer not to this period, but, as is distinctly stated (iv. 6), to
485 B.C. and later. Again, but for the ill-placed passage
Ezra iv. 6-23 just referred to, the narrative passes over
in silence the three-quarters of a century that lie between
516 and 458 ; and even the period of the activity of Ezra
and Nehemiah is described not in a continuous narrative,
but with reference to three particular years, viz. the years
458, 445 and 433 B.C.

This concentration on certain points of time and neglect
of the longer or shorter intervening periods are probably
due less to any lack of interest on the part of the Chronicler
than to the meagreness of the sources of information at his
disposal. We can not of course be certain that he did not
omit to use sources which he might have used ; but the
sources which we can discern that he actually did cite or
make use of were, from their very nature, of limited scope.

Chief among these sources are certain autobiographical
memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah. Each of these men
wrote memoirs describing how he was led to leave, Ezra
his home in Babylon (Ezra viii. 1), Nehemiah his place
at the Persian court in Shushan (Neh. i. 1), and go
up to join his fellow- Jews in Jerusalem, and also some
of his experiences in Jerusalem. As in Chronicles some
extracts are given from the books of Kings and Samuel
almost verbatim, others much changed and modified, so,
it would seem, in Ezra-Nehemiah the Chronicler cites
considerable sections of Ezra s memoirs, and still larger
sections of Nehemiah s, with scarcely even a verbal
alteration, whereas at other times, while still substantially
dependent on one or other of these sources, he appears to
be abbreviating and otherwise considerably modifying the
form of the memoirs : in these modified passages the first
person proper to autobiography, and found in the extracts
cited verbatim from the memoirs, is replaced by the
third person of biography : cf. e.g. Ezra viii. f. (first person)
with Ezra x. (third person). Denoting passages cited,

xi.] EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 101

apparently unaltered, or with slight and immaterial
variations, from the memoirs of Ezra by E, passages based
on, or cited in a much modified form from the same
source by e, passages cited unaltered from the memoirs
of Nehemiah by N, and modified citations from the same
source by n, we may represent the composition of Ezra
vii. 1-Neh. xiii. 31 in the following table :

E Ezra vii. 27-ix. 15.

e Ezra vii. 1-26 (in part perhaps freely composed

by the Chronicler), x.
N Neh. i.-vii. 73 ; xiii. 4-31.
n Neh. xi., xii.

Moreover, Neh. viii.-x., in which Ezra is the main actor,
but both Ezra and Nehemiah are referred to in the third
person, appears to be based on a well-informed con
temporary document, possibly the memoirs of Ezra.
Possibly parts of Neh. xi. ff. (e.g. xii. 12-26 ; xiii. 1-3) are
based, not on the memoirs of Nehemiah but on other
contemporary documents, or on compilations such as
* the book of the chronicles mentioned in xii. 23. Occa
sionally in these chapters, as also in Ezra vii., the Chronicler
appears not only to abbreviate or modify his source, but
to make substantial additions of his own : see Neh. xii.
10 f., 22-26, 44-47, which refer to events, or imply a writer
living, after the age of Nehemiah ; similar additions are
perhaps to be detected in Ezra vii. 1-10, Neh. xi. 25-xii. 11.

The memoirs of Nehemiah were obviously completed
after 433 B.C. (Neh. xiii. 6), but presumably not long after,
for the events seem fresh in the writer s memory. Both
these and Ezra s memoirs may well have been composed
about 430-425 B.C. In reading these memoirs, more
especially where the compiler has left them unaltered,
we are enabled to see very vividly, through the eyes of
the chief actors in them, events which proved to be of
profound importance for the whole subsequent history of
Judaism. But whether the Chronicler places these events
before us in their right sequence cannot be assumed off
hand, for in one instance at least he has certainly not

102 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

arranged his material in chronological order (see below,
p. 104). It is, therefore, a possibility to be considered that
though the Chronicler placed his extracts from Ezra s
memoirs before the extracts from Nehemiah s memoirs,
thus giving the impression that Ezra arrived in Jerusalem
thirteen years before Nehemiah (Ezra vii. 8, Neh. ii. 1), the
actual facts may have been, as some have argued, that
Ezra s visit was after Nehemiah s. As has been pointed out
above, the date in Ezra vii. 8 is ambiguous, being identical
with either 458 or 397 B.C. Yet unless Neh. viii. 9 is false,
Ezra was certainly in Jerusalem with Nehemiah, and
therefore long before 397 (see above, p. 99). It is, however,
remarkable that in Nehemiah s memoirs as preserved by
the Chronicler there is no allusion to Ezra, and in Ezra s
no reference to Nehemiah, unless Neh. viii.-x. is based
on Ezra s memoirs, and the allusions to Nehemiah in
Neh. viii. 9, x. 1 are derived from thence.

In the relatively short section, Ezra i.-vi., which deals
with the far longer period of time (536-458 B.C.), the
Chronicler is ultimately dependent on certain official
documents, or on what at least purport to be such ; these
documents are incorporated, though perhaps not without
considerable modifications, by him in his work. Most
of these documents (like that cited in e Ezra vii. 11-26)
are in Aramaic, as are certain brief connecting links of
narrative which may be the work of the Chronicler himself,
for, though in Aramaic, they exhibit similarities to the
style of the Chronicler. Chs. i., iii. 2-iv. 5, vi. 19-22
(written in Hebrew) clearly display the style of the
Chronicler. As a first analysis of this section then we may
present this scheme :

Chronicler, i., iii. 2-iv. 5, vi. 19-22 (in Hebrew) ; perhaps

also iv. 24, v. 1 f., 16-18 (in Aramaic).
Documents, (a) in Hebrew, ii. ; (b) in Aramaic, iv. 6-

23, v. 6-17, vi. 3-12.
Aramaic
narrative, v. 3-5, vi. 1 f., 13-15.

xi.] EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 103

It should be observed that ch. i. also contains what
purports to be a decree of Cyrus (i. 2-4) ; but, unlike the
other Persian documents in iv., vi., vii., this is in Hebrew ;
moreover, the phraseology and the standpoint are purely
Jewish. At best this * decree * of Cyrus is but a very
free paraphrase in the Chronicler s own language of some
Persian document, which would have been written in
Aramaic, the language used by the Persian court in official
communications with its Western Asian subjects.

The remaining documents are :

A. In Hebrew : A register of those who returned from

Exile : ch. ii.

B. In Aramaic :

(a) After an allusion to correspondence with Xerxes
[485-465 B.C.] which is not cited, a letter is cited
which was sent to Artaxerxes [465-425 B.C.] by
certain opponents of the Jews, charging the
latter with treasonable intent in building the
walls of Jerusalem : iv. 11-16.

(6) Reply to (a), directing that the rebuilding of the
city should be suspended : iv. 17-22.

485], inquiring whether the Jews really had
permission to build the Temple as they are now
doing : v. 6-17.

(d) Reply to (c) stating that search had been made,

and a decree of Cyrus permitting the rebuilding
of the Temple found ; the answer confirms the
decree of Cyrus, and directs that, so far from
hindering the work, the king s officers are to
contribute towards the expenses of it from the
king s revenue (Ezra vi. 1-12).

The register in Ezra ii. is taken over from Neh. vii. 6-73a,
where it stands as part of Nehemiah s memoirs ; unless, as
many scholars do, we treat Neh. vii. 7 (=Ezra ii. 2) as an
addition made by the Chronicler, the register itself implies

104 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

that it is a register of contemporaries of Zerubbabel, who,
as we see from Haggai and Zechariah, was active in the
early years (520-518) of Darius ; such a list is not unsuitably
given a place immediately before the account in Ezra iii.
of what Zerubbabel did after reaching Jerusalem. Ezra
ii. 68-69a is a variation of the Chronicler s on the register
as it stands in Neh. (vii. 71) ; moreover, Ezra ii. 69b differs
from Neh. vii. 72. Not only the register but the opening
of the following narrative (Neh. vii. 73b, viii. la) is also
transferred to Ezra, with the result that the seventh month,
which in Neh. refers to the year 445 (see Neh. ii. 1),
in Ezra iii. 1 remains undefined.

The whole of the Aramaic documents have been regarded
by some as fabrications ; alternative theories are (1) that
here, as elsewhere, the Chronicler has modified his sources
(cp. pp. 8-11, 89-91), and that the Jewish colouring or the
point of view 1 which in places appears in these documents
is due to him ; or (2) that the Jewish colouring is due
to the fact that the documents were drafted by Jews, and
submitted for approval or modification to the Persian
authorities.

The documents themselves, if genuine, were probably
obtained from the public archives in Jerusalem, where it
would be natural to keep copies of letters sent to, and the
originals (or copies) of letters sent from, the Persian court,
just as a copy of the letter sent by the Jews of Elephantine,
to the Persian official Bagoi, and the letter received in reply
from him, were kept by the Jewish community in Elephan
tine, and lay there till they were discovered in 1907. But
the arrangement of these documents, though it may be, and
indeed from iv. 24 would appear to be, original, is neither
chronological, nor logical : it is not chronological, for the
correspondence with Artaxerxes (465-425) is placed before
the correspondence with Darius (522-485) ; nor is it logical,
for though the correspondence with Artaxerxes refers ex
clusively to the rebuilding of the walls or city of Jerusalem,
that is to say with the work undertaken and carried
i On v. 16b, see p. 105.

xi.] EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 105

through by Nehemiah, it is introduced into a narrative that
refers exclusively to the building of the Temple (iv. 1-5, 24),
which was the work of Zerubbabel and Joshua, who lived
a couple of generations before Nehemiah. It is clear that
the correspondence in iv. 7-23 took place before Nehemiah s
visit to Jerusalem in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, for
he then, by permission of the king, completed the walls ;
it would be in place, therefore, before Neh. i. and probably
(if Ezra s visit is correctly placed before Nehemiah s) after
Ezra x.

On what the Chronicler rested for his narratives in
Ezra i. and iii. cannot be determined; it has been argued
that these chapters rest on no historical reality, but are
mere inferences from prophecy ; that Cyrus issued no decree
authorising the return of the Jews or the rebuilding of the
Temple (Ezra i.), and that the foundation of the Temple was
not laid in 536 B.C. (Ezra iii.), nor continued in building
from 536 to 520 (Ezra v. 16) ; but that all this is elaborated
on the basis of an inference from Is. xliv. 28, etc. The
policy ascribed to Cyrus in Ezra i., however, accords with
well-known lines of Persian policy, which has recently been
illustrated afresh by the evidence of the Elephantine
Papyrus (Sachau i.) to the action of Cyrus successor
Cambyses at the time of his conquest of Egypt (525 B.C.)
in sparing the Temple of the Jewish community settled on
the Nile at the southern frontier of Egypt ; moreover, the
statement of Ezra that Cyrus gave the Jews permission to
return to Judah conflicts with no existing evidence. On the
other hand, the statement that the commencement of the
building of the Temple took place in 536 is hard to reconcile
with the statements made in 520 B.C. by Haggai (i. 2-9,
ii. 15-18 x ) and Zechariah (i. 16), and may be nothing more
than an inference from the fact that Cyrus had permitted,
or enjoined, the building of the Temple immediately after
the return.

Even a brief sketch of the literary history of Ezra and
Nehemiah would be incomplete without reference to the

1 In Hag. ii. 18 since, should be j rom.

106 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

book of 1 Esdras, which is a fragment (it ends in the middle
of a sentence) consisting of certain parts of Chronicles,
Ezra, and Nehemiah differently arranged, and of one long
section not found elsewhere, thus :

1 Esdras i.=2 Chron. xxxv. 1-xxxvi. 21.

ii. l-15=Ezra i. (first year of Cyrus : 537).

ii. 16-25=Ezra iv. 7-24 (Artaxerxes : 465-425).
,, iii. 1-v. 6 not in Ezra-Nehemiah.

This section explains how Zerubbabel obtained and
acted upon permission from Darius (522-485) to
go up (obviously for the first time) in the second
year of Darius, i.e. 520 B.C., to Jerusalem and to
build the walls of the city and the Temple.

1 Esdras v. 7-70=Ezra ii. 1-iv. 3 (Ezra, iii. 8=536 B.C.,

iv. 5=522 B.C. ; see above, p. 99).
vi.-ix. 36=Ezra (iv. 24) v.-x. (Ezra vi. 15=

516 B.C.).
ix. 37-55=Neh. vii. 73b-viii. 13a.

It must suffice to point out that the position given to
Ezra iv. 7-24 in 1 Esdras ii. 16-25 secures (chronology apart)
a more logical narrative ; but the order of the narratives is
not less violently in conflict with what is now known to
have been the real sequence of the Persian kings. The
premier place given to 1 Esdras in the early Greek Church,
from which the influence of Jerome dislodged it in the
Western Church, corresponds to the preference accorded
to it by Josephus, who in his history follows the order not
of Ezra-Nehemiah, but of 1 Esdras. But Josephus, pre
sumably because he was aware of the true sequence of the
Persian kings, substituted Cambyses for the Artaxerxes of
his source (1 Esdras iv. 7-24), and thus removed the most
conspicuous violation of chronological order in the story as
told in 1 Esdras.

It is remarkable that in Ezra iii. 7 (=1 Esdras v. 55) we
find, apparently, an allusion back to 1 Esdras iv. 48, and
that this allusion is not explained by anything in the

xi.] EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 107

present text of Ezra. It is noticeable, moreover, that parts
of the narrative peculiar to 1 Esdras betray the same
interests as the Chronicler (see 1 Esdras iv. 52-56, 63, v. 2).
A theory, elaborated by Prof. Torrey, is therefore worthy of
consideration that 1 Esdras iv. 47 (from wrote, the sub
ject in Chronicles having been Cyrus) to iv. 56, iv. 62-v. 6
(omitting who spake wise sentences before Darius the
king of Persia ), once stood in the Chronicler s work immedi
ately after Ezra i. 11 and immediately before Ezra ii. 1.
In that case 1 Esdras iii. 1-iv. 42 (the story of the three
pages of Darius who dispute what is the strongest ) is
an interpolation, and iv. 43-46, 57-61, v. 6a, together with
the words * the same is Zerubbabel in iv. 13 and the sub
stitution of Cyrus in iv. 47 and v. 2, are harmonising
modifications of the interpolator.

108 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH

CHAPTER XII

RUTH AND ESTHER

OUTSIDE both of the two great series of histories, Joshua to
Kings, and Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, stand the books
of Esther and Ruth ; in the E. V., indeed, Ruth follows
Judges, and Esther Nehemiah, and the position there
assigned to Ruth was already assigned to it in the Septua-
gint. Esther, on the other hand, is not in the MSS. of the
Septuagint connected with Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah,
but it is commonly grouped, and appropriately enough,
with Judith and Tobit. In the Hebrew Bible both books
form part of that group of the Writings (p. 2) that was
known as the five Megilloth (i.e. Rolls), from the fact
that they were the books or rolls read at five annual
celebrations ; yet in some Hebrew MSS. Ruth stands apart
at the head of the Writings, 5 preceding even Psalms.

RUTH

The familiar story of Ruth, which is written with great
skill and charm, purports to be an incident in the period of
the Judges ; the heroine is a Moabitess, but by her marriage
with Boaz, the Jew, she becomes the great-grandmother of
David.

The book contains no clue as to its authorship, nor any
definite statement as to the source whence its information
was derived. That it was not written earlier than the
time of David, nor within about a century of the events
described in it, is necessarily implied by the conclusion of
the book (iv. 17, 18-22). But there can be little doubt that
it was written long after David ; for it culminates in him as

xn.] RUTH 109

in one who had already been long famous and had com
pletely eclipsed his many elder brothers. Ruth s child
Obed was the father of Jesse, the father of David. Old
customs that once prevailed in Israel have long died out,
and require explanation (iv. 7). The period of the judges
is long past, and, perhaps, we may infer from the opening
words, And it came to pass in the days when the judges
judged, that there was a famine in the land, that the writer
shared the theory of the author of the framework of Judges
that the judges had jurisdiction over the whole land : in
this case the book was scarcely written at earliest before the
seventh century (p. 63). Whether it was written yet later,
and indeed after the Exile, turns on two classes of
evidence, which are in this case ambiguous the style,
and the purpose of the book.

The style in general has the characteristics of pure and
early Hebrew narrative, and some details of the language
are elsewhere confined to pre-exilic literature. On the other
hand, there are markedly late words in i. 13 and iv. 7, 18, 22,
and some suspicious, if less conclusive, signs of lateness
elsewhere. The main weight of the linguistic argument
against pre-exilic date lies against iv. 18-22, which is
commonly regarded as an addition to the original book,
and iv. 7 which might be a gloss, but also against i. 13.

Was the purpose of the story to justify, by the illustrious
example of David s family, the legitimacy of intermarriage
with Moabites, and more generally with foreigners, as
against a stricter school which forbade all mixed marriages ?
If this be the purpose of the book, and doubtless the
heroine s Moabite and foreign origin is emphasised (i. 22,
ii. 2, 6, 21, iv. 5, 10, ii. 10), it was in all probability a
protest against the policy of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra
ix. f., Neh. xiii. 23-27) in the middle of the fifth century B.C.
Yet it would be strange in that case that no opponents of
the marriage were introduced into the story and denounced,
and we should have to admire the skill with which the
writer conceals his polemical purpose, and the very unusual
forbearance which he shows towards his opponents.

110 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

A point even more emphasised than Ruth s foreign origin
is the duty of the next-of-kin to marry a childless widow,
and thus maintain the name of the widow s former husband.

Whatever the date and whatever the purpose of the book,
we probably ought to recognise in it, on the one hand, an
idealisation of the past, and, on the other hand, certain
traditional elements which may have been handed on for
generations in the family of David. The proper names in
the story do not look like a group invented after the Exile,
or even as late as the seventh century ; and yet, earlier than
the seventh century the composition of the book is scarcely
to be placed.

ESTHER

In the spring, on the 14th and 15th days of Adar, the
last month of the Hebrew year, the Jews celebrated in
their towns and villages and throughout the world a festival
which was characterised by the giving of presents and
banqueting. From the time of the Mishnah (c. 200 A.D.)
onwards, and doubtless earlier too, the book of Esther was
read in the synagogues on the days of the festival. The
name of this festival was Purim. Purim is mentioned by
this name in Josephus (Ant. XL, vi. 13), and under the
name of the Day of Mordecai, TTJS MapSoxcujojs i?/*/oas,
in 2 Mace. xv. 36. The reference in 2 Mace. a work
probably written about the beginning of the Christian era
is the earliest allusion outside the book of Esther itself to
Purim.

The book of Esther was written to describe the circum
stances under which the Feast of Purim actually arose,
or was supposed by the writer to have arisen, and incident
ally (iii. 7, ix. 26) to explain the name of the feast. Briefly,
the circumstances were these. In the third year (i. 3) of his
reign (482 B.C.), Xerxes, king of Persia, dismisses his queen
Vashti. After an interval of four years (ii. 16) he selected
from his numerous harem a Jewess named Esther, also
called Hadassah (ii. 7), to be queen instead of Vashti, and
crowned her (ii. 17). Esther, an orphan, had been brought

in.] ESTHER 111

up by her uncle Mordecai, who had been carried captive
by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. (ii. 6), and now (a hundred
and nineteen years later !) held some position in the palace
at Shushan. Through Esther Mordecai reveals to the king a
plot on the part of two of his chamberlains (ii. 21-23). He
receives no reward : on the other hand, he rouses the wrath
of Haman, the chief minister, and in 473 B.C. (iii. 7) Haman
obtains a royal decree for the destruction of Mordecai himself
and all of his race throughout the kingdom, on the ground of
the diversity of the Jewish laws from the Persian, and Jewish
opposition to Persian laws. Haman prepares a gallows
for Mordecai; but by the device of Esther and Mordecai, and
a timely recollection on the part of the king of Mordecai s
still unrewarded loyalty, Haman coming in to obtain the
king s permission to hang Mordecai fails of his purpose.
Haman is disgraced and hung on his own gallows, Mordecai
is promoted to his office, and the decree against the Jews is
rescinded ; the Jews, instead of being destroyed in the
month of Adar, slaughtered their enemies on the 13th of
the month (ix. 1-17), and rested and feasted on the 14th
and 15th (ix. 17, 18). Henceforward the Jews observe the
14th and 15th of Adar (ix. 19-21) with feasting, and call
the days Purim, because Haman had cast Pur to destroy
the Jews and his intention had been frustrated.

Obviously the feast of Purim was already (cp. ix. 19)
an old institution with the Jews when the book of Esther was
written ; the author lived, therefore, long after the time of
Xerxes (485-465 B.C.) ; and of this we have even more
striking proof in the fact that a century contracts to a decade
or so in a past which had become vague to the writer,
for there is not the slightest suggestion in the story that
Mordecai was particularly old, still less that he was really
one hundred and twenty years old at least, when his niece
became queen and he himself later the king s chief minister.

Yet, of the extent of Xerxes s empire (i. 1 f.), of the char
acter of Xerxes, and of the general conditions under the
Persian empire, the writer is well-informed. Since he lived
long after Xerxes he must have gleaned his information

112 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

about the extent of Xerxes s empire from some source
other than his own immediate knowledge ; from the same
source he may have obtained his information as to Xerxes s
character, and the general conditions of Persian life. But
the more specific elements in the story are not all historical :
the chronology is flagrantly incorrect ; no captive of
Nebuchadnezzar s was ever chief minister of Xerxes ; and
Xerxes s queen from the seventh to the twelfth year of his
reign was neither a Jewess nor Esther byname, but Amestris,
the daughter of a Persian noble (Herod, vii. 114, ix. 112).

We need not pursue the discrimination between the
historically accurate and the historically inaccurate
elements in the book further here. Attempts to defend
the entire accuracy of the book have practically ceased.
The critical problem is now essentially this : is the basis of
the story itself, as distinct from its setting, historical or
mythological ? Were Vashti and Esther, Mordecai and
Haman historical persons, or were they figures in ancient
Persian story or some non-Jewish mythology ?

It is not difficult to imagine an historical kernel for the
incidents of the book of Esther. Some Jewess may have
been among the concubines of Xerxes, though Persian law
(Herod, iii. 84) would not have suffered the king to make
her queen, and in such a position she may have averted
some political disaster from the Jews. But of all this
nothing is known apart from the book of Esther : history
is silent alike as to queens or concubines of Xerxes called
either Vashti or Esther, as to ministers of Xerxes called
either Haman or Mordecai, and as to the issuing or with
drawal of any decree by Xerxes against the Jews.

The fundamental motives of the book of Esther doubt
less correspond closely to fundamental mythological
motives : the passing of Vashti, and the coming of Esther,
the passing of Haman and the coming of Mordecai who
destroys Haman, celebrated in spring or the last month of
the year, what is this, it is said, but the passing of
winter and the coming of spring ? And what are Vashti,
Esther, Mordecai and Haman, but names of those who

xii.] ESTHER 113

played their part in the myth that explained this con
stantly recurring natural change ? Yet, of course, queens
and ministers do rise and fall in political life no less actually,
though less regularly, than spring succeeds to winter.

But further, the name Mordecai, originally, as the
Greek suggests, pronounced rather Mardukai, is almost
certainly a derivative from the name of the Babylonian
god Marduk ; moreover, the chief feast in Marduk s honour
was celebrated in the spring, not indeed like Purim in
the month Adar, but at the beginning of the following
month, Nisan, which also, however, plays an important part
in Esther (iii. 7). It has also been argued that Esther =
Ishtar, the great Babylonian goddess ; Haman=Humman,
an Elamite god ; and Vashti=Mashti, an Elamite goddess.
And one form of the mythological theory is that the story
at the basis of the book of Esther is a story of the conflict
of Babylonian and Elamite deities.

Again, it is probable that the festival of Purim with
its non- Jewish name was of foreign not of native origin ;
and if so, it is not improbable that with the festival came
the myth explaining its origin, and that Jewish thought
transformed this, like other myths, freeing it from its
polytheistic form, and finally giving the story an historical
setting in the reign of Xerxes.

The upward limit of date for the book of Esther is, as
already suggested, a long time after Xerxes (485-465),
say c. 300. The downward limit is not so easily fixed.
So far as language goes, since Daniel by its Greek words
betrays its date, the absence of any Greek, in spite of the
presence of several Persian, words in Esther might afford
a rather precarious argument for not descending too far
into the Greek period. On the other hand, a rather
stronger argument from silence suggests a date after
Ecclesiasticus (c. 180 B.C.) ; if Purim was already cele
brated every year, and the book of Esther had made
Mordecai and Esther famous as the heroes of this annual
festival, would Ben Sirach have passed them over in his
roll of fame (Ecclus. xliv. ff .) ?

114 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

The reference to c the Day of Mordecai in 2 Mace. xv. 36
does not prove that this term existed as early as the time
of the Maccabees, but only that it existed as early as the
time at which 2 Maccabees was written ; on the other hand,
the argument sometimes used that Esther must have been
written after the Maccabees, because the attempt to destroy
the Jews and its frustration is a reflection of the attack
of Antiochus Epiphanes on Jewish liberty and religion,
and its frustration by the Maccabees, though suggestive,
is inconclusive. Some date in the second century is,
perhaps, most probably, some date between 300 B.C. and the
Christian era certainly, that at which the book was written.

Esther was extensively interpolated, and these additions
are given in the English Apocrypha ; they differ from the
original work in their references to God, who is never
mentioned by name in the original work, and was rarely
even, it would seem, in the writer s mind (yet see iv. 14).
Short omissions in the Greek text may perhaps be due to
the fact that the Hebrew text also suffered expansion : a
larger and earlier interpolation in the Hebrew text is, in
the opinion of many, to be found in ix. 20-x. 3.

JOB 115

CHAPTER XIII

JOB

THE book of Job is a great imaginative work based on
matter derived from tradition. It is to the tradition
rather than to the existing book that Ezekiel alludes
(xiv. 14, 20) when he cites Job, along with Noah and Daniel,
as a proverbially righteous man. There is no other refer
ence to Job in the Old Testament ; but Ben Sirach alludes
to Job, though certainly not to the book of Job, when he
says, Ezekiel . . . made mention of Job who maintained
all the ways of righteousness (Ecclus. xlix. 9).

Whether the traditional story of Job had been com
mitted to writing before the present book was written
is uncertain ; nor is it possible to determine how much
the writer derived from tradition, whether oral or written ;
it may have been comparatively little, and it certainly
did not include the long speeches that occupy the greater
part of the book. These speeches alone are sufficient to
justify the isolated judgment of a Jewish Rabbi that the
hero of the book of Job never lived, nor was created,
except in and for the purposes of poetry or a parable. The
hero of the book of Job, though not necessarily his name,
is now commonly and rightly regarded as the creation of a
poet ; whether the material out of which this poet created
his hero contained one grain of historical fact, whether,
for example, there ever lived outside story an individual
of the name of Job in the patriarchal age, is a question of
no importance for the understanding of the book.

The book falls into five clearly distinguishable parts :
(1) Chs. i.-ii. The introduction : here Yahweh draws

116 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

attention to the unequalled integrity of Job, and gives the
Satan permission to test the disinterestedness of Job s
righteousness by depriving him of family, possessions
and health, leaving him only his bare life.

(2) Chs. iii.-xxxi. The speeches of Job and his three
friends who had come to comfort him : Job maintains
that his sufferings are not due to his sins : his friends
maintain that they are.

(3) Chs. xxxii.-xxxvii. The speeches of Elihu, who
maintains that Job had been surpassingly wicked :
(xxxii. 1-5 a brief prose introduction to the section).

(4) Chs. xxxviii.-xlii. 6. The speeches of Yahweh, whose
words and appearance terrify Job into repentance, and a
confession by Job that he had spoken about God unwisely
and ignorantly.

(5) Ch. xlii. 7-17. The conclusion : Yahweh affirms
that Job had spoken rightly of him, and that the friends
had spoken wrongly ; the friends are directed by Yahweh
that they can only avoid his wrath by obtaining the
intercession of Job. Job is restored to prosperity.

The introduction and conclusion, and the brief introduc
tion (xxxii. 1-5) to the third section of the book are written
in prose ; the rest of the book (except the introductory
sentences defining the speeches) is in poetical form. In
the historical books the poems from time to time introduced
into the prose narrative are in origin independent of, and
earlier than, the narrative. Job is not history, and there
is not the slightest need to infer, from the mere differences
in form, that the speeches are the work of one writer, the
introduction and conclusion that of another. It would be
natural enough for the same writer to tell the story in
simple narrative first, and to distinguish the speeches by
poetical form. In any case, unlike the poems in the
historical books, the speeches of Job are not independent
and self-explanatory poems ; they need an introduction,
and if they ever existed apart from the present introduction
they must have been preceded by another that has
perished.

xm.] JOB 117

The speeches of Job and his friends presuppose an
introduction ; and the conclusion not less clearly pre
supposes speeches in which Job and the friends had spoken
in opposite senses. But again, it is not absolutely necessary
that what originally stood between introduction and
conclusion was exactly what now stands between them.
The hypothesis that the present speeches were written to
replace what originally stood between the present intro
duction and conclusion is a possible hypothesis ; whether
it is necessary is another question which will be deter
mined, like most other questions concerning the integrity
of the book of Job, not by the difference of form, not by
such supposed inconsistencies in detail as that between
xix. 17 and ch. i., but by what is understood to be the
purpose of the book.

Two other sections fall under more serious suspicion on
the ground of style and character, independently of their
relation to the purpose of the whole. Without discussing
the rather barren question to what extent Job is a dramatic
poem, we may safely claim that it would be reasonable
for the same author to differentiate the persons of his poem,
and as a matter of fact he does differentiate the personalities
of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar ; and consequently certain
differences of style between the speeches of Elihu and those
of the other characters ought by no means to suggest
difference of authorship. Elihu s prolixity, for example,
might be intended as a mark of the wise young man who
is conscious of possessing so much more wisdom than his
elders, and makes up for lack of real contribution to a
discussion by the abundance and violence of his speech.
But there are neutral differences, differences that have
nothing to do with differences in the character of the persons
depicted, but may well be the idiosyncrasies of different
writers : such are the use in Elihu s speeches of one word
for such common ideas as knowledge and * youth, and
another word elsewhere, and also the deeper Aramaic
colouring of this section. Again, we might account for the
prolixity of the speeches without resorting to the hypothesis

118 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

of different authorship ; but what of the introduction to
the section ? The prose of xxxii. 1-5 falls scarcely less far
below the prose of the introduction and the conclusion than
the speeches of Elihu below the other speeches of the book.

When, in addition to the difference of style, we note that
there is no reference to Elihu in the introduction or con
clusion, that every one else in the poem absolutely ignores
him, that he talks on, so to speak, in the void, and for his
pains receives from Yahweh no single word either of ap
proval or disapproval, it should be obvious that the reasons
for treating chs. xxxii.-xxxvii. as an interpolation in the
original poem are strong, and any theory of the purpose of
the book that rests upon this section proportionately
precarious.

The reasons for questioning whether the descriptions of
leviathan and behemoth (xl. 15-xli. 34) are the work of the
same author as the speech of Yahweh in chs. xxxviii. f.
are mainly aesthetic. Are the short, vivid descriptions of
the animals in ch. xxxix., and the full and rather prolix
descriptions of leviathan and behemoth, the work of the
same author ?

The remaining questions of integrity can best, and some
of them must, be taken in connection with the questions of
purpose and date.

Did the writer, as is commonly held, propound to him
self the question, Why do the righteous suffer ? and does
his book attempt to answer the question ? Or did he
attempt only the more limited task of showing the falseness
of the prevalent dogma that prosperity is a mark of God s
favour and proof of the righteousness of the prosperous,
and adversity and calamity proof of God s displeasure and
of the wickedness of the sufferer ? The former theory
certainly seems at first sight to provide a more adequate
theme for a great work ; yet it is certainly nowhere stated
in set terms in the book of Job, and interpreters have found
it exceedingly difficult to discover any real advance towards
an answer to the question either in the course of the debate,
or in the speeches of Yahweh. For the popular dogma,

xm.] JOB 119

which every one agrees is maintained by the friends,
had already gathered round it certain subsidiary theories
to help out its obvious insufficiency to meet the facts of life.
The wicked might prosper, but their triumph was short :
they died early by the blast of God s anger ; whereas
though the innocent might suffer, they never died an
untimely death ; so e.g. Eliphaz in his first speech is
prepared to suspect only a little sin in Job which he may
work off by his present suffering, and be restored to
prosperity. Again, the popular dogma inherited from the
old conception of the solidarity of the family the theory
that the sins of an individual might be visited on his
children, and thus met the case of some innocent sufferers
and some wicked prosperous men ; but then in an age of a
deepening sense of the individual this theory proves value
less, or if the data on which it rests be actually facts, then
they shatter the main dogma itself : for then the wicked
do not necessarily suffer at all, they prosper up to the last
moment of their life, receive the respect of those that
survive them and find sweetness even in the tomb : once
dead it is nothing to them that their children suffer (xxi.
19-34). Finally, a certain amount of suffering is disciplin
ary : see again Eliphaz s first speech (v. 17 ff.).

// the book set out to answer the question, Why do the
righteous suffer ? it must surely have attempted some
answer beyond what the friends, the representatives of
tradition, admit, and, for the most part, admit at the
very outset of the debate. Moreover, if the original poem
contained long speeches of Yahweh at the close, in them
would it be natural to look for the new answer ; but those
speeches at best contain an answer only in the implication
that the question cannot be answered by man and is not
answered by revelation, that it belongs to the inscrutable
and unimparted wisdom of God ; these speeches address
themselves not to the question of the prosperity of the
wicked and the sufferings of the righteous, but to the
absolute incompetence of man to fathom the might or the
wisdom of Yahweh. And the nearest approach to the

120 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

particular question of the sufferings of Job, with the
meaning of which the rest of the book is occupied, is in the
specimens of the divine care of the animals which illustrate
the grace and kindness of the divine wisdom, and were
perhaps intended to suggest that behind Job s sufferings
lay a gracious purpose of the divine wisdom.

Some, indeed, have sought the author s solution of the
problem not in the speeches of Yahweh, but in those of
Elihu a precarious theory (p. 117), even if these speeches
in their insistence on the disciplinary nature of suffering
really went beyond the position of Eliphaz in substance, as
well as in multitude of words. Some difficulties remain
even if we conclude, as we should, that the book was not
really intended to handle the wide question, Why do the
righteous suffer ? but was concentrated on denying the
prevalent dogma that suffering and adversity are marks
of sin in the individual sufferer, and of the divine displeasure
resting on him. This theory of the purpose of the book
at least binds together the Prologue, the Dialogue, and the
Epilogue, and gives to the speeches of Yahweh and Elihu
as much relevance as they can justly claim to possess on
any other theory. Yahweh s insistence on the inscruta
bility of the divine wisdom is, if as indirect, yet just as real,
a condemnation of the prevalent dogma as of anything that
Job had said. In the Prologue, God maintains and the
Satan challenges the integrity of Job, with the result that
Job the righteous becomes Job the sufferer ; in the debate
Job, now in adversity, maintains and the friends deny the
integrity of Job ; in the Epilogue, God maintains the
integrity of Job against the friends. In the Prologue the
Satan asserts that adversity will make Job curse God : in
the Dialogue the friends deny the Tightness of Job s words
now that adversity has come : in the Epilogue God declares
that the words of Job in his adversity have been right.

But the speeches of Yahweh raise some difficulties : where
as in Epilogue and Prologue alike God defends and approves
Job unreservedly, in xxxviii. 2 he charges him with unwise
speech ; and the whole point of the speeches appears to lie in

xm.] JOB 121

the necessity for reducing Job to a sense of his ignorance
of God s ways, and his folly in speaking confidently out of
his partial knowledge. It is generally said that Job had,
as a matter of fact, in the course of the debate committed
this kind of folly ; that he had spoken as if possessed of
omniscience, and arraigned God s government in a manner
which nothing short of omniscience would have justified,
and which omniscience would actually have prevented ;
and that therefore he needed humbling. This is not with
out force, though it carries with it this point : what the
Satan had been unable to achieve by depriving Job of
riches, children, and health, the friends by their persistent
presentation of a banal orthodoxy that had no relation
to the facts of Job s life did achieve : he began the debate
blameless, with the unqualified approval of God resting
upon him ; he comes out of it blameworthy, and needing
to be terrified and humiliated by God into confession of
folly. Yet it is curious (1) that Job had himself dwelt
(ix. 4-10, xii. 12-25, and ? xxvi. 5-12) on the measureless
might and unsearchable wisdom of God, and that the
divine speeches thus appear to aim at bringing home to
him what he had already admitted ; (2) that the conflicting
statements of the folly and Tightness of Job s words are
placed in such close connection (xlii. 3=xxxviii. 2;
xlii. 7), without any discrimination between what had
been foolish and what right. It is customary to meet
the first difficulty by saying that Job did not fully
realise and quite seriously intend what he had said
about God s wisdom and might, that at least he
had been too self-centred in his perplexity at his own
sufferings, and needed to have deepened in him the
sense of the vastness of God s universe. It would be
easier to meet both difficulties by the theory that the
speeches of Yahweh were not an integral part of the work,
were it not that in beauty and power these speeches are
unsurpassed in the book. The incompatibility in form
between xlii. 3 and xlii. 7 could be and has been also met
by regarding the Epilogue as a subsequent addition; or

122 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

we might suppose that it was derived from an earlier
prose work and the inconsistency was allowed to remain.

It is also difficult to reconcile Job s soliloquy on wisdom
in ch. xxviii. with the divine speeches ; for there he seems to
have reached the very frame of mind, viz. quiet acquies
cence in the inscrutable ways of Yahweh, which those
speeches seem intended to promote. But it is commonly
held that ch. xxviii. is interpolated ; for why, if Job had
reached this quietness of mind, does he without fresh
reason (for his friends have ceased to worry him) return to
his earlier complaints and discontent in xxx. 20-23, xxxi.
35 ? If ch. xxviii. and chs. xxxviii. f. are so incompatible
that they cannot be attributed to the same stage of the
work, then some of the additions equal in literary and
religious power the original poem, for ch. xxviii. also
ranks with the best part of the book.

In xxvii. 7-23 Job, in words now attributed to him,
appears to go back on his own position, to adopt the
position of the friends, and thrust it upon them as though
they required instruction in it. If the difficulty cannot
be met by exegesis, either the passage is interpolated, or
it is a misplaced speech of one of the friends, perhaps of
Zophar, who does not in the present text contribute to
the third cycle of speeches. Other instances of inter
polation or Displacement whereby sentiments are attributed
to Job which are not considered to fit his role have also
been suspected, and Professor Peake, for example, recon
structs xxv. -xxvii. by assigning to Bildad xxv. 2, 3, xxvi.
5-14 ; to Job xxvi. 2-4, xxvii. 2-6, 11 f. (the remainder of
Job s speech being assumed to have been suppressed on
account of its outspokenness) ; to Zophar xxvii. 7-10,
13-23 : xxv. 4-6 is then regarded as a later addition. This
certainly meets some unquestionable difficulties ; it also
has the effect of attributing the words in xxvii. 5-14 that
anticipate the point of Yahweh s speeches to Bildad and
not as at present to Job.

We conclude that the Prologue, the speeches of the
friends and of Job, and the Epilogue are certainly integral

xiii.] JOB 123

parts of the book ; that the speeches of Elihu are not ;
that probably either ch. xxviii. or chs. xxxviii.-xlii. 6
and possibly both sections are interpolated ; and that the
purpose of the book is to show the falseness of the prevalent
judgment that a man in adversity was necessarily wicked
and forsaken of God : the Prologue and Epilogue alike
show the falseness of the judgment in the particular case
of Job, and Job in the debate shows that it is widely in
applicable. If at first this negative character of the book
seem inadequate, it must be remembered how much was
at stake : and that was nothing less than the assurance
to a righteous sufferer of the reality of his communion with
God. Suffering to the Christian is an experience which
may deepen in him, and certainly need not rob him of,
the sense of the presence of God ; but to the religiously
minded man under the old dogma this was the bitterest
element in adversity, that that very adversity proved him
God-forsaken : where was now his God ? Job in dis
crediting the old dogma won for all future sufferers this
new positive faith that adversity does not cut off a man
from God. In working up to this point the book also
insists on a greater reality and truth in religion than
either the Satan or the friends had conceived, or those
admit who see all religion crumbling away, if prosperity
does not invariably await righteousness, and adversity
wickedness ; in such a world it would be impossible to
bring home to the Satan, or to humans of his way of think
ing and in some measure the friends of Job are the human
counterparts of the Satan or even to the religious man
himself, the sincerity of his love of God.

The Epilogue is scarcely to be treated as incompatible
with the poem on the ground that it returns to a material
reward of righteousness : yet it is true that the Epilogue
is not what Job desires, and that, if it were, the Satan
might in some sense be said to have won the day, and
the friends the argument, on the ground that Job s fate
illustrated afresh the formula that the righteous may
suffer, but that they do not untimely or unrewarded

124 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

perish. Suffering does not lead Job to renounce God
as the Satan had predicted : it leads him to realise that
suffering can be borne if he is sure of God and sure of
God s approval of him ; when the surmise of a return to
life after death breaks through (xix. 25-27), it is in re
sponse to the desire, not that he may be recompensed,
and that life after death may bring to him reward for
his service of God, but that God may publicly vindicate
him, and he in ecstatic vision know that his communion
with God even in suffering had been real. That is the
real refutation of the Satanic taunt : Job serves God not
for the riches he bestows, which he gave and took away
and may give again, but for himself. Prologue and Debate
are intimately connected ; and the Epilogue does not annul
the refutation of the Satanic taunt and the orthodox dogma
of the friends which the debate brought out.

At what period was Job written ? The earliest direct ex
ternal evidence to its existence is that of the Greek historian
Aristeas, who is cited by Alexander Polyhistor (fl. c. 80-40
B.C.) in a passage preserved in Eusebius, Prcep. Ev., ix.
xxv. 1-3. This passage implies familiarity with the Greek
version, and with Elihu as a person in the story. From
the allusion in Ecclus. xlix. 10, cited above on p. 115, it
cannot be inferred either that the book existed, or did not
exist, c. 180 B.C. ; if the book existed and was known to
Ben Sirach, he may still have preferred not to allude to a
book that did not yet rank as Scripture.

As to the actual political and social conditions under
which the author lived little can be inferred with certainty :
it was his purpose to set his story in patriarchal conditions,
and he only by accident betrays the conditions of his own
age or implies acquaintance with conditions later than the
assumed period of the story. In xii. 17-23 he very pro
bably had actually in mind the great disturbance in
political conditions and national existence occasioned by
the westward movement of Assyria, in the eighth century,
the conquering career of the Neo- Babylonian empire in

xni.] JOB 125

the sixth century, or of the Persian empire later ; we may
in particular think (cp. xii. 19) of the captivity of Israel
in 722, or of Judah in 586.

In the main the determination of date will turn upon
the conclusions to which the religious ideas, the literary
affinities, and the style and language of the book seem to
point.

All parts of the poem are written from the standpoint of
an absolute monotheism which we should not expect before
the prophets of the eighth century, and should most
naturally look for in a contemporary, or, rather, since the
idea is assumed not proved, in a successor, of the Deutero-
Isaiah. The universality of God s activity and knowledge
(cp. Ps. cxxxix.) is one of the leading thoughts in the
speeches of Yahweh ; but it is implicit also in the world
wide wanderings of his subordinate the Satan in the
Prologue, and frequently finds expression in the speeches
of Job, the friends, and Elihu.

The central problem of the book, the suffering of the
righteous individual, would only arise acutely after the
religious value of the individual had been established along
two different lines by Jeremiah (fl. 626-586) and Ezekiel
(fl. 592-571). But the problem could not have been argued,
as it is, with a total disregard of life after death, if the
belief in the resurrection and future life had already reached
the clearness with which it is expressed in Daniel and early
parts of Enoch (both c. 165 B.C.), or even in Is. xxiv.-xxvi.
(? fourth century B.C.). On the other hand xix. 25-27
rather suggests that the idea of a vision of God after death
was already forming, that a question had arisen though no
dogma had been formulated. The book of Job seems to
have been written towards the end of the period in which
Hebrew religion had dispensed with the idea of resurrection
or a life of blessedness after death.

The deeper ethical ideals of ch. xxxi. are best understood
as the harvest of prophetic teaching. The Satan of the
Prologue is unknown to any existing monument of pre-
exilic religion, and the contrast between 2 Sam. xxiv. 1

126 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

and 1 Chron. xxi. 1 suggests that he actually first appears
in Hebrew religion relatively late, not long before Zechariah
(fl. 520 B.C.), in whose reference (iii. 1-10) a careful study
may, perhaps, discern the genesis of the Satan of Job.

Parallel passages bear a different significance to different
investigators ; and out of the large number of parallels
between Job and other books, especially the books of Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Lamentations, Proverbs, and Psalms, it must
suffice to refer to two. Though the opposite opinion has
been held, it is exceedingly difficult to believe that Jeremiah,
who was not, like the author of Job, composing an elaborate
imaginative work, is the borrower rather than the creator
of the ideas common to Jer. xx. 14-18 and Job iii. 3-10 : the
author of Job may have suffered as much as Jeremiah, but
he, in form at least, is expressing the feeling not of himself,
but of a person of his imagination, and in doing so he may
well have taken a suggestion from the spontaneous cry of
the prophet. Again, the parody in Job vii. 17 must be
later than the lines of Ps. viii. 4 which are parodied ; but
Ps. viii. is probably based on P, and was itself therefore
written later than c. 500 B.C. if we accept that date for P.

In constructing his mise en scene the author seems to
have been guided by the descriptions of the patriarchal
age, not in any one source of the Pentateuch, but in the
complete work including P ; the individual indications are
slight and delicate, but taken together they are by no means
without weight : note e.g. the reference in xlii. 11 (R.V.
marg.) to the kesitah, which is mentioned elsewhere only in
Gen. xxxiii. 19 ; Jos. xxiv. 32 (E) ; in xxi. 12, xxx. 31 to
the primeval (Gen. iv. 21 (J), xxxi. 27 (E) ) musical instru
ments, though these indeed continued in use also in late
times ; in xlii. 8 the similarity in the offering to that of
Balaam (Num. xxiii. 1 (JE) ), who like Job s friends was not
an Israelite; in xlii. 16, 17 the resemblance to thephraseology
of P in his summaries of life and record of death (Gen.
xxxv. 28 f., v. 10, 11) ; and the use throughout the dialogue
of 8haddai, the Almighty (cp. Ex. vi. 3 P), a term which is
used with frequency only in Job, and in P s narratives of

xni.] JOB 127

the pre-Mosaic period. Note also the possible influence of
J s account of creation (Gen. ii. 7, iii. 19) on x. 9, xxvii. 3,
of Ps (Gen. i.) on xii. 7-10.

As to the style and language : both from the prose and
poetry of the book certain features that occur in much at
least of the very latest literature of the Old Testament are
absent. The prose might well belong to the same age as
Ruth ; it is altogether superior to that of Esther or Daniel,
and contains neither Greek words like Daniel, nor Persian
words like Esther, Daniel, and other late books. On the
other hand there is a considerable Aramaic tinge to the
language of the book. The language could be well explained
as that of a work written after, yet not too long after, the
Exile.

The various lines of arguments converge to indicate as
the most probable time when the book was written a date
about 400 B.C. ; a somewhat later date would not be ruled
out if Is. xxiv. -xxvii. and the emergence of a doctrine
of a future life are not to be placed so early as the fourth
century B.C. But in any case the book must have been
complete well before the close of the second century B.C.

128 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

CHAPTER XIV

THE PSALMS

THE Psalter contains, according to the division of the
Hebrew text, one hundred and fifty poems ; the Greek
version contains one hundred and fifty-one, but the last
| of these is described as outside the number. This number
&gt; does not exactly correspond to the number of different
* poems. On the one hand, there are one or two clear cases,
and there may be others less clear, of a single Psalm having
been wrongly divided into two ; thus Pss. ix. and x. are
shown by the continuance of the acrostic scheme through
the latter Psalm to have once formed, as they still do in the
Greek version, a single poem. So Pss. xlii., xliii. are shown
by the recurrence of the same refrain (xlii. 5, 11, xliii. 5) to
be one poem. Probably in a larger number of cases, owing
to an opposite fortune, two poems originally distinct have
been joined together under a single number. A clear
instance of this kind is Ps. cviii., which consists of two
Psalms or fragments of Psalms (viz. Ivii. 7-11, Ix. 5-12).
Among the more generally suspected instances of the same
kind are Ps. xix. (=vv. 1-6+7-14), xxiv. (=vv. 1-6+7-10) ;
xxvii. (=vv. 1-6+7-14), and xxxvi. (=1-4+5-12).

The Psalter does not contain quite the whole of what

j survives of Jewish literature of this type. A few Psalms

i not included in the Psalter are found in other books : see,

e.g., 1 Sam. ii. 1-10 ; Is. xii., xxxviii. 10-20 ; Hab. iii. And

we have another important, though much smaller collection

of Psalms in the Psalms of Solomon, written about 63 B.C.

These, with such New Testament Psalms as Luke i. 46-55,

68-79, are important as showing that the period of

xiv.] THE PSALMS 129

Psalm composition extended beyond the close of the Old /
Testament.

The history of the Psalms and the Psalter is obscure ;
and many conclusions with regard to it rest, and for lack
of other independent evidence must rest, on previous con
clusions as to the origin and literary history of other I
Hebrew and Jewish literature. Conclusive external evid
ence for the existence of the Psalter in its present extent does
not carry us very far back beyond the close of the Jewish
Canon ; but the mode of allusion to the Psalms in the New
Testament renders it very unlikely that the book was still
open to additions in the first century A.D. ; and the fact
that none of the Psalms of Solomon gained admission,
and that this collection by its title perhaps presupposes the
canonical * Psalms of David renders it probable that the V
Psalter was complete, and not open to further additions, / \
some time before 63 B.C. Other evidence, such as that
derived from the substantial agreement of the Greek version
with the Hebrew text, does not carry the proof for the
existence of the Psalter in its present extent much further.
The net result is that, if not impossible, it is unsafe to X,;&gt;
place the completion of the Psalter much below 100 B.C.

Behind that date lies a long history ; for the Psalter
represents the conclusion of a complex literary growth or
development. We may note, first, two things that prove
this general fact that the Psalter is not a simple edition
of the poems of a single man or a single age, nor the first
collection of its kind. (1) At the close of Ps. Ixxii. stand
the words : The prayers of David the son of Jesse are
ended. This is intelligible if the remark once closed an
independent collection and was taken over with the
collection by the compiler of a larger work. But apart from
some such hypothesis as this it is not intelligible ; for the
remark is not true of the Psalter as we have it ; the prayers
of David are not ended : other Psalms actually entitled
prayers and described as of David are Pss. Ixxxvi. and
cxlii. ; and several subsequent Psalms assigned to David
are, without being so entitled, actually prayers. (2) The

130 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

same Psalm is repeated in different parts of the Psalter with
slight textual or editorial variations : thus Ps. xiv.=Ps. liii.;
xl. 13-17=lxx. ; cviii.=lvii. 7-11+lx. 5-12. The Psalter,
then, was composed by drawing on, and in some cases
incorporating, earlier collections of Psalms.

Our next questions are : How many collections earlier
than the Psalter can be traced ? How far can the methods
of the editor who drew on or combined these earlier collec
tions be discerned ? The first clue to the first question may
be found in the distribution of the titles referring to persons ;
the more significant features of this distribution may be
shown thus

1. Pss. i. ii. are without title.

2. Pss. iii.-xli. are all entitled * of David, 5 except Ps. x.,

which is a continuation of Ps. ix. (see above)
and Ps. xxxiii.

3. Pss. xlii.-xlix. are all entitled of the sons of Korah,

except Ps. xliii., which is a continuation of
Ps. xlii. (see above).

4. Ps. 1. is entitled of Asaph.

5. Pss. li.-lxxii. are all entitled of David/ except

Pss. Ixvi., Ixvii., Ixxi., Ixxii.

6. Pss. Ixxiii.-lxxxiii. are all entitled of Asaph.

7. Of Pss. Ixxxiv.-lxxxix., four (Ps. Ixxxiv., Ixxxv.,

Ixxxvii., Ixxxviii.) are entitled of the sons of
Korah, one (Ps. Ixxxvi.) of David and one
(Ps. Ixxxix.) of Ethan.

8. Pss. cxx.-cxxxiv. are all entitled Songs (so rather

than " A song " R.V.) of Ascent.
The remaining forty-six Psalms (xc.-cxix., cxxxv.-cl.)
are either without title, or the titles are not the
same in any considerable number of consecutive
Psalms (but note cviii.-cx. and cxxxviii.-cxlv.
entitled of David ).

Now, if it stood by itself, the statement at the close of
Ps. Ixxii. could be explained by a single process the
incorporation of a previous collection consisting of Pss. i.-

xiv.] THE PSALMS 131

Ixxii. by an editor who added these to Pss. Ixxiii.-cl. derived
from other sources. But within Pss. i.-lxxii. we have two
occurrences of the same Psalm (Ps. xiv. = Pss. liii.), which in
itself indicates that in Pss. i.-lxxii. at least two hymn-books
are combined. Again, Ps. liii. differs from Ps. xiv. by the
entire absence from it of the name Yahweh, and the use in
four places of the name God, where Ps. xiv. uses Yahweh.
So also in Ps. lxx.=Ps. xl. 13-17 Yahweh is twice retained,
but thrice it is replaced by God. But the editorial activity
thus implied proves on examination to have affected the
entire group of Pss. xlii.-lxxxiii. ; for the difference in the
use of the names Yahweh and God between Pss. i.-xli.,
and Pss. xlii.-lxxxiii. is remarkable : in Pss. i.-xli. Yahweh
occurs two hundred and seventy-two times, God (abso
lutely) fifteen times ; in Pss. xlii.-lxxxiii. Yahweh forty-
three times, but God two hundred times. Now this
Elohistic Psalter, as Pss. xlii.-lxxxiii. are termed on account
of the marked preference which is shown in them for the
term Elohim= i God, is one of the earlier collections
embodied in our Psalter ; but it is itself in turn derived
from different sources ; for it includes the group of Davidic
Psalms which closes with the statement that the Prayers of
David are ended a statement which, though not true of the
whole Psalter, is true of this earlier Psalter, for between
Pss. Ixxiii.-lxxxiii. no prayer of David occurs. It also
includes Psalms of the sons of Korah and of Asaph.
Very possibly this Elohistic Psalter has not reached us in
its original condition ; for (1) the untitled Psalms may
have been subsequently inserted ; and (2) the Psalms
entitled of Asaph may have once stood all together : at
present Ps. 1. stands isolated from the rest (Pss. Ixxiii.-
lxxxiii.).

In addition to the occurrence of Psalms in two recensions
and the occurrence of similar titles in groups, another
feature points to earlier independent books of Psalms :
this is the occurrence of a doxology or suitable concluding
formula at certain points in the Psalter, viz. xli. 13 at the
end of the first group of Psalms entitled of David ;

132 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

Ixxii. 18, 19 immediately before the statement that the
Prayers of David are ended ; and Ixxxix. 52. See also
cvi. 48 and cl., which last Psalm in its entirety may be taken
as an enlarged doxology at the close of the completed
Psalter. The doxologies at the end of Pss. xli. and Ixxii.
occur at points which we have already found reason for
regarding as the close of collections ; that in Ixxxix. 52,
however, occurs not at the close of the Elohistic Psalms, but
six Psalms later. Now five of these six Psalms are drawn
from the same sources as supplied the Elohistic editor, viz.
from the prayers of David (Ps. Ixxxvi.) and the book
of the sons of Korah. In Pss. xlii. -Ixxxix. we not impro
bably have the original Elohistic Psalter (Ps. xlii.-lxxxiii.)
enlarged by the addition of an appendix (Ps. Ixxxiv.-
Ixxxix.), in which the name Yahweh was left unchanged,
and consequently the form Elohim ceases to predominate.
From the evidence thus far considered or suggested (it
cannot here be given in greater detail), we may infer some
such stages as these in the history of the Psalms before the
completion of the Psalter :

1. Compilation of a book entitled of David and in

cluding Pss. iii.-xli. (except the untitled Ps.
xxxiii.).

2. Compilation of a second hymn-book entitled of

David (Pss. li. -Ixxii., with exceptions).

3. Compilation of a book entitled of Asaph (Asaph

being the name of a guild of singers, Ezra ii. 41).

4. Compilation of a book entitled of the sons of

Korah (also probably a guild of singers; cf.
2 Chron. xx. 19).

5. Compilation of the Elohistic Psalter out of Psalms

derived from 2, 3, 4 by an editor who generally
substituted Elohim ( God ) for Yahweh.

6. Enlargement of 5 by the addition of Pss. Ixxxiv.-

Ixxxix.

7. Compilation of a book entitled * Songs of the

Ascents.

xiv.] THE PSALMS 133

Can we detect the existence of other earlier Psalters ?
So far we have mainly taken account of titles of one type
only and of titles which occur in groups. Dr. Briggs
carries the argument from titles to the existence of collec
tions of Psalms further ; and infers that there was a
collection of Michlams or choice psalms, whence Pss. xvi.
Ivi.-lx. and Is. xxxviii. 9-20 were drawn ; another collection of
Mascliils or meditations, whence Pss. xxxii., xlii.-xlv., lii-lv.,
Ixxiv., Ixxviii., Ixxxviii., Ixxxix., cxlii. were derived ; another
collection of Psalms proper, of poems set to music, whence
the fifty-seven Psalms described in the titles as mizmor
((E.V. psalm ) were derived ; and yet another collection
which bore the name of the musical director or choir
master (E.V. the chief musician ), whence the fifty-five
Psalms so entitled were derived. If this be the case, then
the composite titles enable us to see that many Psalms
stood successively in two or three collections before they
obtained their place in the completed Psalter ; e.g. Ps. xix.
entitled of (or belonging to) the chief musician, a
Psalm, of (or belonging to) David had previously been
included in three distinct collections ; and so also Ps. xliv.
entitled of the chief musician, of the sons of Korah,
Maschil. Perhaps the strongest case for these further
collections is that of the chief musician s Psalter ; in any
case, it is a fact that the preposition prefixed to the chief
musician is the same as that prefixed to David or

* Asaph or the sons of Korah, though in the first case
R.V. renders for and in the other cases of. Conse
quently, since in many cases it is impossible, owing to
intervening words (e.g. in Pss. xii., xlv)., to interpret such
combinations as of the chief musician, of David, of the
chief musician, of the sons of Korah of joint authorship,
we must either ses in them conflicting ascriptions of author
ship placed side by side, or, far more probably, as just
suggested, the titles of collections of Psalms or hymn-
books to which they had previously belonged. It is then
highly probable that in the first instance such titles as

* of David, of Asaph, of the sons of Korah, were neither

134 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

intended nor understood to name the author of the Psalm
in question. But if this were so, we can also see that
before the final stage in the growth of the Psalter they
were misunderstood ; for the title of David clearly
implied authorship to the author(s) of the longer titles in
Pss. vii. and xviii. : it is scarcely less clear that the title
implied authorship to the authors of other titles that
suggest an historical setting (see, e.g., Ps. iii., Ivii.).

Is it possible to determine the dates at which any of
these collections of Psalms were made ? Obviously they
are earlier than the completion of the Psalter, i.e. than
about 100 B.C. (see above) ; obviously also the collections
were later than the latest Psalm which they originally con
tained. One or more Psalms in all the collections show
more or less generally admitted signs of being post-exilic.
The various collections therefore which we have in the
Psalter were compiled between the sixth and the second
centuries B.C. By arguments which cannot here be repro
duced, Robertson Smith, in the Old Testament and the
Jewish Church, ch. vii., reached the following conclusions
in detail. The first Davidic collection (Ps. iii.-xli.) was
compiled about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah ; the
second Davidic collection (Pss. li.-lxxii) in the fourth
century; theAsaphite (Pss. 1., Ixxiii.-lxxxiii) and Korahite
(Pss. xlii.-xlix.) collections between 430 and 330 B.C. Dr.
Briggs places the Korahite and Asaphite collections some
what later after B.C. 332 ; the Elohistic Psalter (Pss.
xlii.-lxxxiii.) and the chief musician s collection in the
third century B.C. But whatever the value of these
detailed conclusions, which are not all very secure, one
general fact of much importance already stands out :
the period between the Exile and the first century B.C.
was marked by much activity in the collection and editing
of Psalms ; and this, apart from the dates of individual
Psalms, is significant for the part played by the Psalms
in the religious life of the post-exilic community.

From the collections we pass to the difficult and much
discussed question of the dates of the individual Psalms.

xiv.] THE PSALMS 135

All that will be possible here is to point out certain general
lines of evidence with one or two illustrations in detail.
// the detailed conclusions with reference to the collections
are sound, a minimum date is fixed for many Psalms :
e.g. Pss. iii.-xli. (except the untitled Ps. xxxiii.) are not
later than about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah ; Pss.
xlii.-xlix. and 1., Ixxiii.-lxxxiii. not later (on Robertson
Smith s theory) than 330 B.C., and so on. The collections
are indeed post-exilic, but in itself that need not prevent
even the whole of the Psalms being pre-exilic : the collec
tions might be post-exilic hymn-books composed entirely
of ancient hymns. As a matter of fact, not all the Psalms
are pre-exilic ; many of the individual Psalms are some
what clearly of post-exilic origin ; indeed, there is a fairly
general consensus of opinion that the majority, a con
siderable body of opinion that the great majority, of the
Psalms is post-exilic. Signs of exilic or post-exilic
origin are : (1) Allusions to the Exile or the desolation of
Sion, as a present or past fact, as the case may be : see e.g.
li. 18 f., Ixxxix. 44-51, cii. 13, 16, cvi. 47, cvii. 3 if., cxxvi. 1,
cxxxvii. 1, cxlvii. 2. The profanation of the Temple by
the heathen alluded to in Pss. Ixxiv. and Ixxix may refer
rather to the events of Maccabsean times (B.C. 165) than to
586. (2) Other allusions to social and political conditions,
such as the frequent division of the Jews into religious
parties, with the use of terms like the poor, the * pious
(Hasidim) as party names ; but this and other such allu
sions are differently interpreted and weighed by different
scholars. (3) Language such as that of, e.g., Pss. cxvi.,
cxxxix. ; style and language in many other Psalms is less
conclusive though (granted certain previous conclusions)
not without weight. (4) Dependence upon exilic and
post-exilic writings : e.g. Pss. xciii., xcvL-c. almost cer
tainly, and Ps. xlvii. most probably, imply familiarity on
the part of the writer with much of Is. xl.-lxvi. (5) The
presence of certain religious ideas which were only developed
late in the history of Israel s religion. There is much
variety of judgment as to the number of Psalms and the

136 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

particular Psalms shown by these criteria to be late, but,
as previously stated, it is admittedly large. Strictly
speaking, indeed, these criteria determine the date of
those sections only to which they apply, not necessarily
that of the entire Psalm ; and if it can be shown that the
obviously post-exilic sections in any particular Psalm are
interpolations, the rest of the Psalm may be (but, of
course, by no means necessarily is) pre-exilic. Dr. Briggs
in his Commentary has carried the hypothesis of inter
polation far, using as his test certain theories of metre and
strophe.

What, then, are the positive criteria for pre-exilic Psalms
or for pre-exilic elements in Psalms which may show
in parts obvious signs of post-exilic origin ? Failing such
criteria the Psalms cannot be shown to be considerably
earlier than the post-exilic collections in which they have
come down to us. The criterion of pre-exilic date most
relied on is an allusion to the king ; from the fall of the
Monarchy in 586 B.C. down to 105 B.C., when Aristobulus I.
assumed the title of king, there was no native king of
Judah. Now, since in, e.g., Pss. xx., xxi. the allusion to
the king cannot satisfactorily be explained of a foreign
monarch, and these Psalms cannot be as late as 105 B.C.,
it appears to follow that they originated before 586 B.C.
Other Psalms alluding to a king who cannot well be
a foreigner, nor have lived so late as 105 B.C., are Ps. ii.,
xviii., xxviii., xlv., Ixi., Ixiii., Ixxii. Yet there still remains
a question of interpretation : Is the king in these Psalms
an actual contemporary individual, or the Messianic king
whether regarded as an individual or as the royal people
of Israel ? x If the latter interpretation is correct (as, e.g.,
in the case of Ps. ii. at least, it probably is) the value of
the allusion as a criterion of pre-exilic date vanishes ; for
a reference to a king who is not a person of history, but an
ideal conception, is not less probable in a post-exilic than
in a pre-exilic poem. Further, a purely proverbial allusion
to the king, such as occurs in Ps. xxxiii. 16, furnishes no

i See Jewish Quarterly Review, 1895, p. 658 ff.

xiv.] THE PSALMS 137

valid criterion for pre-exilic origin, nor does an allusion to
kings in the plural (e.g. Ps. cxix. 46, cxlviii. 11) ; see p. 145.

If, as the previous remarks should have suggested, it
is in most cases only possible even to determine whether
a Psalm is pre-exilic or post-exilic on evidence somewhat
widely applicable, and in many cases impossible to deter
mine even this quite decisively, it should be clear that the
attempt to fix the authorship or dates of Psalms very
precisely must generally prove fruitless. Are there any
that can be referred even with great probability to a
particular occasion as that of their origin or to a particular
writer ? The mere fact that a Psalm may appear to us
suitable to a particular occasion, as, e.g., Ps. xlvi. to the
deliverance from Sennacherib in 701, does not necessarily
prove that it even refers to it, still less that it was written
at the time ; the question arises, Is the occasion in question
the only one to which the terms of the Psalm are applicable,
or are those terms sufficiently specific to render it improbable
that the Psalm might have fitted other occasions unknown
to us, or but partially known ? Thus Pss. xliv., Ixxiv.,
Ixxix., cxviii. presuppose conditions which resemble what
is known of the period of the Maccabaean revolt (cf.
1 Maccabees) more closely than what is known of any
other period, and on that ground they have been by many
assigned to the Maccabsean period : the question is, Are
the descriptions so specific that they might not also corre
spond to the conditions of the middle of the fourth century
B.C. (to which other scholars have referred Pss. xliv., Ixxiv.,
Ixxix.) if we were equally well informed with regard to
these ?

The question of authorship retains an interest only with
reference to David. The theory that David was the
author of Psalms can be traced back as far as the time
(not to be dated very precisely, but centuries at least
after David s time) when the historical notes were added
in certain Psalms to the title of David (see above).
Whether it goes back further (except in the case of Ps. xviii.
= 2 Sam. xxii. ; see below), to the time of the origin of the

138 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

collection entitled of David, is less clear, for it is by no
means certain that the similar title of the chief musician
referred to authorship (see above). Still, we may consider
the argument which, based on the assumption that it did,
is to the effect that if so many Psalms (as seventy-three in
the Hebrew text, more in the Greek text, and all in later
Jewish tradition) were attributed to David, some must
actually be his, though many so entitled are demonstrably
and admittedly not. The argument at best does not seem
to justify more than a strong probability that David
wrote psalms ; and possibly the fact that David was a
famous poet, even though all his poems more nearly
resembled 2 Sam. i. 19-27 than the Psalms, coupled with
his fame as a zealous worshipper of Yahweh, may be the
extent of the historical fact underlying the late traditions.
But even granted that the evidence were strong enough
to justify the statement that some Psalms of David are
preserved in the Psalter, the most important problem still
remains to be solved, viz. which Psalms in particular are
David s ? It will be found on an examination that the
positive reasons assigned for regarding any particular
Psalm as David s are inconclusive : they often amount to
nothing more than an argument that there is nothing in
such and such Psalms which forbids us to ascribe them to
David. There are some Psalms which in whole or in part
may not be incompatible with what we know of David s
life, but the allusions are too general to enable us to deny
that they are equally applicable to many other lives.
The Psalm which is most generally claimed for David by
those who go beyond the general argument and specify
particular Psalms as his is Ps. xviii. ; but many who hold
this to be in the main David s, feel compelled to treat
vv. 20-27 as later. An external argument in favour of
the Davidic authorship of this Psalm has often been
sought in the fact that it appears in 2 Sam. xxii. as well
as in the Psalter ; but the argument is of little value ;
it carries us back indeed beyond the evidence of the Psalm-
titles, but the Books of Samuel were composed long after

xiv.] THE PSALMS 139

David s time, and 2 Sam. xxii. occurs in a section which
shows signs of insertion after the main work was complete
(see ch. viii.). We may safely conclude thus : There are
Psalms in the Psalter of which, if we may remove certain
parts as later interpolations, a residuum remains of which
it would be unjustifiable to assert that it was not written
by David.

But if we cannot determine the authors of the Psalms,
nor the particular occasions out of which they sprang,
we may yet ask, and ought to ask, What type of persons
wrote them, what type of experiences do they embody,
with what type of subject do they deal ? In order to
answer this question it will be necessary to discuss briefly
an important principle of interpretation.

A considerable proportion of the Psalms describe from
the writer s standpoint the experiences or aspirations or
the religious faith of the nation or of the religious com
munity whether this community be co-extensive with the
nation or a group or party within it. The Psalms which
most obviously belong to this class are those in which the
pronoun of the first person plural is used. These are
some twenty-seven in number. 1 In another group of
twenty-five Psalms 2 the personal pronoun is sometimes
in the first singular, sometimes in the first plural ; this
interchange is not perhaps to be always accounted for in
the same way ; but in some of these Psalms it is obviously
the main purpose of the writer to describe the experiences
of the nation (cf., e.g., Pss. xliv., Ixxiv., Ixxviii.). Another
group of Psalms, not so easily defined as the two preceding,
but including some twenty-two Psalms at least, 3 is as
little limited to individual experience as the first group :

1 See Pss. xxi., xxxiii,, xlvi., xlvii., xlviii., 1., Ix. (both vv. 1-4 and 5-12=
cyiii. 6-13), Ixv. (in v. 3a Vulg. and LXX. read us for me ), Ixvii., Ixxix.
Ixxx., Ixxxi., xc., xcv., xcviii., xcix., c., cv., cxiii., cxv., cxvii., cxxiv.
cxxvi., cxxxii., cxxxri., cxliv. , cxlvii.

8 Viz. Pss. viii. xvii., xxii., xl., xliv., lix., Ixii., Ixvi., Ixviii., Ixxi.
Ixxiv., Ixxv., Ixxviii., Ixxxiv., Ixxxv., Ixxxix., xciv., ciii., cvi., cxvi., cxviii.
cxxii., cxxxv., cxxxvii., cxli.

8 Pss. i., xii., xiv. (=liii.), xv., xix. 1-6, xxiv., xxix., xxxiv., Ixxii., Ixxvi.
Ixxxii., xciii., xcvi., xcvii., cvii., cxii., cxiv., cxxv., cxxvii., cxxxiii.,cxxxiv.
cxlviii. , cxlix., cl.

140 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

these Psalms are, for example, calls to praise God for his
goodness or descriptions of the character which is pleasing
to God. The remainder of the Psalms, about (yet barely)
half the whole number, appear superficially, in contrast
to the foregoing, to describe the experiences or aspirations
of some individual. They are written in the first person
singular. But in one of these Psalms, owing to its peculiar
structure, the Psalmist supplies the interpretation of the
pronoun of the first singular, and in this case the singular
pronoun refers, not to an individual, but to the nation
(see Ps. cxxix. 1). The personification of the nation as
an individual which underlies this usage unquestionably
occurs often in Hebrew literature. How far does it extend
in the Psalter ? Is the much afflicted subject of other
Psalms written in the first person singular an individual,
or, like the much afflicted subject of Ps. cxxix, Israel ?
For instance, does the author of the words, Thou wilt not
abandon my soul to Sheol, nor suffer thy holy one to see
the pit (Ps. xvi. 10), express the conviction that he him
self will never see death (for it is this and not resurrection
that the words imply), or that Israel will never cease to
be ? Does the author of Ps. li. make confession of purely
personal sins (vv. 1-5), and look forward as an individual
to a missionary career (Ps. li. 13), or, like the authors of
La. i. 18-22, Is. Ixiii. 7-lxiv. 12, does he, identifying himself
with his people, make confession of national sins ? It is
impossible either to discuss this fully here, or to attempt
to determine how far the use of I = Israel extends beyond
Ps. cxxix. One other feature of the Psalms which super
ficially appear to describe the experiences of the individual
may be noted : many of them break off into perfectly
obvious prayers for the nation (e.g. Ps. xxv. 22, xxviii. 9),
or into appeals to the community as a whole to participate
in the writer s experience or aspirations (cf., e.g., Ps. xxx.
4, 5, xxxii. 11). These departures from the apparently
individual tenor of the rest of the Psalm are sometimes
treated as glosses ; and they may be such. Not all of
these Psalms need have the same origin ; some may

xiv.] THE PSALMS 141

have been originally written as national confessions, some,
originally of a more exclusively individual character, may
have been fitted for use by the community by the addition
of liturgical verses and the elimination of what was too
limited to be of general applicability.

The conclusion to be drawn even from this brief survey
of the origin of the Psalter and the character of the Psalms
may be stated thus : The Psalms as we have received
them are sacred poems that reflect more or less clearly
the conditions of the post-exilic Jewish community and
express its varying religious feelings and aspirations ; in
origin some of these Psalms may go back to the pre-exilic
periods, some may originally have sprung out of circum
stances peculiar to an individual ; but in consequence of
editing by the successive compilers of the post-exilic
hymn-books through which the Psalms have come down
to us, most of the peculiarly pre-exilic or individual
characteristics which may have distinguished them
originally have been largely obliterated.

142 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

CHAPTER XV

PROVEKBS

THE book of Proverbs does not represent the first attempt
to collect the proverbial expressions of Hebrew wisdom.
The existence of more than one title, and other features of
the book, indicate that Proverbs, like the Psalter and some
of the prophetical books, contains several originally inde
pendent works.

The sections of the present book beginning with ch. x.
and ch. xxv. are introduced with these titles respectively :
The proverbs of Solomon, These also are the proverbs of
Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied
out. Whether the first section of the book also ranked as,
and passed with the title of, The proverbs of Solomon the
son of David, king of Israel, from the first, or whether the
title in i. 1, together with the introduction (i. 2-6) so closely
wedded with it, is the work of the compiler of the present
book intended to cover the main contents of his work is
uncertain ; in the latter case the compiler opens his collec
tion with a previously written collection, which was,
perhaps, down to his time anonymous. In any case the
4 Solomonic element in Proverbs is large ; but there are
also other elements, viz. the words of Agur the son of
Jakeh (xxx. 1), the words of king Lemuel (xxxi. 1), and
the proverbs of the wise (xxiv. 23).

The possibility of the inclusion of anonymous as well as
of titled collections within our present book cannot be
excluded ; and this involves some uncertainty as to the
extent of matter covered by the several titles within the
book. Did the words of Lemuel, a king include the whole

xv.] PROVERBS 143

of ch. xxxi., or, as some have held, only the opening verses ?
Where does the Solomonic collection that begins at x. 1 end,
and that of the wise (xxiv. 23) begin ? The beginning of
the collection of the wise is commonly sought in xxii. 17,
perhaps rightly ; this collection then consisted of xxii. 17-
xxiv. 22, with xxiv. 23-34 as an appendix. Not im
probably xxx. 7-33, curiously different in virtue of the
dominant numerical arrangement from xxx. 1-6, and
xxxi. 10-31, which as an alphabetic poem is sharply marked
off from xxxi. 2-9, were anonymous. In any case we obtain
these divisions, which for convenience of reference may
be denominated A, B, etc. :

A. Chs. i.-ix. ( The proverbs of Solomon, i. 1) : this

section, unlike most of the remainder of the book,
does not consist of isolated sayings, but is, in
the main, a systematic development of certain
subjects, all gathered up under the general
conception of wisdom ; cp. especially ch. viii.

B. x. 1-xxii. 16. The proverbs of Solomon. Inde

pendent sayings, or proverbs, each complete in
two parallel lines.

C. xxii. 17-xxiv. 22-fxxiv. 23-34. Of the wise

(xxiv. 23 ; cp. xxii. 17). Longer proverbs, often
consisting of two couplets, one giving a piece of
advice, and the other the reason for it.

D. xxv.-xxix. The proverbs of Solomon. For the

most part short sayings as in B.

E. xxx. The words of Agur. Vv. 7-33 were, per

haps, really anonymous.

F. xxxi. 1-9. The words of Lemuel.

G. xxxi. 10-31. An anonymous alphabetic poem in

praise of a virtuous woman.

Thus the book, except such parts of it as may have been
intended to be anonymous, comes before us as the work of
Solomon, famous for his wisdom and in particular for the
proverbs which he spoke (1 Kings iv. 29-34), and of two
otherwise entirely unknown persons, Agur and Lemuel.

144 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

What is the value of these ascriptions of authorship ? Is
it greater than that of the obviously wrong ascription of
Ecclesiastes and Canticles to Solomon ? or of the titles
ascribing psalms to David ? Is the specific information
in xxv. 1 more trustworthy than the specific information
in the titles to Pss. li., lii., etc. ? Were Hezekiah s copyists
a real literary guild of the eighth century, or a reflection
back to that period from the post-exilic period, the period of
the scribes and the wise, just as certain guilds of singers seem
to have travelled back from post-exilic times to the age of
David purely in the imagination of the Chronicler (1 Chron.
xxv.) ? The possibility of answering these questions rests
on the degree of probability and of closeness with which
the several sections of the book can be dated.

Nothing is more difficult to date than innumerable
independent proverbs or disconnected sayings ; even if the
ascription to Solomon be admitted, the question would
still arise whether he first coined them all, or whether the
proverbs which he is said to have spoken included those
which he had gathered from tradition and popular speech.
The ultimate origin of the individual proverbs must then
be left undecided ; in substance some of them may run back
to a remote antiquity. The question that may be con
sidered is, To what period does the literary form of the
collections of proverbs within our present book belong ?
It is significant that, as in different collections of psalms
the same psalm occurs with variations, so in different
collections of proverbs the same proverb occurs with
variations, as, for example, in xii. 11 and xxviii. 19. Parts
of the book may have reached us in the form produced by a
long period of polishing, though the sayings go back
ultimately to popular wisdom, or of fresh sayings modelled
on such popular proverbs but first coined by wise men of a
school that had long practised this particular type of
literature. Other parts, such as the proverbs in section D,
may have passed more immediately from popular speech
into the literary form in which we have received them :
whether, as has sometimes been argued, the more popular

xv.] PROVERBS 145

and less polished the form, the earlier the collection, is not
quite certain ; at a quite late period fresh relays of popular
proverbs may have been committed to writing, and some
of those may have reached us in their first literary form.
Even in that form they differ from rather than resemble
the specimens of Palestinian popular proverbs and sayings
which we find elsewhere (1 Sam. xxiv. 13 ; 1 Kings xx. 11 ;
Jer. xxxi. 29 ; Luke iv. 23 ; John iv. 37).

The book of Proverbs stands closely related, in virtue of
its discussion of life from the broad human rather than
the national standpoint, with certain other works Job,
Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiasticus, and the Wisdom of Solomon,
to which we might add certain Psalms such as xxxvii. and
xlix. These other specimens of the Wisdom Literature,
as it is often called, are one and all post-exilic ; is it probable
that Proverbs is the sole surviving specimen of a pre-exilic
wisdom school ? It is now generally agreed that the
book as a whole is not, but that it is, like the other works
mentioned, the product of the post-exilic age. Yet it is
not clear that we could raise by any means the same
presumption against a pre-exilic origin of some of the
collections contained within the book ; for, after all, the
popular sayings cited at the close of the last paragraph
are free, as many such pithy sayings must necessarily be,
from anything national, though some of them certainly
existed before the Exile. It is really only such developed
themes as occur in section A, that give strong reason,
merely on this ground, for treating them as of the same
period as the longer works of the Wisdom Literature.

What possible arguments, then, can be adduced in favour
of a pre-exilic origin for any section of the book, or even
for any of the individual proverbs contained in it ?

Apart from the presumption created by the titles,
especially that in xxv. 1, the evidence that is most relied
on as pointing to pre-exilic origin is the mention in
many passages of a king or kings : this, it is said, implies
not indeed that Solomon wrote the passages in question, for
they are written from the standpoint of a subject, but that

146 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

the Jewish monarchy still existed, and consequently that
the sayings that refer to a king were written before 586 B.C.
But it is quite certain that not all the references to a king
or kings imply anything of the kind : it is to the kings of
the earth, or to the king as an element in that wide human
society, which forms the sphere of the wise men s observa
tion, 1 that some of the passages must, and many, if not all
(including even xvi. 10), may refer. That all the kings of
the earth owe their sovereignty to the divine wisdom is
quite clearly the meaning of viii. 15. And with what
safety can it be claimed that the saying, The king s
heart is in the hand of the Lord as the watercourses ; he
tunieth it whithersoever he will (xxi. 1), must have been
written when a Hebrew king was reigning ? The idea
is the necessary basis for prayers that God will favourably
dispose the heart of foreign kings such as we find in such
post-exilic passages as Neh. i. Again must xxiv. 21 have
been written under the Jewish monarchy, though Eccles.
viii. 2, x. 20 certainly were not ? Ben Sirach (c. 180 B.C.)
writes, Justify not thyself in the presence of the Lord : and
claim not understanding before the king (Ecclus. vii. 5) ;
how, then, can it be urged that claim not for thyself glory
in the presence of the king (Prov. xxv. 6) must have been
written before 586 B.C. ? The point cannot be argued
further here, but the reader will be in a position to judge
for himself if he will compare with Eccles. iv. 13-16, v. 9,
viii. 2-4, x. 16, 17,20, Ecclus. vii. 4 f., viii. 2, x.3 the remain
ing references to kings in Proverbs : these are xiv. 28, 35,
xvi. 10, 12-15, xix. 12, xx. 2, 8, 26, 28, xxii. 11, 29,
xxv. 2-3, 5-6, xxix. 4, 14, xxx. 28-31, xxxi. 3-4 ; cp. also
xxix. 2, 12, 26, xxx. 22.

The significance of the style and language has been
differently estimated. If Job is post-exilic, it cannot safely
be claimed that any part of Proverbs must be pre-exilic ; we
might rather suspect that nearly the whole of the book re
ceived its present linguistic form within a century of the
composition of Job ; and, since certain late features that

i Cp. Job iii. 14, xii. 18, xv. 24, xxix. 25, xxxiv. 18, xxxvi. 7.

xv.] PROVERBS 147

are found in Eccles. and Ecclus. are absent from Proverbs,
some time, say a century or two earlier than c. 180 B.C.,
the date of Ecclus. But xxxi. 1-9 may be quite late,
if the text is correct, for it uses the Aramaic instead of
the Hebrew word for son, and an Aramaising plural.
Some detect a Grecism (etun=o^ov^) in vii. 16; otherwise
Greek and Persian words are absent, and the Aramaisms
are not strikingly numerous.

In favour of post-exilic origin, appeal has been made
to the tacit assumption of monotheism (cp. p. 125) through
out the book, and also to the implication that polygamy,
which, as the laws regulating it in Deut. xxi. 15-17, Lev.
xviii. 18 (H) imply, must have continued customary down
to the Exile, has given way to monogamy with, as its
dark accompaniment, the increasing practice of sexual
immorality.

The argument from silence needs to be used with special
caution : the type of literature rather than the age of it
may account on the one hand for the absence of all refer
ence to idolatry, a feature of the book which might other
wise point strongly to a late post-exilic date, and on the
other for the absence of all allusion to a future life which
might suggest an earlier date. Again, we cannot argue
from the fact that Proverbs throughout has much the same
outlook as the friends of Job on the relation between
adversity and prosperity, and righteousness and sin, to
the conclusion that Proverbs is earlier than Job : for the
attitude of Job s friends long persisted and appears, for
example, also in Ecclus.

In chs. i.-ix. there is rather more opportunity for the
development of special and characteristic religious ideas ;
and here the conception of wisdom developed in ch. viii.
weighs heavily in favour of a post-exilic date, and indeed
of some not too early part of the post-exilic period.
Whether we can treat as equally significant the fact that
attention is specially concentrated here on city life, to the
relative disregard of agricultural pursuits and country
life, is more doubtful : for, unless we have already pre-

148 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

judged the question of the existence before the Exile of
the particular class of wise men who produced the Wisdom
Literature, it is pertinent to reflect that, whereas the lonely
prophet often drew his inspiration from the country, the
wise most probably at all times congregated, and polished
their wits, in the city.

xvi.] ECCLESIASTES 149

CHAPTER XVI

ECCLESIASTES

ECCLESIASTES is the last of the specimens of the ancient
Hebrew Wisdom Literature preserved among the Canonical
Scriptures of the Jews. In character it resembles Job
more than Proverbs ; it is not, like the latter, a corpus of
originally distinct collections of proverbs or Wisdom
Literature ; but, like Job, it is fundamentally the work
of a single writer and devoted to a single theme. In
Ecclesiastes, as in Job, if the work of more than one writer
can be proved, it is because the original work has been
interpolated ; not because, as in Proverbs, an editor has
combined different books, or because, as in the historical
books, extracts from literary sources have been incor
porated in a later narrative. In a word the book raises
questions of integrity, but not of literary sources.

Like Job, Ecclesiastes opens with the statement of a
certain thesis, discusses it, and closes l with a reaffirmation
of it. In Job the theme is the righteousness of Job : in
Ecclesiastes it is the emptiness of human life.

Like Job, Ecclesiastes employs two styles now plain
prose, now a more elevated style, if not also a distinctly
poetical form ; but in Ecclesiastes prose predominates.
More or less isolated proverbial distichs occur in several
parts of the book, but the two chief specimens of sus
tained elevation of style and poetical form are the opening
and closing passages (i. 1-8, xi. 1-xii. 8).

What was, is ; what is, will be ; between then and now
there has, indeed, been movement, and things have

1 ii. 8 : xii. 9-14 is obviously of the nature of an appendix or colopkoQ.

150 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

happened ; and so between now and hereafter there will
be movement and things will happen : but it has been,
and will be, a perpetual recurrence of the same movements
and the same happenings : it all issues in nothing new ;
history is without meaning or goal, nature a field of dreary
repetition. Such is the drift of the opening passage.

And what is true of the race is true of the individual :
where he begins, there he ends ; from the dust he came, to
the dust he returns, and the very spirit of life within
him will be reabsorbed 1 in God who gave it ; and there
fore with the individuals, as with the race and nature, all
is emptiness, meaningless : so the book closes.

It is curious, but apparently true, that the abiding
reality of God, which he admits, entirely fails to illuminate
life for Ecclesiastes. Perhaps, he hints, God may have
a purpose ; yet it is certain that the knowledge of that
purpose is withdrawn from man by the fixed determination
of God himself (iii. 9, viii. 17, xi. 5). Yet certain facts of
life are obvious : for example, Ecclesiastes sees as clearly,
though far more coldly, than Job, that the old traditional
explanation of life is false, and that as a matter of fact
the righteous cannot reckon on faring better than the
unrighteous (vii. 15, viii. 14, ix. 2, 11, 12) ; righteous and
unrighteous alike may be swept brutally and untimely
out of life with as little discrimination as fishes are caught
in a net. And those who escape an untimely end are
inevitably moving on to the coldness and darkness of old
age, and then to die like the beasts ; no life to come gives
meaning to the life that is (ch. xii.).

From this diagnosis of life follow certain practical rules
for those who would make the best of a bad matter, and
primarily this to get the most out of the present moment,
mindful only that excess exacts a retribution (ii. 24 f.).

Such, briefly summarised, are the dominant ideas of the
book, which are illustrated with much fullness from the
assumed experience and actual observation of the writer.

But ideas that conflict with these are also found in the

that of beasts ; cp. Ps, civ. 29.

xvi.] ECCLESIASTES 151

book : the righteous and unrighteous are not in like case
(viii. 11-13), for judgment, complete in its survey, unerring
in its decisions, awaits all men : God shall judge the
righteous and the wicked (iii. 17, cp. xi. 96, xii. 14).
The true practical rule of life is not to seize the present
moment in order to eat, drink, and be merry, but to fear
God and to keep his commandments (xii. 13, cp. xii. 1).

In Job also there is a sharp conflict of ideas, but for the
most part in that book, even as it now stands, the conflict
is immediately explained by the form of the book ;
different and opposed ideas are championed by different
people. There is no hint in Ecclesiastes that two or more
different persons are discussing life, and presenting opposed
interpretations of it. It has, however, been suggested
that the book represents an inner conflict, the struggle
within the same man between a lower and a nobler self.
Unfortunately there is not the slightest indication of this
apart from the inconsistencies themselves ; and, remark
ably enough, if this were the true explanation, the nobler
self is allowed much less opportunity of enforcing its view
of life. It is true the book finishes on the higher note ;
but then xii. 9-14 reads too much like an appendix, and
says nothing whatever that really meets, in such a way
as we should expect in a real debate even of the two selves,
what has gone before ; it records, speaking of him in the
third person, Ecclesiastes methods of study and instruction,
deprecates the multiplying of books, and closes with the
true end of life and the certainty of judgment to come ;
but none of this is brought into any relation with the
complaint that life moves on to old age, and to the darkness
of nothingness that follows it.

It becomes, then, almost impossible to avoid the con
clusion that the book has been interpolated in places by
one or more pious scribes who endeavoured to correct and
qualify the tendency of the original work. When we
recall the fact that Ecclesiastes had no small difficulty
in finding its way into the Canon, we may believe that a
book which, perhaps on the ground of its assumed

152 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

Solomonic authorship, made good its claim to con
sideration was in some measure corrected in the interests
of edification. A few other verses of the book may be
due to the same pious scribe.

Another type of interpolations has been suspected,
though on less strong grounds ; it is claimed that the
isolated proverbial lines or couplets which occur in iv. 5,
9-12, vii. 4-6, 7-12, 19 ; x. 1-3, 8-14a, and in a few other
places, interrupt the main argument, and are distinguished
by their frigidity from the main work. It has been sug
gested that these, together with xii. 11 f., were inserted by
one of the wise (xii. 11).

The title (i. 1) is probably enough editorial, and possibly
also xii. 9 f.

The transparent disguise of the writer, who would pass
as the pre-eminently wise (i. 16) Jewish king, (i. 12), by
whom, of course, Solomon (i. 1) is intended, was sufficient
to secure, though whether in accordance with the writer s
wish we cannot say, a misunderstanding of the book for
many centuries. Luther, however, broke away from
what had become the tradition that Solomon was the
actual, and not merely the assumed author, of Ecclesiastes ;
and the tradition now scarcely finds defenders.

The author was apparently so careless of his disguise as
to imply that many generations of Jews, and not David s
only, had preceded him in Jerusalem (i. 16, ii. 9) ;
and, again, he so far disregards his disguise as to write
frequently not from the standpoint of the ruler, but from
that of the subject, stung to the quick (iii. 16, iv. 1) by the
iniquities of the political system under which he lives, with
its many grades of subordinate officials under the highest
authority of all (v. 8). So far from being the illustrious
king of an independent people, with Jerusalem as his
capital, the author is a subject living in a province of a
great empire, rendered bitter by constant observation of
wrong and injustice, which has led him to be surprised at
nothing the official system may perpetrate, and rendered
cautious or ready to caution others against the ubiquitous

xvi.] ECCLESIASTES 153

spy (x. 20). The political and social conditions of the
writer s time are clearly enough those of a province under
the Persian Empire (537-332), or under the Greek dominion
that succeeded it.

So, also, Ecclesiastes makes apparently no attempt to
accommodate his style to classical Hebrew. Most of the
late writers, including Ben Sirach, wrote greatly under the
influence of the earlier literature, and probably with a
more or less deliberate intention of imitating it. Ecclesi
astes writes Hebrew, not Aramaic, and with that he seems
to have been content ; he freely accepts the change from
the old to the new, and in some respects perhaps gains
thereby ; his is less an ineffective imitation of an older
model than a transitional style, not without considerable
vigour of its own, to the Hebrew of the Mishnah. Ara-
maisms abound, and words or meanings that only reappear
in the Mishnah ; certain old syntactical usages disappear,
while the syntax of the Mishnah is in certain respects
anticipated. Persian words and possibly, as some have
supposed, though this is really very much open to question,
Grecisms occur. On the ground of language alone it
must be held that the book was written at the earliest
in the fourth century B.C., and more probably at least a
century or two later.

A downward limit of date is obtained if the opinion,
which has gained ground of late, that Ben Sirach was
familiar with Ecclesiastes is correct. Ecclesiastes was,
in that case, written before 180 B.C., say about 200 B.C.
The similarities both of language and thought between
Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus are certainly numerous ;
the only question is whether the dependence is unmis
takably on the part of Ben Sirach. On the one hand, it
has been urged that Ben Sirach was, both on the express
testimony of his grandson and the internal evidence of his
book, an imitator of earlier writers ; while Ecclesiastes,
though not unfamiliar with the Scriptures to which he
makes some very definite allusions (e.g. in xii. 7), was a
very independent stylist. On the other hand, it might

154 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

be urged that the marks of lateness in Ecclesiastes are more
numerous and conspicuous than in the Hebrew of Ben
Sirach ; but this fact can also be accounted for by the
difference between an imitative and an independent writer
of the same age.

Attempts to date the book more closely by interpreta
tions of what may be a reference to specific contemporary
events in iv. 13-16 have proved unsuccessful.

xvii.] THE SONG OF SONGS 155

CHAPTER XVII

THE SONG OF SONGS

THE title (i. 1) ascribes this book to Solomon ; it is the
song of the songs, i.e. the best of the songs, for which
Solomon was famous (1 Kings iv. 32). But this title,
which uses a form of the relative pronoun never used in the
book itself, was scarcely prefixed by the author ; it is
rather the mistaken inference of a scribe or editor, from
the fact that Solomon is the most famous person mentioned
in the book ; similar mistaken inferences seem to have
been responsible for the ascription in the title to it of
Ps. cxxii. to David, and of the ascription in the Talmud
(p. 5) of the Book of Joshua to Joshua. The Song of
Songs was written neither by Solomon nor in the age of
Solomon.

The author of the title treated the book as a single poem,
and so have most of those who have discussed it since.
The book must have owed its admission to the Canon to
the fact that it had come to be treated as throughout an
allegory ; and this view of it dominated both Jewish and
Christian interpretation down to the seventeenth century,
since when, at least among Protestants, it has become
increasingly less influential and now scarcely finds whole
hearted defenders. Even in the second century A.D.,
however, we find evidence that points to a very different
though a severely condemned conception : R. Akiba
declares that those who trill parts of the book in taverns
and treat it as a mere profane song have no portion in the
world to come. Even at the Reformation attempts to

156 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

break free from the traditional type of interpretation were
also visited with pains and penalties ; for treating the
Song as an erotic poem the humanist and evangelical
scholar Castellio was compelled by Calvin to vacate his
position at Geneva.

To one important feature of the book even the allegorical
interpretation did justice : it recognised the element of
dialogue ; but then, according to the religious standpoint
and the ingenuity of the interpreter, the book was treated
as the conversation exchanged between Yahweh and his
people, Christ and the Church, Christ and the individual
soul, and so forth.

Setting aside, or at least subordinating, the allegorical
interpretation, most modern commentators have concluded
that the book is a drama, the subject being the love
between man and woman. This theory of the book has
been elaborated along two main lines. According to some
there are only two chief persons of the drama, Solomon
and a country maiden (Shulamith). Delitzsch, who
adopted this view, regarded the drama as consisting of
six acts, each divided into two scenes. The first act
(i. 2-ii. 7) is played both in the dining-room and in the
wine-room appertaining to the women of the royal palace.
In the second act (ii. 8-iii. 5), Shulamith is again at home.
In the third act (iii. 6-v. 1), which represents the marriage,
the bride makes her entrance into Jerusalem from the
wilderness, and what we further then hear occurs during
the marriage festival. The locality of the fourth act
(v. 2-vi. 9) is Jerusalem, without being more particularly
defined. That of the fifth act (vi. 10-viii. 4) is the park
of Etam, and then Solomon s country house there. And
in the sixth act (viii. 5-14) we see the newly-married pair
first in the way to Shulem, and then in Shulamith s
parental home. In the first half of the dramatic pictures,
Shulamith rises to an equality with Solomon ; in the second
half, Solomon descends to an equality with Shulamith.
At the close of the first, Shulamith is at home in the king s
palace ; at the close of the second, Solomon is at home with

xvii.] THE SONG OF SONGS 157

her in her Galilean home. 1 On this theory the dramatic
movement is slight and free from complication, and the
course of true love runs quite smoothly up to the marriage,
which is assumed to take place between Acts iii. and iv. ;
thereafter a temporary estrangement is assumed to have
occurred ; but a dream which the bride relates to the
ladies of the court (v. 2-8) leads her to repentance, and
with Solomon s entrance (vi. 4-9) all becomes happy again.

The more elaborate dramatic theory developed by
Ewald finds three chief characters and a plot of greater
complexity. On this theory the country maiden, who has
already plighted her troth to a country lover, is surprised
by Solomon on a progress through Galilee, and taken off by
him to Jerusalem, where, however, he woos her in vain ;
she is true to her first love, and all ends happily, the last
act bringing before us the lovers hand in hand, and the
Shulamite obliging her lover (viii. 13) by singing a song
(viii. 14).

The stage directions which are demanded by this theory,
and have to be supplied by the interpreter, are numerous.
A specimen must suffice : Ewald divided the drama into
thirteen scenes divided among five acts ; the first act
(i. 2-ii. 7), as stated by Dr. Driver in his presentation of
Ewald s theory, is as follows :

Scene 1 (The Shulamite and Ladies of the Court). The
Shulamite, i. 2-7 (longing for the caresses of her absent
shepherd-lover, complaining that she is detained in the
royal palace against her will, and inquiring eagerly where
he may be found). The ladies of the Court, i. 8 (in reply
ironically).

Scene 2 (Solomon enters). Solomon, i. 9-11 (seeking to
win the Shulamite s love). The Shulamite, i. 12 (aside), 13,
14 (parrying the king s compliments with reminiscences of
her absent lover). Solomon, i. 15. The Shulamite (aside),
i. 16-ii. 1 (taking no notice of the king s remark in v. 15, and
applying the figures suggested by it to her shepherd-lover).

1 Franz Delitzsch, Comm. on the Song of Songs (English translation.
Edinburgh, 1877), p. 11.

158 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

Solomon, ii. 2. The Shulamite (aside), ii. 3-7 (applying
similarly to her lover the comparison suggested by v. 2.
In v. 5 f . she sinks down in a fit of half -delirious sickness ;
in v. 7 she reminds the ladies of the Court that love is an
affection which arises spontaneously, and entreats them
not to excite it artificially in Solomon s favour).

The directions for the remaining scenes are not less
elaborate ; and a later variation of this theory has still
further complicated matters by discovering an intermezzo in
which, in addition to the country lovers of the main play,
there appears another pair of country lovers distinguished
from the first by the fact that the maiden is a shepherdess
(not a vineyard-keeper) and her marriage with her lover
more imminent (i. 7 f., 15-17, iv. 8-v. 1).

The simpler two-character theory has been criticised
probably beyond recovery : the three-character theory
still has many supporters. The main question is whether
the little drama, in some respects very charming, con
structed by Ewald, was constructed by him out of the
text, or simply read by him into the text. Under the
guise of stage instructions has he not actually supplied a
modern Targum, which as completely transforms and
misrepresents an ancient piece of literature as Jewish
Targums which turned it into a history of Israel, or Christian
commentaries that made it relate the history of the Incarna
tion ? We might find minor causes for scepticism in regard
to this theory in the degree, little, if at all, short of absurd
ity, to which the use of the theatrical aside is postulated in
Act i., scene 2 (see above), and many details which cannot
here be discussed.

If the Song of Songs actually is the sole surviving
specimen of ancient Semitic drama, it is singularly un
fortunate that its author failed to supply, or scribes excused
themselves from the trouble of copying, the very necessary
stage directions.

The allegorical and the two-character dramatic theories
of the poem rightly detected dialogue in the book ; the
three-character theory rightly discerned that we are not

xvn.] THE SONG OF SONGS 159

throughout witnessing only the courtship of a country
maiden by a king, but also the affection of two country
lovers ripening into marriage ; the intermezzo theory is
probably right in recognising that the theme of two country
lovers is handled more than once, and only wrong in not
recognising that this additional complication really
strained the dramatic theory to the breaking-point. That
we already reach the actual marriage of a pair as early in
the book as ii. 6 is not admitted by the dramatic theories,
but is nevertheless probably the fact, and a fact that
works havoc with those theories.

Another theory of the book then is required, and has
found occasional advocates since Herder in the eighteenth
century ; but it has been elaborated afresh by Budde on
the basis of Wetzstein s observations of modern Syrian life
and its bearing on the Song of Songs. According to this
theory the book consists of a number of different poems or
poetical fragments, all alike having as their subject court
ship, marriage, and its attendant ceremonies, and the
beauty of bride and bridegroom. Instead of having to
postulate the negligence of a dramatist in supplying no
stage directions, or of a scribe in omitting them, all that
this theory needs to postulate is that different love-poems
have been written continuously without marks of dis
tinction, just as different Psalms and different prophetic
poems have almost certainly received similar treatment at
the hands of original editors, or of some of those who have
transmitted the text (cp. pp. 159).

What lends great probability to this theory is that
modern Syrian custom explains the character of, and even
offers parallels to, the several poems. The happiest period
in the life of the Syrian countryman is the first seven days
after his wedding, during which he and his young wife play
the part of king and queen, being treated as such by their
own and any neighbouring communities who may be
invited. The majority of the more important village
weddings take place in the month of March, the most
delightful of the Syrian year . . . consequently the

160 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

weddings are celebrated in the open on the village threshing
floor where a throne is erected to the singing of a song that
treats of war or love, and mostly both together. The bridal
pair being seated on the throne, a great dance in their honour
takes place, the accompanying song is devoted entirely
to them, its chief contents consisting of the inevitable
wasf, i.e. a description of the bodily perfection of both, and
of their ornaments. Naturally, the praise of the queen is
fuller; and naturally, too, it deals more with her visible than
her concealed charms, for to-day she is a wife, and, more
over, the wasf sung yesterday during her sword dance
left nothing to be desired. . . . With this dance begin the
games which last seven days. . . . During the whole week
their two majesties are dressed in wedding attire, and are
not allowed to do anything or attend to any business, but
all they have to do is to watch the games played before
them. 1

It is suggested that the Song of Songs includes in iv.-vii.
specimens of the descriptions of bride and bridegroom sung
at ancient Hebrew country weddings and corresponding
to the wasf of the modern Syrian wedding celebrations.
In iv. 1-7, of which vi. 4-7 may be regarded as a fragmentary
duplicate, we have the description of the visible charms of
the newly married wife, in vi. 10-vii. 6 the less restrained
description of the bride as she danced on the wedding day,
and in v. 2-16 the description of the bridegroom. Again,
iii. 6-11 may well be the song sung as the throne is brought
on to the threshing floor, the bridegroom playing here the
role not merely of any king, but of the famous and glorious
King Solomon.

The remainder of the book containing other songs sung,
some of them, later in the wedding week, as e.g. ii. 4-7,
which celebrates the nuptial night ; or representing the
admiration of the bride for the bridegroom, or of the bride
groom for the bride. In some of these songs there is dia
logue : so clearly, e.g., even in short poems like i. 7-8, 16-17,

1 The paragraph is based on Budde, Das ffohelied, pp. xvii, zviii ; the
words in inverted commas are a translation of Wetzstein s.

xvii.] THE SONG OF SONGS 161

ii. 1-3 ; but the opening poem, i. 2-4, may owe its present
appearance of dialogue to textual corruption, and origin
ally have represented entirely the speech of the bride con
gratulating herself on being alone the happy possessor of
the bridegroom, the king, who had won the hearts of all
her mates by his charms. Other separate poems are
ii. 8-14 (love in springtime), iii. 1-6 (the maiden s dream),
viii. 1-2, (5-)6-7 (love invincible), viii. 8-10 (the child
becomes the mature maiden).

If the Song of Songs is thus rightly explained, it is
essentially folk-poetry, a collection of the wedding songs
that were sung in some Hebrew village. Similar songs
were doubtless in use throughout the country ; but the
recurrence of certain peculiarities of phrase suggests that
we have rather the poems of a single locality than a
miscellaneous collection from the country at large. From
the address to the daughters, i.e. the women, of Jerusalem
in several passages, it may perhaps be inferred that the
locality of the poems was some village near Jerusalem.
From mere references to places it seems hazardous to draw
conclusions, for the places mentioned are widely distri
buted : e.g. Engedi, David s tower (in Jerusalem) belong
to the South, Carmel and Sharon to the West, Hermon
and Lebanon to the North, Gilead and Heshbon to the
East. Yet on the ground of the frequent references to
Lebanon it has commonly been held by upholders of the
dramatic theory that the book is of North Palestinian
origin.

In folk-poetry of this kind we need not expect, and in
the Song we certainly do not find, any clear allusions to
contemporary history. The age of David and Solomon
seems to belong to the distant past : David s name is
introduced in connection with a tower in Jerusalem,
Solomon as typical of kingly splendour and luxury. An
air of serenity, peace and happiness breathes through the
book ; but it would be hazardous to argue from this that
the book must have been written in days of national
independence and success, for it would be a bold assertion

162 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

that village life was necessarily harder after Jewish inde
pendence had been lost than before it, under the Persians,
the Ptolemies, or the Seleucids, than under Solomon,
Ahab, Hezekiah or many another native ruler ; and
certainly if the modern Syrian peasant under Turkish
rule can, as spring returns, celebrate weddings with seven
days of sport and jollity, and pay homage to the bridal
king and * queen, we have no reason to believe that
such happy interludes were uncommon in Hebrew villages
during the centuries of foreign dominion.

The determination of the date of the book must turn,
then, mainly on the language. It is urged that the purity
and brightness of the style favour an early origin. But
over against this general consideration, which cannot be
regarded as conclusive, stand certain very striking details
which are most obviously explained by assuming that the
Song is a post-exilic work, and perhaps, indeed, was
written as late as the third or second century B.C. The
most significant of these details is the use of the relative
sh* to the exclusion of the usual form *sher : sh occurs
indeed in the present text sporadically in Judges, and in
2 Kings vi . 1 1 ; otherwise it is confined to post-exilic literature,
and occurs with frequency elsewhere in the Old Testament
only in Eccles. : in the Mishnah it is the regular form of
the relative. Another feature pointing to a late date is
the occurrence of foreign words like the Persian pardes in
iv. 13, and appiryon, probably ^opciov, in iii. 9. It is
questionable whether the alternative theory that the
Song is of early North Palestinian origin would really
meet the facts, even if other grounds (p. 161) for attri
buting the Song to the North were stronger than they are.

xvin.] LAMENTATIONS 163

CHAPTER XVIII

LAMENTATIONS

THE book of Lamentations is divided into five chapters,
each containing a single complete poem. Three of these
poems are what the Hebrews termed kindth, i.e. dirges, or
elegies (R.V. lamentations). Hebrew elegies were com
posed either, like those of David over Saul and Jonathan
(2 Sam. i. 17 ff.) and Abner (2 Sam. iii. 33), over deceased
individuals, or, like those in Amos v. 2, Ezek. xxvi. 17 f.,
with reference to the overthrow of a nation or city. In the
latter class, to which Lam. i., ii., iv. belong, the city or
nation is personified, and its overthrow or destruction cor
responds to the death of an individual. The three dirges
of the book of Lamentations refer to the death of the
city of Sion, or the Jewish nation, i.e. to the destruction
of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. Lam. iii.
describes, figuratively, the sufferings through which the
writer in common with his fellow-Jews (vers. 40-47) has
passed in consequence of the anger of Yahweh which they
had provoked by their sins. Lam. v. is a prayer of the
Jews to Yahweh : in their prayer they describe the suffer
ings which have come upon them for the sins of their
fathers (ver. 7) and themselves (ver. 16), and lament that
Yahweh s anger shows no signs of abatement.

The three dirges and also ch. iii. are acrostics : in chs.
i. and ii. each strophe consists of three long lines, and the
successive strophes open with successive letters of the
alphabet ; in ch. iv. the strophe is shorter, consisting of
but two lines, and again the successive strophes open with
the successive letters of the alphabet. In ch. iii. each

164 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

of the first three lines begins with the first letter of the
alphabet, each of the next three with the second, and so
forth ; but whereas in chs. i., ii., iv. the several alphabetic
sections are also true strophes, in so far that they corre
spond to well-marked divisions of thought, in ch. iii. many
of the sections are marked off merely by the alphabetic
form ; for example, vers. 46-48 all begin with the same
letter ; but whereas ver. 48 goes closely with ver. 49, it
is sharply divided from ver. 47, with which verse the
prayer begun in ver. 42 comes to an end.

Another difference marks off ch. i. from chs. ii. and iv.
(and also ch. iii.). In ch. i. the sequence of the initial
letters is that which still holds in the modern Hebrew
alphabet, but in chs. ii. and iv. (and iii.) the seventeenth
letter of that alphabet precedes the sixteenth.

An ancient tradition or theory ascribes the book of
Lamentations to Jeremiah ; and this accounts for the full
title of the book in E. V. the Lamentations of Jeremiah.
This full title is ancient certainly as ancient as the fourth
century A.D., for it stands in the Sinai tic MS. of the
Septuagint, and it is probably as ancient as the second
century A.D., for it is the title of the book in the Syriac
and old Latin versions. But it is probably younger than
the date of the Greek version, for in the Vatican MS.
(fourth century A.D.), which probably represents on this
point the original text of the version, and in many other
MSS., the shorter title, Lamentations, by which the book was
also known among the early Jewish Rabbis, is found. But,
apart from its title, the Greek version enables us to trace
a pre-Christian association of Lamentations with Jeremiah :
not indeed because in that version Lamentations stands
among the Jeremianic literature, after Jeremiah and
Baruch, and before the Epistle of Jeremy, for the date
of that arrangement is unknown, and the version of
Lamentations is not from the hands of the translators of
Jeremiah, but because it contains at the head of the
first chapter this note, And it came to pass, after Israel
was led into captivity, and Jerusalem laid waste, that

xvm.] LAMENTATIONS 165

Jeremiah sat weeping, and composed this dirge over
Jerusalem and said. This note has, indeed, often been
understood to mean that Jeremiah was the author of the
entire book of five poems ; but the phrase eQprivvja-tv TOV
Bprjvov TOVTOV, composed this dirge, is identical with that
used of David s single elegy over Saul and Jonathan
(2 Sam. i. 19) ; it is, therefore, most naturally to be
understood here also of a single poem, that poem, unless
the note has become misplaced, being the first dirge.
This early form of tradition, then, ascribed not all the book,
but ch. i. only, to Jeremiah. Possibly the same form of
tradition is expressed in 1 Chron. xxxv. 25 (though some
consider the (book of) Lamentations there mentioned a
different work from the canonical book of that name), and
in Josephus Ant. x. v. 1. If the evidence of 1 Chron. xxxv.
25 be admitted, Jeremiah was believed to be at least part
author of Lamentations as early as about 200 or 300 B.C.,
i.e. about three or four centuries after Jeremiah s death.

It is doubtful whether even the most ancient form of
the tradition is true to fact ; in other words, it is doubtful
whether Jeremiah composed any, and exceedingly impro
bable that he composed all, of the poems in the book.
There is, it is true, much in the vocabulary and phraseology
of the elegies that is found also in Jeremiah ; much, too, in
the general tone and temper of parts of Jeremiah (e.g.
chs. xiii., xiv.) that reappears in Lamentations. On the
other hand, the attempt to find allusions in Lamentations
(e.g. in iii. 53) to personal experiences of the prophet
recorded in Jeremiah rests on the highly questionable
method of taking one or two statements as literal in a series
of statements which must be mostly figurative. As well
might we identify the author with Jonah, over whose head
water flowed (Jonah ii. 3-5, cp. Lam. iii. 54), but of whom
we are not told that he was cast into a dungeon, as with
Jeremiah, of whom we are told (Jer. xxxviii. 6 ff., cp. Lam.
iii. 53) that he was cast into a waterless pit, but not that
water flowed over his head.

But it is the positive difference between Lamentations

166 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

and Jeremiah that makes the ancient theory or tradition
of common authorship doubtful. These differences are
found both in the vocabulary and in the substance of the
poems. For example, a form of the relative pronoun
(sh*, cp. p. 162), never used by Jeremiah or by any pre-exilic
Jewish writer, occurs in ii. 15, 16, iv. 9, v. 18 ; and the term
Adonai, Lord, is used by itself fourteen times in chs. i.-iii.,
though Jeremiah uses it only in combination with Yahweh.
The very poems (chs. ii. and iv.) which read most like the
work of an actual eyewitness of the fall of Jerusalem, and
might, therefore, possibly have been the work of Jeremiah,
betray also the standpoint of a member of the patriotic
party whom Jeremiah had denounced and warned in
vain. Jeremiah had anticipated the fall of Jerusalem
(e.g. Jer. xxvi. 5-9), and that Yahweh would in this way turn
into the enemy of Sion; he had denounced the prophets
(xxiii. 9-40) who, by promising the people peace, had done
everything to prevent the people being prepared for the
fall of the city ; he had clearly seen that the help promised
by Egypt was worthless (see e.g. Jer. xxxvii. 6-10) ; nor
could he ever have expected the Jewish monarch to secure
the safety of the state (see e.g. Jer. xxiv. 8-10). On the
other hand, the author of Lam. ii. and iv. writes as if he
had been among the dupes of the prophets, and the fall
of the monarch and princes, to whom he imputes no blame,
he feels as a desecration ; l and that the Lord could
become the enemy had startled and shocked him ; more
over, he had hoped up to the last that the help (of Egypt)
would not prove vain : see Lam. ii. 14, 9c (prophets),
ii. 6c, 9b, iv. 20 (king and princes), iv. 17 (the expected
help), iv. 12 (unpreparedness for the fall of Jerusalem).
The writer may even have been one of those who shared
Zedekiah s flight down the deep descent from Jerusalem
to Jericho, and his subsequent capture (2 Kings xxv. 4 f.=
Jer. xxxix 4 f., cp. Lam. iv. 19) ; and he was apparently
familiar with the writings of Ezekiel (592-571 B.C.).

Setting aside, then, the traditional authorship of the book,

* G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, ii. 272.

XVIH.] LAMENTATIONS 167

what can be said with reference to the origin of it ? An
anonymous collection of poems, and such in the Hebrew
Bible Lamentations is, need not necessarily be the work of a
single author; and the differences described above (pp. 163,
164) point, as a matter of fact, rather to diversity than unity
of authorship. So also does the absence in chs. i., iii., v. of
those vivid touches which have convinced most (though not
all) students of the book that chs. ii. and iv. are the work of
a man who had passed through the siege of Jerusalem in
588-586. If that conviction is correct those two poems
at least were written within some twenty or thirty years of,
though, if the influence of Ezekiel is rightly traced in them,
not immediately after, the events they describe say, about
570-560 B.C. The determination of the date of the remain
ing poems is more difficult : to some ch. i. has seemed
dependent upon and therefore subsequent to chs. ii. and iv. ;
and it is not impossible that ch. iii. belongs to a much later
age. The evidence on which a decision turns depends
mainly on a minute analysis of language and literary
affinities which cannot be reproduced here.

168 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [en.

CHAPTER XIX

THE PROPHETIC LITERATURE: INTRODUCTORY

THE remains of ancient Hebrew prophetic literature were
preserved by the Jews in four collections entitled respec
tively Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve ; and these
all stand together in the Hebrew Bible. In the English
Bible, which is influenced by the arrangement of the
Septuagint, Lamentations, on account of the ascription of
that book to Jeremiah, is inserted between Jeremiah and
Ezekiel, and Daniel between Ezekiel and the first section
of The Twelve. Lamentations has no prophetic character ;
on the other hand, parts of Daniel resemble in character
parts of the prophetic books. Lamentations has already
been considered ; Daniel may be deferred to the end.

There are certain common features presented, or common
questions raised, by all the prophetical books, and it will
be convenient to consider these in the present chapter
before passing to the detailed consideration of the separate
books in the chapters that follow.

Prophets were primarily not writers, but speakers ; and
the prophetical books, like so much other Hebrew literature,
enshrine in literary form what was in its origin oral. Not
indeed that everything in the four prophetic collections,
or in Daniel, runs back to an oral origin ; as a matter of
fact it does not ; but prophecy was in its origin something
spoken, and this in some measure affects the literary form
even of later productions of prophetic or quasi-prophetic
character that had no oral origin.

The early prophets were men of speech, and men of
action, and stories gathered round them which have preserved

xix.] PROPHETIC LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY 169

for us some account both of what they said and what they
did ; pre-eminent among such narratives about the early
prophets are those of which Elijah and Elisha are the sub
ject, though it is well also to recall here the narrative in
2 Samuel xii. about Nathan, which preserves a more
complete specimen of prophetic speech.

But we have no reason to believe that these earlier
prophets themselves either wrote down what they had
spoken, or took measures to have their words perpetuated,
and in any case it is not till we reach the eighth century B.C.
that we find prophets whose words and teaching have
formed the substance of books that still exist. It has
become customary to speak of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah
as the earliest literary prophets ; yet this term must not be
allowed to become misleading ; these men, and in the next
century Jeremiah, were, like the prophets that had preceded
them, speakers ; their mode of communication was still
primarily oral, and only secondarily, and doubtless, too, only
very partially, did it become literary also. Least of all were
they merely literary men, personally withdrawn from the
circles whom they sought to influence ; by spoken word,
but also often by their whole manner of life they made
their appeal. And thus about some of these men, as about
Elijah and Elisha, we have received narratives.

Speaking broadly, then, we have to distinguish in the
literature that passes under the names of the prophets
that have been mentioned three elements, though not all
of these are present in all the books in question : we have
(1) the literary form in which the speech, or oral teach
ing, of these prophets is preserved ; (2) autobiographical
notices which some of these prophets composed ; and (3) bio
graphical notices, of which some were written by a com
panion with immediate knowledge, while others may rather
be the literary embodiment of popular stories that had
gathered round the prophet.

But the prophetic literature of the Old Testament is
the deposit of a long period of history, extending from the
eighth century down to at least the fifth century B.C. ;

170 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

and during this period prophecy underwent a change.
It passed in the persons of some at least of its exponents
into what was primarily and purely a literary form of
expression ; much at least of Ezekiel (e.g. chs. xl.-xlviii.),
possibly uhe whole of the work of the Deutero-Isaiah (xl.-lv.),
and certainly apocalyptic work such as Is. xxiv.-xxvii.
and the visions of Daniel, rest on no previously spoken
word.

It is unnecessary here to dwell further either on the
autobiographical and biographical elements in the prophetic
books ; or on those prophetic books or parts of books that
rest on no oral basis, but were from the first literary. On
the other hand, that large part of the books of Isaiah,
Hosea, Amos, Micah, Jeremiah, Zephaniah, probably also of
Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, that are obviously related to
the spoken word of the prophet calls for some further
consideration.

A very slight examination of the prophetic books suffices
to show that they do not contain verbatim reports of
speeches or sermons. In large part the prophetic teaching
is preserved in the form of poems, and for the most part
these poems are short. The problem then is : How do
these poems stand related to the speech and teaching of
the prophet ? Did he compose poems and recite them in
public ? or did he or some disciple of his from time to time
enshrine the substance of the prophet s teaching in short
poems ? Such short poems, even though they were
committed to writing, could and would continue to be
learnt, for the circulation even of small books (or rolls)
was scarcely large.

Though on certain occasions, taking a hint from the
professional singers or reciters who, as Num. xxi. 27 sug
gests, recited existing poems, the prophet too may have
recited in public such poems, perhaps, as Isaiah s parable of
the vineyard, which he had previously composed, the
greater number of the prophetic poems are more probably
the subsequent artistic expression of thoughts and ideas
that had formed the tenor of the prophet s public

xix.] PROPHETIC LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY 171

utterances. This may account for the comparative absence
of detailed allusions or applications of the prophetic
teaching in the poems ; and this in turn may explain why
it is often a very difficult and uncertain task to determine
the chronological order either of prophecies in general,
or of the prophecies of a particular prophet. In his actual
speech the prophet doubtless often pointed his teaching
by reference to passing events, and details of the moment ;
in the poems, which at once condensed and perpetuated
his teaching, such details tended to disappear.

The composition of some of these prophetic poems may
have been virtually simultaneous with the committing of
them to writing. On the other hand, these two processes
may often have been separated from one another by a
considerable interval, so that there were three well-defined
stages before prophetic speech issued in a book, viz. : (1)
the public utterance of the prophet, or his instruction
more privately communicated to a circle of disciples ;
(2) the reduction of the substance of this teaching to poetic
form ; (3) the committing of the poems to writing, with any
alterations, additions or explanations that may have seemed
advisable.

The books of Isaiah and Habakkuk give one or two
hints, the book of Jeremiah a fuller account of the cir
cumstances under which, and the manner in which, a
prophet actually committed his teaching to writing. The
earliest record that a prophet received a command from
Yahweh not, as was usually the case, to speak (e.g. Amos
vii. 16, Is. vi. 9, Jer. vii. 2), but to write, is in Is. viii. 1 :
here Isaiah records that he was bidden (shortly before
732 B.C.) to write on a great tablet a single ominous name
Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and to have the inscription attested
by witnesses. Of tablets inscribed with some word or
words of prophetic teaching we also read in Hab. ii. 2-4 :
Write the vision (i.e. the prophecy), and make it plain
upon tablets, that he that readeth it may run (i.e. read
it fluently). Even this inscription, though longer than
the previous one, probably consisted of one great saying

172 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

only, which ran (adopting a probable emendation), Behold,
as for the unrighteous, his soul is not even within him ; but
the righteous shall live by his faithfulness. The written
word here is a word of assurance for the righteous, among
whom the prophet may in the first instance have reckoned
his disciples.

In neither of the instances just noted does the prophet
speak of writing a book, but merely of a word or a saying.
But the existence of such tablets containing some pregnant
saying may account for certain brief and unconnected
sayings that occur in the present prophetical books.

Another passage in Isaiah speaks of the preparation not
only of tablets, but of a book or rather a roll. In Is. xxx. 8
the prophet records that he was bidden, instead of going
about as heretofore and addressing the people, to go home
and prepare a written precis of what he had lately been
speaking in public to a public that will not heed, in order
that this book may become what the spoken word cannot
be, a lasting memorial of the prophet s teaching.

Finally, we have the very instructive narrative preserved
in Jer. xxxvi. According to this it was not until the year
604 B.C., i.e. more than twenty years after ths call to
prophesy came to him (626 B.C.), that Jeremiah had any
consciousness that it was God s will that he should write
as well as speak. In that year Yahweh said to him, Take
thee a roll of a book, and write in it all the words that I
have spoken unto thee concerning Israel (or rather, as
the LXX. reads, Jerusalem), and concerning Judah, and
concerning all the nations, from the day I spake unto
thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.
Accordingly Jeremiah dictated to Baruch, who wrote
them on the roll, all the words of Yahweh, which he had
spoken to Jeremiah. It has, indeed, been suggested that
Jeremiah had written down some of the words of Yahweh
before this time, and that he dictated to Baruch out of
an earlier book (or books) of his prophecies ; but there is
not the slightest indication of this in the narrative, and
it is particularly difficult to believe, if Jeremiah had

PROPHETIC LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY 173

dictated to him out of a book, that Baruch s reply to the
inquiry how he wrote the book could have run as it does :

* He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth,
and I wrote them with ink in a book.

Moreover, the main reason assigned for assuming written
prophecies of Jeremiah earlier than the roll prepared in
604 B.C. is quite insufficient. Even if it be correct that

* the early prophecies bear so unmistakably the marks of
the time when they were originally uttered, and are so full
of the prophet s youthful energy and fire, that we cannot
regard them as compositions of twenty years later (Peake),
nothing more, necessarily, follows than this, that Jeremiah
had before this time reduced some of his teaching to
poetic form ; this is probable enough, though we are not
justified in concluding that everything committed to writing
in 604 had reached even this fixity of form previously.
In any case, the conclusion of the narrative is suggestive :
King Jehoiakim obtains the roll, and destroys it ; there
upon, again at Jeremiah s dictation, Baruch writes on
another roll all the words that had been on the former ;

* and there were added besides unto them many like words.
The last statement warns us that all the words of Yahweh,
spoken to Jeremiah and written on the first roll, must be
taken, as in any case it would be sufficiently obvious to
take it, to mean the substance of all Yahweh s revelation to
the prophet. And, further, the additions made to the
second roll suggest, what again would in any case be likely
enough, that the purpose of the roll was to perpetuate past
teaching in a form, and with explanations, suitable for the
present and the future.

Down to Jeremiah, then, prophets seem first to have
spoken, and then, often perhaps many years later, to have
written. With Ezekiel (ch. ii.) the book plays a part even
in the commission to prophesy : he sees a book and absorbs
it ; however we may exactly explain the eating of the
book, this narrative is significant, standing, as it does, at
the head of the work of a prophet much at least of whose
activity must have been primarily literary.

174 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

Except in the case of Ezekiel, there lies between the early
books written by the prophets themselves, or at their
dictation by others, and the four collections in which the
prophetic literature has been preserved a more or less
complicated history, which will be considered in each case
as it arises. But the date at which the four collections can
be first traced can better be considered here, for the avail
able evidence is in the case of all four the same.

The Book of the Twelve includes prophecies of Haggai
and Zechariah who lived at the end of the sixth, and of
Malachi who lived in the fifth century B.C. At earliest,
then, the Book of the Twelve was not compiled earlier
than the fifth century B.C. If, as seems probable (see p. 229),
it also includes prophecies written as late as the third century
B.C., the collection itself can be no earlier than that century.
And much the same might be said, for reasons given below
and which need not be anticipated here, about the books
of Isaiah and Jeremiah.

But at the beginning of the second century we find clear
traces of prophetic collections corresponding more or less
closely to, if not exactly identical with, the four existing
collections Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve. In the
celebrated praise of the famous men of Israel with which
the book of Ecclesiasticus (written c. 180 B.C.) closes, the
author mentions by name Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel,
adding a reference to some striking phrases or ideas in the
books that bear the names of these prophets. Thus :

1 For Hezekiah did that which was good,

And was strong in the ways of David,
Which Isaiah the prophet commanded (him),

Who was great and faithful in his vision.
In his days the sun stood still,

And he added life to the king :
By the spirit of might he saw the end,

And comforted the mourners in Sion ;
For ever he declared things that should be,

And hidden things before they came.

xix.] PROPHETIC LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY 175

By the hand of Jeremiah, for they afflicted him,

Yet from the womb he was formed (to be) a prophet,
To pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to

overthrow,
And in like manner to build up, to plant and to make

strong.
Ezekiel saw the vision,

And declared divers kinds of chariot,
Also he made mention of Job,

Who maintained all the ways of righteousness.

Eoclus. xlviii. 22-25, xlix. 6-9.

The writer then proceeds to refer to the remaining
prophetic writers, not individually, but by the collective
term, * the Twelve Prophets/ thus :

Moreover the Twelve Prophets,

May their bones flourish out of their places,
Who recovered Jacob to health,

And restored him by confidence of hope.

Eeclus. xlix. 10.

From this so much at least may be inferred : (1) that Ben
Sirach was familiar with a book of Isaiah that included chs.
xl.-lxvi. of Isaiah in whole or in part (see below, p. 182) : (2)
that a prophetic collection entitled The Twelve Prophets
already existed ; and (3) that Ben Sirach was familiar
with ch. i. of Jeremiah and with Ezekiel i. and xiv. 14.
In a word, Ben Sirach at the beginning of the second
century was familiar with four prophetic collections which
passed under the names of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The
Twelve (Prophets), and, apparently, with no other similar
(Scriptural) books : he makes no allusion to Daniel.

The question, however, remains : Were the prophetic
volumes with which Ben Sirach was familiar co-extensive
with the four existing prophetic collections : and if not,
how nearly ? In the case of * The Twelve, 1 unless we con
template the improbable possibility that the work of one
prophet was bodily substituted for another, the framework
of that volume has never suffered alteration since c. 180 ;
it consisted of twelve sections bearing the names of twelve

176 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

prophets then, it consists of twelve exactly similar sections
still.

But this does not necessarily imply that either the book
of The Twelve or the other collections were secure thence
forward against all interpolation or alteration ; on the
other hand, they almost certainly suffered such modifica
tions to some greater or less extent ; for the differences
both in the matter of arrangement and in extent between
the Hebrew text and the Greek translation (? c. 100 B.C.)
of the book of Jeremiah is considerable, and there are
differences, though they are very much slighter, in the other
three collections.

Yet allowing due weight to the significant differences of
the Greek version, the character of the allusions in Ben
Sirach, coupled with the fact that he makes no reference to
Daniel, and that Daniel never gained a place in the prophetic
literature, creates a considerable presumption in favour of
the conclusion that four great prophetic collections already
existed c. 180 B.C. possessing the same outstanding features
as, and approximately co-extensive with, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and The Twelve as they now stand in the Hebrew
Bible. The editors, then, who, by bringing together the
various elements that now compose Isaiah, The Twelve, and
Jeremiah, disposed the remains of ancient prophecy in
three volumes which, with the already existing book of
Ezekiel, made four, probably lived in, and perhaps towards
the close of, the third century B.C.

Did these editors merely compile, or did they also
modify ? Did the editors of prophetic literature, in the
interests of the edification of their own age, feel as free as
the prophets themselves had felt (see p. 173) to add to the
words received many like words ? If we approach the
question from our modern attitude towards Scripture, which
makes addition to the text of it impossible, and compels
all addition or modification that may be made in the
interests of edification to take the form of commentary or
interpretation, we are ready to answer, No. Yet a com
parison of the Hebrew and Greek text of Jeremiah in

xix.] PROPHETIC LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY 177

particular, but also of the other books, should give us pause.
Moreover, it is certain that the prophetic books have re
ceived some late accretions ; most conclusive is the presence
in Jer. x. 10 of a gloss written in Aramaic, which has in
truded into the middle of a sentence of the original prophecy
which was written in Hebrew.

The question whether the prophetic writings have been
subject to more extensive editorial modification than the
mere addition to them of such glosses as that just mentioned
will be dealt with, so far as the scope of the present work
allows it to be dealt with at all, in the following chapters.
But here an important general consideration may be briefly
stated : between the prophetic and literary activity of
Isaiah, Amos, Micah, Hosea, Jeremiah and others, and the
editorial activity which resulted in the production of four
collections or volumes of prophetic literature, three, at least,
and probably five, centuries elapsed. But within even the
shorter of these two intervals prophecy had undergone a
profound change : the emphasis, which at first lay on
denunciation of the sin of Yahweh s people and warning of
judgment to come upon them, has been exchanged for an em
phasis on promises of their coming delivery ; and the pro
minence given by the earlier prophets to an approaching judg
ment on Judah yields to an increasing tendency in the later
prophets to speak of an approaching world judgment. Did
the editors allow the threats uttered against former genera
tions of Jews to stand unrelieved in the books they prepared
for their own age ? Or are they responsible for adding to,
or interweaving with, the ancient prophecies of judgment to
come, passages of promise written at a more recent date ?
The answer appears to be that to a certain extent they are
responsible for such additions and modifications ; exactly
to what extent it is difficult to say, but see below, e.g.
pp. 187, 207, 213, 218, 226.

178 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

CHAPTER XX

ISAIAH

PROPHECIES of the prophet Isaiah, who was active in the
latter half of the eighth century B.C., and perhaps outlived
it, and narratives about him, form the most conspicuous
elements in the first of the four collections of prophetic
literature. His name gives its title to the collection, and
he came to be regarded as the author of the entire book ;
numerous passages from many parts of the book are cited
as his words in the New Testament ; and Ecclus. xlviii. 24 f .
(cited above on p. 178) refers to him passages in Is. xl.-lxvi.
as well as in i.-xxxix.

And yet nothing is clearer than that large parts of this
collection are not the work of Isaiah. In the first place,
chs. xl.-lv., which are in the main homogeneous and the
work of a single age and author, clearly imply that they
were written long subsequent to the age of Isaiah. And
these implications do not consist in the fact that specific
events that took place two centuries after the opening of
Isaiah s career are foretold ; for, though it is not customary
in prophecy to mention by name persons yet unborn,
still such a case might be met by assuming an exceptional
particularity in this particular prophecy. What is con
clusive is that a person who was not born, events that did
not happen, and conditions that did not begin to prevail,
till a century or more after Isaiah s death, are here pre
supposed as already actually existing, or as having already
happened. The Babylonian Exile which began in 597
and 586 B.C., the emergence of Cyrus on the field of history
c. 550 B.C., the desolation of Jerusalem, are not predicted ;

xx.] ISAIAH 179

they are elements in the historical situation actually
existing at the time at which the author of these chapters
wrote ; living under those conditions he makes certain
predictions of the way in which those conditions will
change, or of what will arise out of them : the Exile will
come to an end, the Jews will return to Jerusalem, Cyrus
will let them go and provide for the rebuilding of
Jerusalem.

The inevitable conclusion is that these chapters were
written after Cyrus had already become famous, and
(unless we treat the predictions as vaticinia post eventum,
for which there is not the slightest reason) before he actually
destroyed the Babylonian Empire and the Jews returned
and rebuilt Jerusalem, i.e. after 550 and before 538 B.C.

In the history of criticism a large place has been given
to the linguistic argument that the style and language of
large parts of chs. i.-xxxix. and of xl.-lxvi. are so different
that they cannot be the work of a single author. The
differences are, as a matter of fact, very great, and the
argument is weighty. But even if the differences were
much slighter, the conclusion that the origins of the sections
of the book of Isaiah in question were separated from one
another by nearly two centuries would not be affected ;
this rests not, as is sometimes mistakenly suggested, on a
denial of the predictive element in prophecy, nor again on
philology, but on the fact that the age out of which these
two bodies of prophecy arose, and from the standpoint of
which the predictions each contains were made, is, as
shown by the contemporaries to which the writers severally
refer, in the one case the age of S argon and Sennacherib,
of Ahaz and Hezekiah, i.e. the eighth century B.C., and in
the other the age of Cyrus, i.e. the sixth century.

Moreover, it is not the case that the prophecies of the
sixth century contained in the book of Isaiah are confined
to the last twenty-seven chapters, so that the book could
be explained as due to the accidental union, in a single
roll, of prophecies of Isaiah and prophecies of a Great
Unknown living in the sixth century. That the book of

180 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

Isaiah is the work of two authors thus distributed is a
widespread popular misconception of critical conclusions,
due largely no doubt to the fact that it has been found
convenient to employ the term Deutero-Isaiah for that
exilic writer who, next to Isaiah, has contributed most
largely to the book. Deutero-Isaiah was the term
employed down to 1892 to denote the author of Is. xl.-lxvi. :
since then, as a result of Duhm s criticism, it has been
increasingly recognised that the work of Deutero-Isaiah
does not extend beyond chs. xl.-lv. ; for ch. Ivi.-lxvi.
Duhm invented the term Trito-Isaiah. But, again, this
only means that three prophets have contributed an
important body of prophecy to the book ; it neither
implies that not more than three prophets have contributed
anything, nor that all of chs. i.-xxxix. was the work of one
man ; the last point has never been advocated by any
critical scholar since the unity of the entire book was
abandoned. Within chs. i.-xxxix. there are passages,
such as ch. xiii., which as unmistakably presuppose the
conditions of the sixth century as chs. xl.-lv. : the author
of ch. xiii. lived at a time when not Nineveh and the
Assyrians, as in the time of Isaiah, were respectively the
political centre and the imperial people of the ancient
world, but Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, and the
Babylonians, i.e. after the fall of Nineveh and the destruc
tion of the Assyrian Empire in 607, and after the founda
tion of its successor, the Neo-Babylonian Empire, by
Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, but before Cyrus
arose and in turn overthrew the Neo-Babylonian Empire
in 538 B.C.

Scarcely less unmistakable is the evidence that other
parts of the book such as chs. xxiv.-xxvii. and Ivi.-lxvi. were
written after the Exile ; but even if this were not so, the
exilic origin of ch. xiii., the late exilic origin of chs. xl.-lv.
justifies the conclusion that the book of Isaiah is a post-
exilic compilation or collection of prophetic literature, the
work of different authors and of different ages.

Not only so : there is evidence that the book of Isaiah is

xx.] ISAIAH 181

not a collection of prophecies of different authors and
different ages freely gathered and arranged once for all by
a single post-exilic editor. It not only contains prophecies
of different prophets, but it incorporates different books
or collections of prophecies that must have had their own
previous history. This is indicated by the presence in
the book of several titles, and certain other features.
Guided by these features, we may divide the book as
follows :

(a) i. 2-31. Prophecies preceded by a general title

(i. 1) ascribing authorship to Isaiah.

(b) ii.-xii. Prophecies mainly concerning Judah and

Jerusalem, ascribed in a title (ii. 2) to Isaiah.

section (xiii. 1) probably intends to ascribe to
Isaiah, but which certainly contains some
prophecies written as late as the Exile (e.g. ch.
xiii., xxi. 1-10).

(d) xxiv.-xxvii. Anonymous prophecy (post-exilic).

(e) xxviii.-xxxiii. A group of prophetic poems begin

ning with the interjection Ah ! (R.V. Woe !
or Ho!).

(/) xxxiv.-xxxv. Anonymous prophecy (exilic or post-
exilic).

(g) xxxvi.-xxxix. Mainly extracts, referring to Isaiah,
from 2 Kings.

(h) xl.-lxvi. Anonymous prophecy.

The exact processes by which this group of books, or
extracts, gradually coalesced into the existing book of Isaiah
must remain uncertain. But the analogy of the book of
Jeremiah in which the last chapter is an extract from
Kings suggests that the extract from Kings in Is. xxxvi.-
xxxix. once formed the close of the book ascribed in the
title (i. 1) to Isaiah, and consequently that i.-xxxix. (or
the major part thereof) and xl.-lxvi. each once existed as
separate books; we may find some confirmation of this
in the fact that 2 Chron. xxxvi. 20-23 implies that the

182 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

author of Chronicles regarded Is. xl.-lxvi., or at least
Is. xliv. 28, not as the work of Isaiah, but of Jeremiah !

The prophetic collection that concluded with the extract
from Kings must itself have been formed in the post-
exilic period : this is true also of some, if not all, of the
yet smaller books or collections now included within chs.
i.-xxxix., certainly of the Oracles (xiii.-xxiii.), probably
even of chs. ii.-xii. which consist so largely of prophecies
of Isaiah.

The indications that several different and successive
stages in the history of the book of Isaiah took place after
the Exile suggest that the final stage by which the book in
its present form was reached must not be placed very early
in the post-exilic period probably not earlier than the
third century B.C., in any case, and certainly not if, as sug
gested above, the Chronicler associated Is. xl.-lxvi. with
Jeremiah. Whether any considerable additions were made
much after the beginning of the second century B.C. is
doubtful ; the terms in which Ben Sirach (c. 180 B.C.) refers
to Isaiah, in the passage quoted on p. 174, might very well
cover the present book : the extract from Kings is referred
to in xlviii. 23 ; xlviii. 24 f. refers to (parts of) xl.-lxvi., and
the vision, i.e. the prophetic teaching, might very well
cover chs. i.-xxxv. Still, it cannot be said that this
evidence absolutely excludes the interpolation into the
book of Isaiah known to Ben Sirach even of a long section
such as chs. xxiv.-xxvii. Yet considerations based on the
history of the canon, and the evidence of the Greek version
which contains the whole book with the exception of a
verse or two (ii. 22, xxxviii. 15, xl. 7, Ivi. 12), and a clause
or two besides (e.g. vi. 13, last clause), render the theory of
late second-century interpolations hazardous.

We may now proceed to a brief detailed consideration of
the chief constituents of this post-exilic prophetic collection,
firstly of those parts of it directly related to Isaiah, then of
the exilic prophecies, then of the post-exilic prophecies,
and finally of some of the chronologically more ambiguous
passages.

xx.] ISAIAH 183

The work of or relating to Isaiah is confined to, though it
does not constitute the whole of, the following sections of
the book : i.-xii., xiii.-xxiii., xxviii.-xxxiii., xxxvi.-xxxix.
Within these chapters we find (a) prophetic poems and
fragments or sayings of Isaiah ; (b) autobiographical
notices, vi.-viii. 18 (in the main) ; (c) biographical notices
about the prophet, xx., xxxvi.-xxxix.

The notices, whether autobiographical or biographical,
do not give a continuous account of Isaiah s life, but only
information about certain periods of it : ch. vi. records the
circumstances of his call (c. 740 B.C.), and vii. 1-viii. 18
contains some notices of his activity during the years 735-
733 B.C. ; then, except perhaps for ch. xxxix., which may
refer to an event in the interval, follows a blank of more
than twenty years till the year 711 B.C. to which ch. xx.
refers ; then another blank of ten years ; and then the
story of Isaiah s activity in 701 is told in chs. xxxvi.-xxxix.
These chapters would also give information of yet later
activity of Isaiah, if the theory were correct that xxxvi. f .
contains not, as is commonly held, two different accounts
of Sennacherib s campaign in 701, but accounts of two
different campaigns one in 701, and another, of which
as yet there is no distinct historical evidence, some years
later.

The prophecies of Isaiah cannot all be assigned with
any certainty to any of the points in Isaiah s career described
by himself or others, or to other definite periods. Perhaps
the earliest is ii. 6-19, which may have been composed before
the Assyrian campaign of 738 disturbed the prevalent con
fidence in the wealth and material resources of the kingdom.
A little later, but before the Syro-Ephraimitish war, say
in 737 B.C., may be placed the composition of the longest
surviving poem of Isaiah s, ix. 8-x. 4, together with v. 26-29,
the misplaced conclusion of the poem. Before 732, the
year in which Damascus fell, must be placed the poem,
xvii. 1-11, which predicts the fall of that city ; and, for a
similar reason, xxviii. 1-4 must have been composed before
722, the year of the destruction of Samaria. On the other

184 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

hand, an allusion to the capture of Carchemish indicates
that x. 5-15 was composed after 717. To the time immedi
ately preceding or during Sennacherib s campaign may be
referred (apart from later modifications) i. 5-9, xviii., xxviii.-
xxxi., xxii. 1-14. Prophecies more or less clearly Isaiah s,
but of ambiguous date, are i. 2-4, 10-26, iii. 1-iv. 1, v.,
x. 27-32, xiv. 28-32 (in part), xxii. 15-25.

The disregard of chronological arrangement in Isaiah
i.-xxxix., which the foregoing paragraphs indicate, is in part
at least due to the way in which the book arose ; the editor
who brought together chs. ii.-xii., xiii.-xxiii., xxviii.-xxxiii.,
and xxxvi.-xxxix. might of course have freely rearranged
his materials ; he preferred to preserve the literary con
nections, and to give the chronology only second considera
tion ; ii.-xii. stands first as containing unmistakable
allusions to the times of Uzziah and Ahaz, xiii.-xxiii. which
alludes to the death of Ahaz follows, and then xxviii.-xxxiii.
and xxxvi.-xxxix. which refer to the days of Ahaz s
successor, Hezekiah.

The exilic elements in the book of Isaiah include xiii.
(see p. 180), xxi. 1-10 (in which the threatened city is almost
certainly Babylon, and the situation similar to that in
ch. xiii.), xl.-lv., and perhaps xiv. 4 b.-21 and xxi. 11-15.

Of chs. xl.-lv. it is necessary to speak further, for import
ant questions of the extent and integrity of this prophecy
arise, many holding that Ivi.-lxvi. is also the work of the
same author, while some, on the other hand, argue that
even into xl.-lv. extraneous and later material has been
interpolated.

The chief features in the actual situation out of which
xl.-lv. arose, and the chief elements in the future predicted,
are these : (1) the Jews are now exiles in Babylon ; the
writer predicts that they will shortly return to Sion (see
xlviii. 14, 20, li. 11, xliii. 14 ff., cp. xl. 1 f.) ; (2) Sion is
now waste, but is to be rebuilt (see xliv. 28, xlix. 14-21,
li. 3, 17-23, Iii. 7-12, liv.) ; (3) Babylon is now exalted, but
is to be brought low (see xlvii., cp. xlvi. 1, 2) ; (4) Cyrus is
already well known (xliv. 28, xiv. 1), and, for such is

xx.] ISAIAH 185

probably the implication of xli. 25 ff., has united Persia to
the east and Media to the north of Babylon (549 B.C.) ;
on the other hand, he has not yet achieved, as the prophecy
predicts that he will, and as, in 538 B.C., he actually did,
achieve the capture of Babylon.

It is clear, therefore, that xl.-lv. was written between
549 and 538. Was the closing section of Isaiah, Ivi.-lxvi.,
written at the same period ? Was it the work of the same
author, but written in whole or in part, as some have
supposed, shortly after the return in 537 ? Or was it the
work both of another author or other authors and of a
different period ? The following considerations suggest
that the last is the correct view :

(1) The general purpose and subject are different. The
whole of xl.-lv. is dominated by one ruling purpose to
rouse the exiles out of their despondency, and to fill them,
the servant of Yahweh, with enthusiasm for their true
destiny, which is to instruct the world at large in true
religion. For this purpose the writer dwells on such sub
jects as the omnipotence of Yahweh, his intention to
redeem the Jews, the powerlessness of idols and consequently
of the people, though they be the imperial Babylonians
themselves, who serve them. These chapters, then, though
they may not show an uninterrupted development of
thought, are yet held together by a few closely related ideas.
The contrast afforded by Ivi.-lxvi. is great ; these last
chapters are not governed by any single dominating pur
pose, but are quite miscellaneous, now describing the terms
on which eunuchs and strangers may be admitted to the
Jewish community (Ivi. 1-8), now denouncing a Jewish com
munity in which the people generally resort to illegitimate
practices, from which the righteous perish, and in which
the watchmen are neglectful (Ivi. 9-lvii. 21), or which is
sedulous in fasting, but given to inhumanity and the pro
fanation of the Sabbath (Iviii., lix.), now depicting the
restoration and future glory of Sion (Ix.-lxii.), or Yahweh
returning victorious from his conflict with Edom (Ixiii. 1-6),
now providing a liturgical confession (Ixiii. 7-lxiv.), and

186 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

finally contrasting the characters and destinies of the
apostates and the loyal (Ixv., Ixvi.).

(2) The historical and social background of Ivi.-lxvi. is
different from that of xl.-lv. : no more allusions to Cyrus
or Babylon occur ; on the other hand, at times in these
chapters the people addressed seem to be living not on the
alluvial plains of Babylon, but amid the rocky, mountain
ous scenery of Palestine (Ivii. 3-7) ; subject to native,
though neglectful, leaders (Ivi. 10 f. : cp. e.g. Jer. vi. 17, ii. 8),
and to native, though unjust, tribunals (lix. 3-9, 14).
Again, some at least of the references to the Temple and
the altar are predictions not of the restoration of what is
non-existent, but of what is hereafter to happen in a
Temple or on an altar that already exists : see Ivi. 5, 7,
Ix. 7. On the other hand, Ix. 10 suggests that the walls
of Jerusalem had not yet been rebuilt.

(3) In addition to what has been noted under (1), as
illustrations of difference in ideas between xl.-lv. and Ivi.-
lxvi., the prominence given to the Sabbath in Ivi. and
Iviii., and the reference to the Holy Spirit (Ixiii. 10, 11),
may be noticed.

(4) Between xl.-lv. and most of Ivi.-lxvi. there is a
difference of style. A criterion referred to in another
connection is available ; the shorter form of the first
personal pronoun is but three times as frequent as the
longer in xl.-lv. ; in Ivi.-lxvi. it is eight times as frequent.

The force of these converging lines of evidence has led
many subsequent writers to follow Duhm in concluding
that Ivi.-lxvi. is not the work of the same author as xl.-lv.
The various sections of Ivi.-lxvi. are not necessarily the
work of one author or one date ; but the major part of the
section may with probability be assigned to the middle
of the fifth century B.C., when the Temple was standing,
but Nehemiah had not yet restored the ruined walls, and
when the observance of the Sabbath and the status of
aliens were occupying the attention of the people.

The chief question of the integrity of xl.-lv. gathers round
certain of the passages which treat of the Servant of

xx.] ISAIAH 187

Yahweh, viz. xlii. 1-4, xlix. 1-6, 1. 4r9, Hi. 13-liii. 12. To
speak of these as the * Servant Songs J is rather misleading ;
the passages in question are poetical, but so also is the rest
of xl.-lv : they refer to the Servant, but so also do other
parts of xl.-lv. It is impossible here to consider the vast
variety of opinions as to the origin of these passages, or
the grounds on which some treat them as alien to, and
others, with whom the present writer agrees, as an integral
part of chs. xl.-lv.

Among the longer post-exilic sections in the book of
Isaiah, next to Ivi.-lxvi., which has just been considered,
is xxiv.-xxvii. In this section the political and social
conditions of the Jews after the Exile are reflected ; they
are politically dependent, without a king of their own ;
the priesthood is the highest rank among them ; many of
them are scattered over the earth ; those in Palestine
appear to be few in number, and mingled with the heathen ;
yet the writer, living in Jerusalem (xxv. 6), anticipates a
world- judgment and the intervention of Yahweh to deliver
his people, now poor, distressed, and helpless. Striking
ideas, such as those of resurrection and the abolition of
death, and style and language, point no less surely to a
post-exilic date. It is only when a more precise deter
mination of date is attempted that uncertainty arises.
Was the prophecy written as late as about 200 B.C., to
which some of the striking ideas might most naturally
point, or as early as about 400 B.C., which would more
obviously explain the linguistic character of the section ?

Other probably post-exilic passages arexi. 9-xii. 6, xv.-xvi.
(written in part perhaps c. 470 B.C.), xix. (at least in part),
xxxiii., and some at least of the passages of promise
(e.g. xxix. 17-24) now interwoven with the prophecies of
judgment in xxviii.-xxxi.

Of the passages which it is more difficult to classify with
any certainty as belonging to the eighth century, or the
Exile, or the post-exilic period, the most interesting and
important are several eschatological poems. It would be
precarious to argue that Isaiah could not have spoken of

188 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

the future beyond judgment, as well as of judgment itself :
as a matter of fact, he did (i. 24) ; but most of the poems
in question seem on other grounds more likely to have been
the work of a later age. Taken in its most obvious sense,
xi. 1 seems to imply that the dynasty of David has been
overthrown : but if this be so, xi. 1-8 was written after
586 B.C. Then was ix. 2-7 the work of Isaiah, or of one
who had actually shared with his people the long darkness
of the Babylonian exile ? The answer will be largely deter
mined by the significance attached to the ideas. So, again,
do iv. 2-6 and ii. 2-4 (=Micah iv. 1-3) embody Isaiah s
conception of the ideal Jerusalem, or those of exilic or post-
exilic writers ? Other passages of doubtful origin are
xiv. 4-21 (more probably exilic than Isaianic), xxiii.,
xxxiv. f. The last section contains some post-exilic work,
but parts of it may be exilic.

JEREMIAH 189

CHAPTER XXI

JEREMIAH

THE book of Jeremiah resembles in two respects Is. i.-
xxxix i.e. the book of Isaiah before the second part
became attached to the first. Like Is. i.-xxxix., Jeremiah
concludes with an extract from the book of Kings, and it
is not governed in its arrangement exclusively, or even
very largely, by a chronological principle. The neglect of
the chronological principle has introduced into Jeremiah,
though it is in some respects a less miscellaneous collection,
almost greater confusion than exists in Isaiah.

The extract from Kings with which this collection closes
(ch. lii.) refers to the release of Jehoiachin in the year 561 ;
and to all the (subsequent) days of his life down to his
death. The presence of this chapter, which cannot have
been written till some time after 561, nor included in the
book of Jeremiah till later still, is one of the most obvious
of many indications that Jeremiah, who began to prophesy
in 626, and cannot have been born much, if at all, later than
650, did not write the book that now bears his name.

Compared with the entire book of Isaiah, Jeremiah dis
plays certain differences : it contains no long anonymous
prophecies such as occur in Is. xxiv.-xxvii., xl.-lxvi., nor
any great proportion of prophetic material clearly revealing
historical situations of which it can be asserted with cer
tainty that they only arose after the prophet s death.
Chs. 1., li. are commonly and rightly regarded as revealing
an historical situation later than that of Jeremiah s life
time ; other prophecies in Jeremiah also appear to many
to be the work of later writers, but this is mainly on the

190 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

ground of the ideas contained in them or of their literary
affinities. Broadly speaking, almost the whole book of
Jeremiah consists of prophecies claiming to be by Jere
miah, or of narratives about him. This being so, it will
be convenient to consider the disposition of the various
elements in the book first, and then the degree to which
earlier and genuine work has received accretions.

In the first instance, Jeremiah may be divided into four
sections distinguished from one another by certain general
differences of character :

1. Prophecies mainly referring to Judah, with some

narrative sections interspersed : chs. i.-xxv.

2. Narratives, including some prophecies (especially in

xxx.-xxxiii.) : chs. xxvi.-xlv.

3. Prophecies concerning foreign nations : chs. xlvi.-li. ;

cp. xxv.

4. Extract from 2 Kings (xxv.) : ch. Hi.

In section one (chs. i.-xxv.) the narratives or notes are
autobiographical ; exceptional references to Jeremiah in
the third person occur only in the general title, i. 1-3, the
titles or introductory formulae in vii. 1, xi. 1, xiv. 1, xxi. 1,
and also in xix. 14, xx. 1-3, xxi. 3. On the other hand, in
sections two and three Jeremiah is regularly referred to in
the third person. Thus the first section has the appearance
of being in the main derived from, or based on, a collection
of prophecies made by Jeremiah himself, and provided
by him with certain autobiographical memoirs : see, for
example, i. 4-19, xi. 9-xii. 6, xv., xvii. 14-18, xviii., xx. 7-18.
On the other hand, the second section of the book appears
to have its origin in a biography of the prophet, or different
biographical notices about him.

Another indication that sections one and two have
different origins lies in the fact that they contain, in chs.
vii. and xxvi., two different accounts of the same occasion.

In Jeremiah, then, as in Isaiah, we appear to have
the same three elements : prophecies or prophetic poems
of the prophet, autobiographical memoirs written by him,

xxi.] JEREMIAH 191

biographical notices written about him by others. But
what is the literary history of these elements ? The first
two might from the beginning have been included in a
single book, the third in a single other book, and the two
united by a single editor, who also added ch. lii. subse
quently. Yet this, the simplest hypothesis which would
do justice to the facts already mentioned, is too simple
to do justice to other facts, however far these remaining
facts may fall short of clearly revealing the really com
plicated literary history of the book of Jeremiah.

The numerous titles and introductory formulae are not
all of such a kind as to indicate as clearly as the titles in
Isaiah that originally independent books or booklets have
been incorporated in Jeremiah. They are many of them
more of the nature of the chronological note in Is. xiv. 28,
and may be explained more obviously as explanatory notes
within a collection of prophecies than as titles prefixed to
such independent collections. That many independent
collections are incorporated in Jeremiah is probable
enough : for this would serve to account for the extra
ordinary and otherwise inexplicable disregard of chronology.
Again, as the analogy of the brief book of Obadiah suggests,
many such collections may have been quite small. But it
is probable that Professor Schmidt in the Encyclopaedia
Biblica considerably over-estimates the number of such
collections included in Jeremiah when he suggests that
by the aid of the superscriptions the following collections
may be recovered : (1) i.-xx. ; (2) xxi.-xxiv. ; (3) xxv.,
xlvi.-li. ; (4) xxvi.-xxix. ; (5) xxx.-xxxiii. ; (6) xxxiv.-
xxxix. ; (7) xl.-xliv. ; and that many of these in turn
contain earlier and smaller collections, as, for example,
iii. 6-vi. 30 ; vii.-x. ; xiv.-xvii.

Beyond the differences in character of different parts of
the book and the occurrence of several titles, there are other
indications of difference of source. Thus chs. xxvii.-xxix.
are distinguished from the rest of the book by a preference
for the longer forms of proper names compounded with
Yahweh, viz. Yirmeyahu, not Yirmeyah, and the use of the

192 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

really incorrect form Nebuchacbzezzar instead of Nebu
chadrezzar.

It is not possible here to follow further the intricate
paths opened up by these features of the book ; but we
may turn now to a further consideration of the origin of the
book in the light of the definite information given in xxxvi.
The historical value of this chapter has, indeed, occasionally
been called in question, but on inadequate grounds.
The general significance of this narrative has already been
discussed in ch. xix. : here we start from the facts there
recorded that Jeremiah first prepared a book of his teaching
in the year 604, and, this having been destroyed, reproduced
the contents with additions in the next year, 603. Unless
this book completely disappeared, its contents must survive,
though not necessarily entire, within the existing book of
Jeremiah ; it cannot, of course, be identical with the
present book, for that contains much that was said, and
narratives by others of much that was done, by Jeremiah
after that date. We may therefore rule out at once as in
no way related to Jeremiah s book of the year 603 the
biographical narratives in xxvi.-xlv. and also lii. More
over, all the prophecies or narratives in i.-xxv. that clearly
presuppose a later date than 603 must be similarly ruled
out. We might be inclined to go further, and rule out
certain sections within i.-xxv. and the whole of xlvi.-li.,
on the ground that in them Jeremiah is referred to in the
third person, whereas the autobiographical character of the
greater part of i.-xxvi. strengthens what would be our
natural expectation, viz. that Jeremiah s roll of 603 was
autobiographical in form ; but it is necessary to allow for
later editorial additions, or even editorial alterations of the
first person into the third (see p. 100).

The following scheme will serve at once as a provisional
chronological distribution of the prophecies in Jeremiah,
and as an indication of the extent to which the contents of
the book of 603 may have survived. Passages enumerated
under 1 may have stood in that book, those given under 2-5
cannot have done so :

xxi.] JEREMIAH 193

1. Belonging to Josiah s reign, or to the opening years

of Jehoiakim (626-603) : i. 4-19, iii. 6-18, and
probably (most of) the remainder of ii.-vi., vii.
1-ix. 26, x. 17-25, xi. 1-xii. 6, xxii. 10-19 (judg
ments on Josiah, Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, now
grouped with judgments on two later kings in
xxi. 11-xxiii. 9). Possibly also parts of xiv.-
xvii., xviii.-xx. also belong to this period.

2. Late in Jehoiakim s reign, between 604 and 597 :

possibly xiv.-xvii. (except 19-27), xviii.-xx., if
these are not earlier (see under 1), xii. 7-17.

3. Reign of Jehoiachin (597 B.C.) : xxii. 20-37, and

parts of xiii. (at least 18, 19).

4. Reign of Zedekiah (597-586) : xxiv., xxiii. 9-40

(probably), xxi. 1-10, 13 f. (588 B.C.). To this
period, or to a time after the fall of the
monarchy, may belong the genuine fragments
(e.g. xxxi. 31-34) preserved among much later
and non-Jeremianic matter in xxx. f .

5. Finally, we may classify the narratives of xxvi.-xlv.

not necessarily according to the time at which they
were written, but according to the time to which
they refer : this is in many cases specified :
Date Chapter

Jehoiakim (608 B.C.) xxvi.

4 and 5 (604, 603) xlv., xxxvi.
(c. 600) xxxv.

Zedekiah (c. 597) xxvii., xxix.

4 (593) xxviii., li. 59-64.

9-11 (588-586) xxxiv. 1-7 (first part of the

siege of Jerusalem) ; xxxvii.
1-10 and xxxiv. 8-22 (in
terval during which the
siege was raised) ; xxxvii.
11-xxxviii. 28a, xxxix. 15-
18, xxxii., xxxiii. (second
part of the siege).
After the fall of Jerusalem xxxviii. 28b, xxxix. 3-14, xl.-xliv.

194 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

In addition to the fact of its date we learn from Jer.
xxxvi. two things about the book prepared by the
prophet in 604 : (1) the general subjects of it included not
only Judah and Israel, but also all the nations/ xxxvi. 2 ;
(2) it contained the specific prophecy that the king of
Babylon would come and destroy Judah (xxxvi. 29).

The specific prophecy of xxxvi. 29 corresponds not
indeed verbally, but in substance very closely, with xxv.
9, 10 ; and the remainder of xxv. apart from vv. 12-14,
which predict a judgment on Babylon and interrupt the
connection between xxv. 11 and xxv. 15, consists of a
prediction of the judgment which Yahweh is about to
send on Judah and many nations by the agency of the
Babylonians. It has been suggested that this chapter
formed the sole contents of Jeremiah s books of 604 and
603. But this chapter by itself hardly satisfies the
description that Yahweh gives of what that book was to
contain : * all the words that I have spoken to thee con
cerning Israel (LXX. Jerusalem), and concerning Judah,
and concerning all the nations . . . from the days of
Josiah unto this day (xxxvi. 2) ; for the still existing re
mains of Jeremiah s teaching from 626-604, as indicated
above, are far wider in scope than ch. xxv.

The theory more commonly held is therefore preferable :
the books of 604 and 603 contained so much at least as
now survives of Jeremiah s prophecies belonging to the
time before 604. Do any of Jeremiah s prophecies of that
period against the nations survive ? The fact that
Jeremiah was a prophet to the nations (i. 5) was indeed
challenged by Stade who proposed to correct the phrase
just cited into a prophet to the nation (viz. Judah), and
to eliminate the clause and concerning the nations in
xxxvi. 2. Unless we accept these or similar suggestions,
we must conclude that Jeremiah did utter prophecies
against the nations, and did include them in his book ;
then there would be a presumption that the section of the
present book, viz. chs. xlvi.-li., which contains prophecies
against the nations, stood, if not in its entirety, yet at least

XXL] JEREMIAH 195

in part, in the book of 604. And yet a closer examination
of xlvi.-li. reveals much that cannot have been written
by Jeremiah, and still less before 604. Moreover though
some of the definitions of time (xlvi. 2, 13 ; xlvii. 1 ; xlix.
25) are either definitely consistent, or at least not clearly
inconsistent, with a date before 604, others actually refer
two sections to a date later than 604 (see xlix. 34, li. 59).

Among the sections of xlvi.-li. that are most clearly
not the work of Jeremiah is 1. 1-li. 58 : the situation pre
supposed is not earlier than the end of the Exile, say
c. 540 ; the destruction of the Temple in 586 is long past,
and still unavenged (1. 28, li. 11, 51), but the destruction
of Babylon is now imminent. On these and other grounds
the genuineness of this section is now generally denied.
Another very doubtful section is xlviii., for this incor
porates large parts of an elegy which also appears, com
bined with other matter, in Is. xv. f . ; the date of the
elegy is not improbably c. 470. Into a detailed examination
of the remainder of xlvi.-li. it is impossible to enter here ;
over against the presumption in favour of genuineness
already mentioned must be set the fact that later sections
have certainly gained places here. Yet it is possible to
discover in some of the oracles a nucleus at least which
cannot be positively shown to contain anything incon
sistent with Jeremiah s authorship.

Before referring to doubtful passages in other parts of
the book, it will be convenient to refer briefly to the very
important differences between the Hebrew text and the
Greek version.

The Greek version differs from the Hebrew text first
of all in its arrangement ; the second and third sections
of the book change places : the prophecies on the nations
(xlvi.-li.) together with xxv. 15-36 immediately follow the
prophecies on Judah (i.-xxv. 13), thus leaving the mainly
narrative section (xxvi.-xlv.) to be rounded off with the
narrative extract from Kings. Further, the order within
the section containing the foreign prophecies differs : the
order in the Hebrew text is 1 Egypt ; 2 Philistine ; 3 Moab ;

196 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

4 Ammon ; 5 Edom ; 6 Damascus ; 7 Kedar ; 8 Elam ;
9 Babylon : in the Greek version the order is 8, 1, 9, 2, 5,
4, 7, 6, 3.

In addition to these remarkable differences of arrange
ment, there are striking differences in the text itself ;
the Greek version occasionally has words or clauses not
found in the Hebrew text, but far more often words and
clauses, and occasionally sections, of the Hebrew text are
absent from the Greek version, so that the version repre
sents a text shorter by an eighth than the Hebrew text.

Very different views have been taken as to the relative
merits of the Hebrew and Greek texts or recensions ;
but one thing is clear : in certain quarters the text of
Jeremiah was subject down to a relatively late date to a
very free treatment ; nor is there much doubt that some
and probably most of the sections found in the Hebrew,
but not in the Greek, are accretions. Such sections absent
from the Greek version are viii. 10a/3-12 ; xi. 7-8ba ; xxix.
16-20; xxx. 10, 11, 15, 22; xxxiii. 14-26. There are
other sections which, though present both in the Hebrew
and Greek texts, are also probably the work not of Jeremiah
but of a later age : such are (1) x. 1-16, which interrupts
the connection between ix. 22 and x. 17, and has itself
received accretions, certainly the Aramaic gloss in x. 11,
and perhaps also certain verses absent from the Greek
version ; the section seems to presuppose Is. xl.-lv. and
consequently to have been written at earliest at the very
end of the Exile ; (2) xvii. 19-27 (cp. Is. Ivi. 1-8, Iviii.
13 ; Neh. xiii. 15-22) ; (3) large parts of xxx., xxxi., though
scarcely xxxi. 31-34, a passage which is entirely in harmony
with Jeremiah s personality and teaching ; (4) xxxii. 17-23,
and much else in xxxii., xxxiii.

The biographical chapters in xxvi.-xlv. make no claim
to be, and are obviously not, the work of Jeremiah ; but
they may be in large part the work of contemporaries
possibly though not necessarily of Baruch.

Thus in brief the history of the book of Jeremiah may be
summarised as follows : the prophet s teaching for the

xxi.] JEREMIAH 197

previous twenty-three years, already in part expressed in
poems, was summarised in a book which also contained
some autobiographical matter : this book was written in
604 and perished ; it was re- written and expanded in 603.
Between 603 and 586 or later, Jeremiah continued to teach,
still recording his teaching in his poems, and, probably
whether we care to cite xxx. 2 in evidence or not, from
time to time committing these to writing. But especially
during this period he had gathered round him disciples,
some of whom are most likely the authors of the main
body of the biographical portions of Jeremiah (in xxvi.-xlv.).
Both the books of prophecies prepared by Jeremiah and
of biographies by his disciples suffered interpolation and
rearrangement either before or after, or both before and
after, they were brought together into a single book.
This collection of material has reached us in two forms
the Hebrew and the Greek which are differently arranged,
and differ in extent. One or other of these forms may
have continued open to accretion and interpolation till
well into the second century B.C. Jeremiah was known
to Ben Sirach in 180 B.C., but his allusion unfortunately
only covers the first chapter of the present book : whether
the book was known to him in a form more nearly approach
ing the Greek or the Hebrew does not appear.

198 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

CHAPTER XXII

EZEKIEL

PHE reasons which led the Rabbis to conclude that c the
men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel are unknown :
but the conclusion itself is a curiosity, for no other book
of the Old Testament is distinguished by such decisive
marks of unity of authorship and integrity as this. It is
written throughout, with the exception of i. 2 f. (cp. xxiv.
24), in the first person ; the same strongly individualised
style characterises all parts alike ; and it forms a well-
articulated whole.

The book of Ezekiel is occupied with two closely related
subjects the approaching fall of Jerusalem, and the
restoration of Jerusalem after its fall : in i.-xxiv. prophecies
delivered before the fall of the city in 586 B.C. are gathered
together ; these agree in predicting that the Babylonians
will capture Jerusalem and overthrow the Jewish state,
and that thus Yahweh will vindicate his honour and
holiness against his own people who by their iniquities
have shown throughout their history a persistent disregard
for him. The second half of the book is devoted to the
restoration of Jerusalem and of the Jewish community,
which will be brought about by Yahweh in order that he
may vindicate his honour and power in the eyes of the
world. This part of the book falls into three sections :
chs. xxv.-xxxii. contain the judgments on several nations,
Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre and Egypt, which
may be regarded as preparatory to the restoration of the
Jews ; xxxiii.-xxxix. deal with the re-creation of the land

xxii.] EZEKIEL 199

and people ; xl.-xlviii. with the constitution of the new
ommunity.

The book of Ezekiel claims to be, and is, a work of the
first part of the sixth century B.C. The genuineness of the
book has not, indeed, passed quite so unchallenged as its
integrity. Now and again it has been suggested that the
book was written in the fifth, or the second, or even the
first century B.C. ! But the insufficiency of the reasons
advanced in favour of these theories in reality serves
only to enforce the claims which the book itself most
clearly makes. It is the work of Ezekiel, a priest, who
was one of the captives of the year 597 B.C. It fell to his
lot to settle at Tell-abib on the Great Canal (R.V. the river
Chebar). Here, in the heart of Babylonia, at a spot in
easy communciation with most of the important towns of
the country, Ezekiel lived among his fellow captives. To
them, especially to their elders who sought him out (e.g.
xx. 1 ff.), in the six years preceding the event, Ezekiel
predicted and explained the approaching fall of Jerusalem.
Still a captive in Babylonia fourteen years after the fall
of Jerusalem, in the year 572 B.C., he sketched out the
constitution for the future community whose centre was
to be the Temple of Yahweh in Sion.

In discussing the origin of the book of Ezekiel, the ques
tion of sources arises just as little as the question of integ
rity. His mind worked with a considerable variety of
material ; but it worked freely, not to say creatively ; as
a priest he was familiar with the structure of the Temple
that was destroyed in 586, and with the character of its
services and administration ; as a prophet he was doubtless
familiar with the words of his predecessors, and he shares
with his older contemporary Jeremiah an increasing per
ception of the religious value of the individual ; as a
resident in Babylonia he was open to the influence of
Babylonian ideas, literature, and symbolism, and as chapter
i., for example, shows, he was not impervious to it. But
he incorporates no ancient priestly document, no earlier
prophetic oracle, no Babylonian story in his book ; he re-

200 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

moulds his material, whencesoever derived, into a work
that bears throughout the stamp of his own personality.

Only one question of origin arises : the latest date men
tioned in the book is the twenty-seventh year (after the
captivity of Jehoiachin), i.e. 570 B.C. ; but EzekieFs earliest
teaching, which forms the substance of the first half of the
book, was given in the years 592-586. Did he commit
this earlier teaching to writing at the time ? Were his
predictions of the fall of Jerusalem written as well as
spoken before the actual fall of the city ? If so, how does
the present book stand related to such earlier records of
Ezekiel ? The series of dates with which the book is
provided, and the very limited amount of the book that
is in poetical form, both have a bearing on these questions.

The dates given in the book may be tabulated as follows :
the first column containing the reference, the second the
year and month given in the text by the era of the cap
tivity, the third the year B.C. :

B.C.

592. July.

591. September.

590. August.

587. January.

586. April, or later.

586. January.

570. April.

586. April.

586. June.

584. March.

(585-) 584 (March).
584 [585]. January.
572.

It will be seen from this table that the book is in the
main arranged in chronological order : chapter xxxii.,
though two, or (adopting a necessary correction of the text
in xxxiii. 21) fourteen, months later than the section intro-

i. (1,) 2
viii. 1

Year and Month
of Captivity.

5.4
6.6

XX. 1

7.5

xxiv. 1

9.10

xxvi. 1

xxix. 1

10.10

xxix. 17

27.1

xxx. 20

11.1

xxxi. 1

11.3

xxxii. 1

12.12

xxxii. 17
xxxiii. 21
xl. 1

12 (.12)
12.10 [11.10]

xxn.] EZEKIEL 201

duced by xxxiii. 21, stands before it for an obvious reason ;
it is a prophecy concerning the nations, and chronological
sequence is disregarded in order to keep all the prophecies
concerning the nations together in xxv.-xxxii. For the
same very sufficient reason xxix. 17 ff. is inserted in a
section dated sixteen years earlier. Why xxvi. 1 ft. precedes
xxix. 1 ff. is not obvious. But we seem justified in con
cluding that unless by a definite date he suggested the
contrary, Ezekiel intended the order to be chronological.

Are we then to assume that i.-vii. is a section written
by Ezekiel in 592-591, viii.-xix. another written in 591-
590, and so on, and that towards the end of his life
he simply put together these various note-books ? The
general uniformity of style, and the careful arrangement
of the book, and its very real unity, are most unfavourable
to such a theory. On the other hand, it seems unnecessary
to treat the dates merely as part of the literary setting of
the book. It is more reasonable to suppose that Ezekiel
had some record of his teaching at specific times in his
career, that the various sections substantially reproduce
that teaching, but that the entire book was planned and
written after 572, and, indeed, after 570, unless we prefer
to suppose that the prophet s correction (xxix. 17-24) in
570 of what he had said erroneously (xxvi. 12) in 586 was
inserted by himself in a work which he had completed as
early as 572. While the various sections of the book sub
stantially and generally reproduce the teaching of Ezekiel
at the dates specified, occasional exceptions to this rule
certainly seem to occur, and these, too, are most naturally
explained if we assume a free construction of the book, on
the basis of some definite records, at the close of Ezekiel s
career. Such an exception is the allusion to Zedekiah s
breach of faith with Nebuchadnezzar (xvii. 15-18), which
took place after 591, the date assigned to viii-xix.

The practice adopted by the earlier prophets of summar
ising their teaching in poems was followed to a very slight
extent by Ezekiel. The elegies in xix., xxvi. 17, xxvii. 3 ff.,
32-36 are poems ; but by far the greater part of the book

202 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

is prose. It is worth observing, however, that ch. xvii., in
which some have detected a different expectation from that
which is expressed in xl.-xlviii. with regard to the place of
the monarchy in the restored community, is, if not actually
throughout in poetical form, yet bound together by its
allegorical form. It is reasonable to infer that this parable
stands much as it was propounded in the first instance to
the house of Israel (xvii. 2) at some time before 586.

THE TWELVE PROPHETS 203

CHAPTER XXIII

THE TWELVE PROPHETS

THE fourth collection of Hebrew prophetic literature, The
Twelve, is professedly more miscellaneous than any of the
other three Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. It may not,
indeed, contain many more distinct elements than Isaiah,
but it differs from Isaiah in this, that the several sections
of the book are referred by name to different prophets.

The arrangement of this collection appears to have been
determined primarily by chronological considerations. The
editor, doubtless, identified the author of the book of Jonah
with the prophet of that name mentioned in 2 Kings xiv. 25
as a contemporary of Jeroboam n., who was living and
reigning in the first half of the eighth century B.C. ; for
less obvious reasons he probably regarded Obadiah and Joel
as prophets of the same period. Thus the collection opens
with the work of six prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
Jonah, Micah, who actually lived, or were regarded as
having lived, in the eighth century B.C. ; then follow
three, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, who lived in the
seventh century ; then two, Haggai and Zechariah, who
prophesied in 520-518 ; and finally the book of Malachi,
a prophet of the fifth century, closes the volume.

The order of the last six prophets is the same in the Greek
version, but the first six appear in a different order, viz.
Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah.

The fact that the work of twelve prophets who are named
gave its title to the collection, probably not long after it
came into existence, is no proof that the collection does not
also contain anonymous prophecies ; as a matter of fact,
such prophecies do occur in Zechariah ix.-xiv.

204 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

The dates apparently attributed to the several books by
the editor are not in all cases the actual dates of the book.
Anticipating the detailed discussions we may date the
several prophets as follows : Amos, Hosea, Micah in the
eighth century; Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Nahum in the
seventh century ; Haggai and Zechariah in the sixth
century ; Malachi and Obadiah (?) in the fifth ; Joel,
Jonah, and Zech. ix.-xiv. later in the post-exilic period.

* The Twelve, then, is a collection of prophetic literature,
or of earlier collections of prophetic literature, extending
over many centuries, viz. from the eighth century down
to probably the third (see p. 229). Much of the literature,
and some of the earlier collections, here preserved, must
then have had a long history before it found its place in
The Twelve. 5 Some of the fortunes of this history can be
traced, and will be referred to in the detailed discussions
that follow.

1. HOSEA

The book of Hosea shares with that of Amos the peculi
arity of being mainly, if not in its original form exclusively,
addressed to or concerned with the northern kingdom of
Israel, or, as the prophet commonly calls it, Ephraim. But
Hosea, unlike Amos, is a subject of the northern kingdom :
the king of Samaria is his king (vii. 5). His book, there
fore, is a piece of Ephraimite literature the only book of
a northern prophet that has survived.

Hosea lived and prophesied in part before the fall of the
house of Jehu (i. 4), which took place c. 746 B.C. His book
and that of Amos, written probably somewhat earlier, are
the earliest surviving books of Hebrew prophecy.

The book of Hosea consists mainly of a collection of
prophetic poems : but the first and third chapters (in
prose) purport to relate incidents in his life, partly (ch. i.)
in the third, partly (ch. iii.) in the first person. Both these
chapters have at times been regarded as allegory, but
whatever be the truth about ch. iii., ch. i. must be regarded
as a record of certain outward facts and certain inner

XXIIL] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: HOSEA 205

experiences of the prophet. Hosea had control over the
names of his children, and, like Isaiah, used the opportunity
to make them express some element in his prophetic teach
ing ; but Jezreel, Lo-ruhamah, Lo-ammi are on this
account no more to be accounted mere allegorical figures
than are Isaiah s children, Shear- Yashub and Maher-shalal-
hash-baz. And the fact that the names of his wife and
father-in-law, over which he would have had no control, have
no meaning relevant to his teaching, is the strongest
possible proof that father-in-law, wife, and children were
one and all actual persons. And so the allusion to the
weaning of Lo-ruhamah in i. 8 would be meaningless
in allegory, but natural enough in a father s record of his
family life.

We may then use the facts of Hosea s life recorded in
ch. i. to throw light on the origin of the book. When the
prophet s first child was born the house of Jehu was still
on the throne : whether the other children were also born
before the overthrow of that house is less clear. In any
case, we may assume that by the time of JezreePs birth
Hosea had already appeared as a public teacher, denounc
ing, like Amos, inhumanity, and attacking the reigning house
which had been established with bloodshed, and under
which cruelty and injustice were now prevalent. But the
same narrative that records the birth of Jezreel, and gives
a hint of the character of Hosea s teaching at the time, also
records the birth of the next two children, with a hint that
between the birth of the second and the third something
like three years elapsed. Consequently something like
five years at least lay between Hosea s marriage, something
like four years at least between the birth of Jezreel and
Hosea s teaching of which that name formed a text, and
the record of these events as given in ch. i. The interval
may have been longer, for we have no reason to conclude
that Hosea wrote the narrative immediately after Lo-
ammi s birth. This being so, it is quite unnecessary to
infer that chs. i.-iii. were written earlier than iv.-xiv., or
that in every respect they record an earlier type of teaching.

206 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

It is, indeed, improbable that Hosea realised before marriage
that his wife either was unchaste or would prove unfaithful ;
and consequently we cannot safely assume that he began
to teach so early as his marriage that the land doth
commit great whoredom in departing from Yahweh. But
he had certainly realised the character of his wife, and
become possessed of the thought of Ephraim s unfaithful
ness to Yahweh, before he wrote ch. i. ; the same thought
reappears e.g. in iv.

It is then not impossible, nor improbable, that Hosea
wrote the record of his life and committed his prophetic
poems to writing at one and the same time. Several of the
poems point to the period of anarchy that followed the
overthrow of the house of Jehu, when king succeeded king
with rapidity, and rival factions maintained the advantage
of reliance on Assyria or Egypt ; see v. 13, vii. 11, viii. 9,
xii. 1 : vii. 3-7, viii. 4. In v. 13, x. 5, 6 there is probably a
specific allusion to the tribute paid by Menahem to Tiglath-
pileser in 738 B.C. Since the book implies no knowledge of
the Syro-Ephraimitish war, we may infer that Hosea com
piled his book before 735 : it contained the history of his
life or the substance of his teaching for some ten years at
least.

Hosea s book does not appear to have reached us un
modified. Nor is this surprising : it is a piece of prophecy
addressed to the northern kingdom in the eighth century ;
it owes its survival to post-exilic collectors or editors of
the southern kingdom, and apparently has undergone a
Judsean revision. To this revision may be attributed the
title, for an Ephraimite would scarcely date his book by
reference to a series of Jewish kings, and still less equate
with Jeroboam of the northern kingdom and, his successors,
Uzziah, who himself outlived Jeroboam. Elsewhere a
Jewish editor may have substituted Judah where Israel
stood in the original text, with a view to adapting an ancient
Ephraimite prophecy to later Jewish needs : the play on
names in xii. 3, which may be roughly represented by
rendering in the womb he Jacobed his brother, and in

XXIIL] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: JOEL 207

his manhood Israeled with God, suggests that Israel and
Jacob were the names originally employed in xii. 3, not as
now Judah and Jacob. Similar alterations may have
taken place in v. 10, 12, 13, 14 ; vi. 4 ; xii. 2 ; and the
following may be Jewish additions to or modifications of
Hosea s words : i. 7, i. 10-ii. 1, the words * and David their
king J in iii. 5 (cp. Jer. xxx. 9), iv. 15a, v. 5 (last clause),
vi. 11, viii. 14, x. 11, xi. 12b.

Some at least of the passages of promise, i. 7, i. 10-
ii. 1, ii. 14, 23, iii. 1-5 (if an allegory of the restoration of the
people), v. 15, vi. 3, xi. 10, 11, xiv., may be additions to
Hosea s prophecies ; yet (1) it is not safe to assume that
Hosea cannot at any time or to any circle of his hearers
have held out such hopes, and then have given them a
place in his book (cp. p. 187), and (2) some of these passages
(e.g. ch. xiv.) savour strongly of Hosea s style. Of the
passages enumerated perhaps i. 7 and i. 10-ii. 1 are most
likely to be later additions.

2. JOEL

The title gives no indication of the time at which this
book was written. It stands indeed among the group of
six books probably regarded by the compilers of the
Twelve (cp. p. 203) as pre-exilic : but it may owe its position,
and consequently this implicit theory of its date, to nothing
more relevant than the repetition of iii. 16 in Amos i. 2.
Internal evidence indicates that the book was written
after the Exile.

The first half of the book, i. 2-ii. 17 (23), which many
ancient and a few, but very few, modern expositors have
erroneously regarded as allegorical, describes the actual
circumstances out of which the book sprang. Severe
visitations of locusts in successive (cp. ii. 25) years, and
severe drought had led to great scarcity, so that the daily
sacrifices in the Temple could not be maintained. These
disasters suggested that the final day of Yahweh might be
approaching (i. 15, ii. 1 ff.), when further hordes of locusts,

208 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

resembling a well disciplined and irresistible army, with
Yahweh at their head, would advance and strike terror
into all hearts (ii. 1-11). A solemn fast and penitence on
the part of the whole people might, it was felt, turn aside
this last great judgment : and it actually did do so.
Yahweh took pity on his people (ii. 18) ; rain has already
fallen, 1 and there is promise of good harvests (ii. 19-22).
The latter hah* of the book is a prediction, immediately,
of good harvests, and, thereafter, of a day of Yahweh in
which the Jews shall escape and receive Yahweh s spirit,
but all nations shall be gathered together before Jerusalem
and there condemned to punishment for their treatment
of the Jews (ii. 28-iii. 21).

The experiences which the prophet had shared with his
people and which he so vividly describes, do not serve to
date the prophecy : for visitations of locusts and droughts
recur in all periods. The date must, then, be determined
by the conditions which are the subject of allusion merely,
and by the language and the literary affinities of the
prophecy. The historical background, though it has been,
and still is occasionally, interpreted differently, seems
clearly to be that of the post-exilic period, perhaps in
particular of about 400 B.C. The dispersion of the Jews
among the nations, and the occupation of Judah by other
people (iii. 1, 2) can scarcely refer to anything but the
events of 586 B.C. and those that followed. But the
(second) Temple is standing, and the cultus has been
regularly administered till the famine occasioned by the
disasters interrupted the daily sacrifice. This carries the
book down below 516 B.C., when the Temple was com
pleted ; and if we may infer from the reference in ii. 9 to
the (city-) wall that the walls also of Jerusalem were already
restored, the book was written after Nehemiah (c. 445).
There is much else that admirably fits the post- exilic
situation, and can with difficulty, if at all, be reconciled with
a pre-exilic date : for example, priests and elders are
mentioned, but there is no allusion to either king or princes ;

i In ii. 23 render hath given, not giveth (R.V.).

xxiii.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: JOEL 209

and the assembly of the whole people in the Temple on
Sion, which is more than once referred to, far more closely
resembles that which gathered round Ezra (Neh. viii.),
than the community addressed by King Josiah (2 Kings
xxiii.). There are allusions to Tyre, Sidon, the Philistines,
the Greeks, Egypt, Edom, and the Sabseans, but no allusion
to either Assyria or Babylon, though one of these powers is
mentioned by name in every pre-exilic prophet except
Amos, and by him Assyria, though unnamed, is unmistak
ably described. Joel seems rather to be the spokesman of
his people, than, like most of the pre-exilic prophets, one
who stands over against them : and though the book con
tains a general call to repentance, it contains no condem
nation of oppression and injustice, on the one hand, or of
idolatry on the other. The cessation of the daily sacrifice
is as distressing to Joel as it was to the author of Daniel.

Most of those who have maintained a pre-exilic date,
though Konig in arguing for the end of the seventh century
forms an exception, have sought to explain the book by
the circumstances of the minority of Joash (2 Kings xii.) ;
but though the early date (ninth century) would explain
the absence of reference to Assyria, and the regency of
the high priest might just possibly account for the absence
of any allusion to a king, it does not really explain the
total situation implied by the book, and is very strongly
opposed by the language and literary affinities.

The argument from the style and language can be but
barely indicated : like Is. xxiv.-xxvii., Joel has many of the
qualities of earlier and good prophetic style, but also
contains several words, forms or phrases that together
point strongly away from the ninth and even from the
seventh century. Everything, on the other hand, is
entirely explained if we regard Joel as the work of a post-
exilic writer familiar with the earlier literature and
influenced by it.

As a matter of fact, either Joel was greatly influenced
by earlier writers, or, himself living early, his prophecy was
remarkably influential over a large number of later writers.

210 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [at

If Joel lived in the ninth century then Amos, Isaiah
(ii. 4), Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Obadiah, Ezekiel,
Deutero-Isaiah, Malachi, the author of Is. xiii., and some
Psalmists all quoted from this short prophecy ; on the
other hand, if he lived about 400 B.C., it is he who quotes
from the authors and writings named. Which is the more
probable alternative, even if there was nothing else (as
there is much) to be said on the point ? Exactly the same
alternative cannot, of course, be presented if it be sug
gested that Joel lived in the seventh century, yet this
consideration must be faced even then : Joel ii. 27 consists
of a combination of phrases that occur separately in
Deutero-Isaiah (e.g. Is. xlv. 5), Ezek. (e.g. xxxix. 28) and
Lev. (e.g. xviii. 2) ; the phrases common to this passage
in Joel and Ezekiel and Lev. xvii.-xxvi. (H) are strikingly
characteristic of Ezekiel and Leviticus respectively ; that
common to Joel and Deutero-Isaiah expresses a characteristic
idea of Deutero-Isaiah. If Joel be late, all this is capable
of easy explanation : phrases characteristic of Deutero-
Isaiah, Ezekiel, and H, and impressed upon Joel s memory
by their frequency, have been combined into one. But
how improbable is the alternative : three different writers
borrowed from a single verse of an earlier prophet their
characteristic phrases which embodied their fundamental
conceptions !

It might reasonably be claimed that any one of the
three lines of argument which have been indicated would
suffice to overthrow the theory of a ninth-century origin ;
taken together they rule out even a seventh-century origin.
Joel cannot have been written before the Exile.

3. AMOS

The main subject of this book is the same as that of the
book of Hosea the sins and approaching downfall of the
northern kingdom ; but, unlike Hosea, Amos was a Jew,
and his book from the first a piece of Jewish literature.

Though living at Tekoa, some twelve miles south of

xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: AMOS 211

Jerusalem, Amos proceeded to Bethel, about the same
distance north of Jerusalem, to utter in this royal town of
the northern kingdom his prophetic message: Jeroboam
(c. 786-746 B.C.) was reigning at the time. So much is
recorded with all clearness in vii. 10-15. But we are left
to speculate whether Amos himself wrote the entire book
that now bears his name, and if so why, or how, or how long
after he had spoken, and if not, how it arose. The period
within the long reign of Jeroboam at which Amos either
spoke or wrote is not exactly defined. The title, indeed,
records that the prophecy was delivered during the reign
of Uzziah (Azariah) king of Judah, two years before the
earthquake in that reign (Zech. xiv. 5). Since, now,
according to 2 Kings xv. 1 the first year of Uzziah was the
twenty-seventh of Jeroboam, and Jeroboam reigned in all
forty-one years (2 Kings xiv. 23), c. 760 seems the earliest
date at which the prophetic activity of Amos should be
placed. The data on which this argument rests are by no
means all secure ; but the conclusion that Amos prophesied
about 760-750 B.C. is probably correct : the general
prosperity reflected in the book, and the particular reference
in vi. 14, suggest that Jeroboam had been reigning for some
considerable time, and had already won the successes
recorded in 2 Kings.

Into the very elaborate speculations which have been put
forward regarding the origin of the book of Amos, it is
impossible to enter here : it must suffice to draw attention
to certain general characteristics of the book and its
arrangement, and also to certain elements in it that are
more or less clearly of, or may be later than, the age of Amos.

The general plan is obvious : the book opens (chs. i.-ii.)&gt;
after the title i. 1, with an elaborate poem dealing, in a
series of more or less similar strophes, with the sins com
mitted by, and the judgment imminent over, five surround
ing nations and Judah, and then at much greater length
with the sins and punishment of Israel (ii. 6-16). Chs. iii.-vi.
contain a number of shorter poems, mainly concerned with
Israel, and arranged, in part at least, according to their

212 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

opening words : note Hear this word in iii. 1, iv. 1, v. 1 ;
Ah ! they that (R.V. * Woe to them that ) in v. 18, vi. 1,
and originally perhaps in v. 7. Chs. vii.-ix. describe four
visions depicting the approaching end of Israel, and contain
also an account of the prophet s commission to prophesy,
and of his fortunes in carrying it out (vii. 10-17), and a con-
eluding section promising future felicity under the Davidic
dynasty (vii. 11-15).

Whether this arrangement goes back substantially to
Amos himself, or whether brief rolls containing one or more
of the prophetic poems, or the story of his prophetic mission,
were subsequently brought into the scheme that now
governs it, must here be left without special discussion, and
with a simple reference, for some of the general questions
involved, to ch. xix. The position of the biographical (or
autobiographical ?) section vii. 10-17 in the middle of the
five visions is curious : the prophet is likely to have
declared the contents of all five in his speech at Bethel ;
or should we infer that he was interrupted before he could
get farther than the third ? The first person used in the
prose introduction to the visions may be due to the fact
that the writer represents thereby the form in which he
spoke at Bethel, and the third person in vii. 10-17 an
objective way of referring to himself in written narrative
(cp. Hosea i.). Otherwise we might infer either differ
ence of origin, or some editorial modifications in these
chapters.

In considering the possibility of later elements in the
book, we turn first to the references to Judah. The case
is rather different from that of Hosea (see p. 206) : for Amos
was himself a Jew, and might very well have added subse
quently references to Judah even though they formed no
part of his teaching at Bethel. Yet the most extensive of
the references to Judah in the present text is a strophe
(ii. 4 f.) that differs in form from the normal strophe in
the opening poem ; the charges against Judah are vague
and general as compared with the specific charges against
the other nations ; and the language savours somewhat

XXIIL] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: OBADIAH 213

of the Deuteronomic style. The other references to Judah
are in iii. Ib, vi. 1 (the words are at ease in Sion and ).

The concluding section of the book appears to presuppose,
as having already taken place, the fall of the Davidic
dynasty in 586, and predicts its restoration. If this be so,
ix. 1 1- 15 at least was not written before the Exile. Whether
the more restrained promise of ix. 8-10 is from the same
hand as ix. 11-15 is uncertain ; if it is not, the chief reason
for suspecting it to be later than Amos would be that it
blunts the edge of the threats that characterise the book ;
see e.g. ix. 1-4.

It is exceedingly difficult to believe that v. 8, 9 originally
stood between v. 7 and v. 10 ; to make even a tolerable
connection it is necessary with R.V. to insert at the begin
ning of ver. 8 something that has absolutely no warrant in
the text. Moreover, iv. 13, ix. 5, 6 are not closely related to
their respective contexts. Since these three passages are
characterised by a Deutero-Isaianic ring and by the stress
which they lay on the creative activity of Yahweh, and
since this curious combination of Deutero-Isaianic style,
Deutero-Isaianic thought, and looseness of connection, or
inconsistency, with the context, does not occur elsewhere in
the book, it is probable that all these passages are the work
of a post-exilic writer.

Finally it may be remarked that in the opening poem
other strophes besides that on Judah, for one reason or
another, awaken suspicion : possibly the poem as written
by Amos consisted simply of three strophes devoted to
Damascus, Ammon, Moab, and three strophes devoted to
Israel.

4. OBADIAH

The title to this book also fails to define its date : it
merely states that the book consists of the vision of, i.e.
the record of the prophetic revelation received by, Obadiah.
The attempts to identify this prophet, whose name is one of
the commonest, with any of the other persons so named and
mentioned in the Old Testament, have been unsuccessful.

214 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

Nearly a third of this brief book also occurs with textual
variations elsewhere in the Old Testament, Obad. vv. 1-4, 5,
6, 8=Jer. xlix. 14-16, 9, lOa, 7. On the ground that Jer.
xlvi.-xlix. formed part of the Jeremiah s roll prepared in
604 (cp. pp. 194, 195), and that the common matter occurs
in its more original form in Obadiah, it was customary to
infer that Obadiah was a pre-exilic prophet. But since it is
difficult to maintain that Jer. xlvi.-xlix. in its present form
existed as early as 604, this argument is for this, even if
for no other, reason very precarious.

Whether Obadiah incorporates part of a pre-exilic
prophecy in vv. 1-9, as some have held, or not, the book
certainly contains post-exilic elements : for the allusion to
foreigners entering into and casting lots on Jerusalem (ver.
11) can be satisfactorily explained alone by the assumption
that the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 was already past.

It is, however, probable that here, as in Is. xv., xvi., a
description of past calamity has, by the addition of pre
dictive elements, been turned into prophecy ; here, more
over, the predictive element includes the still future
judgment of Edom as an incident in the universal judgment
which the prophet regards as imminent. The analysis of
the prophecy admits of difference of opinion as to details ;
but the main points seem to be these. The calamity which
has already befallen the Edomites is that they have been
expelled from their land by a number of nations once their
friends : in this calamity the writer sees Yahweh s retribu
tion on Edom for its treatment of the Jews in their distress
(vv. 1-7, 10-14, 15b). The predictive part of the book
foretells the near approach of the day of Yahweh on all
nations, the annihilation of Esau (i.e. Edom) by the Jews,
and the reoccupation by the Jews and Israelites, who will
have returned from exile, of the whole of the territory
anciently held by them (Obad. 15a, 16-21).

Little can be said with any confidence as to the more
precise date of the several elements in the book, or of their
combination. Perhaps, however, the calamity that has
actually befallen Edom was connected with that north-

xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: JONAH 215

ward movement of Arabs which was already threatening
at the beginning of the sixth century (Ezek. xxv. 4, 5, 10)
and actually resulted in the occupation of the Edomite
capital, Petra, by 312 B.C. The descriptive element in the
book depicts a situation similar to that implied in Mai.
i. 2-5, and may have been written in the same period, i.e.
the fifth century B.C.

5. JONAH

The book of Jonah existed earlier than c. 200 B.C., for
we must conclude that it was one of the Twelve Prophets
referred to by Ben Sirach c. 180 B.C. (see p. 175). How long
before 200 it was written is more difficult to define. The
references to Nineveh in in. 3 seem to imply that the writer
looks on that city as a city of the past ; and the king of
Nineveh is an expression that would scarcely have been
used by a writer living while the Assyrian Empire existed.
We might infer from this that the book was written long
after 606. The evidence of language is more decisive :
Aramaisms and later words or forms occur with frequency,
particularly in i. 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 ; ii. 1 ; iii. 7 ; iv. 6, 7, 8, 10 ; a
post-exilic date is certainly implied, and perhaps most
probably some date between 450 and 250 B.C.

Jonah contains no prophecies or prophetic poems ; but
it is a story about a prophet. It thus stands quite apart
in character from the remainder of the Twelve ; and, so
far as its literary form is concerned, more nearly resembles
the stories about Daniel, or the story about Habakkuk at
the end of Bel and the Dragon. Its inclusion and its par
ticular position in the Twelve are doubtless due to the
fact that the subject of the book, a prophet of the eighth
century B.C. (2 Kings xiv. 25), was mistakenly regarded as
its author, even as Joshua came to be regarded as the
author of Joshua, and Samuel of Samuel.

The psalm of thanksgiving in ch. ii. was probably inter
polated into the narrative ; it has no real relation to the
circumstances of Jonah, who is represented as uttering it
while in the belly of the fish ; nor would it be really suitable

216 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

even if it were placed after ver. 10, and treated as a thanks
giving for delivery from the fish. The date of this psalm,
as of other individual psalms (pp. 134, 137), cannot be closely
determined ; but, consisting as it does largely of reminis
cences, it may safely be considered relatively late.

With the exception of the psalm, the book is the work of
a single hand : the attempts to treat it as a combination of
several literary sources have been mere freaks of criticism.

It is certainly unnecessary to suppose that the story is
the pure invention of the writer. Whether it has any
historical basis in anything that really happened to Jonah,
the son of Amittai, may be doubted. The suggestions
which the writer received may rather have been derived
from floating stories, or even perhaps from certain mytho
logical motives. In this connection attention has been
drawn to the fact that the neighbourhood of Joppa, which
is the scene of Jonah s delivery from the fish, was also the
scene of Andromeda s delivery from the sea-monster by
Perseus ; and also to Egyptian and Indian stories, in one of
which a son takes passage in disobedience to his mother,
the ship is stayed by some unknown power, lots are cast,
the disobedient son is discovered to be the culprit, and is
sent afloat on a raft, and thereafter the ship pursues its
course. These and similar parallels open up a study in
the migration of stories which cannot be pursued further
here.

But whatever suggestions the author may have received,
and whencesoever he may have derived them, he uses the
story as the vehicle for what is peculiarly his own ; and this
is some of the noblest thought in the Old Testament : the
largeness of God s mercy passes far beyond the current
conceptions of his own peculiar people ; it is over all
mankind, who are without exception the works of his
labour and the objects of his care : if men anywhere repent,
and turn from their evil ways, God, too, turns away the
punishment due to those who do evil. In the person of
Jonah, the author rebukes the narrow interests of his
people ; the messenger of Yahweh should enter into the

xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: MICAH 217

largeness of God s thoughts, and not desire the destruction
of the nations, but rather that they should turn from their
wickedness and live.

If, so far as its literary form goes, which is that of a
story gathering round the person of an ancient Hebrew
prophet, the book of Jonah may be compared to the rather
trivial story of Habakkuk who performs a miraculous
journey and brings a dinner to Daniel in the lions* den,
in virtue of the nobility of its thought it takes its place
with the greatest literature of the Old Testament, with those
poems in which the Deutero-Isaiah depicts the prophetic
mission of Israel to the nations.

6. MICAH

The book of Micah consists of three well-defined parts,
different in character and probably different also in origin,
though the substantial unity of Micah is still frequently
and vigorously defended. The first part consists of
chs. i.-iii. ; this, whether judged by internal evidence or
the direct testimony of Jer. xxvi. 18, is the work of a prophet
living towards the end of the eighth century B.C. The
subject of chs. i.-iii. is the sins of Judah, with which in one
passage (i. 5) Samaria is associated, and the judgment for
these sins which is imminent. The second part of the book
(chs. iv., v.) consists in the main, if not entirely, of promises
and predictions of delivery and restoration and future
glory. The third part of the book (chs. vi., vii.) is more
miscellaneous in character.

The work of Micah, who, unlike his contemporary Isaiah,
belonged not to Jerusalem, but was a native of Moresheth-
gath, which lay a good day s journey from the capital, is
probably confined to the first part of the book ; one or two
fragments in ch. v. may also possibly belong to the eighth
century, but even so are not necessarily the work of Micah ;
in standpoint they differ from chs. i.-iii.

According to Jer. xxvi. 18 it was in the reign of Hezekiah
that Micah made the announcement that Jerusalem was to

218 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

be razed to the ground (iii. 12) ; unfortunately the chron
ology of Hezekiah s reign is uncertain ; he may have ac
ceded as early as 727, or not until 715. According to the
title (i. 1) Micah prophesied also in the preceding reigns of
Jotham and Ahaz. It would be unwise to lay much weight
on the testimony of the title ; but obviously we are not
bound to conclude from Jer. xxvi. 18 that Micah s activity
was confined to Hezekiah s reign ; even though Micah iii. 12
was spoken after 715, some of the prophecies in chs. i.-iii.
may have been spoken earlier. And the view commonly
taken that the reference to Samaria in i. 5 implies a date
prior to the capture of that city by Sargon in 722 still
perhaps remains the most probable. An alternative theory,
starting from the consideration that Samaria though
captured was not destroyed in 722, finds the occasion of the
prophecies of Micah in the advance of Sennacherib in 701,
when there was more reason to expect an attack on Jerusa
lem than shortly before 722. Yet as against this con
sideration, it may be asked whether in 701 Samaria remained
sufficiently important for a Jewish prophet to couple it
with Jerusalem, and indeed to mention it first. The
alternative theories, then, place Micah s activity about
724, or about 701.

Within chs. i.-iii. the promise in ii. 12 f., which appears
to presuppose the scattering of Israel, may be a post-
exilic addition. Other additions have been suspected in
i. 7, which stands awkwardly before i. 8, and interrupts a
possible connection between i. 6 and i. 8, and with less
reason in i. l-5a, 10-15, ii. 5.

The citation of iii. 12 in Jer. xxvi. 18 does not of course
prove that even the first part of Micah already existed
in its present extent before the end of the seventh century
B.C. ; still less that the book of Micah then included chs.
iv.-vii. We may rather infer that these chapters did not
then follow chs. i.-iii. ; if the book of Micah consisted then,
as it does now, even more of promise than of condemna
tion and threatenings, and if, in particular, the threat of
the destruction of Sion was then, as now, immediately

xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS : MICAH 219

followed by a glowing description of its future glory, could
the elders have risked the retort that, if Jeremiah, like
Micah, would wipe out the effect of his threats by promises,
all would be different, and Jeremiah might safely be
forgiven ?

Chs. iv. and v. consist of a number of brief poems or frag
ments, viz. iv. 1-4, 5, 6-8, 9 f., 11-14, v. 1, 2-6, 7-9, 10-15.
The first of these stands also in Is. ii. 2-4 ; just as psalms,
like xiv.=hii., were included in two collections, so this
prophetic poem, probably of the exilic or post-exilic period,
has been included in two prophetic collections. The
references to Babylon in iv. 10, to the former dominion in
iv. 6-8, and the representation of Jacob as reduced to
a remnant in v. 7, suggest a date no earlier than the Exile :
in dwelling on the inviolability of Sion, iv. 11-13 represents
a standpoint strikingly unlike Micah s (iii. 12, Jer. xxvi 18) ;
and the expectation of a judgment on the nations in
general (iv. 13, v. 15) is at least much more conspicuous in
late than in early prophecy. If chs. iv. and v. contain any
fragments of pre-exilic prophecy, these are to be sought
in v. 10-14 and v. 1 ; but some have suspected that v. 13-
14 is post-Deuteronomic on account of the opposition to
Asherim, obelisks and graven images, which are all
mentioned together, as in Deut. vii. 5, xii. 3.

The third part of the book opens (vi. 1-8) with a passage
that has very generally, since Ewald, been assigned to the
reign of Manasseh. Even if this date be correct it is not
very probable that vi. 1-8 and chs. i.-iii., which breathe
such a different spirit, are from one and the same writer.
The use of the term burnt-offering and not the more
specific sin-offering of later writers, the nature of the
allusion to Balaam, and the reference to the sacrifice of
the firstborn, perhaps, point to a date not later than the
seventh century ; it is at least questionable whether we
could safely refer this prophecy to the fifth century, on the
ground that these considerations are outweighed by the
use of the term * God of the height, 5 implying, it is urged,
an emphasis on the transcendence of God, and the appeal

220 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

to man in ver. 8 implying, again, it is urged, an
emphasis on the individual that points to an age after
Jeremiah.

It is possible that vi. 9-16 and vii. 1-6, even if not from
the same hand, may belong to much the same period as
vi. 1-8. On the other hand, vii. 7-20 seems widely separated
from those sections. * What was present in vii. 1-6, viz.
moral disorder and confusion in the existing Jewish state,
is in vii. 7-20 past ; what is there future, viz., the retribution
of vii. 4b has here come to pass, and has been continuing
for some time. Between vii. 6 and vii. 7 yawns a century
(Wellhausen). This last section of the book, vii. 7-20,
seems to have been written at least as late as the Exile.

7. NAHUM

The prophecy of Nahum was written between 663, the
date of the sack of Thebes (No-Ammon) by the Assyrians,
to which the prophet alludes (iii. 8), and the fall of Nineveh
in 607, which the prophet predicts. The occasion of it
is most likely to have been either the attack made on
Nineveh by Cyaxares the Mede about 623, or, more pro
bably, the circumstances immediately leading up to the
destruction of the city in 607. In either case Nahum
would have been a contemporary of Jeremiah, but a
prophet occupying, as we know from Jeremiah himself
that many prophets of the time did, a very different
position from his. Nahum is convinced that Nineveh must
fall, because the Assyrians had attacked the Jews and
(under Sennacherib) Jerusalem ; Jeremiah was convinced
that Jerusalem must fall because the Jews had sinned, of
which fact Nahum has not a word to say.

The oracle of Nineveh is strictly speaking confined
to chs. ii. (except ver. 2) and iii. and a verse or two in ch. i.
The prophecy probably opened with the address to Nineveh
in ver. 11, which, adopting a slight emendation, may be
rendered, * Did not one come forth out of thee, who
imagined evil against Yahweh, who counselled villainy ?

xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: NAHUM 221

Then follows Yahweh s decree that Nineveh shall be
destroyed (i. 14, also ? ver. 12), and then in chs. ii. and iii.
an imaginative description of its fulfilment and reflections
upon it. The verses addressed to Judah i. 13-15, as also
ii. 2, which interrupt the main theme are probably later
additions.

Prefixed to the oracle is the first half of an alphabetic
poem the structure of which has been slightly obscured,
but is clear enough down to ver. 9. Ver. 10 may also have
belonged to this poem. There are several objections to
an alternative theory that the oracle begins at i. 9 : (1)
i. 9 seems to be still part of the alphabetic poem ; (2) i. 11
is a much more effective opening ; (3) i. 9 has the second
person plural, and so is unlike i. 11, 14.

The presence of this mutilated alphabetic poem at the
beginning of the book is to be attributed to an editor
rather than to Nahum ; the effect of the addition is to
make the destruction of Nineveh, the opponent of the
Jews, an illustration of the general truth that Yahweh
takes vengeance on the guilty, but delivers those that
trust in him.

The determination of the date of the alphabetic poem
is not easy : no other such poem that can be at all securely
dated is earlier than the earliest dirges in Lamentations,
i.e. than the Exile. Most probably the poem is of post-
exilic origin, and the present form of Nahum due to a
post- exilic editor.

8. HABAKKUK

The book of Habakkuk consists of (1) prophecies, or
prophetic fragments : chs. i., ii. ; (2) a psalm : ch. iii.

Ch. iii. appears to be derived from some collection of
Psalms ; like fifty-four psalms in the Psalter it is described
as of the chief musician. The title in iii. 1, which does
not necessarily possess any more credibility than other
titles to Psalms, ascribes this psalm to the prophet
Habakkuk, even as the LXX. ascribes Psalms cxlvi.-cxlviii.
to the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. For reasons

222 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

indicated in ch. xiv. it is difficult to determine the date at
all precisely, but it is probably post-exilic ; in iii. 13b
Yahweh s anointed is the theocratic people (iii. 13a)
at a time when no human Jewish monarchy existed. At
what period the psalm was attached to the prophecies,
whether before, or at the time of, or even after, the com
pilation of The Twelve cannot be determined.

The remainder of the book is very likely not all the
work of a single author, or even of a single generation.
The questions of origin and purpose, which are intimately
bound up with the detailed exegesis of the book, are
peculiarly difficult ; and the lack of unambiguous data
allows only of very partial and uncertain answers.

The two points that seem clearest are these : (1) i. 5-10
and whatever else exegesis may show to be of one piece
with this passage, and consequently to have been written
at the same time with it, belong to a prophecy written at
the time when the Chaldeans (i. 6) were emerging into
prominence as an active and irresistible world-power.
The attitude of the writer to the Chaldeans is similar to
that of Isaiah towards the (unnamed) Assyrians in an early
poem (v. 26-29) written within a few years of the beginning
of the western advance of Assyria. (2) Ch. ii. 5-19 (in the
main at least) is a prophetic denunciation of a world-power
with a long career of conquest and brutality already behind
it from which the prophet and his people have themselves
suffered.

From this it follows that i. 5-10, and whatever else goes
with it, was written towards the end of the seventh century
certainly after the founding of the Neo-Babylonian (Chal
dean) Empire by Nabopolassar in 625, and probably after
the fall of Nineveh in 607, and also after, and indeed im
mediately after, the battle of Carchemish in 605, in which,
by defeating the Egyptians, the Babylonians established
their supremacy. An attempt to avoid this conclusion and
to find in the prophecy a reference to the revolts of Chal
deans in the eighth century within the Assyrian Empire
(which remained unshaken) has proved unsuccessful ; and

THE TWELVE PROPHETS: HABAKKUK 223

the substitution of another term such as Chittim (i.e.
Greeks) for Chaldeans in i. 6 is unjustified.

But, further, ii. 5-19, either, if it also refers to the Chal
deans, must have been written long after i. 5-10, or, if it
was written even approximately at the same time, it must
refer to another power, and, since the dominance of Egypt
over Judah (609-605) and its career of conquest was so short,
this power must have been Assyria. Between these two
alternatives, that ii. 5-19 was written, say, about 615 B.C.,
and is a denunciation of Assyria, the oppressor of Judah for
more than a century, but now tottering to its fall before
the rising power of the Chaldeans, and that it is a denun
ciation of the Chaldeans written long after i. 5-10, and
scarcely much if at all before 550, it is difficult to decide ;
the first would be compatible with the common author
ship of i. 5-10 and ii. 5-19, the second scarcely ; the first
would imply an attitude to Assyria similar to Nahum s,
the second an attitude to Babylon similar to that which
is displayed, on the common interpretation of that poem,
in Is. xiv. 4-21. Since the name of the oppressor in ii. 5-19
is never mentioned, the passage might even refer to
Persians or Greeks, but the absence of marks of lateness
in the language would be quite unfavourable to such
a theory.

It should be added with regard to ii. 5-19 that the
apparently intimate connection with what precedes, im
plied by the opening words, is probably due to textual
corruption. In ii. 5, it is probable that a new and inde
pendent section began with the line : Ah ! the treacherous
dealer, the haughty man, that resteth not.

The general character and purpose of ii. 5-19 is clear,
whatever its age, and whichever the power denounced may
have been. Not so i. 1-ii. 4 ; the main question here is
this : is the prophet s perplexity (i. 2-4) caused (1) by the
prevalence of wickedness unrebuked and unpunished in
Judah generally ; or (2) by the oppression under which the
righteous, viz. the Jews, suffer at the hands of the wicked,
oppressing world-power ; or (3) by the oppression and

224 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

ill-treatment of a class of righteous individual Jews or
unrighteous Jews.

If the first view be correct, then to the prophet s com
plaint (i. 2-4) i. 5 ff. may contain Yahweh s reply, * Behold
ye faithless (Jews), as, following the LXX., we may render
i. 5, . . . I raise up the Chaldeans as a judgment upon you.
But then i. 11, 12 ff., at least in its present form, can
scarcely be the immediate sequence of i. 2-10 ; for the
* wicked in ver. 13 would mean the Chaldeans, and thus
have a different meaning from the same term in vers. 2-4,
and, moreover, would imply, like ii. 5-19, that the Chaldeans
already had had a long career of brutal conquest behind
them, and thus be incompatible with i. 5-10. If the second
of the above views be adopted, i. 5-11 must be out of place ;
but throughout i. 2-4, 12-17, ii. 1-4 the righteous will
mean the Jews, and the wicked the nation oppressing
them ; and the prophecy will close with the revelation that
the arrogant empire will come to ruin, but the Jews will
endure. The third of the above views is only possible if
we limit the discussion of the righteous and the wicked to
these verses : i. 2-4, 12a, 13, ii. 1-4 ; and even then whether
ii. 1 is as suitable on this view as on a view that allows
the prophet to mount his watch-tower in order to look far
out into the world (cp. Is. xxi. 1) may be doubted.

On the first of the views just discussed, i. 2-10 will have
been written, in reference to the wickedness prevalent in
Judah in Jehoiakim s reign ; and the date of the remainder
will remain uncertain. On the second view, i. 5-10 will have
been written about 605 ; but i. 2-4, 12-17, ii. 1-4 presents a
difficulty. The postulate that Judah is righteous is un
likely to have been made before Josiah s reformation in
621 ; on the other hand, the oppression of the wicked
seems to have lasted long (i. 2-4, 17) longer, perhaps, than
the time between the establishment of Babylonian supre
macy (605) and the fall of the Jewish state (586). Yet
the alternatives are difficult : Assyria, whose grip was
rapidly loosening even before 621, can scarcely be the
oppressor ; and, if we are inclined to treat the prophecy

xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: ZEPHANIAH 225

as from the same hand as ii. 5-19, and to bring it down to
about 550, the. question arises whether i. 2-4 is likely to
have been written out of Judah and in exile.

A bare reference to another solution that has been offered
must suffice : Budde, in the Encycl. BibL, has proposed
that the original order of i. 1-ii. 4 was i. 2-4, 12-17, ii. 1-4,
i. 6-11, and that the prophet depicted the oppression of
Judah by Assyria and received the divine revelation that
the Chaldeans would overthrow Assyria. One reason for
not accepting this solution has been hinted at in the last
paragraph.

9. ZEPHANIAH

The title to this book asserts that Zephaniah was the
great-great-grandson of Hezekiah (by whom in all proba
bility is intended the king of Judah contemporary with
Isaiah), and that he prophesied in the reign of Josiah. The
two assertions are compatible with one another and pro
bably correct, though if, as is then most likely, Zephaniah
prophesied c. 627, and certainly before 621, when Josiah
abolished the idolatrous practices described in i. 4, 5, he
must have been, like Jeremiah, a young man when he began
to prophesy. The occasion of the prophecy in this case
was doubtless the same as that of Jeremiah s earliest
prophecy a danger threatening from the north (Jer. i.).
This is commonly understood to have been the descent of
the Scythians, which actually took place about this time :
according to Herod, i. 104 f. the Scythians swarmed
through Palestine further south than Ashkelon. Abandon
ing the evidence of the title, Konig prefers to place the
prophecy in Jehoiakim s reign, though in part necessarily
(cp. ii. 13) before the fall of Nineveh ; seeing in i. 4, 5 a
description of the survival of idolatry under Jehoiakim and
in the instrument of judgment the Chaldeans (cp. Hab.
i. 5-10, p. 222), he lays stress on the phrase the remnant
(but LXX. " the names ") of Baal in i. 4 as incompatible
with a date before Josiah s reformation.

226 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

Chs. i. and ii. predict a universal judgment that will
affect in particular Judah, Philistia, Moab, Ammon,
Ethiopia and Assj^ria. It has been suggested that
Zephaniah s original prophecy addressed itself particularly
to Judah, Philistia, Ethiopia and Assyria, and that it
subsequently received universalising touches (especially
ii. 11), and the addition after 586 B.C. of the denunciation
of Moab and Ammon (ii. 8-10), which betrays the same
attitude as that of Ezekiel (xxv. 1-11) towards Edom.
Possibly also the promises in ii. 3, 7 are additions.

With ch. iii. a new section begins : iii. 1-7 may be
another denunciation of Jerusalem by Zephaniah, or is
perhaps of later origin. The prediction of a universal
judgment which only the godly remnant of Judah will
escape (iii. 8, 11-13), the verses interpolated (iii. 9, 10)
in this prediction and foretelling that Yahweh will be
universally worshipped (cp. ii. 11), and the description of
the glory of the Jews after Yahweh has delivered them
from their present captivity (iii. 14-20) are all probably,
and especially iii. 9-10, 14-20, post-exilic prophecies added
to the pre-exilic book of Zephaniah, perhaps by the same
editor who interpolated, if they be interpolations, ii. 3, 7.

10. HAGGAI

The book of Haggai contains an account of the argu
ments and promises with which Haggai (Ezra v. 1, vi. 14)
urged the Jewish community to undertake the rebuilding
of the Temple, and designated Zerubbabel as the chosen of
Yahweh to establish the Messianic kingdom.

Whether this record of Haggai s activity and teaching
was prepared by the prophet himself or one of his hearers
is uncertain : the reference to Haggai throughout in the
third person, and the frequent addition to his name of the
title prophet, rather favour the second alternative.
In any case, the book was probably written within a year
or two at most of 520 B.C., and has reached us, apart from
a little textual corruption and glossing, as it left the hands,

xxin.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: HAGGAI 227

of its author ; for occasional attempts to detect secondary
elements in ii. 10-19, 20-23 have proved quite unsuccessful
and found no acceptance.

Haggai s prophecies, like EzekiePs and Zechariah s,
are accurately dated. The dates of the prophecies of
the two contemporaries, Haggai and Zechariah, may be
shown in a single table :

Reference. Day and month and B.C.

year of Darius.

Hag. i. 1. vi. 2 520. September.

Hag. ii. 1-9 21. vii. 2 520. October.

Zech. i. 1-6 viii. 2 520. November.

Hag. ii. 10-13 24. ix. 2 520. December.

Zech. i. 7-vi. 15 24. xi. 2 519. February.

Zech. vii., viii. 4. ix. 4 518. December.

11. ZECHARIAH

The book of Zechariah consists of (1) chs. i.-viii., the
teaching of Zechariah in the years 520-518 ; (2) chs. ix.-xiv.,
anonymous prophecies of a later date.

The prophecies of Zechariah are accurately dated
(see above) ; in the formal dating, the prophet speaks of
himself in the third person, elsewhere in the first person
an intelligible distinction. We may assume, then, that
Zechariah prepared his own resume of his public teaching
(i. 2-6, 14-17, ii. 10-17, iv. 6-10a, vii. 3-viii. 23), and him
self wrote the account of his visions which constitute the
remaining and chief part of his book. Possibly Zechariah
wrote chs. i.-vi. in 519 B.C., and added chs. vii. f. in 517 ;
there is no clear hint at all events that the book was written
after Zerubbabel had failed to maintain his position, and
still more to fulfil the Messianic expectations of Haggai and
Zechariah.

There is no reason to suspect any serious later additions
to Zechariah s book ; but a misplacement in iv., which
appears to be merely accidental, and an intentional

228 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

modification in vi., have greatly obscured Zechariah s
meaning in these passages. In ch. iv., the prophetic
saying, extending from ver. 6b ( this is the word of the
Yahweh, etc.) to ver. lOa ( in the hand of Zerubbabel ),
has accidentally intruded into the middle of one of the
visions ; the vision originally ran straight on from ver.
6a to lOb : then he answered and spake unto me, saying,
these seven are the eyes of Yahweh which run to and fro,
etc.

In Zech. vi. 11-13 it is almost certain that the original
text spoke of one crown only, and that for Zerubbabel ;
and predicted that Zerubbabel should sit on the throne and
Joshua * on his right hand (so the LXX. still), and that
the counsel of peace should be * between them both.
At some time after the line of David had failed to maintain
even the position which Zerubbabel had actually occupied,
and the high priest had become supreme in Judah, an
editor by a slight alteration entirely transformed the
purport of the promise by making it a prediction of the
rule of the high priest.

Zechariah ix.-xiv.

The first impulse to realise that these chapters are of
entirely distinct and independent origin, and are not the
work of Zechariah, or even of his age, came from the con
sideration that Zech. xi. 12 f. is cited in Matt, xxvii. 9 f.
as the words not of Zechariah, but of Jeremiah. This at
first led most to postulate for the chapters a pre-exilic
origin, a view which, more or less modified, is still some
times maintained ; but it is now more commonly held
that these chapters are entirely of post-exilic origin.

Where the work of Zechariah ends, and that of the
anonymous writer(s) begins, is clear beyond mistake :
it would be difficult to conceive a greater difference than
that between the precisely dated sections of Zechariah,
with their clear reflection of the times and conditions of
the prophet s activity, and the difficult, vague, and obscure

xxiii.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: ZECHARIAH 229

chapters that begin with ch. ix. Textual corruption and
the constant difficulty of interpretation render many ques
tions that arise difficult to answer, and in particular that
as to the unity of ix.-xiv. Are these chapters a single
prophecy, or the work of more than one writer, and mainly
of two ix.-xi. (+xiii. 7-9), xii.-xiv. ? Both views have been
taken. At first sight an outward indication of diversity
seems present in the curious title the oracle of the word
of Yahweh, which appears in ix. 1, xi. 1, Mai. i. 1, and
nowhere else in the Old Testament ; yet these titles may
proceed not from the compiler of the Twelve, who thus
distinguished prophecies he knew to be anonymous, but
from a later scribe. In favour of unity is the vague,
enigmatic style that is common to all parts of ix.-xiv.,
and much similarity in sentiment and outlook.

The date of the prophecy, or of ix.-xi. at least, seems
clearly defined by the reference in ix. 13 to Greece
(Javan) as the great power opposed to the Jews : this
would indicate Alexander s conquests as the terminus a quo.
The differentiation of Assyria and Egypt (x. 11) may then
imply that Alexander s Empire had already been divided,
and that the Seleucids of Assyria and the Ptolemies of
Egypt were to the writer living, say, about 280 B.C., the
prominent Greek dynasties. Others, taking the Greeks of
ix. 13 to be defined by ix. 1 f., think the Seleucid Empire
in particular is intended, and, finding identifications of the
three shepherds (xi. 8), at least as probable as others
that have been offered, in the three successive high priests
Lysimachus, Jason, and Menelaus, and in xii. 10 an allusion
to the death of Onias in. in 170, regard the book as having
been written about 160 B.C.

But all this rests on the security of the word Greece in
ix. 13. The doubt cast on this word, and the proposal,
for example, of Konig to substitute Nineveh, seem, indeed,
to lack justification. Yet it is worth while considering the
evidence for date, as it would stand if * Greece in ix. 13
were eliminated. Even so the cumulative evidence, as in
Is. xxiv.-xxvii., which this prophecy resembles in its enig-

230 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

matic, apocalyptic character, would point to the post-exilic
period. But this evidence would turn to a great extent
on questions of literary dependence, and the history of
ideas, which are themselves subjects of discussion.
Certainly the language does not point to so late a date as
the second century, and one usage, viz. the great pre
ponderance of anoki over ani (p. 23), would even suggest,
taken by itself, the pre-exilic period. If late, the relative
purity of the style will be due, as in Joel and Is. xxiv.-
xxvii., to close study of the earlier literature of which
Zech. ix.-xiv., would then give abundant and unmistakable
evidence.

Among the points claimed as indicating a pre-exilic
date are the references to Ephraim and Israel (ix. 10, 13,
xi. 14) as distinct from and exclusive of Judah, the coupling
of Assyria and Egypt (x. 10, 11) as in Hosea (but see above),
the allusions to teraphim and diviners (x. 1 f .) ; but sorcerers
are mentioned in Mai. iii. 5 ; and Ezekiel, who if Zech.
ix.-xiv. be late, has profoundly influenced it, looks to the
restoration of the tribes of Israel as well as of Judah (i.e.
Ezek. xxxvii. 16 ff. ; cp. also Zech. xi. 7 ff.) On the other
hand, among the indications of post-exilic date are the
references to captivity and dispersion (ix. 11 f., x. 6-9), and
the absence of any reference to an existing Jewish monarchy
combined with the probable implication (cp. p. 188) in
xiv. 5 that the Jewish monarchy was a thing of the past.
The house of David retained its distinctness long into
the post-exilic period (1 Chr. iii. 17 ff. ; Ezra viii. 2) :
and the reflection on the house of David, and the coupling
of it with other families, seem far more probable when, not
being the royal family, its head did not of right exercise
supreme power in the state. The conditions suggested by
such passages as xii. 7, 8, 12, 14, xiii. 1 do not exactly
correspond to what is known of any period ; but the co
ordination of the Davidic and Levitical houses, and the
attempt of Jerusalem under their leadership to lord it
over the country districts of Judah in a way that was
resented, can much more readily be explained by the general

xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: MALACHI 231

conditions of post-exilic than of pre-exilic Judah. Again,
do not xi. 4-17 depend on Ezek. xxxiv. and xxxvii. 16 ff.,
and xiv. 8 on Ezek. xlvii. 1-10, and not vice versa ? Does
not xii. 1 owe its ring to the Deutero-Isaiah ? Are the
ideas in ix. 7-lla ; xii. 2 f., 9 ; xiv. 1 f., 9, 12, 16, 20 f. more
likely to occur in pre-exilic or post-exilic prophecy ?

12. MALACHI

This book may be, strictly speaking, anonymous. The
name Malachi means my messenger, and may have been
merely inferred from hi. 1. In any case it must have
passed as the proper name of the author of the book, before
the whole collection could receive the title of the Twelve.

The book of Malachi was written during the Persian
period, while Judah was governed by a pehah, or (Persian)
governor ; cp. e.g. Hag. i. 1 ; Neh. v. 14. Moreover, imply
ing as it does the existence of the Temple (iii. 1, 10; cp.
i. 6-14), it must have been written after 516 B.C. The con
demnation of mixed marriages (cp. Ezra ix. 2, x. ; Neh.
xiii. 23 ff.) and slackness in the payment of sacred dues (cp.
Neh. xiii. 10-13) point towards the period of Ezra and
Nehemiah. The closer agreement of iii. 10 (cp. Neh. x.
38 f.) with Num. xviii. 21-33 (P) than with Deut. xiv.
22-29 in the matter of tithe may merely reflect practice
moving towards the ordinances of P, and not familiarity
with P itself ; and certainly Horeb in iv. 4 points to the
influence not of P, but of Deuteronomy. It is doubtful,
therefore, whether it is necessary to place Malachi after
the publication of P in 445 B.C. : it may perhaps have been
written a little before the arrival of Ezra and Nehemiah,
say c. 460 B.C.

The unity of the book has been seldom questioned ;
yet to some the condemnation of mixed marriages in ii. 11 f.
appears to interrupt the connection between ii. 10 and ii.
13 f., to be out of harmony with the remarkably universal-
istic outlook of i. 11, and, together with some clauses in
ii. 14 f., to be less probably original than the work of a

232 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

supplemental who was anxious to condemn the faithlessness
to Yahweh involved in marriage with foreigners no less
than the faithlessness of man to man (ii. 10), or of a husband
in lightly divorcing the wife of his youth (ii. 14-16). On
slighter grounds iv. 4-6 has also been questioned.

DANIEL

CHAPTER XXIV

DANIEL

THE evil genius of this book, though, in accordance with the
general rule of apocalyptic literature, he is never mentioned
by name, is quite clearly Antiochus Epiphanes l (175-164
B.C.) : and the purpose of the book is to encourage the
Jews not to submit to his attempts to seduce or persecute
them into the worship of Zeus and disloyalty to their law,
but to persist at whatever cost in their fidelity to God.
The method of the book is twofold : by stories (chs. i.-vi.)
of God s delivery and reward of those who in the past
faithfully endured religious persecution, it encourages its
readers likewise to endure ; and, in a series of visions
(chs. vii.-xii.), it interprets the past as the unfolding of
God s purpose, which is, within a year or so, to culminate
in the overthrow of Antiochus and the Seleucid empire, and
in the establishment on earth of the everlasting kingdom of
the Most High, whose vice-gerent will be the Jewish nation,
whom all other kingdoms will serve and obey.

In brief outline, the origin, purpose, and method of
Daniel, as these are now generally recognised, have been
stated at the outset ; for no book of the Old Testament
more clearly bears its own testimony to its date and
character than this, however obscure or ambiguous many
of its details may be. And yet for long the traditional
theory that it is the work of a Jewish captive at the Baby
lonian court under Nebuchadnezzar, and subsequent
kings, was hotly defended. The chief facts which render

1 See especially vii. 8, 20 f. ( the little horn ) ; riii. 9-14, 23-25 ; ix. 26 f. ;
xi. 21-45 (lii. 6 ff.). Cp. 1 Mace. i. 10-vi. 17.

234 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

this perhaps the least tenable of all traditional views
regarding the origin of the Old Testament literature
untenable may be stated and their significance briefly
indicated first ; and then the reasons which point definitely
to the year 165 as that in which Daniel was actually
written.

(1) Daniel formed no part of the prophetic canon, but
was included in the Hebrew scriptures merely as one of
the writings (see ch. i.). This, as also the fact that
Daniel is not mentioned in Ecclus. xlix., has not received,
and probably never will receive, any other satisfactory
explanation except that Daniel was not yet written in
180 B.C. Further, the earliest certain reference to the book
of Daniel is in 1 Mace. ii. 59-60 (written c. 90 B.C.).

(2) The language is entirely inconsistent with the
theory that the book was written in Babylon in the sixth
century B.C. The main facts are these : (1) the book is
written partly (i.-ii. 4a, viii.-xii.) in Hebrew, partly in
Aramaic (ii. 4b-vii.). The Hebrew contains many
Aramaisms, words and uncouth constructions found
predominantly or exclusively in the latest books of the
Old Testament : it is thus sharply marked off from actual
writings of the sixth century B.C., such as Ezekiel and
Deutero-Isaiah, but closely related to Chronicles, Esther,
Ecclesiastes. (2) The Aramaic of Daniel is Western
Aramaic, and closely allied with that found in the
Palmyrene and Nabataean inscriptions (first century B.C.
third century A.D.), but decisively distinguished from
early Aramaic, and, in particular, from the Aramaic in use
in Babylon in the sixth century B.C. (3) Both the Hebrew
and the Aramaic parts of the book contain Persian words :
in the whole book there are some fifteen at least : this
cannot naturally be explained if the book was written
before, or even immediately after, the overthrow of the
Babylonian empire by Cyrus in 538 B.C. (4) The book
also contains at least three Greek words : these are
the terms for some of the musical instruments mentioned
in ch. iii., viz.: kitharos=Ki6apt,s , psanterin=i/;a\Tr]piov ;

xxiv.] DANIEL 235

sumponyah=&lt;rvij.&lt;l&gt;&lt;avia: these words imply the dissemina
tion of Greek culture that followed Alexander s conquests
(336-323 B.C.).

(3) The book implies an ignorance of the leading facts
of the political history of the sixth century B.C., such as
could not have been displayed by a contemporary living
at the Babylonian court. Belshazzar (chs. v., vii., viii.)
is represented as (a) the last king of the Babylonian Empire,
and (b) the son of Nebuchadnezzar : he was neither ; the
last king of Babylon to whom Cyrus, as his own inscriptions
show, immediately succeeded was Nabonidus, who was
neither a son, nor a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar ; and
Belshazzar (Bel-shar-usur) was the son not of Nebuchad
nezzar, but of Nabonidus, and he is called consistently
on contemporary contract tablets the king s son, and by
Nabonidus himself the chief (or firstborn) son, but
never even co-regent, still less, as in Daniel, king
absolutely. Again, Daniel represents a Median as succeed
ing to the Babylonian Empire (v. 31, vi., ix. 1), the Median
being in turn succeeded by a Persian empire : see vi. 28
and note x. 1 (after ix. 1 and before the backward reference
in xi. 1) ; note also xi. 2. Thus, according to Daniel, to the
last king of Babylon succeeds Darius the Mede, to Darius
the Mede, Cyrus the Persian. But since, as a matter of
fact, Cyrus the Persian immediately succeeded Nabonidus
the last king of Babylon, Darius the Mede and the
Median Empire, as represented in Daniel, never existed ;
they may be due to mistaken inferences of a late writer ;
they do not correspond to any actual facts of the sixth
century B.C. It is, indeed, notorious that even wise and
cultured people do not always spell correctly ; yet it would
be strange for a wise and learned man like Daniel invariably
to give the name of the king whom he had served in its incor
rect form, Nebuchadnezzar, whereas Jeremiah and Ezekiel,
contemporaries also indeed, but not attached to the court,
spell it correctly Nebuchadrezzar. Smaller, or less certain
points, such as the probably incorrect statement that
Nebuchadnezzar took away some of the sacred vessels in

236 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH.

the third year of Jehoiakim (i. 1), must be passed over
here.

The foregoing arguments prove not only that the book
was not written in Babylon in the sixth century B.C., but
also positively that it was written long after that date in
Palestine : either the second or third line of argument
taken separately proves so much as to date : and further,
if the argument from the Greek words may govern the
whole book, then not only ch. iii., but the whole book was
written after c. 300 B.C., and, if the cogency of the first
argument be allowed, after c. 180 B.C. So far we can go
without taking the least account of the predictive elements
in the book ; and thus the statement often made that the
rejection of the traditional view of Daniel rests on a denial
of the possibility of particular predictions is as baseless
as the similar statement with regard to Is. xl.-lxvi.

In the interests of the traditional theory, and to turn if
possible the force of the arguments just stated, the unity
of the book has occasionally been questioned ; and
critical scholars also, now and again, argue that different
parts of the book are of different origin. For example,
Torrey and Kent have recently argued that chs. i.-vi. were
written between 245 and 225 B.C., and that these chapters
greatly influenced the author of chs. vii.-xii. writing about
165, who closely bound together his own visions with the
earlier stories. This particular theory really admits the
substantial unity of the book ; and such substantial unity,
in spite of the difference of language which divides the
book into two parts, and the difference between stories
and visions which divides it also into two parts, but
differently, it seems impossible to disprove, or even to
render doubtful ; for there are too many marks of unity :
the same erroneous conceptions of a Median Empire and
of Belshazzar as king occur both in the stories and the
visions ; a remarkable general similarity of style pervades
the whole book, the same underlying purpose is easily
discernible in visions and stories alike, and there are many
detailed links between different parts ; it is, for example,

xxiv.] DANIEL 237

almost certain that ii. 43 refers to the same unfortunate
marriages between Ptolemies and Seleucids as xi. 6, 17.
The difference in style between Daniel s prayer (ix. 4-19)
may be due to the greater influence exercised here by the
earlier literary models on which the prayer is obviously
and confessedly based.

Granted the unity, the date of the whole book, and in
any case of the visions, can be very closely determined, if
we allow ourselves to be guided by the analogy of other
apocalyptic literature : for it is characteristic of much of
this literature for the author to assume the standpoint of
some one belonging to a more or less remote age, and then
to include under the form of prediction both what to him
was actually history of the past, and what was, in reality as
well as in form, prediction of the future ; for example the
author of Enoch Ixxxiii.-xc. (written perhaps about 160
B.C.) passes in review both past history reaching back to
Adam, and also what he expected the Messianic future to
be ; but the whole review takes the form of prediction,
and (another point in common with some of the visions of
Daniel) different classes of men are represented by different
animals. The same method is pursued, for example, in
the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Sibylline
Oracles, book in., and the Apocalypse of Baruch. If, as is
surely the case, this method is also the method of Daniel,
there is no room for doubt, within a year or so at most, as
to the point at which, in the several visions, history ceases
and prediction begins, and consequently as to the time at
which the visions were written : it is towards the end of
the reign of Antiochus after the abomination of desola
tion was set up in Dec. 168 (1 Mace. i. 54), after the
Maccabaean revolt had begun (Dan. xi. 31-35) in 167, but,
since the need for encouragement is still obviously great,
probably before the great successes of Judah, and the
purification of the Temple in Dec. 165, i.e. early in 165
or perhaps even in 166 B.C. Some, however, infer from the
precise (yet varying) definitions of the period of the
pollution of the altar (Dan. viii. 14, xii. 11) that Dec. 165

238 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [OH.

also belongs to the writer s past, and that the date of the
visions is early in 164. In any case an absolute terminus
ad quern is fixed by Antiochus s death later in 164 : this is
predicted by the author, correctly as to the date, incorrectly
as to the place of it ; Antiochus died not in Palestine
(Dan. xi. 45), but in Persia.

The question whether and how far the story of Daniel
at the Babylonian court, and of those with whom in the
story he is associated, rests on a historical basis has the
same kind of importance as the kindred questions with
regard to Job, Jonah and Esther. When it is raised, it
is best raised under the larger question of what may be
the traditional elements in Daniel ; for these are probably
not confined to, even though they may include, historical
facts ; the question of mythological elements, which may
be found in ch. vii. not less than in the story of Bel and the
Dragon appended to the Greek Daniel, must also be con
sidered ; and a kindred inquiry will examine the extent to
which some details were determined by the learned study
of Scripture (Dan. ix. 2) ; for example, is the Median
Empire an erroneous inference from Is. xiii. 17 ?

It is certainly possible that among Jewish captives in
Babylon was one named Daniel, though it is very ques
tionable whether the references in Ezek. xiv. 14, xxviii. 3
are to such an one ; it is possible, too, that such a captive
obtained some position at court and persisted in a
vegetarian diet ; possible, again, that for a short period
(scarcely for seven years ) Nebuchadnezzar fell a victim
to madness. But it must be left to the historian to pursue,
if he will, his perilous path among these and other possi
bilities. To the student of the Old Testament literature
as an expression of the life and thought and religion of
the Jews, the question is of minor importance ; for the
writer s whole interest is centred not on recording fact,
but on achieving a practical purpose, and expressing certain
ideas. And the dominating conception of the book is
that history is the unfolding of the divine purposes, and
a movement towards an end, to wit, a universal and ever-

xxiv.] DANIEL 239

lasting kingdom of righteousness. This conception is
prophetic, and is found, for example, in Isaiah as well as
in Daniel ; but Daniel, who was followed by other
apocalyptic writers, illustrates it from a wider survey of
history, a survey, too, which, however defective in some
of its details, is accurate enough in its perception of one
empire, great through its conquests and the material
resources under its control, succeeding another, only itself
in time to collapse. His conception of the everlasting
Kingdom of God may have its limitations, but it is unfor
tunate that a mistaken apologetic in the past has over
shadowed, and it would be unfortunate if any undue
emphasis in the future on a possible historical basis for some
details of the story should continue to overshadow, the
nobility of the thought of which story and visions are but
the clothing. Job, Jonah, Daniel all alike derive certain
elements from ancient mythology, ancient story or ancient
history : but all also owe their significance to other things
than these : they are not records of historical fact ; as
such their value would be negligible ; but they are ex
pressions of faith in the constant presence of God in the
individual life, in the all-embracing care of God for all his
creatures, in the wise and righteous purposes of God
working themselves out in all human history. And thus
do the authors of these books, each in his own way and
each by the use of a different literary form, express some
of the greatest of those ideas which give abiding value to
ancient Jewish literature and its significance to Jewish
history.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(Mainly of recent works)

THE most important general treatment is S. R. Driver, An Intro
duction to the Literature of the Old Testament (1st ed. 1891 ; 6th ed.
(revised and enlarged) 1897 ; 8th ed. (revised) 1909).

Important, as illustrating the history and growing thoroughness
of the modern critical examination of the Old Testament literature,
are : Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651), ch. xxxiii. ; B. Spinoza,
Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1671), chs. viii.-x. ; R. Simon, His-
toire Critique du vieux Testament (1678) ; J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung
in das A. T. (1780-83) ; W. M. L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der hist.-
Jcrit. Einleitung in die canon, u. apocryph. Biicher des A. T. (1817) ;
8th ed., by Schrader, 1869. (Cp. L. Diestel, Geschichte des Alien
Testaments in der christlichen Kirche, 1869 (a history of inter
pretation and criticism) ; T. K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament
Criticism, 1893 ; C. A. Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of
Holy Scripture (1899), ch. xi. ; G. B. Gray, art. Bible (0. T.
Criticism) in Encyc. Brit., llth ed. (1910)).

Among other and more recent general works are the Introductions
by Bleek (of which ed. 2 was translated into English, and ed. 4,
but not ed. 5, was revised by Wellhausen), Kuenen (English trans
lation of part i. by Wicksteed, entitled The Hexateuch), Keil, Konig,
Cornill (Eng. trans, by Box), C. H. H. Wright (ed. 1, 1890 ; ed. 2,
1898 ; brief, but with full bibliographies to date), Wildeboer, W. W.
von Baudissin, Lucien Gautier, W. H. Bennett, J. M Fadyen, Sellin
Steuernagel. See also W. R. Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish
Church ; E. Reuss, Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften des Alten
Testaments ; K. Budde, Gesch. der altheb. Literatur ; E. Kautzsch,
Outlines of the History of the Literature of the 0. T. (a translation
of a part of Die Heiligen Schriften, etc. : see below).

A critical study of the literature is bound up with the history
of Israel, and receives attention in the larger histories, e.g. of Ewald
(translated), Stade, Kittel (ed. 1 only translated), Wellhausen (vol. i.
translated by J. S. Black under the title, The History of Israel
very important). In the same way, a natural connection between
the subjects is the cause of critical discussions or remarks in some

240

BIBLIOGRAPHY 241

of the works on Old Testament theology ; see especially B. Stade,
Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments (vol. i. ; vol. ii. by Bertholet);
R. Smend, Alttest. Religionsgeschichte.

The Encyclopaedia Biblica (ed. T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black)
and Hastings s Dictionary of the Bible may be consulted, especially
on each of the books of the Old Testament ; also the Encyc. Brit-
annica (ed. 9, with many articles by W. R. Smith, and ed. 11).
Briefer but also useful are Hastings s Dictionary of the Bible in One
Volume ; and A Standard Bible Dictionary (ed. M. A. Jacobus).
All of these are written more or less completely from what is com
monly described as a critical standpoint. Smith s Dictionary of
the Bible may still be consulted for conservative theories ; a more
recent and also briefer conservative work is Murray s Illustrated
Bible Dictionary (ed. W. C. Piercy).

C. F. Kent, The Student s Old Testament ; and Die Heilige Schrifi
des A. T., by various German scholars under the editorship of
E. Kautzsch, will be found valuable for the critical translations
(with indications of sources, etc.) contained in them. Critical
translations into English will also be found in S. B. 0. T., and of
the poetical parts of the O. T. in /. C. C. (abbreviations explained
below).

On the bearing of Archaeology on Criticism, see A. H. Sayce,
The Higher Criticism and the Monuments (in the main conservative),
and many contributions to the Expository Times ; S. R. Driver in
Authority and Archaeology (ed. D. G. Hogarth), pp. 1-152.

CHAPTER II

K. H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen Biicher des A. T., 1866; G. P.
Moore, * Historical Literature (art. in Encyc. Biblica, vol. ii., 1901) ;
G. B. Gray, * The Comparative Study of Semitic Literature (Con~
temporary Review, July 1907).

References to series of commentaries on the Old Testament in
the following special bibliographical notes are thus abbreviated :

0. B. ... The Cambridge Bible (ed. A. F. Kirk-

patrick).
CENT. B. . The Century Bible (ed. W. F. Adeney).

1. c. c. . . . International Critical Commentary (ed.

S. R. Driver and C. Briggs).

H. K. . . . Handkommentar zum A. T. (ed. Nowack).

K. c. H. s. . . Kurzgefasstes Comment, z. d. hlg.

Schriften (ed. Strack and Zockler).

K. E. H. . . Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch.

K. H. c. . . Kurzes Handcommentar (ed. Marti).

242 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT

s. B. o. T. . . . The Sacred Books of the Old Testament
(critical translation with notes) (ed.
P. Haupt).

WEST. COM. . . Westminster Commentaries (ed. W.
Lock).

Of these commentaries the fullest is /. C. C., and this alone of the
English series pays systematic attention to the Hebrew text.

The aim of the West. Com. is to supply something intermediate
in extent and detail between C. B. and Cent. B., on the one hand,
and /. C. C. on the other : yet in some cases C. B. is fuller than
West. Com. Of the German series H, K. is generally fuller than
K. H. C., and includes an independent critical translation.
K. C. H. S. is conservative. English conservative series, such as
the Speaker s Commentary, are now unfortunately for the most
part antiquated.

S. B. 0. T. is a fresh translation based on a critical text (pub
lished separately with textual notes) with notes; the different
sources in the several books are distinguished by printing in different
colours.

Under most of the books the English commentary which is the
fullest or most recent or otherwise the most suitable (though in
many cases others would be almost equally suitable) for the further
pursuit of subjects opened up in this book, is distinguished by
printing the author s name in heavy type. The commentaries are
mentioned in (approximately) chronological order.

CHAPTERS III-VI

Commentaries :

1. On the Pentateuch : by Dillmann (K. E. H. ; vol. i., Genesis,
translated) ; Strack (Gen.-Num.), and Oettli (Deut.) (K. C. H. S.)

2. On separate books :

(a) Genesis: by Delitzsch, Wade, Holzinger (K. H. C.),

Gunkel (H. K. : important), Driver (West. Com. : impor
tant), Bennett (Cent. B.), Skinner (/. C. C.).

(b) On Exodus : by Kalisch, Holzinger (K. H. C.). Bantsch

(H. K.), Bennett (Cent. J5.), M Neile (West. Com.), Driver,
(C. B.).

Bantsch (H. K.), Bertholet (K. H. C.), Kennedy (Cent. B.).

(d) On Numbers : by Gray (1. C. C.), Bantsch (H. K.), Holz

inger (K. H. C.), Kennedy (Cent. B.), M Neile (C. B.).

(e) On Deuteronomy : by Driver (/. C. C.), Steuernagel (H. K.),

Bertholet (K. H. C.\ Robinson (Cent. B,).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 243

English translations displaying the literary analysis will be
found in J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch,
vol. ii. ; W. E. Addis, The Documents of the Hexateuch ; B. W.
Bacon, The Genesis of Genesis, and The Triple Tradition of the
Exodus (see also above, p. 241).

Of general introductory works on the Pentateuch (or Hexateuch)
the most important are vol. i. of The Hexateuch, by J. E. Carpenter
and G. Harford-Battersby (published also separately under the
title, The Composition of the Hexateuch) ; H. Holzinger, Einleitung
in den Hex. ; A. Kuenen, The Hexateuch (translation by P. Wick-
steed of vol. i. of Hist.-crit. Onderzoek, etc.) ; A. T. Chapman, An
Introduction to the Pentateuch (briefer and simpler than the fore
going, but excellent). See also the relevant sections of the general
introductions and other works mentioned above, and the articles
in Encyc. Biblica on Historical Literature (G. F. Moore), and
Law Literature (G. B. Gray).

For literature on special aspects of the subject the foregoing
general works must be consulted : it must suffice here to refer to
a very few of the more important. Astruc s work (cited, p. 19)
marks the starting-point, and H. Hupfeld s Die Quellen der Genesis,
an important stage, in the detailed literary analysis of the Hexa
teuch ; W. M. L. de Wette s Beitrage zur Einl. in das A. T. (1806),
established the seventh-century origin of Deuteronomy ; Ewald s
History of Israel (1st ed. (German), 1843, 3rd ed. (German), 1863)
was very influential in promoting the theory that the chronological
order of the documents was PJED ; important founders of the now
prevalent view that the order was JEDP were Vatke, Georg, Reuss,
Graf (Die geschichtlichen Biicher des A. T., 1866) ; but the classical
exposition of it is to be found in J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der hist. Biicher des A. T. (1889, ed. 3, 1899) and
Prolegomena zur Gesch. Israel s (1878 ; ed. 7, 1905) ; the latter was
translated into English by J. S. Black, under the title History of
Israel (1885).

Of recent opponents of the modern critical movement in general
it must suffice to refer to three : Hommel, Die altisraelitische Uber-
lieferung (translated with serious omissions) ; J. Orr, The Problem
of the Old Testament (1906); H. M. Wiener, Essays on Pentateuchal
Criticism (1909), and also many articles in Bibliotheca Sacra. The
tendency of these writers is towards traditional views. The
position of B. Eerdmans (Die Composition der Genesis, 1908 ; Die
Vorgeschichte Israels, 1908 ; Exodus, 1910 ; Leviticus, 1912) is diffe
rent : he breaks away from the Graf -Wellhausen position, but at
the same time, if possible, still further from the traditional position.

For a brief description and criticism of Eerdmans theories, see
S. R. Driver, Genesis (Addenda ii., 1910), pp. xlii-xliv.

244 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT

CHAPTER VII

Commentaries on Joshua by Dillmann (K. E. H.), Oettli (K. C.
H. S.), Steuernagel (H. K.}, Bennett (S. B. 0. T.), Holzinger
(H. K.), Robinson (Cent. B.).

Commentaries on Judges by Oettli (K. C .H. S.), Moore (/. C. C.),
Budde (K. H. C.), Nowack (H. K.), Thatcher (Cent. B.), Lagrange
(Le Livre des Juges), G. A. Cooke (C. B. : nearly ready).

On Joshua, see, also, most of the literature cited above for the
Pentateuch. On both books Wellhausen, Die Composition des
Hexaleuchs, etc. (see above).

CHAPTER VIII

Commentaries by Kirkpatrick (C. B.), Thenius-Lohr (K. E. H.),
Klostermann (K. C. H. S.), H. P. Smith (/. C. (7.), Budde (K. H. C.),
Nowack (H. K.), A. R. S. Kennedy (Cent. B.), Dhorme (Les Livres
de Samuel).

Wellhausen, Der Text der Bucher Samuelis and Die Composition
(full title above) ; Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of
Samuel (ed. 1, out of print ; ed. 2, in preparation) ; S. A. Cook,
Critical Notes on the Old Testament History ; The Traditions of Saul
and David.

CHAPTER IX

Commentaries by Klostermann (K.C.H.S.), Benzinger (K.H.C.),
Kittel (H. K.), Burney (Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of,
Kings), SWnner (Cent. B. ), Barnes (C. B. ). See also Stade (S. B. 0. T t
Hebrew text and notes ; English translation not published).

CHAPTER X

Commentaries by Oettli (K. C. H. S.), Barnes (C. B.), Benzinger
(K. H. C.), Kittel (H. K.), Harvey- Jellie (Cent. B.), E. L. Curtis
and Madsen (/. C. C.). See also literature cited under ch. ii., and
Wellhausen, Prolegomena (Eng. trans. History of Israel), ch. vi.
(important); Bennett, Chronicles (in the Expositor s Bible.)

CHAPTER XI

Commentaries by Bertheau-Ryssel (K. E. H.), Oettli (K. C. H. S.),
Ryle (C. B.), Siegfried (H. K.), Bertholet (K. H. C.), T. W. Da vies
(Cent. jB., with discussion of recent theories).

Ed. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums (defends the authen
ticity of the Aramaic documents); C. C. Torrey, Ezra-Studies
(very radical, but important).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 245

CHAPTER XII

Commentaries on Ruth by Bertheau (K. E. H.), Oettli (K. C. H. S.)
Nowack (H. K.), Thatcher (Cent. B.), Bertholet (K. H. C.)

Commentaries on Esther by Bertheau- Ryssel (K. E. H.), Wilde-
boer (K. H. C.), Siegfried (H. K.), Streane (C. B.), T. W. Davies
(Cent. B.), Haupt, Paton (7. C. CO-
CHAPTER XIII

Commentaries by Delitzsch (first edition only translated into
English), Dillmann (K. E. H.), Hitzig, Davidson (C. B.), Gibson
(West. C.), Budde (H. K. : argues for the genuineness of the Elihu
speeches), Duhm (K. H. C.), Ley, Peake (Cent. B.).

Renan, Le Livre de Job (translation and introduction) ; Bradley,
Lectures on the Book of Job ; T. K. Cheyne, Job and Solomon ;
Davidson, The Book of Job, vol. i. (1862 : all published) ; Ewald,
Die Dichter des Alien Bundes, part iii. (translated) ; Helen H.
Nichols, The Composition of the Elihu Speeches (reprinted from
the American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature, vol.
xxvii., 1911); G. Bickell, Das Buch Job (a reconstruction on the
basis of the LXX. and of a metrical theory ; cp. Dillon, The
Skeptics of the Old Testament) ; E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek
(Essay VI.) ; C. H. Toy, Wisdom Literature (in Encyc. Biblica);
S. R. Driver, The Book of Job.

CHAPTER XIV

Commentaries by Olshausen, Ewald (in the Dichter des A. B.:
translated), Hupf eld- Nowack (K. E. H.), Hitzig, Perowne, Delitzsch
(translated), Gratz, Cheyne (1888), Kirkpatrick (C. B.), WeUhausen
(S. B. O. T.), Baethgen (H. K.}, Duhm (K. H. C.), Briggs (/. C. C.),
W. T. Davison and T. W. Davies (Cent. B.).

The Psalms Chronologically Arranged, by Four Friends (based on
Ewald) ; T. K. Cheyne, The Historical Origin and Religious Ideas
of the Psalter (important, though the writer modified much that
he had written both here and in his commentary of 1888, in his
later work, The Book of Psalms, 1903) ; W. T. Davison, The Praises
of Israel. Smend in the Zeitschr. fur die a. t. Wissenschaft, viii.
49 ff and G. Beer, Individuel u. Oemeinde Psalmen (on the I of
the Psalter : cp. G. B. Gray, the References to the King in the
Psalter, in the Jewish Quarterly Review, July 1895, pp. 655-686).

CHAPTER XV

Commentaries by Hitzig, Delitzsch, Nowack (K. E. H.), Strack
(K. C. H. 8.), Wildeboer (K. H. C.), Frankenberg (H. K.), Toy
(/. C. C.), Perowne (G. B.), Martin (Cent. B).

246 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT

W. T. Davison, The Wisdom Literature of the 0. T. ; T. K. Cheyne,
Job and Solomon ; Ewald, Die Sal. Schriften.

CHAPTER XVI

Commentaries by Hitzig - Nowack (K. E. H.), Ginsburg (with
extensive history of exegesis), Gratz, Tyler, Deh tzsch, Plumptre
(C. B.), Siegfried (H. K.), Wildeboer (K. H. (7.), Martin (Cent. B.),
Barton (/. C. (7.), Podechard (L EccUsiaste).

H. Ewald, Die Dichter des Allen Bundes), pt. ii. ; Renan,
L Ecclisiaste (translation and introduction) ; C. H. H. Wright,
Ecclesiastes ; G. G. Bradley, Lectures on Ecclesiastes ; T. K. Cheyne,
Job and Solomon ; A. H. M Neile, An Introduction to the Book
of Ecclesiastes. Different radical rearrangements of Ecclesiastes
are suggested in G. Bickell, Der Prediger uber den Wert des Daseins ;
and P. Haupt, Koheleth.

CHAPTER XVII

Commentaries by Hitzig (K. E. H.), Ginsburg, Delitzsch, Gratz,
Oettli (K. C. H. S.), Castelli (11 Cantico dei Cantici), Rothstein
(important) (cp. Hastings s Dictionary of the Bible, iv. 689 ff) ;
Minocchi (II Cantico dei Cantici}, Budde (K. H. C.), Siegfried
(H. K.), A. Harper (C. B.), Martin (Cent. B.), Zapletal.

H. Ewald, Die Dichter des Alien Bundes* iii. 333-426 ; Renan,
Le Cantique des Cantiques (translation and introduction) ; P.
Haupt, The Book of Canticles.

CHAPTER XVIII

Commentaries by Thenius (K. E. #.), Nagelsbach, Streane (C. B.),
Oettli (K. C. H. S.), Lohr (H. K.), Minocchi (Le Lamentazioni di
Geremia), Budde (K. H. C.), Peake (Cent. B.).

Ewald, Die Dichter des A. B. (Pt. i., second half : Die Psalmen
und die Klagelieder : English translation).

CHAPTER XIX

Ewald, Die Propheten des Alien Bundes; A. Kuenen, Prophets
and Prophecy in Israel ; W. R. Smith, The Prophets of Israel ; E.
Kom g, Der Offenbarungsbegriff des A. T. ; C. H. Cornill, Der. Isr.
Prophetismus (translated, Chicago) ; Giesebrecht, Beitr&ge zur
Jesaiakritik nebst einer Studie uber prophetische Schriftstellerei. The
articles on Prophetic literature inEncyc. Biblica, and on Prophecy

BIBLIOGRAPHY 247

and Prophets * in Hastings s Diet, of the Bible ; and the introduc
tions to the volumes on Isaiah, and Hosea and Amos in /. C. G.

On the theology of the Prophets, see, in addition to the general
works on Old Testament theology, B. Duhm, Die Theologie der
Propheten. For the effect on the criticism of the Prophets of the
theory that certain eschatological ideas first arose after the Exile
see, in addition to the more recent commentaries mentioned in the
bibliography below (chs. xx.-xxiii.), many articles by Stade in the
Zeitschr. fur die a.t. Wissenschaft ; Wellhausen, Die kleinen Prophe
ten ; P. Volz, Die vorexilische Jahweprophetie u. der Messias ; for a
reaction against these arguments, see Gressmann, Der Ursprung
der israelitisch-judischen Eschatologie ; Sellin, Der alttestamentliche
Prophetismus.

CHAPTER XX

[An extensive bibliography to Isaiah is attached to art. Isaiah
in Hastings s Diet, of the Bible.}

Commentaries by Gesenius, Hitzig, Dillmann (K. E. H.), Delitzsch,
Cheyne (S. B. 0. T. : also an earlier and fuller commentary),
Orelli, Skinner (C. B.), Marti (K. H. C.), Whitehouse (Cent. B.),
M Fadyen, Wade (West. C.), Gray and Peake (/. C. C. : vol. i. on i.-
xxvii. ; vol. ii. not yet published).

S. R. Driver, Isaiah, his Life and Times ; G. A. Smith, * Isaiah
(in the Expositor s Bible) ; Cheyne, An Introduction to the Book of
Isaiah (important : very full) ; G. H. Box, The Book of Isaiah
(critical translation, etc.); A. Condamin, Le Lime, d lsaie; Glazebrook,
Studies in the Book of Isaiah ; Kennett, The Composition of the
Book of Isaiah, criticised by C. F. Burney in The Church
Quarterly Review, 1912, April, pp. 99-126; Oct. pp. 99-139.