THE LEVITICAL PRIESTS. 
 
Ill crown 8vo, 
 
 OUTLINES OF HEBREW GRAMMAR. 
 
 BY 
 
 GUSTAYUS BICKELL, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT INNSBRUCK. 
 
 35lfbisrti fcg tfjc, ^utljor, axin ^nnotatcti 6u tfjt translator, 
 SAMUEL IVES CURTISS, Jr., 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, LEIPZIG. 
 
 rait!} a iLit!)orjrap!)fc ^Table of Semitic Characters 
 By Dr. J. EUTING. 
 
THE LEVITICAL PRIESTS. 
 
 A CONTRIBUTION TO 
 THE CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 BY 
 
 SAMUEL IVES CURTISS, Ju., 
 
 DOCTOIl OF PHILOSOPHY, LEIPZIG. 
 
 AVITH A rPvEFACE BY PROFESSOR FRANZ DELITZSCH, D.D. 
 
 E D I N B U K G H : 
 
 T. & T. CLAEK, 3 8 GEOEGE STREET. 
 
 LEIPZIG: F. A. BROCKHAUS. 
 
 18 7 7. 
 
MURRAY A:XD GIBE, EDINBURGH, 
 rRlNTERS TO HER MAJESTl's bXATiONERY OFFICE. 
 
WILLIAM HENRY GREEN, D.D., LL.D., 
 
 PliOFESSOR IX THP: theological seminary, PRINCETON, N.J., U.S.A. 
 
 DISTINGUISHED 
 
 FOR HIS EMINENT ATTAINMENTS 
 
 IN THE LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE 
 
 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
PREFACE BY PROF. FRANZ DELITZSCH, D.D. 
 
 IF it be true that Deuteronomy regards all the 
 members of the tribe of Levi as competent for 
 the priesthood, then this equality in title is either the 
 abolition of the former privilege of the sons of Aaron, 
 or the endowment of the sons of Aaron with the 
 privilege is the abolition of the former equality. The 
 latest phase of Pentateuch criticism maintains the 
 latter supposition. It considers the elevation of the 
 sons of Aaron above the Levites as the work of the 
 Elohistic legislation, prepared by Ezekiel, who, de- 
 grading the Levites (xliv. 9—16), assigned the priestly 
 functions within the line of the house of Aaron to 
 the sons of Zadok. According to this, the Elohistic 
 Thorah, which comprises the main portion of the 
 middle books of the Pentateuch, is post-exilic. If this 
 is true, who else besides Ezra could be the author ? 
 From this point of view, the claim that God revealed 
 these laws to Moses is only made to give them an 
 authentic character, and is a fiction as well as the 
 history of the consecration of Aaron (Lev. viii.) and 
 
viii Preface by Pi'ofcsso7' Delitzsch. 
 
 of the Levites (Num. viii.), and entirely without his- 
 torical worth. 
 
 The author of the following work has made him- 
 self thoroughly acquainted with the writings of the 
 chief representatives of this theory, and seeks by 
 means of sober arguments to show — (1) that the history 
 of the people of Israel, as it lies before us in the 
 historical books, presupposes a distinction in rank 
 between the priests and the Levites, which reaches 
 back to the time of Moses, and existed throughout all 
 the periods of Israelitish history ; (2) that the post- 
 exilic books are in no way favourable to the opinion 
 that the priestly hierarchy is a product of the time of 
 Ezra ; (3) that Deuteronomy, where it treats of reli- 
 gious privileges, does indeed assign them to the tribe 
 of Levi, but yet so that these privileges — without 
 contradicting the older legislation, which Deuteronomy 
 recapitulates in an abridged form, and accommodates 
 to changed circumstances — may be relatively distri- 
 buted to the sons of Aaron and the Levites. He shows 
 — and this deserves special attention — that the post- 
 exilic Chronicles contain passages which in a Deutero- 
 nomic manner entirely obliterate the distinction between 
 priests and Levites, while other passages emphasize it. 
 
 It will naturally be expected, since I have under- 
 taken to write this preface, that I should define my 
 position to the question with reference to the Penta- 
 teuch. I will do so frankly, although I can give only 
 a few hints. 
 
 In my commentary on Genesis, up to the last edi- 
 
Preface by Professor Delitzsch. ix 
 
 tion, I have defended tlie authenticity of Deuteronomy ; 
 and even yet it appears to me that there are weighty 
 reasons for this, such as the psychological truth of the 
 testamentary addresses, the freshness and richness of the 
 Egyptian reminiscences, the freedom with which the 
 speaker reproduces historical incidents, laws, and, above 
 all, the Decalogue, — a freedom which is scarcely con- 
 ceivable except on the supposition that the speaker 
 was the lawgiver himself. I feel even yet com- 
 pelled to hold, when I consider Deut. xxxi. 9, that 
 Deuteronomy essentially belongs to those portions of 
 the Pentateuch which were written by Moses himself. 
 For if this testimony were fictitious, Deuteronomy 
 would be a far more immoral fabrication than the 
 pseudo-decretals of Isidore. That it was first com- 
 posed in the time of Josiah, is read into 2 Kings xxii. 
 hetween the lines, — since it is not contained in the text 
 itself, — for the narrative presupposes that the book 
 which was drawn from its hiding-place was of re- 
 cognised authority (2 Kings xxii. 13 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 
 21). i^or can it have first been composed in the time 
 of Josiah, since it cannot be denied by an unbiassed 
 criticism that even Isaiah and Micah a hundred years 
 before embody reminiscences from it in their pro- 
 phecies. Only this is true, that the Deuteronomy 
 which, with reference to xxxi. 10—13, has properly 
 been called " the people's book," and which was, under 
 Josiah, again brought to light, exerted a powerful in- 
 fluence on the life and literature of the people after 
 its re-discovery. The contradiction in which the 
 
X Preface by Professor Delitzsch. 
 
 utterances of this book seem to stand to those of the 
 middle books of the Pentateuch, with reference to the 
 Levitical priests, is indeed striking. But I am re- 
 joiced that I can acknowledge that the investigations 
 of my friend have persuaded me of the possibility of 
 harmonizing them. 
 
 It will scarcely be possible to eradicate the ruling 
 critical opinion that Deuteronomy was composed in the 
 time of Jeremiah. But certainly it is to be hoped that 
 the different schools will be convinced, through their 
 progressive scientific investigations, that the post-exilic 
 origin of the so-called Elohistic Thorah is a chimera. 
 It is true that the pre-exilic literature contains only a 
 few references to the Elohistic portions of the Penta- 
 teuch, but it is not true that it does not contain any. 
 I perfectly agree with my friend, that Ezra as well as 
 Luther was only a reformer, and no more composed 
 the main portion of the Thorah, than Luther the 
 Epistle to the Galatians or to the Eomans. The so- 
 called Elohistic language is ancient throughout, — there 
 is no trace of the peculiar post-exilic forms and 
 syntax; and a historical fiction which reproduces 
 antiquity in such an original way, as the narrative of 
 the consecration of the priests and Levites, is a literary 
 impossibility. But, that I may escape the reproach 
 of indulging in vague generalities, I will show from a 
 single minute point that the post-exilic origin of the 
 so-called Elohistic Thorah is imaginary, and, on further 
 examination, dissolves like the baseless fabric of a 
 vision, leaving not a rack behind. One sentence of 
 
Preface by Professor Delitzsch. xi 
 
 the book which lies before me (p. Ill) — "We look 
 in vain for the description of the splendid priestly 
 garments in Chronicles" — prompts me to direct my 
 attention to a single atom of this many-sided question. 
 
 It is known that four colours were used for the 
 coverings and curtains of the sanctuary, as well as for 
 the clothes of the priests. All the portions of the 
 Thorah in which the four colours occur are Elohistic. 
 If they had been written after the exile, it might 
 naturally be expected that at least here and there, if 
 not throughout, those designations of colours which 
 occur in later periods of the language would be found, 
 but there is no trace of these. 
 
 One of these four names of colours, n^Dn {tecMleth), 
 blue purple^ has remained the same throughout all the 
 periods of the language. But the name of reel 'purple, 
 \'0T\^ {argaman), has been assimilated by the Aramaic 
 language, so that it has been transformed into \^T\^ (ar- 
 fjewan), as if it were compounded with gaivna, Persian 
 guna, the colour. The Chronicler has adopted this word 
 in its Aramaic form into the Hebrew (2 Chron. ii. 6). 
 The Thorah, however, in the parallel passages (Ex. 
 XXXV. 35, xxxviii. 23), and throughout, recognises the 
 old Hebrew form. 
 
 The scarlet or crimson in the Thorah is everywhere 
 called ""JK^ nyijin {tolaath shani), and vice versd — in the 
 laws which relate to the cleansing of lepers, and of 
 those who have become unclean through contact with 
 a dead body, where a strip of wool which is coloured 
 with this pigment is intended— n:;bin "JC^ {sh'ui tholaatli). 
 
xii Preface by Professor Delitzsch. 
 
 This designation, which is not only taken from the 
 name of the worm, namely the insect of the quercus 
 coccifera, but also from the intensity of the rays of 
 light, and which is without doubt the complete and 
 original designation, is exclusively Elohistic. In other 
 places only '•JtJ^ (shani) or ySn (tola) occurs. The 
 Chronicler represents the youngest period of the 
 language, since he gives the Persian name of b^J2'\^ 
 {karinil) to this colour (2 Chron. ii. 6, 13, iii. 14).^ 
 
 The designation of the white vegetable material of 
 linen or cotton with ^^ (shesh) has also disappeared 
 from the post-exilic language. The Chronicler uses in 
 its place pn (bus), Greek ^vacro^ (2 Chron. ii. 13, iii. 
 14 ; 1 Chron. xv. 27 ; 2 Chron. v. 12), and the author 
 of the Book of Esther says pJ"iK"i pn (hus vje-argaman), 
 where the older language would say pint^l ^^ {shesh 
 vm-arganian), as in the Pentateuch, and also in Pro v. 
 xxxi. 22. The post-exilic language has, besides, as a 
 designation for white linen, Tin {chur) and DS"iD (kar- 
 2ms) ; the influence of the Aramaic and Arian is every- 
 where evident, of which there is not a trace in the 
 Elohistic language. 
 
 And how does the position which one assigns to 
 Ezekiel, between the Deuteronomic equalization of the 
 tribe of Levi and the Elohistic elevation of the sons of 
 Aaron, agree with Ezekiel's banishment of all adorn- 
 ment of colour from the sanctuary, since simplification 
 and prophylactic rigour are two of the most influential 
 elements in the formation of the new religious and 
 ^ Comp,, on the contrary, Ex. xxxv. 35. 
 
Preface by Professor Delitzsch, xlli 
 
 political state which he has seen in vision ? As he 
 prohibits the priests from going out in their official 
 clothes into the outer court, lest they should sanctify 
 the people with their garments (Ezek. xlii. 14, xliv. 
 19), and as he forbids the priests to marry widows, 
 except those of priests (Ezek. xliv. 2 2), both of which 
 laws exceed the Elohistic in severity, so he reduces the 
 garments of the priests to linen, D^n^^S {pishtim), with 
 the exclusion of woollen. The traditional practice of 
 the post-exilic age has accepted this w^ord pishtim as 
 the interpretation of the Pentateuchal shesJi. But 
 under techeleth, argaman, and tolaath shani the Talmud 
 understands coloured woollen yarn, so tliat the pro- 
 hibition, Lev. xix. 195, Deut. xxii. 11, with reference to 
 the official dress which the priests, especially the high 
 priests, wear during their ministry, admits of an excep- 
 tion {Kilajim ix. 1, compare Maimonides, Hilclioth 
 KeU ha-Mikdasli viii.). This peculiar view, and such 
 discussions as are found in Joma 7lh, show how un- 
 certain the post-exilic age was in the comprehension of 
 those Elohistic precepts which have been made products 
 of that age by modern criticism. 
 
 The following circumstance, since I am speaking of 
 colours, also shows that Ezekiel knew the Elohistic 
 Thorah, and that many of his literary peculiarities are 
 derived from it. It is remarkable that neither the 
 Eigveda nor the Homeric songs, nor in general the 
 most ancient literature, anywhere praises the heavens 
 on account of their blue. Even Philo, where he speaks 
 of the four liturgical colours, says that hyacinth, 
 
xiv Preface by Professor Delitzsch, 
 
 txheleth, is a symbol of tlie air, since this by nature 
 is black (fiiXa^ yap ovto^ (^vaei). He doubtless means 
 black in the same sense as when we, even now, speak 
 of the black violet {^lov fieXav). The Holy Scriptures, 
 however, of the Old Testament afford an expression 
 for the blue of the heavens in Ex. xxiv. 9 seq., 
 where it is said that Moses and Aaron, ISTadab and 
 Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel saw the God 
 of Israel, " and there was under His feet, as it were a 
 paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the body 
 of heaven in clearness." Here the colour of the pure 
 clear sky is indirectly indicated as the blue of the 
 sapphire, just as we call it azure, i.e. blue like the 
 lapis lazuli The use of the w^ord DVV, which the 
 English translation renders by the word "body," of 
 the substance of a thing, shows the Elohistic character 
 of Ex. xxiv. 9, 10. This use is customary in the 
 formula nin DVn DVy, the siihstance of the day, wdiich is 
 equivalent to the expression "this very day." This 
 formula, which bears the stamp of antiquity, also occurs 
 in Ezekiel four times (ii. 3, xxiv. 2a, h, xl. 1); and, 
 more important stiU, the picture of the firmament of 
 sapphire blue under God's throne is repeated in the 
 vision of Ezekiel, which, according to 1 Chron. xxviii. 
 18, is called the Mercaba vision, with an evident 
 reference to the fact in Ex. xxiv., and to the form in 
 which it is expressed. 
 
 The 24th chapter of Exodus forms the connect- 
 ing link between the fundamental laws which the 
 book of the covenant, Sepher ha-herith, contains, and 
 
Preface by Professor Delitzsch. xv 
 
 the construction of tlie sanctuary (Ex. xxv.-xl), which 
 is acknowledged as Elohistic by all. Critical analysis 
 experiences no small embarrassment in this chapter. 
 We merely urge here the fact that Ezekiel has read 
 the significant 10 th verse of the 24th chapter. Or 
 shall we hold the very reverse, that the 10 th verse 
 copies the vision of Ezekiel ? According to the criti- 
 cism which regards the Mosaic sanctuary as a copy of 
 Ezekiel's tabernacle, even this inversion of the relation 
 is possible. But we hold it as absolutely inconceiv- 
 able that the Elohistic portions concerning the taber- 
 nacle and its furniture should be a historical fiction of 
 the post-exilic age. 
 
 How inconceivable this is, may be seen, e.g., from 
 Num. iv., where the way in which the sacred furniture 
 of the sanctuary is prepared for transportation, and the 
 materials which are used for the purpose, are described. 
 The ark of the covenant and the veil are first to be 
 wrapped in a covering of badgers' skins — ^perhaps better 
 sealskins — and then in a cloth wholly of blue purple. 
 The table of shewbread is to be covered with a cloth 
 of blue purple, and over it a cloth of scarlet, and then 
 it is to be wrapped in badgers' skins. The candlestick, 
 the golden altar, etc., are to be covered with a cloth of 
 blue purple, and over it a covering of badgers' skins. 
 The altar of burnt-offering is to be covered with a cloth 
 of red purple, and over it a covering of badgers' skins. 
 
 The utensils, the household furniture of the heavenly 
 King who dwells in the tabernacle, all receive a 
 covering of blue purple. But the table of shew- 
 
xvi Preface by Professor Delitzsch, 
 
 bread receives two coverings, one of blue purple, and 
 the other of scarlet, between which its vessels and the 
 continual bread are laid. Scarlet is a symbol of the 
 fulness of life, and indicates the gifts for the preserva- 
 tion of life, which Israel returns to their heavenly- 
 King upon this table, with thanks for His blessing. 
 The altar of the outer court is provided with a cover- 
 ing of red purple, for purple is the symbol of royal 
 majesty, and this is the place where Israel daily does 
 homage to its King, with offerings of adoration and 
 prayers for the forgiveness of sins, on account of the 
 blood which is allowed to them as a means of atone- 
 ment. The sins are more or less crimina laesae 
 majestatis, and the forgiveness of sins belongs to the 
 regalia of God. A covering of sealskins is laid over 
 all the sacred vessels, only the ark of the covenant 
 has such a covering below, and above a cloth wholly 
 of blue, for the ark is the sign of God's presence, and 
 this sign remains, without the upper covering of seal- 
 skins, during the wandering in the wilderness, and is 
 to be distinguished above all other sacred vessels. 
 
 Whether one considers this explanation of the 
 arrangement of the coloured coverings fitting or not, this 
 arrangement is by no means arbitrary, but has its origin 
 in ideal motives. And are we then to believe that all 
 this was invented by the Elohist, by Ezra, since it could 
 not have been by any one else, and assigned by him to 
 the Mosaic age ? Are we to believe that, for the sake of 
 giving the new Thorah a Mosaic appearance, and there- 
 by of duping his contemporaries, he wrote directions 
 
Preface by Professor Delitzsch. xvll 
 
 which were of no use for the post-exilic age, in which 
 the ark of the covenant no longer existed, and the 
 vessels of the sanctuary no longer had to be borne 
 about ? Let no one say, in order to make the incon- 
 ceivable conceivable, that he drew from tradition, since 
 there is not the slightest trace of Mosaic tradition in 
 the post-exilic age. And even if one were willing to 
 represent one so zealous for the law as an unscrupu- 
 lous forger, where could a pseudograph be found in the 
 old literature with such an imitation of the ancient 
 language, and such a retrogression into the spirit and 
 circumstances of antiquity, as this post-exilic Elohistic 
 Thorah ? 
 
 Nevertheless, the new theory as to the origin of the 
 Pentateuch is continually making fresh conquests in 
 Germany. In contrast with it, this book will seem 
 ultra-conservative, — more conservative than is necessary 
 in order to maintain the character of the Israelitish 
 religion as a revelation. Yet I think that there is 
 far more reason in this ultra-conservatism than in 
 the opinion which makes Ezekiel and Ezra co-authors 
 of the Pentateuch, and thereby overturns the scheme 
 of Israelitish history. 
 
 FRANZ DELITZSCH. 
 
 Leipzig, September 24, 1877. 
 
AUTHOK'S PKEFACE. 
 
 THIS is emphatically an age of microscopic in- 
 vestigation in every department of science. 
 Philosophy, which once turned its eyes to the heavens 
 as the source of its inspiration, is now scmning the 
 dust beneath its feet. While this spirit of exact 
 investigation is worthy of the highest praise, there 
 is danger lest, in overestimating its importance, the 
 faculty of generalization should be lost, without which 
 all special investigations are of doubtful value. 
 
 The exegesis of the Scriptures was never pursued 
 with such scientific acumen as now. The times of 
 the childlike contemplation, which regarded the Holy 
 Scriptures as a constellation which declares the glory 
 of God, have passed from the schools, — the present age 
 is engaged with their purely human elements. Or, to 
 use a comparison which fails to express their divine 
 character, it has ceased to regard them as the living 
 man into whose nostrils God breathed the breath of 
 life, — it is rather occupied with their dust. 
 
 The natural consequence of these purely microscopic 
 and anatomical investigations is a growing irreverence 
 
Atcthors Preface, xix 
 
 towards the Holy Scriptures among many critics. They 
 subject them to as cool a criticism as if they were the 
 works of a Milton or a Shakespeare, — as if no evil 
 consequences could arise from undermining their 
 authority. 
 
 It is often said that we have nothing to fear from 
 the truth. But what is truth ? The attempted answers 
 to this query mark the devious course of the history of 
 philosophy, and show how hard it is for the unaided 
 human mind to grasp absolute truth. If we were sure 
 of finding it, there would be nothing to fear ; but expe- 
 rience and revelation show that the most precious truths 
 may be lost when the human mind trusts too impHcitly 
 in its own wisdom. The sun may shine never so 
 brightly, but it is virtually extinguished for us when 
 we shut out its light and trust to our own. 
 
 It is affirmed that only a cool scientific spirit can 
 serve in the discussion of such questions as the authen- 
 ticity of the Scriptures, and that any other mood unfits 
 one for weighing evidence. But I would ask whether 
 a judge is less fit for his position because he appreciates 
 the solemnity of a case in which human life is at stake, 
 and because his voice, in pronouncing sentence of death, 
 trembles with emotion. 
 
 Is there not, then, a something in the character of 
 the Scriptures, in view of their past and present history, 
 as the shrine of the holiest memories, as the source of 
 the most sacred influences, which should remove all 
 flippancy, all nonchalance, and should produce the 
 greatest seriousness and gravity in their examination ? 
 
XX Ajithors Preface. 
 
 If an apology were needed for a conservatism which 
 might excite the contempt of some, or the pity of 
 others, surely such considerations should furnish one 
 of the most ample character. 
 
 It is claimed that Great Britain and the United 
 States are far behind Germany in. biblical criticism. 
 While granting this, I trust that I may be pardoned 
 for saying that which I have good evidence for believ- 
 ing in regard to England, and which I know in regard 
 to America, that the Christian life in these countries, 
 so far as human eyes can judge, is greatly in advance 
 of that in Germany, — a life which, with all its Christian 
 activities and duties, can be more directly attributed 
 to the reverence which men hold for the Scriptures 
 than to any other cause. 
 
 I would not for an instant deny the noble, conscien- 
 tious, and truth-loving character of many of those 
 exegetes who may call me ultra- conservative. I am 
 confident, however, that if they could thoroughly ap- 
 preciate the sources of spiritual and Christian life in 
 England and America, and could fully realize the moral 
 and spiritual dangers to which these lands would be 
 exposed if the authority of the Scriptures were once 
 undermined among the masses of the people, they 
 would not for a moment condemn the spirit in which 
 this book is written. 
 
 It may be considered an easy matter to withdraw 
 critical views in regard to the origin of the Scriptures. 
 It may be so for the critics. But when the people's faith 
 in their authority has once been shaken, through the 
 
Author s Preface. xxi 
 
 unavoidable publicity of these critical discussions, it 
 will be found most difficult to restore it. 
 
 Long - continued scientific examination, the sole 
 companionship of like spirits, often unfits men for 
 appreciating the consequences of a liberty in the criti- 
 cism of the Scriptures, which, while perhaps not in- 
 jurious to them, may offend many of Christ's little 
 ones. 
 
 During the past year I have confined myself almost 
 exclusively to my study. I have familiarized myself 
 with the arguments of the new critical school. At first, 
 the seeming strength of some of their positions caused 
 me deep pain. In answering them, I have sought 
 arguments which would satisfy my own mind, and 
 have arrived at the deliberate conclusion that, while 
 Dr. Kuenen's views, judged from a purely critical 
 standpoint, solve many difi&culties, they occasion, when 
 subjected to a rigid analysis, still greater ones, — to say 
 nothing of their degrading the Scriptures from their 
 high position of authority to the level of other 
 books. 
 
 I therefore simply ask my continental readers to 
 regard this work as at least the product of convictions, 
 of industry, and research. I believe that it will in- 
 terest not only the specialists and clergy in Great 
 Britain and my own country, but also the intelligent 
 laymen, so worthily represented by such men as John 
 Selden, who, notwithstanding the cares incident to his 
 life as a historian, jurist, and statesman, found time to 
 w^rite treatises which were unsurpassed by his con- 
 
XX 11 AutJiors Preface. 
 
 temporaries in thoroughness and rabbinical learning.^ 
 I believe that such laymen, and those of lesser attain- 
 ments, will take a lively interest in this book, if not 
 on account of its inherent merits, at least on account of 
 the unparalleled interest which the question touched 
 by this discussion is now exciting. 
 
 In closing, I express my heartiest thanks to Prof. 
 Franz Delitzsch, D.D., who has rendered me much 
 assistance in the preparation of this Kttle work for the 
 press, and who has most kindly honoured it with a 
 preface. N"or would I forget the readiness with which 
 the publishers, Messrs. T. & T. Clark, as well as the 
 printers, Messrs. Murray & Gibb, have responded to my 
 wishes, notwithstanding great difficulties in the pre- 
 paration of the fourth appendix. 
 
 SAMUEL IVES CURTISS, Jr. 
 
 Leipzig, Oct. 4, 1877. 
 
 ^ The foUo-sving dissertations in Ugolini's Thesaiimis are from his 
 l^en : — De successione in Pontijicatum Hebraeorum, torn. xii. p. 142 ; 
 De Diis Syris, torn, xxiii. p. 2 ; Z>e Juramentis, torn. xxvi. p. 584 ; 
 De Jure Naturali et Gentium juxta disciplinam Hebraeorum libri 
 septem, torn, xxvii, p. 472. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 PAGK 
 
 Dr. Kuenen's Standpoint, . . . . . 1 
 
 His Theory of Natural Development, . , , .2 
 
 The Origin of Deuteronomy, . .... 3 
 
 The Author of Lev. xvii.-xxvii., .... 3 
 
 The so-called Middle Books of the Pentateuch, . . 3 
 
 The Chronicler, ...... 3 
 
 Limitations of the Scientific Method, .... 4 
 
 Revelation and Miracles, ..... 4 
 
 Kuenen's Canon, ...... 5 
 
 The Bible from this point of view is a Tissue of Literary Lies, 5 
 
 Our Position, ....... G 
 
 The Question stated, ...... 6 
 
 Our Method, 7 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE ORDINATION AND DUTIES OF LEVI. 
 
 This Ordination did not take place at Jotbata, . . . 9 
 
 Who were the Bearers of the Ark ? . . . . . 10 
 
 The Priests bore it on Grand Occasions, ... 14 
 
 Tt was commonly the Business of the Levites to carry it, . 14 
 Not proved that the Levitical Priests are designated as 
 
 Bearers in Deut. x. 8, . . . . .15 
 
 Is standing before the Lord to minister to Him an exclusively 
 
 Priestly Function ? ..... 15 
 
XXIV 
 
 Contents, 
 
 The Child Samuel ministered before the Lord unto Eli, 
 Passages in Chronicles, .... 
 
 Whose Function was it to bless in the name of the Lord ? 
 False Interpretations, ..... 
 Duty of the Priests, ..... 
 Summing up, ...... 
 
 PAGE 
 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 
 CHAPTER IIL 
 
 THE INHERITANCE OF LEVI. 
 
 How shall we construe the Expression, ' ' The Priests the 
 
 Levites"? ...... 
 
 The Deuteronomist does not teach that every Levite is eligible 
 
 to the Priesthood, .... 
 
 Priests Levites in Chronicles, .... 
 
 Shall we read Priests and Levites ? . 
 
 The Usage of the Deuteronomist, 
 
 Asyndeton, ...... 
 
 Pteading of King James's Version correct, 
 
 Aaron and the Priests termed Levites, 
 
 Was Levi personally chosen as Priest ? 
 
 Some of the Modern Critics do not refer the Origin of the 
 
 Tribe to Levi at all, .... 
 To whom does the Expression, " The Lord is their inherit 
 
 ance," apply? ..... 
 How was Levi to be supported ? . . . 
 
 The Offerings made by Fire, .... 
 According to Leviticus, this Expression implies an abundant 
 
 Provision for the Priests, 
 Not sufficient for the Maintenance of the Tribe, 
 God the Giver of Levi's Inheritance, . 
 In what did the Inheritance consist ? . 
 The Levites and the Sons of Aaron empowered to receive the 
 
 Tithes, ...... 
 
 Tithes partially designed for the Supply of the People at the 
 
 great Sacrificial Meals, .... 
 Tithes in Deuteronomy do not exclude those in Leviticus 
 
 Numbers, ..... 
 
 Alleged Unanswerable Contradiction, 
 What Levite may come with all the Desire of his Heart ? 
 What Service is intended ? . 
 
 23 
 24 
 24 
 
 25 
 25 
 
 27 
 
 29 
 29 
 30 
 
 32 
 32 
 33 
 36 
 
 37 
 
 38 
 
 38 
 39 
 45 
 47 
 
Contents. xxv 
 
 PAGf 
 
 The Forty-eight Levitical Cities, .... 48 
 
 Does the Deuteronomist represent the Levites as poor ? . 41) 
 
 Is there room for more than one kind of Tithe in Deutero- 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE BLESSING OF LEVI. 
 
 May every Member of the Tribe exercise the Functions 
 
 named? ....... 55 
 
 Priests represent the Tribe, ..... 5ti 
 
 The Speaker presupposes his Hearers' Acquaintance with 
 
 Urim and Thummim, ..... 5() 
 
 Meaning of the word Kolien (Priest), .... 57 
 According to Deuteronomy, Eleazar succeeds his Father in 
 
 the Priesthood, ...... 58 
 
 It is Aaron's Office to bear the Urim and Thummim, . 50 
 
 Peculiarly Sacred Character of the High Priest, . . 59 
 
 Functions of the Priesthood : Teaching, Judging, Burniog of 
 
 Incense (Korah), putting Sacrifices on the Altar, . 61 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE MODERN CRITIC'S BRIDGE. 
 
 " Ezekiel the Bridge between Deuteronomy and the Middle 
 
 Books of the Pentateuch, " . . . . G8 
 
 " Levites degraded Priests," ..... 69 
 
 " Distinction bet ween the Priests and Levites, " . . 69 
 
 " Ezekiel the Author of Lev. xvii.-xxvi,," ... 69 
 The frequent Recurrence of the same Expressions in Leviticus 
 and Ezekiel does not prove that they are from the same 
 
 Author, ....... 71 
 
 Comparison between Jeremiah and Leviticus, . . 72 
 
 Reasons for the Similarity between Leviticus and Ezekiel, . 73 
 
 Style of Ezekiel radically different from that of Leviticus, . 74 
 Two Branches in the House of Aaron, . . .75 
 
 Line of Ithamar cursed in Eli, .... 75 
 
 Henceforth they occupy an Inferior Position, . . 76 
 Who are the Levites mentioned in Ezekiel ? . . .76 
 
 Exorbitant Tests, ...... 77 
 
 Why does Ezekiel deviate so much from the Priestly Laws V 
 
 / / 
 
 Character and Influence of Ezekiel's Prophecy, / / 
 
XXVI 
 
 Contents. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 JOSHUA— i: KINGS. 
 
 PA^GE 
 
 Effects of the Political Changes on the History of the Nation, 80 
 
 The Books of Samuel and Kings compared with the Chronicles, 80 
 Influence of the Period between Moses and David on the 
 
 Priesthood, . . . . . .81 
 
 The High Priests, ...... 83 
 
 TheEphod, ....... 86 
 
 Zadok and Abiathar, . . . . , . 87 ^ 
 
 Hilkiah, ....... 88 
 
 Was it the main Business of the Priests to Offer Sacri- 
 fices ? ....... 89 
 
 Levitical Priests in the Book of Joshua, ... 90 
 The Inheritance of the Tribe, . . . . .91 
 
 The Two Levites in the Book of Judges, ... 92 
 The Duties of the Priests and Levites according to the Book 
 
 of Samuel, ...... 93 
 
 Was Samuel a Levite ? ..... 94 
 
 The Levitical Cities, ...... 96 
 
 The Levites are mentioned only once in the Books of Kings, 97 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE CHROKICLER. 
 
 The Author of the Books of Chronicles, 
 
 His Authorities, 
 
 His alleged Invention of Levitical Genealogies, 
 
 Samuel, .... 
 
 Obed-Edom, .... 
 
 The Reason why the House of Ithamar is destitute of a 
 
 Genealogy, 
 The Chronicler as an Arithmetician, . 
 The Sources of the Post-Exilic History, 
 The High Priest, 
 The Sons of Aaron, 
 The Levitical Priests, . 
 The Use of the word Levites, . 
 
 The Chronicler as an Authority for the Regal Period 
 Colenso's Attacks, .... 
 
 100 
 101 
 103 
 104 
 105 
 
 108 
 109 
 110 
 110 
 112 
 115 
 118 
 118 
 118 
 
Contejzts, 
 
 XXV 11 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE PROPHETS AND THE PRIESTS. 
 
 The so-called Antagonism of the Prophets to the Law and 
 
 the Priesthood, .... 
 The Prophet's Occupation is gone after the Exile, 
 Joel manifests no Antagonism to the Priests, 
 Amos' Collision with a spurious High Priest, 
 The Eeason for Hosea's Antagonism to the Priests, 
 His Use of the word Thorah, . 
 Is Isaiah a Collection of Prophecies 
 The Priests the Levites, 
 Zephaniah, 
 Jeremiah, 
 
 Explanation of vii. 22, 23, 
 Is xxxiii. seq. spurious ? 
 Haggai and Zechariah, 
 Malachi, 
 
 Does not allude to the New Epoch, 
 What does he mean by Thorah ? 
 Why does he not mention the Sons of Aaron 
 The Covenant with Levi, 
 Traces of Decay in Malachi, 
 His Teaching, . 
 General Characteristics of the Prophecies, 
 
 121 
 
 123 
 
 124 
 
 125 • 
 
 128 
 
 128 
 
 129 
 
 130 
 
 131 
 
 131 
 
 133 
 
 135 
 
 137 
 
 138 
 
 139 
 
 140 
 
 141 
 
 141 
 
 142 
 
 143 
 
 143 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY AND THE MIDDLE BOOKS 
 OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Brief Review, . . . . 
 
 The Deuteronomic Legislation and that of the Middle Books 
 
 of the Pentateuch, 
 Who was the Author of Deuteronomy ? 
 Internal Evidence, 
 
 Moses' and Hilkiah's Claims compared, 
 ISIoses speaks from Experience, 
 Generalizations, 
 " Moses wrote this Law," 
 Ideas of Literary Proprietj^ . 
 Critical Difficulties, 
 
 145 
 
 148 
 140 
 149 
 149 
 150 
 151 
 151 
 152 
 152 
 
XXVIU 
 
 Contents. 
 
 Was Ezra the Author of the ^Middle Books of the Pentateuch 
 
 Arabic, Christian, and Jewish Traditions, 
 
 The Ready Scribe, ..... 
 
 The Development Theory, .... 
 
 When did the Middle Books of the Pentateuch originate ? 
 
 Deuteronomy presupposes a Code, 
 
 Harmony, ...... 
 
 Tendencies of Modern Criticism, 
 The Loss of an Ultimate Authority, . 
 " My Words shall not pass away," 
 
 PAGE 
 
 153 
 153 
 161 
 103 
 164 
 165 
 165 
 166 
 167 
 167 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 The Sources of the Chronicler, 
 
 168 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 The Meaning of the word Thorah in Hos. iv. 6, 
 
 175 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 The Authorship of Isaiah xl.-lxvi., 
 
 183 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 The Text of D^li'n D'^n^H according to the Talmud and 
 
 Massora, 
 Libraries visited, 
 
 Names of those Avho forwarded Eeadings, 
 The Massora, .... 
 The First and Second Hand, . 
 Characteristics of mss. , 
 Method used in making the Collation, 
 Variations in the Text of Deuteronomy xvii. 9, 
 Deuteronomy xvii. 18, xviii. 1, xxiv. 8, xxvii. 9, 
 Joshua iii. 3, viii. 33, . 
 Isaiah Ixvi. 21, 
 .Feremiah xxxiii. 18, 
 Ezekiel xliii. 19, xliv. 15, 
 Ezra x. 5, 
 
 Nehemiah x. 29, 35, xi. 20, 
 
 1 Chronicles ix. 2 ; 2 Chronicles v. 5, xxiii. 18, xxx. 27, 
 Notes, ....... 
 
 190 
 191 
 192 
 193 
 195 
 195 
 196 
 197 
 198 
 202 
 205 
 213 
 213 
 214 
 217 
 220 
 227 
 
Contents. xxlx 
 
 INDEX I. 
 
 PAGR 
 
 Manuscripts and Ancient Printed Texts, . ♦ 233 
 
 INDEX ir. 
 
 Names and Subjects, ...... 23G 
 
 INDEX III. 
 References to the Scriptures, .... 24(> 
 
 INDEX IV. 
 
 Hebrew and Chaldee Words, .... 253 
 
COEEECTIONS. 
 
 Page 34, tenth line from below, read nSlJ instead of H^^DJ- 
 ,, 59, fourth line of rem, 2, read T'Dn w'^'X Instead of "]"'Dn tJ*''^<. 
 ,, 162, rem. 1, read Sanhedrin instead o/' Synhedrin. 
 
THE LEYITICAL PRIESTS. 
 
 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 INTKODUCTION. 
 
 Summary : Dr. Ivuenen's standpoint — His theory of natural develop- 
 ment — The origin of Deuteronomy — The author of LeWticus 
 xvii.-xxvii. — The so-called middle books of the Pentateuch — The 
 Chronicler — Limitations of the scientific. method — Eevelation and 
 miracles — Kuenen's Canon — The Bible from this point of view is 
 a tissue of literary lies — Our position — The question stated — Our 
 method. 
 
 THE author^ of Tlie Ecligion of Israel, at the very 
 beginning of his work, clearly states his stand- 
 point when he says:^ "For us, the Israelitish is one 
 of the principal religions ; nothing less, but also nothing 
 more," — which, although claiming a supernatural origin, 
 does not in this respect differ from Buddhism, Islam, 
 and others, which claim to have sprung from a divine 
 source. " If we look upon these other religions as so 
 many manifestations of the religious spirit of mankind, 
 
 ^ Dr. A. Kuenen. 
 
 2 The Religion of Israel, London 1874, vol. i p. 5. 
 A 
 
2 Introdttdion, 
 
 are we not bound to examine the Israelitish and 
 the Christian religions also from the same point of 
 view ? " ^ 
 
 Dr. Kuenen consequently follows the principle here 
 enunciated in the work just quoted. To him, the 
 religion of Israel is nothing more than the result 
 of natural development. He is to all intents and 
 purposes a theological Darwin. The Israelites pass 
 through various stages, from fetichism^ and the 
 grossest forms of idolatry to monotheism.^ With the 
 greatest confidence he disposes of the historical records 
 before the times of the prophets, or about the middle 
 of the eighth century, as a mass of unreliable tradition,"* 
 which has been committed to writing, has been changed 
 and coloured until it bears about as much resemblance 
 to the truth as a religious novel to the person who 
 suggested it.^ The prophets are to him the only 
 reliable sources of information.^ It is possible that 
 Moses was the author of the Commandments, but it is 
 not probable that they then had their present form.^ 
 As for the Pentateuch, the patriarchs are not historical 
 personages.^ From some confirmatory evidence, he 
 is inclined to believe that the Israelites were slaves in 
 Egypt, and were led out by a Moses, but in much 
 smaller numbers than are given in the Scriptures.'' 
 The twelve tribes did not arise from the twelve sons 
 
 1 TU Relir/ion of Israel, vol. i. p. 6. ^ jn^i p^ 270. 
 
 8 Ibid. p. 369. * Ibid. pp. 17, 18. ^ Comp. p. 23. 
 
 « Ibid. p. 102. 7 7^/^, pp^ 283-285. « Ibid. pp. 108, 109. 
 
 9 Ibid. pp. 119 seq. 
 
Results of Scientific Criticisin. 3 
 
 of Israel, but were formed by an admixture witli 
 neighbouring nations.^ The twelve patriarchs were an 
 afterthought, an invention of later centuries.^ The 
 book of the covenant, Exodus xxi.-xxiii., contains the 
 oldest collection of laws. Deuteronomy was written 
 in the year 625 B.C., perhaps by Hilkiah, as a reform 
 programme, and was foisted upon Moses, although he 
 was in no respect the author of it ; nor does the material 
 rest upon a reliable Mosaic tradition. Leviticus xviii.- 
 xxvi. was composed by Ezekiel, the latter part of whose 
 prophecy forms the connecting link between Deutero- 
 nomy and the so-called middle books of the Pentateuch, 
 Exodus — Numbers. These form a programme which 
 represents the wishes of the priestly party and the 
 scribes, — a programme so cleverly planned, probably 
 by Ezra, that it was a complete, success. The pro- 
 phet's voice before the growing legal tendency was 
 luished, and the many ceremonial observances so care- 
 fully described in the Pentateuch afterwards bore their 
 letritimate fruit in the refined subtilties of the Mishna. 
 
 o 
 
 Finally, this priestly legislation (Exodus — Numbers) 
 obtained historical support by a " pious fraud," since the 
 whole regal history was re-written by the Chronicler 
 long after Ezra, so as to illustrate the working of this 
 legislation. 
 
 Such, then, are some of the results of scientific 
 
 criticism as set forth by Kuenen and his school — 
 
 results which would be appalling to those who consider 
 
 the Scriptures as the bulwark of our faith, if they 
 
 1 T%e Religion of Israel^ vol. i. pp. 110 seq. - Comp. p. 113. 
 
4 Jnt7^odtiction. 
 
 were valid. They have, however, been reached by a 
 strict use of the scientific method in its narrow sense. 
 But this method, although excellent so far as it goes, 
 is not adequate to settle the question. There are some 
 subjects which, strictly speaking, are above scientific 
 examination. Mere science as such, dealing with facts, 
 cannot demonstrate the existence of God or of the 
 human soul, since they are supersensuous.^ But since 
 science is limited by the powers of human investiga- 
 tion, their existence cannot be disproved. We cannot 
 deduce God and the human soul by so-called exact 
 science. When the scientist says that he only recognises 
 impersonal force in the universe, he is quite right so 
 long as he speaks from his scientific point of view. 
 The mistake of the scientist is in supposing, on the 
 basis of his investigations, that the revelation in regard 
 to God and the human soul is false. 
 
 Strictly speaking, neither revelation nor miracles 
 admit of scientific proof. Both are divine interfer- 
 ences in a development which had become abnormal 
 through sin. The natural tendency of man is to a 
 physical and moral corruption, which finds its anta- 
 gonism in Him who is the Prince of life. While 
 modern criticism regards miracles as an impossible 
 infringement of fixed natural laws, those who have 
 
 ^ Haeckel, who may be considered as fairly representing the 
 views of many modern scientists, says in The History of Creation^ 
 London 187G, vol. i. p. 32: "On the contrary, sensuous experi- 
 ence is the original source of (/// knowledge. For this reason 
 alone, all our knowledge is limited, and we can never aj^prehend 
 th.Qjirst causes of any phenomena." 
 
Premises and Cojtclusions. 5 
 
 experienced the miracle of the new birth can accept 
 the miracles of the gospel history, which culminate in 
 the resurrection of Christ, as well as God's miraculous 
 and providential dealings with His chosen people, 
 which were the prelude to the execution of His 
 gracious work of redemption. Kuenen, on the other 
 hand, since he holds the modern views, lays down as 
 one of the main canons of criticism, that we should 
 not attribute a supernatural origin to the Jewish and 
 Christian religions, any more than to the others which 
 have made the same claim. Who does not see that 
 this assumption must bias the whole investigation ? It 
 eliminates at once theophanies, miracles, and prophecy 
 so far as we understand by it the divine revelation of 
 human events. But no one can find fault with the con- 
 clusions of the critics if he accepts their premises. If 
 the Scriptures are not the product of divine revelation, 
 graciously adapting itself to the unfolding intelligence 
 of the race until in the fulness of time Christ came, 
 there only remains the alternative that they are merely 
 a record of human progress. According to this view, 
 the Bible is a tissue of literary lies. The critics, under 
 the influence of early training, may shrink from draw- 
 ing this conclusion, but it must nevertheless be dra^vn. 
 Of course, with the starting-point which has already 
 been mentioned, the supposition that such passages as 
 Deut. xvi. 2, which refers to a national capital, and 
 xvii. 15-17, which alludes to the king, were com- 
 posed during the regal period naturally follows. In- 
 deed, the whole question in regard to the time when 
 
6 Introduction, 
 
 the Pentateuch was Avritten, and the way in which 
 it originated, may be regarded, even before an investi- 
 gation, as pretty conclusively settled. 
 
 As regards our standpoint, it may be characterized 
 as the opposite of Kuenen's. We regard the religion 
 of Israel as something more than one of the principal 
 religions. We believe in its supernatural origin, in its 
 vital importance in the scheme of redemption, and 
 that God has given a revelation of Himself in the 
 books of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, while we 
 start with these presuppositions, we shall try to employ 
 the scientific method, and give the objections which 
 arise their full force. 
 
 The following discussion was suggested by a state- 
 ment which we found in the last edition of the 
 EncycloiJcedia Britannica -} — "And here arises the great 
 dispute which divides critics, and makes our whole 
 construction of the origin of the historical books uncer- 
 tain. The Levitical laws give a graduated hierarchy of 
 priests and Levites ; Deuteronomy regards all Levites 
 as at least possible priests. . Bound this difference, and 
 points allied to it, the whole discussion turns. We 
 know, mainly from Ezek. xliv., that before the exile 
 the strict hierarchical law was not in force — apparently 
 never had been in force. But can we suppose that 
 the very idea of such a hierarchy is the latest point of 
 liturgical development ? If so, the Levitical element 
 is the latest thing in the Pentateuch, or, in truth, in 
 the historical series to which the Pentateuch belongs ; 
 
 1 See Prof. Smith's article on the Bible, in Part xi. p. G38. 
 
Oti^r Method, 7 
 
 01', on the opposite view, the hierarchic theory existed 
 as a legal programme long before the exile, though it 
 was fully carried out only after Ezra. As all the 
 more elaborate symbolic observances of the ritual law 
 are bound up with the hierarchical ordinances, the 
 solution of this problem has issues of the greatest 
 importance for theology, as well as for the literary 
 history of the Old Testament." Briefly, the question 
 is, whether we can accept Kuenen's results as substan- 
 tially correct, or whether we may hold the Mosaic 
 authorship of Deuteronomy as forming the comple- 
 ment of substantially our present books of the Penta- 
 teuch ? Or are the prophets our oldest authorities for 
 the history of the religion of Israel ? Was Deuteronomy 
 first written in the time of Josiah ? was Ezekiel the 
 author of Leviticus xvii.— xxvi. ? was Ezra the author 
 of the middle books of the Pentateuch ? and has the 
 Chronicler systematically modified the facts of the 
 regal history ? — these are the most important questions 
 involved in the present discussion. 
 
 Our method will be to carefully weigh the argu- 
 ments employed by Graf, Kuenen, and Kayser, and to 
 find answers through our own investigations, rather 
 than by a compilation or re-adaptation from existing 
 apologetic works. Hence we think we can lay claim 
 to the use of the original sources. We desire to do 
 justice to those who, on account of their religious views, 
 must be our opponents. We hope that these pages 
 may not merely confirm the faith of many, but also 
 persuade all earnest seekers of the truth that we may 
 
8 hitrodtidion, 
 
 hold that the Old Testament Scriptures are truly the 
 record of divine revelation, without supposing that 
 they have arisen in a way which would seem unworthy 
 of their divine origin. 
 
CHAPTEE 11. 
 
 THE ORDINATION AND DUTIES OF LEVI. 
 
 Summary : This ordination did not take place at Jotbata — Who were 
 the bearers of the ark ? — The priests bore it on grand occasions 
 — It was commonly the business of the Levites to carry it — Not 
 proved that the Levitical priests are designated as bearers in 
 Dent. X. 8 — Is standing before the Lord to minister to Him an 
 exclusively priestly function ? — The child Samuel ministered 
 before the Lord unto Eli— Passages in Chronicles — Whose func- 
 tion was it to bless in the name of the Lord ? — False interpreta- 
 tions—Duty of the priests — Summing up, 
 
 KAYSER claims that, according to Deut. x. 8/ not 
 only Aaron, but also the entire tribe of Levi 
 were first set apart at Jotbata to priestly functions, 
 — namely, to carry the ark of the covenant, to stand 
 before Jehovah to serve Him, and to bless the people.^ 
 The first question which arises in the interpretation of 
 this passage is as to the reference of the expression, 
 " At that time." 
 
 (1.) Even a superficial reading will convince any one 
 that the author of Deuteronomy does not observe a 
 
 1 " At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear 
 the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to 
 minister unto Him, and to bless in His name unto this day." 
 
 - Bas Vorexilische Buck der Urr/eschichte hraehs und seine Er- 
 iveiterungeu, Strassburg 1874, S. lol. 
 
lo The Ordinatioii and Ditties of Levi, 
 
 chronological order. He speaks without premedita- 
 tion, and mentions this or that as it may best serve 
 his purpose. 
 
 (2.) The great theme of which he has just been 
 speaking ^ is the apostasy of the children of Israel 
 from God, Avhen they worshipped the golden calf. At 
 that time the sons of Levi showed the same faithful- 
 ness in a good cause "^ that their ancestor had in a bad 
 one, when he received the merited reproach of Jacob.^ 
 
 (3.) That such a connection with some previous 
 narrative or with the thread of the discourse is not 
 infrequent, appears from other passages in the Penta- 
 teuch."* 
 
 The 10 th verse of Deut. x. seems to indicate that 
 this is the right explanation of the connection. The 
 Jewish commentators, Eashi, Eambam, Kashbam, and 
 Spinoza, as well as the Christian, Ainsworth, Meno- 
 chius, Tirinus, Munster, Vatablus, maintain essentially 
 the same view. It will be seen that, as to the time of 
 Levi's election, there is no real contradiction between 
 Deut. X. 8 and Num. iii.— iv. 
 
 The question now arises : Who were the bearers of 
 the ark ? 
 
 Graf,^ by comparing this passage with Deut. xxxi. 9, 
 25, seems to consider it proved, as a matter of course, 
 that the author of this book represents the priests as 
 the bearers of the ark. Colenso claims that the 
 
 ^ Deut. ix. 8-21. 2 Ex. xxxii. 26. ^ Gen. xxxiv. 25, 30. 
 
 * Gen. xxi. 22, xxxviii. 1 ; Deut. i. 9, and often. 
 
 ^ Die Geschichtl. BlicUer des alten Testaments^ Leipzig 1866, S. 42. 
 
The Bearers of the Ark. 1 1 
 
 Hebrew participle in xxxi. 9 implies the habitual 
 practice of the priests in bearing the ark, rather than 
 an exception on the present occasion, as the English 
 version, " which bare the ark," might seem to imply.^ 
 The participle, however, is commonly used to denote 
 continued action, either in the past, the present, or the 
 future. The time must, of course, be determined from 
 the connection.^ Now, if Colenso thinks that the 
 word □''t<:^jn in this passage indicates a habit, he is 
 mistaken. The participle is used, rather than the per- 
 fect of a relative clause, to indicate continued action ; 
 but the participle retains its verbal power, and is fol- 
 lowed by the accusative p-iNTii^, so that Colenso's ren- 
 dering, " bearers of the ark," is less correct than that 
 of the English version, " which bare the ark." It 
 may, however, be suggested that xxxi. 25, upon which 
 Colenso lays no emphasis, is favourable to his view, 
 since the participle ^XK'J, being in the status constructus 
 with the following words, has the force of a noun, 
 and is in apposition with d^I^'H. 
 
 This is very true, but it does not signify that it was 
 always the priests' business to carry the ark. It simply 
 indicates that on this occasion they were bearers of it.^ 
 
 ' The Pentateuch and the Boole of Joshua critically examined, 
 Lond. 1863, Part iii. p. 656. 
 
 - Bbttcher, Ausfuhrl. Lehrh. der hehrdischen Sprache, Leipz. 
 1868, § 996, 2. Comp. Ewald, Lehrb. d. hehr. Sprache, Gottingen 
 1870, S. 437, 438. 
 
 * Compare a similar use of the participle in Judg. iii. 18, where 
 Ehud sends away the people, the bearers of the present. The 
 rendering of the English version, "the people that bare the 
 present," is certainly correct. 
 
12 The Ordination and Duties of Levi. 
 
 The participle is used without mention of priests 
 or Levites in 2 Sara. vi. 13, to denote the bearers of 
 the ark ; not as a professional designation, but simply 
 to indicate those who were carrying it at the time.^ 
 It is certain, then, that Colenso's assumption in this 
 case is unfounded, and that no grammatical necessity 
 compels us to suppose that the priests were always 
 assigned to this duty. Let us compare the following 
 passages : — " At that time the Lord separated the tribe 
 of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord. " ^ 
 " And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the 
 priests, the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the 
 covenant of the Lord." ^ " Moses commanded the 
 Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the 
 Lord." * Does this comparison establish the fact that 
 the author of Deuteronomy considers it the exclusive 
 business of the priests to carry the ark ? So long as 
 he has not said this in so many words, it is presump- 
 tuous to assert, on the basis of a single historical 
 reference, that he meant to teach it. Suppose that the 
 only reference in Chronicles to the carrying of the ark 
 was limited to 2 Chron. v. 4, 5, 7 : "And the Levites 
 took up the ark. And they brought up the ark, 
 and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the 
 holy vessels that w^ere in the tabernacle ; these did the 
 priests the Levites bring up. . . . And the priests 
 brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord." If 
 this were the only reference, we should have, so far as 
 
 ^ Comp. Num. x. 17. 2 d^.^^,^ x. 8. 
 
 " Deut. xxxi. 9. •* Ihid. ver. 25. 
 
The Bear e7^s of the Ark. 13 
 
 Deut. xxxi. 9, 25 is concerned, a parallel case of the 
 Levitical priests ^ carrying the ark. Yet there are other 
 places which show that the Chronicler considered this 
 the business of the Levites : " None ought to carry 
 the ark of God but the Levites : for them hath the 
 Lord chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister 
 unto Him for ever." ^ Hence we conclude that there 
 is not sufficient evidence to prove that the bearing of 
 the ark was considered a priestly function by the author 
 of Deuteronomy. 
 
 There does not seem to be any ground for Schultz's 
 assumption that Deut. xxxi. 25 indicates that the 
 Levites are usually bearers of the ark.^ It cannot, 
 however, be claimed that there is any contradiction 
 between the two passages in Deuteronomy and ISTum. 
 iii. 31:" And their charge shall be the ark." Ihid. 
 iv. 15: "And when Aaron and his sons have made 
 an end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels 
 of the sanctuary, as the camp is to set forward ; after 
 that, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear it." Ihid. 
 
 ^ The Jewish commentators interpret 2 Chron. v. 5, 7 as follows : 
 — Rashi says that the words (ver. 5), " The jmests, the Levites, 
 brought them up, explain the preceding, which says, ' And the 
 Levites carried the ark,' since it is there said who the above-men- 
 tioned Levites are ; for also the priests are from the children of 
 Levi, but the bearers were not real Levites." Kimchi remarks on 
 ver. 4: '"''And the Levites carried the ark: In the Book of 
 Kings it is said that the priests carried the ark, the priests carried 
 it ; and what here are called Levites are priests, for the priests 
 Avere Levites ; and our Rabbis say that in twenty-four places they 
 are called D'^li'n D''jnDn, and this is one of them." 
 
 - 1 Chron. XV. 2. 
 
 ^ Das Deuteiwwmium, Berlin 1859, S. 71. 
 
14 The Ordination and Dnties of Levi. 
 
 vii. 9 : " But unto the sons of Kohath he gave none, 
 because the service of the sanctuary was upon them, 
 which they bore upon their shoulders." 
 
 On occasions of peculiar danger or solemnity, the 
 most sacred emblem of the divine presence would very 
 naturally be borne by the priests. Such are undoubt- 
 edly those which are recorded. 
 
 The ordinary routine of the wilderness when the 
 Levites were carrying it is, of course, not mentioned. 
 This seems to account for the fact that the priests 
 are almost the only persons who are spoken of as 
 bearing the ark. When the law was formally de- 
 livered to the priests to be placed in the ark, the 
 occasion was of sufficient dignity for them to carry it ; 
 so was the passage of the Jordan,^ the circuit of 
 Jericho,^ the curse and the blessing between Mount 
 Ebal and Gerizim,^ and the removal of the ark into 
 the temple of Jerusalem.* It is not distinctly said 
 that Hophni and Phinehas carried the ark in the battle 
 against the Philistines, but the connection seems to 
 indicate it.^ Certain it is, that when David w\as flee- 
 ing before Absalom, Zadok and Abiathar took the ark 
 back to Jerusalem.^ 
 
 Some might be inclined to draw the conclusion 
 that these passages indicate that the bearing of the 
 ark was a priestly prerogative; but if they recall the , 
 passage already cited from Chronicles, and the occa- ^^"^ 
 
 ' Josh. iii. 3, 6, 13, 14, 17. ^ /^^-^ ^j ^^ 3 7^/j, ^^n. 33. 
 4 1 Kings viii. 3, 6 ; 2 Chron. v. 4, 5, 7. M Sam. iv. 4. 
 
 ^ 2 Sara. XV. 29. 
 
Standing before the Lord. 15 
 
 sions which make the act worthy of mention/ they 
 surely cannot claim that this was a priestly function 
 except on extraordinary occasions. Hence, when it is 
 said in Deut. x. 8, " that the Lord separated the tribe 
 of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord," we 
 have no proof that Levitical priests are intended. 
 
 We have now to consider whether standing before 
 the Lord, to minister to Him, was peculiar to the priests. 
 KeiP asserts that it belonged exclusively to them. 
 Indeed, it would seem as though no unprejudiced per- 
 son could deny, especially after reading the passages 
 which are cited by Graf,^ that the w^ords, " to stand 
 before the Lord to minister to Him," can be understood 
 only of the priests. The matter is apparently so clear 
 that we might pass over it without further comment, 
 unless we should cite other passages which tend to 
 enforce it, such as Ezek. xl. 46 : " These are the sons 
 of Zadok among the sons of Levi, which come near the 
 Lord to minister unto Him ;" xliv. 15, 16 : " But the 
 priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, . . . they shall 
 stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, 
 
 ' The only passage which mentions the Levites explicitly as 
 bearers of the ark is 1 Chron. xv. 15 : " And it came to pass, when 
 God helped the Levites that bare the ark of the covenant of the 
 Lord." Rashi makes the following comment on ver. 26: "And 
 the children of the Levites bare the ark of God upon their shoulders 
 with the staves thereof, as the Lord had commanded Moses. Our 
 Rabbins prove from this place that the ark carried itself." — See 
 Wagenseilii Sota, pp. 739-41. 
 
 2 Bihlischer Commentar iiber die Biicher Moses, B. 2, Leipzig 
 1870, IS. -457. 
 
 ^ Deut. xviii. 6, 7, xxi. 5 ; comp. xvii. 12. 
 
1 6 The Ordination and Duties of Levi. 
 
 saith the Lord God ; they shall enter into my sanctuary, 
 and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto 
 me." Colenso very justly observes,-^ that " the priests, 
 the sons of Aaron," were to stand before Jehovah to 
 minister unto Him, whereas the Levites were to be 
 presented (Heb., made to stand) before Aaron the priest, 
 that they may minister unto him, Num. iii. 6. 
 
 Without availing myself of the suggestion that the 
 service of the Levites, as well as that of the priests, 
 might be considered a service of the Lord, I pass to 
 examine some passages which show that the words 
 already cited do not apply exclusively to the priests. 
 In all books in which the legislative element pre- 
 dominates, we shall find a clear distinction between 
 the ministry of the priests and that of the Levites. 
 This is the case not merely in Numbers, but also in 
 the legislative portion of Ezekiel, where the ministers 
 of the sanctuary, the priests,^ are rigidly distinguished 
 from the Levites, the ministers of the house.^ In the 
 prophets there is no effort at distinction between 
 priests and Levites ; the term " minister " is either 
 simply applied to the " priests," or to the " Levitical 
 priests." * But can it be affirmed of any officer, besides 
 a priest of the sanctuary, that he ministers to the 
 Lord ? "VVe have just such an affirmation of the 
 child Samuel : ^ " But Samuel ministered before the 
 
 ^ The Pentat. and Book of Joshua, Part iii. p. 457. 
 2 Ezek. xlv. 4 : ^'ipj^n ^m^^D. ^ Ezek. xlv. 5 : n^nn ^mrc 
 '' Isa. Ixi. 6 : imbj< TnCO ; comp. Joel i. 13, ii. 17 ; Jer. xxxiii. 
 21, 22: '•niC^D D^iHDH W'hr]. 
 5 1 !Sam. ii. 18. 
 
The Lord's Ministers, 1 7 
 
 Lord ; " and another passage which shows how the 
 Levites, in ministering to the priests, might be termed 
 the "Lord's ministers:"-^ "And the child (Samuel) 
 ministered unto the Lord before Eli," that is, he was a 
 servant in the sanctuary ; for we read of his opening 
 the doors,^ to say nothing of his being, as it would 
 seem, accustomed to be called^ by Eli. Now, if 
 Samuel midit be said to minister to the Lord, how 
 much more the Levites in the regular service ! We 
 are not, however, dependent upon such passages as 
 the foregoing, although they may well command the 
 attention of the critics. We have others in that book, 
 which, as Graf affirms, always clearly distinguishes 
 between the priests and the Levites.* We do not refer 
 to 2 Chron. xxiii. 6, where we read, " But let none 
 come into the house of the Lord, save the priests and 
 they that minister of the Levites ; they shall go in, 
 they are holy," although we must admit that this 
 verse has some force. We refer to 2 Chron. xxix. 4, 
 5, 11, 12, where Hezekiah is said to have brought in 
 the priests and the Levites, and to have addressed 
 them : " Hear me, ye Levites, ... be not now negligent ; 
 for the Lord hath chosen you to stand before Him, to 
 serve Him, and that ye should minister unto Him, and 
 burn incense." Of course the only reasonable inter- 
 pretation w^hich can be given of this passage, is that 
 which we propose to apply to Deut. x. 8, 9, namely, 
 
 1 1 Sam. ii. 11. 2 m^i X\\. 15. ^ m^^ jji^ 5. 
 
 ■* Graf, Did Gescldchtl. Biicher, S. 44 ; and in Merx Archiv, 
 Halle 1869, B. i. S. I'd. 
 
 B 
 
1 8 The Ordmatioii and Duties of Levi, 
 
 that in this address Hezekiah is speaking to the priests 
 and Levites together as Levites. It seems also that 
 this indefiniteness did not occasion any doubt in their 
 minds as to their respective duties, since it is said that 
 the priests brought out the filth from the inner part of 
 the house of the Lord, while the Levites took what was 
 brought out to carry it to the brook Kidron/ Cer- 
 tainly there was no impropriety in the Deuteronomist's 
 speaking of the tribe of Levi as standing to minister 
 before the Lord ; and while he applied this with 
 special emphasis to the priests, we may suppose that 
 at the same time he neither excluded the Levites, nor 
 was ignorant of the distinction between them and 
 the priests, nor that he wished to destroy it. The 
 citations from Chronicles certainly furnish the best 
 commentary to this passage.^ 
 
 It now remains for us to inquire whose function it 
 was to bless in the name of the Lord. This seems to 
 be the correct rendering of the passage, even according 
 to the Septuagint.^ Castalio, however, renders it, " to 
 
 ^ 2 Chron. xxix. 16. 
 
 2 Rashi understcands the word imC^b of the priests ; Aben Ezra, 
 of the priests and Levites. Ainsworth remarks, Annotations upon 
 the Five Books of Moses, London 1627, on Deut. x. 8 : " And as 
 the Levites stood before the Lord, so they are said also to stand 
 before the people, and serve them " (Num. xvi. 9 ; 2 Chron. 
 XXXV. 3 ; Ezek. xliv. 11). 
 
 ^ Kxl iTTivy^^iadut sTTi Tw 6u6f/,oc.ri ciVTOv, the same translation as 
 1 Chron. xxiii. 13; in Deut. xxi. 5, evXoyslu stands instead of 
 iTTivxtadut. Walton translates the Greek in Deut. x. 8, orare in 
 nomine ejus; in 1 Chron. xxiii. 13, deprecandum in nomine ejus. 
 But iTrevxio^oti may here have the same meaning as in Latin, 
 precari alicui {faiista), i.e. to bless. 
 
The Priestly Benediction, 1 9 
 
 celebrate His name ; " Luther : " to praise His name." 
 Before deciding, let us examine the interpretations 
 which have been adopted by Gesenius, Fiirst, and 
 Levy. Both Gesenius and Furst ^ read " to' invoke 
 His name " in this passage, as well as in xxi. 5 and 
 1 Chron. xxiii. 13, following the analogy of DEJ^a &<"ip 
 nin\^ Levy reads : " to praise His name." ^ If we 
 were to accept these translations which I have just 
 mentioned, the act of invoking or praising the name 
 of Jehovah would be as allowable for the Levites as 
 the priests. " House of Israel, bless the Lord ; house 
 of Aaron, bless the Lord ; house of Levi, bless the 
 Lord."^ "And He appointed certain of the Levites to 
 thank and praise the Lord God of Israel." ^ " Then the 
 Levites . . . said, Stand up, bless the Lord your God." ^ 
 It is not our purpose to take advantage of a theory 
 which might be made to prove conclusively that the 
 Levites, no less than the priests, engaged in the service 
 of praise, indeed that it was their legitimate business.^ 
 We cannot, however, accept the interpretations of 
 Gesenius, Fiirst, and Levy, although so favourable to 
 our theory, for grammatical and exegetical reasons. 
 
 (1.) It cannot be proved, unless in the three passages 
 mentioned above, that 1")n is ever used with a following 
 1 signifying to invoke or to 'j^raise. The object of 
 
 1 See their Lexicons under 'Y\2. 2 Qen. xii. 8, and often. 
 
 ^ Chalddisches Worterbuch, Leipzig 1867-68, under ^13. 
 
 4 Ps. cxxxv. 19, 20. 5 1 Chron. xvi. 4. 6 ^eh. ix. 5. 
 
 ^ Compare Maimonides, HilcTioth Keleha-Mikdash, who applies 
 Deut. X. 8 to the Levites themselves, and says: " Some of them 
 shall be singers, to sing daily at the offering." 
 
20 The Ordination and Duties of Levi. 
 
 Tin is always expressed either by the accusative with 
 ns, or even without it, or the object can be omitted, as 
 in the three passages in question. The complete con- 
 struction is found in 1 Chron. xvi. 2 : ^ " And when 
 David made an end of offering the burnt-offerings and 
 the peace-offerings, he blessed the people in the name 
 of Jehovah." Now, since this construction of "j"in with 
 3 of the object, which is sustained by the above 
 lexicographers, does not occur anywhere else, we prefer 
 to translate : " and to bless in His name." 
 
 (2.) This ■ translation is the most simple, and best 
 represents the special duty which was assigned to the 
 priests. All the people could call upon the name of 
 the Lord, all the people could praise Him ; but it was 
 especially the duty of the priests to bless the people 
 in the name of the Lord. But the manner of giving 
 the benediction, so far as these words are concerned, 
 is left indefinite. It is not at all indicated in the pas- 
 sages ^ quoted by Graf, which refer to a special occa- 
 sion. The reference in Deut. x. 8, xxi. 5, 1 Chron. 
 xxiii. 13, is to a duty which was performed by the 
 priests whenever occasion required, and which cannot 
 be understood without reference to the fti^iestly bene- 
 diction.^ That the duty of the j^riests is appropriately 
 described in Deut. x. 8, etc., as " to bless in His name," 
 appears when we remember that in the benediction 
 
 LXX. : Koji il'hoyfioi rou T^ctou Iv 6v6[/,eie,rt Kvplov. The- same 
 passage occurs in 2 Sam. vi. 18 ; comp. 2 Chron. xxx. 27. 
 2 Deut. xxvii. 12 ; Josh. viii. 33. 
 ^ Num. vi. 24-26 ; comp. Lev. ix. 22, 
 
Application of Deut. y.. Z, 21 
 
 the name Jehovah is repeated thrice. The priests 
 emphatically bless in His name. It is not necessary 
 to appeal to the almost universal support which the 
 Jewish and Christian commentators^ give this view, 
 since it sufficiently commends itself. 
 
 Looking now at the verse as a whole, we find that 
 it is spoken of a tribe which includes both priests and 
 Levites, since the words are so general, that, with the 
 exception of the last clause,^ they can truthfully be 
 applied to both, so that those who claim that any 
 Levite might become a priest, must cease to quote this 
 verse as a proof text, and must adduce other passages 
 in support of their theory if they expect it to stand. 
 
 1 Taanitli 26b; Num. vi. 24, 26; comp. Lev. ix. 22. Rashi 
 remarks on the words, "and to bless in His name:" "Priests, 
 and this is the elevation of the hands ; " Aben Ezra : " For 
 Eleazar was raising his hands ; " and nn miVD to 1 Chroh. 
 xxiii. 13 : " This is the blessing of the priests in raising their 
 hands." It is also maintained by Tirinus ex Bonfrere, Vatablus, 
 Corn, a Lapide, and Ainsworth. Jerome renders them: " ac 
 benediceret in nomine illius ; " Munsteri Hehraica Biblia, Basilese 
 1534: " benediceretque in nomine ejus;" Merceri Thesaurus 
 Linguse Sajictx, Lugdunse 1576 : " et ad benedicendum in nomine 
 ejus." 
 
 2 Comp. Erachin 11a, which seems to indicate that both the 
 Levitical service of song and the priestly benediction are implied 
 in Deut. x. 8. 
 
CHAPTEE III. 
 
 THE INHERITANCE OF LEVI. 
 
 Summary: How shall we construe the expression, "The priests the 
 Levites "? — The Deuteronomist does not teach that every Levite is 
 eligible to the priesthood — Priests Levites in Chronicles — Shall 
 we read priests and Levites ? — The usage of the Deuteronomist — 
 Asyndeton — Reading of King James's version correct — Aaron and 
 the priests termed Levites — Was Levi personally chosen as priest ? 
 Some of the modern critics do not refer the origin of the tribe to 
 Levi at all — To whom does the expression, "The Lord is their 
 inheritance," apply? — How was Levi to be supported? — The offer- 
 ings made by fire — According to Leviticus, this expression implies 
 an abundant provision for the priests— Not sufficient for the 
 maintenance of the tribe — God the giver of Levi's inheritance — 
 In what did the inheritance consist ? — The Levites and the sons 
 of Aaron empowered to receive the tithes — Tithes partially 
 designed for the supply of the people at the great sacrificial meals 
 — Tithes in Deuteronomy do not exclude those in Leviticus — 
 Numbers — Alleged unanswerable contradiction — What Levite 
 may come with all the desire of his heart ? — What service is 
 intended? — The forty-eight Levitical cities — Does the Deutero- 
 nomist represent the Levites as poor ? — Is there room for more 
 than one kind of tithe in Deuteronomy ? 
 
 " nnHE priests, the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, 
 _A- shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel." ^ 
 Our first inquiry must be in regard to the gram- 
 matical construction of these words. Graf asserts that 
 in this passage the word Levites is in apposition to 
 ^ Deut. xviii. la. 
 
The Priests the Levites. 23 
 
 priests, and the expression all the tribe of Levi in 
 apposition to the priests the Levites, so that the priestly 
 functions are attributed to the entire tribe of Levi.^ 
 This construction undoubtedly has the merit of sim- 
 plicity ; as the text stands, it is the most natural. It 
 is not true, however, that the Deuteronomist teaches 
 in other places that every male member of the tribe 
 of Levi is, by virtue of his birth, eligible to the priest- 
 hood. Not to speak of the Levites, who are often 
 mentioned in a seemingly private capacity, there is in 
 Deut. xxvii. 9, 14, 12, a clear discrimination between 
 the Levitical priests, comp. Josh. viii. 33, as pro- 
 nouncinoj the blessings and the curses, and their tribe, 
 which has its position with Simeon, Judah, Issachar, 
 Joseph, and Benjamin, and which with them are to 
 respond to the blessings spoken by their brethren. 
 The representation here, then, is that the mass of the 
 tribe of Levi are standing upon Mount Gerizim while 
 some of their brethren are acting as priests. Hence 
 we must seek some other grammatical explanation of 
 the passage in question than that which Graf has 
 suggested. 
 
 It has been well observed, that tliere is a natural 
 connection in the chain of thought between the kincj 
 and the priests.^ But as soon as landed possessions are 
 
 ' Graf, Die Gescliiclitl. BiicJier, S. 42. Compare Kayser, Das 
 Vorexilische Bitch, Strassburg 1874, S. 187. 
 
 - Aben Ezra remarks oa the words of the priests the Levites: 
 " Since he has mentioned the judgments for the king, who is the 
 judge, he also mentions the judgment for the priests, who are 
 teachers of the law." 
 
24 The hiheritafice of Levi. 
 
 spoken of, the tribe is suggested. This is undoubtedly 
 the correct interpretation of the passage, rather than 
 the view that the Deuteronomist designed to attribute 
 the priestly prerogative to the tribe. How, then, shall 
 Ave construe these words ? There are passages where 
 the connective entirely fails, and yet it is evident from 
 tlie sense that the words cannot be in apposition. 
 Such are Ezra x. 5 ; Neh. x. 28, 35, xi. 20. The last 
 passage reads : " And the residue of Israel, the priests, 
 the Levites, were in all the cities of Judah, every one 
 in his inheritance." Now it is grammatically possible 
 to say that the priests are in apposition with the rest of 
 Israel. But an examination of the context shows that 
 such a construction is absurd. It is evident from 
 ver. 4 that we have to do with three separate classes, . 
 the residue of Israel, of the priests, and of the Levites, 
 who went outside of Jerusalem after their brethren 
 had been settled inside the walls. It is possible that 
 the passage in Deuteronomy once read, " The priests 
 and the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi," the second 
 clause being in apposition to the first. The construc- 
 tion would be the same as in 1 Kings viii. 65:" Seven 
 days and seven days, fourteen days." Although this 
 reading with and actually occurs in one Hebrew and one 
 Greek MS., it is not probable that it was original.^ 
 
 ^ The reading D^l^m is found in Kennicott, No. 69, a MS. of 
 the fifteenth century, and Kotl Tolg Aivhocig in liohnes and 
 Parsons, No. XI., Codex Basiliano-Vaticanus of the ninth century. 
 These readings, of course, have no value except as indicating an 
 exegetical opinion. Jerome translates : " Non habebunt sacer- 
 dotes et Levitse, et omnes qui de eadem tribu sunt, partem et 
 
The Pttrpose of the D enter onomist. 25 
 
 This conjecture is, however, open to the objection 
 that the Deuteronomist uses the expression priests 
 Levites as equivalent to Levitical priests, and it is not 
 probable that he has departed from his usual formula 
 in this case. 
 
 There seems, however, to be no reasonable doubt 
 that there is an asyndeton between the phrase D'':in3n 
 
 If it had been the purpose of the Deuteronomist to 
 state that any Levite might be priest, he would have 
 done so more clearly than in the passage before us. 
 It is his object not only to declare that the priests are 
 without inheritance among their brethren, but that the 
 tribe to which they belong has no inheritance among 
 the other tribes. Hence, a connective may be mentally 
 supplied before all ( h'S) ; and we have the ordinary 
 reading of the English version, which undoubtedly 
 gives the correct sense : " The priests the Levites, and 
 all the tribe of Levi," since the tribe is far more com- 
 prehensive than the Levitical priests. That Aaron 
 and the priests in general are termed Levites, even 
 where the distinction between the official character of 
 the priests and Levites is observed, is apparent from 
 many passages. Aaron is caUed a Levite.^ The mem- 
 bers of the tribe whom he is to employ in the service of 
 
 hsereditatem cum reliquo Israel." The Arabic Version : " Cumque 
 nulla sit sacerdotibus et Levitis, nempe toti tribui Levi sors aut 
 haereditas cum Israelitis." Munster: " Non debet esse sacerdotibus 
 Levitici generis et toti tribui Levitarum," etc. 
 
 1 See Riehm, Die Gesetzgehung Mosis, Gotha 1854, S. 35. 
 
 2 Ex. iv. 14 : " Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? " 
 
26 The Inheritance of Levi. 
 
 the sanctuary, are termed his brethren from the tribe of 
 Levi his father.-^ His genealogy always appears with 
 that of the tribe.^ There is then nothing to prevent 
 our assuming that the speaker embraces two classes, 
 priests and Levites, under the designation tribe of Levi. 
 It may, however, be objected that in Deut. xviii. 5 
 it is plainly stated that God has chosen him, that is, 
 Levi, out of all the tribes to stand to minister in the 
 name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever. Compare 
 with this, 1 Sam. ii. 28 ; Mai. ii. 4, 5. Do not these 
 passages carry conviction to every reflecting mind of 
 the soundness of Graf's position?^ Let us see. (1.) In 
 Deut. xviii. 5, the word Mm relates to 'priest in the 
 third verse. The latter is not, however, equivalent to 
 tribe, since the two first verses of the chapter form a 
 separate whole by themselves. (2.) The expression 
 " out of all thy tril>es " is the same as out of all Israel, 
 and does not imply, as might seem, one tribe out of 
 all the tribes, but a place or person out of all Israel ; 
 comp. Deut. xii. 5, 14. "But unto the place which 
 the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes. 
 ... But in the place which the Lord shall choose in 
 one of thy tribes" (xxix. 17, 20). "Lest there should 
 be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe. ... 
 And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all 
 tlie tribes." In this case, " him" refers not to tribe 
 alone, but also to all the preceding classes. 
 
 ^ Num. xviii. 2 ; compare Sirach xlv. 6. 
 
 2 Josh. xxi. 3, -4; 1 Chron. v. 27-29 (E. V. vi. 1-3). 
 
 3 Graf, Dk Gesdiichtl Backer, S. 42. 
 
The Covenant with Levi. 27 
 
 We turn now to passages which are held by Thenius^ 
 and Kayser^ to prove that God made a covenant with 
 the tribe of Levi. With whom was this covenant 
 made ? It must have been made either with the tribe 
 or with its representative. That God entered into a 
 covenant with the patriarchs, which embraced their 
 descendants, and with David in behalf of his seed, is 
 familiar to all. Although 1 Sam. ii. 27, Mai. ii. 4, 
 seem to imply that the covenant was made with Levi 
 himself, this is not necessarily the case, for the term 
 Levi is comprehensive like that of Israel. There is 
 not a particle of evidence which shows that the Lord 
 appeared to the father of the tribe. It was rather to 
 Aaron, who became the representative of his tribe,^ to 
 whom the Lord appeared in Egypt ;* he was chosen 
 from among the children of Israel.^ Even with him 
 it is not said that a covenant was made. Phinehas, his 
 grandson, becomes the representative of the Levitical 
 priests ; with him God solemnly ratifies His covenant, 
 Num. XXV. 12, 13a; "Wherefore say. Behold, I give 
 iinto him (Phinehas) my covenant of peace : and he shall 
 have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an 
 everlasting priesthood."^ With this compare Mai. ii. 5a; 
 " My covenant was with him (Levi) of life and peace." 
 But there is nowhere in the Old Testament any men- 
 tion made of a covenant with Levi himself or his tribe. 
 
 ' Die Backer Samuels, Leipzig 1842, S. 121. 
 
 2 Das Vorexilische Biich. S. 155. 
 
 3 Num. xvii. 18 (E. V. ver. 3). ^ Ex. iv. 14, 27. 
 
 ^ Ex. xxviii. 1. ^ Num. xxv. 12, 13. 
 
2 8 The Inheritance of L evi. 
 
 We turn now to the words, "they shall have no 
 part nor inheritance with Israel; . . . the Lord is 
 their inheritance, as He said unto theni:"-^ I omit, 
 as irrelevant to this discussion, the critical question 
 with reference to the origin of the tribe of Levi, which, 
 according to Vatke,^ Duncker,^ Graf,* Land, and 
 Kuenen,^ is not to be referred to Levi at all. There 
 is the completest harmony between Deuteronomy and 
 the other books of the Pentateuch in the assertion that 
 the tribe of Levi is to receive no inheritance among 
 
 ^ Colenso remarks on the parallel passage, Deut. x. 9: "The 
 Deuteronomist, in order to have carried out properly the part of 
 Moses, should have written, ' Wherefore Levi sliall have no part 
 with his brethren,' ... It is plain that he writes from a later 
 state of things than that of Moses, when the separate position 
 of the Levites, as ministers of the sanctuary, was recognised in 
 Israel." This does not follow. The speaker has just mentioned 
 that the Lord long ago separated the tribe of Levi to His service, 
 at the same time He determined that they should have no inherit- 
 ance among the tribes (Num. xviii. 20, 24). To the eye of the 
 prophet, this was as fixed a fact as though it had already taken 
 place. It is the perfect, which is usual for promises whose fulfil- 
 ment is mentally already performed. Compare Ewald, Aiisfiilirl. 
 Lchrhuch, Gott. 1870, S. 352 ; Green, A Grammar of the Hebrew 
 Language, New York 1871, § 262 1. h. ; A. B. Davidson, An Intro- 
 ductory Ilehreiu Grammar, Edin. 1876, pp. 115-6. The translation 
 of the LXX., which the English version follows in this case, un- 
 doubtedly gives the proper sense : A;« tovto ovk hrt rolg Asvirons 
 fAip'ig Kul K'Kvipoc:. Holmes and Parsons, iii. xi. 30, 32, 46, 52, 53, 
 56, 58, 59, 73, 85. Compl. Cat. Nic. Philo, i. 339, read 'iarui ; 
 Kennicott, No. 199, or Nuremberg 2, A.D. 1249, has ^^•^^ 
 
 2 Die Religion des Alien Testaments, Berlin 1835, S. 221. 
 
 3 Geschichte des Alterthnms, Leipzig 1874, B. i. S. 358; ii. 
 S. 133. 
 
 * Alerx Archiv, S. 75, 76. 
 
 5 Theologisch Tijdschrift, Amsterdam, July 1872, 628-670. 
 
How was Levi to be supported'^ 29 
 
 the other tribes.^ Eiehm remarks that the words, 
 "Jehovah is their inheritance," which in the old law 
 are only said of Aaron and his sons, Num. xviii. 20, 
 but never of the Levites, in Deut. xviii, 2 seem to be 
 applied to the Levites.^ 
 
 This is not, however, a serious objection. It is 
 not distinctly said in ISTum. xviii. that the Lord is 
 their inheritance, but the twenty-fourth verse justifies 
 the application of this term to the Levites as well as 
 the priests, since the tithes which the children of 
 Israel are represented as offering to God, He is said to 
 have given " to the Levites to inherit : therefore I have 
 said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall 
 have no inheritance." These words are certainly 
 equivalent in sense if not in form to Deut. xviii, 2« ; 
 " Therefore they shall have no inheritance among their 
 brethren." 
 
 The question now arises. How was the tribe of Levi 
 to be supported ? The answer is given in the most 
 general terms in Deut. xviii, 1 : " They shall eat of the 
 
 ^ Lundius, Die alien JiidiscTien HeiUgtJiiimer, Hamb, 1711, S. 
 410, says : " The tribe of Levi is not reckoned among his brothers, 
 when the inheritance in the promised land is mentioned, Num. 
 xxvi, 62. But if the discourse is not with reference to the inherit- 
 ance, and the tribes are otherwise numbered, Levi is numbered 
 with them ; and that the twelve may remain, Ephraim and Manasseh 
 are reckoned under Joseph's name as one stem, as may especially 
 be seen in Num. xvii. 2, 3 ; Deut. xxvii. 12." Comp. Delitzsch, 
 Commentar ub. die Genesis^ Leipzig 1872, S. 522. Comp. Num. 
 xviii. 20, 24, xxvi. 62; Josh. xiii. 14, 33; Deut. xii. 12, xiv. 
 27, 29. 
 
 2 Riehm, Die Gesetzgehung HJosis^ Gotha 1854, S. 36. 
 
30 The hiheritance of Levi, 
 
 offerings of the Lord made by fire, and His inheritance." 
 Of course, the objector to the Mosaic authorship of 
 Deuteronomy at once triumphantly lays his finger on 
 this passage, as proving that the Levites, whether 
 performing priestly duties or not, were maintained by 
 the sacrifices. 
 
 It must be remembered that we have not to do 
 with a clear statute, but rather with a statement, in 
 regard to a tribe, which embraces a series of statutes, 
 the knowledge of which is presupposed by the speaker. 
 Indeed, there is no contradiction between the laws in 
 the middle books of the Pentateuch, which only allow 
 the priests and their families to eat of the offerings 
 made by fire, and this hint at those laws, since here 
 no distinction is made between the component parts 
 of the tribe. If we presuppose the exact laws of the 
 middle books of the Pentateuch with reference to those 
 who have a right to participate in the portions which 
 the priests receive in the sacrifice, we have no warrant 
 in this verse for admitting the Levites in general to the 
 same privileges. On the other hand, regarding this as 
 an entirely new law, there would be need of much 
 supplementary legislation to determine how the sacri- 
 fices should be divided. Singularly enough, the word 
 nsj'X, or its plural,^ which is translated in the English 
 
 ^ It is worthy of special notice that in Deut. xviii. 1 we have the 
 expression r\\r\^ ^C^t?, " the offerings of the Lord made by fire," the 
 very phrase which occurs in the passages designated below, and of 
 which we have no explanation except in the following passages : 
 Lev. ii. 3, 10, iv. 35, v. 12, vi. 11, vii. 30, 35, x. 12, 13, xxi. 6, 
 
Necessary Presuppositions. 3 1 
 
 version the " offerings made by fire," occurs only once 
 each in the Books of Deuteronomy/ Joshua,^ and 
 Samuel/ while it is found four times in Exodus, forty- 
 two times in Leviticus, and sixteen times in Numbers. 
 Is it not remarkable that, after the word had obtained 
 such extensive currency in the priestly legislation, it 
 should not once be mentioned by the priestly author 
 of Chronicles, who, according to the critics, was satu- 
 rated with the contents of Exodus — Numbers, which 
 received their final form, as they affirm, at a time 
 which immediately precedes that of the author of 
 Chronicles. 
 
 If we were to consider Deuteronomy as containing 
 full regulations in regard to sacrifice, we should have 
 reason to fear that the priests were on the verge of 
 starvation. But if we see, in the extremely meagre 
 and scattered notices with regard to the priests and 
 their duties, references to laws rather than the laws 
 themselves, our surprise will not be so great.* It is 
 absolutely necessary, in view of the facts which we 
 have cited, to presuppose as full a code of laws in 
 regard to the participation of the priests in the sacrifices 
 as we find in the middle books of the Pentateuch. 
 
 To these we must look for the explanation of the 
 
 ^ xviii. 1. 2 xiii. u, 3 ii_ 28. 
 
 * The terms \1'^p^ Ti^D DIliD, Dt^'^< do not occur in Deuteronomy; 
 nt^ton is not used in it of a sin-offering ; n?V is conifined to xii. 
 6, 11, 13, 14, 26 ; nnt is found in xii. 6, 11, 27, xviii. 3, xxxiii. ]9 ; 
 D^D^tr, Deut. xxvii. 7 ; mj, xii. 6, 11, 26 ; h'h'2, xxxiii. 10. The 
 contrast between Deuteronomy and the other books of the Pen- 
 tateuch in this respect is very striking. 
 
32 The Inheritance of Levi, 
 
 phrase, " the offerings of the Lord made by fire/' and 
 not to ver. 3, wliicli we will consider farther on. We 
 shall find, by reference to the laws in Leviticus, that 
 under the word n^'K, offering made hy fire, provision 
 was made for the nourishment of the priests. (1.) They 
 received the wave-breast and the heave-shoulder of 
 the Dvobc^, peace-offerings.-^ (2.) The whole of the 
 nson, sin-offering, which was a female kid of the goats, 
 or a lamb,^ was given to the priests, with the exception 
 of the fat, which was burned on the altar. (3.) They 
 were to receive the whole of the Dti'X, tresjmss-offerings.^ 
 (4.) They were entitled to the greater part of the ]2'\\y 
 nmo, meat-offering} It follows from these regulations, 
 that except in times of apostasy the existence of the 
 priests would be secured. The offerings of the Lord 
 made by fire, however, could not have sufficed to secure 
 the maintenance of the whole tribe, or even to fully 
 meet the most simple necessities of the priests ; hence 
 
 ^ These were, (a) a male or female of the herd, Tiev. iii. 1, 
 vii. 34 ; (h) of the flock, ver. 6 ; (c) or a goat, ver. 12. 
 
 2 Lev. iv. 27-35, vi. 25-29. 
 
 3 They were of four kinds : (a) for concealing knowledge, Lev. 
 V. 1, the offering was a female lamb or kid, ver. 6, or if too poor, 
 the man bringing the sacrifice could offer two turtle doves or 
 young pigeons, or if these were beyond his means, he could bring 
 a meat-offering, ver. 11 ; (b) for sacrilege committed ignorantly, 
 he was required to bring a ram, ver. 15 ; (c) for sins of ignorance, 
 (d) and for sins done knowingly, he was required to bring a ram, 
 ver. 18, vi. 6, vii. 6, 7. 
 
 * This was of four different kinds: (a) fine flour, oil and frank- 
 incense, Lev. ii. 1-3; (h) baked in an oven, ver. 4, vii. 9; (c) 
 dressed in a frying-pan, ver. 7, vii. 9; (d) green ears of corn, with 
 oil and frankincense, ver. 14, vii. 10. 
 
Where was the Inheritance promised? 33 
 
 a further provision is made for the entire tribe of Levi, 
 who are to eat of the Lord's inheritance.^ 
 
 Before considering in what this inheritance con- 
 sisted, let us ascertain to whom the pronoun his refers 
 in Deut. xviii. 16; examine some passages which 
 mention the inheritance as promised; and find, if 
 possible, the place to w^hich the Deuteronomist refers 
 in xviii. 26. 
 
 (1.) To whom, then, does the pronoun refer in the 
 expression " his inheritance " ? Obviously to the Lord. 
 The tribe is not only to eat of the Lord's offerings 
 made by fire, but also of His inheritance.^ Any other 
 construction is unnatural.^ 
 
 (2.) In verse 26 the inheritance is mentioned as 
 something which has been definitely promised : " The 
 Lord is his inheritance, as He said unto him." In Deut. 
 X. 96 the words are substantially the same : " The Lord 
 
 ^ The Septuagint translates the phrase : Kocpi^u^ocru, Kvpiov 6 
 K'Kvipo; civrai/, (pxyovroci uvra, which Walton renders: Ohlationes 
 Domini sors eoi'um, comedent eas. This omission of 1, and, by the 
 LXX., which is supported by a German Hebrew MS. of the twelfth 
 century, Kennicott No. 4, is arbitrary. The Targums, the Sama- 
 ritan, Syriac, and Arabic versions, all follow the Hebrew iniriiV 
 
 2 In Maimonides, Teriimotli xii. 19, it is said of the priests or 
 Levites : " And so they were forbidden to seize the heave-offerings 
 and the tithes, or even to ask for their portion, since they were 
 rather to receive it with honour, because at the table of the Lord 
 they were eating, and at His table they were drinking, and these 
 gifts were the Lord's, which He had granted to them, as it is said, 
 I also have given thee the charge of my heave -offerings " (Num. 
 xviii. 8). 
 
 ^ The Septuagint and the Jerusalem Targum translate : their 
 inlieritance. The reference, however, is to God as the giver to Levi of 
 an inheritance which, has first been solemnly bestowed on Himself. 
 
 C 
 
34 The InJie7'itance of Levi, 
 
 is his inheritance, according as ■ the Lord thy God 
 promised him." In Josh. xiii. 3 3 the passage reads : 
 " The Lord God of Israel was their inheritance, as He 
 said unto them." 
 
 Now, in these passages the Deuteronomist and the 
 author of Joshua have in mind some definite command 
 of God, which they regard as well known to all. 
 
 (3.) Is there, then, any place in the Old Testament 
 where this promise seems to have been made for the 
 first time ? There are only two passages where such a 
 promise appears. One is in Ezek. xliv. 27&, 28 : "He 
 shall offer his sin-offering, saith the Lord Jehovah. 
 And it shall be unto them for an inheritance ; I am 
 their inheritance : and ye shall give them no possession 
 in Israel ; I am their possession." 
 
 But it is impossible that the Deuteronomist should 
 refer to a work which, as all the critics agree, was 
 written after his time. Besides, the mode of expression 
 is different, and renders the reference to Ezekiel im- 
 probable. The word \hr\, 'portion} which appears in 
 connection with n^SiJ in Deut. x. 9 and xviii., does 
 not occur in Ezek. xliv. 28&, but nrnx, possession. If 
 jwe now turn to Num. xviii. 20, 21, 24, we shall 
 probably find the original promise on which the above 
 passages rest : " And the Lord spake unto Aaron, In 
 their land shalt thou not inherit, neither slialt thou " 
 
 ^ Siphri explains this word : ■part that is booty. Rashi, Ramban, 
 and Ainsworth adopt the same. Maimonidcs also, Ililcoth She- 
 mitta va-Yobel xiii, 10, paraphrases: "Part in the booty and 
 inheritance of the land." 
 
Where was the Inheritance promised ? 35 
 
 have any part among them : I am thy part and thine 
 inheritance among the children of Israel. And, behold, 
 I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in 
 Israel for an inheritance. . . . But the tithes of the 
 children of Israel, which they offer as a heaye-offering 
 unto the Lord, I have given to the Levites to inherit : 
 therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of 
 Israel they shall have no inheritance." 
 
 It will be seen that in the above passage the words 
 occur which are cited in Deut. x. 9, xviii. 1 : " I am 
 thy j^art and thine inheritance." But the objection 
 has been raised by Eiehm, that while the expression, 
 " the Lord is his inheritance," seems to be applied to 
 the whole tribe of Levi without discrimination ; in the 
 old law, as given above, it is said only of Aaron and 
 his sons.-^ 
 
 (4.) Let us then consider to whom the expression, "the 
 Lord is their inheritance," in Num. xviii. 20—24, a]3plies. 
 We admit that in the passage quoted these words are 
 used only of. Aaron and his sons. When we turn, 
 however, to ver. 21, and especially to ver. 24, we find 
 it clearly stated that the Lord has given the Levites 
 the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as 
 a heave-offering unto the Lord, for an inheritance. 
 When He gives these tithes, which He has received 
 from Israel as His own, to the Levites, we have a right 
 
 ^ Gesetzgehung Mosis^ S. 36: " Hiernach scheinen die Leviteu 
 an deu Opferdeputaten Theil haben zu sollen, und audi auf sie 
 scheint das ' Jehova selbst ist ilir Erbe,' das im alten Gesetz nur 
 von Aaron and seinen Sohuen (Num. xviii. 20) nie von den Leviteu 
 gesagt wird, angewendet zu werden." 
 
36 The Inheritance of Levi. 
 
 to afifirm that the author of this passage in Numbers 
 really represents God as the inheritance of the Levites, 
 since the tithes belonged to Him as well as the sacrifices, 
 and He is as truly represented as giving the tithes to 
 the priests and Levites, as the sacrifices to priests alone. 
 Hence the Deuteronomist, without any change in the 
 terms of the promise in Num. xviii. 20—24, can say 
 of the tribe, including priests and Levites, " The Lord 
 is his inheritance, as He said unto him." ^ 
 
 (5.) The question now arises, In what did the inherit- 
 ance consist ? This is not defined by the Deuterono- 
 mist, beyond the general statement that the Lord is 
 his inheritance. In the Book of Joshua, which some 
 claim was from the same author, it is said, xiii. 1 4, that 
 the sacrifices of the Lord God of Israel; ver. 33, that 
 the Lord God of Israel ; and xviii. 7, that the priesthood 
 of the Lord, are the inheritance of the Levites. It 
 will be seen that neither of these verses defines that 
 inheritance, they merely contain general statements in 
 regard to it. Certainly, if we were left to these notices, 
 the terms of the Levitical inheritance would be very 
 obscure. When, however, we turn to Num. xviii. 21, 
 24, 26, we find the tithes definitely mentioned as the 
 inheritance of the Levites, while that of the priests, 
 who belong to the same tribe, is defined in vers. 8-20. 
 
 We are at once met with two objections : (1) that 
 Deuteronomy does not represent the Levites as receiv- 
 ing tithes ; (2) that those mentioned serve an entirely 
 different purpose from the ones designated in the 
 ^ Deut. xviii. 1. 
 
The Tithes, 37 
 
 middle books of the Pentateuch. The first objection, 
 that the Deuteronomist nowhere represents the Levites 
 as receiving tithes, is sufficiently answered when we 
 remember that the scantiest mention is made of the 
 priesthood and its privileges. It is certain that there 
 were many things which pertained to them of which 
 no mention is made in Deuteronomy. Indeed, the 
 custom of arguing that a thing does not exist because 
 at the time of a certain writer it is not referred to by 
 him, is a curse to all true criticism, and cannot be too 
 severely condemned. If we suppose, however, that 
 the laws in regard to the first-fruits, the firstlings, and 
 the tithes, given in I^um. xviii., were already in exist- 
 ence before the composition of Deuteronomy, then no 
 one who was versed in them could fail to understand 
 that they were indicated under the term inheritance 
 (Deut. xviii. W). 
 
 The second objection has more weight. In Leviti- 
 cus the character of the tithes is briefly specified. It 
 is tauQjht, in xxvii. 30—32, that all the tithe of the 
 land and of the flocks and herds is holy to the Lord. 
 Emphasis is to be laid on the fact that the tithe is not 
 the people's property, but the Lord's. Hence the 
 Israelites can only dispose of it to those persons who 
 were empowered to receive it for Him. In Num. xviii. 
 21, 24, 26, 28, these are designated as the Levites 
 and the sons of Aaron. If we now look at. Deutero- 
 nomy, we shall find that the tithes there mentioned 
 differ entirely in character from those in Lev. xxvii. 
 30, 32. According to Deut. xii. 17, xiv. 22, 23, the 
 
38 The Inheritance of Levi, 
 
 tithes are simply products of tlie field, or, more specifi- 
 cally, consist of corn, wine, and oil. They seem to 
 have differed from those already mentioned as follows : 
 (1) They appear to have been limited to three things, 
 corn, wine, and oil, while those in Leviticus embraced 
 all the products of husbandry ; (2) they did not include 
 the tenth of the flocks and herds ; (3) they are nowhere 
 characterised as the Lord's, but are spoken of as belong- 
 ino- to the Israelites, to be eaten in sacrificial meals, or 
 as a tithe which is set apart once in three years for 
 the benefit of the poor. 
 
 (1.) jSTow, when it is asserted that the tithes in Deu- 
 teronomy exclude those in Leviticus and Numbers, it is 
 a great mistake ; since they served an entirely different 
 purpose, namely, — with the exception of the tithe which 
 was given to the poor, — of partially providing for the 
 people at the great sacrificial feasts,^ which, owing to 
 their length and dignity, would require not less than a 
 tenth of the year's husbandry. The expenditures for 
 such occasions of mirth and festivity were much the 
 same in kind as the modern Jews make every Sabbath,^ 
 or Christians at Christmas and the New Year, They 
 brought pleasure to the giver and all his immediate 
 friends. (2.) It cannot be proved that the tithes in Deu- 
 teronomy exclude those in Leviticus and Numbers, 
 because together they would be too great a burden for 
 the people. If we were to regard all the tithes as so 
 
 1 See Deut. xvi. 2, 10, 13. 
 
 2 Comp. Schroder, Satzungen u. Gebrauclie des talmud. rahhin. 
 Judeuthums, Bremen 1851, S. 21. 
 
The Firstlings. 39 
 
 many taxes, it would not be proved that, even in 
 the regal period, when the people were required to 
 give a tenth of their seed, of their vineyards, and 
 of their sheep,^ they were oppressive, since, except in 
 the case of the priests and Levites, the tithes did 
 not extend to everything, but only to corn, wine, 
 and oil. In any case, all these tithes put together 
 could not be as oppressive as the exactions of the 
 Eoman Catholic Church before the Eeformation, or the 
 Turks of the present day. (3.) The Jewish tradition, 
 which in such matters should certainly have weight, 
 discriminates the '•JD' "it^'^D,^ second tithe, and the 
 ^jy "it^'y^,^ tithe of the i^oor, as quite distinct from that 
 in the middle books of the Pentateuch. From all this, 
 we conclude that the Deuteronomist in xviii. 1, 2 
 refers, under the term inheritance, to the tithes as 
 described in Leviticus and Numbers (|1t^'5<"l "iK^i?D with 
 the '■\\:;iii:)r\ p nc^y^). 
 
 An unanswerable contradiction, however, is said to 
 exist between the regulations as to the firstlings in 
 Deut. xii. 17 and in Num. xviii. 15-18. This is not, 
 however, really the case. It will be remembered in 
 the so-called peace-offerings that the wave-breast and 
 the heave-shoulder were solemnly set apart for the use 
 of the priests after the fat had been burned.* It is 
 natural to suppose that the rest of the animal feU to 
 the owner who brought the offering. This conjecture 
 enables us to solve the problem as to the disposition 
 
 1 1 Sam. viii. 15, 17. ^ ])eut. xiv. 22-27. 
 
 3 Deut. xiv. 28. * Ex. xxix. 27, 28 ; Lev. vii. 34. 
 
40 The Inheritance of Levi. 
 
 which was made of the firstlings. In Num. xviii. 18. 
 the Lord is represented as saying to Aaron : " And the 
 flesh of them shall be thine, as the wave-breast and 
 the heave-shoulder, it shall be thine." But in Dent, 
 xii. 17, the people^ are' addressed when it is said: 
 " Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of 
 thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the first- 
 lings of thy herds or of thy flocks." It is not said in 
 Numbers that all the flesh of the firstlins^s beloncjs to 
 the priests, nor in Deuteronomy that the people are 
 to eat all of it. 
 
 The promise is made to Aaron in general terms, that 
 the flesh shall be his. The question would naturally 
 arise whether he was to receive all of it "^ as in the 
 
 ^ Rashi f /i loco : " This admonition is for the priests ; " and Aben 
 Ezra: " He says this of the priests, for the Levites and also the 
 priests are included under Israel." The connection, however, is 
 evidently against this interpretation. 
 
 ^ The Rabbinical tradition evidently assigns all the flesh of the 
 firstlings to the priests. Josephus, Antiq. iv. 4. 4 : koli toju mpu- 
 TToouu Be Tuu tig raj Svalcx,; viuof^ia[/,ivuu ro yiuuYidtu TirpuiTOu, »i/ 
 oipaiv fi, Kcx.ra,6vaci.i 'TkCcpuoy^jiiM toI; lepiiJaiu, uan ocvrovg 'ttocvoikI 
 aiTiia6oci iv TYi hpoi 'TtoKii. " And they shall bring the firstling of 
 four-footed beasts, which are lawful for sacrifices, to the priests to 
 be offered, if it is a male, that they may eat it with the entire family 
 in the sacred city." Mishna, Beclwroth ii. 6, where the question is 
 discussed whether twin lambs, if both are males, coming to the 
 light at the same moment as firstlings belong to the priest. The 
 weight of opinion assigns only one to him ; but in case one of them ' 
 should die, he shares the living lamb with the owner. If one of 
 the firstlings, however, is a female, the priest receives neither. 
 This tradition, however, is not to be received, unless it can be 
 proved that Num. xviii. 18, in the Hebrew original and the Greek 
 translation, affords no foundation for our explanation. 
 
Deuteronomy xviii. 3. 41 
 
 case of tlie sin- and trespass-offerings/ or only the 
 wave-breast and heave-shoulder, as in the peace-offer- 
 ings. The latter is the standard assigned. After the 
 priest has offered the fat,^ the breast falls to Aaron and 
 his sons ; and the owner who brings the offering, " with 
 his own hands" gives the officiating priest the right 
 shoulder, ver. 32. The evident inference is, that he 
 retains the rest of the animal for his own use f so that 
 both priests and, according to the passage in Deutero- 
 nomy, the people can partake of the firstlings. 
 
 We turn now to Dent, xviii. 3, which is considered 
 by some as indicating the portions which the Levitical 
 priests were to receive from the offerings, namely, the 
 shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw. This explana- 
 
 1 Lev. vi. 25-29, vii. 1-7. 
 
 - Num. xviii. 17 ; compare Lev. vii. 31. 
 
 ^ In Num. xviii. 18, 3 is a preposition which governs riTn 
 and pisy, which therefore are not subjects of n'Tl'' ; its subject is 
 "their flesh." The preposition 3 here indicates agreement with 
 a norm, as Ex. xxi. 9 ; Lev. v. 10, viii. 31: ; Num. ii. 34, ix. 3, 1 2. 
 This construction is given by the LXX. : kou to. Kpia, Urui 
 Gol Kotda, Kocl TO arridvviov rou S'Tn^SfzocTog, x-otl koctoc rou ^pccy^ioucc 
 Tou h^io'j aol iGTui. After we had adopted the above view 
 as the result of our own investigation, we found that it had 
 aheady been presented by Hengstenberg, Authentie des Pentateuch, 
 Berlin 1839, B. ii. S. 40G f., but in such a way that it had been 
 very properly rejected by Riehm, Gesetzgebimg Mosis, S. 42. 
 Riehm claims that since everything which opened the matrix 
 belonged to the priests, therefore it was designed that they should 
 receive the whole animal. It must be remembered, however, that 
 after the general statements there are certain specifications, and 
 that the grammar certainly allows, and harmony demands, that we 
 should understand that the priests received the same proportion of 
 the firstlings of sheep and cattle as of peace-offerings. 
 
42 The Inheritance of Levi. 
 
 tion, liowever, fails to appreciate the connection, since 
 the Deuteronomist considers — (1) the income of the 
 tribe of Levi from the Lord ; {ci) that of the priests 
 from His sacrifices, {b) that of the priests and Levites 
 from His inheritance.^ He then considers (2) the 
 income of the priests from the people ; ^ and (3) in 
 the fourth verse changes an old law,^ by adding a 
 regulation in regard to the fleece of the sheep. The 
 third verse, instead of containing, as some think, a 
 modification of the old law, is simply a new I'egulation, 
 which is made for the benefit of the priests just as the 
 Israelites are about to enter the promised land. Hence 
 it in no way interferes with the portions which have 
 l)een assigned to the priests from the offerings. It is 
 nothing more or less than a direction to the Israelites, 
 that when they slaughter for their own food they shall 
 give the priest the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the 
 maw. Keil remarks that it is questionable whether 
 this gift is required from all the animals which were 
 slaughtered for private use, or only from those whicli 
 were killed for sacrificial meals. He decides in favour 
 of the latter for two reasons : (1) because, as he affirms, 
 the words nnt nn? are never employed in connection 
 with ordinary slaughtering; (2) because the carrying 
 out of this regulation would be attended with too 
 much difficulty.^ As to the first objection, although 
 tliese words are very generally used of sacrifices, this 
 
 1 xviii. 1, 2. 2 im^^ y. 3. 
 
 ^ Ex. xxii. 29a,- Num. xviii. 12. 
 * See his commentary in loco. 
 
The Perquisites of the Priests, 43 
 
 is not always the case. The verb is also used of 
 ordinary slaughtering.-* 
 
 Keil's claim, that the noun nnt is never used 
 except of sacrifice, rests upon mooted passages, since 
 he cannot quote in support of his statement with full 
 assurance, Isa. xxxiv. 6, Jer. xlvi. 10, Ezek. xxxix. 17, 
 where the Targum renders the noun nar by ^'0\>, and 
 indeed properly, since not an offering but a judicial 
 slaughter is meant. As to the second objection, which 
 has already been made by Eiehm,^ not only on account of 
 the difficulty of meeting the regulation, but also because 
 we have no confirmatory evidence that the priests were 
 recipients of these gifts, it is not necessary to suppose 
 that such a regulation would be obligatory on all without 
 exception. We may rather suppose that it was designed 
 only for those who lived conveniently near the priests. 
 Further, there was no particular reason for stating the 
 enforcement of the command, and no historical occasion 
 for doing so.^ Indeed, to assert that a law can never 
 liave existed because historical writers make no mention 
 of its application, especially if it is of minor importance, 
 is pure assumption. Our explanation of Deut. xviii. 
 3 is strengthened by an ancient tradition. Josephus * 
 
 ^ Deut. xii. 15 ; 1 Sam. xxviii. 24 ; 1 Kings i. 9, xix. 21 ; 
 2 Chron. xviii. 2 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 3. 
 
 ^ Gesetzgehung Mosis^ S. 41. 
 
 ^ As, e.g.^ for the mention of the law concerning the sabbatical 
 year. 
 
 * Antiquities^ iv. 4. 4 : 'Eavoh Si kocI rolg kolt oTxou dvovatu sva)ctu; 
 iuiKoc rvji ocvrcji/, cc'h'kcc f4,/i ^pYiaKsi'oce:, duocyKviv KOf^t^nu rul; Upsvaiu 
 
44 The Inheritance of Levi. 
 
 says : " Those also who were slaying at home for their 
 banquets, but not for religious service, were obliged to 
 bring to the priests the maw, the jaw, and the right 
 shoulder of that which was slain." Pliilo ^ expresses liim- 
 self in much the same terms : " But of those which are 
 slain away from the altar for food, it is commanded that 
 tliree things should be given to the priest — the shoulder, 
 the jawbone, and the maw." This tradition appears in 
 the Mishna, Clmllin x. 1 : " The shoulder, the two cheeks, 
 and the maw are due, in the country and out of the 
 country, at the time of the temple and when there is 
 no temple, from the Chullin, that ivhicli is common, and 
 not from the Qodashim; that tvhich is holy.'' Otherwise 
 one might ask, if the gifts are due from Chullin, from 
 which the breast and shoulder are not due ; are not the 
 gifts due from the Qodashim, from which breast and 
 shoulder are due ? But the Scripture teaches : " I have 
 given them to Aaron the priest and his sons by a 
 statute for ever."^ Therefore they only receive that 
 which is mentioned in this place. Siphri and Pesikta 
 rabbathi follow the Mishna in their interpretation ' of 
 Deut. xviii. 3. 
 
 This unbroken tradition is certainly worthy of 
 
 1 De Prxmils sacerdotum et honoribus^ § 3, M. 235, says : 'Axo 
 0£ ruv i^a TQv fiu/xov Svof^ivay 'iutKcc KpsaCPocyioi; rpix "TrpoariroCKTCii 
 T6J hpii 'hi'hoaGxt, ^poc-^'^ova, kocI (Tiocyouoc kocI to kxT^ov/hsvo!/ vjvvarpov. 
 
 2 In this connection, the Midrash to Ps. 1. 1, in an mtcresting 
 tradition about Korah, the scorner, shows that the shoulder, the 
 two cheeks, and the maw from the ordinary slaughtering are to 
 be given to the priests. Korah relates, to the great amusement 
 of the congregation, how Aaron drove a poor widow, through the 
 rigorous enforcement of the priestly laws, to sell her field for two 
 
Deuteronomy xviii. 6-8. 45 
 
 attention. Our effort, however, is simply to prove 
 tliat the contribution made to the priests is not 
 from flesh slaughtered for sacrificial purposes, with- 
 out trying to determine that which must baffle investi- 
 gation, namely, when and how this contribution was 
 made. 
 
 In the same connection w^ith the above, it remains 
 for us to consider vers. 6—8 : (1) with reference to their 
 main object ; (2) as to the question what is meant 
 here by the term Levite ; and (3) in order to see 
 whether or not we can determine with certainty 
 the service in which the Levites might voluntarily 
 ensfac?e. 
 
 (1.) If we examine this passage as related to the 
 preceding verses, in which provision has been made 
 for the Levites, we shall see that the main object of 
 vers. 6—8 is not to state, that if a Levite goes, with 
 all the desire of his heart, to the place wdiich the Lord 
 shall choose, he may minister as his brethren do, but 
 rather that a Levite thus coming and ministering is 
 consequently to receive an equal portion with the rest 
 of his brethren, i.e. the topic introduced in ver. 1 has 
 not been changed.-^ The sixth and seventh verses form 
 
 sheep, which she killed for her own use, that she might be free 
 from further exactions. To her astonishment, he demanded the 
 shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw. In a fit of desperation, 
 she devoted them to the Lord, and was coolly informed by the 
 triumphant Aaron, "that now they belong entirely to. him." 
 "Thus," says Korah, " you commit robbery with honour, and lay 
 it all on God." 
 
 1 We find that H. Romberg, the commentator to Mendelssohn's 
 translation of Deuteronomy, says that the connection is as follows : 
 
46 The Inheritance of Levi, 
 
 the first member of the proposition (protasis), the eighth 
 verse the second member (apodosis). 
 
 (2.) It is claimed by Colenso/ Graf,^ and Kayser/ 
 that according to these verses any Levite might be- 
 come a priest. Colenso lays special emphasis on the 
 phraseology, standing hefore Jcliovah, which he says is 
 used only of the priests. We have already proved 
 in this dissertation that the expression is sometimes 
 used of priests and Levites without discrimination.* 
 Colenso further claims that they must have been 
 priests, because they have a right like the rest to 
 eat their portion of the " sacrifice." ' That the word 
 " portion " is qualified by sacrifices is an unnecessary 
 assumption, since not only priests but also Levites 
 were employed in the tabernacle and temple service, 
 Num. xviii. 1—5, 2 Chron. xxxi. 2, for whom pro- 
 vision was made, Num. xviii. 8, 31, 2 Chron. xxxi. 
 3, Neh. xii. 44. These passages show conclusively 
 
 " If the Levite shall come and minister as all his brethren the Levites, 
 then they shall eat equal portions." Herxheimer, Der Pentateuch^ 
 Leipzig 1865, S. 920, adopts the same construction : " Und wenn 
 ein Levi kommt aus einem deiner Thore, aus ganz Jisrael, woselbst 
 er sich aufhalt, und geht nach aller Lust seiner Seele an den Ort, 
 den der Ewige erwiihlen wird, und verrichtet den Dienst im Namen 
 des Ewigen seines Gottes, wie alle seine Briider, die Lewijim, die 
 daselbst stehen vor dem Ewigen : so sollen sie zu gleichen Theilen 
 geniessen ; ausser dem, was er verkauft von den Viitern." This 
 construction seems to be plainly indicated, since mc^l in the 
 seventh verse is in the same construction as J<3"l in the sixth. 
 
 ^ Colenso on the Pentateuch^ Part iii. p. 515, 
 
 2 Geschichtl Biicher S. 43. 
 
 ^ Kayser, Das Vorexil. Buch. S. 187. 
 
 * See pp. 15-18, and compare 2 Chron. xxix. 4, 5, 11, 12. 
 
The Levitical Cities. 47 
 
 that under the name "the Levite," both priest and 
 Levite (Deut. xviii. 6(X^) may be included. Our text 
 can simply be interpreted to mean, that a priest or 
 Levite, Avho is moved by a heartfelt desire, on coming 
 to Jerusalem, and entering on the service of the Lord, 
 is entitled to the same provision as the rest of his 
 brethren, whether Levitical priests or simply Levites. 
 
 (3.) The service which is meant in this passage 
 remains undetermined. It is not so described that 
 only priestly functions are included, while the Levitical 
 are excluded. The Eabbins suppose that any one who 
 belonged to the twenty-four divisions of the priest- 
 hood might come at will to offer a sacrifice for himself, 
 provided he was not hindered by any physical disquali- 
 fication. It is evident, however, that such a theory is 
 without historical foundation, and we cannot determine 
 from the verses before us what service was intended. 
 
 It has been affirmed, that while the middle books of 
 the Pentateuch direct that the Levites shall receive 
 forty-eight cities, Deuteronomy affords no trace of this, 
 but rather represents the Levites generally as objects of 
 charity. There is no special reason for our expecting 
 any explicit mention of these cities in Deuteronomy. 
 An indirect reference will serve our purpose quite as 
 well as a definite command, like that which is found 
 
 ^ The Talmndical authorities understand this passage in relation 
 to the priests : Succa 556 ; Baha Kama IQ^h ; Menachoth lia. 
 Ainsworth, Herxheimer, and Keil apply it to the priests and 
 Levites without discrimination. And Sifri, which Rashi repro- 
 duces, holds that the sixth and seventh verses refer exclusively to 
 the priests, but the reasons for this are insufficient. 
 
48 The Inheritance of Levi. 
 
 in Num. XXXV. 2. The passages whicli we have been 
 considering, according to our interpretation, show that 
 the Levites as a tribe were in easy circumstances. A 
 critical examination of xviii. 86 affords unexpected 
 evidence as to their being holders of property. We 
 admit that the construction of this clause is difficult, 
 but there are certain data which seem to determine its 
 meaning beyond the shadow of a doubt. 
 
 The Hebrew text is well translated in the English 
 version, " Besides that which cometh of the sale of his 
 patrimony :" it may be rendered more literally, "Besides 
 his sales according to the fathers." ^ 
 
 The Samaritan version renders the passage : " Be- 
 sides his sales of the fathers," i.e. of the property 
 which he has inherited from the fathers ; and the Sep- 
 tuagint : " Besides the sale according to his patrimony." 
 The word 1DD», sale, occurs only ten times. If we 
 suppose that the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus, 
 where it is found seven times,^ was already in 
 existence, the interpretation of this clause ceases to 
 be difficult, and we find a hint in Deuteronomy at 
 the Levitical cities. In vers. 3 2-34 it is stated that 
 the Levites may redeem their houses of the cities 
 of their possession at any time, which implies, of 
 
 1 The construction of this clause in the use of the prepositions 
 is exceptionally difficult. ^37, signifying hesidci^ is usually 
 followed by p ; there is, however, for this use a parallel in 
 Ezra i. 6. The use of ^]) is not easily determined ; the meaning 
 is good when we understand his sales according to the value of 
 the property — e.g. Isa. Ix. 7, |l^n bv- 
 
 2 Vers. 14, 25, 27, 28, 29, 50. 
 
Were the Levites poor ? 49 
 
 course, that they might sell them whenever they 
 wished. They are not, however, allowed to sell the 
 fields belonging to the cities. 
 
 Now, with these facts in view, the interpretation of 
 Deut. xviii. 8& becomes much easier. The Deuteronomist 
 evidently supposes the case of a Levite, who has sold his 
 house in one of the Levitical cities, who may be residing 
 among his brethren, or in one of the strictly Israelitic 
 towns, and who is moved to engage in God's service. 
 According to the Deuteronomist, he has a perfect right 
 to go to the central sanctuary and draw a full support 
 there ; thus reserving the money which he has received 
 for his house in case he should wish to redeem it.-^ 
 
 It may be objected that we derive the impression 
 from various passages in Deuteronomy that the Levites 
 are poor :^ (1) since they are classed with strangers, 
 widows, and orphans as participating in the sacred 
 meals; (2) because they are especially commended 
 to the Israelites, as being without inheritance. We 
 have so little historical data, that it is very difficult 
 to determine the true circumstances of the tribe ; but 
 
 ^ Aben Ezra, who is not bound by the tradition, says : " Some 
 say that this is eqnivalent to Dnn3?D n&^D (receive no more money 
 from your acquaintance^ comp. v. 5) ; but this is too far-fetched, 
 and is repuguant to the grammatical sense. V"I2D^ comes from 
 "laro as it is used Lev. xxv. 14. The meaning is, that if he sells 
 his house which he has inherited from his fathers, then the house 
 that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in the 
 year of jubilee; and this is the explanation of nUSH hv {according 
 to the fathers) : they shall not say to him, Behold, this is thine, 
 thou shalt not eat anything else, but they shall eat like portions." 
 
 2 xii. 18, 19 ; xiv. 27-29 ; xvi. 11, 14 ; xxvi. 12, 13. 
 
 D 
 
50 The hiheritance of Levi. 
 
 it certainly appears from Deut. xviii. 1-8 that com- 
 fortable provision was made for them. Certainly, a 
 little reflection should convince every one that parti- 
 cipation in the sacrificial meals/ in the three stated 
 feasts,^ and the permission to come with all the needy 
 of the land once in three years to share with them in the 
 tithe of the products of the soil, could not be regarded 
 as provision for a tribe. Such provisions can only be 
 regarded as perquisites. They are similar to those 
 privileges which are accorded to clergymen in some 
 sections of America, such as a discount of twenty-five 
 per cent, on books, cheaper fares on the railway, etc. 
 It must be remembered, too, that when we give the 
 Levites the benefit of all the provision which is 
 assigned in the different books of the Pentateuch, 
 we must still presuppose that many among them were 
 poor, as in every other community. 
 
 Whether all Levites took part in the sacrificial meals 
 with the Israelites, we cannot now determine. Those 
 who were in better circumstances, doubtless provided 
 for themselves.^ It certainly does not follow from the 
 exhortations given not to neglect the Levite, that all 
 the members of the tribe were dependent upon this 
 provision. The fact that they are classed with the 
 Qf-ij, strangers, does not prove that they all without 
 exception were poor, since we know that some of these 
 strangers were wealthy.^ 
 
 It is further claimed that the Deuteronomic expression, 
 
 1 xii. 18. 2 xvi. 2, 10, 11, 13, 14. » i gam. i. 3-9. 
 
 * Lev. XXV. 47 ; Deut. xxviii. 43, 44. 
 
Difficulties in Deut. xiv. 27-29. 51 
 
 "from thy gates," indicates that the Levites had no cities 
 of their own. This conclusion, however, is not correct. 
 We have seen that the Levites could sell their houses, 
 perhaps even their cities, to Israelites.-^ This would 
 naturally lead to their being scattered among the other 
 tribes, who would thus obtain at least partial possession 
 of their cities. Hence it is quite possible that there was 
 not a single city of the Levites which did not contain 
 a strong infusion of those who were not Levites. 
 
 ]\Iany of the Levites might be scattered among 
 the people as collectors of tithes, as teachers, etc., which 
 would lead a not inconsiderable portion of their number 
 to reside in almost every community of the Israelites. 
 
 The lot of the Levites would naturally be subject 
 to many changes, as we see from their experience in 
 the time of Jeroboam, when many of them were deprived 
 of their houses.^ Taking all these things into account, 
 the exhortation not to neglect the Levite who is in thy 
 gates, from the great Lawgiver, who saw the future with 
 a prophetic eye, is particularly appropriate. It does not 
 prove, however, that the Levites did not possess any 
 gates (cities) of their own. 
 
 In our opinion, the greatest difficulties in this 
 discussion seem to centre around Deut. xiv. 27--29, 
 taken in connection with xxvi. 12, 14. They are 
 twofold : 
 
 (1.) The Levites, with others, are said to eat all the 
 tithe within the gates. 
 
 1 Lev. XXV. 32, 33 ; comp. Jer. xxxii. 6-12. 
 
 2 2 Chron. xi. 14. 
 
52 The Inheritance of Levi, 
 
 (2.) The third year is called the year of tithing. 
 
 These statements seem to be in direct contra- 
 diction to the laws in Num. xviii. But, before 
 allowing that we have a contradiction here, w^e 
 must consider certain things. The Bible must be 
 subjected to the same process for history as for 
 doctrine. Scattered facts must be collected, com- 
 pared, and reconciled. This is necessary on account 
 of the disconnected style of ancient composition, to 
 which the Scriptures furnish no exception. Sharpness 
 and detail are especially wanting in Deuteronomy. 
 With these cautions in mind, let us consider the 
 various explanations which have been attempted of 
 these passages, especially of xxvi. 12, 14, which 
 furnishes the greatest difficulty. 
 
 (1.) The solution suggested by the Septuagint would 
 be a very happy one if it were sustained by the Hebrew 
 text '} " But when thou hast finished the tithing of all 
 thy tithe of thine increase in the third year, the second 
 tithe thou shalt give to the Levite, the proselyte, the 
 orphan, and the widow, and they shall eat in thy cities 
 and rejoice." A glance, however, at the present Hebrew 
 text show^s that this is highly improbable. Moreover, 
 the Targum of Onkelos, the second Jerusalem Targum, 
 and the Samaritan text, which in this case essentially 
 agree with the Hebrew, are against it. The Greek 
 
 ^ *EflfV 0£ GVVTihiO'fli; dT^OOSKUTUGCll TrCCV TO iTTlOtKCnOU rZ)V ySyUYj- 
 
 f^uTOv aov iu Tu iTii Tu rpiTc-), TO Isvnpov i7rioix.a,TOU ["IC'V^DH ^it^* 
 = "'3i^*^ ID'J^Dn] "^uang ru x\ivirvi kxI rc^ Trpoari'hvro) xxl to) op((:tx.uu) 
 Kxl TYi '/CVjpot-i X'Ocl (payouToii iv tuI; TToTvial aov kocI iv(ppuv9Y,oovrcii. 
 
The Tithe of the Produce. 5 3 
 
 translation can only liave arisen from an effort to 
 conform the text to the Jewish tradition.-^ 
 
 (2.) The paraphrases of the Jerusalem Targums were 
 formed after the same tradition. The first Jerusalem 
 Targum renders the passage : " When thou shalt finish 
 tithing all the tithe of thy produce in the third year of 
 release, and shalt give the first tithe to the Levite ; the 
 second tithe, which is the tithe of the poor, to the 
 stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may 
 eat in thy cities and be satisfied ; and thou shalt bring 
 the third tithe and eat it before the Lord thy God, etc." ^ 
 
 We admit, however, that the verses which we are 
 considering ^ give no intimation of the first tithe. But 
 the question is, whether they really exclude it. We 
 answer as follows : — 
 
 (1.) The tithe here mentioned is characterized as all 
 the tithe of the produce, or, ver. 13, "the hallowed things."^ 
 As this does not include the tithe of the cattle,* which 
 fell exclusively to the priests and Levites, so it does 
 not exclude that proportion of the first tithe which con- 
 sisted of the fruits of the ground. ]^o indication is given 
 of the amount which each of the classes receives. As 
 regards the distribution of the tithe in the third year, 
 
 ^ Pesikta Siirtata : " Wherever thou findest a Levite, give him 
 from his portion ; if not from his portion, give him the second tithe ; 
 if not of the second tithe, give him from the peace-offering." By 
 his portion the first tithe is intended. 
 
 2 Dent. xiv. 27-29, xxvi. 12, 13. 
 
 ^ Comp. Lev. xxvii. 30 ; Num. xviii. 21 ; 2 Chron. xxxi. 6. 
 
 "* Notice the same expression in the last reference given, which 
 considers the tithe as twofold : (1) as consisting of oxen and sheep ; 
 and (2) of holy things. 
 
54 ^>^^^ Inherita7ice of Levi. 
 
 the Levites, as the most prominent recipients, are placed 
 first. There is nothing to prove that they did not carry 
 away their usual proportion for themselves and the 
 priests. It may be said that they are represented as 
 eating it on the spot. This is not the case. There is 
 nothing in the passage which warrants the assumption 
 that the owner instituted a grand feast on his premises. 
 It is not said that they ate it at once. The thirteenth 
 verse indicates that they did not eat in the house of the 
 owner, since he is said to have brought the things out 
 of his house. The expression, "all the tithe," -^ can include 
 that portion of the first tithe which consisted of the 
 products of the soil. Since the second tithe did not 
 extend to both flocks and herds, it was thrown together 
 with the vegetable portion of the first tithe once in 
 three years. Of this the Levites received their usual 
 share, leaving the entire second tithe for the poor, 
 since there does not seem to be any sufficient evidence 
 that it was consumed at Jerusalem, except during four 
 years out of the seven. 
 
 (2.) This theory serves to explain the expression 
 " year of tithing," which certainly could not thus be 
 named if only the tithe for the poor were raised, 
 since the same amount, which is called a tithe, was 
 consumed at Jerusalem. But if in this year, in addition 
 to the first tithe, the second tithe was added for the 
 poor, of which the owner might not partake, then we 
 have a reason why the third year could be emphatically 
 called the year of tithing. 
 
 * Deut. xiv. 28. 
 
CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 THE BLESSING OF LEVI. 
 
 Summary : May every member of the tribe exercise the functions 
 named? — Priests represent the tribe — The speaker presupposes 
 his hearers' acquaintance with Urim and Thummim — Meaning of 
 the word Kohen (priest) — According to Deuteronomy, Eleazar 
 succeeds his father in the priesthood — It is Aaron's office to bear 
 the Urim and Thummim — Peculiarly sacred character of the high 
 priest — Functions of the priesthood : teaching, judging, burning 
 of incense (Korah), putting sacrifices on the altar — Summing up. 
 
 WE now come to the blessing of Levi, Dent, xxxiii. 
 8-11. It is necessary that we should inquire 
 here, as in the preceding passages (Deut. x. 9, x^oii. 
 1-8) which we have considered, whether every son of 
 Levi, by virtue of his belonging to the tribe, might 
 exercise the functions named, or whether anything 
 prevents our assuming that the tribe is addressed as a 
 whole, although composed of a high priest, priests, and 
 Levites. Graf ^ and Kuenen ^ refer all these functions 
 to the entire tribe, without distinction. All are 
 gifted with Thummim and Urim, all may be teachers, 
 may put incense before the Lord, and whole burnt 
 sacrifice upon His altar. Of course, if this can be 
 
 1 Der Segen Mose's, Leipzig 1857, S. 31-58. 
 
 2 The Religion of Israel, vol. i. p. 99 if. 
 
5 6 The Blessing of L evi. 
 
 proved, we have a contradiction in all of these par- 
 ticulars between Deuteronomy and the middle books 
 of the Pentateuch. If not, the functions of the tribe 
 of Levi are mentioned without discrimination of the 
 higher and lower offices. Indeed, the passage is best 
 understood if it is applied to those who stand for the 
 tribe, the priests, and whose prerogatives are an 
 honour for the whole tribe. Hence the benediction 
 says that the Thummim and Urim shall be with one 
 individual ; then, after a general reference to the faith- 
 fulness of the tribe as a whole, specific mention is 
 made of the priestly functions. 
 
 We have, then, the first part of the blessing : " And 
 to Levi He saith, Thy Thummim and thy Urim be 
 with the man, thy holy one, whom thou didst try in 
 Massah, and with whom thou didst contend at the 
 waters of Meribah, who said to his father and to his 
 mother, I have not seen him ; who did not regard his 
 brethren, nor recognise his children." ^ 
 
 It is evident that the speaker presupposes that his 
 hearers are acquainted with the meaning of Urim and 
 Thummim, and the historical circumstances to which 
 he refers. Our most natural course will be to examine 
 related passages in the middle books of the Pentateuch. 
 But before doing this, we must consider the interpreta- 
 tion given to this passage by some of the latest critics. 
 Kuenen ^ says : " The poet — presumably a contemporary 
 of Jeroboam ii. (800 B.C.) — there says to Jahveh : 
 
 ^ Dcut. xxxiii. 8, 9. 
 
 - The Religion of Israel^ vol. i. p. 99. 
 
KueneiUs View of Deict. xxxiii. 8. 57 
 
 ' Thy Tliummim and tliy Urim are for the man, thy 
 favoured one, whom thou hast proved at Massah, with 
 whom thou hast striven by the waters of Meribah.' 
 Vers. 9-11 prove convincingly that this refers to the 
 Levites in general. Therefore the poet, as well as the 
 writer of 1 Sam. ii. 28, attributes the prerogative of 
 using the Urim and the Thummim, and thus also of 
 wearing the ephod, to the priest — not to one single 
 priest. 
 
 " If we put all this together, it is clear that it was 
 the priestly legislation which, in accordance — as we 
 shall see hereafter — with its whole tendency, but at 
 variance with history, assigned the ephod and the 
 oracle connected with it to the high priest. Before 
 the exile they both belonged to the priests in general. 
 In fact, as Land has correctly observed,^ ' giving oracles 
 
 1 In the Theologisch Tijdsclirift, Leiden 1868, z. 171 : " As 
 concerns the offerings which are everywhere brought by the 
 people themselves (Ex. xxiv. 5-8; 1 Sam. ii. 13-16, vi. 11, 15), 
 although the Kohen, priest^ as acquainted with the proper 
 ceremonies, often has a role to play in them, yet his proper 
 business consists in questioning and giving an answer from the 
 oracle (Judg. xx. 28 ; 1 Sam. xiv. 34, 37, xxii. 10). The title 
 jn:D, anciently Kdhin, had originally among the Semites probably 
 the general signification of somebody who reported the hidden 
 things of God to the people ; as among the Arabs, before Mo- 
 hammed, it indicated just the same as the Hebrew j<''33." Land 
 refers to Sprenger, Das Lehen und die Lelire des Mohammed, 
 Berl. 1861, B. i. S. 255, who says: "As a series of emperors 
 who called themselves Imperatores followed a fortunate Imperator, 
 so a seer could found an order of priests which retained the 
 title Kahin, but the reverse is improbable. I believe, therefore, 
 that the Kahine in the Arabic sense are older than the Kohene 
 in Hebrew." 
 
5 8 The Blessing of L evi. 
 
 is the priest's proper task ; the very name which he 
 bears {kuhcn) points to this.' " 
 
 This theory of Kuenen's is not supported by facts. 
 (1.) The original meaning of the word, if we allow that 
 it is contained in the Arabic, is to stand by a person 
 in order to help him.-^ (2.) The use of the word priest, 
 which occurs twelve times in Deuteronomy, does not 
 represent the giving of oracles as his proper task. It 
 has been claimed that the Deuteronomist ignores the 
 high priest.^ This designation occurs only three times 
 in the Pentateuch, besides which he is four times 
 named the anointed priest. Instead of the official 
 name, high priest, in Exodus — ISTumbers, either Aaron 
 is immediately named, or the functions which are 
 peculiar to him. If we apply this test to Deuteronomy, 
 we have two allusions to the high priest. (1.) In 
 Deut. X. 6 Eleazar is named as succeeding his father 
 Aaron in the priesthood. Since Aaron and Eleazar 
 
 ^ See Fleischer in Delitzsch's BihliscJier Commentar uber den Pro- 
 plieten Jesaia, Leipzig 1869, S. 691, and the author's remark. 
 Compare Edersheim, The Temple, London 1874, p. 61 : " This root- 
 meaning (through the Arabic) of the Hebrew word for priest, as 
 one intervening, explains its occasional, though very rare, appli- 
 cation to others than priests, as, for example, to the sons of David 
 (2 Sam. viii. 18), a mode of expression which is thus correctly 
 paraphrased in 1 Chron. xviii. 17 : ' And the sons of David were at 
 the hand of the king.' " 
 
 2 Graf, Die Geschichtl. BucJier, S. 43, says : " Aaron is only men- 
 tioned as saved from .the execution of the divine wrath through 
 the intercession of Moses." Such an allusion to Aaron would be 
 very obscure if we could not refer to Exodus — Numbers. The very 
 fact that Moses prays for Aaron, singling him out of all Israel, 
 indicates a pre-eminence. 
 
The Bearer of Urim and T/mmmim. 59 
 
 are the only persons named as occupying tlie priest- 
 hood, it indicates that their office is superior to that 
 of the Levitical priests. If it had been specifically 
 mentioned that the high priest was meant, it might 
 have been of service to us, but it would have been 
 superfluous for the persons addressed, who knew what 
 Aaron's office was. (2.) According to Ex. xxviii. 30, 
 Lev. viii. 8, Aaron is to bear the Urim and Thummim 
 upon his heart. Deut. xxxiii. 8 does not contradict 
 this, but rather seems to allude to it. [The first wish 
 in the benediction is, that the Urim and Thummim. 
 may be with a certain individual ^ of the tribe, with 
 thy (God's) holy one. There is nothing to prevent 
 our understanding this of Aaron, who is called the 
 " saint of the Lord," Ps. cvi. 16 (comp. Num. xvi. 3-5, 
 Lev. xxi. 6, of the ordinary priests), although Aaron, 
 at the time when the benediction was spoken, was 
 already dead, yet Moses considered him the repre- 
 sentative of the high-priesthood for all time. The 
 reference here is not to some ideal person ^ in the tribe 
 of Levi ; but as the w^aters of Meribah indicate a real 
 
 1 The first and second Jerusalem Targums, Vatablus, John- 
 Buxtorf (Historia Urim et Thummim), Ugolini (Thesaurus, Yenetiis 
 1751, torn. xii. p. 378), Spencer {De Urim et Thummim, Ibid. p. 
 673), and others, refer this to Aaron. 
 
 2 Volck, Der Segen Mosis, Erlangen 1873, S. 72, says: " Es 
 stellt sich alles zurecht, wenn man ']1'^Dn C^''K^ ideal und iudi- 
 vidualislrend von demjenigen versteht, welcher in Levi's Stamme 
 yon t^''N ist." Certainly Aaron, judged by the standard of his 
 time, is worthy of this designation. We need not seek for perfec- 
 tion in him any more than in David, who was styled a man after 
 God's own heart in spite of his great sin. Comp. 1 Kings xv. 5. 
 
6o The Blessing of Levi. 
 
 place, so we have here to do with a real person, who, 
 by reason of his ofi&ce and character, in spite of his 
 failure in this extraordinary trial, was worthy of the 
 designation T'DH. It may be objected that God was 
 the one who was tried, and with whom the people 
 strove. While this is true, it does not exclude the 
 idea of their contending with His servants, or of God's 
 proving Aaron by means of Israel.^ We have every 
 reason to suppose that he came out of the temptation 
 of Massah^ unsullied. That he fell with Moses at 
 Meribah ^ furnishes no ground why he and his descen- 
 dants in the high priest's office should not be the 
 bearers of Urim and Thummimj (3.) The peculiarly 
 sacred character of the high priest, and his deadness to 
 the ordinary relations of life, are indicated in the words, 
 " Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have 
 not seen him ; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, 
 nor knew his own children." While this may refer 
 to Ex. xxxii. 27, it also refers to Lev. xxi. 11, 12, 
 where we learn that the last tender duties of affec- 
 tion were denied to the high priest from fear of 
 defilement ; and to Lev. x. 6, where Aaron, Eleazar, 
 and Ithamar were not allowed to mourn for their sons 
 and brothers. 
 
 It has been claimed, however, that Deut. xxxiii. 96, 1 
 shows conclusively that these words apply to the whole 
 
 1 Comp. Ps. Ixxxi. 8, where God is said to have proved the 
 people at the waters of Meribah. 
 
 ^ Ex. xvii. 2-7. This passage, however, gives no information. 
 3 Num. XX. 12, 13. 
 
The Priestly Ficnctions. 6i 
 
 tribe, since the verbs in the last part of the ninth verse, 
 which seem to be in close connection with the preced- 
 ing part, are in the plural.-^ But this close connection 
 is merely apparent. We have a perfect right to make a 
 full pause after the words, " nor knew his own children," 
 as in the Hebraic Samaritan of the Polyglot. We then 
 translate the rest of the passage as follows : " Because 
 they have observed thy word and kept thy covenant, 
 they shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy 
 law ; they shall put incense before thee, and whole 
 burnt sacrifice upon thine altar." This construction, in 
 which the causal sentence precedes, is perfectly allow- 
 able.^ Only those who have observed the word of the 
 Lord, and kept His covenant, are fitted to be teachers 
 of that word and covenant. 
 
 The functions mentioned in the foregoing passage 
 are, according to tlie middle books of the Pentateuch, 
 priestly. 
 
 (1.) The priests are the repositories and natural 
 guardians of the law. Hence they are the teachers 
 of the people : " And that ye (Aaron and his sons) 
 
 1 Graf, Ber Segen Mose's, S. 31, says : " Man hat unter diesem 
 T'Dil C'X den Hohepriester allein verstehen wollen, allein was in 
 den folgenclen ^^e^sen davon ausgesagt wird, bezieht sich auf den 
 ganzen Stamra Levi, und da dieser Singular ein Collectivbegriff ist, 
 so geht auch das Yerbum am Ende des folgenden Verses und \. 
 10 in den Plural iiber." 
 
 2 Compare Gen. iii. 14, 17, " Because thou hast done this, thou 
 art cursed above all cattle. . . . And unto Adam He said. Because 
 thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of 
 the tree of which I commanded thee, saying. Thou shalt not eat of 
 it, cursed is the ground for thy sake ; " xviii. 20 ; Hos. iv. 1-3. 
 
6 2 The Blessing of L evi. 
 
 may teach the children of Israel all the statutes 
 which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand 
 of Moses." ^ Other passages in Deuteronomy represent 
 the priests as teachers : " And thou shalt come unto 
 the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall 
 be in those days, and inquire, and they shall show thee 
 the sentence of judgment . . . according to the sentence 
 of the law which they shall teach thee, and according 
 to the judgment which they shall tell thee.^ Take 
 heed in the plague of leprosy that thou observe dili- 
 gently, and do according to all that the priests the 
 Levites shall teach you." ^ The following is a significant 
 fact, which those who hold that the Chronicler has 
 closely followed the middle books of the Pentateuch 
 may well ponder. How does it happen, that while 
 the Pentateuch, 2 Kings,^ Jeremiah,^ Ezekiel,^ Micah,' 
 Haggai/ Malachi,^ represent the priests as the fountains 
 of law and the teachers of the people, the Chronicler 
 and Nehemiah speak of the Levites as giving instruc- 
 tion to the people ?^^ 
 
 (2.) Although the priests are not specifically men- 
 tioned in the benediction as judging the people, yet 
 the judicial function is so closely connected with that 
 
 J Lev. X. 11. 2 Deut. xvii. 9, 11a. 
 
 3 Hid. xxiv. 8. ^ xii. 3 (E. V. ver. 2), xvii. 27. 
 
 6 xviii. 18. « xliv. 23, ^ iii. 11. 
 
 8 ii. 11-13. 9 ii. 7. 
 
 ^<' Under Jehoshaphat, the commission which was chosen by him 
 for the instruction of the people consisted of princes, Levites and 
 priests, but pre-eminently of Levites (2 Chron. xvii. 7-9), and the 
 Levites bore (2 Chron. xxxv. 3 ; Neh. viii. 9) the designation of 
 teachers of the people. 
 
Who may bunt Incense? 63 
 
 of teaching, that this is the proper place to consider 
 the subject. In Deut. xvii. 9, xxi. 5, judicial authority 
 is clearly assigned to the priests. While they are not 
 spoken of in the middle books of the Pentateuch as 
 judges, there is nothing to prevent our assuming that 
 they exercised this function after the death of Moses. 
 During his lifetime, while judges were chosen from the 
 people to hear the common cases, the more difficult 
 ones were l^rought to Moses.^ After his death, such 
 cases were undoubtedly referred to Joshua and the high 
 priest at Shiloh.^ Certainly, there is no essential con- 
 tradiction between the middle books of the Pentateuch 
 and Deuteronomy, since in any case the legal knowledge 
 of the priests (Lev. x. 11) fitted them to act as judges. 
 , (3.) " They shall put incense before thee," Num. xvii. 
 5 (E. V. xvi. 40), very clearly teaches that only the 
 descendants of Aaron may burn incense before the Lord. 
 It is claimed that the Deuteronomist had never read 
 anything about Korah, because in xi. 6 he only 
 mentions Dathan and Abiram.^ It seems strange that 
 such a handle should have been made of this omission. 
 {a) A glance at the context shows that the speaker is 
 reminding the children of Israel, in the briefest manner, 
 of God's mighty power, as manifested on Pharaoh and 
 in His dealings with them. If he had been addressing 
 the Levites only, or assigning the reason for this judg- 
 ment, we might expect that Korah's name would have 
 
 1 Ex. xviii. 25, 26. ^ josh. xviii. 1, 10, xix. 51, xxi. 1. 
 
 3 Kayser, Das Vorexil. Buck. S. 13; comp. Colenso on the 
 Pentateuch, London 1863, Part iii. p. 459. 
 
64 The Blessing of Levi. 
 
 been added, as in Sirach.-^ (6) The mention of Datlian 
 and Abiram does not exclude Korali. This appears 
 from tlie different designations which are given to the 
 rebels in Num. xvi., where, in the first verse, they are 
 called Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and On ; or more briefly, 
 vers. 5, 16, and xvii. 5 (E. V. xvi. 40), Korah and his 
 company ; or vers. 24, 27, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram ; 
 or ver. 25, simply Dathan and Abiram; comp. 12, as 
 equivalent to the foregoing. In Psalm cvi. these 
 rebels are mentioned as Dathan and Abiram, perhaps 
 less to spare the feelings of the celebrated family of 
 temple singers who bear the same name as Korah,^ 
 than to conform to the usage which had characterized 
 the rebellion, for the sake of brevity, as that of Dathan 
 and Abiram. 
 
 It has been assumed, on account of this supposed 
 ignorance of the Deuteronomist of Num. xvi., taken in 
 connection with Deut. xxxiii. 10, that all the Levites 
 without exception might enjoy the privilege of offering 
 sacrifice. Since, however, the tribe of Levi includes 
 the priests, it cannot be proved that any but priests 
 could burn incense. Nor do we think that any candid 
 reasoner, who weighs the arguments which we have 
 adduced, can claim that Deut. xi. 6 implies an 
 ignorance of Korah's participation in the rebellion. If 
 2 Chron. xiii. 10, 11 contained the only reference of 
 
 ^ xlv. 18: 'JLTrtavuiaTYjaeiv etvroi aAAc-VjC'/o;, kocI i^Yi7\0)aciu ocvro'j 
 su rfi lpY,[/.u^ diihpig 0/ -rt/ji Ao(,6oe.y xu\ 'A/Supcou^ kuI t] ovvuyoiyii 
 Kopi iv &v(/,u) Kccl opyfi. 
 
 ^ Geiger s Urachrift^ Breslau 1857, S. 82. 
 
Who were to put Sacrifices on the Altar ? 65 
 
 the Chronicler to the burning of incense, one might 
 claim, with a better show of reason, that the Levites in 
 his time as well as the priests were allowed to burn 
 incense. Of course, so long as we hold that xxvi. 1 8 
 is from the same author, there is no room for such 
 a supposition. But who knows whether the time 
 may not come, when a hyper-criticism will find as 
 striking contradictions between different portions of 
 the Chronicles as many critics now discover between 
 Deuteronomy and the books which precede it ? 
 
 (4.) Putting sacrifices on the altar. 
 
 This, according to the middle books of the Penta- 
 teuch, after the installation of Aaron and his sons, is 
 only allowed to them. Before they were thus set 
 apart, Moses appointed young men from the children of 
 Israel, who offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace- 
 offerings before the Lord ;^ but whether they put these 
 sacrifices upon the altar, or whether that was done by 
 Moses, who consecrated the altar and the people with 
 the blood (ver. 6), is uncertain, since the terms above 
 used are ambiguous, as appears from 1 Chron. xxiii. 31, 
 where it is said that the office of the Levites is to offer 
 all burnt-sacrifices to the Lord.^ At the installation of 
 Aaron and his sons, Moses acted the part of a priest.'*^ 
 
 1 Ex. xxiv. 5. 
 
 - 7V\r\'h m^y nii^yn h'zhv No one familiar with Chronicles will 
 claim from this that all Levites are admitted to priestly functions. 
 It is probable that in the times of the Chronicler, on the occasions 
 mentioned in this passage, the Levites simply brought the sacri- 
 fices to the priests. 
 
 3 Ex. xxix. 10-28 ; Lev. viii. 14-29 ; comp. Ps. xcix. 6. 
 
 E 
 
66 The Blessing of L evi. 
 
 There is no indication, however, in the middle books 
 of the Pentateuch, that Moses exercised the priest's 
 office after his brother had been inducted into it. 
 Although the priests are mentioned several times in 
 Deuteronomy, this is the only place where they are 
 spoken of as putting sacrifices on the altar. This 
 naturally follows from the nature of these passages, 
 which are not merely a superfluous repetition from 
 regulations in the middle books of the Pentateuch in 
 regard to sacrifices, but rather a statement of the 
 people's relation to the priests, as guardians and 
 teachers of the law, and in their judicial capacity. 
 
 We have thus reached the end of our examination 
 of the passages in Deuteronomy with regard to the 
 Levitical priests, with this result : (1.) These references 
 are so incomplete as to demand the existence of as full 
 a code as is contained in the middle books of the 
 Pentateuch. (2.) There is no radical contradiction 
 between the brief notices of the Levitical priests and 
 the more complete regulations concerning them in the 
 preceding books. (3.) Apparent contradictions are due 
 to the oratorical, prophetic, and popular character of 
 Deuteronomy, as distinguished from the more minute 
 and strictly legal statements of the middle books of 
 the Pentateuch. Deuteronomy is emphatically the 
 people's book;^ Exodus — Numbers, the code of the 
 priests. The popular form in Deuteronomy is later 
 than the technical so-called priestly legislation, and 
 
 ^ This -was written before we had seen the work entitled 
 Deuteronomy the People^s Book. 
 
Summing up. 6 7 
 
 naturally follows it. Since, however, the hypothesis, 
 that the Deuteronomic is older than the so-called 
 priestly legislation (in Exodus — Numbers), is asserted 
 on other grounds than the apparent contradiction 
 between them, we must carefully examine these before 
 we can venture a critical opinion as to the authorship 
 of Deuteronomy. Certain passages from the Book of 
 Ezekiel are made the key-stone of this theory. It is 
 claimed, that while Ezekiel follows Deuteronomy, it 
 precedes the middle books of the Pentateuch. An exa- 
 mination of this theory will next engage us. 
 
CHAPTEE Y. 
 
 THE MODEKN CEITIC'S BRIDGE. 
 
 Summary : " Ezekiel the bridge betAveen Deuteronomy and the Middle 
 Book s of th e Pentateuch " — " Le vites degi-aded priests " — " Distinc- 
 tion between the priests and Levites " — " Ezekiel the author of Lev. 
 xvii.-xxvi." — The frequent recurrence of the same expressions in 
 Leviticus and Ezekiel do not prove that they are from the same 
 author — Comparison between Jeremiah and Leviticus — Reasons 
 for the similarity between Leviticus and Ezekiel — Style of Ezekiel 
 radically different from that of Leviticus— Two branches in the 
 house of Aaron — Line of Ithamar cursed in Eli — Henceforth they 
 occupy an inferior position — Who are the Levites mentioned in 
 Ezekiel? — Exorbitant tests — Why does Ezekiel deviate so much 
 from the priestly laws ? — Character and intluence of Ezekiel's 
 prophecy. 
 
 THE relation of Ezekiel to Deuteronomy and the 
 middle books of the Pentateuch is of the greatest 
 importance for our discussion, since several modern 
 critics claim that he (572^ B.C.) forms the bridge 
 between the Deuteronomic (625^ B.C.) and the 
 Elohistic codification of the priestly laws (538-458 
 B.c.^). Graf, Kuenen, and Kayser trace a gradual 
 development in the regulations as to the priests. They 
 claim, as has already been stated, that according to the 
 
 ^ Kuenen, The Religion of Israel^ vol. ii. p. 153, assigns this 
 date for the composition of Ezekiel. 
 
 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 242. 3 lud. vol. ii. p. 152. 
 
Ezekiel the AtUhor of Lev. xvii.-xxvi. 69 
 
 Deuteronomist any Levite may "become priest ; that 
 under Ezekiel part of the Levites were degraded from 
 the priesthood, which was still retained by their 
 brethren the sons of Zadok;^ and that the distinc- 
 tion between priests, as sons of Aaron, and the Levites 
 arose in the time of Ezra.^ All these critics agree 
 that before Ezekiel, Leviticus xviii-xxvi. (according to 
 Kayser, xvii.-xxvi.) was not in existence. Graf and 
 Kayser attribute this portion of Leviticus directly to 
 him;^ Kuenen to a priest who worked in his spirit.* 
 All claim that these chapters were afterwards woven 
 into the Pentateuch by the Elohist, who most pro- 
 bably was Ezra himself.^ It will be seen that this 
 hypothesis in regard to the Book of Ezekiel is the 
 key-stone in this theory of the development of the 
 Levitical to the Aaronitic priests. The claim that 
 Ezekiel is author of the chapters xvii.-xxvi. in Ezekie l^ i^ U < 
 rests upon the frequency with which certain expressions^ 
 
 ^ Graf, Die Gescliiclitl. Biicher, S. 45. 
 
 2 Ibid. S. 46. Kuenen, The Religion of Israel, vol. i. p. 337 ; 
 comp.vol. ii. pp. 231, 232; Kayser, Das Vorexil. Buck, S. 188, 196. 
 
 » Graf, S. 81 ; Kayser, S. 177. 
 
 ■* Kuenen, vol. ii. p. 191. 
 
 ^ Graf, S. 71, and in 3Ierx^ ArcTiio^ S. 476 ; Kuenen, vol. ii. p. 
 233 ; Duhm, Die Theologie der Propheten, Bonn 1875, S. 269. 
 
 6 For a full list of these, see Graf, Geschichtl. Bucher, S. 81, 82, 
 and Kayser, Das VorexiliscJie Buck. S. 177-179 ; and for a refuta- 
 tion of the Ezekielian authorship of Lev. xviii.-xxvi., Kloster- 
 mann in Delitzsch's Zeitsclirift fiir die LutheriscTie Theologie, Leipz. 
 1877, Heft iii. S. 401-445. Those who are unacquainted with 
 Hebrew can get a general view of the subject from the careful use 
 of a good English reference Bible. It will be seen that Ezekiel, 
 while drawing more expressions from Lev. xxvi. than from any 
 other source, betrays a familiarity with phrases which are scattered 
 
JO The Modern Critic s Bridge. 
 
 in these chapters are found in his writings. As the 
 result of our indej^endent investigation, we have arrived 
 at the following conclusions : — 
 
 through the entire Pentateuch. Comp. Gen. vi. 9 and Ezek. 
 xiv. 14, 20, the only passages in the 0. T. where Noah is called 
 just (pnv); Gen. vi. 11, 13, "The earth is filled with violence," 
 with Ezek. viii. 17, " They have filled the land with violence," an 
 expression which does not occur elsewhere except in these places 
 in the 0. T. ; Gen. xlix. 27, "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf," 
 with Ezek. xxii, 27, " Her princes . . . are like wolves ravening the 
 prey," a simile which does not occur elsewhere ; Ex. vi. 8 and Num. 
 xiv. 30, with Ezek. xlvii. 14, " Concerning which I lifted up my 
 hand;" comp. Ezek. xx. 6, 15, 23, 28, 42, xxxvi. 7, xliv. 12. These 
 are the only passages where this phraseology occurs. Ex. vii. 5, 
 xiv. 4, 18, "And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord," 
 with Ezek. xxx. 19. The similarity between Ex. xxiv. 10 and Ezek. i. 
 26, X. 1, is very striking. The style in Exodus is simpler and more 
 grand. Comp. further Ex. xxxi. 13, " Speak thou also unto the 
 children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep : for it 
 is a sign between me and you throughout your generations ; that 
 ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you," with 
 Ezek. XX. 12, 20, " Moreover, also, I gave them my Sabbaths to be 
 a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the 
 Lord that sanctify them." The passage in Ezekiel cannot refer to 
 any existing verse in the 0. T. except this. Without pursuing 
 these single comparisons farther, let us consider: I. Some allusions 
 in Ezekiel to observances of iclucli no hint is given in the Book of 
 the Covenant (Ex. xx. 22-26, xxi.-xxiii., Kuenen), Deuteronomy, 
 or Lev. xi.-xv. and xvii.-xxvi. (1.) The ceremonies to be employed 
 in the consecration of the altar, as given by Ezek. xliii. 18-27, 
 are partially found in the portions which are not excepted of Ex- 
 Lev, (a) Seven days were employed in its purification, comp. 
 ver. 26 with Ex. xxix. 37. {h) The blood of a bullock was to be 
 put on the four horns of the altar, ver. 20, Ex. xxix. 12 ; comp. 
 Lev. viii. 15, where it is definitely stated that Moses used this 
 ceremony to sanctify the altar. Although there are some slight 
 deviations, the ceremonial as given in Ex.-Lev. is evidently older 
 than in Ezekiel. (c) The bullock is to be burned in the appointed 
 place outside the sanctuary, ver. 21, Ex. xxix. 14. These three 
 
The Ouestioii discitssed. 
 
 71 
 
 (1.) The frequent recurrence of many expressions 
 which are found in Leviticus in Ezekiel does not 
 prove that he was the author of xvii.— xxvi., or that 
 
 points in Ezekiel seem to have been derived from the law of Moses. 
 In Exodus, the consecration of the altar is mentioned incidentally 
 as preparatory to the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the 
 priest's office ; in Ezekiel, the consecration of the new altar is more 
 particularly described, but nothing is said of the consecration of 
 the priests who, centuries before, had been inducted into office. 
 (2.) The scattering of salt upon the offerings, Ezek. xliii. 2-1, presup- 
 poses Lev, ii. 18. II. Ordinances icith reference to the priests in 
 Ezek. xliv. 17-31, which for the most part are found in the portions 
 ivhich are not excepted. (1.) They are to be clothed in linen, vers. 
 17-19 : consisting (a) of linen bonnets, ver. 18, comp. Ex. xxxix. 
 28; and (h) of linen breeches. (2.) They are not to drink wine 
 when they enter into the inner court, ver. 21, comp. Lev. x. 9. 
 (3.) They are to teach the people to distinguish between the holy 
 and the profane, etc., ver. 23, comp. Lev. x. 11. (4.) The laws 
 for cleansing, vers. 26, 27, comp. Num. vi. 10, xix. 11. It will be 
 seen that no specific laws are given for the cleansing of the priests 
 in Numbers, but they are implied in the regulations which are 
 assigned for the ordinary Israelites and the Nazarites. With 
 reference to the sin-offering, comp. Lev. iv. 3, where it is specifi- 
 cally described. (5.) Income of the priests, vers. 29, 30. (a) The 
 meat-offering. Lev. ii. 3, x. 12, 13. (b) The sin-offering. Lev. 
 vi. 25, 26. (c) The trespass-offering, Lev. vii. 1-6, comp. with 
 the three preceding, Num. xviii. 9. (d) Every dedicated thing, 
 Num. xviii. 1-4. (e) Every oblation, Ex. xxxvi. 3. (/) The first of 
 the dough, comp. Num. xv. 20. Three conclusions follow from 
 the unprejudiced examination of these passages with scientific 
 certainty : (1.) There are not only striking correspondences between 
 Ezekiel and Lev. xi.-xv., xvii.-xxvi., but also between him and the 
 other portions of the Pentateuch. (2.) At least so much of it as is 
 contained in these passages existed before the time of Ezekiel. 
 (3.) Kuenen's assertion (The Relic/ion of Israel^ vol. ii. p. 115), that 
 only the Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy are presupposed 
 by Ezekiel, is false. 
 
 On account of a similar although less frequent correspondence 
 between expressions in Leviticus xi.-xv. and Ezekiel, Kayser, 
 
72 The Modern Critic's Bridge, 
 
 a subsequent writer borrowed them from liim. It is 
 often the case that a writer is insensibly moulded by 
 some author, so that, without intending it, he borrows 
 the style, and even the modes of expression, of his 
 favourite author. This avails with much greater 
 force of the Old Testament writers, who do not 
 affect originality like modern authors, and who, by 
 their union wdth the preceding writers, testify to the 
 continuity of the divine revelation ; but the relation 
 of one prophet to another is not the same as to the 
 Mosaic law, which is the basis of their prophecies, 
 and the subject of their practical application. It may 
 be objected, however, that while this would furnish 
 a reason why Ezekiel's writings should receive a 
 colouring from the entire Pentateuch, it does not 
 avail as an explanation for the strong infusion of the 
 same or similar expressions in Lev. xvii.-xxvi. and 
 Ezekiel. 
 
 But (2) Ezekiel is not the only one who shows 
 the influence of Leviticus. The same similarity, 
 although on a smaller scale, exists between this 
 portion of Leviticus and Jeremiah,^ who seems to 
 
 Das Vorexilische Bucli. S. 180 f., suggests that he might also have 
 been the author of these chapters, which may have been modified 
 by a subsequent hand. Graf, S. 75, holds that i.-xvi. and xviii.- 
 xxvi. are from two different authors. 
 
 ' Comp.Jer.vii.23, "IwillbeyourGod,andyeshallbemypeople," 
 with the same expression in Lev. xxvi. 12, Jer. xi. 4, xxx. 22, and 
 Ezek. xi. 20, xxxvi. 28, in a different order. Jer. ii. 20, " For of old 
 time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands," Avith Lev. xxvi. 
 13, "And I have broken the band of thy yoke, and made you go 
 upright ; " Ezek. xxxiv. 27, " And they shall know that I am the 
 
The Question discussed, 73 
 
 have been familiar with its contents, as well as witli 
 that of Deuteronomy. 
 
 The pregnant twenty -sixth chapter of Leviticus, 
 which so clearly foreshadows the destiny of Israel in 
 their apostasy, would naturally be specially impressed 
 upon the prophet's mind/ It must be admitted, how- 
 ever, that Ezekiel shows pre-eminently the influence of 
 this book. For this there are sufficient reasons. 
 
 (3.) Ezekiel was a priest. Hence we should expect 
 to find in his writings many expressions from the 
 Thorah, especially from the priestly portions, which, as 
 a teacher and fountain of the law, he must have known 
 by heart.^ These expressions, without any effort on 
 his part, were woven into the warp and woof of his 
 
 Lord, when I have broken the bands of their yoke." Jer. ix. 25 (E. V. 
 26), "All the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart," with 
 Lev. xxvi. 41, "If then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled ; " 
 Ezek. xliv. 7, " Strangers uncircumcised in heart." 
 
 ^ There can be no doubt that Isa. i. 7 is an echo of Lev. xxvi. 
 (Deut. xxviii.). See Delitzsch, Bihlischer Commentar iiher den 
 Propheten Jesaia, Leipzig 1869, S. 40. 
 
 2 Exactly the arguments which Graf, Die GeschichtUcJien 
 Buchei\ S. 83, adduces in support of his theory that Ezekiel was 
 the author of Lev. xviii.-xxvi., seem to have been prepared for 
 our benefit. Graf shows that Ezekiel, as we should expect from 
 his office, was the instructor of his people, Ezek. viii. 1, xiv. 1, 
 XX. 1 ; comp. xxxiii. 30 ff. The supposition, however, that he 
 has written, besides his prophecy and the sacerdotal regulations 
 connected with it, those priestly laws which are contained in 
 Lev. xviii.-xxvi., is very improbable. The fact that so many ex- 
 pressions occur in his prophecy which correspond with those in 
 the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus, which contains more than 
 a quarter of the references which are found in the entire book of 
 Leviticus, shows how his mind dwelt upon that priestly prophecy 
 with which he could give point to so many lessons. 
 
74 The Modern Critic s Bridge. 
 
 discourse. How can any one who has seriously 
 considered the matter, claim that a prophet should 
 represent himself as the mouth of the Lord to the 
 people in one class of writings, adapting himself to 
 tlie circumstances of the people, and that in another 
 he should represent the Lord as speaking to Moses 
 hundreds of years before ? If such a supposition does 
 not condemn itself, it is condemned in Ezekiel's style, 
 which is not that of Leviticus. While the twenty- 
 sixth chapter of Leviticus is condensed and pithy, 
 simple and straightforward, Ezekiel is often diffuse, 
 obscure, and labyrinthian. While Leviticus is written 
 in pure Hebrew, Ezekiel is tainted with Chaldaic 
 (Babylonian) expressions and irregular forms.-^ -.The 
 only reasonable conclusion which we can^raw'^^rom 
 this and the preceding points is, that w«e Ezekiel 
 could not have been the author of Lev. x»-xxvi., his 
 book has unwittingly derived many exprfflBns from it. 
 
 Some of the modern critics make a pi^St" gratuitous 
 assumption, when they claim that Ezek. xliv. 10-15 
 plainly indicates that the Levites which appear in the 
 middle books of the Pentateuch have arisen from the 
 degradation of some of the priests, who were originally 
 merely Levites. The following seems to us to be the 
 only reasonable explanation of the passage : — 
 
 (1.) We here have to do witli the original descend- 
 
 ' This is universally acknowledged, but the subject has ]?een by- 
 no means examined as it deserves to be. Comp. Eichhorn, Eiyileitwir/ 
 in das A. T., Gbttingen 1824, B. iv. S. 242 f.; Hitzig, Der Prophet 
 Ezechiel, Leipzig 1847, S. xvi. ; Keil, Einleitiuuj^ Frankfurt-am- 
 Main 1873, S. 296. 
 
Eleazar and Itharnar. 75 
 
 ants of Aaron under two branches: the house of Zadok, 
 who remained faithful, and who are termed Levites ; 
 and the .descendants of Ithamar, who are rejected on 
 account of their unfaithfulness, and who, as well as 
 the sons of Zadok, receive the designation of Levites. 
 This does not imply that the ordinary Levites are 
 excluded, or that they do not exist ; that is not the 
 question. Ezekiel could have no possible object in 
 speaking of the Levites here as a class, unless it were 
 for the information of those critics wdio demand that 
 every Old Testament writer who mentions priests or 
 Levites at all should clearly distinguish them, before 
 they will give up their theories. Ezekiel has there 
 to do with the purification of the priesthood, through 
 the exclusion of those who have offered sacrifices to 
 idols ; just as Ezra, in a later age, purifies the 
 Aaronitic priesthood by shutting out those who 
 were of questionable lineage.-^ It may be asked, 
 where is the proof of this ? 
 
 (2.) We know that the house of Aaron was divided 
 into two branches, Eleazar and Ithamar.'-^ According 
 to the Chronicler,^ all the priests came from these two 
 branches. The line of Ithamar was cursed in the 
 person of Eb.^ In the second book of Samuel, 
 Zadok and Abiathar appear side by side in the 
 priesthood;^ from which Abiathar, a descendant of 
 
 1 Ezra ii. 62. 2 j^^i^ iii_ 4, s 1 Chron. xxiv. 1-5. 
 
 * Comp. 1 Sam. ii. 36,' xiv. 3, xxii. 9, 20 ; 1 Kings ii. 26, 27 ; 
 1 Chron. xxiv. 3, 6. 
 
 ^ 2 Sam. XV. 24, 35, xix. 11. 
 
']6 The Modern Critic s Bridge, 
 
 Ithamar, is excluded by Solomon/ thus leaving the 
 position of high priest to Zadok alone. Henceforth 
 the posterity of Ithamar occupy an inferior position. 
 Now, when we read the account of Josiah's reformation 
 of the idolatrous priests,^ who are called brethren of 
 other priests, and then turn to Ezek. xliv. 10;"^ the 
 whole matter becomes clear. In ver. 15 of the same 
 chapter, the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok, are 
 mentioned as those who went not astray. Who, then, 
 are the Levites spoken of vers. 10-14, but descend- 
 ants of Ithamar, who might also be termed Levitical 
 priests, who are degraded from their priestly office on 
 account of their apostasy ? 
 
 We claim that this theory, which is supported by 
 tradition, is worthy of respect, especially as we expect 
 to be able to prove in another chapter that the testi- 
 mony of the Chronicler with reference to the priests 
 and Levites is unimpeachable, Graf to the contrary 
 notwithstanding. If the theory of the modern critics, 
 
 ^ 1 Kings ii. 27. 
 
 2 2 Kings xxiii. 8, 9. The Mishna, Menachoth xiii. 10, in this 
 connection says : " The priests which have served in a heathen 
 temple may not serve in the temple at Jerusalem, and much less 
 those who have served an idol, for it is written (2 Kings xxiii. 9), 
 ' Only the priests of the high places may not approach God's altar 
 in Jerusalem, but they may eat unleavened bread among their 
 brethren.' They are like those who have some bodily defect ; they 
 may partake and eat with their brethren, but may not offer." The 
 Tosefta Menachoth repeats the same. 
 
 3 Maimonides, Biathha-Mikdash, ix. 13, remarks, with reference 
 to this passage, ver. 13, that no priest who has once apostatized, 
 although he turns with true repentance to the pure religion, may 
 ever minister in the sanctuary. 
 
Deviations from the Pentatetcch. 77 
 
 which makes Ezekiel the bridge, is plausible, our 
 interpretation, which is supported by tradition, is 
 quite as much so, and rests on historical facts, while 
 by the other the Pentateuch is subjected to an exor- 
 bitant test as to originality in manner and matter. 
 Fancy some German or Dutch professor trying to 
 prove that Kuenen wrote Prof. Smith's article on 
 the Bible in the Encyclopcedia Britannica, because of 
 an unconscious similarity in some of Prof. Smith's 
 thoughts and expressions to those of Prof Kuenen 
 in his work on the Religion of Israel, and you liave 
 an example of the length to which such criticism 
 can go. 
 
 We now refer to another objection which is often 
 raised : Why, if Ezekiel was familiar with the priestly 
 laws in the Pentateuch, does he deviate so much from 
 them ? Surely, if he had had them before him, he 
 would not have changed them. 
 
 The limits of this discussion do not allow us to 
 enter into a specific examination of this question. 
 Two or three general remarks must suffice as a reply. 
 
 After the destruction of the temple and the captivity 
 of the priesthood, a priest who felt himself divinely 
 inspired, as Ezekiel evidently did, would be entirely 
 unrestrained as to the manner of his composition. 
 Whatever might have been Ezekiel's personal ex- 
 pectations with regard to the future employment of 
 his priestly regulations, he has in fact, like Plato, 
 evidently portrayed an ideal state, which has never 
 ■ yet been realized. But this does not prove that the 
 
78 The Modern Critics Bridge, 
 
 last apocalyptic portion of his book may not have 
 exerted a powerful influence in sustaining the drooping 
 spirits of the Jewish captives, just as the description 
 of the New Jerusalem has cheered many a struggling 
 spirit in times of trial. Indeed, what the Book of 
 Kevelation has been to the Christian Church, Ezekiel 
 may well have been to the Jewish. 
 
CHAPTEE VI. 
 
 JOSHUA — 2 KINGS. 
 
 Summcary : Effects of the political changes on the history of the nation 
 — The Books of Samuel and Kings compared with the Chronicles 
 — Influence of the period between Moses and David on the priest- 
 hood — The high priests — The ephod — Zadok and Abiathar — 
 Hilkiah — Was it the main business of the priests to off"er sacrifices ? 
 — Levitical priests in the Book of Joshua — The inheritance of the- 
 tribe — The two Levites in the Book of Judges — The duties of the 
 priests and Levites according to the Book of Samuel — Was Samuel 
 a Levite ? — The Levitical cities — The Levites are mentioned only 
 once in the Books of Kings. 
 
 WE now approach a period in the history of Israel 
 which is said by the modern theorists to yield 
 no trace of an Aaronitic priesthood, and which, if it 
 reveals a priesthood at all, only presents the Levitical. 
 The books of Kings especially are cited as showing by 
 their silence that the representations of the Chronicler 
 are untrue. Let us apply the priestly regulations to 
 the condition of the Israelites during the time covered 
 by the historical books from Joshua to the Second 
 Book of Kings, inclusive. We have to inquire whether 
 the condition of the priests, and the tribe of which it 
 is a part, corresponds to what we might expect from 
 the history. Four periods pass under review : (1) 
 That of conquest under Joshua ; (2) of political law- 
 
8o yosJma — 2 Kings, 
 
 lessness and general disintegration under the judges ; 
 (3) of union and strengthening under Samuel ; (4) of 
 many vicissitudes of glory, division, defeat, shame, and 
 captivity under the kings. If the political history of 
 Israel was subject to such kaleidoscopic changes, what 
 must we expect from the religious history ? Can we 
 suppose that the Jewish Church would be more fortu- 
 nate than the Christian, or its books of the law more 
 uniform in their influence than our Scriptures ? The 
 historical books of the Old Testament present similar 
 phenomena in the Jewish that ecclesiastical history 
 does in the Christian Church. It is claimed, with 
 great emphasis, that it is most improbable that the 
 regulations of the Pentateuch should have fallen for 
 so long a time into disuse, and then have been restored 
 under Ezra. But does not the history of the Christian 
 Church afford a parallel ? Was there no return to the 
 original apostolic doctrines and simplicity of worship 
 during the Eeformation ? 
 
 Before we proceed to a special examination, we 
 desire to emphasize another point. It is charged that 
 the books of Samuel and Kings make so little mention 
 of the priests and Levites, that they play a much less 
 important part in the regal period than is assigned 
 them by the Chronicler. The fact that the Chronicler 
 has made such abundant mention of them shows, as 
 Kuenen affirms, what these other writers would have 
 done if his statements were correct. The circumstance 
 that the Chronicler speaks so frequently of the priests 
 is due to the tendency of his book. It was written 
 
The Infiue7ice of the Priesthood. • 8 1 
 
 especially to show how the institutions of the law 
 were introduced into the life of the people. The 
 Books of Kings have an entirely different purpose. 
 The Chronicles belong to the priestly writings, the 
 Kings to the prophetic. Does silence on the part of 
 a historian prove that a thing did not happen ? If 
 so, there would evidently be no room for any new 
 histories. A recent writer has summarily disposed of 
 this objection. There were two public men^ in England 
 in the seventeenth century who kept diaries at a time 
 when crime held high carnival. One makes the 
 scantiest mention of the dreadful robberies which were 
 then occurring, while the pages of the other teem with 
 "In ails of crime. History, as written from different 
 ..andpoints, must always afford variety in details. It 
 is certain that in the books which we shall now con- 
 sider, priests, or the tribe to which they belong, are 
 u"' mentioned except where their presence is absolutely 
 necessary. This does not prove that the role in which 
 they appear in the books of the Chronicler is merely 
 the product of his invention. 
 
 Any candid person looking carefully at the history 
 of Israel from the death of Moses until the accession 
 of David, must see that the circumstances were very 
 unfavourable for the influence of the priesthood. 
 Under Joshua, when the people were engaged in war 
 for the attainment of homes, they would have little 
 
 ' The author of Deuteronomy the People's Book, p. 136, mentions 
 Evelyn and Luttrell. The incident is taken from Pike's Iliatory of 
 Crime in England, vol. ii. pp. 274-76. 
 
 F 
 
82 Joshua— 2 Kings. 
 
 time for the minute observance of the regulations laid 
 down in the Pentateuch. In such a history as Joshua's, 
 there is no opportunity for speaking of the special 
 functions of the priests. The book, however, indicates 
 that a high priest and priests served at the central 
 sanctuary. 
 
 In the Book of Judges, the political situation is still 
 more unfavourable for the growth of the priesthood. 
 There is no strong central government. The land is 
 frequently harassed by marauding bands of Philistines, 
 and is for a season rent by civil war. During much 
 of the time religion is in a very depressed state, owing 
 to the frequent apostasy of the children of Israel. 
 Are we, then, to be surprised when a homeless Levite 
 moves across the scene ? Shall we argue from this 
 that the Levites did not possess any cities ? Th( 
 object of the history was not to mention the Levites 
 They simply come in as an illustration of the lawless- 
 ness of the times. It is, however, significant that 
 there is an allusion which implies the use of Urim 
 and Thummim by tlie high priest when it is said. 
 " The children of Israel asked the Lord." ^ There is 
 a break in the history, and then Eli appears. The 
 conduct of his sons tended to throw contempt on the 
 sacred office. This diminution of influence was still 
 further heightened by the loss of the ark of God and 
 the death of Hophni and Phinehas. Need we wonder 
 at the occurrence of irregularities in worship and the 
 depression of the priesthood in such a state of things ? 
 ^ Judg. i. 1. Compare Num. xxvii. 21. 
 
The Succession of High Priests. 83 
 
 The consequence of the exceptional circumstances of 
 the time must have been to steadily diminish the 
 authority of the priesthood among the people. Another 
 terrible blow fell upon the priests, when Saul caused 
 the almost total extinction of the descendants of Eli 
 at Nob/ so . that only one escaped to David. After- 
 wards, the star of the priesthood, rising with the 
 fortunes of the sons of Jesse, reached its zenith under 
 Solomon. 
 
 These preliminary thoughts may perhaps throw 
 light on our more special investigation. We have 
 found nothing to contradict the assumption of a high 
 priest in Deuteronomy. Taken in connection with 
 the preceding books, a succession is clearly indicated 
 in X. 6 : " There Aaron died, and there he was buried ; 
 and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest's oJB&ce in 
 his stead." The function of the high priest in bearing 
 Urim and Thummim is clearly indicated, as we have 
 already observed.^ 
 
 In Joshua, which is added by the modern critics as 
 the sixth part to the five books of Moses, we find 
 Eleazar occupying a not inferior position to that of 
 Aaron in the middle books of the Pentateuch. He 
 appears with Joshua in the division of the land and 
 the decision of important questions.^ His name, too, 
 always has the precedence. His son Phinehas main- 
 tains the honourable position with which his zeal for 
 God was rewarded when Israel was tempted by the 
 
 1 1 Sara. xxii. 17-19. lUd. ver. 20. » See p. 69. 
 
 ^ Josh. xiv. 1, xvii. 4, xix. 51, xxi. 1. 
 
84 JoshtLa—2 Kings. 
 
 Midianites.^ He is sent on an important embassy, in 
 which he appears as the chief speaker.^ There is no 
 account given in Joshua of the peculiarly sacerdotal 
 character of the high priest, because the book is filled 
 up with other matters ; but it follows as a matter of 
 course that Eleazar served as a high priest, and that 
 Phinehas stood next in the succession. The fact that 
 the death and burial of Eleazar are recorded at the 
 very close of Joshua, is a sure evidence of his high 
 position and influence,^ In Judges, the high priest 
 Phinehas is once, in the history of the war with Ben- 
 jamin, mentioned as inquiring of God by Urim and 
 Thummim."* Colenso claims that this passage is an 
 interpolation, — a very convenient way of dodging a 
 difficulty.^ It cannot, however, be proved that it is 
 not original. It is undoubtedly a stubborn fact, which 
 lies directly across the path of the modern theory. 
 Should it be objected- that if there were a high priest, 
 it is strange that- this is the only mention which is 
 made of him, let it be remembered that the Book of 
 Judges does not attempt to give any account of the 
 priesthood. 
 
 The step^ in the succession which we have marked 
 from Aaron through Eleazar suddenly disappear. We 
 are introduced without formality to the house of Eli. 
 
 1 Num. XXV. 7-13. ^ jogh. xxii. 13, 30, 31. 
 
 2 Josh, xxxiv. 33. ■* Judg. xx. 28. 
 
 ^ Lectures on the Pentateuch and the Moahite Stone, London 1876, 
 p. 245 : "It has manifestly been inserted by some priestly writer, 
 who could not endure that the people should ' ask counsel of Jehovah ' 
 except through the intervention of a 'priest the son of Aaron.'" 
 
The U7ireasonable Claims of the Critics, 85 
 
 It is not expressly said that Eli was the high priest. 
 Considering, however, that this expression is generally 
 omitted even in those portions of the Old Testament 
 where the high priest is evidently intended, there is 
 nothing strange in its omission here. And have we 
 any reason to doubt that Eli was the high priest ? 
 
 The particulars given in the narrative are conditioned 
 by its purpose, which is to introduce Samuel and 
 assign a reason for the judgment which befell the house 
 of Eli and the children of Israel. The prominent 
 position which was held by Eli, and his standing as 
 the representative of the priesthood, can leave no 
 reasonable doubt that he was the high priest. Graf 
 persists in asserting that he was merely a Levite.^ If 
 it cannot be proved that he was a descendant of 
 Aaron, it certainly cannot be disproved, since it is 
 well known that the children of Aaron were called 
 Levites.^ 
 
 Before we proceed further, we must again remind 
 the new school of critics of their unreasonable claims 
 upon history in regard to the priesthood. They demand 
 of a narration which was never intended to trace the 
 sacerdotal fortunes, and which merely mentions them 
 incidentally where they are essential, the same explicit- 
 ness as in the priestly portions of the Pentateuch. 
 Because the high priest does not always receive his 
 title, and does not appear on aU occasions in the 
 
 1 Die GeschicJitlichen Biicher, Leipzig 1866, S. 45. 
 
 2 Josh. XXI. 4: "And the children of Aaron the jDriest, which 
 were of the Levites." 
 
86 Joshua — 2 Kmgs. 
 
 splendid regalia described in Exodus/ lie is, forsooth, 
 only " the first among his equals." ^ 
 
 What is this but an argument that the silence of 
 certain books in regard to these particulars proves that 
 they did not exist ? 
 
 Turning now to the descendants of Eli, we find Ahia, 
 who is perhaps the same as Ahimelech, or his brother, 
 mentioned as wearing the ephod in Shiloh. We know 
 from Exodus that the ephod^ was an important part of 
 the high priest's apparel when he ministered before the 
 Lord. The ephod worn by Samuel,* by the ordinary 
 priests,^ and by David ^ when dancing before the ark 
 of the covenant of the Lord, is carefully distinguished 
 as being of linen/ The natural inference is, that this 
 garment which was worn by Ahimelech is the same in 
 kind as that which is assigned in Exodus to the high 
 priest.^ Everything that we read about Ahimelech 
 confirms the impression that his position in the king- 
 dom under Saul corres^Donds to that of Aaron in the 
 wilderness. His genealogy is carefully traced from 
 Eli.^ He is evidently accustomed to the use of Urim 
 and Thummim, as appears from Saul's complaint,^*^ 
 
 ' Ex. xxviii. 4-39. 
 
 ' Kuenen, The Religion of Israel^ London 1874-75, vol. ii. p. 1G9. 
 - 3 Ex. xxviii. 4-35. ^^ 1 Sam. ii. 18. ^ 1 Sam. xxii. 18. 
 
 ^ 2 Sam. vi. 14, Comp. 1 Chron. xv. 27. 
 
 ^ The ephod of the high priest, according to Ex. xxviii. 6, was 
 to be. made of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet and fine 
 twined linen, with cunning work. 
 
 ^ The idolatrous ephods mentioned in Judg. viii. 27, xvii. 5, 
 were undoubtedly of a different kind. 
 
 9 1 Sam. xiv. 3. ^^ 1 Sam. xxii. 11-13. 
 
Zadok and Abiathar. 87 
 
 '' Thou hast given him bread and a sword, and hast 
 then inquired of God for him." He is addressed by 
 Saul as the head and representative of the priests.^ 
 His son Abiathar escaped to David with an ephod in 
 his hand.^ There is nothing to prevent our under- 
 standing this of the official one which had been worn 
 by his father, since it is not necessary to suppose that 
 all at once we have to do with another kind, or that 
 inquiring of the Lord by the ephod ^ is any different 
 from inquiring of Him by Urim and Thummim.^ All 
 the methods of transmitting divine information seem 
 to be indicated by the same writer :^ " And when Saul 
 inquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, 
 neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets." 
 
 It may, however, be objected that, under David, Zadok 
 and Abiathar are mentioned as priests without distinc- 
 tion.^ It is true that they are not distinguished in 
 title, but they are in fact. Zadok's name always stands 
 before that of Abiathar, because the historian speaks 
 of them from his own standpoint, although Abiathar 
 at the time really had the precedence. He mentions 
 them together as priests, because the one succeeded the 
 
 1 1 Sam. xxii. 11, 12. - Ihid. xxii. 20, xxiii. 6. 
 
 3 1 Sam. xxiii. 9, 10, xxx. 7, 8. 
 
 ■* Ex. xxviii. 30; Lev. viii. 7, 8 ; Num. xxvii. 21. 
 
 ^ 1 Sam. xxviii. 6. 
 
 ® Such seems to be the opinion of Josephus, who says, Antiq. 
 vii. 5. 4 : ocTri^n^s V Ik rvi; ^tustaov o'lKiccg rou 'S.xlaKQv eipxispiu. ^st' 
 'A(iioc6xpov, "He appointed Zadok, from the house of Phinehas, 
 as high priest with Abiathar." Although this view is favoured by 
 some of the Rabbins (comp. 2 Sam. viii. 17), yet it seems to be 
 clearly contradicted by 1 Kings ii. 35. 
 
S8 Joshua — 2 Kings. 
 
 other in the same office, and because, even during 
 David's reign, Zadok, although not yet high priest, was 
 superior to Abiathar in influence. On account of the 
 latter's treasonable inclination towards Adonijah, he is 
 deposed from his position \^ "So Solomon thrust out 
 Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord, that he 
 might fulfil the word of the Lord which He spake 
 concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh, . . . and Zadok 
 the priest did the king put in the room of Abiathar." ^ 
 
 From this it appears that until the deposition of 
 Abiathar he outranked Zadok. 
 
 Since the author of Kings does not attempt to trace 
 the history of the high priests, we hear nothing more 
 of them until Jehoiada appears. His piety and unusual 
 energy of character, in connection with his commanding 
 position, enable him to place the youtliful Joash on the 
 throne, over whom for some time he exerts a salutary 
 influence.^ 
 
 If we follow the usual interpretation of the middle 
 books of the Pentateuch, we naturally conclude that 
 he was the high priest. Under Ahaz the servile Uriah 
 appears.^ Ahaz reigned sixteen years.^ How long 
 Uriah's priesthood continued we cannot determine, nor 
 do we know the character of his predecessor. We find 
 him compliant to a wicked king. Whether Hilkiah, 
 by whom the book of the law was found, who is called 
 high priest,^ immediately succeeded him is uncertain. 
 
 1 1 Kings i. 19, ii. 22. 2 i Kings ii. 27, 35/^ iv. 4. 
 
 3 2 Kings xi. 4, xii. 2. ^2 Kings xvi. 11. 
 
 ^ 2 Kiugs xvi. 2. <^ 2 Kings xxii. 8. 
 
Priests and Levites, 89' 
 
 At any rate, the high priest here appears with his 
 full title, and is distinguished from the priests of the 
 second order.-^ The line which began with Aaron ends 
 at the exile with Seraiah, who is executed by the king 
 of Babylon at Eiblah.^ Are we not, in view of these 
 notices, led to suppose that there were high priests 
 from the beginning to the end of this period ? If we 
 accept the usual as distinguished from the critical view 
 is there really any difficulty in recognising high priests 
 in all those whom we have mentioned ? It seems to 
 us that any other supposition can only arise from an 
 entirely false analysis and a distortion of history. 
 
 As the books w^hicli we are considering only furnish 
 scattered and incomplete notices of the high priests, so 
 they are equally wanting in definite information with 
 regard to the priests and Levites. We have, however, 
 no right to conclude that the priests did not offer 
 sacrifice, because this duty is rarely ^ assigned them in 
 
 1 2 Kings xxiii. 4. 2 2 Kings xxv. 18-21. 
 
 ^ That no one has a right to conclude from this that sacrifices 
 were not usually offered by the priests, appears from the following 
 analysis: — The author of Joshua mentions the priests thirty-one 
 times : nineteen times as crossing the Jordan and marching around 
 the devoted cities (iii. 3-vi. 16) ; eight times under the names of 
 Eleazar and Phinehas, who are engaged in judicial and diplomatic 
 functions (xiv. 1, xvii. 4, xix. 51, xxi. 1, xxii. 13-32, xxiv. 33) ; 
 thrice as recipients of cities (xix. 51, xxi. 4, xiii. 19) ; once as en- 
 gaged in the ceremony of blessing and cursing (viii. 33, 34) : hence 
 there was no place in any of these transactions for sacrifice. Judges, 
 in thirteen places, speaks of a Levite as priest (xvii. 5-xviii. 30), 
 but makes no mention of sacrifice. In the Books of Samuel the 
 word priest occurs thirty-four times. Eli and his sons are desig- 
 nated officially eight times (1 Sam. i. 3-ii. 35). It is implied in ii. 
 12-17, 28, 29, that Eli's sons offered sacrifices, but only iu order to 
 
90 jfoshtta — 2 Kings. 
 
 the 139 places where they are mentioned ; or that the 
 Levites did not perform the same duties as are required 
 in the middle books of the Pentateuch, because out of 
 twenty-eight references to them only one or two ^ seem 
 to indicate their special calling, or that there are no 
 priestly and Levitical cities because scant mention is 
 made of them. For, as we have already observed, 
 priests and Levites are only introduced by the historian 
 as constituent parts of a narration, without special 
 regard to their ordinary functions or their private 
 property. 
 
 In Joshua, Levitical priests are mentioned as moving 
 in procession,^ or simply as descendants from Levi 
 
 illustrate their service. The servants of Dagon and some sons and 
 servants of David received the same title (1 Sam. v. 5, vi. 2 ; 2 Sam. 
 viii. 18, XX. 26). The priests at Nob are mentioned six times (1 Sam. 
 xxii. 11-21). Ahimelech, Zadok, and Abiathar are mentioned 
 eighteen times (1 Sam. xiv. 3, 19, 36, xxi. 1-9, xxii. 11, 17, 18-21, 
 xxiii. 9, xxx. 7 ; 2 Sam. viii. 17, xv. 27, 35, xvii. 15, xix. 11, xx. 
 25). In these references nothing could be said of the priests 
 offering sacrifice unless in 1 Sam. xiv. 35. Out of sixty references 
 to the priests in the Books of Kings, thirty-two are made to high 
 priests (1 Kings i. 7-45, ii. 22-35, iv. 2-4 ; 2 Kings xi. 9, 10, 15, 
 xii. 2, 7, 9, xvi. 10-16, xxii. 10-14, xxiii. 24, 25) ; in none of these 
 except in xvi. 15, ] 6, is it implied that the priests offered sacrifices. 
 The remaining twenty-eight mention others as priests, but as en- 
 gaged in various occupations not including sacrifice (1 Kings iv. 5, 
 viii. 3-11, xii. 31, 32, xiii. 2, 33 ; 2 Kings x. 11, 19, xi. 18, xii. 4-6, 
 8, 16, xvii. 27-32, xxiii. 2-20, xxv. 18). A comparison of these 
 passages will show that the occupations of the priests of the Lord 
 are in no way inconsistent with what is said of them in the middle 
 books of the Pentateuch. 
 
 ^ 1 Kings viii. 4. Perhaps 1 Sam. vi. 15, as has already been 
 remarked, refers to the priests. 
 
 ^ Josh. iii. 3, 6, 14, vi. 4. 
 
I 
 
 I 
 
 How was the Priesthood Levi s Inheritance'^ 91 
 
 through Aaron in the receipt of their cities.^ The 
 term Levites alone is only used of the entire tribe, to 
 whom, in the distribution of the land, cities are assigned. 
 It is claimed that the following verses show that all 
 the members of the tribe of Levi were eligible to the 
 priesthood : ^ — " Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave 
 none inheritance ; the sacrifices of the Lord God of 
 Israel made by fire are their inheritance, as He said 
 unto them." " But the Levites have no part among 
 you ; for the priesthood of the Lord is their in- 
 heritance." ^ 
 
 If we were to admit that these passages prove that 
 any Levite might become a priest, we could not sup- 
 pose in any case that the sacrifices of the Lord made 
 by fire, or that the office of the priesthood, could furnish 
 a support for more than a part of the tribe, — that is, 
 for those who were really performing the priest's office. 
 The only way in which the priesthood could become 
 the inheritance of the whole tribe, would be through 
 the patronage which would fall to them, and the many 
 subordinate offices which the mass of the tribe could 
 perform. Take away the priesthood, and these minor 
 offices would no longer exist. That this general mean- 
 ing is correct, appears from these words : * " But unto 
 the tribe of Levi Moses gave not any inheritance ; the 
 Lord God of Israel was their inheritance, as He said 
 unto them." If, however, the priesthood was the 
 inheritance of the entire tribe in the way which we 
 
 ^ Josh. xxi. 4. - Ihid. xiii. 14. 
 
 3 Ihid. xviii. 7. ^ Ihid. xiii. 33. 
 
92 yoshtia — 2 Kmgs, 
 
 have indicated, the remark is equally true if we confine 
 it to the children of Aaron, who, as we have already 
 seen, were reckoned as Levites. 
 
 Colenso implies that there was no tribe of Levi in 
 the time of Deborah, because it is not mentioned in 
 her song.^ This objection is not of the slightest signi- 
 ficance, except as a specimen of many of his objections. 
 Since the report of Josephus ^ is probably correct, that 
 the Levites were excused from military duty,^ there 
 would be no occasion for mentioning them here, where 
 the attitude of other tribes towards the battle is 
 characterized. 
 
 The two Levites ^ who appear in the Book of Judges 
 scarcely require any further notice after what has 
 already been said. They are examples of the unsettled 
 condition of the times, but give no certain testimony 
 of the state of their tribe. To argue that the Levites 
 never received any possession, because one of them is 
 here represented as homeless,^ is absurd. Nor can it 
 be inferred that any Levite might become a priest of 
 the Lord from the choice of this one by Micah. A 
 man who had broken the second ^ and eighth ^ com- 
 mandments, and probably knew very little about the 
 law, might well be glad to secure one who stood so 
 near the priesthood as the Levites to serve as priest. 
 Nor is it strange that, when Israel so frequently lapsed 
 
 ^ Colenso, Lectures on the Pentateuch, p. 245. 
 
 2 Antiquities, iii. 12. 4, iv. 4. 3. 
 
 3 Saalschiitz, Das Mosdische Recht, Berlin 1853, S. 105. 
 
 4 Judg. xvii. 7, xix. 1. '' Judg. xvii. 8. 
 ^ Judg. xvii. 5. ^ Judg. xvii. 2. 
 
I 
 
 The Dtcties of the Priests and Levites. 93 
 
 into idolatry/ the Danites should establish this same 
 Levite and his descendants among them as priests to 
 their idol.^ The other Levite finds a place in a story of 
 shame and violence, not at all on account of his official 
 character, but because of the connection of the incident 
 with the terrible decimation which befell the tribe of 
 Benjamin.^ He is mentioned as sojourning on the side 
 of Mount Ephraim, perhaps in one of the suburbs of 
 Shechem.* He seems to have been in comfortable 
 circumstances, as he had a servant and a couple of 
 asses.^ After his concubine, who had left him, had be- 
 come reconciled to him, it was his purpose to go to the 
 house of the Lord,^ perhaps to minister as his " brethren 
 the Levites did, or to express his gratitude for the 
 reconciliation of his companion. Of this, however, we 
 know nothing definitely. The Book of Judges gives no 
 account of the priests or Levites as a class. If the cir- 
 cumstances of the first Levite seem to denote that he had 
 no settled residence, those of the second seem to indi- 
 cate that he was living in one of the Levitical suburbs. 
 In the Books of Samuel, neither the duties of the 
 priests nor of the Levites are specifically described. 
 Colenso claims thitvery few priests were requisite for 
 the temple service.^ \ The fact that only Eli's sons are 
 mentioned as officiating at Shiloh might seem to lend 
 
 1 Judg. ii. 11-19, iii. 7, iv. 1, vi. 1, x. 6, xiii. 1. 
 
 2 Judg. xviii. 30, 31. ^ Judg. xix. 14, xxi. 3. 
 * Judg. xix. 1 ; comp. Josh. xxi. 21. ^ Judg. xix. 3. 
 
 ^ Judg. xix. 18. " Deut. xviii. 7. 
 
 8 Colenso, The, Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, Part iii. pp. 484^ 
 485: " We cannot wonder that in Solomon's as in David's time we 
 
94 yosJma—2 Kings. 
 
 some colour to this supposition. The object of the 
 narrative, however, is not to accurately portray the 
 arrangements of the house of God at Shiloh, giving the 
 number of priests and Levites, but simply to recount 
 the judgment which befell Eli and his two sons. One 
 might also infer from the reference to Ahimelech at 
 Nob, that he was almost the only priest there,^ if the 
 massacre had never occurred which affords a reason for 
 speaking of eighty-five priests who fell by the sword.*'^ 
 The Levites are only twice referred to by name in the 
 Books of Samuel. The Levites take down the ark of 
 the covenant on its return from the Philistines.^ 
 Levites are mentioned as accompanying Zadok and 
 Abiathar in the retreat of King David.^ These passages 
 are so indefinite, that neither side can base an arc^ument 
 on them. It must, however, be admitted that the 
 name was undoubtedly chosen so as to include those 
 who were not priests. 
 
 There is, however, a more specific mention of a 
 Levite who afterwards occupies an exceptionally pro- 
 minent position. We refer to Samuel. It is asserted 
 that he could not have been a Levite, because his 
 father is termed an Ephrathite.^ This argument can- 
 not hold, since a Levite is spoken of as being out of 
 
 read of culy tico priests (1 Kings iv. 4), who had doubtless some 
 attendants ; or that in Zedekiah's time the whole body of ecclesiastics 
 employed at the temple was only j?ye." But what does this prove? 
 
 1 1 Sam. xxi. 1-10. 2 m^ ^xii. 18. 
 
 3 lUd. vi. 15. -» 2 Sam. xv. 24. 
 
 * Colenso, Lectures on the Pentat., London 1876, p. 248. Graf, 
 in Merx's ArcJnv, B. i. S. 72, says that Samuel was not a Levite, but 
 
PFas S annuel a Levite ^ 95 
 
 Bethlehem- Judah, of the family of Judah. If a Levite 
 can be said, by virtue of his residence in one of the 
 cities of Judah, to be of the family of Judah, then a 
 Levite from one of the cities of Ephraim can be said 
 to be an Ephrathite. While we should naturally have 
 expected that Elkanah, if a Levite, would have been 
 designated as such, the omission is not very strange in 
 a book where the Levites are only mentioned twice. 
 Colenso claims that Samuel could not have belonged 
 to the Levites, because his consecration by his mother 
 to the service of the Lord would have been superfluous 
 and unmeaning, since the whole tribe belonged to the 
 Lord.^ There was, however, a special reason for this 
 consecration, in the fact that all Levites could serve at 
 the sanctuary, but not all of them really served, and 
 by no means from childhood. The establishment of 
 this point that Samuel was a Levite, and that he after- 
 wards offered sacrifices, does not prove that all Levites 
 exercised the same privilege. He was an exceptional 
 person, who arose at a period when a terrible judgment 
 fell upon the priesthood and upon the central sanctuary 
 at Shiloh ; hence, while he probably never exercised 
 full sacerdotal functions, he felt himself empowered to 
 offer sacrifices. 
 
 was made one by the Chronicler, 1 Chron. vi. 7-13 (E. V. 22-28). 
 But it is an interesting coincidence that the Chronicler makes 
 Samuel a descendant of Kohath, and that his father probably- 
 lived in one of the suburbs which had been assigned to the 
 Kohathites, Josh. xxi. 21. "For they gave them Shechem with 
 her suburbs in Mount Ephraim." 
 1 1 Sam. i. 11. 
 
96 Joshua— 2 Khigs. 
 
 As regards the cities of the priests and Levites, we 
 may well believe that one of them is indicated as the 
 birthplace of Samuel. Another isBeth-shemesh^to which 
 the two milch cows carried the ark of the Lord.^ That 
 this city liad really been given to the Levites of the 
 family of Aaron in the time of Joshua/ appears (1) from 
 the plan of the Philistines for returning the ark ; if the 
 cows would leave their calves without any human 
 direction for a priestly city, it would be evident that 
 the God of Israel had afflicted them.^ (2) That Beth- 
 shemesh was a priestly city, is confirmed by the presence 
 of Levites, who were probably priests, sons of Aaron, 
 as appears from their handling the ark, which was 
 only allowed to be handled by the priests, and from 
 the offering of sacrifices.* 
 
 Graf ^ lays great weight on the fact that Nob is not 
 mentioned in the list of priestly cities. But when we 
 remember the many disturbances which had occurred, 
 it would not be strange if the priests were compelled 
 to take other cities than those which were originally 
 assigned, unless perhaps Nob is one of the old cities 
 under another nanie.^ Moreover, this place might 
 have been specially chosen on account of Saul, who 
 was from Benjamin. In the same connection, it is 
 interesting to recall Solomon's words to Abiathar when 
 dismissing him from the high-priesthood -J "Get thee 
 
 1 1 Sam. vi. 12. 2 j^gij. ^xi. 16. 
 
 3 1 Sara. vi. 9. ^ 1 gam. vi. 15. ^ Merx's Archiv, S. 84. 
 
 ^ Its situation has not yet been accurately determined. 
 
 '' 1 Kings ii. 26. 
 
The Levites in the Book of Kings, 97 
 
 to Anatlioth, Tinto thine own fields, for thou art worthy 
 of death ; " ^ and the opening of Jeremiah : " The words 
 of Jeremiah, the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that 
 were in Anathoth, in the land of Benjamin." ^ It will 
 be remembered that this is the same city which is 
 assigned to the priests in the Book of Joshua. 
 
 We certainly have a right to dismiss Graf's assertion, 
 that there is not a single trace of such cities for priests 
 and Levites in trustworthy historical accounts, as 
 unfounded, since we have found scattered notices 
 which show on their very face that they were never 
 written to confirm the statement in Joshua, and hence 
 cannot come under the suspicion even of Kuenen's 
 school. 
 
 The Book of Kings, in the only passage where the 
 Levites are mentioned, distinguishes them from the 
 priests : ^ " And they brought up the ark of the Lord, 
 and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the 
 holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those 
 did the priests and the Levites bring up." The last 
 clause is claimed to have been changed from the 
 original, and reduces Kuenen to such straits that he 
 betakes himself to the despised Book of Chronicles for 
 a correction : * " And they brought up the ark of the 
 Lord, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the 
 holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did 
 the priests and the Levites bring up." ^ The assump- 
 
 ^ 1 Kings ii. 26. ^ Jer. i. 1. ^1 Kings viii. 4. 
 
 * Kuenen, Religion of Israel, vol. ii. p. 301. 
 ^ Compare 2 Chron. v. 5. 
 
 Q 
 
98 Joslma — 2 Kings. . 
 
 tion of a " clerical error " is not enoiigli to destroy the 
 force of this passage in a case where the text is beyond 
 a question. It may, however, be affirmed that there is 
 one passage in this book where the priests are clearly 
 characterized as Levitical:^ "And he (Jeroboam) made 
 a house of high places, and made priests of the lowest 
 of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi." 
 This, however, does not prove that any Levite as such 
 might become a priest ; for (1) we might understand the 
 passage to mean that Jeroboam chose priests from the 
 lowest of the people who were not even Levites ; but 
 (2) he is undoubtedly represented as not choosing 
 from the descendants of Aaron, who, in relation to 
 their tribe, are called Levites.^ That the latter un- 
 questionably is the proper interpretation of the passage, 
 appears from the Chronicler's ^ version of the same fact, 
 who, according to Graf, always strictly discriminates 
 between the priests and the Levites : ^ " And the priests 
 and the Levites that were in Israel resorted to him 
 out of all their coasts. For the Levites left their 
 suburbs and their possession, and came to Judah 
 and Jerusalem ; for Jeroboam and his sons had cast 
 
 > 1 Kings xii. 31, xiii. 33. These passages evidently recognise 
 the law in Num. iii. 10 : " And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his 
 sons, and they shall wait on the priest's office : and the stranger 
 that comcth nigh shall be put to death." 
 
 2 Josh. xxi. 8, 4 : " And the children of Israel gave unto the 
 Levites out of their inheritance. . . . And the lot came out for the 
 families of the Kohathites : and the children of Aaron the priest, 
 which were of the Levites," etc. 
 
 s 2 Chron. xi. 13, 14; compare xiii. 9-11. 
 
 * Die Geschichtlichen Biicher, Leipzig 18G6, S. 46. 
 
The Aim of this Chapter. 99 
 
 tliem off from executing the priest's office unto the 
 Lord." 
 
 Our object in this chapter has not been to critically 
 examine the text of Joshua — 2 Kings with reference 
 to the age of its component parts, but rather to see 
 whether, if we start with the supposition that the 
 middle books of the Pentateuch (Exodus — Numbers), 
 substantially as they are at present, were composed in 
 the time of Moses, and that Deuteronomy was uttered 
 by him, we can trace an historical organism which is 
 illustrated by the history of the Christian Church ; or 
 whether it is necessary for us to reconstruct the entire 
 history as best we can, according to the modern theory 
 of development. It seems to us that all the pheno- 
 mena which we have observed, warrant us in holding 
 that the Aaronitic priesthood was founded by God in 
 the time of Moses, and that the vicissitudes through 
 which it passed until the reformation under Josiah 
 were due partly to political changes, and more than 
 all to the natural tendency of the human heart to 
 apostatize from God. 
 
CHAPTEE YIl. 
 
 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE CHRONICLER. 
 
 Summary : The author of the Boolis of Chronicles — His authorities — 
 His alleged invention of Levitical genealogies— Samuel — Obed- 
 edom — The reason why the house of Ithamar is destitute of a 
 genealogy — The Chronicler as an arithmetician — The sources of 
 the post-exilic history — The high priest — The sons of Aaron — The 
 Levitical priests — The use of the word Levites — The Chronicler as 
 an authority for the regal period — Colenso's attacks. 
 
 THE greatest variety of opinion exists in regard to 
 this much - abused book. If it can be con- 
 clusively proved to be veritable history, then the 
 theories of Graf, Kuenen, and Kayser fall to the 
 ground. If, on the other hand, it can be proved that 
 the author, whether intentionally or otherwise, has 
 changed the history in accordance with his views, our 
 defence will lose something of its strength, although 
 even the removal of this prop would not destroy it. 
 
 That it was written by a Levite is very probable. 
 That he has ascribed the priestly regulations whicli 
 are claimed to have been first in vogue after the exile, 
 to David and Solomon, we are not prepared to admit.^ 
 
 1 Graf, Die Geschichtl. Biicher, S. 122-123, etc., compares the 
 standpoint of the author of Chronicles with that of a Catholic 
 Church historian of the Middle Ages or of the present time with 
 
The Chronicler s Quotations. loi 
 
 Whether he had the Books of Samuel and Kings before 
 him, or some common source from which both were 
 taken, it is not necessary to decide. It is interesting 
 to notice that, in making quotations, he usually copies 
 with remarkable correctness. It is certain that at the 
 time of the author of Kings there must have been 
 several other historical works in existence, namely, the 
 annals of the kin^js of Judah and Israel, bei^inning 
 with David and the division of the kingdom, as well 
 as prophetic writings on the history of that time and 
 the life of contemporary prophets. The same is true 
 in the time of the Chronicler. He often refers to 
 works where a fuller description of the events of which 
 he treats may be found.^ 
 
 reference to the arrangements of his Church : "As the latter 
 refers the doctrine and constitution of the Church in its entire 
 maturity, by virtue of a presupposed immutable tradition, to Jesus 
 and the apostles, — not after his own arbitrary supposition, but 
 according to the opinion of his Church received through oral and 
 written teaching, — so the former, as he refers everything which 
 had become established in law and usage to Moses, traces all the 
 arrangements of the temple as they existed at his time, so far as they 
 were not already in the law of Moses, to David as the founder of 
 the temple." This is, however, by no means a parallel case. The 
 absurdity of referring the doctrine and constitution of the Roman 
 Catholic Church to Christ and His apostles, is apparent to every 
 unprejudiced student of the New Testament; not so, however, the 
 assignment of the highest development of the priestly service to 
 the time of the splendid Solomonic temple. The latter supposition 
 is far more reasonable than to suppose that he was drawing a 
 flattering picture of the priestly arrangements as they existed in 
 his own time. Moreover, the arrangements of divine worship at 
 the time of the Chronicler are too little known for us to identify 
 them with the Davidic or Solomonic. 
 ^ See Appendix I. 
 
I02 The Credibility of the Chronicler. 
 
 Either these references are true or they are fictitious. 
 If fictitious, it is difficult to see how he could escape 
 exposure. If true, his contemporaries certainly had 
 the means of judging of the truth or falsity of his 
 statements. If he copied so literally from the Books 
 of Samuel and Kings, or their common sources, why 
 should he not also from his other sources ? It has 
 been asked, if these fuller and better accounts were in 
 existence, why were they not preserved ? ^ We reply, 
 because a shorter compilation, not to speak of its sacred 
 character, would be more likely to be preserved amid 
 the changing fortunes of the people than the larger. 
 Each author has his particular purpose in writing. 
 The history of the same country during the same 
 periods may appear in many different lights, according 
 as the historian is chiefly interested in portraying the 
 martial exploits of a people, their social peculiarities, 
 or their religious characteristics. Different classes of 
 authors employ different terms in describing the same 
 things. A layman's terminology would be very differ- 
 ent, where he had occasion to speak of ecclesiastical 
 matters, from that of a clergyman. 
 
 We now assert that it has not been and cannot be 
 proved, that the Chronicler's representations in regard 
 to the priests and Levites do not rest upon what 
 seemed to him and his contemporaries credible autho- 
 rities. Let us examine the matter more in detail. 
 Kuenen says that during David's reign and that of his 
 immediate successors, the competence of every Israelite 
 
 1 Graf, Die GescUclitl. BiicJier, S. 118. 
 
FictitioiLS Levitical Genealogies. 103 
 
 to offer sacrifices as priest was not doubted.^ But 
 where is such a statement made in any of the passages 
 cited ? These places, as Kuenen himself admits,^ 
 simply show that certain privileged persons were 
 allowed to offer sacrifices. If these passages teach 
 the competence of every Israelite to offer sacrifice, 
 then the priestly Chronicler teaches it with equal 
 force, — a fact which is quite inconceivable if the above 
 passages prove that in David's time any one might 
 minister as priest.'^ 
 
 It is said that the Chronicler has been so desirous 
 to conform the history in every particular to the 
 demands of the priestly legislation, that he has manu- 
 factured a Levitical genealogy for those who engaged 
 in sacred services which were allowed only to the 
 
 ^ Kuenen, Tlie Religion of Israel^ vol. i. p. 338. 
 
 2 lUd.: "It was the kings and the heads of the tribes and 
 families especially who made use of this privilege." 
 
 ^ Kuenen, ihid.^ quotes in support of his theory 1 Sam. xiii. 9, 
 of Saul; 2 Sam. vi. 17, 18 (comp. 1 Chron. xvi. 2), xxiv. 18 
 seq. (comp. 1 Chron. xxi. 18 seq.) ; 1 Kings viii. (comp. 2 
 Chron. v. 6 ; 1 Chron. xxix. 21), ix. 25 (comp. 2 Chron. viii. 
 12, 13). In his Historisch-Kritisch Onderzoek, Leiden 1861, I. 119, 
 note 15, comparing 1 Kings ix. 25 with 2 Chron. viii. 12-16, he 
 remarks : " Nowhere, perhaps, does the effort of the Chronicler to 
 efface the traces of the unlawful service of Yahveh appear more 
 plainly than here." If, however, he holds that we are to under- 
 stand from 1 Kings ix. 25, that Solomon burned incense in person 
 on the altar of the Lord, he certainly might infer the same from 
 Solomon's message to Hiram, 2 Chron. ii. 3 (E. V. 4) : "Behold, 
 I build a house to the name of the Lord my God, to dedicate it 
 to Him, and to burn before Him sweet incense." Did the 
 Chronicler forget himself when he varied so from 1 Kings v. 19 
 (E. Y. V. 5), where nothing is said of incense? Evidently, if we 
 accept Kuenen' s theory, he must have done so. 
 
I04 The Credibility of the Chronicler. 
 
 priests and Levites. ^ According to tins theory, Samuel, 
 as we have already seen, was made into a Levite by 
 a fictitious genealogy.^ But since mere Levites were 
 not allowed, according to the priestly legislation, to 
 offer sacrifice, why did not the Chronicler, who so 
 anxiously sought to remodel the priestly legislation, 
 make a priestly genealogy for Samuel, and connect 
 him distinctly with the house of Aaron ? Again, as 
 the ark of the Lord remained three months in the 
 house of Obed-edom, the Chronicler gratifies his in- 
 clination for fabricating Levitical ancestries, by making 
 him a descendant of Levi.^ Again, the Chronicler, 
 
 ^ Colenso, Lectures on the Pentateucli., Part i. pp. 389 and 345. 
 In the latter place he remarks ; "He is capable of inventmg such 
 genealogies, with a whole array of names and numbers, to any 
 extent, when the occasion seems to call them forth." Kuenen, 
 The Religion of Israel, vol. iii. p. 78, does not regard the 
 Chronicler as the originator of these fictitious genealogies. He 
 
 says: "By the year 250 b.c the conviction had become 
 
 established that it was necessary that every one who was admitted 
 in any capacity whatever into the service of the temple should be 
 a descendant of Levi. In conformity with this, the families and 
 lineages in which the office of singer or porter had gradually be- 
 come hereditary, were also regarded then as Levitical families, and 
 traced back by ingenious pedigrees to the tribe-father Levi." 
 
 2 Compare Gramberg, Die Chrouik, u. s. w., Halle 1823, S. 126. 
 Graf, in Merx's Archiv, S. 72 : " Samuel, according to 1 Sam. i. 1, 
 as well as according to the entire contents of 1 Sam. i.-iii., was no 
 Levite by birth, but he was made one, 1 Chron. vi. 7-13 and 18-23 
 (E. V. 22-28, 33-38), etc." 
 
 3 Graf, in Merx's Archiv, S. 73, says : " In Chronicles, this former 
 keeper of the ark of the covenant is represented as the ancestor of 
 a numerous race of temple wardens, and is brought into con- 
 nection with the tribe of Levi in different ways by intricate 
 genealogies, through which their historical untenability most 
 plainly appears." 
 
The Genealogy of Aaron s Descendants. 105 
 
 who was probably well read in Hebrew literature, finds 
 himself in such want of names for his three musical 
 directors, that he adds those of two famous wise men, 
 Heman and Ethan, for whom in due course he finds 
 an honourable place in the family of Levi/ If, how- 
 ever, this theory is correct, that there was a tendency 
 to connect all who had participated in the affairs of 
 divine service with the tribe of Levi,'"^ w^e should 
 expect to see it exemplified in other cases than those 
 which are mentioned. 
 
 If he made a Levite of Obed-edom, in whose house 
 the ark rested for three months, why not of Abinadab, 
 where the ark was kept for a much longer time? As 
 his son Eleazar was sanctified to keep the ark,^ the 
 Chronicler ought to have made a priest of him. 
 
 Again, it is objected that the genealogy of the 
 descendants of Aaron, as giv^n in the Chronicles, is 
 worthless, except from Zadok, for the following reasons: 
 
 1 Graf, Die GeschicTitl. Biicher, S. 224, says : " The passage in 
 1 Kings V. 11 (E. V. iv. 31) knows nothing about the Levitical 
 descent' of Ethan and Heman, but Ethan is rather called an 
 Ezrahite ; and so both of them, even according to 1 Chron. ii. 6, as 
 sons of Zerah, belong to Judah ; comp. Ps. Ixxxviii. 1, Ixxxix. 1. 
 But here their descent with that of Asaph, like that of Samuel, is 
 traced back to Levi, and the appointment of all of them to David." 
 Comp. Graf in Merx's ArcJdv, 1869, S. 72-73 ; and also Delitzsch 
 in the introduction to Ps. Ixxxviii. and Ixxxix. 
 
 - Graf, Geschichtl. Biicher, S. 223, says : "The foundation of 
 these family registers is designed to prove that the men of earlier 
 times, who are named as participating in the affairs of divine 
 service, also belonged genealogically to the tribe of Moses and 
 Aaron, and thereby, according to later ideas, acquu'ed their right 
 to engage in divine services." 
 
 5 1 Sam. vii. 1. 
 
io6 The Credibility of the Chronicler. 
 
 (1.) His genealogy rests on the presupposition that 
 the rank of high priest was inherited in an nnbroken 
 line from Eleazar, thus contradicting the history in 
 Samuel and Kings. (2.) The repetition of the names 
 Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok in the same order looks 
 suspicious. (3.) The twenty-two names are sufficient 
 to fill out the time from Aaron to the exile, if forty 
 years are reckoned to each.-^ These objections admit 
 of tlie following answers : — 
 
 (1.) While we might infer from 1 Chron. v. 30-40,^ 
 and especially from vi. 34—38,^ that all the indivi- 
 duals named exercised the priest's office, it is possible 
 that those members of the line who were contem- 
 poraries of Eli and his descendants did not exercise 
 the office of high priest. In the absence of sufficient 
 historical data, the particulars with reference to the 
 Aaronitic family from Abishua to Ahitub are enveloped 
 in obscurity. The fact, however, that Eli, Ahia, Abime- 
 lech and Abiathar, of the house of Ithamar, are repre- 
 sented as occupying the high priest's office, does not 
 throw doubt on the validity of the genealogy from 
 Eleazar to Zadok. It is wrong when Graf claims that 
 the Chronicler purposely drops Eli and Abiathar out 
 of the history. "^ Since he first begins to relate the 
 history of Israel with the death of Saul,^ there is no 
 room for Eli. He does not try to ignore Abiathar, as 
 
 ' Compare Graf, Die GescMchtl. Buclier, S. 221-222. Merx's 
 Archiv, B. i. S. 71. 
 
 2 E. V. vi. 4-14. s E. V. vi. 49-52. 
 
 * Merx's Archie, B. i. S. 72. ^ 1 Chron. x. 
 
Ahimelech due to a Copyist's Mistake, 107 
 
 Graf would have us believe, and put in his place 
 Ahimelech, whose existence we are told is due to the 
 error of a transcriber. ^ He really mentions Zadok and 
 Abiathar^ tog^ether. If it had been the Chronicler's 
 purpose to expunge Abiathar from the history, and his 
 only sources had been the Books of Samuel and the 
 Kings, he would certainly have improved the oppor- 
 tunity afforded in Kings, where the deposition of 
 Abiathar by Solomon is spoken of ; but we hear 
 nothing of the kind. He rather represents that a 
 descendant of Ithamar, Ahimelech^ the son of Abiathar, 
 
 1 Graf, Die Geschiclitl. BiicJier, S. 237-238: ^'Dieser Aliimelek, 
 Solm Abjathar's welcher hier dem Zadok an die Seite gestellt wird, 
 ist nur das Ergebniss eines Schreibf ehlers ; . . • und so benutzt nun 
 der Chronist der den Abjathar selbst den von Salomo vom Hohe- 
 priesterthum Verworfenen (1 Kon. ii. 27) nicht gern neben Zadok 
 nennt, vgl. 1 Chron. xvi. 37 ff., ihn vielmehr ignorirt (wie ja auch 
 der um Samuel's willen verworfene Eli in den spateren Genealogien 
 keine Stelle mehr hat), diesen Ahimeiek zu seiner Darstellung." 
 
 2 1 Chron. xv. 11. 
 
 ^ It must be admitted that the mention of Ahimelech at the 
 side of Zadok, when we should rather have expected Abiathar, 
 affords some difficulty. If 2 Sam. viii. 17 stood alone, we might, 
 perhaps, suppose that the Syrian and Arabic versions, which 
 transpose the order of the words to " Abiathar son of Ahimelech,'' 
 contained the right reading. This, however, as well as Wellhau- 
 sen's proposed transposition of the verse so as to read, " Abiathar 
 the son of Ahitub and Zadok" (Der Text der BucJier SamiieVs, 
 Gottmgen 1871, S. 177), cannot be allowed, since the same thing 
 occurs in 1 Chron. xviii. 16, where Abimelech is equivalent to 
 Ahimelech, and xxiv. 3, 6, 31. AVe have no right to assume, 
 with Graf, that the Chronicler has founded his representations in 
 1 Chron. xxiv. 1-19 on a mistake of a transcriber. The dogmat- 
 ism with which Graf makes this assertion is surprising. There 
 are two explanations which have been suggested by those who are 
 not willing to do violence to the text:— (1.) That Abiathar and 
 
io8 The Credibility of the Chronicler. 
 
 is priest. The priestly Chronicler evidently entertains 
 no fears of bringing suspicion on the priestly genealogy 
 from Eleazar by the mention of another priest with 
 Zadok, who seems to be on a par with him. 
 
 The misfortunes which befell the house of Ithamar 
 through Eli, undoubtedly left them without a genealogy. 
 
 (2.) It seems strange that Graf should have laid so 
 much weight on the repetition of the names Amariah, 
 Ahitub, and Zadok twice/ or that Bertheau should 
 have acknowledged the force ^ of Graf's objection. A 
 man who has illustrated his theory of the fictitious part 
 of the priestly genealogy from Zadok to Aaron by a 
 reference to the line of popes which is carried back 
 to Peter/ might have seen in the undoubtedly his- 
 
 Ahimelech are two names for the same person. This explanation, 
 with slight variations, is supported by Sanctius, and in Polus on 
 2 Sam. viii. 17, Selden (Ugolini, Thesaurus, tom. xii. p. 236), and 
 by Ugolini himself (torn. xiii. p. 852). (2.) That Ahimelech was 
 a son of Abiathar, and was appointed for some reason unknown 
 to us, while his father was still living (either on account of age 
 or some bodily infirmity). This view is sustained by Kimchi (on 
 2 Sam. viii. 17), Tostatus and Corn, a Lapide in Polus, Oehler 
 (Ilerzog's Real-Encycl. B. 6, S. 205), Keil (1 Chron. xviii. 15), 
 and Bertheau. That this list, as well as others, is founded on an 
 old document, appears from 1 Chron. xxiv. 6, according to which 
 Shemaiah the son of Nathaniel the scribe, one of the Levites, is 
 said to have recorded the classes of the priests as they had been 
 determined by lot. 
 
 1 Die Geschichtl. Buclier, S. 222. 
 
 2 Die Biiclier der Chronik, 2 Aufl., Leipzig 1873, S. 59. 
 
 ^ Graf, Die Geschichtl. Biicher^ S. 221, says: "The enumeration 
 of the names, 1 Chron. v. 30-41 (E. V. vi. 4-15), is intended to re- 
 present the succession of high priests from Eleazar to the exile, and 
 therefore traces his succession in a direct line back to Aaron, as the 
 Catholic Church traces the succession of their popes up to Peter." 
 
The Chronicler as an Arithmetician. 109 
 
 torical portion of the pontifical succession, that the 
 same names occur with a suspicious frequency ; indeed, 
 a large portion of the list looks as though it was manu- 
 factured 1 ^ 
 
 (3.) The third objection represents the Chronicler 
 as an arithmetician, who, dividing nine hundred by 
 forty, which is said to be a suspicious number, finds 
 that twenty-two priests are necessary. If this was 
 the Chronicler's rule, it was not that of subsequent 
 writers.^ It must be acknowledged that the average 
 is high ; ^ but when we compare it with that of the 
 
 ^ Honorius ir. 
 Innocent ii. 
 Celestine 11. 
 
 Innocent x. 
 Alexander vii. 
 Clement ix. 
 
 1124 
 1130 
 1143 
 
 1644 
 1655 
 1667 
 
 Celestine nr. 
 Innocent ni. 
 Honorius nr. 
 
 Clement x. 
 Innocent xi. 
 Alexander vni. 
 
 1191 
 1198 
 1216 
 
 1670 
 1676 
 1681 
 
 Benedict and Clement occur in pairs four times. Compare with 
 the above the following repetition of names in the English history: 
 
 Edward n. 
 Edward ni. 
 Richard w. 
 Henry iv. . 
 Henry v. . 
 
 1307 
 1327 
 1377 
 1399 
 1413 
 
 Edward iv. 
 Edward V. 
 Richard in. 
 Henry vn. 
 Henry vni. 
 
 1461 
 1483 
 1483 
 1485 
 1509 
 
 ^ "The entire number of the priests, according to Josephus 
 (Antiq. xx. 10. 10), is eighty-three. Of these, there were thirteen 
 untQ the time of the Solomonic temple, during this temple 
 eighteen, and after the exile fifty-two. . . . The number is 
 greater in the Talmud, where even eighty are recorded for the 
 period after the exile (Jerusalem, Joma i. 1, Midr. r. 3 m., 
 Ahsch. 21)." — Hamburger Real- Encyclopddie^ Berlin 1870, S. 847. 
 
 ^ A quotation from Joma 9a is interesting in this connection : 
 — " The fear of the Lord prolongeth days, that is the first temple, 
 which stood four hundred and ten years, and not more than 
 
no The Credibility of the Chronicler. 
 
 reign of English and French sovereigns, ^vho averaged 
 about twenty-three years/ it cannot be proved to have 
 been impossible, if we remember the great ages of 
 Aaron and Eli.^ At the same time, it is not impro- 
 bable that some links are missing in the genealogical 
 chain, as in the genealogies of Moses ^ and of 
 Christ.^ 
 
 We are told that while the Boohs of Clironicles are 
 almost worthless for that history which they claim to 
 portray, they are very valuable as enabling us to form 
 a conception of the state of things after the exile.^ 
 It is said that the high priest nowhere appears in 
 the glory and power which he only possessed after 
 the exile, except in the middle books of the Penta- 
 teuch. We of course turn with fond expectation to 
 the Book of Chronicles, as a mirror of the post- exilic 
 times, to find this picture of the high priest adorned 
 with the splendid mitre, the breastplate sparkling with 
 precious stones, the costly ephod, and the golden bells 
 which announced his coming/' It is unreasonable 
 
 eighteen priests ministered in it. But the years of the wicked 
 shall be shortened, that is the second temple, which stood four 
 hundred and twenty years, and there ministered in it more than 
 three hundred priests." 
 
 ^ There have been thirty-five English and French sovereigns 
 during about eight hundred years. During the same period there 
 have been one hundred and three popes. 
 
 2 Recent statistics in New England show that clergymen attain 
 a greater longevity than almost any other class. 
 
 3 Ex. vi. 16. 4 Matt. \. 
 
 ^ Graf, Geschicltl. BUclier, S. 247; Kueneu, The Relujion of 
 Israel, vol. iii. p. 71. 
 6 Ex. xxviii. 4-38. 
 
The HigJi Priest of the Second Temple. 1 1 1 
 
 for us to expect such a personage in the days of 
 Moses after the Israelites had spoiled the Egyptians, 
 or in the time of Solomon, when we have such pictures 
 of luxury and magnificence. No I we err when we 
 imagine that under the most magnificent of the 
 monarchs of Israel such a high priest could have 
 been found. But if we turn to the second temple, 
 which was so much less glorious than the first that 
 the old men wept when it was founded, we shall 
 there discern the high priest as he is depicted to us 
 in the middle books of the Pentateuch.^ What, then, 
 do we find in these books ? The title' high priest (inD 
 D'Nin) is applied to Amariah/ Jehoiada,^ Azariah,* and 
 to Aaron ^ (i?njn p^n), to Hilkiah^ and Eliashib.^ But 
 we also find these titles applied to Jehoiada;^ Hilkiah,^ 
 and to Seraiah,^^ so that we have good reason for sup- 
 posing that the priests had this title long before the 
 exile. We look in vain for the description of the 
 splendid garments in Chronicles, for a clear account 
 of the special privileges and prerogatives of the high 
 priest. The brief notices of their duties contained in 
 
 ^ Graf, Die GescliicML BUcher, S. 43, says : " Von einem 
 Holiepriester mit all der iiberragenden Herrlichkeit und Macht, 
 wie er in der Zeit des zweiten Tempels zur Erscheinung kommt 
 und wie er in der Gestalt Aaron's in der Priestergesetzgebung 
 des Pentateuchs gescbildert ist, weiss das Deut. nichts ; " compare 
 S. 46. 
 
 2 2 Chron. xix. 11. ^ Ibid. xxiv. 11. 
 
 * 2 Cbron. xxvi. 20, xxxi, 10. ^ Ezra vii. 5. 
 
 ^ 2 Cbron. xxxiv. 9. '' Neb. iii. 1, 20. 
 
 8 2 Kings xii. 11 (E. V. 10). » Ibid. xxii. 5, 9, xxiii. 4. 
 
 10 2 Kings XXV. 18. 
 
1 12 The Credibility of the Chronicler. 
 
 1 Chron. vi. 34 (E. V. 49), xxiii. 13, do not give us 
 any such complete idea of the high priests as we 
 obtain from the middle books of the Pentateuch. 
 The solitary mention of Aaron in Ezra vii. 5, for 
 which Graf must have been very thankful,^ gives us 
 no account of the glories assigned to the high priest.'^ 
 As the critics have said that the description of the 
 surpassing dignity and importance of the high priest 
 which occurs in the middle books of the Pentateuch, 
 is only found in the time of the second temple,^ and 
 as there is but little difference in the mention of such 
 a person between Kings and Chronicles, including Ezra 
 and Nehemiah,* we demand of the critics, as honest 
 men, the proof of this assertion. We demand the 
 history. We shall not accept any such wretched 
 subterfuge as that the middle books of the Pen- 
 tateuch imply that history, which w^ould simply be 
 reasoning in a circle. The critics must acknowledge 
 that their boasted history does not exist except as a 
 hypothesis. 
 
 It is confidently affirmed that in the priestly legis- 
 lation of the middle books of the Pentateuch thS priests 
 are called sons of Aaron/ and that the same phenome- 
 
 1 Bk GescMchtl Gesetzgehung, S. 46. 2 ]ll^l g, 43, 
 
 3 J hid. S. 4f). 
 
 ■* We do not yet venture any independent opinion as to tlie 
 author of these two books. How little a great man needs a title, 
 is illustrated in the fact that Aaron is never called high priest 
 in the Pentateuch, but is simply designated eitlier as Aaron, or 
 as Aaron the priest. 
 
 * Graf, Geschichtl. BUcher, S. 46, says: "Die Priester werden 
 in der Priestergesetzgebung SiJhne Aaron's genannt, ein Name der 
 
The Sons of Aaron, 113 
 
 non appears in the Books of Chronicles, but never in 
 any pre-exilic "WTitings. This is not an exact statement 
 of facts ; and we have learned that in a scientific inves- 
 tigation everything depends on exactness. Priests are 
 mentioned in the middle books of the Pentateuch 195 
 times, but in only seven places are they termed sons of 
 Aaron,^ or rather, strictly speaking, the sons of Aaron ^ 
 are six times called priests, D''jnDn pns ''J2. This is an 
 important distinction, because Aaron and his sons are 
 mentioned thirty-two times, and the sons of Aaron 
 fourteen times, without being called priests, conclu- 
 sively showing that in the middle books of the Penta- 
 teuch the term sons of Aaron is not at all appended to 
 the word priests for a didactic purpose, as would be the 
 case if they had been inserted in a programme. It is 
 of course everywhere assumed that Aaron ^ and his 
 sons are priests, and vice versa, but this is a very 
 different things from a definite statement to that effect. 
 In like manner, the Chronicler (including Ezra and 
 iSTehemiah) speaks of the priests 158 times. It must, 
 however, be confessed that he defines the priests six 
 times as sons of Aaron f in the other two cases he men- 
 tions the sons of Aaron as priests.^ Six times he speaks 
 
 in den anderen Scliriften bis zura Exil nirgends vorkommt, auch 
 Ezechiel nicht bekannt ist." Colenso, Lects. on Pentateuch, p. 199. 
 J Lev. i. 6, 8, 11, ii. 2, iii. 2, xxi. 1 ; Num. iii. 3. 
 
 2 Ex. xxviii. 1 ; Lev. i. 7, iii. 5, vi. 7, vii. 10, viii. 13, 24, 
 ix. 9, 12, 18, X. 1, 16, xvi. 1 ; Num. iii. 2. 
 
 3 Ahliough xVaron's name occurs about 250 times, he is called 
 the priest only sixteen times. 
 
 ■* 2 Chron. xiii. 9, 10, xxvi. 18 ; xxxv. 14. twice ; Xeh. x. 39. 
 '" 2 Chron. xxix. 21, xxxi. 19. 
 
 U 
 
114 ^^^^ Credibility of the Chronicler. 
 
 uf the sons of Aaron without any further designation. 
 On the other hand, the statement that the priests are 
 never called sons of Aaron in the pre-exilic writings ^ 
 is a safe assertion. But since the priests the sons 
 of Aaron are mentioned in that portion of Leviticus '"^ 
 which Graf, Kuenen, and Kayser ^ claim was composed 
 by Ezekiel, we have something which rebuts their theory 
 that Ezekiel was only acquainted with the Aaronitic 
 priesthood. They, however, will probably find it easy 
 to assign at least the first verse, or the whole twenty- 
 first chapter, if necessary, to the Elohist, as well as 
 that passage in Joshua where we read of the sons of 
 Aaron, the priests.^ Perhaps Graf's most unfortunate 
 assertion is that in the Books of Chronicles nothing 
 more is said of the Levitical priests,^ but only of 
 priests and Levites.^ For a man whose book is over- 
 
 '*■ Graf, Geschichtl. Biicher, S. 46. ^ Lev. xxi. 1. 
 
 3 Die GescJdchtl. Biicher, S. 75 f. ; Religion of Israel, vol. ii. p. 
 183 seq. ; Das Vorexilische Bacli, S. 64, and especially S. 178, where 
 he compares Lev. xxi. 1-4 with Ezek. xliv. 25. 
 
 * Josh. xxi. 19, comp. v. 4. See Graf, Die Gescliichtl. Biicher, 
 S. 95, 96, who assigns the Book of Joshua to the Jehovist. 
 
 ^ Graf, Geschichtl Biicher, S. 44, has implied something which, 
 considering the consequences involved, is, to say the least, dis- 
 creditable. He has given us to understand that in the Books of 
 the Kings, where Levitical priests are mentioned, the Chronicler 
 has everywhere placed priests and Levites. One who had not 
 studied the matter would of course suppose that there were several 
 places where the Levitical priests are mentioned. Not one such 
 passage, however, exists in Kings. The Levites are mentioned 
 only once, and that in 1 Kings viii. 4, where we read that the 
 priests and Levites brought up the ark. As the Chronicler in the 
 parallel passage, 2 Chron. v. 5, speaks of the Levitical priests as 
 bringing it up, he furnishes a grim satire on this statement of Graf. 
 
 ^ Graf, ibid. S. 46 : " Diese im zweiten Tempel in Wirklichkeit 
 
The Levitical Priests, 1 1 5 
 
 loaded with references, this is a strange statement. 
 Either he has overlooked several passages/ or else he 
 has taken an unscholarly advantage of readings which 
 are not well established.^ It is not probable, how- 
 ever, that he has examined the passages at all. We 
 have already quoted them in other connections, and yet 
 they deserve to be examined together here. 
 
 Assuredly if the Chronicler, who so carefully dis- 
 criminates between the Aaronitic priests and the ordi- 
 nary Levites, can speak of Levitical priests without 
 inconsistency, would there be anything strange in the 
 author of Deuteronomy using the same expression, if 
 we suppose him to have been at least acquainted with 
 the middle books of the Pentateuch ? While a con- 
 
 bestehenden Yerhaltnisse [zwischen den Priester und Ijeviten] 
 erscheinen eben so bei Esra und Nehemia und in der Chronik, 
 welche das was zu ihrer Zeit bestand also von jeher in dieser 
 AVeise dagewesen, ansieht und darstellt ; hier ist nicht mehr von 
 Priester- Leviten, sondern nur von Priestern und Leviten die Rede; 
 die Leviten sind iiberall den Priestern, den Solinen Aaron's unter- 
 geordnet." 
 
 The only books in the whole Bible in which we read of priests 
 and Levites, are Kings (once) and Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah 
 (thirty -three times). 
 
 1 These are, 1 Chron. ix. 2 ; 2 Chron. v. 5, xxiii. 18, xxx. 27, 
 Ezra X. 5; Neh. x. 29, 35 (E. V. 28, 34), xi. 20. That is, while there 
 are seven passages in Deuteronomy (xvii. 9, 18, xviii. 1, xxiv. 8, 
 xxvii. 9) and Joshua (iii. 3, viii. 33) where the priests Levites 
 are mentioned, there are eight in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. 
 Before the critics announce their intention of trying to secure a 
 few firm and useful building stones from the dilapidated building 
 which has been held up with rotten timbers (Graf, Geschichtl. 
 Bilcher, S. viii.), it would be well for them to see that their care- 
 fully chosen stones do not afterwards fall upon them. 
 
 - See Appendix iv. 
 
1 1 6 The Credibility of the Chronicler, 
 
 nective is evidently implied in 1 Chron. ix. 2 : " [N'ow 
 the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions in 
 their cities were the Israelites, the priests, the Levites, 
 and the ISTethinim ; " the case is entirely different in 
 2 Chron. v. 5 : " And they brought up the ark, and the 
 tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels 
 that were in the tabernacle ; these did the priests the 
 Levites bring up." 
 
 Will the critics perhaps meet the difficulty by 
 claiming that the reading (1 Kings viii, 4) with and 
 between priests and Levites is original ? Surely, if 
 the Chronicler were re-writing the history from the 
 standpoint of the priestly books of the Pentateuch, 
 this omission, according to the critics, ought to excite 
 surprise. If any, however, are inclined to deny the 
 force of this passage, they may find comfort in their 
 theory by turning to 2 Chron. xxiii. 18 : " Also Jehoiada 
 appointed the offices of the house of the Lord by the 
 hand of the priests the Levites, whom David had 
 distributed in the house of the Lord, to offer the burnt- 
 ofterings of the Lord, as it is written in the law of 
 Moses, with rejoicing and singing according to David." 
 Further, the Levitical priests are mentioned in 2 Chron. 
 XXX. 27: "Then the priests the Levites arose and 
 blessed the people." 
 
 Another unfortunate statement of Graf's is, that in 
 every place in the Books of the Chronicles the Levites 
 are subordinated to the Aaronitic priests.^ 
 
 ^ Die GescluclitL Bucliei\ S. 46: " Die Leviten siiid uberall den 
 Priestern, den Sdhnen Aaron's untergeordnet." 
 
The Levitical Priests. 1 1 7 
 
 Now there are some passages which, if they stood 
 alone, would leave it doubtful whether there was any 
 essential difference between the priests and the Levites. 
 Such is 2 Chron. xi. 13, 14: "And the priests and the 
 Levites that were in all Israel resorted to him out of 
 all their coasts. For the Levites left their suburbs 
 and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem : 
 for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from 
 executing the priest's office unto the Lord." 
 
 If we were to accept Graf's canon of interpretation, 
 we must infer from the 14th verse that all Levites 
 could be priests, and that the Chronicler has failed in 
 this instance to distinguish between the Aaronitic priests 
 and their dependants. Again, Hezekiah, in 2 Chron. 
 xxix. 5, gathers the priests and Levites together, and 
 says, " Hear me, ye Levites ; sanctify now yourselves, 
 and sanctify the house of the Lord God of your fathers." 
 
 Further, we read (2 Chron. xxxi. 2) : " And Hezekiah 
 appointed the courses of the priests and the Levites after 
 their courses, every man according to his service, the 
 priests and Levites for burnt-offerings and for peace- 
 offerings, to minister, and to give thauks, and to praise 
 in the gates of the tents of the Lord." 
 
 Take another verse, where the Levites, to be sure, 
 are distinguished from the Aaronitic priests, and yet 
 where any one who is inclined to find difficulties could 
 easily do so. In 1 Chron. xxiii. 30 it is said of the 
 Levites that it is their business " to stand every morn- 
 ing to thank and praise the Lord, and likewise at even ; 
 and to offer all burnt- sacrifices unto the Lord," etc. 
 
1 1 8 The Credibility of the Chronicler. 
 
 It is evident that the word Levites is used in a 
 general as well as a special sense in Chronicles. As 
 the designation of the tribe, it includes the priests and 
 their assistants, who are called Levites. This appears 
 from the genealogy where Aaron and his sons are 
 reckoned under the sons of Levi ; from 1 Chron. xv. 
 11, 12, where Zadok and Abiathar, the priests, with 
 some Levites in the narrower sense of the word, are 
 called chief of the fathers of the Levites ; and from the 
 passages already quoted, where priests and Levites are 
 classed under the name Levites. 
 
 There is not the slightest doubt in regard to the 
 interpretation of the foregoing passages, because they 
 are abundantly explained by the connection ; but iso- 
 late them, and we should have the same phenomena as 
 in Deuteronomy, and a similar opportunity for hair- 
 splitting criticism. 
 
 We think that we have proved that the Chronicler 
 is an important authority, not for his own age, as is 
 claimed by the critics, .but for the regal period. 
 
 Minor inaccuracies, which may have crept into the 
 text, do not impair his credit in regard to the essential 
 l)ortions of his history. The severity of Graf's,-^ Kuenen's," 
 and Colenso's^ attacks on his credibility show how great 
 an obstacle he is in the way of their theories. They 
 have not been able to prove that he did not have good 
 
 1 Dk Gescliiclal. Biklier, Cap. ii.; Das Buck der Clirouik als 
 G'cschic/dsquelle, S. lU-247. 
 
 - The Uel'Kjion of Israel^ vol. iii. pp. 70-81. 
 
 3 Lecturer on the Penkiteuch and the Moahite Stone, Lect. xxiv. : 
 The Fktions of the Chronkkr, pp. 333-34G. 
 
Colensds Attack on the C/iromcler. 1 19 
 
 antliority for liis statements in regard to the priests 
 and Levites. 
 
 They cannot find the high priest of the middle 
 books of the Pentateuch in his writins^s, nor claim that 
 the Aaronitic priesthood is taught in them. Their 
 claim that he always carefully distinguishes between 
 the priests and the Levites completely breaks down. 
 
 If Colenso can scarcely contain himself while he 
 writes of the fictions of the Chronicler, who has champed 
 tlie face of history and Christian doctrine for 2000 
 years/ what shall we say of this man, who sets himself 
 up as the medium of the latest phase of critical opinion 
 for his benighted countrymen,^ and as a great reformer! 
 
 1 Colenso, ihid. p. 34G, says : " When, however, we consider 
 that for 2000 years the whole course of Jewish history has been 
 thrown into confusion mainly by the acts of these writers, and 
 that Christianity itself owes much of its past and present cor- 
 ruptions and superstitions — such as the idea of the priestly office 
 and the popular notion of the atonement, based upon the supposed 
 divine origin of the sacrificial laws in the Pentateuch — to the 
 existence of these priestly and Levitical fictions, it is not easy to 
 speak lightly of a fraud which has had such enormous and far- 
 reaching evil consequences ; while we find here another warning — 
 unhappily by no means unneeded in the present age — that ' lies 
 spoken in the name of the Lord' (Zech. xiii. 3), however well 
 meant, can never work out the good of man or the righteousness 
 of God." 
 
 2 Idem^ Preface, vi. After speaking of some admissions made in 
 the New Bible Commentary "by bishops and other clergy of the 
 Anglican Church," he says: "Under the above circumstances, 
 the time seems to have arrived for preparing a work ' in which the 
 latest information may be made accessible to men of ordmary cul- 
 ture,' by one who has studied the question from a different point 
 of view from that of these commentators, and has arrived at very 
 different conclusions."' 
 
I20 The Credibility of the Chronicler. 
 
 He Las handled the subject with great coarseness ; 
 and so far from giving the opinion of the best critics 
 of his school ^ in regard to the responsibility of the 
 Chronicler for alleged misrepresentations, has in this 
 particular simply followed the antiquated Gramberg/ 
 unless this is a case where great minds think alike. 
 
 > Graf, Geschichtl BucJier, S. 121 f., remarks : " It is wrong when 
 Gramberg accuses him of forgery because he has added to the 
 accounts in the Books of Samuel and Kings so many things which 
 we must recognise as contradictory or unhistorical. . . . Does 
 one consider Livy a forger, because, without the examination of 
 documents which he might have had at command, he arranged and 
 coloured events, after the popular legend, according to the end 
 which he had in view ? " 
 
 Kuenen, The Religion of Israel, vol. iii. p. 75 : "It appears, 
 then, that the Israelitish priesthood, to maintain its authority and 
 heighten its prestige, employed the same means which priests 
 used elsewhere in the old world, and of which the bishops of 
 Rome made use in the middle ages. This fact must be recognised 
 in its full scope and significance. But while w^e do this, we wish 
 to bear in mind that such ' pious frauds' were considered lawful, 
 and that they must be imputed not to a single person — e.g. the 
 Chronicler — but to the whole priestly order. The individual 
 cannot, or can hardly be held responsible for such representations, 
 which for the chief part he received from othera, and at most 
 worked out and trimmed a little more." 
 
 2 Colenso, Lectures on the Pentateuch, p. 345 : " The time is 
 past for glossing over such conduct as the Chronicler's with fair 
 words, and ascribing to him only error or exaggeration, but no 
 intentional departure from the truth. He has set himself down to 
 reconstruct the history of his people as known to himself in the 
 older records, and he has done this in the interest of the clerical 
 body, to which, in all probability, he belonged." Compare Gram- 
 berg, Die Chronik, Halle 1823, S. 224 : " The systematic adul- 
 teration of the history, which extends throughout the book, and 
 always remains similar in its main features, shows that it only 
 comes from cue author." 
 
CHAPTEE VIIl. 
 
 THE PROPHETS AND THE PRIESTS. 
 
 Summary : The so-called antagonism of the prophets to the law and 
 the priesthood — The prophets' occupation is gone after the exile — 
 Joel manifests no antagonism to the priests— Amos' collision with 
 a spurious high priest — The reason for Hosea's antagonism to the 
 priests — His use of the word Thorah — Is Isaiah a collection of 
 prophecies ? — The priests the Levites — Zephaniah — Jeremiah — 
 Explanation of vii. 22, 23 — Is xxiii. seq. spurious ? — Haggai and 
 Zechariah— Malachi— Does not allude to the new epoch — What 
 does he mean by Thorah ? — Why does he not mention the sons of 
 Aaron ? — The covenant with Levi — Traces of decay in Malachi — 
 His teaching — General characteristics of the prophecies. 
 
 SOME of tlie recent critics claim to have found 
 in the prophets undeniable evidence of their 
 antagonism to the ^losaic age of the legislation of the 
 Pentateuch/ and the proof that the hierarchy only 
 obtained full power with the extinction of prophecy.'^ 
 
 1 Duhm, Die Theulogle der PropJieten, Bonn 1875, S. 12 : " The 
 pre-exilic prophets are conscious of their sharp antagonism to 
 the ceremonial observances, and indeed not merely against their 
 exaggeration and external observance." Compare Kuenen, 21ie 
 Relic/ion of Israel, vol. i. p. 189. 
 
 2 This claim is not put forward in so many words. But one 
 derives this impression from Kuenen'sand Duhm's general teaching, 
 which is, (1) that the religion of Israel began with the prophets 
 (Duhm) ; (2) that there is an antagonism between the prophets 
 and the priests (Kuenen, vol. i. p. 189), whom they often attack 
 (Duhm, S. 12) ; (3) that the Mosaic law was a compromise made 
 
1 2 2 The Prophets and the Priests. 
 
 They assert tliat the Israelitish religion first begins 
 with the prophets/ and that in Ezra's time, as soon as 
 tlie law enters into force, the prophetic spirit is almost 
 extinguished.^ Of course, according to this sup- 
 ])Osition, we ought to expect to find, as it seems to ns, 
 the priests in the background in the older prophets, 
 and gradually passing through the transition state of 
 Levitical priests, until they emerge as sons and suc- 
 cessors of Aaron, who are sharply distinguished from 
 the Levites. This should be the representation in the 
 prophetical books, if the views of the latest critics are 
 correct. But this course of development does not 
 appear in the prophets ; and the modern view is im- 
 peded by some rough obstacles before it reaches that 
 golden post-exilic period to which, according to the 
 critics, we owe so much of the Mosaic legislation. 
 
 l)y the priests between the popular religion and the Jahvism of 
 the prophets (Kuenen, vol. ii. p. 255) ; and (4) as soon as this 
 priestly law enters into force, the prophetic spirit ceases. 
 
 ' Duhm, S. 15 : " Must one not come to the conclusion, unless 
 the entire religion is to be derived exclusively from the activity of 
 God, that the Israelitish religion first begins with the times of the 
 prophets? " 
 
 - Ihid. S. 10 : '' Is an organic growth of the prophetic from the 
 legal period of Moses conceivable? ... An affirmative answer 
 is to no slight degree rendered difficult by the fact that, as soon in 
 lOzra's time as the law enters into force, the prophetic spirit is as 
 good as extinguished." 
 
 Kuenen, Relujkm of Israel, vol. ii. p. 240: "The prophet is the 
 man of inspiration and enthusiasm ; his sphere can in no way be 
 measured out and circumscribed ; he is driven to act and speak by 
 what he sees ; the anxious calculation of the consequences of his 
 actions or words is unknown to him. Thus there is no room^or 
 hiiii in such a society as Ezra and Nehemiah tried to establish." 
 
The Prophetic Mode of Teaching, 123 
 
 According to the negative school, the Mosaic spirit 
 which then arose, and which is exhibited in the priestly 
 portions of the Pentateuch, was fatal to prophecy. 
 
 "What, then, was the chief characteristic of the pro- 
 phetic teachings ? Do we find them anywhere setting 
 forth the elements of religion, as thoiigli the people 
 had never before received religious instruction ? 
 
 Surely we ought to expect this if the Israelitish 
 reliojion orisjinated with them. So far, however, as we 
 have an opportunity of judging of their work, they 
 seem to be interpreters of the divine will as, without 
 contradiction, already known and acknowledged. 
 
 They presuppose the people's acquaintance with a 
 moral law, by which we do not merely mean the law 
 of conscience. They make scathing denunciations of 
 all kinds of wickedness, especially of the people's 
 idolatry. Israel is sometimes compared to an unfaith- 
 ful wife,^ whose external demonstrations of affection 
 are loathsome because her heart has been given to 
 another. The extinction of the prophetic spirit after 
 the exile was not due to the predominance of the 
 priesthood. Their occupation was gone. The evils 
 with which they had contended had disappeared. 
 Their denunciations of idolatry after the exile would 
 have been as ill-timed as the appearance of Aboli- 
 tionists in America after the extinction of slavery. 
 The prophets passed away, as all reformers do, with 
 the disappearance of the great contrasts which charac- 
 terized the pre-exilic periods, such as the contrast 
 1 Jer. iii. C-11 ; Ezek. xvi. 8-48, xxiii. ; llos. i. '1. ■ 
 
1 24 The Prophets and the Priests. 
 
 between the wicked kings and the idea of the Davidic 
 kingdom, and that between Jehovah and the worship 
 of false gods. 
 
 Let us now examine the prophets in the order 
 given by De Wette/ to see whether we find this 
 antagonism of the prophets to the Mosaic law and to 
 the priesthood. First, then, let us examine Joel, 870 
 B.C. This prophet, who is assigned by all the best 
 authorities "^ to a high date, does not confirm the 
 modern hypothesis, and therefore is put by Dulim in 
 the post-exilic age, but only for this reason, because 
 the pre-exilic age of Joel could not agree with his 
 imaginary construction of development of prophecy 
 and of the Israelitish religion. Joel, however, so far 
 from manifesting any antagonism to the priests, makes 
 such frequent mention of them, that one might almost 
 think that he himself was a priest. We have utterly 
 failed to discover anything in his writings contrary to 
 tlie Mosaic law. The condition of the priests when 
 this prophet wrote must have been flourishing. The 
 general character of the prophet's teachings is indicated 
 by an exhortation to the people to rend their hearts, 
 and not their garments. 
 
 Amos, 790 B.C., is supposed to furnish confirmatory 
 evidence of the modern views. We must admit that 
 
 1 We follow De Wette's order, so that we may escape the charge 
 of in any sense adapting the dates to apologetic purposes. 
 
 2 Kuenen, 87^-858 B.C. ; Bleek, 800 B.C. ; Keil, 877-847 B.C. 
 Compare Delitzsch in the Zeitschrift fur die gesammte lutherische 
 Thculogie und Kirche, Leipzig 1851, S. 306 ff. 
 
mos. 
 
 125 
 
 he manifests antagonism towards a certain priest, the 
 only one who is mentioned in the book. This, how- 
 ever, proves absohitely nothing. Amos prophesied, 
 not in Judah, but in Israel, under Jeroboam 11. He 
 therefore came into collision, not with an Aaronitic 
 priest, but with the spurious high priest of Bethel, 
 where Jeroboam i. had set up a golden calf, and 
 ordained priests from the lowest of the people who 
 were not of the sons of Levi. Certainly no real 
 antagonism is apparent betw^een Amos and the Mosaic 
 law. While it might be difficult to prove that Amos 
 directly referred to the law given by Moses, he says : 
 "' For three transgressions of Judah, and for four, I 
 will not turn away the punishment thereof; because 
 they have despised the law of the Lord, and have not 
 kept His commandments " (comp. Lev. xxvi. 15 : " And 
 if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor 
 my judgments, so that ye will not do all my command- 
 ments," etc.). His writings, however, betray a know- 
 ledge of at least some portions of the Pentateuch. 
 Tlie prophet's stern condemnation of the people's re- 
 ligious observances .did not arise from his antagonism 
 to the law, but from their breach of it. With bitiog 
 sarcasm he bids them " come to Beth-el and transgress ; 
 at Gilgal multiply transgression ; and bring your 
 sacrifices every morning and your tithes once in 
 three days : and offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving 
 with leaven, and proclaim and publish the free ofter- 
 ings," etc. 
 
 According to Jvuenen and Duhm, Amos represents 
 
1 2 6 The Prophets and the Priests, 
 
 that the children of Israel, during their sojourn in the 
 ^vilderness, did not offer sacrifices. They find this in 
 V. 25: " Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and 
 offerings forty years, house of Israel?" If this 
 passage stood alone, it would imply a negative ans^ver. 
 The connection, however, shows that this is not the 
 case. The prophet represents the Lord as saying, ver. 
 21: "I hate, I despise your feast days " (compare Prov. 
 xxi. 27 : " The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomina- 
 tion to the Lord ; how much more when he bringeth 
 it with a wicked mind ? "), " and I will not smell in your 
 solemn assemblies" (Lev. xxvi. 31&; "And will not 
 smell the savour of your sweet odours "). Ver. 2 2 : 
 " Though ye offer me burnt-offerings and your meat- 
 offering, I will not accept them ; neither will I regard 
 the peace-offerings of your fat beasts." 
 
 These passages do not by any means show that 
 sacrifices were unacceptable to God when coming from 
 true worshippers. The cause of their being an abomi- 
 nation to Him appears from the exhortation, ver. 2 4 : 
 " But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness 
 as a mighty stream." Then comes the question which 
 is supposed to indicate that the Israelites did not offer 
 sacrifices in the desert. The interpretation of the critics 
 does violence to the whole connection. The question 
 implies that, although they offered sacrifices and offer- 
 ings to God during their journeyings in the wilderness, 
 these were worse than none, for He adds, ver. 26: "Ye 
 liave borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun, 
 your images, the star of your go^}^^wliic]i ye made to 
 
Hosea, 1 2 7 
 
 yourselves." ^ That Israel, wliicli had served the gods 
 of Egypt (Josh. xxiv. 15), was inclined to idolatry in 
 the wilderness, is apparent from the worship of the 
 golden calf, Lev. xvii. 7 : " And they shall no more 
 offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have 
 gone a whoring ;" and from Ezek. xx. 23, 24 : "I lifted 
 up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I 
 would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse 
 them through the countries ; because they had not 
 executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, 
 and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were 
 after their fathers' idols." 
 
 Hence it is that the Lord reminds Israel that their 
 present sacrifices, which they offer while their hearts 
 are far from Him, are as detestable as those which 
 their fathers offered in the wilderness when they were 
 serving idols. The critics of the negative school can 
 only hold this passage when they take it out of its 
 connection, and ignore those passages which we have 
 quoted. Only the misinterpretation of Amos can 
 make him ignorant of the Mosaic law. His preaching 
 is in this case directed, like that of his fellow-prophets, 
 against hypocrisy. 
 
 Duhm discreetly admits that Hosea, 785 B.C., does 
 
 1 The true connection of this passage with the preceding verse 
 seems to us to be lost when it is understood of the Babylonian 
 and Syrian idolatry of the time of the prophet (see Count 
 Baudissin, Jahve et Moloch, Lipsiae 1874, p. 48). He simply 
 applies the names of contemporary idols, as well known to 
 those whom he was addressing, to the idolatry of the wilder- 
 
128 The Prophets and the Priests, 
 
 not reject sacrifices as such ; ^ that he especially re- 
 proaches the people for their ignorance of God ; and that 
 the Decalogue seems to direct him in his enumeration 
 of individual sins.^ Hosea's standpoint is in the main 
 similar to that of other prophets. He reports God as 
 saying,^ " For I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and 
 the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings." 
 All will admit that this is no condemnation of sacrifices. 
 His antagonism to the priests of his time is due to 
 their character, although even the non-LcAdtical origin 
 of the Israelitish priesthood and their illegal worship 
 furnish a sufficient reason for his being opposed to 
 them. He charges them with their lack of knowledge,^ 
 and wdth being murderers and robbers.^ Hence it is 
 evident that he neither regards with disapproval nor 
 aversion the office of the priests, but simply its most 
 unw^orthy incumbents in Israel. Instead of manifest- 
 ing a want of harmony with the law, he furnishes 
 conclusive evidence to us that he was acquainted with 
 it ; and by this we do not merely mean the Decalogue, 
 but at least the substance of our Pentateuch. We do 
 not by any means intimate that we can afford proof 
 which wdll satisfy those who hold negative views, but we 
 are persuaded that no one can prove, when Hosea says,^ 
 " Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also 
 reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me ; seeing 
 thou hast forgotten the law {Thomli) of thy God, I 
 
 1 Theohqie der PropJieicn, S. 132. 2 /j/j, g^ 131, 
 
 3 Hos. vi. G. ^ Hos. iv. G. 
 
 ^ IIos. vi. 9. « Ibid. iv. G. 
 
Isaiah. 129 
 
 will also forget thy children," that he refers to his own 
 Thorah, or that of any of his immediate predecessors.^ 
 The many correspondences between Hosea and the 
 different portions of the Pentateuch, taken in connec- 
 tion with his allusion to the Thorah as that which the 
 priests should keep, while not proving that he knew 
 essentially our Pentateuch, look very strongly that 
 way.' 
 
 The greatest of all the prophets, Isaiah, 759 B.C., 
 neither manifests an antagonism to the Mosaic law 
 nor to the priesthood. We must confess that we are 
 not able to see in this book a collection of prophecies ^ 
 rather than the work of a single author. We could 
 as easily believe that the Sistine Madonna was the 
 production of several different artists, or that Faust 
 was composed "by Goethe and a Deutero-Goethe, as 
 that these prophecies were not written by Isaiah. 
 Our argument, however, would not be essentially 
 affected if we were to accept the dates assigned by 
 many critics to the different portions. The animus of 
 the prophecies in either case is essentially the same. 
 God only detests the sacrifices of Israel when they are 
 brought with false hearts. He only hides His face 
 from them when their hands are full of blood. That 
 God sanctions sacrifices, appears from this prophecy : * 
 " And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the 
 Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall 
 do sacrifice and oblation ; yea, they shall vow a vow 
 
 ^ See Appendix ii. ^ Il>id. ii. 
 
 3 See Appendix iii. "* Isa. xix. 21. 
 
1 30 The Prophets and the Priests. 
 
 unto the Lord and perform it." We infer from viii. 2 
 that Isaiah had confidence in Uriah, who was probably 
 the same as XJrijah, a high priest under Ahaz.^ His 
 condemnation of the priests and the prophets is on 
 account of their intemperance.^ Under Hezekiah, the 
 elders of the priests are sent to Isaiah,^ which certainly 
 would not have been the case if the king had known 
 that he was opposed to the priesthood on principle. 
 The most interesting passage, however, is in the last 
 chapter of the book : ^ " And I will also take of them 
 for priests and Levites, saith the Lord." The con- 
 nective " and " between priests and Levites does not 
 occur in the received Hebrew text. It is, however, 
 found in the Septuagint, the Chaldee version, and in 
 over seventy Hebrew manuscripts, some of which are 
 the very oldest and best.^ If we may not venture to 
 change the reading, there is no question that the 
 Levitical priests in the Deuteronomic sense are not 
 intended here, but two distinct classes, namely, priests 
 and Levites. Here, then, in a prophecy which, accord- 
 ing to De Wette,^ belongs to the exile, or, according to 
 our view, to the time of Hezekiah or Manasseh, priests 
 and Levites are mentioned by the prophet as standing 
 de, jure for the present and the future. 
 
 Micah, V25 B.C., the contemporary of Isaiah, 
 testifies to the cruelty of the princes, the false- 
 liood of the prophets, and the greed of the priests.' 
 
 1 2 Kings xvi. 10. ^ ig^. xxviii. 7. ^ Isa. xxxvii. 2. 
 
 * Isa. Ixvi. 21. * See Appendix iv. 
 
 « Einkitung^ S. 411 fF. ' Mic. iii. 
 
yeremialu 131 
 
 Like the other prophets, he rejects mere formalism, 
 when he says:^ "Wherewith shall I come before the 
 Lord, and bow myself before the high God ? Shall 
 I come before Him with burnt-offerings, with calves of 
 a year old ? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands 
 of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil ? Shall 
 I give my first-born for my transgressions, the fruit of 
 my body for the sin of my soul ? He hath shewed 
 thee, man, what is good ; and what doth the Lord 
 require of thee, but to do justly, and love mercy, and 
 to walk humbly with thy God?" These last words are 
 almost the echo of Deut. x. 12: " And now, Israel, 
 what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to 
 fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways ? " etc. 
 The mention of calves a year old presupposes the 
 existence of the regulation found in Lev. ix. 3 ; while 
 w^e naturally connect the allusion to the use of oil in 
 sacrifice with Lev. ii. 5, 6. 
 
 Zephaniah, 640 B.C., paints the character of the 
 leading personages in Judah in anything but flattering 
 colours:'^ "Her princes within her are roaring lions, 
 her judges are evening wolves ; they gnaw not the 
 bones until the morrow. Her prophets are light and 
 treacherous persons ; her priests have polluted the 
 sanctuary, they have done violence to the law." It is 
 evident that there is here no more antagonism to the 
 priests than to the other classes named. 
 
 Jeremiah, 626 B.C. (Graf), often mentions the 
 priests in his wTitings. But he w^ages no special 
 * Mic. Ti. 6-8. 2 zeph. iii. 3, 4. 
 
132 The Prophets and the Priests, 
 
 polemic against them. He simply considers them in 
 the same category as other corrupt members of society:^ 
 " As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the 
 house of Israel ashamed ; they, their kings, their 
 princes and their priests, and their prophets." " From 
 the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth 
 falsely."^ In prophesying the return from the captivity, 
 he expresses himself in terms which show that he is 
 not opposed to the priesthood as an institution :^ 
 " And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fat- 
 ness, and my people shall be satisfied with goodness." 
 It is claimed, however, that, " first Jeremiah is moved 
 by the scribes, who appear in his time, to the explana- 
 tion that Jahveh in the time of Moses had given no 
 law with reference to offering.'"* The passage to which 
 allusion is made has occasioned more difficulty than is 
 necessary. Jeremiah proclaims the uselessness of sacri- 
 fices in the same spirit as the other prophets ; " Hear, 
 earth ; behold, I will bring evil upon this people, 
 even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not 
 hearkened unto my words nor to my law, but rejected 
 it."^ " To what purpose cometh there to me incense 
 from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country ? 
 Your burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacri- 
 fices sweet unto me."^ That Jeremiah, however, is not 
 opposed to sacrifices, when offered by the obedient, is 
 evident:^ "And it sliall come to pass, if ye diligently 
 
 ^ Jer. ii. 2G ; comp. iv. 9, xxxii. 32. ^ Jer. vi. 13. 
 
 3 Jer. xxxi. 14. ^ Dulim, Die Theologie der Propheten, S. 12'. 
 
 « Jer. vi. 19. c Jer. vi. 19, 20. ^ Jer. xvii. 24-26. 
 
yeremiahvn. 22, 23. 133 
 
 hearken unto me, saitli the Lord. . . . Then shall there 
 enter into the gates of the city kings and princes, 
 sitting upon the throne of David. . . . And they 
 shall come from the cities of Judah, . . . hringing 
 burnt-offerings and sacrifices, and meat-offerings, and 
 incense, and bringing sacrifices of praise unto the house 
 of the Lord." The prophet clearly teaches that all 
 these observances are not acceptable unless the heart 
 is right. ISTow, when we consider this, it seems to us 
 that we can readily interpret the true meaning of the 
 passage in question:^ "For I spake not unto your 
 fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought 
 them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offer- 
 ings and sacrifices. But this thing I commanded them, 
 saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and 
 ye shall be my people." Maimonides^ refers these 
 words of Jeremiah to the first besjinninor of the lec^isla- 
 tion at Marah, where the Lord said to Israel, " If thou 
 wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy 
 God."^ "There He made for them a statute and an ordi- 
 nance."'* Graf,^ however, has correctly observed that 
 this interpretation, which emphasizes the time, is not 
 legitimate, since the prophet elsewhere uses the expres- 
 sion, " In the day that ye came out of Egypt," of the 
 covenant which was made with the Lord at Sinai. ^ 
 
 1 Jer. vii. 22, 23. 
 
 2 Munk, Le Guide des l^gares, Paris 18G6, t. iii. chap, xxxii. 
 p. 259. 
 
 3 Ex. XV. 26. ^ Ex. XV. 25. 
 ■ ^ Der Prophet Jeremiah, Leipzig 1862, S. 121 if. 
 
 6 Jer. xi. 4, xxxi. 32, xxxiv. 13. The possibility that the 
 
134 The Prophets and the Priests. 
 
 The simplest, and, as it seems to us, the only correct 
 explanation, is that which has been given by William 
 Lowth:^ "It is a way of speaking usual in Scripture, 
 to express the preference that is due to one thing 
 above another, in terms which express the rejecting of 
 that which is less worthy ; and thus I conceive w^e 
 are to understand the text here in correspondence with 
 the parallel place of Hos. vi. 6, 'I will have mercy 
 and not sacrifice,' — the words in both places imply- 
 ing that God always laid a greater stress upon sincere 
 obedience than on external observances,^ and designed 
 the latter as so many mounds and fences to guard and 
 preserve the former." Certainly, w^hen we consider that 
 obedience was the main thincj w^hich God desired of 
 
 prophet refers to the incident related in Ex. xv. 25 is not really 
 disproved by the above quotations, since this may have been 
 the time to which allusion is made. The excellent Kabbinical 
 scholar J. H. R. Biesenthal, D.D., adopts Maimonides' interpre- 
 tation. 
 
 * A Commentary upon the Propfiecy and Lamentations of Jere- 
 miah, London 1718, p. 77. 
 
 - The same author, on Jer. vi. 20, refers to Plato's Second 
 Alcibiades, 148 E, showing that the Greek philosopher recognised 
 that the mere offering of sacrifices could not be pleasing to Deity : 
 "The Athenians, after suffering many defeats, sent a messenger 
 to Jupiter Ammon to inquire why they, who had erected so many 
 temples to the gods, and honoured them with so many oblations 
 and sacrifices, should be less successful than the Lacedemonians, 
 wiio were far inferior to them in these particulars. The oracle 
 replied, 'I am better pleased with the prayer of the Lacede- 
 monians, than with all the oblations of the Greeks.' Now the 
 prayer which they used was a brief petition, in which they begged 
 the gods to give them all good things so long as they continued 
 virtuous." 
 
y eremiah y^xxm. 17. 135 
 
 His people, and that the formal promulgation of the 
 ten commandments was really first in point of time 
 and importance, we need find no stumbling-block in 
 the declaration that God did not command them/ 
 when He brought them out of Egypt, concerning burnt- 
 offerings and sacrifices, but said, Obey my voice. ^ 
 
 The objections^ which have recently been raised 
 against the genuineness of xxxiii. 17 seq., as contra- 
 dictory to vii. 21, fall to the ground as soon as we 
 accept the above explanation, which is perfectly con- 
 
 ' Compare the expression for a less degree of love, Geo. xxix. 
 31 ; Deut. xxi. 15; Luke xiv. 2G. 
 
 2 Rashi's comment on this passage seems especially worthy of 
 notice : " The beginning of my agreement was nothing else than, 
 If ye will certainly obey my voice and keep my covenant, ye shall 
 be my peculiar people." Rashi refers to Ex. xix. 5: "Now, 
 therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep ray covenant, 
 then ye shall be a peculiar treasure to me above all people." 
 
 ^ Guthe, De Fcederis Notione Jeremiana, Lipsiae 1877, p. 23 : 
 " AVe read something contrary to this opinion, xxxiii. 17 seq., 
 where the prophet emphatically asserts that the Levitical priests, 
 as well as the house of David, will flourish thi-ough a great 
 multitude of descendants, on account of the covenant through 
 which they are united with Jahveh. But since this covenant with 
 the tribe of Levi as well as with the house of David' could not 
 exist unless that with the entire people had preceded it, it is to be 
 considered a part of it, and the prophet would with these words 
 have included the priests in the covenant ; and since it was their 
 duty to discharge the sacred offices, it would contradict our inter- 
 pretation of vii. 21 seq. But we think that Jeremiah neither 
 wrote nor spoke this prophecy. For, since the Septuaginta omit 
 the words, xxxiii. 14-26, we conclude that they did not find them 
 in their copy." Graf, however, in Schenkel's Bihel- Lexicon, 
 B. iii. S. 208, has shown that such omissions do not presuppose a 
 different text from ours, but rather great independence on the 
 part of the translator. Compare also Graf's Commentary in loco. 
 
136 The Prophets and the Priests. 
 
 sistent with prophetic modes of thought, and with the 
 attitude of the prophet towards sacrifices. Jeremiah 
 prophesies that in the ideal state Levitical priests will 
 not be wanting for the offering of sacrifices. It is not 
 necessary for us to reaffirm that this passage does not 
 prove that all Levites may be priests. It simply 
 proves that here as well as in Ezekiel/ where a large 
 body of the Levites are excluded from the priesthood, 
 the priests are termed Levitical. This phraseology is 
 simply the natural repetition of that which was intro- 
 duced by the great lawgiver in his final address to the 
 tribes, but is in no respect inconsistent with a re- 
 quirement that the priests should be descendants of 
 Aaron, to which family Jeremiah himself undoubtedly 
 belonged.^ In the last chapter of his prophecy he 
 mentions the chief priest Seraiah,^ whose name occurs 
 in the Books of Kings.* 
 
 A comparison of Jeremiah's prophecies clearly shows 
 that he is neither opposed to the law nor to the priests 
 in themselves, but to hypocrisy, both in those wlio 
 bring their sacrifices and in those who minister at the 
 altar. In vision he contemplates a time when accept- 
 able sacrifices shall be offered by a holy people and 
 by worthy priests.^ 
 
 ^ Ezek. xliii. 19, xliv. 15. 
 
 - In Jer. i. 1 we read: "The words of Jereraiah, son of 
 Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth, in the land of 
 Benjamin," From Josh. xxi. 18 we learn that Anathoth, out of 
 the tribe of Benjamin, belonged to the children of Aaron. Jere- 
 miah's redemption of the field in Anathoth evidently rests upon 
 the laws which are contained in Lev. xxv. 24-32. 
 
 2 Jer. lii. 24. ■♦ 2 Kings xxv. 18. ^ Jer. xvii. 26, xxxi. 14. 
 
Zechariah, 137 
 
 Tlie post-exilic contemporaries, Haggai and Zecha- 
 riah, prophesied in the second year of Darius Hystaspis, 
 520 B.C. The former mentions Joshua the high priest. 
 He represents the Lord as saying to him, " Ask now 
 the priests concerning the law"^ (Lev. x. 10, 11: "And 
 that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, 
 and between unclean and clean ; and that ye may 
 teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the 
 Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses "). 
 In the above passage, the priests are simply men- 
 tioned without praise or blame. It may be that 
 the critics of the negative school will consider this 
 an evidence of the increasing influence of the priest- 
 hood. 
 
 We have no objections to their holding this opinion. 
 We will reserve ours until we reach the prophet who 
 appeared after the time when it is claimed that Ezra pub- 
 lished the priestly law. Zechariah manifests no antipathy 
 to the law or to the priests. He mentions Joshua the 
 high priest as wearing a fair mitre,^ and as being clad 
 with garments. This description of the dress of the 
 high priest may be thought to bear a suspicious resem- 
 blance to that given in the priestly legislation. This 
 reference, however, and that to the golden candlestick, 
 seem to indicate the priority of that which is more 
 fully described in the middle books of the Pentateuch.'' 
 Zechariah reproves the people and the priests, in the 
 same strain as his predecessors, for their formality in 
 fasting, and exhorts them to justice and mercy. He 
 ^ Hag. ii. 11. 2 7^ech. iii. 5, vi. 11. ^ Ex. xxviii. 4. 
 
J 
 
 8 The Prophets and the Priests, 
 
 says that the family of the house of Levi shall iiiourn.^ 
 But shall we conclude that the lineage of Aaron was not 
 yet acknowledged, because he does not especially name 
 it ? Zechariah also denounces the false prophets who 
 have brought disgrace upon the very name. There is in 
 this prophet no evidence of his antagonism to the priests. 
 AVe pass now to the last, and, for our discussion, the 
 most interesting of the prophets, Malachi, 430 B.C. 
 Kuenen very correctly considers him a younger con- 
 temporary of Ezra and JN'ehemiah.'-^ The time of his 
 prophecy falls, according to Kuenen, eleven years after 
 that of the final redaction of the Thorah.^ Certainly 
 we might reasonably expect that this latest phase of 
 the law, its final triumph,* would either arouse the 
 opposition of the prophet or secure his support. Cer- 
 
 ' Zech. xii. 13. As this is the only passage which bears upon 
 the priests in xi.-xiv., it does not seem necessary to enter into 
 any discussion of the authenticity of this portion. 
 
 ^ Kuenen, Historisch-Kintisch Onderzoek, ii. z. 400-1: "The 
 opinion that he was a younger contemporary of Ezra and Nehe- 
 miah, and prophesied during the second residence of the latter in 
 •ludea, from 433 B.C., is supported by a comparison of Mai. ii. 
 10-lG, iii. 8-10, with Neh. xiii. 23 seq.; 10-12, 31, is not refuted 
 by i. 8, and appears preferable to the opinion of Hitzig and others, 
 who place the prophet before Nehemiah." 
 
 •'* Kuenen, 7"he Religion of Israel, vol. ii. p. 233 : "Thus we arc 
 inclined to regard the years which elapsed between 458 and 444 
 n.c. as the period of finishing off and — at all events provisional — 
 final redaction of the Thorab." 
 
 '* Ihlrl. 248 : " It would be wrong to regard the reformation as 
 the work or as a victory of the priesthood. It took place in their 
 spirit and to their interest; it even was affected through the priests. 
 . . . Still it cannot be looked upon as a triumph or exaltation 
 of the priesthood, as such. It was not the priesthood that was 
 raised to supreme power, but the Laiv.'' 
 
Malachi. 1 39 
 
 tainly a prophecy uttered at such a time should not 
 fail to afford unmistakeable traces of the great change 
 which must have been introduced on the publication 
 of the new code.^ Above all, if the priests had recently 
 begun to trace their descent from Aaron, and there was 
 an effort to distinguish them from the ordinary Levites, 
 we ought to find it in this prophecy. Is it not remark- 
 able that we do not find the slightest allusion to the 
 great epoch which Ezra had so recently ushered in, 
 or to the new codification of the law?^ There is no 
 
 ^ The Religion of Israel, vol. ii. p. 218 : " It is nothing less than 
 a revolution which we are about to describe. The labours of Ezra 
 and Nehemiah form a turning-point in the history of Israel's 
 religion," ... P. 219 : " Ezra and Nehemiah appear acting 
 in concert ; the event related there, in Neh. viii.-x., took place 
 in the seventh month, but the year in which it fell is not given. 
 Thus we must place it between 444 B.C., the year after Nehemiah's 
 arrival, and 433 B.C., when he went back to Persia, and presum- 
 ably at the beginning of this period." ... P. 226 : '' On the 
 first day of the seventh month, a general gathering of the people 
 was held at Jerusalem. ... A lofty and capacious platform 
 had been erected. Upon this Ezra took his stand, with fourteen 
 priests, seven on his right hand and seven on his left. At the 
 request of the people, he had brought — from the temple — the 
 'book of the law of Moses, which Jahveh had commanded to 
 Israel.'" ... P. 230: "The book of the law which is now 
 proclaimed also includes the priest lij laws. So their promulgation 
 naturally becomes the chief thing. ... We do not hesitate 
 to look upon the introduction of those laws, with the historian, as 
 the real task of Ezra and Nehemiah." 
 
 '^ Ibid. p. 241: "The prophet makes room for the scribe, or 
 rather becomes himself the scribe, as it is not incorrectly beheved 
 can be shown, e.g. in Malachi's prophecies." ... P. 248: "He, 
 therefore, who most identified himself with the law could count 
 upon permanently holding the first rank; in other words, the 
 Scribe stood higher in Ezra's state than the priest." 
 
140 The Prophets and the Priests. 
 
 evidence that he refers to the latest redaction of the 
 Pentateuch. He charges the people to remember the 
 law (Thorah) of Moses, which God commanded in Horeb 
 for all Israel, with the statutes and the judgments.^ 
 Now, when we follow the usual course of argument, 
 we have no more reason for thinkinix that he means 
 the whole Pentateuch than in many other passages 
 in which the Thorah of Moses is mentioned. Indeed, 
 when the prophet speaks of Horeb as the place where 
 the law is revealed, he uses the same designation which 
 occurs in tlie Book of Deuteronomy.^ 
 
 Moreover, in reproving the priests for their unjust use 
 of the Thorah, which is said by the critics to mean the 
 priestly teaching, he does not bind them to the new 
 written law,^ but he renews the old privilege wdiich was 
 given to the ancestors of the present priests, in that he 
 says '} " For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, 
 and they should seek the law at his mouth." Besides, 
 Malachi makes no exclusive use of the priestly legislation. 
 He speaks of the tithes being kept in the storehouse,^ 
 to which no allusion is made in the Pentateuch, which 
 Ezra had not thought fit to embody in the final redac- 
 tion, although this was the custom before and after the 
 
 1 iMal. iv. 4. 
 
 2 Deut. iv. 10 : " Specially the day that thou stoodest before 
 the Lord thy God in Horeb." 
 
 3 Comp. Kuenen, The Rdujion of Israel, vol. ii. p. 248: "The 
 priestly Thorah, which in Josiah's days still existed only as oral 
 tradition, and the maintenance of which was at that time depend- 
 ent upon the zeal and interest of the priests, was now committed 
 to writing, and thus much better guaranteed than before." 
 
 ^ Mai. ii. 7. « Mai. iii. 10. 
 
The Covenant of Levi. 141 
 
 exile.^ Strangest of all, the prophet makes no men- 
 tion of the sons of Aaron, and does not distinguish the 
 priests from the Levites. If we must infer from the 
 language of the Deuteronomist that any Levite by 
 virtue of his birth might become a priest, we surely 
 must draw the same inference from Mai. ii. 4-8 : 
 " And ye shall know that I have sent this command- 
 ment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, 
 saith the Lord of hosts. My covenant was with him 
 of life and peace ; and I gave them to him for the fear 
 wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my 
 name. The law of truth was in his mouth, and 
 iniquity was not found in his lips : he walked with me 
 in peace and equity, and did turn many from iniquity. 
 . . . But ye are departed out of the way ; ye have 
 caused many to stumble at the law ; ye have corrupted 
 the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts." In 
 these verses God speaks of His covenant with Levi, 
 and evidently considers the priests his descendants. 
 According to our theory, we see no difficulty in this ; for 
 the priests, who in a special sense are sons of Aaron, are, 
 more generally speaking, descendants of Levi. But ac- 
 cording to the theory of the critics, this seems inexplic- 
 able, and cannot be accounted for by assuming that the 
 prophet was unaccustomed to the new phraseology.^ 
 
 ^ 2 Chron. xxxi. 11 ; Neh. x. 38, xiii. 12. According to some of 
 the critics, the statement in 2 Chronicles is simply a priestly fiction, 
 which was intended to excite the benevolent emulation of the people. 
 
 - Colenso, Lectures on the Pentateuch^ p. 337, naively remarks : 
 " Nehemiah, however, in his genuine memoir (vii. la, 2-5a, 
 xiii. 4-5a, 6-S, 96, 14-21, 226-28, 316 [truly a fine specimen of 
 
142 The Prophets and the Priests, 
 
 Let us now examine Malachi in his relation to the 
 other prophets. He is said to manifest evident traces of 
 the dying out of prophecy in manner and matter,^ and 
 more of the characteristics of the scribes, who take the 
 pLace of the prophets.^ It seems to us that this theory 
 of Malachi's inferiority to tlie other prophets is not 
 fully justified. His style is more colloquial and con- 
 troversial. This may have been partially due to the 
 asre as well as the man. The c^reat themes of a future 
 captivity and of the restoration of the people were no 
 longer available. There was no more need of the purifi- 
 cation of the new congregation from abuses, and the 
 vindication of the Scriptures, than of any new prophetic 
 revelation. Hence it seems to us that, when Kuenen 
 supposes that a Judaistic tendency stifled prophecy,'^ 
 and finds an evidence of this in the inferior utterances 
 of Malachi, he offers a view which may or may not be 
 true, and adduces an example which, if viewed with 
 purely critical eyes, adds but little, if any, weight to 
 liis argument. 
 
 critical analysis !]), speaks of the Levites, and also of the Nethinini, 
 Jis buildinj^ their portion of the wall apart from the priests. In 
 his time, therefore, the distinction, it seems, was recognised ; 
 though Malachi, his contemporary, still speaks of the priests by 
 the older designation, ' the sons of Levi,' instead of using the 
 newly-coined phrase, ' the sons of Aaron.' " 
 
 i De Wette, Eiiileitung, S. 485 : " In Vortrag, Rythmus und 
 Bildern eifert Maleachi nicht ganz ungliicklich den alten Propheten 
 nach ; doch fUhlt man immer den matten, erstorbenen Geist, der 
 wohl versuchen, aher nicht vollenden kann, und seines Stoffes 
 nicht miichtig ist." 
 
 * See remark, p. 139, n. 2. 
 
 2 Relujion of Israel^ vol. ii. pp. 240-9. 
 
Ma lac /its Teaching. 143 
 
 When we consider the teaching of Malachi, we find 
 in it substantially the same elements as in that of the 
 other prophets. He attacks the priests/ not from any 
 personal animosity to them, but on account of their 
 corrupt practices. They offer polluted bread on the 
 altar of the Lord,^ the blind, the lame, the sick;"^ 
 and the torn.* Therefore, " I have no pleasure in you, 
 saith the Lord of hosts ; neither will I accept an offering 
 at your hand.'"^ That the prophet does not merely re- 
 gard these external observances as an end, but expects 
 a radical reformation, is apparent from his teaching : 
 " Behold, I will send my messenger, and He shall 
 prepare the way before me ; . . . behold, He shall 
 come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide 
 the day of His coming ? and who shall stand when 
 He appeareth ? for He is like a refiner's fire, and like 
 fullers' soap : and He shall sit as a refiner and purifier 
 of silver : and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and 
 purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer 
 unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall 
 the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto 
 the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in ancient 
 years." ^ From this it appears (1) that Malachi, like 
 the other prophets, represents that purity of heart is 
 essential in order that these offerings may be acceptable ; 
 and (2) that he recognised a time before the apostasy 
 of Israel when the offerings were brought with pui-e 
 liearts. 
 
 I Mai. i. 6. 2 Mai. i. 7. ^ Mai. i. 8. 
 
 * Mai. i. 13. * Mai. i. 10&. « Mai. ill. 1-4. 
 
144 'I^^^^ Prophets aitd the Priests, 
 
 It seems to us that an impartial examination of the 
 prophets must signally fail to afford evidence either of 
 an antagonism of the prophets to the law or to the 
 priests. Tlie same characteristics are to be found more 
 or less distinctly in all the prophets from Joel to 
 Malaclii. There is in them an unsparing denunciation 
 of all forms of corruption, and of formal services which 
 are rendered to Jehovah while the heart is far from Him. 
 There is the same assurance that, when the worshippers 
 come with true sincerity, their offerings and sacrifices 
 will be acceptable. Wicked ministers, whether of the 
 word (prophets) or of the sanctuary (priests), do not 
 escape the prophet's denunciations. Their eyes are 
 ■fixed on an ideal, a blessed state, where God reigns 
 supreme, where injustice and violence are not found, 
 where the true, the beautiful, and the good may be 
 realized. Their starting-point is in the city so dear 
 to every Jewish heart. But they, although perhaps 
 merely looking for the rebuilding and purification of 
 the same, were really expecting, although they knew 
 it not, like the aged saint on the isle of Patmos, a 
 new and glorified Jerusalem coming down from heaven 
 like a bride adorned for her husband. Neither the law 
 nor tlie priestliood were banislied from the prophet's 
 thoughts of the future. They were rather to be 
 purified and renovated, until the great High Priest, 
 having offered Himself a sacrifice for sin, and honoured 
 the law, should usher in the dispensation of grace and 
 truth. 
 
CHAPTEE IX. 
 
 THE AUTHOESHIP OF DEUTERONOMY AND THE MIDDLE 
 BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Summary : Brief review — The Deuteronomic legislation and that of 
 the middle books of the Pentateuch — Who was the author of 
 Deuteronomy? — Internal evidence — Moses' and Hilkiah's claims 
 compared — Moses speaks from experience — Generalizations — 
 "Moses wrote this law" — Ideas of literary propriety — Critical 
 difficulties — Was Ezra the author of the middle books of the 
 Pentateuch ? — Arabic, Christian, and Jewish traditions — The 
 ready scribe — The development theory — When did the middle 
 books of the Pentateuch originate ? — Deuteronomy presupposes 
 a code — Harmony — Tendencies of modern criticism — The loss of 
 an ultimate authority — " My words shall not pass away." 
 
 THE object of the preceding discussion has been 
 mainly to determine whether there is any- 
 irreconcilable difierence between the priestly and 
 Deuteronomic legislation in regard to priests and 
 Levites. 
 
 After a brief review of the ground which we have 
 passed over, it will remain for us to consider (1) 
 whether Moses was the author of Deuteronomy, and 
 (2) to examine the claims advanced by some critics in 
 favour of Ezra's authorship of the middle books of the 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 "VVe have shown (1) that it was neither the intention 
 K 
 
146 Brief Review, 
 
 of the Deuteronomist to confer the privilege of the 
 priesthood upon all Levites, nor to exclude all other 
 persons from it. (2) We have proved that the term 
 "priests Levites " is used where evidently only de- 
 scendants of Aaron are intended. Hence we have no 
 right to claim here that every Levite might become a 
 priest. 
 
 While the regulations about tithes and firstlings are 
 not easy of explanation, yet they admit of adjustment. 
 The apparent contradiction in the disposition of the 
 firstlings of the flocks disappears in the way which we 
 have indicated. Certainly, on the supposition that Ezra 
 arranged the priestly legislation according to his own 
 views, it is strange, if there be really a contradiction in 
 these laws, that he did not discover and remove it. 
 
 Further, as it has been claimed that Ezekiel was tlie 
 bridge between Deuteronomy and the middle books of 
 the Pentateuch, we examined his references to the 
 priests. We failed to find (1) that the sons of Zadok 
 were the forerunners of the Aaronitic priesthood, or (2) 
 that the distinction between priests and Levites first 
 arose in his time. 
 
 We have proved not only that Ezekiel was not the 
 author of Lev. xvii.-xxvi., but also that he evidently 
 refers to other portions of the middle books of the 
 Pentateuch, not to speak of the so-called Book of 
 the Covenant.^ 
 
 Inasmuch as the critics claim that any person might 
 offer sacrifice before the Deuteronomic legislation, and 
 ^ Ex. xxi.-xxiii. 
 
Brief Review. 147 
 
 that there are no traces of the priestly ordinances from 
 Joshua to 2 Kings, we examined these books, and found 
 (1) that they gave very little opportunity for the mention 
 of the priests, and were evidently the work of men who 
 do not seem to have been connected with the priesthood, 
 since the events are described from a layman's stand- 
 point ; (2) that none but specially privileged persons 
 appear as offering sacrifices, showing that sacrifices 
 were only exceptionally offered, if ever, by any but 
 the legitimate priesthood ; (3) that a succession of 
 high priests can be sufficiently traced ; (4) that al- 
 though the Levites are most rarely mentioned, except 
 in Joshua and Judges, a distinction is once made 
 between priests and Levites in Kings.-^ 
 
 It has been claimed that the Chronicler has re-written 
 the history from a priestly standpoint, and has either 
 wilfully or unintentionally perverted the facts, so as to 
 represent the history as if the middle books of the 
 Pentateuch had originated in the time of Moses, 
 instead of after the exile under Ezra. 
 
 Against this supposition, however, we observed that 
 the Chronicler, when he agreed with Samuel and the 
 Kings, followed the same representations almost word 
 for word. Hence, when he quotes, as he does, from 
 many other authors who are no longer in existence, we 
 might expect a similar use of their material. Con- 
 sidering that he quotes these other authorities, we 
 have no right to charge him with falsifying the 
 history to suit his own ideas, when he deviates 
 ^ 1 Kinsrs viii. 4. 
 
1 48 Bincf Review, 
 
 from our Book of Kinpjs. While the text may have 
 suffered here and there through the errors of tran- 
 scribers, yet our investigation leads us to consider his 
 representations as substantially trustworthy. 
 
 Since it has been asserted that the Israelitish re- 
 ligion first arose with the prophets, and that there is 
 an antagonism between them and the priests, we have 
 examined the prophetical writings to see if this claim 
 were justified. The result has shown that this anta- 
 gonism, so far as it exists, is directed not against the 
 priesthood, but against imworthy priests. In the oldest 
 records which the prophets have left us, the priests 
 seem to have occupied an honourable position. 
 
 ^Moreover, we find not infrequent references in the 
 prophets of the eighth century to the middle books of 
 the Pentateuch, while in Malachi, who prophesied after 
 the promulgation of the priestly legislation, the priests 
 and Levites are not distinguished, and no express men- 
 tion is made of the priests as sons of Aaron. 
 
 It does not seem to us that, in regard to the priests, 
 an irreconcilable difference is established between the 
 priestly and the Deuteronomic legislation. The middle 
 books of tlie Pentateuch contain specific legislation in 
 regard to them. Deuteronomy, as we have already 
 observed, does not distinctly admit the Levites to the 
 priesthood. It may be claimed that this admission is 
 implied. Implication, however, is not enough. If we 
 were to suppose that it was the intention of the 
 Deuteronomist to change the priestly law, and open 
 the priesthood to all Levites, it would still be un- 
 
The Mosaic AiUkorskip of Deuteronomy, 149 
 
 natural to suppose that so radical a change would be 
 made on such slight hints as these. 
 
 On the other hand, if we were to follow the recent 
 critics, we could only conclude that it had long been 
 the custom of the Levites to exercise the priest's office. 
 On this subject the Deuteronomist does not legislate. 
 But we have shown, as it seems to us conclusively, 
 that Levitical and Aaronite priests can be one and the 
 same, and that both expressions are used by the 
 Chronicler, who certainly understood the difference. 
 
 Since the apparent contradictions in regard to tithes 
 and firstlings between the middle books of the Penta- 
 teuch and Deuteronomy can be reconciled, there is no 
 need of supposing so long an interval between them as 
 is assigned by modern critics. 
 
 Who, then, was the author of Deuteronomy ? We 
 know that if the critics were not prejudiced by their 
 theories, they would consider Moses the most available 
 author. It is difficult to see how a man who could 
 compose such a book could be anything less than a 
 historic personage. Hilkiah, to whom some are in- 
 clined to assign the authorship of Deuteronomy, for 
 the sake of fixing responsibility somewhere, exhibits 
 no traits which render it probable that he was the 
 author of the book. 
 
 The internal evidence for the Mosaic authorship of 
 Deuteronomy is very strong. The plan and the 
 execution either imply that Moses wrote it, or else 
 that it was the product of a master in fictitious com- 
 position. Kuenen pays the following tribute to its 
 
150 The Authorship of Deuteronomy, 
 
 author : " We tare even more struck by the tone which 
 the Deuteronomist adopts, than by the fitness of the 
 plan. It is true he has been accused, not without 
 reason, of diffuseness and monotony. If, however, as 
 justice demands, we leave out of consideration Deut. 
 i.— iv. and xxix., xxx., which are later editions, even 
 though they be from his own hand, there are but few 
 repetitions left, and those few are decidedly not pre- 
 judicial. On the contrary, they testify to the great 
 zeal and conscientiousness with which the author writes. 
 It is as if he were afraid of saying too little, and 
 again and again resumes the thread of the exhortation, 
 in order, if possible, still to win some. His exhorta- 
 tions breathe a spirit of fervour and love which is very 
 affecting." 1 
 
 Now what person does the history of Israel present, 
 who was better able than Moses to prepare such a 
 document on the eve of his decease ? Only on this 
 supposition do we have an explanation of the very 
 brief, and, to the critic, very unsatisfactory references 
 to the priests and the tribe to which they belong. 
 He was too shrewd a man, and valued his opportunity 
 too highly, to spend his breath in repeating that which 
 was so weU known, nay, was daily before the eyes of 
 the people, as the order of worship, the duties and 
 emoluments of the priesthood and their assistants. 
 
 From memory he recalls, with remarkable freshness, 
 as much as is necessary of the Israelitisll history, just 
 as it occurs to liim at the time. He speaks from 
 ^ The Religion of Israel, vol. 11. pp. 21, 22. 
 
" Moses wrote this Law.'' 1 5 1 
 
 experience, emphasizes an old law, modifies it as the 
 result of his observation through more than an entire 
 generation, without thought or anxiety concerning the 
 cross-examination which would arise as to the apparent 
 differences between his. reported speech and the exist- 
 ing documents. 
 
 His mind in the presence of a national assembly 
 tends to generalize. He throws out principles in bold 
 outline, and speaks of tribes rather than individuals. 
 He passes over Aaron, who is dead, with the briefest 
 mention, although he does not thereby disparage his 
 memory. His object is not eulogy. The tribe of Levi 
 stands before him as the living embodiment of the 
 priesthood. Hence he naturally speaks of the Levitical 
 rather than of the Aaronitic priests. Supposing the 
 priestly law was already in existence, there was no 
 object in his speaking of the priests as the sons of 
 Aaron. It was rather natural in addressing, as it 
 were, the nation which was composed of twelve tribes, 
 that he should connect the name of the tribe of Levi 
 with that which gave it its honour and dignity, nay 
 more, its very subsistence, the priesthood. 
 
 As regards the authorship of Deuteronomy, we have, 
 besides, the positive testimony that " Moses wrote this 
 law," not to speak of the strong personality which 
 pervades the book. Of course, on Kuenen's theory 
 and that of other critics, we may believe that the 
 author assumed the character of Moses for tlie sake 
 of influence.^ But this is fatal to our belief that 
 1 Kuenen, The Religion of Israel^ vol. ii. pp. 18, 19. 
 
152 The A tit hor skip of Deuteronomy, 
 
 Deuteronomy is a divinely revealed book. The Chris- 
 tian experience very properly revolts from the idea 
 that God could sanction the systematic fiction, " These 
 be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel," and 
 especially, " And Moses wrote this law," as the medium 
 of his revelation, if Moses did not write it, but some 
 one else. 
 
 There can be no relief for the ordinary mind in the 
 assumption that ideas of literary property were not 
 so nice in those times. -^ This theory might be admis- 
 sible, if we did not acknowledge in Deuteronomy the 
 record of a divine revelation. The assertion, however, 
 that Moses wrote this book is too positive, and its 
 whole texture is too real and favourable to that author- 
 ship, for us to accept an explanation wdiich strikes at 
 the very foundations of morality. 
 
 We do not deny that there are critical difficulties 
 in the way of accepting the Mosaic authorship, but 
 those occasioned by the assumption of an authorship by 
 Hilkiah or one of his contemporaries are vastly greater. 
 
 That Moses should have foreseen the future woes of 
 his people, — that he should have anticipated the rise of 
 the kingdom, and spoken accordingly, — that he should 
 speak of these things with prophetic certainty, — can 
 only be a stumbling-block to those who deny the 
 possibility of a divine revelation of the future. 
 
 1 Kuenen, The Religion of Israel, vol. ii. pp. 18, 19 : " At a 
 time when notions about literary property were yet in their 
 infancy, an action of this kind was not regarded as unlawful. 
 Men used to perpetrate such fictions as these without any qualms 
 of conscience." 
 
Arabic Traditions as to Ezra. 153 
 
 "We now turn to consider the questions whether, as 
 some modern critics claim, Ezra was the author of the 
 middle books of the Pentateuch. Since Graf,^ Kuenen,^ 
 and Colenso^ hold that the various traditions are 
 favourable to this view, we shall examine them some- 
 what in detail, to see if this conjecture has any real 
 foundation. 
 
 Let us first consider the latest traditions, tracing 
 them, if possible, to their Jewish originals. Are we 
 to believe, with the critics, that there cannot be so 
 much smoke without some fire ? or, if we may use a 
 very homely illustration, is this perhaps an exemplifi- 
 cation of the story of the three black crows % 
 
 1. In the ninth Sura (a.d. 631) of the Koran, this 
 assertion is found : " The Jews say, Ezra {Ozair) is the 
 son of God." Of course such an assertion could not 
 stand without protest on the part of the Jews. There- 
 fore the commentators (Beidhawd, f a.d. 1292, etc.) have 
 sought to substantiate the prophet's words by saying 
 " that it is meant of some ancient heterodox Jews, or 
 else of some Jews of Medina, who said so for no other 
 reason than that the law, being utterly lost and for- 
 gotten during the Babylonish captivity, Ezra, having 
 been raised to life after he had been dead one hundred 
 years, dictated the whole anew to the scribes, out of 
 his own memory ; at which they greatly marvelled, 
 and declared that he could not have done it, unless 
 
 ' Die GescJiichtlicJien BucJier, S. 72. 
 '^ The Religion of Israel, vol. ii. p. 232. 
 3 Lectures on the Pentateuch, p. 313. 
 
1 54 The Middle Books of the Pejitateuch. 
 
 lie were the son of God." ^ That this legend does not 
 rest immediately upon Jewish tradition, but upon the 
 Christian development of the story in Ezra xiv., will 
 appear as we go on. 
 
 2. Augustine (f 430) says : " Ezra, the priest of 
 God, restored the law, which had been burned by the 
 Chaldeans in the archives of the temple. For indeed 
 he was full of the same spirit with which the 
 Scriptures had previously been filled." ^ In the same 
 strain, Jerome (f 420) affirms: "Whether you choose 
 to say that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, 
 or that Ezra was the restorer of the same work, I 
 have no objections." ^ 
 
 It will be seen, however, that the quotations from 
 the older Fathers, who now follow, unless we except 
 Irenoeus, do not speak of Ezra as the restorer of the 
 Thorah, but of the Scriptures, and Jewish literature 
 in general. Clement of Alexandria (f about 220) : 
 " Moreover, in the captivity of Nebuchadnezzar, when 
 the Scriptures had been destroyed in the time of 
 Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, Ezra the Levite, the 
 priest, having become inspired, recalled again, propheti- 
 cally, all the ancient Scriptures." * Tertullian (^'160): 
 
 1 Sale, The Koran, London 1734, p. 153, note a. 
 
 2 JJe Mirahilibus Sacrae Scripturae, ii, 33 : " Esdras Dei 
 sacerdos combustam a Chaldaeis in archivis templi restituit Legem. 
 Nempe qui eodem Spiritu, quo ante Scripta fuerat, plenus fuerit." 
 
 ^ Adversus Helvidium: " Sive Moysen dicere volueris auctorem 
 Pentateuchi ; sive Esdram ejusdem instauratorem operis, non 
 recuso." 
 
 Stromata, i. 22 : Kaj/ t)5 J^otiiov-^o^ovoa'jp oux^cckuaicc ^{^(p^xpnaav 
 ruv ypoc(po)v Kotroi rov; ''Aproc^ip^ov rau UspacJu (Suai'hia; -^cpouovg, 
 
. Christia7i Traditio7is as to Ezra. 1 5 5 
 
 " And it is well known that when Jerusalem was 
 destroyed by the Babylonians, every document of 
 Jewish literature was restored by Ezra." ^ Irenaeus 
 (t 202): "When, in the captivity of the people by 
 N'ebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures were corrupted, and 
 after seventy years the Jews went up to their country, 
 then in the times of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, 
 he inspired Ezra the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to set 
 in order the words of all the former prophets, and to 
 restore to the people the legislation by Moses." ^ 
 
 Undoubtedly all these traditions of the Fathers have 
 been derived more or less directly from the apocryphal 
 story in the so-called Fourth Book of Ezra xiv., which 
 was written in the latter part of the first century (or 
 81-96 A.D.^). In vers. 20-22, Ezra is represented as 
 saying, " Therefore the world is put in darkness, and 
 they who dwell in it are without light, because Thy law 
 has been burned ; on w^hich account no one knows what 
 has been done by Thee, or what works they shall begin. 
 If I have found grace with Thee, send into me the 
 
 iiti-zvavc, 'EffB/Josj o Kivn-fi; 6 iepsvg ysuofni/os 'Tra.aoci; roc; 'Tra.'KciLcx.g 
 ocvdic ccuxusovfiivog '7rpos(py]rivai ypcKpcis. 
 
 1 De cidtu feminarum (de hah. nud.), i. 3 : " Et Hierosolymis 
 Babylonia expugnatione deletis, omne instrumentum Judaicae 
 literaturae per Esdram constat restauratum." 
 
 2 Adversus Ilaereses^ iii. 24. 1 : 'Ev rvt S'ttI l<iet/iovxo6ouoaop etlxy.u- 
 'Ku'jict rov 'haov Oioc(p6xp£ia^v roiv ypxipcj'j, koci f^iroi £iSdof^'/!KOVTsc st'/i 
 roju ' lovouicj!/ dui'K&ovruiv slg, tvju %c,)pctv ccvtuu, 'izstrct ku Tolg x,p<^i^oi; 
 'Apru^ip^ov Tov Tlspocjv /3x(Ti7\.iag^ lui7rviv(jiv"Y^aQpct ru itpu ex. t'^c 
 C^v'Kvig Atvl, rove rcJu Trpoysyovorau 7rpo(priroiu irccurocg cluotra,^cca6(x,i 
 T^oyovg, kxI oc^OKurxarvjacct ru "hetu rviv 'htoi ^laaiotg vof^o&iaioiu. 
 
 ^ See Schiirer, Lehrbuch der N. T. Zeitgescfdchte, Leipzig 1874, 
 p. 563. 
 
1 5 6 The Middle Books of the Pentateuch. 
 
 Holy Spirit, and I will write all which has been done 
 in the world from the beginning, which were written 
 in Thy law, so that men may be able to find the way," ^ 
 etc. 
 
 That Ezra's work was much more extensive than 
 tlie reproduction of the Thorah, appears from vers. 
 44-47 : " But they {i.e. the five scribes) wrote in forty 
 days ninety-four (or, according to another reading, two 
 hundred and four) books. And it came to pass, when 
 the forty days had been completed, the Most High 
 spake to me, saying, Publish the former things which 
 thou hast written, and let the worthy and the unworthy 
 read them ; but the seventy latest things thou shalt 
 preserve, that thou mayest deliver them to the wise of 
 thy people. For in them is a rill of understanding, 
 and a fountain of wisdom, and a river of knowledge. 
 And I did so." ^ 
 
 3. This fiction, as has been suggested by Herzfeld, 
 probably has no more substantial foundation than the 
 following Jewish tradition : " The Thorah was forgotten 
 
 1 " Positum est ergo saeculum in tenebris, et qui inhabitant in 
 eo sine lumine. Quoniam lex tua incensa est, propter quod nemo 
 scit quae a te facta sunt, vel quae incipient opera. Si enim inveni 
 coram te gratiam, immitte in me Spiritum sanctum, et scribam 
 omne quod factum est in saeculo ab initio, quae erant in lege tua 
 scripta, ut possint homines invenire semitam," etc. 
 
 2 " Scripti sunt autem per quadraginta dies libri nonaginta 
 quatuor (the common reading is ducenti quatiior). Et factum 
 est, cum completi essent quadraginta dies, locutus est Altissimus, 
 dicens : Priora quae scripsisti in palam pone, et legant digni et 
 indigni, novissimos autem septuaginta conservabis, ut tradas eos 
 sapientibus de populo tuo. In his enim est vena intellectus, et 
 sapieutiae fous, et scientiae flumen. Et feci sic." 
 
Jewish Traditions as to Ezra, 1 5 7 
 
 by the Israelites, until Ezra went up from Babylon- 
 and re-established it. It was forgotten again until 
 Hillel the Babylonian went up and re -established it. 
 It was forgotten again until Eabbi Chija and his sons 
 re-established it."^ Two things are here worthy of 
 remark, — (1) that nothing is said of the Thorah 
 having been destroyed — it is merely said that it was 
 forgotten ; and (2) that afterwards others besides 
 Ezra re-estabKshed it in the memory of the people. 
 
 There is nowhere any hint in the Talmud that 
 Ezra was the author of the priestly legislation of the 
 Pentateuch, or of any part of it. 
 
 (1.) Jewish tradition informs us specifically as to 
 the products of his pen, and the regulations (niJpn, not 
 min) which are ascribed to him : " Ezra wrote his 
 book and the genealogy of the Chronicles to his own 
 (genealogy).^ From this follows what Eabbi taught, 
 who was instructed by Eabbi Judah : Ezra did not 
 depart from Babylon until he had proved his Jewish 
 extraction." ^ This classical passage in Baha hathra is 
 especially significant, since, if the wTiter had considered 
 Ezra the author of the Pentateuch, as Professor Franz 
 Delitzsch has well observed,* he would not have hesi- 
 tated to say so, while fearlessly informing us that the 
 
 1 Succa 20a. 
 
 2 Rashi understands by this the entire Chronicles until the time 
 of Ezra. See Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, Xordhauseu 
 1855, B. i. S. 128. 
 
 3 Baba hathra 15a. 
 
 * Der Esra der Ueherlieferung und der Esra der neusten Penta- 
 teuchkritik, in Delitzsch's Zeitschrift, Leipzig 1877, S. 44.8. 
 
1 58 The Middle Books of the Pentateuch, 
 
 college of Ilezekiali \vrote Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of 
 Solomon,and Ecclesiastes; and that the Great Synagogue 
 wrote Ezekiel, the twelve prophets, Daniel, and Esther. 
 Besides these portions of the Old Testament, ten regu- 
 lations are ascribed to Ezra, which have no similarity 
 to the laws of the Pentateuch, but are distinguished 
 from them through their post-exilic and minute cha- 
 racter ; while some of them, perhaps, are not unworthy 
 of him, others are far too indelicate to be named before 
 chaste ears.^ 
 
 (2.) Jewish tradition instructs us as to the nature 
 of Ezra's relation to the text of the Pentateuch : " In 
 the beginning the law was given to Israel in Hebrew 
 writing and the sacred language. But it was given 
 to them in the days of Ezra in the Assyrian writing 
 and the Aramaic language. . . . Ezra was worthy that 
 the law should have been given by him, if Moses had 
 not preceded him. In Moses it is said. And Moses 
 went up unto God. ^ In Ezra it is said, This Ezra 
 went up from Babylon.^ As the ascent which is 
 mentioned here is the Thorah {i,e. on account of the 
 Thorah), so that ascent was Thorah {i.e. on account of 
 the Thorah). In Moses it is said, And the Lord com- 
 manded me at that time to teach you statutes and 
 judgments.* In Ezra it is said, For Ezra had pre- 
 pared his heart to seek the Thorah of Jehovah, and to 
 do it, and to teach Israel statutes and judgments.^ 
 
 ' Bala kamma 82a. These regulations are giveu by Herzfeld, 
 Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, B. ii. S. 242. 
 2 Ex. xix. 3. 3 Ezra vii. 6. * j^gut j^ ^4 a ^zra vii. 10. 
 
Ezras Punchiatioft. 159 
 
 And altliougli the Thorah luas not given hy Jmii, the writ- 
 ing ivas changed hj him"^ Here, then, while the 
 Eabbis institute a comparison between Moses and 
 Ezra on account of the accidental similarity of expres- 
 sion in the passages quoted, it is distinctly said that 
 Ezra was not the author of the Thorah. 
 
 Further, the Eabbis trace certain extraordinary ante- 
 masoretic forms of punctuation to him. In Bamidhar 
 rahba, c. iii. m/r<x,and in Aboth de-Rctbhi ]^cdha7i,c.xxxiY., 
 the question is raised : '' To what end are the eleven 
 points over uh)V~^'v iV'jiiJi ^:^ ^^ The explanation is as 
 follows : Ezra thought, when Elias shall come and 
 say to me. Why hast thou written thus ? I will answer, 
 I have indeed pointed it above ; and when he shall 
 say. You have written correctly, I will remove the 
 punctuation above." A similar story is related in 
 Piske Tosephoth Menachoth:^ "As Ezra wrote the 
 Thorah, he made a point over the internal vav of p-iEJ'j;i.'* 
 He thought, when Moses shall say, Why did you put a 
 point over it ? I will answer, I have not indeed blotted 
 it (the 1) out." Since these traditions represent Ezra 
 as so anxious about the punctuation of a few letters in 
 the Thorah, and therefore only as a transcriber of the 
 Thorah, they certainly afford a striking contrast to the 
 theories of those who suppose that Ezra wrote the 
 priestly portions of the Pentateuch. 
 
 (3.) Jewish tradition represents Ezra as the author 
 
 ' Sanhedrin 21h. ^ Deut. xxix. 28. 3 § 231. 
 
 * Num. xxix. 15. We are indebted for the last two quotations 
 to Prof. Delitzsch's article, to which we have referred above. 
 
i6o The Middle Books of the Pentateuch. 
 
 of ca regulation which conflicts in an important par- 
 ticular with the priestly legislation. As is well known, 
 the Israelites were required to give their tithes directly 
 to the Levites, who were bidden to give a tenth of 
 them to the priests. This, however, as the Eabbis say, 
 was changed by Ezra. "Johanan the high priest 
 abolished thanks at the tithing. What was the reason ? 
 Eabbi Jose, Chanina's son, says : Because they did not 
 give it exactly according to the original institution, for 
 it is said in the Scriptures that they should give it to 
 the Levites, but we give it to the priests." ^ ' The 
 reason why they did not give the tithes to the Levites 
 is assigned in the following passages : Why did they 
 punish the Levites in regard to the tithes ? because in 
 the time of Ezra they did not go up (from Babylon to 
 Jerusalem). In Chullin^ it is distinctly said that 
 Ezra punished the Levites by withholding from them 
 the tithes. It will be seen from this that there is a 
 great difference between the Ezra of the critics, who, 
 according to them, so clearly commanded that the 
 tithes should be given to the Levites,^ and that they 
 should give a tenth of them to the priests,^ and 
 the Ezra of tradition, who deprived the Levites of 
 them. 
 
 It will doubtless be admitted that if Ezra had been 
 considered the author of the Pentateuch, or any part 
 of it, in the time of Josephus (* 37 A.D.), that eminent 
 Jewish historian would have given us some hint of it, 
 
 1 Neh. xii. 23. ' Sota ix. 10, and its Gemara, 476. 
 
 3 ChulVm nih. 4 ^^^^ ^^j-j^ 24. 6 lUd. vers. 26-28. 
 
The Ready Scribe. 1 6 r 
 
 but he simply says that Ezra was sufficiently acquainted 
 with the laws of Moses. This must indeed seem 
 faint praise to the critics 1^ 
 
 We think, after this examination of the Arabic, the 
 Christian, and the Jewish traditions in regard to Ezra, 
 that no candid critic can any longer find in them a 
 support for the theory that he was the author of the 
 priestly portions of the Pentateuch. 
 
 Let us now briefly determine whether there is any 
 foundation in the Scriptures for the assumption that 
 Ezra was the author of the Pentateuch. 
 
 The only passages which can be relied upon for our 
 controversy are : " This Ezra went up from Babylon ; 
 and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which 
 the Lord God of Israel had given." Now the question 
 is not what grammatical possibilities are in this passage, 
 or what may be tortured out of it, but rather what lies 
 on the very face of it. It was either the purpose of the 
 author to state in clear and explicit terms that Ezra 
 was the author of the law of Moses, which is rather 
 more than the modern critics desire us to believe, or 
 simply to state that he was a " ready scribe in the law 
 of Moses." The critics may depend upon it that there 
 is no esoteric meaning hidden in these words, which has 
 been concealed for more than two thousand years from 
 the author's contemporaries and the succeeding genera- 
 tions of Eabbis. The Jewish tradition, as we have seen, 
 excludes such a possibility. What, then, is meant by 
 
 ' Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xi. 5: Hoaro; iepiv; rov 'hoe.ov, 
 Kcc7^ovf4,si/og " Ea^px;, Sg ruv Mojvoicog uo^uojv iKUvug ifATrnpog. 
 
 L 
 
1 62 The Middle Books of the Pentateuch. 
 
 Ezra's being a " ready scribe " ("i\io ISID) ? Some of 
 the Eabbis in the Talmud have supposed that the 
 occupation indicated by soiplur (scribe) was that of 
 counting, and that the soplirim (scribes) received their 
 names because they counted the letters of the Thorah.^ 
 There can be no doubt, however, that this is not the 
 meaning of the designation as applied to Ezra, but rather 
 that he possessed unusual skill in transcribing theThorah, 
 combined with the rarest knowledge of its contents, as 
 is indicated in vii. 10:" For Ezra had prepared his 
 heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and 
 to teach in Israel statutes and judgments." We may 
 indeed consider him as a scribe in the New Testament 
 sense.'"^ These, then, were no common qualities. He 
 was more than a mechanical copyist, more than a 
 mere counter of words. He understood what he wrote 
 as well as what he read, and in this respect was 
 undoubtedly far superior to the later Sophrim, the 
 predecessors of the Massorites.^ Here, then, Jewish 
 tradition and the Scriptures fail the critics, and their 
 claim for Ezra's authorship of the priestly legislation 
 must stand or fall on its own merits. 
 
 1 Chngigah Ibh ; Kiddushin oOa ; Synhedrin 106?>. 
 
 - This meaning of scribe (ypufAf^ocTtvg) "in sacro codice legis 
 mosaicae et Scripturae sacrae peritus " occurs in the Targum, e.g. 
 1 Chron. xxv. 8, l;<T'D^n DJ? 5<"lDD, the teacher with the pupil, and 
 is applied to Moses in the second Jerusalem Targum on Num. 
 xi. 26. i5&^"iti'''T pniDD N'':ii nSi^, the prophet Moses, the teacher 
 of Israel. Compare Grimm, Lexicon Grseco-Latinum in Lihros N. T., 
 Lipsiae 18G8,and Levy, Chalddisches Worterhiich, Leipzig 1867-68. 
 
 ^ Levy, in his Chalddisches Worterhuch, cites the following 
 passages from the Talmud, which show the influence of the 
 
The Origin of the Priestly Code. 1 6 
 
 o 
 
 It is claimed that this priestly code must have 
 been the result of development. But, according to 
 the arguments of the critics themselves, the most 
 important elements in this development were pro- 
 ducts of the period between 625 and 458 B.C., or, 
 more exactly speaking, during the latter part of the 
 exile, and the time before Ezra's arrival. Indeed, 
 we must, if we accept the views of the modern critics, 
 regard the priestly legislation as Ezra's adaptation and 
 improvement of what Ezekiel had already done before 
 him, — a pure invention of Ezra, and perhaps of con- 
 temporar}^ priests, since it was not allowed the Israelites 
 to offer sacrifices to the Lord outside of the Holy Land. 
 i^ow, if one man could do so much before 458 B.C. and 
 the thirteen following years, which, according to Kuenen, 
 he spent in preparing and adapting the priestly Thorah, 
 why might not Moses do the same by means of divine 
 instruction ? "What shall w^e say of a development 
 which in the time from Moses, 1320 ^ B.C., to Josiah, 
 625 B.C., only gets as far as Levitical priests, and in a 
 single generation can develope the Aaronitic priesthood, 
 and the high priest with all his glory ? Such a theory 
 
 Sophrim : — Jerusalem Gemara^ i. 4 : " The words of the scribes 
 are more important than the words of the Thorah." He adds : 
 "The oldest interpreters of the Scriptures, as well as the trans- 
 mitters of the oldest traditional teaching, are to be understood 
 under the word D'''lD1D- The word is therefore properly to be con- 
 sidered as a denominative of IDD." 
 
 ^ "We take the date of the exodus as given by Duncker, who is 
 often quoted by the critics, Geschichte des Alterthums, Leipzig 1874, 
 B. i. S. 334. 
 
164 The JMiddlc Books of the Pentateuch. 
 
 must lead us to suppose that Ezra promulgated a pro- 
 gramme. But if we can believe that Ezra was the 
 author of a programme, what difficulty is there in 
 supposing that God enabled Moses to publish the 
 same programme ? and that after an experience of 
 about thirty-eight years, w^e have an adaptation of this 
 programme to the wants of the people ? 
 
 When we turn now to consider the relative age of 
 tlie middle books of the Pentateuch, we have an im- 
 portant argument for their pre-Deuteronomic origin, in 
 the fact that the Deuteronomist evidently had in mind, 
 at least nearly as extensive a code of laws as we possess 
 in the priestly legislation. If this were not the case, it 
 would be inconceivable that, with the exception of the 
 Book of the Covenant, a popular address should be 
 produced, in which allusions were made to laws, but in 
 which tlie laws themselves were not fully given. There 
 are really no regulations in regard to priests and sacri- 
 fices in Deuteronomy. Hence it presupposes a code, 
 and one much fuller than the Book of the Covenant.^ 
 Xow the question is, whether essentially the middle 
 books of the Pentateuch can have preceded Deutero- 
 
 1 Kuenen, Tlie Beligion of Israel, ii. p. 8, thus describes it : "The 
 oldest collection [of laws] which we know, the so-called Book of 
 the Covenant [Kx. xxi.-xxiii.], contains a number of precepts 
 concerning the civil life, of which the majority are obviously taken 
 from existing customs. But side by side with these we find purely 
 moral commandments and admonitions, for wliich express motives 
 are alleged, i.e. which are made dependent on the assent of the 
 reader. The book concludes with a thoroughly prophetic dis- 
 course, setting forth the blessing attached to the observance of 
 Jahveh's laws, and the curse to their neglect." 
 
Remova I of Difficulties. 165 
 
 nomy. We should consider this a necessity, even if 
 we held that it had arisen in the time of Hilkiah, 
 since, for the reasons which we have already named, 
 Deuteronomy is not, and cannot be, an independent 
 book. 
 
 It has been said that there is an irreconcilable chasm 
 between the priestly and the Deuteronomic legislation. 
 This, however, is not the case. The Deuteronomist 
 does not legislate in regard to the two most important 
 things in the hierarchy, priests and sacrifices. As we 
 have already proved, the mention of priests Levites 
 does not sanction the appointment of any Levite to 
 the priesthood, nor does it exclude the Aaronitic 
 priests. 
 
 We have then the reconciliation of laws in regard 
 to the disposition of the tithes, — a matter, which occa- 
 sions difficulties, but by no means insuperable ones. 
 That these passages are the source of perplexity to the 
 honest critic, is no proof that they cannot be harmonized. 
 The Jewish interpreters have harmonized them ; and 
 they probably did not give the slightest difficulty to the 
 contemporaries of the great lawgiver. We can in all 
 sincerity affirm that we feel satisfied that these passages 
 admit of being reconciled in the way which we have 
 proposed. 
 
 This much is certain, that when we hold that the 
 middle books of the Pentateuch precede Deuteronomy, 
 the history of the priesthood may be traced without 
 difficulty, although at times, owing to the prominence 
 of other interests, with less distinctness. The connec- 
 
1 66 The Middle Books of the Pentateuch. 
 
 tion of the books is a natural one, since we find 
 references in the oldest prophets not only to Deutero- 
 nomy/ but also, at least, to some passages in the 
 middle books of the Pentateuch, not to speak of 
 Genesis. If, however, we accept the modern theory, 
 the whole history is thrown into inextricable con- 
 fusion, and we have, as Kuenen affirms, no reliable 
 history except that which we find in the prophetic 
 writings. 
 
 If we accept the premises of modern criticism, we 
 must also accept its conclusions. The Bible at once 
 sinks to the level of other books. It is no longer 
 God's revelation to man. Its supernatural character is 
 at once lost. The Old Testament ceases to be pre- 
 paratory for Christianity as the religion of divine 
 revelation. There is no sin, and no need of a Saviour. 
 From this point we can very readily accept the posi- 
 tions of a Haeckel, and deny the existence of a personal 
 God. We cannot see any stopping-place. 
 
 If, however. Christian faith is to be maintained con- 
 sistently with these modern critical views, as some 
 affirm that it can, the possibility of harmony must be 
 so established that these new views of the Scriptures 
 may address themselves to the understanding of the 
 
 » Kuenen, The lleliglon of Isi-ael, vol. ii. p. 18: " Immediately 
 after Josiah's reformation, it [Deuteronomy] is frequently used by 
 the prophet Jeremiah ; the prophets of the eighth centm-y B.C., on 
 the contrary, are not yet acquainted with it, — undoubtedly because 
 it did not yet exist in their time." For examples of some striking 
 correspondences between Deuteronomy and the prophets of the 
 eighth century B.C., see Appendix ii. 
 
" My lVo7^ds shall not pass away'' i6j 
 
 Church, without doing violence to the consciences of 
 believers. 
 
 If we relinquish the Bible, — and the issue of the 
 present discussion involves this, — what have we in its 
 place? At the Eeformation, we left the traditions of 
 a fallible Church to stand on God's word. To what 
 ultimate authority can we appeal, when we have once 
 undermined the authority of the Bible ? 
 
 They err who regard the Scriptures as a decaying 
 liouse, which must ever be propped up with timbers 
 lest it should fall. We may suffer from false views in 
 regard to its origin and inspiration. It will stand 
 triumphant when the eternal cliffs have been worn 
 away by the violence of the ocean, strong and immov- 
 able in Him who hath said, " Heaven and earth shall 
 pass away, but my words shall not pass away." 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 THE SOURCES OF THE CHEONICLER. 
 
 I. XT is clear that when the Chronicler refers to the 
 J- Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, 1 Chron. 
 ix. 1, 2 Chron. xvi. 11, xxv. 26, xxvii. 7, xxviii. 26, 
 xxxii. 32, XXXV. 27, xxxvi. 8, or to the Book of Kings, 
 2 Chron. xx. 34, or to the Midrash (Commentary) of 
 the Book of Kings, 2 Chron. xxiv. 27, he does not 
 intend our Books of Kings, for many reasons, of which 
 we give the following examples : — 
 
 1. The canonical Books of KinfTs do not contain the 
 registration of all Israel, which is assigned to the Book 
 of the Kings of Israel and Judah, 1 Chron. ix. 1 : "So 
 all Israel were reckoned by genealogies : and, behold, 
 they were written in the Book of the Kings of Israel 
 and Judah." 
 
 2. If we translate 2 Chron. xx. 34, " Now the rest 
 of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they 
 are written in the words of Jehu the son of Hanani, 
 which were received [instead of ' mentioned,' as in 
 the English version] into the Book of the Kings of 
 Israel," we find that while Jehu is mentioned as pro- 
 
I 
 
 The Sources of the Chro7iicler. 169 
 
 pliesying against Baaslia, he has nothing to say about 
 Jehoshaphat. 
 
 3. The rest of the acts of Amaziah, first and last, 
 2 Chron. xxv. 26, and the rest of the acts of Jotham, 
 xxvii. 7, and all his wars and his ways, are not found 
 in the canonical Books of Kings, since the same 
 material, in almost the same form, and more complete, 
 is found in Chronicles (compare 2 Kings xiv. 1—20 
 with 2 Chron. xxv. ; 2 Kings xv. 32-38 with 2 Chron. 
 xxvii.). 
 
 4. Manasseh's prayer unto God, and the words of 
 the seers that spake to him, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18, are 
 not given in our Books of Kings (compare 2 Kings 
 xxi. 1-18 with 2 Chron. xxxiii. 1-20). 
 
 II. It is certain that the Chronicler refers to works 
 which are not contained in our canonical books. 
 
 1. The visions of Iddo (or Jedo, who was perhaps 
 another person from those who follow) the seer against 
 Jeroboam the son of Nebat, 2 Chron. ix. 29 ; the 
 words of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies, 2 Chron. 
 xii. 15 ; and the Commentary (Midrash) of Iddo, 2 Chron. 
 xiii. 22, do not occur in our Books of Kings, but pro- 
 bably refer to writings of the persons named which 
 were used by the Chronicler. . . 
 
 2. The acts of Uzziah, which were written by Isaiah 
 the son of Amoz, 2 Chron. xxvi. 22, are neither to be 
 found in the canonical Books of Kings nor in the pro- 
 phecy of Isaiah, who, to be sure, mentions Uzziah, Isa. 
 i. 1, vi. 1, as he does Jotham and Ahaz, i. 1, vii. 1, 3, 10, 
 
I 70 The Sources of the Chronicler. 
 
 12, xiv. 28, xxxviii. 8. But it is clear that the writing 
 of Isaiah in regard to Uzziah is entirely independent of 
 such a passing notice as he gives him in his prophecy. 
 
 3. The Commentary on the Book of Kings, which 
 is quoted as giving particulars respecting the sons of 
 Joash, the greatness of the burdens laid upon him, and 
 tlie repairing of the house of God, 2 Chron. xxiv. 27, 
 is no longer in existence, but was still accessible to 
 the Chronicler and his contemporaries. 
 
 4. Since we have established the independence of 
 these sources, it seems to us in the highest degree 
 improbable, that when the Chronicler mentions other 
 authorities whose names appear in our Books of Kings, 
 he simply refers, after the Jewish fashion, to sections 
 where their names occur. 
 
 (1.) When he quotes the words of Samuel the seer 
 as one of his authorities for the life of David, 1 Chron. 
 xxix. 29, he evidently refers to one of the sources of 
 our two canonical books which were originally one. 
 
 (2.) If, however, we understand him as quoting 
 historical documents of Samuel, what is to prevent us 
 from understanding that Nathan the prophet and Gad 
 the seer were the authors of other documents, from 
 which the Chronicler might have derived his account 
 of the activity of the priests and Levites in the time 
 of David ? This supposition derives some probability 
 from 2 Chron. xxix. 25 : " And he set the Levites in 
 the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, 
 and with harps, according to the commandment of 
 David, and Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the 
 
The Sources of the Chronicler. 1 7 1 
 
 propliet, for so was the commandment of the Lord by 
 His prophets." Since Gad's words are as fully given 
 in 1 Chron. xxi. 9-19 as in 2 Sam. xxiv. 11-19, we 
 have good reason for belicAdng that, as we have already 
 intimated, he is author of an independent work. 
 
 (3.) The Chronicler cites Shemaiah with Iddo as 
 containing the acts of Eehoboam first and last, 2 Chron. 
 xii. 1 5 ; but he could not have referred to 1 Kings 
 xii. 22-24, where Shemaiah's prophecy occurs, which 
 lie repeats with slight variations, 2 Chron. xi. 2-4. 
 Shemaiah has undoubtedly given fuller accounts of 
 Eehoboam's reign than are found in these three verses. 
 
 (4.) We have no warrant for understanding that 
 one original Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel is 
 indicated under the different authorities which are 
 quoted. This conclusion has been drawn from 2 Chron. 
 XX. 34, which mentions that the Book of Jehu the 
 son of Hanani was embodied in the Book of Kings, 
 and from xxxii. 32, where many read, " In the vision 
 of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, in the Book 
 of the Kings of Judah and Israel."^ The singling 
 out of these two books as being reckoned under the 
 Book of Kings would naturally lead us to suppose 
 that the others were not reckoned in the same cate- 
 gory. Besides, it is doubtful, in the second case, 
 whether the vision of Isaiah is not to be understood 
 as an authority besides the Book of Kings. This 
 meaning is favoured by the translation of the Septua- 
 
 1 Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar iiber Jesaja^ Leipzig 1869, S. 
 xi. Bertheau, Die Biicher der Chronik, Leipzig 1873, S. xxxi. 
 
I 72 The So7Lrces of the Chronicler. 
 
 gint/ wliich, together Avitli Clialdee, is followed by the 
 English version. 
 
 (5.) AVhen we duly weigh all these points, we do 
 not wonder that Graf was at last inclined to admit 
 that he had gone too far in maintaining that the 
 Chronicler had only freely adapted our Books of 
 Kings to his own views.^ We have, as it seems to us, 
 abundantly shown that the Chronicler had reliable 
 authorities, and that the assumption that he has de- 
 liberately changed the historical facts for a didactic 
 purpose, is entirely without foundation. 
 
 (6.) The question now remains, In what shape did 
 he consult these authorities ? Professor Dr. Franz 
 Delitzsch, my honoured friend and teacher, answers 
 the question as follows : — The Chronicler had (1) our 
 two Books of Samuel ; (2) our two Books of Kings ; 
 (3) a Midrash Se'plier Tia-Melakim, — that is, a com- 
 mentary on an older Book of Kings, — in which this 
 
 ' Kctl roc "KotTTci roju \oyuv '''E^tKiov Kul ro 'sAsog ocvrov i^oif yi- 
 ypoiTrrui iu rfi xpo(pyir£t(X. 'Haoci'ov viov ''Af/,ug rdv -TrpoCpvjrov kocI stti 
 l3i,Sxiov (iuai'kiau ^lovloc kccI 'Iffpoc/i'K. Jerome renders the passage : 
 " Reliqua autcm sermonum Ezechiae, et misericordiarum ejus 
 scripta sunt in visione Isaiae tihi Amos prophetae, et in libro regum 
 Juda et Israel." 
 
 2 See Bertheau, S. viii., where he says : " In a letter to me, dated 
 Feb. 19, 1866, Graf acknowledged that, in the effort to secure a 
 fuller recognition of the independence of the Old Testament 
 historian, he had represented the author of Chronicles as too 
 independent and absolute; and since he too must himself agree 
 that an extended continuation of the old annals lay before the 
 author, it would ever remain to a certain extent doubtful how 
 much he had added or remodelled after the merely oral tradition, 
 or according to his own judgment." 
 
The Sources of the Chi^oiiicler. i 
 
 /o 
 
 older book was illustrated by excerpts out of the 
 official annals of Judah and Israel, and out of many 
 prophetic documents of different times. It is probable 
 tliat Ezra was the compiler of this great work, which 
 closed with the history of his own time. 
 
 While we hold, with Professor Delitzsch, that the 
 Chronicler had our Books of Samuel and Kings, we 
 find no adequate proof that the mass of the material 
 was comprehended under a compilation from the older 
 documents named, or that the expression Midrash 
 Sciohcr lia-Melctkim is equivalent to Sepher MalcM Israel 
 ve-Jelmda. (a) As we have already observed, there is 
 no evidence that Bihre Nathan} Dibre Gad} Nehuath 
 AMjali} Chazoth Ycdof Dibre Shemaiah}' Dibre Iddo, 
 and Midrash Iddo^ were contained in one work. 
 Indeed, it is far more probable that they existed as in- 
 dependent documents. The fact that the work of Jehu 
 the son of Hanani is mentioned as being embodied in 
 the Book of Kings/ 2 Chron. xx. 34, does not indicate 
 that those above mentioned were collected in the same 
 work ; it rather shows that the others were not included 
 in it. Q)) Although the Chronicler does not quote 
 
 1 1 ChroD. xxix. 29. ^ 2 Chron. ix. 29. 
 
 3 2 Chron. xii. 15. * 2 Chron. xiii. 22. 
 
 •^ The Septuagint and Chaldee version present quite a different 
 idea: 0/ 'KoittqI "hoyoi ^la(TX(poiT oi Trpuroi kuI oi 'iax,ocroi iQov ysypotu- 
 fiivoi h y^oyoig^lYjOV rov ^ Avuvl, og KccTsypoc-J/s fiifi'htov (SccaiT^eau'' lapx'/j'h. 
 Chaldee: " And the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, 
 behold, they are written in the acts of Jehu the son of Hanani, 
 who was appointed as writer (-1^535? =librarius) on the memorials 
 of the kings of the house of Israel." According to this, Jehu was 
 one of the royal annalists. 
 
I 74 The Sources of the Chronicler. 
 
 Ids main source without some slight variations/ yet 
 we cannot argue from this tliat he considers Midrash 
 Seplicr ha-Mclachim ^ equivalent to Sepher McdcM Israel, 
 which he mentions twice, or to SepJier McdcM Jelmidco 
 ve Israel, to which he refers four times, much less that 
 the above-mentioned documents of Nathan, Gad, etc., 
 were all constituent parts of a larger work. 
 
 (7.) Our theory is that the Chronicler had access 
 to these documents, which all illustrated the history 
 of the regal period, and with which he w'as perfectly 
 familiar. Since we cannot identify the Sephcr Malclie 
 Jehitcla ve Israel with Dihre ha-Yamim, which is so 
 often quoted in the Book of Kings, it is probable that 
 our present Book of Samuel and Kings lay before our 
 author, from which he took the basis of an enlarged 
 and modified work, which was enriched by the sources 
 already mentioned, and which truly represents the 
 course of history during the regal period from a 
 Levitical standpoint. 
 
 I 2 Chron. xvi. 11, hir\^^) HIH^^ U'^Jpr^T] IDD- Ihid. xxvii. 7, 
 min^l hi^l^^ '•D^D "1DD. Ibid, xxviii. 26, xxxii. 32, >J:^J2 "IDD 
 
 - 2 Chron. xxiv. 27. 
 
APTEXDIX 11. 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE WORD THORAH IN HOS. IV. G. 
 
 KUENE:N' says:^ "The original word Thorah really 
 means 'teaching,' 'instruction/ and is used by 
 the prophets to indicate their own preaching, and that 
 
 of their predecessors Now, as early as the 
 
 eighth century B.C., the prophetic exhortations, after 
 they had been delivered orally, were committed to 
 writing ; therefore it is possible that the prophets had 
 such writings in their thoughts when they mentioned 
 the Thorah of Jahveh. Nothing hinders us from even 
 assuming that they had in view collections of laws and 
 admonitions to which a higher antiquity or even a 
 Mosaic origin was attributed. But in that case they 
 have still made no essential distinction between those 
 laws and their own preaching, and have ascribed to 
 the former no higher authority." 
 
 Tliis is indeed a cautious statement, but it is 
 ambiguous, since the second part contradicts the first. 
 The word Thorah, as is well known, is often used in 
 the general sense of religious and moral instruction. 
 Even when the expression, the law of Moses, or the 
 ^ The Religion of Israel^ vol. i. p. 55 seq. 
 
1 -^^ The Meaning of TJwrah in Hosea I v. 6. 
 
 book of the law of Moses/ is employed, we cannot prove 
 that the whole Pentateuch is intended, unless the con- 
 nection seems to indicate it ; z.g., from the reference in 
 
 2 Kings xiv. 6, we cannot affirm that any tiling else is 
 meant than the Book of Deuteronomy. It is clear 
 when Isaiah says,^ " Give ear unto the law of our God," 
 that he refers to his own preaching, because that 
 preaching is as much the " word of the Lord " as the 
 Mosaic Thorah. But in Hos. iv. 6 the case is dif- 
 ferent. There is nothing in his words to indicate that 
 he meant by Thorah his own teaching. Indeed, the 
 connection is against it, for the priests were properly 
 custodians of the law of Moses. ^ Duhm,^ as has 
 already been remarked, thinks that Hosea, in iv. 2, 
 was guided by the Decalogue. But we proceed further, 
 and find it certain that striking correspondences exist 
 between Hosea and every book of the Pentateuch. 
 
 We pass over vi. 7 (comp. Gen. iii.) and other 
 passages which are given in Delitzsch's Commentar 
 iiher die Genesis, Leipzig 1872, S. 10. 
 
 Hosea xii. 4, 5 (E. V. 3, 4). Genesis xxv. 26a : 
 
 '' He took his brother by the " And after that came his 
 
 heel in the womb, and by his brotherout,andhishand took hold 
 
 strength he had power with God: on Esau's heel." xxxii. 28h: " For 
 
 yea, he had power over the angel as a prince hast thou power with 
 
 jmd prevailed : he wept and made God and with men, and hast pre- 
 
 ^ Josh. viii. 31, xxiii. 6; 2 Kings xxiii. 25; 2 Chron. xxiii. 18, 
 XXX. 16 ; Ezra iii. 2, vii. 6 ; Neh. viii. 1 ; Dan. ix. 11 ; Mai. iii. 22 
 (E. V. iv. 4). 
 
 2 Isa. i. 10. 3 Pent. xxxi. 9. 
 
 ^ llieoloyie der PropJietcn, S. 131. 
 
Hoseas Acquaintance with the Thorah. 177 
 
 supplication unto him : he found vailed." xxxv. 15: "And Jacob 
 him in Bethel, and there he spake called the name of the place where 
 with us." the Lord spake with him, Bethel." 
 
 HosEA 1. 10. Genesis xxxii. 12. 
 
 "Yet the number of the " And Thou saidst, I will surely 
 
 children of Israel shall be as the do thee good, and make thy seed 
 
 sand of the sea, which cannot be as the sand of the sea, which can- 
 
 measured nor numbered." not be numbered for multitude." 
 
 xii. 13 (E. V. 12). xxviii. 5. 
 
 "And Jacob fled into the " And he went to Padan-aram 
 country of Syria, and Israel unto Laban, son of Bethuel the 
 served for a wife, and for a wife Syrian." xxix. 20a; "And Jacob 
 he kept sheep." served seven years for Rachel." 
 
 xi. 1. Exodus. 
 
 " AYhen Israel was a child, then Ex. iv. 22, 23a; "And thou 
 I loved him, and called my son shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus 
 out of Egypt." saith the Lord, Israel is my son ; 
 
 . . . and I say unto thee. Let my 
 son go." 
 
 ii. 15. XV. 1. 
 
 " And she shall sing there as in "Then sang Moses and the 
 
 the days of her youth, and as in children of Israel this song unto 
 
 the day when she came up out of the Lord, and spake, saying, I 
 
 the land of Egypt." will sing unto the Lord," etc. 
 
 Ver. 17. xxiii. l^h. 
 
 " For I will take away the "And make no mention of the 
 
 names of Baalim out of her name of other gods, neither let it 
 mouth." be heard out of thy mouth." 
 
 xii. 9. Leviticus xxiii. 43. 
 
 " I that am the Lord thy God " That your generations may 
 
 from the land of Egypt will yet know that I made the children of 
 
 make thee to dwell in tabernacles, Israel to dwell in booths, when I 
 
 as in the days of the solemn brought them out of the land of 
 
 feast." Egypt." 
 
 iv. 10a. xxvi. 266. 
 
 "For they shall eat and not "Ye shall eat and not be 
 have enough." satisfied." 
 
 M 
 
1 78 The Mcaiiing of Thorah m Hosea iv. 6. 
 
 HosEA xi. 9. Numbers xxiii. 19. 
 
 " For I am God, and not man." "God is not a man that He 
 
 should lie." 
 ix. 10. Numbers xxv. 3. 
 
 " 1 found Israel like grapes in "And Israel joined himself 
 the wilderness ; I saw your unto Baal-peor." 
 fathers as the first -ripe in the 
 fig-tree at her first time : but they 
 went to Baal-peor, and separated 
 themselves unto that shame." 
 
 xiii. 5. Deuteronomy viii. 15a. 
 
 "I did know thee in the "Who led thee through that 
 w'ilderness, in the land of great great and terrible wilderness, 
 drought." wherein were fiery serpents, and 
 
 scorpions, and drought." 
 ix. 4?>. xxvi. 14a. 
 
 " Their sacrifices shall be unto "I have not eaten thereof in 
 them as the bread of mourners ; my mourning, neither have I 
 all that eat thereof shall be taken away aught thereof for any 
 polluted." unclean use." 
 
 i. 2&. xxxi. 166. 
 
 " For the land hath committed "And this people will rise up 
 great whoredom, departing from and go a whoring after the gods 
 the Lord." of the strangers of the land." 
 
 Now, wlien we consider that the prophet rejects the 
 priests because they have forgotten the Thorah, and 
 we find the prophet making so many allusions to the 
 Pentateuch (not to speak of Judges and Samuel),^ it 
 
 1 Hos. ix. 9, c.cj. : " They have Judg. xix. 22 : "The men of the 
 deeply corrupted themselves, as city, certain sons of Belial, beset 
 in the days of Gibeah." Comp. the house, .... saying, Bring 
 X. 9. forth the man that came into thine 
 
 house, that we may know him.'' 
 
 Hos. xiii. 10, 11 : "I will be thy king : where is any other that 
 
 may save thee in all thy cities ? and thy judges of whom thou saidst, 
 
 Give me a king and princes ? I gave thee a king in mine anger, 
 
 and took him away in my wrath." Compare 1 Sam. viii. 5, 7, 19, 
 
Amos Acqiiainta7ice with the Thorah, 179 
 
 seems not only possible, but probable, that lie alludes 
 to essentially the same Thorah which is known to us. 
 
 A similar argument may be used with reference to 
 Amos' employment of the word Thorah, ii. 4 : " Thus 
 saith the Lord ; For three transgressions of Judah, and 
 for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof, 
 because they have despised the law (Thorah) of the Lord, 
 and have not kept His commandments." The follow- 
 ing passages show that Amos was not unacquainted with 
 at least portions of our present Thorah : 
 
 Amos iv. 11. Genesis xix. 24, 25. 
 "I have overthrown some of "Then the Lord rained upon 
 you, as God overthrew Sodom and Sodom and upon Gomorrah brim- 
 Gomorrah." stone and fire And he 
 
 overthrew those cities." 
 
 iv. 10. Exodus xii. 29. 
 
 "I have sent among you the "And it came to pass that at 
 
 pestilence, after the manner of midnight the Lord smote all the 
 
 Lgypt." first-born in the land of Egypt." 
 
 v. 17. xii. 12. 
 
 "And in all vineyards shall be " For I will pass through the 
 wailing : for I will pass through land of Egypt this night, and 
 thee, saith the Lord." will smite all the first-born of 
 
 the land of Egypt, both man and 
 beast." 
 
 iv. 5a. Leviticus vii. 13 : 
 
 "And offer a sacrifice of " He shall offer for his offering 
 thanksgiving with leaven, and leavened bread with the sacrifice 
 proclaim and publish the free of thanksgiviug." xxii. 18. 21 : 
 offerings." " And for all his free-will offer- 
 
 ings." 
 
 V. 21&. xxvi. 31. 
 
 "I will not smell in your solemn " I will not smell the savour of 
 assemblies." your sweet odours." 
 
I So The JMcaning of TJiorah in Hosea iv. 6. 
 
 Amos ii. 11. Numbers. 
 
 "And I raised up of your sons Compare vi. 2, 13, 18, 19, 20, 
 
 for prophets, and of your young 21, where the order is first insti- 
 
 nien for Nazarites." tuted, although some might refer 
 
 to Judg. xiii. 5, 7, xvi. 17. 
 
 ix. 12. xxiv. 18. 
 
 *'That they may possess the "And Edom shall be a 
 
 remnant of Edom." possession." 
 
 V. 11&. Deuteronomy xxviii. 30. 
 
 " Ye have built houses of hewn "Thou shalt build a house, 
 
 stone, but ye shall not dwell in and thou shalt not dwell therein : 
 
 tliem; ye have planted pleasant thou shalt plant a vineyard, 
 
 vineyards, but ye shall not drink and shalt not gather the grapes 
 
 the wine of them." thereof." Compare ver. 39. 
 
 Equally striking with the use of the word Thorah by 
 the above prophets is its use by Zephaniah and Ezekiel. 
 ]Sro fair-minded person, who regards the passages in 
 their connection, can claim that either of these 
 prophets means his own teaching or that of any 
 other prophet, unless it be Moses. Zephaniah, iii. 45, 
 says : " Her priests have polluted the sanctuary ; 
 they have done violence to the law " (Thorah). For 
 the same reason, Ezekiel, in the following words, does 
 not indicate merely the teaching of prophets or priests, 
 but rather an established code : 
 
 Ezekiel xxii. 2G. Leviticus xxii. 2 : 
 
 " Her priests have violated my " Speak unto Aaron and to his 
 
 law (Thorah), and have profaned sons, that they separate them- 
 
 mine holy things : they have put selves from the holy things of 
 
 no difference between the holy the children of Israel, and that 
 
 and profane, neither have they they profane not my holy name 
 
 shewed difference between the in those things which they hallow 
 
The Thorah and the Pentate^ich. 1 8 1 
 
 unclean and the clean, and have unto me : I am the Lord." x. 10 : 
 hid their eyes from my Sabbaths, "And that ye may put dif- 
 and I am profaned among them." ference between holy and un- 
 holy, and between unclean and 
 clean." 
 
 It seems to us, then, that it is more than probable 
 that in all these cases the prophets refer to a work 
 which may well have been co-extensive with our 
 present Pentateuch. To deny this possibility, in our 
 opinion, savours of dogmatism. 
 
APPENDIX III. 
 
 THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH XL.-LXVI. 
 
 r|"^HE one strong point which the critics -^ have made 
 J- against Isaiah's being the author of chapters 
 xL-lxvi. has been clearly stated by Prof. Smith as 
 his own •} " There is no reason to think a prophet 
 ever received a revelation which was not spoken 
 directly and pointedly to his own time ; . . . when 
 the principle is admitted, other applications follow, 
 mainly in the Book of Isaiah, where the anonymous 
 chapters xl.-lxvi. cannot be understood in a natural 
 and living way except by looking at them from the 
 historical standpoint of the exile." To us this seems 
 to be the one strong point ; for the peculiarity of the 
 style of this portion,^ which distinguishes it from other 
 parts of Isaiah's prophecies, is not inconsistent with his 
 being the author of it. It is well known that style 
 
 ^ E.g. De Wette, Lehrbuch der historiscli-kritischen Einleitiing ., 
 etc., Berlin 1869, S. 413, says : " Es ist gegen alle Analogic, dass 
 Jesaiali nicht bloss soil das Exil geweissagt (wie etwa xxxix. 6 ff. ; 
 2 Kon. XX. 17 ff., wiewohl so bestimrate, ausser dem Gesichts- 
 kreise liegende Vorhersagungen ebenfalls gegen die Analogic sind) 
 soiidern ira Exile selbst seinen Standpunkt genommen haben." 
 
 ^ In the Encyclopxdia Britannica, 9tli ed., art. " Bible," p. 610. 
 
 ^ For a list of these peculiarities, see De Wette, ibid. S. 412. 
 
Prophecies fr 0171 a Future Standpoint. 183 
 
 greatly varies with the same person at different periods 
 of his life, and according to the subject which he has in 
 hand.^ Besides, there are such resemblances between the 
 prophecy contained in Isa.xl.-lxvi.and the other portions 
 which are attributed to him, that even De Wette admits 
 that this similarity must be the result of imitation or of 
 some other cause which he does not assign.^ Indeed, the 
 style in these chapters resembles that of the so-called 
 genuine Isaiah beyond that of any other prophet, who, in 
 the evening of life, as the last rays were gilding his hori- 
 zon, clearly saw the future woes and deliverances of his 
 people, and that light which was to lighten tlie Gentiles. 
 The question will doubtless be raised, whether we 
 have any proof that a prophet from the foreseen 
 ^captivity of a people can behold their deliverance. 
 Taking scientific proof in the sense which we have 
 already defined, we must admit that we have none. 
 But this kind of proof is not adequate for the discus- 
 sion of some subjects, of which this is one. Here we 
 
 ^ For good illustrations of marked differences in style in the same 
 authors, compare Deuteronomy the PeopWs Book, pp. 241-249. 
 
 2 Einleitung, S. 412 f . : " Manches ist allerdings diesen Capp. 
 mit den achten Stiicken gemein, z. B. ^iirW^'' \^)lp, fast in alien 
 Capp. und sonst nur Ps. Ixxi. 22, Ixxviii. 41, ixxxix. 19 ; Jer. 1. 
 29, li. 5 (vgl. Hos. xi. 9, xii. 11) ; die Figur iv. 3, ix. 5, xix. 18, 
 XXX. 7, XXXV. 8, xliv. 6, xlvii. 1, 4, 5, Ivi. 7, Ix. 14, Ixi. 3, Ixii. 4 
 (vgl. jedoch Hos. i. 10 ; Sach. viii. 3) ; Jahn, S. 459 f. ; Mciller, p. 
 59 seqq. — Mehreres, was diese noch anfiihren, beweist nichts ; 
 jenes aber kann nicht bloss Zufiillig sein, und muss aus Nach- 
 ahmung Ixv. 25 ist aus xi. 9 entlehnt oder sonst wie erkliirt 
 werden." For other examples of favourite expressions which 
 run through the entire book, see Delitzsch, BihUscher Covimentar 
 liber den Propheten Jesaiah^ Leipzig 18C9, S. 411. 
 
184 TJie AiitJiorship of Isaiah xl.-lxvi. 
 
 have other proofs. Although, strictly speaking, they 
 are not scientific, and we are not ashamed to make 
 the admission, yet they are to our minds sufficient. 
 
 (1.) That, according to the sacred writers, the prophets 
 did not merely have reference to the men of their own 
 time, appears from the words of Peter -} "Of which 
 salvation the prophets have inquired and searched dili- 
 gently, who prophesied of the grace that should come 
 unto you ; searching what or what manner of time the 
 spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it 
 testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory 
 that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that 
 not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister 
 the things which are now reported unto you by them 
 that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy 
 Ghost sent down from heaven." Certainly Peter, as 
 well as Philip in his address to the Ethiopian eunuch,^ 
 must have considered that Isa. liii. 2—12 was intended 
 for a distant future, in which, as has been well said,'" 
 "the suffering and the exaltation of Christ are as 
 clearly proclaimed as though the prophet, like an 
 evangelist, stood under the cross, and as if he had seen 
 the crucified One." The prophet, however, does not 
 stop here, but from that distant future "takes his 
 standpoint between the sufferings and the glorification 
 of the Messiah. The sufferings appear to him as past, 
 the glory he represents as future." ^ 
 
 ^ 1 Pet. i. 10-12. 2 Acts viii. 30-35. 
 
 ^ See Delitzsch, j5i7>?. Commentaruher den Propheten Jesaia.S. 408. 
 
 ^ llengstenherg.ChristoL des alten Test., Berlin 1855, B.ii. S.197. 
 
Germs of Prophecy. 185 
 
 (2.) The germs of such prophecy appear in Leviticus 
 and Deuteronomy. We are aware that the critics of 
 the negative school will at once deny us the use of 
 the passages which we are about to quote, as belonging 
 to a much later date than that to which they are 
 assigned. One of the main reasons for denying the 
 Mosaic authorship of these chapters is that assigned 
 in the canon of criticism already quoted. We have 
 proved that Ezekiel quotes from the twenty-sixth 
 chapter of Leviticus. We could also afford proof of 
 the same fact with regard to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the 
 older prophets. We are satisfied that equally con- 
 clusive proof could be adduced in regard to quotations 
 by the oldest prophets from the prophetic chapters of 
 Deuteronomy xxviii— xxx., to say nothing of the rest 
 of the book. In these chapters, Moses prophesies in 
 regard to the destruction of the cities of Israel, the 
 desolation of their sanctuaries, their captivity, and 
 God's favour to them in case of their repentance. 
 While these prophecies may be said to apply to Moses' 
 immediate hearers, their more express application is 
 found at a much later period, and the author takes 
 "his standpoint in the distant future. Prof. Delitzsch 
 has very happily characterized the relation of these 
 chapters to later prophecy as the same as that of the 
 Decalogue to all laws, and the Lord's Prayer to all 
 prayer, and their style of treatment as that which is 
 repeated in subsequent prophecies, namely, the his- 
 tory of the people from beginning to end, in which 
 four periods are developed : " Israel's creation and 
 
1 86 The Authorship of Isaiah xl.-lxvi. 
 
 elevation; Israel's unthaukfulness and apostasy; Israel's 
 abandonment to the heathen ; finally, the restoration of 
 the purified though not destroyed Israel."^ The stand- 
 point of the testamentary song is the time which is 
 indicated by 'yty^^^ in Deut. xxxii. 20. 
 
 (3.) The prophecies of Isaiah, especially those 
 which are contained in chapters xl.— Ixvi., through the 
 embodiment of these elements receive a far-reaching 
 and universal character. Even in the first chapter, 
 which the critics acknowledge as genuine, we may 
 trace the four elements above mentioned. In the dis- 
 puted chapters the restoration of Israel is painted in 
 the brightest colours on the background of the exile.^ 
 Of course, if we admit the validity of Professor Smith's 
 canon, tliat the prophet's revelation was spoken directly 
 and pointedly to his own time, we must conclude that 
 the author wrote in the exile. When, however, we 
 examine the nature of these prophecies, and see that 
 much was promised to ancient Israel which has not 
 yet been fulfilled, we must consider the prophecy as 
 something far more than a comforting discourse which 
 was addressed to a prophet's contemporaries during the 
 exile. If we were to hold this, we must suppose that 
 the prophet was really greatly mistaken, since he con- 
 nected such glorious expectations with the end of the 
 exile. If, however, we assume that since Isaiah's 
 prophecies with reference to Babylon and the suffer- 
 ings of Christ have been almost literally fulfilled, the 
 
 ' BiU. Commentar uber den Propheten Jesaia, 1869, S. 33. 
 * E.g. Isa. xlix. 13-23, liv. 1-10, Ix.-lxii., Ixvi. 20-24. 
 
Comparison of J ererniah with Isaiah. 187 
 
 others, which have never been accomplished, await their 
 fulfilment, we obtain a view of the universality and 
 apocalyptic nature of his prophecies, which diminishes 
 the probability that their main object was the consola- 
 tion of a captive people. 
 
 (4.) It has been abundantly shown by Caspari that 
 Zephaniah had read Isaiah xL— Ixvi.^ It also seems 
 clear to us, from the following comparison of passages, 
 that Jeremiah has had access to these chapters of 
 Isaiah, from which he frequently quotes, as well as 
 from the preceding chapters : 
 
 Jeremiah x. 3-5. Isaiah xliv. 9 a ; 
 
 " For the customs of the people "They that make a graven 
 are vain : for one cutteth a tree image are all of them vanity, 
 out of the forest, the work of the Ver. 14 : He heweth him down 
 hands of the workman, with the cedars, and taketh the cypress 
 axe. They deck it with silver and the oak, Ver. 13 : The 
 and with gold ; they fasten it carpenter stretcheth out his rule ; 
 with nails and with hammers, he marketh out with a line; he 
 that it move not ; . . . . they fitteth it with planes, xl. 19 : The 
 must needs be borne, because workman melteth a graven image, 
 they cannot go. Be not afraid and the goldsmith spreadeth it 
 of them, for they cannot do evil ; over with gold, and casteth silver 
 neither also is it in them to do chains, xli. Ih : And he fastened 
 good." it with nails that it should not 
 
 be moved, xlvi. 7 : They bear 
 him upon the shoulder, they 
 carry him and set him in his 
 place, xli. 23 : Do good or do 
 evil, that we may be dismayed, 
 and behold it together." 
 
 ^ Rudelbach (now Delitzsch) und Guerike, Zeitschrift far die 
 geaammte Lutherische TJieolorjie, Leipzig 1843, Baud iv. Heft 2, 
 S. 66-73. 
 
iSS The Authorship of Isaiah xl.-lxvl. 
 
 Jeremiah xxx. 10, xlvi. 27, 28. Isaiah xliv. 2. 
 
 "Therefore fear thou not, " Fear not, Jacob, my servant." 
 my servant Jacob." 
 
 1. 38fl, li. 36&. xliv. 27. 
 
 " A drought is upon her waters, "That saith to the deep, Be 
 
 and they shall be dried up. . . . dry, and I will dry up thy 
 
 And I will dry up her sea, and rivers." 
 make her springs dry." 
 
 xxvii. 5. xlv. 12. 
 
 " I have made the earth." " I have made the earth." 
 
 xlviii. 18. xlvii. 1. 
 
 " Thou daughter that dost in- " Come down, and sit in the 
 
 habit Dibon, come down from thy dust, virgin daughter of 
 
 glory, and sit in thirst." Babylon, sit on the ground." 
 
 1. 8. xlviii. 20. 
 
 " Remove out of the midst of "Go ye forth of Babylon, flee 
 
 Babylon, and go forth out of the ye from the Chaldeans." 
 land of the Chaldeans." 
 
 xii. 96. Ivi. 9. 
 
 "Come ye, assemble all the "All ye beasts of the field, 
 
 beasts of the field, come to come to devour." 
 
 devour." xli. 8, 9, xlii. 19, xliv. 1, 21, 
 
 nay of Jacob. xlv. 4, xlviii. 20. 
 
 Jer. xxx. 10, xlvi. 27, 28. 
 
 (5.) The entire Book of Isaiah, whether in the original 
 or in the English translation, has been considered by 
 men of all classes as a rhetorical masterpiece. From 
 a literary point of view, it occupies as high a position 
 to every unprejudiced mind, with reference to the other 
 l)Ooks of the Old Testament, as that which Milton's 
 Paradise Lost and Dante's Divine Comedy do to other 
 poems. It is perhaps unexampled that one author should 
 enter so completely into the spirit of the most eloquent 
 of the prophets at a remove of 150 years, — that he 
 
The Peerless Style of Isaiah. 189 
 
 should be able to reproduce his style with not inferior, 
 indeed with much greater eloquence, so that he is like 
 a risen and glorified Isaiah. Besides, it is highly 
 improbable that a prophet living in the time of the 
 exile, who presented such hopes to the people, should 
 have been unknown and forgotten by them,^ while the 
 names of a less esteemed Jeremiah and Ezekiel ^ have 
 been preserved. 
 
 1 In the Pesikta of Rab Kahana, ed. Buber, Lyck 1868, f. 125&, 
 Isaiah receives the divine testimony : "By thy life ! all the 
 prophets prophesy the one out of the mouth of the other (^''3: 
 5<"'33 ""D^D), . • . but thou prophesiest out of the mouth of the 
 Majesty (mi3jn "-QC)." 
 
 ^ The following interesting comparison is instituted, in Chagigah 
 136, between Isaiah and Ezekiel with reference to the style of 
 their prophecies : " Rabba said, Isaiah saw everything that Ezekiel 
 saw. Ezekiel is like a villager who has seen the king, but Isaiah 
 is like a man from the city who has seen him." 
 
APPENDIX IV. 
 
 THE TEXT OF D'^I^H D"'jn3n. 
 
 rriHE Talmud in the Palestinian, as well as the 
 JL Babylonian Gemara, mentions that there are 
 twenty-four places in the Old Testament where the 
 priests are called Levites.^ 
 
 It is evident from this, and from the enumeration 
 of the Massora,^ that vav might have been wanting in 
 live more passages of the text of the Old Testament, as 
 known toEabbi Joshua ben-Levi,than in the later copies.'^ 
 
 ^ In Jchamoth, SQb ; Beclwroth, 4a; Chullin, 24&; Tamid, 61a; 
 and in the Jerusalem Gemara, Sota vii. 4, it is written in regard to 
 Ezek. xliv. 15 : " But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok," 
 etc. ; " Rabbi Joshua, the son of Levi (250 a.d.), says : In twenty - 
 four places the priests are called Levites, and this is one of them," 
 2 The Massora, which was collated for us by Dr. S. Baer from 
 codices Ncs. 1-3 of the Erfurt Library (for a description of these 
 Mss. see Paul de Lagarde's Sijmmicta, Goettingen 1877, S. 129- 
 164), enumerates only the nineteen passages, which we had 
 already found, as follows— D^lbn D^^nDH ^'''—in thirteen pas- 
 sages : Deut. xvii. 9, 18, xxiv. 8 ; Josh. viii. 33 ; Ezek. xliii. 19 ; 
 Ezra x. 5 ; Neh. x. 29, 35, xi. 20 ; 1 Chron. ix. 2 ; 2 Chron. v. 5, 
 xxiii. 18, XXX. 27. D'^I^'H D^^nrjni 'j thrice: Deut. xxvii. 9; 
 Josh. iii. 3; Ezek.^ xliv. 15. D^l^n D^^HD^' once ("^^DDT D^i?) : 
 Deut. xviii. 1. n't>n D^JHD^l once (-j-'ODT n'h) : Jcr. xxxiii. 18. 
 D^tt 0^3.-13^5 once (yj2Dl D'h) : Isa. Ixvi. 21. 
 
 "' See the Note I. to this Appendix, p. 227. 
 
Graf's False Statement, 1 9 1 
 
 We were first moved to a critical examination of 
 the text, by Graf's sweeping statement that the expres- 
 sion " priests Levites " does not occur in Chronicles ^ 
 (including Ezra and Nehemiah). As we found a 
 number of such passages, we were surprised, and at 
 first thought it possible that Graf might have rejected 
 them for critical reasons, without apprising his readers 
 of the fact. We found in the collations cjiven in 
 Kennicott's ^ Bible that some Hebrew Mss. inserted a 
 ■vav in one or more of these passages, while the great 
 majority of mss., in every case except that of Isa. Ixvi. 
 21, sustained the received reading, without vav; hence 
 the examination of the state of the text seemed worthy 
 of special attention. We believe the citations given 
 by Kennicott are substantially correct. We were glad, 
 however, to see the passages with our own eyes, in 
 which we were much assisted by Dr. S. M. Schiller- 
 Szinessy, of the University Library, Cambridge, and 
 Mr. Adolph Neubauer, of the Bodleian Library, Oxford ; 
 the latter afterwards sent us information in regard to 
 some MSS. which we had not time to see. We our- 
 selves examined Isa. Ixvi. 21 in fourteen MSS.^ of the 
 British Museum without finding any variation, and the 
 
 » Graf, Die GescMcMl Buclier d. A. T., Leipzig 1866, S. 46. 
 See pp. 114-15. 
 
 ^ Vetus Testamentum Hehraicum, cum variis lectionihus^ Oxonii 
 1776-80 ; De Rossi in his Variae Lectiones V. T., Parmae 1784- 
 86, mentions only three of the eighteen passages where variations 
 occur : Josh. iii. 3 ; Isa. Ixvi. 21 ; 2 Chron. v. 5. 
 
 3 Harleian, 1528, 5498, 5711, 5720, 5722, 5774 ; King s, 1 ; 
 additional, 4708, 9398, 9399, 11657, 15252, 21161, 27046. 
 
192 The Text. 
 
 nineteen passages in thirty-three MSS. of the Biblio- 
 th^que Rationale, Paris, besides a part of these pas- 
 sages in seven MSS. mostly of the Pentateuch. Monsieur 
 H. Zotcuberg very kindly furnished us information in 
 re^rard to five Samaritan Pentateuchs, which aftbrd no 
 variations, and the Syriac version of James of Edessa 
 (beginning of the eighth century), which varies from 
 our printed versions of the Peschito in two places. 
 
 It was our purpose to verify all Kennicott's read- 
 ings as far as possible. To this end we addressed 
 letters to all the libraries on the Continent, where the 
 MSS. which he mentions in connection with the nine- 
 teen passages are to be found. Owing to the lateness 
 of the season, most of the libraries were closed;^ still the 
 librarian of the Hamburg library very kindly arranged 
 to have a collation made for us there. We also re- 
 ceived the readings of the Eeuchlin MSS. and the 
 Soncino Bible at Carlsruhe, through the great courtesy 
 of Messrs. Director W. Brambach and Dr. F. Teufel, 
 and readings from the Eoyal and University Library 
 at Konigsberg, through Professor Dr. Simson and 
 Director Dr. Eeicke. A complete collation of the 
 Hebrew MSS. and the Brescia Bible in Berlin was 
 arranged for us by Dr. Moritz Steinschneider. E. 
 Euetschi, D.D., of Berne, Professor Dr. Holzammer of 
 Mayence, and Dr. Fausto Lasinio of Florence, each 
 very kindly verified one reading ; Director Bruun, of the 
 
 1 Of Kennicott's 207 variations we have verified 72, have secured 
 the verification of 38 of De Rossi's variations, and have added 58 
 new readings. 
 
The Origin of the Massora. i 
 
 J 
 
 Eoyal Library, Copenhagen, five ; and Director Ceriani, 
 of the Ambrosian Library, Milan, eight others, besides 
 his collation of the passages from the ancient Syriac MS. 
 
 Our application to the library at Parma, in regard to 
 De Eossi's readings, was very promptly and hand- 
 somely acknowledged by Signore Cav. Pietro Perreau, 
 who verified thirty-eight of De Ptossi's readings in the 
 three passages which he mentions. Professor Dr. H. 
 Oort, of Leyden, furnished us information in regard 
 to the MSS. there. In only two instances have we 
 found Kennicott at fault. Bruns, however, has 
 overlooked many passages. 
 
 It may be thought a waste of time to pursue 
 this subject thus minutely, but we have seen in 
 the past discussion how much depends on the pre- 
 sence or absence of a va%\ If the connective could 
 be proved to have existed in the most ancient MSS. 
 of Deuteronomy in the passages in question, this 
 would be of no small importance in discussing the 
 relation of Deuteronomy to the middle books of the 
 Pentateuch. Hence it is that a minute scientific 
 examination is not only justified, but also imperatively 
 necessary. 
 
 There is, however, a gi'eat obstacle in the way of 
 any satisfactory conclusion, and that is our ignorance 
 in regard to the time and manner in which the Massora 
 originated. Its authority is generally regarded as 
 decisive as to the adoption or rejection of readings. 
 There is no question, however, that modern science 
 should devote itself as assiduously to the text of 
 
 N 
 
194 ^-^^ lext. 
 
 the Old Testament as to that of the !N"e\v. To consider 
 the text of the Old Testament as settled, when such 
 rich materials for the history of that text exist, is 
 a great mistake.'^ 
 
 Nevertheless we shall yield to the authority of 
 the Massora, even where the oldest MSS. and all 
 the versions agree against the ordinary text, because 
 we consider it safer to accept the received opinion 
 on such matters, until the superior authority of the 
 deviating MSS. has been proved beyond the shadow 
 of a doubt. It may be considered significant that 
 so few MSS. support the variations in the passages 
 in Deuteronomy. But this is not strange, when 
 we remember the peculiar reverence in which the 
 Pentateuch has been held by the Jews. Yet it is pos- 
 sible that during an ante-Massoretic period the same 
 phenomena might have been noticed in these passages, 
 in many of the Thorah rolls, as now appear in the 
 older MSS. of Isaiah and Chronicles. This certainly 
 should not be forgotten by the critics. 
 
 In the list of passages, which we shall give, a mere 
 enumeration of MSS. where D^lf'ni instead of D^l^n occurs 
 would be of no service in determining tlie original 
 state of the text, unless we were to consider how they 
 have probably arisen, and tlie character of the MSS. in 
 which they occur. 
 
 Our own examination has led us to the following 
 
 1 Compare Dillmann's excellent article on the '* Bibeltext des 
 A. T.," in Herzog's and Plitt's Real-Encycloijadie^ B. ii., Leipzig 
 1877, S. 381-400. 
 
The Character of Mamisa^pts. 195 
 
 conclusions : — (1.) That the work of the first hand, wlio 
 simply transcribed the letters without points and 
 accents, was often as mechanical as that of the type- 
 setter ; hence the insertion or omission of a vav 
 might be in consequence of a mistake. (2.) The 
 second hand (the 'p>\>'i, punctuator, or n*JD, corrector) 
 brought all the intelligence of a skilled proof-reader, 
 striking out this and inserting that as the case might 
 be. Perhaps the first hand, through lack of critical 
 ability, in mechanically following a more ancient MS., 
 has preserved a reading which, although not the 
 Massoretic, is still not erroneous. 
 
 The character of Mss. does not depend upon the 
 country where they were produced, but upon their 
 age, which is to be determined from the material upon 
 which they are written, the character of the writing, 
 and from epigraphs. The common opinion, that the 
 Spanish mss. should be preferred to others, is not 
 correct. The celebrated Massorites^ and punctuators 
 are distributed throughout all lands. In Europe, the 
 most celebrated punctuators did not live in Spain, but 
 in France, Germany, and England. Two celebrated 
 punctuators, who were natives of England, are Moses ha- 
 ISTakdan, from London (pJife), and Mose ben-Isaak ben- 
 Hanesiah, from England (t<-iD^Ji*'i< n^ntDD)." Although 
 
 ^ The most distinguished of the Massorites were Aaron and 
 Moses ben-Asher, whose MSS. are in Aleppo and in the Karaitic 
 synagogue at Cairo. 
 
 * See Zunz, Zm- Geschichtc und Liieraiiir, Berlin 1845, S. Ill 
 seq. 
 
196 The Text. 
 
 the character of the quadrate writing differs according 
 to the time and country, it is essentially the same. 
 
 In making our collation, we shall give the readings 
 of the Septuaginta/ the Targums, and Jerome.^ We 
 leave the printed version of the Peshito entirely out 
 of account, since it inserts a connective in every case,^ 
 namely o, and, except in Deut. xvii. 9, which has 
 the conjunction o], or. It is not probable that the 
 text of the LXX. and of Jerome exactly corresponds 
 to the Hebrew original. They have evidently in 
 some cases inserted a connective, because it seemed 
 to them that the sense allowed it. The text of the 
 Targums, also, cannot be quoted as conclusive when 
 they insert a connective, since they not only trans- 
 late, but also interpret and paraphrase the Hebrew 
 text in a traditional and harmonistic way.* Moreover, 
 we have cursorily noticed in the MSS. of Onkelos 
 
 ^ According to the Alexandrian version, there are only ten of 
 the nineteen passages given by the Massora without a connective : 
 Deut. xvii. 9, 18 ; xviii. 1, xxiv. 8 (10) ; xxvii. 9 ; 1 Chron. ix. 2 ; 
 XXX. 27 ; Neh. x. 29 (28) ; Ezek. xliii. 19 ; xliv. 15. 
 
 2 Jerome inserts a connective in all but the following seven 
 passages : Deut. xvii. 9, 18 ; xxiv. 8 ; xxvii. 9 ; Josh. iii. 3 ; viii. 
 33 ; Neh. x. 29. 
 
 3 We refer here to the text as given by Walton and Lee, which 
 in these passages agrees with the ancient Syriac MS. of the sixth 
 century, in the Ambrosian Library, of which a photo-lithograph 
 is now being prepared, entitled, Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris 
 Testamenti, . . . torn. i. pars i. Genesis — Job, L-XXIV. Medio- 
 lani, 1876. See Nestle in Schiirer's Theologische Literaturzeitung, 
 Leipzig 1876, 328-31. 
 
 * Especially the two recensions of the Palestinian Targum of 
 the Pentateuch. 
 
DeiUeronomy xvil. 9. 197 
 
 considerable variety in the insertion or omission of the 
 "cav in the passages in question. 
 
 In the following passages we shall briefly mention 
 the characteristics of the MSS. as given by Kennicott/ 
 and by the authors of the valuable catalogues of the 
 Cambridge,^ Paris,^ Hamburg,* and Copenhagen" 
 
 libraries. 
 
 Deuteronomy xvii. 9. 
 
 " And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites." 
 The LXX., the Samaritans/ Onkelos, the Jerusalem 
 
 ^ Dissertatio Generalis in V. T. Hehr., cum variis lectmiihus, ex 
 codicihus^ mss., et impressis^ Oxonii 1780. 
 
 - Catalogue of the Hebrew mss. preserved in the University 
 Library, Cambridge, by Dr. S. M. Schiller-Szinessy, vol. i., 
 Cambridge 1876. 
 
 ^ Catalogues dcs Manuscrits Hebreux et Samaritains de la Biblio- 
 theque Imperiale, Paris 1866. 
 
 * The catalogue of the Hebrew mss. in the Hamburg library, 
 of which Dr. Steinschneider very kindly furnished me the proof- 
 sheets, is promised to the public in 1878. The catalogue of the 
 Hebrew mss. of the Bodleian Library, by Mr. Adolph Neubauer, is 
 still in press. It is very much to be lamented that the authorities 
 of the British Museum, who have made such munificent provision 
 in other respects, should neither have secured a curator nor an 
 adequate catalogue for their admirable collection of Hebrew mss. 
 
 ^ Codices Hebraici et Arabici Bibliothecae Regiae Hafniensis, 
 Hafniae 1851. 
 
 ^ This is according to Kennicott's text of the Samaritan Penta- 
 teuch, which is based on the collation of sixteen mss. (Kenn. 61, 
 62, 63, 64, 65, and 66, which are in the Bodleian Library; 127, 
 British Museum ; 183, Leyden ; 197, Ambrosian Library, Milan ; 
 221 [B. N. 3], 333 [B. N. 5], 363 [B. N. 2], 364 [B. N. 4], Paris ; 
 503, Vatican Library; 504, Barbarinian Library, Rome). The read- 
 ings in four of the Paris mss. have been verified by Monsieur 
 Zotenberg, who has also added two from a more recent acquisition 
 
198 The Text. 
 
 TariTum, and Jerome, translate without a connective. 
 The reading D^i^m D'^jn^n occurs in the following MSS.: — 
 
 Kcnn. 4'''/ Neub. 1 6, Bodleian. A German MS. con- 
 taining many readings, some of which are very good. 
 
 Kenn. 69^'^ Corpus Christi, Oxford v. (B. 4, 7). This 
 MS., which is written from left to right, according to 
 the Latin translation, is of no critical value. 
 
 Nevh. 21, Bodleian. A German MS., containing the 
 Pentateuch with Onkelos and Eashi, the Haphtaroth, 
 and the five Megilloth,^ which was bought a.d. 1368. 
 
 These readings with vav cannot be considered as 
 resting on any critical ground. 
 
 Deuteronomy xvii. 18. 
 
 " And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne 
 of his kingdom, that he shall write himself a duplicate 
 of this law in a book from before the priests the 
 Levites." 
 
 The LXX., Onkelos,^ the Samaritans, the Jerusalem 
 Targum, and Jerome, have no connective. 
 
 [B. N. 12]. Although the text of the Samaritan Targum, which 
 is that of "Walton, needs to be critically established (compare 
 Samuel Kohn, Zur Sprache^ Literatur und Dogmatik der Samari- 
 taner, Leipzig 1877), yet there is no doubt that the Samaritan 
 here, as well as in the following passages, had no connective. 
 
 ^ The star indicates the mss. which we have examined ourselves. 
 
 2 This and all subsequent descriptions, where the mss. of the 
 Bodleian Library have not been given by Kennicott, have been 
 taken from the advanced sheets of Neubauer's catalogue. 
 
 ' The following variations occur in the Targum of Onkelos to 
 xvii. 18, \sv"^1 S^:nD : British Museum Add. 26878, Pent, with Onk. 
 (pointed), the five Meg., and Hapht., with Rashi's Commentary ; 
 B. N., Paris 39. See under Isa. Ixvi. 21. The vav has a sign of 
 
Deleter 07i07ny xvIII. i. 199 
 
 The readinj:^ D"*"!!?"") n^:n3n occurs in the foUowino^ 
 MSS. : — 
 
 Neub. 1 6 (Kenn. 4, which he has overlooked). The 
 Bible in German Hebrew characters. According to 
 Kennicott, it was written in the 11-12 century/ and 
 contains not a few good readings. 
 
 Kenn. 6"9*. See under ver. 9. 
 
 Kenn. 196. Ambrosian Library, E 86. The Pen- 
 tateuch with Targum, MegilL, Haph., Job, and Jere- 
 miah. The MS. is defective. 
 
 Neub. 21. See under ver. 9. 
 
 Cambridge \V (S.S.). The Pentateuch with Onkelos, 
 the Megilloth, the Haphtaroth, Job, and some passages 
 from Jeremiah in Franco-German Hebrew characters. 
 " The text offers, except positive mistakes, no various 
 readings." 13—14 century. 
 
 There is certainly in these MSS. not the slightest 
 warrant for a change in the reading. 
 
 Deuteronomy xviii. 1. 
 
 " The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall 
 have no part nor inheritance with Israel." 
 
 The LXX,, the Samaritans, Onkelos,^ the Jerusalem 
 
 erasure. Also in a manuscript of the 14th cent., Hamburg library, 
 Steinsch. 15, Pent, with Onk. after every verse, Meg., Hapht., Job, 
 A.D. 1486. 
 
 ^ Neubauer, in his new catalogue, does not attempt to assign any 
 age to MSS. which have no epigraph. 
 
 2 B. N., Paris 39, has ''j^V^l (with the sign of erasure) ; also 
 Steinsch. 1, Hamburg, Pent., Meg., Hapht., Job, with the greater 
 and lesser Massora. German MS. of the fourteenth (?) century. 
 
200 The Text. 
 
 Targum, and the Syriac version of James of Edessa, 
 have no connective. Jerome inserts et. The reading 
 n"'l^ni D^JHD^ is only supported by the worthless MS. 
 Kenn. 69, where, moreover, the vav has a sign of erasure. 
 
 Deuteronomy xxiv. 8. 
 
 " Take heed in the plague of leprosy that thou 
 observe diligently, and do according to all that the 
 priests the Levites shall teach you." 
 
 The LXX., Onkelos,^ the Jerusalem Targum, and 
 Jerome, have no vav. The reading D''lS'ni D'':nDn occurs 
 as follows : — 
 
 Kmn. 69"^^ See Deut. xvii. 9. 
 
 Kmn. 84 (Neub. 2325). Gen. xxxiii. 7-Judg. 
 XX. 47; 1 Sam. iii. 17-2 Sam. xxiv. 15 ; Jer. xi. 10 
 to end. A German MS., which, according to Kennicott, 
 was written a.d. 1136, and contains many readings 
 that conform to the Samaritan and the ancient versions. 
 
 Kmn. 181. Pentateuch, with Targum, Megilloth, 
 and Haphtaroth. " This Helmstedt codex was copied 
 from a MS. which had not been emended according to 
 the rules of the Massorites." He assigns it to the 
 thirteenth century. 
 
 It is highly improbable that the reading with vav 
 in these two last mss. rests on good authority. 
 
 Deuteronomy xxvii. ^a. 
 
 " And Moses and the priests the Levites spake unto 
 all Israel." 
 
 1 B. N., Paris 39, has ^xvS'V 
 
Detiteronomy xxvii. 9. 201 
 
 The LXX., the Samaritans, Onkelos, the Jerusalem 
 Targum, Jerome, and the Syriac version of James of 
 Edessa, have no connective. 
 
 The reading D'^i^m D^jn^ni is found in the following 
 MSS. : — 
 
 Kenn. 193V Ambrosian Library, G. 2, a.d. 1287. 
 The Pentateuch in German writing, without points and 
 Massora. 
 
 Kmn. 206* (B. K 5-6), a.d. 1298. German MS., 
 with Massora, which contains in vol. i. the Pentateuch 
 with Onkelos, the five Megilloth, the Haphtaroth, and 
 in vol. ii. the rest of 0. T. The vav has a sign of erasure. 
 
 Neiib. 16'" (Kenn. 4, by a mistake he has quoted 
 !N"o. 1), 11-12 cent. See under Deut. xvii. 9. 
 
 Kenn. 9 (Neub. 40), 12-13 cent. A rabbinical 
 MS. of the Pentateuch, without Massora and points. 
 It has very many variations. The vav has been erased. 
 
 Kenn. 144 (13-14 cent.). A Bible MS. which is 
 written in rabbinical characters, and once belonged to 
 Sampson Simson of New York. The vav has been erased. 
 
 Kenn. 103, B. M., Harl. 5498, a.d. 14 cent. Bible 
 MS. The vav has a sign of erasure. 
 
 Haniburg, 15^ (Steinsch.), A.D. 1486. See Deut. 
 xvii. 18 ; Eemark 3, pp. 198, 199. 
 
 While the reading with the connective ^ has more 
 support here than in the preceding passages, it is still 
 far from being sufficient. 
 
 1 The letter v indicates those readings which have been verified. 
 - Rashi's MS. seems to have read W"hn^ D'':n3m, as this is the 
 only passage where he inserts a connective. 
 
202 
 
 The Text. 
 
 Joshua iii. 3. 
 
 " And they commanded the people, saying, "When 
 ye see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, 
 and the priests the Levites bearing it, then ye shall 
 remove from your place and go after it." 
 
 The LXX. and the Targum have the connective, but 
 Jerome follows the usual reading. 
 
 The reading D'^i^m D'^jn^ni in the following MSS. : — 
 
 Kcnn. 1*" (Neub. 8-9), 9-10 cent. a.d. (De Eossi, 
 12 cent.). Spanish Bible MS. with both Massoras. 
 Kennicott assigns this great age to this MS. — (1) 
 because it agrees with the Samaritan version in 700 
 cases where it deviates from the ordinary Hebrew 
 text; (2) because it contains 14,000 variations from 
 the text of Van der Hooght, many of which exist only 
 in the more ancient MSS. ; (3) because it was originally 
 without Massora, which, according to Jablonski, is a 
 sure sign that a MS. ancient in other respects is very 
 ancient. 
 
 Kmn. 225, Vatican Library, Urbin. 2, A.D. 12 
 cent. Bible in intermediate (Spanish-German) cha- 
 racters, with Massora. The date of the epigraph, 979 
 A.D., was suspected by Assemani, and rejected by 
 Bruns, because it was written by a later hand. 
 
 Z>c Uos8i, 226 (Parma), 12-13 cent. A.D. German. 
 The prophets without Massora and lieTi. This codex 
 is of great value and antiquity. The vm has a sign 
 of erasure. 
 
 Hamhimj, ^ (Kenn. 616), 12 cent. (Bruns and 
 
Joshtca iil. 3. 203 
 
 Lichtenstein.) Steiiisch. doubts it. Prophets. The 
 reading with vav is not mentioned by Brims. 
 
 Kmn. 198^ Nuremberg 1, a.d. 1291. The Old 
 Testament. Euth and Esther precede the Psalms ; and 
 Job, with the rest of the Megilloth, precedes Proverbs. 
 The Targum accompanies all the books until Proverbs. 
 
 Kcnn. 174^, Copenhagen 17, a.d. 1346. Former 
 Prophets. The Izcri is very often found in the text. 
 
 Be Rossi (Parma), l'^, A.D. 13 cent. German Bible, 
 MS., with Hapht., and in the Prophets the greater 
 Massorah. In the Hagiographa there is none except 
 the kcri, which also occurs very rarely in the Pen- 
 tateuch. " Codex in quo praestantissimae variae lec- 
 tiones occurrunt." 
 
 Kcnn. 475, A.D. 14 cent. Prophets, Hagiographa. 
 The reading with vav, which has the sign of erasure, 
 is not given by Kennicott, but was found by De Eossi. 
 
 Kenn. 187^ Ambrosian Library, Milan, B. 56, A.D. 
 13 cent. German MS. Former Prophets and Meg., 
 Jer., Is., defective. 
 
 Dc Rossi, 305'' (Parma), 13-14 cent. A.D. Prophets 
 with both Massoras. " Praestantissimus codex." The 
 %'av has been erased. 
 
 De Rossi, I'^T (Parma), a.d. 1473. Spanish Bible 
 with Massora. The vav has two little lines above it, 
 showing that it should be removed. 
 
 Cambridge, 15'" (S.S.), 14-15 cent. A.D. The Bible 
 with Massora in German characters. 
 
 B. K, Paris, 1314-15^\ Zotenberg does not con- 
 sider the epigraph genuine, and assigns it to the 
 
204 The Text. 
 
 thirteenth century.^ The Bible in two volumes, with 
 Massora and some miniatures. It was presented to 
 the library by the Empress Eugenie in 1869. The 
 vav has been added hy a later Imnd. 
 
 De Rossi, " Prophetae priores, . . . cum Commentario 
 Kimchi, fol. Soncini anno ab orbe condito v.ccxlvi., 
 Christi mcccclxxxv." Annales Hehr.-Tyjoograph., sec. 
 XV., Parmae 1795, p. 40. 
 
 Carlsruhe, De 50^ The Soncino Bible, 1488. The 
 Jceri often stands in the text. It affords, according to 
 De Kossi, not a few valuable readings. 
 
 Berlin 5—7 {Kenn. 607, reading not given by him). 
 Old German Bible, MS., in large square characters. 
 It was bought by the Bishop of Brandenburg in Eng- 
 land, 1437. 
 
 The Brescia Bible, Berlin 1494, which is famous 
 as having been used by Luther. But he translates the 
 above passage : " Die Priester aus den Leviten." 
 
 De Rossi, 4"" (Parma), 1496 A.D. Spanish Bible MS. 
 
 It is remarkable that the LXX., the Targum, and 
 so many good MSS., should agree in inserting the con- 
 nective. Still we cannot be certain that the LXX. 
 and the Targum represent anything more than an 
 exegetical opinion; and we know that Eashi (f 1105) 
 read priests Levites,^ hence his authority might be 
 
 ^ See Notes to Appendix iv. 2. 
 
 2 He remarks on W^'hT\ D'^^n^n in Josh. iii. 3 : " Because they 
 came from Levi, the father of Amram, they are called Levites, as 
 our Rabbis have explained in Bereshith Rabba that in forty-five 
 places the priests are called Levites." This statement can never 
 have had any foundation in fact. See the foot of p. 231. 
 
Isaiah \x.w\. 21, 205 
 
 considered as at least partially counterbalancing that 
 of the Hebrew MSS. Besides, there seems to be no 
 consistency in the scribes inserting the connective here, 
 while they omit it in Josh. viii. 33. Still the authori- 
 ties quoted are well worthy of the attention of the 
 critics, especially as illustrating how a vav may fall 
 out or be inserted in mooted passages. 
 
 Joshua viii. 33. 
 
 " And all Israel, and their elders, and officers, and 
 their judges, stood on this side the ark and on that 
 side before the priests the Levites," etc. 
 
 The LXX. inserts kui, the Targum agrees with the 
 ordinary Hebrew text, while Jerome makes no mention 
 of the Levites. The reading n"'l^n^ D^jnan occurs in the 
 following MSS. : — 
 
 Kenn. 1 8 0^ Hamburg 16, A.D. 12 cent. (Steinschn.?). 
 Pi'ophets and Hagiographa, with triple Massora. The 
 deviations from the text have been mostly corrected. 
 
 Kenn. 174, Copenhagen, a.d. 1346. See under 
 Josh. iii. 3. 
 
 Kenn. 375^, Mayence, Bib. Jes., 13 cent. Former 
 Prophets with Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The Massora is 
 wanting. 
 
 Cambridge, 15* (S.S.), 14-15 cent. See under Josh, 
 iii. 3. 
 
 Isaiah Ixvi. 21. 
 
 " And I will also take of them for priests and for 
 Levites, saith the Lord." 
 
2o6 The Text. 
 
 Tlie LXX., Jerome, and the Targum insert the con- 
 nective. The following MSS. have n^l^bl, which we give 
 according to their age : — 
 
 No. B. 3, Imperial Public Library, St. Petersburg, 
 916 A.D. Later Prophets, wdth Massora. It con- 
 tains many important variations.-^ The vav of D^i^^i is 
 marked with a sign of erasure. 
 
 Ktnn. 154^ Carlsruhe 1, Public Library, 1106 
 A.D. Former and latter Prophets with the Targum.^ 
 It was once the property of Eeuchlin. Its various 
 readings, of w^hich Bruns has collated more than 6000, 
 are so many, that, according to Kennicott, it affords 
 an invincible argument that the copies of Hebrew 
 Bibles in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries 
 differed very much from our printed text. 
 
 Kenn. 531, Bologna 7, a.d. 1193. Prophets and 
 Hagiographa. Kennicott gives no further information 
 about this ancient MS. 
 
 Kenn. 342'"% B. N., Paris 27, 1295 A.D. This 
 rabbinical Bible MS. is without Massora, and affords 
 many variations. 
 
 Kenn. 206''\ B. N., Paris 5-6, A.D. 1298. See 
 p. 201. The vav in Isa. Ixvi. 2 1 has the sign of erasure. 
 
 Kenn. 136, A.D. 1299. Pentateuch, with Targum, 
 Megilloth, and Haphtaroth, in Spanish-German cha- 
 racters. 
 
 1 See Catalog der Ilehr. Bihelhandschr.., St. Petersburg ii. 
 Leipzig 1875, S. 223-235. 
 
 2 Tliis Targum, with its marginal notes, but without points, has 
 been published by Prof. Dr. Paul de liagarde, Prophetae Chaldaicc, 
 Lipsiae 1872. 
 
Isaiah \xv\. 21. 207 
 
 The following younger dated MSS. sustain the same 
 reading: — Kenn. 486, Eoine, Vatican Library, pal. 14, 
 A.D. 1299; Ncub. 23, Bodleian, and 593 Vienna, 
 1302 A.D. ; Kcnn. 367''^' and 368, Paris 38 and 86 
 (old number), 1303 A.D. ; Dc Rossi 3 {Kcnn. 574, 
 private library, Venice), and Paris 8-10"', a.d. 1304 
 {vav has the sign of erasure) ; Kenn. 246, Turin 1 
 (old number), 1305 A.D. ; Kenn. 251, Turin 6 (old 
 number), 1310 a.d.; Kenn. 355, Paris 73, Orator. 
 41, 42, 43 (old number), 1314 A.D. ; Kenn. 611^ 
 Berlin Eoyal Library (in the Haphtaroth) 9, 1333 
 A.D. ; De Rossi 20, A.D. 1335; Kenn. 588, Eoyal 
 Library, 10, Vienna, a.d. 1341 ; Kenn. 524, Florence 
 (private), a.d. 1351 ; Ken7i. 421, Milan C. 149, a.d. 
 1356 ; Kenn. 390, University Library, Basel, a.d. 
 1402. 
 
 9-10 Cent. a.d. 
 
 Kenii. V\ Neuh. 8-9, Bodleian. For the descrip- 
 tion of this MS., see under Josh. iii. 3, p. 202. 
 
 Kenn. 590, Eoyal Library, 3, Vienna. This most 
 excellent and ancient MS. contains the Propliets and 
 the Hagiographa. The text is without Massora. 
 
 Kenn. 536, Cesena. 10-11 cent. a.d. This MS. 
 is written in German characters without Massora, but 
 cannot be found. See p. 231. 
 
 11-12 Cent. A.D. 
 
 Ke7in. 201, Nuremberg 4. Prophets and Hagio- 
 grapha. The Massora occurs very rarely. 
 
2o8 The Text. 
 
 Kenn. 220, B. K, Paris 80. Prophets and Hagio- 
 grapha. This codex is written in rabbinical characters 
 and without the great Massora. 
 
 Kenn. 225, Vatican Library, Urbin. 2. See the 
 description of this MS. under Josh. iii. 3, p. 202. 
 
 Kenn. 366, B. K, Paris 86. The Prophets. The 
 Books of Joshua and Judges are accompanied by Kashi's 
 Commentary. This MS. is written in German characters. 
 
 De Eossi, 248"^. German MS. Pentateuch, with the 
 Targum alternating with each verse, the five Megilloth, 
 and the Haphtaroth. There is no vestige of the 
 ]\Iassora, and not even of the heri, except in the 
 testamentary Song of Moses. 
 
 De Rossi, 2 6 2"". German Pentateuch, Megilloth, and 
 without Haphtaroth. Massora, and scarcely any heri. 
 The matres lectionis are frequent. There are many 
 deviations from the ordinary text, and the readings 
 a^ree with the Samaritan text and the ancient versions. 
 These and other things, according to De Eossi, are 
 proofs of the great age of the MS. 
 
 Kenn. 567, Venice, Cornelian Library, 1472 A.D. 
 
 De Eossi, 594^ (Parma), A.D. 1473. German Haph- 
 taroth. 
 
 De Eossi, 892^ (Parma), a.d. 1484. Italian Pent., 
 Meg., Haph. 
 
 Neuh. 20, Bodleian, 1487 a.d. German Pent, 
 Meg., Haph. 
 
 12-13 Cent. a.d. 
 
 Kenn. IV, Neub. 4, Bodleian. German MS. with 
 vowel points and accents. 
 
Isaiah \x.wi. 2[. 209 
 
 Kenn. 93, Gouville and Caius College, Cambridge, 
 Proph., Hagiogr. 
 „ 149^ Berne Public Library, A. 92, Proph. 
 „ 212'", B. N., Paris 39, with sign of erasure. 
 „ 248, Turin 13 (old number). Pent., Meg., 
 
 Job, Haph. 
 „ 249, Turin 109 (old number). Bible MS. 
 
 309^, B. N., Paris 16, with a sign of erasure. 
 „ 335, B. K 41, Paris. Pent, (with Targ.), 
 
 Meg., Hapht. 
 „ 369, Paris. German Pentateuch. 
 
 526, Bologna 2 (old number). Spanish Proph. 
 544, Modena, r. 8 (old number). Pent., Meg., 
 
 Haph. 
 584, Gradisca, Proph., Meg., Haph. 
 B. N. 16''*, Paris (not given by Kenn. Vav with 
 the sign of erasure). 
 
 De Rossi, 419^440^ 50r, 512^ 555^ 715^ 825^ 
 
 13-14 Cent. A.D. 
 
 Kenn. 150^ Berlin 1-4. Ger. Bible with Massora. 
 „ 379, Mannheim (private). Pent., Hapht., 
 
 Hagiogr. 
 „ 383. Eoyal Library, Munich, 2. Pent., 
 
 Meg., Hapht, etc.^ 
 „ 446, Eome 36, Bib. Casant. 138. Deut. 
 
 (frag.), etc. 
 
 ^ See Steinschneider, Die Hebr. Hss. d. k. Hof u. Staatsbibliothek, 
 Munich, 1876, S. 1. 
 
 
 
2IO The Text. 
 
 Kenn. 467, Eome 57, Bib. Augustin. Angelic. 11. 
 4:^^, Kome 58, iUd. 12. Psal. (frag.), 
 
 Hapht., Meg. 
 487, Rome 76, Bib. Vatic. 26. Pent, Meg., 
 
 Hapht. 
 541, Modena H. 5. Eoyal Library, Bib. MS. 
 560, Padua, Benedictine Library. Bible MS. 
 575, Venice (Abr. Cracovia). Bible MS. has 
 
 disappeared. See p. 230. 
 597, Monastery of Gottfried. Pent., Prov., 
 
 with Targ. 
 601, Erfurt 2 (private). Bible with Targ. in 
 
 Pent. 
 603, Erfurt 4 (private). Pent, (with Targ.), 
 
 Meg., Hapht. 
 607^ Berlin Eoyal Library, 5-7, with sign 
 
 of erasure. 
 608, Berlin 8. Pent, with Targ., Hapht. 
 618^ Hamburg 15. 
 DeBossi, V, 2^305^ 440^ 594^ (5 49 "perhaps), 
 
 606^ 700\ 
 Cambridge, 18"'*', Pent, Meg., Hapht 
 
 14-15 Cent a.d. 
 
 Kenn. 95 and 96, Library of St. John the Evange- 
 list, Cambridge. 
 „ 108, Harl. 7621. Pent, Hapht, Meg. 
 „ 646, Public Library, Leiden (the reading is 
 doubtful). 
 De Eossi, 197^ 883^ 384\ 
 
Isaiah Ixvi. 21. 211 
 
 Un estimated. 
 
 Neuh. 7"", Bodleian. German square character. 
 
 We have then eighty-nine Hebrew MSS. which 
 support the reading in Isa. Ixvi. 21 of D'-ii'Sji. Still 
 there are at least three times as many mss. which 
 have the reading without vav. On the other hand, 
 the oldest mss. support the reading with the connective. 
 Under the circumstances, we have no right to claim 
 that a vav did not stand in the copy of the MS. which 
 was used by the Greek translator. It may be said 
 that the translators might have inserted it here, as they 
 seem to have done in other passages, because they 
 thought the sense warranted it. But there is no proof 
 of this. It is true that some of the oldest Greek mss. 
 insert Kai in nine of the nineteen passages. Still it 
 is quite likely that a vav stood in the text whicli 
 was used by the translator. While we cannot be 
 certain about the original text of the Targum, yet we 
 have reason to suppose that the translation with vav 
 is correct, and that it may represent another old MS. 
 We have, besides, two very old mss. which insert tlie 
 connective,— the St. Petersburg, 916 a.d., and Eeuchlin's 
 MS., 1106 A.D. The first MS., with an epigraph which 
 approaches in age, and omits the connective, is Kenn. 
 226, Eome 2, of the Vatican Library, which is dated 
 1140 A.D. But while the other mss. are celebrated, 
 we know nothing of the critical value of this codex. 
 Besides these old mss., whose date is fixed by the 
 epigraphs, there are two others, which Kennicott 
 
2 12 The Text, 
 
 assigns to the 9-10 century. He has decided on the 
 age of one of them, Kenn. 1, ISTeub. 8, 9, from his own 
 investigations, and of the other, on the basis of Bruns'. 
 Whatever may be thought of Kennicott's opinion, — and 
 it seems to us that those who affect to despise it have 
 much to do before they attain equal excellence in the 
 criticism of the text, — the fact remains that no undated 
 MS. which omits the vav seems to be of equal age and 
 importance in Kennicott's estimation. Between the 
 eleventh and twelfth centuries, there are, according to 
 the age estimate by Kennicott, twelve MSS. which 
 omit the connective, not including the one which we 
 have already mentioned. Between the twelfth and 
 thirteenth centuries, there are forty-seven that omit 
 T'dv^ of dated and estimated MSS. ; and from the 
 thirteenth to the fourteenth century, of undated mss., 
 including some that are dated in the fifteenth century, 
 there are seventy-one mss. If the oldest mss. omitted 
 vav, we have no positive evidence of it. The Massora 
 decided the question, — ^just on what grounds we can- 
 not now determine. We find in ISTo. 13 of the 
 Cambridge Library, which Dr. Schiller- Sziuessy assigns 
 to the 12-13 century, a Massoretic note to the word 
 in question in our passage ^ n:iD, that is, a (the) correct 
 MS.^ has D^tt (without vav). 
 
 There are simply two considerations which keep us 
 from changing the reading: — (1.) A vav would be more 
 
 ^ There are 167 references in this MS. to n^D or n:iD "1DD3. See 
 Dr. Schiller-Szinessy in the Catalogue of Hebrew mss. preserved in 
 the University Library, Cambridge, 1876, p. 17. 
 
Ezek, xllii. 19. 213 
 
 likely to be inserted in the text than to fall out of it. 
 (2.) We regard the authority of the Massora, whicli 
 we do not feel at liberty to set aside under present 
 information. 
 
 Jeeemiah xxxiii. 18. 
 
 " Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man 
 before me to offer burnt-offerings, and to kindle meat- 
 offerings, and to do sacrifice continually." The LXX. 
 entirely omits vers. 14-26. Jerome translates, Et de 
 sacerdoiibtos et de Levitis. The Targum has no con- 
 nective. None of the Hebrew mss. insert vav before 
 
 EzEKiEL xliii. 19. 
 
 " And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that 
 be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me to 
 minister unto me, saith the Lord God, a young bullock 
 for a sin-offering." The LXX. and the Targum agree 
 with the Hebrew text. Jerome inserts a connective. 
 The reading D^iijni is found in the following mss. : — 
 
 Kenn. 109^ Harl. 5709, British Museum, 12-13 
 cent. A.D. Pent., Hapht., and Meg. This codex, accord- 
 ing to a private letter from Dr. Ginsburg, is very late 
 and carelessly written. 
 
 Kenn. 170, Florence 10, 1296 a.d., private library. 
 Pent, Hapht, and Hagiogr., with Massora. This German 
 manuscript was not found by Dr. Fausto Lasinio. 
 
 Kenn. 181. See under Deut. xxiv. 8, p. 200. 
 
 It is impossible for us to determine whether the vav 
 i n these passages was found by the scribe in the MS. 
 
2 14 '^^^^ Text. 
 
 which he was copying, or was accidentally inserted by 
 him. The reading with the connective is evidently 
 not original. 
 
 EzEKiEL xliv. 15. 
 
 " But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that 
 kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of 
 Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to 
 me to minister unto me," etc. The LXX. and the 
 Targum have no connective. Jerome inserts et. 
 Kennicott does not give any Hebrew MSS. in which 
 D^liril occurs. We, however, found it in the two fol- 
 lowing MSS. : — 
 
 Kenn. 206, B. K 5-6'''', Paris. See under Deut. 
 xxvii. 9, p. 201. 
 
 Kenn. 212, B. K 39*, Paris. See under Isa. Ixvi. 
 21. Yet in both these MSS. the vav has the sign of 
 erasure from a later hand. Of course these readings, 
 although occurring in two good MSS., have no weight. 
 
 Ezra x. 5. 
 
 " Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the 
 Levites, and all Israel to swear that they should do 
 according to his word." The LXX. and Jerome insert 
 the connective. The reading d^^^.T) occurs in the 
 following MSS. : — 
 
 Kenn. 2*, Neuh. 1, Bodleian, 1104 A.D. This Bible 
 MS. is written in what Kennicott terms intermediate 
 characters, i.e. between the square, erect, and elegant 
 Spanish, and the thick and inclining German characters. 
 
Ezra X. 5. 215 
 
 Manuscripts of this class are called Italian or French. 
 This codex has, even now, many various readings. It 
 had many more before it had been partially conformed 
 to the present text. Kennicott doubts the date, 
 because the MS. contains Eashi's (f 1105 a.d.) com- 
 mentary, whose death he falsely gives at about 
 1200. 
 
 Kcnn. 48'", Neiib. 101, Bodleian, 13-14 cent. a.d. 
 Ezra (Nehem.), with interlinear Latin translation. Job, 
 Lamentations, Esther, Euth. This MS. is written in 
 German characters without Massora. 
 
 Kmn. 2 1 0^ B. K 32, Paris, 1 1-1 2 cent. a.d. This 
 Bible codex, which should without doubt be considered 
 one of the best, is written in intermediate characters. 
 The Megilloth immediately precede Chronicles. 
 
 Kmn. ^{),Neitb. 2433, Bodleian, 12-13 cent. a.d. 
 Pent., Haplit., Psalms, Job, Eccles., Cant., Lament., 
 Dan., Esth., Ezra, Nehem., Chron. This German MS. 
 has many variations. 
 
 Kenn. 93, Gonville and Gains College, Cambridge, 
 A.D. 12-13 cent. Proph. and Hagiogr. This codex has 
 many variations. 
 
 Kenn. 1^1} A.D. 12-13 cent. Public hbrary, 
 Strasburg, 3. Hagiographa. Bruns speaks of this 
 codex in high terms. 
 
 Kenn. 228, Vatican Library, 1295 A.D., Urbin. 1. 
 The Bible, with the Targum and the Massora. This 
 
 1 It is well known that this and the other valuable MSS. of the 
 Strasburg Public Library were consumed by the flames during 
 the bombardment of the city, Aug. 24-27, 1870. 
 
2i6 The Text. 
 
 German codex is very similar to Eeuchlin's second 
 codex in importance and manner of writing. 
 
 Kenn. 245/ A.D. 1290.H The later Prophets, except 
 Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and the Hagiographa. It is 
 wi'itten in German characters. 
 
 Camlridge, 13''^ 12-13 cent. A.D.— (S. S.). Fine 
 Spanish MS. with Massora. The margins are rich in 
 rules and literature for the scribes. "Few biblical 
 MSS. extant are of such value." 
 
 Kenn. 206* B. K 5-6, Paris, 1298 a.d. See under 
 Deut. xxvii. 9a, p. 201. This reading D^l^m, with the 
 sign of erasure on the vav, is not indicated by Bruns. 
 
 Kenn. 355* B. N. 8-10, Paris, 1304 a.d. German 
 Bible MS. with Massora. The Targum of Onkelos 
 follows each verse of the Pentateuch. The reading 
 with vav, which is marked with a sign of erasure, is 
 not given by Bruns. 
 
 Kenn. 208*, B. K 16, Paris, 12-13 cent. A.D. 
 Psalms, Meg., Job, Prov., Dan., Ezra. Spanish MS. 
 without Massora, which once belonged to Bomberg. 
 Bruns makes no mention of the reading in Ezra. 
 
 Kenn. 319* B. K 28, Paris, 1344 a.d. Bible MS. with 
 Massora. No mention is made of our reading by Bruns. 
 
 Kenn. 259, A.D. 1487. The Hagiographa printed 
 at Naples without Massora. 
 
 Kenn. 101, B. M. Harl. 5498, Bible MS. ; and B. N. 
 17-18'^ Paris. Bible MS. with Targums. 
 
 ^ See Notes to Appendix iv. p. 231. 
 
 2 This date is assigned by Wolf, on the authority of Reimarus, 
 ii. p. 296, and iv. 82. 
 
Nehe7nta/i X. '^^. 217 
 
 Kenn. 118, B. M. Harl. 5715, Hagiogr. (the 'cav 
 has been erased). He assigns both MSS. to the 14th 
 cent. 
 
 Although we have the testimony of the LXX., Jerome, 
 and several excellent MSS., in favour of the reading 
 with the connective, yet we are not inclined to think 
 it original, according to the principle which we have 
 already indicated, that vav is more likely to have 
 been inserted afterwards, than to have fallen out 
 from a MS. 
 
 Nehemiah X. 29 (e. v. 28). 
 
 " And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, 
 the porters, the singers, the Nethinim," etc. 
 
 The LXX. and Jerome do not insert a connective. 
 
 There is really no support for the reading D''"ibni which 
 is found in Kenn. 128, 141 (with sign of erasure), 
 157 (vav inserted by a later hand), 166, 253, which 
 belong to the 13-14 century. The connective occurs 
 in Kenn. 342*, B. K. 27, Paris, a MS. dated 1295, but 
 it has been added by a later hand. 
 
 Nehemiah X. 35 (e. v. 34). 
 
 " And we cast lots among the priests, the Levites, 
 and the people, for the wood-offering," etc. 
 
 The LXX. and Jerome insert the connective between 
 priests and Levites. The following mss. have D^i^m : — 
 
 Kenn. 2* Neuh. 1, Bodleian, 1104 a.d. See under 
 Ezra X. 5, p. 214. 
 
 Kenn. 30*, Neul. 72, Bodleian, 11-12 cent. a.d. 
 
2i8 The Text. 
 
 I'rophets and Hagiographa. This excellent codex is 
 written in intermediate characters, and has many 
 readings. 
 
 Kmn. IBS'", Milan 4, Ambrosian Library. German 
 MS. Hagiograplia. The vav has a sign of erasure. 
 
 Kenn. 17*, Ncub. 4, Bodleian, 12-13 cent. a.d. 
 See under Isa. Ixvi. 21, p. 208. 
 
 Kenn. 80, Neiib. 2433. See under Ezra x. 5, 
 p. 215. 
 
 Kenn. 147. See under the same, p. 215. 
 
 Kenn. 172'', Copenhagen 5, a.d. 13-14 cent. Bible 
 MS. with Massora. The date 746 a.d., which occurs in 
 several places, cannot be relied upon, since there have 
 been erasures, and it has been added by a later hand. 
 
 Kenn. 128. Bible MS., 14 cent. A.D. 
 
 Kenn. 157, Public Library, Cassel, 13 cent. Pent., 
 Hagiogr. The vav has been added by a later hand. 
 
 Kenn. 319'"', B. N. 28, Paris, 1344 A.D. Bible with 
 the Massora. Bruns has overlooked the reading. 
 
 Kenn. 321*, B. K, Paris, 1404 a.d. Bible with the 
 Massora. Bruns has overlooked the reading. 
 
 Berlin, 5-7\ See B., p. 204. 
 
 Kenn. 11b\ Copenhagen 3-4, A.D. 1462. This 
 Spanish codex contains the Bible with Massora, the 
 various readings of Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali, and 
 the Megillath Antiochus. 
 
 Kenn. 47'", Neiib. 102, Bodleian, 14-15 cent. A.D. 
 Euth, Dan., Ezra (Neh.). 
 
 Hamhurg, 22"" (Steinschn.). Daniel, Ezra (Nehe- 
 miah). Chronicles, without Massora. 
 
Nekemiak XI. 20. 219 
 
 There can be but little question here about the 
 original reading. While it is quite probable that MSS. 
 with the connective were in existence when the Sep- 
 tuagint translation was made, it seems more probable 
 to us that the reading of the Massora was original. 
 
 Nehemiah xi. 20. 
 
 " And the residue of Israel of the priests the 
 Levites were in all the cities of Judah, every one 
 in his own inheritance." 
 
 This entire verse is wanting in LXX. except in 
 certain MSS. Among these is the Friderico-Augus- 
 tanus/ in which it occurs with the connective. Jerome 
 has ct Lcvitac. 
 
 The followinej MSS. have D^l^m : — 
 
 Kenn. 89'^ Cambridge 12 (S.S.), 806 a.d. This 
 Spanish MS. contains the Bible with Massora. Although 
 Kennicott and Bruns doubted the genuineness of the 
 epigraph, and agreed in assigning it to the tliirteenth 
 century, Dr. Schiller thinks that there is sufficient 
 evidence for the date given above. 
 
 Kenn. 94, Library of the Emmanuel College, Cam- 
 bridge, 1285 A.D. The vav has been erased. 
 
 Kenn. 245, Rotterdam 2, 1290 A.D.^ The later 
 Prophets and the Hagiographa with Massora. See 
 p. 231. 
 
 ^ This fragment, as is well known, is a portion of the Codex 
 Sinaiticus. See Dr. Caspar Rene Gregory in the Bibliotheca 
 Sacra, Andover, January 1876, p. 167. 
 
 2 Wolf, ii. 296, iv. 82, is authority for this date. 
 
220 The Text. 
 
 Kenn. 342""', B. N. 27, Paris, 1295 a.d. See under 
 Xeh. X. 27. The vav, which is very faint, has been 
 added by a later hand. 
 
 Kmn. 30^ Neul. 72, Bodleian, 12-13 cent. a.d. 
 See under Neh. x. 35. 
 
 Kenn. 147, Strasburg 3. See under Xeh. x. 35, 
 p. 218. 
 
 Kenn. 176"", Copenhagen 6. The Bible without 
 Massora. The vav has been effaced. 
 
 Canibridge, 20*. The Prophets and Hagiographa, 
 with the Massora, in Franco-German characters. 
 
 Kenn. 309*, B. K 16, Paris. See under Isa. Ixvi. 
 21, p. 209. The reading with vav, which has the 
 sign of erasure, has not been given by Bruns. 
 
 B. N. 22*'', Paris. Spanish Bible with Massora. 
 The vav has the sign of erasure. 
 
 Kenn. 141^, Trinity College Library, Dublin, 14 
 cent. Prophets and Hagiographa. The vav has been 
 erased. 
 
 Kenn. 48"", Neuh. 101. See under Ezra x. 5, 
 p. 214. 
 
 The same principles which we have already enun- 
 ciated lead us to reject this reading as of later origin. 
 
 1 Chronicles ix. 2. 
 
 " Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their 
 possessions in their cities were the Israelites, the 
 priests, Levites, and the Nethinim." 
 
 While the LXX. omits the connective, Jerome 
 and the Targum insert it, in agreement with the 
 
2 Chronicles w. 5. 221 
 
 accentuation of the Massoretic text. The following 
 MSS. have n""ii5m : — 
 
 Kenn. 89'", Cambridge 12, A.D. 856 (Kenn. 12-13 
 cent.). See under Neh. xi. 20, p. 219. 
 
 B. iV: 8-10* Paris, 1304. See under Isa. Ixvi. 
 21, p. 207. 
 
 Kmn. 99^ King's 1, British Museum, 1385 A.D. 
 This Bible MS. is written in Spanish characters, and 
 contains a little of the Massora. 
 
 Kenn. 147, Strasburg 3, A.D. 12-13 cent. See 
 Neh. X. 35, p. 218. 
 
 B. N. 17, Paris. See under Ezra x. 5. Hamhurg 
 22 (Steinschn.). See Neh. x. 35, p. 218. 
 
 There cannot be the slightest doubt, notwithstand- 
 ing the insertion of the connective in Jerome, the 
 Targum, and the above MSS., that originally there was 
 no connective between priests Levites. 
 
 2 Chronicles v. 5. 
 
 " And they brought up the ark, and the tabernacle 
 of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that w^ere 
 in the tabernacle ; these did the priests the Levites 
 bring up." 
 
 The LXX., Jerome, and the Targum insert respect- 
 ively Kai, cum, and v The following MSS. have 
 
 Kenn. 89"% Cambridge 12, A.D. 856 (Kenn. 12-13 
 cent.). See under Neh. xi. 20, p. 219. 
 
 Kenn. 2'^', Neuh. 1, 1104 a.d. See under Ezra 
 x. 5, p. 214. 
 
222 TJie Text. 
 
 11-12 Cent. A.D. 
 
 Kenn. 180^ (Steinschn. 16, who considers Brims' 
 date doubtful). Prophets and Hagiographa, with 
 Massora. Wolf, speaking of the age of this MS., says : 
 " Venerandae vetustatis aetatem, quippe septem ferme 
 seciilorum, prae se ferens." ^ 
 
 Kenn. 188"^, Milan 4, Ambrosian Library. See 
 under Neh. x. 35, p. 218. 
 
 Kenn. 224^, Konigsberg 1102&. Prophets, Hagio- 
 grapha. The keri is found in the text, without 
 correction, in 192 places, but with correction in 416. 
 
 Kenn. 207* B. K 35, Paris, 1284 A.D. Some 
 fragments of the Book of Num., then Ps., Prov., Job, 
 Dan., Ezra (Neh.), and Chron. This MS. is written in 
 Spanish characters without Massora. 
 
 Kenn. 170, Florence 10, A.D. 1296. Pent., Hapht., 
 and Hagiographa, wdth Massora. German characters. 
 
 Kenn. 206^ B. K 5-6, Paris, 1298 A.D. See 
 imder Deut. xxvii. 9. This passage is not given by 
 Kennicott. 
 
 12-13 Cent. a.d. 
 
 Kenn. 147, Strasburg 3. See under Ezra x. 5. 
 Kenn. 80^" (Neub. 2433). See under Ezra x. 5. 
 Kenn. 210"^, B. K 32, Paris. See under Ezra x. 5. 
 The reading is not mentioned by Kennicott. 
 
 Kenn. 249, Turin 109. See under Isa. Ixvi. 21. 
 B. N. 22*, Paris. Bible with Massora. 
 
 ^ Bibliotheca Ilelr. vol. iv. p. 119. 
 
2 Chronicles v. 5. 22 
 
 J 
 
 Be Bossi, V. German Bible ms. with the Haph- 
 taroth. In the Prophets the great Massora is found, 
 but not in the Pentateuch or the Hagiographa. 
 
 De Rossi, 2^ German Bible MS. with Massora. 
 The great abundance of various readings plainly shows 
 that the text is unmassoretic. Many of these are 
 valuable. 
 
 De Rossi, 34\ The Hagiographa with Massora and 
 Eashi's Commentary. The MS. is written in German 
 characters. It abounds in many and excellent varia- 
 tions. The vav has the sign of erasure. 
 
 De Rossi, 552\ Spanish MS., without Massora. 
 Prov., Job, and Chron. The heri is very rare. 
 
 De Rossi, 737^ German MS. Proph. and Hagiogr., 
 with the Targum and Massora. 
 
 Kenn. 82'''' (Neub. 2324), Bodleian, 1306 a.d. This 
 Bible MS. is written in Spanish or intermediate cha- 
 racters. There are abundant erasures. 
 
 13-14 Cent. a.d. 
 
 Kenn. 118, Harl. 5715. Hagiographa. 
 
 Kenn. 166, Florence 6. Pentateuch and Hagio- 
 grapha. Written in Spanish characters. 
 
 De Rossi, 824"^. The later Prophets and tlie 
 Hagiographa, with both Massoras. The vav has tlie 
 sisjn of erasure. 
 
 14-15 Cent. a.d. 
 
 Kenn. 71'^. MS. from left to right, with interlinear 
 Latin translation. 
 
2 24 '^^^^ Text. 
 
 Kcnn. 141^ Library of the University of Dublin. 
 Later Prophets and Hagiographa. IST. B. The vav 
 has been erased. 
 
 Camhridge, 15"'. See under Josh. iii. 3, p. 203. 
 
 Dc Rossi, 579\ Bible MS. with both Massoras. It 
 is written in Italian characters. 
 
 De Bossiy 4^. Bible MS. in Spanish characters. The 
 year 1496 is given as the date of purchase. 
 
 De Eossi, 517^. The Hagiographa. Eabbinical 
 characters. 
 
 Be Rossi, 55^ and 78 9^ The vav has been in- 
 serted in these MSS. by a later hand. 
 
 Curtiss, 2. Spanish Bible MS. defective. 
 
 The agreement of some of the best MSS. with the 
 oldest versions is scarcely less remarkable here than in 
 Isa. Ixvi. 21. But here, as there, to say nothing of a 
 far greater number of equally ancient MSS., we hold 
 it unlikely that a vav would fall out, and we abide by 
 the decision of the Massora. Besides, we know that 
 Eashi (1105) regarded the text without vav as correct. 
 He says on ver. 5 : " For the priests, although not 
 really Levites, were also from the children of Levi, as 
 it is also written in the Book of Kings ; ^ And the 
 priests carried the ark." We see from this that Eashi's 
 interpretation is just the same here as those given by 
 him in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and the Prophets. That 
 none of the old versions and so few mss. insert the 
 connective in Deuteronomy, while so many insert it 
 here, is doubtless due, as we have already remarked,'"^ 
 » 1 Kings viii. 4. - See p. 194. 
 
2 Chronicles xxx. 27. 225 
 
 to the peculiarly sacred character of the Pentateuch ; 
 for the variations which we find in Joshua and else- 
 where have, in the first instance, probably arisen either 
 from the hand of some interpreter, or from a carelessness 
 which would not have been allowed in the Pentateuch. 
 
 2 Chronicles xxiii. 18. 
 
 " Also Jehoiada appointed the offices of the house of 
 the Lord by the hand of the priests the Levites, whom 
 David had distributed in the house of the Lord, to 
 offer the burnt-offerings of the Lord," etc. 
 
 The LXX. and Jerome have a connective, but the 
 Targum agrees with the Hebrew. The reading D^l^m 
 is only supported by the following MSS. : — 
 
 Kenn. 2^ Neiib. 1, Bodleian. 1104 a.d. See 
 under Ezra x. 5, p. 214. 
 
 Kmn, 206^ B. K 5-6, Paris, 1298 a.d. See 
 under Deut. xxvii. 9, p. 201. 
 
 Kmn. 175"^, Copenhagen 3-4, a.d. 1462. See 
 under Neh. x. 35, p. 218. 
 
 Of course we should not think of chanc^inc: the 
 reading on this basis. 
 
 2 Chronicles xxx. 27«. 
 
 " Then the priests the Levites arose and blessed the 
 people." 
 
 The following Greek MSS. add KaL, contrary to the 
 received text : 60, 74, 106, 120, 121, 134, 158, 236. 
 Aid. Alex. Jerome translates atque Lcvitac, and the 
 Targum has vav. The following Hebrew have D^lJ'ni : — - 
 
2 26 
 
 The Text, 
 
 Kmn. 188'', Milan 4, Ambrosian Library, 11-12 
 cent. A.D. The xav has the sign of erasure. 
 
 Kcnn. 224^ Konigsberg 1102&. See under 2 Chron. 
 V. 5. This reading with xav is not given in Kemiicott. 
 
 12-13 Cent. a.d. 
 
 Kcnn. \T'\ Ncuh. 4, Bodleian. See under Isa. 
 Ixvi. 21, p. 208. 
 
 Kcnn. 194"", Milan B. 11, Ambrosian Library. 
 Spanish characters without ]\iassora. 
 
 Kcnn. 210'"% B. K 32, Paris. See under Ezra x. 5, 
 
 15. 
 
 Kennicott does not mention the reading in 
 
 this MS. 
 
 CctmhrUlge, 20'". See under Neh. xi. 20, p. 220. 
 
 Kcnn. 145, Strasburg 1, a.d. 1281. Proj)hets 
 and Hagiographa. This codex, which is written in 
 (ierman characters, has many variations, which are 
 worthy of mention, although it abounds in mistakes. 
 
 Kenn. 206''', B. K 5-6, Paris, 1298 a.d. See under 
 Deut. xxvii. 9, p. 201. No notice of this reading in 
 Kennicott. It has a sign of erasure. 
 
 Berlin, 585^ (Steinschn.). 1347 a.d. Italian 
 Bible MS. The vav is not in the line. 
 
 Berlin, 5-7"" (Kenn. 607), Steinschn. See under 
 Josh. iii. 3, p. 204. 
 
 B. N. l7'^ Paris. 13-14. See under Ezra x. 5, 
 ]>. 216. The vav has a sign of erasure. 
 
 Kcnn. 11 b\ Copenhagen 3-4, a.d. 1462. See 
 under Neh. x. 35, p. 218. 
 
 Hamburg, IT (Steinschn.), A.D. 1487. This Spanish 
 
Notes to Appendix IV. 227 
 
 MS. contains the Prophets and the Hagiographa, with 
 the Massora and the Megillath Antiochus. 
 
 14-15 Cent. a.d. 
 
 Camhridgc, 16'"^ (S.S.). The Pentateuch and the 
 Hagiographa, with Massora. " The text is a model of 
 beauty and correctness, and in strict accordance witli 
 the moD, neglecting now and then the traditions of 
 the Babylonian Talmud." 
 
 Hamlurg, 22"" (Steinschn.). See under Neh. x. 35. 
 The punctuator has left the vav unpointed. 
 
 De Rossi, 801. Hagiographa. This codex is very 
 valuable, and abounds in various readings. 
 
 De Rossi, 187. Bible with Massora in Spanish 
 characters. 
 
 Kcnn. 270, A.D. 1517. Complutensian Bible, 
 
 The reading, as given in the present Hebrew text, 
 seems to us to have been the original one. It must 
 be remembered that, notwithstanding the mss. whicli 
 we have quoted, the great mass of mss. given by 
 Kennicott sustain the reading of the traditional text. 
 
 XOTES TO APPENDIX IV. 
 
 1. 
 
 While there are mss. in which twenty-three (1 Kings 
 viii. 4 ; Ezra i. 5, iii. 8, 12, vi. 20, vii. 7, viii. 30, ix. 1 ; 
 Neh. vii. 73, xi. 3, xii. 1 ; 1 Chron. xxiii. 2 ; 2 Chron. 
 
228 Notes to Appendix IV, 
 
 viii. 15, xi. 13, xix. 8, xxiii. 4, xxiv. 5, xxx. 15, 25, 
 xxxi. 2, XXXV. 8, 18) of the thirty-four passages where 
 the expression priests and Levites occurs are without a 
 connective, the following five may possibly have been 
 without 'oav in some of the MSS. in the time of 
 Eabbi Joshua ben-Levi (250 a.d.) : — 
 
 1 Kings viii. 4tl). 
 
 " Even those did the priests and Levites bring up." 
 The LXX. omit these words altogether. Jerome (420) 
 and the Targum (fourth century) have the connective. 
 Kennicott quotes the following MSS. as supporting the 
 reading without xav : 30 (Neub. 72), 70, 82 (Soria, 
 A.D. 1306), 85, 95, 187^ (l add. by punct.), which, 
 according to him, belong to the 13 cent, except No. 
 95, which he assigns to the fifteenth. Curtiss 2 has 
 
 Ezra iii. 12. 
 
 " But many of the priests and Levites, and chief of 
 the fathers," etc. The LXX. and Jerome have the 
 connective. Kennicott quotes the following MSS. as 
 omitting the connective: 47 (Neub. 102), 89, 141'' 
 (l has been added), 147, 224"^ (Konigsberg Eoyal and' 
 University Library, 1102Z>), 240. 
 
 Nehemiah xi. 3&. 
 
 " Israel, the priests, and the Levites." The LXX. 
 has the connective. Jerome omits it perhaps for the 
 sake of good Latinity. Kenn. n^lS% 2 (Neub. 1), 48 
 
Notes to Appendix IV. 229 
 
 (Neub. 101), 141^ (1 has been added), 150, 166 
 (Florence, Laurentian Library, Plut. 3, A.D. 1418). 
 A comparison of this passage with x. 27 shows how 
 easily the connective might have been wanting in the 
 original MS. 
 
 Nehemiah xii. 1. 
 
 " N'ow these are the priests and the Levites." The 
 LXX. and Jerome have the connective. It is wanting 
 in the following MSS. : Kenn. 4 (Neub. 16), 17 (Neub. 
 4), 30 (Neub. 72), 198, 224^ (Konigsberg). 
 
 2 Chronicles xxiv. oa. 
 
 " And he gathered together the priests and the 
 Levites." The LXX., Jerome, and the Targum have 
 the connective. The following MSS. and Bibles have 
 D'"ii'n: Kenn. 89 (Schiller-Szinessy, 1. He holds that 
 the epigraph is genuine, and that the MS. dates from 
 856 A.D. See the catalogue of the Hebrew mss, of the 
 University Library, Cambridge, 1876, pp. 12-15), 99 
 (Brit. Mus., King's 1), 118, 144, 168 (1 has been 
 erased), 175, 198 (1 has been erased), 210 (B. N., 
 Paris 32), 240, 253, 300, 601 ; the Soncino (1488), 
 Brescia (1494), Bomberg (1517, 21), Munster (1534), 
 Basel (1536), but not in Michaelis, 1720, as Ken- 
 nicott asserts, all omit vav. It seems to us that this 
 reading, which is supported by so many excellent MSS., 
 conforms better to the sense of the passage than the 
 one with the connective. At the end of the fourtli 
 verse it is said that the Levites did not hasten to make 
 
230 Notes to Appendix IV. 
 
 the levy, but there is nothing in the context which 
 shows that their conduct is contrasted with that of the 
 priests, which would be implied if we inserted a con- 
 nective between priests and Levites. 
 
 It is indeed uncertain whether the remark of Joshua 
 ben-Levi, which is repeated every time with reference 
 -to Ezek. xliv. 15, is correct. It is now impossible to 
 prove whether there were twenty-four such places 
 when the statement was made. The remark in 
 Bereshith Eabba, which Eashi quotes in his Com- 
 mentary on Josh. iii. 3, that there are forty-five such 
 places, is evidently false. See p. 232. 
 
 2. 
 
 Monsieur Zotenberg, of the ISTational Library, Paris, 
 lias made the following communication to me in regard 
 to these manuscripts : — 
 
 "Les MSS. Nos. 1314-1315 ne sont par dates. Je crois qu'ils 
 soat du xiii® siecle. Une note fabriquee par un juif moderne 
 leur assiffne la date fabuleuse du viii^ siecle." 
 
 3. 
 
 We received the following response in regard to 
 two MSS. which in Kennicott's time were in Venice : — 
 
 Litteras tuas 1 mensis Septembris datas accepi, quibus a 
 me petisti MSS. duorum notitiam, nempe Cod. 564 Venet. bibl. 
 Cornelian, et Cod. 571 Venet. penes Abr. Cracovia, qiios memorat 
 Kennicott in sua dissertatione generali, etc. pag. 509-510. Sed 
 ab anno quo auctor ille scribebat, ad prsesens usque tempus, 
 
Notes to Appendix IV, 231 
 
 bibliothecae Venetarum familiarum fere omnes, post extremas 
 Keipublicse jacturas, dispersae atque venundatse sunt, ita ut earum 
 hodie ne vestigium quidem extet. Propterea mihi displicet 
 desiderium tuura explere non posse. Secundiorem igitur occa- 
 sioneni velim mihi prsebeas. Vale. 
 
 Venetiis, iii. id. Septemhr. 
 
 Joannes Veludo, 
 B'lhlioth. D. Marci Vcnct. Prsefectus. 
 
 4. 
 
 Prof. Dr. H. Govt, of Leyden, has given us the fol- 
 lowing interesting particulars in regard to Kcnn. 244- 
 245 (see p. 216): — "Eotterdam, 1, 2 penes Clariss. 
 Meermann:" "Gerard Meerman died 1771. His 
 famous library passed to his son John, after whose 
 decease it was sold in 1824 at auction by the Lucht- 
 mans. The MSS. are mentioned under No. 1 (Orient, 
 cod.), vol. 4 of the printed catalogue. They were pur- 
 chased by a Mr. Payne of London, who belonged to 
 a firm, afterwards known as Payne and Fog, which 
 was dissolved in 1844." It is to be hoped that these 
 valuable MSS. may be identified. 
 
 Postscript. — We take this opportunity for thank- 
 ing Dr. Christian D. Ginsburg, who is now issuing a 
 work on the Massora, the fruit of twenty years of 
 study, for valuable massoretic and other information. 
 As it was the same in kind with that which had been 
 previously furnished by Dr. Baer, p. 190, we could 
 not use it. We also, in the same connection, thank 
 Mr. Hessels, of Trinity College Library, Dublin, for 
 verifying several passages in Kenn. 141. 
 
232 Notes to Appendix IV. 
 
 Dr. A. Berliner, who is an authority for the text of 
 Eashi, writes : — 
 
 " Die Stelle in Raschi zu Joshua iii. 3 ist ein Zuzatz, der sicli in 
 vielen Handschriften nicht findet. i"o in der Stelle heisst '•SD 
 ••Q"). Die ganze Stelle ist corrumpirt und lautete sicher l"33 
 niDlpD wie in den vier und zwanzig Stellen des Talmud, und hat 
 demnach mit (n^l rT'K^K^a) l''^ gar nichts zu thun." 
 
 Valuable additions, by Cav. Pietro Perrau, to Mss. 
 Codices Hehraici Bihlioth. I. B. De Bossi, etc., Parm^e 
 1803, may be found in the Hebrdische Bihliographie, 
 edited by Dr. M. Steinschneider, Berlin 1864-1872. 
 
INDEXES. 
 
 INDEX I. 
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND ANCIENT PRINTED TEXTS. 
 
 Ambrosian Library, Milan — 
 Kenn. 187, B. 56, . 203 
 
 PAGE 
 
 228 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Bodleian Library, Cambridge— 
 
 188, E. 84, . 218 
 
 222 
 
 Kenn 
 
 1, Neub. 8-9, 202, 207 
 
 „ 193, G. 2, . . 
 
 201 
 
 3> 
 
 2, Neub. 1, 214, 217, 
 
 „ 194, B. 11, . . 
 
 226 
 
 
 221, 225, 228 
 
 421, C. 149, 
 
 207 
 
 J> 
 
 4, Neub. 16, 
 
 198, 201, 229 
 0, Neub. . . 201 
 
 Basel University Library — 
 
 
 
 17, Neub. 4, 
 
 Kenn. 390, . 
 
 207 
 
 
 208, 218, 226, 229 
 
 
 
 5> 
 
 30, Neub. 72, 
 
 Berlin Royal Library— 
 Kenn. 150, Steinschneider 
 1-4, . 209, 
 
 229 
 
 )» 
 
 217, 220, 228, 229 
 
 47, Neub. 102, 218, 228 
 
 48, Neub. 101, 
 
 „ 264, Brescia Bible, 
 
 
 
 215, 220, 228 
 
 204, 
 
 229 
 
 »> 
 
 80, Neub. 2433, 
 
 607, Steinschn. 5-7, 
 
 
 
 215, 218, 222 
 
 204, 210, 
 
 226 
 
 JJ 
 
 82, Neub. 2324, 
 
 „ 608, Steinschn. 8, 
 
 210 
 
 
 223, 228 
 
 „ 611, Steinschn. 9, 
 
 207 
 
 J> 
 
 84, Neub. 2325, . 200 
 
 Berlin. 585, 
 
 226 
 
 JJ 
 
 85, Neub. 2331, . 228 
 
 
 
 Xeub. 
 
 7, . . . 211 
 
 
 
 >» 
 
 20, . . . 208 
 
 Berne Public Library — 
 
 
 M 
 
 21, . . 198, 190 
 
 Kenn. 149, . 
 
 209 
 
 >> 
 
 23, ... 206 
 
^ J + 
 
 Index, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Bologna, Dominican Library — 
 Kmn. 526, . . .209 
 
 Britiah Museum — 
 
 Kenn. 99, King's 1, 221, 229 
 101, Harl. 5498, . 216 
 
 108, Harl. 7621, . 210 
 
 109, Harl. 5709, . 213 
 118, Harl. 5715, 
 
 217, 223, 229 
 Add. 20,878, . 198 
 
 Cambridge University Library — 
 Kenn. 89, 12S,S., 219, 221, 
 228 
 S.S. 13, 
 
 lO, 
 
 15, 
 
 ZrlU 
 
 203, 205, 224 
 
 16, 
 
 . 227 
 
 17, 
 
 . 199 
 
 18, 
 
 . 210 
 
 20, 
 
 . 220, 226 
 
 Cambridge, Library of the 
 Emmanuel CoUege — 
 Kenn. 94, . . , 
 
 !19 
 
 Cambridge, Library of St. 
 John the Evangelist — 
 Kenn. 95, . .210, 228 
 9G, . . .210 
 
 Carlsnihe — 
 
 Kenn. 154, Carlsruhe 1, . 206 
 De 50, The Soncino 
 
 Bible, . 204, 229 
 
 Cassel Public Library — 
 
 Kenn. 157, . . .218 
 
 Cesena — 
 
 Kenn. 536, . . .207 
 
 Copenhagen Eoyal Library — 
 Kenn. 172, Copenhagen 5, 218 
 174, „ 203,205 
 
 Kenn. 
 
 175, 
 
 „ 3-4, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 218, 
 
 
 
 225, 
 
 226, 229 
 
 >> 
 
 176, 
 
 >> 
 
 6, 
 
 220 
 
 Corpus Christi, Oxford— 
 
 
 
 Kenn. 
 
 69, W 
 
 B. 4, 7, 
 
 
 
 
 
 24, 198, 
 
 199 
 
 200 
 
 Kenn. 
 
 70, E. 
 
 3, 8, . 
 
 . 
 
 228 
 
 >> 
 
 71, W. 
 
 D. 1, 5, 
 
 
 223 
 
 Curtias — 
 
 Hebr. MS. No. 
 
 224 228 
 
 Dublin, Trinity College Library — 
 Kenn. 141, . 220, 224, 228 
 
 Florence — 
 
 Kenn. 166, Florence 6, . 229 
 170, Florence 10, . 213 
 
 GonviUe and Caius College, 
 Cambridge — 
 Kenn. 93, . . . 209 
 
 Hamburg City Library — 
 
 Steinschn. ,3, Kenn. 616, . 202 
 
 „ 15, ... 201 
 
 „ 19, . . . 226 
 
 „ 22, . 218, 221, 227 
 
 Kenn. 180, Steinschn. 16, 
 
 205, 222 
 
 Helmstedt — 
 Kenn. 181, 
 
 200, 213 
 
 Konigsberg University Library— 
 Kenn. 224, Konigsberg 11 02^>, 
 
 222, 226, 228 
 
 Manheim — 
 Kenn. 379, 
 
 Mayence — 
 Kenn. 375, 
 
 210 
 
 205 
 
Mamtscripts and Printed Texts. 235 
 
 Modena — 
 Kenn. 541, 
 
 544, F. 8, . 
 
 Munich Eoyal Library — 
 Kenn. 383, Munich 2, 
 
 Nuremberg — 
 Kenn. 198, . 
 201 
 
 210 
 209 
 
 209 
 
 203, 229 
 . 207 
 
 Padua, Benedictine Library — 
 Kami. 560, . . .210 
 
 Paris National Library — 
 
 B. N., Paris 16, . 209, 216 
 Paris 17, 216, 221, 226 
 Paris 22, . 220,223 
 Kenn. 206, B. N. 5-6, 
 
 201, 206, 216, 
 222, 225, 226 
 
 207, B. N. 35, . 222 
 
 208, B. K 16, . 216 
 210, B. N. 32, 215,222, 
 
 226, 229 
 212, B. N. 39, 209, 214 
 220, B. N. 80, . 208 
 309, B. N. 16, . 220 
 319, B. N. 28, 216, 218 
 321, B. K, . . 218 
 335, B. N. 41, . 209 
 342, B. N. 27, 206, 217, 
 219 
 355, B. N. 8-10, 
 
 207, 216, 219, 221 
 
 366, B. N. 86, . 208 
 
 367, B. X. 38, . 207 
 B. K., 1314-15, . 203, 230 
 
 Parma Eoyal Library — 
 
 De Rossi 1, . 203, 210, 223 
 2. . . 210, 223 
 
 De Bossi 4, 
 20, 
 34, 
 55, 
 187, 
 197, 
 226, 
 248, 
 262, 
 305, 
 384, 
 419, 
 440, 
 507, 
 512, 
 517, 
 552, 
 555, 
 579, 
 594, 
 606, 
 700, 
 715, 
 737, 
 789, 
 801, 
 824, 
 825, 
 883, 
 892, 
 
 PAOE 
 
 204, 224 
 
 . 207 
 
 . 223 
 
 . 224 
 
 203, 227 
 
 . 210 
 
 . 202 
 
 . 208 
 
 . 208 
 
 203, 210 
 
 . 210 
 
 . 209 
 
 . 209 
 
 . 209 
 
 . 209 
 
 . 224 
 
 . 223 
 
 . 209 
 
 . 224 
 
 . 208 
 
 . 209 
 
 . 209 
 
 . 209 
 
 . 223 
 
 . 224 
 
 . 227 
 
 . 223 
 
 . 209 
 
 . 210 
 
 . 208 
 
 Rome, Angelican Library — 
 
 Kenn. 240, . . . 229 
 
 467, Bib. Angelic. 
 
 11, . . . 210 
 
 468, Bib. Angelic. 
 
 12, . . . 210 
 
 Rome, Casanatian Library — 
 Kenn. 446, Bib. Casant. 
 
 13, . . . 209 
 
 Rome, Vatican Library — 
 
 Kenn. 225, Urbin. 2, 202, 208 
 
236 
 
 Index, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Kenn, 228, Urbin. 1, . 215 
 
 486, Pal. 14, . 207 
 
 487, Pal. 15, . 210 
 
 St. Genovive — 
 Kenn. 368, 
 
 207 
 
 St. Petersburg, Imperial Public 
 Library — 
 Ko. B. 3, . . . . 206 
 
 Turin — 
 
 Kenn. 246, Turin 1, .207 
 
 248, . . .208 
 
 249, Turia 4, 209, 222 
 251, Turin 6, . 207 
 
 Vienna, Imperial Library — 
 
 Kenn. 588, No. 10, . 207 
 
 590, No. 3, . . 207 
 
 593, No. 12, . 207 
 
 INDEX II. 
 
 NAMES AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 Aaron the Levite, Ex. iv. 14, p. 
 25; the representative of his 
 tribe, p. 27 ; scarcely mentioned 
 inDeut. (Graf), p. 58, r. 2 ; bearer 
 of Urim and Thummim, p. 59; 
 not allowed to mourn for Nadab 
 and Abihu, p. 60; only Aaron 
 and his sons may bum incense, 
 p. 63 ; two branches of his house, 
 Eleazar and Ithamar, p. 75; 
 mentioned in Ezra vii. 5, p. 112. 
 
 Aben Ezra (t 1167), interpretation 
 of Deut. X. 8, pp. 18, 21 ; Deut. 
 xviii. la, p. 23 ; Deut. xviii. 8ft, 
 p. 49. 
 
 Abiathar deposed, p. 88. 
 
 Ahia. See Ahimelech. 
 
 Ahimelech, bearer of the ephod, 
 p. 86; origin due to a copyist's 
 mistake (Graf), p. 107 ; the same 
 as Abiathar, ihid. r. 3; son of 
 Abiathar, p. 108, r. 
 
 Ainsworth, Henry (t about 1650), 
 interpretation of Deut. x. 8, pp. 
 10, 18, 21 ; Deut. xviii. 1, p. 34; 
 Deut. xviii. Ort, p. 47. 
 
 Alcibiades, Second, quotation from, 
 
 p. 134. 
 Amos' preaching directed against 
 
 hypocrisy, p. 127; his use of 
 
 Thorah, p. 179. 
 Anathoth, a priestly city, p. 136, 
 
 r. 2. 
 Archiv fur Wissenschaftl. Erfor- 
 
 schung d. A. T., pp. 69, 104. 
 Ark, its bearers, pp. 10-15 ; the 
 
 Levites ordinarily carried it, 
 
 but the priests also on rare 
 
 occasions, p. 14. 
 Asyndeton in Deut. xviii. 1, p. 
 
 25. 
 
 Baba Kamma, first treatise of the 
 fourth Seder of the Mishnah, 
 its Gemara on Deut. xviii. 6a, 
 p. 47. 
 
 Baudissin, Wolf, Count, Professor, 
 Strasburg, his interpretation of 
 Amos v. 26, p. 127, r. 1. 
 
 Benediction, priestly, pp. 18-21. 
 
 Bertheau, E., Professor, Gottingen, 
 on the recurrence of the names 
 
Names and Subjects. 
 
 237 
 
 of higli priests, p. 108; on 2 
 Ohron. xxxii. 32, p. 171 ; com- 
 munication of a letter from Graf, 
 p. 172, r. 2. 
 
 Biesenthal, J. H. R., Leipzig, on 
 Jer. vii. 22, 23, p. 134. 
 
 Bonfrerius, a Jesuit (tl643, Tour- 
 nay), interpretation of Deut. x. 
 8, p. 21, r. 1. 
 
 Brambach, W., Director of the 
 Royal and University Library 
 at Konigsberg, p. 192, 
 
 Bniun, Director of the Royal 
 Library, Copenhagen, p. 192. 
 
 Buxtorf, John, jr.. Professor, 
 Basle (t 1664), on the Urim and 
 Thummim, p. 59. 
 
 Ceriani, Director of the Ambrosian 
 Library, Milan, pp. 193, 196. 
 
 Chagigah, twelfth treatise of the 
 second Seder of the Mishnah, 
 for its Gemara on the Sophrim, 
 see p. 162. 
 
 Chronicler, author of fictitious 
 genealogies (Colenso), p. 104, r. 
 1 ; a bad arithmetician, p. 109; 
 has changed the history for 2000 
 years (Colenso), 119 ; not guilty 
 of forgery, p. 120; his sources, 
 p. 168. 
 
 Chronicles, their author a Levite, 
 p. 100; references to earlier 
 works, pp. 101, 102 ; only useful 
 as a picture of post-exilic times 
 (Graf), p. 110; prerogatives of 
 the high priest not given in 
 Chronicles, p. Ill; text not 
 impaired by minor inaccuracies, 
 p. 118. 
 
 ChuUin, third treatise of the 
 fifth Seder of the Mishnah, on 
 Deut. xviii. 3, p. 44. 
 
 Cities, Levitical and Priestly, 
 affirmed that Deuteronomy 
 affords no trace of them, p. 47 ; 
 may not conclude that they did 
 not exist in the time of Joshua, 
 2 Kings, p. 90 ; Shechem, pp. 
 93, 95, r. ; Beth-shemesh, p. 96 ; 
 Anathoth, p. 97. 
 
 Colenso, John William, Bishop, 
 Natal, on the use of the Hebrew 
 participle, Deut. xxxi. 9, p. 11, 
 r. 1 ; holds that the priests were 
 bearers of the ark, p. 11 ; on 
 the use of the preterite in Deut. 
 X. 9, p. 28 ; on Deut. xviii. 6-8, 
 p. 46; Dathan and Abiram, p. 
 63 ; says that the passage about 
 Phinehas in Judges has been 
 interpolated, p. 84, r, 5; tribe 
 of Levi did not exist in the time 
 of Deborah, p. 92 ; small number 
 of priests in David's time, p. 93 ; 
 Samuel cannot have been a 
 Levite, p. 94 ; his attack on the 
 Chronicler, p. 119; reason why 
 Malachi does not mention the 
 sons of Aaron, p. 141. 
 
 Covenant said to have been made 
 with Levi, p. 27 ; Booh of Cove- 
 nant^ pp. 3, 164, r. 1. 
 
 Critics, unreasonable demands, 
 p. 85. 
 
 Dathan and Abiram do not exclude 
 Korah, p. 64. 
 
 Davidson, A. B., Professor, Edin- 
 burgh, on the perfect tense, 
 p. 28, r. 1. 
 
 Delitzsch, Franz, Professor, Leipzig, 
 reason of variations in the names 
 of the twelve tribes, p. 29, r, 1 ; 
 Isa. i. 7 an echo of Lev. xxvi. 
 (Deut. xxviii), p. 73 ; on2Chron. 
 
23S 
 
 Index. 
 
 xxxii. 32, p. 171 ; on tlie sources 
 of the Chronicler, pp. 172, 173; 
 cites passages to prove that the 
 prophecy of Isaiah is from one 
 author, p. 183, r. 2. 
 
 Deuteronomist does not confer the 
 priesthood upon the Le\dtes, 
 p. 146. 
 
 Deuteronomy, its date and author 
 (Kuenen), p. 3; people's book, 
 p. G6 ; presupposes a code of 
 laws, p. 1C4 ; used by Jeremiah, 
 p. 166, r. 1. 
 
 "Deuteronomy the People's Book, " 
 author of, on the argument from 
 silence, p. 81 ; on diversity of 
 style in the same writer, p. 183. 
 
 DilLmann, August, Professor, 
 Berlin, p. 194. 
 
 Duhm, Bernh., Professor, Gottin- 
 gen, holds that Ezra was the 
 Elohist, p. 69, r. 5 ; prophets 
 antagonistic to ceremonial ob- 
 servances, p. 121 ; no sacrificial 
 laws of Mosaic origin, p. 132. 
 
 Duncker, Max. W., Privy Coun- 
 cillor, Berlin, does not refer the 
 origin of the tribe of Levi tro 
 Levi at all, p. 28, r. 3; date of 
 Moses, p. 163, r. 1. 
 
 Edersheim, Rev. Dr., Bourne- 
 mouth, on the root meaning of 
 the Hebrew word for priest, p. 
 58, r. 1. 
 
 Eichhorn, Joh. Gottfr., Professor, 
 Guttingen {t 1827), on the Chal- 
 daisms in Ezekiel, p. 74. 
 
 Eleazar, successor of Aaron, p. 58. 
 
 Eli undoubtedly a high priest, 
 p. 85. 
 
 Elohist was Ezra (Graf, Kuenen, 
 Duhm, and others), p. 69. 
 
 Elohistic Codification of priestly 
 laws (Kuenen), p. 68. 
 
 Encyclopsedia Britannica. Set 
 Prof. Smith. 
 
 English kings, comparative table 
 of, p. 109. 
 
 Ephod, different kinds distin- 
 guished, p. 86. 
 
 Ewald, Heinrich, Professor, Giit- 
 tingen (t 1875), on the perfect 
 tense, p. 28, r. 1. 
 
 Ezekiel, book of, date, p. 68 ; 
 author of Lev. xvii.-xxvi. (Graf, 
 Kuenen, Kayser), p. 69 ; betrays 
 a familiarity with the entire 
 Pentateuch, pp. 69-72 ; author 
 of Lev. xi.-xv. (Kayser), p. 72 ; 
 influence of Leviticus on him, 
 p. 73 ; style and Chaldaisms 
 distinguish him from the author 
 of Lev. xvii.-xxvi,, p. 74; por- 
 trays an ideal state, p. 77. 
 
 Ezra weaves Lev. xvii.-xxvi. into 
 the Pentateuch (Graf and others), 
 p. 69 ; Arabic traditions as to 
 him, pp. 153, 154 ; Christian 
 traditions, pp. 154-156 ; fourth 
 book of, pp. 155, 156 ; Jewish 
 traditions, pp. 157-160 ; men- 
 tioned by Josephus, pp. 160, 
 161 ; the ready scribe, p. 162 ; 
 author of programme, 164. 
 
 Firstlings discussed, pp. 39, 40. 
 
 Fleischer, H. L., Professor of 
 Oriental Languages, Leipzig, 
 interpretation of Kdhin (priest), 
 p. 58, r. 1. 
 
 Gates. See Cities, p. 51. 
 
 Geiger, Abraham, Eabbi, Breslau 
 
 (t 1874), on Dathan and Abirani, 
 
 p. 64. 
 Graf, Karl Heinrich, Professor, 
 
Names and Subjects. 
 
 239 
 
 Meissen (+ 18G9), on the bearers 
 of the ark, p. 10, r. 5 ; holds 
 that any Levite might become a 
 priest, pp. 23, 46, 55 ; origin of 
 Levi, p. 28 ; Aaron only men- 
 tioned in Deuteronomy as saved 
 from execution, p. 58 ; applies 
 n>Dn t^''N to the whole tribe of 
 Levi, p. 61 ; arguments for the 
 Ezekelian authorship of Lev. 
 xviii.-xxvi., p. 73 ; Eli merely 
 a Levite, p. 85 ; Samuel not 
 a Levite, p. 94, r. 5 ; Nob not 
 mentioned in the list of priestly 
 cities, p, 96 ; no trace of such 
 cities, p. 97; the Chronicler 
 always distinguishes between 
 priests and Levites, p. 98 ; com- 
 pares the standpoint of the 
 Chronicler with that of a Eoman 
 Catholic church historian, p. 
 100, r. 1 ; on the genealogies 
 of the Chronicler, pp. ] 04-108; 
 claims that Deuteronomy gives 
 no trace of the high priest as he 
 appeared in the second temple, 
 p. Ill ; asserts that priests and 
 Levites are everywhere dis- 
 tinguished in Chronicles, p. 114, 
 r. 5 ; Levites subordinate to 
 Aaronitic priests in Chronicles, 
 p. 116; Septuagint text of Jere- 
 miah, p. 135. 
 
 Gramberg, K. P. W., Zlillichau 
 (t 1830), on Samuel's fictitious 
 genealogy, p. 104; the Chronicler 
 a forger, p. 120. 
 
 Green, William Henry, Professor, 
 Princeton, on the use of the 
 preterite, p. 28, r. 1. 
 
 Grimm, C. L. W., Professor, Jena, 
 definition of scribe {yptii/u.//.aTfjs), 
 p. 162. 
 
 Guthe, Hermann, Privat Dooent, 
 
 Leipzig, holds that Jer. xxxiii. 
 14-26 is an interpolation, p. 135, 
 r. 3. 
 
 Haggai manifests no antipathy to 
 the priests, p. 137. 
 
 Hamburger, J., Rabbi, Strelitz, 
 on the numberof the high priests, 
 p. 109. 
 
 Heman and Ethan, their fictitious 
 genealogy (Graf), p. 105. 
 
 Hengstenberg, Ernst. Willi., Pro- 
 fessor, Berlin (11869), on the 
 firstlings, p. 41, r. 3. 
 
 Herxheimer, Sal., Eabbi, Bern- 
 burg, his interpretation of Deut. 
 xviii. 6-8, pp. 46, 47. 
 
 Hierarchy only attained full power 
 with the extinction of prophecy, 
 p. 121. 
 
 High Priest, this designation occurs 
 only three times in the Penta- 
 teuch, p. 58 ; reason why his 
 sacerdotal character is not indi- 
 cated in Josh,, p. 84; first among 
 equals (Kuenen), p. 86 ; the line 
 begins with Aaron, p. 89 ; suc- 
 cession from Aaron compared to 
 succession of popes from Peter 
 (Graf), p. 108, r. 3 ; number of 
 high priests, p. 109 ; titles, p. 
 Ill; not described in Chronicles, 
 p. 112. 
 
 Hilkiah perhaps the author of 
 Deut. (Kuenen), pp. 3, 149 ; 
 high priest, p. 88. 
 
 Hitzig, Ferdinand, Prof., Heidel- 
 berg (+1875), on the Chaldaisms 
 of Ezekiel, p. 74. 
 
 Homberg, Herz, Prague (+1841), 
 on Deut. xviii. 6-8, p. 45. 
 
 Hophni and Phinehas, their con- 
 duct diminished the influence of 
 the priesthood, p. 82. 
 
240 
 
 Index. 
 
 Hosea, evidence of his acquaint- 
 ance with the law, pp. 128, 129, 
 176-178 ; use of the Thorah, 
 175-179. 
 
 Inheritance of Levi, where pro- 
 mised, pp. 33, 34. 
 
 Isaiah not a collection of prophe- 
 cies, p. 129 ; priests and Levites, 
 p. 130 ; the authorship of xl.- 
 Ixvi., pp. 182-189. 
 
 Ithamar, house of, rejected, p. 75; 
 reason why it is without a gene- 
 alogy, p. 108. 
 
 James of Edessa, his Syriac ver- 
 sion, p. 192, 
 
 Jehoiada, high priest, p. 88. 
 
 Jeremiah not opposed to sacrifices, 
 p. 132; the Septuagint text of 
 his prophecy, p. 135, r. 3. 
 
 Jeroboam I. (975-954 b.c.) de- 
 prived the Levites of their pos- 
 sessions, p. 51 ; chose non-Levi- 
 tical priests, p. 98. 
 
 Jeroboam EC. (800 b.c), the author 
 of Deut. xxxiii. was his contem- 
 porary (Kuenen), p. 56. 
 
 Jerusalem, a new, desired by the 
 prophets, p. 144. 
 
 Jewish and Christian Church com- 
 pared, pp. 80, 99. 
 
 Joel not antagonistic to the priests, 
 p. 124. 
 
 Joma, fifth treatise of the second 
 Seder of the Mishnah, reference 
 to its Jerusalem Gemara, p. 109, 
 r. 2, 3. 
 
 Josephus (6. 37-38 a.d.) on the 
 priests' perquisites, p. 40 ; men- 
 tions Zadok and Abiathar, p. 87; 
 Levites excused from military 
 duty, p. 92; number of high 
 
 priests, p. 109, r. 2 ; merely says 
 that Ezra was sufficiently ac- 
 quainted with the laws of Moses, 
 p. 160. 
 
 Joshua, successor of Moses, p. 63 ; 
 book of, indicates priests and a 
 high priest, p. 82 ; added as the 
 sixth part to the Pentateuch, p. 
 •83. 
 
 Judges, period of, unfavourable for 
 the growth of the priesthood, p. 
 82. 
 
 Kayser, Aug., Professor, Stras- 
 burg, Levi set apart at Jotbata, 
 p. 9 ; God made a covenant with 
 Levi, p. 27 ; any Levite might 
 become a priest, p. 46 ; Deu- 
 teronomist only mentions Dathan 
 and Abiram, p. 63. 
 
 Keil, Carl Friedrich, Professor, 
 resides in Leipzig, on Deut. x. 
 8, p. 15 ; holds that HQT is never 
 used of ordinary slaughtering, p. 
 42 ; on Deut. xviii. 6a, p. 47. 
 
 Kiddushin, seventh treatise of the 
 third Seder of the Mishnah, for 
 its Gemara on the Sophrim, p. 
 162, r. 1. 
 
 Kimchi, David, born at Narbonne 
 (t about 1232), on 2 Chron. v. 4, 
 p. 13 ; on 2 Sam. vii. 18, p. 108. 
 
 Kings, books of, make little men- 
 tion of the priests, p. 80 ; men- 
 tion the Levites only once, p. 
 97. 
 
 Klostermann, Heinr. Aug., Profes- 
 sor, Kiel, refutes the Ezekelian 
 authorship of Lev. xviii. -xxvi., 
 p. 69. 
 
 Kohen (priest), his business con- 
 sists in giving oracles (Land), p. 
 57. 
 
Names and Subjects. 
 
 241 
 
 Kohn, Samuel, Babbi, Budapest, 
 p. 198. 
 
 Korah, tradition about bim in tbe 
 Midrasb, p. 44 ; Deuteronomist 
 does not mention bim, p. 63. 
 
 Kuenen, A., Professor, Ley den, 
 bis standpoint, p. 1 ; bis inves- 
 tigation is biassed, p. 5 ; bolds 
 tbat any Levite may become a 
 priest, p, 55 ; bis interpretation 
 of Deut. xxxiii. 8, p. 57 ; date of 
 Ezekiel, p. 68, r. 1 ; bolds tbat 
 tbe bigb priest was first among 
 equals, p. 86 ; tbat tbere is a 
 " clerical error" in 1 Kings viii, 
 4, p. 97 ; tbat every Israelite is 
 competent to ©O'er sacrifices, p. 
 103, r. 3 ; tbat tbere was no room 
 for tbe propbet in Ezra's society, 
 p. 122 ; on tbe final redaction 
 of tbe Tborab, p. 138 ; tbe raising 
 of tbe law to supreme power, 
 xhld. ; revolution under Ezra, 
 p. 139 ; Tborab committed to 
 writing, p. 140, r. 3 ; bolds tbat 
 tbe contemporaries of tbe Deu- 
 teronomist committed fictions 
 witbout any qualms of con- 
 science, p. 152, r. 1 ; Book of 
 tbe Covenant, p. 164. 
 
 Land, J. P. N., Professor, Ley den, 
 on tbe origin of tbe tribe of Levi, 
 p. 28, r. 5 ; on tbe meaning of 
 tbe Hebrew word for priest, p. 
 57, r. 1. 
 
 a Lapide, Comelins, a Jesuit, Bel- 
 gium (t 1637), interpretation of 
 Deut. X. 8, p. 21 ; on 2 Sam. viii. 
 17, p. 108. 
 
 Lasinio, Fausto, Professor, Flor- 
 ence, p. 192. 
 
 Levi, tbe covenant witb bim, p. 27. 
 
 Levi, Eabbi Josbua Ben, mentions 
 
 tbat tbere are twenty -four places 
 wbere tbe priests are called 
 Levites, p. 190. 
 
 Levites, cases wbere tbey are said 
 to minister to tbe Lord, pp. 10, 
 17 ; any Levite may become a 
 priest (Graf), pp. 23, 46, 55, 69 ; 
 distinguisbed from tbe priests, 
 p. 23 ; Aaron termed a Levite, 
 p. 25, r. 2 ; tbe tribe did not 
 originate from Levi (Vatke 
 and otbers), p. 28 ; tbe nature 
 of tbe inberitance promised, pp. 
 29, 36 ; tribe said to bave been 
 maintained by sacrifices, p. 30 ; 
 service in wbicb tbey migbt 
 voluntarily engage, p. 45 ; both 
 priests and Levites included 
 under Levites, p. 47 ; circum- 
 stances, p. 49 ; perquisites, p. 
 50 ; could sell tbeir bouses, p. 
 51 ; deprived of tbeir possessions, 
 p. 51 ; are all gifted witb Urim 
 and Tbummim (Graf, Kuenen, 
 and otbers), p. 55 ; degraded 
 priests, pp. 74, 76 ; mentioned 
 in Judges, p. 82 ; expression 
 used of tbe entire tribe, p. 91 ; 
 tbe priestbood tbeir inberitance, 
 p. 91 ; tbe two mentioned in 
 Judges, p. 92 ; excused from mili- 
 tary duty, p. 92 ; mentioned 
 only twice in Samuel, p. 94 ; 
 mentioned only once in Kings, 
 p. 97. 
 
 Levitical Priests, developed into 
 tbe Aaronitic, p. 69 ; in Cbro- 
 nicles, pp. 114-118; in Jere- 
 miab, p. 136. 
 
 Leviticns, Ezekiel tbe autbor of 
 xviii.-xxvi. (Graf and otbers^, 
 p. 69 ; of xi.-xv. (Kayser), p. 72 ; 
 similarity between Lev. xxvi. 
 and Jeremiab, p. 72. 
 
142 
 
 Index. 
 
 Levy, J., Eabbi, Breslau, on the 
 
 Sophrim, p. 102, 
 Lowth, William, Prebendary of 
 
 Winchester (t 1732), on Jer. vii. 
 
 22, 23, p. 134. 
 Lundius, Johannis, Schleswig 
 
 (+ 1747), explains when the tribe 
 
 of Levi was reckoned among 
 
 other tribes, p. 29, r. I. 
 
 Maimonides (t 1205), interpreta- 
 tion of Deut. X. 8, p. 19 ; xviii. 
 1, p. 34 ; Ezek. xliv. 13, p. 76 ; 
 Jer. vii. 22, 23, p. 133. 
 
 Malachi makes no allusion to the 
 great epoch which Ezra is said 
 to have ushered in, p. 139 ; cha- 
 racter of his teaching, p. 143. 
 
 Manuscripts, their character, p. 
 195. 
 
 Massah. See p. 60. 
 
 Massora, nineteen places where 
 priests are called Levites, p. 190; 
 our ignorance as to the time and 
 manner in which it originated, 
 p. 193 ; we yield to its autho- 
 rity, p. 194. 
 
 Massorites, celebrated ones are 
 to be found in all lands, p. 
 195. 
 
 Menachoth, the second treatise of 
 the fifth Seder of the Mishnah ; 
 for its Gemara on Deut. xviii. 6a, 
 see p. 47 ; on 2 Kings xxiii. 8, 
 9, p. 76. 
 
 Mercerus, Johannes, Professor of 
 Hebrew, Paris (t 1570), p. 21. 
 
 Meribah a real place. See pp. 
 59, 60. 
 
 Merx's Archiv. ,S'ee Archiv. 
 
 Micah, his acquaintance with the 
 Pentateuch, p. 131. 
 
 Middle Books of the Pentateuch 
 
 (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers), 
 
 their origin, p. 3. 
 Ministere of the sanctuary are the 
 
 priests, p. 16 ; ministers of the 
 
 house are the Levites, p. 16. 
 Mishnah (end of 2d cent, a.d.), 
 
 quotation from Bechoroth, p. 
 
 40. 
 Mosaic authorship of Deutero- 
 nomy discussed, pp. 149-152. 
 Mosaic spirit stifled prophecy 
 
 (critics), p. 123. 
 Munk, Salomon, Professor, Paris 
 
 (t 1867), p. 133. 
 Munster, Sebastian, Professor, 
 
 Basel (+ 1552), p. 21. 
 
 Neubauer, Adolph, Librarian of 
 the Bodleian Library, pp. 191, 
 198. 
 
 Obed-edom was made a Levite 
 
 (Graf), p. 104. 
 Oehler, G. F., Professor, Tubingen 
 
 (t 1872), opinion asto Ahimelech, 
 
 p. 108. 
 Offerings defined, p. 32. 
 Oort, H., Professor, Leyden, p. 
 
 193. 
 
 Patriarchs not historical person- 
 ages (Kuenen), p. 2. 
 
 Perreau, Pietro Cav., Librarian, 
 Parma, p. 193. 
 
 Pesikta rabbathi (2d half of 9th 
 cent.), p. 44. 
 
 Pesikta zutarta, commentary to 
 the Pentateuch and five rolls 
 (12th cent, a.d.), distinguishes 
 the tithes, p. 53, 
 
 Philo (born about 20 B.C.), passage 
 which explains Deut. xviii. 3. 
 
Names and Subjects. 
 
 243 
 
 Phinehas, the covenant with him, 
 p. 27 ; honourably mentioned in 
 Joshua, pp. 83, 84; once in 
 Judges, p. 84. 
 
 ' ' Pious frauds ' ' must not be im- 
 puted to the Chronicler alone 
 (Kuenen), p. 120, r. 1. 
 
 Polus, or Pool, Matthew (t 1679), 
 author of the Synopsis Criti- 
 corum, etc., p. 108. 
 
 Popes, comparative table, p. 109. 
 
 Priests, twenty-four places in 
 which they are called Le\dtes, 
 p. 13 ; occasions on which they 
 carried the ark, p. 15 ; before 
 the exile all were gifted with 
 "Drim and Thummim (Kuenen), 
 p. 57 ; giving of oracles their 
 proper task, ibid.; may not con- 
 clude that they did not offer 
 sacrifices, p. 89 ; the sons of 
 Aaron in the Ezekelian portion 
 of Leviticus, p. 114. 
 
 Priests Levites, expression occurs 
 in nineteen places, p. 115, r, 1. 
 
 Priests and Levites found in thirty- 
 four places, p. 115, r. 
 
 Priestly functions, guarding the 
 law, p. 61 ; judging, p. 62 ; 
 burning of incense, p. 63 ; 
 putting sacrifices on the altar, 
 p. 65. 
 
 Priestly code, the result of develop- 
 ment (Kuenen and others), p. 
 163. 
 
 Priestly legislation, obtained his- 
 torical support by a " pious 
 fraud " (Kuenen), p. 3. 
 
 Programme (a written statement 
 of an individual's or a party's 
 wishes or intentions) of Ezra 
 (Kuenen), pp. 3, 164; sons of 
 Aaron not in the programme, p. 
 113. 
 
 Prophets, the only reliable sources 
 of historical information 
 (Kuenen), p. 2. 
 
 Prophets, Israelitish religion began 
 with them, p. 122 ; presuppose 
 the people's acquaintance with a 
 moral law, p. 123 ; make room 
 for the scribes, p. 139, r. 2. 
 
 Eabbins, any of the twenty-four 
 divisions of priests might offer at 
 will, p. 47. 
 
 Radak. See (Kabbi David) 
 Kimchi. 
 
 Eambam. See (Rabbi Moses Ben 
 Maimun) Maimonides. 
 
 Eashbam (Rabbi Samuel Ben Meir, 
 great-grandson of Rashi — 1100- 
 1160), comment on Deut. x. 8, 
 p. 10. 
 
 Eashi, i.e. Rabbi Shelomo Jizhak 
 (t 1105), interpretation of Deut. 
 X. 8, pp. 10, 18, 21 ; 2 Chron. v. 
 5, 7, p. 13 ; 1 Chron. xv. 26, p. 
 15 ; Deut. xviii. 1, p. 34 ; on the 
 firstlings, p. 40 ; Deut. xviii. 6a, 
 p. 47 ; Jer. vii. 22, 23, p. 135. 
 
 Eeicke, Director of the Library at 
 Konigsberg, p. 192. 
 
 Eiehm, Edward, Professor, Halle, 
 holds that there is an asynde- 
 ton in Deut. xviii. 1, p. 25, r. 1 : 
 that the priests receive the whole 
 of the firstlings, p. 41, r. 3. 
 
 Euetschi, Professor, Berne, p. 192. 
 
 Saalschuetz, Jos. L., Professor, Ko- 
 nigsberg (t 1863, ace. to Krehl), 
 p. 92. 
 
 "Saint of the Lord," appellative 
 of Aaron, p. 59. 
 
 Sale, George (t 1736), on Ezra, p. 
 154. The reader may also com- 
 pare the passage quoted in J. M. 
 
244 
 
 Index. 
 
 Rod well, Tilt Koran, 2d ed., 
 London 1876. 
 
 Samaritan Version, rendering of 
 Deut. xviii. Sh, p. 48 ; Dent, 
 xxxiii. 96, p. 61. 
 
 Samuel ministered to the Lord, 
 p. 16; books of, make scant men- 
 tion of priests and Levites, p. 80; 
 Levite, pp. 94, 95 ; was made a 
 Levite (Graf), p. 104, r. 2. 
 
 Sanctius, Caspar, Jesuit, Madrid 
 (t 1628), p. 108. 
 
 Sanhedrin, fourth treatise of the 
 fourth Seder of the Mishnah, for 
 its Gemara, p. 162, r. 1. 
 
 Schenkel, Daniel, Professor, Hei- 
 delberg, p. 135. 
 
 Schiller-Szinessy, S. M., author of 
 the Cambridge Catalogue of He- 
 hrewMSS., pp.191, 197. 
 
 Schultz, Fr. W., Professor, Breslau, 
 p. 13. 
 
 Scientific proof not always ade- 
 quate, p. 4. 
 
 Scribe, the prophet makes room 
 for him (Kuenen), p. 139, 
 r. 2 ; meaning of the word, 
 p. 162. 
 
 Selden, John, English layman 
 (t 1654), opinion about Abiathar 
 and Ahimelech, p. 108. 
 
 Septuagint (about 285-150 B.C.) 
 translation of Deut. xviii. 86, p. 
 48 ; Deut. xxvi. 12, 14, p. 52. 
 
 Seraiah, high priest, p. 89. 
 
 Shechem, priestly city, p. 93 ; per- 
 haps the birth-place of Samuel, 
 p. 95, r. 
 
 Silence, argument from, not con- 
 clusive, p. 81. 
 
 Simson, Professor, Konigsberg, p. 
 192. 
 
 Siphre, or commentary on Num., 
 Deut. (committed to writing 
 
 about the end of the 2d cent. 
 A.D.), quoted, pp. 34, 44 ; refers 
 Deut. xviii. 6a to the priests, p. 
 47. 
 
 Sirach, Jesus (190-170 b.c), ori- 
 ginally written in Hebrew, refer- 
 ences — Aaron of the tribe of 
 Levi, p. 26 ; Dathan, Abiram, 
 and Korah, p. 64. 
 
 Smith, W. Eobertson, Professor, 
 Aberdeen, his estimate of the 
 importance of our subject, 
 p. 6. 
 
 Sons of Aaron called priests, p. 
 113 ; not mentioned by Malachi, 
 p. 141. 
 
 Sotah, fifth treatise of the third 
 Seder of the Mishnah, p. 160, 
 r. 2. 
 
 Spinoza (t 1677), interpretation of 
 Deut. X. 10, p. 10. 
 
 Sprenger, A., Professor, Berne, 
 the original meaning of Kohen 
 (priest), p. 57. 
 
 Standing before the Lord, preroga- 
 tive of the priests (Keil), p. 15 ; 
 said only of the priests (Colenso), 
 p. 46. 
 
 Steinachneider, Moritz, School 
 Director, Berlin, pp. 192, 197. 
 
 Succah, sixth treatise of the second 
 Seder of the Mishnah, for its 
 Gemara on Deut. xviii. 6a, see 
 p. 47- 
 
 Talmud = (Mishnah and Gemara), 
 passages: Erachin 11a, interpre- 
 tation of Deut. X. 8, p. 21, etc. 
 
 Targums — Onkelos (middle of first 
 cent. A.D.), rendering of Deut. 
 xxvi. 12, 14, p. 52. 
 
 First Jerusalem, or Pseudo- 
 Jonathan (7-8 cent, a.d.), ren- 
 
Names and Subjects. 
 
 245 
 
 dering of Deut. xxvi. 12, 14, p. 
 
 53; Deut. xxxiii. 8, p. 59. 
 Second Jerusalem, or simply 
 
 Jerusalem, rendering of Deut. 
 
 xxvi. 12, 14, p. 52 ; Deut. xxxiii. 
 
 8, p. 59. 
 Thenius, Otto, Oberconsistorial- 
 
 rath, Dresden (1876), p. 27. 
 Theologisch Tijdschrift, Amster- 
 dam and Leyden, pp. 28, 57. 
 Thorah, final redaction of, p. 138, 
 
 r. 3 ; does not always signify 
 
 the entire Pentateuch, p. 140 ; 
 
 meaning in Hos. iv. 6, p. 175. 
 Tirinus, a Jesuit (t 1636), author 
 
 of Commentarius in vniversam 
 
 S. Scripturam, Lyons 1632 and 
 
 1702, interpretation of Deut. 
 
 X. 8, pp. 10, 21. 
 Tithes, inheritance of the Levites, 
 
 p. 36 ; character, pp. 37, 38 ; 
 
 those in Deut. do not exclude 
 
 the ones in Lev. and Num., pp. 
 
 38, 39 ; different kinds, p. 39 ; 
 
 of the produce, p. 53 ; "all the 
 
 tithe " explained, p. 54 ; kept in 
 
 a storehouse, p. 140. 
 Tithing, the year of, pp. 52, 54. 
 Tostatus, Alphonsus, Bishop of 
 
 Avila, Spain (f 1454), on 2 Sam. 
 
 viii. 17, p. 108. 
 Twelve Tribes did not arise from 
 
 the twelve patriarchs (Kuenen), 
 
 p. 2. 
 
 Ugolinus, Blasius, Venice (The- 
 sauru^, in 34 fol. vols., 1744- 
 1769), pp. 59, 108. 
 
 Uriah, high priest, p. 88. 
 
 Urim and Thummim, all Levites 
 
 gifted with it (critics), p. 55 ; 
 
 belongs to one individual, p. 56 ; 
 
 belongs to priests in general 
 
 (Kuenen), p. 57 ; intimated in 
 
 Judges, p. 82. 
 
 Vatablus, Franc, Professor of 
 Hebrew, Paris (t 1547), inter- 
 pretation of Deut. X. 8, pp. 
 10, 21 ; Deut. xxxiii. 8, p. 59. 
 
 Vatke, Wilhebn, Professor, Berlin, 
 holds that the tribe of Levi is 
 not descended from Levi, p. 28. 
 
 Volck, Wilhelm, Professor, Dorpat, 
 p. 59, r. 2. 
 
 De Wette, W. M. Lebrecht, Basel 
 
 (t 1849), p. 182; style of 
 Malachi's prophecies, p. 142 ; 
 Isaiah, p. 183. 
 
 Zadok, sons of, termed Levites, 
 p. 75 ; Zadok and Abiathar in 
 2 Sam,, p. 75 ; name precedes 
 Abiathar's, p. 87. 
 
 Zeehariah manifests no antipathy 
 to the priests, p. 137. 
 
 Zephaniah characterizes the lead- 
 ing personages of his time, p. 
 131. 
 
 Zotenberg, H., Librarian of the 
 National Library, Paris, pp. 
 192, 197. 
 
 Zunz, Director of a seminary, 
 Berlin, p. 195. 
 
246 
 
 Index, 
 
 INDEX III. 
 KEFEEENCES TO THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 Genesis — 
 iii. 14, 17, 
 vi. 9, 
 vi. 11, 13, 
 xii. 8, 
 xviii. 20, . 
 xix. 24, 25, 
 xxi. 22, . 
 XXV. 26, . 
 xxix, 31, . 
 xxxii. 12, . 
 xxxiv. 25, 30, 
 xxxviii. 1, 
 xlix. 27, . 
 
 Exodus — 
 iv. 14, 
 iv. 22, 23, 
 vi. 8, 
 vi. 16, 
 vii. 5, 
 xii. 12, 
 xiv. 4, 18, 
 
 XV. 1, 
 
 XV. 25, 
 xvii. 2-7, . 
 xviii. 25, 26, 
 xix. 3, 
 xix. 5, 
 
 XX. 22-26, xxi. 
 xxi. 9, 
 xxii. 29, . 
 xxiv, 5-8, 
 xxiv. 10, . 
 X xviii. 1, . 
 xxviii. 4-39, 
 xxviii. 30, 
 
 61 
 
 70 
 
 70 
 
 19 
 
 61 
 
 179 
 
 10 
 
 176 
 
 135 
 
 177 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 70 
 
 25, 27 
 . 177 
 . 70 
 . 110 
 . 70 
 . 179 
 . 70 
 . 177 
 133, 134 
 . 60 
 . 63 
 . 158 
 . 135 
 3, 70, 164 
 . 41 
 . 42 
 . 57 
 . 70 
 27, 113 
 86, 110, 1.37 
 59, 87 
 
 xxix. 10-28, 
 xxix. 12, . 
 xxix. 14, . 
 xxix. 27, 28, 
 xxix. 37, . 
 xxxi. 13, . 
 xxxii. 26, . 
 xxxii. 27, . 
 xxxvi. 3, . 
 xxxix. 28, 
 
 Leviticus — 
 i. 5, 7, 8, 11, 
 ii. 2, 
 ii. 3, 10, 
 ii. 5, 6, 
 ii. 13, 
 iii. 1, 
 iii. 2, 5, 
 iv. 27, 35, 
 iv. 3, 
 V. 10, 
 V. 12, 
 vi. 6, 
 vi. 7, 
 vi. 11, 
 vi. 25-29, 
 vii. 1-7, 
 vii. 9, 10, 
 vii. 13, 
 vii. 30, 35, 
 vii. 34, 
 viii. 8, 
 viii. 13, 24, 
 viii. 15, 
 viii. 14-29, 
 viii. 34, 
 
References to the Scriptures. 
 
 247 
 
 
 
 
 PAGK 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ix. 3, .... 131 
 
 xvi. 1, 5, 16, 24, 25, 
 
 27, . 64 
 
 ix. 9, 12, 18, 
 
 
 . 113 
 
 xvi. 3-5, . 
 
 . 59 
 
 ix. 22, 
 
 
 20, 21 
 
 xvi. 9, 
 
 . 18 
 
 X. 1, 16, 
 
 
 
 . 113 
 
 xvii. 2, 3, 
 
 . 29 
 
 X. 6, 
 
 
 
 . 60 
 
 xvii. 5 (E. V. xvi. 40), . 63 
 
 X. 9, 
 
 
 
 . 71 
 
 xvii. 18 (E. V. 3), 
 
 . 27 
 
 X. 10, 11, 
 
 
 
 . 137 
 
 xviii. 1, . 
 
 . 29 
 
 X. 11, 
 
 
 
 . 62, 63, 71 
 
 xviii. 2, 
 
 
 26, 29 
 
 X. 12, 13, 
 
 
 
 30, 71 
 
 xviii. 1-5, 
 
 
 . 46 
 
 xi-xv.. 
 
 
 
 70, 71 
 
 xviii. 8, 31, 
 
 
 . 46 
 
 xvi 1, 
 
 
 
 . 113 
 
 xviii. 9, . 
 
 
 . 71 
 
 xvii. 7, 
 
 
 
 . 127 
 
 xviii. 12, . 
 
 
 . 42 
 
 xvii.-xxvi., 3, 
 
 7, 6S 
 
 , 71, 73, 74 
 
 xviii. 14, . 
 
 
 . 71 
 
 xxi. 1, 
 
 
 . 113 
 
 xviii. 15-18, 
 
 
 40, 41 
 
 xxi. 6, 21, 
 
 
 30, 59 
 
 xviii. 20, . 
 
 
 29, 35 
 
 xxi 11, 12, 
 
 
 . 60 
 
 xviii. 20-24, 28, 
 
 29, 34, 35, 
 
 xxiv. 9, 
 
 
 . 30 
 
 
 36, 160 
 
 XXV. 14, 25, 27, 
 
 28, 2 
 
 9, 50, 48 
 
 xviii. 21, 24, 26, 28, 
 
 36, 37, 53 
 
 XXV. 24-32, 
 
 
 . 136 
 
 xix. 11, . 
 
 . 71 
 
 XXV. 32, 33, . 
 
 
 . 51 
 
 XX. 12, 13, 
 
 
 . 60 
 
 XXV. 47, . 
 
 
 . 50 
 
 xxiii. 19, . 
 
 
 . 178 
 
 xxvi. 12, 13, 
 
 
 . 72 
 
 XXV. 3, . 
 
 
 . 178 
 
 xxvi. 15, . 
 
 
 . 125 
 
 XXV. 7-13, 
 
 
 . 84 
 
 xxvi. 31, . 
 
 
 . 126, 179 
 
 XXV. 12, 13, 
 
 
 . 27 
 
 xxvi. 41, . 
 
 
 . 73 
 
 xxvi. 62, . 
 
 
 . 29 
 
 xxviL 30-32, 
 
 
 37, 53 
 
 xxvii. 21, . 
 
 
 82, 87 
 
 
 xxix. 15, . 
 
 
 . 159 
 
 Numbers— 
 
 XXXV. 2, . 
 
 
 . 48 
 
 ii. 34, . . . .41 
 
 
 
 iii. 2, 
 
 
 
 . 113 
 
 Deuteronomy— 
 
 
 iii. 3, 
 
 
 
 . 113 
 
 i. 9, . . . 
 
 . 10 
 
 iii 4, 
 
 
 
 . 75 
 
 iv. 10, . 
 
 
 . 140 
 
 iii. 6, 
 
 
 
 . 16 
 
 iv. 14, 
 
 
 . 158 
 
 iii. 10, 
 
 
 
 . 98 
 
 viii. 15, 
 
 
 . 178 
 
 iii. 31, 
 
 
 
 . 13 
 
 ix. 8-21, . 
 
 
 . 10 
 
 iii -iv. , 
 
 
 
 . 10 
 
 X. 6, 
 
 
 . 58 
 
 iv. 15, 
 
 
 
 . 13 
 
 X. 8, . 9, 10, 
 
 12, 15, 17, 
 
 vi 10, 
 
 
 
 . 71 
 
 18 
 
 , 19, 20, 21 
 
 vi. 24-26, 
 
 
 
 20, 21 
 
 X. 9, . . . . 
 
 28, 33, 35 
 
 vii. 9, 
 
 
 
 . 14 
 
 X. 12, . . 
 
 . 131 
 
 ix. 3, 12, . 
 
 
 
 . 41 
 
 xi. 6, . . 
 
 63, 64 
 
 X. 17, 
 
 
 
 . 12 
 
 xii 5, 14, . 
 
 . 26 
 
 xiv. 30, . 
 
 
 
 . 70 
 
 xii. 6, 11, 13, 1^ 
 
 t, 26, 
 
 . 31 
 
248 
 
 Index. 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 
 PACK 
 
 xii. 12, . 
 
 . 29 
 
 iii. 3, 6, 13, 14, 
 
 17, . 14, 89 
 
 xii. 15, . 
 
 . 43 
 
 
 90, 115 
 
 xii. 17, . 
 
 . 37, 39, 40 
 
 vi. 4, 
 
 . 90 
 
 xii. 18, 19, 
 
 49, 50 
 
 vi. 6, 
 
 . 14 
 
 xiv. 22, 23, 
 
 . 37 
 
 vi. 16, 
 
 . 89 
 
 xiv. 22-27, 
 
 . 39 
 
 viii. 31, . 
 
 . 176 
 
 xiv. 27-29, 29, 39, 49, 51, 53 
 
 viii. 33, 14, 20, 23, 89, 115, 205 
 
 xiv. 28, . 
 
 . 54 
 
 xiii. 14, 33, 29, 31, 34, 36, 91 
 
 xvi. 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, . 5, 38 
 
 xiii. 19, . 
 
 . 89 
 
 
 49, 50 
 
 xiv. 1, 
 
 
 83, 89 
 
 xvii. 9, 11, 
 
 62, 63, 115, 197 
 
 xvii. 4, 
 
 
 83, 89 
 
 xvii. 12, . 
 
 . 15 
 
 xviii. 1, 10, 
 
 
 . 63 
 
 xvii. 15-17, 
 
 5 
 
 xviii. 7, 
 
 
 36, 91 
 
 xvii. 18, . 
 
 . 115, 198 
 
 xix. 51, . 
 
 
 . 63, 83, 89 
 
 xviii. 1, . 2 
 
 2, 29, 30, 31, 33, 
 
 xxi. 1, 
 
 
 . 63, 83, 89 
 
 
 35, 37, 42, 199 
 
 xxi. 3, 4, . 
 
 . 26 
 
 , 85, 91, 98 
 
 xviii. 2, . 
 
 . 29, 33, 39 
 
 xxi. 16, . 
 
 
 . 96 
 
 xviii. 3, . 
 
 . 31, 41, 44 
 
 xxi. 18, . 
 
 
 
 . 13G 
 
 xviii. 5, . 
 
 . 26 
 
 xxi. 19, . 
 
 
 
 . 114 
 
 xviii. 6, 7, 
 
 . 15, 47, 93 
 
 xxi. 21, . 
 
 
 
 . 95 
 
 xviii. 8, 
 
 . 49 
 
 xxii. 13, 30, 31, 
 
 
 
 . 84 
 
 xviii. 18, . 
 
 . 62 
 
 xxii. 13-32, 
 
 
 
 . 89 
 
 xxi. 5, 
 
 15, 19, 20, 63 
 
 xxiii. 6, . 
 
 
 
 . 176 
 
 xxiv. 8, 
 
 62, 115, 200 
 
 xxiv. 15, . 
 
 
 
 . 127 
 
 xxvi. 12, 14, 
 
 49, 51, 52, 178 
 
 xxiv. 33, . 
 
 
 
 . 89 
 
 xxvii. 7, . 
 
 . 31 
 
 xxxiv. 33, 
 
 
 
 . 84 
 
 xxvii. 9, 12, 14, 
 
 20, 23, 29, 115 
 
 
 
 xxvii. 30-32, 
 
 . 37 
 
 
 
 xxviii. 43, 44, 
 
 . 50 
 
 Judges— 
 
 
 xxviii.-xxx.. 
 
 . 185 
 
 i. 1, . 
 
 
 
 82 
 
 xxix. 17, 20, 
 
 . 26 
 
 ii. 11-19, . 
 
 
 
 93 
 
 xxix. 28, . 
 
 . 159 
 
 iii. 7, 
 
 
 
 93 
 
 xxxi. 9, . 
 
 10, 11, 12, 176 
 
 iv. 1, 
 
 
 
 93 
 
 xxxi. 25, . 
 
 10, 11, 12, 13 
 
 vi. 1, 
 
 
 
 93 
 
 xxxiii. 8, 9, 
 
 56, 59 
 
 viii. 27, . 
 
 
 
 86 
 
 xxxiii. 10, 
 
 . 64 
 
 X. 6, 
 
 
 
 93 
 
 xxxiii, 8-11, 
 
 55, 57 
 
 xiii. 1, 
 
 
 
 93 
 
 xxxiii. 9, 10, 
 
 . 60 
 
 xvii. 2, . 
 
 
 
 92 
 
 xxxiiL 19, 
 
 . 31 
 
 xvii. 5, 
 xvii. 7, 
 xviii. 30, 31, 
 
 
 86, 89 
 . 92 
 89, 93 
 
 Joshua — 
 
 
 xix. 1, 
 
 
 92, 93 
 
 iii. 3, 
 
 . 202 
 
 xix. 3, 
 
 
 . 
 
 93 
 
Rcfere7ices to the Scriptures. 
 
 249 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 xix. 18, . 
 
 . 93 
 
 vi. 14, 
 
 . 86 
 
 XX. 28, . 
 
 . 57 
 
 vi. 17, 18, 
 
 . 20, 103 
 
 
 
 viii. 17, . 87 
 
 , 90, 107, 108 
 
 
 
 viii. 18, . 
 
 58, 90 
 
 1 Saanuel— 
 
 
 XV. 24, . 
 
 . 94 
 
 i. 3-9, 
 
 50, 89 
 
 XV. 27, 35, 
 
 75, 90 
 
 i. 11, 
 
 . 95 
 
 XV. 29, . 
 
 . 14 
 
 ii. 11, 
 
 . 17 
 
 xvii, 15, . 
 
 . 90 
 
 ii. 12-17, 28, 29, 
 
 . 89 
 
 xix. 11, . 
 
 75, 90 
 
 ii. 13-16, . 
 
 . 57 
 
 XX. 25, . 
 
 . 90 
 
 ii. 18, 
 
 16, 86 
 
 XX. 26, . 
 
 . 90 
 
 ii. 27, 
 
 . 27 
 
 xxiv. 18, . 
 
 . 103 
 
 ii. 28, 
 
 26, 31, 57 
 
 
 
 ii. 35, 
 
 . 89 
 
 
 
 ii. 36, 
 
 . . 75 
 
 1 Kings— 
 
 
 iii. 5, 
 
 . 17 
 
 i. 7^5, . 
 
 . 90 
 
 iii. 15, 
 
 . 17 
 
 i. 9, 
 
 . 43 
 
 iv. 4, . . 
 
 . 14 
 
 i. 19, . . 
 
 . 88 
 
 V. 5, . . 
 
 . 90 
 
 ii. 22-35, . 
 
 . 90 
 
 vi. 2, . . 
 
 . 90 
 
 ii. 26, 
 
 96, 97 
 
 vi. 9, 12, 15, . 
 
 . 96 
 
 ii. 27, 35, . 
 
 75, 88, 107 
 
 y\. 14, 15, . . 
 
 . 57, 90, 94 
 
 ii. 35, 
 
 . 87 
 
 vii. 1, 
 
 . 105 
 
 iv. 4, 5, . . 
 
 88, 90 
 
 viii 5, 7, 19, . 
 
 . 178 
 
 V. 11 (E. V. iv. 31) 
 
 .105 
 
 viii. 15, 17, 
 
 . 39 
 
 V. 19 (E. V. V. 5), 
 
 . 103 
 
 xiii. 9, 
 
 . 103 
 
 viii. 3-6, . 1^ 
 
 t, 90, 97, 114, 
 
 xiv. 3, 19, 36, . 
 
 75, 86, 90 
 
 
 116, 227 
 
 xiv. 34, 37, 
 
 . 57 
 
 viii. 65, . 
 
 . 24 
 
 xiv. 35, . 
 
 . 90 
 
 ix. 25, 
 
 . 103 
 
 xxi. 1-9, . 
 
 90, 94 
 
 xii. 31, 32, 
 
 90, 98 
 
 xxii. 9, 20, 
 
 . 75 
 
 xiii. 2, 33, 
 
 90, 98 
 
 xxii. 10, . 
 
 . 57 
 
 XV. 5, 
 
 . 59 
 
 xxii. 11, 17, 18-21, 
 
 86, 90, 94 
 
 xix. 21, . 
 
 . 43 
 
 xxii. 17-19, . 
 
 . 83 
 
 
 
 xxii. 20, . 
 
 . 87 
 
 
 
 xxiii. 9, 10, 
 
 87, 90 
 
 2 Kings— 
 
 
 xxviii. 6, . 
 
 . 87 
 
 X. 11, 19, . 
 
 . 90 
 
 xxviii. 24, 
 
 . 43 
 
 xi. 4, . . 
 
 . 88 
 
 XXX. 7, 8, 
 
 87, 90 
 
 xi. 9, 10, 15, . 
 
 . 90 
 
 
 
 xii. 2, 
 
 88, 90 
 
 
 
 xii. 3 (E. V. 2), 
 
 . 62 
 
 2 Samuel— 
 
 
 xii. 4-6, 8, 16, . 
 
 . 90 
 
 vi. 13, . . . 
 
 . 12 
 
 xii. 11 (E. V. 10), 
 
 .111 
 
250 
 
 Index, 
 
 xiv. 1-20, 
 XV. 32, 38, 
 xvi. 2, 
 xvi. 11, 
 XVL 10, 
 xvii. 27, 
 xxii. 8, 
 xxii. 10-14, 
 xxiii. 4, 
 xxiii. 8, 9, 
 xxiii. 24, 25, 
 xxiii. 25, . 
 XXV. 1&-21, 
 
 PAGB 
 
 . 169 
 . 169 
 . 88 
 . 88 
 90, 130 
 62, 90 
 . 88 
 . 90 
 111 
 76 
 90 
 176 
 89, 90, 111, 136 
 
 89, 
 
 1 Chronicles — 
 ii. 6, .... 104 
 
 V. 27-29 (E. V. vi. 1-3), . 26 
 V. 30-40 (E. V. vi. 4-14), 106, 108 
 vi. 7-13 (E. V. 22-28), 94, 104 
 vi. 34-38 {E. V. 49-52), 106, 112 
 
 12, 
 
 ix. 1, 
 ix. 1, 
 ix. 2, 
 XV. 2, 
 XV. 11, 
 XV. 15, 
 XV. 26, 
 XV. 27, 
 x^a. 2, 
 xvi, 4, 
 xvi. 37, 
 xviii. 15, 16 
 xviii. 17, 
 xxi. 18, 
 xxiii. 13, 
 xxiii. 30, 
 xxiii. 31, 
 xxiv. 1-5, 
 xxiv. 3, 6, 
 xxiv. 6, 
 xxiv. 1-19 
 xxix. 21, , 
 xxix. 29, 
 
 18, 19, 
 
 168 
 168 
 15, 116, 220 
 . 13 
 107, 118 
 . 15 
 . 15 
 . 86 
 20, 103 
 . 19 
 . 107 
 108 
 58 
 103 
 112 
 117 
 65 
 75 
 75 
 108 
 107 
 103 
 173 
 
 107, 
 
 20, 21, 
 
 PAGB 
 
 2 Chronicles — 
 ii. 3 (E. M. 4), . . . 103 
 
 V. 6, 103 
 
 V. 5, 7, . 12, 13, 14, 97, 115, 
 116, 221 
 
 31, 
 
 viii. 12, la 
 
 ix. 29, 
 
 xi. 13, 14, 
 
 xii. 15, 
 
 xiii. 9, 10, 
 
 xiii. 9-11, 
 
 xiii. 10, 11, 
 
 xiii. 22, 
 
 xvi. 11, 
 
 xvi. 21, 
 
 xvii. 7-9, 
 
 xviii. 2, 
 
 xix. 11, 
 
 XX. 34, 
 
 xxiii. 6, 
 
 xxiii. 18, 
 
 xxiv. 3, 6, 
 
 xxiv. 5, 
 
 xxiv. 11, 
 
 xxiv. 27, 
 
 XXV. 26, 
 
 xxvi. 18, 
 
 xxvi. 20, 
 
 xxvii. 7, 
 
 xxviii. 26, 
 
 xxix. 4, 5, 11, 12, 
 
 xxix. 16, 
 
 xxix. 21, 
 
 xxix. 25, 
 
 XXX. 16, 
 
 XXX. 18, 
 
 XXX. 27, 
 
 xxxi. 2, 
 
 xxxi. 3, 
 
 xxxi. 6, 
 
 xxxi. 10, 
 
 xxxi. 11, 
 
 xxxi. 19, 
 
 15, 1 
 
 . 103 
 
 169, 173 
 
 51, 98, 117 
 
 169, 173 
 
 . 113 
 
 . 98 
 
 . 64 
 
 . 173 
 
 . 174 
 
 . 168 
 
 . 62 
 
 . 43 
 
 . Ill 
 
 . 168 
 
 . 17 
 
 16, 176, 225 
 
 . 107 
 
 . 229 
 
 . Ill 
 
 169, 174 
 
 . 168 
 
 65, 113 
 
 . Ill 
 
 168, 169, 174 
 
 168, 174 
 
 17, 46, 117 
 
 18 
 
 113 
 
 170 
 
 176 
 
 168 
 
 20, 115, 225 
 
 46, 117 
 
 46 
 
 53 
 
 111 
 
 141 
 
 113 
 
References to ike Scriptures. 
 
 251 
 
 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 xxxii. 32, . . .108 
 
 174 
 
 cvi. 16, . 
 
 59, 64 
 
 xxxiii. 18, 
 
 
 
 169 
 
 cxxxv. 19, 20, . 
 
 . 19 
 
 xxxiv. 9, . 
 
 
 
 111 
 
 
 
 XXXV. 3, . 
 
 
 18, 62 
 
 
 
 XXXV. 8, 18, 
 
 
 . 
 
 228 
 
 Proverbs— 
 
 
 XXXV. 14, . 
 
 
 . 
 
 113 
 
 xxi. 27, . 
 
 . 126 
 
 xxxvi. 8, . 
 
 
 • 
 
 168 
 
 
 
 
 
 Isaiah— 
 
 
 Ezra— 
 
 
 i. 1, . . . 
 
 . 169 
 
 i. 5, 
 
 227 
 
 i. 7, . . . 
 
 . 73 
 
 ii. 62, 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 75 
 
 i. 10, . . 
 
 . 176 
 
 iii. 2, 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 176 
 
 xix,. 
 
 . 129 
 
 iii. 12, 
 
 
 
 
 228 
 
 xxviii. 7, . 
 
 . 130 
 
 vii. 5, 
 
 
 
 Ill 
 
 112 
 
 xxxiv, 6, . 
 
 . 43 
 
 vii. 6, 
 
 
 
 158, 
 
 176 
 
 xxxvii. 2, . 
 
 . 130 
 
 vii. 10, 
 
 
 
 158 
 
 162 
 
 xl.-lxvi., . 
 
 . 182, 187 
 
 X. 5, 
 
 
 24, 115, 
 
 213 
 
 xUx. 13-23, 
 
 . 186 
 
 
 
 Ivi. 9, 
 
 . 188 
 
 
 
 Ix. 7, . . 
 
 . 48 
 
 Nehemiah— 
 
 
 Ixi. 6, 
 
 . 16 
 
 iii. 1, 20, . 
 
 111 
 
 Ixvi. 20-24, 
 
 . 186 
 
 viii. 1, 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 176 
 
 Ixvi. 21, . 
 
 130, 205 
 
 viii. 9, 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 62 
 
 
 
 ix. 5, 
 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 X. 28, 35, 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 24 
 
 Jeremiah — 
 
 
 X. 29, 35, 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 115 
 
 i. 1, . 
 
 . 97, 136 
 
 X. 38, 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 141 
 
 ii. 20, 
 
 . 72 
 
 X. 39, 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 113 
 
 ii. 26, 
 
 . 132 
 
 xi. 3, 
 
 
 
 
 228 
 
 iii. 6-11, . 
 
 . 123 
 
 xi. 20, 
 
 
 
 24, 
 
 115 
 
 iv. 9, 
 
 . 132 
 
 xii. 1, 
 
 
 
 
 229 
 
 vi. 19, . 
 
 . 132 
 
 xii. 23, 
 
 
 
 
 160 
 
 vii. 21, . 
 
 . 135 
 
 xii. 44, 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 46 
 
 vii. 22, 23, 
 
 72, 133 
 
 xiii. 12, . 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 141 
 
 ix. 25 (E. V. 26), 
 
 . 73 
 
 xiii. 23, . 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 138 
 
 xi. 4, 
 
 72, 133 
 
 
 
 xvii. 24r-26, 
 
 132, 136 
 
 
 
 xviii. 18, . 
 
 . 62 
 
 PsalTiiR — 
 
 
 XXX. 10, . 
 
 . 188 
 
 Ixxxi. 8, . 
 
 60 
 
 XXX. 22, . 
 
 . 72 
 
 Ixxxviii. 1, 
 
 105 
 
 xxxi. 14, 32, . 
 
 132, 136 
 
 Ixxxix. 1, . 
 
 105 
 
 xxxii. 6-12, 
 
 . 51 
 
 xcix. 6, 
 
 
 
 
 65 
 
 xxxii. 32, . 
 
 . 132 
 
2^2 
 
 Index. 
 
 xxxiii. 14-2G, 
 xxxiii. 18, 
 xxxiii. 21, 22, 
 xxxiv. 13, 
 xlvi. 10, . 
 lii. 24, 
 
 Ezekiel— 
 i. 26, 
 viii. 1, 
 viii. 17, 
 X. 1, . 
 xi. 20, 
 xiv. 1, 
 xiv. 14, 20, 
 xvi. 8^8 
 
 XX. 1, 
 
 XX. 6, 15, 23, 28, 42^ 
 
 XX. 12, 20, 
 
 XX. 23, 24, 
 
 xxii. 27, . 
 
 XXX. 19, . 
 
 xxxiii. 30, 
 
 xxxiv. 3, . 
 
 xxxiv. 27, 
 
 xxxvi. 7, . 
 
 xxxvi. 28, 
 
 xxxix. 17, 
 
 xl. 46, 
 
 xliii. 24, . 
 
 xliii. 18-27, 
 
 xliv., 
 
 xliv. 7, 
 
 xliv. 10, . 
 
 xliv. 11, . 
 
 xliv. 12, . 
 
 xliv. 15, 16, 15, 76 
 
 xliv. 17-31, 
 
 xliv. 23, . 
 
 xliv. 25, . 
 
 xUv. 27, 28, 
 
 xiv. 4, 5, . 
 
 xlvii. 14, . 
 
 PAGE 
 
 135 
 212 
 
 16 
 133 
 
 43 
 136 
 
 . 70 
 
 . 73 
 
 . 70 
 
 . 70 
 
 . 72 
 
 . 73 
 
 . 70 
 
 . 123 
 
 . 73 
 
 . 70 
 
 . 70 
 
 . 127 
 
 . 70 
 
 . 70 
 
 . 73 
 
 . 43 
 
 . 72 
 
 . 70 
 
 . 72 
 
 . 43 
 
 . 15 
 
 . 71 
 
 136, 213 
 6 
 
 . 73 
 74,76 
 
 . 18 
 
 . 70 
 
 136, 214 
 
 . 71 
 
 . 62 
 
 . 114 
 
 . 34 
 
 . 16 
 
 . 70 
 
 V. 3, 4), 
 
 Daniel — 
 ix. 11, 
 
 Hosea — 
 i. 2, . 
 i. 10, 
 ii. 15, 17 
 iv. 1-3, 
 iv. 6, 
 iv. 10, 
 vi. 6, 
 vi. 9, 
 ix. 10, 
 xi. 1, 
 xi. 9, 
 xii. 4, 5 (E, 
 xiii. 5, 
 
 Joel— 
 i. 13, 
 ii. 17, 
 
 Amos — 
 iv. 10, 
 
 v. 21, 22, 24, 25, 
 v. 26, 
 
 Micah — 
 iii. 11, 
 vi. 6-8, . 
 
 Zephaniah— 
 iii. 3, 4, . 
 
 Haggai— 
 ii. 11, 
 ii. 11-13, . 
 
 Zechariah — 
 iii. 5. 
 
 . 176 
 
 . 123 
 
 . 177 
 
 . 177 
 
 61 
 
 . 128 
 
 . 177 
 
 28, 134 
 
 . 128 
 
 . 178 
 
 . 177 
 
 . 178 
 
 . 176 
 
 . 178 
 
 16 
 
 . 16 
 
 . 179 
 
 . 126 
 
 . 126 
 
 . 62 
 
 . 131 
 
 . 131 
 
 . 137 
 . 62 
 
 . 137 
 
Hebrew and Chaldee Words. 
 
 253 
 
 vi. 11, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 . 137 
 
 Sirach— 
 
 PACK 
 
 xii. 13, . 
 
 . 138 
 
 xlv. 6, 
 
 . 26 
 
 xiii. 3, 
 
 . 119 
 
 xlv. 18, . 
 Matthew— 
 
 . 64 
 
 Malachi— 
 
 
 i., . 
 
 . 110 
 
 i. 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 
 
 . 143 
 
 
 
 ii. 4, 5, . 
 
 26,27 
 
 Luke— 
 
 
 ii. 4-8, . 
 
 . 141 
 
 xiv. 26, . 
 
 . 135 
 
 ii. 7, 
 
 . 62, 140 
 
 
 
 ii. 10-16, . 
 iii. 1-4, . 
 iii. 8-10, . 
 
 . 138 
 . 143 
 . 138 
 
 Acts— 
 viii. 30-35, 
 
 . 184 
 
 iii. 10, 
 
 . 140 
 
 
 
 iii. 22, . 
 
 . 176 
 
 1 Peter— 
 
 
 iv. 4, . . 
 
 . 140 
 
 i. 10-12, . 
 
 . 184 
 
 INDEX IV. 
 HEBREW AND CHALDEE WORDS. 
 
 '1:11 |ns-ns» 
 r\yo iSDi 
 
 . 34 
 
 59, 61 
 
 30, 32 
 
 31, 32 
 11 
 
 . 113 
 19, 20 
 . 212 
 
 . 50 
 
 13, 190 
 . 25 
 
 190 
 46 
 
 
 . 186 
 . 190 
 . 65 
 
 nrc*) • 
 
 46 
 
 n?| • 
 
 31,43 
 
 n3T n^T • 
 
 . 42 
 
 
 41 
 . 34 
 
 nxnn ■ 
 
 31, 32 
 
 TDn ■ 
 
 59, 60 
 
 1.13 . 
 
 . 57 
 . Ill 
 
 
 . Hi 
 
 SI 
 
254 
 
 Index. 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PACK 
 
 nbs • 
 
 173 
 
 "i^nn "iDiD • 
 
 . 162 
 
 
 190 
 
 min^i? D^sb^DH -iDD • 
 
 . 174 
 
 190 
 
 
 
 n')bh D^^n^!? • 
 
 190 
 
 . 174 
 
 th)V~^'v 'lii'i'ni'i ^j^ • 
 
 159 
 
 
 
 im:^i> • 
 
 18 
 
 . 162 
 
 Dnn^D nxb ■ 
 
 49 
 
 nny . 
 
 . 188 
 
 njD • 
 
 212 
 
 n^y . 
 
 . 31 
 
 -I3?D • 
 
 49 
 
 nnsn hv • 
 
 . 49 
 
 
 48 
 31 
 
 pv-i ^y . 
 
 . 48 
 
 
 39 
 39 
 
 pn^ • 
 
 . 70 
 
 ntJ'Ki ^J^'i;D • 
 
 39 
 
 
 
 ^:^ -^^v^ ■ 
 
 39 
 
 f35<-i:i>> c>np • 
 
 . 183 
 
 i^'2: '•DD ■ 
 
 189 
 
 t^^Dp • 
 
 . 43 
 
 pniDD x'-a^ ^L^'D • 
 
 162 
 
 nin^ nt^a «ip • 
 
 . 19 
 
 hi^i\i^^i 
 
 
 pip . 
 
 31,32 
 
 irn^x ^me^D • 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 n^nn TnK'D • 
 
 . 16 
 
 
 
 ti'^pDH TntJ'D • 
 
 16 
 
 
 41 
 31, 32 
 
 &<-ni ■ 
 
 . 57 
 
 "iK^yon n:tr • 
 
 . 52 
 
 -iii . 
 
 . 31 
 
 
 
 D•'^?c^i . 
 
 11 
 
 n-iin • 
 
 . 157 
 
 nbm . 
 
 . 34 
 
 nijpn . 
 
 . 157 
 
 THE END. 
 
 MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, 
 PRINTERS TO HER MAJESXY's STATIONERY OFFICE. 
 
In demy 8vo, price ^5. 6d., 
 
 OUTLINES 
 
 OF 
 
 HEBREW GRAMMAR 
 
 BY 
 
 GQSTAVUS BICKELL, D.D, 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT INNSBRUCK. 
 
 i^£&iS£ti ijg tj^e ^utjor, ant ^nnotat£t( ibg tjc STransIator, 
 SAMUEL IVES CUETISS, Jr., 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, LEIPZIG. 
 
 WITH A LITHOGRAPHIC TABLE OF SEMITIC CHARACTERS 
 BY DR. J. EUTING. 
 
 ' As the preface informs us, this book is not intended as a Grammar 
 for beginners. It is a scientific discussion of Hebrew as one of the 
 descendants from an ancient Semitic language, — a language more nearly- 
 approximated to the Arabic ; a discussion suited to those who are 
 acquainted with Hebrew, and as well to students of comparative 
 philology. After a view of the history of the language, the Author 
 treats of its phonology ; of the formation of stems ; of the formation 
 of words, and of syntax. 
 
 ' The value of the English edition is greatly enhanced by the table 
 of Semitic characters. Dr. Julius Euting, of the Library at Strass- 
 burg, had composed a table which scholars pronounced unexcelled. 
 
This table he himself enlarged and improved; and, moreover, Dr. 
 CuRTiss secured for it, from the Egyptian scholar Professor Ebers, of 
 Leipzig, the Egyptian letters. Probably it is what its forerunner was 
 said to be, the best table in existence. . . . Professor Franz Delitzsch 
 inserted three paragraphs upon the accents. ... Dr. Curtiss has not 
 only added many learned notes to the translation, but has also paid 
 great attention to correcting and completing historical dates and 
 items of Uterature.' — Dr. Caspar Rene Gregory, Leipzig, in the New 
 York Observer. 
 
 ' I fully appreciate the reasons which led you, with the co-operation 
 of the Author as well as of my friends Delitzsch and Euting, to give 
 this pregnant little work to the English-speaking world. Perhaps I 
 might have contributed something towards it, and this is still possible 
 in case of a second edition.' — Professor Dr. H. L. Fleischer, Leipzig. 
 
 ' I shall be very glad to recommend it to my students.' — Professor 
 Dr. LuDOLPH Krehl, Leipzig. 
 
 The German original is used by Lie. Hermann Guthe, of the Uni- 
 versity of Leipzig, as the basis of his lectures to the members of his 
 Hebrew Grammatical Society, and the English translation has been 
 recommended by him to his English-speaking students. 
 
 ' The little book will certainly be used with much profit in America, 
 and the excellent table of characters makes it valuable for us Germans.' 
 — Professor Dr. E. Riehm, Halle. 
 
 ' Your translation of Bickell reaches me in the nick of time, as I 
 mean to lecture on Comparative Grammar next term, and shall be able 
 to recommend it to my students.' — Professor William Wright, LL.D., 
 Cambridge. 
 
 ' The explanation of Hebrew forms by reference to a more primitive 
 condition of the language, which throws so much light on the apparent 
 darkness of the paradigms by which students are puzzled, was not 
 carried through any Grammar accessible to the English reader till the 
 appearance of Mr. Poole's translation of Land's " Principles of 
 Hebrew Grammar." Unfortunately this work has serious defects as a 
 manual for learners ; and the student who wishes to get a clear and 
 brief conspectus of the genesis of the Hebrew forms will probably do 
 
better to procure Mr. Curtiss's tracslation of Bickell's excellent 
 " Outlines of Hebrew Grammar." . . . The latter has a very admirable 
 table of Semitic characters by Euting, which is superior to anything 
 of the kind previously accessible.' — Professor W. R. Smith, Aberdeen 
 
 ' It is really multum in parvo. I have read over some portions of it, 
 and find it extremely original, interesting, and valuable in its treat- 
 ment of the language.' — Professor James G. Murphy, LL.D., T.C.D., 
 
 Belfast. 
 
 ' I have read the book with much interest. It is the most scientific 
 statement of Hebrew forms that I have seen, and is characterized by 
 soundness and acuteness. I think that it will make a good text-book. 
 I have been accustomed to give my senior class some of these details, 
 but so full and good a statement is welcome.' — C. H. Toy, D.D., 
 LL.D., Greenville, S.C., U.S.A. 
 
 'Through the translation of these Outlines, therefore. Dr. CuRTiss 
 has justly won a claim to the gratitude of his countrymen. . . . This 
 translation has the value of a new edition. The Author has revised 
 and improved the little book throughout. The sections on the 
 accents, which furnish an uncommonly concise, clear, and very precise 
 representation, are from the pen of Franz Delitzsch ; and the very 
 complete table of Egyptian (this from Ebers), and above all of the 
 Semitic characters, comes from the well-known master-hand of Euting, 
 — not to forget the many interesting and fine notes which the trans- 
 lator has addeJ.' — Professor Dr. Ludwig Diestel, Tiibingen, in the 
 Jalirhiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie. 
 
 ' Bickell's Grammar is among the best designed for the use of 
 students which we possess.' — Professor Dr. Bernhard Stade, Giessen, 
 in the Jenaer Literaturzeitiing. 
 
 'Dr. Euting's table is in a high degree an ornament to the book, 
 and should be alone sufficient to secure it a wide circulation.' — Pro- 
 fessor Dr. E. Kantsch, Basel, in the Thcologische Liter aturzeitung. 
 
 ' Those who may have read Bopp's '^ Comparative Grammar of the 
 Indo-Germanic Tongues," can understand the kind of service which 
 Professor Bickell has attempted for the Hebrew. As Sanscrit, 
 Greek, Latin, etc., flowed from a common fountain, Bickell assumes 
 
 R 
 
that there was a source from which the various dialects of the Semitic 
 race have sprung. . . . The Author's ability is conspicuous ; his 
 ground hypothesis not improbable ; his application of it to the 
 phenomena of the Hebrew tongue is exceedingly complete and in- 
 genious.' — Rev. A. RoBB, D.D., in the Edinburgh Daily Revicic. 
 
 ' The results of Dr. Bickell's researches cannot fail to be of the 
 highest interest to all students of Semitic philology. . . . The value 
 of the work is clearly recognised in Germany, and is beginning to be 
 recognised in England and America.' — British American Preshyteriav. 
 
 ' The translator's work is scholarly and thorough ; he has entered 
 into the spirit of the Author, and written what bears no marks of 
 being a translation.' — The Evening Post, New York. 
 
 ' Professor Bickell long since established his reputation as an 
 eminent Semitic philologian, and is especially esteemed as an editor, 
 commentator, and translator of Syriac works. That he is also a 
 master of the science of Hebrew Grammar was amply proved by his 
 '•Grundriss der Hebraischen Grammatik," which he published in 1869, 
 and of which the book before us is a translation.' — Tlie Nation, New 
 York. 
 
 The limits of this circular do not allow of quotations from Dr. 
 Reusch's Theologisches Literaturhlatt, The Academy, The Prcslnjterian, 
 The Advance, etc., which contained favourable notices of the transla- 
 tion. 
 
With a Lithographic Table, 8vo, Is., 
 
 THE NAME MACHABEE, 
 
 BY 
 
 SAMUEL IVES CURTISS, Jr., 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, LEIPSIG. 
 
 ' We recommend the reading of this dissertation to any one who 
 will become convinced that even the smallest and most minute point 
 is sufficient as a test of a scientific spirit and of sound knowledge. 
 Although about nothing else than the " Name Machabee," it is a fine 
 testimonial of the scientific method as well as of the thorough learning 
 of the Author.' — Professor Dr. E. Schurer, in the TJieologische 
 Literaturzeitung. 
 
 ' The Author, in our opinion, has proved that the recently almost 
 universally accepted fundamental form i3pD with p is highly doubt- 
 ful, and the derivation from 2pD very improbable. He has advanced 
 a very interesting explanation of the name, which seems to us to be 
 better than all other attempted etymologies. . . , The dissertation 
 was prepared with the greatest industry, with the use of all applicable 
 materials, and in its systematic outline is a pattern of all such special 
 investigations.' — Count Dr. Bandissin, Professor at Strassburg, in 
 the Jahrhiicher fiir Deutsche Tkeologie. 
 
T. and T. Clark's PuUications. 
 
 In two volumes demy 8vo, price 21s., 
 
 GROWTH OF THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 FROM THE FIRST CENTURY TO THE DAWN OF 
 THE LUTHERAN ERA. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. GEORGE MATHESON, M.A., B.D., 
 
 AUTHOR OF ' AIDS TO THE ST[:DY OF GERMAN THEOLOGY.' 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 1. The Originality and Olclness of 
 
 the Christian Keligion. 
 
 2. Preparation for the Cross. 
 '6. The Ingathering. 
 
 4. Birthplace of the Spirit of Chris- 
 
 tianity. 
 
 5. Transition from Infancy into 
 
 Childhood. 
 G. The Hopes of Childhood. 
 
 7. Breaking up of Home Associa- 
 
 tions. 
 
 8. Extinction of Home Associations. 
 1'. Independent Speculations of the 
 
 Child-Life. 
 
 10. Influence of Worldly Contact. 
 
 11. Moral Struggles of the Child-Life. 
 
 12. Fluctuations of the Struggle. 
 
 13. Decline of the Ideal. 
 
 14. The Child-Life under the "World's 
 
 Tuitioa, 
 
 15. Last Efforts of the Self- Will. 
 1(J. The Reconciliation completed. 
 
 17. Close of the Child-Life. 
 
 18. Characteristics of the New Period. 
 
 19. First Practical Influences of the 
 
 Cbristian Spirit. 
 
 20. First Intellectual Stage of the 
 
 School-Life. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 21. Protestant Influence of Moham- 
 
 medanism. 
 
 22. First Revolt of the School-Life. 
 
 23. The Church under New Guar- 
 
 dianship. 
 
 24. The Church become the World. 
 25 Revival of Aspiration. 
 
 26. First Glimmerings of the Ro- 
 
 mantic Age. 
 
 27. Expanding of Christian Intelli- 
 
 gence. 
 
 28. Second Revolt of the School-Life. 
 
 29. Last Triumph of the Temporal 
 Papacy. 
 
 Search for a Rule of Conduct. 
 
 31. Discovery of a New Well-Spring. 
 
 32. Decline of the Temporal Papacy. 
 
 33. Third Revolt of the School-Life. 
 
 34. Close of the School-Life ; the 
 
 Negative Reformation com- 
 pleted. 
 
 35. The Independence of Youth. 
 
 36. The Moral Preparation of Youth. 
 
 37. The Intellectual Preparation of 
 
 Youth in its relation to Art 
 and the Reformation. 
 The Dawn of a New Day. 
 
 JO. 
 
 38. 
 
 ' This work is thorouglily original in the highest sense. The main thought 
 of the book is at once simple aud profound. ... To say that the work is 
 fascinating, high in its literary merit, beautiful in its condensed descriptive 
 power, strong in its sure grasp of principles, striking in its extensive and 
 2)rofound historical knowledge, is to jsay but little of what we feel to be due 
 to the writer and his work. He has the vivid historical imagination which 
 enables him to live in the past, and ho has the artistic power of reproducing 
 the thought and life of former generations.' — Daily Review. 
 
T. and T. Claries Puhlications. 
 
 Just published, Second Edition, demy 8vo, 10s. 6d., 
 
 THE TRAINING OF THE TWELVE: 
 
 OR, 
 
 EXPOSITION OF PASSAGES IN THE GOSPELS EXHIBITING 
 
 THE TWELVE DISCIPLES OF JESUS UNDER 
 
 DISCIPLINE FOR THE APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 BY 
 
 A. B. BRUCE, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW. 
 
 * Here we have a really great book on an important, large, and attractive 
 subject — a book full of loving, •wholesome, profound thoughts about the 
 fundamentals of Christian faith and practice.' — British and Foreign Evangel- 
 ical Review. 
 
 ' It is some five or six years since this work first made its appearance, and 
 now that a second edition has been called for, the author has taken the oppor- 
 tunity to make some alterations which are likely to render it still more accept- 
 able. Substantially, however, the book remains the same, and the hearty 
 commendation with which we noted its first issue applies to it at least as much 
 now.' — Rock. 
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 In one volume 8vc, price 12s., 
 
 THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST 
 
 IN ITS PHYSICAL, ETHICAL, AND OFFICIAL ASPECTS. 
 
 (SIXTH SERIES OF CUNNINGHAM LECTURES.) 
 
 • These lectures are able and deep-reaching to a degree not often found in 
 the religious literature of the day; withal, they are fresh and suggestive. . . . 
 The learning and the deep and sweet spirituality of this discussion will com- 
 mend it to many faithful students of the truth as it is in Jesus.' — Congrega- 
 tional ist. 
 
 ' We have not for a long time met with a work so fresh and suggestive as 
 this of Professor Bruce. . . . We do not know where to look at our English 
 Universities for a treatise so calm, logical, and scholarly.' — English Independent. 
 
T. and T. Clark's PuUications. 
 
 Just published, in demy 8vo, price 12s., 
 
 THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE 
 OF SACRIFICE, 
 
 By ALFRED CAVE. B.A. 
 
 BOOK I.— PREPARATORY. 
 
 Part I. The Patriarchal Doctrine of Sacrifice. 
 Part II. The Mosaic Doctrine of Sacrifice. 
 Part III. The Post-Mosaic Doctrine of Sacrifice. 
 
 BOOK II.— PLEROMATIC. 
 
 ' We have Bothing but praise for its clearness, its metliod, its thorougLness, 
 and its tolerance. We most warmly commend Mr. Cave's book to the study 
 of the clergy, who will find it full of suggestiveness and instruction.' — Englisk 
 Churchman. 
 
 ' A thoroughly able and erudite book, from almost every page of which 
 something may bo learned. The author's method is exact and logical, the 
 style perspicuous and forcible — sometimes, indeed, almost epigrammatic ; and 
 as a careful attempt to ascertain the teaching of the Scripture on an important 
 subject, it cannot fail to be interesting even to those whom it does not con- 
 vince.' — Watchman. 
 
 * We wish to draw particular attention to this new work on the deeply-im- 
 portant subject of sacrifice. ... If we can induce our readers not only to 
 glance through the book, but to read every line with thoughtful care, as we 
 have done, we shall have earned their gratitude.' — Church Bells. 
 
 ' It would be difficult to point to any modern theological work in English 
 which reveals more abundant and patient scholarshii), a more vigorous and 
 comprehensive view of a great question. The subject is large and the litera- 
 ture enormous, the lines of investigation are numerous and intricate; but the 
 author of the volume before us has displayed a line mastery of voluminous 
 material, and, after examining the scriptural phraseology in its historical de- 
 velopment, positive declarations, and immediate inferences therefrom, he 
 draws out his conclusions with great care, and contrasts them with views 
 of a more speculative kind which have been advanced by distinguished 
 scholars in Germany and England. The argument of the volume is sustained 
 by logical compactness, lucidity of style, and considerable learning; it is a 
 guide to the opinions of the principal writers on every part of the subject, 
 and is pervaded by a fine spiritual tone.' — Evangelical Revitio. 
 
T. and T. Clark's PiMications. 
 
 Just published, in demy 8vo, price 6s., 
 A TREATISE ON THE 
 
 INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 BY 
 
 CHAELES ELLIOTT, D.D., 
 
 Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in tlie Presbyterian Theological 
 Seminary of the North- West, Chicago, Illinois. 
 
 Just published, in one large 8vo volume. Eighth English Edition, 
 price 15s., 
 
 A TREATISE ON THE 
 
 GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK, 
 
 llcgarb^ir as i^t gasis of g^rfo ^^stantjcnt (Eni^zm. 
 
 Translated from the German [of Dr. G. B. Winer], 
 
 With large additions and full Indices. Second Edition. Edited by 
 Kev. W. F. MouLTON, D.D., one of the New Testament Translation 
 Revisers. 
 
 The additions by the Editor are very large, and will tend to make 
 this great work far more useful and available for English students 
 than it has hitherto been. The Indices have been greatly enlarged, 
 but with discrimination, so as to be easily used. Altogether, the 
 Publishers do not doubt that this will be the Standard Grammar of 
 New Testament Greek. 
 
 'We gladly welcome the appearance of Winer's great work in an English 
 translation, and must strongly recommend it to all who wish to attain to a 
 sound and accurate knowledge of the language of the New Testament. We 
 need not say it is the Grammar of the New Testament. It is not only superior 
 to all others, but so superior as to be by common consent the one work of 
 reference on the subject. No other could be mentioned with it.' — Literary 
 Churchman. 
 
10 T. and T. Clark's PuUications. 
 
 Dr. LUTHARDT'S WORKS. 
 
 In three handsome crown Svo volumes, jyrice Gs. each. 
 
 • We do not know any volumes so suitable in these times for young 
 men entering on life, or, let us say, even for the library of a pastor called 
 to deal -with such, than the three volumes of this series. We commend 
 the whole of them with the utmost cordial satisfaction. They are alto- 
 gether quite a specialty in our literature.'— Weekly Review. 
 
 Apologetic Lectures on the Funda- 
 mental Truths of Christianity. Fourth Edition. By C. E. 
 LuTHARDT, D.D., Leipzig. 
 
 Apologetic Lectures on the Saving 
 
 Truths of Christianity. Third Edition. 
 
 Apologetic Lectures on the Moral 
 
 Truths of Christianity. Second Edition. 
 
 Just published, in demy S?'0, price 9is., 
 
 St. John the Author of the Fourth 
 
 Gospel. By Professor C. E. Luthardt, Author of ' Fundamental 
 Truths of Christianity,' etc. Translated and the Literature en- 
 larged by C. K. Gregory, Leipzig. 
 
 'A work of thoroughness and value. The translator has added a lengthy 
 appendix, containing a very complete account of the literature bearing on tht^ 
 controversy respecting this Gospel. Tbe indices which close the volume are 
 Avell ordered, and add greatly to its value.' — Guardian. 
 
 Crown 
 
 Luthardt, Kahnis, and Bruckner. 
 
 The Church : Its Origin, its History, and its Present Position. 
 
 'A comprehensive review of this sort, done by able hands, is both in- 
 structive and suggestive.'— Record 
 
T. and T. Clark's PuUications. 1 1 
 
 Just published, in demy 8vo, price 9s., 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS AND CALLI8TU8; 
 
 OR, 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE FIRST HALF OF 
 THE THIRD CENTURY. 
 
 By J. J. Ign. von DOLLINGER. 
 
 ^ranslateti, ioitfj IntroUuction, i^otcs, anti 'appmUiccs, 
 By ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., 
 
 MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM. 
 
 ' Tliat tliis learned and laborious work is a valuable contribution to eccle- 
 siastical history, is a fact of which we need hardly assure our readers. The 
 name of the writer is a sufl&cient guarantee of this. It bears in all its pages 
 the mark of that acuteness which, even more than the unwearied industry of 
 its venerated author, is a distinguishing feature of whatever proceeds from 
 the pen of Dr. Di3llinger.' — John Bull. 
 
 ' We are impressed with profound respect for the learning and ingenuity 
 displayed in this work. The book deserves perusal by all students in eccle- 
 siastical history. It clears up many points hitherto obscure, and reveals 
 features in the Koman Church at the beginning of the third century which 
 are highly instructive.' — Athenssum. 
 
 Just published, in two volumes demy 8vo, price 12s. each, 
 
 A HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 iFrom ti}£ ©riginal ©ocuments. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROJI THE GERMAN OP 
 
 C. J. HEFELE, D.D., Bishop of Rottenburg. 
 
 VOL. I. {Second Edition) TO A.D. 325. 
 By Rev. PREBENDARY CLARK. 
 
 VOL. IL A.D. 326 TO 429. 
 By H. N. OXEN HAM, M.A. 
 
 'This careful translation of Hcfele's Councils.' — Dr. Pusey. 
 
 ' A thorough and fair compendium, put in a most accessible and intelligent 
 form.' — Guardian. 
 
 ' A work of profound erudition, and written in a most candid spirit. The 
 book will be a standard work on the s,u\)iecC— Spectator. 
 
 ' The most learned historian of the Councils.' — Pert Gratry. 
 
 ' We cordially commend Hefele's Councils to the English student.' — Juhu 
 Bull 
 
12 
 
 T. and T. Clark's PuUications. 
 
 Iq three Yolumes 8vo, price 31s. 6d., 
 
 A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF 
 ST JOHN. 
 
 By F. GODET, D.D., 
 
 Professor of Theology, Neuchatel. 
 
 'This work forms one of the battlefields of modern inquiry, and is itself 
 so rich in spiritual truth, that it is impossible to examine it too closely; and 
 we welcome this treatise from the pen of Dr. Godet. We have no more com- 
 petent exegete; and this new volume shows all the learning and vivacity for 
 which the author is distinguished.'— i^reemaw. 
 
 Just published, in two volumes 8vo, price 21s., 
 
 A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF 
 ST LUKE. 
 
 By F. godet, 
 
 Doctor and Professor of Theology, Neuchatel. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND FRENCH EDITION. 
 
 ' Marked by clearness and good sense, it will be found to possess value and 
 interest as one of the most recent and copious works specially designed to 
 illustrate this Gospel.' — Guardian. 
 
 KEIL 
 
 AND 
 ON 
 
 DELITZSCH'S COMMENTARIES 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 lOs. M. each volume. 
 
 Vol. 
 
 PENTATEUCH, 3 Vols. 
 JOSHUA, JUDGES, and RUTH, 1 
 
 SAMUEL, 1 Vol 
 
 KINGS, 1 Vol., and CHRONICLES, 1 Vol 
 EZRA, NEHEMIAH, and ESTHER, 1 Vol. 
 
 JOB, 2 Vols 
 
 PSALMS, 3 Vols 
 
 PROVERBS, 2 Vols 
 
 ECCLESIASTES and SONG OF SOLOMON 
 
 ISAIAH 2 Vols 
 
 JEREMIAH AND LAMENTATIONS, 2 Vols. 
 
 EZEKIEL, 2 Vols 
 
 DANIEL, 1 Voi 
 
 MINOR PROPHETS, 2 Vols. 
 
 1 T 
 
 ' This series is one of great importance to the Biblical scholar; and as regards 
 its general execution, it leaves little or nothing to be desired.' — Edinburgh 
 Review. 
 
 OL. 
 
 (Keil.) 
 
 (Keil.) 
 
 (Keil.) 
 
 (Keil.) 
 
 (Keil.) 
 
 (Delitzsch.) 
 
 (Delitzsch.) 
 
 (Delitzsch.) 
 
 (Delitzsch.) 
 
 (Delitzsch.) 
 
 (Keil.) 
 
 (Keil.) 
 
 (iK^eil.) 
 
 (Keil.) 
 
T. cmcl T. Clark's Piiblications. 13 
 
 Just published, price 7s, 6d., 
 
 ON CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 Translated and Adapted (with the Kevision of the Author) 
 
 JFrom i^z ©nrman of 
 
 Dr. henry J. W. THIERSCH. 
 
 ' The work is thoughtful, earnest, and moderate in tone.' — Scotsman. 
 
 ' In a rather thin octavo are discussed seventeen subjects, each one enough 
 for a volume, yet the essays are neither shallow nor evasive ; the writer is in 
 earnest, and goes at once to the root of the matter. The style is singularly 
 clear, and the language is concise, quite unlike what is often the German 
 manner, A hundred quotations might be made, leaving a hundred bits 
 equally good. This book deserves to reach a tenth edition.' — Record. 
 
 Just published, in demy 8vo, Third Edition, price 10s. 6d., 
 
 MODERN DOUBT & CHRISTIAN BELIEF. 
 
 A SERIES OF APOLOGETIC LECTURES ADDRESSED TO 
 EARNEST SEEKERS AFTER TRUTH. 
 
 By THEODORE CHRISTLIEB, D.D,, 
 
 UXIVERSITY PREACHER AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT BONN. 
 
 Translated, with the Author's sanction, chiefly by the Rev. H. U. 
 Weitbrecht, Ph.D., and Edited by the Rev. T. L. Kingsbury, 
 M.A., Vicar of Easton Royal, and Rural Dean. 
 
 ' We recommend the volume as one of the most valuable and important 
 among recent contributions to our apologetic literature. . . . We are heartily 
 thankful both to the learned author and to his translators.' — Guardian. 
 
 ' All the fundamental questions connected with revealed religion are handled 
 more or less fully. The volume shows throughout intellectual force and 
 earnestness.' — A thenaeum. 
 
 'We express our unfeigned admiration of the ability displayed in this work, 
 and of the spii-it of deep piety which pervades it ; and whilst we commend it 
 to the careful perusal of our readers, we heartily rejoice that in those days of 
 reproach and blasphemy, so able a champion has come forward to contend 
 earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.' — Christian 
 Observer. 
 
14 T. and T. Claries Puhlications. 
 
 Jast published, in crown 8vo, price 6s., 
 
 SERMONS 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 CHRISTIAN YEAR 
 
 ADVENT-TRINITY. 
 By Professor ROTHE. 
 
 Translated by WILLIAM R. CLARK, M.A. Oxon., 
 
 PRBBENDARY OF WELLS AND VICAR OF TAUNTON. 
 
 ' The volume is rich in noble thoughts and wholesome lessons.' — Watchman. 
 Just published, in two vols, large crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d. each, 
 
 THE YEAE OF SALVATION. 
 
 WORDS OF LIFE FOR EVERY DAY. 
 A BOOK OF HOUSEHOLD DEVOTION. 
 
 By J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE, D.D. 
 
 ' A work of great value and interest. To the clergy these readings will be 
 found full of suggestive hints for sermons and lectures ; while for family 
 reading or for private meditation they are most excellent. The whole tone 
 of the work is thoroughly practical, and never becomes controversial.' — Church 
 Bells. 
 
 ' The very best religious exposition for everyday use that has ever fallen in 
 our way.' — Bdfs Weekly Messenger. 
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 Just published, in crown 8vo, price 6s., 
 
 MOSES: 
 
 A BIBLICAL STUDY. 
 
 ' Our author has seized, as with the instinct of a master, the great salient 
 points in the life and work of Moses, and portrayed the various elements of 
 liis character with vividness and skill. ... The work will at once take its 
 place among our ablest and most valuable expository and practical discoui-ses.' 
 — Baptist lijagazine. 
 
 'A volume full of valuable and suggestive thought, which well deserves 
 and will amply repay careful perusal. We have read it with real pleasure.' — 
 Christian Ottserver. 
 
T. and T. Clark's Piiblications. 15 
 
 Just published, price 9s., 
 
 SAIMT AUGUSTINE. 
 
 A POEM IN EIGHT BOOKS. 
 
 By the late HENRY WAEWICK COLE, Q.C. 
 With Prefatory Note by tlie Bishop-SuflEtagan of Nottingham. 
 
 ' Written in sonorous and well-sustained verse. The testimony borne to 
 t.lie dignity and the value of the two sacraments and to the authority of the 
 Scriptures, as the revelation of God, is, we consider, of special value, as coming 
 from a learned and cultivated layman, of considerable repute at the bar, in an 
 age of prevalent scepticism.' — Church Bells. 
 
 Recently published, in demy 8vo, price 7s. 6d., 
 
 THE MIRACLES OF OUR LORD 
 
 IN RELATION TO MODERN CRITICISM. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF 
 
 F. L. STEINMEYER, D.D., 
 
 Ordinary Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin. 
 
 ' This work vindicates in a vigorous and scholarly style the sound view of 
 miracles against the sceptical assaults of the time.' — Princeton Revieio. 
 
 In demy 8vo, price 6s., 
 
 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 A Commentary, Grammatical and Critical, upon 
 Isaiah lii. 13-liii. 12. 
 
 WITH DISSERTATIONS UPON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH XL.-LXVI., 
 AND UPON THE affiANING OF EBED JEHOVAH. 
 
 By WILLIAM URWICK, M. A., 
 
 Of Trinity College, Dublin; Tutor in Hebrew, New College, London. 
 
 ' This is a very able and seasonable contribution to biblical literature.'— 
 Watchman. 
 
 ' The commentary evinces the great ability, accurate and extensive scholar- 
 ship, and admirable judgment of the author.' — Wtekly Review. 
 
1 G T. and T. Clark's PuUications. 
 
 Just published, price 5s., 
 
 MESSIANIC PROPHECY: 
 
 ITS ORIGIN, HISTORICAL CHARACTER, AND RELATION TO 
 NEW TESTAMENT FULFILMENT. 
 
 By Dr. EDWARD EIEHM, 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, HALLE. 
 
 Translated from the German, with the approbation of the Author, 
 
 By the Rev. JOHN JEFFERSON. 
 
 ' Undoubtedly original and suggestive, and deserving careful consideration.' 
 — Literary Churchman. 
 
 ' Its intrinsic excellence makes it a valuable contribution to our biblical 
 literature.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review. 
 
 ' The product of a well-balanced mind, which is able to weigh conflicting 
 theories and to assign them their due proportion.' — English Independent. 
 
 In demy 8vo, price 7s. 6d., 
 
 SERMONS TO THE NATURAL MAN. 
 
 Br WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD, D.D., 
 
 AUTHOR OF 'A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE,' ETC. 
 
 ' These sermons are admirably suited to their purpose. Characterized by 
 profound knowledge of divine truth, and presentiug the truth in a chaste and 
 attractive style, the sermons carry in their tone the accents of the solemn 
 feeling of responsibility to which they owe their origin.' — Weekly Review. 
 
 In demy 8vo, price 12s., 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 TO 
 
 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 By PATON J. GLOAG, D.D., 
 
 AUTHOR OF A ' CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.' 
 
 ' A work of uncommon merit. He inust be a singularly accomphshed divine 
 to whose library this book is not a welcome and valuable addition.' — Watchman. 
 
 ' it will be found of considerable value as a handbook to St. Paul's Epistles. 
 The dissertations display groat thought as well as research. Thu author is 
 fair, learned, and calm, and his book is one of worth.' — Church Bills. 
 
T. and T. Clark's Picblications. 1 7 
 
 In crown 8vo, Second Edition, price 4s., 
 
 PRINCIPLES 
 
 OF 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT QUOTATION 
 
 ESTABLISHED AND APPLIED TO BIBLICAL SCIENCE. 
 By Rev. JAMES SCOTT, M.A., B.D. 
 
 * This admirable treatise docs not traverse in detail the forms and formulae 
 of New Testament quotation from the Old, nor enter with minuteness into 
 the philological and theological discussion arising around many groups of 
 these quotations — the author confines his attention to the principles involved 
 in them. . . . An interesting discussion, vindicating the method thus analyzed, 
 is followed by a very valuable summation of the argument in its bearing on 
 the canon, the originality of the Gospels, the internal unity of Scripture, and 
 the permanence of revelation.' — British Quarterly Review. 
 
 Recently published, in demy 8vo, price 9s., 
 
 A CHRONOLOGICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL 
 INTRODUCTION TO 
 
 THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 
 
 BY C. E. CAS PAR I. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES, BY 
 
 M. J. EVANS, B.A. 
 
 Revised by the Author. 
 
 ' The work is handy and well suited for the use of the student. It gives 
 him, in very reasonable compass and in well-digested forms, a great deal of 
 information respecting the dates and outward circumstances of our Lord's 
 life, and materials for forming a judgment upon the various disputed points 
 ai-ising out of them.' — Guardian. 
 
 ' An excellent and devout work. We can strongly recommend it.' — Church 
 Quartei'ly Revieio. 
 
18 T. and T, Clark's PuUications. 
 
 Just published, in crown 8vo, price 5s., 
 
 THE SYMBOLIC PARABLES 
 
 OF 
 
 THE CHURCH, THE WORLD, AND THE ANTICHRIST; 
 
 iScittg tlje Sqjaratc prctiictians of tlje ^pncalgpse, 
 
 VIEWED IN THEIK RELATION TO THE GENERAL TRUTHS OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 By Mrs. STEVENSON. 
 
 ' An excellent treatisp, containing much clear thought, and written as 
 intelligibly as the subject would permit. To students of prophecy the book 
 ought to be an attractive one ; and to every one who desires to have a clearer 
 understanding of his Bible, it will give much valuable assistance.' — Glasgow 
 Herald. 
 
 *This is a sober, well-written, and instructive treatise on the Apocalypse. 
 It is exceedingly suggestive, and the theory the autiior expounds holds well 
 together. The key seems to fit every ward of the lock. This volume is 
 worthy of the most serious consideration of all who take an interest in pro- 
 phecy.' — Daily Revieio. 
 
 ' It is quite refreshing to meet with a treatise on the Book of Eevelation 
 like this, marked by good sent-e and reverence. Brief as it is, it throws more 
 light on a difficult subject tban many laboured tomes.' — Methodist Recorder. 
 
 Just published, in crown Svo, price 4s., 
 
 OUTLINES OF BIBLICAL PSYCHOLOGY. 
 
 By J. T. BECK, D.D., 
 
 PROF. ORD. TIIEOL., TUBINGEN. 
 
 translate!! from tfje ^fjirti lEnlargrti antr ffiorrcctctJ ffiterman €tiition, IS77, 
 
 ' In this little volume Dr. Beck has giveu us a valuable contribution to the 
 study of this science.' — Homiletic Quarterly. 
 
 ' The smallness of the work should not lead to its being undervalued ; it 
 well deserves a place side by side with Delitzsch and Heard, . . . We do 
 wannly recommend this volume as one of the most fresh and valuable contri- 
 butions to theological literature of recent date.' — Wesley an Methodist Maga- 
 zine. 
 
 ' "We quite endorse Bishop Ellicott's statement that, for many readers, Beck's 
 will be found to be the most handy manual on the subject.' — Church Bells. 
 
BS1196.5.P7C92 
 
 The Levitical Priests; a contribution to 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00045 9919