Skip to main content

Full text of "An introduction to the literature of the Old Testament"

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google . com/ 


kl.M ^783 ED.9 
SMntord Universit 





>%^Ul wn _> 

AN Ds'TSOI"'"'. 

r3 r. 


8. K '-i-.--.-. :i 

HGTCi Tvonaoft or ethltv ak. . o>.f # ruur ntj 
mmaLT rc^vm a* its* w«um: euwu 

£ltn»-Hr Ut.C '.. .* 

^. . . _;^j. 


NOV J9 jcoo 


Tint aim of the present volume is to furnish an account, at once 
descriptive and historical, of the Literature of the Old Testament. 
It is aot, I ought perhaps to explain, an Introduction to the 
Theoiogy^ or to the History, or even to the Study, of the Old 
Testament : in any of these cases, the treatment and contents 
would both have been very different. It is an Introduction to 
the Literature of the Old Testament ; and what I conceived this 
to include was an account of the contents and structure of the 
several books, together with such an indication of their general 
character and aim as I could find room for in the space at my 
disposal* [xiii] The treatment of the material has been deter- 
mined by the character of the different books. The contents of 
the prophetical and poetical books, for instance, which are 
less generally known than the history, properly so called, have 
been stated more fully than those of the historical books : the 
legislative parts of the Pentateuch have also been described with 
tolerable fulness. A tomparative study of the writings of the Old 
Testament is indispensable, if their relation to one another is 
to be rightly apprehended : accordingly the literary and other 
characteristics which connect, or distinguish, as the case may be, 
particular groups of writings have been indicated with some care. 
Distinctive types of style prevail in different parts of the Old 
Testament ; and as these — apart from the interest independently 
attaching to them — have frequently a bearing upon questions 
of date or authorship, or throw light upon the influences under 

" The Theology of the Old Testament forms the subject of a separate 
TolaiDe in the present serie*;, which has been entrusted to the competent 
of Professor A. B. Davidson, of the New College, Edinburgh. 



which particular books (or parts of books) were composed, I 
have been at pains to illustrate them as fully as space permitted. 
Especial care has been bestowed upon the lists of expre^ons 
characteristic of different writers. It was impossible to avoid 
altogether the introduction of Hebrew words ; nor indeed, as the 
needs of Hebrew students could not with fairness be entirely 
neglected, was it even desirable to do so; but an endeavour has 
been made, by translation, to nnake the manner in which they are 
used intelligible to the English reader. 

Completeness has not been attainable. Sometimes, indeed, 
the grounds for a conclusion have been stated with approximate 
completeness ; but generally it has been found impossible to 
mention more than the more salient or important ones. This 
is especially the case in the analysis of the Hcxateuch. A full 
statement and discussion of the grounds for this belongs to a 
Commentary. Very often, however, it is believed, when the 
relation of different passages to each other has been pointed out 
briefly, a comparative study by the reader will suggest to him 
additional grounds for the conclusion indicated. A word should 
also be said on the method followed. A strict inductive method 
would have required a given conclusion to be preceded by an 
[xiv] enumeration of all the facts upon which it depends. This 
would have been impossible within the limits at the writer's 
disposal, as well as tedious. The method pursued has thus often 
been to assume (on grounds not fully stated, but which have 
satisfied the author) the conclusion to be established, and to point 
to particular salient facts, which exemplify it or presuppose its truth. 
The argument ia the majority of cases is cumulative — a species of 
argument which is often both the strongest and also the most 
difficult to exhaust within reasonable compass. 

In the critical study of the Old Testament, there is an im- 
portant distinction, which should be kept in mind. It is that of 
degrees of prohabiiiiy. The probability of a conclusion depends 
upon the nature of the grounds on which it rests ; and some 
conclusions reached by critics of the Old Testament are for this 
reason more probable than others : the facts at our disposal 
being in the former case more numerous and decisive than in 
the latter. It is necessary to call attention to this difference, 
because writers who seek to maintain the traditional view of the 
structiu'e of the Old Testament sometimes point to conclusions 







whicht from the nature of the case, are uncertain, or are pro- 
pounded avowedly as provisional, with the view of discrediting 
all, as though they rested upon a similar foundation. But this is 
very far from being the case. It has been no part of my object 
to represent conclusions as more certain than is authorized by 
the facts upon which they depend ; and I have striven (as I hope 
successfully) to convey to the reader the differences in this 
respect of which I am sensible myself. Where the premises 
satisfy me, I have expressed myself without hesitation or doubt ; 
where the data do not justify (so far as I can judge) a confident 
conclusion, I have indicated this by some qualifying phrase. I 
desire what I have just said to be applied in particular to the 
analysis of the Hexateuch. That the " Priests* Code " formed 
a dearly defined document, distinct from the rest of the Hexa- 
teuch, appears to me to be more than sufficiently established by 
A multitude of convergent indications; and I have nowhere 
signified any doubt on this conclusion. On the other hand, in 
the remainder of the narrative of Gen. -Numbers and of Joshua, 
though there are facts which satisfy me that this also is not 
homogeneous, I believe that the analysis (from the nature of 
[xv] the criteria on which it depends) is frequently uncertain,* 
and will, perhaps, aliK*ays continue so. Accordingly, as regards 
" JE," as I have more than once remarked, I do not desire to 
ky equal stress upon all the particulars of the analysis, or to 
be supposed to hold that the line of demarcation between its 
component i>arts is at every point as clear and certain as it Ls 
between P and other parts of the Hexateuch. 

Another point necessary to be borne in mind is that many 
Jesuits can only be approximate. Even where there is no ques- 
tion of the author, we can sometimes determine the date within 
only comparatively wide limits (e.g, Nahum); and even where 
the limits are narrower, there may still be room for difference of 
opinion, on account of the different aspects of a passage which 
most strongly impress different critics (tf^, in some of the 
acknowledged prophecies of Isaiah). Elsewhere, again, grounds 
may exist sufficient to justify the negative conclusion, that a 
writing does not belong to a particular age or author, but not 

* S«« pp. i6, 17, 19, 39, 116 f., &c. The same admissloD Is coastantly 
Bade by Wellhausen, Kucnen, and other critics : see, for instance, p. xi of 
the edition of Genesis by Kautxsch and Socio, mentivned below, p. 141R, 



definite enough to fix positively the age to which it does belong, 
except within broad and general limits. In all such cases we 
must be content with approximate results. 

It is in the endeavour to reach definite conclusions upon tba 
basis either of imperfect dafOy or of indications reasonably sus- 
ceptible of divergent interpretations, that the principal disagree- 
ments between critics have their origin. Language is sometimes 
used implying that critics are in a slate of internecine conflict 
with one another, or that their conclusions are "in a condition 
of perpetual flux."* Such statements are not in accordance 
with the facts. There is a large area on which the data are 
dear : here, accordingly, critics are agreed, and their conclusions 
are not likely to be ever reversed. And this area includes many 
of the most important results which criticism has reached There 
is an area beyond this, where the data are complicated or am- 
biguous ; and here it is not more than natural that independent 
judges should differ. Perhaps future study may reduce this 
margin of uncertainty. I make no claim to have admitted into 
the present volume only those conclusions on which all critics 
are agreed ; for naturally [xvi] I have followed the guidance of 
my own judgment as to wliat was probable or not ; but where 
alternative views appeared to me to be tenable, or where the 
opinion towards which I inclined only partially satisfied me, I 
have been careful to indicate this to the reader. I have, more- 
over, made it my aim to avoid speculation upon slight and 
doubtful data ; or, at least, if I have been unable absolutely to 
avoid it, I have stated distinctly of what nature the data are. 

Polemical references, with very few exceptions, I have avoided. 
It must not, however, be thought that, because I do not more 
frequently discuss divergent opinions, I am therefore unacquainted 
with them. I have been especially careful to acquaint myself 
with the views of Keil, and of other writers on the traditional 
side. I have also constantly, both before and since writing the 
present volume, followed closely the course of archxologic-al 
research ; and I am aware of no instance in which its results are 
opposed to the conclusions which I have expressed- Upon no 

• It may not be superfluous to remark that both the principles and the 
results of the critical study of the Old Testament are often seriously mis- 
represented, especially on the part of writers opposed to It, including even 
such 03 might from their position be supposed to be well informed. 


B i riMn ii hsve I adopted vbal mxf be tetmed a cridctl as 
ofpo wd to a coDservattre pocitiioc^ witboot wdghiog folly the 
adranced in support of dte latter, aod sal^aipBg 
that ^txj were untenable; 

Natnalhf a wock like the present is foonded largdy on Ibe 
laboon of p ret i o us adiolaxs. Since Gesenins, in the eutf yean 
of this century, inaugxirated a new epoch in the sivtdy of Hcbreir, 
there has been a succession of scholars, of the highest and most 
vaiied ability, who have been fascinated by the literature ol 
ancient Israel, and have dedicated their lives to its elucidation. 
Each has contributed of his best : and those who come after 
stand upon the vantage-ground won for them by their pre- 
decessors. In exegesis and textual criticism, not less than in 
literary criticism, there has been a steady advance.* The Jkt'S' 
UrUtti ftgnificance of different parts of the Old Testament — the 
aim and drift of individual prophecies, for instance, or the 
relation to one another of parallel groups of laws — has been for 
more carefully obsen'ed than was formerly the case. ^V^lile in 
fairness to myself I think it right to state that my volume 
embodies the results of much independent work, — for I accept 
conclusions, not on the authority of the critic who affirms thenj, 
but becaiise I have satisfied myself, by personal sludy» that the 
grounds alleged in their support arc adequate, — I desire at the 
same time to acknowledge gratefully my [xvii] indebtedness to 
those who have preceded me, and facilitated my labours. The 
references will generally indicate who the authorities are that 
have been principally of service to me ; naturally they vary in 
different parts of the Old Testament 

It does not fall within the scope of the present volume to 
deal with either the Theology or the History of the Old Testa- 
ment, as such : nevertheless a few words may be permitted on 
them here. 

It is impossible to doubt that the main conclusions of critics 
with reference to the authorship of the books of the Old Testa- 
ment rest upon reasonings the cogency of which cannot bo 

• The progress In the two former may be measured ApproxImRtely by the 
Revised Version, or (in some respects, more ftdequatcly) by the notes in Iht 
"Variorum Bible" of Eyre & Spoltiswoode. See t^%o tho tmnxlation am) 
notes [Sgila^vn, pp. 1-98] in KAutzsch'i Die Htiligt Sckrip dgt AT,» 

(below, p. 3). 




denied without denying the ordinary principles by which history 
is judged and evidence estimated. Nor can it be doubted that 
the same conclusions, upon any neutral field of investigation, 
would have been accepted without hesitation by all conversant 
with the subject : they are opposed in the present instance by 
some theologians, only because they are supposed to conflict 
with the requirements of the Cliristian faith- But the history of 
astronomy, geology, and, more recently, of biology,* supplies a 
warning that the conclusions which satisfy the common un- 
biassed and unsophisticated reason of mankind prevail in the 
end. The price at which alone the traditional view can be main- 
tained is too high.t Were the difficulties which beset it bolated 
or occasional, the case, it is true, would be different : it could 
then, for instance, be reasonably argued that a fuller knowledge 
of the times might afford the clue that would solve them. But 
the phenomena which the traditional view fails to explain are too 
numerous for such a solution to be admissible ; they recur so 
tystemaiuaify that some cause or causes, for which that view 
makes no allowance, must be postulated to account for them. 
The hypothesis of glosses and marginal additions is a superficial 
remedy : the fundamental distinctions upon which the main con- 
clusions of critics depend remain untouched. } 

The truth, however, is that apprehensions of the character 
[xviii] just indicated are unfounded. It is not the case that 
critical conclusions, such as those expressed in the present' 
volume, are in conflict either with the Christian creeds or with 
the articles of the Christian faith. Those conclusions affect 
not the fact of revelation, but only its form. They help to 
determine the stages through which it passed, the different 
phases which it assumed, and the process by which the record 
of it was built up. They do not touch either the authority or 
the inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. They 

* Comp. the luminous and able treatment of this subject, on its theological 
side, by the late lamented Aubrey L. Moore in Stienct a$td t)u Faith (1S89), 
esp. pp. xi-xlvii, and pp. 163-235. 

t Of course there are many points at which tradition is not affected by 
criticism. I allude natumlly to those in which tlie cose is different. 

X The some may be said of Bishop EUicoU's " rectified traditional view.** 
The distinctions refened to, it ought to be understood, in works written in 
defence of the traditional position, arc, as a rule, very imperfectly stated, 
even where they are not ignored altogether. 



imply no change in respect to the Divine attributes revealed in 
the Old Testament; no change in the lessons of human duty to 
be derived from it ; no change as to the general position (apart 
from the interpretation of particular passages) that the Old 
Testament points forw'ard prophetically to Christ.* That both 
the religion of Israel itself, and the record of its history embodied 
in the Old Testament, are the work of men whose hearts have 
been touched, and minds illumined, in different degrees,! by 
the Spirit of God, is manifest : { but the recognition of this truth 
docs not decide the question of the author by whom, or the date 
at which, particular parts of the Old Testament were committed 
to writing ; nor does it determine the precise literary character 
of a given narrative or book. No part of the Bible, nor even 
the Bible as a whole, is a logically articulated system of theology : 
the Bible is a " library," shotting how men variously gifted by the 
Spirit of God cast the truth which they received into many dif- 
ferent literary forms, as genius permitted or occasion demanded, 
— into poetry of various kinds, sometimes national, sometimes 
individual, sometimes even developing a truth in a form ap- 
proaching that of the drama ; into prophetical [xix] discourses, 
suggested mostly by some incident of the national life; into 
proverbs, prompted by the observation of life and manners ; into 
laws, prescribing rules for the civil and religious government of 
the nation ; into narratives, sometimes relating to a distant or 
a nearer past, sometimes autobiographical ; and (to include the 
New Testament) into letters, designed, in the first instance, to 
meet the needs of particular churches or individuals. It is 
probable that every form of literary composition known to the 

• Comp. Prof. Sanday's words in Tki OnuUs of {7a/(i89i), p. 7 — & volume 
whidi, with its counsels of wisdom and sobriety, I would gladly, if I might, 
adopt as the Preface to my own. See also the admirable work of Prof. 
A. F, Kirkpatrick, Th$ Divin* Library ef th» Old Testamgnt, 

1 1 say, in different degrees ; for no one would attribute to the authors of 
loaie of the Pnwerbs, or of the Books of Esther or Ecclesiastes, tlie same 
decree of spiritual perception displayed e.^, in Isa. 40-66, or in the Psalms. 

X So, for instance, Richm, himself a critic, speaking of the Pentateuch as 
a icfiord td revelation, remarks on the *' immediate impression " of this 
cfeaiacter which it makes, and continues: " Every one who so reads the / 
PcDtatcocfa as to allow its contents to work upon his spirit, must r ec eive the [ 
iiiUHiMlim that a coosdonsncss of God such as is here expressed cannot be \ 
derived from 6esh and blood " {EiMkittmg, % 28, " Der Pentateuch als Offen- | 
btnmgsnrkunde **). / 


ancient Hebrews was utilised as a vehicle of Divine truth, and is 
represented in the Old Testament* Hence the character of a 
particular part of the Old Testament cannot be decided by an 
d priori argument as regards what it must be ; it can only be 
determined by an application of the canons of evidence and 
probability universally employed in historical or literary investi- 
gation. None of the historians of the Bible claim supernatural 
enlightenment for the materials of their narrative : f it is reason- 
able, therefore, to conclude that these were derived by them 
from such human sources as were at the disposal of each par- 
ticular writer ; in some cases from a writer's own personal know- 
ledge, in others from earlier documentary sources, in others, 
especially in those relating to a distant past, from popular 
tradition. It was the function of inspiration to guide the indi- 
vidual writer in the choice and disposition of his material, and in 
his use of it for the inculcation of special lessons. And in the 
production of some parts of the Old Testament different hands 
co-operated, and have left traces of their work more or less 
clearly discernible. The whole is subordinated to the con- 
trolling agency of the Spirit of God, causing the Scriptures of 
the Old Testament to be profitable [xx] " for teaching, for 
reproof, for correction, for instruction, which is in righteous- 
ness " : but under this presiding influence scope is left for the 
exercise, in different modes and ways, of the faculties ordinarily 

ToU Tpo^tjroti, Heb. I^. On the manifold Voice of God u heard in the Old 
Testament, the writer may be pemiiUed to refer to the sixth of hb Serwutns 
OM Subjects tonnuttd with th4 OT, (1892). In the seventh Sermon in the 
same volume he lias developed more fully the view taken by him of Inspiration 
(cf. the ConUmJi. Revitw^ Feb. 1890, p. 229 f.). He has pleasure also, in 
the same connexion, in referring to the very lucid and helpful " Bampton 
Lectures" for 1S93 (ed. 3, 1S96) on Inspiration, by his cuUeague, Prof. 
Sanday, especially Lectures ii.-v. 

fThe prefLce to St. Luke*s Gospel (Luke l>*^) is instructive In this 
fespect Sl Luke only claims for his narrative that he has used in its com- 
positioa the care and research of an ordinary historian. Comp. Sanday, 
OracUs of God^ pp. 72-75 : ** In all that relates to the Revelation of God 
and of His Will, the writers [of the Bible] assert for ihcmselvea a definite 
inspiration ; they claim to speak with an authority higher than their own. 
But in regard to the narrative of events, and to processes of literary com- 
position, there is nothing so exceptional about them as to exempt them from 
the conditions to which other works would be exposed at the same place and 


employed in literary composition. There is a human factoi in 
the Bible, which, though quickened and sustained by the inform- 
ing Spirit, is never wholly absorbed or neutralized by it; and 
the limits of its operation cannot be ascertained by an arbitrary 
d priori determination of the methods of inspiration ; the only 
means by which they can be ascertained is by an assiduous 
and comprehensive study of the facts presented by the Old 
Testament itself.* 

* Two principles, once recognized, will be found to solve nearly all the 
diflficu]ues which, upon the traditional view of the historical books of the Old 
Testament, are insuperable, viz. — 0) that in many parts of these books we 
have before as traditiofu^ in which the original representation has been 
insensibly modi6ed, and sornetimcs (especially in the later books) coloured by 
the associations of the age in which the author recording it lived ; (3) that 
some freedom was used \fj andent historians in placing speeches or dis- 
courses in the months of historical characters. In some coses, no doubt, 
such speeches agreed substantially with what was actually said ; but often 
they merely develop at length, in the style and manner of the narrator, what 
was handed down only as a compendious report, or what was deemed to be 
consonant with the temper and aim of a given character on a particular 
occasion. No satisfactory conclusions with respect to the Old Testament 
will be arrived at without due account being taken of these two principles. 
Should it be feared that the first of these principles, tf admitted, might 
imperil the foundations of the Christian faith, it is to be pointed out that the 
records of the New Testament were produced under very different historical 
conditioas; that while in the Old Testament, for example, there are 
instances in which we can have no assurance that an event was recorded 
until many centuries after its occurrence, in the New Testament the interval 
at most is not more than 30-50 years. Viewed in the light of the unique 
personality of Christ, as depicted both in the common tradition embodied in 
the Synoptic Gospels and in tlic personal reminiscences underlying the fourth 
Gospel, and also as presupposed by the united testimony of the Apostolic 
writers belonging almost to the same generation, the circumstances are such 
as to forbid the supposition that the facts of our Lord's life on which the 
fundomenlal truths of Chiistianity depend can have been the growth of mere 
tradition, or are anytliing else tlian strictly historical. The same canon of 
historical criticism which authorizes the assumption of tradition in the Old 
Testament, forbids it — except within the narrowest limits, as in some of the 
divergences apparent between the parallel narratives of the Gospels — ^in the 
case of the New Testament 

II is an error to suppose, as appears sometimes to be done, that topo- 
(taphical enptoralion, or the testimony of Inscriptions, supplies a refutation 
of critical conclusions respecting the books of the Old Testament The 
Biblical records possess exactly that degree of historical and topographical 
accuracy which would be expected from the circumstances under which all 
reasonable critics hold that they were composed. The original soarccs ol 


[xxi] It is objected, however, that some of the conclusioni 
of critics respecting the Old Testament are incompatible with 
the authority of our blessed Lord, and that in loyalty to Him 
we are precluded from accepting them. Tliat our Lord appealed 
to the Old Testament as the record of a revelation in the past, 
and as pointing forward to Himself, is undoubted; but these 
aspects of the Old Testament are perfectly consistent with a 
critical view of its structure and growth. That our Lord in so 
appealing to it designed to pronounce a verdict on the author- 
ship and age of its different parts, and to foreclose all future 
inquiry into these subjects, is an assumption for which no suffi- 
cient ground can be alleged. Had such been His aim, it would 
have been out of harmony with the entire method and tenor of 
His teaching. In no single instance, so far as we are aware, 
did He anticipate the results of scientific inquiry or historical 
research. The aim of His teaching was a religious one ; it was 
to set before men the pattern of a perfect life, to move them to 
imitate it, to bnng them to Himself. He accepted, as the basis 
of His teachings the opinions respecting the Old Testament 
current around Him : He assumed, in His allusions to it, the 
premises which His opponents recognised, and which could not 
have been questioned (even had it been necessary to question 
them) without raising issues for which the time was not yet ripe, 
and which, had they been raised, would have interfered seriously 
with the paramount purpose of His life.* There is no record of 
Samuel and Kings, for instance, being the work of men famiUftr with 
Palestine, describe localities there with precision : the chronolc^, being 
(in many cases) added subsequently, is in several respects in irreconcilable 
conflict with contemporary Inscriptions (cf. Sanday, Le. p. <) ; or the note in 
th« writer's Isaiah^ p. 13). Mr. Girdlestone, in The Found^ions of the 
IiU>U (1890), partly from an inexact knowledge of tlie facts, partly throi^h 
misapprehension of what critics really hold, employs himself largely in 
beating the air. 

* On Ps. 110, see the note, p. 384 f.; and especially the discussion of oar 
Lord's reference to this Psalm in the seventh of Mr. Gore's " Bampton 
Lecluics," It docs not seem requisite for the present purpose, as, indeed, 
within the limits of a Preface it would not be posable, to consider whether 
out Lord, as man, possessed all knowledge, or whether a limitation in this, as 
in other respects, — though not, of course, of such a kind as to render Him 
&llible as a teacher, — was involved in that gracious act of condescension, in 
virtue of which He was willing "in all things to be made like unto His 
brethren" (Hcb. 2"). On this subject a reference to the sixth of tlie 
^ctures just mentioned must sufhce. The questions touched upon in the 



the question, whether a particular portion of the Old Testament 
was written by Moses, or David, or Isaiah, having been ever 
submitted to [xxii] Him ; and had it been so submitted, we 
ha\'e no means of knowing what His answer would have been. 
The purposes for which our Lx)rd appealed to the Old Testa- 
ment, its prophetic significance, and tlie spiritual lessons 
deducible from it, are not, as has been already remarked above, 
affected by critical inquiries.* Criticism in the hands of Chris-I 
tian scholars does not banish or destroy the inspiration of the 
Old Testament ; it presupposes it ; it seeks only to determine 
the conditions under which it operates, and the literary forms 
through which it manifests itself ; and it thus helps us to frame 
truer conceptions of the methods which it has pleased God to 
employ in revealing Himself to His ancient people of Israel, 
and in preparing the way for the fuller manifestation of Himself 
in Christ Jesus. 

Six years have elapsed since the first edition of the present 
work was published, and the preceding preface written, sub- 
stantially as it still stands. The favourable reception which the 
volume has received has much exceeded what I had ventured 
to anticipate ; and many gratifying indications luve reached me 
of the assistance which it has afforded to students of the Old 
Testament, in other countries, as well as at home. It has been 
a particular satisfaction to me to know that it has so largely won 
present parogrmph of the Prelkce are also thoughtfully handled by Bisliop 
Moorhouse in his volume entitled, Tht Teacking tf Christ (1891), Sennons 
i. and ii. And since this note was originally vrrilten, there have appeared two 
essays, one by A. I'lummer, D.D., in the Expositor for July 1891, on " The 
Advance of Chiist in 2o0/o," the othci An Inquiry into tkt Naturt of our 
Lard's knowUdg^ as man, by the Rev. W. S. Swayne, with a Preface by the 
Bisbop of Salisbury, each meriting caUn and serious consideration. The 
subject of our I.ord*s altitude towards the Old Testament is also discussed 
suggestively by J. Meinhold,yiw/*j UMd das AUe TistameHi (1S96). 

* lo support of tiiis statement, the writer may be allowed to refer to his 
Sfrmons on Subjects connected with the Old Testament (1S93), to which is 
prclixed a paper read by him at the Church Congress at Folkestone (iSgz). 
*' On the Permanent Moral and Devotional Value of the Old Testament for 
the Christifln Church-" For proof also that a spiritual appreciation of the 
Old Testament is fully compatible with a criticaJ ^lew of it, see CheyneV 
Commentary on the Psalms, and the Sermons on the Psalms in his Aids to 
Ihi Devout Study 0/ Criticism (1892), Kirkpatrick's Doctrine 0/ tkt Prophets, 
Sanday's " Bamptoo Lectures ** (1893), etc. (cC below, p. ivi> 



the approval of those who have been workers themselves upon 
the same field, and who possess consequently a practical acquaint- 
ance with the ground which it traverses.* The study of the Old 
Testament does not, however, stand still ; and since 1S9X many 
important books, or articles, dealing with different parts of it, 
have appeared. In the znd, 3rd, and 4th editions, such notices 
of these works as seemed needful were incorporated in the 
Addenda or elsewhere; in the 5th edition (iS94)an Appendix 
of twenty-one pages (whi' h was also published separately) was 
added. Meanwhile it had been felt, by Prof Kautzsch of Halle, 
and other scholars whose judgment possessed weight, that the 
lines upon which my Jntroducthn was written were such as to 
render it valuable even in Germany: accordingly, in 1895, I was 
invited to sanction its translation into German, The translation 
was executed by the competent and practised hand of Prof. 
J. W. Rothstein of Halle.^the translator of Prof. Robertson 
Smith's Old Testameni in the Javish Churchy — and appeared in 
1896, For the translation I naturally incorporated into the text 
the material collected in the Appendix of the 5th English 
edition, and also added notes, taking account of the principal 
critical and exegotical literature which had appeared between 
1891 and 1896 : the translator, also, in several cases, added 
notes of his own. When a sixth English edition was called for, 
it seemed to me that ttie new material had now outgrown the 
limits of an Appendix, and (though I regretted the disadvantage 
at which possessors of the previous editions would in conse- 
quence be placed) that there was no alternative but to have the 
work reset, and to introduce into the text, at the proper places, 
such additions as might be necessary. This has accordingly 
now been done. In all its main conclusions the present edition 
does not differ from the prccedbig ones, and the text is, as a 
rule, unchanged. I have, however, revised the work through- 
out; and I have, in particular — (i) introduced from time to 
time verbal, and even, occasionally^ slight material, miprove- 
ments into the textjt (2) brought the bibliographical notices, 

* In support of tliis statement, notices by Pruft^ssors A. B. Davidson, 
T. K. Chc>Tie, II. E. Ryle, A. R. S. Kennedy, and G. A. Smiih, as well ai 
!view5 in the Titnes and GftardiaH newspapers, were referred to in the 
'Prefaces to the 2nd-5th editions. 

t As pp. 51 ff. (where I Iiave sought to diiitin^uish, more exactly than 
before, between II :iud the priestly additions). 71, 91, 93f.. 96f., 9S, 149- 




as &r as possible, up to date ; (3) given some account of the 
principal critical views which have been propounded, with 
reference to various parts of the OT., since 1891.* If I have 
seldom found myself able to accept definitely these newer views, 
it is because they have seemed to me to be based too largely 
either upon merely subjective criteria, or upon data of that 
imperfect or ambiguous kind alluded to above (p. vi), from 
which assured inferences cannot be drawn. Nevertheless, in 
spite of my own attitude towards the views in question, I have 
deemed it only proper to notice and describe them, so far as 
space permitted : for in a work dealing with the many problems 
which the Literature of the Old Testament presents, the student 
has a right to find some account of what the best and ablest 
tliinkers of the day are saying about them : and even provisional 
or tentative solutions are not without their value, as indicating 
the directions along which a subject may be advantageously 
studied, and perhaps pointing the way towards truer solutions 
in the future. 

The progress which critical opinion has made during recent 
years, especially in this country and in America, is remarkable. 
At first even the slightest concessions were viewed with alarm ; 
and though the same attitude is still maintained in some 
quarters, it has on tlie whole been largely overcome. The 
cogency of tlie reasonings upon which at least the broader and 
more important critical conclusions rest, are seen to be irresistible ; 
and the truth of what was urged above, that critical conclusions 
are not really in conflict with the claims and truths of Chris- 
tianity, has been widely recognized. So far as the Anglican 
Church is concerned, the Essay of Mr. (now Canon) Gore in 
Lux Afundi was one of the first indications of a change of front 
on the part of those who were not, so to say, critics by pro- 
fession. The sympathetic review of the present work in the 
Guardian t was another significant symptom of the changed 

t5>» »63. 215. aaif., 471 1,337 f., 349-35". 39© t, 410. 474. 498-500. 534, 

538. 539f.,&c 

* The additional matter in the present edition does not correspond exftctly 
to that in the Gernum translation. Much of it is the same, but some ot 
the notes are altered in form, and there are also considerable additions. 

For convenience of reference, the pagination of the previous editions is 
within square brackets, 
Mgr. x8 and Dec. a, 1891. 



times. Other indicatioDS are not far to seek. In the Ejipositoty 
the Expository Times, and other theological periodicals, critical 
opinions are openly advocated and discussed, Scotland, which 
twenty years ago removed Prof. W. Robertson Smith from his 
chair, is now amongst the foremost to honour those upon 
whom it has devolved to carry on and develop his teaching. In 
America, a daily increasing number of the leading theological 
Professors avow their adhesion to the critical cause. In the 
Roman Catholic Church, the Abb^ Loisy, and (in this country) 
Baron von Hiigcl, have urged that it is only the theological 
sense of Scripture which was defined by the Council of Trent, 
and that consequently in its critical and historical interpretation 
the theologian is free to follow the best guidance which modem 
research has provided for him.* And to mention but three 
representative names from among ourselves, Prof. Kirkpatrick, 
Prof. San day, and, most recently, M r. R- L.Ottley, Hampton Lecturer 
for tlie present year, all men of cautious and well-balanced judg- 
ment, have signified, with the reservations which, considering 
the nature of the subject-matter, are only reasonable, but at the 
same time quite unambiguously, their acceptance of the critical 
position.! Mr. Ottley, in particular, has demonstrated, what many 
had before been conscious of, but had not developed upon the 
same comprehensive scale, the entire compatibility of a critical 

• See the Abb^ Loisy*s two instnictive brochures. Let J^tuties Bibliqutt 
(Amiens, 1894), and Let Mythes Chatd<'ens de ia Criaiion *t du DHt^ 
(Amiens, 1892) ; and the Baron von Hilgers arlides in ihe Dublin Jieviem, 
Oct 1894, April and Oct. 1895. Cf. the Academy, Oct 17, 1896. p. 275 f. 

t Kirkpatrick, The Divine Libraty of the OT. 1891, p. 41 {d. pp. 46, 
99, 100, loSf,, &c.); Sanday, Bampton Lectures, pp. 1 16, 121 f. I am 
unable to quote specific passages from Mr. Ottley*s Lectures, as they have 
not yet been published, A full consideration of these aspects of the subject 
is beyond the scope of the present volume ; but it can hardly be doubted 
that to many minds the new historical setting in which criticism places 
many parts of the Old Testament, and the correlation which it establishes 
between the religious history of the Old Testament and the principle of a 
'* progressive revelation," constitute a strong confirmation of the truth of the 
critical position. On Prof. J. Robertson's Early RtUgion of Israel, comp. 
the review by C. G. Montcfiore in \ht Jewish Quarterly Review^ Jan. 1893, 
p. 302 ff. The fact tliat t)ie critical view of the literature and history of the 
OT. may be presented in an extreme and vulnerable form, is not evidence 
that it is unsound in itself, or that it cannot be presented with such limitations 
as free it from reasonable objection 




position with the truest and wannest spiritual perceptions, and 
vith the fullest loyalty to the Christian creed At the present 
moment, two new Dictionaries of the Bible, differing somewhat 
in scale and design, but both represenring an avowedly critical 
standpoint, are in progress, and will, it is probable, be published 
shortly.* And even as I write, the Committee appointed to 
report upon the subject by the Conference of Bishops of the 
Anglican Communion, held at I^mbeth in July 1897, while 
naturally passing no verdict itself upon critical questions, affirms 
distinctly both the right and the duty *' of the critica] study 
of every part of the Bible " on the part of " those Christian 
teachers and theologians who are capable of undertaking it"; 
and anticipates no disparagement of Scripture, but rather " an 
increased and more vivid sense of the Divine revelation " con- 
tained in it, from the careful and reverent application to it of 
critical methods. 

The consensus of so many acute and able scholars, of dif- 
ferent countries, of diifercnt communions, trained independently 
11 different schools, and approaching the subject with different 
theological and intellectual prepossessions, cannot, as some 
would have us believe, rest upon illusion : it can rest only 
upon the fact that, whatever margin of uncertainty there may 
be, within which, as explained above, critics differ, there is an 
area within which their conclusions are deduced, by sound and 
legitimate logical processes, from a groxmdwork of solid fact-t 

•By Messrs. A. & C. Black, Messrs. T. & T. Clark, and Messrs. Charles 
Soibner's Sons, American publishers, respectively. 

t It is remurkable how inexact and undiscriminatiDg is the knowledge oi 
the critical position displayed fretjuently by those who come forward to 
oppose it ; and how largely even the more piominent of its recent opponents 
appear to rely upon rhetorical depreciation aitil invective. It is diSicult to 
understand what force such weapons can be supposed to possess. No serious 
issue has ever yet been decided by their aid ; and the present one, it is 
certain, will form no exception to the rule. 

Readers of Maspero's StruggU of the Nathns^ and of Hommers Andeni 
Hebrew Traditifftt, published Iqr the Society for the Promolion of Christian 
Knowledge, ought to be aware that in the former the author's conclusions on 
the history of Israel, and on critical questions connected with it, have been 
iyslematically suppressed or altered, and that in the latter many of the tenns 
of disparagement and odence applied to certain scholars have been gratuitously 
introduced: in both cases, without any notiBcation being given of the liberties 
taken by the translators. Sec particulars in the At/ufurum^ Jan. 2, 1897 ; or 
the Ckyrch Quarterly Review^ July 1897, pp. 462-473 ; and the AfAsHOum, 
Aa^ aS, 1897, ph a85 J or the Expository limes, Sept. 1897, p. 557. 




The attempt to refute the conclusions of criticism by means 
of archieology has signally failed. The archaeological dis- 
coveries of recent years have indeed been of singular interest 
and value : they have thrown a flood of light, sometimes as sur- 
prising as it was unexpected, upon many a previously dark and 
unknown region of antiquity. But, in spite of the ingenious 
hypotheses which have been framed to prove the contrary, they 
have revealed nothing which is in conflict with the generally 
accepted conclusions of critics.* I readily allow that there are 
some critics who combine with their literary criticism of the Old 
Testament an kistoricai criticism which appears to me to be un- 
reasonable and extreme ; and I am not prepared to say that 
isolated instances do not exist, in which opinions expressed by 
one or another of these critics may have to be reconsidered in 
the light of recent discoveries;! but the idea that the monu- 
ments furnish a refutation of the general critical position, is a 
pure illusion. By an irony of fate, the only two positions 
adopted in the first edition of the present work, which, if Prof. 
Sayce's Verdict of the Monuments be taken as the standard, must 
be deemed inconsistent, the one certainly, the other very prob- 
ably, with the evidence of the inscriptions, are not critical, but 
conservative positions : the possibility, viz. that there may have 
been a ruler, such as Darius the Mede is represented as having 
been in the Book of Daniel, and a date as early as c, 586 11.C. 
for Ob.'*"^*.} A more conclusive proof of the unreality of the 
supposed " refutation " could not be desired. 


Stpttmher 1897. 

• Comp. the remarks below, pp, 3 f., 158 f. 

+ Critics are, however, not unfrequcntly credited with opinions csontm- 
dieting the evidence of arclueology, which the present writer, at any latc^ 
hu never been able to discover that they have really expressed. 

X See below, pp^ 33o£, 499 noU ^ 



Additions AifD CoKKECTioNs, . • • • • xxi 

Abbrzviations, .....•, xxn 

Introduction (The Oni;in of the Books of the Old TesUmeDl, and 

the Growth of the Canon, according to the Jews), • « « i 


Thb Hexatrucr, . ••••••! 

§ I. Genesis, •••■•••5 

$ 2. Exodus, ••••«• .32 

S 3. Leviticus, •••••••42 

§ 4. Numbers, .•.•••■60 
§ 5. Deuteronomy, . .••••.69 

S 6. Joshua, . . . . . . .103 

S 7. The Prophetical Narrative of the Ilexateuch (character and 

probable date), . . . . . .116 

The Priestly Narrative of the Hexateuch (character and prob- 
able date), . . . . • . .136 

Synopsis of the Priests' C^e, . • • • •159 


TUDGBS, Samuel, and Kings, • • • • • 160 
g I. The Book of Judges, . • • • • .160 
§ 3. 1-2 Samuel, • • « • • • aiys 
{3. t-2 Kings, 185 

bAlARf ••••••••• 304 

Jkksmxah, ••..•••• S47 


EZBKIBL, •»..•••• 378 




The Uinok Prophits, •••••• 399 

f I. Howa, • • • • • • .300 

f a. Joel, 307 

i 3. Amos, 313 

i 4. Obadiah, 318 

i 5. JoDah, .« • • • • • .331 

I 6. Micah, • 3^5 

i 7, Nohum, . 334 

S 8. Habakkuk, 337 

I 9. Zephaniah, •«••••• 340 

f la Haggu 343 

I II. Zecbariah, ••••••• 344 

I la. Malachi, • • . • ' • • 355 

ThbFsauc% •••••••• 359 

Tuk Book or Pkovbrbs, • . • • •393 

The Book OF Job, • • • • • • • 40S 


The Five Mboilloth, •••.•• 43^ 

8 1. The Song of Songi| .••••• 436 

$3. Ruth, ..•••••• 453-* 

% 3. The Lamentations, .«.••• 456 
1 4. Ecclesiastes (Qoh^leth), • • • • •465 

f 5. Esther, 478 ■ 

Daniel, •••••••• 4^ 


Cheoniclbs, Ezra, and Nbhsuiah, . • . • .516 

I X. Chronicles, • • • • • •5^'^ 

1 3. Ezra and Nehemiah, -••••• 540 

Index I. (Subjects), ....... 555 

Index IL (Select list of words or phrases commented on or cited), • 560 
Index IIL (Texts) 567 



P, I. A " Kuricr Handkommentar zum A,T.,'* edited by K. MArti 
{somewhat briefer liiaa Nowack's)^ tias lecenlly been commenced : Proverbt 
by G. Wildeboer, aad Job by B. Duhm have appeared already, and Judges 
by K. Bndde is promised shortly. 

P. 3. A second and enlarged cdidon <^ Dr. Briggs* Hi^a Criticism 
of the Hcxatnuh appeared in i S97. 

P. 130 n&f**^. See furtheri on the types of Hebrew bws, Briggs, Ar. 
(ed. 3), App. X. p. 242 ^ 

P, 005. Add : F. Giesehrecht, Die Btrufsbe^bung <Ui AUtestameHtUcktn 
Pti*pketen^ 1897 (on the predictive element in prophecy). 

P. 210, lines 5 and 3 from bottom : for 7" attd 7" rtad 71 1 emd 733. 

P. 297, No. 6, 1. 3 : for 33* read Nu. 33*, 

P. 297, No. 8, 1. I : far now read usually. 

P. 299. Add : W. Nowack, DU KUinen Propheten, 1897 (very complete 
and u^fuL In the conclusion that many passages in tliese prophets are later 
additions, the author agrees largely with Wellhausen). 

P. 318. Gic«;brecht, also {i.e. p. 107 f.), finds himself obliged to agree, 
ihnagh reluclanlly ("schweren Herrens "), that Am. 9*"** it a post-e3ulic 
appendix to the genuine propTiecies of Amos. 

P. 330. Nowack now (in his Commentary) assigns to Micah in c 4-5 
only 4»-" (without the Babylon -clause), 5^ (iicb. 4"), 5>*-" (Heb. ••"). 

P. 337. Nowack, following, and in some cases improving upon, Gunkel 
and Bickell, seeks also to restore the supposed acrostich in Nali. i : but the 
textual changes wliicb his restoration in parts postulates, especially the 
inversions and transpositions, arc violent, and decidedly in excess of what 
a comparison of such parallel texts as Ps. 14 and 53. Ps. 40*''*^ and Ps. 70, or 
Ps, iS and 2 Sam. 22, would authorize us to expect ; it may also be questioned 
whether, if the poem had been originally an acrostich, the fact would not 
have guarded it against so much whether of corruption or intentional altera* 
Uon as it has {ex hyp.) experienced. 

P. 342. In Zeph. 2-3, Nowack rejects 2^- H- •■"• " f-^ "«. 

P. 349-351. Nowack also is of opinion that Zech. 9-1 1, i3'-* belongs to 
the Creek age ; but remarks justly that the necessary nuitcrials do oot exiit 
fur fixing its date more clo&ely. 

P* 5^1 1- U ^Ea bottom : >ri Ch. la** read x Ch. aa*. 



CfS,^Corpns Imcriptionum Semituarum [Parislis, iSSl fL\ 

JBLiS, stjoumaiof Bihlicai Literaturt (Boston, U.S.A.). 

JPTk.^JakrbuchfiirPr^ttstantucht Theohgit, 

JQR* =/ewish Quarterly Hofieto, 

K'AT,*={^h. Schrader) Die Keilinzchriften mnd das AT. (ed. a, 18S3X 
—translated under the title The Cuntiform /nscriptiffm and the Old Testa' 
mctttj London, 18S5, 18SS (the standard work on the subject). 

KB. —Keiiinsthri/tlichie Bibliothck (tnmslaUons of Assyrian and Baby- 
lonian In&criplioos), edited by Eb. Sclirader. 

£)77C.>s(W. R. Smith) TTte Oid Tsstament in iki Jewish Churth (ed. 
2, 1892). 

QPB,*^QtueH*s Printer/ ^(3& (otherwise called the Variorum Bible), 
ed. 3, 1S89, published by Eyre and Spoltiswoode : — the Old Testament 
edited by Prof, T, K. Cheyne and the present writer. 

RV.~Ret'ised Versicn of the Old Testament {,\f&%), 

5507; = (Haupt*$) Sacred Books of the Old Testament (see p. 3). 

ThT. = The4?hgisch Tijdschri/t (Leiden). 

ZATW.-Zeitschrift fUr die AUtest, Wissemchaft^ edited by B. Stade. 

ZDMG.=Ztitschrift der Deutsihen Morgenlandiscken Gtsellschaft. 

ZKWL. = Zeitschrift fUr kirchliihe Wissenscha/t und kirchliches Leben, 

The symbol P is explained on p. 10 ; J, E^ and JE on p. 13 ; U on p. 
48 ; D and D' on pp. 7a, 104. 

The arrow (|), attached to a list of passages, Indicates that it faicludcs 
all instances of the word or phrase referred to, occurring in the OT. 

In citations, the letters * and ^ denote respecLively the first and second 
halves of the verse cited. ^Vhere the verse consists of thre« or more members, 
the letters •, *, •, *, •, are employed sometimes to denote them similarly (as 
pp. 364 f., 439, 440). The Greek letters •• ^ denote the tint and second 
parts, respectively, of the clauses indicated by * or •*, 

A small ''superior" figure, attached to the title oJ a book, or to 
an author's name, indicates the edition of the work referred to (as KAT^., 

The dtaCions of Biblical passages are accommodated throughout to tb« 
English version, except sometimes where the reference is more particularly 
to a Hebrew term. (The division of chapters is occasionally not the same ii 
the 1 lebrew as in the English Bible ; and the title to a Psalm, where it con* 
abta of more than two words, is usually reckoned in the Hebrew aa v.'.) 



It is somerimes supposed that conclusions such as those 
expressed in the present volume on the age and authorship 
of certain parts of the Old Testament are in conflict with trust- 
worthy historical statements derived from ancient Jewish sources. 
This, however, is not the case. On the authorship of the Books 
of the or., as on the completion of tlie Canon of the OT., the 
Jews possess no tradition worthy of real credence or regard, 
but only vague and uncertain reminiscences, intermingled often 
with idle speculations. 

Of the steps by which the Canon of the Old Testament was 
formed, little definite is known.* It is, however, highly probable 
that the tripartite division of the books, current from antiquity 
among the Jews, has an historical basis, and corresponds to 
three stages in the process ; and it has accordingly been adopted 
in the present volume. It ought only to be stated that, though 
the books belonging to one division are never (by the Jews) 
transferred to another, in the case of the Prophets and the 
•• Kcthubim " (Hagiographa), certain differences of arrangement 
have sometimes prevailed. In the Talmud {Bdba bathra 14*') 

• For further information on the subject of the following pages, the reader 
b refeireU to the Icaxncd and elaborate ailicle by Slrack, ** Kanun des Allen 
Testaments," in Hcrzog's EniykL (ctl. a) vol. vii. (iSSo). See also Dlllmann, 
" Ubcr die Bildungu. Sammlung heiligcr Schriftcn dcsAT.,"in XhcJaArb.f. 
DeutKk4 Thfoi. 1858, pp. 419-491 : Jul. FUrst, Der A'amtm ties A7\s nack 
Talmud u. Mirirash, i868; G. Wildcboer, Dit EntsUkung tUi Altttsi, 
A'amtm, 1891 (tr. by B. W. Bacon, 1895) ; F. Buhl. /Canon m. Text dei 
vf r. I (translated) ; and esp. Prof. H. E. Ryle^s valuable essay, The Canon 
tfihd OT^t 1S93 (published since the following pages were written), '1S95. 


the arrangement of the " Latter " Prophets is Jer. Ez. Isa. the XII ; 
and this order is commonly observed in German and French 
[xxviii] MSS. The Massoretic scholars (7-9 cent.) placed 
Isaiah first; and the order sanctioned by them is adopted in 
the ancient MS., now at SL Petersburg, and bearing a date = 
A.D. 916, in Spanish MSS., and in the printed editions of the 
Hebrew Bible. The Talmudic arrangement of the Hagiographa 
is Ruth, Ps. Job, Prov. Eccl. Song of Songs, Lam. Dan. Est. 
Err.-Neh. Chr. ; and this order is found in MSS. ; the Massorites, 
followed (as a rule) by Spanish MSS., adopted the order Chr. 
Ps. Job, Prov. Ruth, Song of Songs, Eccl Lam. Est Dan. Ezr.- 
Neh.: German MSS. have generally the order followed in printed 
editions of the Hebrew Bible (and in the present volume), Ps. 
Prov. Job, the 5 Me^Hoth^'^ Dan. Ezr.-Neh. Chr. Other variations 
in the arrangement of the Hagiographa are also to be found in 
MSS.t The following are the earliest and principal passages 
bearing on the subject : — 

I. The Proverbs of Jesus, the son of Sirach (f. 200 B.C.), 
were translated into Greek by the grandson of the author, c 130 
B.C., who prefixed to them a preface, in which he speaks of ** the 
law and the prophets, and the others, who followed upon them " 
{kqX twf oXXctfv rZiV icar' auroi'? i5icoXov^?;/f<{Tu>v), to the study of 
whose writings his grandfather had devoted himself, " the law 
and the prophets, and the other books of our fathers (icai ra 
oXAa irdrpia fttfikta)" " the law, the prophets, and the rest of 
the books (*;at ra koiira rCiv /^(jSAiW)." This passage appears 
to recognise the threefold division of the Jewish Canon, the 
indefinite expression following " the prophets " representing 
(presumably) the miscellaneous collection of writings known 
now as the H^ographa. In view of the fact that the tripartite 
division was afterwards generally recognised by the Jews, and 
that two of the names are the same, it may be taken as a 
tolerably decisive indication that this division was established 
c. 130 B.C., if not in the days of the translator's grandfather him- 
self. It does not, however, show that the Hagiographa was 
already completed, as we now have it ; it would be entirely con- 
sistent with the terms used, for instance, if particular books, as 

* Id the order in which they ue read in the synagogue (p. 436 pl), vii. 
Song of Songs, Ruth, Lam. Eccl. Est. 

t See more fully Ryle, pp. 219-234, 2S1 f. C pp. 230-246, 393 S,), 





Esther, or Daniel, or Ecclesiastes, were only added to the collco 
tion subsequently. 

2, The Second Book of Maccabees opens with two letters 
(x^2^^, [xxix] purporting to have been sent by the Palestinian 
Jews in B.a 144 to their brethren in Egypt The second of 
these letters, after the mention of certain apocryphal anecdotes 
connected with Jeremiah and Nehemiah, continues as follows : — 

'*The same things were aUo reported in the public archives and in the 
records relating to Nehemiah ; and bow, founding a library, be gathered 
together the things concerning the kings and prophets, and the (writings) of 
David, and letters of kings about sacred gifls.* And in like manner Judas 
also gathered together for us all those writings that had been scattered (r& 
AiOTorTw«Aro) by reason of the war that we had ; and they remain with us. 
If, therefore, ye have need thereof, send some to fetch them unto you'* 

These letters, whether they were prefixed to what follows by 
the author of the rest of the book, or by a later hand, are allowed 
on all bands to be spurious and full of untrustworthy matter ;t 
and the source referred to in the extract just cited — probably 
some pseudepigraphic writing — is in particular discredited by 
the legendary character of the other statements for which it is 
quoted as an authority. The passage may^ however, contain 
an indistinct reminiscence of an early stage in the formation of 
a canon,—" the things relating to the kings and prophets *' 
being a general designation of the writings (or some of them), 
now known as the ** Former " and " Latter " Prophets, ra rbS 
AaDctS being some part of the Psalter, and the ** letters of kings 
respecting ofTerings " being (possibly) documents, such as those 
excerpted in the Book of Ezra, respecting edicts issued by the 
Persian kings in favour of the Temple. But even though the 
statement be accepted as historical, manifestly the greater part 
of the Hagiographa would not be included in Nehemiah's collec- 
tion. And from the expression " founding a library^^ it would 
naturally be inferred that Nehemiah's aim was the collection and 
preservation of ancient national literature generally, rather than 

• /^Tyoi/rTO 8J ml rfr rorT di-aYpo^cj ral i9 To*f I'ro/ii'il/iaTtff/iotc Tott icar4 
ric NerM'a*' ''* «i^rA, xoi ilii ((OTa^aX\6M*»'Ct /3t/9Xio^Ki}j> iwva\>riffo>,y^ tA xt/ji 
rCiv ^^aCKitar cat wpo^ijruif itaX t& roC AavcJJ nal 4vuiT6k6.t fioMtXitap ircpt 

i Tht Speaker's Conim. on tkt Apccrypha^ iL p. 541 ; cf. SchUrer, Ck^k^ 
4$i JtkL Volktt im Z*italUrJisu Ckristi^ ii. p. 741. 


the determination, or selection, of such books as deserved the 
authority which we now express by the term "canonical" The 
utmost that follows from the passage is that, according lo the 
[xxx] unknown author of the documents quoted, the books 
(or some of them) now constituting the second division of the 
Canon (the " Prophets **), and certain writings attributed to 
David, were collected together under Nehemiah, and that they 
formed part of a larger collection founded by him. But the 
origin of the statement is too uncertain, and its terms are too 
indefinite, for any far-reaching conclusion to be founded upon it 

3. The Fourth Book of Ezra. In this apocr>'phal book, 
written, as is generally agreed, towards the close of the ist 
cent A.D.,* Ezra, shortly before his death, is represented as 
lamenting to God that the Law is burnt, and as craving from 
Him the ability to re-write it, in order that after his decease men 
may not be left destitute of Divine instruction—" But if I have 
found grace in Thy sight, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I 
shall write all that hath been done in the world since the 
beginning, even the things which were written in Thy law, that 
men may find Thy path, and that they which will live in the 
latter days may live " ( 1 4"^^-)- God grants Ezra's request : he 
prepares writing materials and five skilled scribes j the next day 
be hears a voice saying to him, *' Ezra, open thy mouth, and 
drink that I give thee to drink " [cf. Ezek. 3'], after which we 

"Then opened I my mouth, and, behold, He reached me a full cnp^j 
which was fvill, as it were, with water, but the colour of it was like 
And I took it and drank ; and when I had drunk of it, my heart uttered 
understanding, and wisdom grew in my heart, for my spirit strengthened my 
memory ; and my mouth was opened, and shut no ^iiore. The Highest gave 
understanding unto the five men, and they wrote by conrse the thintjs that 
were told ihem, in characters which they knew no(,t and they sat forty days ; 
they wrote in the daytime, and at night they ate bread. As for me, I a^Ake 

• Spioker^s Comm, on the Apoirypha^ L p. Si ; SchUrer, ii. 656 f. 

t So the Syriac Version (the original text of 4 Ezr. is not extant) \ 
similarly the Ethiopic, Arabic, and Armenian (Hilgenfcid, Afessias Jmiavt-um, 
1869, pp. 260, 321, 376, 432). The allusion is lo tlie change of cliaracter, 
iiom the old type, known from the Siloam inscription and Phoenician inscrip- 
tiooSp to the so-called '* square" t}'pe, which was attribulcd by tradition to 
Ezra. In point of iact, the transition was a graijuol one, and not completed 
till long after Ezra's time. See the writer's Xotes on Samwl^ p. ix 6f. 



in (he day, and by oight I held not my tongue. In forty days Ihey wrote 
94 * book<i. And it came to pa», when the forty days were fulfilled, that the 
[X3cxi] Highest spake, saying. The first that thou hast written f publish 
openly, that the worthy and the unworthy may read it : but keep the 70 last 
that Ihou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people ; for 
in them is the spring of understanding, (he fountain of wisdom, and the 
stream of knowledge. And I did so " (i5. v."^. 

The same representation is frequently alluded to by the 
Fathers,} being derived in all probability from the passage of 
4 Ezra just quoted. The point to be observed is that it contains 
no statement respecting either a completion of the Canon, or 
even a collection, or redaction, of such sacred books as were 
extant in Ezra's time : according to the representation of die 
writer, the books were actually destroyed, and Ezra re-wrote 
them by Divine inspiration. Moreover, not only did he re-write 
the 34 canonical books of the Old Testament, he re-wrote 70 
apocr)'phal books as well, which are placed upon an equal, or, 
indeed (v.**'-), upon a higher level than the Old Testament 
itself ! No argument is needed for the purpose of showing that 
this legend is unworthy of credit : the crudely mechanical theory 
of inspiration which it implies is alone sufficient to condemn it 
Nor can it be determined with any confidence what germ of fact, 
if any, underlies it. It is, however, observable that there are 
traces in the passage of a twofold representation : according to 

• So the Syr. Eih. Arab. Arm. The Vulgate has '*204." Comp. W, 
R. Smith, OTJC. (ed. i) p. 407 f. (more briefly, ed. 2, p. 151). 

+ /,/. the 24 canonical books of the OT., according to the regular Jewish 
computation (Strack, p. 434), viz. Gen. Ex. I-ev. Num. Dt Josh. Jud. S.-un. 
Kings, Jer. Ex. Isa. the XII, Ruth, Ps. Job, Prov. Ecd. Song of Songs, 
Lam. Dan. £st. Eir.-Neh. (below, p. 516), Chr. 

X S'S' Ircn. adv. har. iii. 21. 2 {ap. Euseb, 5, 8} j Clem. AI. i. 21, p. 392. 
See other references in Strack, p. 415. That the passage in Ircoirus has no 
reference to a completion of the Canon by Ezra, and is based upon no inde* 
pendent source, is shown dearly by Strack, p. 415, from the context ; after 
speaking of the marveUous manner in which, according to the legend, the 
LXX translators, working independently, agreed verbally in their results, 
6ffT< Kflil rd ra/>&rra I9n\ t^wfcu 5rt kot' irci-KVOi^p toO tfwD c^ali- -tipinjPtvfUviu 
oi ypa^tf Irenxus continues: "Nor is there anything remarkable in God*s 
iving thus acted ; for, a/far the sacred writing had been destroyed {Statftdap' 
ntruw T(Sr ypa^Ujv) in the exile under Nebuchadnezzar, when the Jews after 
70 years had returned to their own countiy, He, in the Jays of Artaientes, 
inspired Ezra the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to rearrange (drardfair&at) alt 
the words of the prophets who had gone before, and to restore (droA-aro- 
.rrqffoi) to the people the legislation of Moses." Cf. Ryle, p. 239 ff. ('asoff.)- 



one (v.'***'), Ezra is r^arded only as the restorer of the Law ; 
according to the other (v.^^), he is regarded as the restorer of 
the entire Old Testament (and of the 70 apocryphal books ^1 
besides), [xxxii] The first of these representations agrees with^| 
a iradition recorded elsewhere in Jewish literature, though ex-^^ 
pressed in much less extravagant language {Succah 20') : " The 
Law was forgotten out of Israel : Ezra came up [Ezr. 7"], and 
established it" * Whether this statement is simply based upon 
the phrase in Ezr. 7*, that Ezra was *' a ready scribe in the law 
of Moses" (cf. V."--'), or whether it embodies an independent 
tradition, may be uncertain : there exists no ground whatever 
for questioning the testimony of the compiler of the Book of 
Ezra, which brings Ezra into connexion with ike Law, This, no 
doubt, is the historical basis of the entire representation : Ezra, 
the priest and scribe, was m some way noted for his services in 
connexion with the Law, the recollection of which was preser\'ed 
by tradition, and (in 4 Ezr.) extended to the entire Old Testa- 
ment Wiat these services were, we do not certainly know; 
they may have been merely directed towards promoting the 
observance of the law (cf. Neb. 8-10); but the term "scribe," 
and the form of the representation in 4 Ezr. (in so far as this 
may be supposed to rest upon an historical foundation), would 
suggest that they were of a literary character : it would not, for 
instance, be inconsistent with the terms in which he is spoken of 
in the OT. to suppose that the final redaction and completion of 
the Priests' Code, or even of the Pentateuch generally, was his 
work. But the passage supplies no historical support for the 
supposition that Ezra had any part either in the collection (or 
editing) of the OT. books generally, or in the completion of the 
OT. Canon. 

4. The Talmud. Here the celebrated passage is in the Bdba 
bathra 14**, which, after describing the orcUr of the books of the 
OT., as cited above, continues thus : — 

"And who wrote them? Moses wrote his own book and the section 
conccming Balaam.f and Job. Joshua wrote his own book and eight verses 
of the Law.{ Samuel wrote his own book and Judges and Ruth. Da%'id 

• Comp. Dclitzsch, Z. fur Luth, Thtel, 1877, p. 446. 

t Nu. 33^35'. Named specially, as it seems, on account of its not 
being directly connected with the subject of the law (so Rashi [lith cent] in 
his commentary on the pass^e). 

: DL 34*-"- 





wrote the Book of Psalms, at the direction of* ten elders, vu. Adam.t 
Melchizedek.t Abraham, § Moses, Hcman, Jeduthun, A^aph, and the three 
WIS of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his own book and ihe Book of Kings and 
lamentations. Hezekiab and his college vrrote Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song 
of Songs, and Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes). The Men of the Great Synagogue 
wrote Eukiel, the XII (Minor Prophets), Daniel, and Esther. Erra wrole 
his own book and the genealogies of the Book of Chronicles as &j as him- 

By the college, or company (nVD;, of Hezekiah, are meant, 
no doubt, the literary associates of the king mentioned in Prov. 
25*. The " Great Synagogue," according to Jewish tradition, 
was a permanent council, established by Ezra, which continued 
to exercise authority in religious matters till about B.a 30a But 
the statements respecting it are obscure and vague ; already 
attics of the last century doubted whether such a permanent 
body ever really existed ; and in the opinion of many modem 
scholars all that is told about it is fiction, the origin of which lies 
in the (historical) narrative in Nek 8-10 of the convocation 
which met at Jerusalem and subscribed the covenant to obser\'e 
the law.^ Into the further discussion of this question it is not 
necessary for our present purpose to enter. The entire fKissage 
is manifestly destitute of historical value. Not only is it late in 

• 'V Vjr. See p. 538, No. 34. + Ps. 92. 139. J Ps. no. 

S P&. 89. Jewish exegesis understood (falsely) the "righteous man from 
the East (rniCD) " in Isa. 41' of Abraham : Ps. S9 is ascribed by the title to 
Ethan the EtrahtU (*mi»cn) ; and upon the supposition that the word 'miii 
B oonnected with rr^io *'east" in Isa. 4iS the Jews identified Ethan with 
AfacahAm ! Ps. 89^ Targ.: "Spoken by Abraham, who came from the 
east." (I'here are other slightly different enumerations of the supposed 
aiithon of F&alms: see the Midrash on Qoheleth, 7", p. 105 f. of Wtlnscbe's 
translation, or on Cant 4^ (substantially the same passage), ap. Neubauer, 
Studia Biblica^ vol. ii. p. 6 f., where Melchizedek is not named, and Ezra is 
included ; also G. It. Dalnian, Tradilio Habbinorum vttirrima <U LUtr, 
K7' ordint atque trrigine, 1891, p. 44 f.). 

I iV ly. Supposed to mean as far as the genealogies in I Ch. 6 (whidi 
lecitcs Ezra's ancestors, v.", though not including himself). See especially 
on this passage Dalman, i.e. pp. 14, 22f., 41 ff. ; Kyle. p. 273(7. ('284tr.). 

T See J. E. Kau, Diatriht de Synagoga Magtui, 1726; and csp. Kuenen, 
"Over de Matmen der Croote Synagogc," Ir. in his Ces. Abhand!ungtn^ p. 
lasff.; W. R. Smith, OTJC. p. 156 f. (^ p. i69f.); Buhl, § 9; Ryle, pp. 
350-272 (* 261-283) '* ""^"d on tlie other side, J. Dcrcnbourg, £ssai sur 
i'hitt. *t ia s^ogr, de ta Palestine d'aprii tes Thahmids (1S67). p. 29 ff.; C. 
II. II. Wright, EaUiiastcjt pp. 5 il., 475 ff. Cf. also Taylor, Sa/ings oftk* 
JewiiA Fat/uts (the Mishnic Ucatise nun *pn£), 1S77, p. 124 C 




date; it is discredited by the character of its contents them- 
selves, [xxxiv] What are we to think of the statement respect- 
ing the authorship of the Psalms ? Wliat opinion can we form 
of the judgment of men who argue that because a person 
(Melchizedek) happens to be mentioned in a particular poem, 
he was therefore in some way connected personally with its com- 
position ? * or of the reasoning by which Abraham is brought 
into relation with Ps. 89 ? Moreover, the word " wrote " t 
(ana) must plainly bear the same meaning throughout; what 
sense then is to be attached to the statements about the college 
of Hezekiah and the Men of the Great Synagogue? In what 
sense can it be said that they *' wrote " different books of the 
Old Testament ? The fact of so much of the passage being thus 
unworthy of regard, discredits the whole. It is an indication 
that it is not the embodiment of any genuine or trustworthy 
tradition. In so far as the passage yields an intelligible sense, 
it merely expresses inferences of the most superficial order : 
it assigns books to prominent characters living at, or shortly 
after, the times with which they deal.t The origin of the state- 
ments about the other books is uncertain. If any book bears the 
impress of its author's hand, both in matter and in arrangement, 
it is the Book of Ezekiel ; and yet it is said here to have been 
" written " by the members of a body which {ex hyp,) did not 
come into existence till a century after its author's death. If 
some tradition of the manner in which the books referred to 

* It is right, however, to mention ihit, according to some Kliolars (see 
Wright, i.e, p. 453 ; Uahiian, Dtr Gotiesftame AdotmJ, 1 889, p. 79}, 'T Sy 
means here on behalf of \ but e^'cn so, it will still t>e implied tliat the persons 
named were in some sense the inspircrs of the Psalms in question : for the 
Jewish view, absurd as it may seem to be, is tliat the Psalms were composed 
(lit "spoken ") by ten authors (3*Snn tod now onic 'J3 mri'), though in some 
undefined way David gave form to their words (see the passages cited on p. 
vii, note §, and similar statements elsewhere). 

t Not "arranged," or edited," or even " inserted in tlie Canon." Rashi*s 
explanation (Strack, p. 41S ; \Vright, p. 45S'*) ^^ anything but sali^factory. 
The supposition that the term means " wrote down " or '* leduccd lo writing 
what had previously been transmitted orally " is not probable, considering 
the nature of the Ixwiks referred to ; such a sense might be suitable in con- 
nexion with a body of law, or a system of traditional exegesis, perpetuated in 
a school, but hardly, for instance, with rcfciencc to a volume of prophecies. 

X Dahnon, TraiiUio RaUinontm, &&- }, 5S, expresses a similar jud|t 







were edited, or made generally available, for popular use under- 
lies these statements, its character and source are far too doubtful 
for any weight to be attached to it, where it [xxxv] conflicts 
with the irrefragable testimony supplied by the books themselves 
respecting their authorship or date.* 

5. Joscphus (1 cent a.d). In his work against Apion, 
written to establish, against detractors, the antiquity of the Jews 
and the trustworthiness of their history, Josephus, after remark- 
ing that the prophets were the only historians, continues (i. 8) : — 

** For we have not myriads of discordant and conflicting booVs, but 
twenty-two only^ comprising the record of all time, and justly accredited as 
Divine. Of these, five are the books of Moses, which embrace the laws and 
the traditions of the origin of mankind, until his own death, a period of 
almost 3000 years. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes 
[b.C 465-435] the prophets who followed Moses narrated the events of their 
own time in thirteen books.t The remaining four books J consist of hymns 
to God, and maxims of conduct for men. From Artaxerxes to our own age, 
the history has been written in detail ; but it is not esteemed worthy of the 
mmt credit, on account of the exact succession of the prophets having been 
DO longer maintained*" 

Josephus is dealing here primarily with the history, the 
superior trustworthiness of which, as compared with that of the 
Greeks, he desires to establish. He holds the prophets to be 
the authors of the contemporary history : to the lime of 
Artaxerxes they form an unbroken series, hence to that date 
the history is credible; in the period which follows, the suc- 
cession ceases, and the narratives relating to it are not equally 
trustworthy. Upon what grounds this opinion rests does not 
appear. Josephus appeals to no authority earlier than him- 
self. His statements would be sufficiently accounted for by the 
supposition that they rested upon a basis of fact, or reasonable 
probability, in some cases (<.g, Hosea, Ezekiel, Kings), and were 

* It should ne\'er be forgotten that, with regard especially to antiquity, the 
Talmud and other late Jewish writings abound with idle conjectures and 
uiuLu then tica ted statements. 

t /.^. Joshua, Judges and Rath, Sam., Kings, Chr., Ezra and Neh., 
Esther, Job^ the Twelve Minor Prophets, Isaiah, Jer. and Lam., Ecek., 

i /.t. Psalms, Frov., Eccl.. Song. Josephus disregards the more 
historical tripartite division of the OT. accepted in Palestine, and follows 
both the arrangement aiKl the computation current in Alexandria (Strack, 



itifcrrcd to be true in other cases on the strength of assumed 
propriety, or of analogy : thus the books of Job, Josliua, and 
Daniel, for instance, would be written by men contemporary 
with the occurrences related in them. This inference, or theor>', 
is the same as that drawn in the Talmud (p. viii), except that 
[xxxvi] it is applied more consistently. Josephus bears witness 
probably, to an opinion more or less current at the lime : but 
the ultimate source of this opinion is not sufficiently certsun for 
its authority to be regarded as decisive.* 

For the opinion, often met wth in modern books, that the 
Canon of the OT. was closed by Ezra, or his associates, there is 
no foundation in antiquity whatever. As has been shown above, 
all that can reasonably be treated as historical in the accounts of 
Ezra's literary labours is limited to the Law, The Men of the 
Great Synagogue — in so far as their services to Biblical literature 
may be accepted as historical — were a permanent body, which 
continued to act for more than a century after Ezra's time. 
The opinion referred to is not a tradition at all : it is a conjecture^ 
based no doubt upon the passages that have been just cited, but 
inferring from them more than they actually express or justify.* 
This conjecture was first distinctly propounded in t/te lOfh 
century by Elias Levita, a learned Jew, the author of a work on 
the origin and nature of the Massorah, entitled AfassorM ha- 
Massoreth^ written in 1538.! The reputation of Elias Levita 
caused this opinion to be adopted by the Protestant divines of 
the 17th and 18th centuries, Hottinger, Lcusdcn, Carpzov, &c; 
and it has thus acquired general currency. But it is destitute 
of historical foundation ; and the authority of Ezra cannot, any 
more than that of the Great Synagogue, be invoked against the 
conclusions of critical investigation. The Canon of the Old 
Testament, in Loescher's words (quoted by Strack, p. 424), was 
"non uno, quod dicunt, actu ab hominibus, sed paulalim a Deo, 
animorum temporumque rectore, productus." The age and 

• See further Wildeboer, pp. 40-43; Buhl, §S 7, 9, 12; Ryl«, p. 158 ff. 


t Edited, with an English Iranslalion and notes, by C D. Ginsburg, 
London, 1867. Sec p. 120: *' In Ezra's time the 24 liooks of the OT. were 
not yet united in a siDgle volume ; Ezra and his associates united them 
togeOier, and divided t}iem into three parts, llie Law, the Piopheis, and 
the Hagiographa." See fiirther Stzack, p. 416; Kyle, pp. 350-253 
(t 261-364). 


authorship of the books of the Old Testament can be deter- 
mined (so far as this is possible) only upon the basis of the 
internal evidence supplied by the books themselves, by methods 
such as those followed in the present volume : no external 
^deoce worthy of aedit exista. 





(Pentateuch and Joshua.) 

LmtftATURB.*— 0. Commentaries :— A. Dillmann {in the JCunge/asstes 
Extgeiiuhex Handbuck turn A 71), Die Geiusis^^ 1892 ; Ex. und Z^», 1 880 ; 
Numeri Dtut. und Josua^ 18S6; F. Delitzsch, Neuer Commentar Uhtr die 
Gtnssis, 1887 (tnuislated: T. & T. Clark); C. F. Keil {in the BibUsckf 
CcmtntHiar iiber das A 7'., edited by himself &nd Delittsch), Ccn, w%d Ex} 
1878; Lev. Num. und Dent."^ 1870; Josua^ Kichttr und Hutk^ 1874; 
M. Kaliach, Btst. and Crit, Camm, on the OT.^ vit. Genesis^ 1858; Exodus, 
1S55 ; LtuitUus, 1S67, 1872 (with much illustration from Jewish sources); 
Fr. Tuch, Commentar uber die Cenesis^^ 1871 ; G. J. Spurrell, Notes on the 
Hebrew Text 0/ Genesis\ Oxford, 1896 ; H. L. Stiack (in Strack and Zockler's 
Kurxgejasster Kommentar)^ 1892-94 (Gen. — Numbers: Dt. and Josh, by 
S. OetlU) ; G. A. Wade, The Book of Genesis, 1896 ; C. J. BoU io Haupfs 
Sacred Books of the OT. (see below) 1S96. On the Cosmogony of Gen. i. (in 
its relation both to sdcncc and to the cosmogony of Babylonia) see Dillm. 
pp.l-16; VSc^iTst, Der Bihiisfhe SchopfuHgsberickt (A\jc<AxaK)t 18S1; articles by 
tlie present writer in the Expositor^ Jan. 1S86 (where other literature is referred 
to), and the Andmier (U.S.A.) Review, 1887, p. 639 ff. (a criticism of Trof. 
DAna's iheoiy) ; C Prilchard, Otcas. Notes of an Astronomer, 1890, p. 257 ff. ; 
Abbe I^isy, Lds Mythes ChaldUfts de la Creation et du D^tuga (Amiens, 
1892) ; H. E, Kyle, 7'he Early Narratives of Gemsis (1892); H. Gunkel, 
Sthbpftmgu. Chaos, 1895. 

h. Criticism:— H. Hiipfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis, 1853 ; H. Ewald, 
History of Israel* (1864 ff, : iranslatcd, Longmans, l869ff.), i. pp. 63-152 ; 

* Only the more important works can be named. The older literature, 
which has been largely superseded by more recent works, is of necessity omitted 


K. U, Gral, Dt> i^nthukiUihm Buther des AT.s, l866 ; Th. Nbldckc, Di$ 
Aittestamefiilitht LiUraiur^ 1 868; UnitrsuchuHgm sur Krittk des AT.s, 
1869 (on the limits and characteristics of the documcDt now generally styled 
P) ; J. WcUhauscn, DU Composition des Uexatetuhs und der hist. Bicker das 
AT.s, l88g(thcfirstpartpublishcd originally in the /*i^r5./. Deutsche TheoL 
1876, 1877; the second part in the same author's 1878* edition of Bleek'i 
Einieittmg), Gesch. Israets, i. 1878, ' under the title ProU^mena uur Gesch. 
hrath^ 1883 {* 1895), translated under the tiOe History of Israel, 1885 ; Ed. 
Reuss, La Bible (translation [3] with notes and Introductions), vol. 1. 1879, 
pp. 1-271 ; F. Delitisch, 12 Ptni^-kritische Studien in the ZKIVL, xSSo, and 
Urmosdisches im Pent., ib. 1882. p. 113 fT. (on Nu. 6»-'), p, 226 ff, (Nu. lO^""), 
p. 281 ff. (the Decalogue), p. 337 ff. (Nu. 21'*^), p. 449 ff. (Nu. 2iW'), 
p. 561 ff. (Nu 21"*); also ib. 1888, p. Iigff. (Balaam); A. Kuencn, 
Bijdragem tot de critick van Pent, en/osna in the 7heol. Tijdschrifi M.-xviii. 
(1S77-84) [see the titles in Wellh. Comp, p. 312] ; W. R. Smith, The 07. im 
the Jewish Church (' 1S92), csp. Led. viii.-]dil ; David Castelli, La Leggt del 
Popolc Ebreo net sua svolgimento storieo^ 1884; W. H. Green, The Hebrew 
Feasts, x886 ; R. ICitlel, Gach, der Ilebraer^ i. (Quellenkunde u. Geschichte 
der Zeit bis zum Tode Josuas [translated : follows Dillniann largely]), 1S88 3 
Vuilleumier in the Bev. de ThJol. et de Philos, 1882 (pts. i, 5, 7, 9, ix), 
1883 tpts. I, 3), 1884 (pt. 5) ; Prof. W. R. Harper's papers in Hebraica, ▼. 
(1888) I, 4, vi. I, 4, with Prof. W. H. Green's criticisms, ib. v. 2-3, vL 
2, 3, Tii. I, 2, vilL 1-2 ; the commentaries of Dclitzsch [pp. 1-3S on the 
llrxateuch generally] and Dillmann (esp. the Schlussabhandlung, in NDJ, 
PP- 593-690). mentioned above ; W. W. Graf Baudissin, Die Gesch. des 
Alttest. Priesterthums (1889), with Kautzsch's review in the Stud. u. Krii, 
1890, p. 767 ff., and Kucnen's in the Theol. T. 1S90, p. i ff. ( = KucDcn'8 
Gesammelte Abhandlungen, tr. by Budde, 1894, p. 465 ff.); C. G. Montefiore 
in the/rtPwA Quarterly Review, Jan. 1891, and " Hibbcrt Lectures" on Tk$ 
Religion of the Ancient Hebrews (1892); C. A- Briggs, The Higher Crit, of 
the Hex. (New York, 1S93) ; Ed. Konig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1893, pp. 445- 
479, and the Expositor, Aug. 1896 (on the critical value of the argument 
from language) ; and the following *' Introductions" : — Eb. Schrader's edition 
(the 8lh) of De Wette's Einleitung, 1S69; KdPs Einleitung, 1873; E. C 
Bissell, The Pentateuch^ its origin and structure, 1885 ; Ed. Rcuss, Die 
Gesch. der Heiligen Sckriften AT.s^, 1890 ; the very thoroi^h work of A. 
Kuencn, Hist.<rit. Ondertoek near het Otttstaan en de Vertameling van de 
Boeken des Ouden Verbtrnds"^, i.-iii. i (1S85-1893 : the first part tr. under the 
title The Hexateueh, 1886; and all tr. into German by Weber and MUlIer, 
1887-1894; Ed. Riehm, Einl. in das AT (published posthumously), 
1889-90; C. H. Comill, Einleitung in das AT. l89i,» 1896; Ed. Konig, 
Einleitung in das A T. mit Einschluss der Apokryphen und der Pseudepigraphen 
Alien Testaments, 1893 ; G. Wildebocr, De Letterkunde des Ouden Verbends 
naarde Tijdsordevan ha^sr Ontstaan, 1893 (tr. into German by F. Risch) ; 

* In the editions of 1 886 and 1893 Bleei''s treatment of the OT. books xnen- 
tioned is reprinted ; and the only part written by Wcllhauscn is that relating 
to the Text and Versions. 



M. WrslpTwl, lies Sources du Penfaieu^uc, lSS8, 1X92; H. Holzingei. 
KittUiiung in dm IJexaieuch^ 1S93 ; R. G. MuuUon, Ths JJUtaty Siudy 0/ 

In Dit Heilige Schrift des AT.i^ translated and edited by Em. Kautzsch, 
in conjoDction with other schol&rs, (he sources of the different books are 
marked by IctlcrE on the margin ; the Btilagnit also, contain many useful 
notes OD the criticism of the text, together with a synoptic cbronologioU table, 
aod a masterly " Abriss " of the history of OT. literature. A more elaborate 
work, designed for the same end, is The Sacred Books of the OT. (in parallel 
volumesi Hebrew and English), now in course of publicatioo, under the 
editorship of Paul Haupt, consisting of a critically revised text, with short 
critical and exegetical notes, the structure of sudb books as ue composite 
being indicated by the use of colours. 

Books or articles dealing with special ports of the Hexateuch will be re- 
fened to as occasion arises. Of the works named, the most important (even 
for those who but partially accept its conclusions) is Wellhausen^s essay Oh 
the Composition of tht HtJiaUueh, partly on account of its lucid expositioD of 
the subject, and partly 00 account of its forming the basis of all subsequent 
iavestigation and discussion. Next in importance come the writings of Dill- 
mann^ Delttzsch, and Kuenen. In Dillinann's commentaries, especially, 
details and references will usually be found, for which it has been impossible 
to find a place in the present volume. Kittel's work contains a useful synopsis 
tnd comparison of different views. The style and characteristics of the various 
sources of which the Hexateuch is composed arc most abundantly illustrated 
in the papers of Prof. Harper, and in HoUingcr's EirUeituHg. The chief 
question in dispute among critics concerns, not the limits of the several 
sources, but their relative dates (see below, §7). Keil, Green, and Bi^ell 
represent the traditional view of the origin and structure of the Hexateuch. 
The reason why this cannot be maintained is, stated briefly, the presence in 
the Hexateuch (and in other parts of the Old Testament) of too many facts 
which conflict with it. 

On the history of the critical stady of the OT., see Cheyne, Foundtn oj 
OT. Criticism (1893); Briggs, Biblical Study\ chap. vii. : and with special 
reference to the Hexateuch, Westphal, Lc. \, pp. 45-22S ; HoUinger, pp. 
35-70; Briggs, Tht Higher Crit. of the Hex. chaps, iv. vi. ; Cornill, Einl. 
|§ 2, 5 ; Kuenen, Hex. pp. ari-3tl (since i860). The term "higher 
criticism " appears to have been first used in connexion with Biblical literature 
by Eichhom ; see the quotation from the 2nd ed. of his Einfeititng (1787) in 
Dr. Briggs' Biblical Study f p, 004. The province of the "higher criticism" 
is to determine the origin, date, and literary structure <^a writing : sometimes 
it is understood also to include the consideration of its historical value and 
credibility as well ; but tliis is rather the work of the historical critic The 
adjective (the sense of which is often misunderstood} has reference merely to 
the higher and more difficult class of problems, with which, as opposed to the 
"lower," or textual, criticism, the higher criticism deals (comp. Bri^s, l.c 
pp. 24, 86-92). Prof. Sayce, in his ^^ Higher Criticism" and the Verdict of 
tht AfonumetitSt as well as in other recent writings, polemizes much against 
the "higher critics"; but his statements are often very inexact, and the 


dcfaitA which he icprcsmU critics «s consl.-tittly stiMnining ut the hanrjft of 
archicoliigy arc purely imaginary, being obtained cilhcr by allributing to thctn 
opinions which (ticy di> nut hold, or by losing npon the monuments more than 
they legitimately pcove (sec the articles by the present writer in the Contemp, 
Rev, March 1S94, and the Guardian^ Nov. 13, 1895, March II and Apr. 8, 
1896). In point of fact, the general critical position has in fu> respect been 
affected anfavourably by recent archaeological discovery, Dind in some cases it 
has been materially confirmed by it. The standard work illustrating the OT. 
(rom Assyrian sources is Schradcr's CuHtiform Inscn'ptiffns and tki OT. 
(translated, 1885, 1888 : a new cd. of the German in preparation). On some 
other aspects in which aiclisralogy lias a bearing on the OT., see W. R. 
Smith. Cottiemp, Hev. Apr. and Oct. 1S87. The stalcmcnts on biblical 
matters conlaincd in Sir J. W. Dawson's Modem Sdtitce in BihU LandSy are 
to be received with distrust ; see the Centemp. Rev. March 1889, p. 399 ff. 

On the Texti and Vtrsiom of the OT,, the most recent information is to be 
found in Wellhausen's edition of Bleek's EmUUung^ 1878, p. 563 ff.; 1S86 
and 1S93, p. 523 ff.; or in Kbnig's EiuUUung, pp. 14-133. See also ihc 
present writer's Notes on tht Hebrew Text of Samtu!, 1S90, p. xxxvi ff., with 
the references. Of more general works, C. A. Briggs, Bibiieal Study^ its 
principUs^ methods^ and history ^ together with a Catalogue 0/ books o/re/trtHet 
('1S91); and G. T. Ladd, k^'hai u th4 BibUt ^Kew Voik, 1890) may be 

The historical books of the Old Testament form two series : 
[3] one consisting of the books from Genesis to 2 Kings,* em- 
bracing the period from the creation to the release of Jehoiachin 
from his imprisonment in Babylon, B.C. 562 ; the other, com- 
prising the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemtah, beginning 
with Adam and ending with the second visit of Nehemiah to 
Jerusalem in RC. 432. t Though differing from each other 
materially in scope and manner of treatment, these two series 
are nevertheless both constructed upon a similar plan ; no entire 
book in either series consists of a single, original work ; but older 
writings, or sources, have been combined by a compiler in such 
a manner that the points of juncture are often plainly discernible, 
and the sources are in consequence capable of being separated 
from one another. The authors of the Hebrew historical books 
— except the shortest, as Ruth and Esther — do not, as a modern 
historian would do, ravn'fe the matter in their own language; 
they excerpt from the sources at their disposal such passages as 
are suitable to their purpose, and incorporate them in their work, 

* Exclusive of Ruth, which, at least in the Hebrew Canon, is treated as 
port of the O'^Vif or Hagiograpka, 

^ Though the genealogies are brought down to % latei date. 


sometimes adding matter of their own, but often (as it seems) 
introducing only such modifications of form as are necessary for 
the purpose of fitting them together, or accommodating them to 
their plan. The Hebrew historiographer, as we know him, is 
essentially a compiUr or arranger of pre-existing documents, he is 
not himself an original author. Hebrew writers, howeveri exhibit, 
as a rule, such strongly marked individualities of style tliat the 
documents, or sources, thus combined can generally be distin- 
guished from each other, and from the comments of the compiler, 
without difficulty. The literary differences are, moreover, fre- 
quently accompanied by differences of treatment or representation 
of the history, which, where they exist, confirm independently 
the conclusions of the literary analysis. Although, however, the 
historical books generally are constructed upon similar principles, 
the method on which these principles have been applied is not 
quite the same in all cases. The Books of Judges and Kings, for 
instance, resemble each other in their mode of composition : in 
each a series of older narratives has been taken by the compiler, 
and fitted into a framework supplied by himself, the framework 
in both cases being, moreover, composed of similar elements and 
[4] designed from the same point of view. The Books of Samuel 
are likewise constructed from pre-existing sources, but the com- 
piler's hand is very much less conspicuous than is the case in 
Judges and Kings. The Pentateuch includes elements homo- 
geneous, at least in large measure, with those of which the Book 
of Joshua is composed ; and the literary structure of both is more 
complex than that of either Samuel, or Judges and Kings. It 
will be our aim, in the following pages, to exhibit the structure 
of these different books by discovering, so far as this is possible, 
their component parts, and determining the relation which these 
parts hold in regard to each other. 

I X, Genesis. 

K part 

^r The Book of Genesis is so called from the title given to it in 

™ the Septuagint Version, derived from the Greek rendering of 2** 

a5n; ij fiifiXa^ ytvia-ttai ovpavov Koi yiTs. By the Jews it IS 

termed, from its opening word, D^C'X'ia B'reshUh* It forms the 

first book in the Ihxateuch^ — as the literary whole formed by iho 


Pentateuch and Book of Joshua may conveniently be termed,-- 
the general object of which is to describe in their origin the 
fundamental institutions of the Israelilish Theocracy (i.e. the civil 
and ceremonial law), and to trace from the earliest past the course 
of events which issued ultimately in the establishment of Israel 
in Canaan. The Book of Genesis comprises the introductory 
period of this history, embracing the lives of the ancestors of 
the Hebrew nation, and ending with the death of Joseph in 
Egypt. The aim of the book is, however, more than merely to 
recount the ancestry of Israel itself; its aim is, at the same 
time, to define the place occupied by Israel among other nations, 
and to show how it gradually emerges into separate and distinct 
existence. Accordingly the line of its ancestors is traced back 
t)eyond Abraliam to the first appearance of man upon the earth ; 
and the relation, both to each other and to Israelj of the nations 
descended from the second father of humanity — Noah — is 
indicated by a genealogical scheme (a lo). The entire book 
may thus be divided into two parts, of which the first, c. i-ii, 
presents a general view of the Early History of Mankind^ 
explaining the presence of evil in the world (c 3), sketching 
[5] the beginnings of civilisation (c. 4), accounting for the exist- 
ence of separate nations (c 10. 1 1^*^), and determining the position 
occupied by Israel among them (lo^-^^-^" ii'**"^); while the 
second, c 12-50, comprehends in particular the History of 
Israels immediate ancestors^ the Patriarchs. 

The narrative of Genesis is cast into a framework, or scheme, 
marked by the recurring formula, These are the generations 
(lit degetti/tgs) 0/ . , . This phrase is strictly one proper to 
genealogies, implying that the person to whose name it is prefixed 
is of sufficient importance to mark a break in the genealogical 
series, and that he and his descendants will form the subject 
of the record which follows, until another name is reached 
prominent enough to form the commencement of a new section. 
By this means the Book of Genesis is articulated as follows : — 

C 1-4* (Creation of k/atvn and earth, 1^2* j second account of (he 
origin of man upon earlh, followed by the story of the Fall, 2*-3'* ; 

• The formula is here applied mttapharicalty to "heaven and earth," and 
itands at 2**. By analogy it will introduce an account of heaven and caith, 
and of that which spiany; from cither, 01 could be rtt^mdcd as its progeny. 
Thli agrees with what is narrated ia c. ij but not with what follows in 2*^^ 




growth of sin in the line of Cain, and progress of inventionj 4''**; 

banning of the line of Seth's descendants, 4"*-). 
5^* {Adam and his descendants, through Scth, to Noah, c 5; the 

increasing wickedness of the earth, 6^''). 
6"-9*' (History of Noah and his sons till their father's death, including, in 

particular, the narrative of the Flood, 6*-S" ; and the covenant made 

by God with humanity in the person of Noah, 9^'"). 
lO^I I* (51171^ of Noah and nations sprung bom ibcin, c lo ; the dispeivion 

of mankind over the earth, ii^'"). 
Il'*** (Line oi Shem to Tcrah, the father of Abraham). 
lx''-35" {Teraht with the history of his descendants, Abram and Lot, 

ending with the death of Abram), 
3jii-u {lihmael^ with list of Arab tribes claiming descent from him}. 
25"-35" (Life of Isaac^ with history of Esau and Jacob, until the time of 

Isaac's death). 
*6] C 36 [sec v.^"] {Emu and his descendants, the rulers of the Edomites, 

with a digression, v.*"**, on the aboriginal inhabitants of Edom), 
C 37 [see v.^50 (Life o^Ja^oh subsequently lo Isaac's death, and history 

of his sons till the death of Joseph),* 

With which of the component parts of Genesis this scheme 
was originally connected, will app)car subsequently. The entire 
narrative, as now disposed, is accommodated to it. The atten- 
tion of the reader is fixed upon Israel, which is gradually dis- 
engaged from the nations with which it is at first confused ; at 
each stage in the liistory, a brief general account of the collateral 
branches having been given, they are dismissed, and the narrative 
is limited more and more to the immediate line of Israers 
ancestors. Thus after c. 10 (the ethnographical Table) all the 
descendants of Noah disappear except the line of Shem, ii***'^; 
after 25"*** Ishraael disappears and Isaac alone remains i after 
c 36 Esau and his descendants disappear, and only Jacob is 
left The same method is adopted in the intermediate parts; 
thus igso-s* the relation to Israel of the collateral branches of 

(for the narative here is silent respecting the heavens, the subject being the 
formation of man, and the preparation of the earth to receive him). The 
formula must here, therefore, contrary to usual custom, refer to what pre* 
cedes. It is a plausible conjecture that originally it stood as the superscrip- 
tion lo l'. (Dr. Green, H&braUa^ v. 143-5, o^f^i^ to observe that the 
formula introduces some account of the person hinistif named in it, as well 
as of his descendants.) 

* Tlie formula occurs next Nu, 3' : see also Ru. 4", r Ch. i*| (from 
Gen. 25^. The close of one section is sometimes repeated so as to form the 
starting-point of the section which follows: cf. Gen. i^'- with 5^; 5" with 
6""; n*' with n«. 



Moab and Ammon is explained: za'^-* (sons of Abraham's 
brother Nahor), and 25^"* (sons of Abraham's concubine Keturah), 
the relation to Israel of certain Aramaic and Arabian tribes is 

The unity of plan thus established for the Book of GencsiSj 
and traceable in many other details, has long been recognised 
by critics. It is not, however, incompatible with the use by 
the compiler of pre-existing materials in the composition of 
his work. And as soon as the book is studied with suf^cient 
attention, phenomena disclose themselves which show incon- 
trovertibly tlut it is composed of distinct documents or sources, 
which have been welded together by a later compiler or redactor 
into a continuous whole. These phenomena are very numer- 
ous ; but they may be reduced in the main to the two following 
heads ; (i) the same event is doubly recorded ; (2) the language, 
and frequently the representation as well, varies in different 
sections. Thus 1^2** and 2**^^ contain a double narrative of 
the origin of man upon earth. It might, no doubtj [7] be argued 
prima fade that 2*^'^* is intended simply as a more detailed 
account of what is described summarily in i^a-m* and it is true 
that probably the present position of this section is due to the 
relation in which, speaking generally, it stands to the narrative 
of those verses ; but upon closer examination differences reveal 
themselves which preclude the supposition that both sections are 
the work of the same liand. In 2*^ff. the order of creation is: 
I. man (vJ); 2, vegetation (v."; cf. v/) ; 3. animals (v.");* 
4. woman (v.^^'*). The separation made between the creation 
of woman and man, if it stood alone, might indeed be reasonably 
explained upon the supposition just referred to, that 2**''^- viz. 
describes in detail what is stated succinctly in i*'^; but the order 
in the other cases forms part of a progression evidently inten- 
tional on the part of the narrator here, and as evidently opposed 
to the order indicated in c i (vegetation, animals, man). Not 
only, however, are there these material differences between the 
two narratives; they differ also in form. The style of I'^-a** is 
unomate, measured, precise, and particular phrases frequently 
recur. That of a*^"* is freer and more varied ; the actions of 
God are described with some fulness and picturesqueness of 

* Tlie rendering "had fomicd" is, contrary 10 iJioni (see the writer's 
aUiew TiHseSf % 76 Ohs* % aod comp. aUo Kunig, £inl. j. 173). 


detail; instead of simply speaking or creating^ as in c. i, He 
fashions^ breathes into man the breath of life, plants^ places^ 
takes, se/Sf bringSy closes up, builds, &c (2^- ^- '*• **' '*• *•), and even, 
in the allied a 3 (v.*), walks in the garden : the recurring phrases 
are less marked, and not the same as those of i^-a". In the 
narrative of the Deluge, 6*"^* (the wickedness of the earth) is a 
duplicate of 6''-*, as is also 7^** of 6***-^ — the latter, ydih the 
diiTcrence that of every clean beast seven are to be taken into the 
ark, while in 6^^ (of. 7^*) two of every sort, without distinction, 
are prescribed ; similarly i'^- (destruction of all flesh) repeats the 
substance of 7*^ : there arc also accompanying differences of 
representation and phraseology, one group of sections being akin 
to I'-a^, and displaying throughout the same phraseology, the 
other exhibiting a different phraseology, and being conceived in 
the spirit of a*''-3** (comp. e,g, "j^^ shut /«, 8*** smelted, with 
37. 8. 15 ^^-c.).* 1716-ifl and i8»-" the [8] promise of a son to Sarah 
is twice described, with an accompanying double explanation 
of tlie origin of the name Isaac.\ The section 2 7 "-2 8* differs 
appreciably in style from 27^"^*, and at tlie same time exhibits 
Rebekah as influenced by a different motive in suggesting Jacob's 
departure from Canaan, not as in 27*^^^ to escape his brother*s 
anger, but to procure a wife agreeable to his parents' wishes (see 
26^^').{ Further, in 28^' and 35*^ we find two explanations of 
the origin of the name Bethel \ 32-* and 35***, two of Israel: 
32* 33^* Esau is described as already resident in Edom, while 
36''' his migration thither is attributed to causes which could 
have come into operation only after Jacob's return to Canaan.§ 
The Book of Genesis presents a group of 'sections distinguished 
from the narrative on either side of them by differences of 

* The composite character of the narrative of the Flood has been pointcil 
ottt often ; see the art. Pentateiuh, tiy the present Bi^op of Worcester, in 
Smith.'* Dutionary of ths Bible (^1863), p. 776- On the phraseology see 
more fully below, pp. 129-125. 

t There is a third expUnation, from a third source (see below )» in 21*. 

X Of course, men frequently act from more motives than one ; and thus a 
difference of motive in itsei/is no ground for siippnsing that the narrative tn 
which it appears is of composite authorship ; but when, as here, it ii coindJent 
wit}) a literary distinction, it lends, like the differences of representation just 
alluded to, to con&rm the inferences deduced in the first instance from literary 
criteria alone. 

I Keil's explanation of this disacpancy is insiiRicirnt, 



phraseology and style, and oflen by concomitant differences of 
representation : these differences, moreover, are not isolated, nor 
do they occur in the narrative indiscriminately : they are numer- 
ous, and reappear with singular persistency in combination with 
each oth£r\ they are, in a word, so marked that they can only be 
accounted for upon the supposition that the sections in which 
they occur are by a difTerent hand from the rest of the book. 

The sections homogeneous in style and character with i^-a** 
recur at intervals, not in Genesis only, but In the following books 
to Joshua inclusive; and when disengaged from the rest of the 
narrative, and read consecutively, are found to constitute a nearly 
complete whole, containing a systematic account of the origines 
of Israel, treating with particular minuteness the various cere- 
monial institutions of the ancient Hebrews (Sabbath, Circum- 
cision, Passover, Tabernacle, Priesthood, Feasts, &c), and 
displaying a consistent regard for chronological and other 
statistical data, which entitles it to be considered as the frame- 
work of our present Hexateuch. This source, or document, 
has received different names, suggested by one or other of the 
various characteristics attaching to it [9] From its preference 
(till Ex. 6') for the absolute use of the name ^tf(/ (" Elohim ") 
rather thanyir^Jrt^ it has been termed the Etohistic narrative, 
and its author has been called the £Iohist\ and these names are 
still sometimes employed. By Ewald it was termed the "Book 
of Origins ";* by Tuch and Noldeke, from the fact that it seemed 
to form the groundwork of our Hexateuch, the " Grundschrift " , 
by Wcllhauscn, and most other recent critics, it has been styled 
the "Priests' Code." This last designation is in strictness 
applicable only to the ceremonial sections in Ex.-Nu. j these, 
however, form such a large and characteristic portion of the 
work, that the title may not unsuitably be extended so as to 
embrace the whole ; and it may be represented conveniently, for 
the sake of brevity, by the letter P.t 

• l/rsprUns^t — Ewald's rendering oi' the Hcb, rfi^ ("generations"), the 
term (p. 6) characterislic of this source ; see his Uist. 0/ Israel ^ i. 74-96. 

t DUImann uses the leUer A- WellJiausen, who supposes the "Priests' 
Code" to have passed through more stages than one before it reached its 
present fonn, denotes the nucleus of it by the letter Q. This letter is chosen 
by him on account of the fcur (Quatuor) covenants described in it (with 
Adam, i*^ j Koah, 9*'"; Abrabam, a 17 ; Israel, Ex. 6**-). The first of 
these, however, is not properly & covenant, but a blessing. 




In Genesis, as regards the limits of P, there is practically no 
difference of opinion amongst critics. It embraces the descrip- 
tion of the Creation of heaven and earth, and of God's rest upon 
the Sabbath (I'-z**); the line of Adam's descendants through 
Seth to Noah (5i-28.3o--i2) j the story of the Flood, with the 
subsequent blessing of Noah, and covenant established with 
him by God (6»-« f.u.n--i^.i7* [except >r/v tfays] "-«-2* 8»-=^ 
>b.-5. 13*. 14-19 ^1-17.28-^^. g^ enumeration of nations descended 
from Japhet, Ham, and Shem (,oi-'- ^o- 22-23. si-3J)j the line of 
Shem's descendants to Tcrah (ii*"*-^); a brief account of 
Abraham's family (ii^'"'^*), of his migration to Canaan, and 
separation there from Lot (12***-* 13"' "i* [from and /Ary]-^^ [to 
I*/ain]), of the birth of Ishmael (i6>»-3- '*-^''), the institution of 
Circumcision (c 17), the destruction of the Cities of the Plain 
(19^}, the birth of Isaac (21'*^^*^*), the purchase of the family 
burial-place at Machpcbh in Hebron (c 23), the death of 
Abraham and his burial by his sons at Machpelah ((25^"*^),* a 
list of tribes tracing their origin to Ishmael (25*-"*^; Isaac^s 
marriage with Rebekah, Esau's Hittite wives, Jacob's journey to 
Paddan-Aram to obtain a wife [lO] agreeable to his mother's 
wishes (as^*--"' "** 26'*-3* i-j^^'-tS^ Jacob's marriage with 
Rachel, his return from Paddan-Aram to Canaan (29**-^ 31**** 
[from and a//] 33^**), the refusal of his sons to sanction inter- 
marriage with the Shechemites(34^"2»'*-«-»->o-i^-i8- 20*21. 26 [partly] 
=^-»), his change of name to Israel at Bethel (35^"-"), the 
death of Isaac (35"^'"'); llie history of Esau (c 36 [in the 
main]) ; * the migration of Jacob and his family to Egypt, and 
their settlement by Pharaoh in the land of Rameses (37^"'* 
[to /aco3] 41*^ 46*-=' 4^!Mj*.f 7-iKm [from and /Ary]*'). Jacob's 
adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh (48^* ^ ), the final charge 

• For it is generally allowed that ¥.»•■• •■" (though even here the freme- 
worlc appears to be that of P) include on element foreign to P : in particular, 
Uic names of ILsau's wives differ from those given in 26**'- 2S' (both P)» and 
must thus have been derived, most probably by the compiler, from a different 

t As read in LXX, where, though the substance is unaltered, the sequence 
b preferable: *'And Jacob and his sons came into Egypt to Joseph ; and 
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, heard of it. And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, 
saying, Thy father and thy bretliren are come unto thee : behold, the land 
of Egypt is before thee ; in Uic best of the land make thy £klher and thy 
bicLkico to dwelL" Then follows v.\ 




addressed by him to bis sons, and his burial by them (49^** 




These passages present an outline of the antecedents and patri- 
archal history of Israel, in which only important occurrences— 
as the Creation, the Deluge, the Covenants with Noah aiid 
Abraham — are described with minuteness, but which is sufficient 
as an introduction to the systematic view of the theocratic insti- 
tutions which is to follow in Ex.-Nu., and which it is the main 
object of the author of this source to exhibit. In the earlier part 
of the book the narrative appears to be tolerably complete ; but 
elsewhere there are evidently omissions {f^. of the birth of Esau 
and Jacob, and of the events of Jacob's life in Paddan-Aram, 
presupposed by 31^^).* But these may be naturally attributed 
to the compiler who combined P with the other narrative used 
by him, and who in so doing not unfrequently gave a preference 
to the fuller and more picturesque descriptions contained in the 
latter. If the parts assigned to P be read attentively, even in a 
translation, and compared with the rest of the narrative, the 
peculiarities of its style will be apparent Its language is 
[11] that of a jurist, rather than a historian ; it is circumstantial, 
formal, and precise : a subject is developed systemarically ; and 
completeness of detail, even at the cost of some repetition, is 
regularly observed- f Sentences are cast with great frequency 
into the same mould; J and particular formula are constantly 
repeated, especially such as articulate the progress of the narra- 
tive. § The attention paid by the author to numbers, chrono- 
logy, and other statistical data, will be evident It will also be 
apparent that the scheme into which, as was pointed out above, 
the Book of Genesis, as a whole, is cast, is his work, — the 
formula by which its salient divisions are marked constituting 
an essential feature in the sections assigned to P, 

The parts of Genesis which remain after the separation of P 
have next to be considered. These also, as it seems, are not 
homogeneous in structure. Especially from c. ao onwards the 

• Fragnienls of P's narralive may be preserved in Jo'*" *••>•'*, 

21* 25*^4"**. Ex. 7'^i|. 33". 

§ •' These are Ihe^lenilions of . . ." (above); !»*■»■»■ &c. ; 10» [eee 
QPB'] »■ »>■ » 25" 36*> « &c. ; 0^ compared with Ex. 7* la*" (and eUc 
where]. See more fully p. 129 f. 



narralive exhibits marks of composition ; and the component 
partSi though not differing from one another in diction and 
style so widely as either differs from P, and being so welded 
logeilier that the lines of demarcation between them frequently 
cannot be fixed with certainty, appear nevertheless to be plainly 
discernible. Thus in 20*"^^ our attention is arrested by the use 
of the term God^ while in c. 18-19 (except 19^?), and in 
the similar narrative 12'^'"*, the term Jehovah b uniformly 
employed. The term God recurs similarly in ai^^^ 23^'" and 
elsewhere, particularly in c 40-42. 45. For such a variation 
in similar and consecutive chapters no plausible explanation 
can be assigned except diversity of authorship.* At the same 
time, the fact that Ehhim is not here accompanied by the other 
criteria of P's style, forbids our assigning the sections thus charac- 
terized to that source. Other phraseological criteria are slight ; 
[12] there are, howev*r, aot unfrequently differences of repre- 
sentation, some of whicn will be noticed below, which point 
decidedly in the same direction. It seems thus that the parts 
of Genesis which remain after the separation of P are formed 
by the combination of two narratives, originally independent, 
though covering brgely the same ground, which have been 
united by a subsequent editor, who also contributed incon- 
siderable additions of hii svn, into a single, continuous narra- 
tive. One of these sourots, from its use of the name Jahweh^ is 
now generally denoted by the letter J ; the other, in which the 
name Eiohim is preferred, is denoted similarly by E ; and the 
work formed by the combination of the two is referred to by 
the double letters JE. The method of ihe compiler, who com- 
bined J and E together, was sometimes, as it would seem, to 
extract an entire narralive from one or other of iliese sources 
(as 20^" from £; c 24 from J); sometimes, while taking n 
narrative as a whole from one source, to incorporate with it 
notices#derived from the other; and sometimes to construct his 
narrative of materials derived from each source in nearly equal 


* It is true tliat Ehhim and JahweM represent the Divine Nature under 
difSerent aspecls. vk. as ihe God of nature and the God of revelation 
respectively : but it is only in a comparatively small number of instances that 
this distinchon can be applied without great artificiality to explain the variaiiou 
between the two names in Che Tenlateuch. 


In the details of the analysis of JE there is someiimes uncer- 
tainty, owing to the criteria being indecisive, and capable, conse- 
quently, of divergent interpretation. Points of minor importance 
being disregarded, the analysis, so far as it seems to the writer to 
be reasonably clear, is exhibited in the following tables. £ first 
appears in the history of Abraham (c 15 or 20).* 

I. c. i-xi. The be^nnings of history, 

J a«t.3i«4i-« 5« 6»-*" 7i-fc7-» (in the niain)t "•*" [standing origin- 
ally after v.'l ^^^ '**^ ^^-^^ f-^ ub. w-a qIS-st jc^ib^ u. m-m j |1-b. »j». 

[13] The rest belongs to P (above, pw 1 1 f.). 4"*-* 5* arc fragments of the 
line of Selh, as it was given tn J, the final redactor of the Pentateuch (R) 
having preferred in the main the Ibe as given by P (5*'** ") : notice lliat in 
point of fact the verses 4*'* are/tira//?/ to 5*- • : notice furtlier the difTerence 
in style of 5* from the rest of the cli., and the resemblance to 4^^, as well 
as the allusion to 3*"- (also J). In the accouul ol Uie Flood, the main narra* 
live is that of P, which has tieen enlarged by the addition of elements derived 
from J : here, howevefi tliese elements form a tolerably complete narrative, 
though there are omissions, e^^ bt^tween 6* and 7* of the instructions for 
making the ark, the redactor having preferred the account of P : and \i\ what 
follows, the narrative of J, for a similar reason, is not perfectly complete. 
The distinguishing characteristics of the two narratives are well exhibited by 
Dctitxach (p. ]64f.): each vii. is marked by a scries of recurring features 
which are absent from the other, and by wliich it is coimected with other 
sections of llie buuk, belonging respectively to the same source (comp. above, 
p. 9). The interchange oi Jehovah and Codh here specially noticeable. In 
c. 10 the sclic-ine of P is singularly clear : v.' is the title to the entire section, 
dealing with the ** sons of Noah " ; v.*"* sons of Japheth, with subscription ; 
v.*"^** SODS of Ham, with subscription: v.*^*-"* sons of Shem, with sub- 
scription! r.** the subscription to the entire section. The framework of the 

* The notes appended are not intended to do more llian afford a partial 
indication of the grounds on which the analysis rests ; for fuller details 
reference must Ik made to the more special works named, p. i f. The Book 
of Genesis has been published (in German), in a convenient form, with tlie 
diflerent sources distinguished typc^raphically, by Kautzsch and Socin (Z>/< 
Genesis mit ausserer Unterscheidung der Qttellcnschnften\ 1^91^ Great 
pains and core have been bestowed upon the preparation of this work ; but 
tlie details, so far as the line of demarcation between J and E, and the parts 
assigned to the redactor, are concerned, can in many cases not claim more 
than a rtlative probability, as the editors themselves avow. A more elaborate 
work of the same kind is B, W, Bacon, The Genesis of Genesis (Hartford, 
U.S.A., 1S92): see aliio C. J. BalPs edition (above, pp. 1, 3). 

t For V.'"* include two or three expressioiu (" two and two," " male and 
female," **God" [Sam. Targ. Vulg. "Jehovali"]) borrowed by the redactoi 
from P. 



ch. Is thus supplied by P, and into it notices of the nations descended from 
Noftfa» dcitved from J, have been inserted by the final redactor. Observe that 
v.** begins the third main division of the ch., and that v.*". taken strictly, is 
out of place before it : v.*''' contain J's account of Shelah, Eber, and Peleg, 
pandlel lo that of P in ii***" (comp. 4"'- beside 5"). 

Notice also that the genealogies in J (both here and elsewhere) arc cast in 
adijrerentmfiuld from those of Tt and are connected t'^cther by similarities 
of expression, which do not occur in P: thus m 4""" lo"-**- «■ »*-•» tqF'''* 
32*"** 25*"* notice the recurrence of the fonn of sentence, C/nta , , , was 
borm : of *i^' (not I'Vvi, as iu P) used of the father ; of tt\n d3 ; and of the 
phrase th* father of * * , (see Budde, DU Biblische Urgesckichtt^ 18S3, pp. 
220-223). 0° ^<^ question whether J's narrative in c. i-l i is really a literary 
unity, it must suffice to refer to Holdnger, EinL p. I3S£ 

IL c 12-26. Abraham and Isaac, 

n i2»-*-»-» ij>-*-'-"*(to^aj/)"»>(from a«rfiiwf6^»*» 

IB * 

fj i8'-i9*"-* 21 


m 22^^ *^~'* 

The verses enclosed in parentheses appear to be due to the compiler of 
JE. The ports not included in the table belong to P (p. 11 f.), with the 
exception of c 14, the character of which poinlj to its being taken from a 
(14] special source- The historical improbabilities of the narrative contained 
in this ch. have been exaggerated : but tliough the four names in v.' corre- 
spond, more or less exactly, vrith those of kings (f. B.C. 2300) which have 
been discoTcrcd recently in the Inscriptions, there is at present (Dec 1896) 
no monumental corroboration of any part of the following narrative (sec the 
writer's articles in the Guardi'am, 1896, Mar. 11 and Apr. 8). C. 15 shows 
s^ns of composition ; but the criteria ore indecisive, and no generally 
accepted analysis has been effected : it is therefore printed in the table 
bttwuH the J and E lines. Several recent critics have aligned lo £ 
y\. k. ». i^ jod ,0 J v_k. n. 4. s-iL 17-u regarding v.i>"- »"« as exp;uuJons due 
to a later hand (or hands] ; sec, further, Bacon, Hebraica^ vii. (1890), p. 75 f. 

19* belongs to P. Observe (l) God iyncc^ Jehovah having been regularly 
used before {e.g. v.»- »«- !«.»*.«); (a) nmemtbered (sec 8> in P ; and Ex. a**) ; 
(3) "cities of the Plain," as 13" P. The verse further betrays itself as an 
insertion in its present context, in that it repetUs in other words the substance 
of the preceding narrative; and secondly in the genera! statement that Lot 
dwelt in •' the dues of the Plain," which would fall naturally from a writer 
compiling a summary account of the occurrence (and is actually used by P in 
13"), but hardly so from one who had just before named Sodom repeatedly as 
yl\ft parfUuiar cWrj in which Lot dwelt. 

With 21" (" colled on the name of Jehovah ") comp. 4* 12" 13* 26*. 



a6*^* has probably (on grounds of style : see Del.) been expanded oc 
recast by the compiler. The same may have been the case with 22**'". 26^ *• 
appear to be additions made by the compiler for the purpose of harmonizing 
with 21^^*-. Observe in v."* the different explanation of the name "Beer- 
8heba,"ms compared with 21" (E). It has been plausibly conjectured that 
in c. 34-26 a transposition has taken place, and that the original order was 
2ji-<. ub c. 24 (observe that v." appears to prtsuppou 25'J 26*"'' 25*'*'^ ^•••, 
of which c. 37 is now the natural scqueL 

III. c. 27-36. Jacob and Esau, 

n 27^-« 28"» 

T 27^'' 28^ ^^' " **^ *^ 

ir.» ».» ,M !».» ».«. ». 301-fc (to hues) 


n 30»^* ' •■^* *• Ottno . . . sons) «*3 »<_3|i • 

m 40-50 


/J 31 

n34» (partly) »»Mi 35 

»^E 35 

^gS-Ui Si M-n 331-17 

ub-n a 

3^vb-i. a r. n-u. u 

14 S-! 

In 37^*'' some critics discover the traces of a double narrative, and oon* 
sider accordingly tliat the narrative of J has been supplemented by details 
taken from E ; but it is doubtful whether the grounds alleged are decisive. 

In 28'*'*' the main narrative is E, v.***^* being inserted from J. Uotli 
narratives contained the account of the theophany at Lux, £ giving promi- 
nence to the dream and vision of the ladder, which made the place one 
"where heaven and earth meet'* (v." being the sequel to v,*^), J to tlie 
words of promise addressed to Jacob; the compiler has united the two 
[15] accuunlSf as mutually supplementing each other. The promise in v.^*, 
as elsewhere in J (13""** 12*), accommodated in v.** to Jacob's present 
situation. Render v.^ as RV mar^. (see iS^ Heh.): in J Jehovah appears 
standing desi^U jd^coh as he slept. 

In 2f/"-30^ {births of Jacob's children) the main narrative is J, with short 
notices from £. Notice God interchanging with Jekovak^ and the double 
ttymoh^ies in 30**-^, 3o"*•^ 30^ (with Cod)^ {^\\i Jehcvah). But in c. 
29-32 it must remain an open question whether the points of separation 
between J and E have in all cases been rightly determined (see also p. itn^e*). 

In 3<:^-3l*(the parting of Jacob and Labon), 3o"-3i*i5 mainly J^3i*-^'* 
mainly E. The two sources give a different account of the arrangement 
between Jacob and Laban, and of the manner in which, nevertheless, Jacob 
prospered. The success which in 30*"- is attributed to Jacob's stratagem, 
with the effect of the striped rods upon the ewes in the flock, is in 31*^*'' 
attributed to the frustration by Providence of Laban's atlempti by repeatedly 
altering his terms, to overreach Jacob, and to the fact that only the striped 
he-goats leaped upon the ewes. Each account, however, appears also to 
coaCaia ooticcs incorporated from the other, which, in ■ome cases, harmonixe 




imperfecUjr with their present context, and complicate the inleqirebition (for 
details sec Dillmann or Delilzscb). 

3X**'" may have been in parts expanded or glo&sed by the compiler ; 
v.* *^- ■'•** appear to embody E*s account of the covenant between Jacob and 
Laban ; v.* **"** the account given by J. Observe that the covenant in v.* 
is difftroit in its terms from the covenant in v.**. 

In c 34 the analysis is not throughout equally certain ; but marks of P's 
style appear unmistakably in some parts, while they ore absent in others^ and 
:he motives and aims of the actors seem not to be uniformly the same (cf. p. 
9 «.). In v.*- "■** Shechem himself is the spokesman, and his aim is the 
personal one of securing Dinah as his wife ; in v.*'" (cf. v.**- **"'") his father 
Hamor is spokesman, and his aim is to secure an amalgamation between his 
people and Jacob's ; observe also the similarity in the terms tn which 
drcumcision is mentioned v.***'"^**'' and 17"* (P), and between v.** and 
2^101*. in> (also T). But it is not impossible that P here is based upon 
etemenU derived from E \ sec Wcllh. Comp, p. 312 ff. ; Cornill, ZATW, 
1891, p, I ff. i and cf. 35* 48=" (both E), In 35=''^ notice Jsrtul Ux Jacob 

IV. d yj~So> Joseph, 


rj »»-« 

E 37* (from JfiupM) •■" 

(to si/zvr) 

8-SI SSk 


fjc. 38C-39 


c. 40" 41 

i-iB. 1 17-n 




J 47**"* "• (^ Casien) «»•»' 49' 

.E 48*-''»-«8 


t Though the analysis oTc. 37 is in pnrts uncertain, the differences of repre* 
bcniation which it exhibits ^ow that it is of composite origin. Thus v."" 
is not the continuation of v.*-**: notice the indefinite cspression. *'and 
there passed by Midianites, merchantmen," which evidently describes the 
first appearance of merdiants upon the scene : the setfus/ to v.' would have 
^ • With traces of J, as 40"*- ^ "*• 41^* ("and they brought him quickly 

from the dungeon") 42"-" 45* ("whom ye sold into Egypt") •(*' that ye 
^ solil me Ihillicr ") 45" (to GosUn) =■ 46* (** Israel "). Here, as in other cases, 
^H the details of the analysis (subject to the reservaliun which is sometimes 
^^ nccessar)'] may be seen most conveniently in Kautzsch and Socin*s edition of 
Genesis, or in the edition of Nfr. Ball. 

kt With traces of E {43'*' *"* *' and he brought Simeon out unto them ">. 
J As read in LXX, viz. (directly answering v.*) : "And Pluraoh said unto 
Joseph, Let them dwell in the land of Goshen ; and if thou knowest that 
there are able men amongst them, then make them," Ac Then follows 
V.*** (P), as given above, p. II note. 

S In the main, probably ; but the two narratives cannot here be disengaged 
with certainty. Perhaps v,"-'*- "" are from J. 



I ccB expressed I'y "and the Ishmoclitcs drew near** (or some similar verbi 
but with Ihe subject definite) : v.^ is thus parallel to v.""^, noi the sequel 
lo it. Notice, further, that it is twice said that Joseph was brought into 
Kgypt and sold there ; once, 37**, by the MiJianites, in agreement with v.*^* ; 
ihe other time, 39^, by the Ishmaelites^ in agreement with v.**. Again, if in 
V." the subject of *' they drew " be Joseph's brethren, it is strange, as Reuben 
aj^Kais dearly to be in ihcir company, that, going afterwards lo the pit, he 
should be surprised at not finding Joseph in it ; on the other hand, if ** they " 
refer to the Midianite merchants passing by, who drew up Joseph from the pit 
without his brothers' knowledge, the surprise of Reuben is at once explained, 
and the expression in 40" *• fur 1 was stolen out of the land of the Hebrews " 
exactjy describes what had occurred. If 37«- «-»••* (And they sold . . . 
silver) **'" 39* &c., on the one hand, and 37»-«- «».•.>•-»». « qq ih© 
other, be read consecutively, they will be found lo form two complete /orcZ/tf/ 
accounts of the manner in which Joseph was taken into Kgypt, each (as will 
appear presently) connecting with two corresponding narratives in the 
chiqiters following : in one (J) Joseph is sold by his brethren to Ishmaelites^ 
in the other (E) he is cost by his brethren into a pit, and stoleH thence by 
the Midianites wthout his brothers' knowledge. V." is lautologous beside 
V.**, but forms an excellent introduction to v.**". Notice that in j 
Judak takes the lead (so 43* 44*^); in £ Renlyen (so 42^"): it ii con- 
sidered by many critics tliat " Reuben " in v." vras originally *' Judah.*" 

The narrative of Joseph in c. 39 ff. consists, as it seems, of long passages 
excerpted alternately from J and E, each, however, embodying traits derived 
from the other. The ground of this conclusion is the observation— (d) that 
the representation in different parts of the narrative varies ; (^) that in each 
of these long passages occur short, isolated notices, not in entire harmony 
with the context in which they are embedded, Ixit presupposing diffierent a'r» 
tumstames. Thus (a) in c. 42 Joseph's brethren arc charged with beir^ 
spies, and in reply volunteer tlie information about their younger brother 
(v. [l7]^'"' *"'*') ; in the report of what had occurred given in c 43, there is no 
allusion to such a charge, and Joseph is expressly said to have asked tlicm if 
they had a brother (v.*"' : so 44") ; (3) 42" comes unexpectedly after v.*"*, 
but agrees with v.* : having been given special provision for the way (v."), 
the brethren naturally make the discovery tluit the money is in their sacks 
only at tlie end of tlie journey. On the other hand, 42"*- harmonizes with 
43*'*"> where the discovery is made at tkt hd^ng place. The former is E's 
account, the latter J 's, 42*^'- being inserted in E from J, Further, in 43^**'*' 
"*'' the detention of Simeon is an essential feature of the narrative ; but in 
42'*-43'*, and again in 44'*"**, there is entire silence respecting him ; his 
release is nut one of the objects fur which the brclliren return to Egypt. Had 
the whole narmiive been by one hand, it would have been natural to find 
Simeon mentioned in the paris of e. 43-44 Vihere ke is unnoticed^ The 
notices of Simeon in 43*^-^ agreeing thus imperfectly with their immediate 
context (J), appear to have been inserted in it from the parallel narrative (E). 
(A similar point connected with c 39 is noticed by the commentators.) 
Phraseological indications pointing to the same conclusion are — (a) Jehevak 

(The use of G9d elsewhere in 





itcse sectionsi in corverse with Egjptiana, or between Jcutephf whibt in dis- 
^oise, and his brethren, is naturally inconclusive either /»r E, 40^ 41" Ac, 01 
a^inst J, 43^ 44'*. ) {b) A preference for hratl a& the name of the palnaxch 
in one group of passages (37»' » 43»- *• " 46* »» 47*- " 48^ "■ " * 50* • J), 
and for Jatob in the other (42^ «.»•»« 4530. « ^^a. s ^gn . E),— a preference so 
decided as to oiake it probable that in the few passages where, in the context 
of J./of^ occurs (37**), or, in the context of E, Israel (45* 46^ > 48"^ "- »), 
the variation is either a change made by the compiler, or is due to the use by 
him of the other source. The unusual word nrmoK sack occurs thirteen times 
in c 43-44 {J ) : by a remarkable coincidence it also occurs twice in the two 
verses ^i^^-^ which, on independent grounds, were assigned above to the 
iame source ; E uses the more ordinary term pv 42^ ** (also v.*** J). 

In c. 49 the Blessing of Jacob is, of course, incorp'irated by J from an in- 
dqxndcnt source. The historical and geographical conditions reflected in it 
are tliosc of the period of the Judges, Samuel, and David ; and this is the 
ige in which the ancient tradition of the patriarch's blessing must have been 
cast into ill present poetical form (cf. Dilloa. pu 454 f.V 

That P and JE form two dearly definable, independent 
sources, b a conclusion abundantly justified by the facts. As 
regards the analysis of JE, the criteria (as said above) are fewer 
aod less definite ; and the points of demarcation cannot in all 
cases be determined with the same confidence. Nevertheless 
the indications that the narrative is composite are of a nature 
which it is not easy to gainsay ; and the difficulty which sonic- 
tiraes presents itself of disengaging the two sources is but a 
natural consequence of the greater similarity of style subsisting 
[18] between them than between JE, as a whole, and P.* In the 
history of Joseph the harmonizing additions which the analysis 
attributes to the compiler may be felt by some to constitute an 
objection to it In estimating the force of such an objection, 
we must, however, balance the probabilities : is it more probable, 
in the light of what appears from ottier parts of the Pentateudi, 
that the work of one and the same writer should exhibit the 
incongruities pointed to above, or tliat a redactor in combining 

* Dillmann attempts to sepamte J and £ with great minuteness. But it is 
often qucstionaUe if the phraseological criteria upon which he mainly relies 
warrant the conclusions which he draws from them, lie is apt (as the 
present writer ventures to think) not to allow sufEdenlly for the probability 
that two writers, whose general styles were such as those of J and E are 
known to have been, would make use of the same expressions, where these 
expressions are not (as in the case of P) of a peculiar, strongly marked type, 
but are such as might be used, so far as we can judge, by any writer of the 
best histortographical style. 


two parallel narratives should have inlrodticed into one traits 
borrowed from the other? The narrative of Joseph cannot be 
judged cndrcly by itself; it must be judged in the light of the 
presumption derived from the study of JE as a whole. And 
this presumption is of a nature which tends to confirm the con- 
clusion that it is compobite. 

The distinction between P and JE — in particular, between P and J — may be 
instructively illustrated from the biessings and ptomists which fonn a con- 
spicuous feature in the Book of Genesis, and, in virtue of the progressive 
limitation of their scope, harmonize with its general plan (p. 7). To P 
belong l"-* (Adam); 9*'' (Noah); I?*** (Abraham) ; 28'*- and 35"'- [quoted 
48») (Jacob) : to JE 3" (the Protevangelium) ; 9=* (Shcm) ; 12^-* (Abraham: 
also 13"-" IS*- " i8>» 22>»-'») ; 26'-»-« (Isaac) ; 27^» 28"-" (Jacob) ; 49*» 
(Judah). Let the reader nou'ce how those assigned to P are cast in the 
same phraseology, and express frequt^ntly the same thoughts : those assigned 
to J exhitjit greater variety ; and such common features as they present 
(especially those addressed to tlie three patriarchs) are different from those 
that mark the other series In P, it may be obsen-ed, the promises are 
limited to Israel itself; in J the prophetical outlook embraces other nations 
as well. Comp. the writer's Sertnous on tiu Old Ttsta/tunt (1S92), ppb 

The process by which, probably, the Book of Genesis assumed 
its present form may be represented approximately as follows. 
First, the two independent, but parallel, narratives of the patri- 
archal age, J and E, were combined into a whole by a compiler 
whose method of work, sometimes incorporating long sections 
[19] of each intact (or nearly so), sometimes fusing the parallel 
accounts into a single narrative, lias been suiTicienlly illustrated. 
The whole thus formed (JE) was afterwards combined with the. 
narrative P by a second compiler, who, adopting P as his frame- 
work, accommodated JE to it, omitting in either what was 
neccssai7 in order to avoid needless repetition, and making such 
slight redactional adjustments as the unity of his work required. 
Thus he naturally assigned i'-2^ the first place, — perhaps 
at the same time removing «*• from its original position as 
superscription to i* and placing it where it now stands. In 
appending next, from J, the narrative of Paradise, he omitted 
probably the opening words (foi the narrative begins abruptly), 
and to Jahwch added the defuiing adjunct Ehhim^'*' " God," for 

* Producing an unusual and emphatic phrase ( sjahweh, who is God)> 
occurring again in the Pentateuch unly Ex. y». 



ihe purpose of identifying expressly the Author of life in a*'*"- 
with God, the Creator, in i'*'. Still following J, he took from 
it the history of Cain and his descendants (4*"^'*), but rejected 
the list of Seth's descendants (which the fragments that remain 
show that J must have once contained) except the first two names 
(4'^'^), and the etymology of A^oah (5-*), in favour of the 
genealogy and chronological details of P (5*'-"- ^^-). In 6* 
-9" he combines into one the double narrative of the Flood, 
preserving, however, more from both narratives than was usually 
his practice, and in parts slightly modifying the phraseology. 
In 9^*-*^ he introduces from J the prophetical glance at the 
character and capabilities of the three great ethnic groups 
descended from Noah, following it by the account, from P, of 
the close of Noah's life (9-*'*). C 10 (the Table of nations) 
dudes elements derived from both sources (p. 14 f); it is 
cceeded by the account from J of the dispersion of mankind 
(ji^-*'). C ii^<>-2* carries on the line of IsraeKs ancestors from 
Shem to Terah, from P; n-'^'- states particulars respecting 
Abram's immediate relations, taken partly from P, partly from 
J, and necessary as an introduction to the history of Abram in 
cuff. Mutatis mutattdis^ a similar method is followed in the 
rest of the book. The narrative of Genesis, tliough composite, 
is constructed upon a definite plan, and to the development of 
this plan the details that arc incorporated from the different 
sources employed are thioughout subservient. 

[ao] Twice in P (17' 21'**) the name Jehovah appears In place of the name 
Gcd ; and the variation, it has been argued, is subversive of the grounds upon 
which the critical analysis of Genesis re&ts. But this argument attaches 
undue significance to an isolated phenomenon. We must weigh tlie allcnu* 
tives, and ask which is the more probable : that an inference, dependent upon 
an abundarwt of criteria, extending througliout the entire Pentateuch, should 
be a mistaken one, or that the compiler, or even a scribe, should ttvke 
have ftubctituted tiie more usual Jehovah for Eichim under the influence of 
the usage of the verses preceding. To this question there can surely 1« 
but one answer. The compiler of Chronicles changes conversely yi?^(n:w^ 
of his original source into Gcd^ neither consistently nor with apparent 
reason, except that when writing independently, he evinces a preference 
for the latter term himself; comp. r.^. 1 Ch. 32" 23' 25^* 33' 34*' " with 
2 KL n'- " 14" ai' 22*- " respectively. 

The more special characteristics of J, E, and P, and the question of their 
ptulnble dates, will be considered wlien Ihey have been levicwed In their 
CDLiicty at the end of the Book of Joshua. 



§ s. Exodus. 

LiTRRATURB (in addition to Oie works mentioned above, p. I f.). — A4 
Julichcr, Die QueiUn vch Exodus i.-vii. 7, Halis Sax. 1S80, and Dig QtuUtH 
voH JSxofius vii. 8-xxiv. ir, in the /airbu^A^r/ur Proffstantiscke Thtohgif, 
18S2, pp. 79-127, 272-315; C, A. Briggs, "The Little Book of the 
Covenant " [Ex, 34"'*] in The Hebriw Student (Chicago), May 1883, p. 
264 flr. ; " The Greater Biwk of the Covenant" [Ex. 20»-c. 23], ih. June 1883, 
p. 289 H*. ; J. W. Rothstein, Das Bundesbtuh u. die rel.-gesck. Enixuickiung 
isr. 1888; B. W. Bacon in i\K Jour$t. of Bibl. Lit. 1890. p. 161 ff. (on Ex. 
7'*-i3") ; 1891, p. 107 ff. (on Ex. 1-7) ; 1893, p. 177 ff. (on Ex. I2*'-I7") ; 
1893, p. 23 ft (on Ex. 18-34); K- Budde, ZATfV, 1S91, p. 99 C 
(Bemcrkungen nim Bundcsbuch), p. 193 (t (chiefly on the analysis of Ex. 
12-34); B. Baentsch, Das Buiuiesbuih, seine urspruttgh'cMe GestaU, 
(1892); B. W. Bacon, TAe Triple Tradition of the Exodus (Harlford, 
U.S.A. 1894) [distinguishes typographically J, E, and T, to the end of the 
PenL, with explanatory introductions and notes; but the grounds of the 
analysis (in Ex-J are staled more fully in the articles just referred toj. 

The Book of Exodus (called by the Jews, from its opening 
words, rrtoe' npKi, or more briefly nice'') carries on the history 
of the Israelitish nation from the deatli of Joseph to the erection 
of the Tabernacle by Moses in the second year of the exodus 
(40'* *^). The structure of the book is essentially similar to that 
of Genesis, the same sources, P and J E, appearing still side by 
side, and exhibiting the same distinctive peculiarities. It will be 
convenient, in analysing the book, to divide it into sections, 
which may be briefer than was the case in Genesis. 

I. c. i-ii. Events hading to the deliverance 0/ the Israelites 
from Egypt, 

C. 1-2. The continued increase of Jacob's posterity in Egypt, 
and the measures instituted for the purpose of checking it by a 
" new king," unmindful of the benefits conferred previously upon 
[21] his country by Joseph (c. i). The birth and education of 
Moses, and his flight from Egypt into the land of Midian (c. 2). 

jl t-U 

2"-=^ (to died\ 

!*■• repeats the substance of Gen, ^^^ [cf. p. 7), As regards 2"*"^, U is 

true, in J, Moses' father-in-law is called Hobab (Nu 10^, cf, Jud. 4") ; but as 
CM name is mentioned when he is first introduced (v.^*), Keuei iu v." is very 



prob&bly a gloss, due to a misconception of Nu 10*. In 3' 4", c 18 (E), he 
is t»l\ed/eJAro : the variation is a good example of the divergent traditions to 
be found in the Pentateuch. 

C 3'-?^^- Moses is commissioned by Jehovah to be the 
deliverer of his people; his preliminary negotiations with the 
Israelites and with Pharaoh. 








In c 3 the main narrative is E (notice the frequency of GoJ 
v>«h.ii. J2.i^i. t4ii.iAa)^ ^.jth short passagcs from J ; in c 4-6', 
on ihe contrary, the main narrative is J, with short passages from 
E. The verses 4^t-i8. 2oi>-?i ^^q assigned to E on account of their 
imperfect connexion with the context: 4^^ speaks of "///^ signs'* 
to be done with the rod, whereas only one sign to be performed 
with it has been described v.'-®; 4-* mentions wonders to be 
done before Pliaraoh^ whereas v.'** speaks only of wonders to be 
wrought for the satisfaction of the peopU. The two verses read, 
in fact, like Eragments from anorher narrative, which once, of 
course, contained the explanations which are now missing. 
Further, in the existing narrative, v.", from its contents, is not 
fitted to be the s€quil of v.^^ : it, in fact, states an alternative 
ground for Moses' return into Egypt ; and the n^mc/ethro makes 
it probable that v.'* belongs to the same current of narrative as 
3' and c. 18 (i.e. E); hence v." will be referred to J. V.^'' goes 
naturally with v." (the rod). 

Passing now to the consideration of the passage assigned to P 
(62-^13)^ 3f,(} comparing it with JE as a whole, we obsen'c 
that it does not describe the stquel of 3^-6^ but is paraUtl to 
it, and contains a partly divergent account of the commission of 
Moses, and of the preliminary steps taken by him to secure the 
release of his people. This will be apparent if the narrative [22] 
be followed attentively. 3**6^ describes the call and commission 
of Moses, the nomination of Aaron as his spokesman with the 
people (3" V' "), and three signs given to him for the satisfaction 
of the people if they should demand his credentials : Moses and 
Aaron have satisfied the people (4^- ^*), but their application to 
Pharaoh has proved unsuccessful (c. 5) and something further is 

threatened (6'), The continuation of 6^ is, however, 7^*; for 


though the revelation and commission contained in 6''* might 
in itself he^ treated as a repetition of that in c. 3, its different 
style points to P as its source, and the sequel shows that in fact 
it b part of di parallel narrative of Moses' call and commission, in 
which, unlike 4^*, the people refuse to listen to the promises con- 
veyed to them (6^), and in which, upon Moses' protesting his 
inability to plead, not, as before, with the people, but with 
Pharaoh^ Aaron is appointed to be his spokesman with him 
(6U-i2.w».w) ^1-2). If Pharaoh had already refused to hear him 
(as he would have done, had c. 5-6 formed a continuous nar- 
rative), it is scarcely possible that Moses should allege (6''^) a 
different, a priori ground— a ground, moreover, inconsistent with 
4^1 — for his hesitation. Aaron having been thus appointed 
Moses' spokesman with Pharaoh, the case of the king*s requiring 
a guarantee is next provided for : Aaron's rod is to be thrown 
down that it may become a reptile * 7®^'. Pharaoh's heart, how- 
ever, is hardened ; and the narrative at 7^^ h^^g reached just the 
same point which was reached in 6^ The parallelism of details 
which prevails between the two narratives is remarkable ; comp. 
62-8 an^j ^fl-fl. 14.16 . 6i2b r-ao- and 4"; 7^ and 4^"; 7*'' and 3»<^* 6». 

C- 7'*-ii". TTie narrative of the plagues. 


7 7"-" 

1.E " (partly) 


81-* t 

(to nvtr) 













The grounds of the analysis depend, in the first instance, 
uix)n literary criteria ; which, however, are remarkably supported 
by corresponding differences in the representation. Reserving 
for the present the consideration of the few passages refeaed to 
E, and confining our attenlion to P and J, we obserx'e that the 
narrative of the plagues is marked by a series of systematic differ- 

• pW o reptih, not cgj a serpent, u in 4*. 

t The vcrees are numbered as in the English verstoo. 

ences, relating to four distinct points — viz. i. the terms of the 
command addressed to Moses j 2. the demand made of Pharaoh; 
3. the description of the plague ; 4. the formula expressive of 
Pharaoh's obstinacy : and further, that these differences a^e 
frtqmntly with corresponding differences in the parts of the pre- 
ceding narrative, 3^6*, which have been assigned (on independent 
grounds) to P and JE respectively. Thus in P Aaron co-operates 
with Moses, and the command is Say unto Aaron (7" S'- ^•j so 
before, in 7": even 9", where Moses acts, both are expressly 
addressed); no demand is ever made of Pharaoh, the plagues 
being viewed rather as signs, or proofs of power, than as having 
the practical object of securing Israers release ; the description 
of the plague is brief, seldom extending beyond the compass of 
two or three verses; the success or failure of the Egyptian 
magicians (who are mentioned only in this narrative) is noted ; 
the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is expressed by the verb pin, 
Wn {was strongs made strongs RV. marg.) 7'^ 8'* 9*' ii^° (so 7"}, 
and the closing formula * is And he hearkened not unto them^ as 
/ehavah had spoken (f^ S^^^ " 9" (so 7"). In J, on the con- 
trary, Moses alone (without Aaron) is commissioned to present 
himself before Pharaoh : he addresses Pharaoh himself t (in 
agreement with 4'**", where Aaron is appointed expressly to be 
Moses* spokesman with the people) ; a formal demand is uniformly 
made, Let my people go, that they may serve me (7" 8^ 9^* '* 10' : 
compare before 4^ in the corresponding narrative); upon 
Pharaoh's refusal, the plague is announced, and takes [24] effect, 
either without further human intervention (8** 9*), or at a signal 
given by Moses (not by Aaron) (7^ g^*^- lo*^* *^) ; the interview 
with Pharaoh is prolonged, and described in some detail ; some- 
times also the king sends for Moses and Aaron to crave their 
intercession for the removal of the plague (8*- ^ 9'^ lo^*) ; the 
term used to express the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is was 
heavy (noD) or made heavy (T33n) 7" S^*- " 9^- »* 1014 The 

I • Except the last time, il" (cf. e"** 7"' ; and with v.», 7*»). 

t AoroD, if he appears at all, is only Moses* silent companion : 8* (see 
T> »)" (see T.*- ■) 9" (sec v.»). In io» it is doubtful if the plural "and 
/jb^aaid" is original : notice in v.*** "and he turned," 

J The two words pm hard^ strong, and nM heavy, really expresa diflerent 
Ideas : the former means Jirm, in a bad sense stubhom, dejiani (cf. Et. 3^**), 
the latter i/tfw to mcve or he affected, unimpressioHahU (cf. of the ear, la. 6* 
$9*, Zech. 7" ; of the eye, Gen. 48"» ; of the tongue, Ex. 4^% 



narrative generally is written in a more picturesque and varied 
style than that of P ; there are frequent descriptive touches, and 
the dialogue is abundant. In a word, the two currents of nar- 
rative display just the same contrasted literary characteristics 
which they exhibit in the Book of Genesis. 

Recurring phrases which m&ik this narrative and distinguish it from that 
of P are (besides ** let my people go," &c., and 133, T32.t of the heart, just 
noted) rtfmetk (|»tD), esp. followed by "to let the people go." 7" 8^ 9* lo"- * 
(so before 4^) ; 7** serptnt (cnj), sec 4* ; Thus saith Jthovak^ said regularly 
to Pharaoh (so 4" 5') ; behoU , , , with the participle in the announcement 
of the plague 7" 8»- " 9»- " 10* (so 4*»J ; border S- to*- »*• " ; thou, thy people, 
and thy sertmntj 8»- *• •• "' ^- * 9",* cf. J0« 12" ; Ca/ o/tht Hebrews 7» 9'- « 
10* (so 3" 5") ; /ff /rt//ra/ 8*- •• "■ * 9^ lo" ; xttth as Aath net ***« ic g'*- ** II*, 
cf. lO* '* ; /tf sever (?iS^n) 8* 9* 11'; the end or object of the plague (or cir- 
cumstance attending it) stated 8"' " 9*^ "■ '■■*' 10* 1 1', 

The grounds for believing that what remains in the narrative 
of the plagues after the separation of P is not perfectly homo- 
geneous, but contains elements due to E, are, stated briefly, as 
follows. Reasons were given above (p. 23) for concluding that 
the two verses 4*^*'*, which speak of the r(}d of Moses, were 
not originally part of the context in which they are now found, 
and they were assigned accordingly to E. Now, in the narrative 
of the plagues, the effect in certain cases is brought about not 
immediately by God, but by the inten'ention of Masfs' ra{i{^^'''^^ 
gi3 10"), It is difficult not to connect the passages in which 
the rod is thus named with 4*'"", and to treat both as notices 
derived from the same source E. The opinion that the parts of 
the narrative which remain after the [25] separation of P are to some 
extent composite, is conilrmed by other indications. Thus in 7^^ 
the transition from the " I " of God to the " I " of Moses is 
abrupt and {in the historical books) unusual; hence the sus- 
picion arises that originally the subject of / wi// smite was 
Jehovah (cf. v.-^''), and that the words "with the rod that is in 
mine hand" were introduced by the compiler of ]E from the 
other source used by him. By the side of 9^^, v.^** would seem 
to be superQuous. 

The analysis of J£ is oAcn diflficuU, and that there are points in it at 
which 6nality has not been reached, is generally admitted by critics (cf. 
p. 14); and Bacon (who handles the subject with imich ability), in the 

• The sj-mmelry of this verse is much improved, if, with Ilitiig, for laS Vn 
we read ^j n^(j. 




artiVfes meotTrmfd on p. 22, has made important con(HbuHons tow»rds th« 
tfpanition of J and E, especially in Et. 7-I1. The wrilcr hesitates to adopt 
absolutely resuiti on which at present (Dec. 1896) no judgment has been ex 
pfeascd by other scholars ; but Bacon's analysis of JE ia Ex. I>tl ought not 
to be withheld from the reader (in c. 3 uid c 4i according to the TripU 
Tradition^ p. l6fl!.):— 

fj Ex. !•••-» =■*• '»•=* »-* (to JW) • M It'll 


LE 7" 




[from ajv£^ ^ lifted) 

I a-a 

(toy9»/» /jitf ww) 

7 S'-* ••>»• (to >twr/) »■« 9»'- "■« 


9'»-»» (to earth) 


rj io» 



(to ^^//) 

»«>-i«* (to darkmid) 
^*^ {io iand ef EgyJ^t) 


E io«*(lo/^ 



The parts cot included in this table belong to P. I2*"'' is the sequel lo 
ti*-«inj, and i2»-"» the sequel lo ii»-»in E. 3" 4"" f^ ("In this thou 



(Ub*lt. U-91. 

shalt know that I am Jehovah 

(" tliat/' &C)*' lo*" ("for I," Ac.)"-*" (to " Pharaoh," the next words being 
•apposed to have read originally and say) ti'^, which are of the nature of 
didactic comments, are regarded (after other critics) as probably editorial 
additions; and 9** ("as Jehovah,"&c.) is borrowed by the compiler from P's 
formula 7" 8** &c.). In 7'* the words *' which was turned to a serpent" are 
a harmonislic insertion (cf. 4'' LXX). 

The variations from previous critics are deliberate, and supported hy argu- 
ment: as Bacon shows, his predecessors had at certain points (notably at 
I0**""1 failed lo discover the trvie cliics. The effect of this analysis Is to dis- 
engage two narratives, each (substantially) complete, and each (as Bacon is 
careful to point out) consistent with itself, and dominated by a distinctive 
unity of character and representation ; in the hands of previous critics, E's 
narrative has been mostly fragmentary. Thus, upon Bacon's %riew, E preserves 
more closely than J does the connexion with the patriarchal period ; there are 
only 3-4 generations from Joseph to Moses (Gen. 50*, cf. Nu. 32*) ; he 
lectures the Israelites accordingly as a relatively small clan, capable of being 
served by two mid wives: in J, Ismcl is a populous nation ; Ex l* covers the 
gap between the patriarchs and Mu^es, and allows time for the multiplication 

Iof Jacob's descendants. In E, again, the Israelites are "royal pensioners," 
• Reading, "Thus sailh Jehovah, Behold, I will smite the rivet": cf. v.=». 
t Rculing, " And thou slmlt smite wiili the rod tiiat is in thine haod upon 
the waters which arc ia ihe lixer, and ihcy shalt become blood." 



dependent upon Phanoh't bounty (comp. Gen. 45" 47", cf. 50^ ; 45* 46»), 
and they live side by side with the Egyptians (Ex 3" ii") ; in J they are inde* 
pendoik ownen of cattle (g*- • lo^ •*• « ij*"- « . (^^ g^, ^^w ^^bj^ ^^ jj,^ 

reside aptrt in the pastoral district of Goshen {Ex. 8" 9^ ; c£. Gen. 45^ 
45» ».M^yi.*».fHj^ Ijj e^ further, Pharaoh is depicted as stubborn and 
defiant, his refusal is peremptory and complete ; in J he is weak-minded and 
deceitful (8^, he promises release, and craves Moses* intercesaonj but aAcr- 
wards evades his promise. Other characteristics of the two representations are 
also pointed out by Bacon. The literary distinctions between the two narra- 
lives remain subslantially as before ; J is graphic, and abounds in colloquy ; 
E, though complete, is brief and ungarnished. The cooclutling formula in E 
is and Pharaoh^s ktart was hard^tted [pm lit. was Strang] (or a$ui Jehffvah 
hnrtiriud Pharaoh's hfati), a$ui he did not let the thUdrtn of Israel (or them) 
jco 9* (contrast J*s phrase, v."*) lo*- " (cf. 4" E). P uses tlie same verb pm, 
Init follows it usually by and he hearkened not unto ihem^ as Jehovah had spoken^ 

IL c 13-19'. ^^ last plague^ the departure of the Israelites 
from Sgypt^ and their jourriey to St'nai. 

C. 12-13. The institution of the Passover, and the Feast of 
Unleavened Cakes, The death of the first-born of the Egyptians, 
and journey of the Israelites from Rameses to Succoth. The 
law respecting the dedication of the first-born (12^-13'*). March 
of the Israelites from Succoth to Ethatn, on the border of the 
wilderness (13"'**). 








In c 13-13 ^^ double treatment is peculiarly evident We 
have {a) la^-" (Passover); v.**--'^t {Mazzoth or Unleavened 
Cakes); v.*** '^*' **^'* ^^ (narrative) ; v. **•*•* (Passover — supplement- 
ary); »3"' (first-born): {b) la^i-^T (Passover); v.»-=w "b-ap. *2» 
(narrative, — continuation of ii*-'); 133-10 (Unleavened Cakes); 
v,iw« (first-bom) : the former narrative exhibits throughout the 
marks of P; the latter, those of JE. The Passover, it is to be 
observed, though followed by the Feast of Mazzoth (Unleavened 
Cakes), is distinct from it both in its origin and in its observance ; 
and the distinction is recognised in both \^^ narratives, especially 
in that of JE. The injunction in P respecting the first-bom (13^^') 
is here isolated ; the full explanation is first given Nu. 3**'' 8**"*^. 

* la**", the Hebrew of which is very stiangt: (.iin nS-Sn mn), appears in be 
a glos^ (nudde, ZATW. lS<?i. p. 200 j Bacon). 

t V.** refers to the first day of MayMh (Lev. 23*), not to the Tisscjvet. 




The distinction between P and JE in c. la is sufficiently 
established upon literary grounds ; but a material justification of 
the analysis is to be found in the fact that la^'*'' cannot be the 
original sequel of xa'"* (or rather, of la*'^; for v.^*-** does not 
concern the Passover at all). The verses do not describe the 
txtcudon of the commands received by Moses in v.''^'. Moses 
does not repeat to the pjeople, even in an abridged form, the 
injunctions before received by him ; but while several points of 
importance (e.g. the character of the lambj and the manner in 
which it was to be eaten) are omitted, fresh points (the hyssop, 
the basin, none to leave the house), not mentioned before, are 
added. The inference is irresistible that la**-'' is really part of 
a different account of the institution of the Passover, which 
** stands to 1 a**^' in the same relation that the regulations respect- 
ing Afat^oth in 13^-10 stand to those in la**-^" (Dillm. p. loo). 
V.*^" is conceived entirely in the spirit of parts of 13*"" (see 
y,s. 1. 10. m.) . jt is probable, therefore, that both passages are of 
similar origin, and may be referred either to J (Dillm.) or to the 
compiler of J£ expanding materials derived from J (so VVellh., at 
least for i3*-"). 

A notic^rable difference between P and JE is the greater specialization and 
suictAess of the provisions contained in the former narrative [e.g» la***- "*• •■*•), 
As regards the parts assigned to E, with v."^ comp. 3" lo"- *>• •*• j with ▼.■•, 
10*- •** ; with V."'-, 3"^ I !»*• (all E) ; in 13"*" notice God (not fthavah) four 
times; and with v." comp. Gen. 50**. in a contest which (on independent 
grounds) is assigned to the same source. la*^"* deserve attcntioo, being 
cxidcntly intended as an explanation of the origin of the Feast of " Un- 
leavened Cakes." See further, on c. 12-13, DcUtxsch, Studun, viL p. 337 C 

C. 14-15. The passage of the Red Sea; Moses* Song of 
Triumph ; the journey of the Israelites to Marah and Elim. 

( P 14*-* •-• ^^ "• (to 0tr£r tlu ua) 


(to afraid) 


■••"* (to over tU $m) 

J "^ (to J>y AufcO 




The passages assigned to P will \tr fntmfl to l»c cnnncctcil Imlh with rach 
tiihfr and with other parts of the Pcntiteuch bclonpng *f* ll>^ wmc soufe : 
ihvis "harden (pin) the heart" t.* recurs v.'", and is the saiiio lenn that is 
used by P in the narrative of the plagues (p. 25) ; " get ine honour" 16. recurs 
V 17. u Ley^ iQ» . comp. also v.*- " *' and the £g)'p(ian$ shall know," &c. (cf. 6^ 
7* 16"); v>" "and the Egyptians pureued"; v.^* "the dry land" and 
*'lhe waU**; v.**-*» "divide"; the rt/^/ifions (in the manner of r)in v.""- as 
compared with v.* in v."* as compared with v.", in v." as compared with v.". 
llie particulars of tlie analysis depend to a certain extent upon the apparently 
tiffubU character of the narrative in some parts of the cliapter. As regards the 
ports attributed to E, with v."'' comp. Josh. 24' (E) ; with v.", Gen, 21*' 
31" (the "angel of God"), It is possible that other traits in the narrative 
also have their source in E [i.g. v.'* " lift up thy rod** ; comp. above, p. 26). 
I4'''* may be a notice derived from J (corap. 8" 9^ lo"). 

In c. 15 the Song (v,'^", cf. ▼.""") is, of course, incorporated by E from 
an earlier source — perhaps from a collection of national poems. V.** appears 
to be a later redoctionol addition, reverting, in terms borrowed from P {see 
14* •■■ **»), to the occasion of the Song. The Song itself appears to have 
undergone some expansion, or modification of form, at a later age ; for v." 
("Thou kast guided th4m to Thy holy habitation **) appears clearly to describe 
a /or/ event, and v.^"* points to %nixv^ fixed abode of the ark — the temple at 
Shiloh (l Sa. I*], if not (Richm, EinL I 299 f.) the temple at Jerusalem (tlie 
verba la v,''^may be translated as pasts or futures indifferently). In v.^^'we 
seem indeed [to use Dilhnann's expression) to hear Moses himself speaking ; 
and both Dillm. and Delitrsch {Gen. p. 29) agree with Ewald {Die Diekter 
des A.B.t, i 1, p. 175 ; cf. Nist. iu 354) in supposing that the Song, as a 
whole, is a later expansion of the Mosaic theme contained in v.^*^', — 
perhaps designed originally as a festal Passover-song (Is. yP). Probably, 
however, the greater port of the Song is Mosaic, and the modification, or 
expansion, is limited to the closing verses; for the general style is antique, 
and the triumphant tone which pervades it is just such as might naturally have 
been inspired by the event which it celebratest 

C. 16-19'. Tlie journey of the Israelites from Elim to Sinai, 
includir>g particulars respecting the quails and manna given to 
the people in the wilderness of Sinai (c. 16); the miraculous 
supply of water at Rephidim, and the conflict with Amalek at 
the same place (c. 17); the meeting with Jethro, and the counsel 
given by him to Moses (c 18). 


/ Pl6>-* •■•* '^'^ ly^ {to Rephidim) 19'-* 




H l-U 

c. i3 


In c. 16 the parts assigned to P liave many marks of his style which are 
absent ffom the rest of the chap. (cf. p. 131 ff. There ore also corresponding 



dtfferencfn of rrprcscntation t (hiis in r,*^ {tvening and m^rtihtg, ngrcdng 
wilh v.^^J!£sh at evening, and dread at moming) the comraunication made 
to the people is difTerent in its terms from that given in v.**" to Moses {hrtad 
■Jone, with no distinction of morning and evening); and v.** agrees wilh v.*'*. 
In the text of P a Iransposiltoo appears to have taken place ; for v.>^"^ the com- 
mand to speak to the people ^//tk-x the account v,*'" of the actual delivery to 
(hem of the message ; probably the original order was v.*"*- **'*• **^ *■ &c» 

C. 18, though in one or two places (as in parts of v.*^-*"'*) 
there may be traces of the hand of tlie compiler of JE, is other- 
wise an excerpt from E ; notice the preponderance in the cliapter 
of God (not Jehovah), The chapter is one of great historical 
interest ; it exhibits to us a picture of Moses /egisiating. Disputes 
arise among the people ; the contending parties come to Moses 
to have them settled ; he adjudicates between them ; and his 
judgments are termed "the statutes and directions {Tdrofh) of 
God " (v.'*). It was the historic function of the priests to giife 
direction {jKy\r\i min) upon cases submitted to them, in matters 
both of civil right (Dt. 17^*) and ceremonial observance {ib. 24*)* ; 
and here Moses himself appears discharging the same function, 
and so laying the foundation of Hebrew law, 

III. ig'^-c 40. Israel at Sinai, 

{a) The solemn establishment of the theocracy at Sinai (see 
19*^ 24*'*) on the basis of the Ten Commandments (20'*!^, and 
of % Code of laws (20^-33*^) regulating the social life and 
religious obsen'ances of the people, and called the " Book of the 
Covenant" (24*^); (b) the giving of directions to Moses on 
Mount Sinai for the construction of the Tabernacle, witii the 
vessels and appointments belonging to it, for the consecration of 
Aaron and his sons as priests, the selection of Bezaleel and 
Oholiab to execute the skilled work that was necessary, and the 
delivering to Moses of the two Tables of the I^w (24'--3i*8) ; (c) 
the incident of the Golden Calf, Moses' intercession [29] on behalf 
of the people, and the renewal of the covenant (c 32-34); {d) the 
construction of the Tabernacle and its appurtenances in accord- 
ance with the directions prescribed in c 25-31, and its erection 
(40*^) on the first day of the second year of the exodus (c 35-40), 


'J 19^" 

E I9»-" (in the main) 20'" 20»-23' 



* Cf. Mic 3** (give din^ti&n) \ Hog. 2*' (ask now dindion of the priests), 



P i4»-"» (to chi4J) 25»-3ti*(to/«//"wwi;') 




34** c. 35-40 


-33«*33'-"^^ "^ 

The structure of JE's narrative of the transactions at Sinai 19^- 
2^n-i«b g^j^jj 3i'®''-34^ is complicated, and there are parts in 
which the analysis (so far as concerns J and E) must be regarded 
as provisional only. Nevertheless, the composite character of 
the narrative seems to be unmistakable. Thus in c. 19 the 
natural sequel of v.' went up would be, not v.^^ came^ but v." 
went down \ y} is superfluous after v.*^ (if, indeed, it be more 
than an accidental repetition of it) : v.^^*» is isolated, and not 
explained by anything which follows (for the "trumpet" of 
v.^*-*' is not the "ram's-horn " of this verse). In the latter part 
of the chapter v.*""^ interrupt the connexion ; v.™ is a repetition 
of v.^** (" descended "), and v.^^ of v.*-; the priests and Aaron 
are introduced without preparation : v.** " and said ("laK^i) unfo 
them" (not "and A?/^them") should be followed by a statement 
of the words reported, and is quite disconnected with 20^ : on 
the other hand, 20' is the natural continuation of \^^\ It is 
evident that hvo parallel narratives of the theophany on Sinai 
have been combined together, though it is no longer possible to 
determine throughout the precise limits of each, ig^'** (though 
parts of v.*^ may [30] be derived from J) belongs in the main to 
E ; the sequel (as just said) is formed by 2o\ introducing the 
Decalogue (20'**^), and the following verses zo'®-^ t (notice God 
in i9»-i7.i»b 2oi-i»-»-") &C. In c. 24, v.*-* is manifestly the 
sequel to c. 23. V.^-***-" interrupt the connexion: Uieir origin 
has been disputed ; but they are probably to be referred to J. 

According to Bacon, they form the sequel to 19** (ftom and then) *•■ '*'**• •• 
[rendering, "and Aaron wilh ihcc, and the priests; but let not the people," 
&C.L "** {from for), "•" [the cmph. tv:)T\ ■•they" in v."** obtaining by the 
transposition a suitable antecedent in ikt priests of t.**1, * (20^'" being the 

* In the main. 

t Whether Kuenen is right in his suggestion {Th, Tijduhr, 18S4, p. 190) 
that 20*»-'^ stood originally in E between ig"-*^ and 20*, may be doubled, 
notwithstanding the assent of Wullh. Comp. 327 f., and Budde, ZATW, tS9l, 
p, 329 : Dt. 5^* appears to show the contrary. 



fl to i9»'»^ »*•"• » in E). On the attribnlirm i»f ihe Bonlt of thr Covenanl 
E, $ce DiUm. p. 220; ]i\\irhtT,/P7% 1S82, p. 205 f. ; Budde, ZATH', 
1891, p. 315 f. ; Wcllh. Ccm/, p. 337. 

The Decalogue was, of course, derived by E from a pre- 
existing source, at least the substance of it being engraven on 
the tables in the Arlc, and incorporated by bini in his narrative. 
Some interesting critical questions arise from a comparison of 
the Decalogue as here given with the form in which it is repeated 
in Dt. (s**'-**), where, although it is introduced ostensibly (v.'**') as 
a verb;il quotation, it prebcnts considerable differenc^STrom the 
text of Exodus. The differences are most remarkable in the 
4th» 5th, and loth Commandments, which are here printed in 
parallel columns, the variations being indicated by italics : — 


Ex. 20. 
8. Remember Lhe sabbath day to 
keep it holy. 

9. Six days ^alt ihou 
labour, aiid do all thy work : lO. but 
the seventh duy is a sabbath unto 
Jcbovali Uiy God : io it thou shalt not 
do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor 
ihy daughter, thy man-servant, 

DOT thy maid-servant, nor 

thy cattle, 
nor thy stranger that is within ihy 

II. For in lix days Jehovah made 
heaven, and earth, lhe sea, and all 
that in them is, and rested lhe seventh 
day: therefore Jehovah blessed the 
saUiQlh day, and hallowed iL 

[31] 12. Honour thy fkthei and thy 

that thy days may be 

upon the land which Jehovah 
thy God is giving ihec. 

17* Thou shalt not covet thy 

Dctghbonr's house, thou shalt not 

covet thy neighbour*! wife, 

Dt. 5. 

12. Observe the sabbath day to 
keep it holy, as fehnvah thy Cod com- 
mandeJ thee, 1 3. Six days shalt thou 
labour, and do all thy work : I4. but 
the seventh day is a sabtxith unio 
Jcho%-ah thy God : in it thou sludt not 
do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor 
thy daughter, Ptor thy man-servant, 
nor thy maid -servant, nor thine ox, 
tier thine ass^ nor any of thy catlle, 
nor thy stranger that is within thy 
gates : in ortier thai thy man-servanf 
and thy wiaid-servani may rest as welt 
as thou. 15. And thou shalt rtmem' 
ber that thou wast a urvant in the 
land of Egypt ^ and Jehovah thy Cod 
brought thee out thence by a mighty 
handy and by a stretched out arm .* 
therefore fe/iotfah thy God cemmanded 
thee to keep the sabbath day, 

16. Honour thy &thcr and thy 
mother, as Jehovah thy God com- 
manded thee: that thy days may be 
long, and that it may be welt with 
thee, upon tlie land which Jehovah 
thy God is giving thee. 

» • • • • 

31. And thou shalt not oovet thy 
ncightx)ur*s wifet and thou shalt not 
desire thy neighbour's hause^ his f eld. 



or hts man-Krvant, or his mnid-scr- 
v^nt, or his ox, or his ass, or anything 
that a thy neighbour'^ 

or his man-scrran^ or his niaid-scr* 
vant, his ox, or his tus, or Knything 
thftt is thy neighbour*^ 

The princip)al variations are in agreement with the style of 
Dt, and the author's hand is recognisable in them. Thus with 
Observe v.^* comp. I)t. 16^ ; with as /ehovnh ihy God commanded 
thee (which is not strictly appropriate in what purports to be a 
report of the words spoken), 20^^ 24" 26^^; with the spirit of 
V.**'', 14** 15'^; with tlie motive of gratitude in v.^\ 15^^ i6^''^* 
2418-^; and with the addition in v."**, 5-» [Ileb. '■'«] 6" 12^- » 
22^. Does, however, even the text of Ex. exhibit the Decalogue 
in its primitive form ? It is an old and probable supposition," 
suggested in part by the fact of this varying text, tliat in its 
original form the Decalogue consisted merely of the Command- 
ments themselves, and that the explanatory comments appended 
in certain cases were only added subsequently. Thus, according 
to this view, the 2nd, 4th, and sth Commandments read origin- 

•*Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image.** 
•* Remember the saljUiOi day to keep il holy.** 
"Honour thy father and ihy molher," 

All the Commandments would thus be moulded in uniform 
shape, and would be expressed in the same terse and simple 
form in which the ist, and the 6th to the gth, appear now. It 
has further been conjectured that, as the comments in v.** '•• *' 
bear a singular resemblance to the style of Dt., they were in the 
first instance added in that book, and thence transferred sub- 
sequently to Ex.; and that, as it is scarcely probable that the 
author of Dt. would omit part of the Decalogue (though he might 
[32] for the purpose of explanation rtz/^ clauses), v.^* may have been 
only introduced into the text of Ex- after Dt. was written. As 
regards the first of these conjectures, it is no doubt attractive and 
plausible. In the phrase **them that love me" v.** there is 
embodied a thought which in the Pent, is confined to Dt, viz. 
the love of God, which in that book is made the foundation of 
all human action {e.g. (y" 10'- 11^ al^\ the expression "within 
thy gates" v.^" (= in thy cities) is all but peculiar to Dl, 
occurring in it twenty-nine times; tlie expressions in v.'- "that 
thy days may be long," and " the land which Jehovah thy God 
■ Ewald, Hilt. ii. 159; Speakew^i Comm, p. 336; Dillraann, p. 201. 




is gi^inR )hee,'*are also (especially Ihe latter) of repealed occur 
rt-'ncc in the same book (neither occurring elsewhere in the Penu). 
These facts possess undoubtedly considerable weight. It is, 
however, some objection to the inference which they appear to 
authorize, that the clauses in question (as a glance at the parallel 
columns will show) are not incorporated eniirt in Exodus. If the 
clauses were transferred to Ex. from Dt, it is not apparent why 
portions of them were omitted. On the whole, therefore, tlie 
more probable view appears to be that these clauses are in their 
original place in Exodus, and that they are of the same character 
as certain other sections in Ex., chiefly of a parcnetic or hortatory 
character (as 13^^*^ 23 **"^''), which do exhibit an approximation 
to the style of Dt., and which are the source of certain of the 
expressions which were adopted afterwards by the author of 
Dt., and became part of his phraseology,* Certainly, the ex- 
pression ** within thy gales," and the phrases in v.*-, read more 
diitimtweiy Deuteronomic than those occurring in the sections 
referred to ; but (unless the text of the Decalogue has passed 
through phases respecting which we can but speculate) the 
explanation proposed seems to be the most reasonable one. If 
it be correct, the additions in Dt. will, of course, be of the nature 
of further comments upon the text of Exodus. V.^^, however, 
stands upon a different footing : not only does it supply no 
elements for the style of Dt, but it is dissimilar in style to JE : 
in its first clause it resembles closely 31'^, and in its second 
Gen. a^*" — both passages belonging to P. As there is force in 
the remark that the author of Dt is not likely to have omitted 
the verse had it formed part of the Decalogue at the time when 
he wrote, it is not improbable that [33] it was introduced into the 
text of Exodus subsequently, upon the basis of the two verses 
of P just cited. 

The laws contained in the " Book of the Covenant " (20^''- 
23*3) comprise two elements (24"), the "words" (or commands) 
and the "judgments": the latter, expressed all hypothetically, 
occupy 2 ii-2a*^- ***•'''' 23*'-; the former occupy the rest of the 
section to 23'*; what follows, as*****', annexing z. promise in case 
of obedience, as Wellh. observes, imparts to the preceding law- 
book the character of a "covenant" (cf. 24^). The laws them- 
selves are taken naturally from a pre-existing source, though their 
• Tlic expressions referred to are noted ticlow^ p, 99 f. 



fomii in particular cases, may be due to the compiler who nnited 
J and E into a whole. The main body of the "judgments," 
21^22", seems to have undergone no alteration of form; but 
in the following parts of the section most critics are of opinion 
that slight parenetic additions have been made by the compiler, 
e.g. 22'-'**^*^ (observe in v.*^ [Heb. '''J ^/>//, he^ /us m the Hebrew, 
pointing back to the singular " sojourner " in v.'''*) ; and in the 
linal exhortation, 23^*^* (which anticipates unduly v."'-, and 
disguises the comiitionai ch^LXACler of the promises v.**''- ***'•, which 
are dependent on v.*^) : the substance of this passage may have 
been derived from 34'^* *^ The verses 23*'' can hardly be in 
their original position ; for the context (on both sides) relates to 
a subject of a different kind, vix, just judgment. 

The laws themselves are designed to regulate the life of a 
community living under simple conditions of society, and chiefly 
occupied in agricuitun.\ They may be grouped as follows: — 
(i) 20^^ prohibition of graven images, and regulations for the 
construction of altars; (2) 2i-*" regulations respecting Hebrew 
male and female slaves; (3) ai^-^^' capital offences; (4) 21"-** 
injuries to life or limb; (5) 2i^''-22* cases of danger caused by 
culpable negligence, or theft; (6) 22'"^^ deposits, loans, and 
seduction (which is here treated, not as a moral offence, but as a 
wrong done to the father, and demanding pecuniary compensa- 
tion); (7) 22^*"^', and 23*'^-(not to refuse help to an^«^/ff>*in his need), 
miscellaneous religious and moral injunctions; (8) 23'*^ •'"•veracity, 
and equity in the [34] administration of judgment ; (9) 23^^"* on 
the Sabbatical year, the Sabbath, the three annual pilgrimages, 
and sacrifice; (10) 23'^33 t^e concluding exliortation. That the 
community for whose use the Code was designed had made some 
progress in civilisation, is evident from the many restrictions im- 
posed on the arbitrary action of the individual ; on the other hand, 
that it was still in a relatively arcliaic condition appears from such 
regulations as 21'^* ^'^ (the hx taUonis\ or the conception of 
God as the immediate source of judgment (21* 22*^: cf. 1 S. 2**). 
Notice also the rudimentary cliaracter of the ceremonial injunc- 
tions respecting altars 20""''*, the right of asylum a !**'■, first-fruits 
and firstlings aa^* 23", prohibition to eat nma 22*^, the observ- 
ance of the sacred seasons 23^^^", sacrifice 23*' ; comp. 20" 22* 

• To Cod, v."" beginning originally "And /will bless" (LXX. Vulg.)- 
\ Notice the prominence of the tfx, orj, and shetp, ai**-23^. 



against the worship of idols or false gods. Just and equitable 
motives are insisted on {e.g. si^^-'^ ^S*^'^)t ^^^ religious institu- 
tions, it is evident, are still in a simple, undeveloped stage.* 

In c 24, T.*** (*and he went up,' &c.) is E*« introduction to 31*"*, c, 3a ; 
wid ».*■*■* is P's introduction to c. 25-31. 

C 25-31^** forms P's account of the instructions given to 
Moses respecting the Tabernacle and the priesthood. These 
instructions fall into two parts : (1) c 25-29; (2) c 30-31. In 
c 25—29 the following subjects are dealt with : — (a) the vessels 
of the Sanctuary, named naturally first, as being of central 
interest and importance (c. 25) ; (^) the Tabernacle, designed to 
contain and guard them (c 26); (c) the Court round the Taber- 
nacle containing the Altar of the daily BurntHaffering (c. 27) ; 
{(f) the dress (c 28) and consecration (29^-'^ of the priests who 
are to serve in the Sanctuary ; {e) the daily Burnt-offering, the 
maintenance of which is a primary duty of the Priesthood (29'"^*), 
followed by wliat is apparently the final close of the entire body 
of instructions, 29*'*''^', in which Jehovah promises that He will 
bless the Sanctuary thus established with His presence. C. 30-31 
relate to {a) the Altar of Incense (3o'-i**) ; (^) the maintenance of 
public service (30""") ; {c) the Brazen Laver (30"'*^) ; {tf) the 
holy Anointing Oil (30^-3'); {e) the Incense (30'*-") ; (/) the 
nomination of Bezaleel and Oholiab (31*'*'); (g) the observance 
of the Sabbath (3i"-»T), 

[35] A question arises here whether the whole of this group of chapten 
belongs to the original legislation of P. It is remarkable that the AUar of 
/KceHs»t which, from its importance, might have seemed to demand a place in c 
26-29(among the other vessels of theTabemacle), is mentioned for thefirst time 
in 30*"**, when the directions respecting ihe essentia] parts of the Tabernacle 
are apparently complete (see 29**~**) : even in 26*^ (where the position of the 
Tftssels of the sanctuary is defined) it is not included. Moreover, the annual 
rite prescribed in Ex. 30^* is not noticed in the detailed account of the Day 
of Atonement in Lev. 16, and only one altar, the Altar of Burnt-offering, 
appears to be named throughout the chapter. Further, the ceremony of 
anointing, which in 29' Lev. 8** is confined to the Chief priest (Aaron), b in 
30* extended to the ordinary priesis (his "sons"), although the original 
limitation to Aaron alone would seem to be confirmed by the title **the 
arwinted priest," applied to the Chief priest (Lev. 4*- •■ " 6* [Heb, *"]: cf. 
i6«>ai»>» Ex. 29*«', Nu. 35"), which, if the priests generally were «noinled, 

• Comp. further on this code W. R. Smith, 07/C. p. 336 ff. ("p. 340?.). 


would be destitute of any distinctive signifioiDce. On these grounds (diicAy) 
ii is argued that c. 30-31, together with certain other passages in which the 
5Ame phenomena occuri form part of a secondary and posterior stratum of V, 
tepiesenting a later phase of ceremonial usage. Space forbids the question 
l>cing considered here as fully as it deser\'es ; and it must suffice to refer to 
WeMli. Com/. 139 flf".; Kuen, ffex. 8 6. 13; Dtl. Studien, iii.; Dillm. £U 
p. 263 f., ND/, p. 635 ; and Smith's Di^t. of the BihU (cd.'), art. Exonus. 

The section on the Sabbath (31**""), as has been often obser\ed (^..f. by 
Dclitxsch, Studien^ xii. p. 622), has in v. **•** affinities with the code of which 
extracts have been preserved in Lev. 17-36 (see p. 47 fT.) ; and it is probable 
that these verses hare been excerpted thence, and adapted here as the nucleus 
of a law inculcating the observance of the Sahhath in connexion with on 
occasion on which the temptation might arise to disr^ard iL 

In the narrative of the Golden Calf (31 ^•-34**), c 33, as a 
whole, may be assigned plausibly to E ; only v.**'* appears to have 
been expanded by the compiler of JE (comp. Gen. 22'*-i^, to 
which in v.^* allusion is made). 32'*-33*' exliibits traces of a 
double narrative: thus v.*** the people are commanded to do 
what, according to v.**, ihey had already done — which confirms the 
frima facie view that v.^^ is a doublet of v.**^*. No satisfactory 
analysis of the entire passage has, however, been effected. All 
that can be said is that if E be the basis of 33'**, it has been 
amplified by the compiler, possibly with elements derived from J, 

33^'". which (as the tenses in the original show) describes 
throughout Moses* praciice (vj " used to take and pitch," &c,), was 
preceded, it may be conjectured, in its original connexion by an 
account of the construction of the Tent of Meeting and of [36] the 
Ark,* which was no doubt the purpose to which the ornamentfi, 
v.**-*, were put ; when the narrative was combined with that of P, 
this part of it (being superfluous by the side of c. 25. 35, &c,) was 
probably omitted, only vJ*^* being regarded as of sufficient 
interest to be retained. 

33'^~34* forms a continuous whole, though whether belonging 
to J (Dillm.) or to the compiler of JE (Wellh.) can scarcely be 
definitely determined ; in 34'-3 there may be traces of E. It is a 
plausible conjecture of Dillmann's that ss***'" originally followed 
34': where this passage now stands, it breaks the connexion 
between 33^^ and 33'*; while as stating the issue of the whole 
intercession, and directly responding to 34^, it would be 

• See especially Dl. lo^ which a comparison with the text of Ex. shows 
must refer to something omitted in the existing narrative (see below, % 5). 






entirely in place. 34^""' introduces the terms of the covenant, 
v.''. These agree substantially — often even verbally* — with the 
theocratic section of the "Book of the Covenant" (23^^-); the 
essential parts of which appear to be repeated, with some enlarge- 
ment (especially in the warning against idolatry v.*-"^^, as consti- 
tuting the conditions for the renewal oi the covenant 

In the preceding pages no attempt has been made to give 
more than an outline of the structure of JE's narrative in 
c 19-34. 32-34- Much has been written upon it; but though 
it displays plain marks of composition, it fails to supply the 
criteria requisite for distributing it in detail between the different 
narrators, and more than one hypothesis may be framed which 
will account, at least apparently, for the facts demanding ex- 
planation. It is probable that it reached its present form by a 
series of stages which can no longer, in their entirety, be dis- 
tinguished with certainty. The relation of the Code of Laws in 
2^11.36 tQ ij^g yery similar Code in 2-^^^- is also capable of dif- 
ferent explanations. Hence beyond a certain point the conclu- 
sions of critics are divergent Under the circumstances, it seemed 
wisest to the writer not to include in his analysis more than 
appeared to him to be reasonably probable. 

Those who desire to pursue the subject further should consult Wellh. 
C&mp. pp. 83flr,, 327-333 ; Dillmann, Comm, pp. 189 ff., 331 ff. (who in sonic 
[37] respects lakes a very different view from Wcllh.); Montefiorc, JQf\. 
Jan. 1891, p. 276 ff.; Julichcr, //*?;*. 1882, pp. 295-315 ; and the discussions 
of Budde, Bacon, and Baentsch, cited p. 23. See also OT/C* p. 332 ff. 

By the author — or redactor — of 34^*" in its present form (sec ▼.** ; and cf. 
Dt. lo***) the "ten commandments" (Ileb. "words") of v.*"" are manifestly 
intended to be the Decalogue of 20*'" ; on the other hand, the natural subject 
of aron V.** seems to be Moses (cf. also v."*) : hence it has been inferred hy 
many that, in the original context of v.", the " ten words " were the body of 
laws contained in the preceding verses (v.^""*), which, though now expanded 
\sf the compiler, will in that case have cumpriscd originally ten particular 
injonctioos. Wellb. (/.r. p. 331 f.; of. Stade, Geseh. i. 510) supposes tliis 
second Decalogue to have consisted of 34^*- "■ "• (to >«/) i«*. **. ao. ai^ asb [^jq 
the form of 23^ *•*• "^ Those who adopt this view consider v.' from D'lricna, 
and v.* to Q*»i*T3 — or O'lrKia alone — to be additions made by the compiler ; 
note in v.^ O'lait, not D'UKn, — unless indeed this be merely a textual error. 
On the other hand, it has long been noticed— as by Bertheau (1840), Ewald 

• Cf. V."- «»»■"• ^^ «-" with 23«^ "• »•-". v."**, however, agrees with 
•11 earlier part of JE, via. IJ*^*** 



{Bitt, ii. l66ff.), Dtllmann, Bnggs {Hightr Crii. eftht Htx. 1893, p. 311 XL\ 
— that many of the laws in the Book of ihe Covenant seem to Tall into groupi 
of tm\ and L. B. Paton [J BUS. 1893, p. 79 ff.). developing further the 
views eipressed by these scholars, and comparing partly the ^largely) parallel 
laws in 34"'*, partly the laws in Dt, (which, as will be shown in % 5, depend 
in many cases upon those of Ex.), argues with some force that Ex. 20*^-23* 
and 34**"** are both abbreviations, and in part rcarrangcrocnls, of a common 
longer original, which consisted of eighty or perhaps even of ten^ groups of 
ten laws each, each group being comprised of laws closely related in their 
subject -matter, and being systemalically diWded into two tables of live laws 
each. The decades are: — i. On slavery, 21*- *^ "^^ *■ "^ (males), 21'*" 
(females); 2. On assaults, 2i"*" (punishable with death), ai«-w» si- »«-aT 
(punishable with lighter penalties) ; 3. On domestic animals, 21'"''' (injuries 
dooe hy them), 3i»-**-»n« 22*'* (injuries done U ihcm) ; 4. On property, 
22*^ (in general), 23»»-"- «■ »*■ i«^ »»• (property in £attU\\ 5. On injustice, 
j^ta. lb. fc. 3K I (aoiong equals), ^■^t*-^*^ '• LXX [And thou fihalt not justify 
the wicked] " (on the part of those in authority}; 6. On the saaed 
seasons and the manner of their observance, 23^**"* »>•"»• m^ m*^ 23W. ifc- 1*- 
ito.ub (jIi jmt (j,^ fiyjit of this decade being repeated in 34n- »*■>»• «*•, 
^ta Ik. »b. afc. a 

(cf. 34>"')"(cf. a*"*). 

.1S-1>. »>SL 11 SI-S4. »-ST 

»b.afa. w>) . ^^ On certain religious duties. 34»*- "• »* (cf. 20^) * '•^ " 
(cf. ao*-). 2o»^ Hb. as. »s . g. (do.) 22*^ »*.»..»* 
3^ite. Mb. aoo. iw ( = 23"«) 22"; 9. On purity, Dt. 22* 
22»^(cf. Ex. 22'*), Ex. 22"- "•>»•»; 10. On kindness, Ex. 22«- »»*••»- 
»■» (towards men), 23* ( = DU 22»), Dt. 22^»-< ( = Ex. 23") •-' (towards 
animals). The passages omitted are either laws which cohere badly with the 
context, and have probably been introduced from some diflfercnt source by a 
later hand (Ex. 2l"«»-'» 22="-*-" aj*- la 1*. i»«). or parenetic additions; the 
original form of many of the laws, especially those in Ex. 34 and Dl, was also 
probably much terser than it is now. The scheme is attractive ; but it may be 
doubted whether all the decades are quite clearly an'l naturally constituted. 

C 35-40 form the sequel to c. 35-31, narrating the execu- 
tion of the instructions there communicated to Moses. The 
relation of these chapters to a 25-31 will be best learnt from 
the following synopsis, extracted (with slight modifications) from 
Kuenen's Onderzock (§6. 15), which exhibits at the same lime 
the corresponding passages of the LXX (the order of which in 
several cases differs remarkably from that of the Hebrew) : — 

Hrgrkw Text, 

35'** (the Sabbath ; v,» added). 
**• (the people are invited to bring 
free-wUl offerings). 
••■•• (all skilled workmen invited to 

Creek Text. 

Ex. 25-3'- 

3S*-« (v.* lleb. 

35*'" (with varia- 




Hkbrcw Text. 

Greek Text. 

Ex. 25-31. 

3S"""(thc offerings are presented). 
•-36* (Moses announces to the 




people the appointment of 
Bczaleel and Oholiab). 

36'-' (the presentation of offerings 



•-» (Curtains made for the " taber- 

cf. 37»-». 


nacle" (the |:rt5), and the 

[38I tent over it). 

*** (Boards for the framework of the 

cC 38"-^ 



■«■ (Veil for the Holy of holies. 



and Screen for the entrance 

to the TcDt). 

37^ (the Ark). 
»*»• (Table of Shcwbrcad). 





»-•• (CandlesUck). 



■*^ (Altar of Incense). 



" (Anointinc Oil and Incense). 
38*-' (Altar of Bunit-offcring). 





* (Brazen Laver). 


•■» (Court of the Tabernacle). 



■*'■ (Superscription to the account 
of melaJ employed). 


"* (the accoimt itselQ. 


cf. 30"'". 

39>-« (Vestments for the High Priest 



and the Priests). 

■^ (Delivery to Moses of the com- 


pleted work of the Taber- 
^o'*'^ (Mosea commanded to rear up 

40»-» (v M 


the Tabernacle and to con- 



iccrate the priests). 


"■" (the Tabernacle erected, and 


the sacred vessels arranged io 


their places). 


»*^ (the Cloud and PUlar of Fire). 


In the main, the narrative is repeated verbatim from the 
instructions in c. 25-31, with the simple substitution of past 
tenses for future ; in two or three cases, however, a phrase is 
altered, and there are also some instances of omission or abridg- 
ment Thus a few verses (as 25"-".«o gfiu-is agw.w 29*»-<« 
30^-'^) are omitted, as not needing repetition; others (as 25"- "• 
BO. arb 2630. as. 34.36 ^qC isb. ig-n^ chieay relating to ihe position of the 
different vessels named) are incorporated in c. 40*^'^^, the account 
of the erection of the Tabernacle^ where they naturally belong ; 


and the sections on the Anointing Oil and the Incense (jo^"**- 
3<-38) are merely referred to briefly in a single verse, 37^. In 
C- 39 there are also some noticeable cases of abbreration. The 
only material omissions are the Urim and Thiimmim (28'*'), [39] 
and the consecration of priests (29''^'), which follow in Lev. 8, the 
oil for the lamps (27^^-), and the daily Burnt-offering (tq'*-*'): 
with these exceptions the execution of the instructions contained 
in c 25-31 is related systematically.* The change of order is in 
most cases intelligible. The injunction to observe the Sabbath, 
which closes the series of instructions, stands here in the first 
place. This is followed by the presentition of offerings, and the 
nomination of Bezaleel and Oholiab ; after which is narrated the 
construction of the Tabernacle, of the sacred vessels to be placed 
in it, and of the Altar and Laver, with the Court surrounding 
them. The Sanctuary having been thus completed, the dress of 
the priests is prepared, the work, complete in its different parts, 
delivered to Moses, and the Tabernacle erected and set in 
order. The Altar of Incense and the Brazen Laver, which 
appear in the Appendix to c 25-29 (viz. in c 30), are here 
enumerated in accordance with the place which they properly 
hold, in the Tabernacle (c, 37) and Court (c 38) respectively, 

C 35-40 raise ihe same question of relationship to the main body of P 
which was stated above on c 30C If c. 30 f. be allowed to belong to a 
secondary stratum of P, llie same conclusion will follow for these chapters as 
a necessary corollary; for in c 35-39 the notices referring to c. 30-31 are 
introduced t'n their pr^ptr ^rdtr, and c. 40 alludes to the Altar of Incense, t 
Dillm., though he disputes Wcllh.'s conclusions with regard to c, 30-31, 
agrees with him virtually as regards c 35-40 {NDJ, p. 635). 

5 3. Lbviticus. 

LiTERATiTRE.— See above, p. 1 f. } and add S. R. Driver and !L A. White ia 
Haupt*s Sacred Bi>oki of the OT. 

The Book of Leviticus is called by the Jews, from its opening 
word, K'JP*!. It forms throughout part of the Priests' Code, in 
which, however, c. 17-26 constitute a section marked by certain 

• ^gM-si differs, however, somewhat remarkably from 3tf'''*, 
t For some other grounds, peculiar to these chapters, which are held lo 
point in the same direction, see Kuenen, Hex, S 6. 15. 


special features of its own, and standing apart from the rest of 
the boolc 

I. C. 1-16. Fundnwunial Laws cf SacriJUe^ Purification^ and 

(i.) i*-6^ (c. 1-5 Heb.). Law ef the five principal types of 
[40] C. I. The Burnt-offering (ritual of sacrifice). 
C 2. The Meal-ofTcrtng (ritual of sacrifice)* 

The suortd pere. in 2^*'* (unlike the rest of these chaptcrt) U noticeable, 
and may ha an indication that the ch. is fonned out of a corobiiiation ot 
elements originally distinct. 

C 3. The Peace-oncring (ritual of sacrifice). 

C. 4. The Sin-oflTering (ritual of sacrifice for the four cases 
of unintentional sin, committed by x, the "anointed 
priest" (/>, the Chief priest); 3. the whole people; 3. 
a ruler; 4, an ordinary Israelite). 

^V ft {s not impossible that Lev. 4 may represent a more advanced stage in 
the growth of the sacrificial sjslcm than Ex." Lev. 8-9 ; for here the blood 
of the Sin-ofTcring for the Chief priest and for the people is treated with 
spedal solemnity, being sprinkled against the veil, and applied to the horns 
of the Inccnse-altnr ; whereas in Ex. 29*' Lev. 8" g'- " it is treated precisely 
as prescribed here in the case of the ordinary Sin-oflTerirg, v,*-***** (see 
Welih. Comp. p. 138 f.). — A law for the Sin-offering both of the people and 
of an indiridual is contained also in Nu. I5'*''^. 

5'-". Appendix to a 4, containing (i) examples of unin- 
tentional sins, requiring a Sin-offering, v.^-*; (2) pro- 
vision for the case of those whose means did not suffice 
for the ordinary sin-ofTering, v.^'". 

^14.57 (jHM Heb.). The Guilt-oflering (three cases, or 
groups of cases — viz. different cases oifraudy or sacrilege 
— defined, in which the Guilt-offering is incurred). 

On 5"***, which enjoins a C«(7f-offering for (apparently) the same case 
for which in 4'''- a J'/w- offering is prescribed, see DiUm. ad ioc.\ Stade, Gesth, 

PU. 256 C 
(ii.) 6*-c 7 (a 6-7 Heb.). A manual of priestiy directions 
under eight heads. 

6*"^'. Regulations to be observed by the priest in sacrificing 
the Burnt-offering. 


6**'". Regulations to be observed by the priest in sacrificing 
the Meal-ofiering. 

'•■^^ The High Priest's daily Meal-ofl*ering. 

•••'*', Regularions to be observed in sacrificing the Sin- 

7'-\ Ritual of the Guiltoflering (which is not defined in 
5"-6^), with an appendix, v.*-^** (arising out of v.*^, on 
the priests* share in the Burnt- and Meal-ofTering. 
[41] "•2>. On the sptdes of Peace offering (the ThanV-offering, 
v.^^"" \ the Vow* and the VoIuntary-ofTcring, v.'*'), with 
the conditions to be obscn'cd by the worshipper in 
eating the flesh. 

*^". Fat (of ox, sheep, and goat In all cases, and of other 
animals dying naturally or torn of beasts) and blood 
(generally) not to be eaten. 

•^. The priests' share of the Peace-offering, viz. the 
" heave-leg " and the "wave-breast" 

■*"••. First subscription to the preceding section, 6*-7'* (in 
so far as this comprises regulations respecting the priests' 
share in the different offerings). 

■''*•. Second more general subscription. 

This subscription relates to e'-c 7 only, which forms an independent 
collection of laws linked together by the same formula thai is used here, vii. 
This is thi lam of , , , {&• **■ " 7^- ") : only the laws thus introduced are 
recognised in the subscription, where ihey occur in the same order : * 6'*** 
(otherwise introduced, and not, as it seems, recognised in the subscription) 
was perhaps not originally part of the collection ; y*"*" (regulating the con- 
ditions under which animals mi^ht be used for food) may be regarded as an 
appendix to ?"*", being probably placed here on account of the Peace- 
offering being accompanied by a sacrificial meal ; the subject of 7'*^ is also 
cl(»sely connected with the Peace-offering, and may be fairly regarded as com- 
prehended in the heading 7". 

The main distinction between c. 1-6^ and 6"-c. 7 Is that while the laws 
of the former group relate, as a nilc, to the manner in which tfu sacrifict 
itsti/is to be offered, the latter contain regulaii<ms ancillary to this, t.f;. con- 
cerning the dress of the oRidating priest, the fire on the aliar, the portions to 
be eaten by the priest or the worshipper (as the case may be), (he disposal of 
the flesh of the Peace-offerings (as opposed to the parts which went upon the 

• In the existing l«l of Lev. 6'-c. 7 nollnng corresponds to the "con- 
secration" ofTeiing of 7''; either the cxprci&ion rests on a misinterpretation 
of g»-9 or ^ ]a^ on this subject may h^ive l-ccn omitted t>y ttie cotnpilir of P 
in view of the fuller treatment in Ex. 29. 



', c 3), etc. The ireaimcnt is not, however, perfrclly Mnifr>nn thniugh* 
mil: 00 Ihe analogy of r. 1-4. T*' (the t-ifua/ of the Guilt-offering) shoulH 
^ctipy the pl4£C of — or, at least, precede (cf. c. 4 before 5^"*; — 5"-6' (the 
«uts in whjdi the Guilt-offering is to be paid). 

1(iii.) C. 8-xo. Th£ conucration of the priests^ and iheir solemn 
entry upon office, 
C. 8. Aaron and his sons consecrated to the priesthood in 

accordance with the instructions Ex. 29*"^, 
[42] C. 9. Aaron and his sons solemnly enter upon their office. 
C. 10^"'^. Nadab and Abihu punished for offering strange 

fire : the priests forbidden to mourn for them. 
a-9 oo-ii). Priests forbidden to drink wine while officiating. 
IMS -phe priests' share in the Meal-offerings and Peace 

ift-20^ A law in narrative foim determining that, in the 

people's Sin-offering (the blood of which was not v.'* 

(cf. 9**' •) brought within the Tabernacle), the flesh 

should be eaten by the priest, not burnt without the 
. camp (as had been done 9**, cf. v.'*). 

This Uw is a correction of the usage followed In 9^* (see 9**) — which is 
iu agreement with the analogy of the injunction Ex. 29^*, and its execution 
I^v, giT — on the ground of the regulation in c. 4, according to which the 
flesh of only those Sin-offerings was to be burtti^ of which the blood had been 
brought within ihe Talicmacle and applied to the Altar of Incense (4'''^ ; 
cf. 6*). The connexion of to***- with lo* is imperfect, the subject treated 
being in reality a different one (sec li** ; and comp. E«. 44" beside t.*')- 
Unless the rendering of RV. marg, be adopted— which, though gram* 
matically possible, is somewhat artifidal — it would almost seem aa if lo'^ 
had been transplanted from its original context. 

(iv.) C. 1 1- 1 6. Laws of Purification and Atonement 
C. ir. Clean and unclean animals. 
(1) Animals unclean as food: (a) Quadrupeds (nona), 
v.*^ ; (fi) aquatic creatures (D*Dn pc ** swarming * things 
of the waters"), v. ••*■; (c) flying creatures ("IW), o, 
birds, V.''"** ; ^. flying insects (e)iyn pC " swarming 
tilings that fly "), v.*'*^* ; (^ creeping insects and reptiles 
(pKH ^V T^^ Pl^v? " swarming things that swann upon 
the earth"), v.*^-**, with conclusion, v."'**- (2) On the 
pollution caused by contact with the carcases of certain 
animals, v.""*** V.**^^ subscription. 

* Oo this rendering, sec Clark's BibU Diet, s.v. Ckbkpino THINGS. 



V.*-" lecurs, wilh verbal diffcrcnocs (the two texts arc printed in paraJlrl 
columns ia the writer's Deu^, pp. t57'i59). in Dt. 14'". The law, in its 
primiliTC form, is, no doubt, older than eiihcr Lev. or Dt., and appears 
(Paton, yott/w. of BibL Lit. 1895, p. 48 ff.) to be preserved on the whole 
more exactly in Dt. than in Lev., the variations in Lev. betokening generally 
the hand of the priestly author (or editor) of P. The original law may be 
read probably in Dt 14^ •-* {to yom) •*", Lev. Ii"'*, Dl 14", Lev. 
ll"-»- «*■••*. (On •'abomination" in this ch., cf. CUs\i% Bible Diet, s.v.) 

V.**"* appears also to be a later insertion in the duptcr ; for the sub- 
scription, v.***-, notices only the four classes of creatures not to be ru/frt (v.** » 
i»-«; ••11 : «-<')j and ignores the contents of v.**"* (creatures whose carcases 
arc not to be foucheti) \ these verses, moreover, ditfcr from the rest of the ch., 
in that ihey define the purification rendered necessaiy by non-observance of 
the regulations prescribed. 

[43] C 12. Purification after child-birth. 

This ch. would more suitably follow c 15, with which it 11 connected in 
subject, and which, indeed, it presupposes in v.* (see 15**). 

C 13-14. Leprosy. 

Diagnosis of leprosy in man, 13'"** ; leprosy in clothing and 
leather, v.*^"^ ; purification of the leper, 14^'^ ; leprosy 
in a house, v.^^^ ; subscription to the whole, v.**-'^ 

C. 15. Purification after certain natural secretions, 

C. 11-15 ^^ linked together by the recurring colophon This is thi 
iawof , , , 11* 12' 13* I4«- ^)- •» 15". 

C. 16. Ceremonial of the Day of Atonement 

V.*"* Historical introduction. — V.*-" Preparations for the ceremonial pre- 
scribed in v.*'"=* (Aaron's dress, selection of animals, &c). — V."*" Aaron to 
offer the lin-effering (^ bullock) for himself. — V.'*"" Aaron to make atone- 
ment for the sanctuary (v."*-), and the Altar of Burnt-offering (v."'), with 
the sin-ojfering (a goat) offered on behalf of the people. — V.**'" The sins of 
the people to be confessed over the other goat (v."- "), whicli is then to be 
led away into the wilderness for AzozeL — V.*"** Aaron to offer the bumi' 
offerings (two rams) for himself and for the people. — V.*** Subordinate 
iiistmclions. — V.*"** The people, on the day on which atonement is made 
for them, to practise self-denial, and to abstain from all labour. 

The introduction, v.', directly connects this ch. with c. la Whether it 
was originally separated from c 10 by c lt-15 (esp. when the different 
character of the introductions ll' 13* 14" 15^ is considered) may be 
doubtful. At the same time, the position which c 11-15 ^°* occupy is a 
thoroughly appropriate one: "They come a//ir the consecration of the 
priests, whose functions concerning the * clean ' and ' unclean ' they regulate, 
and bifort llie law of the Day of Atonement, on which the sanctuary is 
cleansed from the pollutions caused by involuntary uncleanneu of priests 
and people" (Kucn. p. 82 ; so Wellh. p. 130). 



The ch. dais m reality with two subjects, vii. (i) the conditions under 
which the high priest might enter the Holy of holies (see v.'), and (2) an 
atoning ceremony, to be enacted once annually, on behalf of the nation. As 
here treated, these subjects are imperfectly connected together ; and hence 
Beniingcr iZj4TlV. 1889, pp. 65-89), with whom Nowack {//tir, Arth, ii. 
187 ff.) agrees, argues tliat the ch. is of composite authorship, its nucleus, as 
be supposes, consbting of v. ***• •(""»• "■"• "» (conditions of the high priest's 
entering the Holy of holies), and v.*"**" (an independent law, prescribing a 
idatively simple annual rite of atonement: cf, 23***'), while v> '-*"•"-• 
present a subsequent development of the older rite, which was introduced Into 
the ch. by a later hand, and interwoven, as it now stands, with directions 
relating to Aaron alone, on account of its having become the cu<Liom for the 
Kgh priest to enter the Holy of holies on the Day of Atonement only. It 
is highly probable that the ritual of tlie Day of Atonement (cf. Ex. 45'^^) 
was once simpler than that now prescribed in this ch. ; but, though the proposed 
analysis is very suggestive, it may be doubted whether the stages through 
which the ritual passed are fully represented by it : v." (cf. 23*'') appears lo 
presuppose more special rites than the nucleus of the ch., as ilius defined, 
makes provision for. Compb AtONEMKNT, Dav OF, in Clark's Sibk 
Dictionary^ ph 200, 



II. C 17-26. The Law of Holiness. 

Literature. — Graf, Die GeschithtHchtn Bu(her des AT.s (iS66)| pp. 
75-S3 ; N"-»ldeke, UnUrsuchungtn (1869), pp. 62-71 ; Kayser, Das Vore^xi' 
Uscht Buck tier 0'r£tsckifkte Ixr. (1874). pp. 176-184 ; Klustermann, Hat 
Eu<hitl die in Lev^ 1&-26 am detittichsten erkennbare Ctsttusstuttmtung 
vetfastfi in the Z. fUr Lutk, 7'heobgie^ 1877, pp. 406-445 (reprinted in 
Der PentaUwk^ 1893, p. 368 ff.) ; WcUhauscn, Cotnp. pp. 151-175; 
Delitzsch, Studien (1880), aii. p. 617 ff. ; Horst, Leviticus xvii.-xxvL 
und ffeukiel {CoXmta, 1881); Wurster in the ZAThV, 18S4, pp. 112-133; 
Kuenen, Hexateuck^ $§6. 24-28; 14. 6; 15. 5-10; Riehm, EinUitung 
(1889), i. 177-202; H^cntscht Das //eiiigkei/s-Gese/t, 1893, 

We arrive here at a group of chapters which stand by them- 
selves in P. \Vhile in general form and scope appertaining to 
P, they difTer from the main body of P by the presence of a 
foreign e/emen/, which manifests itself partly in the style and 
phraseology, pardy in the motives which here become prominent. 
The phenomena which the chapters present arc explained by llie 
supposition that [44] first an independent collection of laws was 
edited, with parenetic additions, by a compiler (R**), and that 
afterwards the whole thus formed was incorporated in P, either 
by the author of P, or by a redactor writing under the influence 
of P (R**), — sometimes with modifications introduced for the 
purpose of adjusting it more completely to tlie spirit and system 



of P, at other times interwoven with elements derived from P. 
The elements thus united with P are distinguished from it, partly 
by the predominance of certain expressions never, or very rarely, 
found in P (or indeed in the Hexateuch generally), partly by the 
prominence given to particular principles and motives : the 
parenetic framework with which the laws have, in certain cases, 
been provided is also contrary to P.'s usuid style. The principle 
which determines most conspicuously the character of the entire 
section is that of hoHness — partly ceremonial, partly moral — as a 
quality distinguishing Israel, demanded of Israel by Jehovah 
(19' aoT-*'^ 2i«-»- "'-^aa^- '••"), and regulating the Israelite's 
life. Holiness is, indeed, a duty laid upon Israel in other parts 
of the Pent,;* but while elsewhere it appears merely as one 
injunction among many, it is here insisted on with an emph.isis 
and frequency which constitute it the leading motive of the 
entire section. In consequence of this very prominent character- 
istic, the present group of chapters received from Klostermann 
in 1877 the happily-chosen title of Das Heiliskeitssesttz^ or 
"The Law of Holiness," which it has since retained. 

That these chapters of Lev. are rightly treated as containing 
an independent body of laws, appears not merely from the dis- 
tinctive character thus belonging to them, but, further, from the 
somewhat miscellaneous nature of their contents (as compared 
with Lev. 1-16^^), from the recurrence in them of subjects that 
have been dealt with before, not only in Ex. 20-23, ^"^ *^so in 
P (comp. i7><^"and i^^'\ i9«-* and -i^^^^-^ 20-^ and c. 11), and 
from the fact that they open with instructions respecting the 
place of sacrifice, and close with a parenetic exhortation, exactly 
in the manner of the two other Pentateuchal Codes, the ** Book 
of the Covenant " (Ex. 2o^'*-^ ^y^^') and the code in Deuteronomy 
(Ot. 12 and 28). The laws, no doubt, in substance, if not also 
in form, date in general from a much older time than that of the 
collector (R'') who [45] first fitted them into their present frame- 
work. It will be convenient to denote the laws thus incorporated 
in P, with their parenetic framework, by the abbreviation H.\ H 
has points of contact with P, but lacks many of its most character- 

* Id JE Ex. 22** (though in % ceremonial rather than ia ■ monl 00a- 
ncxion); and in Dt. 14*-". 

t Kuenen uses the symbol P', dtsdngntshing different strata of d»e PlicsC^ 
Code (dcDOLed by P in the present voluuie) as P' and F*. 



istic features. Ezekiel, the priestly prophet, has affinities with P, 
but his affinities with H are peculiarly striking and numerous : 
the laws comprised in H are frequently ijuoted by him, and the 
parenetic passages contain many expressions — sometimes remark- 
able ones — which otherwise occur in Ezekiel alone 

List of phrases chamcterislic of c 17-26 : — 
I, m.T *M I am Jthovah^ esp. at the end of an injuDction or scries of 

injanctioiis (nearly fifty times): 18*- 
la la ia« la m. u.* as. m.« >&« st ^o'* *-t 

Ejt^ 5(«.a)a» i2>«*29 

• <.*aLai.ii t 

«.• It.* U.11. 



11. la+si 


t«t 12*- •■•••i' 

24"» 3S"» »+ " • 26>» «■ '^X •*•• • So 
*»• (cf. 31"* t), Nu, 3M«A«.« io»»» x5«*-$ 

19** ao* ai'.t a. 11*^" 

22a la » So Ex. 3i» 

So i5»,Nu.5" 

^ abl 

^H a. mm 'iit nip <3 /br IJtkovah am My 

^^B (For 1 am holy). 

^H 3. T^io/ sanetify you {tAem, &c.) : 20» 2I*- "■ 

H Et.20»37»t 

^H 4. r^M r'le for whoever : 1 7* •■ "■ " 18* 20^ • la* *• 24**, 

^H 9'», Ez. 14^ ' (with ^Jt-iT' n'30 as ch. I?* •• "). 

^H 5. / will u( ('mji) «y /ir* agahtst . . . : 17" ao"" • (•>» •non) • a6". 

^B So Ez. I4« 15^ ^ (ce), Jcr. 21" (Dr). 44" (er).T 

^P 6. i will cut off from tht midst of his {its ^ their) ftoplex I7"2cA*-*.§ 

' Cf. Ei, I4» ( . , , t^w? : in Lev. a-v??). 

[46] 7. ropna iS.i /a tpa*!^ //i the statutes : iS* 20* 26*. Also I KL 3* 6", 
a Ki. I7« " ; but chiefly in Ki.. vii. 5*- » II* 18* " 30* »•• "■ " 
33" : cf. Jcr. 44" (Tijinai -n-jviaj.t 

8. •OBTDi 'fiipn m_^ statutes and my judgments; 18* (inverted) •• " 19H 


9, To observe and do: 18* 19" 20>- » 22** 25" 26". 
la -^ /ah-ttejctof-hini i8**- * " (niitp) 20»» 2i«, Nu. 37"; -asf 

vi)^ i8* 25*. Not so elsewhere. 

11. aw evil purpose (of unchostUy) : 18" 19* ao"**. So Jod. ao*, Hos. 
6» (?). Jcr. 13", Er, ib"- «- « 22a » 23I1. «. «. «. 44. a «. <• ^^i*^ j^t 
31". (Id RV. often lewdness.) 

12. n*ou neighbour. i8« 19I1. »*. " 24" as"*** »■" 5"**. ZedL I3^f 
A peculiar tcrro ; cot the ooe m ordiiury u*e. 

• Followed hyyour [their) God. 

t Followed by the participial clause that sanctify you (vl/m, ^r.). 

X Followed I7 a relative claase. 

t The arrow (both here and elsewhere) denotes that all instances ot the 
word or phrase referred 10 that occur iu the OT. have been died. The 
distinttive character of an expression is evidently the more ouLrkcdr and the 
agreement between two writers who use it is the more striking, in proportion 
to the rarity with which it occurs in the OT. generally, 

I In P always " shall be cut off" (see p. 133). In general the Divine " I " 
appears here with a prominence which it never assumes in the lawi of P. 



13, Te profane — tht name ef Jtkavah 18" 19" %<^ 21* 22*^ *■ (Am. 3\ 
Isa. 48") : a holy thing ox sanctuary \<f 21"- " 22** (so Nu. iS**) : 

in other connexions ig* 2i''*»' " 22' : corop, 21* 

SoEi- 31" (of 

the Sabbath). So often in Ezek. : oi Jehtrvah 13" 22" ; His name 
aoi. 14. tt » ^fiso-a jgT . jfij tabbaths 20'»- »*• "• " 22» 23" (Isa. 
56** •) ; His holy things or sanctuary 22* 23" 44*" ; cf. also 7"- *■• •• 
22" 24" 25' 25'- *■• ". Obviously the correlative of Nos, 2, 3. 

14. My sahbaihsx ig*- *• 26^. Ex. 31", Ex. 20»^ "->«•»«•« a2«- * 23» 

44»», Isa. 56*. T 

15. D'S'Sm things of nought -^vaiH gods : 19* 36*. Not elsewhere in Pent. 

CbieHy besides in Isaiah (9 limes, and S'Smh once). 

16. T-nSltD nitTi at$d thou shali be afraid of thy Godi t9'*- " 25"- *• *. 

17. (en o.Tcn) 13 VD1 his (their) blood shxxil be upon him {them): ao^ "■ 

im-w-TT^ Ex. 18" {n\T u itn) 33* (.rn- uiEn).t (The ordinary 
phrase is inn(3) Vy ion.) 


)& a IT. c. la 

The bread of [their) God ; 21*- ■■ "■ "• - 22' 
3i»- "). El. 44^t (Ex. l6» diffcrcDtly.) 

Nu. 2P (cf. v.»*, Ler. 

19*. Non KD to bear sin : ig" 22", Nu. 
1 9*". (D)iKnn (i)itr) to bear his [their) sin 
20*. (D)ilijf (i)Kri to bear his [their) ini^uily : 17" 19" 20 

i8«-»; cf. E«.23«.f 
; 20»24i», Nu. 9»t 

,17. It 

So 5 


7« Nu. s" I4>* (cf. 15" 33 aiiy), Ex. 14" 44»»- ".T 
ao^ py Kr3 /<» bear iniquity : Ex. 28* ; cf. Lev. 22*',| 
IKf., , , 1^2, KP3 /tf i«r /A* iniquity of, . . { = be responsible for) : Ex. 

28**, Nu, l8^- ' ; so bear their iniquity , v." (see Dillm. ; and ccMnp. 

Wcllh. Comp. p. 34i).t 
ao*. , . . to bear the iniquity of another I Lev. 10" 16", Nu. 30" [H."], 

Ex. 4** «■ *■ ' (not always in the same application). So ttt^n mvi to boar 

the sin ofmasjy. Is. 53"i 

[47] The distinctive prominence attached in this group of chapters 
to the ideas of holiness, and of the reverence due to Jehovah or 
to a holy thing, will be evident from this collection of charac- 
teristic expressions. Amongst the expressions quoted, several 
instances of agreement with Ezekiel will have been observed; 
others will be noticed subsequently (§ 7), when the nature of the 
relation subsisting between Ezekiel and the *'Law of Holiness" 
comes to be considered more particularly. The principal critical 
problem which the chapters present is the separation of their 
original nucleus from the subsequent priestly additions. 
We may now proceed to examine c. 17-26 in detail. 

G 1 7 treats oifour subjects : — 

I, Animals (of a kind offered in sacrifice), when slain 
for food, to be presented at the central sanctuary, 
and their flesh eaten there as a Peace-offering, 



slua §at sstTT/Lt to be oBoed obAj to 

J^hanh, aad at the oenm] sanct uii y , v.*^. 
5. Blood not to be eaten: in the case of aninuls of a 

kind 00c oOered in sacriSoe, it b to be poorcd 

upon tbe cai^ t."*^*. 
4. Tbe fledk of »mm»h dying nitunny, or torn by 

beasts, not to be eaten, v.^*^. 

C 17 hflnapintbc— in to H; faoc tke teit ii aixed, die icfakt>om ia 
ibeir onpnal fam bsving l e ctit od ■iVtiliiiMi at ^e buads at the priesdy com- 
pder (R'>f far the pcip o ac of Ukig i ue tbcB sto greater oonformity with P : 
vk. (huoo) T." (the editona] dtk), t,* (the words ** ia Uw camp . . . with- 
out the camp "Ot ▼-*'*(" ncto (at) tbe door of die tcM of aiecciae "},▼.* <**cwa 
tliat . . . oato tbe pciest," and **of peoce-ofleriag**), r.* (the wbole], v.^ 
r.**" (" wbether ... his flesh, then be ** ; accotding to olhen, the «hoIe 
of T.""" is a priestly addition). XN^hether whal remains in t,»-\ alter ihese 
additjoos hare been remoTed^ is in its proper place, is also donbtiul ; fbc it 
slates in reality a motive not for t.*~* bat for t. *~*, Compw the uuUysis and 
notes in Haapc's SBOTi Baentsch, pp. 13-23 ; Paton, I.e. [p. 46], pp. 53-5$. 

On if-"*, and iu relation to Dt li***-, see (1) Wcllh. Cmt/l 15^-154, 
flisn 50 f. 377 ; Hofst, 60 ; Kuen. g 6. 27, 28 ; 14. 6 ; 15. $, 9 ; and csp^ 
Baentsch, pu I16 f., who atgue that the injunction belongs historically to the 
period intermediate between Dt and P {ue, to the e&ile] ; (a) Del. Stttditm, 
447 t, 623, who argues that it is older than Dt, and abrogated by it (so 
Dillm. £L. 535); (3) Killel, Tktci. Stmittm am H'irtUmher^, 18S1. 42 ff., 
Catk. 99, and Baodissin, Prigstcrtkum^ 47, following Kayser and Diestel (cf. 
also Dilim. EL. 536 : W. R. Smith, OTJC, 249 ; Atisvnr u tk* Amended 
UheJ (Edin. 1879). 61-64, 7'. 73)i who think that in iu original form the law 
OODtaincd no reference to the central sanctuaiy, but presupposed %.pluraiitjf of 
legal sanctuaries (Ex. 20** ; cf. i Sa. 14****), and was accommodated to the 
single sanctuary only when it was incorporated id P. The law is not strictly 
consistent with P; for in P (Lev. 7"'*') the slaughtering of animnis for 
Cood is freely permitted, the only restriction being that their &t and bluod 
are not to be eaten. The third of the opinions quoted appears to be the 
most probable. 

To many of the laws in II there are pamllcls in the other Codes. See 
the passages quoted in the Synopsis uf Dt,, p. 73 fl^ 

C. 18. Unlawful marriages and unchastity; and Molcch 
worship, V,**. 

(4S} Entirely H. Observe the plan of the chapter : the laws themselves occupy 
the central part v.*"** ; ».'*•■ **••• form respectively a parenctic introduction and 
conclusion. The characteristics of H ore very evident in the style of tbe 
parenelic portion, and also in the refmin ** I am Jehovah," both there (t.*^ 
«.ik mi} jnd in ti,e laws (v.*- "'»). No doubt the laws themselves were 
found by the complcr of H already formulaledt and he merely provided 



ihera with ihc parenetic selUng. The /otpr, it may be "bvrrvcd. »r« in Ih^ 
and pere. st'n^., Ihc parenrtir p,>riion5 in the and pers. flural. V.*-"", where 
(see the Hcb.) the slandpoint changes, and the conquest is looked back upon 
as past, may be ( Talon) " a later editor's sermon upon v.** a5 a text. " 

C 19. A collection of miscellaneous laws, regulating 
(chiefly) the religious and moral behaviour of the 
Israelites, in the manner of parts of Ex. 20-23, ^^^ ^'^^^ 
a more distinct predominance of the ethical element. 

Likewise H, except, probably, t,*"-. V,» (" Ye shall be holy/' Ac ) sUles 
the fundamental principle from which the special precepts which follow are 
deduced. The ch. (excluding v.*"*) may be divided into three ports : (l ) ».*"* 
laws analogous to the first table of the Decalogue ; (2) ▼.•■" laws analogous 
to the SKond tabic. Mere, however, v.^' deals with a difTerent subject, viz. 
unnatural mixtures, in three precepts, with a new introduction. And ▼.*, 
treating of a very special case of unchastity, and (unlike v.*"**) in the third 
person, belongs rather to c. 20, where it would stand suitably after v.*. 
Either it has been removed here by accident, or it was once accompanied by 
other laws on the same subject, omitted by the compiler in view of c. 18 and 
20. V.^^ is alien to the general tenor of either this ch. or c. 20, and appears 
to be an addition from the point of view of P. (3) V.**, a kind of su[^te- 
ment to v.'~", with a special introduction, v.", and containing injunctions of 
a somewhat more general character ; notice in v.** the extension of the 
principle of v.'* ('*thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself" [vii. among 
the "children of thy people"]) to the "stranger" {the m, or rteidcnt 
foreigner). The 2nd pers. sing, preponderates (though it is not used ex 
clusively) in v.*"", the and pers. plural in v.*** *»'*', In v.***» the laws appear 
ofien to be arranged in Ptntads^ or groups of five, each closed by the refrain 
(implying the ground of their observance) / ant Jthavak : see V.**** ""^ ***'*■ 
'»•'•■"-"•>• (incomplete). 

V.*^ deals with a point of ritual, vie the period within which the flesh 
of the peace-offerings might be consumed. The law laid down here ts in 
yi»"ii (pj xetained only for two of the three species into which the peace- 
ofTering is there divided, vit. the Vow and the Voluntary -offering ; for the 
third species, the Thank^ving-offering, the stricter rule of 22^* is pre- 
scribed. The solution of the discrepancy is to be found in (he fact that in 
H the Pcace-offeriiig and the Thanksgiviog-ofTering are rtf*ordiiute (22"*"), 
while in P the latter has been r»^ ordinated to the Peace-offering, as one of its 
three species. 

C. 20. Penalties enjoined for certain offences specified in 
c 18 and i9*^»i: viz. (i) Molech worship, and con- 
sultation of ghosts or familiar spirits, v.'-^; (2) (chiefly) 
unlawful marriages and unchastity, v>2\ with conclu- 
sion, V.*****, and supplement, v.'' (a man or woman, in 
whom is a ghost, or a familiar spirit, to be put to death). 



[4OI The Uir8 forming the body of the ch. are provided with a parenetic 
introduction and conclusion (v.**' partly, v,'"*, v.***") in the same style as 
c 18, and evidently by the same band (R^). It 11 commonly considered that 
c. 18 stales the prohibitions, and c 20 prescribes the penalties incurred by 
disobedience to them ; but though this niay be the relation between the two 
chapters which guided the compiler in placing them where they now stand, it 
may be doubted whether it is the principle which determined their original 
composiHon ; for the correspondence is imperfect ; not only does the order of 
cases differ, but four of the cases named in c. 18 (v.'- *•• ''^ *•) are not noticed 
here. Nevertheless, the two lists have many features in common ; and they 
may well have been drawn up by the same writer, though not with the 
definite intention of their supplementing one another. As in the case of 
c 18, the parenelic framework is probably all that is due to the compiler of 
H, v.*** introduces a short injunction (v.") on the distinction of dean and 
unclean food, which, to judge from the general character of the " Law of 
Holiness," must once have been accompanied by fuller definitions on the 
same subject (analogous to those which now stand in c li)s* v.*'^'^ has 
fcatuies in common with II**"**. V." is supplementary to r.*, 

C. 21-2 2. Regulations touching priests and ofTeiings, under 
five main heads — (i) Ceremonial restrictions obligatory 
in domestic life upon (a) the ordinary priests, ai'*'; 
(b) the high priest, ai^o-is ; (a) the conditions of bodily 
perfection to be satisfied by those discharging priestly 
duties, 2i"*2*; (3) the two conditions for partaking 
in the sacrificial food, viz. ceremonial purity and 
membership in a priest*s family, aa^-'*: (4) animals 
offered in sacrifice to be free from imperfections, 
J2IT-25 . (^j three special injunctions respecting sacri- 
fices, 22**^, with concluding exhortation, 22'*-**. 

The contents of both chapters are e\'idrntly determined by the main idea 
of the code ; they show how the " Law of Holiness" is to be observed in its 
application to the priesthood and to sacrifices. Both also exhibit repeatedly 
the characteristic phraseology and motives of H ; the only question is whether 
they belong to it entirely. In the laws themselves there is little that is akin 
to P; it is probal>Ie, therefore, that these are derived mainly from II, the 
parts exhibiting the ideas of P being chiefly redactional additions. Thus the 
laws themselves use the uncommon expressions *' «a/ of Aaron" ai"- " 
a****, and "the priest that is chief among his brethren" (for the "chief 
priest ") ; tike superscriptions and sub^riptions use the more fixed phraseology 
of P, " the sons of Aaron," ai'* " ai** "•, and were probably added later : in 
2|l*u there is, further, a disagreement between the superscription {in which 
ihe priestt are addressed) and the laws that folti)W (in which the priests urc 
spoken of in the 3rd pers., and the ftopU^ t.', are addressed), [50] which 

• Wellh. p. 158 ; Klost. Der Pent. p. 377 j Riehra, pL 184. 



rapports the same conclusion. Other isolated phrases which may be assigned 

to RPare 3i"('*upon . . , garments"), v. '=»•('• for 

him"), v."^ (• 

pw S8».)» ▼•" ("go in . . . nor"), see Wellh. p. l6o f, ; in the original law, 
also, the priests, probably, were not brought into relation wiih Aaron, stai 
ef Aaron having been altered from sad of ih* priests. Cf. Baentsch, p. 39 fT., 
according to whom the original nucleus of c. 21-23 consisted of ai*^^**- *"■>• 
jji-T. i»-i4. »-» The conclusion 22"-*" is in the style of l8»*» 19" 20*-'' (H). 

C 23. A calendar of sacred seasons,* in particular (v>'') 
of the days on which " holy convocations," i>. religious 
assemblies, were appointed to be held^ with particulars 
respecting the manner of their observance. The days 
stated are the following : all Sabbaths, the ist and 7th 
days of Ma^zoth^ the Feast of Weeks, New Yeai^s Day, 
the Day of Atonement, the ist and 8th (or super- 
numerary) day of the Feast of Booths. 
The elements of which the ch. is composed consist of 
excerpts from two sources ; laws from H and P having been 
combined so as mutually to supplement one another, — in all 
probability by a compiler (R^) living subsequently to both, and 
representing the principles of P. 

\P 23'-« 


Our guide in analysing the chapter must be the title (v.** •) 
and subscription (v.^"^^*), which authorize us to expect an 
enumeration of " holy convocations." V."* "-* correspond with 
the terms of the title ; the Sabbath, and the first and seventh 
days of Mazzoth^ were observed by " holy convocations." (It is 
true that the Passover-day v.* was not so observed j but the 
Passover appears to be mentioned here, not on its own account, 
but rather as introductory to Mazzoth^ v.<^.) V>" prescribes 
an offering of a sheaf, as the first-fruits of the harvest, on " the 
morrow after the Sabbath." This injunction (t) falls outside 
the scope of the calendar, as fixed by the title ; it relates [51] to 
an offering to be made on a day for which no convocation is pre- 
scribed ; moreover, in its present connexion (3) there is nothing 
to fix the day which is meant, an indication — as Delitzsch 
remarks — that tlie passage no longer stands in its original 

• bnjno " ftaled times," RV. (usually^ " set {or appointed) feasts," m wider 
term than in *' pilgrimage," which denotes the three "feasts** bbstrved as 
pi Ig I images, viz, .l/asfO/A, Weeks, and Ingathering {Ex. 23'*'"). 




context (which must naturally have specified the "Sabbath" in- 
tended).* V,**" (in the main : c£ p. 56 ft.) belongs thus to H. 

V.I*-" (Feast 01* Weeks). Here only v.^i falls within the 
scope of the title; the rest (i) depends upon the same com- 
putation from the undefined "Sabbath" as v>** ; (2) prescribes 
an oflcring of similar kind to that in v.", viz. of the wave-loaf, 
which falls outside the category of the sacrifices named in the 
subscription, v.'^ v.**"^* '* (in the main) will belong accordingly 
to H ; with v.** comp. 19'^' (also H). 

V.»-2* (New Year's Day). v.2«-52 (Day of Atonement), v.»»^ 
(Feast of Booths, with a supernumerary eighth day), agree with 
the terms of the title, prescribing observances for the days on 
which the " holy convocations " were to be held. V.^^'- is the 
subscription corresponding to the title, v> *. According, 
now, to V.** *• "•** the subject to be dealt with in the chapter is 
completed ; it is surprising, therefore, a//fr the subscription, 
v.*^'', to find a group of additional regulations, v.^^'. These 
verses, enjoining certain usages in connexion with the Feast of 
Booths, and explaining the significance of this name, form an 
appendix, derived from H (notice the refrain in *^^}, but accom- 
modated to P by slight additions introduced by a later hand, 
(i) In H — to judge by the analogy of v.*** (" when ye reap the 
harvest ") and v.^* (the date in which depends upon that fixed in 
v.*°) — tlie date of the Feast of Booths was fixed only in general 
terms by the dose of the period of harvest (" when ye have 
gathered in the increase of the land ") ; it is probable, therefore, 
that the words, "on the 15th day of the 7th month," are an 
insertion in the original law, made with the object of harmon- 
izing it more completely with the definite date of P in v.** ; 
(2) v,**, after stating that the feast is to last for sevtn days, 
proceeds to add, " on the first day and on the eighth day shall 
be a solemn rest;" in v.***'^^ however, this eighth day [52] is 
consistently ignored, tliough the seven days are spoken of 
repeatedly. It can scarcely be doubted that in v.™ the words, 
"on the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the eighth day 
shall be a solemn rest," are a second insertion, made by a later 

* It U ocderstood tnulitionaUy of ihe 1st day of Mattoth (10 that the 
*' morrow " would be Nisan 16) ; but this la not the usual sense of " Sabbath." 
In its original connexion, the *' Sabbath'* meant was probably the ordinal^ 
weekly Sabbath that fell during the seven days of Ma\^oik» 



hand for the purpose of bringing the appendix into formal agree- 
ment with v.^*, where, it is to be noticed, the eighth day is 
introduced in a natural and orderly manner, after the seven have 
been dealt with, expressly as an additional observance. In 
point of fact, under Solomon this feast was observed for seven 
days — on the eighth day the king sending the people away 
(i Ki. 8^) ; in post-exilic times, a supernumerary eighth day is 
mentioned, with express reference to the law of P here, Neh. 8" j 
a Ch. 7* (where the text of Kings is altered).* 

The common characteristic of the parts of this calendar 
which belong to H b the relation in which the feasts stand to 
the land and to agricuiturc : the " morrow after the Sabbath " 
during Mazzotk^ the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths, 
all alike mark stages in the ripening of the produce of the soil ; 
the first cut sheaf, the completed barley and wheat harvest (the 
loaf), the end of the vintage. The feasts are significant in the 
same manner in JE and Deut. (Ex. 23»' " 34^»- " Dt. i6i-*' >»)j 
in P this point of view has become obscured, and they are treated 
rather as occasions, fixed arbitrarily, for religious observances, 

C. 24. I. On the lamps in the Tabernacle, v.*** (v.'-'aEx. 
ayWf- almost verbatim), 
3. On the Shewbread, v.*-'. 

3, Laws on blasphemy, and certain cases of injury 
to the person, arising out of a particular in- 
cident, v.>^". 

TTic analysis of the cli. is not difficulu The laws tn v.'*-*" belong to H, 
the marks of whose style ihey show {e,g. v*h vk v." ; n'Op v."; the refrain 
T."*) : the tradition respecting the occasion which gave rise to [53] them has 
been cast into form by P (or Rp), v.^*-'*- " (comp- the similar narrative, Nu. 
1 5***), who has also, probably, addetl two or three clauses in v." (from "all"}. 
and »." (to ** for *'). The injunctions contained In v.*"" belong likewise to P, 

C. 35. t. The Sabbatical year, v.'-t- m-«2. 
2. The year of Jubile, v."-"- »-«*• 

v.*"'*. General character and object of the institntioo. 
Y^i«-it. ■, Land not to be alienated beyond the next JubHe. 

* The analysis given above agrees with tliat of Delitzsch, Siudun, p. 631 L; 
but probably v.*"* and parts of v.*""* are due to Rp as well : according to 
Baentsch (pp. 47-50), v.* ^"* (the title) "'**• "*•• *• (n»n), one or two phrases 
in V. ", v.**'*''(frtw» to sin-cfftring^ anJ), v." {v/$/k fwa lambs). In v.'*** the 
wurds sttftH to AVN, And yt to iin-offertng^ and WM two lamhs^ are generally 
recognised as being Ute (aitd inexact) interpolations, founded on Nu. 28^'**i 



V,**"*, On the redcmpUon of iands, 

V.**. On ihe redemption of houses, 

V.*"". Usury not to be exacted of ao impoverished Israelite. 

V,***, An Israelite not to be sold into servitude to another Israelite 
beyond the next Jubilc. 

V,**". On the redemption of Israelites enslaved to resident foreigners. 

As in c. 23, the reference to a^riatllure is prominent, especially in vj"' 
(which seems plainly to be based upon Ex. 23** "), v.**-"- Note that the pro- 
risions in v.*- *•"•*' are all introduced as designed for the relief of the 
impoverished Israelite. 

V.*-** interrupts the connection ; for ▼•• is evidently the sequel to v.*"". 
The verses were probably placed where ihey now stand by the redactor, who 
desired their conlcnis to be referred to the Jubile year as well as to the Sab- 
batical year. In explanation of them, see Richm, HWB> p. I3I3^ *p. 1331' ; 
or Nowack, Arck. ii. 164 n. 

The marks of H are most evident in v.*''* "*• (n'oy) "■■■ ■»*» • «■ « 
(comp. also v.** "i • with 23*- "* ") ; they are least prominent in v,***** The 
analysis is, however, difficult in particulnrs ; and critics differ. In Haupt's 
Sacrtd Books eftkt OT. the following analysis is proposed : — 

H 25*^^' ***^ '^ '^^ "^'^ **"" 

)H « w » 

I P 35*^ •« " 

It is impossible to think that (as has sometimes been supposed) the insti- 
tution of the Jubilc is a mere paper-law, — a theoretical completion of the 
s)'slcm of seven ; iit least so far as concerns the land (for the periodical redis- 
tribution of which there are analc^cs in other nations), it must date from 
ancient times in Israel. On the other hand, tlie regulations for the manu- 
mission of il(KV4S in the 50th year, difler (see p. 83, below) from those of 
Dt. 15*^"; and both laws can hardly have been in operation at the same 
time. In the preceding analysis an endeavour is made to take account of 
both these facts. The older Jubile law of H, it is a&sumcd, provided (l) that 
land should not be sold beyond the next Jubile (v."-^) ; and (2) contained 
four regulations for the relief of the impoverished Israelite, — (a) his land 
might be redeemed for him (v.^), (^) usury was not to be exacted of him 
(v.*""}, (f) and {d\ when in servitude, either with a brother- Israelite (v,****- <■) 
or with a tesident foreigner (v.*'- "■ "), he was to be treated humanely. This 
law of H was afterwards incorporated into the priestly law-book P, with addi- 
tions (l) containing closer definitions, esp<fcially in regard to the redemption of 
land fv.""' "''■"■ "■ "-•*) i and (2) extending the benefits of the Jubile from 
Uik] Io persons (v.**""" **"^ "*"• **), at a time when experience had shown 
(cf. Jer. 34*"") that the law of Dt. i5i»-" could not bccnforced.t 

• v.** adapted by the compiler from v."- 

t According to Baentsch (pp. 53-63), ilie original nucleus of c. 35 consisted 
of ,,\A. u. n-»i »-«u d. Mb. a. » ^d belonged, like the nucleus of c. 33 And 
c> 24, to the same collection of laws as c. 18-20. 



C. 26. Prohibition of idolatry, and injunction to observe 
the Sabbath, v.**^ (v.' = 19^^); hortatory conclusion to 
the preceding code, v.^-^^^ with subscription (R''), v.**. 

This conclusion is in the general style of Ex. 23*'* and 
Dt. 28, but expresses the ideas and principles peculiar to 
the Law of Holiness, and is evidently the work of the same 
compiler. "The iand and apiculture have here the same 
fundamental significance for religion as in c. 19. 33. 25, The 
threat of expulsion, i8-''* ao*-', is repeated here in greater 
detail. The one commandment expressly named is that 
of allowing the land to lie fallow in the Sabbatical year, 
268*." It begins, as it also ends, with one of the characteristic 
expressions of H ("if ye walk in my statutes**: "/ am 
Jehovah*^), As the list, p. 49 f, will have shown, many of the 
other characteristic expressions of H also occur in iL* [54.] 
It contains, however, in addition, many words and phrases which 
are original, several recurring remarkably in Ezekiel (see p. 147). 

In Lev. 17-26, then, we have before us elements derived from 
P, combined with excerpts from an earlier and independent 
collection of laws (H), the latter exhibiting a characteristic 
phraseology, and marked by the preponderance of certain charac- 
teristic principles and motives.! In some of its features this Code 
of laws resembles the " Book of the Covenant." As there, the 
commands (in the main) are addressed to the people, not to the 
priest; as there, they are also largely (cf. esp. Lev. 19) cast into 
an abrupt, concise form, without comments or motives (except 
** I am Jehovah "). The mora! commands cover also much of 
the same ground. It differs from Ex. 21-23 chiefly in the 
greater amount of detail, and in dealing with the ceremonial, 
rather than with the civil, side of an Israelite's life. That this 
collection of laws is not preserved in its original integrity is 

• Comp. also v."*" with 25**^ ^"^ ; v." {csp. |9*;) with 25" 
t For a systcmaLic expu:>iUon of tlie legislation of H, see Baentsch, 
pp. 131-152. \Vhcn it is compared carefully with P, differences of stand- 
point disclose themselves. For instance, II seems not to reoc^nisc the 
distinction of " Holy " and "Most holy" (Wellb, Comp. p. 160 f.); it men- 
tions nSiy and nai (i/* 22'"-), Init not nnen and Dri«; it forbids (what P 
allows] the slaughter of domestic animals for food, without a sacrifice at the 
central sanctuary; and the hierarchical system, especially in what concerns 
the distinctive pre-eminence of the high prie&t, is not so fully developed a« 
in F (sec Bacntsch, pp. 22 f,, 39, 42, 106 f.}. 



evident from many indications ; some subjects are treated incom- 
pletely ;* elsewhere the arrangement is imperfect,! and there are 
several instances of repetition.} The question arises whether 
other excerpts from this collection of laws are preserved else- 
where in the Pentateuch. If the list on p. 49 f. be considered 
carefully, it will appear that several of the expressions character- 
istic of the " Law of Holiness " are combined remarkably in the 
short ordinance on the Sabbath in Ex. 31'*"^**, which may accord- 
ingly, with great probability, be regarded as an excerpt from 
it (so Del., Dillm., Horst). Lev. ii^^o (cf. both the phrase- 
ology and 20-*) may be another excerpt : Horst, Kuenen, and 
DiUm. (partly) would even include the entire body of law with 
which ii<^^ was primarily connected, viz. ii*-^"**^.§ A third 
passage that may be plausibly assigned to it is the law of 
"Tassels," Nu. 1$^-*^ (Del., Horst, Dillm., Kuea).|| When 
the collection existed as a complete whole, the different subjects 
[55] which it embraced were no doubt treated in accordance 
with a definite plan ; at present only excerpts exist, which show 
what some of the subjects included in it were, but do not enable 
us to determine what principle of arrangement was followed in it. 

in. C 27. On the commutation of vows and tithes, (i) Of 
wufs; which might consist of persons, v.--*, cattle, v.^", houses, 
v."'", fields, v.i*-^*, but not of firstlings, v.^*'*, and if consisting in 
some object banned or " devoted," IT could not be commuted, 
v.2«^- ; (2) of fif/i£S, v."^. 

The chapter belongs to P, and presupposes c 25 (v.^^- the 
year of Jubile). 

• ££. 19*^ (which almost necessarily implies Ihftt lawi respecting ^A*t 
species of sacrifices must once have formed part of the code) ; 20**, 

t As i9»-\ just quoted ; I9»- 3i-» 20". 

t 19^ •• 26' ; ig* 26* ; 19* 23" ; 19" 20*. From the facta jnst noted it 
is inferred by Dillm. {NDJ. p. 639) that the collection, before it reached its 
present form, passed through several hands. 

\ Or (Paton) the nucleus of ii^** (above, p. 46), and II*^. 

II Dillm. (ATP/, p. 640) considers that H is also the basis of Ler, 5'"* 
(c£ ynu iirji) "•**■ (may), Nu. lo*'-. Baentsch, on the contrary (p. ^ff.), doei 
not find sufiicient reason for referring to H any of the passages mcntioDcd, 
except Lev. ii***^ (the close of a brief list of clean and unclean animals, 
which once followed 20**) and Nu. 15"***. See further below, p. 151 f. 

H The D-ui : see the author's A^o/t^f on SamM/ (1890), pp. 100-I02 ; or 
more fully Kwald, AHtiguitt'es pf Jsraeff pp. 101-106 (Kng. tr. ppi. 75*78) ; 
Nowack, I/eb. Arch. H 266 (T. 



§ 4. Numbers. 
Literature.— See abovei p. i C 

The Book of Numbers (called by the Jews, from its fifth 
word, "iinpa) carries on the narrative of the Pentateuch to the 
40lh year of the exodus. The book 0{>ens on the ist day of 
the and month in the 2nd year; the departure from Sinai, in the 
20th day of the 2nd month, is related in lo"*-^ ; the arrival in 
the wilderness of Faran (or Kadesh), the mission of the spies, 
and subsequent defeat at Hormah are narrated in c. 13-14; 
the arrival in the desert of Zin (or Kadesh), in the 40th year, is 
recorded 20* ; AaroiVs death (on the ist day of the 5th month of 
the 40th year, 33^) is related in 2o23-''*. 

In structure the Book of Numbers resembles Exodus, JE 
reappearing by' the side of P, though, as a rule, not being so 
closely interwoven with it. It begins with a long extract from 
P, extending from i^ to 10^, the main topics of which are //« 
disposition of the camp and the duties 0/ the Levifes, 

C I. The census of the twelve tribes, exclusive of the tribe 
of I>evi (v.*^***), who are to be appointed guardians of the Taber- 
nacle, and to be located around it in the centre of the camp, 
apart from the other tribes. The number of males above 20 
years old (exclusive of Leviies) is given at 603,550. 

C. 2. The position of the tribes in the camp, and their order 
on the march. 

[56] C. 3-4. The Levites taken to assist the priests, in lieu of 
the first-born, in doing the sen'iceof the Tent of Meeting. Their 
numbers, their position in the centre of the camp about the 
Tabernacle, and their duties. 

3'"* the priests (recapiLulaiion) j ▼.''• the Levitea appointed to assist the 
priests in subordinate duties; v."'" they are taken for this purpose in lica 
of the first-bom in Israel; v.**"* the Lcvilcs (from one month old) to l>e 
numt>ered ; v."'*' the numbers, position, and charge of the three LevUical 
families — the Gershonitcs, Kohatliiles, and Mcraritcs ; v." the priests to be 
on the east of the Tabernacles; v." the whole number of Levites 32,000; 
V,*"** the lirst-bom numbered (22,273), *"*^ * ransom token on behalf of the 
373 in excess of the numl^er of the Levites. 

Ct 4. Particulars (in fuller detail than in c. 3) respecting (he duties of the 
Kohathites v.''^, Gershonitcs v.'^*"^, ^fcrarites v.'"**' ; and their numl>crs 
(from 30 to 50 yc-ars of age), vii. Kohattiitcs v.***" (27501, Gershonilrs v.****' 
(2630), and Mcrii.iics v.*^-« (3200),— in all [v.«-«) 858a 





The style of c 1-4 is more Uuld asuallj diffuse. Tbas in c 3 all thai 
is essentially new as compared with c. i are the statements j*- ■»■ *■ » &c, 
respecting the crder of the tribes ; aad in c 3-4, 4*** is largdy an expaxi- 
sioD of what is stated more succinctly in 3**"". It is observable that j"*" 
evcmplifies by actual numencal computation the more general thought of 3", 
that the Leviies ate rtpretenSaiivt of the &rst-bom of Israel. The systematic 
development of a subject, capable in itself of being stated more simply and 
succinctly, is characteristic of the nanatire-sectioos of P. 

C. 5-6, Laws on different subjects : — (a) 5^"* exclusion of 
the leprous and unclean from the camp; {p) ^'^^ the officiat- 
ing priest to receive the compensation for fraud, in case the 
injured person be dead, and have no next-of-kin, as also all 
heave-offerings and dedicatory offerings: {c) ^^-^^ law of ordeal 
prescribed for the woman suspected by her husband of unfaith- 
fulness ; {d) 6*--* the law of the Nazirite ; {e) 6*2-?7 the formula 
of priestly benediction. 

C- 7. The offerings of the 12 princes of the tribes at the 
consecration of the Tent of Meeting and of the altar, viz. (i) 
6 " covered wagons," or litters, for the transport of the fabric of 
the Tabernacle by the Gershonites and Merarites, v.*'; (2) 
vessels for use at the altar, and animals for sacrifice, v."-®. 

The cb. (in the names of the 12 princes, and the use of the 6 wagons) 
presupposes cc. i. 4 ; and yet the occasion to which it relales prtudes Nu. 
I* (comp. 7I- »• •• with Ex. 40", Lev. S'*""). The origin of this incon- 
gruity must remain uncertain. The particularity of detail which character! r<.-^ 
Pgcncraily here reaches ils climax, 5 entire verses being [57] repeated tfrbafint 
12 times. But the aim of the writer, no doubt, was to dilate upon ihc 
kple of Ubcralily displayed upon the occasion by the heads of the people. 

C 8. (a) V.''* instructions for fixing (see RV. marg.) the 
lamps upon the golden candlestick ; {b) v.*"^ consecration of the 
Levites to their duties (connecting with 3^"); (c) v.**-** the 
period of the Levites' service (from 25 to 50 years of age). 

In 4*' * " tlie limits arc from thirty to fifty years of age. The law here 
must represent the practice (or theory) of a different time from that of 
c 4, and is In all probability a later modification of that law. The supposi- 
tion that the regulations in c. 4 arc temporary and refer only to the transport 
of the Tabernacle in the wilderness, while the regulation here is permanent, 
relating to the service of the Levites generally, introduces an arbitrary distinc- 
tion t the terms used in the text are precisely the same in both cases (8**^ and 
4** «k lobj In jj^g fjme of ^^ Chronicler [c. 300 B.C.) liability to service 
l>^an in the 20ih year (2 Ch. 31", Hir, 3*) : tlie change from the 30ih ycai 
is attributed (i Ch. a3*' »♦-*') to David. 


C. 9. (^) The Passover of the second year, f[)Il(jwcd by the 
institution of a supplementary or "Little" Passover, a month 
afterwards, for the sake of those hindered accidentally from keep- 
ing the Passover al the regular time, v,*" ; (^) the signals given 
by the cloud for the marching and halting of the camp, v.**"^. 

C. 10. (a) The use of the silver trumpets in starting the 
several camps, and on other occasions, v.***** ; (^) the departure 
of the Israelites from Sinai, and order of their camps on the 
march, v."--*; (c) (JE) the services of Hobab secured for the 
guidance of the Israelites in the wilderness ; and the functions 
of the ark in directing the movements of tlie Israelites, v.^*^. 

C 11-12 (JE). The murmuring of the people at Taberah 
and Kibroth-hattaavah. Appointment of seventy elders to assist 
Moses, Quails given to satisfy the people. Miriam's leprosy. 

Ct II appeals to show marks of composition (see Dillm.), though, as is 
oAcn the cose in JE, the data do not exist for separating tlic sources employed 
with confidence. Bacon (agreeing nearly with WcUh.) rcfen v.'"*- *•*"■ **"* 
to E, v.*-"- "■* *i* to J. C. U Ijelongs probably to E, 

C. X3-14- The narrative of the spies. 

P l3i-^»» ■ ^^ to Paran) » 

J£ ITb-91 s>-ai Mk-n ISk-M 

P i4>-» (in the main) m m M-«ft awi 

j£ »^ ■-• U'Ss n<4i tt-« 

[58] The double character of the narrative is very evident 
Observe (i) that 13*^ \s, parallel to v. 21, v.^^ to v.^-^\ and \^^^ 
to 14^** '•"^; observe (2) the difference of representation which 
characterizes the two accounts : in JE the spies go only as far as 
the neighbourhood of Hebron^ in the south of Judah (i3*'"^*) ; 
in P they explore the whole country^ to Rehob (Jud. 18^) in the 
far north (13^*: with this agrees the expression in 13'' and 14' 
^^ through wliieh we have passed") ; in JE, upon their return, they 
represent the land as a fertile one, but one which the Israelites 
have not the means of conquering (is^'"*^); in P they represent 
it as one that "eateth up its inhabitants," i,e. as an impoverished 
land (see Lev. 26^, Ezek. 36^^), not worth conquering (13^^) : in 
JK Joshua is not named as one of the spies, and Caleb alone stills 
the people, and is exempted in consequence from the sentence 
of exclusion from Palestine (13"'^ i4"*); iri P Joshua as well as 
Caleb is among the spies ; hoth are named as pacifying the 



people, and are exempted accordingly from the sentence of 

exclusion (14*- so. ss . Qf^ 26*^ P). This last difference is remark- 
able, and will meet us again : had the whole narrative been by a 
single writer, who thought of Joshua as acting in concert with 
Caleb, it is difficult not to think that Joshua would have been 
mentioned beside Caleb— not, possibly, in 13^, but — in i4-*, 
when M^ exetnption from the sentatce of exclusion from Palestine 
is first promised. In P the spies start from the ''wilderness of 
Paran" (13^; cf. v.'-^) : in JE, though it is not here so stated, it 
may be inferred from Nu. 32^ (cf. Dt. i**, Josh. 14*) that they 
started from Kadesh ; and with this agree the words to Kadesh 
in 13-* If the passages assigned to the two narratives be read 
continuously, it will be found that each is nearly as complete as 
in the case of the narrative of the Mood in Genesis : only the 
beginning in J £ is replaced by the fuller particulars from P. 
The phraseology of the two narratives differs as usual.* 

C. 15 (P). (a) V.*-** the Meal- and Drink-offering appointed 
to accompany every Bumt-offering and Peace-offering; {b) v.^^-si 
a cake of the first dough of the year to be offered as a Heave- 
offering; [c) v."-si the SinK)ffering of the community, or of an 
individual, for accidental derelictions of duty; (d) v.^-*^ narrative 
of the punishment inflicted upon a Sabbath-breaker; {e) v,^^"*^ 
the law of "Tassels." 

[59] v.**** iMflong lo the general subject of Lev V-S**; the Sui-oflTcring of 
the congregation having been already prescribed there (4"*"), but the animal 
beii^ a different one, viz. a tjullock. The language of v.^ supports the view 
that here sini of omission arc referred to, while in Lev. 4 the reference is to 
siiu of commiJS>sion. Those who are not bati^fied witli this explanation sup- 
pose that the two laws represent the practice of different times (so Dillni., 
retnaiking that In v.** the language of i'<7/»missioa is usedi and in Lev. 5' that 
of amission). On v."**' see p. 59. 

C. 16-X7. The rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Con 
firmation of the priestly prerogatives enjoyed by the tribe of I>evi. 

P i6»* 
IJE "^ 

•h. (TU-U) (If-IT). IS-M 


c. 17 

Here two, if not three, narratives have been combined. If the 
parts assigned to each in the table be read continuously, the 
following will appear as their several characteristics : — 

X, In JE Dathan and Abiram, Reubcnites, give vent to their 
• On JE in Nu. 13-14, see also Bacon. Hebraiia^ si (1895) p. 2348". 



dissatisfaction with Afoses^ complaining (v.^*) that his promises 
have been unfulfilled, and resenting the authority (v."**) and 
judgeship (v.*^**) possessed by him ; they, with their tents and 
households, are swallowed up by the earth v.^"^*. This is a 
rebellion of laymen against the dvil authority claimed by Moses. 
The narrative is nearly complete, there being only some slight 
ombsions at the beginning. 

2. In P there appear to be two strata of narradve. In the 
parts not enclosed within parentheses, Korah, at the head of 250 
princes of the congregation, not themselves all Levites,* opposes 
Moses and Aaron in the interests of the community at large, 
protesting against the limitation of priestly rights to the tribe of 
Levi, on the ground (v. ^) that "a// the congregation are holy." 
Invited by Moses to establish their claim by appearing with 
censers at the sanctuary, they are consumed by fire from Jehovah. 
With this representation agrees i6*i-^* c. 17, the point of [60] 
which is to confirm — not the exclusive rights of Aaron, as against 
the rest of the tribe of Levi, but — the exclusive right to the 
priesthood possessed by I^vi, against Israel generally (the 
opposition is clearly not between Aaron and the other Levites, 
but between Levi and the other tribes \ the words in i;**'*, also, 
are spoken from the point of view of the people at large). 

3. This narrative appears to have been afterwards enlarged by 
additions (the parts enclosed within pvirentheses), emphasizing a 
somewhat different point of view, and exhibiting Korah, at the 
head of 250 Levites^ as setting himself in opposition to Aaron^ 
and protesting on behalf of the tribe of Levi generally against 
the exclusive rights claimed by the sons of Aaron (observe vJ^ye 
sons of Levit and v.''** where Korah's company are described as 
dissatisfied with their menial position, and claiming equal rights 
with Aaron), With this representation agrees i6^**<* (see v.*° 
"that no stranger that is not of tlie seed of Aaron^^ &c.). 

Thus JE mentions only Dathan and Abiram, P only Korah ; 
and the motives and aims of the malcontents are in each case 
different- The phraseology of the two main currents of the 

• As sppean, portly from the general expression in v.* (" princes of the 

congregation," with no limitation lo Levites), partly from the fact that in 
27* Afanassttes disown, on behalf of their father, complicity in the insurrection 
of Korah, which, if all his company had consisted of Le^'ites, would evidently 
have been unnecessary. 






narrative is thai of JE and P rcsprctntly. A more gci^ral 
ground, lending to show the composite diuraeltT of the narrative, 
is the inequahty of the manner in which Korali, Dathan, and 
Abiram appear in it : whereas in v.'^* they are represented as 
taking part in a common conspiracy, they afterwards continually 
act separately; Moses speaks to Korah without Dathan and 
Abiram, and to Dathan and Abiram without Korah (v.**'^, v.'^*'*, 



) ; Dathan and Abiram do not act in concert with 
Korah v.'*"'^^, but remain in their tents at a distance v.^'^; 
finally, their fate is different Of course, an aUiance between 
an ecclesiastical and a civil party is, in itself, nothing incredible ; 
but such a representation of their common action is not prolmble, 
except upon tlie supposition of a combination of two narratives 
describing the course of it from dilTerent sides, or points of 

The important distinction between the two strata of P is that 
in the main narrative there is no indication of any opposition 
between Aaron and Levi {i.e. between priests and Leviles), while 
.,in the secondary naiYalive this opposition is palpable, and the 
gulf separating priests and Levites is strongly emphasized (cf. 
the emphasis laid on the same distinction in No. 3. 4. 8). 

(61] The analysis is dial of Wellh. {Comp. p. 339 f.), Dilliminn (p. 89), 
aud Baudissin \friezterthum, p. 3^^, In v."-" it is'highly proUibk that the 
original reading was " the labern&cle qI Jehovah " (as 17") ; not only is the 
iing. •'tabemade" remarkable, but the word {j-PD) ib nevcf in /rw* (whelhcr 
in the PenL or elsewhere) applied lo a human habitation, whereas it is used 
repeatedly of " the Tabernacle." LXX (each time) has ooly ' ' the tabernacle 
of Korah." 

C. 18 (P). (fl) V.^-^ duties,* and reWTive position, of priests 
and I-evites : the sons of Aaron to act as priests, to be responsible 
for the service of the Sanctuary and Altar ; the other Levites to 
assist them in subordinate offices; {b) v.*^*^" the revenues of the 
priests defined \ (r) v,-'**-^* the tithe to be paid by the people to 
the Levites ; but v.^^*^, a tithe of the tithe to be paid by the 
Levites to the priests. 

The ch. stands in close connexion with the main oarratlre of P in c. 
1^17, 17*^ forming the transition to it : notice how, as there, the rights 
of the tritw of Levi [whether in the persons of "priests" or "Levites") are 
protected against the "stranger" belonging to another tribe, v.**^**^^'*'* 
(with evident allusion to l6"«< 17"). In v.* "bear the iniquity of tlie 



snnclu&ry" = hc liable for any damage or desecration which may befall it 
'hrough their neglect, in one word, Ar responsible for U (cf. p, 50, No. 3o"). 
In V.' "joined " there is in the Hebrew a play on the name LtvL 

C 19 (P). The rite of purification (by means of water mingled 
with the ashes of a red heifer) after defilement with a corpse, 
with directions for the application of the rite in particular 


cases, V. 


C 20-22' (P and JE). Israel at Kadesh ; with their journey- 
ings thence to the plains of Moab. 

ao^'i* death of Miriam ; munnurings of the people for water, and lEn of 
Moses and Aaron at Meribah ; v.*^^* refusal of Edoin to permit the Israelites 
to pass through tlicir territory ; v,*^^ death of Aaron, and investiture of 
Klcoxar as his successor, on Mount IJor. 2i'"* defeat of the king of Arad 
V.*'* impatience of the people while making the circuit of the land of Kdom 
ihc brazen serpent ; v.""* their itinerary to the *' field of Moab" at Pisgah 
v.=*** refusal of Sihon to allow Israel to cross his border ; v.***** conquest by 
the Israelites of the territory of Sihon, and of Og the king of Bashan ; 32* 
arrival at the plains of Moab. 



21** (to Hffr) 

S? 26^ {to matt/M) ■ 
VJE »* » 

IJE »• 

On c. 20 oomp. ComiU, ZATIV. 1891, p. 20 AT.; Bacon, JBLiL 1892, 
p. 197, and TripU Tradition of the Exodus, pp. 195-197, 203 f. t6aj 20>*-"-*M may belong in particular to E. 

In 21'*"* it is observable that the form of the itinerary m P and JE is 
slightly different. In P {v."*-) the verb stands first; in JE (v."- "• i«- »•«») 
Ihc place stands first ("from , . . they journeyed," &c.). The same dis- 
tinction recurs elsewhere : contrast c. 33 {V) passim with n*. ai''^ recun 
(largely verbatim) in DL 3*'*, and is so Dcuteronomic in style that Dillm. 
and Bacon (/.r. p. 211) may be right in thinking the passage to be introduced 
here from Dl (observe that the conquest of Og is not alluded to Ln 22^. 

C. 22'-36'^ Israel in the steppes of Moab. 

aa^-c 24. The history of Balaanj (JE). 

22'-^^ (except v.'^-^^) may be assigned with some confidence 
to E; observe God almost uniformly {not Jehovah) ; and comp. 
v.a».so* with Gen. 20» 31=^ (both E). V.^^'*^ (the episode of the 
ass) is taken from a different source, viz. J ; notice (a) in v." 
Balaam goes "with the princes of Moab," in v.^^^- he is evidently 
alone ; (/') in the main narrative of the ch. Balaam, at the second 
message from Balak, receives permission to go, provided only 
that he s|^aks what is put into his mouth by God ; the episode 




iinpties that no permission to go bat! I>ccii gi\Tn to him, and ho 
is first taught by the angel cm the way (hat he is only to speak 
what is put into his mouth ; (c)Jtkifvak (not 6W). The tunati^c 
at ».** reaches the same point as v.**^: r.** (repeating v.****) 
appears to have been added by the compiler for the purpose of 
leading back into llie text of E. It is unceriain whether c 33-24 
beloi^ to J or E, or whether they are the work of the compiler 
who has made use of both sources : critics difler, and it is wisest 
to leave the question undetermined. The early part of a 22 
seems to contain elements derived from a diJTerent source from 
the main body of the ch. : thus v,^ is superfluous before v.*^, v.*» 
and v.^ are diflerejit statements of substantially the same fact ; 
and the notices of the ** elders of Midian" in v>^ (and not 
afterwards) suggest the inference that they are derived from a 
narrative which told more fully how the Midianites made common 
cause with Moab against Israel 

C. 25. The Israelites seduced at Shittim into idolatry and 
immorality : the zeal of Phinehas rewarded with the promise of 
the permanency of the priesthood in his family. V,*** belongs 
loJE; v>"loP. 

Hie beginning of P's narrative has been omitted in &rour of ofJE. 
Fiom 31" it may be inferred liuit it coiilaincd some account of tlic Ircachcrous 
(sec v.") " counsel of Balaam.'* given with the view of seducing ihc men ot 
Israel into sin, and so of bringing them into disfavour with Jehovah. Of tlie 
two narratives, one (JE) names the Moabiles, the other (P) the Midianites. an 
those who led Israel into sin ; the latter supplies the [<^] motive for the war 
against Midian described in c. 31 (comp. DeUtzsch, Z/Cli'L^ 1888, p. 121]. 
For Midianites in the neighbourhood of Moab, cf. 22*- ^ Gen. 36*. 

C 26-31 all belong to P, 

C. 26. The second census of Israel (see c. i f.) during the 
wanderings. The sum-total of males (from 20 years old) is 
given at 601^730, exclusive of the Levites (from one month old), 

V.**", which ore based upon e. 16 in its present (composite) form, are 
prohehly an insertion in the orginal text of the ch. : likewise v,'* (the details 
of which are not in harmuny with P's genealogy of Levi in Eju 6"''* Nu. ^ 
•*• **• ■, and arc disr^arded in the verses that follow). 

C 27. {a) V.^" tlie law of the inheritance of daughters, in 
families in which there was no son, arising out of the case of 
the daughters of Zelophchad; {b) y.ts-sa Moses commanded to 


vie^v Palestine before his death ; and Joshua instituted as hii 

C 28-39. -A priestly calendar, defining the public sacrifices 
proper for each season. 

28*** introduction ; v.*-* the daily morning mnd evening Burnt-offering j 
V. »•" the Sabbath ; v."'" the New Moons ; v. " the Passover ; v. ""* Ma^zoth ; 
v.*^* the Day of First-fruils [I'.f. the Feast of Weeks: so called only here, 
cf. El. %^^ 34*^] : ag^-* New Year's Day ; t.»'" Day of Atonement ; v.>»-»* 
the seven days of the Feast of Boolhs, with the supernumerary eighth day 
y »-». v.**"*" subscription. 

aS**' is largely a vcxbol repetition of Ek. 29***. For the rest, the ch. is 
Mipplementary to the calendar in Lev. 23 (which, as a rule, alludes to, but 
docs not describe in detail, the special sacrifices), from which some of the par- 
ticulars ore repealed (as 28"- is. m «b 29I. t. ii. » . ^f. Lev. 23*-*- "■ »«. w- »♦■ ••), 
The New Moons (sS^***"] are not mentioned in Lev. 23. 

C. 30. The law of vows. 

V.' a vow made by a man to be in all cases binding : v.*^ conditions for 
the validity of vows made by women* 

C. 31. The war of vengeance against Midian (see 25"-"). 

Though cast into narrative form, the ch, has really a legislative object, 
viz. to prescribe a principle for the distribution of booty taken in war. Of 
the place, circumstances, and other details of the war we learn nothing : we 
[64] are told only of llie issue, buw, viz., 12,000 Israelite warriors, without 
losing a man (v.^), skw all the males and married women of Midian, took 
captive 32,000 virgins, and brought back Soo,ooo head of cattle, besides 
other booty. In the high figures, and absence of specific details, the narrative 
resembles the dc&criptions of wars in the Chronicles or in Jud. 20. Tl»e 
account, as we have it, contains elements which are not easy to reconcile with 
historical probability. Tlie dlflficuUies of the section are mi(igati;d by the 
supposition that the simpler materials supplied by tradition liave here been 
elatxirated by the compiler, in accordance with his love of system, Into an 
idf.>al picture of the manner in which a sacred war must have been conducted 
by Israel. 

C. 32. Allotment by Moses of the trans-Jordanic region to the 
tribes of Gad, Reuben, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. 


p U-U 94-B. [U) 

E 31*-" (in the main) ^" in the main) **^ 

Throughout v.^"*^ the negotiations with Moses are conducted 
on the part of Gad^w^ Rettben alone : the half-tribe of Manasseh 
is named for the first time — and apparently only for the sake of 
completeness — in the summary statement, v.*^. As regards the 




Rlructure of the ch., in some parts the style of F is manifest 
ihroughout^ in others only in traces. It would seem that the 
compiler has combined P and JE, sometimes following P ex- 
clusively, sometimes following in the main JE, but introducmg 
elements from P. 

ThiM in V.'"* "Eleuar the priest," the "princes," and the "congrega- 
don ** (i.e* T.* and part of v.*) belong to P : in v. *"" the expressions arc chiefly 
those of JE, and the allusions are nearly entirely to JE's narrative in c 13-14 ; 
but isolated phrases appear to have been introduced from V (v.» "for a pos- 
Kssion"; v." "from 20 years old and upward"; t." "Joshua"; ▼.*• cf. 
1^ P) ; aniilarly in v.**"*', where the phrases suggestive of P might even be 
removed without injury to the narrative (v."* to Ae/ore the Liird\ v,** from 
am/ /Air /am/ [the preceding "then aflcrward • • . and be"mayj of course, 
with equal propriety be rendered "and afterward ... ye shall be guilt- 
less"] ; perhaps v.**^ (cf. 30''' P) ; v.* "every one that is armed for u-ar*'). 
On the other hand, v.»*^ evidently points back to t> "'- ^ QE). It is not 
impossible that v." is a late addition to the ch. On v,*"*" comp. Wcllh. 
Ccmp. p. 117 ; Dillm. p. 200 ; and Budde, as cilcd below, p. 163, riaU V. 

C. 33. P*s itinerary of the journcyings of the Israelites from 
Rameses to the plains of Moab, v.*-** ; followed by directions 
respecting the occupation of Canaan, v.*<*-^* (introductory to c 34), 

[65] In v.*"** directions from F relative to the method of allotment of 
Canaan, v."* •*••*, have been combined, as it seems, with two excerpts from 
H respecting the extirpation of Canaanitish idolatry, v.***"* ***■•• Observe 
the two rather noticeable terms ■103 and noro (v."), occurring elsewhere in 
the PenL only Lev. 26i'* (H). 

C 34 (P). The borders of IsraeVs territory W. of Jordan, 
v.^-**, with the names of those appointed for the purpose of 
assisting Joshua and Eleazar in its allotment, v.>**2*' 

C 35 (P). Appointment of 48 cities for the residence of the 
Lcvites, v.*-*; and of 6 among them, 3 on each side of Jordan, 
as cities of refuge for the manslayer, with conditions regulating 
their use, v."*^ 

C. 36 (P). Heiresses possessing landed property to marry into 
their own tribe (in order, viz., to preserve the inheritance of each 
tribe intact). 

A provision rendered necessary by the ordinance of 27*"^ 

I 5, Deuteronomy. 

LiTERATL'RK. — See p. I f.; and add : Ed. Rielun, Ctiet:^e!iun^ Afasit im 
land4 Moa6, 1854 (cf. alyj £ifi/. i, 233-248, 3II-3l8)j F. W. Schulti, 



Pas Dcui, frktSrtt iSS9 (the Mosaic authorship here maintained was after- 
wards abandoned by the author, being no longer considered by him to W 
required by the terms of 31') ; P. Kleinert, Das Deut. u. der Deutgrcnomilter, 
1872, with Rielim's review in the Stud, t*, Krit, 1873, pp. 165-200; Aug. 
Kayser, Das Vortxiliscfu Buck der Ur^uhickts Israels, 1874 (deals in 
particular with the relation of Dt. to Gcn.-Nu.) ; J. Hollcnbeig in the Simi. 
u. Krit. 1874, pp. 472-506 {on the "margins" of Dt. [i>. DL 1-4, 29-34], 
and their relation to the Deuterononiic sectinns of Joshua); W. R, Smith, 
OTJC, p. 352 ff. : T. K. Cheyne, Jeremiah^ his Life and Timti^ pp. 4S-86 ; 
Westphal, Les Sources du Pent. 1S92, ii. 33-I32, 262-318; S. Oetlli (in 
Slrack and Zockler's Kgf. A'ommen/ar), 1893 ; S. R. Driver (in tiie "Inter- 
national CZritical Commentary "), Ediitb. 1895 ; also W. Slaerk, Das Deui.^sein 
Inhait, u. sei/u litL Form^ 1894, and C. Steuernagcl, Der Rahmen des Dtut.^ 
1894, Dit Entstehung des Deut. Cestttts^ 1896 (both attempts to analyse Dt. 
into pre-existing groups of laws). 

On c 32 tlie monograph of Ad. Kampliauscn, Das LSad Moses, lS6a ; and 
on c 33 K. H. Graf, Dtr Se^n J/osa's, 1S57 ; A. van dcf Flier» DaUerattom 
«"" 33> Lc'den, 1895. 

Deuteronomy is called by the Jews (from the opening words) 
D*"inin npx, or more briefly D'"»3i. The English name is derived 
from the (inexact) rendering of 17^^ nt^n rrjinn nJtrp* in the [66] 
LXX TO ScvTepoj'd/juoK TovTo. It records the events of the last 
month (i' 34') of the forty years* wanderings of the children of 
Israel. The greater part of the book is occupied by the dis- 
course in which Moses, before his death, sets before the Israelites 
the laws wliich they are to obey, and the spirit in which they are 
to obey them, when they are settled in the Promised Land. This 
is preceded and followed by other matter, the nature of which 
will appear from the following table of contents : — 

I***. Historical introduction, stating the place and time at which the 
discourses following were delivered. 

l'-4**. Moses* /rst discourse, consisting of a review of the circum- 
stances under which the Israelites had reached the border of the 
Promised Land, and concluding with an eloquent practical appeal 
(c 4) not to forget the great truths impressed upon them at 

4«'*. Historical account of the appointment by Moses of three cities of 
refuge east of Jordan. 

4****. Supcrscripiioo to Moses* setottd discourse, forming the l^:islatioa 

* Which signlficfi a rtpttiti&H (Le. ce^) of this Uw, not this repttition if 
the law. 



C 5-26. The Exposition of Ibe Law» consisting or two parts : {i)c. $-11 
hortatory introduction, developing the first commandment of the 
Decalogue, and inculcating the ^ifwira/ theocratic principles by which 
tsrael> as a nation, is to be guided ; (3) c 13-26 the Code of special 

C 27. Injunctions (interrupting the discourse of Moses, and narrated in 
the third person) relative to a symbolical acceptance by the nation of 
the preceding Code, after entering Canaan. 

C 38-39'. Conclusion to the Code (connected closely with a6**), and 
consisting of a solemn declaration of the consequences to follow its 
observance or neglect. 

29*- 30*. Moses' third discourse, of the nature of a supplement, insist- 
ing afresh upon the fundamental duty of loyalty to Jehovah, and 
embracing (1) an appeal to Israel to accept the tcnns of the Deuter* 
onoraic covenant, with a renewed warning of the disastrous con- 
sequences ofa lapse into idolatry (c. 29) ; (2) a promise of restoration, 
even afler the abandonment threatened in c 28, if the nation should 
then exhibit due tokens of penitence (30^'**) ; (3) the chcuce let before 
Israel (3o"-»). 

ji*"". Moses' last words of encouragement to the people and Joshua. 
His delivery of ihe Dculeronoraic law to the Levitical priests. 

3l**-32*. Institution of Joshua by Jehovah (3l'*-"''"). The Song of 
Moses (32^'^), with accompanying historical notices (3i"*»-«-«'^ 

32"-34". Conclusion of the whole book, containing the Blessing of 
Moses (c. 33). and describing the circumstances of his death. 

Throughout, the author's aim is partnetic : he does not merely 
collect, or repeat, a series of laws, he "expounds" them (i*), i.e. 
he develops them with reference to the moral purposes which 
Ihey subserve, and the motives by which the Israelite should feel 
prompted to obey them. 

The structure of Dt is relatively simple. Tlie main part of 
the book is pervaded throughout by a single purpose, and bears 
the marks of being the work of a single writer, who has taken as 
the basis of his discourses, partly the narrative and laws of JK 
as they exist in the previous books of the Pentateuch, partly laws 
derived [67] from other sources. Towards the end of the book 
either the same author, or a writer imbued with the same spirit, 
has incorfwrated extracts from JE, and other sources, recording 
incidents connected with the death of Moses. One of the final 
redactors of the Pentateuch has brought tlie whole thus con- 
stituted into relation with the literary framework of the Hexa- 
teuch, by the addition of excerpts from P. The analytical 
scheme of the book is accordingly as follows : — 



On c 1-4. 27. 29-34 s« more fully pp. 93-98. Certain parts of Dl., while 
displaying the general Deut. style, connect imperfectly with the context, or 
present differences of representation, which make it probable that they are 
the work of a later Dcutcronomic hand (or hands), by whom the origina] 
Dt. was supplemented or enlarged : these are indicated in the Table by the 
symbol IV. {The line dividing D and D' cannot in evciy case, especially in 
c. 29-34, be fixed with confidence.) 

It will be convenient to consider first tlie character and scope 
of the central part of the book, c. 5-26, and c. 28. 

As will be seen from the table of contents, the Deuteronomic 
iegis/aiioftj properly so called, is contained in c. 1 2-26, to which 
c. 5-11 form an introduction, and c. 27, 28 a conclusion. In 
Dl itself the Code (including c. 28) is referred to frequently 
(i' 48 17I8." 27 3- 8-" 28S8.ct 2929 31©. 11.1114 324e) as (his iaw, 
or as this book of the taw (29'* 30^** 31'" i cf. Josh. i'). 

That these expressions refer to Dt. alone (or to tlie Code of laws contained 
in il)i &nd not to the entire Pent., appears (1) from the terms of i* 4', which 
point to a Ifiw aboui to be, or actually being, sci forth ; (2) from the parallel 
phrases, this eommatidment^ these statutts^ these judgments^ often spoken of 
as inculcated to-day (7", see v.'^ ; 15* IQ* 26" 30"), atid this cwenani 
{z^ "), which dearly alludes to the Deuteronomic legislation (cf. v,*** * '* the 
curse written in this book,^* i.e. in c 2S), And is distinguished from the 
covenant made before at Sinai (29'). 

* Incorporated from independent sources. 

+ The words, " And Moses went up to the top of Piscah," 

X The rest of cla.ase • {to/eriiAo). 

^^^^^P DEUTERONOMY 73 1 

^B In order rightly to estimate the character of Dt, it is necessary ^J 

^H to com[>are it carefully with the previous books of the Pentateuch. ^^t 

^B The accompanj'ing synopsis of /aws in Dt. will show immediately ^^ 

^U which of the enactments in it relate to subjects not dealt with in 1 

^M the legislations of JE and P, and which are parallel to provisions 1 

^M contained in either of those codes. ^^1 




P(lNCLt7DIKGH). ^^M 

B E>. 2o>-". 

S»-n (the Decalogue). 


f 26«.» 

l2*-5» [place of sacrifice). 

Lev, i;!-*.* ^H 

1 13"34»*>*. 

„ *•*" (not to imitAle Conaanite 

13 Jse^uction to idolatry), 
14^* i disfigurement ia mourning). 


Lev. 19". ^H 

„ *"* (clean and unclean anintials). 

ll^»;20». ^M 

^1 *3**i 34**. 

„ *** (food improperly killed). 
„ "*» (kid in mother's milk). 


„«•» (tithes). 

" *^i8*"-ii •*'"* ^1 


I5>-" (Year of Release). 



„ "■" (Hebrew slaves). 

Ku. iB>^'-*(cf.Ex. ^H 

■ a2»ii3"-»;34-. 

„*•■" (firsllings of ox and sheep: 

Cf, I2«"'*i 14*)- 

a?"; Nu. ^H 

^H 33^*->' ; 24^ "^ 

l6'"'^ (the three annual pngrimogcs). 

Lev. 33* : Nu. aS- ^^H 



H a3>*«. 

„ " (appointment of judges), 
>i "** 0"^^ jnd|^ment). 


„"'■ (erection of Ashtrahs and 


"pillars" prohibilcd). 

17' (sacrifices lo be without blemish : 


cf. 15"). 


„••' (idolatry, especially worship of 
the "hosl of heaven *•), 



„ •■^ {supreme tribunal). 


„'*-» (law of the king). 


lS'"*(righisand revenues of the tribe 

„ 7»^*; Nu. ^M 

of Levi). 


„ •-" (law of ihe prophet). 


„^* (Molcch-worship; cf. 12"). 
„"*-!> (different kinds of divina- 

tS" ; 20M. ^H 

^H aau (sorceress 

„ i9»>-"; 20 ^m 

^H alone). 




19I-W (a^Ium for manslaughter: 

Nu. 3S ; Lev. 24 ^^| 


„ •* (the landmark). 


1 '^'' 

„ >^« (taw of witnesses). Lev. 19"*^ ^^M 

L. ^ m 


H [69] jE- 


P(]NCLUmNGH), 1 

20 (militarT serrioe md war : cf. 




2l*"*(ci:piation ofunlraccd murder). 


„ "■'* (treaiment of female captives). 



ft ***" (primogeniture). 


H Ex. 2lU->'. 


,, ■"• (body of malefactor). 

Lev.jc^. ^H 

^^^ 23«-. 

22*"* (animals straying or fallen). 
„ * (sexes not to interchange gar- 
men Ui). 
„ «• (bird's nest). 
„ ■ (battlement). 


„ ^^ (against non-natural mixtures). 



„ ^ (slander against a maiden). 

.,»-" (adultery). 

Nu. is"-**. ^^ 


™^ 23''^. 

Lev. i8»; 2o>». 1 

„ ■**■ (seduction). 


,," (incest wiih step-mother). 

„ I8»i20". ^J 


23*'* (conditions of admillancc into 



the theocratic community). 


„ ^" (cleanliness in the camp). 

No. s'-«.* ^H 

„ "'• (humanity to escaped slave). 


M "'' (against religious prostitution). 


„ " (usury). 


„ *^ (regard for neighbour*! crops), 

Lev. 25**". ^^M 
Nil. 3d». ^H 

24'"* (divorce). 


^ 22"*S 

„••»•-» (pledges). 






,«• (leprosy). 

^^' '^.'^ ^1 


M * (juilice towards hired servants). 



„ ** (the family of a criminal not lo 

sutTer with him). 



„ '''• (justice towards stranger^ 
widow, and orphan). 

.. 19*. ^ 


„ "^ (gleanings). 

„ 19*-; a3". J 

25*-* (moderation in the infliction of 


the bastinado). 


, , * (ox not to be muzzled while 




,, »-" (law of the levirate). 
„"«■ (modesty). 



,,"-"(iusl wcijihls). 

M 19^'. ^M 


„ »>» (Amalek !). 

^B cf. i2*»; 23'*; 

26*'" (thanksgiving at the oHering 

cL Nu. ^H 


of firsl-fruils). 
„ **■" (thanksgiving at the offering 


^1 [70] 

of triennial tithes). 


^M 20'- 53; 34". 


Lev. 19*; 26**. V 

^^^ 20*»:2l". 

„'ncf. 2i^*^i. 

M 20". ^j 



19^- ^H 

^^^ 2J«-34; 







27* [23"). 

Lev. I8«; 20»». 



„ i8»; 20". 


.. 18- ; ao". 


„ iS";2o". 

20'»; 2l". 


.. 24". 




28 (closing exhortationX 

M a6»-- 

30* ■; 34" 

^is<is.a. 7» (againsl imagesX 
5^*" (object of Sabbath). 
6"; n'*(IawoffironUeis). 

Lev. 19*; aS', 


cf. r3»- »•. 


6^* ill" (against * ' other gods "). 

.. 19*. 

I2»«- ; 13'* 

6**' (instruclion to children). 


y3-«. 11 ^jjo compact with Canaan- 

7'; 12" (Canaanite altars, "pillars," 

Nu. 33"- 

aj**; 34". 

P. 33''. 

&c. to be destroyed). 

t9»; aa». 

f; I4»-"; 26"; 2S» (Israel a 

Lev. llW-; 19*; 

holy people), 
(in aifTcrcnt connexions). 


.. «^" 

aa» ; a3». 

lo'* (to love ihc stranger). 

1 2i*- » ; is" (blood not to be eaten). 

„ i7"-*;i9«"; 

(cf. 3": 7 

«•; Gen. 



16^ (no leavened bread with Pass- 

Ex. I3< ' 


16**' *** (unleavened cakes for seven 

„ ia""-»;Lev. 

days afterwards). 


a3«'; 34«'. 

16^ (flesh of Passover not to remain 
till morning). 

„ ia»;Nu. 9". 

le"" (feast of "booths," "seven 

Lev. 23"- "■"•-. 

17*; i9^"('*lwo or three witnesses"). 

Nil 35". 


19*^ {iex taiionis) 

(but in a different application in 
each case). 

Lev. a4'»^. 

The passages should be examined individually: for sometimes, 
especially in the case of the right-hand column, the parallelistn 
extends only to the subject-maiter, the details being different, 
or even actually discrepant. The instances in which the diver- 
gence is most marked are indicated by an asterisk (*). The first 
important fact that results from such an examination is this, that 
tfu laws in JE, yiz. Ex, ao-23 (repeated, partially, in 34'**"), 
and the kindred section i^^'^^^/orm the foundation of the Dcutcro- 



nomic Ugishtion. This is evident as well from tlie numerous 
verbal coincidences * as from the fact which is plain from the 
[71] left-hand column, \i/. that nearly the whole ground covered 
by Ex. 20-23 ^s included in it, almost the only exception being 
the special compensations to be paid for various injuries (Ex. 
2ii8-22^*), which would be less necessary in a manual intended 
for the people. In a few cases the entire law is repeated verbatim^ 
elsewhere only particular clauses (<r.^, 6®-^ 7^ 15'^ **•")» more 
commonly it is explained (i6''^ aa**") or expanded; fresh defini- 
tions being added (r6'''^, or a principle applied so as to cover 
expressly particular cases (17^*^ iSi"**"-"). Sometimes even the 
earlier law is modified ; discrepancies arising from this cause 
will be noticed subsequently. The additional ciWl and social 
enactments make provision chiefly for cases likely to arise in a 
more complex and developed community than is contemplated 
in the legislation of Ex. 20-23. 

In the right-hand column most of the parallels are with Lev, 
17-36 (the Law of Holiness). Tliese consist principally of 
specific moral injunctions; but it cannot be said that the 
legislation in DL is based upon this code, or connected with 
it organically, as it is with Ex. 20-23. ^^^^h the other parts of 
Lev.-Nu. tlie parallels arc less complete, the only remarkable 
verbal one being afforded by the description of clean and un- 
clean animals in 14^ o-iftk ( = Lev. 11-^^**, with immaterial dif- 
ferences t) : in some other cases the differences are great, — in 
fact, so great as to be incapable of being harmonized. 

An example or two will Uluslraie the different relation In which Dt. standi 
to the other I'entateucha] codes. If l6^*" be compared with the parallels in 
JE, ic will be seen to be an txpanston of them, several clauses being quoted 
verbally (see below, note*), and only placed in a new setting. If it be com- 
pared with Ivcv. 23, the general scope will be seen to be very different, 
though, with the ports of Lev. 23 which belong to H, there arc two or three 
expressions in common, viz, in iG*^ ^- **. With the table of sacrifices in Nu, 
28 f. there is no point of contact in Dt The laws in \^^-^ 15"" iS'" 
diverge most remarkably from those on the same subjects in Lcv.-Nu. In 
other instances, also, there are differences, though less considerable. 

The different relation in which Dt. stands to the other codea 
may be thus expressed. Il is an exfa/aio/t of that in JE (£x« 
20-23) ; it is, in several features, parallel to that in H (Lev. 

• E.S' DU 6* 7" 10" \(^- «• '•■ '*, wiih ihc luialhls cited In ilie Tahle. 

1 14»-"- *• axe britjtr than Lev. 1 1"-"- »"» j x^*"^* is not in Lev, (cl. p. 46). 



17-26); it contains allusions to laws such as those codified in 
1 72] some parts of 1\ while from those contained in other parts 
its provisions differ widely.* 

In so far as it is a law-book, Dt may be described as a 
manual, which without entering into technical details (almost 
the only exception is 14^*^1 which explains itself) would instruct 
the Israelite in the ordinary duties of life. It gives general 
directions as to the way in which the annual feasts are to be 
kept and the principal offerings paid. It lays down a few 
fundamental rules concerning sacrifice (12^'''^'^ 15^ >7')> for 
a case in which technical skill would be required, it refers to the 
priests (24^. It prescribes the general principles by which ■ 
family and domestic life is to be regulated, specifying a number 
of the cases most likely to occur. Justice is to be equitably and 
impartially administered (16**-^). It prescribes a due position 
in the community to the prophet (13^** i8**"), and shows how 
even the monarchy may be so established as not to contravene 
the fundamental principles of the theocracy (ly""^*)- 

Deuteronomy is, however, more than a mere code of laws ; 
it is the expression of a profound ethical and religious spirit, 
which determines its character in every part. The author wrote, 
it is evident, under a keen sense of the perils of idolatry ; and 
to guard Israel against this by insisting earnestly on the debt of 
gratitude and obedience which it owes to its Sovereign Lord, is 
the fundamental teaching of the book. Accordingly at the head 
of the hortatory introduction (c. 5-1 1) stands the Decalogue; 
and llie First Commandment forms the text of the chapters 
which follow. Having already (4*^*) dwelt on the spirituaiity 
of the God of Israel, the lawgiver emphasizes here, far more 
distinctly than had been before done. His unity and unique 
Godhead (6* 10": cf. 3-* 4"- "), drawing from this truth (he 
practical consequence that He must be the sole object of the 
Israelite's reverence (6^^ 10™). He exhorts the people to keep 
His statutes ever in remembrance (5* 6^** '^'' &c), warning 
them again and again, upon peril of the consequences, not to 
follow after "other gods" (6«'i* 7* 8"-2o xi^**'- " 30""-: cf, 
29«^-2« 31"^ »f. M), not to be tempted, even by the most 

* From what has Ijeen said in the text, it will be apparent how incorrect 
u the common description of Deuteronomy as 4 '* recapitulation " of the laws 
contained in the preceding books. 



specious representations, to the practice of idolatry (13^***), and 
declaring emphatically lliat obedience to Jehovah's will will 
bring with it the Divine blessing, and be the sure avenue to 
national prosperity (cf. the passages cited, p. 99 f., Nos. 3, 13, 
21). He reminds them of the noble privileges, undeserved on 
their part (7'''^ 9^"^; and the retrospect following, as far as 10^*), 
which had been bestowed [73] upon them (lo^*^- *- ; so 4^^) ; and 
reasserts with fresh emphasis the old idea (Ex. 19' 24^ 34^**) of 
the covenant subsisting between the people and God (5'- ' 
26i«-i»: so 4^^^^ 299.12-15.86)^ assuring them that if they are 
true on their side God will be true likewise (7''^^ 8" ii^-^). 
Particularly he emphasizes the love of God (7^* " 10" 23^^^ : so 
4*'), tracing even in hLs people's affliction the chastening hand 
of a father (8^^' *■ **^), and dwelling on the providential purposes 
which His dealings with Israel exemplified. 

Duties, however, are not to be performed from secondary 
motives, such as fear, or dread of consequences : they are to 
be the spontaneous outcome of a heart penetrated by an all- 
absorbing sense of personal devotion to God ("with a// the 
heart, and with a// the soul"; see p. loi), and prepared lo 
renounce everything inconsistent with loyalty to Him. Love 
to God, as the motive of human action, is the characteristic 
doctrine of Deuteronomy (6* 10*2 n'- "• « j^a ifjt ^o"- lO- '^) ; 
as here dwelt upon and expanded, the old phrase t/tose that ii/i'e 
me is filled with a moral significance which the passing use of it, 
in passages like Ex- 20**, Jud. 5^* would scarcely suggest The 
true principle of human action cannot be stated more profoundly 
than is here done : it was a true instinct whicli in later times 
selected Dt. 6*-* for daily recitation by every Israelite;* and it 
is at once intelligible that our Lord should have pointed to the 
same text, both as the " first commandment of all " (Matt. 22^'"'' 
Mark 12"^), and as embodying the primary condition for the 
inheritance of eternal life (Luke lo^'-). 

The code of special laws (c 12-26) is dominated by simihir 
principles. Sometimes, indeed, the legislator is satisfied to leave 
an enactment to explain itself: more commonly he insists upon 
the object which it is to subserve (e.g, 14^ 21^ &c.) or the 
motive which should be operative in its observance. An ethical 
and religious aim should underlie the entire life of the com- 
• The Shim£\ SchUrer, Ctuk, J.JtiJ. V^kti, ii. 377 f., 382 t 



mumty. Local sanctuaries were apt to be abused, aiid to 
degenerate into homes of superstition and idolatry : all offer- 
ings and public worship generally are to take place at the central 
sanctuary, " the place which Jehovah thy God shall choose" (c 
12, and often). Old enactments are repeated (12'; cf. 7'), [74] 
and fresh enactments to meet special cases (c. 13. ao^*-'^) are 
added, for the purpose of neutralizing every inducement to 
worship " other gods." The holiness of the nation is to be its 
standard of behaviour, even in matters which might appea* 
indifferent (141^- ^-'■*' *>) j its perfect devotion to its God is 10 
exclude all customs or observances inconsistent with this (i8*'^*). 
In particular the duties of humanity, philanthropy, and bene- 
volence are insisted on, towards those in difficulty or want (12'* 



1-4 2^i3f. ur. 

27"), and towards slaves (15"'- 23"'" )i 
especially upon occasion of the great annual pilgrimages (la**- 1* 
i^tT. tt 1 511. 14 jgu. 13^, Gratitude and a sense of sympathy 
evoked by the recollection of their own past, are the motives 
again and again inculcated : two forms of thanksgiving form the 
termination of the code (c. 26). Already in the Decalogue the 
reason assigned for the observance of the fourth commandment, 
" that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as 
thou," and the motive, " And thou shalt remember that thou 
wast a bondman in the land of Egypt" (s^**** ^*), indicate the 
lines along which the legislator moves, and the principles which 
it is his desire to impress (add 13*-*'' 15" le^**- " 23^ 241*-"). 
Forbearance, equity, and forethought underlie the regulations 
ao5-u. lar. 21W-U. 1&-17 228 23«. 28 246. 0. 10. "-2J 253; humanity 

towards animals, those in 22' 25*. Not indeed that similar 
considerations are absent from the older legislation (see r^. Ex. 
22-i-W' w 2^». H. 12)^ an(j ^as the table will have shown) some of 
the enactments which have been cited are even borrowed from it ; 
but they are developed in Dt. with an emphasis and distinctness 
which give a character to the entire work. Nowhere else in the 
OT. do we breathe such an atmosphere of generous devotion to 
God, and of large-hearted benevolence towards man; and nowhere 
else is it shown with the same fulness of detail how these prin- 
ciples may be made to permeate the entire life of the community.* 
Dl contains, however, two historical retrospects, 1^-3^ and 

* See further, on the leading principles of Deut, Hotzinger, £i>«i^ p. 3i3£p 
tod ihe writcf'i C^mmtntary^ pp. xix-xxxiv. 


9'-io", besides allusions to the history in other places ; and the 
relation of these to the four preceding books must next be 
examined. The following tabic of verbal coincidences shows 
that in the history Dt. is even more closely dependent upon 
the earlier narrative than in the laws. The reader who will be 
at [75] the pains to underline (or, if he uses the Hebrew, to 
0ver\\xv&) in his text of Dt. the passages in common, will be able 
to see at a glance (i) the passages of Ex.-Nu. passed over in 
Dt, (3) the variations and additions in Dt. 


(Nu. I4»).» 
(Nu. ii»>. 








Ex. i8»»». 
























. 34*). 
















32"* (Nu. I4»). 


















• " 





■ > 


SmNu. ii'-'Er. 17' Nu. Xl*-H 



[SceDL i«"^. «.ir]. 



(Resumption of Dl 9"), 



(Ex. 32"% 

* Tlie parenthesis indicates that, though there is a coinddenoe in the 
language, the passage quoted docs not describe the same event) but is 
borrowed from another part of the narrative. Thus Dt. i"*"^^ alludes to the 
appointment of judges to assist Moses, described in Ex. 18 ; but some of the 
phrases are borrowed from the narrative of the 70 elders in Nu. 11. So in 
a**^ "*■**, alluding to Nu. 21" (the message to Sihon)^ the expressions are 
borrowed from Nu. 2o"* *• (the message to EdomS, 

t This verse does not necessarily describe the sequel of r." j k may be 
rendered: "And your sin . . . \ \oo\i {:= had taken)." 

X v.**" cannot refer actually to Ex. 32"'", because the interccsaoo there 
recorded was made beforM Moses* first descent from the mount, whereas in DC 
T." points back to v."j which clearly relates what took place afitr iu 



Dt 9» 




(Ex. 32"). 


(Nu.14"; cf. E«. 3a"). 


(Ex. aa"*"). 


Ex. 34^ 


» 34*. 

I' (the «ri) 

• • • 


Ek. 34>». 

»>-«» (the Ofi) 

• • • 




,. 34~. 


• ■ • 

"( = 9«) 

a Ex. 34*". 


(Ex. 33'). 

The dependence of Dt iM-»."-*« on Nu. i3"-i4** 



«o' and of 2^-3' on Nu. 21*"^^ (3^"" being an expansion of Nu. 
«i"^)/ it must be left to the reader to work out for himself. 
Apart from the verbal coincidences, while there are sometimes 
omissions, as a rule the substance of the earlier narrative is 
reproduced freely with ampUncatory additions. A singular 
characteristic of both retrospects is die manner In which, on 
several occasions, a phnise describing originally one incident 
is appiUi in Dt. to anoilur. Allusions to the narrative of Gen.- 
Nu. occur also in other parts of Dt.f But the remarkable cir- 
cumstance is that, as in the laws, so in the history, Dt. is 
d€p^nd<nt upon JE. Throughout the parallels just tabulated 
(as well as in the others occurring in the book), not the allusions 
only, but the words cited, will be found, all but uniformly, to be 
in JE, not in P. An important conclusion follows from this 
fact. Inasmuch as. In our existing Pent., JE and P repeatedly 
cross one another, the constant absence of any reference to P 
can only be reasonably explained by one supposition, viz. that 
when Dt. was composed JE and P were not yet uniud into a 
single work^ andJE alone formed tJie basis of Dt^X 

^ • Unless indeed Dillm/s view of Nu. 21"** (above, p. 66) be correct. 
+ As i»6"*and often (ilie oat A) to Gen. 22*"- 24' 26*; 6" to Ex. 17' 
• ri"io Nu. le^*"***; 24*10 Nu. la". Comp. also 7"'** (ihe hornet)^ and 
Ex. 23'-*- * »■»>»; 7''^ and Ex. 23"*; ^ and Ex. a3«-«-»»»; ii*» and 
Ex. 23" ; I2» and Ex. 34" ; &c 

J Notice esp. the transition from Dt I* ( = Nu, 14***) to Dt, i* 
I4*), ihe inlen'ening passage, v.*'*, which belongs in the main to P, being 
disregarded. A single instance of this kind would not be conclusive ; but 
the €»Hsiii£Ht disregard of P in L>t admits of but one intcrpretatioa. 



This conclusion, derived primarily from the two retrospects, 
is confirmed by other indications. Dt speaks regularly, not of 
Sif$at\ but of Hortb (as Ex. 3' 17'' 33^), a term never used by 
P: Dt names Dathan and Abiram (11°), but is silent as to 
Korah ; in the composite narrative of Nu. 1 6 Dathan and [77] 
Abiram alone (p. 64) belong to JE. Similarly the exception of 
Caleb alone (without Joshua) in i** agrees with JE, Nu. 14** 
(p. 63). The allusions to Gen.-Ex. are likewise consistently to 
JE : thus, while the promise (i") is found both in JE and P, the 
oath is peculiar to JE. If the author of Dt. was acqiiainted with 
P, he can only have referred to it occasionally, and (trtainly did 
not make it the basis of his work. The verdict of tHe historical 
allusions in Dt. thus confirms that of the hws (p. ^^'^ff).* 

Authorship and date of Deuteronomy. 

Even though it were clear that the first four books of the 
PenL were written by Moses, it would be difficult to sustain the 
Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. For, to say nothing of the 
remarkable difference of style, Dt. conflicts with the legislation 
of Ex.-Nu. in a manner that would not be credible were the 
legislator in both one and the same. Even in Dt 15^^ com- 
pared with Ex. 21-''^ and Dt. 15^"^* compared with Ex. 23^°'* 
(both JE), there are variations difficult to reconcile with both 
l>eing the work of a single legislator (for they are of a character 
that cannot reasonably be attributed to the altered prospects of 
the nation at tlie close of the 40 years' wanderings, and point 
rather to the people having passed during the interval into 
changed social conditions) ; but when the laws of Dt. are com- 
pared with those of P, such a supposition becomes impossible. 
For in Dt. language is used implying that fundamental institti' 
tions of P are unknown to the author, .^hus, while Lev. 25^*^' 
enjoins the release of the Hebrew slave in the year of Jubile, in 
Dt, I512-18 the legislator, without bringing his new law into 
relation with the different one of Lev., prescribes the release 
of the Hebrew slave in the 7th year of his service. In the la^s 
of P in Leviticus and Numbers a sharp distinction is drawn 
between the priests and the common Levites : in Dt. it is impliej^ 
(i8'*) that all members of the tribe of Levi are qualified tb 
exercise priestly functions ; and regulations are laid down (i8*^ 

* The dependence of Dt. upon JE is generally recognised by critics ; n 
0^. Delit£5ch, ZA'fVL, 18S2, p. 227 ; DiHm. /iDf p. 609, \ 


to meet the case of any member coming from the country t 
che ceniTal sanctuary, and claiming to officiate there as priest 
Moreover, in P particular [78] provision is made for the m 
tenance of both priests and Levites, and in Nu. 35 (cf Josh. 21; 
48 cities are appointed for their residence. In Dl, under both 
heads, the provisions are very different. DL 18^ is in conflict 
with Lev. f-^-^ • and Dt. iS^ is inconsistent with the institution 
of Levitical cities prescribed in Nu. 35 : it implies that tb 
Lcute has no settled residence, but is a "sojourner" in offl 
or other of the cities (" gates," see p. 99) of Israel. The tenn 
of the verse are indeed entirely compatible with the institutioi 
of Levitical cities, supposing it to have been imperfectly put ii 
force ; but they fall strangely from one who, ex hypoiliesi^ ha< 
only 6 months previously assigned to the Levites permanent 
dwelling-places. The same representation recurs in other parts 
of Dt : the Levites are frequently alluded to as scattered aboui 
the land, and are earnestly commended to the Israelite's charity 
(,212,18.19 ,427.29 ,611.14 26"->2-i3). Furtlicr, Dt 128- "'• i5»'- 
conflict with Nu. 18^^ : in Nu. the firstlings of oxen and sheep 
are assigned expressly and absolutely to the priest -, in Dt they 
are to be eaten by the owner himself at the central sanctuarysj 
Lasllyjllie law of tithes in Dt is in conflict with that of P on 
the same subject In Nu. 18^'*^ the tithes— viz. both animal 
and vegetable alike (T^ev. 27^*^') — are definitely assigned to the 
Levites, who, in their turn, pay a tenth to the priests (Nu. 
18^-^) : in Dt there appears to be no injunction respecting 
the tithes of animal produce ; but the reservation of a tithe of 
vegetable produce (la^"** 14-^-) is enjoined, which is to be con- 
sumed by the offerer, like the firstlings, at a sacrificial feast, in 
which the Levite share;^ only in company with others as the 
recipient of a charitable benevolence. A large proportion, 
therefore, of what is assigned in Nu. to the Levites remain! 
implicitly the property of the lay Israelite in Dt.f It is held^ 

* The terms used in v.' to describe the Levites' services are those used 
elsewhere regularly of /»r/«//)' duties, era vrm to minuter in tfu name, as 
l8» (of the priest : cf. 17" ai*) ; 'icS tdp to stand befort—i.e, to wait on (see 
t.g. X KL \X?)—j€h^'ah, as Ei. 44'» Jud- 20», cf. Dt 17" i8». (TIic 
Levites '* stand before" — i.€» wait upon — the eengregation Nu, 16* Ex. 44"^. 
In 2 Ch. 1^^ priests arc ptcsent : sec v.* ) ^ 

1* The common assumption that in Dt. a second tithe, on vt^table produQi 
only, in addiUon to that leferred to in Nu. is meant, is inconsistent with Ifcf 


tlien, that these [79] difTerences of detail between the laws of 
Dt and those of P are greater tlian could arise were the legis- 
lator the same in both, and that they can only be explained by 
the supposition that the two systems of law represent the usage 
of two distinct periods of the nation's life. For though it is no 
doubt thoroughly conceivable that Moses may have foreseen 
the neglect of his own institution, this will not explain his 
enjoining obser\'ances in conflict with those which he had 
already prescribed ; while, as regards the impoverished con- 
dition of the Levites, there is no indication that this is merely 
a future contingency for which the legislator is making pro- 
vision J it is represented throughout as the condition which t)u 
writer sees around him (cf. Jud. i;^'* J9*'')» 

There are also discrepancies between Dt. and other ports of P, as i** (the 

ftoph Kiggest spying out the land of Canaan) and Nu. Ij"** (Ihe same sug- 
gestion referred to Jehovah) ; 10* {Mases makes the ark before ascending Sinai 
the second time) and Ex. 37^ {Besalui makes it afi^ Moses' return from the 
mount); lo* and Nu, 33"-*"; lo'and Ex. 28 f. Lev. 8 &c In the light of 
the demonstrated dependence of Dt. upon JE, it can scarcely be doubted 
that the real solution of these discrepancies Is thai the represeniaiion in Dt. is 
liosed upon parts of the narrative of JE, which were slill read !)y the author 
of D(., but which, when J£ was afterwards combined with !\ were not 
retained by tlie comfxler. Notice that in 10'' the form of the itinerary agrees 
with that ofJE (p. 66), 

Tiiere are, moreover, expressions in the retrospects (esp. tlie 
repeated "at that time" 2" 3*.B.iir. i8.ii.'j.i^ ^^^\ 't^nto this d.iy" 
3***) implying that a longer interval of time than 6 months (i' 
compared with Nu. 33^ and 20^-''^) had elapsed since the 
events referred to had taken place.* And the use of the phrase 
"beyond Jordan" for Eastern Palestine in i*-* 3* 4*i-<<if-*» 

manner tn which it Is spoken of tn Dt.: even supposing the first lithe to be 
taken for granted as an cslablislied usage, it is not credible that a second tithe 
shouM be thus fi>r the first time initituteH without a word to indicate that it 
was an innovation, or in any respect difTcreiU fioni what would be ordinarily 
understood by the word " tiihe." And if a huger and more important lithe 
hod lo be paid, it is scarcely possible lliat there should be no reference to it in 
the solemn profession a6*^*, 

• The curious transition in l*' from the 2nd to the 40th year 6f U»e exodus, 
and back again to the 2nd year in 1^ points in ihe same direction — unless, 
indeed (which is quite possible), the solution suggested above be here also the 
true one» and the reference be to some incident of the second year recorded in 
JE, but not preserved in our existing IVntulcuch. 


exactly as in Josh. 2'* 7^^ 9^** &c Jud, 5'^ 10", implies that the 
author was resident in Western Palestine (the same usage, im- 
plying the same fact, in Nu. 22' 34'*).* 

[80] But in fact the Mosaic authorship of Gen.-Nu. cannot 
be sustained. P, at any rate, must belong to a widely different 
age from JE, Can any one read the injunctions respecting 
sacrifices and feasts in Ex. 23'*-'* beside those in P (Lev, 1-7, 
Nu. 28-29, for instance), and not feel that some centuries must 
have intervened between the simplicity which charvicterizes the 
one and the minute specialization which is the mark of the 
other ? The earliest of the Pentateuchal sources, it seems clear, 
is JE: but at whatever date this be placed, Dt. must follow it at 
a considerable inten'al ; for the legislation of Dt. implies a more 
elaborately organized civil community than that for which pro- 
vision is made in the legislation of JE, Nor is this more 
elaborate organization merely anticipated in Dt.; it is presupposed 
as already existing. And in fact the historical books afford a 
strong presumption that the law of Dt. did not originate until after 
the establishment of the monarchy. In DL the law respecting 
sacrifice is unambiguous and strict : it is not to be offered in 
Canaan **in every place that thou seest" (12*^), but only at the 
place chosen by God " out of all thy tribes to set his name there " 
(la**"-" 14^ and often), i.e. at some central sanctuary. Now 
io Ex. it is said (20^**'), "in every place where I record my 
name, I will come unto thee and bless thee"; and with the 
principle here laid down the practice of Josh.-i Ki. C conforms : 
in these books sacrifices are frequently described as offered in 
different parts of the land, without any indication (and this is 
the important fact) on the part of either the actor or the narrator 
that a law such as that of Dt is being infringed. After the 
exclusion of all uncertain or exceptional cases, such as Jud. 2^ 
6^*^*, where the theophany may be held to have justified the 
erection of an altar, there remain as instances of either altars or 
I0c.1l sanctuaries Josh. 24,^^-'^^ i Sa. 7»'-" 9"-" lo"-*-' (ij^'-), 
ii» i4**20«2Sa. 15"-". 

* The Taxialions between Dt. and Ex.-Nu., in connexion with U)c 
ftttempts that have been mode to reconcile thcnit as well as other features 
iDconaistent with Moses' aulhonhip. ore considered more fully in an artide on 
Dt. by the author in Smith's /?iV/. d/M/5M/*,» §5 11, 14, 16-18,30,31-33; 
and in his Commentary^ pp. xxxiv-xliv, Uii-Uiv. 



The inference which appears to follow from these passages is sometimea 
met by the contention that the period from the abandonment of Shiloh to the 
erection of the Temple was an exceptional one. The nation was in disgrace, 
and undergoing a course of discipline, its spiritual privil^es being withheld 
till it was ripe to have them restored ; and, in so far as Samuel appears often 
[8z] as the agent, his function was an extraordinary one, limited to himself. It 
may be doubted whether this answer is satisfactory. There is no trace in 
the narrative of such disciplinary motives haWng actuated Samuel ; and the 
narrator betrays no consciousness of anything irregular or abnormal having 
Incurred. See especially I Sa. 9'^'' lO*'", where ordinary and regular customs 
are evidently described ; and 14", which implies that Saul waa in the habit 
of building altars to Jehovah. 

The sanctuary at which the Ark was for the time located had 
doubtless the pre-eminence (cf. Ex. 23^*, i Sa. 1-3); but, so far 
as the evidence before us goes, sacrifice was habitually offered at 
other places, the only limitation being that they should be pro- 
f>erly sanctioned and approved (" in every place tvfi^rc I record 
my naf/t^")* The non-observance of a law does not, of course, 
imply necessarily its non-existence ; still, when men who might 
fairly be presumed to know of it, if it existed, not only make no 
attempt to put it in force, but disregard it without explanation or 
excuse, it must be allowed that such an inference is not altogether 
an unreasonable one. 

The history thus appears to corroborate the inference derived 
above from c. 1-4 &c, and to throw the composition of Dl to 
a period considerably later than the Mosaic age. Can its date 
be determined more precisely ? The terminus ad quern is not 
difficult to fix: it must have been wTitten prior to the i8th year 
of King Josiah (b.c. 621), the year in which Hilkiah made his 
memorable discovery of the "book of the law" in the Temple 
(2 Ki, 22^^*). For it is clear from the narrative of 2 Ki. 22-23 
that that book must have contained Deuteronomy; for al- 
though the bare description of its contents, and of the effect 
produced by it upon those who heard it read (22"- "•^^) 
might suit Lev. 26 equally with Dt 28, yet the allusions to the 
covenant contained in it (23*-'^), vvhich refer evidently to Dt 
(*: cf. 272B), and the fact that in the reformation 
based upon it Josiah carries out, step by step (2 Ki. 22*'* '• 

• The expression Cipon Sd3 may include equally places conceived as exist- 
ing contemporaneously (cf. the same idiomatic use of ^3, Lev. is"* Dt. ii** 
&c.), or selected successively. 



2^9-9. T.»-ii.S4 ^c.), the principles of Dt., leave no doubt upon 
the matter. 

How much earlier than b.c. 621 it may be is more difficult to 
determine. The supposition that Hilkiah himself was concerned 
in the composition of it is not probable : for a book compiled 
by the high priest could hardly fail to emphasize the interests of 
the [82] priestly body at Jerusalem, which Dt does not do 
(i8*^).* The book is stated to have been found while some 
repairs were being carried on in the Temple : and there is force 
in the argument that it could hardly have been lost during the 
early years of Josiah (who appears to have been throughout 
devoted to the service of Jehovah) ; but this might easily have 
happened during the heathen reaction under Manasseh. Hence 
it is probable that its composition is not later than the reign of 

The conclusion that Dt belongs, at least approximately, to 
this age, is in agreement with the contents of the book. 

(i.) The differences between Dt and Ex. 21-23, point with 
some cogency to a period considerably removed from that at 
which the Israelites took possession of Canaan, and presuppose 
a changed social condition of the people. 

(2.) The law of the kingdom, 17^*"-, is coloured by reminis- 

• W. R. Smith, OTJC> p. 363 ; DUIm. p. 614. CoIenso*8 opinion, ihnt 
Jeremiah was the author, has found no favour with critics, and is ccrtainly 
inconect ; it is taie, the language of Jeremiah often remarkably resembles 
that of Dt., but when the two are compared minutely, it appears that many 
of the characteristic expressions of each are absent from the other (cf. Klcioert, 
pp. 1S5-190, 235, and the writer's Cemntentary^ pp. xciii, xdv). 

t So Lwald, Nist, i. 127, iv. 221; W. R. Smith, Add. Answer (Edin. 
1878), p. 78 (cf. OT/C* p. 355); Kittcl, pp. 57-59; Kautisch. Abriss, 
p. 16S ; Wildeboer, UtUrktmdi da O, V. § 11. to. Reuss, La Bii/e {iSj^), 
i. I56fr. ; Kuenen, J/ex. p. 214; Dillmann, //£>/. p. 6l3f. {less confidently); 
Stade, G. i. 650 IT. ; Holzinger, p. 327 f., prefer the reign of Josiah ; Comill, 
EinL* p. 30, "not long before 621." Delilzsch, Studicn, x. 509; Riehm, 
£ir$L p. 246f.; Kdnig, p. 217 ; Westphal [L 278 ff.); Octtii (p. 19 f.), assign 
it to the reign of Hezckiah, considering that it was in its origin connected 
with, or even gave the impulse to, the reform of 2 Ki. iS''*'. G. A. Smitli 
{Crit, Rev. 1895, p. 341 f. ) assigns it to the close of the same reign, remark- 
ing that if it had been written later, it might have been expected to exhibit 
traces of the opposition and persecution to which finithful Israelites were then 
exposed. It is true, the data showing Dt. to be post-Mosaic are more defmite 
and distinct than those which we possess for fixing the prtHs* part of the 
century before B.c. 621 to which it is to be assigned. 


cences of the monarchy of Solomon. The argument does not 
deny that Moses may have made provision for the establishment 
of a monarchy in Israel, but affirms that the form in which the 
provision is here cast bears traces of a later age. 

(3.) The forms of idolatry alluded to, specially the worship of 
the "host of heaven" (4^' 17'), seem to point to the middle 
period of the monarchy. It is true, the worship of the sun 
and moon is ancient, as is attested even by the names of places 
in Canaan ; but in the notices (which are frequent) of idolatrous 
practices in Jud. -Kings no mention occurs of " the host of 
heaven" till the period of the bter kings.* That the cult is 
presupposed in Dt. and not merely anticipated prophetically, 
seems clear from the terms in which it is referred to. While 
we are not in a position to affirm positively that the danger was 
[83] not felt earlier, the law, as formulated in Dt., seems designed 
lo meet the form which the cult assumed at a later age, 

(4.) The influence of Dt, upon subsequent writers is clear 
and indisputable. It is remarkable, now, that the early prophets, 
Amos, Hosea, and the undisputed portions of Isaiali, show no 
certain traces of this influence ; Jeremiah exhibits marks of it on 
nearly every page; Ezckicl and II Isaiah are also evidently 
influenced by it. If Dt. were composed in the period between 
Isaiah and Jeremiah, these facts would be exactly accounted 

(5.) The language and style of Dt., clear and flowing, free 
from archaisms, but purer than tlut of Jeremiah, would suit the 
same period. It is difficult in this connexion not to feel the 
force of Dillmann's remark (p. 611), that "the style of Dt. 
implies a long development of the art of public oratory, and 
is not of a character to belong to the first age of Israelitish 

(6.) The propJietk teaching of Dt., the dominant theological 
ideas, the point of view from which the laws are presented, the 
principles by which conduct is estimated, presuppose a relatively 
advanced stage of theological reflexion, as they also approximate 
to what is found in Jeremiah and Ezekicl. 

(7.) In Dt. 16^* we read, "Thou sha!t not set thee- up a 

• a Ki. 23" names Ahax (cf. Is. 17"*', belonging to the same reign) ; 
2 Ki. aj*- • [cf. 23** •] Manassch ; 17" is vague ; Zeph. l», Jer. 7" 8» 19^ 44", 
lUcU. S'* l>cIon^ to a somewhat btcr pericxi. 



mazzibah (obelisk or pillar), which the Lord thy God hateth." 
Had Isaiah known of this law he would hardly have adopted the 
mazzidah (19^'*) as a symbol of the conversion of Egypt to the 
true faith. The supposition that heatfun pillars are meant in l)t. 
is not favoured by the context (v.^^**) ; the use of these has, more- 
over, been proscribed before (7* 12^). 

When once Deuteronomy is viewed in the light of the age 
which gave it birth, its true significance appears. It was a great 
manifesto against the dominant tendencies of the time. It laid 
down the lines of a great religious reform. \Vhether written in 
the dark days of Manasseh, or during the brighter years whicJi 
followed the accession of Josiah, it was a nobly-conceived en- 
deavour to provide in anticipation a spiritual rallying-point, round 
whichj when circumstances favoured, the disorganized forces of 
the national religion might range themselves again. It was an 
emphatic reaffirmation of the fundamental principles which 
Moses had long ago insisted on, loyalty to Jehovah and repudia- 
tion of all false gods ; it was an endeavour to realize in practice 
the ideals of the prophets, especially of Hosea and Isaiah, to 
transform the Judah demoralized by Manasseh into the "holy 
nation" pictured in Isaiah's vision, and to awaken in it that 
devotion to God, and love for man, which Hosea had declared 
to be the first of human duties. In setting forth these truths the 
author exhausts all his eloquence : in impressive and melodious 
periods, he dilates upon the claims which Jehovah has upon the 
Israelite's allegiance, and seeks, by ever appealing to the most 
generous and powerful motives, to stir Israel's heart to respond 
with undivided loyalty and affection. 

If, however, it be true that Deuteronomy is the composition 
of another than Moses, in what light are we to regard it? In 
particular, does this view of its origin detract from its value and 
authority as a part of the Old Testament Canon ? The objection 
IS commonly made, that if this be the origin of the book it is a 
" forgery " : the author, it is said, has sought to shelter himself 
under a great name, and to secure by a fiction recognition or 
authority for a number of laws devised by himself. In estimat- 
ing this objection, there are two or three important distinctions 
which must be kept in mind. In the first place, though it may 
appear paradoxical to say so, I >l. does not daim to be written hy 
Mosts: whenever the author speaks himself, he purports to give 



a [84] description in iJu third person of what Moses did or said.* 
The trae " author " of Dt. is thus the writer who introdi4ces Mose< 
in the third person \ and tlie discourses which he is represented 
as having spoken fall in consequence into the same category as 
the speeches in the historical books, some of which largely, and 
others entirely, are the composition of the compilers, and are 
placed by them in the mouths of historical characters. This 
freedom in ascribing speeches to historical personages is charac- 
teristic, more or less, of ancient historians generally t ; and it 
certainly was followed by the Hebrew historians. The proof 
lies in the great similarity of style which these speeches con- 
stantly exhibit to the parts of the narrative which are evidently 
the work of the compiler himself. In some cases the writers may 
no doubt have had information as to what was actually said on 
the occasions referred to, which they recast in their own words j 
but very often they merely give articulate expression to the 
thoughts and feelings which it was presumed that the persons in 
question would have entertained. The practice is exemplified 
with particular clearness in the Book of Chronicles, where David, 
Solomon, and diflereiU prophets constantly express ideas and use 
idioms which are distinctively late, and are mostly peculiar to 
the compiler of Chronicles himself; but there are many instances 
in other books as wcll.{ An author, therefore, in framing dis- 
courses appropriate to Moses' situation, and embodying prin- 
ciples which (see p. 91) he would have cordially approved, 
especially if (as is probable) the elements were provided for him 
by tradition, would be doing nothing inconsistent with the literary 
usages of his age and people. 

Secondly, it is an altogether false view of the laws in Dt to 
treat them as the author's "inventions." Many are repeated 
from the Book of the Covenant ; the existence of others is inde- 
pendently attested by the "Law of Holiness"; others, upon 
intrinsic grounds, are clearly ancient. In some cases, no doubt, 
an aim formerly indistinctly expressed is more sharply formulated, 

•See i»-' 4**'*' 5' 27'»'" 29« (Hcb.>) 3ii-» Undoubtedly, the third 
person may have bcea used by Moses ; but tl is unreasonable to assert ihat he 
must have used it, or to contend that passages in which ii occurs could tmty 
have been written by him. See Dclilzsch, Siudien^ x. p. 503 f. ; or, more 
briefly, Gemsis (18S7}, p. 22. On -wrote in Dt 31*, see below, p. 124 «. 

t See Arnold's Thu^'dides^ on L 22 (cd. 5, 1861, vol. L p. 2S). 

% See below, under Joshun, Kings, and Chronicles. 



AS in others modifications or adaptations are introduced which 
the tendencies of the age required ; but, on the whole, the laws 
of [85] Dt. are unquestionably derived from pn-cxisttnt ttstii^e : 
and the object of the aullior is to insist upon their importance, 
and to supply motives for their observance. The new element 
in Dt. is thus not the laws, but their partnetU setting. And even 
thtb ts new, not in substance, but only in form. The point of 
capital importance in Di. is the attitude of the nation towards 
Jehovah : throughout the discourses the author's aim is to provide 
motives, by which to secure loyalty to Him. But Moses also (as 
critics themselves do not doubt *) laid the greatest stress upon 
Jehovah's being the sole and cxclusi\*e object of Israel's 
reverence : the principles on which Dt. insists are thus in sub- 
stance Mosaic ; all that belongs to the post-Mosaic author is the 
rhetorical form in which they are presented. Deuteronomy may 
be described as the profhetic rcformuiationy and adaptation to 
n^v needs^ of an older k^slaihn. It is highly probable that 
there existed the tradition of a final legislative address delivered 
by Moses in the plains of Moab : there would be a more obvious 
motive for the plan followed by the author, if it could be sup- 
posed that he worked thus upon a traditional basis. But be that 
as it may, the bulk of the laws contained in Dt. is undoubtedly 
far more ancient than the time of the author himself: and in 
dealing with them as he has done, in combining them into n 
manual for the guidance of the people, and providing them with 
hortatory introductions and comments, conceived in the spirit of 
Moses himself, he cannot, in the light of the parallels that have 
been referred to, be held to be guilty of dishonesty or literary 
fraud. There is nothing in Dt. implying an interested or dis- 
honest motive on the part of the (post-Mosaic) author : and 
this being so, its moral and spiritual greatness remains un- 
impaired ; its inspired authority is in no respect less than that 
of any other part of the Old Testament Scriptures which 
happens to be anonymous. 

The view of Dt as the re-formulation, with a view to new 
needs, of an older legislation, meets the objection that is sometimes 
urged against the date assigned to it by critics, viz. that it con- 
tains provisions that would be nugatory in the 7 th cent. B.C. ; for 
instance, the injuncliijn to give no quarter to the inhabitants of 
• CoidUI, DerJsr^ Prophtiismus {lZ^^\ p. 25 1 




Canaan (7^"* 2o'*">''). Of course, as the creatiopi of that age, such 
an injunction would be absurd : but it is re/ea/ed horn Ex. 2^^^-'^ ; 
in a recapitulation of Mosaic principles, supposed to be addressed 
to the people when they were about to enter Canaan, it would 
be naturally included ; and so far from being nug.T.tory in the 7th 
cent. B.C, it would indirectly have a real value : occurring, as it 
does, in close connexion with the prohibition of all intercourse 
with the Canaanites, it would be an emphatic protest against 
tendencies which, under Ahaz and Manasseh, became disastrously 
strong. The injunction respecting Amalek [86] {25^^'^") is re- 
peated for a similar reason ; it formed an indisputable part of 
the older legislation (Ex. 17'*), and would be suitable in Moses* 
mouth at the time when the discourses in Dt, are represented as 
having been spoken. 

The much-debated "law of the kingdom" (i;""™) appears 
also in its kernel to be old. It will be observed that the limi- 
tations laid down are all t)uo£raiie\ the law does not define a 
political constitution, or limit the autocracy of the king in civil 
matters. It stands thus out of relation with 1 Sam. 8'^'^^ io-\ 
Its object b to show how the monarchy, if established, is to 
conform to the same Mosaic principles which govern other de- 
partments of the theocracy. V.** asserts the primary condition 
which the monarchy must satisfy, — "Thou mayest noc set a 
foreigner to be king over thee " : a condition conceived thoroughly 
in the spirit of Ex. 23^^-, and designed to secure Israel's dis- 
tinctive nationality against the intrusion of a heathen element in 
this most important dignity. The prohibitiuns, v.'^*"-, guard 
against the distractions too often caused by riches and luxury 
at an Oriental Court ; danger from this source may well have 
been foreseen by Moses : still, these verses certainly wear tlie 
appearance of being coloured by recollections of the court of 
Solomon (1 KL lo^-^* n^"*), or even of the eagerness of a 
powerful party in the days of Isaiah to induce the king to 
strengthen himself by means of Egyptian cavalry (Isa. 30'* 31^ ; 
ef. Jer. a'*-'*), x^g injunctions, v.**"-, secure the king's per- 
sonal familiarity with the principles of the Deuteronomic law, 
for the reason assigned in v.^. As tlie re-formulation of an 
older law, embodying the theocratic ideal of the monarchy, the 
law of the kingdom contains nothing that is ill adapted to a date 
in the 7lh cent, u.c, or that would have sounded "absurd" to 



Ihe author's contcmporariesp supposing Chat to have been the 
period in which he lived.* 

For reasons that have been stated, the law of the Central 
Sanctuary app)ears, in its excIustvettesSf to be of comparatively 
modem origin ; but this law in reality only accentuates the old 
j>re-<minence in the interests of a principle which is often Insisted 
[87] on in JE, viz. the s^egation of Israel firom heathen in- 
fluences. History had shown that it was impossible to secure the 
local sanctuaries against abuse, and to free them from contam- 
ination by Canaanitish idolatry. The prophets had more and 
more distinctly taught that Zion was emphatically Jehovah's seat ; 
and it became gradually more and more plain that the progress 
of spiritual religion demanded the unconditional abolition of the 
local shrines. It was not enough (Ex, 23** 34") to demolish 
heathen sanctuaries: other sanctuaries, even though erected osten- 
sibly for the worship of Jehovah, must not be allowed to take 
their place. Hezekiah, supported, it may be presumed, by pro- 
phetical authority, sought to give practical effect to this teaching 
(a Ki. iS*'** 21*). But he was unable to bring it really home to 
the nation's heart ; and the heathen reaction under Manasseh 
ensued. Naturally, this result only impressed the prophetical 
party more strongly with the importance of the principle which 
Hezekiah had sought to enforce ; and it is accordingly codified, 
and energetically inculcated, in Deuteronomy. Josiali (2 Ki 32- 
23), acting under the influence of Dt, abolished the high places 
with a strong hand ; but even he, as Jeremiah witnesses {passim), 
could not change radically the habits of the people ; and the ends 
aimed at in Dt were only finally secured after the nation's return 
from the Babylonian captivity. 

It has been shown above that the legislation proper of Dt. is 
comprised in c. 5-26, to which 4**^* forms a superscription and 
c 28 a conclusioa What relation, now, do the other parts of 
Dt., sometimes called its "margins," bear to this? By the 
majority of recent critics c. 1-4** is held— partly on account of 

• With the last three paragraphs cotnp. Dclitzsch, StuJicn, xi- passim. 
That the legislation of Dt. U based generally upon pre-existuig sources U fully 
recognised by critics ; see 4,g. Graf, Gesch^ Biicher, pp. 20, 23, 24 ; Renas, 

BiMt^ i. I59f.! Dillmann in his commentary, passim^ csp. p. 604 ff. On 
the lelalion of Dt. i;""- to 1 Sa. 8, lo"-"* 12, ct Krtn. p. 217. and the 
writer's Dtui. p. 213 (the law may have been known to the author of the 
narraiivCf but it was dearly unknown tu the aetors in tlie incidenu described). 


sliglil disagreements in reprcscnlalion and expression wi(U c 5-26 
which it exhibits, partly on account of tlie separate headini;; 
4**^*, which appears to be superfluous after i >--•*•* — lo be not 
part of the original Dt., but to have been added, as an intro- 
duction, by a somewhat later hand, for the purpose, partly of 
supplying the reader with an account of the antecedents of tlie 
Dt, legislation (c. 1-3), partly of inculcating fresh motives for 
its observance (4^'***). It is doubtful if this view is correct. The 
inconsistencies,* though they no doubt exist, arc scarcely suflfici- 
ently serious to outweigh the strong impression produced by the 
predominant linguistic character of c. 1-4**, that it is by the 
same hand as c. 5fr. But the separate heading, especially if its 
circumstantiality be considered, can hardly be due to the same 
author who had already prefaced his work with i'-*-*^. A 
heading, however, lends itself readily to expansion j and there is 
notliing uru-easonable in the supposition that, as formulated by 
the original author, this title was considerably briefer than it 
now is, and not longer than sufhced to mark the commencement 
of tlie "exposition" of the law, after the introduction, i*-4^'*.t 

[88] C. 27. This chapter, which enjoins certain ceremonies to 
be performed after the Israelites have entered Canaan, interrupts 
the connexion between c 26 and a 28, and has probably been 
removed from the position which it originally occupied. V.*'^'* 
may have once formed the connecting link between c, 26 and 
c. 28. In the rest of the cIl four distinct ceremonies are 
enjoined— (i) the inscription of the Deuteronomic law on stones 
upon Mount Ebal v.^"**^; (2) the erection of an altar and offer- 
ing of sacrifices on the same spot v,^"^; (3) the ratification of 
tlie new covenant by the people standing on both EUU and 
Gerizim v.''-"; (4) the twelve curses uttered by the Lcvites 
and responded to by the whole people v.^*'**. V.*-* appears to 

• The most noticeable is thai between a'*"" and s" ll*^, Tl\e question 
wbclher c I-4* is by ihe same hand as c 5 ff. was made recently the sub- 
ject of an inlerestiiii^ discussion between A. Van Hoonacker (aflirming it], in 
Le Muihn^ vii, (1SS8) p. 464 fT., vUl (1S89) pp. 67 ff., 141 ff., and L. Ilorst 
(denying it), in the Rev. dt VI/isL des K'eH^'ous, xxiiL {1S91), p. 184 ff. See 
an outline of the arguments on both sides in the writer's Deutaonomy^ 
pp. Uvii-Ixxii. 

t 4*" is based upon 3'* : so that, if it be tnie (cf. p. 73 ; and see Dillai., 
or the author's Comtn. a<i /<y.) thai 3"'" is an in&enion in c. X-3, 4**'* must^ 
in iis present form, he of later origin tlian c 1-3. 



be based upon an older narrative, which has been expanded and 
recast by the autlior of Dt, V."'*^ is disconnected with *', 
the situation and circumstances being fc>oth different; but it 
mtist be taken in connexion with ii**^-, and understood to par- 
ticularize the symbolical ceremony which is tnere contemplated. 
The connexion of v.""*" with v.^^-^' is very imperfect. V,^^- 
represents six of the tribes (including Levi, which is reckoned 
here as a lay-tribe, Ephraim and Manasseh being treated as &nc) 
on Gerizim and six on Ebal — in tolerable accordance with 
Josh. 8*^; and we expect (cf. ii-**) some invocation of blessings 
and curses on the two mountains respectively. V.""^, on the 
contrary, describe only a series of ttirses, uttered by the Levitts, 
to which all Israel respond. The two representations are 
evidently divergent, and give an inconsistent picture of the entire 
scene. Either something which made the transition clear has 
dropped out between v.^^ and v. **, or v.'*''* have been incorporated 
from some independent source (see Dillmann, pp. 367-9) : the 
imprecations, namely, do not present an epitome of the sins 
most earnestly warned against in Dt (as might have been ex- 
pected, were they drawn up by the same author), but correspond 
closely to some of the laws of H (see p. 74 f ), 

29'-3o-^. Merc the standpoint is not throughout the same as 
in Dt. generally; for whereas in c 5-26, 28, the alternatives of 
national obedience and disobedience are balanced one against 
the other, and one is not represented as more likely to follow 
than the other, in aQ'-*^-, and esp. in 30*"*'*, the latter is assumed 
to have definitely taken place, and the writer even contemplates 
the conditions of Israel's restoration from exile : the connexion 
is ako in parts imperfect (notice the transition from the individual 
in 29'*''*i to the nation in 29*^' ; and/?r in 30^*, introducing the 
reason for a present duty, whereas in y:^'^^ Israel is represented 
as being in exile) ; hence it is probable tliat 29--30''^ is a supple- 
ment, embracing original Deuteronomic material (esp. 30"*'-***), 
but due, in its present form, to a later Deuteronomic hand. 

3x'-32*^, including the "Song of Moses" (ja^"^^)- 

Argumtnt of tJu Song, After an exordium (v.*"*), the poet states his 
theme (v.^ As for the Hock, His work is perfeci), the uprightness and faith- 
fulness of Jehovah, as illustrated in His dealings with a corrupt and ungrate- 
ful nation (v.*^). He dwells on the proviflentiul care with which the [89] 
people had becu guided to the home reser ved for them, how prosperity Iwd ihcro 



tempted it to be untrue to its ideal (" Jcshurun**) character, unli! the pimiih* 
meat decreed for this bad oil but issued in national extinction, and the final 
step had only been arrested by JcJiovah's "dread" of the foe's malicious 
triumph (v/""). Now, therefore, in His people's extremity, Jehovah will 
interpose on their behalf; and when the gods whom they have chosen are 
powerless to aid them, will Himself take up and avenge His servants' cause 
(v.*^). Thus the main idea of the poem is the rescue of the people by 
an act of grace, at a moment when ruin seemed imminent. The poem begins 
reproachfully ; but throughout lenderness prevails above severity, and at tlic 
end the strain becomes wholly one of consolation and hope. 

The Song shows great originality in form, being a presenta- 
tion of prophetical thoughts in a poetical dress, which is unique 
in the OT. Nothing in the poem points to Moses as the author. 
The period of the Exodus, and of the occupation of Canaan, 
lies in a distant past (vj-^^) ; Israel is settled in Palestine, has 
lapsed into idolatry, and been brought in consequence to the 
verge of ruin (v.'^'^^) ; all that is future is its deliverance (v.''*''"'). 
The thought, and the style of composition, exhibit also a 
maturity which points to a period considerably later than that 
of Moses. The style of treatment, as a historical retrospect, is 
in the manner of Hos. 2, Jer. 2, Ezek. 20, Ps. 106. The theme 
is developed with great literary and artistic skill ; the images are 
varied and expressive ; the parallelism is usually regular, and 
very forcible. 

It would be going too far to affirm that the Song cannot be 
by the same hand as the body of Deut. At the same time, most 
of the characteristic expressions are different, and it presents 
many fresh tlioughts ; so that internal evidence, though it does 
not absolutely preclude its being by the same author, does not 
favour such a supposition, and the context hardly leaves it a 
possibility. For if 311^^- be examined carefully, it will be seen 
jthat there are really ttvo introductions to.the Song, viz. v.'*^-^ and 
.***^. These are evidently by different hands ; the first exhibit- 
ing several phrases not found elsewhere in Dt, the second being 
in the general style of the body of the book. By many critics 
it has been taken for granted that v.**"^ (with the concluding 
notice 32**) formed part of JE, the author of which^ finding the 
Song attributed to Moses, incorporated it as such in his work, 
whence it was excerpted afterwards by the author (or redactor) 
of Dt., who, adding 31"-^ and 32**-*^, gave it the place ihnt it 
now holds. Upon this view, the date of the poem will be 



earlier than the comi)ilation of JE ; and Israel's foe, the " not 
people " of V.-*, will have been either (Ew. Kamp.) the Assyrians, 
or (Schrader, Dillm., Oettii) the Syrians, — Dillm. referring the 
poem to the interval in the Syrian wars (c. 800 B.C.) between 
2 Ki. I3*-'' and i^'-^-^s i^^^ when Israel under Jehoahaz was 
.reduced to the utmost straits by the successes of Hazael. It 
has, however, been observed that in its theological standpoint — 
for instance, in the terms in which idolatry is reprobated, the 
contrasts drawn between Jehovah and other gods, the thought of 
Israel's lapse, punishment, and subsequent restoration^as well 
as in its literary characteristics, the Song presents far greater 
affinities with the prophets of the Chaldican than with those of 
the Assyrian age ; and hence Kuenen (§ 13. 3,0) may be right in 
assigning it to tlie age of Jer. and Ezek., and treating it as a pro- 
phetic meditation on the lessons to be deduced from Israel's 
national history. As v.'*-" (the introduction to the Song) 
separates awkwardly v."'** from its sequel in v.^, and displays 
also literary differences from the usual style of JE, the supposition 
is a reasonable one that the Song once formed part of a separate 
source (later than JE), whence {together with 3i>»-22 and 32**) it 
was inserted in Dt by a second Deuteronomic hand,— the same, 
no doubt, which (p. 72) supplemented the original Dt by various 
other additions in c. 29-34. 

[90] C 32"'", This short passage bears evident marks of 
P's style ; it is a slightly expanded duplicate of Nu. 2 7"-". 

C. 33, T/ie Blessing of Afoses. This offers even fewer points 
of contact with the discourses of Dl than the Song. It was 
probably handed down independently, and inserted here, when 
Dt as a whole was incorporated in the Pent It should be 
compared with the Blessing of Jacob in Gen. 49 ; for though 
(with the exception of the blessing on Joseph, which contains 
reminiscences from Gen. 49^'*) the thoughts here are original, 
there is a general similarity of character and structure between 
the two blessings. A difference in external form may be noted : 
each blessing here is introduced by the narrator separately, 
speaking in his own person. Compared, as a whole, with the 
Blessing of Jacob, it may be said to be pitched in a higher key : 
the tone is more buoyant ; while the former in the main has in 
view the acfual characteristics of the different tribes, the Blessing 
of Moses contemplates them in their ideal glories, and views 



tlicm both separately and collectively (v.^-^) as exercising 
theocratic functions and enjoying theocratic privileges. The 
most salient features are the (apparent) isolation and depression 
of Judah, the honour and respect with which Levi is viewed, the 
strength and splendour of the double tribe of Josepli, and the 
burst of grateful enthusiasm with which (v.^-*) the poet cele- 
brates the fortune of his nation, settled and secure, w^ith the aid 
of its God, in its fertile Palestinian home. There is also a 
special exordium (v.'"*), describing how Jehovah, coming from 
[not i6\ Sinai, gave His f>eople a law through Moses, and held 
the tribes together under Ills sovereignty. 

[pi] V.*, if nol also ▼.*"•■ " {dravt out^ said^ dwglt)^ implies a date later 
than Moses ; as regards the rest of ihe Blessing, opinions dilTer, and, in fact, 
conclusive criteria fail us. Tlie cxlcrnal evidence afforded by the title (v,*) 
is slight. iDtcmal eWdeoce, from the obscure nature of some of the allusions, 
is indecisive, and offers scope for diverging conclusions, Klcinert {pp. 
169-175), urging v7 (Judah's IsoUtion, iu agreement with its non-mention 
in Deborah's song), as^^igns it to the period of the Judges. Graf, under- 
standing V.' differently, and remarking the allusion to the Temple in v.", 
and the terms in which Ihe p»iwcr of Joseph is described in v.", thinks of the 
prosperous age of Jeroboam II. (2 Ki, 14^), which is accepted by Kuenen, 
Rcuj»5, Siade (C«r/i. i. 150, 152), Comlll [§ 13. 6), and others. Dillmann 
(p. 415 f.), inlcrpreling v,^- " similarly, considers that the terms in which 
Levi and Judah are spoken of are better satisfied by a dale verj* sliortly after 
the division of the kingdom, In the reign of Jeroboam I., and remarks that 
ibe sympathy shown in it for the northern tribes may be taken as an indica- 
tion llial liie aullior was a poet of the northern kint^duni (so also Westphal, 
ii. 50: ct the writer's Deut. p. 38S). V.^ "And bring him— nol, unto 
his iand^ but— unto his/^j/Zc" is very diiBcuU. Perhaps the allusioti is to 
some drcumslance on which the historical books are silent : in default of a 
better explanation, it is interpreted by many as a prayer, uttered from the 
point of view of an Epbmimite, for the reunion of Judah and Israel, either, 
vii. after the rupture of the kingdom under Jcroboiira I. (Diltm. &c), or 
(Riclun, EinL p. 313) during the rivalry between the two kingdoms of David 
and Ishlxjshcth (2 Sa. 2-4), or (Gr^f, &c.) under Jcrab-jam II. The style 
of c 33 suggests a higher antiquity than c 32. The Ulessing is best 
firgarded — like the poems attributed to Bidaam in Nu. 22-24 — ^ ^lic 
poetical development of an ancient popular tradition \ and as having been 
(Dillm,) *' written from the first under Moses' name, m order to rally the 
nation anew under the banner of the Mosaic instiluliuns, and to awaken In it 
a fresh and vivid consciousness of the privileges enjoyed by it as Jehovah'i 

Styie of Deukronomy. 
marked and individual. 

The literary style of Dt. is very 
In vucabiiLiry. indeed, ic presents 



romparativHy Tew cxropiional words ; l»nt words and 
phrases, consisting sometimes of entire (.lauses, recur witli extra- 
ordinary frequency, giving a dtstittctivc cotourittg to every part 
of the work. In its predominant features the phraseology is 
strongly original, but in certain particulars it is based upon that 
of the parenetic sections of Jli \x\ the Book of Exodus (esp. 
,j»-w ,^a» j5»-8^ parts of 20--" 2^'^^ 34'*'"^). The possibility 
must, however, be admitted (cf. p. 35) that some of these passages 
owe in reality their present form to Deuteronomic influence. 

In the following select list of phrases characteristic of Dt., 
the first 10 appear to have been adopted by the author from 
these sections of JE; those which follow the original, or occur 
so rarely in JE, that there is no ground to suppose them to have 
been borrowed thence. For the convenience of the synopsis, 
the occurrences in the Deuteronomic sections of Joshua are 
annexed in brackets. 

I. ann to hve^ wiili God as object : 6» 7* lo" ll' 

l3"[Heb. <]. I9» 


Lfoih. 22° 33".] So Ex. 20* ( = Dt. 5"). A chanvc««- 

islic principle cf Dt. Of GuJ's luve lu [92] Uis people : 4" 7*' " 
IqI* aj'ldeb."]. Not so bcfoic Olherwise first in IIos. 3' 9" 
li\ cf. v.^uMHcIj."]. 
a. onnii cnSic oMrr gais : 6»^ t 8^* 1 1^*- «> i3«. •• « [HeU. •■»•"] I7» 18=* 
3t(U. ».04 2g» ^ii^b. "] 30^' 311*- » [Josb. 23" 24*' ".} So Ex. 
20* { = Dt. 5') 23** ; cf, 34'* (nn« ^k). Always in Dt. (except 5^ 
iS* 31"**') wilh to urve or ffo after. Often in Kings and 
Jeremiali, but {as Jvleinert remarks) usually with oLher verbs. 

[Ilcb."] 6^ 11" I7» 22» 


SoKx. 20iM=Dt 5"). 

EUcwhcrc, only Is. 53", Prov. 28", Ecd. 8"; and, rather dif- 
ferently. Josh. 24"=Jud. 2^t 

TAe iotui (f"wn : less frequently the ground, ncmn) tvAich Jehovah thy 
Cod IS giving thee (also us ^ you, t/iem, i** &c.) : 4* 13', and con* 
slanlly- Su Ex. 2o" (=1)1. 5") TOiwi. 

Dnap n*3 hi>nse uf iNMtilaj^e (lit. of slaves) : 6" 7* 8" I3*- •• [Heb. •• "]. 
[Josh. 24".] So Jud. 6S Mic 6\ Jer, 34". From Ex. if- " 20^ 

16*- "• "■ " I7»- » iS« 23« (Ilcb. "] 24" 26" 28«- »■ " 31". So 

Ex. 20" ( = Dt. 5")- Hence I KL 8*^=2 Ch. 6".t Cf. (perhaps) 

Jer. I4». 
7A nSiO ny a peopU of speeial possession : ?• 14* 26".t Cf. Ejt. 19* 

nSjo '^ Dn"m. 
7*. mxyp Oy a holy people x y* I4''*"* 36" 28". f Varied fiom Ex. 19> 

vnp nj a holy nation : cf, 22* and holy men sluill ye be unto me. 



4* 6* 7", and rcpealedly. So 

S. IFhich I am commanding thee this Hay 

Ex. 34". 
9. Take heed to thrsei/(yomrsehv$) ierf, &c : 4»-»6"8" ll" ia«- »•• 

(Also Ex. io», Gen, 24* 3i« cf. v.» 

15» (cf. 34') ; comp. a* 4". fjosh. 23".] So Ex. 34"; cf. I9»». 

but with no special force. ) 

10. A mishty hand and a stretched out arm : 4** 5" 7'* II* 2&. Tlie 

combinatioit occurs first in UL Ali^hty ^air^ alone : Ol. 3" H*^ j* 
9» 34" [cf. Josh. 4**]. So in JE Ex. 3»'» 6» I3» 32". (Nu. 26* 
differently.) Stretched out arm alone: Du 9* (varied from Ex. 
32". So Ex, 6» P. 

11. -wa to choose : of Israel 4" 7*- ' lo" 14",— the priests 18* 2t*,— of the 

future king 17", — and especially in the phrase " the place which 
Jehovah shall choose to place {or set) His name there," la** "• " 
i^a. M jj»i i6«. «. u 2O', or "the place which Jehovah shall 
choose," i2"*»-" 14^ 167.15. 15 i^o. IB ,8* 3,11, [Josh, 9".] 
Very characteristic of Dt. : not applied befure to God's choice 
of Israel; often in Kings of Jerusalem (1 Ki. 8** 1 1" &c.); in 
Jeremiah once, 33-\ of Israel. Also charact. of 11 Isaiah (41** • 
43" 44»- " : cf. chosen [93] 43** 45*. Of the future, 14* 65»- >•- » : 
and applied to Jehovah's ideal Scr^aal, 42* 4</). 

12. ("jn-arTs) ifi-ypo Wi /m-ai ami ihott shalt extirpate the eviljrom thy midst 

{ox from Israel) : I3» [Heh. *] I?'- » lo" 2i« 23^- «• »* 24'.t This 
phrase is peailiar to ] )L ; but J ud. 20*' \i sinular. 

13. Thttt the Lard thy God ntay (or Baauie He will) bless thet : u"* =» 

,^, 10 ,6i«. 1* 23M [Heb. »J 24" : cF. 12' I5«- ". 

14. The stranger^ the fatherless^ and the widetu : lo* 

Cf. Ex. 22«'- 

il7. ». ». 31 

24*'* »'* «*• •• 27' 

Tcigcthcr with the 

LofiUx \^ 

Hence Jcr. 7* 22*, Exek. 22'. 
,511. Ha^is, u 

15. p3T /o f/pazA of devotion to God: lo" ii*^ 13* [Heb. •] 30*: the 

corresponding adjective, 4*. IJosh. 22* 23".] So 2 Ki. iS* : cf. 3" 
(of devotion to sin), i Ki. ll' (to false gods).f 

16. And remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: 5** 


17. (vSi) iry Dinn vS thine eye sh<ill not spare (him) : 7" 13" [Heb. •] t^""' * 

25**. Also Gen. 45", Is. 13", and frequently in Ewk. 

18. non 13 n\"n and it be sin in thee: 15" 23" [Heb."] 24"; cf. at": 

with not, 23" [Heb. »]. 

19. naien pKnMtf^rw//a«(/(of Canaan): i"3»4"*»6"8"(cf. v.^ 9«ii". 

[Josh. 23".] So 1 Ch. 2S».T Dt. 1=3 (Nil 14^ and Ex. 3» are 
rather diflTcienL 
ao. Which thou {ye) knowest (or knc^^est) not-. S*- " ll" I3*'«' " [Heb. 
*■ ^- "] 28"* "* " 29'^ [Heb. **]. ChicRy with reference to strange 



gods, or a foreign people. Cf. 32". 
ThiU it may be well with thee (iS ao" jyoS or n 

fis. If ,2a. n 22\ Similarly (caS) iy 3101 ; 

3icS 6" to" 
Vn'n^ inf. abs., used adverbially sM^^rt^/rv^/Zc 

n): 4* 5**-" [Heb. *^ 
5W[Heb. *»J I9»and 

9" 13" [Heb."] 17* 

19" 27". EUewliere, as thus applied, only 2 Ki. 1 1'".] 



23. To fear God {.ikt^ • often with that thty may kam prefixed) : 4** 5^ 
[lleb. "J 6« 8* lo» I4» 17'* 28" 31", cf. v.". 

34. (Sai*) Sain i«S, in the sense of net to b« allowed'. 7** 12" i6* 17" 21'" 
22** u. » 2^«_ ^ very uncommon use ; cf. Gen, 43". 

85. 7» do thai which is right (•vrn) in the eyes of Jehovah : 12* 13'* 
[Heb. "J 21' ; with 3itDn that which is good added, 6" 12". So 
Ex. 15*, then Jer. 34", and several times in the Deuleronomic 
framework nf Kings and in the parallel passages of Chronicles. 

a6. 7o do thai -which is evif (inn) in the e^-es of Jehovah : 4** 9" 17* 3i» 
So Nu. 32'* ; oAen in the framework of Judges and Kings, 
Jeremiah, and occasionall^r elsewhere. Both 25 and 26 gained 
currency through Dt., and are nu« except in passages written 
under its influence. 
[94] 27. The priests the Uvites ( = lhe Lcvitical priests): 17» l8> 24* 27*: 
th€ priesU the sons of Ltvi^ ai» 31*. [Josh, f 8".] So Jer. 33", 
Erck. 43"44*\ 2 Ch. ^ 23" 30". P** expression " sons of Aaron " 
is never used in Dt. 

a8> WUh all thy {your) heart and with all thy {your) soul. 4* 6* lO** 
11" 13* [Heb. *1 26" 30»- «■ ». [Josh. 22" 23".] A genuine 
expression of the spirit of the book (p. 78). Only besides {in the 
third person) i Ki. 2* 8« ( = 2 Ch. 6»). 2 Ki. 23* ( = 2 Ch. 34")" 
2 Ch, 15" ; and (in the first person, of God) Jer. 32". 

29. 'mS ini, in the sense of delivering 1// to: i>* " 2"' ■•• ■• 7*»* a^'* 

[Heb. w] aS' and » (with ijj) 31*. [Josh, io» ii« ] Abo Jud. 
II* 1 Ki. S", Is. 41'. T The usual phrase in this sense is T3 |nj. 

30. To turn (to) neither to the right hand nor to the left : 2^ ///, (Nn. 20'" 

has ncj) : so 1 Sa. 6". Afetaph. 5» [Heb. »J I7»' » 28". Qosli. 
i»23«.] So2Ki. 22*{ = 2 Ch. 34»).t 

31. D*r ncyD the work of the hands ( = enterprise) : a' 14" l6'*a4**28*^ 

30* : in a bad sense, 31". 

32. .riB, of tlie redemption from Egypt : 7* (Mic. 6*) 9* 13» [Heb. •] 15" 

21' 24". Not so before: Ex. 15" (the Song of Moses) uses Skj 
(to reclaim), 

33. 3^ midstt in diHerent connexions, especiaUy *pipa, pnpo. A iavourilc 

word in Dt., though naturally occurring in JE, as also elsewhere. 
In P "pn is preferred. 

34. To rejoice before Jehoi'nh : 12'* "• " 14* i6"' " (cf. Lev, 23*) 36" 27'. 

35. To make His name dwell there {]z^, \zi^) ; 12" 14" 16^ •• » 26*, Onlv 

besides Jer. 7", Exr. 6", Nch. i".t With dkf) {to set); I2»- 

14^. Tills occurs also in Kings : see below, at the end of Kings, 
in the list of phrases, Ko. 14, 

36. (D3T, TT) TC r.Sro that to which thy [your) hand is put x 12'' *• 15"* 


37. And . . . shall hear and fear (of the deterrent effect of ponislimcnl) : 

13" [Heb. "J 17'' 19*' 21='. t 

38. To observe to do {nwvh tcp) : 5'' *» f I leb. »] 6»* » ;» 8* &c (seventeen 

timeii : also three times with an object intervening). [Josh. 1'** 
32*.] Also 2 Ki. 17" 2i» ( = 3 Ch. 33* : hence also i Ch. 22») 



39- To eburvt and do \ 4' 7" 16" 23" [ileb. >«J 34« 26" a8« ; cf. 29' 

[Heb,»J, Qosh. 23».] 
4<x 7Tu land whithtr ye art going over (or entering in\ U possess it i 4** ** 

and tepcatedly. Hence Ezr. 9". nrtrh to possess it Tollows also 

which Jehovah is giving thee (No, 4) 

2I>. [Josh, i"^] 

41. *. 

Cf. Gen. 15', In P, wiih similar clauses, mrwS is used ; Lev. 14** 
25*, Nu. 32», Dt. 32**. 

mn' najnn Jehavah^s abomiuation^ csp. as the final ground of a 
[95] prohibition: 7» (cf. *) I2>* 17' iS'* 33" 23'» [Heb. "1 24* 25'» 
27": b, nayvi alone, chiefly of heathen or idolatrous customs, 13** 
[Heb. "J M* 17* iS*- "*• 20" 32'*. a. So often in Prov. ; comp. 
in H, LcT. i8t».»M. w. 20" (but ow/^of ani of unchastily).* 

There are one or two points of contact between Dt. and H 
{e.^, in the use of the term thy broihery 1^ j^is 22*-* 
23>>f. 258 (cf. his brother, i9"-»«), as Lev. 19" 25'^-"-»b.s»..7) . 
but with P generally it shows no phrascologica! connexion what- 
ever. In the few laws covering common ground, identical ex- 
pressions occur (as c 14 po, 24^ njnvn j?53) ; but these arc either 
quotations or technical expressions, and do not constitute any 
real phraseological similarity between the two writings; they are 
not recurrent in Dt. 

Most of the expressions noted above occur seldom or never 
besides, or only in p>assagcs modelled ujKin the style of Dl In 
addition, other recurring features will be noticed by the attentive 
reader, which combine with those that have been cited to give a 
unity of style to the whole work. The original features prepon- 
derate decidedly above those that are derived. The strong and 
impressive individualjly of the writer colours whatever he writes; 
and even a sentence, borrowed from elsewhere, assumes, by the 
setting in which it is placed, a new character, and impresses the 
reader differently (so especially in the retrospects, c. 1-3. 9-10). 
}lis power as an orator is shown in the long and stately periods 
with which his work abounds: at the same time the parenetic 
treatment, which his subject often demands, always maintains its 
freshness, and is never monotonous or prolix. In his command 
of a ch.istc, yet warm and persuasive eloquence, he stands unique 
among the writers of the Old Testament. 

Tlie influence of Dt upon subsequent books of the OT. is 
very great. ^Vs it fued for long the standard by whicli n»en 
and actions were to be judged, so it provided the formula,' in 
" Sec further lioUinger, £inJ. p. 283(1. 



which these judgments were expressed; in other words, it 
provided a religious terminology which readily lent itself to 
adoption by subsequent writers. Its influence upon parts of 
Joshua, Judges, Kings will be apparent when the structure of 
those books comes to be examined : in a later age it shows 
itself in such passages as Neli. i^"'* 9*"'"*; Dan. 9. Among the 
prophets, Jeremiah's phraseology b modelled most evidently 
[96] upon that of Dt. ; and reminiscences may frequently be 
traced in Ezekiel and Deulero-Isaiali. 

Differences should, however, be noted, as well as resembJances ; for 
insUuice, ihe Deuteronomic passages in the historical books contain mtw 
expressions not found in Dt. (/.^. Josh. ^J^ to inclim the heart \ I KL 2*/tf 
9hs*rv€ their way ; S" a ptr/tit heart, &c.) : on Jeremiah, corop. p. 87, M0tt, 

% 6. Joshua. 

LtTERATVKR.— See p. if.; and add: HollenbcTg in the SfuilieH umd 
An'tiJt'gMt 1874, pp. 462506; and Der CharaJiter tier Aiesitn<iriHischen 
Uehersetzunfi ties Mi/ehet Josua^ Mocrs, 1876 ; Budde, Kichier utid Samuel, 
1890, pp. 1-89; Albers, Dit QuelienherichtB in Jostta i-xii, 1891 ; W. H. 
Bennett in Haupt's5^(?7'. Comp. Delilzsch, Genesis (1887), pp. 30-33. 

The Book of Joshua is separated by the Jews from the Penta- 
teuch (the T^tah or Law), and forms with them the first of the 
group of writings called the " Former Prophets " (;>. Joshua, 
Jud ges^ Samuel, and Kings ). This distinction is, howefcrp^ 
artificial one, depending on the fact that the book could not be 
regarded, like the Pentateuch, as containing an authoritative 
rule of life; its contents, and, still more, its literary structure, 
show that it is intimately connected with the Pentateuch, and 
describes the fmal stage in the history of the Origines of the 
Hebrew nation. 

The book divides itself naturally into two parts, the first 
(c. 1-12) narrating the passage of Jordan by the Israelites, and 
the subsequent scries of successes by which they won their way 
into Canaan; the second (c. 13-24) describing the allotment of 
the country among the tribes, and ending with an account of the 
dosing events in Joshua's life. Chronological notes in the book 
are rare (V^ 5*°; and incidentally 14'°). The period of time 
covered by the book can be determined only appro.xiniately ; 
for though Joshua is statc*d to have died at the age of 110 years, 



there is no distinct note of his age on any previous occasion.* 
From a comparison of 14^^* with Dt. 2^* it would seem that in 
the view of the writer of the section 14**'* the war of conquest 
occupied about 7 year?;. 

The Book of Joshua consists, at least in large measure, of a 
continuation of the documents used in the fonnation of the Penta- 
teuch. In c I-I3 the main narrative consists of a work, itself 
[97] iilso in parts composite, which appears to be the continua- 
tion of JE, though whether its component parts arc definitely 
J and E, or whether it is rather the work of the writer who 
combined J and E into a whole, and in this bookj perhaps, per- 
mitted himself the use of other independent sources, may be an 
open question. The use of P in these chapters is rare. In 
c 13-24, on the contrary, especially in the topographical descrip- 
tions, the work of P predominates, and the passages derived 
from JE are decidedly less numerous than in the first part of 
the book. There is, however, another element in the Book of 
Joshua besides JE and P. In this book, JE, before it was 
combined with P, passed tluough the hands of a writer who 
expanded it in different ways, and who, being strongly imbued 
with the spirit of Deuteronomy, may be termed the Deuteronomic 
editor, and denoted by the abbreviation D'.t The parts added 
by this writer are in most aises readily recognised by their 
rharacteristic style. The chief aim of these Deuteronomic 
additions to JE is to illustrate and empliasize the zeal shown by 
Joshua in fulfilling Mosaic ordinances, especially the command 
to extirpate the native population of Canaan, and the success 
which in consequence crowned his efforts.J In point of fact, as 
iither passages show (p. 115), the conquest was by no means 
••ffecled with the rapidity and completeness which some of the 
fwssages quoted imply ; but the writer, as it seems, generalizes 
with some freedom. Another cliaracteristic of the same ad- 
ditions is the freiiuent reference to the occupation of the 
trans-Jordanic territory by Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe .of 
Manasseh, not merely in i***- and 22^'*, but also 2'** 9^" la 


• He is called a "young man," Ex. 33", in the first year of the exodui, 
t No ftccoiint is here laUtii of iht (IwtinL'linn drawn by Kiltel, p. 60. 
*See i>->3'-"4"5*G»8'-»(Dt. 21") *>->• io«-<* n ***■>"■» si*"-** 23*-^ 



I. I -I a. The Conquest of Palesiine, 

C. 1-2. Preparations for the passage of the Jordan and 
conquest of Canaan. Joshua is encouraged by God for the task 
imposed upon him, and receives (according to the stipulation, 
N». 32'*^-') the promise of assistance from the z\ tribes whose 
territory had already been allotted to them on the E. of Jordan 
(c. i). The mission of the spies to Jericho and the compact 
with Rahab (c 2). 

[98J .'JE 
tD' c 



C. I U based probably upon an earlier and shorter narrative, from which, 
for tnslancCf the substance of v.^-^*'*-" may be derived, but in its present 
form it is the composition of D'. It is constructed almost entirely of phrases 

borrowed from Dt. : comp. v.*'"' and Dt. II 

U. 2te . 



(also I" 3«) ; T.» Dt. 5" (Heb. ») 29* (Heb. ") ; v.« Dt. 3I^, abo ib. l» 7« 
ao» (the uncommon x^) ; v,"" Dt. ll" ; v."**"" Dt. 3*" ; v,^"» as v.» ; t.^* 
as v.*^. Even where the phrases do not actually occur in DL, the tone and 
atyle are those of Dt. 

Tlic greater part of c. a shows no traces of the Deut. style ; it is, however, 
very evident in the two verses v.'*"" ; see Dt. 31^ i", and esp. 4* (the f^irase 
ifi is God in hemen ahjzv^ &c. occurring nowhere else in the OT. ) ; comp. 
■Iki Josfa. 4** 5' (both D'). V.* oonlains reminiscences from llie Song in 
Ex. 15 (v.>^ »). 

C. 3-4. The passage of the Jordan, and the erection of two 
monuments in commemoration of the event, consisting of two 
cairns of stones, one set up in the bed of the river itself, the 
other at the first camping-pbce on the West side, Gilgal, which 
henceforth becomes the headquarters of the Israelites till the 
conquest is complete. 


i-r 9-iu 


Tlie composite structure of a 3-4 is apparent from the follow- 
ing considerations, (i) After it has been stated, 3^^, in express 
terms, that the passage of the Jordan was completed, the 
language of 4** *• '^'^ implies, not less dbtinctly, that the people 
have not yet crossed ; in fact, at 4*' the narrative is at precisely 
llie same point which was reached at 3*^. (2) 4' and 4' speak 
of two diffcrtnt ceremonies — the location of stones, taken from 



Jordan, at Gilga!^ and the erection of stones in the bed of tkt 
river itself \ v.^, now, is plainly the sequel of v.', while v.^ coheres 
with v.*-^, which, on the other hand, interrupts the connexion of 
v.s with v.^ (3) 3^* is superfluous, if it and 4^ belong to the 
same narrative ; it is, however, required [99] for 4*. The verses 
assigned to a form a consecutive narrative, relating to the stones 
deposited at Gilgal. The narrative b is not complete, part having 
been omitted when the two accounts were combined together. 
In the parts which remain, 4* is the sequel to 3^* ; the twelve 
men pass over before the ark into Jordan 4*'^ ; the stones are 
erected in the river v.*; after this, the people "hasten and pass 
over" (v."*"): in the other narrative the people have "clean 
passed over" before the ceremony is even enjoined. The com- 
bined narrative a b has been slightly amplified by D' in the 
verses assigned to him in the analysis — in 3^"***'*, probably, upon 
the basis of notices belonging to JE. It is not, however, clear 
that the two main narratives are J and E respectively; and 
hence the letters a and b have been used to designate them. 
With 421 ("itrs) comp. Dt. w^ 18"; with v.^s**, c. a*" 5*; with 
v.**, Dt. a 8^° 4^°*'; and above, p. 100, No. 10. 

C 5-8. Joshua circumcises the people at Gilgal ; and the 
Passover is kept there (5^'^")- He receives instructions respect- 
ing the conquest of Jericho: the city is taken and "devoted" 
(Dt. i^^^')^ Rahab and her household being spared according 
to the compact of c Zw After this Joshua advances against Ai, 
in the heart of the landj near Bethel ; he is at first repulsed in 
consequence of Aclian's offence in having appropriated a portion 
of the spoil, which had been " devoted " at Jericho. Achan 
having been punished, the Israelites succeed tn obtaining posses- 
sion of the city by a stratagem (7^-8^). Joshua erects an altar 
on Ebal, the mountain on the north of Shechem, and fulfils the 
injunctions DL 27***. 

P s'*^" 7' 

JE ~~^ ^ SBCP* 7** 8»-*» 




D* 5' 

6*- ^ shows signs of the hand of D* : with v.^ comp. 8* PL 2** ; with v.*, 
c, 1" S' 10' ; V." recalls !•■ •• " 9*. On the question (which cannot here be 
properly considered) whether the rest of c 6 exhibits marks of composition, 
reference mtisl be made to Wellh. [Comp. pp. 121-124) and the Commentary 
of Oillnu 

In S*"* short idditlons or expansions due to D* are v.^ (*' Fear not. 



oehhcr be thou dismayed **: cf. Dt. 1" 31", c lo") "• "^ (cf. Dt. 2»), and 
probably a few phrases besides, both here and in c. 7. {Comp. the additions 
often made by the Chronicler in his excerpts from Sam. and Kings, [lOO] 
*.g. I Ch. 21"*' [2 Sa. 24"], 2 Cb. 7"^»«» S"*- 18"" (I KL 9^ ••22»J.) On the 
rest of S>-» sec Wcllh. Comp. 125 f, , and Dillm. p. 472 ft. 

With regard to S^**-"** a difficulty arises from the position 
which it occupies in the book. Ebal lies considerably to the 
north of Ai, and until the intervening territory was conquered 
(respecting which, however, the narrative is silent) it is difficult 
to understand how Joshua could have advanced thither. Either 
the narrative is misplaced, and (as has been suggested) should 
follow ii^*; or (Dillm.) JE has been curtailed by the compiler 
of the book, and the details which, no doubt, it once contained 
respecting the conquest of Central Palestine — similar to those 
respecting that of the South (c 10) and of the North (c. 11) — 
have been omitted. 

g»-» agrees with Ot. 27*-*; v." also agrees tolerably with Dt. 11" 
*7"*", but not completely, there being no mention of the atru. The rao*/- 
iw^of the law v.**'* is not enjoined in Dt. In t.** the words "the blessing 
and the curse " (which, though Ihey item to be epcxegetical of " all the woids 
of the law,*' cannot be so in reality} may be a late insertion, designed to 
rectify the apparent omission in v.". With the expressions in v." cf. Il", 
Dt. 31" 29** : notice also in v." the Deut phrase, "the priests the Lcvites" 
(p. 101, No. 27}. 

C. 9. The Gibeonites, by a stratagem which disarms the 
suspicions of the Israelites, secure immunity for their lives, and 
are permitted to retain a position within the community as slaves, 
performing menial offices for the sanctuary (iepo5ou\oi), 

e X» Ub 17-91 

D* 9' 



"■"• (to dizy) 

V «. ». nr. forjn evidently part of %. normtire parallil to t]»t of ▼."'", 
»nd not the scijucl of it ; and the style of the latter shows that it belongs lo 
r (notice especially "the congregation," and "the princes" [p. 133 f.], who 
hcfc take the lead rather than Joshua). In v." "for the congregation, and," 
and perliaps in v.*- " " (both) hewers of wood and drawers of water," will 
likewise be elements derived from P. 

C. 10. The conquest of .Vi;«/^r/i Canaan: Joshua first defeats 
at Beth-horon llie five kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, 
l^cbish, Eglon, and afterwards gaiivs possession of Makkcdali, 
Libnah, l.a<:liish, Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, Debir : further par- 



ticulars are not given, but Joshua's successes in this direction 
are generalized, v.****^. 

liox] j JE io>*' »■" "'"*•■ »»-« *-" 

{ ps ■ iSk 14b 91 m-a 

10^"'* forms a whole from JE, with additions (to which the 
middle clause of v.' may be added) revealing the hand of D', 
and similar in style to those made by him in c. 6 and c 8. 
V.i***-*-'" (to enfttn'cs) is an extract from an ancient collection of 
national songs, called the Book of Jashar or of ihe Upright (see 
also 2 Sa. I**): v."*^^** is the comment of the narrator (here, 
perhaps, E) upon it. In v.*** and v.'*** notice the phraseology : 
ddivered up (liL^tirv f^fore) as ii* and frequently in l)t. (p. lot); 
SwiC" 'J*j6as Dl ^i^ -y fought for Israel as v." 23^ Dt x^ 3" 
20*. As regards the account in vy^^ of the manner in which 
Joshua pursued his victory, it is to be obsened that in Jud. i*"™ 
the conquest of the South of Palestine is attributed to fudak ; 
and Hebron and Debir are represented in Josh. 15'*-!* ( = Jud, 
jioofij jjs haAing been taken under circumstances very different 
from those here presupposed. It seems that these verses arc a 
gcncrall/atiim by D-, in the style of some of the latter parts of 
the book, attached to the victory at Oibcon, and ascribing to 
Joshua more than was actually accomplished by him in person. 
With v/o comp. ii"- >*, Dt 2o'^ 

C. II. The conquest of Northern Canaan; Joshua defeats 
Jabin, king of Hazor, with his allies, at the waters of Merom, 
and captures the towns belonging to him (v.*-**). The ch, 
closes (v.^*"-^) with a view of the entire series of Joshua's suc- 
cesses, in the South as well as in the North of Canaan. V.'-** 
is from JE, amplified by D* in parts of v.-- »• 6- 7. sb , y lo-ea 
belongs to D^, 

In r."'" the consequences of the victory Ijy the waters of Mcrorn are, 
generalized by D* in the same manner as ihosc of the victory at Beth-boron 
in lo**"*. The suncy in v.'*-" is also in the style of !>*. In v.*"* *' what 
in other accounts (14" ij"'", Jud 1"-") is reftrtcd to Caleb and Judah is 
generalized and attributed to Joshua" (Dillmann). 

C la, A supplementary list of the kings smitten by the 
Israelites — Sihou and Og (with a notice of the territory belong- 
ing to them) on the East of Jordan, and 31 kings slain ui>dor 
Joblma, on the West of Jorjjji. 



Another gciwraluinE review by D". The retrospective notice of Sihoii 
•nd Og is in the manner of this writer (p. 104). Of the 31 (or, if v.» bcfioal 
corrected after the LXX, 30) kings named, 16 (15) are not mentioned else- 
where, at least explicitly, among those conquered under Joshua, viz. the 
kings of Gcdcr, Adullam, Bethel, Tappuah, Hcphcr, Aphek of the Sharon 
(LXX), Toanach, Megiddo, Kedeth, Jokncam, Etor, the nations of Galilee 
t I.XX), Tirzah (on Honnah and Arad, corap. Jud. i", Nu. ai**") ; hence, 
prolMbly, either omissions have been made in the narrative of JE (compi 
what was said above on 8*****) io the process of incorporation by the compiler, 
or this List is derived from an independent source. 

II. C. 13-24. The Distribution of ih£ Territory, 

C. 13. (i) v.*-**. Joshua receives instructions to proceed with 
the allotment of the conquered territory, v.'-^. V.*^ contains a 
parenthetic notice of the districts, chiefly in the South-West and 
in Lebanon, not yet conquered. V.^** describes the limits of 
the territory assigned by Moses to the 2 J trans-Jordanic tribes ; 
V." is a notice of tribes on the East of Jordan not dispossessed 
by the Israelites. (2) V.'*-^ the borders and cities of the trans- 
Jordanic tribes, Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. 
V.**-^- belongs to P (except, probably, parts of v.**^''*), v." to JE, 

V.^-^ may also be derived from JE. For a difficult question arising out 
of V,' in connexion wilh v.*^, it must suffice to refer to Wcllh. p. l3of., 
or Kucn. fits. % 7. 17. At the beginning of v.* the text (which yields an 
incorrect sense) must be imperfect ; sec Dillm., or QPBK V." is a repetition 
of v.*^, added probably by a late hand : it is not found in LXX. 

In the ports of this ch. assigned to P, obserNC the recurring superscriptions 
and subscriptions v.»»* »- »♦. «. a». « . sinoilarly is* i6« 19^- •• "• " &c The 
fnuue^^ork is tlut of P ; but the details are in some cases (especially in c. 16) 
derived from J E. 

C 14. Preparations for the division of the land by lot by 
Joshua and Eleazar (v.*-*) ; Caleb receives from Joshua his 
]X)rtion at Hebron in accordance with the promise Dt i** 
^yft-u) V.I-* belongs to P, v.*-^* may be a narrative of JE, 
expanded or recast, in parts, by D'. 

In introducing his account of the division of West Palestine 
among the tribes, the compiler of the book has followed P ; 
V.'"* being evidently dependent on Nu. 34*^"*^ ZS^'^i ^"^ show- 
ing, moreover, the usual marks of P's style. The corresponding 
subscription, from the same source, is 19^^ 

Wcllh. K.ucn. Uillm. agree in supposing th^t 18* (wliich Certainly reftdt 



more appropriately as an introduction to the nairalive of ihe parlilion of tlie 
whoU Land tliui to lliat of a part only) stood originally before ^^'^ 

[XO3] V.^^ display traits pointing to D', lliou^h not so numerous as is 
usually die case. They also contain allusions to phrases found in Du, but 
ftai in Nu. 13-14 ; as v,'^ ^iiS to spy ouS to Dt. i** (the idea is expressed 
by other words in Nu. 13-14; v.** to Dt. i"; v.^ to Dt. i" ; v.^*D*p:jna 
Dt. l" OVJy *33 (Nu. IS**- " pjyn n*S*) ; v.'**" to Dt. i". The passage in its 
original Ibrm appears, like JE in Nu. 13-14 (p. 62 f,), to have presupposed 
I Caldi ahtu as a spy : for the terms used in v.'* ■ (" sent «/," ** went up with 
me "I arc not those of a person addressing another voho was his tompanion oh 
the 0€£asii>n re/erred to ; so that in v.* the words " and concerning ihce," it 
seems, must have been added for tlte purpose of accommodating the narrative 
to that of P in Nu. 13-Z4. 

C. 15. Judah. The borders of Judah, v.^-*^ ; Caleb*s con- 
quest of Hebron, and Othnicrs of Kirjathsepher (Debit), v.""^" ; 
the dues of Judah, arranged by districtg, v.'^-**. 


P 15' 




V.*"*' seem to be a late insertion in P, designed to conform the territory 
of Judah to the ideal limits of v." : they arc difHcult historically (contrast 
J ud. i^" ; and cf. p. 163 ».^) ; and daughters^ in the sense of dependent towns, 
is not one of P's expressions (on 15" LXX, cf, Dillm. p. 528). On v."""- •», 
see below, pp. 115, 162 f, 

C. 16-17. The children Kii Joseph {i.e. the west half of Man- 
asseb, and Ephraim). The description is less complete than in 
the case of Judah, and also less clearly arranged. 16*"^ describes 
the soulIi border (but only this) of the 2 tribes treated as a 
whole; i6*'^** describes the borders of Ephraim^ with a notice 
(v.*) of certain cities belonging to Ephraim, but situated in the 
territory of Manasseh, and (v.'^^Jud. 1™) of the fact that the 
Israelites did not succeed in dispossessing the Canaanites from 
Ciezer. C. 17 describes the borders of Manasseh^ with a notice 
of the cities belonging to it in Issachar and Asher (v.^-^^), con- 
cluding (v.^*-'8) with an account of the complaint of insufficient 
territory made by the joint tribes to Joshua, and of the per- 
mission given to them by him to extend their territory for 



E t6»'» 



t »<j 


The main description is thai of JE, the compiler having here 
followed P less than usual. Two indications of compilation 



nuy be noted, (i) In J£ the lot of the two sons of Jose-(>b t$ 
||IQ4] consistently spoken at as am (i6* 17>^^ ; so iS*) ; in P it 
is expressly desdibed is twofold (i6^' i7^)» Manassrh being 
ouned jSrsf (16*} in accordance with 14* Gen. 48* by the same 

nanator ; * (2) after ihe descriprion of the southern border alone 
of "Joseph" 1 6'-*, the narrative starts afresh 16*, the description 
first given being in great part repeated (v.*^). V,*** is the regular 
subscription of P (19*' " &c). 

J£*» original namtirc is thus restored Id outline by WeUh. (p, 133) t 
"The two divisions of Joseph receive but one territory (l6', cf. 17"), the 
bordeis of which are defined (16^'*: the north border is now missing), tn 
this territory Ephxaxxn receives we do not know how many portions, and 
Manasseh ten (17*). The more imporlant Ephroimite dtics are enumerated, 
and a limitation follows (16*). Next» Manasseh's territory is described, and 
it is mentioned that some important cities situate in it belong to Kphraim 
OT*"**)* hut that, on the other hand, Manossch also extended northwards 
into Asher and Zebulun, though the cities belonging to it there remained 
Coivianitish (17*"*""). Tlic account is concluded by 1;"*", which is of the 

nature of an appendix." The narrative of JE is continued by l8'**^. 


C. 18. (1) V.>*<* the Israelittis assemble at Sliiloh^ and set up 
theTtmt of Meeting : at Joshua's direction a survey (*' describe " 
//V. WTile) of the land yet undivided is made, and its distrihuilon 
by lot to the seven remaining tribes is proceeded wiili at Shiloh ; 
(2) v."-^ the tribe of Benjamin^ its borders (v."'^), and cities 
(v."-28), V.i- "-'8 belong to P, v.'*-*- »"" to J E, vj to U». 

On 18* conip. above on c 14. With the notice in r.'*, cf. 13"* " IH. 
10^ igik. « , with that in v.^, a» &c (p. 104). 

C. 19. The lots of StTfmon (v.>p), Ziluiun (v.^o"), /ssiuhar 
(v.i'-'-^), As/ur (v.2<-»»), Nap/Ua/i (v.^='-:'»), and Dan (v.^-**), with 
a notice of the assignment of Timnath serah, in Eplu-aim, to 
Joshua (v.***"'), and subscription, v.**, 

(p 1^^ !»-« a a 

V.*-", where the cnuintralion differs In form from the rrirt of Ihe dl.. 
nay be an excerpt from J E, which, to judge from iS", would appear to have 
contained a description of the tribal alloimenu by citUs — now uiofttly super- 
teded by the text of P. The notice v.*'' la parallel to 15^* {Caleb), and It 
presupposed in 24*^ (both JE). V." is the tinal subscription (o [105] P't 

• With I7»^ •^t cf. Nu. 27^-" (P). V."»-' differs from P in repreientatioQ 
(Nu, aa^*-") : ct Kuenen, 7k. T. xi. i(&\-^ ; Uitlm. p. 54a. 



whole account of the division of the land, i8' 14^'', following Ihe /^r/fcuFa* 
Kubscription, v.*, relating to Don, just sls Gen. lo'^ follows Gen. lo'", or u 

C. 21*"- follows 21**. 

C. 20. The appointment of cities of refuge, in accordance 
with Ntj. ss*""* and Dt. 19; Dt. 4"*^3 ^^he appointment of the 
three trans-Jordanic cities by Moses) being disregarded 

f P 2tf -* • * {\.o judgment) »"• ' 




The ch., as a whole, is in the style of P, but it exhibits in 
parts points of contact with Dt. It is remarkable, now, that just 
these passages are omitted in (lie LXX (v.^ " (and) unawares " ; 
v.*^ ; v.* from " (and) until " to " whence he fled " j also v.** " at 
Jericho eastward"). As no reason can be assigned for the 
omission of these passages by the LXX transhtors, had they 
formed a part of the Hebrew text which tliey used, it is probable 
that the ch. in its original form (P) has been enlarged by addi- 
tions from the law of homicide in Dt (c. 19) at a comparatively 
late date, so that they were still wanting in the MSS. used by 
the LXX translators. Cf. Hollenberg, Alex. Uchrs, p. 15. 

In v.* observe that njwa unwittingly (lit in error) is the phrase of P 
(Nu. 35"" ", Lev. 4' &c.) ; ntn '^aa unawares is the phrase of Dt (4** 19* : 
not so elsewhere) : it is the latter which LXX do not recognise. 

C. a I. Forty-eight cities assigned by the Israelites to the 
tribe of Levi, in accordance with the injunctions contained in 
Nu. 35^-8. V.^-«2 belongs to P, v.-*-^^ to IX 

V.*^ fonns D^*s subscription, not to 2l'~**, btit to D^i entire accotmt of 
the division of the land, as 19*"- isJE's, and 19" P's. 

C. 22. The division of the land being thus completed, Joshua 
dismisses the a J tribes to their homes on the east of Jordan, 
v.i"*. The incident of the altar erected by them at the point 
where they crossed the Jordan, v,*^. 

rP ^^[2^;^ 


V,''* is a fragment of uncertain origin, attached, as U seems, to v.* by a 
later hand.t Tlie source of v.*"** is nlso unceriain. The phroseolo^ [106] 

• Except ** (and) unawares *' (ntn *^33) in v.*. 

t D'OSJ riches, in 22* is a woixl found otherwise only in the latest parts of 
the OT. (EccL 5'" 6», 2 Ch. i"- "), and in Aramaic (Ezr. 6» 7" ; also in the 
Targums and in Syriac). 



b in l}ie main that of P (cf. the citations, p. t^t AT.*) ; bat the namitWe does 
not display throughout the characteristic style of P, and in n-Jiue parts of itf 
there occur expressions which are not those o( P. Either a iiarrative of P 
ihas been combined with elements from another source t in a manner iKdiidi 
makes it dithcuU to efTcct a satisfactory anaty^sis, or the whole is the work 
of a dislina writer, whose phraseology is in part that of F, but not 

C. 23. The J^rsf of the two closing addresses of Joshua to 
the people, in which he exhorts them to adhere faithfully to the 
principles of the Deuteronomic law, and in particular to refrain 
from all intercourse with the native inhabitants of Canaan. 

C. 24. (a) The second of Joshua's closing addresses to the 
people, delivered at Shechem, difTering in scope from that in 
c 23, and consisting of a review of the mercies shown by God 
to His people from the patriarchal days, upon which is based 
the duty of discarding all false gods, and cleaving to Him alone. 
The people, responding to Joshua's example, pledge themselves 
solemnly to obedience ; and a stone, in attestation of iheir act, 
is erected in the sanctuary at Shechem, v.****; (/^) notices of 
the death and burial of Joshua, of the burial of Joseph's bones 
at Shechem, and of the death and burial of Eleazar, v.^'^. 

E 24» 

D" c. 33 


"** {Xo/ebuu'ie) 

C. 23 sliows throughout the hand of D* : conip. c. I and 22*'*; Its object 
(apparently being to supplement 24"' by inculcating more particularly the 
^principles of tlie Deuteronomic law. C. 24 is generiilly adinitted to belong 
to E ; it is incorporated here, with slight additions, by D*. In v." the 
words •' the Amorite ... the Jebusiie " {ci. Dl 7^) in point of feet interrupt 
the connexion : the context speaks only of the contest with the "lords" of 
Jericho. With v.^ comp. Dl 6'»''' ^* ; with v." \}L ll^ Other similar 

* Wliich, however, do not include all the niarks of P'l style whidi the 
section contains. 

t Esp. v.'^-'*, and in (he expression nisfiD(n) ear v.*- •• *•*- "• "• "■ ", which, 
though common in D and D' {tg, x'*), occurs, in lieu of P's regular term 
fWJO neo, only in two doubtful passages of P (l3*», Nu. 32"*). 

X The sense of v."** is uncertain. 1^)3 p*» Vm is usually rendered oppositt 
i0 tht land of Canaan ; but W. A. Wright, Jaum. of Pkilahgy^ xiiL II7 tt 
argues that Ws means in fvQut ^ (viz. on the same side: cf. Ex. 3^ Sm 
"vin So, x'.tf. on the sides of the mountain itself, not opposite to It : so Jos. 
8") : if this rendering l>e correct, one chief reason for treating the norratire 
as composite — viz. that llie altar is represented in v.'^os on the west side of 
Jordan, and in v,'* on its east side — disappears. 



slight additions by D* arc probably v.* middle clause (cf. DL. 29"). v.'*» to 
he/ort you (cf. Ex. 23", Dl. 7*). In v.** ttfeht for twa should certainly 
be read with LXX. llie context requires impcralivcly a reference [107J lo 
some event iubsequtni to tlie capture of Jericho ; so lliat the two kings of the 
Amorites od the east of Jordan (Silion and Og) — who have, moreover, been 
noticed in v.* — are here out of place. This retrospect differs in some respects 
from the previous narrative, and mentions incidents not otherwise recorded, 
e.g. the worsliip of " other gods " beyond the Euphrates v.** " ; the war of 
Balak with Israel v.'; the "lords" or citizens of Jericho ^ghting against 
Israel v." ; the number of the kings in v.", which, whether two or twelve, 
disagrees in either case with the 31 (or 30) of 12". 

Points of contact with E : v.* '* before Gcd," cf. Ex 18" ; v.>«- »• » 
"the Amorite" (p. 119); v,**", cf. Ex. 15"; further, with v."»- »^ *»'' (the 
oak) com p. Gen. 35*'*; with v.", Gen. 28"; with v.", Gen. 31****"; and 
with v.". Gen. 33" 50*. Ex. 13". 

The Book of Joshua thus assumed the form in which we have 
it by a series of stages. First, the compiler of JE (or a kindred 
hand), utilizing older materials, completed his work : this was 
afterwards amplified by the elements contributed by D^ : finally, 
the whole thus formed was combined with P.* From a historical 
point of view, it is of importance to distinguish the different 
elements of which the narrative is composed. Historical matter, 
as such, is not that in which D^ is primarily interested ; except 
in his allusions to the 2 J trans- Jordanic tribes (which are of the 
nature of a retrospect), the elements contributed by him either 
give prominence to the motives actuating Joshua, or generalize 
and magnify the successes achieved by him. Looking at JE, 
we observe that it narrated the story of the spies sent to explore 
Jericho, the passage of the Jordan (in two versions), the circiun- 
ctsion of the Israelites at Gibeath-araloth {^'^•) or Gilgal (5*^-), 
the capture of Jericho and of Ai (c. 6 ; 7-8), in each of which 
accounts traces arc perhaps discernible of an earlier and simpler 
story than that which forms the body of the exisdng narrative^ 
the compact made with the Gibeonites, the defeat at Beth-horon 
of the five kings who advanced to attack Gibeon, with their 
execution at Makkedah, and Joshua's victory over the kings of 
the North at the waters of Merom- From this point the narrative 
of JE is considerably more fragmentary, consisting of little more 
than partial notices of the territory occupied by the tribes (parts 
of c 16-17), ^^^ anecdotes of the manner in which, in particular 
cases, they completed, or failed to complete, the conquest of 
* This view is preferred deliberately to that of DiUmaoib 



Ihe districts allotted to them.* [l08] The account of the close 
of Joshua's life is preserved more fully c. 24 (E). 

That JE*s narrative is incomplete is apparent from majiy 
indications, t.g. the isoiaUd notice of Bethel assisting Ai in 8", 
the entire absence of any mention of the conquest of Central 
Palestine (p. 107), the fragmentary character of the notices of the 
conquest of Judah, &:c It is, however, remarkable that a series 
of notices, similar in form and representation, and sometimes in 
great measure verbally identical with those found in the Book 
of Joshua, occur in the first chapter of Judges ; and the resem- 
blance is of such a character as to leave little doubt that the two 
scries are mutually supplementary, both originally forming part 
of one and the same continuous account of the conquest of 
Palestine (see below, under Judges), From the entire group of 
these notices, narrating, partly the successes, partly the failures, 
of individual tribes, we leam that tlie oldest Israelilish tradition 
represented the conquest of Palestine as having been in a far 
greater degree due to the exertions of the separate tribes, and as 
having been cflTcctcd, in the first instance, much less completely 
than would be judged to have been the case from the existing 
Book of Joshua, in which the generalizing summaries of D' 
(e^, io*o-^S; 11I6-23. 2i"-^') form a frequent and prominent 
feature. The source of the notices in question is supposed by 
many critics (Budde, p. 73 f.) to be J, though not of iS*^**"'°, 
where the survey of Canaan is represented as being carried out 
as though no unfriendly population were still holding its own 
in the land. C 24 also stands on a different footing from the 
notices referred to J, the conquest, as it seems, being conceived 
as more completely effected (v.*-*'- '■) than in the representation 
contained in tlicse notices. C. 24, however, is assigned, upon 
independent grounds, to the source E, which might almost be 
siiid to be written from a standpoint approaching (in this respect) 
that of D*. 

P entertains the same view of the conquest as D^ ('8*'*), 
and carries it to its logical consequences : Eleazar and Joshua 
formally divide the conquered territory among the tribes (18^; 
14*"*). The limits of the different tribes, and the cities belong- 
ing to them, are no doubt described as they existed in & later 

perhaps the nucleus of I4****; 15***"; ■; 16"? 17' 





day; but the partition of the land being conceived as idtaify 
• Tfected by Joshua, its complete distribution and occupation 
[109] by the tribes are treated as his work, and as accumplished 
in his Ufetime. A difference between P and JE may here be 
noted. P mentions Elea/ar the priest as co-operating with 
Joshua, and even gives him the precedence (14' 17* 19^* 21'; 
cf. Nu. 27'*'2i 2^17 p) J in JE Joshua always acts alone (14* 17" 

On the phraseology of D* see, besides the dtations pp. 99ff., 10561, 
losHUA, in Smith's Diit. of the Bibk (cd. 2), § 5. It has, in particular, 
uffmities with the margins of Dt. (cf. Hollenbcrg, Stwi. 11. fCft't. 1874, p. 
472 ff.) J and includes also a few expressions not found in Dt One Icmi, 
frequent in D''s summaries, may be here noted, D*nnn to han or devote^ 2** 
jqI. s. m. n. »(. I |i». att . jcc LH. 2** 3*. and esp. in the injunctions (cf. p. 104, 
Hott) 7" 13" 20". But the oin {p. 59/1.) musi be a ver)' old institution in 
Ifirael: it is mentioned in JE Ex. 22'*, Nil 2I='-, JoJi. 6-7. Note also the 
servant of/ehavah, of Mosc«: !»•»•».»»•" 8"» 9« ii^*- » 12« 13* 14' 18^ 


Our analysis of the Hexateuch is completed, and the time has 
arrived for reviewing the characteristics o{ its several sources, and 
for discussing the question of their probable date. Deuteronomy, 
indeed, has been considered at sufficient length ; but there 
remain J, E, and P. Have we done rightly, it will perhaps be 
asked, in distinguishing J and E? That P and "JE" formed 
originally two separate writings will probably be granted; the 
distinguishing criteria are palpable and abundant : but is this 
established in the case of J and E ? is it probable that tliere 
should have been two narratives of the patriarchal and Mosaic 
ages, independent, yet largely resembling each other, and that 
these narratives should have been combined together into a 
single whole at a relatively early period of the history of Israel 
(approximately, in the 8th century B.C.)? The writer has often 
considered these questions ; but, while readily admitting the 
liability to error, which, from the literary character of the narra- 
tive, accompanies the assignment of particular verses to J or E, 
and whicli warns the critic to express his judgment with reserve, 
he must own tliat he has always risen from the study of " JE" 
with the conviction tliat it is composite ; and that passages 
occur frequently in juxtaposition which nevertheless contain 



iodicatians of not han^ ibe voik of ooe ^nd the sauzie huDii. 

[no] It is ZK> doobt poffahV thst sotoe scholirs nay have soi^t 
to ajaUvsc JE vidi too grctx mintiteoess ; but die admxssaoQ ctf 
this &ct does not u e utiJt Iise ixifcscDces dnwn from hnckader and 
mote obvioQs maiis of oomposdtSoa. The sdmuaritT of the two 
zuixaiives, SQch as it is, is saSaenth- explained by the htit that 
their sob^ed-matter b (^proxiinateilT) the same, and diat dtey 
bodi oc^^nated in d>c same geocial period of Israelinsh hteratorc. 
Specimens have aheady been ghen of the grounds upon idikh tiio 
analysis of J£ mainly tests, of the opgencr of which the xeftder vili 
be able to fonn his own opinion : as the notes j^^jended will 
have shown, d>e writer does not hold the particulars, ercn in 
the Book <^ Geneas, to be throughout equally assured. If, 
however, minuter, more problematical details be not unduly 
insisted on, there does not seem to be any inherent improbabOity 
in the conclusion, stated thus generally, that "JE* is of tiw 
nature of a compilation, and that in some parts, even if not so 
frequently as some critics have supposed, the independent sources 
used by the compiler are still more or less clearly discernible. 

J and £, then (assuming them to be rightly distinguishedX 
appear to have cast into a literary form the traditions lespecdng 
the beginnings of the nation that were current among the 
people, — approximately, as it would seem, in the early centuries 
of the monarchy. In view of the principles which predominate 
in it, and in contradistinction to the "Priests' Code," JE, as a 
whole, may be termed the prophetical narrati^'c of the Ilexateuch. 
In so far as the analysis contained in the preceding pages is 
accepted, the following features may be noted as characteristic 
of J and £ respectively. In the Book of Genesis both narratives 
deal largely with the antiquities of the sacred sites of Palestine. 
The people loved to think of their ancestors, the patriarchs, as 
frequenting the spots which they themselves held sacred: and 
the traditions attached to these localities are recounted by the 
two writers In question. 

Thus in J Abraham builds altars at Shechcm, Bethel, and Hebron (la** 't 
13*-"), Isaac at Beer-sheba (26"), and Jacob erects a "pillar" at Bethel 
(35^*): in £ Abraham builds an altar on Moriah (22*); Jacob erects and 
anoints a "pillar" (28^*-'' 31^) at liullicl, and afturwiirds builds an altar 
there (35'- ■• ^) ; aiiulher pillar is built by him near Bcthcli over Hachel'i 
grave (35") ; and an altar, on ground Um^jht by himself, ut Shechcm (33**') | 
he also sacrifices at Beer-shcba (46*). Jacob and Lalun, moreover, crr<-| n 



" pillnr," marking a boundary, in Gilead (31* [ill] "'") ; and Joshua sets up 
.1 "great stone" in the sanctuary at Shechem (Josh. 24''). J explains the 
origin of the names Becr-lahai-roi Gen. :6", Bccr-shcba 26", Bethel 2S'", 
Pcnuel 32", Succoth 33", Abcl-Mizraim 50" : E those of Bccr-shcba 21*"-, 
Mahanaim 32', Allon-bachuth (near Bethel), the burial-place of Deborah, 35', 
In J Abraham joamej's through the district of Shechem and Bethel, and aUo 
visits Beer-shebft (2i"J, but his principal residence appears to be Hebron, 
afterwards the gt^aX Judaic sanctuary {13'" 18*); in E he dwells chiefly in 
Bcer-sheba (the sanctuary frequented by Epkrainntts^ Am 5" 8^^) and the 
neighbourhood (20* 21" 22*"). Isaac's home is in or near Beer-sheba {25*"'* 
91-91 26«. »-».«. J), Jacob's original home is Becr-shcba fjsUb-nff- 28": J), 
and he at least posses through it in 46*** {prob. E) ; but the places wiili 
which he is chiefly associated arc Bethel 28"'* J and E, 35**- E, and 
Shechem 33'*'' E, 48" E falludeil to here as assigned expressly to Joseph, 
i.u to northern Israel). Only once, 37" (J or E?), is he mentioned, ex- 
ceptionally, as being at Hebron. Allusions to sacred trees (mostly terebinths 
or oaks), which, it may be supposed, were pointed to in the narrator's own 
day, occur in bollj J {12* I3'' 18* 21") and E (3$*' •, Josh. 24"), as also in 
Gen. 14" (cf. Jud. 4" 6"- « g"- ", i S. lo"). 

As compared wilh J, E fre<incntly states more pirticulars: he is "best 
informed on Eg)-ptian matters" (Dillm.); the names Elic/xr (probably), 
Deborah, Potiphar, " Abrekh," Ziiphcnath-Pa'ncacli, Ascnalh, Putiphera 
(Gen. 15' [contrast 24' J] 35' [contrast 24" JJ 37" 4t*'**), Pilhom and 
Raamscs(?), Puah, Shiphmh. Hur (Ex. i"(?)" i7>»>" 24"), arc prescr\cd 
by him: to the details montiuncd above, add ihose respecting the buriul- 
places of Joshua, HletiKar (Josh. 24*'* "•), and Joseph {ib. 24" ; cf. Gen. 56", 
Ex. 13"). The aHusions to the tcraphim -worship and polytheism of the 
Aramxan connexions of the piilriarchs (Gen, 31 1"'**-" [see the Heb. ] 35* 
Josh. 24*' *^) arc all due to tiini, as welt as, probably, the notices of Miriam 
(Ex. 3*"- is""-, Nu. 12. 20'), of Joshua as the minister and attendant of 
Moses (Ex. 17"- 24" 3-*" 33"» ^^* ""; cf. Josh* i*), and of the rod in 
Moses* hand (Ex. 4"' *"* 7*^ ^' io»«- 14" I7»). 

The standpoint of E is the prophetical, though it is not 
brought so prominently forward as in J, and in general the 
narrative is more "objective," less consciously tinged by ethical 
and theological reflodon than that of J. Though E men- 
tions the local sanctuaries, and alludes to the '* pillars" without 
oflTence, he lends no countenance to unspiritual service : tlie 
putting away of "strange gods" is noticed by him with manifest 
approval Gen. 35^"^, Josh. 24^^*^. Abraham is styled by him a 
"prophet," possessing the power of effectual intercession (Gen. 
20^; Moses, though not expressly so termed, as by Hosea 
(12^*), is represented by him essentially as a prophet, entrusted 
[112] by Clod with a prophet's mission (E\. ;i), and holding ex- 
ceptionally intimate communion with Him (Ex. 33**, Nu. 12*^-* • 



cf. Dl. 34***). In his narrative of Joseph, the didactic ioiport of 
Ihe history is brought out 50^ : the lesson which he makes it 
teach ib the manner in which God effects His purposes through 
human means, even though it be without the knowledge, and 
contrary to the wishes, of the agents who actually bring them 
about (cf. also 45^^), 

Oihcr features that have been noticed in E are: D'hSk construed as a 
plural (Gen. 20" 35', Josh. 24") ; God's toming in %, dream (Gen. 20" 3I»*, 
Nu. as**** : not so elsewlicrc), and generally the frequency of the dream a* 
a channel of revelation in his representations (add Gen. aS*"* 3i'**'* c. 40-41. 
46" : cf. 37»-" 42* ; probably also 15* 21** [see v.'*] 22* [sec v.*]) ; * the douhtt 
caUl Gen. 22" 46', Ex. 3*; Jelhro, not Hobab (Nu. lo**: see p. 22 f.), as the 
name of Moses' ffLthcr>in*law Ex. 3* 4" iS''^ ; and (if the passages quoted 
are ail rightly derived from E) " Horeb"t (Ex. 3* 17' 33*) in preference lo 
"Sinai"; "mountain of God" (Ex. 3»[cf. I Ki. 19"] 4" 18" 24"); "Amorite," 
as the general name of the prC'Israclitish population not only of the land of 
Sihon. E. of Jordan (Nu, 2i"-*"-), but also of the territory W. of Jordan 
(Gen. 15" 4S", Josh. 24" [read with LXX heelve for two^ of the kings W. 
of Jordan] "■ ** [so 2 Sa. 2i«, Am. 2»'": cf. Jud. 610, I Sa. 7'*]);J prefers 
" Canaanitc " (Gen. 10" I2« 13' 24»' " 34" So", Ex. 13" ; cf. Jud. i*- »). J 

J, if he dwells less than E upon concrete particulars, excels 
in the power of delineating life and character. His touch is 
singularly light: with a few strokes he paints a scene which, 
before he has finished, is impressed indelibly upon his reader's 
memory. In ease and grace his narratives are unsurpassed ; 
everything is told with precisely the amount of detail that is re- 
quired ; the narrative never lingers, and the reader's interest is 
sustained to the end. His dialogues especially (which arc fre- 
quent) are remarkable for the delicacy and truthfulness with 
which character and emotions find expression in them : who can 
ever forget the pathos and supreme beauty of Judah's inter- 
cession, Gen. 44^^*^' ? Other noteworthy specimens of his style 
arc afforded by Gen. 2-3, ii^-*, c. 18-19. 24. 27 [113] ^"^ (which 
is mostly, if not entirely, the work of J) Ex. 4^"". The char- 

• Much less frequently in J : 26" 28'*-^*. 

t As in Dt. (!»-«•» 4"* " 5* 9* 1 8" 29' [28* Heb. D : not elsewhere in (he 

X The lisis of nations Gen. iS**-", Ex. -^ " 13' 23"- * 33* 34", Joah. 3" 
9' I !■ I2« 24" (cf. Di. 7I 20", Jud. 3*) stand upon a different fooling, mod are 
probably due moidly to the compiler of J E (or lo D', as the case may l>e). 
Couip. Budde, Dit BtV, Urgeschithle, p. 345 ff. ; and the writer's DtuL 
j)p. 11,97. 




acler of Moses is pourtrayed by him with singular attractiveness 
and force. In J, further, the prophetical element is conspicuously 
prominent Indeed, his characteristic features may be said to 
be the fine vein of ethical and theological reflexion which per- 
vades his work throughout, and the manner in which his narrative, 
even more than that of E^ becomes the vehicle of religious 
teaching. " He deals with llie problem of the origin of sin and 
evil in the world, and follows its growth (Gen. 2-4. 6***); he 
notices the evil condition of man's heart even after the Flood 
(8^')/ traces the development of heathen feeling and heathen 
manners (ii^"'- 9^*^* ig^""*^^-), and emphasizes strongly the want 
of faith and disobedience visible even in the Israel of Moses* 

days (Ex. iC*-*-^^* 17' 

,4iif. 328-14 33ia_34« 

Nu. II. 14. 25 




). He shows in opposition to this how God works for 
the purpose of counteracting the ruin incident to man, partly by 
punishment, partly by choosing and educating, first Israel's fore- 
fathers to live as godlike men, and finally Israel itself to become 
the holy people of God. He represents Abraham's migration 
into Canaan as the result of a divine call and promise (Gen. 12^"^ 
24^; expresses clearly the aim and object of this call (i8**'*); 
exhibits in strong contrast to human sin the Divine mercy, long- 
suffering, and faithfulness (Gen. 6^ 8^1'- iS^aff-, Ex. 32»-" s^^ff.) . 
recognizes the universal significance of Israel in the midst of the 
nations of the worid (Gen. 12=^- ly^, Ex. 4*^ 19"-, Nu. 24»); 
declares in classical words the final end of Israel's education 
(Nu. 11^*; cf. Gen. 18" RV., Ex. 19'^^-); ^"^ formulates under 
the term ^/t'e/ the spirit in which man should respond to i\\e 
revealing work of God (Gen. 15", Ex. 41**- ^- " 14" 19*; cf. Nu. 
14^^; and also Dt i*' 9*'^). And in order to illustrate the divine 
purposes of grace, as manifested in histoiy, he introduces, at 
points" fixed by tradition, "prophetic glances into the future 
(Gen. 3" 52* S^ 9^^ 12'^- 18^8^- 28**, Nu. 24^'^^-), as he also loves 
to point to the character of nations or tribes as foreshadowed in 
their beginnings (Gen. 9^*^' 16" ig^^ 25"^ 1,4^'^^ 35=2 ^^^ 
Dillm,*s note here] ; cf. 49*'^") " (Dillm. TW?/ p. 629 f.). 

It is a peculiarity of J that his representations of the Deity 
are [114] liighly anthropomorphic. He represents Jehovah not 
only (as the prophets generally, even the latest, do) as expressing 
human resolutions and sw*ayed by human emotions, but as per- 
forming sensible acts. Some illustrations from J's narrative in 


Gen. 2-3. 7-8 were quoted above (p. 9) ; but the instances are 
not confined to the childhood of the world. Thus He comes 
down to see the tower built by men, and to confound their 
speech ti*** (so 18'*, Ex. •^\ rather differently Nu. ii^^-** 12*), 
visits the earth in visible form Gen. 18-19, mteis Moses and 
seeks to slay him Ex. 4^*, takes off the chariot wheels of the 
Egyptians 14^. Elsewhere, He is grieved, repents (Gen. 6*^'-, Ex. 
32**), swears (Gen. 24^, Nu. 11'-), is angry (Ex. 4" a/.); but 
these less material anthropomorphisms are not so characteristic 
as those just noticed, being met with often in other historical 
books and in the prophets (e.g. i Sa. 15", 2 Sa, 24", Jer, i8*-^^, 

How far other sources were employed by J and E must re- 
main uncertain, though the fact that such are sometimes actually 
quoted, at least by E, makes it far from improbable that they 
were used on other occasions likewise. The sources cited are 
mostly poetical : no doubt in Israel, as in many other nations, 
literature began with poetry. Thus E cites the *' Book of the 
Wars of Jehovah" (Nu. ai**'-). and die "Book of Jashar" (Josh, 
lo^*'*), from each of which an extract is given. The former book 
can only have been a coUection of songs celebrating ancient 
victories gained by Israel over its enemies.* The poems them- 
selves will naturally, at least in most cases, have been composed 
shortly after the events to which they refer. At what date they 
were formed into a collection must remain matter of conjecture : 
the age of David or Solomon has been suggested The Book of 
Jashar, or "the Upright" (in which David's lament over Saul 
also stood a Sa. i^^), was probably of a similar character, — a 
national collection of songs celebrating the deeds of worthy 
Israelites. This, at least, was not completed before the dme of 
David, though the nucleus of the collection may obviously have 
been formed earlier. E, moreover, on other occasions, quotes 
lyric poems (or fragments of poems), viz, the Song of Moses 
(Ex. is^^-), the Song of the Well (Nu. 2i"f.)^ and the Song of 
triumph over Sihon (/A v.^^"*'). There is no express statement 
[115] that these were taken by him from one of the same sources j 
but in the light of his actual quotations this is not improbable, 
at least for the first two : the Song of Deborah, Jud. 5^'^*, may 
also have had a place in one of these collections. Further, the 

• For the exprcssioa, cf. \ Sa. aS" 25*, 




rommand to write " in a book " * the threat to extirpate Amalek 
(Ex. 17^*), makes it prqbable that some written statement existed 
of the combat of Israel with Amalek, and of the oath sworn then by 
Jehovah to exterminate His people's foe. The poetical phrases 
that occur in the context may suggest that this too was in the 
form of a poem, reminiscences of which were interwoven by E 
in his narrative. And the Ten Commandments, whicli E incor- 
porates, of course existed already in a written form. The Bless- 
ing of Jacob (Gen. 49) may have been derived by J from a source 
such as the Book of Jasbar : the Song of Moses in Dt. 32 (which 
is very different in style) was taken probably from an independent 
source The ordinances which form the basis of the " Book of the 
Covenant" must also have existed in a written sliape before they 
were incorporated in the narrative of E; as well as the "Words 
of the Covenant," which, probably in an enlarged form, are pre- 
served in Ex. 34'°"* (cf. v.*^^-). The existence of written laws 
c. 750 B.a is implied by Hos. 8". 

Critics of dirTerent schools — Dillmann, Kittel, and Riehm, 
not less than Wellh. and Kuen. — agree in supposing that E was 
u native of the Northern kingdom. His narrative bears, indeed, 
an Ephraimitic tinge. Localities belonging to the Northern 
kingdom (see above) are prominent in it, especially Shechem 
and Bethel (the custom of paying tithes at which — cf. Am. 4* — 
appears to be explained in Gen. 28^^'''). Hebron is subordinate: 
Abraham is brought more into connexion with Beersheba. 
Reuben, not Judaic (as in J), takes the lead in the history of 
Joseph. Joshua, the Ephraimite hero, is already prominent 
before the death of Moses ; the burial places of famous person- 
ages of antiquity, as of Deborah, Rachel, Joshua, Joseph, 
Eleazar, when they were shown in Ephraimite territory, arc 
noticed by him (Gen. 35®- ^^^* Josh. 24'''*>- ^^■•*^). J is commonly 
regarded as ha^-ing belonged to the Southern kingdom. [116] The 
general Israelitish tradition treated Reuben as the first-bom ; 
but in J's narrative of Joseph, Judah is represented as the leader 
of the brethren. Gen. 38 (J) records traditions relating to the 
history of Judahite families which would be of subordinate 
interest for one who was not a member of the tribe. Abraham's 

' Ileh. T^CS, of which, however, ihe Engli^ equivalent is " in a book " : 
comp. Nit. 5™, Job 19". The Itcbrew idiom is explained in Ges.-KAUt2sch 
(cd. 26), S 126. 4 i or in ihe writer's Na^s oh Samuel^ on x Sa. i' ig*. 


home is at Hebron. The grounds alleged may seem to be 
slight in themselves, but in the absence of stronger grounds on 
the opposite side, they make it at least relatively probable that 
E and J belonged to the Northern and Southern kingdoms 
respectively, and represent the special form which Israelitish 
tradition assumed in each locality. 

On the relative date of E and J, the opinions of critics differ, 
nillm., Kittel, and Riehm assign the priority to E, placing him 
(>oo-85o B.C., and J c. 750 (Dillm.), 830-800 (Kittcl), or e. 850 
(Riehm).* Wellhauscn, Kuencn, and Stadc, on the other hand, 
assign the priority to J, placing him 850-800 b.c, and E c, 750.! 

Tlie grounds of this difference of opinioa cannot be Iicre fully dlscxisscd. 
Il turns in part upon a different conception of the limits of J. DUIm.'s " J " 
embraces more than Wcllh.'s "J," including, for instance, Ex. I3**** ig*** 
32'*", and much of 34*'**, which approximate in tone to Dt., and which 
Wellh. ascribes to the compiler of JE. Dillro.'s dale, r, 750 (p. 630), it 
Assigned to J largely on the ground of just those passages which form no pan 
of Wcllh.'s J. It is true, these pai^sages display a tone and style (of^en 
parenetic) which is not that which prevails generally in J ; and as the 
anthropomorphisms of J favour, moreover, an earlier date, it is possible that 
they are rightly assigned to the compiler of JE rather than to J (as. Indeed, 
is admitted by Dillm. (p. 681) for the similar passages, Gen. 22^* 26"***, 
Ek. 15"*, Ku. 14"""). Dillm. allows the presence in his " J " of archaic 
elements, but attributes them to the use of special sources ; his opinion that 
E is one of these sources is not probable. On the possibility of the a- 
istence of later strata in J, sec Holzingcr, pp. 138-160, 

Although, however, critics differ as to the relative date of J 
and E, they agree that neither is later than r. 750 ac. ; and 
most are of opinion that one (if not both) is decidedly earlier. 
'I*hc terminus ad quern is fixed by the general consideration that 
the prophetic tone and point of view of J and E alike are not so 
definitely marked as in the canonical prophets (Amos, Hosea, &c), 
the earliest of whose writings date from e, 760-750, It is [II7] 
probable, also, though not quite certain {for the passages may be 
based upon unwritten tradition), that Am. 2*, Hos. xa*'- 12^ 
contain allusions to the narrative of JE. The tertninus a quo is 
more difficult to fix with confidence : in fact, conclusive criteria 
fail us. We can only argue upon grounds of probability derived 

• So most previous critics, as Noldeke (J c, 900]. Schrader (E 975-950) 
J 8jS 800), Kayscr (f. 800}, Reuss (J 850-800 ; E " perhaps still earlier ">. 

t la tlic same order, H. Schulu, OT. Tfuehgy (transl.), i. 66C ("B,** 
^.* J, to the reign of Solomon ; "C," 1*.*. E, 850-S00). 



from our view of the progress of the art of writing, or of literary 
composition, or of the rise and growth of the prophetic tone and 
feeling in ancient Israel, or of the period at which tlie traditions 
contained in the narratives might have taken shape, or of the 
probability that they would have been written down before the 
impetus given to culture by the monarchy had taken effect, and 
similar considerations, for estimating most of which, though 
plausible arguments, on one side or the other, may be advanced, 
a standard on which we can confidently rely scarcely admits of 
being fixed. Nor does the language of J and E bring us to any 
more definite conclusion. Both belong to the golden period of 
Hebrew literature. They resemble the best parts of Judges and 
Samuel (much of whicli cannot be greatly later than David's own 
time) ; but whether they are actually earlier or later than these, 
the language and style do not enable us to say. There is at 
least no archaic flavour perceptible in the style of JE. And 
there are certainly passages (which cannot all be treated as 
glosses), in which language is used implying that the period of 
the exodus lay in the post, and that Israel is established in 
Canaan.* The [ll8] manner also in which soi$gs are appealed 
to (Nu. 2i'*' ^^, in supjxjrt of historical statements, is scarcely that 

•Sec (in JE) Gen. I2« 13'34'C'in Israel": comp. Dt. 23". Jud. 20»- », a 
Sa. 13"): 4o"(*'thcIandtf/Mtf //e^mpf"); Nu. 32*Mas Dt. 3": scejud. 10*). 

In the other sources of the Pent. comp. similarly Gen. 14", Dt. 34* 
("Dan"; see Josh. 19", Jud. l8-«) ; Gen. 36"; Lev, iS'"-; Nu. 22> 341* 
(p. 84f.); Dt. 2'^ ; 3" (Oy's bedstead a relic of anutiuity) ; as well as llie 
passages of Dt. quoted p. 82 f. &c. Dt. 2" 3'*- ^* might, indeed, in them- 
selves be treated as glosses (though they hannonize in style with the rest of 
Dt. 1-3) ; but the attempts that have been made to reconcile the other 
passages with Moses* authorship must strike every impartial reader as foro.'*] 
and artificial. The laws, also, in many of their details, presuppose (and do 
not merely asiticipate) iiislilulions and social relations, which can hardly have 
grown up except among a people which had been for some time settled in a 
permanent home. Cf. Dillm. NDJ. 593-6 ; Riehm. Einl. § 12, 

It must be remembered there is no pass^^c of the OT, which ascri!jcs 
the composition of the Pent, to Muses, or even to Mosca' age ; so that we 
ore thrown back upon independent grounds for the purpose of determining its 
date. The 'Maw of Moses" is indeed frequently spoken of; and it is un- 
questioned that Isrnclitish law did originate with him : but this expression is 
not evidence that Moses was the writer of the Pent., or even that the laws 
which the Pent, contains represent llmiughoul his unmodified IcgUlalion, 
Ul V*'** ""^y ^*^ referred reasonably lo the more ancient legal nucleus d 
Dt'ul. (cf. 27** •, Joilu S""-), Couip. DeliliLsch, Cettens^ pp. 23 f., 34. 


of a contcinporary. All things considered, both J and E may 
1)6 assigned with the greatest probability to the early centuries of 
the monarchy. The date at which an event, or institution, is 
first mentioned in writing, must not, however, be confused with 
that at which it occurred, or originated : in the early stages of a 
nation's history llie memory of the past is preserved liabitually 
by oral tradition ; and the Jews, long after they were possessed 
of a literature, were still apt to depend much upon tradition. 

On some of the supposed ** archaisms " of the Pent, see Dclittsch, Gtfusis 
( 1S87), p. 27 f. ; the present writer's art. " Deuteronomy " in Smith's Diet, of 
the Bible^ § 3ii or his Comm, on Dtut, p. Ixxxviii-zc The remains of ancient 
case-endings (though without the force of cases) occurring in the Pent., which 
have been appealed to as evidence of its antiquity, are too isolated (Gen. !*• 
31"' ■; and in poetry 49**'", Ex. 15", Nu. 23" 24*-", Dt. 33" being all 
that exist}, and too closely analogous to those which appear in admittedly 
Ifllei books (1 about 3$ limes, Hos. 10", Is. l*^ 22", Mic 7", Jer. lo" 
22»-^ 49"" 51" &c; 8 times, viz. Zeph. 2", Is. s6«-*, Ps. 50" 79" 
104"* * Ii4' : cf. Ges,-Kaulzsch, § 90. 3), for an argument of any value lo 
l>e founded upon them. Were the occurrence of these and a few other 
exceptional forms, — such as S|<7 8 limes (against n^itn and nj'v some 260 
times), and the tenc. p- inihe and and 3rd pers. plur. of iheimpf.,* — really due 
to antiquity, ihey must have been both more constant, and also accompanied 
by other marks of an ancient style, Tliis, however, is not the case : the 
general literary style of the Pent contains nothing more suggestive of 
tntiquity than books written confessedly under the monarchy, and the 
affinities of P arc with writings belonging quite to the close of this period. 
The words peculiar to the Pent., collected by Keil and otliers as evidence of 
its superior antiquity, do not establish the required conclusion ; for we possess 
no proof of the antiquity of these words, other than the assumption that the 
b(»oks in which they occur are ancient : the argument is consequently circular. 
Every book of the OT. has words and expressions peculiar to itself ; and the 
number of these is greater in tlie Pent, than in any other single book, simply 
on account of its greater length and the large amount of technical matter 
comprised in the Laws. Nor aic there Egyptian words occurring in the 
I'enL suflicicntly numerous lo imply tliat the author was born and bred in 
Egypt : such as they are, they are simply words which were either naturalized 
in Hebrew, or could not be avoided in describing scenes in Egypt (as •'U1*k, 
n^n, tjorr, rr, irk, -w*, »]v>, iinj ; perhaps h:o) : most of these, also, are not 
confined to llie Pent., but occur in books written subsequently ('ID'k, 110, and 
■W' repeatedly ; vih Job 8" ; hoj ib. Is. iS* 35' ; dtf limn^ Eeek. l6^*' " 27' 
Pr. SI*") ; and the same is the case with [sn, ro {poi\ Sec, t/it be true tliat 

• See the writer's note on i Sa. 2'*, or on Dt. 1". It is the older form ; 
but it occurs in Hcb. 202 out of 305 limes in books other than the Pent., being 
used chiefly for emphasis. Snh is shown by the cognate languages to be, not 
archaism, but simply an irregular orthography for ^}f^. 



\\iese ire Egj-ptian in origin. OUicr woirls thai liavc been allcgH lo I* 
Egj-ptian are shown by the cognate Iangitaj;**s to I»c really Srmilic. The 
assertion in the OxTord J/e/ps that *'the language of Exodus sliows a larj^u 
infusion of Egyptian words" is extraordinarily false ; ihc author of it appears 
to have accepted, without verification, the very exaggerated and inaccurate 
btateiuents in the Speaker^ s Contmeniary^ i. 244, 488 fT. 

Space forbids here an examination of the styles of j and E : careful and 
instructive synopses will be found in Holcinger, pp. 93-no, 177, 181-191. 
They have much in common; indeed, stylistic criteria alone would nut 
generally suffice to distinguish J and E ; though, when the distinction has 
been effected by other means, slight differences of style appear to disclose 
themselves ; for instance, particular cxprcissions are more common in J than 
in E, and E is apt to employ somewhat unusual words.* Whether, however, 
the expressions noted by Dillm. l^DJ> pp. 618, 625 f., are all cited justly as 
characteristic of K aiwi J respectively, may be questioned (cf. Holzitiger, I.e. ) ; 
they depend in part upon details of the analvMH which are not throughout 
equally assured. Both J and K bear a far closer gemta! resemblance than 1' 
does to the earlier narratives of Jud. Sam. Kings ; J especially resembles Jud* 
6»-« I3*" c 19, 

P, both in method and literary style, oflers a striking contrast 
to either J or E. P is not satisfied to cast into a literary forni 
what may be termed the popular conception of the patriarchal 
and Mosaic age : his aim is to give a systtmatU view, from a 
priestly standpoint, of tlte origin and chief institutions of tlie 
Israelitish tlieocracy. For this purpose, an abstract of tlie history 
is sufficient : to judge from the parti that remain, the narrative of 
the patriarchal age, even when complete, cannot have been more 
than a bare outline ; it only becomes detailed at important epochs, 
or where the origin of some existing institution has to [119] be 
explained (Gen. 9*''-,c 17.23); the intervals are bridged frequently 
by genealogical lists, and arc always measured by exact chrono- 
logical standards. Sitnilarly in the Mosaic ago, the commission 
of Moses, and events connected with the exodus, are narrated 
with some fulness ; but only the description of llie Tabernacle 
and ceremonial system can be termed comprehensive ; even of 
the incidents in the wilderness, many appear to be introduced 
chiefly on account of some law or important consequence arising 
out of them.f But even here the writer is careful not to leave 

• E.g. nia'vp Gen. 33" Josh. 24" (Job 42") | ; Q'Jb Gen. 31'- *' J ; Ex. 
iS* nin ; v," mn (very uncommon in fnne) ; 32" ncnVn ; v.* aropa .nxerS 
(poetical) ; ns in a /oca/ sense (see bcUiw, under Ruth). 

t Ex. l6»-'- ••**, see v.*=-»* ; Lev. io»'-; aV"**- *" ; Nu. 9'* 
20»- »"- •, Mt V.'"-"- «-» ; 25»-», sec v.'*-'» ; 27'"- ^0^": 


c. 17; 


an absolute gap in bis narrative ; as in the patriarchal period the 
intervals are bridged by genealogical lists, so here the 40 years in 
the wilderness— the greater part of which is a blank in JE —are 
distributed tietween 40 stations (\u. 33). In the Book of Joshua 
the account of the conquest — though largely superseded by thai 
of JE — appears to have been told summarily : on the other 
hand, the allotment of land among the tribes— arising out of the 
instructions in Nu. 34, and the basis of the territorial subdivision 
existing under the monarchy — is narrated at some length (the 
greater part of Josh. 15-21). Other statistical data, besides 
genealogies, are a conspicuous feature in his narrative ; for 
instance, the lists of names and enumerations in Gen. 46, Nu. 1-4. 
7. 13I-", c. 26. 34. 

In the arrangement of his material, system and circum- 
stantiality are the guiding principles ; and their influence may 
be traced both in the plan of his narrative as a whole, and in 
his treatment of individual sections. Not only is the narrative 
constructed with a careful and uniform regard to chronology, 
but tlje history advances along a well-defined line, marked by 
a gradually diminishing length of human life, by the revelation 
of God under three distinct names, Ehhim^ El Shaddai^"^ and 
Jehovah^ by the blessing of Adam, with its characteristic con- 
ditions, and by the subsequent covenants with Noah, Abraham, 
and Israel, each with its special " sign," the rainbow, the rite ol 
circumcision, and the Sabbath (Gen. 9^21. ,yii^ £jt^ ^i"- [l20] ^^). 
In his picture of the Mosaic age, the systematic marshalling of the 
nation by tribes and families, its orderly distribution in the camp 
and upon the march, the unity of purpose and action which in 
consequence regulates its movements, are the most conspicuous 
features (Nu. 1-4. 10"'^ &c). In the age of Joshua stress is 
similarly laid upon the complete and methodical division of the 
entire land among the tribes. Further, wherever possible, 1* 
seeks to set before his readers a concrete picture, with definite 
figures and proportions : consider, for example, his precise 
measurements of the ark of Noah, or of the Tabernacle ; his 
representation, just noticed, of the arrangement of the tribes in 
the camp and on the march ; his double census of the tribes 
(Nu. I. 26) ; his exact estimate of the amount of gold and other 

• Gen. I7> 28' 35" 4S*, Ex. 6* ; also Gen. 43" in E : comp. in poclry 

49», Nu. 24* 

Gea. 49^ shows that the title SAaJdas is on aiident one. 



materials offered by the people for the construction of the 
Tabernacle (Ex. 38^*^^^), of the offerings of the princes (Nu. 7), 
and of the spoil taken from the Midianitcs (Nu. 31). It is 
probable, indeed, that in many of these cases only particular 
elements of the representation were supplied to him by tradition ; 
his representation, as a whole, seems to be the result cf a 
systematizing process working upon these materials, and perhaps, 
also, seeking to give sensible expression to certain ideas or truths 
(as, for instance, to the truth of Jehovah's presence in the midst 
of His ptopUy symbolized by the *' Tent of Meeting," surrounded 
by its immediate attendants, in the centre of the camp).* His 
aim seems to have been to present an ideal picture of the 
Mosaic age, constructed, indeed, upon a genuine traditional 
basis, but so conceived as to exemplify the principles by which 
an ideal theocracy should be rcgulatcd.f That he docs not[l2l] 
wilfully desert or falsify tradition, appears from the fact that even 
where it set antiquity in an unfavourable light, he still does not 
shrink from recording it (Ex. 16', Lev, lo^, Nu. 20^^24 27i3f.j^ 
It is probable that, being a priest himself, he recorded traditions, 
at least to a certain extent, in the form in which they were 
current in priestly circles. 

His representations of God are less anthropomorphic than 
those of J (p. 120 f), or even of E. No angels or dreams are 
mentioned by him. '* Certainly he speaks of God as * appearing ' 
to men, and as 'going up' from them (Gen. i^i^ssf. 25**" 48*, 
Ex. 6^), at important moments of the history, but he gives no 
further description of His appearance : usually the revelation of 

• Id JE the *' Tent of Meeting" is represented regulajly as outsidt the 
camp, Ex. 33^'" (where the tenses used express wliat was Moses' habit ; see 
Ges..Kautzsch, cd. 26, § 1 12. 3), Nu. 10* \\^^ 12* ("come out"), only 
once as being within it (Nu. 1 4**). The general impreixton^ also, derived 
from the narrative ofJE, is that it was simpler in its structure and appoint- 
meots than as represented in P. 

t It is diflicult to escape the conclusion that the representation of P 
includes elcmentSi not, in the ordinary sense of the term, historical. Yi\% 
chronological scheme appears to have been deduced by him by calculation 
from data of a nalure now no longer known to us, but in part artiflcial. It 
is remarkable, for instance, that the entire number of years from the Creation 
to the Exodus is 2666 (=§ of 4000) years. There are also difficulties con- 
nected with the numbers of the Israelites (esp. in Nu. 1-4) ; here, likewise, 
AS it seems, the figures comiot alt be historical, but must have been obtained 
in some manner by compulation. 



God to men takes with liim the form of simple jyVd^/^i; to them 
(Gen. i^ 6'» 7' 8'* r)\ Ex. 6-'^^tt/.); only in the supreme revela- 
tion on Sinai (Ex. 24"^'* cf. 34^^), and when He is present in 
the Tent of Meeting (Ex. 4o3*'*), does he describe Him as 
manifesting Himself in a form of light and fire (iU3 .i,'/<9/>'), and 
as speaking there with Moses (Nu. 7^^, Ex. 25^), as man to man, 
or in order the people may recognise Him (Ex. 16^°, Lev. 
^fl. 28t^ Nu. 14^** i6^^*^'^ 20''). Wrath also proceeds forth from 
Him (Nu. 16***), or destroying fire and death (Lev. 10', Nu. J4''" 
,513. 4Sff. j^sf). But anthropopaihic expressions of God he 
avoids scrupulously ; even anthropomorphic expressions are rare 
(Gen. 2^*, cf. Ex. 31*^**), so that a purpose is here unmistakable. 
It may be that as a priest he was accustomed to think and speak 
of God more strictly and circumspectly than other writers, even 
those who were prophets. On the other hand, he nowhere 
touches on the deeper problems of theology. On such subjects 
as the justice of the Divine government of the world, the origin 
of sin and evil, the insufficiency of all human righteousness 
(see, on the contrary, Gen. 5-* 6'), he does not pause to reflect ; 
the free Divine choice, though not unknown to him (Nu. 3^** 
giB jy6ff. igo)^ is at least not so designedly opposed to human 
claims as in J. His work contains no Messianic outlooks into 
the future: bis ideal lies in the theocracy, as he conceives it 
realized by Moses and Joshua" (Dillm JVD/, p. 653). In P the 
promises to the patriarchs, unlike those of J, are limited to Israel 
itself (soe above, p. 20; and add Ex. 6*-*"'). The substance of 
these promises is the future growth and glory [l22] {** kitt^s shall 
come out of thee ") of the Abrahamic clan ; the establishment of 
a covenant with its members, implying a special relation between 
them and God (Gen. 17^, Ex- 6'^'), and the confirmadon of the 
land of Canaan as their possession. The Israelitish theocracy is 
the wter's idcalj and the culminating promise is that in Ex. 29^'-^^ 
declaring the abiding presence of God with His people Israel, 

The literary style of P is strongly marked. If JE — and espe- 
cially J — be free, flowing, and picturesque, P is stereotyped, 
measured, and prosaic. The narrative, both as a wliole and in 
its several parts, is articulated systematically ; tlie begiimiiig and 
close of an enumeration are regularly marked by stated formulae,* 

• Comp. p. 12, «<?/«+ and t; and add No. l*^"-*^*&c.; 2**»- »*■>• &c. i 
lo"-" . 26>!^»- »->■ &c Sec also p. 134, No. 44. 



The descriptions of P are methodical and precise. \Vlien they 
embrace details, emphasis * and completeness t are studied ; 
hence a thought is often repeated in slightly different words.} 
There is a tendency to describe an object in full each time that 
it is mentioned ; § a direction is followed, as a rule, by an 
account of its execution, usually in the same words.|] Some- 
times the circumstantiality leads to diffuseness, as in parts of 
Nu. 1-4 and (an extreme case) Nu, 7 {p. 61). Metaphors, 
similes, &c, are eschewed (Nu. 27'^ is an exception), and there 
is generally an absence of the poetical or dramatic element, which 
is frequently conspicuous in the other historical books of the 
OT. (including J and E). To a greater degree than in any 
other part of the OT. is a preference shown in P for standing 
formula and expressions; some of these recur with great fre- 
quency, and are apparent in a translation. Particularly notice- 
able is an otherwise uncommon mode of expression, producing 
a peculiar rhythm^ by whicli a statement is first made in general 
terms, and then partly repeated, for the purpose of receiving 
closer limitation or definition.lT [123] It seems as though the 
habits of thought and expression, which the author had con- 
tracted through his practical acquaintance with the law, were 
carried by him into his treatment of purely historical subjects. 
The writer who exhibits the greatest stylistic affinities with P, 
and agrees with him sometimes in the use of uncommon expres- 
sions, is the priestly prophet Ezebiel. 

The following is a select list of some of the most noticeable 
expressions characteristic of P ; many occurring rarely or never 
besides, some only in Ezekiel. The list could readily be in- 
creased, especially if terms occurring only in the laws had been 
added ; '^ these, however, have been excluded, as the object of 

•Geo. i»6i'9P. 

f Notice the prect^on of definition and description in Geo. lO^**" 

36" ; 6" ?"'• 23" 36« 46*-^ Ex. f\ Nu. i«- »■ » &c. 

X Comp, p. 12, note * ; add Gen. a*'* 23"-» Ex. I2*» 

I Comp. Gen. 1' beside v.' ; v." beside v." ; 8"** beside v.**^, 

I Gen. !«-; v."'-; v.w- ; e"*;"**"; 8"*"'; Ex. 8»«- ; 9»-"; Nu. i7«-» 

t Gen. 1" 6>« S» 9" 23" 49*"'-» Ex. la*- * i6"- » 25«- "• «■ » 26\ Lev. 

a5» Nu. 2' i8« 36"-" (Hcb.) &c 

•• £^, " savour of satisfaction," •* fire-sacrifice," *' statute for c\*er." But 

the laws of P, it is worth remarking, are, as a rule, formulated differently 

from those of either JE or D (contrast e.j^. the '3 Qtit, '3 roj, '3 rwm w »*« 


the list is rather to show that the kis /arirn / serilows of V exhibit 
the same literary features as the /fga/ ones, and tliat the same 
liabits of tiiought and expression pervade both.* References 
to Lev. 17-26 have been included in the list. It will be re- 
collected that these cliapters do not consist wholly of excerpts 
from H, but comprise elements belonging to P (p. 47 f.). H 
itself also, as was remarked, is related to P, representing like- 
wise priestly usage, though in an earlier phase ; so that it is but 
natural that its phraseology should exhibit points of contact with 
that of P. 

I. GoJ, T\Q\.Jthifvah ; Gen. 1' and uniformly, except Gen. 17' 21'^ [ftbore, 

p. 21], unlil Ex. 6*. 
a, JCifu-i {yn): Gen. i"- "*.>-«*". "*^.»*' 6*»*^ 7"r— ^, Lev. ui*-". 

"■>" [hence Dt. i4i»-i*-i»- "]n,««^.» £1, 47".! 
3. Tq swarm (pp): Gen, i»-« 7** 8". Ex. 7* [hence Ps. 105*]. Lev. 

„«».«. «.«.<i^ Ej^ 47». /Ti^^ of men: Gen. g^ Ex. l^t 
[124] 4. Swarming thm^i (pp) : Gen. l" 7", Lev. 5* ii"-«> pience Dl 

i^uin. ». ». BI.41. c. 41. M 33*. r 

5. Tc be fntiiful and muUipty {n3Ti mc) : Gen. l"**" 8" 9*'' 17" (cf. 

v.«-*) 2S» 35» 47« 4S\ Ex. i», Lev. 26». Also Jer. %f\ and 
(inverted) 3", En. 36".! 

6. Ferjood (nS^K-J) : Gen. l»- » 6^' 9*. Ex. 16", Lev. u" %f, Es, 15* • 

21" aj" ay* 34*"*' "• " 39*.! (In Jer. i^ nVoicS is an infin.) 

7. Gaura/ifim irtn^v\)i 

(a) In the phrase 7'Aese are the gefterations of , , » (see p. 6f.), 

(b) Otherwise: Gen. io« 25", Ex. 6"-" 28", Nu. I (la Umes), 
iCh. s»7»-*-»S»9''-'*26»».t 

9, iwo in the st. <-., in cases where ordinarily nico would be >aid: Gen. 
js. 8. u. IB. » ^M St 1 1». « 2 1" 25'- " 35» 47*- » Ex. 6»- »• » 38"- « 
(thrice), Nu. 2»- »••»*•" 33" So beside* only Neh. 5" (prob. 
oorropt), 3 Ch. 25' Qr6, Est. i^f (Peculiar. P uses mo in such 
cases only twice, Gen. 17" 23*.) 
To empire (jnJ): Gen. 6" 7« 25"-" 35'* 49", Nu. 17"" 20"*'' «•, 
Josh. 22* (Only besides in poetry: Zech. 13*, Ps. 88" 104* 
Lam. 1"; and 8 times in Job. )f 

&c of Lev. I* 4* 5** " I3'- "• ", Nu. 5< 6* a/, with the frvt '3i of Ex. 2i'* **• 
•*•** &€,)» and show besides differences of temiinology, which, however, llie 
rcadt:r must be left to note for himself. 

* Were these expressions cottoned to the legal sections, it might be argued 
that they were the work of the same hand 05 ]V.^ who, with a change of 
subject, adopted naturally an altered phraseology ; but they are found re- 
peatedly in the narratwe parts uf the Hexateucli, where the peculiar 
phraseology cannot be attributed to the special ctiuracter of the subject (f./. 
Ccn. 6-9, Ex. 6*-7'», c 16, Nu. 13-14. 16-17, Josh. 22"'-). 


10. rfVM thee {him, &c) apivmlcd m an enumeration: Gen. 6" 7' '• 
gii.u ^ 254 ^5«.T^ Ex. 28'- « 29'**", Lev. 8».»« io»-"'»{25*^'" 
oy), Nu. :8'- *• '• "■ " *''. Similarly afUr you {tkee^ &c) appended 
to "seed": Gen. 9* 17^ «"■*•»■"•« 35** 48*, lix. 2«« Nu. 25" 

u. And Noah did {so\; according to, &c ; Gen. 6^: exactly tlie same 
form of sentence, Ex. ?• 12"- *• 39"* 40", Nu. i" a« 8" 17'* 
[Heb. «] : cf. Ex. 39* Nu. 5* 9». 

12. 7Si> sei/sanu day (nin Dvn cxp) : Gen. 7** 17"*", Ex. 12"- *^-", Lev. 

23"* "•«•»** ", Du 32*, Josh. 5" 10" (not P: probably the com- 
piler). Et. 2» 24**^40*. I 

13. After their families (Dn- cmnwoS): Gen. 8™ io^-»-« 36* Ex. 6*'-" 

12V Nu. I [13 Umes] 3** 3-4 (15 times) !i" (IE) 26 (16 times) 
29" J3" Josh. i3i»-a».«-»-».M 15i.1a.10 i6».» i^aw/ ,8U.».o.« 
19 (12 limes) 2r-»-» (Heb. »), 1 Sa, 10^, i Ch. 5' 6«»-» (Heb. 
"•« from Josh. 2l»-").t 
[125] 14. So^aj regards aii^ witliageneraU2ingforce = «OOT^(^,/mM« (Ewald, 
§ 3icr) : Gen. 9"" 23»» Ex, 14" {cf. v.» ^Vn^) 27*- " (si vera l), 
28*' 36'^ Lev. 5» ii«- « i6'«-" 22'", Nu. 4W-»>-" 5" iS*-«-». Ez. 
44*. (Prob. a juristic use Occutionally elsewhere, esp. in Ch. ) 

15. Ah everlasting covemmi i Gen. 9'* ij"*- * ", Ex. 31'*, Lev. 24* ; cf. 

Nu. |8W2S» tTt 

16. Exceeiiingly (ikd inoa, oot the usual phrase): Gen. i?***-*, Ex. l', 

Ez. 9" i6>«.t 

17. Substance (nan): Gen. I2» 13* 31" 36* 4^*, Nu, i6»'*^ 35». Else- 

where (not P): Gen. 14"- >a. k*u.m jjU. and in Ch. Ezr. Dan. 
(15 limes). I 

18. /"(^^A^r (c^■^— cognate with " substance ") : Gm. 12^ 31" '^ 36*4fAt 
I9w Sou! (e-Da) in the sense o\ person : Gen. 12* 36* 46''- '*• "• •■ "• ", Ex. 

,• ,34. »fl (RV. »w«)» 16" (RV. persons). Lev. a> (RV. w«) 
4I. S7 5I. « . and often in the l^al parts of Lev. Nu, (as Lev. 17" 
22*' 27'), Nu. 31"* •»•*•*• (in the account of the war with Midian), 
Josh, ao*-' (from Nu. 35"* '•). See also below. No. 25*. A usage 
not confined to P, but much more frequent in P than elsewhere. 
20. Throughout your [their] generations (Da'n'm^ cnSiS) : Gen. 17'" •• ", 
Ex, i2»*-"-*« i6»-» 27« 29" 3o«-"'"-" 3i«- " 40", Lev. 3" 
6"7* IO»l7T2l"22"23^^-"-«-"24*25>* {his), Nu. 9» io» is'^- 

* The isolated occurrence of this expression in J E does no: make it the less 
characteristic of P. Of course the writer of Ex. 12" was acquainted with 
the word nncro, and could use it, if he pleased, in combination with ^. It 
is \he frequency of the combination which causes it to be characteristic of a 
particular authnr. For the same reason tudos is characteristic of St. Mark's 
style, noth withstanding the fact that (he other evangelists employ it occasion- 
ally. The same remark holds good of Nos. 12, 15, 17, 22, 38, 41, Ac. 

t Ttie double arrow indicates that all passa^e^ of the Hexateuch in which 
the word or phrase quoted occurs are cited or referred to. 


ai. So/flum/H^ (d*t^o), with /anc/: Gen. 17*28* 36' 37^ Ex. 6*, !>, 20^; 
with daj's: Gen. 47'"'. Only besides Ps. 119** ; and rather dif- 
ferently 55W. Job iS^t 

3a. Possession (amM) : Gen. 17* 23** •• " 36* 47" 48* 49* 50", Lev. 14" 



1«. U. 33. H. 98 

"• " 22* (D*)' 

Nu. 27*- » 32»-a*».» 35a 

Dt. 32- 

Elsewhere only in Eiekiel (44' 

:i»), 2Ch. ll'<3l'.T 
a3. The cognate verb to get possessions ()niu)| rather a peculiar word : Gen. 
34» 47", Nu. 32», Josh. 22«' ». T 

24, Purchase^ purchased possession (njp?) ; Gen. 1 7 

U. U. », t7 

23". Ex. 

X2", Lev. 25" ♦'*■ •* 27", (Proh. a legal tenn. Only besides Jei. 


II. U. 14. H 


35* Peoples (O'DP) in the sense of kinsfolk • (peculiar) 1 

{a) That soul (or that man\ shall be cut off from his ksnsfolk 

Gen. 17", Ex. 3o"-* 3i". lev. 7 

39. n. V. n 

17" I9"[i2tf] 23*. 

Nil 9"|. (In Lev. 17*- » l8« a<A ■• •• » 23", Nu. is" the noun 

is si*$gular, ) 

(^) To he gtsSheredio onit kinsfolk i Gen. 35"-" 35*49", Nu. 

*o»«27"3i", Dt.32«'*-'.t 

(f) lev. 19" 2ii-^>*-» Ea. l8»: perhaps Jud. 5", Hos. 

10". t 
ad. Seitler or sojourner (arm) : Gen. 33* (hence fig. Pj. 39", i Ch. 39"!, 

Ex. I2« Lev. 22» 25«- ■ (fig.) »••■«• <T*^ Nu. 35". Also 1 Kl. 

17' (text doubtful).! 
37. Getting^ acquisition {X^p\', Gen. 31" 34" 36*, Lev. aa". Josh. 14*: 

cf. Ez. 38W. ; also Pr. 4*. Pa. 104** 105".! 

28. A'^«^(^^fi): Ex. 

Lev. 25 

41. 4«. tt 

Et. 34*.t 

29. fudgmcnts (DiDBO [not the word]) : Ex. 6' 7* 12**, Nu. 33*, Et. 

510. 19 ,i9 ,^« ,5*1 2^11 28n- " 3o»*-» Pr. ig*. 3 Ch. 24»«.T 
3a Failuri houses (= families: ni2M n'a, or Eometimes maN alone)] Ex. 

6i*-"i2», Nu. 1-4 (often). I j*-"-* 36* 31" 32" 34" 36', Josh. 14* 

19" ai' 

Nu. !»• ■ 3»- •• "• 


ffosfs {mtax) of the Israelites : Ex. 6" 7* 12"- 

la. U.M.M.II ioi*-"-«-"»33i.tT (Dt. 20» differently.) 

Congrfgation (mp) of the Israclilcs: Ex. 12*- ••»*'" ,61.«-»«».m 17I 
34" SS'*-* 3S», Lev. 4"" 8»» 9* io»- " 16" 19" 24»*- » No. 

|-j9* »^ l^l.*.!.?. 10. r. ». 3a 153.3. 9*>j. »Mi. tl. 33 (Lev. lo*)**'****' 

«.«. 40 [Heb. i7*'T*i*' 11] 20^' '*"''• "*°* ^' i9 25'*^3i^'''*"*^'*' 
(as well as often in the other chapters of Nu. assigned whoKy tti 
P) Z^^\ Josh, g"*-"*"- i»M. 37 igi 2ol» 22"' "■"•'• (Nu. |G"J 
"• ••. (Cf. No, 39,) Never in J E or Dl, and rare in the ollici 
hisL bocks: Jud. 20* ai"- ^ ", 1 Ki. 8* ( = 2 Ch. 5*) i2» (cf. p. 

143 f.). 
Between the two evenings (a Icchnical expression) ; BJt. 12* 16'* 29*- ** 
30", Lev. 23". Nu. g*-*- " aS*- \\ 

• Properly /2/^^/^j ii« (Wcllh. in the Gott, Nachtichlen, 1893, p. 480J. 




/« aU yfiur dwtllings (ormaeno ^33) : Fx. 12'" 35*, Lev, 3" 7* 2j> " 

•'•*', Nil 35»(cf. 15' 31"), Ez, 6«- H 
This is tht thing which Jehovah hath eommatuieJ'. Ex. i6*''* 35* 

Ixv. 8«9*i7*, Nu. 30»36\t 
A head [nHM lit. ikul!)^ in cnumeraiions: Ex. 16" 2"^^, Nu. i*- >!■ *»• 

"3". iCh. 23*-**-T 
TV Fifiwa/w fffrfr (iiy : not Uie usual word) : Ex. le*** ■ 26" *^- ", Lev, 

25". Nu. 3 
Ruhr or prince ( 

)), among the Israelites: Ex. j6" 35", l*». 4' 

Nu. l^*- " cc. 2. 3. and 7 (repeatedly) 4*« 10* 13* \^^ « (Ilcb. "• ") 


25"* *■ 34'**'". Josh. 22". In J E once only, Ex. 22" : never in Dt, 
Jud. Sam.: in Kings only l Ki. 8* [p. 144], and in a scnii-poctical 
passage, u". Cf. Gen. 17*" 23* 25" 34'. Often in Ez., even of 
the king (see below, in the list of phrases at the end of Ezckiel). 
[ia7] 39. Ktifers {princes) of {ot in) the fonprgtUion : Ex. lO** ^4", Nu, 
4« 16* 3»" 32\ Josh. 9'*- " (cf- v-* ") 22* (cf. ¥.») : cfl Nu. 27' 
36Mosh. 17*. T 
4a Deep rat (pnar)i Ex. 16* 31" 35*, Lev. i6** 33^ «. ». i» *<• 

25*- M 
41. According to the command (lit. mouth) of Jehm^ah (.tlt ȣ) Vy) : Ex. 



Lev. 24", Nn. 3»*-»-n 4«.«i.«« 9«. ». « jqW ,3* 33*. » y^^ 

Joah. 15" (S«) 17* (Sie) 19" 21* (Sk) 22". Very uncommon else- 
where: DL 34*** (probably from P: cf. Nu. 33"), 2 Ki. 24'. 

Jiaif (n'xno : not the usual word) : Ex. 30" *^ »• » -^^ Lev. 6" '", 
Nu. 3i«-". «-« Josh. 21" ( = 1 Ch. 6"). Only besides i Ki. 
16^, Neh. 8*. I Ch. 6«.T 

VbP fo trespass and Syp trespass (often combined, and then rendered in 
RV. to commit a trespass) : Lev. s» 6> [Ileb. 5"] 26*. Nu. 5«- "• 
" J»", Dl. 32" Josh, f 22"- »• »• »',n EiL I4'» is" t7~ i8« 20" 
39^- *•• (A word belonging to the priestly terminology. Never in 
Jud. Sam. Kgs., or other prophets [except Dan. 9'] ; and chieRy 
elsewhere in Ch.; see the list at the end of this book, No. 3.) 

The methodical form of subscription and superscription: Gen. ioi*t 
2ci< 751V* M. »>■ «• */>■ «3 ^^. u. u. n. IB j^^^ J 1 (,14. le. ivb. ]«>. 

1" . 

ai. n 


•7. «1. « ^ITb. 

U. 11. 31. IB 

33\ Josh. I 

^33Li. as. 


I4» i5i». » iG^ i8«»- » igw- "• sa. w.». 48. n ["cf. Ccii. io»»' "] 
2]i9. >•. ». «. 4iHi (Not a complete enumeration.) 
For trihe P has nearly always noo, very rarely dsp ; for to heget tV-^ 
(Gen. 5»^ 6" 11"" 17* 25" 4S*, Lev. 25« Nu. 26»'»). not 
^^ (as in the genealogies of J : Gen. 4"*'' i o»* "■ i*« »* «»■ »• 22=* 
25*) ; for to be hard ox to hard/m (of the heart) pin, p»n lit to be or 
wo.^^ strong {V.x. t^ » 8'» [^leb. "J 9" I !>• I4«- •• "), not 133, T33n 
/» *r or make heavy (Ex. 7" S"- » [f!eb. "• »] 9'-»* io») ; for to 
ttoneCi-iiLev. 2o»- " 24"* " *" » Nu. 14^* is*'*": also Dt. 21", 
Josh. 7»* f?P]TT), not Spo (Ex. 8" [Heb, »] 17* 19" *^ ai**^ »• » 
Dt.i3"'Lllcb. "J i7»22"- 

U. IT. 11. K. TiHt r 4^' !■ S4- ». 


Nu. ai", Dl i" Josh. a» 6"' »- » 

^ Josh. 7»^ II) ; for tospy -nn (Nu. u'** 

■15": also lo^Ji:, Du i>"tf)i ntHSn 

7"*" 14^) ; and for the pron. 


of 1 pers. Bing. *3N * (nearly 130 timet t *3iH once only Gen. Jj' : 
comp. in Ez. 'JK 138 times, ojk once 36*).t 
[128] The following geographical tenns ore found only in P : 

46. ICirjaih'Arba for Htbrm : Gen. 23' 35", Josh. 15"- •* 2o' 2l". (TTie 

same name is referred to, but not used, in Josh. i4"Bjud. x" JE : 
tec also Neh. 11".) 

47. Maehpelak : Gen. 23»- "• '• 25* 49" 50". f 

48. PaddanAram : Gen. 25" 28** •• ■- » 3 1 » 33« 35»- " 46^. \ {^ Paddan 

•lone- J says Aram-nakaraim 24", as Dt. 23* [Heb. '1 Jud. 3*.) 

49. The Desert of Zin {\i)\ Nu. 13" 2o»* 27" 33" 34», Dt y^\ Josh. 

15' : c£ ZiH, Nu. 34*. Josh. 15*, 
5a 77u Steppes of Moat (amo mjTji) : Nu. 22' 26'' "31" 33** 35' 36", 
Dt,34»'«,Josh. i3«>.f 
EkoMar tht priest^ though not unmentioncd in the other sources (Dt. to^, 
Josh. 24"}, is specially prominent in P, esp. after the death of Aaron (Nu. 
20»»). as Nu. 26> &c 3i»» &c 32*-" 34", Josh. 14' 17* 19" 21". The 
priestly tradition also records inddcnta in which his son Phinehas (Ex. 6") 
look part : Nu. 25'- " 3I% Josh. 22"'**-" (in JE 24"; di. Jud. 20"). 

Under (he dicumstances, tlie statement in the Speaker's Commen^ofy, I, 
p. 2$^, that the peculiarities of the Elohistic phraseology "are greatly 
magni6ed, if they exist at all," is a surprising one. In point of fact, the 
style of P (even in the historical sections) stands apart, not only from that of 
J, E, and Dt. , but also from that whidi prevails in any port of Jud. Sam. 
Kings, and has subi^tanlia] resemblances only with that of EzekieL 

It remains to consider the date of P. Formerly this was 
assumed tacitly to be the earliest of the Pentateuchal sources ; 
and there are still scholars who assign at least the main stock of 
it to 9-8 cent b.c No doubt the fact that in virtue of its sys- 
tematic plan and consistent regard to chronology, it constitutes, as 
it were, the groundwork (see p. 10) of the history, into which the 
narratives taken from the other sources are fitted, gave to this 
view a prima facie plausibility. No i priori reason, however, 
exists why these narratives should not have been drawn up first, 
and their chronological framework have been added to them 
afterwards ; and a comparative study of the intrinsic character 
of P in its relation to these other sources has led the principal 
critics of more recent years to adopt a different view of its origin 

• In Dt., on the contrary, '33ic is regularly employed, except (l) 12* after 
the verb, according to usual custom (foum, ef PhiL 1S82, p. 223) ; (2) 29* 
[Heb. •] in a stereotyped formula (Ex. 7" a/.); (3) in the Song^ 32"* " 
(4 times) ; (4) in the passage assigned to P, 32*'* •• — 9 times in all. 

t See further Budde, ZATW. 1891, p. 203 ff. ; Holzinger,p. 338 ff.; and 
Ihe instructive comparative table of the usage of E, J, D, P, H, in Stxack's 
AiW/«y«n^*(l895), pp. 42-51. 


and date. The earlier criticism of the Pent, was mostly literary j 
and literary criteria, though they enable us to effect the analysis 
of a document into its component parts, do not always afford 
decisive evidence as to the date to which tlie component parts 
are severally to be assigned- A comparison of P, both in its 
historical and legal sections, (a) with the other Hexateuchal 
[129] sources, {/>) with other parts of the OT,, brings to light 
facts which seem to show that, though the elements which it 
embodies originated themselves, in many cases, at a much earlier 
age, it is itself tlae latest of the sources of which the Hexateuch 
is composed, and belongs approximately to the period of the 
Babylonian captivity. 

The following, stated briefly, arc the principal grounds upon 
which this opinion rests. 

The pre-exilic period shows no indications of the legislation 
of P as being in operation. Thus the place of sacrifice is in P 
strictly limited; and severe penalties are imposed upon any 
except priests who presume to officiate at the altar. In Jud- 
Sam. sacrifice is frequently offered at spots not consecrated by 
the presence of the Ark, and laymen are repeatedly represented 
as officiating, — in both cases without any hint of disapproval on 
the part of the narrator, and without any apparent sense, even 
on the part of men like Samuel and David, that an irregularity 
was being committed. Further, the incidental allusions in books 
belonging to the same time create the impression that the ritual 
in use was simpler than that enjoined in P : in P, for instance, 
elaborate provisions are laid down for the maintenance and 
safety of the Tabernacle, and for the reverent handling of the 
Ark and other sacred vessels ; in i Sam. the arrangements relating 
lo both are evidently much simpler: the establishment at Shiloh 
(i Sa. 1-3) is clearly not upon the scale implied by the regula- 
tions Ex. 35-40, Nu. 3-4 : the Ark is sent for and taken into 
battle, as a matter calling for no comment ; when it is brought 
back to Kirjathjearim, instead of the persons authorized by P 
being summoned lo take charge of it, it is placed in the house 
of a native of the place, whose son is consecrated by the men of 
Kirjath-jearim themselves for the purpose of guarding iL hi 
2 Sa. 6 the narrative of the solemn transference of the Ark by 
David to Zion, the priests and Invites, the proper guardians of 
it according to P (Nu. 3" 4^'"), are both conspicuous by dieir 



absence; David offers sacrifice (as seems evident) with his own 
hand, and certainly performs the solemn priestly (Dt lo' 3i*; 
cf. Nu. 623-^") function of blessing (2 Sa. 6»s*".i8. cf. i Ki. 8" 
g'-* of Solomon). That many of tlie distinctive institutions of P 
are not alluded to — the Day of Atonement, the Jubile year, the 
I_,evitical cities, the Sin-offering, the system of sacrifices [130] 
prescribed for particular days — is cf less importance : the writers 
of these books may have found no occasion to mention them. 
But the different tone of feelings and the different spirit which 
animates the narratives of the historical books, cannot be dis- 
guised : both the actors and the narrators in Jud. Sam. move in an 
atmosphere into which the spirit of P has not penetrated Nor 
do the allusions in the pre-exilic prophets supply the deficiency, 
or imply that the theocratic system of P was in operation. The 
prophets attack formalism and unspiritual service; they there- 
fore show that in their day some importance was attached by the 
priests, and by the people who were guided by them, to ritual 
observances; but to the institutions specially characteristic of P 
they allude no more distinctly than do the contemporary his- 

Nor is the legislation of P presupposed by Deuteronomy, This 
indeed follows almost directly from the contents and character of 
Dl as described above (pp. 75 f., 82-84). As was there shown, 
Dtj in both its historical and legal sections, is based consistently 
upon JE: language, moreover, is used, not once only, but re- 
peatedly, implying that some of the fundamental institutions of 
P are not in operation. Had a code^ as extensive as P is, been 
in force when Dt was written, it is diflicult not to think that 
allusions to it would have been both abundant and distinct, and 
that, in fact, it would have determined the attitude and point of 
view adopted by the writer in a manner which certainly is not 
the case. 

And when P is compared with Dt. in detail, the differences 
tend to show that it is later than Dt, 

Thus (a) in Dt. the centralization of worship at one sanctuary ii tnjcin^^ 
it is insisted on with much emphasis as an end aimed at, but not yet realized : 
in P it is presMppostd as already existing, {b) In Dt. any member of the 
tribe of Levi possesses the right to exercise priestly functions, contingent only 
upon his rejiidcncc at the Central Sanctuary^: in V this right is strictly limited 
to tlie descendants of Aaron, {c) In Ut. the members of the tribe of Levi 
•re commended to the charily of the Israelites generally, and only shore the 


lithe, at ft sftcriftcial feast, in company with other Indigent persons: in P 
definite provision is made for their maintenance (the 4S cities, with their 
"suburbs"), and the tithes are formally assigned to the Irilx; as a specific 
due ; similarly, while in Dt. firstlings are to be consumed at sacrifidal feasts, 
in which the Levilc is only to have his share among others, in P ihey are 
reserved snicly and explicitly for the priests. In each case the stricter 
limitation is on the side of P. {d) The entire system of feasts and sacrifices 
I131] is much more complex and precisely defined in P than in Dt. True, the 
plan of Dt. would not naturally include an enumeration of minute details; 
hut the silence of Dt. is nevertheless significant ; and the imprestian wliich a 
leader derives from Dt. is that the liturgical institutions under which the 
author lived were of a simpler character than those prescribed in F. 

It is possible, indeed, that, considered in themselves, some of 
the cases (luoted might be regarded as relaxations, sanctioned by 
i>, of observances that were originally stricter. But this view lacks 
support in fact. The ritual legislation of JE, which, it is not 
disputed, is earlier than D, is in every respect simpler than that of 
1 > ; and a presumption hence arises, that that of D is similarly 
cirlier than the more complex legislation of P. This presump- 
tion is supported by the evidence of the history. The legislation 
of JE is in harmony with, and, in fact, sanctions, the practice 
fif the period of the Judges and early Kings, with its relative 
freedom, for instance, as to the place of sacrifice (p. 85) and the 
persons authorized to offer it ; * during which, moreover, a simple 
ritual appears to have prevailed, and the Ark was guarded, till 
it was transferred by Solomon to the Temple, by a small band 
of attendants, in a modest structure, quite in accordance with 
the representation of JE (p. 128, note). The legislation of U 
harmonizes with the reforming tendencies of the age in which it 
was promulgated, and sanctions the practice of the age that 
iintnediately followed : it inculcates a centralized worship, in 
agreement with a movement arising naturally out of the exist- 
ence of the Temple at Jerusalem, strengthened, no doubt, by 
the fall of the Northern kingdom, and enforced practically by 
Josiah; its attitude towards the high places determines that of 
the compiler of Kings, who wrote in the closing years of the 
monarchy; it contains regulations touching other matters {e.g. 
the worship of the " host of heaven ") which assumed prominence 
at the same time ; the revenues and functions of the priests are 
more closely defined than in JE, but the priesthood is still open 

* Ex, 20'^'", it seems clear, is addressed to the /ajf Israelite (of. 24"). 


to every member of the tribe of LevL The legislation of P is 
in harmony with the spirit which shows itself in Ezekiel, and 
sanctions the practice of the period beginning with the return 
from Babylon ; and the principles to which P gives cvpression 
appear (at a later date), in a still more developed form, as form- 
ing the standard by which the Chronicler consistently judges the 
[132I earlier history. The posiiioo into which the legislation of P 
appears to fall is thus inkrmcdiaU bctwien Dt, and the Chronicler. 
But further, P appears, at least in some of its elements, to 
be later than EzekieL The arguments are supplied chiefly by 
a 40 48, where Ez. prescribes the constitution of the restored 
community, and in particular regulates with some minuteness 
the details of the Temple worship. The most important passage 
is 44''-'*. Here the Israelites are rebuked for having admitted 
foreigners, uncircumcised aliens, into the inner Court of the 
Temple to assist the priest when officiating at the altar (v.'*-^) ; 
and it is laid down that no such foreigners arc to perform these 
services for the future (v.*) — 

'* " But the Lcrilcs that went far from roe, when Israel went astray, which 
went oslruy from me after ihcir idols ; they shall Leax their iniquity. " And 
they shall \ic ministers in my sancluary, having oversight at the gates of the 
house, and ministering in the house ; they shall slay the btimt-offering and 
the sacrifice for the people, and they !»lal! stand before them [see p. ^'^^ nott\ 
to minister unto them . . . ^And they shall not come near unto me, to 
execute the office of priest unto mc, nor to come near to any of my holy things, 
nnlo the things that ate moat holy : but they shall bear their shame, and their 
abominnliunS) which they have committed. '^Vct will I make them keepers 
of the charge of the house, for ell the service thereof, and for all thai shall 
be d(Hie therein. " fiut the priests the Levitcs, the sons of Zadok, that kept 
the chaige of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, 
they shall come near to me to minister unto me ; and they shall stand before 
me [see /^.] to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord Jehovah : 
**they shall enter tnio my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, 
to miniiler unto nie, and ihcy sliall keep my charge " (v.**'" : cf. 48**). 

From this passage it seems to follow incontrovertibly that the 
Levites generally had heretofore (in direct conflict with the pro- 
visions of P) enjoyed priestly rights (v.^') : for the future, how- 
ever, such as had participated in tlie idolatrous worship of the 
high places are to be deprived of these rights, and condemned 
to perform the menial offices which had hitherto 1/Ccn performed 
by foreigners (v.*"^* ^*) ; only those I -evites who had been faithful 
in their loyalty to Jehovah, \\z. the sons of Zadok, are hence- 




Jbrth to retain prieslly privileges (v.^^**). Had the Lcvites nol 
enjoyed such rights, the prohibition in v." would be superfluous. 
The supposition that they may have merely usurped them is 
inconsistent with the passage .as a whole, which cliarges the 
Invites, not with usurping rights which they did not possess, but 
with abusing rights which they did possess. If Ez., then, [133] 
treats the Levites generally as qualified to act as priests, and 
degrades them to a menial rank, without so much as a hint that 
this degradation was but the restoration of a status quo fixed by 
immemorial Mosaic custom, could be have been acquainted with 
the legislation of P ? * 

This is the most noteworthy diflcrenoe between Es. and P. There are« 
however, other points in which E/.'s regulations deviate from P's in a manner 
that is difiicult to explain, had the legislation of P, in its entirety, been recog- 
nized by him. In particular, -while more complex than those of Dt,, tlie 
pro\'i5lons of Ez. are frequcnlly simpler than those of P ; so that the inference 
that the system of P is a development of that of Er., as Ez.*s is of that of D, 
n.-ituran]r suggests itself. Comp. in particular Ex. 43***" 45"*** (RV. ntarg.) 
»»■«•» 46"-'»'*' with Ex. 29'-", Lev. 16, Nu. 2S-29. If the rites pre- 
scribed in these passages of P had been in operation, and were invested with 
the authority of antiquity, it seems improbable that Er. would have deviated 
from them as largely as he has done. It is true that, as a prophet, his 
altitude towards the sacrificial system may have been a free one; and hence 
iliis argument, taken by itself, would not perhaps be a decisive one: etill, 
when it is .seen to be in harmony with other facts pointing in the same 
direction, it .is not to be lightly ignored, the more 50, as Ez. plainly attached 
a value to ceremonial ob&er\'anccs, and is thus the less likely to have intro* 
ditccd a simplification of established riiuaL 

The later date for P, suggested by a comparison of it wth 
IE, D, and Ez., is confirmed, as it seems, by the character of 
the religious conceptions which it presents. No doubt all repre- 
sentations of the Deity must be anthropomorphic ; but contrast 
the anthropomorphism of Gen. 2**''^' with that of 1^-2**: in the 
former, Jehovah is brought into close connexion with earth, and 
sensible acts are attributed to Him (above, p. lai) : in the latter. 
His transcendence above nature is conspicuous throughout : He 

* The suggestion made by Delitzsch [StudieHf vi. p. 2SS) does not really 
mitigate the difficulty ; for the terms of v.** do not admit of being restricted 
to the descendants of Aaron's other son Ithamar, Cf. Kiinig, Offenbarungi' 
I'fgriff des AT.u ii. p. 325; K.iut«sch, Sfud. u. KriL J890, p. 767 ff.; and 
Kuencn, Ges,tmmetU AbhanMungm (XS94), p. 472 ff, Paion's argument 
{/BLii. 1893, p. 10) is not conclusive (the root-meaning of |n3, as given 
iif. p. 3, is highly questionable: .\^9h. kahin means a stcr. 


rondacts His vork of creation from a disUiice; tliere are no 
anthropomorphisms which might be misunderstood in a material 
sense. Contrast, again, the genealogies in JE (Gen. 4) with 
those in P (Gen. 5) ; does not JE display them in their fresher, 
more original form, while in P they ha\'e been reduced to bare 
of names, de%"oid of all imaginative colouring ? In jE the 
>wth of sin in the line of Cain leads up suitably to the 
narrative of the Flood ; in P no explanation is given of the [134] 
corruption overspreading the earth, and rendering necessary the 
destruction of its inhabitants. In JE the patriarchs are men of 
flesh and blood; the incidents of their history arise naturally 
out of their antecedents, and the character of the circumstances 
in which they are placed. Moreover, in the topics dwelt upon, 
such as the rivalries of Jacob and Esau, and of Laban and 
Jacob, or the connexion of the patriarchs with places famed in 
later days as sanctuaries, the interests of the narrator's own age 
are reflected : in P we have a skeleton from which such touches 
of life and nature are absent, an outline in which l^slative 
(Gen. 17), statistical, chronological elements are the sole con 
spicuous feature.* Tliere is also a tendency to treat the history 
theorerically (p. 128), which is itself the mark of a later age. 
The representations of the patriarchal age seem, moreover, not 
to be so primitive as in JE; the patriarchs, for instance, are 
never represented as building altars or sacrificing; and Noah 
receives permission to slaughter animals for food without any 
reference to sacrifice, notwithstanding the intimate connexion 
subsisting in early times between slaughtering and sacrifice.t 

Dillm. &nd Kittel seek to explain the contradiction, or silence, of Dl &e. 
by the hypothesis that P was originally a " private document/* reprcseniiii|;, 
not the actual practice of the priests^ but claims raised by ilicni, — an ideal 
theocratic constitution, which they had for the time no means of enforcing, 

* In the earlier hi^storical narratives precise chronological data are scarce ; 
in Jud. Sam. Kings they are adinttled to belong to the latest element io the 
books, viz. tlie postDeutcronomic redaction. 

t The KTibject of pp. I36-141 is treated at length by Wellhausen. Hist, of 
Israel, cltaps. i.-v,, viii. (or, more succinctly, in his art, " Pentateuch" in 
the EncycK Brilannsca^ ed. 9), where, in spite of some questionable assump- 
tions, and exaggeratiuns in detail, many true points are undoubtedly seized. 
See also W. R, Smith, OTJC.^ Lcct. xii. xiii. ; and Konig, op. He. ii. pp. 
521-332, where some of the principal grounds for the opinion CJiprcsaed ia 
the text are concisely and forcibly staled. 



Rinl wliich con&C()ucnt1y niiglit well have cither retnainrd tuiVnown to pro 
f>hctic writers, or not been rec<>gni£e<l by them as authoritative. "It is a 
literary pccultariiy of V to represent lus ideal as already existing in the Mosaic 
age ; hence from his representation of an institution it cannot be argued that 
it jictually existed, but only that it was an object of bis aims and claims** 
(Kiltel, pp. 91-93; Dillm. Nf]/. pp. 666, 667, 66g ; similarly Baudissin, 
PfiAterthiunt p. 280). But such a conception of P is highly artificial ; and 
there is an antecedent imprnhability in the supposition (hat a system hke that 
of V would be propounded when (as is admitted) there was [l35t no hope of 
its realisation, and in an age which shows no acquaintance with it,— for 
Dillm. places it €. 8co, between E and J, — and whose most representative 
men evince very different religious s)-mpiithie3. 

As regards the Oihlinction between priests and Levites, it it observed by 
Kittel that there are parts of P in which this is not treated as istabtished. 
Thu« in the main narrative of P in Nu. 16-17 (p. 64) there is no sign of 
opjxisititw between priests and Levitcs; the tribe is regarded as one ; and 
the standpoint is thus that of Dt. : while in the insertions i6^**** *•'"• *"* 
(/A.) the distinction, so far from being universally accepted, appears as a 
matter of il impute. (Similarly Baudissin, pp. 54 f., 276 f.) He further argues 
that iKcrc are grounds for supposing that many passages of P {esp. Lev. t-7. 
11-15 ; parts of Nu. 5-6 ; and H) where now '* Airon " or ** Aaron and his 
sons" (implying the clearly-felt distinction of priests and Lcvites) stands, 
originally there stood ** the priest " alone (as is actually still the cose in most 
of c. 13). The recognition of the distinction in other strata of P he reconciles 
with their earlier date by the same supposition as Dillm., sxt, that it was not 
really in force when they were written, but assumed by the author to be so, 
" in order to act vividly before his conlemporaiies the ideal which he sought 
t(» see realized " (p. 109). 

These arguments are cogent, and combine to moke it prob- 
able that the completed Priests' Code is the work of the age 
subsequent to Ezekiel. When, however, this is said, it is vei^ 
far from being implied that all the institutions of P are the 
crtation of this age. The contradiction of the pre-exilic litera- 
ture does not extend to the whole of the Priests' Code indis- 
tTJminately. The Priests' Code embodies some elements with 
which tlie earlier literature is in harmony, and which indeed it 
presupposes : it embodies other elements witli which the same 
literature is in conflict, and the existence of which it even seems 
to preclude. This double aspect of tlie Priests' Code is recon 
ciled by the supposition that the chief ceremonial institutions of 
Israel arc in their origin of great antiquity; but that the laws 
respecting them were gradually developed and elaborated, and 
in the shape in xvhich they are formulated in the Priest^ Code 
that they belong to the exilic or early post-exilic period. In its 


main stock, the legislation of P was thus not (as the criticil 

view of it is sometimes represented by its opponents as teaching) 
" manufactured " by the priests during the Exile : it is based upon 
pre-existing Temple usage, and exhibits the form which that finally 
assumed-* Hebrew legislation took shape gradually; and the 
codes of [136] JE (Ex. 20-23; 34^^"=")» Dt, and V represent 
three successive phases of it 

From this point of view, the allusions to priestly usage in the 
pre-exilic literature may be consistently explained. They attest 
the existence of certain institutions : they do not attest the exist- 
ence of the particular document (P) in which the regulations 
touching those institutions are now codified. Thus Gen. 8** (J) 
uses the term "savour of satisfaction " (Lev. i* and often in P); 
Jud. 13*'''' alludes to " uncleaii " food; Jud, 13*'^ 16*^, Am. 
jiu. to Nazirites (cf. Nu. 6-*-) ; i Sa. 2^ speaks of " fire- 
sacrifices" (Lev. I** &c.); f of the "lamp of God" (Ex. 27^); 
G**'* names a "guilt-ofTcring"; 21* the shewbread (Lev. 2^^^')\ 
Amos (4*- *) mentions tithes and free-will oflerings.t These 
passages are proof that the institutions in question are ancient 
in Israel, but not that they were observed with the precise 
formalities prescribed in P\ indeed, the manner in which they 
are referred to appears not unfrequently to imply that they were 
much simpler and less systematically organized tlian is the case 
in P. 

Other allusions to priestly usage or terminology may tie found 3n Am. 4* 
(Lev. 2" 7") : Is. l" (Knpa a •' convocation," Lev. sj*- ' &c.) ; Jcr. 2* {Lev. 
22«' ») ; 6* 9» (Vn i%-\ Uv. 19"); 30" (pji Lev. 21"- =»; 3npn Nu. \&^- »• »); 
34*' "• " (im irip to " proclaim liberty," Lev. 25", but in Jer. of the liberty 
granted to slaves in the seventh year of service, in Lev. of the year of Jubile) ; 
perhaps also in Am. 2' (p. 50, No. 13}^ though this expression is of a land 
which might have been u^ed independently. 

Whether, however, Jud. 20-21, 1 Sa. a"* (see Ex. jS'}, I Ki. 8''* are 
evidence of the early existence of the conceptions of P is doubtful. Jud. 
ao-21 shows in parts the phraseology of P,^ but (as will appear when these 

• Even a critic as radical u Stade refers to Lev. 1-7. 11-15. N"- 5- *5. 
9. 15. 19, as wcU OS tlic Law of Holiness, as embodying for the most part 
pre-cailic usage \Ges<h. ii. 66): comp. VVellh. Hist. pp. 366, 404. 

t There are other similar allu-sions. t.g. to Burnt- and Pcace-oflierings, 
I Sa. 6" 10^ &C. ; the U rim and Tbummim, and the Ephod, DL 33", x So. 
U"* ** LXX (see QP&) 2S« &c 

|20^2]M. IS. i« i)ie "congregation" [see p. 133, No. 32] ; with the verb 
Vnpm ao> cf. Lev. 8*. Nu. l6«* [Heb. 17*^ 2b*, Josh. l8» 22" ; 20» .lOi i*p 'a 



chaplets conic to be considered) there are independent grounds for concluding 
that this narrative is composite, and that the ports in which this phraseology 
appears are of later origin than the rest In I So. 2"^ it is remarkable {a} 
that the LXX omits lliis haU-veise ; (6) Uiat it disagrees with the rest of the 
narrative, representing the &aoctuaiy as a /en/f rather than as [137] a " temple *' 
with doors and door-posts (i* 3****). Thus twa grounds, neither connected 
•with its relation to P, convei^e in favour of the conclusion that this passage 
is an insertion in the original narrative, of uncertain dale. In I Ki S'-** 
Uie terms agreeing with the usage of P are isolated in Kings, and emitted in 
th* LXX (comp. below, p. 191 n.). 

It is admitted by Dillm, (p. 667) that the passages alleged to 
show the literary use of P in pre-exilic times are insijfficienl : 
either the resemblance is too slight to establish the use of P, or 
the origin of the passages adduced is doubtful. 

Thus Hos. I2* [Hcb."*] is not evidence of the ose of Gen. 35*-"' "; the 
terms of the reference are satisfied by the narrative of J, of which an exiract 
is still preserved in Gea. 35", — a view which is the more probable, as ilos. 
,2»-4.. ub [Hgb.'*-*^"''] is admitted to be based upon JE. see Gen. 25" 32" 
[Heb.»] 27*" [in 27«-2S» P Jacob does not taht Jiighi\ 29"'»: Hos. 12"* 
[Heb."*j the "field" of Aram is supposed to be a variation of "/W^W'Aram, " 
which is peculiar to P (sec p. 135, No. 48) ; but there is no substantial 
ground for this hypothesis, and the fact just mentioned that in P Jacob does 
noijlu from Esau b against it: Am, 7* and Gen. 7" l}ie "great deep," 
Jer. 4" and Gen. 1' viai vm (cf. Is. 34"), Jer. 23* and Gen. i'" &c "be 
fruitful and multiply," may have been phrases in current use, but not 
aecessarily derived from the passages of F. (A few other similar inatanr/^ 

In Dt the following paraUels may be noted : — 

5", Ex, 31" (wy, lit. maJte^ of A^i^Hi^ the Sabbath|). — 12* Lev. i?"-", 
—14***, Lev. ii**"* (permitted and forbidden animals).— 16»*, Ex. 12*"*.— 
17* (cf. IS**), Lev, 22"*** (animals offered in sacrifice to be without blemishX 
—l8»(" fire-sacrifices." as I Sa. 2»).— 19*^ (mn Sd no? dij*?), Nu. 35«' ".— 
19" (tlie "avenger of blood "), Nu. 35>''' " — 20* aS** (" use the fruit thereof," 
^pro/am it: cf. Lev. 19"*-") — 22* Lev. ig***.— 22*'* RV. marg. (the same 
priestly penalty which is found Lev. 6** [Heb."^], Ex. 29'"* 30'*''). — 22", Lev. 
I9""' (nevr).— 23'» [Ueb.«]. Nu, 30" {ynte »«nD j also Jer. I7>«, Ps. 89*, but 
Dot specially of a w»).— 24", Lev, 13-14. — 25'* Lev. ig" (^ij?iry ; unusual), 

[p. 49, Na II] ; 2o"' " 2i*t npsnn (see Nu. i" 2" 26** nponn ; also I Ki. 
20*^1) ; 21" "every male," as often in P, see {in a similar context) Gen. 
34**, Nu. 31^' "; ib. 131 arm nyr, " •at asco^ p*« t\w vh "htm (Nu, 31"' 

• " All the eongregtttion of Israel," "gathtred togeih^r" (crijA) Nu, 10^* 
14" i6» 27'), '* heads of the tiibes" [Nu. 30^ ; cf. 32", Josh. I4> X9»»], " the 
primti o(ihc/a/M*ri" [pp. 134, 133, Noa. 38, 30]. 



There are also allusions to Burnt* and Peace-oflfierings, tithes [bat with regula- 
tions very different from those of P), " heave "-offbrings, vows, free-will' 
offerings (i2'- "• " a/.). *he sanctity of firstlings {$6.) and of 5rstfruits (t8* 
aO"-*"), the distinction of clean and unclean (r2^* 2i*a/.), the prohibition to 
eat blood (la*"), and the flesh of animals dying of themselves (14**). 

Of these the most important is 14*'^. Here is a long passage 
in great measure verbally identical in Dt and Lev., and a critical 
comparison of the two texts makes it probable (p. 46) that both 
are divergent recensions of a common original, which in each 
case, but especially in Lev., has been modified in accordance 
with the spirit of the book in which it was incorporated. It is 
thus apparent that at least one collection of priestly Tdrdth^ 
which now forms part of P, [138] was in existence when Dl 
was written ; and a presumption at once arises that other parts 
were in existence also. Now, the tenor of Dt. as a whole con- 
flicts with the supposition that all the insritutions of the Priests' 
Code were in force when D wrote ; but the list of passages 
just quoted shows that some were, and that the terminology used 
in connexion with them was known to D, Dt. thus corrobor- 
ates the conclusions drawn from the prophetical and historical 
books. Institutions or usages, such as the distinction of clean 
and unclean, the prohibition to eat with the bloo<J, sacrifices to 
be without blemish, regulations determining the treatment of 
leprosy, vows, the avenger of blood, etc., were ancient in Israel, 
and as such are alluded to in the earlier literature, though the 
allusions do not show that the laws respecting them had yet 
been codified precisely as they now appear in P. 

The following historical passages uf Dt. also deserve notice, and will be 
referred to again :— 16*, Ex. t2" (p>tn " haste "; only besides Is. 52"). — 26*, 
Ex. I» 6»CMiard bondage "; also I Ki. 12*, Is. u").— 26*, Ex. 6« ("out- 
atrelchcd arm"). — 27* 29" [Hcb. *"], Ex. 6" ( Israel 10 become a people to Jehovah 
[exprcss<.-d. however, by diflerent verbi<}) ; cf. Lev. 26'^ ("to be to you a 
God" occurs elsewhere in P, but not "to be to me a people"; cf. the writer's 
DtmL p. 293). 

The same phenomena are repeated in Ezekiel. However 
doubtful it may be whether Ezekiel presupposes tlie computed 
Priests* Code, it is difficult not to conclude that he presupposes 
parts of it In particular, his book appears to contain clear 
evidence that he was acquainted with the ** Law of Holiness.'* 
Thus, when in a 4 he resents the command to eat food prepared 
in such a manner as to be unclean; when in c i8^-^^ he lays 


down the principles of a righteous life, or reproaches the nation 
or Jerusalem with its sin; when in c 44 he prescribes laws 
regulating the life of tlie priests in the restored community, — in 
each instance he expresses himself in terms agreeing with the 
I^w of Holiness in such a manner as only to be reasonably 
explained by the supposition that it formed a body of precepts 
with which he was familiar, and which he regarded as an [139] 
authoritative basis of moral and religious life. Let the following 
passages be compared ;* — 

4»* Lct. II***.— 4i*»', LcT. 22« — 6» cf. Ntt. 15» ("heart and cye^" 
"go « whoring"]. — 14*- ''•, Lev. i;*'- " (sec p. 49, No. 4).— 14' {see «A. Nos. 
5, 6 [with 3ipD, which Ez. does not use in (his seiisc, altered tu Tr^])- — 
,S«..ii.« Lev. i8».«_,gT*.i»*.M^ifc, Lev. 19" 25»t-"V— 1*. Lev. 19" 
("spoil by violence").— 18^ »*, Lev. 25*'.- iS"-- »*• « Lev. 19"- » ('?iv 
imquUy : cf. Ex. -^ 28" 33"- "- " : rare elsewhere).— 18*^ ", Lev. i8» 26*.— 
l8*» 33», I«». 20»- "• "• "• "• "t (Uie concise phrase of Lev. ampUfiid in Et 
by ihe addilion of rr.T),— iSi"*. Lev. iS* I9"ai— 20* ("lifted up my hand" 
[also ¥.»•"■»•«•*> j6' 47", Nu. 14** (P)], "made myself known," "I am 
Ji-hovah"), Ex. 6»««.— 20\ cf. Lev. iS».— 2o"»'« Lev. i8»("whidi if a 
inan do, he shall live in them "). — 20***", Ex. 3i"(nearly the whole verse). — 
2oifc,ub^ Ex. 6*.— ao», Ex, 6* a/, (p. 133, Na 21) '.—22'*. Lev. 20».— 22* 
("profaned," "my sabbaths," p. 50, Nos. 13, 14).— 22**. Lev. 19".— 22*'^ 
(noi; ib. No. II).— 22'S cf. Lev. i8-»— 22", Lev. 20>*- »^ ".— 22", Uv. 
35".— aa". Lev. 22»» 10".— 24^'*, Lev. 17"— 33" Lev. 19".— 44* ("my 
bread," see p. 50, No. iS). — 44*, cf. Lev. 21" (long locks forbidden, but to 
the chief priest only).- 44"», Lev. lo*. — 44*^, cf. Lev. 21" (of ihe chief 
priest).— 44", Lev. io"».— 44»*, Lev. 21^-44""', Lev. 21*"-* (abridged in Et). 
— 44»», Nu. iS» ("I am their inheritance").— 44"'^ Nu. |S».— 44«'^ Nu, 
i5«.-44". Lev. 22«.— 45" Lev. I9«,t 

The following arc technical exprcs^ons, borrowed (as seems clear) ^m 
priestly terminology, but not sufllcient to prove Ez.'s acquaintance with 
the codified laws in tlie form in which we now liave lliem : 4'^** Vijb 
" abomination " [or " refuse meat," used lechnically of stale sacriBdal flesh I] 
(Lev. 7" 19^, Is. 6s*!)-— 8" |'p» "detestation" [used technically of forbidden 
animals:] (Uv. 7^ i,m-u.«. sa.^w.^ j,. 66"|)._i4T -*scparaleth himself" 
(Lev. 22').- 14"44"*"'' "bear their iniquity" (p. 50, No. 20»).— 14**, Lev. 
5** (form of sentence ; aad Vwi ^i-o, p. 134, Na 43). — 16*" 33*^ d« for tc st^nt 

* The passages, both here and in other similar instances, would have beeo 
transcribed in full, had not the exigencies of space forbidden it. 

t But expressions such as l» (cf. Ex. 26») i"*" (cf. Nu. 9") i** (Gen. 9^*) 
S"(GciL 6") 10=" (Lev. 16") 24" (Lev. i3«: see Mic. 3') 24» (Ex. 12"), 
&.C ^>pear to arise out of ths narrative in which they occur, and axe not 
necessarily reminiscences of the passages cited. 

Z Comp. Clark's Bidlg Dictionary, s,v. Abomjnatiom. 


tj*. 134, No. 45). — ai*[Hcb."] 29" " bringelh iniquity to remembrance** (Nu. 
5i»j._36», cf. Nu. I9«.— 4Q«'« 44" "keep Uie charge of" (Nu. iS*-*).-46' 
" as his hajid &httH attain unto "(Lev. 5" I4=i'»-" 25«- "•*• 27*, Nu- 6").— 
47^, Gen. 1", Lev, 11*; and Nos. a, 12, 14, 25^, 28, and perhaps 6, 22, 34. 
in the list, p. 131 ff. 

[140] The parallels with Lev. 26^^' are peculiarly numerous 
and striking, including several expressions not occurring else- 
where in the Old Testament : — 

Ex. 4« S" I4» ( " break the staff of bread "J : Lcr. 16". 
4" ("bread by weight'*): lA. 
4" 24", cf. 33'" ("pine away in their iniquities"); v.". 

1 2'* ( " scatter, " * ' draw out a sword after them **) : v,' 

5* ao" (" rtjecled my judgments ") : v.*. 

5*'''a/. [seep. 49, No. 7]("wallt in my statutes") : v.', 

5" 2o»- »*•»•*' 22« 2S", cf. 38»39«(" before the eyes of the nations"; 

20*** "" brought out ") : v.*. 
5" 14'* ("send upon you . . . beasts . . . and they will bereave 

thee"): v.» 
5" 6* II* 14" 29* ("and I will bring ■ sword upun you"): v.'*. 

(Not a phruse used by other prophets.) 
6*-* ("your sun-pillars"): v.» 

6'("lay Uie carca&es . , . before their idulbNxWs [cSiSj]'*) : v.**. 
ll^fc ("walk in my statutes, and keep my ordinances, and d'l 

them ") : v.*. 
13W 36^ (]jr3i \jr **because attd by ihe cauit that" ... a pctuliur 

piirase^ not found elsewhere) : v.", 
ifi"-*"^ ("remember," "establish my covenant") : v.*- *'•'*. 
24" yfi' " 33". cf. 7** (" pride of your power") : v.". 
34" ("and I will cause evil beasts to cease out of the land ") : v.*. 
34" ("llie heavy rain . , . in its season"): v.*. 
34''»("and ilie Uee of the field shall yield its fruit, and the eatlh 

shall yield her increiLsc ") : t6. cf. v.*'^ 
24«b j.i ^i,^^ 1 ^jj,^|| i^^^.p tjrukcn the burs of ihcir yoke ") : v.". 
34"* 39^** ("they shall dwell securely, none making llicra afraid"); 

36*'*** ("and I will turn onto you, and multiply, &c.) : v.*. 
37»» ("and I will set my sanclUAry in the lutdst of them *') : v.". 
37*^ ("they slmli be lo me a people, and I will be to them a God "), 

and iu inverted order, v.'' Il* 14" ^O^ : v." (cf. Ex. 6*), 
39" ("their enemies' lands"): v."*-**, cf. v.***"*". 
Cf. 5''* n" ("nations thai are round about you"); aj**. 

These phraseological resemblances between Ez. and H (the 
number of which is not exhausted by this list *) are, in truth, 

* Sec Baentsch, Das ihili^keits Gesttz, p. 121 ff.; or the excellent article 
of Li B, Palon, i^tsbytarian and Reformed Keviiw^l^Vi^ 1S961 p* 98ff. 



evidence of a wider and more general fact, viz. the fundamental 
identity of interest and point of view which shows itself in Kz. 
and the " Law of Holiness." Both breathe the same spirit ; both 
arc actuated largely by the same principles, and aim at realiz- 
ing the same ends. Thus both evince a special regard for the 
"sanctuary" (Lev. 1980 ao" 21"* =* 26^ Ez. 5" 8« 23/^' [141] 
25* 43^''-)t ^^^ prescribe rules to guard it against profanation ; 
both allude similarly to Israers idolatry in ££;}^f (Lev. 18*, 
Ez. ao^"''), and to the "abominations" of which Israel has since 
been guilty ; both emphasize the duty of observing the Sabbath ; 
both attach a high value to ceremonial cleanness, especially on 
the part of the priests ; both lay stress on abstaining from blood, 
and from food improperly killed (nD"it3l n^33) ; and both further 
insist on the same moral virtues, as reverence to parents, just 
judgment, commercial honesty, and denounce usury and slander 
(Ez. iS^^ aa^''-, with the parallels).* 

The similarities between Ez. and the I^w of Holiness, 
especially Lev. 26'"^, are so great that it has been held by some 
critics that the prophet himself was the author, or, at least 
(Horst), the redactor of this collection of laws.f But there are 
differences^ as well as resemblances, between Ez. and H, of which 
this hypothesis gives no sufficient explanation; and from the 
time when it was first propounded there have always been critics 
who opposed it. J Noldeke pointed to styhstic differences ; § 
Klostermann, comparing in greater detail Ez. and H, showed 
further that the prophet seemed everywhere to be expanding or 
emphasizing a simpler original ;|| Wellh. and Kuenen appealed 
to material differences as likewise precluding the authorship of 
Ez. It is thus agreed by the best critics that Ez. is not the 

* Comp. Smcnd, EnuHieU p* xxv f. 

t Graf, Gesch. B. pp. 81-83 » Colcnso; Kayser ; Ilorsl, pp. 6^-96, 

X Noldeke, Ontersuchurtgen, p. 67 ff. ; Wellh. Jlist. 376-384 ; Kloster- 
mann, ZVr Pent, p. 36S £; Sroeud, EtechUl^ pp. xxvii, 314 f.; Delitzsch, 
StxidUn^ p. 6i7ff.j Kuenen, Hex. § 15. 10. 

% Thus in H we never find Ez.*s st.anding title " Lord Jehovah ** : in Et 
we never find n'Dp, and only once voy (pw 49, No. Il ; p. 133, No. 25). 

B Er. never uses the phrase " I am Jehovah" alone: he always says, 
*• And ye (thou, they) shall know tliai I am J.," sometimes adding l>cside9 a 
furthex clause introduced by " when . , . " ; or he attaches some epithet, or 
predicate, "I am Jehovah your God," or "I Jehovah have spoUen." Se« 
further PatOD, pp. ica-106. 


author, or even the compiler, of the Law of Holiness. It may 
further be taken as granted that the laws of H — at least the 
principal and most characteristic laws — are prior to Ez, ; the 
manner in which he takes as his standard, or point of departure, 
laws identical with those of H, is admitted to establish this 

[142] The age of the writer who fitted these laws into their 
parenetic framework is, however, disputed The principal clue 
appears to be aiforded by the dosing exhortation, 26'"'. This, it 
seems clear, must have been written at a time when Israel had 
already worshipped at "high places," and erected sun-pillars 
(v.**) ; but beyond this it is thought by many to presuppose the 
txilc. Especially, it is argued, the hopes of national penitence 
and the promise of restoration (v.*o-*'') are unsuitable in a dis- 
course designed to move the nation to obedience by exhibiting 
vividly (v.**'-'*) the penal consequences of transgression of the 
law, whereas they spring naturally from an age in which the 
penalties of transgression have been actually incurred (Dillm. 
NDJ, p. 645 f.; Baentsch, p. i26f). Wellh. {Hisf. p. 383 f.), 
Kuenen (§ 15. 9), Smend (p. xxvif.), and others assign accord- 

* Kucncn {Htx, \ 15. 10, 5) allowed this for the laws of Lev. 18-30; 
Bamtsoh (pp. 8l-^l), after a careful comparison, affirms it, very decidedly, 
Ibr their parenetic settinf; as well, and for the nucleus (above, pp. 56 n., 57 w,) 
of c 33-25. As regards the ceremonial legislation of Lev. 31-33, Ez. is in 
most respects dearly in advance of H, but in one or two, especially in the 
distinciive position assigned (21'***") to the high priest, H is in advance of 
Ex. ; Uxe legislaUon of Er., namely, recognizes no high priest, the domestic 
restrictions imposed upon tlie priests in general (44"' "• ") being greater than 
those imposed by H upon the ordinary priests (Lev. 21''*), but less than those 
imposed by it upon the h^h priest ('* the priest that is greater than his 
brethren," 21"'"). Baentsch (pp. 10S-115) attaches such weight to this 
difference that be separates Lev. 21-22 ftorn Lev. 18-20, and places the 
compilation of the former after Ez., allowing indeed that elsewhere in this 
tection the compiler (R^) followed older laws, but thinking that 21**"" was 
formulated by himself for the first lime. Howe\'er, the principal priest 
appears in the later parts of Rings (2 Ki. 24** • 23* ; 25^) with a distinctive 
title, and may have held therefore a distinctive position, such as might have 
been marked by the additional restrictions of Lev. at**"". And Ejl's ideal 
constitution (c. 40-4S), though based upon existing institutions, is not an 
exact copy of them ; his " prince " is more than a mere secular head of the 
community ; he is in certain particulars its theocratic head as well ; and by 
his side Ez. may have deemed a " high " priest (in the sense of H) do longei 
ne«ssftry (cf. Paton, p. 107). 



ingly 26'*'-, and, with it, the compilation of H as a whole, to the 
exile.* Klost and Del., on the contrary, place it prior to the 
exile, the former, in particular, arguing at some length that the 
resemblances between Ez. and Lev, 26^* are of a character that 
shows Ez. to be dependent on Lev. 26^'''*, rather than the author 
of I^v. 263"^' on Ezekiel.t On the whole, while fully admitting 
the great difficulty of determining questions of priority by the mere 
comparison[i43]of parallel passages, the view that gives the priority 
to 26^^- seems to the present writer to be the more probable, t 
Nor is this inference modified by the considerations referred to 
above. On the one hand, the certainty of approaching exile 
(which was unquestionably realized by the prophets of Jeremiah's 
age) would, not less than the actual exile, form a sufficient basis 
on which to found the promise of v.""*-** \ on the other hand, 

• Dillm. does not question the pre-cxilic origin of 26^' as a whole ; but 
|X)inL5 {EL, 620 ; NDJ. 647) to the loose connexion with the context, and 
the unusual heaviness of the style, In v.**'** "• *'*', as indicating that the 
parts which have been thought to suggest most strongly on exilic date did not 
belong to the original discourse, but were added to it subse(^;icnlJy. The 
verses in question present, however, indications of l>cing by the same band as 
the rest of the discourse (Kucn. /.(.)* Baentsch (thuugh be treats the whole 
of 26^*^' as exih'c) agrees (p. 66 fT.) with Dillm., so far as regards the secondary 
ot^io of V.**""' *•**■, 

t It is Ez-'s custom to combine reminiscences from his predecessors (Dt., 
or other prophets) with expressions peculiar to himself; and Klost. seeks to 
show that he deals similarly with Lev. 26***. Thus he argues that in 4" 
"pine away in their iniquity" is a reminiscence from Lev. 26", to which 
Ez. has prefixed his own expression (cf. 30'} ** be astonied one with another " 
(corap. 34*'' with Lev. 25*' *• " [" with force " added]), ^^^^cthe^ all Klost. 's 
arguments arc cogent may be doubted ; neverlhelcss there seem lo the wriler 
lo be considerations which support the view taken in the text. Lev. 
2^' is in style terse and forcible ; Ez. is diffuse: Lev. also appears to have 
the advantage in originality of expression (contrast <.f. " the pride of your 
power " in Lev. 26" and in Ez. 7** (LXX) 24*^ 30*- " Z"^)* ^^^ i" '^^ co"* 
ncxion of thought (contrast Lev. 26*"'' " with Ez. 34'"*''*). The opposile 
view, which is also that of Smcnd (pp. xxvif,, 315), Wellh. (p. 3S4), Comill 
(8 13' 9)1 aiid others, is maintained strongly by Bacnt^h (p. I34f.}, who 
urges the improbability that an author of the originality and scope of K?.. 
would have adopted so largely the thoughts and phrascotc^ of a single 
chapter. In expressioft, however (Nold. i.e. p. 68), Ez. is far from original ; 
and if, as Baentsch himself allows (p. 84 ff. ), he is dependent largely upon 
Lev. iS-20, and moves in the same circle of ideas, the presumption is con- 
siderably lessened that he should not be dependent also upon another section 
of the same legislative corpus. 

X See further, in support of the same view, I^iton, p. 1090. 


hardly any subsequent promise, least of all one so indefinite in 
its terms as that of v."-^*, could neutralize the deterrent effect of 
such a denunciation of disaster and exile as that contained in 
^▼.**^. But the parenetic framework of H, while it may thus be 
earlier than Ez., will hardly be much earlier ; for though isolated 
passages in Lev. 26 resemble, for instance, passages of Amos or 
Micah,* the tone of the whole is unlike that of any earlier 
prophet ; on the other hand, its tone is akin to that of Jeremiah, 
and still more (even apart from llie phrases comnian to both) to 
that of E^ekiel. The language and style are conipatible with the 
same age, even if they do not acluidly favour iuf The laws nf 
H date in the main from a considerably earlier time ; but it 
seems that they were arranged in their present parenetic frame- 
work, by an author who was at once a priest and a prophet, 
probably towards the closing years of the monarchy. And if II 
formed stiil, in Ez,'s day, a separate body of law, which was not 
combined with the rest of the Triests' Code till subsequently, 
the prophet's special familiarity with it would be at once naturally 

While the majority of the parallels in Ez. are with the 
excerpts of the Law of Holiness embedded in Lev, 17-26, it 
will be obser\*ed that there are others, sometimes remarkable 
ones, with certain other passages of the Pent,, especially with 
Ex. e"-* i2>'^-" 3i'''i*». Lev. io*'-»<>-^i 11", Nu. is^"^**!, several of 
which have been already referred, on imkpendcnt grounds (p. 59), 
to H. The evidence of Ez. thus confirms the conclusion stated 
above, that a considerable body of priestly Toroih existed, per- 
meated by the same dominant principles, and embracing, not 
only the continuous extracts preserved in Lev. 17-26, but also 
fragments — perhaps not confined to those just cited - embedded 
in other parts of the Pentateuch. And if Ex. 6*^ be rightly 
assigned to this collection of laws, it may be conjectured that it 
was prefaced by a short historical introduction, setting forth its 
origin and scope. And several at least of [144] these Tdroih 
seem clearly to be older than Dt Not only do some of the 
passages just quoted appear to be presupposed by Dt (p. 145), 
but the instances in which the laws of D are parallel to those of 

• As v.»». Am. 9»»^ ; v.'»- »^. Mic. 6**- 
L p. 202) u far from conclusive. 
t Comp. DUIm. EL, p. 619. 


H (see the table, p. 73 ff.) are most reasonably explained by the 
supposition that both D and the compiler of H drew from the 
same more ancient source, the lan^^uage of which has been, 
perhaps, least clianged in H, while D has allowed himself greater 
freedom of adaptation.* 

The argument of the preceding pages meets by anticipation — for it was 
completed before Uie writer had seen citlicr — objections such as those urged 
in the British Quarterly Jitv. vol. 79 (1884), p. 115 ff., or by Principal Cave* 
7%€ InspiiiUion of th£ QT. p. 263 ff., and places, it is believed, the relation 
of the Priests' Code to the pfc-exilic literature in a just Iii;ht. An unbiassed 
comparison of P with this literature shows, namely, tliat there are elements 
of truth both in Dillm.'s view of the oripn of P, and in Wellh.*8. The 
passages appealed to in proof of the existence of the £ompUttd Priests* Code 
under the earlier kings lack the necessary cogency, on account of the general 
contradicliun which the prc-exUic hterature opposes to the conclusion that the 
system of P was ihcn in operation, and because the hypothesis that P had a 
" latent " existence, as an unrealizable priestly ideal |p. 142), does not seem a 
probable one. On the other hand, as said above, these passages are good 
evidence tliat the principal institutions of P are not a creaiioH of the exilic 
period, but that they existed in Israel in a more rudimentary form from a 
remote period. It is not so much the institutions in themselves as the system 
with which they are associated. ar\d the principles of which in P they are 
made more distinctly the expression, which bear the marks of a more advanced 
stage of ceremonial observance. 

The consideration of the probable age of the several institu- 
tions of P is an archxological rather than a literary question, 
and hence does not fall properly within the scope of the present 
volume. A few general remarks may, however, be permitted. 
It cannot be doubted that Moses was the ultimate founder of 
both the national and the religious life of Israel ; t and that he 
provided his people not only with at least the nucleus of a system 
of civil ordinances (such as would^ in fact, atJse directly out of 
his judicial functions, as described in Ex. 18), but also (as the 
necessary correlative of the primary truth that Jehovah zvas tki 
God of Israel) with some system of ceremonial observances, [145] 
designed as the expression and concomitant of the religious and 
ethical duties involved in the people's relation to its national 
God. It is reasonable to suppose that the teaching of Moses on 

* It is remarkable that, white clauses from JE are oflen excerpted in Dt. 
verhtiiim^ in the parallels with H the language is hardly ever identicaL 

t Corop. Wellh. Hist. pp. 432, 434, 438 f., endorsed by Kuencn, Th. T. 
t883, p. 199. 



these subjects is preserved, in its least modified form, in the 
Decalogue and the "Book of the Covenant" (Ex. 20-23), I' 
by DO means, however, follows from the view treated above 
as probable that the Mosaic l^slation was limited to the sub- 
jects dealt with in Ex. 20-23 • amongst the enactments peculiar 
to Dt — which tradition, as it seems, ascribed to a later period of 
the legislator's life — there are many which likewise may well have 
formed part of it It is further in analogy with ancient custom 
to suppose that some form oX priesthood would be established by 
Moses ; that this priesthood would be hereditary ; and that the 
priesthood would also inherit from their founder some tradi- 
tionary lore (beyond what is contained in Ex. 20-23) on matters 
of ceremonial observance. And accordingly we find that JE 
both mentions repeatedly an Ark and "Tent of Meeting" as 
existing in the Mosaic age (Ex. 33^'", Nu. 1 1-*"'- 12**^-, Dt 3ii*''-), 
and assigns to Aaron a prominent and, indeed, an official position 
(Ex. 4* "Aaron the Lfvitt" ; 18"; 241- »); further, that in Dt 
(10'^) a hereditary priesthood descended from him is expressly 
recognized J and also that there are early allusions to the "tribe 
of Levi " as enjoying priestly privileges and exercising priestly 
functions (Dt 33'*, Mic. 3" ; cf. Jud. 17").* The principles by 
which the priesthood was to be guided were laid down, it may 
be supposed, in outline by Moses. In process of time, however, 
as national life grew more complex, and fresh cases requiring to 
be dealt with arose, these principles would be found no longer 
to sufHce, and their extension would become a necessity. 
Especially in matters of ceremonial observance, which would 
remain naturally within the control of the priests, regulations 
such as those enjoined in Ex. 20^-^ ajso-si ^^^^-^^ would not 
long continue in the same [146] rudimentary state ; fresh defi- 
nitions and distinctions would be introduced, more precise rules 
■would be prescribed for the method of sacrifice, the ritual to be 
observed by the priests, the dues which they were authorized 

* These functions con^atcd largely in pronouncing Tdrtih^ ie. poiniing 
gut (nnvi) what was to be done in some special case ; giving direction in cases 
tubmitted to ihcm — declaring, t.g.^ whether or not a man was "unclean,** 
whether or not he had the leprosy, &c. ; and also imparting authoritatire 
morat instruction. See a good note on the term in Kuen. Hex* $ itx 4 ; 
comp. also the writer's Commentary on Joel and Amos, in the CamMdgt 
Biits for ScAoo/jf p. 230 f. In civil matters, it is the function which Moses 
,llimself is represented as discharging in Ex. 18 (above, p. 31). 



to receive from the people, and other similar matters. After the 
priesthcx)d had acquired, through the foundation of Solomon's 
Temple, a permanent centre, it is probable that the process of 
development and systematization advanced more rapidly than 
before. And thus the allusions in Dt. imply the existence of 
usages beyond those which fall directly within the scope of the 
book, and belonging specially to the jurisdiction of the priests 
{f.g, 17" 24'): Ezekiel, being a priest himself, alludes to sucb 
usages more distinctly. Although, therefore, there are reason* 
for supposing that the Priests' Code assumed finally the shap^ 
in which we have it in the age subsequent to Ez,, it rests uld 
mately upon an ancient traditional basis ;*" and many of th# 
institutions prominent in it are recognized, in various stages o* 
their growth, by the earlier pre-exilic literature, by Dt., and b) 
Ezekiel. The laws of P, even when they included later elements 
were still referred to Moses, — no doubt because in its basil 
and origin Hebrew legislation was actually derived from hiraL 
and was only modified gradually.t 

The institution which was among the last to reach a settled 
stale, appears to have been the priesthood. Till the age of Dt, 
the right of exercising priestly offices must have been enjoyed by 
every member of the tribe of Levi (p. 83, n. 2) ; but this righl 
on the part of the tribe generally is evidently not incompatible 
with ^t pre-fminence of a particular family (that of Aaron : cf. 
Dt 10*), which, in the line of Zadok, held the chief rank at the 
Central Sanctuary. After the abolition of the high places by 
Josiah, however, the central priesthood refused to acknowledge 
the right which (according to the law of Dt) the Levitical priests 
of the high places must have possessed. | The action of the 

• And indeed (lilie Dt.) includes some elements evidently anhaie, 
t A similar view of the gradual expansion of the legislation of P from a 
Mosaic nucleus is expressed by Delitzsch, Gtnesis^ p. 26 f. Indeed, it ts a 
question whether even in form P is throughout perfectly homogeneous. There 
are other parts as well as those including the Law of Holiness, which, when 
examined closely, seem to consist of itruta^ exhibiting bide by side the 
usage of different periods. The stereot3^ped terminology may (to a certain 
extent) be the chanLCtcristlc, not of an individual, but of the priestly style 

X See 3 KL 23*, where it is said of the disestablished Levitical priests that 
they " came not up to the altar of Jehovah in Jerusalem, but they did eat 
unleavened cakes among their brethren," i.e. they were not deprived of the 


central priesthood [147] ^^ endorsed by Ezekiel (44**^) : the 
priesthood, he declared, was for the future to be confined to the 
descendants of Zadok ; the priests of the high places (or their 
descendants) were condemned by him to discharge subordinate 
offices, as menials in attendance upon the worshippers. As it 
proved, however, the event did not altogether accord with Ez.'8 
declaration ; the descendants of Ithamar succeeded in maintain- 
ing their right to officiate as priests, by the side of the sons of 
Zadok (i Ch. 24* &c). But the action of the central priesthood 
under Josiah, and the sanction given to it by Ezekiel, combined, 
if not to create, yet to sharpen and accentuate * the distinction 
of ** priests ** and " Levites," It is possible that those parts of P 
which emphasize this distinction (Nu. 1-4, &c.) are of later 
origin than the rest, and date from a time when— probably after 
a struggle on the part of some of the disestablished Levitical 
priests — it was generally accepted. 

The language of P t is not opposed to the date here assigned 

maintenance due to them as priests by the law of Dt. 18*, but they were not 
Admitted to the exercise of priestly functions, 

* For it is difHcuU not to think that among the families permanently coa* 
nected with the Temple, which belonged, or were reputed to t>elong, to the 
priestly tribe, there must have been some whose members failed to maintain 
the right which they technically possessed, and were obliged to be content 
with a menial position ; so that this exclusion of the priests of the high places 
bom the priesthood probably only emphasized a distinction which already d$ 
facto existed, and which is recognised explicitly in B.C. 536 (Neh. 7" *&c.). 

tSeeV. Rysscl, De Ehhistoi Pentatmeki Sermont (1878); F. Giese- 
hrecht, Der Sprachgtbrauch dci hexattuckiscken Ehkisttn in the ZATiV, 
i88(, 177-276, with the critique of the latter by the present writer in the 
Journal ef Philology, xi, 201-236 (cf. the synopsis in Holiinger, pp. 457-465) ; 
Kuenen, Htx. \ 15. 11. The present position of the writer is not inconsistent 
with that adopted as the basis of his critique in 1SS2. The aim of thai 
article was not to discuss the general question of the date of P, or even to 
■how that the language of V \s^& incompaiiblc with a date in or near the 
exile (see p. 304) ; its aim was avowedly limited to an examination of par^ 
ticular data which had been alleged , and an inquiry whether they had been 
interpreted correctly \ib.\ In tlic philology of the article the writer hai 
nothing of consequence to modify or correct. In his etymology of fnro, 
p. 205, he was led into error through following Ges. too implicitly (see 
Dillro. od l0c.)\ and the discuAsion of t^i, p. 209, is incomplete (see Konig, 
OJfenb. des /I7*.r, ii. 324 f.)- The writer is also now of opinion that, although 
in particular cases P's use of ':k might be explained consistently with an early 
date, yet his all but uniform preference for it above *3]it, utken in conjunction 
vith his resemblance in this respect to Ez. (p. 134, No. 45), and other later 



[148] to it. To be sure, Giesebrecht, in his endeavour to demon- 
strate the lateness of P, overshoots the mark, and detects many 
Aramaisms and other signs of lateness in P which do not exist; 
indeed, in some cases the words alleged by him form part of 
the older laws which P embodies. But it is true (as is admitted 
in the Journal of Philology^ p. 232) that there is a residuum of 
words which possess this character, and show affinities with 
writings of the age of Ez. That these are less numerous than 
might perhaps be expected, may be explained partly by the fact 
that P*s phraseology is largely traditional, partly by the fact that 
the real change in Hebrew style docs not begin till a later age 
altogether; many parts of £z. (f^. c 30), and even Haggai and 
Zechariah, do not show more substantial signs of lateness than 
P. The change is beginning (r. 450) in the memoirs of Nehemiah 
and in Malachi ; but Aramaisms and other marks of lateness 
(esp. in syntax) are abundant only in works written after this 
date — Esther, Chr., Eccl., &c. The phraseology of P, it is 
natural to suppose, is one which had gradually formed; hence 
it contains elements which are no doubt ancient side by side 

writers (as Ijun., Zech. 1-8, Hag., Est., Eccl., Don., Ei:r., Nch , Chr., In 
all of which '3:m occurs only Neh, x*, Dan. ro*\ and i Chr. 17* [from 2 Sam. 
7'], against some 120 occurrences of *jk), constitutes a presumption, difHcuIt 
to neutralize, that he wrote in the later period of the language (cC Konig, 
Stud. u. Krit. 1893, pp. 464-S, 478, EinL pp. 168, 227, 229, Expositor, Aug. 
1S96, p. 97). At the same time he docs not doubt that there is a larger 
traditional element in the phraseology of P than Gicsebrecht's argument 
appears to allow for. 

TTiere are also other features, in which it is remarkable that ihe usage <A 
P agrees with that of the later parts of the OT. Two may be noticed here : — 

1. The months not distinguished by names, but numbered^ Gen. 7^* 8*- •• ", 
Ex. 16' 40*- " &c. (uniformly), as 1 Ki. iz"*-** (compiler), 2 Ki, 25'- >■■••', 
and regularly in Jer., Er., Hag., Chr. In the earlier literature the months are 
named, Ek. 13" 23" 34", Dt. l6MAbib]; 1 Ki. 6>- » (Ziv), v." {Bui), 8* 
(Ethanim), — the last three being txptamcd by the terms current in the com- 
piler's own day, vii. the "second," "eighth," and " seventh " months re- 
spectively. (These are the old Phcenician names, Bui and Etkanim L«ing 
found on Phoenician inscriptions: Nisan (ist), Sivan (3rd)^ EIul (6lh), 
Kislev (9th), Tebeth (lolh), Shebat (nth), Adar (12th), found in Zech. i» 
7', Neh. 1* 2* 6", Ezr. 6", and in Esther, are of Babylonian origin.) 

2. Eleven expressed by "irjr 'nry, Ex. 26'- • ( = 36'*- "), Nu. 7" 29", Dt. 
i» (P), as in 2 Ki. 25» {=Jer. $2*), Jer. i» 39» Ex. t& 33° (LXX) 40", 
Zech, i'. I Ch. la" 24" 25" a?"! ; not by ■■n' fw, m Gen. 32" yj*, Dt. i\ 
xKi. 6*a/. 


with those wliich were introduced hiter. The priests of each 
successive generation would adopt, as a matter of coarse, the 
technical formulae, and other stereotyped expressions, which they 
leamt from their seniors, new terms, when they were introduced, 
being accommodated to the old moulds. Hence, no doubt, the 
similarity of £z.'& style to P, even where a de&nite law is not 
quoted by him : although, from the greater variety of subjects 
which he deals with as a prophet, the vocabulary of P is not 
sufficient for him, he still frequently uses expressions belonging 
to the priestly terminology, with which he was familiar.* 

Afler the Ulustntions which have beea given above (p. 8, ftc) of the 
grounds upon which the analysis of Exodus and the following books depends, 
the inadequacies of the ''Journal theory" of the Pentateuch, advocated by 
[149] Principal Cave in the work cited on p. 152, will be manifest. This theory 
fails, in a word, to accotmt for the phaenomena which the Pent, presents. 
Thus (l) it offers no explanation of the phraseological variations which Ex. 
&C. display: these (as the list, p. 131 ff., will have shown) are quite as 
marked as those in Genesis, which nevertheless Principal Cave acceptj 
(p. 171 ff.) as proof of its composite origin. If these variations were so 
distributed as to distinguish consistently the /aws on the one hand from 
the narratives on the other, the theory might possess some plausibility ; the 
laws, for Instance, might be supposed to have required naturally a different 
style from the narrative, or Moses might have compiled the one and an 
amanuensis the other : but, as a foct^ the variations are not so distributed; 
not only do the different groups of laws show differences of terminology, but 
the narratives themselves present the same variations of pkraseotogy as in 
CenesiSf some parts having numerous features in eommon with the sections 
assigned to "P" in that book, and with the laws contained in Ex. 35, &c, 
and other parts being marked by an entire absence of tliose features, f The 
Journal theory cannot account for these variations in the narrative sections of 
Ex.-Dt. (a) The Journal theory is unable to account for the many and 
cogent indications which the different codes in the Pent, contain, that they 
look sliape at different periods of the history, or to solve the very great 
difficulties which both the historical (esp. c. 1-3, 9-10) and legal parts of Dt. 
present, if they are regarded as the work of the same contemporary writer as 

* The incorrectnesses which appear from time to time tn Ez. are due prob* 
ably, partly to the fact that, as a prophet mingling with the people, he was 
exposed to influences from which the priests generally were free, partly to 
errors originating in the transmission of his text. 

+ See further the Contempt Review^ Feb. 189a, p. 36a ff,, where the 
writer has shown by a series of excerpted passages, that whatever grounds exist 
for holding Genesis to be of composite authorship, the same (or precisely 
similar) grounds exist for holding the rest of the Hexateucb to be of composite 
Authorship likewb^ 



Ext-Nu. (3) The Joarnal theory takes a false view of the Book of Joshtta, 
which it not severed from the following books, and connected with the 
Pentateuch, for the purpose of satisfying the exigencies of a theory, but 
because this view of the book is required by thd f acts — a simple comparison 
of it with the Pent showing viz. that it is realty komogtMwus with it, and 
(especially in the P sections) that it difters entirely from Jud., Sam., Kings. 
But Principal Cave's treatment of the books from Ex. to Josh, is manifestly 
slight and incomplete. 

In cb. vi. of Principal Cave's book there are many just observations on 
the theological truths which find expression in the Mosaic law ; but it is an 
igncratio eleruhi to suppose them to be a refutation of the opinion that 
Hebrew legislation reached its final form by successive stages, except upon 
the assumption that all progress must proceed from purely natural causes, — 
an assumption both unfounded in itself and op[)osed to the general sense of 
theologians, who speak, for instance, habitually of a "progressive revela- 
tion " {so *' Revelation " and " Evolution," p. 251, — though the latter is not 
a very suitable term to use in this connexion, — are not antagonistic except 
npoa a similar assumption). Prof. Bissell's Pentateuth fails to establish the 
p<Hnts which it was written to prove, partly for the same reason, partly for a 
different one. The author is singularly unable to distinguish between a good 
argument and a bad one. Thus the passages adduced (chiefly in chaps. 
vitL-x.) to prove the existence of the Pent in the Mosaic age all, upon one 
groond or another [comp. above, p. 144, lines 11-14), fall short of the mark ; 
and while his volume contains many sound and true observations on the deep 
spiritual teacliing both of the law and also of other parts of the OT , [X50] he 
has not showD that this teaching must stand or fall with the traditional view 
of the origin of the OT. books, or that the critical view of their origin cannot 
be stated in a form enb'rely compatible with the reality of the supernatural 
enlightenment vouchsafed to the ancient people of God. (On the Pent, as 
a channel of revelation, cf. further Riehm's Eini. §§ 28, 29.) 

It may not be superfinous to remark that the assertion, now not un- 
freqnently made, that the primary basis of Pentatcuchal criticism is the 
assumption that Moses was unacquainted with the art of writing, and that 
this has been completely overthrown by the Tel el-Amarna tablets, rests upon 
on entire misapprehension of the facts. As the absence of all mention of the 
supposed basis in the preceding pages will have shown, it is net the premiss 
upon which the criticism of the Pentateuch depends : the antiquity of writing 
was known long before the Tel cI-Amama tablets were discovered ; and 
these tablets (though deeply interesting on account of their historical con- 
tents} have no bearing on the question either of the composite structure of 
the Pentateuch, or of the date of tlie documents of which it is composed. 

On Prof. Hommel's recently (May, 1S97) published volume. The Aruitttt 
Hebrgm Tradition as iliuslrated by the MonumettiSt see the notices by Prof. 
Margoliouth in the Expository Times^ Aug. 1897, by Principal Whitehouse 
in the Expositor^ Sept. 1897, and by G. B. Gray in the Expos. Times, 
Sept* 1S97, and (specially on the argument founded upon the proper names 
in P) hi the Expositor, Sept 1897. All these writers agree that, while 
ProU Hommel has collected much interesting material from the Inscriptiotu^ 



especiallj those of Babylonia and Southern Arabia., fts ft refutation of the 
critical position his work is a failure. The reason of his 6ulure lies in the 
fact — (I) that the positive evidence afforded by the OT. itself in support uf 
the critical position is very much underrated ; (2) that the monumentat 
evidence arrayed against it is far too indirect and hypothetical to posess 
the required cogency : the author makes no attempt to distinguish logically 
between fact and imagination ; and what he really brings into the field again&: 
the conclusions of critics are not facts, attested directly by the monuments, 
but a series of hypothesis^ framed indeed with great ingenuity, but often 
resting upon the slenderest possible foundation, and most insufficiently sup- 
ported by the data actually contained in the Inscriptions. His treatment of 
Gen. 14, while containing much tltat is arbitrary [the date of Khammunbi, 
the supposed name Ammu-rapaltu^ &c.)i does not really establish anything 
beyond what was stated by the present writer in the articles referred to above, 
p. 15, and in the Expos, Times, Dec 1896, p. 143 f. It is nowhere main- 
tained (or implied) in the present volume ttiat in the writer's opinion " firm 
historical ground " begins for Israelitish history in the age of Solomon 
(Hommel, p. 4) ; and hence, even should Prof. Hommel have made it 
probable (as Mr. Gray had done before bim) that ancient material b pre- 
served amongst the names of P, the conclusion would be in no kind of 
conflict with the principles of the present work. It should be added that 
Prof. Hommel himself does not question the composite structure of the 
Pentateuch (pp, 12, 19 f.). and that until quite recently {Neue Kinhliche 
Ztukr. 1890, pp, 63-66) he accepted for J, E, and P, Wcllh.'s dates. 


GenesU l«-2* 5>*»- »-« 6»-» 7«. "• »-i«^ "• (except forty days) "-a- »• 
gi-«k sb-i. lift. i4-i» q1-i7. at-v |q1-7. ». as-si. ii-a uio-n. n*n 12*^^ \t*- iib-u* j^u. 

l-U-li C 17. |9» 2l»f*"^» C 23. 25Mi».U-".l»-».Wi 26SI-SB 27«C28» ^<^ 

*• 3|W» 33"* 34>-»»-**«-»-i*- i*-w-»-«-« (partly) "•" 35»-"- **•»**•» c. 36.t 
37»'«» 41*' 46*-" 47**** (LXX) T-"- «»'•» 48*-*- ' ' 49^- **"" 50"'". 

Exodus 1 

\-t. T. lS-14 oSb-as 


11. 1»-W». Slb-S9 




as. rT». 40-41. 41-ci I ji-s. so [^1-4. s-s. u-ia. tu. ti-n. s»-37*. »». a \t^-*' ■-*<• n-w 17U 
,^.fc 2^i»-i«. 25*-3i^ 34»-» c 35-4a 

Leviticus c 1-16 (c. 17-26) c 27, 

Numbers l»-io* i3»-"^n.»-»fc (to Paran) •* i^it,^ •-i. w, m^ mm 

C. 15. !6»*- «b-7». rb-ll). nS-lT). lS-14. «». »3t>. tt. (K-40). 41-M ^ 17,, g^ 20''ll'> 

mtmth) *.»-*.*-».»•• ai* (to Her) »•" 22^ 25«-« c. 26-31, 32»»*"- «-»; 

c 33-36. 

Deuteronomy I* 32*-** 34** (largely) *•'-•. 

Joshua 4* " 5**-" 7> 9*"* "" i3^»-" I4*-* is*"**- ****• <«-*n- «-« 16*^ 
pu.*-*. 7. b. 1,^10. igi. u-» igi-a. i«-4e. 48. n ^^ (except ** and unawares") 

* {iO jud^meni) »"* (cfl LXX] 2I»-*» (22»-»*). 

• With perhaps fragments in 30^ **• "»• * 

^ In the main, X W\\h traces b 32i'>'* ' 


% I. The Book or Judges. 

LmtRATUKi.— G. L. Studer, Das Butk der Rickter^ 1842 I E. Benheau 
(in the Kurxgef. Exeg. ffandb.), "iSSj; Kcil in JoTua, Rickttr u. A'ufM,* 
1874 ; Wellhauscn in Bleek*a Einl (1878) pp. 181-205 [= Ccmji. 213-238] ; 
JTu/. pp. 228-245 ; A. van Doominck, Bijdragt tot dt ttkst-krititk van 
RUht. i-xvi (1879), with K. Budde's review, Th. lU,tt, 18S4, col. 211-216; 
Aug. Muller, Das Lied dtr Deb. 1887 ; K. Budde, DU Bticher Ruhter u, 
Satmu!^ 1 890, pp. 1-166; J. S. Black (in the Smaller Comb. BibU for 
Schools), 1892 ; R. Kiltel, Gtsch, u 2y^fL [E.T. i. 364 ff.]; W. R. Smith. 
OT/C."^ pp. 120-124, 431-433; G. A. Cooke, The History and Song 0/ 
DedoroA, Oxford, 1892 ; S. Ocltli (in SlrackandZockler*s A^^ AV/«/«.), 1893 ; 
G. F. Moore (in the ** International Crit. Comm."), 1895 (veiy thorough). 


The Book of Judges derives its name from the heroes whose 
exploits form the subject of its central and principal part (2"- 
c 16). It consists of three well-defined portions : (i) an intro- 
duction i*-2*, presenting a view of the condition of the country 
at the time when the period of the Judges begins ; (2) the 
history of the Judges, 2**-c 16; (3) an appendix, c. 17-21, 
describing in some detail two incidents belonging to the period, 
viz. the migration of a part of the tribe of Uan to the north, 
c 17-18, and the war of the Israelites against Benjamin, arising 
out of the outrage of Gibeah, c 19-21. 

The Judges whose exploits the book records are 13 in 
number, or, if Abimelech (who is not termed a judge) be not 
reckoned, 12, viz.: Othniel (3'"'") ; Ehud (3^--^°) ; Shamgar (3'*) ; 
Barak [Deborah] (c 4-5); Gideon (t'-S^^j . Abimelech (8"-9'*^ i 
Tola (io»-='); Jair (lo^-*); JephUaah (io«-i2fJ; Ibzan (i2»-i'>); 
Elon (12"-"); Abdon (12"-"); Samson (a 13-16). Shamgar, 
;^Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, whose exploits are told only 





^summarily, are sometimes called the "minor " Judges. Accord- 
ing to the chronology of the book itself, the period of the Judges 
embraced 410 years ; thus :— 

£153] 3 * Israel sen'es Cushan-Rishalhaim 8 yeats. 

3** Deliverance by Othniel : the land rest* 40 „ 

3" Israt'l servM Eglon 18 „ 

2^ Deliverance by Ehud ; the land rests 80 „ 

4 ' Oppression by Jabin 20 „ 

5" Deliverance by Deborah : the land resti 



6 ' Oppression by Midian 



8* Deliverance by Gideon : the land rests 



9" Abimclcch reigns over Israd 



10 * Tola judges Israel 



10 'Jair judges Israel 



10 ' Oppression by Ammoa 



12 ' Jephlhah judges Israel 



12 • Ibzan judges Israel 



12** Elon judges Israel 



12** Abdon judges Israel 



13 * Oppression by Philistinet 



15*- 16" Samson judges Israel 



Total, , 

410 yean. 

This total, however, appears to be too high ; and it is at any 
rate inconsistent with i Ki. 6^, which assigns 480 years * to the 
period from the exodus to the 4th year of Solomon, whereas, if 
the Judges be reckoned at 410 years, this period, which must 
embrace in addition the 40 years of the wilderness, 7 years of 
the conquest (p. 104), 20 years of Samuel (1 Sa. 7'), ao (?) years 
of Saul, 40 years of David, and 4 of Solomon, would extend (at 
the least) to 541 years. Majiy attempts have been made to 
reduce the chronology of the Judges, by the assumption, for 
instance, that some of the periods named in it are synchronous, 
or the figures meant to be treated as round ones (especially 40 
and 8o = 4ox 2);t but it must be admitted (with Bertheau, pp. 
XV, xvii) that no certain results can be reached by the use of 
such methods, and that, as matters stand, an exact chronolo^ 
of the period is imattainable. 

The three parts of which ttie Book of Judges consists diflfer 

* Though this is open to the suspicion of having been reached artificially 

t Comp. Bertheau, pp. sli-AvU ; Wellh. /fi>/. p. 339 1. i C^mp* p. 356; 
KueneD, Ondcrtoik^ L a (18S7), | xS. 4, 6, 7. 



considerably in structure and character, and must be considered 

I. 1^-2*. This section of the book consists of fragments 
[153] of an old account of the conquest of Canaan — not by 
united Israel under the leadership of Joshua, but — by the 
individual efforts of the separate tribes. The fragments, how- 
ever, narrate the positive successes of Judah and Simeon (i''*) 
and the "House of Joseph" (i^^-m) only. There follows a 
series of notices describing how particular tribes, viz. Manasseh, 
Ephraim, Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan, failed to dis- 
possess the native inhabitants. By the opening words: "And 
it came to pass after the death of Joshua," the section is attached 
to the Book of Joshua, and the events narrated in it are assigned 
to the period after the close of that book. But it has long been 
suspected* that these words are, in fact, merely a redactional 
addition, and that the account is, in reality, parallel^ at least in 
part, ¥nth the narrative in Joshua, and not a continuation of it 
The Book of Joshua (as we now have it) describes how the 
whole land was subdued by the Israelites, and taken possession 
of by the individual tribes (see t^, 21"-^^ 23': both D*). In 
Jud. 1 the Israelites are still at Gilgal (2^), or close by at Jericho 
(i"); and hence the tribes "go up" (i>. from the Jordan Valley 
to the high ground of Central Palestine), as at the beginning of 
the Book of Joshua (5*), Judah first, to conquer their respective 
territories (i^-*-*). 

As was remarked above (p. 115), these notices display a 
strong similarity of style, and in some cases even verbal identity, 
with a series of passages, somewhat loosely attached to the 
context, preserved in the older strata of the Book of Joshua. 
Thus Jud. I*' (the Benjaminites' failure to conquer Jerusalem) 
agrees almost verbally with Josh. 15^, except that there what is 
no doubt the original reading is preserved, and the failure is 
laid to the charge, not of Benjamin, but oi Judah \ i-<«»>- lo^"!* 
agrees, in the main verbally, with Josh- 15^*"*'; i""'" with Josh. 
lyii-ij. iMwithJosh. i6*^ Most of the verbal differences are due 
simply to the different relations which the fragments hold in the 
two books to the contiguous narrative. Josh. lyi'-is (complaint 
of the "House of Joseph") and 19*^ (Dan) are very similar in 
representation (implying the separate action taken by individual 

• Comp. the Sptaktr't Cumm, ii. p. 123 1 



tribes) and in phraseology.* It can hardly be doubted that both 
Jud. I and [154] these notices in Joshua are excerpts from what 
was once a detailed survey of the conquest of Canaan : of these 
excerpts some have been fitted in with the narrative of Joshua, 
othera have been combined in Jud, i so as to form, with the 
addition of the opening words, After ike death of Joshua^ an 
introduction to the period of the Judges. The sur\'ey is in- 
complete; but the parts which remain may have stood once 
somewhat in the following order: a. (Judah and Simeon) Jud- 
i» (from ''and tJu children of Israel asked"), v.'S-f fr-T.j i».n 
(mih /udah twice for Benjamin, as Josh. \^\^io* (with 
Caleb ioT JudahW Josh. 15" (to r*i/wai), v.^*-" (-Jud i"-"j 
cf. Josh. i4»s>'.i&*-), Jud, ii»-".8«.|| ^, (Joseph) Jud. ia-s«.«T-M 
(« Josh. 17** [the names of the towns are stated here in v.*\ and 
so not repeated]"), v.» (-Josh. \€^% Josh. lyJ*-"^! 13"; 
e, (the other tribes) Jud. \^^^, Josh. 19*^** Jud. i»*.tt 

II. 2*-c 16. This, the central and principal part of the 
book, comprising the history of the Judges properly so called, 
consists essentially of a series of older narratives, fitted into a 

•Notice "Hoase of Joseph" (unusual), Josh. 17", Jud. l*"-*-"; 
"daughters" for dependent towns, Josh. 17"", Jud. i"; "tww/rf dwell," 
|osh. 17", Jud. i"-»; the •'chariots of iron," Josh, 17", Jud. l". 

t v.* agrees indifferently with the context, and is in all probability % re- 
dactional addition (Buddc ; Kittcl, Gesch. p. 241 [E.T. p. 266]; Moore). 

% V.*, which cannot be reasonably reconciled with v," {see Moore, p. 21), 
appears to be a gloss, due to a misunderstanding of v.* (cf, Buddc, pp. 4, 
8f.; Kittel, /^/Vf. f'3.}: v.* seems to be a generalizing introduction to v.^^*, 
made by the redactor; ¥,*• (contrast v." 3*, Josh. 13*) is also probably due 
to hini,— unless indeed isS ttVl "and took m^/" (cf. LX.X) be the true reading 
instead of laS'i. 

I The context (cf. v."*- **) requires the conquest to be referred to Caleb, 
not lo Judah. v.*"*" and Josh. 15** are different excerpts from the same 
common source; and in v." the redactor generalises ("yiKdiiA"; " tMey 
tmote *'). 

II Where Amorites \s probably an error for Edomites, as b l" /itf pt^pU 
(Bpn) for the AmalekiU (•pW-i) : cf. QPl^. 

IT According to Buddc [pp. 38 f., 60) 13^ was preceded in its original 
context by Nu. 32*' **- ** (which then would describe the conquest of Gilead 
from the Ww/ of Jordan). 

•* Read (as suggested by LXX) *'w<j^ too narrow for them" for "went 
out beyond them" (in for njn) : cf. 3 Ki. 6* (Heb.). 

tt Comp. Buddc, p. 84 ff. (where the passages, in somewhat different order, 
Are printed consecutively) ; Kittel, Gesck, \. 339 ff. [E.T. p. 265 ff. J. 



framework by a later editor, or redactor, aad provided by him, 
where necessary, with introductory aiid concluding comments. 
This editor, or redactor, is imbued strongly with the spirit of 
Deuteronomy. His additions exhibit a phraseology and colour- 
ing different from that of the rest of the book ; all contain the 
same recurring expressions, and many are cast in the same type 
or form of words, so that they are recognisable without difficulty. 
Thus the history of each of the six greater Judges is Btted into 
a framework as follows — the details vary slightly, but the general 
resemblance is unmistakable: 3^"" (Othniel) "And the children 
of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, . . . 
and the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and He 
sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim, . . . and they 
served Cushan-rishalhaim eight years; . . . and the children 
of Israel cried unto Jehovah, and He raised up nnto them a 
saviour, . . . and the land had rest forty years." 3^"'^° (Ehud) 
"And the children of Israel again did that which was evil in 
the sight of Jehovah, and Jehovah strengthened Eglon king of 
Moab against Israel, . , . and they ser\ed E^^lon eighteen [155] 
years; and the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, and 
Jehovah raise(? up to ihem a saviour; . . . and Moab was 
subdued, . . . and the land had rest eighty years." The scheme 
is similar in the case of Barak (4^-5^^), Gideon (6*-'; 8^), 
Jephthah (lo^-^-^*; 11^^^; 12^), Samson (13'; 15=** [twenty 
years] 1 6^^ '"'^. In all we have the same succession of apostasy, 
subjugation, the cry for help, deliverance, described often in the 
same, always in similar, phraseology. Let the reader notice 
how frequently at or near the beginning and dose of the narrative 
of each of the greater Judges the following expressions occur: 
did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah^ sold * or delivered 
Ihem into the hand of , * ., cried unto Jehovah, subdued, and the 

land had rest 

(3 . ^13. IS. &0 

^ c^llt 

gaa. ii33b. iji 16SWW), It is evident that in this 
part of the book a series of independent narratives has been 
taken by the compiler and arranged by him in a framework, 
designed with the purpose of stating the chronology of the 
period, and exhibiting a theory of the occasion and nature of 

• This figure is almost peculiar to the compiler of this book (2" 3* 4* 10' ; 
rather differently in the older nanative 4") aiid the kindred author of i Sa. 12 
(v.*) ; it is a point of contact with Dt. 32"^ (the Song). 



the work which the Judges generally were called to undertake. 
In the case of the six minor Judges (Shamgar, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, 
Elon, Abdon) detailed particulars were probably not accessible 
to the compiler ; hence the narratives are much briefer, though 
here also they show much mutual similarity of literary form 
(38I; ioi = ; 108*; 128^1% i2ii-»2; i2ia-i5). 

To this history of the Judges 2*^-3^ forms an introduction, 
the nature of which must next be examined. Is this introduction 
the work of the compiler also? In parts of it we trace his 
hand at once {2^*-^--^*; in v.'**"-^^ also notice the expressions 
raised up^ saved ^ oppressed^ comparing 3®-"j 4'; 6''; lo^--*^. 
and the general similarity of tone). But the whole cannot be 
his work : for 2** is repeated with slight verbal diflerences from 
Josh. 2428. "•»•"> (LXX: m. -.u so. si) . elsewhere also the point 
of view frequently changes^ and the details harmonize imperfectly 
with each other, authorizing the inference that he has here in- 
corporated in his work older materials. 

Thus 2" cannot b* Uie original 5e<^uel of 2""" j the fact that the Canaan- 
kes were not delivered "into the hand of Joshua" (v."), cannot be [156] a 
consequence of what happened (v.** J afitr Joskuds death. In 3*"* the ground 
for which the Canaanitcs were not driven out is that the Israelites might 
learn the art of war ; in 2" and 3^ it is that they might be tested morally^ 
that it might be seen whether they would adhere to the service of Jehovah 
or not. The list of nations in 3* i* scarcely consistent with that in 3"; the 
nations named in 3* arc just those occupying pariieular districts tn or near 
Canaan, the six named in 3* are representative of the entire population of 
Western Palestine (Ex. 33', Dt. 7' &c.: of. p. 1 19, w.). 

The oldest part of this section is, no doubt, 3^', — or rather 
its nucleus, for it has pretty clearly been expanded, — describing 
how the Israelites became trained in warfare through the in- 
habitants of particular districts continuing to dwell among or 
near them. As a whole, 2'*-3'* may be analysed as follows : — 
jft-io (repeated, except v.***, from Joshua) describes the death of 
Joshua, and the change which in the view of the compiler came 
over the nation in the following generation; 2"-'^ states the 
compilers theory of Uie period of the Judges, which he intends 
to be illustrated by the narratives following; 22***2^ deals with a 
different subject, not, as v.^*'^', the punishment of Israel for its 
apostasy by its being sold into the hand of one after another of 
the nations around it, but Jehovah's determination to spare the 
remnant of the nations in its midst^ for the purpose of testing 



its moral strength ; the sequel of 3^^ is 3***, stating how the 
Israelites intermarried with the Canaanites, and thus failed to 
endure the test. The nucleus of 3^' is the older fragment, 
enumerating the nations that were instrumental in training Israel 
in warfare ; when this, in its expanded form, was incorporated, 
2^ (attaching loosely and imperfectly to a^'-^) was prefixed as an 
introduction, 3* being appended, for the purpose of leading back 
to the general thought of 2***'^ and its sequel 3*^. 2^^'^^ 3*'* 
displays affinity with the Hexateuchal E ; 3^'', in its original 
form, was probably the continuation of I'-a*.* 

It ii not impossible that lo**", the introduction to the narrative of 
Jephthfth, which is much longer than the other introductions, may be the 
expansion of an earlier and briefer narrative allied to E (Slade, ZATIV, 
iSSi, p. 341 f.; Budde, p. 128 ; Moore), to which in particular v,"^*' (partly) 
». u-M jnay [x^] belong. The particulars in v.^"* appear to be simply 
derived from c II, the two verses being prefixed here as an introduction, 
after the notice of the Ammonites in to'* '.f That the author of c 1 1 wrote 
independently of lo"", and could not have had these verses before him, 
appears from the wording of ii^ which, as it stands, is evidently theyfrj/ 
mention of the Ammonites, and must have been differenUy expressed had 
10**" preceded. 

It is possible that tlie DeuUronomic compiler (as in view of his 
prevalent thought and tone we may now term him) was not the 
first who arranged together the separate histories of the Judges, 
but that he adopted as the basis of his work a continuous narra- 
tive, which he found ready to his hand. Some of the narratives 
are not adapted to illustrate the theory of the Judges, as ex- 
pounded in 3***^'; so, for instance, the accounts of the minor 
Judges (3"; 10^*"; 12^*^*), in which no allusion is made to the 
nation's apostasy, but which, nevertheless, as remarked above, 
are cast mainly in one and the same mould, and the narrative 
of Abimelech in c 9: a lesson is indeed deduced from the 
history of Abimelech, ^m-m-ct^ but not the lesson of 2"-". It 
is very possible, therefore, that there was a prt-DeuUronomk 
collection of histories of Judges, which the Deuteronomic compiler 
set in a new framework, embodying his theory of the history of 
the period. Perhaps one or two of the recurring phrases noted 

* So substantially Budde (see the grounds more fully in his work, pp. 
91 f., Ifdff.): »omewha^dif^crcntly Moore, p. 636". 

+ So in c. 8 the main contents of v."*** seem derived from c. g, and 
pUced where they now stand, as a Unk of oooaexioD between d 8 and c. 9. 



above, such as "subdued" (3'**; 4^j 8"; xi"), which seem 
to form a more integral part of the narratives proper than the 
rest, may mark the portions due to the pre-Deuteronomic com- 
piler. There is also a more noticeable feature of the book which 
may be rightly attributed to him. It is clear that the Judges 
were, in fact, merely local heroes ; they formed temporary heads 
in particular centres, or over particular groups of tribes— Barak 
in the north of Israel ; Gideon in the centre ; Jephthah on the 
east of Jordan; Samson in the extreme south-west. Never- 
theless, the Judges are consistently represented as exercising 
jurisdiction over Israel as a whole (3^°; 4*; 9'-; lo'-'; la'*'; 
16^^ ; and elsewhere) ; and this generalization of their position 
and influence is so associated with the individual narratives that 
it must have formed a feature in them before they came into 
the hands of the Deuteronomic compiler :. hence, if it was not 
a conception shared in common by the authors of the [158] 
separate narratives, it must be a trait due to the first compiler of 
this portion of the book. The question, however, whether the 
Deuteronomic compiler had before him a number of separate 
narratives, or a continuous work, is a subordinate one : the 
important distinction is undoubtedly that between the narratives 
generally and the framework in which they are set. 

The parts, then, of a^-c 16, which either belong wholly to 
the Deuteronomic compiler, or consist of elements which have 
been expanded or largely recast by him, are — a'*^^'^; 3*''*; 
3^-^* (almost entirely: there are no details of Othniel's judgeship 
such as constitute the narratives respecting Ehud, Barak, &c) ; 
^iMfi^sob. 4I.8. 581b. 61. 7-10. ♦ gwb (probably) 28b. 3S-S4.M (based 

on c. 9); io«-"''^^- (based on c 11); i3>; i5»; i6"^ All 
these parts are connected together by a similarity of tone and 
phraseology, which stamps them as the work of a different hand 

• Excerpted probably, to judge from the style (Budde, p. 107 f.; Moore), 
from a source akin to the Hcxatcuchal E (cf. above, p. 166). I !**■", con- 
taining the defence of Israel's title to Gilead, is considered by most recent 
critics (ns Kuenen, Wellh., Budde, Moore) to be an insertion ia the original 
narrative. It is remarkable that, while purporting to be an answer to the 
claim of the Ammonites (v."), it in reality deals wilh rsrael's relation to the 
Moabiies (v."- ", cf. v.** [Cheraosh], v.»- "). Notice that the author has con- 
structed Jephthah's message largely on the basis of J E's narrative : thus witli 
»."■"•* comp. Nu. ao'*-" 31*. «* a**. » {wheie the agreement is often 

1 68 


from that of the author (or authors) of the histories of the Judges 

III. C. 17-31. This division of the book differs again in 
character from either of the other two. It consists of two con- 
tinuous narratives, not describing the exploits of any judge, but 
relating two incidents belonging to the same period of history. 
C. 17-18 introduces us to an archaic state of Israelitish life: 
the tribe of Dan (18^) is still without a possession in Canaan: 
Micah's "house of God," with its instruments of divination, 
"the ephod and the teraphim," and its owner's satisfaction at 
securing a Levite as liis priest (17*'^^), are vividly portrayed; 
nor does any disapproval of what Micah had instituted appear to 
be entertained. The narrative as a whole exhibits the particulars 
of what is briefly stated in one of the notices mentioned p. 163, 
Josh. 19*' (cf. Jud. i^)j though the latter can scarcely be derived 
from it on account of the different orthography of the name 
Laish (Leshem, or rather, probably, Lesham). The two chapters 
contain indications which have led some to suppose that they 
have been formed by the combination of two parallel narratives. 
But [159] the inference is here a questionable one, and it is 
rejected by both Wellh. and Kuenen, who will only admit that 
in two or three places the narrative is m disorder or has suffered 

With the second narrative (c 19-21), on the other hand, 
the case appears to be different In c 20, not only does the 
description in parts appear to be in duplicate (as in v.^^" by 
the side of y.^'^^);\ but the account, as we have it, can hardly 
be historical. The figures are incredibly large : Deborah (5^) 
places the number of warriors in fnOrt Israel at not more than 
40,000 ; here 400,000 advance against 25,000 + 700 Benjaminites, 

• Wellh. Cam/, p. 232 ; Kuenen, Omlertctk, L 2 (1887), S 30. 3, 4 (sec, 
however, on the other side, Budde, p. i3Sff., Moore, p. 367 f.). The two 
chronological notes, iS"*", for instance, can hardly both be by one hand ; 
Knd had the original uajrator debited lo state the naine of t}ie Levite, he would 
almost certainly have done so where he was first mentioned, 17''*. V.* is a 
notice added by a later hand, intended to supply this deficiency. The **day 
of the captivity (properly exiU) of the Lind" can denote only the exile of the 
ten tribes in 722 B.c,— or, at least, of the N. tribes in 734 (2 K- 15=*). 

tComp, v.*^ and T.* (in each 30 Israelites smitten): v." (25,100 
Benjaminites smitten) and v.**-* { 18, 000 -1-5000 + 2000 = 2 5, ocx3 smitten): 
ihe wkoU number of Benjaminites. as stated in v.^, vros but 25jOoo-f 700. 



and the latter slay of the former on the first day 22,000, on 
the second day 18,000; on these two days not one of the 
25,000+700 of the Benjaminites falls, but on the third day 
10,000 Israelites slay 25,100 of them (20^ '* [LXX, Cod. A; 
RV, mar^.] 17. 21. xs. 84. »)_ Secondly, whereas in the rest of the 
book the tribes are represented uniformly as acting separately, 
and only combining temporarily and partially, in this narrative 
Israel is represented as entirely centralized, assembling and 
taking action as one man (30*- ^•^** similarly 21^- ^"^ ^*- "), with 
a unanimity which, in fact, was gained only — and even then 
imperfectly — after the establishment of the monarchy. This 
joint action of the " congregation " contradicts the notices of all 
except the initial stages in the conquest of Palestine, not less 
than every other picture which we possess of the condition of 
Israel during this period. TTie motives prompting the people's 
action, and the manner in which they are collected together, are 
unlike what appears in any other part of either Judges or Samuel : 
elsewhere the people are impelled to action by the initiative of 
an individual leader ; here they move, in vast numbers, auto- 
matically ; there is not even mention of tlie head, who must have 
been needful for the purpose of directing the military operations. 
[160] However keenly the rest of Israel may have felt its 
indignation aroused by the deed of Gibeah, and the readiness 
of the Benjaminites to screen the perpetrators (20'*), the com- 
bination can hardly have taken place on the scale depicted. 
Nor is there any trace either in Judges (5**; — if this incident 
(comp. 20*' *) be prior to the time of Deborah — or in Samuel — 
if it be subsequent to it — of the tribe of Benjamin having been 
reduced to one-fortieth of its numbers, or in the narrative of 
1 Sa. II of the virtual extermination (21^"^^^) of the population 
of Jabesh Gilead. 

These difficulties attach only to c 20-21, not to a 19. The 
conclusion to which they point is this, that c 20-2 1 are not 
hofHogeruous : parts are decidedly later than c. 1 9, and exhibit 
the tradition respecting the action of the Israelites against 

* Which, however, is pretty clearly a glo&s, and so no real indication of 
the period to which the incident was assigned by the original narrator. Had 
y ffjb-tiB t^cn an explanation made by the original narrator, the notice would 
almost certainly have itood in t,^, where the inquiry is mentioned for the 
6rst time. 



Benjamin in the shape which it has assumed in the course of a 
long period of oral transmission. The story of the vengeance 
taken by the Israelites against the guilty tribe offered scope for 
expansion and embellishment, as it was handed on in the mouth 
of the people; and the literary form in which we have it exhibits 
the last stage of the process. Hence the exaggeration both in 
the numbers and in the scale upon which the tribes combined 
and executed their vengeance upon Benjamin and Jabesh Gilead. 
The narrative of the outrage in c. 19 is old in style and repre- 
sentation ; it has affinities with c 17-18, and in all probability 
has come down to us with very little, if any, alteration of form. 
The narrative of the vengeance, on the contrary, in c 20, has 
been expanded ; as it was first written down, the incidents were 
simpler, and the scale on which they were represented as having 
taken place was smaller than is now the case. But the original 
narrative has been combined with the additions in such a manner 
that it cannot be disengaged with certainty, and is now, in all 
probability, as Kuenen observes, not recoverable.* In c 21 the 
narrative of the rape of the maidens at Shiloh wears the appear- 
ance [x6l] of antiquity, and stands, no doubt, on the same 
footing as c 19; v.*"^*, on the contrary^ have affinities with the 
later parts of c 20. The remark, "In those days there was no 
king in Israel," connects the two narratives of the appendix 
together ( 1 7^ ; 18^; 19^; 21^: in I7"and2i'*, with the addition, 
*' Every man did that which was right in his own eyes ") : this, 
from its character, must certainly be prc-exilic, and stamps the 
narratives of which it forms a part as pre-cxilic likewise. In 
a 19-21 the phrase belongs to that part of the narrative, which 
there are independent reasons for supposing to be earlier than 
the rest. The object of the narrative in its present form appears 
to have been to give an idea/ representation of the community 
as inspired throughout by a keen sense of right, and as acting 
harmoniously in concert for the purpose of giving effect to the 
dictates of morality. 

In the &rst and third divisions of the book no traces are to 

* Similarly Kittel, Cexh, ii. ai ; Moore, pp. 405, 408 tefi. Beithetu*a 
attempted analysis is admitted to be unsucc«»fu], being dependent upon 
insufFicicnl criteria. Another tentative solution is offered by Budde, p. 150 ff. 
(see Moore, p. 407). The p3.rts to which the difficulties Attach hare points of 
contact with P {p. 143). 



be found of the hand of the Deuteronomic redactor of the 
middle division ; there are no marks either of his distinctive 
phraseology or of his view of the history, as set forth in a"'*'. 
Hence it is probable that these divisions did not pass through 
his hand ; but were added by a later hand (or hands) after 
a*-c 16 had reached its present shape. 

On the historical value of ihe Book of Judges, rcrrrence may be made to 
an article by Prof. A. B. Davidson on Deborah in the Expcsitffr, Jon. 1887, 
pp. 48-50, who. after renurking on the diflcrcncc in point of view between 
the histories and the framework, observes that the regular movement of 
apostasy, subjugation, penitence, and deliveraace, described in the latter, is 
hardly strict history, but rather the religious philosophy of the history. " The 
author speaks of Israel as an ideal unity, and attributes to this unity defection, 
which no doubt characterized only fragments of the whole, . • . The histories 
preserved in the book arc proltably traditions preserved among the individual 
tribes. That in some instances we have duplicates exhibiting divergences in 
details is natural, and docs not detract from the general historical worth of 
the whole. The story of Deborah is given in a prose form (c, 4) as well as 
in the poem (c 5), and the divergences can be accounted for only on the 
supposition that c. 4 is an independent tradition." Thus the Song speaks of 
a combination of h'ngz of Canaan (5^), of whom Sisera Is the head — his 
mother (5*) is attended hy primtssa (not hdies^ AV. : see I Kl ll*. Is. 
49") ; c 4 speaks of Jabin, who is described as himself *' king of Canaii)/' 
reining at llazor, and of Sisera, his general. Further, while in c. 4 Deborah 
dwells at Bcihel in Ephraim, and Barak at Kedesh in Naphtali, and, in 
addition to his own tribe, summons only Zebulun (4"), in 5^* both leaders are 
brought into close coiuicxiun with Issachar, and the [x63] language employed 
creates at least the impression that they belonged to that tribe. In 5*** **• '■ 
Ephraim, Benjamin, Machir (<*./. Manasseh), and Issachar, as well as Naphtali 
and Zebulun, arc alluded to as assisting in the struggle. No doubt the points 
of agreement between the iianative and the poem are greater than the points 
of divergence ; but there is sufficient divergence to show that the narrative 
embodies a tradition which had become modified, and in parts obscured, in 
the course of oral transmi^ion. In fnct, it is not impossible that tradition (as 
is its wont) may have combined two distinct occurrences, and that, with the 
victory of Barak and Deborah over the kings of Canaan, with Sisera at their 
head, may have been intermingled elemenL^ belonging properly to an old 
Israelilish victory over Jabin, a king in the far north of Palestine, reigning at 
}Iaxor. On the narrative of Gideon (c, 6-S), comp. Wellh. Ccmp^ p. aajflC ; 
Bertheau, p. isSfT. ; Budde, p. 107 ff. ; Moore, p. 175 ff.; all of whom, 
thoi^h difiering in details of the analysis (which is admitted to be very 
difficult), agree that the narrative exhibits signs of composition. On thi 
question whether E or J is traceable in Judges, see Kuen. 8 19. 13 ; Kittel, 
St^, w. Krit. 1S92, p, 44ff., Gtsch, ii. 15-18 [E.T. 14-18] ; KOnig, Einl. 
I 51. 2*>i> ; Moore, pp. ixv-xxviii, and elsewhere (p. Index), who answers 
the question in the afiirmativc, but only in the sense (p. xxvii] that J ilikI K 



represent, "oot individual autliors, but a succession of writers, thehistorio- 
^raphf of a. certain period and school." 

§ 2. 1-2 SaMUEU 

LiTBRATURE.— Otto Tlicnius in the Kgf. Exeg, ffandh^ 1864 (in some 
r«pect$ antiquated) ; WeUhauscn, Der Text der Biicher Samue/i's, 1S71 
(important for the criticwm of the text) ; Keil, Die Biicher Samuels^* 1875 ; 
Wellhausen in B!cck*s EittUitung^ 1878, pp. 306-23 1 \.-Comp. pp. 238- 
266] ; Hist. pp. 345-272 ; A. F. Kirkpatrick in the Cambridge Bible for 
Schools and Coliegesi Aug. Klostermann in Strack and Zockler's Kg/. Kom- 
meniar^ 1887 (to be constantly distrusted in its treatment of the text); K. 
Budde, Richter u. Sam. 1890, pp. 167-276 ; and in PUupt's SBOT. 1895 ; 
S. R- Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Bocks of Samuel^ with an 
T9Urodtution on Hebrew Palacgraphy and the ancient Versions^ and foe- 
similes of inscriptions (1S90) ; T. K. Chcync, Aids to the Devottt Study of 
Criticism (1S92), pp. I-126 (on the David 'narratives) ; Kittel, Cesch. iL 
(1S92) pp. 32-4S [E.T. pp. 22-49]. 

The two Books of Samuel, like the two Books of Kings, 
formed originally a single book. The Book of Samuel and the 
Book of Kings were treated by the LXX as a complete history 
of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah ; and the work was 
divided by them into four books, termed accordingly /Jt'jSXot 
ySofftXciwr.* Tlie same division was followed by Jerome in the 
Vulgate, though for the title "Books of Kingdoms^^ he preferred 
to substitute " Books of Kings" t It hence passed generally 
into Christian Bibles, and was adopted from them in the printed 
editions of the Hebrew text, with the difference, however, that 
each pair of books retained the general title which it bore in 
[163] Hebrew MSS., and 1-4 pa<r\Xumy or Rtgum became i-a 
Samuel and 1-2 Kings, 

The Book owes its title to the circumstance that Samuel is 
the prominent figure both at its opening and for some time sub- 
sequently, and from the part taken by him in the consecration of 
both Saul and David, may be said in a measure to have deter- 
mined the history during the entire period embraced by it 

The period of history included by 1-2 Sam. begins with the 

* The case Is similar with 1-2 Chronicles, and with Ecra and Nehemiah, 
each of which originally formed in the Hebrew one book. Comp. Origen, 
ap. Euscb. vL 25. 

t See his Preface to the Books of Kings (called also the Prelogus Galeatus)^ 
printed at the beginning of ordinary editions of the Vulgate. 



circumstances leading to the birth of Samuel, and extends to the 
close of David's public life— i Kings opening with the picture 
of David lying on his deathbed, and passing at once to the 
events which resulted in the nomination of Solomon as his suc- 
cessor. The death of Saul marks the division between i and 2 
Sam. The contents of the books may i,e grouped for conV^"*^^^ 
under the four heads : i. Samuel and the establishment of tlie 
monarchy (I 1-14); 2. Saul and David (I 15-31); 3. David 
(11 1-20); 4. an appendix (II 21-24) of miscellaneous con- 
tents. The division possesses, however, only a relative value, 
the first two parts especially running into and presupposing eacli 
other. Some of the narratives contained in 1-2 Sam. point 
forwards, or backwards, to one another, and are in other ways so 
connected together as to show that they are the work of one and 
the same writer : this is not, however, the case in all ; and it will 
be the aim of the following pages to indicate, where this is 
sufficiently clear, the different elements of which the two books 
are composed. 

The reader will notice three wruhiding tummaries^ which occur in ihe 
course of the two books, I 14''''^ (Saul's wars ; his family and principal 
officer) ; II 8 (summary account of David's wars, v.*'^^, followed by a list of 
his ministers, r,^^) ; 20^'^ (list of ministers repeated, with one addition, that 
of Adoram). These sninmaries show that the narrativr to which each is 
attached has reached a deSnite halting point, and support (as will appear) 
certain inferences respecting its relation to the parts which follow^* 

I. I Sa. 1-14. Samuel and the Afitnarchy. 

(1) C 1-7. Birth and youth of Samuel, including (a^T-w 
3"*^*) the announcement of the fall of Eli's house (1*^4^); 
defeat of Israel by the Philistines : r: 'jture and restoration of 
the Ark (4^^-7*) ; Samuel's judgcp'^ip, and victory over the 
Philistines at Eben-ezer (7"*"). 

It is doubtful whether 4*''-7* was intended in the first [164] 
instance as a continuation of c i-4'*. For, whereas the general 
tenor of c i-4*' would lead us to expect the fall of Eli's house 
to be the prominent feature in the sequel, in point of fact the 
fortunes of the Ark form tlie principal topic in 4***-7^ and the 

• Corop. Wcllh. ComJ>, pp. 247, 257f.j Kuen. S 21. I. I 14*- • may 
have been expanded by a later Deuteronomic hand (cf. v.** with Jud. 2"* **, 
2 KL 17*^); but tlie entire summary will hardly be redactional« ai Budde 
(pp. 206-208} and ComiU {Eini,* § 1 7. 4] argue. 



fate of Eli and his sons is but a particular incident in the 
national disaster: thus a different interest prevails in the two 
naaatives; and c 1-4^* appears to have been written as an 
introduction to 4**'-7^ (stating particulars of the previous history 
of Eli and his sons, and accounting for the prophetical importance 
of Samuel) by a somewhat later hand 

The Song of Hannah (2''") is not early in style, and is ansuitect to 
Hannah's position : its theme is the humiliation of the lofty and the exalta- 
tion of the lowly, which is developed with no special reference to Hannsh'i 
circumstances;* and v.*** presupposes the establishment of the monarchy. 
The Song was probably composed in celebration of some national success: 
it may have been attributed to Hannah on account of v.*^. 2^-** (announce- 
ment to Eli by the unnamed prophet), which has affinities with H 7, 
must have been recast by the narrator, and in its new form coloured by 
the associations with which he was himself familiar ; for v." (like 2") 
presupposes the monarchy ("shall walk be/tfra mint anointed for ever"). 
The prophecy relates to the supersession of the priesthood of Eli's fiunily 
by that of Zadok (i Ki. 2"), which is to enjoy permanently (v.") the 
favour of the royal dynasty. In point of fact, from the time of Solomon 
onwards, Zadok's line held uninterrupted supremacy in the priesthood at 
Jerusalem. Observe that 6* alludes to the narrative of J (Ei. 8" [Hcb.*]; 
lo»VVpnn; la"). 

;*•" is a section of later origin than either c, 1-4^* or 4^**-7^ 
homogeneous (see below) with c. 8, lo^^-^"*, c, 12. Hitherto 
Samuel has appeared only as a prophet : here he is represented 
as a "judge" (ysi*'***' wn. . ^£ jj") under whom the Israelites 
are delivered from their oppressors, much in the manner of the 
deliverances recorded in the Book of Judges. The consequences 
of the victory at Eben-ezer are in 7" generalized in terms 
hardly reconcilable with the subsequent history : contrast the 
picture of the Philistines* ascendency immediately afterwards 
(io» i33i*'^&c). 

It is probable that the original sequel of 4**'-7* has here been omitted to 
make room for ^^• ; for the existing narrative does not explain (i) how the 
Philistines reached Gibcah (lo* &c.). and secured the ascendency implied 
i^iwr. . Q,. (2j i^Q^y Shiloh suddenly disappears from history, and the priest* 
hood [165] located there reappears shortly afterwards at Nob {c. 22). That 
some signal disaster befell Shiloh may be inferred with certainty from the 
allusion in Jcr. 7" 26* (comp. Ps. 78*'; and Cheyne, Jtrtmiah^ his lift and 
times, p. 117). 

• It differs in this respect from the J/^^/jrf^a/ (see v.* of this, Luke 1*), 
which is sometimes quoted as parallel 



(z) C. 8-14. Circumstances leading to the appointment of 
Saul as king (c. 8-1 z); Saul's measures of defence against the 
Philistines; Jonathan's exploit at Michmash (13^-14*^); summary 
of Saul's wars, and notice of his family (14*'^**''). 

C S-12 are formed by the combination of two independent'^ 
narratives of the manner in which Saul became king, tliffering in 
their representation both of Samuel and of his relation to Saul. 
The older narrative comprises 9^-10^*; lo*'^ [as in LXX: see 
RV. marg^\ |,Mi. 15 (nomination of Saul as king by Samuel ; 
his success against Nahash king of Ammon, and coronation by 
the people at Gilgal), of which the continuation is c 13-14. 
The other and later narrative consists of c. 8 (request of the 
people for a king) ; lo"--''' (election of Saul by lot at Mizpah ) ; 
c 12 (Samuel's farewell address to the people). In the older 
narrative Samuel the seer, famous in a particular district, anoints 
Saul in accordance witli Jehovah's instruction, in order that 
Israel may have a leader to deliver it from the Philistine yoke 
(9"), inspiring him at the same time to do "as his hand shall 
find" (10^) when occasion arises. The occasion comes in the 
peril to which Jabesh of Gilead a month (lo*^** LXX) afterwards 
is exposed. Saul rescues it successfully (11'*^'); and Samuel's 
choice is confirmed by the people with acclamation (n"). In 
i^2.Tft.iBb_j^4e Saul fulfils the object of his nomination by his 
successes against the Philistines \ and 14*^-^ closes the narrative. 
C II does not appear to presuppose the election of Saul by 
the people, lo^^'-"*. The messengers of Jabesh do not come 
to Gibeah (v.*) on Saul's account : Saul only hears the tidings 
accidentally upon his return from the field; and in what follows 
he acts, not in virtue of an office publicly conferred upon him, 
but in virtue of the impulse seizing him (v.*') ; whereupon, 
mindful of Samuel's injunction to **do as his hand shall find," 
he assumes the command of the people (on ii'\ see below). 
Throughout this narrative, also, the appointment of Saul is 
regarded favourably (see especially 9"^); nor is there any 
indication of reluctance on Samuel's part to see the monarchy 

[x66] On the other hand, in the other narrative, in which this 
older account is incorporated, the point of view is different. 
Samuel exercises the functions, not of a seer or prophet, but of 
* So Budde, p. 174, &c, ftgaiiist Wellb., Sude, and Koeaen. 



a judge, in agreement with the representation of y-"- ; and he 
rules the people in Jehovah's name (S^^). The proposal for a 
king originates with the people ; and the request addressed to 
Samuel is based, not on the need of deliverance from foreign 
foes, but on the injustice of Samuel's sons in their capacity as 
their father's deputies, and on the desire of the people to have 
the same visible head as other nations (8^**). The request is 
viewed with disfavour by Samuel, and treated as a renunciation 
of Jehovah. He seeks to dissuade the people from persistmg 
in it, by enumerating to them the exactions which their king 
will impose upon them, and yields in the end unwillingly (S**'^). 
The same tone prevails in lo^^-^* and in the farewell address. 
of Samuel c. 12 (v.^^-"-!^). It is not, of course, necessary to 
suppose that this narrative is destitute of historical foundation ; 
but the emphasis laid in it upon aspects on which the other 
narrative is silent, and the difference of tone pervading it, show 
not the less clearly that it is the work of a different hand 11", 
in which the ceremony at Gilgal is viewed as a renewal of the 
kingdom, is probably a redactional adjustment, made for the 
purpose of harmonizing the two narratives ; for in 1 1^^^*, as said 
above, Saul does not appear to act as one already recognised 
as king. Perhaps ii*^* are inserted likewise; but the precise 
relation of these verses to lo'^'-^'^* is uncertain. The notice 
^2b^ iQMb j^^ heexi introduced in otte of these passages from 
the other. The second narrative is in style and character homo- 
geneous with 7****, and with this may be regarded in a sense as 
forming the conclusion to the history of the Judges contained in 
Jud. 2''-a 16. In both the general point of view is similar: 
Israel's apostasy and obedience are contrasted in similar terms j 
and the task of delivering Israel from the Philistines, "begun" 
(Jud. 13*) by Samson, is continued under Samuel (7"^"^; 
cf. 12"). 

In the older narrative, lo" and 13'^*** are held by many to be sabse- 
quenl insertions. The grounds for this opinion (which are based chiefly upon 
the imperfect connexion of the two passages with iheir context) may be seen 
in Wcllh. Hist. 257 f j Buddc, pp. 191-193. According to the intention ol 
the insertion, the meeting of Samuel and Saul related in it is the first artei 
lo" : I167I hence if is eailicr than 1 1'"* (if not than il"** as well), «.*, emrlicf 
ihaji the union of the two accounts of Saul's elevation to the throne. 

The earlier narrative is an example of the best style of 



Hebrew historiography : the scenes are brought vividly before 
the reader, and are full of minute incident* The later narrative 
has been usually regarded as Deuteronomic ; but the Deutero- 
nomic style is by no means so pronounced as in the case of 
the framework of Judges and Kings, Budde (p. 180 ff.) has 
pointed out that it presents noticeable affinities with E, and has 
made it probable that it is a /r<f-Deuteronomic work, which in 
parts hai been expanded by a subsequent editor. 

Stylistically, the following features, connecting the diSerent parts of the 
lumtive with each others or with E and Jud^^cs, deserve notice : — 

7* 12*' *• with all your heart [in Dt. always '* with all your heart, and 

with atlyottr w«/"]. 
T" put away tht strange ^iwEr : Gen. 35* (of. v.*), Josh. 241*- " (c£ v."), 

Jud. 10". 
T* prepare your hearts unto JekovoA I Josh. 24* ("incline"). 
7* 12" £aai and 'Ashtoreth : Jud. a" 3' (the 'Asherahs) ic/, 
7* \2^- ^ pray for you : cf. Gen. 20^* ". Nu. 1 1* 2i\ 
7* 12" we have sinned: f cf. Jud. 10** (nolice the whole v.) *•. 
7« cry and save : Jud 3* to**- " {ery also 3" 6*" ', I Sa. I2*- *•). 
I^tobe stihdueJ {V33:) : Jud. 3» 4" (VJ^n) 8" 1 1». 
7" \-^ the hand of J. was a^aittst them: Jud. 2**, Dt. 2" a/. 
7*^ Amorite, of the non-Israelite inhabitants of W. Palestine (p^ '19)' 

gTb iqW ,3iib. jTb. wb (Jehovah the nation's king). 

8* to forsake JihtK-aH^ and servt other godsi Josh. 24** (cf. v."), Jud. 

10"; cf. c I2'«, Jud 2»»- " 10". 
gii j2» (vhomye have chosen). 

10**, Jud, 6** lo*"- : \rh to oppress also Jud. 2" 4' ; and Ex. f (E). 
l^** pt csent yourseh/es (airwi) before Jehovah : Josh. 24'. 
12*' • (allusion to Moses and the exodus) : cf. Josh. 24*"*- ". 
12* W(/: Jud. 2" 3' 4" lo*. 
[168] 12" enemies on every side (3'3DD): DL I2» 25" Josh. 25* (D*), Jud. 
2" 8»* ; cf. Josh. 2l*« («» (also D=). 
Ijii. M to fear attd serve Jehovah : Josh. 24**, 
12" do before your eyes: DL l** 4"*' 29", Josh. 24"*. 
l2*'Sn'7'Sn: cf. Josh. 24". 

* It contains several somewhat remarkable and unusual words : 9^ hin and 

ic^ ^hn = toa^ivaneei I3« fr"a ; 


v." LX.X {Stiorpujirav) nan 

n-npn ; v. 

14^ 1V1 ; T.'TKys ; v.*' rroy. Peculiar to this narrative also is the title Tii 
leader or priwe 9" 10* (so 13** and subsequently [below, p. 184]). In the 
other narrative hinx is the terra always cmploycd. 

t The argument from style is cumulative : hence expressions which, if 
they stood alone, would have no appreciable weight, may help to support 
an inference, when they are combined with others pointing in the same 


The amiUrities, partly with E (esp. JaOi. 24)^ partly with the redaction o| 
Judges, are evident. The entire phenomena appear to be best explained by 
the Kuppo&itJon that the basis con&i&ts of a narrative allied to that of £,* 
which was afterwards expanded, csp. in 13***, by a writer whose styte and 
point of view were similar to those of Dt. and the compiler of the Book of 
Judges. To this second writer may be attributed the strai^ mention of 
Samuel by himself in 12", and the notice in 12** of Nahash, derived, indeed, 
from c. II, but so applied as Co conflict with the representation in 8^*. The 
original nanatiTet may be an excerpt from the same source as Jud. 6^'" 
10**** (pp. 166, 167 n,)t which perhaps carried on the history of E to the 
time of Samuel. Graf pointed out the resemblance of i Sa. 12 to Josh. 24; 
and remarked that the discourw in the one seems "to close the history of the 
Juf^ei, as the discourse in the other closes that of the conquest of Palestine " 
{GescJk, ^. p. 97: cf. Del. Gen. p. 33), That this narrative — or at least the 
representation contained in it — was known to Jeremiah may be certainly 
inferred from Jer. 15^ ; for it is only here (and not in the other narrative of 
Saul's appointment as king) that mention is made of Samuel as iHttrctding for 
the people (Comill, af. Budde, p. 178}. 

IL C 15-31. Saul and David, 

(i) C 15-18. Rejection of Saul. Introduction of David to 
the history. Saul's jealousy aroused by his successes against the 

C. 1 5 (Saul and Amalek) was evidently not written originally 
in continuation of c. 14: for (1) it would be out of place after 
the narrator of c. 14 had finished his account of Saul^s reign 
(v.*'""); (2) the style and representation differ. 

In c. 14, for instance, the history is narrated, so to say, objectively : Amalek, 
V.*, is smitten (it is implied) brecause they spoiled the IsraeUtes: here a 
theoretical moiivi is assigned for the expedition, r.*- *, and supreme im- 
portance is attached to ihtpriniipU actuating Saul in his conduct of it (v.^^) : 
the circumstances, also, of Saul's rejection are so told as to inculcate at the 
same time the prophetic lesson (Jer. 7"'**) that Jehovah demands obedience 
in preference to sacrifice. Of course, the fact that the history is thus told 
with a purpose does not inralidate its general truth : " that Saul actually 
smote the Amolekites, and that Samuel actually slew Agag at Gilgal before 
Jehovah, are historical fitcts, which no ground exists for calling in question " 
(Wellh. Ccmp. p. 249). 

C 15 holds, in fact, an intermediate position between the two 
[169] currents of narrative 9^ &c. and c. 8 &a ; it presupposes the 

* Bat hardly written by the same hand : see Kittel, St. u. Krit. 1S92, 
pp. 66, 71, GtxK ii. 25-2S ; and cf. above, pp- 171 bottom, 172 top, 

t Which, especially in the view taken Id il of the monarchy, preseati 
fcffinitUa with HQ54a (Buddc, pw 184 f.)- 


(ior T,^ points hack to lo^, and a phase in v.>* appears 
to be borrowed from i4''X t''' apprannates in its prophetic 
tone to tbe lattc* Its mntegts acbpt it lor die positioo vluds 
it now holds in the book, ^^Ber tibe fionnl dose of the fasstoiy of 
Saul's reagn, 14*^-", and ii^brr the introdoction ai David : note 
in paiticalar r.^, which nplaiiw how, in what foOowi^ Dafid is 
the^prindpa] figure even duriz^ the lifetime of SauL 

lo c 1 6-iS there are fmQ accounts of David's introduction to 
the history. Aoootding to one account, id^**^, he is of mature 
age, "a man of war, and dever in speech [#r in business],* on 
account of his skill with the harp brooght into SauVs service 
at the time of the king's mental distress, and quickly appointed 
his armoor-bearer (v.^*-^). According to the other account, 
lyt-igs, he is a shepherd lad, inexperienced in warfare, who 
first attracts the king's attention by an act of heroism agairxst 
the Philistines: in this account, moreover, the inquiry lyS*^ 
comes strangely from one who, according to le''^**, had not 
merely been told who his father was, but had manifested a 
marked affection for David, and had repeatedly been waited on 
by him (v."*").! Allusions to David's exploit against Goliath 
occur, however, in subsequent parts of the narrative (see 19* ii* 
[Heb. '**] ji^^**-"); so that the victory over Goliath must have 
formed a prominent element in the popular tradition respecting 
David, J and it is only the literary form in which 17^1 8* here 
appears, and its collision with i6"-'', which forbid the supposi- 
tion that it was written originally for the place which it now 
occupies. But that the following section must from the first 
have been preceded by som£ account of David's military prowess 
is evident from 18^, which implies that he had achieved some 
success (or successes) against the Philistines. 

In the section 17^-18* the genuine text of LXX (cod Vtt.) omits [170] 
Y is-tL 41. m. >*_igt. By the omission of these verses the elements which conflict 

* Budde (ppL 18S-191) treats it definitely as the sequel of I la. 

t Contrast also 18^ ("did not let him go back") with 16"'"; and obccrva 
that the terms of 17^ introduce David as a ruw character in the hbtoiy 
(comp. 9'; 25*; I Ki. II**). The latter drcumstance shows, further^ that 
l6*-*» (David anointed at Bethlehem) and 17^1 8» do not both belong to the 
same stratum of narrative. 

^ It is remarkable that in II 21" Goliath is stated to have been ilaln b^ 
SihoHan of Bethlehem (the text of 1 Ch. 20* is plainly leas original). 


with 1 6^*** are greatly reduced (e.g. David is no longer represented as ttnjtnffwt$ 
to Saul), but they are not icmoved altogether (comp. ij**- »w. ^^ jgiB, abj^ 
It is doubtful, therefore, whether the text of LXX is here really to be pre- 
ferred to the Hcb. : Wcllli, {Comp. 250), Kucncn [Ondtft, § 23. 7), and Budde 
(p. 213 f.) agree that either the translators, or, as Kuenen supposes, the 
scribe of the MS. used by ihem, omitted the verses in question from harmon- 
iiUc motives, without, however, entirely securing the end desired; on the other 
hand, W, R. Smith, OTJC.^ pp. 120 fil, 431 ff., and Cornill, Einl. % 17. 5, 
maintain the superior originality of the LXX text. It is to be observed thai 
ihe covenant with Jouatlian, i8', Is prcsuppu»eU by 20*. The verses 17^ ^ 
liave probably bcea modiAcd in form, for the purpose of harmonizing the 
representation with that of 16'**". 

In i8*"** (Saul's growing jealousy of David), the continuation of 16**** 
(the evil spirit vexing Saul), there are again considerable omissions in LXX 
(cod. Vat), the text of LXX reading as follows : — v.*** (And women dancing 
came forth out of all the cities to meet David wit^i timbrels, with joy, &c. ), 
'• ■* (to but thoutandi\ • [sec Swcte], '*» (And Saul was afraid of David), "-"• 
*>•'!• {to a^insl Mm), *2-m» ^(q son'in'iixtv)^ "'S** (reading in v."^ " and that 
a// ftrael loved him")- I'l tliis instance it is generally admitted tliat the LXX 
text deserves the preference ; the sequence of events is clearer, and the stages 
in the gradual growth of Saul's enmity towards David are distinctly marked 
(comp. v,*"*- '*^- » 19*). See Kirkpitrick on I Samuel, p. 242; Ol'JC* 
p. 122 f, ; or the writer's Notes on Samuti^ p. I2I : on Uie other liaud, Buddc, 
p. 217 fT, prefers the Hcb. text. 

(2) C. 19-23. David finds himself obliged to flee from SauL 
He visits Samuel at Kamah (19^^*-*), learns through Jonatlian 
that Saul's enmity towards him is confirmed (c. ao), and repairs 
in consequence first to Abimelech at Nob, then to Achiah at 
Cath (c. 31), and fiiially takes refuge iu the cave of Adullam 
(c. 2 a). 

19***'* U parallel with lo^****. Two explanations must have been current 
respecting the origin of the proverb, Is Saul also among the prophets? both, 
however, bringing the incident into connexion with Sa»uu/. The account 
here cannot be by the same hand as that in to^'^^, though both were deemed 
worthy of retention by the compiler of the book. C. 20 has been supposed 
(0 be a doublet to 19^'^ partly on account of some resemblance in the situa- 
tion (19^** and 20*''"** "• **), partly on account of tbc apparcut incompalibilily 
of David's uncertainty as to Saul's feeling towatds him willi tlie JccI^iumJ 
hostility of 19'* ^*'* The resemblance is, however, very partial ; and Saul's 
Attitude was probably apt to fluctuate from day to cby with hia changeful 
tempet (comp. 19**- after v,*). 

(3) C. 33-26. David as an outlaw: (a) at Keilah (23^'^'); 
(3) in the wilderness of Ziph (23^****); (r) in En-gedi, where he 
cuts off Saul's skirt in the cave (c. 24) ; {d) in Carmel (David 



and Nabal) (c 25) ; (e) in the wilderness of Ziph again, where he 
steals by night Saul's spear and cruse of water (c 26), C 34 [171] 
and c 36 recount two anecdotes of David's outlaw Hfe. It is, 
however, a question whether the two uarratlves really relate to 
two different occasions, and whether they are not rather merely 
different versions of the same occurrence. There are remarkable 
resemblances between the two accounts ; and though there are 
also differences of detail, these are hardly greater than might 
have grown up in a story current among the people for some 
time before it was committed to writing. If the occasion in 
c 36 is a different one from that in c 24, it is singular that it 
contains no allusion, on either David's part or Saul's, to David's 
having spared Saul's life, under similar circumstances, before. 

As regards the resemblances between the two accountSi compare 36* and 
33" ; 26» and 24* ; 26* and 24'- ^ ; 26«^ "* and 24»* "•> j 26" and 24'* 
("Is this thy voice, my son David?"); 26" and 24'- "; 26^"* and 24* 
(Saul adjured not to listen to men who may have calumniated Da\id) ; 26"* 
and 24" ; 26»> and 24" ; 26* and 24"'- ^ ; 26»* and 24"<- ; 26»* and 24". 
By those who hold the two narratives to be different versions of the same 
event, that in c 26 is generally considered to be the earlier and the more 
original (notice the antique conception underlying 26'* ; and in 24""" the 
more explicit terms of Saul's answer as compared with 26"* *) : otherwise, 
however, Budde, p. 22S f. 

(4) C. 27-31. David seeks refuge in the country of the 
Philistines with Achish (c. 27). The Philistines resolve to 
attack Israel (28^^-). Saul consults the witch at Endor (28^^). 
David is dismissed by Achish on account of the suspicions of 
the Philistine lords (c 29). His vengeance on the Amalekites 
who had smitten Ziklag (c 30). Death of Saul and Jonathan on 
Mount Gilboa (c. 31}. 

a8"- attaches immediately to c. 27» and is continued by c. 29-31, 28*"" 
appears to have been misplaced. 28^ the Philistines have advanced to 
Shunem (in the plain of Jezreel) ; 29* they are still at Aphek, io the Sharon 
(Josh, la" LXX, Dillm.i G. A. Smith, PEFQuSt. 1895, p, 252 f., Geojr,:* 
pL 675), and only reach Jczrecl in 29'^ Thus ilic situatinn in 28* anticipuics 
c. 29-30, The narrative will be in its right order if 28''" be read after 
c 29-30. 28*-* is treated by Wellh. {Hist. pp. 25S-262) as belonging to 
the same stratum of narrative as c. 15 : Budde (pp. 233-235) points out the 
resemblances in style and representation with 1 9^10" 5ic. . and regards v."'"* 
(to Pkilistings\ which is the passage connecting it with c 15, as a later 
amplification of the original text 

• Where, however, my lift should probobly be read with LXX for «/!ra. 



III. 2 Sa. i-ao. David. 

(i) C. 1-8. Lament of David over Saul and Jonathan (c i). 
David is made king at Hebron over Judah, and subsequently, 
after the murder of Ishbosheth, over all Israel (c. 2-5*). [172] 
Capture of the stronghold of Jebus, which David henceforth makes 
his residence (5*"^*). Successes against the Philistines (5*'^*'*). 
The removal of the Ark to the *' city of David " (c 6). The 
prophecy of Nathan (7''^^, arising out of David's desire to build 
a Temple for the Ark, with David's prayer consequent upon it 
(7^^). Summary of David's wars, and list of his ministers (c. 8). 

The thread of the history is here carried forwajd without Lnterniption» 
Only the notices in a**"'" »re, probalOy, later insertions: for v.*** is the 
natural sequel of t.*, and v." of r.'*. And 5"'" can scarcely have been 
written originaJly as the sequel of 5**^' ; for were the entire ch. a continuous 
narrative, ** the hold " {."niscn) of v," (cf. 23^*) could hardly denote any other 
spot than " the hold '* fsame word) of v.* (?.*, Zion), which, nevertheless, is 
evidently not the cast VJ^ is the natural sequel of v."* : it is conjectured 
plausibly by fiudde (p. 343) that the original place of j*"" was between 6' 
and 6". 

C. 8 marks a break in the book, and closes the chief account 
of David's puMk doings. It should be compared with the con- 
clusion of the history of Saul's reign, I 14**'**. In some respects 
it anticipates what follows, just as that does (Amaiek, c. 15), 
comp. v.'' '• " (Ammon), with c. 10-12. The oldest narrative of 
the two reigns is constructed upon a similar model. First is 
described the manner in which Saul and David respectively reach 
the throne ; then their accomplishment of the military task in 
the first instance entrusted to them (I 9^*; II 3" 19®): then 
follows a survey of other memorable achievements ; and so the 
history is concluded. 

(a) C. 9-20 [of which i KL i-a is the continuation]. History 
of events in David's court-Xiiey showing how Amnon, Absalom, 
and Adonijah failed in turn to secure the succession to the 
throne : viz. the fi-iendly regard shown by David to Jonathan's 
son, Mephibosheth (c 9) ; the war with Ammon ; David and 
Bathsheba; the birth of Solomon (c 10-12); Amnon's rape of 
his half-sister Tamar, and his murder by order of Absalom 
(c 13) ; the rebellion and death of Absalom (c 14-19) ; the 
revolt of Sheba (20^'") (an incident springing out of the revolt 
of Absalom); list of David's ministers (20-''**), 




The parts of this narrative are mutually connected together, 
and are marked by unity of plan : thus c 9 is required for the 
purpose of explaining the notices i6^-* jg-*-^ (see 9*°), and [173] 
17*^ (see 9*) ; the account of the war with Ammon is needed for 
the purpose of showing how David became acquainted with 
Bathsheba, the future mother of Solomon ; the following chapters 
describe in detail how one after another of Solomon's elder 
brothers failed to obtain the throne. The abundance and 
particularity of detail show that the narrative must date from 
a period very little later than that of the events related. The 
style is singularly bright, flowing, and picturesque. 

rV. C, 21-24. An appendix to the main narrative of the 
book, of miscellaneous contents : viz. {a) the famine in Israe 
stopped through the sacrifice of the sons of Saul by the 
Gibeonitcs (21^'") ; (^) exploits against the Philistines (a 1 1*"**) t 
(^) David's Hymn of Triumph (c 22 = Ps. x8) ; {(f) David's 
"Last Words" (23**''); (^) further exploits against the Philis- 
tines, and list of David's heroes (23*^) ; (/) David's census of 
the people (c. 34). 

Here a and /are in style and m&nner closely related (24' Is evidently the 
leqael to 21^*" : comp. also 21'*'' 24"), as are also d and e. The four chapters 
interrupt the continuoiu narrative, c. 9-20. I Ki. 1-2 ; whence it may be 
inferred that they were placed where they now stand af/tr the separation bad 
been effected between the Books of Samuel and Kings. The sources made 
use of by the compiler exhibit no affinity with c 9-20. I K. 1-2. The list of 
heroes (like the previous lists, 3*** 5^*"** 8"*^ &c.) may be derived from the 
register of the '* recorder " (8^^) ; c£ below, p. 187. 

Looking at 1-2 Sa. as a whole, relatively the latest passages 
will be Hannah's Song, and I 2^-^ ^^c. 8. lo^-^Ta jjii <,. 12. 
c 15. II 7, most of which, in their present form, have same 
afHiuties in thought and expression with Dt, though decidedly less 
marked than those observable in the redaction of Kings, so that 
— except in so far as I 7. 8. 12 may have been in parts expanded 
by a Deuteronomic hand— they will be /rtf-Deuteronomic, and 
hardly later than c, 700 B.C. The rest, it is plain, is not 
throughout the work of one hand, or written una tenort (cf. 
what was said above on I 1-4^* ; i7'-i8'^ ; 19"'" ; c. 24 and 26 ; 
n 5""^): but in all probability it is mostly earlier than the 
passages just quoted, and in some parts (esp. II 9-20) nearly 
contemporary with the events recorded. The most considerable 



part which appears plainly to be the work of a single author, 
is II 9-20 : many parts of the preceding history of Dand 
(I 15-II 5), especially those which, as Wellh. has shown, are 
mutually connected together,* [174] and form a continuous 
thread, are also, probably, by the same hand, though whether 
by the same as II 9-20, must remain here undetermined 

Budde (in Haupc's SSOT)ih\is connects together, and auributes 10 ihc 
oldest Bourcc,t 1 Sa. ^'-lo^ lo***'^ il»-»- "*" 13*-^- »«-»•• » h'-*- " (6»*-a 
l8** •(partly), '""• "*"*■ *'** 2o'*** ""■»• *"• [21* H.] aa''** *-^^ "■^*- •*-" 23^****- 

c 25, 27. 28'-* c. 29-3a 28*-"- *"^"c. 31. a Sa. i 

1-4. U-W. 17- 

2|Ifr-0 2t"'I>> ITfr-n. a-nm 51 rf. U. Sk »-» gS-S gT>10. H-lte ^1 

t 2-4- 5' 

ju-iigii-Uc. 24, 2i»->^»-«-»-"c ^11. i2i-T^»b.i*^c. 13-19. 20i-»; cf. the 

criticism of Stadc, TA, Lit.-Zeit. 1896, No. I. 

There are a certain number of expressions which occur frequently in i-a 
Sa.; but some ore evidently coUoqoialisms, and many occur likewise in the 
nariative parts of Jud. Kgs., so that ihey appear to have formed part of the 
phraseology current at the time, and their use does not imply necessarily 
identity of author. The following are the most noticeable : — 

1, As thy soul liveth : I i" 17", 11 il" 1 4'* : preceded by As Jtkffvah 

Hv€th I 20» 2S» 2 Kj. a»- *• • 4*.? 
a. St^z '33 : Dt. 13", Jud. 19" 2o'» I i" (VjrVa fo) a» 10" 25", i Ki. 
ai»- ", a Ch. 13': Sr^3 (V3«) p*i*, I as" 3o?», II ifi' 30*, 1 Ki 
3. Jtktfvak of Hosts : I !•• " 4* is» 17*, II 5" ('« «nS»t •^-) 6»- « 7i. »• » 
I KL iS" 19^*- ". 2 Ki 3" I9»U = I»- 37"]- (AU in Gen.-Kings. 
Often in the prophets, except Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Ezekiel.) 
S» may God do {to ma) and mors also : I 3" 14" 20^ 25", II 3^' " 
19'*, I Ki. a'*, 2 KL 6'\ Ru. i" : with a plnr. verb {in the mouth 
ofanon-Israelilc), i Ki. 19*20".! 

5. From Dan even to Beirsheba: I 3" II 3" 1 7" 24**", Jud. ao' 
(. . . po'')' ' Ki. 4*. From B. even to Dan j 1 Ch. ai', 2 Ch. 


6. Prince or leader (tj3), of the chief ruler of Israel : I 9'* itf 13" 25", 
U 5" 6" 7\ I Ki. i» 14' i6«. 2 Ki. 20». (All in Gen.-Kings.) 

7. l6s /tf come mightily (of a spirit) : I lO**" ll* 16" 18" (of an evil 
^rit),Jud. I4«-"I5'' 

8. At Jthcvah liveth : I 14' 

Not so elsewhere. 
« I9« 2o»- " 25"' »« 26»- " 28W 29», n 3" 

{God\ 4» I3» 14" 15" (aa**), l Ki. 1" {followed by who redeemed 

it. 4. < ,14 .so rlS. N 

my soul, OS II 4») 2»* I7>- " i8»«- " 22>*U» a Ki. a- *• • 3" 4"" 5* 
(All in the hist, books. In the Pent, only As I live thrice : No. 
l4«-» [MM 'n], Dt, 32* ['3W »n].) 

* Cf. e.i. I igT 29» ; 18**- " (LXX), II 3" ; «a«^ 23"- ; 23* jrf, II a» 
5" ; I as"- 30**' i 27» 30». 

t Though whether this source is rightly identified with J is very question- 
able : the present writer agrees here with Kittel, St. «. JCrit, 1892, p. 61 £ 

1-2 KINGS 


9. Blessfdh ihou (yr) of J, : I 15" 23", TI 3*, Ruth 3". Only Ps. 115" 
besides ; bin cf- Jud. 17*, Ru. 2*. 

10. ore to spread ntti, difity : I 23" r^^ *• 30** ", Jud. 9"- ** tcP, (AH 

in Geo. -Kings.) 

11. Tpa pnro : I 25=°- ", i Ki. 14" 16" 31*^, 3 Ki. 9".t 

Peculiar, or nearly so, to 1-2 Sa, arc— ^nit (I 4' 10" 14^ 19^ 11 5*. 
The usnal form is Son).— irK-i Sf .-tciir (I4", 11 1' 15"!).— -cin frn to {I 4»«, 
11 i*t).— p3T "ipi ''SijTD .TTM ^i•(l) r'HD {I 15" 2a^*t).— jfcr in the /i>/=to 
summon (I 15* 23't).— o'?yj'tf«/^i the masc. of -loSy (I i7« 20"!). — HaUttf^f 
/tkovah [175] (I 18" 25* ; rather differccliy Nu. 2i"t).— iS mr mS* Mtd not 
reptai a to him (I 26\ II 20^'*|). — The comparison to an aM^tf/^6W (1 39*, II 
14"- » I9"f ).— p "vm 'm as a link of UansJiioa (II a* 8* 10* 13* 21** ; rather 
differently I 24'. Never in Hex.: in Jud. only 16^ ; in Ki. only II 6'*). — 
beliy (II 2* -f 4* [not LXX] so^^t)-— ""^ '" ^^* "''^n to gift food to, 
food {II 3" 12" I3*"'' **. An uncommon word : elsewhere only In the 
/«/, Lam. 4" ; and nru/flw/, Ps. 69*"). 

§ 3. 1-j Kings. 

Literature.— K. C W. F. Bahr in Lange's BiUhptrX^ rS68 ; Otto 
Thenius in the Kgf, Exeg- Handb.'* 1873 ; C. F. Kcil,' 1876 ; Wellhauscn in 
Bleek's EinL (1878} pp. 231-266 \~Comp. pp. 266-302, 359-361]; Hist. 
p» 372 R ; Stade, Der tejct dti Benchfs uhtr Salomons Bauten in the ZA TW, 
1S83, pp. 129-177 (important: see the cliief results in QFB,*; also Slade's 
{*esch. /st\ i. pp. 311-343, with illustrations); ih. 18S4, p. 271 ff.; 1SS5, 
pp. 165 ff., 17S, 275 ff.j r886, p. 156 ff. (on other passages of Kings); 
KJofitermann (see p. 172. with the caution) ; Kiltel, Gesch, ii. pp. 45 ff., 177 ff.; 
F. W. Fanrar (in the " Expositor*» Bible "}, 1893-4. 

The two Books of Kings embrace the history of Israel from 
the period of David's nomination of Solomon as his successor, 
consequent upon the rebellion of Adonijah, to the rslease of 
Jehoiachin from prison in Babylon by Evil-merodach, 562 b.c. 
The structure of the two books is essentially similar to that of 
the central part of the Book of Judges : materials derived from 
older sources have been arranged together, and sometimes ex 
panded at the same time, in a framework supplied by the com- 
piler. The framework of the compiler is in general readily 
distinguishable. It comprises the chronological details, refer- 
ences to authorities, and judgments on the character of the 
various kings, especially with reference to their attitude to the 
worship at the high places, — all cast in the same literary muuld, 
and marked by the same characteristic phraseology. Roth in 
point of view and in phraseology, the compiler shows himself lo 
be strongly influenced by Deuteronomy. 



The Books of Kings may be treated conveniently in three 
parts: — (i) I i-ii Sohmon\ (2) I 12-II 17 Israel and /udah; 
(3) II 18-^25 JuJah. Each part shows abundant marks of the 
compiler's hand ; but the scheme or plan of his work, from the 
nature of the casCj is most evident in the second part, where the 
compiler has to arrange and bring into mutual relation with one 
another the successive reigns in the two contemporary kingdoms. 
[176] For each reign he adopts an introductory and concluding 
formula, couched in similar terms throughout, between which 
are described the events belonging to the reign in question, only 
very rarely an isolated notice being allowed to appear after the 
dosing formula (I 16'' II 15''; cf. 24'). 

These formulse arc loo well known to need qiiMatlon. The opening 
formula, in the case of the kings of Judah {e.g. I is***], consists of two 
sentences, the first defining the synchronism with the kingdom of I&rael, the 
second staling the age, the length of reign, and the name of Uie king's 
mother. In the case of the kings of Israel {i.g. I 15*), it consist* usually 
of a single sentence, in which the synchronism with the kingdom of Judah 
and the length of reign are alone stated. The closing formula for the kings 
of Judah {e.g. II 8®**) consists of two sentences, the first containing the 
compiler's reference to his source, the second — rarely separated from the first 
by an intervening notice (I 14* 15'* ***" 22""**, II 15"') — mentioning the death 
and burial of the king, and the n^mc of his successor. In the case of the 
kings of Israel {e.g. \ 16*"*) the formula is similar, except thai the words 
'* WM bviried with his fathers" are never used. Slight deviations firom these 
fnrmulse occasionally occur, arising mostly out of tlie circumstances of ttie 
caiie: thus tlie clause ''and slept with his fathers " is omitted in the case of 
those kings who came to a violent end, II 12'* \4^ 21" 23**. The repetition 
of the clf>sing formula in the case of Jehoash II 13**" 14*"' is nn doubt the 
result of some error : its position in I3***-, immediately afler the opening 
formula (v. *•*•). is contrary to analogy. 

'V\\c Judgments on the several kings ("And he did that which was right — 
or that which was evil — in the ej'cs of Jehovah "; in tlie case of Israel, always 
"that wluch was evil") usually fuUow the upctiing formula, and ore mostly 
confined to a single verse (as I 15'*). Occasionally, however, they arc longer, 
and embrace fuller particulars (as I H***** 15""" 16*^*, 11 16^*^). 

The Book of Kings diiTers from all the preceding historical 
books, in the fact that the compiler refers habitually to certain 
authorities for partiiiilars not contained in his own work. These 
authorities are (i) for the reign of Solomon, the "Book of the 
acts of Solomon " (i Ki. 11*^); (2) for the Northern kingdom, 
the *' Rook of the chronicles of tlic kings of Israel '* ( 1 7 times— 
foi all llic kings cxtcpt Jchoram and Hoshea) ; (3) for the 

1-2 KINGS 


Southern kmgdom, the "Book of the chronicles of the kings of 
Judah" (15 times— for all except Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoahaz, 
Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah). These authorities, it is to be noticed, 
are always referred to for information respecting the kings^ their 
buildings, warlike enterprises, and other undertakings ; for instance, 
[177] " And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that kedid^ 
tffid his wisdom^ are they not written in the Book of the acts of 
Sijlomon?"* It may be safely inferred from the character of 
these references that the *' Books of chronicles " were oi^ political 
character : they contained notices of the public and official doings 
of the several kings, t The Book of the acts of Solomon in 
eluded, in addition, some specimens or notices of his "wisdom." 
The name by which the Books are quoted points to the same 
conclusion. The expression chronicles (lit. words^ or acts^ of 
days) is the proper term used to denote an official yV«r«<7/, or 
minutes of events : i Ch. 27-* it is implied that the results of 
David's census would in the ordinary course of things have been 
included in the "chronicles" of his reign; Neh. 12^ a "book 
of chronicles " is mentioned, in which the heads of Levitical 
families were registered. Now, it appears from 2 Sa, 8^^ 20**, 
I Ki. 4», 2 Ki. i8»«-", 2 Ch. 34** that David, Solomon, Hezekiah, 
ajid Josiah had among their ministers one who bore the title of 
recorder [Vii, remembrancer-, T3I13, LXX 6 v^rofiifivijiTKtiiyj 6 virofifTf- 
/iaToy/)tt^09, 6 im twi' Ivofivfjfidroiv) ; and it may reasonably be 
inferred that the other kings as well had a similar minister. It 
can hardly be doubted that the function of this minister was to 
keep an official record of the public events of the reign.t such as 

• OtliCT phrases used arc : " how he warred, and how he reigned ** (1 14"), 
"artdall that hedid'MI I4'*<*A). *' and all hu might, and all that he did, 
and the cities that he built" {1 IS**), **and his treason that he wrought" 
(I 16", II 15"), "and all that he did. and Ihc ivory house which he built, 
and all the cities that he built" (I la""), *'and his might, and how he fought 
against Amaziah king of Judah" UI 14"), "and all that he did, and his 
might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus and Hamath " (v,*)» 
*' and all his might, oiid how he made the pool, and the conduit, and brought 
water into tlie city" {II 20^), "and all that be did, and his sin that he 
sinned"!" 21"). 

t The sin of Manasseh would be no doubt his public recognition ol 

t Cotnp. Est. 3* 6^, in which last passage " chronicles " is in apposition 
with " book of records" (nunain neo), a term used in the Aramaic secdons ol 
Eara to denote the Persian official archives (Ezr* 4" ; cf. 6*}* 



would be denoted by Q*D*n ^3T or "chronicles." It has been 
questioned whether the " Books " referred to in Kings are the 
actual official records of the two kingdoms, or two independent 
historical works based upon them. Modem scholars, though not 
upon very decisive grounds, prefer generally [178] the latter 
alternative. The difference is not important In either case 
the two books were digests or summaries of events of national 
importance, with names and lists of officers, &c The book 
dealing with the reign of Solomon appears to have been distinct 
from either of the two containing the annals of the two kingdoms 
subsequent to the rupture. 

In the narrative of Kings (apart from the compiler's frame- 
work) two elements are distinguishable — (i) brief, statistical 
notices, sometimes called the " Epitome," relating chiefly to 
events of political importance ; (2} longer, continuous narratives, 
describing usually occurrences in which the prophets were more 
or less directly concerned. In form the Epitome is no doubt 
the work of the compiler; but the particulars embraced in it, 
after what has been satd, may reasonably be regarded as derived 
by him from the two books named. The longer narrative^ 
which there is no reason to suppose formed part of the offic aI 
annals (for these are uniformly referred to in connexion with le 
public doings of the king5\ will have been taken by him fn m 
various independent sources. These narratives are written 
mostly in a bright and chaste Hebrew style, though some of them 
exhibit slight peculiarities of diction,* due doubtless (tn part) 
to their North Israelitish origin- Their authors were in all 

• E,g, in the Elisha-narratives. 'hk for f)< thou (fcm.) 11 4i«» 8* '>lso 

I 14", Jud. 17', Jer. 4", Ez. 36"!), and the other fems. in »-4a.n.».' the 
prep. -HI* iciM, wrilten -flW (as often in Jcr.» Er.) 12 times between I zcSmd 

II 8 (I 20»*" 22'- ■ (Vikp) »* II i« 3»- »»■ " 6» 8") ; and slight sole<iismi 
of form or expression, as 'nnnnria II 5"; » in u^i^9 6" (KJosL, however, 
after LXX, "Vjp); nyn whertf 6" Kl (^I^jI); rA fern, (Aram, *n)6**; 

trwJMi 7"; Dn-ip9"; crSie-Uf 9"; the verb. (Aram.) nSr.T 4" Comp. also 
po^ it suJUt (Aram, pro), i Ki. 20^' (in normal Hebrew hsd, Nu. i 1", Jud. 
21") ; oih n9bUs (lit fru, a common Aram, word) 2i** ". (-rf»t, however, 
will hardly have been the pronimciation of tlie original author : notice the 
Ucf\\\cJ\i piena scriptio ; and the occurrence several limes in the same chapters 
uf the usual form -Rk.) As the book approaches its dose, some delerioratioa 
of style is noticeable, though mostly (as it seems) in the parti due to the com- 
piler. *.^. II 17, c 21-25. 

1-2 KINGS 


probability prophets,— in most cases, prophets belonging to the 
Northern kingdom; though the data do not exist for identifying 
them, in individual cases, either wiih any of the prophets named 
incidentally in the narrative of Kings, or with those mentioned 
from time to time in the Chronicles in connexion with the history 
[179] of particular reigns.* These prophetical narratives appear 
in most cases to have been transferred by the compiler to his 
work without material alteration. Sometimes, however, especially 
where speeches or prophecies are concerned, the style and 
thought so closely resemble tliose of the framework, that it is 
impossible not to conclude that the original text has been ex- 
panded or developed by him. 

From the fulness of particulars respecting the history of the 
7(mple(l\ \i^; i2<-i«; le**'-^^; 3 a'*'), it has been conjectured, 
not improbably, that the Temple archives were also among the 
sources employed by the compiler. In the chronology, the age 
at accession and regnal years of the several kings are generally 
considered to be derived from the two official "chronicles": 
but the synchronisms will hardly have been taken from the same 
ources ; for it is not probable that in each kingdom the acces- 
• ms would be dated regularly by the regnal years of the other. 
1 le author of a joint history of both kingdoms would, however, 
h ve a sufficient inducement to notice such synchronisms; so 
that they may be reasonably attributed to the compiler, who may 
be supposed to have arrived at them by computation from the 
regnal years of the successive kings.t 

In the arrangement of the reigns of the two scries of kings a definite prin- 
cij. c is followed by tlie compiler. When the narrative of a reign (in cither 
BCT es) has once been bc^un, it is continued to its dose, — even tJie contem- 
po iry incidents of a prophet's career* which stand in no immediate retatiou 
to public events, being included in it : when it is ended, the reign or reigns 
of the other series, which have synchronircd with it, are dealt with ; the 
reign orcrlappiiig it at the end having been completed, the compiler resumes 
bis narrative of the first scries with the teign next following, and so on. 

We may now proceed to consider the Books of Kings in 

I. I Ki i-ii. Solomon. — Here c. 1-2 is the continuation 

♦ a Ch. 9» ia» i3» 2<^ 26^ 32W 33"(?). 

t See the note in tlic writer'* fsaiah, his life and times, p. lalL, with the 
references (csp. \\WXi\.Jahtb.fiir Deutsche Tkeot. 1875, pp. 607-640). 



of 2 Sa. 9-20 (p. 182), forming at once the close of the histoni 
of David and the introduction to that of Solomon. Only 2--\ 
as the phraseology unmistakably shows (see p. 200), owes its 
present form to the compiler ; and the two notices respecting 
David's death, and the length of his reign, in 3**^", may be 
due to his hand also. In other respects c. 1-2 is entirely in 
[180] the style of 2 Sa. 9-20, and appears to be the work of the 
same author. Solomon's throne being now secured, the account 
of his reign follows, c 3-1 1. The principle upon which the 
narrative is here arranged has been pointed out by Wellh. The 
central point is the description of Solomon*s buildings, the 
Temple and the royal palace contiguous.* 0^^ 6-7. On each side 
of this the compiler has placed a group oTnarratives and shoiter 
notices, with the view of illustrating Solomon's wisdom ai}<;^ mag- 
nificence. At the close, c 1 1, comes some account of Solomon's 
political opponents, preparatory to the narrative, c 12, of the 
division of his kingdom. Thus 3*-'* describes Solomon's 
choiee of wisdom, which is at once followed by an illustration of 
it as afforded by his judgment on the two children, C. 4 gives 
a picture of the character and extent of his empire; c 5 (nego- 
tiations with Hiram, king of Tyre, and preparations for the work 
of building the Temple) is introductory to c. 6-7, as S'-g* 
(prayer of dedication, and warning for the future) forms the con- 
clusion to it 9J'>-28 consists of notices relating indirectly to 
Solomon's buildings (the dties offered by him to Hiram in 
acknowledgment of his services; the levy raised by Solomon 
from among the Canaanites for the purpose of constructing his 
buildings; his navy bringing gold from Ophir). In lo^*^^ (the 
narrative of the visit of the Queen of Sheba) another even 
more dazzling picture is presented of Solomon's wisdom and 
royal splendour. lo^*--^ the notices of the wealth which Solomon's 
wide commercial relations brought in to lum (9-*^^), which had 
been interrupted by the episode of the Queen of Sheba, are 
resumed. It will be evident from this survey how homogeneous, 
speaking generally, c 3-4 is with 9'**-io-', C. ir, in terms 
ominous of the future, describes how, in the judgment of the 
compiler, Solomon's reign had been clouded, partly by his own 
declension in religion, partly through the troubles occasioned by 
political opponents. 

* See the uL "Jeriualem," Part H., In the Ency<I, Britannua (cd. 9). 

1-2 KINGS 


The parts of c 3-1 1 which have been added, or expanded, 
by the compiler are distinguishable without much difficuUy, viz. 
3-"3 (which agrees with the disapproval of the high places ex- 
pressed elsewhere by him : the narrator of s***, on the contrary, 
does not seem to consider any excuse to be necessary); 3'* 
(notice the Deuieronomic phraseology : see p. 200 f., Nos. 2, 
[181] 3, 22*); 6"-i»; 8i-5.*<m (expanded probably from a narra- 
tive originally briefer) ; 8"*^* (the prayer of dedication, which in 
its present form is clearly the work of the compiler) ; 9'-* (the 
Deuteronomic phrases are here even more strongly marked than 
in the prayer : see below) ; 1 1^" (in its present form), and parts 
of v.32-3» : perhaps also 5*"*, S^^i", though these two sections, 
which are kindred in character and import with the prophecy 
of Nathan, 2 Sa. 7, may be the work of an earlier prophetical 
narrator. All these passages are, on the one hand, so diiterent 
in style from the main current of narrative, and, on the other 
hand, have such alTinities both in style and in point of view 
with the subsequent parts of the two books which are plainly 
the work of the compiler, that no hesitation need be felt in 
attributing them to his hand. What remains is (in the main) 
/^ prt'DtuUronomic narrative of Sohmon's reign, though prob- 
ably not entirely in its original order, and including a few 
additions made to it subsequently. 3*-i8. iff. ift-ss iqI-w ^jh \^ 
prophetical narratives of relatively early origin. The list of 
officers in 4^'*', with the sequel (describing their duties) in 4^"^, 
may naturally be supposed to be derived from the State-annals 
(the "Book of the acts of Solomon," ii**). The intermediate 
verses, 4^-^, interrupt the connexion,! and seem to be an 
insertion, which the expression in v.** " beyond the River " [i.e. 
the Euphrates], applied to the country west of the Euphrates, and 
implying consequently a Babylonian standpoint (see Ezr. 4^*"''- 
5* &c,), shows cannot be earlier than the period of the exile. 

In 5*"* the Dumbcn ue larger thtui is probable ; and the entire notice 

• 6''*" and parts of 8'"* are not in LXX j and as 6"-" and the parts of 
8>-* not in LXX contain phrases of H and P (with 6^^ cf. Lev. 18* 2(^ ; with 
e** cf. Ex. 25' 29": on 8*-* see p. 144"). it »» probable that ihcy ore not 
the work of the principal compiler, but were added at a later date by a writei 
(or writers) influenced by P (comp. on Josh. 20, p. 113), 

tThc Hcb. word rendered (kos$ in v.*' {rhn) should properly be tUst. 
In the LXX, 4*"- immediately follows 4" (4"'' standing after a*). 



(in sjrite of the explanation proffered in a Ch. a'"*) is in imperfect relation 
with T.***. 9'**" consists of a series of notices, imperfectly connected 
together: v.**, for instance, appears, in fact, to refer to an incident anterior 
to v."**"**: the "account" of the levy, promised in v.", only follows in v.", 
the intermediate verses being parenthetic: 9*** (Pharaoh's daughter and 
Millo) has no point of contact cither with what precedes or with what follows. 
And 9"* {no levy of Israelites} conflicts with s"'-, cf. ii*" (which speaks of 
the "burden of the house of Joseph"). The literary form of 9*'-* is, for 
some reason, less complete than that of any other portion of the Books of 
Kings. In the LXX many of the notices are [iSs] differently arrar^ed, 
and the text is sometimes briefer : it seems, therefore, that in the MSS. 
used by them tlie Hebrew text here bad not yet reached the form in which 
we now have it* 

gis*. h^ 4 poetical tinge. It is remarkable, now, that in LXX (where it 
stands after v.") it appears in a fuller form, with the addition o6k Moi> alVif 
yiyparrat iv ^i^XU^ ri}\ <(j3ijt ; »'.*. (as can hardly be doubted : cf. Josh. lO** 
Pesh.t) TT'n TBO Sy naina n'n kSh (comp. Wellh. Comp. 271 ; EncyeL Brii^ 
xiv. p. 84). The original Hebrew cannot be represented quite exactly by 
the Greek text, and Cheyne*s rcstorarion (Onj^in of the Psalter, p. 2i2)ti» 
no doubt preferable to Wellh. 's : but the words just quoted cannot have been 
invented by the translators ; it appears therefore that the " Book of Jasbai ** 
(p. 131) contained a poetical account of tlie foundation of Solomon's Temple, 
and was still cited by name in the text of Kings used by the LXX. 

The kernel of c 11 is old ; but ihe narrative must, in parts, 
have been recast, and placed in a difierent light. In v,^-^^, v.^ 
— where TK then connects imperfectly with v.*^— and the notice 
v.* respecting the number of Solomon's wives, are no doubt 
excerpts from the older narrative : the emphasis laid on the 
declension caused thereby in Solomon*s religion is expressed in 
phrases which betoken the hand of the compiler. In what 
follows, the original purport of the narrative can hardly be that 
which now appears. In the narrative in its present form, the 
** adversaries " in v."*^ are described as "raised up" by way of 
punishment for the sins of Solomon's later days (v.^- *• *) ; but, 

• Compare the last two notes. So 5"- * 6"-** take the place in LXX 
of 6^* : 6"-" and 9"-" are omitted : on the other hand, 9*"* "■ " appear 
(with 4"^ 3^*» 5") after a* ; 9^»* ^^ (with f) after 4" ; 9"* after 9* ; ^^ *"^» 
after lo"": there are also several additions. In some cases (but by no means 
in all) there is good reason to suppose that the recension represented by 
the LXX has preserved better readings than the Hebrew ; see examples in 

t Where "w^n is similarly confused with tm the song (] A^..q ^A 

% I 'jrR? Pvh XV .-nrr c:;^3 pjo "^i^ 

I D^^p ^iT^ fay ^> S^\ n'j 'o»*? ni? 

1-2 KINGS 


In point of fact, the incidents described in v."***- ^■'^ (note the 
expression "ff// the days of Solomon"), if not also in v,**-^, 
occurred early in his reign ; hence, if the view of the compiler 
be that of the original narrator, the punishment will have pre- 
ceded the sin which occasioned it It seems clear that the 
narrative itself (v."*'-) is ancient, but that the setting (v.*""), 
which represents the events narrated as the punishment for the 
idolatry of v.*-", was added subsequently by tlie compiler. In 
the narrative of Ahijah (v.^^sj^ y 51-39 01^5^ h^ve been [183] 
expanded by the compiler, as they abound with marks of his 
style (see p. 200 ff.). ii"-t3 \^ (^^ concluding formula of Solo- 
mon*s reign, in the compiler's usual manner. 

The work which lay at the basis of the pre-Deuteronomic 
account of Solomon's reign must have been one in which the 
arrangement of material was determined less by chronological 
sequence than by community of subject. In other words, it was 
not so much a chronicle as a series of detached notices. Tlie 
description of the buildings forming the central feature in it, 
particulars respecting the preparations or materials required for 
them, and notices, or short narratives, illustrating Solomon's 
wisdom, or splendour, or the organization of Ws empire, were 
placed on either side of it. At tlie close came c. 11 (in its 
original form), containing some account of the political opponents 
who from time to time disturbed the tranquillity of his reign. 
Throughout, the author evinces a warm admiration for Solomon : 
he recounts with manifest satisfaction the evidences of his 
wisdom, and dwells with pride on the details of his imperial 
magnificence, on the wealth which streamed into Jerusalem 
from all quarters, on his successful alliances and commercial 
undertakings, and on the manner in which his fame commanded 
the wonder and respect of distant nations. The darker shades 
in the picture seem largely, though not, perhaps, entirely, to be 
due to the Deuteronomic compiler. 

11. I Ki. 12-2 Ki. 17. Israel and Judak. — Here we have 
alternately short notices and long continuous narratives — the 
latter now and then expanded by the compiler — arranged in a 
chronological framework, in the manner indicated above. The 
longer narratives are sometimes slightly modified at the beginning 
and end for the purpose of establishing a connexion with the 
history on either side of them. C. 12 contains the older 



nnrrativc of the defection of the ten tribes from the dynasty of 
Pavid ; v,'-^-^ (Jeroboam's calves, and the worship instituted 
in connexion with them) may be due, in their present form, to 
the compiler; 12^ introduces the account of the prophecy 
against the altar of Bethel — a narrative not probably of very 
early origin, as it seems to date from a time when the names both 
of the prophet of Judah and of the " old prophet " were no longer 
remembered. 13*3-3* lead back to the main thread of the histor)'. 
i4^-"* (the wife of Jeroboam and the prophet Ahijah) [184] is in 
its substance, no doubt, ancient ; but the answer of Ahijah has 
certainly In parts been recast in the phraseology of the compiler 

(esp. V. 

t. 9. 10. 19. 10 

Observe the standing phrases of the compiler in these verses (sec p. aoo ff. ) ; 
and the anaclironisni in 14* [as addressed to Jeroboam)^ "alxive all that were 
ba/i^re fAde" {i6^-** ic(. v." II 17* i8*) shtiw besides that this phrase is the 
compiler's). In some of its other features the prophecy bcara a striking 
resemblance to those of Jehu son of Hanani 16'**, Elijah ai*****, the un- 
named pfophet 21**, and the disciple of Elisha U 9'^"*" (comp. 14^ with iG* ; 
Tpa rnro J4" 16" 21", II 9" [i Sa. 2$*^ "] ; 2vy\ nxv u"* 21", II g" 14* 
[in a notice of the compiler's] ; thh lya 14'^ 16^ ["inKJ 21'' ; //im thai dictk^ 
&c,, 14" 16* 21**): but it is quite possible that these phrases are original 
here, and have been adopted thence by the compiler when he recast, or 
amplified, the other later prophecies quoted. (That the prophecies in the 
Itooks of Kings have really, in parts, been ampliHed by the compiler may 
be inferred upon two grounds: not only do the parts in question exhibit 
common features, connecting them with the compiler, but in style and ex- 
pressioQ they have no parallel in the prophecies of Amos, Hosea, or other 
prophets, whose writings have been preserved independently, prior to 

From 14" to c 16 the history consists chiefly of a collection 
of short notices {xt^^^''^ i^fl- n.. 12-13. i5.i».22. st-^s &c.) arranged in 
the schematism oi' the compiler {the chronology and judgments 
on the kings), as i4i»-20. 2i-2<. sfl-si , 5I-2. b-s. t.. 8. m. u. ii-m. ic-m. 
i»<ss.»-« ,51-4 (recast), &c. (On tlie phraseology of these pas* 
sages, see below, p. 200 ff.) 

C. 16 endedj the framework expands for the purpose of 
admitting the narratives respecting Elijah and Elisha. It is 
doubtful whether all these narratives are by the same hand : but 
all appear to be of North Israelitish origin ; and all, especially 
those dealing with Elijah, exhibit the ease, and grace, and vivid- 
ness which belong to the best style of Hebrew historical narrative. 
The beginning of the history of Elijah has probably been omitted 

1-2 KINGS 


by the compiler : the place whence Elijah is to depart, x 7', the 
j^round for which he is persecuted and addressed as the "Troubler 
of Israel,*' i8'**- ", and particulars respecting the murder of 
the prophets by Jezebel, alluded to 18", are not stated in the 
existing narrative. The suddenness, however, with which Elijah 
is introduced upon the scene, and the abruptness of his first 
utterance in 1 7^ are in harmony with the chau^cter which every- 
where belongs to the prophet's movements, and the dramatic form 
in which the narrative is cast C 17 the drama opens: [185] 
the severity of the famine foretold by Elijah is left to be inferred 
by the reader from the picture of the privations to which the 
prophet himself is exposed. C. 18 recounts the triumph of 
Elijah upon Carmel ; c. 19 the reaction experienced by him 
afterwards ; his wittidrawal to Horeb ; the mysterious vision 
there; the commission (v.*'''^'*) assuring him of the final triumph 
of his cause. The events to which this commission correspond 
are related in 3 Ki. 8^-^* c 9-10, but with a different motive, 
from a political rather than a religious standpoint and vrithcut 
reference to Elijah, — an indication that these narratives, together 
with I 20. 22 (where likewise the predominant interest is political), 
did not originally form part of the same iiierary whole as I 17-19. 
I 21, however (Ahab and Naboth), is in the style of I 27-19: 
Elijah, as before, suddenly intercepts Ahab with his unwelcome 
presence ; and the close of the struggle between the prophet and 
the king looms in view (v."- ^). But the narrative which re- 
cords actually the death of Ahab, though designed by the com- 
piler to describe the end of Ahab foretold by Elijah, was not, 
perhaps, ivritien as the sequel to c. 21 : in particular, the place 
22ST.J8 (Samaria), where the dogs licked the blood of Ahab, does 
not accord with ihc prediction in 21^* (Jezreel). IT i presents an 
impressive picture of Elijah's inviolable greatness; II 2 (the 
ascension of Elijah) is at once the close of the histoi7 of Elijah 
and the introduction to that of Elisha; from a literary point of 
view it is more closely connected with the latter than with the 

To the same hand to which are due I 20. 22 may also, perhaps, 
be ascribed II 3**-'^ (Jehoram and Jchoshaphat against Moab) ; 
(r^^Y^ (siege of Samaria by Beahadad: its relief in accord- 
ance with Elisha'3 prediction); and 9*-io-* (the "photographic 
picture " of the accession of Jehu). In all these narratives the 


palitical interest predominates abo>'e the biographical ; and soma 
noticeable similarities of form and expression also occur.* 

The history of Elisha is comprised in a scries of short narra* 
tives, describing particular incidents in his life : these are intro- 
duced by II 2^'^^ (Elisha succeeds to the inheritance of Elijah), 
the rest consisting of 2**"^'' {the bitter waters [186] sweetened); 
y 4;i-25 (^he mocking children rent by bears) ; 4^"" (the widow's oil 
multiplied) ; v.^^ (the Shunammite woman) ; v.'**^' (the poisoned 
pot rendered harmless); v.*^"** (the barley loaves multiplied); 
c 5 (Naaman) ; 6^'' (the iron axe-head made to swim) ; v.^^ 
(attempt of the Syrians to capture Elisha) ; S'-* (Gehazi recounts 
Elisha's wonders to the king) ; v.^-" (Elisha and Hazael) ; 13"''* 
(Elisha and Joash) ; v.^-^i (miracle wrought by Elisha's bones). 
These narratives no doubt exhibit the traditions respecting 
Elisha as they were current in prophetic circles in the 9-8 cent. 
B.a : their immediate source may have been a work narrating 
anecdotes from the life of Elisha (and perhaps from the lives of 
other prophets as well). 

The narratives of Elijah and Elisha appear to have been incorporated by 
the compiler without substantial alterilion : only here and there bus one of 
them been expanded by an insertion which, by its manner, betrays the com- 
piler's hand (I 21**'^'*: notice the plirascs in v.*"'***, and the awkward 
parenthesis in v.**'"; II g'"*"*, where not only do the phrases of the com- 
piler abound {p. 200 ff.), but it is difTicult not to thmk that v.'** "and ho 
opened the door and fled," in agreement with the commaod v.***, should 
follow immediately the announcement of v.*). 

In contrast with the sections dealing with the N. kingdom, in 
which the prophets play such a considerable part, the longer 
narratives relating to the S. kingdom II ii*-i2^'' (elevation of 
Joash to the throne, and his measures regarding the Temple), 
,(310-18 (the altar of Ahaz) place the Temple and priesthood of 
Jerusalem in the foreground. These narratives are evidently 
of Judaean origin, and (to judge from the minuteness in the 
details) based probably upon official documents. The section 
i^u-io (Elisha and Joash) has been noticed above: 14**'* 
(Amaziah's challenge of Joash), it may be inferred from v.'* 
" Beth-shemesh w/uc/t bdcn^cth to Jtttiah" {cf. I 19*), is of 
Israelitish origin. The narrative in the following chapters is 

• Comp. I 20»«, II 7» io»* ; I 20^ "•' (Tina Tin) 2a», 11 9*1 J I 33*^ ■• ^ 
II 3"^ " ; IT -IDH I 2X^, 11 9». 

1-2 KINGS 



composed chiefly of short notices — even the long and important 
reigns of Jeroboam and Azariah (Uzziah) receiving each hardly 
more than a single verse of independent detail (i4''^ ^ [v.^^ is 
comment] 15^). After the close of the N, kingdom (i?®), the 
compiler introduces a long survey of the causes which, in his 
judgment, led to its fall (17^'^), and explains (v.'^*-*^) the origin 
of the mixed population and religion of the country of Samaria 
at the time in which he lived 

[187] III. 2 Ki. 18-25. Ju^h, 

With c 18 begins the reign of Hezekiah. 18^'^' is the com- 
position of the compiler, though the particulars in v>*** arc 
doubtless derived by him from his sources ; v.**^* repeats, in brief, 
the account of the close of the N. kingdom. 18"- 19*^ com- 
prises the narrative of the invasion of Judah by Sennacherib 
in his campaign of 701, and the miraculous occurrence which 
obliged his retreat Here the brief notices in iS"-^" differ in 
character fix»m the circumstantial narrative commencing with 
v.'^; it is also remarkable that the name of the king, which 
v.""^ is uniformly written in*ptn, is here spelt n*p|n : it is fair to 
infer, therefore, that they are derived from a different source, 
which may well be the State-annals. 18"- 19" is the one long 
narrative in the Book of Kings relating to Judah^ and similar 
in general character to the prophetical narratives of the N. king- 
dom. It includes a prophecy, ig^^*'*, attributed to Isaiah, and 
unquestionably his ; but there is no ground for supposing that 
the narrative as a whole, though it stands also (together with 
20^*'*) in the Book of Isaiah (c 36-39), is from Isaiah's hand; 
as will be shown (under Isaiah), there are reasons for concluding 
it to be the work of a prophet writing in the subsequent genera- 

Ition, which was incorporated, with slight additions, in his work 
by the compiler of Kings. 
As the narrative approaches the time in which the compQer 
himself lived (c. 2 1 ff.), and in which, therefore, the writer's 
personal knowledge, or information derived from the generation 
immediately preceding, would be available, his o\^'n share in 
the work appears to increase. In the account of the reign of 
Manasseh (c a i ), tlie narration of concrete facts scarcely extends 
beyond v.'' *** *• «*• t». ift» . ^^q ^est is the comment of the com- 
piler, v.^i*", which is not assigned to any indktduai prophet, 
though it agrees remarkably with parts of Jeremiah (see below, 



p. 203), being probably the compiler's summary of the teaching 
of contemporary prophets. 

The reign of Josiah (22^-23'*'), including the two important 
events, the discovery of the Book of the Law and the reforma- 
tion based upon it, engrosses naturally the interest of the com- 
piler, and is described by him at some length : the parts in which 
his own style is specially prominent are 2 2"*'-^*'^- and 23'***^*^ 
(especially v.a*^ from Dl 6*; and v.2«-37)^ [188] 25^''^^ is an 
abridgment of Jer, 4o^"" 41''* '^' 42* 43'"": 2^^-^ cannot, of 
course, have been written before the year of Jeholachin's release, 

B.C 562. 

According to Wellh. and Kuenen, the compilation of the 
Book of Kings was completed substantially before the exile (c. 
600 B.C.),* only short passages which imply an exilic standpoint 
being introduced afterwards. 

These passages, as given by Kuenen fp. 420), are I 4**-* [Heb. 4*-5*] 
(see ▼.«)< 9»-» n»-" (in their present form); II i7*»-*»j 20*^-"; ai^"; 
22"-*; 23**; 24»-*; 24"-25**. 

I 4*-'' has been discussed above (p. 191): «• the passage seems clearly 
to be an insertion in the text of c 4, v." docs not (cf. Keil, Einl. % 58. 3) show 
that the Book of Kings, as a whole, was only compile^] during the exile. 
II 17^"' likewise intcmipts the connexion. The original writer is dealing 
only with the causes of the declension of the kingdom of Isr(ui: in v." he 
remarks that in consequence of Israel's rejection Judah only was left; and 
the sequel to this is v.*'*"» describing how tliis result came about (*'/Vr he 
rent Israel from the house of David," &c.). V."-", commenting on the 
faithlessness oK Judnh^ and the rejection and exile of the entire seed of Israel, 
is plainly an insertion made by a subsequent writer;, who desiderated a 
notice of the same causes producing a similar effect in the case of Judah, 
II 24"*' can, of course, only have been written after the exile had com- 
menced. The other passages arc either such as are thought to presuppose 
the fall of the city and temple, or contain references to passages which do 
this (I ii"* to 9'-'; II 23" 24* to 21''-" [Manasseh]): but very similar 
anticipations are expressed by Jeremiah before the exile ; so that no sufficient 
reason exists, at least on the ground of the contents of these passages, for 
attributing them to a different band from that of the maio compiler of the 
Book. But it must be admitted that II zx^^^ 2^^ interfere with the con- 

• Notice the eipresMon to this day ^ 11 8" 1 6*, in pMsages belonging clearly 
to the compiler, and not taken by him from his sources, and of which at least 
the first appears to imply that the Jewish State was still existing when it was 
written; also the precise information respecting llie Samaritans, 17**"** (w«/tf 
this d<jj, V.*'), which a writer near at hand would be more likely to possess 
thaa ooe resident iu Babylonia. 

1-2 KINGS 


nexion, and wear the appearance of being insertions made after the original 
narrative was completed, so that upon literary grounds this view of their origin 
is not untenable. On the whole, it is highly probable that the redaction of 
Kii^ was not entirely completed by the main compiler ; though it is only 
occauoaally possible to point with confidence to the passages which belong to 
a subsequent stage of it. 

That it is one and the same compiler who formulated the short notices oi 
" Epitome," and at the same time combined them with the longer narratives, 
is shown (against Thenius) by WcUh. p. 29S (after Kuen. OndcrioeA,^L 366f.) 
there are cases in which each presupposes the other ; amd the contents [189J 
of the Epitome are much too fragmeataqr for it to have ever constituted an 
independent histoty. 

The compiler of Kings, though not, probably (as has some- 
times been supposed), Jeremiah himself, was nevertheless a man 
like-minded with Jeremiali, and almost cert^nly a contemporary 
who lived and wrote imder the same infiuences. Deuteronomy 
is the standard by which the compiler judges both men and 
actions ; and the history, from the beginning of Solomon's reign, 
is presented, not in a purely "objective" form (as e.g. in 2 Sa. 
9-30), but from the point of view of the Deuteronomic code. 
It is a characteristic of the passages added by the compiler (so 
far as they are not notices based ppon his sources) that they do 
not usually add to the historic contents of the narratives, but 
(like the corresponding additions in Judges) present comments 
upon it, sometimes introduced as such, sometimes introduced 
indirectly in the shape of prophetic glances at the future, at 
different stages of the history. The principles which, in his view, 
the history as a whole is to exemplify, are already expressed 
succinctly in the charge which he represents David as giving to 
his son Solomon (I a***) : they are stated by him again in 3", 
and more distinctly in 9^"*. Obedience to the Deuteronomic 
law is the qualification for an approving verdict : deviation from 
it is the source of ill success (I ii*"" i4^-" 16*, II 17^-" &c), 
and the sure prelude to condemnation- Every king of the 
Northern kingdom is characterized as dping "that which was 
evil in the eyes of Jcho%'ah " : in the Southern kingdom the 
exceptions are Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, Amaziah, Uzziah, 
Jotham, Hezekiah, Josiah, — usually, however, with the limitation 
that *' the high places were not removed," as demanded by the 
Deuteronomic law. The writer \iewed Jeroboam as the author 
of a schism, and the founder of a worship which contravened the 



first principle of the Deuteronomic code, the law of the Central 
Sanctuary, and lent itself readily to contamination by heathen 
cults : hence his uniformly unfavourable verdict on the rulers of 
the N. kingdom. He does not, however, place ail deviations 
from the law of Dt in the same category : he views, indeed, the 
worship (of Jehovah) at the high places with disfavour, but the 
kings who permit it are not thereby disqualified from receiving a 
verdict of approval, as are those who patronized, or encouraged, 
practices actually heathen. 

[190] Phrases tkareuttristic of the cempiUr of Kings, In tnanjr of these 
the influence of Dt. li directly traceable ; others, though not actually occtimng 
in it, frcqueiiLly cxprc&s thoughts in humony with its splriL 

I. To keep thi charge of/$kovaA : I 2", Dt 1 1^ cf. Josh. 22» (I>»). 
a. To walk in the ways of Jehovah : I 2* 3" 8" 1 1"- ■■, DL 8* lo" 1 1* 
I9» 26" 28» 30", Josh. 22». 

3. To keep (or exuu/e) his statutes and commandmmts and JudgiKstUs 
(sometimes with one term omitted, or even <ommandfiten£s alone) : 

I 2l 3I4 g68. « 9*. « I ,0. H. It ,^8^ II lyli (cf. v.»') » i8« 23». In Dt. 

constantly. (The reference throughout is specially to Deuteronomy, 
So generally, where the law, or Moses, is alluded to: IS' (Dt. 
lo» 39^), " (Dt 4" t [also Lev. 20*]), "• (Dt 12«- 25"). II I0» 
14* (Dt 24"). 18" 2i« 22« 23"- » ) 

4. Testimcftiis (rf-ji|) : I 2* II 17" ^f (in Dt pointed iAtk : 4* (P' *•>. 

5. Tltai thou may est prosper^ &c: I 2", Dt 29*, Josh. I™. 

6. To establish his {my) word\ I 2* 6" 8" 12"; cf. Dt 9". 

7. To waik before nu {in truths uprightness^ &c) : I 2* 3« 8»- * 9* (II 
ao'the Hithp.). 

8w Thtre shall not Jail (lit be cut cf) to thee i I 2* S» 9^. Cf. Jcr. 33"' " 

35« ; and with p {from) 2 Sa. 3*", Josh. 9". 
9. With all the heart and with aJl the soul: I 2* 8* II 23** *•, as often 

in Dt (in II 23" with IKD in the rare sense of " might," only 

besides in Dt 6*) : see p. xoi. C£ with all the heart (alone) t 

I 8» 14", 11 lo". 
xa To build an house to the name cfj : I 3» S*" • 8"' u. ». ».«*.« (cf. 9T) : 

dependent on 2 Sa. 7^ (the prophecy of Nathan). 
II« As it is this day (pointing out agreement of promise Mrith event) : I 3* 

8»»- « Dt 2» [see the writer's note], 4"' " 8« 10" 29* [Heb.*^. 
la. Oven me rest on every side: I 5* [Heb."]» Dt 12" 25", Josh. 21* 

23^ (!>*>. 2 Sa, 7>. 

11 3A 

Elsewhere vAUh to 


13. Chose out of all the tribes oj Israel I IS^ii^u^ 

14. That my name might be there : I 8"- *, II 23". 

put (Db): I 9* II* 14". II 21*- '(=2 01. 33'), asinDt (p. 
Na 35) : so also 2 Ch. 6« 12". 
In 8**** and 9^'^ the reminiscences from Dt, or the Deut. sections of 
Joshom, are remarkably abundant ;— 

8", Dt 4", Josh. 2"'* (D*).— V." QM pi {yet so that), n 2l\ Dt. 15 

1-2 KINGS 


(peculiar. Not elsewhere, except in the parallels 3 Ch. 6" 33*).— »-*(M* 

'. Dt 2S".— v.*» Dl n". 
' gates " ; p. 99, No. 6).— 

heaitn of heai'ens)^ Dl IO".— v.**, Dt. 25'. — v.' 
—V."-, Dt. 28^".— v.»^, 1^. V." (comp. csp. 
».«*, Dt 4"* I3» 31".— v."». Dl 39".— v.**. Dt. ii« and often.— v.« 
KpnpUs of tht earth) »•«*, Dt. 28" Josh. 4« (D»).— v.** {ihyname is caitui 
Mwr, vu. in token of ownership [see 2 Sa, 12" RV. marg.\)^ Dt 28" (esp. 
in Jer., as 7'*'- 25»4j/.).— v.**, Dt 20» 21".— v.** {diliver up hefort: see p. 
loi, No. 29).— v."», Dt 30*-— [191] v.**, Dt 3b*.— v.", Dt. ^.~ib. [iron- 
Jumart), Dt 4". Jer. ii«.T— v.w^ Dt 4^— v.», Josh. ai« 33" (D»).-v." 
(see above, Noo. 2, 3).— v.**, Josh. 4** (D*).— v.*'', Dt 4". — 9* (<■* pttt my 
mama thtre: sec above, No. 14). — v.* (see Nos. 7, 3). — v.***, Dt 29". — v.'**, 
Dt 2^.—x.^\ Dt 29»-» (Jer. 22" ; cf. 5« 16"**). 

15, /*«//^f/= wholly dcTolcd (of the heart): I 8«> II* ij**", II 20^>Is. 

38*. Only so besides in Ch. 
1& Te mi off from upon the ground \ I 9' r3** {lo destroy) I4" {to rwi 
up) : wilh the same, or similar, verbs, Dt 4" 6" II" 28"- ■ 29", 
Jer. I2»24"27"2S". 

17. To diimns {n^v) from before my (kii) face: I 9"*, Jer. I5* : so wilh 
east away (T^), II 13" 17* [jO, not Spe] 24*, Jer. 7"; wilh 
remove (iTrt), II \f^' ■ 23" 24*, Jer. 32" \ wilh cast p^irw], Jer. 
23". Not in Dt 

18. ii« r Josh. a3i«' (Dl') J cf. Dt ?«•*•. 

19. D'mpr deUstabU things (of Calsc gods) : I ll**', II 23"-", Dt. 29" 
[Hcb. "] (cf- the writer's note here ; or Clark's Bible Dict.^ s v. 

Abomination, 4). So Jer. 4' 7* 13" 16" 32**. Ex. 5" 7* 1 1"-" 

30?. a ■037a is56». 

ao. To do that ivhiih is evi/ in the eyes offehovah : I 1 1*, and more than 

thirty times besides (p. lOi* No. 26). 
%\. f^v^T^ to be angered : I u», II 17'*, Dt l»^4*'9"-".t 
32'. For the sake of David thy futher (or my teiiiant) : I ll*** !».«.•• 

(cf. v.») 15*, n8"i9"20». 
33^ Other references to David as a standard of piety are also frequent : 

I 31.-. u 94 „4.«.».M(4ai5».«,ii^ n I4»i63 lS»22«. 
33. C^owTT, with reference to Jerusalem : I ii"- *^- ** 8**- *■ (cf. v.") 14", 

II 2i' 23". Based on Dt (p. 100, No. n). 

22*, TI lo" 12* 14' 15* 16* (p. 101, No. 25)- 
25. A lamp (for David) : I II" 15*. II 8"=2 Ch. 3I» 
96> To provoke Jehovah to an^r [rnthcr, to vex Him, O'Va^] t I I4'' *• 

,310 ifij. T. u. «. » 2i» 22» II 17"' " ai«- w 22" 23"- ". Dt 4" 

(see the writer's note here), 9" 31" 32»«- ", Jer. 7* >» 8» 1 1" 25^ ' 

32"* *• ■* 44*' •. 
37. Behold^ I bring evil upon , , , i I I4" 3l", 11 2l" 32^« ( = 2 Ch. 

34**). Jer. 6'" 11" 19** " 35" 45*.t Ta bring evil upon also I 9* 

21*, II 22*, and often in Jer. : not common elsewhere. 
•8. The fettered and the frte {'AXi alliterative proverbial phrase, denoting 

"all"): I I4"2i» II 9" I4« Dt 32"' (the Song), f 
99. Who modi Israel t9 tin (of Jerol)oam) : I 14" I5"- "■ •* 16* 22""j 



II 3* 10^' " 13^ • u** i5»- **• "• ■ 23" ; comp. ai" {of Manasseh 

and Judah). Cf. I 1 2*» I3« II I7«- » 
3a Upon n*cry high kill and urntcr et>€ry spreading tree : I I4* 17*, 

Jer. i* (ihc first clause varied from Dt. 12*** : the second pTcdsely 

as Ihcrc) ; simiiaily II 16* i = 2 Ch. aS«), Jer. 3" I7^ Ez. 6»»: the 

second clause also (alone) Jer. 3", Is. 57*. \ 
[1923 31. Abaminatiomtif tht nations X I 14**, II l6* 2I» Cf. Dt. iS*- •■. 
3a. Whom Jehovah dispossessed from before the ehildrm of Israel \ I I4** 

21", II \& 17" 21" CX Dt 9*- • II" Josh. 23». 

33. Idoibioeki (D^^ibj) : I 15" 2i» II i7» 21"- " 23« Also Lev. 26», 

DL 29", Jer. 50", and esjx in Ezck. [39 times], t 

34, Tumtd not aside from . . . : I 15" 22*", II 3* 10* (nmco) ■ (Sffp) 
' I3>. ■- n i4>< |5». w ("^jro) »»•« I7« i8« (-inito). 

1% VamtUs D'Ssn (of idoU} : I l6»»- *«. Dt 32" ; cf. Jer. 8« 14» Un- 
usual. Cf. II 17", Jer. a* (the same phrase, — iVam Saat nriM n^n), 

36. /?/./ J*// ^(wj/^ (to do evil) : I 2!*^ » II \f. Only so here. 

37. Thf peopU stiil sacrijiied arui burnt imense in the high placet : I 22*, 

II 12* 14* IS*'"": similarly I 3' ll*. II 16* 17" 23*: burnt incense 
also, in a similar connexion, II 18* 22" 23*, and often in Jer. (i" 
I]i2. 1*. n ,gu lo*. IS -y^ J.I. s. u. n*90]^ 

38. Would not destroy : II 8*» I3". Dt. 10". 

39. My {his) servants the prophets : II 9' I7**- ■ 21" 24' : in Jer. sif 

times (7» 25* 26" 29" 35" 44«). First in Am. 3'. Also Zech. i\ 

Eu. 9", Dan.9"-T 
4a To blot out tht nofne from under heaven : II 14", Dt 9** 29" ; c£ 

41. The *^^ host of heaven" venerated: II 17" 2i* [=2 Ch. 33*] *• • 
[ = 2 Oi. 33"], Jer. 8» iy« Zeph. l«. Forbidden Dt 4" I7*t 

4a. To eleavs to Jehovah : II 18* (ct the same word in 3P, 1 1 1*], as in 
Dt (p. 100, No. 15}.* 

If the reader will be at the pains of underlining in his text the phrases 
here cited, he will not only realize how numerous they are, but also perceive 
how ihey seldom occur indiscriminately in the narrative as auch| but are 
generally aggregated In particular passages (mostly comments on the history, 
or speeches), which are thereby distinguished from their context, and shown 
to be presumably the work of a different hand. 

The following modes adopted by the compiler for introducing historical 
notices are obserx-able : — 

43. In his dayi . , . I i6«. 11 S» 15" LXX (see QPB}) 23" 24*. 

44. In those days ... II lo" 15" 20', 

45. At thai time ... I 14^ II i6« 18" 20" 24". 

46. //^(Kin: emphatic} , , . H 14' 


47. Then (TH) ... I 3" S'- " 9i>*»- "*■ 1 1' i6'» 22« (Heb. »). TI S** 12" 
(Hcb. ") I4« is» 16". Ck)mp. r6rt 9» LXX ( = 9** Heb.}. 

• Comp. also II 17"'" and Dt. 9" 6" 4* ; 19"- '» (kingdoms of the 
earth) and Dt 28" (also Jer. 15* 2^* 25** [but omil here pKH wilh LXX 

notice the incorrect syntax], 

1 9^"* and Jer. 32" ; 1 9** and Dt 4*. 

1-2 KINGS 


This ose of tM is noticeable. In muiy cases, the ndices introduced by it 
[193] lack any de6nite point of attachment in the preceding narrative : at the 
tame time, their directness of statement and terseness of forra suggest the 
inference that they may be derived immediately from the contemporary 
annalistic records (Ewald, //tsf, L l6S ; Wellh. //isf. p. 386). The same 
may be the case with some of the other notices just cited. 

48, The frequency with which the prophecies in i-a KL ue introduced 
by the same term (o) vk [y* Forasmuch oj . . . is also noticeable : 
I 3U8W11" i3» 14T 16* ab»- "^ • ai» (pr c infin.)* U i" it^ 
19* (Isaiah), 21" aa». 

The resemblances with Jer. are most marked towards the end 
of the two books, esp. in II ly".* jiU-u a^^*"^*;^ 

II 17" /«/!>/ :Jcr. IJ^ 

Turn ye, &c. : cf. Jcr. 18" 35* 35**. 

my servants thepropJuls : see above, No. jg (eap. 7* 25**). 
»,'*• • iS** 2I* hearkened not : Jer. 7* 1 1^ and often besides. 

hardened their necks : Jer. 7" 17^ ig** (from UL IO**), 
^^ followed vanity and bee ami vain : Jer. 2*. 
V.'* thi host of heaven : see above, No. 41. 
».*•• ■ removed from before his face : sec above, No, 17. 
».*• rejected all the ieed of Israel \ cf. Jer. Si"* If • ... I wfll also 

reject all the seed of Israel 
»l" (effect of Manasseh's guilt) : Jcr. 15*. 

▼." both his ears shall tingle : Jer. 19* (probably from I Sa. 3'*|). 
n^^for a prey and a spoil : cf. Jer. 36". 



is also reiy common dsewhere 
Jer. t^ Tfc 

».*• 24* innocent hlootl (or the blood of innocents] in Jerusalem ; Jer. 19* 

22" [of Jehoiakim). 
aa"**- '^ : Jer. 19"^* " This place 

injer., aa7*-*-» l6», 
w."* to vex we with the itvrh of their Hands (so I 16^) 

32^ 44" {frora Dt. 3I*). 
▼."* and my wrath shall be kindled^ &&: Jcr. 7"*. 
v.^* for a desolation and a curse : Jer. 42^*'' 44**« 
But these parallels are not suflicient to show that Jeremiah Is the cempikr 
of Kings. The passages quoted consist rather of summaries of the prophetic 
teaching of the time, which was based ultimately upon Dt., and of which 
the most influential representative was no doubt Jeremiah : hence it is not 
unlikely that his phraseolt^y acquired general currency, and would be 
itutally employed by the compiler in framing his summaries. 
It is remarked by Konig \Eifil. p. 268), as a small but significant indica- 
'tion Chat Jer. was not the compiler of Kings, that r3^.'1 to drive out, used often 
in Jcr. of the expulsion of Israel into exile (S' 16" aj*- • 24* 27"*- " 29"- "• 
3a" 46" ; in the pass. , 30>' 40" ^\ cf. 49^ •• 50*' i «o Dt. 30*- *), is 
never lo found in Kingi. 



Lrr««ATfTM.— W. Gesenlits, Der Propk. Jesaja Mhersettl mtt eintm «i#J7it 
fhil, krit. u. hisf. Commentary 1820-ai ; F. Hitzig, Der Pioph.Jes. fibers. 
«. aujgeUgt, 1833 (the source of much that is best exegetically in more recent 
commentaries) ; H. Ewald in the Pro^keUn des Alten Bttndes^ 1840-41, 
•r867-68 fparts of vols, ii., iv., t. of the transUtion) ; A. Knobcl (in the 
K^. Exeg. Handb,\ 1843, ♦ revised by L. Dicstel, 1872 ; • (rewrittenj by A, 
Dillmann, 1S90 ; C. P. Caspari, Beitr'agi lur Eint. in das Buck Jes. 1848 ; 
S. D, Lu2za.tto, it prof. Isain voigaritaio t eommentatG [in Hebrew] ad uso 
dtgU Ixradiii, Padova, 1856-67; F. Dditzsch, Bibl. Comm. HUr das Buck 
Jts. 1866, <i889 {transL T. & T. Qark. 1890) ; T, K. Chcyne. The Book of 
Jsaiah ehronohgically arranged^ 1S70, 7'he Prophecies of Isaiah^ 1880, '1S84 ; 
\V. Kay In the Speaker^ s Comm.; E. Rcuss in La BibU^ 1876 ; C W. E. 
NageUbnch (in Lange's i?;Ac/Ti'(rr*|, 1877 ; H. Ciithc, Da.x Zukunftibild des 
Jes. 1885 ; C. J. Bredcnkamp. Der Proph. fes. trlantert^ 1886-S7 ; Kucnen, 
Eittf. ii. (ed. 2), 1889, pp. 28-157 ; F. Giesebrecht, ^«Vri3;v sur Jesaiakritik 
(with notes on some of the other prophets), [800 ; B. Duhm (in Nowack's 
*'IlAnd-kommentar"), 1892; \\.\\^^xs\^nTi,Du /^ukunfliet-wariung desjrsaia^ 
1S93 ; T. K. Chcyne, Introduclion to ike Book of Isaiah^ 1895 (very full and 
thoroi^h), and in Ilaupt's SBOT, j M. L. KcUner, The iV^^phecies of Isaiah ^ 
Cambridge, U.S.A. 1895 {^^ pp.: a convenient analysis of the prophecies, 
with synoptic tables of Ass. synchronisms, and transl. of Inscriptions, &c | ; 
J. Skinner (in the Cambridge Bible for Sthools\ i8g6. Of a more general 
character are — F. H. KrUger, Essai sur la tMithgii d'Esais xi-lxvi, 1881 j 
W. R. Smith, The Prophets of Israel and their pliut in history to the close of 
tkf 8th cent. B.C., 1882, "1895, Lectures v.-viii. ; A. B. Davidson in the 
Expositor^ 1883, Aug., Sept.; 1884, Feb., Apr., Oct, Nov., Dec. (on 
c. 40-66) ; S, R. Driver, Isaiah ; his life and iimes, and the writings which 
Itear his Hanti (in the " Men of the Bible " series), '1893 ; G. A. Smith, 
7^ Book of Isaiah (in the *' Expositor's Bible "), 1889-90 (historical and 
homiletic). For other literature, see Delitiscli, p. 34 ff. (E.T, 45 fT,) ; Dillm. 
p. xviiif.; and the autlioriiics rt-furrud to in Kucnen, Le. 

On the Prophets generally, the diaidcter of prophecy, their relation to the 
liistory, their theology, &c., the following work^ may be consulted: Aug. 
Tholuck, Die Propheten u. ihre Wdisa^uu^ien, 1S60, '1867 ; G. F. Ociilcr, 
Di* Thtoheitdes AT.s^ 1S73 (transUk-d), § 305 iT. ; B. Duhm, Die Theolojio 



d*r Ptephtitn^ 1875 ; A. Kuenen, Prophets and prepheey in Israsl (vciy full 

of information on the prophets and their work, but written from «a avowedly 
naturalistic standpoint}, 1877 ; F. E. Konig, Der OJfenbarungsbegriff d*» 
A T^s^ 3 vols. 1S&2 (an exhaustive discussion of the nature of propbecy, and 
ttie views that have been held of it) ; [195] C von OrclU, DU altUst, H^tiss, 
tvn dir VoUemiung des GotUiriUkUt 1882 (translated under the title Old 
Tat. Prophecy) \ Ed. Riehm, DU Afessianisckt IVcissagurt^^ "1885, transl. 
EdinK 1891 (to be recommended) ; C. A. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, 1886 ; 
IL Scliultj^ Alttest. Theolosie,^ 1889, p. 213 ff. (translated, EdinU 1892), 
*]S95 ; F. Delitzsch, Mui. Weissa^un^en in Gesch, Pol^e, 1890 (transt. 
Edinb. 1891) ; F. W. Farrar, 7'he Minor Prophets, 1S90, chaps. L-iv. ; A. F. 
Kirkpatrick, Tht Do<trin4 of the Prophets, 1892 ; C. G. Montefiore, the 
" Hibbert Lectures" for 1892; R. Sraend, Lehrb, der Aftttst. PtK-gesch. 
1893; W. Sanday, "Bampton Lectures" for 1893 (on Inspiration), csp. 
Lect. iii.; ports of Wellhausen's /rr. und JUd. Geschichle, 1894, ^1895 ; C H. 
Comill, Der Isr, ProphHismus (five Lectures),' 1896 (transl- Chicago, 1895); 
Dillmann, Alttest. The,fl, 1895, p. 474 ff.; G. A. Smith, The Book of the T-wehe 
Prophets^ 1896, 1. 11-30, 44-58; F. H. Woods, Tke Hope of Isreui {\%^). 

B.C. Chronotogicai Tabt*, 


74a OmaJt named (probably) In Assyrian Inscription. Call of Isaiah. 
^^f^*Pckak deposed and slain ; Hoshea (with Assyrian help) raised to the 

throne of Samaria. N. and K. tribes exiled by Tiglath'Pileser. 
732. Damascus taken by Tiglalh-PUeser. 


722. SaRGON. Fall of Samaria, and end of the Northern Kingdom, 

711. Siege and capture of Ashdod by the troops of Sargoo. 

71a Sargon defeats Merodach-boladan, and enters Bal^lon. 

705. Sennacherib. 

703. Sennacherib defeats Merodach-baladan, and spoils his palace. 

701. Campaign of Sennacherib against Phcenida, Phili^tia, and Judah. 

6S1. Sennacherib succeeded by Esarmaddon. 

607. Nineveh destroyed by the Medes and Babylonians. 

586. Destniction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. 

549-38. Period of Cyrus' successes in Western and Central Asia. 

538. Cyrus captures Babylon, and releases the Jewish exiles. 

Isaiah, Jeremiali, Ezekiel, and "the Twelve" (;>. the Minoi 
Prophets) form ihc concluding part of the second great division 
of the Hebrew Canon, "The Prophets," being called specially, 
in contradistinction to the "Former Prophets" (p. 103), the 
"Latter Prophets." 

Isaiah, son of Atnoz, received the prophetic call in the last 
year of King Uzziah's reign (6*), i,e, (according to the chronology, 

• 733-2, according to Rost, Did Kuhehriftt4xU T»'P^*$ III, (1893), 
pp. xxix, xxxf U 



corrected from Assyrian data*) ac 740; and he prophesied in 

Jerusalem during the reigns of the three succeeding kings, 
Jotham, Ahaj;, and Hezckiah. He was married (8^) ; and two 
sons are alluded to, Shear-jashub (7*) and Maher-shalal-hash-ba* 
(8*"*). The scene of his labours appears to have been chiefly, 
if not exclusively, Jerusalem ; and from the position which was 
evidently accorded to him by both Ahaz and Hezekiah, it has 
Ix'cn [196I conjectured that he was of noble blood. Few par- 
ticulars of his life are recorded ; the chief being connected with 
the part taken by him at the two crises through which during 
his lifetime Judah pissed (c. 7-8; 36-37). For how many 
years he sur\'ived the second of these crises (b.c 701) is not 
known : in 2 cent a.d. there was a tradition current among tlie 
Jews, and alluded to also by Christian writers, that he suffered 
martyrdom by being sawTi asunder in the persecutions which 
followed the accession of Manasseh. According to 2 Ch. 26^ 
Isaiah was the author of a history of the reign of Uzziah ; and 
ib. 32'* mention is made of a ** Vision of Isaiah/' containing an 
account of the reign of Hezekiah, which formed part of the (lost) 
"Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel" (see below, under 
Chronicles) ; but nothing further is known of either of these 

The Book of Isaiah may be divided conveniently as follows : 
— c. I-*! 2. 13-23. 24-27. 28-33. 34-35- 36-39- 40-66. Among 
these prophecies there are some which, as will appear, are not 
the work of Isaiah himself, but belong to a different, and later, 
period of Israelitish history, 
\ I. C. 1-12. The first collection of Isaiah's prophecies, 
relating to the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and belonging 
to various occasions from ac 740 to b.c, 701. 

C. I. The " Great Arraignment" (Ewald). V.*-* the prophet 
charges his people with unfaithfulness and ingratitude: he com- 
pares them to unnatural children who have disowned their 
father; aid traces to their want of discernment the troubles 
from which they are at present suflfering. V.*^-^'" the defence 
which they are supposed to offer, that the Temple services are 
maintained with splendour and regularity, is indignantly dis- 

• See the writer's /ra/j^, pp. 8, ij C (with the references) ; Schrader, 
KA7.^^ 465 ff.; or ihc BeilagtH to Kautzsch, Du keil. Stkrift da A1\i 
(jtxfvc, p. 3). p. 121 £ 



allowed by him : their religious observances are not the expres- 
sion of a right heart V.'^^a ^n offer of pardon is made, on 
Clod's part, to the guilty nation, — an offer, however, which it 
speedily appears will not be accepted by it. V.^**^* the prophet 
passes sentence. Jehovah will taJce the judgment into His own 
hands, and by a severe discipline purge away evil-doers, and 
restore the people to its pristine and ideal character. 

The date of c I is unceitiun, but it must have been written (notice in v.' 
i\it picp, D'S:k) whilst a foe was ravaging the territory of Judah. According 
to some (Gcs. Del. Dillm. Hackm. ), these foes arc the allied troops of Syria 
and Israel (2 Ki, 15"), and the ch. belongs to the beginning of Ahaz* reign, 
[197] being the first (or one of the first) of Isaiah's prophecies after his call 
(c 6): according to others (Hilz., W. R. Smith, Duhm, Cheync) they are 
the Assyrians {ib. 18"), and the ch. — or, at least (Chcyne), v.*"" — belongs to 
llie reign of Hezekiah (B.C. 7^0* its position at the beginning of Isaiah's 
prophecies being explained from tlic general character of much of its contents 
fitting it to form an introduction to the following discourses. 

)^ C 2-5. Here Isaiah dwells in greater detail on the judgment 
which he sees imminent upon Judah. He opens, a'-^, with an 
impressive picture of the pre-eminence to be accorded in the 
future, by the nations of the world, to Israel's religioa V.**" he < 
contrasts therewith the very different condition of his people, 
which he sees about him; and announces, v.*-", the judgment 5^ 
about to fall upon every object of human pride and strength. 
31-11 a collapse of all existing society is approaching, the cause of 
which is referred, v.**"**, to the selfish and thoughtless behaviour 
of the nation's guides. 3^'*-4* Isaiah attacks the luxurious dress x 
of the women, declaring how in the day when disaster overtakes 
the city, and her warriors are defeated by the foe, it will have to 
be exdianged for a captive's garb. This, however, is not the 
end. For those who escape the judgment a brighter future will 
then commence, which is described 4^ C. 5, in its general iC 
scope, is parallel to c 2-4, V.*'' the parable of the vineyard 
shows how Judah has disappointed its Lord and Owner ; v>** 
the. prophet denounces, in a series of "Woes," the chief national 
sins; ending, v.**-^^, with a more distinct allusion to what may 
shortly be expected at the hands of an unnamed but formidable 
foe (the Assyrians). 

E^bably a sammary of discourses delivered at tlie end of Jotham's reign, 
b^inning of that of Ahaz. 3^ implies that the throne was occupied bjr a 
Vmtak Idog, iucb as Abac was j from 2" ('* sliips of Tarshith ") it may peihapft 



be infeired that the seaport of EUth, which Uciiah had r«:ovcTcd for Jtidah 
(a Ki. 14"), had not yet been captured by the Syiiana {ifi. 16"). The idc« of 
t national catastrophe, extirpating enl-doers, but preserving a remnant, 
worthy to fonn the nucleus of a renovated community in the future (4^')» *■ 
characteristic of Isaiah ; it is foreshadowed at the Lime of hui call (6^"*), and 
recurs often afterwards, i*"* 10*"- 17»-" (of Ephmim), 2S* 37". The *' Day of 
Jehovah " (a"''*) is the figure — ftr^t, as it &eems, so applied by Amos (5* *) 
— under which, with varying im^cry, the prophets represent Jehovah's 
manifestation at important moments of history (see W. R. Smith, Propk, 131 f., 
396 f. ; /ro/'uA, p. 27 f.). 

By many recent critics, following Ewald, it has been supposed, chiefly on 
the ground of the common refrain (5*^** 9"' "*" 10*), that s*"* belonged 
originally to the prophecy 9*-ia*, S**** forming the climax. Ewald (cf. Smith, 
Proph, p, 238) supposed the original order to have been 5" 9*-ia* 5***! 
Dillm. {p. 43) 9*-lo* 5* (the close of a strophe, now incomplete), s"*** (cf. 
Skinner, p. 40) ; Cheync {/ntrad. pp. 25 f,, 46, 393, 39S f.), 9"-io* 5*-" (5** ■• 
being editorial additions). 

"^ C. 6. Isaiah's call (year of Uzziah's death — not later than 740 
B.C.). The vision, with its impressive symbolism, is described 
by Isaiah in chaste and dignified lajiguage. The terms of his 
prophetic [198] commission are stated in v.**-*^ He is to be the 
preacher and teacher of his people; but his work, whatever it 
may accomplish secretly, is to be in appearance fruitless. And 
this is to continue until the desolating tide of invasion has swept 
over the land, and purged to the utmost the sin-stricken nation. 
He is not, however, left without a gleam of hope ; the core of the 
Jewish nation will survive the judgment, and burst out afterwards 
into new life : it is a " holy seed," and as such is indestructible 
(v,*^^: for the figure of the reviving tree, cf. Job 14^"^). 

C 7^-9^. Prophecies uttered during the Syro-Ephraimitish 
war (b.c. 735-734). An alliance had been concluded between 
Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Damascus, for the pur- 
pose of opposing a barrier to the aggression of the Assyrians ; 
and the object of the present invasion of Judah was to force that 
country to join the coalition : the intention of the allies being to 
depose Ahaz (who cherished Assyrian proclivities), and to sub- 
stitute for him a more subservient rtiler, the son of one Tabeel 
(7*). The invasion caused great alarm in Judah (7*) ; and Ahaz 
meditated casting himself upon the Assyrians for help, — a policy 
of which Isaiah strongly disapproved. Isaiah, being directed to 
go and accost Ahaz, assures him that his fears are groundless: 
the power of the two allied kingdoms is doomed to extinctioa; 




their plan for the ruin of Judah will not succeed, 7*^. To meet 
Ahaz' distrust, Isaiah announces the birth of the child, who, in 
spite of the destitution (v.** cf. v.-'^) through which his country 
must fir^t pass, is still the mysterious pledge and symbol of its 
deliverance, v.*^^*. The thought which has hitherto been in the 
background is now no longer concealed : and Isaiah confronts 
Ahaz with the naked truth, declaring how his plan for invoking 
Assyrian help will issue in unforeseen consequences : Judah will 
become the arena of a conflict between Assyria and Egypt, and 
will be desolated by their contending armies, v.^^'^. In 8*** i* 
Isaiah reaiBrms, in a symbolical form, the prediction of 7*'^' ^". 
g&.i6 arg words of consolation addressed to his immediate friends 
and disciples. The tide of invasion will indeed inundate Israel ; 
it will even pass on and threaten to engulph Judah : but it 
will be suddenly arrested, v.^*** : do not regard Rezin and Pekah 
with unreasoning fear ; do not desert principle in the presence ol K 
imagined danger^ v.'^'". Dark times are coming, when [199] men 
will wish that they had followed the *' direction and admonition '' 
(v,-"^; see v.i^) of Isaiah, v.**^-^. But nevertheless Jehovah ha3 
a brighter future in store for His people : the North and North- 
east districts, which had just been depopulated (in 734) by 
Tiglatli-pileser {2 Ki. 15*-^), will be the first to experience it; and 
the prophecy closes with an impressive picture of the restoratiun 
and triumph of the shattered nation, of the end of its oppressors, 
and of its security and prosperity under the wondrous rule of its 
ideal King, q*"', 

98-10* (written probably shortly before the outbreak of the 
same war, but addressed to Israel^ not Judah). The prophet in 
four strophes, each closing witli the same ominous refrain (cf. 
Am. 4*^""), draws a picture of the approaching collapse of the 
N. kingdom, which he traces to its moral and social disintegra- 
V lion, (i) 9^^*, The Ephraimites' proud, but inconsiderate, 
superiority to danger has resulted in their country being beset 
on all sides by its foes. (2) 9****-i^ A great and sudden disaster 
befalls Ephraim, defeating the plans of its statesmen, and leaving 
it defenceless. (3) 9'*"**, Rival factions contending with one - 
another insidiously undermine Ephraim's strength. (4) 10^**. The •>. 
rulers of the nation have demoralized both the people and them- 
selves : in the day when misfortune comes they will be unable to 
cope with it, and will perish helplessly on the battlefield. 


xo'-i2*, A picture of the pride and ambition of the Assyrians, 
of their sudden ruin, of the release of Jerusalem from its peril, 
and of the ensuing nile of the Messianic king. This prophecy 
is one of the most striking creations of Isaiah's genius : in power 
and originality of conception it stands unsurpassed. The 
Assyrian is in reality an instrument in the hands of Providence, 
but he fails to recognize the truth; and Isaiah describes his 
overweening pretensions, lo^^, and tlieir sudden collapse, v.^*-*'vl[ 
The fall of tlie Assyrian will not indeed leave Israel unscathed ; 
but those who escape, though but a remnant, will have their under- 
standing enlightened, and will look to Jehovah alone, v.^-^. Let 
Judah, then, be reassured: though the Assyrian draw near, and 
even swing his arm audaciously against the citadel of Zion, in 
the moment when victory seems secure he will be foiled, v.'*^;)( 
Jerusalem will be delivered, and a reign of peace, under the 
gracious rule of the ideal Prince of David's line, will be inaugur- 
ated, [200] 1 1^"'** : Israel's exiles from all quarters will return ; the 
rivalry of Judah and Ephraim will be at an end, v.^i-i**; and the 
restored nation will express its gratitude to its Deliverer in a 
hymn of thanksgiving and praise, c. la. 

„;i<r In lO^** Isaiah represents the Assyrian as advandng against Jerusalem 
by the usual line of approach from the north. It does not appear, however, 
that cither Sargon or Sennacherib actually fullowcd this route; and the 
prophet, it is probable, intends merely to draw an effective imaginative 
picture of the danger threatening Jerusalem, and of the manner in which 
(v.***) it would be suddenly averted. The historical situation implied by the 
prophecy agrees with that of the year 701 B.C., when Sennacherib, having 
completed the reduction of the rebellious cities of Phoenicia, was starting for 
Die south, intending to reduce similarly Jerusalem, and the Philistine cities of 
AshkcloQ and Ekron : at a time when the Assyrians were actually approaching 
from the north, their intended attack might readily take shape in the prophet's 
imagination in the manner represented in to*"** (comp. /fu/aA,' pp. 66f.» 
70 73» ai3f^ Similarly Ew. ; Schradcr, KAT,^ p. 386; Stade, Gtsch, i. 
614 f.; Kittcl, Gu£h, il 313; Duhm» at least for 10"' *•""; Hackmann). 

Pro£ W. R. Smith {Proph. 297 ff.) places the prophecy at the beginning 
of Sargon's reign, r^arding 10^- as an ideal representation of the ambitious 
pretensions of the Assyrians, and of the ^lure to which they were doomed, 
not suggested by any special historical occasion. Similarly Dillm. ; Guthc, 
Giesebrecht (in 7^^). Kuen. § 43. 5 places it towards the end of Sargon'i 
reign; Cheyne (/w/tW. pp. 50 f,, 55), abandoning the unity of the prophecy, 
assigns lo*-*- ^" to 7", and lo"'^" lo 7", during the siege of Samaria. 

Isaiah's authorship of c I3 is, however, questioned by an increasing 
Dumber of modem critics^ who hold it to be a psalm of thanki^ving, uiached 




to the oiigina! prophecy after the return from erilc : lo, for msUuice, Ewald, 
Chc}'nc, Stade, Kucncn (§43. 6), Prof. Fr. Brown {Jourtt. of BibL LH, 1890, 
p, 138 CT.), Dillm. (p. 134 f.), CurniU, Kunig(S6^ 5^). This condusioit is 
bftscd partly upon the contents of the chapter, partly upon its phnueology, 
both of which present dcvialions from Isaiah's usual manner, and rc- 
Kmblanccs with the usa^ of a later :^e ; the details will be found noted 
most fully by Brown and Dillniann (cf. also Cheyne, p. 58 f. ). — 1 1**"", also, 
on accoaot of ihc ideas coniained in it (which are in some respects in advance 
of those found elsewhere in Iitaioh : note also the contrast between v.*^ and 
»,♦*), miKi the bistocical conditions presupposed by it (see more fully /raiuA* 
p* 314f.)i has been cooudered by many recent critics to have been added in 
the post-exilic periodi as a supplement to 11*'' (Kuen. S 43- 7 ; Giescbr. pp. 
35-52; Chtryne, pp. 59-62; cf. Skinner, p. 95). Dillm. (p. 131) defends 
Iniah's authorship. 

II. c. 13-23. Prophecies dealing (chiefly) with foreign nations. 
C 1-12 centre entirely round either Judah or Israel ; the present 
group comprises prophecies, in which though there is often an 
indirect reference to one of the^e countries, the primary interest 
lies, as a rule, in the nation which they respectively concern. 
The prophets observed closely the movements of history ; they 
saw in the rise and fall of nations the exhibition of a Divine 
purpose; and the varying fortunes of Israel's nearer or more 
distant neighbours often materially affected Israel itself. 'Hiese 
nations were, moreover, related to Israel and Judah in different 
ways : sometimes, for instance, they were united by ties of sym- 
pathy and alliance ; in other cases they viewed one another with 
mutual jealousy and distrust The neighbouring nations, especi- 
ally, being thus in various ways viewed with interest by their 
own people, tlie Hebrew prophets not unnaturally included them 
in their prophetic survey. The foreign prophecies of Isaiah are 
distinguished by great individuality of character. The prophet 
displays a remarkable familiarity with [201] the condition, social 
or physical, of the countries with which he deals : and seizes in 
each instance some characteristic aspect, or feature, for notice 
(r^. the haughty independence of Moab, the tall and handsome 
physique of the Ethiopians, the local and other peculiarities of 
Egypt, the commerce and colonies of Tyre). 

131-14*3. On Babylon. In this prophecy the Jews are 
represented as in £xi/£, held in thraldom by the Babylonians, but 
shortly to be released in consequence of the capture of Babyloa 
by the Medes (13'^. C. 13 describes the mustering of the 
assailing forces on the mountains, the terror of their approach^ 



the capture and sack of the city, the fewness of the survivor* 
(v."), and the desolation which will mark thereafter the site of 
Babylon, 14^'^ states the reason of this, viz. because the time 
has arrived for Israel to be released from exile : " For Jehovah 
will have compassion upon Jacob, and wUl aj^ain choose Israef^ 
and settle them in their own land." 14*-™ the prophet provides 
Israel with an ode of triumph, to be sung in the day of its 
deliverance, depicting, with extreme beauty of imagery, and not 
without a delicate under-current of irony, the fall of the Baby- 
Ionian monarch from his proud estate : v.2i-2s he reasserts the 
irretrievable ruin of the great city. 

The situation presupposed by this prophecy is not that of 
Isaiah's age. The Jews are not warned, as Isaiah (39*) might 
warn them, against the folly of concluding an alliance with 
Babylon, or reminded of the disastrous consequences which 
such an alliance might entail ; nor are they threatened, as 
Jeremiah threatens them, with impending exile: they are repre- 
sented as in €xiU^ and as about to be delivered from it (14*'*). 
It was the office of the prophet of Israel to address himself to 
the needs of his own age, to announce to his contemporaries 
the judgments, or consolations, which arose out of the circum- 
stances of their own time, to interpret for them their own 
history. To base a promise upon a condition of things not yet 
existent, and without any point of contact with the circum- 
stances or situation of those to whom it is addressed, is alien 
to the genius of prophecy. Upon grounds of analogy the 
prophecy i3'-i4" can only be attributed to an author living 
towards the close of the exile and holding out to his contem- 
poraries the prospect of release from Babylon, as Isaiah held out 
to his contemporaries the prospect of deliverance from [202] 
Assyria. (Comp. below, p. 230.) The best commentary on it 
is the long prophecy against Babylon, contained in Jer. 50-51'***, 
and written towards the closing years of the exile, which views 
the approaching fall of Babylon from the same standpoint, aiid 
manifests the same spirit as this does. As the prophecy names 
only the Medes, and contains no allusion to Cyrus or the 
Persians, it is probable that it was written shortly before 5^9 B.a 
(in which year Cyrus overthrew the Median empire of Astyages : 
die Persians uniting with the Medes, after successes in Asia 
Minor and elsewhere, captured Babylon in 538). 




i4M-«T, On the Assyrian. A short prophecy declaring 
Jehovah's purpose to overthrow the Assyrian army upon the 
" mountains " of Judah. 

The date is no doubt during ihe period of Sennacherib's campaign agunsi 
Judah in 701. The prophecy has no connexion with what precedes. It is 
directed agaipst Assyria^ not Babylon ; and it anticipates, not the capture v\ 
the dty of Babylon, bat the overthrow of the hosts of Assyrii in Judah. 

,^?e-M_ On the Philistines. The Philistines are in exultatiun 
at the fall of some dreaded foe: Isaiali warns them that their 
rejoicing is premature, that the power whicli they dreaded will 
recover itself, and prove even more formidable than before. The 
Assyrian is approaching in the distance (v.^**"); Philistia will 
suffer severely at his hands (v.^oi'- 8U)^ though Zion, in the strength 
of its God, will be secure (v.«<»*- »^''). 

The title (▼.") suggests that "the rod which smote" Philistia was Ahaz, 
and assigns the prophecy to 728 [or, as others calculate, 715] B.C But the 
connexion of thought appears to require the foe alluded to in v." to be 
identical with the foe alluded to, more directly, in v.". I'.f. the Assyrian. 
If so, Sargon will be the "snake" of v.", and Sennacherib the more for- 
midable "serpent flying about," and the dale will be some short time after 
Sargon^s death in 705. The Pliilistlncs might naturally feel elated upon 
receiving news of the murder of Sargon, who had defeated Hanno of Gaxa at 
Raphia in 720, and captured Ashdod in 711. Tliat Sennacherib severely 
punished the Philistines, appears from his own inscription {/saiaM^ p. 67 f.), 
Cheyne refers tlie prophecy to 730, supposing the occasion to be disturbances 
in Syria and Palestine shortly after the accession of Sargon [Tutrod, p. 81 f.). 

C 15-16. On Moab. The prophet sees a great and terrible 
disaster about to fall upon Moab, desolating the country, and 
obliging the flight of its inhabitants, a 15. He bids the fugitives 
seek safety in the protection of the house of David, and send 
tokens of their submission to Jerusalem ; for there, as he knows, 
the violence of the Assyrian aggressor will soon be sdlled (cf. 29^), 
and a just and righteous king will be sitting on David*s [203] 
throne (cf. 9**'), i6*-*. But the haughty independence of the 
Moabites prevents their accepting the prophet's advice ; and the 
judgment must accordingly run its course, i6*-*'. ^/l^\^ forms 
an epilogue. The prophecy, as a whole, had been delivered on 
some previous occasion : Isaiah, in the epilogue, affirms solemnly 
its speedy fulfilment. 

The dates both ol the original prophecy and of the epilogue aro matter ot 
conjecture. The epilogue may be assigned plausibly to a period shortly 


before StLrgon's campaign against Ashdod in 711, when Moab is mentionnS 
as intriguing with Philistia and Egypt {/saiaA, p. 45}. But to what date the 
prophecy itself belongs is Tcry oncertAin. The expression hereiofor* in v.^ 
is ambiguous : it may denote a comparatively short interval of dme [3 Sa. 
I5**)( or one that is mocb longer (Ps. 93^). The prophecy may have been 
written by Isaiah some 35 years before, in anticipniion of the foray made by 
Tiglath-piicscr upon the districts cast of Jordan in 734, which faccording to 
the notice 1 Cb. 5*) extended as far south as Reuben. But the style and 
lone of is'-ld^* impress many critics as different from those of Isaiah ; and 
1 cncc they suppose it to have been delivered originally by some earlier 
prophet, but to have been adopted and reinforced by Isaiah, llie terms of 
16" (which in no way connect the prcccdii^ prophecy with Isaiah himselO 
rather support this \'icw. There arc analogies for the reproduction (and 
partial modification) by one prophet of a passage written by another: corop. 
«*^ with Micah 4>"* ; Jer. 49*^*" and Chad, v."-*- *• ; and the use made by Jer. 
himself of this prophecy (see the rcff. on RV, marg. of Jer. 48*- "■•*). The 
invasion (as tlie Moabites flee in llic direction of Edom) appears to take place 
from the North ; Judah is represented as strong enough to defend the 
fugitives; and the tcrritor)' N. of the Arnon {i.e, Reuben and port of Gad) 
is occupied by the Moabites. This contbination of circumstances suits the 
reign of Jeroboam II.; and the original pfophecy has accnrdiogly been referred 
to the occa^on of the subjugation of Moab by that king, presupposed by 
3 Ki. 14*, when the powerful monarch Uuiah was nilir^ over Judah — the 
author bciiig supposed I0 be a prophet of Judah who sympathized (15' 16^"'). 
with the suffering Moabites (so Hiizig, Reuss, Wellh. in the Encyd, BrttJ* 
xvt. 535, W. R. Smith, froph. pp. 91 f., 392, Dillm.). Ges., Ew., Kuen. 
{% 44), Baudissin, also, attribute l5*-l6" to an earlier prophet than Isaiah, 
but without attempting to define its occasion more particularly. 16***^ (which 
is in harmony with Lsaiah's style and thought) may be conjectured, if this view 
be adopted, to be an addition made to the original prophecy by Isaiah himself 
(Chcyne formerly). 

xyi'*^ On Damascus. Isaiah declares the impending fall 

of Damascus, to be followed sliortly by that of Ephraim as well, 

yv.***. A remnant will, however, escape, who will be spiritually 

' transformed, and recognise Jehovah as the sole source of their 

strength, v.***. The ground of Ephraini's ruin is its forgetfulness 

of Jehovah, and its adoption of foreign cults, v.*-**. 

[304] The prophecy is pftmliul in thought to 8*. though, from its contain* 
ing no allusion to hostilities with Tudah, it nmy be inferred (Ew. Del. Ch. 
Koen. Dillm.) that it was written before the Syro-Ephraimitish war had 

17^'"**, A short but singularly graphic prophecy, describing 
the ocean like roar of the advancing Assyrian hosts, ftnd theii 

sudden dispersion. 



In general conception (though the figures used are different) the prophecy 
resemhles 14**"", and may be assigned to the same period. Cheyne thinks 
that it was written to T«Lssnre Judah during the siege of Samaria, €. 723. 

C 18. On Ethiopia [Heb. Cush]. The Ethiopians, alarmed 
by intelligence of the advance of the Assyrians, have just sent 
ambassadors to the king of Judah to induce him to combine 
with them in an anti-Assyrian league (v.''*»). Isaiah sends them 
back with the assurance that their anxiety is needless : the plans 
of the Assyrians will be intercepted, and dicir hosts overthrown, 
independently of the anns of Ethiopia, v.'"^'*. Hereupon the 
Ethiopians will do homage to the God of Israel, v.'. 

The prophecy may be assigned, tike the last, to the year 701. An advance 
upon Egypt lay always within the plans of the Assyrians : and the Ethiopians 
might well fear tliat Sennacherib, when he had conquered Judah and the 
Philistines, would pursue bis successes, and make an cndtravour to add not 
Egypt only, but Ethiopia as well, to his empire. In point of fact, Sen- 
nacherib was adv'ancing towards Kg)-pt when his army (at Pelunom} was 
smittoi by a pestilence (Hdt. iL [41 ; Isaiah^ p. 81 f.). 

C 19. On Egypt A period of unexampled collapse and 
decay, a/Tecting every grade and class of society, is about to 
commence for Eg)'pt, v.^-^^, to be succeeded by the natioa'i con- 
version and spiritual renovation, v.*^^. 

The prophecy ii a remarkable one, both on account of its many allusions 
to the characteristic habits of the people and features of the country, and for 
the grand catholicity of the picture with which it closes (Assyria and Egypt, 
the one Judah'a oppressor, the other its untrue friend, to be incorporated, on 
an equality with Israel itself, in the kingdom of God). 

The date of the prophecy is not certain ; but it is at least a plausible con- 
jecture that it was written in 720 B.a, when Sargon defeated tlie Egyptians 
at Raphia. Sargon did not ** nile over " Egypt (v.^) ; but it is not necessary 
to suppose that Isaiah has here a deGaite person in view ; he probably merely 
means to say that, in the political disorganization which he sees to be immt- 
ncnt, the country will fall a prey to the first ambitious and determined man 
who invades it. In point of fact, Sargon defeated the Egyptian arms both in 
720 and in 711 ; Sennacherib did the same in 701 : Esarhoddon penetrated 
into Egypt, and reduced it to the condition of an Assyrian province, t, 673 ; 
Fsammctichus, a Libyan, made himself master of it shortly afterwards, €. 660, 
and revolutionized the policy of its former Icings by opening it for the &rst 
time to the Greeks. Others Uiink that the lofty hopes of the prophecy are 
raost consistent with the period after 701, when the prophet could contem- 
plate more calmly his country's foe : so Ewald (L 481 f. [E. T. ii. 267 r.])^ who 
describes this prophecy as Isaiah's last and noblest "testament to posterity,** 
Stadci Dillm., Kucn. (§ 43. 23-25). Isaiah's authorstiip of ▼.'•■*■ (or ol 



¥.'•*•) has b«n questioned (see Cbeyne, p. lOofT.): in defence of it, lee 
Kuen. g 43. 25 ', Dillm. p. 173. 

> [205] C 20. On Egypt and Ethiopia. While Ashdod was 
besieged by the Assyrian troops in 711, Isaiah walks the street 
of Jerusalem in a captive^s garb, continuing to do so for three 
years, in order to prefigure the shameful fate that would befall 
Egypt and Ethiopia at the hands of the victorious Assyrians. 

The date is fixed by Sargon's inscripUons, which allude to ihc siege of 
Ashdod, and imply that the revolt of the Philistines, which led to it, was 
carried through with promises of help from EgypL Isaiah's symbolical act 
was doubtless meant indirectly as a protest agninst th^ Egyplianizing party in 
Jerusalem, and intended to impress forcibly upon the people of the capital 
the folly of reliance upon Egypt. 

2 1^'". On Babylon. Tlie prophet in imagination sees 
Babylon besieged by an eager and impetuous foe, v,*"^ : the 
vision agitates and appals him, v,^-* : the issue, for a while, 
appears uncertain, but in the end he is assured that the city has 
fallen, v.^* ; and he announces the result to his people, v.^°. 

In order lo determine the date of the prophecy, it is necessary to consider 
what is the siege of Babylon alluded to in it. The mention of Elam (i.e., 
substantially, Persia) and Media, among the assailing forces, appeared to 
point naturally to the attack upon Babylon by Cyrus, B.C. 53S, as the occa- 
sion of the prophecy ; and as no intelligible purpose would be subserved by 
Isaiah's announcing to the generation of Hezckiah an occurrence lying nearly 
200 years in the future, and kaoing no bearing on contemporary itUerests^ it 
has been generally supposed by critics (Ewald, llitzig, &c) to be the work of 
an author living towards itie close of the Babylonian captivity, and writing 
from the same general standpoint as tlie author ol I3*-I4". The decyphcr- 
Tnent of the Assyrian Inscriptions has, however, shown tliat Merodach- 
Baladan, who bore from B.C. 721 to 710 the title "king of Babylon" 
{Schiader, Keitinschriftlicht Bibfiothtky iii. i, 1892^ p. 185 ff.; cf. Is. 39'), 
mode repeated e0brts to free his country from the Assyrian yoke, and that 
the Assyrians, on three separate occasions, .n Isaiah's own lifetime, B.C. 710, 
703, and 696, besieged and entered the ; ibcllious city {/laiak, pp. 45, 55, 
106). Hence Klcinert {Stuti. u. Krit. 1S77, p. 174 IT.) sought to show that 
the prophecy had reference to the first of these sieges, the interest with which 
the issue was watched by Isaiah being explained by him from the fact that 
Mcrodacb'Baladan had probably some understanding with Hezckiah (cf, 
c 39]« and that the success of the Assyrians would mean the punishment of 
those suspected of being his allies. This view was adopted formerly by 
Chcyne [Isaiah, ed. 3), and the present writer {/sa/aA, p. 96 ff.) ; but it has 
not met with the support of recent writers on Isaiah (DcUiisch, ed. 4 ; Kuen. 
S 43. 10 ; Dillm. ; Ac) ; and even Chcyne has abandoned it [Introd. p. 124). 
It seems, in fact, that the judgment of Enald and Uie older critics was 




correct The capture of Babylon by the Assyrians la 7^0 ^^ not in reality 
(lo Jar as we know) affect Judah at all ; [206] nor was it^ like the conquest of 
Cynis in 53S1 followed by momentous consequences for the Jews. See, more 
fully, the note in the writer's Isaiah, ed. a, pp. 216-219; Qieyne, Inind, 
ph 131 £ 

21*^*". On Dumah {i.e, Edom). A call of inquiry reaches 
the prophet from Seir (Gen. 36^-): he replies, in dark and 
enigmatic terms, that though the '* morning " {i.e, brighter days) 
may dawn for Edom, it will quickly be followed by a " night " 
of trouble ; for the present no more favourable answer can be 

2,ia-iT_ On 'Arab. A tide of invasion is about to overflow 
the region inhabited by *Arab and Kedar (v.") ; the Dedanite 
caravans passing through it have to seek refuge in the woods ; 
the people of Tcma bring supplies to the fugitive traders. 
Within a year Kedar will be so reduced in numbers, tliat only 
an insignificant remnant will survive. 

'Arab denotes not Arabia (in our sense of the word), but a particular 
nomad tribe inhabiting the N. of the Peninsula, and mentioned Ea. 27*^, 
with Dcdan and Kedar, as engaged in commerce with Tyre. Kedar was a 
wealthy pastoral tribe, 60^, Jer. 49". T£ma Uy some 250 miles S.-& of 
Edom. Sargon's troops were engaged in war with the Philistines in both 
720 and 711 : and it may be conjectured that these two prophecies were 
delivered in view of an expected campaign of the Assyrians in the neigh- 
bouring regions in one of these years. 

/ 2 2^*". A rebuke, addressed by Isaiah to the inhabitants of 
tne capital, on account of the undignified temper displayed by 
them when their city was threatened with an assault by the foe. 
V.' describes the demeanour of the people ; v.^*^ the events 
which had preceded ; v.<** ihe grief and shame overwhelming 
the prophet in consequence ; v.**" the hasty measures of defence 
which had been taken by 'he people, and the inappropriate 
temper manifested by them >c the time and subsequently; v.^' 
is the prophet's rebuke. 

The prophecy belongs probably to either 711 or 701 B.C. In 711 B.C. 
Sargon's troops were in the neighbourhood of Judah (engaged upon the siege 
of Ashdod) ; and as Judah is mentioned at Uie same time {Isaiah^ p. 45 ; 
Schradcr, op. cit, \u 64 f. } as ** speaking treason " against him, it is possible 
that some collision may have taken place with Sargon's soldiers, resulting in b 
panic and defeat, such as Isaiah dcscritrcs.* The objection to referring it to 

* But Sayce's hypoUiests tliat Sargon gained a series of successes, and 
even ended by capturing Jerusalem, lacks adequate historical foundation, and 



Tor, the year of Setinacli crib's invasion, is its minatory tone ; for in the other 
prophecies belonging tindotibtedly to this period, Isaiah makes it his aim to 
encoarage and sustain [207] his people : but this difficulty may be overcome 
by referring it to an episode in this invasion— by supposing it to allude, for 
instance, to a panic occa^oncd by the first conflict widi the Assyrians [W. R. 
Smith, Proph. p. 346 ; Dillra.), or else to have been spoken by the prophet 
immediately afhr Sennacherib's retreat, in condemnation of the temper shown 
by the people while the invasion was in progress (Guthe, Soreosen, Kaeneo, 
§43. 1^21, Cheync, Introd. p. 135^). 

r^.aa^*'^- OnShebna. Shebna, a minister holding in Jerusalem 
the influential office of Clovcrnor or Comptroller of the Palace, 
is threatened by Isaiah with disgrace and banishment ; and Elia- 
kim, a man of approved views, is nominated as his successor. 

It is evident that Shebna represented a policy obnoxious to Isaiah — 
probably he was one of the friends of Egypt The prophecy must date from 
before 701 ; for in that year (36* 37') Eliakim is mentioned as holding the 
office here promised him by Isaiah, and Sbeboa occupies the subordinate 
position of " Scribe," or secretary, 

C. 23. On Tyre. In picturesque and effective imagery, the 
approaching fall of Tyre, the great commercial and colonizing 
city of antiquity, is described, v.*"'*. After seventy years of 
enforced quiescence, however, Tyre will revive, and resume her 
former occupation; but her gains, instead of being applied to 
her own profit or adornment, will be consecrated to the ser\'ice 
of Jehovah, v.^^-^^ 

Isaiah expresses here, in a form consonant with the special 
character of Tyre — as before, in the case of Ethopia, 18^, and 
tgyp^ \^^^' — the thought of its future acknowledgment of the 
true God : the commercial spirit, by which it is actuated, will 
not be discarded, but it will be elevated and ennobled. 

The date of the prophecy depends partly upon v.". This verse is difficult 
and uncertain : but if the rendering of RV. be correct, the pmphet points, as 
a warning to Tyre, to the punishment recently inflicted upon Chaldaea by the 
Assyrians— piobably in 710-709 or 703 (p. 216) ; and the prophecy will havf 
been written shortly before Sennacherib's invasion of Phoenicia in 701 * (Smith, 
Ptoph. p. 333 ; cf. Isaiah^ p. 106). But the terms of v." appear to describe 
a graver di.sasler than that which befell Babylon in either 710 or 703 (see 
Schiadcr, Keitinschr, Btblialhtk^ ii, 69-73, 83-85 \.KAT? 346 f.]) ; the 

must be rejccled (sec W. R. Smith, Pioph. p. 295 ff. ; Isaah, p, loi f, 
Schrader, A'.*/?".' p. 407 f; Kuen. §41. 4c; Dillm. pp. 3, 103, 197). 

* Though Tyrt u not mentioned among I he cities then attacked by him. 



^'CbiSdnua'* %n introduced abraptty, uid Ewald's emendation, O'jpss 
CaMoam/es for D*ira (adopted by Schnuler, KAT.^ p. 409 f., and OreUi, 
and viewed favourably by Delitzsch}, is an attractive one ; the verse will 
then refer simply to the late impendiog on Phcenida itself, and the prophecy 
may be assigned plausibly, with Ew. Schmd. Kuen. {§ 42. 23), Dillm. OreUi, 
Oieyne (/.f. p. 143 £), to the period of Shalmancscr's siege of Tyie (between 
727 and 723 ».C.), related by Josephus {Arch, '-au 14. 2), 

III. C 34-37. These chapters are intimately connected 
[208] together, and form a single prophecy. They present a 
vivid picture of a great world-judgment, and of the happy escape 
from it of God's faithful people. In particular, they declare the 
overthrow of some proud, tyrannical city (the name of which is 
not stated), and depict the felicity, and spiritual blessedness, 
which Israel will afterwards enjoy. 

34^"*' announces a great convulsion about to overwhelm a 
large portion of the earth, obliterating every distinction of class, 
and spreading desolation far and wide. For a moment, how- 
ever, the vision of ruin is interrupted ; and the praises of the 
redeemed Israelites are heard, borne from afar over the Western 
waters, v.'*'-: but such rejoicings, the prophet declares, are 
premature ; another and more terrible scene in the drama of 
judgment has still to be enacted, v.^*-". In c 25 the deliver- 
ance is supposed to have been effected, and the hostile city 
overthrown : and the prophet puts into the mouth of the 
redeemed community two hymns of thanksgiving, 2x'-*'*; 25"-* 
he pictures the blessedness of which Zion will then be the centre 
for all nations; while haughty Moab, as**"*^', will be ignomini- 
ously humbled. 26^''** is a third hymn of thanksgiving; 26"'^* 
is a retrospect (supposed likewise to be spoken after the deliver- 
ance) : the nation looks back to the period of distress preceding 
its deliverance, and confesses that this had been accomplished, 
not by any power of its own, but by Divine aid. 26''*-2J the 
prophet returns to his own present, and addresses words of 
comfort to his contemporaries in view of the approaching 
"indignation" (i.e. 2i^^'). C. 27 contains further descriptions 
of the fall of the hostile power, with a fourth hymn (v.*^), and of 
the restoration of God*s own people. 

Modern critics agree generally In the opinion that this 
prophecy is not Isaiah's : and (chiefly) for the following reasons; 
^1. It lacks a stutable occasion in Isaiah's age. It cannot be 
plausibly assigned to the period of the Assyrian crisis of 701 ; 



for wc possess a long series of discourses belonging to the years 
702-701 : in all Isaiah views similarly the coming overthrow of 
Assyria; but in the present prophecy both the structure and the 
point of view are throughout different (contrast e^. c. 29-31 
with these chapters). Thus Isaiah never connects either the 
aggressions or the ruin of the Assyrian power with movements 
of the dimensions here contemplated : the Assyrian forces are 
broken "upon [209] the mountains" of Judah (14"); but the 
earth generally is untouched (contrast 24^-^'^ "■^). Isaiah always 
speaks of the army^ or king of Assyria : here the oppressing 
power is some great diy {2^^'^ 26''). In Isaiah, again, the 
"remnant" which escapes is saved in Judah or Jerusalem (4' 
37'-) : here the voices of the redeemed are first heard from 
distant quarters of the earth (24'^*'^). 

2. The literary treatment (in spite of certain phraseological 
points of contact with Isaiah) is in many respects unlike Isaiah's. 

3. There are features in the representation and contents of 
the prophecy which seem to spring out of a different (and later) 
\ein of thought from Isaiah's. 

Thus* the style is more artificial than that of Isaiah, as appears, for in- 
sUnce, Id the frequent combination of ncaily synoDymous clauses, often A^W' 
54-nas (24"), the repeUlion of a word (24" 25''' 2&- •• " 27'), the numerous 
alliterations and word-plays (24'' >■•■•'"• "• "• »• 2$*' "'' 26* 27^). the tend- 
ency to rhyme (24*'**" 25** •• ' 26*- '••*'• * 27** •),— all features, which, 
though they may be found occA.sioua!Iy in Isaiah, aie never aggregated in his 
wrilit^ as they are here. There arc, moreover, uiany luiu&ual expressions, 
the ccmbirtation of which points similarly to an author other than Isaiah. 
Traits connected willi the represcnUilion, not in the manner of Isaiah, are 
e.g. 24"* *'"" 25* 26^*'* (the resurrection), 27' {the animal symbolism), the re- 
flexions 26"*. The principal points of contact with Isaiah are 24* (nyiD). 
^vfb (2^)^ yu (i7«j^ v^ifb (2i9 33!)^ v.» (i« njiSo), 2s''(i7* nSpo), v.*(i4»D''n 
O'H'jit), v.* (32* p'x), 27* (g" n*n TDr), v.'(io"i.i30), v.*{i7'o'JDn), v."''(i7"* 
2a"''), V." (11" the wide disperuon) ; but, in the light of the general differ- 
ence, these are not sufficient to establibh Isaiah's authorship : they do not 
show more than that the author was familiar with Isaiah's writings, and 
sometimes borrowed expressions from them. His prophecy contains similarly 
remiiusccnces from other prophets, as 24' (Nah. 2"); 24*** 27" (Hos, 4'** 
14"); 24"'*^ Qcr. 48**-***); 24*>" (Am. 5») ; 26* {Isa. 6o»') ; 26" {Micah 
l'). It is true, the author follows Isaiah more than other prophets; but it is 
diflicuU not to feel the justice of Dclilzsch's remark {fsaiah^ ed. 4, p. 2S6), 
"that the prophecy, in order to find a place in the history of the OT. 
knowledge of salvation, must be referred to an age subsequent to Isaiah's." 

• SfC mmc fully Chcync, Intrcyi. p. 147 ff^ 



But if it be not Isaiah's, to what period is the prophecy to l»c 
assigned? The absence of distinct historical allusions makes 
this question a diHlcult one to answer. 27' alludes (as it seems) 
to Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt ; hence it will not be earlier than 
the time when Babylon became formidable to the Jews, [210] 
and there are features in which it is in advance not merely of 
Isaiah, but even of Dcutero-Isaiah. It may be referred most 
plausibly to the early post-exilic period.* 

The unnamed city is, most probably, Babylon, which, though 
conquered by Cyrus, was not destroyed by him, and remained an 
importaiit city till the close of the Persian empire (b.c. 332). It 
is doubtful, however, whether the literal Babylon is intended by 
the author. The lineaments of the city which he depicts are so 
indistinct and unsubstantial that the picture seenis rather to 
be an ideal one : Babylon becotnes a type of the powers of 
heathenism, which the prophet imagines as entrenched behind 
the walls of a great city, strongly fortified indeed, but destined 
in God's good time to be overthrown. Israel is in a depressed 
condition, tyrannized over by this unfriendly power; and he 
depicts, with great imaginative power, the feelings with which 
the people of God will watch the course of its overthrow, and 
the sacred joy and gratitude which its fall will evoke in their 
hearts. In doing this, he reaffirms older, but as yet unfulfilled 
prophecies : he employs largely the materials supplied lo him by 
the writings of earlier prophets ; but these are generalized and 
idealized by him, as he recombines them into a new picture, 
designed upon a grander scale. The representation partakes in 
fact of an apocalyptic, or eschatological, character ; the ideal, or 
symbolic, element is much larger than in the pre-exiUc pro- 
phecies generally; and the closest parallels are Ez. 38-39, Joel 
3*'\ Zech. 12-14. The aim of the prophecy will have been to 
revive and invigorate Ibrael's hope in the age of depression 
which followed the restoration to Palestine, when even faithful 
souls, contrasting the meagre reality with the brilliant visions of 
Is. 40-66, must have found it hard to resist the temptation to 

• So Ewald, Dclitisch (iVw. Wtisx, \ 44). Dillm.. Kirkpatrick, 77u 
Doctrine of tki PtvpheU (1892), p. 475 ff. Smend {ZA TlV, 1884, p. 161 ff.) 
And Kuenen (% 46. 20) place it later, in the 4lh cent. B.C., but upon groundi 
of doubtful cogency. 



The preciu circumsUnOTS under wliich the prophecy was written mu<t 
however, remain matter of conjecture. From Nch. i* it may be inferred {cf. 
Bcrtheao, ad Io€.) that some caJamity, on which the historical books are 
otherwise silent^ had befallen the restored community ; and perhaps this 
prophecy was designed for the encouragement [2ll] of the people at the 
time when that disaster was immiacnt, the author [in some cases) basing his 
representations upon those of Isaiah, and developing Unes of thought suggested 
by him. Possibly, indeed, it may owe its place in the Book of Isaiah to the 
fact that it was from the first intended as a supplement to Isaiah's prophcdt^^ 
against foreign nations, applying some of the truths and piindplcs on which 
laaiah insisted to the circumstances of the age in which the author wrote 
(comp. Dillm. p. 222). 

Cheyne {Introd. pp. xxvii, 155-160; cf. 358-363) seeks to fix the date 
more closely. It is stated (l) by Diodorus Siculus (xvi. 40-52) that under 
Artaxerxes (lll.) Ochus (b.c. 359-339)1 there was a great revolt of Phoenicia, 
Cyprus, and Eg)'pt, against Persia, which was suppressed by Ochus in 
348-344 with much cruelty and bloodshed, and the capture, under tragic 
ctrcamstances, of Sidon ; (2) by Euschius, Chron. ii. tt2 Scbone ( = Sync. i. 
486 ; similarly Orosius, iii. 7) that Ochus e/i klyvwrw ajpaTt^f>)w iitpiK^p 
Q.lXti^o,\vaiav elXcr 'lovdafwr, &v roi)i ^* if 'Tpxawt^ icar^irio'f wpi^t ry 
Kturrtg, 0aXdtr<rjit rodt di in Ba^i/Xurn, of xaZ /i^x/" '^ ''^^ a.irT6di, un woWol 
rSm 'EWiiPiav iaropovai ; (3) by Joscphus [Arch. xi. 7. I : cf. Ewald, Nist. 
V. 305f. ), lliat Bagoses — no doubt the same as Bagoas, who quelled for 
Ochus (Diod. xvi. 47 ff.) the revolt in Egypt — the general roO A\Xov 'Apra- 
f^^oi/, on account of a murder committed by the high priest John (Neh. 12") 
in the Temple, forced his way into the sanctuary, and laid a tax for 7 years 
of 50 drachms upon every lamb offered in the daily sacrifice ; (4) by Solinus, 
xxxT. 4 (in a brief description of the country) : Judaeae caput fuit Hierosolyma, 
sed excisa esL Succcssit Hierichus ; et hxc dcsivit Artaxerxis hello subactx 

Cbeyne, combining* the events thus recorded, and observing (cf. W, R. 
Smith, 07/C.»p. 43Sf.; Wei Ihausen, /jr. «.>&/. Gesch.^ p, 146, 'p. l8lt) 
that a captivity implies a revolt, argues that the Jews at this time must have 
passed through a severe nationat and religious crisis, in the course of which 
he conjectures that Jerusalem was even taken by the Persians, and the 
Temple burnt : the memory of these events, he thinks, explains the language 
not only of the present prophecy, but also (see below) of 63^-c. 64, and of 
several Psalms. The original prophecy, promising the downfall of the powers 
hostile to Israel, and describing in gluwing colours the glories to follow, con- 
sisted of c. 24, 25*"* 26"*' 27^****, and dated from c, B.c 334: it was sup- 
plemented, shortly after Alexander's victory at Issus (b.c 333), by 27^'", 
declaring that, terribly as the capital had been punished (v.^^**) by Ochus, 


•The exact chronology is uncertain: see for particulars Judcich, A'Uin- 
asiatiuh* Studien^ p. 170 ff. Ochus invaded Egypt more than once : Judeich, 
(pp. l7o«., 176 «.) connects the destruction of Jericho and deportation of 
Jewish capti%-es with his expedition of 354-353, and places the interposilioQ 
of Bagoses (Bagoas) in Jerusalem during hb suppression of the revolt mcn- 
taoned above, r. 346. 



Israel neverUielcss had "not been smitten by him as ftcverely u the Persians 
had been smitten now (v.') at Issus : the lyrical po-wogcs were inserted yet 
later, and are not written from an ideal standpoint in the future, but depict 
the actual feelings of the nation ; 26^*^" is the expression of Israel's gratitude 
for its delivery from Persian tyraimy ; 2$^'*' ^" 27^'' testify to the satis&ction 
with which the pious Jews saw the fulfilment of ancient prophecies (2$^^) in 
Alexander's capture of Tyre (d.c 332), and watched the humiliation of their 
heathen foes (comp. Skinner, p. 203 f.). This explanation of the prophecy 
is clever and suggestive : it must not be foigotteni however, that it rests upon 
a hypothetical basis ; however accurately such an event would harmonize 
with the terms of 27^"" 64"*", no destruction, or even capture of Jerusalem at 
the time is related by the ancients, allhough, h&d the disaster been of the 
magnitude which tlie passages quoted (if referred to it) imply, it is difficult 
not to think that some independent notice of it would have survived. 

Of course the ascription of the prophecy to this age in no 
degree impairs its religious value. On the contrary, "c 24-27 
stand in the front rank of Evangelical prophecy. In their ex- 
perience of religion, ihetr characterizations of God's people, 
their expressions of faith, their missionary hopes, and hopes of 
immortality, they are very rich and edifying." * 

The prophecy in some respects stands alone in the OT, It 
is remarkable on account of the width of area which the pro- 
phet's imagination traverses, the novelty and variety of the 
imagery which he employs, the music of language and rhythm 
which impressed Delitzsch's ear so forcibly, and the beautiful 
lyric hymns in which the redeemed community declares its 

IV, C. 28-33. A group of discourses, dealing (all but entirely) 
with the relation of Judah to Assyria, — the earlier insisting on 
the shortsightedness of revolting from Assyria, ajid trusting to 
Egypt for effectual help; tl;e later foretelling the trouble in 
which, through the neglect of Isaiah's warnings, Judah and 
Jerusalem would be involved, and their subsequent deliverance. 
;^ C. 28. v.'-*" the prophet begins by declaring the approaching 
fall of the proud capital of Samaria. He then turns aside, v.', to 
address Jerusalem. Here also there is the same self-indulgence 
and reluctance to listen to better counsels : the political leaders 
of the nation scorn the prophet's message, and trust to Egyptian 
help to free themselves from the yoke of Assyria; but the day 
will come when they will find how terribly their calculations are 
at fault, v.'*^, V.^'29 are words of consolation addressed to 
* G. A. Smith, /saiaA, i. 43X £ 


Isaiah's own disciples and followers, teaching by a parable God's 
purposes in His discipline of His people. 

It is evidmt that t.^** was written shortly before 732, the year of the fall 
of Samaria. The historical situation presupposed in v.'-*» however, — e.g. 
the scheme of a revolt from Assyria, upon the strength of an alliance with 
Egypt, — resembles so closely that implied in c. 29-32, (hat it is doubtful 
whether an interval of 20 years should be assumed between them : in all 
probability v.^'* was written originally not long before 702, and adjusted 
afterwards by Isaiah (or ao editor) so as to follow v.''''. 

C 29-32. A series of prophecies belonging (if 29' be [212] 
rightly interpreted) to the year before Sennacherib's invasion of 
Judah, i.e, to 702 b.c 

C. 29. Within a year Jerusalem will be besieged, and reduced 
to extremities by her foes ; but in a moment the hostile throng 
pressing around her will be dispersed, and vanish like a dream, 
V.*"'. To the people, however, all seems secure: the prospect 
opened by Isaiah appears to them incredible ; they view his 
words with astonishment, v.**. He reproaches them with their 
want of discernment, declaring that ere long the event will prove 
the truth of what he has said, and the wisdom of their counsellors 
will stand abashed, v.^'*-'*'. He closes with a picture of the ideal 
future that will follow the downfall of the Assyrian (v.-°"), and of 
the altered character and temper which will then manifest itself 
in the nation, v.""^! 

C. 30. The negotiations with Egypt have here reached a 
further stage. An embassy, despatched for the purpose of con- 
cluding a treaty, is already on its way thither. Isaiah predicts 
the disappointment in which the project will assuredly end, and 
in a brief but pithy motto sums up the character of Egypt, — 
boastful in the offer of promises, procrastinating and inefficient 
in the performance of them, v,^'^ He paints the terrible results 
in which the political shortsightedness of the people's leaders 
will ultimately land them, v.**^ ; though afterwards his tone 
changes into one of reassurance, and he draws a picture (similar 
to that in in 29"*^') of the ideal future that is to follow, of the 
glorification of external nature, corresponding to the nation's 
transformed character, which is to accompany it, v.'*-**, and of 
the triumphant overthrow of the Assyrian invader, by which it 
will be inaugurated, v.-*^-**. 

"t 31-32* reiterates, imder fresh figures, substantially the 



same thoughts ; the disappointment to be expected from Egypt, 
3ii-3 ; Jehovah's deliverance of His city, v.^**; the people's altered 
character afterwards, v.**^* ; the fall of the Assyrian, v.*'- : 3a^'' 
the prophet delineates once more the ideal commonwealth of 
the future, dwelling in particular on the regeneration of society, 
and the recovery of a clear and firm moral judgment, which are 
to signalize its advent 

220-'io is addressed specially to the women, whose indifference 
and unconcern had attracted the notice of the prophet. Their 
careless assurance, Isaiah tells them, is misplaced : trouble [213] 
is impending over the land ; it is about to be ravaged by the 
foe ; and next yearns harvest will be looked for in vain, v."^". 
And the state of desolation will continue, until a vivifying spirit 
is poured upon it from on high, aUermg the face of external 
nature, and transforming, morally and religiously, the character 
of the inhabitants, v."-™. 

C. 33. The end of the Assyrian is at length approaching: 
the country is indeed a picture of desolation and misery (v/-*) ; 
but the moment has arrived for Jehovah to arise and defend His 
city : and already the prophet sees the hosts of the Assyrians 
dispersed, and the Jews seizing the spoil (v.**"-), v.^*'*. Ere long 
t!ie present distress will be " mused on " only as a thing that is 
past : Zion, safe in the protection of her Divine Lord, will be at 
peace; and no sickness, or sin, will disturb the felicity which 
thenceforth her citizens will enjoy, v.*^"-*. 

The date of this prophecy is a year later than c. 29-32, i.t. B.C 701, 
apparently shortly after the incidents related ia 3 Ki. iS"**"'*. Sennacherib 
h«d laken tiuuiy fenced cities of Judah, and laid a fine upon Heteltiah ; 
but had afterwards, upon whatever pretext, made a fresh demand for the 
mder of Jerusalem ; and the messengers who had been sent to Lachish to 
purchase peace of him had returned without accomplishing their purpose 
(v. '''-)- I&aiah, abandoning the tone of alarm which he had adopted a year 
prcviouily, when the foe vras still in the distance {e.g, 29*"*}, sets himself here 
to calm and reassure his people (comp, 37**""). 

V. C. 34-35. The contrasted future of Edom and of Israel 
The prophet declares a judgment to be approaching, which will 
■embrace all nations: specially in Edom is "a great sacrifice" 
prepared, which will strip the country of its inhabitants, and 
leave it a desolation, the haunt of desert animals, for ever 
(c. 34). Far ditTerent will be the future of the ransomed 
Israelites. For them the desert soil will bring forth abundantly ; 


human infirmities will cease to vex, human needs will be relieved; 
secure from molestation the exiles will return to Zion, and obtain 
there never-ending joys (c 35). 

The most prominent characleristic of this prophecy is the glow of passion 
which prevades c. 54, recalliug that which animates the prophecies against 
Babylon in 13^' and Jer. 50-51. The author, or the people whom he 
represents, must have been smarting from some severe provocation, as, indeed, 
is intimated unambiguously in 34' " For unto Jehov-ah Itelongeth a day of 
vengeance, and a year of recompense for th* qutVTei 0/ Zion" The hostile 
feeling which prevailed generally between Israel and Edom broke out most 
strongly at the lime wlicn Jerusalem was captured by the Chaldaeani in 586; 
[314] then the Kdomites manifested an open and malicious exultation at the 
fall of their rival, which, as contemporary (Ob.^"'" ; Ei, 25"*, c 35 ( Lam. 
4*"-) and even later (Ps. 137', cf. Mai. i*) writers show, was bitterly 
resented by the Jews. It is extremely probable that c. 34 was written while 
tliis resentment was still keenly felt: the ground of Zion's "quarrel" may be 
illustrated from Ex. 35"'". ITie literary style of the prophecy is also not 
Isaiah's ; and both in tone and in representation it pre^nts affinities with 
prophecies (13""*, c 40 ff.) which, upon independent grounds, must be referred 
to the closing years of the exile (cf. Dillm. p. 301 f.). 

VI. C. 36-39. An historical section, differing (except by the 
addition of the Song of Hezekiah, 38**'°) only verbally from 
3 ICi. i8>' 18^^-20", and narrating certain important events in 
which Isaiah was concerned, viz. : (i) the double demand 
(36-*; 37""-) made by Sennacherib for the surrender of Jeru- 
salem; Isaiah's final predictions of its deliverance, and their 
fulfilment, a 36-37 ; (2) Hezekiah's sickness ; his cure, and the 
promise made to him by Isalih, followed by his Song of thanks- 
giving, c. 38; (3) the embassy sent by Mcrodach-Baladan, king 
of Babylon, to Hezekiah ; Isaiah's reproof of Hezekiah for having 
displayed to them his treasures, and his prediction of future 
spoliation by the Babylonians, c 39. 

The original place of these narratives was not the Book of 
Isaiah, but the Book of Kings, whence they were exrerpted 
(vrith slight abridgments) by the compiler of the Book of Isaiah 
(as Jer. 52 was excerpted from 2 Ki. 24''**' by the convpiler of 
the Book of Jeremiah), on account, no doubt^ of the particulars 
contained in them respecting Isaiah's prophetical work, and the 
fulfilment of some of his most remarkable prophecies,* the Song 
of Hezekiah being added by him from an independent source. 

• With 37»'- comp. not only 37^- «•* but also to"- I4'» i?"*- i8«- 29* 
30""- 31"- 33*- '»•" [Isaiah, p. 83 f.). 



This is apparent— (i) from a comparison oi the Iwo /w//. Thus (minor 
verbal differences being disregarded) * — 
2 Ki. 18" =l5. 36'. 
i3i«<i« =• • • 


2o>-« =38i-« (v.*^ abridged). 

lo'-* =38"-^ (out of placed 

aoM» =3S^-" (abridged). 

••• -=38»^(Hczckiah'3Song). 

20'**" =0-39 (Nferodflch-Baladan's embassy). 
If the places in which the two texts differ be coD\paied, it will be seen 
that [315] that of Kings has the fuller details, that of Isaiah being evidently 
abridged from it : notice especinlly Is. 38*- '"■ by the side of 2 Ki. 20** *"" (Is. 
36>*^iT.ifc arc related similarly to 2 Ki. iS"-'**-"): Is. 38^-« (where it is 
lo be observed tlml llie only legitimate versioo of the Hebrew wysn icwn ii 
** And Isaiah said '* [nut ' ' ksui said "] is also clearly in its proper position in 
the text of Kings. Further (2} the narrative, as it stands in Isaiah, shows 
manifest traces of having passed through ihe hand of the compiler of Kings, 
especially iu the fortn in which Uczckiah's prayer is cast (Is. 37^*-*=3 Ki. 
i^u-iij^ in 37*^ where the reference to David is a motive without parallel 
in Isaiah, but of great frequency in Kings (p. 20l, No. 22), and in c. 38-39 
{t.g, 38* In those daySy p. 202, No. 44 ; 38*, cf. I Ki 2*. and p. 200, No. 7 ; 
39* At that time, p. 202, No. 4$). From what source the prophetical 
narrative, c. 36-37, was derived by the compiler of Kings, we have no means 
of determining. The prophety^ 37*''*'» bears, indeed, unmistakable marks of 
Isaiah's hand ; but the surrounding narrative (which shows no literary trails 
pointing to him as its author) seems to be the work of a writer belonging to 
the subsequent generation : for a contemporary of the events related would 
hardly have attributed the successes against Hamath, Arpad, and Samaria 
(36^), which were, in fact, achieved by Tiglath-Pilcscr or Sargon, to 
Stmuuhtrib^ or have expressed himself (37*") without any intUcatlon — and 
apparently without any consciousness— that Sennacherib's assassination (b.c. 
681] was separated from his invasion of Judah (B.C 701) by an interval of 
20 years. The absence in 37" of all particulars as to time and place points to 
the same conclusion. On 39**^ cf. Skinner. The Song 38*'**, to judge 
from the title (cf. the titles of Ps. 3. 51. 52. 54, &c.), was taken from a collec- 
tion of sacred psalmody, designed (v.*^) ibr liturgical use, in which it was 
already ascribed to Ilezckiah. HcLckiah's authorship Is questioned by Kueii. 
(§ 45* 6)1 Cheync {Introd. pp. 224-226), and others : it is defended by 
Dillmann (p. 335). 

Is&iflh's t poetical genius is superb. His characteristics are 

* See an exhaustive tabular comparison of the two texts in Kucnen, % 45. 3. 

t For an estimate of Isaiah's position as a prophet, and an exposition of 
the leading principles of his teaching, the writer must refer either lo what he 
has himself said on these subjecu elsewhere [Isaiah, p. 107 ff. ), or to what has 
been said on them, ably and fidly, by other writers, — for exxunple, by Dillm. 
pp. ix-xix (esp. iv-xix). 


grandeur and beauty of conception, wealth of imagination, vivid 
ness of illustration, compressed energy and splendour of diction. 
These characteristics, as is natural, frequently accompany each 
other; and passages which exemplify one will be found to 
exemplify another. Examples of picturesque and impressive 
imagery are indeed so abundant that selection is difficult These 
may be instanced, however: the banner raised aloft upon the 
mountains (5^ ii^** 18' 30*'', — in different connexions); the 
restless roar of the sea (s^)', the waters rising with irresistible 
might (8^'") ; the forest consumed rapidly in the circhng flames, 
or scripp>cd of its foliage by an unseen hand (lo^**'*''''*); the 
raised way (11'* 19^); the rushing of many waters (17*^'); ^^ 
storm driving or beating down all before it (28* 29** ^o^'^^^-); 
the monster funeral pyre (30^^) ; [216] Jehovah's hand "stretched 
out," or "swung," over the earth, and bearing consternation 
with it (5^ 14^'*^' 23" 3i'^ii\? 19^* 30^-). Especially grand 
are the figures under which he conceives Jehovah as "rising 
up," being "exalted," or otherwise asserting His majesty against 
those who would treat it with disregard or disdain (2^^"*^ 3'** 5" 
jQiof.M jgi 28^1 31^33^-'''). The blissful future which he fore- 
sees, when the troubles of the present are past, he delineates in 
colours of surpassing purity and beauty : with mingled wonder 
and delight we read, and read again, those marvellous pictures 
of serenity and peace, which are the creations of his inspired 
imagination (22-^ ^^-^ 9I-7 n^-io i6*'-5 2^'^^«' 3o"-2« 32i-a-i5-i8 
33**^*^), The brilliancy and power of Isaiah's genius appear 
further in the sudden contrasts, and pointed antitheses and 
retorts, in which he delights; as $"-9* 17" 29*^ 31*'*; i''^** 
(Jerusalem apostrophized as Sodom and Gomorrah)^ i*®'* 2-°^* 
(the idols and Jehovah), 3^* 5^- " (the pomp of the busy city 
sinking into Sheol), 5" lo'*^- (the wonderful image of the help- 
lessness of the entire earth before Sennacherib, followed by the 
taunting comparison of the tyrant to an inanimate implement), 
17I8 23* 28'*'*'- 29" 31* 33^°-'2 2729. 

Isdah's literary style shows similar characteristics. It is 
chaste and dignified : the language is choice, but devoid of all 
artificiality or stiffness; every sentence is compact and forcible; 
the rhythm is stately ; the periods are finely rounded (r^. 2^**^- ; 
^Mff. . iji-Bj. Isaiah indulges occasionally— ^in the manner of 
his people — in tone-painting (17'^* 28"'*** 29"), and sometimes 



enforces his meaning by an effective assonance (5" lo^* ly^-* 
22* 29^* $0^^ 32^- ^**), but never to excess, or as a meretricious 
ornament His style is never diffuse : even his longest dis- 
courses arc not monotonous or prolix ; he knows how to treat 
his subject fruitfully, and, as he moves along, to bring before 
his reader new and varied aspects of it : thus he seizes a number 
of salient points, and presents each singly in a vivid picture 




5^8ir.. ,j,]6ff.). 

Isaiah has the true classical sense 

of vlpa^; his prophecies always form artistic wholes, adequate 
to the effect intended, and having no feature overdrawn. He, 
moreover, possesses a rare power of adapting his language to 
the occasion, and of bringing home to his hearers [217] what 
he would have them understand : thus, with a few sentences, 
he con shatter the fairest idols, or dissipate the fondest illusions 
(i3.».«. joff.. yu.. 38ff.. 22iir.. jjisff.. jgi*'*; 29^^^; 3i> &c.>, 

or win his hearer's attention by the delicate irony of a parable 
{S^^')i or by the stimulus of a significant name (8* 19'* 50*^, 
or enable them to gaze with him upon the majesty of the 
Divine Glory (6^""'), or to wander in imagination (i i***, and else- 
where) over the transformed earth of the Messianic future. 
And he can always point the truth which he desires to impress 
by some apt figure or illustration : for instance, the scene of 
desperation in 3^^-, or 8'-''', the proverb in 9^°, the child in 10*' 
(cf. ii"), the suggestive similes in 17*-*, the uneasy couch 28*0^ 
the disappointing dream 29**, the subtle flaw, spreading in- 
sidiously through a wall, 30"^- No prophet has Isaiah's power 
cither of conception or of expression ; none has the same com- 
mand of noble thoughts, or can present them in the same noble 
and attractive language. 

Among recent criucs, the opinion has gained ^ound that the writings of 
the prophets have in many cases not been handed doum to us in their 
original form, but that tliey were expanded, supplemented, and otherwise 
adjusted to the needs of a later age, by the scribes or editors through who^ 
hands they passed in the centuries after the exile. Differences in the circum- 
stances presupposed, in the beliefs and ideas, and in the st)'1eand phraseology 
arc pointed to as estabhshing this position. It has, of course, been long 
rccofj^izcd that certain prophecies, nuw forming part of the Book of Isaiah 
(I3'-I4"; 21^-"; c. 24-27; c. J4-36 ; c. 40-66), ore not by Isaiah's band; 
but considerable portions of the prophecies hitherto commonly accepted as 
Isaiah's arc attributed by the critics in question to literary activity of the kind 
indicated. "The fragmentaiy remains of the old prophet Isaiah," writes 



Cheyne {Introd, ta Is. p. jdx), "had to be filled np when they were imperfect, 
&nd completed by the insertion of fresh passages, inspired by the 'holy spirit* 
of prophecy, " the aim of which was chiefly cither to mitigate Isaiah^s threaten- 
ings by promise, or to enrich his pictures of the approaching ideal future with 
traits more closely expressive of the hopes and aspirations of the post-exilic 
age. Even Ewald ascribed c 33 to a disciple of Isaiah : Stade {ZA TIK 
18S4, p. 2568!; C. i. 586 ff. in the notes: of. ii. 205-212) treated ^^ 4*^ 
ji»-i6 yi^-u. li. it-n gt'i iii_i2* and c 32-33, as additions made in the post- 
exilic period from the motives that have been described. Kuenen (in 1889) 
abandoned Isaiah's authorship of ii"-i2* 23'*-'», and c 32-33. The two 
most recent commentators, Duhm and Cheyne, go much further in the 
ascription of passages to later hands. According to Ehihm, the genuine 
prophecies of Isaiah are limited to i*-* »-« ; 2»^«-i«.«; 31^ u. u_^i . 

i-M.n-». 61-11 (to rfmainetk)', 7 

,0»-».»-M, Iil-B; J4«-a8.. a«-» . lyl-fcf-U. ign . atf' " ; 21' 


(to 0/ tkem) • (from so) *- •* ; 32 
phedes to i»-»- »-« ; 2«-»»- >»-"• 
U. sn . 51.11 (to rtmaintih) 
(the conclusion to g'-io^) ; 

S-te. »-!«. U. !>•» 

gl-ia. Sl-M . g«-T . gS-Ii. 17. 

1-^ Bb-T. »-10. U>U 


i>e. i-is. SD 

vi-Tft. s-iT. r-n . 

Cheyne limits the genuine pro- 

18-9D gl-U. SOIhU. qB-U. li^[Q4 c^A-Vk 

,oft-». i»-i*. "-« ; i4W-»..«*-r'. ss-n. 16" (from 

.S-«ik »-14. 18. 

within)', i7i*«-w. ,gi.i. 20>-"; 2I»»*" ; 22 

•-IS. 14 . 2gl-«* 7-U. 91-33 . ^Q^-^' '* ^'^* ^" ; 30^*''* 

1-fc. llb-U. Ua. U-IS 


1-3. »I 4. 

'^ 31^* (to binls);i all 
that remains consists either of editorial additions (as i*^* "*" 3***"* **"* &c), 
maiginal glosses (as 2" 5^*-i* 7** &c.), or post-exilic insertions or appendices 
(43.«5i«. ,oi«-ii iiiMi ,2i-< i8», c 19. 23"-" 28«^.3-» 29»i*-** 3oi«-*-"-» 
3i*^*, c 32-33. 37*"*; and/«-Ad/j9>-'[Heb. 8*"-9«] ii»-*). It is impossible 
to condense into a note the grounds upon which these conclusions rest : they 
will be found stated with marked ability and acutene^ and with exhaustive 
references to all previous critics (including Duhm and Hackmann], in Chcyae't 
Introduction ta the Book of Isaiah. 

VII. C. 40-66. These chapters form a continuous prophecy, 
dealing throughout with a common theme, viz. Israels restoration 
from exile in Babylon. There is no thought in this prophecy of 
the troubles or dangers to which Judah was exposed at the hands 
of Sargon or Sennacherib ; the empire of Assyria has been suc- 
ceeded (b.c. 607) by that oi Babylon; Jerusalem and the Temple 
have been for long in ruins (58^- ; 61* " the old waste places '' ; 
64") • Israel is in exile (47*" 48^^ &c.). And the power of the 
Chaldaeans is to all appearance as secure as ever : the Jewish 
exiles are in despair or indifferent ; they think that God has 
forgotten them, and have ceased to expect, or desire, their 

7 release (40'^ 49^** **). This is the situation to which the present 
prophecy is addressed : its aim is to arouse the indifferent, to 
• Probably introduced from another context. 


S-t. «-7 itl'SS 



may have an Isadanic basii. 



reassure the wavering, to expostulate with the doubting, to 
announce with triumphant confidence the certainty of the 
approaching restoration. 

The Jews went into exile in two detachments : the flower of 
the roation with Jehoiachin in B.C. 597 ; the rest, after the revolt 
of Zedekiah, in 586, when the city was taken and the Temple 
burnt Cyrus, who was to prove the instrument of their restora- 
tion, first appears shortly before 550; uniting and organizing 
the different tribes of Persian origin, he overthrows the Median 
empire of Astyages in 549 ; and, at the head of the combined 
[218] armies of both nations, advances to further conquests. 
Having captured Sardis, the capital of Croesus, king of Lydia, 
and left his general Harpagus to complete the subjugation of 
Asia Minor, he next (Herod, i. 177) reduces one after another 
the tribes of Upper (or Inner) Asia, and ultim.itely prepares to 
attack Babylon. His own inscription * narrates his success 
(B.C. 538) : in the following year the exiled Jews receive per- 
mission from him to return to Palestine (Ezr. i^*'). 

The prophecy opens at some date between 549 and 538: 
for the conquest of Babylon is still future ; but the union of the 
Medes with the Persians appears to have already taken place.! 
It introduces us therefore to the time while Cyrus is pursuing his 
career of conquest in N.W. and Central Asia. The prophet's eye 
marks him in the distance as the coming deliverer of his nation : 
he stimulates the flagging courage of the people by pointing to 
his successes (41^'*), and declares that he is God's appointed 
agent, both for the overthrow of the Babylonian empire and for 
the restoration of the chosen people to Palestine (41^ 44^ 


l-«. 13 


The following is an outline of the argument of this great 
prophecy. It may be divided into three parts: (i) c. 40-48; 
(a) c 49-59 ; (3) c 60-66. 

(i.) Here the prophet's aim is to demonstrate to the people 
the certainty of the coming release^ and to convince them that no 
obstacles, real or imagined, will avail to hinder their deUverance. 
For this purpose he uses different arguments, designed to estab- 
lish the power of Jehovah, and His ability to fulfil His promises. 

* /sauih^ p. 136 f.; Sayce, Afonuments^ p. 504 ff. ; more exactly hi 
Dclitzsch and Haupt's Beitriigt xur Assyriologie^ ii. part I (1891), p. 2098! 
t 41" " from Ihe east** i.e, Persia ; " from the north" i.e. Media, 




C. 40, after the exordium v.^'-, stating the general theme of the 
entire prophecy, the prophet bids a way be prepared through the 
wilderness for the triumphal progress of Israel's king, who is figured 
as a Conqueror about to return to Zion, leading before Him His 
prize of war, the recovered nation itself. V,'^-^ the prophet 
demonstrates at length, chiefly from the works of nature, the 
omnipotence of Israelis Divine Deliverer : no finite spirit can 
compare with Him (v.^'-"*'^) ; no human conception can express 
Him (vJ^'-^). 41'''' he dramatically imagines a judgment scene. 
The nations are invited to come forward and plead their case 
with Jehovah. The question is, [219] ll'/io has stirred up the 
great eonqueror, Cyrus f who has led /urn upon his career of victory t 
(v.^). Only one answer is possible : not the heathen gods, but 
Jehovah, the Creator of history. A digression follows^ v,^"**, 
designed for the encouragement of Israel, which has been chosen 
by Jehovah as His " servant," and cannot therefore be discarded 
by Him. The judgment scene, interrupted after v.*, is now 
resumed ; and the second proof of Jehovah's Godhead is 
adduced: Ife alone knows the future (v.^i-^*). ^i^-^ Jehovah's 
*' servant *' appears under a new aspect, and ■with new functions, 
— no longer the historic nation of Israel (as 41^'-)) but an ideal 
figure, reproducing in their perfection the best and truest charac- 
teiisdcs of the actual nation, and invested by the prophet with a 
far-reaching prophetic mission. Here his mission is described as 
twofold: (i) to teach the world true religion; (2) to be the 
medium of Isrcuts restoration (to be a " covenant of the 
people"), v.*. The prospect of the speedy realization of his 
present announcement (v.*) evokes from the prophet a short 
lyric ode of thanksgiving, v.^"*^*; after which he depicts, in 
splendid anthropomorphic imagery, Jehovah's approaching mani- 
festation for the deliverance of His people, and the discomfiture 
of the Babylonian idolaters, v.*^-". But some of those who 
listen to him are blind and deaf: Jehovah's " servant " (Israel, 
as 41*) has fallen short of the ideal which the titles bestowed 
upon it implied : it has not responded to Jehovah's gracious 
purpose ; hence the troubles which have fallen upon it, and the 
bondage in which it is at present enthralled, v.*^^. But now, 
Israel need fear no longer ; Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba shall take 
its place as Cyrus* vassals; from all quarters the exiles shall 
return, 43*-^ 



Another judgment scene, between Israel and the heathen, is 
here imagined. The question is the same as before : which of 
the two can point to predictions in proof of the divinity of their 
God ? But Israel is Jehovah's witness, 43^'^* j and Israel shall 
now speedily be redeemed, though of God's free pardon, and not 
for any merit on its part : a glorious and blessed future awaits it, 
a future in which the nations will press forward to dedicate 
themselves to Jehovah, and to claim the honour of membership 
in His people, 43**--^4^ 44*-45-* the prophet again brings 
forward the evidence of Jehovaii*s Godhead ; and the promises 
of deliverance given already are made [220] more definite. In 
particular, as the prophet shows by a satirical description of the 
manner in which they were manufactured in his day, 44*''**, 
Jehovah is immeasurably superior to all idols, who are impotent 
to thwart His purpose, or impede His people's freedom : by His 
free grace He has blotted out Israel's sin, and nominated Cyrus 
as the conqueror of Babylon and the agent of His people's 
restoration, 44^^-45": His promises have been given openly, 
and will assuredly be fulfilled, 45'*''. C. 46-47 the prophet 
dwells upon the near prospect of the fall of the oppressing city, 
— in c 46 drawing an ironical picture of its humiliated idols; in 
c. 47 contemplating the city itself, which he personifies as a lady 
of queenly rank, obliged to relinquish the position which she has 
long proudly held, and powerless to avert the fate which threatens 
her. C. 48 consists mainly of a repetition and reinforcement of 
the arguments insisted on in the previous parts of the prophecy ; 
it ends with a jubilant cry addressed to the exiles, bidding them 
depart from Babylon, and proclaim to the utmost quarters of the 
canh the wondrous story of their return. 

(2.) In this division of the prophecy a further stage is reached 
in the development of the author's theme. The controversial 
tone, the repeated comparisons between Jehovah and the idob, 
with the arguments founded upon them, disappear : the prophet 
feels that, as regards these points, he has made his position 
sufficiently secure. For the same reason, allusions to Cyrus 
and his conquest ot Babylon cease also : that, likewise, is now 
taken for granted. He exhorts the people to fit themselves 
morally to take part in the return, and to share the blessings 
which will accompany it, or which it will inaugurate; he con- 
templates more exclusively the future in store for Israel, if it will 



respond to Jehovah's call ; and he adds fresh features to the 
portrait of Jehovah's ideal Sen-ant. C. 49 introduces Jehovah's 
ideal Ser^'ant, describing dramatically his person and experi- 
ences, and announcing more distinctly than before (42*) the 
twofold nature of his mission, v.*"**: v."-2o (i^^ prophet meets 
objections arising out of Israel's want of faith. 50*-* the ideal 
Servant is again introduced, recounting in a soliloquy the manner 
in which he discharges his prophetic mission, and the trials 
which attend it ; v.'°^- is the prophet's own exhortation to his 
fellow-countrymen. 5i'-52*^the [22lj prospect of the approach- 
ing return is that which chiefly occupies the prophet's thoughts ; 
and his confidence finds exultant expression in the thrice- 
repeated jubilant apostrophe, 5 1"* *^ 52* : 52^^' he sees in imagina- 
tion the messengers bearing tidings of Israel's deliverance arrive 
upon the mountains of Judah, and hears the watchmen, whom 
he pictures as looking out eagerly from the city walls, announcing 
with gladness the joyous news ; 52^*^* he repeats (of. 48^) the 
cry, " Depart." 

52''-53" deals again with the figure of Jehovah's ideal 
Servant, and develops under a new aspect his character and 
work. It represents, namely, his great and surprising exaltation, 
after an antecedent period of humiliation, suffering, and death, 
in which, it is repeatedly stated, he suffered, not (as those who 
saw him mistakenly imagined) for his own sins, but for the sins 
of others. 54^-56' fresh promises of restoration are addressed to 
the exDes : c 54 Zion, now distressed and afflicted, will ere long 
be at peace, with her children, the " disciples of Jehovah," about 
her; c. 55 let all prepare themselves to receive the prophet's 
invitation and share the approaching redemption ; 56''' the 
moral conditions which they must satisfy are once again em- 
phasized ; 563-' all merely technical disqualifications will hence- 
forth be abolished. 56^-c. 57 the strain alters: the prophet 
turns aside from the glorious future, which is elsewhere upper- 
most in his thoughts, to attack the faults and shortcomings 
which Israel had shown itself only too reluctant to abandon, and 
which would necessitate in the end a divine interposition for 
their removal. 56^-57^ he denounces the unworthy rulers of the 
nation, who, like careless shepherds (cf. Jcr. a* 23^^-, Ez. 34), 
had neglected their people, and left them to perish, s?*""* he 
reproaches Israel with its idolatry, drawing a picture of strange 



heathen rites, such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel show to have pre- 
vailed in Judah till the very eve of the exile, and the tendency 
to which no doubt was still far from extirpated among the 
people at large (cf. 65'**-"): 57'^*^" Israel's sole hope is peni- 
tence and trust in God — *'he that laketh refuge in me shall 
inherit the land, and take my holy mountain into possession." 
C. 58 the prophet repeats that the moral impediments which 
disqualify Israel for the enjoyment of the promised blessings 
must be removed : especially he finds fault with the hollow un- 
reality with which fasts [222] were observed, and draws a con 
Irasted picture of the true fast in which Jehovah delights, viz. 
deeds of philanthropy, unselfishness, liberality, and mercy : if 
Israel will devote itself to these works, and at the same time 
show a cheerful reverence towards its God (v."), then Jehovah 
will shower down His blessings upon it, and it wiH triumphantly 
resume possession of its ancient home. C, 59 the prophet 
represents the people as confessing the chief sins of which they 
have been guilty : unable to rescue themselves, Jehovah will now 
interpose on their behalf, and manifest Himself as a redeemer in 
Zion, not indeed to all without distinction, but to those who 
satisfy the needful moral conditions, and have "turned from 
rebellion in Jacob." 

(3.) Here the prophet depicts, in still brighter hues, the 
fclidty of the ideal Zion of the future. As before, a progress 
may be observed in the development of his thought In c, 
40-48, when Israel's release was foremost in his thoughts, the 
judgment was conceived as falling solely upon Israel's _/S?tfj: in 
c. S 7-591 however, he evinces a more vivid consciousness of 
Israel's sinfulness, and of the obstacle which that presents to the 
restoration of the entire nation ; and in the chapters which now 
follow, he announces a judgment to be enacted in Israel itself, 
distinguishing Jehovah's faithful "servants" (65** •• *^ "• ^) from 
those disloyal to him, and excluding the latter from the promised 
blessings. C 60 the longed for "light" (59') bursts upon the 
prophet's eye: the dark cloud of night that shrouds the rest of 
the world has been lifted over the Holy City ; and he gathers 
the features belonging to Zion restored into a single dazzling 
vision. 6i^'* Jehovah's ideal Servant is once more introduced, 
describing the gracious mission entrusted to him, to " bring 
good tidings to the afflicted," and to "proclaim liberty to the 



captives " (cf. 43'' ^ 49'), which is followed, as before (49***^» by 
the promise of Jerusalem's restoration (61*): in the rest of c. 
61-62 the prophet dwells upon the new and signal marks of 
Jehovah's favour, resting visibly upon the restored nation, and 
its own grateful appreciation (6i''''*) of the blessedness thus be- 
stowed upon it 63^"* is a dramatic dialogue between Jehovah, 
depicted as a victor returning from Edom, and the prophet, 
in which, under the form of an ideal humiliation of nations, 
marshalled upon the territory of Israel's inveterate foe, is ex- 
pressed the thought of Israel's triumph over its enemies. [223] 
The dialogue ended, the prophet's tone changes ; and 63^-64*^, 
in the assurance that the redemption guaranteed by Jehovah's 
triumph will be wrought out, he supplies faithful Israel with a 
hymn of thanksgiving, supplication, and confession, expressive of 
the frame of mind worthy to receive it, and couched in a strain 
of surpassing pathos and beauty. C. 65 appears to be intended 
as an answer to the supplication of c 64, — an answer, however, 
in which the distinction, alluded to above, is dra^^m between the 
worthy and unworthy Israelites. God has ever, he says, been 
accessible to His people, and ready to renew intercourse with 
them ; it was they who would not respond, but provoked Him 
with their idolatries. Israel, however, is not to be rejected on 
account of the presence within it of unworthy members ; a seed 
of " chosen ones " will be brought out of Jacob, who shall again 
inherit the mountains of Palestine. A new order of things (v.^^ ; 
cf. 51") is about to be created, in which Jerusalem and her 
people will be to Jehovah a source of unalloyed delight, and in 
which care and disappointment will cease to vex. 66*'* the 
prophet, in view probably of the anticipated restoration of the 
Temple, reminds the Jews that no earthly habitation is really 
adequate to Jehovah's majesty, and that His regard is to be won, 
neither by the magnificence of a material temple, nor by un- 
spiritual service, but by humility and the devotion of the heart. 
He concludes, v.*-**, by two contrasted pictures of the glorious 
blessedness in store for Jerusalem, and the terrible judgment 
impending over her foes. 
^ Autfujrship of c, 40-66. Three independent lines of argument 
converge to show that this prophecy is not the work of Isaiah, 
but, like I3'-14*", has for its author a prophet writing towards 
the close of the Babylonian captivity, (i) The internal tvidtnc* 



supplied by the prophecy itself points to tliis period as that at 
which it was written. It alludes repeatedly to Jerusalem as 
ruined and deserted {e.g. 4426** 58" 61* 6}}^ 64^0^-) ; to the suffer- 
ings which the Jews have experienced, or are experiencing, at 
the hands of the Chaldeans (42*^ *» 43'* [RV. marg.\ ^f 52*) ; 
to the prospect of return, which, as the prophet speaks, is im- 
minent (40^ 46" 482* &c). Those whom the prophet addresses, 
and, moreover, addresses in person — arguing with them, appeal- 
ing to them, striving to win their assent by his warm and 
impassioned rhetoric (40=1- =*• ^a ^^lo [224] 4S* 50"^- si"- »^ ^%^' 
&c.) — are not the men of Jerusalem, contemporaries of Ahaz 
and Hezekiah, or even of Manassch; they are the exiles in 
Babylonia. JiKlged by the analogy of prophecy^ this constitutes 
the strongest possible presumption that the author actually livtd 
in the period which he thus describes, and is not merely (as has 
been supposed) Isaiah immersed in spirit in the future, and 
holding converse, as it were, with the generations yet unborn. 
Such an immersion in the future would be not only without 
parallel in the OT., it would be contrary to the nature of pro- 
phecy. The prophet speaks always, in the first instance, to his 
own contemporaries : the message which he brings is intimately 
related with the circumstances of his time : his promises and 
predictions, however far tliey reach into tlie future, nevertheless 
rest upon the basis of the history of his own age, and correspond 
to the needs which are then felt. The prophet never abandons 
his own historical position, but speaks from it So Jeremiah 
and Ezekiel, for instance, predict first the exile, then the res- 
toration; both are contemplated by them as still future; both 
are viewed from the period in which they themselves live. In 
the present prophecy there is viO prediction of exile: the exile is 
not announced as something still future; it \s presupposed, and 
only the release from it is predicted. By analogy, therefore, the 
author will have lived in the situation which he thus presupposes, 
and to which he continually alludes. 

It is true, passages occur in which the prophets throw themselves forward 
to an ideal standpoint, and describe from it events future to themselves, as 
though thcjr were past {e.g, s""" 9*** 23*- ") ; but these are not rcilly panUlcl : 
the txansference to the future, which ihey iuply, is but transient; in the 
immediate context, the prophet uses future tenses, and speaks from his owa 
lUadpoiDt (alluding, for instance, plainly to the events or circumstances of 
his own age) ; the expressions, moreover, are general, and the language is 



figunti^'c The writings of the prophets supply no analogy for such a sui* 
tained transTcTence to the future as would be implied if these chapers were by 
liaiah, or for the tUtaiUd and definit4 description of the drcumstances of a 
distant age. 

(2) The argument derived from the historic function of pro- 
phecy is confirmed by the literary style of c. 40-66, which is 
very different from that of Isaiah. Isaiah shows strongly marked 
individualities of style : he is fond of particular images and 
phrases, many of wliich are used by no other writer of the OT. 
Now, in the chapters which contain evident allusions to the [225] 
age of Isaiah himself, these expressions occur repeatedly; in 
the chapters which are without such allusions, and which thus 
^wChcyxvm prima fade the inference that they belong to a different 
age, they are absent, and new images and phrases appear instead. 
This coincidence cannot be accidental. The subject of c 40- 
66 is not 50 different from that of Isaiah's prophecies {e^.) against 
the Assyrians, as to necessitate a new phraseology and rhetorical 
form : the differences can only be reasonably explained by the 
supposition of a change of author. Isaiah in his earUest, as in 
his latest prophecies (c 29-33; 37^"''^ written when he must 
have been at least sixty years of age), uses the same style, and 
shows a preference for the same figures; and ihe change of 
subject in c 40-66 is not sulliciently great to account for the 
marked differences which here show themselves, and which indeed 
often relate to points, such as the form and construction of 
sentences, which stand in no appreciable relation to the subject 

The following are examples of words, or forms of expression, osed re- 
peatedly in c 40-66 (sometimes also in c ijf. and c 34 f.), but never in the 
prophecies which contain independent evidence of belonging to Isaiah*s own 
age: — 

I* 7* choose, of God's choice of Israel : 4l"' ■ 43" 44^- * (cf. 42* 49*, ot 
the ideal, individualixed nation); my chosen, 43" 45* 6'^-^^, 
So 14>. 
a. Praise (subst and verb i nVnn, V^) . 438. ». u ^^^ ^ ^q^. li ^^i. i» 

62'- •63' 64". 
3. 7> sh4k>t or spring jorth (ncs) : 44* 55^* 61"* ; esp. metaphorically — 
(a) of a moral state, 45' 58' 61"^ ; (^) of an event manifesting itself 
in history (not so elsewhere), 42* 43". 

Also I4^ 


49" 5^ 54» 55". 

To break out (nxfi) into nn^ng\ 

Only Pa 98' besides. 
Pleasure (con) : (a) of Jehovah's purpose, 44" 46" 48" 53" ; (A) of 

human purpose or business, 58** ", More generally, 54" 62*. 



6, Good win, acetpianct (God's) pn : 49" 56' 58* 6o^- *• 6|«. 

7. Thy jtww— the pronoun being feminine and referring to Zion j 49"* 

«»■ » 51* 54" 60*- » 62» ; cf. 66*. Isaiah, when he uses the saoe 
word, aJways sap som absolutely, the implicit reference being to 
God{Dt. iV): ioi«-«3oi». 
8^ To rgjoU€ (pw) : 61" 62» 64* 65«- •» (^^^ » Also 35'. 
9. The phrases, / am JeMavaA, c^ f^^t »> non* else (or besides) : 45«- 
c ». n. » . /am the first, and I am the fast : 44 4^ ; of. 41* ; 
am thy God, thy Saviour, &a: 41"- " 43* 48'"' [226] 6l« ; /am 
He, t\e. He who is, opp. to the unreal gods of the heathen (&om 
Dl 32*) : 41*'* 43**^ " 46* 48^*. No such phrases are ever used by 
|(X The combination of the Divine name with a participial epithet (10 the 
English version often represented by a relative clause) : e.^. Creator 
(or stretcher out) of the htavens or tht earth : 40" 42* 44**'' 45'* *• 

51^; creator or former of Israel 

Saviour : 49* 60" ; thy {your, IsraeCs) re^lumer \ 

45" 49*; th 

43" 44' 

49' 54* ; comp. 4o«- 43^"- 44"-'» 46'«* 5>" 56* 63* 


never casts his thought into this form. 
The following words, ihough found once or twice each in Isaiah (cf. p. 
132, ff.), are destitute there of any special force or significance, whereas in 
c. 40-66 they occur frequently, sometimes with a particular muuue, or shade 
of meaning, which is foreign to the usage of Isaiah : — 

I. IsUs or coasts (D"*t), used rcprescHtatixtely of distant regions of the 

earth: 40'* 41** • 42^ 

49I 5i» 59W 6o» 66". In Isaiah, 1 1» 

(also 24''), where it is used in its primary sense (Gen. lo*) of the 
isles and coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. The application la 
& 40-^ is a marked exteosion of the usage of Isaiah. 
& Nought {0E»«; not the ordinary word): 40" 41^* 45**" 46*47''*» 
52* 54". Also 34**. In Isaiah, 5' only (where, however, the 
original signiBcation of the word is still perceptible). 

3. To create: 4o»-m 41* 42* 43»- '■ " 45^. •.»»•« 54" 5;i» 65"- «. 

In Isaiah, only 4' in a limited application. The prominence 
given to the idea of creation in c. 40-66 is very noticeable (cf. 
p. 242), 

4. Offspring (u*9i%H%) % 42* 44*48^ 6l» 65". In Isaiah, 22**. Also 34'. 

Rather a peculiar word. The usage in c. 40-66 is wider and more 
general than that in 22^, and agrees with the usage of the Book of 
Job, 5* 21* 27" 3 1*. The word does not occur elsewhere. 

5. Justice emphasized as a principle guiding and determining God^s 

action : 4i»- »" 42" 45»»- " Si» ; cf. 58=*. The peculiar stress kid 
upon this principle is almost confined to these chapters; comp. 
lowever. Hoa. 2" [Heb."]. 

m of Jehovah : 5i»^ » 52" 53> 59»» (ct 40>«). 62* 63«* ". Hence 

Ps. 98^ (see 59" 52"). In Isaiah, jo*. But observe the greater 

ievUpendence of the figure as applied in c. 40-66. 

7> d*tM (*«fi), or (in the reflexive conjugation) to deck oneself, Le. to 

g^rjt, especially of Jehovah, eiUier glorifying Israel, or glorying 


Himself in Israel : 44" 49* SS' 6o'- »* ^ « 6i». In Isaiih, onl> 
10** of th€ saw vaunting Useif 2igz\ws,l ils user, 

8. The future gracious relation of Jehovah lo Israel represented as a 
covenant : 42* { =49") 54" 55* 59" 6i* In 28"- ^ 33* the word is 
used merely in the sense of a treaty or compact. Isaiah, often as 
he speaks of a future state of grace, to be [337] enjoyed by bis 

people^ never represents it under the form of a cffve»an/, 

9. Vm (1»<), used with strong rhetorical force 25 times from 4o'* to 4S". 

In Isaiah, only 33". Elsewhere in the book, 26** •• " 35*. 
There are in addition several words and idioms occurring in c 40-66 
which point to a later period of the language than Isaiah's age, for which it 
must suffice to refer to Cheync, Isaiah, ii. 257 f. {more fully fntroJ. pp. 255- 
370), or Diltm. p. 353. A remarkable instance is afforded by 65*, which is 
a condensed quotation from 1 1**^ and where nrr, the common Hebrew word 
for together^ is replaced by inKD, an expression modelled upon the Aram. 
•ina, and occurring besides only in the latest books of the OT. 2 Ch. 5" 
Err. 2**{=Neh 7") 3» 6», Ecd. ii»t). 
As features of style may be noticed — 
I. The duplication ofwordi^ significant of the impassioned ardoor of the 

preacher : 40* 43"- " 4h"- " si*- "- >▼ gji- " gy*- 1*. « 62"'" 65*. 

Very characteristic of this prophecy ; in Isaiah the only examples — 

and lliose but purtly parallel — are 8"^ [;2i'] 29'. 
A habit of repeating the same word or words in adjacent clauses or 

verses; tlius 40"^ (regulated); v."''"' and v."*^ (taught him); 

V." (instructed him) ; 40"* and 41* (renew strength) ; v.*'* (courage, 

encourage} ; v."* (have chosen Uice) ; v.*** (I have holpen thee); 

45*'- (hast not known me) ; t,"** (and none else) ; 50'' and * (will 

help me); 53* (despised); v."* (esteemed himj ; v.' (opened not 

his mouth) ; 58** (thine own pleasure) ; 59" (peace) ; 6i' (double). 

The attentive reader of the Hebrew will notice fiulher instances. 

Very rare indeed in Isaiah ; cf. 1' (desolate) ; 17' (ears) ; 33^'*' 

Differences in the structure of sentences, t.g. the relative particle 

omitted with much greater frequency than by Isaiah.* 

There are also literary features of a more general character, 
which difTerentiate the author of a 40-66 from Isaiah. Isaiah's 
■ityle is terse and compact : the movement of his periods is stately 
md measured : his rlietoric is grave and restrained. In these 
t'hapters a subject is often developed at considerable length : 

* For examples of expressions used, on the other Imnd, repeatedly by 
Isaiah, but never found in c 4x>-66» see Isaiah, pp. 194-196, Espcciallv 
noticeable is the all but entire absence from c. 40-66 of the two expressions, 
And it shall come to pass, and In that day, by which Isaiah loves to ir.troduoa 
■cenes or traits in his descriptions of the future [t.g. 4* yU-a-a JJ» lo**** 
xiw-"&c.; 3W 4I. a 7»». »«»•«. » i9i4-« &c.), but which occur here onI> 65»« 
66* ; 52* (somewhat peculiarly). 



the style is much more flowing : the rhetoric is warm and impas- 
sioned ; and the prophet often bursts out into a lyric strain 
{42^^^- 44-' 45^ 49''^)i ii^ a manner to which even Is, la affords 
no parallel. Force is the predominant feature of Isaiah's oratory : 
persuasion sits upon the lips of the prophet who here [228] 
speaks; the music of his eloquence, as it rolls magnificently 
along, thrills and captivates the soul of its hearer. So, again, if 
the most conspicuous characteristic of Isaiah's imagination be 
grandeur, that of the prophet to whom we are here listening is 
j>afAos, The storms, the inundations, the sudden catastrophes, 
which Isaiah loves to depict, are scarcely to be found in this 
prophecy. The author's imagery is drawn by preference from 
a different region of nature altogether, vis. from the animate 
world, in particular from the sphere of human emotion. It is 
largely the figures drawn from the latter which impart to his 
prophecy its peculiar pathos and warmth (see 49*^-^^ 6!^'***62* 
66**).* His fondness for such figures is, however, most evident 
in the numerous examples oi pcrsonificaiion which his prophecy 
contains. Since Amos (5-) it became habitual with the prophets 
to personify a city or community as a maidtn^ especially where 
it was desired to represent it as vividly conscious of some keen 
emotion.f This figure is applied in these chapters with remark- 
able independence and originality. Zion is represented as a 
bride, a mother, a widow, i.e. under just those relations of life 
in which the deepest feelings of humanity come into play ; and 
the personification is continued sometimes through a long series 
of verses.} Nor is this all. The prophet personifies nature: he 
bids heaven and earth shout at the restoration of God's people 
(44^49"; cf. 52* 55^"); he hears in iaiagination the voices of 
invisible beings sounding across the desert (4o'*' 57"); he 
peoples Jerusalem with ideal watchmen (52*) and guardians 
(62^}.§ Akin to these personifications is the dramatic character 

* The prophecy abounds also with other passages of exquisite softness and 
beauty, as c. 51. c 54-55. 61" 63'-64" Ac 

t Is. i' 2j* (SidoQ lamenting her bereavement), 29*"* {fsm» pronouns in 
the Hebrew), 37** (Zion disdainfully mocking the retreating invader), Zcph. 
3" and Zech. 9* (Zion exuUanl). Jer. 4»' 6" 46»' »• " 50** 51", Mic. 4«- »»• "ti/. 

X See 49'*'"' 51""" (Zion pro&trate and dazed by trouble, but now bidden 
to lift herself up), 52"- 54>-« 6o>-» 62* ; 47>*»» (Babylon). 

S Add the personificatloQ of Jehovah's arm, 51*^-. Isaiah, unUkc the 
author of c. 4X>-66, evinces no txceptional preference for peraonificatioa. 



of the representation, which also prevails to a remarkable extent 
in the prophecy; see 40**^ 49*"^ 50^* 53^"^ 58^ 6ii**^- 631-*. 

(3) 'Ilie theological ideas of c 40-66 (in so far as they are 
[229] not of that fundamental kind common to the prophets 
generally) differ remarkably from those which appear, from c. 
i-39> to be distinctive of Isaiah. Thus, on the nature of God 
generally, the ideas expressed are much larger and fuller. Isaiah, 
for instance, depicts the majesty of Jehovah : in c 40-66 the 
prophet emphasizes His infinitude; He is the Creator, the 
Sustainer of the universe, the Life-Giver, the Author of history 
(41^), the First and the Last, the Incomparable One. This is 
a real difference. And yet it cannot be argued that opportunities 
for such assertions of Jehovah's p»ower and Godhead would not 
have presented themselves naturally to Isaiah whilst he was 
engaged in defying the armies of Assyria. But, in truth, c 40- 
66 show an advance upon Isaiah, not only in the substance of 
their theology, but also in the form in which it is presented ; 
truths which are merely affirmed in Isaiah being here made the 
subject of reflexion and argumenL Again, the doctrine of the 
preservation from judgment of a faithful remnant is characteristic 
of Isaiah. It appears both in his first prophecy and in his 
last (6^*; 37'^'): in c 40-66, if it is present once or twice by 
.mplication (59** 65*^*), it is no distinctive element in the author's 
teaching; it is not expressed in Isaiah's terminology,* and it 
is not more prominent than in the writings of many other pro- 
phets. The relation of Israel to Jehovah — its choice by Him, 
its destiny, the purpose of its call^is developed in different 
terms and under different conceptions! from those used by 
Isaiah: the figure of the Messianic king (Is. 9*-^ 11^''"-) is 
absent; the prophet associates his view of the future with a 
figure of very different character, Jehovah's righteous Servant,} 
which is closely connected with his own distinctive view of 
Israel's destiny.§ The Divine purpose in relation to the nations, 

• -w (io»« II"' » 16* I7» 21" a8»; ct 7»). 

f Isrmel U Jehovah's " servajit," ectnuted by Him with the diachiige of 
m &acrcd mi&sion, and hence caonot now be disowned by its Divine Lord 

1 43^ 49^* SO*"* 52"-S3^ 6ii-». 

§ To say that the figure of the ideal Servant of c 40-66 is an advatu* 
upon that of the Messianic king of Isaiah is not conect : it starts &om a 
diffctcat oiigia altogelha ; it U/aralltJ to it, not a continuation of it> BoUi 


especially In connexion with the prophetic mission of [230] 
Israel, is more comprehensively developed.* The prophet, in a 
word, in whatever elements of his teaching are distinctive, moves 
in a different region of thought from Isaiah ; he apprehends and 
emphasizes different aspects of Divine truth. 

C. 40-66 thus displays, in conception not less than in literary 
style, a combination of features, which confirm the conclusion 
based on the subject-matter of the prophecy, that it is the work 
of an author writing towards the close of the exile, and predict- 
ing the approaching conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, and the 
restoration of tlie Jews, just as Isaiah predicted the failure of 
Rezin and Pekali, or the deliverance of Jerusalem from Sen- 
fucherib. It need only be added (for the purpose of precluding 
misconception) that this view of its date and authorsliip in no 
way impairs the theological value of the prophecy, or reduces it 
to a vatidnium ex eventu : on the one hand, the whole tone of 
the prophecy shows that it is written prior to the events which 
it declares to be approaching ; on the other, it nowhere claims 
either to be written by Isaiah, or to have originated in his age. 
Nor upon the same view of it is any claim made by its author 
to prevision of the future disallowed or weakened-t 

Tlie atteinpl is sometimes made to mctt the force of the argument deriverj 
&om diflcrcnces of phraMology and style by pointing to the examples of 
simitarities observable between c. 40-^ and the acknowledged prophecieA 
of Isaiah. No doubt a certain number of such similarities exist ; but they 
are very far from being numerous or decisive enough to establish the conclu- 
sion for whidi they are alleged. It is the differtnce between authors which 
are characteristic, and form consequently a test of authorship: stmilarities, 
unless they are exceedingly numerous and minute, may be due to other causes 

representations meet, and are fulfilled, in the person of oux Lord Jesus Chri:.!, 
but in the Old Testament ihey are distinct {Iiaiahs pp. 175-180). 

* Israrl in its iifilea/ character is to be the medium of religious instruclion 
10 llic world (42»*^ *• ■ 49''') : comp. 45***- 5 1*^ "^ 56"-, 

t There is no ground for supposing that i\\v: fulfilled predictions frequently 
alluded to (41" 42* 43'"** 48*-*) arc ihose constituting ihe prophecy itself; 
00 the contrary, 42* shows that they are, in fact, prior prophecies, on the 
strength of the fulfilment of which the prophet claims to be heard in the new 
announcements now made by him {Isaiah, p. 188 f.). And in 44" 45*'' the 
prophet does not claim foreknowledge of Cyrm^ but only of what He wilt 
accomplish % he is already "stined up," and "come" (41'- "• 45*^), and the 
prophet promises that he vritl prosper in his further undertakings (41*^ 




than identity of authorship. They may be due, for instance, to community 
of subject -matter, to the independent adoption by different writers of a 
current terminology, to an aiHnity of genius or mental habit prompting an [331] 
author to borrow the ideas or phnuteology of a prcdccc&sor, to involuntary 
reminiscence. But the difTcreuccs between c. 40-66 and the acknowledged 
prophecies of Isaiah are botli more numerous and of a more fundamental 
rharacter than the simiLirities. A large number of the latter that have been 
alleged will indeed be found, when examined, to be rwt distinctive^ i.e. they 
are not the peculiar possession of the Book of Isaiah, but occur in oilier 
writers as well. And there are none which may not be naturally and reason- 
ably accounted for upon one or other of the four principles that liave jusl 
been mentioned. The fallaciousness of arguing from similarities alone ought 
to have been apparent from the case of Jeremiah and Dt., in which the 
resemblances ore much more abundant and remarkable than those between 
the two parts of the Book of Isaiah, and yet are admilt<'d^-on all hands — 
not to establish identity of authorship (p. 87 «.).* 

It will be found that the chief objections to the critical date 
of c 40-66 have their root in an imperfect apprehension of the 
historical situation to which criticism assigns it, and which is 
required (in parts) by the argument of the prophecy : see in 
particular, on the latter point, G. A, Smith, iL ppt 9-12. who 
shows that the prophet's reasoning in c. 41-48 implies that the 
early successes of Cyrus must have been already historical facts. 

The Utertuy unity of Is. 40-66 is undoubtedly imperfect, especially in 
its later chapters : naturally the whole will nut have been delivered by the 
prophet continuously, but some alteration, and advance, in the historical 
situation may be presupposed for its later parts. Thus Dillm. (p. 363 f.) 
supposes c 40-48 to have been written in tlic midst of Cyrus* successes, 
c, 545 ac, c 46-62 between 545 and 539-538; wlule c 63-66 ore, he 
consider!, of the iiature of an appendix, dealing with questions which arose 
when the return to Palestine was imminent, and added therefore nearly at the 
lime of the edict of Cyrus ; — c. 66 may in parts (esp, in v.""^} have been 
expanded by a subsequent hand (p. 534). But other critics are of opinion 
that this view does not do justice to the diSerence of tone which marks 
certain parts of the prophecy, and which, tliey consider, points to a gicalcr 
change both in the historical standpoint of the writer and in the circumstances 
of those addressed. As regards two passages, 56^-57"* and Sg*"**, wliidi 
(esp. the former) recall strongly descriptions in Jer. and Ez. of the condition 
of Judah imder the later kings, it is generally allowed \.^. the writer's Isaiah^ 
p. 187 f.) that they were written originally in the age of Jcr^ and that tht 

* See more fully, both on the characteristic teaching of c 40-66 and on 
the authorship, the papers of Prof. Davidson, cited above, p. 204 ; the writer's 
/raioi, pp. 168-212; Dillm. pp. 347-362, 469-474; Kirkpatrick, Docirint 
ofiht Prophets, ppw 349-406 ; also, on the figure of Jehovah's ide«d servaat, 
Kichm, Alttttt, TluoU (1890}, S 84. 



author of c. 40-66, finding that they tanght a lesson appropriate to his con- 
temporaries, incorporated them, with or without some slight modifications of 
form, in his own work, accommodating them at the some time (see 57^^^ " ; 
59**'^) to Uie situation of the exiles. Ewald held that the whole of c 58-59 
(as well as S^^"57^^^ ^^ borrowed by II Isaiah ftom a contemporary of 
El: he corisidered further (as did also Bleek) that 63^-c 66 was added by 
the author a//tr the return. Kuenen (§ 49, 5-7, 11-15) limited (In 1S89) the 
prophecy of the restoration to c 40-49, 52**", and perhaps 52*^53" s the 
rest, be ai^ued* upon internal grounds, presupposed an author (or authors) 
Uni^ after the return in I^lcstine ; and hence he concluded that these parts 
were added, alter B.C. 536, either by 11 Isaiah himself, or(mostly)by subsequent 
writers belonging to the same school ; 64^*'- he thought, in particular, alluded 
"either to the facts dcscrilied in Nch. i* [above, p. 222], or to still later 
occurrenccsof a similar kind" (cf. below). Comill (g 20 [' $ 24]. 19, 20), and 
Wildcboer (g 17. 5), also agree that the greater part of c 49-62 presupposes 
a writer living in Palestine ; but they do not suppose this writer to have been 
dilTerent from the author of c 40-4S, and they find the marks of a later hand 
only in parts of c 63-66. 

Duhm and Cheyne, by a closer study of the historical circumstances pre- 
supposed, the idens, and the phrascoIog>', seek to fix the authorship and age 
of the prophecy more precisely. Duhni thus limits the original work of 
II Isaiah to 40>-*- »""■ •*«• "-" 4l*-» 40^*-»*» 411-*- «-« 42*-"- »■ ^*- « 43»'»^ »••■ 
^^i-a ai-m ^ji-i. n-ia^ i«.» ^^n. b-u ^^i-a. v*-it^ u ^gu (to /aco6) •• fc* ••»*. au 

"■w (to /here am I) ^^^ 40'-* So'-* Si^-"- "-»• "• >»-» S2»-»-*-" 54»-»«- >•-"• 



Duhm refers the "servants-passages (43*"* 49''« 5o**» 52"- 

53") *o * distinct writer, living B.C. 500-450 : c, 56-66 he assigns to another 
writer ("Tritojcsaia"), living a little later, at the beginning of the age of 
Ezra and Neheroiah, who stood in greater sympathy than II Isaiah had done 
with the legal school founded by Etek., and promoted by Haggai and 
Malachi, and who attached greater importance to ritual observances : thus 
56^**. in the interest with which it views the duty of Sabbath -keeping and the 
question of the separation of Israel from the heathen, places us in the age of 
Eir. 9"* c 10, Nch. 9* 10*** 1 3*''' *'•' ; the author is only less exclusive than 
Ezr. and Neh., in that he is willing to admit such foreigners and others, who 
conform (v.*- •) to the necessary moral and spiritual conditions : 56*-57"* is 
not prc-exilic, but alludes to the persecutions and idolatries practised by 
Samaritans, and disloyal Jews, in the same age; 65"*" 66*'" &c., refer 
likewise to the same persistent adversaries of the faithful "servants" of 
Jehovah, whose future fate, here (65"- *"• 66*- "*'•) and elsewhere (as 59^*"*), 
the prophet declares. C. 58-59 portray the besetting moral and religious 
faulu of the same period. Cheyne agrees largely with Duhm. In hts 
analysis of c. 40-55 he differs only in assigning the "servants-passages, and 
40»**» 42» 45"- ^ 47^ Si« 54'^" 55»*, to II Isaiah, and by excluding 42»«' 
^iih. tib ^^i» ^gjb. ifc Q^ 56-66 he treats as a group of prophecies belonging 
similarly (except 63^-c 64) to the age of £zr. and Neh., the religious 
characteristics of which (esp. the opposition of Che Samaritans and false 
Jews) he considers that they accurately reflect ; he assigns these, however, 
not to an individual, but to a school of writers, who fell under the literary 


Bpetl of II Isaiah, and loved to perpetuate lus teadiing, and develop lus ideas. 
C. 60-63 he regards as an appendix to the original prophecy of II Isaiah, 
giving expresaon to the high hopes nused in B.a 433 by the arrival of Ecra 
and his fellow-exiles with rich gifts for the temple from Babylonia. 63^-c. 64 
is of later origin : it reflects the conflicting emotions aroused in the breasts of 
pious Israelites, by the destruction of the temple (64***'*}i uid other calamities, 
conjectured (above, pb 333} to have taken place under Artaxerxei Ochus 
{c. B.C 347)b 



T.rrRRATURE.— H. Ewald in his Prophets of the OT, 1840-41, ■1867-6S 
(in the translatioo, vols. 3 and [c 50-51] 5, p. iff.); ■?• Hitxig (in the K^f. 
Exeg. Handb.\ • 1866 ; K. H. Gmf. Der Proph. Jtr. grkiart, i86a ; C. W. 
E, NSgcIsbach in Lange*s Bibelwerk, 1S68 ; C. F. Keil in the BibL Com- 
mentary 1872; Payne Smith in the Sptakirs Comrruntary^ 1875; T. K. 
C^eync in the Pulpit Commentary (exposition of the text), 1883-S5 ; 
Jerrmiaht his lift and times (in the "Men of the Bible** scries). 1888; 
C von OrelU in Strack and Zockler's K^. KommsfUar^ 1887 ; C J. Ball 
(vol. i.) and W. H. Bennett (vol. ii.) in the " Expositor's Bible,** 1890, 1895 ; 
Stade. ZATW. 1885, p. 1753". (on 32"-"), 1892, p. 276 ff. (on c 21. 24-29) ; 
Giesebrecht (in Nowack's ** Handkommcntar "), 1894; C. H. Cornill (in 
H«upt*5 SBOT.). On c. 25. 46-49. Schwally, ZATIV. 1888, p. 177 ff.; 
Smend, A T. KeL-gtseh. p. 23S ; L. H. K. BIeeker»/w.V ProfetiUn tegen di 
VoiJterent Groningen, 1894 (with niany t«t.-criL and exeg. notes) ; and on c. 

50-51,0 Buddc in \!^t Jahrt. /. deutsehe ThtoL 1878, pp. 43^-470,529-562. 

B.C. ChroneUtgifa! TahU, 

639. JosiAH. 
626. Call of Jeremiah. 

6ai. Discovery of Deuteronomy ; Josiah's reformation. 
609. Jehoaiiaz. 
608, jshoiakim. 

604. Victory of Nebuchadnetxar over Pharaoh Necho at Carchemith. 
597- Jehoiachin, 

597. First siege of Jerusalem, and deportation of Jewish exiles. 
596. Zedekur. 

586. Dcstniction of Jerusalem by the Chaldaans, and x«Vfu/ deportation 
of Jewish exiles. 

The prophet Jeremiah was of priestly descent He was 
sprung (1') from a little community of priests settled at Anathoth 
(cf. I Ki. 2^, Josh. 21**), a town not far north of Jerusalem, in 
the tribe of Benjamin, with which he continued to muintuin a 
connexion (cf. 11^* 37")> though the main scene of his prophetic 
ministry was Jerusalem. His first public appearance as a prophet 
was in the 13th year of king Josiah (i' 25'), i>. 626 B.a, 5 years 



before the memorable year in which the "Book of the Law* 
was found by Hilkiah in the Temple. Of his life during the 
reign of Josiah no further particulars are known : but [233] his 
book contains abundant notices of the part played by him in the 
anxious times which began soon after the accession of Jehoiakim, 
and did not cease till the destruction of Jerusalem by the 
Chaldaians in 586. Politically, the 4th year of Jehoiakim, in 
which Nebuchadnezzar won his great victory over Pharaoh 
Necho at Carchemish on the Euphrates, was the turning-point 
of the age. Jeremiah at once grasped the situation: he saw 
that Nebucliadnezzar was destined to achieve further successes ; 
he greeted him with the ode of triumph in c 4.6, and declared 
that the whole of W. Asia would fall under his sway (c 25), 
implying thereby what he afterwards taught explicitly, that the 
safety of Judah lay in yielding to the inevitable, and accepting 
the condition of dependence upon Babylon. In the end, how- 
ever, Jehoiakim revolted; and under his son and successor 
Jehoiachin the penalty for his imprudence fell severely upon 
the nation : Jerusalem was besieged ; and after 1 00 days' reign, 
the king " went out " (2 Ki. 24^"-'), i.e. surrendered at discretion, 
to the enemy : he himself, the queen mother Nehushta, the 
principal members of the court, and the Hite of Jerusalem 
generally, were condemned to exile in Babylonia. Zedekiah, 
having sworn (Ez. ly^i-i^) ^ solemn oath of allegiance to 
Nebuchadnezzar, was nominated king over those who remained 
in Jerusalem. After a few years, however, Zedekiah compro- 
mised himself by treasonable negotiations \vith Pharaoh Hophra; 
and in his 9th year the second siege of Jerusalem by the 
Chaldaeans began. Jeremiah now (21^'**: cf. 38^^'*) declares 
unambiguously that the besiegers will pre^'ail, adding, as a piece 
of practical advice to the people generally, that desertion to 
them was the sole guarantee of personal safety. This counsel 
did not proceed from any unpatriotic motive, though it is easy 
to see that it might be so interpreted : Zedekiah, in revolting at 
all, had been guilty of a gross breach of faith (see Ez. 17), and 
the position taken now by Jeremiah was but the corollary of that 
adopted by him in 604 (c. 25). Jeremiah's experiences during 
the siege — how he was arrested in the north gate of the city on 
a charge of deserting to the Chaldccans, and thrown into the 
common dungeon ; how he was released thence in consequence 



of the king's anxiety to learn from him tlje final issue of the 
siege ; how Zedekiah was compelled to relinquish him into the 
hands of his courtiers; and how he was only rescued from 
death by starvation through the [234] intercession of a friendly 
foreigner, an Ethiopian, Ebed-melech — are related in viv-id detail 
in c 37-3S. After the capture of Jerusalem, Jeremiah was 
treated with consideration by the Chaldscans, and allowed to 
remain where he pleased : he was carried against his will by 
some of the Jews who had been left in Palestine into Egypt 

(c 42-44). 

Respecting the composition of the Book of Jeremiah, we 
have, at least as regards its oldest portions, information con- 
siderably more specific than is usual in the case of the writings 
of the prophets. His prophecies, we learn from c 36, were first 
committed to WTiting in the 4th year of Jeboiakim, when Jere- 
miah received the command to take a roll, and write therein 
"all the words" which Jehovah had spoken to liim "against 
Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations " from the 
days of Josiah onwards. Accordingly, we read, Jeremiah dictated 
them to his scribe Baruch, who wrote them " from his mouth " 
(v.*- *■ *''• ^^- '^ in a roll. In the following year, in ihc 9th month 
(36''^), Baruch read the contents of the roll publicly before llie 
people at the gate leading into the upper court of the Teniple. 
Jehoiakim, being informed by his princes of what Baruch was 
doing, ordered tlie roll to be brought to him, and read before 
him. After three or four leaves had been read, the king, in a 
passioDj seized the roll, rent it with his penknife, and cast it into 
the fire. After the roll had been thus destroyed, Jeremiah was 
directed to rewrite its contents in a second roll (v.-*), which was 
done in the same manner as before, Baruch writing at the 
prophet's dictation ; and, it is stated, not merely were the con- 
tents of the first roll repeated, but ** ihen were added besides unto 
them many like words " (v.^^). Whether, even in the first roll, 
Jeremiah's discourses were reproduced verbatim as they were 
delivered, or merely in general substance, coloured, perhaps, in 
parts by the course of subsequent events, it is impossible to say } 
but in the second roll, which evidently must form the basis of 
tlic prophecies as we have them, they were reproduced with 
additions. Thus, as reg.irds the prophecies belonging to the 
first twenty-three years of Jeremiah's ministry, there must always 



be some uncertainty as to what portions strictly reproduce the 
original discourses, and what portions belong to the additions 
made by the prophet in the fifth year of Jehoiakim. It is, 
however, not unreasonable to suppose that among these [235] 
additions are included some of the more definite and distinct 
denunciations of the nation's sin and of the coming judgment 

The earlier prophecies of Jeremiah's book, anUke the later ones, are 
usually without specific dates (comp. 3' the indeteiminate expression, "In 
the days of Josinh "], and often, also, somewhat general in ihcir contents, so 
that probably they are not so much the actual text of particular discourses, as 
a reproduction of their substance, made by the prophet on the basis of notes 
and recollections of his teachir^ at the time. 

C. I. The vision of the prophet's call, in the 13th year of 
Josiah, B.C. 626. Jeremiah, while still a youth (v.*), is con- 
secrated to be a prophet : it is to be his mission to announce 
the weal or woe (v.^"*), not of Judah only, but of other nations 
as well ; in particular, however, he is to bear the tidings of woe 
to his own people (v."'**) ; he must expect, in the discharge 
of his mission, to encounter great opposition, but is divinely 
strengthened for the purpose of overcoming it (v.^^*"). 

C. 2-6 form presumably Jeremiah's first prophetical dis- 
course, as it was reproduced in a written form in the 5th year 
of Jehoiakim. The discourse consists of four parts, in each of 
which the general theme, viz. the nation's sin, is treated under 
a distinct aspect, viz. (i) C- 2 ; (2) 3^-^ (continued by 3^*'-4') ; 
(3) 3"-" ; (4) 4^-6^. C. 2 the dominant subject is Judah's 
idolatry. The prophecy opens with a touching picture of the 
nation's innocency in the ideal period of its youth, 2*-*; v.*-" 
describes its ingratitude and deferiion from Jehovah, and v.^*-'^ 
the punishment which ensued : next the people arc reproached 
with leaning for help alternately upon Egjpt and Assyria, and 
with their devotion to gods which, in the time of need, will be 
powerless to aid them, v.^**^^ ; and finally, v.'*-^^, with their self- 
complacency (v.^*), and persistent refusal to listen to wiser 
counsels, (a) 3^"^ 3*^-4^ the subject is still Judah's idolatry, but 
there is held out the prospect of a better future ; Judah has been 
like a faithless wife, 3^"3, whose promises of amendment, v.*'-, 
are but as empty words. Yet Jehovah had thought to honour 
her, expecting love and faithfulness in return, but His purpose 
had been frustrated, 3*^^-. This, however, will not continue for 



ever ; the offer of pardon is freely made : and the prophecy 
cloees with a picture of the penitent nation confessing its sin 
(^a. 22i>-2a^^ jjn(j 0f the benefits accruing from the spectacle of its 
loyalty to the nations of the earth [236] (4^'^). (3) 3^". Judah 
contrasted unfavourably with Israel, Judah has wtnessed the 
fate which overtook her sister, tlie N. kingdom, in her sin, but 
has derived no warning from it : hence, relatively, Israel is more 
righteous than Judah, v.'' ; and the offcj of pardon and promise 
of restoration are addressed in the first instance to it, v.^^-w j 
only when the ideal Zion of the future has been established by 
the restoration of Tsrad^ so that even heathen nations flock 
towards it (v.'^*^), will Judah abandon its sin and return from 
banishment (which the prophet here presupposes) to dwell with 
Israel upon its own land, v.". 

Itisalxnost cert&in that this sectioD is misplaced, (i) It iaterrupts the 
connexion, for the words in 3"*, *' But / said," are not antithetical to anything 
in V.**, while they arc obviously so to the thought of 3* : 3^** d<^pirts Judah 's 
faithlessness and empty promises of amendment, to which the declamtinn, 
V.**, of Jehovah's purpose, which had been fnistratcd, forms a nnlunU 
contrast. (2) The contrasted view of the beliaviour of the two kingdoms 
is peculiar to this seciion, and is foreign to both 3*'' and 3"'-4^ : notice, also, 
that whereas in 2*-3» and 3"-4^ " Israel " drsignales Jttdak^ in 3**" it 
denotes the N. kingdom as opposed to Judah. (3) The section is complete in 
itself: for v.* evidently marks a genuine t>eginning ; and the promises, y."'", 
form ft natural close, and one thoroughly in harmony with the analogy of 
prophecy. Thus, though the prophecy belongs no doubt to the same period 
as the rest of c 2-6 (for it has many figures and thoughts in common, e,g, 
v.**» and 2*""; the figure in v.* aiid 2' 3**-; 3* and 2*- " 3'^ ' ; v." and 
v."), it has probably, through some accident of transmisuon, been displaced 
from its original position (Comill places it ofler c 6). See further Stade, 
ZATW, 1884, pp. 151-154; Kuen. fi 52. 10. Giesebr. leaves v.*"" where 
it is, but treats v.^*'" as a later addition (v.^*"" being taken from another 
context in Jer. himself, probably c. 31) ; v.'-*^'^, however, reads far more like 
a confession placed in the mouth oi Judah in its own home (and therefoK 
the continuation of 3^**), than like one supposed to be spoken by hrtui ia 
the land of exile. 

(4) 4''-63*. Here the coming judgment is depicted more dis- 
tinctly : it is to be inflicted by a foe from the north. The 
prophet begins by exhorting earnestly to penitence, if perchance 
the future which he foresees can be averted, v.^*^- ; aftenvards, he 
bids the people betake themselves for safety into the fenced 
cities, for the destroyer is approaching from the north ; soon he 
sees him close at liand, and the capital itself inve^stcd by the foe. 



r.*"^. Speaking in the name of hb people, he gives expression 
to the sense of terror which thrills through him as the alarm of 
war draws nearer : the vision of desolation embraces the whole 
land ; in vain does Zion seek the favour of her " lovers," they 
are turned against her, v.^*-'*. Does this severe judgment seem 
unmerited ? Gladly would Jehovah have pardoned, had the 
nation shown itself worthy of forgiveness ; but all, high and low 
alike (5*'-)i ^^ corrupt, ^^\ Let the appointed [237] ministers 
of judgment, then, complete their task : the only restriction is 
this, that Israel must not be exterminated (v.w-": cf. 4*^); and 
a picture follows of the terrible and cruel invader, who will 
desolate the land, slay the inhabitants, and carry the survivors 
into exile, v.'o-". V.^*-^ re\'ert to the thought of v.>-», dwelling 
afresh up>on the moral cause of the coming disaster ; prophets 
and priests unite in the furtherance of e^'il. In c. 6 the danger 
is depicted as still nearer: the capital itself must now be 
abandoned (contrast 4'): for the enemy is preparing to storm 
it (v.*), Jehovah's offer, even now, to spare Zion is made in 
•x-ain : worldliness and the illusion of security engross the people's 
thoughts ; and the judgment must therefore take its course, 
v.*"**. Still another description follows of the approach of the 
invader ; and the section closes with a significant figure of the 
reprobate condition of the nation, v,**-^. 

The foe from the north comtitutes & featvxt in which 4*-^ advances 
bqrond 2^-4' : so that it is reasonable to suppose that 4^-&^ belongs to a 
somewhat later date. The invader is mentioned, or alluded to, 4**'* **■ **•"• 
n.m ^ 15-17 51-a IS. fs-» . i^j n^j name is specified, it is disputed who is oieaiiL 
Herodotus (1. 103 S.) speaks of a great irropdoo into Asia at ihts Ume of 
ScythiaHs, a wild and 6erce people, whose home was north of the Crimea, 
but who, like the Huns and Bulgarians of a later day, were apt to make 
predatory incursions into the more favoured regions of the south. On the 
present occaaon their invasion is thus described ( Rawlinson, Atu, Afcnarehiis, 
Bk. H. ch. ia.; cd. 1879, vol. ii. p. 235 f.) :— " Pouring through the passes 
of the Caucasus, horde after horde of Sc)'thians blackened the rich plains itf 
the south. On they came like a flight of locusts, countless, irresistible, . . . 
finding the land before them a gaidcn, and leaving it behind them a howling 
wilderness. Neither age nor sex would be spared. The inhabitants of the 
open country and of the villages, if (hey did not make their escape to high 
mountain tops or other strongholds, would be ruthlessly massacred by the 
invaders, or, at best, forced to become their slaves. The crops would be 
ccnsumedp the herds swept ufif or destroyed, the villages and homesteads 
burnt, the whole country made a scene of desolation. . . . The tide then 
swept on. ^Vanderi^g from district to district, plundering everywhere, 




settling nowhere, the clouds of horse passed over Nfisopotaniia, the force 
of the iin-asion Incoming weaker as it spread itself, until in Syria it reached 
its term by the policy of the Egyptian kirxg Psamroetichos," who, hearin(( 
Ibat the Scythian hordes had advanced as fax as Ashkelon, aad were 
threatening (o invade E^'pt, prevailed upon them by rich gifts to abstaio 
from their enterprise. Herodotus, who states that they were masters of 
Western Asia from the Giucasus to the border of Egypt for 28 years (B.C. 
635-€o7), may have exaggerated the extent and nature of ihcir dpxij, but the 
fact of such an irruption liaving taken place cannot be doubted. It is 
probable that the present prophecy, in its original intention, alluded to 
these [238] Scythian hordes, whom some of the descriptions remarkably suit 
(5" 6^-)t and who may well have ended by including Judah in their ravages ; 
though af'erwards, when it was committed to writing, and, as it were, rt-tdited 
in the 5ih year of Jehoiakim, it was accommodated by the prophet to the 
ChaldaMins, who in the interval had become Judah's most formidable foe, tlie 
phraseology being pfissibly modilicd in parts so as to describe them more 
appropriately {«.g. V the '* lion " and ** destroyer of nations " arc terms belter 
suited to an individual as Nebuchadnezzar tlian to a horde ; comp. the 
"lion," 49*» of Nebuchadneirar, 50** of Cyrus: 6^° "from the ultcnnost 
ports of the earth," and " from the north " would be q>propriate cither to the 
Scythians or to the Chaldrcans. cf. 25": 10** 13" 1^ 47*). Comp. Ew. 
Hist, iv. 226-231; Prophets^ iii. 70; Hitxig, Jerem, p. 31 f.; Graf, pp. 
16-19 • Wellhausen in Bleck*s Einkitutig, 1878, p. 335 ; Kuenen, g 52. 12. 

C 7-10 (excluding lo'***) form a second group of prophecies. 
The scene described in c 7 is a striking one. The prophet is 
commanded to station himself at the gate leading to the upper 
coiirt immediately surrounding the Temple, and there to address 
the people entering in to worship. V.* states the theme of his 
discourse : Amend your ways and your doings^ and I wiU cause 
you to dweU in this place. The people of Jeremiah's day, 
appropriating, in a one-sided sense, Isaiah's teaching of the 
inviolability of Zion, pointed to the Temple, standing in their 
midst, as the palladium of their security. The prophet indig- 
nantly retorts that they mistake the conditions of security (v.*"). 
So long as the people follow dishonesty, immorality, and idolatry, 
Jehovah will as little spare Zion as he spared Shiloh of old : the 
fate of Mphraim will be also the fate of Judah, y^-^. 7*»-8^ the 
subjects are substantially the same : the people's refusal to listen 
to the warnings of their prophets, their persistency in idolatry, 
the ruin imminent, the foe already in the midst of the land, the 
vain cry for help raised by the people in their distress, and the 
prophet's wail of sympathy. In c 9 the plaintive strain of 8^^" 
is continued : the prophet bewails the corruption of the people. 

which is rendering this judgment necessary, 9^'** (the refrain, 9* 
as 5*' ^) : he dwells anew, and with livelier sympathy, upon the 
troubles about to fall upon the people, 9'*-^ ; he bids (lo"-**) the 
inhabitants of the capital, which he already in spirit sees invested 
by the foe, prepare to depart into exile, only at the end (lo^*^-) 
supplicating in the name of his people for a mitigation of the 
coming disaster. 

[339] The date of this prophecy is disputed. Some, arguing from its position 
and the general umilarity of tone with 4'-c. 6, assign it to the same period, 
before J o&iah's i8lh year (Hitr., Bleck, Einl. cd. 4, p. 3G0, Keil) ; others, on 
account of the graU reseinblauce with 26'**, regard the occasion as the same, 
and assign it to the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim (£w. Graf, Nag. 
Kuen. g 53. 6, 7, Payne Smith, Cheyne, p. 115, Wellh. ap. BIcek, /.r., 
Delitzsch, ap. Workman [see p, 269, note\ p. xix. 

10'*^*. Against idolatry. The "house of Israel" are warned 
against standing in awe of the idols of the heathen, which, 
however splendid and imposing in appearance, are powerless to 
defend their worshippers (v.**^*): on the other hand, Jehovah, 
who is Jacob's portion, is the true and living God. 

This section is misplaced, even if Jeremiah be the author, (i) It Is foreign 
to the context ! the context on both sides deals with the judgment impending 
upon Jerusalem, and tlie people arc represented as already abandoned to 
idolatry, in particular, to the worship of the Queen of Heaven and Baal 
C?**-"): 10'*" deals entirely with the contrast between Jehovah and idols, 
and warns the nation against Uarnitig idolatry (v.'). (2} Jeremiah's argu- 
ment is " Expect no help from vain gods ; they cannot save you " (2* 1 1^) ; 
here the argument is " Do not fear them, they cannot harm you," And yet, 
according to Jeremiah's teaching, at the very time to which from its position 
this section would be referred, Jeremiah was prophesying that Judah would 
shortly be ruined by a nation of idolaters. Ilic descriptions in v.*"** • imply 
that the "house of Israel" addressed is in the presence of an elaborate idol- 
worship carried on — not by themselves, but — by the heathen, which, they are 
emphatically taught, deserves no consideration at llieir hands. The situation 
is Uiat of *h* exiles in Babyhnia, Either (Blcck) the prophecy belongs to 
the latter part of Jeremiah's career, and was addressed by him (cf. the letter 
in c 29) to those of his fcllow-countr>men who went into exile in 597 ; or 
(Movers, Hiu., Graf, Kuen. g 53- 8, 9, Ball, p. 215 ff.) it is the work of a 
later prophet, writing towards the close of the exjie, when (as we know from 
II Isaiah) the magnificence of the Babylonian idols severely tried the faith 
of the exiles: both the descriptions of idolatry and the argument ["Do not 
stand in awe of the idols around you ; they are a thing of nought ; it is 
Jehovah who made heaven and earth ^'} are in II Isaiah (Is. 40^*"" 41''''' 
44»*» 46**' Ac.) strikingly similar. In the phraseology the only noticeable 
point of contact with Jeremiah's style is in v.^^, cmps n;'3 (p. 375, No. 14}. 




V.'* is in Aramaic, with ccrtnin pcculiarilics showing that Its aathor muftl 
have^pokcn a particular Aramaic dialect:* from the fnct that it interrupts 
the connexion between v." and v.'- (for v.^ in the Hebrew [240] begins with 
A partidpU^ connecting immediately with vj*^), it is probable thai it was 
origiiuUly a note written upon the mai^ of v.", as a comment — pcfhnp^ 
taken from some independent writing — on the argument of the texL Tho*e 
who attribute it to Jeremiah, generally view it as a reply with which he pro- 
vides the exiles, to be used by them when invited to take port in idol-worship : 
Aramaic was understood, and used both commercially and officially, by 
Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persiaiu (tiie inKriptions referred to in the note, 
however, have regularly n, not as here n, for the relative particle). 

C 11-12. (a) ii'"". This, with evident allusion to the law- 
book discovered in Josiah's i^th year (v,* " Hear ye the words 
of this covenant": V.*** almost verbatim — Dt 27'*»; with v.^** 
cf. ib. v,^**), relates, no doubt, what took place shortly after that 
event. Jercraiah was instructed to go and *' proclaitn " (or 
" recite ") *' in the cities ofjudah and in the streets of Jerusalem " 
(v.*) the words of the covenant, i.t. probably to undertake an 
itinerating mission in Judah for the purpose of setting forth 
the principles of Dt., and exhorting men to Hve accordingly. 
{ft) 11*'^^ appears to describe what happened some time sub- 
sequently — possibly as late as the reign of Jehoiakim — when 
the amendment of the people had been shown to be superficial 
(y 10 *«ii;ey have returned to the fonner iniquities of their 
fathers "), and when the prophet accordingly reaffirms the 
sentence of judgment, which neither his own intercession (v.") 
nor the people's hypocritical repentance (v.^* R.V. marg,) will 
be able to avert, (r) ii"-i2*. In ni*-^ Jer. relates how he had 
been apprised of a plot formed against his life by the men of 

* The form Mpnit occurs in the Aramaic inscriptions on weights from 
Nineveh of the 8th cent. B.C. {Corp. Juscr. Sem, II. L Nos. I, a, 3, &c), 
in Mandate (Nuldekc, Afami. Cr, p. 73), and in the recently discovered 
Inscriptions from Zinjirli (near Aleppo), of the Sth cent. B.C. (logether with 

■pTO = MXiD, cf. Uij, l^, [Htd. Tenses* % 17S]; and •p*i = 'T3n= pj» *-fl .) • 
see D. U. MilUcr, Di4 Aitsfm, Jmchr. von StnHickirli (l8*)3), pp. 41, 54; 
and cf. Noldtke, ZDAfG, 1893, p. 96 ff.; \)\c jussive without ; (n3»»') in the 
Aram, of Tcma {C.I.S. ib. No. 1133, L 14), Egypt [ib. 137 B*), Nerab near 
Aleppo [Jietf. S/m. 1896, p. 280 ff.), and Dan. 5'*' (cf. the same form in the 
indie. Eira 4", and Mullcr, U. p. 50); nS»t (for J'Vie) in the Nabatjcan 
Inscriptions (Euling, A'aA, Jnsehrifttn^ 18S7, p. 77). In Di.iS (with m) Jer. 
SO*^ agrees with the Aram, of Ezra (which has w, ns well as n, while that of 
Dan. has n only), as with that of Egypt {C./.S. II. i. 145), of the Nabatican 
Inscriptions (Euling, p. 77), and of Zinjirli (Muller, pp. 44, 50). 



his native place, Anathoth, aiid the judgtitent whicli he had pro- 
nounced upon them in consequence : 12^'^ he expostulates with 
Jehovah on account of the impunity which the conspirators 
nevertheless for the time enjoyed, and demands upon them 
summary vengeance : in reply he is rebuked for his impatience, 
and reminded that his faith may have in the future yet greater 
trials to endure, {t/) 1 2^'^^ deals with a different subject, 
and dates probably from a later time, when Judah, viz. after 
Jehoiakim's revolt from Nebuchadnewar, was oveaun by bands 
of Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites (2 Ki. 24*'*), alluded to 
here in the expression "my evil neighbours," v.". They, as 
well as Judah, are threatened with exile ; buta gracious prospect 
of restoration afterwards is held out to them (v.*'*''*), if they adopt 
from the heart the religion of Israel 

C. 13 contains — {a) the description of a symbolical act per- 
formed [241] by the prophet for the purpose of illustrating the 
corrupt condition of the people and its consequences, v.^-^^; (d) 
a parable, declaring significandy the disaster about to come upon 
them, v*^--"; {c) a renewed exhortation to amendment, v,i*-'\ 
followed vJ'-27, by the prophet's lamentarion, as the dark reality 
forces itself upon him, that the exhortation will only be dis- 

From v.^ "Say ye to the king, ami to the quun-mother^ Sit yc down 
lowly," it is generally inferred by commentators {Graf and Keil being nearly 
the only dlisentieuli) that this prophecy bclon^'s tu Uie reign of Jehoiachin, 
whose mother, Nehushta (2 Ki. 24"), is also specially mentioned in another 
prophecy of Jeremiah's 22^, as well as in (he narrative of the exile of 
Jehoiachin (29*; ^ ^ 24"* "j, so that she probably exerdscd some unusual 
influence at the time. 

i4'-i7". (a) c 14-15. The immediate occasion of a 14 
was a drought (v.-*^), which was viewed by the prophet as a 
token of Jehovah's anger, and elicited from him accordingly the 
supplioiaioti following, vJ'^: Jehovah's answer follows; and the 
dialogue is continued to the end of c 15. Jer's intercession 
is refused, \^^^^ (with v." comp. 7" n"; with v.»2», e^o** ii"^) ; 
he seeks to excuse the people on the ground that they have 
been deluded by their prophets, v." (cf. 5*^ 6^^) ; but the excuse 
is not accepted \ prophets and people must perish alike, v.'^"'*. 
In more beseeching tones, Jeremiah renews his intercession, 
Y.i»-a; but is answered even more decisively than before: Even 




Moses and Samuel would not avail to avert the coming doom, 
or undo the evil which Manasseh wrought for Judah, is'-' (with 
V,* cf. 2 Ki. 2i"-" 24''')* Hereupon the prophet vents his grief 
and despair at the fate which (through the message which he 
bears) obliges him to encounter the hatred and ill-will of all men, 
V.'*; ▼.'*'• Jehovah reassures him : the time will come when his 
opponents will be glad to implore his help, crushed by the 
irresistible might of the "iron from the north" (the "northern 
colossus," the Chaldseans) ; * once again, v.^**^^ he bewails the 
hard fate imposed upon him of having to predict the ruin of 
[242] his country : v.^*-^* he is finally taught that his success and 
happiness depend upon his abandoning the false path of mistrust 
and despair, (d) 16^-17", In 16^-17* the coming disaster, with 
its cause, the people's sin, is set forth in still plainer terms 
than in c. 14 f.: in ly^-w the prophet points to Jehovah as the 
sole source of strength in the hour of trouble ; and concludes, 
v.'*-*^, with a prayer that he himself may experience Jehovah's 
salvation, and be dehvered from the enemies who taunt and 
persecute him. 

The intennty of feeling which Jeremiah displays throughout I4'-I7", 
the persistency and earnestness with which he steps forward again and again 
Co intercede on behalf of his nation, the emphasis with which the doom is 
declared to be irrevocable, authorise the inference that the prophecy belongs 
to the time when the crisis was approaching, s.e, to the latter part of the 
reign of Jelioiakim, when the pruphct felt moved to make every efTort to 
avert, if it were possible, the inevitable. 17" has even been thought to contain 
an allusion to Jchoiakim's unju^ and avaricious treatment of his subjects, 
•described more direcUy in 22^*'- " ; but this is uncertain. 

C. l^^^^, An exhortation on the Sabbath, to the strict 
observance of which a promise of prosperity and the continued 
existence of the monarchy (v.^ : cf. 3 a*} is attached. 

* Such is the most probable sense of the difficult r." (Ewald, Keit). 
V.u> 14 [to be read as RV. stcottd marg\ as they stand, must carry on the 
sunc line of thought : Jeremiah's enemies will be taken into exile, so as no 
longer to be able to trouble him. But the thought would be very obscurely 
and indirectly expressed: for just before (v.**) the pron. of the 2 p«. denotes 
Jeremiah, here it would denote the nation, to the e.u!usitm ^ Jeremiah 1 
There is high probability in Ewald's view, that v.*^'" is accidentally mis- 
placed, and ought properly to follow v.*, where the passage is in harmony with 
the context, and where the change of person would be far less abrupt (comp. 
the second person of the n.ition in v.*). 


This prophecy is unconnected wilh what precedes : and from the differeno* 
in lone — for the doom which in 14*- 17** is declared to be irrevocable, is 
here conceived as capable of being averted, upon one condition being 
observe<l — it may be inferred lliat it belongs to a different and earlier period, 
perhaps (Orcili) to the time of Josiah's reformation (cf. 11**). Tlic importance 
attached in it to the Sabbath, and thL* appreciatioa expressed in v.^ foe 
sacrifice, ore not in the usual spirit of Jer.; and hence several recent critics 
(includirjg Kuencn, § 52. 16; cf. Cheyne, Introd, to Is. pp. 311 f., 324) 
attribute it to a later prophet, belongiiig to the age of Nehemiah (cf. Neh. 
10^ XjW-"). The style is, howevtr, thoroughly that of Jer. ; and although 
no doubt Jer. speaks disparagingly of sacrifice ofiered by impure hands 
(519*. yftc 11-36 i4»«-u)^ it niay be questioned whether he would have rejected it, 
when (as is the case implicitly in 17*) it is conceived as the expressioa of m 
right heart (cf. 33" ; also Dl la", Is. 56^ 6^), 

C x8-2o. Lessons from the potter. In c. 18 Jeremiah is 
made to teach, by obsen-ation of the method followed by the 
potter, the great principle of the coftdithnal nature of pro- 
phecy. The doom pronounced against a nation may, if the 
nation alters its course, be modified or reversed : God*s pur- 
pose, as declared^ is not of necessity absolute and uncondi- 
tional, v.*'^**. The practical application follows : the Jews are 
invited to amend their ways, in order that the threatened evil 
may be averted; they are represented as declining; and the 
judgment originally pronoimced is reaffirmed, v.""^'. The 
people, proud in the possession of inviolable privileges [243] 
(y?^\ resent tliJs unwelcome conclusion of the prophet's, and 
proceed to form plots against his life (cf. 26"^-), with a vehement 
prayer for the frustration of which the chapter closes, v.'^**. 
This prophecy, in which the fate of Judah is represented as still 
undecided, and as depending on the people's choice, would seem 
to be earlier than 14^-171* where it is treated as irrevocably 
fixed. C. 19, by a symbolical act, the breaking of the potter's 
finished work, the earthen bottle, in the valley of the son of 
Hinnom, the conclusion expressed in c. 18 is repeated and re- 
inforced: the nation lias reached a point at which amendment 
is no longer pjossible : and the disaster, when it comes, will be 
final and irretrievable, v.'*^. V.'^^^ Jeremiah repeats in tlie 
Temple Court the substance of what he had said, the con- 
sequence of which was that Pashhur, son of Immer, the super- 
intendent of the Temple, had the prophet thrown into the stocks 
till the following day : after his release, he pronounces upon the 
entire nation formal sentence of exile to Babylon, ao^*^. The 



incident Is followed, vJ'", by an outburst of deep emotion on 
ihe part of Jeremiah (comp. 15*°- ^^" lyis-is) ; the impulse to be 
a prophet had been an irresistible one (cf. Am. 3^) ; but he had 
been rewarded by nothing but -hostility and detraction ; and 
though he is sensible that Jehovali is with him (cf. x**), and will 
in the end grant him justice against his persecutors, he still can- 
not repress the passionate wish that he Iiad never seen the light 

C. 21*'^° places us in Zedekiah's reign, during the period 
(v.') when Nebuchadnc/.zar*s troops were investing the city, at 
the end of Zedekiah's ninth year. The passage contains the 
answ*er given by Jeremiah to the message of inquiry addressed to 
him by Zedekiah respecting the issue of the siege. 

2iii-23«, An important group of prophecies, containing 
Jeremiah's judgments on the successive rulers who occupied in 
his day the throne of David 21^^'^* is introductory; aa*"** is an 
admonition impressing upon the king the paramount importance 
of justice. There follow the special judgments on the kings — 
on Shallum (Jehoahaz), v,^'**^-, whose exile is pathetically fore- 
told ; on Jehobkim, whose exactions are pointedly contrasted 
with the fair and honourable dealings of his father Josiah, and 
for whom an ignominious end is predicted, v.""^*; and on 
Jeboiachin, whose banishment to a foreign [244] land is em- 
phatically announced, v.-^^**. The climax of the entire prophecy 
is 23'**. V.^"2 is a denunciation of the unworthy shepherds — 
i.e, rulers, comp. a* 10'-* — generally, who have neglected and 
ruined the flock entrusted to them ; v.'*® the prophecy doses 
with a promise of ultimate restoration, and a picture of the rule 
of the ideal Prince of Jesse's line, which in every respect forms 
a contrast witli that exercised by the imperfect rulers of Jere- 
miah's own day (v.*** the opposite of 22^** *^; v."** the opposite of 
23^*; with v.* comp. 3^*). 

21" 22*^- (implying that the fate of Judah is not yet iacrocably fixed) 
appear to belong to the earlier part of Jeremiah's career (cf. 17*) ; the 
judgments which follow (as the terms of v."*- *»■ ■*• show) must hare been 
originally pronounced during ihe reigns of the kings to whom they aeverally 
relate ; the whole being arranged together subsequently, on account of (he 
community of subject. 

23**^** is directed against the prophets, who were influential 
in Jerusalem* in Zedekiah's reign (see ay'*''* 28^'''), and who 
* And also among those carried inio uile with Jeboiachin, ag^ *"*. 



represented a policy the reverse of that counselled by Jeremiah, 
and misled the people by false promises of security, JeremiaJi 
denounces them with much vehemence, charging them even with 
immorality and profaneness (comp. 29^), and declaring that 
their unauthorized prophesyings will avail neither the people nor 

C 24 was written shortly after the exile of Jehoiachirt As 
has been said (p. 348), the companions of Jehoiachin included 
the flower of the nation : among those who were left in Jeru- 
salem must have been many who hitherto had occupied a 
humble station in life, but who now found themselves suddenly 
called to fill state offices : these in many cases were elated by 
their new dignities ; and proud of the confidence placed in them 
by Nebuchadnezzar, they treated their brethren in exile with no 
small contempt, declaring loudly that "the land was given to 
M«»" (see Ez. 11^^ 33")- In this chapter Jeremiah passes a 
comparative estimate upon the two divisions of the nation : 
under the significant figure of the good and bad figs, he ex- 
presses emphatically tlie different character of each, and the 
different future in store for them. 

C 25 belongs to the critical year of the battle of Carchemish, 
the fourth year of Jehoiakim (b.c 604). In it Jeremiah first 
[245] declares, v.^-'*, that Judah and the neighbouring nations 
must fall under the sway of the king of Babylon for seventy 
years, at the end of which time his empire will come to an end ; 
afterwards, v.^*-'*, extending the range of liis survey, he views 
his empire as destined to embrace practically tha then known 

It is eitrctneTy doubtful wbethci v."***- ** are genuine ; nearly all modem 
critics are of opinion that the original prophecy has here been expanded by 
a writer, who had the entire book (including c. 50-51, to which t." alludes) 
before him, for the purpose of emphasizing the judgment destined lo fall upon 
Babylon ultimately: cf. pp. 270, 273. 

C. 26 is assigned to "the beginning of the reign of Jehoia- 
kim**: no doubt, therefore, it dates from an earlier period than 
c. 25. It recounts Jeremiah^s attempt to lead his people to 
better counsels, by warning them that, unless they amend their 
ways, Jerusalem will share the fate which overtook Shitoh of old 
(cf. c. 7) ; and describes the prophet's narrow escape from death 
in consequence of the indignation aroused by his words. 



C 27-29 belong to the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah. 
C. 37 relates how Jeremiah frustrated the attempt made by the 
five neighbouring nations — Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and 
Zidon — to induce Zedekiah to join them in a league for the 
purpose of revolting from the Chaldaeans : it was the design of 
Providence that the entire known earth should fall under the rule 
of the king of Babylon ; and the prophets who promised the speedy 
restoration of the sacred vessels, whicla Nebuchadnezzar had 
carried away, simply deluded the people with vain hopes, C 28 
narrates how he opposed Hananiah, who was one of the prophets 
alluded to in a 27, and who promised the return, within two years, 
of the sacred vessels (the loss of which was evidently keenly felt 
in Jerusalem), as well as the restoration of Jehoiachin and the 
other exiles. C. 39 contains the letter sent by Jeremiah to the 
exiles (who had been disquieted by prophets announcing con- 
fidently their speedy return to Judah) exhorting them to settle 
down contentedly where they were, to " build houses, and plant 
.gardens," for no restoration would take place until the seventy 
years of Babylonian dominion had been accomplished, v.^"". 
This letter so enraged the false prophets in Babylonia, that one 
of them^-Shemaiah — sent to Jerusalem with the view of pro- 
curing Jeremiah's arrest : the failure of his plot, and Jeremiah's 
reply, form the subject of v.^^-®'. 

C 30-33 embrace Jeremiah's principal prophecies dealing 
with Israel's restoration. The thought has been expressed be- 
fore incidentally (e.g, 3"*'* ; 23'**) ; but it is here developed 
connectedly. The general import of c. 30, after the introductory 
words v.'"^, is to assure Israel, that, though the present distress 
is severe, the nation will not wholly perish : in due time it [246] 
will be restored, Jerusalem will be rebuilt (v.''), and ruled again 
by an independent prince of David^s line, who will enjoy in 
particular the privilege of close access to Jehovah (v.^* 2*), In 
this chapter the two verses ^^"" ( = 46"-*^) are especially notice- 
able : the title of honour, " My servant," here given to Israel for 
the first time (and applied to the actual nation), appears to have 
formed the basis upon which II Isaiah constructs his great 
conception of Jehovah's ideal Servant (p. 242). C. 31 holds 
out the hope of the restoration of Ephraim^ v.*'*, as well as of 
Judali, v.>^>* : at present Rachel (the mother of Joseph^ i.e. 
Ephraim) — so the prophet's imagination pictures her — is watching 




from her tomb at Ramah, and tenderly bewailing the desolation 
of her children; but tlie mother may stay her grief; Ephraim 
will yet show penitence, v,**-^, and both Ephraim and Judah 
will return together, v.'****. There follows the great prophecy of 
the "New Covenant,** by which the restored community will 
then be ruled, a covenant which is to consist not in an external 
system of laws, but in a law written in the hearty a principle 
operative from within, filling all men with the knowledge of 
Jehovah, and prompting them to immediate and spontaneous 
obedience, v.'^***. C 32 describes how Jeremiah, as a sign that, 
though the exile of the entire nation was imminent, the Jews 
should still once again possess the soil of Canaan, both pur- 
chased fields belonging to his cousin at Anathoth, and took 
special means to ensure the preservation of the title-deeds, v,^*^* : 
v.**"** he records how his heart afterwards misgave him, and 
v,8(M4 how he was reassured by Jehovah. In c 33 the prophet, 
looking out beyond the troubles of the present (v.**^-), depicts 
afresh the subsequent purification and restoration of the nation 
(note v.'\ the reversal of 7" 16' 25^°), v.^->*; closing with a 
repetition (in a slightly varied form *) of the Messianic prophecy 
of 23*'', and a solemn assurance of the perpetual validity of 
Jehovah's covenant with the house of David and the Levitical 
priests, v.^*-"*. 

[247] C. 32-33 »re mssigncd expressly (32* 33') to tfce period of Jeremiah'i 
honourable confinement in the " couit of the guard," i.e. to the second part 
of the siege, in Zedekiah*s tenth year, alter it had been interrupted by the 
temporary withdrawal of the Chaldreans : the composition of c. 30-31 belongs 
probably to the same time, though from the tenor of 30* (" Write thee all t^ 
words ikai I have spoken unto thee in a book ") it is more than possible that 
the contents had in port been originally uttered previously, but, as 32* 
"then" shows, that they were not committed to writing till subsequently, 
probably after the fall of the city. 33"''* is not in LXX ; and the majority 
of recent critics, partly on account of the prominence assigned in it to the 
priests (cf., however, 31"), partly on other grounds (see Kuen. 854. 21 ; 
Giesebr. p. 1S3C), question Jer.'s authorship of iL 

• TTie symbolical name "Jehovah is our righteousness," which in 23* is 
given to tlie Messianic King, is here, 33'*, assigned to the restored, ideal 
city. Thi name is intended, of course, to symbolize the fact that Jehovah is 
the source of righteousness to (he restored community. In the one case, this 
is indicated by the name being given to the kin^ who rules over it (and who 
therefore is doubtless viewed as mediafing the righteousness) ; in the other, 
by its being given to the city in which the community dwells (cf. Isa. I*). 



The chapters which follow are largely historical, though 
naturally confined to incidents in which Jeremiah was more or 
less directly concerned. 

C 34^"^ relates the message which Jeremiah was instructed to 
bear to Zedekiah respecting the future fate as well of the dty as 
of the king himself. 

The occasion was probably during the first Investinent of Jerusalem by the 
Chaldieans (Hiti. Kcil, Kuen. PS.)i • little subsequent to 2i>-" ; thoogh 
others, from the fact that the prophecy is the one quoted in 32" during the 
tecond part of the siege, have referred it by preference Lo this period (£w.» 
Graf, Stode, G. L 647). 

34*-'^. The inhabitants of Jerusalem, under pressure of the 
tiege, had solemnly engaged to emancipate their Hebrew slaves ; 
but afterwards, when the siege was temporarily raised, had 
treacherously disregarded the engagement Jeremiah denounces 
them for their breach of faith, with bitter irony proclaiming 
"liberty" to the sword, the pestilence, and the famine, and 
declaring that the Chaldaeans will ere long return, and not 
depart until they have reduced the city. 

C 35-56 bring us back into the reign of Jehoiakim. The 
date of c. 35 is towards the close of Jehoiakim*s reign, when, the 
territory of Judah being overrun by marauding bands (2 KL 24*), 
the nomad tribe of Rechabites took refuge in Jerusalem : Jere- 
miah, from the example of their staunch adherence to the 
precepts of their ancestor, points a lesson for his own fellow- 
countrymen, C. 36 narrates the memorable incident of the fifth 
year of Jehoiakim, when the roll of Jeremiali's prophecies was 
burnt by the king in a fit of passion (p. 249)- 

C 37-38^** describe Jeremiah's personal history during the 
siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldxans (comp. p. 248 f.). 

38^^-c 43 state particulars respecting the events of Jere- 
miah's life after the capture of Jerusalem, the favour shown lo 
him by [248] Nebuchadnezzar, the murder of Gedaliah, and the 
circumstances under which the prophet, against his will, was 
brought into Egypt : 43®"^^ is a prophecy uttered by him upon 
the arrival of the refugees at Tahpanhes (Daphnae), declaring 
the future conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar. 

38"*-39" connects imperfectly with 38'''*", 39' going back to the 
keginning of the siege. It seems (in spite of its licing iu the LXX) that 
39*'' (which cannot be legitimately treated as a parenthesis) is an interpotatioo 



on the basis of a KJ. as*- •■ *-. 39*-" is omitted in LXX, and It Is doubtful 
if it forms part of the original nftrrative : the connexion of r.* with v.* is 
imperfect, and in any case v.^" is merely aMdgeti from 3 KL 25*"" (compu 
esp. T.' with a Ki 35"*"}, according to the purer &nd more original text still 
preserved in Jcr. 53*'". Most probably the original text had only jlS"^ yf 
[with and foi iAa/^ as in the Hcb.] v." [Heb. and they i/«/]: these words 
form a continuous narrative, the particulars in which are not borrowed from 
c 53 (so Ew. Hits. Gr^, Kuen. Orelli, — Hits, and Or., however, including 
v."*" as well). 39***** is a supplement to c. 38, promising a reward to Ebed- 
melcdx on account of the services rendered by him to Jeremiah. 

C 44. Jeremiah here rebukes the fugitives in Egypt for 
relapsing into their old idolatries : they excuse themselves : the 
prophet, in reply, repeats his previous denunciations, declaring 
that of their entire body, a handful only should return into the 
land of Judah. 

C. 45 is a supplement to 36^-*, " these words " in v.^ referring 
directly to the roll there mentioned. It consists of a short 
prophecy, containing words of mingled reassurance and reproof, 
addressed to Baruch in the depression and disappointment which 
overcame him, after writing the roll of the 4th ytSir of Jehoiakim, 
at the near and certain prospect of his country's ruin. He is 
reminded that the age is one in which he must not expect great 
things for himself, but must be content if he escapes with his 
bare life. 

C. 46-51 form the book of Jeremiah's prophecies concerning 
foreign nations, groyped together, as in the case of the similar 
prophecies in the Books of Isaiah (a 13-23) and Ezekiel 
(c. 25-32). The prophecies are closely connected with c 25 
(most of the nations to which they refer being named in 25^^**), 
and no doubt in the first draft of Jeremiah's prophecies (see 
p. 271) immediately followed it.* 

C. 46. On Egypt This falls into two parts : (i) v.*-" an 
[249] ode of triumph on the defeat of Pharaoh Necho at 
Cardiemish (v.*), b.c. 604; (2) v.**-^ a prophecy written in the 
same strain as v.'-", foretelling the successful invasion of Egypt 
by Nebuchadnezzar, 

* In the text of the LXX they are inserted in this chapter, after 35^, the 
words in 2^^ "which," &c., in the form, "The things which Jeremiah 
prophesied against the nations," forming b superscription ; v. 
omitted ; and v.» (in the form, ** Thus said Tebovah," &c) '•*' 
ing at the end. 

'* being 
> follow 



V.i^ (wor^ of reassurance addressed to Israel) are all but identical with 
^o^M. They eppcai to imply that the captivity has t^pm, and it is at least 
doubt^l (in spite of 3^ 16^') whether Jer. would have so expressed hinuelf in 
S.C. 604. On the other hand, they are in their place in c. 30, which appears 
(p. 262) to have received its present form after ihe fall of JcrxisaJem. Perhaps 
they were attached here subsequently, either by Jei. himself, or by a reader, 
or editor, of his prophecies. 

C. 47 is directed against the PhiUstines^ indirectly also (v,*) 
against Tyre and Sldon : their country is to be wasted by a foe 
vhose attack is compared to waters rising up out of the north 
and inundating the land 

The foe meant is unquestionably the Chaldseans (cf. 13" 25* 46^), and the 
occasion is no doubt the same as that of c 46. The note of time in r.*^ is 
obscure ; but probably the allusion is to a capture of Gaza by the Egyptians 
not otherwise known to us, either on their retreat from Carchemish, or 
possibly in connexion with the movements mentioned in 37', The note may^ 
however, be due to one who supposed the Egyptians to be meant in v.*. 

C 48 is a long prophecy directed against Moab^ for the 
inhabitants of which desolation and exile are foretold The 
prophet develops his theme in considerable detail, in connexion 
with the topography of Moab ; he closes, v.*^, with a prospect of 
restoration in the future. 

The prophecy, in v.** *^, has ntimerous reminiscences from Isaiah's 
prophecy (c 15-16) on the same nation {bce RV. mar^.), but the siyle and 
manner of the whole are very different : the treatment is more disuse ; and it 
is marked by greater vehemence {e.^, t,** ""• **• ■•). 

49*-* is on the AmmotiiteSt a prophecy of similar import to 
that on Moab, but briefer ; v/""* is on Jidont^ whose mountain 
defences will form no protection against the attack of the 
Chaldaian king (figured by the " lion " of v,*", and the " eagle" 
of v.'^) ; v.'3-" is on Damascus^ whose warriors, when the 
critical moment arrives, will be seized with panic, and perish 
helplessly in the streets; v.**-^^ is on the great pastoral (Is. 4a" 
60^) tribe of Kedar^ who are to be rudely disturbed in their 
security, and scattered "to every wind" by Nebuchadnezzar; 
v.**-** is on Eiam (assigned by the title to the beginning of the 
reign of Zedekiah), against which a fate similar to that of Kedar 
is predicted 

[350] It is probable that all these prophecies, except the last, belong to 
the 4lh ycflr of Jchoiakim. and reflect the profound impression which 
Nebuchadnezzor^s victory at Carchemish prrHluced upon the prophet. Oo 



the temarlcAble similariiies between the prophecy Dpon Edom and that of 
Obadiah, see below, under Obadiah. In the case of Amnion and Elam 
[4^ **] the prophecy closes with a promise of restoration similar to that given 
toMoab(4S«): comp. la"*-. 

Schwolly and Smend (abovet p. 247) argue, upon internal grounds, that 
c. 46-49 are not Jeremiah's : Giescbr. agrees partly, but admits c 47, and a 
nucleus in 46*'" 49'*"- Against this view, see (at length) Bleeker (above, 
p. 247), who, however, allows that considerable parts — vit 46^""' ••" 48** 
»-•. lintt 4^8. w. ii-i7. u-m_Qj^ interpolated ; Comill, Ei'n/, § 21 (■ 5 25). 9-10 ; 
Wildeboer, § 13 (p. 251 f.}. Jeremiah was not the man to regulate the flow 
of his thought by literary canons ; and care must be taken not to limit 
arbitrarily either the terms or tlie manner in which he might express himself. 

C. 50-5 1. A long and impassioned prophecy against Babylon^ 
50^51**, followed by a short historical notice, 51^*^*, describing 
how, when Seraiah — probably the brother of Jeremiah's friend 
and assistant Baruch — in the 4th year of Zedekiah (b.c 593) 
accompanied the king on a joumey to Babylon, Jeremiah sent 
by his hand a scroll, containing a prophecy against the dty, with 
instructions to read it upon his arrival there, and afterwards to 
sink it in the Euphrates, as a sign that Babylon would sink in 
like manner, and not rise again. The prophecy itself (50"^) 
declares the approaching capture of Babylon, and the speedy end 
of the power of the Chaldxans ; the time has come for the 
violence done by them to Israel to be requited {$6^^^' i^-^- '*''' 
jjS. 24.34f. 44, Mj . jj^ people from the north, even the Medes, are 
about to be ** stirred up " (cf. Is. 13*^) against them (so*- »• **• ♦>'• 
51*' ^** '^-^ [Cyrus]); again and again the prophet with eager 
vehemence invites the foe to begin the fray {50^*'^*' ^' ^^^ Si*^** 
*^''), while he bids the exiles escape betimes from the doomed 
city (50' 516. 45f-60)^ the future fate of which he contemplatei 
with manifest delight <5o='*- ^^' sa^. "^ *• ^jisr. iat80fl.83fl: «ir.). 

It doea not seem that this prophecy (5o'-5l") U Jeremiah's. The 
grounds for this conclusion do not consist in the announcement /^r se which 
the prophecy contains of the end of the Babylonian powce — for this was 
certainly foreseen by Jer. (25" a?''- " 29'**) — or in the phraseology, which has 
much in common with Jer.'s ; but in the manner in which the announcement 
u made, and especially in the contradiction which it evinces with the position 
which Jer. is known to have taken in the year to which it is assigned by 51". 
(l) The standpoint of the prophecy is later than Zedckiah's 4l.h year. The 
destruction of the TimpU is presupposed (56* 51"* ^) % the Jews are io eiile. 

suffering for their sins (50^ 

SI*"- ''halh made me an empty vessel") 

but Jehovah is now ready to pardon and deliver them (so^- ** 51"^ ") ; the 
boux of retributioQ is at hand for their foes, and they themselves are bidden 



prepare to leare Babylon (s«e the punges cited abore). Bat In t.c $93 it 

WAS the measure of /rra^/'x wickedness which, in Jer.'s estimation, was not 
yet filled up ; the Chaldxans had yet to complete against Jenisalem the work 
allotted to them [251] by Providence (c 24, &c); only when this had been 
accomplished does the prophet expect the end of ibe Babylonian monarchy, 
and the restoration of Israel (25'* 27' 29*'). Thus the situation postulated 
by the prophecy — Israers sin forgiven, and the Chaldxans* work accom- 
plished — had net arrived while Zedekiah was still reigning : on the other 
hand, the coming deslniclion of Jerusalem, which is foremost in Jer.'s 
thoughts throughout the prophecies belonging to Zcdekiah's reign, and which 
he views m necessarily prueding the restoration, is here alluded lo ts past, 
(2) The point of view is not that of Jer. either in or about the year 593. At 
that time, as we know from c 27-29, Jer. was opposing earnestly the 
prophets who were promising that shortly Bab)-lon would fall, and the exiles 
be restored ; he was even (c. 29) exhorting the exiles to settle down con- 
tentedly in their new home. But the prophet who speaks in c. 50-51, so far 
from counselling patience, uses alt the arts of language for the purpose of 
inspiring the exiles with the hopes of a speedy release, for duing which the 
'* false prophets " were so severely denounced by Jer. The line of thought 
adopted in the prophecy is thus inconsistent with the attitude of Jer. in 
*<^* 593- (3) l^c prophecy is not a fture declaration of tlie end of the 
Chaldaean rule, such as Jer. undoubtedly made : it is animated by a temper, 
which, if it be Jer.'s, is not adequately accounted for. The vein of strong 
feeling which per^'ades it, the manifest satisfaction with which the prophet 
who utters it contemplates, under every imaginable aspect, the fate which he 
sees imminent upon Babylon, show it to be the work of one who felt far more 
keenly against the Chaldxans than Jer. did, who indeed, after the capture 
of Jenisalem, was treated by Nebuchadnezzar with marked consideration 
[c 39, Sic), and who, even when in Hg)'pt, still regarded the Babylonian 
king as carrying out the purposes of Providence (43*''*' 44*).* There 
breathes in this prophecy the spirit of an Israelite, whose experiences had 
been fiir other than Jer.'s, who had smarted under the vexatious yoke of the 
Chaldivans {cf. Is. 47*'' 52*), and whose thoughts were full of vengeance for 
the sufferings which his fellow -countr)Taen had endured at their hands. 
Other indications, not sufKcient, if ihey stood alone, to authorise the con- 
clusion thus reached, nevertheless support it. Jer. is not, indeed, like Isaiah, 
a master of literary style : but the repetitions and the unmethodical develop- 
ment of the subject which characterise c 50-51 are both in excess of his 
usual manner. Jer. also, it is true, sometimes repeals his own words (p. 276), 
but not to the extent which would be the case here if he were the author of 
c 50-51 [5o»-»*-*^«5i»»-»). 

On the whole, the most probable view of c. 50 f. is the follow- 
ing. The notice in ^x^-^\ that Jeremiah took the occasion of 

•To suppose the prophet in.spircd lo express tmittiotn which (to judge 
from the general tenor of his book) he did not feci, would imply ■ very 
mechanical theory of inspiration. 



Seraiah's visit to Babylon to record by a symbolical act his corv 
viction that the Chaidsean dominion would in time be brought 
to its end, is thoroughly credible : it is in accordance with Jer.'s 
[252] manner on otlier occasions (13^"^' ig^"* 27^*): and a 
general declaration similar to that contained in v/^ js perfectly 
consistent with Jer.'s altitude at the time (25^* 29*"). The 
prophecy, 50^-5I*^ is the work of a follower of Jeremiah, familiar 
with his writings, and accustomed to the use of similar phrase- 
ology, who wrote no very long time before the fall of Babylon, 
from the same general standpoint as Is. i3''-i4*^ c. 40-66. In 
a later age the prophecy came to be attributed to Jeremiah, and 
was identified with the "scroll" sent by him to Babylon* In 
its original form, the notice, 51""^*, contained no reference to 
50^-51**, but only to the words written on the scroll sunk in the 
Euphrates, v.*" ended at " Babylon " (in the Heb. at IBD b^ 
nnx : notice how awkwardly, in the Hebrew, clause b is attached 
to clause a): when 50^-51*^ was incorporated in the volume of 
Jer.'s prophecies, v.*°^ was added for the purpose of identifying 
it with the contents of the scroll.* 

The superscriptions to the longer independent prnphedes in Jer.*s book 
foil into one or two well-defined \y^c&,from which thai in 50^ differs^ which 
would agree willi the conclusion that the prophecy following was not part of 
the original colleclion, but came into Jer.'s book by a different channel. The 
ttsu&l types are (i) "The word which came to Jcr. from Jehovah (saying)"* 
7' 11' 18* ai' 25' fl/.; (2) "That which came (of) the word of Jehovah to 
Jcr." (p. 276, No. 27): 14' 46^ 47* 49*** The subject of a prophecy is also 
sotnelimes indicated bricfiy by the prep. S : 23* 46* 48' 49*- '■ "■ » ; %\\\ (?), 

lo 51*^ the clause "and they shaJl be weaiy," which is evidently out of 
place where it stands, is repeated from v." — either through some error, or 
(Budde) by the compiler, who prefixed it to the note, "Thus far are the words 
of Jeremiah," as an indication that be understood these " words " to extend, 
not ai lar as v,*"**, but only to isjri, the last word of the preceding prophecy. 

C 53. Historical account of the capture of Jerusalem by the 
Chaldaeans, and exile of the inhabitants. 

Thb narrative {s excerpted by the compiler of the Book of Jeremiah from 
2 KL 24**-25'"— with the omission of 2 Ki. 25«-" (which had either not yet 
been introduced into the text of Kings, or, being simply condensed from Jer. 

• See, fiirthcr, Tiele, Bab,'Ass, Cssch. p. 481 f.; and the careful discussion 
of Kuenen, § 57. Sayce's reasons (Mtmumenfi, pp. 4S4S, 521] for dating 
the prophecy before 561 are far from cogent, especially as he now [Actui. 
Sept. 7, 1895, ^ 189) places Kastarit under Esarhaddon I., a century earlier. 



40^"*4I*"*' *^ 43' 43*'*, did not need io be repeated), and the addition ol 
Jer. 53*"" {thoogh these verses, which are not in the LXX, and the chrono- 
logy of which difTers from that of v.", were perhaps not introduced till a later 
stage in the redaction of the book) from some other source — on account, no 
doubt, of its containiiig detailed particulars of the manner in which Jer.'s 
pffincipftl and most constant [353] prediction was fulfilled. The /£r/ of this 
section has, in several places, been preserved here more purely than in Kings. 

TAe two texts 0/ Jeremiah.* In the Book of Jeremiah the text 
of the LXX differs more widely from the Hebrew than is the case 
in any other part of the OT., even in Sam., Kings, or EzekieL 
In the text of the LXX, as compared with the Hebrew, there are 
very numerous omissions, sometimes of single words, sometimes 
of particular dauses or passages, there are occasionally additions, 
there are variations of expression, there are also transpositions. 
The number of words in the Hebrew text not represented in the 
LXX has been calculated at 3700, or one-eighth of the entire 
book. Very many of these omissions are, however, unimportant, 
consisting only of such words as the title the prophet attached to 
the name Jeremiah, or the parenthetic Saith /efwvak, &c; but 
others are more substantial, as lo^-^- ^° 1 1^-^ (except v.^^ " but they 
did them not"), 29" (except "and I will be found of you"), ^*** 
33""^ 39^"^' ^2»»-s0; sometimes, also, a chapter, though the sub- 
stance is not materially altered, appears in a briefer form in the 
LXX (as c 27. 28). The most considerable transposition is in 
the different place assigned to the prophecies on foreign nations 
(p. 264, note): the order of these prophecies among themselves 
is also changed. DifiTerent causes have been assigned in ex- 
planation of these variations. By some they have been attributed 
to the incompetence and arbitrariness of the LXX translators ; 
by others they have been supposed to arise from the fact that 
the existing Hebrew text, and the text from which the LXX 
translation was made, exhibit two different recensions of Jeremiah's 
writings. A careful comparison of the two texts in the light of 
(a) Hebrew idiom, {6) intrinsic probability, shows that both 

• See F. C. Movers, £>t Mtriusque rccens. vatic. Jtremin Grac. Alex, et 
Maxor. indole et online, 1837 ; Hilzig, p. xv ff.; Graf, p. xl ff.; A. Scliolt, 
Dtr Afass. Text u. die LXX-Uebers. des Buchei Jer. 1875; E. C. Work- 
man, 714* Text of Jeremiah^ Edinburgh, 1889, with the reviews by the present 
writer in the Expositor^ May 1889, and by H. P. Smith in the Journ. of 
BibU Lit* 1S90, p. 107 ^.; Kuenen, S 58 (a very fair and imp&rtiai state* 
ment of the question); Gicsebrecht, pp. xix-xxxiv; A. W, Strcane, 7 he 
double Text ef Jeremiah, 1896W 



these views contain elements of truth, though neither is true 
exclusively ; the variations of the LXX are in part "recensional," 
t'.e, they are due to the fact that the Hebrew text used by the 
translators deviated in son\e particulars from that which we at 
present possess ; but in part, also, they are due to [254] the 
faulty manner in which the translators executed their work. The 
claims of each text to represent the prophet's autograph have 
been greatly exaggerated by their respective advocates ; * on the 
whoU^ iZie Massoretic text deser\'es the preference; but it is 
impossible to uphold the unconditional superiority of either. To 
determine which readings of the LXX are more original than 
those of the Hebrew is often a task of no small difficulty and 
delicacy ; and commentators and critics differ accordingly. 

It is obviously impossible for the writer to enter here into details : be 
must content himself with the two general observations (i) that there are cer- 
tainly many individual coses in which the purer reading has been preserved 
by the LXX ; (2] that it is at least probable that there are passages in which 
the text has been glossed, or expanded, in Uie Hebrew, and is expressed by 
the LXX in iU more original fonu (see examples in Q/*J^.*), Thus in c, 25 
words are omitted in LXX in v. »•»•••'• «^"-»- "(wholly) «.».«-».»■» 
With respect to some of these, opinions may differ ; but v.'***' **as it is this 
day" clearly cannot have been part of the original text of B.C. 604 (25*), but 
must have been added after the fulfilment. In c. 37-29 the omi>i:»ion5 in 
LXX (or additions in the Heb., as the case may be) are, £rom some cause, 
peculiarly numerous: Kucncn, § 54. 6, here prefers the LXX almost through- 
out (except 341*"-" LXX = 27"*" Heb., and 36 (29) »*-*^, where the translators 
have entirely missed the sense); in c. 27 W. R. Smitli, OTJC. p. Iljff. 
(ed. a, p. 104 ff.), also urges strongly the superiority of the LXX (c£ p. 273), 

It is remarked by Kucnen that the two texts of Jcr. are not so much two 
recensions, as the same recension i» different stages of ih history. The dif- 
ferent positions of the foreign prophecies in the two texts may be accounted 
for by various hypotheses, which cannot here be discussed : in all probability, 
however, their position in the LXX {in c 35) is less original than tbeir 
positioa in the Hebrew {a/iter it ; cf. pp. 27T, 273). 

The redaction of the Book of Jeremiah, though details must 
necessarily in many cases remain hypothetical, must have passed 

* Especially by Graf and Keil on the one side, and by Workman on the 
other. The last-named scholar has formed a false view of the method 
followed by the translators, and has mnde, in consequence, the great mistake 
of not distinguishing between dcviatiunji due only to the translators, and 
those having their source in the MSS. used by them ; thus in his elaborate 
" Synopsis of Variations," the majority were never in any Hebrew MS.* but 
&re simply imaginary originals of the translators* paraphrases. 


through at least five distinct stages.* TbejCrr/ of these stages 
win have been represented bf the roll of Jdioiakiai's fourth 
^ear, in which the prophet, dictating to Barucfa, committed for 
the &rst time to writing the propbedes ddivered by him during the 
preceding twenty-three years (above, p. 249). The xm^W stage 
was represented by the roU of Jeboi^kim's fifth year, in which the 
came prophecies, after the first roll had been bumt, were re- 
written, wi/A many additians (36^) : this roll, it may be reason- 
ably supposed, embraced (allowing for possible glosses and 
expansions, introduced subsequently) ii-***-J»; c. J-^; 7^-9*; 
ioi^-»; iii-»; ii»-ia«; 21^^23"; C25; 46^9".! The Z^ira/ 
stage wiU have corresponded to the title 1', and have included in 
addition the prophecies, delivered during the seventeen years follow- 
ing, down to the capture of Jerusalem in 586 : for instance, c. 13 ; 
2,1-10. 22:«-23«j 23*^; c. 24 ; c. 30-33 (in the main); 49**^; 
St**"***. In itic /curtA stage, the narratives relating to events 
after &c 586 will have been added, viz. 38**** 39*- >*, c. 40-44 : lo 
what stages the other biographical narratives, viz. c 26, 35, 36, 
45 (relating lo Jehoiakim's reign), and c. 27-29, 34, 37^38*^ 
39i*-w (Zedekiah's), are to be referred, must remain uncertain ; 
the chronological disorder makes it improbable that they were 
all added at one and the same stage. To a ^^A stage — spread, 
probably, over a series of years, and not completed by a single 
hand — will belong such additions as lo'*'* 5o^5i**; 39t-*-«*tJ 
(v.'- *■ **" abridged from a Ki. 25^- *• *'^-), c 52 (the historical 
appendix, excerpted from 2 Ki, 24"*"-, and presupposing con- 
dequently the completion of the Book of Kings), as also the 
insertions, or glosses, which are traceable, with greater or less 
probability, in various parts of the book (of. pp. 370, 372 f.). The 
fourth stage will hardly have been completed till towards the 
close of the exile, and the fifth not till considerably later. Some 
of the biographical narratives may be the work of Baruch, though 
he will hardly have been responsible for the imperfect chrono- 
logical order in which many of them are now arranged. The 
large amount of variation between the LXX and tlie Massoretic 
text constitutes an independent ground for supposing that, in 

• LL Kautzsch, jldrisr drr Gach. da aifttst. Schrifttvms (above, p. 3), p. 
177 t (in the sepomte reprint of 1897, p. 75 f.). 

t Possibly aiso c 14-17, 18-20 formed port of the Mme roll | but dicN 
^lophecies may have been added in the third stage. 



some cases, the writings composing the Book of Jer. circulated 
for a while in separate small collections,* in which variations 
might more easily arise than after they were collected into a 
volume. As regards the position of individual prophecies, it 
seems that as the original nucleus (the roll of Jehoiakim's fifth 
year) was gradually enlarged, the prophecies relating to Judah 
were placed (as a rule) before those dealing [255] with foreign 
nations (c. 25, 46^49**), while the narratives which were rather of 
a biographical character were made to follow c. 25, the foreign 
prophecies themselves being kept at the end. C. 30-33 (pro- 
phecies of restoration) may have been placed where they now 
stand, on acccunt of their being connected (like c 27-29, 34) 
with the reign of Zedekiah : a 45 (supplement to sd'**) may 
have been placed after c. 37-44 (which form a tolerably con- 
tinuous narrative), and so separated from c. 36, on account of 
its subordinate character. 49S*-S9 (on Elam), though belonging 
to Zedekiah's reign, would naturally be attached to the other 
foreign prophecies: the same would be the case with c 50-51 
(Babylon). Even so, however, there are several prophecies of 
which the position remains unexplained : it is clear that in 
many particulars the arrangement of the book is due to causes 
respecting the nature of which we must confess our ignorance. 

That the text of Jer. was liable to modification In the process of redaction 
nay be infcitcd, partly from some of the variations in the LXX (cf. p. 270), 
partly from other indications. Thus 25"*' cannot have tjeea wiiUen by Jer,, 
OS it stands, in 604 {35'), but must have been added by one who had the whole 
book before him : for " even all that ls written in this book " presupposes 
a prophecy against Bal>jltin ; and c. 5of. (or (he prophecy imph'ed [256] in 
5 1**) is expressly dated some years afterwards. And the verses 39*^ *''*t 
bcittg abridged from 3 Ki 25, can have been insertetl where they now stand 
only after the compilation of the Book of Kings was completed. And this, 
if 2 Ki. 25''**' formed part of the original text of Kings ip. 26S f.), was sub- 
sequent to the composition of Jer. 40-43 ; so tliat in that case the existenca 
^stages in the formation of the present Book uf Jereuiiali will be palpable. 

It ought to be staled thai, in addition to lo'^" jg*"** (p. 264), 50^-51" 
(which are generally agreed not to be from Jeremiah's hand), there are several 
other passages in Jer., mostly short ones, which, in some cases on the ground 

• Thus c 27-29, lo judge from the unasual orthography of some of the 
proper names (-tot, not wot, and some other names similarly ; Ncbiukad' 
Mt-tzar, not as commonly (and correctly) in Jer., Nehuchadreztar)^ probably 
have a history of their own (if we but knew it), and reached the compiler 
through some special chaimel (comp. p. 270). 



that the}' are not recognised iti the LXX, in others on the ground that they 
are repetitions of previuus passages, or that they interrupt the connexion, or 
contain ideas foreign to Jcr.'s usual point of view (so especially 1 7'**" 33"*"), 
arc considered by recent critics to be addiriuns to the original text of the 
book. Thus Kucncn (partly after Stade, ZATH\ 1883. p. 15C, Gesch, i. 
646 L) treated as such i6"'- (§ 53. 19), ly^'f' (§ 52. 15, 16}, 29»-» (§ 54. 6 1 
not in LXX), 30^*'- (not in LXX) = 46''^'- (in LXX : 5 54- 25 : 56. 7), yi°'^ 
(■•perhaps," § 54- 23 : v « not in LXX), 3i»-" (§ 54. 25), 33«- (§ 54. 20). 
33**"* (§54- 21 ; not in LXX); inc. 25, he read [§ 56. 1-3) v.*'-'*^ ""*- 
(above, p. 270] »■«•»» as in LXX. omitting besides v."*-**-"** {v."**»* 
omitted also in LXX) ; in 27'- ^^ **■"■ **•** he preferred (8 54. 6) the shorter 
text of the LXX ; he rcgaided 9=«-«'- also as "very doubtful" (§53. Il) ; 
and allowed (§ 56. 9) tliat c 48 might be in parts interpolated, esp. in v."'*^ 
^y^40i^b.4ib.»^ not in LXX); but he defended (against Stade) 3»"- (§ 52. 
10), 5*-° (i3.)i 32"*^ (§ 54- 22). The two most recent writers on Jer., 
Cornill and Gicsebrecht, go, however, much l>eyond Kuenen in the assumption 
of such additions, each, namely, rejecting several other passages independently, 
aiid agreeing in the case of 1*3"!- 15I1-J* (6»'- if^vhv ^^w-x^ jji^iw jqIM. n-w. 
3110.14. m-j: 321b. sb-a. i7-« 33^11*^ (-.^he voice of them . . . house of 
Jehovah"), 33^*"^ A^'^t *nd (largely) in 25*"^ (Com. here, in particular, 
reads v."** as in LXX, and omiU v.^ >» (from even aii) »<■ ^'^^ »> ; Gicsebi. 
reads r."^ as in the Hcb., and omits v."'*- UcW. «») ; in c. 27 Com. omiti 
(with LXX) v.^ and much of v.^", while Giesebr. omits v.^ only : in c 29 
Com. omits v,*-'*'* (not in LXX) **■" (from saying to captivity^ i>^yi*i£)t 
while Giesebr. retains here v.'*"*, neutralizing the difliculty which these 
verses occasion by placing them (with Luc. and other MSS. of LXX) hi/fffe 
v.^. In view of the omissions and variations in the LXX, and of the dis- 
arrangement which manifestly prevails in parts of Jer. 's prophecies (pp. 269- 
272), the possibility of such insertions must be granted ; though it may be 
greatly doubted whether there are sufficient grounds for holding them to be 
as numerous as Com. and Giesebr. suppose (cf. Konig, Eini. § 65. lb) : it 
may have been characteristic of Jer. to repeat himself (as it certainly was to 
be diffuse), as well as to follow the impulse of his feeling in introducing 
passages not in strict logical harmony with the context The decision in 
individual cases is, however, sometimes difficult, and hard to keep free from 
subjective considerations. In c 25 the critical verses are v.**"*^ "•*•, the chief 
question b«ng whether the original prophecy spoke here more (Heb. text) 
or less (LXX) distinctly, or (Kuen. Cora. &c.) not at all, of the future 
close of the Babylonian empire (cf. p. 3lSo) ; in 27^" (p. 270) it is whether 
Jer. foretold the restoration, or only the captivity, of the furniture and 
vesiels of the Temple^ which bad tieen left by Nebochadxieziar in 597. 

Jeremiah's was a susceptible, deeply emotional nature. The 
adverse course of events impresses him profoundly; and he 
utters without reserve the emotions which in consequence are 
stirred within him. The trials which he experienced in the dis- 
charge of his prophetic office, the persecution and detraction 



which he encountered from those to whom his words were un- 
welcome, the disappointments which, in spite of the promises 
given him at his call (i^^*"), were nevertheless his lot in life, 
the ruin to which, as he saw too truly, his country was hastening, 
overpowered his sensitive, highly-strung organism : he breaks out 
into bitter lamentations and complaints, he calls for vengeance 
upon his persecutors, he accuses the Almighty of injustice, he 
wishes himself unborn.* Yet he does not flinch from the call of 
duty : he contends fearlessly against the forces opposed to him , 
he struggles even to avert the inevitable. Love for his country 
b powerful within him: through two long chapters (c. 14 f.) he 
pleads on behalf of his erring nation : the aim of his life is to 
lead bis people to better things. But the sliarp conflict has left 
its scar upon his soul. Isaiah's voice never falters with emotion : 
Jeremiah bewails with tears of grief the times in which his lot is 
cast ; t the strain of his thoughts imparts naturally to his periods 
a melancholy cadence; in pathetic tones he bids his country 
prepare to meet its doom.| 

And thus the tragic pathos of Jeremiah's life is reflected in his 
book. His writings disclose to us his inmost thoughts. And as 
the thoughts of an emotional spirit resent all artificial restraint, 
so Jeremiah's style is essentially artless ; its only adornment con- 
sisting in the figures which a poetical temperament, in an Eastern 
clime, would spontaneously choose as the vehicle of feeling. 
His prophecies liave neither the artistic finish of those of Amos 
or Isaiah, nor the laboured completeness of Ezckiel's. In his 
[257] treatment of a subject he obeys no literary canons; he 
pursues it just as long as his feelings flow, or the occasion 
prompts him. His language lacks the terseness and energy 
which is generally characteristic of the earlier prophets : sentences 
are drawn out at greater length ; even where the style b poetical, 
the parallelism of thought is less perfectly sustained; and there 
is a decided tendency to adopt the rhetorical prose style of 
Deuteronomy {e.^'. c. 7, 1 1, 34, 44), by which it is evident that 
Jeremiah is greatly influenced. More than any other prophet, 
also, Jeremiah not only uses favourite phrases, but (like other 

* ll" 12' ic'^' 17U-1S 18'*'* 20*"' ^^*. 
t4"8«-9> itf«- I3"23» 

*^.^. 6" 7« 9"'- 22»»«-: cf. 3"» 4" 6« 3r»-». Comp. further 
Wellh. /xr. u.JUd. Ggsck.f chap. i. (ed. I, ppu 103-106}. 



writers of the Deuteronomic school) is apt to repeat clauses and 
combinations of words, and sometimes (p. 276 f.) even whole 
verses. His foreign prophecies (c 46-49), though not so striking 
as Isaiah's, display considerable variety of imagery and expression, 
as well as greater poetic vigour tlian most of his other writings. 
By his conception of the " New Covenant " (31^^"^^), he surpasses 
in spirituality and profundity of insight every other prophet of 
the Old Testament 

Expressions characteristic of Jeremiah t 
1. O'jn shefherdst fig. of kings or rulers: 2* 3" 10" 12" 22" 23'- *• * 
25**"* 50*. A favourite term in Jcr., even when the figure of the 
flock is not explicitly drawn out 
a. The type of sentence, expressive of mingled pathos &nd surprise : 
yro. ..DK.. .n2i*-»8"-"-"i4"22=«49if ; cf. 30* 

3. iniro, mairo ba£ksliding{i) : 2" 3" ( = Hos 14'*) 5" S* 14', Hos. 11', 

Pr. I*' : in the combination ^me' naipo, 3** •• "• ".| 

4. D*JB n'n iTp niD io turn the ntiJk anJ u<?f thtfacs ; 2" 18^^ 32". t 

5. TD^ npV to rueiva c&rre<tion\ 2* 5* 7* 17* 32" 35", Zeph. 3''', 

Pr. i»8«24".T 

6b aS Sy nSy lit. to come up upon the heart (often || to remember) : 3** 7*^ 
19* 32" 44"^ Rare besides, Is. 65", 2 Ki. I2». 

7. nrvT* stubbornness'. 3" ;« 9" ii» J3" 16" 18" 23", DL 29", 
Ps. 8 1 ". I Al ways followed by * * of heart ". 

8> From the land of the north : (as tlie place whence evil or invasion 
arises) 6" 10" t^o* ; from the norths 1" 4* 6* 13" 15" 46* 47* 
5o»- *J 51" ; cf. i" 25»- » 46»- '•• »• : (as the place of Israel's banish- 
ment, whence it will be brought back) 3" (cf. v."), l6** 23* 3i*. 

9. Men {tru) of Judah and inhabitants of JerusaUm -. 4* II*- • i?** l8'^ 
32" 35" 36*^ Elsewhere only 2 Ki 33«s=a Chr. 34", Dan. 9' 
(a rcminisceDce from Jer. : cf. 32"). 
[258] la Hru 1ZV great destnution '. 4»6' 14" 48* 50** 51**, Zeph. i".| 

11. An idea strengthened by the negation of its opposite : 4"^ 7*' ai" {for 
evii and not for good: so 39*" 44'", Am. 9*] 24*»' 42" (c£ Pi. 28*). 
Cf. above No. 4. Not common elsewhere. 

1 2. wy nVa to mate a full end : 4" 5"* " 30*' = 46"*. 

13. K'OO (or 'JJH nj.i) 'jjn Behold I bring . . ,\ 5" 6** ll" ig*-" 31* 35" 
39" 45* 49*. 1 Ki. 14" 21", 2 Ki. 21" 22« = 2 Ch, 34** (cf. above, 
p. 201, No. 27). In other prophets, only three or four times in Ez. 

14. [D]'l<np? ny the time thai /visit th^m {thee, him) : 6" 49* 50^' : in the 
slightly varied forms c^rjij^ ng the time of their visitation^ 8" 10" ( ^ 
51^) 46" 50" J ompo n» the ytar of tktir visitation^ ii* 23** 

1^ 3*300 TUD Terror on €very side: 6" ao*- » 46» 49*, ?». 3l".t Cf. 

Lam. 2** mjr terrors on every side. 
I& ySp "09 en^i TM oi*er whieh my name is sailed {in token of ownership) ; 

ci Ibc temple or city, 7»*ii-".»25" 3a** 34"! of Uw people, 14*1 





of Jeremiah himseli", 15". Similarly DL 28", i Ki. 8«(=aCh. 
6»), 2 Ch. 7", Am. 9", Is. 6i^\ Dan. 9*^ " (the original meaning 
of the phrase may be Icamt from 2 Sa. 12*; cf. Is. V").! 
• • • Djyn n'sitig up and , . . (speaking) 7" 25* 35**: [sending) 7* 
25* 26* 39" 35" 44*. a Ch. 36"; (IcsUfying) 1 1*; (teaching) 

T3U cities of Jttdah and tkt struts oj Jerusalem : 7"^ ■* 1 1* 

(willi " Und of Judah "), 17" : streets ofJerusaUm^ also. 5* ll» Wy 

Not expressions used by other prophets. 
19. pn nsn to ineline the ear\ 7**- »■ ii* 17= 25* 34" 35" 44* (not in Dt, 

or in any other prophet, except Is. 55*). 
2a Behoid, the days come, and . . . : 7** 9** 16" 19* 23^ 1 30* ji«. n. ■■ 

33" 48" 49* 51"- ". Elsewhere only Am. 4" 8" 9", i Sa. 3", 

2 KL 2o" = Isa. 39'. 
21, The voice 0/ mirth a*id the voice oJ gladness^ the voice of the bridegroom 

astd the voice of the bride : 7** 16* 25" 33". 
33. cran pvo habitation of Jackals : 9" (Heb.") 10" 49" 5i".t 

23. HMO *xixp c&mer-clipt (i.e. shaved about the temples: an epithet of 
certain Arab tribes) : 9** 25^ 49**, 

24. A verb strengthened Iqr the addition of its pas^ve : 11^ (run ujmn) 

25. 714* jwtffrf, the pestilence, and the famine (sometimes in changed 
order) : 14" 2i'- • 24" 27«- " 29"- « 32«- » 34" 38* 42"- " 44" ; 
the Tword and the famine : 5" 1 1» \i^^ u. ifc u jfi* i8« ^\* 
44"-"-«;cf. I5«. 

[259] 26. Sv ipiB •ua Behold I visit upon . , . : ii*" 23* 29" 46* 50^* 

(S*t). The verb itself is also much more frequent in Jer. than^in 

any other prophet. 
ay. . . . Vm ^^ -UT rrn im (a veiy peculiar type of sentence ; Ewold, 

Syntax, % 334*) : I4' 46* 47' 49".! 
28. pun mste SsS .Ti;']S fot a shuddering tmto all kingdoms of the earth t 

15* 24» 29" 34". From. DL 28*. 
39. Sentences of the type "fishers, and they shall fish them**: 16^ 33^ 

48'* 51*. 
3a And I will kindle a fre in . . . and it shall dezfour . . . : 1 7*"* 
SI***" 49" 50^. From Uie rcfniin in Am. l", varied from** And 
I will se^td," &c. , Am. i*- »• "• " 2»- », Hos. 8". f 

31. To return each one from his evil way : 18" 2$* 26* 35" 36*- \ Joa, 
3». Cf. I KL 13", a Ki. 17", 2 Ch. 7*\ E«. 13^ 33". Jon. 3". 
Zech. I*. 

32. ffis {thy) soul shall be to him (thee) for a prey: 21*38*39": cf. 45*. 

33. Thus saith Jeh<n>ah (often +^ A^jj/j), the God of Israel', a standing 

formula with Jeremiali, as 6'- ' 7** •* \ i* &c., but extremely rare in 
other prophets (not unfret^ucntly, without of hosta, in Kings). 
The principal cases of the repetition of passages, noted on p. 275, ore the 
following (sometimes with slight variations in the phraseolog)') : — i'*"* and 

igTb-Pt. — iiat. w i5»— 2* 

.— 4* 6».— s*™ 9* 

(lleb.*).— 6*»-" 8'»-".— 6^** 5o"-«— 6*"* 26^.-7" ii>**.-7' 



fc.»_7n-» igfc e. Ub. 7b _5» ,54 25*"'.— 8" j^^^.—gVb (Heb.»*) 25>».— 
9»> (Heb.>*) 49^.— 10"-" 5i»-« — ii» 20i» — ii«» 23"f 48** 49*.— is* 
43nb_,5U.u j;».»_,6i4f. ajW-.—iy* i9»*._i7» 22*.— 19» 49^' (Edom) 
So»> (Babylon); cf. i8»— 2i«38«.-2i"'- 50»"-.— 23«- 33i«-._23M<- 30««-. 
— 30>«- 46^-.— si"-; cf. 33"'-.-46'" 5o=^._48*-"'» 49".— 49" So*.— 
^^if-n 5a*«-«.— 49« so**.— 50»» 19* 49".-So=^ 46"'*.— 50» 49=».— 50"-" 
2iw-i4_5a« 49".— so«-« 6=«-« — so"-* 49*n.— si»-» itf»-« See also 
above, Nos. 21, 30. It is, of course, a (]uestion whether all these are due to 
Jer. himself: if the view adopted above be correct, this will certainly not be 
the case with those in c 50-51 ; and probably it is not so in some of the 
others as welL The instances of the repetition of shorter clauses and phrases 
arc too numerous to specify. 


LmRATURE,— H. Ewald in Die Propkeien des AB,t (vol It. of the 

transIaUon) j F. Hitzig in the J^^\ Sxeg. Handb, 1847, ed. 3 (rewritten) 
by R. Smend, 1S80 [does not allogetlier supersede Ilitzig's work]; C F. 
Keil, Der Proph, Ex. 1 868, (cd. 2) 1882; C H. Corriill, Der I^ph. £§. 
gisckiUieti^ 1882, and Das Buck des Propk, Ex. 1886 (Prolegomena, and 
apparatus criticw, remarkably thorough : text apt to be arbitrary) ; C. von 
Orelli (in Strack and Zockler's A^. A'ommtniar), i388; L. Gautier, La 
mission du proph. Exuh, 1891 ; A. B. Davidson in the Cambfidgt BibU for 
Schools^ 1892 (to be rccominendcd) ; D. H. Mllller, Euchiel'StuJicn^ Wien, 
1894; J. Skinner (in iJic "Expositor's Bible"), 1895. On the Temple in 
c. 40-42, &C., see also E. KUhn in the Stud. ». /Crit, 1882, pp. 601-688. 
The Hcb. text of Ez. is often cornipt, and needs correction from the LXX 
Cct QPB*). 

Ezeliiel, the son of Buzi, was one of the captives * who were 
carried with Jehoiachin in 597 into Babylonia, and was settled 
with others at Tel-abib (3^*). by the river Chebar (i>-> 3" &c). 
He was a priest, and as such belonged to the aristocracy of 
Jerusalem, who formed the bulk of. the first captivity under 
Jehoiachin. The exiles at TeL-abib must have formed a con- 
siderable community. Though their circumstances could hardly 
have been affluent^ they do not appear to have been in actual 
wajit: Ezekiel lived in his own "house" (3^ 8^ la'*^*), where 
the elders of the Israelites are represented as coming to sit and 
listen to his words (8^; cf. 14* 20'); and the houses of others 
are alluded to, 33^ (cf. Jer. 39*). It was in the fifth year of 
the exile of Jehoiachin (b.c 592) that Ezekiel received his pro- 
phetic call (i^); and the latest date in his book (29^^ is 32 
years afterwards (b.c. 570). 

The home of Ezekiel's prophetic life was thus on the banks of 

• He reckon* by the years of "our captivity," 33"* 40*. The epoch from 
which the "30th year," i\ is dated, is uncertain, 




the Chebar. There he watched from a distance the toils closing 
round Jerusalem ; and there he declared, in every variety of 
symbolism and imagery, the approaching fall of the city, the ruin 
of ancient Israel (c 1-24). Israel's chief crime is its idolatry. 
[261] This has vitiated its history from the beginning (c 16. 20. 
23), and it is rife in it even now. It would seem that in this 
judgment Ezekiel is not wholly just to the past, and that he has 
transferred to it unconsciously the associations of the present. 
But be that as it may, the corruption of Jerusalem is incurable 
now; and therefore, as he repeatedly insists, Jerusalem must 
perish. But even the exiles fall far short of what they should 
be; exile has not yet wrought upon them the moral change 
(Hos. 2**^) which it was to effect Hence his conviction thai 
further judgments were imminent for them in the future : and 
his anxiety to win at least the souls of individuals (3'°*" 33**-), 
who might form the nucleus of the purified Israel of the future. 
His advances were received with coldness: he was even, as it 
seems, obliged to refrain from speaking openly among the exiles, 
and to confine himself to addressing those who visited him 
specially in his own house (i**'*; cf. c 8. 14. 20), until the fall 
of Jerusalem sealed the truth of his predictions, and assured for 
him a credit which otlierwise he would never have attained 
(24"^ 33*^). The antagonism between Ezekiel and the exiles is 
manifest; he addresses them repeatedly as a "rebellious house" 
(sec p. 297). How they felt towards him, and how he viewed 
them, appears further from such passages as ia«'- i4ii"- ao''*. 
Nevertheless, like Jeremiah (p. 260), he fixed his hopes for the 
future upon them : Zedekiah and the Jews in Jerusalem he gave 
up entirely (9"^' c. 12. 17''" zx^^-^t c, 22) ; the exiles, when purged, 
would form the foundation of a better Israel in the future (11"'* 
,yW-M2oSTf. 36.:Mr.). 

The Book of Ezekiel consists of three sections, dealing wiih 
three different subjects : — I. c 1-24, The approaching fall of 
Jerusalem; II. c 25-32. Prophecies on foreign nations; III. 
c 33-48. Israel's future restoration. 

The dates of the several prophecies are in many cases stated 
with precision. No critical question arises in connexion with 
the authorship of the book, the whole from beginning to end 
bearing unmistakably the stamp of a single mind. 

I. C. 1-24. The approaching fall of Jerusalem. 



I, C 1-3". Ezekiel's call, and the beginnings of his minbtiy. 
In c. I Ezekicl relates how in the fifth year of his [262] exile 
( = B.c. 592) he fell into a prophetic trance or ecstasy;* and 
describes at length the vision which he then saw. 

Out of a storm-cloud appearing in the north there gradually emerged the 
likeness of four living creatures (cherubim), each with four vrings and four 
faces, and all moving harmouiously together, v,***\ Looking more closely, 
he perceived that they enclosed a kind of quadrangular chariot, resting on 
four wheels, which had an independent motion of their own, though always 
in perfect harmony with that of the four cherubim, for one spirit actuated 
both, v."'** ; the four cherubim supported on their heads a firmament, v.*""* ; 
and on the firmament was a throne, with a Divine Fonn seated upon iL 

It is the supreme majesty of Jehovah which thus takes shape 
in the prophet's imagination; and it approaches "from the 
north** (not from Zion), as an omen that His abode is no longer 
in the city of His choice (cf, also Jer. i^^"). 

The main elements of the symbolism are suggested, no doubt, partly 
by the two colossal cherubim in the Temple at Jerusalem, partly by the 
composite winged figures which formed such an impressive feature in the 
palaces of Babylonia; but the prophet's imagination — the faculty which, 
when the outer acnsea, as in an ecstasy, are dormant, is abnormally active — 
combines the materials with which, while in a waking state, observation or 
reflection had stored his mind, into a new form,f which both as a whole and 
in its individual parts is, no doubt, meant to be significant {g.^. the four 
hands, one on each side of each cherub, and the wheels full of eyes, to 
symbolize the universality of the Divine presence). 

2^"^ Ezekiel hears the voice of Jehovah speaking from the 
throne, and commissioning him to be the prophet of His people, 
though at the same time warning him of the opposition and ill- 
success which he is likely to encounter. Nevertheless, he is 
bidden not to fear ; and after the commission to preach has been 
repeated to him in a symbolic form, 2^-3', he is encouraged with 
the further assurance that he will be enabled to bear up against 
his opponents, 3*'^* (comp. Jer. i). Hereupon the vision leaves 
him, v.^^'", and he proceeds to the scene of his mission among 
the exiles, v.". After seven days he is commanded to com- 

• l"* "the hand of Jehovah came there upon him," — a phrase describing 
the sense of ovcrmaslcry by a power beyond ttieir own control, of which the 
prophets were conscious when seized by tlic prophetic trance: cC 3**-* 8* 
33" 37' 40^ IM. 8", Jer. 15". 2 Ki. 3". 

t Lee, Inspiration of Holy Scripfure (ed. 4), pp. I73-l83i 



mencc his ministry, and is reminded of the nature of the [263] 
responsibility placed upon him : he is a "watchman," appointed 
to warn every sinner of the danger in which he stands, and, in 
case he fails to do so, liable to bear the consequences of his 
neglect, v.**'", 

a. 3^-c. 7. The impending ruin of Judah and Jerusalem. 

2»^5rT, Ezek. in a second trance sees again the same vision as 
in c. I. On account of the temper in which the people will meet 
him, he is released temporarily from the obligation of speaking 
openly among them as a prophet (cf, 24^^ 33^^)* 

C 4-5. The destruction of Jerusalem portrayed symbolicaiUy. 
(a) 4^**, the prophet, representing Jehovah^ lays mimic siege to 
Jerusalem ; [b) 4*'*', representing the p(opU^ he enacts figuratively 
the privations undergone by them during the siege, and the 
misery to be experienced by them in exile after^'ards ; (^) 5'"*, 
representing ike city^ he significantly shows how the inhabitants 
(symbolized by his hair) will in different ways be scattered and 
perish. There follows, 5*"^^ an exposition, in unmetaphorical 
language, of the guilt of Jerusalem, and of the judgment im- 
minent upon her, 

C. 6. Ezek. here apostrophizes the land. Not the city only, 
but the land of Judah generally, has been desecrated by idolatrous 
rites, which can effectually be rooted out only by a desolation, 
and depopulation, of the entire territory, 

C. 7. A final denunciation directed against the kingdom 
generally, describing in still stronger terms the certainty of the 
coming disaster, and the inability of prophet, priest, or elder to 
avert it In v,*"^* ^"^'^ the prophecy assumes a lyric strain, such 
as is unwonted in EzekieL 

3. C. 8-1 1. Vision of the guilt and punishment of Jerusalem 
(sixth year of the exile of Jehoiachin = bx. 591). 

C. 8. Ezckiel, in the presence of the elders, who are sitting 
h his house, falls into a prophetic trance, and is brought in his 
vision to Jerusalem, where he sees different forms of idolatry 
carried on in the precincts of the Temple. C. 9 the threat ex- 
pressed in 8^* is carried out Jehovah, having left the throne 
borne by the cherubimj stands at the entrance of the Temple to 
superintend, as it were, the execution of His purpose: at His 
command His ministers pass through the city, and destroy all 
who have not previously been marked on the forehead by aa 



angel in token of their loyalty to Jehovah. C. xo Jehovah re- 
appears upon the [264] throne, and commands burning coals, 
taken from the fire between the cherubim, to be scattered over 
the city, v.*-*. He again leaves His throne and stands beside 
the Temple while this is being done, v. *■''', but resumes His seat 
as soon as it is completed, preparatory to taking His final de- 
parture from His sanctuary. He pauses for a while at the east 
gate of the outer Court, v.'*-*^, C. 11 the prophet sees 25 men 
standing in the east gate, who "gave wicked counsel in the city," 
!>., no doubt, who were planning revolt from Nebuchadnezzar, 
confident (v.***) in the strength of the city to resist reprisals. 
Their confidence, it is declared, is misplaced ; for the dty will 
be given into the hands of its foes, v.'"^*. Even as Ezekiel 
spoke, one of the ringleaders dropped down dead The prophet 
(cf. 9*), dreading the omen, is moved to intercede on behalf of 
the "remnant of Israel," and receives in reply the assurance that 
Israel will not perish : the exiles, however contemptuously the 
Jerusalemites may view them (comp. p. 260), will return to their 
former home, and again enjoy the tokens of Divine favour, 
v."'**. After this, the cherubim, bearing Jehovah's glory, finally 
leave Jerusalem : the prophet watches them in their course as 
far as the Mount of Olives, when the vision suddenly leaves him, 
and he awakes from his prophetic trance to find himself again 
among the captives of Telabib. 

4, C. 12-19. Th^ certainty of the fall of Jerusalem, and its 
ground in the nation's sinfulness, further established. 

i2'-*. The exiles descrediting the announcement recently 
made to them by the prophet, he firstly (v.^-**) enacts in their 
sight a dumb show, symbolizing the approaching exile of 
Zedekiah and the people; and secondly (v.^^'™) represents under 
a fig\ire the privations which they will suffer during the siege and 

1 2^1-14". On the prophets and their announcements. The 
non-fulfilment of oracles uttered by the false prophets, and the 
fact that Ezek.'s own prophecies, in consequence of their not 
relating to the immediate future, did not admit of being tested 
by the result, led the people to distrust all prophecies. But 
Jehovah's word will not fail of its accomplishment, 12^'-'*: the 
false prophets will not only be silenced by the logic of facts, but 
they will theniselves be swept away in the coming destruction, 



i^.w^ V.'^-^ is directed against certain prophetesses, [265] 
whose influence among the exiles is described as particularly 
pernicious. The prophets alluded to are no doubt those who 
lulled the people of Jerusalem into false security, and who un- 
settled the exiles with delusive promises of a speedy return (sea 
Jer. c. 28 ; 29**^* &a), Tliere follows a specification of the con- 
ditions (abandonment of idolatry, and loyalty to Himself) under 
which alone Jehovah will be consulted by His people, or permit 
His prophet to answer them, 14^''^. 

i^ia-23^ ^ exception explained. When once Jehovah has 
passed His decree against a land, the righteous who may be 
therein will alone be delivered : * in the case of Jerusalem, how- 
ever, a remnant, against this rule, will escape, in order, ws., by 
the spectacle of their godlessness, to satisfy the exiles, among 
whom they are brought, of the justice of the judgment accom- 
plished upon the city (cf. 12'*). 

C 15-17. Allegories, exhibiting from different points of view 
the nation's ripeness for judgment. 

C. 15. Israel is compared to a vine-branch — not at its best 
the most valuable of woods, and now, already half-burnt by the 
fire (alluding to the exile under Jehoiachin) : can there be any 
question what use will be found for the remainder? The un- 
favourable comparison is suggested by reflection on the history 
and temper of the nation : and from what has already happened, 
the prophet asks his hearers to infer what the final issue is likely 
to be. 

C x6. Jerusalem an adulteress. Jerxisalem is depicted as a 
woman who, in spite of the care and attention which Jehovah 
had shown toward her, v.^-^*, had requited Him with persistent 
ingratitude and infidelity, v.^*^,t and has merited accordingly 
the punishment of the adulteress, v.^-*'. In her sinfulness she 
has even exceeded Samaria and Sodom, v.**^' ; so low, accord- 
ingly, has she fallen in Jehovah's favour, that her restoration (for 
a prospect of this, however distant, is still held out) can take 
place only after that of Samaria and Sodom. 

G 17. Zedekiah's disloyalty to his Babylonian masters, and 
the consequences which may be expected to result from it, v.**". 
In v.*"*** the circumstances arc stated in the form of an allegory 

* Cf. the theory of strict (temporal) retribution expounded in e. 18. 
t Th« nme figure as in Hos. a''*-, Jer. a*"- 3"*, cf. Isa. 57^. 



(or as it is termed in v.', a "riddle"), the sense of which is 
explained in v."'^^ The prophecy doses, v.*^*", with [266] a 
glance at brighter days to come, and the restoration of the 
Davidic kingdom in the future. 

C. 1 8. The moral freedom and responsibility of the individual 
before God. Ezek.'s contemporaries complained that tliey were 
suffering for sins coramilted by their forefatliers : " the fathers," 
they said, **have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are 
set on edge." The prophet, in opposition to this one-sided 
view, expounds a strongly individualistic theory of retribution : 
every one is rewarded according to his doings : the righteous 
man lives, the imrighteous man dies, — each entirely irrespectively 
of his father's merits or demerits, v.'"**. Similarly, the wicked 
man who repents of his wickedness lives j the righteous man 
who turns from his righteousness dies, v."'™. The practical 
lesson follows : let each one repent while there is time : for 
Jehovah "hath no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," 

The same proverb is quoted by Jeremiah (ji***)* who admits that it 
expresses a reality, but rests his hopes upon the advent oi a better future, 
when the conditions of society will be so altered that the evil consequences 
of sin will be confined to tlie perpetrator, and not extend to the innocenL 
Ezek.*8 theory is prompted by the desire to exert a practical influence upon 
his contemporaries ; hence he emphasizes that aspect of the question which 
they neglected, and whicli, though not the saU truth, is nevertheless a very 
important aspect of tlie truth, viz. tlutt individual responsibility never entirety 
ceases, and that the individual soul, if it exerts itself aright, can emancipate 
itself from a moral doom entailed upon it, either by the faults of its ancestors, 
or by its own evil past See further the notes of ProC Davidson, pp. 1, U, 

C C 19. A lamentation on the "princes" (i.e. the Jewish 
kings), and on the fall of the kingdom. Two other allegories : — 
(1) the Davidic stock is likened to a lioness : her two whelps are 
Jehoahaz (v.^) and Jehoiachin (v.*-^), whose different fates are 
described, v.'**; (a) it is likened to a vine planted in a fertile 
soil, and putting forth strong branches (the Davidic kings) ; but 
now the vine is forcibly uprooted : its strong rods (Jehoahaz and 
Jehoiachin) are broken and destroyed ; it is itself planted in the 
wilderness (the exiles with Jehoiachin) ; and fire is gone forth 
out of the rod of its branches, destroying its fruit (the suicidal 
policy of Zedekiah). 



5. C 20-34* The same theme further developed. 

ao^"** (-C 20 Heb.). (the 7th year of the exile, r>. the 4th 
before the fall of Jerusalem = ac. 590). The eldera of Israel 
come (as 14') to consult Ezekiel. He answers them in similar 
[267] terms : while Israel's idolatry continues, Jehovah will not 
be consulted by them. This answer is justified by a review of 
the nation's history, showing how it had been continuously ad- 
dicted to idolatry, and Jehovah had only been restrained from 
destroying it by the thought that, if He did so, His name would 
be profaned in the eyes of the heathea And still the nation's 
heart is unchanged : even exile has not eradicated the impulse 
to idolatry; hence (v.***^) further purifjang judgments must yet 
pass over it, ere Jehovah (as He still will do) can acknowledge 
it again as His own. 

But Ezekiel sees the end of Jerusalem advancing rapidly ; 
and, 2o**-c 24, his thoughts turn thither. 

2o4WQ (^2ji^ Heb.). A great and all-devouring conflagra- 
tion is to be kindled in the forest of the South (the " Negeb," 
i>. the southern tract of Judah; Gen. 12* RV. marg.). Tlic 
meaning of the allegory is transparent. 

C. 31 ( = 2 1***^ Heb.), The sword of Jehovah against 
Jerusalem. Jehovah threatens to draw His sword from its 
sheath, and to cut off from Jerusalem " righteous and wicked " 
alike, v.'-^ In v.*-" the sword is represented as already drawn ; 
and the prophet adopts almost a lyric strain, as he pictures its 
glittering blade, darting hither and thither about the gates of 
Jerusalem. Next Ezekiel imagines Nebuchadnezzar to have 
aheady started, and to be debating whether first to attack 
Jerusalem or Ammon : at the point where the roads diverge, 
he consults his oracles; the lot falls for him to proceed to 
Jerusalem, v.^**^ ; and the prophet describes, not without satis- 
faction, the consequent abasement of the unworthy ZedekJah, 
v.^*"". But though Jerusalem suffers first, Ammon will not long 
glory in its escape : in vain may Ammon furbish its sword in 
rivalry, as it were, to Jehovah's : it must return into its sheath, 
and leave Ammon defenceless before the foe, v.***^. 

The Ammonites had previously (2 Ki. 24*) co-operated with Nebuchad- 
oezxar, but Ihey had afterwards intrigued to procure a general insurrection 
against the Chaldxan power (see Jer. 27"- ■), and now were acting probably 
in concert with Zcdclciah. It was doubtless expected in Jerusalem that 



NebucTuLdnczur Mrould attack the Ammoiutcs first : Ezek. declares the 
Bpccdy advent of the Chaldieans before Jerusalem. V.* alludes to the 
incredulity with which his prophecy would be received. The genera! sense 
of the sword-song is clear ; but the text in ports ts Tcry corrupt (espi t.'*- " 
[Heb. "■ "] : see QPB*). 

[268] C. 22. The guilt of Jerusalem. The prophet draws an 
appalling picture of the crime rampant in the capital ; dwelling 
in particular, not (as c. 5, 16) on the idolatry, but on the moral 
offences of which the inhabitants had been guilty, v.*'". The 
corruption extends to all classes, v.^^*'*^. 

C 23. Oholah and Oholibah. In c 23 the prophet drew a 
picture of the present generation : here he draws one of those 
that had passed. Under an allegory, similar in character to that 
in c 16, he describes the past history of Samaria and Jerusalem. 
Jehovah, in Egypt, took to Himself two women who were 
harlots : one became at length intolerable, so that she was put 
away, v.^-'^ ; the other^ instead of taking warning by her sister's 
fate, excelled her in unholy practices, v."*^! (cf. Jer, s**"") : she 
must therefore be equally punished, v.*^"**, upon grounds which, 
that none may doubt their sufficiency, are stated again at length, 

C 34 (the ninth year of the exile, B.a 588, the loth day of 
the loth month, being the day on which Jerusalem was invested 
by the Chaldceans, 3 KL 25I ; cf. Zeck 8"). V.>-", By the 
parable of the rusty caldron the prophet sets forth, firsdy, the 
siege now commencing ; secondly, its final issue, viz. the forced 
evacuation of Jerusalem by its inhabitants on account of the 
defilement which they have contracted through their sins. 

V.w-27 an incident in Ezek.'s family life is made the vehicle 
of a lesson. The prophet's wife suddenly dies : but he is com- 
manded to refrain from all public manifestation of grief, in order 
thereby to prefigure the paralysing shock of surprise which will 
seize his countrymen when the tidings reaches them that the 
city to which they still turned with longing eyes has really fallen. 
And when this has taken place, the truth of Ezek.'s prophetic 
word will be demonstrated, and the need for his enforced silence 
(3*^*) will have passed away, 

II. C. 25-32. Prophecies on foreign nations. 

Ezekiel, like Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, embraced other 
oatioas besides Israel in hxs prophetic survey : but bis point ol 



view is one peculiar to himself, and determined naturally by the 
circumstances of his age. The fall of Jerusalem wore the 
appearance of a triumph for heathenism : Jehovah, so it seemed, 
had been unable in the end to defend His city : the nations 
around viewed Him with scorn, and His name was profaned 
amongst [269] them. To reassert the majesty and honour ol 
Jehovah by declaring emphatically that He held in reserve a 
like fate over Israel's neighbours, is the main scope of the fol- 
lowing chapters. Seven nations form the subject of the pro- 
phedeSf viz, Ammon, Moab, Edom, the Philistines, Tyre, Sidon, 
and Egypt : most are comparatively brief; only those on Tyre 
and Egypt being more elaborated. 

1. 25^''. On Ammon (cf. 21-^*^. Though the Ammonites 
had seemingly combined with Judah in rebellion against Nebu- 
chadnezzar, when Jerusalem was the first to fall, they had not 
delayed to give malicious expression to their delight: Ezek. 
declares that they shall be invaded in consequence by the 
" children of the east " (Jud. 6', Jer, 49*"), i.e, by nomad 
Arab tribes, who would plunder and appropriate the Ammonite 

2. 25*-^^ On Moab. A similar prospect, upon substantially 
the same ground, is held out to Moab. 

3. 25^'-". On Edom, The Edomltes are charged with 
taking advantage of the opportunity of Judah's extremity to 
pay off old scores: in this instance, Jehovah's vengeance will be 
exacted of them by the hand of Israel itself. 

4. 25'**^''. On the Philistines. The Philistines were always 
ready, when occasion offered, to manifest their hatred or con- 
tempt (i6^^' *^ for Judah; and it may be inferred from the 
present passage that they did so after the great misfortune which 
had now befallen it For this they are threatened by Jehovah 
with extinction. 

5. 26^-28**. On Tyre. In the eleventh year of the exile, 
B.C. 586, shortly after the fall of Jerusalem (alluded to in 26^. 

The number of the montli has dropped out in 36' : it must have been one 
liter than the fourth, the month in wMch Jerusalem was taken, Jer. 53"*. 
The Phcenicians appear as vassals of Nebuchadncuar in Jer. 37"' {(. S93)< 
Afterwards they carried into cflfect what they were already then planning, 
and revolted — doubtless in concert with Judali and other neighbouring stales. 
At the time of Jerusalem's faXX, Nebuchadneziar was in the land of Hamath 



(Jer. 52*) ; and he raust soon afterwards have begun his famous siege of Tyre, 
the commencement of which Ezck. here anticipates, and which, according to 
fosephus (quoting from Phoenician sources), lasted for 13 years. Nebudiad- 
nczzar, though he must have seriously cnppled the resources and trade of 
Tyre, did not, as Ezck. himself owns (29^'), succeed in reducing it. Tyre 
was always less important poliucally tlian commercially ; and the fame which 
the Tynans enjoyed as the great seafaring nation of antiquity, and as [270] 
owning, moreover, an andent and illustrious city, is no doubt the reason why 
Ezek. deals with them at such length. He devotes to them, in fact, three 
distinct prophecies, treating the Tyrian power under different aspects. 

(a) C. 26. The rich merchant-city, which rejoices over the 
ruin of Jerusalem, and hopes to turn it to her own profit, will 
feel Jehovah's anger: the nations will come up against her and 
destroy her, v.^"*, even Nebuchadnezzar, with his hosts and 
implements of war, v.^-^* ; the tidings of her fall will produce 
a profound impression upon the seafaring nations of the world, 
yJ^^^K {d) C. 27. A \ivid and striking picture of the commercial 
greatness of Tyre, soon to come to an end. Tyre is here repre- 
sented as a s/u'/tj to the equipment of which every quarter of the 
world has contributed its best, which is manned by skilful 
mariners and defended by brave warriors (v.*-"), but which, 
nevertheless (v.^*^''*'^), to the astonishment and horror of all 
beholders, is wrecked, and founders on the high seas. The 
figure is not, however, consistently maintjuned throughout ; 
already in v.'^- the language shows that the city is in the 
prophet's mind; and v.'^^ is devoted to a graphic and powerful 
description of the many nations who flocked to Tyre with their 
different wares. The contrast between the splendour depicted 
in v.^'^ and the ruin of v.'"*''- is tragically conceived- The 
chapter is one of peculiar archaeological and historical interest. 
(c) 28^-". Against the king of Tyre. The king of Tyre is repre- 
sented as claiming to be a god, and to possess Divine pre- 
rogatives ; but he will be powerless, Ezek. declares, in the day 
when the nations, at Jehovah's summons, advance against him, 
v.^'***. In a second paragraph Ezek., with sarcastic allusion to 
these pretensions of the Tyrian king, describes him as a glorious 
being,* decked with gold and precious ornaments, and placed 
in Eden, the garden of God (or, of the gods) ; but now, for his 
crimes, to be expelled from his proud position, and made a 
mockery to all men, v.*^"". 

* In the Heb. text, a chcrubb But see Davidson's noteii 



6. aS'**"'*, On Sidon. A short prophecy, threatening Sidon 
with siege and invasion, and closing with a promise addressed to 

7. C 29-33. A group of six prophecies on Egypt 
ZedekJah*s revolt from the Chaldaeans had been accomplished in reliance 

upon Egyptian help (17") ; but Ihe army which they despatched lo the relief 
of Jerusalem, and which even necessitated Nebuchadnezzar's raising the [271] 
«^c {Jer. 37** 34*""), speedily withdrew : and the Chaldxeans, as Ter. foresaw 
would be the case, reinvested the city. Ezck. here declares the ignominious 
huniiliatioD o! the boastful, but incapable power (cf. Is. 30^), which had to 
often exerted a seductive influence over Urael, but had ever failed it in the 
time of need. 

(a) C. 29'-*^ (loth month of the loth year of the exile, 6 
months before the fall of Jerusalem), The humiliation of Egypt 
Pharaoh Hophra, king of Egypt, is figured as a river-monster 
(the crocodile), secure in its native haunts^ but soon to be drawn 
thence by Jehovah, and left to perish miserably on the open 
field, V.'-'. An invading foe will depopulate Egypt ; and the 
country will be desolate for 40 years, v.**-'- ; at the end of that 
time the Egyptian exiles will return, and a new Egyptian king- 
dom will be established, but one too weak and unimportant to 
inspire Israel again with false confidence, v.^^-'^ (/f) 29^'--^. An 
appendix to v.*'^^ added 16 years afterwards, in the 27th year of 
the exile ( = b.c. 570). Nebuchadnezzar, though in his attack 
tipon Tyre he was canning out Jehovah's purpose (cf. Jer, 25*), 
had failed to capture it; and the conquest of Egypt is here 
promised him as compensation for his unrewarded service, (r) 
30^'^' (sequel to 29^"^''). The ruin imminent upon Egypt will 
affect the nation in its entirety : her army, her people, her idols, 
her cities, will all suffer alike, (d) ^o'^-^ (first month of the 
I ith year of the exile, t.f, 3 months before the fall of Jerusalem). 
Ezek., alluding to the recent failure of tlie Egyptian army lo 
relieve Jerusnlem (v.-*'** the ** broken arm"), predicts for Egypt 
still further disaster, {e) C. 31 (3rd month of the nth year 
of the exile, 5 weeks before the fall of Jerusalem). The proud 
cedar-tree. The king of Eg>'pt in his greatness is compared to 
a spreading and majestic cedar : the fall of this cedar, and the 
dismay which it will occasion in the world, are picturesquely 
described. (/) C. $2^'^° (12th month of the 12th year of the 
exile, i.e. 20 months after the fall of Jerusalem. B.C. 584). A 
lamentation on Egypt's approaching disgrace, i'haraoh, repre- 



senting Egypt, is compared, as in c 29, to a crocodile dragged 
far from its accustomed haunts, and cast upon the dry land : its 
giant body covers hill and vale, and blood streaming from it 
stains the earth: heaven and earth are aghast at the spectacle. 
(g) 32^"-32 (fourteen days after v.^*^* : in v.^^ "in the twelfth 
month" has probably dropped out). An [272] elegy, describing 
the final end of the king of Egypt and all his multitude. Their 
corpses lying unburied on the battlefield, the prophet pictures 
their shades descending to the under-world (Sheol), and imagines 
the ironical greeting which they will there receive from the 
various peoples who once spread terror in the earth, but who now 
repose in their several resting-places in the recesses of Sheol ; 
Egypt is at length become like one of them. 

in. C. 33-48. Israel's restoration. 

I. C 33-39. The land and people, 

C. 33. The prophet By the fall of Jerusalem the truth of 
Ezek.'s predictions was brilliantly confirmed : the exiles would 
now be no longer unwilling to hear him. Accordingly the re- 
sponsibility of the prophetic office is again (see 3^*'''*) impressed 
upon him, v.'-'; and he reaffirms publicly (v.'"*) his doctrine 
of individual responsibility (see c. iS), with the object of show- 
ing that no one, if he repents in time, need despair of the Divine 
mercy. These truths had been borne in upon him (v.*^) during 
a prophetic trance into which he had fallen on the evening before 
the tidings of the fall of Jerusalem reached the exiles.* It was 
the crucial date, which had been indicated to him before (24***^, 
as that after which his mouth would be no longer closed. V.*""^ 
is directed against the remnant who were left in Judah, and 
who cherished the vain hope that they would be able to maintain 
themselves there in something like their former state. 

C 34. The advent of the Messianic kingdom. The respon- 
sible rulers of the nation have woefully neglected their trust. 
The people consequently have in different ways suffered violence, 
and even been driven forcibly from their home : Jehovah Him- 
self will take them by the hand and restore them. The thought 
(and figure) of Jer. 23*-* is here developed by Ezek. in detail 

C. 35-36. The land. After the fall of Jerusalem, the Edomitea 
had obtained possession of a portion of the territory of Judah, 

* In v.*^ read, with MSS., LXX (MSS.), Pesh., efsvtnU for iw//eA ; tb« 
tidiogi of the fall of the city would hardly ukc 18 monthi to reach BabyloiL 



and manifested an ill-natured delight in their rival's humiliatioa 
The prophet declares that for this unseemly ebullition of hatred, 
Edom shall become a perpetual desolation (c. 35), while Judah, 
which is now the reproach and derision of its neighbours, will be 
repeopled, and receive of Jehovah's hand an abundant blessing, 
36^"". In 36*''-^ the prophet draws out the ultimate ground 
of IsracFs restoration : Israel's dispersion, viz., caused Jehovah's 
power to be doubled, and His honour sullied, among [273] the 
heathen: that this might not endure for ever, but that the 
heathen might be morally impressed by the spectacle of Israel 
regenerate (cf. Jer. 4*-*), Jehovah Himself brings His people 
back, at the same time, by an act of grace, purging its guilt, 
imparting to it a new heart, and ruling it by His spirit (v.'-^'^). 

C 37. The people, (a) V.*-". The vision of the valley of 
dry bones. Israel had in appearance ceased to be a nation; 
the people distrusted the future, and had abandoned all hope 
of restoration (v.^***). By the striking symbolism of this vision 
they are taught that God can endow the seemingly dead nation 
with fresh life, and plant it again in its old land (v."). (^) 
V16-28. Judah, however, will not be restored alone; Ephraim also 
will share in the blessings promised for the future; and both 
houses of Israel will be united in the dominion of the Messianic 
king. Jehovah's dwelling will be over them, and the nations 
will acknowledge His presence in Israel, 

Th« thought of the restoration of Ephraim as well as Judah occurs fre- 
^aenlly elsewhere in the prophets (Hos. 1" 3*, Is. 11", Mic. 2^ 5", Jer. 3** 
31"-; cf. also Am. 9«- »*^, Hos. ii>«- 14"), and in Erck. himself (4*-» 
(OieUi), iff^- 37»-" 39" 47"*- )- V."-» U a prelude of c 40 it (esp. 43'-»). 

C. 38-39. Jehovah's final triumph over the world. Ezek. 
here develops in a new form his fundamental thought that 
Jehovah's "name" must be vindicated in history, and acknow- 
leged in its greatness by the nations of the earth. He imagines 
an attack of hordes from the north, organized upon a gigantic 
scale, against the restored nation, but ending, through Jehovah's 
intervention, in their total and ignominious discomfiture, 38^ 
39*". The spectacle will afford ocular evidence to the world 
of Jehovah's power, and of the favourable regard which He will 
henceforth bestow upon His restored and renovated people, 


The imageiy of 38^ may have been suggested to Exek. by the hordes of 



Scythians, wliich had poured into Asia during the reign of Jo»ah, sprrading 
consternation far and wide («ee p. 352). The same represctiUition of an uieal 
defeat of natioru, a»eniblcfl for the piirpoM; of annihilaiini; Israel, will meet 
us Again in Joel and Zcohariab. Comp. on this prophecy C. H. H. Wrigbti 
Bibiicai Essays t pp. 99-IJ7, 

2. C. 40-48. The constitution of the restored theocracy 
(25ih year of the exile = 572 b.c.). Ezek. is brought in a vision 
to Jerusalem, where he sees the Temple rebuilt. He describes 
at length its structure and arrangements; and lays down direc- 
tions respecting its services and ministers, and die distribution of 
the reoccupied territory. Ezek., as a priest, and as one to whom 
[274] the associations of the Temple were evidently dear, attaches 
greater weight to the ceremonial observances of religion than was 
usually done by the prophets; and lie here defines the principles 
by which he would have the ritual of the restored community 
regulated. Both the arrangements of the Temple and the ritual 
to be observed are evidently founded upon pre-exilic practice, 
the modifications which Ezek. introduces being designed with 
the view of better securing certain ends which he deems of 
paramount importance. The Temple is Jehovah's earthly resi- 
dence t in the restored community, which Ezek, imagines to be 
so transformed as to be truly worthy of Him (362*-^), He will 
manifest His presence more fully than He had done before 
(37"*"'^) ; His re-entry into the Temple, and His abiding pre- 
sence there, are the two thoughts in which c 40-48 culminate 
(43^-* 48^''); to maintain, on the one hand the sanctity of the 
Temple, and on the other the holiness of the people, is the 
aim of the entire system of regulations. Accordingly special 
precautions are taken to guard the Temple, the holy things, and 
the officiating priests, from profanation. The inner Court of the 
Temple is to be entered by none of the laity, not even by the 
"prince" (^0^')'i no foreigners are for the future to assist the 
priests in their ministrations ; instead of the Temple buildings 
being (as those of the pre-exilic Temple were) in close proximity 
to the city and royal palace (so that the residence, and even the 
burial-ground, of the kings encroached upon them, 43^"*), they 
are to be surrounded by the domain of the priests, the dty lying 
altogether to the south of this. The redistribution of the terri- 
tories of the tribes has the effect of bringing the Temple more 
completely into the centre of the land. The rights of the 



" prince " are limited : he is no longer to enjoy the prerogatives 
of the old Davidic king, who treated the Temple almost as his 
private chapel, entered its precincts as he pleased, and obliged 
the priests to give effect to his wishes. He has, however, cer- 
tain religious duties to perform ; but his political signficance is 
reduced to a minimum : he is, in fact, little more than the repre- 
sentative of the nation in matters of religion. Though the 
details arc realistically conceived, it is evident that there is an 
ideal element in Ezek.'s representations, which in many respects 
it was found in the event impossible to put into practice. 

(i.) The Temple, c 40-43. (a) Description and measurements 
[275] of the ou/er Court, with its gateways and chambers, 40*"''; 
(^) description and measurements of the ifiner Court, with its 
gateways and chambers, 40^"*^ ; (c) the Temple — the dimensions 
of its various parts, the " side-chambers " (cf. i Ki. 6^) surround- 
ing it, and its decorations, 40^^-41^;* (d) the chambers north 
and south of the Temple (between the outer and inner Courts) 
to serve as sacristies or vestries for the priests, 42'"'*; (<?) the 
external measurements of the whole complex of buildings, 42^-ao . 
(/) the Temple being thus represented as complete, Jehovah, 
under the same symbolical representation as before (c. i, c 8-10), 
solemnly resumes possession of it, entering by the same east 
gate of the outer Court by which Ezek., nearly nineteen years 
pre\nously, had seen Him leave it (10***), 43'"; (i") the altar of 
Burnt-offering (noticed briefly, 40*^, with instructions for the 
ceremonial to be obsen*ed at its consecration, 43""^. 

(2.) The Temple and the people, c. 44-46. The central aim 
of the regulations contained in these chapters is to maintain the 
sanctity of the Temple inviolate, (a) The east gate of the outer 
Court, by which Jehovah entered, to be permanently shut, 44*'*; 
(A) no foreigner to be admitted for the future to the precincts 
of the Temple, even for the performance of subordinate offices ; 
menial services for the worshippers (44"**) are to be performed 
henceforth by those members of the tribe of Levi who had 
acted as priests at the high places, the right to exercise priestly 
functions being confined strictly to the sons of 2^dok, 44*"^*; 
(r) regulations on the dress, liabits, duties, and revenues of the 
priests, 44"-^' ; (d) tliu " oblation," or sacred territory, occupied 

• The '• separal£ pUcc," with die "building," 4i'-*", was a kind of y&rd 
uritb outhouses, at Uie back of the Temple, foi the removal of refuse, &c. 



by the Temple area, and by the domains of the priests and 
Levites; and the possessions reserved for the city, and "prince," 
respectively, 45^"'; (e) specified dues, to be paid to the "prince," 
for the purpose of enabling him, without arbitrary exactions, to 
maintain, in the name of the community, the public services of 
the Temple, 45***"; (/) the half-yearly (45"-° RV. mar^.) nic 
of atonement for the Temple; and the sacrifices to be offered 
by the " prince " on various occasions, with regulations respecting 
the manner in which the outer Court of the Temple is to be 
entered by the laity, 45"-46^*. 

[276] 46**- the east gate of the inner Court is to t)e opened on Sabbaths 
and New Moonsi but tlie "prince" is to have no right of entry within it ; at 
most, he may mount the steps to the threshold of the gate leading into it, 
and worship there while the priest is oBering the sacrifice ; on high festivals 
he is to enter and leave the outer Court, just like the people generally. 

(^) (Appendix to 45^'*) Limitation of the rights to be exer- 
cised by the *' prince " over his own and his subjects' landed 
possessions, 46^^^^; (A) (Appendix to 42'^^) the places reserved 
in the inner and outer Courts for cooking the sacrifices apper- 
taining to the priests and people respectively, 46**'^. 

(3.) The Temple and the land, c. 47-48. (a) The barren 
parts of the land (in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea) to be 
fertilized, and the waters of the Dead Sea to be sweetened, by a 
stream issuing forth from underneath the Temple, 47**^*. 

v.". An exception, showing the practical turn of the prof^et's ndnd : the 
nunhes beside the Dead Sea to remain as they are on account of the excellent 
salt which they furnish. 

(If) The borders of the land to be occupied by the restored 
community, 47"'*'. (c) Disposition of the tribes — the 7 north 
of the Temple, 48'-^; the '* oblation," or strip of saaed land 
south of these, with the Temple, surrounded by the priests' 
possessions, in the centre, the Levites' land and the dty on the 
north and south of these respectively, and with the domain of 
the prince (in two parts) on the east and west, v.*-" (cf. 45**®) ; 
the s tribes south of the Temple, v.*^^'; the 12 gates of the 
dty, and its name, Jehovah is there, symbolizing the central 
thought of the entire prophecy, v.'*'-** (contrast c 22). 

Ezekiel emphasizes in particular the power and holiness of 
God. His standing designation of God is " Lord Jehovah," for 
which the title " God of Israel " — which Jeremiah, for instance^ 


es constantly — only appears on special occasions (c ^ii, 
43^ 44^; ^^ ^ ^^ presence, be is bimsdf ooly a **Kn of 
man." The dominant motiTe of the Drrnie action is the dread 
lest His holy name should be profaned : on the other hand, in 
His people's restoration or in an act of judgment. His name ■ 
sanctified, r>. its holiness is rindicated (p. 298, Na 28). These 
truths find expression in Ezekieri nwst diaiacteristic phrase^ 
" And they {or ye) shall know that I am Jdiovab " (above 50 
times). This phrase is most commonly attached to the [277] 
announcement of a judgment,* but sometimes it fioQows a pcnaita 
of restoration. It strikes the keynote of Ecdt^'s pmphariffc 
To the unbelieving mass of the people, as to dM heathen, it 
must have seemed that in the ^ of Jeniaalein, Jeboirab had 
proved Himself onable to cope with the enemies of Rif paopltt 
Ezek. sees in it a manifestation of Jehovah's hofinoi fllUm 
Israel for its sins (cf. 39=*^), and be izksists that d» ooont Of 
history will bring with it other, not less stnkiafr muHmHaAom 
of His Godhead. Thus in his pi op b ecics on foreign nation* tho 
same refrain constantly oocnrs (25^ t. u. i7 ^gN f^ . ^^ jodt* 
ment on each is a fmh proof of Jehovah's power, which w 
finally vindicated most s^nally in the ideal deieat of nations, 
whom Ezek. pictures »» matshaOed against the restorcil n&tum 
in the future (58**; 39^**)- '^^ ^^ faithful people, on tha 
other hand, the blessings which Jehovah will pour upon tham 
are an additional and special evidence of the same truth (lo** 
34*^ 3611- » 371*." 39*). In His attitude towards His paopk 
Jehovah is the rigbtecos Jttd^ who is merclAil toward* the 
repentant sirmer, but deals sternly with the rebcllioun (3^' c iS, 
33). But the prophet's exertions to gain tha hearts of bU 
fellow-countrymen were indifferently rewarded; hence, Israafs 
restoration in the last resort depend* upon Jehovah alone, who 
will work in the future, as He had done In the past (»o*- '•• ••• *•), 
fi^r His futm/s sake {36"; cf. 39^**). ** Jehovah mu$f restore 
Israel, for so only can His sole Godhead, which the ruin of His 
people had caused to be questioned (c »5-3>), be gcnrrally 
acknowledged in the world; He can restore Israel, for of His 
free grace He forgives His people's sin and by tlie workings of 
His Spirit transforms their hard heart (36*^- 39**)." For the 
future which Ezek. thus anticipates, the prophet's chief aim is to 






make provision that Israel should not lapse again into its former 
sins ; and hence the new constitution which he projects for it, 
a 40-48. EzeL is very far, indeed, from depreciating moral 
ordinances (c. 18, 33 5:c.) ; but he finds the best guarantee for 
their observance, as well as the best preventive against all forms 
of idolatry, in a well-ordered ceremonial system; and this he 
develops in c 40-48. The restored Temple assumes a central 
significance; to guard it, and all connected with it, from a 
repetition of the profanation which [278] it had experienced in 
the past (5" c. 8-1 1, 43'^'-), to teach the nation to reverence it 
aright, to render Israel worthy of the God who would thus 
make His dwelling in their midst, is the aim and scope of the 
concluding chapters of his book.* 

The literary style of Ezek. is strongly marked. He uses 
many peculiar words ; and stereotyped phrases occur in his book 
with great frequency. He is fond of artificial kinds of com- 
position, especially symbol, allegory, and parable, which he 
sometimes develops at great length {eg, c. 16, 23, 31), and 
elaborates in much greater detail than is done by other prophets. 
He has imagination, but not poetical talent. He is the most 
unifonnly prosaic of the earlier prophets, Jeremiah, though often 
also adopting a prose style {e.g. c. 7), rising much more frequently 
into the form of poetry, and displaying genuine poetic feeling. 
The style of poetry which Ezek. principally affects is the Qinah^ 
or lamentation, the rhythmical form of which is sometimes 
distinctly audible in his prophecies, t Only very rarely does he 
essay a lyric strain (^s-^. lof. 21°''*), of a species peculiar to him- 
self. His allegories and long descriptive passages are, as a rule, 
skilfully and lucidly arranged : the obscurities which some of 
them present (especially c 40 ff.) are probably due chiefly to 
corruption of the text. Most of the prophets display spontaneity : 
Ezek.'s book evinces reflection and study : his prophecies seem 
often to be the fruit of meditations, thought out in the retire- 
ment of his chamber, The volume of his prophecies is 
methodically arranged, evidently by his own hand : his book 
in this respect forms a striking contrast with those of Isaiah or 

• Comp. further Davidson, pp. xxxi-Iii. 
t C. 19, 26"-" 2S"»'-, and parts of jz""". 
pp. 15-22, and below, under LoinenUtions. 

See Budde, ZATIV. iSSs," 



Erunples of expresdons diaracterisUc of Ezeldel >* 

1. Sen of man (oiK p), in addresbiDg the prophet : a*" ■ 3** ^ *, uid 
constantly (nearly loo times); often in the phrase. And thou, scm 
of man : 2*- • 3" 4* 5> &c Elsewhere (as a title), only Dan. 8". 

•■ LordJehavaM (nvr *nK) : 2* 3^^ ^ &C. {more than 200 times altogether. 
In other prophets occasionally, but far less frequently : #^. about 
14 times in Jer.)- In AV., RV., " Lord God." 

^ Bouse cf rebelUeusmss (no n'a). of Israel: 2»**-» 3»'»*-« \-^t.%*n 
17U 24*t : rebelliousness alone (LXX house of), 2* 44*. Comp. 
Ku. 17" [Heb. i6»] P -o 'J3 ; la. 3d*, 

4. nwriK lands : 5*- * 6", and often (in all 27 times). Tlie plur. of [279] 
this word greatly preponderates in later writers : Gen. loi*- **- " (P) 
36»* (R). 4I« Lev. 26^ » (H); then not till 2 Ki. i8» 19"$ 
never in other prophets except Jer. 7 limeSp Dan. 3 times ; in Chc^ 
Ezr. Neh. 23 times. 

y Bthold^ I am against . , . usually thai or j-ou (Vk or Sy '«n) : 5* 
,38. 30 2,> [Heb.«] 26» 28" 29*' ^^ 30" 34" 35* 36* (toward,— in & 
fiivourable sense) 38* 39*. So Nah. 2" 3», Jer. 21" 23*- «• " 50^ 


6, 7tf -/tf judgntefits (otJfir ) om : 5J»- " 1 1» i6« 25" 28"* " 30>** " ; also 

Ex. 12" 33* (both P), cf. 2 Ch. 24** (OK) : D'osr also (a rare word) 
El. 14", Ex. 6" 7< (both P), Pr. 19*!. 

7. T6 scatter to every wind'. ^** " (ct v.'), la" (cf. 17**) ; Jer. 49*'- 

8. {My\ eye shall not spare (now followed by neither will (/) have pity)^ 

5" 7<-* 8" 9»- " i6» 20»' (cf. p. 100, No. 17). 

9, To satisfy (lit *n>ff to rest) my fury upon . . . : 5^ 16*" 2l" [Heb.*] 

24»|. Cf. Zcch. 6». 
la /, Jehovah, have spoken it, usually as a closing asseveration : 5** 15* 
17" 2i"* " [Heb.**- *n 24" 26" 30^' 34" ; followed by WPpi and 
have done it (or will do it), 17** 22" 36" 37". So / havt spoken 

Comp. Nu. 14 


Not so in any other 
.: s«^ 6" f I3« 3o»-»j 

Hi 23" 26" 28" 39». 
Te Jiniih my Jury (or torafk) upon , 
cf. 5'* {he fm shed). So Lam. 4"t- 
13. Set thy faee toward 01 against ( . . . T^B 0**'] : 6' r3" 20* 2l'[Hbbt 

13. 7'he mountains of Israel: 6*-" 19* 33" 34"' " 35" sei^* *•■ 37*» 38» 

39*- *• " ; cf. 34". A combination peculiar to Ez. 

14. O'p'we water-courses (often joined with mountains^ hills, and valleys^ 

u a rhetorical designation of a country) : 6* 31" 32* 34" 35' 
36*- « 

15. C'ViVa idol-hlccksx 6«- »•••••" 8« 14" i6»« iS«- "• " 2oT-«*m-» and 

often (39 times) ; see p. 202, No. 33. 

16. And . . . shall know thai I am Jehct>ah (see p. 295). Comp. la 

P, Ex. & 7» 14*- • i6"a9*«; cf. 31"" (H). Occasionally beside^ 
Ex. lo», I Ki. 2o'»- ", Is. 49=»- «> etf*. Joel 3". 

17. To s<att<r (mi) among the lands : 6» la" 20=* 22*» 29" 30=*- ■« 36" ; d 

with to disperse 1 1"* " 2o"- ". Cf. No. 25. 



iS. Ta stretch <mi n^ Jkand upon • • 
19L To pour out my fury upon . . 

c£ 20»- »«. 

aa Stumbling-block of iniquity : y» I4*- <• » 18* 44". 
21. MTJ ru^r or prince (applied soxnetfmes to the king) 

ai" (Heb.") » (Hcb.») 22« 34« 37 

. c«- 10- 17- IS ^(^ i. a. u. u. u-is ^gu. » 



" 22» 30« 36" 

"45***; and (in the sing.) 44' 
Not of Israel. 26" 27" 30« 

33* 38*- • 39** *•. This term is used by no other prophet, and ii 

very rare elsewhere, except in P (p. 134). 
aa. A subject opened by means of & qucstioni g«-i*»i»-n ^j^ 47*), I^ 

IS»- l8< I9> 20»- * 22= 23»» 3I*- " 32'» 37> ; cf. i?*- "•• ". 
aj. To put a person*! way upon his head (i.e. to requite him): Tn |ru 

rw-a : 9" 1 1* i6« 2281 ; cf. 17". Only besides i KL 8» (=2 Ch, 

6^). VK^s njn 3*0n is the more common synonym. 

34. O'Wita/m^: 12" 17" 38'**'-*"39*T> 

35. Tb disperse (pw) a/wtf«^ /A/ nations i 12" 20* 3a" 29" 30** * 36" ) 

cf. 2S"2g". a No. 17. 
a6. Ttf bear shame (noSa) : i6"- " 32«- »• " 34» 36^ »• " 39" 44» 
37. BKB- contempt, BIT /tf contemn (Aram.) : 16" 25*- " 28**- " 36*. 
aS, Tobe scmctifed (or ^«/ me holiness) in : 20" 28*^ *• 36" 38" (cf. v.«), 
39"; ct Lev. 10* aa", Nu. 20" (all P). Cf. the stress laid on 
Jehovah's holy name, 2icp 36=*-'" 39^* " 43'- ■ (cf. 36" ; and for my 
nam^s sahi, 30^ **• *"■ **). Comp. Davidson, pp, zxxix-xli ; 149^ 

ag. /n the time efthe iniquity of the end: ai*- • (Heb."* ••) ^$K 
30. The fire of my indignation : 2 1" 22"' " 38". 
On Ezelc.'s affinities with tlie priestly terruinology, esp. with the Law of 

Holiness, see above, pp. 49f., i3off., I45£f. 37""" 43*'*, it is to 

be noted, express ft fundamental thought of the Priests' Code 

(P* I39)> 



LlTERATTJRB.— F. Hitrig (in the Ksf> Ex^, Hand&\ 1838, "1863, *b7 
H. Sleiner (subslnntially unchanged), 1881 ; H. Ewald in his Ptopktten des 
AB.s^ 1840-41, » 1867-68 (translated); C F. Kcil, 1866, M888 ; E. B. 
Puscy, Tht Afinor Prophets^ with a Commtntary explanatory and praetUai ; 
C von Orclli (p. 278) ; F. W. Farrar. 7X* Minor Prophets^ (heir lives and 
tima, in the " Men of the Bible " scries, 1890 (useful) ; J. Wellhausen, Dit 
KUinen Propfuten UUnettt, mil NoUh^ 1892 ; G. A. Smith, ThA Book o/IAm 
Twelve Frophtts (in the "Expositor's Bible"), i. 1896 (very suggestive). 
The articles in the EncycU Brit, (ed, 9) na^y also ofien be consulted with 

On particular prophets the following may be especially noticed :— 

Hosca : — Ed. Pocock (Regius Professor of Hebrew in Oxford), Comm. on 
ffosMj 1685 (exhaustive, for the date at which it was written); Aug. 
WUnsciie, Der Propk, Hosea^ 1S68 (with copious quotations from Jewish 
authorities) ; W. Nowack, Der Propk. ffosea erkldrt^ 1880 ; A. B. Davidson 
in the ExposUor^ 1879, p. 241 ff.; W. R. Smith, Prophets of Israel^ Lect. 
iv.; T. K. Cheyne in the Camh. Bible for Schools, 1884 ; J. J. P. Valcton, 
j4mos en Hosea (an exegetical and historical study), 1894. 

Joel :— Ed. Pocock, Comm, on Joel ^ 1691 ; K. A. Credner, Dtr Pr^pK 
Joel, 183 1 ; Aug. WUnsche, Die IVeiss. des Proph, Joel, 1872; A- Men, 
Die Proph. des Joel w. ihre Ausleger, 1879 (with an elaborate historical 
■ccoQOt of the interpretation of the book); J. C Matthes, ThT, 1885, 
pp. 34 ff., 129 ff., 1887, p. 357 ff.; A. B. Davidson in the Expositor, March 
1888 ; H. Holzinger, Sprtuhkarakter u, Abfassungneit des Buehes Joel^ 
in the ZATW. 1S89, pp. 89-131 ; S. R. Driver, Joel and Amos, in the 
Camh. Bible for Schools, 1897. 

Amos: — G. Baur, Der Proph, Amos trklSrt, 1847 | J. H. Gtmning, Do 
godspraken van Amos, 1885; W. R. Smith, Prophets, Lect tii.; A. B. 
Davidson, Expositor, March and Sept. 1887 ; H. G. Mitchell, Amos (Boston, 
U.S.A., 1893); U B. TitQU, JBLif, 1894, p. 8off.; S. R. Driver, as above. 

Obadiah :— C. P. Caspori, Der Proph. Ob. aus^legi, 1842. 

Jonah :— M. Kalisch, Bible Studies, Part ii. 1878 ; T. K. Cheyne, Theol. 
Review, 1877, p. 291 ff.; C II. H. Wright, Bib/ieaJ Essays (1886), pp. 
34^ ; Delitzsch, Mess, tVeissag^ungen, 1890, p, 88. 

Micah :— Ed. Pocock, Comm. oh Micah, 1677 j C P. Caspari, Vber 



Afieha dtn Morasthiten h. sehu proph, Sikri/f^ 1851-52 (very elaborate) ] 
W. R. Smith, Proph. p. 287 ff.; T. K, Cheyne in the Camb. BibU for 
SckcoUt 1883. * 1895 ; V. R>-sseU t/tUerjuehungen iiber dU Ttxtgtstalt u, dU 
Echtheit dis B. Mieka^ 1887 ; J. Taylor, Tkt Mass. ttxt and tht amiaU 
versicns of Mkahy 1891 ; H. J. Elhorst, De profttU van Mitha (Amhein, 
1891); W. H. Kosters, Th7\ 1893, jx 249 S; On c 4£, Kueaen, ThT. 
1872, p. 285 ff. 

Nahum : — O. Strauss, Nahumi de Nino Vaticinium^ 1853 ; A. BiUer< 
beck u. A. Jciemias, Der Untergang Nintveh^s u. dU Weissagungssehrift 
des Nahum^ in Dclitzscb and Haupt's "Bcitrage zur Assyriologie/' 1895, PP* 
87-188; A, B. Davidson, Nak. ffah. and Zepk., in the Cami. BibU for 
Schools, i8g6. 

[28x] Habakkuk :— F. Delitzsch, D* Hab, Propk, vita atquaataUy 1842, 
ed. 2, 1844 ; and Dtr Proph. Hah. ausgttegt, 1843 ; K. Budde, St. u. A'rit. 
>893, p. 383 ff.; J. W. Rothstcin, ib. 1894, p. 51 ff.; K, Budde, Expositor, 
May 1895, p. 372 ff.; A. B. Davidson, as above. 

Zephaniah : — F. A. Strauss, ya/icinia Ziphania, 1843 ; F. Schwally in 
the ZJThK 1890, pp. 165-240 (including a Comm. on the text); Budde. 
St. «, A'r. 1893, p. 393 ff. J A. B. Davidson, as above. 

Haggtii : — A- Kohler, Die nackexi/ischen Propheten erkl^rt (L ffaggai^ 
i860; II. Sackariah i,-viii,^ 1861 ; III. Sackariah ix,-xrv., 1863 ; IV. 
Afala£ki\ 1865) ; T. T. Perowne, Hogg, and Ze^k. in the Camb. BiHe, 18S6. 

Zcchahah : — A, Kohler, as above ; C H. H. Wright, Zeihari&h and his 
Propheciest 1879 (the *' Bampton Lectures" for 1878, Mfith cril. and exeg. 
notes) ; C. J. Bredcnkamp, 1879 ; W, H. Lowe, Comm. on Zech, Heb. and 
LXX, 1882 ; K. Marti, 1892 (also St. u, Kr. 1892, p. 207 ff. [c 3]. 716 ff. 
[6*-'*] ; cf. Ley, 1893, p. 771 ff.). From the abundant literature dealing 
specially with c. 9-14 may be selected, in addition, Abp. Newcome, Afinor 
Prophets^ London, 1785; Hengslenbcig, Beitrage mr £in/. ins AT. 183 1, 
i. p. 361 ff.; Ckristohgy of the OT. (Clark*s Iransl.) iiL 339-iv. 138 ; Bleek, 
Stud. «. ArrV. 1S52, p. 247 ff., and in his Introduction ; Stahelin, EinI, in 
die ka$u Bb. des AT, 1862, p. 315 ff.; J. J. S, Perowne, article Zechariar 
in Smitli's Diet, of the Bible^ 1863 ; B. Stade in the ZA TIV. 1881, pp. 1-96 ; 
1882, pp. 1 51-172, 275-309, with Kuenen's criticisms in his Onderweh 
(ed. 2), §S 81-83 ; T. K. Cheyne, fQP. 1888, pp. 76-83 ; A. F. Kirkpatrick, 
Doctrine oj the Prophets, p. 438 ff.; EckaMt, ZATW, 1893, p, 76ff.; A. K. 
Kuiper, Zath. ix.~xro., eene exeg.-krit. studie (Utrecht, 1894). 

Ntalachi : — Ed. Pocock, Comm. on Matachi, 1677 ; A. Kohler, as above ; 
B. Stade, Ceseh. Isr, ii. 12S-13S ; T. T. Perowne in the Camb, Bihle, 189a 

§ I. HOSKA. 

786. Jeroboam IL 
746. Zechariah. 
745. Shallum. 
745. Menahea. 

Chronological Tahit, 





Fall of SamadiL 



Hosea prophesied in the Northern kingdom under Jeroboam 
II, and succeeding kings. Jeroboam II. was the fourth and 
most successful ruler (2 Ki. i4'-^'^') of the dynasty founded by 
Jehu, who overthrew the dynasty of Omri, and destroyed the 
public worship of Baal (to which Ahab had given the patronage 
of the court). The dynasty of Jehu had not, however, satisfied 
the expectations of the prophets by whose sanction and aid it 
had been established (2 Ki. 9-10) ; and hence almost the open- 
ing words of Hosea's prophecy are a denunciation of judgment 
upon it (!*'•: the allusion is to a Ki. 10^*). The reign of 
Jeroboam II. was a long one, marked by successes without 
and prosperity within (comp. the picture of material welfare 
drawn in c. 2) : the luxury, selfishness, oppression of the poor, 
and kindred vices which it engendered are rebuked in stem 
tones by Hosea's elder contemporary Amos. After the death of 
Jeroboam II. party [282] spirit, which there was now no strong 
hand to hold in cherk, broke out : Zechariah could not maintain 
his throne, and was murdered after a six months* reign by a 
conspiracy. With him the dynasty of Jehu came to an end. 
There followed a period of anarchy of which Hosea {•j^-'^ S*) 
supplies a picture : phantom kings coming forward in rapid suc- 
cession, with the form, but without the reality, of royal power; 
the aid of Assyria and Egypt alternately invoked by rival factions 
(Hos. s" 7^* 8* IJ*: the corresponding penalty, 9^* 10^ 11*). 
Thus Shallum, after a month, was overthrown by Menahem, who 
sought to strengthen his position by buying the support of the 
Assyrian monarch Pul (Tiglath-Pileser),* 2 Ki. is****. This 
application to Assyria appears to be alluded to in Hos. S^' : 
at the same time, or shortly after, another party was seeking 
help in the opposite direction, from Egypt, 12^^ Menahem 
reigned for 10 (8) years : his son Pekahiah succeeded him, but 
after two years was murdered by Pekah, a rough soldier from 
Gilead, whom we hear of in Is. 7 as engaged with Rezin, king of 
Damascus, in an attack upon the dynasty of David in Jerusalem. 
Pekah, — whose reign, to judge from the Inscriptions, must have 
been considerably shorter than is represented in the Book of 
Kings, — in his turn, was deposed and murdered by Hoshea, 
with the connivance and support of the Assyrian king Tiglath- 

• See Schroder, A'-^T".* 327 ff.j ATS. 11 277, 291, comj»red with p(k 
387, 390 ; or Rteordt efth$ Past^ and series, L x8, aj. 



Pileser (ac. 734). Hoshea, however, ultimately broke with the 
power to which he owed his throne, and opened treasonable 
negotiations with So or Sev^ {t\e. Sabako), king of Egypt, with 
the result that Shalmaneser, Tiglath-Pileser's successor, laid siege 
to Samaria, which, after holding out for three years, capitulated 
to Sargon. Large numbers of the inhabitants were transported 
by Sargon to different parts of Assyria; and the kingdom of 
Ephraim was thus brought to its close. 

It is probable tiutt the title (i'} has not come down to us in its original 
form : for (1) it is dear from internal evidence that c. 1-3 belong to the 
reign of Jeroboam II. and that c. 4-14 relate to the troubles that followed ; 
this being so, it is strange that the later date (Uiziah, &c) should /«fa/-f the 
earlier one (Jeroboam] ; (2) it is hardly likely that Hosea^ writing in and for 
the Northern kingdom, would date his book by reigns of the kings oiJt4dah ; 
(3) it is doubtful if any of Ilosea's prophecies dale from the period after 734, 
the year in which Tiglath* Pileser deported the inhabitants of the trans* 
Joidanic region (2 Ki. 15^) to Assyria : for Gilead is alluded to as Israelitish 
(6* 12" ; cL 5'), without any reference to a judgment having [383] fallen 
npoD it ; nor is there any allusion to Pekah's attack upon Judah in 735 B.C 
Ftobably the original title had simply " in the days of Jeroboam," and was 
intended to refer only to c. 1-3 : when a title had to be found for the whole 
book, in order to indicate that the latter part referred to a later period, the 
names of the Judxan kings contemporary with, and subsequent to, Jeroboam 
II. were added. 

The terminus a quo of Hosea's prophecies will thus be shortly 
before b.c. 746 ; the terminus ad tjuem^ b.c. 735-734. 

The Book of Hosea falls naturally into two parts : (i) c 1-3, 
belonging to the latter part of the reign of Jeroboam IL; (a) c. 
4-14, belonging to the period of the kings following. 

L C. 1-3. This part of the book consists of three sections, 
|i_2ij 2-'*3; a 3. The first of these contains a symbolical 
representation of Israel's unfaithfulness to Jehovah, and the con- 
sequences of it : Hosea gives to the three children borne by his 
unchaste wife Gomer, the symbolical names, Jesreei, in antici- 
pation of the vengeance to be exacted of the house of Jehu on 
the spot where formerly Jehu had massacred the house of Ahab» 
2 Ki. lo^^; Lo-ruhamahj " Uncompassionated," and Lo-ammi, 
" Not my people," in token of Jeho\'ah*s rejection of Ephraim, 
v.^-'. Yet this rejection is not final : a promise of the union of 
Judah and Israel and restoration of the Litter to favour follows. 
Jezrcel, the scene of defeat in i^, becomes the scene of an ideal 
victory, marking the return of the nation from exile, and its 



reconquest of Palestine ; and its members are invited to resume 
the use of the title which had just been discarded, and to accost 
one another in terms implying their entire restoration to Jeho- 
vah's favour, i'''-2^ [Heb. 2^'^\ 

The seeoftd section, a^-ss, states in plain language the mean- 
ing which the prophet attaches to the narrative of I'-a^ V.'-" 
the prophet dwells upon the impending punishment, and the 
cause of it, viz. Ephraim's ingratitude to Jehovah, and her for- 
saking him for the Baals ; and v.**-^ he shows how this period of 
punishment will be also a means of reformation, and [284I will 
result in the bestowal upon the nation of fresh marks of con- 
fidence and love at the hands of her Divine husband (" Jezreel," 
typifying Israel, is now to verify her name by being sown anew in 
the earth). And thus the interpretation ends, 2*-'', at the same 
point which the original prophecy had reached in 2', 

a' is the close of i**"", and should be included in c I. The "molher" 

in 2* is, of course, the coramurity conceived as a whole, the "children 
the individual mctnbcn. 


In the third section (c 3) Hosea appears again, as in c 1, 
enacting the part of Jehovah towards His people. His love for 
his faithless wife, and his behaviour towards her (v.^"^), are, as 
he says himself (v.^*** *), symbols of Jehovah's love towards the 
unfaithful Israelites, and of the means employed by Him (de- 
privation for a season of civil and religious institutions) to win 
them back to purity and holiness. 

11. C. 4-14. These chapters consist of a series of discourses, 
a summary, arranged probably by the prophet himself at the close 
of his ministry, of the prophecies delivered by him in the years 
following the death of Jeroboam II. Though the argument is 
not continuous, or systematically developed, they may be divided 
into three sections : a 4-8, in which the thought of IsracVs guUt 
predominates; c. 9-ix^\ in which the prevailing thought is that 
of Israel's punishnunt-, ii^^-c. 14, in which these two lines of 
thought are both continued (a 12-13), but are followed (c 14) 
by a glance at tlie brighter future which may ensue, provided 
Israel repents. The following is an outline of the subjects 
treated: — (L) C. 4- Israel's gross moral corruption (v.^), abetted 
and increased by the worldliness and indifference of the priests. 
C. 5-7. The self-indulgence and sensuality of the leaders of the 
nation, resulting in the degradation of public life, and decaj of 



national strength, intermingled with descriptions of the bitter 
consequences which must inevitably ensue. C. 8. The prophet 
announces the fate imminent on northern Israel, with its cause, 
viz. idolatry and schism, v.^*^ : already, indeed, has the judg- 
ment begun J Israel has drawn it upon itself, by dallying with 
Assyria, by religious abuses, and by a rain confidence in fortified 
cities, v.*"^**. (ii.) C. 9-1 1'^ The approaching judgment is 
described more distinctly: disaster, ruin, exile (g^), — even the 
idols of Beth-el will not be able to avert it, but will be carried 
off themselves to Assyria (lo*'-), — with passing allusions [285] 
to its ground, viz. the nation's ingratitude and sin, and with a 
glance at the end (ii"'^') at the possibility of a change in the 
Divine purpose, resulting in Ephraim's restoration, (iii.) 11'^ 
a 14. The thought of Israel's sin again forces itself upon the 
prophet : they had fallen short of the example set them by their 
ancestor: in vain had Jehovah sought to reform them by His 
prophets ; the more He warned them, the more He blessed them, 
the more persistently they turned from Him : the judgment 
therefore must take its course {i3^*'-). There follows an invita- 
tion to Israel to repent, and renounce its besetting sins ; and 
with a description of the blessings which Jehovah will confer, in 
case Israel responds, the prophecy closes (c, 1 4), 

Hosea is thus in a pre-eminent degree, especially in c 4-T4, 
the prophet of the decline and fall of the Northern kingdom : * 
what Amos perceived in the distance, Hosea sees approaching 
with rapid steps, accelerated by the internal decay and disorgan- 
ization of the kingdom. Not only the moral corruption of the 
nation generally, including even the priests (4^'^-* 6^^* 7^ 9*), 
hut the thoughtless ambition of the nobles, the weakness of its 
kings, the conflict of opposing factions, are vividly depicted by 
him (4'' 5' y3-T. ifl g\5 jq8 13IO). He alludes frequently to Israel's 
idolatry, both their attachment to sensuous Canaanidsh cults 
and their devotion to the unspiritual calf-worship (4i--i*-is-" ^1-3 
84-8.U 5I.10.16 ioJ.fl.8.15 1,2 121: i^if.): ijols are satirized by 
him as made by the hands of men, in a form devised by human 
minds, of the silver and gold which they owed to Jehovah (a* 
g4-« 132^; hence the folly of trusting in them or worshipping 

•/udoA is alluded to only incidenUiUy, 4" j"- 10. »«. a. " 54. u gu (qU , |ia 
(obscure: text doublful), I3^: usually in unfavnurable tcims; otherwuc, how- 
ever, in l' mod (by implication) 1" 3" (cf. p. 306). 




them (8* ironically— " they are made onfy to be cut off^\ 10*^ 
1 4"). Rosea urges Israel to repent, grounding his appeal upon 
the many tokens of Jehovah's love to which its history had 
borne witness (9" ii^*" 12"-" 15*-*; cf. 6^ 8*), in virtue of 
which Israel was bound to the observance of a multitude of 
duties, comprised in the " Torah " of Jehovah (S^**- ^2)^ which it 
was the office of the priests (4®) to inculcate and uphold. 
Through Israel's neglect of the duties thus laid upon it, Jehovah 
has the right to enter into judgment [286] with it (4* 5*). These 
duties, for the non-observance of which the prophet rebukes Israel, 
are primarily moral ones, as appears in particular from i^'^y where 
he attributes the moral degeneration of the people {y}'^) to the 
priests' forgetfulness of the " Torah " of their God. The people, 
however, think to propitiate Jehovah with their offerings (8^*; 
cf* 5*)» forgetting that His delight is in ** mercy, and not sacri- 
fice," and in the (practical) "knowledge of God" (see Jer. 2a") 
more than in burnt-offerings (6"); and in spite of the love shown 
to them in the past, repay Him with ingratitude, and slight the 
-commands on the observance of which He sets the highest value. 
Hence He is become their enemy {^'^' ^* y**- ^^ 8" 9*- 1^- 13^'') ; 
and the prospect of invasion (5* 8^*^ 11* '3***)i and exile to a 
foreign land (8*^ cj^.e. it ,,fi)^ \^ held cut before them by the 
prophet with ever-increasing distinctness and force. Particularly 
noticeable is Hosea's conception of iove as the bond uniting 
Jehovah and Israel (3^ 9^° li^** 14*), as well as individual 
Israelites with one another (6*),* 

Style of Jlosea, " 0.see ccimmaticus est [is broken up into 
clausesl et quasi per sententias loquens," said Jerome long ago ; 
and his words exactly describe the style of the prophet, short, 
abrupt sentences, very frequently unconnected by any copula, 
full of force and compressed feeling, pregnant with meaning, the 
thought sometimes so condensed as to be ambiguous or obscure. 
The style of Hosea is unique among the prophets : his elder 
contemporary Amos writes in nmcli more flowing and regular 
periods. But Hosea's style seems to be the expression of the 
emotion which is stirring in his heart : his sensitive soul is full 
of love and sympathy for his people ; and his keen perception of 
their moral decay, and of the destruction towards which they 

* Sec more fully on Hoscft's prevailing lines of tbuught, W. R. Smith, 
OTJC. LecU iv.; Cbeyuc, p. 32 0^; Farror, chap, viii 




are hastening, produces in consequence a conflict of emotions, 
wKich is reflected in the pathos, and force, and " artless rhythm 
of sighs and sobs," which characterise his prophecy (notice e^, 
the pathos of such verses as 6* 7" ^i*-^* n^-*'*). The figures 
used are suggestive; they are, however, in agreement with his 
general style, indicated by a word, and not, as a rule, worked 
out (4" 5» 6'^^^ 7«.8.T.u.ifl 87 9» lo^ 13" x^^-^-^)i Jehovah. 
on His terrible side, is compared [287] to a lion, a panther, a 
bear (5" 13^' ": in a different application, n^"*), and even to a 
moth or rottenness (5*^; on His gracious side, to the refreshing 
and invigorating "latter rain" (6"), and to the dew (14*). 

Hosea is also fond of paronomasias a"*^*^ ("sow"), 8* g"*^ ii» (douUc 
MDse of "return"), 12" [Heb.^; comp. the alliuioo to the drriration of 
"EphnLim,"9" 13" I4» [Hcb.»]««'; and the use of "Bcth-Aven ' for "Beth- 
el," 4'* 10* (cf. v."). Tlie construction of clauses iawStrut is more common 
in him than in any other prophet : e.^. 4'- " 5"»* •*»• » &^ 7"- w ^ ». w jo". •>. 
•.Ub ,^4 (Heb.^). &c: clauses with 7\7\y ("now") similarly, 4'* 5* 7* S^-*"* 
(hence Jer. 14"), 10* (uncommon). 

Thoe ve several passages in Kosea, which, portly on the ground that they 
are thought to express ideas alien to Hosca's historical or theological position, 
partly because they interrupt the connexion of thought, have been held by 
recent critics to be later additions to the original text of his prophecies. Thus 
Skade {GtscK. L 577 «.) questioned i' i^'-a^ 3* (the words "and David their 
king")4»*8"; Comill (i?m/.»S 27. 3} agrees (except for 8") ; the originality 
of these, with the exception of i\ was defended by Kuenen (in 1889), 
Onderxock^ g 67. ft-iV More recently, Wellh. rejected in addition a^* 6" 7* 
(to Tsnuif that) lo^***, most of 14'**, as well as a few less important plirases 
elsewhere: Cheyne (in W. R. Smith, ProphJ* p. xviiff.) cites as the "most 
probable " later insertions x' l'*-2^ 3' ("and David their king")4"» 5»-6* 
6" 7^ (to Israel, then) 8" I4**' (enlircly). G. A. Smith rejects 1' (p. 313), 
4"'- 8" (pp. 234, 359), and doubts 3" (p. 24S), 5»6»«- (p. 225), ii«-t.i»-u 
(p. 297 f.), 14* (p. 317), but seems to accept i"-2* (though allowing that it 
must be misplaced), and the suspected words in 3' (p. 2i3f.), and defends at 
length 14*"* (pp. 309-312). The question (which will occur again in the case 
of Amos, Micah, Hab., and Zeph.) is analogous to that wliich has arisen 
before with reference to Is. Jer. and II Is.: it may no doubt occasionally 
happen (esp. in the case of a prophet like Jer., whose text has manifesUy 
pas&ed through many hands) tliat a prophecy has been expanded or supple* 
luented at a later date : but the grounds ought to be very clear before it can 
be deemed probable that this has taken place upon the extensive scale which 
is sometimes supposed. It may be questioned whether recent criticism has 
not shown a tendency to limit unduly the spiritual capabilities, and imagina- 
tive power, of the pre-exUic prophets ; and whether, the prophets being /m/^t, 
guided often, as is clear, by impulse and feeling, rather than by strict logic, 
imperfect cunnexion with the context (except in extreme cases, or wh«a 



suppofted hy Uogmstic or other iodependcnt indioLUons) fonns a mfficient 
ground for judging a passage to be a laler insertion. It is aUo not improbable 
that the discourses of the prophets have oflen been transmitted to as in a 
condensed form, in which mediating links may have been omitted. And a 
picture of restoration, at the end of a prophecy, does not neutralize previous 
threateoings : such pictures are always iJea/ ones ; they do not exempt those 
whom the prophet in question is addressing from the judgment of exile or 
disaster which has been pronounced upon them ; the judgment takes eRcct : 
but out of the national ruin which it implies, the prophet pictures in the un- 
defined future a renovated community arising — he does not pause to ask by 
what historical process the renovation has been effected, though sometimes 
(esp. in Isaiah) the godly Israelites who escape the disaster are conceived as 
forming its nucleus — wliich shall carry on the historical conrinuity of the 
nation, and reuiain the recipient of Jehovah *s blessings. See generally, on the 
subject of " the alternation of tlircatening and promise in the propbete,** the 
discriminating study of Giesebrecht, Btitrage, pp. 187-Z20, who confesses 
himself imable to maintain the originaUty of some passages (including in 
particular Hos. ]^ i^*-2^), but in&ists that there is no sutficicnt ground for 
suspecting promises which come at the clou of announcements of disaster. 

§ a. JOEi. 

The title of this prophecy mentions nothing beyond the 
names of tlie prophet and of his father Pethuel. The prophecy 
consists of two parts, 1^-2", and 2'" to the end. i--^ states, in 
graphic language, the occasion of the prophecy, viz. a visita- 
tion of locusts, accompanied by a drought, which caused the 
severest distress throughout the country, 1 1**"^*- ^^'^ ; the pro- 
phet exliorts the people to fasting, supplication, and mourning, 
jiaf. ^\,m..^ for tiig present visitation of locusts is to him a 
symbol of the approaching " Day of Jehovah " (i"), to be ushered 
in by another visitation of terrible and unprecedented intensit)', 
2^-*>, which timely repentance may perchance avert, a"'". The 
people, we must suppose, responded to the prophet's invitation : 
2*"* describes in narrative form (see RV.) Jehovah's gracious 
change of purpose, which thereupon ensued \ and what follows, 
to the end of the book, is His answer to the people's prayer. 
The answer begins with a promise of deliverance from the 
fomine : rain will again descend upon the parched soil ; fruitful 
seasons will compensate for the locusts' ravages; and all will 
know that Jehovah is Israel's God, a'*^^, Tlien the spirit of 
prophecy will be poured out upon all flesh : and the " Day of 
Jehovali" will draw near, with dread-inspiring signs in heaven 





and earth. But the terrors of that day are not now for the Jews, 
but for tlieir enemies : in the judgment which marks its arrival, 
those who trusi in Jehovah will escape, a^s-'^; but upon the 
heathen, who have "scattered Israel among the nations, and 
parted my land," besides otherwise ill-treating the people of God, 
summary vengeance will be taken : they are invited to arm them- 
selves, and come up to the valley of [288] Jehosliaphat (*' Jehovah 
judges"), ostensibly for battle against the Jews, in reality to be 
annihilated by the heavenly ministers of Jehovah's wrath (3^^**). 
The scene of carnage which ensues is pictured under suggestive 
figures, 3^*^*; but "Jehovah will be a refuge unto His people, 
and a stronghold to the children of Israel." Then the soil of 
Judah will be preternaturally fertilised; and "a fountain shall 
come forth of the house of Jehovah, and shall water the wady of 
the Acacias " (symbolizing the arid and barren regions of Judah) : 
Egypt, on the other hand, and Edom, as a punishment for 
the wrongs inflicted by them upon the people of Judah, will be 
changed into wildernesses (3"*^). 

lite locusts in c I (though this has been questioDcd) are, no doubt, to be 
undentood literally ; there is nottung in ttie language used Co suggest any- 
thing but an actual visitation of loc\ists, from which the country has been 
suffering. The actual lociuts suggest to Joel the im^ery by which he 
describes, 2^', the approach of the "Day of Jehovah": here the locusts 
are ideaOzedi they are creatures of the inmglnation, invested with appalling 
size and power, the prototype of the "apocalyptic" locusts of Rev. 9*"" 
(where, bowever, the ideal delineation is carried much further than here). 
As the locusts in c 2 ore compared to an army, they can hardly (as some have 
supposed) t)e themselves merely symbolical of an army. Tlie meaning of 
"the northern one" in 2^ is disputed, and uncertain. From the connexion 
with v.^" it would naturally be understood to denote the locusts, the 
removal of which follows the people^s repentance. But locusts never (or 
scarcely ever) enter Palestine from the north ; so that (unless the occasion 
vas enM of tht exetjitwu) "the northern one** would be an unsuitable 
designation for them ; hence by some the term is considered to be descriptive 
of a human foe (see p. 311 m.). 

For determining the date of Joel (the title being silent) we 
are dependent entirely upon internal evidence; and as this is 
interpreted differently by different critics, much diversity of 
opinion exists on the subject The principal criteria afforded 
by the prophecy are the following r — (i) Joel mentions Tyre, 
Zidon, the Philistines, the Greeks (" Javan,** i.e. Ionians\ Sabeans, 
Egypt, and Edom; (2) he is silent — not even noticing them 



allusively — on the Syrians, Assyrians, and Chald?eans; (3) he 
nowhere mentions or alludes to the Ten Tribes ; even when 
speaking most generally, e.g, of the future restoration^ or of 
Israelites sold as slaves (3** *•'*), he names only "Judah and 
Jerusalem": "Israel," where the term occurs (2^; 3^*: 3" is 
ambiguous), is used simply as the generic name of Judah ; (4) 
Jehovah*s people is *'a reproach among the nations" (a^*); 
[289] and it is said of " all nations " that tliey have ** scattered " 
His "heritage among the nations, and parted" His "land," 
and "cast lots over" His "people" (3"^^^); the return of the 
captivity of Judah aiid Jerusalem is also anticipated by the 
prophet (3*); (5) the Tyrians, Zidonians, and Philistines arc 
charged with having plundered the gold and silver and treasures 
belonging to Jehovah, and selling captive Judahites to the Greeks 
(3**^) i (6) ^Syp^ ^""^ Edom are threatened with desolation 
for the violence done to Judah in murdering innocent Judahites 
in their land (3"); (7) there is no allusion to any kind of 
idolatry ; the services of the Temple are conducted regularly ; 
the priests take a prominent posirion, and are evidently held in 
respect (i*- " a^i^; the cessation, through the locusts and 
drought, of the means of providing the daily Meal- and Drink- 
offering is treated as a grave calamity ; (S) the prophet is silent 
as to the king, and even as to the princes ; the dders^ on the 
contrary, are alluded to (i") as prominent in a public gathering; 
(9) mention is made (3'- '^) of the " valley of Jehoshaphat," pre- 
sumably so called from the king of that name; (10) there are 
resemblances between Joel and Amos which show tliat one of 
the two prophets must have imitated or borrowed from the other 
(Joel 3" and Amos i^ ; 3*' and Amos 9"^). 

It was argued by Credner in 1831 that tlie conditions implied 
by these criteria were satisfied by a date in the early part of the 
reign of King Joash, b.c, 87S-S39 [rather^. 837-Soi] (2 Ki. 12), 
after the invasion of Judah by Shishak (i Ki, I4''*--''), which is 
supposed to be alluded to in 3^'^ (no strangers to pass through 
Jerusalem any more), and 3" (" violence against the children oj 
Judah "), the reign of Jehoshaphat (No. 9), and the revolt of the 
Edomites under Jehoram (a Ki, S*''*"^*), to the murder by whom 
of Judahites settled in their territory 3^^ may refer, and not long 
after the plundering of the royal treasures (No. 5) by marauding 
Philistines and Arabians during tlie same reign (2 CIl 2i*''*' 



33*), but hef&r$ the time when the Syrians under Hazael 
threatened Jerusalem, and had to be bought off at the cost 
of the Temple treasures by Joash (2 Ki. i2i'''-), and ii. fortiori 
before the time when Judah suffered at the hands of Assyrians 
or ChaldsDans (cf. No. 2). Upon this view 32-8' are referred to 
the loss of territory suffered by Judah at the time of the revolt of 
Edom (which was followed quickly [290] by that of Libnah, 
2 Ki. 8^), and to the sale of prisoners, whom the Philistines and 
Arabians might be presumed to have taken, to other nations 
such as is laid by Amos (i"-*) to the charge of Gaza and Tjtc 
Joash (2 KL 11^*) was only seven years old when he came to 
the throne: If Joel's prophecy dated from the period of his 
minority, the non-mention of the king (No. 8), it is urged, would 
be explained, while the position of Uie priests, and the regularity 
of the Temple services (No. 7), would be a natural consequence 
of the influence exerted by the priest Jchoiada. 

Credner's arguments were specious \ and most scholars until 
recently acquiesced in his conclusion. At the same time, he can 
hardly be considered to have done justice to 3-: the strong 
expressions here used respecting the dispersion of Israel among 
the nations, and the allotment of the Holy Land to new occu- 
pants, cannot fairly be referred to any calamity less than that of 
the Babylonian captivity. Keil felt this objection so strongly, 
that he supposed the words in question to be spoken by Joel 
with reference to the future ; but if the passage be read in con- 
nexion with the context, it seems plain that the prophet alludes 
to sufferings which have been already undergone by the nation. 
And when the criteria noted by Credner are considered carefully, 
it appears that many of them are equally consistent with a date 
afier the captivity, while other features exhibited by the prophecy 
e\*en agree with such a date better. 

Thai* (0 the enemies of JiicLh are the nations eoUutively\ who «tc 
Mssetnbled for % signal defeat outsiile the walls of Jerusalem. This is a 
feature prominent in later prophets, as Ei. 38-39, Zech. 14 : the earlier 
prophets speak o\ de finite cDcmics of Judah (as the Assyrians), (a) The book 
implies a nation untied religiously, and free from any of those tendencies to 
heatlienism which call forth llie constant rebuke of the pre-cxilic prophets. 
(3) No king is mentioned : the nation possesses a municipal organisation with 

• Comp. W, R- Smith, s.v. Jokl, in the iincy(L Brii* (reprinted in 
Black's Bible Diciiofiary), The form in which the arguments on the lame 
side are stated by Merx is not free from exaggeration. 



a priestly aiistocacj, vliidi aooords with the ccostiratioa that prertflvd afttf 
lilt ocO^ Thftt the Pezaus do not «pp«v ss the enemies of bncl fa not 
■nre than Ofttunl, thej were hud ntsfeen, but not tnr«dcts ; and uikW 
flxir nUe (comp. Neh.) the encmict of the Jews were their neighbourtt pr»- 
dseSy as appears in JoeL (4) EdoakV hostility to JikUh w«» not confioed to 
the period of the rdgn of Joash': it was habitual ; and a bitter feeling st^aintt 
[391] Edom oftca manifests itself in Jewish writers after the events of m.c 
386 (cf. p. 236V (5) E£7pt is probably mentioned merely as the typical 
example of a power hostile to Judah : even on Credner^s theory the alluikion 
is to an incident which happened a ctnhtry b*ffr$. And 3*^ is mudl mora 
pointed if spoken after itie desecration of the Teoi|Je by the- Chakbaans (cC 
Isa. 52^), than after the invasion of Shishdc (who Is not stated to hsTv 
entered Jerusalem at all). (6) 3 Chr. 31 mentions Philistines and Arabianft, 
but is silent altogether as to the Phoenicians^ who appear here as the otfonders. 
There is no ground for limiting the traffic in slaves to the age of Amos ; and 
the notice of Ja^an (Greece) better siuts a later time, when Syrian lUvei wera 
in request in Greece. (7) Judah and the people of Jehovah ar« coovtrUblo 
tenns: northern Israel has disappeared. This is not the case In the earlier 
prophets; the prophets of Urael do not exclude Judoh, at least from tlielr 
promises, nor do the prophets of Judah exclude Israel, (8) The imimrlnnrr 
attached to the doily ofTering is not less characleri&tic of the poat'Cxilic a|{e 
(Neh. 10"; cf. Dan. 8" ti** 12"). (9) JoePs eschatolofiical ptctur« conxUti 
largely of a combination of elements derived from older unfulfilled prophedea. 
Its central fcatuiCt the assembling of the nations to judgment, already np])ean 
in Zeph. 3', and in Frx-kiers prophecy concerning Gug and Mngng, where 
the wonders of fire ond btood arc also mentioned (Krek. 38"). The picture 
of the fenilily of the land [3'") is based on Am, 9** (comp, below] ; that of 
the stream issuing from llie Temple, and fcrlilixing tJie Wady of Acadas, uptm 
Seek. 47^'" (cf. Zech. 14^); the outpouring of the Spirit, upoo Ezek. 39".* 

These arguments are forcible. In particular, th terms of 
3'-^ (cf. a^"**), the relation of Israel to " the nations " which thrso 
passages presuppose, and the general resemblance of the rrpre- 

* See also Farror, pp. 105-113, ISO-123. Those who adopt tliis dale for 
Joel often suppose that "the northern one" of 3** is an alluiion to His 
imagery of Ex. 38" 39^, where the ideal hosts that Ihroaton Judah ar« 
represented as coming from the north. But it U very doubtful if this is right 1 
the late of the " northerner " is distinctively that of a ivrarm of loctisU. 

Prof. J. W. Uothsiein, in a note in the German uanslation of lh« proiBttt 
work (p 333 f.). argues, on account of differences in the poUtleml situation 
presupposed, and in the literary originality displayed, that Ih4 bo^^k is not 
thioaifhOBt the work of a ^gle hand t I'-a*', he thinks, may well be pre- 
cnlie ; i*-3" b a supplement, reflecting the situation and eoocepiioot of lh« 
poct-cxilic sge (d Ob. **^' by the side of r.^), added by ooa who, Intar- 
prcting (tsoorrecUy) the loctisU of i^^^ as a symbolical dcaignaDoo of the 
foes who were iiniiiiimln||, the Uod wfaco b« wrote, tolroduosd at lh« mmm 
tiiBF ]" lor the tiurpoM of tiHKwiTKin g their 



sentation in c 3 to those found in the later prophets, must be 
allowed to turn the balance of evidence somewhat strongly in 
favour of the later date. Joel's imagery and language are fine : 
but he can scarcely be said to exhibit the originality and breadth 
of view which are generally characteristic of the earlier prophets. 
He seems to move "in the circle of moral convictions and 
eschatological hopes which had been marked out for him by his 
great predecessors": though he calls to repentance (i'^'^ 2^2/. is ^^ 
the stress lies with him not upon his people's sin, but upon the 
distinction between Israel and other nations ; Israel, at least in 
so far as it responds to Jehovah's call (2'^), is to be saved and 
glorified, the nations are annihilated. It seems as if Joel re- 
affirmed, in a form suited to the temper and needs of his age, 
the promises of the older prophets, which it was impossible [292] 
to regard as adequately accomplished in the actual condition of 
the restored exiles.* 

The principal Htcnuy parallels between Joel and other prophets are the 
following:— I". Isa, I3«.— 3*, Zeph. l" (and Ex. 10'*'').— 2«, Ex. 36" (the 
"garden of Eden").— 3*", Nah. 2"" [H. "*■] (nnKD i«pT).— 2" Isa. 13", 
Ez. 32',— 2''*', Ps. 79» 115'; cf. 42«-", Mic. 7"— 2", E«. 36" 39=", Isa. 
4S»--«-2», Er. 39» (cf. 36").-2". Ob. ".-3« Er. 38"— 3^ Ob." 
(Wj rr: only Nah. 3'» besides).— 3*- ", Ob.".— 3" Isa. 2* ( = Mic 4*).— 
3M Am. I*.— 3*"». Ob.", Isa. 52>»>.— 3". Am. 9".— 3", Ob.». 

Von Orelli argues that some of these parallels are decisive for the pre* 
exilic date of Joel (p. 237): " Er. 30** is unmistaknbly dependent upon 
Joel i" a"*; similarly Jer. 25"'- on Joel 3"' *•. So Isa. 66"* presupposes 
Joel 3*. Be. 47^* develops further the imagery of Joel 3" ; and Er. 38" 
39* allude in all probability especially to Joel 3. The dependency of Isjl 
13*- ' on Joel i^* is palpable. And the parallels with Amos show iocontro* 
vertibly that he is earlier than this prophet. Am. l' is taken certainly from 
Joel 3^ : accordingly Am. 9" also is dependent on Joel 3**." But that this 
is the true relation between the passages quoted is by no means self-evident. 
Nothing is more diflicult (except under specially favourable circumstances) 
than from a men comparison of parallel passages to determine on which side 
the priority lies ; t and if those dted by von Orelli be examined, it will be 
seen that there ts no reason (apart from the assumption, upon other grounds, 
that Joel is the earlier] why the retation should not be inverted, why, in 
other words, it should not be Joel who is the borrower. And as regards the 
ponlleb with Am(», it is to be noticed that in each case the p'cture in Joel is 
more highly coloured than in Amos : especially (as Kuen. j 68. 1 3 observes) 

• See further y^/ a»d Amas, p. 30 ff. 

f Hence the £ulure of the attempts miade by Kuper, Cospari, and others to 
show that Isa. 13^14", 34-35, 40-66 are prior to Jer., Nah., and Zeph. 



It seems unlilcely th&t Amos, if he had been borrowing from & passage which 
described Jehovah's thunder as shaking kioven and tartk^ would have limited 
its effects to the pastures of the shepherds and the top of Carmel. Bui even 
if this argument be not accepted as decisive, there is still nothing inherent 
either in these or in the other passages to show that the priority is with Joel : 
in other words, the parallels cannot be used for deierminin^ the date of Joel ; 
we con only, after having deUrmiiud his date on independent grounds^ point 
to the parallels for the purpose of illustrating {as the case may be) cither his 
dependence upon the other prophets, or their dependence upon him. In 2" 
lHeb.3*], however, Ob.^^, " And in mount Zion shall be those that escape,'* 
does appear to be expressly cited: **And in mount Zion and in Jeni- 
salem shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said." G. B. Gray, in the 
Expositor, SepL 1893, p. 208 ff., after a careful and independent study of the 
parallel passages, reaches the same conclusion that Joel is the qaoter (comp. 
the writer's yw/ am/ j4mos^ pp. 19^23, 24 £). 

The style of Joel is bright and flowing ; and the contrast, which U 
palpable, with Haggai or Malachi is no doubt felt by many as a reason against 
the view that his prophecy dates from the same general period of the history. 
[393] But it is a question whether our knowledge of this period is of a 
character authoriring us to affirm that a st}ie such as Joel's could not hare 
been written then ; at least, if Zech. 12-14 dates from the post-exilic age, it 
is difficult to aigue that Joel cannot date from it likewise. The phraseology, 
viewed as a whole, can hardly be cited as positively favouring the later datCt 
though it is true that it includes some words and expressions which are more 
common in the later than in the earlier literature : thus l" V Dm . . , n (the 
usual form is ck . . , n) ; i» 2" " ministers of Jehovah " (cf. Jer. sj""*, Isa. 
6i«. I Ch. 16* 2 Ch. X3» 39'S Eir. 8", Neh. io»^«); 2» 4* "ii"" t" ; «• 
nb» weapon (Job [Elihu], Neh. Chr.) ; 2« ^lO end (Aram.: 2 Ch. 2o", Eccl. 
3" 7* 12" T) ; 3(4)' Jehovah's iiiigating (odt:) with His enemies (Jer. 2* 
as». Ee. 17" 2o»- " 38», Isa. 66") ; 3(4} * ^y VtM (2 Ch. 2o»») ; 3(4) » ntn 
tance ; 3(4) ^* nnjn eattse to come down (Aram.). 

§3. AkfOi 

Amos, as the title to his book infonns us, was " among the 
shepherds of Tekoa," i>. he belonged to a settlement of 
shepherds who had their home at Tekoa, and who, as the 
word used implies, reared a special breed of sheep, of small and 
stunted growth, but prized on account of their wool From 7^* 
we learn that he had under his charge herds of larger cattle as 
well ; and that he was employed besides in the cultivation of 
sycomore trees. Although this has been questioned, the Tekoa 
meant is no doubt the place of that name about 12 miles south 
of Jerusalem : Amos, therefore, will have been a native of Judah, 
though he received a commission — being takeOi as he describes 



it, "from after the flock" (7^^) — to go and prophesy to dift 
people of Israel, In connexion with the nature of prophecy, 
it is to be noticed that Amos disclaims (7*^) being a prophet by 
profession or education : he is no " son of a prophet," i.e. no 
member of a prophetic guild (2 KL 4' &c) ; his irspiradon is 
independent of any artificial training. The year of Uzzlah's 
reign, in which the "earthquake," mentioned in i' (cf, Zech. 
14'*), took place, is not known; but internal evidence points to 
the latter part of Jeroboam II.'s reign, after the successes 
alluded to in 2 Ki. 14^, i.e. about 760-746 B.C., as that to which 
Amos' prophetic ministry belongs. The reign of Jeroboam II., 
though passed by briefly in the historical books (2 Ki. 14*^^), 
was the culminating point in the history of the Northern king- 
dom. Jeroboam had been successful in recovering for Israel 
territory which it had lost (2 Ki. 14**); and the allusions in 
Amos [294] show us the nation reposing in opulence and ease 
{e.g. 6*-*) ; the ritual of the calf worship at Beth-el, Gilgal, and 
elsewhere was splendidly and punctiliously maintained (4*^- 
j2i-2s ji3 31*^ . general satisfaction reigned : the proud citizen 
of Ephraim felt that he could defy any adversary (6"). Such 
was the condition and temper of the people when Amos, arriving 
at the great national sanctuary of Beth-el as a stranger (7*'***^, 
interrupted the rejoicings there with his forebodings of woe. 

The book falls naturally into three parts, c. 1-2, c 3-6, 
c 7-9, each dominated by the same fundamental thoughts, and 
the whole pervaded by a unity of plan which leaves no reason- 
able doubt that the arrangement is the author's own. I. The 
firs/ pajt, c. 1-2, is introductory. Here, after the fine exordium 
(i^), so graphically descriptive of Jehovah's power, Amos takes 
a survey of the principal nations bordering on Israel, — Damascus, 
Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, Judah, — with the object of 
showing that as none of these will escape retribution for having 
broken the common and universally regarded dictates of morality; 
so Israel, for similar or greater sins (2*"*), aggravated, indeed, in 
its case by ingratitude (v.*-"), will not be exempt from the same 
law of righteous government : a disaster daikly hinted at (v.'^'^*) 
will undo all the conquests achieved by Jeroboam II. ! The 
enumeration of countries is evidently intended to lead up to 
Israel, and is arranged skilfully : the Israelite would listen with 
some inward satisfaction whilst his neighbours' faults, with the 



judgments that they would incur, were being pointed out; in the 
end, however, he is measured himself by exactly the same 
standard that is applied to others, and is threatened with retri- 
bution not less severe, 

II. C. 3-6. This part consists of three discourses, each 
introduced by the emphatic Hear ye this word (3* 4* 5*). 
Here the indictment and sentence of a'**'"' arc further justified 
and expanded. The. Israelites argued that the fact of Jehovah*s 
having chosen the nation was a guarantee of its safety. Amos 
replies : That is not the case ; you have mistaken the conditions 
of His choice : for that very reason He will visit your iniquities 
upon you (3^^-) Nor, he continues, does the prophet say this 
without a real power constraining him : for does any effect in 
nature take place without its due and adequate cause ? (v/-^). 
Call the heathen themselves to witness whether justice rules in 
[295] Samaria (v.*'). The toils will ere long have closed about 
the land (v.""'*). C. 4 begins by denouncing the thoughtless 
cruelty and frivolity of the women (v.^-*) : the prophet next asks 
the Israelites ironically whether their punctiliously performed 
ritual will save them (v.*^-) ; the fivefold warning has passed un- 
heeded (v.^") : prepare thyself, then, for judgment ! In c 5-6 
the grounds of the judgment are repeated with greater emphasis 
(^T. 10. uf. 5W1) . the infatuation of the people is exposed in 
desiring the " Day of Jehovah," as though that could be any- 
thing but an interposition in their favour (5*^^) ; a ritual un- 
accompanied by any sense of moral obligation is indignantly 
rejected (s*-^^'^*) ; the nature of the coming disaster b described 
more distinctly (exile, 5^ [RV. marg,'] ^ fii), and the enemy 
indicated, though not named (the Assyrians), which should 
" afflict " Israel over the entire limits of the territoiy which 
Jeroboam had not long since regained (6": see 2 Ki. 14*^), 

HI. C. 7-9, consisting of a series of visions, with an historical 
interlude (v***""), and an epilogue (9^*^*). The visions reinforce, 
under a simple but effective symbolism, the lesson of the pre- 
vious discourses: in the first two (7^**), the threatened judgment 
is interrupted at the prophet's intercession; the third, which 
spoke without any concealment or ambiguity, aroused the alarm 
and opposition of Amaziah, the priest of the golden calf at 
Beth el, and is the occasion of the historical notice, 7IO-1'. The 
fourth vision is the text of a fresh and more detailed denuncia- 



tion of judgment (c 8) : the fifth depicts the desolation falling 
upon the people as they are assembled for worship in their own 
temple, and emphasizes the hopelessness of every effort to escape 
(9^"*). The prophecy closes, 9^^*^*, with brighter anticipations 
for a more distant future. Israel, indeed, for its sins will be 
dealt with as any other nation (v.*^) : but only the sinners will 
perish utterly : a faithful remnant will escape (v.*-^^) ; the house 
of David will be restored to its former splendour and power,* 
and the blessings of imity and prosperity will be shared by the 
entire nation (v.*'*"). 

The unity of pUn governing the urongement of the book will be manifest : 
the main theme, gradually introduced in c l~2, is developed with increasing 
[296] distinctness in the chapter^ which follow, till it gives place to the 
uutlook upon a happier future at the close. The allusions of Amos to the 
social condition and religious life of the Northern kingdom do not present 
such a dark picture as that drawn by Hosea a few years later (c 4-14), 
during the anarchy and misrule which prevailed after the dynasty of Jehu had 
lulten : nevertheless the amendment, which was still viewed by him as a 
possibility (5"''}i never came ; and almost before a generation bad passed 
away, his forebodings of invasion, disaster, and exile (2**"" 3"'" 4" 5*' 
iiK. n 514 yi. 17 g«. ^i^j yfc^TC amply realized by Tiglath-Pilcser. Shalmanescr, 
and Sargon (2 Ki. 15* l?^}- Judah is alluded to by Amos only incidentally : 
2«- 3> (•' the mhoU family ") & 9". 

Amos is the earliest of the prophets whose writings are 
extant and of undisputed date; and hence, like those of his 
younger contemporary Hosea, his writings are of importance 
as witnessing to the religious beliefs current in the eighth 
century B.C, It is clear, for instance, that he recognised (a*) 
an authoritative Divine teaching or Tdrdh^ by whicli, however, 
like Hosea (4^ compared with 4^-; 8'" ", cf. 6*'), he appears to 
have understood primarily the moral precepts of Jehovah (comp. 
J21-W where he rebukes the people with neglecting the moral 
demands of God, and trusting to sacrifice to indemnify them). 
The broad moral standard by which he judges Israel is par- 
ticularly noticeable. It is not a standard peculiar to Israel, it is 
the common moral standard recognised as binding by it and by 
other nations alike. Jehovah is God of the whole earth, of 
other nations not less than of Israel (c i ; <f\ and will only be 
Israel's God in so far as the same morality is practised in its 

* V." alludes to the nations conquered h^ David, and so owned by 
Jehovah as His subjects (see p. 275, No. l6) : 2 Sa. 8>-", Ps. 18*, 



midst Jehovah had been pleased to enter into a special 
personal relation \v-ith Israel : this fact, to which the common 
people pointed as their security (5'^ ""^, in the eyes of Amos 
only aggravates their guilt (3*). Disregard of the moral law is 
the first charge which he brings against Israel itself (2^^) ; and 
his indignation against every form of moral wrong is vehemently 
caressed (comp. e^. the outburst against deceit in commercial 
dealings 8*-^ ; notice also the oath^ 8^ 4^ 6' : each time elicited 
by the same fault). The observances of religion are no substi- 
tute for honesty, and will not be accepted by Jehovah in lieu of 
righteousness of heart (S"^"^*). 

On Ihe " Day of Jehovah " (5**"*), and the manner in which Amos 
rcvexses the popular conception of it, see \V. R. Smiih, Proph. p. 131 f., 
who also (p. 120 GT.) draws out suggestively many other chaiactcristics of 
Amos' teaching. In noticing the fortunes and deserts of the nutions border- 
ing [397] on Palestine, Amos adopted a precedent which was followed afler- 
wards by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezeldel. Amos was a man naturally shrewd 
and observant : alike in his survey of foreign nations (comp. also 6' 8* 9^), 
and in his allusions to Israelitish life and manners, he reveals a width of 
knowledge and precision of detail which axe remaikable, 

Jerome (Pref. to Amos), speaking of Amos with reference to 
his style, describes him as " imperitus sermone, sed non scientia"; 
and, though the context suggests that he is merely arguing d 
priori from the prophet's antecedents, it has hence been some- 
limes the custom to attribute to his style a peculiar homeliness 
and "rusticity." But this judgment is not borne out by the 
facts. His language, with three or four insignificant exceptions, 
is pure, his style classical and refined. His literary power is 
shown in the regularity of structure, which often characterizes 
his periods, as i^-a" 4***^ (die fivefold refrain), and the visions 
(7I- ** T 8*) ; in the fine climax 3*^ ; in the balanced clauses, the 
well-chosen images, the effective conti-asts, in such passages as 
^15 ^J. si-M 511 gio g2-« . as well as in the ease with which he 
evidently writes, and the skill with which (as shown above) his 
theme is introduced and developed. Anything of the nature of 
roughness or rusticity is wholly absent from his writings. Hia 
regular^ flowing sentences form a remarkable contrast with the 
short, abrupt clauses which Hosea loves. It is true, in the 
command of grand and picturesque imagery he is not the equal 
of Isaiah; nevertheless his thought is often finely expressed 



;« 88 


nd if, as compared with other prophetSi 

images derived from rural life somewhat preponderate, they are 
always applied by him aptly {e.g. 3*- • 5** ^^- 1^* !• 9*), and never 
strike the reader as occurring too frequently, or as out of place. 

In Amos, u in Hosca, (p. 306 f.), there ure passages which have been 
supposed by recent critics, upon similar grounds, to be later additions to 
the original text of the prophecy, Duhm {ThtoL <kr Proph, 1875, p. 119) 
questioned ihus 2*-» 4" 5*-» 9*-* (so Stade, C L 571 «.) ; Wellh. (1892) 
rejects in addition I»-» 3**^ 5» 6* S*- •• "'" 9»*» ; Chcyne (in W. R South, 
Prppk."^ 1895, p. XV f.; on 5" 9»-", see also Expontor^ Jan. 1897, p. 43 ff.) 
reject! l« a*-» 4" 5*** 8""" 9*"*-**"; and G. A. Smitli {1896) at least 
suspccu !"■» (p. 129 £). 2*-" (p. 135 f.), 4" 5^' <t^ (p aoi ff.). 5»*-" 
(p. l68f.). 6' (p. 173, «, 2), 8" (p. i8s», and decidedly rejecU 9»*" (pp. 
190 fll, 308 f.). Of these passages, 2*-» 4" 5»-» 9*-» were defended by W. R, 
Smith hi 18S2 {PropK p. 398 f.), and by Kuenen in 1889 {Ondert, % 71. 6). 
In some cases, the grounds alleged are not devoid of force ; but, as before, in 
similar instances, there is the same doubt whether they can be deemed con* 
elusive. Space forbids any fuller diitcussion here ; and the writer must be 
content to refer to wliat he has said in Joei and Ames, p. I17 ff. (on 4" 5**' 
9*-*, abo, cL L. B. ?Maa,JB/j/, 1S94, p 848!). 

§4. Obadiah. 

The short prophecy of Obadiah is concerned almost entirely 
with Edom, V.^-* the prophet declares tlie ruin impending on 
Edora : her lofty rock-hewn dwellings will tliis time be penetrated 
by the invader; her allies will abandon her; the "wisdom" 
for which Edom was proverbial will fall her in the hour of her 
need- V.^°'^ states the ground of the preceding denunciation, 
viz. the violence and outrage of which Edom had been [298] 
guilty in the day of Jerusalem's calamity ; v.^^-^* he bids them 
emphatically desist from their inhuman delight ; v.'**" he returns 
to dwell upon the retribution which awaits them, A " Day of 
Jehovah " is near upon all nations ; the escaped of Judah, 
united (as it appears) with the restored " House of Joseph " 
(cf. Jer. 31**'*'^ &c.), and endued with irresistible might, will 
exterminate the " House of Esau " ; the territory of Judah will 
be enlarged on all sides, the inhabitants of the South possessing 
Edom, and Benjamin overflowing into Gilead ; "saviours" — 
such as the judges (Jud. 2" 3"- ") — will defend Zion against its 
foes, and Jehovah's kingdom will be established. 

For determining the date of Obadiah the two chief criteria 




axe (1) the expressions in v.*'-"; (3) the relation of Ob. to 
Jeremiah's prophecy on Edom, 49^"^. (i) In v,>*-** Ob. speaks 
of a day of "disaster," "calamity," and "distress" which has 
befallen Jerusalem, on which " foreigners " entered the city and 
" cast lots " upon it ; and when the Edomites not only exulted 
at the humiliation of the Jews, but actively assisted their foes, 
and sought to intercept and cut off the fugitives. These ex- 
pressions are most naturally referred to the destruction of Jeru- 
salem by the Chaldxans in 586, and to the hostile temper 
evinced then by the Edomites, which (see p. 226) was profoundly 
resented by the Jews.* (2) Jer. 4^"^'-^ and Ob. display such a 
large element common to both as to make it evident either that 
one borrowed from the other, or that both are dependent upon 
the same earlier original : comp. Ob.*"* ; v.*"* ; v.^ with Jer. 49"-"' ; 
y e-io» . V 7 (respectively). There are reasons for supposing the 
second of these alternatives to be the correct one. For, when 
the two texts axe compared carefully together, it appears that the 
prophecy, viewed as a whole, is in its more originai form in Ob,\ 
And yet, as the date of Jer. 4^^^- seems [299] fixed, not only by 
46*'* (b.c, 604), but by internal evidence as well, J to a period 
prior to the capture of Jerusalem by the Chalda;ans, the pro- 
phecy of Ob., if it alludes to the conduct of the Edomites afUr 
that event, cannot evidently have formed the model for Jer.; 
and the resemblances between the two prophecies can only be 
explained by the supposition that the common elements have 
been derived by both from a prophecy older than either, which 
Ob. has incorporated with least alteration, while Jer. has treated 
it with greater freedom. § This older prophecy will consist of 
Ob.**', which contains no allusion to the special circumstances of 

• So Ewald, Meyrick (in tlie Speakei^s Comm.), Kuenen, Farrar, &c 
tThe sequence in Ob. is better: thus ** We (I) have heard tidings frnm 
JdMvah " is in a more suitable place at the be^nning, as in Ob., than in tlie 
middle, as in Jer.; the language is terser and more forcible (Jer., in several 
instances, appears to txpand tlie text of Ob. by introducing words) ; and, in 
particular, the parts of Jer. which have no parallel in Ob. have affinities with 
Jer.'s own style, showing that Jer. look materials from an older prophecy, 
which he embedded in elements contributed by himself. (This is shown in 
detail by Caspori, pp. 7~I3, whose argument is generally admitted to b« 
coaclusive, a.g, by Graf,/rr, p, 559 ff.), 

X 49** RV. the punishment of Jerusalem is still /«/!««, 
I So EwaJd, Profhils, ii. 277 ff.j Graf {l.e.)\ Kuenen ; Briggs [Mat. 
^9pk, p. 315 t). Meyrick, p. 564, appears to have overlooked Jer. 49". 


ac. 586 : * in Jer. the order of these verses is dunged, and vJ 
(Edom's abandonment by its allies, — an allusion apparently to 
some circumstance of the time when the original prophecy was 
written), and v,*, are omitted. In favour of this supposition it is 
remarked, that though, on the whole, the prophecy is in its more 
original form in Ob., in particular instances more original 
elements seem to have been preser%'ed by Jer. (49'' "**• *** [inv^Bn], 
as compared with Ob.'* **'• • ["[nv^Bn omitted]). 

The date and occasion of the earlier prophecy must remain uncertam ; 
Ewald {Nist ill. 159 f.) conjectured that it may have been when Elath, the 
port on the Red Sea which had been occupied by the Jews under Uzziah 
(2 Ki. 14"), was restored by Rczin to the Edomi 
[dikS for c-utS, and D'onm for D'crt-on] : cf. a Ch. 28"). 

Other scholars (Delitxsch, Keil, von OrelH, Kirkpatrick) have sought to 
explain the relation of Jer. to Ob. more simply by referring the prophecy of 
Ob. to an earlier occasion altogether, riz. to the plundering incursion of 
"Philistines and Arabians," who apparently, according to 2 Ch. 2i'*', 
penetrated into Jerusalem in the reign of Jchoram (B.C. 851-844 [Kamp- 
bausen]), in which case, of course, Jer, would borrow from it directly. The 
expressions, however, which Oh. uses (notice esp. ** cast lots upon Jeru- 
■alem ") appear to be too strong to be referred with probability to this 
invasion, which, to judge from the silence of tlie Book of Kinga, was little 
more than a predatory incursion, from the effects of which Judoh speedily [300] 
recovered ; and at least r.*^^ seems to display the tone and thought of a much 
later age (the exile of the northern tribes is presupposed in v.*^. In the 
taunting speech of v.^ notice the peculiar (elegiac) rhythm (see below, under 
Lamentations), and compare Jer. 38-^: one of these passages must have 
KTved as the model for the other. 

Kuenen (§ 73. 3-4) and ComiU (£iW.* \ 30) both adopt the same view of 
Ob.*'* which is given in the text, and agree that v.'**" refers to the events 
of B.C. 586 ; but they argue that there is nothing in v.***" to imply that the 
dty is still waste and uninhabited, and conclude accordingly that the author 
who added v.'^'^, and so gave the prophecy its present form, wrote at some 
date after the return— probably in the Sth cent. B.C. A further clue to the 
date has been sought in the name Sfphdred (" Sepharad " is the pauaal form) 
in v.*». This, Cheyne {FoumUn of O.T. Crtf. 311 f.) and Sayce {Afonu. 
rrtintSy pp. 482-4S4] agree, must be tlie (^parda or 'Saparda of tlie inscriptions, 
in Bitliynia or GalatJa (Sayce, /.a), a region not owned by the Assyrians or 
Babylonians, but first held by Cyrus, and organized by Darius H}*staspis into 
a satrapy (cf. Schrader, /CAT** ad ioc.). This fact points to "a com- 
paratively late date " (Sayce) for the prophecy : Cheyne would assign it 

• And from which the sequel differs a'*'» tn representation ; in v.^'* Edom 
is destroyed by the nations (v,*) and its treacherous allies; in v.^*** it £iills 
with utlier nations in the day of universal retribution (cf. Is. 34** *) before the 
victorious Israelite. 



definitely to Oie occasion (r. B.C. 350) when Artaxerxes Ochas transportet! 
many Jews into Hyrconia and Babylonia [above, p» 222). Wellh. (p. 204 f.) 
agrees thai v. ^*'" looks back upon the events of B.C. 586 ; but he thinks that 
the whole of v.^"'* is post-cxilic, the occasion of the prophecy being the 
expulsion of the Edumites from their ancient home eaily in the 5th cent. B.C 
(cf. Mai. !*"•) by the Nabotsan Arabs (in whose possession their country 
appears, in B.C. 312 : Schiircr, G^sek. dcsJUd, Volkes, i. 612 [App. ii.]) ; v.^" 
he regards as an appendix, added afterwards, in which the fate of Edom ii 
iqpcewnted u an epuiode in Jehovah's judgment on the hcaLhen genendly* 

§ 5. Jonah. 

Jonah, the son of Amittai, as we learn from 9 KL 14**, was 
a native of Gath-hepher, in the tribe of Zeb»lun (Josh, 19"), 
who lived in the reign of Jeroboam IT., and predicted to that 
king the successful issue of his struggle with the Syrians, which 
ended with his restoration of the territory of Israel to its ancient 
limits. These prophecies must have been delivered in the early 
part of Jeroboam II. *s long reign; it would have been interest- 
ing, had they been preserved, to compare them with the pro- 
phecies of Amos, uttered towards the dose of the same reign, 
which announced how Jeroboam's successes would ere long be 
fatally undone (see Am. 6^*). The Book of Jonah, however 
(unlike the books of all the other prophets), consists almost 
entirely of narrative, being devoted to the description of a par- 
ticular incident in the prophet's life. The story is too well 
known to need repetition in detail. Jonah, commissioned to 
preach at Nineveh Jehovah's judgment against the great city, 
seeks to avoid the necessity of obeying the command, fearing 
(as appears from 4') that Jehovah might in the end be moved to 
have mercy upon the Ninevites, so that his predictions of judg- 
ment would be frustrated. Accordingly, he takes ship at Joppa, 
with the view of escaping to Tarshish (Tartessus in Spain). A 
violent storm overtakes the ship : the sailors, deeming that one 
of those on board is the cause of it, cast lots to discover who it 
is: the lot fails upon Jonah, who consents to be cast into the 
sea. Thereupon the sea becomes calm. Jonah is swallowed by 
a great fish, which, after three days, casts him forth, uninjured, 
upon the land. Again the prophet receives the commission to 
preach at Nineveh. This time he proceeds thither : but at his 
preaching the Ninevites repent, and Jehovah rescinds the decree 

which He had passed against them. Displeased at the Kerning 



failure of his mi.ssion, [301] Jonah sits down outside the city, 
and asks to be allowed to die ; but a gourd quickly springing 
up and sheltering him from the sun, and as quickly dying and 
leaving him exposed to its rays, by exciting his sympathy, is made 
the means of justifying in his eyes Jehovah's merciful change of 
purpose with respect to Nineveh. 

Both in form and contents tlie Book of Jonali resembles the 
biographical narratives of Elijah and Elisha (i Ki. 17-19, 2 Ki. 
4-6, &a), though it is pervaded by a more distinctly didactic 
aim. It cannot, however, have been written until long after the 
lifetime of Jonah himself. 

This appears (l) from the style, which has several Aramalsms, or other 
marks of a later age : as 1* nrsD ; i* nrvnn to think ( = Hcb. arn Ps. 40") j 
cf, mnry Ps. 146*; and in Aram,, Dan. 6* and the Targums ; l'* " 4" 
rfor Tpn — csp. \n the compound form in which it occurs in i'"; i* the 
title "God of heaven," as in Neh. i* and other post-exilic writings (see 
below, under Ezra and NeliemiahJ ; i" pn» ; a* 4*'T* np as Dan. i*** " 
I Ch. 9", and in Aram.; aytJ 3' as in Aram., Ew. 6** 7" ; Soy ito labour 4" 
(in ordinar)' Hebrew yr) : also l" 'D^ "UPica (cf. p. 475, w.), if the clause 
"for whose cause this evil is upon us" be genuine; but, it is omitted in 
Codd. B H of LXX. and is regarded by some modern scholars as a gloss 
explanatory of *DSr3 in v.'^. The diction is, however, purer generally than 
that of Esther or the Chronicles. (2) From the Psalm in c 3, which consists 
largely of reminiscences of other Psalms (in the manner of Ps. 142, 143, 
144****), many of them not of early origin (comp. v.* Ps. iS*- ■ 120* ; v.* 
Ps. 18*42'; T.^Ps. 3i» Lam. 3«; v> Ps. 18* Ii6» 69*; v.» Ps. 30*; v.» 
Ps. 142' i8* ; T." Ps. 3i«; v,» Ps. 50" Ii6'"' 3*) : a Psalm of Jonah's owa 
age would certainly have been more original, as it would also have shown a 
floore antique colouring. (3) From the general thought and tenor of the 
book, which presupposes the teaching of the great prophets (cump. esp. 3** 
with Jer. 18"). (4) The non-mention of the name of the Assyrian king, who 
plays such a prominent port in c 3, may be taken as an indication that it was 
not known to the author of the book. The title " king of Nineveh " (3*) is 
one, remarks Sayce {M&numents^ p. 487}, which could never have been 
applied to him while the Assyrian empire was still in existence. 

Some of the linguistic features might (possibly) be compatible 
with a pre-exilic origin m northern Israel (though they are more 
pronounced than those referred to, p. i88«.): but, taken as a 
whole, they can only be consistently explained by the supposition 
that the book is a work of the post-exilic period, to which the 
other considerations adduced point with some cogency. A date 
in the 5th cent. b,c will probably not be far wide of the truth.* 
* like utbcr late writings, the narrative itself is also dependent in partt 



[302] T7ie aim 0/ the book. Although it is apparent that the 
book is written with a didactic purpose, opinions have differed 
as 10 what this purpose precisely was. According to Ewald, its 
main purpose is to show that only true fear and repentance can 
bring salvation from Jehovah, — a truth which is exemplified, first 
in the case of the foreign sailors (1^*), then in that of Jonah him- 
self (c 2), and lastly in that of the Ninevites (3^^), and which, in 
the last resort, rests upon the Divine love (3*° 4^^). According 
to Riehm, its aim is partly to teach that it is wrong in a prophet, 
as it is also useless, to attempt to evade a duty once imposed 
upon him by God, partly to develop and emphasize the teaching 
of Jcr. xV^'i that prophecy viz, is conditional \ and to show that 
even when a Divinely-inspired judgment has been uttered by a 
prophet, it may yet be possible by repentance to avert its fulfil- 
ment ; and, if this be done, objection must not be taken that 
God's worcj is made of none effect. But though these, and other 
lessons, are, no doubt, included in the book, the climax in a 4 
is an indication that the thought which is most prominent in the 
author's mind is a different one. The real design of the narrative 
is to teach, in opposition to the narrow, exclusive view, which 
was too apt to be popular with the Jews, that God's purposes of 
grace are not limited to Israel alone, but that they are open to 
the heathen as well, if only they abandon their sinful courses, 
and turn to Him in irue penitence. It is true, the great prophets 
had often taught the future reception of the heathen into the 
kingdom of God : but their predominant theme had been the 
denunciation of judgment ; and the Israelites themselves had 
suffered so much at the hands of foreign oppressors that they 
came to look upon the heathen as their natural foes, and were 
impatient when they saw the judgments uttered against them 
unfulfilled Jonah appears as the representative of the popular 
Israelitish creed. He resists at the outset the commission to 
preach to Nineveh at all : and when his preaching there has 
been successful in a manner which he did not anticipate, he 
murmurs because the sentence which he had been commanded 
to pronounce is revoked. That repentance might avert punish- 
ment had often been taught with reference to [303] Israel ; and 

upon models : comp. 
Ex. 3a"*; 3>», Ex. 
njna ^y orw) ; 4*** *, 

1^ J«. 26"; 3». Jer. i8>» 26*; 3^ Joel 2"; f\ 
3a"; 4*, Joel a"*, Ex. 34"* (but ID Ex, witiiout 
I Ki. 19* 



Jeremiah lays down the same truth with reference to the nations 
generally in i8^'*. The aim of the book is thus to supply a 
a practical Uhistration ofjtremiah's teaching : and in the rebuke 
with which the book closes, the exclusive spint of the author's 
own contemporaries stands condemned. " In no book of the 
OT.," remarks Bleek, " is the all-embracing fatherly love of God, 
which has no respect for person or nation, but is moved to 
mercy on all who turn to Him, exhibited with equal impres- 
siveness, or in a manner so nearly approaching the spirit ot 

On the historical character of the narrative ofnmons have differed widely. 
Quite irxespectivcly of the miraculous features in the narmtive, it must be 
admitted that there are indications that it is not strictly historical. The 
sudden conversion, on such a large scale as (without pressing single expres- 
sions) is evidently implied, of a great heathen population, is contrary to 
analogy ; nor is it ea^y to imagine a moiurch of the type depicted la the 
Assyrian inscriptions behaving as tlie king of Nineveh is represented as 
acting in presence of the Hebrew prophet. It is renm.rkab1e also that the 
conversion of Nineveh, if it took place upon the scale described, should have 
produced so little permanent effect ; for the Assyrians are uniformly repre- 
sented in the OT. as idolaters. But, in fact, tlie structure of tlie narrative 
shows that the didactU purpose of the book is the author's chief aim. He 
introduces just those details that have a bearing upon Itiis, while omitting 
others which, })ad his interest been in the history as such, might naturally 
have been mentioned ; c.^. details as to the spot at which Jonah was cast on 
to (he land, and particulars as to the spedal sins of which the Ninevites were 

No doubt the materials of the narrative were supplied by 
tradition ; and these the author cast into a literary form in such 
a manner as to set forcibly before his readers the truths which 
he desired them to take to heart. The details are artistically 
arranged. The scene is laid far off, in the chief city of the great 
empire which had for long been Israel's formidable oppressor. 
Jonah, commissioned to proceed thither, seeks, with dramatic 
propriety, to escape to the furthest parts known to the Hebrews 
in the opposite direction. The ready homage done by the 
heathen sailors to the prophet's (lod is a significant omen of 
what is to follow. Jonah is represented (like those less spiritual 
of his [304] fellow-countrymen of whom he is the type) as 
wayward, unspiritually-minded, deficient in insight ; he does at 
last what he is commanded to do, but he does it with so little 
perception of a prophet's mission that he is disappointed with % 



lesatt at which he ought dearly to have rejoiced : he has Elijah's 
despondency (i Ki. 19*), without Elijah's excuse. It is in con- 
sistency with the prophet's character that in c. 4 he is led 
indirectly to make the confession from which the main lesson 
of the book is immediately deduced, by his love of self being 
painfully touched ; for liis compassion upon the gourd is elicited 
only by the scorching effect of the sun's rays upon his own 
person- We learn nothing respecting the after-history either of 
Nineveh or of the prophet : the author, having pointed the moral 
of his story, has no occasion to pursue the narrative further. 

The Psalm 3^** is not strictly appropriate to Jonah*s ntuation at the time ; 
for it is not a petition for deliverance to come, but a thanksgiving for deliver- 
ance already accomplished (like Ps. 30, for instance). Hence, no doubt, tlie 
Book of Jonah was not its original place ; but it was taken by the author from 
some prior source.* The expressions in t> •■ ■ &c may have been intended 
originally in a 5gurative sense (as in the Psalms cited above, from wliich they 
are mostly borrowed], but they may also have been meant literally (see v.**^ ^, 
which are not among the phrases borrowed), and have formed part of a Psalm 
composed originally as a thank^ving for deliverance from shipwreck, and 
placed by the author in Jonah's mouth on account of the apparent suitability 
of some of the expressions to his situation. 

The allegorical view of the book is supported by KJeinert (in Lange'i 
Bibelwrk), and in this country by Professor Chcyne and C- H. H, Wright 
[above, p. 299]. According to this view, Jonah does not merely represent 
the unspirituol Israelites, he symbolizes Israel as a nation, and the narrative 
is an allegory of tsraePs history. Israel, as a nation, was entrusted with a 
prophetical commission to be a witness and upholder of Divine truth ; but 
Israel shrank from executing this commission, and often apostutized : it was 
in consequence '* svrollowed up" by the world-power Babylon (see esp. Jer. 
5l**)» as Jonah was swallowed by the fish; in exile, however, like Jonah 
(c a), it sought its Lord, and thus was afterwards disgorged uninjured (cf. ib. 
v.^) ; afker the return from exile, there were many who were disappointed 
that the jtidgments uttered by the prophets did not at once take efiect, and 
that the cities of the nations slill stood secure, just as Jonah was disappointed 
that the judgment pronounced agninst Nineveh had been averted. Comp. 
f , W. Farrar, 7*f Bi^U, its Mtamng and Supremacy (1897), p. 333 ff. 

[305] §6. MiCAH, 

Micah was a younger contemporary of Isaiah's. This appears 
partly from I^ which was evidently uttered prior to the fall of 

• Cheyne (Origin of iht Psalter, p. 106 C) and Budde {'lATW, 189a, 
p, 42) suppose that the Psalm was introduced, not by the author of the Book, 
but by a later hand. 



Samaria in 732, partly from the interesting notice in Jer. 36^^. 
from which we learn that 3^* was spoken during the reign o( 
Hezekiah. While Isaiah's home, however, was the capital, 
Micah was a native of a small town in the maritime plain, 
Moresheth, a dependency of Gath (i^- "). As has been observed, 
the difference of position and surroundings is marked in the 
writings of the two prophets. Isaiah writes as one acquainted 
with the society and manners of the capital ; Micah speaks as a 

("man of the people," who sympathized with the peasantry in 
their sufferings, and he attacks, not indeed with greater boldness 
than Isaiah, but with greater directness and in more scathing 
terms (see especially S""*), the wrongs to which they were 
exposed at the hands of the nobles and rich proprietors of 
Judah. Further, while Isaiah evinces a keen interest in the 
political movements of the time, Micah appears almost exclusively 
as an ethical and religious teacl^er : he mentions, indeed, the 
Assyrians, but as a mere foe, not as a power which might tempt 
his countrymen to embark upon a perilous political enterprise, 
and he raises no warning voice against the danger to Judah of 
Egyptian influence. 

The Book of Micah falls naturally into two parts, c x-5 and 
c 6-7. 

I. In this part there is again a division at the end of c. 3 : 
ID c. 1-3 the predominant tone is one of reproof and denuncia- 
tion ; in c 4-5 it is one of promise. The prophet begins (i^**) by 
describing, in impressive imagery, the approaching manifestation 
of Jehovah for judgment, on account (v.^) of the transgression of 
the two kingdoms, which is centred in their respective capitals, 
Samaria and Jerusalem. In the first instance, v.*^^, Micah de- 
clares the impending ruin of Samaria : the evil does not, how- 
ever, rest there ; he sees it (v.**) advancing upon Jemsalem as 
well, and utters his wail of lament as the vision of disaster meets 
his eye. His sympathy is in particular attracted by the district 
in which his own home lay; and he describes, in a series of 
characteristic paronomasiae, the fate of [306] different places 
situated in it, v>". 2^-^^ the nature of the people's sin, and its 
punishment, arc both more distinctly indicated. The people's 
tin is the high-handed conduct of its great men, who eject their 
poorer neighbours from lands and homes, in order that their 
own possessions may become the larger. The punishment is 



in correspondence with the sin: ere long the nation will see 
heathen conquerors dividing amongst themselves the inheritance 
of Jehovah, 2^**. The people attempt to stop the prophet's 
unwelcome harangue. He replies, It is not impatience on 
Jehovah's part that prompts Him thus to threaten ; neither is 
punishment His chosen work : as long as His people " walk 
uprightly," He responds to them with friendly words and acts, 
V.*'''; the cause of His present unwonted attitude lies in you, 
who plunder mercilessly the unsuspicious and the unprotected : 
as a just retribution for the expulsion of others, you, the ag- 
gressors, shall be expelled yourselves, v.*****. V." Micah returns 
to the thought of v." : the only prophets to whom the people will 
listen are those who hold out alluring, but deceitful, promises of 
material enjoyment and prosperity (cf. Isa, 30^°). 

At this point there is an abrupt transition, and y.^^- consists 
of a prophecy of the nstorafion of Israel. Assembled as a 
thronging multitude at one centre, as sheep in a fold, the 
Israelites prepare to re-enter their ancient home. The "breaker 
up"* advances before them, forcing the gates of the prison in 
which they are confined ; the people follow, marching forth 
triumphantly through the open way : their king, with Jehovah at 
his side (Ps. no*), heads the victorious procession (Ex. 13**; 
Isa. 53"). The scene in these two verses is finely conceived 
and the past tenses represent it forcibly and vividly. 

C. 3 is parallel in thought to 2*"^' ; but the offences of the 
.great men axe depicted in more glaring colours ; and the punish- 
inent is announced with greater distinctness and finality. Judges, 
priests, and prophets are alike actuated by a spirit of heartless 
avarice and cupidity; and yet (v.^>**) they rely upon Jehovah to 
defend them against calamity (cf. Jer. 7*). And the prophet 
closes with the startling announcement that on their account, on 
[307] account, viz., of the misconduct of its great men, the capital 
itself would be completely ruined (3'^). 

In c 1-3 the promise of resfaration, 2^-, interrupts the connexion, and 
occasions difficulty. Such promises occur, no doubt, in the prophets after an 
mnnounoement oi disaster {e^. Hos. l^'-2' ; Isa. 4"^} ; but here the promise is 

* I.e. either a leader, or a detachment of men, whose duty it was to break 
up obstacles opposing the progress of an army. See more fully the Expoiitor^ 
Apr. 1887, p. 266 ff., where it is shown that the statement of Bp. FcArson and 
othen, that the Jews understood this term of the Messiah, is an crro^ 



associated closely with a de»unaaii(m of sin, so that between v," and t,** 
there is no point of cormexioa whatever. Ewald felt the difficulty of 2"** so 
itTongly that (like Ibn Ezra before him) he supposed the verses placed in the 
mouth of the false prophets, as an illustration of their deceptive promise* of 
security (to be construed tlien with v." : '* he shall even be a proprfiet of this 
people (saying), I will surely asseoiblc/' &c. ; comp. Isa. 5**, Jer. 23"). The 
contents of the two verses arc, however, too characteristic, and the thouEht is 
too elaborately drawn out, for this view to be probable ; moreover, as Caspari 
(p. 123) observes, they ^«xk/^m disaster, if not exile, which itself would not 
be granted by the false prophets {see 3*'). The ordinary interpretation must 
thus be acquiesced in ; though it must be granted that the verses stand in no 
logical connexion with 2*'". But their contents afford no sufficient ground 
for attributing them to an exilic (Stade, Kuen. ) or (Wellh.) post-exilic hand. 
The idea of a scattering or exile is implied in i** 2** • 3" ; the idea of the 
preservation of a "remnant" had been promulgated more than a generation 
before by Auios (g'"'; comp. also Hos. i'**- " ii"-"); and the general 
thought of the passage is similar to that of 4"'. The verses can scarcely, 
however, be in their original context : cither they belong to another place in 
the existing Book of Micah (Steiner would place them after 4*), or — which 
may be a preferable alternative — the existing Book of Micah consists only of 
a collection of tjucrpts^ in some cases fragmentary excerpts, from the entire 
■cries of the pruphet's discourses, and the. context in which 2^^ ori^nally 
stood has not been preserved to us. 

The picture of disaster and ruin with which c. 1-3 closes, is 
followed (in the manner of the other prophets, especially Isaiah) 
by a vision of restoration. Zion, no longer ruined and deserted, 
is pictured by the prophet as invested with e\en greater glory 
than before ; it has become the spiritual metropolis of the entire 
earth; pilgrims flock to it from all quarters; a "federation of 
the world" has been established under the suzerainty of the God 
of Israel, 4^A In that day the banished and suffering Israelites 
will be restored ; and Jehovah will reign over them in Zion for 
ever, v.*'*, V.* the propliet proceeds to contemplate the ultimate 
revival of the kingdom of David ; but v.^* he returns to the 
present (or immediate future), and dwells on the period of distress 
which must be passed through before that renval can be consum- 
mated " Now^ why dost thou cry out aloud ? " he exclaims ; 
for he hears in imagination the wail of despair and [308] pain 
rising fi-om the capital at the approach of the foe (the Assyrian), 
V.' ; he takes up, v.", the figure used at the end of v.^ : the 
painful process must continue till the new birth has been 
achieved ; the nation must leave the city, dwell in the field, and 
journey even to Babylon ; there will it be delivered and rescued 



from its foes. But now — i.e, as v.*, in the present (or immediale 
future)— many nations are assembled against Zion, eager to see 
her prostrate in the dust ; they know not, however, Jehovah's 
purpose ; He has assembled them only that they may be 
gathered themselves *' as the sheaves into the floor," and there 
"threshed" by the triumphant daughter of Zion herself, v.'**'^ 
And yet, noWy there is a siege imminent ; and humiliation awaits 
the chief magistrate of Israel (the king) : the ruler who is to be 
his people's deliverer will arise from another quarter, from the 
insignificant town of Bethlehem; and Israel will be "given up" 
— j>. abandoned to its foes — until he appears and reunites the 
scattered nation, 5^"* (Heb. "^'^-s^). Then will Israel dwell 
securely : when danger threatens, capable men will be at hand, in 
more than sufficient numbers ("seven . . . eight") to ward it off; 
when the Assyrian essays to invade the territory of Judah, under 
the leadership of its ideal king he will be triumphantly repelled, 
r.*^. Upon those of the nations who are disposed to welcome 
it, the " remnant of Jacob " will exert an influence like that of 
the softly- falling, beneficent dew ; towards those who resist it, it 
will be as a fierce, destructive lion, vJ''. Finally, Micah points 
to the inward notes of the nation's changed state, destruction 
of warlike implements, which will be no longer needed, and of 
idolatry, in which it will no longer find its delight, v.*****. 

In c. 4-5 the connexion of thought is 50 incomplete that again the ques* 
tion arises whether the text is in its original integrity. The two chief suurces 
of difficulty are tlie clause in 4"*, A ttd shall come even to Ba&yhti, and 4"'''. 
In the abstract, to be sure, the mention of Babylon would not be inexplic- 
able: as Mic. (S^'t cf. I*) views the Assyrians as the power which the lews 
have to dread, Babylon would be named by him, not as the place to which, 
ionic 120 years afterwards, Judah was actually exiled, but as a principal 
city of the Ass>Tian empire, with which recently, it is probable, Judah had 
had dealings (Isa. 39), and to which, in accordance with the Assyrian custom 
(3 Ki. 15*), Micah pictured the people as exiled by them (cf. also Isa- 
3(/'). But the clause does not harmonise with the context in whicli it 
actually stands : exile to Babylon is inconsistent with the victory promised to 
Ihcm in 4""^ (if these verses be Micah's) as well as with Uie general tenor of 
S*"*; redemption in Babylon [v." '* there") is not less inconsistent witli 
the context, t>csides being a singular and improbable idea in itself. But 
with this clause omitted, v.'" yields at once a clear and consistent sense : it 
then describes how the inhabitants, having been compelled to surrender their 
capital to the foe, encamp in Uie Bclds on the road for exile, when Jehovah 
interposes suddenly on their behalf, and there delivers them). No doubt, tha 
clause in question is a gloss, written originally on the margin with the view 



of tmiking the prophecy more definite, and introduced aAer wards by error Into 
the text. V."'", if Micah's, must depict the manner in which the deliver- 
ance pfomi5ed in v." is effected, viz. by the nation being supernatunlly 
strengthened in order to vanquish its foes (so Kuenen, in his defence of the 
integrity of Jficah 4-5 — except the Babylon-clause in 4" — in the TAT, 1S72, 
p. 299f.]> It must, however, be admitted that there arc parts in the two 
pictures which it is very difficult to reconcile. "According to v." Zion shall 
be captured by the enemy, and this agiees with 3". But in the following 
verses the besieging hosts of many nations are broken beneath the walls of 
Jerusalem'' (W. R. Smith, />»/*.> p. 428). Accordingly, W. R. Smith 
rejects 4"'" as a later irisertion in llie text of Micah, as does also Nowack, 
ZA7^1V. 18S4, p. 2S5 f. The reasons for this conclusion are forcible: but it 
ought at tlie same time to be remembered that the prophets, in their im- 
aginative jMcturcs of the future, are no( always perftctly consistent (contrast, 
t.g, Isa. 3"*- with Isa. 2^*), and that 4"'" may not have been uttered at 
the same time as 4''''* (and still less at the same time as 3**), and may con- 
sequently reflect a new phase in Micah's conception of liis nation's future.* 

Recent critics have, however, as in the cose of Hosea and Amos, and 
upon similar grounds, gone considerably lurther in the rejection of parts, or 
even of the whole, of Micah 4-5. Thus Stade [ZATIV. 1881, p. i65ff.; cf. 
1883, p. I ff.. 18S4, p, 291 ff.) treats 4^-* (both here and in Isa. a'-*: above, 
p. 230) ** "'** 5*"*' ^''* as a post-exilic addition, designed to supplement tha 
dark picture of 3*' with an outlook of hope, in which, upon the assumption 
that it was really Micah's work, were inserted at a yet later dale 4*'*' i*"! 
Kuenen ($ 74. 4-9) criticizes this view, admitting that the historical back- 
ground is not the same throughout the two chapters, but contending that 
parts still presuppose the existence of the monarchy : accordingly, he assigni 
to an exilic or post-exilic hand only 4*'' (as presupposing the Babylonian 
exile), " (the Babylon-clause), "" (which he now owns "has the ^Vssyrian 
period far behind it," and recalls the defeat of ideal foes in Ez. 38-39, Zech. 
12, 14), and perhaps the allusion to "pillars" and "Ash^rahs" in S**- '* (so 
Wildeboer, § 10, p. 181). Wellh. (in his Minor Prophets) regards c 4-5 as 
an appendix attadied to 3" by a later hand, including, however, in 5^*"", and 
possibly also in 4^*° (except the Babylon-clause) 5\ words of Micah. Cbcjroe 
(W, R. Smith, Propk.^ p. xxiii) appears to agree with Wellh. 

[310] IT. C. 6-7. (i.) 6*-7''. Here the standpoint changes. 
It is no longer the leaders only, as in c. 1-3, whose misconduct 
the prophet denounces, the people as a whole are addressed, 
and the entire nation is represented as corrupt, not "a good 

• Caspori (p. 190), Keil, and Kirkpalrick (pp. 316, 329) escape the con- 
tradiction between 4"'^' and 4"* by taking nnyi, 4^*, in the sense of And then, 
{i.€. after the deliverance of 4^^ when the nations who presume to assail 
Israel will be triumphantly dispersed). But according to usage .tntrt would 
denote only either the jtrtstnty ur the immediate future, as contrasted with 
the more distant future indicated at the end of ▼.'*, 



man" can be found in it (7''*). The prophecy is conceived 
dramatically, and may be headed (comp. Ewald) Jehovah and 
Israel in controversy : Jehovah, represented by the prophet, 
is plaintiff; Israel is defendant V.^'* is the exordium: v.^-* 
Jehovah states His case : what has He done to merit Israel's 
ingratitude and neglect? V.***'. TIu people^ admitting its sin, 
inquires how its God can be propitiated? will thousands of 
sacrifices, will even a man's first-bom son, be sufficient to satisfy 
His demands? V.". The prophet gives the answer: Jehovah 
demands not material offerings, but justice, mercy, humility. 
V.''"*^ Jehovah speaks, addressing primarily the capital, denounc- 
ing with indignation the injustice, oppression, and violence 
rampant in it, and threatening condign punishment, in the shape 
of invasion, desolation, and disgrace, y'*^. The prophet is the 
speaker: he describes— with a passing glance at the day of 
retribution, v.*^^the desperate condition of the nation, — anarchy 
persecution, universal corruption of justice, the lies of society 
dissolved, even friendship and wedded love no longer to be 
trusted — *'a man's enemies are the men of his own house." 

The sod&l condition thus depicted is darker than that which is cither 
described or implied in any other part of the book. In their connexion 
with c 6, the verses ?*"* niay be taken as exhibiting anew the necessity of 
the judgment held out in 6^''*' against a people which will listen neither 
to the admonition of 6*, nor to the denunciation of 6**". 

(a.) 7^"^. Here, though the literary form is still that of a 
dramatic dialogue, both the subject and the point of view are 
different. VJ'^' may be headed Israel and tlie prophet-. vJ'*^ 
The prophet and his God. V.''-^" the community speaks, — not, 
however, the corrupt community of the present, as described in 
V.'-*, but the penitent community of the future : the day of 
distress, v.***, is supposed to have arrived : the suffering and 
humiliation (here described as "darkness") involved in [311] 
it have brought the nation to a sense of its guilt ; hence it is 
able to assert its confidence in the approach of a brighter future, 
and to triumph over its adversary's fall. V.i**i3. The prophet 
supposes himself to reply : he ren^choes the nation's hopes : the 
ruined fence of the vineyard (Isa. s^*"^ will be rebuilt, and the 
banished Israelites will return, though, he adds, before this 
promise can be realised, judgment must take its course, and 
" the land " become desolate (cf. 6^*^). 



v.". The prophet^ turning now to Jehovah, supplicates, tn 
the name of the penitent people, for the fulfilment of the promise 
of V."''. V.i*, Jehovah gives His reply, short but pregnant; 
at the restoration, the wonders of the Exodus will be re-enacted. 
V,i*-i7 the words glide insensibly into those of the prophet; the 
effects of the spectacle upon the nations of the world, their terror 
and prostration, are powerfully depicted. The prophecy closes 
with a lyric passage, v.^"**^, celebrating the Divine attributes of 
mercy, compassion, and faithfulness, as manifested in the deliver- 
ance promised in the preceding verses. 

C. 6-7 were assigned by Ewald to an anonymous prophet 
writing in the reign of Manasseh. The hope and buoyancy 
which Isaiah kindled, and which left its impress upon the pages 
of Micah, c x-5, have given way, he remarks, in c 6-7 to 
despondency and sadness : Micah declaims against the leaders 
of the nation only, in c. 6-7 (as was already observed above) 
the corruption has extended to the entire people; and 6" ("the 
statutes of Omri, and all the works of the house of Ahab") 
points directly to the age of Manasseh as that in which the pro- 
phecy was written. It is true there is no chronological difficulty 
in supposing that Micah himself may have survived at least the 
commencement of the heathen reaction which marked the reign 
of Manasseh : but the difference in form and style between 
c. 6-7 and c. 1-5 is such, Ewald urges, as to be scarcely com- 
patible with the opinion that both are by the same author. C. 
6-7 is dramatic in structure ; the prophecy is distributed between 
different interlocutors in a manner which is far from common in 
the prophets, and is altogether alien from c. 1-5 : the " echoes of 
Isaiah's lofty eloquence " are here no longer audible ; the elegiac 
tone of c 6-7 already approaches closely to that of Jeremiah : 
the linguistic features which mark c 1-5 are also absent 

Wellhausen (in Bleek's EinL, ed. 4, 1878, p. 425 f.) advanced 
a step [312] beyond Ewald, accepting Ewald's judgment so far 
as related to 6^-7*, but calling attention to the sharp contrast 
subsisting between 6^-7* and 7"-^ — 

" 7'"* consists of r bitter lAmcntadon uttered by Zion over the corruption 
of her children ; and the day of retribution, though ready, is yet future, t,*. 
But with v.* the thread of the thought is broken, and the contents of v.''" 
ftre of a wholly difTereut character. Zion, indeed, is still the speaker ; but 
here she has already been overpowered by her foe, the heathen world, which 

is pecsoaded th^t by iu victory ovec Imcl it has at the same time nnqaisbed 
Jehovah, ▼.••. The city has dUen, its walls are destroyed, its inhabitinls 
[nne away in daxkoess, i.t, in the darkness cl captivity^ v.** u. Neveztheless, 
Zkm is ttiU confident, and though she may hare to wait loog. she does not 
question her final triomph over the foe, tJ- •■ i^ u. She endures futicntly 
the punishment merited by her past sins, assured that when she has atoned 
for them. God will take up her cause, and lead her to victory, v.*. Then 
the leaf turns: Zion rules over the heathen, and these humbly profit her 
their homage at Jerusalem.* Thus the silaation in 7^'* is quite different 
from that in 7'**. \Muit mms/reserU there, viz. moral disorder and confusion 
in the existing Jewish state, is here pas/ ; what is there /u/urt, vIl. the 
retribution of v.**, lias here come to pass, and has been continuing for Bome 
time, %'hat in ?.*"• was still unthought of, rit the consolation of the people, 
tempted in their trouble to mistnist Jehovah, is in v.''* the main theme. 
Between v.* and r.^ there yawns a century. On the other haodj there pre* 
vails a remarkable similarity between 7^~* and Isa. 40-66.'' 

Accordingly Wellhausen's conclusion is that 7^'* was added 
to 6^7* by a prophet writing during the Babylonian captivity t 
(or, as he prefers to suppose now, after the return).} 

Ewald's t/a/e for 6^7* is exceedingly probable; though we 
cannot affirm with equal confidence that Miaih is not the author. 
With such a small basis as c. 1-5 to argue from, we are hardly 
entitled to pronounce the dramatic form of 6*"^ inconsistent 
with Micah's authorship. At the same time, there is a difTerencc 
of tone and manner in 6'-7*, as compared with c 1-5, which, 
so fax as it goes, tell against, rather than in favour of, identity 
of author : instead of Micah's sharp and forceful sentences, we 
have here a strain of reproachful tenderness and regret (see esp. 
5s. 6 7^); and, as Kuenen remarks (§74. 11), the prophecy does 
not, as would be natural if the author were the [313] same, 
carry on, or develop, lines of thought contained in c. 1-5. The 
point is one on which it is not possible to pronounce confidently ; 
but internal evidence, it must be owned, tends to support Ewald'a 

As regards 7'-^ Wellh.*s characterisation of the passage, and 
exposition of the argument, are both eminently just The 

• WcUh. here interprets v." (with Kcil and others) of the heathen hasten- 
ing to join themselves to I&iael (as Isa. 45" &c. }, not of the scattered Israelites 
returning (though in his Afirwr Prophtti he adopts the latter explanation). 
And in v." he takes pwn, also as Keil, of the earth. The view adopted in 
the text (p. 331) is that of Caspari, Hitzig, and Ewald. 

t So also Stade ; Kuenen (j 74. 14). 

% So Giesebrecht, B€itras»{\^\ p. 316 f. ; ComilL 



question remains whether the inferences which he deduces from 
them follow. 

It is true that a centuiy or more elapsed in fact between the period alluded 
to in v/ and the period supposed to have commenced in v.': but we can 
hardly measure the prophet's repreMnlations by the actual history ; to him, 
as to other prophets, future events may have seemed nearer than they were 
shown by the result to be : both Isaiah and Micah, for example, pictured the 
Messianic age as immediately succeeding (he downfall of the Assyrian. The 
prof^et who is here speaking may similarly have pictured calamity working 
its penitential eHect upon the natiun much sooner than the course of history 
actually broi^ht about The contradiction with 7*** is really confioed to 
v.^": the transition must be admitted to be abrupt ; but these veracs may 
fairly be regarded as an ideal confession placed in the mouth of the people, 
whilst lying under tlie judgment which the prophet imagines (implicitly) to 
have passed over it : comp. Jer. 3*"*'*, the confes&ion suppo&ed to be spoken 
by the penitent nation in response to the prophet's imitation, v.**, V."'- 
may be treated as consolations spoken from the prophet's standpoint, after 
the manner of Zcph. 3***-. As r^ards the resemblances with Isa. 40-66, it 
is true again that the thought is often similar ; * but there are no unambiguous 
references to the Babylonian exile, such as are frequent both in Isa. 40-66 
ind in other prophecies belonging to the same period. Thus Jer. 50** is 
remarkably parallel with v.'*; but it is preceded (v.^"-) by the express 
mention btitti of Babylon and of its king, Nebuchadnezzar, unlike anything 
to be found in Mic. 7**"*, where, indeed, even the word return does not 
occiir.t It is not clear, therefore, that the expressions here, which seem to 
imply ttiat a state of exile is in itie prophet's mind (as v.*^ *' a day to build up 
thy fences")^ arc more than parts of the imaginative picture drawn by him of 
the calamity which he sees to be impending. Comp. Zeph« S^*". 

Elhorsi (al>ove, p. 300) defends Micah's authorship of the entire book 
(except 4''-S^ 5"), escaping the difficulties which it presents in parts by an 
ingenious but complicated tlieory tliat tlie original order of the prophecies 
had been disarranged by a series of careless copyists 

[314] S 7. Nahum, 

The theme of the prophecy of Nahum is the fall of Nineveh. 
In a noble exordium, i^ Nahum depicts the appearance of 
Jehovah in judgment, and its effects upon the physical universe ; 
then, after briefly commemorating, v.''^, His faithfulness towards 

• Comp. 7»- •* Isa. 42" ea^^— 7»» 42*** » 64» — ?»» 49»- « 5I» — 7" 58'» 
Ac— 7" 43"- 49''-— 7" 63^"" 64* 65'- " IJer- S^"]-— 7" 4»" 43^*" 48*^— j'*" 

,« 7i»-a» 


t The mention of Assyria in Mic. 7" rather than Babylon, and the name 
Matar for Egypt (only besides in fsaiak, 19* 37* [ = 2 Ki. 19"]), do not 
£ivour the exilic (or post-eailic) date of i*'^. 



those who arc His true servants, he proceeds to describe the flail 
and irretrievable destruction destined to overtake the Assyrian 
capital, v.*"^^, and the exultation which the news of the oppres- 
sor's fall will produce in Judah, v.'***-^",* In c a he depicts in 
forcible and vivid language the assault upon Nineveh, the 
entrance effected by her foes, the scene of carnage and tumuli 
in the streets, the flight of her inhabitants, the treasures plundered 
by the captors, the city which hitherto had been the home of 
brave intrepid warriors (" the den of hons," v."-") deserted and 
silent In c 3 the theme of c 2 is further developed and con- 
firmed The cruelty, the avarice (v.'), the crafty and insidious 
policy (v.*) of the Assyrians, directed only to secure their own 
aggrandisement, is the cause of Nineveh's ruin : and again 
Nahum sees in imagination the chariots and horsemen of the 
victor forcing a path through the streets, and spreading carnage 
as they go (v,''*'). For Jehovah is against Nineveh (v.^'-), 
and in the day of her desolation none will be there to comfort 
her (v,^ : as little will she be able to avert bv doom as was 
No-amon (Thebes, in Upper Egj'pt), in spite of the waters that 
encircled her, and the countless hosts of her defenders (v,**"). 
Nineveh's fortresses will give way : her men will be as women : 
in vain will she prepare herself to endure a siege : the vast 
muhitude of her inhabitants will vanish as locusts : amid the 
rejoicings of all who have suffered at her hands the proud empire 
of Nineveh will pass for ever away. 

Respecting the person of Nahum nothing is known beyond the statement 
of the title that he was an Elkoshite, A place bearing the nnme q^ Alkush^ 
containing a gniTc which is shown as that of Nahum, exists at the present 
day in the neighbourhood of Mosul (the ancient Nineveh) ; but the tradition 
connecting this locality with the prophet cannot be traced back beyond the 
16th cent Far mure ancient and credible is tlie tradition recorded by 
Jerome in his comaieiitary on Nahum, tlial the prophet was the native of a 
[315] village in Galilee, which iu Jerome's time bore the name of Elktsu If 
Nahum were of GaliUean origin, certain slight peculiarities of his dictioD 
might be explained as provincialisms. 

As regards the dale of Nahum's prophecy, the terminus a quo 
is the capture of Thebes in Egypt (alluded to in s*-'") by 
Asshurbanipal, shortly after 664 ; f the terminus ad quem^ the 

• Y s-ifc i5 addressed to the people or city of Nineveh, v.****- ** to Judab 
or Jerusalem, v." to Nineveh again, and v." (expressly) to Judoh. 
t See Schnder, KA T.* p. 450 1 



destruction of Nineveh by the " Ummanmanda " (at the invita- 
tion of the Babylonians) * in 607. Within these limits it is 
difficult to fix the date more precisely. On the one hand, the 
freshness of the allusion to the fate of Thebes, and the vigour 
of style (which resembles that of Isaiah rather tlian Zephaniah's 
or Jeremiah's), may suggest that it belongs to the earlier years of 
this period ; on the other hand, as the fall of Nineveh