Old Testament introduction : general and special

'FROM-THE-LIBRARyOF
ITWNITYCOLLEGETORDNTol

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

!

,

OLD TESTAMENT
INTRODUCTION

GENERAL AND SPECIAL

BY

JOHN HOWARD RAVEN, D. D.

Professor of Old Testament Languages and Exegesis,

Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church

in America, at New Brunswick, N. J.

NEW YORK

Fleming H. Revell Company

LOKDON

EDINBURGH

Copyright, 1906, 1910, by
FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY

New York : 158 Fifth Avenue
London: 99 Anerley Road

105022

PREFACE

AN apology is due to those who read theological books
for adding another to the already long list of volumes
on the Higher Criticism. The apology is that the
great majority of works on this subject are from the
negative standpoint, while most of the others are too
brief to be of much value, and substitute ridicule for
argument. The orthodox theologian weakens his posi
tion by undervaluing the force of the radical arguments.
He does not commend himself to fair-minded people
by ignoring or ridiculing his opponents. The tradi
tional view of the Old Testament has nothing to fear
except from the ignorance and the prejudice of its
adherents.

The present volume has arisen primarily from the
need of a conservative text-book which covers the whole
range of the subject. The writer has endeavored to
avoid on the one hand that over-conciseness which leaves
the student in the dark and on the other that over-full
ness which leaves him in a fog. As far as possible the
arguments of the liberals are given in their own words,
not only to conserve fairness but to encourage the
student to read the opposite side of the case. This is
the cause of the large number of quotations. The lists
of words, parallel passages, and other details which are
necessary for the argument in certain parts are intended
for reference. It is hoped that they will open the way
for individual research. The dates of books are not

6

6 PREFACE

meant to be final or exact, but only approximate. The
bibliography is select rather than exhaustive. Books
accessible to the average student and minister are given
the preference. Only those books in a foreign language
are mentioned which have not been translated into
English and which present the most recent views.
Their number is kept at the minimum.

The writer is firmly convinced that this battle must
be fought in the open. The insidious nature of the
current views of the Old Testament is not realized by
many sincere Christians who espouse them. There is
no middle ground between a thoroughly naturalistic
conception of the origin of the Hebrew scriptures and
that view of them which is found in the scriptures
themselves. Christ and the Old Testament are so united
by mutual testimony that a low view of the credibility
of the latter must result in a low view of the credibility
of the former. If this book shall do a humble part in
confirming the faith of any of Christ's ministers in
those ancient books which foretold and prepared for
the coming of the Saviour who gave His precious blood
for us, the author's labors will be abundantly rewarded.

NEW BBUNSWICK, N. J.,

January, 1906.

The author has taken the opportunity presented by
the appearance of a second edition, to make a few slight
corrections as well as to notice certain archaeological
discoveries of the past four years. A few recent titles
are also added to the bibliography.

NEW BBUNSWICK, N. J.,

February, 1910.

CONTENTS

PAGE

PREPARATORY. DEFINITION AND HISTORY OF THE

SCIENCE 11

PART I
General Introduction

I. THE CANON 17

II. THE TEXT 43

PART II

Special Introduction

FIBST DIVISION. THE LAW

PRELIMINARY. THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL . . 85

I. GENESIS 129

II. EXODUS 136

III. LEVITICUS 143

IV. NUMBERS 145

V. DEUTERONOMY 147

SECOND DIVISION. THE PROPHETS

Section 1. The Former Prophets

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 149

I. JOSHUA 130

II. JUDGES 1«"6

III. SAMUEL 103

IV. KINGS 170

8 CONTENTS

Section 2. The Latter Prophets

PAGE

PRELIMINARY. HEBREW PROPHECY 177

I. ISAIAH 185

II. JEREMIAH 199

III. EZEKIEL 204

IV. THE TWELVE 208

1. HOSEA 208

2. JOEL 212

3. AMOS 217

4. OBADIAH • 2JO

5. JONAH 223

6. MICAH 229

7. NAHUM 232

8. HABAKKUK 234

9. ZEPHANIAH 230

10. HAGQAI 239

11. ZECHARIAH 241

12. MALACHI 248

THIRD DIVISION. KETHUBHIM

Section 1. Poetical Books

PRELIMINARY. HEBREW POETRY 251

I. PSALMS 256

II. PROVERBS 267

III. JOB 272

Section 2. Megilloth

I. SONG OF SOLOMON 283

II. RUTH 292

III. LAMENTATIONS 296

IV. ECCLESIASTES 303

V. ESTHER 312

CONTENTS 9

Section 3. Historical Books

PACE

I. DANIEL 317

II. EZBA — NEHEMIAH 333

1. EZEA 333

2. NEHEMIAH 339

III. CHBONICLES 342

TABLE OF DATES OF OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS . 349

BIBLIOGRAPHY 331

PREPARATORY

I. Definition. Old Testament Introduction is that
branch of Biblical Introduction which relates to the Old
Testament. Biblical Introduction formerly was made
to include all those subjects which are introductory to
the study of the Bible — Biblical Archeology, Geography,
Natural History, Hermeneutics, Apologetics, and Criti
cism. The term is now properly used only of Criticism.
Thus Old Testament Introduction is the science which
relates to the critical questions of the Old Testament.
General Introduction considers the Old Testament as a
whole, and discusses (1) the canon in its origin, extent,
arrangement, and preservation; and (2) the text in its
languages, manuscripts, versions and critical editions.
Special Introduction deals with the individual books,
considering their authorship, date, purpose, and in
tegrity. Introduction thus includes the Lower and
Higher Criticism of which the former strives to restore
the original text of the scriptures by a comparison of
manuscripts, versions, and quotations, and the latter
seeks to examine the genuineness, integrity, and
purpose of the books.

II. History. The first to use the name " introduc
tion " in relation to the Bible was the Syrian monk
Adrian, whose book, " ' Etaafw^ efc rd? Oeia$ ypn^n*;" ap
peared about 440 A.D., and was a kind of Biblical

11

12 PREPARATORY

Rhetoric. About 550 A.D., Jmrlius, Quaestor of the
Palace of Justinian at Constantinople, published his
" Instituta Regularia Divinae Legis," of which the first
part dealt with the externals of the scriptures — style,
authorship, and arrangement of the books. Cassiodorius,
a Senator who died about 570 A.D., was the author of
a work called " De Institutione Divinarum Litterarum,"
which served as an Encyclopedia of Theology for the
monks of all then known concerning the books of
scripture. Practically nothing on this subject has come
down to us from the Middle Ages except isolated
remarks.

In the period of the Reformation, a new interest was
awakened in Biblical studies. Elias Levita, a Jewish
scholar (1474-1549 A.D.), busied himself with the text
and the history of the canon. Two French scholars
maintained Le vita's liberal views concerning the late
origin of the vowel points — Cappellus, a Reformed
Theologian, Professor at Saumur (1586-1658 A.D.) and
Morinus, a Roman Catholic (died 1659 A.D.). The
older view, that the vowel points were a part of the
original text, was defended by John Buxtorf the younger
(1599-1664 A.D.). Brian Walton, Bishop of Chester,
discussed the philological phases of criticism in the
"Prolegomena to the London Polyglott" (1657 A.D.).

The modern Higher Criticism may be said to date
from Spinoza (1632-1677), a Pantheistic philosopher,
and Hobbes (1588-1679), an English Rationalist. The
former, especially, denied the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch, considered the books from Genesis to Kings
to be a late compilation possibly by Ezra, brought the
Chronicles to a much later time, and affirmed that there
was no such thing as a canon before the time of the

PREPARATORY 13

Maccabees. Thus he anticipated by two centuries, the
conclusions of radical criticism. Richard Simon (1638-
1712), a Romish priest, opposed these views with the
compromising position that the Hebrew prophets, like
the official historians of other Eastern countries, recast
the history into its present form long after Moses, and
Ezra and his successors collected their works. This
theory, in turn, was combated by Clericus (Le Clerc,
1657-1736) and Carpzov (1679-1767), the latter of
whom was the author of the first systematic Introduction
to the Old Testament (1721 A.D.). In 1753 Jean
Astruc, a profligate French physician, promulgated the
theory that Moses made use in Genesis of older docu
ments characterized by the use of different divine names.
This idea was developed by Eichhorn, Professor at
Gottingen and so-called " father of the Higher Criti
cism," whose learned Introduction to the Old Testament
appeared in 1782. The theory of Simon was also
developed by Semler the German Rationalist (1725-
1791).

In the nineteenth century De Wette (1780-1849)
reedited and enlarged the Introduction of Eichhorn,
while Ewald (1803-1875) introduced into the study of
critical questions a feeling for the style and development
of the doctrine of the books of scripture. A revolt in
favor of the old traditional views was led by Hengsten-
berg (1802-1869) who was followed by Havernick (died
1845), Keil (1807-1888), and Kurtz (1809-1890). The
year 1878 marks a new era in the history of criticism,
for in that year appeared Wellhausen's " Prolegomena
to the History of Israel," which consistently applied to
the Old Testament from beginning to end, the principle
of literary and historical development. This view was

14 PREPARATORY

advocated by Kuenen (1828-1891) and Reuss (1804-
1891) and is still dominant.

In England and America the voluminous " Introduc
tion to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy
Scriptures," by Home, which appeared in 1818, was
long the standard. In the tenth edition of this conserva
tive work (1862), Samuel Davidson (1807-1898) intro
duced a large element of the German Radicalism. These
ideas were further popularized in England in 1881 by
\V. Robertson Smith's (1846-1894) "The Old Testa
ment in the Jewish Church." At the present time,
though no university professors in Germany stand upon
conservative ground, the extreme views of Duhm and
Cornill are opposed by Konig and Strack. Many
pastors, such as Rupprecht and Zahn are thoroughly
conservative. In England and America, although the
radical views largely predominate, not a few scholars,
and probably a majority of the pastors adhere to the
conservative ideas. The best-known English work from
the standpoint of a moderate criticism is Driver's Intro
duction. These views have been opposed by James Orr
of Glasgow, Canon Girdlestone, and others. The chief
defenders of the radical views in America are Toy,
Moore, Bacon, Brown, and Haupt; while they have been
opposed by Green, Osgood, Davis, and others.

PART I

General Introduction

I

THE CANON

I. The Word Canon is of Greek origin, and meant
in the classic authors " any straight rod or bar especially
to keep a thing straight," and metaphorically, " any
thing that serves to determine other things, a rule, a
standard." (Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon.) The
word is found in this metaphorical sense in two passages
of the New Testament (II Cor. 10: 13-16, Gal. 6: 16).
It was used by the Alexandrian grammarians as a name
for the classic Greek authors considered as models or
standards of excellence, and in modern times of the
authoritative decisions of a church council. In relation
to the Bible, it is defined as "the books of the Holy
Scripture accepted by the Christian church as contain
ing an authoritative rule of religious faith and practice."
(Century Dictionary.)

Though the word was not used in this sense in Biblical
times, the same idea was attached to the books of the Old
Testament. The essential element of the idea is that of
authority. It cannot, therefore, be weakened, as Semler
and others attempted, to mean a list of books.

II. Evidence from Scripture. The Old Testament
contains no record of the canonization of any book or
collection of books, but everywhere recognizes the books
as of canonical authority.

1. They were kept in the temple and even in the Holy
of Holies. The two tables of the law were preserved in

17

the ark of the covenant (Ex. 25: 21; 40: 20; Dent. 10>
5; I Kings 8:9) as the most priceless possession of
Israel. The book of the law of Moses was given in
charge of the Levites to be kept by the side of the ark
(Deut. 31:24-26, K.V.). It was found in the temple
in the days of Josiah (II Kings 22: 8).

2. They were treated as authoritative. The law must
be read in the hearing of the people once in seven years
(Deut. 31: 10-13). The King was to have a copy and
to regulate his decisions according to the law (Deut.
17:18-20). Joshua, the successor of Moses, was en
joined : " This book of the law shall not depart out of
thy mouth" (Josh. 1:8). The kings were judged ac
cording to obedience to the law (I Sam. 15: 11-23; I
Kings 11:38; II Chron. 8:13; I Kings 14:7-16; II
Kings 14 : 6 ; 18 : 6 ; 21 . 2-16). The people were repeat
edly urged to obey it (II Chron. 14 : 4 ; 17 : 9 ; II Kings
23: 3, 24-25). Both Israel and Judah are said to have
been carried captive to Babylon because of disobedience
to it (II Kings 17.7-23; 18:11-12; Dan. 9:11-13;
Xeh. 1: 7-9). The law was recognized immediately by
those who returned (Ezra 3:2; Neh. 8 : 1-8 ; 10 : 28-29 ;
13: 1-3).

3. The deference to the prophets was not less than
that paid to the law. The prophets emphasized the
law (Is. 1: 10) but considered their own words equally
binding. Disobedience to the prophets was equally
punishable (II Kings 17:13; Neh. 9:29-30; Dan. 9:
5-6; Zech. 7:12). These prophetic utterances were
perpetuated in an authoritative set of books to which
Daniel refers ( Dan. 9:2).

Thus while the Old Testament does not give any in
formation concerning the formation of the canon or its

THE CANON" -19

extent, it is explicit, as far as it goes, in bearing testi
mony to the existence in very early times of an authori
tative body of books.

In this respect the New Testament is in perfect accord
with the Old.

1. Our Lord and his apostles make frequent quota
tions from the Old Testament in proof of their asser
tions and teaching. Many things are said to have
occurred in Christ's life " that the scripture might be
fulfilled." Scripture is always considered authoritative
(Matt. 22:29; Jno. 5:39; 10:35, etc.) and it is said
to have been inspired of God (II Tim. 3 : 16 ; Heb. 1:1;
II Peter 1:20-21).

2. If it be inquired what books were included in the
term " scripture," the New Testament had the same
canon of the Old Testament which we possess. All the
books are quoted except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Eccle-
siastes, Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zepha-
niah. The last three of these books were part of the
Minor Prophets which were counted as one book by the
Jews. Allusion to other parts of the book therefore
sanctions the whole. The divisions of the canon are
mentioned — the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17;
7:12; 11:13, etc.), as a comprehensive name for the
entire canon, and " the law of Moses, the prophets, and
the Psalms" (Luke 24:44). In the last passage the
Psalms does not stand for the third division as its first
book. Yet the placing of one book of the third division
side by side with the first and second divisions, shows
that all books which at the time of Christ belonged to
the third division were considered canonical. And that
the limits of the canon were the same in Christ's time
as now, is shown by our Lord's alluding to Genesis and

Chronicles as the first and last books of scripture. This
he does in Matt. 23 : 35, " That upon you may come all
the righteous blood shed upon the earth from the blood
of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, the son
of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the
altar." This expression cannot have meant " from the
beginning to the end of your history " since the murder
of Zacharias occurred in the ninth century, B.C., far
from the end of Israel's history (II Chron. 24: 20-21).
It must mean " from the beginning of Genesis to the
end of Chronicles " or as we commonly say " from
Genesis to Malachi." By these words our Lord shows
that the canon in his time began with Genesis and ended
with Chronicles, and that these limits were fixed as in
our Hebrew Bibles to-day. Ever}rthing included between
these two limits was considered authoritative.

III. Order of Books. In the Hebrew scriptures, the
books are arranged in three divisions according to their
authors.

1. The Law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy.

2. The Prophets.

(a) The Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Sam
uel, Kings.

(&) The Latter Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, the Twelve.

3. The Kethubhim.

(a) The Poetical Books: Psalms, Proverbs, Job.
(6) The Megilloth: Song, Euth, Lamentations,

Ecclesiastes, Esther.
(c) Non-Prophetic Historical Books : Daniel, Ezra,

Neheiniah, Chronicles.

THE CANON 21

In the Septuagint, Vulgate, and modern versions, the
books are arranged according to their subject matter :

1. The Law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy.

2. The Historical Books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I
and II Samuel, I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles,
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.

3. The Poetical Books : Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccle-
siastes, Song of Solomon.

4. The Prophetical Books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, La
mentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve Minor
Prophets.

IV. Critical Theory. These three divisions are con
sidered by the critics to indicate three successive collec
tions of the canon. The dates and authorship of the
various books are made to control the view of the
formation of the canon. Moses did not write the Pen
tateuch. A moderate position in this respect is that of
Eyle who says : " Just as in Deut. 31 : 9-24 Moses him
self is said to have committed to writing the law, which
formed the nucleus of the Deuteronomic legislation, so
we understand the legislation which was initiated by
Moses to have become expanded into the complex system
of laws included in the Pentateuch. The great Lawgiver
who was the founder became also the personification of
Hebrew legislation, as David was of the poetry and
Solomon of the Wisdom of Israel" (Canon of the Old
Testament, p. 31). The first canon was the book which
was discovered in the temple in 621 B.C. This is said
to have been Deuteronomy and to have become canonical
by the acceptance of the people (II Kings 23 : 1-2). Ac
cording to some critics, Leviticus was composed before
the Exile, while others maintained that during the Exile

32 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

Israel committed to writing the priestly legislation and
the remainder of the Pentateuch in order to perpetuate
the institutions and history of the nation. These
portions likewise became canonical when the people
heard and accepted them at the Feast of Tabernacles
(Neh. 8).

The books of the Prophets underwent a period of
private circulation during which their religious value
was tested. Their canonization was the work of the
scribes and was a gradual process. Buhl considers 300
B.C. the date of closing the canon of the Prophets, while
"VYildeboer and others suggest 200 B.C.

Some of the books of the Kethubhim are thought to
have been in existence when the canon of the Prophets
was closed but several of them are assigned to a later
time. Daniel and several Psalms are said to be from
the Maccabean age (B.C. 170 and later). The critics
differ concerning the date of the final closing of this
third division. Buhl and Ryle believe that the entire
canon was closed before the time of Christ. AVildeboer,
although he admits that the third division was substan
tially as at present, asserts that the whole canon was
not definitely settled until about 200 A.D. by the Mishna.
Others give the date of the Council of Jabne or Jammia
(A.D. 90, 108).

The arguments of the critics for their theory of the
canon are thus summarized by Green: (General Intro
duction. The Canon pp. 23-25.)

1. Several books were not in existence in the time of
Ezra (Eccl., Esther, Dan., Chron., and several Psalms).
This question will be discussed under Special Intro
duction.

2. The three divisions indicate three stages of col-

THE CANON" 23

lection. If the books of the second and third divisions
had been arranged at the same time, Ezra, Nehemiah
and Chronicles would have been classified with Samuel
and Kings, while Daniel would stand among the Latter
Prophets. The fact that they are in the third division
is said to prove that only that division remained open
at the time they were produced.

3. The Samaritans receive only the Pentateuch.
Hence it is argued that the other books could not have
been in existence and canonical when the Samaritans
received the Pentateuch from the Jews.

4. The synagogue lessons were at first taken exclu
sively from the Law. Sections of the Prophets were
added later while the Kethubhim were read only on
special occasions and in small sections.

5. The use of the terms " The Law " and " The Law
and the Prophets " for the entire Old Testament is
thought to be a reminiscence of the time when the first
and then the first two divisions comprised the entire
canon.

6. Certain points in the order of the books of the
Prophets and Kethubhim favor, it is said, a gradual
formation.

7. The disputes of the Jews concerning certain books
of the Kethubhim show that the canon was not fixed.

V. The Test of Canonicity. The critics differ
widely concerning the principle according to which
some books were received into the canon and others
excluded.

1. Eichhorn considered age the test.

Answer. — The historical books refer to "the Book of
the Wars of Jehovah " and " the Book of Jashar." Yet
these older books were excluded from the canon.

24 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

2. Hitzig and others made the Hebrew language the
test of canonicity.

Answer. — Ecclesiasticus, Tobit and I Maccabees were
originally written in Hebrew but excluded from the
canon.

3. Wildeboer makes conformity to the law the test of
canonicity for the later books. He says, " The question
whether a book is canonical or not from the Jewish
point of view amounts to this: Does it agree with the
revelation, that is, with the Tora or not?" (Origin of
the Canon, p. 97.) Yet later he introduces several other
tests for the Kethubhim. " There were admitted into it
only books written in Hebrew or Aramaic, which treated
of the ancient history (Ruth, Chron.) or gave informa
tion about the establishment of the new order of things
(Ezra, Neh.) or which were supposed to have been
written by some famous person of ancient times (Prov.,
Eccl., Song, Sam., Dan., perhaps Job also), while Esther
obtained admission after much controversy (as was the
case with Eccl.) because it was in complete harmony
with the national sentiment of people and scribes alike "
(p. 139).

Answer. — This is pure theorizing with no historical
evidence. Though undoubtedly no book was received
into the canon which was opposed to the Pentateuch,
certainly the Old Testament does not include all the
books in agreement with it. It is incredible that several
different tests should have been applied in the way
suggested.

4. The more common view is that the books were
tested by their religious use privately for a short
er or longer period before they were admitted to the
canon.

THE CANON 25

Answer. — This plausible theory does not go to the root
of the matter. The question remains: why were cer
tain books edifying and others not? Canonicity must
have been a quality of the books from the first.

All these theories are at fault in considering the
canonization of the Old Testament books as the work
of the people. Canonical authority and the recognition
of it are two distinct things. That the decision of the
people was not the cause of canonicity is proven by three
considerations.

1. Authority in those times was not conceived of as
coming from the people but from God. This critical
theory would force into ancient times the principles of
modern civilization. The books must have possessed
canonical authority before they were recognized by
Israel, or Israel would not have recognized them. Their
recognition was the effect and not the cause of their
canonicity. They were canonical because divinely in
spired, and possessed divine authority from their first
promulgation.

2. The two accounts of so-called canonization are not
really such. The so-called canonization of the book of
Deuteronomy in the time of Josiah is not canonization
at all. The book was recognized as already authoritative
by all who read it. Hilkiah said to Shaphan : " I have
found the book of the law in the house of the Lord "
(II Kings 22: 8)— evidently an authoritative book of
which he had heard but which had been lost. Shaphan
read the book before Josiah the King. The king imme
diately rent his clothes and commanded that inquiry be
made of the Lord concerning the words of the book
saying : " Great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled
against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto

26 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

the words of this book, to do according unto all that
which is written concerning us" (verse 13). Josiah
gathered the people together and read the book to them
(II Kings 23:1-2). The whole impression of this
account is of a book already canonical, rather than of
the canonization of the book.

Likewise the record of Nehemiah 8 is not that of the
canonization of a book. Ezra evidently considered the
book as already canonical, or he would not have taken
such pains to read it at the solemn assembly of the
people. The people had the same idea of it for they
asked Ezra to read it (Neh. 8:1-3), "and when he
opened it, all the people stood up" (verse 5) as an evi
dence of this authority. The reading was for the in
struction of the people. Their acceptance added no
authority to the book either for them or for their
descendants, but was the recognition of previously
existing authority.

3. There is no record in the Old Testament of the
formal acceptance by the people of any of the books of
the second and third divisions of the canon. Yet these
books were evidently considered canonical. It is a pure
assumption that their canonization was the work of the
scribes. If either the acceptance of the people or the
official imprimatur of the scribes made books canonical,
the recording of that act of canonization would be an
important part of each book, or at least of each division
of the canon. Yet no such record exists. The explana
tion is obvious that the books were recognized as canon
ical from the first. The very contents of the books show
that the prophets spoke with authority. If therefore
their spoken words were divinely authoritative, why not
their written words?

THE CANON 27

VI. External Evidence.

1. From Jewish Sources. — The author of the prologue
to the book of Ecclesiasticus (about 130 B. C.) says:
" Whereas many and great things have been delivered
to us by the Law and the Prophets and by others that
have followed their steps — my grandfather Jesus when
he had much given himself to the reading of the Law
and the Prophets and other books of our fathers and
had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also
himself to write something pertaining to learning and
wisdom." If we make a due allowance for the difference
between the date of the prologue and the date of the
book, this passage shows that not later than 170 B.C.
the Old Testament canon was divided into the same three
divisions found in the Hebrew scriptures to-day.

The testimony of Joseplius who was born at Jerusa
lem A.D. 37 is much more explicit. In his work against
Apion he says: "\Ve have not tens of thousands of
books, discordant and conflicting, but only twenty —
two containing the record of all time, which have been
justly believed to be divine. And of these five are the
books of Moses, which embrace the laws and the tradi
tion from the creation of man until his death. — From
the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, the suc
cessor of Xerxes, king of Persia, the prophets who
succeeded Moses wrote what was done in thirteen books.
The remaining four books embrace hymns to God and
counsels for men for the conduct of life. From Artax
erxes until our time everything has been recorded but
has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what
preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets
ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writ
ings is evident by our conduct : for though so long a time

28 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION"

has now passed, no one has dared either to add anything
to them, or to take anything from them, or to alter
anything in them. But it is instinctive in all Jews at
once from their very birth to regard them as commands
of God, and to abide by them and, if need be, willingly
to die for them." This testimony bears on three points :
the authority, extent, and date of the completion
of the Old Testament. Concerning the authority no
further comment is necessary. The twenty-two books
mentioned indicate the extent of the canon. They are
probably,

1. Genesis 12. Ezekiel

2. Exodus 13. The Twelve Minor

3. Leviticus Prophets

4. Numbers 14. Psalms

5. Deuteronomy 15. Proverbs

6. Joshua 16. Job

7. Judges (with Euth) 17. Song of Solomon

8. Samuel 18. Ecclesiastes

9. Kings 19. Esther

10. Isaiah 20. Daniel

11. Jeremiah (with Lam- 21. Ezra and Nehemiah

entations) 22. Chronicles

This enumeration is made from the statements of
Josephus himself and from the known classifications of
other ancient writers. The five books of Moses are
sufficiently identified. The four books which " embrace
hymns to God and counsels for men for the conduct of
life" are probably Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and
Song of Solomon. It is known from Origen and others
that Euth was sometimes counted with Judges ami

THE CANON 29

Lamentations with Jeremiah. If so the thirteen books
of the prophets who succeeded Moses would be :

1. Joshua 8. Job

2. Judges (with Euth) 9. Isaiah

3. Samuel 10. Jeremiah (with Lam-

4. Kings entations)

5. Chronicles 11. Ezekiel

6. Ezra and Nehemiah 12. Daniel

7. Esther 13. The Minor Prophets

This arrangement is peculiar to Josephus but suited his
purpose, which concerned chiefly the reliability of the
historical books. Hence all books containing an element
of history were classed by themselves. Thus the canon
of Josephus included all the books we possess and no
others. This fact is further confirmed by his quoting
all of those books as authoritative, except Job, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon, none of which
contained material for his history.

The testimony of Josephus to the time of the comple
tion of the canon is most explicit — " the reign of Artax-
erxes, the son of Xerxes, king of Persia." This was
Artaxerxes Longimanus who reigned 465-425 B.C. In
his seventh year (458 B.C.) Ezra went up to Jerusalem
(Ezra 7:1-8) and in his twentieth year (445 B.C.)
Nehemiah followed him (Neh, 2:1-6). It does not
invalidate the testimony of Josephus that he identified
the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah with Xerxes, and
the Ahasuerus of Esther with Artaxerxes — the exact
reverse of the fact. For in any case the canon is said
to have been complete in the reign of the later monarch.
The statement of Josephus was made as the current
opinion of his people. He was a man of great learning

30 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION

for his time, and would certainly make no unguarded
assertions in a controversy with such a scholar as Apion.
His testimony therefore is worthy of the utmost
confidence.

The statement of the Talmud is valuable because it
mentions the books in detail. " Moses wrote his own
book and the section concerning Balaam and Job.
Joshua wrote his own book and eight verses of the Law.
Samuel wrote his own book and Judges and Euth.
David wrote the book of Psalms at the direction of
( *T ?V) ten elders, Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham,
Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph and the three sons of
Korah. Jeremiah wrote his own book and the Book of
Kings and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his college
wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Koheleth.
The men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel, the
Twelve [Minor Prophets] Daniel and Esther. Ezra
wrote his own book and the genealogies of the Book of
Chronicles as far as himself." While all these views
concerning authorship may not be accepted, the passage
implies agreement concerning the extent of the canon
and includes precisely the books in our Hebrew Bibles.

Two of the critical objections bear upon this point —
viz. that from the Samaritan Pentateuch and that from
the synagogue lessons. Whatever be the date of the
Samaritan Pentateuch, it does not prove that the Jews
possessed no other canonical books at the time the
Samaritans took the books of Moses from them. The
Samaritans refused to take the other books because
those books sanctioned the worship at Shiloh and Jeru
salem instead of Mt. Gerizim. Therefore the Samaritans
also altered the text of the Pentateuch to give greater
reverence to their holy mountain. The synagogue read-

THE CANON 31

ings give no information concerning the date of the
canonization of the Prophets. Wildeboer admits that
as early as the Maccabees it was customary to read a sec
tion of the Prophets with the section of the Law. In
the time of Christ the same was the case though the
readings in use were different from those in our Hebrew
Bibles (Luke 4:16-19; Acts 13:14-15). Thus as far
back as our knowledge goes we find the Prophets read
with the Law. If there were a time when the Law only
was read, it would only prove that the Rabbins did not
consider the other books adapted to public reading, not
that originally only the Pentateuch was canonical.

2. From Christian Sources. — The Christians received
their canon from the Jews. This process is well de
scribed by Reuss : " Those of the believers who belonged
to the Jewish nation did not cease to frequent the syna
gogue — to them the public reading of the sacred books
continued therefore to be a familiar practice. They
soon introduced into their own special meetings, even
before their final separation, the same means of edifica
tion as were used in the Jewish religious gatherings;
and later, when the schism was complete, these means
were preserved and bequeathed to succeeding genera
tions" (p. 4).

Eusebius has preserved the catalogue of books of
Melito, Bishop of Sardis (died after 171 A.D.) who
went to the East to investigate the number and order of
the books : " Five of Moses — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four of
Kingdoms, two of Chronicles, Psalms of David, Prov
erbs of Solomon, which is also Wisdom, Ecclesiastes,
Song of Songs, Job; the Prophets — Isaiah, Jeremiah,
the Twelve in one Book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra." In this

82 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

list as in the enumeration of Josephus and Jerome,
Lamentations was probably included with Jeremiah and
Nehemiah with Ezra. The omission of Esther may have
been due to the objections which certain Jews raised
against it. If so Melito was not in harmony with the
.traditional view either among Jews or Christians.

Justin Martyr (died 164 A.D.) was born in Palestine
and lived for a long time in Rome. He therefore had
peculiar opportunities of knowing both the Jewish and
Christian canon of the Old Testament. He quotes
freely from the canonical books but never from the
Apocrypha.

Origen (died at Tyre 254 A.D.) counted 22 canonical
books and gave a list of them which also is quoted by
Eusebius. It omits the Minor Prophets. This omission
however cannot have been intentional for it would
leave the number of books 21. It was due either to
inadvertence on the part of Origen or Eusebius, or else
our text of Eusebius is corrupt.

Tertullian (died about 230 A.D.) says that there are
24 canonical books of the Old Testament. This number
was probably made by counting Ruth and Lamentations
separately. The testimony of Christian writers in the
fourth century and later is too voluminous to mention.

Thus the evidence from Jewish and Christian sources
is all in favor of the canon as we have it. Elias Levita
a Jewish Rabbi in his work Masoreth Hammasoreth,
completed A.D. 1538, expressed the opinion that the
final collection of the Old Testament canon was com
pleted by Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue.
A similar view WE.S held by David Kimchi (1160-1232).
Though such a theory cannot be firmly established, there
are three facts which make it possible if not probable.

THE CANON 33

(a) The testimony of Josephus that the canon was
completed in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus in the
life-time of Ezra.

(&) Ezra was especially concerned with the sacred
books. He is called "the scribe" (Neh. 8: 1, 4, 9, 13;
12: 26, 36), "a ready scribe in the law of Moses"
(Ezra 7:6) and " a scribe of the words of the command
ments of Jehovah, and of his statutes to Israel" (Ezra
7:11).

(c) The character of Ezra's time was such that the
collection of the sacred books may appropriately have
been made in it. After the Exile the people were found
ing anew the religious institutions of the nation. "What
could be more natural than to gather the volumes of
the sacred library? There was a feeling that prophecy
was about to cease (Zech. 13:2-5; Mai. 4:5). No
other period of Israel's history was so appropriate for
the closing of the canon.

If not by Ezra at least in his time or soon after it
the Old Testament canon was closed.

VII. The Antilegomena. The Mishna (about 200
A.D.) speaks of strong controversies concerning the
Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Esther in the second
century A.D. and the Gemara alludes to objections to
Ezekiel which were settled by 66 A.D. Proverbs was
also under discussion among the Jews in the second
century. The objection to the Song of Solomon was
that it seemed to be a poem of merely human love, to
Ecclesiastes that it tended toward Atheism, and to
Esther that it did not mention the name of God. These
three according to Wildeboer are the only Old Testament
Antilegomena, for he considers the objections to Ezekiel
of a less serious nature. It was that it contradicts cer-

34 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

tain requirements of the Mosaic Law. The objection to
Proverbs was that certain of its maxims contradict each
other (Prov. 26:4-5).

In the first century the disciples of Hillel main
tained the canonicity of Ecclesiastes while those of
Shammai opposed it. The canonicity of Ecclesiastes
and the Song of Solomon was settled by the Council of
Jamnia (A.D. 90). Yet the discussion continued in the
second century until the Mishna again affirmed these
books canonical. Even in the third century Esther was
spoken against.

These facts do not prove that the canon of the Old
Testament was unsettled until 200 A.D. as the critics
affirm. Buhl admits : " Such attacks upon biblical
books do not exclude the idea of an earlier established
canon, for indeed criticism of the several writings of the
Old Testament was never altogether silenced after the
Synod of Jamnia nor even after the decision given in
the Mishna. Further, the very attacks referred to pre
suppose a Scripture Canon" (p. 26). The objections
to these books were an attempt to remove them from the
canon. And on the other hand, the breaking out of
the discussion after the decision of the Synod and after
the affirmation of the Mishna proves that the books were
not canonized by the authority of Synod or Mishna. If
the critical view of canonicity be correct these books are
not canonical to this day. Luther thought that Esther
should be excluded from the canon and I Maccabees
included in it. No one on that account doubts the
limits of the Protestant canon. In like manner these
objections do not indicate any uncertainty in our Lord's
time and later concerning the limits of the Old Testa
ment. The books of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song

THE CANON 35

of Solomon are not quoted in the New Testament simply
because the New Testament writers had no occasion to
quote them, as was also the case with Ezra, Nehemiah,
and three of the Minor Prophets.

VIII. The Apocrypha. In addition to the books of
the Hebrew canon the Septuagint includes the following :
I Esdras, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus
the Son of Sirach or Ecclesia'sticus, Judith, Tobit,
Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremias, I, II, III, and IV
Maccabees and certain additions to Esther, Daniel, and
Psalms. These additions are said by modern critics to
indicate a broader view of the canon among the Alex
andrian Jews from that which obtained in Palestine.
Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, considered the
Apocrypha of inferior value to the canonical books, but
he was persuaded to translate Tobit and Judith and to
incorporate from the Itala also Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch,
I and II Maccabees and the additions to Daniel and
Esther. Augustine, however, persuaded the African
Church to canonize these books. At the Eeformation
the Protestants maintained the stricter opinion of
Jerome. The Eoman Catholic Church on the other
hand at the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) affirmed the
equal canonical authority of all the books of the Vulgate.
The Greek Church took the same course at the Council
of Jerusalem (A.D. 1672). Luther included the
Apocrypha in his translation but with the preface:
" These are books not to be held in equal esteem with
holy scripture but yet good and useful for reading."
The influence of Calvin was against the Apocrypha.
In England however they were not excluded from the
editions of the British and Foreign Bible Society until
1825 after a sharp controversy.

36 OLD TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION

There are three principal arguments in defense of the
Apocrypha, as stated by Green (p. 181).

" 1. The Apocrypha were included in the early ver
sions of the scriptures.

" 2. They were read in the churches in public worship.

" 3. They were quoted by the fathers as divinely
authoritative."

Concerning the first of these arguments we reply :

Of the four great ancient versions, the Syriac
Peshitta did not include them and Jerome did not con
sider them canonical. Their inclusion in the Septuagint
cannot be due to a different view of the canon from that
in Palestine as is seen from three considerations.

(a) There is every indication of harmony between the
Jews of Palestine and Egypt, which could not be the
case if they differed on so vital a matter as the canon.

(&) Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, quotes extensively
from most of the canonic:! booko but neither quotes nor
mentions any of the Apocrypha.

(c) Josephus in the Lrgument against Apion, an
Alexandrian grammarian, enumerates the sacred books
but says nothing of the Apocrypha, as he would almost
certainly have done if the view of Egyptian Jews had
differed from that in Palestine on this subject.

Thus the ancient versions at most prove no higher
authority for the Apocrypha than that for example
which was conceded by Martin Luther. How they came
into the Septuagint we do not know, though it is con
ceivable that it arose from their being kept in rolls on
the same shelf with the sacred books.

In reply to the second argument, it is sufficient to state
that the reading of the Apocrypha in public worship by
no means implies their canonicity. Jerome clearly says :

THE CANON 37

" As therefore the Church reads the books of Judith,
Tobit, and Maccabees but does not receive them among
the canonical Scriptures, so it also reads these two vol
umes (Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification
of the people, but not for authority to prove the doc
trines of religion." Athanasius held a similar opinion.
There is no more evidence from this ancient custom for
the canonicity of the Apocrypha than there is for the
same view in the Church of England which appoints
certain lessons from the Apocryphal books " for example
of life and instruction of manners."

Concerning the quotations and references of the
fathers to the Apocrypha a few considerations are
important :

(a) A mere quotation of an Apocryphal book does not
imply that it was considered canonical.

(&) Many of the church fathers were careless in
quoting the Apocrypha by the formulas strictly belong
ing to sacred scripture. Such carelessness however
exists even in the writings of those fathers who elsewhere
declare explicitly against the Apocrypha. This in
accuracy may have been the result of the inclusion of
these books in the Septuagint and Vulgate.

(c) Even if it be proved that certain church fathers
quoted the Apocrypha as canonical we need only reply
that they were in error. Sufficient evidence is cited
elsewhere to show that such was not the general view of
the church in ancient times.

Wildeboer mentions several reminiscences of extra-
canonical books in the New Testament as evidence that
the New Testament writers considered those books
authoritative. He lays especial stress on seven quotations :

Matt. 27:9 " from an Apocryphal book of Jeremiau.

38 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION

Luke 11:49"| "manifestly quotations though we
John 7 : 38 >• are not able to identify the sources "
James 4:5 J (p. 53).

I Cor. 2 : 9 according to Origen from the Apocalypse
of Elias.

Eph. 5 : 14 according to Epiphanius from the Apoca
lypse of Elias.

Jude 14-16 from the Book of Enoch.

To these Buhl adds:

Heb 11 : 35 founded on II Mace. 6.

II Tim. 3:8) which he considers either from the
Heb. 11 : 37 ) Apocrypha or oral tradition.
Answer. — (a) Of the seven quotations claimed by

Wildeboer, not one is from a book contained in the
Septuagint. The books alluded to are not considered
canonical by any modern church. No argument can be
derived from their use for the canonicity of the Apocry
pha as found in the Septuagint or the Vulgate.

(&) The way the passages are quoted should be noted.
If, for example, Heb. 11 : 35 be shown to be an allusion
to II Mace. 6 it merely proves that the writer of the
epistle considered II Mace, a truthful historical record
— not that he considered it canonical. If Paul quoted
certain Greek authors with approval without affirming
their divine authority, these references to the Pseude-
pigrapha give no evidence that the books were canonical.
Reuss admits : " In all the New Testament no one has
been able to point out a single dogmatic passage taken
from the Apocrypha and quoted as proceeding from a
sacred authority" (pp. 8-9). In this conclusion Kyle
concurs (p. 154).

(c) The passages alluded to are not quotations. At
the most they are only bare allusions to certain books

THE CANON" 39

current at that time. Some of these allusions may have
been to oral traditions or the well-known facts of Israel's
history rather than to any Apocryphal record of that
history.

IX. The Three-fold Division of the Canon. Several
theories have been advanced to account for the arrange
ment of the books of the Hebrew scriptures.

1. The current critical view is -that the three divisions
indicate three stages of collection and canonization.

Answer. — This view does not account for the facts.
As will be shown under Special Introduction, several
books of the third division (Job, Proverbs, Song of Solo
mon, Euth, and many Psalms) are older than several
books in the second division (Kings, Ezekiel, Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi). Indeed according to Jewish
tradition inspiration ceased with Malachi. The second
division of the canon must therefore have remained open
till nearly all of the books of the third division were in
existence and hence canonical. Furthermore this theory
does not account for the names of the second and third
divisions. On what principle was the third division
begun? Why were not the books of the third division
admitted into the second instead of being placed by
themselves? For this the critics give no satisfactory
explanation.

2. The Jewish theologians assert that the three divi
sions of the canon correspond to three degrees of in
spiration. The highest form of inspiration was that of
Moses who spoke directly with God; the second that
of the prophets who wrote by the spirit of prophecy ; and
the lowest that of the other writers who were inspired
by the Holy Spirit.

Answer. — Such a distinction as this has no warrant

40 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

in the scriptures themselves. The prophets possessed
equal authority with Moses and the other writers with
the prophets. The distinction between the spirit of
prophecy and the Holy Spirit is purely imaginary.

3. Certain conservative writers distinguish the pro
phetic gift and the prophetic office. The books of those
who held the prophetic office were placed in the second
division, while the writings of those who had the gift
of prophecy but were not officially prophets were placed
in the third division. This theory is the most satis
factory.

A. It agrees with the true view concerning the test
of canonicity. The Old Testament books were imme
diately recognized as divinely authoritative, because their
authors were known as the official representatives of
God among His people. This fact made it important
to separate the writings of the prophets from the works
of those men who were inspired but were not prophets.

B. It accounts for the classification of Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, and Kings as the " Former Prophets."
These books cannot have been called Prophets from their
internal character. Buhl thinks that they were put in
the second division because they contained occasional
utterances of the prophets. Such a principle however
would have brought in Chronicles. The principle of
arrangement was evidently not in the contents of the
books but in the official status of their authors.

C. It also accounts for the separation of Daniel from
Ezekiel, his contemporary prophet, and the separation of
Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah from Samuel and Kings,
the other historical books. The books of Moses, the
founder of the theocracy, were placed by themselves,
then those of his successors, the prophets, and finally

THE CANOX 41

those of other inspired men not prophets. Some of these
were kings Kke David and Solomon, o.hers priests like
Ezra, and olhers were possessed of the spirit of prophecy
like Daniel.

Three serious objections are offered to this view.

A. Lamentations is found among the Kethubhim al
though it is considered the work of the prophet,
Jeremiah.

Answer. — It can be shown from the testimony of
Origen, Jerome, and probably Josephus that Lamenta
tions and Ru^h were often placed and counted with
Jeremiah and Judges. When so counted the number
of books was 22, the number of letters in the Hebrew
alphabet. When Euth and Lamentations were counted
separately the number was 24, the number of letters in
the Greek alphabet. The arrangement according to
the Hebrew alphabet was probably the older. Hence the
original position of Ruth and Lamentations was among
the Prophets because their authors held the prophetic
office. Later they were placed with the other three
short books which were also read in the synagogue on
certain feast and fast days. These five Megilloth were
arranged in the Hebrew Bibles in the order of the days
on which they were read in the synagogues : the Song of
Solomon at the Passover, Ruth at Pentecost, Lamenta
tions at the fast on the ninth of Ab, Ecclesiastes at the
Feast of Tabernacles, and Esther at Purim.

B. A greater difficulty is that of Daniel which is
found in the third division, although Daniel was a
prophet (Matt. 24: 15; Mark 13 : 14).

Answer. — Although Daniel possessed the spirit of
prophecy to a marked degree, his office and his work
were altogether exceptional. He was not among tl>»

42 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

exiles like Ezekiel but at the court of Babylon, and he
had to do with heathen kings rather than with the
people of Israel. In the New Testament, like David,
(Acts 2:29-30) he is called a prophet because of his
predictions.

C. The words of Amos 7:14 ("I was no prophet
neither was I a prophet's son ") are said to overthrow
the distinction between the prophetic gift and the
prophetic office. It is said that according to our prin
ciple Amos should be among the Kethubhim on his own
word.

Answer. — A careful reading of the context will show
that Amos does not deny his prophetic office. He is
speaking of what he was before God called him to be
a prophet; for immediately after this statement he
says, " The Lord took me as I followed the flock and
the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people,
Israel" (Amos 7:15). This was his commission as
a prophet, a commission which was never given to
Daniel.

II

THE TEXT

I. Languages of the Old Testament. The Old
Testament was written in the Hebrew language with
the exception of portions of Daniel (2:4 — 7:28) and
Ezra (4 : 8 — 6 : 19 ; 7 : 12 — 27) and a verse in Jeremiah
(10:11) which are Aramaic. There are also certain
Aramaic words in Gen. 31 : 47 and possibly elsewhere,
though many words and forms commonly considered
Aramaic may have been rare or archaic Hebrew.

II. The Semitic Languages. The family of lan
guages to which Hebrew and Aramaic belong is called
Semitic for convenience although on the one hand they
were not spoken by all Semitic people (Persia, Gen.
10:22), and on the other they were spoken by some
non-Semites (Phenicians, Gen. 10:15). Zimmern
classifies these languages as follows :

1. Babylonian-Assyrian, represented by cuneiform
documents from at least the fourth to the first mil
lennium before Christ.

2. Aramaic.

Ancient Aramaic inscriptions.
A. West Aramaic.

(1) Biblical Aramaic (Jewish Aramaic). [The

Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra is better
classified as East Aramaic.]

(2) Palmy rene Inscriptions.

43

14 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

(3) Nabatean Inscriptions.

(4) Jewish-Palestinian Aramaic.

(a) Jewish-Aramaic (Targum Onkelos, Tar-
gum Jonathan).

(6) Galilean- Aramaic (Jerusalem Talmud,
Jerusalem Targums and Midrash).

(5) Christian-Palestinian Aramaic (Galilean-

Aramaic).

(6) Samaritan.

(7) The modern Aramaic dialect of Ma'lula in

the Lebanon.
B. East Aramaic.

(1) Babylonian Aramaic (Babylonian Talmud).

(2) Mandsean.

(3) Syrian (of Edessa).

(4) The modern Aramaic dialects in Tur

JAbdin, in Assyria, in Kurdistan, and
on Lake Urmiah.

3. Canaanite.

(1) Canaanite glosses of the Tel-el- Amarna

letters.

(2) Phoenician (and modern Punic).

(3) Hebrew.

(a) Biblical Hebrew.

(6) Post-Biblical Hebrew.

(4) Moabite. (The Mesa Inscription).

4. Arabic.

A. North Arabic.

( 1 ) North Arabic inscriptions of different kinds.

(2) Classic ancient Arabic.

(3) Modern Arabic dialects. The Arabic of

Syria, Egypt, Tunis, Malta, and Oman.

THE TEXT 45

B. South Arabic.

(1) Minasan and Sabasan inscriptions.

(2) Modern South- Arabian dialects (Mehri).
5. Ethiopic.

(1) Ancient Ethiopic inscriptions.

(2) Ethiopic (Geez).

(3) Modern Ethiopic dialects,
(a) Tigre, Tigrina.

(6) Amharic.

(Vergleichende Grammatik, pp. 1-3.)

These five groups are by some reduced to two by
designating Arabic and Ethiopic as South-Semitic in
contrast to the others as North-Semitic. It was for
merly customary to divide them into the East-Semitic
(Babylonian- Assyrian) and the West-Semitic.

The Semitic languages are all derived from a single
parent language which disappeared in prehistoric
times. They are much more closely related to each
other than are the Indo-European languages, having
many things in common both in vocabulary and gram
matical structure. Though the original Semitic may
have come from a common source with the Indo-Euro
pean languages, the Semitic languages now possess
scarcely anything in common with the Indo-European.
There is however a close affinity between the Semitic
languages and the Egyptian and other Hamitic tongues
of Northeastern Africa. This is specially seen in the
personal pronouns, the numerals, and in the formation
of the verb.

Concerning the original home of the Semitic lan
guages, there is a wide difference of opinion. Yon

46 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

Kremer, Guidi, and Hommel by a careful study of the
words which the Semitic languages have in common,
and of those in which they differ, and which therefore
each language must have obtained after separation from
the parent stock, conclude that the original Semites
migrated to Babylonia from the regions south and
southwest of the Caspian Sea. The more probable
theory is that of Wright, Sayce, Schrader, and others,
that the Semites came into Babylonia from the south,
viz., from the Arabian peninsula — a view which is
supported by Semitic tradition. It is also confirmatory
of this theory, that though the youngest of the Semitic
languages, Arabic exhibits the least evidence of decay
and preserves the original grammatical structure more
nearly than any other Semitic language. All this
agrees admirably with Schrader's conception of the
migration of the primitive Semites from Arabia, as
outlined by William Wright : " He imagines the
northern Semites — i. e., the Aramseans, Babylonians,
and Canaanites — to have parted in a body from their
brethren in the south, and to have settled in Babylonia,
where they lived together for a long period. The
Aramaeans would be the first to separate from the main
body of emigrants; at a considerably later period, the
Canaanites; last of all the Assyrians. At the same
time an emigration would be going on in a southerly
direction. Leaving the northern Arabs in Central
Arabia, these emigrants would settle on the southern
coast of the peninsula whence a band of them subse
quently crossed the sea into Africa and pitched in
Abyssinia" (Comparative Semitic Grammar, p. 9).
A third theory has been advanced by Noldeke who
argues from the resemblance with the Hamitic Ian-

THE TEXT 47

guages that the home of the Semites may have been
in Africa (Sem. Sprache p. 11).

There are several peculiarities of the Semitic lan
guages in which they differ radically from the Indo-
European :

1. The Semitic alphabet consists exclusively of con
sonants, the vowels not being essential to the roots of
the words.

2. "Words in their various forms and inflections are
made chiefly by internal changes rather than by external
additions to the root. These internal changes are of
two kinds, the introduction of certain vowels, and the
doubling of certain consonants.

3. Eoots consist almost invariably of three letters.

4. The Semitic languages lack the exactness of ex
pression peculiar to the Indo-European, but on the
other hand they far excel all other languages in vivid
ness. They are weak in those connectives and particles
which give precision to language but very rich in words
and forms which indicate intensity and plurality or
which contain metaphors. They are concrete rather
than abstract and pictorial rather than logical. They
express the ruling element in the Semitic character
which was emotional rather than intellectual.

5. Finally the Semitic languages exhibit far less ten
dency to change than the Indo-European. This also
corresponds to the Semitic character which has kept
the Orient unchangeable in customs and dress for
thousands of years. Even where these languages have
come in contact with other languages through immigra
tion, commerce and conquest, they have resisted strongly
the tendency to change.

It has often been pointed out that on account of the

48 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION

last two of these peculiarities a Semitic language was
best adapted to be the medium of the early revelation
to mankind, since that revelation so largely took the
symbolic, pictorial form, and the preservation of the
contents of revelation unchanged was of the utmost
importance. When however revelation took the abstract
form and symbol gave place to reality, the New Testa
ment was given in the most exact of all languages, the
Greek.

A brief statement of the history of these languages
must suffice.

1. The Assyrian, or as some prefer to name it the
Babylonian, is the most ancient Semitic language in the
remains which we now possess. Through excavations
during the last half century we have a very large
number of documents in this language extending from
4000 B.C. or even earlier to about 500 B.C. when the
Assyrian yielded to the Persian. These remains include
rock inscriptions, royal histories inscribed on large clay
tablets, astronomical reports, the code of Hammurabi,
hymns, syllabaries, inscribed boundary stones and a
great mass of commercial contracts and letters upon
small clay tablets often inclosed in a clay envelope.
Though many of these antedate 1000 B.C. the great
majority belong to the five centuries succeeding that
time. As early as 1400 B.C. Assyrian was the political
language of western Asia and in it the governors of
Syria made their reports to their Egyptian master, as
preserved in the Tel-el- Amarna letters.

Although the Assyrian is the oldest known Semitic
tongue, even in its earliest form it shows evidence of
having undergone a long development. Doubtless this
is partly due to the influence of the ancient non-Semitic

THE TEXT 49

Surnerian language which it replaced. The old perfect
of the verb is almost lost as is also the distinction be
tween the guttural letters. Therefore although Assyrian
is not of great value grammatically in the study of
Semitic and especially of Hebrew, and we cannot agree
with those enthusiastic Assyriologists who consider it
the Sanskrit of the Semitic languages, we may expect
from its vocabulary increasing light upon the hapax
legomena of the Old Testament and from the contents
of its literature increasing confirmation of Old Testa
ment history. The language of the ancestors of Abra
ham, of the nation whose civilization overran Palestine
in the century before the Exodus, and which finally
conquered both the Northern and the Southern king
doms is of great importance to the study of the Old
Testament.

2. The original home of the Aramaic language was
probably on the southern part of the Tigris. From
there it gradually spread over all the western portion
of the great Assyrian empire. The name of the country
where this language was spoken is B^iK or Syria.
Aramaic was the language of Padan-Aram where Laban
lived and of the kingdom of Damascus which had such
frequent intercourse with Israel and Judah. It was the
popular tongue of a large part of the later Baby
lonian empire and was known to Daniel and Ezra. In
the Persian period its influence spread over Syria and
Palestine and reached even to Asia Minor, Arabia, and
Egypt. The Jews did not however change their own
language for Aramaic during the Exile, as was formerly
supposed, and the name Chaldee for the language of
Daniel and Ezra is altogether erroneous. The Jews
found Aramaic in Palestine upon their return and

50 OLD TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION

there it gradually replaced the Hebrew. Aside from
numerous inscriptions in the countries already men
tioned, the chief monument of Eastern Aramaic is
found in the portions of Daniel and Ezra. These are
quite near to the Hebrew. The later Western Aramaic
of the Targums and Talmud however differs widely
from this earlier form.

Since the Jews used the term Aramaean as a designa
tion for heathen, that name was rejected by the Syrian
Christians. In its place they called their language by
the Greek name Syrian or Syriac, a name which was
originally identical with Assyrian but later was con
fined by the Greeks to the western portion of the
Assyrian empire. The Syrian Christians also adopted
different letters from the Jewish, probably from an
Arabic source, and in this language we have the ancient
Syriac version of the scriptures called the Peshitta.
The Samaritan language was also a dialect of Aramaic
and it is spoken to-day in various forms in isolated
places of the East. Aramaic was the language of
Palestine in the time of Christ and probably of our
Lord himself.

3. The third group includes the languages of ancient
Canaan and especially Hebrew. Of all the Canaanite
nations and indeed of all people speaking Semitic lan
guages the Phenicians were the greatest traders. Their
ships went the entire length of the Mediterranean and
even to Britain and they made colonies in Cyprus, Sicily
northern Africa, and Spain. The oldest known inscrip
tions in Phenician, which is very similar to Hebrew,
date from the eighth century before Christ. Many
later ones have been found, especially in the neighbor
hood of Tyre and Sidon and of ancient Carthage.

THE TEXT 51

A. The name Hebrew is variously explained. It is
used in the Old Testament of the people and never of
their language. By some it is derived from "^y "be
yond," hence the people who came from beyond the
river Euphrates. Therefore Abram is called the
Hebrew (Gen. 14:13). Others trace it to Eber the
father of Peleg (Gen 11: 14). Whatever its derivation
the term Hebrew was used broadly of all Semites (Gen.
10:21) and of a people beyond the Euphrates (Num.
24:24). In later times it was the national name of
the chosen people as Israel was their covenant name.
This distinction gave place to that of Israel and Judah
from the schism of Jeroboam and onward. The lan
guage is called the language of Canaan (Isa. 19:18)
and the Jews' language (Isa. 36:11) in the Old Testa
ment but Hebrew in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus.
Aramaic is called Hebrew in the New Testament as the
language of the Hebrew people ( Jno. 5:2; Acts 21 : 40 ;
22 : 2, and probably Jno. 19 : 20).

B. Remains of Hebrew. The Old Testament is al
most the only classic Hebrew in existence. The lan
guage of the Moabite stone is indeed so similar to
Hebrew that it is classed as such by Eoediger and later
by Kautzsch in their editions of Gesenius' Hebrew Gram
mar. This inscription of thirty-four lines, discovered
in 1868 by a German missionary, F. A. Klein, at
Dibon, east of the Dead Sea, is now preserved in the
Louvre. Mesa, king of Moab (about 900 B.C.), records
thereon his battles with Israel and his buildings (II
Kings 3:4-5). Others designate this language Moab
ite. Another fragment of ancient Hebrew is the inscrip
tion of six lines found in 1880 in the tunnel between
the Pool of Siloam and the Virgin's Spring in Jerusa-

lem. This belongs to the eighth century B.C. (II
Kings 20:20). Besides these there are certain seals
engraved with proper names, some of them pre-
exilic, and a number of coins of John Hyrcanus (135
B.C.). The Mishna (200 A.D.) and many books of
later times were written by Jewish scholars in imita
tion of the Old Testament language, but such works
should no more be classed with Hebrew literature than
modern theological works in Latin with Latin literature.

C. History of Hebrew. The origin of the Hebrew lan
guage is involved in obscurity. Its similarity to the
language of the tribes which Israel conquered as evi
denced by the Canaanite glosses in the Tel-el-Amarna
letters, argues that Hebrew must have been the lan
guage of the patriarchs before their descent into Egypt
On the other hand, the fact that their kinsman Laban
spoke not Hebrew but Aramaic (Gen. 31:47) and that
Jacob is called an Aramaean (Deut. 26: 5) argues that
Abraham did not bring the Hebrew language with him
from Haran. The most probable explanation is that
Abraham found this language in Canaan. Since it was
so similar to Aramaic it was easily adopted by the three
generations of patriarchs who lived in Canaan. That
it was preserved during the four centuries in Egypt is
explained by the isolation of Israel in that land and the
probability that they remained in intercourse with the
inhabitants of southern Palestine.

From the time of Moses the history of the Hebrew
language can be traced in the Old Testament itself.
Ther? is not sufficient evidence for the conclusion that
there were different dialects of Hebrew in different parts
of Palestine, though the pronunciation of an Ephraimite
differed in some respects from that in Gilead (Judges

THE TEXT 53

12 : 6) just as in New Testament times a Galilean could
be distinguished by his speech (Matt. 26: 73; Luke 22:
59). There is however in Hebrew as in other languages
a sharp distinction between the language of prose and
that of poetry, the latter retaining many unusual words,
forms and constructions which had become obsolete in
prose.

The history of the language falls into two periods,
the dividing line being shortly before the Exile. The
books written before this time show comparatively little
change while those written later exhibit a rapid de
terioration from the purity of the older language. This
has been well described bv Green : " In the writings of

V O

Jeremiah and Zephaniah, there is a manifest decline.
The books of Daniel, Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah form
a striking contrast in point of purity of language with
the historical books written at an earlier date. The
books of Chronicles possess the characteristics of the
later Hebrew to a greater extent than the Kings, for
though the latter were written during the Exile, they
preserve more exactly the language of the older writings
upon which they are throughout based. Ezekiel pre
sents the greatest number of anomalies and foreign
forms. He lived and labored amongst the exiles and
probably reflects more exactly than any other writer
the actual deterioration which had taken place in the
language of common intercourse. The transition which
was going forward is also shown in the fact that Daniel
and Ezra are written partly in Hebrew and partly in
Aramaean. It is remarkable that in the prophets sub
sequent to the exile, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi,
the language is less infected with Aramasisms and ex
hibits a marked return toward the purity and correct-

54 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

ness of former times. This is doubtless due to their
study and imitation of earlier writers and not to any
improvement of the language as popularly spoken"
(General Introduction. The Text, pp. 21-22).

There is a difference of opinion concerning the date
when Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language, some
contending that it was replaced by Aramaic during the
Exile and others that it remained in use more or less
till the second century B.C. Both these views are ex
treme. The first is opposed by the fact that the post-
Exilic prophets used Hebrew as the language of
the people, and the other by the Aramaeisms of the
Exilic prophets and the Aramaic portions of Ezra and
Daniel.

We know that Aramaic was known to Jewish courtiers
in the days of Hezekiah 701 B.C. (II Kings 18:26).
But the process of change from Hebrew to Aramaic
must have been a slow one, beginning before the Exile
and continuing a century or more after it. Yet
many must have understood Aramaic before Hebrew
ceased to be spoken, as is shown by the fact that the
authors of Ezra and Daniel wrote in both languages.

D. Hebrew Letters. The present square characters
of our Hebrew printed Bibles were not the original
ones. The Siloam inscription and the Maccabean coins
were written in another form which is very similar to
that which has been preserved in the Samaritan Penta
teuch. According to the best authorities these older
letters were derived from the Phenicians. It is im
possible to determine accurately when they gave place
to the square letters. The reference of our Lord to
yodh as the smallest letter of the alphabet seems to
indicate that the same letters were in use in his time

THE TEXT 55

as in ours (Matt. 5:18). Probably their introduction
was a gradual process completed not later than a
century before Christ.

E. Vowel Points and Accents. The vowel points and
accents are also a later addition in Hebrew as in Arabic
and Syriac. The variation of the Septuagint and
Origen's Hexapla in the transliteration of proper names
shows that they did not possess the vowel points. Syna
gogue manuscripts never have them. The earliest trace
of their existence is in a manuscript of the Latter
Prophets dated 916 A.D. discovered by Firkowitsch in
1839. On the other hand the Talmud which was com
pleted in the fifth century gives no evidence of their
existence. Doubtless the vowel points and accents were
introduced by the Massorites not earlier than the sixth
century, in order to perpetuate the ancient tradition
concerning the meaning and pronunciation of the sacred
text.

F. The Study of Hebrew. Since the completion of
the Old Testament canon the Hebrew language has been
the subject of study, first among Jews and then
among Christians. The scribes, who were the successors
of Ezra, busied themselves with the sacred text. After
the destruction of Jerusalem, schools for the study of
the sacred language were established in the east and
flourished there nearly a thousand years. Their stu
dents are called the Massorites or students of the Mas-
sorah, tradition. From them came the Targums, the
Talmud, the system of vowel points and accents, and the
Iceri notes. About 1000 A.D. the Jewish schools in
Spain began to be prominent, especially at Grenada,
Toledo and Barcelona. These scholars studied the
grammar and lexicon of the language scientifically and

56 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

many of the grammatical terms in modern use came
from them. The most famous grammarians of this
period were David Kimchi of Narbonne, France (1160-
1232 A.D.) and Elias Levita who died at Venice in
1549.

Among Christians there was a prejudice against the
study of Hebrew in the post-Apostolic age. Origen in
the east and Jerome in the west are the only church
fathers who pursued it. The same ignorance of the
language continued until the Reformation, when with
the revival of learning, a new interest in this study arose,
under Jewish teaching. The most eminent of these
Reformation scholars was John Reuchlin, whose grain-
mar appeared in 1506. All the Reformers however
were acquainted with Hebrew, but for more than a
century after the Reformation the Christian study of
Hebrew followed Jewish methods and accepted Jewish
results. Johann Buxtorf (1564-1629), Professor at
Basel, and his son of the same name (1599-1664) added
much to the knowledge of Hebrew, the former produc
ing a Hebrew grammar and lexicon as well as a Rabbinic
Bible. Albert Schultens (1686-1750), Professor at
Leyden, was the first to make use of Arabic extensively
in the study of Hebrew. He with N. W. Schroder
(died 1798) were the leaders of the Dutch school. In
the nineteenth century the language has been studied
more scientifically than ever before. Of the many
Hebraists of modern times the most important are
William Gesenius (1786-1842) of Halle whose lexicon
and grammar have gone through many editions to the
present time, G. H. A. Ewald (1803-1875) of Gottingen
who attempted a rational explanation of the phenomena
of the language and Justus Olshausen (1800-1882) of

THE TEXT 5?

Berlin who traced Hebrew words and forms to primitive
Semitic as perpetuated in Arabic.

4. Arabic. This branch of the Semitic family of
languages is divided into the North and South Arabic.

A. North Arabic was the language whose original
home was in the northern and central portion of that
vast peninsula. Though the peoples of northern Arabia
are known to have engaged in wars with Assyria, Persia
and Rome, we have as yet no knowledge of the language
in those ancient times, except a few inscriptions perhaps
of the time of the Ptolemies. The Arabs who lived in
the ancient Nabathean Kingdom east of the Dead Sea
(Isa. 60:7) shortly before and after Christ, spoke
Aramaic. Yet their native language often shows itself
through the adopted tongue. And their Arabic was
evidently very similar to the classic language. In the
sixth century of our era the Arabic was essentially the
same throughout all the Northern portion of the penin
sula. From this period come a large number of poetic
rhapsodies in the purest form of the language. The
military conquests of Mohammed and his fanatical fol
lowers within a hundred years carried the standard of
the prophet as far east as India and westward through
all northern Africa and into Spain. The Koran was
written in Koraish, the language of the tribe to which
the prophet belonged. Its style is in imitation of the
poets of the previous century. This became the sacred
classic language for the entire Mohammedan world. It
fixed the language in a stereotyped form from which
there has been very slight variation even to the present
day. It is true that considerable variety exists in
pronunciation, for example between Egypt and Syria,
and the common people carelessly drop the vowel sounds

58 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

at the end of words. Nevertheless the written language
to-day is everywhere practically identical with that of
the prophet. It is spoken in its purest form by the
Bedouin of the desert and is most corrupted in Malta,
in which island is found the only dialect of Arabic
spoken exclusively by Christians.

Concerning the extent of Arabic literature, the great
est of modern Arabic scholars, William Wright, has
said : " There are few, if any, nations of ancient and
medieval Europe which can boast of a literature like
the Arabic, especially in history, geography, philosophy,
and other sciences, to say nothing of poetry, and of the
peculiar systems of theology and law which depend upon
the Koran and the Sunnah" (Comparative Semitic
Grammar, p. 27). The Arabic is distinguished among
the Semitic languages not only for its extensive litera
ture but the great wealth of its vocabulary and the
remarkable simplicity and richness of its grammatical
structure. On these accounts it is of more value than
any other language to the student of Hebrew.

B. South Arabic was the language of the ancient
kingdom of Saba or Sheba, mentioned in the Old Testa
ment (I Kings 10:1; Job 1:15; Joel 3:8) on the
southern coast of Arabia. It is also called Himyaritic
and includes the ancient language of the provinces of
Yemen, Hadramaut (Gen. 10:26) and Mahrah. It is
known to us in its pure form only from inscriptions
whose dates are probably from the second century before
to the fifth century after Christ. In Yemen this lan
guage yielded early to Northern Arabic, but the eastern
provinces retained their language longer, and the modern
dialects of southeastern Arabia as far as the island of
Sokotra differ considerably from pure Arabic.

THE TEXT 59

5. Ethiopia was the language of Abyssinia, an ancient
Himyaritic colony, and it is classed by many in the same
group with Arabic. Its ancient name was Geez. The
oldest remains of it are royal inscriptions which date
from 350-500 A.D. Noldeke thinks that the first mis
sionaries to Abyssinia must have spoken Aramaic.
Thus he accounts for the traces of Aramaic especially
in the religious vocabulary of Geez. The translation of
the Bible into Ethiopic belongs to the fourth and fifth
centuries. From this time until about 1000 A.D. it
continued to be the language of the people, but after
this time it was cultivated only by the priests and as
the language of the schools. The modern representa
tives of Ethiopic in the order of their nearness to the
mother-tongue are the three dialects of Tigre, Tigrina,
and Amharic. Apart from Arabic the last-named
dialect is spoken by more people than any other Semitic
language, its territory extending far to the south.
Many of those speaking it however are not Semites
and well-nigh half its vocabulary is derived from non-
Semitic languages. Its literature is confined to a
few songs of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries
and books of European missionaries in the nineteenth
century.

III. Hebrew Manuscripts. The manuscripts of the
Old Testament are of two kinds, synagogue rolls and
private manuscripts. The former were used for reading
in the public worship. They accordingly included only
those parts read in the synagogue, viz., the Pentateuch,
selections from the Prophets and the five Megilloth.
The Law was commonly in a roll by itself, then the
Haphtaroth or selections from the Prophets and the
five small books in as many small rolls. According to

60 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

the Talmud the utmost care was taken in the prepara
tion of these rolls, the rules governing the kind of
parchment and ink, the formation of the letters and
columns, and the correction of the manuscript. If four
errors were found on one page of a manuscript it was
rejected. When these manuscripts became old they
were placed in the Geniza, or lumber-room of the syna
gogue. Not many of them have come into Christian
hands.

Private manuscripts were also prepared with great
care and many of them are beautifully adorned with
handsome initial letters and marginal pictures. They
are often accompanied by marginal additions such as
the Massora, a Targum or Arabic version, or a Rabbinic
commentary. Sometimes they are upon rolls but more
often in book form and rarely is the entire Old
Testament contained in a single volume.

The determination of the age of Hebrew manuscripts
is a very difficult matter. Often they are undated and
one must depend entirely upon the known antiquity of
some marginal doxology or other formula. The dates
attached to many manuscripts are difficult to interpret,
for they count from different eras and often the
thousands and even the hundreds are omitted. Fur
thermore dates are sometimes added to them or existing
dates altered, in order to increase their value. There
are also many extravagant stories concerning the age
of some manuscripts. The known manuscripts of the
Old Testament are not nearly so numerous as those
of the New Testament. Nor are they so old as the
Greek manuscripts or even the manuscripts of some Old
Testament versions. The oldest dated manuscript is
the St. Petersburg Codex of A.D. 916 which contains

THE TEXT 61

the Latter Prophets. A facsimile of this codex has
been edited by Professor Strack (St. Petersburg 1876).
Ginsburg however considers the manuscript in the
British Museum, known as Oriental 4445 to date from
A.D. 820-850. This contains 186 folios of which 55
were lost and replaced, according to a note, in A.D.
1540. The Codex of Moses ben Asher from about 890-
895 A.D. is said to be kept by the Karaite Jews in Cairo
and that of his son Aaron ben Asher is said to be in
the possession of the Jews in Aleppo. The former of
these contains only the Prophets, the latter the entire
canon. The oldest manuscript of the entire Old Testa
ment is one of the Firkowitsch collection dated A.D.
1010. An examination of several hundred manuscripts
has resulted in rinding no important variations — far
fewer than are found in New Testament codices.

The Samaritan Pentateuch should also be classed
among Hebrew codices, since it is not a translation of
the Pentateuch into the Samaritan language, but the
Hebrew original written in Samaritan letters. The
first copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch to reach Europe
was brought thither from the Samaritan community in
Damascus by the Italian traveler Peter della Valle in
1616 A.D. It was published in the Paris Polyglott
(1645) and the London Polyglott (1657). The copy
preserved in the synagogue at Nablus is said to have
been written by Abishua, the great-grandson of Aaron.
The oldest known manuscript of the Samaritan Penta
teuch is in the New York Public Library. Its date is
1232 A.D.

There has been much discussion concerning the origin
and reliability of the Samaritan Pentateuch. These
questions depend largely upon the origin of the Samari-

62 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

tans themselves. They are not descendants of Israelites
of the northern kingdom but of the colonists whom the
king of Assyria sent to Samaria after its capture and
the exile of its inhabitants (II Kings 17: 24-25). These
colonists adopted the worship of Jehovah (II Kings
17:25-29) and when the exiles returned to Jerusalem,
the Samaritans offered to assist them in rebuilding the
temple (Ezra 4:1-2). This being refused they set up
a rival temple on Mount Gerizim, which they now affirm
was built in Joshua's day. In the seventeenth century
they had small communities in Cairo, Gaza, and Damas
cus but now there remain only three hundred of them
at Xablus. They have always hated the Jews and yet
claimed descent from them. The old view that their
Pentateuch comes from that which existed in the
northern kingdom before Sargon captured Samaria, is
now generally abandoned. We know however that the
Pentateuch existed in the kingdom of Israel from the
pre-exilic prophets of that kingdom (Hosea and Amos)
and it is difficult to understand how the Samaritans
were taught the religion of the land without receiving
its sacred books (II Kings 17:28). The commonly
accepted theory of the origin of the Samaritan Penta
teuch is based upon an incident mentioned by Josephus
— that Manasses, brother of the high-priest at Jerusa
lem, married the daughter of Sanballat, governor
of Samaria, and being excommunicated, fled to Samaria
and set up the rival worship at Mt. Gerizim. This
statement of Josephus probably rests upon Neh. 13 : 28.
It is supposed that this Manasses took the Pentateuch
with him to Samaria. If this theory be the true one,
the rejection of the later books by the Samaritans is
due to the fact that those books sanction the worship

THE TEXT 63

at Shiloh and Jerusalem. In order to substantiate the
false claims of Mt. Gerizim the Samaritans also altered
the text of the Pentateuch.

The Samaritan Pentateuch varies in many passages
from the Massoretic text and a careful examination has
revealed the fact that many of these readings agree
with the Septuagint against the Hebrew. From this
some have concluded that the Septuagint was made
from a Samaritan codex and others that both were
derived from a common source which differed radically
from the Massoretic text. The large number of diverg
ences from the Septuagint makes these views untenable.
Probably the Samaritan codex was altered to conform
to the Septuagint in order to strengthen its claims,
when the Septuagint was held in high esteem. Formerly
scholars were disposed to extol the Samaritan text as
representing the most ancient tradition. Since it has
been found to be comparatively modern and that the
manuscripts differ between themselves much more than
Hebrew manuscripts, the old view has changed. Buhl
expresses a conservative conclusion: "The Samaritan
text has been so disfigured by errors of transcription
and by arbitrary treatment, that its critical importance
is very much restricted" (p. 89).

There is a version of the Samaritan Pentateuch in
the Samaritan language dating from about the second
century A.D. and an Arabic version from the eleventh
or twelfth century.

IV. Divisions of the Hebrew Text. These are of
four kinds.

1. Verses. These are of Jewish origin and antedate
the Talmud. The Jews marked the end of the verse
by placing a perpendicular line called Silluk under the

64 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

last word and two dots called Soph Pasuk (" end of the
verse") in a perpendicular position after it. The
numbering of the verses was adopted from Robert
Stephen's edition of the Vulgate (1555 A.D.).

2. Paragraphs or Parashas. These are also ancient.
They are of two kinds — open and closed. Open para
graphs are those in which there is a change of thought.
In manuscripts the remainder of the line before an
open paragraph is left open. If this space equals that
of three triliteral words the open parasha begins at the
extreme right of the next line, but if not another entire
line is left vacant. A closed parasha indicates a slighter
change of thought and may begin on the same line
with the end of the previous parasha. These rules are
generally ignored in printed editions. In some manu
scripts and most printed Hebrew Bibles open paragraphs
are marked by a a ( '"^ina — open) in the space at the
beginning and closed paragraphs by ao( n?^?= closed).
This custom however is of later origin.

3. Synagogue Lessons. These are of two systems.
According to the Palestinian custom the Pentateuch was
read through on the Sabbath once in three years. Ac
cordingly it was divided into 154 to 167 sections called
Sedarim ( ^l1? ). These are ignored in most manu
scripts and printed editions, since the Babylonian
method prevailed over that in Palestine. According to
the Babylonian system there are 54 sections in the
Pentateuch called Perashiyoth ( ni'tftB ) allowing for
reading the entire law in one year. In many manu
scripts and printed copies these Perashiyoth are indi
cated by a thrice repeated a if their beginning coincides
with the beginning of an open paragraph, and by a thrice
repeated D if it coincides with the beginning of a closed

THE TEXT 65

paragraph. Perashiyoth are named like the books of
the Pentateuch from their opening words. Certain
sections of the prophets called Haphtaroth ("dismis
sals") were read after the reading of the law on the
Sabbath. They are not, however, indicated in the text
but at the close of our printed editions is a table stating
what haphtara should be read after each parasha.

4. Chapters. This division • is of Christian origin,
having been used first in the Vulgate in the thirteenth
century. Rabbi Solomon ben Ishmael (about 1330
A.D.) numbered the chapters according to the Christian
mode to facilitate reference, but it was not until much
later that this division was generally adopted. It is
found in the Bomberg Bible of 1517.

V. Versions, There are four ancient versions of the
Old Testament which were made directly from the
Hebrew: the Greek Septuagint, the Aramaic Targums,
the Syriac Peshitta, and the Latin Vulgate, of which
the last two include also the New Testament.

1. The Septuagint, also called the Alexandrian ver
sion, from the city of its origin, is not only the oldest
known translation of the Jewish scriptures but the
oldest known translation of any book. The exact time
of the Septuagint is unknown. It is fixed, however,
between two dates. The prologue of the book of Eccle-
siasticus (130 B.C.) alludes to "the law, the prophets
and the rest of the books" as already translated into
Greek. This date is, therefore, the latest to which this
version can be brought. On the other hand the letter
of Aristeas, which Buhl dates earlier than 198 B.C.,
gives an account of the origin of the Septuagint. This
Aristeas is said to have been an officer of Ptolemy II,
Philadelphus (B.C. 284-247) and the letter was written

66 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

to his brother Philocrates. The story is as follows:
Demetrius Phalereus persuaded the king to have the
Jewish Law translated into Greek. The king sent
Aristeas with a guard to Eleazar the High Priest at
Jerusalem to request a copy of the Law and competent
translators. The High Priest sent seventy-two men, six
from each tribe, and a copy of the Law written in golden
letters. Ptolemy sent the men to the island of Pharos
where they finished the translation in seventy-two
days.

According to Philo these translators were inspired,
and certain church fathers as well as the Talmud affirm
that, though made independently, their translations
were found to be exactly alike. This story is not worthy
of credence. It serves however to show that the Penta
teuch was translated into Greek in Alexandria about
250 B.C. The varying excellence of the translation in
other books indicates that they were not all done by the
same men nor at the same time. The Pentateuch,
Former Prophets, and Psalms are well rendered, but
the translation of the other books is either slavishly
literal, as in Ecclesiastes, or very free, as in Daniel and
elsewhere. The most natural conclusion is that the
Septuagint was a gradual work occupying the century
from 250 to 150 B.C. Considering the times the work
was remarkably well done, but it is not in every part a
translation in the modern sense. No sharp distinction
was made in those days between the work of translation
and that of interpretation. Thus the Septuagint is in
some places a translation, in others a paraphrase, and
in others a running commentary. It bears many evi
dences of its Jewish origin, but none, as some have
affirmed, of the influence of Greek philosophy.

THE TEXT 67

The Septuagint at first was welcomed by the Jews.
There is not, however, sufficient ground for the assertion
that it was used in the synagogues of Palestine. Never
theless Josephus used it extensively, and we know from
the New Testament that it must have been familiar to
many other Palestinian Jews. In later times when con
troversies arose between the Jews and the Christians, the
latter referred to the Septuagint and the former to the
original Hebrew. Thus the Jewish view concerning the
Septuagint gradually changed to one of bitter dislike.
They affirmed that the Christians altered the Greek text
to support their views and the same contention was
made by the Christians, that the Jews altered the
Hebrew original.

The text of the Septuagint soon became corrupt and
in the time of Origen (254 A.D.) there were, according
to his testimony, almost as many readings as there were
manuscripts. Accordingly that great scholar attempted
in his Hexapla to restore the original Greek and to show
its relation to the Hebrew. He placed the Septuagint
in parallel columns with the Hebrew. Origen however
did not succeed in unifying the Alexandrian text. He
marked the passages where the Septuagint differed from
the Hebrew and even added within marks words wanting
in the Greek. Later revisions of the Septuagint were
made by Lucian of Samosata, the founder of the Anti-
ochian school (martyred 311 A.D.), and Hesychius, an
Egyptian bishop (also martyred 311 A.D.). These
various recensions themselves became corrupted. The
result was greater and greater confusion which has only
been partly cleared up in modern times. The first
printed edition of the Septuagint was that in the Com-
plutensian Polyglott (1514-1517 A.D.). This was fol-

68 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

lowed by that of Aldus Manutius in 1518 A.D. Tha
principal manuscripts of the Septuagint are the Codex
Vaticanus, in Kome, the Codex Alexandrinus in the
British Museum, and the Codex Sinaiticus in the Im
perial Library at St. Petersburg, all of which have beer*,
published in facsimile. The best recent printed edition
is that of H. B. Swete which largely follows the Codex
Vaticanus.

Many ancient versions were made from the Septua
gint, the most important of which were the Latin Itala
made in North Africa in the second century A.D., the
Syro-Hexaplaric made in Alexandria, 617-618 A.D., the
Gothic by Bishop Ulfilas, 311-381 A.D., the Ethiopia in
the fifth century, the three Egyptian versions in the
three dialects (the Sahidic of Upper Egypt, the Coptic
of Central Egypt and the Bohairic of Lower Egypt)
about 400 A.D., the Armenian from the beginning of the
fifth century, and certain Arabic versions found in the
Paris and London Polyglotts.

There are three ancient Greek versions later than the
Septuagint of which only portions have come down to
us. The oldest of these is that of Aquila, probably a
Jewish proselyte of Pontus in the middle of the second
century A.D. Jerome says that he was a pupil of Rabbi
Akiba. His translation was slavishly literal. It had
wide circulation among the Jews and was directed
polemically against the Christians, as is proven by its
rejection of the translation Xpiards for T^ The trans
lation of Theodotion (180-192 A.D.) was an attempt
to improve upon the Septuagint. It is doubtful whether
the author was a Jew or an Ebionite. At any rate his
version found little acceptance among the Jews. Among
Christians it was highly thought of and largely used

THE TEXT 69

for the emendation of the Septuagint. His translation
of Daniel finally took the place of the Septuagint.
Origen gave the version of Theodotion a place in the
Hexapla. The third Greek translation is that of Sym-
machus, an Ebionite, who flourished in the reign of
Severus (193-211 A.D.) His translation adheres
neither to the Hebrew nor the Septuagint but is in good
Greek. The only Apocryphal additions in any of these
three versions are the postscript to the Book of Job
and the additions to Daniel in the version of Theod
otion.

2. The Targums were renderings of Old Testament
books into Aramaic. The word Targum is derived from
an Aramaic root meaning to explain, the same root from
which came the modern word dragoman. It occurs in
Ezra 4 : 7. The Targums arose by a gradual process
after Hebrew ceased to be the popular language of the
Jews. Besides the reader in the synagogue an officer
was appointed called a fl?3.")^"1*? or interpreter, whose
duty it was after the reading of each verse in the Pen
tateuch, and after three verses in the Prophets, to render
it into the language of the people. At first this was
done orally, though private use may have been made of
written translations. Later these renderings became
fixed and conventional. The Targums were a long time
attaining the form in which we possess them. They
are not the work of any one time or a single group of
men, but represent the customary synagogue renderings
in different parts of the ancient Jewish world.

None of the Targums covers all the Old Testament
but between them we have Aramaic renderings of all
the books except Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. These
were not made into Aramaic because of the Aramaic por-

70 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

tions of Daniel and Ezra, jSTehemiah being classed as one
with Ezra.

There is mention of a Targum on Job in the time of
Christ and it is probable that other Targums existed in
his day. The dates of the Targums are difficult to
determine. The oldest and best Targum on the Penta
teuch is the one falsely assigned to Onkelos by a confu
sion of that name with Aquila, the author of the Greek
version. This Targum was composed in the second half
of the second century A.D. in Palestine, but did not
receive official sanction there. It was accepted by the
Jews in Babylon and called their own. Some scholars
affirm that it was composed in Babylon. For the most
part it is a simple translation of the Hebrew, though
the poetical portions are more freely rendered or even
paraphrased. It was printed at Bologna in 1483
without vowels and in 1491 with vowels.

Two later Targums on the Pentateuch are based upon
that of Onkelos. One is commonly called the Pseudo-
Jonathan because its author was falsely thought to have
been the Jonathan who wrote the Targum on the
Prophets. The other we possess only in fragments. It
is called the Jerusalem Targum. Both these contain
many legendary additions and are far inferior to that
of Onkelos. Zunz assigns the Jerusalem Targum to the
seventh century.

The oldest Targum on the Prophets is named for
Jonathan ben Uzziel, a pupil of Hillel in the beginning
of the first century A.D, though this authorship is very
doubtful. It is much freer than the rendering of
Onkelos and often amounts to a running commentary
upon the text. In the historical books of the Former
Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) the

THE TEXT 71

translation adheres more closely to the original. It was
first printed in 1494. A small fragment of another
Targum on the Prophets called the Jerusalem is pre
served on the margin of a manuscript called 154 by
Kennicott.

There is a Targum on Psalms, Proverbs and Job
which is falsely ascribed to Rabbi Joseph (A.D. 325)
but is much later than his time. The portion from
Proverbs is quite literal and is thought by Eichhorn to
have been made from the Peshitta.

The Targums on the Megilloth and on Chronicles
probably belong to an ancient Jerusalem Targum on the
Kethubhim. Especially in the Song of Solomon they
exhibit the utmost freedom, being really a paraphrastic
commentary.

The Targums are valuable as indicating the current
Jewish exegesis of their time but of small worth in
determining questions of textual criticism.

3. The Peshitta, or old Syriac version, was so-called
because it was the one in " common " use or because it
was " simple " in giving the original meaning. The
date of its origin is uncertain. The Christian church
in the regions about Edessa was founded not later than
150 A.D. Since the people of that region were not
acquainted with Greek it seems possible that this trans
lation was made in the last half of the second century,
although no sure evidence of its existence is known
before 350 A.D. The translators follow the Hebrew
closely but the version of the Chronicles reads like a
Jewish Targum. From both these facts some have con
sidered the Peshitta the work of Jews. On the other
hand the uniform tradition of the Syrian church and the
un-Jewish accuracy of the translation argue for a Chris-

72 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

tian origin. The similarity of the Syriac to Hebrew
would account sufficiently for the Syrians' knowledge of
the original. The hypothesis that the translators were
Jewish Christians is plausible. The version of the
Chronicles may have been taken from a Jewish source.

In many passages the Peshitta corresponds closely to
the Septuagint. Some have concluded that it was made
with special use of that version. There are, however,
more passages in which it varies from the Septuagint.
The high esteem in which the Septuagint was held even
in Syria is shown by the later introduction of the Syro-
Hexaplaric version. Thus the Peshitta may have been
altered in conformity with the Septuagint. It is not
equal to that version in its best parts but is much more
even in its excellence. Like the Septuagint it was made
by a number of men. It included originally only the
canonical books, but the Apocrypha were added at an
early date.

The Syro-Hexaplaric version was made from the Sep
tuagint as found in Origen's Hexapla by the Monophy-
site bishop, Paul of Telia, in 618 A.D. From that time
it was used by the Monophysites and the Peshitta by
the Nestorians. The Syro-Hexaplaric is slavishly literal
and often transfers Greek words into the Syriac text.

The similarity of the Peshitta to the Septuagint in
many passages destroys its value as an independent
witness to the original text. Yet the faithfulness of its
rendering in other passages, where the Septuagint is
weak, renders it an important link in the chain of his
tory. All printed editions go back to the Paris (1645)
and London (1657) Polyglotts and are rare. A new
critical edition is greatly needed.

4. The Vulgate Latin version has received its name

THE TEXT 73

from the name Koiv-ij, which was formerly applied to the
Septuagint as the version in common use. This name
was transferred to Jerome's version for the same reason
in the thirteenth century. Jerome (346-420 A.D.) at
first intended only to revise the current Itala version
which had been made from the Septuagint and whose
manuscripts were full of variations. At the request of
Damasus, Bishop of Rome, he revised the Psalms (A.D.
383). This revision is still used in the church of St.
Peter in Rome and is called the Roman Psalter. Then
Jerome proceeded to Caesarea where he found the text
of the Septuagint in Origen's Hexapla. With this aid
he made another version of the Psalms called the Galli-
can Psalter because of its extensive use in Gaul. He
also rendered many other Old Testament books with the
help of the Hexapla but all have been lost except the
Book of Job.

Thence Jerome went to Bethlehem where he acquired
a knowledge of Hebrew from Jewish teachers at con
siderable expense. There he made his memorable trans
lation during fifteen years (390-405 A.D.). As the
various books appeared he was urged by many of
his friends, Augustine among them, not to depart
from the Septuagint for which a superstitious reverence
existed in his day. To these entreaties he partially
yielded. He also consented to translate Tobit and
Judith and to incorporate the other Apocrypha, al
though he clearly affirmed their inferiority to the
canonical books.

For a long time the Itala was used side by side with
the Vulgate. Gradually the superior excellence of the
latter made itself felt and by 700 A.D. it had practically
supplanted the Itala. Their co-existence contributed

74 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

greatly to the corruption of the text of the Vulgate.
Familiar passages from the Itala found their way into
the Vulgate and it became customary to add the Itala
reading to that of Jerome. Many attempts to unify the
text of the Vulgate were made. Lists of variations were
compiled and the religious orders busied themselves with
this herculean task. After the invention of printing
and after the Reformation, new motives arose for the
completion of this work. In 1546 the Council of Trent
decreed that " the Vulgate which had been approved in
the church by the long use of so many centuries should
be held authentic in public reading, controversy, preach
ing and exposition, and that no one should dare or
presume to reject it on any pretext whatever."

This made the editing of an authorized edition neces
sary. The Council appointed a commission for this
purpose. They had scarcely begun their work when
Pope Paul III ordered them to cease and send their
manuscript to Eome. In 1563 the Council of Trent
adjourned and Pope Pius IV confirmed its decrees.
Later attempts on the part of scholars and publishers
to secure a pure text of the Vulgate came to nothing.
In 1587 Pope Sixtus V summoned another commission
for this purpose and superintended their work with
great care. This was published in 1590 with a bull
declaring that this edition " is to be received and held
as true, legitimate, authentic and undoubted in all public
and private controversies, readings, preachings, and
expositions/' and prohibiting all other editions both
past and future. Sixtus died in the year of this publi
cation. Certain scholars prevailed upon succeeding
popes to forbid the use of this edition until desired
changes had been made. Finally Clement VIII in 1592

THE TEXT 75

published this amended edition of the work of Sixtus V
affirming in the preface, contrary to the facts of history,
that it was the edition of Sixtus V. Such is the
authorized edition of the Vulgate.

Despite its leanings toward the Septuagint and the
great corruption of the text of the Vulgate, even in its
modern form, it is the best and in some respects the
most valuable of all ancient versions. It was the first
book printed, an edition appearing in Mayence in 1450
and another dated edition in 1462.

VI. Printed Editions and Polyglotts. The oldest
printed editions of the Hebrew Bible were from Jewish
sources. An imperfect edition of the Psalms appeared
in 1477 at Bologna. In 1488 the entire Bible was
printed at Soncino. From this was derived the Brescia
Bible in 1494 which Luther used in translating the Old
Testament. Luther's copy is preserved in the Eoyal
Library at Berlin. The principal Rabbinical Bibles
(that is, those containing the Targums, Massora, or
Eabbinical commentaries) are those of Bomberg which
follows the Soncino Bible (Venice 1517, second edition
1525) and Buxtorf which follows the Complutensian
text and that of Bomberg (Basel 1618). The best
critical editions (those which contain the various read
ings) are those of Houbigant (Paris 1753) and Kenni-
cott (Oxford 1776-80). De Eossi published his Variae
Lectiones separate from the text at Parma (1784). The
Athias edition (Amsterdam 1661-67) collated many
ancient manuscripts not hitherto used. It was followed
by Vander Hooght's (Amsterdam 1705) upon whose
text the modern Hebrew Bibles rest. The best recent
editions are those of Hahn, Theile, Baer and Delitzsch,
Ginsburg and Kittel.

76 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION

A Polyglott presents the Massoretic text and several
ancient versions in parallel columns. In ancient times
Origen had set the example for this in his Hexapla
which included the Hebrew text, its transliteration in
Greek letters, the Septuagint and the versions of Aquila,
Theodotion, and Symmachus. In modern times there
have been four great polyglotts — the Complutensian,
Antwerp, Paris and London.

1. The Complutensian Polyglott receives its name
from Complutum (Alcala) in Spain, where it was pre
pared by Cardinal Ximenes assisted by several scholars
of the University of Toledo and under the patronage of
Pope Leo X. It was printed in 1514-1517, but the com
plete work was not published until after the death of the
Cardinal in 1522. It is in six volumes. The first, on
the Old Testament, contains the first edition of the
Hebrew text issued under Christian auspices, the Vul
gate, the Septuagint, and the Targum of Onkelos. In
the sixth volume is a Hebrew grammar. There were
six hundred copies published, most of which are now
lost. The original manuscripts are in the library of the
University of Madrid.

2. The Antwerp Polyglott, or Biblia Eegia, was is
sued partly at the expense of Philip II of Spain in
1569-1572. It contains eight folio volumes, adding to
the contents of the Complutensian Polyglott the Targum
of Jonathan on the Prophets and a Targum on the
Kethubhim, besides lexicons and treatises on Biblical
subjects. Of this five hundred copies were printed.
Like the Complutensian it is now very rare.

3. The Paris Polyglott, containing ten folio volumes,
appeared in 1645. It follows the text of the Complu
tensian and Antwerp editions but adds also the Samari-

THE TEXT 77

tan Pentateuch and version, the Peshitta, and an
Arabic version. Of this, many copies are still extant.

4. The London Polyglott, edited by Bishop Brian
Walton in 1656-7 in six folio volumes also follows the
Complutensian text. It contains further still the Itala,
an Ethiopia version of the Psalms and Canticles, the
Apocrypha in Greek, Latin, Syriac and Arabic, the
Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan, the Jerusalem
Targum on the Pentateuch and a Persian version. In
1669 Edmund Castell added to this his Heptaglot Lexi
con in two volumes. Copies of this polyglott are not
very rare.

VII. Preservation of the Text. With all these
aids — the manuscripts, quotations, and ancient versions
before us, the question remains how near our modern
printed Hebrew Bibles are to the original autograph.
How far back can we trace the text as we have it ?

It is admitted that the Bible, like other books, was
liable to errors of transmission. Before the invention
of printing these errors were of various kinds : those of
the eye, when the copyist read his manuscript wrong or
omitted words by accident; those of the ear when one
read the manuscript and another copied it; those of the
memory, when the transcriber altered a passage after
having read it correctly; and those of the judgment,
when he divided sentences wrongly or introduced a
marginal note into the text. There are also instances
of intentional alteration in order to restore the supposed
original or to substantiate some dogmatic opinion.

Despite all these causes of error all Hebrew manu
scripts contain practically the same text. De Kossi and
Kennicott collated the variations of several hundred
manuscripts. These variations affect no vital doctrine.

78 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

They are all unintentional deviations from a fixed form
which we call the Massoretie text. This first step
carries back the text as we have it to the tenth
century A.D.

For the centuries before this we are dependent upon
quotations. These are reliable according to their nature.
A quotation made from memory or where accuracy was
unimportant has little value in textual criticism. But
if the writer is known to be accurate in other matters
or if he bases his argument upon the exact wording of
the quotation, it becomes valuable. The quotations in
Jerome, the Talmud, the Mishna, and Origen yield the
same text which we now have. The variations are un
important and where they occur, it is more likely that
the text of the quotation is corrupt than that it repre
sents a different original from our present text.

This conclusion is confirmed by the great care of the
Massorites. They did not venture to change a single
reading nor even alter the size of a letter. If a word
was thought incorrect, they left it unchanged and put
the suggested substitute in the margin. They merely
perpetuated the text as they found it. The body of
textual notes called the Massora makes it possible to
trace the text far back of the oldest manuscripts. Thus
we find essentially the same text which we possess at the
time of the Mishna (200 A.D.).

The same period or a little earlier may be reached by
an independent line of testimony, the ancient versions.
Here also a word of warning is necessary. A version is
not as reliable a witness in textual criticism as a manu
script, because the text of a version is not kept with as
great care as that of the original. A comparatively pure
text of the version must be secured before it is a safe

THE TEXT 79

guide by which to correct the original, furthermore
the reliability of a version for this purpose depends upon
the knowledge and sincerity of its makers and the gen
eral accuracy of its renderings. Of the four ancient
versions, three, the Vulgate, the Peshitta and the better
Targums, were evidently made from a text virtually
identical with our own. This brings us to 150 A.D., the
probable date of the Peshitta'. At that time the text
was considered fixed.

"When we penetrate the period before Christ, serious
difficulty is met with. The Septuagint and the Samari
tan Pentateuch differ widely at many points from the
Massoretic text. Some have inferred from this that
the text had not received its present traditional form
when the Septuagint was made or that the Septuagint
was taken from a form of the text which was a rival of
that which has come down to us in the Hebrew. Of
these surmises however there is not a particle of proof.
If there had been a wide divergence among the Jews
on so vital a matter as the Hebrew text, traces of their
discussions would doubtless have remained. We know
that the scribes "put a hedge about the law." They
counted the letters, verses, and sections and noted the
middle letter and word of each book. By these and
other means they guarded the text from corruption.
These facts contrast markedly with the imperfection
of much of the Septuagint and the great corruption of
the text of the whole. They show how unwise it is to
correct the Hebrew according to the Septuagint. The
very fact that the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and
Theodotion were thought necessary to remedy the de
ficiencies of the Septuagint, shows that the Septuagint
is far from being a safe guide. These late** (Greek ver-

80 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

sions generally agree with the Hebrew against the
Septuagint.

The Samaritan Pentateuch is far less reliable than
the Hebrew text. Its variations in different manuscripts
and its alterations made to uphold the Samaritan
religion show how little confidence can be placed in it.
Thus as far back as we can trace the Hebrew text it is
substantially the same as now. It was in the hands of
a people who had a superstitious reverence even for its
letters and who counted it their highest distinction that
unto them were committed the oracles of God (Eom.
3:2). Their scrupulous care was God's method of
keeping those sacred scriptures in their purity.

Doubtless a few errors have crept into the text, in the
spelling of proper names and in numbers. Green points
out some of these as indicated by parallel passages
(p. 145) :

Gen. 10:3 compare I Chron. 1 : 6

Gen. 10:4 « I Chron. 1:7

Gen 25:15 « I Chron. 1 : 30

II Sam. 8:13 « I Chron. 18 : 16

II Sam. 8:4 « I Chron. 18 : 4

II Sam. 24:13 « I Chron. 21:12

I Kings 4 : 26 " . . ..II Chron. 9 : 25

II Kings 8 : 26 « . . ..II Chron. 22 : 2

They affect no vital part of the scripture. Furthermore
the fact that these apparent errors have not been recti
fied is evidence of the great care with which the text has
been preserved since they were made. They give no
encouragement for the view that the text became fixed
after it had become corrupt and in its corrupt form.
The following principles for deciding between various

THE TEXT 81

readings are valuable: In general a reading should be
found which will account for both the varying forms.
Since errors of transmission commonly tend to simplify
the text, rare words and forms are more probably
original than simple and usual ones. The practice so
common among modern exegetes of simplifying the text
when they cannot make it yield a satisfactory sense is
utterly unscientific, because it imagines that copyists
have substituted rare and unfamiliar forms for those
well known. Alteration of the text is seldom justifiable
and then only after the most careful study. The sub
jective element enters so largely into the critical process
that it should be used only as a last resort.

PART II

Special Introduction

FIRST DIVISION

THE LAW

I
PBELIMINARY: THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL

I. Name. The Hebrew name for the first division of
the canon was "TJ^1 " Law " (Josh. 1 : 7), or more fully
" the book of the law " (Josh. 8 : 34), " the book of the
law of Moses" (Josh. 8: 31), "the book of the law of
God " (Josh. 24 : 26), " the book of the law of Jehovah "
(II Chron. 17 : 9), " the law of Moses " (I Kings 2:3).
Though n?1P1 means from its etymology " instruction,"
in these and similar passages the word is used in its
usual and restricted sense of law. The use of this name
does not exclude the historical portions of the Penta
teuch. The entire book is called " the law " because
legislation forms so large an element in it. In post-
biblical times the Jews called it " the five-fifths of the
law " or simply " the fifths."

In the New Testament it is called " the book of the
law" (Gal. 3:10), "the book of Moses" (Mark 12:
26), "the law of the Lord" (Luke 2:23), "the law
of Moses " (Luke 2 : 22), and " the law " (Matt. 12 :5).

The name Pentateuch, T/evrdreo^o?, comes from the
Septuagint version and means " five-volume " properly
an adjective limiting Bijttos book. Many critics add
the book of Joshua to the Pentateuch and name the
whole the Hexateuch (Article "Hexateuch," H. D. B.).
" The object of the change of name is to show that the 6
rather than the 5 form a complete literary whole, and

85

may be looked upon as one book in 6 parts." Since how
ever the same sources are recognized by the critics in
Judges, Samuel and Kings, these books might also be
added. Indeed Ambrosius spoke of a Heptateuch
(Strack's " Einleitung," p. 15) by adding Joshua and
Judges, and the ancient Greek church of an Octateuch,
adding Euth. Neither the history of the books nor
their internal character warrants this classification.
While Joshua is the continuation of the Pentateuchal
history, it depicts Israel in an entirely new relation as a
nation settling in their own land.

II. Author.

1. Testimony of the Old Testament. Though the
Pentateuch does not clearly state that it was all the
work of Moses, several important parts are assigned to
him. "And Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah"
(Ex. 24:4) is thought to refer to the book of the
covenant (Ex. 20-23). " And Moses wrote this law and
delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi " (Deut.
31:9). "And it came to pass when Moses had made
an end of writing the words of this law in a book until
they were finished that Moses commanded the Levites,
which bare the ark of the covenant of Jehovah saying
take this book of the law and put it in the side of the
ark of the covenant of Jehovah, your God, that it may
be there for a witness against thee " (Deut. 31 : 24-26).
These passages presuppose a considerable book and
though the old view, that they have reference to the
entire Pentateuch, cannot be proved, they refer admit
tedly (Dillmann) to Deut. 5-26 and indicate a con
siderable literary activity on the part of Moses.

The later books of the Old Testament often speak of
this book of Moses. The transaction at Ebal and Gerizim

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEBAL 87

presupposes a large book of Moses (Josh. 8:30-35).
(Compare also Josh. 1:7-8 and 23:6; Judges 3:4.)
David charged Solomon his son " as it is written in the
law of Moses " (I Kings 2:3). (Compare also I Kings
8 : 9, 53-56 ; II Kings 14 : 6 ; 21 : 8 and 23 : 25.) The
book discovered in the time of Josiah is called in II
Kings 22 : 8 merely " the book of the law," but in the
parallel passage, II Chron. 34 : 14, " a book of the law
of Jehovah given by Moses" (notice also II Chron.
23: 18; 25:4; 35: 12). Ezra refers twice to the book
of Moses (Ezra 3 : 2 and 6 : 18). In the book of Nehe-
miah we are told that Ezra read in " the book of the
law of Moses " " from the morning until midday "
(Neh. 8: 1-8), and it is added, "also day by day from
the first day unto the last day he read in the book of
the law of God," evidently the same book which is called
elsewhere " the book of the law of Moses " (Neh. 8 : 18).
Neh. 13 : 1 also refers to " the book of Moses." In his
prayer Daniel speaks of "the oath that is written in
the law of Moses the servant of God " (Dan. 9 : 11, 13),
and near the end of his book the prophet Malachi
writes : " Remember ye the law of Moses my servant,
which I commanded unto him in Horeb, for all Israel
with the statutes and judgments." Besides these pas
sages there are many other references to the Pentateuch
which do not mention the author by name but neverthe
less bring the book back to an early date (II Kings
17 : 34, 37; II Chron. 17 : 9 ; Isaiah 1 : 11 ; 2 : 3 ; 5 : 24,
25; 8:20; 30:9; Hos. 3: 3; 4: 4, 6, 10; 5: 10; 8: 12;
12:9 and 14:3; Amos 2:4; 4:4, 5; 5:22; Mic. 4:2;
5: 7; 6: 8, 10, 15). It is evident that the assertion of
those who deny the Mosaic authorship, that these pas
sages are later glosses, introduced in order to strengthen

88 OLD TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION

the claim of the law, must be proved independently of
the theory itself in order to have weight. Our only
source of information concerning the Jewish tradition
of the authorship of the Pentateuch in Old Testament
times is in the text of the Old Testament as we have it.
It is unscientific to rely upon the accuracy of the record
when it suits the theory and deny the accuracy of pas
sages which are fatal to the theory. While the Old
Testament nowhere distinctly assigns its first five books
as a whole to Moses, they are everywhere treated as his,
and the Old Testament does not record a single expres
sion of doubt on this subject.

2. Testimony of the New Testament. This agrees
exactly with that of the Old Testament. More than a
century before Christ the Old Testament was complete
and was given visible form in the Septuagint version
(250-150 B.C.) with which our Lord and the New
Testament writers exhibit great familiarity. Jesus
Christ quotes passages of the Pentateuch as from Moses.
"Offer the gift that Moses commanded" (Matt. 8:4;
compare Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14; Lev. 14:4, 10).
" Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered
you to put away your wives " (Matt. 19 : 8 ; Mark 10 : 5 ;
compare Deut. 24:1). "For Moses said, Honour thy
father and thy mother and, whoso curseth father or
mother let him die the death" (Mark 7: 10"; compare
Exod. 20:12 and 21:17). Our Lord could not have
considered these passages merely as coming from Moses
while the remainder of the Pentateuch was from others,
for he speaks of "the book of Moses" (Mark 12:26;
Luke 20: 37, in reference to Ex. 3:6) and coordinates
it with the Prophets as the first great division of the
Hebrew scriptures. In the parable of the rich man and

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL 89

Lazarus, Christ represents Abraham as saying : " If
they hear not Moses and the prophets neither will they
be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke
16:31). "All things must be fulfilled, which were
written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and
in the Psalms concerning me" (Luke 24:44). The
entire first division of the Old Testament must have
been considered the work of Moses, for when the Jews
quoted it as from Moses our Lord did not contradict
them (Matt. 19 : 7 ; 22 : 24 ; Mark 12 : 19 ; Luke 20 : 28 ;
John 9:28-29), and when Christ referred it to Moses
they did not contradict him, anxious as they were to
catch him in his words. The Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch was evidently conceded by all Jews in
Christ's time.

Those who admit the truthfulness of the gospel record
and interpret Christ's words naturally, explain his
testimony in two ways.

A. It is said that it was no part of our Lord's work
to correct erroneous views on questions of authorship.
As Dr. Briggs expresses it: "Jesus was not obliged to
correct all the errors of his contemporaries. He did not
correct their false views of science. He was the great
physician but he did not teach medicine. He was
greater than Solomon and yet he declined to decide
questions of civil law and politics" ("Higher Criticism
of the Hexateuch," p. 29).

Answer. — This view has the advantage of retaining
the divine knowledge of Christ, but it greatly lowers our
conception of his mission. If our Lord knew that
Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, he could
easily have quoted from those books without mentioning
Moses' name and still without offending the Jews, who

fondly believed that Moses wrote them. He uses other
formulas of quotation in other passages which would
have served equally well. It must not be forgotten also
that our Lord was "the truth" (Jno. 14: 6) and that
he described his life mission to Pilate in these words:
" To this end was I born and for this cause came I into
the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth"
(Jno. 18 : 37). His mission was in the religious sphere
and it was not necessary to invade the domain of science
or criticism on purpose to correct current errors. But
it was necessary, when he did enter the critical sphere,
to be absolutely true. Truth in the lower sphere was
essential to the " faithful witness " in the higher sphere.
Our Lord would not have destroyed men's confidence in
him in religious matters by careless inaccuracy in a mere
matter of authorship. Nor was the question of author
ship so unimportant as the critics often say. Though
it is the inspiration of the Old Testament which gives it
authority, the human author is never ignored. More
than half the Old Testament books are assigned to
authors, our Lord and the Apostles generally quote by
name, and the activity of the modern criticism itself
is chiefly concerned with this very question — a question
of the most vital importance to the scripture (see Dr.
MacPheeters in Princeton Theological Eeview, July and
Oct. 1903). Doubting Christ on these so-called minor
points is always preparatory to doubting him on religious
matters, as he said to Nicodemus : " If I have told you
earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe
if I tell you of heavenly things? " (Jno. 3 : 12).

B. The more common way of undermining the clear
testimony of Christ to the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch is by asserting that he did not know.

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEEAL 91

"Jesus and his early disciples were Jews and as such,
shared to a greater or less extent the traditional
opinions of their countrymen. They would naturally
therefore, think and speak of the Pentateuch as the
work of Moses" ("World before Abraham," H. G.
Mitchell p. 14). As proofs of the limited knowledge of
Christ appeal is made to two passages. Christ declared
his own ignorance concerning the time of the second
advent. " But of that day and hour knoweth no man,
no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son,
but the Father " (Mark 13 : 32).

Answer. — Our Lord positively refused to mention the
day and hour because he did not know them. Would
he not have maintained the same silence concerning
the authorship of Old Testament books if here too he
had been ignorant?

The other passage is Phil. 2 : 7 where the apostle says
that Christ Jesus "emptied himself, taking the form
of a servant being made in the likeness of men/'

Answer. — The relation of Christ's two natures to each
other is a theological rather than an exegetical question.
Yet it must be evident to any reader of the gospels that
they do not represent Christ as confined to a merely
human knowledge. He knew men's hearts (Luke 5 : 22;
6:8: 9:47; 11:17; Jno. 2:25; 16:19). He saw Na-
thanael beyond human sight (Jno. 1:48). He saw a
man carrying a pitcher of whom his disciples knew
nothing (Mark 14: 13; Luke 22: 10). He foretold his
own death (Matt. 20: 17-19), the destruction of Jeru
salem (Matt. 24:1-2) and many other future events.
If his contemporaries were mistaken in supposing Moses
the author, our Lord would have known their error and
corrected it, as he was so quick to do on other matters

92 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

attacking their vain traditions without mercy (Matt.
15:2-6; Mark 7:3-13), setting his "but I say unto
you" over against the word of "them of old time."
Furthermore if the Son of God emptied himself of his
divine knowledge and became a mere man, we lose his
infallibility, not only on questions of history but on
questions of faith. If he was either essentially or tem
porarily merely a man, his dictum on religious matters
has no greater authority than that of a man. This
question must be fought out by the theologians. The
Bible itself gives us no encouragement for limiting
the knowledge of Christ beyond his own explicit lim
itation.

Passing to the testimony of the New Testament
writers, this too is unanimous for the Mosaic authorship
of the Pentateuch. It is quoted as the work of Moses
(Acts 3:22; Rom. 10 : 5, 19 ; I Cor. 9:9). It is spoken
of in general as "the law of Moses" (Acts 13:39;
15 : 5 ; 28 : 23 ; Heb. 10 : 28) and that Law was coordi
nated with the Prophets as one of the great divisions
of the Hebrew scriptures (Acts 26:22;28:23). Read
ing the Pentateuch is described as " reading " Moses.
" For Moses of old time hath in every city them that
preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath
day" (Acts 15:21). "But even unto this day when
Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart" (II Cor.
3: 15). The triumphant in heaven "sing the song of
Moses the servant of God " (Rev. 15 : 3). If Moses was
not at least the author of this song (Ex. 15), this
miserable falsehood is to be perpetuated even in heaven,
but we are told " there shall in no wise enter into it
anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh
abomination or maketh a lie" (Rev. 21:27).

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL 93

3. Modern Critical View. Over against this uniform
testimony of scripture in unalterable opposition stands
the view of the modern negative criticism. With the
most radical of these critics the New Testament testi
mony has no weight whatever. "We must either cast
aside as worthless our dearly bought scientific method,
or must forever cease to acknowledge the authority of
the New Testament in the domain of the exegesis of the
Old" (Kuenen. " Prophets and Prophecy," p. 487).
For the sake of argument we are willing to ignore the
New Testament witnesses for the moment and examine
the arguments which are presented against the Mosaic
authorship. Jean Astruc, the originator of the divisive
hypothesis, held to the Mosaic authorship but thought
that Moses used different documents in Genesis which
were characterized by the divine names, Elohim and
Jehovah. His successors, however, have assigned the
various documents to a date much later than Moses, and
most of them at present deny that Moses was the author
even of those passages which are clearly assigned to
him.

Their arguments are as follows: i

1. The work of Moses "was not writing but acting,
establishing institutions, and enkindling a new spiritual
life." (Summarized from Dillmann by Green. General
Int. p. 19.)

Answer. — All that we know of the work of Moses is
derived from the records of scripture. These represent
him not only as a great leader and legislator but as a
writer. He was equipped as no other man of his time
to write the history and legislation of the Penta
teuch.

A. He had the learning. Being brought up in

94 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

Pharaoh's house (Ex. 2 : 10) he was doubtless, as Ste
phen said, " learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians "
(Acts 7:21). This learning included the knowledge
of writing, as is now universally conceded.

B. He had the information necessary for writing the
history. The Book of Genesis professes to record history
before Moses. If there were written records of those
patriarchal times kept by the Israelites in the land of
Goshen, Moses, the champion and deliverer of his people,
would certainly have them. If these records had been
kept in the Egyptian archives from the days of Joseph,
the prime minister, Moses would have had access to them
in his early manhood. And if these stories were trans
mitted by oral tradition in Israel, Moses would be
acquainted with them. In all the history from Exodus
to Deuteronomy, to the time of his death, he was the
most prominent actor and could have written it out of
his own experience more easily than any contemporary,
who would have been compelled to seek information on
many points from Moses himself. He displays intimate
knowledge of that history in his farewell address (Deut.
1-3). As to the legislation, Moses' forty years' residence
at the court of the most highly civilized nation of
antiquity was an excellent equipment to become the great
Lawgiver of Israel.

C. He had the time. The forty years in Egypt are
passed over with scarcely a word, and the forty years in
Midian were occupied with no more strenuous work
than tending the flocks of Jethro, his father-in-law.
Anywhere in these eighty years there was time for
writing the book of Genesis. During the forty years
wandering in the wilderness, Moses was doubtless busy
as the leader and judge of the great host. Yet we know

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL 95

that at the suggestion of Jethro he appointed rulers in
each tribe to relieve him of many duties and only great
matters were brought to him (Ex. 18:13-26). Surely
Moses could have found time in these forty years for
writing the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy.

D. He had the genius of a writer. Moses* life was
by no means filled with activity: In the forty years as
a shepherd he had abundant opportunity for meditation
upon the history of his people and the formation in his
mind of that body of laws which would govern them
when they should leave Egypt, which he foresaw must
soon occur. Moses objected that he was not a " man of
words " (Ex. 4 : 10), but God promised to equip him for
his work. Thus with the meditative spirit and the
divine inspiration he was peculiarly fitted for author
ship.

2. The argument from silence. This is presented by
Bacon in the bold asertion of " the indisputable fact
that the history from Joshua to the Exile completely
ignores the Levitical law" ("Genesis of Gen.," p. 38),
that the Book of Chronicles " rewrites the history of the
pre-exilic books of Samuel and Kings omitting and
amending so as to bring the history into conformity with
the ritual law " (p. 37), and further still, " the first trace
of an allusion to anything contained in the priestly
legislation of the Pentateuch, or to the existence of any
ordinance of Moses concerning ritual, will be searched
for in vain throughout the writings of the pre-exilic
prophets" (p. 40). This critic urges especially four
passages (Jer. 7:21-23; Amos 5:21-25; Micah 6:6-8
and Isa. 1:11-15) as evidence against the existence
of the ceremonial laws in the time of those prophets

96 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

or at least against the recognition of their Mosaic author*
ship and divine authority.

Answer. — A. The historical books and the pre-exilic
Prophets are not silent concerning the priestly laws.
The references to the law of Moses are for the most
part to Deuteronomy rather than Leviticus, since Leviti
cus was intended for the priests while Deuteronomy was
a popular presentation of the law for the whole people.
The historical books and the Prophets were intended for
the people and, therefore, referred to the popularized
form of the law. The references to Deuteronomy have
been mentioned in the testimony of the later books to
the Pentateuch. The very existence of the tabernacle
and, later, of the temple implies the existence of a code
of laws for the guidance of the priests. Deuteronomy
was not such a law, but presupposes such a law as pre
viously existing. References to Deuteronomy are, there
fore, indirect proofs of the existence of Leviticus.
Amos 4 : 4-5 and 5:21 seem to be direct references to
Leviticus.

B. The comparative silence is due to two causes :

First. The history of Israel is a history of almost
constant apostasy. The priests and the people were
continually violating the law. The silence of the history
concerning the law no more proves its non-existence
than does the frequent mention of lynching in our daily
papers prove that there is no law against it or no law
except lynch-law. Violation of the law may be due
to ignorance, but it is wilful ignorance.

Second. History does not deal with questions of law
and ceremonial. These are introduced only incidentally.
In times of faithfulness the silence of the history implies
that the ceremonies were observed in the regular way.

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL 97

The history records only the unusual, not the customary
and ordinary things.

C. The passages mentioned do not imply the non-
existence of the ceremonial law but are admonitions
against the exaltation of the ceremonial above the moral
law. This is shown by the emphasis laid upon the moral
law in contrast with the ceremonial. God would not
accept the sacrifices of his people when their hands were
filled with blood and their hearts cherished sin. On
this point Bacon replies : " One might indeed reconcile
with a knowledge of the Pentateuch utterances of the
prophets deprecating the too great regard paid to ritual
and urging as of equal or greater importance the
'weightier matters of the law'; but how can it be sup
posed that the authors of these appeals to know when
and where Yahweh had ever authorized anything of the
kind, were aware of the existence of a Mosaic law, nine-
tenths of which were devoted to inculcating this very
thing in the most explicit terms as of immediate divine
authority and with the imposition of most fearful penal
ties for its neglect" (pp. 41-42).

The reference is to the first two passages. " For I
spake not unto your fathers nor commanded them in the
day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt con
cerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices " ( Jer. 7 : 22) . This
passage alludes to the fact that the ceremonial law was
given after the moral law. Verse 23 refers to the first
form of God's covenant given soon after crossing the
Eed Sea and before reaching Sinai (Ex. 15: 26), whose
content was moral rather than ceremonial — hence the
preeminence of the moral law.

The other passage is Amos 5:25 " Have ye offered
unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty

98 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

years, 0 house of Israel." This is an allusion to a former
instance of idolatry to show that in all ages idolatry was
Israel's besetting sin. Almost nothing is told in the
Pentateuch concerning the history of Israel after God
rejected that generation because of their sin. During
thirty-eight years and a half they wandered in the wil
derness. But Moses said : " They sacrificed to devils not
to God" (Deut. 32: 17). Even though the children of
Israel offered sacrifices to Jehovah in the wilderness, it
was not really to Jehovah but an empty form, to satisfy
their own superstition. Such sacrifices were an abomina
tion to God. It was because the same formalism clung
to them in the time of Amos that God condemned their
service. Thus these passages contain no argument
against the existence of the book of Leviticus.

D. The argument from silence is notably weak. As
is pointed out by Margoliouth it is based upon three
syllogisms. " Had B existed in the time of the author
A, A must have known of B. Had A known of B he
must have mentioned or cited B. But A neither men
tions nor cites B. Therefore B did not exist in A's
time" ("Lines of Defence of Biblical Revelation," p.
175). The serious breaks in this argument are evident.
At a time when books existed only in manuscript it was
quite possible for a book to exist which was unknown to
another writer on the same subject. Books became lost
or unknown far more easily than to-day. If an edition
of a thousand or more copies of a printed book may be
lost in a generation so that it is very difficult to secure
one how much more easily may a few manuscript copies
be lost when the generation which prized them is dead.
Furthermore it does not follow that a later writer would
necessarily mention an earlier if he knew of his work.

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL 99

Even where no purpose for silence can be discovered by
us after so many centuries, such a purpose may have
existed. And a later author may fail to mention an
earlier because he had no occasion to do so. (For a
notable instance of the failure of the argument from
silence see Margoliouth " Lines of Defence of the
Biblical Revelation," pp. 277-287.)

3. Geographical designations are used which could
not have been used in the time of Moses. These we
take up in the order of Strack (" Einleitung," pp.
24-26).

A. "On the other side of the Jordan" in reference
to the eastern side thus indicating the writer's stand
point in Canaan where Moses never was (Deut. 1:1, 5;
3:8; 4:41-49).

Answer. — This expression is used of the territory west
of the Jordan (Deut. 3 : 20, 25 ; Josh. 9 : 1, etc.), as well
as east of it (Num. 22 : 1 ; 32 : 32, etc.) . The standpoint
is often mental (Num. 34: 15; Josh. 1: 14) and some
times changes in a single verse (Num. 32: 19). As the
usual designation of the territory east of the Jordan it
might have arisen while Jacob was in Canaan (Gen.
50:10-11).

B. The Hebrew D' (sea) is the designation of the
west even at the time of Israel's residence at Sinai
although the sea was not west (Ex. 27:12; Num.
2:18; 3:23). This supposes a residence in Canaan
where the sea was west.

Answer. — We know from the Tel-el- Amarna letters
that the Hebrew language was used in Canaan before
the Exodus. It may have been carried down by the
patriarchs to Egypt and spoken by Israel in Goshen.
If so C£ would have largely lost its original meaning and

100 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

signify simply " west." Furthermore the gulf of Suez
was west of Israel when they were encamped at Sinai
and that gulf is called D' even at its narrowest part, by
Pi-Hahiroth (Ex. 14:2, 16, 21, 23).

C. The name, Dan, is used, a name which Laish did
not receive until after its conquest by the Danites (Gen.
14:14; Dent 34:1).

Answer. — It is not certain that Gen. 14:14 refers
to Laish. Perhaps it was another city called Dan. The
name may have been a common one as the root, T^ or
Jtt found in Aramaic as well as Hebrew expresses a
common idea, to judge or rule. Deut. 34 was prob
ably added at a later time since it records Moses*
death.

D. Hormah is mentioned, a later name of Zephath
(Num. 14 : 45 ; Deut. 1 : 44 ; Compare Judges 1 : 17).

Answer. — The name Hormah (destruction) was given
to the region in Moses' time (Num. 21 : 3). The same
name was given later to the city of Zephath (Judges
1:17).

E. The trans-Jordanic region is said to be called
Havoth-Jair " unto this day " after Jair, the son of
Manasseh (Deut. 3: 14), although it was not named so
until later (Num. 32:41; Josh. 13:30; Judges 10:4).

Answer. — Havoth-Jair means " villages of Jair."
Num. 32 : 41, refers to Jair's naming certain villages
in Gilead after himself and Deut. 3 : 14 to his doing
the same in Bashan. The passages in Joshua and
Judges refer to this region. TLere is no reason what
ever to identify the Jair of Judges with the Jair of the
Pentateuch. The former was probably a descendant of
the latter who bore the same name and ruled in the
same piatt.

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL 101

F< Joseph said : " I was stolen away out of the land
of the Hebrews" (Gen. 40:15).

Answer. — The origin of the word " Hebrew " is
doubtful. It may refer to the people of a certain locality
irrespective of their race. If the identification of the
name with the Khabiri of the Tel-el-Amarna letters is
correct, they were a powerful tribe living in the Negeb
about 1400 B.C. against whom the king of Jerusalem
had to appeal to Pharaoh for assistance. This region
may have been called " the land of the Hebrews ; " at
any rate Abram is called a Hebrew (Gen. 14: 13). He
was recognized as a powerful prince (Gen. 23:6) as
were also Isaac (Gen. 26:13) and Jacob (Gen. 34).
The land where these people had lived for two centuries
might well receive the name " the land of the Hebrews."
Potiphar's wife twice spoke of Joseph as a Hebrew
(Gen. 39:14, 17),

4. Archaeological indications of a later date.

A. " The omer is the tenth part of an ephah "
(Ex. 16:36).

Answer. — These two measures were known in Moses*
time. The omer is mentioned as a measure five times
in this chapter and elsewhere is called pifry (Ex.
29 : 40 ; Lev. 14 : 21 ; Num. 15:6). The ephah is men
tioned several times elsewhere (Lev. 5:11; 6:20;
19:36; Num. 5:15; 28:5; Deut. 25:14, 15). Since
the omer as a measure is not mentioned outside of this
chapter (Ex. 16), the explanation is not unnatural
at the close. So far as the argument from this explana
tory note has any force, it could only prove that the
explanation was added to the text after Moses' time
and can have no bearing on the authorship of the
Pentateuch as a whole. If, however, this were an

102 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

explanatory note, that implies that the omer as a
measure had gone out of use and, therefore, the book
which mentions it must be old.

B. " Shekel of the sanctuary " (Ex. 30 : 13 ; 38 : 24-
26). " This designation presupposes that the sanctuary
with its cultus had already been a long time in exis
tence" (Strack's " Einleitung," p. 25).

Answer. — The term "shekel of the sanctuary" was
evidently a new one, for three times its weight is ex
plained (Ex. 30:13; Lev. 27:25; Num. 3:47). Its
use indicates nothing whatever concerning the age of
the tabernacle or its cultus.

C. " Moses would hardly have spoken of Og king of
Bashan, and his iron bed as in Deut. 3:11 in the for
tieth year of the exodus since his hearers had conquered
and killed this king in the same year" (Strack id.).

Answer. — The origin of Og and the remarkable size
of his bedstead may not have been known to all the
people whom Moses was addressing, even though they
were his conquerors. At any rate in reviewing the
history of Israel it was necessary to repeat many things
already known to the people, since the book was meant
for future generations.

5. Historical indications of a kter date.

A. The poetical fragment quoted from "the book
of the wars of Jehovah" (Num. 21:14-15) surely
arose from a very ancient time ; the section of the Pen
tateuch however in which it occurs, can neither be from
Moses nor from the time of Moses, for the words are
quoted as proof that the Arnon formed the border of
Moab at that time. Such a proof however was super
fluous for the contemporaries who had just crossed the
Arnon" (Strack, id.).

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEKAL 103

'Answer. — Moses was writing not only for his con
temporaries, but for future generations for whom this
explanation would not be superfluous.

B. "The Canaanites were then in the land" (Gen.
12:6; 13:7). This "then" surely indicates a time
after the conquest of the land" (Strack).

Answer. — This statement in Gen. 12 : 6 is a natural
part of the record. Without it the reader in Moses'
time might have asked: Were the Canaanites in the
land when God promised it to Abraham, as they are
now? The fact of their presence adds to the greatness
of God's promise. In Gen. 13 : 7 the same statement
is a further explanation that there was not room for
Abram's and Lot's cattle to be together. In each case
" then " is in contrast with an earlier, not a later, time,
when the Canaanite was not in the land.

C. " And these are the kings that reigned in the land
of Edom before there reigned any king over the children
of Israel" (Gen. 36:31).

Answer. — There are two distinct questions — Is any
king mentioned here who was post-Mosaic? and does
the statement before us imply a writer at the time of
the kings? Concerning the first question there is no
necessity of considering any of these eight kings post-
Mosaic. There was a king in Edom in Moses' day
(Num. 20: 14), and the strength of the kingdom implies
that it was not new (Num. 20: 20). Esau had settled
there before the death of Isaac and hence more than
430 years before the Exodus (Ex. 12:41). If to this
be added the forty years in the wilderness we have more
than 470 years in which the kingdom of Edom could
have had eight kings before Moses wrote. On the other
hand more than 350 years must have elapsed between

104 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

the death of Moses and the accession of Saul, the first
king of Israel (I Kings 6 : 1 ; II Sam. 5:4; Acts 13 : 21 ;
Num. 1-1:33). If the list of eight kings mentioned
here was made in the time of Saul, each one must have
reigned more than forty-five years. Hence it cannot
be the intention of the writer to mention all the kings
who reigned in Edom before there was a king in Israel
but simply to state that Edom had kings before Israel
had them. This statement would have been quite pos
sible for Moses. Though there was no king in Israel
in Moses' " time " he knew that Israel would have kings
from God's promises to Abraham (Gen. 17: 6), and to
Jacob (Gen. 35 : 11), from Jacob's blessings upon Judah
(Gen. 49 : 10), and from the prophecy of Balaam (Num.
24:7). Moses gave commands concerning the method
of choosing the king and his character (Deut. 17: 14-
20). In the passage before us Moses comments upon
the fact that Edom already had had eight kings al
though God's promise to his chosen people, the descend
ants of Jacob, was yet unfulfilled ( See Green's " Unity
of Genesis," pp. 425-9).

D. "And Abraham called the name of that place,
'Jehovah appeared,' as it is said to this day in the
mount of Jehovah he shall be seen" (Gen. 22:14).
It is said that this passage supposes a time after David
had captured the temple mountain from the Jebusites
since in Moses* time, Sinai was the mountain of
revelation.

Answer. — Mt. Sinai was not intended to be a per
manent place of revelation. Moses knew that the taber
nacle was to rest some day in Canaan. Furthermore
Moses is not here giving a name to the mountain but
recording the name which Abraham had given.

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL 105

E. " If that which is recorded in the Pentateuch
about Moses and his family is put together, much is
lacking which one would expect if Moses were the
author and other things are not arranged as they would
be if such were the case" (Strack, p. 26). The critics
specially emphasize the Hebraized form of Moses'
name, the omission of the names of the princess who
saved Moses, of the Pharaohs of the oppression and the
Exodus, different names of Moses' father-in-law (Ex.
2:18; 3:1; 4:18; 18:1; Num. 10:29), the single
mention of Moses' Cushite wife (Num. 12:1), the
silence concerning the death of Zipporah and the
statement concerning the meekness of Moses (Num.
12:3).

Answer. — The Hebraized form of Moses' name is
exactly what we would expect in view of his being a
Hebrew. The princess may not have been altogether
ignorant of a language, probably spoken by many hun
dred thousands in her land (Ex. 2:10). The omission
of the names of the princess who saved Moses and of
the Pharaohs with whom he had to do would be quite
natural in Moses' time as being a matter of common
report. If, however, Exodus was written much later than
Moses from the traditions of the people, it is very
strange that these names were not supplied. The four
forms of the name of Moses' father-in-law, Eeuel,
Eaguel, Jether, and Jethro, are evidently variations of
two forms — one of them perhaps a proper name and the
other a title. The variation may be due to the difficulty
of transferring the name into Hebrew. The redactor
of the Pentateuch, if such there were, did not think it
necessary to make these names uniform and why should
Moses? We are too far removed from the time of

106 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

Moses to explain his silence concerning his first wife's
death and the brief mention of his second wife, though
the taking of this second wife was not to Moses' credit
and he would not therefore speak at length of it.

The statement that Moses was preeminently meek
(Num. 12:3) is very appropriate in connection with
his persecution by Miriam and Aaron. The word ren
dered meek is not found elsewhere in the Pentateuch,
but the corresponding verb is used of the afflictions of
Israel in Egypt and of Pharaoh's submitting himself
to the lesson of the plagues which Jehovah sent (Ex.
10:3). This willingness to endure affliction patiently
is the attribute predicated of Moses. The Psalmists
did not hesitate to claim this virtue (Ps. 9:13-14;
10:17) for themselves, and our Lord said distinctly:
" I am meek and lowly in heart " (Matt. 11 : 28). That
Moses was meek the history abundantly shows. As a
faithful historian Moses did not conceal his own
faults and wrongdoing (Ex. 4: 10; Num. 20: 12; Deut.
1:37). Why should he not speak the truth about his
virtues as our Lord did? If this argument against the
Mosaic authorship is pressed, it can only prove that this
verse was a later insertion, for though an appropriate
comment it is not essential to the record. Some one,
probably Joshua, added the account of Moses' death in
Deuteronomy. He may have also added this note
concerning the exalted character of the chief whom he
had served so long.

F. The list of the stations at which Israel stopped in
the wilderness (Num. 33) is imperfect. Moses would
have made it clear and perfect.

Answer, — Strack admits that a fragment from Moses
may be the basis of this chapter. According to this

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEEAL 107

argument this fragment of Moses must have contained
a complete list of the places where Israel stopped. But
if so how has the present so-called imperfect list been
derived from Moses' perfect list? It is distinctly said
that Moses made such a list (Num. 33: 2). The diffi
culties of this chapter are not lessened by denying that
Moses wrote it. If Moses did not write it, it is a forgery
and it is inconceivable that a forger would have left it
imperfect. The remaining two objections of Strack
bear upon the literary analysis of the Pentateuch rather
than its authorship (pp. 26-27).

4. Positive Evidence of the Mosaic Authorship. Be
sides the direct testimony of the Pentateuch itself that
Moses wrote important parts of it and the uniform
tradition indicated in the Old and the New Testaments
that he was the author of the whole, this traditional
view is upheld by other considerations.

(1) The parts of the Pentateuch which refer to
Egypt, contain many marks of the author's familiarity
with that country, which would have been difficult to
obtain in Canaan several centuries after Moses.

A. Names. JHB'Bte (Gen. 41:45; 46:20) and the
shorter form iD'ete (Gen. 37 : 36; 39 : 1) are Egyptian,
the former meaning " whom Ba (the Sun-God) gave."

npya HJBV the name which Pharaoh gave Joseph
(Gen. 41 : 45) is Egyptian and means according to the
Septuagint autrty xoffpou, an appropriate name for Joseph
on account of his deliverance of Egypt in famine.

WOK, the name of Joseph's wife, is Egyptian (Gen.
41 : 45) and means " favorite of Neith."

|fc (Gen. 41:45, 50; 46:20) is the old Egyptian
name of Heliopclis.

108 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION

jn (Gen. 47 : 11 ; Ex. 1 : 11 ; 12 : 37 ; Num. 33 : 3,
5) is a well-known Egyptian name.

Dhs (Ex. 1:11) is probably the Egyptian Pi-Turn
which is first mentioned in the monuments of the 19th
dynasty, exactly in accord with the statement of Exodus.

B. Words. *n.3N (Gen. 41: 45) is a Hebraized Egyp
tian word (Siegfried and Stade. Hebr. Worterbuch and
Price in H. B. D.).

0^ (Gen. 42:6). This title of Joseph is found

elsewhere only in Ecclesiastes, Ezra and Daniel, books
which exhibit foreign influence. Joseph's brethren
called him by the more familiar titles " lord of the
land " or " ruler " (Gen. 42 : 30, 33 ; 45 : 8) .

j^Qa, the divining cup of Joseph (Gen. 44: 2, 5 etc.).
The word is found only once outside of the Pentateuch,
in Jeremiah 35 : 5. Jeremiah had been in Egypt.

jn'.sBSf (Ex. 7:27, etc.) and &»33 (Ex. 9:31) are
probably Egyptian words.

C. Customs. The marriage of eunuchs is not men
tioned in the Old Testament outside of Gen. 37 : 36 and
39 : 1, which either indicates that in Egypt the name
eunuch was loosely applied to any high officer of Pha
raoh or that in Egypt it was customary for eunuchs to
marry.

The custom of releasing or punishing prisoners on
the king's birthday (Gen. 40:20). The same custom
apparently existed at the court of Herod (Matt. 14: 6;
Mark 6 : 21), but not in Israel.

Wearing a signet ring and a chain of gold as a token
of authority was unknown in Israel though it existed in
Egypt, Persia, and Babylon (Gen. 41 : 42; Esther 3 : 10,
12; 8: 2, 8, 10; Dan. 5:29).

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL 109

The garments of linen given to Joseph would have
been appropriate for a priest in Israel rather than a
king or prime minister (Ex. 28 : 39 ; 39 : 27-29).

The separation of Joseph's brethren at table from him
and from the Egyptians ( Gen. 43:32), with the ex
planatory statement, "the Egyptians might not eat
bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination
unto the Egyptians."

The remark (Gen. 46:34) "Every shepherd is an
abomination to the Egyptians."

The author was familiar with the land tenure of the
priests in Egypt (Gen. 47:22).

The account of the embalming of the bodies of Jacob
and Joseph (Gen. 50:2, 26). The word BJ_n is
not found elsewhere in the Old Testament except Cant.
2 : 13. Also the mention of the forty days necessary
for embalming (Gen. 50: 3), and of the sarcophagus in
which Joseph's body was placed. The expression " unto
this day" (Gen. 47:26) indicates a knowledge of
Egypt later than Joseph.

D. Geography. The writer knew the Egyptian papy
rus (Ex. 2:3) and the character of the Nile bank as
well as the proximity of the sandy desert (Ex. 2: 12),
the location of Eamses, Succoth (Ex. 12:37), Etham
(Ex. 13 : 20) and Pi-Hahiroth (Ex. 14: 2). An intimate
acquaintance with geography is indicated by the expres
sion : " The wilderness hath shut them in " (Ex. 14 : 3) .
Indeed chapter 14 is almost incomprehensible without
a knowledge of Egyptian geography.

(2) The Levitical code of laws found in Exodus (20-
23; 25-31; 35-40), Leviticus and Numbers (5, 6,
8-10, 15-19) exhibits signs of having been promulgated
by one in the circumstances of Moses. Eawlinson (" Lex

110 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIOX

Mosuica," pp. 21-26) presents the arguments in the
following order:

A. It is primitive. Professor Maine (" Ancient
Law," p. 16) thinks that the mingling of religious,
civil, moral and economical ordinances is a clear proof
of great antiquity.

B. It is intermittent, interrupted by the historical
narrative, precisely as might be expected if it was
composed during the wilderness wanderings.

C. Many laws are suited only to this migratory life
of the people — such as those which relate to the position
of the various tribes in the camp and the moving of the
tabernacle. Such laws would have been idle in Canaan.

D. Egyptian influence. The laws are sacerdotal,
sacrificial and ceremonial as one would expect if given
by Moses who was brought up in Egypt, where these
ideas had their most perfect ancient development.
Special indications of Egyptian influence are the triple
division of the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, the
use of incense, the solemn assemblies, the endowment
of the priesthood and the distinction between clean and
unclean meats, all of which have their counterpart in
ancient Egypt

E. The careful avoidance of certain Egyptian relig
ious peculiarities. There is no honorable mention of
the sun such as is found in the Psalms (19 : 4), and no
trace of the Egyptian doctrine of a future life, probably
to avoid the idolatry and superstition which were
connected with these ideas in Egypt.

F. Signs of Midianitish influence. The elders of the
tribes suggested by Jethro were a distinctly Arabian
institution— also the "blood feud" (Ex. 21: 13; Num.
35:1 1-33), These institutions were appropriate to

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL 111

Israel in the wilderness and were retained in Canaan.
They could hardly have arisen when the people were
living in towns and villages. The animals allowed to
be eaten include those found in the Sinaitic penin
sula — "the hart, the roebuck and the fallow deer, the
wild goat, and the pygarg and the wild ox and the
chamois" (Deut. 14:5).

In addition to the points mentioned by Rawlinson,
Hommel cites several Egyptian loan-words in the
Levitical legislation ("Hebrew tradition," p. 291).

"TIB* from the Egyptian seta to spin.

HIT from Egyptian tsert, hand.

DVpp from Egyptian senham.

nwnN and DKv names of gems, the former equal to
Egyptian eklinome and the latter to Egyptian nesJiem.

DKfQ and nriK*a from Egj'ptian pesht.

ns'K equal to Egyptian ipt, borrowed from Baby
lonian pitu.

rn equal to Egyptian Jim, from Babylonian gin.

Hommel also emphasizes the Egyptian origin of the
high-priesfs breastplate (pp. 279-281) and the evi
dences of Midianitish influence upon Moses, as seen from
ancient Minsean inscriptions (pp. 276-279).

(3) Deuteronomy also is appropriate to the time of
Moses but does not fit the period of Manasseh or Josiah
to which it is assigned by those who deny its Mosaic
authorship. " The majority of critics believe this book
of the law to have been the result of a pious fraud
promulgated by Hilkiah and Shaphan with the inten
tion of deceiving Josiah into the belief that the reforms
which they desired were the express command of God
revealed to Moses" (F. H. Woods in H. D. B. I. 368).

112 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

There is a difference of opinion on this subject among
the critics, for Kyle says in the same Bible dictionary
(Vol. 1 p. 602-603), "The finding of this book of the
law in the temple is described as a fortuitous occurrence.
There is no foundaton for the suggestion that Hilkiah
himself had written the book and that the story of its
finding was a fabrication. The account is straight
forward and natural. It is generally agreed that the
book may have been written in the reign of Manasseh,
or in the early part of the reign of Josiah." That
neither of these positions is tenable is seen from the
following considerations.

A. The record itself gives no encouragement to the
forgery hypothesis (II Kings 22:8, etc.). Hilkiah,
Shaphan, Huldah, and Josiah seem all to have con
sidered it an ancient book, the work of Moses.

B. No sufficient motive for the forgery of this book
either in the time of Manasseh or Josiah can be cited.
The critics say the object was to do away with the rival
sanctuaries and make Jerusalem supreme. But the
only sanctuaries which really rivalled Jerusalem had
been swept away already by the captivity of the ten
tribes. On the other hand if this was the object of the
forgery it failed, for we are told : " Nevertheless the
priests of the high places came not up to the altar of
Jehovah in Jerusalem, but they did eat of the unleav
ened bread among their brethren " (II Kings 23 : 9).

C. There were many persons in Judah who had
powerful motives for exposing this forgery if it was
one. The wicked people whom the book condemned
would have seized the opportunity of condemning it as a
forgery. And even if the deception had not been noticed
in Josiah's time, its wicked secret could not have been

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEKAL 113

kept in the reactionary days of his sons. The forgery
hypothesis requires two improbabilities — that the author
was a marvelous genius and that all the rest of the
nation were fools.

D. There are many things in Deuteronomy which fit
the time of Moses and not that of Manasseh and Josiah.
The directions concerning the extermination of the
Canaanites and the way of dealing with the cities of the
land would be very strange in the seventh century but
are quite natural in Moses' farewell address (Deut.
20:10-20). The allusion to the recent bondage in
Egypt (Deut. 23:7), to the refusal of Ammon and
Moab to furnish food to Israel in the wilderness (Deut.
23:4), to the war with Amalek (Deut. 25: 17-19), all
argue for the Mosaic authorship but are inexplicable
in the time of the later kings. The regulations con
cerning the choice of a king and his duties (Deut. 17:
14-20) could hardly have arisen four centuries after
the establishment of the kingdom. The standpoint of
the writer of Deuteronomy is before Israel entered
Canaan.

E. The alleged differences of style and contradictions
between Leviticus and Deuteronomy are due to differ
ence of standpoint. Deuteronomy consists chiefly of
popular addresses, while Leviticus is a codification of
the laws for the use of the priests. Therefore Moses in
Deuteronomy used a different style, omitted many
details, and emphasized many practical points, often
adding directions appropriate to the entrance of the
people into Canaan.

(4) The fact that the great intervening figure of
Moses and the extraordinary events attending the
Exodus did not obscure the figures of the patriarchs in

114: OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

the national consciousness of Israel is strong evidence
that those figures were real ("Neueste Prinzipien *'
Konig, pp. 73-74). Great as Moses was in the mind of
Israel his God is said to be the God of Abraham, of
Isaac, and of Jacob, and these great names of the
fathers could not be blotted out of the memory of Israel
even by far more remarkable events in the time of
Moses. This fact argues for the Mosaic authorship of
Genesis indirectly since the vividness of the stories of
Genesis implies an early date.

5. Summary of Arguments concerning Authorship.
We have seen that the uniform testimony of the Penta
teuch itself favors the view that Moses wrote it. This
opinion was held without a dissenting voice by all the
writers of the Old and New Testaments and by tha
Jewish nation and our Lord himself. "We have weighed
the arguments of modern criticism against this
view and found them wanting. We have further
found much indirect testimony that Moses was the
author in three large sections: (1) Gen. 39 to Ex. 14;

(2) The Levitical code including all the book of
Leviticus and large parts of Exodus and Numbers;

(3) The book of Deuteronomy. There remains one
argument against the Mosaic authorship which it has
seemed best to consider by itself, since it affects not
only the authorship of the Pentateuch but its integrity
and credibility, viz., the argument from the alleged
composite nature of these books.

III. Composition. Five successive stages of the
modern divisive criticism of the Pentateuch are dis
tinguished by Green (H. C. of Pent. pp. 61-88).

1. The document hypothesis — that Moses used earlier
documents in Genesis which were characterized by the

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEKAL 115

use of different divine names, Jehovah and Elohim.
This was maintained by Jean Astruc (1753), Vitringa,
Eichhorn and others. This principle of division was
later applied to the other books of the Pentateuch in
dependence upon Ex. 6:3 and all were made post-
Mosaic.

2. The fragment hypothesis — that the Pentateuch is
composed of thirty or more fragments altogether inde
pendent of each other. This view represented by Vater
(1805), Hartman (1831) and others did not long find
favor. It is the reductio ad absurdum of the document
hypothesis.

3. The supplement hypotheses — a new form of the
document hypothesis, by which the Elohist prepared a
complete history and the Jehovist added to it, making
occasional alterations of his own. This view was
represented by Bleek, Tuch, Stahelin, De Wette, and
Knobel.

4. Crystallization hypothesis — a modification of the
last suggested by Ewald and Hupfeld, which increases
the number of those who supplemented the history and
asserts that they operated at different periods. It is
the reductio ad absurdum of the supplement hypothesis.

5. Modified document hypothesis, which differs from
the original document hypothesis by asserting that the
Jehovist was a continuous and independent document.
This view is current to-day and is represented with
minor variations by Graf, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Corn-
ill, Driver, Cheyne, Haupt, Briggs and many others.

It distinguishes four documentary sources of the
Hexateuch besides the redactors.

P. The priestly document. This is considered the
fundamental document of the Pentateuch, called by

116 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

Ewald " the book of origins/' by Hupf eld " the first or
older Elohist," and by Dillmann A. Driver thus char
acterizes this document : " Its language is that of a
jurist, rather than a historian; it is circumstantial,
formal and precise : a subject is developed systematically;
and completeness of detail even at the cost of some
repetition is regularly observed. Sentences are cast
with great frequency into the same mould ; and particu
lar formulae are constantly repeated, especially such as
articulate the progress of the narrative. The attention
paid by the author to numbers, chronology and other
statistical data, will be evident" (Driver's I. L. 0. T.
p. 12). P. includes about one-half of Genesis, the
greater part of Exodus, all of Leviticus, the greater
part of Numbers and a few pieces at the beginning
and end of Deuteronomy, besides several large sections
of Joshua. It includes the so-called Law of Holiness
(Lev. 17-26) which is denominated H (or by Dillmann
S, as the law given at Sinai) and is considered by many
older than the remainder of P.

E. Elohist, which begins surely Gen. 20 and per
haps 15 : 2 — called by Hupfeld " the second or younger
Elohist," by Ewald "the third writer," by Schrader,
" the theocratic writer," and by Dillmann B or " the
Israelish book of legends." Critics generally agree that
E was a native of the Northern Kingdom.

J. Jahvist. Called by Tuch " the supplementer,"
by Ewald "the fourth writer," by Schrader "the
prophetic writer," and by Dillmann C. Belonged to
the Southern Kingdom and was vivid in his delineation
of character and anthropomorphic in his conception of
God.

D. Author of the greater part of Deuteronomy.

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEEAL 11?

In regard to the dates of these various documents the
common view is tfc us expressed by Mitchell : " The
conclusion reached with respect to the age of the Penta
teuch, then, is, that J originated about 850 and E about
800 B.C. ; that the two, having been more or less revised
and enlarged were united into a composite document
before 639 B.C.; that D, which was discovered in 621
B.C. but must have been written some time before and
revised in the reign of Manasseh, was incorporated with
J E, early in the Captivity ; and that the Pentateuch
was practically completed by the addition of P, a prod
uct of the first half of the fifth century B.C. before 444,
if not before 458, the date of Ezra's appearance in
Palestine " (" The World before Abraham," p. G3) . The
more conservative critics however, such as Dillmann,
Kittel, and Baudissin place P. before the Exile and
the last named writer affirms that although J E is evi
dently a composite document, J and E cannot be sepa
rated with as great certainty as can J E be separated
from P. The general characteristics of J and E are,
however, plain. As Driver expresses it : " J if he
dwells less than E upon concrete particulars, excels in
the power of delineating life and character. His touch
is singularly light, with a few strokes he paints a scene
which before he has finished, is impressed indelibly
upon his reader's memory. His dialogues especially
(which are frequent) are remarkable for the delicacy
and truthfulness with which character and emotions
find expression in them" (L. 0. T. p. 119). It is
clearly to be understood that these several documents
are said to have circulated as independent books for
a long time before they were brought together. They
were brought together by editors or redactors, commonly

118 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

called R, who are said to have made occasional altera
tions and additions of their own. On this point Dill-
mann says : " The further question still arises as to
whether the three documents A, B, C [P. E. J.], have
been wrought up by one or by several redactors (R.).
Formerly the former hypothesis was the prevalent one.
Recently, it has been contested by all who hold A [P]
to be the latest document in the Hexateuch and post-
exilic and it is maintained rather that B [E.] and C
[J.] after each of them separately had passed through
several enlarged editions, were at length combined and
that at a later period by yet another hand they were
joined to D before a final redactor wrought A [P] into
this composite work" (Dillmann's Genesis p. 19).

The arguments by which the composite authorship
of the Pentateuch is supported we will take singly and
attempt to answer them.

1. The use of the divine names. This was the phe
nomenon which drew Astruc to the conclusion that
Moses used different documents in Genesis, character
ized respectively by the divine names, Jehovah and
Elohim. Later it was claimed that Ex. 6 : 3 must have
been written by an author (P) who had not thus far
used the name Jehovah, therefore not the author of the
entire book of Genesis.

Answer. — A. This argument ignores the etymology
of the names of God and conceives of them as used
interchangeably merely as a matter of habit. It is not
claimed by the critics that J was ignorant of the name
Elohim or P and E of the name Jehovah, but that each
preferred one of these names. But if so, the question
remains, why did J prefer the name Jehovah and E
and P the name Elohim. To this important question

the divisive hypothesis gives no satisfactory answer.
If the Pentateuch however be the work of one author,
the use of these names is sufficiently clear. It is pre
cisely that which the so-called characteristics of P, J
and E, require. P is said to be cold, formal, systematic,
logical; but it is precisely in such passages that one
would expect Elohim, the general name for God, the
name which has no special relation to Israel but is used
many times in reference to the deities of the Gentiles.
J on the other hand is said to be naive, anthropomorphic
in his conception of God; but these evidences of relig
ious fervor would lead us to expect the proper national
name of God, the name which emphasized his covenant
relations with Israel. There are passages in which we
cannot explain why one name of the deity is used rather
than another but in the great majority of cases, any
other name would be inappropriate. That these names
are carefully used in their proper place has been shown
by Hengstenberg and more recently by Green who says :
" The divisive hypothesis can give no reason why the
Elohist rather than the Jehovist should have given an
account of the creation of the world and all that it
contains; nor why the Jehovist rather than the Elohist
should have described the beginnings of God's earthly
kingdom in man's primeval condition and the mercy
shown him after his fall; nor why the Elohist never
speaks of an altar or sacrifice or invocation or any act of
patriarchal worship — nor why Elohim regularly occurs
when Gentiles are concerned, unless specific reference
is made to the God of the patriarchs. All this is purely
accidental on the divisive hypothesis. But such evident
adaptation is not the work of chance. It can only
result from the intelligent employment of the divine

names in accordance with their proper meaning and
recognized usage'' (" Unity of Genesis," pp. 547-8).

B. In order to substantiate this alleged dual use of
the divine names it is necessary to do violence to the
text. Elohim occurs in sections belonging to J (Gen.
7:9; 33 : 5, 11 etc.) and Jehovah in sections belonging
to P (Gen. 7:16; 14:22; 17:1; 20:18; Ex. 18: six
times). The critics rend apart Gen. 21:1-2; 22; Ex.
19:24; Num. 22-24, and other passages to make the
text fit the theory. Sometimes they sweep aside diffi
culties by asserting that R altered the name, at others
that the text is evidently corrupt. Neither of these
suppositions however has any basis outside of the exi
gencies of the hypothesis. The hypothesis is said to
be derived from the phenomena of the text, as we have
it; but if those phenomena do not suit the hypothesis,
they are rejected as worthless. May we not reasonably
ask : If the text is corrupt how can we trust the hypoth
esis which is derived from it? The very existence of
R and several R's is a baseless assumption made neces
sary by the difficulties of the divisive hypothesis.

C. The fact that the critics soon found it necessary
to divide the Elohist into two — the first Elohist, P, and
the second Elohist, E — and that many of them, while
asserting the composite character of J E consider it
very difficult to separate E from J is evidence that the
use of these names is a very uncertain criterion by which
to analyze the Pentateuch. If this test alone cannot
distinguish P from J E, nor E. from J. it may as well
be abandoned.

D. The passage Ex. 6 : 3 cannot possibly mean that
its author was hitherto ignorant of or did not use the
name Jehovah. There God said to Moses " I appeared

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL 121

unto Abraham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob by the name
of God Almighty (^ $>K) but by my name Jehovah
was I not known unto them."

We notice: (1) The name Jehovah is not here dis
tinguished from Elohim but from El Shaddai, a name
which in Genesis is used only five times (Gen. 17: 1;
28 : 3 ; 35 : 11 ; 43 : 14 ; 48 : 3) while Elohim is used
more than two hundred times. The name El Shaddai,
is selected in Ex. 6 : 3 evidently because it emphasized
certain attributes. But if the expression in the first
part of the verse does not mean that El Shaddai was the
name by which the patriarchs usually spoke of God,
neither can the expression in the last part of the verse
mean that the patriarchs did not know the name
Jehovah.

(2) The redactor of the Pentateuch, if such there
were, could not have considered the statement of Ex.
6 : 3 inconsistent with the frequent use of the name
Jehovah by the patriarchs. Otherwise he would dither
have changed the statement in Exodus or the name
Jehovah in Genesis. The many generations of Jews
and Christians who were ignorant of the composite
authorship of Genesis also saw nothing difficult in
Ex. 6 : 3.

(3) The context of the passage and the usus loqnendi
of the expression, " to know the name " show clearly
that the meaning is to have an experimental knowledge
of the attributes emphasized by the name. Accordingly
the etymology of the name was told to Moses (Ex. 3 : 14-
15) the covenant connected with it is described (Ex.
6:4-8) and it is constantly repeated (Ex. 6 : 7, 8 ; 10 : 2 ;
16:12; 29:46, etc.). The word to know in the Old
Testament generally includes the idea of apprehension

122 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

and the expression " to know the name of Jehovah " is
used many times in this fuller sense of apprehending
the divine attributes (I Kings 8 : 43 ; Ps. 9 : 11 ; 91 : 14 ;
Is. 52:6; 64:1; Jer. 16:21; Ezek. 39:6-7). All this
shows the meaning to be that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
knew God as a God of power but not as the God of the
covenant. Whether the name of Jehovah was in exist
ence before Moses, Ex. 6 : 3 does not say — merely that
its significance was not appreciated. Possibly Moses
introduced the name so familiar and precious in his
time, into the earlier records. It is much more likely
however both from the archaic form of the name and
its probable identity with the Assyrian Jahu that the
name was known to the patriarchs. As the rainbow
long seen in the sky was given new meaning in the days
of Noah, so the name Jehovah familiar to oppressed
Israel became the pledge of the divine covenant.

2. Other words said to be peculiar to the several
documents. It is said that P, J, E and D each has a
vocabulary of his own. Driver gives a long list of words
peculiar to P (L. 0. T. pp. 131-5) and Strack does the
same for all the sources adding a short list of cases where
one and the same idea is differently expressed in the
different documents (" Einleitung," pp. 43-53).

Answer. — A. Of course the argument has no weight
unless the word or expression is one which both writers
had occasion to use. Many of the words in Driver's list
are confined to P because neither J, E, nor D had
occasion to use them.

B. Where P uses one synonym and J E another, it
is sometimes possible to see a good reason for the choice
in the character of the discourse. Thus P and D use
Vpln the more accurate expression while J uses I^J

because accuracy was essential in the parts of the
Pentateuch assigned to P and D. P and J use the
name Sinai, one of the three peaks of the mountain,
while E and D speak in a general way of Horeb, the
name of the whole mountain. In the former case
definiteness was important (Ex. 16:1) in the latter
not (Ex. 17:6; Dent. 1:2).

No continuous narrative -ever displayed more un
mistakable marks of unity than the story of hardening
Pharaoh's heart (Ex. 4:21 to 14:8). Its progress
must impress every careful reader. Yet because P and
E use the expression pin to harden the heart and J
nses T2DP1 the whole story is dissected by the critics and
its meaning lost. These words are used with remarkable
precision as the record lies before us.

(1) From the divine side. First God made Pharaoh's
heart strong (Pin) then obdurate ('"iKfpN) then heavy
(vnaan ).

(2) From the human side. The condition of Pha
raoh's heart and his action in hardening it alternate
throughout the record. This arrangement is destroyed
by the analysis :

Exodus 7 : 13 ptrPl Condition P.

" 8:11 "1??M Action J.

" 8 : 15 pnvi Condition P.

" 8:28 laan Action J.

« 9:7 laan Condition J.

« 9 : 34 133»J Action J.

« 9:35 pT nM Condition P.

Other examples might be mentioned but these suffice

124 OLD TESTAMENT LNTEODUCTION

to show that the; analysis of the Pentateuch is in direct
violation of the usage of words throughout the Old
Testament. In cases where we cannot see the reason
for the choice of a word, it does not follow that there
was no reason. It is quite conceivable that a writer
would use one expression habitually in a certain
connection and a synonymous expression in another
connection.

C. The claim of a distinct vocabulary for P and
J E can be maintained only by mutilating the record.
If an expression usually found in P occurs in a J E
section, the chapter and sometimes even the verse is
divided. If narratives were left entire except in case
of an expression which might be a later gloss, the
argument would be much weakened. By this method
any literary work could be divided into several sources,
more or less complete (The analysis of the Parable of
the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son in Green's
H. C. of Pent. pp. 119-123 and " Eomans Dissected "
by E. D. McEealsham).

3. It is claimed that there are parallel accounts of
the same event — such as two accounts of the creation,
two stories of the flood, two records of the call of Moses,
etc.

Answer. — These accounts are not really parallel.
Some of them are merely similar events, as the two
instances in which Abraham lied concerning his wife
and the same action by Isaac. The redactor must have
considered these quite distinct. In other cases there is
a repetition from a different standpoint, as the account
of the creation in Genesis 2 is from the standpoint of
trie God of revelation and providence. Sometimes the
repetition is a characteristic of Hebrew style, which

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL 125

often makes a general statement by way of introduction
and then enlarges upon it. Thus Gen. 28 : 5 states
briefly Jacob's departure for Padan Aram as introduc
tion to the fuller account of his journey (Gen. 28:10
to 29: 13). (Other examples: Green's H. C. of Pent,
pp. 111-112.) Concerning the two stories of the flood
Ewald says : " The story of the flood shone as a gleam
ing star before all others on the horizon of the Jehovistic
and Elohistic documents " ( Quoted by Eupprecht, " Das
Eatsel des Fiinfbuches Mose/' p. 44). Yet the critics
have been unable to extract two records of the flood
even tolerably complete. The beginning of chapter
seven is assigned to J. If so, we are told by J. that
God commanded Noah to come with all his house
into the ark, without telling a word about the building
of the ark or the members of Noah's family. Chapter
seven needs precisely the statement of Chap. 6 : 9-22 to
make it complete or comprehensible. Gen. 8:13 says :
" And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked

and behold the face of the ground was dry " This

is assigned to J but not another word of J is recorded
till verse 20 where we read : " And Noah builded an
altar unto the Lord." This serious gap is bridged by
the intervening statements which the critics assign to
P. Furthermore Gen. 9: 1-1 7 (P) is not a useless
repetition of Gen. 8:21-22 (J) but an enlargement of
God's covenant with Noah after he had built the altar
to Jehovah and recommenced his life upon earth. The
so-called two stories of the flood need each other to
form a complete record. It is also significant that the
cuneiform story of the flood does not follow either one
or the other document but contains both in much the
same order as Genesis ( J. D. Davis, " Genesis and Sem-

126 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

itic Tradition/' pp. 128-9). The lives of the two Jon
athan Edwards present parallels more remarkable than
those of Genesis. Both were ministers and both college
presidents. Both died soon after inauguration and both
preached on the first Sabbath of the fatal year from the
text : " This year thou shalt die." Surely some future
critic will show that the two were one.

4. We are told that there are contradictions in these
parallel accounts — that they do not harmonize with
each other.

Answer. — It is noteworthy that the most difficult of
these contradictions are found in Genesis where Moses
was dependent either on ancient records or oral
tradition.

(1) Thus according to Gen. 7: 12, 17; 8: 6, 10, 12;
the flood lasted 54 days and according to Gen. 7 : 24 it
lasted 150 days. It is apparent to any fair-minded
reader that the forty days of Gen. 7: 12, 17 and 8:6;
do not mark the total duration of the flood but of the
rain itself.

(2) Three explanations of the name Isaac are said
to be given (Gen, 17:17; 18:12; 21:6). These ex
planations however are not mutually exclusive. It is
quite natural that the child should be called Isaac
(laughter) because both his father and mother laughed
in incredulity at the thought of his birth and that in
view of his name his mother laughed with joy after his
birth.

(3) Again the critics insist that those who sold
Joseph into Egypt are said to be Ishmaelites in Gen.
37 : 25-27 and 39 : 1 and Midianites in Gen. 37 : 28, 36.

Answer. — There is no contradiction in these names.
In Judges 7 : 8 is found the record that Gideon did

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEKAL 127

battle against the Midianites and yet we read concern
ing the conquered (8:24), "They had golden earrings
because they were Ishmaelites." Evidently the term
Ishmaelites included the narrower name Midianites.
Accordingly they are sometimes called by one name and
sometimes by the other. Others suggest that the term
Ishmaelite may be a general designation for any trader
as they were preeminent in commerce. The admission
of a final redactor is fatal to the assertion of irre
concilable contradictions in the Pentateuch. A man
of such marvelous ability as he must have possessed
would have seen the contradictions if they were as
patent as they are said to be, and would have re
moved them.

Over against these arguments for the composite
authorship of the Pentateuch, stands the remarkable
evidence of plan and arrangement in these five books.
This is not denied by the critics. They explain the
unity of plan by the skill of the final redactor and by
his using P the most systematic and complete of the
documents as the basis of his completed work. But
this explanation is insufficient. It is true that a his
torian may use many varying and even contradictory
sources, weighing them against each other and working
them over into a unity. In doing so he does not retain,
however, the language of the originals but fuses them
into a unity of which he is the author. Quite different
from this is the critical explanation of the Pentateuch.
It is said to have been a process of stratification in
which the language and forms of the original can even
now be distinguished. The redactor merely fastened
the documents together, making a few changes or addi
tions. Under these circumstances, we assert that the

128 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

orderly history we possess is utterly impossible and the
theory is contradicted by its own assumption, for the
redactor is an impossible character. He showed won
derful genius in bringing order out of the chaos of
documents and yet he was such a bungler that the errors
of his work have come down to us as evidences of his
folly.

It is not claimed that there are no difficulties in
accepting the unity and Mosaic authorship of the Pen
tateuch. But it is claimed that the difficulties of
accepting the story of its origin which has been made
for us by the keen critical insight of a century and more
of critics, tax our credulity far more than the tradi
tional view. This plan presents a mountain of difficulty
for every mole hill which it removes and to all its
specious arguments we reply, non sequitur.

GENESIS

I. Name. The Hebrews named each book of the
Pentateuch by its opening word or words. Accordingly
the first book of Moses was named rVK>fcO3, a name which
was transliterated into Greek by Origen Bpr^t.0. The
Septuagint called the book Ftvsffts from the headings
of its ten parts (Gen. 2:4; 5: 1; 6: 9; 10: 1; 11 : 10; 11 :
27 ; 25 : 12 ; 25 : 19 ; 36 : 1 ; 37 : 2) in each of which that
word occurs in the translation. The Vulgate and most
modern translations have adopted this Greek name.
It means origin, birth, generation and is an appropriate
equivalent of the Hebrew plural Jin/nfl which is the
key-word of the book.

II. Author and Composition (see Chapter on Pen
tateuch).

III. Purpose. As this Greek name implies, the
purpose of the book is to trace the beginnings of his
tory. The viewpoint however is not that of the modern
historian who gathers together all possible material
and arranges it in chronological order. It is rather to
present a brief outline of the history of divine revela
tion up to the beginning of national life in Israel. The
perfection and purpose of creation and the temporary
thwarting of that purpose by the sin of man are the
logical introduction to the history. The history itself
exhibits the gradual process of selection among the

129

130 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

descendants of Adam up to the point where selection
ceased, and the entire body of one man's descendants
were to be the chosen vehicle for transmitting God's
revelation and salvation to all mankind. The develop
ment of this process included the rejection of Cain, the
appointment of Seth, the destruction and purification
of the world by the flood, the preservation of Noah and
his family to be a new beginning of the race, the choice
of Shem, the scattering of mankind from Babel, the
call of Abraham, the miraculous birth of Isaac and his
consecration to God on one of the mountains of
Moriah, the selection of the younger son Jacob and the
history of his chastening which finally resulted in bring
ing him and his household into Egypt, the cradle of
Israel's national life. In Genesis God deals with indi
viduals and families while in the later books He deals
with nations and especially the Hebrew nation through
the instrumentality of national and religious leaders.

Genesis is related to the Pentateuch as the Pentateuch
is related to the Old Testament and the Old Testament
to the New. Genesis describes the ground and how
God planted in it the seed of a pure national life while
the later books of the Pentateuch describe the growth
of that seed into a full-grown tree. The later books
of the Old Testament describe the growth on that tree
of a special branch and twig and the gradual unfolding
of a bud into a flower until the coming of the fruit.
In the New Testament we see the perfect fruit plucked
from the tree and given for the healing of the nations.

IV. Divisions.

Introduction Chapters 1-11:
(a) The Creation 1:1 to 2:3.
(6) History till the flood 2 : 4 to 5: 32.

GENESIS 131

(c) The Flood and History till Abraham Chaps.
6-11.

1. The History of Abraham including the early
history of Isaac 12 : 1 to 25 : 18.

2. The History of Jacob including that of Isaac and
the twelve patriarchs until Joseph's death 25 : 19 to
50:26.

V. Sources. "We have seen in the previous chapter
that if there were written records in Israel Moses would
certainly have them, and if there were oral traditions
he would know them. In this connection a few signifi
cant facts and suggestions may be mentioned:

1. More than three-quarters of Genesis (chapters
12-50) refers to events in the life-time of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob — events which Joseph would undoubt
edly know and which his evident interest in his family
might have inspired him to collect. His powerful
position in Egypt would have made it easy for him to
collect material for a history of his people. The per
sonal tone of the record of Abraham's prayer for Sodom
and of his offering Isaac as well as that of Joseph's
making himself known to his brethren is just what
we would expect if the record of Moses were based upon
an earlier autobiographical record.

2. Abraham came from a country where the knowl
edge of writing and reading was common and from an
important city mentioned in the code of Hammurabi,
probably the Amraphel of Gen. 14. In that country
traditions of the creation and the flood were preserved,
which have much in common with those in Genesis.
That is the very country also in which Genesis places
the site of the garden of Eden and where the confusion
of tongues is said to have occurred. There if anywhere

132 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

the remains of an original revelation concerning cre
ation and an accurate story of the flood would be handed
down. What could be more natural than that Abraham
carried such records and genealogies with him from the
banks of the Euphrates to the land of Canaan ? " Abra
ham gave all that he had unto Isaac" (Gen. 25:5).
Perhaps these priceless records were among his posses
sions. If so they went down with Jacob into Egypt and
form the basis of Gen. 1-11 as written by Moses.

3. "We know that in one matter at least tradition was
handed down from Joseph to Moses through the four
centuries of sojourn in Egypt. Joseph made his
brothers promise to carry up his bones from Egypt
(Gen. 50:25). Joseph's body was kept carefully until
Moses' time, was carried out of Egypt by the Israelites
(Ex. 13:19) and buried at Shechem (Josh. 24:32).
Coffins of Joseph's time and earlier were inscribed with
extracts from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. But if
the coffins cf Egyptian priests and princes bore in
scriptions from Egyptian holy books, why should not
the coffin of Joseph, the savior of Israel and the Prem
ier of Egypt, bear records of the traditions of his
ancestors? Such a plausible suggestion shows how
easily reliable sources for Genesis could have come into
the hands of Moses.

VI. Chronology. The figures of the genealogies in
Gen. 5 and 11 may be tabulated and dates derived from
them as follows:

GENESIS 133

»rt fl) S **M C -

w 5 1 S 5 .g < -3 < -3

"* -^ £3 •c3 £ 3

«j "t S ed 2

3 * 1 £

Adam 130 800 930 1 930

Seth 105 807 912 130 1042

Enos 90 815 905 235 1140

Cainan 70 840 910 325 1235

Mahalaleel 65 830 895 395 1290

Jared 162 800 962 460 1422

Enoch 65 300 365 622 987

Methuselah... 187 782 969 687 1656

Lamech 182 595 777 874 1651

Noah 500 450 950 1056 2006

Date of Flood1 1656

Shem 100 500 600 1556 2156

Arphaxad 35 403 438 1656 2093

Salah 30 403 433 1691 2124

Eber 34 430 464 1721 2185

Peleg 30 209 239 1755 1994

Reu 32 207 239 1785 2024

Serug 30 200 230 1817 2047

Nahor 29 119 148 1847 1995

Terah 70 135 205 1876 2081

Abram 1002 75 1753 1946 2121

These dates would allow only about four thousand years
from Adam to Christ since the date of Abraham must

have been about 2040-1865 B.C. But the Egyptian

and Babylonian civilizations were highly developed
before 4000 B.C. The dates of this table therefore are
not true. The explanation of the figures in the geneal-
1 Gen. 7:11. • Gen. 21 : 5. » Gen. 25 : 7.

134 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION"

ogies of Gen. 5 and 11 is to be found in the following
considerations :

1. The genealogies of scripture are not intended to
be complete but mention only a few outstanding names.
That in Matthew 1 has three lists of fourteen genera
tions each, covering respectively three unequal periods:
Abraham to David, nearly a thousand years, David to the
Exile about four centuries, and the Exile to Christ more
than five centuries. The genealogy in Ex. 6 : 16-24
makes Moses the great-grandson of Levi though 430
years intervened (Ex. 12 : 40). Many names are omitted
in these lists.

2. There are indications that the list of names in
Genesis 5 and 11 is not complete. The total length of
time from Adam to the flood and from the flood to
Abraham is never mentioned in scripture although the
period from Joseph to Moses (Ex, 12:40) and that
from the Exodus to the building of the temple (I Kings
6:1) are mentioned. The fact that there are just ten
names in each list also suggests that a similar arrange
ment may have been made as in the first chapter of
Matthew. Furthermore if the dates are true, Adam was
contemporary with every generation till the flood except
Noah. Indeed Noah knew all but three of the genera
tions before him. Methuselah died and Arphaxad was
born in the year of the flood (notice however Gen. 11 :
10). Shem survived Abraham thirty-five years, Salah
three years and Eber sixty-four years. Such conclusions
are contrary to the spirit of the record which presup
poses a much longer gap between Adam and Noah and
between Noah and Abraham.

3. The regular formula is : " A lived years and

begat B. And A. lived after he begat B. years

GENESIS 135

and begat sons and daughters. And B, lived years

and begat C., etc." The word 1^ however is sometimes
•used of succeeding generations. Zilpah is said to have
borne her great-grandchildren (Gen. 46 : 18) and Bilhah
her grandchildren (Gen. 46:25). Canaan is said to
have begotten whole nations (Gen. 10:15-18). Also
notice Exodus 1:5: " All the souls that came out of
the loins of Jacob were seventy souls." This includes
grandchildren. In the formula the meaning is not
necessarily that B. is the literal son of A. and that A.

was years old when B. was born. B. may be the

literal son or a distant descendant, and if the latter the
age of A. is his age at the birth of the child from whom
B. was descended. Thus many centuries may intervene
between A. and B. No chronology is intended in these
figures. Their purpose is not to show the age of the
world but the effect of sin upon human vitality and
longevity (For further discussion see Bibliotheca Sacra
April 1890).

It

EXODUS

I. Name. The book was named by the Jews from
its first words ntoP n^K) or more briefly nioi^ The Sep-
tuagint named it *E£o8o? from its contents. This was
adopted in the Vulgate and from it in the modern
versions.

II. Author and Composition (see Chapter on Pen
tateuch).

III. Theme. The second book of Moses is closely
connected with the first. It begins with the conjunc
tion " and " introducing a list of the twelve sons of
Jacob who came down into Egypt. It takes up the
story of Genesis at the death of Joseph and carries it
on through the establishment of the theocracy at Mt.
Sinai. It records the beginnings of God's fulfilment of
His promise to Abraham to give the land of Canaan to
his descendants.

The special phase of this fulfilment, with which
Exodus deals, is the beginning of separate national
existence. The growth from a small group of families
numbering only seventy souls into a real nation is passed
over with a few words because that period of over three
centuries contained nothing germane to the purpose of
the religious historian. The oppression, however, which
resulted in the still greater growth of Israel and finally
in their deliverance furnished an important subject,
which would be calculated to stimulate the gratitude

136

EXODUS 137

and faith of God's people in future generations. Exodus
records the beginnings of national life in Israel, as
Genesis the beginnings of religious life. Exodus there
fore appropriately recounts the origin of Israel's great
est national feast, the Passover. It follows the people
in the wilderness only as far as Mt. Sinai where God
gave the Magna Charta of their national life. Certain
statutes given at that time fill the concluding chapters
of the book.

IV. Divisions.

1. The History of Israel till their arrival at Mt.
Sinai 1 : 1 to 19 : 2.

a. The oppression of Israel, chapter 1.

6. The training of Moses the deliverer, chapter 2.

c. His call and messages to Pharaoh, chapters 3-11.

d. The institution of the Passover, 12 : 1 to 13 : 16.

e. Israel's journeys to Sinai 13 : 17 to 19 : 2.

2. The Eevelations at Mt. Sinai, 19 : 3 to 40 : 38, in
cluding the Decalogue and various moral and ceremonial
laws.

V. Contemporaneous History. The dates of the
sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt are somewhat difficult
to obtain. In I Kings 6 : 1 we are told that 480 years
intervened between the Exodus and the beginning of
Solomon's temple, and that the latter event occurred in
the fourth year of Solomon's reign. This would give
about 1495 B.C. as the date of the Exodus and the 430
years of Israel's sojourn in Egypt (Ex. 12 : 40-41) would
be from 1925 to 1495 B.C. Recent discoveries, however,
place the date of Hammurabi, probably the Biblical Am-
raphel Abraham's contemporary, about 1974-1920 B.C.
and thus fix Abraham's date at about 2040-1865 B.C.
If so, Isaac was born about 1940 B.C. (Gen. 21:5)

and Jacob 1880 B.C. (Gen. 25:26) and Jacob went
down to Egypt 1750 B.C. (Gen. 47:9). The dates of
the sojourn in Egypt would then be 1750-1320 B.C.
This date for the Exodus agrees almost exactly with the
estimates of the best Egyptologists.

From Egyptian sources Petrie dates the Exodus at
1204 B.C. while Budge and most other authorities prefer
about 1320 B.C. At any rate, Joseph is thought to have
come into Egypt during the reign of Apepa II, the last
great Hyksos or Shepherd King. These conquerors were
Asiatics. Some historians think they were a mixed race,
partly Semitic, and others that they were Hittites.
According to Manetho they ruled Egypt 511 years.
Joseph was elevated to power toward the close of their
supremacy. This would explain the silence of the
Egyptian records concerning Joseph, as well as the
Bible statement : " Now there arose up a new king over
Egypt, which knew not Joseph" (Ex. 1:8). It is
natural that a king who belonged to a dynasty of foreign
usurpers should be willing to give a place in the land
to the Israelites but that later kings of native rulers
should despise Israel and oppress them. The Hyksos
kings ruled at Tanis, identified with Zoan, in the eastern
part of the Delta, not far from the land of Goshen and
the later site of the treasure cities, Pithom and Ramses.
They constitute the fifteenth and sixteenth dynasties
and were so far assimilated to Egyptian customs that
the remains of their work resemble that of other
Egyptian kings.

During the seventeenth dynasty the native kings
whose capital was at Thebes made war upon the Hyksos
but they were not driven ont until the eighteenth
dynasty. By far the most powerful king of the eight-

EXODUS 139

eenth dynasty was Thothmes III who had led fifteen expe
ditions against the princes in Syria and subjugated
them. On the walls of the temple at Karnak is a lisr
of 119 places in Syria which were subject to this king.
Two of them Jacob-El and Joseph-El are thought to be
places named after Jacob and Joseph. Thothmes III
carried his conquests as far as the upper Euphrates.
The Aegean islands as well as Cyprus and part of Asia
Minor were also subject to him. Great light is shed
upon the history of this time by the tablets discovered
at Tel-el- Amarna in 1887. They are letters and reports
from the rulers of the Syrian provinces mostly to
Amenophis III, the third king after Thothmes III and
are in the Babylonian language, the language of
diplomacy in that time. They refer to a people called
Khabiri who are identified by some with the Hebrews.
They are mentioned by the king of Jerusalem as attack
ing various places in southern Palestine. If the identi
fication is correct, we must conclude either that the
Exodus occurred much earlier than has been thought
(1400 B.C.) and the attacks referred to were the con
quests of Canaan described in Joshua or that some of
the Hebrews had left Egypt before the Exodus and were
seeking to establish themselves in southern Palestine.
The latter hypothesis is more probable. Hommel thinks
the tribe of Asher emigrated from Egypt before the
other tribes and concerning the relations of Israel to
Canaan during their sojourn in Egypt he says : " It
is extremely probable in view of the intimate relation
between Egypt and Palestine that the Israelites in the
land of Goshen maintained continual intercourse and
uninterrupted contact with the latter country, through
out the whole 430 years of their stay in Egypt " (" He-

140 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

brew Tradition," p. 226). The Khabiri, however, may
have been the designation of the people of a certain
region in southern Palestine rather than the name of a
race. Such was probably the original usage of the name
Hebrew.

The successor of Amenophis III was Amenophis IV,
famous as the Pharaoh who attempted to revolutionize
the Egyptian religion by substituting the worship of
the sun, in order to unify the various religions of his
empire. The attempt failed and the new religion was
overthrown soon after his death. The internal dis
turbances caused by Amenophis IV were quieted by
Harmais, counted by some the last Pharaoh of the 18th
and by others the first of the 19th dynasty. He was
succeeded by Eamses I who after a short reign was
followed by Seti I and he in turn by Ramses II, known
as Ramses the Great.

This monarch is gererally regarded as the Pharaoh
of the oppression. He waged war against the Hittites
many years, but finally made peace with them, accord
ing to which northern Syria became tributary to the
Hittites and Palestine remained subject to Egypt. He
reigned sixty-seven years. Fully half of all the extant
temples of Egypt are from his time and he is the best
known of all the Pharaohs. He strengthened the Delta
towns and made Tanis (Zoan) his favorite residence.
His power in Syria was far weaker than that of
Thothmes III two centuries before him. He was suc
ceeded by his son Manephthah, probably the Pharaoh of
the Exodus. This agrees with scripture. The oppres
sion of Israel had begun when Moses was born but
Moses was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus
(Ex. 7:7). Naturally the oppression would begin at

EXODUS 141

the opening of a new reign. Furthermore what we
know from secular history of the haughty bearing of
Bamses II harmonizes with the character of the op
pressor of Israel. The fact that he strengthened the
cities of the Delta and lived there, not far from the
land of Goshen, agrees with the statement that he made
Israel work with rigor in brick and mortar and that
they built the cities Pithom. and Eamses. Thus the
Exodus occurred thirteen or more years after the
accession of Manephthah.

Little is known of that monarch. A peculiar record
concerning him was discovered in 1896. It records the
names of certain localities which he subjugated in the
following order : " The Hittite land, Canaan, Ashkelon,
Gezer, Janoah, Ysiri'r — ' all lands/ " The connection
of the last name shows apparently that it belongs to
some people living in southern Palestine, although Ja
noah was a city of the Lebanon. Some think it is a
reference to Israel. If so, it is the only mention of them
in Egyptian inscriptions thus far discovered. Aside
from this list there is no m9ntion of an Asiatic campaign
of Manephthah. The date of another campaign in this
same account is the fifth year of his reign. This would
be before the Exodus if the birth of Moses occurred after
the accession of Eamses II. If therefore the hypothesis
already suggested be true, that some of the Hebrews
had broken away from the oppression of Egypt and
sought a refuge in southern Palestine before the
Exodus, they may have been the people whom Maneph
thah encountered there. Both the Hebrew and the
Egyptian accounts of this matter are so meagre that
we must suspend judgment until we have more light.
All the light we have tends to confirm, the accuracy of

142 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

the Bible record. And if that record is true, we would
not expect any mention of Israel either in the inscrip
tions of the Pharaoh whom God judged or the Pharaoh
whose hosts God overthrew in the Eed Sea.

According to a newer view, Thothmes III of the
eighteenth dynasty was the Pharaoh of the oppression
and either Amenophis II or Thothmes IV the Pharaoh
of the Exodus. The chief argument for this theory is
chronological. The usual date of the Exodus (1320
B.C.) does not allow for the 480 years of I Kings 6: 1
between the Exodus and the building of the temple
(1015 B.C.). The 480 years would bring us back to
the end of the reign of Thothmes III. Furthermore
what is known of that monarch and his time agrees
with the Bible record. The picture of brick-making by
captives, bearing the superscription, " Be not idle," is
from his reign. On this theory Queen Hatasu, the
daughter of Thothmes I, who reigned with her brother
Thothmes II and during the minority of Thothmes III
may have been the Pharaoh's daughter who brought up
the child Moses and the Khabiri of the Tel-el- Amarna
letters may have been the hosts of Israel who were
threatening to overthrow the king of Jerusalem.

The facts are too meager to decide positively between
these two theories. Still the stronger arguments favor
the theory which makes Ramses II the Pharaoh of the
oppression and Manephthah the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

Ill

LEVITICUS

I. Name. The third book of Moses was named by
the Jews from its opening word N^i?.5} In the Mishna
it is variously designated D'Jn.3 rnin, D'jni) 1BD and
HW31.J? "HDD according to the character of its contents. On
the same principle it is named in the Septuagint
AeutTtxoi, and by Philo Aeutrtxij Btfi).o$. From the Sep
tuagint the Vulgate derived the name Liber Leviticus.
The latter name has come down as the designation in
many modern versions.

II. Author and Composition (see Chapter on Pen
tateuch).

III. Purpose. This book, as the names in the
Mishna and Septuagint show, was intended for the
priests. It was their guide-book for the worship of
Jehovah and the instruction of Israel in their part of
that worship. It stands appropriately after Exodus
which closes with the dedication of the completed
tabernacle. And yet it is markedly distinct from
Exodus both in the manner and matter of its revelation.
This distinction is shown in the first verse of the book.
"And the Lord called unto Moses and spake unto him
out of the tabernacle of the congregation " (Lev. 1:1).
As Donald Fraser well remarks : " We have in Leviti
cus, not the Lawgiver speaking in awful tones or writing
on tablets of stones, but the Portion ^f Israel, dwelling

143

144 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

in the midst of His people and teaching them how they
might draw near to His presence and abide in com
munion with Him " (" Synoptical Lectures/' Vol. 1, p.
29). Leviticus is also clearly distinct in purpose from
Deuteronomy. The latter is a resume of the law for
popular use while Leviticus is a code intended for the
priests. Leviticus has its inspired commentary in the
epistle to the Hebrews, which describes the true method
of approach to God in the dispensation of grace, as
Leviticus had shown it in the dispensation of law.
IV. Divisions.

1. The way to approach God, culminating in the
ceremony of the day of atonement. Chapters 1-16.

a. Laws of sacrifices. Chapters 1-7.

6. The consecration of the priests. Chapters 8-9.

c. The sin of Nadab and Abihu and laws occa

sioned thereby. Chapter 10.

d. Laws of purification. Chapters 11-15.

e. The ceremony of the day of atonement. Chap

ter 16.

2. The way to maintain fellowship with God. Chap
ters 17-27.

a. Prohibitions for priests and people. Chapters

17-22.

&. Laws of religious festivals. Chapters 23-25.
c. Supplementary laws. Chapters 26-27.

IV

NUMBEES

I. Name. The Jews named the book 13T1 from its
first word or more commonly from the fifth word "131D3
which indicates its contents. The Mishna and Talmud
for the same reason designated it D^ipan won. With
this last designation the Septuagint name (M/n0/i<n)
agrees. The Vulgate translated the Greek name, Liber
Numeri. The names in modern versions are derived
from the Vulgate.

II. Author and Composition (see Chapter on Pen
tateuch).

III. Theme. This book takes up the history of the
wilderness wanderings where the book of Exodus left it,
after the revelation at Mt. Sinai and carries it on to
the verge of Israel's entrance into the promised land.
Thus it appropriately stands after Leviticus which con
tains the body of priestly legislation given at Mt. Sinai,
and before Deuteronomy, which contains the farewell
addresses of Moses to the people just before his death.
It covers thirty-eight years of history. Yet the history
is fullest in the first and last of these years, the inter
vening years being years of apostasy and containing
nothing of permanent religious value. Chapter 33
contains a complete list of the camping places of Israel
from their leaving Egypt till they reached the plains of
Moab. Certain laws are also introduced with the occa
sion which gave rise to them.

145

146 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

IV. Divisions.

1. Preparations for leaving Mt. Sinai 1 : 1 to 10 : 10.
a. Numbering and arrangement of the people

Chapters 1-3.
6. Duties of the Levites. Chapter 4.

c. Various laws 5 : 1 to 9 : 14.

d. Guidance by the pillar of cloud and fire 9 : 15

to 10:10.

2. March from Mt. Sinai to the Plains of Moab 10 : 11

to 22 : 1.
a. Events on the way to the wilderness of Paran

10:11 to 12:16.
6. Events and laws at Kadesh-Barnea 13 : 1 to

20:21.
c. Events on the way from Kadesh to Moab 20 : 22

to 22 : 1.

3. Events on the Plains of Moab 22 : 2 to 36 : 13.
a. The Prophecies of Balaam 22:2 to 24:25.
6. The sin of Israel. Chapter 25.

c. The numbering of Israel and the request of

Zelophehad's daughters 26:1 to 27:14.

d. Moses' death and successor foretold 27 : 15-23.

e. Laws of offerings and vows. Chapters 28-30.
/. Conquest of the Midianites. Chapter 31.

g. The trans-Jordanic settlements. Chapter 32.
h. Stations in the wilderness. Chapter 33.
i. Regulations concerning the division of Canaan,
Chapters 34-36.

DEUTEKONOM5T

I. Name. The book is designated in the Hebrew
Bible by its first two words, D'Hrm rf?K or simply

In the Massorah it is named from its contents
(Deut. 17:18). For the same reason it is
called dzuT£p<>\>6[jitov in the Septuagint. This name was
transliterated in the Vulgate, Liber Deuteronomii, and
.from the Vulgate has been adopted in modern versions.

II. Author and Composition (see Chapter on the
Pentateuch).

III. Purpose. This book is the appropriate close of
the books of history and legislation which Moses left.
It contains little history but that little presupposes that
the events of Exodus and Numbers had already been
recorded. It is not legislation in the ordinary sense but
is a resume of legislation already given with exhorta
tion and warning. The spirit and the matter of Deu
teronomy thus presuppose the existence of the book of
Leviticus and the legislative portion of Exodus. On the
other hand both the historical and legislative parts of
the book are written from a standpoint before the events
recorded in Joshua had occurred. Deuteronomy is
preparatory for Joshua. Yet the death of Moses with
which this book closes separates its history from that of
Joshua which records the administration of Moses'
successor.

HT

148 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

Deuteronomy is Moses' parting discourse before his
death. It forms the basis of the exhortations of
Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Our Lord paid special honor
to this book since all three of the quotations with which
he overcame Satan were taken from it (Deut. 8:3;
6:16; and 10:20).

IV. Divisions. Introduction 1 : 1-5.

1. Moses' first address reviewing Israel's experiences
from Sinai to Moab 1 : 6 to 4 : 40.

Supplementary statements 4 : 41-49.

2. Moses' second address. Chapters 5-26. For the
most part this is a popular presentation of the laws with
exhortations to obedience.

3. Moses' third address foretelling the results of dis
obedience. Chapters 27-28.

The Covenant at Moab and Moses' farewell and death.
Chapters 29-34.

SECOND DIVISION

THE PKOPHETS
SECTION I. THE FORMER PROPHETS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

THE second of the three divisions of the Hebrew canon
is the DW2J or Prophets, so-called not because of the
prophetic contents of the books but because of the
prophetic office of the writers. These are divided into
the D'tfBten DW3J or Former Prophets and the D\3hnx-
D'waj or Latter Prophets. In the Hebrew classifica
tion,, each of these subdivisions contains four books, the
former including Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings
and the latter Isaiah, Jeremiah., Ezekiel and the Twelve.
Thus the double books, Samuel and Kings, were counted
as one and the Minor Prophets as one.

The Former Prophets trace the history of Israel from
the prophetic standpoint from the beginning of Joshua's
leadership after the death of Moses to the Exile in Baby
lon, nearly seven hundred years. They portray the
realization of the national life foretold in the Penta-
teuch.

149

JOSHUA

I. Name. The book is named in all ancient and!
modern versions as well as in the Hebrew Bible from its
principal character, Joshua. This name has four forms,
J?mT (Deut. 3:21; Judges 2:7) usually JNWV, occa
sionally JNtfPl (Num. 13:8, 16; Deut. 32:44) and later
shortened to && (Neh. 8:17) Stade thinks it is a
Hiphil of JJB£ It is better to consider it a compound,
meaning "Jehovah is salvation." In the Septuagint it
is called 'Iijffous Nauij (Joshua the son of Nun) and in
the Vulgate Liber Josue.

II. Composition. This book is classed by the divisive
criticism with the books Gen.-Deut. in the Hexateuch
because of its contents but especially because it is said
to have originated from the same literary sources as the
Pentateuch. Geddes, 1792, was the first to count
Joshua with the Pentateuch while de Wette, Bleek and
Ewald first extended to it the documentary theory.
Driver describes its origin as follows : " In chapters
1-12 the main narrative consists of a work, itself also in
parts composite, which appears to be the continuation
of J E, though whether its component parts are defi
nitely J and E, or whether it is rather the work of the
writer who combined J and E, into a whole, and in this
book, perhaps, permitted himself the use of other inde
pendent sources, may be an open question. The use of
P in these chapters is rare. In chapters 13-24, on the

150

JOSHUA 151

contrary, especially in the topographical descriptions, the
work of P predominates, and the passages derived from
J E are decidedly less numerous than in the first part
of the book. There is, however, another element in the
book of Joshua besides J E and P. In this book, J E,
before it was combined with P, passed through the
hands of a writer who expanded it in different ways, and
who, being strongly imbued with the spirit of Deuter
onomy, may be termed the Deuteronomic editor, and
denoted by the abbreviation D2" (p. 104).

Answer. — 1. This view depends in large part upon
the assumption that the critical analysis of the Penta
teuch is proven, an assumption which we have already
shown to be unfounded. The evident uncertainty of
the critics in the application of the principles of Penta-
teuchal analysis to the book of Joshua is itself an
argument against that analysis.

2. The book is not a literary part of the Hexateuch.
Historically it begins an entirely new epoch under a
new leader. If the fact that it continues the history
of the Pentateuch be used as an argument for its
literary unity with the Pentateuch, it is evident that
Judges, Samuel and Kings, which continue the history
still further should likewise be included.

Baudissin justifies the name Hexateuch only on the
ground that Joshua came from the same sources as the
first five books. He adds : " It cannot be said with
definiteness, how far the book, as it lies before us, ever
formed a whole with the Pentateuch " (" Die Bucher des
A. T.," p. 170). Cornill likewise concludes that Joshua
was separated from the Pentateuch, at least so far as
P is concerned, before the time of Ezra (" Einleitung,"
p. 83) and affirms: "Joshua presents an essentially

152 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTIOtf

different physiognomy from the Pentateuch" (p. 80).
The style and vocabulary of Joshua as well as certain
grammatical forms differ radically from the Pentateuch.
Strack mentions these examples (p. 63).

^n nia found four times in Joshua but in Pent,

^0 M? (Deut. 3 : 18.)

norptan Dy five times in Joshua but nowhere else in
$ie Old Testament while the Pentateuch uses noniasn vj;;x

T T : • — •• : ~

PVU (Josh 8: 16) not in the Pentateuch.

" Jahve, the God of Israel," found fourteen times in
Joshua but only twice in the Pentateuch (Ex. 5:1; 32:
27). These peculiarities of Joshua Strack explains as
evidences of material not found in the Pentateuch. He
also mentions a few others which he considers to be due
to carelessness in the preservation of the text of Joshua
as compared with that of the Pentateuch.

Ni3j? (Josh. 24:19) but in the Pentateuch MJX

irrv or irrv in Joshua but irni in the Pentateuch.

KiH in Joshua but in the Pentateuch often Kin This
list may be largely extended. The explanation of Strack
for these phenomena is unsatisfactory. Even CornilPs
theory, that the book of Joshua from an early period
had a history entirely independent of the Pentateuch,
is not sufficient. The facts point clearly to difference of
authorship.

3. The same arguments which prove the unity of
Genesis and the other books of Moses, prove the unity
of Joshua. The book proceeds upon a consistent plan
and there is no satisfactory evidence which can justify
its analysis.

III. Author. No certain answer can be given to tbr

JOSHUA 153

question of the authorship of the book. The Talmudic
tradition which many Christian writers, both ancient
and modern, have followed, that Joshua wrote it, is
based upon the statement of Josh. 24 : 26 that " Joshua
wrote these words in the book of the Law of God."
The traditional name of the book does not necessarily
imply that Joshua was its .author. It may have re
ceived his name as the principal actor. Still the fact
that the book terminates with Joshua's death as the
books of Moses with Moses' death makes this theory
natural.

Others have suggested that Eleazar or Phinehas wrote
it from material composed by Joshua. The essential
thing is that it was composed by a contemporary of
Joshua or so soon after his time that the history it
contains is reliable. Strack evidently feels the danger
of giving the book a later date, for he endeavors to
retain its credibility by the unwarranted assumption
that it contains very ancient traditions " in part perhaps
even from the time of Joshua." Other critics boldly
assert that its history is unreliable and especially that
its account of the sudden conquest of Canaan in Joshua's
lifetime is far less probable than the gradual conquest
which is said to be an underlying conception of the
book of Judges. The allusion to the Book of Jasher
(Josh. 10: 13 compare II Sam. 1: 18) does not require
a date after the time of David, for the Book of Jasher
was probably not written at one time but was a collec
tion of poems recounting heroic deeds, to which
additions were made from time to time.

On the other hand Josh. 15 : 63 must have been
written before the time of David (II Sam. 5:7) and
Josh. 16:10 before the time of Solomon (I Kings

154 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

9:16). A comparison of Josh. 15:17 with Judges
1 : 13 and of Josh. 19 : 47 with Judges 18 : 29 seems to
point to the time of the Judges as the period when the
book was written. Apparently the writer had crossed
the Jordan with Israel (5:1) and wrote before the
death of Rahab (6 : 25). There is no historical evidence
for the critical assumption that together with the other
books of the second division of the canon, Joshua did
not become canonical until long after it was written
(300-200 B.C.)

IV. Purpose. The book is historically the connect
ing link between the preparatory stages of Israel's life
as recounted in the Pentateuch and their settled national
life in Canaan. It records the passage from the wilder
ness to Canaan as Exodus had recorded the passage from
Egypt to the wilderness. Thus the miraculous passage
of the Jordan has somewhat the same place in the book
of Joshua as the miraculous passage of the Red Sea in
the book of Exodus.

Joshua is related to the later books of Moses as
fulfilment is related to promise. The man Joshua
underwent a long period of testing for his great office.
His leadership of Israel against Amalek at Rephidim,
his companionship with Moses in the sacred privilege
of revelation on Mt. Sinai, and his steadfast faith in
believing with Caleb that God was able to conquer the
land of promise for Israel were a peculiar equipment
to take up the work where Moses had laid it down.
For this God had appointed him before Moses' death
(Deut. 1:38; Josh. 1:1). The book which bears his
name is related to the Pentateuch, somewhat as the
Acts of the Apostles is related to the Gospels. It records
the beginning of the settled national life for which all

JOSHUA 155

the preparations, historical and legislative, are found in
the books of Moses.

On the other hand Joshua carries the history only
through one generation, until the land had been divided
by lot and Joshua, the last connecting link with Moses,
the Lawgiver and founder of the nation, had given his
farewell addresses. There the book of Judges takes up
the history.

V. Divisions.

1. The conquest of the land. Chapters 1-12.
a. God charges Joshua. Chapter 1.

6. The spies at Jericho. Chapter 2.

c. The passage of the Jordan. Chapter 3.

d. Preparations for the conquest. Chapters 4-5.
6. Capture of Jericho. Chapter 6.

/. Defeat, then conquest of Ai. Chapters 7-8.
g. Gibeon spared. Other conquests. Chapters 9-12.

2. Division of the land. Chapters 13-22. Inheritance
by tribes, special inheritance of Caleb, cities of refuge,
and cities for the Levites, concluding with the return
of the trans-Jordanic tribes.

3. Farewell address, death, and burial of Joshua.
Chapters 23-24.

n

JUDGES

I. Name. The book is named in the oldest Jewish
records D'CDic? IQD or simply D^Sicy from the men who
delivered and ruled over Israel in the period between
Joshua and Samuel. This title is transliterated by
Origen and translated in the Septuagint, Peshitta, and
Vulgate. Hence it has been adopted in modern versions.

II. Composition. There is considerable divergence
among the critics concerning the details of the composi
tion of the book, especially on two points : ( 1 ) whether
the same sources, J and E, which are said to be found in
the Hexateuch are present also in Judges, or whether
the sources of Judges are different from those in the
Hexateuch and (2) whether the main body of the book
is based upon an earlier pre-Deuteronomic book (before
621 B. C. when Deuteronomy is said to have been found
in the temple). There is practical agreement however in
the opinion that the introduction (1 : 1 to 2 : 5) and the
appendices (chapters 17-18 and 19-21) are later addi
tions, many critics considering these two appendices to
have been by different authors. The Song of Deborah
(Judges 5) and the story of Abimelech (Judges 9) are
generally considered older than the other parts of the
book.

The clearest and most highly developed form of the
critical opinion concerning the main portion of this book
(2:6 to 16:31) is that of Moore who agrees in the
main, with Budde. The former describes it as follows:

156

JUDGES 157

" Early in the ninth century the traditions of the inva
sion and settlement of Western Palestine, of the sub
sequent conflicts in various parts of the land with the
native population or with new invaders, and of the
heroic deeds of Israel's leaders and champions in these
struggles, were collected and fixed in writing, probably
as part of a historical work which included the patri
archal age, the immigration from Egypt, and the history
of Israel under the kingdom down to the author's own
time (J)."

" Perhaps a century later another book of similar
character and scope was written, containing in part the
same stories, but in a form adhering less closely to his
torical reality (E). A second recension of this work
(E 2) bears very distinctly the impress of the prophetic
movement of the 8th century, and specifically of
Hosea's teaching, and may be assigned to the end of the
8th or the beginning of the 7th century. . . . The
Book of Judges in J E seems to have begun with the
death of Joshua, and to have closed with the great dis
course of Samuel (I Sam. 12) a division which certainly
existed in E. It probably contained all the stories of
our Judges except that of Othniel; and in view of the
character of the succeeding redactions, Eje (the Ee-
dactor who combined J and E) may with greater justice
than D (the later Deuteronomic editor) be regarded
as the true author of the book. J E is a work of the
7th century but antedates the reforms of Josiah (621
B.C.) and the dominant influence of Jeremiah and the
Deuteronomy. Early in the 6th century an author
belonging to the Deuteronomic school took this work
as the basis of his own. As the traces of his hand do
not extend to I Sam. 1-12 nor to Judges 1:1 to 2:5;

158 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTlOtf

17-21, we infer that D's book included only Judges 2 : 6
to 16:31 (or perhaps 15:20). . . . The Deuteronomic
Judges did not supplant the older work upon which
it was founded. J E's history was in existence long
after the exile. In the 5th or 4th century B.C., an
editor united the two books, and produced the present
Book of Judges" (Commentary on Judges, G. F.
Moore, pp. xxxiii-xxxv).

Answer. — Two points are concerned in this critical
view, the unity of the book and the date of its author
ship. The unity of the book is evidenced by its orderly
arrangement which would be incredible if it came into
its present form in the way described. Eichard Valpy
French (Lex Mosaica pp. 198-199) has adduced the
following linguistic evidences of unity:

1. Between the main body of the book and the
appendix.

of troops (4 : 6-7 ; 20 : 37).

* 0'p»D (11:40; 21:19).
JttB (8:21; 15:12; 18:25).
PJJp (6 : 34-35 ; 18 : 22-23, etc.).
yyi nte (3:22; 8:10, 20; 9:54; 20:2, 15, 17, 25,
35, 46).

2. Between the appendix and the introduction.
Compare 1 : 1-2 with 20 : 18, 23, 27.

Nl' (1:27, 35; 17:11; 19:6).
? (1:8; 20:48).
nan (1:8, 25; 20:48).
T3 PU (1:2; 18:10; 20:28).

3. Between the introduction and the main body of
the book :

JUDGES 159

1: 16 compare 4: 11.

mn Di»ni2(l:21;6:24; 10:4; 15:19; 19:30).

TJ3 jni (1:2; 2:14, 23; 6:1; 7:7, 13:1; 15:12;
18: 10; 20:28).

Though it is altogether probable that the author made
use of previous written traditions coming from the time
of the Judges, there is not sufficient evidence that he
embodied these sources in his work or that the book
went through so many successive redactions.

III. Author. For our knowledge of the date of
the author of the book we are entirely dependent upon
Hebrew tradition and internal evidence. These two
witnesses are in remarkable agreement. According to
Rabbinic tradition Samuel was the author. Internal
evidence confines the date of the book to about Samuel's
time. The statement of Judges 1:21 that "the Jebu-
sites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem
unto this day" could not have been written after
David's conquest of the stronghold of Zion (II Sam.
5:6-8) nor the statement of Judges 1:29 that the
Canaanites dwelt in Gezer after Pharaoh burned the
city, drove out the Canaanites, and gave it to Solomon
(I Kings 9:16). Furthermore Isaiah 9 contains sev
eral references to Judges 4, 5, and 6, and the name
Jerubbaal (Judges 6 : 32) seems to have been changed to
Jerubbesheth (II Sam. 11:21) in the time of David.
On the other hand, the statement found four times in
Judges, " In those days there was no king in Israel "
(17 : 6 ; 18 : 1 ; 19 : 1 ; 21:25) to which twice is added
" Every man did that which was right in his own eyes "
(17:6; 21:25) seems to imply that the writer lived
after the establishment of the kingdom. Thus we are
driven to the conclusion of French: "The strongest

160 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

probability exists from the foregoing data for assign
ing the authorship of the Book to Samuel or to one of
his prophetic school. The period was either the time
of Saul or the early years of the reign of David " (" Lex
Mosaica,"p. 191).

IV. Purpose. The book of Judges records all that
is known of the history of Israel from the death of
Joshua to the time of Samuel, a period of about two
centuries. It shows the increasing desire of the people
for some leader like the nations around them, a desire
which culminated in the days of Samuel in the appoint
ment of a king. God did not yield to this desire imme
diately but from time to time called forth special deliv
erers, whose work resembled that of a king. The judges
however were not chosen from any one tribe, nor was
there a regular succession of them. They were excep
tional and their tenure of office was temporary. Indeed
they were rather generals than judges, in the English
sense. A similar name is known to have existed in
Phenicia and Livy speaks of the rulers of Carthage
as " suffetes."

The purpose of this book was not historical but relig
ious. It was intended by repeated instances from
Israel's past to show how God punished his people for
their sins and forgave and delivered them, when they
repented. As in the other historical books long periods
are passed by without a word and in the so-called minor
judges (Shamgar, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon)
the statements are very brief. The heroic deeds of all
the judges are represented as being done by power re
ceived from God. The period was one of apostasy.
And yet there remained a few who continued to worship
Jehovah. This is evidenced by the mention of the

JUDGES 161

tabernacle at Shiloh (18:31) of the annual feast (21:
19) of the highest priest and the ark of the covenant
(20:27-28). Furthermore sacrifices were offered (13:
15-16, 23; 20:26; 21:4) circumcision was observed
(14:3; 15:18) and vows were made unto Jehovah
(11:30; 13:5).
V. The Judges and Their Chronology:

YEARS.

3 : 8 Bondage to Cushan-rishathaim 8

3 : 11 Judgeship of Othniel 40

3 -. 14 Bondage to Eglon 18

3 : 30 Peace with Ehud and Shamgar 80

4 : 3 Oppression by Jabni 20

5 : 31 Judgeship of Barak 40

6 : 1 Servitude to Midian and allies 7

8 : 28 Judgeship of Gideon 40

9 : 22 Rule of Abimelech 3

10 : 2 Judgeship of Tola 23

10 : 3 Judgeship of Jair 22

10 : 8 Oppression by Ammonites 18

12 : 7 Judgeship of Jephthah 6

12 : 9 Judgeship of Ibzan 7

12 : 11 Judgeship of Elon 10

12 : 14 Judgeship of Abdon 8

13 : 1 Bondage to Philistines 40

15: 20?

16 • 31 1 Judgeship of Samson 20

410

If the forty years in the wilderness, the administration
of Joshua, the forty years of Eli (I Sam. 4: 18), the
rule of Samuel, the reigns of Saul and David (the latter
40 years, I Kings 2 : 11) and four years of Solomon be
fore the temple was built, are added, the total is much

more than the 480 years mentioned in I Kings 6 : 1 from
the Exodus to the building of the temple. Herzfeld and
others have attempted to harmonize by the theory that
some of the periods mentioned in Judges were synchro
nous. Noldeke has offered another hypothesis, that the
480 years of I Kings 6 : 1 omits according to Oriental
custom the periods of bondage to the surrounding na
tions. The dates of the Exodus on the one hand and of
Saul's reign on the other are so nearly fixed that the
period of the Judges cannot have greatly exceeded two
hundred years. The data is inadequate for a more exact
chronology.

Ill

SAMUEL

T. Name. These two books were one among the
Hebrews and named PNlDfc? not only because Samuel
was the principal actor in the first part of the book
but because he anointed Saul and David, the other
principal actors. The name means " name of God."
The Septuagint divided this book and named its parts
together with the two books of Kings Pifilot fiaadeiibv.
Hence I and II Samuel were called the first and second
Books of the Kingdoms. The Vulgate altered the title
to Libri Begum, the Books of the Kings. The division
of the books was first introduced into the Hebrew in the
Eabbinical Bible of Daniel Bomberg in 1517. The
English Bible has adopted a compromise, taking the
division of the books from the Vulgate and Septuagint
and the name from the Hebrew Bible. The authorized
version adds to the title "otherwise called the First
Book of the Kings" and "the Second Book of the
Kings."

II. Composition. The Books of Samuel, like the
earlier books, are considered by modern critics to be
of composite origin and the result of one or more redac
tions. There is a difference of opinion concerning the
identification of the sources. Cornill, Budde, and
Schrader identify the older document with J of the
Hexateuch and the younger with E. The majority of
critics differ from them at this point. Stenning de-

163

164 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION"

scribes the origin of the books in this way : " The older
narrative may be assigned approximately to the 9th
century, while the later stratum of E (Budde's El.),
which, though old, yet treats the history from a more
subjective standpoint, dates probably from the following
century. . . . As in the Hexateuch and in Judges,
these sources were combined and welded together by a
later editor (Kje) who has however carried out his work
in a less thorough manner. His work is in any case
prior to the reforms of Josiah (621 B.C.) and to the
influence of Deuteronomy, and must be placed in the
7th century. The present form of the Books of Samuel
is largely due to an author of the Deuteronomic school
whose hand may be clearly traced in the concluding
summaries (I Sam. 14:47-51; II Sam. 8) and in
various chronological notices (I Sam. 7:2; 13:1; II
Sam. 2:10a, 11; 5:4-5)" (In Basting's Bible Dic
tionary).

The arguments for tlie partition of the books of
Samuel are similar to those used in the partition of the
Hexateuch. They are classed by Smith under two
heads.

1. " Duplication of certain incidents. Two denun
ciations of Eli's course are related, either one of which
abundantly answers the author's purpose. There are
two accounts of Saul's rejection and the second makes
no allusion to the earlier. The two (or three) accounts
of Saul's appointment as king are probably another
example. Two accounts of David's coming to court
have long given trouble to the harmonist. "We have
two sets of negotiations for Saul's daughter, the later
being ignorant of the earlier one. There are at least
two accounts of David's flight from court, two of his

SAMUEL 1G5

having Saul in his power, two of his seeking refuge
with Achish, two of the death of Saul.

2, Difference in style and point of view.

In one place Samuel appears as the theocratic ruler
of the people, comparable to Moses, and to Moses alone,
among the heroes of Israel. He administers the gov
ernment as the representative of Yahweh. The whole
people gather at his call, and he rebukes and commands
with more than kingly authority. In another place, he
is the seer of a small town, respected as one who blesses
the sacrifice and presides at the local festival, but
known only as a clairvoyant, whose information con
cerning lost or strayed property is reliable. Even thus
he is unknown to Saul, whose home is only a few miles
away. With this difference of view goes a difference of
political theory. In one account Saul is chosen as king
by God, is welcomed by Samuel, is assured that Cod is
with him and encouraged to act as he finds opportunity.
His election by God is an act of grace, for God has
looked upon the affliction of His people, and now prom
ises that Saul shall deliver them from the hand of the
Philistines. But in other sections of the narrative the
desire of the people for a king is an act of rebellion
against Yahweh. Their act is an act of apostasy, paral
lel to all their rebellions of earlier times. No wonder;
for to this narrator the Philistine oppression has already
been relieved by Samuel. By spiritual weapons these
enemies have been vanquished so that they come no more
into the territory of Israel and even surrender the ter
ritory which they had taken away" (Commentary on
Samuel pp. 15-16).

Answer. — The general arguments against this falla
cious method of dividing the Hebrew literature have

166 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

been so fully given in the chapter on the Pentateuch,
that they cannot be repeated in detail. The unity
of the book is evidenced by the following considera
tions :

1. The orderly arrangements of the history. Events
are not always given in chronological order. Neverthe
less a clear and consistent plan is evident throughout.
This plan could not have been the work of the two
editors, unless they altered their sources and merged
them into one beyond later recognition.

2. It is incredible that the editors could have allowed
such evident repetitions to remain in the books. In
their opinion, the alleged parallels and contradictions
could not have been such. Even now respect for the
intelligence of R requires us if possible to harmonize the
accounts. In most cases this is easily done. Many of
the parallels are accounts of different though similar
events. Others are records of the same event from two
different standpoints. Others still are not parallels at
all but brief allusions to events already narrated which
have special bearing on subsequent history.

3. Relation of the parts of the books to each other.
Driver admits this : " Some of the narratives contained
in I-II Samuel point forwards or backwards to one
another, and are in other ways so connected together
as to show that they are the work of one and the same
writer" (p. 173).

4. The differences in point of view are not evidence
of variety of authorship. It is altogether natural that
Samuel was held in different esteem by different people
and at different periods of his life, and it is according
to God's dealings with His people in all times, that
while their lack of faith in desiring a king is condemned,

SAMUEL 167

God promises great things by that king, thus making
the wrath of man to praise Him.

5. Uniform diction. There are certain expressions
running all through the book which bind it into one.
Of these Driver mentions among others "as thy soul
liveth," "sons of Belial," "Jehovah of Hosts," "so
may God do and more also, " " from Dan even to Beer-
sheba," "as Jehovah liveth," and "blessed be thou of
Jehovah." His explanation, that " they appear to have
formed part of the phraseology current at the time," is
unsatisfactory. These and other expressions refute the
contention of the critics that differences of style are
discernible in the so-called parallel accounts.

III. Author. Concerning the authorship of the
Books of Samuel we have very little internal or external
testimony. The statement of I Sam. 27: 6 ("Wherefore
Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah unto this
day") does not require a date after the separation of
the northern kingdom. The distinction between Israel
and Judah existed in David's time, for David reigned
at first only over Judah and Ishbosheth over Israel
(I Sam. 18 : 6 ; II Sam. 2 : 10 ; 24 : 1) . The expression
"unto this day" (I Sam. 27:6; 30:25) does not
require a later date than the end of David's reign. The
rabbinical tradition, that Samuel was the author, is
opposed by the continuance of the history so far beyond
the death of Samuel (I Sam. 25:1). The fact that
David's death is not recorded, makes it probable that the
books were written before it occurred, with the aid of
older documents.

IV. Purpose. The Books of Samuel recount the
establishment of the kingdom. They are very closely
connected in the history of Samuel himself with the

168 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

book of Judges, for Samuel is called a judge (I Sam.
7:6, 15-17) as Eli, the high-priest, was before him
(I Sam. 4:18). The times of Samuel before the
anointing of Saul were times of the same religious
apostasy and ignorance which prevailed in the days of
the judges (I Sam. 2: 12-17; 3:1, etc.).

Samuel was also a prophet (I Sam. 3:20). He was
classed in the Old Testament with Moses and Aaron
(Ps. 99: 6; Jer. 15: 1) and in the New Testament he
is mentioned as the first of the prophets (Acts 3 : 24)
and as the terminus ad quern of the time of the judges
(Acts 13:20). His establishment of the schools of
the prophets (I Sam. 19:20) at Ramah was followed
by others at Bethel (II Kings 2: 3), Jericho (II Kings
2:5) and Gilgal (II Kings 4 : 38). Thus the prophetic
office grew up side by side with the kingly. Of both
Samuel was the founder. Samuel was also the King-
Maker. Because Saul's reign was only temporarily
successful and because David's house were to be per
manent rulers, no record of the establishment of the
kingdom could stop short of the second reign. Samuel
lived to anoint David but died before he came to the
throne. David's reign however must be added to the
story of regal establishment because he enlarged the
borders of the land to its greatest extent, captured the
stronghold of Zion, and made it his capital. Further
more the promises of perpetual dominion to the house
of David (II Sam. 7: 12-16) became after his day the
charter of the kingdom. David laid the foundations
upon which all true kings of Israel built. With his
death the story of establishment closes.

V. Divisions.

1. The Judgeship of Samuel I Sam 1-7.

SAMUEL 1G9

a. The birth of Samuel and the song of Hannah

1 : 1 to 2 : 10.
&. The childhood and vision of Samuel 2:11 to

3:21.

c. The death of Eli. Chapter 4.

d. The ark in Philistia. Chapters 5-6.

e. The ark returned and the Philistines conquered.

Chapter 7.

2. The Reign of Saul. I Sam. 8-31.
a. Israel desires a king. Chapter 8.
fc. Saul chosen. Chapters 9-10.

c. Saul conquers Ammon. Chapter 11.

d. The address of Samuel. Chapter 12.

e. Saul's wars and rejection. Chapters 13-15.
/. David chosen. Chapter 16.

g. His prowess, friendship for Jonathan and the
increasing hatred of Saul, Saul's death. Chap
ters 17-31.

3. The Reign of David. II Sam. 1-24.

a. David's mourning for Saul and Jonathan.

Chapter 1.

&. David's establishment as King. Chapters 2-5.

c. David's purpose to build the temple and its

refusal. Chapters 6-7.

d. His victories and kindness to Mephibosheth.

Chapters 8-10.

e. David's sin and marriage. The birth of Solo

mon. Chapters 11-12.
/. Absalom's vengeance upon Ammon. Absalom's

rebellion. Chapters 13-19.
g. Sheba's rebellion; David's song and last words;

his sin in numbering Israel. Chapters 20-24.

rv

KINGS

I. Name. In the Hebrew Bible these two were
originally one book, called D^D nso or simply D'a^O
In modern Hebrew Bibles, since the Eabbinic Bible of
Daniel Bomberg (Venice 1516-7), the division is intro
duced. The Septuagint classes them with I and II
Samuel under the names Baffdetwv rptrj) and Terd/orij.
This method is adopted in the Vulgate (Liber Eegum
tertius and quartus). The authorized version has the
title, " The First Book of the Kings commonly called
the Third Book of the Kings," and " The Second Book
of the Kings, commonly called the Fourth Book of the
Kings." The American Eevised Version drops these
secondary titles.

II. Composition. The Books of Kings refer to three
different sources for further information:

1. The Book of the Acts of Solomon. I Kings 11 : 41.

2. The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel
(17 times).

3. The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah
(15 times).

These books were probably official contemporary
records. Mention is frequently made of an officer of
the court called a "V3JO recorder or remembrancer (II
Earn. 8: 16; 20: 24; I Kings 4 : 3 ; II Kings 18 : 18, 37;
II Chron. 34:8). His duties probably were to record
the important events of the reign, as was done also at

170

KINGS 171

the Persian court (Ezra 4 : 15 ; 6 : 2 ; Esther 2 : 23 ; 6 : 1) .
These and other similar books are mentioned as sources
of the Books of Chronicles (II Chron. 9:29; 12:15;
13:22; 20:34). We know that one of these official
records was afterwards " inserted in the book of the
Kings of Israel" (II Chron. 20:34). It is probable
that the books referred to by the author of Kings were
such collections of royal records. The author was
merely an editor or compiler who brought together all
this material, adding to it comments of his own.

Many critics think that the compiler also used other
unnamed sources. He epitomized the character and
reign of the kings by certain formulas such as " He did
that which was evil [or that which was good] in the
eyes of Jehovah." It is worthy of comment that an
unfavorable verdict is passed upon all the kings of
Israel.

Cornill, Burney and others distinguish three redac
tions of the book.

1. The first and principal redactor who wrote in the
spirit of the so-called Deuteronomic reform about 600
B.C. This date is determined by the use of the expres
sion " unto this day " indicating a time before the Exile
(I Kings 8:8; 9:21; 12: 19; II Kings 8:22; 16:6).
This redactor is said to have added the framework of
the history. He is the real editor of the books and his
existence is admitted even by conservative scholars,
though his Deuteronomic character is denied. He is
called Edl.

2. Certain additions are said to have been made
during the Exile. The most important of these are
II Kings 24 : 10 to 25 : 30 and presumably II Kings
23 : 31 to 24: 9. The date is determined by the release

172 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, by Evil-Merodach in the
37th year after the reign of the former, viz., 561 B.C.
(II Kings 25:27). The writer however apparently
wrote II Kings 25 : 30 after the death of Jehoiachin of
which the date is unknown. On the other hand it is
asserted by the critics that the entire absence of any
hope of return from exile in these books, shows that this
editor must have done his work before the decree of
Cyrus in 536 B.C. This is Rd2.

3. The variations between the Massoretic Text and
that of the Septuagint are said to indicate the work of
later editors who transposed certain sections and in
serted additions after the recension, from which the
Septuagint was made, was separated from that which
lies at the basis of the Massoretic Text. This final
editorial work is assigned by Cornill to the third cen
tury B.C.

Answer. — Concerning these critical opinions, it is
necessary to separate the proven from the unproven.
The assumption of a redaction in the third century is
altogether unwarranted as the considerations of the
relation of the Massoretic Text and the Septuagint has
shown (see Chapter on the Text). The marks of the
time before the Exile indicate that the body of the book
was compiled at that time, and the marks of exilic date
are evidence of a later addition, which need not have
extended to the main portion of the book. The book,
as we now have it, was complete in the last half of the
Exile and is based upon contemporaneous records.

III. Author. Who the editor was, there is no means
of determining. Driver says : " The compiler of Kings
though not probably (as has sometimes been supposed),
Jeremiah himself, was nevertheless a man like-minded

KINGS 173

with Jeremiah and almost certainly a contemporary
who lived and wrote under the same influences. Deu
teronomy is the standard by which the compiler judges
both men and actions; and the history from the begin
ning of Solomon's reign, is presented not in purely
objective form, but from the point of view of the
Deuteronomic code" (p. 199). According to the Tal
mud Jeremiah was the author. The fact that Jeremiah
was carried into Egypt however precludes the possibility
of his having written the story of the deportation and
imprisonment of Jehoiachin in Babylon. The date of
the author and his prophetic standpoint are reasonably
clear but his identity remains unknown.

IV. Purpose. These books are intimately related to
the two books of Samuel with which they are numbered
in the Septuagint. They take up the royal and
prophetic history where Samuel laid it down and carry
it forward in the same spirit. The books of Kings
trace the history of the united kingdom from Solomon's
accession and of the divided kingdom until its two parts
were conquered by Assyria and Babylon. This period
is over four centuries and its terminus ad quern is the
release of Jehoiachin by Evil-Merodach in 561 B.C.
These are the only books recording the entire political
history of Israel, for Chronicles not only gives no record
of the Northern Kingdom, but seems to avoid reference
to it. In all the history the kings of Judah are judged
according to the standard of David's obedience (I Kings
3 : 3 ; 11 : 4, 6 ; 14 : 8 ; 15 : 3, 11 ; II Kings 14 : 3 ; 16 : 2 ;
18:3; 22:2) and the kings of Israel according to the
standard of Jeroboam's sin (I Kings 15:34; 16:2, 7,
19, 26, 31 ; 22 : 52 ; II Kings 3:3: 10 : 29, 31 ; 13 : 2, 6,
11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22-23). Thus the

174 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

history of the two kingdoms presents the two great moral
lessons: (1) Conformity to the noble standard set by
the fathers, brings peace and prosperity. The King
dom of Judah was finally overthrown because of its
neglect of the high standard set by David. (2) Apos
tasy from the people of God is the fruitful cause of
many generations of continued sinfulness. All later
sins are traced back to that of Jeroboam (II Kings
17:22-23).

The division between the two books is in the middle
of the reign of Ahaziah and seems to have no special
significance. It is near the middle of the entire book
and therefore a convenient dividing place. One purpose
runs through both parts.

The great prominence given to the work of the
prophets Elijah and Elisha in the Northern Kingdom
is also similar to the spirit of the author of Samuel,
who had recounted Samuel's activity in founding the
schools of the prophets. This as well as the mention of
Isaiah and Jeremiah indicates the prophetic standpoint
of the writer. The standpoint of the books of Chron
icles being priestly, the Northern Kingdom is passed by
and with it the story of Elijah and Elisha.

V. Table of the Kings. The following dates agree
with the well-established dates of the destruction of
Jerusalem (586 B.C.) and of the fall of Samaria (722
B.C.). The other dates, derived from Assyrian and
Babylonian inscriptions vary somewhat from these, but
with the possibility of error in fitting them to the Bible
numbers, as well as the possible errors in transmission
of the Bible numbers, greater accuracy is not attainable.

KINGS

175

Judah.

Saul 1099-1059

David 1059-1019

Solomon 1019- 979

Rehoboam.... 979- 962

Abijah 962- 959

Asa.. 959- 918

Jehoshaphat 918-893

Jehoram 893-885

Ahaziah 885

Athaliah 885-879

Jehoash 879-839

Amaziah 839-810

Azariah. . . 810-758

Jotham 758-742

Ahaz 742-726

Hezekiah 726-697

Manasseh 697-642

Amon 642-640

Josiah 640-609

Jehoahaz.. . 609-608

Israel.

Jeroboam I . . 979-957

Nadab 957-955

Baasha 955-932

Zimri 932

Tibni 932-928

Omri 928-922

Ahab 922-900

Ahaziah 900-898

Joram 898-886

Jehu 886-858

Jehoahaz 858-841

Jehoash 841-825

Jeroboam II. 825-784
(Interregnum. 784-772)

Zachariah 772

Shallum 771

Menahem 771-761

Pekahiah 761-759

Pekah 759-739

(Interregnum. 739-730)

Hoshea 730-721

Fall of Samaria 722

176 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

Judah.

Jehoiakim 608-597

Jehoiachin 597

Zedekiah 597-586

Destruction of
Jerusalem. . . . 586

VI. Divisions.

1. The Reign of Solomon over the united Kingdom.
I Kings 1-11.

a. His anointing. Chapter 1.

I. The death of David. Chapter 2.

c. Solomon's marriage and choice of wisdom.

Chapter 3.

d. His resources and alliance with Hiram. Chap

ters 4-5.

e. The building and dedication of the temple.

Chapters 6-8.

/. Solomon's greatness, wisdom and apostasy.
Chapters 9-11.

2. History of the divided Kingdom till the captivity

of Israel. I Kings 12 to II Kings 17.
Special prominence is given in this section to the
work of the prophets Elijah and Elisha.

3. History of the kingdom of Judah till the E:sil0

II Kings 18-25.

SECTION II. THE LATTER PROPHETS
PRELIMINARY: HEBREW PROPHECY

I. Names. The Old Testament prophets receive sev
eral different names:

1. Man of God (I Sam. 9 : 6 ; I Kings 12 : 22 ; 17 : 18 ;
II Kings 4). This name emphasizes his choice by God,
his obedience to God, and his special fellowship with
God.

2. Servant of Jehovah. This title is applied to others
than prophets and is too general to indicate the special
work of the prophet, except as one of those who faith
fully carry out God's will upon the earth (I Kings
14:18).

3. Messenger of Jehovah (Is. 42:19; Mai. 3:1).
This is more specific and implies that like the angels,
the prophets were sent on the behests of God to do His
work. It also suggests the idea of interpreting God's
will to His people.

4. Seer. This name is found in two forms, nan and
njn. Of these the former, derived from the usual verb,
" to see," is less common. The latter verb is never used
of merely physical seeing. Both these words view the
prophet as a man of special insight, capable of seeing
the true meaning of things both present and future.
The full significance of these words, however, requires
the reception of occasional divinely sent visions, which
the prophet was to pass on to the people. The name,
seer, ( nth ) was older than the name prophet (I Sam.
9:91.

1*7

178 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

5. Prophet. This most common name has the form
NT3J, Its origin is somewhat doubtful. It has been
commonly considered a weakened form of JJ3J (Prov.
18 : 4) to bubble up, to gush forth. Hence K'33 is a
man who is filled, inspired, in an ecstasy with the mes
sage he has to give. The root in Arabic means to be
prominent and in the causative, to bring into prom
inence, to announce. In Assyrian "nabu" means to
announce, and Nebo is the Mercury, the interpreter of
the Gods. Hence a prophet is properly one who an
nounces God's will, who speaks for and from God.

II. Function. Prophecy was a necessary element
in the conception of the chosen people. " The Jewish
people were merely the point of union, merely the
elevated conducting rod, so to speak, pointing to heaven
and drawing down an influence to be distributed speedily
over the whole earth" (Davidson — Old Testament
Prophecy p. 3). The prophets, following this figure,
were the highest point of this conducting rod through
which God's will was imparted to Israel and thus to
all mankind. The prophetic office in a sense, belonged to
all the people in proportion to their realization of the
ideal of Israel. Yet from time to time God called cer
tain men to be the special instruments for transmit
ting His will. Since the duties of the prophets were
occasional, the office was never hereditary, like the
priesthood, and there are long gaps in the history of
prophecy.

The prophet was an intense believer in the imma
nence of God, which made all history to be God's work
ing out of His eternal purpose. To proclaim this view of
human affairs and especially of Israel's affairs was hia

HEBEEW PEOPHECY 179

divine office. Hence prophecy bore a peculiar relation
to the three divisions of time.

1. The Past. The prophets viewed history from the
religious and moral standpoint. The dealings of God
in times past were a fruitful source of lessons for the
present. The prophets were interpreters of history,
focusing its light upon the problems of the present.
Hence the so-called, " Former Prophets " (Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, and Kings) are historical books written
by prophets. They are not complete annals of events
but rather " history with a moral."

2. The Present. It is with the present that prophecy
has chiefly to do. History and prediction are both made
subservient to the present. The past is described and
the future foretold only that the problems of the pres
ent may be solved. The prophets were religious re
formers in times of apostasy and preachers of righteous
ness in times of prosperity. With all human and divine
aid they addressed themselves to the conditions before
them. Their predictions as well as their precepts have
their application for the present. Hence history and
prophecy developed side by side in Israel, the latter
the inspired commentary upon the former.

3. The Future. Prediction forms only a small part
of prophecy. It was not the most essential thing.
Prophets are condemned, even when their predictions
are fulfilled, if they counsel the people to worship other
Gods (Deut. 13:1-5). The moral and religious are
the essentials of prophecy. And yet the ability to fore
tell the future is an important element as Davidson
explains : " If history be a moral process, it will have
a goal which is also moral, and which will at last realize
perfectly its principles, seen to be imperfectly realized

180 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

now. Thus arises an eschatology which proclaims that
in the last days there shall be established a universal
kingdom which will be a perfect kingdom of God upon
the earth, being an everlasting righteousness" (p. 72).
Yet future events are usually described as if present, so
strong are the bonds which unite the prophet to his
own time.

III. History. The development of prophecy was in
several different epochs.

1. Before Moses. Prophecy began with the protevan-
gelium in Eden. Enoch foretold the coming of the
Lord with ten thousand of his saints (Jude 14). Noah
prophesied of the flood and afterwards of the destinies
of his descendants. Abraham was a prophet of the
blessing upon his seed and Jacob foretold the destinies
of the twelve patriarchs. Joseph's dreams were also
prophetic. In all this epoch prophecy was almost ex
clusively predictive and preparatory. It had not yet
attained its full development.

2. From Moses to Samuel. Moses gave an entirely
new idea to prophecy. His work was almost exclusively
didactic. Prediction is scarcely found. Yet he was the
greatest Old Testament prophet in the scriptural sense
of the word. He was the founder of prophecy and all
later prophets of the Old Covenant were interpreters
and followers of Moses. In intimacy of fellowship with
God he surpassed them all (Num. 12:6-8; Deut. 34:
10). Only Christ himself transcended Moses as a
prophet. From the time of Moses to Samuel the voice
of prophecy was rarely heard (Judges 6:8).

3. From Samuel till the prophetic writers. Samuel
gave a new impulse to prophecy which was never
lost so long as inspiration continued. He may be

HEBREW PROPHECY 181

called the founder of the prophetic office as an essen
tial part of the kingdom which took shape in his day.
Prophets like Nathan and Gad belonged to the court of
the king. In this period and even later the prophets
were like the Nazirites, separated unto the Lord (I Sam.
1:11; 3 : 20 ; Amos 2:11). Many of them were united
with the sanctuaries at Ramah, Bethel, Gibeah, Gilgal, and
Jericho and, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, were probably
of priestly families. They were numerous ( I Kings 18:4).

The so-called schools of the prophets were associations
or brotherhoods of pious men for mutual edification.
Such existed in the time of Elisha at Bethel, Jericho
and Gilgal (II Kings 2:3, 5; 4:38). These associa
tions probably reduced prophecy to a profession with its
official garb and its cant phrases ( Jer. 23 : 33-40 ; Zech.
13:4). The hairy garment was worn in imitation of
Elijah (II Kings 1:8) whose prophetic work in the
northern kingdom like that of Elisha was the model of
all later prophets. His burning zeal for righteousness
and his fearlessness are unsurpassed in sacred history.
Ecstasy was often a characteristic of prophecy in this
period and helped to bring the office of prophet into dis
repute (I Sam. 10: 10; 19: 24). Mechanical means were
used to induce ecstasy (I Sam. 10: 5; II Kings 3: 15).
Thus far the prophets were preachers but not writers.

4. The canonical writers protested against the formal
ism or open idolatry of their day and by committing
their words to writing, perpetuated prophecy in its most
developed form. The order of these prophets is a
matter of criticism which will develop in the chapters
concerning them.

182 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

The following list is presented for reference:

1. Before the Exile.
Joel.. . 875-865 B.C.

Jonah

Amos. . . .

Hosea

Isaiah . . .
Micah . . .
Obadiah. .
Jeremiah.

825-784
795-785
785-725
758-697
745-700
742-726
627-586

Zephaniah 626-621 "
Nahum.. 623 "

Habakkuk 608-600 "

2. During the Exile.
Ezekiel., 592-570 "

Contemporary Prophets.

Amos.
Jonah.

Isaiah, Micah and Obadiah.
Hosea, Micah and Obadiah.
Hosea, Isaiah and Obadiah.
Hosea, Isaiah and Micah.
Zephaniah, Nahum, Habak
kuk and Ezekiel
Jeremiah and Nahum.
Jeremiah and Zephaniah.
Jeremiah.

Jeremiah.

3. After the Exile.
Haggai . . 520
Zechariah 520-475
Malachi. . 433

" Zechariah.
" Haggai.

5. After the close of the Old Testament canon,
prophecy was again silent until John the Baptist. He
was of a similar spirit to Elijah and the greatest prophet
of the old dispensation, standing on the threshold of
the new (Matt. 11 : 9 ; Luke 1 : 76 ; 7 : 26). His great
ness is however lost in that of Him whose shoe-latchet
he was not worthy to unloose. Christ was the prophet
par excellence, in whom all prophecy finds its climax
and fulfilment. He is at once the purpose and the
result of Hebrew prophecy.

IV. Style. The prophetic office and inspiration did

HEBEEW PROPHECY 183

not destroy or replace the individuality of the prophets.
The prophets were not automatons nor their inspiration
mechanical. Though altogether supernatural their in
spiration had a psychological basis. Their dreams and
visions were sent from God for a definite purpose but
follow the laws of dreams. God spoke in them in a
manner superior to that in which He speaks in men
to-day, yet not contrary . to their own psychological
processes. The prophets were geniuses but mere genius
did not constitute prophecy. Ecstasy was characteristic
of some prophets but others, and those the greatest
(Moses and Christ), were calm and meditative. Fair-
bairn finds three marks of the prophetic style and
diction :

" 1. Poetical elevation.

" 2. Figurative representation.

" 3. The exhibition of events as present, or successive
only in relation to each other rather than as linked to
definite historical epochs" (Fairbairn on Prophecy
p. 13).

The literary style of prophecy is between prose and
poetry, sometimes rising to the exalted parallelism of
Hebrew poetry and then descending to the dignified
simplicity of Hebrew prose. Davidson has described the
lack of perspective in prediction in this way : " Just as
a traveller at a distance from a mountainous region,
sees one mountain rise up behind another, and fancies
it close at the back of the nearer, but when he reaches
the nearer, finds that the one which seemed so close
behind it has receded, and really stands far away; so
in the prophetic view, great events crowd up close
behind one another, which however in actual fulfilment
are widely apart in time" (p. 353).

184 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

V. Messianic Prophecy. The Messiah and his King
dom are the central subject of all predictive prophecy,
the background of every oracle concerning the future.
In regard to each Messianic prophecy two things are to
be distinguished, what the author meant and what the
Spirit of Kev3lation meani. In proportion to the rela
tion of these t»ve elements we have three kinds of
Messianic predict "n,

1. Direct pr ,dic* en. Eer° the prophet clearly saw
the coming Chris1- TLe Spirit and the prophet have
the same meaning. Such are for example Ps. 110 and
Isa. 7.

2. Indirect or typical prediction. Here the prophet
had a primary reference, sometimes realizing but little
of its typical character. The Spirit of Eevelation
pointed beyond to the ideal fulfilment. This is the
most common form of Messianic prophecy which refers
primarily to the offices of prophet, priest and king and
to the characters of Son of God, Servant of God and
Righteous Sufferer.

3. Generally Messianic. Such are the statements of
general truths, whose supreme application is only to
Christ, althcug^ thf author meant nothing more than
a delineation of the ideal. Examples of this are found
in Psalms 8 aM 85.

All Messiani'1 prediction presents two converging
lines, the human and the divine. "Along one of these
God descends and displays Himself and comes near to
men, until He becomes man. Along the other, man is
raised up and enlightened and purified until he is
capable of receiving God'* (Davidson pp. 12-13). As
the sky and the earth meet at the horizon, so both these
lines meet in the God-man, Christ Jesus.

I

ISAIAH

I. Name. The book is named from the prophet, its
author. The name has the form nw1 in the title of the

•r : —i

Hebrew Bible, but the longer form irry^ in the text.
It means " Jehovah is salvation." The Greek form is
' Haaiay and the Latin either Esaias or Isaias. The
English name is a transliteration of the shorter Hebrew
form.

II. Composition.

1. Critical Position. According to the dominant
critical opinion of to-day, the book contains much which
was not the work of Isaiah nor of his time. Chapters 40-
66 are said to have been composed toward the close of
the Exile (about 545-536 B.C.) by an unknown writer,
who is called for convenience the Deutero-Isaiah. In
contrast, the true prophet is sometimes designated the
Proto-Isaiah. Chapters 36-39 are considered a his
torical appendix, written a few years after the death of
Isaiah. Chapters 13 : 1 to 14 : 23 ; 21 : 1-10 ; 24 to 27 ;
and 34-35 are also assigned to an exilic date. Some of
the more radical critics deny the genuineness of Isa.
2:2-4; 11 : 10 through chap. 12 ; 14 : 24-2? ; 17 : 12-14;
19 : 16-25 ; 23 ; and 32-33. They assign late post-exilic
dates to many of these sections and assert that the first
book of Isaiah received its present form by redactional
activity later still, the redactor transposing the writings
of the real Isaiah from the true chronological order and
inserting these other fragments.

185

The literary unity of chapters 40-66 is denied by
many. Dillmann assigned chapters 40-48 to the time
of Cyrus' successes (545 B.C.) 49-62 to B.C. 545-539
and 63-66 to the period just before the decree of Cyrus
permitting the return of the exiles (536 B.C.). Duhm
and Cheyne are much more radical. The former con
fines the work of the Doitero-Isaiah to chaps. 40-55
although these chapters are said to contain many later
insertions. The most important are the " servant "
passages (42 : 1-4 ; 49 : 1-6 ; 50 : 4-9 ; 52 : 13 to 53 : 12)
which he refers to B.C. 500-450. Chapters 56-66 Duhm
refers to a writer approaching the time of Ezra and
Nehemiah, whcm hf calls the Trito-Isaiah. Cheyne
agrees with D mm in the main, though he assigns the
"servant" passages to the Second Isaiah and con
siders chap^. 56-63 to have been the work of a school
of writers rather than an individual.

2. Critical Arguments. The same general argu
ments which are used to prove chaps. 40-66 non-Isaianic
are applied to the other disputed sections. These argu
ments are three.

a. The theme of Chapters 40-J6 is the Exile and the
return. It is no!, predicted but presupposed. The
people whom the prophet addresses are the exiles. The
critics assert thai; though there are cases of prophets
projecting themselves into the future, no other in
stance ox suc\ prolonged maintaining of an ideal future
standpoint is known, as this would be if Isaiah wrote it
120 years before the Exile. The mention of Cyrus by
name so long before his time (Isa. 44:28; 45:1) is
also said to be contrary to the usual method of prophecy.

6. The literary style of these chapters differs greatly
from that of the earlier portion of the book. Several

ISAIAH 187

words and expressions, frequent in these chapters are
never or rarely found in the remainder of the book.
Cheyne cites other expressions which indicate a date
later than Isaiah. The grandeur of style, characteristic
of Isaiah, is here replaced by pathos. Personification
is a common figure with the writer of chapters 40-66.

c. The theological ideas are said to be different from
those of Isaiah. The writer emphasizes the infinitude
of God. The Isaianic doctrine of the preservation of
the faithful remnant is wanting in the second Isaiah,
as well as the figure of the Messianic king. The rela
tion of Jehovah to the nations is much more fully
developed than by Isaiah.

3. Answer to Critical arguments.

a. It is admitted that the standpoint of the writer of
chapters 40-66 is the Exile but it is insisted that this is
an ideal and not a real standpoint. Isaiah projects
himself into the time of the Exile by the Spirit of Keve-
lation. If evangelical critics admit that there are other
instances in the prophets of such projection into the
future (Driver p. 237), it is difficult to understand
why so great a prophet as Isaiah might not h ,ve main
tained this ideal standpoint throughout so long a
section.

6. The maintenance of this position in the Exile was
made easier by the fact that the Exile was not an event
still future to Isaiah but a process which had begun
before his time and whose culmination was a common
place of the prophets. It was needless for Isaiah to
repeat this prediction in chapters 4C-36, for he had al
ready foretold the Exile (Isa. 5:5-6; 10:20-24; 32;
13-18) and all the people of Isaiah's time were familiar
with the idea. Furthermore this process of the Exile

188 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

had two notable confirmations in Isaiah's time, the
destruction of the northern kingdom and the invasion
of the southern kingdom by Sennacherib. Isaiah's
prophecy of return refers not merely to the two southern
tribes who still held out against the enemy, but also to
the ten northern tribes who were already in exile. When
Isaiah had seen Samaria captured and her people de
ported, Jerusalem besieged and her king " shut up like
a bird in a cage," and Sennacherib's hosts driven back
only by divine intervention and when in his old age he
saw the profligacy and idolatry of the reign of
Manasseh, which must inevitably hasten the coming
doom, what wonder that he considered the Exile already
begun and devoted his closing years to a description of
the glorious future which awaited the people after the
return. As was usual with the prophets, he did not
realize that a century and more would intervene. The
reforms of Josiah which delayed the Exile were not
present to his sight. These words of consolation which
were appropriate for the believers in the beginning of
Manasseh's reign, because they saw the Exile at hand,
would be appropriate to those actually in exile.

c. It is also admitted that names and dates are not
usual in prophecy. Yet the mention of Cyrus by name
150 years in advance is not without precedent. Josiah
was foretold by name in the reign of Jeroboam ( I Kings
13:1-2), over three hundred years before his time.
Bethlehem is mentioned by name as the birth-place of
the Messiah by Isaiah's contemporary Micah (5:2) and
that so clearly that Christ was expected to be born there
(Matt. 2:4-6) and some objected to Jesus because he
came from Galilee (Jno. 7:40-44). Other exact
prophecies are the 70 years of exile by Jeremiah (Jer.

ISAIAH 189

25:11-12; 29:10; Dan. 9:2), Daniel's mention of
Christ (Dan. 9:24-26), Zechariah's of the piercing of
the Shepherd (12: 10) and of his being sold for thirty
pieces of silver (11: 13) and Ezekiel's and Zechariah's
against Tyre (Ezek. 26-27; Zech. 9:1-8).

These passages are sufficient to show that in unusual
cases and as a special proof of divine revelation, the
prophets sometimes mention names and dates in the
future. Such unusual conditions obtained when Isaiah
wrote these closing chapters. With the Exile impending,
the faithful needed some special proof for the prophet's
assurance of return. This he gave them in the man
Cyrus whose rising, those then living might witness, for
all Isaiah knew. At any rate expectation of Cyrus
would be the comfort of intervening years, and when
he should actually arise, Israel would know that their
redemption drew nigh.

d. The differences of style between chapters 40-66 and
the earlier parts of the book are not sufficient to indicate
a difference in authorship. Isaiah prophesied during
forty years or more. A considerable lapse of time may
partially account for his changed style. It is more fully
explained however by the change of subject in chapters
40-66 and especially by the ideal standpoint from which
they are written. The grandeur of the earlier chapters
gives place to pathos because the aged prophet seeks to
console those who foresee the destruction of their land.

The literary argument is of little value, by itself.
Whence do we know the style of Isaiah if not from the
book which bears his name? To derive our knowledge
of his style from a part of that book on the presumption
that he wrote it and then to deny his authorship for the
remainder of the book, is reasoning in a circle.

190 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION

e. On the other hand the critics are compelled to
admit that the second Isaiah exhibits many signs of
similarity to the first. To account for this some have
conjectured that he was a disciple of Isaiah, others that
he was filled with the spirit of Isaiah or wrote in con
scious imitation of that prophet. It was this similarity
to Isaiah, the critics tell us, which caused the editor
to add these chapters to the true work of Isaiah. If the
similarity is so great, the differences are not sufficient
to require another author. Instead of emphasizing the
differences and then attempting to explain the resem
blances, it is simpler and more logical to emphasize the
resemblances and explain the differences. These glorious
chapters were not written in the Exile in the spirit of
Isaiah, but by Isaiah in the spirit of the Exile. Their
similarity to Isaiah's acknowledged work is evidence
that he wrote them. The differences are because
he wrote on another subject and from another view
point.

The resemblances are of two kinds :

(1) Verbal agreement.

40:5 ]

V compare 1:20

58:

43:13 " 14:27

45:11) „ (19:25

60:21 j ' ' (29:23

51:11 " 35:10

56:8 " 11:12

61:2

34- 8
63:4 '

65:25 . " .11:9

ISAIAH IE

(2) Similar thought or figure.

40 • 3-4 )

' Y compare 35:8-10

41:17-18L « 35:6-7

43 : 19 J

42:1 I. « 11:2

61:1 J

42:7 " 9:2

42:13 " 31:4

42:18-20 ) fi.Q

r** •***•« ........... 0 • v

43:8 J

43:13 " 14:27

43:24 " 1:14

43:26 " 1:14-19

45 : 9 \ . , " . 29 : 16

64:9 J

45:15
57:17

47:3 .

47:10

49:2 .
49:26
51:4 .
51:9 .
53:1 .
53:2 .
64:7-8

65:12

192 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

56 : 7 compare 2:2

56:12 " 22:lfc

59:3 " 1:15

59:11 " 38:14

60:13 " 35:2

60:18 " 26:1

60:21 " 11:1

61:8 " 1:11,13

62:10 " 11:12

63:17 " 6:10

65:3 I <• 1-29

66:17 J

65:19 " 35:10

65:25 " 11:6

66:16 " 27:1

f. The differences in theological ideas are to be ac
counted for in the same way as the differences in style.
It is not claimed that the theological ideas are contra
dictory to those of Isaiah but that they are broader and
more elevated. This breadth and elevation are due to
the lofty subject of which he was speaking. Like John
on Patmos, he saw things yet to come and so widespread
was his vision of the future that his theological ideas
were broadened. Therefore he spoke of the infinitude
of God. The very same Messiah who had appeared
before to him as a King of David's time, now appears
as the " Servant of Jehovah " and the Eighteous Suf
ferer. Yet the reference to David (55:3) shows that
the former conception is not entirely forgotten. The
absence of the idea of the preservation of the faithful
remnant and the broader conception of the relation of
Jehovah to the nations are due to the ideal standpoint

ISAIAH 193

of these chapters. Indeed the theological ideas of the
second Isaiah are not different from those of his con
temporary, Micah. The same glorious prophecy of the
future, the same broad conception of the nations, and
the confident expectation of return from the Exile are
characteristic of them both.

g. Literary resemblance with Micah.

Micah 1:11 compare Isa. 47 : 2-3

" 2:13 " " 52 : 12

" 3:5 " " 56:10-11

" 3:8 " " 58:1

" 3:11 " " 48:2

" 4:13 " " 41:15-16

" 7:17 " " 49:23

4. Critical Arguments concerning Isa. 36-39.
Strack presents two arguments against the Isaianic
authorship of chapters 36-39.

a. Sennacherib's death is mentioned (Isa. 37:37-38)
an event which is dated 682 B.C. and after
Isaiah's time.

6. These chapters agree almost word for word with
II Kings 18:13, 17 to 20:19 and were taken
from it.

Answer. — a. It is possible that the mention of Sen
nacherib's death was a later addition from the book of
Kings. If however we suppose that Isaiah was 20
years old " in the year that King Uzziah died " (accord
ing to the critics 737 B.C.) when his ministry began,
we have only to imagine him living to be eighty in order
to record Sennacherib's death. The likelihood that
Isaiah lived so long is strengthened by the tradition

194 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

that he suffered death by martyrdom in the reign of
Manasseh, who came to the throne according to Strack's
estimate, in 686 B.C. only four years before the death
of Sennacherib. Such a supposition would also account
for the tone of chapters 40-66. They reflect a time of
idolatry such as existed in Judah in the reign of
Manasseh.

b. The resemblance of Isa. 36-39 to II Kings 18 : 13,
17 to 20 : 19, whatever its explanation, need not militate
against the Isaianic authorship. The Books of Kings
rest upon older records of the individual reigns, there
fore the book was not necessarily complete when the
passages in Isaiah were taken from it. Isaiah may have
taken Isa. 36-39 in the main from the regal annals of
his time, which later constituted a part of the Books of
Kings. On the other hand, the brevity of the account
of Hezekiah's sickness in Isa. 38 : 1-8 as compared with
that of II Kings 20: 1-11 seems to indicate that Isaiah's
record is the original. Isaiah does not mention the
lump of figs with which Hezekiah was healed and only
casually alludes to the two choices of Hezekiah but
gives Hezekiah's Psalm (Isa. 38:10-20) which is not
found in Kings. Thus Isaiah was either the author of
chapters 36-39 or incorporated them in his book.

5. Other Evidences of Unity.

a. The last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah are ad
mitted to be the most exalted and remarkable literary
production of any prophet of Israel. It is exceedingly
improbable that the name of this incomparable prophet
should be entirely forgotten, that his work should be
come a mere appendix to that of an inferior prophet,
and that for twenty centuries his work should be uni
versally regarded among the Jews as that of the inferior

ISAIAH 195

prophet. It is even more improbable that sections of
a later time should be intermingled with the writings
of Isaiah by a bungling editor, so that it has become very
difficult to extricate the true work of that prophet and
arrange it in chronological order. It is incredible that
the Jews with their superstitious adoration for their
sacred records would have allowed them to be confused
and mutilated in this manner.

&. The inspired New Testament saints and writers
quote these chapters as the work of Isaiah — John the
Baptist (Matt. 3:3; Luke 3:4; Jno. 1 : 23) ; Matthew
(Matt. 8:1; 12: 18-21) ; John (Jno. 12 : 38) and Paul
(Rom. 10:16, 20-21). Though our Lord nowhere
quotes the Deutero-Isaiah as the writing of Isaiah, yet
he tacitly assumed its genuineness when, without cor
recting the popular misapprehension, he read from it in
the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4: 16-19).

c. The writer of chapters 40-66 does not show the
familiarity with the land or religion of Babylon which
we would expect from a man living among the captives.
In this respect his work differs radically from that of
Ezekiel, the true prophet of the Exile, and even from
Jeremiah who witnessed the beginning of the Exile.
This ignorance of detail shows that the prophet's stand
point among the captives is ideal rather than real.

d. There are many passages in the Deutero-Isaiah
which do not fit the time of the Exile but do fit Isaiah's
time. Such are Isa. 40 : 2, 9 ; 43 : 6 ; 44 : 9-20 ; 48 : 1, 5 ;
49 : 25 ; 51 : 7 ; 56 : 3 etc. ; 57 : 13-21 , 58 : 1, 6-7 ; 59 : 1-8 ;
60 : 4, 6-7 ; 65 : 2-7.

III. Author. The author of the entire book was
Isaiah, the son of Amoz, who lived and wrought in
Jerusalem. He was ordained a prophet in the year that

196 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

King Uzziah died (B.C. 758) * and continued his min
istry in the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.
Hosea and Micah were his contemporary prophets.
The date of Isaiah's death is not certainly known. There
was however a Jewish tradition in the second century
A.D. that he suffered martyrdom by being sawn asunder
in the persecutions after the accession of Manasseh. If
so his ministry extended over about 60 years. He seems
to have been specially influential with Hezekiah. In
II Chr^n. 26 : 22 Isaiah is said to have written a vision
of Uzziah's reign and in II Chron. 32 : 32 he is said to
have had a " Vision " which contained a history of
Hezekiah and which is found in " the book of the
Kings of Judah and Israel." "We do not however pos
sess this book, at least in the form including Isaiah's
" Vision/'

Concerning his private life we know that Isaiah was
married ( Isa. 8:3) and that he had two sons to whom
symbolic names were given. The first was called Shear-
jashub (7:3) meaning "a remnant shall return"
and the second Maher-shalal-hash-baz meaning " spoil
quickly, plunder swiftly."

IV. Thene. Isaiah's work had to do chiefly with
Judah and Jerusalem at a very critical period of their
history. The rising power of Assyria and the waning
power of Egypt caused the presence in Judah of two
political parties, the one favoring a defensive alliance
with Assyria and the other with Egypt. The prophet
stood between these two, forbade all human alliances
and urged the people to trust in Jehovah of Hosts.

* Others date Uzziah's death 737 B.C., and Manasseh's
accession 686 B.C. If so, Isaiah's ministry may be dated
737-680 B.C., thus surviving Sennacherib (See p. 193).

ISAIAH 197

Isaiah had a very lofty conception of God. He speaks
more than any other Old Testament writer of the holi
ness of God and emphasizes His infinitude and spirit
uality. The prophet had a broad view of the relation of
God to man. He gave prophecies concerning Syria,
Moab, Egypt, Tyre, Assyria and Babylon not only be
cause of their relation to Judah but as the creatures
of God. He recognized the universality of Jehovah's
dominion. Like the other prophets, he demanded
spirituality in worship, not the mere performance of
sacrifices and vows but the heart's devotion to God.
His conception of the glorious future is brighter and
more varied than that of any other prophet of the Old
Testament and the Messianic ideas of Isaiah transcend
those of the other Old Testament writers. A large part
of his prophecies probably group themselves about the
two great crises of Judah in his time, the first,
when Israel and Syria made a confederacy against
Judah in the days of Ahaz and the second, when
Judah was invaded by Sennacherib in the reign of
Hezekiah.

V. Divisions.

Introduction. Chapter 1.

1. Prophecies from Isaiah's Eeal Standpoint. Chaps.
2-35.

a. Prophecy against Judah and Jerusalem. Chap
ters 2-5.

&. The Book of Immanuel, opening with an account
of Isaiah's ordination. Chapters 6-12.

c. Ten judgments upon the nations. Chapters

13-24.

d. Praise to Jehovah. His promises and warnings

for Judah. Chapters 25-35.

198 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

Historical section concerning the invasion of Sen
nacherib, which is supplementary to the first part of the
book and introductory to the last part. Chapters 36-39.

2. Prophecies from the Ideal Standpoint of the Exile.
Chapters 40-66.

a. Jehovah the Saviour of Israel. Chapters 40-48.

b. Jehovah the Saviour of the Gentiles. Chapters

49-57.

c. The Glorious Future of God's people. Chapters

58-66.

II

JEREMIAH

I. Name. The name of the book is that of the
prophet. It has two forms ^pv and «Ton\ Its prob
able meaning is " whom Jehovah appoints or estab
lishes." The Greek form is Ye^ta?, and the Latin
Jeremias. The English name comes from the shorter
Hebrew form.

II. Composition.

1. Evidence from the Boole. Jeremiah dictated to
Baruch, his scribe, all his prophecies from the begin
ning of his ministry to the fourth year of Jehoiakim
(Jer. 36:1-4). This would cover 23 of the 41 years
of Jeremiah's ministry. In the following year this
roll was cut and thrown into the fire by the king,
after he heard it read. (Jer. 36:23.) Accordingly
the prophet prepared a new roll by the hand of Baruch
adding to the contents of the former one " many like
words" (Jer. 36: 32). This restored roll did not con
tain a large part of the present book, for many sections
are dated at a later time (Jer. 21 : 1 ; 24 : 1 ; 27 : 3, 12 ;
28:1; 29:1; 34:1-2; 37:1; 38:5, 14 etc.; 39:1-2;
40-44 ; 49 : 34 ; 52 ) and others bear marks of a later
composition. When the prophecies were arranged in
their present form, it is impossible to determine, though
there is nothing in the book requiring a date long after
the death of the prophet. Chapter 52 was probably
not the work of Jeremiah (Jer. 51:64). It agrees

199

200 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION

almost word for word with II Kings 24 : 18 to 25 : 30
and is thought by many to have been added to Jeremiah
from that source.

2. Critical Opinion. Modern critics from internal
evidence deny that Jeremiah wrote the following sec
tions: Jer. 10:1-16; 16:14f; 17:26; 25:13; 27:1;
30 : 23f ; 32 : 17-23 ; 39 : 1-2, 4-10 ; 40 : 1-6 and 50:1 to
51 : 58. Davidson distinguishes three stages in the his
tory of the book (H. B. D. Vol. 11 p. 575).

a. Jeremiah's second roll which he makes to include
chapters 1-6, 7-10 (except 10:1-16) 11:1 to 13:6;
14-15; 16:1 to 17:18; 25 in its original form and
possibly 18; 20: 7f ; 22: lOf ; 45 and parts of 46-49.

&. Soon after the prophet's death some persons either
in Babylon or Palestine collected all they could of the
work of Jeremiah, making his biography as complete
as possible. They added the headings of the prophecies.
Kuenen suggests the latter half of the Exile as the date
of this redaction which gave the book the form which
is the basis of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

c. Certain modifications and additions were made
after the Exile. Some of these were admitted to all
manuscripts, while others were excluded from those
manuscripts which underlie the Septuagint.

All this is admitted to be largely conjectural. In
the absence of fuller information, we cannot do better
than express the probability that the book received its
present form at the hands of an editor soon after Jere
miah's death and that the whole, with the exception
of chapter 52 and possibly certain brief insertions, was
the work of that prophet.

3. The Text. The text of the Septuagint differs
more widely from the Hebrew in Jeremiah than in

JEEEMIAH 201

any other book of the Old Testament. The prophe
cies concerning foreign nations (Chaps. 46-51) are
inserted after 25 : 13 and arranged differently, and
33 : 14-26 are dropped. In many passages the Greek
text is shorter than the Hebrew making the entire book
about one-eighth smaller. Several different theories
have been advanced to account for these variations.
Whatever be the true explanation, there is no warrant
for considering the Greek form of the book more trust
worthy than the Hebrew in view of the carelessness of
the Septuagint translators and the careless transmis
sion of its text.*

III. Author.

Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah, a priest who lived
at Anathoth in Benjamin (Jer. 1:1). He was ordained
a prophet in his youth (1:4-10). His first prophecy
was given in the thirteenth year of Josiah's reign
(627 B.C.). He continued to prophesy during the
reigns of Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin
until the destruction of Jerusalem in the eleventh year
of Zedekiah (586 B.C)— in all 41 years. His life was
threatened by the men of Anathoth and later the hos
tility to him became general. Yet he continued fear
lessly to utter the divine judgments. He was put in
the stocks (Jer. 20: 1-3). During the siege of Jerusa
lem he was cast into prison because his prophecies of
the fall of the city were considered friendly to the
Chaldeans (Jer. 27:1-15). Zedekiah released him

* Recent discovery in Egypt shows that the Jews had a
temple and offered sacrifices at Elephantine in Egypt to
Yahu, the God of Heaven, in Jeremiah's time (Jer. 44:
17-19). Possibly the Septuagint was taken from a form
of the book current among these Jews.

202 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

for a time but he was again in prison by command of
the princes when the city fell (Jer. 38). Nebuzaradan,
the Chaldean general, released him at the command of
Nebuchadnezzar. When Gedaliah, the governor of
Judah, was murdered, Jeremiah tried to dissuade the
Jews from going to Egypt. Nevertheless they went
and took him with them. He prophesied concerning
them at Tahpanhes in Egypt (Jer. 43:8 to 44:30).
The date of his death is unknown.

IV. Theme.

The book of Jeremiah reflects his times and character.
They were times of misfortune and increasing apostasy
in Israel, while the prophet's character was deeply
sensitive and emotional. Three important events oc
curred during his ministry, the battle of Megiddo, in
which Josiah, the last great and good king of Judah,
was slain by the Egyptians (II Chron. 35:20-27), the
battle of Carchemish, in which the Babylonians wrested
from Egypt the dominion of western Asia and thus
became the lords of Judah, and the destruction of Jeru
salem and deportation of the people to Babylon. Jere
miah stood almost alone in the effort to stem the tide
of apostasy which he foresaw would engulf the people
of God. His work was characterized by an intense
love of Judah and an absolute fearlessness in his deter
mination to deliver God's warning message. The
unpopularity and persecution with which his faithful
ness was received, saddened his sensitive nature and
at times even embittered him. The prevailing tone
of sorrow and judgment which pervades his writings
is but the natural feeling of a pious soul in such a
time.

Yet the book is not utterly hopeless. Though Jere-

JEREMIAH 203

miah does not rise to the prophetic heights of Isaiah,
there are many signs of his faith in the return of Israel
and the ultimate triumph of God's purposes. This was
grounded in his intense belief in the everlasting love
of God for His own. Beyond the chastisement of
the Exile he saw clearly the coming of the Branch of
Righteousness and the establishment of a New Cove
nant. In this last prediction ( Jer. 31 : 31-34) he dis
plays a spiritual insight into God's plan of the ages,
which is unequalled by any other prophet of the old
dispensation.
V. Divisions.

1. Prophecies concerning Judah to the fall of Jeru
salem. Chapters 1-38.

This includes warning, lamentation, historical pas
sages, and symbolic actions.

2. History and prophecy concerning the people after
the fall of Jerusalem. Chapters 39-45.

3. Prophecies concerning the Gentiles. Chapters
46-51.

4. Supplementary account of the deportation of the
people, not by Jeremiah. Chapter 52.

Ill

EZEKIEL

I. Name. The book is named from its author
meaning " God strengthened " or " God is strong/'
The Septuagint form of the name is 'h^sxcf^ and the
Vulgate Ezechiel. Luther gave the form Hesekiei.
The English follows the Vulgate.

II. Composition. The genuineness and unity of the
book of Ezekiel have never been seriously questioned.
All schools of criticism are agreed that we have the
book substantially as it came from the prophet's hand.
Even Cornill says : " If there is any book of the Old
Testament which bears the mark of authenticity on
its face and lies before us in the form in which it came
from the hand of its author, it is the book of Ezekiel "
(Einleitung p. 176). This uniform opinion is based
upon the marked characteristics of the book throughout
and the evident arrangement and plan.

The critics affirm that the text of the book is very
corrupt. Baudissin suggests that in some places the
Massoretic Text might be improved in conformity with
that of the Septuagint, although he does not think
the Alexandrian text better throughout. The greater
uncertainty concerning the text of the Septuagint,
however, makes it a poor guide for the rectification of
the Hebrew.

III. Author. Ezekiel was the son of Buzi and of
a priestly family (Ezek. 1:3). In his young manhood
he was carried captive from Judah with Jehoiachin

204

EZEKIEL 205

(597 B.C. II Kings 24:11-16; Ezek. 33:21; 40:1)
eleven years before the destruction of Jerusalem. He
lived at Tel-Abib on the river Chebar, the Kabaru or
Grand Canal near Nippur. His call and ordination to the
prophetic office took place five years after he went into
exile (592 B.C.). He was married (24:18) and lived
in his own house where the elders of the people came
to him for counsel (8:1; 14: 1; 20: 1). His prophe
cies seem to have been received coldly (33:30-33)
though there is not sufficient evidence that he was per
secuted. His last dated prophecy was in the 27th year
of his captivity (29:17 B.C. 570). Hence Ezekiel's
ministry covered at least 22 years, B.C. 592-570. There
is a late and unreliable tradition that he was slain by
a prince for denouncing idolatry.

Ezekiel was probably 25 years old when he \vas
carried captive (1:1-2). Before this time he was
doubtless familiar with the prophecies of Jeremiah,
who had already prophesied 30 years in Jerusalem. His
work in Babylonia was contemporaneous with the latter
part of Jeremiah's ministry in Jerusalem till the final
destruction of that city (586 B.C.). Ezekiel continued
to prophesy after that time in Babylonia while Jere
miah was in Egypt.

IV. Theme. The great prophet of the Exile differed
from the other major prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah, in
two important respects.

a. His work did not have to do with the government
of Judah. He was in no sense a political or social
reformer. Among those who had been carried far from
their native land, his work was rather that of comfort
and exhortation for the individual. He was also far
removed from the court of Babylon where Daniel lived.

206 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

6. For the same reason lie was more a writer than a
speaker. In this respect he is unique among the prophets.
His words were to " all the house of Israel." Hence
they were preserved in book form for generations to
come.

The great subjects of Ezekiel's visions are the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, the judgment upon the nations, and
the restoration of all Israel to their land and worship.
In the last of these subjects he displays his priestly
training much more than Jeremiah. His knowledge of
the temple and its ritual is minute. In foretelling the
destruction of the city because of its idolatry, we also
miss Jeremiah's dominant tone of sadness. Ezekiel
was very severe in his denunciations of the ungodly
but equally tender in his invitations to repentance. He
desired that the exiles should learn the lesson of their
chastisement. If they did so he had for them the com
forting assurance of restoration. The profound and
often grand symbolism of his book is the most im
portant source of that of the Eevelation. Ezekiel's
prophecies exhibit a powerful imagination and much
meditation but are less poetic than those of other
prophets. The orderly arrangement of the book is
evidently the result of his own plan.
V. Divisions.

1. Prophecies foretelling the Fall of Jerusalem.
Chapters 1-24.

a. The prophet's call and ordination. Chapters
1-3.

&. Prophecies in the Fifth Year. Chapters 4-7.

c. Prophecies in the Sixth Year. Chapters 8-19.

d Prophecies in the Seventh year. Chapters 20-22.

e. Prophecy in the Ninth Year. Chapter 24.

EZEKIEL 207

2. Judgments upon the Nations. Chapters 25-32.
a. In the Ninth Year. Chapter 25.

&. In the Eleventh Year. Chapters 26-28.
c. In the Tenth, Twenty-seventh and Eleventh
Years, against Egypt. Chapters 29-32.

3. Prophecies of the Eeturn from Exile and Estab
lishment. Chapters 33-48.

a. In the Twelfth Year. Chapters 33-39.
&. In the Twenty-fifth Year 40-48.

IY

THE TWELVE

(1) Hosea

I. Name. The book is named from its author
"salvation." The name is the same in Hebrew as the
original name of Joshua (Num. 13: 8, 16) and that of
the last king of Israel (II Kings 15:30 etc.). The
Greek form of the prophet's name is 'i?^^ and the Latin
Osee. In the Authorized Version Joshua's original
name is Oshea, the name of the king is Hoshea, and
that of the prophet Hosea. In the Revised Version the
first two are named correctly Hoshea and the prophet
incorrectly Hosea.

II. Composition. The greater part of the book is
acknowledged to be the work of that prophet. Several
critics, however, such as Stade, Wellhausen, Cornill and
Harper, assert that it contains many later interpolations.
Harper classifies them as follows:

1. References to Judah added by a Judaistic editor
after the Exile. The principal of these are 1:7; 5 : 10.
12, 13, 14; 6:4; 6:lla; 8:14; 10: lib; ll:12b and
12:2.

Answer. — a. Hosea looked upon the kings of the
northern kingdom as usurpers and the house of David
in Jerusalem as the rightful rulers (3:5; 8:4). He
therefore dates his prophecy according to the legitimate
rulers even though his ministry was in the northern
kingdom.

208

THE TWELVE— HOSEA 209

6. The allusions of Hosea to the southern kingdom
are not more numerous than those of Isaiah to the
northern kingdom, although his ministry was in the
southern. The relation between the two kingdoms was
intimate according to the prophetic view.

2. The Messianic allusions (1 : 10 to 2 : 1 ; 2 : 6-7, 14-
16, 18-23; 3:5; 11 : 8b, 9a, 11 and 14:1-8) are said
to be inconsistent with Hosea's situation and declaration
of the approaching destruction of Samaria. They are
therefore assigned to an exilic date after Ezekiel and
Deutero-Isaiah.

Answer. — Other critics such as Strack and Driver
admit that it is a characteristic of the prophets to give
an ideal picture of the restoration after severe threat-
enings.

3. Explanatory insertions " of a technical, archaeo
logical or historical character " (4 : 13d ; 5 : 6 ; 7 : 4, 16c ;
8 : 8b ; 9 : Ib, 9a, 10 ; 10 : 5, 14b; 12 : 13 ; 13 : 4b-7) were
added from time to time.

Answer. — These may be satisfactorily explained as
comments of the prophet himself.

4. Miscellaneous interpolations " for which no special
motive may be discovered " (8 : 4-5, 10, 14; 9 : la, 8).

Answer. — In the condensed form in which the work
of the prophets has come down to us, imperfect connec
tion with the context is not sufficient reason for regard
ing a passage as an insertion.

5. " Chapter 14 : 10 — is a product of the later wisdom
period." Thus the book did not receive its present form
according to Harper until the Greek period (B.C. 333).

Answer. — The subjective and arbitrary character of
these assertions is sufficient refutation. Although in
default of historical evidence it cannot be proved that

these are not insertions, the presumption must always
be in favor of the unity of a book.

The text of Hosea is said to be in places incurably
corrupt. But the passages cited (4:4, 18 ; 5:2, 7, 11 ;
6:7; 7:4; 8 : lOb, 13; 9:8, 13; 10:9; 11:3, 6, 7, 12)
are inadequate to prove that assertion.

III. Author. Hosea was the son of Beeri. He
prophesied in the northern kingdom during the reign of
Jeroboam II and later and during the time of Uzziah,
Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, the same kings of Judah
with whom Isaiah labored. According to the dates of
the kings derived from the scriptural figures the reign
of Jeroboam II in Israel closed in 784 B.C. while that
of Hezekiah in Judah began 726 B.C. If these dates
be correct, Hosea's ministry must have been a very long
one, covering about sixty years (785-725 B.C.). Such
an explanation would require a life of eighty years. If
however the dates derived from Assyrian sources be
correct (Jeroboam II 782-741; Uzziah 789-753 and
Hezekiah 726-697) Hosea's ministry may have been
much shorter, extending over about thirty years (755-
725 B.C.). In either case Amos was the contemporary
of Hosea in the early part of his ministry and Isaiah,
Micah and Obadiah during the later part.

Hosea was married to Gomer the daughter of Diblaim
Their three children were given symbolic names by
divine command: the eldest son Jezreel, because the
blood of Jezreel would be avenged; the daughter Lo-
ruhamah ("not having obtained mercy") because God
would show no mercy to the northern kingdom; and
the youngest son Lo-ammi ("not my people") because
Israel were no longer considered the people of God.
The marriage of Hosea with " a wife of whoredoms >f

THE TWELVE— HOSEA 211

and the children of the union are symbolic of the rela
tion of Jehovah to Israel. The marriage and the birth
of the three children actually occurred. If it were an
allegory the name of the wife would be symbolical, as
well as those of the children. The marriage is recorded
as a literal occurrence.

IV. Theme. Hosea bears somewhat the same rela
tion to the northern kingdom as Jeremiah to the
southern. Each foretold the approaching destruction
of the kingdom in which he ministered. The same in
tense and pathetic love of God for His people is charac
teristic of both books.

Yet Hosea was further removed from the fall of
Samaria than Jeremiah from that of Jerusalem. Hosea
began his ministry in a time of prosperity and foretold
the speedy overthrow of the house of Jehu, of which
Jeroboam II was the fourth king. During the frequent
political changes and troublous times which followed
Jeroboam's death, the prophet continued with great
tenderness to predict the downfall of Israel and to urge
the people to repentance. The fact that his message was
based upon a symbolic event of great sadness in his
own house, gave a warmth and pathos to his words which
is not equalled by any other prophet.

V. Divisions.

1. The apostasy of Israel, figuratively depicted by the
prophet's marrying " a wife of whoredoms." Chapters
1-3.

2. The same apostasy literally described with the
yearning of Jehovah over Israel, exhortations to repent
ance, and promise of restoration. Chapters 4-14.

212 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

(2) Joel

I. Name. The book is named from its author, 5>Sl'
meaning " Jehovah is God." It is a very common name
in scripture (I Sam. 8 : 2 ; I Chron. 4 : 35-43 ; 5 : 4, 12 ;
6:36; 7:3; 11:38; 15:7; 27:20; II Chron. 29:12;
Ezra 10 : 43 ; Neh. 11 : 9) . The form of the name in the
Septuagint is 7w5j/i.

II. Date. The book is not dated according to the
reign of any king. Accordingly we are confined to in
ternal evidences for guidance concerning the time of
the prophet. Nor are these evidences many or powerful.
Neither Syrians, Assyrians, nor Chaldeans are men
tioned. Hence the presumption is very strong that the
book was written either before the reign of Ahaz (742-
726 B.C.) when those nations became prominent among
the enemies of Judah, or after the Exile when they had
ceased to be such (after 536 B.C.). The view of Konig
that it belongs in the last years of Josiah's reign has met
with little favor.

Credner and after him a large number of critics assign
the book to the beginning of the reign of Joash in
Judah (879-839 B.C.). The arguments for this view
are as follows:

1. The enemies of Judah mentioned by Joel (3:4,
19) are the Phenicians, Philistines, Egypt and Edom.
Of these Edom and Philistia had been at war with
Judah during the reign of Jehoram (893-885 B.C.) only
a few years before Joash (II Kings 8: 20-22; II Chron.
21:16-17). Egypt was still hostile to Judah in that
time, for Shishak had invaded Judah in the fifth year

THE TWELVE— JOEL 213

of Rehoboam (974 B.C.) while Egypt was an ally of
Judah in the century after Joash (Isaiah 30 and 31).
On the other hand neither Syria nor Assyria had begun
to attack Judah in the time of Joash.

2. The book of Amos makes use of Joel (compare
Joel 1:4 and 2:25 with Amos 4:9; Joel 3:16 with
Amos 1:2 and Joel 3:18 with Amos 9:13). That
these are references of Amos to Joel and not of Joel to
Amos is shown by their agreement with the circle of
ideas in Joel rather than in Amos. But Amos proph
esied in the reign of Uzziah of Judah (810-758 B.C.)
and Jeroboam II of Israel (825-784 B.C.). Joel must
therefore have preceded that time.

3. The king is not mentioned but rather the elders
and priests (Joel 1 : 2, 13-14). This fits admirably with
the time suggested. Joash ascended the throne when
he was seven years of age (II Kings 11:21). In his
minority Jehoiada the high-priest and the elders were
the virtual rulers of the country.

4. The absence of censure for particular sins agrees,
with the time of Joash better than with any other which
can be mentioned.

Driver, Merx, Cornill and others assign Joel to a
post-exilic date, during the fifth century B.C. The
principal arguments for this position are these:

1. Joel 3 : 2 is said to be a recollection of the scatter
ing of Judah before the Exile.

Answer. — Iveil and others have pointed out that this
is a predictive passage. Therefore it contains no evi
dence of a post-exilic date.

2. The mention of the sale of Jewish prisoners by
the Phenicians to "the sons of Javan" (Joel 3:6) is
said to agree better with a post-exilic date.

214 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

Answer. — "The sons of Javan" are mentioned as a
distant people not well-known to Judah, while the
Phenicians, who were hostile to Judah, in the early days
of the divided kingdom were the greatest maritime
nation of antiquity. It is not strange that they sold
Jewish captives to the Greeks as early as the time of
Joash.

3. Joel makes no mention of the northern kingdom
but speaks of Israel as one people (Joel 2 : 27 ; 3 : 2, 16).
Therefore, it is argued, Israel must have already gone
into exile.

Answer. — a. Since Joel's ministry was with the king
dom of Judah, he had no occasion to mention the
northern kingdom.

&. Joel uses the name Israel as the original name
which rightfully belonged to the southern kingdom even
before the fall of Samaria.

4. No king of Judah is mentioned, implying a post-
exilic time when there was no king. This matter has
already been satisfactorily explained.

In addition to these arguments the following consid
erations are evidence for the pre-exilic date.

1. If the book were composed in the Persian period,
its entire silence concerning Persia and its kings and
the struggles which Judah underwent immediately after
the Exile is very strange. The temple and its worship
are well established. This fact induces Cornill to date
the book about 400 B.C. But it agrees better with the
time before the Exile.

2. The position between Hosea and Amos, the oldest
of the Prophets, seems to indicate the ancient Hebrew
tradition that Joel also was very early.

3. The literary style of Joel differs greatly from that

THE TWELVE— JOEL 215

of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who were his con
temporaries if he prophesied after the Exile.

Thus the weight of the evidence favors the date in
the time of Joash, possibly 875-865 B.C.

III. Composition. Eothstein has attacked the unity
of the book, assigning 1:1 to 2:27 to the reign of
Joash and 2 : 28 to 3:21 to a post-exilic date, while
Cornill speaks of it as a compendium of late Jewish
eschatology. The uniform plan and style of the book
are sufficient answer to this view, which has not indeed
met with general acceptance.

IV. Author. All that is known of Joel is the state
ment of 1 : 1 that he was the son of Pethuel. In the
Septuagint this name has the form BaOou-fjX and in the
Vulgate Phatuel. It is generally agreed that he minis
tered in the kingdom of Judah and probably in Jeru
salem.

V. Theme. The occasion of this prophecy was an
unprecedented plague of locusts in Judah. Such a
plague destroys all vegetation and is a worse calamity
than the devastation of an invading army. The prophet
describes this visitation so vividly that it is best to
consider it an actual occurrence and not a symbolic
description of an invading army or of the damaging
effects of profligacy and idolatry (Rev. 9:3-11). Joel
views it as a judgment of Jehovah for the people's sins
and urges them to repent lest a worse thing come upon
them. If they do so, God will withdraw the punishment
and give them abundant blessings. Accordingly the
latter part of the book is filled with a description of the
spiritual blessings of Israel in the last days and the
judgments of God upon their enemies. The book is
preeminently eschatological. Yet the predictions were

216 OLD TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION"

meant primarily for the comfort of the people in Joel's
time.
VI. Divisions.

1. The plague of locusts and the proclamation of a
fast. 1:1 to 2: 27.

2. Blessing and judgment in the last days. 2 : 28 to
3:21.

THE TWELVE— AMOS 217

(3) Amos

I. Name. The book is named from its author
meaning "burden" or "burden-bearer." Its form in
the Septuagint is M^w?. The name should not be con
fused with that of Amoz, the father of Isaiah, which
has a different form in the Hebrew ( pON ) .

II. Composition. The book is almost universally
acknowledged to be the work of Amos. The recently
expressed opinion that it was a much later writing,
ascribed by its unknown author to the Amos mentioned
in the book, is sufficiently answered by a consideration
of the agreement of the book with the times of Amos.

More general is the view that the book contains sev
eral later interpolations. The arguments are similar to
those concerning the alleged interpolations in Hosea,
viz., the references to Judah and the lack of connection
of certain passages with the remainder of the book.
There is a wide divergence of opinion among critics on
this subject. Harper is the most radical, rejecting 1 : 1-
2, 9-12; 2:4-5, 12; 4:7b, 8a, 13; 5:8-9, 18b, 22b;
6:2, 9-lla; 7: Id, 8a; 8:2a, 6, lla; 9:5-6, 8-15.
Cheyne, Duhm, Stade, and Wellhausen reject a few of
these passages with one or two others, but W. E. Smith
and Kuenen defend 2 : 4-5 ; 4 : 13 ; 5 : 8-9 and 9 : 5-6.

Answer. — This difference of opinion, even among
radical critics, shows that the arguments for rejection
are inadequate. Since Amos came from Tekoa in Judah,
it is difficult to see why he should not mention Judah
and Jerusalem. The assertion that other passages are
too loosely connected with Amos to be the work of that

218 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

prophet is largely subjective. Logically carried out it
would deny that an author can introduce a parenthesis
in his work. The critics manufacture an ideal Amos
from a part of his book and then affirm that other state
ments of the book do not agree with that ideal. The
difficulty is not with the book but with the false method
of the critics. If there are interpolations in it, which
is inherently improbable, our knowledge is too meagre
to discover them.

III. Author. Amos was one of the herdsmen of
Tekoa in Judah, about ten miles south of Jerusalem.
The word rendered " herdsmen " ( DHpJ ) is found else
where only once (II Kings 3:4) and is supposed to
mean the shepherd of a peculiar small kind of sheep,
famous for their wool. He also tended larger cattle
and was a dresser of sycamore trees (Amos 7:14).
From his occupation as well as the omission of his
father's name we may conclude that he came from an
obscure and poor family. He did not belong to the
prophetic order but was called from his ordinary occu
pation to be a prophet in Israel (Amos 7: 14-15). He
went to Bethel, the principal sanctuary of the northern
kingdom, and foretold the destruction of that kingdom
for their sins. After a time, the chief priest of Bethel,
Amaziah, reported him to king Jeroboam II as a traitor
and ordered him to leave the country. It was probably
after his return to Tekoa that he committed to writing
this summary of his prophecy.

His exact time is difficult to determine because of the
uncertainty concerning the dates of the kings of the
northern kingdom. If the older chronology be correct
Jeroboam II of Israel was contemporary with Uzziah
of Judah from 810 to 784 B.C. If the dates from

THE TWELVE— AMOS 219

Assyrian sources be preferred, they were contemporaries
from 782 to 753 B.C. On the former calculation the
ministry of Amos was probably about 795-785 B.C. but
on the latter 760-750 B.C. The recent attempt to make
the date still later (about 734 B.C.) has not been suc
cessful. The time of the earthquake in Uzziah's reign
being unknown, it furnishes no clew to establish the
time of the prophecy (Amos 1:1; Zech. 14: o). Hosea
was the younger contemporary and successor of Amos.
Jonah also prophesied in the northern kingdom in the
time of Amos (II Kings 14: 25).

IV. Theme. The principal subject of the prophecy
is the judgment upon Israel because of their idolatry and
other sins. The time of Jeroboam II was one of great
temporal prosperity but it was also characterized by prof
ligacy, oppression and injustice. Against these Amos
inveighed fearlessly, foretelling the ruin of Israel, which
occurred sixty years later (722 B.C.). He also foretold
the destruction of the surrounding nations and even of
Judah for their sins. He presents a high moral standard
of conduct in preference to a cold formal religion.
Jehovah is to him the God of all nations, who deals with
all according to their works (9:7). Yet at the end of
the prophecy he foretells the restoration of the worship
as in David's time.

V. Divisions.

1. Judgment upon the surrounding nations. Chap
ters 1-2.

2. Judgment upon Israel. Chapters 3-6.

3. Symbolic predictions of Israel's doom, closing with
the promise of restoration. Chapters 7-9.

220 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION

(4) Oladiah

I. Name. The book is named from its author !T"Qy
meaning " worshipper of Jehovah." This was a common
name (I Kings 18:3-4; I Chron. 3:21; 7:3; 8:28;
12:9; 27:19; II Chron. 17:7; 34:12; Ezra 8:29;
Neh. 10:5; 12:25). In the Septuagint the title is
given in the genitive 'Opdiou following verse 1 (8pa<ny
'Oftdtob ) . In the Vulgate the name is Abdias.

II. Date and Composition. The unity of this little
book depends chiefly upon the date to which it is as
signed. The prophecy of Jeremiah against Edom (49 :
7-22) exhibits much in common with that of Obadiah.
All critics are agreed that Obadiah did not borrow from
Jeremiah but that rather Obadiah represents the older
form of the prophecy. Hence the substance of Obadiah
must antedate Jeremiah. On the other hand, there is
a difference of opinion concerning the allusions to
calamities in Judah in verses 11, 12 and 14. Many
critics confidently affirm that these verses refer to the
destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. as a past event.
Others find the same reference in the prediction of verse
20. But if so the book cannot be a unit. Hence the
critics affirm that verses 1-9 and possibly 16a, 18-19 and
20b were the work of the original Obadiah who wrought
some time before the Exile, and that the references to
the destruction of Jerusalem in verses 10-14 and the
other parts of the book were added by another writer
after the Exile. Cornill and Kuenen date this redaction
in the fifth century but Cheyne assigns it to about
350 B.C.

THE TWELVE— OB ADI AH 221

Answer. — All the facts in the case are explained much
more simply on the supposition that the entire book of
Obadiah was written by that prophet before the time of
Jeremiah. Then Jeremiah made use of Obadiah
directly. It is not necessary to refer verses 11, 12 and
14 to the events of 586 B.C. They are better explained
by reference to II Chron. 21 : 16-17 where it is recorded
that the Philistines and Arabians invaded Judah in the
reign of Jehoram and carried away the king's wives and
all but one of his sons besides much treasure. Amos
apparently refers to this event in connection with Edom
(1:6). Whether verse 20 refers to the invasion in the
days of Jehoram or the captivity in Babylon need not
influence the decision as to date because it is a predic
tion. The assertion of Driver that "the expressions
which Obadiah uses [notice especially " cast lots upon
Jerusalem "] appear to be too strong to be referred with
probability to this invasion, which, to judge from the
silence of the Book of Kings, was little more than a
predatory incursion, from the effects of which Judah
speedily recovered " (Introduction p. 320), does not take
sufficient account of the statement of the Chronicler.
Whatever be the true explanation of the silence of the
Book of Kings, the deportation of the king's household
and all his treasure was a sufficient national misfortune
to warrant the statements of Obadiah. The casting
lots upon Jerusalem does not necessarily imply that the
city was entirely destroyed. The invasion of the Philis
tines and Arabians occurred toward the close of Jeho-
ram's reign or about 887 B.C. Obadiah must have
prophesied after this event — how much later, it is im
possible to determine. The position of the book near
the beginning of the twelve Minor Prophets seems to

222 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

indicate the Hebrew opinion of its great antiquity.
The conjecture of Davis (Dictionary of Bible p. 528)
that Obadiah prophesied in the reign of Ahaz when
Edom was specially hostile to Judah (II Chron. 28 : 17)
seems quite probable. This would give the date 742-
726 B.C. Upon this theory Obadiah was a contem
porary of Isaiah, Hosea and Micah.

III. Author. Nothing whatever is known concern
ing this prophet's life. Josephus identifies him with
Obadiah, the governor under Ahab (I Kings 18:3-4)
but the date of his prophecy as well as its references to
Judah show that he lived and prophesied in Judah
much later than that time.

IV. Theme. The prophecy relates entirely to Edom
in its unbrotherly relation to Israel. These unbrotherly
acts are recalled and the destruction of Edom is foretold.
On the contrary Israel is to be established and enlarged.

THE TWELVE— JONAH 223

(5) Jonah

I. Name. The book is named from its author HJV

T

meaning a "dove." In the Septuagint the name takes
the form 7wva? and in the Vulgate Jonas, while in the
Authorized Version of the New Testament it is Jona,
Jonas, or Jonah.

II. Authorship and Date. Jonah was the son of
Amittai. The only mention of him in the Old Testa
ment outside of this book is in II Kings 14 : 25. There
we are informed that he lived in Gath-Hepher in the
territory of Zebulun (Josh. 19:13) north of Naza
reth and that he had prophesied to Jeroboam II
that the Lord would restore the ancient boundary to
Israel. This probably occurred early in the reign of
that king of which the dates are B.C. 825-784 or
by another calculation B.C. 782-741. The events
recorded in the book of Jonah are not dated nor do
we know how long his ministry lasted. It is prob
able that he wrote the book soon after his return from
Nineveh. He was a prophet of the northern king
dom about 825-784 B.C. and his only contemporary
prophet was Amos.

Many critics deny that Jonah wrote the &0ofc and
assign it to a post-exilic date, 500 B.C. or later. The
grounds of this conclusion are as follows:

1. It is asserted that Jonah is not said to have been
the author.

2. The book is said to contain several Aramaisms and
late words or expressions. The shorter form of the
relative pronoun is used. The title " God of Heaven "

224 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

(Jonah 1:9) is used by Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel
but never by a pre-exilic writer. DJ?0 is used in the
Aramaic sense of a decree (Jonah 3:7). Also n^SD
(1:5), ntfJNV (1:6), pn^ (1:12), \cn (2:1 etc.)
and ntay (4: 10) are considered late forms.

T : - T > '

3. Historical indications of the date are found in
Jonah 3 : 3 and 3:6. In the former passage it is said
" Nineveh was ( nrpn ) a great city," as though its
greatness were past. This is said to indicate a date
after 606 B.C. when Nineveh was overthrown. In the
latter passage the king of Assyria is called "the king
of Nineveh," a title which according to Sayce could not
have been used while the Assyrian Kingdom endured.
Furthermore if the name of this king had been known
to the author, he would probably have mentioned it.

4. The poem in Jonah 2 is said to have borrowed
from certain late Psalms.

Verse 3 compare Psalm 42 : 7

" 5 " " 69:1

« 9 " " 50:14

Answer. — 1. The book is ascribed to Jonah by the
title in the same way that the books of Hosea, Joel,
Micah, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Zechariah are ascribed
to those prophets. The fact that the word of Jehovah
to Jonah was a command to go to Nineveh rather than
to give exhortations to the people does not alter the force
of the title.

2. The literary argument is confessedly weak in view
of the small amount of Hebrew literature by which we
can trace the usages of the language in various times.
Forms and words are not necessarily late because they

THE TWELVE— JONAH 225

occur only or chiefly in late books of the canon, nor
necessarily Aramaisms because they agree with the usual
Aramaic as against the usual Hebrew form. In partic
ular the shorter relative is found in Judges (5 : 7; 6 : 17 ;
7: 12; and 8: 26). It was necessary for Jonah (1:9)
to explain to his shipmates who Jehovah was. The
name " G od of Heaven " was a very natural and proper
one in speaking to the heathen. That the same word
should be used for the decree of the king of Nineveh
in Jonah's time ( Dyta Jonah 3:7) which was used for
those of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes (Ezra 6: 14) is
not surprising, nrsp is found nowhere else in the Old
Testament but it is a true Hebrew form, ritryrv is found
only once as an Aramaic word (Dan. 6:3) and once in
this Hebrew passage. It is an evidence of the historicity
of the book for it is a foreign word in the mouth of the
foreign shipmaster, pn$ is found also in Psa. 107 : 30
and Prov. 26 : 20 in the same sense and the Piel of HJO
in Job 7:3 and Psa. 6 : 17. If the noun tey is found

T T

in writings before the time of Jonah (Judges 10: 16;
Ps. 90:10, etc.) it is difficult to see why the verb
/itay is unnatural in his time.

3. The statement, "Nineveh was a great city"
(Jonah 3:3), is a parenthesis which may have been
added to the book at a later time. It is not however
impossible from the pen of Jonah. It stands in the
midst of a description in the past tense and need not
imply that Nineveh had ceased to be a great city when
the prophet wrote. The title " King of Nineveh " was
the natural one since the story relates only to that city
and not to the whole kingdom. There is no evidence
from the absence of the king's name that the author

226 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

lived much later than Jonah and did not know it. The
book was intended for Israel. Since the king was un
known to them, it is not strange that Jonah omitted his
name.

4. Aside from the question concerning the date of
the Psalms mentioned, it is just as possible that the
Psalms quoted from Jonah as Jonah from the Psalms.
There is therefore no argument for the post-exilic date
of the book of Jonah from the passages cited.

III. Purpose. The purpose of the book was to teach
that God's gracious plans were not confined to Israel,
as the chosen people selfishly thought, but were intended
to include the heathen. Therefore the prophet was sent
on a mission to Nineveh. He tried to escape toward
Tarshish because, like his countrymen, he did not wish
to preach the gospel to Nineveh. For the same reason
he was displeased at the repentance of Nineveh. The
object-lesson and argument of Jehovah with Jonah were
really His argument with Israel (Jonah 4: 4-11).

IV. Interpretation. Many modern writers consider
the book an allegory in which Jonah stands for dis
obedient Israel, the sea for the nations, the great fish
for Babylon, the period in the belly of the fish for the
Exile, and the subsequent obedience and disappointment
of Jonah for these events in Israel's history. It is
argued :

1. If this were a historical book, it would have been
placed with the other histories and not among the
Prophets.

2. The sudden and universal repentance of Nin
eveh and the decree of its king are exceedingly improb
able.

3. Nebuchadnezzar is represented elsewhere as a

THE TWELVE— JONAH 227

dragon which swallows Israel and casts him up (Jer.
51 : 34) and the duration of the Exile is said to be three
days (Hos. 6:2).

In defense of the historical character of the book are
the following arguments.

1. The style of the book is like that of simple history.
The greater part of it is in prose. The only poetry is
Jonah's prayer to God. The- book is not presented as
an allegory. It speaks of well-known places (Joppa,
Tarshish and Nineveh). Its principal character is a
historical one whose name, lineage and birthplace are
mentioned elsewhere (II Kings 14:25). The names
are not symbolical as in an allegory.

2. The references of our Lord to the book (Matt.
12: 39-40; Luke 11: 29-30) imply his belief, which in
deed was the universal opinion of the Jews, that the
book contained real history.

3. The book was placed among the Prophets because
it was written by a prophet. It was not however placed
among the prophetic histories (Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
and Kings) because it was not mere history, but typical,
predictive history. This typical interpretation justifies
its position among the Minor Prophets.

4. Hosea and Jeremiah may have borrowed from
Jonah. At any rate the passages in those prophecies are
too isolated to prove the allegorical interpretation of
Jonah.

5. Mere improbability of the events recorded cannot
be an argument against their having occurred. The
appearance of a strange preacher in Nineveh with his
dreadful warning may well have impressed the mind of
a superstitious king, who like the ancients recognized
the real existence of the gods of other nations. The

228 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

king viewed Jonah as a warning messenger from
Jehovah.

Winckler compares the religious reforms of Adad-
nirari III (812-783 B.C.) with the monotheistic reforms
of Amenophis IV in Egypt and states that the former
was the king " whom Jonah found at Nineveh when he
went there and found royal sympathy with his teaching."
(History of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 232.)

V. Divisions.

1. Jonah's disobedience and its consequences. Chap
ter 1.

2. Jonah's prayer in the belly of the fish. Chapter 2.

3. Jonah's second mission to Nineveh and its effects.

a. Upon Nineveh. Chapter 3.

b. Upon Jonah. Chapter 4.

THE TWELVE— MICAH 229

(6) Micah

I. Name. The book is named from its author m'D.

T *

This is an abbreviation of *'!\j'p meaning '" Who is like
Jehovah ?" (Judges 17:1, 4). In the Septuagint the
name is Mtxaia? and in the Vulgate Michaeas. The
English form is derived from the Hebrew.

II. Composition. It is generally admitted that
Micah was the author of the greater part of the prophecy.
Ewald and others since his time have considered chapters
6-7 so different in form and style from the first five
chapters that they assign them to an anonymous
prophet of the reign of Manasseh. (Notice especially
Mic. 6 : 16.) Wellhausen and Stade think that 7 : 7-20
were written and added during or after the Exile be
cause of the remarkable similarity with Isaiah 40-66.
Stade, Cornill and others deny that Micah wrote chap
ters 4 and 5. Stade and Kuenen also assign Micah
2 : 12-13 to an exilic and Wellhausen to a post-exilic
date.

In defense of the unity of the book we present the
following considerations :

1. The expression " Hear " (1:2; 3:1; 6:1), binds
the book together as the work of one author.

2. The arguments of the critics are mainly due to
the fragmentary character of the book. It is not a
continuous argument but a summary of his prophecies
by the prophet's own hand.

3. The similarity of chapters 6-7 to Isaiah 40-66
does not indicate their late date since Isaiah 40-66 was
written by Isaiah, a contemporary of Micah.

230 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTIOtf

4. Chapters 4-7 exhibit the following similarities
to writings in and near Micah's time.

Micah 4:1-3 compare Isaiah 2 : 2-4

« 4:3 " Joel 3:10

« 4:7 ... " Is. 24:24

is. 13:8

7>1

7:2
7.3

7:10
7:11

4- 9

Is. 21 : 3

4:13a " Is. 41:15-16

4:136 " Is. 23:18

5:5 " Is. 9:6

5:13 " Is. 2:8

Hos. 4 : 1

»

6- 2

' Hos. 12:2

6:4 ....... " ...... Amos 2:10

6:7 ....... " ........ Is. 1:11

Hos. 6:6
6:11 ....... " ...... Hos. 12:7

6:14

(C

Hos. 4:10

u

it

f Is. 24:13
| Hos. 9:10
Is. 57: 1

tt
tt

| Is. 1 : 23
' 1 Hos. 4 : 18
Joel 2:17

tt

. .Amos 9 : 11

5. The arguments for the rejection of Micah 2 : 12-
13 are considered inadequate by most critics. The
sudden change of subject is sufficiently explained by
the fragmentary nature of the book.

III. Author. Micah was a native of Moresheth,
probably the same as Moresheth-gath (Mic. 1 : 14) a

THE TWELVE— MICAH 231

dependence of Gath. He was an inhabitant of the
country. His prophecy accordingly does not show the
same familiarity with the politics of the day as does
that of Isaiah who lived at Jerusalem. He wrought
during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah but
his prophecies relate to Israel as well as Judah. Jere
miah quotes Micah 3:12 as having been given in the
days of Hezekiah (Jer. 26:18). Thus Micah was a
younger contemporary of Isaiah and Hosea and the
approximate date of his ministry was 745-700 B.C.
Some have supposed that he survived during the early
part of llanasseh's reign and wrote chapters 6-7 in
that time, but such a supposition has no confirmation
outside of the book itself.

IV. Theme. Micah's prophecy concerns both Judah
and Israel, but the part relating to Israel is brief. He
lived to see the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C. The same
doom he foretold for Jerusalem on account of their
sins. As a man of the people however he dwelt not
so much upon political sins as upon the oppression of
the peasantry by the rich landowners of Judah. He
took the part of the poor against the rich. His prophecy
is religious and moral rather than political. He enumer
ates the sins of the people and foretells their punishment.
Yet beyond the days of punishment he foresees the
blessed time of permanent establishment and the birth
of the Messiah. While not so exalted in style as Isaiah,
Micah is yet vivid and full of local references.

V. Divisions.

1. Judgment upon Israel and Judah. Chapters 1-2.

2. Judgment followed by restoration and the Messi
anic reign. Chapters 3-5.

3. Eeproof and promises. Chapters 6-7.

232 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

(7) Nahum

I. Name. The book is named from its author Din:
meaning " compassionate." In the Septuagint and New
Testament the name has the form Naoop. and in the
Vulgate Nahum.

II. Composition. Until recently the integrity and
authenticity of the book of Nahum were not called in
question. Since 1880 however Bickell, Gunkel, Nowack
and others have endeavored to show that Nahum 1 : 2 to
2 : 3 are the remains of an acrostic psalm which was
composed after the Exile and prefixed to the genuine
book of Nahum. This view is not generally received.
It is said by its defenders that this psalm was placed
before Nahum because its subject formed an appropri
ate introduction to the book.

This admission vitiates their argument. Nahum
placed the psalm where it is for this very reason, that
it was a suitable introduction to his book. In order
to substantiate the claim to an alphabetic arrangement
it is necessary to alter the text in several places, to
transpose in others, and to make some verses very long
and others very short. Even if that arrangement can
be established it is very scanty evidence for the late date
of the Psalm. The acrostic arrangement may have
been in use in the century before the Exile.

III. Date. By common consent, the prophecy of
Nahum is dated between the capture of No-amon or
Thebes by Assurbanipal in 664-3 B.C. and the fall
of Nineveh in 606 B.C. because the former event is
referred to as past (3:8) and the latter is foretold.

THE TWELVE— NAHUM 233

The date cannot be fixed more precisely. The sugges
tion of Kuenen, that the unsuccessful attack of Cyaxeres
upon Nineveh about 623 B.C. may have been the occasion
of this prophecy, is as likely as any.*

IV. Author. The sum of our knowledge concern
ing Nahum is that he is called " the Elkoshite " (1:1).
The location of this Elkosh is uncertain. The identi
fication with Alkush 27 miles north of Mosul (the
ancient Nineveh) where the prophet's grave is shown
is based upon an unreliable modern tradition. Jerome's
identification with Elkesi (modern Elkozeh) in north
ern Galilee is more likely. The reference to Judah
(1:15) seems however to imply that Nahum lived in
the southern kingdom. Therefore the most probable
theory is that which places Elkosh about midway between
Jerusalem and Gaza. If the date be correct, Nahum
was a contemporary of Zephaniah.

V. Theme. The subject of the prophecy is the
downfall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, the great
enemy of Israel. The prophet describes the sins of
Nineveh and its overthrow in vivid language. For
grandeur of style, Nahum is excelled only by Isaiah.

VI. Divisions.

1. Psalm, descriptive of Jehovah's majesty. Chap
ter 1.

2. Judgment upon Nineveh. Chapters 2-3.

* In his recent book on this prophecy Haupt considers
it a liturgical compilation in honor of the victory of Judas
Maccabaeus over Nicanor in 161 B.C. He finds four poems
in the book, of which the last two were taken from poems
written by one who saw the fall of Nineveh, while the
first two were of the Maccabean period.

234 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

(8) HdbaTckuk

I. Name. The book is named from its author

The orgin of this name is doubtful. The older deriva
tion is from pin to embrace, hence "the embraced."
Friedrich Delitzsch connects it with the Assyrian,
hambakuku, a certain garden plant, and prefers the
vocalization p'ipsn, This derivation is made more possi
ble by the Septuagint form of the name 'A^axoux or
'AfjL^axoufi. In the Vulgate it is Habacuc. The English
follows the Hebrew form P*p?n.

II. Date and Composition. The book bears no date
but it was evidently written during the reign of Jehoia-
kim in Judah (608-597 B.C.) Hab. 1:5-6 belongs just
before the conquests of the Chaldeans. This began in
606 B.C. when they conquered Nineveh, and was com
pleted in 604 B.C. when they gained the supremacy
of Western Asia by the victory over the Egyptians at
Carchemish. In 601-600 the Chaldeans invaded Judah.
Hence the book may be dated 608-600 B.C.

Since Hab. 1 : 5-6 implies a date before the rise of
the Chaldeans while Hab. 1:13-16; 2:8a; 10, 17 look
upon their conquests as past, Giesebrecht and "Well-
hausen consider 1:5-11 a once independent prophecy
older than the remainder of chapters 1 and 2. Stade
and Kuenen think 2 : 9-20 inapplicable to the Chaldeans
and from a later hand. Wellhausen opposes this con
tention. Many critics look upon chapter 3 as a Psalm
taken from some liturgical collection but not the work

THE TWELVE— HABAKKUK 235

of Habakkuk, their chief argument being that it fails
to allude to the circumstances of Habakkuk's age.

Answer. — 1. The presumption is that an author wrote
all the work which bears his name, unless there be strong
evidence to the contrary. In this case such evidence
is lacking. It is unreasonable to require proof of the
genuineness of every part of a book.

2. Since we do not know positively the exact time
of Habakkuk nor the history of his time in detail, the
assumption that certain parts of the book do not reflect
the conditions of the age is premature.

3. The Psalm contained in chapter 3 need not have
been occasioned by the same events as the prophecy.
It is headed " A Prayer of Habakkuk."

III. Author. Habakkuk prophesied in the king
dom of Judah during the reign of Jehoiakim (608-597
B.C.). Some have concluded from the liturgical arrange
ment of the Psalm in chapter 3 that he was a Levite
and a member of the temple choir. Such a conclusion
lacks proof. He was a contemporary of Jeremiah, whose
ministry however was much longer and more influential.

IV. Theme. The wickedness of Israel is revealed
to the prophet and their future overthrow by the Chal
deans. The even greater wickedness of the Chaldeans
is described and their final doom therefor. The majesty
of God is praised in song. Habakkuk differs from Jere
miah in depicting the sin and punishment of the
Chaldeans as well as those of Judah.

V. Divisions.

1. Judgment upon Judah and the Chaldeans. Chap
ters 1-2.

2. Psalm of Faith. Chapter 3-

236 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIOtf

(9) Zephaniah

I. Name. The book is named from its author
meaning " He whom Jehovah has hidden or protected."
It was borne by three other persons in Old Testament
history (1 Chron. 6:36-38; Jer. 21:1; Zech. 6:10).
In the Septuagint the word has the form Zoyovias and
in the Vulgate Sophonias. The English form is derived
from the Hebrew.

II. Date. The statement of the superscription which
assigns this book to the reign of Josiah (640-609 B.C.)
is disputed only by Konig, who admits the genuineness
of the entire prophecy but assigns it to the decade after
the death of Josiah. The majority of critics agree in
placing the book before the reformation instituted by
Josiah in 621 B.C. The condition of religion and morals
reflected in 1 : 4-6, 8-9, 12 and 3 : 1-3, 7 shows that the
reformation had not yet taken place. Many suppose
that the prophet's allusion to an approaching foe refers
to the Scythians who according to Herodotus invaded
western Asia about this time. It was perhaps in 626
B.C. that they passed down the Philistine coast. This
would give Zephaniah a date about 626-621 B.C.

III. Composition. Some portions of chapters 2 and
3 are denied to Zephaniah by certain critics though there
is a noticeable lack of agreement in their conclusions.
Kuenen accepts all but 3 : 14-20 which he considers a
post-exilic addition because of its differences in tone
and situation. Stade and Wellhausen reject all of chap
ter 3 and certain verses of chapter 2 (1-3, 8-11). G. A.
Smith accepts all of chapter 2 except verses 8-11, re-

THE TWELVE— ZEPHANIAH 237

arranges 3:1-13 and assigns 3 : 14-20 to the end of the
Exile or the period of the restoration. Driver is in
doubt concerning 3 : 14-20 though he does not consider
it impossible that Zephaniah wrote it.

The only approach to unanimity concerns 3 : 14-20.
An unprejudiced reading of the book will show that
this is an appropriate climax of the prophecy. Judg
ment is pronounced upon Judah and Jerusalem. Jn
3 : 11-13 they are represented as repenting and receiv
ing the pardon of God. The promises of blessing in
3 : 14-20 follow naturally. While their tone is more
exalted than that of the remainder of the book, it is
justified by the nature of the subject and does not require
the supposition of another author or another time. The
period of the restoration was present to Zephaniah by
his prophetic insight.

IV. Author. Zephaniah is said to have been the
son of Cushi the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah
the son of Hizkiah (1:1). This Hizkiah or Hezekiah
is plausibly supposed by many to be the king of that
name who reigned 726-697 B.C. If so Amariah was
a younger brother of Manasseh, the successor of Hez
ekiah. Abundant time is allowed between the accession
of Manasseh (697 B.C.) and the year 626 B.C. for the
generations mentioned in Zephaniah. If the Hezekiah
in Zephaniah's ancestry be not King Hezekiah, we have
no sufficient explanation of the prophet's departing
from the usual custom of mentioning only the father
in his superscription. If the supposition be true, this
is explained as well as his mention of the king's chil
dren (1:8). Zephaniah was a young man of about
Josiah's age in whose reign he prophesied. From his
kinship as well as his office, he was probably intimate

238 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

with the king, and the reforms which Josiah instituted
even before 621 B.C. (11 Chron. 34:3-7) may have
been urged by him. Zephaniah's ministry began about
the same time as that of Jeremiah but lasted only a
short time (626-621 B.C.). He undoubtedly lived in
Jerusalem. Nahum was also his contemporary.

IV. Theme. Zephaniah is especially concerned with
the approaching judgment upon Judah for their sins
although he foretells also the divine judgments upon
the surrounding nations — Philistia, Moab, Ammon,
Ethiopia and Assyria. His description of the day of
wrath which occasioned the great medieval hymn, Dies
Ira3, is as terrible as any in the Old Testament. On
the other hand his closing passage regarding the bless
ings of the restored Jerusalem is unsurpassed for gentle
ness and beauty (notice especially 3: 16-17).

V. Divisions.

1. Judgment upon Judah. Chapter 1.

2. Judgment upon the nations. 2:1 to 3:8.

3. Deliverance for Judah. 3 : 9-20.

THE TWELVE— HAGGAI 239

(10) Haggai

I. Name. The book is named from its author *|n
meaning "festal," possibly because he was born on a
festival day. The form of the name in the Septuagint
is ''Affaiot and in the Vulgate Aggaeus. The English
form follows the Hebrew.

II. Composition. That the entire book was written
by Haggai has scarcely been questioned. Even so radi
cal a critic as Cornill thinks that the objections to 1 : 13
and 2 : 20-23 are insufficient and says that the book
corresponds fully to the report of the work of Haggai
in Ezra 5 : 1 and 6 : 14.

III. Date. The date of the book is universally
conceded to have been 520 B.C. This date is derived
from the precise statement of the prophet who mentions
three different days on which he received the word of
Jehovah, all in the second year of Darius. From the
contents of the book this Darius was evidently Darius
Hystaspis, who reigned 521-485 B.C. Thus Haggai's
prophecies were given from September to December
520 B.C.

IV. Author. Scarcely anything concerning the life
of Haggai is known. It has been conjectured by Ewald
from 2 : 3 that he had seen the Solomonic temple before
the Exile and Baudissin agrees that this supposition of
the great age of the prophet would account for the sim
plicity of his style. Such a theory is plausible though
2 : 3 gives it very little confirmation. Zechariah was a
contemporary of Haggai and they labored together in
encouraging the people to rebuild the temple. Zechariah

240 OLD TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION

probably outlived Haggai. According to the Talmud
Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi were members of the
Great Synagogue.

V. History. The Jews returned from the Exile by
the decree of Cyrus in 536 B.C. They built the altar
of God, offered sacrifices (Ezra 3:2-6; Hag. 2:14),
and made preparations to build the temple (Ezra. 3 : 7-
13). Immediately they encountered the opposition of
the Samaritans, who, when refused the privilege of tak
ing part in the work, complained of the Jews to Cyrus
and by intrigue succeeded in hindering them (Ezra 4:5)
until the reign of Darius. Faintheartedness and indif
ference concerning the work of rebuilding the temple
arose among the Jews. They built ceiled houses for
themselves but the house of God was still waste. When
Darius came to the throne (521 B.C.) he had to meet
two revolts of Babylon. This condition of affairs
diverted his attention from distant Jerusalem. The
decree of Cyrus remained unrepealed. Accordingly,
Haggai and Zechariah urged Zerubbabel, the governor
of Judah and Davidic heir to the throne, and Joshua
the high-priest to continue the building (Ezra 3: 1-2).
Their work was successful. A new beginning was made
and in four years and a half the temple was finished
(Ezra 6:15). The prophecies of Haggai are con
fined to this one purpose of encouraging the building of
the temple.

V. Divisions.

1. Prophecy on first day of sixth month. Chapter 1.

2. Prophecy on twenty-first day of seventh month.
2 : 1-9.

3. Two prophecies on twenty-fourth day of ninth
month. 2 : 10-23.

THE TWELVE— ZECHAEIAH 241

(11) Zechariati

I. Name. The book is named from its author n*"i3J
meaning "whom Jehovah hath remembered." It was
a very common name among the Jews being borne by
no less than thirty other characters of the Old Testa
ment. In the Septuagint the form is Za^apiaf and
in the Vulgate Zacharias. The English form nearly
reproduces the Hebrew.

II. Composition and Date.

A. Critical Opinion. That Zechariah was the author
of chapters 1 to 8 is universally conceded. The genuine
ness of chapters 9-14 is however denied by the large
majority of critics. These chapters together with the
short book of Malachi are said by some to have been
three anonymous sections which were added to the last
of the Prophets. In defense of this view the similarity
of the titles (Zech. 9:1; 12 : 1 and Mai 1:1) is men
tioned. Others think that the author of chapters 9-11
and possibly also of chapters 12-14 was the Zechariah
the son of Jeberechiah who was a contemporary of
Isaiah (Is. 8:2) and that because of the similarity
of name, his writings were added by the editor of the
Minor Prophets to those of the post-exilic Zechariah,
the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo.

There is a radical difference among critics concern
ing the date and composition of chapters 9-14. With
allowances for minor variations the two views may be
summed up as follows :

1. Certain critics such as Baudissin and Strack still
consider these chapters to be pre-exilic, chapters 9-11

242 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

with possibly 13:7-9 belonging to the end of the reign
of Jeroboam II in the early part of Isaiah's ministry
in Judah (Isa. 8:2) while chapters 12-14 possibly
excepting 13 : 7-9 were composed in the reign of Jehoia-
kim, Jehoiachin or Zedekiah. The arguments for this
view of chapters 9-11 are: —

(a) The mention of Hadrach, Damascus and Hamath
as independent countries (9:1-2) marks a time before
the conquest of those countries by Tiglath-Pileser in
733 B.C.

(b) The brotherhood between Judah and Israel
(11:14) implies a time before the alliance of Israel
and Syria against Judah in the reign of Ahaz.

(c) The mention of Egypt and Assyria together
(Zech. 10:10-11) as in Hosea (7:11; 9:3; 11:11;
12 : 1) and Isaiah (7: 18; 11:11) implies a time before
the Exile.

(d) The reference to teraphim and diviners (Zech.
10: 1-4) points to a pre-exilic date.

(e) The adherents of this view consider the refer
ence to Javan (Zech. 9 : 13) a corruption of the text.

Their arguments concerning the date of chapters 12-
14 are:

(a) The northern kingdom is not mentioned but
Judah is represented as still ruled by the house of David
(Zech. 12:7, 10, 12; 13:1).

(b) Idols are still worshipped (Zech. 13:2).

(c) False prophets are in the land (Zech. 13:2-6).

(d) " The mourning of Hadadrimmon in the val
ley of Megiddon" refers to the mourning for King
Josiah (II Chron. 35:25).

2. Other critics such as Nowack and Driver assign
chapters 9-14 to a post-exilic date.

THE TWELVE— ZECHAEIAH 243

Nowack divides these chapters into four parts.

(a) He assigns 9 : (10 : If ) 10 : 3 to 11 : 3 to a time
subsequent to Alexander the Great because of the men
tion of "the sons of Javan" (9: 13).

(b) Concerning 11 : 4-17 and 13 : 7-9 he is somewhat
in doubt but considers it certainly post-exilic because
of the dependence of 11 : 16 on Ezek. 34.

(c) He says that 12:1 to 13:6 " lie upon the line
of development whose culmination is indicated in views
like those expressed in 1 Mace. 4 : 46 ; 9:27; 14 : 41 "
(Hastings B. D. Vol. IV. p. 969). The arguments for
this are the dependence of the campaign of the heathen
against Jerusalem upon Ezek. 38, the mention of the
houses of David and Levi together (12:12) and the
hostility to prophecy (13:2-6).

(d) Chapter 14 is assigned to a late post-exilic period
because of its relation to Ezek. 38, because verse 11 is
said to be dependent upon Mai. 4 : 6 and because of
the ideas expressed in verses 16 and 20.

Driver places Zech. 9-11 and 13:7-9 "after the
overthrow of the Persian empire at Issus by Alexander
the Great," (B.C. 333) chiefly because Greece is men
tioned as a world-power and Israel's most important
antagonist. In regard to chapters 12-14 (omitting
13:7-9) Driver is not so certain though he suggests
the periods between 518 and 458 B.C. and 432 and 300
B.C. where Jewish history is but little known.

In addition to these arguments against the genuine
ness of chapters 9-14 it is contended that their style dif
fers widely from that of chapters 1-8. In particular
Driver mentions the fact that the Deutero-Zechariah
uses Zechariah's favorite expression, "thus saith the
Lord " only once, while the expression " in that day/'

244 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION

found 18 times in chapters 12-14, occurs only three
times in chapters 1-8 and only twice in chapters 9-11.
Chapters 1-8 are iinpoetical in form while chapters 9-14
are poetical and abound in parallelism.

B. Arguments for Unity of the loolc.

(a) It is not necessary to devote much attention to
the work of refuting the older view of the pre-exilic
date, for the weight of authority favors the later date
and the arguments cited from JSTowack and Driver suf
fice to indicate a time after the Exile. The references
to Hadrach, Damascus, and Hamath (9:1-2) and the
cities of Phenicia are in a prophecy of the invasion
of Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. as the allusion to
Greece shows (9 : 13). Judah and Israel were considered
as reunited after the Exile, for many of the northern
kingdom returned with Judah and the sin-offering was
made for all the twelve tribes (Ezra 6:17; 8:35).
The house of Israel and the house of Judah are men
tioned separately even in the portion of the book acknowl
edged as post-exilic (Zech. 8: 13). The name Assyria
is used after the Exile either as a geographical designa
tion (Ezra 6:22) or, as Nowack suggests, as a name
for Syria. Our knowledge of the times immediately
after the return from the Exile does not justify the state
ment that teraphim, idols and false prophets were
unknown. The references to the supremacy of the
house of David are all predictive (Zech. 12: 7, 10, 12;
13:1). "The mourning of Hadadrimmon" is not
mentioned as a recent occurrence but as a well known
event in the history of the people to which Jeremiah
and the Chronicler refer (II Chron. 35: 25). Further
more if chapters 9-14 were composed before the time
of the Exile, why do they say nothing of the Chaldeans

THE TWELVE— ZECHABIAH 245

and theii invasion of Judah. a subject which has so
large a place in the writings of the pre-exilic Prophets ?

(b) While the arguments of Nowack and Driver are
sufficient to prove the post-exilic date, they do not prove
a date after Zechariah. The dependence upon Ezekiel
is quite as natural if Zechariah wrote these chapters
as on the theory of a later date. Xor is it necessary
to place chapters 9-11 after the invasion of Alexander
in 333 B.C. because of the reference to Javan (Zech.
9:13). The passage is predictive and not historical.
Javan was known to Israel long before Zechariah's
time (Gen. 10:2, 4; Isa 66:19; Ezek.. 27:13). And
if we suppose that Zechariah wrote this prophecy thirty
or forty years after those of chapters 1-8, we are brought
to a time when the military prestige of Javan or Greece
must have been known throughout the Persian empire.
The defeat of Darius at Marathon in 490 B.C. and of
the enormous armies of Xerxes at Thermopylae in
480 B.C. as well as the naval defeats at Salamis (480
B.C.), Plataea and Mycale (479 B.C.) were certainly
calculated to make Greece a world-power in the view
of the prophet.

(c) The differences in style between chapters 1-8
and 9-14 are explained by the difference of subject and
the probable interval of thirty or forty years in the
prophet's life. The predictions of chapters 9-14 require
a different style from the visions of chapters 1-8. The
early part of the book was meant to encourage Israel
while building the temple but the latter part consists
of woes upon the enemies of God's people and promises
of blessing upon Israel. Therefore the reassuring
"thus saith the Lord" is appropriate to the early but
not to the later part of the book. The characteristic

246 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

mark of prediction " in that day " is rare in the early
chapters because prediction is rare and common near
the end of the book because that part is almost entirely
predictive.

We would not expect many literary marks of a com
mon authorship between prophecies so totally different
in occasion and purpose — one uttered by a young and
the other by an old man. Yet there are a few.

Chapter 9:9 compare Chapter 2 : 10

" 9:10 " Hag. 2:22

" 13:9 " Chapter 8:8

Even more noteworthy is the usage of the Kal of 2E^
in the passive sense. This is found only three times
outside of Zechariah (Ps. 125:1; Jer. 17:25; Isa.
13 : 20) but it occurs twice in the undisputed part of the
book (2:8 and 7:7) and twice in the disputed part
(12:6 and 14:10). The expressions^ i?5«? is also
found in both sections of the prophecy (7 : 14 and 9:8).

III. History (see Haggai).

IV. Author. Zechariah was the son of Berechiah,
the son of Iddo (1:1). The grandfather, Iddo, is
mentioned because he was distinguished as one of the
leaders of the Levites who returned with Zerubbabel
and Joshua from exile (Neh. 12 : 1, 4, 7). If so Zecha
riah was himself a priest and identical with the Zecha
riah of Neh. 12 : 16. Iddo was probably an elderly
man and Zechariah a child when they returned to Jeru
salem in 536 B.C. Zechariah was a young man when
he gave his first prophecy in the second year of Darius
(520 B.C.) two months after the first prophecy of
Haggai. Many think that Zech. 2 : 4 refers to the
prophet's youth. After three months Zechariah received

THE TWELVE— ZECHAEIAH 247

another revelation (1:7) and a third over two years
later (7:1). Thus the certain dates of his ministry
are 520-518 B.C. It seems probable from the refer
ence to Javan or Greece that he made the prophecies
of chapters 8-14 much later, possibly 490-475 B.C. This
theory would be possible, if Zechariah lived to be seventy
years old (545-475 B.C.) and if his ministry extended
over forty-five years (520-475 B.C.). In the beginning
of his ministry Haggai was his contemporary prophet.
Joshua was the high-priest and Zerubbabel the governor
in his time. According to the Talmud, Zechariah was
a member of the Great Synagogue.
V. Divisions.

1. Visions to encourage the rebuilding of the temple.
Chapters 1-6.

2. Mission of inquiry concerning the continuance of
the fasts commemorating the destruction of Jerusalem.
Chapters 7-8.

3. Predictions, largely symbolical, concerning the
future of Israel and their enemies. Chapters 9-14.

248 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

(12) Malachi

I. Name. The book is named from its author ^{OO
meaning "my messenger" (Jehovah's messenger).
Others think it an abbreviated form of n»2K^» "mes
senger of Jehovah." Many critics following the Septua-
gint consider it a common noun. The Targum of
Jonathan ben-Uzziel adds "whose name is called
Ezra the scribe." According to the critical view the
book was orginally anonymous but the title and name
(1:1) were added by the editor of the Minor Prophets
by reference to Mai. 3:1. The title in the Septuagint
is Malaxes and in the Vulgate Malachias. The Eng
lish form of the name follows the Hebrew. The fact
that every other book of the Minor Prophets opens with
the name of its author makes it probable that Malachi
is a proper name and not a mere title of the prophet.

II. Date. Although no date is given the approxi
mate time of the book is evident. The temple was built
and offerings were made (1: 7, 10; 3 : 1). A Persian
governor ruled in Jerusalem (1:8). Hence we look
for a time after Haggai and Zechariah. The sins
against which Malachi inveighs are similar to those
in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (compare Mai. 2 : 10-
16 with Ezra 9:2; 10:3, 16-44; Neh. 10:30; 13: 23-
31 and Mai. 3:7-12 with Neh. 10:32-39; 13:4-14).
Hence it is generally agreed that Malachi prophesied
during the same period. Whether he did so before the
arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem (458 B.C.) or about
the time of Nehemiah's second visit (432 B.C.) there
is much difference of opinion. The statement of 1 : 8

THE TWELVE— MALACHI 249

makes it improbable that Nehemiah was governor
at the time the prophet wrote. The theory that the book
was written during the absence of Nehemiah at Susa
in 433-432 is the most probable. According to the
Talmud Malachi was a member of the Great Syna
gogue.

III. Composition. The genuineness of the book is
universally conceded. Many critics however consider
the title in 1 : 1 a later addition. The similarity of the
titles in Zech. 9:1; 12 : 1 and Mai. 1 : 1 has given sup
port to the theory that Zech. 9-11, Zech. 12-14 and Mala
chi were originally three independent anonymous prophe
cies. The editor of the Minor Prophets is said to have
placed the title, "burden of the word of Jehovah"
at the head of Zech. 12-14 and of the book of Malachi
in imitation of Zech. 9 : 1. He also joined the first
two sections to Zechariah and made the third indepen
dent in order to obtain the desired number, twelve, in
the Minor Prophets, and added the name Malachi in 1 : 1
in imitation of 3 : 1. The Septuagint and Targum of
Jonathan ben-Uzziel make Malachi in 1:1 a common
noun and the latter adds "whose name is called Ezra
the scribe." The critical theory is too fanciful to
require refutation. The name Malachi is properly
formed like Abi for Abijah (II Kings 18:2). it
is more natural to consider Mai. 3 : 1 a play upon the
prophet's name than Mai. 1 : 1 an imitation of Mai.
3:1. The title, "Burden of the word of Jehovah,"
may well have been placed in Mai. 1 : 1 by the prophet
himself in imitation of his predecessor, Zechariah. The
Septuagint evidently was not sure that Malachi (1:1)
was a common noun for it gave the proper name in the
title. The tradition that Ezra wrote the book is

250 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

unlikely; for the book of Ezra bears no traces of his
having done so.
IV. Divisions.

1. The apostasy of Israel described. Chapters 1-2.

2. Judgment for the sinners and blessings for the
penitent. Chapters 3-4.

THIRD DIVISION

KETHUBHIM
SECTION I. POETICAL BOOKS

PRELIMINARY. HEBREW POETRY

I. Spirit. The Hebrew language is peculiarly
adapted to be the vehicle of poetic expression. Its most
prominent part of speech is the verb, the word of action.
A large majority of its words are based upon metaphors
and the simple structure of its vocabulary and its gram
mar lends itself to paronomasia and striking antithesis.
Furthermore the great variety of landscape in the small
land of Palestine and the emotional and even rapturous
character of the people furnished at once the occasion
and the power for the construction of poetry.

The poetry of the Old Testament is not preeminently
descriptive of nature though incidentally this finds a
large place in it. Nor is it preeminently individual or
national, though these elements also are recognized.
It is above all things religious. The spiritual God who
punishes the wicked, pities the unfortunate, and keeps
covenant with His people is the constant factor in
Hebrew poetry. One can feel His divine presence
throbbing in it all. Nature, history and individual
experience are full of God. Hence this poetry can be
appreciated fully only by the devout soul. As Herder
expresses it : " As the heaven pictures itself only in
the clear calm sea, so we see the gentle wave of emotion

251

252 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION

describe its circles only in the tranquil soul." (Spirit
of Hebrew Poetry, Vol. II p. 246). It is this religious
characteristic which gives unity to Hebrew poetry and
makes it interesting to all ages. Although the allusions
to songs of the vintage (Isa. 16:10) wedding songs
(Ps. 78 : 63) and the inscriptions of certain Psalms (e.g.
Ps. 22:1) indicate that secular poetry was common
among the Hebrews, it has no place in the Old Testa
ment.

II. Extent in the Old Testament. It is difficult to
set bounds to the poetic element of the Hebrew scrip
tures. The repetition and antithesis which are the
foundation of parallelism, are characteristic of all
Hebrew writing. In some places they are more marked
than in others. Thus in the words of Adam at the
creation of Eve (Gen. 2 : 23) and of God in condemna
tion of Cain (Gen. 4: 10-11) parallelism is unmistake-
able.

Occasional songs are introduced in the historical
books :

The Song of the Sword (Lam-

ech) Gen. 4 : 23-24.

The Blessing of Jacob Gen. 49 : 1-27.

The Song of Moses Ex. 15 : 1-18.

The Song of the Well Num. 21 : 17-18.

The Song of the War-Flame.. . Num. 21 : 27-30.

The Farewell Song of Moses.. . Deut. 32 : 1-43.

The Song of Deborah Judges 5.

The Song of Hannah I Sam. 2 : 1-10.

The Song of the Bow (Saul

and Jonathan) II Sam. 1 : 17-27.

The Last Words of David. . II Sam. 23 : 1-7.

PRELIMINARY. HEBREW POETRY 253

The books which are entirely in the poetic form are
Psalms, Proverbs, Job (excepting the prologue and
epilogue), Song of Solomon and Lamentations. Eccle-
siastes is similar in many parts to the poetry of Pro
verbs. The books of the prophets abound in parallelism
and in the more exalted portions may be classed as
poetry. The prayer of Jonah (chapter 2), the prayer
of Habakkuk (chapter 3) and possibly Nahum 1:2-8
are examples of pure poetry.

Thus the Old Testament is in marked contrast to the
New in its large element of poetry. The Magnificat of
Mary (Luke 1:46-55), the prophecy of Zacharias
(Luke 1:68-77), the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-12) and
certain passages of Revelation (4:8, 11 ; 5 : 9-10, 12, 13 ;
7 : 5-8, 12 ; 11 : 15 ; 15 : 3-4 ; 19 : 1-2, 5, 6-8) in the spirit
of Hebrew poetry are the only original poetry in the
New Testament. The quotations from Old Testament
poetry and Paul's brief citations of the Greek poets,
Aratus (Acts 17:28b) and Callimachus (Tit. 1:12)
should not be classed here. The Old Testament on the
other hand is largely poetic either in spirit or in form,
often in both.

III. Form. Rhyme is not a distinguishing charac
teristic of Hebrew poetry, although something approach
ing it occurs occasionally (Job 10:9-18; Paslm 6).
Nor is metre a mark of this poetry, although the similar
ity in the length of the lines and the different system
of accents in Psalms, Proverbs and Job, make the search
for a metrical arrangement attractive.

The unit of Hebrew poetry is the line, which varies
in length in different kinds of poetry. Usually two lines
constitute a verse, which is then called a distich.
Tristichs are common and even tetrastichs and penta-

254 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

stichs occur (Ps. 27:3-4; 37:7, 14, 25, 28, 40). In
tetrastichs the first two and the last two lines commonly
go together.

The uniform and essential feature of Hebrew poetry
has been called by Bishop Lowth the "parallelism/*
After a statement has been made in the first line of the
verse, it is repeated, enlarged, or balanced by the state
ments of the remaining line or lines. Thus parallelism
is " a manifest correspondence both in sense and rhyth
mic expression between two sentences or two sections of
a sentence, very much as if it were an utterance and
some intelligent echo of it" (Drysdale "Early Bible
Songs" p. 18). This arrangement was peculiarly
adapted to express the emotions in times of great feeling
and since the poetry consists much more in the sense
than in the sound of the words, Hebrew poetry suffers
less than other poetry by translation.

Parallelism is of several different kinds.

1. Synonymous, in which the second line is a repeti
tion of the thought of the first line (Gen. 4: 23).

2. Antithetic, in which the second line expresses a
thought contrasted with that of the first (Ps. 1:6).

3. Synthetic, in which the thought of the second and
later lines enlarges upon and completes that of the first
(Ps. 24:9).

4. Climactic, similar to synthetic, in which the
thought ascends by steps to a climax (Ps. 29 : 1).

A larger division of Hebrew poetry, which can some
times be distinguished, is the stanza or strophe. Usually
it is marked only by a change of thought as in the four
fold division of Psalm 2 although each strophe of
Psalm 46 ends with Selah. In the great majority of

PEELIMINAEY. HEBREW POETEY 255

Psalms, however, the strophes are uneven in length and
often cannot be distinguished at all.

IV. Kinds. In the proper sense of the words,
neither epic nor dramatic poetry is found in the Bible.
The action which is essential to the drama is not found
in the poetic portion of the Book of Job nor in the Song
of Songs. Lyric and didactic poetry, however, are com
mon. To the former class belong the occasional songs
scattered throughout the historical and prophetic por
tions of the Old Testament and most of the Psalms.
The books of Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes as well as
several of the Psalms are didactic poetry. The Song of
Songs like Psalm 45 is an epithalamium or marriage-
song, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah and the Song
of the Bow (II Sam. 1: 17-27) are elegies.

PSALMS

I. Name. The Hebrew name of the entire collection
of Psalms was D'^nn "tap sometimes shortened into D^PI.
This word occurs in the Old Testament only in the
forms rfenn and ni->rtn (Ps. 22:3). The feminine
phiral refers to the subject-matter of the Psalms and
the masculine to the form. The Septuagint translates
D^nn by VaXpoi which in the singular meant primarily
the twanging with the fingers in playing on a stringed
instrument, then the sound of the harp and finally a
song sung to the harp. The Vulgate appropriates the
Greek name (Liber Psalmorum) from which also our
English name is derived. Individual Psalms are called
by several different names and some critics think that
ni?3n in Ps. 72 : 20 is meant to be a designation of the
entire collection, so far as it was completed. This name
however is too restricted for that purpose nor does the
passage refer to all the Psalms before it.

II. Arrangement and Divisions. In the Massoretic
text there are 150 Psalms. The Septuagint and Vulgate
unite Psalms 9 and 10, and 114 and 115, and divide
Psalms 116 and 147. Psalms 42 and 43 are counted
together in several Hebrew manuscripts. The Septua
gint adds another Psalm to the 150 with the inscription:
" This Psalm was written by David outside of the
number when he fought against Goliath." It is
nndoubtedly spurious.

2*0

PSALMS 257

The Psalter is arranged in five books, probably in
imitation of the five books of the Pentateuch. Each
book ends with a doxology and Psalm 150 is the dox-
ology for the entire collection. This division antedates
the Septuagint and is indicated by headings in the
Hebrew Bible. It is as follows :

Book 1 Psalms 1-41

" 2 « 42-72

" 3 " 73-89

" 4 " 90-106

" 5 " 107-150

III. Authors. Of the 150 Psalms, 100 are assigned
by their inscriptions to authors as follows:

David: Psalms 3-9, 11-32, 34-41, 51-65, 68-70, 86,
101, 103, 108-110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138-145 (73 in
all).

Sons of Korah: Psalms 42, 44-49, 84-85, 87, 88
(Psalm 88 is assigned to Heman, one of the Sons of
Korah — 11 in all).

Asaph: Psalms 50, 73-83 (12 in all).

Solomon: Psalms 72, 127.

Ethan: Psalm 89.

Moses: Psalm 90.

Three things should be remembered concerning these
inscriptions.

1. They are not a part of the original text of the
Psalms. They were however added at a period before
the Septuagint as is evidenced by their presence in that
version.

2. The names are introduced by the preposition ^
instead of the older genitive giving rise to discussions
whether the name is that of the traditional author or

258 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

of the one to whom the Psalm is dedicated or of the col
lection or hymn-book to which the Psalm originally be
longed. The last two theories are objectionable. If there
were hymn-books named after Moses, Solomon, Ethan
and Heman, it is strange indeed that so few Psalms have
been kept from them. Ancient Hebrew tradition
referred these titles to the authors. In the inscrip
tions of several Davidic Psalms (3, 7, 18, 30, 34, 51,
52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, and 142) there is the men
tion of some well-known occasion of David's life, indi
cating that the writer of the inscription meant to give
the name of the author and the occasion of his writing
the Psalm. Psalm 18 is said to have been composed by
David in the inscription as well as in II Sam. 22, al
though in the Psalter the inscription is in?. If J>
in the inscriptions of these fourteen Psalms evidently
meant authorship, the presumption is that the meaning
is the same in all cases.

3. Since the authorship of individual Psalms is a
matter which it is impossible to determine with anything
approaching certainty, it is best to accept this very
ancient though uninspired tradition, unless strong in
ternal evidence is found against it. In many instances
the Psalms agree with known occasions in the life of
the traditional author. When this is not the case, it is
safe to conclude that the Psalm refers to an occasion
in his life which the brief records of the historical books
do not mention. In a few instances the inscription
should be rejected.

The traditional view that David was the author of
many Psalms is supported by the following considera
tions :

1. He played upon the harp (I Sam. 16:18-23; II

PSALMS 259

Sam. 6:5) and is called "the sweet singer of Israel "
(II Sam. 23:1).

2. He composed certain songs (II Sam. 1: 17-27- 22-
1-51; 23: 1-7).

3. He arranged the service of song in the sanctuary
(I Chron. 6 : 31 ; 16 : 7 ; 25 : 1 ; Ezra 3 : 10 ; Neh. 12 : 24,
36, 45-46; Amos 6:5).

It is indeed extraordinary, if the high musical reputa
tion of David rests upon no broader foundation than the
composition of the three songs in II Samuel.

The Psalms ascribed to the sons of Korah, to Asaph,
to Heman, and to Ethan are 24 and properly are
classed together since their authors were associated with
the service of song which David established. Korah
was probably a descendant of the man of that name
who was swallowed up by the earth because of rebellion
(]STum. 16: i) and hence of Kohath, one of the three
sons of Levi. Heman was one of the sons of Korah,
Asaph was a descendant of Gershom (I Chron. 6:39)
and Ethan of Merari (I Chron. 6:44). Hence the
three sons of Levi were represented among the temple
singers (Ex. 6:16). Asaph, Heman and Ethan (who
was later called Jeduthun) were appointed to sing and
sound the cymbals when David brought up the ark to
Zion (I Chron. 15:16-19) and afterwards to be the
leaders of the orchestra (I Chron. 16 : 5, 7, 41-42 ; 25 : 1-
5). Many of the descendants of Asaph returned from
Babylon (Ezra 2 : 41 ; N"eh. 7 : 44) and took part in the
laying of the foundation of Zerubbabel's temple (Ezra
3 : 10). This long record in connection with the musical
worship shows that the ascription of Psalms to these
three singers and to sons of Korah is reliable.

There is nothing in Psalms 72 and 127 which pre-

260 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

eludes the possibility that Solomon wrote them especially
in view of his reputation as the builder of the temple.
And though the inscription of Psalm 90 to Moses assigns
it to an age long before the greater part of the Psalter,
the majestic character of that Psalm is not inconsistent
with the style of Moses. He too is known to have been
a poet (Ex. 15; Deut. 32).

IV. Collections. The way in which the Psalter
took its present form is very difficult to discover. Yet
from the division into books, the grouping of Psalms by
certain authors and of certain kinds, and especially from
the statement of Ps. 72 : 20, it is evident that several
earlier collections preceded the present one.

Driver and others have drawn attention to the use of
the divine names in the Psalms. In Book I Jehovah is
found 272 times and Elohim 15 times, and in books
IV and V Jehovah only is found except in Ps. 114 : 9
and five places of Psalm 108 derived from Psalms 57
and 60. On the other hand in Book II Jehovah occurs
30 times and Elohim 164 times while in the Asaphitic
Psalms of Book III (73-83) Jehovah is found 13 times
and Elohim 36 times and in Psalms 84-89 Jehovah
occurs 31 times and Elohim 7 times. This usage is
partly due to authorship and partly to subject. David
commonly uses the name Jehovah while Asaph and the
Sons of Korah use the name Elohim. It is noteworthy
however that in the last two books which are largely
liturgical, the name Jehovah is used almost to the exclu
sion of Elohim. At any rate there is nothing in these
facts which indicates a redaction of the Psalms to
introduce another divine name.

Three collections can be distinguished.

1. Since all the Psalms in Book I are Davidic except

PSALMS 261

the introductory Psalm I, the probably Davidic Psalm
2, Psalm 10 which may have originally been part of
Psalm 9, and Psalm 33 which in the Septuagint is
ascribed to David, it seems likely that this book was
arranged for worship by David himself or soon after his
time.

The suggestion of Ewald that originally Psalms
51-72 followed immediately after Psalm 41 is com
mended by the fact that it would bring together a much
larger body of Davidic Psalms and so account for the
statement of Ps. 72 : 20 and also would unite the
Korahitic and Asaphitic into a group by themselves.
It is altogether probable that Ps. 72 once stood as the
last Psalm in a collection which was joined to Book I
not long after David's time.

2. The remainder of Books II and III were probably
brought together either by the men of Hezekiah (II
Chron. 29:30; Prov. 25:1) or during the reforms
instituted by Josiah.

3. Books IV and Y contain post-exilic Psalms to
gether with a few old Davidic Psalms. They were
probably collected to complete the Psalter in the time
of Ezra and ISTehemiah. The evidence deduced to show
that there are Maccabean Psalms is altogether fanciful
and insufficient. The allusions of these Psalms are
explained equally well by a much earlier date.

V. Classes of Psalms. The Psalms may be classified
according to their inscriptions, their structure or their
subject matter. These classifications however do not
include all the Psalms.

1. According to the Inscriptions we have the follow
ing names for the Psalms :
lto]» found in the inscriptions of 57 Psalms. From

262 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

10J to pipe, sing — hence Psalm, especially one sung
to music. Of these Psalms, 11 are also designated
TB> and one (Psalm 88) VK> and ^3fe>». This
seems to imply that "itolp is the general name.

TB> the usual word for a song (Ex. 15:1; Num. 21 : 17 ;
Deut. 32:44 etc.) is the name of 29 Psalms, of
which 15 (Psalms 120-134) are called nftjnsn Ttf
(" song of ascents ") which were sung by the pil
grims on their way to the feasts at Jerusalem, one
(Psalm 30) Ivan roan Tt? for the dedication of the
tabernacle on Mt. Zion, and one (Psalm 45)
TliTT "VK> ("song of love") a marriage song. The
name TB> does not imply the use of musical
instruments.

7'3b>s a name found in the inscriptions of 13 Psalms,
of which one is also r&sn (Psalm 142) one "itopp
(Psalm 88) and two T0 (Psalms 45 and 88).
The etymological meaning, "a didactic Psalm,"
does not fit some of those to which it is prefixed.
It probably means " a poem."
the name of six Psalms. The derivation of this
word from DH3 " gold " — hence " a golden Psalm "
is altogether fanciful. Its meaning is unknown,
the usual word for prayer, is borne by five Psalms.

n?nri the word which in the masculine plural has given
the name to the Book of Psalms, is found in the
inscription of Psalm 145. It means " a praise-
song."

the name of Psalm 7, has not received a satisfactory
interpretation.

PSALMS 263

2. According to structure the most interesting class
of Psalms is the Alphabetic or acrostic Psalms, in
which the order of the Hebrew alphabet is found at the
beginning of the verses or half verses. The only perfect
alphabetic Psalm is the 119th in which each group of
verses begins with the successive letters of the alphabet.
In Psalms 111 and 112 the first letters of the half
verses give the alphabet except that in each Psalm the
letters ¥ and & are lacking, unless verses 9 and 10 be
divided into three parts. In Psalm 145 one verse is
devoted to each letter except that J is lacking. In Psalm
25 the same arrangement is followed except that the
letters 2, 1, and p are lacking, "I is repeated, and a sup
plementary verse is added. Psalm 34 is perfect except
for the omission of 1 and the addition of a similar sup
plementary verse. Psalms 9-10 together and Psalm 3?
present an alphabetic arrangement in some parts, with
two verses beginning with each letter, while in other
parts this arrangement is ignored. The wide diffusion
of the alphabetic Psalms in the Psalter (9, 10, 25, 34, 37,
111, 112, 119, 145) and the evident antiquity of some
of them are sufficient refutation of the theory that this
arrangement is evidence of a late date, when the spon
taneity of poetry had given place to a more formal
method.

3. According to their contents several groups of
Psalms are worthy of attention.

A. National Psalms, those which were occasioned by
the events of national life. Such are Psalms 14, 44, 46-
48, 53, 66, 68, 74, 76, 79-80, 83, 85, 87, 108, 122, 124-
126 and 129. The tendency of modern interpretation
is largely to increase the number of these Psalms making
the "I" of the Psalmist refer as a collective to the

experiences of the nation. Many of the Psalms are so
intensely individual in the expression of personal feeling
that such an interpretation is forced and unnatural.

B. Historical Psalms, which rehearse passages from
the nation's history. Such are Psalms 78, 81, 105-106,
114.

C. Eoyal Psalms, some of them relating to the Mes
sianic King. Such are Psalms 2, 18, 20-21, 45, 72, 89,
110 and 132.

D. Penitential Psalms, written in reference to some
occasion of intense sorrow for sin and turning to God.
Such are Psalms 6, 32, 38, 51 and 130.

E. Imprecatory Psalms, which call down maledictions
upon the enemies of Israel. The principal of these are
Psalms 35, 69, 109 and 137 of which the first three are
David's. In explanation of them the following consid
erations should be noted.

(a) The expressions are not individual but official.
The Psalmist desires the punishment of those who have
wasted Israel, the visible kingdom of God and hence are
God's enemies (Ps. 139:21-22). David was not vin
dictive toward his personal enemies but exhibited a
remarkably forgiving spirit in regard to Saul and his
house (I Sam. 24; 26:5-12; II Sam. 1:17; 2:5; 9).
In these Psalms he prays God to punish his enemies
rather than doing so himself.

(&) In the time of the Psalmists, there was no clear
revelation of the punishment of the wicked after death.
Punishment was thought of as coming in this present
life. The most awful of these imprecations are not
more terrible than the future torments of the wicked
mentioned in the New Testament (Mark 9:44, 46, 48;
Rev. 20:15).

PSALMS 265

(c) The high standard of love toward one's enemies
was not yet revealed (Matt. 5:38-42). The impre
catory Psalms contain expressions more realistic and
vivid in their force than any in the New Testament
because the Psalmists lived on a lower plane of morals
and privilege than we enjoy. Yet the New Testament
denunciations of the wicked, though less physical, are
far more terrible than those of the Old Testament (Matt.
3 : 7 ; 11 : 20-24 ; 23 : 13-33 ; Jno. 3:36; Rev. 6 : 16-17 ) .

F. Hallelujah Psalms, such as begin with PH^n.
Such are Psalms 106, 111-113, 117, 135, 146-150.

G. Hodu Psalms, beginning with Viin, Psalms of
thanksgiving, viz., Psalms 105, 107, 118, 136.

H. The Hallel, comprising Psalms 113-118 which
were sung at the Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles,
Pentecost, Dedication and the new moons. At the Pass
over the people sang the first verse of each Psalm in the
Hallel and responded with Hallelujah after each verse
was sung by the Levites. The hymn sung at the insti
tution of the Lord's Supper was probably the Hallel
(Matt. 26:30 ; Mk. 14:26).

VI. Musical Terms.

W.xb " to the chief musician," the leader of the choir.
The instructions in the inscriptions were intended
for his guidance.
(also used in the singular ro'JJ) means stringed

instruments.

" wind instruments.
p$n probably " the octave."
to^V "maidens," to be sung by maidens (I Chron.

15:20).
o " sickness, grief " — hence to a mournful tune.

266 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION
(II Sam. 15:18)

126

( Ps. 60: 1; 80:1)

The names or first
lines of the melodies
to which the Psalms
were sung.

fPD is derived from 7?D, hence " elevation." It probably
marks a change from piano to forte.

II

PROVERBS

I. Name. The book is named in the Hebrew Bible

vn or more briefly fytto. A ty? is primarily a
comparison, but since the most common form of
proverbs is by comparison, all proverbs are called by
this name. A proverb is a sententious, synthetic or
antithetic statement of a principle which covers many
cases. Though many of the proverbs of Solomon are
religious, in the main they are maxims of worldly wis
dom and ethics. They belong to the i"iB3n or Wisdom
Literature. In the Septuagint the title is translated
Uapotfiiat -ToAo/jtovroy and in the Vulgate more simply
Liber Proverbiorum. The English name is derived
from the Vulgate.

II. Divisions. The book is divided by its headings
and subject matter into five parts :

1. Chapters 1-9 beginning " The proverbs of Solo
mon the son of David, king of Israel."

2. Chapters 10 : 1 to 22 : 16, with the heading " The
Proverbs of Solomon."

3. Chapters 22 : 17 to 24 : 34 is marked off from the
previous section by an evident resumption of the con
secutive style.

4. Chapters 25-29 with the heading " These are also
proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah, king
of Judah, copied out."

5. Chapters 30-31, the former inscribed "the words

267

268 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

of Agur, the son of Jakeh " and the latter " the words
of King Lemuel."

III. Authorship and Composition.

1. Testimony of Scripture. According to the head
ings already mentioned Solomon was the author of
chapters 1 to 25 since the third section (22: 17 to 24:
34) resembles the first (1 to 9). The fourth section is
not said to have been composed by the men of Hezekiah
but copied out ( ip^n ). This expression implies that
they took these proverbs from a collection of Solomon's
sayings and added them to this book. Thus the entire
book except the last two chapters is ascribed to Solo
mon. These two chapters were the work of Agur and
Lemuel respectively. That Solomon was the author
of Proverbs is further attested by the explicit statement
of I Kings 4 : 32 that " he spake three thousand
proverbs." If this view be correct we may conclude
that the book represents four distinct collections of
Solomon's proverbs, the last made in Hezekiah's day
but from ancient material, to which at an unknown later
time chapters 30-31 were added. There is nothing in
the book opposed to this explanation of its origin.

2. Critical Opinion.

a. Moderate view. Modern criticism has formulated
a different account of the book although with wide
divergence as to dates. The moderate critics acknowl
edge that Solomon may have written a considerable
portion of 10:1 to 22:16, which is considered the
oldest nucleus of the book. This section received its
present form about the eighth century. It is said that
1 : 1 is not a heading but the beginning of a sentence
speaking of the value of Solomon's proverbs. Chapters
1-9 are considered a hortatory introduction which was

PROVEBBS 269

prefixed to the second section shortly before the Exile.
A little later but also before the Exile, 22 : 17 to 24: 34
was added and possibly at the same time chapters 25-29.
Chapters 30-31 were added to the book after the Exile.
Such in general is the opinion of Driver, Delitzsch,
Nowack, and Davidson.

b. Eadical view. The more advanced critics agree in
general with this account of the gradual compilation of
the book but place the dates much later. Toy for ex
ample thinks that the oldest section came from about
350 B.C. and that the closing chapters were not added
until the second century B.C.

1. He freely rejects the authorship of Solomon with
the words : " The fact that he is said to be the author of
Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes and Psalms 72 and
127 shows that the Jewish tradition came to regard him
as the ideal of wisdom and a writer of idealizing, non-
liturgical poetry and ascribed to him indiscriminately
everything of this sort" (International Grit. Com. pp.
xix-xx ) .

Answer. — Such an argument as this would make it
impossible for a man to write several books of the same
kind. It has no historical basis and inverts the logical
order. Solomon could not have had such a reputation
unless he had written just such books as these. The
books were not assigned to him because he had the repu
tation but he gained the reputation by writing the books.

2. The tacit assumption of monotheism implies a
time after the Exile.

Answer. — The Proverbs are not of such a sort that
idolatry would be condemned if it were in existence.
The book is moral rather than religious. In part of
Solomon's reign the country was comparatively free

270 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

from idolatry. In all probability, Solomon wrote these
proverbs before his damaging intercourse with heathen
nations.

3. There is a lack of national traits implying that
the people were scattered, under Persian and Greek
domination, as after the Exile.

Answer. — Admittedly there are almost no historical
marks in the book. Therefore the absence of marks
of an early period no more indicates a late date than
the absence of marks of a late date is proof of an early
date. If left to the historical marks, we could not deter
mine the date at all. The book is individual rather than
national.

4. The book reflects the social manners and vices
which existed after the Exile especially in the cities.

Answer. — There is evidence from the Book of Kings
that Solomon's time was by no means free from those
same vices.

5. There are evidences of the influence of the Greek
philosophy — especially in the identification of knowl
edge and virtue. Hence it must date from a time later
than the conquests of Alexander.

Answer. — The book is not philosophical but practical.
The traces of the Greek philosophy are purely imaginary
and may be explained as the inspired words of Solomon.

6. The book is evidently the work of a distinct caste
of "wise men" who also composed Jesus Sirach, the
Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiastes.

Answer. — The supposition of a caste of wise men
implies a founder. As the Prophets are incompre
hensible without Moses and the other Psalmists with
out David, so the later wisdom literature is incompre
hensible without Solomon. A caste of wise men seem

PROVERBS 271

to have existed besides the priest and prophets at least
as early as Jeremiah ( 18 : 18) . It is a gratuitous assump
tion to force all that literature into one age. The fact
that Ecclesiastes and the Book of Wisdom were wrongly
assigned to Solomon shows that he was considered the
founder and greatest member of that school of writers.

Ill

JOE

I. Name. The book received its name from its
principal character 3i'N which in the Septuagint has
the form V«^3 and in the Vulgate Liber Job. The name
means " he who turns to God." The English has
come from the Vulgate and does not reproduce the
Hebrew.

II. Historicity. It is admitted that Job was a real
character in popular tradition even by those who deny
the historicity of the events recorded in the book. A
common view is that there was a real character whose
name was Job and who was a great sufferer, that an
Israelitish writer made that character the basis of this
poetic and philosophical discussion of the problem of
human suffering.

The existence of Job and his wide reputation for
piety is evidenced by Ezekiel's reference to him with
Noah and Daniel as a model of righteousness (Ezek.
14:14-20). The reference in James 5:11 favors the
same view. A careful study of the book itself does not
show it a work of the imagination. The characters do
not bear symbolic names. It has been attempted to
derive 3isK from TSJ in the meaning " the afflicted one,"
but TK means " to be hostile to, treat as an enemy "
(Brown's Lexicon). The better derivation is from
Arabic " he who turns to God." The names of the
three friends, of Elihu, and of Job's three daughters

873

JOB 273

(Job 42 : 14) are not symbolic. The land of Uz was
known to Jeremiah (Lam. 4: 21) and the tribe of that
name is mentioned in Genesis (10 : 23 ; 22 : 21 ; 36 : 28).
It was east of Palestine near Edom. The historical
character of the prologue and epilogue seems to indicate
the historical basis of the poetical portion. The most
likely conclusion is that according to a reliable tradition
Job's three friends contended. with him in his affliction
presenting the arguments which we have in the book.
Elihu followed and finally God himself spoke to Job in
some wonderful way from the whirlwind. The author
gave these speeches the poetical form in which they have
come down to us.

III. Theme. The subject of the book is the most
profound question of human life, the question of the
odicy, how the existence of righteous suffering in the
world can be reconciled with the existence of a benevo
lent and all-powerful God. The arguments on this
question are greatly enhanced in value because they are
based upon an actual example of a righteous man in
affliction. The hint of the solution of the problem is
in the scene in heaven in the prologue.

The three friends present substantially the same
opinion, that suffering must always be the result of
sin. Job is unable to answer their arguments satis
factorily, yet he protests his innocence. Sometimes in
his despair he longs to die, and charges God with deal
ing unjustly with him, and at others he resorts to bitter
sarcasm in answering the friends. Again he expresses
his confidence that light will come at last into the dark
ness and that he will be vindicated. Elihu enters with
an entirely different theory of suffering, that God sends
it upon those he loves for their chastening and better-

274 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTIOX

ment. This view silences the friends but also condemns
Job for charging God with injustice. It is a defense
of God (36:2) and therefore logically introduces the
address of God himself. This final address displays
the majesty and wisdom of God and the littleness of
man. It humbles Job and thus becomes the means of
his restoration to prosperity.

The Book of Job is incomparably the most profound
and dramatic presentation of this problem in all
literature. Its proper solution of the question in the
abstract brings it very near to the New Testament solu
tion in real life. The righteous sufferer, Job, fore
shadows the righteous sufferer, Christ, and the increased
blessings resulting from Job's sufferings foreshadow the
incalculable blessings which result from the sufferings
of Christ, This view is substantiated by the statement
of Jas. 5: 11.

Franz Delitzsch has well said: "The real contents
of the book of Job is the mystery of the Cross : the Cross
of Golgotha is the solution of the enigma of every
cross; and the book of Job is a prophecy of this final
solution" (Commentary Vol. i p. 32).

IV. Divisions. Prologue. Chapters 1 and 2.

1. First cycle of addresses, beginning with Job fol
lowed by each one of the three friends, each in turn
answered by Job. Chapters 3-14.

2. Second cycle of addresses, in which each friend
addresses Job and is answered by him in turn. Chapters
15-21.

. 3. Third cycle of addresses, in which Eliphaz speaks
at length, Bildad very briefly and Zophar not at all.
They are answered by Job who continues the argument
at considerable length. Chapters 22-31.

JOB 275

4. Argument of Elihu. Chapters 32-37.

5. Jehovah speaks. Chapters 38-41.
Epilogue. Chapter 42.

V. Date and authorship. Two distinct questions
of date arise in connection with this book, the date of
the events recorded in the book and the date of its
authorship.

1. Date of the events. All the data concerning the
time of Job mark it as very early, not later than the
time of Moses. The family life as depicted in the
prologue, the extensive ownership of cattle, the offer
ing of the sacrifice by the head of the family, and the
great age to which Job lived point unmistakably to
patriarchal times. The mention of the JiB'trp (Job
42: 11), a piece of money spoken of elsewhere only in
patriarchal times (Gen. 33:19; Josh. 24:32) points
in the same direction. Furthermore the comparative
absence of allusions to the Mosaic law or the national
history of Israel presupposes a time before the founding
of the nation. On the other hand the fact that Job
lived outside of Israel might account for his silence
concerning its law and history without the supposition
of an early date. And the fact that patriarchal life
continued in these eastern countries much later than
in Canaan and in many places even to the present day,
makes the supposition of a pre-Mosaic date on this
account unnecessary. Yet the probable date of the
book requires a date for the events at least before
Solomon.

2. Date of the 'book. This is somewhat easier to
determine though there has been a wide divergence of
opinion. The book has been assigned by different
critics to four different periods.

276 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

A. Patriarchal. This view advocated by the Talmud
and in modern times by Ebrard rests mainly on the
points already mentioned which seem to place the man
Job in very early times. It is assumed that it was
written in Job's time, by Job himself, by Elihu or by
Moses. This opinion is not held by any recent authori
ties and requires no refutation. It is affirmed by Driver,
Davidson and others that certain signs of an acquaint
ance with the Mosaic law can be detected in the book.
Such are the mention of pledges (24: 9), of landmarks,
(24:2) and of judicial procedure in cases of adultery
(31:9) and of the worship of the sun and moon
(31 : 26). These references however shed no light upon
the date of the book, since similar laws existed before
Moses and the worship of the sun and moon is abhorrent
to the pure monotheism of Job even without any legal
prohibition. The real argument against the patriarchal
date is found in the book itself considered as a part of
the Wisdom Literature.

B. Solomonic. This view advocated by Luther and
more recently by Franz Delitzsch and others is the most
satisfactory. The time of Solomon was one when the
deepest practical questions of life engaged the thought
of the wise. The Proverbs of Solomon in parts move in
the same circle of ideas as Job. The prominence given
to "wisdom" (15:8 and chapter 28) is very similar
to Proverbs 8. The masterly and original way in which
the questions of " wisdom " are dealt with in the Book
of Job precludes the idea of a late date when the wisdom
literature had become formal and imitative (Jesus
Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon). Delitzsch rightly
says concerning the book : " It bears throughout the
stamp of that creative, beginning period of the Chokma,

JOB 277

— of that Solomonic age of knowledge and art, of deeper
thought respecting revealed religion, and of intelligent
progressive culture of the traditional forms of art, —
that unprecedented age, in which the literature cor
responds to the summit of glorious magnificence to
which the kingdom of the promise had then attained "
(Commentary p. 21). The wide knowledge of foreign
nations displayed in the book also confirms the Solo
monic date. Whether Solomon was himself the author
or another writer of his time, it is fruitless to spec
ulate.

C. The seventh century B.C., shortly after the fall of
the northern kingdom, possibly in the reign of Manasseh.
This view was maintained by Ewald and Hitzig. The
principal arguments for it are the assertion that in that
time as in the Book of Job the questions of providence
were subjected to doubt, and the evidences of wide
spread misfortune (Job 3:20; 7:1; 9:24; 12:6;
21:12).

Answer. — The former of these arguments is no cri
terion of date. It is difficult to see why an age like
Solomon's which reflected so profoundly on the problems
of daily life should not have carried their thought into
the region of divine providence. Concerning the latter
argument it is noteworthy that all the passages referred
to are in the speeches of Job. They do not indicate
any more widespread misfortune than can be found
in any age but rather were elicited by the misfortunes
of Job himself and his observation that the wicked
often prosper. The latter fact is most often exempli
fied in just such times of splendor and luxury as were
those of Solomon. The misfortune of the Book of Job
is not national but individual.

278 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

D. The time of the Exile, shortly before or shortly
after it, 600-400 B.C. This is the prevailing view to
day, defended by Budde, Driver, Davidson and Cheyne
while Cornill fixes the date not earlier than 250
B.C. The arguments as summarized by Davidson
are:

1. " The extremely developed form both of the
morality and the doctrine of God in the book;

2. The points of contact which it presents with Jere
miah and the ideas of his age ; and

3. The strange parallel existing between Job and the
" Servant of the Lord " in the second part of Isaiah
(Commentary, p. Ixiv).

Answer. — There is no evidence in the book of a moral
ity or doctrine of God more highly developed than they
were in the time of Solomon. Surely the ethics and
theology of the Davidic Psalms and the Proverbs do
not fall below that of Job. Furthermore the isolated
character of the patriarch Job makes him comparable
to Melchizedek in his moral and religious superiority
to the men of his time. The points of contact with
Jeremiah are accounted for by Jeremiah's acquaintance
with the book. The parallel between Job and the
" Servant of Jehovah " in Isaiah is only the parallel
between a suffering individual and a suffering nation.
Both point to the righteous sufferer in the New Testa
ment but quite independently of each other.

VI. Composition.

Many critics, even those with radical tendencies, de
fend the integrity of the book by the evident artistic
plan of its arrangement. Others with equal confidence
affirm that certain parts were later additions.

1. The speeches of Elihu (chapters 32-37) are con-

JOB 279

sidered a later insertion by the majority of modern
critics. The principal arguments are that Elihu is
not mentioned in the prologue or the epilogue, that he
does not differ from the three friends and therefore
has no purpose in the book, that his speeches interrupt
the course of the poem since Jehovah answers Job not
Elihu (38: 1) and that his style is inferior to the re
mainder of the book.

Answer. — Elihu is not mentioned in the prologue
because he did not enter the discussion until a later
stage than the three friends. He is not mentioned in
the epilogue because his purpose as the forerunner of
Jehovah was accomplished. It is not true that Elihu's
view of Job's case is the same as that of the friends.
On the contrary it was just because of their error that
he spoke (32:3-12). While he condemns Job for
charging God with injustice, he yet desires to justify
him (33:32). He does not discuss the question of
righteous suffering so much as prepare the way by his
description of God's majesty for Jehovah's speech from
the storm. Indeed Elihu's speeches belong just where
they are because he sees the storm gathering (chapter
37). Davidson admits that Elihu exhibits no knowl
edge of the explanation of Job's sufferings in the pro
logue as he would have done if the whole book had been
before him. Jehovah answers Job rather than Elihu
because Job was the central figure, while there is noth
ing in Elihu's speeches to condemn. Without the
speeches of Elihu the answer from the storm would be
abrupt. Those who affirm that the style of Elihu is
inferior to that of the remainder of the book are com
pelled to admit many points of contact between it and
them. Driver considers the Elihu speeches "a valua-

280 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

ble supplement to " the book and says : " They attach
prominence to real and important truths which in the
rest of the book might seem not to have received their
proper due" (Introduction p. 430).

2,, Chapters 27:7 through 28 are thought by Well-
hausen, Kuenen, Cheyne and others to be out of place
in cheir present position in the book.

a. The description of the certain misfortune of the
wicked in 27 : 7-23 is said to be a sudden break from
verse 6 and unnatural in the mouth of Job since Zophar
had already expressed similar sentiments in chapter 20.
Some consider it a part of Bildad's speech or a third
speech of Zophar.

Answer. — A careful reading of verse 7 makes the
whole passage plain. Job's three friends have now proved
themselves his enemies. In his despair, he wishes that
they may be punished for their hostility toward him.
" Let mine enemy be as the wicked and he that riseth
up against me as the unrighteous." The following
description of the fate of the wicked is meant to refer
to his friends, not to himself. In view of the continued
affirmation of his own righteousness, Job evidently
had an expectation of his final restoration as in the
epilogue.

b. The beautiful description of the search for wisdom
in chapter 28 is said to break the connection with chap
ter 27 and form no fitting introduction to chapter
29 and to be altogether strange in Job's mouth in
view of his previous language and the laments of
chapter 31.

Answer. — The S3 with which chapter 28 opens is
indeed somewhat difficult to explain. It should be taken
in connection with the statements of verse 12 and later.

JOB 281

Job has been describing the coming punishment of hia
friends. They thought that wisdom was found with
them. On the contrary Job says, " For there is a
mine for silver and a place for gold which they refine —
but where shall wisdom be found and where is the
place of understanding?" Chapter 29 makes a new
beginning and it is therefore unnecessary to find a
connection with chapter 28. • The statements of chap
ter 28 are not more inconsistent with the other speeches
of Job than the hopeful confidence of 19:26-27 and
later passages. Harassed by his disease and by the
specious arguments of his friends, Job always maintains
his righteousness but hovers between hope and despair.
Chapter 28 seems to have been uttered in one of his
calmer moments. The laments of chapter 31 were the
result of a new outburst of despair.

3. Cheyne thinks the prologue and epilogue later
additions because they are prose and because the
epilogue represents Job as rewarded in earthly bless
ings for his righteousness, " a sad concession to a
low view of providential dealings " (Job and Solo
mon p. 69).

Answer. — "Without the prologue and epilogue the book
and its problem are entirely insoluble. The explana
tion of Job's sufferings is found in the scene in heaven
in the prologue and without the epilogue Job is left
unrewarded and the friends unpunished. The fact
that Job's restoration is earthly and physical is made
necessary by the fact that his sufferings had been of
the same kind and that no other kind of reward was
known to saints in his time.

4. Cheyne also rejects the speeches of the Almighty
(chapters 38-41) and especially the description of

282 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTIOX

behemoth (40 : 15 to 41 : 34) as a disturbing element
in the book and the latter as in bad taste.

Answer. — Questions of literary taste cannot be allowed
to disturb the integrity of a book. If these speeches
of Jehovah from the storm are removed the book has
no climax, its problem is left unsolved, and its most
beautiful section is lost.

SECTION II: MEGILLOTH

SONG OF SOLOMON

I. Name. The Hebrew name Dn'tfn TB> (the Song
of Songs) is derived from the first verse of the book
and is a superlative, meaning that among all songs
this one contains all that is best and noblest. The
Septuagint translates the name aa^a dfffj.drwv, and the
Vulgate Canticum Canticorum. From the latter come
the English name Canticles and the name in the English
Revision, "The Song of Songs," while that in the
Authorized and American Eevised Version is " The
Song of Solomon."

II. Authorship and Date.

1. Testimony of the Book. According to the inscrip
tion Solomon was the author, for here as in the
inscriptions of the Psalms i> indicates authorship. An
examination of the book itself confirms the Solomonic
authorship. The frequent mention of exotic plants
and the extensive knowledge of plants and animals
as well as the evidences of royal luxury agree with the
description of Solomon's time in the historical books.
The book also has points of contact with the other
works of Solomon (Ps. 72 and Prov.).

2. Critical Opinion. Driver and others favor a date
somewhat later than Solomon while Kuenen, Corn-
ill, and Cheyne assign the Song to the Greek period.

284 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

The arguments for the latter position are chiefly as
follows :

A. The superscription contains the form "iK'X while
the shorter # is found elsewhere throughout the book.
It is thought therefore that the superscription was a
later addition because of the frequent mention of Solo
mon in the book. Some critics affirm that it should be
translated " which relates to Solomon."

Answer. — That the h here means authorship is evident
from the analogy of the Psalms. The relative i^K is
appropriate to the prose of the superscription and the
shorter B> to the poetry of the Song. Without this
heading the book opens very abruptly.

B. Several late words and forms are found in the
book : the shorter relative #< DTIS a Persian word, tvisx
connected with the Indian * paryama ' or the Greek
pomelo* and the Aramaic ^t?J, niia and inp.

Answer. — The presence of these words is not incon
sistent with the Solomonic authorship. The shorter
relative is found in poetry Long before the time of Solo
mon (Judges 5:7) and is here a conscious mark of
poetry, as is seen from the use of "it^N in the prose of
1 • 1 The extensive commerce of Solomon accounts
for the introduction of a few Persian, Greek or Indian
words, the names of articles imported from those coun
tries or of gardens imitated from them. The Aramaic
words may have been introduced in imitation of the
northern dialect which was spoken by Shulamite.

III. Interpretation. Three methods of interpre
tation of this admittedly difficult book have prevailed;
the allegorical, the literal and the typical.

1. The Allegorical Interpretation was favored by the

SONG OF SOLOMON 285

Jews from the earliest times, was introduced into the
Christian Church by Origen, and has been favored in
modern times in a moderate form by Lowth, Hengsten-
berg, Keil, and Stuart. This view generally denies the
historical character of the events recorded. In its
Jewish form, it considers the book a poem descriptive
of the love between Jehovah and Israel, and in the
Christian form between Christ, and the church or the
believer. Every detail is explained on this theory, often
in a fanciful way.

The principal arguments in favor of this method
are:

A. It is thought necessary to justify the presence of
the book in the canon. The book seems to be a song
of merely earthly if not sensual love. It is argued
that it must have had a religious meaning or it would
not have been received into the canon.

B. The same imagery is found throughout the Bible.
Eepeatedly in the Old Testament the relation of Jehovah
to His people is compared to marriage (Ts. 5i:5;
61: 10) and apostasy from Him is compared to whore
dom (Ex. 34:15-16; Lev. 20:5-6; Jer. 3:1; Ezek.
chapters 16 and 23 and Hosea 1-3). In the New Testa
ment the same figure is transferred to the relation
between Christ and the church (Eph. 5: 23-32).

C. The same allegorical method is applied to Psalm
45 and Isa. 5 : 1-7.

Answer.— These arguments apply with equal force in
favor of the typical interpretation. On the other hand
serious objections may be raised to the allegorical
method.

A. There is nothing in the book itself which pre
cludes its historical character. Historical characters and

286 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

places are mentioned and the whole book bears the marks
of reality.

B. The allegorical method requires the explanation
of every detail in a spiritual way and therefore leads
to the most extravagant and unfounded interpretations,
which bring the book into disrepute with reasonable peo
ple. Thus the Targum makes the entire song an
allegorical interpretation of the history of Israel from
the Exodus to the coming of the Messiah.

2. The Literal Interpretation at the other extreme
considers the Song as literal history without any ulterior
meaning. In order to justify its presence in the canon
in modern times the Shepherd-hypothesis has been
advocated by Jacobi, Umbreit, Ewald, and most moderns.
These writers find a third character in the song, a poor
Galilean shepherd to whom Shulamite was espoused.
They claim that the book represents the faithfulness of
Shulamite to her shepherd lover in spite of the allure
ments of Solomon, who met her during a journey
through Galilee and brought her to his harem near
Jerusalem. Solomon is said to urge her to become his
wife while she steadfastly refuses and finally, leaving
the palace, returns to her shepherd lover.

The arguments for the Shepherd-hypothesis are
chiefly three: — •

A. Shulamite speaks of her lover as a shepherd (1:7,
16-17; 6:2-3).

It is however quite natural in a highly poetic and fig
urative book that this simple country maiden should
speak of her royal lover in language borrowed from her
northern home.

Answer. — That the language refers figuratively to
Solomon and not literally to a Galilean shepherd seems

SONG OF SOLOMON 287

evident in 6 : 2-3. It would be very strange to say of
a poor shepherd : " My beloved has gone down to his
garden, to the beds of spices, to feed in the gardens
and to gather lilies. I am my beloved's and my beloved
is mine. He feedeth his flock among the lilies." But
the passage is plain when it is referred to Solomon's
going down into his garden of spices and lilies.

B. Certain passages are said to be inexplicable if
there be no rival of Solomon. Thus the words to the
daughters of Jerusalem not to " stir up nor awake love
till it please " (2 : 7 ; 3 : 5 ; 8 : 4) are said to be an adjura
tion of Shulamite " not to excite in her the passion of
love artificially" (for Solomon).

Answer. — The added words " till it please " imply
that Shulamite is not unalterably opposed to affection
for Solomon. Her love for him is so strong that if
permitted its full exercise it would be painful. In each
case this adjuration follows the meeting of the lovers.
If the lovers be Shulamite and the shepherd, it
would be indeed strange for Shulamite immediately
to speak of a time when love for Solomon would be
pleasing.

Other passages which are said to be .unnatural are
3:4; 4:6; 6 : 4-5, 12 ; 7:8, 12 ; 8:1. These passages
however are explicable on the theory that the book is a
wedding-song containing recollections of the ante
nuptial experiences of Solomon and Shulamite. The
events mentioned are not recorded as having occurred
in the order stated but depict the emotions of the lovera
*1 ximes of union and separation.

C. The speeches of the shepherd lover (2:10-14;
4:8-15; 5:1; 8:13) are said to differ in tonp from
those of Solomon (1 : 9-11, 15 ; 2 : 2 ; 4 ; 1-7 ; 6 : 4-10; 7?

288 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

1-9 ) . Thus Driver says : " The speeches attributed to
the king are somewhat stiff and formal ; those of the
lover on the contrary breathe a warm and devoted
affection" (Introduction p. 447).

Answer. — This is made so by assigning the warm pas
sages to the shepherd and the more formal ones to Solo
mon. The arbitrariness of this process is most evident
in chapter 4 of which the first seven verses are assigned
to Solomon and verses 8-15 to the shepherd, although
the whole is evidently from one speaker. The critics
are forced to this conclusion because in verses 8-15 the
lover calls Shulamite his bride. Furthermore if Solo
mon's speeches are stiff and formal, his alleged char
acter as the seducer of Shulamite is not supported.
The allusions in the so-called speeches of the shepherd
to northern places and customs are in reality references
of Solomon in remembrance of his journey through
Galilee where he first met Shulamite.

There are other very serious objections to the
Sh epli erd-h ypotli esis :

A. It represents Solomon as a monster of iniquity
taking an innocent country girl by force for his harem.
Although Solomon departed from the ways of David
in later life, neither the record of him in the historical
books nor the speeches universally assigned to him in
this book warrant this representation of his character;
and if he had such a character, it is very strange that he
should have allowed Shulamite to escape him and marry
the shepherd, as the critics affirm.

B. It is necessary to read much into the text of
Shulamite's speeches to imagine her resisting the ad
vances of Solomon.

C. If the Shepherd-hypothesis be true, the presence of

SONG OP SOLOMON 289

the book in the canon is inexplicable. It represents the
shame of Solomon. And yet Solomon is either its
author or its hero according to the superscription. Else
where Solomon is represented as the inspired author of
wisdom and the Prince of Peace. That his shame
should be thus depicted without a hint either of his
repentance or his punishment is incredible.

In view of these arguments .the statement of Delitzsch
is justified that the shepherd " is nothing else than a
shadow cast by the person of Solomon" (Commentary
p. 8).

3. The Typical Interpretation. This view takes the
middle ground between the allegorical and the literal,
for it neither denies the historical basis of the Song nor
its spiritual meaning. It avoids the fancifulness of the
allegorical, since the type foreshadows the antitype only
in a few main points, and the fancifulness of the
Shepherd-hypothesis since it finds the purpose of the
book not in the faithfulness of Shulamite under imagi
nary temptation but in the typical relation between
Solomon, the type of Christ, and Shulamite, the type
of the church, the bride of Christ.

The reasonableness of the typical interpretation is
seen from the following considerations:

A. The book is called "the Song of Songs." It is
inconceivable that it would receive such an exalted
name, higher than that of any other poetry in the Old
Testament, unless it had a religious meaning.

B. Solomon is a type of Christ. This is seen from
the promise to David (II Sam. 7: 12-17), from the last
words of David (II Sam. 23:1-7), from Solomon's
work in building the temple, from Psalm 72, and from
the statement of our Lord (Matt. 12:42).

290 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

C. The relation of husband and wife is elsewhere in
the Old testament typical of the relation between Jeho
vah and Israel and in the New Testament between
Christ and the Church.

The fullest history of the interpretation of the Song
is found in Ginsburg's commentary.

IV. Unity. A few critics following Herder, de
Wette, and Bleek have considered the book a collec
tion of love songs by different authors. But the recur
rence of identical or similar expressions (2:7; 3:5;
8:4; also 2:17; 8:14 and 2:16; 6:3) the presence
of Solomon, Shulamite and the daughters of Jerusalem
throughout, and the similarity of style mark it as the
work of one author. Moreover the artistic progress in
the Song makes this conclusion inevitable.

V. Divisions. The arrangement of Delitzsch is as
follows :

" The whole falls in the following six acts :

"(1) The mutual affection of the lovers, 1:2-2:7;
with the conclusion, ' I adjure you, ye daughters of
Jerusalem.'

"(2) The mutual seeking and finding of the lovers,
2 : 8-3 : 5 with the conclusion, 1 1 adjure you, ye daugh
ters of Jerusalem/

"(3) The fetching of the bride and the marriage,

3:6-5:1; beginning with 'Who is this ?' and

ending with, * Drink and be drunken, beloved/

"(4) Love scorned but won again 5 : 2-6 : 8.

" (5) Shulamith the attractively fair but humble

princess, 6 : 10-8 : 4, beginning with, ' Who is this ? '

and ending with ' I adjure you, ye daughters of Jeru
salem.'

" (6) The ratification of the covenant in Shulamith's

SONG OF SOLOMON 291

home, 8:5-14, beginning with, 'Who is this ?'"

(Commentary pp. 9-10.)

VI. Form. There is action in the Song but it is
not a drama, for theatrical performance is foreign to
the Semitic genius. The book has no plot. It is a
song intended to be sung at the marriage of Solomon
and Shulamite, describing events in their courtship. It
is comparabte with Psalm 45. •

IT

Ruin

I. Name. The book is named from its principal
character, nr. The origin of the name is uncertain.
Some connect it with n^n hence " sightly," while others
consider it an error for rrcjn " friendship." The Greek
form is 'P»n0.

II. Historicity. The historical character of the
events recorded is confirmed by David's friendliness
with the king of Moab (I Sam. 22 : 3-4) which was quite
natural since his great-grandmother was Euth, the
Moabitess.

III. Date.

1. Testimony of the Boole. The events occurred two
generations before the birth of David in the time of the
Judges but were not recorded until after his birth and
probably after his accession to the throne (4:21-22).
A date in David's reign accounts for the purpose of
the book, to give the ancestry of the king. Moreover
the necessity of explaining the custom of establishing
a bargain by drawing off the shoe (4:7) is accounted
for by the fact that such primitive customs would prob
ably be changed at the beginning of the kingdom.

2. Critical opinion. Some critics assign the book to
the time of the later kings and others to a post-exilic
date for the following reasons :

A. The explanation of 4: 7 is said to imply a long
period of time after the events before they were recorded.

292

RUTH 293

Answer. — The radical change of government from the
time of Ruth to that of David would make such an
explanation necessary after fifty years.

B. It is affirmed that the writer was acquainted with
the Book of Deuteronomy (Ruth 4 : 7 compare Deut. 25 :
7, 9) and the Deuteronomic Book of Judges (Ruth 1:1).

Answer. — Since the books of Deuteronomy and
Judges do not belong to the time to which the critics
assign them, the acquaintance of the author of Ruth
with them does not prove a late date.

C. Certain words are said to indicate a later time.
The formula nn!?in nWi (4: 18) and T^in are among

the criteria of the so-called Hexateuchal document P.
Other late forms are j!"6 (1: 13 compare Dan. 2:6, 9;
4:24); -ab> (1: 13 compare Isa. 38: 18; Ps. 104:27;
119 : 166 ; 145 : 15 ; Esther 9:1); nfeno (3 : 4, 7, 8, 14,
found elsewhere only Dan. 10 : 6) and D^p (4 : 7 compare
Ezek. 13:6; Ps. 119:28, 106; Esther 9:21, 27, 29,
31, 32; Dan. 6:8).

Answer. — Since the so-called document P was really
the work of Moses, resemblances to it in the book of
Ruth are no evidence of date. Moreover it is practically
impossible that the book of Ruth was written after the
date to which the critics assign P. The prejudice against
foreign alliances in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah was
so strong (Ezra 9-10; Neh. 13; 23-29) that a book trac
ing the ancestry of David to Moab would have been
discredited. Driver and Strack consider the genealogy
(Ruth 4:18-22), in which the resemblances to P are
found, a later addition, in which case the argument falls.
In view of the general purity of the style of Ruth, the
presence of a few words found elsewhere in late books

294 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

is not sufficient evidence of a later origin. The Hebrew
literature which we possess is not large enough to make
the affirmation safe, that these words were not used in
the time of David.

Nowack has adduced the following forms of expres
sion which Ruth has in common with Samuel and
Kings :

" Jehovah do so to me and more also " (Ruth 1:17
compare I Sam. 3 : 17 ; 14 : 44 ; I Kings 2:23).

"All the city was moved about them" (Ruth 1:19
compare I Sam. 4:5; I Kings 1:45).

" Her hap was " (Ruth 2:3; compare I Sam. 6:9;
20 : 26, etc.) ; 'Jb$>K »$B (Ruth 4: 1 compare I Sam. 21 :
3; II Kings 6:8).

t|K H$>3 (Ruth 4:4 compare I Sam. 9:15; 20:2
etc.). Nowack thinks these are intentional imitations of
the older style. But if the literary argument has any
value, the presence of these words in the Book of Ruth
is evidence that it belongs to an age not later than that
of Samuel and Kings and probably to the time of David
himself.

IV. Purpose. The purpose of the book was to fill
up the gap in the ancestry of David (I Sam. 16: 1-13)
showing the pious stock from which he sprang and his
connection with the Gentile tribe of Moab. Thus it is
an important link in the ancestry of Jesus Christ. Since
His mission was to all the world, it was meet that the
pious Gentiles should have a place among his ancestors.

Some like Reuss, who places the book shortly after
the fall of Samaria, consider it an attempt to establish
for the Davidic dynasty authority over the northern
territory through Obed, the legal son of the Ephraimite
Mahlon. It is however an error to consider Mahlon an

RUTH 295

Ephraimite (1:2) and in any case the relation of Obed
to Mahlon was not sufficient to warrant such authority.
Others like Driver suggest that it may be " a collateral
didactic aim of the author to inculcate the duty of mar
riage on the part of the next-of-kin with a widow left
childless" (p. 454). Others still, like Kuenen and
Cornill, consider it a polemic against the narrow oppo
sition of Ezra to intermarriage with foreigners. Such
an extreme view is sufficiently answered by an unpreju
diced reading of the book itself.
V. Divisions.

1. History of Euth till her arrival at Bethlehem.
Chapter 1.

2. Boaz shows her favor during the harvest. Chap
ter 2.

3. Euth requests Boaz to act as kinsman. Chapter 3.

4. Boaz fulfils his promise. Their descendants.
Chapter 4.

Ill

LAMENTATIONS

I. Name. In the Hebrew Bible the book is named
nr« from its first word. Many printed texts, however,
follow the Talmudic and Eabbinic name rrirj? which
describes the nature of its contents. The Septuagint
renders this name ffpyvut 'hpe/uvu, which in the Vulgate
is transliterated Threni and by the Fathers was trans
lated Lamentationes JeremiaB. The English name is
derived from the Latin.

II. Structure. The book contains five distinct ele
gies corresponding to the five chapters. In the first
four the arrangement is alphabetical. Thus in chapters
1 and 2 one verse is given to each letter of the Hebrew
alphabet in regular order and the verses consist of three
parts each. In chapter 3 three verses are given to each
letter but the verses consist of but one member ; and in
chapter 4 one verse is given to each letter, the verses
consisting of two members. The alphabetic arrange
ment of chapters 2-4 is broken in each case by the trans
position of the letters y and B. No satisfactory explana
tion of this has been offered. Chapter 5 drops the
alphabetic arrangement although it has twenty-two
verses.

III. Author.

1. Traditional Opinion. Until modern times Jeremiah
was universally conceded to be the author of the book.
The book itself does not contain his name. The Sep-

296

LAMENTATIONS 297

tuagint prefixes this sentence: "And it came to pass
after Israel was led into captivity, and Jerusalem laid
waste, that Jeremiah sat weeping, and lamented with
this lamentation ove1' Jerusalem and said : " These words
are thought by some to have been in the Hebrew original
from which the Septuagint was made. Though such a
conclusion is not warranted, the statement presents a
very early tradition. The same preface is found in the
Vulgate, with the addition, " and in bitterness of heart
sighing and crying said:" The Targuin and Peshitta
likewise assign the book to Jeremiah.

Much confusion has been caused by referring II
Chron. 35:25 to this book. There we read: "And
Jeremiah lamented for Josiah : and all the singing men
and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamen
tations to this dav: and behold they are written in the

L
lamentations " ( JTirprr;>j? ) . It is insisted by certain

radical critics that this refers to the canonical book of
Lamentations and that the Chronicler erroneously
thought from 2 : 7 and 4:20 that this book was the
dirge of Jeremiah over Josiah.

Answer. — A careful reading of the book shows that
it is not at all appropriate as a dirge for Josiah. It is
hardly conceivable that the Chronicler could have been
so ignorant of the contents of this canonical book.
The book of Lamentations to which he referred was
totally distinct from the one before us. Apparently
it contained the lamentations of the singing men and
women as well as those of Jeremiah and may have been
an extensive collection of dirges for use at funerals.
Josephus probably refers to this extra-canonical book
when he says (Antiq. 10:5): "Jeremiah composed a
dirge for Josiah's funeral which remains unto this day."

298 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

It is incredible that Josephus was so ignorant of the
contents of the canonical book that he thought it a dirge
for Josiah's funeral. But even though the passages
in Chronicles and in Josephus do not refer to our book,
they confirm the tradition that Jeremiah composed
dirges. And if Jeremiah was preeminent in this form
of poetry, what is more probable than that he wrote this
book? Even Cornill admits that the authorship of
Jeremiah possesses a certain probability.

An examination of the book itself and a comparison of
it with the prophecy of Jeremiah strongly confirms the
traditional view. In form of expression as well as in
general argument it has many points in common with
the prophecy.

Driver mentions the following similarities (p. 462) :

Lam. 1:2 compare Jer. 30 : 14

13 : 22&, 26

;9 : 1, 18&
••••< " 13:17&
( " 14:17
«

" ' XA I a i A

tt o.XO I « 6:14

d-48 f •'••(« ft. 11 91

tt 4:10j I 8-11,21

2:8

« 2:14 ! u j « 5:31

" 4:13 [ ' * 1 " 14:13)

23:11

19:9

6:25
20:10
20:7

LAMENTATIONS 299

Lam.

3-

15

\

Jer.

9:

15

«

3:

47

«

'{

a

(f

23:

18 •

15

13

M

3:

52

((

r<

16'

«

4:

216

<(

f

«

25:

15

«

5:

16..

<t

*

n
f<

49:
13-

12

186

2. Critical Opinion. The majority of modern critics,
while they acknowledge the force of these arguments,
deny that Jeremiah wrote this book. They think it was
the product of his time or soon after and some suggest
that its author may have been a follower of Jeremiah,
so familiar is he with the book of that prophet. The
arguments of these critics are as follows:

A. The position of the book among the Kethubhim
militates against Jeremiah's authorship.

Answer. — It has been shown in the chapter on the
canon that Lamentations was not always reckoned
among the Kethubhim but was placed there as one of the
five Megilloth which are arranged in our Hebrew
Bibles in the order of their liturgical use, Lamentations
being read in the synagogue on the ninth of Ab in
commemoration of the destruction of the temple.

B. Several passages are said to be very strange if
written by Jeremiah.

"Her prophets also find no vision from the Lord"
(2:9).

Answer. — This passage is not as strong a condemna
tion of false prophets as Jeremiah gave in his prophecy
(14:14; 23:16).

" In our watching, we have watched for a nation that
could not save us " (4: 17). The author is said to clasa

himself here with the party in Israel who sought help
from Egypt while Jeremiah always opposed such \
course.

Answer. — The author does not however identify him
self with this party but with the nation in which the
party was predominant just as a member of the minority
in congress might say : " We did so and so " although
he voted against the action.

The reference to Zedekiah as, "the breath of our
nostrils" and "the anointed of the Lord" (Lam. 4:
20) is said to be inconsistent with Jeremiah's prophecy
concerning him in Jer. 24 : 8-10.

Answer. — Such terms are quite usual in reference to
the rightful king of the Davidic line. David repeatedly
spoke of Saul as " the Lord's anointed " even after
Saul's rejection and while he was persecuting him (I
Sam. 24:6, 10; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; II Sam. 1: 14, 16).
It seems to have been a common title of the king (II
Sam. 19:21). Although Zedekiah was appointed king
by Nebuchadnezzar (II Kings 24:17; Jer. 37:1), he
belonged to the royal line as a son of Josiah (Jer.
37:1). Jeremiah doubtless had set his hopes upon
Zedekiah when he first became king. He therefore calls
him "the breath of our nostrils." This hope was
disappointed.

C. The vocabulary of the author of Lamentations
contains several words not found in Jeremiah, some of
them expressing ideas for which Jeremiah uses other
words. Such are 'jy (Lam. 1 : 3, 7, 9 ; 3 : 1, 19) ;
(1:4, 13, 16; 3:11); n£ (1:4, 5, 12; 3:32-33)
(1:11-12; 3:63; 4:16; 5:1); 'Ji« (alone 1:14, 15;
2:1, 2, 5, 7, 18, 19, 20b; 3: 31, 36, 37, 38); &iy (1:22;

LAMENTATIONS 301

2 : 30 ; 3 : 51) ; J&3 (2 : 2, 5, 8, 16) ; mi (2 : 7; 3 : 17, 31) ;
£ (shorter relative 2:15, 16; 4:9; 5:18); jn# (3:8).

Answer.— The poetic nature of Lamentations is the
chief cause of these variations from the prophecy. The
points of agreement are so many that the diction favors
the traditional view of authorship more than the modern
critical view.

D. Cornill lays great stress upon certain allusions in
Lamentations to Ezekiel.

Lam. 2:1 compare. .Ezek. 43 : 7

" 2:4 " . . " 24:16,21,25

((( -10

Id
" 22:28

" 2:15 " . . " 27:3

" 4:6 " .. « 16 :46f

" 4:20 " . . " 19:4,8

Answer. — An examination of these parallels does not
warrant the conclusion of the critics. Jeremiah may
have used the expressions independently of Ezekiel.
If however the argument be pressed it does not disprove
that Jeremiah wrote the Lamentations. For Jeremiah
was a contemporary of Ezekiel and the colony of exiles
on the river Chebar probably were in communication
with those who remained in Judah after the fall of
Jerusalem. If so Jeremiah may have been acquainted
with the prophecies of Ezekiel.

IV. Unity. Several modern critics attack the in
tegrity of the book, although they disagree radically
concerning the proper division. Some assign chapter 3
to a different author, others chapters 1 and 3, and others
still chapters 1, 3 and 5. They contend that one author

302 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

would not have written several poems on the same
subject, that certain chapters (2 and 4) are superior to
the others, and that the different alphabetic arrangement
indicates difference of authorship.

Answer. — It was precisely in accord with Hebrew
usage to emphasize a subject by repetition. Certain
passages in the writings of any author are superior to
others. The differences in the alphabetic arrangement
may indicate a lack of fixedness in the order of the
letters V and 2 in Jeremiah's time. The use of the
same phrases and words throughout the book is proof
of unity of authorship.

V. Divisions.

1. Zion forsaken and sorrowing. Chapter 1.

2. The desolation described with exhortation and
prayer. Chapter 2.

3. The prophet suffers with Zion and yet hopes.
Chapter 3.

4. The sufferings of the siege. Chapter 4.

5. Prayer for mercy. Chapter 5.

IV

ECCLESIASTES

I. Name. In Hebrew the book is named from the
title of the speaker r6np (1 : 2, 12 ; 12 : 8) a word whose
exact meaning is somewhat uncertain. It is Kal active
participle feminine of the verb ^n[3 which is not found
elsewhere in Kal but in Hiphil means to gather an
assembly. If the Kal be used with the same meaning
as the Hiphil, ripnp means " one who gathers an assem
bly for the purpose of addressing them." The feminine
form is more difficult to explain. It has been thought
that wisdom ( noan ) is impersonated in Solomon the
preacher. But the noun always takes a masculine verb
and if n!?np be feminine in reference to 'loan it is strange
that '"IDDH is not mentioned as the speaker. The more
probable explanation is that the feminine is that of office
like the Arabic Caliphate, and the German Majestat —
hence one who holds the office of preacher.

The Septuagint rendered the word by 'Exxfyfftaffrfj?,
which in classic Greek means a member of the ixxtyffia,
or assembly of citizens — hence one who preaches in the
Ixxfyffia, the Septuagint rendering of ^ the congre
gation of Israel. The Vulgate transliterates the Greek
name into Ecclesiastes. The English versions name
the book " Ecclesiastes or the Preacher/'

II. Purpose. Ecclesiastes is one of the Wisdom

303

304 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

books. From the frequent repetition of the words, "All i8
vanity " and the generally hopeless nature of its contents,
some, both in ancient and modern times, have consid
ered it a pessimistic, sceptical if not atheistic book and
have objected to its presence in the canon. Others have
thought that it favors materialism and licentious
ness.

These objections are the result of a misunderstanding
of the book. Not only does the name of God occur
many times in it but His creation and rulership of the
world are taken for granted (2:24, 26; 3:11, 14, 17,
etc.). The fear of God, which is the Old Testament
conception of religion, is made the prime duty of man
(5:7; 12:13) a duty which does not go unrewarded
(7: 18; 8: 12). The expectation of a divine judgment
is found in the book (11:9; 12 : 14). The attitude of
the author toward the future is not that of the sceptic
but of one to whom almost nothing concerning the
future life was revealed. All his arguments are based
upon his observation of this world. He speaks only of
that which is done " under the sun " and " under the
heavens," for that is all he knows. To judge the book
according to the standard of New Testament revelation
is absurd and unjust. Yet the author extols the things
which are morally good in this world such as going to
the house of God (4:17), paying vows to Him (5 : 4-5),
having a good reputation (7:1) and exercising patience
(7:8-9). Licentiousness is condemned (7:26).

The author was facing a problem which he had not
light enough to solve. He saw much injustice in the
world. Apparently the wicked often went unpunished
and the righteous died unrewarded. Yet in the face
of this mystery the author does not charge God with

ECCLESIASTES 305

injustice. He simply says that God's ways are inscru
table (8:17;11:5). He trusts that eventually in some
way these wrongs shall be righted. This train of thought
is specially prominent in 3 : 17-18 and 5:8. If he ex
horts his hearers not to be righteous overmuch (7: 16),
he uses the term righteous in the sense of perform
ing all the external requirements of religion, for imme
diately he speaks of the deliverance of him that feareth
God (7 : 18). The plain exhortation to religion (12 : 1)
and the summary of man's duty " to fear God and keep
His commandments" (12:13-14) show that the book
is not below the Old Testament standard of piety nor
the Old Testament doctrine of a future life. Indeed
by revealing the injustice of this world and by creating
a dissatisfaction with it, the book presented to the Old
Testament saints a strong argument for a future life
and a strong motive to fear God. To the Christian it
is still valuable since it shows that even worldly wisdom
recognizes the advantage of a moral life, and of obedi
ence to God as the result of experience, and by its very
imperfection it shows the necessity of the New Testa
ment revelation.

III. Author.

1. Solomonic Authorship. The name of the author
is not mentioned in the book. Yet there can be no
doubt that by " the son of David, king in Jerusalem "
(1:1, 12) none other than Solomon is meant. That
no other royal descendant of David can be intended is
apparent from the references to Solomon's incompar
able wisdom (1:16) and the great works which he
made (2:4-11). It is strange that these allusions to
Solomon end with the second Chapter. Yet the char
acter of the entire book which resembles the work of the

306 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

wise king in the book of Proverbs is in agreement with
those references.

According to these indications Ecclesiastes was as
signed to Solomon by the uniform consent of all Jewish
and Christian scholars until the Reformation period.
It was considered the work of his old age. A Hebrew
legend, which was probably formed to account for this
book, is preserved in the Targum. It affirms that in his
old age God drove Solomon from his throne because of
his foreign alliances, and that an angel whose face
resembled Solomon's was placed upon his throne. The
aged king wandered up and down in Palestine lamenting
his folly and crying out : " I am Koheleth, whose name
was formerly called Solomon, who was king over Israel
in Jerusalem." This legend was thought to account
for the absence of Solomon's name and his saying " I
was king in Jerusalem " (1 : 12), as though he had then
ceased to be king, while Solomon retained the throne
till his death. There are still a few who believe in the
Solomonic authorship, though the overwhelming weight
of authority, both conservative and radical, is against it.

2. Solomon Impersonated. Luther seems to have
been the first to deny that Solomon wrote this book.
He was followed by Hugo Grotius and in the past cen
tury hardly a writer of eminence has attempted to de
fend the older opinion. Even such conservative theo
logians as Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, and C. H. H. Wright
have denied that Solomon was the author. The writer
impersonated Solomon or as Bradley expressed it he
" chose the title of the king around whose memory clus
tered innumerable associations as the great sage and
philosopher of the Hebrew race; one whose name had
become the very type of human wisdom, combined with

ECCLESIASTES 307

human sadness and frailty" (Ecclesiastes p. 21). Such
a literary device does not imply deception. The writer
depicts Solomon's views concerning life, from the van
tage ground of his completed reign. That Solomon is
not represented as the actual author but only as the
pseudonym which the author takes is evident.

A. The name, Solomon, does not occur in the book,
as would almost certainly be the case if he were the
author. The title Koheleth is a very unnatural one in
the mouth of the king.

B. The past tense : " I was king over Israel in Jeru
salem" (1: 12) points in the same direction. It is true
that this verb might mean: "I have been (and still
am) king," but it would be much more natural to omit
the verb entirely if the present tense were intended.
Since Solomon remained king till his death, this state
ment could hardly have been written by him but is quite
natural in the mouth of the one who impersonates the
king.

C. The expression " all who were before me in Jeru
salem " (1 : 16; 2 : 7), implies a later writer than Solo
mon. The reference is to kings rather than princes or
wise men, and since only David reigned in Jerusalem
before him it would be a very strange expression for Solo
mon. The suggestion that he refers to Melchizedek and
Adonizedek is very fanciful. But if these are words of
a writer long after Solomon's time they admit of an
easy explanation.

3. Evidences of Date Later than Solomon.

A. The whole atmosphere of the book is totally dif
ferent from that of Solomon's time. The time of Solo
mon was one of widespread prosperity in Palestine (I
Kings 4:25). The book of Ecclesiastes on the other

308 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

hand presupposes a time of misfortune, tyranny, and
oppression (4:1-3; 5:8; 7:10; 8:9; 10:6-7). If
King Solomon had known of such injustice in his king
dom as this author reveals, he would certainly have
rectified it. And if the oppression is simply that which
resulted from the heavy taxation to carry out Solomon's
great works (I Kings 12 : 11, 14) it is inconceivable that
Solomon would speak of the oppression in the manner
of Koheleth. Indeed the way the author speaks of
kings and especially of " the king " shows that he was
not a king himself but a subject and that too of a
tyrannical king (4:13: 8:2; 9:14-16; 10:16-17, 20).

B. Equally overwhelming is the evidence from the
language. Delitzsch has collected a list of 96 forms,
words, and expressions in Ecclesiastes which are either
found only in that book outside of the Targums and
Mishna or are found elsewhere only in such late books
as Ezekiel, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, and
Malachi (Commentary pp. 190-196). While a small
number of such words is not inconsistent with an early
date, their number in Ecclesiastes is so large that the
conclusion of late date is irresistible.

While all critics who deny the Solomonic authorship
consider the book post-exilic there is considerable diverg
ence in the matter of date. Delitzsch, Wright, Cheyne
in his " Job and Solomon " and others adhere to the
late Persian period (approaching 332 B. C.) while
Driver, Plumptre, Cornill and others prefer a date
about 200 B.C. The chief point of dispute is whether
there are Gracisms in the book or traces of the influence
of the Greek philosophy. Certain writers find traces of
Stoicism in the doctrine of cycles ( 3 : 1 -8 ) and in the
fatalism of the book, and of Epicureanism in its com-

ECCLESIASTES 309

parison of men to beasts and consideration of pleasure
as the highest good. All these phenomena may be
accounted for as of Hebrew origin. Even Renan denied
that the book contains traces of Greek philosophy al
though he assigned it to 125 B.C. The theory of Graetz
that Ecclesiastes was composed by Herod the Great in
B.C. 4 is disproved by the allusions to it in Ecclesiasti-
cus (B.C. 170) and by the presence of Ecclesiastes in
the Septuagint.

All the facts of the book are adequately explained by
assigning it as Hengstenberg does to the time of Malachi
(about 433 B.C.). The books of Ezra and Nehemiah
give evidence of the very political corruption and oppres
sion which are reflected in Ecclesiastes (Ezra 4 : 5 ; 9 : 7 ;
Neh. 1:3; 5:4, 5, 18; 9:36-37). The capriciousness
of the monarch in the book of Esther is of the same
sort. Hengstenberg also points out that " we encounter
here, as in Malachi that moroseness which ever accom
panies unspiritual religion and soulless morality " (Com
mentary p. 6). Formalism was characteristic cf the
religion after the Exile. There is then nothing in the
political conditions presupposed by this book or its
language which requires a date later than 400 B.C. And
if this date be correct it is among the latest books of the
Old Testament.

IV. Integrity, The general integrity of the book
is universally acknowledged. Certain critics however
consider a few verses to have been later additions. The
epilogue (12:9-14) is suspected by many. The first
part (9-12) of it is rejected because without it the book
begins and ends with the same statement and because it
speaks of Koheleth as a wise man while elsewhere he is
represented as a king. There is no reason however why

310 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

the book should be forced to end with the same state
ment with which it begins. Solomon was the founder
of the school of wise men as well as king. Krochmal
considers the epilogue (12: 9-14) to have been added as
a concluding statement for the entire Kethubhim and
that verse 12 refers to the admission of this and the
other Antilegomena into the canon. This fanciful theory
has not met with acceptance. It is sufficiently refuted
by the fact that Ecclesiastes never, so far as we know,
stood at the end of the Old Testament canon.

The objection to the remainder of the epilogue (12:
13-14) as well as to several other brief passages (3: 17;
7:5; 8:12-13; ll:9b; 12:la, 7b) is that they display
a higher religious tone than that which pervades the
remainder of the book. Many affirm that these passages
were inserted with the purpose of saving the orthodoxy
of the book and that then it was admitted to the canon.
It is noteworthy, on the other hand, that so radical a
critic as Cornill opposes the removal of these passages
and asserts that the same thoughts run throughout the
book. The objections to these passages proceed from
the false assumption that the book is sceptical. If
rightly understood, they do not contradict other state
ments of the author and their removal destroys the
completeness of the argument.

V. Divisions.

The vain things. The good things.

Labor 1:3-11

Wisdom 1 : 12-18

Pleasure 2:1-11 Wisdom better than folly 2 : 12-26

Effort 3 : 1-15

ECCLESIASTES

311

The vain things.

Justice 3:16 to 4:3
Skill 4: 4-12
Power 4 : 13-16
Formalism 5 : 1-7
Wealth 5 : 8 to 6 : 12

Fortune 8: 16 to 9: 6, 11-16
Aristocracy 9 : 17 to 10 : 11
Folly 10:12-15
A young King 10 : 1C-20

The good things.

A good name 7 : 1-10
Wisdom 7:11 to 8:9
Piety 8 : 10-15
Joy 9 : 7-10

Enterprise 11 : 1-8

Youth 11 : 9-10

Piety in youth 12 : 1-14

ESTHER

I. Name. The book is named from its principal
character. In the Talmud it is called iflpN r&jp or
more simply IflDK. The Hebrew name of Esther was
nf?Ll (2:7) which means "myrtle." This was changed
to the Persian name "ifipx which means " star," when
she became the queen of Ahasuerus. In the Septuagint
the name is 'EaO-rjp, and in the Vulgate, as in the English,
Esther.

II. Historicity. Many critics deny the credibility
of this book, while many others think that although it
has a historical basis, the author has been guilty of
exaggeration and enlargement upon the facts. The
arguments against the reliability of the story are as
follows :

1. There are said to be several improbabilities in the
book.

A. History knows nothing of any queen of Xerxes
between the 7th and 12th years of his reign besides
Amestris, whose cruelty and superstition as represented
by Herodotus preclude her identification with Esther.
Nor could Esther have been one of the women of the
royal harem, for she is mentioned as queen (2 : 16-17).

Answer. — The representations concerning Esther agree
remarkably with the history of the reign of Xerxes.
Vashti was divorced in the third year of his reign
(1:3) and Esther did not become queen until the

313

ESTHER 313

seventh year (2:16). This interval agrees precisely
with the statements of Herodotus that Xerxes began
his Greek campaign in the third year and in the seventh
year sought relief from his defeat in the harem. Since
the book of Esther does not inform us concerning the
date of Esther's death although she lived till the twelfth
year of the king's reign (3:7) while the king reigned
twenty years in all, there remain eight years during
which Amestris may have been queen without inter
fering with the story of Esther. In our ignorance
concerning the facts there is no necessity of casting
discredit upon the Bible record.

B. The issuing of the decree for the destruction of
the Jews eleven months in advance, the ignorance of
the king that Esther was a Jewess, his ignorance con
cerning his own decree (7: 5-6), his allowing the Jews
to defend themselves, their success against overwhelm
ing odds and the height of the gallows (fifty cubits
5 : 14) are said to be very improbable.

Answer. — Truth is often stranger than fiction.
Mere improbability is not sufficient reason to discredit
a story. The ignorance of the king concerning Esther's
nationality may have been due to her lack of the usual
Jewish features or to his drunkenness at the time when
he saw her. The latter point is sufficient explanation
of his ignorance concerning the decree (7:7). The
capriciousness of the king and his affection for Esther
make the second decree not unnatural. Our inability
to account for the other statements is certainly no proof
that they are false. There is nothing incredible in the
statement that the gallows was 75 feet high. History
records many instances of a small but determined band
defending themselves successfully against great odds.

314 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

2. The dramatic elements in the book are said to
mark it as a romance rather than history. These are
particularly the contrast of Hainan and Mordecai, the
two decrees, the hanging of Haman on the gallows he
prepared for his enemy, and the climax of the story
in the victory of the Jews. These and similar points
have given weight to the theory that the book is a story
written to show the prowess of the Jews.

Answer. — Precisely such coincidences sometimes occur
and the very fact that they are unusual suggests their
being recorded. The most that this argument can prove
is that the author seized upon the dramatic features in
these remarkable experiences of the Jews for the purpose
stated.

On the other hand there are powerful arguments in
favor of the truthfulness of the narrative.

(1) The feast of Purim, whose origin is described
in the book is still observed. In II Mace. 15 : 36
this feast is called "the day of Mordecai." No other
satisfactory explanation of this feast has been pre
sented.

(2) Ahasuerus is represented as Just such a passion
ate, capricious, and profligate monarch as Xerxes.

(3) The book is free from the historical inaccuracies
such as are found in the Apocryphal books of Tobit and
Judith. It presents the life at the Persian court as it
is known from secular history.

(4) The story is presented as literal history since it
refers to the Chronicles of the kings of Persia (2:23;
6:1; 10:2).

III. Purpose. Many in ancient and modern times
have objected to the presence of this book in the canon
for two principal reasons :

ESTHER 315

1. Not only has the book no religious purpose but
the name of God does not occur in it.

Answer. — The reason for the absence of the divine
name from the book is unknown. It seems to have been
purposely omitted, though the author points out the
remarkable way in which Jehovah saved the Jews from
destruction. Providence is alluded to in 4 : 14 while
fasting is mentioned in 4: 16 and 9: 31 and prayer in
9:31. It should be remembered that the history of
Israel was considered religious especially at such a crisis
as this. The fact that the feast of Purim to this day
commemorates that deliverance shows the religious
character of the book.

2. It is objected that the book, contrary to the spirit
of scripture, exalts cruelty and vengeance. Esther's
request that the bodies of Hainan's sons be exposed upon
the gallows (9:13) and especially the acquiescence of
Esther and Mordecai in the king's cruel decree to allow
the slaughter of innocent women and children (8:8,
11) and the massacre of 75,000 persons are said to be
contrary to the spirit of the gospel.

Answer. — It is not necessary to defend Esther, Mor
decai, or the Jews. Their acts are in accord with the
spirit of the times and of the Oriental court. Any
more humane conduct would probably have resulted in
the annihilation of the Jews. In no case is the inspira
tion of the book endangered.

The purpose of the book of Esther is to show God's
protection of His people in a strange land, thus at the
same time recording the origin of one of their principal
feasts.

IV. Date and Authorship. Xerxes who is uni
versally conceded to have been the Ahasuerus of this

316 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

book reigned 485-465 B.C. The book speaks of this
monarch as though his reign was not very recent (1:1).
Yet the author displays a noteworthy acquaintance with
Persian customs and history. The diction of the book
is admittedly late and is comparable with that of
Ecclesiastes, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

From these facts, those who admit the historicity of
the book place it during the reign of Artaxerxes Longi-
manus (464-425 B.C.). This date accounts for all its
literary phenomena. Many critics however who deny
its historicity, place it in the Greek period (third cen
tury B.C.) or in the time of the Maccabees (167-130
B.C.). Their only arguments are found in the alleged
late dates of other books, with which its diction ma^ks
it as contemporaneous.

The majority of critics agree that the author was a
Persian Jew, on account of the absence of marks of its
being written in Palestine. The suggestion from Mor-
decai's writing (9:20-32) that he was the author does
not agree with the internal evidence (9: 3-4).

V. Divisions.

1. Esther made queen instead of Vashti, 1 : 1 to 2 : 18.

2. Intrigues of Haman against Mordecai and the
Jews 2 : 19 to 7 : 10.

3. The Jews' deliverance and the memorial feast.
Chaster* **-!*«.

SECTION III : HISTORICAL BOOKS
I

DANIEL

I. Name. The book is named from its author and
principal character, f'S'J'J. This name was borne also
by the second son of David (I Chron. 3:1) and by a
priest who returned with Ezra to Judaea (Ezra 8:2;
Neh. 10: 6). Its meaning is "God is my judge." In
the Septuagint the form is Javt^ and in the Vulgate
Daniel.

II. Authorship and Date.

It is considered one of the most certain results of
modern criticism that the Book of Daniel was composed
during the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes (168-
165 B.C.). This result is reached by a two-fold argu
ment — critical and exegetical. The critical argument
attempts to prove that the book could not have arisen
during the Exile nor at least before the beginning of
the Greek period (about 300 B.C.) while the exegetical
argument makes the predictions of the book refer at
great length to the period of Antiochus Epiphanes and
thus determines upon that time for its production.

We believe that all these arguments can be success
fully met and that other considerations make the tradi
tional view far more tenable — viz. that the book was
composed in the time of Daniel and by him.

317

318 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

The arguments for a date much later than Daniel are
as follows:

1. Historical.

A. The position of the Book of Daniel among the
Kethubhim and even toward the end of that last division
of the Hebrew canon is said to prove that it could not
have been in existence when the canon of the Prophets
was closed and hence not until long after the Exile.
Daniel is considered a prophet by the critics, and his
book is said to be similar to that of Jonah which found a
place in the canon of the Prophets.

Answer. — It has been shown in the chapter on the
Canon that the three-fold division does not indicate
three successive stages of collection but the position
of a book was determined by the official status of its
author. There is no evidence that the third division
of the canon was kept open any later than the second.
Daniel was not officially a prophet though he had the
prophetic gift. Even this was of a kind which, the
critics are loudest in affirming, was merely incidental
to prophecy — viz. his power of prediction. The re
semblances to Jonah are entirely superficial. Jonah
was a prophet in Israel before he was sent to Nineveh
(II Kings 14: 25). He went to that city with a mes
sage of repentance. He never joined himself to the
Assyrian Court but in Jewish exclusiveness stayed out
side of the city hoping to see it destroyed. Daniel
on the other hand does not introduce his book with his
own name as though his official status was important.
He is represented merely as one of the Jewish exiles
who was joined to the court of Babylon and attained
great honor there by his probity and his power to
interpret dreams. He lived nearly all his life apart

DANIEL 319

from his own nation. Even in relation to Babylon he
was no prophet, no religious reformer.

B. Jesus, the son of Sirach, who wrote the Book of
Ecclesiasticus (about 170 B.C.) mentions Isaiah, Jere
miah, Ezekiel and collectively the Twelve Minor
Prophets but says nothing of Daniel. Hence it is
inferred that the Book of Daniel was not extant in his
time. The statement of Ecclus. 49: 15 ("Neither was
there a man born like unto Joseph") is thought to
have been impossible to one who knew of Daniel who
certainly was " like unto Joseph."

Answer. — This argument is very weak, for the allu
sion to the twelve prophets after Isaiah, Jeremiah and
Ezekiel (Ecclus. 49:8-10) shows that the author is
following the order of the Hebrew books. He does not
mention Daniel because his book was not classed with
the Prophets. The omission of Daniel in the list of
worthies after the Exile is not so remarkable as that of
Ezra. Zerubbabel, Joshua, the high-priest, and Nehe-
miah, are mentioned but not Ezra. Yet no one on
this account would deny the existence of Ezra or his
book. The statement concerning Joseph is explained
by the author himself : " Neither was there a man born
like unto Joseph, a governor of his brethren, a stay
of the people, whose bones were regarded of the Lord/'
Although Daniel was " like unto Joseph " in his exalted
position at a heathen court, he was not like him in
these three respects.

C. The statement of Dan. 1 : 1 that Nebuchadnezzar,
king of Babylon, came unto Jerusalem and besieged
it, "in the third year of Jehoiakim king of Judah"
is said to be an error and therefore unlikely from a
contemporary writer. It is affirmed that this statement

320 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION

is inconsistent with Jeremiah who makes the fourth
year of Jehoiakim the same as the first year of Ne
buchadnezzar (25:1) and then speaks of the coming
of Nebuchadnezzar as still future (25 : 8 ; 36 : 29).

Answer. — This statement is explained by two simple
facts.

First, in Assyria and Babylon a king's reign was
usually reckoned from the New Year's day after his
accession but in Judah often from the previous New
Year's day (Hastings B.D. Vol. I. p. 400). Inscriptions
in Babylon are dated in the reign of a king up to the
close of the year in which he died. Daniel naturally
follows this Babylonian method and thus his " third
year of Jehoiakim" is identical with Jeremiah's
" fourth year."

Second, the date mentioned by Daniel is that of the
starting of Nebuchadnezzar's expedition from Babylon,
Nebuchadnezzar met the opposition of Pharaoh-Necho.
It was not until after his victory over the Egyptians
at Carchemish (Jer. 46:2) that he proceeded against
Jerusalem. Dr. Green (General Introduction, The
Canon, p. 59) draws attention to the fact that the same
verb found in Dan. 1 : 1 is used in Jonah 1 : 3 of a ship
which was starting out for Tarshish. Thus Nebu
chadnezzar started for Jerusalem in the third year of
Jehoiakim according to the Babylonian reckoning but
arrived in a later year. Meanwhile Jeremiah foretold
his coming.

D. The term, "Chaldeans," is used in Daniel (1:4;
2:2, 10; 14:7; 5:7; 11) of the caste of wise men, a
meaning which the critics affirm it did not have until
after the Babylonian language died out and hence until
after Daniel's time.

DANIEL 321

Answer. — It is hard to prove a negative. Our knowl
edge of the Babylonian literature of the time of Daniel
is not so complete that we can safely affirm that " Chal
dean" never meant the caste of wise men in his time.
Indeed Schrader says that we are thus far confined to
Assyrian sources for our knowledge of the Chaldeans.
We are therefore in no position to dispute the true use
of the word in the Book of Daniel.

E. Belshazzar is called king and the son of Ne
buchadnezzar (Dan. 5 : 1, 9, 22, 30 ; 7 : 1 ; 8 : 1) although
the inscriptions speak of him only as " the king's son "
and as the son of Nabonidus who was a usurper and
no relation to Nebuchadnezzar.

Answer. — Formerly the very existence of Belshazzar
was denied. The discovery of the Chronicles of
Nabonidus with their frequent mention of Belsharuzur
as " the king's son " was a great victory for the accuracy
of Daniel. In these chronicles it is said that Belshazzar
commanded his father's troops in Northern Babylonia
in the early part of the reign of Nabonidus while his
father remained near Babylon. Then there is a break
in the inscription, after which it is said that Nabonidus
himself was with the troops in the North. The natural
inference is that he left his son in charge in Babylon
and that his son was addressed as king. There is a
remarkable confirmation of this conjecture in the state
ment that Belshazzar made Daniel " the third ruler of
the kingdom" (Dan. 5:29), for since Belshazzar was
himself second to Nabonidus, he could make Daniel
only third. The translation " rule as one of three " in
this passage does violence to the text.

It is not known how Belshazzar was the son of Ne
buchadnezzar. The suggestion that Nabonidus may have

322 OLD TESTAMENT INTBODTTCTION

strengthened his position as king by marrying a daughter
of the great king Nebuchadnezzar is made the more
plausible by the fact that he named one of his sons
Nebuchadnezzar. In this case Belshazzar was the grand
son of Nebuchadnezzar and according to the Hebrew
usage could be called his son.

F. No such character as Darius the Mede is known
to history (5 : 31; 6:1). Cyrus took Babylon directly.
Driver suggests that Darius the Mede was probably an
error for Darius Hystaspis, who at a later time retook
Babylon after a rebellion while Prince further suggests
that the author confuses Babylon with Nineveh, which
was taken by the Medes.

Answer. — Although several suggestions have been of
fered concerning the identity of Darius the Mede, his
name has not yet been found in the cuneiform inscrip
tions. The cases of Belshazzar and Sargon (Isa. 20 : 1),
both of whom were formerly unknown to history except
from the Bible, are sufficient caution against denying
his existence and his ruling in Babylon before Cyrus.
The most probable theory identifies Darius the Mede
with Gobryas, a Median General of Cyrus, who took
the city of Babylon and who was so important that the
annalistic inscription of Cyrus says : " Gubaru, his
governor, appointed governors in Babylon/' What
could be more natural than for Cyrus to cement his
alliance with the Medes by leaving their general as
virtual king in Babylon, while he went on to complete
the conquest of the country? If so the statements of
Daniel that Darius "received the kingdom" (5:31)
and that he "was made king over the realm of the
Chaldeans" (9:1) receive a new meaning. The state
ment of Dan. 6 : 1 that " it pleased Darius to set over

DANIEL 323

the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which
should be over the whole kingdom also agree precisely
with that that " Gubaru, his governor, appointed gov
ernors in Babylon." The mention of the Medes and
Persians together (Dan. 6:8, 12, 15) also confirms the
theory. It is certainly not impossible that Gubaru as
sumed the title of king and the name of Darius.

G. The expression of 9 : 2 that Daniel " understood
by the books " that the seventy years of exile were almost
complete, is said to imply that Jeremiah was one of a
collection of canonical books, which was not the case
in Daniel's time.

Answer. — This expression does not necessitate a
canon any more than Isaiah 8:16-20 or 34 : 16. It
simply implies that Daniel had in his possession the
sacred books so far as they were in existence and in
particular Jeremiah who foretold the seventy years of
exile (Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10).

H. The later prophets (Haggai, Zechariah, and Mala-
chi) show no trace of the influence of Daniel but on
the other hand the Apocalyptic portions of Daniel are
said to have been suggested by Ezekiel and Zechariah.

Answer. — It is just as natural to explain the resem
blances between Daniel on the one hand and Ezekiel
and Zechariah on the other as originating with Daniel
as with the other writers. The lack of influence of the
Book of Daniel on the later prophets is then partially
explained. The comparative silence of those prophets
concerning the Book of Daniel is doubtless due to their
difference of subject and standpoint.

I. There are said to be several improbable things
in Daniel, which indeed are not sufficient to discredit
it but which add to the other arguments against it.

324 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

Such is the story that Daniel allowed himself to become
one of the wise men, that he was accepted as their
president (2:13, 48), Nebuchadnezzar's condemnation
of all the wise men before hearing them, his lycanthropy
and Nebuchadnezzar's and Darius' recognition of the
universal sovereignty of Jehovah.

Answer. — Since no great stress is laid upon this argu
ment and since the other arguments which are supposed
to give these improbabilities colour have been met,
no detailed answer is necessary. Just such improbabili
ties are constantly occurring and their presence so far
from discrediting Daniel is a mark of its genuineness.

2. Literary.

A. Driver enumerates fifteen Persian (Daniel in
Cambridge Bible p. Ivi) words in Daniel such as are
found in Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles and
asserts that the contract tablets of the time of Ne
buchadnezzar show no signs of Persian influence.

Answer. — Several of these words are political and
such as would not naturally find their way into the
language of the contract tablets. Such are
" nobles" (1:3) n} "law" (2:9 etc)
"satrap" (3:2, 3, etc.) in/HN "counsellor" (3:2,
3) -mn "minister" (3:24, 27, etc.) ^D "presi
dent " (6 : 2-4, 6-7) and HgK " palace " (11 : 45) . Con
cerning the others, we have not enough literature of
Nebuchadnezzar's time to deny the influence of Persian.
Such influence would be felt in the court language, where
Daniel was, sooner than among the people. Further
more Daniel continued into the Persian period.

B. There are three Greek names of musical instru
ments which it is said could not have reached Babylon

DANIEL 325

until after the dissemination of Greek influence in
Asia by Alexander (332 B.C.). These are xieapts (3 : 5,
7, 10, 15) QalTJpiov (3:5, 7, 10, 15) and ff^ytavia
(3:5, 15). Of these xidapiy is a Homeric word and
might possibly have found its way to Babylon by Daniel's
time but 4'a.fajfptcv occurs first in Aristotle (38i-322
B.C.) and ffufiyxovia is found first in Plato (-129-347
B.C.)

Answer. — In reply we quote the words of Sayce, who
nevertheless strongly affirms the Maccabean date for
Daniel (Higher Criticism and the Monuments pp. 494-
495). "Cuneiform decipherment has made it ques
tionable whether the occurrence of words which may
be of Greek orgin is equally certain evidence of a late
date — There Mrere Greek colonies on the coast of Pales
tine in the time of Hezekiah — The Tei-el-Amarna
tablets have enabled us to carry back a contact between
Greece and Canaan to a still earlier period — It is thus
possible that there was intercourse and contact between
the Canaanites or Hebrews in Palestine and the Greeks
of the Aegean as far back as the age of Moses." Thus
it is not at all improbable that through the Assyrian
provinces of Asia Minor or from Palestine itself these
musical instruments were brought to Babylon. If the
Jews were required to furnish music for their captors
(Ps. 137:3) why may not captives from the Greek
lands of Cyprus, Ionia, Lydia, and Cilicia have brought
their musical instruments with them? The absence
of two of these words from Greek literature as far back
as Daniel's time does not prove that these instruments
did not exist in his day.

C. The critics confidently affirm that the Aramaic of
Daniel is Western Aramaic identical with that of Ezra

326 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

and similar to that of Onkelos and Jonathan. Aramaic
inscriptions from Babylon (725-500 B.C.) use the rela
tive "H while Daniel uses "I.

Answer. — Other writers affirm with equal confidence
that the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra is Eastern Ara
maic. It is natural that the Aramaic of the Hebrew
exiles should differ somewhat from that current about
them. If this argument is pressed, it can only prove
that the Aramaic of Daniel was modified at a later date
to conform to that in common use, not that the book
was originally written in Palestine.

D. The Hebrew of Daniel is said to be crude and
late like that of Chronicles (about 300 B.C.).

Answer. — This is exactly what we would expect from
a man who spent the greater part of his life at a foreign
court. Since however there is no necessity for dating
the books of Chronicles later than 400 B.C. the simi
larity of the Hebrew in Daniel to that of the Chronicles
does not require a date later than Daniel himself.

3. Theological. The doctrines of angels, the judg
ment, the resurrection, the kingdom of God, and the
Messiah are much more fully developed than in the
exilic or early post-exilic literature (Hag. and Zech.).
That of angels in particular is said to resemble the post-
Biblical literature as seen in the Book of Enoch, which
belongs to the first century before Christ.

Answer. — The weight of this argument depends upon
the theological tendency of the writer. If it be admitted
that Daniel received these doctrines by revelation, the
propriety of their being given in his time is immediately
seen. The severe afflictions of the Exile made the highly
developed doctrines peculiarly appropriate. Nor is the
doctrine of angels in Daniel comparable to that of the

DANIEL 327

post-Biblical books in which Gabriel and Michael are
two of the seven archangels (Tobit 12: 15). Although
no angels are mentioned by name in the Old Testament
outside of Daniel, Zechariah makes a distinction of
rank among them. The interpreting angel of Zechariah
(1 : 9, 14, 19 ; 2 : 3 ; 4 : 4-6, 11-14 ; 5 : 5-11 ; 6 : 4-8) has
the same function as Gabriel in Daniel and is probably
identical with him (Dan. 8 : 16-17 ; 9 : 21-22). Michael
is not called an angel in Daniel but " one of the chief
princes" (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1). He is probably
the same as the angel of the Lord in Zechariah 3 : 1-3
(Jude 9).

4. Exegetical. It is affirmed that the interest of the
book culminates in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes,
which could hardly be the case if the author lived in
Babylon four centuries earlier. Accordingly the por
tions of the book which refer to tbe period of the Exile
are said to rest upon reliable traditions and to have
been written during the persecutions of Antiochus in
order to encourage the Jews to be faithful to Jehovah
by the example of the great things which Jehovah did
for his faithful ones under similar circumstances in
Babylon. The critics assert that Antiochus is " the
little horn " of 7 : 8, 24-25 as well as 8 : 9-12, 23-25 and
that the clearness of Daniel's predictions terminates with
him.

Answer. — The real animus of this argument on the
part of the more radical critics is evidently to eliminate
the force of clear prediction as a sign of the super
natural. But in this they must surely fail. Even
though the events of Daniel's life were calculated to
comfort the Jews under the dreadful persecutions of
Antiochus Epiphanes, and even though the Holy Spirit

328 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION

may have guided Daniel to record them partly for this
purpose, they were composed in Babylon and not in
Palestine. It is natural that Daniel's predictions in
the Exile should give great prominence to the next great
affliction of the Jews under a foreign tyrant. Yet the
hook does not present to us the history of the Exile from
the standpoint of the time of Antiochus but the times
of Antiochus from the standpoint of the Exile. And
prominent as are those times in Daniel's prophetic
view, they by no means eclipse what to him was beyond
them.

The efforts of the critics to exclude the Eoman Empire
from the predictions of Daniel 2 and 7 are forced and
unnatural. The four empires are the Assyro-Babylonian,
the Medo-Persian, the Greek and the Eoman. The
second cannot be divided into the Median and the
Persian for these are always counted as one in Daniel
(5 : 28 ; 6 : 8, 12, 15 ; 8 : 20) as well as in Esther (1:3,
14, 18-19) and the Persian did not have four heads as
the third beast is said to have had (7:6). Nor can the
Greek empire be divided into that of Alexander and
that of his successors. Their kingdoms are said to be
inferior to his (8:22) while the fourth kingdom is
said to be "strong as iron" (2:40) and that it shall
devour the whole earth and shall tread it down and
break it in pieces ( 7 : 23 ) . This was not true of the
kingdom of Antiochus but was true of the Eoman
Empire. Furthermore the two legs of the image cor
respond remarkably to the Eastern and Western Eoman
Empires, and the feet and toes, part of iron and part of
clay, correspond in general to the ten kingdoms into
which the Eoman Empire (2:41-43; 7:23-24) was
divided, which were a mixture of Latin with other races.

DANIEL 329

Hence although " the little horn " in 8 : 9-12, 23-25
evidently refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, "the little
horn" of 7:8, 24-26 does not refer to him but to an
other great opponent of the kingdom of God, proceed
ing from the fourth or Eoman rather than from the
third or Greek kingdom. This is Antichrist (II Thess.
2:3-4, 8-10; I John 2:18; Eev. 13:5-7).

The seventy weeks of Dan. 9. : 24-27 are not a mere
reflection of the seventy years of exile nor do they end
with Antiochus Epiphanes. They extended from the
Exile to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and in
clude the appearance and rejection of Christ (Matt.
24: 15-31).

There are also certain positive arguments for the
genuineness of the book of Daniel.

1. The testimony of our Lord to it (Matt. 24: 15) is
most distinct : " When therefore ye see the abomina
tion of desolation, which was spoken of through ( Sid )
Daniel the prophet, etc." This reference to Dan. 9:27;
11: 31 and 12: 11 does not speak of Daniel as a book
but as the author of a book. The statement is so explicit
that there are only two alternatives to those who deny
that Daniel wrote the book — either that Christ spoke
ignorantly or that he accommodates himself to the
erroneous opinion of his day. How untenable both
of these views are has been shown in the chapter on the
Pentateuch.

2. The testimony of Ezekiel (14: 14, 20; 28: 3). In
the first two verses Ezekiel mentions Daniel, Noah and
Job as three notably righteous men, whose presence in a
wicked city would nevertheless not save it from the
judgment of God. Prince and others think that Ezekiel
must here refer to some other Daniel, a great patriarch

330 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

who was worthy to be classed with Noah and Job. It
is however inconceivable that such a great and well-
known character should have been elsewhere entirely
forgotten by the Jews. It certainly is remarkable that
Ezekiel should mention a living man, and that a young
man, as comparable with Noah and Job, but when we
remember that Ezekiel's ministry did not begin until
592 B.C., fourteen years after Daniel's deportation to
Babylon, we see that there was abundant opportunity
for Daniel's reputation to be established among the
exiles. Daniel was possibly 35 years old at the time
of Ezekiel's allusion to him. From the high favor he
enjoyed at court and his faithfulness to Jehovah he
must have been viewed by the exiles as their special
advocate and the personification of righteousness.

The other reference fixes Daniel's identity more
clearly : " Behold thou art wiser than Daniel ; there is
no secret that is hid from thee." It is not claimed that
these references prove the existence of the Book of
Daniel. They prove the existence of the man who is
represented as the author of the book. The last refer
ence also confirms the story of his having been one of the
wise men of Babylon.

3. The lact that Daniel was received into the canon
at all is strong evidence against the view of its origin
suggested by the critics. They would have us believe
that it was one of the latest books of the Old Testament,
although it purports to have been written by a character
who lived four centuries earlier and who was so highly
respected that he is mentioned with Noah and Job. If
it was so late, why was it not among the Antilegomena ?
The time between the alleged date of its writing (168
B.C.) and its alleged admission into the canon (130 B.C.)

DANIEL 331

is not long enough to account for its universal accept
ance.

4. The faithful representation of history in Babylon
is evidence that it was composed there. Prince acknowl
edges that Dan. 4: 30 is a true reflection of Nebuchad
nezzar's activity in building. That Darius as a fire-
worshipper did not order Daniel thrown into the fire
but into a den of lions is another incidental evidence
of the truth of the story. Indeed amid all the intricacies
of the history no error has ever been proven in the book.
This could hardly be the case if it was not written until
168 B.C.

III. Unity.

The unity of the book is now generally admitted. A
few critics however divide the Aramaic portions (2:4
through chapter 7) from the rest on the ground of the
change of language, while others divide chapters 7-12
from 1-6 on account of the change of style and subject.

The book is shown to be one by the following con
siderations : —

1. It displays an evident plan. The image of chapter
2 corresponds to the beasts of chapter 7. The predic
tions of chapters 7-12 are represented as the work of
Daniel, the principal character of chapters 1-6, and are
dated during the reigns of the kings mentioned in
chapters 1-6.

2. The change in language does not correspond to the
natural divisions of the book. Chapter 1 of the his
torical portion is in Hebrew and chapter 7 of the pro
phetic portions in Aramaic. The Aramaic portion be
gins abruptly in the middle of a story. No entirely
satisfactory explanation of this has been offered. The
most likely is that Daniel wrote in Hebrew those portions

332 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

which were of special interest to the Jews and in Aramaic
those portions which relate to the world empires.
IV. Divisions.

1. The history of Daniel under the reigns of Ne
buchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus. Chap
ters 1-6.

2. Prophetic visions which Daniel received during
the reigns of Belshazzar, Darius and Cyrus. Chapters
7-12.

II

EZRA-NEHEMIAH

(1) Ezra

I. Name. The book was named from its author
and principal character JO$ meaning "help." In the
Septuagint it is called "Eadpa.? Seurepov, and in the Vul
gate Liber primus Esdrse. The English form of the
name follows the Hebrew.

II. Position.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were often counted
as one book in the same manner as the double books
(Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles) and the twelve Minor
Prophets. In token of this, the Massoretic notes con
cerning the number of verses in each book are placed
after Nehemiah, the whole book is called Ezra, and
its middle verse is said to be Neh. 3. 32. In modern
Hebrew Bibles however as well as in the Septuagint,
the Peshitta, and the Vulgate the two books are sepa
rated. Origen speaks of them as First and Second
Esdras. Although the two books are closely related,
the repetition of the list of those who returned from
the Exile (Ezra 2; Nch. 7: 6-70) shows that they can
not have been one book originally. Their being counted
so may have been in order to make the total number of
books agree with the number of letters in the Hebrew
alphabet or because Nehemiah continues the history
of Ezra.

333

334 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

In the Septuagint the books of Ezra and Nehemiah
follow Chronicles. It is possible that this was the
original order in the Hebrew Bible since the Massoretic
notes on the Kethubhim stand not at the end of Chronicles
but of Nehemiah, and since Ezra and Nehemiah carry on
the history from the point where Chronicles drops it.

III. Divisions.

1. Chaps. 1-6. Account of the return of the first com
pany of exiles under Zerubbabel in 536 B.C. and their
rebuilding the temple, based upon original documents.

2. Chaps. 7-10. Account of Ezra's going up to Jerusa
lem in 458 B.C. and the reforms he instituted.

IV. Theme.

The purpose of the book was to give a connected
popular history from the priestly standpoint of the re-
establishment of the Jews in their land. This purpose
explains the silence of the author concerning the whole
period from the completion of the temple (516 B.C.)
till his own journey to Jerusalem (458 B.C.). The
only glimpse the Bible gives into this period is from
the Book of Esther. It was apparently a time of
spiritual declension and intermarriage with the sur
rounding peoples (Ezra 9:1-4). Such a time fur
nished no material for the historian of the regeneration
of Israel. While the books of Haggai and Zechariah
shed a side light upon Ezra 1-6, the remaining history
in Ezra and Nehemiah has no parallel in the Old Testa
ment. The canonical history appropriately closes with
the establishment of Israel in their land, as though
awaiting the coming of Christ.

V. Authorship and Composition.

The modern critical opinion is that the book of Ezra
is a compilation, based partly on memoirs of Ezra

EZRA-NEHEMIAH 335

which received its present form probably by the same
author as Chronicles, a full century after Ezra. The
first two verses of Ezra are the same as the last two of
Chronicles. The portions in which the pronoun " I "
is used (7: 29 through chapter 9) are acknowledged by
some critics to be the work of Ezra but those in which
he is mentioned in the third person (Chap. 1; 3:1 to
4 : 5 ; 4 : 24 to 5 : 5 ; 6 : 13-22 ; 7 ; 1-10 and chapter 10)
are assigned to the compiler. The remainder of the book
consists of older documents.

The arguments for the critical view are as follows:

1. Ezra being joined to Chronicles on the one hand
and Nehemiah on the other, the evidences of the later
production of these books are thought to carry down
Ezra to a later time.

Answer. — These evidences will be considered in their
proper places. Since Ezra and Nehemiah are inde
pendent books, marks of a late date in the latter do not
prove the same for the former. And even if, as seems
possible, Ezra and Chronicles were by the same author,
there is nothing in either book which precludes the
theory that that author was Ezra himself.

2. The change from the first to the third person and
the mention of Ezra by name is thought to have been
impossible if the book was the work of one writer.

Answer. — The same change of person is found in
Daniel whose integrity is almost universally admitted.
One of the passages where this change of person is
used is genealogical (7:1-10) and therefore Ezra's
name is required, though written by himself. Possi
bly the "I" passages are taken from a journal made
at the time (7 : 27-28) while the others were added later
by Ezra. If so the impersonal style is quite natural.

336 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

3. The remarks about Ezra (7:6, 10) are thought
to be strange if made by himself.

Answer. — They are not more laudatory than those
of a faithful historian should be. They are needed
to explain the story and the latter one exhibits a
knowledge of Ezra's thoughts which argues that he
wrote it.

4. The silence of the book concerning the sixty years
before Ezra's time is taken as evidence that it was not
written by him or in his time.

Answer. — This objection is met by a consideration of
the purpose of the book already stated.

5. It is said that Ezra would not have placed the
section 4 : 6-23, which refers to events in the reigns of
Xerxes (485-465 B.C.) and Artaxerxes (465-425 B.C.)
where it now stands, before the record of events which
transpired under Darius (521-485 B.C.).

Answer. — Like every other historian, Ezra finishes
one subject before going on to the next, even at the
expense of direct chronological sequence. In chapter 4
he gives an account of the movements to hinder the re-
establishment of Israel as far as the time of Artaxerxes.
In chapter 5 he goes back to give the other side of the
story, the persistence of the Jews in their work, begin
ning with the reign of Darius.

6. The mention of Johanan (10:6), probably the
same as Jonathan (N"eh. 12:10, 22), the grandson of
Eliashib, the high-priest in Ezra's day, is said to be a
sign of a later author.

Answer. — Johanan is not mentioned as high-priest
in Ezra's time. As heir to that office he had a chamber
adjoining the temple. Since a grandson of Eliashib is
known to have been married in 432 B.C. (Xeh. 13 : 28)

EZRA-NEHEMIAH 337

why may not another grandson have been a youth when
Ezra wrote (450-445 B.C.)?

7. The title "king of Persia" (Ezra 1:1 to 2:8;
3:7; 4:3, 5, 7, 24; 7:1) is said to indicate another
and later author. In the " I " passages Ezra speaks
simply of "the king" (Ezra 7:27; 8:1, 22, 25, 36)
as in the documents quoted (Ezra 4:8, etc.). It is
affirmed that after the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus,
his title and that of his successors was "King of
Babylon," " King of the lauds," etc.

Answer. — The titles "the king" and "king of Persia"
are found together in the same passage (Ezra 1:1-2,
7-8; 7:1, 7) interchangeably as an Englishman might
speak of " the king of England " or of " the king."
The title " king of Persia " occurs in a document of
Cyrus (Ezra 1:2) and in at least one genuine passage
of Ezra (9:9). Darius calls himself "king of Persia"
in the Behistun inscription. Thus there is sufficient
authority for it in Ezra's time.

The traditional view, that Ezra wrote this entire
book is sustained. The Aramaic documents are em
bedded in the history and the book displays a uniform
plan throughout. It was written during the period of
adversity which preceded the arrival of Nehemiah. Since
the latter event occurred in 445 B.C. the book may be
dated 450-445 B.C.

VI. Chronology.

The decree of Cyrus allowing re
turn from the Exile 536 B.C.

Cambyses 529-521 B.C.

Pseudo-Smerdis (seven months). 521 B.C.

Darius Hystaspis 521-485 B.C.

Eebuilding of the temple 520-516 B.C.

338 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

Xerxes 1 485-465 B.C.

Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) 465-425 B.C.

Ezra's Mission to Jerusalem 458 B.C.

Nehemiah appointed Governor of

Judea 445 B.C.

Xerxes II (two months) 425 B.C.

Sogdianus (seven months) 425 B.C.

Darius II (Nothus) 424-395 B.C.

EZRA-NEHEMIAH 339

(2) Nehemiah

I. Name. In modern editions of the Hebrew Bible
the book is named !TDm from its alleged author (Neh.
1:1) and principal character, although in ancient times
it was counted with Ezra. The name means "whom
Jehovah hath comforted." In the Septuagint it is
named A^e/^'a? and in the Vulgate Liber secundus
Esdra? or Liber Nehemias. The English form of the
name follows the Hebrew.

II. Theme. Though like Ezra written from the
priestly standpoint, the Book of Nehemiah is more
secular than Ezra. A space of several years intervened
between the last events recorded in Ezra and the first
in Nehemiah. During this time the reforms instituted
by Ezra seem to have been largely undone and the people
of Jerusalem to have come under the oppression of
foreigners. The Book of Nehemiah records his mission
from Shushan to Jerusalem in 445 B.C., the building
of the wall, the opposition he encountered from San-
ballat and Tobijah, the reforms he instituted, his second
mission to Jerusalem in 433 B.C., his further reforms
and the census of the princes, priests, and Levites.

III. Divisions.

1. Chapters 1-7. The rebuilding of the walls and
the reforms instituted at Nehemiah's first visit.

2. Chapters 8-10. The public reading of the Law.
The keeping of the feast of tabernacles and the covenant
to keep the Law.

3. Chapter 11-13. Lists of princes, priests and

340 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

Levites. The reforms of Nehemiah at his second visit
in 433 B.C.

IV. Authorship and Composition.

The book is considered by the critics one with Ezra
and both are assigned to the same author as Chronicles
in the beginning of the Greek period (333 B.C.). Like
Ezra, Nehemiah is considered a compilation based in
part upon memoirs of Nehemiah himself. Neh. 1 : 1
to 7 : 73 is admitted to be almost word for word from
Nehemiah, while chapters 11, 12 (27-43) and 13 (1-31)
are thought to be slightly altered from Nehemiah. The
remainder of the book is assigned to a later writer.

The arguments for the critical position are as follows:

1. Part of the book is in the third person and Nehe
miah is mentioned (8:1-6 etc.). Nehemiah is called
the Tirshatha (8:9; 10:1) although he calls himself
Pehah (5:14, 18; 12:26).

Answer. — This may be explained satisfactorily in
the same manner as in the Book of Ezra. The passages
in which the third person is used are state documents
or such as require the mention of Nehemiah officially
by his name and title. The official Persian title Tirsha
tha is found in the more formal passages and the com
moner Pehah in the more personal.

2. Jaddua, the high-priest in B.C. 351-331, who held
office when Alexander the Great entered the city, is men
tioned (Neh. 12:11, 22).

Answer. — The references to Jaddua occur in a cata
logue of priests and Levites which is not an essential
part of the book and might have been a later addition.
Even this conclusion, however, is made unnecessary when
we see that Jaddua is not mentioned as holding the
office of high-priest at the time. He was the great

EZRA-NEHEMIAH 341

grandson of Eliashib, the high-priest in Nehemiah's day.
Since Nehemiah mentions a grandson of Eliashib as
married in his time (13:28) why may he not have
lived to see Eliashib's great-grandson and mention him
as an heir to the priesthood? This is confirmed by the
tradition that Jaddua was very old when Alexander
entered the city (332 B.C.). If he were ninety at that
time, he might have been known to Nehemiah through
out his boyhood. At any rate he and the others with
him are mentioned as living in the days of Nehemiah
and Ezra (12:26).

3. Darius the Persian, mentioned in the same verse
as Jaddua, is thought from the context to be Darius
Codomannus (336-332 B.C.) Neb, 12:22.

Answer. — Since this verse mentions Jaddua not as
high-priest but as heir to that office and in his boyhood,
the Darius is Darius Nothus (424-395 B.C.).

4. The days of Nehemiah are mentioned as far past
(Neh. 12:26, 47).

Answer. — In each case the expression " days of Nehe
miah" is in connection with that of the days of some
one before his time. It is natural that Nehemiah should
use a similar expression concerning his own time to that
which he had used concerning the times of his prede
cessors.

Over against these arguments for a late date the
internal evidence strongly indicates that the book was
written by Nehemiah. It is headed: "the words of
Nehemiah, the son of Hachaliah " and Nehemiah speaks
in the first person many times. Its composition may
be placed in the reign of Darius Nothus (424-395
B.C.). It was written in the time of Malachi.

Ill

CHRONICLES

I. Name. These two books were originally one. In
the Hebrew Bibles the name is D^»n nni meaning an
nals (I Chron. 27:24). In the Septuagint they are
separated and called IIapaXen:o[i.{viov npwrov and Ssurspw.
This term means " omissions " and is thought by some
to refer to the fact that these books contain many things
not found in Samuel and Kings. The Vulgate trans
literates this name (Liber primus Paralipomenon and
Liber secundus Paralipomenon). Jerome however
translates D'tp»n ^y\ by Chronicon — hence the English
name Chronicles. The division into two books was
introduced into the Hebrew Bible in the printed edition
of Daniel Bomberg (1517 A.D.).

II. Theme. From the position of the Books of
Chronicles in the Hebrew canon and the examination of
their contents, their main points of distinction from
the Books of Samuel and Kings are clearly seen. While
the Books of Samuel and Kings are written from the
prophetic standpoint, the Chronicles are from the
priestly.

1. Very great prominence is given to genealogies as
was to be expected from a priest. They are carried back
into the history covered by the books before Samuel.

2. In dealing with the history of the kings the
priestly Chronicler naturally omits the history of Saul
and of the northern kingdom, since Saul was not of the

343

CHRONICLES 343

faithful line and since the history of Israel furnished
no material for the unfolding of his subject, the develop
ment of the true worship of Jehovah at Jerusalem. In
particular he omits the history of Elijah and Elisha
whose ministry was in the northern kingdom and to
whom the prophetic writer of Kings naturally gave
great prominence because they marked a stage in the
development of prophetism.

3. On the other hand the Chronicler gives a fuller
account than Kings of all those things which relate to
the priestly worship. Such are the arrangements of the
Levites and the temple-singers, David's preparations for
building the temple, the devotion of the Kings of Judah
to the temple worship, and the relation of the rightful
kings of David's dynasty to the worship of Jehovah in
Jerusalem. Thus the Chronicles furnish a history of
the priestly worship from the death of Saul to the
decree of Cyrus, the very point where the Book of Ezra
takes up the history.

III. Divisions. Since these books continue the his
tory without a break at the disruption of the kingdom
under Jeroboam, they are properly divided into two
parts.

1. Genealogies, especially those relating to the faith
ful tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi from Adam
to the death of Saul and Jonathan. I Chron. 1-10.

2. The history of the kingdom of Judah from the
accession of David to the decree of Cyrus permitting
the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem. I Chron.
11 to II Chron. 36. The greater prominence given to
the reigns of David and Solomon is due to their special
activity concerning the worship of the temple.

IV. Date and Authorship, According to current

344 OLD TESTAMENT IXTKODUCTION

critical opinion, the Books of Chronicles were written
soon after the beginning of the Greek period (about
300 B.C.) and by the same author as Ezra and Nehe-
miah. The arguments for this position are as follows:

1. The genealogy in I Chron. 3 : 17-24 is said to be
carried down to the sixth or according to the Septuagint
(which is preferred by Cornill and others) to the
eleventh generation after Zerubbabel. Thus it extends
several generations after Ezra and could not have been
written by him.

Answer. — The critics admit that this is the only his
torical evidence of a late date in these books. An ex
amination of the passage does not warrant the conclu
sion derived from it. In this chapter the author gives
the descendants of David. In verses 19-20 he mentions
the sons of Zerubbabel and in verse 2 la the grandsons
of Zerubbabel. Then verse 21b reads: "The sons of
Kephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the
sons of Shecaniah." Now there is no evidence whatever
that these are four successive generations after the
grandsons of Zerubbabel. The usual formula changes
after verse 2 la and these four names are added to the
genealogy out of the chronological order. The argument
from the reading of the Septuagint need not be consid
ered, because the evidence shows that the text of
the Septuagint is not as reliable, as the Massoretic
text.

2. The language of Chronicles is said to be late.
Answer. — True, but since it is acknowledged to be

like the language of Ezra and Nehemiah, the books are
admitted by the critics to have come from the same
time. The time was that of Ezra and Nehemiah.

3. Since the critics affirm that Ezra and Nehemiah

CHRONICLES 345

were written by the Chronicler, the arguments for a
later date of these books are applied also to Chronicles.

Answer. — These arguments have been met in their
proper place. Since they are not sufficient to prove the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah later than those authors,
they cannot prove Chronicles later than Ezra.

The mention of the Persian coin "darics" (I Chron.
29 : 7) shows that the books were written before the
beginning of the Greek period. Nor can this word
indicate a time in the Persian period after Darius
Hystaspis and so after Ezra, for Sayce refers to the
use of that word under Nabonidus and affirms that it
was borrowed by the Persians from the Babylonians
(Introduction to Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther pp. 40-
41).

The traditional Jewish view considered Ezra the
author of Chronicles. While this cannot be proved, the
position of the book in the canon, the closing of its
history at the very point where that of Ezra begins and
its style make it possible if not probable. At any rate
the date of the book must have been about 450-425 B.C.
The fact that Ezra is a continuation of it, seems to
indicate that Chronicles was written first and if so about
450 B.C.

V. Sources. The Chronicler makes extensive use of
the official records of Israel as well as of the books of
the Pentateuch, Samuel and Kings. The extra-canon
ical books referred to by him are the Book of Nathan
the prophet (I Chron. 29:29; II Chron. 9:29), the
Book of Gad the seer (I Chron. 29:29), the Prophecy
of Ahijah the Shilonite (II Chron. 9:29), the Visions
of Iddo the seer (II Chron. 9:29; 12:15), the Book
of Shemaiah the prophet (II Chron. 12: 15), the Com-

346 OLD TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION

mentary of the prophet Iddo (II Chron. 13:22) and
the commentary of the book of the Kings (II Chron.
24:27). The book of the Kings which he possessed
seems also to have contained matter not found in our
Book of Kings (I Chron. 9 : 1 ; II Chron. 27 : 7 ; 33 : 18 ;
36:8).

VI. Credibility. On account of the alleged lateness
of the book and of the sources referred to in it, its evi
dent didactic aim, its variations from Samuel and Kings
especially in the use of larger numbers, and the improb
ability of some of its independent statements, the Book
of Chronicles is considered by many critics a work of
secondary historical value, decidedly inferior to the
Books of Samuel and Kings.

On the other hand there are several considerations
which indicate the trustworthiness of these books.

1. The fact that he referred to his authorities at all
shows that the Chronicler was not a careless historian.
This he does more than any other Old Testament writer.

2. The noteworthy agreement in most particulars
between Samuel and Kings on the one hand and Chron
icles on the other is evidence of the reliability of
Chronicles. Some of the divergences may be due to
textual errors, others can be easily reconciled, and the
remainder could be reconciled if our knowledge of the
full facts of the history were complete. Since the
Chronicler had the books of Samuel and Kings before
him and held them in high esteem, it is not likely that
he would insert statements in his book in direct opposi
tion to them.

3. The priestly tone and purpose of the books no more
discredit them than the prophetic tone and purpose of
Samuel and Kings discredit those books. There is no

CHRONICLES 347

evidence that this purpose caused the Chronicler to
misrepresent the facts. Indeed the priestly origin of
the author confirms his statements on points where a
priest would be specially informed by Levitical tradition.

4. There is a greater probability of textual errors in
the numbers than in any other elements of the book.
But the same is true of the numbers of all other books
of the Old Testament. Errors of this kind in the exist
ing text are no evidence of general inaccuracy in the
record.

5. As in the Book of Daniel mere improbabilities in
statements are certainly only a secondary argument
against the credibility of the book.

DATES OF OLD TESTAMENT
BOOKS

B.C.

Pentateuch 1300

Joshua 1200

Judges 1050

Samuel 1025

Kings Soon after 586

Isaiah 758-697

Jeremiah 627-586

Ezekiel 592-570

Hosea 785-725

Joel 875-865

Amos 795-785

Obadiah 742-726

Jonah 825-784

Micah 745-700

Nahum 623

Habakkuk 608-600

Zephaniah 626-621

Haggai 520

Zechariah 520-475

Malachi 433

Psalms 1075-425

Proverbs 1000-700

Job 1000

Song of Solomon 1000

349

DATES OF OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS

B.C.

Kuth 1050

Lamentations 586

Ecclesiastes 433

Esther Before 425

Daniel 605-539

Ezra 450-445

Nehemiah , 420

Chronicles 450

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Entire Subject.

Keil. Introduction to the Old Testament. Edinburgh 1869.

W. R. Smith. The Old Testament in the Jewish Church.
New York 1881.

Wellhausen. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Ed
inburgh 1885.

C. H. H. Wright. Introduction to the Old Testament.
New York 1891.

Konig. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Bonn 1893.

Sayce. Higher Criticism and the Monuments. London
1894.

Strack. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Munich 1898.

Kautzsch. The Literature of the Old Testament. Lon
don 1898.

Baudissin. Die Biicher des Alten Testamentes. Leipzig
1901.

Gigot. Special Introduction. New York 1901.

Driver. Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa
ment. Edinburgh 1902.

McFadyen. Old Testament Criticism and the Christian
Church. New York 1903.

Whitelaw. Old Testament Critics. London 1903.

McFadyen. Introduction to the Old Testament. New
York 1905.

Orr. The Problem of the Old Testament. New York 1906.

Cornill. Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old
Testament. New York 1907.

General Introduction.

Buhl. Canon and Text of tfie Old Testament. Edin
burgh 1892.

Green. General Introduction. New York. 1899.
Gigot. General Introduction. New York 1901.
351

352 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION

1. The Canon.

Reuss. History of the Canon. Edinburgh 1887.

S. Davidson. Canon of the Old Testament. London

1876.

Ryle. Canon of the Old Testament. London 1892.
Wildeboer. Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament.

London 1895.

2. The Text.

Studia Biblica. Vol. III. Oxford 1891.

Coppinger. The Bible and its Transmission. London
1897.

Ginsburg. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edi
tion of the Hebrew Bible. London 1897.

Kittel. tiber die Notwendigkeit und Moglichkeit Einer
Neuen Ausgebe der Hebraischen Bibel. Leipzig 1902

3. The Semitic Languages.

Renan. Histoire generale des langues semitiques. Paris
1863.

Fried. Delitzsch. Prolegomena eines neuen Hebr-Aram.
Wb'rterbuchs. Leipzig 1886.

W. Wright. Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Lan
guages. Cambridge 1890.

Zimmern. Vergleichende Grammatik der Semitischen
Sprachen. Berlin 1898.

Noldeke. Die Semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig 1899.
(Based upon the article " Semitic Languages " in the
Encyclopedia Britannica.)

Konig. Hebraisch und Semitisch. 1901.

The Pentateuch.

Green. The Pentateuch Vindicated. New York 1863.

Keil and Delitzsch. Commentary. Edinburgh 1875.

Green. Hebrew Feasts. New York 1885.

Bissell. The Pentateuch. New York 1885.

Vos. Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes. New

York 1886.

Kuenen. The Hexateuch. London 1886.
Briggs. Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. New York

1893.

BIBLIOGBAPHY 353

Rupprecht. Das Ratsel des Fiinfbuches Mose. Giitersloh
1894.

French (Editor). Lex Mosaica, London 1894.

Hommel. The Ancient Hebrew Tradition. New York 1897.

W. Moller, Are the Critics Right? New York 1899.

Margoliouth. Lines of Defence of a Biblical Revelation.
New York 1902.

McFadyen. Messages of the Prophetic and Priestly His
torians. New York 1901.

Green. Higher Criticism of tho Pentateuch. New York
1902.

1. Genesis.

T. Lewis in Lange's Commentary. New York 7.884.

Deiitzsch. New Commentary. New York 1889.

Bacon. The Genesis of Genesis. Hartford 1892.

Strack in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1894.

Dillmann. Commentary. Edinburgh 1897.

Green, Unity of Genesis. New York 1897.

Ryle. Early Narratives of Genesis. London 1900.

Dods in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.

Mitchell. The World before Abraham. New York 1901.

Gunkel in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1902.

Driver. The Book of Genesis. New York 1904.

2. Exodus.

Mead in Lange's Commentary. New York 1876.
Bacon. Exodus. Hartford 1894.

Strack in Kurzegefasster Kommentar. Munich 1894.
Chadwick in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.
Baentsch in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1903-

3. Leviticus.

Bonar. Commentary. New York 1851.

Kalisch. Historical and Critical Commentary. London

1872.

Strack in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1894.
Kellogg in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.
Baentsch. in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1903.

4. Numbers.

Dillmann in Kurzgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch. Leipzig 1886.

354 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION"

Strack in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1894.
Watson in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.
Baentsch in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1903.
Gray in International Critical Commentary. New York
1903.

5. Deuteronomy.

Dillmann in Kurzgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch. Leipzig

1886.

Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1893.
Driver in International Critical Commentary. New

York 1895.

A. Harper in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.
Steuernagel in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1900.

Joshua.

Keil. Commentary. Edinburgh 1857.
Keil and Delitsch. Edinburgh 1869.
Maclear in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1880.
Dillman in Kurzgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch. Leipzig 1886.
Strack in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1894.
Steuernagel in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1900.
Blaikie in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.
McFadyen. Messages of the Prophetic and Priestly
Historians. New York 1901.

Judges.

Keil and Delitzsch. Edinburgh 1869.

Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1893.

Moore in International Critical Commentary. New York
1895.

Lias in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1896.

Watson in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.

McFadyen. Messages of Prophetic and Priestly His
torians. New York 1901.

Nowack in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1902.

Samuel.

Keil and Delitzsch. Edinburgh 1866.
Kirkpatrick in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1881.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 355

Klostermann In Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen
1887.

Driver. Notes on the Text of Samuel. Oxford 1890.

Edersheim. Bible History. New York 1894.

Girdlestone. Deuterographs. Oxford 1894.

Crockett. Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles.
New York 1897.

H. P. Smith in International Critical Commentary. New
York 1899.

Blaikie in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.

McFadyen. Messages of the Prophetic and Priestly His
torians. New York 1901.

Nowack in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1902.

Kings.

Keil and Bertheau. Commentary. Edinburgh 1857.

Klostermann in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen
1887.

Edersheim. Bible History. New York 1894.

Girdlestone. Deuterographs. Oxford 1894.

Lumby in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1896.

Crockett. Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles.
New York 1897.

Farrar in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.

Kittel in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1900.

McFadyen. Messages of the Prophetic and Priestly His
torians. New York 1901.

Burney. Notes on the Hebrew Text of Kings. Oxford
1903.

Hebrew Prophecy.

Fairbairn. Prophecy. New York 1866.

Hengstenberg. Christology of the Old Testament.
Edinburgh 1868.

Payne Smith. Prophecy a Preparation for Christ. Lon
don 1869.

Gloag. Messianic Prophecies. Edinburgh 1879.

W. R. Smith. The Prophets of Israel. New York 1882.

Edersheim. Prophecy and History. London 1885.

Orelll. Old Testament Prophecy. Edinburgh 1885.

Briggs. Messianic Prophecy. New York 1886.
Delitzsch. Messianic Prophecy. New York 1891.
Kirkpatrick. Doctrine of the Prophets. London 1892.
Woods. The Hope of Israel. Edinburgh 1896.
Cornill. The Prophets of Israel. Chicago 1897.
Kiehm. Messianic Prophecy. Edinburgh 1900.
Goodspeed. Israel's Messianic Hope. New York 1900.
Davidson. Old Testament Prophecy. Edinburgh 1904.
Batten. The Hebrew Prophet. New York 1905.
Beecher. The Prophets and the Promise. New York
1905.

teafah.

Alexander. Commentary. New York 1846.
Matthew Arnold. Isaiah 40-66. London 1875.
Cheyne. Commentary. London 1880.
Sayce. Times of Isaiah. New York (no date).
Delitzsch. Commentary. New York 1891.
Orelli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1891.
Kennedy. Argument for Unity of Isaiah. London 1891.
Douglas. Isaiah One and His Book One. New York 1C95.
Cheyne. Introduction to Book of Isaiah. London 1895.
Skinner in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1897-8.
Konig. Exiles' Book of Consolation. Edinburgh 1899.
Sanders and Kent. Messages of the Earlier Prophets.

New York 1899.
Sanders and Kent. Messages of the Later Prophets.

New York 1899.

G. A. Smith in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.
Duhm in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1902.
Workman. The Servant of Jehovah. New York 1907.

Jeremiah.

Keil. Commentary. Edinburgh 1873.
Streane in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1881.
Orelli. Commentary. Edinburgh 1889.
Orelli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1891.
Giesebrecht in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1894.
Sanders and Kent. Messages of the Earlier Prophets,

New York 1899.
Ball in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 357

Ezekiel.

iairbairn. Commentary. Edinburgh 1863.

Keil. Edinburgh. 1866.

Hengstenberg. Edinburgh 1869.

Davidson in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1892.

Orelli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1896.

Sanders and Kent. Messages of the Later Prophets.

New York 1899.

Kraetzschmar in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1900.
Skinner in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.

Minor Prophets.
Hengstenberg. Christology of the Old Testament. Edin-

burg 1861.

Keil and Delitzsch. Edinburgh 1868.
Ewald. The Prophets of the Old Testament. London

1875.

Pusey. New York 1888.
Orelli. Edinburgh 1893.

Wellhausen. Die Kleinen Propheten. Berlin 1893.
Orelli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1896.
Nowack in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1897.
Sanders and Kent. Messages of Earlier Prophets. New

York 1899.
Sanders and Kent. Messages of the Later Prophets.

New York 1899.
G. A. Smith in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.

Hosea.

Cheyne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1884.
Harper in International Critical Commentary. New
York 1905.

Joel.

Credner Halle 1831.

Driver in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1897.

Amos.

Driver in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1897.
Harper in International Critical Commentary. New
York 1905.

358 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

Obadiah.

Perowne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1898.

Jonah.

Kalisch. Bible Studies. London 1878.
Trumbull. Jonah in Nineveh. Philadelphia 1893.
Kennedy. On the Book of Jonah. London 1895.
Perowne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1898.

Micah.
J. Taylor. Massoretic Text and Ancient Versions of

Micah. London 1891.
Cheyne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1895.

Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah.
Davidson in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1896.
Haupt. The Book of Nahum. New York 1907.

Haggai.

Perowne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1897.

Zechariah.

David Kimchi (translated by A. McCaul). London 1837.
Wright (Bampton Lectures for 1878). London 1879.
Rubinkam. Second Part of Book of Zechariah. Basel

1892.
Perowne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1897.

Malachi.

Perowne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1896.

Hebrew Poetry.

Lowth. Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. Andover 1829.

Herder. The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry. Burlington (Vt.)
1833.

I. Taylor. The Spirit of the Hebrew Poetry. London
1861.

Margoliouth. Poetry of the Hebrew Pentateuch. Lon
don 1871.

Ewald in Appendix of Commentary on Psalms. London
1881.

Drysdale. Early Bible Songs. London 1890.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 359

Casonowicz. Paranomasia in the Old Testament. Boston

1894.
Briggs. General Introduction to the Study of the Old

Testament. New York 1899.
Konig. Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetic. 1900.

Psalms.

Alexander. Psalms. New York 1852.

Hengstenberg. Psalms. Edinburgh 1869.

Delitzsch. Psalms. Edinburgh 1873.

Fausset. Studies in the Psalms. London 1873.

Ewald. Psalms. London 1880.

Murray. Origin and Growth of the Psalms. New York

1880.

Spurgeon. Treasury of David. New York 1882.
Ker. The Psalms in History and Biography. New York

1886.

Van Dyke. The Story of the Psalms. New York 1887.
Wm. Alexander. Witness of the Psalms to Christ (Bamp-

ton Lectures). London 1890.
Walsh. Voices of the Psalms. New York 1890.
Cheyne. Historical Origin and Keligious Ideas of the

Psalter (Bampton Lectures). London 1891.
De Witt. The Psalms. New York 1891.
Perowne. The Psalms. London 1892.
Kirkpatrick in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1897.
Baethgen in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1897.
James Robertson. The Poetry and Religion of the

Psalms. New York 1898.

Davison. The Praises of Israel. London 1898.
Kessler in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1899.
Alexander Wright. The Psalms of David and the Higher

Criticism. London 1900.
Cheyne. The Christian Use of the Psalms. New York

1900.

Maclaren in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.
Prothero. The Psalms in Human Life. New York 1903,
Cheyne. The Book of Psalms. New York 1904.
Thirtle. The Titles of the Psalms. New York 1904.

360 OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

Briggs in International Critical Commentary. New York

1906-7.
Thirtle. Old Testament Problems. Critical Studies in

the Psalms and Isaiah. New York 1907.

Proverbs.

Delitzsch. The Proverbs. Edinburgh 1874.

Cheyne. Job and Solomon. New York 1887.

Davison. Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament.

London 1894.

Kent. The Wise Men of Ancient Israel. Boston 1895.
Frankenberg in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1898.
Strack in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1899.
Perowne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1899.
Toy in International Critical Commentary. New York

1899.
Horton in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.

Job.

Hengstenberg in Commentary on Ecclesiastes. Phila
delphia I860.

Delitzsch. Job. Edinburgh 1866.

Froude. Short Stories on Great Subjects (Series 1).
New York 1870.

Green. Argument of the Book of Job. New York 1873.

Godet in Biblical Studies on the Old Testament. Lon
don 1879.

Davidson in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1884.

Cheyne. Job and Solomon. New York 1887.

Bradley. Lectures on Job. Oxford 1887.

Gilbert. The Poetry of Job. Chicago 1889.

Volck in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889.

Budde in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1896.

W'atson in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.

Genung. Epic of the Inner Life. New York 1900.

Peloubet. Studies in the Book of Job. New York 1906.

Song of Solomon.

Ginsburg. The Song of Songs. London 1857.
Hengstenberg in Commentary on Ecclesiastes. Phila
delphia 1860.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 361

A. M. Stuart. Song of Songs. London 1877.
Chej'ne. Job and Solomon. New York 1887.
Oettli in Kuragefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889.
Griffis. The Lily among Thorns. New York 1890.
Delitzsch. Song of Songs. Edinburgh 1891.
Siegfried in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1898.
Adeney in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.

Ruth.

Wright. The Book of Ruth. London 1864.
Keil. Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. Edinburgh 1875.
Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889.
Watson in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.
Novvack in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1902.

Lamentations.

Keil in Commentary on Jeremiah. Edinburgh 1874.
Streane in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1881.
Ewald in Psalms Vol. II. London 1881.
Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889.
Lohr in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1893.
Adeney in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.

Ecclesiastes.

Hengstenberg. Commentary. Philadelphia 1860.
Ginsburg. Coheleth. London 1861.
Plumptre in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1881.
Wright. Donnellan Lectures. London 1883.
Bradley. Lectures on Ecclesiastes. Oxford 1885r
Cheyne. Job and Solomon. New York 1887.
Volck in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889.
Delitzsch. Commentary. Edinburgh 1891.
Siegfried in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1898.
Cox in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.
Genung. Words of Koheleth. New York 1904.
Barton in International Critical Commentary. New
York 1908.

Esther.
Keil. Commentary. Edinburgh 1873.

362 OLD TESTAMENT INTKODUCTION

Sayce. Introduction to Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.

London 1885.

Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nb'rdlingen 1889.
Haley. The Book of Esther. Andover 1895.
Adeney in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.
Siegfried in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1901.
Paton in International Critical Commentary. New York

1908.

Danieli

Stuart. Commentary. Boston 1850.

Tregelles. Defence of the Authenticity of Daniel. Lon
don 1852.

Fuller. Essay on the Authenticity of Daniel. Cambridge
1864.

Meinhold in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen
1889.

Pusey. Daniel the Prophet. New York 1891.

Keil. Commentary. Edinburgh 1891.

Bevan. Short Commentary on Daniel. Cambridge 1892.

Behrmann in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1894.

Kennedy. The Book of Daniel from the Christian's
Standpoint. London 1898.

Prince. Commentary. New York 1899.

Farrar in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.

Driver in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1900.

Anderson. Daniel in the Critics' Den. New York 1902.

Ezra and Nehemiah.

Keil. Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther. Edinburgh 1873.
Sayce. Introduction to Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther.

London 1885.

Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889.
Hunter. After the Exile. Edinburgh 1890.
Eyle in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1893.
Torrey. The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra

and Nehemiah. Giessen 1896.
Adeney in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.
Siegfried in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1901.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 363

Chronicles.

Keil. Chronicles. Edinburgh 1872.

Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889.

Girdlestone. Deuterographs. Oxford 1894.

Crockett. Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles.

New York 1897.

Barnes in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1899.
Bennett in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900.
Kittel in Hand Kommentar. GSttingen 1902.

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BP

Raven, John Howard

11^0 Old Testament intro
.R"5 duct ion

1910

1 OSOP?

DATE

ISSUED TO