An introduction to the Old Testament

'^1

PRINCETON, N. J.

^r.

Shelf

Division jOiZ:^\\ I

Section ,W^A,
Number (. ]B3 |

U.'

■M^

,l1

^^u

THE

THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR.

Edited by ttie

REV. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.,

Editor of the "Expositor."

DR. CHARLES H. H. WRIGHT'S
INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.

NEW YORK:

THOMAS WHITTAKER,

2 AND 3, BIBLE HOUSE.

AH

INTRODUCTION TO THE
OLD TESTAMENT.

BY TH5^EV.

CHARLES H. H. WRIGHT, D.D., Ph.D.,

BAMPTON LECTURER (1878) IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,

DONNELLAN LECTURER (l88o-8l) UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN,

EXAMINER IN HEBREW AND NEW TESTAMENT GREEK IN THE

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.

- o V] e. o ' . ec M Cc^i-ov'-

SECOND EDITION— REVISED.

NEW YORK:

THOMAS WHITTAKER,

2 AND 3, BIBLE HOUSE.

PREFACE.

nn HE manual of Introduction to the Old Testa-
-*- ment now presented to the English student
endeavours to give the ascertained results of modern
criticism, as far as is possible within very confined
limits. The lists of works, EngUsh and foreign,
appended under each heading, point out the sources
where fuller information can be obtained, and may,
perhaps, stir up some to take a deeper interest in
Biblical studies.

Those lists do not pretend to be exhaustive.
Among the books of special importance to the Biblical
student is the Bihliotheca Rahhinica of Dr. August
Wiinsche, being a German translation of the entire
Midrash Rabhah, etc., with notes, which has opened
up that rich treasury of myth, legend, and parable to
a wider circle of readers. Those ancient Midrashim,
notwithstanding many short-comings and mistakes,
afford much information to the student of the Old
Testament.

The Bihliotheca Rahhinica has been published in
parts from 1880-1885, and contains the Midi^ash on
Genesis (pp. 558), on Exodus (pp. 408), Leviticus

vi PREFACE.

(pp. 298), Numbers (pp. 676), Deuteronomy (pp. 184),
besides the Megilloth, Esther (pp. 102), Ruth (pp.
98), Lamentations (pp. 176), Koheleth (pp. 165),
Song of Songs (pp. 208), the Pesikta of Kab Kahana
(pp. 300), and the Midrash on Proverbs (pp. 76).
These numbers include the Notes, but not the Intro-
ductions. The extent and importance of the work is
thus apparent.

In England besides the Si^eaker's Commentary and
the Pulpit Commentary, much new work has been
done. The Bishop of Gloucester's Old Testament
Commentary for English Readers, 5 vols., royal 8vo,
especially on the Prophets, is worthy of the attention
of scholars, though not referred to in our pages.
Bishop Wordsworth's Holy Bible with Notes and
Introductions will often repay a reference. Dr. Joseph
Parker's People^ s Bible — vols, i.-xiii. already published,
including Genesis to Proverbs (Hodder & Stoughton)
— is not critical, though often highly suggestive.
Nisbet's series of Men of the Bible has been occa-
sionally referred to, and might have been referred
to throughout. The Religious Tract Society's
scholarly series of By-paths of Bible Knoivledge has
brought recondite information to almost every door.
The Records of the Past, or the English translations
of the Assyrian and Egyptian monuments, edited
by S. Birch, LL.D., vols, i.-xii., ought to be more
known ; and the new series, edited by Professor
Sayce, of which four volumes have already appeared,

PREFACE. vii

promises still better thlDgs. The Porta Linguarum
Orientalium, edited by J. H. Petermann and H. L.
Strack, deserves more attention than might appear
from the casual references made to it in these pages.
It embraces two volumes of Assyrian grammar and
chrestomathy by Friedr. Delitzsch, 1889, and an
Ethiopic grammar and chrestomathy by Pratorius.
Gustav Dalman is writing in the same series a
grammar, with chrestomathy, of the Palestinian
Talmud. The publications of the Palestine Ex-
ploration Fund are in many ways valuable, as well
as the works of the German Society estabhshed for
the same purpose. Especially useful is Names and
Places in the Old Testament and Apocrypha, 1887,
issued by the Palestine Exploration Fund. Schiirer's
massive Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter
Jesu Ghristi, 2nd ed., 1886, 1889, 1890, cannot be
dispensed with. T. and T. Clark have begun the
publication of an English translation. Nor must
Hatch's Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889, be forgotten.

The problems connected with the Holy Scriptures
of the Old Testament are numerous and intricate.
Although so much has been effected in modern times,
the field of research cannot yet be considered
exhausted. Discoveries in the departments of
Assyriology and Egyptology have done miich to
elucidate the meaning v^f many passages of Holy
Writ, but they have sometimes brought to light
new difficulties. Those discoveries are even now

y

^iii PREFACE.

only in their infancy, and much has yet to be
accomplished by the aid of the spade and pickaxe
in Palestine and Egj^t, and elsewhere, ere we can
regard many Old Testament questions as finally
settled.

In every field of scientific investigation hypotheses
have been found necessary in order to group together
known facts, and to lead onward to new discoveries.
Theories which have proved ultimately to be erroneous
have yet frequently been productive of great results.
The earnest seeker after truth in the department of
Biblical research ought, therefore, to be tolerant of
speculations, even when opposed to his holiest
sentiments and convictions. Ko theory of modern
days has created more repugnance among orthodox
expositors than the Graf-Wellhausen theory of the
composition of the Pentateuch. And yet it is well
to observe that even the strongest defenders of that
theory, while insisting on the very late compilation of
the Pentateuch, maiutain that the substance of many
of its narratives and laws was in existence at a far
earlier date. The theory does not necessarily make
the Pentateuch a mere fabrication of desi<mingj
priests, as is sometimes affirmed. In setting forth
the consequences of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis,
this ought to be borne in mind.

The Old Testament Scriptm^es ha^e, alas ! been
treated by many critics with an irreverence which
cannot be too strongly condemned. On the other

PREFACE. ix

hand, it must not be forgotten that opinions branded
as iiTeverent and dangerous in one age, have some-
times been unanimously accepted in another. The
dangers predicted by timid theologians have often
proved to be uni^eal. Instances of this fact will
be found mentioned in the following pages. When,
however, we consider the reverence due to the
Scriptm^es as the channel of Divine revelation, one
cannot wonder at such fears. The antagonists of
" faith " have often exultingly cried, like tha
children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem
(Ps. cxxxvii. 7), "Rase it, rase it, even to the
foundation thereof." But the shout has not been
one of victory, like that of the children of Israel
before the walls of Jericho. The Bible still firmly
holds its place as " the Book of Books " even at the
close of the nineteenth century. New generations of
sceptics continue, no doubt, to predict the coming
" eclipse of faith," but are destined to prove in
due time "false prophets," like those before them.

A recent author has shown that the introduction
of law into the phenomena of the spiritual world is
free from many of the dangers which seemed likely
to beset such an attempt. The assertion of modern
criticism is that the phenomena which characterise
the literatui-es of other nations are to be found in the
Old Testament books. But even should the assertion
prove true, the fact (when rightly understood) wall
not lessen the reverence for the Sacred Scriptures.

X PREFACE,

Those writings are in many aspects wholly unique.
They have, however, a human side as well as a
Divine. The Divine and the human element meet
together in the written Word, as well as in "the
Word made flesh."

The Synagogue and the Church have rightly main-
tained that the Old Testament Scriptures are the
work of Divinely-inspired men. There are certain
landmarks which no flood of advancing criticism will
ever sweep away: —

" The floods have lifted up, Jehovah 1
The floods have lifted up their voice j
The floods lift up their waves.
Above the voices of many waters,
The mighty breakers of the sea,
Jehovah on high is mighty.
Thy testimonies are very sure :
Holiness becometh Thine house,
Jehovah ! for evermore." — Ps. xciii. 3-5.

The conclusion of the author of the Ejiistle to the
Hebrews remains as true as ever : " God, having of
old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets
by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at
the end of these days spoken unto us in His Son."

In issuing a new book on the Old Testament, I
am painfully reminded of the loss of some friends
who assisted me by their kindly aid and counsel in
former works. Professor Franz Delitzsch's death, on
March 3rd, 1890, put an end to a warm fi-iend-
ehip of over twenty-five years, and has left a blank

PEE FACE. xi

which will long be felt in the ranks of Old Testament
expositors. His profound scholarship and earnest
piety need no more than a passing reference. The
death, May 22nd, 1889, of Dr. William Wright,
Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge,
who was universally acknowledged as in the foremost
rank of Semitic scholars, has closed an unbroken
friendship of considerably more than thirty years,
which began when I was his pupil in Trinity College,
Dublin. The loss of two such eminent scholars will
long be regretted. The Lectures on the Comparative
Grammar of the Semitic Languages of Professor
WilUam Wright, just published under the able
editorship of Professor W. Pobertson Smith, his
successor in the Cambridge chair, are a contribution
of great importance to the Biblical student.

I was not aware until after this manual had been
sent to press that the Kev. S. R. Driver, D.D., Canon
of Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Hebrew
at Oxford, had undertaken a work of the same
chai acter, though considerably more extensive in its
aims. Professor Driver's work is in the press, and
will be published in the early part of next year.
The same able Hebraist is taking part in a new
Hebrew-English Lexicon, based on the latest editions
of Gesenius by MUhlau and Volck. The plan of the
work is due to two eminent American scholars.
Professors Dr. C. A. Briggs, and Dr. Brown of the
Union Theological Seminary, New York, the latter

xii PREFACE.

being chief editor. The work is now in the press, and
when pubhshed will supply a desideratum long needed
by English students of Hebrew.

In conclusion, I must acknowledge my obligations
to the Hev. T. K. Abbott, B.D., F.T.C.D., Librarian
and Professor of Hebrew in the University of Dublin;
and to Mr. Spurrell, M. A., my co-Examiner in Hebrew
and New Testament Greek in the University of
London, who have most kindly assisted me both in
the reading of the proof sheets of this Httle work,
and by suggestions which have been duly embodied
in its pages.

33, Mespil Eoad, Dublin,
Nucemher 5th, 1890.

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.

A SECOND edition having been called for within five
months, the work has been carefully revised, and
improvements suggested by well-known scholars intro-
duced throughout. More could not at present be
attempted. Special attention, however, is directed
to the Appendix, which supplements and explains
several points noticed in the book.

Dublin, June Qth, 1891.

CONTENTS.

PART L

CHAP. PAGE

I. Historical Sketch of Inteoductions to

THE Old Testament 1

II. The Printed Hebrew Editions op the Old

Testament 10

III. The State of the Hebrew Text, and the

Hebrew MSS 14

IV. History of the Hebrew Punctuation,

Hebrew Grammars, Lexicons, etc. . . 23

V. The Jewish Massorah 31

VI. The Targums, Aramaic Texts, Grammars, etc. 40
VII. The Syriac Versions of the Old Testament,

Syriac Texts, Grammars, etc. ... 49

VIII. The Greek Versions ...... 53

IX. The Ancient Latin Versions .... 64

PART XL THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
THE PENTATEUCH :—
X. The Pentateuch in General ....
XI. Sketch op the History of Pentateuch

Criticism

The Literature of that Subject .
Literature on the Pentateuch
XII. The Several Books of the Pentateuch :
§ 1. Genesis

Literature
§ 2. Exodus

Literature
§ 3. Leviticus .

Literature

70

85
101
102

105
107
109
110
111
112

CONTENTS.

The Sevekal Books op the Pentateuch— <
t'tnued.

CHAP.

§ 4. Numbers

LiTERATUEE

§ 5. Deuteronomy

Literature

PAGE
112

114
114
116

XIII.

§1.

§2.
§3.
§4.
§5.

§6.
§7.

The Historical Books :—

The Book op Joshua 118

Literature 120

Samaritan Chronicle 121

The Book of Judges 122

Literature 125

The Book of Ruth 126

Literature 126

The Books of Samuel 127

Literature 129

The Books of the Kings 130

Literature 132

The Books op the Chronicles . . . 132

Literature 136

The Books op Ezra and Nehemiah . .137

Literature 139

The Book op Esther 140

Omission of the Name op God in the

Book 141

Apocryphal Additions 144

Literature ...;... 146

XIV, The Poetical Books :—
§ 1. The Book of Job

Subject op Book .

Critical Questions

Literature
§ 2. The Book of Psalms .

Name and Division

Number op Psalms

Superscriptions and Authorship

Literature . . . .

147

149
160
151
162
163
156
157
158

CONTENTS.

The Poetical Books — continued.

CHAP. fAGE

§ 3. The Book of Peoverbs :—

Name and Contents . . , . .160
authoeship 162

LiTERATUEE 163

§ 4. The Book of Koheleth or Ecclesiastes :—

Name, Authorship, and Contents . . 164
Literature 167

§ 5. The Song op Songs :—

Authorship and Contents . . . .168
Literature 171

XV. The Prophets : —

§ 1. On the Peophets in General : —

Literature . 173

A. The Four Greater Prophets.

§ 2. The Book op Isaiah :—

Contents and Authorship .

First Portion ....

Second Portion

Literature ....
§ 3. The Book op Jeremiah

Contents and Authorship .

Literature ....
§ 4. The Book of Lamentations

Literature ....
§ 5. The Book of Ezekiel

Contents and Authorship .

Peculiarities op the Book.

Literature ....
§ 6. The Book of Daniel :—

History and Legends of Daniel

Contents of the Book .

Keferences to the Book .

Apocryphal Additions .

Literature ....
XYI. B. The Twelve Minor Prophet
Literature

175
175

178
180
182
183
185
186
187
187
188
189
191

191
192
194
197
197

199

Kvi CONTENTS.

a. The Nine Pre-exilian.

CHAP PAGM

§ 1. HOSEA 200

Contents and Date 201

LiTERATUEE 202

§ 2. The Book of Joel 202

Contents and Style 203

Liteeature 204

§ 3. The Book op Amos : —

Contents 205

Literature 205

§ 4. The Book of Obadiah :—

Name and Contents 206

Literature 207

§ 5. The Book of Jonah 207

History or Allegory . . , . . 208

Literature . 212

§ 6 . The Book of Micah :—

Contents and Authorship .... 213

Literature 215

§ 7. The Book of Nahum 215

Literature 216

§ 8. The Book of Habakkuk 216

Literature 217

§ 9. The Book of Zephaniah 218

Literature 219

h. The Three Post-exHian.

§ 10. The Book of Haggat ..... 219

Literature 220

§ 11. The Book of Zechariah :—

The First Part ...... 221

The Second Part 222

Literature 224

§ 12. The Book of Malachi . - . . . 225

Literature ...,.,. 226

Appendix = , . . 227

PAET I.

CHAPTER I.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF INTBOBUCTIONS.

1. " y NTRODUCTIONS " to the Old and New

J- Testament Scriptures are of comparatively
recent growth. The monk Adrian wrote in the
fifth century an ctcraywy^ et? ra.^ ^eux? ypacf>d<;, but
it contained little of what would now be compre-
hended under the title. See Ad. Merx, Uine
Rede vom Auslegen ins hesondere des A. T., 1879.
The Instituta regularia divince legis, by Junilius
(died 552), quaestor of the Holy Palace in Constanti-
nople, contains in its first part a general introduction
to the Holy Scriptures. The work of Cassiodorius,
senator, De institutione divinarum litteraru7n, written
shortly after, contains much which would even now
be comprehended under the name of an " Intro-
duction." "Introductions" were, however, almost
unknown in the Middle Ages.

2. The Reformation of the sixteenth century gave
an impetus to Biblical studies of all kinds. The
scholars of that period in general discussed questions
connected with the Bible in the light of the con-

1

2 HISTORICAL SKETCH

troversy then raging as to the authority of Holy
Sorij)ture and that of the Church, a,nd the non-
canonicity of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Tes-
tament.

The theologians of the sixteenth century derived
their knowledge of Hebrew and Old Testament
literature mainly from Jewish sources. Elias Levita,
the greatest Jewish scholar of the age (born 1474,
died 1549), was the main link by which the Christian
scnolars of that age were connected with the Jews
of tLe preceding ages. J. Keuchlin (born 1454, and
died 1521), the first Hebrew grammarian among the
Christians, whose Rudimenta appeared in 1506, was
much influenced by Levita's writings, though he does
not seem to have adopted Levita's pecuhar views.
From Reuchlin and Sebastian Miinster (born 1489,
<Ued 1552), the latter a good Hebraist and editor of
Levita's works, Luther and the other scholars of that
age derived their acquaintance with Hebrew. Not-
withstanding the sobriety of the views expressed by
Luther, and even by Calvin, who both admitted the
modern origin of the vowel-points in Hebrew — although
this fact has been often strangely denied — the scholars
of the E-eformation, pressed by the difficulties urged
by their Koman Catholic antagonists, and mth the
object in view of affirming the certainty of the Holy
Scriptures, were led to give credence to the state-
ments of modern Jewish, scholars as to the correctness
of the Massoretic text on the one hand, and the an-
tiquity of the Hebrew system of vocalization on the
other.

3. The opinions expressed by Le\dta in opposition

OF INTRODUCTIONS. 3

to the generally believed view of the antiquity of
the Hebrew punctuation (see chap, iv.) attracted at
first little attention, especially as they were considered
to have been fully met and answered by the elder
Buxtorf in his Tiberias, 1620, best edit. 1665. The
publication of the Arcanum punctationis revelatum
(first published 1624, by Erpenius, without the name
of the author), opened a new era. The work, which
was a crushing reply to Buxtorf, the Coryph?eus of
Hebrew scholarship, was soon acknowledged to have
been written by Lud. Cappellus, professor ia Saumur
in France (born 1586, died 1658). Cappellus main-
tained that the Hebrew vowel points and accents were
utterly unknown to the Biblical writers themselves,
and were introduced centuries after the Christian era.
The views of Cappellus were condemned by the
greatest Hebrew scholars of his day. The younger
Buxtorf wrote an able defence of his father's views,
Tractatus de j^unct. voc. et accent, in lihh. V. T. Heh.
origine, 1648. The Buxtorf s, both father and son,
and for a long time the great majority of the ablest
Hebraists, upheld the antiquity of the vowel points.
The controversy has, however, long since been decided
in the opposite direction. Cappellus wrote in 1648-9
a Vindicice of his early work, but the book was not
published till 1689, long" after the author's death.
His views deeply influenced the learned Joh. Morinus,
who renounced Protestantism and became a Father
of the Oratory in Paris, whose Discourses on the
Sam. Pent, were published in Paris in 1631, and his
Prolegomena in an edition of the LXX. in folio, 1628.
Only Liber i. of Morinus' Exercit. bihlicarum, de Ilel.

4 HISTORICAL SKETCH

Grcccique text, sinceritate lihri duo appeared in 1633,
during his lifetime. He died in 1659, and his work
was published in folio in 1669. Morinus' work was
in many ways important, although in the interest
of his Church he maintained the superiority of the
texts of the LXX., Vulgate, and Samaritan, to
that of the Hebrew, and maintained that God would
have the Hebrew Scriptures written without points,
in order that men might learn to submit to the
judgment of the Church, instead of following their
own piivate judgment !

4. B. Spinoza (1632-1677) was a decided Pantheist,
and believed the Scriptures to contain no Divine
revelation. The miracles of the Bible according to
him were purely legendary, and he maintained that
everything supernatural must be rejected as untrue.
But notwithstanding such errors, Spinoza as a Biblical
critic anticipated in many points the conclusions which
have been slowly reached by modern criticism.

5. Richard Simon (born 1638, a Father of the
Oratory in Paris, died 1712), published in 1678 his
Histoire Critique du Vieux Test. The book was
condemned and confiscated, but produced a lasting
impression. It was a work of learning and research,
and its conclusions, though then generally regarded
with horror, would be now on many points con-
sidered conservative. According to Simon, the Pen-
tateuch in its present shape is not the work of
Moses. His theory, as summarised by Strack, is
as follows : In all Eastern states there have been
official historiographers, and a similar class existed
among the Hebrews since the days of Moses. In

OF INTRODUCTIONS. 5

the case of the Hebrews their historiographers were,
however, inspired prophets. These recorded not only
what was of importance in their own day, but altered,
abridged, and enlarged the works of their predeces-
sors. All such writings were collected by Ezra and
his successors ; and from the material so brought
together, the books of the Old Testament were ar-
ranged in the form in which they are now extant.

6. The following works are of special importance : — J. H.
Hottinger, Thesaurus Philologicus sen clavis Scripturce, 1649.
2nd edit., enlarged, 1659, and after the death of the author,
1696. -Bishop Brian Walton (died 1661), Prolegomena affixed
to the London Polyglott, 1657 [see chap, ii.], issued separately
by Heidegger, 1673, and by J. A. Dathe in 1777 ; also by
Francis Wrangham, 2 vols., 8vo, Cantab. 1828. J. G. Carpzov,
Introductio ad lihros canon. Bibl. Veteris Test, omnes^ etc.
3rd edit. 1741, and 4th, 1756-7, and his Critica Sacra Vet.
Test, 2nd edit. 1748. J. Chr. Wolf, Blhliotheca Hehrcea. The
Old Testament is treated in tom. ii. (1721) and iv. (1733).

Among the special Introductions of the eighteenth century
the following must be noted :"J. G. Eichhorn, Elnleitung in
das A. T. 1780-83. 4th edit, five vols., 1823-24, comprising
3,199 pp. Eichhorn w^as a valuable and voluminous writer.
"J. D. Michaelis, Einleitung in die gottliclien Scliriften des
alt. Bundes, 1787. The first volume only appeared, and was
directed against Eichhorn. Georg Lorenz Bauer published in
1794 his JEntwurf einer Binleitwig in die Schriften des alt.
Test. The 3rd edition of this work appeared under a slightly
altered title in 1806. Entwurf einer liist.-lirit. Einleitung^
etc. Bauer in the main adopts the opinions of Eichhorn.

The present century is peculiarly rich in Introductions.
DeiWette in 1817 published his Lehrh. der hist.-hrit. Einl. in
die canon, u. aijocr. Bilclier des A. T. The 7th edition of
this work appeared in 1852, The 8th edition, edited by
Eb. Schrader in 1869, is an Introduction based on De Wette,

6 HISTORICAL SKETCH

rather than an edition of De Wette. It is, however, in many
respects a valuaole work.

Almost simultaneously with the work of De Wette, though
differing from it in method and spirit, Kev. Thomas Hartwell
Home published in 1818 his Introduction to the critical stvdy
and linowledge of the Holy ScrijJtures. The work was at
first comprised in three volumes, but was afterwards increased
to five thick volumes (the second volume being divided into
two). The 10th edition appeared in 1856, the second volume,
on The Text of the Old Testament, having been edited by Dr.
isamuel Davidson. The opinions therein expressed by Davidson
gave considerable umbrage in England, though in most points
they would now be considered conservative. Another edition
of vol. ii. was issued in 1860, edited by Rev. J. Ayre, which
harmonised more with the other portions of that work.

In 1836 and 1837 an important work appeared on the orthodox
side by H. A. G. Havernick, already distinguished by an able
commentary on the Book of Daniel, namely, Handh. der histor.-
hrit. Einleitnng ins A. T. The 1st vol. appeared in two parts,
the first comprehending the general introduction consisting of
316 pp., the second part on the Pentateuch, of 644 pp. The
latter portion has been translated into English, and published
by T. and T. Clark under the title : Hist.- Critical Intro-
duction to the Pent., 1850. The 2nd vol. was likewise divided
into two, the first portion on the Historical books (365 pp.),
appeared in 1839, followed in 1844 by that on the Prophetical
books, the 3rd vol. on the Poetical books was published
after the death of the author (which occurred in 1845), in
1849 (comprising 519 pp.), worked up and edited by C. F. Keil.
The 2nd edition edited by Keil did not, however, extend
beyond the 1st vol., which was edited in two parts in 1854
and 1856, that editor meanwhile having written a work of his
own traversing the same ground.

Heinrich Ewald appeared on the scene in 1843. Ewald
published no formal Introduction to the Old Testament, but
his Biblical works are so numerous as to cover the whole of
the ground which would naturally be embraced in such a
work. His commentary on special books will be alluded to

OF INTRODUCTIONS. 7

elsewhere. His Gcsoh. des Volkes Israel, iu three volumes,
1843-1852, must here be noted, the 3rd edition of which
issued in 1864:-68, comprises seven thick volumes. This work
has been translated into English by J. Esthn Carpenter, and
published by Longmans and Co. in eight large volumes at various
dates from 3rd edit., 1883. Dean Stanley's History of the Jewish
Chureli, the 6th edition of which work appeared in three
volumes in 1875, is in the main founded on the History of
Ewald, whose opinions on many points are reproduced and
set forth in a more vivid and popular st^le. Ewald's work
on Die Alterthumer des VolUes Israel, 1866, ought here to be
mentioned, and his Jahrhiicher der hihl. Wisscnsohaft in
twelve parts, published between 1848 and 1865.

C. F. Keil in 1853 published his Lehrhuch der liist.-
krit. Einl. in die hamnisch. Sehrift. des A. T. In the 2nd
edition the Apocryphal books were added. The 3rd edition
(776 pp.) appeared in 1873. This work, like all Keil's com-
mentaries, is written from a decidedly orthodox standpoint.
J. J. Stahelin's Eiuleitnng in die liaii. Buclier, published in
1862, is smaller, but important.

In England, Dr. S. Davidson, whose edition of Home,
vol. ii., has been alluded to above, published his own
Introduction to the Old Testament, Critical, Historical and
Theological, in three vols., in 1862. The work contains much
valuable matter, but exhibits signs of haste, is written fi'om a
much more "advanced" standpoint than its author assumed
in 1860. It is unfortunately permeated by a bitterness of
spirit, perhaps natural under the circumstances. No work
of equal importance has as yet appeared in England on the
orthodox side. An earlier work of the same author on Biblical
Criticism issued in 1854, is still of importance for the English
student, and treats of many subjects which would naturally
find a place in a formal Introduction. Dr. Davidson published
in 1855 another important work, The Hebrew Text of the Old
Testament Revised. His work on The Canon of the Bible, its
formation, history, and fluctuations, 3rd edition, 1880, is a
reprint of his article in 9th edit, of the Encyclnjjaulia
Britannica with additions.

8 HISTORICAL SKETCH

Friedr. Bleek's Elnleitung in das A. T., published in 1860,
a year after the death of its author, has had considerable
influence. The 3rd edition, edited by Ad. Kamphausen in
1870, is specially useful for students. The 4th edition was
partly re-written by J. Wellhausen (1878), i.e. on Judges,
Samuel, Kings, etc. The 5th edit. (1886) is mainly a reprint
of Bleek's own work. Both these editions contain a long
and Important section on the Text of the Old Test, by
Wellhausen.

In this department it is convenient here to mention Theodor
Noldeke's works, his Alt.-test. Literatur in einer Reihe von
Avfsdtzen dargestellt, 1868, and his UntersucJmngenzur Kritili
des A. T., 1869. Ab. Geiger, Urschrift u. JJeljersetzungen
der Bihel, 1857 ; Fiirst, Gesch. des hihl. Lit. in 2 vols., 1867,
1870, as well as his work on Der Kanon des A. T., nach den
Ueherlicferiingen in Talmud u. Midrasch, 1868, are important
for students, as are W. Piobertson Smith's works : Tlie Old
Testament in the Jewish Chicrch, 1881, and The Prophets of
Israel and their Place in History, 1882, however much one
may differ from the views therein propounded.

Ed. Eeuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften A. T., was
published in 1881. A new and enlarged edition (780 pp.)
has appeared this year, 1890. Vatke's Hist.-Krit. Einleitung
was published in 1886, edited by Dr. Preiss long after the
death of its author, the literature brought down to the present
time. A. Kuenen published at Ley den his Hist.-Tivit. Onder-
zoeTi in 1868-65, of the first part of which, a Germ, trans.,
has appeared, ed. by Th. Weber, 1885-1890, as well as a French
trans. An English trans., of Part, i., by P. H. Wicksteed, Hist.'
Grit. Hist, of Origin and Comp. of the Hexateuch, has been
published by Macmillan, 1886.

H. L. Strack's short but important Einleitung appeared
in Zockler's Handhtich der theol. Wissenschafteji, Band i., in
1885, 3rd ed. 1888 ; it can be had separately. To these may
be added a small but well executed work by Frants Buhl,
Professor in Copenhagen, now in Leipzig, Den gammel testa'
vientUge Skriftoverlevering : i. Kanons historic ; ii. Tekstens
hist, Copenhagen, 1885. A. Brandt has also published a

OF INTRODUCTIONS. 9

Bearbeitung of E. Riehm's Einleitung in d. A. T., Band i.,
Die Tliora unci die vordcren Projpheten, 1889.

The Biblical dictionaries must not be lost sight of. Among
the German are to be noted among the earlier, Winer's Blbl.
Realworterlucli, 2 vols, 1847, 1848 ; the very convenient
Handworterhuch der hibl. AlterUims, edited by Riehm in
2 vols., 1884, and others, especially Herzog-Plitt, Encyclo^cedie
fiir 2Ji'ot. Tlieol. u. Eirche ; Hamburger, Beal-Encyclop(sdie
fiir Bihel u. Talmud, 1870, 1883, and Supplement-band, 1886.

Among the English, besides the Encyclojycedia Britannica,
which especially in its later editions contains many articles
of value to the Biblical student, are to be mentioned, Kitto,
Biblical Literature, 1845 ; 3rd edit, by W. L. Alexander,
1862-70. Smith's BiUe Dictionary, 3 vols, 1861, 1863.

Several important works in this department have also been
produced by Roman Catholic scholars on the Continent, such
as J. Jahn's (died 1816) Einleitung in die gottl. Bilclier des
A. Bundes, 1st edition, 1793 ; 2nd edition, largely increased,
in two thick volumes (570 and 1042 pp.), in 1802-3. J. G.
Herbst (died 1836), Hist.-krit. Einl. in die heil. Schriften
des A. T., ed. by Welte, 1840-1844. J. M. A. Scholz (died
1852), Einleitung in die heilig. Schr. des A. T., 1844-1848,
left unfinished. D. Haneberg, Gesch. der bibl. Offenb. als
Einl, 1850 ; 4th edition, 1876 (882 pp.). F. H. Reusch, Lehrb.
der Einl., 1859 ; 4th edition, 1870. Franz Kaulen, Einl. in
die heil. Schrift, A, u, N, T,, 1876 and 1881, 2nd ed. 1884.

CHAPTER II.

THE F HINTED HEBllEW EDITIONS OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT.

1. np HE first portion of the Hebrew Old Testa-
-L ment printed was the Book of Psalms,
issued in 1477 along with Kimchi's commentary.
In 1188 the complete Hebrew Bible was printed in
folio in Soncino. It was afterwards printed in Pesaio
in 1494, and in Brescia the same year. The latter
edition was that used by Luther, and the copy that
belonged to the great Reformer is still preserved in
the Royal Library, Beilin,

2. The Great Rabbinical Bibles, so called because
they contain the Targums, with various Jewish com-
mentaries, were printed in four volumes folio, aud
issued from Bomberg's press as follows: (1) Venice,
1516-18, edited by Felix Pratensis. (2) Venice, 1524-5,
edited by Jacob Ben Chayyim. This is the first
edition with the Massorah Magna (see chap. v.).
(3) Venice, 1546-48. (4) M, 1568. (5) /d, 1617-19.
(6) Joh. Buxtorf, the elder, brought out his important
edition in Basle in 1618-19. Many corrections
were introduced in ^lis edition into the Massorah.
Buxtorf unfortunately pointed the Targums after the
analogy of the Aramaic portions in Ezra and Daniel.

THE PRINTED HEBREW EDITIONS. 11

(7) The most important, however, of the Rabbinical
Bibles is the nSJ'D n^np, edited by Mosheh of JFrank-
fort, Amsterdam, 1724-27.

3. The great Polyglott Bibles are the following :
(1) The Complutensian, printed at the cost of Cardinal
Ximenes, in six folio vols, 1514-17. The fii-st four
vols, contain the Old Testament. The Com2)lutensian
gives the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the
Targums and LXX., all with Latin translations. The
text of the LXX. there given is that of Lucian (see
chap. viii.). (2) The Antwerp Polyglott was pub-
lished in 1569-72, at the cost of Philip IL, called
therefrom Biblia regia, and also from its printer,
Plantiniana. Its editor was Arias Montanus. The
Old Testament is contained in the first four volumes.
The Targum is appended to all the books of the
Old Testament, except Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Chronicles. (3) The Paris Polyglott consists of ten
large folios. The Old Testament is also contained
in the first four volumes, reprinted from the
Antwerp Polyglott. The New Testament occupies
vols. V. and vi. The last three volumes contain the
Samaritan Pentateuch and the Samaritan Version
with the Syriac and Arabic translations of the Old
Testament, all provided with Latin translations.
(4) The most important is the London Polyglott,
edited by Bishop Brian Walton, in eight folio volumes,
1657. It contains the Hebrew text, the Samaritan
Pentateuch, and the Samaritan Version, the LXX.
with various readings of Cod. Alex., the Latin
Vulgate, with the fragments of the old Latin trans-
lation (the Itala), and the Syriac and Arabic

12 THE PRINTED HEBREW EDITIONS

Versions ; the Targums (including that known as
the Pseudo-Jon. and Jerusalem), together with the
^thiopic Version of Psalms and Canticles, and a
Persian translation of the Pentateuch, all with Latin
translations. The first volume contains the valuable
Prolegomena of Walton. The last two volumes,
printed in 1669, contain the Lexicon hej^taglottum of
Ed. Castell — Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, Samaritan,
^thiopic and Arabic, and a Persian Vocabulary.

4. Besides these there are certain other important editions.
Menachem ben Jehuda di Lonsano published in 1618, after-
wards in 1650, the Pentateuch under the name iTTin ")15< as
a first part of an edition which was to have included the
whole Old Testament. It contains a critical commentary, and
a text founded on ten MSS. Norzi's Massoretic Bible Com-
mentary, founded on his critical codex, completed in 1626, was
first published by Eaphael Chayyim Basila in his edition of
the Hebrew Bible, 1742-44. It is also contained in the
"Warsaw Rabbinical Bible. See for full description of these
editions, Strack's Einleitung, 3rd. ed. p. 262.

Of considerable importance to the Hebrew student is the
BihUa Hehraica (1720) of J. D. Michaelis (Professor in Halle,
who died 1738), containing a collection of several important
Hebrew MSS., the Massorah, parallel passages and short notes.
This Bible can generally be had at a very moderate price. Ken-
nicott's folio edition of Vet. Test. Heh. cum variis leetiombus,
1776, 1780, though important, is in many respects disappointing.
Of greater value is De Rossi, Varies Lectiones Vet. Test, ex
immensa mamiscHptorum editorumqiie codicum congerie
TiaustcBy four quarto vols., 1784-88, with his ScJiol. critica in
V. T. libb., sen sujiplementa ad varias saeri textus lectiones,
4to, 1798. The collation of Kennicott extends only to the
consonants, that of De Rossi embraces occasionally the punctua-
tion. Useful for ordinary purposes is Dr. S. Davidson's Revised
Hebrew Text, 1855, with a digest of various readings. But
such works must be used, with caution.

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 13

5. A printed manual edition of the Hebrew Bible was first
issued by Bomberg in 1517, and several times reprinted at
later dates, Buxtorf also published such an edition in 1611,
and J. Leusden in 1667, printed by Athias. Jablonksi's 4to
edition, which was founded on former editions with a coll.
of some MSS,, appeared in 1699; and Van derHooght's, which
mainly followed Leusden's, appeared first in 1705, and was
reprinted with minor corrections by Aug. Hahn, 1831, and
C. G. G. Theile, 1849, and at later dates. The most important
editions of the Massoretic text, published in single parts, but
unfortunately not yet completed, are those of S. Baer and Franz
Delitzsch, Of the Pentateuch only Genesis has yet appeared,
published in 1869. Of "the former prophets" or Historical
Books, no portion has yet appeared. " The later prophets " are
now complete : Isaiah, 1872 ; Jeremiah, 1890 ; Ezeldel, 1884 ;
and Tlie Twelve, 1878. The Hagiographa is also complete,
comprising Psalms, 1880; Proverbs, 1880; Job, 1875. The
Megilloth (Cant., Euth, Threni, EccL, Esther), 1886. Libri,
Pan., Ec^rcB, et Neh., 1882; Liber Chronicorum, 1888. No
ordinary student should be without these texts. They contain
important critical and Massoretic appendices, that of Daniel
with full Chaldee paradigms of nouns, numerals, and verbs,
and with important Latin prefaces. The Psalter especially
is most important. Seligman Baer is the best Massoretic
scholar of the day. The student should, however, note that
there are different Massoretic traditions on some texts. See
Strack, Theol. Lit. Zeitung, 1879, No. 8.

Of unpointed editions we may note the Biblia Ilebraica
sine jncnctis, 1701. S. Baer published an unpointed edition
of the Pentateuch in 1866 ; often reprinted ; and an edition of
Genesis has been issued : JAberGeneseos sine imnctis exscriptus
curavit F. Muhlau et Aem. Kautzsch, 1868, 2nd. ed. 1885.

Further information on the editions of the Hebrew Bible will
be found in Wolf, Bibliotheca Jlebraea, 1715-33 ; J. Le Long,
Biblioth. Sacra, fol. 1723. Bibl. Sacra post. , . . J. Le Long
et C. F. Boerneri iter, curas ord. dispos. emend, etc. ab A. G.
Masch, 1778-90. M. Steinschneider, Catal. libb. heb. in
biblioth. Bodl., 1852-60.

CHAPTER IIT.

THE STATE OF THE HEBREW TEXT AND THE
HEBREW iMSS.

1. Ij^OR a considerable time after the restoration
-J- of Hebrew studies, the text of the Hebrew-
Bible was generally considered to be free from all
serious corruption. The care taken by the Jewish
copyists, and the minute directions given in the
Massorah and elsewhere, all seemed to point to such
a conclusion. The Massoretic scholars duly numbered
the letters, noted the sections and middle words of each
book, called attention to peculiarities of orthography,
grammar and punctuation, accumulating a mass of
grammatical and lexicographical notes, and giving
in many cases a tolerably complete concordance. A
text guarded so jealously was very naturally pre-
sumed for all practical purposes to be well-nigh perfect.
2. But the examination and collation of the exist-
ing Hebrew MSS. by degrees dispelled that illusion.
Human nature is prone to err, however elaborate
may be the safeguards against such a weakness.
Although the main contents of the sacred Scriptures
have been well preserved, those Scriptures have not
come down to us in the exact shape in which they
were first written, or even as finally edited by their

THE STATE OF THE HEBREW TEXT. 15

pre-Christian revisers. The Massoretes did their best
to establish a uniform text, and in doing so stereo-
typed not a few corruptions. And the Hebrew MSS.,
though substantially following the text as settled
by those scholars, were, when duly examined by
Kennicott, De Rossi, and others, proved to abound
in mistakes, arising from accidental repetitions and
omissions of letters and words, in the latter case
frequently occasioned by similarity of ending (homoio-
teleuton). Numerous blunders arose from the simi-
larity in form of many of the letters in the modern
or square Hebrew alphabet, made use of by the
Massoretes. Such blunders, in most cases, were easily
corrected by the comparison of MSS., and by due
attention to the Massoretic notes. But the Massorah
itself has been discovered to be by no means uniform;
and notwithstanding the herculean efforts of the early
scholars, such as the Buxtorfs and others, we are only
now beginning to approximate to a correct Massoretic
text.

The Massorah (see chap, v.) is a work for which
Biblical students must ever be grateful. The task
undertaken by those early Hebrew scholars was per-
formed with the greatest conscientiousness. This fact
is abundantly proved even by the errors left in many
cases uncorrected in the text, though corrected in the
margin. A Biblical critic cannot, however, admit
the infallibility of the Massoretes, however greatly
he may respect their learning.

3. It must not be forgotten that the Hebrew
Scriptures passed through serious vicissitudes. In
the persecution in the days of Manasseh many copies

16 THE STATE OF THE HEBREW TEXT

of the Holy Scriptures were probably destroyed. In
the time of the prophet Hosea, while altars, contrary
to the Mosaic Law, were multiplied in the northern
kingdom, the written Scriptures were comparatively
unknown (Hos. viii. 12). When the temple and its
treasures were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, and the
people carried off into captivity, innumerable copies
of the sacred Scriptures, and of other J ewish writings,
necessarily perished. In the days of Antiochus
Epiphanes special search was made everywhere for
copies of the Law, in order to destroy all such Scrip-
tures (1 Mace. i. 56-58). Similar occurrences took
place when Jerusalem was captured by Titus, and in
the horrors that followed. The copy of the Law
brought to Rome by Titus, which was probably the
official copy in use in the temple, has unfortunately
perished. At the close of the great rebellion under
Bar Cochba thousands of Jewish scholars perished,
and their books were burned with fire. In the auto-
da-fes of professedly Christian days many precious
Hebrew MSS. were ruthlessly destroyed.

It is not strange, therefore, that the present Hebrew
text should be found in many places corrupt. The
wonder is rather that the Hebrew Scriptures should
have been preserved in any form whatever. The
memories of faithful disciples must have in many
cases been had recourse to in order to fill up gaps in
the sacred text. The comparative uniformity of the
Massoretic Hebrew MSS. is, as has been noted, no
proof of the correctness of the Massoretic text.

4. But it must also be borne in mind that the
earlier books of the Hebrew Scriptures, when com-

AND THE HEBREW MSS. 17

mitted to writing, were wi^itten in characters very
difierent in form from those in use in later days.
The oldest extant Hebrew alphabet is that exhibited
on the Moabite stone and in the Siloam inscription.
The former monument cannot be much later than
the days of the great Elijah, the latter is not
considerably later. The Hebrew character exhibited
in both was in common use for centuries afterwards.
It is substantially the same as that found on the
Maccabee coins. It was only by slow degrees that
the more modern square or Aramaic character
came into use. The Samaritan alphabet is the
ancient character in a more ornamental form. How-
ever strange the fact may be, it is certain that
the Samaritans preserved the older alphabet, while
the Jews adopted the more modern. The mutual
hatred between Jews and Samaritans may have been
one of the causes which led the Jewish scribes after
the Captivity to adopt the Aramaic character for their
sacred writings, although the old characters were still
used for profane purposes on coins and inscriptions.

This change of the Hebrew alphabet took place
long prior to the Christian era, and even prior to
execution of the LXX. version. It is probable it
met with much opposition, and was not acquiesced
in for a considerable period. Traces of such oppo-
sition may be discovered even in post-Christian times.
The Talmud speaks of the square characters as
"Assyi'ian" {Saoihedrin, 21b), and directs the Law
to be written in that character {Zebach., 62a). It
recognises thus the novelty of the new alphabet,
although the fact was afterwards generally forgotten,

2

18 THE STATE OF THE HEBREW TEXT

and the square character asserted to be the more
ancient.

In the transliteration of the sacred books from one
character to another, it is certain that many blunders
must have occurred. The vowel-letters ('•inx), which,
in the earlier method of wi-iting, were used sparingly,
were introduced more extensively at later periods, in
order to assist in fixing the correct sound of words.
The invention of a complete system of vowel-points
and accents, valuable as it was, was centuries later
than the Christian era (see chap. iv.).

5. The existing Hebrew MSS. are of various kinds:
(1) The unpointed synagogue rolls, which are usually
of parchment, or in the East, of leather. These contain
the Pentateuch, and the five Megilloth (technically
Rolls), viz. Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, and Esther. (2) Pointed MSS., which
are generally in book form, and are written both on
parchment and paper. Most of these contain the
Massorah, more or less complete. Some MSS. have
also the Targum, which is occasionally wi-itten in
parallel columns; but in many cases the verses of
the Targum are written alternately with those of
the Hebrew. Hebrew MSS. are classified according
to their country and characteristic readings. Accord-
ing to most scholars, the present Hebrew MSS. are
considered to be more or less correct copies of one
pattern codex. But that view is not universally
accepted. The vowel-points and accents have as yet
been very partially collated. The varieties of read-
ing, too, presented in the Talmud have not yet been
scientifically collated.

AND THE HEBREW MSS. 19

6. The yaii.uiitan MSS. of the Pentateuch maj
also be regarded to aU intents and purposes as
Hebrew MSS. They present, indeed, in many respects
a different text, and much fruit was at one time
expected from their collation. Unfortunately they
have proved to be of comparatively little importance
for critical purposes. The text they present is, on
the whole, not earlier than the Hebrew, and has
been seriously tampered with for theological and
polemical purposes. But the Samaritan recension
is by no means worthless. It is of real importance
when it is supported by the authority of the LXX.
and the Targums.

Strack in his Prolegomena has given a description of some
of the ancient Hebrew MSS. See also the Prefaces to Baer
and Dehtzsch's editions of Hebrew Texts noted ch. ii. 5.
Strack, in the Zeitschrift fur Luth. Theol., 1875, p. 598 ff.
Harkavy has described some remarkable fragments of MSS.
from Ehodes, written in a peculiar alphabet, in 3Ie moires de
VAcadeviie Imp. de St. PetersUirg, Ser. vii., Tom. xxxii., 1884,
No. 8. See also Derenbourg in the Revue des £tudes Juivesf
X, .311, and Harkavy, Catalog der Samar. Pent. Codices,
1874. On the Samaritan codex itself, which is simply Hebrew
written in the more ancient or Samaritan characters, see
Gesenius, Be Pent. Sam. orig. indole et avctorit. comm. phil.
crit., 1815. All the Samaritan MSS. present more or less
correctly the same recension. The MS. at Nablous, though
unquestionably ancient, presents a text inferior in almost all
points to the Massoretic. See more in chap. vi.

7. The oldest extant Hebrew MS., the date of
which can be affirmed with certainty, is the MS. of
the Prophets, punctuated after the Babylonian system.
The MS. was brought from the Crimea by the dis-

20 THE STATE OF THE HEBREW TEXT ■

tinguished Karaite scholar, A. Firkowitsch, and is
dated a.d. 916. It is now in the Imperial Library
of St. Petersburg. The MS. has been edited in
facsimile by H. L. Strack, Proph. Posterior. Codex
Bahylonicus Petropolitanus^ St. Petersburg, 1876, and
a separate edition, also in facsimile, of Hosea et Joel
Ijrophetoi was edited by the same scholar, Leipzig,

1875. The oldest MS. of the entire Old Testament
belonged also formerly to Firkowitsch's collection,
and is dated a.d. 1010.

Owing to the numerous falsifications which Fir-
kowitsch introduced into the ancient epigraphs in
his most valuable collection of MSS., with the object
of showing the superiority of the MSS. preserved by
the Karaites over those of the Pabbinical Jews, the
epigraphs in question have been deprived of nearly
all their value, although Chwolson still maintains
some of them to be genuine.

The fabrications in question have been discussed by Harkavy
in the Memoires de VAcad. de St. Petersburg, vii., 21, No. 1 ;
by H. L. Strack in his A. FirTiotvitsch u. seine EntdecTiungen,

1876, in the Studien u. Kritihen, 1876, as well as in the Zeit-
schrift derB. M. 6^., xxxiv., 163 ff. ; the Literar. Centralhlatt
for 1883, col. 878 ; and by Chwolson in his Corjjus Inscript.
Heb., 1882.

There are other ancient Hebrew MSS., but not of
hoar antiquity. The epigraph in a Cambridge MS.,
which makes it to have been written in 856, is
also a manifest fabrication. The epigraph in the
Aleppo codex (the antiquity of which MS. was as-
signed to the beginning of the tenth century), which
was thought to be genuine by eminent scholars, is

AND THE HEBREW MSS. 21

now maintained by Wickes, from internal evidence,
to be likewise a fabrication. See W. Wickes, Treatise
on the Accentuation of the Twenty-one so-called Prose
Boohs of the Old Testament^ 1887, and on the whole
subject the Introduction to Professor Driver's Notes
on the Hebrew Text of the Boohs of Samuel, 1890.
The Cairo codex of the Prophets is dated 897, and
there is another Cairo MS. of 1028.

8. Apart, too, from the circumstances mentioned
above, the paucity of really ancient Hebrew MSS.
has been also to a large extent caused by the ancient
practice of the Jews to bury all sacred MSS. which
were found to be either defective through wear, or
otherwise discovered to be faulty. The practice of
nT''J3, or burial, of such MSS., is often alluded to in
the Talmud. See specially the Masechet Soi^herhn
(edited by Dr. Joel Miiller, 1878), v. 14, 15; Strack,
Proleg. Critica in V. T. Heb., 1873, p. 42. The latter
work, now out of print, ought to be in the hands of
every student, as containing a considerable amount
of information on subjects which here can only be
glanced at, and many of which must, indeed, be
omitted ; Prof. Strack is preparing a new work on the
subject. Important articles on the Hebrew text, by
Rev. Professor T. K. Abbott, Dublin, have appeared
in the Church Quarterly Review : " The Massoretic
Text of the Old Testament," April, 1887, and " The
Hebrew Text before the Massoretes," April, 1889;
and it is to be hoped that those articles may be
reprinted in a separate form (see chap. v.).

Useful for popular purposes, as containing a good deal of
information, is The Old Bocwnents and tlie New Bible, an easy

22 THE STATE OF THE HEBREW TEXT.

' lesson for the people in Bihlwal Criticum. By J. Paterson
Smyth, LL.B., B.D. : Bagster, 1890. The facsimile plates are
specially good.

Important for students are : R. Hoerning, Brituh Museuvi
Karaite MSS. Description and Collation of six Karaite
3fa7msori2)ts of portions of the Heir cm Bible in Arabic
characters ; with a complete reproduction by the autotype
process of one, Ex. i. 1 to viii. 5, in 42 facsimiles : Williams
and Norgate, 1889. D. Chwolson, Corpus Inscriptionuvi
//c,'&?'ai<?d^?'Mm cnthaltendGrabschriften ausderKrim . . . sowie
auch Schriftproben aus Handschrif ten von ix.-xv. Jahrhundert.
Gesamm. u. erlautert, 1882. The Palieograph. Soc. Facsimiles
of Manuscripts and Inscriptions. Oriental Series, edited by
Professor William AVright, LL.D., 1875-1883. Ad. Neubauer,
Catalogue of the Hebrew MSS. in the Bndlemn Library etc.,
icith Forty Facsimile^, Oxford, 188fi.

CHAPTER lY.

THE HISTORY OF THE HEBREW PUNCTUATION'.

1. A LTHOUGH much has been wi^tten on the
-^^^ question, the history of the origin of the
vowels and accents affixed to the Massoretic text
is still obscure. Jerome makes no mention of any-
such signs, nor are they referred to by the Jewish
scholars of whom mention is made in the Talmuds.
In the Talmudic treatises, however, grammatical
disquisitions are rare, so that the negative evidence
derived from those sources is not entirely conclusive.
The invention of the vowel points and accents was
generally ascribed to Ezra by the Jewish scholars
of the Middle Ages, and that theory was regarded
as moderate, because there were then scholars who
maintained that the invention of the vowels went back
to the age of Moses, and even to an earlier period.
The theory of the invention of the points by Ezra has
been found to rest entirely upon the misunderstanding
of a passage in the Talmud, Megilla, 3 a. (See J.
Derenbourg, Manuel du lecteur, edited from a Yemen
MS. now in Bodleian Library, Oxford, in the Journal
Asiat., 1870, published separately, Paris, 1871.) The
modern invention of the points was first taught by
Elias Levita, in his great work, the Massoreih-ha~

24 THE HISTORY OF THE

Massoret/i, published in 1538. The publication of
that work created a new epoc>,'- in Hebrew literature,
Elias Levita was constantly visited by those eager to
imbibe some of his learning, and for a time even
Reuchlin was his pupil. Levita's views, though com-
bated ably by his learned co-religionist, Azariah de
Eossi, in 1574-5, gradually prevailed. His opinions
were presented by Cappellus in a form which Levita
himself would not have given to them. The view of
Levita and Cappellus on the point is now universally
accepted by scholars, although for many generations
it was assailed by earnest men as wholly subversive
of the truths of revelation. Compare Dr. John
Owen's work on the Integrity and Purity of the
Hebrew and Greek Text, issued in 1659, and his
comments there on Walton's Prolegomena^ to the
London Polyglott.

2. The student must, however, be on his guard
against being led astray by the detailed statements
put forth (as was then believed on good authority)
by even such scholars as Graetz, Delitzsch, Ginsburg
(in his edition of Levita's Massoreth-ha-Massoreth,
pp. 61-63), Kalisch, Heh. Gram. (Part ii., pp. 63, 64),
and others, in which the names even of the early
punctuators are given. Those statements were based
upon the epigraphs unfortunately proved to have been
partially forged by Firkowitsch. (See chap. iii. 7.)
It is tolerably certain that the punctuation of the
Hebrew text was the work of scholars between the
sixth and eighth centuries; and it is probable that
the two systems now extant were preceded by some
ruder and less perfect method of vocalization, intro-

HEBREW PUNCTUATION. 25

dncecl for the purpose of assisting beginners in the
difficult task of reading Hebrew. Wickes, in his
work on the Hebrew Prose Accents (1887), p. 144,
has pointed out conclusively that the so-called Baby-
lonian punctuation, which was superlinear, is, though
an Oriental punctuation, not identical with the Oriental
punctuation, and he even maintains that it must
have been later than the usual or Palestinian system.
See also Strack in the Zeitschrift f. Luth. Theol.^
1877, p. 21.

3. The vowel-points in Arabic were, like those in
Hebrew, a very modern invention, and their intro-
duction into the Koran was at first opposed. (See on
the Arabic points, Noldeke, Gesch, des Qordns, p. 309.)
In Syriac different stages of punctuation can be
distinctly traced, for there are : (1) wholly unpointed
texts ; (2) texts marked with diacritic signs, which,
though not marking all the vowels, afford material
help to the reader; and (3) texts vocalized with either
Greek or Syriac vowels. But such successive stages in
Hebrew have not yet been discovered in extant MSS.

4. When the Palestinian system of punctuation
was finally adopted by the Kabbinites, it is highly pro-
bable that the punctuation known as the Babylonian
was in many cases obliterated. The punctuation in
MSS. seems to have been often added by a different
hand, or possibly by the same scribe at a different
sitting.

Upon the whole of this subject the student should consult
Dr. C. D. Ginsburg's valuable edition of The Massoreth-Jia.
Massoreth of EUas Letita in Hebrew and English, with
critical and explanatory notes, and a life of Elias Levita, 1867,

26 THE HISTORY OF THE

as also the same scholars edition in English of Jacob hen
Chajiin's Introduction to the Rabbinical Bible, 2nd edition,
1867. Buxtorf's Tibei'ias sive Comm. Masoreticits Trijylex,
1620, last edition 1665. Leusden's PMlolor/vs Ilcbrcsvs,
1739. Hansen, Interjrretatio Masora macjnm text/iialU,
Kjobenliavn, 1733-1787. Wickes has some judicious remarks
on the subject in his work on the Ilebrejv Prone Accents
(1887), pp. 5-8. and Professor Driver's Introduction in his
Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Boohs of Samuel, 1890, is
indispensable for the English student. Harris' articles in the
Jewish Quarterly Revieio, 1889 (see p. 34), give a useful
summary of the history. See Strack, Die biblisch. u. massoret.
Handschnften in Tschvfuthale in the Zeitsehrift f. luth.
Theol., 1875.

5. The vagaries of the short-lived Hutchinsonian
school, including among others the lexicographer
Parkhurst — still strangely viewed in some quarters
in England as an authority — need not bo more than
referred to. Independently of those who actually
followed the follies of Hutchinson, and sought to
invent a new Hebrew language for themselves, there
were many able scholars, such as Lowth, Blayney,
Horsley, and others, who had often recourse to the
wildest conjectures in the way of emendation of the
Massoretic text, and whose proposed emendations ran in
many instances entirely counter to the now ascertained
principles of Hebrew grammar and syntax. However
far we may be from affirming the infallibility of the
Massoretic text and punctuation, the vowel points,
and even the accents affixed by the Massoretes, are
not only valuable as preserving to us the traditional
reading of the ancient text, but are also equally valu-
able as preserving the true grammatical inflexions of
the Hebrew. Although the ancient Versions aie of

HEBREW PUNCTUATION. 27

importance in the correction of the Hebrew text,
yet on the whole the latter has been preserved by
the Massoretes in a far more correct form than
exhibited in any ancient version whatever ; and the
charges often so recklessly made as to the wilful
perversions of the sacred text by the Jewish scholars,
when examined into, rest upon no solid basis.

6. The two systems of punctuation extant in Hebrew
are : (1) The elaborate system exhibited in all the
printed Hebrew Bibles, which was brought to its
present perfection by the scholars of Tiberias, and is
now known as the Palestinian system. In this system
the vowels and accents are placed partly above and
partly below the consonants to which they belong,
special accentual signs not found elsewhere being made
use of in the Books of the Psalms, Proverbs and Job.
(2) The existence of the less perfect Babylonian or
Assyrian system of punctuation was first made known
to scholars in 1840, and was more fully described in
Pinner's Prospectus of the Odessa MSS., 1845. In
the Babylonian system, which is generally considered
older than that of Tiberias — though Wickes, as already
noted, has given strong reasons against that opinion —
the vowel signs and accents are almost uniformly
placed above the consonants. The Babylonian vowel
signs have been proved to be rude modifications
of the three vowel-letters, J5, 1, "i , the initial letters
of the names of the several accents being made use
of as signs to indicate those accents. A large number
of Hebrew MSS. have lately been brought from the
East in which this punctuation is still preserved, and
it is highly probable that in not a few MSS. the

28 THE HISTORY OF THE

Babylonian punctuation has been washed out, and
the Palestinian substituted.

Strack's magnificent Codex Bahylonicus PetvojJolitanus, and
his edition of Hoaea and Joel (see ch. iii. 7), are the best
specimens of Hebrew texts furnished with these points. A
beautifully printed Chaldee or Aramaic text, pointed after
the Babylonian system, is exhibited in Merx's ClirestomatMa
Targximica, 1888, which contains also a list of Babylonian
MSS., and for cheapness and accuracy may well be commended
to all students. The full title is : direct. Targumica qnam
cflllatis nil). MSS. antiq. Tib. editionibicsque imjjressis celeb.
ad codices vocalibus Babylonicis instrnctos, edid. adn. crit. et
gloss, instruxit Ad. Merx. See also ch. v. 4.

7. It may be well to notice : Gesenius, Gesch. der hebr. Spr.
und Schriff, 1815. Steinschneider, Bibliogr. Handb. ilber
die tJieor. u. praM. Literatur fur hebr. Sprachlmnde, 18o9.
Gesenius, Tliesaurns phU.-crit. ling. Hel). et Cliald., 3 vols,
4to, last part of 3rd vol. by Rodiger, 1835-1858, is still a
veritable treasure-house of Biblical learning. Of Gesenius'
Heb. imd Cliald. Handwdrterb, the 9th and subsequent editions
have been neu bearheitet von F. Miihlau u. W. Volck, 1883 to
1890. While this manual Lex. of Gesenius has been improved
in every successive edition, no English translation has appeared
since that of Tregelles, published by Bagster in 1853. Hence
in many respects B. Davies' Student's Heb. Lex., 1872, is more
useful for English students unacquainted with German.
J. Flirst, Heb. tind Chald. Handwdrterb. is of importance,
though not equal to Gesenius. The 3rd edition by V. Eyssel,
appeai-ed in 1876. A 4th edition of an English translation of
the 2nd German by S. Davidson in 1871, which is fuller and
more accurate than Fiirst. Fried. Delitzsch's Proleg. eines
netien Heb.- Aram disch. W.B. z. A.T. is important.

Buxtorf, Heb. et Cliald. Concordantice appeared in 1632 in
folio. An improved edition by B. Bar in 1867. J. Fiirst,
Concord. Heb. atqve Chald., in foL, 1840, much improved, but
with fanciful etymologies. C. Noldii, Concord. particnlaruni
eirceo-cJiald. issued in 1679, recens. J. G. Tympius in 1734, is

HEBREW PUNCTUATION. 29

still the only available work in that department. An English
edition of Buxtorf s Concordance was issued by B. Davidson
in 1876. The Englishman'' s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance,
2nd edit., 1860, deserves mention, as also The HehraisV s Vade
3Iecuvi, 1867, both published by Bagster. Dr. S, Mandelkern,
of Leipzig, has issued a prospectus of Die Jieuhearheitete Heh.-
Chald. Bihel Concordanz, likely to surpass its predecessors.

In grammar, it is only necessary to mention: Gesenius,
Ansfiihrl. gram.-hrit. Lehrgeh'dude, 1817. His smaller Hel).
gvavim., first issued in 1813, passed through many editions
under its author's eye, and afterwards as edited by Rodiger.
The 22nd and subsequent editions by E. Kautzsch have been
entirely rewritten, the 25th in 1889 much improved. The
American scholar E. C. Mitchell has issued B. Davies' trans-
lation "thoroughly revised" in 1880. Ewald's Lehrhuch first
appeared in 1827, the 8th edition in 1870. Most important
for English students is the Syntax of this work translated by
Jas. Kennedy : T. and T. Clark, 1879. Kennedy has also pub-
lished his own Introd. to Bib. Hebrew, presenting graduated
instruction, 1889. J. Olshausen, Lehrbuch, published in 1861
is valuable, though the author died vrithout waiting the Syntax.
Olshausen's work touches upon compar. Semitic grammar.
Prof. W. Robertson Smith has just published the late Prof.
W. Wright's Lectures on Comimrative Semitic Grammar,
Camb. Univ. Press, 1890. In Italian, Luzzat^s grammatical
works are most important, 1853-69. Bottcher's AusfUhrl.
Lehrb., issued in two royal 8vo vols., 1866, 1868 (embracing
over 1,300 pp.), is a great grammatical concordance. The
author died ere he reached the Syntax. Important are : F. E.
Konig, Hist-hrit. Lehrgeb., 1881 (first half). B. Stade, Lehrh.
(first half), 1879. In English, A. B. Davidson wrote a valuable
Introd. Heb. Grammar, and frequently reprinted, 1876. The
following are by American scholars, W. H. Green, Grammar,
4th edit.. Parti., 1888 ; Part ii.. Syntax, 1889. W. R. Harper,
Elements of Hebrew by inductive method, 10th edit., 1889.
Elements of Syntax, 1888 ; Introd. Heb. Method and Manual^
4th edit., a book of useful exercises, 1888. Most important is
Driver's Hebrew Tenses, 2nd edit., 1881. H. L. Strack's useful

30 HISTORY OF THE HEBREW PUNCTUATION.

small Ilel). Grammar, 4tli enlarged edit., 1891, with Krercue.s-,
translated by A. R. S. Kennedy, is to be had both in German
and English. Strack and Siegfried's Lelirh. der neuheh.
SpracJie und Litt. 1884, deserves to be better known. A. B.
Davidson's Ontlines of Heb . Accentuation appeared in 18ol,
but the accents of the Hebrew are best treated by W. Wickes,
the Poetical, 1881, the Prose in 1887, both published by the
Clarendon Press, Oxford. I. Nordheimer's Heh. Gram., 2 vols.,
appeared in New York, 1838, 1841 ; 2nd edit., 1842. G.
Bickell's Ovtlines of Heh. Grammar, trans, by S. I. Curtiss,
Leipzig, 1877, is a small but scientific work, not elementary.
INIany important articles on Hebrew grammar have appeared
from time to time in Professor Harper's Hehraica. The
Syntax of Aug. Miiller's useful Schulgramvjatih has been
recently edited in English by Prof. Robertson, of Glasgow,
under the title Ontlines of Hebrew Syntax, 2nd edit.. 1887.

CHAPTER V.

THE JEWISH MASSORAH.

1. r I IHE elaborate care taken by the Jews for
-L the preservation of the true text of their
sacred books has ah^eady been noticed. But such efforts
cannot be traced back further than several centuries
posterior to the Christian era. Although Philo as-
serts that ''the Jews never altered a word of what
was written by Moses," and Josephus maintains that
nothing was added to the text of Scripture or taken
therefrom, such statements cannot be regarded as
absolutely true, because it is certain that additions
and glosses were from time to time added to the
various books. Moreover the assertions of Philo and
Josephus are opposed to the facts disclosed by an
examination of the LXX. and of the other Versions.
There is, however, no ground for accusing the Jews
of wilfully corrupting the sacred text, an accusation
constantly preferred against them by the Church
Fathers, as well as by later writers. The care taken
by the Jews in post-Christian days to preserve intact
the books committed to them, led to the execution
of the work generally designated under the name
of the Massorah.

2. The expression rriiDD (or less correctly ^"p^f

32 THE JEWISH MASSORAH

from IpD), Bibl. Hebrew ri"iDD^ Massorah, denotes
" tradition" and specially the tradition connected
with the correct reading of the sacred text. It is
incorrect to regard it as a deriv. of "^P^t, meaning
hondj vinculum. Under the name is often included
(1) the vowel points and accents, and (2) more cor-
rectly the critical notes affixed to the Hebrew MSS.
The latter recount the number of times certain rare
words or combinations of words occur, and call
attention to divers peculiarities. The short Massorah
is often divided into various heads : the short notes
written on the margin of MSS., or of the large Rab-
binic Bibles, are known as the Massora inarginalis,
which is an abridgment of the Massora magna^
which latter was written above or below the text,
and often in MSS. in all sorts of grotesque forms.
The Massora parva is written on the sides of the
margins and between the columns, and contains
divers notes on words and sentences which occur
only once, or on various peculiarities in vowel points
or consonants, which are noted by mnemonical signs.
Larger notes are sometimes found at the end of the
MS., and thus designated the Massora finalis. These
Massoretic notes are by no means uniform, and are
not unfrequently opposed to one another. Ginsburg's
notes give abundant instances of differences between
the Massorah as quoted by Levita, and as found
elsewhere.

3. The town of Tiberias on the Lake of Capernaum
was the chief seat of Jewish learning, where Mas-
soretic studies were pursued. After the return from
Exile it is likely that there were scribes devoted

THE JEWISH MASSORAH 33

to the work of preserving and copying the Sacred
Scriptures. Such duties probably formed part of
the work of " the scribes " so often alluded to in
the New Testament. The overthrow of the Jewish
state by the Romans put an end to all such arrange-
ments, and it is impossible to tell on what authority
the statements rest which are made in the Talmud
as to the work of the earlier scribes. K. Judah the
Holy (a.d. 200) committed to writing the Mishna,
in order to preserve from utter destruction that
great body of oral law, which had hitherto been
handed down for centuries solely by word of mouth.
In the fourth century it was further found necessary
to commit to writing the Gemara, or commentary
on the Mishna, parts of w^hich are as old, and even
occasionally older than the Mishna itself. It was
several centuries after the Christian era ere the
Jewish scholars became reconciled to the practice of
committing anything to writing except the Scriptures
themselves. Their laws, traditions, and expositions
were all handed down orally. Hence it is not
surprising that no written records exist detailing the
work of the Massoretic scholars. See Bloch, Studien
zur Gesch. der heb. Lit.^ p. 120 ff., and mj Koheleth^
Excursus iii., p. 484. See Apjjendix,

4. Ben Asher, who lived in the tenth century, and
whose family lived at Tiberias in the eighth century, is
said to have left behind him a Hebrew codex, affirmed
to have been the main source from whence the present
Massoretic text is derived. Ben Naphtali somewhat
earlier wrote also a model codex of the Hebrew Bible.
A few scanty remains exist of the differences between

3

34 THE JEWISH MASSORAH.

the readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali. Some
of these affect the consonants of the text, such as
Jer. xi. 7, where Ben Naphtali reads 'li; for ^n ;
Jer. xxix. 22, where he reads vnjOl for inXlDI
Most of them, however, only affect the punctuation.

See Strack's Prolegometia. Baer and Strack, JHkduke
hattcamim, 1879. Berliner, Targ. OnJi'elos, 1884 ; ii. 139*
On the Babylonian punctuation, in addition to works already
mentioned in ch. iv. 6, see Pinsker, E'mfilhrung in d. Balyl.
Heh. Puyictationsystem, 1863 ; Graetz, Monatschrift, 1881.

The history of the Massorah in general, in addition to the
works mentioned in ch. iii. 6, 8 ; iv. 5, is treated by Geiger in
liis Jiidische Zeitsclirift, iii., 78 pp., and in his Urschrift und
Uehersetznngen der B'lhel^ 1857 ; by Strack in the Prot.
Realencycl. , 2nd edition, ix., 388 fF. See also the Sefn' Tnra
printed in Kirchheim's VII Lihri Talm. j^arvl Ilierosol,, 1851 ;
MUller, Mascchet Soferim, 1878. Frensdorf, Das Buck Oclila
lu'ochlu, 1864 ; his Massora Magna, 1876, is unfortunately
l^nfinished. Ginsburg's great folio work. The Massorah — com-
inledfrom MSS. alphabetically and lexically arranged, is not
yet completed, although vol. i. appeared in 1880, vol. ii. com-
pleting the Massorah in 1883, and a supplementary vol. to vol.
iii. in 1885. Vol. iii. itself has not yet appeared, but is partly in
the press, and likely to appear in a year or so. S. Baer is publish-
ing an amended Massoretic text in the Rabbinical Bible, Milira
Gadhol, Wilna. See also two very able articles on " The Rise
and Development of the Massorah" by Rev. I. Harris, M.A., in
the Jewish Quarterly BeviewJ&n. and April, 1889. See Appendix.

5. The object of the Massoretic scholars was, as
far as possible, to preserve the text as they received
it. They did not venture to correct the text, even
in places where its blunders were most distinctly
ascertained. But although they thus preserved in
many places inferior readings in the text, noting it

THE JEWISH MASSORAII. 35

as ^TlD, written (Kethibh), they introduced into the
margin what they would have substituted in their
place, as ^'\p, read {ICre or Q're, see Aj:)})). In all
these cases, without exception, it must be remem-
bered the word that stands in the text is regarded
as left absolutely unpointed, the vowel points and
accents belonging only to that found in the margin.
It should be noted that several of these K're readings
are often mentioned in the Talmud, and that therefore
a portion at least of those notes belong to a period
prior to the invention of the Hebrew vowel points.

Of the K're notes as found in the present Hebrew
Bible there are various kinds. Sometimes (1) vowcvS
and accents are written without any consonants, the
consonants to which they belong being given in the
margin. See 2 Sam. viii. 2, xvi. 23 ; Jer. xxxi. 38.
(2) Consonants stand in the text without vowels, the
word so marked being in the margin directed to be
passed over entirely. See Jer. li. 3; Ezek. xlviii. 16;
JRuth iii. 12. (3) Sometimes the K're directs what
is v.ritten in the text as one word to be divided into
tvv'o, e.g. Ps. X. 10, D^^^rs'pn is to be read D''«D ^n.
(1) In other cases two words are directed to be read
as one, e.g. D'^JW '•D in Lam. iv. 3 as C^P.^j?. (5) There
are words whose last letter belongs to the following
word, e.g. 2 Sam. v. 2, in t«^viD nn\"l ; 2 Sam. xxi.
12, where DTlt^^S nOK^ must be read, instead of
DTl^^Sn DtJ*. (6) Euphemistic expressions were
directed to be substituted in reading for the coarser
expressions which occur in the original.

It is important to observe that there are words
to which a ICre perpetuum is always to be supplied.

36 THE JEWISH MASSORAE.

E.g. i<in, fern., in the Pentateuch, is intended always
to be read ^^T}, The letters may also be read N-in, but
in no case is it to be pronounced as printed. Similarly,
n^n* was never intended to be pronounced Jehovah^
which is not Hebrew. The name is written indeed
^^^l, but the vowels are those of V"^^:> Lord, which
is directed to be read instead. When the combina-
tion " the Lord Jehovah " occurs, in which the word
'^f^^. precedes mns the vowels of ^"J"!^.^, God, are then
substituted, and nirT" is vocalised ^)^\, as the name
C'n'bK is to be read in its place. This unwillingness
to pronounce the sacred name, the true vocalisation of
which is probably '^.)l',-, or ^)jyi, is at least as old as
the LXX. version, in which Kvpto? is always sub-
stituted for it (see chap, -viii., 8), and the same usage
has been retained in the English versions, where Lord
or God, as the case may be, printed in small capitals
stands for Jahaveh or Jahveh. Instances of the former
occur everywhere in the English versions ; more rarely
the latter, see Isa. Ixi. 11. On the name see Driver,
" Recent Theories on the Origin and Nature of the
Tetragrammaton," in Skudia Biblica, Oxford, 1885.

6. The division of the Law into various sections
known as Parashoth (niEJ^nS), diviaions (or ni*^"}^)^ to
which other sections from the Prophets termed Haph-
taroth (nfltpsn) corresponded, was the work of the
same scholars, or at least was finally lixed by them.
These larger sections are denoted by 222, or by DDD,
indicating that under such divisions several minor
sections are included, which are designated by single
letters. A list of the Haphtaroth of the Prophets
corresponding to the Parashoth of the Law, is generally

THE JEWISH MASSORAH. 37

found at the close of the Hebrew Bible. The sections
of the Law or Pentateuch were originally one hundred
and fifty- four, designed for a three years' course of
reading. In the present Hebrew Bibles they are fifty-
four in number, arranged for a yearly cycle. These
larger sections are subdivided into smaller, designated
mmriD, ^^ open" and marked with single S, or with a
single D (ni^OIDD, ^^ closed''), the differences between
the two having reference mainly, though perhaps not
exclusively, to the calligraphy of the text, are by
no means strictly observed in the printed Hebrew
Bibles. The open sections are chief divisions, the
closed generally subdivisions. But there were other
differences also indicated by such sections. The verse
division was a later introduction of the same scholars.
7. A considerable number of other points connected
with the Massorah must be here passed over in
silence. The labour undergone in the numbering of
the letters and the notation of the middle letters
and middle words in each book subserved no useful
purpose. It did not preserve the text from cor-
ruption. The Massoretic lists of parallel passages
and peculiarities are, on the other hand, important.
The use of literce miajusculce (as in Gen. xxxiv. 31),
minusculce {e.g. Gen. ii. 4), susjmiscs (Judg. xviii. 30),
inversce (Num. x. 35, 36), with many other pecu-
liarities of a similar nature, were designed for critical
purposes of various kinds, which in some cases have
been discovered, while in other cases their real signifi-
cance has been hopelessly lost. The puerilities about
these matters mentioned by Buxtorf in his Tiberias y
are in many cases mere "conceits" of a later age.

38 THE JEWISH MASSORAH.

The lyuncta extraordinaria, which are of far older date
than the Massoretic period, have been in some cases
explained as simple signs of correction on the part of
the scribes. There is much to be said in favour of
this view. For similar points oqpur in Samaritan
MSS. with that signification, and some of the words
so pointed in Hebrew MSS. are omitted in the ancient
versions. But although some such use was subserved
by those dots, the explanation cannot yet be abso-
lutely accepted. For it must be observed that MSS.
are by no means uniform in that particular, the
puncta extraordinaria occurring more frequently in
some MSS. than in others. Strack's ProUg. Grit, in
Vet. Test. Heh., 1873, which gives much information
on such points, criight to be in the hands of every
Biblical student.

8. The order of the various Books seems to have
been finally settled by the Massoretes. The Hebrew
Bible is divided into three parts: (1) The Tor ah,
" Law " or Pentateuch. (2) The Prophets, divided
into two, (a) the former, Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
Kings ; (6) the later, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, with
the twelve Minor Prophets. (3) The Kethuhim, or
the " Writings," generally termed the Hagiographa,
viz. Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the five Megilloth or
Tiolls {i.e. Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,
and Esther), Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles.
The order of the Books in the English Bible is that
of the Latin Vulgate, with the Apocryj)hal Books
excluded. The Massorah reckons the Books as
twenty-four, the two books of Samuel, Kings, and
Chronicles being counted as single books ; the twelve

THE JEWISH MASSORAH. 39

Minor Prophets are reckoned as one book, and
Ezra and Nehemiah are also regarded as forming
together one book. The English Bible regards the
books as thirty-nine. Josephus and the Alexandrine
writers reckon only twenty-two, Ruth with Judges
being counted as one, and Lamentations being in-
cluded in Jeremiah. The arrangement in the Talmud
{Baba Batlira, 14&) is: — Law; Prophets^ i.e. Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah,
and the Twelve ; Writings, i.e. Kuth, Psalms, Job,
Proverbs, Koheleth, Canticles, Lamentations, Daniel,
Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles. But the latter
order is of very doubtful authority. See Bloch,
Studien] Wright, Koheleth, Excurs. i. The size or
the respective books, as ascertained by the pages
actually occupied by each, was evidently the principle
which determined the order in which the books of the
Vrophets were placed according to this arrangement.

CHAPTER YI.

THE TAR GUMS.

1. ri ^HE intercourse — sometimes of a friendly, a.nd
-L more often of a hostile character — which
from the earliest times took place between Israel and
their Aramaic-speaking neighbours, caused Aramaic
to be generally understood, not only by members of
the tribes belonging to the northern kingdom, but
also by the higher classes belonging to the southern
kingdom (Isa. xxxvi. 11, etc.). The Western Aramaic
gradually became more general among the Israelites
after the Exile, although the Israelites did not learn,
as is often supposed that language in Babylon.
Western Aramaic was, indeed, incorrectly termed
" Chaldee," through a misconception of Dan. i. 4
with ii. 4. Jerome popularised the mistake, which
he no doubt imbibed from his Jewish teachers ; and
accordingly many, from his days onward, have sup-
posed that the astrologers (or Chaldasans) at the court
of Nebuchadnezzar addressed that king in Aramaic,
w^hich was sometimes regarded as having been the
language of Babylonia. See our remarks on the
Book of Daniel, p. 193.

2. After the Exile Aramaic became the language
of trade and commerce in Palestine, and a consider-

THE TARGUMS. 41

able number of the Jews after a time were more
familiar with it than with the sacred tongue. Hence
the practice arose of accompanying the reading of
the Scriptures in the synagogues by an interpreta-
tion in the popular Aramaic. Neh. viii. 8 is often
incorrectly adduced in proof of this practice. For
the Jewish theologians of the Middle Ages were
anxious to cite Scripture authority for all their
arrangements and institutions, even for those which
came into existence subsequent to the Persian period,
just as Christian divines have similarly attempted to
establish dogmas and practices of latter development
from passages of the New Testament, which, rightly
understood, have no such meaning. Luke iv. 17ff.
is often adduced to prove that the practice of inter-
preting the Scriptures in Aramaic was at least not
universal in the time of our Lord. That practice
may, however, then have been in use in parts of the
country, and it was firmly established as a general
custom before the great insurrection in the days of
Hadrian. The Aramaic paraphrase sometimes adhered
closely to the original text, but at other times was
embellished with additions of various kinds. The
reader of the Law and the Prophets in reading was
forbidden to add anything to the sacred text, or to
repeat any text from memory. He was directed when
reading strictly to keep his eyes on the words. The
Meturgeman, or Translator, was, on the other hand,
forbidden to make any use whatever of manuscript
but was wholly to depend on memory. Comp. J. H.
Biesenthal, Das Trostschreihen an die Hehrder, Einl.,
cap. v., p. 50 ff.

42 THE TARGUMS.

3. All "interpretations" — and the word Targum
(D'lil")jri) properly signifies such — have a tendency,
whether more or less literal, in the process of time
to become uniform. The interpreters among the
Jews became in time a sort of guild. While, there-
fore, Bbhl has gone too far in maintaining that
there was in existencQ in our Lord's time an Aramaic
translation or paraphrase of the Scriptures, which was
cited by New Testament writers, it is not improbable
that large portions of the Scripture in Aramaic were
early committed to wi'iting. The Talmud (Shabbath,
115«, towards the end) mentions a written Targum
on the Book of Job towards the close of the first
century, in the days of Gamaliel. The antipathy
of that patriarch to such a work was so great, that
he ordered it to be buried under the foundations of
a wall ; and, according to the Jer. Talmud {Shabbath,
xvi. 15c), the order was forthwith executed. But if
a written Targum on Job was extant so early, it is
only reasonable to suppose that other Targums were
also in existence.

4. The theology set forth in the Targums proves,
as Strack observes, their great antiquity. None,
however, of the Targums now known are of higher
antiquity than the third or fourth centuries after
Christ. But they are based to a large extent upon
similar works of a much higher antiquity.

5. The extant Targums are: (1) The Targum of
Onhelos (DlSp^lX), which is the most literal, and
comprehends the entire Pentateuch. It is uncertain
who this Onkelos was, or at what time he lived.
The Onkelos spoken of in the Talmud as contem-

THE TARGUMS. 43

porary with Gamaliel, and whose translations arc
there mentioned, can be identified with Aqiiila (D^^py),
the Greek translator (see p. 60). Geiger is probably-
correct in maintaining that the Targum which
adhered most literally to the Hebrew text was
called that of Onkelos, not because it was edited by
him, but as indicating that it was executed with
something like the same literality for which Aquila's
Greek version was remarkable. The name describes
the nature of the work, and not the author. The
Targum of Onkelos does not appear to have been
the work of a single author or editor, but the pro-
duction of a school. In its present shape it probably
originated in Babylon, and it has often been questioned
whether that Targum is as early as the older portions
of the two Targums next to be mentioned.

(2) The Targum of Jerusalem, I., embraces the
Pentateuch, and is commonly known as the Targum
of Pseudo-Jonathan, owing to the fact that it was
incorrectly ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel, the pupil
of Hillel, a mistake which probably arose from an
incorrect explanation of the abbreviation ' "n, which
indicates ^O^E^n^ Diain. In its present form it is
probably not older than the seventh century.

(3) The Targum of Jerusalem, II., also termed the
Fragmenta.ry Targu7)i, embraces only portions of the
Pentateuch. It is older than the former, and pro-
bably a production of the Palestinian school. It
contains more of an Haggadic, i.e. homiletic nature.
This Targum is often cited in the Jerusalem Talmud
and in the Midrash Kabba.

(4) The Targum of Jonathan embraces the Prophets.

44 THE TARGUMS.

This paraphrase is generally ascribed to Jonathan
ben Uzziel, who, according to the Babylonian Talmud
{Megillah^ 3a), composed a Targum on the Prophets.
Passages, however, of this Targum are ascribed in
the Talmud to a later scholar, E. Joseph bar Chiyyah
(died 333), who may have revised and re-edited the
Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel. The name Jonathan
was a common one. Geiger has conjectured that
Jonathan is a Hebraised form of Theodotion (see
chap, viii.), both names being of the same significa-
tion. In this case the name indicates the manner in
which the Targum was composed. It is likely that
this Targum also was the product of a school of
interpreters, and nob the work of any single author.

(5) The Targums on the Hagiographa (chap, v., 8)
were composed by different authors, and are more
modern. The authors of those paraphrases probably
worked also on the lines of former translators. No
Targum is extant on the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah,
and Daniel, while there are two Targums on the
Book of Esther. According to Noldeke, the Targum
on the Proverbs is a Jewish working-up of the
Syriac (Peshitto) translation. The same might also
be affirmed of the Targum on the Psalms, which,
from its allusions in the rendering of Psalm cviii. 11
to Rome and Constantinople as the two capitals of
the world, has been considered to have been composed
prior to a.d. 476 ; while, on the other hand, the
references to the Hungarians in Psalm Ixxxiii. 7 point
to the ninth century. Such phenomena seem to
show that the translation of the Psalms was the
work of very different periods.

THE TARGUMS. 45

(6) Besides the above, a few fragments are extant
of other Targums on the Prophets, which need here
only be alluded to.

6. See Noldeke, Die alt-testamentliche Literatur, 1868,
and his articles in Merx' Archiv f. wiss. Erforschunf/ d. A. T.
ii., and in the Zeltschrift d. devtsch. Morgcnl. Ges., xxii.
(1868), p. 443 ff. ; Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge, 1832.
Geiger, Urschrift, 1857 ; Judische Zeitschrift, 1871, 1874 ; J^ach-
(jclassene Sclmft. iv. Berliner, Tavgiim Onhelos, (2 vols., text
and notes), 1884 ; also his Massorahzum Targum Onlidoa, 1877.
Seligsohn, De duahus Ilierosol. Pent, paraph., 1859. G, B.
Winer," De Onkeloso ejusq. parapli. Chald., 1820, and his De
Jonathanis in Pent, parapli. Chald., 1823, H. Petermann,
De dualus Pent, paraph. Chald., 1829. S. D. Luzzatto,
Philoxemis sive de Onlielosi chald. Pent, vers., 1830. R. Anger,
De Onhelo Chald. quern ferunt Pent, paraph, et quid ei
rationis intercedat cnni ATcila grceco V. T. interprete, 1845,
1846. S. Gronemann, Die Jonathanische Pent.-Uehersetzung
in ihrem Verhdltnisse zur Halacha, 1879. Sal. Singer,
Onhelos u. das Verhaltniss seines Targ. zur Halacha, 1881.
W. Bacher, on Targ. on Pent, in Zeitschrift d. D. M. G.,
xxviii. (1874), also in same, vol. xxix. (1875); on the Targ. to
Psalms in Graetz, Monatschrift 1872, and on that on Joh in
Graetz, Monatschrift, 1871. Reis on Targ. to Esther in same
journal for 1876 and 1881. M. Rosenberg and K. Kohler,
Das Targum zur Chronik., Judische Zeitschrift, 1870.

7. The Targums are given in the Rabb. Bibles and with
Latin translations in the Polyglotts (chap. ii. 3). Many
separate editions have also appeared. Lagarde issued an
unpointed edit, of Pi'ophetcs Chaldaice (Josh. — 2 Kings with
Isaiah — Mai.), \%72,io\\o\YQdihjHagiogra2}ha Chaldaice, 1873.
For Berliner's Onhelos, see former paragraph. The Targ. on
Chronicles was first issued by Beck in Augsburg, 1680, after-
wards by Wilkins, Amsterdam, 1715. The Targ. of Onkelos
has been often reprinted in a cheap form with the Heb. text
of the Pent., and Rashi'scomm., 6",^, in 5 small vols, Schlesinger,
Wien, 1878, L. Munk has issued in 1876 the Targum scheni

46 THE TARGUMS.

znm B. Esther with various readings and notes. Paulas
Cassel in Das Buch Esther, 1878, has given a translation of the
same. (See under Esther.) The Targ. on Ruth with variants
is given by C. H. H. Wright. (See under Ruth.) All the
Targums on the Pent, have been translated into English by
J. "VV. Etheridge and published in two thick vols, in 1862 and
1865. C. W. H. Pauli has also published an English transla-
tion of the Targ, on Isaiah, in 1871. A Latin translation of
the Jerus. Targ. was published by P. Tayler, London, 1649,
and the same scholar published a similar translation of both
Targums to the Book of Esther in 1655.

8. The Aramaic is divided into two branches : (1) the Western,
which comprehends («) the Samaritan, (J) the Biblical
Aramaic, and (e) the Targumic, the two latter being popularly
though erroneously termed Chaldee, (^) Nabatsean, extant in
numerous inscriptions and coins. (2) The Eastern Aramaic,
comprehends (a) Syriac, (h) the language of the Babylonian
Talmud, and {c) Mandaic, spoken in lower Babylonia. Other
important remains of Aramaic are mentioned by Kautzsch in
the introduction to his Graiumatik des bihlisch- AramdlscJien,
1884. The Hebrew student can easily obtain a knowledge of
Biblical Aramaic through th6 Chaldaismi Bihliei adumhratio
prefixed toBaer and Delitzsch's ed. of Lihri Danielis, EzrcB et
Neh., 1882. S. D. Luzzatto, Elements of Blhl. Chaldee and of
the dial, of the Talmud was published in Italian in 18G5, in
German 1873, and in English by J. S. Goldammer, 1877. G. B.
Winer's Gravim. des bibl. und targ. Chald., 2nd edit., 1842
(edit, by Fischer, 1882), is the basis of W^g^s Chaldee Manual,
1832, later edit. 1S5S. and of Longfield's Grammar, etc., 1859.
The paradigms in the latter unfortunately abound in typo-
graphical blunders. Turpie's Chald. Manual appeared in 1879.
J. H. Petermann's, Brcvis ling, chald. gramm. Utt. chrestom.
cum glos., 2nd edit., 1872, is useful. The best grammar for
Bibl. Chaldee is that of Kautzsch, English transl. by Stenhouse.
Important is Ad. Merx, Bemerkungen iiber die Vocalisation
der Targume (Verhandl. des 5 internat. Orient. Congr., ii. 1,
pp. 142-188). Merx has carried out the principles there imli-
cated in his Chrest. Targumica, 1888, noticed p. 28.

' THE TARGUMS. 47

The Lexicons are : J. Buxtorf, Lex. CJiald. Talm. et Rahh.,
foL, 1G39. New reprint with additions by B. Fischer, 2 vols.,
1869 and 1874. Eabb. Dr. J. Levy, Chalddisches Worterhuch
iiher die Targuviim, etc., 2 vols,, 1867, 1868, reprint in one vol.,
1881. Most important is J. Levy, Neuheh. et Chald. Worter-
huch iiher die Tahitudivi wid Midraschim, nehst Beitra^en von
Prof. Dr. H. L. Fleischer, vol. i., 1876 ; vol. ii., 1879 ; vol. iii.,
1883 ; voL iv., 1889. Useful chrestomathies are : G. B. Winer
Chald. LeseliLcli aus den Targg., 2 Aufl., by J. FUrst, 1864 ; J.
Kaerle, Chrest. Targ.-Syr., 1852 (299 pp.), Merx, see p. 28.
For Talmudic : B. Fischer, Talmud. Chrestomathie, 268 pp.,
H. L, Strack's useful editt. of Pirhe Ahoth, 2te Aufl., Berlin,
H. Reuther, 1888 ; 'Alwda Zara, 1888 ; Joma, 1888 ; Shahhath,
1890 ; also Geiger, Lthr- und Lesehuch zur Sprache der
MisJinah, 1846 ; Strack and Siegfried, Lehrh. der Neuheh.
Sj^rache und Litt., 1884.

Ed. Bohl's works referred to on p. 42 ai-e : Forschungeri nach
eiiier Volhshihel zur Zeit Jesu, Wien, 1873 ; and, as a second
vol. of that work, Die Alt-testamentlichen Oitate ini Newn
Test., Wien, 1878.

9. The Samaritan translation of the Pentateuch is
carefully to be distinguished from the Samaritan
codex of the Pentateuch noticed before, p. 19. The
Samaritan codex is simply a Hebrew codex of a
different recension from the Massoretic, and written
in the Samaritan character, which, though by no
means so important as formerly imagined, is still of
considerable value. But the Samaritan version is in
reality a Samaritan Targum based on the Samaritan
codex, and possesses peculiar value. The Fathers of
the third and fourth centuries speak of a '^afxapeLTLKov,
or Greek translation of this version, which is there-
fore of considerable antiquity. See Field's Hexapla, i.,
p. Ixxxiii.

48 THE TAEGUMS.

The best helps to Samaritan are : F. Uhlemann, InstUutiones
ling. SamantancB, 1837, containing an extensive chrestomathy.
J. H. Petermann, Brevis ling. Sam. gramm. litt. direst, cum
gloss., 1873. The literature given in the Porta Ling Orient.,
especially as re-editcd by Strack, will also be found of
considerable utility.

The Sam. version is to be found in the Polyglotts, see
chap. ii. 3. More modern editions are, BrilU, Gesch. u. Lit.,
1876; Das Samaritanisclie Targ. z. Pent., with various readings
and app., 1875,1879; Varianten zu Genesis des Sam. Targ.,
1876, both in Hebrew characters. J. W. Nutt, Fragments
of a Sam. Targum, 1874. J. H. Petermann, Pent. Sam. in
Samaritan characters : Fasc. i. Gen., 1872 ; ii. Exod., 1882 ;
iii. Lev.,ed. Vollers, 1883 ; iv. Numl?., ex recens. Toilers, 1885.
Important are : H. Petermann, Versucli einer heh. FormenleJire
nacli der AussjjracJte der heutig. Samaritaner nebst einer dar-
nach gcMld. Transscription der Genesis, und . . . Lesarten
der Samaritaner, 1868 ;|M. Heidenheim, Die Sam. Pent. Vers.
Genesis in der heh. Quadratschrift, mit Einl. u. SclioUen,
1884. Kohn, Samaritanlsche Studieti, 1868. Also his Zwr
Spraclie, Lit. u. Dogmatik, 1876 (reviewed by Noldeke, Zeit-
schrift. d. D. M. G., 1876, p. 343 ff); also in Zeitschrift der
D. M. G.. 1885. Kuenen has published Abu Said's Arabic
translation, Lih. Gen. sec. Arah.^ Pent, vers,, 1851 ; Exod. u.
Lev., 1854.

CHAPTER YII.

THE 8TRIAC VERSIONS OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT.

1. rriHE oldest Syriac version is that known as
-■-■ the Peshitto, NDtD^EJ^S, ]A,4 i>w<^ i.e. the
simple, or (as explained by Nestle and Strack) generally
used version. The term occurs in Syriac Massoretic
MSS. of the ninth and tenth centuries (NoldeJce), and
was so named to distinguish it from the Hexaplar
version. The Peshitto is of Judseo-Christian origin,
and is as old as ' the second or third centuries.
The translation was the work of several scholars,
and the portions are of very different merit. The
Pentateuch is the best-translated portion. The trans-
lators made considerable use of the LXX. ; but it is
not improbable that their translation was corrected
here and there in later times, and so approximates
more, nearly to the LXX. than it did originally.
Strack observes that the translation of the Chronicles
is essentially different from that of the other books.
Noldeke considers that the cause of this is that the
Nestorians and some of the Monophysites did not
include in their canon the Books of Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Esther. It is to be observed, how-
ever, that Aphraates, who flourished in the second

4

50 THE SYRIAC VEBSIONS

quarter of the fourth century, cites all those books
as canonical. A list of the numerous Scripture
quotations in Aphraates is given in W. Wright's
edition of the Homilies of A'phraates in Syriac, vol.
i., 1869. As the English translation of this work,
promised by Professor Wright as vol. ii., has unfor-
tunately never appeared, it may be well to observe
that a German translation of Aphraates by George
Bert has been published in von Gebhardt and
Harnack's Texte u. Untersuch. zur Gesch. d. Alt.
Christl. Lit., Band iii., Heft 3, 4, 1888, which contains
also a list of the Biblical quotations. The Apocryphal
books form no part of the Peshitto proper, but are
a later addition thereto, although those books are
contained in old MSS.

2. The Peshitto version is given in full in both the Paris
and London Polyglotts, accompanied by a Latin version.
S. Lee published in 1824 the whole version of both Old and
New Testaments, which is the edition sold by the British and
Foreign Bible Society. That edition is for the most part not
vocalized in the Old Testament. The American missionaries
have published a fully pointed edition at Urmia, 1852. Single
portions have been often edited, such as the Pent, by G. G.
Kirsch, 1787, the Psalms by Erpenius in 1625 ; and with Latin
notes (phil. et crit,,) by Dathe, 1768 ; there is also a pointed
edition of the same by British and Foreign Bible Society;
and by Nestle in Psalt. Tetraglott., Grcdc.^ Syr.^ Clialcl.. Lat.,
1879 ; where the texts are however unpointed. Ceriani, Transl.
Syra Pcacitto V. T. ex cod. Amhro.s., 3 parts, fob, 1876-79;
de Lagarde, LiU. V. T. Apoc. Syr., 1861. See L. Hirzel,
De Pent. Vers. Syr. indole, 1825. Credner, De Pro2)li. Min.
vers. Syr. , . . indole, 1827. N. Wiseman, Hone Syr., Rom.,
1828. Perles, Meletemat. PescTi., 1859. Janichs, Animadv.
erit. in vers. siyr. Koli. et Bvtii, 1871. Prager, Be V. T. vers.

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 51

syr. quoBst. crit., Pars I., 1875. Noldeke, Alt-test. Lit., 1868.
S. Frankel, Die Syr. Uehersetzung xn den lih. der Chron. in
Jahrhh. f. Prot. Tlieol., 1879. Baethgen, Untersnchvngeti
ither die Pmlmen^ Jahrhh. f. Prot. Theol., 1882. See under
head of Psalms.

2. The Hexaplar Syriac is a translation of the LXX.
version, and of great importance in all questions
bearing on that version. Its author was Paul, Bishop
of Telia, A.D. 616-618. Norberg published in 1787
Jeremiah and Ezekiel after this version, and H.
Middeldorpf has published Cod. Syr. Hexapl. lih. iv.
Reg., e cod. Paris, alsoJer., xii. Proph. Min., Prov., Job,
Cant., Threni, Eccl., e cod. Mediol. ed. et comm. illustr.,
1835. T. Skat Rordam published Lihri Judicum et
Ruth sec. vers. Syr.-HexapL, 1861.

On the most ancient Syriac MSS. see Ceriani, Memoric
del R. Inst. Lomh. di Sclenze e Lett., Ser. iii., vol. xi., 2.
W. Wright's Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in British Museum^
1870. The most complete account of Syriac literature is
W. Wright's article in the Encycl. Britannica, vol. xxii. See
the sketch in Eb. Nestle's Syrische Grammatik mit Litt.
Chrest. u. Gloss., 2nd ed., 1888. An English translation has
been issued by A. R. S. Kennedy, 1889. Among the principal
modern Syriac grammars are that of Uhlemann, 1829, 2nd ed.,
1857 ; Engl, trans, by Hutchinson, New York and Edinb., 1854.
A. T. Hofemann, Gram. Syr., Libb. iii., 1827. Ad. Merx,
Gramm. Syr., Pars i., 1867 ; Pars ii., 1870, not yet completed.
Th. Noldeke, Kurzgefass. Syr. Grammatih, 1880. In English :
Phillips, Elements of Syr. Gramm., 3rd ed., 1866. B. H.
Cowper, Syriac Gramm., 1858. In French : R. Duval, Traite
de Grammaire Syriaque, Paris, 1881. On the Syriac Massora,
see Wiseman, HorcB Syr., 1828 ; M. I'abb^ Martin, Iradition
Karhajjhienne, ou la Massore chez les Syriens, Paris, 1870 ;
Hist, de la Punct., ou la JIassore chez les Syriens 1875. The
Lexicons are : Castell, Lex. Syr. cur, J. H. Michaelis, 1788.

52 THE SYRIAC VERSIONS.

The lexicon attached to Kirsch's Chrest Syr. munlex., ed.
by G. H. Bernstein, 1832, 1836, is most useful to supplement
the former. K. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, is not yet
quite completed (vol. i., 1879, vol. 2, fasc. vi., 1883, vii., 1886,
viii., 1896 to end of P]. )

The other Oriental versions, such as the Arabic,
Persian and Ethiopic, are of very secondary import-
ance, and must here be passed over.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE GREEK VERSIONS.

1. nnHE Sejytuagint. The most important of the
ancient versions is the Alexandrian Greek
translation, generally designated the LXX., and in
former times sometimes the LXXII. The name is
popularly explained by the legend in the apocryphal
Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates, namely, that at
the suggestion of Demetrius Phalereus, librarian at
Alexandria, king Ptolemy Philadelphus (b.c. 286-
246) requested Eleazar, the high priest at Jerusalem,
to procure a Greek translation of the Jewish Law
for the Boyal Library at Alexandria. Aristeas gives
an interesting description of the temple at Jerusalem
and its cultus. In accordance with the request,
Eleazar sent down to Egypt six men selected out
of each tribe, seventy-two in all, who, in the Isle of
Pharos, translated the Pentateuch from a MS. written
in golden letters upon parchment. The translation
was performed in seventy-two days, was highly
praised by the Alexandrine Jews, and the translators
returned laden with gifts to their own land. The
legend afterwards received amplifications, viz. that
the translators were shut up in separate cells, that
they translated the whole Bible, and that they

54 THE GREEK VERSIOJSS.

produced each a translation, which on examination
proved to be word for word identical.

The Greek text of Aristeas' Letter is given in Havercamp's
edit, of Josephus, 1726, but the text there and elsewhere given
is corrupt. It has been critically edited by M. Schmidt, in
Merx' Archiv, Band i., pp. 241-312 (1869). The Letter was
known to Josephus, who has misunderstood and misrepresented
some of its statements. The Greek is in many places difficult.
A translation into German is to be found in O. Waldeck,
Volksausyabe dcs jild.-hellenistichen Schriftthums der drei
vorchristl. Jahrh., 1885. See on Aristeas, Noldeke, Alt. Test.
Litteratur, p. 109 ff., and Papageorgios, Ueher den Aristeas-
hrief, 1880, Schiirer, Gesch. d,.jud. Volkes, see Aj)jf.

Aristobulus, a Jewish philosopher (who wrote an
'E^y]yr](TL<i rrj<i Mojo-€(os ypa<firjs, quoted by Eusebius and
Clem. Alex.), speaks of the Law having been translated
into Greek in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and
of Demetrius Phalereus having been employed on the
work. There are certain diliiculties with respect to
Aristobulus' story, which does not correspond with
that of Aristeas, although it points to the same
tradition. Aristobulus was probably teacher of Ph^-
lometor, and lived in the commencement of the
second century before Christ.

See Hody, De Biblior. textihus orig., 1705. Valckenaer,
Diatribe de Aristobulo Judcso, 1806. Schiirer, Gesch. des

jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 2te Ausg. 1886,
1889. Graetz, Monatschrift, 1876. Joel, Blicke in die

Religions- Gesch. znm Anfang des zweit. chri.stl. Jahrh., 1880.

However distorted the legend, it is certain that the
translation of the LXX. originated in Egypt, and in
the time of the early Ptolemies received general recog-

THE GREEK VERSIONS, 55

iiition (see Ap2^.). The Jews in Egypt, whose numbers
were increased by the transportation of thousands
thither in B.C. 320, soon lost all familiarity with their
own language. The Law was probably interpreted
very early into Greek in their synagogues, just as in
other places it had been interpreted into Ai-amaic.
All such translations had a tendency to become fixed,
and after a while, for practical purposes , were com-
mitted to writing. The Pentateuch was the first
portion translated, and the translation of the other
books followed in due time as a matter of course. A
Greek translation of all the books was in existence \
prior to the composition of the Wisdom of the Son
of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, in the prologue to which
book reference is made to such a translation. It is,
however, a matter of dispute whether Sirach's work
is to be assigned to a date so early as B.C. 237-211,
or to be brought down so late as B.C. 132. The title
"LXX." was probably given to the Greek transla-
tion of the Holy Scriptures, because, when issued,
the translation met with approval, and received the
sanction of the Jewish Sanhedrin. The number,
" seventy-two," sprang from the conviction that such
a work must have been the work of all Israel. But
the sanction of the Sanhedrin was withdrawn, pro-
bably in consequence of the reaction against everything
Greek, consequent on the events of the Maccabean
era (b.c. 175-135). The execution of a Greek trans-
lation at the request of king Ptolemy is noticed in
the Talmud, although the number of the translators
is there reduced to five, and the birthday of the
translation' is stigmatised as a day as fatal to Israel

56 THE GREEK VERSION'S.

as that on which the golden calf was made. Hence the
fast day appointed on the 8th of the month of Tebeth.
Comp. Mas. Soferim, 1, and the notes in Dr. J.
]Miiller's edition, Megillah, 3tt, Megillath Taanith, 9a.

2. The LXX. Version was the production of a
number of translators. The Pentateuch is the best
portion translated; next Job and Proverbs. Jeremiah
has been treated with peculiar freedom, and possibly
rests upon another recension of the Hebrew text.
The Book of Daniel is the worst, though peculiarly
important from an exegetical point of view. The
LXX. translation of that book was, since the days of
Irenseus and Hippolytus, supplanted by the version
of Theodotion, and was only brought to light again
about a century ago.

The literature on the LXX. is very extensive, and only a few
works can be mentioned. On Morinus' work see p. 3 ; on Hody,
p. 54. Most important are : Frankel's Vorstudien zu der Seiitua-
ginta, 1841 ; Geiger's Urschrift (see p. 34) ; his Nachgelassene
Scliriften, iv. 73 ff. ; Th. Studer, Be vers. Alex. orig. ii.su et
dbmu, 1823 ; Eb. Nestle, Scjytuaginta Studien, 1886 ; the
articles in the various Bibl. Dictionaries, C. Siegfried, Philo
iind der icherlicferte Text der LXX. in Hilgenfeld's Zeit-
schrift, 1873. The following scholars have written on the
LXX. transl. of the various books of 0. T. : Pent., Thiersch,
1841 ; Joshua, Hollenberg, 1876 ; Judges and Ruth, Fritzsche,
1864, 1867 ; Samuel, Thenius, Wellhausen and Driver; Isaiah,
A. Scholz, 1880 ; Jeremiah, Wichelhaus, 1847; A. Scholz, 1875;
Kiihl, 1882 ; Workman, 1889 ; EzeMel, A. Merx, Jahrh.f. prot.
Tlieol., 1883 ; Cornill, see under EzeMel ; Minor Proph.,
Vollers, Das Dodelia-proph. d. Alex., 1880, and in Stade's
Theol., 1882 ; Proverbs, Lagarde, 1863 ; Graetz, Mcmatschrift,
1884; Job, Bickell, 1862 (see Apj).')', EccUs., Freadenthal,

THE GREEK VERSIONS. 57

Hclhrmt. Stwlien, 1875. Grinfield's Apol. for the iXX,
1850, is interestincr.

The value of the LXX. is great, but the facts
ah-eady mentioned show that in the correction of the
Hebrew text it must be used with great caution.
Much remains to be done ere the very text of that
version can be said to be fairly settled.

3. The editions of the LXX. are mentioned in all
the larger Biblical Dictionaries. The text in the
Complutensian Polyglott has been ascertained to be
in the main that of Lucian's recension, based, how-
ever, upon MSS, of no great antiquity. The Roman
edition (issued under the authority of Sixtus V., and
known as the Sixtine) was based mainly upon the
Vatican codex, although by no means an accui*ate
representation of that MS. The London Polyglott
in general follows its text. The Oxford edition of
J. E. Grabe, published in four folios (1707-1720),
was mainly based on the Alexandrian codex. The
great edition of Holmes and Parsons, in five folios
(1798-1827), gives a valuable collation of various
readings, though deficient in accuracy and arrangement.

The small quarto edition of L. Bos (1709) is useful,
because with numerous variants it also contains the
readings of the other Greek translations. It must,
however, be used with caution. Tischendorf's edition
was first published in 1850. Though less ambitious
than that of Holmes and Parsons, and although it
does not give so many variants as Bos, it is far in
advance of both editions. It follows the Sixtine, but
contains variants of the uncials. The second edition
was published in 1856 with the Chigi Daniel (see

58 THE GREEK VERSIONS.

p. 60), and the fifth was published after the death
of Tischendorf in 1875. E. Nestle edited the sixth
edition in 1880, and a seventh edition in 1887. Both
contain a valuable supplement by Nestle, issued also
separately, which gives a more complete collation of
the Sixtine text with the Vatican, Alexandrian, and
Sinaitic texts, etc. Dr. H. B. Swete, now Regius
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, published in 1887
the first volume (Gen.— IV. Kings) of a manual edition
of The Old Testament in Greelc according to the LXX.
edited for the Syndics of the University Press, with
the variants of the most important uncial MSS.
The second volume, containing 1 Chron. to Tobit, is
now (1891) published. A larger and more important
edition is in preparation. An English translation of
the LXX. has been published, The Septuagint Version
of the Old Testament, ivith an English Translation,
Various Readings, and Critical Notes. London : S.
Bagster and Sons. All such works must be used with
caution.

i facsimile of the Alex. MS., the uncial of the fifth ceatur^
known as A., was first published by H. H. Baber, 3 vols. fol.
1816-21, and more satisfactorily in autotype under edit, of E. M
Thompson; vol. 1, Gen.-2 Chr., 1881 ; vol. 2, Hos.-4th Mace,
1883 ; vol. iii., Ps.-Eccl., 1883, completing the O. T. The N. T.
was published m 1879. The facsimile edit, of the Vatican MS.,
the uncial of the fourth century known as B., which was pre-
pared by Card. Mai, was finally published at Rome, under the
editorship of C. Vercellone and J. Cozza, the O, T. in four
vols., 1869-1872; vol. v., containing the N. T., was pubhshed
in 1868. Vol. vi., published in 1881, contains very incomplete
Prolegomena. A photographic reproduction of the O. T. is
announced. The photographic edit, of the N. T. has K>een

THE GREEK VERSIONS. 59

published. The Sinaitic MS. is an uncial of the fourth
century, and is known as X- A portion of it was published
under the title of Cod. Frederico- Aug . in 1816, and the larger
portion of the remainder under title of Bihl. Codex Sinaitic us
Petropol., at St. Petersburg, in three vols, in 1862. Some further
fragments of Gen. and Num. have appeared under title Ai)}}.
cod. celeh. Sin., Vat., Alex., Leipzig, 1867. The other uncials are
Cod. Cott. Geneseos, known as D., at Brit. Mus., partly destroyed
by fire, given in Tischendorf's 3Ionum. sacra ined. nov. coll.,
vol. iL, 1857, and further in F. W. Gotch's Siq^plement, Lond.,
1881. E. is the Cod. Bodl. Geneseos, also in same vol. of
Tischendorf. F. is the Cod. Amhros. (Gen. xxxi. 15-Josh. xii.
12 with gaps), edited by Ceriani in Monum. sacr. et 'profana,
Medio]., 1864.

4. The text of the LXX. put forth by Origen (a.d.
236) in his Hexapla (see p. 61), was soon recognised
as the €07)17)1071 {Koivrj) or accepted text. Later,
Lucianus, Presbyter of Antioch, who died as a martyr
in A.D. 311, issued a revised text, widely accepted in
Syria and elsewhere. About the same time Hesychius,
bishop and martyr (died 310 or 311 in Egypt),
executed another revision, used extensively in that
country. Paul de Lagarde published the first part of
a restoration of the Lucianic recension in his Librorum
V. T. caiion. -pars prior Grcace, 1883 (541 pp., with
xvi. pp. of preface), and is now preparing the 2nd vol.
See also Field, Origenis Hexapl.., Prolegomena, cap. ix.,
and Driver, NoUs on Samuel, Introd., pp. l.-Hi.

5. There are two concordances to the LXX., that of Kircher,
1607, in 4to ; or, better, that of Trommius, 2 vols. foL, 1718,
neither satisfactory. The first fascic. of Dr. Hatch's Concord-
ance to the LXX. is in press, and will soon be published.
The Lexicon to the LXX. of J. Ch. Biel, 3 vols., 1779, edited in
a considerably enlarged form in 6 vols, by J. F. Schleusner,

60 THE GREEK VERSIONS.

1821, is in many respects defective. C. A. Wahl edited a useful
Clavis Lihh. V. T. AjJocryiyh.^ in 4to, 1853.

6. The Book of Daniel according to the LXX.
was first published by Simon de Magistris, in 1772;
afterwards, from the Chigi codex, by H. A. Hahn,
1845, and given in Tischendorf's editions of the LXX.
since 1856. More critically by J. Cozza in his Sac.
Bib. vetustiss.jrag, grceca et lat., Pars iii., Romse, 1877.

The ancient versions which are based on the LXX.
are the Itala (see chap, ix.), the Hexaplar Syriac (see
chap, vii.), and the Ethiopic, though now considered
not to have been made directly from the Greek, as
also the Egyptian translations (Coptic and Sahidic).
See Strack's Einleitung, 3rd edit., pp. 271, 272.

7. The other Greek Translations. — (1) Aquila, like
the jG-^^ish Christian of the same name mentioned
in the Acts of the Apostles, was a native of Pontus.
His name in Greek is 'AKvAas, in the Jerusalem
Talmud it is Hebraised D^''pi;, but in the Babylonian
Talmud it is written Dl^pJIJ^ (see chap, vi., p. 43).
Aquila was a Greek proselyte to Judaism, and
executed his translation from a polemical standpoint
as a counterpoise to the LXX. translation, which
was quoted by Christians in favour of their views.
His translation seems to have been well received by
the Jews. Only fragments of it unfortunately are
extant. These prove it to have been slavishly literal,
full of Hebraisms, and often only to be understood
by reference to the Hebrew. It is a question of
debate whether the extant translation of Ecclesiastes
is not mainly the version of Aquila, and though the
evidence is on the whole rather against that theory,

TEE GREEK VERSIONS. Gl

there can be little doubt that the LXX. translation of
that book has incorporated not a few of the readings
of Aquila. The version of Aquila is at least as old
as the time of the Emperor Hadrian.

(2) Theodotion (©eoSortW, sometimes called ®c6'
horo<5) was according to Irenseus a Jewish proselyte
of Ephesus, and according to Eusebius, an Ebionite.
As he is mentioned by Justin Martyr (cir. 160) he
must have wi'itten prior to that date. His transla-
tion was in several respects a revision of the LXX.
His translation of Daniel wholly supplanted the
latter in ecclesiastical use. But of the other books
only fragments of his version are extant.

(3) Symmachus (^vfx}xaxo<s) appears to have exe-
cuted his version somewhat later than Theodotion.
According to Eusebius he was an Ebionite ; according
to Epiphanius a Samaritan, who became a Jewish
proselyte. He aimed at combining perspicuity of
translation with fidelity to the original. Only frag-
ments of his translation are also extant.

These three translations comprehended only the
canonical books of the Old Testament, and not the
apocryphal.

(4) The fragments of three other Greek versions have
come down to us with the remains of the Hexapla
of Origen. That work was so called from the six
columns it contained, in which were (1) the Hebrew
text in Hebrew, (2) the Hebrew written in Greek
characters, with the versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Sym-
machus, (5) the LXX., and (6) Theodotion. Words
wanting in the LXX. were supplied, generally from
Theodotion's version, and marked with asterisks ',{-^)

62 THE GREEK VERSIONS.

words in the LXX. in excess of the original text were
marked with an ohelos ( -f- ), the shape of which mark is
not always uniform. The copyists, however, often mis-
understood these and other critical marks, and hence
many errors have crept into the LXX. text, which
not unfrequently contains conflate or duplicate ren-
derings. The name Tetrapla was sometimes given
to Origen's work, from editions which contained only
the four columns of the Greek versions of Aquila,
Symmachus, LXX., and Theodotion. The three other
Greek translations are in some books of the Old
Testament referred to by Origen, designated Quinta,
Sexta, and Septima. The work of Origen was some-
times designated He'pta'pla and even Octapla, from
occasionally containing seven or eight columns.

8. Bern, de Montfaucon edited in 1713 the fragments of
Origen's work which remain, in 2 vols, folio. But the most
complete and scholarly edition is that issued from the Oxford
Press, Origenis Hcxaplorum qn/B supersunt : sive Veteruin
interpretum Grcecomm in totum Veins Test, Pragmenta. Post
P^laminium Nbhilium, Drusinm, et 3Iontrfalconinni, adhih.
etiam vers. Syro-Hexaplari, coneinnavit, emend, et multis
partihus auxit Fredericus Field, A.M. 2 vols. 4to, 1875. See
addenda on Aquila, Symm. and Theod. in Field's Otium
Nnrvicense, Parti., 1864.

9. In the Hexapla the name nirr* is written in
Greek mill. This fact, mentioned by Jerome, arose
from ignorance in the scribes, and in the wish to
reproduce the appearance of the sacred name. For n
in older forms of the Hebrew alphabet was written
almost like n, and the downstroke of the * was
sometimes prolonged so as to be like 1. The Greek

THE GREEK VERSIONS. 63

nini is a close resemblance of nini {p^^n") as the word
presented itself to their unpractised eyes.

10. The Greek translation, known as the Grnecns
Venetiis, discovered in MS. in the library of St.
Mark, Venice, is no authority for the ancient
reading of the Hebrew text. It cannot be older
than A.D. 1200, for the translator was acquainted
with Kimchi's Book of Roots, and it was evidently
executed from a pointed Hebrew text. It is, how-
ever, otherwise of much interest. The version, though
sometimes barbarous Greek, is executed with great
fidelity. Its author was a Jew acquainted with Greek
literature, and with considerable insight into Hebrew.
The best edition is that of Gebhardt : Grcecus Venetus,
Pentateuchi, Proverbiorum, Ruth, Cantici, EccUsiastce,
Thren.j Danielis, Versio Grceca. Ex unico Bihl.
S. Marci Venetce codice nunc pi'imum imo vol. com-
prehensani atque apjiaratu critico et phil. instructam
ed. 0. Gebhardt. Prce/atus est F. Deliizsch, 1875.
Delitzsch considers its author was an eminent Jewish
scholar of the name of Elissaeus {V'^"hii) who flourished
in the fourteenth century.

CHAPTER IX.

THE ANCIENT LATIN VERSIONS.

1. r I iHE version known as the Itala is the more
J- ancient of the two Latin versions. The
Itala is a very literal translation of the LXX., even
to the extent of slavishly copying evident blunders,
and hence it is of the greatest value as a witness to
the LXX. text. It was executed in the second cen-
tury, by unknown translators. Jerome speaks of
only one such translation, while Augustine seems to
refer to several. The name Itala is derived from
a passage in Augustine (De Doct. Christ., ii.), where
according to Kreyssig and Eichhorn the name arose
from an error of a scribe. If the word Itala be
the true reading the version originated in Italy.
The version has, however, been preserved only in
extensive fragments, the only books of the Old Tes-
tament preserved entire being the Psalter, the Book
of Esther, with the apocryphal books : — the third Book
of Ezra, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,
and Maccabees.

The best edition of what remains is that of Sabatier : Bihl.
s. Latince Verss. antiques s. Vetvs Italica et cceterce qncecunque
in codd. mser. et anticpioruni lihris reiJeriri jfotuerunt, 1739-
1749, 3 vols, folio, and with a new title by Didot, 1761. The
third vol. contains the New Testament. Fragments from

THE ANCIENT LATIN VERSIONS. 65

palimpsests have been published by F. Mlinter, 1819 ; and by
Ernst Ranke in 1871. Fragments of other antehieronymian
versions, e.g. of 1 and 2 Kings, have been published by J.
Haupt, Vindob., 1877, and by Ulysse Eobert, Pent, vers,
Lat. antiqnis.nma e cod. lAigd., Paris, 1881. See also L
Ziegler, Bie lat. Bilelubersetzungen tor Hieron. u. die Itala
des Avgustinns, Miinchen, 1879 (pp. 135, 4to). H. Ronsch,
Itala U7id Vulgata. Das Sjn'achidiom der urchristl. Itala
und hathol. Vvlgata, etc. Marburg, 1869 (pp. 510). Also
Eonsch's articles in Hilgenfeld's Zeitsckrift f. wissensch.
Theol, 1875, 1876 and 1881.

2. The Vulgate. As numerous corruptions crept
into the old Latin version, Jerome in 382 set to work to
revise that translation. His first edition of the Psalter
was a simple revision of the Itala. The revision is
known as the Psalterium Romanum, and was used up
to the time of Pius V. in the Bom an Church. Portions
of it are yet to be found in the Missal and Breviary.
But the work was done too hastily to be satisfactory.
Jerome next revised many portions of the Old Tes-
tament version after Origen's Hexaplar text of the
LXX. Of that revision only the Psalter and the
Book of Job are extant. The revised translation of
the Psalms is known as the Psalterium Gallicanum,
because it came into common use in Gaul. Jerome
then proceeded to translate the Psalms directly from
Hebrew, and extended his translation to the other
books of the Old Testament, inclusive of some of the
Apocryphal books. The work was completed between
A.D. 390-405. Jerome's revision of the Psalms known
as the Galilean had, however, obtained so firm a footing
that that version was incorporated into the Yulgate,

5

66 THE ANCIENT LATIN VERSIONS.

and not the translation from the Hebrew. Jerome's
translation of the Psalter from the Hebrew has been
separately edited by P. de Lagarde (Leipzig, 1874),
and it is contained in the Liber Psahnorum Heh.
atque Latinus ah Hieronymo ex Hehrceo conversus,
consociata opera ediderunt C. d& Tischendorf, S. JBaer,
F. Delitzsch. Lipsise, 1874. It is also to be found in
Bagster's Bihlia Ecclesice Polyglotta. 1843.

3. Jerome's Revised Version met with the bitterest
opposition, and, although he strove to conciliate oppo-
nents, to the serious detriment of the work, by adhering
as closely as possible to the older version, it was long
ere it won popular favour. Jerome dictated his
translation to an amanuensis, and this fact, combined
with the common use of the older version, and the
carelessness of the scribes, led to the serious deprava-
tion of the translation. In process of time it was
generally received, and termed the common version
or Vulgate. Alcuin, the preceptor of Charlemagne,
elBfected something in the early part of the ninth
century (801) towards a restoration of Jerome's
translation, followed by Theodulf , Bishop of Orleans ;
and several attempts were made by other scholars
in the same direction in the eleventh and twelfth
centuries, and by Correctoria biblica in the thirteenth.
The result was, however, the still further corruption
of the text.

4. The Vulgate was among the first, if not the
very first book printed, but the earliest books were
unfortunately printed without dates. The earliest
editions, however, were printed from comparatively
modern MSS., and hence are of little authority.

THE ANCIENT LATIN VERSIONS. 67

5. Cardinal Ximenes' edition of the Vulgate in
the Complutensian Polyglott (1514-1517) was the
first attempt at a critical text. R. Stephanus issued
several improved editions, first in 1528, and later in
fclio in 1540. For the latter work he collated four-
teen MSS., and several printed editions.

6. The decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. iv.,
April 8th, 1546) declared the Vulgate "authentic."
This authorisation of the Vulgate necessitated the
publication of a standard text, and an " editio
authentica" appeared under Sixtus V. in 1590. The
edition was declared in the Papal Bull to be " vera,
legitima, authentica et indubitata in omnibus pub-
licis privatisque disputationibus." But ere it was
issued many readings had to be emended by printed
slips pasted over the printed text, and other correc-
tions were made with the pen. A new edition, after
considerable controversy both without and within the
Eoman Church, was issued in 1592 in the Pontificate
of Clement VIII. The text of the latter edition is said
to difier from the former in about three thousand
places. Other editions followed in 1593 and in 1598,
each with considerable variations.

7. A critical edition of Jerome's translation has not
yet appeared, although materials have been collected
for such an edition by the labours of many scholars,
especially for the New Testament portion. Vercellone
(see p. 68) has collected important material for the
correction of the Old Testament text. The English
Biblical student will do well to consult the version
known as The Douay Version as being an accredited,
if not absolutely " authentic," English translation of

68 THE ANCIENT LATIN VERSIONS.

the Vulgate, in use in the Eoman Catholic Church.
For critical purposes that translation must be verified
by reference to the Latin original.

The text of the present Vulgate is by no means
uniform. The Old Testament is often a composition
of the Itala and of Jerome. The greater portion of
the work contains Jerome's translation from the
Hebrew. The version of the Psalms as already noticed
is that of the Galilean Psalter. Jerome added in his
version critical marks after the example of Origen
(see p. 61). But these have utterly disappeared, to
the great detriment of the integrity of the text. The
Apocryphal Books of Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,
and the Maccabees are taken from the Itala.

8. See Bellum Pajyale s. concordia discors Sixti V. et Cle~
vientis VIII. circa Hierimyimanain edit. Auctore Thomas
James, Lond., 1600. G. Kiegler, Kritische Gesch. d. Vulg.,
Salzbach, 1820. Leander van Ess (Rom. Cath.), Pvagmatisch-
Tirit. Gesch. d. Vulg., Tlibing., 1824. F. Kaulen (Eom. Cath.),
Gesch. d. Vnlg. (502 pp.), Mainz 1868 ; also his Handh. zur
Vulg. (280 pp.), 1870. Bukentop, Liix de Uice lihh. tres
[lib. iii. on the Sixtine ed.]. See also the Bible Dictionaries,
especially the articles by 0. F. Fritzsche in the Prot, Eeal-
Encyclo]).

I Varies Lectiones Vulg. Lat. Bill. edit, quas Carolus Vercel-
lone, Sodalis Barnabites digessit, 4to. This work, which was
issued at Eome under Papal patronage, has been left unfinished
by the death of the learned editor. Only thi-ee parts have
appeared : Tom. i., Pent., 1860. Tom. ii., Pars i., Josue, Jiid.,
Ruth et I. Peg., 1862. Tom. ii., Pars ii., Libb. II, III, IV,
Reg., 186-4. Vercellone also edited a 4to edition of the Vulgate,
Rom. 1861.

Bibl. sacra Latina V. T, Hieron. interj). ex antiquiss.
auet. in stichos descrijjt. Vulg. led, , , , test, comitatur cod.

THE ANCIENT LATIN VERSIONS. 69

Amiatini latinortim omnium antiquiss. ed. instit. . . Thsod.
Heyse, ad fin. perdnx. C. de Tischendorf, 1873. See also
Baethgen in Zeitschrift f. alt-test. Wiss., 1881 ; and Lagarde,
Probe ei7ier neuen Ausgahe der lat. Uehersetzungen d. A. T.,
Gott., 1885.

PAET II.

CHAPTEE X.

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL.

1, /npHE first five books of the Old Testament are
J_ commonly termed the Five Books of Moses,
and designated the Pentateuch. The Greek name is
Y) 7r€VTdTev)(o<s scil. /3ij8A.o5, the word TrevTOLT^vxos being
used as an adjective. To tcOxos properly denoted the
box, or chest in which the rolls were kept, and was
used also by Symmachus as a synonyme for the Hebrew
np)ip, or roll. The Latin Pentateuchus is masculine,
the word Uher being supplied. The most common
Hebrew title is the Law (the Torah, ni'inrt, Neh. viii.
2ff), also called The Book of the Law of Moses (Neh.
viii. 1), and other designations (Neh. viii. 3, ix. 3,
xiii. 1). It is commonly termed in the Talmud and
by the Rabbins nninn ^t^^n n^pn, the five-ffths of
the Law. Other titles may here be passed over.

2. The Pentateuch occupies in the Old Testament
a position akin to that which the Four Gospels occupy
in the New. The account of our Lord's life presented
in the Four Gospels is the basis on which the system

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 71

of faith and doctrine taught by the other wiiters of
the New Testament is founded. Similarly the history
and theology of the Pentateuch underlie the other
books of the Old Testament. Even if it could be
proved that the details of the Israel itish ritual set
forth in the Pentateuch do not altogether harmonise
with the references thereto in the other books of the
Old Testament, it is indisputable that the facts of
history set forth in the Pentateuch are everywhere
accepted in the other books of the Jewish Scriptures,
whether historical, prophetical, or poetical.

3. The five books of the Pentateuch do not, how-
ever, constitute a complete work. The Book of Joshua
is required to finish the history, and to give symmetry
to its several component parts. Nor does the Book
of Joshua viewed separately present the appearance
of a complete historical work. It is but the closiug
portion of the history begun in the Pentateuch. The
partition of the land of Canaan among the twelve
tribes of Israel is only the sequel of the narrative of
the Exodus, to which the Book of Genesis is a grand
introduction. Hence there is much in favour of the
opinion now prevalent among critics, that the Hebrew
Scripture commences with a Hexateuch rather than
with a Pentateuch — i.e., that they open with an
historical work consisting originally of six books.

The acceptance, however, of this hypothesis, now
adopted by the best critics, does not necessarily run
counter to the substantial recognition of the Mosaic
authorship of the earlier Five Books. The Pentateuch
does not claim as a whole to have been written by
Moses. It contains statements {e.g. Exod. xi. 3 and

72 THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL,

Num. xii. 3) wliicli cannot easily be reconciled w^th
the traditional view, and passages which, according
to the opinion of the most earnest defenders of the
Mosaic authorship, must have been added long after
the date of Moses.

4. Portions of the work, and those by no means
inconsiderable, are unquestionably ascribed to Moses.
These are: (1) "The Book of the Covenant," Exod.
xx.-xxiii. ; see Exod. xxiv, 4-7. (2) The Book of the
Renewed Covenant, Exod. xxxiv. 10-26; see ver. 27.
(3) The Divine decree concerning the destruction of
Amalek, Exod. xvii. 14. (4) The list of the stations of

* the journeys of the children of Israel," Num. xxxiii.,
which claims to be a compilation from the records of
the Lawgiver; see Num. xxxiii. 2. (5) "The Law"
referred to in Deut. xxxi. 9, 11, 24-26 is stated to
be Mosaic, although the exact extent, however, of
that " Law " is doubtful. Some critics suppose it to
include the whole of the Book of Deuteronomy, be-
cause that book professes to contain the substance of
Moses' last addresses to the children of Israel ; others
consider " the Law " spoken of to have been more
restricted. (6) The Song of Moses, Deut. xxxii. ;
see Deut. xxxi. 19, 22. And (7) "The Blessing" of
the twelve tribes, Deut. xxxiii.

5. The division of the Pentateuch itself into five
separate books is not generally recognised in Hebrew
MSS. In MSS. the five books are treated as one, and
are divided into larger and smaller sections, numbered
consecutively from the beginning of Genesis to the
end of Deuteronomy. The disdsion into books is not,
however, on that account to be regarded as either

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 73

modern or arbitrary. The extant Hebrew MSS. are
too modern to be any authority on such a point,
while the work itself naturally falls into these five
portions, more or less independent of each other.
The Book of Joshua in Hebrew MSS. is always
regarded as a separate work.

6. The arrangement of the Mosaic writings as a
completed Pentateuch, and the treatment of the
Book of Joshua as an independent history, can be
traced back to the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. In
the writings of that period the five books together
are variously referred to as " the book of the Torah,"
or " Law " (Neh. viii. 3), " the Law " (Neh. viii. 2),
"the Law of God" (Neb. viii. 8), and "the Law
of Moses" (Ezra iii. 2; Mai. iii. 22, E. Y. iv. 4).
Similar designations occur in the New Testament,
where the Jewish Scriptures are referred to as a
whole under the title, " Moses and the Prophets,"
and where the books of the Pentateuch are quoted
as "Moses," or "the Law." The expression "the
Law " is, however, also employed in the New Testa-
ment to designate the books of the Old Testament in
general. See John x. 34, xii. 34, xv. 25 ; 1 Cor.
xiv. 21.

7. The Psalter was arranged in five books as far
back as the time of Nehemiah (see ch. xiv. § 2), and that
division had special reference to the five books of the
Pentateuch. The Midrash on Ps. i. 1 observes: "Moses
gave tjhie Israelites the five books of the Law, and,
corresponding to these, David gave to them the Book
of the Psalms, in which are five books." Delitzsch
remarks: "This division into five parts makes the

74 THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL.

Psalter a copy and echo of the Torah, which it
resembles also in this, that as in the Torah, Elohistic
and Jehovistic sections alternate, so in the Psalter,
there is a group of Elohistic Psalms (Pss. xlii.-lxxxiv.)
enclosed on both sides by groups of Jehovistic Psalms
(Pss. i.-xli. and Ixxxv. to cl.)." The Psalter was so
arranged that the opening Psalms of each of its five
books should correspond with the several books of
the Pentateuch. The first book of tho Psalter com-
mences with Ps. i., which in its phraseology brings
back to memory the garden of Eden and the streams
by which it was irrigated. The second book com-
mences with Ps. xlii., which treats of the affliction
in Egypt, and the deliverance from thence of the
people of Israel, corresponding thus with the Book
of Exodus. The third book begins with Ps. Ixxiii.,
which recounts the goodness of God in giving Israel
the Law (detailed in Leviticus), which Law was an
abiding mercy, however severely Israel might be
oppressed by their Gentile conquerors. The fourth
book opens with Ps. xc, the " prayer of Moses, the
man of God ; " and in the numbering of the days of
human existence spoken of in ver. 1 2 the pious editors
of the Psalter, no doubt, saw an apt reference to the
numbering of the people narrated in the fourth Book
of Moses. The fifth and last book of the Psalter
begins with Ps. cvii., in which " the goodness " of the
Lord in days of trouble and distress is insisted on as
vouchsafed in answer to prayer. The Psalm is a
fitting parallel to Moses' recapitulation of the in-
stances of God's lovingkindness to Israel set forth
in Deuteronomy.

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 75

8. Although the division of the Mosaic books into
five, and their separation from the Book of Joshua,
with whicii they seem once to have been united, is of
remote antiquity, the first writer known to use the
name " Pentateuch " {Pentateuchus, scil. liher) is the
Latin Father, TertuUian {Contra Marc, i. 10). The
name occurs in Tertullian's writings in such a way
as to show, however, that the expression was not one
specially invented by himself. The designation was
also employed by Origen {in Joann., cap. 26), r]
7rei/TaT€i;;^os (/5t^A,o?).

9. The Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch
was affirmed by the ancient Jewish authorities.
They maintained that even the concluding verses of
Deuteronomy, which record the death and burial of
the great Lawgiver, were written by him "with tears"
in anticipation of his approaching end. So Josephus,
Philo, and the Talmud in Baha Bathra, 15 a, Mena-
choth, 30a. The extravagance of such an idea was
seen somewhat later, and the verses at the end of
Deuteronomy were then ascribed to Joshua. The
early Christian writers at first accepted without
examination the conclusions of the Jewish writers.
Some, however, as Jerome and Theodoret, expressed
doubts on the point whether the Pentateuch was the
work of Moses or Ezra.

Modern critics who call in question the Mosaic
authorship often reject "the supernatural." It is,
therefore, ^;m?ic^ facie not unreasonable to suppose
that they have been led to deny the Mosaic author-
ship by the wish to bring down the ancient Hebrew
literature to the level of the other ancient literatures.

76 TEE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL.

But the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has
been called in question by many investigators who
have no desire whatever to detract from the authority,
or to deny the Divine inspiration, of the books in
question. Theological prepossessions ought not, there-
fore, to be permitted to stand in the way of historical
investigation. The Book of the Psalter retains its
full value and importance, whatever conclusions be
arrived at as to the credibility of the titles prefixed
to the different Psalms, and the same can be main-
tained substantially in reference to the Books of the
Pentateuch.

Some theologians have sought to settle the question
by adducing the statements (see p. 73), of our Lord
and His Apostles. Our Lord refers to the Pentateuch
as the writings of Moses (John v. 45-47, etc.), and
speaks of the Law as given by Moses (John vii. 19),
which statement is repeated by St. John (John i. 17).
Commandments contained in the Pentateuch are cited
as directions of Moses (Matt. viii. 4; Mark vii. 10;
Luke XX. 37, etc.). All, however, that can be fairly
deduced from such statements is, the Pentateuch
contains portions written by Moses. It does not
follow that the five books as a whole were written
by that lawgiver. Nor is it derogatory to our Lord's
Divinity to maintain that He argued from the Jewish
standpoint, without necessarily endorsing the truth
of the popular opinion. Comp. Luke xi. 1 9.

10. The modern notion of the fame of authorship
was not largely prevalent among the Hebrews. The
ancient Israelites did not exhibit that pride in
literary composition common among Gentile nations.

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 77

Stress was laid upon what was written, rather than
upon the authorship of the writing itself. It was
not till after the Jews had come into connection with
the Greeks and Romans that the individual pride of
literary authorship was aroused in the Hebrew breast.
The reaction against heathen literature awakened by
the events of the Maccabee period led to the deprecia-
tion of anything in the shape of literary production.
For centuries after that period " the holy books " were
as a rule the only compositions committed to writing.
The sententious sayings of the " wise men " of Israel,
their parables, Biblical expositions, vernacular para-
phrases of the sacred books (often embellished with
stories and legends), and their discussions, even on the
most intricate questions of law and ritual, were all
exclusively committed to the faithful and well-trained
memories of disciples.*

11. The phenomena of the Hebrew Scriptures lead
to the conclusion that those writings were re-edited
from time to time, and that notes and additions of
a later period were not unfrequently introduced into
the more ancient texts. The care and strictness in
the copying of the sacred MSS. enjoined by the Jews
in post-Christian times was comparatively unknown
at an earlier era. In the Jewish Targums, text and
comments are hopelessly blended, and the same
phenomenon is apparent in many places of the LXX.
version. This practice prevailed not from any desire
to falsify the sacred writings, but with the object of

* See on this point, J. S. Bloch, Studien zur Gesch. d.
Sammlung der alt-heh. Liter at ur, and the Excursus at the
end of my Koheleth, pp. 456, 484.

78 THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL.

their explanation. The Hebrew language itself must
have been repeatedly modernised, although to what
extent we have no means of ascertaining. The sacred
books were not, indeed, " tampered with," in the
modern sense of the term. The laws set forth in the
Pentateuch, although essentially Mosaic, underwent
revision at a later period, to be adapted to the altered
circumstances of the nation. It is not surprising that
some laws of the Pentateuch should be extant only in
a revised form; but it is remarkable that so many
have been handed down to us, redolent of the air of
the desert and of the circumstances of camp life. The
necessary modification of laws in the process of time
has been too often left out of consideration. The
Pentateuch itself contains instances of laws modified
even in the time of Moses, e.g. the enactments as to
the property of women (Num. xxxvi.), etc. Many
similar modifications must have taken place in the
course of Israel's troubled history (see p. 82). The
ritual itself demanded occasional modifications, which
were justifiable so long as the spirit and object of the
legislation were retained. Some of these may, perhaps,
be traced to a limited extent, but no details can be
laid down with any certainty. Notwithstanding the
frequent apostasies of Israel, no modification of ritual
or of song was ever made in the direction of idolatry.
The Pentateuch was the store-house of the laws and
religion of Israel. Its books were placed under the
guardianship, not only of the priests and prophets
(often at discord with one another), but of the whole
nation. Had the Pentateuch been preserved in its
archaic form, it would have been a peculium of the

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 79

priests, but could not have been safeguarded by the
people. But being in the possession of the people, no
modifications of importance could have been made ex-
cept under competent authority, although occasionally
necessary in order to make the Law a practical guide
for religious duty and national life. The Pentateuch,
as its contents show, was not intended to be an
archaeological curiosity, to be muttered, chanted, or
even expounded, by a learned priesthood. It was the
common possession of the nati«i at large.

Critical investigation, indeed, has revealed the fact
that all the historical books of the Hebrew canon
are artificially linked together in order to form one
continuous history of " the holy nation." They were
probably thus united together under the superintend-
ance of Ezra, who was in many respects a second
Moses. Links were designedly added to each book to
unite them into one grand whole. Those " links " are
sometimes found in references in the middle of the
books. But the most remarkable are the connecting
links (" and ") with which each of the five great sub-
divisions commence. For as the Law, or Pentateuch,
was subdivided into its five books, so also the historical
books, inclusive of the Law itself, were similarly
arranged in five parts, to wit : (1) the Law, or
Pentateuch ; (2) Joshua ; (3) Judges ; (4) The Books
of Samuel ; (5) The Books of Kings. The other
books classified in the English Bible (after the order
of the Latin Yulgate) among the historical books,
namely the Books of Buth and Chronicles, are not
found in that order in the Hebrew Bible, but are
placed among the Hagiographa. See pp. 38, 39.

80 THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL.

12. The arguments in favour of the Mosaic author-
ship of the Pentateuch cannot be here set forth even in
outline. Nor can any impartial summary be given of
the arguments on the opposite side. The references to
its histories and laws found in the other Old Testament
books, are in favoiu- of a Mosaic authorship. Some
of its laws wero applicable only to a nomadic people
like Israel in the desert, others could only be obeyed
when the people were in possession of the land of
Canaan. Some became obsolete when the territories
of the individual tribes were no longer preserved ;
others when the political circumstances of the nation
rendered it impossible to observe much of the legisla-
tion designed for the maintenance of individual or of
ecclesiastical property. The ritual of the Day of
Atonement became in many details obsolete after the
Exile ; when the injunctions concerning the construc-
tion and removal of the Tabernacle were no longer of
importance. The knowledge of Egyptian customs
which characterises Genesis and Exodus cannot be
satisfactorily accounted for on the theory of the com-
position of the Pentateuch after the Exile. And even
those portions of Genesis (such as the history of the
flood) w^hich seem to show an acquaintance with the
Assyrian and Babylonian literature, contain important
indications of belonging themselves to a far earlier
period. See p. 105.

13. The unity of design traceable throughout the
Pentateuch or Hexateuch is remarkable. The work
is no patchwork put together without a definite
object. Though its composite character may be
admitted, the documents made use of are united and

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 81

interwoven so as to form a work remarkable for unity
of purpose. The differences in details, brought to
light by critical analysis (which has too often exhibited
a hypercritical tendency), are not destructive of the
general harmony of the Pentateuch, any more than
the variations in detail which exist in the Gospels.
Such differences when duly weighed are confirmatory
of the main facts of the history.

The object of the Hexateuch was to relate the _
history of Israel up to the occupation of Canaan.-
The Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii. 7-12), gives a summary
of the contents of the history. The accounts of the
creation, and of the peopling of the world, are intro-
ductory to the narrative of the call of Abraham, and
the history of Israel's progenitors. Whatever sub-
sidiary information be imparted, the main object in
view was never forgotten. The work is not a secular
history ; it is not a collection of national legends ; it
is a religious history ; a history sui generis. The God
of Israel who guided the patriarchs in their wander-
ings is ever represented not as a mere national
divinity, but as the God of the whole earth. The
selection or election of Israel is related not as a matter
of national pride, but as an event of world-wide
importance. Abraham was called out of the midst
of idolaters, that in him " all the families of the
earth" might "be blessed" (Gen. xii. 3). The
Pentateuch, as well as the New Testament, teaches
the doctrine that Israel was chosen with the ultimate
object distinctly in view, that through Israel the
world might be blessed. " Salvation is from the
Jews " (John iv. 22).

82 THE PENTATEUCH IiY GENERAL,

14. In examining the Mosaic records, and tabulating
the differences in detail which are to be found in the
laws themselves, the absolute necessity of the gradual
expansion of law must not be lost sight of. The
same phenomenon exists in the laws of the New
Testament. The Sermon on the Mount sets forth
many of the most remarkable features of our Lord's
teaching. But strange conclusions might be drawn
from it, if its doctrines were considered without
reference to later developments. The Sermon on the
Mount sets forth the duties of individuals. But the
duties of individuals become necessarily modified when
considered in relation to the family, society, or nation.
The readiness to forgive injuries, which is so commend-
able in an individual, would -be highly detrimental in
the case of a judge. Laws which are good under
some circumstances may, when the conditions are
altered, become even hurtful. Variations in a com-
mandment do not necessarily imply difference of
authorship, nor are differences of detail in narratives
always to be regarded as contradictions. If the first
directions which our Lord gave to the Apostles and
to the Seventy (Luke ix. 3, x. 4) had been preserved,
and the altered commands given at a later period
(Luke xxii. 35, 36) had been left unrecorded, a very
different opinion would be formed of the early Christian
ministry. On the other hand, if the latter directions
had been recorded in the Gospel of St. John, and
omitted in that of St. Luke, the fact would have long
ago been paraded as a conclusive argument against
the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. The
differences existing in the Pentateuch as to the details

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 83

of ritual, etc., ought, therefore, to be well-weighed
before being brought forward as fatal to unity of
authorship or of design.

15. The composite character of t£e Pentateuch is,
indeed, one of the accepted results of modern criticism.
The old traditional view can be no longer regarded
as correct. The dogmatism of the old divines on the
Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch is no
longer defensible. But the ship of the Pentateuch
is not thereby left to be driven hither and thither on
the stormy ocean of the so-called " higher criticism."
Satisfactory evidence (part of which has been alluded
to already) can be adduced to prove that the main
outlines of the work are Mosaic. A bold and fearless
attitude, however, on all such questions on the part
of the Biblical student is more likely to convince gain-
sayers, and to inspire confidence, than a timid appeal
to authority by the endeavour to put an undue strain
on New Testament statements. The history of Biblical
criticism in past ages ought to be a sufficient warning
to theologians not to have recourse to a line of argu-
mentation which again and again has proved disastrous
to the cause of truth, and which, in place of driving
away the clouds of scepticism, has tended only to
foster unbelief among students. The safest course
for the apologists of the Bible to adopt is boldly to
argue that the foundations of faith are in reality
unafi'ected by any conclusions which may be arrived
at on purely literary questions. Such an attitude
has been already judiciously assumed, even with regard
to the Gospels, by E,ow, in his work on the Jesus
of the Evangelists, and in his Bampton Lectures. And

84 TEE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL.

a similar attitude ought to be assumed in relation
to Old Testament investigations in general, and to
inquiries into the composition of the Pentateuch in
particular. No theories of inspiration can be per-
mitted to stifle investigation. The existence of the
" supernatural " in Scripture and the Divine inspira-
tion of the prophets and " holy men of old "is by no
means shaken by the fact of historical discrepancies,
or even by occasional contradictions in books which
have come down to us from such distant ages. Those
who, in the face of modern critical investigation, affirm
the necessity of a belief in the historical infallibility
of every fact recorded in the Sacred Writings, verily
" know not neither what they say nor whereof they
affirm."

CHAPTEH XI.

SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF PENTATEUCH
CRITICISM.

1. rriHE opposition to the Mosaic authorship of
-^ the Pentateuch on the part of some of the
early heretics was based on dogmatic and not on
critical reasons. There is no evidence to show how
early critical doubts on the subject first arose among
the Jews. The fact that Ibn Ezra (ob. circa 1167) con-
troverted the views of a critic of the eleventh century
after Christ, who assigned portions of Genesis to the
time of Jehoshaphat, is a proof that the old Jewish
scholars were not unanimous on the question. Among
the scholars of the Reformation, Carlstadt (1520),
on critical grounds, called in question the Mosaic
authorship of the whole of the Pentateuch, although
he regarded the Law as Mosaic. He thus anticipated
the conclusions arrived at by conservative scholars
in the present day. Masius (1574) maintained that
the Pentateuch received its present shape from Ezra.
The critics of the following centuries explained the
anachronisms of the books, and the other discrepancies
which were successively brought to light, by supposing
that the books of the Pentateuch contained moie or
less extensive interpolations.

86 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY

2. The work of Astrnc (1753), a distinguished
Professor of Medicine at Paris, gave a new direction
to critical investigation. Like his great predecessor
Yitringa, Astruc maintained that Moses made use of
earlier documents in the composition of the Pentateuch,
and that large portions of those documents were in-
corporated wholesale into his work. The documents
so incorporated were, he maintained, easily distin-
guishable from each other by their use of different
names for the Divine Being, one document using
exclusively the name Eloliim (God), wliile another
preferred to employ the name Jehovah (or Jahveh).
Astruc maintained, however, that besides the main
Elohistic and Jehovistic documents, Moses made
use of nine other minor writings, which could be
distinguished by careful study and comparison of
passages. His theory was expanded by subsequent
scholars, the majority of whom denied even a Mosaic
editorship, some assigning the Pentateuch to the
period wliich intervened between Joshua and Samuel,
and others to a later date.

3. The wiitings of Astruc, and of the scholars who
followed, gave rise to various theories on the subject of
the composition of the Pentateuch, {a) Thefragment-
hypothesis had been propounded earlier by Peyrer
(1655) and Spinoza (1670), but their suggestions
had been generally disregarded. The theory was
now adopted with considerable variety of detail
by Alex, Geddes (1792-1800), a learned and free-
thinking Roman Catholic; by J. S. Vater (1802-
1805); A. Th. Hartmann (1831), etc. According
to it, the Pentateuch was composed by the piecing

OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 87

together of a number of fragments, often united
without a very definite plan. Tliis hypothesis, though
it held its ground for a time, was finally abandoned
as untenable. (6) It was followed by the enlarge-
7)ient or completion-hypothesis, according to which the
Elohistic portion of the work was viewed as the basis,
and the whole supposed to have been revised by a
later editor, the Jehovist, who added to it not only
a considerable number of fresh sections, but also
notes throughout. Deuteronomy was, according to
this theory, supposed to be the latest portion of the
work. This hypothesis, which would now be con-
sidered conservative, was upheld by a number of
eminent scholars, among whom Tuch (1838), Bleek
(ob. 1859), and Knobel (ob. 1863) may perhaps be
mentioned as the most remarkable, (c) The document-
hyj^othesis, which is still the prevailing theory,
requires more particular notice, as well as (d) the
Graf-Wellhausen-hypothesis, which is a modification of
the latter with, however, important differences. See
pp. 95 fr.

4. The critical theories of de Wette (1817-184-4)
were from the first unfavourable to the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch. According to him,
the only Mosaic fragment in existence was the
Decalogue. Although his opinions on the point were
strongly opposed by eminent scholars, his arguments
in proof that Deuteronomy and the other four books
were the work of different authors gradually won
general acceptance, and were carried further by
Bleek, who maintained that the Book of Joshua w^as an
integral part of the completed work, and consequently

88 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY

that the Jewish Scriptures originally commenced with
a Hexateuch. See p. 71.

5. The Document -hyjyothesis. The researches of
Ewald and others led to the general acceptance
among critics of the view that the Elohistic and
Jehovistic documents could be distinctly traced
throughout the whole of the Pentateuch; although
the special peculiarity in the use of the Divine names,
which gave rise to the nomenclature in question, did
not extend beyond Exod. vi. The existence of the
documents was afterwards traced throughout the
Book of Joshua, and, according to some, traces of
them are to be found even in the Book of Judges.
The Elohistic portions of the Pentateuch were re-
garded by Ewald, Hupfeld, and others, to be the
work of several authors, the Elohistic portions being
generally considered more ancient than the Jehovistic.

The four documents out of which the Hexateuch
was supposed to have been originally drawn up, are,
the First Elohist, the Second Elohist, the Jehovist,
and the Deuteronomist. (1) The First Elohist, whose
narrative was assumed as the basis of the woik.
This document embraces portions of Genesis, most of
Exodus and Leviticus. Fragments of it are found in
Numbers, in a few passages of Deuteronomy, and
throughout a considerable portion of the Book of
Joshua. The narrative of the First Elohist was
termed by Ewald the Book of Origins, and by Noldeke
the foundation-document. It is variously designated
by other scholars. Schrader terms it the Anncdist,
Dillmann simply denotes it by A. Wellhausen has
styled it the Book of the Four Covenards, namely,

OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 89

those recorded in Gen. i. 28-30, ix. 1-17, xvii., Exod.
vi. 2 ff.). Hence he distinguishes it by the letter Q,
an abbreviation of the Latin quatuor. Inasmuch as
the object of the writer was to extend the knowledge
of the Law among the people, and the book was drawn
up by one closely connected with the priestly order,
Wellhausen has given it (as finally enlarged by various
additions made throughout its whole extent) the
name of the Priests' Code, or the Priestly Code. It
is, therefore, now very generally referred to under the
abbreviation PC, or P. Within the work thus desig-
nated, the body of laws contained in Lev. xvii.-xxvi.
has been considered so peculiar, as to have necessarily
constituted a separate work by itself. This smaller
portion is termed by Klostermann and Delitzsch the
Law of Holiness, because it emphasizes in a special
manner the holiness which belongs to Jehovah, and
ought to characterize His people. Hence this portion
of the Priests' Code is often referred to as HG. (the
initials of the GiQVTasL,n^\\v2i^eHeiligkeits-Gesetz). The
English initials LH. {Law of Holiness) are, however,
substituted for the German in the lecent English
translation of Delitzsch's New Commentary on Genesis.
Dillmann, however, terms this particular corpus
legum the Sinaitic Law, and marks it by S. Kuenen
again refers to it as P^, to distinguish it from P^, by
which latter sign he designates the Priests' Code.
This smaller body of law is supposed to have had a
historical introduction prefixed to it, parts of which
may possibly have been incorporated into the Priests'
Code.

(2) The Second, or Younger Elohist, is generally so

90 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY

called, as contrasted with the former writer. Well-
haiisen and his followers, however, maintain that
the wiiter of the Priests' Code was in reality the
earlier. This Second Elohist is sometimes styled
the Theocratic Narrator, from the special bent of
his narrative. The document is marked B by Dill-
mann, as second in age and antiquity. Kuenen,
Delitzsch, and others denote it by E {Elohist), as
they conceive the writer to be in reality the earlier
Elohist.

(3) The Jehovist, or, more properly, the Jahvist.
The vocalization of the four-lettered name JHYH
as Jehovah, is, of course, critically indefensible, and
is merely a concession to popular usage (see p. 36).
The Jehovistic document is regarded by Dillmann as
third in order of antiquity, and, therefore, marked
C. It is, however, more generally indicated by J, the
initial of Jehovist. The writer is styled by Schrader
" the prophe,tical narrator." The connection between
the Jehovist and the Second Elohist is generallj'-
considered one of the most perplexing questions
belonging to the higher criticism of the Pentateuch,
and the combination of the two latter documents is
commonly designated by JE.

(4) The fourth document is generally known as
the Deuteronomist, and designated by D alike by
Dillmann and the other scholars, although, of course,
for different reasons. The fourth writer is generally
considered to have had before him the writings of
the three earlier comf)ilers combined into a connected
history. Hence his additions inserted in the other
portions of the work were denoted by the letter R

OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 91

{Redactor or Editor). There are other abbreviations
occasionally employed, which, though they may annoy,
need not confuse the student, such as P^ P^ for the
earlier and later editions of PC, P^ R^ for first and
second editor, J^ J^ for first and second Jehovist,
D^ D^ for first and second Deuteronomist, etc. LL
is in Colenso's works used for Later Legislation.

The four principal writers already noticed are sup-
posed also to have made use of earlier documents,
such as : the Decalogue (Exod. xx. 2-17), the Book of
the Covenant (Exod. xx. 22-xxiii. 19), the Song of
Moses and Miriam (Exod. xv.), the Book of the Wars
of Jehovah (Num. xxi. 14, 15), as well as a number
of minor pieces — Israelitish — as the Song of the Well
(Num. xxi. 17, 18); or Amorite or Moabitish, like
the fragment of a song found in Num. xx. 27-30, the
story and prophecies of Balaam (Num. xxii.-xxiv.).
Further documents are : Moses' Song concerning Israel
(Deut. xxxii.), the Blessing of the Tribes (Deut. xxxiii.),
the Book of Jashar (Josh. x. 12, 13). The last-named
book contained also David's Lament over Saul and
Jonathan (2 Sam. i. 8ff.), and cannot, therefore, have
been composed earlier than David's time ; which fact
goes far to prove that the Book of Joshua, as we have
it, is itself later than that date.

6. The Date of the Documents, (a) Noldeke assigns
the first three documents to the tenth or ninth
centuries before Christ. According to his view, the
writers lived at dates not far removed from each
other. The Priests' Code cannot have been the
oldest document; but it cannot have been much
younger than the other documents, and may perhaps

92 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY

be assigned to about 800 B.C. The Deuteronomist
wrote shortly prior to Josiah's reformation.

(5) Schrader assigns the Priests' Code to the days
of David. According to that scholar's view, the Second
Elohist wrote shortly after the great schism between
the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (b.c. 975-950);
while the Jeho\dst, w^ho combined into one the narra-
tives of the two preceding ^viiters, making himself
numerous additions, produced his work between B.C.
825-800. The Deuteronomist is also considered by
him to have lived in the time of Josiah, and to
have been one of the prophets. The latter linked
on his own work to that of the former writers. To
the Deuteronomist belong portions of Joshua. The
separation of the Book of Joshua from the Pentateuch
took place after the Babylonian captivity, and very
probably received official sanction. Schrader considers
that the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings contain
extracts from the works of the Second Elohist and
the Jehovist.

It may be well to note that the Hexateuch, when
viewed in combination with the three Books of Judges,
Samuel, and Kings, is sometimes styled by the name
Octateuck, because the Book of Judges in its original
shape is supposed to have included Judges and 1 Sam.
i.-vii., the remaining portion of 1 Sam., with 2 Sam.
and 1 and 2 Kings, being regarded as forming really
one work — the Book of the Kings.

(c) Dillmann coincides with Noldeke in his esti-
mation of the age of the Priests' Code. He considers,
however, that the w^ork contains portions which go
back to a remote antiquity, such as that portion

OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM, 93

specially termed by him the Sinaitic legislation (p. 89).
In the able dissertation appended to his Commentary
on Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua (1886), he
strongly combats the theories of Wellhaiisen and
Kuenen, which assign that document to post-exilic
times. The Second Elohist, according to Dillmann,
drew up his work in the first half of the ninth
century, prior to the reign of Jeroboam II. The
Jehovist is assigned to the middle of the eighth
century, and the Deuteronomist to the seventh.

{d) Delitzsch has in his latest writings considerably
modified the views defended in his earlier works.
Formerly he considered Deuteronomy as in the main
Mosaic, and written by some of those personally
acquainted with the great Lawgiver. In his latest
writings he has substantially given in his adhesion
to those who maintain that the Hexateuch is a work
formed by the combination of the four great docu-
ments noted above. The Book of Joshua, according
to him, stands in the same relation to Deuteronomy
as that in which the Book of Nehemiah stands to
Ezra. Delitzsch justly lays great emphasis on the
fact that the terms Laio and Pentateuch are not
identical. The Pentateuch contains the Law, but
cannot in all its parts be identified with it, although
this has been assumed as a fact by the vast majority
of the older commentators. Delitzsch coincides to a
very considerable extent with the conclusions already
mentioned. He maintains, indeed, that there are
large Mosaic elements contained in the Pentateuch,
but that these are mixed up with others of a much
later date. The Priestly Code has, indeed, its roots

94 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY

in the Mosaic period, but belongs as a whole to the
close of the Jewish state. It is, however, as a whole,
pre-exilian, and prior to the time of Ezekiel. Ezekiel's
work was influenced by it, not the reverse. Delitzsch
considers that the history of the creation and onwards
to the death of Joseph was written in very ancient
days. The Jehovist and the Deuteronomist were post-
Solomonic, but certainly composed before the days
of Isaiah. There may be, however, passages in the
Pentateuch added even in post-exilian days.

7. The Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. The theory
which is at present most in favour with the pro-
gressive school of criticism is that known by the
name of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. The theory
was propounded in 1835 by both Yatke {B'lbl.
Theolog.) and George {Die alter en jilcl. Feste)^ but
was then sharply criticised, and fell into disrepute.
Ed. Reuss, though he did not publish his views so
early, had in his lectures, since 1833, called attention
to the fact that the history of Israel set forth in
Judges, Samuel, and Kings contains much which
conflicts with the theory that the Laws of the
Pentateuch were in force among that people. He
further maintained that the Mosaic code was utterly
unknown to the prophets of the eighth and seventh
centuries. According to him, Jeremiah was the
earliest prophet who knew of a written law (ch. ii. 8,
xviii. 18, etc.), and his quotations are made exclusively
from Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy (ch. iv. 45-xxviii.)
was the book which *' the priests pretended to have
found in the temple in the time of king Josiah,"
and that code of law is the most ancient part of

OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 95

the codified legislation contained in the Pentateuch.
Ezekiel lived prior to the redaction of the Kitual code,
and of the laws which were defi.nitely arranged by
the hierarchy. Reuss' Geschichte appeared first in
1864, afterwards in 1881 and 1890, and his French
work on the Pentateuch and Joshua in 1879. But
previous to their publication, K. H. Graf, a former
pupil of Reuss, published essays in which similar views
were propounded, in 1855, 1857, 1866, in Merx'
Archiv (1867-1869), and in the fii'st part of a work on
Die geschichtl. Bilcher, 1866. He maintained that
almost the whole of the legal portion of the Pentateuch
was post-exilian, and of a later age than the historical
narratives. Graf died in 1866. In 1874 Aug. Kayser
published his work, Das vorexil. Buck der Urgeschichte
Israels, and in 1881 articles on the state of the
Pentateuch controversy. In these publications he
defended the views of Graf, and maintained that the
3arliest Pentateuch document was the Jehovist, next
the Deuteronomist, and last of all the Elohist.

Professor Kuenen, of Ley den, already well known
as a Biblical critic, came forward in defence of
Graf's hypothesis in his Godsdienst van Israel, 1869,
1870, translated into English by A. H. May, 3 vols.,
1881-2, in his Commentary on the Books of Moses,
1872, and his Hist.-krit. Einleitung, translated into
German, 1885-1890. See p. 8, and Appendix.

But the most able exponent of the theory is
unquestionably J. Wellhausen, whose work on the
Text of Samuel, published in 1871, excited great
attention. His articles on the Composition of the
Pentateuch appeared in 1876, 1877, and 1878, in

96 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY

which year he published the fourth edition of Bleek's
Introduction to the Old Testament, with emendations
of his own. Among other works may be mentioned
his Prolegomena zur Gesch. Israels, being the second
edition of his History of Israel, vol. i., originally
published in 1878. His article on "Israel" in the
new edition of the Encychjy. Britannica, vol. xiii.,
is specially interesting for English students. Well-
hausen's views are extremely radical. He does
not acknowledge even the Decalogue to be Mosaic.
The Book of the Covenant (Exod. xx. 22-xxiii.
19), he considers, was given to a settled agri-
cultural people. The Jahvist is "of the golden age
of Hebrew literature . . . the time of kings and
prophets" prior to the Assyrian captivity. The work
of that writer " breaks off suddenly at the blessing
of Balaam." Only a few fragments of the Jahvist
occur later, as in Num. xxv. 1-5 and Deut. xxxiv.
The Deuteronomist was composed shortly before the
eighteenth year of Josiah, and then contained only
ch. xii.-xxvi. It underwent several revisions and
enlargements after the Exile. The Second Elohist
was much later than the Jahvist, and similarly edited.
By the second revisers of the Deuteronomist the work
of the Jahvist and Elohist were united together, and
this combination marked JE is what Wellhausen
terms the Jehovist, as contrasted with the earlier
Jahvist. He further regards the body of laws in Lev.
xvii.-xxvi. (see ch. v. 1) as post-exilian, originating
between Ezekiel and the Priests' Code, not composed
by that prophet, but nearly related to him. The
portion of the Hexateuch which remains after the

OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 97

exclusion of those parts belonging to the Jahvist,
Elohist, and Deuteronomist is regarded as later than
the days of Ezekiel, and " a conglomerate as well as
the work of an entire school." The Priests' Code
embraced, with some few exceptions, Exod. xxv.-xxxi.,
XXXV. -xL, the Book of Leviticus, Num. i.-x., xv.-xix.,
xxv.-xxxvi. The portions which originally belonged
to "the Book of the Four GWenants," termed by
other scholars the First Elohist, are, according to
Wellhausen, Exod. xxv.-xxix. ; Lev. ix., x. 1-5, 12-15,
xvi. ; Num. i. 1-16, i. 48 to iii. 9, 15 to ch. x. 28, and
part of xvi., xvii., xviii., xxv. 6-19, xxvi., xxvii., xxxii.
in part, xxxiii. 50 to xxxvi. The Pentateuch formed
by the combination of all these elements was finally
published by Ezra in the year 444 ; for, according to
Wellhausen, there is no doubt but that the Law of
Ezra was the entire Pentateuch.

In this sketch of Wellhausen's views we have partly
drawn on the able article entitled " Pentateuch,"
written by Strack, in Herzog-Plitt's Encyclopddie.
It is impossible to notice the details of all the recent
modifications of the theory. Notwithstanding the
ability with which the hypothesis has been put
forward, the arguments by which it has been
defended (to which justice cannot be done in any
bald summary of results), or the popularity it has
attained among critics, it may safely be predicted
that the hypothesis will not long be regarded by any
number of scholars as a satisfactory solution of the
question of the composition of the Pentateuch.

8. While new evidence is constantly accumulating
of the vast extent of the literature and historical

7

98 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY

knowledge possessed by the ancient Egyptians, Baby-
lonians, and Assyrians, the Graf-Wellhausen theory
would reduce a large portion of Israelitish history
up to a short time prior to the Exile to a mass
of legends and uncertain traditions. If this were the
case, the Israelites must have been far inferior in
civilization to the other great nations with whom
they came in contact, although so vastly superior to
those nations from a theological point of view. This
fact is a marvel of which the critics of this school
do not seem to have any conception, while in other
matters they exhibit wonderful subtlety. The non-
observance of any law of the Pentateuch is, on their
theory, constantly assumed to be a proof of its non-
existence, although many similar facts can bo pointed
out, like that recorded in Jer. xxxiv. 8 ff. Their idea,
that the description of the tabernacle is only a fancy
sketch copied from the temple, loses sight of the fact
of the important differences between the two erections.
The description of the tabernacle itself is so minute
in its details as to admit of its being actually con-
structed from the sketch presented in the Book of
Exodus, which in itself is a proof of its historical exist-
ence (see App.). It is hard to imagine a post-exilian
writer taking a dehght in working out such details, if
purely imaginary; or even in filling up minute details,
the broad outlines of which were only derived from
tradition handed down for centuries. It is especially
important, from an apologetic point of view, to
observe that a considerable number of those details
are devoid of any special sj^'mbohcal significance. The
post-Kef ormation interpreters erred widely by attempt-

OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 99

ing an arbitrary interpretation of all those details in
the interest of their peculiar theological opinions. But
those theologians committed a mistake in attempting
to read their theology into the Old Testament, and
they went much further than is justified by the
Epistle to the Hebrews.

The tabernacle of Moses, like the temple of Solomon,
had unquestionably an historical basis, v/hile the
description of the temple of Ezekiel can be shown
to belong entirely to the region of the ideal. The
popular school of "unlearned and unstable" ex-
positors insists blindly upon "literal fulfilments"
of prophecy, and bid us conveniently to look out
to the future for anything which has not yet been
literally fulfilled. That school has wrought no
little mischief in the exposition of Scripture, and
has unwittingly played, as George Stanley Faber
long ago foresaw it would, into the hands of the
Rationalists.

It is very convenient, on the other hand, for scholars
who defend the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis to seek
to get rid of all, or many, of the references found in
the Prophets and other Scriptures to the incidents of
early days, as later interpolations. There has been,
indeed, on the pait of these critics too great a dispo-
sition to "cook" the documents examined, and to
assume, on mere hypothesis, that words, sentences
and paragraphs opposed to certain theories are merely
the insertions of later editors. Many facts connected
with the Levites and their position, which are per-
fectly explicable on the assumption of the Pentateuch
being substantially Mosaic, become bewildering on

100 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY

any other theory. Although the composite character
of the Pentateuch may be regarded as fairly proven,
the theory of Wellhausen and his followers is un-
likely to obtain general acceptance. Several of the
points accepted by the more conservative Document-
hypothesis are likely ultimately to be abandoned,
as accepted on insufficient evidence. The conclu-
sions generally drawn from the history of 2 Elings
xxii. (and 2 Chron. xxxiv.) as to the composition of
Deuteronomy during Josiah's reign, or shortly prior
to it, cannot be justified by fail' argumentation. The
persecution which took place in the days of Manasseh
is more than sufficient to account for the general
ignorance of the Book of Deuteronomy in the early
days of Josiah. Critics have exhibited too great an
avidity to discover discrepancies where none exist,
while the harmonists have erred by attempting to
harmonize everything. They have too often sought
to assume for their hjrpotheses the position of well-
ascertained facts. The cautious critic will admit
discrepancies where they really exist, but no further.
Such discrepancies may, or may not, be contradictions. .
The infallibility of the Hebrew Scriptures is a theory
which only embarrasses an honest investigator, and
tends to obscure important evidence in favour of the
Scriptures. No believing theologian will admit the
existence of the supernatural in a Biblical narrative
to be a proof of myth or legend. Notwithstanding
the numerous assaults on the credibility of the
Pentateuch, its narratives are likely ere long not
only to be universally admitted as historical docu-
ments of the highest importance and antiquity, but

OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 101

as documents which in all essential matters set forth
the actual facts of Israelitish liistory.

9. Wellhausen's views are set forth in Die Composition des
Hexateiiclis, 1889, originally in Jhh.fiir Deutscli. Theol., 1876
and 1877, and in his article on Israel in the Encycl. Britannica ;
also in Proleg. zur Gesch. Israels, 2nd edit., 1883, and in
SMzzen n. Vorarheiten, i. 1884. Similar views are set forth
in Kuenen's Religion of Israel, English translation, 1874.
(See before, p. 8.) E. Reuss, Vhistoire sainte et la loi, 1879.
These views, accepted by many scholars, as Jiilieher and
Kayser, have been popularised in Great Britain by Professor
W. Eobertson Smith's Old Testament in the Jewish Church,
1881, and in America by Professor Toy, of Harvard, and
others. On the other side Franz Delitzsch, Hoffmann,
Bredenkamp, C. F. Keil (in two articles in Luthardt's
Zeitschrift for 1885), have come forward ; as well as
the eminent Roman Catholic scholar G. Bickell. Of import-
ance is V, Ryssel's work, De Elohistce Pent, sermone, 1878.
Articles by scholars on both sides, but chiefly in favour
of the views advocated by Wellhausen, have appeared in
Stade's Zeitschrift filr die Alt- Test. Wissenschaft. Most
important are F. E. Konig's Falsche Extreme (1885), Haiijyt-
jprolleme (1884) — the latter work sadly misrepresented in an
English translation (?) entitled Religion of Israel (1885).
Although important articles have been written on the subject
by English scholars, such as Dean R. Payne Smith in his tract
on the Mosaic Authorship (R.T.S.), Dean Perowne and
others in the Contemporary Review for 1888, and by Professor
Driver, on the Critical Study of the Old Testament, in the
same magazine for 1890, American scholars have taken up
the subject more warmly. Of importance are the contributions
of S. I. Curtis's Levitical Priests, 1877 ; his De Aaronitici
Sacerdotii atque Thorce elohisticce origiJie, 1880 ; and in the
articles in Current Discussions in Theology by Chicago Pro-
fessors (1885 ff. onwards, and elsewhere) ; E. C. Bissell, Pent.
Origin and Structure, 1885 ; W. H. Green, Hehrem Feasts,
1886, and many other works and articles ; C. Briggs, important

102 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY

articles on *' Higher Criticism " in the Preshyterian Review,
and the Avicrican Journal of Biblical Literature ; Vos, 31osaie
Origin of Pentatevch Codes, 1886; Essays hy American
Scholars on Pentatevch Criticism, edited by T. W Chambers,
reviewed by Delitzsch in Luthardt's Zeitsehrifb (1888), and
published since in a popular work entitled Closes and Ms
Recent Critics, New York, 1889. The discussion on the
whole question, carried on in the quarterly Helraica, 1888-
1890, between Professor W. K. Harper, of Yale, and Professor
W. H. Green, of Princeton, and not yet concluded, is the most
minute and important which has yet appeared. Canon Driver's
article on the Ci-itical Study of the Old Testament, in the
February number of Contemporary Revieio, 1890, the subse-
quent article by Principal Cave, of Hackney College, London,
and others can only be alluded to (see Aj^p.^. Consult also
K. Finsler, Darstelhmg tmd Kritik dcr Ansie/it Wellhausen's
von Gesch. v. Religion des A. T., 1887, reviewed by Baethgen
in Theol. Literatvrzeitung, 1884, No. 4, and C. E. JohaBsson,
Den hcliga Shrift och den negativa Kritihen, Upsala, 1886.

10. (a) On the Pentateuch or Hexateuch in general it
must be noticed that much valuable matter is contained
in the writings of Calvin and the Commentary in the
Critici Sacri (1695) ; Henry Ainsworth, Annotations on
Pent., 1627, reprinted 1826, 1843 ; Pfeiffer, Diibia Vex., 1704;
Clericus, Comm. i7i Pent., 1733 ; Geddes, Critical Remarks,
180O. Also in the Einleitungen or Introductums to Old
Testament of De V/ette, 7th edit. 1852; 8th edit, by Eb,
vSchrader, 1869. H. A. C. Havernick, see p. 6 ; 2nd edit, by C.
F. Keil, 1854, 1856. The volume on the Pentateuch in English
is published by T. and T. Clark; Home, Introduction, 1818,
1856, Old Testament, revised by S. Davidson 1860. Blcek, 3rd
edit, by Kamphausen, 4th and 5th by Wellhausen, see p. 8 ;
S. Davidson 1862, 1863 ; J. J. Stahelin, 1862, Kr. Untersuch-
ungen, 1843. Also in the articles in Encyclop. Brit. ; Herzog-
Plitt, Encycl. ; Eiehm's Handirovterh. ; Smith's BlMical Bic-
tio7iary, etc. ; Baumgarten, Thcol. Covwi., 1843-4. Neteler, B.,
Studien iiber die Echtheit des Pent., 2 Parts, 1867, 1871.
Smith, George, CJhaldcean Account of Genesis, new edition

OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 103

by A. H. Sayce, 1881 ; German edit, with additions by Friedr.
Delitzsch, 1876. F. Lenormant, Les origines de Vhistoire
d'ajn'es la Bible et les traditions, 1880. J. W. Colenso, Penta-
teuch and Booh of Joshua, 1862-1879 ; Pentateuch and
3Ioahite Stone, 1873 ; The Nexo Bihle Commentary hy Bishoj^s
and other Clergy critically examined, 1874 ; Yatke, Hist, lirit.
Einl., published after his death by Preiss, 1886 ; Budde, Bill.
Urgvschichte, 1883. The Einl. of F. H. K. Reusch, 4th edit.,
1870; Fr. Kaulen, 2nd edit., 1884. The two last are Roman
Catholic scholars. De Wette's Beitrdge appeared in 1806,
1807. Th. Noldeke's JJntersuchungen appeared in 1869 ; hw
Alt. Test. Lit. in 1868. A. Th. Hartmann's Forsehungen
appeared in 1831. E. W. Hengstenberg's Genuineness of
Pentateuch, though extreme, is still of use. It appeared in
1836, 1839 ; English translation published by T. and T. Clark.
H.Ewald's Hist, of the Peojjle of I.srael,STd Germ, edit., appeared
1864-8. It has been translated into English by Professor
Martineau and J. F. Smith, Dean Stanley's Lectures on the
Jewish Church generally follow Ewald. Other similar works
are: Hitzig, Gesch. des VolhesTsr.,!^^^ -, Stade, Gesch. des
Volhes Israel, 1885, 1888 ; E. Kenan, Hist, du peujjle d'Israel.
1887 (unfinished) ; R. Kittel, Gesch. d. Heh., 1888 (unfinished) ;

A. Kohler, Lehrh. d. Uhl. Gesch., i. 1875 ; ii. 1, 1884 ; il. 2, 188P,
1890 (unfinished). Graves' Donnellan Lectures, 1807, and G. S.
Faber's Horce Mosaiccs, 1818, still contain matter of interest.

B. Riehm, Alt-Test. Theologie, 1889. Of great importance is
Eb. Schrader, Keilinschrift. u. das alt. Test., 2nd edit., 1883 ;
translated into English, with additions, by Whitehouse, under
title, Cuneiform InscrijMons end the Old Testament : Williams
and Norgate, vol. i., 1885 ; vol. ii., 1888 ; and, on many points,
A. Geiger, Urschrift u. TJehersetzungen, 1857.

(J) Of Commentaries on the Pentateuch or Hexateuch,
besides those named already, the more important are : Rosen-
miiller's Scholia in Pent., 1795-8; still useful. J. S. Vater,
1803-1805. Maurer (ob. 1874), Comm.. gram. crit. in V. T.,
1835-1848. C. F. Keil, Genesis and Exodus, 3rd edit., 1878.
Leviticus to Beuteronomy, 1870 ; English translation of earlier
edition published by T. and T. Clark. A. Knobel on Genesis

104 HISTORY OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM

to Joshua (1860 £f.). Dillmann on Genesis to Joshua ; see
under special books. J. P. Lange, Bihelwerh, on Genesis^
Exodns^ LeHtious, Denteronoimj (by Schroeder) ; translated
in English, with additions, by American scholars ; published
by T. and T. Clark. In England, in the Speaker's Commentary ^
Bishop Harold Browne has written on Genesis ; Canon Cook
and S. Clark on Exodus ; T. Espin and J. F. Thrupp on
jVumbe7's to Joshua. In Bishop Ellicott's Old Testament
Commentary, 1882, Dr. Payne Smith has commented on
Genesis, Professor G. Eawlinson on Exodus, C. D. Ginsburg
on Leviticus, E. J. Elliott on Numbers, C. H. Waller on
Deuteronomy to Joshua. In the Pulpit Commentary by Spence
and Exell, the commentary on Genesis is by W. Whitelaw,
on Exodus by Professor Rawlinson, at greater length than
in Bishop Ellicott's Commentary, F. Meyrick has written on
Levitic7(S, R. Winterbotham on JVumbers, W. L. Alexander
on Deuteronomy, J. J. Lias on Joshua, 1881. Important also
are : Weill, A., Le Pentateuque selon Motse et le Pent, selon
Ezra, Paris, 1886. J. Kennedy, The Pentateuch: its Age and
Authorship, with an examination of modern theories, 1884.
J. P. P. Martin, Introduction, De Vorigine du Pentateuque,
Paris, 1889. A. Westphal, Les Sources dii Pentateuque
(These de Montauban), Touloust^, 1888. R. Kittel, Gesch.
des HeVrder, I. Quellenkunde u. Gesch. bis zum Tode Josuas,
18S8.

(c) The following are of importance, though not, of course,
commentaries : — R. Buddensieg, Die Assyrisc/ie Ausgrahungen
u. das A, T., 1879 ; Giesebrecht's articles on Hexateuchhritih
in Stade's Zeitschrift for 1881 ; Prof. Sayce's Fresh Light
from the Ancient Momments, 1884 ; E. A. W. Budge, The
Dwellers on the Nile, 1885. G. Rawlinson, Moses: Life and
Times, 1887. W. Robertson- Smith, The Religion of the Semites,
Fundamental Institutions, 1889. Briggs, Biblical Study : its
Principles, Methods, and History (American), 1883. Heniy
A. Harper, The Bible and Modern Discoveries (from the
Palestine Exploration Fund), 1890.

CHAPTER XII.
THE SEVERAL BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH.

§ 1. Genesis.

1. ryiHE name of Genesis is derived from the old
-L Greek version, known by the appellation
of the LXX., in which the book is termed yeVecrts
Koo-fjiov, the generation, or origin of the world. The
book is designated in the Hebrew Bible by its first
word n''^t51?. Other names given to it, or to parts,
never became general, such as '^y'^) "i^P^ the Book of the
Creation (the title also of a famous Kabbalistic work),
"l^i^n l^p the Book of Jashar, or the Booh of the
Uj^right (man), or in the plural D''lt^*^^ 'D the Book
of the Upright (men), or the patriarchs.

Genesis falls into two great divisions. Chapters
i.-xi. 9 contain the account of the creation of the
world and the primitive history of mankind. This
portion concludes with the story of the Deluge, and
the account of the scattering abroad of the human
race. These histories are most important and con-
tain narratives of the highest antiquity.

For although recent discoveries have brought to
light Babylonian narratives strikingly similar in
form, the Hebrew narratives exhibit proofs of a
still higher antiquity. For example, the Babylonian

106 THE SEVERAL BOOKS

account of the deluge speaks of a ship (elippa),
which sailed, and was managed by a steersman.
Such a statement must be assigned to a later era
than the account in Genesis, in which mention is
made only of a floating ark, or hulk, entirely devoid
of a rudder, and not designed for sailing at all.

The genealogy of Shem in chap. xi. 10 fF.,
is introductory to the history of Abraham which
follows. The remaining portion of the book is com-
posed of the narratives of the three great patriarchs
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob or Israel, whose histories,
with that of Joseph, Jacob's favourite son, are
narrated with considerable fulness of detail down to
the period of the going down into Egypt and the
sojourn there, Avith which the book closes. Genesis
is not an independent book. It is an introduction to
the history of Israel.

2. The Book of Genesis contains distinct traces of*
having been drawn up from earlier documents. Modern
critics have, however, gone too far in the use of " the
divining rod," and in the assumption that it is possible
to trace its component fragments. Though the com-
posite character of the work may be admitted, the
marks of unity of design and of general harmony
are equally striking. Some of the conclusions of
the critics rest upon premisses absolutely incapable
of proof.

3. The following may afford a specimen of the
manner in w^hich the documents are considered to
have been interlaced with one another. Gen. i., ii.,
to the middle of ver. 4, is considered to have belonged
to the Priests' Code, (PC. or Q). Chap, ii., beginning

OF THE PENTATEUCH. 107

with the last clause of verse 4, up to the end of
chap, iv., is assigned to the Second Jehovist (J^) with
a few insertions by the Editor, as in chap. ii. 10-14,
and sinfile words here and there, inckidinsj the addition
of Elohim after the name Jehovah in the expression
Jehovah Elohim ('Hhe Lord God"). The Elder
Jehovist (Ji) is used in chap. iv. 16^-24. Chap. v. is
from the Priests' Code up to ver. 32, with the
exception of ver. 29, which verse is assigned to the
Second Jehovist (J^). Chap. vi. 1-4 is from the
Earlier Jehovist (J^), verses 5-8 from the Second
Jehovist (J2), with traces of the Editor's hand in the
middle of ver. 7. Verses 9-22 are from the Priests'
Code (PC or Q). Cliap. vii. 1-10 is from the
Second Jehovist, ver. 6 being interpolated from the
Priests' Code, the word " deluge " which occurs there
being inserted by the Editor's hand, as well as the
words " male and female " and the name " God " in
ver. 9. The original name for the Divine Being in
that verse was probably *' Jehovah." Verse 11 is
assigned to PC, ver. 12 to the Second Jehovist, ver.
13-16 to the PC, the last clause of ver. 16 being
from the Jehovist. Verse 17 is a compound of PC,
Editor, and Second Jehovist. Verses 18-21 are from
the PC; ver. 22 from the Second Jehovist; ver. 23
from the Second Jehovist, with the middle clause
from the Editor himself, while ver. 24 is derived from
the Priests' Code.

4. Among the most important commentaries on Genesis
(besides those mentioned pp. 105, 106), are those by Tuch
{oh. 1867), 1838, 2nd edit, by Merx and Arnold, 1871; Schu-
mann, Ge7i. Heh. et Greece, 1829; Schroder, 1846; M. M.

108 THE SEVERAL BOOKS

Kalisch (in English), 1858 ; Knobel, 1852, 1860 ; Dillmann,
1875, 1886 ; Delitz&oh, Neuer Comm., 1887, English translation
by T. and T. Clark, 1888, 1889 ; Gossrau, G. W., Com77i. zur
Genesis, 1887 ; C. H. H. Wright, Gen. in Heh. with gramm.
and crit. notes, 1859 ; E. Bohmer, Liher Genesis PentatencJii-
czis, 1860, a revised Hebrew text, worthy of note as being an
attempt to point out the various documents by means of Hebrew
types of different sizes. Bohmer's Das erste Bucli der Thora,

1862 ; T. J. Conant (American), Genesis, 1868 ; J. Quarry,
Genesis and its antliorsMjp, 1866, 2nd ed., 1873 ; H. C. Groves,
Comm. on Genesis, 1861 ; J. G. Murphy (Professor at Belfast),

1863 ; T. Whitelaw, in Puljnt Comm., 1880. M. Dods, The Book
of Genesis, in T. and T. Clark's Handbooks for Bible Classes,
1885 ; and his Commentary in Mvjjositor's Bible, 1888. Most
important for students of Hebrew is G. J. Spurrell's Notes on
the Hebrew Text of Genesis, 1887 ; G. Ebers' work, Aegyjiten u.
die Bilcher Mosis (1868), on Genesis, never reached a second
volume ; P. I. Hershon, Genesis with a Talmndical Commen-
tary y transl. by Wolkenberg, 1883 ; also his English transl. of

'^ Eabbi Jacob's Tzeenah Ureenah (1648), under the title of a
Jtabb. Comiti. on Genesis, 1885; G. Rawlinson, Moses, his Life
and Times. Of the older commentaries, Calvin, Comm. in
Gen., ed. by Hengstenberg, 1838 ; J. Gerhard, 1637 ; Terser
(Bishop in Linkoping, Sweden), Adnot. in Genesin, 1657.
Important articles have appeared in Stade's Alt. Testl. Zeit-
schrift ; Luthardt's Zeitsckrift ; Harper's Hebraica ; Harper's
Old and New Test. Student ; The Expositor, etc. Especially
interesting is Driver's monograph on Shiloh (Gen. xlix. 10),
in Journal of Philology, vol. xiv. ; J. P. Peters' Jacob's Blessing,
in American Journal of Exeg. Soc, 1886 ; Friedr. Delitzsch,
Wo lag das Paradies? 1881, reviewed and summarised in my
article on The Site of Paradise in the Nineteenth Century for
Oct. 1882. Warren's Paradise Found, Boston, 1885, is inge-
nious, but impossible. P. Haupt, Der heilinschriftliche
Sintfluthbericht, 1881, reviewed, along with Haupt's later
contribution to Schrader's Keilinschiften u. das Alt. Test.
(see p. 103), in my article on the Babyloiiian Account of the
Deluge in Nineteenth Cejitury for Feb. 1882. Moritz Engel's

OF THE PENTATEUCH. 109

Lomng der ParadieRfragCy 1885, is scarcely more successful
than Warren's. Important is Genesis mit dusserer Unter-
scheidung der Quelle nscliri ft en iihers. v. Kautzsch u. Socin, 1888,
2nd ed., 1891 ; F. Lenormant, La Gefiese, 1883, Engl, transl,,
1886 ; Aurivillii, Dissert, in Gen. xlix. ; ed. J. H. Michaelis,
1790 ; L. Diestel (Gen. xlix.), 1853 ; J. P. Land, 1858 ; Papers
on the Cosmogony of Genesis, by J. D. Dana, and S. E. Driver,
in the Andover Review and the Bihliotlieca Sacra for 1887, 1888 ;
and A. Kohut, The Zendavesta and the First Eleven Chapters
of Genesis, in Jewish Quarterly Review for 1890 (April).

§ 2. Exodus.

1. The name ExocTus is derived through the Latin
from the Greek Version. The Hebrew title of the
book iJ\\op or T^^'O^ ^V^\) is taken from its opening
words. The Greek word, Latinized Exodus^ signifies
*' departure^^ and occurs in Heb. xi. 22, in allusion to
the event which forms the main subject of this book.
It, or portions, have occasionally received different
names, as " The Second Book " {Sota, 36 h), The Book
of Injuries (rp''t^) after Exod. xxi., xxii. The book
divides itself naturally into two parts. I. Chap, i.-xviii.
describe (a) the oppression of Israel in Egypt, the
history of Moses, his mission to Pharaoh, the plagues
sent upon Egypt, i.-xii. 36 ; (h) the exodus from
Egypt, the overthrow of the Egyptians, and Israel's
arrival at Sinai (chap, xii, 37-xviii.). II. {a) The
encampment before Sinai (chap, xix.), the giving of
the Law (chap, xx.-xxiv.). (h) The directions respect-
ing the Tabernacle, with its priests and sacrifices
(chap, xxv.-xxxi.) (c) The making of the golden calf,
Israel's punishment, the giving of the new tables

110 THE SEVERAL BOOKS

(chap, xxxii.-xxxiv,). {d) The erection of the Taber-
nacle and its dedication (chap, xxxv.-xl.).

2. The four documents, as well as the hand of an
editor, can be also traced throughout Exodus. The
variation in the names of God, which is a notable
mark of the documents in Genesis, disappears after
Exod. vi. 2, 3. After that narrative the name
Jehovah is systematically employed by the Editor as
the peculiar name of God assumed in relation to the
covenant with Israel. But the several documents,
though lacking that peculiar mark, are still distinguish-
able by the use of particular words, phrases, etc. The
attempt, however, to specify each document too nicely
has often led to hyper-criticism.

3. Besides the commentaries mentioned in chap. xi. 10 J, are
the English com.mentaries of Kalisch, 185.5 ; J. G, Murphy,
1866; the additional notes in the English translation of Lange,
by C. M. Mead, the American scholar ; G. A. Chadwick, in
JSsCjpositor's BiMe, 1888 ; G. Eawlinson, in Pulpit Commen-
tary, 1882. Important matter is contained in Kohler's Bibl.
(jfescJi., 1875 ; Bertholdt, Bfi reins a Mas. in Egypt, gest.,
1795 ; Braunius, Vest, sacerd. Heh., 1698 ; Birks, Exodus of
Israel, 1863 ; Palmer's Desert of the Exodus, 2 vols., 1871 ;
H. Brugsch-Bey, L'Exode et les Monumeiits Egyptiens, 1875;
also his Gesch. Agypt. unter den Pliaraonen, 1877 ; the supple-
mentary volume to Bunsen's Bihelwerk, 1860 ; F. W. Thayer,
Hehren-s and the Red Sea, 1883 (Amer.) ; J. Baker Greene,
Uehrem 3Iigratiofi from Egypt, 3rd edit., 1883 ; J. P. Peters
The Ten TF(';'^5in JourJi. ofExeg. Soo. (Amer.), 1886 ; G. Ebers,
Biirch Crosen nach Sl7iai,lS72,18Sl ; E. 'Nestle, Bte Ebitheilvfig
des Deltalogs, 1880 ; A. Edersheim, The Exodus and the Wan-
derings in the Wilderness,

OF THE PENTATEUCH. Ill

§ 3. Leviticus.

1 . The name given to this book is a Latinization of the
Greek title (Aet;trtKo]/). In Hebrew the book is called
^5'^P*1, from the opening word. It is also called in the
Talmud D^jqb nnin the Law of the Priests; T\^^yrl m_in
the Law of the gifts, or offerings. The book consists
of four parts: I. The laws concerning sacrifices in
general (chap, i.-vii.). II. The consecration of Aaron
and his four sons, with the punishment of the two
eldest of these, Nadab and Abihu (chap, viii.-x.).
III. Lavv'S concerning {a) the clean and unclean in
food (chap. xi. ) ; personal uncleanness, especially cases
of leprosy (chap, xii.-xvi.). (h) The Day of Atonement
(chap. xvi.). lY. {a) Laws concerning purity in
various forms, including chastity, precepts partly
moral and partly ceremonial (chap, xvii.-xix.). Punish-
ments for idolatry and unchastity (chap. xx.). Ordi-
nances as to the persons and ministrations of the
priests, and concerning sacrifices (chap, xxi., xxii.).
(5) Laws concerning the festivals (chap, xxiii.); the
lights of the sanctuary and the shewbread (chap.
xxiv. 1-10). The history of a blasphemer and his
punishment (chap. xxiv. 10-23). The Sabbatic year,
and the Jubilee (chap. xxv.). A chapter of blessings
and cursings (chap, xxvi.), closing with a kind of
appendix containing laws about vows, tithes, and
things devoted to Jehovah (chap, xxvii.).

2. The book is considered in the main to have been
taken from the Priests' Code, to which chap, i.-xvi.
with chap. xxvi. are generally assigned. There is
much which appears fragmentary, and which favours

112 THE SEVERAL BOOKS

the idea that the code of laws here given was added
to from time to time when deemed necessary. The
book presents pecuHar difficulties in several of its
details ; but such facts are in themselves evidences of
its great antiquity. As a product of the time after
the exile it would be a gross anachronism. Its im-
portance in relation to the New Testament doctrine
cannot be too highly estimated; but the details of
the sacrifices have often been arbitrarily explained as
setting forth New Testament doctrines. The writings
of the priest-prophet Ezekiel necessarily contain
numerous references to the legislation of the book
of Leviticus.

3. The leading commentaries on Leviticus have been already
mentioned (see pp. 103, 104). Kalisch's Commentary^ vol. i.,
1867, vol. ii., 1872, is important from a critical point of view.
Commentaries like those of H. Bonar, 1846, do not face
critical difficulties. There are many monographs of im-
portance, such as : Benzinger, Der grosse Versohnujigstag,
Lev. xvi., in Zeitschrift fur A. T. Wissensclmft, 1889 ; Klos-
termann, Ueher die Kalendarisclie Bedevtung des Joheljahrs
(in the Stud. n. Kritik., 1880) ; J. J. Stahelin, Gescli. des
Stamtnes Levi (in Zeitschrift d. B. M. G., 1855) ; Graf, id.
(in Merx, Archiv, 1869); Kiiper, das Priesterthvm des Alt _
Biind^ 1865. S. H, Kellogg is the writer on Leviticus in the
Expositor's Bible, 1891. S. I. Curtiss' works, Be Aaron,
sacerd. orig., 1878, and his Levitical Priests, 1877, are of
special importance. H. L. Strack's Conim. on Genesis to
Leviticus is promised in 1891.

§ 4. Numbers.

1. The name in the Hebrew Bible is 'l?']^?, " In
the Wilderness,'' from the fifth word of chap. i. 1. It
is, however, also designated from its initial word

OF THE PENTATEUCH. 113

"•?1!1. The appellation Numbers is a translation of
'Apt^/xot in the LXX., adopted also by the Yulgate. In
the Babl. Talmud {Sota, 36 h) it is called Dnpp^n -)2p,
or DH-lpan t^^in, which are of similar import. Each
book of the Pentateuch is termed tJ^^in or E^'»-in,
a fifth. The Book of Numbers is so called because
it contains the accounts of two iiumherings of the
people; the first made in the second year of the
Exodus, the second in the fortieth. The book is most
suitably divided into four parts. I. The first portion
contains chiefly the census (chap, i.-iv.); laws about
purity, and about the Nazarites, concluding with the
priestly blessing (chap, v., vi.) ; the ofierings of the
princes at the dedication of the altar (chap, vii.) ; the
purification of the Levites (chap, viii.); the law of the
supplementary passover (chap, ix.); the cloudy pillar,
and the directions as to the times and manner of
journeying (chap. ix. 15-x.). II. The second portion
comprises the history of the journeyings of Israel, in-
cluding the surveying of the land of Canaan, the people's
refusal to enter the land, the march back to the wilder-
ness, and various rebellions, inclusive of that of Korah,
Dathan and Abiram, which formed the leading events
in the history of Israel from the second year to the
beginning of the fortieth. Divers laws given during
this period are set forth in this part of the book, which
includes chap, xi.-xix. III. The third part relates the
events of the first ten months of the fortieth year,
the toilsome march round Edom, the death of Aaron
(chap. XX.) ; the conquest of the land of the Amorites
and of Bashan (chap, xxi.) ; the episode of Balaam
(chap, xxii.-xxiv.). lY. The foui^th and last comprises

8

lU TEE SEVERAL BOOKS

the account of the sin of Baal-peor (chap, xxv.) ; the
second census (chap, xxvi.); laws about inheritance
(chap, xxvii. 1-11 and xxxvi. 1-12); laws of offerings
and vows (chap, xxviii.-xxx.) ; the vengeance taken
on the Midianites, and the laws concerning spoil
(chap, xxxi.) ; the settlement of Israel on the country
east of Jordan, and the laws of the cities of refuge
(chap, xxxii.-xxxv.). The closing chapter (chap, xxxvi.)
is supplementary.

2. The Book of Numbers is considered to have been
chiefly composed of the Priests' Code, with large
additions, however, from the work of the Jehovist
or prophetic narrator, especially the sections about
Balaam (chap, xxii.-xxiv.). All the four documents
are fairly considered to be discoverable in the book,
but there are wide differences of opinion as to
details.

3. The best commentaries have been named in the fore-
going sections. The Sj)ecike7''s Commentary is of interest (see
p. 104), and Dillmann's Commentary on Numhers to Joshua,
1886, deserves special attention. Monographs on portions of
the book : on Balaam and his Prophecies^ by E. W. Hengsten-
berg, 1842, Enghsh translation published by T. and T. Clark ;
by H. Oort, 1860 ; Kriiger, Les oracles de Balaam., 1873 ;
M. M. Kalisch, Bille Studies, Part i., Prophecies of Balaam,
1877. See Kohler's v^ork, noticed at p. 103.

§ 5. Deuteronomy.

1. The name Deuteronomy (" Second Law ") is
derived from the incorrect rendering given in the
LXX,, chap. xvii. 18, to Sevrepovofxiov tovto.^ for the

OF THE PENTATEUCH. 115

phrase correctly translated in the A.V., " a copy of the
law," but which was incorrectly supposed to refer to
the whole book itself. The Hebrew name (Dni'^n np«
or Q''"15'7) is taken from the second word in chap. i. 1.,
viz. " words," or from the two opening, " these are the
words." The name Aewepovo/Aioj/ occurs in the Ep.
of Barnabas x., and in Hippolytus as used by Simon
Magus {Hcer., vi, 15, 16). In theMassorah the Hebrew-
name nnin ry^^ip, or nninn np.f p, from Deut. xvii. 18,
is also assigned as the name of the book. The book
consists mainly of addresses of Moses to the people.
I. A rehearsal of the history of Israel from Horeb to the
Jordan (chap, i.-iv. 40), closing with a supplementary
recital (ver. 41-49). II. A second address commenc-
ing with a recital of the Decalogue, and followed by
exhortations grounded thereon (chap, v.-xxvi.). The
second portion of this address, from chap, xii.-xxvi. 15,
is not likely to have actually formed part of the
speech delivered, but was added afterwards in writ-
ing. III. The opening portion of the third address
(chap, xxvii.) seems likewise not to have been spoken,
but written down; chap, xxviii., however, looks like
the peroration of a great prophecy. IV. Chap, xxix.,
XXX. formed portions of another prophetic address;
chap. xxxi. contains Moses' charge to Joshua. Y. The
book closes with a description of Moses' last days, into
which the Song of Moses (chap, xxxii.) and his
Blessing of the tribes (chap, xxxiii.) are embedded.

2. The Book of Deuteronomy was evidently intended
for the people, and not for the use of the priests
alone. New laws are laid down, old laws are abro-
gated. Compare the law of the one sanctuary as

116 THE SEVERAL BOOKS

compared with the earher legislation (chap. xii. 5-14 ;
comp. Exod. XX. 24). The usage mentioned in Exod.
xxiv. 5 was afterwards abrogated by the directions
given concerning the priests and Levites. Changes
are introduced even into the Decalogue (chap. v. 15,
21). It is incorrect to say that the law of the one
sanctuary was unknown till Hezekiah's time, for it
underlies all the arrangements as to the Temple made
by David and Solomon. 2 Kings xxii. records the
discovery of this book in the house of the Lord, the
sacred books having been, no doubt, generally destroyed
dui^ing the persecution in the days of Manasseh. The
theory that the book itself was first wi-itten at that
period is now abandoned by the best critics. It is a
matter of great doubt as to when Deuteronomy
received its final shape. It is probable that it was
added to throughout in later times. But, as a
whole, it bears marks of unity of composition, ex-
clusive, of course, of the two poems at the close of the
work.

3. In addition to the works aheady mentioned, pp. 103, 104,
see Ed. Eiehm, Die Gesetzgehung Mosis imLande Moah, 1854:.
F. W. Schulz, Das Dent, erld., 1879, is a work of over 700 pp.
The defence of the Mosaic authorship has been abandoned by
him in Die SchdjjfungsgescMchte, etc., 1865. P. Kleinert, Das
D enter onomium u. der Deuteronoinilier, 1872. Ad. Zahn, Das
Deuteronomium ; eine Sclmtzschrift wider Modern-Kritisches
UnweseUy 1890. Of the older writers most important are :
Lorinus, Comm., 1625, 1628; Masius, in CHt. Sacri; Alting,
Ojiera, tom. i. ; Vitringa, Comm. ad Cant. Mosis, 1734 ; anH on
the latter song (Deut. xxxii.) : J. A. Dathe, Oj)usc., ed. Kosen-
miiller, 1796. More modern monographs on Deut. xxxii.,
are those of W. Volck, 1861 ; Kamphausen, 1862 ; A.
Klostermanu, in Stud. u. Krit., 1871, 1872 ; Flockner, 1876;

OF THE PENTATEUCH, 117

and on Deut. xxxiii., K. H. Graf., Ber Segen Mosis, 1857 ;
W. Volck, 1873. The connection between Deuteronomy and
the Prophets is discussed among other works in C. J.
Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten, 1881 ; Marti, Die Sjmren
d. sogen. Gnindschrift d. Hex. in den vorexil. Proph. (Jahrh.
f. Prot. Theol., vi., 1880) ; F. E. Konig, Per Offenlariingsbegrij^
des alt. Test. (2 vols.), 1882, etc.

irp

CHAPTEK XIII.

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS,

§ 1. The Book of Joshua.

HE name of Joshua was originally 1^^'in
Hoshea, ^^ salvation" {^vim. xiii. 8, 6), a name
borne by the last king of Israel (2 Kings xv. 30),
and by the prophet of the northern kingdom, though
variously transliterated in our A.Y. That name
was afterwards changed to VJ^^^] (twice written plene
y-1t^tn^, Deut. iii. 21 ; Judges ii. 7), which signifies
Jahaveh is salvatio7i, or Jahaveh saves. Comp. V-l^* v^,
the name of one of David's sons (2 Sam. v. 15), akin
to y^V^., the name of the great prophet Eiisha. The
latter form, ^^fH), is written by the LXX. and in later
Greek 'lyycrovs (Acts vii. 45 ; Heb. iv. 8).

The Book of Joshua is the concluding portion of
the Hexateuch. In the Hebrew canon it is the first
cf those books grouped together under the designation
of the " former prophets " (d^JVl^^SI D^N^n^). The
historical books from Joshua to 2 Kings are embraced
under that title, with the single exception of the
Book of Euth.

2. The Book of Joshua may be divided into three
parts. I. Chap, i.-xii. give an account of the con-
quest of Canaan. II. Chap, xiii.-xxii. describe the

THJ^ BOOK OF JOSHUA. 119

division of the land among the tribes. III. The two
closing chapters (xxiii. and xxiv.) contain the last
speeches of Joshua, and an account of the deaths of
Joshua and Eleazar.

3. The Book of Joshua is so called after the name
of the great captain whose exploits it records. It
does not profess, however, to have been written by
him, although ascribed to him by Jewish and Christian
commentators prior to the rise of the modern school of
Biblical criticism. Internal evidence is opposed to the
opinion of the older authorities. No conclusion as to
the late date of the book can, however, be drawn from
its language, although that line of argument was at
one time adopted by critics. But the book records
events which occurred after the death of Joshua, such
as the capture of Hebron by Caleb, and of Kiriath
Sepher by Othniel (comp. Josh. xv. 13-17 with
Judges i. 9-13). Several facts mentioned in the book
show that it must have been written very early. Ai,
or Aiath, was in ruins at the time of the writer (chap,
viii. 28), although in existence as a town in the days
of Hezekiah. The story of the Gibeonites must have
been earlier than the attempt made to root them out
by Saul (Josh. ix. 27). The reference to the Jebusites
in Jerusalem (chap. xv. 63) appears earlier than the
time of David. The statement that the Canaanites
dwelt in. Gezer (chap. xvi. 10) must also have been
earlier than the conquest of Gezer in the days of
Solomon (1 Kings ix. 16). These facts are in favour
of the great antiquity of the entire Hexateuch. If the
Hexateuch concluded with Joshua, its composition
must have been long prior to the Exile. The Book

120 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

of Joshua is seldom assigned to a later date than
the days of Jeremiah. But it is hard on any fair
line of argumentation to defend the composition of
such a book at that period.

3. The documents used in the composition of the
Pentateuch have been traced also in the Book of
Joshua. In the first part of the book the Jehovist
is conspicuous; in the afterparts the Priests' Code,
and even the Deuteronomist. Other documents were
also made use of. The Book of Jashar is referred to
in chap. x. 13. There are difficulties in connection
with several of the statements in the Book of Joshua,
but the difficulties have often been exaggerated. The
expulsion of the Canaanites and the conquest of the
land by Israel are often referred to in the later books.
The miracles narrated in the book have also been
often grossly exaggerated. Orthodox scholars, like Dr.
E. W. Hengstenberg, have long ago pointed out that,
although the victory gained at Gibeon (chap, x.) was
brought about by supernatural causes, it is not neces-
sary to assert as an historical fact that the sun or the
moon stood still on that occasion.

4. Among the special commentaries on Joshua may be
named the work of Masius, a Roman Catholic scholar, 1674,
still in high repute ; that of J. Clericus in Comm. in Lihh. Hut.,
1708; Osiander, 1681; Corn, a Lapide (Roman Catholic),
Josh.-2 Paral. 1642; C. a Lapide was an able expositor,
and wrote commentaries on nearly all the books of the
Bible. Maurer, Comm. ilher Jimia, 1831 ; RosemTaiiller,
Scholia, 1833 ; Keil, 1847 (Joshua, Michter, und Rvth),
1863 : English translation publ. by T. and T. Clark.
Knobel (^Numl.-Josh.'), 1861 ; Dillmann {Mi mh. -Josh.'), 1886 ;
Himpel on the unity and credibility of book, in Tilh. Theol.
Qvartalschr., 1864 ; Hollenberg, die deut. Bestandtheile in

THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. 121

Stud. u. Kr., 1874 (see other Commentaries on Hex. noted
in chap, xi.) ; G. F. Maclear, 1883, in Cambridge Bible ; J.
Lloyd, Booh of Joslma, Crit. and Expos. Cormn., 1886, useful
for students, but not up to date ; J. J. Lias has written on
the book in the Pulpit Commentary, 1881, and Canon Espin
in the Speaker's Commeniarij . The Booli of Joshua by Rev.
Principal Douglas, D.D. (T. and T. Clark), 1890 ; T. J. Conant,
Hist. Boolis of the Old Test. (Joshua to 2 Kings) ; IntroduG-
tions, common version revised, and occasional Notes, New
York, 1884. See Appendix.

5. The Samaritans possess among writings peculiar
to them a Book of Joshua, attention to which was
first called by Scaliger. The MS. of this work, which
he brought to Europe, is in the University Library
at Leyden. The work has been edited by JuynboU,
under the name Chronicon Samaritanum, 1848. It
is in Arabic, written in the Samaritan character, and
contains an epitome of Israelitish history during the
last days of Moses. Its opening chapters correspond
with Num. xxii.-xxxii. Next follows the Book of
Joshua according to the Hebrew, with, however,
several additions and legends. According to these
Samaritan additions, Joshua built the temple on
Mount Gerizzim. The work is post-Christian in date,
for it contains in its closing portion a history of the
Samaritans to the time of the Emperor Alexander
Severus. There is, also, another work of the Sama-
ritans, entitled. The Book of Joshua, composed by
Abulfatch, in the year of the Hejira 756. The latter
work, which is of no historical value, has been edited
by Yilmar, with a Latin translation and commentary,
1865, and is interesting from the Samaritan history
it contains.

122 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS-

§ 2. The Book of Judges,

1. The Book of tlie Judges, CP^'^^, Kptrat (comp. Acts
xiii. 20), receives its name from the heroes who "judged
Israel." These were noted for their martial prowess
in repelling the assaults made either by various nations
in the proximity of Canaan, who sought to enslave
the new settlers in that land, or by the aboriginal popu-
lations, who were but partially subdued, and possessed
still many portions of the country. The Hebrew
"Judges" administered justice in times of peace, and
acted as generals in time of war. They were, there-
fore, akin to the Suffetes, who, after the overthrow
of royalty in Tyre, acted as rulers there, as also in
Carthage {Liv. Hist,, xxx. 7). The title is identical.
The Suffetes at Carthage were sometimes styled by
the Homans reges, consules, and dictators.

2. The Book of Judges is composed of three parts :
I. The fii'st portion (chap, i.-ii. 5) is introductory,
describes the conquest of certain parts of the land,
and gives a list of the cities which had not yet come
into the possession of the Israelites. It is open
to serious question whether the rebuke of Israel at
Bochim was administered by a prophet or by an angel.
The Hebrew phrase, Hini'liJ^^Dj messenger, or angel of
Jehovah, is ambiguous ; but the expression " came
up from Gilgal to Bochim " coincides better with the
former explanation.. II. The second portion of the
book consists of chap. ii. 6 to xvi. inclusive. This*
part is closely connected with Josh. xxiv. 28. It
records the history of Israel from the death of Joshua
to that of Samson, and also commences with an intro-

THE BOOK OF JUDGES. 123

duction in prophetic style (chap. ii. 16-iii. 6), after
•which follow sketches of twelve or fifteen Judges, of
the greater number of whom very little account is
given. (1) Otliniel of the tribe of Judah, chap. iii.
7-11. (2) Ehud of the tribe of Benjamin, chap,
iii. 12ff. (3) Shamgar, chap. iii. 31. (4 and 5)
Deborah of Ephraim and Barak of Naphtali, chap,
iv., V. (6) Gideon of Manasseh, chap, vi.-viii. (7)
Ahimelech,^oia. of Gideon's maid- servant; a petty king,
not probably one of the Judges, chap. ix.. (8) Tola
of Issachar, chap. x. 1, 2. (9) Jair of Gilead, chap.
X. 3, 4. (10) Jephthah of Gilead, chap, xi., xii.
(11) Ihzan of Bethlehem, chap. xii. 8. (12) Elon of
Zebulon, chap. xii. 11, 12. (13) Ahdon of Ephraim,
chap. xii. 13-15. (14) Sainson of Dan, chap, xiii.-
xvi. By the omission of the names of Deborah and
Abimelech, the total number has often been reduced
to twelve. No weight, however, is assigned to the
number twelve in the book, and it is doubtful whether
the name of Shamgar be not an interpolation. Bedariy
who is mentioned in 1 Sam. xii. 11, is either to be
identified with Barak (which is the reading found in
that passage in the LXX. and Syr.), or possibly may
be the same as Ahdon. It is a matter of uncertainty
whether the rule of the Judges mentioned in the book
was consecutive or contemporaneous, and the book
does not afford data enough for the solution of the
question. III. The third portion of the book (chap,
xvii.-xxi.) contains two remarkable narratives, {a)
The first recounts the circumstances which led to the
image worship set up at Dan, chap, xvii., xviii. ;
and ip) the second tells of the " deed of shame "

124 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

performed at Gibeah, and the subsequent "holy war"
against Benjamin, chap, xix.-xxi. The events re-
corded in the former must have occurred at a very-
early period, prior to the narratives recorded after
chap. iii. 12. See chap, xviii. 1, although if this be
correct, chap, xviii. 31 contains a later gloss. The
second narrative must also be assigned to a very early
period, according to chap. xx. 28.

3. The Book of Judges, though probably put together
by a single editor, contains histories proceeding from
different authors. The opening words, *' and it came
to pass after the death of Joshua," may be a later
addition, inserted in order to unite the book with the
preceding Book of Joshua. The Song of Deborah and
Barak affords abundant proof of having been com-
posed shortly after the date of the event celebrated.
It has been conjectured that the Book of Judges
originally contained the history of Eli and Samuel.
The date of the composition of the work is uncertain,
for the reference in chap, xviii. 30 to "the captivity
of the land" may be a later gloss, or may contain
a faulty reading. " The captivity of the land " must
mean the Assyrian captivity, and hence if those words
be genuine the work must have been composed after
that period. But the thorough knowledge shown of the
topography of Palestine is sufficient to prove the book
to have been written by an inhabitant of the country,
and therefore it cannot well have been composed
during the Babylonian Exile. Several of the events
recorded in the book are alluded to in Psalms Ixxviii.
and Ixxxiii. The " iniquity of Gibeah " is referred to
in Hosea ix. 9, x. 9.

THE BOOK OF JUDGES. 125

4. The commentaries on Judges are numerous. Among the
most important are those of Clericus ; Drusius, 1586 ; Schmidt,
1684 ; Rosenmiiller, Scholia, 1835 ; Gr. L. Studer, Das Buch
der RicUer, 1835 j 2nd edit., 1842 ; E. Bertheau, Richtei-,
u. Ruth, 1845 ; 2nd edit., 1883 ; Paulus Cassel, in Lange's
Ribelwerh 1865, 2nd edit., 1887 ; Bachmann, Richter, I. i.-v.
1868, 1869. Keil (see pp. 6, 7) ; H. Ewald (see p. 7), and
A. Kohler (p. 103), in their historical works ; as well as S.
Davidson, Stahelin, Bleek, Wellhausen, in their IntroductioJis
(p. 8) ; also the latter in his Gesch. Israel, i., 1878. E. Eenss,
Gesch. d. heilig. Schrlften, 1889; see on the book Oehler,
Theologie des A. T., 2nd edit., 1882 ; English transl. by T. and
T. Clark. Wahl, Ueher den Verf. des B. der Richter, 1859 ;
K. A. Auberlen in Stud. u. Krit, 1860 ; J. J. Inas, Booh of
Judges, in Cambridge Bible for Schools, 1890. G. C. M.
Douglas, The Book of Judges, T. and T. Clark, 1881. R. A.
Watson, Judges and Ruth in Expositor's Bible. Lord A. C.
Hervey (Bishop of Bath and Wells) has written on Judges in
Pidjnt Commentary, 1881 ; and also in the SjJeaher's Com-
mentary, 1872. T. Skat Rordam, Lilyri Judicum et Ruth, sec.
vers. Syr.-Hexaplarem, 1861, is useful ; also K. Budde, Die
Bilcher Richter u Samuel, ihr Quellen und ihr Aufhau, 1890;
A. Kohler, Lehrh. d. BiU. Gesch. ii., pp. 21-121, 1884.

The Song of Deborah has produced a large number of
monographs. Among the most important are Schnurrer,
JDissert. 2Jiilol. criticcs, 1790 ; Hollmann, 1818 ; Kalkar, 1833 ;
H. H. Kemink, 1840 ; v. Gumpach, Alt. Test. Studien, 1852 ;
E. Meier, 1859; Dr. J. W. Donaldson, Booh of Jashar, 2nd
ed., 1860 ; Bottcher, Ber B eh or a- Ge sang u. das Hohelied, 1850 ;
H. Ewald, Bie Bichter d. alt. Bundes, I., 1866 ; Hilliger,
1867; Aug. Miiller, 1887. On other points, see K. Budde, on
Richter tind Josua in Zeitschrift filr die A. T. Wisse?ischaft
for 1887, and Stade himself in the same for 1881. Also by
Budde, Bie Anhdnge des Richterhuches in the same Zeitschrift
for 1888 ; W. Bohme, Bie dlteste Barstellung in Richt. vi.
11-24 U7id xiii. 2-24, in same Zeitschrift for 1885. S. R.
Driver, Origin and Structure of the Booh of Judges, in Jewish
Quarterly Review for April 1889.

126 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

§ 3. The Book of Ruth.

1. The Book of Ruth (nn, 'VovO) in the Hebrew
canon does not immediately follow the Book of Judges,
but is one of the five Megilloth or " Bolls," which
form part of the Hagiographa, or D^ain^, which
is the last division of the Hebrew canon. In it
the book follows immediately after Psalms, Proverbs,
Job. The LXX. and Josephus place Ruth imme-
diately after Judges. The events of the book occurred
about a century before the time of David. The
genealogy at the end of the book is brought down to
David. The book records the intermarriage of an
Israelite with a Moabitess, which is suflScient to show
that it is historical, and does not belong to the
region of the poetical. After the Exile such a fact
would not have been regarded as creditable to a pious
Israelite. The historical character of the story is also
confirmed by the friendly intercoiu-se recorded between
David and the king of Moab in 1 Sam. xxii. 3, 4.
The so-called " Chaldaisms " found in the book are
probably better regarded as instances of the spoken
patois. The law of the levirate (Deut. xxv. 7-9) is
not that referred to in chap. iv. 7. The genealogy at
the end of the book may be incomplete, but even
that point is open to dispute. No certain date can
be assigned for the authorship of the book, only that
it must have been written after the time of David
and long prior to the Exile.

2. The best older commentaries on Ruth are tht se by Schmidt,
Comm. in Lid. Rnth, 1696 ; Carpzov, Colleg. rabl). hihl. in lib,
Ruth, -1703. Of the later critics, Kosenmiiller, Bertheau,

THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. ■ 127

Keil and P. Cassel, Aubcrlen, have been mentioned under
Judges ; Metzger, lAb. Ruth ex Heh. in Lat, vers, jperpet.
interp. illust. 1857 ; C. H. H. Wright, The Book of Ruth in
Meb. and CJiald. with crit. text, and gram, and erit. comm.,
1864 ; F. de Hummelauer (Roman Catholic), Comm. in lihros
Judicum et Ruth, 1888. J. Morison has written on Ruth
in the Fulpit Commentary, 1881 ; ;and Lord A. C. Hervey,
Bishop of Bath and Wells, iu the Speaker's Commentary, 1881.
See E. Reuss in Strassiurger Revue, Band vii.

§ 4. The Books of Samuel.

1. These books are so called, not because Samuel
was supposed to have been the author, but because
that prophet is the most important character in the
opening portion. The title is most unsuitable. In
the LXX. the books are more correctly termed
Bao-tXcicov TTpi^TY], Scvripa, First and Second Kings,
which is their name in the Yulgate. The two books
are in reality a single work, and are so regarded
in Hebrew MSS. The division into first and second
books was made after the introduction of print-
ing, and was derived from the LXX. and Vulgate.
According to the Talmud (Baha Bathra, 14^ 15'*),
Samuel wrote Judges, Ruth, and Samuel. The re-
ference made in 1 Chron. xxix. 29 to " the history of
Samuel the seer," is somewhat doubtful. See remarks
on Chronicles, p. 135.

The Books of Samuel contain mainly the histories
of Samuel, Saul, and David. I. 1 Sam. i.-xii. traces
the history of Samuel down to his retirement from
the position of a Judge over Israel. The history of
Eli and his times is only incidentally narrated. II.

128 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

The history of Saul from his accession to the throne
down to his death on Mount Gilboa, 1 Sam. xiii.-
2 Sam. i. Two important songs are contained in this
part, ia) The Song of Hannah, 1 Sam. ii. 1-10 ; and
(h) the Lament of David over Saul and Jonathan,
2 Sam. i. 19-27. III. The reign of David, 2 Sam. ii.
to the end. The sources from whence the book was
composed were partly oral and partly written. The
Book of Jashar is referred to in 2 Sam. i. 18. One
of the Psalms (Ps. xviii.) with certain modifications
appears in 2 Sam. xxii. The author of the Book of
Chronicles mentions (1 Chron. xxvii. 24) " the chroni-
cles of king David." " The history of Samuel the
seer," "the history of Nathan the prophet," and " the
history of Gad the seer," are referred to in 1 Chron.
xxix. 29 as authorities extant in the writer's day, for
" the acts of David first and last." There seems to
have been a book written by Samuel which contained
at least the law of the kingdom, 1 Sam. x. 25. It
is therefore highly probable that the compiler of
the Books of Samuel had those records before him.
2 Sam. xxi.-xxiv. partakes of the character of an
appendix to the work.

2. The editor interwove into his narrative diflerent
accounts of the same transaction. Whether those
accounts are necessarily discordant is quite another
question. Some of the variations can be harmonised
without difficulty, e.g. the three accounts of Saul's
elevation to the throne (chap, viii., ix. 1-x. 16, xi.).
Other narratives, e.g. the accounts of David's first
introduction to Saul are more difficult to bring intc*
harmony. The compiler was, however, by no means

THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. 129

the simple-minded blunderer which some critics have
represented him to have been. The text of the work is
generally admitted to have come down to us in a very
corrupt form (see 1 Sam. xiii. 1, and 2 Sam. xxi. 19).
Arguments based, therefore, upon the numbers men-
tioned in the book {e.g. 1 Sam. vi. 19), and even on
the names of persons and places, must be received
with caution. The text of the LXX. in many places
differs much from the Hebrew. Many critical con-
jectures have been made in the way of correlating
the text, but the critics are very much divided in
opinion. The book must have been composed after
the division of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel
(see 1 Sam. xxvii. 6), but was in the main drawn up
probably not very long after that crisis. The work
seems to have undergone revision at a later period,
when it was brought into close connection with the
Book of the Kings. It may have proceeded from
several authors, but such points must ever remain,
more or less, matters of pure conjecture.

3. The best commentaries on the Books of Samuel are those
of Seb. Schmidt, 1687, although it is verbose, extending over
2,000 pp. 4to ; of Clericus, 1708 ; Hensler, Erlduterungen des
1 BucTi^ 1795 ; Thenius, Bie Bucher Sam. erkldrt, 2te Ausg.,
1864 ; Keil, 2te Aufl., 1864 ; English translation published by
T. and T. Clark ; Erdmann, in Lange's Bibelwerk, English
translation published by T. and T. Clark, with notes by
American scholars; Wellhausen, Der Text der Bh. Samuelis
untersucht, 1871 ; Himpel, Ueber Widersinilche u. versch.
Qiiellenscliriften QTiib. Theol. Quartalschr.'), 1874; A. F.
Kirkpatrick (Reg. Prof. Heb. at Camb.), 1 Samuel, 1885 ; 2nd
Samuely 1884, in Cambridge Bible ; R. Payne Smith in two
vols, of the Pidjnt Commentary, 1880. K-lostermann's Bie

9

130 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

BiXclier Samuelis und der Kdnige, 1887 (in Strack and
Zbckler's Kurzgefasstes Xomm.'), contains important critical
remarks, but Driver's work, J^^otes on the Hehrem Text of the
Books of Samuel, etc., 1890, is of more importance to the
critic and scholar. F. de Hammelauer, (Koman Catholic),
Comm. in Libb. Sam., Paris, 1886. Important is F. H.
Woods, Light thrown on the LXX. Vers, of the Books of
Samvel, Studia Bibl., vol. i. Oxford, 1885 ; C. H. Cornill, Ein
elohistisch Bericht in 1 Sam. i.-xv. aiifgezeigt, in Luthardt's
Zeitschrift, 1885, and concluded in the Konigsberger Studien,
Band i. ; K. Budde, Saul's Konigsjvahl n. Verwerfung in
Zeitschrift fiir A. T.Wissenschaft, 1888. The historical works
of Ewald, Reuss, Kohler, as well as the Introductions of
Bleek, Davidson and others, with the articles in the larger
Bible Dictionaries, ought not to be forgotten. W. G. Blaikie
has published two vols, on First and Second Samuel in
the Expo.^itor's Bible. Also K. Budde, Die Biicher Richter
u. Samuel, ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau, 1890.

§ 5. The Books of the Kings.

1. These two books formed originally one, under
the title Q^?/P ">?>P (see Origen in Euseh. Hist. Eccl,
vi. 25); but they were afterwards divided in the LXX.,
where they are designated respectively Bao-tA-eicoi/ rpLTrj
Kol T€TdpT7], and so in the Yulgate 3 and 4 Kings. The
division found in the LXX. was adopted in the printed
Hebrew text from the Bomberg printed editions. In
the MSS. and in the earliest printed editions the
books af)pear as one. The narrative falls into three
parts. I. The reign of Solomon, chap, i.-xi. II. A
synchronical account of the kingdom of Judah and
Israel until the captivity of Israel, 1 Kings xii.-
2 Kings xvii. III. The history of the kingdom of
Judah down to the Babylonian conquest and the exile

THE BOOKS OF KINGS. 131

of the people, 2 Kings xviii.-xxv. The compiler
refers to the following sources from which his history-
was composed : (1) The book of the acts of Solomon,
1 Kings xi. 41. (2) The books of the chronicles of
the kings of Juclah (1 Kings xiv. 29) up to the death
of Jehoiakim. (3) The books of the chronicles of the
kings of Israel up to the death of Pekah (see p. 134).
The chronicles referred to were not the official
records themselves, but probably books compiled
therefrom, written shortly before the Exile. The
constant expression used, " unto this day," has been
fairly adduced as a proof of this conjecture. The
latter phrase evidently presupposes the existence of
the kingdom of Judah, and cannot refer to the Exile.
The histories of Elijah and Elisha w^ere taken from
some other sources, and are among the most remark-
able portions of the work. The histories of those
two great prophets are in many respects singularly
akin to the histories of John the Baptist and Christ
in the New Testament. But Elijah's character
and the work he performed in Israel, as set forth in
the Book of Kings, towers in most respects far above
that of Elisha. The latter prophet, however, appears
to have made more provision, than his predecessor
EKjah seems to have done, for the continuance of his
work after his death. The religious object and design
of the Book of Kings is fully apparent from the
reflections made on the events recorded, especially in
2 Kings xvii. The Book of Kings contains the only
account of the history of the kingdom of Israel after
the great disruption, for the Book of Chronicles gives
no separate history of the northern kingdom.

132 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

2 Many of the old commentators are deserving of attention ;
among the Fathers, especially Ephrem Syrus and Theodoret.
Among the Reformers and the scholars of that century, the
works of Bugenhagen and Strigelius deserve notice, and in
the succeeding century those of Leonhardi, Sanctius, Schmidt,
and Clericus. Among the special commentaries of this century
on the book, the more important are those of Keil, 1845 and
1864 ; and Thenius, 1849, 1873 ; Bahr, in Lange's Biblewerk;
Klostermann (see on Samuel, p. 129). Many important con-
tributions have been made on special points by Kern, Oehler,
O. Wolff, H. Brandes, and Wellhausen. Most important on
this book is the information given by Schrader in his Keilin-
schriften nnd das Alt-Test., ably translated by Rev. O. C.
Whitehouse, 1885, 1888 (see p. 103). See also B. Stade,
GescMchte des Volkes Israel unter der Konig sherrscJiaft,
1887 ; Dr. W. Wright (of British and Foreign Bible Society),
The Empire of the Hittites, 2nd edit., 1886 ; J. R. Lumby,
First Booh of Kings, with Introduction and Notes, 1886 ;
Second Kings, 1887 : in Cambridge Bible for Schools. Useful
for popular purposes is G. Rawlinson, Lives and Times of
Kings of Israel and Judah, 1889. J. Hammond has written
on 1 Kings in VnQPuljj'it Commentary , 1881, Prof. G, Rawlinson
on 2 Kings in the same work, and in the Sj^eaJiei'^s Com-
mentary. A. Edersheim, History of the Kings of Judah and
Israel, 1880. J. Hal6vy, Manasse roi de Judah, in the Revue
des Mudes Juives, 1881.

§ 6.* The Books of the Chronicles.

1. The Books of the Chronicles are styled in Hebrew
D''P*n ''^?'7, the Acts or Annals of the Days. In the
Hebrew the two books form one great historical
work. The LXX. divided the work into two books,
styling them IlapaXeiTro/xeva, things passed over,
or omitted. The Latin has followed the LXX.
in the division of the book, but has retained
the name Paralipomenon (genitive plur. after

THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 133

Liber) which is also used in the Douay Version.
Jerome, in his Prologus galeatus, suggested the title
Chronicon as preferable, whence the name Chronicles.
The book supplements in several points that of the
Kings, and is written even from a more distinctly
religious and Levitical standpoint than the former
work. Hence the history of the northern kingdom,
which, by the sin of Jeroboam had apostatised from
the covenant, is only given as far as it came into
connection with that of Judah. The book is natui-ally
divided into four parts. I. 1 Chron. i.-ix., consisting
of genealogies from Adam, some of which are brought
down to a date beyond the Captivity (see chap. iii.).
Those genealogies present many difficulties, some of
which are insoluble, owing to the absence of other
data. The genealogies taken from Genesis are design-
edly curtailed. Information, in addition to that found
in Genesis, is given in some instances. These facts
give a peculiar importance to the later portions of
those genealogies. II. 1 Chron. x.-xxix. gives the
history of David, which is remaikable both for the
omissions which occur in the narrative, and also for
the many new facts recorded which are not given in
the Book of the Kings. III. The reign of Solomon
(2 Chron. i.-ix.), in which the omissions are many,
and the additions, though few, are by no means
wanting in signification. lY. The history of the
kings of Judah up to the Captivity (2 Chron. x.-
xxxvi.). The additions made in this portion are of
special interest.

2. The Book of Chronicles was composed after the
Exile. It was not designed to be merely a supple-

134 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

ment to the Book of Kings. It is in several respects
an independent history, and evidently not intended
to supersede the Book of Kings, from which no
inconsiderable portion of its contents is derived.
Many sections agree almost verbally with that of the
Kings, while the knowledge of the history contained
in that book is presupposed in several places ; e.g. the
reference to Elijah (2 Chron. xxi. 12-16) takes for
granted that the reader is well acquainted with the
history of that prophet. A knowledge of the sayings of
Elijah and of the acts of Elisha is also presupposed
in 2 Chron. xxii. 7, 8. Hence we cannot agree with
those critics who suppose that the omissions in the
work were made for the purpose of concealing facts
discreditable to certain kings. The compiler of the
work was probably a Levite interested in the music
of the Second Temple. The sources of the history
appear to have been numerous. The editor was
acquainted with both the Books of Samuel and Kings
in a somewhat similar form to that in which we have
them, and he quotes from both. His authorities were :
(1) The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. This
authority is frequently referred to. It is hard to decide
whether several books are not quoted under that name.
For " the book of the kin^s of Israel " is spoken of in
2 Chron. xx. 34, and " the acts " or " history " of the
kings of Israel in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18; the most
common reference being to " the book of the .kings
of Judah and Israel" (2 Chron. xvi. 11, xxv. 26), or to
*'the book of the kings of Israel and Judah" (2 Chron.
xxvii. 7, etc.). The "book or "history" referred to
cannot be identified with the Book of Kings, because

THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 135

it contained histories of events not found in that
work. (2) The history of Samvael the seer. This work
may possibly have been the well-known Book of
Samuel. (3) The history of Nathan the prophet.
(4) The history of Gad the seer. All these are
referred to in 1 Chron. xxix. 29 ; and the work of
Nathan with (5) the ^^ropAec^ of Ahijah, and (6)
the visions of Iddo in 2 Chron. ix. 29 ; and the
last-mentioned possibly in 2 Chron. xiii. 22. Iddo
is also referred to in connection with the (7)
history of Shemaiah, 2 Chron. xii. 15. (8) The
history of Jehu the son of Hanani, 2 Chron. xx. 34.
(9) The Midrashj or Commentary on the Book of
the Kings, 2 Chron. xxiv. 27. But the translation
"commentary" is doubtful. (10) A book of Isaiah
about Uzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi. 22, as well as (11)
the Vision of Isaiah, 2 Chron. xxxii. 32. (12) The
history of Hozai, or of the Seers, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 19.
It is, however, a matter of dispute whether some of
those books may not be merely sections of a large
history (compare the expression in Bom. xi. 2, h/
'HA-eia). The writer may have lived as late as the
early portion of the Grecian period, as has been
conjectured from his reference to Persian coins
(1 Chron. xxix. 7), and especially from the genealogy
in 1 Chron. iii. 19-24, which is traced for several
generations after Nehemiah. The compiler probably
lived a century after that governor. Some critics
place the work as late as the early days of Alexander
the Great. It closes abruptly in the middle of a
sentence. The last three verses are identical with
the three first of Ezra, in which latter place the

136 TEE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

sentence left unfinished in the Chronicles is completed.
The book may have been originally united with that
of Ezra, and have proceeded from the same writer
According to Jewish tradition Ezra was the com-
piler; but the genealogy already referred to is opposed
to that view. The text is considerably corrupted in
some parts of the work, especially in the case of
proper names, and in the numbers mentioned. Some
critics consider the work inferior in historical credi-
bility to the Kings. But the compiler, as already
noted, actually presupposes in many cases an ac-
quaintance with the former book, and the omissions
in his history are not to be regarded as discrepancies.
There are, however, many difficulties which become
apparent on a careful comparison of the two books,
and which are not yet capable of satisfactory solution.

3. Most of the works recommended on the Kings can also
be consulted with advantage on the Book of Chronicles. Many
commentators have commented on both books. On the
Book of Chronicles in particular the following works are
of special importance : C. B. Michaelis, Ajinot. in Paralip.
in his Zfheriores Annot. in Eagiograjilia, 3 vols., 1719, 1720,
and the later commentaries of Bertheau, 1854, 2te Aufl.,
1873 ; Keil, 1870 ; Zockler, in Lange's Bihelwerk, 1874 ;
in the English edition important additions have been made
by American scholars. S. Oettli has written on Die ge-
sckichtl. Hagiographa in Strack-Zo cider's Kurzgefasst. KoinrA„
1889. The work of Klostermann, 1887 (see p. 129) must not
be forgotten. Note also Caspari's monograph on the Syr.'
Ephr. Xrieg, mentioned under Isaiah. Useful for teachers
is Rev. Dr. Murphy on The Books of the Chronicles, T. and T.
Clark, 1880. Rev. Prof. P. C. Barker has written on 1 and 2
Chron. in Pulpit Comm. and C.J. Ball in Bp.EUicott's Comm.

EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. 137

§ 7. The Books of Ezra and Nehemjati.

1. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are in Hebrew
MSS. regarded as one, and are designated the Book of
Ezra (see also Josephus, Against Apion, i. 8). In the
later Hebrew Bibles, and in the LXX., the work was
correctly divided into two books. In the LXX. the
books are styled Second Esdras and Nehemiah. See
remarks on pp. 138, 139. The Yulgate terms the
two canonical books respectively First and Second
Esdras. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, though
proceeding from different authors, were, in all pro-
bability, originally part and parcel of the Chronicles.
Each of the two books falls into two sections. I. Ezra
(a) chap, i.-vi. treats of the return of the exiles under
Sheshbazzar, or Zerubbabel, B.C. 536, when Joshua
was high priest, and of the rebuilding of the temple,
accomplished in the sixth year of Darius, B.C. 516.
The period is described in the contemporary writings
of Haggai and Zechariah. (b) The second portion
(chap, vii.-x.) relates the events which occurred half
a century later. The second expedition from Babylon
occurred in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes
Longimanus (b.c. 458-457), and was led by Ezra to
Jerusalem. On this occasion the expulsion of the
foreign wives took place. More than one-fourth of the
exiles who returned with Zerubbabel did not belong to
the tribes of Judah or Benjamin, but were members
of the other tribes (see Wright's Bampton Lectures^
p. 279). The number of individuals belonging to the
other ten tribes was about 12,000, out of a gross total
of 42,360. No impediment, as far as we know, was

138 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

placed in the way of the return of all the Israelites.
Many thoasands, no doubt, returned at a later period,
although the bulk of all the tribes preferred to remain
in the land of their dispersion. There is no full
account of the Return, because a blank of a century
and a half exists in the Jewish annals of the period.
II. Nehemiali. (a) Neh. i.-vii. 736* relate his journey
from Shushan in the twentieth year of the reign of
Artaxerxes (bc. 445-444), and the rebuilding of the
walls of Jerusalem, (b) The second portion — Neh.
vii. 736 to end — describes the work of the restoration
of religion, brought about by the united efforts of
Nehemiah and Ezra. This includes the solemn read-
ing of the Law to all Israel (chap. viii. 1-12), the
keeping of the Feast of Tabernacles (chap. viii. 13-18),
the great confession (chap, ix.), the sealing of the
covenant by the chiefs of the people (chap, x.),
the list of the returned exiles (chap, xi., xii. 1-26),
the dedication of the walls (chap. xii. 27-xiii. 3),
and the correction of divers abuses (chap. xiii. 4-31).

Considerable portions of the two books aie no doubt
derived from the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah;
but it does not follow that the books in their present
shape were the works of those authors. A portion
of Ezra (chap. iv. 8 to chap. vi. 18) with chap. vii.
11-26 is written in Aramaic (Chaldee), see p. 193.
The mention of Jaddua (high priest in the time of
Alexander the Great) in Neh. xii. 11, 22 seems to
prove that the work must have been composed later
than the time of ISTehemiah.

2. The apocryphal Book of Ezra requires some notice here.
It is called in the LXX. and Syr. the First Book of Esdras

EZRA AND NEBEMIAH, 139

or Ezra, and is placed in those Versions immediately before
Ezra, which is then called Second Esdras. In the Vulgate,
however, the book is known as Third Esdras, and usually
placed along with Fourth Esdras at the end of the New Testa-
ment along with the Prayer of Manasses, these three books
not being regarded as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church.
The apocryphal Book of Ezra is for the most part a compilation
out of 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah ; mainly, however,
from the Book of Ezra. It is of some importance in connection
with the criticism of the text of Ezra, although inferior in
authority, and abounding in contradictory statements. The
book seems to have been left unfinished. It contains some
curious additions from unknown sources, the most interesting
being the story of the three wise men and their contest for
the palm of wisdom before king Darius, as related in chaps.
iii. and iv. Josephus made use of this book to the detriment
of his own history. The writer in the extracts given from the
canonical book, seems to have made use of the LXX. version,
and not of the Hebrew original. The Fourth Book of Esdras
or, as it is styled in the English Apocrypha, the Second Book
of Esdras, is an apocalyptical production, and has no bearing
upon the canonical book.

3. Of the older commentaries on Ezra and Nehemiah, the
best are those of ^irigel, Ezra, 1571, JVeheDiiah, 1575 ; Clericus,
in Comm. in Libb. Hist., 1733 ; J. H. Michaelis and J. J. Eam-
bach, in Uheriores Notes in Ilagiogr., vol. iii. Of the more
modern, are the following: Bertheau, Ezra, Neli., Esth., 1862,
and the new work based on Bertheau, but greatly modified
by V. Ryssel, 1887; Kamphausen, in BunsevUs Bihehverk, i.
Abschn. 3; Keil, 1870; Schulz, Ezra- Esther, in Lange's Bibel-
werh, 1876, English edition with notes by American scholars;
Bohme, Ueher d. Text des NeJi., 1871 ; A. F. Kleinert, Ueher
die Entstehung , Bestandtlieile, u. das Alter der Bilcher Ezr.
u. Neh., 1832 ; Noldeke, Die alt-test. Litteratnr, 1868 ; Eb.
Schrader, Die Dauer des zweiten Tempelbaves, in the Stndien
u. Kritiken, 1867. G. Rawlinson has written on Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Esther, in Pulpit Commentary, 1880; and
in Speaker's Commentary, Smend, Bie Listen der Bilcher

140 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

Ezra wid Nehemlah, 1881 ; Kabbi Saadiah, Commentary on
Ezra and Nehemiah, edited by H. J. Matthews, in Semitic series
of Att^c. Oxon., 1882. S. Oettli in Stracl-ZocUer's Komm., 1889.
See also J. Hal6vy, Cyrus et le retour de Vexile, in the Mevue
des Etudes Juives, Paris, 1880. For Sayce, see p. 146.

§ 8. The Book of Esther.

1. The Book of Esther was written to explain the
origin of the Feast of Purim {lots), and was possibly-
intended by the wiiter to be read during that feast
(chap. ix. 27). Whatever may be thought of the
details of the story, it is impossible that a national
feast like that of Purim could have originated in
historical times without some adequate cause, such
as that described in the book. This difficulty has
induced some to maintain that the book was trans-
lated from the Persian, and that the feast was the
Persian feast Purdian. That view, however, though
set forth by J. von Hammer in 1827, and lately
revived by Yatke in his Hist. krit. Einleitung in d.
A. T., ed. by Preiss, is beset with more difficulties
than the ordinary, and has found no real support
among critics. The day of Mardoceus (Mordecai) is re-
ferred to in 2 Mace. xv. 36. Ahasuerus was e^ddently
Xerxes, though it is more than doubtful whether
Esther can be identified with Amastris, the wife of
Xerxes, mentioned by Herodotus, who may, however,
have been Yashti. The rash temper of Ahasuerus
and the Persian customs are correctly delineated in the
story. The name of God does not occur in the book,
probably because it was designed to be read in the
Jewish houses during feasting, and it was deemed
more reverential to omit, under such circumstances,

THE BOOK OF ESTHER. 141

direct mention of the name of God, for which the later
Jews preferred to use divers circumlocutions (comp.
" against heaven," Luke xv. 18). The book forms one
of the five Megilloth, or " rolls." The author's ex-
planations of Persian usages (chap. i. 13, iv. 11, viii. 8)
have been often regarded as proofs of its composition
at a later era. But this is by no means decisive ', for
if the book was intended to be read in all the f amihes
of the Jews throughout the Persian empire, such
explanations would be necessary. When the Feast
of Purim was instituted, circular letters must have
been sent round to the Jews of the dispersion, and
no time could have been better suited for the appear-
ance of the Book of Esther. The overruling power
of Providence is the great lesson taught. The fact
that the book was introduced into the canon much
later is not at variance with the opinion that it was
composed in the Persian period.

2. The name of God or JeJiovah does not occur in
the Book of Esther. It has been calculated that in
the book which contains 167 verses, the Persian king
is mentioned nearly 190 times (the name Ahasuerus
occurring 29 times). The fact has often been a
stumbling-block. The book is omitted in the lists
of the canonical Old Testament writings given by
Melito. That omission may, however, have been
accidental ; but some have ascribed it to the cause
just alluded to. The book is omitted also from the
list given by Gregory of Nazianzen, and some of the
Jewish Rabbis sought to exclude it from the canon
(see Excursus II. to my Koheleih). Athanasius looked
coldly on the work, ranking it with non-canonical

142 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

books [Epist. Fest.), Luther also suspected it. An
ingenious attempt has been made by Dr. E. W. Bul-
linger to discover " The name of Jehovah in the Book of
Esther.'' His pamphlet thus entitled was issued in 1889,
price 3cZ. To be had '' from the author, Bremgarten,
Woking." It is an exegetical curiosity. He asserts
that " in the Book of Esther the name of Jehovah is
given four times in an acrostic form." To these four
" acrostics " Dr. BuUinger adds a fifth, in a later
article in the " Quarterly Record of the Trinitarian
Bible Society" for January, 1890. These "acrostics,"
according to Bullinger, are not " the mere work of
man," but designed by the Holy Spirit ! They are
discovered in the initials "read backwards" (Esther i.
20) of the words l^n*' D^^JH ^31 NM ; in ch. v. 4 in the
initials "read forward" of DINT jDHI "I'pon Nin^ ; in
v. 13 in the final letters of the words h HVlJ^ 1^3 \S* HT;
and similarly in the finals (vii. 7) of T[V'\r\ V^N* nni?D ^3.
The fifth "acrostic" is that of n^n« (Ex. iii. 14)
" read backwards as well as forwards," in four out of
the five words (vii. 5) of ^?1^ nt ^N1 HT Nin ! ! These
" acrostics " are noted in some MSS. in the Massorah.
The phenomenon thus noted has been observed
before. In a volume of the series known as Bihliotheca
Bremensis, or Bihliotheca Historico-Philologico-Theo-
logica, classis quintse Ease. prim. Amstelodamii, ap.
Sam. Schoonwald mdccxxi. Ease. sext. mdccxxii., at
pp. 982-989, there is a short but interesting article
entitled, Joachimi Christiani Jehring Ohserv. de locis
quihusdam Pent, et lib. Esth. In it Jehring mentions
that the Jews called such coincidences in initials or
finals by the technical phrases Rashe Teboth and Sophe

THE BOOK OF ESTHER. 143

Teboth, and that they were accustomed to show especial
respect when verses with such combinations of letters
were read in their synagogues. The following is his
list of the phenomena in the Pentateuch : Gen. i. 33
with ii. 1 ; xi. 9, xii. 15, xix. 13, xix. 25, xxix. 24, 25,
xxxviii. 7, xxxviii. 24, 25, xliii. 10, xhv. 3, 4 ; Exod.
iii. 13, iv. 3, iv. 14, iv. 16, xii. 15, 16, xvi. 7, xvi. 22,
XXV. 23, xxvi. 21, 22, xxxvi. 26, 27, xxxvii. 10 ; Lev.
iv. 17, 18, v. 9, 10, viii. 15; ix. 9 in the initials " read
backwards " of p^^> Din-riiSI nnTDH, also in the same
verse in connection with the succeeding verse, in the
initials "read forward" of l^nn nxi : niTDH IID^ in xiv.
25, 26, xxi. 22; Num. i. 51 in the words, njnni D^l^n
1Dp> pt^'Dn, and also in same verse in n"ipn "imi D^l^n
nor , V. 11, V. 18, xiii. 30, xiii. 32, xix. 12, xxiv. 13;
Deut. ix. 19, 20, x. 7, xi. 2, xxiv. 5, xxx. 12, xxxii.
38, 39. Jehring gives at the end of this list the
four first cases in Esther. Tlie phenomena, however,
might easily be traced throughout the Bible (see
1 Chron. v. 12; 1 Kings xviii. 4, etc.).

According to Dr. Bullinger, the reason for conceal-
ing the Divine name in Esther was that at the
period of which it treats '' God's face was hidden,
hence His name was hidden " ! The conclusion is not
very dissimilar from the argument wliich the Jews,
according to Jehring, derived from the phenomena in
Deut. xxx. 12. The initial letters of the words found
there (no^DK^H 1J^ rb]^^ >d) form n^>p, the common
post-Biblical term for circumcision. The finals of the
same words make nms Jehovah. The phrase is cor-
rectly translated, " Who shall ascend (or go up) for
us to heaven ? " But the verb might be regarded as

144 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

causative, and so by some, ignorant of syntactical rules,
the sentence was rendered " Who shall bring us up
into heaven ? " The finals and initials taken together
were interpreted as giving the reply to the question,
namely, ^''Jehovah, i.e. through the circumcision.''^

All such arguments are but " sacred trifling."
Every Hebrew student knows that the three letters
(*, 1 and n) employed in the composition of the
Sacred Name are the most common letters in use in
the language in the formation of pronominal suffixes,
in nominal and verbal afformatives, post-positive or
pre-positive. Consequently the number of cases in
which such "acrostics" must occur in the Hebrew
Scriptures is necessarily large ; and there is nothing
surprising in the fact that ingenuity has been able
to discover five such cases in the Book of Esther.
It is of little consequence that the Massorah should,
according to some MSS., have noted the facts. It
is, however, well to caution the unwary against
attaching any importance to such "discoveries."

3. The Book of Esther in the LXX. version exhibits
no little free handling of the original text, even in
those portions which coincide for the most part with
the Hebrew. The LXX. also contains considerable
additions to the narrative. Jerome separated those
additions in the Latin Yulgate from the other portions
of the work, and placed them together at the end of
the tenth chapter. In the English Apocrypha the
additions are incongruously arranged as a separate
book, entitled, "The Rest of the Book of Esther."
The order in which the portions are given in the
English Apocrypha is that of the Latin Vulgate.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER. 145

The additions consist of the following pieces : (1) The
dream of Mordecai, prophetical of the dehverance of
the Jewish people, with an enlarged account of the
conspiracy of the eunuchs, briefly recorded in the
canonical Esther, ii. 21-23. This portion, which
occupies in the English Apocrypha xi. 2-xii. 6, is in
the LXX. placed at the opening of the book before
chap. i. 1. (2) The exj^osition of Afordecai's dreamy
which occurs in the LXX. at the close of the work
after chap. x. 4, is given in the English Apocrypha
as the opening chapter of the separated portion, and
entitled " i*art of the Tenth Chapter after the Greek."
The last verse of this (chap. x. 15 in the Greek, but
chap. xi. 1 in the English Apocrypha) contains a
curious but vague account of the introduction into
Egypt of the letter enjoining the observance of the
Feast of Purim. (3) The decree drawn up hy Haman
for the destruction of the Jews. This is inserted in
the Greek between Esther iii. 13 and 14, but in the
English Apocrypha occupies chap. xiii. 1-7. (4) The
Prayer of Mordecai, which immediately follows in the
English Apocrypha, occupying chap, xiii, 8-18, is given
in the Greek after chap, iv. 17. (5) The Prayer of
Esther, found in the English Apocrypha at chap. xiv.
1-19, follows in the Greek immediately after that
of Mordecai, in chap, iv, (6) The fuller account of
Esther^s interview with the king, given in the English
Apocrypha at chap, xv., occurs in the Greek in the
commencement of chap, v., before chap, v, 3 in the
Hebrew. (7) The edict in favour of the Jews, which
occupies chap. xvi. in the English Apocrypha, occurs
in the Greek after chap. viii. 12.

10

146 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

Besides all these, it ought to be noted that many
important minor additions occur in the Greek through-
out, and others in the Vulgate text of the portions not
found in the Hebrew. The EngHsh reader will find
the latter given in Churton's excellent edition of The
Uncanonical and A'pocryphal ScriiMires, 1884. The
LXX. insert various names of God in the portions
translated from the Hebrew (e.^., ch. vi. 1, 13) as
well as in the additions made to the book.

The additions have, as Vatke observes, a thoroughly
Alexandrian character. Haman is styled a Macedonian^
because, in the period to which the "additioi^" belong,
the Macedonians were looked upon as oppressors.
Several of the " additions" were known to Josephus.

4. Several of the works of the older commentators on this
book, such as that of Clericus, are still of value. Among the
moderns may be mentioned Kelle, VincLicicB Estlierce, 1820 ;
Baumgarten, Z?<9^^e EHhercBcomm. hist.-critica,l83d ; Nickes,
Be JEstherce lib. (2 vols.), Kome, 1856 ; Bertheau, 1862 ; Keil,
1870 ; Schultz, in Lange's Bibdwerk, 1876 ; Paulus Cassel,
1878, full of information and interesting on many accounts.
Not a few of his remarks breathe, as has been remarked, the
very spirit of the Midrash. The English translation, by A.
Berstein, published by T. and T. Clark, 1888, contains much
new matter. J. S. Bloch, Hellenist isclie Bestandteile ivi hibl.
Schrifttlinm ; eine liv. Untersuchung, 1877, 2te Aufl., 1882.
Ber hist or. Hintevgrund und d. Ahfassungszeit d. Buches
JEstlwr in Griitz' Monatsschrift des Judentlmms for 1886.
P. de Lagarde, Purim, ein Beitrag ziir Gescli. der Religion,
1887, is learned, but fanciful. A. H. Sayce's Introd. to the
Boohs of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, 1885, and B. Jacob's
Bas Buck Esther hei devi LXX. in the Zeitschrift fiir A. T.
WissenscTiaft, 1890, are important.

^•M

CHAPTER XIV.

THE POETICAL BOOKS.

§ 1. The Book of Job.

ANY of the assertions made concerning Job
are based on pure conjecture. The name
Job (^i'5^) is wholly unconnected with the name
y\\ written also Job in the Authorised Version, which
occurs in Gen. xlvi. 13. In the Revised Version that
name is, to avoid misconception, written lob. The
name Job is of course equally out of connection with
Jobab (nnr), found in Gen. xxxvi. 33. The LXX.
has, however, incorrectly identified it with the latter
in the addition made in that Version to the book at
the close of chap. xlii. The earliest passages of the
Old Testament in which the patriarch Job is alluded to
as a historical person are : Ezek. xiv. 14, 16, 20. The
book is quoted by Jeremiah. Compare Jer. xx. 14 ff.
with Job. iii. A close connection exists between
Ps. viii. 5 and Job vii. 1 7 ff. ; Ps. Ixxii. and Job xxix. ;
Prov. xvi. 15 and Job xxix. 23 ff.; Hos. ii. 8 and
Job. xix. 8; Isa. xix. 5 and Job xiv. 11. The con-
nection is more apparent in the Hebrew original, and
it is not easy to decide in all these cases which is the
earlier passage. There are also many other quotations
from, or imitations of. Job in other books of the Old
Testament.

148 THE POETICAL BOOKS.

The patriarch Job is depicted in the book as one
who lived in the early patriarchal period. But that
fact is not sufficient to prove the poem to have been as
early as Moses, as the older commentators maintained.
The historical references in the poem are uncertain,
for the author has shown much skill in concealing
his personal surroundings. The reference in chap. xii.
14-25 to the deportation of people from one country
to another tends to prove that the book is later than
the Assyrian empire, although some distinguished
critics have assigned it to the Solomonic period of
Hebrew literature. The most probable time for its
composition is between Isaiah and Jeremiah. The
theory that suffering Job is an allegory of suffering
Israel must be set aside as unsatisfactory. For the
sufferings of Job are represented in the poem not as
brought upon him by reason of sin ; while the suffer-
ings which befel Israel are represented throughout the
Old Testament as the consequences of transgression.
Although the poet represents Job as Hving in the
Hauran, he occasionally reveals his own Israelitish
standpoint. God is spoken of in the prologue as
' Jehovah, although that name seems to have been pur-
posely avoided in the dialogue. Job, however, uses the
name on two occasions, chap. i. 21, xii. 9. The writer
was well acquainted with life in Eastern Palestine, and
had an intimate knowledge of the natural history of
Egypt. He lived at a period when his readers were
sufficiently acquainted with the Egyptian animals to
comprehend the glowing descriptions given in the book
of the crocodile and the hippopotamus.

2. The subject of the book is the problem of the

TEE BOOK OF JOB, 149

sufferings of the righteous. Misfortunes are sometimes
the result of sin, and proceed from the punitive hand
of the Almighty. But the ungodly are, however,
often in great prosperity, while the righteous suffer
adversity. Afflictions in the latter cp.se are sometimes
(though man may not know it) simply probative,
and designed to test and exhibit the character of the
pious. This, according to the Prologue, was the
unknown cause of the sorrows that overwhelmed
Job.

The book opens with a prologue (chap, i.-ii.), which
describes Job's righteousness and prosperity, and the
ruin which befel him by reason of the hostility of
Satan, " the adversary." Job's trust in God even in
adversity is strikingly described. But the severest
trial occurred when in that adversity he was visited
by consoling friends. Job's complaint (chap, iii.)
afforded his friends an opportunity of pointing out
to him that sin was the real cause of his sufferings.
In three sets of speeches (chap, iv.-xxvi.) the friends
urged that point, gradually increasing in bitterness
of language caused by the obstinacy of Job. For
notwithstanding the repeated attacks of his friends,
Job stoutly upheld his righteousness, and when hard
pressed, ventured even to call in question the righteous-
ness of God Himself. In Job's closing speech, however,
the patriarch simply asserted the incomprehensibility
of God's ways. Job's closing soliloquy occupies chap,
xxvi.-xxxi. A new speaker (Elihu) is then introduced
in the person of a bystander, in chap, xxxii., preceded
by a short introduction (xxxii. 1-5). Elihu's speech,
which advocates the disciplinary and purgative view

150 THE POETICAL BOOKS.

of affliction, occupies chap, xxxii. 6 to xxxvii. No reply-
is given in the book to the speech of Elihu, and Elihu is
not even alluded to in the closing chapter, in which all
the other speakers are mentioned by name. The speech
of Jehovah out of the whirlwind occupies chap, xxxviii.-
xli. That speech did not explain the enigma of Job's
sufferings; it simply demonstrated the ignorance of
man, who is unable to unravel the common secrets
of nature which surround him on every side. The
conclusion, suggested but not expressed, is, if mortal
man be so ignorant of common matters, he cannot
expect to understand the secrets of the Most High.
The voice of the Almighty out of the storm-cloud was
enough for Job. He did not require the moral of that
speech to be pointed out to him, but forthwith acknow-
ledged his ignorance and sin (cha,p. xlii. 1-6). Though
previously defiant. Job became at once subdued and
humble. The book closes with an epilogue (chap,
xlii. 7-17) which narrates how the friends of Job were
condemned for their want of integrity, and how Job
himself was restored again to prosperity.

3. The book suggests many critical questions. The
prologue and epilogue, though portions often disputed,
are essential to the work. Without their assistance
the riddle of the book could not be solved. Although
comparatively little attention has been called to the
fact, it is worthy of note that Job is nowhere described
as made acquainted, either before or after his suffer-
ings, with the real cause of his trials. To him all
those sufferings seemed to have a purely earthly origin.
The genuineness of several portions of the book has
been disputed. The objections against the genuineness

THE BOOK OF JOB. 151

of chap, xxvii. 7-xxviii. 28, adduced by Kennicott,
Eichhorn, Ewald and others, have, perhaps, finally
been set at rest by Giesebrecht, Der Wendepunkt deb
B. Hioh., Kap. xxvii. und xxviii., 1879. The de-
scriptions of behemoth, or the hippopotamus, and
of leviathan, or the crocodile (chap. xl. 15 to xli.),
have been regarded by some critics as doubtful,
because those portions might be omitted without
detriment to the poem. More serious are the diffi-
culties which beset the episode of Elihu (chap, xxxii.-
xxxvii.), which appears to bo an addition by some
later hand. The style in which the speeches of Elihu
are composed is inferior to that of the other portions
of the book. But although those chapters may be
later additions, they are by no means an unimportant
part of the book. They contain passages of undoubted
beauty (chap, xxxiii. 13-30), and, from an ethical
standpoint, form a most useful and important appendix
to the great work.

4. The Book of Job has called forth at all times a host of
commentators. Of the older, Fred, Spanhemii, Historia lohi
sive de ohscuris hist, conwi., 1672, must not be forgotten, as
well as Drusii, Nova versio et scJioL, 1636 ; J. H. Michaelis
in Annot. in Harjiogr. ; Alb. Schultens, Liber lohi cum nova
vers, and flomm., 2 vols, 4to, 1737. Rosenmiiller, Scholia, 2nd
edit. 1824; Com2Jend. 1832. H. Ewald, Kommeyitar, 1836,
2 Aufl., 1851 ; and in his Bicliter des Alt. Bundes, 2te Ausg.,
1854. An English translation was published by Williams and
Norgate, 1882 ; Heiligstedt, Comm. gramm. hist. ci'it., in 4th voL
of Maurer, 1847 ; Schlottmann, 1851 ; Hirzel in Eurzgef. Ex.
Handb., 1839, 2te Aufl. by Olshausen, 1851 ; neu bearbeitet von
Dillmann, 1869; A. B. Davidson, Comm. gram, and exeg.,\ol. 1
(chap, i.-xiii.), 1862. The second volume was never published.
Also his Book of Job with notes, in Cambridge Bible, 1884.

152 TEE POETICAL BOOKS.

Bernard's Booh nfJoh exjyovnded to his Camhrifl ge jnqnls, edit,
by Chance, 18G4, is replete with arbitrary interpretations, and
mustbe used with special caution ; Ernest Renan, Le livre deJoh
traduit de VHehren. Etude sur I'age et lecaractere du poeme*
3rd edit., 1865. E. W. Hengstenberg, Z>a.? Bvch Hiob erl'dutert^
1870, 1875. Ad. Merx, Bas Gedicht vo7i Hioh, Bel. text,
hr. learh. u. ilhers. nehst Einl., 1871. Hitzig, Comm., 1874.
Franz Delitzsch, Comm., 1864, 2te Aufl., 1876 ; English transla-
tion published by T. and T. Clark. C. Budde, Beitnige zur Krit.
des B. Hioh. 1876. Giesebrecht, see above, p. 151. S. Cox,
Commentary with translation, 1880. G. L. Studer, Bas Bnch
Hioh ilhers. u. krit. erldutei't, 1881. G. Bateson Wright,
The Booh of Joh. A new crit. rev. transl. into Ejiglish, 1883.
G. G. Bradley, Lectnres on Joh, 1887. E. Reuss, Hioh, 1888.
Saadiah, Bas Buch Hioh iihersetzt u. erkldrt, von J. Cohn,
Altona, 1889. W. Volck in Bie Poet, Hagiographa, vol. vii.
of Stracli-Zochler'' s Xommentar, 1889. The Commentary of
Prof. S. Lee, Lond., 1837, ought not to be forgotten.

Monographs on passages of Job abound, especially on
chap. xix. 25-27, by Kosegarten, 1815 ; Stickel, 1832 ; H. Ewald,
in Zeller's Theol. Jahrh., 1843 ; Kostlin, 1846 ; F. Konig, 1855;
Hoelemann, in his Bihelstudlen, 1859 ; S. Oettli, Hioh und
Faust, 1888 ; Graf von Baudissin, Transl, Antiq, Arah, Lihri
lohi qu(S s^ipersunt nunc prim, edita, 1870 ; K. Budde, on
Job xxvii., xxviii., in Zeitschrift fiir A. T. Wissenschaft, 1882.
A general view of the book is given in C. H. H. "Wright's
Bihlical Essays, 1886 ; as also in A. W. Momerie's Bcfects of
Modern Christianity and other Sermons, 1883, a considerable
part of which is devoted to an analysis of Job ; T. K. Cheyne's
Joh and Solomon, or the Wisdom of the Old Testament, 1887,
discusses Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, etc. See Appendix.

§ 2. The Psalms.

1. The Psalter is in Hebrew termed D'^n];! °i^p, Booh

of Praises or Hymns. The name is not altogether

suitable, for the majority of the poems in the book

are rather prayers, riipp]^^ than praises. Moreover

THE PSALMS, 153

some of them were specially designed as hymns in-
tended to be accompanied by the harp, for which
y\'0\p is the more appropriate expression, from whence
the Greek i/^aX/xot, from if/dWetv, and xl/oKT-qpiov, denoting
primarily the instrument, and then the collection of
psalms. In Luke xx. 42 the expression is used,
I^l/3Xo<; ij/aX/jiojv.

2. The Psalter was in Hebrew divided into five
books (duly given in the Revised Version) in order to
correspond with the five several books of the Pen-
tateuch (see pp. 73, 74). The first book includes
Ps. i.-xli., all Psalms traditionally supposed to be
Davidic or Solomonic. Ps. i. is introductory, and has
no superscription. Ps. ii. is also without a title, as
well as Ps. X. The latter was probably the conclusion
of Ps. ix., with which it is united in the LXX.
Ps. xxxiii. has no heading in the Hebrew; but in
the LXX. it is ascribed to David. The Psalms
contained in the First Book generally employ Jehovah
as the name of the Divine Being. II. The Second
Book is composed of Ps. xlii.-lxxii., and is a collection
of Elohistic Psalms, i.e. Psalms in which Elohim
(God) is mainly used as the Divine appellation. Of
these, Ps. xlii.-xlix. were composed by " the sons of
Korah." Ps. xliii. has no superscription, and was,
no doubt, originally a part of the preceding psalm.
To the Korahite collection a single psalm of Asaph
is appended (Ps. 1.), after which follow a number of
Elohistic Psalms, generally ascribed to Da\^d (Ps. li.-
Ixxi.). Pss. Ixvi. and Ixvii. have not the name David
in their superscriptions, although the LXX. inserts
the name of David in the latter (Ixvii.). The collec-

154 THE POETICAL BOOKS.

tion of Book II. closes with a Solomonic Psalm (Ps.
Ixxii.). Two Psalms which are found in the First
Book in a Jehovistic form (Ps. xiv. and Ps. xl. 13-17)
reappear in the Second Book in an Elohistic form
(Ps. hii. and Ps. Ixx.). III. The Third Book contains
Pss. Ixxiii.-lxxxix. inclusive. Of these seventeen Psalms,
the first eleven are ascribed to Asaph; four to the
sons of Korah (Pss. Ixxxiv., Ixxxv., Ixxxvii., Ixxxviii.),
the last (Ps. Ixxxviii.) being ascribed especially to
Heman. Another (Ps. Ixxxvi.) is ascribed to David,
and one to Ethan (Ps. Ixxxix.). The collection of
Psalms contained in the Third Book must, on account
of Pss. Ixxiv. and Ixxix., have been made subsequently
to the Exile. lY. The Fourth Book of the Psalms
comprises also seventeen Psalms (Pss. xc.-cvi.). Most
of these are by anonymous writers. The Hebrew
superscriptions assign Ps. xc. to Moses, and Ps. ci.-ciii.
to David. But the LXX. ascribe eleven of the Psalms
contained in this Book to David, leaving only five
anonymous Psalms (xcii., c, cii., cv., cvii.). V. The
Fifth Book comprehends the remaining Psalms from
Ps. cvii. to the end of the Psalter. Fifteen of these
Psalms are ascribed in the Hebrew to David, including
four of the Psalms known as "Songs of Ascents"
(Pss. cxxii., cxxiv., cxxxi., cxxxiii.). Ps. cxxvii. is
ascribed to Solomon. In the LXX. and Vulgate the
four mentioned "Songs of Ascents" are not assigned
to David. All the other Psalms in the book marked
as Davidic in the superscriptions are ascribed to
the same source by the LXX. and Yulgate. One
of these (Ps. cxxxviii.) is in the LXX. ascribed
to Haggai and Zechariah. Ps. cxxxvii. is similarly

THE PSALMS. 155

ascribed in the LXX. to David and Jeremiah ; and
Pss. cxlvi., cxlvii. (which latter is divided into two
Psalms in the LXX.) with Ps. cxlviii. are likewise
assigned to Haggai and Zechariah. Similarly in the
Syriac (Peshitto Version) several Psalms belonging
to the book are said to refer to the prophets of the
Eestoration, or to their contemporaries, Zerubbabel,
Joshua the high priest, and Nehemiah. The Vulgate
agrees with the LXX. in making Haggai and Zech-
ariah the authors of Ps. cxlvi. The Vulgate considers
Ps. cxi. to refer to the Restoration which took place
under those prophets.

The division into fiv^e books was made with the
object of assimilating the Psalter to the Pentateuch
(see pp. 73, 74). An attempt seems to have been made
to compare also the number of the verses found
in the Psalter and Pentateuch. Geiger mentions a
Baraitha, or authoritative tradition, in which the
number of the verses in the Pentateuch, the Psalter
and Chronicles, were made nearly to coincide, the
numbers being put respectively at 5,888, 5,881, and
5,889. The verse division of the Massoretes for the
three books amounts respectively to 5,845, 2,527, and
1,656.

It is evident that those who arranged the Psalter
in its present form wished each of the five books to
close with a doxology. This explains the reason why
the Fourth Book was made to close with Ps. cvi.,
and the Fifth Book to open with Ps. cvii., although
the latter Psalm is closely connected by the nature
of its contents with the two Psalms which imme-
diately precede it. A special formal doxology was

156 THE POETICAL BOOKS.

not considered to be required at the close of the Fifth
Book, inasmuch as that book closes as it were with
"pillars of smoke" of the incense of thanksgiving.
The doxology at the close of Book TV. (Ps. c\i. 48)
seems, from a comparison of the parallel passage in
1 Chron. xvi. 36, to end with a rubrical direction for
the employment of that Psalm in public worship.

3. The number of Psalms contained in the Psalter
has been variously estimated. The printed Hebrew
text has 150. The LXX. have the same total,
although they unite certain Psalms (Ps. ix. with x.
and cxiv. with cxv.), and divide others into two
(Ps. cxvi. and Ps. cxh-ii.), so that the numbering of
the Psalms does not correspond. An additional Psalm
is added at the end in the LXX., expressly marked
as " outside the number." In the Jerusalem Talmud
the number assigned to the Psalms is 147, "corre-
sponding to the years of our father Jacob" [Shahh.
xvi. 1). That number was obtained by combining
together certain Psalms^ and in old MSS. the number
of the Psalms is often less than 150, Ps. xliii. being
combined with Ps. xlii., etc.

4. Allusion has already been made to the super-
scriptions. In the Hebrew only thirty-four Psalms
are vWthout such titles. The titles in some cases
mark the liturgical character of special Psalms, e.g.
" For the chief musician," or " precentor," etc., or
their musical character, as Maskil, Shiggaion, etc.
The titles in other cases occasionally specify the
instruments of music by which the Psalms were
intended to be accompanied, and the measure and
melody to be employed. In other cases they specify

TEE PSALMS. ' 157

the occasions on which the Psalms were employed,
e.g. "songs of degrees," or "ascents," probably de-
signed for the pilgrims going up to Jerusalem. The
superscriptions also indicate the contents of the
Psalms themselves, whether songs of praise or of
prayer. In many cases several of these objects are
combined in the titles. Still often er the titles state
the supposed authors of the Psalms, and occasionally
the occasions on which they were written. Seventy-
three Psalms are ascribed to David, thirty-seven of
which are found in the First Book.

5. Modern critics do not generally coincide with
the statements put forth in the titles (whether of the
Hebrew or LXX. Psalter) as to the authorship of
the Psalms. Some of these critics take an extreme
view, and assert (as Peuss and Kuenen) that no
Davidic Psalm is to be found in the Psalter. Ewald
admitted only the Davidic authorship of eleven, Hitzig
of fourteen. According to Delitzsch, forty-four out
of the seventy-three are Davidic. Other critics (as
Hitzig, Olshausen, Keuss, etc.) maintain that many
of the Psalms are of the Maccabean era; but such
extreme views are not generally entertained. Some
of the Psalms are undoubtedly post-exilian; a few,
such as Pss. xliv., Ixxiv., Ixxxiii., may be Maccabean,
but the latter point is doubtful. The number of
Messianic Psalms has been much exaggerated by the
older commentators, and has been unduly lessened
by the later critics. The most important Messianic
Psalms are the ii., xvi., xxii., Ixxii., and ex. The
New Testament wi-iters recognize decided Messianic
elements in Pss. viii., xl., xlv., Ixviii., Ixix., Ixxxix, xci.,

158 THE POETICAL BOOKS.

and cxviii. The Messiah is often identified with His
people, and what refers to them refers to Him also.
Moreover, prophecies which primarily refer to the
Messiah are often applicable to all the people of God.
The seven Psalms known ecclesiastically as the seven
Penitential Psalms, are the vi., xxxii., xxxviii.,li., cii.,
cxxx., and cxhii. The theology of the Psalter is the
same as that of the prophets; and as the Psalms
were used in the congi-egation as well as in private
devotion, they present us with a vivid picture of the
theology which prevailed among the pious portion of
the people of Israel.

6. The Targum on the Psalms must on the whole be regarded
as the oldest commentary on the book. That Targum, how-
ever, is in its present shape younger than the Syriac Peshitto
Version. This question has been discussed by Noldeke, and
later by Friedr. Baethgen in his Untersuclmngen uber die
Psalmen 7iach der PescMtto, 1878, and in his articles on Der
textkr. Wert der alien Uelerss. z. d. Ps, in the Jahrh. f. ijrot.
Theol., 1882. Several of the Fathers wrote on the Psalms,
as Hilary, Chrysostom, and Augustine ; and Jewish com-
mentaries of great value are those of Eashi, Ibn Ezra, and
D. Kimchi. Dr. Schiller-Szinessy has edited a portion of the
latter (Book I.) at the Cambridge Press. Numerous are the
writers on the Psalms during the Reformation era, such as
Luther, Calvin, whose commentary, newly edited by Tholuck
in 1836, has not lost its value ; Aretius Felinus (M. Butzer),
1526 ; E, Riidinger, 1580. The notes of Fr. Vatabl^, of Paris,
are to be found in R. Stephanus, Bill., 1557, and in the
Critici Sacri, which contain also many notes of value from
other commentaries. In post-reformation times appeared
the commentaries of Mart. Geier, 1668, 2 vols., 4to, folio
1709; J. H. Michaelis, Adn. pliil.-exeg. in Ilagiog., 1720;
H. Venema, 6 vols., 1762-1767 ; C. A. Crusius, Hyjjomne'

THE PSALMS,, 159

viata, 1764-1778 ; Eosenmllller, Scholia, 3 vols., 1798, 2nd
ed., 1821. The modem school may be said to commence
with de Wette's Commentary, 1811, 5th edit, by G. Baur, 1856;
Stier, 1834-1836 ; F. Hitzig, 1835, 1836, new edition 1863-5 ;
E. W. Hengstenberg, 1842-7, 2te Aufl., 1849-52, translated into
EngHsh, T. and T. Clark ; H. Ewald, 1835, Dichter cles alien
Bundes, I., neue Ausarb., 1866, English translation by John-
ston, 1881, hrit. Comm., 1882 ; H. Hupfeld, 1855-62, 2te Ausg.
by Riehm., Ste Ausg. by Nowack, 1888; A. Tholuck, practical,
2te Aufl., 1873 ; J. Olshausen, 1853 ; E. Boehl, Zwolf Mess.
Fsalmen, 1862 ; Franz Delitzsch, 1859, 4te Aufl., 1883, 1884,
translated into English and specially revised by the author
(3 vols.), Hodder and Stoughton, 1887-1890 ; J. J. S. Perowne,
The Book of Psalms, 2 vols., 7th edit., 1890 ; A. C. Jennings
and W. H. Lowe, The Psalms with critical notes, 2nd edit.,
1884-5 ; T. K. Cheyne, Booh of Psalms, transl.lSSi ; Comm,,
1 888 ; Origin and Religious Ideas of the Psalter (Bampton
Lectures), 1891 ; John Forbes (Prof, at Aberdeen), The Book
of Psalms, and his Studies in the Book of Psalms, 1888 ;
Graetz, Krit. Comm., 1882 ; Ed. Eeuss, Poesie lyrique, 1879;
Hirsch, Die Ps. iibersetz. u. erkl, 1882 ; F. W. Schultz, in
Strack and Zockler's Comm., 1888.

The monographs written upon special Psalms, or on subjects
connected with the book, are too numerous to be mentioned
here ; but it may be well to note that Giesebrecht has written
on Book II.-V. in the Zeitschrift fur A. T. W. for 1881 ; Carl
Ehrt, Ahfassungszeit u. Ahschhiss des Psalters (jlher 3Iacca-
bderjmilmen') hist. krit. untersucht, 1869 ; T. K. Abbott on the
Alphaletical Arrayigement of the Ninth and Tenth Psalms,
in Hermathena, Dublin, 1889. Baethgen's articles on the
Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Zeitschrift fiir
A. T. W. for 1885, 1886, and 1887 are of special interest. So
also the article of R. 8 mend in St^idien und Eritihen for 1888,
Bishop Alexander (of Derry), Bampton Lectures on the Witness
of the Psalms to Christ and Christianity, Sid edit, i'e\ised, 1890;
Bottcher's notes in Aehrenlese z. A. T., ii, 1864, are important;
and on Ps. Ixviii. in his ProVen A. T. SchrifterUdrung , 1833.
In the Studia Bihlica, vol. ii., Clar. Press, Oxford, 1890, Ad.

160 THE POETICAL BOOKS.

Neubauer has written on The Authorship and the Titles of
the Psalms according to early Jewish Authorities.

Numerous works have been published on the form of
Hebrew poetry. Among these may be noted Bishop Lowth's
De sacra poesi ebr., often re-edited, as by Michaelis, 1777 ; by
Kosenmiiller, 1815 ; and even translated into English. Ewald,
Hupfeld, and other scholars have written on the same subject.
Among the latest writers are E. Meier, 1853 ; H. Steiner,
Ueher heir. Poesie, 1873 ; G. Bickell, Carm. V.T. vietrice,
1882, etc.

§ 3. The Book of Proverbs.

1. The Book of Proverbs bears the superscription
(Prov. i. 1) of " The Proverbs (^^^P) of Solomon, son
of David, king of Israel." The word ^^*'^ signifies
a rejyresentation or similitude, and is not properly
translated as in the LXX. by irapoLfxiai SaXw/xcovos or
in the Vulgate, Proverbia Saloinonis. Though, how-
ever, properly " similitudes," the word is also in this
book applied to sententious sentences.

I. The book opens vsdth w^hat may be described as
a preface setting forth the general character of its
contents (chap. i. 1-7). II. This preface is succeeded
by a number of introductory discourses in praise of
wisdom, specially designed for young men (chap. i. 8-
ix. inclusive), the whole series forming a poem of
great merit. III. This is succeeded by a collection
of sentences, bearing the superscription of " The
proverbs of Solomon," r\t:hf h^lp (chap. x. 1). This
portion, which includes chap. x. 1-xxii. 16, has been
subdivided by Ewald into five parts, beginning respec-
tively chap. X. 1, xiii. 1, xv. 20, xvii. 25, xix. 20.
The proverbs in this collection appear to be the oldest
in form, and consist for the most part of two contrasted

THE PROVERBS. 161

sentences. IV. A new section, though without a
formal superscription, begins at chap. xxii. 17, with
the words, " Incline thine ear, and hear the words
of the wise," CPPC) ^i?^"?. That short section is a
kind of appendix to the preceding, and closes at
chap. xxiv. 22. V. It is followed by another appendix,
which is preceded by the formula : " These are also
(sayings) of the wise," or literally, "Even these
(belong) to the wise," D^PPD*? nks-D3. This supple-
mentary appendix embraces chap. xxiv. 23-34. Each
of these two appendices contain a striking parabolic
poem. That which is found in the former describes
the evil effects of wine and drunkenness (chap, xxiii.
29-35) : that which occurs in the latter paints a
vivid picture of the sluggard and the results of his
slothfulness (chap, xxiv, 30-34). VI. The next portion
of the book, consisting of chap, xxv.-xxix., contains
another collection of the proverbs of Solomon, begin-
ning with the formula, r\t:h^ hftp n^.X D5, "These
also are proverbs of Solomon which the men of
Hezekiah copied out" (chap. xxv. 1). "The men of
Hezekiah" were probably a college of scribes, organized
by that monarch for the purpose of the preservation
and editing of the sacred, writings of the nation.
The college probably existed under that name for
a long time subsequent to Hezekiah's reign. This
portion of the book is rich in emblematic sentences
containing three, four or five lines each, and also
includes a parabolic poem (chap, xxvii. 23-27). These
collections of the Proverbs of Solomon, and of the
sayings of the wise, are followed by three remarkable
appendices which conckide the work. VII. The first

11

162 THE POETICAL BOOKS.

of these (chap, xxx.) contains " the words of Agur
the son of Jakeh." VIII. The second "the words
of king Lemuel" (chap. xxxi. 1-9). The word ^'^'Qj
rendered in the prophets " burden," "oracle," occurs
in both these superscriptions, in the first with the
ai'ticle. Its occurrence creates considerable difficulties,
for it may be regarded also as a proper name. Nothing
whatever is really know n about either Agur or Lemuel,
but numerous conjectures have been made which can-
not here be summarised. IX. The last chapter of
the book (chap. xxx. 10-31) also contains a didactic
poem of great beauty, in praise of a good wife. Each
of the twenty-two verses commences in due order with
a letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the poem has
been well termed "a golden alphabet."

2. There are no decisive reasons to compel us to
call in question the Solomonic authorship of the
collection of proverbs ascribed to him. The whole
book was in ancient times regarded as the work of
Solomon. The phenomena of the book, however, prove
it to be of various authorship, although we can see no
objection to the view that Solomon wrote the proverbs
ascribed to him. It is certainly a groundless assump-
tion that a writer or collector of such proverbs as are
contained in the first collection could not have made
a second collection of a somewhat difierent character.
It is, however, to be noted that the text of the
LXX. contains proverbs not to be found in the
Hebrew, and in some places in that version the chap-
ters are arranged in difierent order. Many repetitions
are found in the book ; whole proverbs are repeated
word for word, or with slight alterations not afiecting

THE PROVERBS, 163

the sense, e.g, chap. xiv. 12 reappears at chap. xvi. 25;
chap. xxi. 19 reappears at chap. xxv. 24 ; chap,
xviii. 8 in chap. xxvi. 22; chap. xxii. 3 in chap.
xxvii. 12; chap. xx. 16 in chap, xxvii. 13. Other
proverbs are repeated with alterations and additions,
e.g. chap. xvi. 2 in xxi. 2 ; chap. xv. 8 in chap. xxi. 27 ;
chap. xi. 13, in chap. xx. 19, etc.

3. Melanchtlaon wrote a commentary on the Proverbs,
1555, but the Reformation period is not rich in commentaries
on the book. Important still is Martin Geier's ProverMa
enveleata, 1669, 2nd edit., 1725. A. Schiiltens' commentary,
1748, is massive, but needs to be used with caution ; latest
edition by Teller, 1769. Umbreit, Philol. krit. u. ijMlos.
Komm., 1826. Eosenmtiller, ScJiolia, 1829. Ewald, Die Salo-
monischen Schrifteri, 2te Ausg., 1867. Bertheau, 1847, newly
worked up by Nowack, 1883 ; Elster, 1858 ; Hitzig, 1858 ;
Moses Stuart (the American scholar), 1852. Zockler, in
Lange's Bihehverli, 1867 ; translated into English, and edited
with additions by Dr. Aiken, in the American edition of that
work, T. and T. Clark, 1869. Franz Delitzsch, 1873 ; Kohling,
1879. Ibn Ezra's (?) Commentary on the book has been
edited by Prof. Driver, 1880. The 3Iidrash Mislile has been
translated into German by Aug. Wiinsche, in his valuable
Bihliotheca Ralh., 1885. Herm. Deutzsch, Die Sprilche
Salomons nacli der Auffassung im Talmud u. Midrasch, 1885-
1886 ; Henri Bois, La poesie gnomiq^ue cliez les Hebreux et les
Grecs, Salomon et Theognis^ Toulouse, 1886 ; Ant. J. Baum-
gartner, Etude cvitique snr le texte du livre des Proverhes^
Leipzig, 1890 ; H. L. Strack, Comm. in Strack and ZocUer's
Co mm., 1888.

The monograph of H. F. Mllhlau, Be j)'''ov. quce dicuntur
Agicri et Lemiielis orig, atgue indole, 1869, and Graetz's
Exegetische Studien zu den Salom. Sjri'uchen, in his Monat-
schrift filr Gesch. u. Wiss. d. Judenthums, 1884, are both
important. T. K. Cheyne in Joh ami Solomon (see p. 152) ;
S. C. Malan, Original Notes on the Book of Proverbs^ vol. 1

164 TEE POETICAL BOOKS.

(chap, i.-x.), 1890 ; A. Eahlf, Greg. Ahulfarag, genannt Bar
Ehhroyo, Anmerhtingeii, zu den Salomonischen Schriften,
1887 ; C. G. Montefiore, in Jewish Quarterly Beview, 1890

§ 4. ECCLESIASTES.

1. The Book of Ecclesiastes, in the Hebrew canon
constitutes one of the five Megilloth, and was read at
the Feast of Tabernacles. In Hebrew the book is
termed Koheleth (H^n'p), which is translated by the
LXX. 'EKKX-jyo-tao-TvJs, or the Preacher, Latinized in
the "Vulgate as Ecclesiastes, and adopted generally
as its title. The meaning of the word has been much
disputed. It is probably a feminine form used to
intensify the meaning, and several proper names of
the same formation occur in the later books as names
of men (Neh. vii. 57 ; Ezra ii. 57). In one passage
of this book (chap. vii. 27) the word is treated as
feminine, but the reading of the Hebrew there is
probably erroneous. In all other passages the word
is construed as masculine. The writer gives his
experience in the person of Solomon, but he does not
pretend to be really Solomon. The very mode in
which the writer refers to Solomon shows clearly
that the author did not wish to impose on his readers.
Solomon is spoken of in chap. i. 12-18 as one who
had already passed away from the world. The name,
consequently, was assumed by the writer not as a
*' pious fraud," but as a legitimate literary de\dce,
which was made use of also in later times by the
author of the Book of Wisdom. The statements made
in the epilogue have also been regarded by many as

ECCLESIASTES. . 165

containing a distinct disavowal of the Solomonic
authorship. So also the allusions in the book to
complaints of oppression and so forth. The book was,
however, regarded in ancient times as the work of
Solomon; although there are indications in the Targum,
Talmud, and elsewhere, which show that the Jewish
wise men were not unanimous on that point. The
Solomonic authorship has, however, been defended by
critics of mark, though late critical opinion is almost
unanimous against it. The language of the work
and the circumstances of the times alluded to prove
it to have been composed in the last century of the
Persian period (e.g. 440-336).

The form of a Solomonic autobiography, which
has been assumed by the writer, extends only
to the first two chapters. In those chapters the
writer demonstrates the vanity of all earthly things,
and shows there is no real progress (chap. i. 1-11).
He then recounts his personal discovery of the vanity
of wisdom (chap. i. 12-18), of the vanity of pleasure
and riches (chap. ii. 1-11), for the end of the wise and
the fool is alike (chap. ii. 12-17), and riches though
gathered by toil are little worth (ii. 18-23). He
finally depicts the conditions necessary for cheerfulness
(ii. 24-26). In chap. iii. 1-15, he proves that God is
the avenger of all things, and man is powerless before
Him. He next shows (iii. 16-22) the wickedness of
men, compares them to the beasts that perish, and
describes the misery caused by oppression (iv. 1-3),
rivalry, and toil (iv. 4-6), the advantages of companion-
ship (iv. 7-12), the vanity common to political life
(iv. 13-16), and exhibited in religious services (iv. 17-

166 THE POETICAL BOOKS.

V. 6). The vanity of riches under various circum-
stances is pointed out (v. 7-vi. 6). The vanity of de-
sire itself (vi. 7-9), is shown, for man in himself is
powerless (vi. 10-12). Chap. vii. 1-24 contains pro-
verbs concerning things that ought to be preferred by
the wise, and speaks of the practical advantage of
wisdom, even under the uncertain affairs of man.
The wicked woman is described in chap. vii. 25-29 ;
the benefit of wisdom in the days of oppression and
doubt, trust in God is inculcated (chap. viii. 1-15),
the writer again reverting to the thought of human
ignorance and powerlessness (chap. viii. 16-ix. 2).
Death and Hades are darkly spoken of in chap. ix.
3-12. A little parable proving the utiUty of wisdom
is given without comment in chap. ix. 13-18. Next
follow proverbs on the value of wisdom and tke
results of folly (chap, x, 1-15), and on the misery^ of
a land under a foolish king. Benevolence is shown
to be wise, and the duty of enjoying the present is
spoken of in chap. xi. 1-8. The writer finally bursts
forth into a song which describes " the Days of Life,
and the Days of Death " in chap. xi. 9-xii. 7. This
poem has been less fitly supposed to be an allegorical
poem of "the days of youth and old age." The
literal interpretation is, however, preferable. The
epilogue at the end of the book (chap. xii. 8-14)
is supposed by many critics to have been written by
a different author. The supposition is by no means
necessary. A day of judgment for every man is the
solemn truth with which the Book of Koheleth closes.
Dark as is the standpoint from which the book is
wi^itten, light seems to break forth at its close. The

ECCLESIASTES. ^ 67

book recognizes human ignorance more fully than any
other work in the sacred canon. But it recognizes
also that there is a judgment coming which will
finally dissipate the darkness. The book may thus
be regarded as a cry for light, suitably stirred up by
the Holy Spirit, who ever broods over the chaos of
man's ignorance, and designed fitly to precede the
New Testament revelation of the Light of the world
and the Victor over the grave.

2. The commentary of Jerome on the book is still worthy of
notice. Of the more modern commentaries may be mentioned
those of Mercer, 1573 ; Drusius, 1635_; M. Geier, 1668; van der
Palm, Eccl. phil.et crit. ilhtst., 1784; Zirkel, Untersuchungen,
1792; Knobe], 1836; Herzfeld, 1838; Hwald, Biehfer des alt.
Bvndes,i\., 1867 ; A. Heiligstedt, Cif^mw. gram. hist, crit., 1848,
in Maurer's Comm. in V. T. ; Vaihinger, 1858 ; Hengstenberg,
1859, English translation by D. W. Simon, published by T. and
T. Clark, 1860 ; Franz Delitzsch,1875 ; Kleinert, 18G4; Zockler,
1868, English translation with additions byi Professor Taylor
Lewis, 1872; Graetz, 1871; Nowack, 1883 ; K. Smend, 1889.

Important English commentaries on the book are those of
Theod. Preston, with translation of Mendelssohn's Comm. 1845;
C. D. Ginsburg, 1861 ; vS. Cox, ExpiKsltory Lectures, 1867,
new edition in E.ryositovs Bible, 1891 ; T. P. Dale, 1873 ;
Thos. Tyler, 1874 ; E. H. Plumptre, 1881 ; C. H. H. Wright,
The Booh of Koheleth considered in reference to Modern Crit.
and Modern Pessimism, with crit. and gram, comm., 1883;
T.* K. Cheyne, in Jol and Solomon, 1887 ; G. G. Bradley,
Lectures on Ecclesiastes, 1887 ; Prof. A. W. Momerie's Ag-
nosticism, 1884, contains an exposition of Ecclesiastes. See A2)p.

Important monographs on the book, or portions thereof,
are: — J. S. Bloch, Ur sprung u. Entstehungszeit, 1872. Ed.
Boehl, De Aramaismis, 1860. N. J. Linnarson, Be illo cod.
sac. libro qui Koheleth inscrih. Qvast., Upsala, 1860. D.
Johnston, Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes, 1880.
and his Exam, of Dr. Plumptre'' s Comm. on Eccl., 1885. Dr.C.

168 THE POETICAL BOOKS.

Taylor, Dirge of Colieleth, 1874. Winzer, Comm. de Koh
xi. 9-xii. 7, 1818, 1819. A. Kohler, Ueb. d. GrimdanscTiau-
ungen d. B., 1885. E. Bidder, Kolieletlis Stellung znm Unster-
hlicJikeitsglanhen, 1875. G. Bickell, Der Prediger uber den
Wert des Daseins, 1884. E. Kenan, L'Ecclhiaste traduit
de VH. avec une Etiide, etc., 1882. Klostermann, Eecendon
of Wright's Koheleth in Stitdien u, Kritiken for 1885.
H. Gratz in Monatsschrift filr Judentum, 1885. E. Kautzsch,
in Ersch und Gruler, II., Sect, xxxviii. p. 27 £f. A. Palm,
Qoheleth u. die nach-aristoteliselie Philosojjhie, 1885, and Pie
Qoheleth Litteratur, 1886. E. Pfleiderer, Pie PMlosopTiie des
Herahlit von Ephesus, 1886 ; of this work pp. 255-288 are on
Qoheleth. M. Friedlander, Age and AutliorsMpof Ecclesiastes,
in Jewish Qiiarterly Pevieiv, 1889. Seb. Euringer (Rom.
Cath.), Des Masora-text des Koheleth kritisch untersucht,
Leipzig, 1890,

§ 5. The Song of Songs.

1. The Song of Songs (On^D y^, LXX. ao-/xa
a(rjxaT(x)v) is now generally admitted to be a single
poem proceeding from a single author, and not a
collection of several independent poems, as was for-
merly maintained by some critics. It is dramatic in
form, but not designed for the stage, though probably
originally intended to be sung in parts. It is a song
in which is described the triumph of true and virtuous
love over impure and sensual passion. It probably
depicts the love of a shepherd towards a maiden
betrothed to him, who, tempted by the ladies of the
royal court, and by Solomon himself, to join the royal
harem, resisted all such temptations, and was finally
praised by her brothers for her enduring constancy.
The chorus is composed of the daughters of Jerusalem.
Solomon himself does not appear in the poem in a

TEE SONG OF SONGS, 169

favourable light, but rather as the tempter of the
maiden; and the language of the poem (chap. vii.
1-9), with which fault has often been found for its
coarseness and indelicacy, is not intended to express
the sentiments of true love, but of sensual passion.
If the literal meaning be admitted to be that primarily
intended, it is easy to see that the language is capable
of being interpreted in an allegorical signification, and
was probably intended to bear such a secondary mean-
ing. Ps. xlv. is of itself sufficient to prove how easy is
the ascent from the literal sense to a higher and allegori-
cal. It is highly probable, too, that such poems were
preserved among the Sacred Writings, mainly because
of this very fact, that they were susceptible of such a
higher interpretation. The opinion of the older critics,
that the Song of Songs describes dialogues between
Solomon and an espoused bride (Solomon and Shula-
mith), is untenable. Shulamith (n^D>1^) is not the
feminine form of Solomon ip'^P)^ but is identical
with ri''^J-1^, a Shunamite, or woman of Shunem or
Sunem. The word only occurs in chap. vi. 13 (Heb.
vii. 1). The LXX. thus rightly explain the word
[y] iSowa/xtTts), and their explanation is confirmed by
the fact that the old town of Shunem is now called
Sulam (Arab. Jja»).

The fact that the writer speaks of Tirzah (vi. 4), the
royal residence of the kings of Israel before Samaria
became the capital, is considered in favour of the early
composition of the poem. But it must be observed
that Tirzah is only referred to as a beautifully situated
city, and not as a capital; and in preference to
Jerusalem because the loved one was from Shunem,

170 THE POETICAL BOOKS.

which is situated in that direction. The poem cannot
have been much later than the Solomonic era. It
must be borne in mind that there are scholars of
eminence who maintain still, in spite of the general
view given above, that the poem does describe a
marriage with Solomon of a bride from the northern
part of Israel, so that the question cannot be con-
sidered yet as finally closed. The whole poem is
replete with the fragrance of country life. The poet
knew Jerusalem as the capital of the kingdom, but
his whole soul was filled with love of the country.
Whether the song be regarded as a song of pure love,
or as a marriage song composed in an era when poly-
gamy was not distinctly condemned, the poem is in
either case of importance from a didactic point of view.
The impure influences of city life were even then lead-
ing astray many into debasing immorality. Immoral-
ity even in the Solomonic period was nourished by
the idolatry which was frequently winked at, if not
distinctly patronised, by the court party, and too
often popular in both Israel and Judah. The Song of
Songs does not, however, describe marriage, which is
only viewed as something in the future, and it cannot
be regarded as a poem in praise of monogamy. The
author seems to have belonged to a northern tribe.
The various scenes of the poem are marked off from
one another by the recurrence of particular phrases
at the beginning and end of each scene. But in
many details, however, there is room for wide diflference
of opinion. The higher sense of the poem has been
recognized from the earliest times, but it has suffered
much from the extravagances of the mystic com-

THE SONG OF SONGS. 171

mentators. The Song of Songs forms one of the five
Megilloth, and is read annually at the Feast of the
Passover.

2. The Song of Songs is nowhere cited in the New Testament,
nor is it quoted by Philo. The allegorical interpretation cannot
with certainty be traced back earlier than Origen, although
once introduced it has stoutly maintained the field. The
Jewish interpreters may have borrowed their ideas on that
subject from the Christians. The Targum on the book is post-
Talmudical, and the Midrash even later. The latter has been
translated into German by Dr. A. Wiinsche, in his Bihl.
Rallinica. Portions of the work are no doubt susceptible of
a spiritual interpretation. The commentary of Bernhard of
Clairvaux, edited in German by Fernbacher, with preface by
Delitzsch {Die Beden des hell. Bernhard ilher das HoheJied'),
is a good specimen of this interpretation, as also is Dr. R. F.
Littledale's commentary on the book, 1869. Rosenmiiller, in
his Scholia, 1830 ; Koster, 1839; Hengstenberg, 1853 ; H. A.
Hahn, 1852 ; Hoelemann, Bis Krone des H. L., 1856, are
among the most prominent of the German commentators who,
in one form or other, have upheld the allegorical interpretation.
More critical views have been advanced by J. G. Herder,
Lieder der Liele, 1778 ; F. W. C. Umbreit, Lied der Liehe,
2nd edit., 1828 ; H. Ewald, Bas H. L. Sal, 1826 ; and in his
BicMer des A. B., ii., 1867 ; F. Bottcher, Bie altesten Buhne-,
dichtungen, 1850 ; C. D. Ginsburg, Song of Songs, with hist,
and erit. comm.^ 1857 ; Franz Delitzsch, 2te Ausg., 1875 ; F.
Hitzig, 1855 ; 0. Zockler, in Lange's Bihelwerli, 1868, trans-
lated into English, with additions, by American scholars ; H.
Graetz, 1871 ; B. Schafer, 1876 ; S. J. Kampf (Jewish), 1877,
2nd edit., 1879 ; L. Noack, Tharraqah and Sunamith, 1869 ;
Dr. Caj. Kossowicz, Canticum Cant, ex Hehrao convertit et
ex2}licavit, Petropoli, 1879 ; J. G. Stickel, Bas H. L. in seiner
Einheit u. dram. Gliederung^ 1888 ; C. F. Godet, in his
Etudes Bibliques, 1873 ; Theod. Gessner, Bas Hohelied erhl.
und itbersetzt, 1888 ; F. S. Tiefenthal, Bas Hohelied ausgelegt
far Theoiogiestudirenden, Kempten, 1889. S. Oettli, in Strack

172 THE POETICAL BOOKS.

and ZiJclder, 1889. Poetical, though somewhat repulsive, is
The Song of Songs : a Hehreio Pastoral Drama^ not hy king
Solomon, loith notes and illustrations hy Satyam Jayati [a
w^w ^e ^^Zwwe, "Truth conquers"], Lond., 1867. Ginsburg's
view has been prettUy popularised in English in The Song
of Solomon rendered into English Verse, by James Pratt,
D.D., 1881.

CHAPTER XV.

THE PROPHETS.
§ 1. On the Prophets in General.

1. (~\^ Prophecy and the Prophets in general consult H.
V-/ Witsius, De prophetis et iprophetia, in his Misoell.
Sacra, 1692. J. Clericus, Vet. Test, propheta, 1731. Chr. A.
Crusius, Hypomnemata ad tlwol. propTi. pertinentia, 1764,
1778. B. W. HeDgstenberg, Christologie des A. T, 2nd edit.,
1854-1857, English translation published in 4 vols, by T. and
T. Clark ; English abridged edit, by T. K. Arnold. A. Kuobel,
Der PropJietismus d. Hehra/ir, 2 parts, 1837. J. J. Stahelin.
Die Messian. Weissagungen des A. T., 1847. F. M. Koster,
Die Proph. des A. u. N. T. nacJi ihrem Wesen u. Wirken, 1838.
'Redsloh, Der Begriff der N^aM, IS^9. J. C. K. v. Hofmann,
Weissagung u. Erfiilhing, 2 parts, 1841, 1844. Davison, On
Prophecy, 1839. Franz Delitzsch, Die lill. propTi. Theologie,
Hire FortMldung durch Crusius, u. ihre neueste EntioicTielung
seit Hengstenherg, 1845 ; id. 3fessianic Prophecies, translated
by S. I. Curtiss, 1880 ; new edit, now in the press, T. and
T. Clark. A. Tholuck, Die Propheten u. ihre Weissagungen.
2te Aufl. 1860. L. Eeinke (Roman CathoUc), Die Mess.
Weissagungen hei den gross, u. M. Proph. des A T., 5 vols.,
1859-62. G. F. Oehler, Ueb. d. Verhdlt. d. A. T. Proph. z.
heidn. Maiitik, 1861: id. Theol. des A. T, 1873, 2te Aufl.,
1882, English translation published by T. and T. Clark. G.
Bauer, Gesch. d. A. T. Weissagung, 1861. H. Ewald, Die
Propheten d. A. B., 3 vols, 2te Aufl., 1867, 186.8, English
translation published in Williams and Norgate's Theological
Translation Fund. KUper, Das Proph. d. A. j&., 1870. B.

174 THE PROPHETS.

Duhni, Die Theologie der Pvpjjh., 1875. K. Payne Smith,
JBampton Lectures on Prophecy a Preparation for Christ,
1869. Kuenen, Be Profeten en de Profetie onder Israel, 1875,
English translation, The Propliets and Prophecy in Israel,
1877. Ed. Reuss, Les Prophetes, 2 vols., 1876, in his La
Bihle, Traduction nottvelle avec introd. et comvi. S. Leathes,
Old Testament Prophecy, its Witness, 1880. H. Schultz, A.
T. Theologie, 2te Aufl., 1878. F. Hitzig, Bihl. Theologie des
A. T. u. Messianische Weissagungeii, herausgeg. von Kneucker,
1880. C. J. Bredenkamp, Gesetz u. Propheten, 1881. F. E.
Konig, Der Offenlarung sic griff d. A. T., 2 vols., 1882. C.
V. Orelli, Die A. T. Welssagung v. d. Vollendung des Gottes-
reichcs, 1882, English translation published by T. and T.
Clark. E. Bohl, Christologie d. A. T, 1882. E. Riehm, Die
Mess. Weissagung., 2te Aufl., 1885, English transl. 1876, new
transl. by L. A. Muirhead, 1891 ; T. and T. Clark. W. Robert-
son Smith, The Prophets of Israel aiid their Place in History y
1882. Brownlow Maitland, The Argumejit from Propliccy,
1877. Important are C. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, 1886 ;
Delitzsch, Messianic Proph. in hist, succession, 1891.

2. Among general commentaries maybe mentioned : Rosen-
miiller's Scholia, which are always useful ; Jesaia, 3rd edit.,
1829-1834 ; Jeremiah and Lamentations, 1826, 1827 ; Ezekiel,
2nd edit., 1820, 1826; Daniel, 1832; Proph. Minores, 2nd
edit., 1827, 1828. The Translation of the Prophets from Isaiah
to Mulachi, with Notes by Lowth, Blayney, Newcome,Wintle,
and Horsley, 5 vols., 1836, is antiquated, but occasionally
useful for English scholars. Rowland Williams, Hebrew
Prophets Translated; vol. i. Prophets during Assyrian
Emjiire, 1866 ; vol. ii. Dahylon and Persia, 1871 (left
unfinished by the author). Henderson, Comm. on Isaiah^
1857 ; EzeUel, 1855 ; The Mhior Prophets, 1858.

The writers in Lange's Bihehverh, the Speaker's Commentary,
the Pulpit Commentary, and in Keil and Delitzsch Covim., and
in the Kurzgef, Exeg. Handh. will be found mentioned under
the several books.

ISAIAH, 175

k.— THE FOUR GREATER PROPHETS.
§ 2. Isaiah.

1. Isaiah — -IHW^, The Salvation of Jahveh, Gr.
*Hcrata?, Latin Isaias and Esaias — was the greatest
of the Hebrew prophets. His father's name was
Amoz (P^^), which name must not be confounded
with that of the prophet Amos (Di?^^^), as was done
by many of the Greek and Latin writers. Of Amoz
nothing is really known, although a Jewish tradition
of very little authority makes Amoz a brother of king
Amaziah. According to the superscription of Isa. i.
1, compared with chap. vi. 1, Isaiah prophesied during
the reigns of four kings j and if twenty years of age
when he began his prophetic ministry in the reign
of Uzziah, must have been considerably above eighty
when he died. He died a martyr's death in the
beginning of Manasseh's reign, according, to a Jewish
tradition, probably referred to in Heb. xi. 37. Isaiah
was married, and his wife is termed a " prophetess"
(chap. viii. 3). He had at least two sons, Shear-jashub
(chap. vii. 3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (chap. viii. 3).

2. The Book of Isaiah consists of two main portions,
the former of which embraces chap, i.-xxxix. ; the
second, chap, xl.-lxvi. The first half mainly consists
of prophecies arising out of circumstances which took
place in the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. The
second portion is occupied chiefly with the Baby-
lonian captivity and the restoration from exile.

I. The first part is subdivided into several sections.
(a) Prefatory. The sixth chapter relates the call of
the prophet. Chap. i.-v. inclusive contain prophecies

176 THE PROPHETS.

later in point of time, but which were placed in their
present position as being peculiarly suitable as a
general preface, {h) Chap, vii.-xii. have been well
termed "the book of Immanuel," and contain pro-
phecies designed to comfort the pious under the
Assyrian troubles. The land, though overwhelmed
by the foe, belonged to " Immanuel " (chap. viii. 8),
and therefore would be ultimately delivered, (c) Chap,
xiii.-xxiii. are composed of prophecies directed against
various nations. Of these, chap, xiii.-xiv. 23 contains
prophecies against Babylon; chap. xiv. 24-27 against
Assyria; chap. xiv. 28-32 against Philistia; chap,
xv.-xvi. against Moab; chap. xvii. against Syria and
its capital Damascus ; chap, xviii. refers to Ethiopia ;
chap, xix., XX. speak of Egypt; chap. xxi. contains
short predictions respecting Babylon, Edom, and
Arabia ; chap. xxii. utters a prophecy of woe against
Jerusalem, which closes with a bitter denunciation
of Shebna, who was treasurer during part of
Hezekiah's reign. In that prophecy is contained a
prediction of the exaltation to office of Eliakim,
who, notwithstanding his personal integrity, was
warned beforehand that his own downfall should
in turn be caused by a fatal tendency to nepotism.
These closing verses are considered by some critics
to have been inserted in this place out of order.
The suggestion is open to serious doubt. Chap,
xxiii., which closes this section of the book, con-
tains a remarkable prediction against Tyre. {d)
Chap, xxiv.-xxvii. are of a distinctly apocalyptic
character, and give a vivid description of the final
overthrow of the woild-power. Babylon, Assyria,

ISAIAH. 177

and Egypt are the nations which are here specially-
present to the prophet's mind. (e) " The Book of
Woes " is a suitable description of chap, xxviii.-xxxiii.
Those prophecies were directed against Samaria and
Judah, and describe the Assyrian invasion under
Sennacherib, and the great deliverance then vouch-
safed to Israel. {/) Chap, xxxiv. and xxxv. are also
apocalyptic in tone. In those chapters Edom figures
as the representative of the enemies of Zion. (g)
Chap, xxxvi.-xxxix. form an historical appendix to
the whole work, and are almost identical with 2 Kings
xviii. 13, 17-37, xix., xx., with the exception of the
psalm of Hezekiah, which is not found in the Book
of Kings.

There is much difierence of opinion among critics
on the question of the authorship by Isaiah of the
prophecies relative to Babylon in chap, xiii.-xiv., xxi.,
and of the two series of apocalyptic chapters (viz.
chap, xxiv.-xxvii., and xxxiv. -xxxv.). The difficulties
in the case of chap. xxi. are generally supposed to
have been obviated by the discovery of a siege of
Babylon by the Assyrians, which occurred during
Isaiah's own lifetime. On the assumption that this
is correct, and bearing in mind that a Babylonian
invasion of Judah is spoken of in a passage (chap,
xxxix.) generally acknowledged as historical, if not
Isaianic, the objections to the genuineness of the
other prophecies seem to be deprived of much of their
force. It is impossible fairly to summarise the points
adduced on both sides in this difficult controversy.
It must be admitted that the general verdict of
modern scholarship is in favour (not without important

12

178 THE PROPHETS.

exceptions) of the view that a portion even of the
first part of the book is the work of other prophets
belonging to what may be called Isaiah's school.

II. The second portion of the book consists of chap,
xl.-lxvi. These chapters are unquestionably written
from the standpoint of the Babylonian captivity, and
open with a glorious assurance of the coming redemp-
tion. The fall and captivity of Israel gave great
occasion to the idolaters to maintain that their gods
were superior in might to " the Holy One of Israel."
Hence the majesty and power of Jehovah, and the
nothingness of all the other so-called gods of the
nations are constantly dwelt upon in the closing
chapters. The literary style of this part of the book is
often in marked contrast to the first portion, although
there are remarkable coincidences between the two.
The difference in style and in standpoint have led the
majority of modern critics to deny that the second
part can have been written by Isaiah of Jerusalem,
and to maintain it to be a product of the Exilic period,
though probably prior to the Restoration. Its author
has been termed by Ewald " the great Unknown, '
and is generally designated the Deutero-Isaiah, or
the Second Isaiah. If, however, Isaiah predicted the
Babylonian captivity (chap, xxxix.) on the occasion
of the embassy sent to Hezekiah by Merodach Baladan,
it may well be argued that that prophet must have
also predicted the Bestoration. From the theocratic
standpoint it can scarcely be conceived that a prophet
should speak of the people of Jehovah being carried
away into captivity without predicting a return from
that captivity, on the principles enunciated in Deut.

ISAIAH, 179

1-5. »St. Paul, in a much darker period, predicted
a day of light and dehverance (Rom. xi.).

If, however, Isaiah was the author of the second
portion of the book, that portion must have been
written long after his other prophecies, and towards
the close of the prophet's career. He must needs
have often mused on the days of exile approaching,
as the shadows of apostasy gathered over the land in
the opening of Manasseh's reign. When an old man,
he might well have been led to transport himself in
spirit to the close of that period of disgrace and
sorrow. No one who actually beheld the Return of
the Jews could have written in such glowing terms.
The theory is not, we admit, free from difficulties
Cyrus is twice mentioned by name (chap. xliv. 28,
xlv. 1) as the coming deliverer. The latter difficulty is
not obviated by an appeal to the history recorded in
1 Kings xiiio 2. It is more probable that the proper
names in both cases ought to be regarded as later
additions. And it is conceivable that even other
additions were made in the process of time to the
prophecies of this part of the book.

The second portion of the book falls into three
parts, {a) Ch. xl.-xlviii. Words of comfort to the
exiles are combined with the assurance of coming
restoration, mainly derived from the consideration of
the essential diflerence between Jehovah and those
who were not gods, {h) The great prophecy of
"the Servant of Jehovah" (chap, xlix.-lvii.). The
title, " Servant of Jehovah," is employed by Isaiah
in a threefold sense. It is sometimes used of all
Israel, "Israel according to the flesh" (chap. xlii.

180 THE PROPHETS.

19); more often of the godly in Israel, ''Israel
according to the spirit" (chap. xliv. 1, 2, 21). But
in that special portion the title is used solely with
reference to the Messiah, to whom the name had been
also appHed in chap. xlii. 1, xliii. 10. (c) Chap. Iviii.-
Ixvi. describe the past sin and present salvation of
Israel, and set forth the conditions under which
the restoration of the people is predicted. They
describe the future glory of the nation, and the
overthrow of all the enemies of Jehovah. The first
two sections of the second part of the book end
significantly with the refrain, "no peace to the
wicked," while the final destruction of the ungodly
is vividly described in the closing verse of the third
part.

3. The commentaries on Isaiah are very nmnerous. The
more important are : Among the Fathers, those of Jerome and
Cyril of Alexandria may be mentioned. Among the Jewish
commentaries of which Latin translations exist, may be
mentioned the Comm. in Projyh. post, of Is. Abarbanel, 1520 ;
Breithaupt's edition of Rashi (R. Salom. Yarchi), Comm. m
Propli. maj. et min., 1713 ; Dav. Kimchi, Comm. in Jes., ¥lov.,
1774 ; Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Isaiah ; translated into
English by M. Friedlander ; vols, i., ii., 1873 ; vol. iii., 1877.
Important are : Strigel, Condones, 1565, and Calvin, Comm.,
3rd edit., Genev., 1570; but more especially Vitringa's great
Comm. in two folio volumes (Leov.), 1714, 1720 ; reprinted at
Herborn, 1715, 1722. Bp. Lowth's Comm., useful in its day,
and often reprinted, is antiquated, and its critical and philo-
logical notes must be used with caution. The modern school
of criticism on the book began with Gesenius, whose great
work on the prophet was published in 3 vols, in 1820, 1821.
C. L. Hendewerk, Comm., in 2 vols., appeared in 1838, and
a further work, Die deuterojes. Weissagungen, in 1843. F. W

ISAIAH. 181

C. Umbreit, in Pract. Comvi., 2nd edit., 184G. Drechsler, Ber
Pro'p'h. Jes. iihersetzt u. erMdrt, began in 1845, 1849, and was
finally completed by Delitzsch and Hahn in 1854, 1857. E.
lIendeTSon,Isaiah,ivith neio tra?isl. and crit.and gramvi. Comvi.,
2nd edit., 1857. P. Schegg (Roman Catholic) wrote a useful
commentary in 2 vols, in 1850. S. D. Luzzatto published an
important commentary from the Jewish standpoint, II prof eta
Isaia, Padua, 1855-1866. A. Knobel, in Kurzgef. Exeg. Eandh.,
1861 ; revised by Diestel, 1872, and by Dillmann, Der Proijliet
Jesaia erMdrt, 1890. The American scholar J. A. Alexander's
Commentary appeared in 1846, and edit, by J. Eadie in
a revised form in 1865 ; 2 vols. Nagelsbach, in Lunge's
Bihelmerli, 1877. J. Knabenbauer (Priest, S. J.), Erhldrung,
Freib. in B., 1881. T. K. Cheyne wrote on Isaiah chrono-
logically arranged in 1870, and an important commentary
entitled The Projjhecies of Isaiah, 2 vols., 1880, 1881, 5th
edit., 1889. Of Delitzsch 's great commentary, the 4th revised
edition appeared shortly before his lamented death in 1 889. An
English translation of that edit., 2 vols., has been piiblished
in 1890 by T. and T. Clark, with introduction by Driver ; and
an English transl. of 3rd ed. by Rev. J. Denny, B,D., has
been published by Hodder and Stoughton, Lond. 1890. C. J.
Bredenkamp, Der Prcjyhet Jesaia erldutert, 1887. C. v. Orelli,
Die Projjh. Jesaia und Jer., in Strack-Zockler's Comm., 1887 ;
V. Orelli's Comm. on Isaiah has been translated into English,
T. and T. Clark, 1889. Canon Rawlinson has written on
Isaiah in the Pulpit Comm., 2 vols. ^

Monogrj^hs have been written on many portions of Isaiah,
especially on Isa. lii. 13-liii. The most important of these
is The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish
Interpreters, 2 vols. ; vol. i., Tewts by A. Neubauer ; vol. ii.
Translations by S. R. Driver and A. Neubauer, with Intro-
duction by E. B. Pusey, 1876, 1877. W. Urwick, The Servant
of Jehovah, a commentary, grammatical and critical, on those
chapters, 1877 (see nest page). R. Payne Smith, Authenticity
and Messianic Interpretation of Prophecies of Isaiah vin-
dicated, 1862. C. H. H. Wright, The Pre-Christian Jewish

182 THE PROPHETS,

Interpretation of Isaiah Hi., Uii., in the Expositor, May and
June, 18S8. Sir E. Strachey, Jewish History and Politics in
Times of Sargon, 1853, 2nd ed. 1874. On the authorship the
Introductions are most important ; and C. P. Caspari, Beit) age
on (chap, i.-vi.), 1848. The same author has vniitQrvijJe'ber den
Syrisch-ephraimUischen Krieg unter Jotham und Ahas. Ein
Beitrasr zur Gesch. Isr. in der Assyr. Zeit u. zu den Fragen iiber
die Glaubwiirdigkeit der Chronik und den Plan des Jesaia,
Christiania, 1849.^ Aug, Wiinsche, Die Leiden des 3Iessias,
1870. Lohr, Zur Frage iiber die Echtheit vonJesaias, xlAxvi.,
3 parts, 1878-1880. C. H. Corniirs article on Die Composition
des Buches Jesaja in Stade's Zeitschrift fiir A. T. W., 1884,
and E. Smend's Anmerhmgen zu Jes. xxiv.-xxvii., are both of
importance. Graetz has written on the same chapters in his
Monatschrift for 1886. Klostermann on Isaiah in Herzog-
Plitt Eeal-Encycl., and F. Fehr, Profeten Jesaja I. and II.,
Upsala, 1877, 1878. H. Guthe, Das Ziikunftslild des Jesaia.,
1885 ; J. M. Rod well's The Proph. of Isaiah translated, 2nd
edit., 1886 ; S. R. Driver, Isaiah, His Life and Times, n. d.
(1888) ; A. H. Sayce, Life ajid Times of Isaiali, 1889, Religious
Tract Society ; Dr. Forbes, The Servant of the Lord, T. and
T. Clark, 1890, is an important work. G. F. Dalman, Jesaia
53 m. lesond. Berilchsichtig. d. synag. Litteratur, 1890. The
Swedish scholar, Myrberg, has published also a commentary
on the book, 1888. Of importance is the English commentary
by G. A. Smith, The Book of Isaiah, 2 vols., in the Expositor's
Bible, 1889. See new books in Appendix.

§ 3. Jeremiah.

1. Jeremiah (-in^PT. and r^^Py., Gr. lepc/^.ta?) was
a priest, the son of Hilkiah, who may have been the
same as he who "found the book of the law in the
house of the Lord " (2 Kings xxii. 8). His paternal
abode was Anathoth near Jerusalem, in the territory
of Benjamin. He received the prophetic call when
young (chap. i. 1-7, xxv. 3), in the thirteenth year of

JEREMIAH. 183

Josiah (B.C. 629 or 626). He prophesied in Jeru-
salem and the other cities of Judah (chap. xi. 6), and
also in Anathoth (chap. xi. 21 fF.). After the capture
of Jerusalem by the Chaldseans, the prophet resided
for a short time in Mizpah with Gedaliah, the governor
of the land (chap. xl. 6) ; but was subsequently carried
off by the insurgent Jews into Egypt (chap, xliii. 6ff.),
where he died, stoned to death, according to a late
tradition, by the Jews at Tahpanhes.

2. His book consists of two parts. I. Chap, i.-
xlv., which comprise prophecies concerning Judah
and the kingdom of God in general, interspersed with
historical narratives. II. Chap, xlvi.-li. is a separate
book of prophecies concerning the nations. The last
chapter (chap. Hi.) is an addition by a later hand,
posterior to B.C. 562. Comp. chap. li. 64 and lii. 31.
Some of the prophecies were written down under
Jeremiah's superintendence in the reign of Jehoiakim.
The roll, however, which contained them was burnt
by the king (chap, xxxvi.); and in the new edition
of those prophecies large additions vv^ere made to the
work (chap, xxxvi. 32). Baruch the son of Neriah
was the constant friend and amanuensis of the pro-
phet. Many of the prophecies contained in the Book
of Jeremiah prove on examination not to be arranged
in chronological order. The genuineness of several of
the prophecies {e.g. chap. x. 1-16, xxv. 11-14, with
portions of chap, xxvii., xxx.-xxxiii., etc.) has been
often called in question, mainly on account of their
resemblance to passages in the second part of Isaiah.
Many portions of the work have evidently been
re-edited with additional matter, and it is uncertain

184 TEE PROPHETS.

at what period the prophet completed his own work.
The authorship of chap. 1., li. (with the exception of
li. 59-64) is much disputed ; but the reasons assigned
are not convincing to those who believe in the reality
of Divine predictions.

The text of Jeremiah in the LXX. differs consider-
ably from that of the Hebrew. The prophecies against
the nations contained in chap, xlvi.-li. are inserted in
the LXX. immediately after chap. xxv. 13. In many
other places the LXX. present a shorter text. The
superiority of the Hebrew text is, however, generally
admitted. The alterations in the LXX. seem to have
been the result of design, and were not caused by
the errors of copyists. The Hebrew text of the book,
however, does not appear to have been well preserved.

Jeremiah was much affected by the sad and open
breaches of the covenant of which Israel had been
guilty, and frequently bewails the judgments which
he saw would inevitably follow. He foresaw, how-
ever, the dawn of better days, which would be brought
about by Israel's repentance and regeneration, and
by the renewal of the covenant between Israel and
Jehovah. This formed one of the great subjects of
his predictions. The personality of the Messiah is
not dwelt upon by Jeremiah as fully as by other
prophets. But it is spoken of in chap, xxiii. 5-8,
XXX. 4-11, xxxiii. 14-26. Jeremiah was frequently ac-
cused by the Jews of his day of lack of patriotism.
But the accusation was false (see chap. ix.). Had
the prophet's advice been followed by Zedekiah even
during the siege of Jerusalem, or by the Jews after
the murder of Gedaliah, the Babylonian captivity

JEREMIAH. 185

would not have been attended with such fatal conse-
quences to the nation.

3. The more important commentaries among the Patristic
writers are those of Jerome and Theodoret. Of KeformatioD
and post- Kef ormation scholars, the commentaries of Calvin.
CEcolampadius, Piscator may be noted. Important are Ghis-
lerus, Comm. in Jer. cum catena Patruvi GrcBcorum et comm.
in Lam. et Baruch, 1623 ; Seb. Schmidt, Comm. in lil). jyropU.
Ter.^ 2 vols., 4to, 1685, and Herm. Venema, Comm. in lib. proph.
Jer., 2 vols., 1725. B. Blayney's Jeremiah and Lamentations^
1784, is now of little value. More useful is J. D. Michaolis.
Ohs.pliil. et crit. in Jer. vat. et Threnos,Q,d. Schleusner, 1793.
The writings of Hensler, 1805 ; Gaab, 1824 ; Piosenmiiller ;
Maurer, 1833, and. others are still useful. Umbreit, 1842;
Ewald; Hitzig; D. Neumann, Jeremias von Anathoth: die YT/
Weissagung. u. Klagel. ausgelegt, 1856, 1858, suggestive but /
must be used with caution. K. H. Graf, Der Proph. Jer. erkl.j
1862, 1863; E. Meier, Bie proph. Bilaher d. A. T., 1863;
Hitzig, Jeremiah, 2tQ Aufl,, 1866 ; Keil, Jeremiah and Lamen-
tations ; translated into English, T. and T. Clark ; Nagelsbach
on Jeremiah and Lamentations in Lange's Bihelweo'Ti, 1868,
English translation with addit. notes ; Anton Scholz (Roman
Catholic), Ber Mass. Text u. d. XXX., 1875 ; Commentar,
1880 ; Guthe, De foederis notions. Jer., 1877 ; F. Kostlin, Jesaja
u. Jer. ihr Lehen u. Werhen, 1879 ; Graetz, JSxeg. Stndien in
his Monatschrift, 1883 ; R. Payne Smith in Spealier's Com-
mentary; T. K. Cheyne, Comment, on Jer. and Lam. in
Pulpit Commentar]/, 1883 ; also in Jeremiah, His Life and
Times, 1888. G. C. Workman's suggestive work, The Text
of Jeremiah, 1889, must be used with caution (see Professor
Driver's critique in Expositor, 1889). A. W. Streane, Com-
mentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations in the Cambridge
Bible, 1887, is a useful work for English readers. L. A.
Schneedorfer (Roman Catholic), Das Weissagung sluch des
Prof. Jer. erhl., 1881, is important. C. J. Ball, The Prophecies
of Jeremiah in Expositor's Bihle, 1889. K. von Orelli, Jes.
and Jer. in Strack-Zookler's Comm., 1887.

186 THE PROPHETS,

§ 4. The Lamentations.

1. The Book of Lamentations is in Hebrew MSS.
termed ^2^^: (^Ah I how?), from its first word, but
generally in printed editions is styled from its con-
tents riiJ''i?, Lamentations ; Gr. ©prjvoi. In the Hebrew
canon the book forms one of the five Megilloth
(or Polk), and is placed among the Hagiographa.
It is read by the Jews on the anniversary of the
destruction of the first temple (9th Ab). The
book is ascribed to Jeremiah in the LXX., Targ.,
and Talmud. It contains five lamentations over
the fall of Jerusalem. The first four poems are
alphabetic. In chap. i. and chap. ii. every verse
commences alike with a new letter of the Hebrew
alphabet. In chap. iii. there are sixty-six verses, and
every three verses begin with the same letter. In
chap. i. the usual order of the alphabet is followed,
in which V precedes S. But in chap, ii., iii., and iv.,
the reverse order is followed. In chap. iv. there are
twenty-two verses, each of four lines ; chap. v. is not
alphabetic, although it has only twenty-two verses.
The authorship of Jeremiah has been defended by
many eminent critics, both ancient and modern.
Compare the statement in 2 Chron. xxxv. 25. It
must be borne in mind, however, that no remains exist
of the special lamentations spoken of in that passage,
although Josephus [Antiq., x. 5, 1) seems to think that
this book was composed on that occasion.

The LXX. prefixes the following preface to the
book, "And it came to pass after Israel was taken

EZEKIEL, 187

captive and Jerusalem was destroyed, Jeremiah sat
down weeping, and lamented with this lamentation
over Jerusalem, and said," etc.

2. A considerable number of those scholars who have written
on the prophecies of Jeremiah have also written on the
Lamentations. Among the older commentaries, J. Ternovius,
Comm. iji Threnos, 1642; J. H. Pareau, Thren. Jer. phil. and
crit. illnstr., 1790, are of importance. Among the modern
writers on the book may be mentioned Goldwitzer, Uehersetz.
mit Vergl. d. LXX. u. Vidg. u. hrit. Anmerlt., 1828 ; Kalkar,
Lam. crit. et exeg. illnst)\, 1836; 0. Thenins, Die Xlagelieder,
in Kurzgef. exeg. Handh., 1855 ; W. Engelhardt, Die Klage-
Ueder, 1867. Der Midrasli Eclia Rahhati das ist die Jiaggad.
Ausleg. der Klagelied.^ zum ersten Male ins Deutsche Uher-
tragen von Dr. Aug. Wiinsche, 1881, is an important work.
E. Gevlach, Die Xlagelieder, 1868; L. A. Schneedorfer (Roman
Catholic), Die Klag. erkl., 1876; J. M. Schonfelder, Die
Klagelieder des Jercmias nach Rahhinischer Auslegung , 1887.
On the questions connected with the book, besides the
various Introductions to the Old Testament, see Th. Noldeke,
Alt-test. Litteratur, 1868; C. Flockner, Ueher d. Verf. d.
Klagel. in d. Tilh. Tlieol. ^uartalschr., lix. 1877. S. Oettli,
in Strack and Zoclder's Comm., 1889.

§ 5. EZEKIEL.

1. The name Ezekiel, ^^^P.tCl, is compounded either
of ^^ p]n!j., God is strong, according to Ewald, or of
^^ P:tn^, Eim whom God strengthens. LXX. le^cKtiyA.
and so Sir. xlix. 8. Yulgate Ezechiel. The prophet
Ezekiel was the son of a priest called Buzi (which
occurs as a gentilic name in Job xxxii. 2, 6). He was
carried into captivity with Jehoiachin in B.C. 597 or
599, and henceforward lived and prophesied " in the

188 THE PROPHETS.

land of the Chaldeeans " by the river, or canal, of
Chebar, "^5?, which must carefully be distinguished
from Habor, "lUH, mentioned in 2 Kings xvii. 6. See
Fried. Delitzsch, Paradies, p. 47 ff. Ezekiel began
to prophesy five years after the captivity, and
consequently prophesied at least twenty-two years,
since his last dated prophecy was in the twenty-
seventh year of the captivity. He may have, how-
ever, prophesied for a longer period. He was a
contemporary of Jeremiah. The scene of Ezekiel's
laboui'S was Babylon, that of Jeremiah Palestine
and Egypt. An uncertain tradition states that
Ezekiel, as well as Jeremiah, was put to death by
his fellow exiles on account of his denunciations
of idolatry.

2. His book naturally falls into three parts : —
I. The first portion comprises chap, i.-xxiv., and
consists mainly of prophecies concerning Judah and
Jerusalem. The introductory section, chap. i. 1-
iii. 31, is termed by the Jews "the vision of the
chariot." The phrase " chariot " is used in connection
with the cherubim in 1 Chron. xxviii. 18, and hence
the name given to this vision in which the cherubim
formed so conspicuous a feature. The " living crea-
tures" mentioned in chap. i. are later described as
cherubim (see specially chap. x. 20). II. The second
portion of the book comprises chap, xxv.-xxxii. It con-
tains prophecies against Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia,
Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt. III. The third portion of the
book is occupied with the days of Bestoration and
Recovery, chap, xxxiii.-xlviii. That portion, written
after the judgment had fallen on Jerusalem (chap.

EZEKIEL, 189

xxxiii. 21 ff.), abounds in remaikable promises of the
future. The false shepherds and leaders of Israel
are described in chap, xxxiv., and in contrast to them
the Messiah is delineated as the " one shepherd," " My
servant David." Chap. xxxv. is a prophecy against
Edom, occasioned probably by the unbrotherly part
acted by Edom in " the day of Jerusalem " mentioned
in Ps. cxxxvii. 7. Ezekiel is particularly strong on
the morality of true religion. See chap, xviii. and
chap, xxxiii.

3. Ezekiel delighted in allegories. Of these the
most remarkable is that of Oholah and Oholibah
(chap, xxiii.). The national restoration of Israel is
predicted in chap, xxxvii. under the picture of a
resurrection of bodies of which the dry bones alone
remained. The prophecy concerning Gog and Magog
(chap, xxxviii., xxxix.) is not a literal prediction, but
a prophetical allegory in which the attempts of the
enemies of Israel to destroy that people in their
weak state after the Restoration, and Israel's final
victory, are vividly described. The absurdity of regard-
ing that prophecy to be a prediction of the future of
Russia on account of the supposed, but utterly
mistaken, connection between the names Rosh and
Russia, Meshech and Muscovy, Tubal smd Tobolsk (!!)
has been exposed in my Biblical Essays. Similarly
allegorical is the description in chap, xl.-xlviii. of the
new theocracy, of the new temple erected, not in the
old Jerusalem, but in an ideal city, on an " exceeding
high mountain." From the sanctuary of the new
temple living waters are described as flowing down-
wards, and, although unfed by affluent streams, as

190 THE PROPHETS.

ever deepening along their course, until they flow into
the Dead Sea and heal its waters. The new city
described by Ezekiel is called " Jehovah Shammah,"
" Jehovah is there.'' When from his Old Testament
standpoint, Ezekiel describes the land as again divided
among the tribes, he is careful to note that the
strangers who shall sojourn in Israel are to have equal
rights with the children of Israel themselves. The
whole description is consequently allegorical, or ideal,
and not literal. The visions of future blessings were
described by the prophet under Old Testament forms
and figures.

Some modern critics maintain, however, that
Ezekiel's description of the reorganization of the
priesthood and the temple services and ceremonies
was intended to be taken literally. Those critics
argue that the arrangements described by Ezekiel
were older than those laid down in the portion of the
Pentateuch termed by them " the Priests' Code " (see
before, p. 89 fF.). These arguments are very doubtful,
and by no means as cogent as often represented. The
soundest defence against such novel views is to be
found in insisting on the ideal and allegorical character
of the prophecy. The genuineness of Ezekiel is
admitted by all critics of mark. The Jews regarded
" the vision of the chariot," i.e. the vision of the
cherubim in chap. i. and chap. x. 9 (see before, p. 188)
as a synopsis of theosophy ; the first chapter of
Genesis being similarly viewed as a synopsis of
cosmogony. Hence the study of both those portions
of Scripture was forbidden to persons under thirty
years of age.

DANIEL. 191

4. Among the older commentaries on this book may be
mentioned those of J. (Ecolampadius Comm. iii Ezech., 1543,
folio; V. Strigelii, Ezech. proph. ad Heh. verit. recogn. et
argum. et seliol. illustr., 156i, 1575, and 1579 ; Casp. Sanctii,
Comm. in Ezech. et Dan., 1619; Hieron. Pradi et J. Bapt.
Villalpandi in Eiech. explan. et appar. urhis et tempi. Hieros.
eomvi. illust., Rom., 1596-1604, 3 vols., folio ; H. Venema,
Lect. Acad, ad Ezech., 1790. Among the newer are :
Rosenmliller, Scholia, 2nd edit., 1826 ; Maurer in vol. ii. of his
Comm., 1836 ; Havernick, Comm. ilber den Proph. Ezeehiel,
1843; Ewald, in Proph. d. alt. Bundes, vol. 2, 2te Ausg.,
1868 ; E. Henderson, Ezehiel with Comm., critical, etc., 1855;
Kliefoth, 1864 ; Hengstenberg, Die Weissagungen des Proph.
Ezech., 2 vols, 1867, 1868, translated into English, T. and T.
Clark ; Patrick Fairbairn, Ezehiel and the Book of his
Prophecy, with a Neio Translation, 3rd. edit., 1863. Keil, 1868,
English translation published by T. and T. Clark ; 2nd edit,
of the German work with 4 lith. plates, 1882; F. W. J.
Schroder, in Lange, 1873 ; F. Hitzig, Ezehiel, 1847, in Kurzg.
Ex. Handh., by R. Smend, with 8 woodcuts and plan, 1880 ;
J. Knabenbauer (Rom. Cath.), Comm. in Ezech., Paris, 1890.
Very important is C. H. Cornill, Das Buch des Proph. Ezeehiel,
1886 ; von Orelli, Ezech. und Min. Proph., 1888, in Strach and
Zochler's Comm. ; Ernst Kiihn, EzechieVs Gesicht von Tempel,
Mit 1 Tafel, 1882 ; W. Neumann, Die Wasser des Lehens (Ezek.
xlvii. 1-12), 1849. Important articles on Der Brandopferaltar
EzeUels (Ezek. xliii : 13-17), by C. H. Cornill and R. Fiirber,
are to be found in Luthardt's Zeitschrift fiir kirch. Wtssen-
schaft, for the years 1883 and 1884. See Appendix.

§ 6. Daniel.

1. Daniel (^^5.1^'^) was one of the captives carried
away from Judah during the reign of Jehoiakim. In
addition to the facts of his personal history related in
the book which bears his name, nothing more is known

192 THE PROPHETS.

of him, except that Ezekiel mentions his holy life,
and places him in that respect on a par with Noah
and Job (Ezek. xiv. 14-20). Ezekiel also speaks of
Daniel as a paragon of wisdom (chap, xxviii. 3) in
language which, though the phraseology is different,
recalls in substance the statements set forth in Daniel
V. 11-12, and in other places of the book. The addi-
tions to the story of Daniel in the LXX. are intrinsi-
cally of no historical value, but important as showing
that many stories about Daniel, which are not con-
tained in the Book of Daniel, were current in the
centuries before Christ. Josephus does not, indeed,
mention the legend of Susanna, or of Bel and the
Dragon, found in the LXX., but he, too, makes
additions to the history by stating that Daniel and
his three companions belonged to the family of
Zedekiah {Antiq., x. 10, 1). Moreover he mentions
additional incidents connected with the story of the
den of lions {Antiq., x. 11, 6), and the erection of
a remarkable tower by Daniel at Ecbatane {A7it{q.,
X. 11, 7). Such legends prove Daniel to have been
a well-known historical personage prior to the Grecian
period. For the growth of all such legends requires
considerable time. The legends concerning Daniel
were multiplied in later times. There is a curious
version of the story of Bel and the Dragon found in
the Midrash Bereshith on chap, xxviii. 12, Parasha
Ixviii.

2. The Book of Daniel consists of two parts. I.
The first contains histories connected with the life of
Daniel (chap, i.-vi.). II. The second part contains
four visions of Daniel (chap, vii.-xii.). The book is

DANIEL. 193

written in two languages or dialects. Chap. ii. 45-vii.
inclusive is in Aramaic (miscalled Chaldee), and the
rest of the book is in Hebrew. The Aramaic was
probably the original language of the entire book,
the Hebrew portion being only a translation from
an Aramaic original. Although Aramaic may have
been used as a kind of diplomatic language, it
is certain that it could not have been the language
spoken by the Chaldseans, or wise men of Babylon.
The adverb ^''O'li:? (chap. ii. 4), translated in the
English Versions, " in Syriac,'^ indicates not that the
Chaldgeans addressed Nebuchadnezzar in that lan-
guage, but that, from that particular place in the
book onwards, the copyist, or editor of the work,
quotes verbatim from an Aramaic original, of which
the present Book of Daniel probably formed only a
portion.

An exact parallel occurs in Ezra iv. 7, where it is
said " the adversaries of Judah " wrote to the Persian
king against the Jews. The remark is there made
that the copy of the letter used by the compiler of
that book was written H^P'lS^., i.e., in Aramaic cha-
racters, and not in the old Hebrew (see remarks on
p. 17 ff). The letter is further said to have been
duly interpreted, i.e., translated, although into what
language is not stated. Then follows the word
JT'Dn^s, indicating that Ezra iv. 8 to chap. vi. 18
was copied from original documents in Aramaic.

Although the unity of the Book of Daniel is generally
conceded (see A2yp.), it has the appearance rather of a
series of excerpts than of a continuous narrative, and
the hypothesis that the present book is an abridgment

194 THE PROPHETS.

of a larger work (partly preserved in its original lan-
guage and partly translated) has much in its favour.
The critics, however, are not agreed on these points.
The phenomenon of a book written partly in one
dialect and partly in another is also exhibited in
the Book of Ezra. The fact has not been satisfac-
torily explained in the case of Daniel (although often
attempted) by the difference in the subject-matter
of the contents. The statements mentioned in chap. i. 1
cause serious difficulties, but it is somewhat hasty to
conclude that those statements are incorrect ; and
even if incorrect, the error may be the fault of the
translator.

3. Two of the more remarkable of the miracles
recorded in the Book of Daniel are referred to in
1 Mace. ii. 59, 60. The book was extensively used
by the author of the Book of Baruch, and by the
writer of "the Epistle of Jeremiah" improperly
attached to that work. The Book of Daniel is by
the majority of modern critics assigned to some date
between B.C. 167 and 164. But the alterations made
in the text of the LXX. version, with the object of
modifying passages so as to make them coincide more
distinctly with the Maccabean period, tend rather to
prove the Book of Daniel itself to be of earlier date.
The references to Babylonian history, Babylonian
names and manners, are in favour of its early com-
position, and some of these points have been confirmed
by recent discovery. The Persian words in the book
support this view, for such words would not have been
used in the Greek period. On the other hand
fact of Greek words occurring in the work (whiciL

DANIEL. 195

though once denied is now generally admitted by-
scholars) tells on the other side. The account of the
Median rule is in favour of its early date, and con-
firmatory of the theory that the book is an abridg-
ment of a work written by Daniel, though pro-
bably incorporating later additions. The additions
seem to have been mainly inserted in chap, xi.,
the prophecies of which form the chief difficulties of
the book. The miracles recorded in the book do
not constitute its real difficulties. For if miracles
ever were necessary, it was when the people of
Jehovah were captives in Babylon, and the victory
over Israel was looked upon as a victory over
Jehovah Himself. If, however, chap. xi. xii. had
been written subsequent to the overthrow of Antiochus
Epiphanes, the end of that monarch would have
been differently described. The phenomena alluded
to point in the direction of a re- editing of the work
shortly before the close of the Maccabean period.
The Messianic prophecies found in the book are of
special importance. It is impossible here to touch
upon the evidence in favour of the book to be derived
from a critical re\iew of its prophecies. The book is
alluded to by our Lord in Matt. xxiv. 15, and in other
places. It lies at the base of several of the prophecies
of the New Testament, especially those of the Book of
Eevelation. The position which Daniel occupies in
the Hebrew canon, its being placed in the Hagiographa
and not among the prophets, is no argument against its
authenticity. Nor is the omission of Daniel's name from
the list of Jesus Sirach (chap, xlix.) more remarkable
than the omission tLere of the name of Ezra.

196 THE PROPHETS.

The writer of this Introduction hopes shortly to
publish a commentary on Daniel in the Pulpit Com-
mentary. In that commentary he intends- to point out
that even if the latest date assigned to the composition
of the Book of Daniel were proved correct, the book
displays a knowledge of the future which can only be
ascribed to Divine inspiration. All attempts to make
out the fourth empire of Daniel (spoken of in the dream
of Nebuchadnezzar, chap, ii,, and in Daniel's vision,
chap, vii.) to be the kingdom of Alexander's succes-
sors have proved decided failures. The fourth kingdom
can be no other than the Roman, which is described
in both the passages referred to as having tv)o distinct
stages : (V) an undivided stage, in which the empire
was strong as iron, and was under a central govern-
ment j (2) a divided stage, in which it was split up into
a plurality of kingdoms, indicated by the ten toes of
the image (chap, ii.) and by the ten horns of the
beast (chap, vii.), which kingdoms no device or power
of man, or any schemes of matrimonial alliances,
could ever contrive to weld together again. It was
in this weakened stage of the Roman empire that
another power was to supplant some of these king-
doms, and bear general rule over the whole, but
without sufficient strength to make them coalesce into
one strong empire. An author, or compiler, who had
the acquaintance with the past history of Babylon and
Persia which is displayed in the book, could not pos-
sibly regard the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes as being
in any degree whatever as powerful, still less stronger,
than the empires of Babylon, Persia, or Greece.

4. The Greek version of Theodotion for a long

DANIEL. 197

period did service for th'9 LXX. version, until the
latter was re-discovered in the Chigian Library at
Rome, and published in 1772. The LXX. version is
remarkable for many important omissions and addi-
tions. The principal apocryphal additions to the Book
of Daniel consist of (a) The Song of the Three Children,
preceded by the prayer of Azariah, found in the LXX.
and Vulgate, at chap. iii. 24-90. This addition was
probably composed originally in Hebrew or Aramaic.
(6) The Story of Susanna, which in the Vulgate occurs
Dan. xiii, forms in the LXX. a separate book with
a title of its own. The story has received considerable
additions in some v-^f the Versions. It is devoid of any
historical value, but was designed to teach a moral
lesson. The Greek text is probably the original, (c)
The Story of Bel and the Dragon forms also in the
LXX. a separate book entitled '' From the Prophecy
of Habbakuk son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi." In
the version of Theodotion that story is attached to
the Book of Daniel. All these stories are fabulous,
although they possess some interest.

5. The commentaries on Daniel are innumerable. On no
other book, save the Book of the Revelation in the New Testa-
ment, has so much worthless matter been written in the shape
of exegesis. Of the more important critical commentaries of
modem days may be mentioned L. Bertholdt, Daniel aus den
Eeb.-Aram. neu ubersetzt u. erhl., 1806, 1808 ; v. Lengerke,
Komm., 1835; H. A. C. Havernick, Commentar, 1832; Neue
hrit. Untersuchu7igen, 1838 ; R. Kranichfeld, Das Bitch Daniel
erliL, 1868 ; Th. Kliefoth, 1868 ; C. F. Keil, 1869 ; A. Hilgen-
feld, Die Proph. Ezra imd Daniel, etc., 1863 ; Ph. S. Desprez,
Daniel, or the ApocalyjJ-'^e of the Old Testament, 1865. E.
B. Pusey, Daniel tlie Prophet, 1864 ; 8rd edit. 1869. Pusey's

198 THE PROPHETS.

Btatements as to the views of his opponents are not always
reliable. Zockler, in Lange's Bihelwerlt, 1870, English trans-
lation ; Auberlen, Daniel u. die Offenharnng, 1854, 2nd ed.
1887; English translation by T. and T. Clark. J. Meinhold,
Dan Buck Daniel avs^rjelegt, 1889, in St rack and ZocMer's
Comm. ; also his Deitrdge z. Erkl. des Buck, 1888. Fabre
d'Envien (Roman Catholic), Le Livre dii piwphete Daniel,
Paris-Tonlouse, 1888 (2 vols). Highly interesting is the Com-
vientary on the Booh of Daniel hy Jepliet Ihn AH, the Karaite,
edited and translated by Prof. D. S. Margoliouth, in the
Anec. Oxon., 1889.

Besides the above, the following are important. (1) In favour
of the authenticity : Hengstenberg's Beitrdge, 1831, trans-
lated into English, T. and T. Clark ; S. P. Tregelles, Defence of
Autlienticity , 1852 ; J. M. Fuller, Esmy on theAntJienticity of
Book of Daniel, 1864 ; and his commentary in Speaker's
Commentary, 1875, 1888 ; W. Volck, Vindicics Danielicc^, 1866 ;
C. P. Caspari, Zur Elnfilhrvng in das Buck Daniel, 1869 ;
F. Lenormant, Les sciences occultes en Asie, 1874 [on Dan.
i.-vi,] ; E. Payne Smith, Expos, of the Hut. Portion of the
Writi7igs of Daniel, 1886. (2) Against the authenticity : F.
Bleek, Ueler Verf. u. Zweck des B. Dan., in the Berl. Theol.
Zeitschrift, iii. ; T. K. Cheyne's article in EncycloiJCBdia Brit.,
9th edit.; R. Smend, Jiid. Apocalyptik in Stade's Zeitschrift,
1885 ; H. G. Kirms, Comm. hist, critica, 1828.

There are many important monographs on portions. G. S.
Faber, The Seventy Weeks, 1811 ; E. Schrader, Die Sage vom
Wahnsinn Nehuch. in the Jahrh. f.prot. Theol., 1881 ; C. H.
Cornill, Die siebzig Jahrwoche, 1889 ; F. Fraidl, Die Exegese
der siehzig Wochen Daniels in der alien u. mittlercn Zeit,
Graz, 1883 ; Th. Noldeke, on Dan. v. 25 ff. in the Zeitschrift
filr Assyriologie, Nov. 1886, and G. Hoffmann in the same
journal for 1887 ; J. Meinhold, Beitrdgen, zur Erkldrung des
B. Daniel, 1888 ; van Lennep, De zeventig Jaarwccken van
Daniel, 1888.

CHAPTER XYI.

B. THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

"OESTDES the commentaries noticed, pp. 172-3, on the pro-
-■-^ phets in general, the following special commentaries are
of importance : Ribera, Conim. in lihr. duod. Proj^h., 1590 ; J.
Calvini, Prcelect. in Buodecim Proph. 3Iin., Geneva, 1610 ;
Casp. Sanctii, Comm. in duodec. proph. min., 1621 ; J. Drusii,
Comm., 1627; J. Schmidt, 1685, 1687, 1689; J. Tarnovius, Ccwiin.
in projjh. miyi., c. prtef. J. B. Carpzov, 1688, 1706 ; J. Marck,
Comm. in Proj?7i. 3Im., 4 vols., 4to, 1696-1701, and 1734 folio ;
J. D. Dathe, 3rd edit., 1790 ; G. L. Bauer, Die Til. Propli.,
1786, 1790; P. Schegg (Roman G^.tholxQ'), Dield. Projjh.iihers.
u. erU., 2 vols., 1854, 1862 ; J. A. Theiner (Rom. Cath.), 1828,
fifth part of his Comm.. uber die heilige Schvift. der A. T.; E.
Henderson, Tlie Minor Prophets, translated with comm. crit.,
pUl. and eoeeg., 1845, 2nd ed. 1858; Hitzig, 3te Autl, 1863, 4te
Aufl., edit, by Steiner, 1881 ; Keil, 3te Aufl., 1888 ; Bishop
Wordsworth, 1875 ; E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets, with a
comm. explan. and pract., 1877 ; Knabenbauer (Rom. Cath.),
Comm. in proph. min., Paris, 1886 ; K. von Orelli, see p. 191;
Archdeacon Farrar's Lives and Times of the Elinor Prophets in
Nisbet's series of Men of the Bible, 1890, deserves notice. In
Lange's Bihcliuerh the writers are : 0. Schm oiler on Hosea,
Joel, and Amos, 1872 ; P. Kleinert on Oladiah to Zephaniah,
1876 ; J. P. Lange on Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 1876. In
the English, or rather American, edition there are considerable
additions by American scholars. The post-exilian prophets are
commented on in that edition : Haggai, by J. E. McCurdy ;
T W. Chambers, ^(?<?7mWa7«. ; J. Packard, J/^Z^c/i/, 1874. In

200 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

the Sjyealier's Commentary^ Ezekiel to Malachi compose one
volume, 1876, Preb. Hustable has there written on Hosea,
and Jonah ; E. Gandell on J mos, Nahnm, and ZepTianiali ; F.
Meyrickon Joel^ and on Ohadiah; S. Clark on Micah; F. C.
Cook on Haljalikuli ; W. Drake on Haggai, Zechai'iah, and
MalacM. Principal Douglas, of Free Ch. Coll., Glasgow, has
written on Tlie Six Intermediate Miyior Projjhets (i.e., Obadiah
to Zephaniah), in T. and T. Clark's series of Handbooks, 1890.

a. The Nine Pre-exilian Prophets.
§ 1. Hosea.

1. Hosea, ^^"^i^, salvation, Gr. 'Qa-rji, was the son
of Beeri, of whom nothing is known. He prophesied,
like Isaiah, according to chap. i. 1, under Uzziah,
Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, and during a portion of the
reign of Jeroboam II., king of Israel, whose reign in
part synchi'onised with that of tTzziah. The Book of
Hosea, being the longest, is placed first among the
minor prophets, which are in the Hebrew canon
regarded as forming together one book. He was a
member of the northern kingdom of Israel, and
prophesied somewhat later than Amos, with whose
prophecies he seems to have been acquainted. Comp.
Hosea iv. 3 with Amos viii. 8 ; and Hosea viii. 14,
the phraseology of the latter part of which verse
occurs seven times in Amos i. 4-ii. 5. The super-
scription (Hosea i. 1) causes some difficulty, because
no allusion is made in the book to the Assyrian
invasions which occurred during the reigns of the
kings there mentioned. The superscription, however,
may have been appended by a later editor.

THE BOOK OF ROSEA. 201

2. The Book of Hosea consists of two portions,
probably written at different periods of the prophet's
life. I. Chap, i.-iii. describe the infidelity of Israe.
to God and God's longsuffering and enduring love.
The personal history of the prophet's own life seems
here employed in an allegorical manner. The woman
with whom Hosea was led by Providence (like Samson
in Judges xiv. 1-4) to ally himself in marriage, proved
unfaithful to her marriage vow, and had to be
divorced. Under a Divine leading, the prophet was
led to take her back from her life of sin, and restore
her to her former position. He relates the story of
his own domestic trials as a picture on the one hand
of Israel's faithlessness towards Jehovah, and on the
other of the everlasting love manifested by Israel's
God. This appears to be the truest and simplest in-
terpretation of the difficulties in the opening chapters,
and is that adopted by the best modern critics. II.
The second portion of the book (chap, iv.-xiv.) sets
forth the guilt of Israel in general, the sins of both
priests and people (chap, iv.-viii.), the punishment
coming upon Israel (chap, ix.-xi.), and the readiness
of Jehovah, notwithstanding the sin of His people, to
receive them graciously when penitent, and to pour
a blessing on them (chap, xii.-xiv.).

3. The unity of the book is unquestioned. Its
language is peculiarly difficult, and it is often hard
to comprehend the prophet's meaning. The first part
is written in prose, the second in poetry. The latter
chapters of the book appear to have been composed
at very different times, and were probably put together
at the close of the prophet's life.

202 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

4, The following are the most important commentaries on
the book : D, Parens, Comm. illuftt. cum transl. trijy. ex Heh.
et Chald., etc., 1605 ; Seb. Schmidt, Comm., 1687 ; H. v. d.
Hardt, 1703 ; J. H. Manger, Comm. in Jlosmm., 1786 ; Annot.
hist. exeg. in Has., auct. L. J. Uhland, 1785-1797. Ed. Po-
cocke's English Commentary on Hosea is the largest and most
important of the older commentaries. It was first published in
1685, and is given in his WorTis, along with his Commentary on
Joel, Micah, and Malachi, 2 vols., folio, 1740. Of the'more
modern, besides those mentioned on p. 199 are : Schroder, Die
/ Proph. Hos., Joel, Aynos, 1829; A. Simson, Der Propli. Hos.
erlil. V. uhersetzt., 1851 ; A. Wiinsche, Der PropTi. Hos. fibers,
u. erlil. mit Benxitzung der Targg. u. derj'dd. Aiisleger, 1868,
specially important for the Jewish interpretations ; W. Nowack,
Der PropTi. Hos. erTi., 1880 ; Anton. Scholz (Roman Catholic),
Comm. z. Buche des Propli. Hos., 1882; T. K. Cheyne, Hosea,
with Notes and Introdvction, 1884, Cambridge Bible for
Schools, an improved edition in 1889, small, but important.
Points connected with the book are discussed in Hengstenberg's
Christology, and in Hoffmann's Weissagimg u, Erfiillung. See
also Franz Delitzsch, Hosea u. sein Weissagungsluch, in the
Erlangen Zeitschr. fur Prot. it. Kirche, 1854; Kurtz, Die
Ehe des Proph. Hos., 1859 ; Redslob, Die Ditegritdt d. Stelle
Hos. vii. 4-10 hi Frage gestellt, 1842 ; A. H. Sayce, Booh of
Hosea in the Light of Assyrian Research, in the Jewish
Quarterly Pevietv, for 1889.

§ 2. Joel.

1. Joel, ^^?T', whose God is Jehovah, LXX. 'IwTyA,
was the son of Pethuel, and prophesied in Judah and
Jerusalem. Owing to his peculiar mention of the
piiests, he may have been a priest-prophet ; bat little
more can be learned about him or his family. As
there is no allusion in his prophecies to a king of
Judah, and he addresses himself chiefly to the elders.

TEE BOOK OF JOEL, 203

it has been conjectured that he prophesied during
the long minority of king Jehoash of Judah (2 Kings
xii.). The enemies of Judah spoken of in his pro-
phecies are Tyre and Sidon, along with the Philistines,
who had sold Jewish captives into the hands of the
Greeks. Egypt and Edom are also mentioned in
the book; but not a word is spoken concerning
Assyria or Babylon, or of the later enemies of Israel.
Hence, though some have endeavoured to assign the
book to as late a period as the Maccabean times, the
grounds for doing so are very insufficient. The locusts
described by Joel have been often supposed to be
allegorical of the northern foes. But the language
of chap. ii. in general (see ver. 4, etc.) is more
naturally interpreted cf an actual plague of locusts
and other devouring insects (see specially ver. 25).
The book consists mainly of one grand oration, com-
prising : (I.) a lamentation and call to repentance
(chap. i. 1-ii. 17); (II.) with, in the second part, the
result of prayer, and a description of the blessings
of the future (chap. ii. 18-end). The latter portion
contains passages which refer to the Messianic days.
The final struggle of good and evil is represented
allegorically as taking place at Jerusalem, in the
valley of Jehoshaphat, where the conclusive victory
is gained, and Judah is delivered from her foes. The
language employed does not admit of literal inter-
pretation. Most remarkable is Joel's prophecy of
the outpouring of the Spirit referred to in the l!^ew
Testament.

2. Joel, in its style and character of its contents,
is one of the most remarkable of the books of the

204 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS,

Old Testament. The pre-exilian date of the book,
with certain variations in detail, is defended by
Hengstenberg, Havernick, Credner, Movers in Bihl.
Chronologie, 1834; Hitzig ; Ewald; Hoflfmann in
Weissagung u. Erfilllung; Knobel, Prophetismus,lS37 ;
Delitzsch, in Luth. Zeitschrift, 1851; Wunsche ;
Schrader in de Wette's Einleitung. Others, as
Schroder and Kuenen, Prophets and Prophecy^ consider
it to have been written shortly before the exile.
Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift f. wissensch. Theol., x., Yatke,
in his Einleitung, and Ad. Merx assign it to the
post-exilian period, after B.C. 445.

3. Besides the commentaries noted p. 173 and p. 199, the
following are of importance : — J. Leusden, Joel explic. in quo
text. Ehr. per paraplir. Chald., Mas. magn. et parv., iierqiie
trivm prcestantiss. Rahh. Jarchi, Ahen Ezr. and B. Kimclii
comm.^ete., cui in fine adj. est Ohadias eodenifere modo illnst.,
1657 ; C. Hastei, Proph. Joelis, 1697. Among the moderns
are A. Svanborg, Joel, Lat. versus et 7iotispliil. illustr., Upsala,
1806; Holzhausen, 1829; Credner, 1831; B. Meier, 1841;
A. Wiinsche, Die Weissagungen des Proph. J. iibers. %. erhl.,
1872 ; J. A. Karle, Joel hen Pethuel proplieta eomm.^ 1877 ;
Ad. Merx., Die Proph. des Joel und ihre Ausleger, etc.,
beigegeb. ist der Aethiopische Text des Joel bearb. von Prof.
Dr. A. Dillmann, 1879. This work is specially important for
its valuable history of icterpreters from the earliest times to
the Eeformation. A. Scholz (Rom. Cath.), Comm. z. Buche
des proph. Joel, 1885 ; G. Preuss, Die Prophetie Joel, 1889.
Important is the work of an American scholar, W. L. Pearson,
The Prophecy of Joel : its unity, its aim, and the date of
its comp., Leipzig, 1885. Later still, and in favour of a post-
exilic date, is H. Holzinger, Sprachcliaracter und Ahfassungs-
zeit des Buches Joel, in Zeitschrift fiir A. T. Wlssenschaft ,
1889. S solaee A. B. Davidson in Expositor, March, 1888 ;

THE BOOK OF AMOS. 205

S. Oettli, Ber Prophet Joel, Vortrag, 1888 ; Eugene la
Savoureux, Le ^prophete Joel : introduction critique, traduction
et comm., 1888.

§ 3. Amos.

1. Amos (DVor, hurclen, Gr. 'A/xtos), was a shepherd
or herdman of Tekoa, five miles south of Bethlehem,
and ten distant from Jerusalem. He was originally
a dresser of sycamore or fig-mulberry trees. He
prophesied in the days of Uzziah and of Jeroboam II.,
and was somewhat earlier than Isaiah, and a con-
temporary of Hosea. Amid the successes of Jeroboam
II. he prophesied of coming judgment and defeat.
He visited the northern kingdom, and carried on his
prophetic work there. Amaziah, the priest of Bethel,
grossly exaggerated the meaning of the prophecies of
Amos (chap. vii. 10-17), and sought to stir up
Jeroboam II., king of Israel, against him. But the
prophet boldly continued his work, relying on his
Divine commission. Chap. i. and ii. announce judg-
ment upon the nations, upon Syria, Philistia, Tyre,
Edom, Moab, Judah, and Israel. Chap, iii.-vi.
contain prophecies concerning Israel. Chap, vii.-ix.
10 give a series of visions indicative of coming judg-
ment. The book closes with promises of future
blessings (chap. ix. 11-15).

2. See, as before, pp. 173, 199. Among other commentaries
may be mentioned : J. Gerhardi, Adn. posth. in Proph. Amos
et Jon., 1676 ; J. C. Harenberg, Amos proph. exposit., 1763 ;
L. J. Uhland, Annot ad loca qucBd. Am., 1779 ; J. S. Vater,
Amos ubers. u erJd. |810 ; G. Baur, Ber Prophet Amos erkl.^

206 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

184:7 ; G, Hoffmann, Vei'suolie zu Amos in Zeitschrift filr die
A. T. Wissenschaft, 1883. See A. B. Davidson in Expusltovt
March and September, 1887.

§ 4. Obadiah.

1. The name of Obadiah (nn^y^ worsliip'per of
Jehovah, Gr. 'O^aSta?, ^K^hiai) is very common. The
Book of Obadiah is directed against Edom. There
is much uncertainty as to the time in which it was
written, and as to the events to which it refers.
Many clauses contained in verses 1-9 are found verbatim
in the Book of Jeremiah (chap. xlix. 7-22), so that the
question arises which prophet is to be regarded as the
original? If Jeremiah quoted -from Obadiah, then
the prophecy of the latter may have been as early
as the reign of Jehoram king of Judah, when, after
the revolt of Edom from Judah, Jerusalem was sacked
by the united Philistines and Arabians (2 Chron.
xxi. 16, 17). It is quite possible that the Edomites
may then have acted as related in verses 11-14.
In favour of the early date of the prophecy, it
is urged that no mention is made of Assyria or
Babylon, and moreover Obadiah ver. 17 is closely
akin to Joel iii. 5. On the other hand, it has been
urged : {a) that if Jeremiah had the prophecy of
Obadiah before him, he would probably have quoted
more than its opening portion; and (6) that Ps.
cxxxvii. 7 sheds light on Obad. 11-14. But these
arguments are not decisive. It is quite possible
that both Obadiah and Jeremiah quoted from some
earher prophecy. On the whole, the arguments in

THE BOOK OF JONAH. 207

favour of the early date of Obadiah seem to be the
stronger. But the matter is by no means certain.

2. The wildest legends exist with regard to Obadiah, such
as that he was identical with the Obadiah who was over
Ahab's household (1 Kings xviii.). So Josephus and the
Talmud. He has also been identified with the captain of fifty
spared by Elijah (2 Kings i. 13) ; or supposed to have been
a converted Edomite, or the husband of the widow-woman
of Zarephath mentioned 1 Kings xvii. Among the special
commentaries on the book that of Leusden has been men-
tioned on p. 204 ; Aug. Pfeiffer, Comm., 1660 ; J. G. Scbroer,
1766 ; C. F. Schnarrer, Dissert, phil. in Obad., 1787 ; H. A.
Grimm, Jones et Obad. orac. Syriace, ed. Duislurg, 1799 ;
Yenema, Lectt. in Ob., with additions in Verschuir, Opusc,
1810 ; L, Hendewerck, Obadj. orac. in IdumcBOS, 1836 ; C. P.
Caspari, Der prophet Obadja, 1842, is of special importance ;
W. Seydel, Vatioin. Obad. sec. text. Heb. et Chald., etc., 1869 ;
K. F. Weidner, Studies in Obadiah in the Lutheran Church
Bevleiu, Oct. 18S7 (American). See also pp. 173, 199 if.

§ 5. Jonah.

Jonah, (n^V, dove, Gr. IwvSs) the son of Amittai
mentioned in this book is no doubt identical with
the prophet of the name who lived in the days of
Jeroboam II. (2 Kings xiv. 25). If the book was
actually written by Jonah it would be the earliest
book of prophecy in the Sacred Records. The Book
of Jonah, however, nowhere claims to have been
written by that prophet. Its history is never referred
to in any one of the canonical writings of the Old
Testament. Jonah is, however, mentioned among the
minor prophets in 2 Esdras (4th Esdi^as) i. 40, but

208 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

chap. i. and ii. of that book are well-known to be
additions by a later hand to a book which is in itself
of very questionable antiquity (see p. 139). Two refer-
ences to Jonah's prophecy concerning Nineveh occur in
Tobit xiv. 4, 8, where his prophecy is spoken of as
still awaiting fulfilment. The story of Jonah in the
whale's belly is referred to as historical in 3 Mace,
vi. 8, and by Josephus, Antiq., ix. 10, 2. Orthodox
critics have generally regarded the narrative as
history, on account of the references to it in the
New Testament. If the book had been regarded as
an historical narrative when the Hebrew canon was
arranged, it would, however, scarcely have been in-
serted among the prophetical books, or have been placed
among them in the order in which it now stands.

The difficulties in the way of regarding the work
as historical are serious. Apart from the marvels
related in the story, the utter silence of the Hebrew
Scriptures in reference to the supposed history is most
unaccountable. Jonah himself was unquestionably an
historical personage (2 Kings xiv. 25). The conver-
sion of the Ninevites at the preaching of Jonah, if
historical fact, casts into the shade all the other events
recorded from the days of Moses to the Restoration.
Not one of the prophets who speak of Assyria con-
tain the slightest allusion to an event which in itself
would have placed Nineveh's guilt in the darkest light.
Most of the orthodox commentators have felt the
latter difficulty, and accordingly have assumed the
conversion of the Ninevites to have been' merely a
transient incident.

It has also been tacitly assumed that our Lord

THE BOOK OF JONAH. 209 '

viewed the narrative as historical fact. But such a
conclusion is inconsistent with the references to the
story in Luke xi. 29 ff. ; Matt. xii. 39 ff. The repent-
ance of the Ninevites is not referred to by Christ as
a merely transient movement, but as a great fact,
the fruits of which are yet to be manifested in the
day of judgment to the confusion of the men of
Christ's own generation. The book itself does not
give any countenance to the idea that the conversion
of the ISTinevites was a mere passing wave of popular
feeling. If it were only such, it might be asked how
did it differ essentially from the conversion of the
thousands of the men of our Lord's generation who,
under temporary conviction of sin, were "baptized
with the baptism of repentance " under the preaching
of John the Baptist? But if the repentance of
" Nineveh, that great city," was indeed an historical
fact, if its people indeed repented of their murders,
their sorceries, their idolatry, fornication, and thefts
(comp. Rev. ix. 21), on what principle is the silence
about such a remarkable fact of the Book of
Kings, and the silence of such prophets as Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, to be accounted for?
Every one of our Lord's references to the Book of
Jonah harmonises with the theory that the book was
a book of prophecy, a prophetic parable, in which by
the repentant Ninevites those Gentiles were repre-
sented— and they were not few in number (comp.
Esther viii. 17) — who in the days of Israel's exile
beheld the wonders wrought by Jehovah in theii*
midst, and "turned unto God from idols to serve a
living and true God." Whatever theory of the book

14

210 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

be correct, our Lord could have referred to it in
no other way than He did. The New Testament
references decide nothing, except that the book is in
some way or other a book of prophecy. Consequently,
the question whether the book is also historical must
be decided from internal evidence alone.

If the book be a prophetic parable, or (as Kleinert
styles it) a historico-symbolical prophecy, the place it
occupies in the Hebrew canon is most appropriate.
The Divine inspiration and grandeur of the book
become then more apparent, and all the difficulties
connected with it completely vanish. Israel is suit-
ably represented in such a prophetic allegory by the
prophet Jonah, for Jonah was one of the earliest of
the prophets. Israel " could only be properly repre-
sented in an allegory by a prophet, and only by a
prophet who (owing to the incidents of his pei^onal
history being unknown) might without violence to
actual history form a leading character in such a
divinely-constructed parable." The allegory depicts
the history of Israel, and under it the history of the
Messiah, just as the title " servant of Jehovah " is
used of Israel generally, then of the faithful in Israel,
and lastly of the Messiah. See p. 179.

The critics who have denied the historical character
of the book have usually regarded it as (1) purely
legendary, or (2) as containing legends resting on some
slight basis of fact, or (3) as wholly fictitious, depending
for its importance solely on its moral or religious
teaching. The view which regards it as a prophetico-
historical allegory is entirely different, and quite con-
sistent with a belief in the Divine inspiration and

THE BOOK OF JONAH. 211

authority of the book. According to the latter theory,
Jonah represents Israel fleeing from the duty imposed
on the nation in its prophetic character as a witness
for God. The sleep of Jonah, the storm on the sea,
Jonah's bold confession of faith when aroused from
slumber, admit of easy explanation. The world-
power is actually represented in the prophets as
a sea-monster (see Isa. xxvii. ; Jer. li. 34). That sea-
monster is represented as, in the person of Nebu-
chadnezzar, swallowing up Israel (li. 34). Bel, the
god of Babylon, is forced to disgorge his prey (li. 44).
Israel's duration in exile is represented by Hosea as
lasting for "three days" (Hosea vi. 2). The prayer
of Jonah in tl^ fish's belly (chap, iii., compare Israel
in the maw of Nebuchadnezzar in Jer. H. 34) is made
up of a number of sentences taken from Psalms com-
posed during the Exile. The language even of vv. 5, 6
(the only original verses in that poem) contains phrases
elsewhere used in reference to Exilic times, or to the
deliverance from Egypt as recorded in Exodus. See
the ordinary marginal references in the English Bibles.
The " prayer " of Jonah contains no confession of sin,
and no petition for deliverance. Such facts are highly
significant. They are very serious difficulties in the
way of the literal explanation; they fall in exactly
with the allegorical. No part of that " prayer " can
be regarded as descriptive of a man actually located
in a fish's belly.

The second portion of the Book of Jonah, when
viewed as a prophetical allegory, is even more remark-
able than the first. The closing portion of it, and the
mode in which the narrative is suddenly broken off,

212 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

are remarkably analogous to the second part of our
Lord's great parable (Luke xv. 25-32). Viewed in
this light the Book of Jonah is seen to contain several
important predictions of Messianic times, inclusive of
the prophecy of our Lord's resurrection referred to in
the New Testament. Even if the incidents related in
the Book of Jonah could be proved to be historical
in the ordinary sense of that term, the importance of
those incidents is mainly dependent upon their alle-
gorical or prophetical character; as are, also, those
facts of Abrahamic history allegorized by St. Paul in
Gal. iv. 21-31. The Book of Jonah is mainly im-
portant as a book of prophecy.

2. The above is condensed from the essay on "The Book
of Jonah considered from an allegorical point of view" in my
Biblical Essays (T. and T. Clark, 1886). The first helpful
suggestions on the point were derived from J. S. Bloch's
Studien zur GescMchte der Sammhmg der alt-hehrdische Lite-
ratiir, Leipzig, 1875, which reached a second edition in 1882.
Paul Kleinert, a most orthodox theologian, adopts substantially
the same view in Lange's Bibehvei'k, although it is not brought
out with sufficient clearness ; and Professor Elliott, the
American scholar, who has translated and enlarged Kleinert's
commentary in the English edition, makes a gentle protest
against the theory. T. K. Cheyne has in the Theological Review
(1877) partly supported the allegorical view, although he holds
partly to the myth theory. The allegorical view has been
very differently presented by Herm. von der Hardt in his
Aenigmata 2^^'isci orbis, 1723, and in other writings ; by
Gottfr. Less in his Vermischte Schriften, 1. 1782 ; by A. W.
Krahmer in his Hist. hrit. Untersuchiaig in Schi-iftforscher,
Part i., 1839 ; by K. C. Palmer in Scheerer's Archiv., 1801 ;
and by Friedr. Bergman in his Jonah eine alt. Test. Parahel,
1885, The number of commentaries written on the book,

THE BOOK OF MIC AH. 213

independently of those noted on the Minor Prophets in
general (p. 199), is very large. Leusden's Jonas iUvst. per
paraph. Chald., RascM, Ihn Ezra, etc., 1656 and 1692, is still
useful. Fredrichsen, Krit. Uelers. d. verscJi. Ansichten, 2te
Aufl., 1842. Prof. W. Wright's JbnaJi in Cliald., Syr., Aeth.,
and Arab., xoitliGorresp. glossaries, 1857, is useful for students.
The literature on the book is given in the English edition of
Lange's Bilehverh, and more largely in M. M. Kalisch's Bible
Studies, Part ii.. The Booh of Jonah, 1878, whose critical and
philological remarks are important. Kalisch, however, has
strangely not noticed Bloch's Stndien, nor the remarks of
Kleinert in his Introduction to the book. The strength of the
objections to the historical view cannot be understood by
those who only read such commentaries as those of Pusey in
his Minor Propliets, Huxtable in the Speaker's Commentary,
or R. A. Bedford's Studies in the Book of Jonah, 1883. Sug-
gestive from the same point of view, although ignoring all the
critical difficulties, is Dr. H. Martin, The Prophet Jonah, his
Character and Mission to Nineveh, 2nd edit., Edin., 1877 ;
W. Bohme, Die Composition des Bitches Jona in the Zeitschrift
fur die alt-test. Wissenschaft, 1887, attempts, not very success-
fully, to prove that the book is a composition of various writers
— Jahvist, Elohist — and editors. Archdeacon Perowne's little
commentary in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
contains many good remarks, but has not grasped '* the other
side " of the question.

§ 6. MiCAH.

1. Micah, HD^p, a shortened form of ^^'^''Q, Who
is like Jehovah? Compare ^^'^V, Michael, vjho is
like God? The LXX. transliterate it Mixaia<i. It
is exactly the same name as that borne by the prophet
who lived in the days of Ahab, spoken of in 1 Kings
xxii. 8-28. The author of the book was of Moreshath-

214 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

Gath (chap. i. 14), which belonged to Judah, and pro-
phesied, according to chap. i. 1, under Jotham, Ahaz,
and Hezekiah. The book falls into three parts. I.
Chap, i., ii. describe the judgments which were to fall
on Israel and Judah on account of their sin. That
prophecy closes with a prediction of recovery frora
exile (chap. ii. 12, 13). II. Chap. iii,-v. describe
vividly the sin of the people and their punishment
in striking connection with a grand Messianic pro-
phecy. III. Chap, vi.-vii. contain exhortations to
repentance and warnings. Voices of penitence are
admirably intermingled in those chapters with assu-
rances of salvation. Some modern critics maintain
that the portions chap. iv. 9-14 and chap. vii. 7-20
are later insertions ; but the reasons adduced do not
justify the conclusion. Ewald considers chap. vi.
and vii. to have been composed by another prophet
in the reign of Manasseh. Stade maintains that only
chap, i.-iii. (exclusive of chap. ii. 12, 13) can have
been written by Micah. Reuss considers almost the
whole book to be genuine.

Much discussion has arisen whether Micah iv. 1-4
is the original of Isa. ii. 2-4, or vice versd, or whether
both prophets have quoted from some earlier prediction.
Eminent critics have argued on all the three sides.
The proj^hecy of Micah iii. 12 is distinctly quoted in
Jer. xxvi. 18. The most remarkable prophecy of the
book is that of the birth of the Messiah at Bethlehem
(chap. V. 2, 3), which is of still more importance
when viewed in relation to the context in which it
is found. Yery important, too, are the prophet's
references to Gen. iii. in chap. vii. 17 ; to the history

THE BOOK OF NAIIUM. 215

of the patriarchs in chap. vii. 20 ; to the exodus, and
to the story of Balaam in chap. vi. 4, 6.

2. The best commentaries, in addition to those mentioned
p. 199, are those of Ed, Pococke, Commentary on Micah and
Malachi, 1677, or in his Works, 1740. C. F. Schnurrer and
J. G. Andler, Atiimadv. phil. crit. ad vatic. M. ex coll. vers.
Grocc.reliquarumq. in Polygl.Lond. edit., 1783. G. L. Bauer,
Ajiimadv. crit. in duo priora proph. M. capp., 1790. C. P.
Caspari, Ueher Micha den Morasth. ii. seine proph. Schrift.,
Christiania, 1852 ; T. Eoorda, Comm. in vat. 3IichcB, 1869.
A. Thomas, Essai sur le Proph. 3fichee, Geneva, 1853 ; L.
Baulme, Les PropMties de Mich., Toulouse, 1866. See also
Hengstenberg, Christology, vid. p. 173. Eeinke (Koman
Catholic), Iter Prophet Micha, 1874. T. K. Cheyne, Micah,
with Notes and Introd., 1882, 2nd edit. B. Stade, in Zeitschrift
f. d. alt-test. Wissenschaft, 1881, 1883. V. Eyssel, Unter-
snchimgen ilher d. Textgestalt u. d. Echtheit des Buches Micha.
Ein hrit. commentar zu Micha is most important, 1887.
W. Nowack, in Stade's Zeitschrift, 1884. See Appendix.

§ 7. Nahum.

1. Nahum, D-inJ, rich in comfort, Gr. Naov/x., be-
longed to Elkosh, a village not yet identified, though
probably belonging to Galilee. There are many
different opinions on the meaning of Elkosh. The
identification with Alkush near Mosul is connected
with a tradition which cannot be traced back earlier
than the sixteenth century. The town in question
is in all probability of much later origin than the
time of Nahum. His short book, which is occupied
wholly with " the burden of Nineveh," " the bloody
city" (chap. iii. 1), probably goes back to B.C. 660.
For the destruction of No-amon (Thebes in Egypt),
which is spoken of as a recent event (chap. iii. 8 ii.)^

216 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

was accomplished by Assurbanipal, king of Assyria,
in B.C. 664 or 663. The descriptions given by Nahum
are exceedingly fine and vivid, and the book is
deservedly classed among the finest productions of Old
Testament Hterature.

2. The special commentaries on the book are numerous, and
the literature connected with the overthrow and fall of Nineveh
of great extent. Among the commentaries may be mentioned :
C. F. Staudlin, Hosea, Nalmm unci Hahakhuli neu ilhersetzt
imd erldutert, 17<S6. Vatic. Nah. observat. pliil. illustr. Diss,
praes. M. C. M. Agrell, resp. N. S. Colliander, TJpsala, 1788.
H. A. Grimm, Nah. neu ilhersetzt m. erhl. Anm., 1790. J.
Bodin, 2Vah. lat. vers, et notU pMl. illust., Upsala, 1806. O.
Strauss, Nahumi de Nino Vat. expl. ex Assyr. monum.. illust.,
1853. C. A, Blomquist, Upsala, 1853. F. Gihl, Upsala, 1860.
Vance Smith, Propliecies relating. to Nineveh and the Assyrians,
1857. M. Breiteneicher, N'm. u. Nahum, 1861. L. Keinke
(Kom. Cath.), Kritilt der alien Versionen des Nah., 1867,
E. Mahler, Untersuchungen im Bv.che Nahum anf den JJnter-
gang Nin. hezogenen Fi?isterniss, mit 2 Karten, Wien, 1886,
aus Sitzungshericht d. k. Acad. d. Wiss. See also p. 199

§ 8. Habakkuk.

1. Habakkuk, I^-lpSH, LXX. 'Afx/SaKov/x, was a
member of the kingdom of Judah, is termed a prophet
in chap. i. 1, and was possibly, as Delitzsch supposes,
one of the Temple-singers, as his poem or prayer
(chap, iii.) was intended for temple use (chap. iii. 19).
According to the superscription of the apocryphal
" Bel and the Dragon " in the Chigian Codex of the
LXX. he was "of the tribe of Levi," the prophet
being identified from the similarity of name with the
Habakkuk mentioned in the end of that piece, who
in the text of Theodotion is termed " Habbacuc the

THE BOOK OF HABAKKUK. 217

prophet in Judjea" (see Fritzsche, Lib. Apoc. V. T.
Greece). Other legends need not here be mentioned.
His date is uncertain. Delitzsch supposes him to
have lived in the reign of Josiah, because Zephaniah
(i. 7) seems to quote Hab. ii. 20, and Jeremiah (iv.
13 and v. 6) appears to quote Hab. i. 8. Most other
critics consider the prophet to have prophesied in the
early part of Jehoiakim's reign. He prophesied about
the Chaldsean invasion. The book is semi-dramatic.
Chap. i. contains Habakkuk's complaint (ver. 2-4), and
Jehovah's reply (ver. 5-11) with the prophet's comment
thereupon (ver. 12-17). In the second chapter the
prophet sets himself on the watch-tower, and obtains
a reply promising the ultimate destruction of the
foe, whenever the special work which that enemy was
raised up to perform should have been accomplished.
The grand poem of chap. iii. describes a Divine theo-
phany, in which the past glories connected with the
redemption of Israel from Egyptian bondage are
dwelt upon, in order to encourage the righteous to
stay upon their God in the sore days of trouble and
trial which were then at hand.

2. The Rabbinical commentary on Habakkuk by Abarbanel
lias been translated into Latin by Sprecher, 1709, and that of
R. Tanchura has been edited by S. Munk, 6V>w?». sur le livre
de Hah., 1843. Of the later critical commentaries may be
mentioned : Staudlin, Ilosea, Nah., und Hah. neu ilhers. u.
erkl., 1786. Wahl, Hah. neu ilhers. mit EM., etc., 1790 ; B. P.
Kofod, Cliah. vatic, comm. crit. atque exeg., 1792. "Wolff, Der
Proph. Hah., 1822. Baumlein, Covivi. de Hah. vatic, 1840
Especially Franz Delitzsch, De Haljh. Froph. vita atqiie estate,
etc., 1842, and Der Propli HahaTivk aiisgelegt, 1843. Gumpach,
Der Propli. Hah., 1860 ; and Reinke (Roman Catholic), Der

218 TUE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS,

Proph. Hah., 1870. Ant. J. Baumgartner, Le projjJiete
Hahalikiiky Introduction cTitique et exegkse, Leipzig, 1885.
E. Sinker, The Psalm of HahaliTiuh, a revised translation,
with critical and exegetical notes, 1890, See also the writers
on Minor Prophets, p. 199.

§ 9. Zephaniah.

1. Zephaniah, n^|5V* (Jehovah hides^ or protects),
LXX. So<^ovtas, was probably a great-grandson of
Hezekiah the king (chap, i 1), although the omission
of the phrase " the king " in that passage has caused
some difficulty to critics. He lived in the reign of
Josiah prior to the great reformation accomplished
by that king (comp. chap. i. 4-6 and chap. iii. 1-5).
He vividly depicts a great day of wi^ath coming
on Judah and the kingdoms round about, as well
as upon Assyria and Ethiopia. He promises, how-
ever, Messianic blessings to the remnant of Israel,
which is to be purified by affliction and brought back
from captivity. He moreover predicted that the same
blessings would be bestowed also upon the nations of
the earth. It has been supposed by some critics that
the prophecies of Zephaniah refer to the Scythian
inroads upon Judah, but that view cannot be sus-
tained. The Babylonian invasion is evidently that
predicted, although the reports of the Scythian
barbarities probably gave a special tinge to the
predictions. The Messianic age is vividly depicted,
although the Messiah Himself is not distinctly alluded
to. Jehovah is, however, represented as the king
of Israel " in the midst of His people " (chap,
iii. 15), in language which shows that the Messianic

TEE BOOK OF IIAGGAI. 219

prophecies of Isaiah (ix. 5, xii. 6) were well remem-
bered and referred to. There are other remarkable
references to Isaiah in the last portion of chap. iii.
Compare ver. 9 with Isa. vi. 5, ver. 10 with Isa. xviii.
1. Compare also ver. 10, 11 — correctly translated on
the margin of the Revised Version — with Isa. Ixvi. 20,
which reference might be adduced as an argument
for the unity of the Book of Isaiah.

2. Martin Bucer wrote a commentary on Zephaniah in 1528
which is still of value. Besides the writers on the Minor
Prophets mentioned p. 199, the most important in connection
with Zephaniah are : Cramer, Scyth. Denkmdler in Palcestma,
nil. D. von Coelln, S^icil. observ. exeg. crit. in Zeph., 1818.
Her wig in Bengel's Archiv, Band i. ; E. Ewald, tfhers. mit
AnmerTi., 1827. F. A. Strauss, Vaticinia Zeph. comm. illvstr.,
1843. V. S. Johnson, Upsala, 1857 ; L. Eeinke (Roman
Catholic), Ber Proph. Zepli., 1868. Friedr. Schwally, Das
Buck Ssefanja, eine hist.-hritische Untersuchung, in the
ZeitscTirift f. A. T. Wisseyischaft, 1890.

h. The Post-exilian Prophets.
§ 10. Haggai.
1. Haggai {^l'^, Festal, Gr. 'Ayyatos, probably born
on some great festal day), was one of those who
returned from captivity with the first band of
Israelites, under the leadership of Zerubbabel. The
prophecies contained in the book were all delivered
within the space of some three months. Short as they
were, they were the means of stirring up Zerubbabel
and Joshua to go forward with the work of re-
building the Temple, which, though begun in the
second year of Cyrus, b.c. 535, had, owing to oppo-
sition, been abandoned in despair (Ezra iv. v.). The

220 TEE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

impetus given by his prophecies, and those of Zech-
ariah, to that work is mentioned by Ezra (chap. v. 1,
vi. 14). Ewald conjectures, from Haggai ii. 3, that
Haggai was one of the old men who had seen the
first temple in its glory; but the passage does not
fully warrant such a conclusion. Haggai's prophecies
contained in this book are four in number, and are dis-
tinguished for their brevity. The passage in chap. ii.
6-9 is Messianic, and is referred to in Heb. xii. 26-28.
It is incorrect to regard the phrase in ver. 7, trans-
lated in the Authorised Version "the desire of all
nations," as a title of the Messiah. The correct trans-
lation is "the desirable things of all nations " (."Revised
Version), which is abundantly proved from the fact
that the verb in the clause (" shall come ") is in the
plural. " The desirable things " spoken of were the
silver and the gold required for the use of the temple.
But "the latter glory" of that second temple, in
which alone it outshone the former in glory, was
that it was the place in which the manifestation of
the Messiah actually occurred, and that epiphany is
the event by which the prophecy of Haggai was
finally accomplished.

2. Many of the commentaries on Haggai deal also with the
two other post-exilian prophets, Zechariah and Malachi, as, for
instance, the Latin commentaries of F. Baldwin, 1610 ; Willius,
1638 ; Varenius, 1662. Among the later commentaries on these
three prophets are those of W. Pressel, 1860 ; T. Y. Moore, The
Propliets Haggai^ Zechariah, and Malachi, New York, 1856 ;
Aug. Kohler, Di^ nachexiUsche Prophcten, Haggai, 1860;
Sacharja, 1861 ; Malcachi, 1865 ; Reinke, Ber Proph. Haggai,,
1868 ; J. P. Lange in his Pihelwerl, 1876. In the English
translation of Lange 's Pihelicerh, in place of J. P. Lange's

THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH. 221

own commentary on these books (which appeared subsequently
to the American edition), the Book of Haggai is expounded
by J. F. McCurdy, the Book of Zechariah by T. W. Chambers,
and the Book of Malachi by J. Packard.

On Haggai, among the commentaries in Latin are the Scholia
of J. Mercer, which appeared in 1551 ; the commentary of
Grynffius in 1581 ; Reinbeck's Exercit. in projJh. Hagg.y
1692 ; D. Pfeffinger, Notce, 1703 ; Woken, Annot. exeg., 1719 ;
N. Hesslen, Vatic. Hagg., Lund. 1699. The passage in Hagg.
ii. 6-9 is discussed in Hengstenberg's Christology, Hofmann's
Weissagung u. Erfiillung, J. P. Smith's Scrijjhire Testimony
to the Messiah^ and a number of smaller monographs.

§ 11. Zechariah.

Zechariah ('"^^1-1? Jehovah remembers, LXX. Zaxa-
ptas) is styled in chap. i. 1 the son of Berechiah, the
son of Iddo. The latter was one of the priests who
returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua (Neh. xii. 4, 16 ;
Ezra V. 1, vi. 14). The Book of Zechariah is divided
into two portions. I. The first consists of chap, i.-viii.,
*the genuineness of which is undisputed. This portion
contains {a) an exhortation to repentance (chap. i.
1-6), followed by (6) seven apocalyptic visions, some-
times counted as eight, for the sixth has two parts.
These visions, like those of the Book of the Reve-
lation (comp. Bev. i. 19), delineate the past and the
present, as well as the future. 1. The vision of the
Angelic Riders, which is accompanied by a partial expla-
nation (chap. i. 7-1 7). 2. That of the Four Horns, and
of the Four Smiths, raised up to put an end to the de-
structive power of the horns (chap. i. 18-21). 3. That
of t\iQMan luith the Measuring -line, which, is followed by
the Angel's address to tlie prophet (chap, ii.) 4. The

222 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

High Priest Joshua before the Angel ; the accusation
of Satan ; the rebuke of the Adversary ; the restora-
tion of Joshua to favour, and the adjuration of him
by the Angel (chap, iii.) 5. The Vision of the Golden
Candlestick, with its explanation (chap. iv.). 6. The
Vision of the Flying Roll, with the curse written on
both sides, and of the Woman in the Ephah symbolising
Wickedness and her instruments, with her temporary
rescue from destruction (chap. v.). 7. The Vision of
the Four Chariots. That vision is evidently based
upon Daniel's vision of the four empires, and is in-
cidentally evidence of the genuineness of the Book of
Daniel (chap. vi. 1-8). The Seven Visions are followed
(c) by a remarkable description of the crowning of
the High Priest, indicating symbolically the crowning
of Messiah, the Branch, as Priest and King (chap. vi.
9-15). Next follow {d) chap, vii., viii., which narrate
how a deputation came from Bethel to inquire about
fasts (chap. vii. 1-7), an account which is succeeded by
two comforting discourses delivered by the prophet.

II. The second part of the book (chap, ix.-xiv.)
has been the subject of much critical controversy.
Many critics maintain that the second portion is
composed of prophecies belonging to different periods,
and by different authors, which have been appended
to the Book of Zechariah. Chap, ix.-xi., with chap,
xiii. 7-9, are supposed by some to have been written
prior to the Exile by a contemporary of Isaiah.
Chap, xii.-xiv. (with the omission of chap. xiii. 7-9)
are supposed by these critics to have been written
by a contemporary of Jeremiah. Other critics,
however, maintain that the whole of the latter

THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH. 223

portion of Zechariah is post-exilic, even if written
by a different prophet. The arguments in favour of
the genuineness and unity of the book overweigh in
our opinion those adduced on the other side. The
historical references in the early portion of the latter
part of the book do not correspond with the events
of pre-exilic days. The chapters in question depict
rather the judgments which actually fell on various
portions of Syria and Palestine during the Grecian
period, and led to the absorption of the residue
of the Philistines into the body politic of Israel.
Those judgments helped to prepare the way for
the Messiah, who is depicted by the prophet as
coming in lowly guise. The Maccabean period is
the subject-matter of a considerable portion of these
prophecies. Chap. x. describes the war of the
sons of Zion against Greece, although the old pro-
phetic symbols of Assyria and Egypt are made use
of at the close of that prophecy. Chap, xi., xdi. refer
also to the same period, the outlines of which epoch are
sketched down to the coming of the Messiah and to His
rejection by the people of Israel. The -^/ivid description
of the moiu*ning in chap. xii. is most remarkable.
All families are described as mourning; wives,
husbands, each " apart " from one another in Jeru-
salem and throughout the land. The frequent repe-
tition of the idea of each individual mourning "apart"
indicates that point to be the chief feature in the
picture. The mourning is different from that described
in Ezek. vii. 16-18, 27, and, though inconceivable as
an actual literal fact, has been realised in that indi-
vidual penitential mourning for Christ on the part

224 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

of all bdievers in Him which is still in process of
fulfilment. Chap. xiii. strikingly depicts the reac-
tion against false prophets in the post-exilic period,
which ultimately led to the rejection of the true
Prophet of Israel. The closing chapter of the book
(chap, xiv.) contains passages which are highly
apocalyptic, and were never designed to be under-
stood literally. It depicts rather "the last things
as seen in the Hght of the Old Testament." The
Messianic passages in chap, ix., xi., xii. and xiii. are
of the highest importance.

2. The literature on the Book of Zechariah is very ex-
tensive. Besides the works noted pp. 173, 199, Philip
Melanchthon, Comm. in inopli. ZacJi., Opera, ii., Grynteus
(1581), Calvin (1610), J. H. Ursinus (1652), and others of
the Keformers wrote learned commentaries on the book, as
did Vitringa (1734), Venema (1789), etc. Blayney's Com-
mentary, 1797, is almost antiquated. Of the more modern
may be mentioned Koster, Meleteniata crlt. et exeg. in Zqch.
partem postcT., 1818. Forberg, on the same portion, also in
Latin, 1824. Hengstenberg on the Integrity of Zechariah^
1831, has been translated into English (T. and T. Clark).
F, Burger, Etvdes exegUigues et critigiies, 1841. Bleek, Das
Zeitalter von Sacharja, in the Stud. u. Krit., 1852. M. Baum-
garten, 1854. Monographs by Sandrock in defence of the
unity, 1856 ; by von Ortenberg against it, 1859. W. Neumann,
1860 ; Kliefoth, 1862 ; Kohler, p. 220. C. H. H. Wright,
Bampton Lectures on Zechariah and his prophecies, with
crit. and gram, comm., 1879. Bredenkamp, Der Proph.
Sack., 1879, was published simultaneously. W. H. Lowe,
The Hehrem Student's Commentary on Zechariah, 1882.
B. Stade, Deuterozacharja, eine kritische Studie, in the
Zeitschrift filr die alt-test. Wissenschaft, 1881 and 1882.
Of the Kabbinical writers, David KimchVs Comm. on
Zech., translated from the Hebrew, has been edited, v.ith

TEE BOOK OF MALACUI. 225

notes, by Ales. McCaul, 1837 ; and the Yalliut on Zechariah^
translated, with notes and appendix, by E. G. King, 1882.
The Post-exilian Prophets^ by Marcus Dods, 1879. Haggai,
Zechariah, and MalacM, by Ven. T. T. Perowne, in Cambridge
Bible for Schools, 1886-1889. W. Lindsay Alexander, Zechariah,
his Visions and Warnings, 1885. T. K. Cheyne, Origin of Book
of Zechariah in Jewish Quarterly Review, Oct., 1888. The
commentary of Bosanquet, and many other such like, are
utterly worthless, (See Appendix.')

§ 12. Malachi.
1. Nothing whatever is known respecting the his-
tory or person of Malachi. The name '•p^^^Q would
naturally signify ^^ my angel" as in chap. iii. 1. It
is, however, quite possible to render it with Gesenius
and Winer, by angelicus — i.e. one standing in some
connection with an angel. Hence some of the ancients
derived the fancy that these prophecies were delivered
by angelic hands ; while others regarded the word as a
name of office, my messenger. Jonathan ben XJzziel in
theTargum accordingly supposes Ezra the scribe to have
been referred to. The LXX. in the superscription
regard the word as a proper name, MaAa^tas ; but in
the text (chap. i. 1) they render the word Iv x'^'P'
ayyiXov avrov. The name ''P^^?^ was in all proba-
bility a curtailed form, -in^StS.^O or ri*3^^.^D. It is pro-
bable that Malachi was a contemporary of Nehemiah,
and prophesied between the period of that governor's
first and second residence in Judsea. Compare the
reference in chap. i. 8 with Neh. v. 14. The circum-
stances noted in Neh. xiii. correspond with the in-
dications given in the Book of Malachi. The prophet
denounces the presentation of inferior victims on the

15

226 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

altar, the looseness in matrimonial relations, and
the spirit of indifference on the part of the priests,
all of which indicated a sad falling off in religious
fervour. In a portion of the book the dialogue form
is made use of. The announcement of the coming of
the Messiah in judgment preceded by His forerunner
(chap. iii. 1, iv. 1, 2) is one of the most remarkable
prophecies of the book. Elijah, the prophet here
spoken of, was declared by our Lord to be John the
Baptist (Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10-13; Mark ix. 11-13)
although some have strangely maintained, in spite of
those distinct declarations, that a future advent of
Elijah the prophet is to be looked for. The Divine
character of the Messiah is not obscurely hinted at in
chap. iii. 1. The attempts of Romish theologians to
twist chap. i. 11 and chap. iii. 4 into predictions of
" the sacrifice of the mass " will deceive no one who
is acquainted with the fact that Old Testament pro-
phecies of the future are depicted in the light, and
with the symbols, of the Old Testament.

2. On the literature of the book consult pp. 173, 199. Dav.
Chytraeus, Explic. Mai., 1568 ; J. J. Grynreus, Hyjjomnemata
in Mai., 1582 ; latest edition 1612. S. Bohlius, Mai. Proph.
cum C07)wi. JRahhinoruni, 1637. J. H. Ursinus, Comm., 1652.
J. Wessel, Malach. eniicleaUis, 1729. Ed. Pococke's Commentary
on the Prophecy of Malachi, in his Worhs, 1740, is valuable.
H. Venema. Comm. ad lib. Mai., 1763. C. F. Bahrdt, 1768.
Reinke (Eom. Cath.), Per Proph. Malachi, 1856. A. Kohler,
see p. 220. Marcus Dods, in T. and T. Clark's Handbooks
for Bible Classes, and T. T. Perowne, in the Cambridge Bible^
have given useful commentaries on Haggai, Zechariah, and
Malachi,

APPENDIX

THE Cairo MSS., mentioned p. 21, have been recently
examined by Prof. Ad. Merx, who has informed me that
the dates given in the text are those found in the epigraphs
in the MSS.

Page 7. The 3rd edition of Ewald's History of the People
of Israel was translated into English by J. Estlin Carpenter,
who was the editor of the volumes composing the Old Test,
portion. The other volumes were edited by J. F. Smith. The
4th edition has been translated by Prof. R. Martineau, and
of this edition vols. i. and ii. appeared in 1883.

Page 8. The Germ, transl. of Kuenen's work by Weber is
a translation of the second edition, while the French transl. by
Dr. Pierson was made from the first edition. The two editions
are considerably different, for Kuenen when he published his
first edition had not embraced Graf's views. See addition to
p. 95 in this Appendix.

Page 8. Fr. Buhl, who has been called from Copenhagen
to Leipzig to fill the chair left vacant by the death of Prof.
Franz Delitzsch, has published an important work, Kanon u.
Text des Alt. Test, Leipzig 1891, 262 pp., 8vo.

Page 28. The Hebrew- English Lexicon (mentioned in the
Preface, p. xi) by Professors Driver, Briggs, and Brown, is
now in the press, and will probably be issued in parts. The
German scholars, Professors Stade of Giessen and C. Siegfried
of Jena, have also in the press a new Heh. Worterhuch, which
is expected to be completed next year (1S92).

228 APPENDIX.

Page 33. The diflScult question here alluded to — namely,
the prohibition to commit to writing anything except the Holy
Scriptures — will be found discussed more in detail in Strack's
Mnleitung in den Thalnmd, Leipzig, 1887, pp. 38 ff. Such
prohibitions, although generally attended to, may, it is obvious,
not have been always observed.

Page 34. Dr. Ludwig Blau's MasoretiHche U7iters'iichungen,
Strassburg 1891, reviewed by Dr. Ad. Neubauer in the Jewish
Quarterly Review, April 1891, with P. de Lagarde's Das
alteste Glied d. mass. Traditionsliette, in the Gottingen Nach-
richt., 1890, p. 95 ff., are important new contributions to the
Massorah literature.

Page 35. The word np was by the old scholars always
pointed np (K'ri), and regarded as a participle passive. But
Luzzatto has pointed out that that vocalization, though the most
general, is incorrect, because the word is really a preterite,
and therefore should be pointed np (K're). See Luzzatto,
Gramm. der HhL-chald. Sjirache, p, 32 note, and Kautzsch,
Gramm. der MU.-Aram., p. 81 note.

Page 54. An English translation of Schiirer's important
work on the History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus
Christ has now been published by T. and T. Clark.

Page 55. Graetz, in a short article contributed to the
Jewish Quarterly Revieio for Oct. 1890, pp. 150-158, gives
reasons, based on internal evidence, why the LXX. could not
have been composed prior to Maccabean times, although it
could not have been made much later. But his arguments
would be quite consistent with the theory of a revision about
that time of the Greek version which was then in use. Prof.
Swete of Cambridge has replied to Graetz in the Exjjository
Times of June 1891.

Page 57. Attention ought to have been drawn, among the
works which have appeared on the several books of the LXX.
translation, to Hatch's important lecture " On Origen's Revision
of the LXX. Text of Job," in his Essays in Biblical Gre^h,

APPENDIX. 229

Oxford 1889. B. Jacob's article, "Das Buch Esther bei den
LXX.," ia Stade's Zeitschrift filr die alt-test. Wissenschaft
for 1890, will be found referred to in our remarks on the
literature of the Book of Esther (p. 146), but ought also to
have been noticed here.

Page 95. It ought to be observed here that Prof. Kuenen.
not only defended Graf's hypothesis, when generally rejected
by scholars, but developed it further, placing it on a firmer
basis by getting rid of the diflScnlty with which Graf had
encumbered that theory. For Graf maintained that what
is now designated " the Priestly Code " consisted of two parts,
— the narrative portion by "the older Elohist," which was
extremely ancient, and the legislative portion, which belonged,
according to his view, to the post-exilian period. Kuenen,
however, maintains that those two portions really belong
to one work, and are the latest parts of the Pentateuch.
Wellhausen's views have been largely influenced by Kuenen,
although the former scholar has shown much originality in
the historical application of the theory.

Page 98. The exception to this statement is that the
ridge-pole of the tabernacle is not distinctly mentioned ; nor
is the mode explained by which that ridge-pole, or the ridge-
rope used in its stead, was supported and kept from drooping
in the centre. The old pictures, which represent the roof of
the tabernacle with its outer covering of skins as flat, have long
since been shown to be misleading. See Fergusson's article
on the Tabernacle and Temple in Smith's Bible Dictionary.

Page 102. Many new contributions on the critical questions
connected with the Pentateuch have since appeared, such as
E. B. Girdlestone's Foundations of the Bible : Studies in Old
Test. Critioism (London 1890) ; Klostermann, Beitrdge znr
Entstehungsgeschiehte das Pent. I. ^^ Per Grund-fehler aller
hentigen Pentateuchkritih" in the Nene Kirchliche Zeitschrift
for 1890, Hefte 9 and 10 ; C. G. Montefiore, '■^Recent CHticism
upon Moses and the Pent, narratives of the Decalogue^'' in
the Jewish Quarterly Revieic for Jan. 1891. In the same
review will be found Prof. Gratz on " The Central Sanctuary

230 APPENDIX.

of Devteronomy^^ and A. Kohut's " Parsic and Jewish Litera-
ture of the First 3fan" C. H. Cornill has contributed the
first of his Beitrdge ziir PentateucliTiritili, on Gen. xxxiv.,
to Stade's Zeitschrift, Heft. I. for 1891. Important is H.
Brugsch, Die MUischen Siehen Jahre der Hungersnoth nach
dem Wortlaut e altdgyjJt. Felsen-Inscfirift. Leipzig, 1891, mit
32 autogr. Taf. u. 5 Holzschn.

Page 103. See on Ewald, additional note to p. 7 in this
Appendix. A first vol. of an English translation of Eenan's
Hist, du Peuple d'lsrael, giving the history up to the capture
of Samaria, appeared in 1889 (Chapman and Hall).

Page 109. Among the additions to the literature of Genesis,
besides the " Zweite vielfach verbesserte Auflage " of Kautzsch
and Socin's Genesis mit dusserer Unterscheidung der Quellen-
scliriften, 1891, may be mentioned: O. Naumann, Das erste
Buch der Bibel, mit seiner inneren Einheit u. Echtheit
dargestellt, GUtersloh, 1890 ; Th. Noldeke's short article,
^^ Der Paradiesfiuss Gihon in Aralien ? '^ in the Zeitschrift
der Dentsch. Morgenl. Gesellschaft, Heft IV. for 1890. Pro-
fessor Kautzsch has, in combination with other eminent
scholars, begun a critical translation of the Old Test., in
which the various documents are specially noted. The first
three parts, comprehending the Hexateuch, are now published.
Freiburg in B., 1890, 1891.

Page 121. To the literature on Joshua should be added Em.
Albers, Die Quellenlerichte in Josh. i. — xii. Beitrag zur
Quellenh'itih des Jlexateuchs, Bonn, 1891. Under the litera-
ture illustrative of the Book of Joshua might be mentioned
the recent contributions to the geography of Palestine, which
are all important in connexion with the thorough criticism of
that book. Want of space, however, has forbidden our enter-
ing on such a prolific subject.

Page 146. Scholz has written on the names which occur in
the Book of Esther, in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1890, and Zim-
mern on the origin of the Feast of Purim in Stade's Zeitschrifi
for 1891.

APPENDIX. 231

Page 152. To the literature of the book of Job must be
added the important work of Prof. Johann Georg Ernst
Hoffmann, Hioh, Kiel, 1891. This small treatise of only 106
pages contains an introduction, translation, and short critical
notes. Hoffmann assigns Job to a postexilic date. Prof.
Cheyne has already reviewed Hoffmann in the Critical
Revieio, May 1891. J. Grill has also written Zur Kritih der
Composition des Buches Ilioh, 1890.

Page 159. A very handy and useful book for the general
student acquainted with German is Die Psahnen : Hehraischer
Text mit einer hirzen Auslegnng. Nach Dr. Aug. Heiligstedt's
Tode fortgesetzt und zu Ende gefiihrt von Dr. Max Badie.
Halle, 1888. Prof. Kirkpatrick has published vol. i. of the
Psalms (Ps. 1, — xli.) in the Cambridge Bible, 1891.

Page 163. Mr. E. F. Horton's work on the Booh of
ProverhSy in the Expositor's Bible, 1891, is a valuable contri-
bution to exegesis.

Page 167. Among the newer contributions to the literature
of Ecclesiastes are : W. Volck in Die 'poet. Hagiograjjlia, in
Strach and Zoclder's Comm., 1889 ; the work of the Swedish
Professor, 0. F. Myrberg, Prediliarehohen ofversatt och forh-
lared, Stockholm, 1889 ; A. Lods, EEccUsiaste et la Philo-
sophie grecque, Paris, 1890.

Page 182. On Isaiah of importance are : J. Barth, Beitrdge zur
ErUdrung des Jesaia, 1885 ; F. Giesebrecht, Beitrdge zur
Jesaialirltih : nehst einer Studie ilher proplietisclie Schrift-
stellerei, Gottingen, 1890 ; B. Blake, B.D., How to read Isaiah,
being the Prophecies of Isaiah arranged in order, T. & T.
Clark, 1891.

Page 191. On Ezekiel, Professor L. Gaiitier of Lausanne has
published La 3Iission du ProphHe tzeehiel, Lausanne, 1891 ;
and E. Selle, Be Aramaismis libri Ezechieles, Halle, 1890.

Page 198. Among the monographs on Daniel may be in-
cluded the following : Fulfilled Prophecg, a proof of the Truth
of Revealed Religion ; being the Warburtonian I^ectures for
1854-1858 ; with an Appendix of Notes, including a full

232 APPENDIX.

investicration of Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. By
the Very Eev. W. Goode, D.D., F.S. A., Dean of Eipon. Second
edition. Edited by the Eev. E. W. BuUinger, D.D., 1890 ; also
A. Bludan, De Alex, interp. l%b. Ban. indole crit. et lierm.
Pars I. Mlinster in W. 1891. Knahenbaner has just issued
a Comm. in Daniel proph. Lam. et Baruch, Paris 1891, pp. 520.

Page 215. A critical work of value has been published on
Micah by an English scholar : The Massoretic Text and tlie
Ancient Versions of the Booh of 3Iicah. By John Taylor,
M.A., Dr. Litt. (Lond.). Williams and Norgate, 1891.

Page 225. Professor H. Graetz has written in the Jewish
Quarterly Beview for January 1891 on " The Last Chapter
of Zechariah." Whatever Graetz writes deserves attention,
although we cannot adopt his views as to the interpreta-
tion of the chapter in question. Prof. George Hoffmann of
Kiel has, in his Hioh, noticed at p. 230, some important
remarks on Zechariah and its relation to that book. Hoffmann
has expressed himself decidedly in favour of the unity of
Zechariah.

THF. END.

Printed ly HazeU, WaUon, ^ Vir.ey, Ld., London and Aylalury.

\ .^"f

Z-^;

f ■'

1?:.-\

Alf,

|^SdS;?olheO>6 Testament

P„ncelon Theolwical Semmarj-Spw bbrar.

1 1012 00047 7721