forthe-fvumting ef a. College uviMiCtflpAyl •YAKJi'^KiwiEiasjnnf- ° miiBiiy&iKHr • DIVINITY SCHOOL TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION GENERAL AND SPECIAL BY JOHN HOWARD RAVEN, D. D. Professor of Old Testament Languages and Exegesis, Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church in America, at New Brunswick, N. J. New York Chicago Toronto Fleming H. Revell Company London and Edinburgh Copyright, 1906, by FLEMING H. EEVELL COMPANY New York : 158 Fifth Avenue Chicago : 80 Wabash Avenue Toronto : 27 Richmond Street, W. London s 21 Paternoster Square Edinburgh : 100 Princes Street PREFACE An apology is due to those who read theological books for adding another to the already long list of volumes on the Higher Criticism. The apology is that the great majority of works on this subject are from' the negative standpoint, while most of the others are too brief to be of much value, and substitute ridicule for argument. The orthodox theologian weakens his posi tion by undervaluing the force of the radical arguments. He does not commend himself to fair-minded people by ignoring or ridiculing his opponents. The tradi tional view of the Old Testament has nothing to fear except from the ignorance and the prejudice of its adherents. The present volume has arisen primarily from the need of a conservative text-book which covers the whole range of the subject. The writer has endeavored to avoid on the one hand that over-conciseness which leaves the student in the dark and on the other that over-full ness which leaves him in a fog. As far as possible the arguments of the liberals are given in their own words, not only to conserve fairness but to encourage the student to read the opposite side of the case. This is the cause of the large number of quotations. The lists of words, parallel passages, and other details which are necessary for the argument in certain parts are intended for reference. It is hoped that they will open the way for individual research. The dates of books are not s 6 PREFACE meant to be final or exact, but only approximate. The bibliography is select rather than exhaustive. Books accessible to the average student and minister are given the preference. Only those books in a foreign language are mentioned which have not been translated into English and which present the most recent views. Their number is kept at the minimum. The writer is firmly convinced that this battle must be fought in the open. The insidious nature of the current views of the Old Testament is not realized by many sincere Christians who espouse them. There is no middle ground between a thoroughly naturalistic conception of the origin of the Hebrew scriptures and that view of them which is found in the scriptures themselves. Christ and the Old Testament are so united by mutual testimony that a low view of the credibility of the latter must result in a low view of the credibility of the former. If this book shall do a humble part in confirming the faith of any of Christ's ministers in those ancient books which foretold and prepared for the coming of the Saviour who gave His precious blood for us, the author's labors will be abundantly rewarded. New Brunswick, N. J., January, 1906. CONTENTS PAGE PREPARATORY. Definition and History of the Science 11 PART I General Introduction I. The Canon 17 II. The Text „ 43 PART II Special Introduction FIRST DIVISION. THE LAW PRELIMINARY. The Pentateuch in Geneeal . . 85 I. Genesis 129 II. Exodus 136 III. Leviticus 143 IV. Numbers 145 V. Deuteronomy 147 SECOND DIVISION. THE PROPHETS Section 1. The Former Prophets PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 149 I. Joshua 150 II. Judges 156 III. Samuel 163 IV. Kings 170 7 8 CONTENTS v Section 2. The Latter Prophets PAGE PRELIMINARY. Hebrew Prophecy 177 I. Isaiah 185 II. Jeremiah 199 • III. Ezekiel 204 IV. The Twelve 208 1. Hosea 208 2. Joel 212 3. Amos 217 4. Obadiah 220 5. Jonah 223 6. Micah 229 7. Nahum 232 8. Habakkuk 234 9. ZEPHANIAH 236 10. Haggai 239 11. Zechariah 241 12. Malachi 248 third division, kethubim Section 1. Poetical Books PRELIMINARY. Hebrew Poetry 251 I. Psalms 256 II. Proverbs 267 III. Job 272 Section 2. Megilloth I. Song of Solomon 283 II. Ruth 292 III. Lamentations 296 IV. Ecclesiastes 303 V. Esther 312 CONTENTS 9 Section 3. Historical Books PAGE I. Daniel 317 II. Ezra — Nehemiah 333 1. Ezra 333 2. Nehemiah 339 III. Chronicles 342 TABLE OF DATES OP OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS . 349 BIBLIOGRAPHY 351 PREPARATORY DEFINITION AND HISTORY OF THE SCIENCE I. Definition. Old Testament Introduction is that branch of Biblical Introduction which relates to the Old Testament. Biblical Introduction formerly was made to include all those subjects which are introductory to the study of the Bible — Biblical Archaeology, Geography, Natural History, Hermeneutics, Apologetics, and Criti cism. The term is now properly used only of Criticism. Thus Old Testament Introduction is the science which relates to the critical questions of the Old Testament. General Introduction considers the Old Testament as a whole, and discusses (1) the canon in its origin, extent, arrangement, and preservation; and (2) the text in its languages, manuscripts, versions and critical editions. Special Introduction deals with the individual books, considering their authorship, date, purpose, and in tegrity. Introduction thus includes the Lower and Higher Criticism of which the former strives to restore the original text of the scriptures by a comparison of manuscripts, versions, and quotations, and the latter seeks to determine the genuineness, integrity, and purpose of the books. II. History. The first to use the name " introduc tion" in relation to the Bible was the Syrian monk Adrian, whose book, "'Eiaaywyyj eh rd\s 8e(a) ten elders, Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his own book and the Book of Kings and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his college wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Koheleth. The men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel, the Twelve [Minor Prophets] Daniel and Esther. Ezra wrote his own book and the genealogies of the Book of Chronicles as far as himself." While all these views concerning authorship may not be accepted, the passage implies agreement concerning the extent of the canon and includes precisely the books in our Hebrew Bibles. Two of the critical objections bear upon this point; — viz. that from the Samaritan Pentateuch and that from the synagogue lessons. Whatever be the date of the Samaritan Pentateuch, it does not prove that the Jews possessed no other canonical books at the time the Samaritans took the books of Moses from them. The Samaritans refused to take the other books because those books sanctioned the worship at Shiloh and Jeru salem instead of Mt. Gerizim. Therefore the Samaritans also altered the text of the Pentateuch to give greater reverence to their holy mountain. The synagogue read- THE CANON 31 ings give no information concerning the date of the canonization of the Prophets. Wildeboer admits that as early as the Maccabees it was customary to read a sec tion of the Prophets with the section of the Law. In the time of Christ the same was the case though the readings in use were different from those in our Hebrew Bibles (Luke 4: 16-19; Acts 13: 14-15). Thus as far back as our knowledge goes we find the Prophets read with the Law. If there were a time when the Law only was read, it would only prove that the Eabbins did not consider the other books adapted to public reading, not that originally only the Pentateuch was canonical. 2. From Christian Sources. — The Christians received their canon from the Jews. This process is well de scribed by Eeuss : " Those of the believers who belonged to the Jewish nation did not cease to frequent the syna gogue — to them the public reading of the sacred books continued therefore to be a familiar practice. They soon introduced into their own special meetings, even before their final separation, the same means of edifica tion as were used in the Jewish religious gatherings; and later, when the schism was complete, these means were preserved and bequeathed to succeeding genera tions" (p. 4). Eusebius has preserVel the catalogue of books of Melito, Bishop of Sardis (died after 171 A.D.) who went to the East to investigate the number and order of the books : " Five of Moses — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Euth, four of Kingdoms, two of Chronicles, Psalms of David, Prov erbs of Solomon, which is also Wisdom, Ecciesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; the Prophets — Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in one Book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra." In this 32 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION list as in the enumeration of Josephus and Jerome, Lamentations was probably included with Jeremiah and Nehemiah with Ezra. The omission of Esther may have been due to the objections which certain Jews raised against it. If so Melito was not in harmony with the traditional view either among Jews or Christians. Justin Martyr (died 164 A.D.) was born in Palestine and lived for a long time in Eome. He therefore had peculiar opportunities of knowing both the Jewish and Christian canon of the Old Testament. He quotes freely from the canonical books but never from the Apocrypha. Origen (died at Tyre 254 A.D.) counted 22 canonical books and gave a list of them which also is quoted by Eusebius. It omits the Minor Prophets. This omission however cannot have been intentional for it would leave the number of books 21. It was due either to inadvertence on the part of Origen or Eusebius, or else our text of Eusebius is corrupt. Tertullian (died about 230 A.D.) says that there are 24 canonical books of the Old Testament. This number was probably made by counting Euth and Lamentations separately. The testimony of Christian writers in the fourth century and later is too voluminous to mention. Thus the evidence from Jewish and Christian sources is all in favor of the canon as we have it. Elias Levita a Jewish Eabbi in his work Masoreth Hammasoreth, completed A.D. 1538, expressed the opinion that the final collection of the Old Testament canon was com pleted by Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue. A similar view was held by David Kimchi (1160-1232). Though such a theory cannot be firmly established, there are three facts which make it possible if not probable. THE CANON 33 (a) The testimony of Josephus that the canon was completed in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus in the life-time of Ezra. (&) Ezra was especially concerned with the sacred books. He is called " the scribe " (Neh. 8 : 1, 4, 9, 13 ; 12: 26, 36), "a ready scribe in the law of Moses" (Ezra 7 : 6) and " a scribe of the words of the command ments of Jehovah, and of his statutes to Israel " (Ezra 7:11). (c) The character of Ezra's time was such that the collection of the sacred books may appropriately have been made in it. After the Exile the people were found ing anew the religious institutions of the nation. What could be more natural than to gather the volumes of the sacred library? There was a feeling that prophecy was about to cease (Zech. 13:2-5; Mai. 4:5). No other period of Israel's history was so appropriate for the closing of the canon. If not by Ezra at least in his time and not much later than 400 B.C. the Old Testament canon was closed. VII. The Antilegomena. The Mishna (about 200 A.D.) speaks of strong controversies concerning the Song of Solomon, Ecciesiastes, and Esther in the second century A.D. and the Gemara alludes to objections to Ezekiel which were settled by 66 A.D. Proverbs was also under discussion among the Jews in the second century. The objection to the Song of Solomon was that it seemed to be a poem of merely human love, to Ecciesiastes that it tended toward Atheism, and to Esther that it did not mention the name of God. These three according to Wildeboer are the only Old Testament Antilegomena, for he considers the objections to Ezekiel of a less serious nature. It was that it contradicts cer- 34 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION tain requirements of the Mosaic Law. The objection to Proverbs was that certain of its maxims contradict each other. In the first century the disciples of Hillel main tained the canonicity of Ecciesiastes while those of Shammai opposed it. The canonicity of Ecciesiastes and the Song of Solomon was settled by the Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90). Yet the discussion continued in the second century until the Mishna again affirmed these books canonical. Even in the third century Esther was spoken against. These facts do not prove that the canon of the Old Testament was unsettled until 200 A.D. as the critics affirm. Buhl admits : " Such attacks upon biblical books do not exclude the idea of an earlier established canon, for indeed criticism of the several writings of the Old Testament was never altogether silenced after the Synod of Jamnia nor even after the decision given in the Mishna. Further, the very attacks referred to pre suppose a Scripture Canon" (p. 26). The objections to these books were an attempt to remove them from the canon. And on the other hand, the breaking out of the discussion after the decision of the Synod and after the affirmation of the Mishna proves that the books were not canonized by the authority of Synod or Mishna. If the critical view of canonicity be correct these books are not canonical to this day. Luther thought that Esther should be excluded from the canon and I Maccabees included in it. No one on that account doubts the limits of the Protestant canon. In like manner these objections do not indicate any uncertainty in our Lord's time and later concerning the limits of the Old Testa ment. The books of Esther, Ecciesiastes, and the Song THE CANON 35 of Solomon are not quoted in the New Testament simply because the New Testament writers had no occasion to quote them, as was also the case with Ezra, Nehemiah, and three of the Minor Prophets. VIII. The Apocrypha. In addition to the books of the Hebrew canon the Septuagint includes the following : I Esdras, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, the Epistle. of Jeremias, I, II, III, and IV Maccabees and certain additions to Esther, Daniel, and Psalms. These additions are said by modern critics to indicate a broader view of the canon among the Alex andrian Jews from that which obtained in Palestine. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, considered the Apocrypha of inferior value to the canonical books, but he was persuaded to translate Tobit and Judith and to incorporate from the Itala also, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees and the additions to Daniel and Esther. Augustine, however, persuaded the African Church to canonize these books. At the Eeformation the Protestants maintained the stricter opinion of Jerome. The Eoman Catholic Church on the other hand at the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) affirmed the equal canonical authority of all the books of the Vulgate. The Greek Church took the same course at the Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 1672). Luther included the Apocrypha in his translation but with the preface: "These are books not to be held in equal esteem with holy scripture but yet good and useful for reading." The influence of Calvin was against the Apocrypha. In England however they were not excluded from the editions of the British and Foreign Bible Society until 1825 after a sharp controversy. 36 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION There are three principal arguments in defense of the Apocrypha, as stated by Green (p. 181). " 1. The Apocrypha were included in the early ver sions of the scriptures. " 2. They were read in the churches in public worship. "3. They were quoted by the fathers as divinely authoritative." Concerning the first of these arguments we reply : I. Of the four great ancient versions, the Syriac Peshitta did not include them and Jerome did not con sider them canonical. Their inclusion in the Septuagint cannot be due to a different view of the canon from that in Palestine as is seen from three considerations. (a) There is every indication of harmony between the Jews of Palestine and Egypt, which could not be the case if they differed on so vital a matter as the canon. (6) Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, quotes extensively from most of the canonical books but neither quotes nor mentions any of the Apocrypha. (c) Josephus in the argument against Apion, an Alexandrian grammarian, enumerates the sacred books but says nothing of the Apocrypha, as he would almost certainly have done if the view of Egyptian Jews had differed from that in Palestine on this subject. Thus the ancient versions at most prove no higher authority for the Apocrypha than that for example which was conceded by Martin Luther. How they came into the Septuagint we do not know, though it is con ceivable that it arose from their being kept in rolls on the same shelf with the sacred books. In reply to the second argument, it is sufficient to state that the reading of the Apocrypha in public worship by no means implies their canonicity. Jerome clearly says: THE CANON 37 " As therefore the Church reads the books of Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so it also reads these two vol umes (Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, but not for authority to prove the doc trines of religion." Athanasius held a similar opinion. There is no more evidence from this ancient custom for the canonicity of the Apocrypha than there is for the same view in the Church of England which appoints certain lessons from the Apocryphal books " for example of life and instruction of manners." Concerning the quotations and references of the fathers to the Apocrypha a few considerations are important : (a) A mere quotation of an Apocryphal book does not imply that it was considered canonical. (6) Many of the church fathers were careless in quoting the Apocrypha by the formulas strictly belong ing to sacred scripture. Such carelessness however exists even in the writings of those fathers who elsewhere declare explicitly against the Apocrypha. This in accuracy may have been the result of the inclusion of these books in the Septuagint and Vulgate. (c) Even if it be proved that certain church fathers quoted the Apocrypha as canonical we need only reply that they were in error. Sufficient evidence is cited elsewhere to show that such was not the general view of the church in ancient times. Wildeboer mentions several reminiscences of extra- canonical books in the New Testament as evidence that the New Testament writers considered those books authoritative. He lays especial stress on seven quotations : Matt. 27 : 9 " from an Apocryphal book of Jeremiah." 38 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Luke 11:49"| "manifestly quotations though we John 7 : 38 >¦ are not able to identify the sources " James 4: 5 J (p. 53). I Cor. 2 : 9 according to Origen from the Apocalypse of Elias. Eph. 5 : 14 according to Epiphanius from the Apoca lypse of Elias. Jude 14-16 from the Book of Enoch. To these Buhl adds : Heb 11 : 35 founded on II Mace. 6. II Tim. 3:8) which he considers either from the Heb. 11 : 37 ) Apocrypha or oral tradition. Answer. — (a) Of the seven quotations claimed by Wildeboer, not one is from a book contained in the Septuagint. The books alluded to are not considered canonical by any modern church. No argument can be derived from their use for the canonicity of the Apocry pha as found in the Septuagint or the Vulgate. (&) The way the passages are quoted should be noted. If, for example, Heb. 11 : 35 be shown to be an allusion to II Mace. 6 it merely proves that the writer of the epistle considered II Mace, a truthful historical record — not that he considered it canonical. If Paul quoted certain Greek authors with approval without affirming their divine authority, these references to the Pseude- pigrapha give no evidence that the books were canonical. Eeuss admits : " In all the New Testament no one has been able to point out a single dogmatic passage taken from the Apocrypha and quoted as proceeding from a sacred authority" (pp. 8-9). In this conclusion Eyle concurs (p. 154). (c) The passages alluded to are not quotations. At the most they are only bare allusions to certain books THE CANON 39 current at that time. Some of these allusions may have been to oral traditions or the well-known facts of Israel's history rather than to any Apocryphal record of that history. IX. The Three-fold Division of the Canon. Several theories have been advanced to account for the arrange ment of the books of the Hebrew scriptures. 1. The current critical view is that the three divisions indicate three stages of collection and canonization. Answer. — This view does not account for the facts. As will be shown under Special Introduction, several books of the third division (Job, Proverbs, Song of Solo mon, Euth, and many Psalms) are older than several books in the second division (Kings, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi). Indeed according to Jewish tradition inspiration ceased with Malachi. The second division of the canon must therefore have remained open till nearly all of the books of the third division were in existence and hence canonical. Furthermore this theory does not account for the names of the second and third divisions. On what principle was the third division begun? Why were not the books of the third division admitted into the second instead of being placed by themselves? For this the critics give no satisfactory explanation. 2. The Jewish theologians assert that the three divi sions of the canon correspond to three degrees of in spiration. The highest form of inspiration was that of Moses who spoke directly with God; the second that of the prophets who Wrote by the spirit of prophecy; and the lowest that of the other writers who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Answer, — Such a distinction as this has no warrant 40 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION in the scriptures themselves. The prophets possessed equal authority with Moses and the other writers with the prophets. The distinction between the spirit of prophecy and the Holy Spirit is purely imaginary. 3. Certain conservative writers distinguish the pro phetic gift and the prophetic office. The books of those who held the prophetic office were placed in the second division, while the writings of those who had the gift of prophecy but were not officially prophets were placed in the third division. This theory is the most satis factory. A. It agrees with the true view concerning the test of canonicity. The Old Testament books were imme diately recognized as divinely authoritative, because their authors were known as the official representatives of God among His people. This fact made it important to separate the writings of the prophets from the works of those men who were inspired but were not prophets. B. It accounts for the classification of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings as the " Former Prophets." These books cannot have been called Prophets from their internal character. Buhl thinks that they were put in the second division because they contained occasional utterances of the prophets. Such a principle however would have brought in Chronicles. The principle of arrangement was evidently not in the contents of the books but in the official status of their authors. C. It also accounts for the separation of Daniel from Ezekiel, his contemporary prophet, and the separation of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah from Samuel and Kings, the other historical books. The books of Moses, the founder of the theocracy, were placed by themselves, then those of his successors, the prophets, and finally THE CANON 41 those of other inspired men not prophets. Some of these were Kings like David and Solomon, others priests like Ezra, and others were possessed by the spirit of prophecy like Daniel. Three serious objections are offered to this view. A. Lamentations is found among the Kethubim al though it is considered the work of the prophet, Jeremiah. Answer. — It has been shown from the testimony of Origen, Jerome, and probably Josephus that Lamenta tions and Euth were often placed and counted with Jeremiah and Judges. When so counted the number of books was 22, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. When Euth and Lamentations were counted separately the number was 24, the number of letters in the Greek alphabet. The arrangement according to the Hebrew alphabet was probably the older. Hence the original position of Euth and Lamentations was among the Prophets because their authors held the prophetic office. Later they were placed with the other three short books which were also read in the synagogue on certain feast and fast days. These five Megilloth were arranged in the Hebrew Bibles in the order of the days on which they were read in the synagogues : the Song of Solomon at the Passover, Euth at Pentecost, Lamenta tions at the fast on the ninth of Ab, Ecciesiastes at the Feast of Tabernacles, and Esther at Purim. B. A greater difficulty is that of Daniel which is found in the third division, although Daniel was a prophet (Matt. 24: 15; Mark 13 : 14). Answer. — Although Daniel possessed the spirit of prophecy to a marked degree, his office and his work were altogether exceptional. He was not among the 42 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION exiles like Ezekiel but at the court of Babylon, and he had to do with heathen kings rather than with the people of Israel. In the New Testament, like David, (Acts 2 : 29-30) he is called a prophet because of his predictions. C. The words of Amos 7 : 14 ("I was no prophet neither was I a prophet's son") are said to overthrow the distinction between the prophetic gift and the prophetic office. It is said that according to our prin ciple Amos should be among the Kethubim on his own word. Answer. — A careful reading of the context will show that Amos does not deny his prophetic office. He is speaking of what he was before God called him to be a prophet; for immediately after this statement he says, "The Lord took me as I followed the flock and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people, Israel" (Amos 7:15). This was his commission as a prophet, a commission which was never given to Daniel. II THE TEXT I. languages of the Old Testament. The Old Testament was written in the Hebrew language with the exception of portions of Daniel (2:4 — 7:28) and Ezra (4 : 8 — 6 : 19 ; 7 : 12—27) and a verse in Jeremiah (10:11) which are Aramaic. There are also certain Aramaic words in Gen. 31 : 47 and possibly elsewhere, though many words and forms commonly considered Aramaic may have been rare or archaic Hebrew. II. The Semitic Languages. The family of lan guages to which Hebrew and Aramaic belong is called Semitic for convenience although on the one hand they were not spoken by all Semitic people (Persia, Gen. 10:22), and on the other they were spoken by some non-Semites (Phenicians, Gen. 10:15). Zimmern classifies these languages as follows : 1. Babylonian-Assyrian, represented by cuneiform documents from at least the fourth to the first mil lennium before Christ. 2. Aramaic. Ancient Aramaic inscriptions. A. West Aramaic. (1) Biblical Aramaic (Jewish Aramaic). [The Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra is better classified as East Aramaic] (2) Palmyrene Inscriptions. 43 44 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION (3) Nabatean Inscriptions. (4) Jewish-Palestinian Aramaic. (a) Jewish- Aramaic (Targum Onkelos, Tar gum Jonathan). (&) Galilean-Aramaic (Jerusalem Talmud, Jerusalem Targums and Midrash). (5) Christian-Palestinian Aramaic (Galilean- Aramaic) . (6) Samaritan. (7) The modern Aramaic dialect of Ma'lula in the Lebanon. B. East Aramaic. (1) Babylonian Aramaic (Babylonian Talmud). (2) Mandsean. (3) Syrian (of Edessa). (4) The modern Aramaic dialects in Tur 'Abdin, in Assyria, in Kurdistan, and on Lake Urmiah. 3. Canaanite. (1) Canaanite glosses of the Tel-el- Amarna letters. (2) Phoenician (and modern Punic). (3) Hebrew. (a) Biblical Hebrew. (6) Post-Biblical Hebrew. (4) Moabite. (The Mesa Inscription). 4. Arabic. A. North Arabic. (1) North Arabic inscriptions of different kinds. (2) Classic ancient Arabic. (3) Modern Arabic dialects. The Arabic of Syria, Egypt, Tunis, Malta, and Oman. THE TEXT 45 B. South Arabic. (1) Minaaan and Sabaean inscriptions. (2) Modern South- Arabian dialects (Mehri). 5. Ethiopic. (1) Ancient Ethiopic inscriptions. (2) Ethiopic (Geez). (3) Modern Ethiopic dialects. (a) Tigre, Tigrina. (6) Amharic. (Vergleichende Grammatik, pp. 1-3.)" These five groups are by some reduced to two by designating Arabic and Ethiopic as South-Semitic in contrast to the others as North-Semitic. It was for merly customary to divide them into the East-Semitic (Babylonian-Assyrian) and the West-Semitic. The Semitic languages are all derived from a single parent language which disappeared in prehistoric times. They are much more closely related to each other than are the Indo-European languages, having many things in common both in vocabulary and gram matical structure. Though the original Semitic may have come from a common source with the Indo-Euro pean languages, the Semitic languages now possess scarcely anything in common with the Indo-European. There is however a close affinity between the Semitic languages and the Egyptian and other Hamitic tongues of Northeastern Africa. This is specially seen in the personal pronouns, the numerals, and in the formation of the verb. Concerning the original home of the Semitic lan guages, there is a wide difference of opinion. Von 46 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Kremer, Guidi, and Hommel by a careful study of the words which the Semitic languages have in common, and of those in which they differ, and which therefore each language must have obtained after separation from the parent stock, conclude that the original Semites migrated to Babylonia from the regions south and southwest of the Caspian Sea. The more probable theory is that of Wright, Sayce, Schrader, and others, that the Semites came into Babylonia from the south, viz., from the Arabian peninsula — a view which is supported by Semitic tradition. It is also confirmatory of this theory, that though the youngest of the Semitic languages, Arabic exhibits the least evidence of decay and preserves the original grammatical structure more nearly than any other Semitic language. All this agrees admirably with Schrader's conception of the migration of the primitive Semites from Arabia, as outlined by William Wright: "He imagines the northern Semites — i. e., the Aramaeans, Babylonians, and Canaanites — to have parted in a body from their brethren in the south, and to have settled in Babylonia, where they lived together for a long period. The Aramaeans would be the first to separate from the main body of emigrants; at a considerably later period, the Canaanites; last of all the Assyrians. At the same time an emigration would be going on in a southerly direction. Leaving the northern Arabs in Central Arabia, these emigrants would settle on the southern coast of the peninsula whence a band of them subse quently crossed the sea into Africa and pitched in Abyssinia" (Comparative Semitic Grammar, p. 9). A third theory has been advanced by Noldeke who argues from the resemblance with the Hamitic Ian- THE TEXT 47 guages that the home of the Semites may have been in Africa (Sem. Sprache p. 11). There are several peculiarities of the Semitic lan guages in which they differ radically from the Indo- European : 1. The Semitic alphabet consists exclusively of con sonants, the vowels not being essential to the roots of the words. 2. Words in their various forms and inflections are made chiefly by internal changes rather than by external additions to the root. These internal changes are of two kinds, the introduction of certain vowels, and the doubling of certain consonants. 3. Eoots consist almost invariably of three letters. 4. The Semitic languages lack the exactness of ex pression peculiar to the Indo-European, but on the other hand they far excel all other languages in vivid ness. They are weak in those connectives and particles which give precision to language but very rich in words and forms which indicate intensity and plurality or which contain metaphors. They are concrete rather than abstract and pictorial rather than logical. They express the ruling element in the Semitic character which was emotional rather than intellectual. 5. Finally the Semitic languages exhibit far less ten dency to change than the Indo-European. This also corresponds to the Semitic character which has kept the Orient unchangeable in customs and dress for thousands of years. Even where these languages have come in contact with other languages through immigra tion, commerce and conquest, they have resisted strongly the tendency to change. It has often been pointed out that on account of thc 48 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION last two of these peculiarities a Semitic language was best adapted to be the medium of the early revelation to mankind, since that revelation so largely took the symbolic, pictorial form, and the preservation of the contents of revelation unchanged was of the utmost importance. When however revelation took the abstract form and symbol gave place to reality, the New Testa ment was given in the most exact of all languages, the Greek. A brief statement of the history of these languages must suffice. 1. The Assyrian, or as some prefer to name it the Babylonian, is the most ancient Semitic language in the remains which we now possess. Through excavations during the last half century we have a very large number of documents in this language extending from 4000 B.C. or even earlier to about 500 B.C. when the Assyrian yielded to the Persian. These remains include rock inscriptions, royal histories inscribed on large clay tablets, astronomical reports, the code of Hammurabi, hymns, syllabaries, inscribed boundary stones and a great mass of commercial contracts and letters upon small clay tablets often inclosed in a clay envelope. Though many of these antedate 1000 B.C. the great majority belong to the five centuries succeeding that time. As early as 1400 B.C. Assyrian was the political language of western Asia and in it the governors of Syria made their reports to their Egyptian master, as preserved in the Tel-el-Amarna letters. Although the Assyrian is the oldest known Semitic tongue, even in its earliest form it shows evidence of having undergone a long development. Doubtless this is partly due to the influence of the ancient non-Semitic THE TEXT 49' Akkadian language which it replaced. The old perfect of the verb is almost lost as is also the distinction be tween the guttural letters. Therefore although Assyrian is not of great value grammatically in the study of Semitic and especially of Hebrew, and we cannot agree with those enthusiastic Assyriologists who consider it the Sanskrit of the Semitic languages, we may expect from its vocabulary increasing light upon the hapax legomena of the Old Testament and from the contents of its literature increasing confirmation of Old Testa ment history. The language of the ancestors of Abra ham, of the nation whose civilization overran Palestine in the century before the Exodus, and which finally conquered both the Northern and the Southern king doms is of great importance to the study of the Old Testament. 2. The original home of the Aramaic language was probably on the southern part of the Tigris. From there it gradually spread over all the western portion of the great Assyrian empire. The name of the country where this language was spoken is 0}N or Syria. Aramaic was the language of Padan-Aram where Laban lived and of the kingdom of Damascus which had such frequent intercourse with Israel and Judah. It was the popular tongue of a large part of the ancient Baby lonian empire and was known to Daniel and Ezra. In the Persian period its influence spread over Syria and Palestine and reached even to Asia Minor, Arabia, and Egypt. The Jews did not however change their own language for Aramaic during the Exile, as was formerly supposed, and the name Chaldee for the language of Daniel and Ezra is altogether erroneous. The Jews found Aramaic in Palestine upon their return and 50 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION there it gradually replaced the Hebrew. Aside from numerous inscriptions in the countries already men tioned, the chief monument of Eastern Aramaic is found in the portions of Daniel and Ezra. These are quite near to the Hebrew. The later Western Aramaic of the Targums and Talmud however differs widely from this earlier form. Since the Jews used the term Aramasan as a designa tion for heathen, that name was rejected by the Syrian Christians. In its place they called their language by the Greek name Syrian or Syriac, a name which was originally identical with Assyrian but later was con fined by the Greeks to the western portion of the Assyrian empire. The Syrian Christians also adopted different letters from the Jewish, probably from an Arabic source, and in this language we have the ancient Syriac version of the scriptures called the Peshitta. The Samaritan language was also a dialect of Aramaic and it is spoken to-day in various forms in isolated places of the East. Aramaic was the language of Palestine in the time of Christ and probably of our Lord himself. 3. The third group includes the languages of ancient Canaan and especially Hebrew. Of all the Canaanite nations and indeed of all people speaking Semitic lan guages the Phenicians were the greatest traders. Their ships went the entire length of the Mediterranean and even to Britain and they made colonies in Cyprus, Sicily northern Africa, and Spain. The oldest known inscrip tions in Phenician, which is very similar to Hebrew, date from the eighth century before Christ. Many later ones have been found, especially in the neighbor hood of Tyre and Sidon and of ancient Carthage. THE TEXT 51 A. The name Hebrew is variously explained. It is used in the Old Testament of the people and never of their language. By some it is derived from 13J> « be yond," hence the people who came from beyond the river Euphrates. Therefore Abram is called the Hebrew (Gen. 14:13). Others trace it to Eber the father of Peleg (Gen 11 : 14). Whatever its derivation the term Hebrew was used broadly of all Semites (Gen. 10 : 21) and of a people beyond the Euphrates (Num. 24 : 24) . In later times it was the national name of the chosen people as Israel was their covenant name. This distinction gave place to that of Israel and Judah from the schism of Jeroboam and onward. The lan guage is called the language of Canaan (Isa. 19:18) and the Jews' language (Isa. 36:11) in the Old Testa ment but Hebrew in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus. Aramaic is called Hebrew in the New Testament as the language of the Hebrew people ( Jno. 5:2; Acts 21 : 40 ; 22 : 2, and probably Jno. 19 : 20). B. Remains of Hebrew. The Old Testament is al most the only classic Hebrew in existence. The lan guage of the Moabite stone is indeed so similar to Hebrew that it is classed as such by Eoediger and later by Kautzsch in their editions of Gesenius' Hebrew Gram mar. This inscription of thirty-four lines was dis covered by a German missionary, F. A. Klein, at Dibon, east of the Dead Sea, and is now preserved in the Louvre. Mesa, king of Moab (about 900 B.C.), records thereon his battles with Israel and his buildings (II Kings 3:4-5). Others designate this language Moab ite. Another fragment of ancient Hebrew is the inscrip tion of six lines found in 1880 in the tunnel between the Pool of Siloam and the Virgin's Spring in Jerusa- 52 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION lem. This belongs to the eighth century B.C. (II Kings 20:20). Besides these there are certain seals engraved with proper names, some of them pre- exilic, and a number of coins of John Hyrcanus (135 B.C.). The Mishna (200 A.D.) and many books of later times were written by Jewish scholars in imita tion of the Old Testament language, but such works should no more be classed with Hebrew literature than modern theological works in Latin with Latin literature. C. History of Hebrew. The origin of the Hebrew lan guage is involved in obscurity. Its similarity to the language of the tribes which Israel conquered as evi denced by the Canaanite glosses in the Tel-el-Amarna letters, argues that Hebrew must have been the lan guage of the patriarchs before their descent into Egypt On the other hand, the fact that their kinsman Laban spoke not Hebrew but Aramaic (Gen. 31:47) and that Jacob is called an Aramaean (Deut. 26 : 5) argues that Abraham did not bring the Hebrew language with him from Haran. The most probable explanation is that Abraham found this language in Canaan. Since it was so similar to Aramaic it was easily adopted by the three generations of patriarchs who lived in Canaan. That it was preserved during the four centuries in Egypt is explained by the isolation of Israel in that land and the probability that they remained in intercourse with the inhabitants of southern Palestine. From the time of Moses the history of the Hebrew language can be traced in the Old Testament itself. There is not sufficient evidence for the conclusion that there were different dialects of Hebrew in different parts of Palestine, though the pronunciation of an Ephraimite differed in some respects from that in Gilead (Judges THE TEXT 53 12 : 6) just as in New Testament times a Galilean could be distinguished by his speech (Matt. 26 : 73 ; Luke 22 : 59). There is however in Hebrew as in other languages a sharp distinction between the language of prose and that of poetry, the latter retaining many unusual words, forms and constructions which had become obsolete in prose. The history of the language falls into two periods, the dividing line being shortly before the Exile. The books written before this time show comparatively little change while those written later exhibit a rapid de terioration from the purity of the older language. This has been well described by Green : " In the writings of Jeremiah and Zephaniah, there is a manifest decline. The books of Daniel, Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah form a striking contrast in point of purity of language with the historical books written at an earlier date. The books of Chronicles possess the characteristics of the later Hebrew to a greater extent than the Kings, for though the latter were written during the Exile, they preserve more exactly the language of the older writings upon which they are throughout based. Ezekiel pre sents the greatest number of anomalies and foreign forms. He lived and labored amongst the exiles and probably reflects more exactly than any other writer the actual deterioration which had taken place in the language of common intercourse. The transition which was going forward is also shown in the fact that Daniel and Ezra are written partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaean. It is remarkable that in the prophets sub sequent to the exile, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the language is less infected with Aramaeisms and ex hibits a marked return toward the purity and correct- 54 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION ness of former times. This is doubtless due to their study and imitation of earlier writers and not to any improvement of the language as popularly spoken" (General Introduction. The Text, pp. 21-22). There is a difference of opinion concerning the date when Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language, some contending that it was replaced by Aramaic during the Exile and others that it remained in use more or less till the second century B.C. Both these views are ex treme. The first is opposed by the fact that the post- Exilic prophets used Hebrew as the language of the people, and the other by the Aramaeisms of the Exilic prophets and the Aramaic portions of Ezra and Daniel. We know that Aramaic was known to Jewish courtiers in the days of Hezekiah 701 B.C. (II Kings 18:26). But the process of change from Hebrew to Aramaic must have been a slow one, beginning before the Exile and continuing a century or more after it. Yet many must have understood Aramaic before Hebrew ceased to be spoken, as is shown by the fact that the authors of Ezra and Daniel wrote in both languages. D. Hebrew Letters. The present square characters of our Hebrew printed Bibles were not the original ones. The Siloam inscription and the Maccabean coins were written in another form which is very similar to that which has been preserved in the Samaritan Penta teuch. According to the best authorities these older letters were derived from the Phenicians. It is im possible to determine accurately when they gave place to the square letters. The reference of our Lord to yodh as the smallest letter of the alphabet seems to indicate that the same letters were in use in his time THE TEXT 55 as in ours (Matt. 5:18). Probably their introduction was a gradual process completed not later than a century before Christ. E. Vowel Points and Accents. The vowel points and accents are also a later addition in Hebrew as in Arabic and Syriac. The variatioji^j^JM-^ntuagint^and Origen's Hexapla m the tran^jterationjf proper names shows that they did not possess the vowel .points. Syna gogue manuscripts never have them. The earliest trace of their existence is in a manuscript of the Latter Prophets dated 916 A.D. discovered by Firkowiteh in 1839. On the other hand the Talmud which was com pleted in the fifth century gives no evidence of their existence. Doubtless the. voweL.Pflints.jand, accent&jyere introduced by the, Massoxiies- not jgajli.er,r than, thejixtji century, in order to perpetuate the ancient tradition concerning the meaning and pronunciation of the sacred text. F. The Study of Hebrew. Since the completion of the Old Testament canon the Hebrew language has been the subject of study, first among Jews and then among Christians. The scribes, who were the successors of Ezra, busied themselves with the sacred text. After the destruction of Jerusalem, schools for the study of the sacred language were established in the east and flourished there nearly a thousand years. Their stu dents are called the Massorites or students of the Mas sorah, tradition. From them came the Targums, the Talmud, the system of vowel points and accents, and the heri notes. About 1000 A.D. the Jewish schools in Spain began to be prominent, especially at Grenada, Toledo and Barcelona. These scholars studied the grammar and lexicon of the language scientifically and 56 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION many of the grammatical terms in modern use came from them. The most famous grammarians of this period were David Kimchi of Narbonne, France (1160- 1232 A.D.) and Elias Levita who died at Venice in 1549. Among Christians there was a prejudice against the study of Hebrew in the post-Apostolic age. Origen in the east and Jerome in the west are the only church fathers who pursued it. The same ignorance of the language continued until the Eeformation, when with the revival of learning, a new interest in this study arose, under Jewish teaching. The most eminent of these Eeformation scholars was John Eeuchlin, whose gram mar appeared in 1506v^Ail"H5le~"El3formers however were acquainted with Hebrew, but for more than a century after the Eeformation the Christian study of Hebrew followed Jewish methods and accepted Jewish results. Johann Bustorf (1564-1629), Professor at Basel, and his son of the same name (1599-1664) added much to the knowledge of Hebrew, the former produc ing a Hebrew grammar and lexicon as well as a Eabbinic Bible. Albert Schultens (1686-1750), Professor at Leyden, was the first to make use of Arabic extensively in the study of Hebrew. He with N. W. Schroder (died 1798) were the leaders of the Dutch school. In the nineteenth century the language has been studied more scientifically than ever before. Of the many Hebraists of modern times the most important are Williamjifisjnius (1786-1842) of Halle whose lexicon and grammar have gone through many editions to the present time, G. H. A. Ewald (1803-1875) of Gottingen who attempted a rational explanation of the phenomena of the language and Justus Olshausen (1800-1882) of THE TEXT 57 Berlin who traced Hebrew words and forms to primitive Semitic as perpetuated in Arabic. 4. Arabic. This branch of the Semitic family of languages is divided into the North and South Arabic. A. North Arabic was the language whose original home was in the northern and central. portion of that vast peninsula. Though the peoples of northern Arabia are known to have engaged in wars with Assyria, Persia and Eome, we have as yet no knowledge of the language in those ancient times, except a few inscriptions perhaps of the time of the Ptolemies The Arabs who lived in the ancient Nabathean Kingdom east of the Dead Sea (Isa. 60 : 7) shortly before and after Christ, spoke Aramaic. Yet their native language often shows itself through the adopted tongue. And their Arabic was evidently very similar to the classic language. In the sixth century of our era the Arabic was essentially the same throughout all the Northern portion of the penin sula. From this period come a large number of poetic rhapsodies in the purest form of the language. The military conquests of Mohammed and his fanatical fol lowers within a hundred years carried the standard of the prophet as far east as India and westward through all northern Africa and into Spain. The Koran was written in Koraish, the language of the tribe to which the prophet belonged. Its style is in imitation of the poets of the previous century. This became the sacred classic language for the entire Mohammedan world. It fixed the language in a stereotyped form from which there has been very slight variation even to the present day. It is true that considerable variety exists in pronunciation, for example between Egypt and Syria, and the common people carelessly drop the vowel sounds 58 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION at the end of words. Nevertheless the written language to-day is everywhere practically identical with that of the prophet. It is spoken in its purest form by the Bedouin of the desert and is most corrupted in Malta, in which island is found the only dialect of Arabic spoken exclusively by Christians. Concerning the extent of Arabic literature, the great est of modern Arabic scholars, William Wright, has said : " There are few, if any, nations of ancient and medieval Europe which can boast of a literature like the Arabic, especially in history, geography, philosophy, and other sciences, to say nothing of poetry, and of the peculiar systems of theology and law which depend upon the Koran and the Sunnah" (Comparative Semitic Grammar, p. 27). The Arabic is distinguished among the Semitic languages not only for its extensive litera ture but the great wealth of its vocabulary and the remarkable simplicity and richness of its grammatical structure. On these accounts it is of more value than any other language to the student of Hebrew. B. South Arabic was the language of the ancient kingdom of Saba or Sheba, mentioned in the Old Testa ment (I Kings 10:1; Job 1:15; Joel 3:8) on the southern coast of Arabia. It is also called Himyaritic and includes the ancient language of the provinces of Yemen, Hadramaut (Gen. 10:26) and Mahrah. It is known to us in its pure form only from inscriptions whose dates are probably from the second century before to the fifth century after Christ. In Yemen this lan guage yielded early to Northern Arabic, but the eastern provinces retained their language longer, and the modern dialects of southeastern Arabia as far as the island of Sokotra differ considerably from pure Arabic. THE TEXT 59 5. Ethiopic was the language of Abyssinia, an ancient Himyaritic colony, and it is classed by many in the same group with Arabic. Its ancient name was Geez. The oldest remains of it are royal inscriptions which date from 350-500 A.D. Noldeke thinks that the first mis sionaries to Abyssinia must have spoken Aramaic. Thus he accounts for the traces of Aramaic especially in the religious vocabulary of Geez. The translation of the Bible into Ethiopic belongs to the fourth and fifth centuries. From this time until about 1000 A.D. it continued to be the language of the people, but after this time it was cultivated only by the priests and as the language of the schools. The modern representa tives of Ethiopic in the order of their nearness to the mother-tongue are the three dialects of Tigre, Tigrina, and Amharic. Apart from Arabic the last-named dialect is spoken by more people than any other Semitic language, its territory extending far to the south. Many of those speaking it however are not Semites and well-nigh half its vocabulary is derived from non- Semitic languages. Its literature is confined to a few songs of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and books of European missionaries in the nineteenth century. III. Hebrew Manuscripts. The manuscripts of the Old Testament are of two kinds, synagogue rolls and private manuscripts. The former were used for reading in the public worship. They accordingly included only those parts read in the synagogue, viz., the Pentateuch, selections from the Prophets and the five Megilloth. The Law was commonly in a roll by itself, then the Haphtaroth or selections from the Prophets and the five small books in as many small rolls. According to 60 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION the Talmud the utmost care was taken in the prepara tion of these rolls, the rules governing the kind of parchment and ink, the formation of the letters and columns, and the correction of the manuscript. If four errors were found on one page of a manuscript it was rejected. When these manuscripts became old they were placed in the Geniza, or lumber-room of the syna gogue. Not many of them have come into Christian hands. Private manuscripts were also prepared with great care and many of them are beautifully adorned with handsome initial letters and marginal pictures. They are often accompanied by marginal additions such as the Massora, a Targum or Arabic version, or a Eabbinic commentary. Sometimes they are upon rolls but more often in book form and rarely is the entire Old Testament contained in a single volume. The determination of the age of Hebrew manuscripts is a very difficult matter. Often they are undated and one must depend entirely upon the known antiquity of some marginal doxology or other formula. The dates attached to many manuscripts are difficult to interpret, for they count from different eras and often the thousands and even the hundreds are omitted. Fur thermore dates are sometimes added to them or existing dates altered, in order to increase their value. There are also many extravagant stories concerning the age of some manuscripts. The known manuscripts of the Old Testament are not nearly so numerous as those of the New Testament. Nor are they so old as the Greek manuscripts or even the manuscripts of some Old Testament versions. The oldest dated manuscript is the St. Petersburg Codex of A.D. 916 which contains THE TEXT 61 the Latter Prophets. A facsimile of this codex has been edited by Professor Strack (St. Petersburg 1876). Ginsburg however considers the manuscript in the British Museum, known as Oriental 4445 to date from A.D. 820-850. This contains 186 folios of which 55 were lost and replaced, according to a note, in A.D. 1540. The Codex of Moses ben Asher from about 890- 895 A.D. is said to be kept by the Karaite Jews in Cairo and that of his son Aaron ben Asher is said to be in the possession of the Jews in Aleppo. The former of these contains only the Prophets, the latter the entire canon. The oldest manuscript of the entire Old Testa ment is one of the Firkowitsch collection dated A.D. 1010. An examination of several hundred manuscripts has resulted in finding no important variations — far fewer than are found in New Testament codices. The Samaritan Pentateuch should also be classed among Hebrew codices, since it is not a translation of the Pentateuch into the Samaritan language, but the Hebrew original written in Samaritan letters. The first copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch to reach Europe was brought thither from the Samaritan community in Damascus by the Italian traveler Peter della Valle in 1616 A.D. It was published in the Paris Polyglott (1645) and the London Polyglott (1657). The copy preserved in the synagogue at Nablus is said to have been written by Abishua, the great-grandson of Aaron. The oldest known manuscript of the Samaritan Penta teuch is in the New York Public Library. Its date is 1232 A.D. There has been much discussion concerning the origin and reliability of the Samaritan Pentateuch. These questions depend largely upon the origin of the Samari- 62 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION tans themselves. They are not descendants of Israelites of the northern kingdom but of the colonists whom the king of Assyria sent to Samaria after its capture and the exile of its inhabitants (II Kings 17: 24-25). These colonists adopted the worship of Jehovah (II Kings 17: 25-29) and when the exiles returned to Jerusalem, the Samaritans offered to assist them in rebuilding the temple (Ezra 4:1-2). This being refused they set up a rival temple on Mount Gerizim, which they now affirm was built in Joshua's day. In the- seventeenth century they had small communities in Cairo, Gaza, and Damas cus but now there remain only three hundred of them at Nablus. They have always hated the Jews and yet claimed descent from them. The old view that their Pentateuch comes from that which existed in the northern kingdom before Sargon captured Samaria, is now generally abandoned. We know however that the Pentateuch existed in the kingdom of Israel from the pre-exilic prophets of that kingdom (Hosea and Amos) and it is difficult to understand how the Samaritans were taught the religion of the land without receiving its sacred books (II Kings 17:28). The commonly accepted theory of the origin of the Samaritan Penta teuch is based upon an incident mentioned by Josephus — that Manasses, brother of the high-priest at Jerusa lem, married the daughter of Sanballat, governor of Samaria, and being excommunicated, fled to Samaria and set up the rival worship at Mt. Gerizim. This statement of Josephus probably rests upon Neh. 13 : 28. It is supposed that this Manasses took the Pentateuch ' with him to Samaria. If this theory be the true one, the rejection of the later books by the Samaritans is due to the fact that those books sanction the worship THE TEXT 63 at Shiloh and Jerusalem. In order to substantiate the false claims of Mt. Gerizim the Samaritans also altered the text of the Pentateuch. The Samaritan Pentateuch varies in many passages from the Massoretic text and a careful examination has revealed the fact that many of these readings agree with the Septuagint against the Hebrew. From this some have concluded that the Septuagint was made from a Samaritan codex and others that both were derived from a common source which differed radically from the Massoretic text. The large number of diverg ences from the Septuagint makes these views untenable. Probably the Samaritan codex was altered to conform to the Septuagint in order to strengthen its claims, when the Septuagint was held in high esteem. Formerly scholars were disposed to extol the Samaritan text as representing the most ancient tradition. Since it has been found to be comparatively modern and that the manuscripts differ between themselves much more than Hebrew manuscripts, the old view has changed. Buhl expresses a conservative conclusion: "The Samaritan text has been so disfigured by errors of transcription and by arbitrary treatment, that its critical importance is very much restricted" (p. 89). There is a version of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the Samaritan language dating from about the second century A.D. and an Arabic version from the eleventh or twelfth centuries. IV. Divisions of the Hebrew Text. These are of four kinds. 1. Verses. These are of Jewish origin and antedate the Talmud. The Jews marked the end of the verse by placing a perpendicular line called Silluk under the 64 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION last word and two dots called Soph Pasuk (" end of the verse") in a perpendicular position after it. The numbering of the verses was adopted from Eobert Stephen's edition of the Vulgate (1555 A.D.). 2. Paragraphs or Parashas. These are also ancient. They are of two kinds — open and closed. Open para graphs are those in which there is a change of thought. In manuscripts the remainder of the line before an open paragraph is left open. If this space equals that of three triliteral words the open parasha begins at the extreme right of the next line, but if not another entire line is left vacant. A closed parasha indicates a slighter change of thought and may begin on the same line with the end of the previous parasha. These rules are generally ignored in printed editions. In some manu scripts and most printed Hebrew Bibles open paragraphs are marked by a £3 ( nniDQ = 0pen) in the space at the beginning and closed paragraphs by aD( '101*10= closed). This custom however is of later origin. 3. Synagogue Lessons. These are of two systems. According to the Palestinian custom the Pentateuch was read through on the Sabbath once in three years. Ac cordingly it was divided into 154 to 167 sections called Sedarim ( ^T? ) • These are ignored in most manu scripts and printed editions, since the Babylonian method prevailed over that in Palestine. According to the Babylonian system there are 54 sections in the Pentateuch called Perashiyoth ( fii'E^S ) allowing for reading the entire law in one year. In many manu scripts and printed copies these Perashiyoth are indi cated by a thrice repeated a if their beginning coincides with the beginning of an open paragraph, and by a thrice repeated o if it coincides with the beginning of a closed THE TEXT 65 paragraph. Perashiyoth are named like the books of the Pentateuch from their opening words. Certain sections of the prophets called Haphtaroth ("dismis sals") were read after the reading of the law on the Sabbath. They are not, however, indicated in the text but at the close of our printed editions is a table stating what haphtara should be read after each parasha. 4. Chapters. This division is of Christian origin, having been used first in the Vulgate in the thirteenth century. Eabbi Solomon ben Ishmael (about 1330 A.D.) numbered the chapters according to the Christian mode to facilitate reference, but it was not until much later that this division was generally adopted. It is found in the Bomberg Bible of 1517. V. "Versions. There are four ancient versions of the Old Testament which were made directly from the Hebrew: the Greek Septuagint, the Aramaic Targums, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Latin Vulgate, of which the last two include also the New Testament. 1. The Septuagint, also called the Alexandrian ver sion, from the city of its origin, is not only the oldest known translation of the Jewish scriptures but the oldest known translation of any book. The exact time of the Septuagint is unknown. It is fixed, however, between two dates. The prologue of the book of Eccle siasticus (130 B.C.) alludes to "the law, the prophets and the rest of the books" as already translated into Greek. This date is, therefore, the latest to which this version can be brought. On the other hand the letter of Aristeas, which Buhl dates earlier than 198 B.C., gives an account of the origin of the Septuagint. This Aristeas is said to have been an officer of Ptolemy II, Philadelphus (B.C. 284-247) and the letter was written 66 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION to his brother Philocrates. The story is as follows: Demetrius Phalereus persuaded the king to have the Jewish Law translated into Greek. The king sent Aristeas with a guard to Eleazar the High Priest at Jerusalem to request a copy of the Law and competent translators. The High Priest sent seventy-two men, six from each tribe, and a copy of the Law written in golden letters. Ptolemy sent the men to the island of Pharos where they finished the translation in seventy-two days. According to Philo these translators were inspired, and certain church fathers as well as the Talmud affirm that, though made independently, their translations were found to be exactly alike. This story is not worthy of credence. It serves however to show that the Penta teuch was translated into Greek in Alexandria about 250 B.C. The varying excellence of the translation in other books indicates that they were not all done by the same men nor at the same time. The Pentateuch, Former Prophets, and Psalms are well rendered, but the translation of the other books is either slavishly literal, as in Ecciesiastes, or very free, as in Daniel and elsewhere. The most natural conclusion is that the Septuagint was a gradual work occupying the century from 250 to 150 B.C. Considering the times the work was remarkably well done, but it is not in every part a translation in the modern sense. No sharp distinction was made in those days between the work of translation and that of interpretation. Thus the Septuagint is in some places a translation, in others a paraphrase, and in others a running commentary. It bears many evi dences of its Jewish origin, but none, as some have affirmed, of the influence of Greek philosophy. THE TEXT 67 The Septuagint at first was welcomed by the Jews. There is not, however, sufficient ground for the assertion that it was used in the synagogues of Palestine. Never theless Josephus used it extensively, and we know from the New Testament that it must have been familiar to many other Palestinian Jews. In later times when con troversies arose between the Jews and the Christians, the latter referred to the Septuagint and the former to the original Hebrew. Thus the Jewish view concerning the Septuagint gradually changed to one of bitter dislike. They affirmed that the Christians altered the Greek text to support their views and the same contention was made by the Christians, that the Jews altered the Hebrew original. The text of the Septuagint soon became corrupt and in the time of Origen (254 A.D.) there were, according to his testimony, almost as many readings as there were manuscripts. Accordingly that great scholar attempted in his Hexapla to restore the original Greek and to show its relation to the Hebrew. He placed the Septuagint in parallel columns with the Hebrew. Origen however did not succeed in unifying the Alexandrian text. He marked the passages where the Septuagint differed from the Hebrew and even added within marks words wanting in the Greek. Later revisions of the Septuagint were made by Lucian of Samosata, the founder of the Anti- ochian school (martyred 311 A.D.), and Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop (also martyred 311 A.D.). These various recensions themselves became corrupted. The result was greater and greater confusion which has only been partly cleared up in modern times. The first printed edition of the Septuagint was that in the Com- plutensian Polyglott (1514-1517 A.D.). This was fol- 68 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION lowed by that of Aldus Manutius in 1518 A.D. The principal manuscripts of the Septuagint are the Codex Vaticanus, in Eome, the Codex Alexandrinus in the British Museum, and the Codex Sinaitieus in the Im. perial Library at St. Petersburg, all of which have been published in facsimile. The best recent printed edition is that of H. B. Swete which largely follows the Codex Vaticanus. Many ancient versions were made from the Septua gint, the most important of which were the Latin Itala made in North Africa in the second century A.D., the Syro-Hexaplaric made in Alexandria, 617-618 A.D., the Gothic by Bishop Ulfilas, 311-381 A.D., the Ethiopic in the fifth century, the three Egyptian versions in the three dialects (the Sahidic of Upper Egypt, the Coptic of Central Egypt and the Bohairic of Lower Egypt) about 400 A.D., the Armenian from the beginning of the fifth century, and certain Arabic versions found in the Paris and London Polyglotts. There are three ancient Greek versions later than the Septuagint of which only portions have come down to us. The oldest of these is that of Aquila, probably a Jewish proselyte of Pontus in the middle of the second century A.D. Jerome says that he was a pupil of Eabbi Akiba. His translation was slavishly literal. It had wide circulation among the Jews and was directed polemically against the Christians, as is proven by its rejection of the translation Xpkttos for 1^ The trans lation of Theodotion (180-192 A.D.) was an attempt to improve upon the Septuagint. It is doubtful whether the author was a Jew or an Ebionite. At any rate his version found little acceptance among the Jews. Among Christians it was highly thought of and largely used THE TEXT 69 for the emendation of the Septuagint. His translation of Daniel finally took the place of the Septuagint. Origen gave the version of Theodotion a place in the Hexapla. The third Greek translation is that of Sym- machus, an Ebionite, who flourished in the reign of Severus (193-211 A.D.) His translation adheres neither to the Hebrew nor the Septuagint but is in good Greek. The only Apocryphal additions in any of these three versions are the postscript to the Book of Job and the additions to Daniel in the version of Theod otion. 2. The Targums were renderings of Old Testament books into Aramaic. The word Targum is derived from an Aramaic root meaning to explain, the same root from which came the modern word dragoman. It occurs in Ezra 4 : 7. The Targums arose by a gradual process after Hebrew ceased to be the popular language of the Jews. Besides the reader in the synagogue an officer was appointed called a fl?!n,ri1? ox interpreter, whose duty it was after the reading of each verse in the Pen tateuch, and after three verses in the Prophets, to render it into the language of the people. At first this was done orally, though private use may have been made of written translations. Later these renderings became fixed and conventional. The Targums were a long time attaining the form in which we possess them. They are not the work of any one time or a single group of men, but represent the customary synagogue renderings in different parts of the ancient Jewish world. None of the Targums covers all the Old Testament but between them we have Aramaic renderings of all the books except Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. These were not made into Aramaic because of the Aramaic por- 70 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION tions of Daniel and Ezra, Nehemiah being classed as one with Ezra. There is mention of a Targum on Job in the time of Christ and it is probable that other Targums existed in his day. The dates of the Targums are difficult to determine. The oldest and best Targum on the Penta teuch is the one falsely assigned to Onkelos by a confu sion of that name with Aquila, the author of the Greek version. This Targum was composed in the second half of the second century A.D. in Palestine, but did not receive official sanction there. It was accepted by the Jews in Babylon and called their own. Some scholars affirm that it was composed in Babylon. For the most part it is a simple translation of the Hebrew, though the poetical portions are more freely rendered or even paraphrased. It was printed at* Bologna in 1482 without vowels and in 1491 with vowels. Two later Targums on the Pentateuch are based upon that of Onkelos. One is commonly called the Pseudo- Jonathan because its author was falsely thought to have been the Jonathan who wrote the Targum on the Prophets. The other we possess only in fragments. It is called the Jerusalem Targum. Both these contain many legendary additions and are far inferior to that of Onkelos. Zunz assigns the Jerusalem Targum to the seventh century. The oldest Targum on the Prophets is named for Jonathan ben Uzziel, a pupil of Hillel in the beginning of the first century A.D, though this authorship is very doubtful. It is much freer than the rendering of Onkelos and often amounts to a running commentary upon the text. In the historical books of the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) the I THE TEXT 71 translation adheres more closely to the original. It was first printed in 1494. A small fragment of another Targum on the Prophets called the Jerusalem is pre served on the margin of a manuscript called 154 by Kennicott. There is a Targum on Psalms, Proverbs and Job which is falsely ascribed to Eabbi Joseph (A.D. 325) but is much later than his time. The portion from Proverbs is quite literal and is thought by Eichhorn to have been made from the Peshitta. The Targums on the Megilloth and on Chronicles probably belong to an ancient Jerusalem Targum on the Kethubim. Especially in the Song of Solomon they exhibit the utmost freedom, being really a paraphrastic commentary. The Targums are valuable as indicating the current Jewish exegesis of their time but of small worth in determining questions of textual criticism. 3. The Peshitta, or old Syriac version, was so-called because it was the one in " common " use or because it was " simple " in giving the original meaning. The date of its origin is uncertain. The Christian church in the regions about Edessa was founded not later than 150 A.D. Since the people of that region were not acquainted with Greek it seems possible that this trans lation was made in the last half of the second century, although no sure evidence of its existence is known before 350 A.D. The translators follow the Hebrew closely but the version of the Chronicles reads like a Jewish Targum. From both these facts some have con sidered the Peshitta the work of Jews. On the other hand the uniform tradition of the Syrian church and the un-Jewish accuracy of the translation argue for a Chris- 72 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION tian origin. The similarity of the Syriac to Hebrew would account sufficiently for the Syrians' knowledge of the original. The hypothesis that the translators were Jewish Christians is plausible. The version of the Chronicles may have been taken from a Jewish source. In many passages the Peshitta corresponds closely to the Septuagint. Some have concluded that it was made with special use of that version. There are, however, more passages in which it varies from the Septuagint. The high esteem, in which the Septuagint was held even in Syria is shown by the later introduction of the Syro- Hexaplaric version. Thus the Peshitta may have been altered in conformity with the Septuagint. It is not equal to that version in its best parts but is much more even in its excellence. Like the Septuagint it was made by a number of men. It included originally only the canonical books, but the Apocrypha were added at an early date. The Syro-Hexaplaric version was made from the Sep tuagint as found in Origen's Hexapla by the Monophy- site bishop, Paul of Telia, in 618 A.D. From that time it was used by the Monophysites and the Peshitta by the Nestorians. The Syro-Hexaplaric is slavishly literal and often transfers Greek words into the Syriac text. The similarity of the Peshitta to the Septuagint in many passages destroys its value as an independent witness to the original text. Yet the faithfulness of its rendering in other passages, where the Septuagint is weak, renders it an important link in the chain of his tory. All printed editions go back to the Paris (1645) and London (1657) Polyglotts and are rare. A new critical edition is greatly needed. 4. The Vulgate Latin version has received its name THE TEXT 73 from the name Kotvyj, which was formerly applied to the Septuagint as the version in common use. This name was transferred to Jerome's version for the same reason in the thirteenth century. Jerome (346-420 A.D.) at first intended only to revise the current Itala version which had been made from the Septuagint and whose manuscripts were full of variations. At the request of Damasus, Bishop of Eome, he revised the Psalms (A.D. 383). This revision is still used in the church of St. Peter in Eome and is called the Eoman Psalter. Then Jerome proceeded to Caesarea where he found the text of the Septuagint in Origen's Hexapla. With this aid he made another version of the Psalms called the Galli- can Psalter because of its extensive use in Gaul. He also rendered many other Old Testament books with the help of the Hexapla but all have been lost except the Book of Job. Thence Jerome went to Bethlehem where he acquired a knowledge of Hebrew from Jewish teachers at con siderable expense. There he made his memorable trans lation during fifteen years (390-405 A.D.). As the various books appeared he was urged by many of his friends, Augustine among them, not to depart from the Septuagint for which a superstitious reverence existed in his day. To these entreaties he partially yielded. He also consented to translate Tobit and Judith and to incorporate the other Apocrypha, al though he clearly affirmed their inferiority to the canonical books. For a long time the Itala was used side by side with the Vulgate. Gradually the superior excellence of the latter made itself felt and by 700 A.D. it had practically supplanted the Itala. Their co-existence contributed 74 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION greatly to the corruption of the text of the Vulgate. Familiar passages from the Itala found their way into the Vulgate and it became customary to add the Itala reading to that of Jerome. Many attempts to unify the text of the Vulgate were made. Lists of variations were compiled and the religious orders busied themselves with this herculean task. After the invention of printing and after the Eeformation, new motives arose for the completion of this work. In 1546 the Council of Trent decreed that " the Vulgate which had been approved in the church by the long use of so many centuries should be held authentic in public reading, controversy, preach ing and exposition, and that no one should dare or presume to reject it on any pretext whatever." This made the editing of an authorized edition neces sary. The Council appointed a commission for this purpose. They had scarcely begun their work when Pope Paul III ordered them to cease and send their manuscript to Eome. In 1563 the Council of Trent adjourned and Pope Pius IV confirmed its decrees. Later attempts on the part of scholars and publishers to secure a pure text of the Vulgate came to nothing. In 1587 Pope Sixtus V summoned another commission for this purpose and superintended their work with great care. This was published in 1590 with a bull declaring that this edition "is to be received and held as true, legitimate, authentic and undoubted in all public and private controversies, readings, preachings, and expositions," and prohibiting all other editions both past and future. Sixtus died in the year of this publi cation. Certain scholars prevailed upon succeeding popes to forbid the use of this edition until desired changes had been made, Finally Clement VHI in 1592 THE TEXT 75 published this amended edition of the work of Sixtus V affirming in the preface, contrary to the facts of history, that it was the edition of Sixtus V. Such is the authorized edition of the Vulgate. Despite its leanings toward the Septuagint and the great corruption of the text of the Vulgate, even in its modern form, it is the best and in some respects the most valuable of all ancient versions. It was the first book printed, an edition appearing in Mayence in 1450 and another dated edition in 1462. VI. Printed Editions and Polyglotts. The oldest printed editions of the Hebrew Bible were from Jewish sources. An imperfect edition of the Psalms appeared in 1477 at Bologna. In 1488 the entire Bible was printed at Soncino. From this was derived the Brescia Bible in 1494 which Luther used in translating the Old Testament. Luther's copy is preserved in the Eoyal Library at Berlin. The principal Rabbinical Bibles (that is, those containing the Targums, Massora, or Eabbinical commentaries) are those of Bomberg which follows the Soncino Bible (Venice 1517, second edition 1525) and Buxtorf which follows the Complutensian text and that of Bomberg (Basel 1618). The best critical editions (those which contain the various read ings) are those of Houbigant (Paris 1753) and Kenni cott (Oxford 1776-80). De Eossi published his Varias Lectiones separate from the text at Parma (1784). The Athias edition (Amsterdam 1661-67) collated many ancient manuscripts not hitherto used. It was followed by Vander Hooght's (Amsterdam 1705) upon whose text the modern Hebrew Bibles rest. The best recent editions are those of Hahn, Theile, Baer and Delitzsch, and Ginsburg. 76 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION A Polyglott presents the Massoretic text and several ancient versions in parallel columns. In ancient times Origen had set the example for this in his Hexapla which included the Hebrew text, its transliteration in Greek letters, the Septuagint and the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. In modern times there have been four great polyglotts — the Complutensian, Antwerp, Paris and London. 1. The Complutensian Polyglott receives its name from Complutum (Alcala) in Spain, where it was pre pared by Cardinal Ximenes assisted by several scholars of the University of Toledo and under the patronage of Pope Leo X. It was printed in 1514-1517, but the com plete work was not published until after the death of the Cardinal in 1522. It is in six volumes. The first, on the Old Testament, contains the first edition of the Hebrew text issued under Christian auspices, the Vul gate, the Septuagint, and the Targum of Onkelos. In the sixth volume is a Hebrew grammar. There were six hundred copies published, most of which are now lost. The original manuscripts are in the library of the University of Madrid. 2. The Antwerp Polyglott, or Biblia Eegia, was is sued partly at the expense of Philip II of Spain in 1569-1572. It contains eight folio volumes, adding to the contents of the Complutensian Polyglott the Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets and a Targum on the Kethubim, besides lexicons and treatises on Biblical subjects. Of this five hundred copies were printed. Like the Complutensian it is now very rare. 3. The Paris Polyglott, containing ten folio volumes, appeared in 1645. It follows the text of the Complu tensian and Antwerp editions but adds also the Samari- THE TEXT 77 tan Pentateuch and version, the Peshitta, and an Arabic version. Of this, many copies are still extant. 4. The London Polyglott, edited by Bishop Brian Walton in 1656-7 in six folio volumes also follows the Complutensian text. It contains further still the Itala, an Ethiopic version of the Psalms and Canticles, the Apocrypha in Greek, Latin, Syriac and Arabic, the Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan, the Jerusalem Targum of the Pentateuch and a Persian version. In 1669 Edmund Castell added to this his Heptaglot Lexi con in two volumes. Copies of this polyglott are not very rare. VII. Preservation of the Text. With all these aids — the manuscripts, quotations, and ancient versions before us, the question remains how near our modern printed Hebrew Bibles are to the original autograph. How far back can we trace the text as we have it ? It is admitted that the Bible, like other books, was liable to errors of transmission. Before the invention of printing these errors were of various kinds : those of the eye, when the copyist read his manuscript wrong or omitted words by accident; those of the ear when one read the manuscript and another copied it; those of the memory, when the transcriber altered a passage after having read it correctly; and those of the judgment, when he divided sentences wrongly or introduced a marginal note into the text. There are also instances of intentional alteration in order to restore the supposed original or to substantiate some dogmatic opinion. Despite all these causes of error all Hebrew manu scripts contain practically the same text. De Eossi and Kennicott collated the variations of several hundred manuscripts. These variations affect no vital doctrine. 78 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION They are all unintentional deviations from a fixed form which we call the Massoretic text. This first step carries back the text as we have it to the tenth century A.D. For the centuries before this we are dependent upon quotations. These are reliable according to their nature. A quotation made from memory or where accuracy was unimportant has little value in textual criticism. But if the writer is known to be accurate in other matters or if he bases his argument upon the exact wording of the quotation, it becomes valuable. The quotations in Jerome, the Talmud, the Mishna, and Origen yield the same text which we now have. The variations are un important and where they occur, it is more likely that the text of the quotation is corrupt than that it repre sents a different original from our present text. This conclusion is confirmed by the great care of the Massorites. They did not venture to change a single reading nor even alter the size of a letter. If a word was thought incorrect, they left it unchanged and put the suggested substitute in the margin. They merely perpetuated the text as they found it. The body of textual notes called the Massora make it possible to trace the text far back of the oldest manuscripts. Thus we find essentially the same text which we possess at the time of the Mishna (200 A.D.). The same period or a little earlier may be reached by an independent line of testimony, the ancient versions. Here also a word of warning is necessary. A version is not as reliable a witness in textual criticism as a manu script, because the text of a version is not kept with as great care as that of the original. A comparatively pure text of the version must be secured before it is a safe THE TEXT 79 guide by which to correct the original. Furthermore the reliability of a version for this purpose depends upon the knowledge and sincerity of its makers and the gen eral accuracy of its renderings. Of the four ancient versions, three, the Vulgate, the Peshitta and the better Targums, were evidently made from a text virtually identical with our own. This brings us to 150 A.D., the probable date of the Peshitta. At that time the text was considered fixed. When we penetrate the period before Christ, serious difficulty is met with. The. Septuagint and the Samari tan Pentateuch differ widely at many points from the Massoretic text. Some have inferred from this that the text had not received its present traditional form when the Septuagint was made or that the Septuagint was taken from a form of the text which was a rival of that which has come down to us in the Hebrew. Of these surmises however there is not a particle of proof. If there had been a wide divergence among the Jews on so vital a matter as the Hebrew text, traces of their discussions would doubtless have remained. We know that the scribes "put a hedge about the law." They counted the letters, verses, and sections and noted the middle letter and word of each book. By these and other means they guarded the text from corruption. These facts contrast markedly with the imperfection of much of the Septuagint and the great corruption of the text of the whole. They show how unwise it is to correct the Hebrew according to the Septuagint. The very fact that the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion were thought necessary to remedy the de ficiencies of the Septuagint, shows that the Septuagint is far from being a safe guide. These later Greek ver- 80 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION sions generally agree with the Hebrew against the Septuagint. The Samaritan Pentateuch is far less reliable than the Hebrew text. Its variations in different manuscripts and its alterations made to uphold the Samaritan religion show how little confidence can be placed in it. Thus as far back as we can trace the Hebrew text it is substantially the same as now. It was in the hands of a people who had a superstitious reverence even for its letters and who counted it their highest distinction that unto them were committed the oracles of God (Bom. 3:2). Their scrupulous care was God's method of keeping those sacred scriptures in their purity. Doubtless a few errors have crept into the text, in the spelling of proper names and in numbers. Green points out some of these as indicated by parallel passages (p. 145): Gen. 10 : 3 compare I Chron. 1 : 6 Gen. 10 : 4 " I Chron. 1 : 7 Gen 25 : 15 " I Chron. 1 : 30 II Sam. 8 : 13 " I Chron. 18 : 16 II Sam. 8:4 " I Chron. 18 : 4 II Sam. 24:13 " , . . . .1 Chron. 21 : 12 I Kings 4:26 " .'...II Chron. 9:25 II Kings 8:26 " ....II Chron. 22:2 They affect no vital part of the scripture. Furthermore the fact that these apparent errors have not been recti fied is evidence of the great care with which the text has been preserved since they were made. They give no encouragement for the view that the text became fixed after it had become corrupt and in its corrupt form. The following principles for deciding between various THE TEXT 81 readings are valuable : In general a reading should be found which will account for both the varying forms. Since errors of transmission commonly tend to simplify the text, rare words and forms are more probably original than simple and usual ones. The practice so common among modern exegetes of simplifying the text when they cannot make it yield a satisfactory sense is utterly unscientific, because it imagines that copyists have substituted rare and unfamiliar forms for those well known. Alteration of the text is seldom justifiable and then only after the most careful study. The sub jective element enters so largely into the critical process that it should be used only as a last resort. PART II Special Introduction FIRST DIVISION THE LAW I Preliminary: the pentateuch in general I. Name. The Hebrew name for the first division of the canon was !r?Fl " Law " (Josh. 1 : 7), or more fully " the book of the law " (Josh. 8 : 34), " the book of the law of Moses" (Josh. 8: 31), "the book of the law of God " (Josh. 24 : 26), " the book of the law of Jehovah " (II Chron. 17:9)," the law of Moses " (I Kings 2:3). Though ^n means from its etymology "instruction," in these and similar passages the word is used in its usual and restricted sense of law* The use of this name does not exclude the historical portions of the Penta teuch. The entire book is called "the law" because legislation forms so large an element in it. In post- biblical times the Jews called it " the five-fifths of the law " or simply " the fifths." In the New Testament it is called " the book of the law" (Gal. 3:10), "the book Of Moses" (Mark 12: 26), "the law of the Lord" (Luke 2:23), "the law of Moses " (Luke 2 : 22), and " the law " (Matt. 12 :5) . The name Pentateuch, ffevrareu/o? comes from the Septuagint version and means "five-volume" properly an adjective limiting Bi^kos book. Many critics add the book of Joshua to the Pentateuch and name the whole the Hexateuch (Article " Hexateuch," H. D. B.). " The object of the change of name is to show that the 6 rather than the 5 form a complete literary whole, and 85 86 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION may be looked upon as one book in 6 parts." Since how ever the same sources are recognized by the critics in Judges, Samuel and Kings, these books might also be added. Indeed Ambrosius spoke of a Heptateuch (Straek's " Einleitung," jD3 (Ex. 9:31) are probably Egyptian words. C. Customs. The marriage of eunuchs is not men tioned in the Old Testament outside of Gen. 37 : 36 and 39 : 1, which either indicates that in Egypt the name eunuch was loosely applied to any high officer of Pha raoh or that in Egypt it was customary for eunuchs to marry. The custom of releasing or punishing prisoners on the king's birthday (Gen. 40:20). The same custom apparently existed at the court of Herod (Matt. 14: 6; Mark 6 : 21), but not in Israel. Wearing a signet ring and a chain of gold as a token of authority was unknown in Israel though it existed in Egypt, Persia, and Babylon (Gen. 41:42; Esther 3: 10, 12;8:2,8,10;Dan.5:29). THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEEAL 109 The garments of linen given to Joseph would have been appropriate for a priest in Israel rather than a king or prime minister (Ex. 28 : 39 ; 39 : 27-29). The separation of Joseph's brethren at table from him and from the Egyptians (Gen. 43:32), with the ex planatory statement, "the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians." The remark (Gen. 46:34) "Every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians." The author was familiar with the land tenure of the priests in Egypt (Gen. 47:22). The account of the embalming of the bodies of Jacob and Joseph (Gen. 50:2, 26). The word tMPJ is not found elsewhere in the Old Testament except Cant. 2 : 13. Also the mention of the forty days necessary for embalming (Gen. 50: 3), and of the sarcophagus in which Joseph's body was placed. The expression " unto this day" (Gen. 47:26) indicates a knowledge of Egypt later than Joseph. D. Geography. The writer knew the Egyptian papy rus (Ex. 2:3) and the character of the Nile bank as well as the proximity of the sandy desert (Ex. 2: 12), the location of Eamses, Succoth (Ex. 12:37), Etham (Ex. 13 : 20) and Pi-Hahiroth (Ex. 14: 2). An intimate acquaintance with geography is indicated by the expres sion : " The wilderness hath shut them in " ( Ex. 14 : 3 ) . Indeed chapter 14 is almost incomprehensible without a knowledge of Egyptian geography. (2) The Levitical code of laws found in Exodus (20- 23; 25-31; 35-40), Leviticus and Numbers (5, 6, 8-10, 15-19) exhibits signs of having been promulgated by one in the circumstances of Moses. Eawlinson (" Lex 110 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Mosaica," pp. 21-26) presents the arguments in the following order: A. It is primitive. Professor Maine (" Ancient Law," p. 16) thinks that the mingling of - religious, civil, moral and economical ordinances is a clear proof of great antiquity. B. It is intermittent, interrupted by the historical narrative, precisely as might be expected if it was composed during the wilderness wanderings. C. Many laws are suited only to this migratory life of the people — such as those which relate to the position of the various tribes in the camp and the moving of the tabernacle. Such laws would have been idle in Canaan. D. Egyptian influence. The laws are sacerdotal, sacrificial and ceremonial as one would expect if given by Moses who was brought up in Egypt, where these ideas had their most perfect ancient development. Special indications of Egyptian influence are the triple division of the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, the use of incense, the solemn assemblies, the endowment of the priesthood and the distinction between clean and unclean meats, all of which have their counterpart in ancient Egypt. E. The careful avoidance of certain Egyptian relig ious peculiarities. There is no honorable mention of the sun such as is found in the Psalms (19 : 4), and no trace of the Egyptian doctrine of a future life, probably to avoid the idolatry and superstition which- were connected with these ideas in Egypt. F. Signs of Midianitish influence. The elders of the tribes suggested by Jethro were a distinctly Arabian institution— also the " blood feud " (Ex. 21 : 13 ; Num. 35:11-33). These institutions were appropriate to THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEEAL 111 Israel in the wilderness and were retained in Canaan. They could hardly have arisen when the people were living in towns and villages. The animals allowed to be eaten include those found in the Sinaitic penin sula — "the hart, the roebuck and the fallow deer, the wild goat, and the pygarg and the wild ox and the chamois" (Deut. 14:5). In addition to the points mentioned by Eawlinson, Hommel cites several Egyptian loan-words in the Levitical legislation ("Hebrew tradition," p. 291). 'fit? from the Egyptian seta' to spin. tn from Egyptian tsert, hand. &V?p from Egyptian senham. nwriN and DE»? names of gems, the former equal to Egyptian ekhnome and the latter to Egyptian neshem. nt^a and nn^a from Egyptian pesht. na'K equal to Egyptian ipt, borrowed from Baby lonian pitu. TH equal to Egyptian hin, from Babylonian gin. Hommel also emphasizes the Egyptian origin of the high-priesfs breastplate (pp. 279-281) and the evi dences of Midianitish influence upon Moses, as seen from ancient Minaean inscriptions (pp. 276-279). (3) Deuteronomy also is appropriate to the time of Moses but does not fit the period of Manasseh or Josiah to which it is assigned by those who deny its Mosaic authorship. " The majority of critics believe this book of the law to have been the result of a pious fraud promulgated by Hilkiah and Shaphan with the inten tion of deceiving Josiah into the belief that the reforms which they desired were the express command of God revealed to Moses " (F. H. Woods in H. D. B. I. 368). 112 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION There is a difference of opinion on this subject among the critics, for Eyle says in the same Bible dictionary (Vol. 1 p. 602-603), "The finding of this book of the law in the temple is described as a fortuitous occurrence. There is no foundaton for the suggestion that Hilkiah himself had written the book and that the story of its finding was a fabrication. The account is straight forward and natural. It is generally agreed that the book may have been written in the reign of Manasseh, or in the early part of the reign of Josiah." That neither of these positions is tenable is seen from the following considerations. A. The record itself gives no encouragement to the forgery hypothesis (II Kings 22:8, etc.). Hilkiah, Shaphan, Huldah, and Josiah seem all to have con sidered it an ancient book, the work of Moses. B. No sufficient motive for the forgery of this book either in the time of Manasseh or Josiah can be cited. The critics say the object was to do away with the rival sanctuaries and make Jerusalem supreme. But the only sanctuaries which really rivalled Jerusalem had been swept away already by the captivity of the ten tribes. On the other hand if this was the object of the forgery it failed, for we are told: "Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of Jehovah in Jerusalem, but they did eat of the unleav ened bread among their brethren " (II Kings 23 : 9). C. There were many persons in Judah who had powerful motives for exposing this forgery if it was one. The wicked people whom the book condemned would have seized the opportunity of condemning it as a forgery. And even if the deception had not been noticed in Josiah's time, its wicked secret could not have been THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEEAL 113 kept in the reactionary days of his sons. The forgery hypothesis requires two improbabilities — that the author was a marvelous genius and that all the rest of the nation were fools. D. There are many things in Deuteronomy which fit the time of Moses and not that of Manasseh and Josiah. The directions concerning the extermination of the Canaanites and the way of dealing with the cities of the land would be very strange in the seventh century but are quite natural in Moses' farewell address (Deut. 20:10-20). The allusion to the recent bondage in Egypt (Deut. 23:7), to the refusal of Ammon and Moab to furnish food to Israel in the wilderness (Deut. 23: 4), to the war with Amalek (Deut. 25 : 17-19), all argue for the Mosaic authorship but are inexplicable in the time of the later kings. The regulations con cerning the choice of a king and his duties (Deut. 17 : 14-20) could hardly have arisen four centuries after the establishment of the kingdom. The standpoint of the writer of Deuteronomy is before Israel entered Canaan. E. The alleged differences of style and contradictions between Leviticus and Deuteronomy are due to differ ence of standpoint. Deuteronomy consists chiefly of popular addresses, while Leviticus is a codification of the laws for the use of the priests. Therefore Moses in Deuteronomy used a different style, omitted many details, and emphasized many practical points, often adding directions appropriate to the entrance of the people into Canaan. (4) The fact that the great intervening figure of Moses and the extraordinary events attending the Exodus did not obscure the figures of the patriarchs in 114 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION the national consciousness of Israel is strong evidence that those figures were real ("Neueste Prinzipien" Konig, pp. 73-74). Great as Moses was in the mind of Israel his God is said to be the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and these great names of the fathers could not be blotted out of the memory of Israel even by far more remarkable events in the time of Moses. This fact argues for the Mosaic authorship of Genesis indirectly since the vividness of the stories of Genesis implies an early date. 5. Summary of Arguments concerning Authorship. We have seen that the uniform testimony of the Penta teuch itself favors the view that Moses wrote it. This opinion was held without a dissenting voice by all the writers of the Old and New Testaments and by the Jewish nation and our Lord himself. We have weighed the arguments of modern criticism against this view and found them wanting. We have further found much indirect testimony that Moses was the author in three large sections: (1) Gen. 39 to Ex. 14; (2) The Levitical code including all the book of Leviticus and large parts of Exodus and Numbers; (3) The book of Deuteronomy. There remains one argument against the Mosaic authorship which it has seemed best to consider by itself, since it affects not only the authorship of the Pentateuch but its integrity and credibility, viz., the argument from the alleged composite nature of these books. III. Composition. Five successive stages of the modern divisive criticism of the Pentateuch are dis tinguished by Green (H. C. of Pent. pp. 61-88). 1. The document hypothesis — that Moses used earlier documents in Genesis which were characterized by the THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEEAL 115 use of different divine names, Jehovah and Elohim. This was maintained by Jean Astruc (1753), Vitringa, Eichhorn and others. This principle of division was later applied to the other books of the Pentateuch in dependence upon Ex. 6:3 and all were made post- Mosaic. 2. The fragment hypothesis — that the Pentateuch is composed of thirty or more fragments altogether inde pendent of each other. This view represented by Vater (1805), Hartman (1831) and others did not long find favor. It is the reductio ad dbsurdum of the document hypothesis. 3. The supplement hypothesis — a new form of the document hypothesis, by which the Elohist prepared a complete history and the Jehovist added to it, making occasional alterations of his own. This view was represented by Bleek, Tuch, Stahelin, De Wette, and Knobel. 4. Crystallization hypothesis — a modification of the last suggested by Ewald and Hupfeld, which increases the number of those who supplemented the history and asserts that they operated at different periods. It is the reductio ad dbsurdum of the supplement hypothesis. 5. Modified document hypothesis, which differs from the original document hypothesis by asserting that the Jehovist was a continuous and independent document. This view is current to-day and. is represented with minor variations by Graf, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Corn- ill, Driver, Cheyne, Haupt, Briggs and many others. It distinguished five documentary sources of the Hexateuch. P. The priestly document. This is considered the fundamental document of the Pentateuch, called by 116 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Ewald " the book of origins," by Hupfeld " the first or older Elohist," and by Dillmann A. Driver thus char acterizes this document: "Its language is that of a jurist, rather than a historian; it is circumstantial, formal and precise : a subject is developed systematically; and completeness of detail even at the cost of some repetition is regularly observed. Sentences are cast with great frequency into the same mould ; and particu lar formulae are constantly repeated, especially such as articulate the progress of the narrative. The attention paid by the author to numbers, chronology and other statistical data, will be evident" (Driver's I. L. 0. T. p. 12). P. includes about one-half of Genesis, the greater part of Exodus, all of Leviticus, the greater part of Numbers and a few pieces at the beginning and end of Deuteronomy, besides several large sections of Joshua. It includes the so-called Law of Holiness (Lev. 17-26) which is denominated H (or by Dillmann S, as the law given at Sinai) and is considered by many older than the remainder of P. E. Elohist, which begins surely Gen. 20 and per haps 15 : 2 — called by Hupfeld " the second or younger Elohist," by Ewald "the third writer," by Schrader, "the theocratic writer," and by Dillmann B or "the Israelish book of legends." Critics generally agree that E was a native of the Northern Kingdom. J. Jahvist. Called by Tuch "the supplementer," by Ewald "the fourth writer," by Schrader "the prophetic writer," and by Dillmann C. Belonged to the Southern Kingdom and was vivid in his delineation of character and anthropomorphic in his conception of God. D. Author of the greater part of Deuteronomy. THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEEAL 117 In regard to the dates of these various documents the common view is thus expressed by Mitchell: "The conclusion reached with respect to the age of the Penta teuch, then, is, that J originated about 850 and E about 800 B.C. ; that the two, having been more or less revised and enlarged were united into a composite document before 639 B.C. ;¦ that D, which was discovered in 621 B.C. but must have been written some time before and revised in the reign of Manasseh, was incorporated with JE, early in the Captivity; and that the Pentateuch was practically completed by the addition of P, a prod uct of the first half of the fifth century B.C. before 444, if not before 458, the date of Ezra's appearance in Palestine " (" The World before Abraham," p. 63 ) . The more conservative critics however, such as Dillmann, Kittel, and Baudissin place P. before the Exile and the last named writer affirms that although J E is evi dently a composite document, J and E cannot be sepa rated with as great certainty as can J E be separated from P. The general characteristics of J and E are, however, plain. As Driver expresses it: "J if he dwells less than E upon concrete particulars, excels in the power of delineating life and character. His touch is singularly light, with a few strokes he paints a scene which before he has finished, is impressed indelibly upon his reader's memory. His dialogues especially (which are frequent) are remarkable for the delicacy and truthfulness with which character and emotions find expression in them" (L. 0. T. p. 119). It is clearly to be understood that these several documents are said to have circulated as independent books for a long time before they were brought together. They were brought together by editors or redactors, commonly 118 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION called E, who are said to have made occasional altera tions and additions of their own. On this point Dill mann says: "The further question still arises as to whether the three documents A, B, C [P. E. J.], have been wrought up by one or by several redactors (E.). Formerly the former hypothesis was the prevalent one. Eecently, it has been contested by all who hold A [P] to be the latest document in the Hexateuch and post- exilic and it is maintained rather that B [E.] and C [J.] after each of them separately had passed through several enlarged editions, were at length combined and that at a later period by yet another hand they were joined to D before a final redactor wrought A [P] into this composite work" (Dillmann's Genesis p. 19). The arguments by which the composite authorship of the Pentateuch is supported we will take singly and attempt to answer them. 1. The use of the divine names. This was the phe nomenon which drew Astruc to the conclusion that Moses used different documents in Genesis, character ized respectively by the divine names, Jehovah and Elohim. Later it was claimed that Ex. 6 : 3 must have been written by an author (P) who had not thus far used the name Jehovah, therefore not the author of the entire book of Genesis. Answer. — A. This argument ignores the etymology of the names of God and conceives of them as used interchangeably merely as a matter of habit. It is not claimed by the critics that J was ignorant of the name Elohim or P and E of the name Jehovah, but that each preferred one of these names. -But if so, the question remains, why did J prefer the name Jehovah and E and P the name Elohim. To this important question THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEEAL 119 the divisive hypothesis gives no satisfactory answer. If the Pentateuch however be the work of one author, the use of these names is sufficiently clear. It is pre cisely that which the so-called characteristics of P, J and E, require. P is said to be cold, formal, systematic, logical; but it is precisely in such passages that one would expect Elohim, the general name for God, the name which has no special relation to Israel but is used many times in reference to the deities of the Gentiles. J on the other hand is said to be naive, anthropomorphic in his conception of God; but these evidences of relig ious fervor would lead us to expect the proper national name of God, the name which emphasized his covenant relations with Israel. There are passages in which we cannot explain why one name of the deity is used rather than another but in the great majority of cases, any other name would be inappropriate. That these names are carefully used in their proper place has been shown by Hengstenberg and more recently by Green who says : -£The divisive hypothesis can give no reason why the Elohist rather than the Jehovist should have given an account of the creation of the world and all that it contains; nor why the Jehovist rather than the Elohist should have described the beginnings of God's earthly kingdom in man's primeval condition and the mercy shown him after his fall; nor why the Elohist never speaks of an altar or sacrifice or invocation or any act of patriarchal worship — nor why Elohim regularly occurs when Gentiles are concerned, unless specific reference is made to the God of the patriarchs. All this is purely accidental on the divisive hypothesis. But such evident adaptation is not the work of chance. It can only result from the intelligent employment of the divine 120 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION names in accordance with their proper meaning and recognized usage" ("Unity of Genesis," pp. 547-8). " B. In order to substantiate this alleged dual use of the divine names it is necessary to do violence to the text. Elohim occurs in sections belonging to J (Gen. 7:9; 33 : 5, 11 etc.) and Jehovah in sections belonging to P (Gen. 7:16; 14:22; 17:1; 20:18; Ex. 18: six times). The critics rend apart Gen. 21: 1-2; 22; Ex. 19:24; Num. 22-24, and other passages to make the text fit the theoryt* Sometimes they sweep aside diffi culties by asserting that E altered the name, at others that the text is evidently corrupt. Neither of these suppositions however has any basis outside of the exi gencies of the hypothesis. The hypothesis is said to be derived from the phenomena of the text, as we have it; but if those phenomena do not suit the hypothesis, they are rejected as worthless. May we not reasonably ask : If the text is corrupt how can we trust the hypoth esis which is derived from it? The very existence of E and several E's is a baseless assumption made neces sary by the difficulties of the divisive hypothesis. C. The fact that the critics soon found it necessary to divide the Elohist into two — the first Elohist, P, and the second Elohist, E — and that many of them, while asserting the composite character of J E consider it very difficult to separate E from J»is evidence that the use of these names is a very uncertain criterion by which to analyze the Pentateuch. If this test alone cannot distinguish P from J E, nor E. from J. it may as well be abandoned. - D. The passage Ex. 6 : 3 cannot possibly mean that its author was hitherto ignorant of or did not use the name Jehovah. There God said to Moses " I appeared THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEEAL 121 unto Abraham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty (^K* ?N) but by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them." We notice :v(l) The name Jehovah is not here dis tinguished from Elohim but from El Shaddai, a name which in Genesis is used only five times (Gen. 17: 1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3) while, Elohim is used more than two hundred times. The name El Shaddai, is selected in Ex. 6 : 3 evidently because it emphasized certain attributes, it But if the expression in the first part of the verse does not mean that El Shaddai was the name by which the patriarchs usually spoke of God, neither can the expression in the last part of the verse mean that the patriarchs did not know the name Jehovah. (2) The redactor of the Pentateuch, if such there were, could not have considered the statement of Ex. 6 : 3 inconsistent with the frequent use of the name Jehovah by the patriarchs. Otherwise he would either have changed the statement in Exodus or the name Jehovah in Genesis. The many generations of Jews and Christians who were ignorant of the composite authorship of Genesis also saw nothing difficult in Ex. 6:3. (3) The context of the passage and the usus loquendi of the expression, "to know the name" show clearly that the meaning is to have an experimental knowledge of the attributes emphasized by the name. Accordingly the etymology of the name was told to Moses (Ex. 3 : 14- 15) the covenant connected with it is described (Ex. 6:4-8) and it is constantly repeated (Ex. 6 : 7, 8 ; 10 : 2 ; 16:12; 29:46, etc.). The word to know in the Old Testament generally includes the idea of apprehension 122 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION and the expression " to know the name of Jehovah " is used many times in this fuller sense of apprehending the divine attributes (I Kings 8 : 43 ; Ps. 9 : 11 ; 91 : 14; Is. 52 : 6 ; 64 : 1 ; Jer. 16 : 21 ; Ezek. 39 : 6-7) . All this shows the meaning to be that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew God as a God of power but not as the God of the covenant. Whether the name of Jehovah was in exist ence before Moses, Ex. 6 : 3 does not say — merely that its significance was not appreciated. Possibly Moses introduced the name so familiar and precious in his time, into the earlier records. It is much more likely however both from the archaic form of the name and its possible identity with the Assyrian Jahu that the name was known to the patriarchs. As the rainbow long seen in the sky was given new meaning in the days of Noah, so the name Jehovah familiar to oppressed Israel became the pledge of the divine covenant. _ 2. Other words said to be peculiar to the several documents. It is said that P, J, E and D each has a vocabulary of his own. Driver gives a long list of words peculiar to P (L. 0. T. pp. 131-5) and Strack does the same for all the sources adding a short list of cases where one and the same idea is differently expressed in the different documents ("Einleitung," pp. 43-53). Answer. — A. Of course the argument has no weight unless the word or expression is one which both writers had occasion to use. Many of the words in Driver's list are confined to P because neither J, E, nor D had occasion to use them. B. Where P uses one synonym and J E another, it is sometimes possible to see a good reason for the choice in the character of the discourse. Thus P and D use T?1fl the more accurate expression while J uses "Q1 THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEEAL 123 because accuracy was essential in the parts of the Pentateuch assigned to P and D. P and J use the name Sinai, one of the three peaks of the mountain, while E and D speak in a general way of Horeb, the name of the whole mountain. In the former case definiteness was important (Ex. 16:1) in the latter not (Ex. 17:6; Deut. 1:2). No continuous narrative ever displayed more un mistakable marks of unity than the story of hardening Pharaoh's heart (Ex. 4:21 to 14:8). Its progress must impress every careful reader. Yet because P and E use the expression p?n to harden the heart and J uses T33n the whole story is dissected by the critics and its meaning lost. Thgse words are used with remarkable precision as the record lies before us. (1) From the divine side. First God made Pharaoh's heart strong (Pin) then obdurate ( ne>j?N) then heavy (waan ). (2) From the human side. The condition of Pha raoh's heart and his action in hardening it alternate throughout the record. This arrangement is destroyed by the analysis : Exodus 7: 13 ptn?.1 Condition P. 8: 11 I^ll Action J. 8 : 15 prn?l Condition P. 8 : 28 1?:i»1 Action J. 9:7 1?3.M Condition J. 9 : 34 "»?.3I3 Action J. 9: 35 ptnn Condition P. Other examples might be mentioned but these suffice 124 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION to show that the" analysis of the Pentateuch is in direct violation of the usage of words throughout the Old Testament. In cases where we cannot see the reason for the choice of a word, it does not follow that there was no reason. It is quite conceivable that a writer would use one expression habitually in a certain connection and a synonymous expression in another connection. C. The claim of a distinct vocabulary for P and J E can be maintained only by mutilating the record. If an expression usually found in P occurs in a J E section, the chapter and sometimes even the verse is divided. If narratives were left entire except in case of an expression which might be a later gloss, the argument would be much weakened. By this method any literary work could be divided into several sources, more or less complete (The analysis of the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son in Green's H. C. of Pent. pp. 119-123 and "Eomans Dissected" by E. D. McEealsham). 3. It is claimed that there are parallel accounts of the same event — such as two accounts of the creation, two stories of the flood, two records of the call of Moses, etc. Answer. — These accounts are not really parallel. Some of them are merely similar events, as the two instances in which Abraham lied concerning his wife and the same action by Isaac. The redactor must have considered these quite distinct. In other cases there is a repetition from a different standpoint, as the account of the creation in Genesis 2 is from the standpoint of the God of revelation and providence. Sometimes the repetition js a characteristic of Hebrew style, which THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEEAL 125 often makes a general statement by way of introduction and then enlarges upon it. Thus Gen. 28 : 5 states briefly Jacob's departure for Padan Aram as introduc tion to the fuller account of his journey (Gen. 28: 10 to 29:13). (Other examples: Green's H. C. of Pent. pp. 111-112.) Concerning the two stories of the flood Ewald says : " The story of the flood shone as a gleam ing star before all others on the horizon of the Jehovistic and Elohistic documents " (Quoted by Eupprecht, " Das Eatsel des Fiinfbuches Mose," p. 44). Yet the critics have been unable to extract two records of the flood even tolerably complete. The beginning of chapter seven is assigned to J. If so, we are told by J. that God commanded Noah to come with all his house into the ark, without telling a word about the building of the ark or the members of Noah's family. Chapter seven needs precisely the statement of Chap. 6 : 9-22 to make it complete or comprehensible. Gen. 8 : 13 says : " And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked and behold the face of the ground was dry " This is assigned to J but not another word of J is recorded till verse 20 where we read: "And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord." This serious gap is bridged by the intervening statements which the critics assign to P. Furthermore Gen. 9 : 1-17 (P) is not a useless repetition of Gen. 8 : 21-22 (J) but an enlargement of God's covenant with Noah after he had built the altar to Jehovah and recommenced his life upon earth. The so-called two stories of the flood need each other to form a complete record. It is also significant that the cuneiform story of the flood does not follow either one or the other document but contains both in much the same order as Genesis (J. D. Davis, " Genesis and Sem- 126 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION itic Tradition," pp. 128-9). A careful study of the alleged doublets reveals the fact that the two accounts have their justification in the mind of the editor. At any rate it is inconceivable that the Eedactor of the Pentateuch could have considered them as idle repeti tions. He must have seen in them some difference of viewpoint to justify their retention in the book. 4. We are told that there are contradictions in these parallel accounts — that they do not harmonize with each other. Answer. — It is noteworthy that the most difficult of these contradictions are found in Genesis where Moses was dependent either on ancient records or oral tradition. (1) Thus according to Gen. 7: 12, 17; 8:6, 10, 12; the flood lasted 54 days and according to Gen. 7 : 24 it lasted 150 days. It is apparent to any fair-minded reader that the forty days of Gen. 7: 12, 17 and 8:6; do not mark the total duration of the flood but of the rain itself. (2) Three explanations of the name Isaac are said to be given (Gen. 17:1-7; 18:12; 21:6). These ex planations however are not mutually exclusive. It is quite natural that the child should be called Isaac (laughter) because both his father and mother laughed in incredulity at the thought of his birth and that in view of his name his mother laughed with joy after his birth. (3) Again the critics insist that those who sold Joseph into Egypt are said to be Ishmaelites in Gen. 37 : 25-27 and 39 : 1 and Midianites in Gen. 37 : 28, 36. Answer. — There is no contradiction in these names. In Judges 7 : 8 is found the record that Gideon did THE PENTATEUCH IN GENEEAL 127 battle against the Midianites and yet we read concern ing the conquered (8: 24), "They had golden earrings because they were Ishmaelites." Evidently the term Ishmaelites included the narrower name Midianites. Accordingly they are sometimes called by one name and sometimes by the other. Others suggest that the term Ishmaelite may be a general designation for merchant man as they were preeminent in commerce. The ad mission of a final redactor is fatal to the assertion of irreconcilable contradictions in the Pentateuch. A man of such marvelous ability as he must have pos sessed would have seen the contradictions if they were as patent as they are said to be, and would have removed them. Over against these arguments for the composite authorship of the Pentateuch, stands the remarkable evidence of plan and arrangement in these five books. This is not denied by the critics. They explain the unity of plan by the skill of the final Eedactor and by his using P the most systematic and complete of the documents as the basis of his completed work. But this explanation is insufficient. It is true that an historian may use many varying and even contradictory sources, weighing them against each other and working them over into a unity. In doing so he does not retain, however, the language of the originals but fuses them into a unity of which he is the author. Quite different from this is the critical explanation of the Pentateuch. It is said to have been a process of stratification in which the language and forms of the original can even now be distinguished. The Eedactor merely fastened the documents together, making a few changes or addi tions. Under these circumstances, we assert that the 128 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION orderly history we possess is utterly impossible and the theory is contradicted by its own assumption, for the Eedactor is an impossible character. He showed mar vellous genius in bringing order out of the chaos of documents and yet he was such a bungler that the errors of his work have come down to us as evidences of his folly. _ It is not claimed that there are no difficulties in accepting the unity and Mosaic authorship of the Pen tateuch. But it is claimed that the difficulties of accepting the story of its origin which has been made for us by the keen critical insight of a century and more of critics, tax our credulity far more than the tradi tional view. This plan presents a mountain of difficulty for every mole hill which it removes and to all its specious arguments we reply, non sequitur. GENESIS I. Name. The Hebrews named each book of the Pentateuch by its opening word or words. Accordingly the first book of Moses was named IVB'tna, a name which was transliterated into Greek by Origen Bp-naiQ. The Septuagint called the book riveots from the headings of its ten parts (Gen. 2: 4; 5:1; 6: 9; 10: 1; 11: 10; 11: 27; 25 : 12 ; 25 : 19 ; 36 : 1 ; 37 : 2) in each of which that word occurs in the translation. The Vulgate and most modern translations have adopted this Greek name. It means origin, birth, generation and is an appropriate equivalent in the plural of the Hebrew nilPiPl which is the key-word of the book. II. Author and Composition (see Chapter on Pen tateuch) . III. Purpose. As this Greek name implies, the purpose of the book is to trace the beginnings of his tory. The viewpoint however is not that of the modern historian who gathers together all possible material and arranges it in chronological order. It is rather to present a brief outline of the history of divine revela tion up to the beginning of national life in Israel. The perfection and purpose of creation and the temporary thwarting of that purpose by the sin of man are the logical introduction to the history. The history itself exhibits the gradual process of selection among the 129 130 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION descendants of Adam up to the point where selection ceased, and the entire body of one man's descendants were to be the chosen vehicle for transmitting God's revelation and salvation to all mankind. The develop ment of this process included the rejection of Cain, the appointment of Seth, the destruction and purification of the world by the flood, the preservation of Noah and his family to be a new beginning of the race, the choice of Shem, the scattering of mankind from Babel, the call of Abraham, the miraculous birth of Isaac and his consecration to God on one of the mountains of Moriah, the selection of the younger son Jacob and the history of his chastening which finally resulted in bring ing him and his household into Egypt, the cradle of Israel's national' life. In Genesis God deals with indi viduals and families while in the later books He deals with nations and especially the Hebrew nation through the instrumentality of national and religious leaders. Genesis is related to the Pentateuch as the Pentateuch is related to the Old Testament and the Old Testament to the New. Genesis describes the ground and how God planted in it the seed of a pure national life while the later books of the Pentateuch describe the growth of that seed into a full-grown tree. The later books of the Old Testament describe the growth on that tree of a special branch and twig and the gradual unfolding of a bud into a flower until the coming of the fruit. In the New Testament we see the perfect fruit plucked from the tree and given for the healing of the nations. IV. Divisions. Introduction Chapters 1-11: (a) The Creation 1:1 to 2:3. (6) History till the flood 2 : 4 to 5 : 32. t • GENESIS 131 (c) The Flood and History till Abraham Chaps. 6-11. 1. The History of Abraham including the early history of Isaac 12 : 1 to 25 : 18. 2. The History of Jacob including that of Isaac and the twelve patriarchs until Joseph's death 25 : 19 to 50 : 26. V. Sources. We have seen in the previous chapter that if there were written records in Israel Moses would certainly have them, and if there were oral traditions he would know them. In this connection a few signifi cant facts and suggestions may be mentioned : 1. More than three-quarters of Genesis (chapters 12-50) refers to events in the life-time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — events which Joseph would undoubt edly know and which his evident interest in his family might have inspired him to collect. His powerful position in Egypt would have made it easy for him to collect material for a history of his people. The per sonal tone of the record of Abraham's prayer for Sodom and of his offering Isaac as well as that of Joseph's making himself known to his brethren is just what we would expect if the record of Moses were based upon an earlier autobiographical record. 2. Abraham came from a country where the knowl edge of writing and reading was common and from an important city mentioned in the code of Hammurabi, probably the Amraphel of Gen. 14. In that country traditions of the creation and the flood were preserved, which have much in common with those in Genesis. That is the very country also in which Genesis places the site of the garden of Eden and where the confusion of tongues is said to have occurred. There if anywhere 132 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION the remains of an original revelation concerning cre ation and an accurate story of the flood would be handed down. What could be more natural than that Abraham carried such records and genealogies with him from the banks of the Euphrates to the land of Canaan ? " Abra ham gave all that he had unto Isaac" (Gen. 25:5). Perhaps these priceless records were among his posses sions. If so they went down with Jacob into Egypt and form the basis of Gen. 1-11 as written by Moses. 3. We know that in one matter at least tradition was handed down from Joseph to Moses through the four centuries of sojourn in Egypt. Joseph made his brothers promise to carry up his bones from Egypt (Gen. 50:25). Joseph's body was kept carefully until Moses' time, was carried out of Egypt by the Israelites (Ex. 13:19) and buried at Shechem (Josh. 24:32). Coffins of Joseph's time and earlier were inscribed with extracts from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. But if the coffins of Egyptian priests and princes bore in scriptions from Egyptian holy books, why should not the coffin of Joseph, the savior of Israel and the Prem ier of Egypt, bear records of the traditions of his ancestors? Such a plausible suggestion shows how easily reliable sources for Genesis could have come into the hands of Moses. VI. Chronology. The figures of the genealogies in Gen. 5 and 11 may be tabulated and dates derived from them as follows : GENESIS 133 -5 s § § 2S 13 3S ^ ^1 Si gM £3 jsa s| „« | i*i|n) or more briefly DiOE> The Sep tuagint named it "E%odo$ from its contents. This was adopted in the Vulgate and from it in the modern versions. II. Author and Composition (see Chapter on Pen tateuch) . III. Theme. The second book of Moses is closely connected with the first. It begins with the conjunc tion "and" introducing a list of the twelve sons of Jacob who came down into Egypt. It takes up the story of Genesis at the death of Joseph and carries it on through the establishment of the theocracy at Mt. Sinai. It records the beginnings of God's fulfilment of His promise to Abraham to give the land of Canaan to his descendants. The special phase of this fulfilment, with which Exodus deals, is the beginning of separate national existence. The growth from a small group of families numbering only seventy souls into a real nation is passed over with a few words because that period of over three centuries contained nothing germane to the purpose of the religious historian. The oppression, however, which resulted in the still greater growth of Israel and finally in their deliverance furnished an important subject, which would be calculated to stimulate the gratitude 136 EXODUS 137 and faith of God's people in future generations.. Exodus records the beginnings of national life in Israel, as Genesis the beginnings of religious life. Exodus there fore appropriately recounts the origin of Israel's great est national feast, the Passover. It follows the people in the wilderness only as far at Mt. Sinai where God gave the Magna Charta of their national life. Certain statutes given at that time fill the concluding chapters of the book. IV. Divisions. 1. The History of Israel till their arrival at Mt. Sinai 1 : 1 to 19 : 2. a. The oppression of Israel, chapter 1. b. The training of Moses the deliverer, chapter 2. c. His call and messages to Pharaoh, chapters 3-11. d. The institution of the Passover, 12 : 1 to 13 : 16. e. Israel's journeys to Sinai 13 : 17 to 19 : 2. 2. The Eevelations at Mt. Sinai, 19 : 3 to 40 : 38, in cluding the Decalogue and various moral and ceremonial laws. V. Contemporaneous History. The dates of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt are somewhat difficult to obtain. In I Kings 6 : 1 we are told that 480 years intervened between the Exodus and the beginning of Solomon's temple, and that the latter event occurred in the fourth year of Solomon's reign. This would give about 1495 B.C. as the date of the Exodus and the 430 of Israel's sojourn in Egypt (Ex. 12:40-41) would be from 1925 to 1495 B.C. These dates agree well with the supposed date of Abraham (about 2200 B.C.) if his contemporary " Amraphel king of Shinar " (Gen. 14 : 1) be identified with Hammurabi, who reigned according to Winckler 2264-2210 B. C. The period between the 138 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION reign of Hammurabi and 1925 is about covered by the few years after the mention of Amraphel before the birth of Isaac (Gen. 21 : 5), the 60 years of Isaac's life before Jacob's birth (Gen. 25: 26) and the 130 years of Jacob's life before his descent into Egypt (Gen. 47: 9). From Egyptian sources Petrie dates the Exodus at 1204 B.C. while Budge and most other authorities prefer about 1320 B.C. At any rate, Joseph is thought to have come into Egypt during the reign of Apepa II, the last great Hyksos or Shepherd King. These conquerors were Asiatics. Some historians think they were a mixed race, partly Semitic, and others that they were Hittites. According to Manetho they ruled Egypt 511 years. Joseph was elevated to power toward the close of their supremacy. This would explain the silence of the Egyptian records concerning Joseph, as well as the Bible statement : " Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph" (Ex. 1:8). It is natural that a king who belonged to a dynasty of foreign usurpers should be willing to give a place in the land to the Israelites but that later kings of native rulers should despise Israel and oppress them. The Hyksos kings ruled at Tanis, identified with Zoan, in the eastern part of the Delta, not far from the land of Goshen and the later site of the treasure cities, Pithom and Eamses. They constitute the fifteenth and sixteenth dynasties and were so far assimilated to Egyptian customs that the remains of their work resemble that of other Egyptian kings. During the seventeenth dynasty the native kings whose capital was at Thebes made war upon the Hyksos but they were not driven out until the eighteenth dynasty. By far the most powerful king of the eight- EXODUS 139 eenth dynasty was Thothmes III who had led fifteen expe ditions against the princes in Syria and subjugated them. On the walls of the temple at Karnak is a list of 119 places in Syria which were subject to this king. Two of them Jacob-El and Joseph-El are thought to be places named after Jacob and Joseph. Thothmes III carried his conquests as far as the upper Euphrates. The Aegean islands as well as Cyprus and part of Asia Minor were also subject to him. Great light is shed upon the history of this time by the tablets discovered at Tel-el-Amarna in 1887. They are letters and reports from the rulers of the Syrian provinces mostly to Amenophis III, the third king after Thothmes III and are in the Babylonian language, the language of diplomacy in that time. They refer to a people called Khabiri who are identified by some with the Hebrews. They are mentioned by the king of Jerusalem as attack ing various places in southern Palestine. If the identi fication is correct, we must conclude either that the Exodus occurred much earlier than has been thought (1400 B.C.) and the attacks referred to were the con quests of Canaan described in Joshua or that some of the Hebrews had left Egypt before the Exodus and were seeking to establish themselves in southern Palestine. The latter hypothesis is more probable. Hommel thinks the tribe of Asher emigrated from Egypt before the other tribes and concerning the relations of Israel to Canaan during their sojourn in Egypt he says: "It is extremely probable in view of the intimate relation between Egypt and Palestine that the Israelites in the land of Goshen maintained continual intercourse and uninterrupted contact with the latter country, through out the whole 430 years of their stay in Egypt " (" He- 140 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION brew Tradition," p. 226). The Khabiri, however, may have been the N designation of the people of a certain region in southern Palestine rather than the name of a race. Such was probably the original usage of the name Hebrew. The successor of Amenophis III was Amenophis IV, famous as the Pharaoh who attempted to revolutionize the Egyptian religion by substituting the worship of the sun, in order to unify the various religions of his empire. The attempt failed and the new religion was overthrown soon after his death. The internal dis turbances caused by Amenophis IV were quieted by Harmais, counted by some the last Pharaoh of the 18th and by others the first of the 19th dynasty. He was succeeded by Eamses I who after a short reign was followed by Seti I and he in turn by Eamses II, known as Eamses the Great. This monarch is generally regarded as the Pharaoh of the oppression. He waged war against the Hittites many years, but finally made peace with them, accord ing to which northern Syria became tributary to the Hittites and Palestine remained subject to Egypt. He reigned sixty-seven years. Fully half of all the extant temples of Egypt are from his time and he is the best known of all the Pharaohs. He strengthened the Delta towns and made Tanis (Zoan) his favorite residence. His power in Syria was far weaker than that of Thothmes III two centuries before him. He was suc ceeded by his son Manephthah, probably the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This agrees with scripture. The oppres sion of Israel had begun when Moses was born but Moses was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus (Ex. 7:7). Naturally the oppression would begin at EXODUS 141 the opening of a new reign. Furthermore what we know from secular history of the haughty bearing of Eamses II harmonizes with the character of the op pressor of Israel. The fact that he strengthened the cities of the Delta and lived there, not far from the land of Goshen, agrees with the statement that he made Israel work with rigor in brick and mortar and that they built the cities Pithom and Eamses. Thus the Exodus occurred thirteen or more years after the accession of Manephthah. Little is known of that monarch. A peculiar record concerning him was discovered in 1896. It records the names of certain localities which he subjugated in the following order : " The Hittite land, Canaan, Ashkelon, Gezer, Janoah, Ysiri'r — ' all lands.' " The connection of the last name shows apparently that it belongs to some people living in southern Palestine, although the previous name Janoah is unknown. Some think it is a reference to Israel. If so, it is the only mention of them in Egyptian inscription thus far discovered. Aside from this list there is no mention of an Asiatic campaign of Manephthah. The date of another campaign in this same account is the fifth year of his reign. This would be before the Exodus if the birth of Moses occurred after the accession of Eamses II. If therefore the hypothesis already suggested be true, that some of the Hebrews had broken away from the oppression of Egypt and sought a refuge in southern Palestine before the Exodus, they may have been the people whom Maneph thah encountered there. Both the Hebrew and the Egyptian accounts of this matter are so meagre that we must suspend judgment until we have more light. All the light we have tends to confirm the accuracy of 142 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION the Bible record. And if that record is true, we would not expect any mention of Israel either in the inscrip tions of the Pharaoh whom God judged or the Pharaoh whose hosts God overthrew in the Eed Sea. According to a newer view, Thothmes III of the eighteenth dynasty was the Pharaoh of the oppression and either Amenophis II or Thothmes IV the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The chief argument for this theory is chronological. The usual date of the Exodus (1320 B.C.) does not allow for the 480 years of I Kings 6: 1 between the Exodus and the building of the temple (1015 B.C.) and on the other hand leaves too much time between the dates of Abraham (2250 B.C.) and the Exodus. The 480 years would bring us back to the end of the reign of Thothmes III. Furthermore what is known of that monarch and his time agrees with the Bible record. The picture of brick-making by captives, bearing the superscription, "Be not idle," is from his reign. On this theory Queen Hatasu, the daughter of Thothmes I, who reigned with her brother Thothmes II and during the minority of Thothmes III may have been the Pharaoh's daughter who brought up the child Moses and the Khabiri of the Tel-el-Amarna letters may have been the hosts of Israel who were threatening to overthrow the king of Jerusalem. The facts are too meager to decide definitely between these two theories. They suffice merely to corroborate the Bible account. Ill LEVITICUS I. Name. The third book of Moses was named by the Jews from its opening word sop?! In the Mishna it is variously designated D'JrQ rnin, DVlP "is? and nuai.g ISO according to the character of its contents. On the same principle it is named in the Septuagint Asumxdt. and by Philo Asutrur) Z?i/?Aw?. From the Sep tuagint the Vulgate derived the name Liber Leviticus. The latter name has come down as the designation in many modern versions. II. Author and Composition (see Chapter on Pen tateuch) . III. Purpose. This book, as the names in the Mishna and Septuagint show, was intended for the priests. It was their guide-book for the worship of Jehovah and the instruction of Israel in their part of that worship. It stands appropriately after Exodus which closes with the dedication of the completed tabernacle. And yet it is markedly distinct from Exodus both in the manner and matter of its revelation. This distinction is shown in the first verse of the book. "And the Lord called unto Moses and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation " (Lev. 1:1). As Donald Fraser well remarks : " We have in Leviti cus, not the Lawgiver speaking in awful tones or writing on tablets of stones, but the Portion of Israel, dwelling 143 144 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION in the midst of His people and teaching them how they might draw near to His presence and abide in com munion with Him" (" Synoptical Lectures," Vol. 1, p. 29). Leviticus is also clearly distinct in purpose from Deuteronomy. The latter is a resume of the law for popular use while Leviticus is a code intended for the priests. Leviticus has its inspired commentary in the epistle to the Hebrews, which describes the true method of approach to God in the dispensation of grace, as Leviticus had shown it in the dispensation of law. IV. Divisions. 1. The way to approach God, culminating in the ceremony of the day of atonement. Chapters 1-16. a. Laws of sacrifices. Chapters 1-7. b. The consecration of the priests. Chapters 8-9. c. The sin of Nadab and Abihu and laws occa sioned thereby. Chapter 10. d. Laws of purification. Chapters 11-15. e. The ceremony of the day of atonement. Chap ter 16. 2. The way to maintain fellowship with God. Chap ters 17-27. a. Prohibitions for priests and people. Chapters 17-22. b. Laws of religious festivals. Chapters 23-25. c. Supplementary laws. Chapters 26-27. rv, NUMBERS I. Name. The Jews named the book 13iy from its first word or more commonly from the fifth word 13*103 which indicates its contents. The Mishna and Talmud for the same reason designated it D'llpan E>ofl. With this last designation the Septuagint name ('Apt6p.o\) agrees. The Vulgate translated the Greek name, Liber Numeri. The names in modern versions are derived from the Vulgate. II. Author and Composition (see Chapter on Pen tateuch) . III. Theme. This book takes up the history of the wilderness wanderings where the book of Exodus left it, after the revelation at Mt. Sinai and carries it on to the verge of Israel's entrance into the promised land. Thus it appropriately stands after Leviticus which con tains the body of priestly legislation given at Mt. Sinai, and before Deuteronomy, which contains the farewell addresses of Moses to the people just before his death. It covers thirty-eight years of history. Yet the history is fullest in the first and last of these years, the inter vening years being years f>f apostasy and containing nothing of permanent religious value. Chapter 33 contains a complete list of the camping places of Israel from their leaving Egypt till they reached the plains of Moab. Certain laws are also introduced with the occa sion which gave rise to them. 14.5 146 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION IV. Divisions. 1. Preparations for leaving Mt. Sinai 1 : 1 to 10 : 10. a. Numbering and arrangement of the people Chapters 1-3. b. Duties of the Levites. Chapter 4. c. Various laws 5 : 1 to 9 : 14. d. Guidance by the pillar of cloud and fire 9 : 15 to 10 : 10. 2. March from Mt. Sinai to the Plains of Moab 10 : 11 to 22 : 1. a. Events on the way to the wilderness of Paran 10:11 to 12:16. b. Events and laws at Kadesh-Barnea 13 : 1 to 20:21. c. Events on the way from Kadesh to Moab 20 : 22 to 22 : 1. 3. Events on the Plains of Moab 22 : 2 to 36 : 13. a. The Prophecies of Balaam 22:2 to 24 : 25. b. The sin of Israel. Chapter 25. c. The numbering of Israel and the request of Zelophehad's daughters 26:1 to 27 : 14. d. Moses' death and successor foretold 27 : 15-23. e. Laws of offerings and vows. Chapters 28-30. /. Conquest of the Midianites. Chapter 31. g. The trans-Jordanic settlements. Chapter 32. h. Stations in the wilderness. Chapter 33. i. Eegulations concerning the division of Canaan. Chapters 34-36. DEUTERONOM? I. Name. The book is designated in the Hebrew Bible by its first two words, D'l3in r^N or simply Dnai In the Massorah it is named from its contents • t : n^nwo (Deut. 17:18). For the same reason it is called AeozepovS/itov in the Septuagint. This name was transliterated in the Vulgate, Liber Deuteronomii, and from the Vulgate has been adopted in modern versions. II. Author and Composition (see chapter on the Pentateuch) . III. Purpose. This book is the appropriate close of the books of history and legislation which Moses left. It contains little history but that little presupposes that the events of Exodus and Numbers had already been recorded. It is not legislation in the ordinary sense but is a resume of legislation already given with exhorta tion and warning. The spirit and the matter of Deu teronomy thus presuppose the existence of the book of Leviticus and the legislative portion of Exodus. On the other hand both the historical and legislative parts of the book are written from a standpoint before the events recorded in Joshua had occurred. Deuteronomy is preparatory for Joshua. Yet the death of Moses with which this book closes separates its history from that of Joshua which records the administration of Moses' successor. 147 148 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Deuteronomy is Moses' parting discourse before his death. It forms the basis of the exhortations of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Our Lord paid special honor to this book since all three of the quotations with which he overcame Satan were taken from it (Deut. 8:3; 6:16; and 10:20). IV. Divisions. Introduction 1 : 1-5. 1. Moses' first address reviewing Israel's experiences from Sinai to Moab 1 : 6 to 4 : 40. Supplementary statements 4 : 41-49. 2. Moses' second address. Chapters 5-26. For the most part this is a popular presentation of the laws with exhortations to obedience. 3. Moses' third address foretelling the results of dis obedience. Chapters 27-28. The Covenant at Moab and Moses' farewell and death. Chapters 29-34. SECOND DIVISION THE PEOPHETS Section I. The Former Prophets PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The second of the three divisions of the Hebrew canon is the DWaJor Prophets, so-called not because of the prophetic contents of the books but because of the prophetic office of the writers. These are divided into the D"-Jte>Kl DWru or Former Prophets and the D'JiinK- D'sorj: or Latter Prophets. In the Hebrew classifica tion, each of these subdivisions contains four books, the former including Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings and the latter Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve. Thus the double books, Samuel and Kings, were counted as one and the Minor Prophets as one. The Former Prophets trace the history of Israel from the prophetic standpoint from the beginning of Joshua's leadership after the death of Moses to the exile in Baby lon, nearly eight hundred years. They portray the realization of the national life foretold in the Penta teuch. 149 JOSHUA I. Name. The book is named in all ancient and modern versions as well as in the Hebrew Bible from its principal character, Joshua. This name has four forms jntfliT (Deut. 3:21; Judges 2:7) usually Jft^PP, occa sionally J'B'in (Num. 13:8, 16; Deut. 32:44) and later shortened to JAB* (Neh. 8:17). Stade thinks it a Hiphil of JJKj} It is better to consider it a compound, meaning " Jehovah is salvation." In the Septuagint it is called 'I-noooM (6 : 34-35; 18 : 22-23, etc.). 3l.n; *6? (3:22; 8:10, 20; 9:54; 20:2, 15, 17, 25, 35, 46). 2. Between the appendix and the introduction. Compare 1 : 1-2 with 20 : 18, 23, 27. na«£foi' (1:27, 35; 17:11; 19:6). Btonk> (1:8; 20:48). ain^nan (1:8, 25; 20:48). Ta jm (1:2; 18:10; 20:28). 3. Between the introduction and the main body of the book : JUDGES 159 1 : 16 compare 4 : 11. mrrQi»nng(l:21;6:24; 10:4; 15:19; 19:30). T3 jro (1:2; 2:14, 23; 6:1; 7:7, 13:1; 15:12; 18:10; 20:28). Though it is altogether probable that the author made use of previous written traditions coming from the time of the Judges, there is not sufficient evidence that he embodied these sources in his work or that the book went through so many successive redactions. III. Author. For our knowledge of the date of the author of the book we are entirely dependent upon Hebrew tradition and internal evidence. These two witnesses are in remarkable agreement. According to Eabbinie tradition Samuel was the author. Internal evidence confines the date of the book to about Samuel's time. The statement of Judges 1:21 that " the Jebu- sites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day" could not have been written after David's conquest of the stronghold of Zion (II Sam. 5:6-8) nor the statement of Judges 1:29 that the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer after Pharaoh burned the city, drove out the Canaanites, and gave it to Solomon (I Kings 9:16). Furthermore Isaiah 9 contains sev eral references to Judges 4, 5, and 6, and the name Jerubbaal (Judges 6 : 32) seems to have been changed to Jerubbesheth (II Sam. 11:21) in the time of David. On the other hand, the statement found four times in Judges, "In those days there was no king in Israel" (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) to which twice is added " Every man did that which was right in his own eyes " (17:6; 21:25) seems to imply that the writer lived after the establishment of the kingdom. Thus we are driven to the conclusion of French : " The strongest 160 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION probability exists from the foregoing data for assign ing the authorship of the Book to Samuel or to one of his prophetic school. The period was either the time of Saul or the early years of the reign of David " (" Lex Mosaica," p. 191). IV. Purpose. The book of Judges records all that is known of the history of Israel from the death of Joshua to the time of Samuel, a period of about four centuries. It shows the increasing desire of the people for some leader like the nations around them, a desire which culminated in the days of Samuel in the appoint ment of a king. God did not yield to this desire imme diately but from time to time called forth special deliv erers, whose work resembled that of a king. The judges however were not chosen from any one tribe, nor was there a regular succession of them. They were excep tional and their tenure of office was temporary. Indeed they were rather generals than judges, in the English sense. A similar name is known to have existed in Phenicia and Livy speaks of the rulers of Carthage as " suffetes." The purpose of this book was not historical but relig ious. It was intended by repeated instances from Israel's past to show how God punished his people for their sins and forgave and delivered them, when they repented. As in the other historical books long periods are passed by without a word and in the so-called minor judges (Shamgar, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon) the statements are very brief. The heroic deeds of all the judges are represented as being done by power re ceived from God. The period was one of apostasy. And yet there remained a few who continued to worship Jehovah. This is evidenced by the mention of the JUDGES 161 tabernacle at Shiloh (18: 31) of the annual feast (21: 19) of the highest priest and the ark of the covenant (20:27-28). Furthermore sacrifices were offered (13: 15-16, 23 ; 20 : 26 ; 21 : 4) circumcision was observed (14:3; 15:18) and vows were made unto Jehovah (11:30; 13:5). V. The Judges and Their Chronology: YEARS. 3 : 8 Bondage to Cushan-rishathaim 8 3:11 Judgeship of Othniel 40 3 : 14 Bondage to Eglon 18 3 : 30 Peace with Ehud and Shamgar 80 4 : 3 Oppression by Jabni 20 5 : 31 Judgeship of Barak 40 6 : 1 Servitude to Midian and allies 7 8:28 Judgeship of Gideon 40 9 : 22 Eule of Abimelech 3 10:2 Judgeship of Tola 23 10 : 3 Judgeship of Jair 22 10 : 8 Oppression by Ammonites 18 12 : 7 Judgeship of Jephthah 6 12 : 9 Judgeship of Ibzan 7 12 : 11 Judgeship of Elon 10 12: 14 Judgeship of Abdon 8 13 : 1 Bondage to Philistines 40 16 : 311 Judgeship of Samson 20 410 If the forty years in the wilderness, the administration of Joshua, the forty years of Eli (I Sam. 4: 18), the rule of Samuel, the reigns of Saul and David (the latter 40 years, I Kings 2 : 11) and four years of Solomon be fore the temple was built, are added, the total is much 162 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION more than the 480 years mentioned in I Kings 6 : 1 from the Exodus to the building of the temple. Herzfeld and others have attempted to harmonize by the theory that some of the periods mentioned in Judges were synchro nous. The statements of the book, however, hardly admit of such an interpretation. Noldeke has offered another hypothesis, that the 480 years of I Kings 6 : 1 omits according to Oriental custom the periods of bondage to the surrounding nations. Neither of these theories is satisfactory and we must remain content without an explanation until we have further light on this difficult question. Ill SAMUEL I. Name. These two books were one among the Hebrews and named ?*HDB> not only because Samuel was the principal actor in the first part of the book but because he anointed Saul and David, the other principal actors. The name means "name of God." The Septuagint divided this book and named its parts together with. the two books of Kings /St'/SAo; paadetwv. Hence I and II Samuel were called the first and second Books of the Kingdoms. The Vulgate altered the title to Libri Begum, the Books of the Kings. The division of the books was first introduced into the Hebrew in the Eabbinieal Bible of Daniel Bomberg in 1516. The English Bible has adopted a compromise, taking the division of the books from the Vulgate and Septuagint and the name from the Hebrew Bible. The authorized version adds to the title "otherwise called the First Book of the Kings" and "the Second Book of the Kings." II. Composition. The Books of Samuel, like the earlier books, are considered by modern critics to be of composite origin and the result of one or more redac tions. There is a difference of opinion concerning the identification of the sources. Cornill, Budde, and Schrader identify the older document with J of the Hexateuch and the younger with E. The majority of critics differ from them at this point. Stenning de- 163 164 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION scribes the origin of the books in this way : " The older narrative may be assigned approximately to the 9th century, while the later stratum of E (Budde's EL), which, though old, yet treats the history from a more subjective standpoint, dates probably from the following century. . . . As in the Hexateuch and in Judges, these sources were combined and welded together by a later editor (Eje) who has however carried out his work in a less thorough manner. His work is in any case prior to the reforms of Josiah (621 B.C.) and to the influence of Deuteronomy, and must be placed in the 7th century. The present form of the Books of Samuel is largely due to an author of the Deuteronomic school whose hand may be clearly traced in the concluding summaries (I Sam. 14:47-51; II Sam. 8) and in various chronological notices (I Sam. 7:2; 13:1; II Sam. 2:10a, 11; 5:4-5)" (In Hasting's Bible Dic tionary) . The arguments for the partition of the boohs of Samuel are similar to those used in the partition of the Hexateuch. They are classed by Smith under two heads. 1. "Duplication of certain incidents. Two denun ciations of Eli's course are related, either one of which abundantly answers the author's purpose. There are two accounts of Saul's rejection and the second makes no allusion to the earlier. The two (or three) accounts of Saul's appointment as king are probably another example. Two accounts of David's coming to court have long given trouble to the harmonist. We have two sets of negotiations for Saul's daughter, the later being ignorant of the earlier one. There are at least two accounts of David's flight from court, two of his SAMUEL 165 having Saul in his power, two of his seeking refuge with Achish, two of the death of Saul. 2. Difference in style and point of view. In one place Samuel appears as the theocratic ruler of the people, comparable to Moses, and to Moses alone, among the heroes of Israel. He administers the gov ernment as the representative of Yahweh. The whole people gather at his call, and he rebukes and commands with more than kingly authority. In another place, he is the seer of a small town, respected as one who blesses the sacrifice and presides at the local festival, but known only as a clairvoyant, whose information con cerning lost or strayed property is reliable. Even thus he is unknown to Saul, whose home is only a few miles away. With this difference of view goes a difference of political theory. In one account Saul is chosen as king by God, is welcomed by Samuel, is assured that God is with him and encouraged to act as he finds opportunity. His election by God is an act of grace, for God has looked upon the affliction of His people, and now prom ises that Saul shall deliver them from the hand of the Philistines. But in other sections of the narrative the desire of the people for a king is an act of rebellion against Yahweh. Their act is an act of apostasy, paral lel to all their rebellions of earlier times. No wonder; for to this narrator the Philistine oppression has already been relieved by Samuel. By spiritual weapons these enemies have been vanquished so that they come no more into the territory of Israel and even surrender the ter ritory which they had taken away" (Commentary on Samuel pp. 15-16). Answer. — The general arguments against this falla cious method of dividing the Hebrew literature have 166 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION been so fully given in the chapter on the Pentateuch, that they cannot be repeated in detail. The unity of the book is evidenced by the following considera tions : 1. The orderly arrangements of the history. Events are not always given in chronological order. Neverthe less a clear and consistent plan is evident throughout. This plan could not have been the work of the two editors, unless they altered their sources and merged them into one beyond later recognition. 2. It is incredible that the editors could have allowed such evident repetitions to remain in the books. In their opinion, the alleged parallels and contradictions could not have been such. Even now respect for the intelligence of E requires us if possible to harmonize the accounts. In most cases this is easily done. Many of the parallels are accounts of different though similar events. Others are records of the same event from two different standpoints. Others still are not parallels at all but brief allusions to events already narrated which have special bearing on subsequent history. 3. Eelation of the parts of the books to each other. Driver admits this : " Some of the narratives contained in I-II Samuel point forwards or backwards to one another, and are in other ways so connected together as to show that they are the work of one and the same writer" (p. 173). 4. The differences in point of view are not evidence of variety of authorship. It is altogether natural that Samuel was held in different esteem by different people and at different periods of his life, and it is according to God's dealings with His people in all times, that while their lack of faith in desiring a king is condemned, SAMUEL 167 God promises great things by that king, thus making the wrath of man to praise Him. 5. Uniform diction. There are certain expressions running all through the book which bind it into one. Of these Driver mentions among others "as thy soul liveth," "sons of Belial," "Jehovah of Hosts," "so may God do and more also, " " from Dan even to Beer- sheba," "as Jehovah liveth," and "blessed be thou of Jehovah." His explanation, that " they appear to have formed part of the phraseology current at the time," is unsatisfactory. These and other expressions refute the contention of the critics that differences of style are discernible in the so-called parallel accounts. III. Author. Concerning the authorship of the books of Samuel we have very little internal or external testimony. The statement of I Sam. 27: 6 ("Wherefore Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah unto this day") does not require a date after the separation of the northern kingdom. The distinction between Israel and Judah existed in David's time, for David reigned at first only over Judah and Ishbosheth over Israel (I Sam. 18 : 6 ; II Sam. 2 : 10 ; 24 : 1) . The expression "unto this day" (I Sam. 27:6; 30:25) does not require a later date than the end of David's reign. The rabbinical tradition, that Samuel was the author, is opposed by the continuance of the history so far beyond the death of Samuel (I Sam. 25:1). The fact that David's death is not recorded, makes it probable that the books were written before it occurred, with the aid of older documents. IV. Purpose. The books of Samuel recount the establishment of the kingdom. They are very closely connected in the history of Samuel himself with the 168 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION book of Judges, for Samuel is called a judge (I Sam. 7 : 6, 15-17) as Eli, the high-priest, was before him (I Sam. 4:18). The times of Samuel before the anointing of Saul were times of the same religious apostasy and ignorance which prevailed in the days of the judges (I Sam. 2: 12-17; 3:1, etc.). Samuel was also a prophet (I Sam. 3 : 20). He was classed in the Old Testament with Moses and Aaron (Ps. 99 : 6; Jer. 15 : 1) and in the New Testament he is mentioned as the first of the prophets (Acts 3 : 24) and as the terminus ad quern of the time of the judges (Acts 13:20). His establishment of the schools of the prophets (I Sam. 19:20) at Eamah was followed by others at Bethel (II Kings 2:3), Jericho (II Kings 2:5) and Gilgal (II Kings 4 : 38) . Thus the prophetic office grew up side by side with the kingly. Of both Samuel was the founder. Samuel was also the King- Maker. Because Saul's reign was only temporarily successful and because David's house were to be per manent rulers, no record of the establishment of the kingdom could stop short of the second reign. Samuel lived to anoint David but died before he came to the throne. David's reign however must be added to the story of regal establishment because he enlarged the borders of the land to its greatest extent, captured the stronghold of Zion, and made it his capital. Further more the promises of perpetual dominion to the house of David (II Sam. 7: 12-16) became after his day the charter of the kingdom. David laid the foundations upon which all true kings of Israel built. With his death the story of establishment closes. V. Divisions. 1. The Judgeship of Samuel I Sam 1-7. SAMUEL 169 a. The birth of Samuel and the song of Hannah 1 : 1 to 2 : 10. o. The childhood and vision of Samuel 2 : 11 to 3:21. c. The death of Eli. Chapter 4. d. The ark in Philistia. Chapters 5-6. e. The ark returned and the Philistines conquered. Chapter 7. 2. The Eeign of Saul. I Sam. 8-31. o. Israel desires a king. Chapter 8. 6. Saul chosen. Chapters 9-10. c. Saul conquers Ammon. Chapter 11. d. The address of Samuel. Chapter 12. e. Saul's wars and rejection. Chapters 13-15. /. David chosen. Chapter 16. g. His prowess, friendship for Jonathan and the increasing hatred of Saul, Saul's death. Chap ters 17-31. 3. The Eeign of David, II Sam. 1-24. a. David's mourning for Saul and Jonathan. Chapter 1. 6. David's establishment as King. Chapters 2-5* c. David's purpose to build the temple and its refusal. Chapters 6-7. d. His victories and kindness to Mephibosheth. Chapters 8-10. e. David's sin and marriage. The birth of Solo mon. Chapters 11-12. /. Absalom's vengeance upon Ammon. Absalom's rebellion. Chapters 13-19. g. Sheba's rebellion; David's song and last Words; his sin in numbering Israel. Chapters 20-24. IV KINGS I. Name. In the Hebrew Bible these two were originally one book, called DwO "iSD or simply DwO In modern Hebrew Bibles, since the Eabbinic Bible of Daniel Bomberg (Venice 1516-7), the division is intro duced. The Septuagint classes them with I and II Samuel under the names Baodstwv rpirn and rszdpTTj. This method is adopted in the Vulgate (Liber Begum tertius and quartus). The authorized version has the title, " The First Book of the Kings commonly called the Third Book of the Kings," and " The Second Book of the Kings, commonly called the Fourth Book of the Kings." The American Eevised Version drops these secondary titles. II. Composition. The Books of Kings refer to three different sources for further information: 1. The Book of the Acts of Solomon. I Kings 11 : 41. 2. The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (17 times). 3. The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (15 times). These books were probably official contemporary records. Mention is frequently made of an officer of the court called a T3)» recorder or remembrancer (II Sam. 8 : 16 ; 20 : 24; I Kings 4 : 3 ; II Kings 18 : 18, 37; II Chron. 34: 8). His duties probably were to record the important events of the reign, as was done also at 170 KINGS 171 the Persian court (Ezra 4 : 15 ; 6 : 2 ; Esther 2 : 23 ; 6 : 1) . These and other similar books are mentioned as sources of the Books of Chronicles (II Chron. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22; 20:34). We know that one of these official records was afterwards "inserted in the book of the Kings of Israel" (II Chron. 20:34). It is probable that the books referred to by the author of Kings were such collections of royal records. The author was merely an editor or compiler who brought together all this material, adding to it comments of his own. Many critics think that the compiler also used other unnamed sources. He epitomized the character and reign of the kings by certain formulas such as " He did that which was evil [or that which was good] in the eyes of Jehovah." It is worthy of comment that an unfavorable verdict is passed upon all the kings of Israel. Cornill, Burney and others distinguish three redac tions of the book. 1. The first and principal redactor who wrote in the spirit of the so-called Deuteronomic reform about 600 B.C. This date is determined by the use of the expres sion " unto this day " indicating a time before the Exile (I Kings 8:8; 9:21; 12:19; II Kings 8:22; 16:6). This redactor is said to have added the framework of the history. He is the real editor of the books and his existence is admitted even by conservative scholars, though his Deuteronomic character is denied. He is called Edl. 2. Certain additions are said to have been made during the Exile. The most important of these are II Kings 24:10 to 25:30 and presumably II Kings 23: 31 to 24; 9. The date is determined by the release 172 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, by Evil-Merodach in the 37th year of the reign of the former, that is, 561 B.C. (II Kings 25:27). The writer however apparently wrote II Kings 25 : 30 after the death of Jehoiachin of which the date is unknown. On the other hand it is asserted by the critics that the entire absence of any hope of return from exile in these books, shows that this editor must have done his work before the decree of Cyrus in 536 B.C. This is Ed2. 3. The variations between the Massoretic Text and that of the Septuagint are said to indicate the work of later editors who transposed certain sections and in serted additions after the recension, from which the Septuagint was made, was separated from that which lies at the basis of the Massoretic Text. This final editorial work is assigned by Cornill to the third cen tury B.C. Answer. — Concerning these critical opinions, it is necessary to separate the proven from the unproven. The assumption of a redaction in the third century is altogether unwarranted as the considerations of the relation of the Massoretic Text and the Septuagint has ' shown (see Chapter on the Text). The marks of the time before the Exile indicate that the body of the book was compiled at that time, and the marks of exilic date are evidence of a later addition, which need not have extended to the main portion of the book. The book, as we now have it, was complete in the last half of the Exile and is based upon contemporaneous records. III. Author. Who the editor was, there is no means of determining. Driver says : " The compiler of Kings though not probably (as has sometimes been supposed), Jeremiah himself, was nevertheless a man like-minded KINGS 173 with Jeremiah and almost certainly a contemporary who lived and wrote under the same influences. Deu teronomy is the standard by which the compiler judges both men and actions ; and the history from the begin ning of Solomon's reign, is presented not in purely objective form, but from the point of view of the Deuteronomic code" (p. 199). According to the Tal mud Jeremiah was the author. The fact that Jeremiah was carried into Egypt however precludes the possibility of his having written the story of the deportation and imprisonment of Jehoiachin in Babylon. The date of the author and his prophetic standpoint are reasonably clear but his identity remains unknown. IV. Purpose. These books are intimately related to the two books of Samuel with which they are numbered in the Septuagint. They take up the royal and prophetic history where Samuel laid it down and carry it forward in the same spirit. The books of Kings trace the history of the united kingdom from Solomon's accession and of the divided kingdom until its two parts were conquered by Assyria and Babylon. This period is over four centuries and its terminus ad quern is the release of Jehoiachin by Evil-Merodach in 561 B.C. These are the only books recording the entire political history of Israel, for Chronicles not only gives no record of the Northern Kingdom, but seems to avoid reference to it. In all the history the kings of Judah are judged according to the standard of David's obedience (I Kings 3:3; 11:4, 6; 14:8; 15:3, 11; II Kings 14:3; 16:2; 18 : 3 ; 22 : 2) and the kings of Israel according to the standard of Jeroboam's sin (I Kings 15:34; 16:2, 7, 19, 26, 31; 22:52; II Kings 3:3; 10:29, 31; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22-23). Thus the 174 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION history of the two kingdoms presents the two great moral lessons: (1) Conformity to the noble standard set by the fathers, brings peace and prosperity. The King dom of Judah was finally overthrown because of its neglect of the high standard set by David. (2) Apos tasy from the people of God is the fruitful cause of many generations of continued sinfulness. All later sins are traced back to that of Jeroboam (II Kings 17:22-23). The division between the two books is in the middle of the reign of Ahaziah and seems to have no special significance. It is near the middle of the entire book and therefore a convenient dividing place. One purpose runs through both parts. The great prominence given to the work of the prophets Elijah and Elisha in the Northern Kingdom is also similar to the spirit of the author of Samuel, who had recounted Samuel's activity in founding the schools of the prophets. This as well as the mention of Isaiah and Jeremiah indicates the prophetic standpoint of the writer. The standpoint of the books of Chron icles being priestly, the Northern Kingdom is passed by and with it the story of Elijah and Elisha. V. Table of the Kings. The following dates agree with the well-established dates of the destruction of Jerusalem (586 B.C.) and of the fall of Samaria (722 B.C.). The other dates, derived from Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions vary somewhat from these, but with the possibility of error in fitting them to the Bible numbers, as well as the possible errors in transmission of the Bible numbers, greater accuracy is not attainable. KINGS 175 Judah. Saul..., 1099-1059 David....... 1059-1019 Solomon 1019- 979 Eehqboam. ... 979- 962 Abijah 962- 959 Asa.v 959- 918 Jehoshaphat 918-893 Jehoram 893-885 Ahaziah 885 Athaliah 885-879 Jehoash 879-839 Amaziah 839-810 Azariah 810-758 Jotham 758-742 Ahaz 742-726 Hezekiah 726-697 Manasseh 697-642 Arnon 642-640 Josiah 640-609 Jehoahaz 609-608 Israel. Jeroboam I . . 979-957 Nadab 957-955 Baasha r 955-932 Zimri 932 Tibni 932-928 Omri 928-922 Ahab 922-900 Ahaziah 900-898 Joram 898-886 Jehu 886-858 Jehoahaz 858-841 Jehoash 841-825 Jeroboam II . 825-784 (Interregnum. 784-772) Zachariah 772 Shallum 771 Menahem.... 771-761 Pekahiah 761-759 Pekah 759-739 (Interregnum. 739-730) Hoshea 730-721 Fall of Samaria 722 176 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Judah. Jehoiakim 608-597 Jehoiachin 597 Zedekiah 597-586 Destruction of Jerusalem. . . . 586 VI. Divisions. 1. The Eeign of Solomon over the united Kingdom. I Kings 1-11. a. His anointing. Chapter 1. 6. The death of David. Chapter 2. c. Solomon's marriage and choice of wisdom. Chapter 3. d. His resources and alliance with Hiram, Chap ters 4-5. e. The building and dedication of the temple. Chapters 6-8. /. Solomon's greatness, wisdom and apostasy. Chapters 9-11. 2. History of the Divided Kingdom till the captivity of Israel. I Kings 12 to II Kings 17. Special prominence is given in this section to the work of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. 3. History of the kingdom of Judah till the Exile. II Kings 18-25. Section II. The Latter Prophets preliminary: Hebrew prophecy I. Names. The Old Testament prophets receive sev eral different names: 1. Man of God (I Sam. 9 : 6 ; I Kings 12 : 22 ; 17 : 18 ; II Kings 4) . This name emphasizes his choice by God, his obedience to God, and his special fellowship with God. 2. Servant of Jehovah. This title is applied to others than prophets and is too general to indicate the special work of the prophet, except as one of those who faith fully carry out God's will upon the earth. 3. Messenger of Jehovah (Is. 42:19; Mai. 3:1). This is more specific and implies that like the angels, the prophets were sent on the behests of God to do His work. It also suggests the idea of interpreting God's will to His people. 4. Seer. This name is found in two forms, ilKI and fljn. Of these the former, derived from the usual verb, " to see," is less common. The latter verb is never used of merely physical seeing. Both these words view the prophet as a man of special insight, capable of seeing the true meaning of things both present and future. The full significance of these words, however, requires the reception of occasional divinely sent visions, which the prophet was to pass on to the people. The name, seer, ( fiKI ) was older than the name prophet (I Sam. 9:9). 177 178 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION 5. Prophet. This most common name has the form K'aJ. Its origin is somewhat doubtful. It has been commonly considered a weakened form of JHJ (Prov. 18:4) to bubble up, to gush forth. Hence N'aj is a man who is filled, inspired, in an ecstasy with the mes sage he has to give. The root in Arabic means to be prominent and in the causative, to bring into prom inence, to announce. In Assyrian "nabu" means to announce, and Nebo is the Mercury, the interpreter of the Gods. Hence a prophet is probably one who an nounces God's will, who speaks for and from God. II. Punction. Prophecy was a necessary element in the conception of the chosen people. " The Jewish people were merely the point of union, merely the elevated conducting rod, so to speak, pointing to heaven and drawing down an influence to be distributed speedily over the whole earth" (Davidson — Old Testament Prophecy p. 3). The prophets, following this figure, were the highest point of this conducting rod through which God's will was imparted to Israel and thus to all mankind. The prophetic office in a sense, belonged to all the people in proportion to their realization of the ideal of Israel. Yet from time to time God called cer tain men to be the special instruments for transmit ting His will. Since the duties of the prophets were occasional, the office was never hereditary, like the priesthood, and there are long gaps in the history of prophecy. The prophet was an intense believer in the imma nence of God, which made all history to be God's work ing out of His eternal purpose. To proclaim this view of human affairs and especially of Israel's affairs was his HEBEEW PEOPHECY 179 divine office. Hence prophecy bore a peculiar relation to the three divisions of time. 1. The Past. The prophets viewed history from the religious and moral standpoint. The dealings of God in times past were a fruitful source of lessons for the present. The prophets were interpreters of history, focusing its light upon the problems of the present. Hence the so-called, " Former Prophets " (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) are historical books written by prophets. They are not complete annals of events but rather " history with a moral." 2. The Present. It is with the present that prophecy has chiefly to do. History and prediction are both made subservient to the present. The past is described and the future foretold only that the problems of the pres ent may be solved. The prophets were religious re formers in times of apostasy and preachers of righteous ness in times of prosperity. With all human and divine aid they addressed themselves to the conditions before them. Their predictions as well as their precepts have their application for the present. Hence history and prophecy developed side by side in Israel, the latter the inspired commentary upon the former. 3. The Future. Prediction forms only a small part of prophecy. It was not the most essential thing. Prophets are condemned, even when their predictions are fulfilled, if they counsel the people to worship other Gods (Deut. 13:1-5). The moral and religious are the essentials of prophecy. And yet the ability to fore tell the future is an important element as Davidson explains : " If history be a moral process, it will have a goal which is also moral, and which will at last realize perfectly its principles, seen to be imperfectly realized 180 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION now. Thus arises an eschatology which proclaims that in the last days there shall be established a universal kingdom which will be a perfect kingdom of God upon the earth, being an everlasting righteousness" (p. 72). Yet future events are usually described as if present, so strong are the bonds which unite the prophet to his own time. III. History. The development of prophecy was in several different epochs. 1. Before Moses. Prophecy began with the protevan- gelium in Eden. Enoch foretold the coming of the Lord with ten thousand of his saints (Jude 14). Noah prophesied of the flood and afterwards of the destinies of his descendants. Abraham was a prophet of the blessing upon his seed and Jacob foretold the destinies of the twelve patriarchs. Joseph's dreams were also prophetic. In all this epoch prophecy was almost ex clusively predictive and preparatory. It had not yet attained its full development. 2. From Moses to Samuel. Moses gave an entirely new idea to prophecy. His work was almost exclusively didactic. Prediction is scarcely found. Yet he was the greatest Old Testament prophet in the scriptural sense of the word. He was the founder of prophecy and all later prophets of the Old Covenant were interpreters and followers of Moses. In intimacy of fellowship with God he surpassed them all (Num. 12:6-8; Deut. 34: 10). Only Christ himself transcended Moses as a prophet. From the time of Moses to Samuel the voice of prophecy was silent. 3. From Samuel till the prophetic writers. Samuel gave a new impulse to prophecy which was never lost so long as inspiration continued. He may be HEBEEW PEOPHECY 181 called the founder of the prophetic office as an essen tial part of the kingdom which took shape in his day. Prophets like Nathan and Gad belonged to the court of the king. In this period and even later the prophets were like the Nazirites, separated unto the Lord (I Sam. 1 : 11 ; 3 : 20 ; Amos 2:11). Many of them were united with the sanctuaries at Eamah, Bethel, Gibeah, Gilgal, and Jericho and, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, were probably of priestly families. The so-called schools of the prophets were associations or brotherhoods of pious men for mutual edification. Such existed in the time of Elisha at Bethel, Jericho and Gilgal (II Kings 2:3, 5; 4:38). These associa tions probably reduced prophecy to a profession with its official garb and its cant phrases (Jer. 23 : 33-40 ; Zech. 13:4). The hairy garment was worn in imitation of Elijah (II Kings 1:8) whose prophetic work in the northern kingdom like that of Elisha was the model of all later prophets. His burning zeal for, righteousness and his fearlessness are unsurpassed in sacred history. Ecstasy was often a characteristic of prophecy in this period and helped to bring the office of prophet into disrepute (I Sam. 10:10; 19:24). Mechanical means were used to induce ecstacy. Thus far the prophets were preachers but not writers. 4. The canonical writers protested against the formal ism or open idolatry of their day and by committing their words to writing, perpetuated prophecy in its most developed form. The order of these prophets is a matter of criticism which will develop in the chapters concerning them. 182 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION The following list is presented for reference: Contemporary Prophets. 1. Before the Exile. 875-865 B.C, Jonah 825-784 K Amos 795-785 « Hosea. . . . 785-725 it Isaiah . . . 758-697 It Micah . . . 745-700 it Obadiah. . 742-726 a Jeremiah. 627-586 it Zephaniah 626-621 " Nahum.. 623 " Habakkuk 608-600 " 2. During the Exile. Ezekiel.. 592-570 " 3. After the Exile. Haggai.. 520 " Zechariah 520-475 " Malachi.. 433 " Amos. Jonah. Isaiah, Micah and Obadiah. Hosea, Micah and Obadiah. Hosea, Isaiah and Obadiah. Hosea, Isaiah and Micah. Zephaniah, Nahum, Habak kuk and Ezekiel Jeremiah and Nahum. Jeremiah and Zephaniah. Jeremiah.Jeremiah. Zechariah. Haggai. 5. After the close of the Old Testament canon, prophecy was again silent until John the Baptist. He was of a similar spirit to Elijah and the greatest prophet of the old dispensation, standing on the threshold of the new (Matt. 11 : 9 ; Luke 1 : 76 ; 7 : 26) . His great ness is however lost in that of Him whose shoe-latchet he was not worthy to unloose. Christ was the prophet par excellence, in whom all prophecy finds its climax and fulfilment. He is at once the purpose and the result of Hebrew prophecy. IV. Style. The prophetic office and inspiration did HEBEEW PEOPHECY 183 not destroy or replace the individuality of the prophets. The prophets were not automatons nor their inspiration mechanical. Though altogether supernatural their in spiration had a psychological basis. Their dreams and visions were sent from God for a definite purpose but follow the laws of dreams. God spoke in them in a manner superior to that in which He speaks in men to-day, yet not contrary to their own psychological processes. The prophets were geniuses but mere genius did not constitute prophecy. Ecstacy was characteristic of some prophets but others, and those the greatest (Moses and Christ), were calm and meditative. Fair- bairn finds three marks of the prophetic style and diction : "1. Poetical elevation. "2. Figurative representation. " 3. The exhibition of events as present, or successive only in relation to each other rather than as linked to definite historical epochs" (Fairbairn on Prophecy p. 13). The literary style of prophecy is between prose and poetry, sometimes rising to the exalted parallelism of Hebrew poetry and then descending to the dignified simplicity of Hebrew prose. Davidson has described the lack of perspective in prediction in this way : " Just as a traveller at a distance from a mountainous region, sees one mountain rise up behind another, and fancies it close at the back of the nearer, but when he reaches the nearer, finds that the one which seemed so close behind it has receded, and really stands far away; so m the prophetic view, great events crowd up close behind one another, which however in actual fulfilment are widely apart in time" (p. 353). 184 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION V. Messianic Prophecy. The Messiah and his King dom are the central subject of all predictive prophecy, the background of every oracle concerning the future. In regard to each Messianic prophecy two things are to be distinguished, what the author meant and what the Spirit of Eevelation meant. In proportion to the rela tion of these two elements we have three kinds of Messianic prediction. 1. Direct prediction. Here the prophet clearly saw the coming Christ. The Spirit and the prophet have the same meaning. Such are for example Ps. 110 and Isa. 7. 2. Indirect or typical prediction. Here the prophet had a primary reference, sometimes realizing but little of its typical character. The Spirit of Eevelation pointed beyond to the ideal fulfilment. This is the most common form of Messianic prophecy which refers primarily to the offices of prophet, priest and king and to the characters of Son of God, Servant of God and Eighteous Sufferer. 3. Generally Messianic. Such are the statements of general truths, whose supreme application is only to Christ, although the author meant nothing more than a delineation of the ideal. Examples of this are found in Psalms 8 and 85. All Messianic prediction presents two converging lines, the human and the divine. "Along one of these God descends and displays Himself and comes near to men, until He becomes man. Along the other, man is raised up and enlightened and purified until he is capable of receiving God" (Davidson pp. 12-13). ISAIAH I. Name. The book is named from the prophet, its author. The name has the form nyiw] in the title of the Hebrew Bible, but the longer form 1i"pyE>; in the text. It means "Jehovah is salvation." The Greek form is 'Haalat; and the Latin either Esaias or Isaias. The English name is a transliteration of the shorter Hebrew form. II. Composition. 1. Critical Position. According to the dominant critical opinion of to-day, the book contains much which was not the work of Isaiah nor of his time. Chapters 40- 66 are said to have been composed toward the close of the Exile (about 545-536 B.C.) by an unknown writer, who is called for convenience the Deutero-Isaiah. In contrast, the true prophet is sometimes designated the Proto-Isaiah. Chapters 36-39 are considered a his torical appendix, written a few years after the death of Isaiah. Chapters 13 : 1 to 14 : 23 ; 21 : 1-10 ; 24 to 27 ; and 34-35 are also assigned to an exilic date. Some of the more radical critics deny the genuineness of Isa. 2:2-4; 11: 10 through chap. 12; 14:24-27; 17: 12-14; 19: 16-25; 23; and 32-33. They assign late post-exilic dates to many of these sections and assert that the first book of Isaiah received its present form by redactional activity later still, the redactor transposing the writings of the real Isaiah from the true chronological order and inserting these other fragments. 185 186 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION The literary unity of chapters 40-66 is denied by many. Dillmann assigned chapters 40-48 to the time of Cyrus' successes (545 B.C.) 49-62 to B.C. 545-539 and 63-66 to the period just before the decree of Cyrus permitting the return of the exiles (536 B.C.). Duhm and Cheyne are much more radical. The former con fines the work of the Deutero-Isaiah to chaps. 40-55 although these chapters are said to contain many later insertions. The most important are the " servant " passages (42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13 to 53:12) which he refers to B.C. 500-450. Chapters 56-66 Duhm refers to a writer approaching the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, whom he calls the Trito-Isaiah. Cheyne agrees with Duhm in the main, though he assigns the " servant " passages to the Second Isaiah and con siders chaps. 56-66 to have been the work of a school of writers rather than an individual. 2. Critical Arguments. The same general argu ments which are used to prove chaps. 40-66 non-Isaianic are applied to the other disputed sections. These argu ments are three. a. The theme of Chapters 40-66 is the Exile and the return. It is not predicted but presupposed. The people whom the prophet addresses are the exiles. The critics assert that though there are cases of prophets projecting themselves into the future, no other in stance of such prolonged maintaining of an ideal future standpoint is known, as this would be if Isaiah wrote it 150 years before the Exile. The mention of Cyrus by name so long before his time (Isa. 44:28; 45:1) is also said to be contrary to the usual method of prophecy. o. The literary style of these chapters differs greatly from that of the earlier portion of the book. Several ISAIAH 187 words and expressions, frequent in these chapters are never or rarely found in the remainder of the book. Cheyne cites other expressions which indicate a date later than Isaiah. The grandeur of style, characteristic of Isaiah, is here replaced by pathos. Personification is a common figure with the writer of chapters 40-66. c. The theological ideas are said to be different from those of Isaiah. The writer emphasizes the infinitude of God. The Isaianic doctrine of the preservation of the faithful remnant is wanting in the second Isaiah, as well as the figure of the Messianic king. The rela tion of Jehovah to the nations is much more fully developed than by Isaiah. 3. Answer to Critical arguments. a. It is admitted that the standpoint of the writer of chapters 40-66 is the Exile but it is insisted that this is an ideal and not a real standpoint. Isaiah projects himself into the time of the Exile by the Spirit of Eeve lation. If evangelical critics admit that there are other instances in the prophets of such projection into the future (Driver p. 237), it is difficult to understand why so great a prophet as Isaiah might not have main tained this ideal standpoint throughout so long a section. b. The maintenance of this position in the Exile was made easier by the fact that the Exile was not an event still future to Isaiah but a process which had begun before his time and whose culmination was a common place of the prophets. It was needless for Isaiah to repeat this prediction in chapters 40-66, for he had al ready foretold the Exile (Isa. 5:5-6; 10:20-24; 32; 13-18) and all the people of Isaiah's time were familiar with the idea. Furthermore this process of the Exile 188 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION had two notable confirmations in Isaiah's time, the destruction of the northern kingdom and the invasion of the southern kingdom by Sennacherib. Isaiah's prophecy of return refers not merely to the two southern tribes who still held out against the enemy, but also to the ten northern tribes who were already in exile. When Isaiah had seen Samaria captured and her people de ported, Jerusalem besieged and her king " shut up like a bird in a cage," and Sennacherib's hosts driven back only by divine intervention and when in his old age he saw the profligacy and idolatry of the reign of Manasseh, which must inevitably "hasten the coming doom, what wonder that he considered the Exile already begun and devoted his closing years to a description of the glorious future which awaited the people after the return. As was usual with the prophets, he did not realize that a century and a half would intervene. The reforms of Josiah which delayed the Exile were not present to his sight. These words of consolation which were appropriate for the believers in the beginning of Manasseh's reign, because they saw the Exile at hand, would be appropriate to those actually in exile. c. It is also admitted that names and dates are not usual in prophecy. Yet the mention of Cyrus by name 150 years in advance is not without precedent. Josiah was foretold by name in the reign of Jeroboam (I Kings 13:1-2), over three hundred years before his time. Bethlehem is mentioned by name as the birth-place of the Messiah by Isaiah's contemporary Micah (5:2) and that so clearly that Christ was expected to be born there (Matt. 2:4-6) and some objected to Jesus because he came from Galilee (Jno. 7:40-44). Other exact prophecies are the 70 years of exile by Jeremiah (Jer. ISAIAH 189 25:11-12; 29:10; Dan. 9:2), Daniel's mention of Christ (Dan. 9:24-26), Zechariah's of the piercing of the Shepherd (12: 10) and of his being sold for thirty pieces of silver (11 : 13) and Ezekiel's and Zechariah's against Tyre (Ezek. 26-27; Zech. 9 : 1-8). These passages are sufficient to show that in unusual cases and as a special proof of divine revelation, the prophets sometimes mention names and dates in the future. Such unusual conditions obtained when Isaiah wrote these closing chapters. With the Exile impending, the faithful needed some special proof for the prophet's assurance of return. This he gave them in the man Cyrus whose rising, those then living might witness, for all Isaiah knew. At any rate expectation of Cyrus would be the comfort of intervening years, and when he should actually arise, Israel would know that their redemption drew nigh. d. The differences of style between chapters 40-66 and the earlier parts of the book are not sufficient to indicate a difference in authorship. Isaiah prophesied during forty years or more. A considerable lapse of time may partially account for his changed style. It is more fully explained however by the change of subject in chapters 40-66 and especially by the ideal standpoint from which they are written. The grandeur of the earlier chapters gives place to pathos because the aged prophet seeks to console those who foresee the destruction of their land. The literary argument is of little value, by itself. Whence do we know the style of Isaiah if not from the book which bears his name ? To derive our knowledge of his style from a part of that book on the presumption that he wrote it and then to deny his authorship for the remainder of the book, is reasoning in a circle. 190 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION e. On the other hand the critics are compelled to admit that the second Isaiah exhibits many signs of similarity to the first. To account for this some have conjectured that he was a disciple of Isaiah, others that he was filled with the spirit of Isaiah or wrote in con scious imitation of that prophet. It was this similarity to Isaiah, the critics tell us, which caused the editor to add these chapters to the true work of Isaiah. If the similarity is so great, the differences are not sufficient to require another author. Instead of emphasizing the differences and then attempting to explain the resem blances, it is simpler and more logical to emphasize the resemblances and explain the differences. These glorious chapters were not written in the Exile in the spirit of Isaiah, but by Isaiah in the spirit of the Exile. Their similarity to Isaiah's acknowledged work is evidence that he wrote them. The differences are because he wrote on another subject and from another view point. The resemblances are of two kinds : (1) Verbal agreement. [ compare 1 : 20 40:5 58:14 43:13 " 14:27 45 : 11 1 « [ 19: 25 60:21 j [29:23 51:11 " 35:10 56:8 " 11:12 61:2 ' 63:4 _ 65:25 " 11:9 34:8 ISAIAH 191 (2) Similar thought or figure. 40:49: 41: 43:42: 61: 42:42: 42: 43: 43:43: 43:45: 64: 45: 57: 47: 3-4 ) H J' 17-18 19 I I- 7 .. 13 .. 18-20 813 .. 24 .. 26 .. :}• si- 3 ... 47:10 49:49: 51:51:53:53:54: 2 . 26 4 . 9 . 1 . 2 . 7-8 55:12 .compare 35 : 8-10 35 : 6-7 11:2 It 9:2 It 31:4 It 6:9 It 14:27 Cl 1:14 It 1 : 14-19 29:16 8:17 192 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION 56:12 it 22:13 59 : 3 a .- 1:15 59:11 it 38:14 60:13 it 35:2 60:18 it 26:1 60:21 tt 11:1 61:8 it 1:11,13 62:10 tt 11:12 63:17 tt 6:10 65:3 ) it 1:29 66 : 17 j 65:19 tt 35:10 65:25 tt 11:6 66:16 tt 27:1 /. The differences in theological ideas are to be ac counted for in thc same way as the differences in style. It is not claimed that the theological ideas are contra dictory to those of Isaiah but that they are broader and more elevated. This breadth and elevation are due to the lofty subject of which he was speaking. Like John on Patmos, he saw things yet to come and so widespread was his vision of the future that his theological ideas were broadened. Therefore he spoke of the infinitude of God. The very same Messiah who had appeared before to him as a King of David's time, now appears as the " Servant of Jehovah " and the Eighteous Suf ferer. Yet the reference to David (55:3) shows that the former conception is not entirely forgotten. The absence of the idea of the preservation of the faithful remnant and the broader conception of the relation of Jehovah to the nations are due to the ideal standpoint ISAIAH 193 of these chapters. Indeed the theological ideas of the second Isaiah are not different from those of his con temporary, Micah: The same glorious prophecy of the future, the same broad conception of the nations, and the confident expectation of return from the Exile are characteristic of them both. g. Literary resemblance with Micah. M: 47 : 2-3 " 2:13 it it 52:12 " 3:5 tt it 56:10-11 " 3:8 te te 58:1 " 3:11. it tt 48:2 " 4:13 tt tt 41 : 15-16 " 7:17 it tt 49:23 4. Critical Arguments concerning Isa. 36-39. Strack presents two arguments against the Isaianic authorship of chapters 36-39. a. Sennacherib's death is mentioned (Isa. 37: 37-38) an event which is dated 682 B.C. and after Isaiah's time. b. These chapters agree almost word for word with II Kings 18 : 13, 17 to 20 : 19 and were taken from it. Answer. — a. It is possible that the mention of Sen nacherib's death was a later addition from the book of Kings. If however we suppose that Isaiah was 20 years old " in the year that King Uzziah died " (accord ing to the critics 737 B.C.) when his ministry began, we have only to imagine him living to be eighty in order to record Sennacherib's death. The likelihood that Isaiah lived so long is strengthened by the tradition 194 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION that he suffered death by martyrdom in the reign of Manasseh, who came to the throne according to Strack's estimate, in 686 B.C. only four years before the death of Sennacherib. Such a supposition would also account for the tone of chapters 40-66. They reflect a time of idolatry such as existed in Judah in the reign of Manasseh. b. The resemblance of Isa. 36-39 to II Kings 18 : 13, 17 to 20 : 19, whatever its explanation, need not militate against the Isaianic authorship. The Books of Kings rest upon older records of the individual reigns, there fore the book was not necessarily complete when the passages in Isaiah were taken from it. Isaiah may have taken Isa. 36-39 in the main from the regal annals of his time, which later constituted a part of the Books of Kings. On the other hand, the brevity of the account of Hezekiah's sickness in Isa. 38 : 1-8 as compared with that of II Kings 20 : 1-11 seems to indicate that Isaiah's record is the original. Isaiah does not mention the lump of figs with which Hezekiah was healed and only casually alludes to the two choices of Hezekiah but gives Hezekiah's Psalm (Isa. 38 : 10-20) which is not found in Kings. Thus Isaiah was either the author of chapters 36-39 or incorporated them in his book. 5. Other Evidences of Unity. a. The last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah are ad mitted to be the most exalted and remarkable literary production of any prophet of Israel. It is exceedingly improbable that the name of this incomparable prophet should be entirely forgotten, that his work should be come a mere appendix to that of an inferior prophet, and that for twenty centuries his work should be uni versally regarded among the Jews as that of the inferior ISAIAH 195 prophet. It is even more improbable that sections of a later time should be intermingled with the writings of Isaiah by a bungling editor, so that it has become very difficult to extricate the true work of that prophet and arrange it in chronological order. It is incredible that the Jews with their superstitious adoration for their sacred records would have allowed them to be confused and mutilated in this manner. b. The inspired New Testament saints and writers quote these chapters as the work of Isaiah — John the Baptist (Matt. 3:3; Luke 3:4; Jno. 1: 23) ; Matthew (Matt. 8 : 1 ; 12 : 18-21) ; John (Jno. 12 : 38) and Paul (Eom. 10:16, 20-21). Though our Lord nowhere quotes the Deutero-Isaiah as the writing of Isaiah, yet he tacitly assumed its genuineness when, without cor recting the popular misapprehension, he read from it in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4: 16-19). c. The writer of chapters 40-66 does not show the familiarity with the land or religion of Babylon which we would expect from a man living among the captives. In this respect his work differs radically from that of Ezekiel, the true prophet of the Exile, and even from Jeremiah who witnessed the beginning of the Exile. This ignorance of detail shows that the prophet's stand point among the captives is ideal rather than real. d. There are many passages in the Deutero-Isaiah which do not fit the time of the Exile but do fit Isaiah's time. Such are Isa. 40: 2, 9; 43: 6; 44: 9-20; 48: 1, 5; 49 : 25 ; 51 : 7 ; 56 : 3 etc. ; 57 : 13-21 ; 58 : 1, 6-7 ; 59 : 1-8 ; 60:4, 6-7; 65: 2-7. III. Author. The author of the entire book was Isaiah, the son of Amoz, who lived and wrought in Jerusalem. He was ordained a prophet in the year that 196 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION King Uzziah died (B.C. 758) and continued his min istry in the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Hosea and Micah were his contemporary prophets. The date of Isaiah's death is not certainly known. There was however a Jewish tradition in the second century A.D. that he suffered martyrdom by being sawn asunder in the persecutions after the accession of Manasseh. If so his ministry extended over about 60 years. He seems to have been specially influential with Hezekiah. In II Chron. 26 : 22 Isaiah is said to have written a vision of Uzziah's reign and in II Chron. 32 : 32 he is said to have had a "Vision" which contained a history of Hezekiah and which is found in "the book of the Kings of Judah and Israel." We do not however pos sess this book, at least in the form including Isaiah's "Vision." Concerning his private life we know that Isaiah was married (Isa. 8:3) and that he had two sons to whom symbolic names were given. The first was called Shear- jashub (7:3) meaning "a remnant shall return" and the second Maher-shalal-hash-baz meaning "spoil quickly, plunder swiftly." IV. Theme. Isaiah's work had to do chiefly with Judah and Jerusalem at a very critical period of their history. The rising power of Assyria and the waning power of Egypt caused the presence in Judah of two political parties, the one favoring a defensive alliance with Assyria and the other with Egypt. The prophet stood between these two, forbade all human alliances and urged the people to trust in Jehovah of Hosts. Isaiah had a very lofty conception of God. He speaks more than any other Old Testament writer of the holi ness of God, and emphasizes His infinitude and spirit- ISAIAH 197 uality. The prophet had a broad view of the relation of God to man. He gave prophecies concerning Syria, Moab, Egypt, Tyre, Assyria and Babylon not only be cause of their relation to Judah but as the creatures of God. He recognized the universality of Jehovah's dominion. Like the other prophets, he demanded spirituality in worship, not the mere performance of sacrifices and vows but the heart's devotion to God. His conception of the glorious future is brighter and more varied than that of any other prophet of the Old Testament and the Messianic ideas of Isaiah transcend those of the other Old Testament writers. A large part of his prophecies probably group themselves about the two great crises of Judah in his time, the first, when Israel and Syria made a confederacy against Judah in the days of Ahaz and the second, when Judah was invaded by Sennacherib in the reign of Hezekiah. V. Divisions. Introduction. Chapter 1. 1. Prophecies from Isaiah's Eeal Standpoint. Chaps. 2-35. a. Prophecy against Judah and Jerusalem. Chap ters 2-5. b. The Book of Immanuel, opening with an account of Isaiah's ordination. Chapters 6-12. c. Ten judgments upon the nations. Chapters 13-24. d. Praise to Jehovah. His promises and warnings for Judah. Chapters 25-35. 2. Historical section concerning the invasion of Sen nacherib, which is supplementary to the first part of the book and introductory to the last part. Chapters 36-39. 198 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION 3. Prophecies from the Ideal Standpoint of the Exile. Chapters 40-66. a. Jehovah the Saviour of Israel. Chapters 40-48. I. Jehovah the Saviour of the Gentiles. Chapters 49-57. c. The Glorious Future of God's people. Chapters .58-66. II JEREMIAH I. Name. The name of the book is that of the prophet. It has two forms VWV and nw\ Its prob able meaning is "whom Jehovah appoints or estab lishes." The Greek form is 'hpep.(ac;, and the Latin Jeremias. The English name comes from the shorter Hebrew form. II. Composition. 1. Evidence from the Boole. Jeremiah dictated to Baruch, his scribe, all his prophecies from the begin ning of his ministry in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:1-4). This would cover 23 of the 41 years of Jeremiah's ministry. In the following year this roll was cut and thrown into the fire by the king, after he heard it read. (Jer. 36:23.) Accordingly the prophet prepared a new roll by the hand of Baruch adding to the contents of the former one "many like words" (Jer. 36: 32). This restored roll did not con tain a large part of the present book, for many sections are dated at a later time (Jer. 21 : 1 ; 24 : 1 ; 27 : 3, 12 ; 28:1; 29:1; 34:1-2; 37:1; 38:5, 14 etc.; 39:1-2; 40-44; 49:34; 52) and others bear marks of a later composition. When the prophecies were arranged in their present form, it is impossible to determine, though there is nothing in the book requiring a date long after the death of the prophet. Chapter 52 was probably not the work of Jeremiah (Jer. 51:64). It agrees 199 200 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION almost word for word with II Kings 24 : 18 to 25 : 30 and is thought by many to have been added to Jeremiah from that source. 2. Critical Opinion. Modern critics from internal ¦ evidence deny that Jeremiah wrote the following sec tions: Jer. 10:1-16; 16:14f; 17:26; 25:13; 27:1; 30 : 23f ; 32 : 17-23 ; 39 : 1-2, 4-10 ; 40 : 1-6 and 50 : 1 to 51 : 58. Davidson distinguishes three stages in the his tory of the book (H. B. D. Vol. 11 p. 575). a. Jeremiah's second roll which he makes to include chapters 1-6, 7-10 (except 10:1-16) 11:1 to 12:6; 14-15 ; 16:1 to 17 : 18 ; 25 in its original form and possibly 18; 20 : 7f ; 22 : lOf ; 45 and parts of 46-49. b. Soon after the prophet's death some persons either in Babylon or Palestine collected all they could of the work of Jeremiah, making his biography as complete as possible. They added the headings of the prophecies. Kuenen suggests the latter half of the Exile as the date of this redaction which gave the book the form which is the basis of the Hebrew and Greek texts. c. Certain modifications and additions were made after the Exile. Some of these were admitted to all manuscripts, while others were excluded from those manuscripts which underlie the Septuagint. All this is admitted to be largely conjectural. In the absence of fuller information, we cannot do better than express the probability that the book received its present form at the hands of an editor soon after Jere miah's death and that the whole, with the exception of chapter 52 and possibly certain brief insertions, was the work of that prophet. 3. The Text. The text of the Septuagint differs more widely from the Hebrew in Jeremiah than in JEEEMIAH 201 any other book of the Old Testament. The prophe cies concerning foreign nations (Chaps. 46-51) are inserted after 25 : 13 and arranged differently, and 33 : 14-26 are droppedi In many passages the Greek text is shorter than the Hebrew making the entire book about one-eighth smaller. Several different theories have been advanced to account for these variations. Whatever be the true explanation, there is no warrant for considering the Greek form of the book more trust worthy than the Hebrew in view of the carelessness of the Septuagint translators and the careless transmis sion of its text. III. Author. Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah, a priest who lived at Anathoth in Benjamin (Jer. 1:1). He was ordained a prophet in his youth (1:4-10). His first prophecy was given in the thirteenth year of Josiah's reign (627 B.C.). He continued to prophesy during the reigns of Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin until the destruction of Jerusalem in the eleventh year of Zedekiah (586 B.C) — in all 41 years. His life was threatened by the men of Anathoth and later the hos tility to him became general. Yet he continued fear lessly to utter the divine judgments. He was put in the stocks (Jer. 20: 1-3). During the siege of Jerusa lem he was cast into prison because his prophecies of the fall of the city were considered friendly to the Chaldeans (Jer. 27:1-15). Zedekiah released him for a time but he was again in prison by command of the princes when the city fell (Jer. 38). Nebuzaradan, the Chaldean general, released him at the command of Nebuchadnezzar. When Gedaliah, the governor of Judah, was murdered, Jeremiah tried to dissuade the 202 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Jews from going to Egypt. Nevertheless they went and took him with them. He prophesied concerning them at Tahpanhes in Egypt (Jer. 43:8 to 44:30). The date of his death is unknown. IV. Theme. The book of Jeremiah reflects his times and character. They were times of misfortune and increasing apostasy in Israel, while the prophet's character was deeply sensitive and emotional. Three important events occurred during his ministry, the first battle of Car- chemish, in which Josiah, the last great and good king of Jlldah, was slain by the Egyptians, the second battle of Carchemish, in which the Babylonians wrested from Egypt the dominion of western Asia and thus became the lords of Judah, and the destruction of Jeru salem and deportation of the people to Babylon. Jere miah stood almost alone in the effort to stem the tide of apostasy which he foresaw would engulf the people of God. His work was characterized by an intense love of Judah and an absolute fearlessness in his deter mination to deliver God's warning message. The unpopularity and persecution with which his faithful ness was received, saddened his sensitive nature and at times even embittered him. The prevailing tone of sorrow and judgment which pervades his writings is but the natural feeling of a pious soul in such a time. Yet the book is not utterly hopeless. Though Jere miah does not rise to the prophetic heights of Isaiah, there are many signs of his faith in the return of Israel and the ultimate triumph of God's purposes. This was grounded in his intense belief in the everlasting love of God for His own. Beyond the chastisement of JEEEMIAH 203 the Exile he saw clearly the coming of the Branch of Eighteousness and the establishment of a New Cove nant. In this last prediction (Jer. 31 : 31-34) he dis plays a spiritual insight into God's plan of the ages, which is unequalled by any other prophet of the old dispensation. V. Divisions. 1. Prophecies concerning Judah to the fall of Jeru salem. Chapters 1-38. This includes warning, lamentation, historical pas sages, and symbolic actions. 2. History and prophecy concerning the people after the fall of Jerusalem. Chapters 39-45. 3. Prophecies concerning the Gentiles. Chapters 46-51. 4. Supplementary account of the deportation of the people, not by Jeremiah. Chapter 52. Ill EZEKIEL I. Name. The book is named from its author S'NJIJIT meaning " God strengtheneth " or " God is strong." The Septuagint form of the name is 'I^sxtf/X and the Vulgate Ezechiel. Luther gave the form Hesekiel. The English follows the Vulgate. II. Composition. The genuineness and unity of the book of Ezekiel have never been seriously questioned, All schools of criticism are agreed that we have the book substantially as it came from the prophet's hand. Even Cornill says : " If there is any book of the Old Testament which bears the mark of authenticity on its face and lies before us in the form in which it came from the hand of its author, it is the book of Ezekiel " (Einleitung p. 176). This uniform opinion is based upon the marked characteristics of the book throughout and the evident arrangement and plan. The critics affirm that the text of the book is very corrupt. Baudissin suggests that in some places the Massoretic Text might be improved in conformity with that of the Septuagint, although he does not think the Alexandrian text better throughout. The greater uncertainty concerning the text of the Septuagint, however, makes it a poor guide for the. rectification of the Hebrew. III. Author. Ezekiel was the son of Buzi and of a priestly family (Ezek. 1:3). In his young manhood he was carried captive from Judah with Jehoiachin 204 EZEKIEL 205 (597 B.C. 11 Kings 24:11-16; Ezek. 33:21; 40:1) eleven years before the destruction of Jerusalem. He lived with a colony of captives at Tel-Abib on the river Chebar in Babylonia. His call and ordination to the prophetic office took place five years after he went into exile (592 B.C.). He was married (24: 18) and lived in his own house where the elders of the people came to him for counsel (8:1; 14: 1; 20: 1). His prophe cies seem to have been received coldly (33 : 30-33) though there is not sufficient evidence that he was per secuted. His last dated prophecy was in the 27th year of his captivity (29:17 B.C. 570). Hence Ezekiel's ministry covered at least 22 years, B.C. 592-570. There is a late and unreliable tradition that he was slain by a prince for denouncing idolatry. Ezekiel was probably 25 years old when he was carried captive (1:1-2). Before this time he was doubtless familiar with the prophecies of Jeremiah, who had already prophesied 30 years in Jerusalem. His work in Babylonia was contemporaneous with the latter part of Jeremiah's ministry in Jerusalem till the final destruction of that city (586 B.C.). Ezekiel continued to prophesy after that time in Babylonia while Jere miah was in Egypt. IV. Theme. The great prophet of the Exile differed from the other major prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah, in two important respects. a. His work did not have to do with the government of Judah. He was in no sense a political or social reformer. Among those who had been carried far from their native land, his work was rather that of comfort and exhortation for the individual. He was also far removed from the court of Babylon. 206 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION o. For the same reason he was more a writer than a speaker. In this respect he is unique among the prophets. His words were to "all the house of Israel." Hence they were preserved in book form for generations to come. The great subjects of Ezekiel's visions are the destruc tion of Jerusalem, the judgment upon the nations, and the restoration of all Israel to their land and worship. In the last of these subjects he displays his priestly training much more than Jeremiah. His knowledge of the temple and its ritual is minute. In foretelling the destruction of the city because of its idolatry, we also miss Jeremiah's dominant tone of sadness. Ezekiel was very severe in his denunciations of the ungodly but equally tender in his invitations to repentance. He desired that the exiles should learn the lesson of their chastisement. If they did so he had for them the com forting assurance of restoration. The profound and often grand symbolism of his book is the most im portant source of that of the Eevelation. Ezekiel's prophecies exhibit a powerful imagination and much meditation but are less poetic than those of other prophets. The orderly arrangement of the book is evidently the result of his own plan. V. Divisions. 1. Prophecies foretelling the Fall of Jerusalem. Chapters 1-24. a. The prophet's call and ordination. Chapters 1-3. b. Prophecies in the Fifth Year. Chapters 4-7. c. Prophecies in the Sixth Year. Chapters 8-19. d Prophecies in the Seventh year. Chapters 20-22. e. Prophecy in the Ninth Year. Chapter 24. EZEKIEL 207 2. Judgments upon the Nations. Chapters 25-32. a. In the Ninth Year. Chapter 25. 6. In the Eleventh Year. Chapters 26-28. c. In the Tenth, Twenty-seventh and Eleventh Years, against Egypt. Chapters 29-32. 3. Prophecies of the Eeturn from Exile and Estab lishment. Chapters 33-48. a. In the Twelfth Year. Chapters 33-39. b. In the Twenty-fifth Year 40-48. IV THE TWELVE (1) Hosea I. Name. The book is named from its author JHJ'in " salvation." The name is the same in Hebrew as the original name of Joshua (Num. 13: 8, 16) and that of the last king of Israel (II Kings 15:30 etc.). The Greek form of the prophet's name is 'Qoyi and the Latin Osee. In the Authorized Version Joshua's original name is Oshea, the name of the king is Hoshea, and that of the prophet Hosea. In the Eevised Version the first two are named correctly Hoshea and the prophet incorrectly Hosea. II. Composition. The greater part of the book is acknowledged to be the work of that prophet. Several critics, however, such as Stade, Wellhausen, Cornill and Harper, assert that it contains many later interpolations. Harper classifies them as follows: 1. Eeferences to Judah added by a Judaistic editor after the Exile. The principal of these are 1:7; 5 : 10. 12, 13, 14; 6:4; 6:11a; 8:14; 10:11b; 11:12b and 12:2. Answer. — a. Hosea looked upon the kings of the northern kingdom as usurpers and the house of David in Jerusalem as the rightful rulers (3:5; 8:4). He therefore dates his prophecy according to the legitimate rulers even though his ministry was in the northern kingdom. THE TWELVE— HOSEA 209 b. The allusions of Hosea to the southern kingdom are not more numerous than those of Isaiah to the northern kingdom, although his ministry was in the southern. The relation between the two kingdoms was intimate according to the prophetic view. 2. The Messianic allusions (1 : 10 to 2 : 1 ; 2 : 6-7, 14- 16, 18-23; 3:5; 11:8b, 9a, 11 and 14:1-8) are said to be inconsistent with Hosea's situation and declaration of the approaching destruction of Samaria. They are therefore assigned to an exilic date after Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah. Answer. — Other critics such as Strack and Driver admit that it is a characteristic of the prophets to give an ideal picture of the restoration after severe threat- enings. 3. Explanatory insertions "of a technical, archaso- logical or historical character " (4 : 13d ; 5 : 6 ; 7 : 4, 16c ; 8:8b; 9:1b, 9a, 10; 10:5, 14b; 12:13; 13:4b-7) were added from time to time. Answer. — These may be satisfactorily explained as com ments of the prophet himself. 4. Miscellaneous interpolations " for which no special motive may be discovered " (8 : 4-5, 10, 14; 9 : la, 8). Answer. — In the condensed form in which the work of the prophets has come down to us, imperfect connec tion with the context is not sufficient reason for regard ing a passage as an insertion. 5. " Chapter 14 : 10 — is a product of the later wisdom period." Thus the book did not receive its present form according to Harper until the Greek period (B.C. 333). Answer. — The subjective and arbitrary character of these assertions is sufficient refutation. Although in default of historical evidence it cannot be proved that 210 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION these are not insertions, the presumption must always be in favor of the unity of a book. The text of Hosea is said to be in places incurably corrupt. But the passages cited (4:4, 18 ; 5:2, 7, 11 ; 6:7; 7:4; 8:10b, 13; 9:8, 13; 10:9; 11:3, 6, 7, 12) are inadequate to prove that assertion. III. Author. Hosea was the son of Beeri. He prophesied in the northern kingdom during the reign of Jeroboam II and later and during the time of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, the same kings of Judah with whom Isaiah labored. According to the dates of the kings derived from the scriptural figures the reign of Jeroboam II in Israel closed in 784 B.C. while that of Hezekiah in Judah began 726 B.C. If these dates be correct, Hosea's ministry must have been a very long one, covering about sixty years (785-725. B.C.). Such an explanation would require a life of eighty years. If however the dates derived from Assyrian sources be correct (Jeroboam II 782-741; Uzziah 789-753 and Hezekiah 726-697) Hosea's ministry may have been much shorter, extending over about thirty years (755- 725 B.C.). In either case Amos was the contemporary of Hosea in the early part of his ministry and Isaiah and Micah during the later part. Hosea was married to Gomer the daughter of Diblaim. Their three children were given symbolic names by divine command: the eldest son Jezreel, because the blood of Jezreel would be avenged; the daughter Lo- ruhamah ("not having obtained mercy") because God would show no mercy to the northern kingdom; and the youngest son Lo-ammi ("not my people") because Israel were no longer considered the people of God. The marriage of Hosea with " a wife of whoredoms " THE TWELVE— HOSEA 211 and the children of the union are symbolic of the rela tion of Jehovah to Israel. The marriage and the birth of the three children actually occurred. If it were an allegory the name of the wife would be symbolical, as well as those of the children. The marriage is recorded as a literal occurrence. IV. Theme. Hosea bears somewhat the same rela tion to the northern kingdom as Jeremiah to the southern. Each foretold the approaching destruction of the kingdom in which he ministered. The same in tense and pathetic love of God for His people is charac teristic of both books. Yet Hosea was further removed from the fall of Samaria than Jeremiah from that of Jerusalem. Hosea began his ministry in a time of prosperity and foretold the speedy overthrow of the house of Jehu, of which Jeroboam II was the fourth king. During the frequent political changes and troublous times which followed Jeroboam's death, the prophet continued with great tenderness to predict the downfall of Israel and to urge the people to repentance. The fact that his message was based upon a symbolic event of great sadness in his own house, gave a warmth and pathos to his words which is not equalled by any other prophet, V. Divisions. 1. The apostasy of Israel, figuratively depicted by the prophet's marrying " a wife of whoredoms." Chapters 1-3. 2. The same apostasy literally described with the yearning of Jehovah over Israel, exhortations to repent ance, and promise of restoration. Chapters 4-14. 212 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION (2) Joel I. Name. The book is named from its author, f'Ni'1 meaning " Jehovah is God." It is a very common name in scripture (I Sam. 8 : 2; I Chron. 4: 35-43; 5 : 4, 12; 6:36; 7:3; 11:38; 15:7; 27:20; II Chron. 29:12; Ezra 10 : 43 ; Neh. 11 : 9) . The form of the name in the Septuagint is 'Ico-qX. II. Date. The book is not dated according to the reign of any king. Accordingly we are confined to in ternal evidences for guidance concerning the time of the prophet. Nor are these evidences many or powerful. Neither Syrians, Assyrians, nor Chaldeans are men tioned. Hence the presumption is very strong that the book was written either before the reign of Ahaz (742- 726 B.C.) when those nations became prominent among the enemies of Judah, or after the Exile when they had ceased to be such (after 536 B.C.). The view of Konig that it belongs in the last years of Josiah's reign has met with little favor. Credner and after him a large number of critics assign the book to the beginning of the reign of Joash in Judah (879-839 B.C.). The arguments for this view are as follows: 1. The enemies of Judah mentioned by Joel (3:4, 19) are the Phenicians, Philistines, Egypt and Edom. Of these Edom and Philistia had been at war with Judah during the reign of Jehoram (893-885 B.C.) only a few years before Joash (II Kings 8 : 20-22; II Chron. 21 : 16-17) . Egypt was still hostile to Judah in that time, for Shishak had invaded Judah in the fifth year THE TWELVE— JOEL 213 of Eehoboam (974 B.C.) while Egypt was an ally of Judah in the century after Joash (Isaiah 30 and 31). On the other hand neither Syria nor Assyria had begun to attack Judah in the time of Joash. 2. The book of Amos makes use of Joel (compare Joel 1 : 4 and 2 : 25 with Amos 4:9; Joel 3 : 16 with Amos 1:2 and Joel 3:18 with Amos 9:13). That these are references of Amos to Joel and not of Joel to Amos is shown by their agreement with the circle of ideas in Joel rather than in Amos. But Amos proph esied in the reign of Uzziah of- Judah (810-758 B.C.) and Jeroboam II of Israel (825-784 B.C.). Joel must therefore have preceded that time. 3. The king is not mentioned but rather the elders and priests (Joel 1 : 2, 13-14). This fits admirably with the time suggested. Joash ascended the throne when he was seven years of age (II Kings 11:21). In his minority Jehoiada the high-priest and the elders were the virtual rulers of the country. 4. The absence of censure for particular sins agrees with the time of Joash better than with any other which can be mentioned. Driver, Merx, Cornill and others assign Joel to a post-exilic date, during the fifth century B.C. The principal arguments for this position are these: 1. Joel 3 : 2 is said to be a recollection of the scatter ing of Judah before the Exile. Answer. — Keil and others have pointed out that this is a predictive passage. Therefore it contains no evi dence of a post-exilic date. 2. The mention of the sale of Jewish prisoners by the Phenicians to "the sons of Javan" (Joel 3:6) is said to agree better with a post-exilic date, 214 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Answer. — "The sons of Javan" are mentioned as a distant people not well-known to Judah, while the Phenicians, who were hostile to Judah, in the early days of the divided kingdom were the greatest maritime nation of antiquity. It is not strange that they sold Jewish captives to the Greeks as early as the time of Joash. 3. Joel makes no mention of the northern kingdom but speaks of Israel as one people (Joel 2 : 27 ; 3 : 2, 16) . Therefore, it is argued, Israel must have already gone into exile. Answer. — a. Since Joel's ministry was with the king dom of Judah, he had no occasion to mention the northern kingdom. 6. Joel uses the name Israel as the original name which rightfully belonged to the southern kingdom even before the fall of Samaria. 4. No king of Judah is mentioned, implying a post- exilic time when there was no king. This matter has already been satisfactorily explained. In addition to these arguments the following consid erations are evidence for the pre-exilic date. 1. If the book were composed in the Persian period, its entire silence concerning Persia and its kings and the struggles which Judah underwent immediately after the Exile is very strange. The temple and its worship are well established. This fact induces Cornill to date the book about 400 B.C. But it agrees better with the time before the Exile. 2. The position between Hosea and Amos, the oldest of the Prophets, seems to indicate the ancient Hebrew tradition that Joel also was very early. 3. The literary style of Joel differs greatly from that THE TWELVE— JOEL 215 of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who were his con temporaries if he prophesied after the Exile. Thus the weight of the evidence favors the date in the time of Joash, possibly 875-865 B.C. III. Composition. Eothstein has attacked the unity of the book, assigning 1:1 to 2 : 27 to the reign of Joash and 2 : 28 to 3 : 21 to a post-exilic date, while Cornill speaks of it as a compendium of late Jewish eschatology. The uniform plan and style of the book are sufficient answer to this view, which has not indeed met with general acceptance. IV. Author. All that is known of Joel is the state ment of 1 : 1 that he was the son of Pethuel. In the Septuagint this name has the form BadouyA and in the Vulgate Phatuel. It is generally agreed that he minis tered in the kingdom of Judah and probably in Jeru salem. V. Theme. The occasion of this prophecy was an unprecedented plague of locusts in Judah. Such a plague destroys all vegetation and is a worse calamity than the devastation of an invading army. The prophet describes this visitation so vividly that it is best to consider it an actual occurrence and not a symbolic description of an invading army or of the damaging effects of profligacy and idolatry (Eev. 9:3-11). Joel views it as a judgment of Jehovah for the people's sins and urges them to repent lest a worse thing come upon them. If they do so, God will withdraw the punishment and give them abundant blessings. Accordingly the latter part of the book is filled with a description of the spiritual blessings of Israel in the last days and the judgments of God upon their enemies. The book is preeminently eschatological. Yet the predictions were 216 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION meant primarily for the comfort of the people in Joel's time. VI. Divisions. 1. The plague of locusts and the proclamation of a fast. 1 : 1 to 2 : 27. 2. Blessing and judgment in the last days. 2 : 28 to 3:21. THE TWELVE— AMOS 217 (3) Amos I. Name. The book is named from its author Dioy meaning "burden" or "burden-bearer." Its form in the Septuagint is 'Afie&g. The name should not be con fused with that of Amoz, the father of Isaiah, which has a different form in the Hebrew ( J'iDN ) . II. Composition. The book is almost universally acknowledged to be the work of Amos. The recently expressed opinion that it was a much later writing, ascribed by its unknown author to the Amos mentioned in the book, is sufficiently answered by a consideration of the agreement of the book with the times of Amos. More general is the view that the book contains sev eral later interpolations. The arguments are similar to those concerning the alleged interpolations in Hosea, viz., the references to Judah and the lack of connection of certain passages with the remainder of the book. There is a wide divergence of opinion among critics on this subject. Harper is the most radical, rejectingjj JL, 9-12; 2:4-5, 12; 4:7b, 8a, 13; 5:8-9, M 6:3/9:m^7jJd^Ja,;,.8.;2a, . JLJL1&;. 9:5-6, 8-15. Cheyne, Duhm, Stade, and Wellhausen reject a few of these passages with one or two others, but W. E. Smith and Kuenen defend 2 : 4-5 ; 4 : 13 ; 5 : 8-9 and 9 : 5-6. Answer. — This difference of opinion, even among radical critics, shows that the arguments for rejection are inadequate. Since Amos came from Tekoa in Judah, it is difficult to see why he should not mention Judah and Jerusalem. The assertion that other passages are too loosely connected with Amos to be the work of that 218 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION prophet is largely subjective. Logically carried out it would deny that an author can introduce a parenthesis in his work. The critics manufacture an ideal Amos from a part of his book and then affirm that other state ments of the book do not agree with that ideal. The difficulty is not with the book but with the false method of the critics. If there are interpolations in it, which is inherently improbable, our knowledge is too meagre to discover them. III. Author. Amos was one of the herdsmen of Tekoa in Judah, about ten miles south of Jerusalem. The word rendered " herdsmen " ( D'lpJ ) is found else where only once (II Kings 3:4) and is supposed to mean the shepherd of a peculiar small kind of sheep, famous for their wool. He also tended larger cattle and was a dresser of sycamore trees (Amos 7:14). From his occupation as well as the omission of his father's name we may conclude that he came from an obscure and poor family. He did not belong to the prophetic order but was called from his- ordinary occu pation to be a prophet in Israel (Amos 7: 14-15). He went to Bethel, the principal sanctuary of the northern kingdom, and foretold the destruction of that kingdom for their sins. After a time, the chief priest of Bethel, Amaziah, reported him to king Jeroboam II as a traitor and ordered him to leave the country. It was probably after his return to Tekoa that he committed to writing this summary of his prophecy. His exact time is difficult to determine because of the uncertainty concerning the dates of the kings of the northern kingdom. If the older chronology be correct Jeroboam II of Israel was contemporary with Uzziah of Judah from 810 to 784 B.C. If the dates from THE TWELVE— AMOS 219 Assyrian sources be preferred, they were contemporaries from 782 to 753 B.C. On the former calculation the ministry of Amos was probably from 795-785 B.C. but on the 1 a tter_7 60-750^ B , C - The recent attempt to make the date still later (about 734 B.C.) has not been suc cessful. The time of the earthquake in Uzziah's reign being unknown, it furnishes no clew to establish the time of the prophecy (Amos 1:1; Zech. 14 : 5) . Hosea was the younger contemporary and successor of Amos. IV. Theme. The principal subject of the prophecy is the judgment upon Israel because of their idolatry and other sins. The time of Jeroboam II was one of great temporal prosperity but it was also characterized by prof ligacy, oppression and injustice. Against these Amos inveighed fearlessly, foretelling the ruin of Israel, which occurred sixty years later (222JB.C). He also foretold the destruction of the surrounding nations and even of Judah for their sins. He presents a high moral_standard of conduct in preference to a cold formal religion. Jehovah is to him the God of all nations, who deals with all according to their works (9:7). Yet at the end of the prophecy he foretells the restoration of the worship as in David's time. V. Divisions. 1. Judgment upon the surrounding nations. Chap ters 1-2. 2. Judgment upon Israel. Chapters 3-6. 3. Symbolic predictions of Israel's doom, closing with the promise of restoration. Chapters 7-9. 220 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION (4) Obadiah I. Name. The book is named from its author iTiajf meaning " worshipper of Jehovah." This was a common name (I Kings 18:3-4; I Chron. 3:21; 7:3; 8:28; 12:9; 27:19; II Chron. 17:7; 34:12; Ezra 8:29; Neh. 10:5; 12:25). In the Septuagint the title ia given in the genitive '0{3Siou following verse 1 [Spaatt 'Opdioo ) . In the Vulgate the name is Abdias. II. Date and Composition. The unity of this little book depends chiefly upon the date to which it is as signed. The prophecy of Jeremiah against Edom (49 : 7-22) exhibits much in common with that of Obadiah. All critics are agreed that Obadiah did not borrow from Jeremiah but that rather Obadiah represents the older form of the prophecy. Hence the substance of Obadiah must antedate Jeremiah. On the other hand, there is a difference of opinion concerning the allusions to calamities in Judah in verses 11, 12 and 14. Many critics confidently affirm that these verses refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. as a past event. Others find the same reference in the prediction of verse 20. But if so the book cannot be a unit. Hence the critics affirm that verses 1-9 and possibly 16a, 18-19 and 20b were the work of the original Obadiah who wrought some time before the Exile, and that the references to the destruction of Jerusalem in verses 10-14 and the other parts of the book were added by another writer after the Exile. Cornill and Kuenen date this redaction in the fifth century but Cheyne assigns it to about 350 B.C. THE TWELVE— OBADIAH 221 Answer. — All the facts in the case are explained much more simply on the supposition that the entire book of Obadiah was written by that prophet before the time of Jeremiah. Then Jeremiah made use of Obadiah directly. It is not necessary to refer verses 11, 12 and 14 to the events of 586 B.C. They are better explained by reference to II Chron. 21 : 16-17 where it is recorded that the Philistines and Arabians invaded Judah in the reign of Jehoram and carried away the king's wives and all but one of his sons besides much treasure. Amos apparently refers to this event in connection with Edom (1:6). Whether verse 20 refers to the invasion in the days of Jehoram or the captivity in Babylon need not influence the decision as to date because it is a predic tion. The assertion of Driver that " the expressions which Obadiah uses [notice especially " cast lots upon Jerusalem "] appear to be too strong to be referred with probability to this invasion, which, to judge from the silence of the Book of Kings, was little more than a predatory incursion, from the effects of which Judah speedily recovered " (Introduction p. 320), does not take sufficient account of the statement of the Chronicler. Whatever be the true explanation of the silence of the Book of Kings, the deportation of the king's household and all his treasure was a sufficient national misfortune to warrant the statements of Obadiah. The casting lots upon Jerusalem does not necessarily imply that the city was entirely destroyed. The invasion of the Philis tines and Arabians occurred toward the close of Jeho- ram's reign or about 887 B.C. Obadiah must have prophesied after this event — how much later, it is im possible to determine. The position of the book near the beginning of the twelve Minor Prophets seems to 222 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION indicate the Hebrew opinion of its great antiquity. The conjecture of Davis (Dictionary of Bible p. 528) that Obadiah prophesied in the reign of Ahaz when Edom was specially hostile to Judah (II Chron. 28 : 17) seems quite probable. This would give the date 742- 726 B.C. Upon this theory Obadiah was a contem porary of Isaiah, Hosea, Amos and Micah. III. Author. Nothing whatever is known concern ing this prophet's life. Josephus identifies him with Obadiah, the governor under Ahab (I Kings 18:3-4) but the date of his prophecy as well as its references to Judah show that he lived and prophesied in Judah much later than that time. IV. Theme. The prophecy relates entirely to Edom in its unbrotherly relation to Israel. These unbrotherly acts are 'recalled and the destruction of Edom is foretold. On the contrary Israel is to be established and enlarged. THE TWELVE-^JONAH 223 (5) Jonah I. Name. The book is named from its author rui' T meaning a "dove." In the Septuagint the name takes the form 'Imva? and in the Vulgate Jonas, while in the Authorized Version of the New Testament it is Jona, Jonas, or Jonah. II. Authorship and Date. Jonah was the son of Amittai. The only mention of him in the Old Testa ment outside of this book is in II Kings 14 : 25. There we are informed that he lived in Gath-Hepher in the territory of Zebulon (Josh. 19 : 13) north of Nazareth and that he had prophesied to Jeroboam II that the Lord would restore the ancient boundary to Israel. This probably occurred early in the reign of that king of which the dates are B.C. 825-784 or by another calcu lation B.C. 782-741. The events recorded in the book of Jonah are not dated nor do we know how long his ministry lasted. It is probable that he wrote the book soon after his return from Nineveh. He was a prophet of the northern kingdom about 825-784 B.C. and his contemporaries were Hosea and Amos in the northern kingdom and Isaiah and Micah in the southern. Many critics deny that Jonah wrote the booh and assign it to a post-exilic date, 500 B.C. or later. The grounds of this conclusion are as follows: 1. It is asserted that Jonah is not said to have been the author. 2. The book is said to contain several Aramaisms and late words or expressions. The shorter form of the relative pronoun is used. The title " God of Heaven " 224 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION (Jonah 1:9) is used by Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel but never by a pre-exilic writer. DJJD is used in the Aramaic sense of a decree (Jonah 3:7). Also nraD (1:5), rnstyJV (1: 6), priE>: (1:12), !»?! (2: 1 etc.) and fitaj? (4 : 10) are considered late forms. 3. Historical indications of the date are found in Jonah 3 : 3 and 3:6. In the former passage it is said " Nineveh was ( nrpPl ) a great city," as though its greatness were past. This is said to indicate a date after 606 B.C. when Nineveh was overthrown. In the latter passage the king of Assyria is called "the king of Nineveh," a title which according to Sayce could not have been used while the Assyrian Kingdom endured. Furthermore if the name of this king had been known to the author, he would probably have mentioned it. 4. The poem in Jonah 2 is said to have borrowed from certain late Psalms. Verse 3 compare Psalm 42 : 7 " 5 " " 69:1 " 9 " " 50:14 Answer. — 1. The book is ascribed to Jonah by the title in the same way that the books of Hosea, Joel, Micah, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Zechariah are ascribed to those prophets. The fact that the word of Jehovah to Jonah was a command to go to Nineveh rather than to give exhortations to the people does not alter the force of the title. 2. The literary argument is confessedly weak in view of the small amount of Hebrew literature by which we can trace the usages of the language in various times. Forms and words are not necessarily late because they THE TWELVE— JONAH 225 occur only or chiefly in late books of the canon, nor necessarily Aramaisms because they agree with the usual Aramaic as against the usual Hebrew form. In partic ular the shorter relative is found in Judges (5 : 7 ; 6 : 17 ; 7:12; and 8:26). It was necessary for Jonah (1:9) to explain to his shipmates who Jehovah was. The name " God of Heaven " was a very natural and proper one in speaking to the heathen. That the same word should be used for the decree of the king of Nineveh in Jonah's time ( MB Jonah 3:7) which was used for those of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes (Ezra 6 : 14) is not surprising. rWBp is found nowhere else in the Old Testament but it is a true Hebrew form. fi$JMV is found only once as an Aramaic word (Dan. 6:3) and once in this Hebrew passage. It is an evidence of the historicity of the book for it is a foreign word in the mouth of the foreign shipmaster. pne> is found also in Psa. 107 : 30 and Prov. 26 : 20 in the same sense and the Piel of HJD T T in Job 7 : 3 and Psa. 6 : 17. If the noun bay is found T T ^ in writings before the time of Jonah (Judges 10 : 16 ; Ps. 90:10, etc.) it is difficult to see why the verb nppy is unnatural in his time. 3. The statement, "Nineveh was a great city" (Jonah 3:3), is a parenthesis which may have been added to the book at a later time. It is not however impossible from the pen of Jonah. It stands in the midst of a description in the past tense and need not imply that Nineveh had ceased to be a great city when the prophet wrote. The title " King of Nineveh " was the natural one since the story relates only to that city and not to the whole kingdom. There is no evidence from the absence of the king's name that the author 226 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION lived much later than Jonah and did not know it. The book was intended for Israel. Since the king was un known to them, it is not strange that Jonah omitted his name. 4. Aside from the question concerning the date of the Psalms mentioned, it is just as possible that the Psalms quoted from Jonah as Jonah from the Psalms. There is therefore no argument for the post-exilic date of the book of Jonah from the passages cited. III. Purpose. The purpose of the book was to teach that God's gracious plans were not confined to Israel, as the chosen people selfishly thought, but were intended to include the heathen. Therefore the prophet was sent on a mission to Nineveh. He tried to escape toward Tarshish because, like his countrymen, he did not wish to preach the gospel to Nineveh. For the same reason he was displeased at the repentance of Nineveh. The object-lesson and argument of Jehovah with Jonah was really His argument with Israel (Jonah 4: 4-11). IV., Interpretation. Many modern writers consider the book an allegory in which Jonah stands for dis obedient Israel, the sea for the nations, the great fish for Babylon, the period in the belly of the fish for the Exile, and the subsequent obedience and disappointment of Jonah for these events in Israel's history. It is argued : 1. If this were a historical book, it would have been placed with the other histories and not among the Prophets. 2. The sudden and universal repentance of Nin eveh and the decree of its king are exceedingly improb able. 3. Nebuchadnezzar is represented elsewhere as a THE TWELVE— JONAH 227 dragon which swallows Israel and casts him up (Jer. 51 : 34) and the duration of the Exile is said to be three days (Hos. 6:2). In defense of the historical character of the book are the following arguments. 1. The style of the book is like that of simple history. The greater part of it is in prose. The only poetry is Jonah's prayer to God. The book is not presented as an allegory. It speaks of well-known places (Joppa, Tarshish and Nineveh). Its principal character is a historical one whose name, lineage and birthplace are mentioned elsewhere (II Kings 14:25). The names are not symbolical as in an allegory. 2. The references of our Lord to the book (Matt. 12:39-40; Luke 11:29-30) imply his belief, which in deed was the universal opinion of the Jews, that the book contained real history. 3. The book was placed among the Prophets because it was written by a prophet. It was not however placed among the prophetic histories (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) because it was not mere history, but typical, predictive history. This typical interpretation justifies its position among the Minor Prophets. 4. Hosea and Jeremiah may have borrowed from Jonah. At any rate the passages in those prophecies are too isolated to prove the allegorical interpretation of Jonah. 5. Mere improbability of the events recorded cannot be an argument against their having occurred. The appearance of a strange preacher in Nineveh with his dreadful warning may well have impressed the mind of a superstitious king, who like the ancients recognized the real existence of the gods of other nations. The 228 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION king viewed Jonah as a warning messenger from Jehovah. V. Divisions. 1. Jonah's disobedience and its consequences. Chap ter 1. 2. Jonah's prayer in the belly of the fish. Chapter 2. 3. Jonah's second mission to Nineveh and its effects. a. Upon Nineveh. Chapter 3. b. Upon Jonah. Chapter 4. THE TWELVE— MICAH 229 (6) Micah I. Name. The book is named from its author n^o. This is an abbreviation of VPan? meaning " Who is like Jehovah?" (Judges 17: 1, 4). In the Septuagint the name is Mixaia? and in the Vulgate Michaeas. The English form is derived from the Hebrew. II. Composition. It is generally admitted that Micah was the author of the greater part of the prophecy. Ewald and others since his time have considered chapters 6-7 so different in form and style from the first five chapters that they assign them to an anonymous prophet of the reign of Manasseh. (Notice especially Mic. 6:16.) Wellhausen and Stade think that 7:7-20 were written and added during or after the Exile be cause of the remarkable similarity with Isaiah 40-66. Stade, Cornill and others deny that Micah wrote chap ters 4 and 5. Stade and Kuenen also assign Micah 2 : 12-13 to an exilic and Wellhausen to a post-exilic date. In defense of the unity of the book we present the following considerations : 1. The expression " Hear " (1:2; 3:1; 6:1), binds the book together as the work of one author. 2. The arguments of the critics are mainly due to the fragmentary character of the book. It is not a continuous argument but a summary of his prophecies by the prophet's own hand. 3. The similarity of chapters 6-7 to Isaiah 40-66 does not indicate their late date since Isaiah was written by Isaiah, a contemporary of Micah, 230 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION 4. Chapters 4-7 exhibit the following similarities to writings in and near Micah's time. 4:3 " Joel 3:10 4:7 " Is. 24:24 4:9 « J Is. 13:8 1 Is. 21 : 3 4:13a " Is. 41:15-16 4:136 " Is. 23:18 5:5 " Is. 9:6 " Is. 2:8 6:2 « f Hos. 4:1 ' ' ' 1 Hos. 12 : 2 6:4 " Amos 2:10 6:7 " Is. 1:11 6:8 « f Is. 1:17 " | Hos. 6 : 6 6:11 " Hos. 12:7 6:14 " Hos. 4:10 7:1 « f Is. 24:13 ""I Hos. 9:10 7:2 " Is. 57:1 7:3 « f Is. 1 : 23 '""'I Hos. 4:18 7:10 " Joel 2:17 7:11 5. The arguments for the rejection of Micah 2 : 12- 13 are considered inadequate by most critics. The sudden change of subject is sufficiently explained by the fragmentary nature of the book. III. Author. Micah was a native of Moresheth, probably the same as Moresheth-gath (Mic. 1 : 14) a THE TWELVE— MICAH 231 dependence of Gath. He was an inhabitant of the country. His prophecy accordingly does not show the same familiarity with the politics of the day as does that of Isaiah who lived at Jerusalem. He wrought during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah but his prophecies relate to Israel as well as Judah. Jere miah quotes Micah 3 : 12 as having been given in the days of Hezekiah (Jer. 26:18). Thus Micah was a younger contemporary of Isaiah and Hosea and the approximate date of his ministry was 745-700 B.C. Some have supposed that he survived during the early part of Manasseh's reign and wrote chapters 6-7 in that time, but such a supposition has no confirmation outside of the book itself. IV. Theme. Micah's prophecy concerns both Judah and Israel, but the part relating to Israel is brief. He lived to see the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C. The same doom he foretold for Jerusalem on account of their sins. As a man of the people however he dwelt not so much upon political sins as upon the oppression of the peasantry by the rich landowners of Judah. He took the part of the poor against the rich. His prophecy is religious and moral rather than political. He enumer ates the sins of the people and foretells their punishment. Yet beyond the days of punishment he foresees the blessed time of permanent establishment and the birth of the Messiah. While not so exalted in style as Isaiah, Micah is yet vivid and full of local references. V. Divisions. 1. Judgment upon Israel and Judah. Chapters 1-2. 2. Judgment followed by restoration and the Messi anic reign. Chapters 3-5. 3. Eeproof and promises. Chapters 6-7. 232 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION (7) Nahum I. Name. The book is named from its author Dim meaning " compassionate." In the Septuagint and New Testament the name has the form Naoup. and in the Vulgate Nahum. II. Composition. Until recently the integrity and authenticity of the book of Nahum were not called in question. Since 1880 however Bickell, Gunkel, Nowack and others have endeavored to show that Nahum 1 : 2 to 2 : 3 are the remains of an acrostic psalm which was composed after the Exile and prefixed to the genuine book of Nahum. This view is not generally received. It is said by its defenders that this psalm was placed before Nahum because its subject formed an appropri ate introduction to the book. This admission vitiates their argument. Nahum placed the psalm where it is for this very reason, that it was a suitable introduction to his book. In order to substantiate the claim to an alphabetic arrangement it is necessary to alter the text in several places, to transpose in others, and to make some verses very long and others very short. Even if that arrangement can be established it is very scanty evidence for the late date of the Psalm. The acrostic arrangement may have been in use in the century before the Exile. III. Date. By common consent, the prophecy of Nahum is dated between the capture of No-amon or Thebes by Assurbanipal in 664-3 B.C. and the fall of Nineveh in 606 B.C. because the former event is referred to as past (3:8) and the latter is foretold. THE TWELVE— NAHUM 233 The date cannot be fixed more precisely. The sugges tion of Kuenen, that the unsuccessful attack of Cyaxeres upon Nineveh about 623 B.C. may have been the occasion of this prophecy, is as likely as any. IV. Author. The sum of our knowledge concern ing Nahum is that he is called " the Elkoshite " (1:1). The location of this Elkosh is uncertain. The identi fication with Alkush 27 miles north of Mosul (the ancient Nineveh) where the prophet's grave is shown is based upon an unreliable modern tradition. Jerome's identification with Elkesi (modern Elkozeh) in north ern Galilee is more likely. The reference to Judah (1:15) seems however to imply that Nahum lived in the southern kingdom. Therefore the most probable theory is that which places Elkosh about midway between Jerusalem and Gaza. If the date be correct, Nahum was a contemporary of Zephaniah. V. Theme. The subject of the prophecy is the downfall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, the great enemy of Israel. The prophet describes the sins of Nineveh and its overthrow in vivid language. For grandeur of style, Nahum is excelled only by Isaiah. VI. Divisions. 1. Psalm, descriptive of Jehovah's majesty. Chap ter 1. 2. Judgment upon Nineveh. Chapters 2-3. 234 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION (8) HabaTckuk I. Name. The book is named from its author plpan. The orgin of this name is doubtful. The older deriva tion is from pan to embrace, hence "the embraced." Friedrieh Delitzsch connects it with the Assyrian, hambakuku, a certain garden plant, and prefers the vocalization plpan. This derivation is made more possi ble by the Septuagint form of the name 'Ap.pa.xo6x or 'ApjSaxoup. In the Vulgate it is Habacuc. The English follows the Hebrew form plpan. II. Date and Composition. The book bears no date but it was evidently written during the reign of Jehoia kim in Judah (608-597 B.C.) Hab. 1:5-6 belongs just before the conquests of the Chaldeans. This began in 606 B.C. when they conquered Nineveh, and was com pleted in 604 B.C. when they gained the supremacy of Western Asia by the victory over the Egyptians at Carchemish. In 601-600 the Chaldeans invaded Judah. Hence the book may be dated 608-600 B.C. Since Hab. 1 : 5-6 implies a date before the rise of the Chaldeans while Hab. 1: 13-16; 2:8a; 10, 17 look upon their conquests as past, Giesebrecht and Well hausen consider 1:5-11 a once independent prophecy older than the remainder of chapters 1 and 2. Stade and Kuenen think 2 : 9-20 inapplicable to the Chaldeans and from a later hand. Wellhausen opposes this con tention. Many critics look upon chapter 3 as a Psalm taken from some liturgical collection but not the work THE TWELVE— HABAKKUK 235 of Habakkuk, their chief argument being that it fails to allude to the circumstances of Habakkuk's age. Answer. — 1. The presumption is that an author wrote all the work which bears his name, unless there be strong evidence to the contrary. In this case such evidence is lacking. It is unreasonable to require proof of the genuineness of every part of a book. 2. Since we do not know positively the exact time of Habakkuk nor the history of his time in detail, the assumption that certain parts of the book do not reflect the conditions of the age is premature. 3. The Psalm contained in chapter 3 need not have been occasioned by the same events as the prophecy. It is headed " A Prayer of Habakkuk." III. Author. Habakkuk prophesied in the king dom of Judah during the reign of Jehoiakim (608-597 B.C.). Some have concluded from the liturgical arrange ment of the Psalm in chapter 3 that he was a Levite and a member of the temple choir. Such a conclusion lacks proof. He was a contemporary of Jeremiah, whose ministry however was much longer and more influential. IV. Theme. The wickedness of Israel is revealed to the prophet and their future overthrow by the Chal deans. The even greater wickedness of the Chaldeans is described and their final doom therefor. The majesty of God is praised in song. Habakkuk differs from Jere miah in depicting the sin and punishment of the Chaldeans as well as those of Judah. V. Divisions. 1. Judgment upon Judah and the Chaldeans. Chap ters 1-2. 2, Psalm of Faith. Chapter 3, 236 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION (9) Zephaniah I. Name. The book is named from its author fTOBy meaning " He whom Jehovah has hidden or protected." It was borne by three other persons in Old Testament history (1 Chron.' 6:36-38; Jer. 21:1; Zech. 6:10). In the Septuagint the word has the form Eoexilic period because of its relation to Ezek. 38, because verse 11 is said to be dependent upon Mai. 4 : 6 and because of the ideas expressed in verses 16 and 20. Driver places Zech. 9-11 and 13:7-9 "after the overthrow of the Persian empire at Issus by Alexander the Great," (B.C. 333) chiefly because Greece is men tioned as a world-power and Israel's most important antagonist. In regard to chapters 12-14 (omitting 13:7-9) Driver is not so certain though he suggests the periods between 518 and 458 B.C. and 432 and 300 B.C. where Jewish history is but little known. In addition to these arguments against the genuine ness of chapters 9-14 it is contended that their style dif fers widely from that of chapters 1-8. In particular Driver mentions the fact that the Deutero-Zechariah uses Zechariah's favorite expression, "thus saith the Lord" only once, while the expression "in that day," 244 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION found 18 times in chapters 12-14, occurs only three times in chapters 1-8 and only twice in chapters 9-11. Chapters 1-8 are unpoetical in form while chapters 9-14 are poetical and abound in parallelism. B. Arguments for Unity of the booh. (a) It is not necessary to devote much attention to the work of refuting the older view of the pre-exilic date, for the weight of authority favors the later date and the arguments cited from Nowack and Driver suf fice to indicate a time after the Exile. The references to Hadrach, Damascus, and Hamath (9:1-2) and the cities of Phenicia are in a prophecy of the invasion of Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. as the allusion to Greece shows (9 : 13). Judah and Israel were considered as reunited after the Exile, for many of the northern kingdom returned with Judah and the sin-offering was made for all the twelve tribes (Ezra 6-: 17; 8:35). The house of Israel and the house of Judah are men tioned separately even in the portion of the book acknowl edged as post-exilic (Zech. 8:13). The name Assyria is used after the Exile either as a geographical designa tion (Ezra 6:22) or, as Nowack suggests, as a name for Syria. Our knowledge of the times immediately after the return from the Exile do not justify the state ment that teraphim, idols and false prophets were unknown. The references to the supremacy of the house of David are all predictive (Zech. 12: 7, IO,1 12; 13:1). "The mourning of Hadadrimmon" is not mentioned as a recent occurrence but as a well known event in the history of the people to which Jeremiah and the Chronicler refer (II Chron. 35 : 25). Further more if chapters 9-14 were composed before the time of the Exile, why do they say nothing of the Chaldeans THE TWELVE— ZECHAEIAH 245 and their invasion of Judah, a subject which has so large a place in the writings of the pre-exilic Prophets ? (b) While the arguments of Nowack and Driver are sufficient to prove the post-exilic date, they do not prove a date after Zechariah. The dependence upon Ezekiel is quite as natural if Zechariah wrote these chapters as on the theory of a later date. Nor is it necessary to place chapters 9-11 after the invasion of Alexander in 333 B.C. because of the reference to Javan (Zech. 9:13). The passage is predictive and not historical. Javan was known to Israel long before Zechariah's time (Gen. 10 : 2, 4 ; Isa 66 : 19 ; Ezek. 27 : 13) . And if we suppose that Zechariah wrote this prophecy thirty or forty years after those of chapters 1-8, we are brought to a time when the military prestige of Javan or Greece must have been known throughout the Persian empire. The defeat of Darius at Marathon in 490 B.C. and of the enormous armies of Xerxes at Thermopylae in 480 B.C. as well as the naval defeats at Salamis (480 B.C.), Plataea and Mycale (479 B.C.) were certainly calculated to make Greece a world-power in the view of the prophet. (c) The differences in style between chapters 1-8 and 9-14 are explained by the difference of subject and the probable interval of thirty or forty years in the prophet's life. The predictions of chapters 9-14 require a different style from the visions of chapters 1-8. The early part of the book was meant to encourage Israel while building the temple but the latter part consists of woes upon the enemies of God's people and promises of blessing upon Israel. Therefore the reassuring "thus saith the Lord" is appropriate to the early but not to the later part of the book. The characteristic 246 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION mark of prediction "in that day" is rare in the early chapters because prediction is rare and common near the end of the book because that part is almost entirely predictive. We would not expect many literary marks of a com mon authorship between prophecies so totally different in occasion and purpose — one uttered by a young and the other by an old man. Yet there are a few. Chapter 9:9 compare Chapter 2 : 10 " 9:10 " Hag. 2:22 " 13:9 " Chapter 8:8 Even more noteworthy is the usage of the Kai of 3B|) in the passive sense. This is found only three times outside of Zechariah (Ps. 125:1; Jer. 17:25; Isa. 13 : 20) but it occurs twice in the undisputed part of the book (2:8 and 7:7) and twice in the disputed part (12:6 and 14:10). The expression 3Bto* iajft3 is also found in both sections of the prophecy (7 : 14 and 9:8). III. History (see Haggai). IV. Author. Zechariah was the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo (1:1). The grandfather, Iddo, is mentioned because he was distinguished as one of the leaders of the Levites who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua from exile (Neh. 12 : 1, 4, 7). If so Zecha riah was himself a priest and identical with the Zecha riah of Neh. 12 : 16. Iddo was probably an elderly man and Zechariah a child when they returned to Jeru salem in 536 B.C. Zechariah was a young man when he gave his first prophecy in the second year of Darius (520 B.C.) two months after the first prophecy of Haggai. Many think that Zech. 2 : 4 refers to the prophet's youth. After three months Zechariah received THE TWELVE— ZECHAEIAH 247 another revelation (1:7) and a third over two years later (7:1). Thus the certain dates of his ministry are 520-518 B.C. It seems probable from the refer ence to Javan or Greece that he made the prophecies of chapters 8-14 much later, possibly 490-475 B.C. This theory would be possible, if Zechariah lived to be seventy years old (545-475 B.C.) and if his ministry extended over forty-five years (520-475 B.C.). In the beginning of his ministry Haggai was his contemporary prophet. Joshua was the high-priest and Zerubbabel the governor in his time. According to the Talmud, Zechariah was a member of the Great Synagogue. V. Divisions. 1. Visions to encourage the rebuilding of the temple. Chapters 1-6. 2. Mission of inquiry concerning the continuance of the fasts commemorating the destruction of Jerusalem. Chapters 7-8. 3. Predictions, largely symbolical, concerning the future of Israel and their enemies. Chapters 9-14. 248 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION (12) Malachi I. Name. The book is named from its author '3SOD meaning "my messenger" (Jehovah's messenger). Others think it an abbreviated form of fi'DKpD "mes- T ¦ t : — senger of Jehovah." Many critics following the Septua gint consider it a common noun. The Targum of Jonathan ben-Uzziel adds "whose name is called Ezra the scribe." According to the critical view the book was orginally anonymous but the title and name (1:1) were added by the editor of the Minor Prophets by reference to Mai. 3 : 1. The title in the Septuagint is MaAa%{ac; and in the Vulgate Malachias. The Eng lish form of the name follows the Hebrew. The fact that every other book of the Minor Prophets opens with the name of its author makes it probable that Malachi is a proper name and not a mere title of the prophet. II. Date. Although no date is given the approxi mate time of the book is evident. The temple was built and offerings were made (1: 7, 10; 3: 1). A Persian governor ruled in Jerusalem (1:8). Hence we look for a time after Haggai and Zechariah. The sins against which Malachi inveighs are similar to those in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (compare Mai. 2 : 10- 16 with Ezra 9:2; 10:3, 16-44; Neh. 10:30; 13: 23- 31 and Mai. 3:7-12 with Neh. 10:32-39; 13:4-14). Hence it is generally agreed that Malachi prophesied during the same period. Whether he did so before the arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem (458 B.C.) or about the time of Nehemiah's second visit (432 B.C.) there is much difference of opinion. The statement of 1 : 8 THE TWELVE— MALACHI 249 makes it improbable that Nehemiah was governor at the time the prophet wrote. The theory that the book was written during the absence of Nehemiah at Susa in 433-432 is the most probable. According to the Talmud Malachi was a member of the Great Syna gogue. III. Composition. The genuineness of the book is universally conceded. Many critics however consider the title in 1 : 1 a later addition. The similarity of the titles in Zech. 9:1; 12 : 1 and Mai. 1 : 1 has given sup port to the theory that Zech. 9-11, Zech. 12-14 and Mala chi were originally three independent anonymous prophe cies. The editor of the Minor Prophets is said to have placed the title, "burden of the word of Jehovah" at the head of Zech. 12-14 and of the book of Malachi in imitation of Zech. 9 : 1. He also joined the first two sections to Zechariah and made the third indepen dent in order to obtain the desired number, twelve, in the Minor Prophets, and added the name Malachi in 1 : 1 in imitation of 3:1. The Septuagint and Targum of Jonathan ben-Uzziel make Malachi in 1:1 a common noun and the latter adds "whose name is called Ezra the scribe." The critical theory is too fanciful to require refutation. The name Malachi is properly formed like Abi for Abijah (II Kings 18:2). It is more natural to consider Mai. 3:1a play upon the prophet's name than Mai. 1 : 1 an imitation of Mai. 3:1. The title, "Burden of the word of Jehovah," may well have been placed in Mai. 1 : 1 by the prophet himself in imitation of his predecessor, Zechariah. The Septuagint evidently was not sure that Malachi (1:1) was a common noun for it gave the proper name in the title. The tradition that Ezra wrote the book is 250 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION unlikely; for the book of Ezra bears no traces of his having done so. IV. Divisions. 1. The apostasy of Israel described. Chapters 1-2. 2. Judgment for the sinners and blessings for the penitent. Chapters 3-4. THIRD DIVISION KETHUBIM Section I. Poetical Books PBELIMINARY. HEBEEW POETKY I. Spirit. The Hebrew language is peculiarly adapted to be the vehicle of poetic expression. Its most prominent part of speech is the verb, the word of action. A large majority of its words are based upon metaphors and the simple structure of its vocabulary and its gram mar lends itself to paronomasia and striking antithesis. Furthermore the great variety of landscape in the small land of Palestine and the emotional and even rapturous character of the people furnished at once the occasion and the power for the construction of poetry. The poetry of the Old Testament is not preeminently descriptive of nature though incidentally this finds a large place in it. Nor is it preeminently individual or national, though these elements also are recognized. It is above all things religious. The spiritual God who punishes the wicked, pities the unfortunate, and keeps covenant with His people is the constant factor in Hebrew poetry. One can feel His divine presence throbbing in it all. Nature, history and individual experience are full of God. Hence this poetry can be appreciated fully only by the devout soul. As Herder expresses it: "As the heaven pictures itself only in the clear calm sea, so we see the gentle wave of emotion 251 252 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION describe its circles only in the tranquil soul." (Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, Vol. II p. 246). It is this religious characteristic which gives unity to Hebrew poetry and makes it interesting to all ages. Although the allusions to songs of the vintage (Isa. 16:10) wedding songs (Ps. 78 : 63) and the inscriptions of certain Psalms (e.g. Ps. 22 : 1) indicate that secular poetry was common among the Hebrews, it has no place in the Old Testa ment. II. Extent in the Old Testament. It is difficult to set bounds to the poetic element of the Hebrew scrip tures. The repetition and antithesis which are the foundation of parallelism, are characteristic of all Hebrew writing. In some places they are more marked than in others. Thus in the words of Adam at the creation of Eve (Gen. 2: 23) and of God in condemna tion of Cain (Gen. 4: 10-11) parallelism is unmistake- able. Occasional songs are introduced in the historical books : The Song of the Sword (Lam- ech) Gen. 4 : 23-24. The Blessing of Jacob Gen. 49 : 1-27. The Song of Moses Ex. 15 : 1-18. The Song of the Well Num. 21 : 17-18. The Song of the War-Flame. . . Num. 21 : 17-30. The Farewell Song of Moses.. . Deut. 32 : 1-43. The Song of Deborah Judges 5. The Song of Hannah I Sam. 2 : 1-10. The Song of the Bow (Saul and Jonathan) II Sam. 1 : 17-27. The Last Words of David II Sam. 23 : 1-7. PEELIMINAEY. HEBEEW POETEY 253 The books which are entirely in the poetic form are Psalms, Proverbs, Job (excepting the prologue and epilogue), Song of Solomon and Lamentations. Eccie siastes is similar in many parts to the poetry of Pro verbs. The books of the prophets abound in parallelism and in the more exalted portions may be classed as poetry. The prayer of Jonah (chapter 2), the prayer of Habakkuk (chapter 3) and possibly Nahum 1:2-8 are examples of pure poetry. Thus the Old Testament is in marked contrast to the New in its large element of poetry. The Magnificat of Mary (Luke 1:46-55), the prophecy of Zacharias (Luke 1:68-77), the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-12) and certain passages of Eevelation (4 : 8, 11 ; 5 : 9-10, 12, 13 ; 7 : 5-8, 12 ; 11 : 15 ; 15 : 3-4 ; 19 : 1-2, 5, 6-8) in the spirit of Hebrew poetry are the only original poetry in the New Testament. The quotations from Old Testament poetry and Paul's brief citations of the Greek poets, Aratus (Acts 17:28b) and Callimachus (Tit. 1:12) should not be classed here. The Old Testament on the other hand is largely poetic either in spirit or in form, often in both. III. Porm. Ehyme is not a distinguishing charac teristic of Hebrew poetry, although something approach ing it occurs occasionally (Job 10:9-18; Paslm 6). Nor is metre a mark of this poetry, although the similar ity in the length of the lines and the different system of accents in Psalms, Proverbs and Job, make the search for a metrical arrangement attractive. The unit of Hebrew poetry is the line, which varies in length in different kinds of poetry. Usually two lines constitute a verse, which is then called a distich. Tristichs are common and even tetrastiehs and penta- 254 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION stichs occur (Ps. 27:3-4; 37:7, 14, 25, 28, 40). In tetrastiehs the first two and the last two lines commonly go together. The uniform and essential feature of Hebrew poetry has been called by Bishop Lowth the "parallelism." After a statement has been made in the first line of the verse, it is repeated, enlarged, or balanced by the state ments of the remaining line or lines. Thus parallelism is " a manifest correspondence both in sense and rhyth mic expression between two sentences or two sections of a sentence, very much as if it were an utterance and some intelligent echo of it" (Drysdale "Early Bible Songs" p. 18). This arrangement was peculiarly adapted to express the emotions in times of great feeling and since the poetry consists much more in the sense than in the sound of the words, Hebrew poetry suffers less than other poetry by translation. Parallelism is of several different kinds. 1. Synonymous, in which the second line is a repeti tion of the thought of the first line (Gen. 4: 23). 2. Antithetic, in which the second line expresses a thought contrasted with that of the first (Ps. 1:6). 3. Synthetic, in which the thought of the second and later lines enlarges upon and completes that of the first (Ps. 24:9). 4. Climactic, similar to synthetic, in which the thought ascends by steps to a climax (Ps. 29 : 1). A larger division of Hebrew poetry, which can some times be distinguished, is the stanza or strophe. Usually it is marked only by a change of thought as in the four fold division of Psalm 2 although each strophe of Psalm 46 ends with Selah. In the great majority of PEELIMINAEY. HEBEEW POETEY 255 Psalms, however, the strophes are uneven in length and often cannot be distinguished at all. IV. Kinds. In the proper sense of the words, neither epic nor dramatic poetry is found in the Bible. The action which is essential to the drama is not found in the poetic portion of the Book of Job nor in the Song of Songs. Lyric and didactic poetry, however, are com mon. To the former class belong the occasional songs scattered throughout the historical and prophetic por tions of the Old Testament, the Lamentations of Jere miah, the Song of Songs and most of the Psalms. The books of Job, Proverbs, and Ecciesiastes as well as sev eral of the Psalms are didactic poetry. PSALMS I. Name. The Hebrew name of the entire collection of Psalms was D'pfW ~iBD sometimes shortened into D,?n. This word occurs in the Old Testament only in the forms nVnn and n&nn (Ps. 22:3). The feminine plural refers to the subject-matter of the Psalms and the masculine to the form. The Septuagint translates D^nn by Walpoi which in the singular meant primarily the twanging with the fingers in playing on a stringed instrument, then the sound of the harp and finally a song sung to the harp. The Vulgate appropriates the Greek name (Liber Psalmorum) from which also our English name is derived. Individual Psalms are called by several different names and some critics think that ni?an in Ps. 72 : 20 is meant to be a designation of the entire collection, so far as it was completed. This name however is too restricted for that purpose nor does the passage refer to all the Psalms before it. II. Arrangement and Divisions. In the Massoretic text there are 150 Psalms. The Septuagint and Vulgate unite Psalms 9 and 10, and 114 and 115, and divide Psalms 116 and 147. Psalms 42 and 43 are counted together in several Hebrew manuscripts. The Septua gint adds another Psalm to the 150 with the inscription: "This Psalm was written by David outside of the number when he fought against Goliath." It is undoubtedly spurious. 266 PSALMS 257 The Psalter is arranged in five books, probably in imitation of the five books of the Pentateuch. Each books ends with a doxology and Psalm 150 is the dox ology for the entire collection. This division antedates the Septuagint and is indicated by headings in the Hebrew Bible. It is as follows : Book 1 Psalms 1-41 " 2 " 42-72 " 3 " 73-89 " 4 " 90-106 " 5 " 107-150 III. Authors. Of the 150 Psalms, 100 are assigned by their inscriptions to authors as follows : David: Psalms 3-9, 11-32, 34-41, 51-65, 68-70, 86, 101, 103, 108-110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138-145 (73 in all). Sons of Korah: Psalms 42, 44-49, 84-85, 87, 88 (Psalm 88 is assigned to Heman, one of the Sons of Korah — 11 in all). Asaph: Psalms 50, 73-83 (12 in all). Solomon: Psalms 72, 127. Ethan: Psalm 89. Moses: Psalm 90. Three things should be remembered concerning these inscriptions. 1. They are not a part of the original text of the Psalms. They were however added at a period before the Septuagint as is evidenced by their presence in that version. 2. The names are introduced by the preposition ^ instead of the older genitive giving rise to discussions whether the name is that of the traditional author or 258 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION of the one to whom the Psalm is dedicated. But if the preposition refers always to the dedication, we have the anomalous condition of one hundred Psalms dedicated to certain Old Testament characters of which the authorship is not mentioned in a single case. In three Psalms the name Jeduthun is mentioned besides that of the author (Psalms 39, 62, and 77). In the inscrip tions of several Davidic Psalms (3, 7, 18, 30, 34, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, and 142) there is the men tion of some well-known occasion of David's life, indi cating that the writer of the inscription meant to give the name of the author and the occasion of his writing the Psalm. Psalm 18 is said to have been composed by David in the inscription as well as in II Sam. 22, al though in the Psalter the inscription is *1H?. If ? in the inscriptions of these fourteen Psalms evidently meant authorship, the presumption is that the meaning is the same in all cases. 3. Since the authorship of individual Psalms is a matter which it is impossible to determine with anything approaching certainty, it is best to accept this very ancient though uninspired tradition, unless strong in ternal evidence is found against it. In many instances the Psalms agree with known occasions in the life of the traditional author. When this is not the case, it is safe to conclude that the Psalm refers to an occasion in his life which the brief records of the historical books do not mention. In a few instances the inscription should be rejected. The traditional view that David was the author of many Psalms is supported by the following considera tions : 1. He played upon the harp (I Sam. 16 : 18-23 ; II PSALMS 259 Sam. 6:5) and is called "the sweet singer of Israel" (II Sam. 23:1). 2. He composed certain songs (II Sam. 1 : 17-27; 22: 1-51; 23: 1-7). 3. He arranged the service of song in the sanctuary (I Chron. 6:31; 16: 7; 25: 1; Ezra 3: 10; Neh. 12:24, 36, 45-46; Amos 6:5). It is indeed extraordinary if the high musical reputa tion of David rests upon no broader foundation than the composition of the three songs in II Samuel. The Psalms ascribed to the sons of Korah, to Asaph, to Heman, and to Ethan are 24 and properly are classed together since their authors were associated with the service of song which David established. Korah was probably a descendant of the man of that name who was swallowed up by the earth because of rebellion (Num. 16:1) and hence of Kohath, one of the three sons of Levi. Heman was one of the sons of Korah, Asaph was a descendant of Gershom (I Chron. 6: 39) and Ethan of Merari (I Chron. 6:44). Hence the three sons of Levi were represented among the temple singers (Ex. 6:16). Asaph, Heman and Ethan (who was later called Jeduthun) were appointed to sing and sound the cymbals when David brought up the ark to Zion (I Chron. 15:16-19) and afterwards to be the leaders of the orchestra (I Chron. 16 : 5, 7, 41-42 ; 25 : 1- 5). Many of the descendants of Asaph returned from Babylon (Ezra 2 : 41 ; Neh. 7 : 44) and took part in the laying of the foundation of Zerubbabel's temple (Ezra 3 : 10). This long record in connection with the musical worship shows that the ascription of Psalms to these three singers and to sons of Korah is reliable. There is nothing in Psalms 72 and 127 which pre- 260 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION eludes the possibility that Solomon wrote them especially in view of his reputation as the builder of the temple. And though the inscription of Psalm 90 to Moses assigns it to an age long before the greater part of the Psalter, the majestic character of that Psalm is not inconsistent with the style of Moses. He too is known to have been a poet (Ex. 15; Deut. 32). IV. Collections. The way in which the Psalter took its present form is very difficult to discover. Yet from the division into books, the grouping of Psalms by certain authors and of certain kinds, and especially from the statement of Ps. 72 : 20, it is evident that several earlier collections preceded the present one. Driver and others have drawn attention to the use of the divine names in the Psalms. In Book I Jehovah is found 272 times and Elohim 15 times, and in books IV and V Jehovah only is found except in Ps. 114 : 9 and five places of Psalm 108 derived from Psalms 57 and 60. On the other hand in Book II Jehovah occurs 30 times and Elohim 164 times while in the Asaphitic Psalms of Book III (73-83) Jehovah is found 13 times and Elohim 36 times and in Psalms 84-89 Jehovah occurs 31 times and Elohim 7 times. This usage is partly due to authorship and partly to subject. David commonly uses the name Jehovah while Asaph and the Sons of Korah use the name Elohim. It is noteworthy however that in the last two books which are largely liturgical, the name Jehovah is used almost to the exclu sion of Elohim. At any rate there is nothing in these facts which indicates a redaction of the Psalms to introduce another divine name. Three collections can be distinguished. 1. Since all the Psalms in Book I are Davidic except PSALMS 261 the introductory Psalm I, the probably Davidic Psalm %, Psalm 10 which may have originally been part of Psalm 9, and Psalm 33 which in the Septuagint is ascribed to David, it seems likely that this book was arranged for worship by David himself or soon after his time. The suggestion of Ewald that originally Psalms 51-72 followed immediately after Psalm 41 is com mended by the fact that it would bring together a much larger body of Davidic Psalms and so account for the statement of Ps. 72 : 20 and also would unite the Korahitic and Asaphitic into a group by themselves. It is altogether probable that Ps. 72 once stood as the last Psalm in a collection which was joined to Book I not long after David's time. 2. The remainder of Books II and III were probably brought together either by the men of Hezekiah (II Chron. 29:30; Prov. 25:1) or during the reforms instituted by Josiah. 3. Books IV and V contain post-exilic Psalms to gether with a few old Davidic Psalms. They were probably collected to complete the Psalter in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The evidence deduced to show that there are Maccabean Psalms is altogether fanciful and insufficient. The allusions of these Psalms are explained equally well by a much earlier date. V. Classes of Psalms. The Psalms may be classified according to their inscriptions, their structure or their subject matter. These classifications however do not include all the Psalms. 1. According to the Inscriptions we have the follow ing names for the Psalms : "itojt? found in the inscriptions of 57 Psalms. From 262 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION 101 to pipe, sing — hence Psalm, especially one sung to music. Of these Pslams, 11 are also designated *VB> and one (Psalm 88) TB> and ^Sfett. This seems to imply that "ltolD is the general name. TB> the usual word for a song (Ex. 15 : 1 ; Num. 21 : 17 ; Deut. 32 : 44 etc.) is the name of 29 Psalms, of which 15 (Psalms 120-134) are called nii>J>sn TB> (" song of ascents ") which were sung by the pil grims on their way to the feasts at Jerusalem, one (Psalm 30) rvan rojn T0 for the dedication of the tabernacle on Mt. Zion, and one (Psalm 45) niTT "PB> (" song of love") a marriage song. The name "VE* does not imply the use of musical instruments. P'alPD a name found in the inscriptions of 13 Psalms, of which one is also ni®n (Psalm 142) one "iiD|D (Psalm 88) and two TB> (Psalms 45 and 88). The etymological meaning, "a didactic Psalm," does not fit some of those to which it is prefixed. It probably means " a poem." QMD the name of six Psalms. The derivation of this word from DJ13 " gold " — hence " a golden Psalm " — is altogether fanciful. Its meaning is unknown. H5Bn the usual word for prayer, is borne by five Psalms. n?nn the word which in the masculine plural has given the name to the Book of Psalms, is found in the inscription of Psalm 145. It means "a praise- song." jrae' the name of Psalm 7, has not received a satisfactory interpretation. PSALMS 263 2. According to structure the most interesting class of Psalms is the Alphabetic or acrostic Psalms, in which the order of the Hebrew alphabet is found at the beginning of the verses or half verses. The only perfect alphabetic Psalm is the 119th in which each group of verses begins with the successive letters of the alphabet. In Psalms 111 and 112 the first letters of the half verses give the alphabet except that in each Psalm the letters X and B> are lacking, unless verses 9 and 10 be divided into three parts. In Psalm 145 one verse is devoted to each letter except that J is lacking. In Psalm 25 the same arrangement is followed except that the letters 3, 1, and p are lacking, ~\ is repeated, and a sup plementary verse is added. Psalm 34 is perfect except for the omission of 1 and the addition of a similar sup plementary verse. Psalms 9-10 together and Psalm 37 present an alphabetic arrangement in some parts, with two verses beginning with each letter, while in other parts this arrangement is ignored. The wide diffusion of the alphabetic Psalms in the Psalter (9, 10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 119, 145) and the evident antiquity of some of them are sufficient refutation of the theory that this arrangement is evidence of a late date, when the spon taneity of poetry had given place to a more formal method. 3. According to their contents several groups of Psalms are worthy of attention. A. National Psalms, those which were occasioned by the events of national life. Such are Psalms 14, 44, 46- 48, 53, 66, 68, 74, 76, 79-80, 83, 85, 87, 108, 122, 124- 126 and 129. The tendency of modern interpretation is largely to increase the number of these Psalms making the "I" of the Psalmist refer as a collective to the 264 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION experiences of the nation. Many of the Psalms are so intensely individual in the expression of personal feeling that such an interpretation is forced and unnatural. B. Historical Psalms, which rehearse passages from the nation's history. Such are Psalms 78, 81, 105-106, 114. C. Eoyal Psalms, some of them relating to the Mes sianic King. Such are Psalms 2, 18, 20-21, 45, 72, 89, 110 and 132. D. Penitential Psalms, written in reference to some occasion of intense sorrow for sin and turning to God. Such are Psalms 6, 32, 38, 51 and 130. E. Imprecatory Psalms, which call down maledictions upon the enemies of Israel. The principal of these are Psalms 35, 69, 109 and 137 of which the first three are David's. In explanation of them the following consid erations should be noted. (a) The expressions are not individual but official. The Psalmist desires the punishment of those who have wasted Israel, the visible kingdom of God and hence are God's enemies (Ps. 139:21-22). David was not vu> dictive toward his personal enemies but exhibited a remarkably forgiving spirit in regard to Saul and his house (I Sam. 24; 26:5-12; II Sam. 1:17; 2:5; 9). In these Psalms he prays God to punish his enemies rather than doing so himself. (&) In the time of the Psalmists, there was no clear revelation of the punishment of the wicked after death. Punishment was thought of as coming in this present life. The most awful of these imprecations are not more terrible than the future torments of the wicked mentioned in the New Testament (Mark 9 : 44, 46, 48; Eev. 20:15). PSALMS 265 (c) The high standard of love toward one's enemies was not yet revealed (Matt. 5:38-42). The impre catory Psalms contain expressions more realistic and vivid in their force than any in the New Testament because the Psalmists lived on a lower plane of morals and privilege than we enjoy. Yet the New Testament denunciations of the wicked, though less physical, are far more terrible than those of the Old Testament (Matt. 3 : 7 ; 11 : 20-24 ; 23 : 13-33 ; Jno. 3:36; Eev. 6 : 16-17) . F. Hallelujah Psalms, such as begin with Pl^?n. Such are Psalms 106, 111-113, 117, 135, 146-150. G. Hodu Psalms, beginning with Vrin, Psalms of thanksgiving, viz., Psalms 105, 107, 118, 136. H. The Hallel, comprising Psalms 113-118 which were sung at the Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, Pentecost, Dedication and the new moons. At the Pass over the people sang the first verse of each Psalm in the Hallel and responded with Hallelujah after each verse was sung by the Levites. The hymn sung at the insti tution of the Lord's Supper was probably the Hallel (Matt. 26:30; Mk. 14:26). VI. Musical Terms. TOJO? "to the chief musician," the leader of the choir. The instructions in the inscriptions were intended for his guidance. nfrJJ (also used in the singular fljMJ) means stringed instruments. ffirnan " wind instruments. IWDBJfl probably " the octave." W»pj? "maidens," to be sung by maidens (I Chron. 15:20). fiz™? "sickness, grief" — hence to a mournful tune. 266 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION rrnan-^ (II Sam. 15:18) jaj? nm *?% D'30iBH>g (Ps. 60: 1; 80:1) D'pfri d!>k njv-i>jj The names or first lines of the melodies to which the Psalms were sung. n?D is derived from ??D, hence " elevation." It probably marks a change from piano to forte. II PEOVEEBS I. Name. The book is named in the Hebrew Bible nbty ^Kto or more briefly ^^O. A tyo is primarily a comparison, but since the most common form of proverbs is by comparison, all proverbs are called by this name. A proverb is a sententious, synthetic or antithetic statement of a principle which covers many cases. Though many of the proverbs of Solomon are religious, in the main they are maxims of worldly wis dom and ethics. They belong to the niMH or Wisdom Literature. In the Septuagint the title is translated Uapoipiat lokopmvToc; and in the Vulgate more simply Liber Proverbiorum. The English name is derived from the Vulgate. II. Divisions. The book is divided by its headings and subject matter into five parts : 1. Chapters 1-9 beginning "The proverbs of Solo mon the son of David, king of Israel." 2. Chapters 10 : 1 to 22 : 16, with the heading " The Proverbs of Solomon." 3. Chapters 22: 17 to 24: 34 is marked off from the previous section by an evident resumption of the con secutive style. 4. Chapters 25-29 with the heading " These are also proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out." 5. Chapters 30-31, the former inscribed "the words 367 268 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION of Agur, the son of Jakeh " and the latter " the words of King Lemuel." III. Authorship and Composition. 1. Testimony of Scripture. According to the head ings already mentioned Solomon was the author of chapters 1 to 25 since the third section (22: 17 to 24: 34) resembles the first (1 to 9). The fourth section is not said to have been composed by the men of Hezekiah but copied out ( Ip'Piyn ) . This expression implies that they took these proverbs from a collection of Solomon's sayings and added them to this book. Thus the entire book except the last two chapters is ascribed to Solo mon. These two chapters were the work of Agur and Lemuel respectively. That Solomon was the author of Proverbs is further attested by the explicit statement of I Kings 4 : 32 that " he spake three thousand proverbs." If this view be correct we may conclude that the book represents four distinct collections of Solomon's proverbs, the last made in Hezekiah's day but from ancient material, to which at an unknown later time chapters 30-31 were added. There is nothing in the book opposed to this explanation of its origin. 2. Critical Opinion. a. Moderate view. Modern criticism has formulated a different account of the book although with wide divergence as to dates. The moderate critics acknowl edge that Solomon may have written a considerable portion of 10 : 1 to 22 : 16, which is considered the oldest nucleus of the book. This section received its present form about the eighth century. It is said that 1 : 1 is not a heading but the beginning of a sentence speaking of the value of Solomon's proverbs. Chapters 1-9 are considered a hortatory introduction which was PEOVEEBS 269 prefixed to the second section shortly before the Exile. A little later but also before the Exile, 22 : 17 to 24 : 34 was added and possibly at the same time chapters 25-29. Chapters 30-31 were added to the book after the Exile. Such in general is the opinion of Driver, Delitzsch, Nowack, and Davidson. b. Eadical view. The more advanced critics agree in general with this account of the gradual compilation of the book but place the dates much later. Toy for ex ample thinks that the oldest section came from about 350 B.C. and that the closing chapters were not added until the second century B.C. 1. He freely rejects the authorship of Solomon with the words : " The fact that he is said to be the author of Proverbs, Canticles, Ecciesiastes and Psalms 72 and 127 shows that the Jewish tradition came to regard him as the ideal of wisdom and a writer of idealizing, non- liturgical poetry and ascribed to him indiscriminately everything of this sort" (International Crit. Com. pp. xix-xx) . Answer. — Such an argument as this would make it impossible for a man to write several books of the same kind. It has no historical basis and inverts the logical order. Solomon could not have had such a reputation unless he had written just such books as these. The books were not assigned to him because he had the repu tation but he gained the reputation by writing the books. 2. The tacit assumption of monotheism implies a time after the Exile. Answer. — The Proverbs are not of such a sort that idolatry would be condemned if it were in existence. The book is moral rather than religious. In part of Solomon's reign the country was comparatively free 270 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION from idolatry. In all probability, Solomon wrote these proverbs before his damaging intercourse with heathen nations. 3. There is a lack of national traits implying that the people were scattered, under Persian and Greek domination, as after the Exile. Answer. — Admittedly there are almost no historical marks in the book. Therefore the absence of marks of an early period no more indicates a late date than the absence of marks of a late date is proof of an early date. If left to the historical marks, we could not deter mine the date at all. The book is individual rather than national. 4. The book reflects the social manners and vices which existed after the Exile especially in the cities. Answer. — There is evidence from the Book of Kings that Solomon's time was by no means free from those same vices. 5. There are evidences of the influence of the Greek philosophy — especially in the identification of knowl edge and virtue. Hence it must date from a time later than the conquests of Alexander. Answer. — The book is not philosophical but practical. The traces of the Greek philosophy are purely imaginary and may be explained as the inspired words of Solomon. 6. The book is evidently the work of a distinct caste of "wise men" who also composed Jesus Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecciesiastes. Answer. — The supposition of a caste of wise men implies a founder. As the Prophets are incompre hensible without Moses and the other Psalmists with out David, so the later wisdom literature is incompre hensible without Solomon. A caste of wise men seem PEOVEEBS 271 to have existed besides the priest and prophets at least as early as Jeremiah ( 18 : 18) . It is a gratuitous assump tion to force all that literature into one age. The fact that Ecciesiastes and the Book of Wisdom were wrongly assigned to Solomon shows that he was considered the founder and greatest member of that school of writers. Ill JOB I. Name. The book received its name from its principal character 3isx which in the Septuagint has the form 7 (the Song of Songs) is derived from the first verse of the book and is a superlative, meaning that among all songs this one contains all that is best and noblest. The Septuagint translates the name aapa dapdrwv, and the Vulgate Cantieum Canticorum. From the latter come the English name Canticles and the name in the English Eevision, "The Song of Songs," while that in the Authorized and American Eevised Version is "The Song of Solomon." II. Authorship and Date. 1. Testimony of the Booh. According to the inscrip tion Solomon was the author, for here as in the inscriptions of the Psalms ^ indicates authorship. An examination of the book itself confirms the Solomonic authorship. The frequent mention of exotic plants and the extensive knowledge of plants and animals as well as the evidences of royal luxury agree with the description of Solomon's time in the historical books. The book also has points of contact with the other works of Solomon (Ps. 72 and Prov.). 2. Critical Opinion. Driver and others favor a date somewhat later than Solomon while Kuenen, Corn- ill, and Cheyne assign the Song to the Greek period. 284 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION The arguments for the latter position are chiefly as follows : A. The superscription contains the form *1B>K while the shorter E> is found elsewhere throughout the book. It is thought therefore that the superscription was a later addition because of the frequent mention of Solo mon in the book. Some critics affirm that it should be translated " which relates to Solomon." Answer. — That the b here means authorship is evident from the analogy of the Psalms. The relative 1K>« is appropriate to the prose of the superscription and the shorter E> to the poetry of the Song. Without this heading the book opens very abruptly. B. Several late words and forms are found in the book : the shorter relative &, Cina a Persian word, fi^&K connected with the Indian 'paryama' or the Greek tpopuov and the Aramaic 1133/ niia and Wp. Answer. — The presence of these words is not incon sistent with the Solomonic authorship. The shorter relative is found in poetry long before the time of Solo mon (Judges 5:7) and is here a conscious mark of poetry, as is seen from the use of "IE>K in the prose of 1:1. The extensive commerce of Solomon accounts for the introduction of a few Persian, Greek or Indian words, the names of articles imported from those coun tries or of gardens imitated from them. The Aramaic words may have been introduced in imitation of the northern dialect which was spoken by Shulamite. III. .Interpretation. Three methods of interpre tation of this admittedly difficult book have prevailed; the allegorical, the literal and the typical. 1. The Allegorical Interpretation was favored by the SONG OF SOLOMON 285 Jews from the earliest times, was introduced into -the Christian Church by Origen, and has been favored in modern times in a moderate form by Lowth, Hengsten- berg, Keil, and Stuart. This view generally denies the historical character of the events recorded. In its Jewish form, it considers the book a poem descriptive of the love between Jehovah and Israel, and in the Christian form between Christ and the church or the believer. Every detail is explained on this theory, often in a fanciful way. The principal arguments in favor of this method are: A. It is thought necessary to justify the presence of the book in the canon. The book seems to be a song of merely earthly if not sensual love. It is argued that it must have had a religious meaning or it would not have been received into the canon. B. The same imagery is found throughout the Bible. Eepeatedly in the Old Testament the relation of Jehovah to His people is compared to marriage (Is. 54:5; 61 : 10) and apostasy from Him is compared to whore dom (Ex. 34:15-16; Lev. 20:5-6; Jer. 3:1; Ezek. chapters 16 and 23 and Hosea 1-3) . In the New Testa ment the same figure is transferred to the relation between Christ and the church (Eph. 5 : 23-32). C. The same allegorical method is applied to Psalm 45 and Isa. 5 : 1-7. Answer. — These arguments apply with equal force in favor of the typical interpretation. On the other hand serious objections may be raised to the allegorical method. A. There is nothing in the book itself which pre cludes its historical character. Historical characters and 286 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION places are mentioned and the whole book bears the marks of realitj'. B. The allegorical method requires the explanation of every detail in a spiritual way and therefore leads to the most extravagant and unfounded interpretations, which bring the book into disrepute with reasonable peo ple. Thus the Targum makes the entire song an allegorical interpretation of the history of Israel from the Exodus to the coming of the Messiah. 2. The Literal Interpretation at the other extreme considers the Song as literal history without any ulterior meaning. In order to justify its presence in the canon in modern times the Shepherd-hypothesis has been advocated by Jacobi, Umbreit, Ewald, and most moderns. These writers find a third character in the song, a poor Galilean shepherd to whom Shulamite was espoused. They claim that the book represents the faithfulness of Shulamite to her shepherd lover in spite of the allure ments of Solomon, who met her during a journey through Galilee and brought her to his harem near Jerusalem. Solomon is said to urge her to become his wife while she steadfastly refuses and finally, leaving the palace, returns to her shepherd lover. The arguments for the Shepherd-hypothesis are chiefly three: — A. Shulamite speaks of her lover as a shepherd (1:7, 16-17; 6:2-3). It is however quite natural in a highly poetic and fig urative book that this simple country maiden should speak of her royal lover in language borrowed from her northern home. Answer. — That the language refers figuratively to Solomon and not literally to a Galilean shepherd seems SONG OF SOLOMON 287 evident in 6:2-3. It would be very strange to say of a poor shepherd : " My beloved has gone down to his garden, to the beds of spices, to feed in the gardens and to gather lilies. I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine. He feedeth his flock among the lilies." But the passage is plain when it is referred to Solomon's going down into his garden of spices and lilies. B. Certain passages are said to be inexplicable if there be no rival of Solomon. Thus the words to the daughters of Jerusalem not to " stir up nor awake love till it please " (2:7;3:5;8:4) are said to be an adjura tion of Shulamite " not to excite in her the passion of love artificially" (for Solomon). Answer. — The added words "till it please" imply that Shulamite is not unalterably opposed to affection for Solomon. Her love for him is so strong that if permitted its full exercise it would be painful. In each case this adjuration follows the meeting of the lovers. If the lovers be Shulamite and the shepherd, it would be indeed strange for Shulamite immediately to speak of a time when love for Solomon would be pleasing. Other passages which are said to be unnatural are 3:4; 4:6; 6:4-5, 12; 7:8, 12; 8:1. These passages however are explicable on the theory that the book is a wedding-song containing recollections of the ante nuptial experiences of Solomon and Shulamite. The events mentioned are not recorded as having occurred in the order stated but depict the emotions of the lovers in times of union and separation. C. The speeches of the shepherd lover (2:10-14; 4:8-15; 5:1; 8:13) are said to differ in tone from those of Solomon (1 : 9-11, 15 ; 2 : 2 ; 4 : 1-7 ; 6 : 4-10 ; 7 : 288 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION 1-9). Thus Driver says: "The speeches attributed to the king are somewhat stiff and formal; those of the lover on the contrary breathe a warm and devoted affection" (Introduction p. 447). Answer. — This is made so by assigning the warm pas sages to the shepherd and the more formal ones to Solo mon. The arbitrariness of this process is most evident in chapter 4 of which the first seven verses are assigned to Solomon and verses 8-15 to the shepherd, although the whole is evidently from one speaker. The critics are forced to this conclusion because in verses 8-15 the lover calls Shulamite his bride. Furthermore if Solo mon's speeches are stiff and formal, his alleged char acter as the seducer of Shulamite is not supported. The allusions in the so-called speeches of the shepherd to northern places and customs are in reality references of Solomon in remembrance of his journey through Galilee where he first met Shulamite. There are other very serious objections to the Shepherd-hypothesis : A. It represents Solomon as a monster of iniquity taking an innocent country girl by force for his harem. Although Solomon departed from the ways of David in later life, -neither the record of him in the historical books nor the speeches universally assigned to him in this book warrant this representation of his character; and if he had such a character, it is very strange that he should have allowed Shulamite to escape him and marry the shepherd, as the critics affirm. B. It is necessary to read much into the text of Shulamite's speeches to imagine her resisting the ad vances of Solomon. C. If the Shepherd-hypothesis be true, the presence of SONG OF SOLOMON 289 the book in the canon is inexplicable. It represents the shame of Solomon. And yet Solomon is either its author or its hero according to the superscription. Else where Solomon is represented as the inspired author of wisdom and the Prince of Peace. That his shame should be thus depicted without a hint either of his repentance or his punishment is incredible. In view of these arguments the statement of Delitzsch is justified that the shepherd "is nothing else than a shadow cast by the person of Solomon" (Commentary p. 8). 3. The Typical Interpretation. This view takes the middle ground between the allegorical and the literal, for it neither denies the historical basis of the Song nor its spiritual meaning. It avoids the f ancifulness of the allegorical, since the type foreshadows the antitype only in a few main points, and the fancifulness of the Shepherd-hypothesis since it finds the purpose of the book not in the faithfulness of Shulamite under imagi nary temptation but in the typical relation between Solomon, the type of Christ, and Shulamite, the type of the church, the bride of Christ. The reasonableness of the typical interpretation is seen from the following considerations ; A. The book is called "the Song of Songs." It is inconceivable that it would receive such an exalted name, higher than that of any other poetry in the Old Testament, unless it had a religious meaning. B. Solomon is a type of Christ. This is seen from the promise to David (II Sam. 7: 12-17), from the last words of David (II Sam. 23:1-7), from Solomon's work in building the temple, from Psalm 72, and from the statement of our Lord (Matt, 12 : 42). 290 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION C. The relation of husband and wife is elsewhere in the Old testament typical of the relation between Jeho vah and Israel and in the New Testament between Christ and the Church. The fullest history of the interpretation of the Song is found in Ginsburg's commentary. IV. Unity. A few older critics (Herder, de Wette, Magnus, and Bleek) have considered the book a collec tion of love songs by different authors. But the recur rence of identical or similar expressions (2:7; 3:5; 8:4; also 2:17; 8:14 and 2:16; 6:3) the presence of Solomon, Shulamite and the daughters of Jerusalem throughout, and the similarity of style mark it as the work of one author. Moreover the artistic progress in the Song makes this conclusion inevitable. V. Divisions. The arrangement of Delitzsch is as follows : " The whole falls in the following six acts : "(1) The mutual affection of the lovers, 1:2-2:7; with the conclusion, 'I adjure you, ye daughters of Jerusalem.' "(2) The mutual seeking and finding of the lovers, 2 : 8-3 : 5 with the conclusion, ' I adjure you, ye daugh ters of Jerusalem,' "(3) The fetching of the bride and the marriage, 3:6-5:1; beginning with 'Who is this ?' and ending with, ' Drink and be drunken, beloved.' "(4) Love scorned but won again 5:2-6: 8. " (5) Shulamith the attractively fair but humble princess, 6 : 10-8 : 4, beginning with, ' Who is this ? ' and ending with ' I adjure you, ye daughters of Jeru salem.' " (6) The ratification of the covenant in Shulamith's SONG OF SOLOMON 291 home, 8:5-14, beginning with, 'Who is this ?'" (Commentary pp. 9-10.) VI. Form. There is action in the Song but it is not a drama, for theatrical performance is foreign to the Semitic genius. The book has no plot. It is a song intended to be sung at the marriage of Solomon and Shulamite, describing events in their courtship. II EUTH I. Name. The book is named from its principal character, Jin. The origin of the name is uncertain. Some connect it with fiN"} hence " sightly," while others consider it an error for rum " friendship." The Greek form is 'Pooff. II. Historicity. The historical character of the events recorded is confirmed by David's friendliness with the king of Moab (I Sam. 22 : 3-4) which was quite natural since his great-grandmother was Euth, the Moabitess. III. Date. 1. Testimony of the Booh. The events occurred two generations before the birth of David in the time of the Judges but were not recorded until after his birth and probably after his accession to the throne (4:21-22). A date in David's reign accounts for the purpose of the book, to give the ancestry of the king. Moreover the necessity of explaining the custom of establishing a bargain by drawing off the shoe (4:7) is accounted for by the fact that such primitive customs would prob ably be changed at the beginning of the kingdom. 2. Critical opinion. Some critics assign the book to the time of the later kings and others to a post-exilic date for the following reasons : A. The explanation of 4:7 is said to imply a long period of time after the events before they were recorded. 292 EUTH 293 Answer .—The radical change of government from the time of Euth to that of David would make such an explanation necessary after fifty years. B. It is affirmed that the writer was acquainted with the Book of Deuteronomy (Euth 4 : 7 compare Deut. 25 : 7, 9) and the Deuteronomic Book of Judges (Euth 1:1). Answer. — Since the books of Deuteronomy and , Judges do not belong to the time to which the critics f assign them, the acquaintance of the author of Euth with them does not prove a late date. C. Certain words are said to indicate a later time. The formula nn^ln n^xi (4: 18) and tHt are among the criteria of the so-called Hexateuchal document P. Other late forms are jn? (1: 13 compare Dan. 2:6, 9; 4 : 24) ; "iaE> (1 : 13 compare Isa. 38:18; Ps. 104 : 27 ; 119 : 166 ; 145 : 15 ; Esther 9:1); rri^D (3 : 4, 7, 8, 14, found elsewhere only Dan. 10 : 6) and D5? (4 : 7 compare Ezek. 13:6; Ps. 119:28, 106; Esther 9:21, 27, 29, 31, 32; Dan. 6:8). Answer. — Since the so-called document P was really the work of Moses, resemblances to it in the book of Euth are no evidence of date. Moreover it is practically impossible that the book of Euth was written after the date to which the critics assign P. The prejudice against foreign alliances in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah was so strong (Ezra 9-10; Neh. 13; 23-29) that a book trac ing the ancestry of David to Moab would have been discredited. Driver and Strack consider the genealogy (Euth 4:18-22), in which the resemblances to P are found, a later addition, in which case the argument falls. In view of the general purity of the style of Euth, the presence of a few words found elsewhere in late books 294 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION is not sufficient evidence of a later origin. The Hebrew literature which we possess is not large enough to make the affirmation safe, that these words were not used in the time of David. Nowack has adduced the following forms of expres sion which Euth has in common with Samuel and Kings : " Jehovah do so to me and more also " (Euth 1 : 17 compare I Sam. 3 : 17; 14: 44; I Kings 2 : 23). " All the city was moved about them " (Euth 1 : 19 compare I Sam. 4 : 5 ; I Kings 1 : 45) . "Her hap was" (Euth 2:3; compare I Sam. 6:9; 20 : 26, etc.) ; 'JbijK ^B (Euth 4 : 1 compare I Sam. 21 : 3; II Kings 6:8). JjNrftji (Euth 4:4 compare I Sam. 9:15; 20:2 etc.). Nowack thinks these are intentional imitations of the older style. But if the literary argument has any value, the presence of these words in the Book of Euth is evidence that it belongs to an age not later than that of Samuel and Kings and probably to the time of David himself. IV. Purpose. The purpose of the book was to fill up the gap in the ancestry of David (I Sam. 16: 1-13) showing the pious stock from which he sprang and his connection with the Gentile tribe of Moab. Thus it is an important link in the ancestry of Jesus Christ. Since His mission was to all the world, it was meet that the pious Gentiles should have a place among his ancestors. Some like Eeuss, who places the book shortly after the fall of Samaria, consider it an attempt to establish for the Davidic dynasty authority over the northern territory through Obed, the legal son of the Ephraimite Mahlon, It is however an error to consider Mahlon an EUTH 295 Ephraimite (1:2) and in any case the relation of Obed to Mahlon was not sufficient to warrant such authority. Others like Driver suggest that it may be " a collateral didactic aim of the author to inculcate the duty of mar riage on the part of the next-of-kin with a widow left childless" (p. 454). Others still, like Kuenen and Cornill, consider it a polemic against the narrow oppo sition of Ezra to intermarriage with foreigners. Such an extreme view is sufficiently answered by an unpreju diced reading of the book itself. V. Divisions. 1. History of Euth till her arrival at Bethlehem. Chapter 1. 2. Boaz shows her favor during the harvest. Chap ter 2. 3. Euth requests Boaz to act as kinsman. Chapter 3. 4. Boaz fulfils his promise. Their descendants. Chapter 4. Ill LAMENTATIONS I. Name. In the Hebrew Bible the book is named nyv. from its first word. Many printed texts, however, follow the Talmudic and Babbinic name rti^p which describes the nature of its contents. The Septuagint renders this name dpqvot 'hpepiou, which in the Vulgate is transliterated Threni and by the Fathers was trans lated Lamentationes Jeremiae. The English name is derived from the Latin. II. Structure. The book contains five distinct ele gies corresponding to the five chapters. In the first four the arrangement is alphabetical. Thus in chapters 1 and 2 one verse is given to each letter of the Hebrew alphabet in regular order and the verses consist of three parts each. In chapter 3 three verses are given to each letter but the verses consist of but one member; and in chapter 4 one verse is given to each letter, the verses consisting of two members. The alphabetic arrange ment of chapters 2-4 is broken in each case by the trans position of the letters V and 3. No satisfactory explana tion of this has been offered. Chapter 5 drops the alphabetic arrangement although it has twenty-two verses. III. Author. 1. Traditional Opinion. Until modern times Jeremiah was universally conceded to be the author of the book. The book itself does not contain his name. The Sep- 296 LAMENTATIONS 297 tuagint prefixes this sentence: "And it came to pass after Israel was led into captivity, and Jerusalem laid waste, that Jeremiah sat weeping, and lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem and said : " These words are thought by some to have been in the Hebrew original from which the Septuagint was made. Though such a conclusion is not warranted, the statement presents a very early tradition. The same preface is found in the Vulgate, with the addition, " and in bitterness of heart sighing and crying said : " The Targum and Peshitta likewise assign the book to Jeremiah. Much confusion has been caused by referring II Chron. 35:25 to this book. There we read : "And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah : and all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamen tations to this day: and behold they are written in the lamentations " ( JliJ'ipfrpJJ ) . It is insisted by certain radical critics that this refers to the canonical book of Lamentations and that the Chronicler erroneously thought from 2 : 7 and 4 : 20 that this book was the dirge of Jeremiah over Josiah. Answer. — A careful reading of the book shows that it is not at all appropriate as a dirge for Josiah. It is hardly conceivable that the Chronicler could have been so ignorant of the contents of this canonical book. The book of Lamentations to which he referred was totally distinct from the one before us. Apparently it contained the lamentations of the singing men and women as well as those of Jeremiah and may have been an extensive collection of dirges for use at funerals. Josephus probably refers to this extra-canonical book when he says (Antiq. 10:5): "Jeremiah composed a dirge for Josiah's funeral which remains unto this day." 298 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION It is incredible that Josephus was so ignorant of the contents of the canonical book that he thought it a dirge for Josiah's funeral. But even though the passages in Chronicles and in Josephus do not refer to our book, they confirm the tradition that Jeremiah composed dirges. And if Jeremiah was preeminent in this form of poetry, what is more probable than that he wrote this book? Even Cornill admits that the authorship of Jeremiah possesses a certain probability. An examination of the book itself and a comparison of it with the prophecy of Jeremiah strongly confirms the traditional view. In form of expression as well as in general argument it has many points in common with the prophecy. Driver mentions the following similarities (p. 462) : Lam . 1:2.. 30:14 tt 1 : 86-9 " ... « 13 : 226, 26 Cl 1:16a ) it \ 9 : 1, 185 tt 2:11a L... « ... « 13:176 ft 3:48-49 ) t " 14:17 It It11 2:11 ] 3:48 4 : 10 I >- " .... f" 6:14 8 : 11, 21 ¦> ~ tt 2:8 te it 2:14 4:13 [- " ¦•" u it 5:31 14:13/ J u 23:11 tttt 2:20") 4: 10 } tt it 19:9 tt 2:22. tt 6:25 20:10 « 3:14. tt r 20:7 LAMENTATIONS 299 Lam. 3:15.. " 3:47.. " 3:52.. « et 4:216. 5:16., compare 9:15 23:15 48:43 16:166 25:15 49:12 13 : 186 2. Critical Opinion. The majority of modern critics, while they acknowledge the force of these arguments, deny that Jeremiah wrote this book. They think it was the product of his time or soon after and some suggest that its author may have been a follower of Jeremiah, so familiar is he with the book of that prophet. The arguments of these critics are as follows: A. The position of the book among the Kethubim militates against Jeremiah's authorship. Answer. — It has been shown in the chapter on the canon that Lamentations was not always reckoned among the Kethubim but was placed there as one of the five Megilloth which are arranged in our Hebrew Bibles in the order of their liturgical use, Lamentations being read in the synagogue on the ninth of Ab in commemoration of the destruction of the temple. B. Several passages are said to be very strange if written by Jeremiah. "Her prophets also find no vision from the Lord" (2:9). Answer. — This passage is not as strong a condemna tion of false prophets as Jeremiah gave in his prophecy (14:14; 23:16). " In our watching, we have watched for a nation that could not save us " (4 : 17). The author is said to class 300 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION himself here with the party in Israel who sought help from Egypt while Jeremiah always opposed such a course. Answer. — The author does not however identify him self with this party but with the nation in which the party was predominant just as a member of the minority in congress might say: "We did so and so" although he voted against the action. The reference to Zedekiah as, "the breath of our nostrils" and "the anointed of the Lord" (Lam. 4: 20) is said to be inconsistent with Jeremiah's prophecy concerning him in Jer. 24 : 8-10. Answer. — Such terms are quite usual in reference to the rightful king of the Davidic line. David repeatedly spoke of Saul as "the Lord's anointed" even after Saul's rejection and while he was persecuting him (I Sam. 24:6, 10; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; II Sam. 1:14, 16). It seems to have been a common title of the king (II Sam. 19:21). Although Zedekiah was appointed king by Nebuchadnezzar (II Kings 24:17; Jer. 37:1), he belonged to the royal line as a son of Josiah (Jer. 37:1). Jeremiah doubtless had set his hopes Upon Zedekiah when he first became king. He therefore calls him "the breath of our nostrils." This hope was disappointed. C. The vocabulary of the author of Lamentations contains several words not found in Jeremiah, some of them expressing ideas for which Jeremiah uses other words. Such are '# (Lam. 1:3, 7, 9 ; 3:1, 19) ; b»iE> (1:4, 13, 16; 3:11); H£ (1:4, 5, 12; 3:32-33) Mfl (1:11-12; 3:63; 4:16; 5:1); y'lK (alone 1:14, 15; 2 : 1, 2, 5, 7, 18, 19, 20b; 3 : 31, 36, 37, 38) ; &J> (1: 22; LAMENTATIONS 301 2: 30; 3: 51) ;J>k (2:2, 5, 8, 16) ; W> (2: 7; 3: 17, 31) ; 0 (shorter relative 2 : 15, 16 ; 4 : 9 ; 5 : 18) ; JNB» (3:8). Answer. — The poetic nature of Lamentations is the chief cause of these variations from the prophecy. The points of agreement are so many that the diction favors the traditional view of authorship more than the modern critical view. D. Cornill lays great stress upon certain allusions in Lamentations to Ezekiel. Lam. 2:1 compare. .Ezek. 43 : 7 " 2:4 " .. " 24:16,21,25 ( " 13 " 2:14 " {« 22:28 " 2:15 " .. « 27:3 " 4:6 " .. " 16:46/ " 4:20 " .. " 19:4,8 A nswer.— An examination of these parallels does not warrant the conclusion of the critics. Jeremiah may have used the expressions independently of Ezekiel. If however the argument be pressed it does not disprove that Jeremiah wrote the Lamentations. For Jeremiah was a contemporary of Ezekiel and the colony of exiles on the river Chebar probably were in communication with those who remained in Judah after the fall of Jerusalem. If so Jeremiah may have been acquainted with the prophecies of Ezekiel. IV. Unity. Several modern critics attack the in tegrity of the book, although they disagree radically concerning the proper division. Some assign chapter 3 to a different author, others chapters 1 and 3, and others still chapters 1, 3 and 5. They contend that one author 302 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION would not have written several poems on the same subject, that certain chapters (2 and 4) are superior to the others, and that the different alphabetic arrangement indicates difference of authorship. Answer. — It was precisely in accord with Hebrew usage to emphasize a subject by repetition. Certain passages in the writings of any author are superior to others. The differences in the alphabetic arrangement may indicate a lack of fixedness in the order of the letters V and B in Jeremiah's time. The use of the same phrases and words throughout the book is proof of unity of authorship. V. Divisions. 1. Zion forsaken and sorrowing. Chapter 1. 2. The desolation described with exhortation and prayer. Chapter 2. 3. The prophet suffers with Zion and yet hopes. Chapter 3. 4. The sufferings of the siege. Chapter 4. 5. Prayer for mercy. Chapter 5. IV ^ECCLESIASTES I. Name. In Hebrew the book is named from the title of the speaker rv?np (1:2, 12; 12:8) a word whose exact meaning is somewhat uncertain. It is Kai active participle feminine of the verb ?n\) which is not found elsewhere in Kai but in Hiphil means to gather an assembly. If the Kai be used with the same meaning as the Hiphil, npnp means " one who gathers an assem bly for the purpose of addressing them." The feminine form is more difficult to explain. It has been thought that wisdom ( fi»3n ) is impersonated in Solomon the preacher. But the noun always takes a masculine verb and if npnp be feminine in reference to npan it is strange that noon is not mentioned as the speaker. The more probable explanation is that the feminine is that of office like the Arabic Caliphate, and the German Majestat — hence one who holds the office of preacher. The Septuagint rendered the word by 'Exxlrjataar^t;, which in classic Greek means a member of the IxxAijaia, or assembly of citizens — hence one who preaches in the hxkijoia, the Septuagint rendering of ?npT the congre gation of Israel. The Vulgate transliterates the Greek name into Ecciesiastes. The English versions name the book " Ecciesiastes or the Preacher." II. Purpose. Ecciesiastes is one of the Wisdom 303 304 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION books. From the frequent repetition of the words, "All is vanity " and the generally hopeless nature of its contents, some, both in ancient and modern times, have consid ered it a pessimistic, sceptical if not atheistic book and have objected to its presence in the canon. Others have thought that it favors materialism and licentious ness. These objections are the result of a misunderstanding of the book. Not only does the name of God occur many times in it but His creation and rulership of the world are taken for granted (2:24, 26; 3: 11, 14, 17, etc.). The fear of God, which is the Old Testament conception of religion, is made the prime duty of man (5:7; 12:13) a duty which does not go unrewarded (7 : 18 ; 8 : 12). The expectation of a divine judgment is found in the book (11 : 9 ; 12 : 14). The attitude of the author toward the future is not that of the sceptic but of one to whom almost nothing concerning the future life was revealed. All his arguments are based upon his observation of this world. He speaks only of that which is done "under the sun" and "under the heavens," for that is all he knows. To judge the book according to the standard of New Testament revelation is absurd and unjust. Yet the author extols the things which are morally good in this world such as going to the house of God (4 : 17), paying vows to Him (5 : 4-5), having a good reputation (7:1) and exercising patience (7:8-9). Licentiousness is condemned (7:26). The author was facing a problem which he had not light enough to solve. He saw much injustice in the world. Apparently the wicked often went unpunished and the righteous died unrewarded. Yet in the face of this mystery the author does not charge God with ECCLESIASTES 305 injustice. He simply says that God's ways are inscru table (8 : 17 ; 11 : 5) . He trusts that eventually in some way these wrongs shall be righted. This train of thought is specially prominent in 3 : 17-18 and 5:8. If he ex horts his hearers not to be righteous overmuch (7: 16), he uses the term righteous in the sense of perform ing all the external requirements of religion, for imme diately he speaks of the deliverance of him that f eareth God (7 : 18) . The plain exhortation to religion (12 : 1) and the summary of man's duty " to fear God and keep His commandments" (12:13-14) show that the book is not below the Old Testament standard of piety nor the Old Testament doctrine of a future life. Indeed by revealing the injustice of this world and by creating a dissatisfaction with it, the book presented to the Old Testament saints a strong argument for a future life and a strong motive to fear God. To the Christian it is still valuable since it shows that even worldly wisdom recognizes the advantage of a moral life, and of obedi ence to God as the result of experience, and by its very imperfection it shows the necessity of the New Testa ment revelation. III. Author. 1. Solomonic Authorship. The name of the author is not mentioned in the book. Yet there can be no doubt that by " the son of David, king in Jerusalem " (1:1, 12) none other than Solomon is meant. That no other royal descendant of David can be intended is apparent from the references to Solomon's incompar able wisdom (1:16) and the great works which he made (2:4-11). It is strange that these allusions to Solomon end with the second Chapter. Yet the char acter of the entire book which resembles the work of the 306 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION wise king in the book of Proverbs is in agreement with those references. According to these indications Ecciesiastes was as signed to Solomon by the uniform consent of all Jewish and Christian scholars until the Eeformation period. It was considered the work of his old age. A Hebrew legend, which was probably formed to account for this book, is preserved in the Targum. It affirms that in his old age God drove Solomon from his throne because of his foreign alliances, and that an angel whose face resembled Solomon's was placed upon his throne. The aged king wandered up and down in Palestine lamenting his folly and crying out : " I am Koheleth, whose name was formerly called Solomon, who was king over Israel in Jerusalem." This legend was thought to account for the absence of Solomon's name and his saying "I was king in Jerusalem " (1 : 12), as though he had then ceased to be king, while Solomon retained the throne till his death. There are still a few who believe in the Solomonic authorship, though the overwhelming weight of authority, both conservative and radical, is against it. 2. Solomon Impersonated. Luther seems to have been the first to deny that Solomon wrote this book. He was followed by Hugo Grotius and in the past cen tury hardly a writer of eminence has attempted to de fend the older opinion. Even such conservative theo logians as Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, and C. H. H. Wright have denied that Solomon was the author. The writer impersonated Solomon or as Bradley expressed it he " chose the title of the king around whose memory clus tered innumerable assocations as the great sage and philosopher of the Hebrew race; one whose name had become the very type of human wisdom, combined with ECCLESIASTES 307 human sadness and frailty " (Ecciesiastes p. 21). Such a literary device does not imply deception. The writer depicts Solomon's views concerning life, from the van tage ground of his completed reign. That Solomon is not represented as the actual author but only as the pseudonym which the author takes is evident. A. The name, Solomon, does not occur in the book, as would almost certainly be the case if he were the author. The title Koheleth is a very unnatural one in the mouth of the king. B. The past tense : " I was king over Israel in Jeru salem (1:12) points in the same direction. It is true that this verb might mean: "I have been (and still am) king," but it would be much more natural to omit the verb entirely if the present tense were intended. Since Solomon remained king till his death, this state ment could hardly have been written by him but is quite natural in the mouth of the one who impersonates the king. C. The expression " all who were before me in Jeru salem" (1: 16; 2:7), implies a later writer than Solo mon. The reference is to kings rather than princes or wise men, and since only David reigned in Jerusalem before him it would be a very strange expression for Solo mon. The suggestion that he refers to Melchizedek and Adonizedek is very fanciful. But if these are words of a writer long after Solomon's time they admit of an easy explanation. 3. Evidences of Date Later than Solomon. A. The whole atmosphere of the book is totally dif ferent from that of Solomon's time. The time of Solo mon was one of widespread prosperity in Palestine (I Kings 4:25). The book of Ecciesiastes on the other 308 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION hand presupposes a time of misfortune, tyranny, and oppression (4:1-3; 5:8; 7:10; 8:9; 10:6-7). If King Solomon had known of such injustice in his king dom as this author reveals, he would certainly have rectified it. And if the oppression is simply that which resulted from the heavy taxation to carry out Solomon's great works (I Kings 12 : 11, 14) it is inconceivable that Solomon would speak of the oppression in the manner of Koheleth. Indeed the way the author speaks of kings and especially of "the king" shows that he was not a king himself but a subject and that too of a tyrannical king (4:13; 8:2; 9:14-16; 10:16-17, 20). B. Equally overwhelming is the evidence from the language. Delitzsch has collected a list of 96 forms, words, and expressions in Ecciesiastes which are either found only in that book outside of the Targums and Mishna or are found elsewhere only in such late books as Ezekiel, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, and Malachi (Commentary pp. 190-196). While a small number of such words is not inconsistent with an early date, their number in Ecciesiastes is so large that the conclusion of late date is irresistible. While all critics who deny the Solomonic authorship consider the book post-exilic there is considerable diverg ence in the matter of date. Delitzsch, Wright, Cheyne in his "Job and Solomon" and others adhere to the late Persian period (approaching 332 B. C.) while Driver, Plumptre, Cornill and others prefer a date about 200 B.C. The chief point of dispute is whether there are Grsecisms in the book or traces of the influence of the Greek philosophy. Certain writers find traces of Stoicism in the doctrine of cycles (3:1-8) and in the fatalism of the book, and of Epicureanism in its com- ECCLESIASTES 309 parison of men to beasts and consideration of pleasure as the highest good. All these phenomena may be accounted for as of Hebrew origin. Even Eenan denied that the book contains traces of Greek philosophy al though he assigned it to 125 B.C. The theory of Graetz that Ecciesiastes was composed by Herod the Great in B.C. 4 is disproved by the allusions to it in Ecclesiasti cus (B.C. 170) and by the presence of Ecciesiastes in the Septuagint. All the facts of the book are adequately explained by assigning it as Hengstenberg does to the time of Malachi (about 433 B.C.). The books of Ezra and Nehemiah give evidence of the very political corruption and oppres sion which are reflected in Ecciesiastes (Ezra 4 : 5 ; 9 : 7 ; Neh. 1:3; 5:4, 5, 18; 9:36-37). The capriciousness of the monarch in the book of Esther is of the same sort. Hengstenberg also points out that " we encounter here, as in Malachi that moroseness which ever accom panies unspiritual religion and soulless morality " (Com mentary p. 6). Formalism was characteristic of the religion after the Exile. There is then nothing in the political conditions presupposed by this book or its language which requires a date later than 400 B.C. And if this date be correct it is among the latest books of the Old Testament. IV. Integrity. The general integrity of the book is universally acknowledged. Certain critics however consider a few verses to have been later additions. The epilogue (12:9-14) is suspected by many. The first part (9-12) of it is rejected because without it the book begins and ends with the same statement and because it speaks of Koheleth as a wise man while elsewhere he is represented as a king. There is no reason however why 310 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION the book should be forced to end with the same state ment with which it begins. Solomon was the founder of the school of wise men as well as king. Krochmal considers the epilogue (12: 9-14) to have been added as a concluding statement for the entire Kethubim and that verse 12 refers to the admission of this and the other Antilegomena into the canon. This fanciful theory has not met with acceptance. It is sufficiently refuted by the fact that Ecciesiastes never, so far as we know, stood at the end of the Old Testament canon. The objection to the remainder of the epilogue (12: 13-14) as well as to several other brief passages (3: 17; 7 : 5 ; 8 : 12-13 ; 11 : 9b ; 12 :1a, 7b) is that they display a higher religious tone than that which pervades the remainder of the book. Many affirm that these passages were inserted with the purpose of saving the orthodoxy of the book and that then it was admitted to the canon. It is noteworthy, on the other hand, that so radical a critic as Cornill opposes the removal of these passages and asserts that the same thoughts run throughout the book. The objections to these passages proceed from the false assumption that the book is sceptical. If rightly understood, they do not contradict other state ments of the author and their removal destroys the completeness of the argument. V. Divisions. The vain things. The good things. Labor 1 : 3-11 Wisdom 1 : 12-18 Pleasure 2 : 1-11 Wisdom better than folly 2 : 12-26 Effort 3 : 1-15 ECCLESIASTES 311 The vain things. Justice 3 : 16 to 4 : 3 Skill 4:4-12 Power 4:13-16 Formalism 5 : 1-7 Wealth 5:8 to 6:12 Fortune 8 : 16 to 9 : 6, 11-16 Aristocracy 9 : 17 to 10 : 11 Folly 10:12-15 A young King 10 : 16-20 The good things. 'A good name 7 : 1-10 Wisdom 7: 11 to 8: 9 Piety 8 : 10-15 Joy 9 : 7-10 Enterprise 11 : 1-14 Youth 11 : 9-10 Piety in youth 12 : 1-14 ESTHER I. Name. The book is named from its principal character. In the Talmud it is called iriDK n?S1? or more simply "l^DN. The Hebrew name of Esther was ,"i?!'li. (2:7) which means "myrtle." This was changed to the Persian name "iflDN which means " star," when she became the queen of Ahasuerus. In the Septuagint the name is 'Eod-qp, and in the Vulgate, as in the English, Esther. II. Historicity. Many critics deny the credibility of this book, while many others think that although it has a historical basis, the author has been guilty of exaggeration and enlargement upon the facts. The arguments against the reliability of the story are as . follows : 1. There are said to be several improbabilities in the book. A. History knows nothing of any queen of Xerxes between the 7th and 12th years of his reign besides Amestris, whose cruelty and superstition as represented by Herodotus preclude her identification with Esther. Nor could Esther have been one of the women of the royal harem, for she is mentioned as queen (2 : 16-17). Answer.— The representations concerning Esther agree remarkably with the history of the reign of Xerxes. Vashti was divorced in the third year of his reign (1:3) and Esther did not become queen until the 312 ESTHEE 313 seventh year (2:16). This interval agrees precisely with the statements of Herodotus that Xerxes began his Greek campaign in the third year and in the seventh year sought relief from his defeat in the harem. Since the book of Esther does not inform us concerning the date of Esther's death although she lived till the twelfth year of the king's reign (3:7) while the king reigned twenty years in all, there remain eight years during which Amestris may have been queen without inter fering with the story of Esther. In our ignorance concerning the facts there is no necessity of casting discredit upon the Bible record. B. The issuing of the decree for the destruction of the Jews eleven months in advance, the ignorance of the king that Esther was a Jewess, his ignorance con cerning his own decree (7: 5-6), his allowing the Jews to defend themselves, their success against overwhelm ing odds and the height of the gallows (fifty cubits 5 : 14) are said to be very improbable. Answer. — Truth is often stranger than fiction. Mere improbability is not sufficient reason to discredit a story. The ignorance of the king concerning Esther's nationality may have been due to her lack of the usual Jewish features or to his drunkenness at the time when he saw her. The latter point is sufficient explanation of his ignorance concerning the decree (7:7). The capriciousness of the king and his affection for Esther make the second decree not unnatural. Our inability to account for the other statements is certainly no proof that they are false. There is nothing incredible in the statement that the gallows was 75 feet high. History records many instances of a small but determined band defending themselves successfully against great odds. 314 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION 2. The dramatic elements in the book are said to mark it as a romance rather than history. These are particularly the contrast of Haman and Mordecai, the two decrees, the hanging of Haman on the gallows he prepared for his enemy, and the climax of the story in the victory of the Jews. These and similar points have given weight to the theory that the book is a story written to show the prowess of the Jews. Answer. — Precisely such coincidences sometimes occur and the very fact that they are unusual suggests their being recorded. The most that this argument can prove is that the author seized upon the dramatic features in these remarkable experiences of the Jews for the purpose stated. On the other hand there are powerful arguments in favor of the truthfulness of the narrative. (1) The feast of Purim, whose origin is described in the book is still observed. In II Mace. 15 : 36 this feast is called "the day of Mordecai." No other satisfactory explanation of this feast has been pre sented. (2) Ahasuerus is represented as just such a passion ate, capricious, and profligate monarch as Xerxes. (3) The book is free from the historical inaccuracies such as are found in the Apocryphal books of Tobit and Judith. It presents the life at the Persian court as it is known from secular history. (4) The story is presented as literal history since it refers to the Chronicles of the kings of Persia (2:23; 6:1;10:2). III. Purpose. Many in ancient and modern times have objected to the presence of this book in the canon for two principal reasons : ESTHEE 315 1. Not only has the book no religious purpose but the name of God does not occur in it. Answer. — The reason for the absence of the divine name from the book is unknown. It seems to have been purposely omitted, though the author points out the remarkable way in which Jehovah saved the Jews from destruction. Providence is alluded to in 4 : 14 while fasting is mentioned in 4 : 16 and 9 : 31 and prayer in 9:31. It should be remembered that the history of Israel was considered religious especially at such a crisis as this. The fact that the feast of Purim to this day commemorates that deliverance shows the religious character of the book. 2. It is objected that the book, contrary to the spirit of scripture, exalts cruelty and vengeance. Esther's request that the bodies of Haman's sons be exposed upon the gallows (9:13) and especially the acquiescence of Esther and Mordecai in the king's cruel decree to allow the slaughter of innocent women and children (8:8, 11) and the massacre of 75,000 persons are said to be contrary to the spirit of the gospel. Answer. — It is not necessary to defend Esther, Mor decai, or the Jews. Their acts are in accord with the spirit of the times and of the Oriental court. Any more humane conduct would probably have resulted in the annihilation of the Jews. In no case is the inspira tion of the book endangered. The purpose of the book of Esther is to show God's protection of His people in a strange land, thus at the same time recording the origin of one of their principal feasts. IV. Date and Authorship. Xerxes who is uni versally conceded to have been the Ahasuerus of this 316 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION book reigned 485-465 B.C. The book speaks of this monarch as though his reign was not very recent (1:1). Yet the author displays a noteworthy acquaintance with Persian customs and history. The diction of the book is admittedly late and is comparable with that of Ecciesiastes, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. From these facts, those who admit the historicity of the book place it during the reign of Artaxerxes Longi- manus (464-425 B.C.). This date accounts for all its literary phenomena. Many critics however who deny its historicity, place it in the Greek period (third cen tury B.C.) or in the time of the Maccabees (167-130 B.C.). Their only arguments are found in the alleged late dates of other books, with which its diction marks it as contemporaneous. The majority of critics agree that the author was a Persian Jew, on account of the absence of marks of its being written in Palestine. The suggestion from Mor-_ decai's writing (9: 20-32) that he was the author does not agree with the internal evidence (9 : 3-4). V. Divisions. 1. Esther made queen instead of Vashti, 1 : 1 to 2 : 18. 2. Intrigues of Haman against Mordecai and the Jews 2 : 19 to 7 : 10. 3. The Jews' deliverance and the memorial feast. Chapters 8-10. SECTION III: HISTOEICAL BOOKS I DANIEL I. Name. The book is named from its author and principal character, 7H^n. This name was borne also by the second son of David (I Chron. 3:1) and by a priest who returned with Ezra to Judaea (Ezra 8:2; Neh. 10: 6). Its meaning is "God is my judge." In the Septuagint the form is AavtyA and in the Vulgate Daniel. II. Authorship and Date. It is considered one of the most certain results of modern criticism that the Book of Daniel was composed during the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes (168- 165 B.C.). This result is reached by a two-fold argu ment—critical and exegetical. The critical argument attempts to prove that the book could not have arisen during the Exile nor at least before the beginning of the Greek period (about 300 B.C.) while the exegetical argument makes the predictions of the book refer at great length to the period of Antiochus Epiphanes and thus determines upon that time for its production. We believe that all these arguments can be success fully met and that other considerations make the tradi tional view far more tenable — viz. that the book was composed in the time of Daniel and by him. 317 318 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION The arguments for a date much later than Daniel are as follows: 1. Historical. A. The position of the Book of Daniel among the Kethubim and even toward the end of that last division of the Hebrew canon is said to prove that it could not have been in existence when the canon of the Prophets was closed and hence not until long after the Exile. Daniel is considered a prophet by the critics, and his book is said to be similar to that of Jonah which found a place in the canon of the Prophets. Answer. — It has been shown in the chapter on the Canon that the three-fold division does not indicate three successive stages of collection but the position of a book was determined by the official status of its author. There is no evidence that the third division of the canon was kept open any later than the second. Daniel was not officially a prophet though he had the prophetic gift. Even this was of a kind which, the critics are loudest in affirming, was merely incidental to prophecy- — viz. his power of prediction. The re semblances to Jonah are entirely superficial. Jonah was a prophet in Israel before he was sent to Nineveh (II Kings 14: 25). He went to that city with a mes sage of repentance. He never joined himself to the Assyrian Court but in Jewish exclusiveness stayed out side of the city hoping to see it destroyed. Daniel on the other hand does not introduce his book with his own name as though his official status was important. He is represented merely as one of the Jewish exiles who was joined to the court of Babylon and attained great honor there by his probity and his power to interpret dreams. He lived nearly all his life apart DANIEL 319 from his own nation. Even in relation to Babylon he was no prophet, no religious reformer. B. Jesus, the son of Sirach, who wrote the Book of Ecclesiasticus (about 170 B.C.) mentions Isaiah, Jere miah, Ezekiel and collectively the Twelve Minor Prophets but says nothing of Daniel. Hence it is inferred that the Book of Daniel was not extant in his time. The statement of Ecclus. 49: 15 ("Neither was there a man born like unto Joseph") is thought to have been impossible to one who knew of Daniel who certainly was " like unto Joseph." Answer. — This argument is very weak, for the allu sion to the twelve prophets after Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Ecclus. 49 : 8-10) shows that the author is following the order of the Hebrew books. He does not mention Daniel because his book was not classed with the Prophets. The omission of Daniel in the list of worthies after the Exile is not so remarkable as that of Ezra. Zerubbabel, Joshua, the high-priest, and Nehe miah, are mentioned but not Ezra. Yet no one on this account would deny the existence of Ezra or his book. The statement concerning Joseph is explained by the author himself : " Neither was there a man born like unto Joseph, a governor of his brethren, a stay of the people, whose bones were regarded of the Lord." Although Daniel was " like unto Joseph " in his exalted position at a heathen court, he was not like him in these three respects. C. The statement of Dan. 1 : 1 that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came unto Jerusalem and besieged it, "in the third year of Jehoiakim king of Judah" is said to be an error and therefore unlikely from a contemporary writer. It is affirmed that this statement 320 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION is inconsistent with Jeremiah who makes the fourth year of Jehoiakim the same as the first year of Ne buchadnezzar (25:1) and then speaks of the coming of Nebuchadnezzar as still future (25 : 8; 36 : 29). Answer. — This statement is explained by two simple facts. First, in Assyria and Babylon a king's reign was usually reckoned from the New Year's day after his accession but in Judah often from the previous New Year's day (Hastings B.D. Vol. I. p. 400). Inscriptions in Babylon are dated in the reign of a king up to the close of the year in which he died. Daniel naturally follows this Babylonian method and thus his "third year of Jehoiakim" is identical with Jeremiah's " fourth year." Second, the date mentioned by Daniel is that of the starting of Nebuchadnezzar's expedition from Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar met the opposition of Pharaoh-Necho. It was not until after his victory over the Egyptians at Carchemish (Jer. 46 : 2) that he proceeded against Jerusalem. Dr. Green (General Introduction, The Canon, p. 59) draws attention to the fact that the same verb found in Dan. 1 : 1 is used in Jonah 1 : 3 of a ship which was starting out for Tarshish. Thus Nebu chadnezzar started for Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim according to the Babylonian reckoning but arrived in a later year. Meanwhile Jeremiah foretold his coming. D. The term, "Chaldeans," is used in Daniel (1:4; 2: 2, 10; 14: 7; 5:7; 11) of the caste of wise men, a meaning which the critics affirm it did not have until after the Babylonian language died out and hence until after Daniel's time. DANIEL 321 Answer. — It is hard to prove a negative. Our knowl edge of the Babylonian literature of the time of Daniel is not so complete that we can safely affirm that " Chal dean" never meant the caste of wise men in his time. Indeed Schrader says that we are thus far confined to Assyrian sources for our knowledge of the Chaldeans. We are therefore in no position to dispute the true use of the word in the Book of Daniel. E. Belshazzar is called king and the son of Ne buchadnezzar (Dan. 5 : 1, 9, 22, 30 ; 7 : 1 ; 8 : 1) although the inscriptions speak of him only as " the king's son " and as the son of Nabonidus who was a usurper and no relation to Nebuchadnezzar. Answer. — Formerly the very existence of Belshazzar was denied. The discovery of the Chronicles of Nabonidus with their frequent mention of Belsharuzur as " the king's son " was a great victory for the accuracy of Daniel. In these chronicles it is said that Belshazzar commanded his father's troops in Northern Babylonia in the early part of the reign of Nabonidus while his father remained near Babylon. Then there is a break in the inscription, after which it is said that Nabonidus himself was with the troops in the North. The natural inference is that he left his son in charge in Babylon and that his son was addressed as king. There is a remarkable confirmation of this conjecture in the state ment that Belshazzar made Daniel " the third ruler of the kingdom" (Dan. 5:29), for since Belshazzar was himself second to Nabonidus, he could make Daniel only third. The translation " rule as one of three " in this passage does violence to the text. It is not known how Belshazzar was the son of Ne buchadnezzar. The suggestion that Nabonidus may have 322 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION strengthened his position as king by marrying a daughter of the great king Nebuchadnezzar is made the more plausible by the fact that he named one of his sons Nebuchadnezzar. In this case Belshazzar was the grand son of Nebuchadnezzar and according to the Hebrew usage could be called his son. F. No such character as Darius the Mede is known to history (5: 31; 6:1). Cyrus took Babylon directly. Driver suggests that Darius the Mede was probably an error for Darius Hystaspis, who at a later time retook Babylon after a rebellion while Prince further suggests that the author confuses Babylon with Nineveh, which was taken by the Medes. Answer. — Although several suggestions have been of fered concerning the identity of Darius the Mede, his name has not yet been found in the cuneiform inscrip tions. The cases of Belshazzar and Sargon (Isa. 20 : 1), both of whom were formerly unknown to history except from the Bible, are sufficient caution against denying his existence and his ruling in Babylon before Cyrus. The most probable theory identifies Darius the Mede with Gobryas, a Median General of Cyrus, who took the city of Babylon and who was so important that the annalistic inscription of Cyrus says : " Gubaru, his governor, appointed governors in Babylon." What could be more natural than for Cyrus to cement his alliance with the Medes by leaving their general as virtual king in Babylon, while he went on to complete the conquest of the country? If so the statements of Daniel that Darius "received the kingdom" (5:31) and that he "was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans" (9:1) receive a new meaning. The state ment of Dan. 6 : 1 that " it pleased Darius to set over DANIEL 323 the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom also agree precisely with that that " Gubaru, his governor, appointed gov ernors in Babylon." The mention of the Medes and Persians together (Dan. 6: 8, 12, 15) also confirms the theory. It is certainly not impossible that Gubaru as sumed the title of king and the name of Darius. G. The expression of 9 : 2 that Daniel " understood by the books " that the seventy years of exile were almost complete, is said to imply that Jeremiah was one of a collection of canonical books, which was not the case in Daniel's time. Answer. — This expression does not necessitate a canon any more than Isaiah 8 : 16-20 or 34 : 16. It simply implies that Daniel had in his possession the sacred books so far as they were in existence and in particular Jeremiah who foretold the seventy years of exile (Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10). H. The later prophets (Haggai, Zechariah, and Mala chi) show no trace of the influence of Daniel but on the other hand the Apocalyptic portions of Daniel are "said to have been suggested by Ezekiel and Zechariah. Answer. — It is just as natural to explain the resem blances between Daniel on the one hand and Ezekiel and Zechariah on the other as originating with Daniel as with the other writers. The lack of influence of the Book of Daniel on the later prophets is then partially explained. The comparative silence of those prophets concerning the Book of Daniel is doubtless due to their difference of subject and standpoint. I. There are said to be several improbable things in Daniel, which indeed are not sufficient to discredit it but which add to the other arguments against it. 324 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Such is the story that Daniel allowed himself to become one of the wise men, that he was accepted as their president (2:13, 48), Nebuchadnezzar's condemnation of all the wise men before hearing them, his lycanthropy and Nebuchadnezzar's and Darius' recognition of the universal sovereignty of Jehovah. Answer. — Since no great stress is laid upon this argu ment and since the other arguments which are supposed to give these improbabilities colour have been met, no detailed answer is necessary. Just such improbabili ties are constantly occurring and their presence so far from discrediting Daniel is as mark of its genuineness. 2. Literary. A. Driver enumerates fifteen Persian (Daniel in Cambridge Bible p. lvi) words in Daniel such as are found in Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles and asserts that the contract tablets of the time of Ne buchadnezzar show no signs of Persian influence. Answer. — Several of these words are political and such as would not naturally find their way into the language of the contract tablets. Such are D,!DJj)'lS "nobles" (1:3) TH "law" (2:9 etc) JBTttfriK "satrap" (3:2, 3, etc.) 113 TJK "counsellor" (3:2, 3) lain "minister" (3:24, 27, etc.) ^D "presi dent " (6 : 2-4, 6-7) and rjBK " palace " (11 : 45). Con cerning the others, we have not enough literature of Nebuchadnezzar's time to deny the influence of Persian. Such influence would be felt in the court language, where Daniel was, sooner than among the people. Further more Daniel continued into the Persian period. B. There are three Greek names of musical instru ments which it is said could not have reached Babylon DANIEL 325 until after the dissemination of Greek influence in Asia by Alexander (332 B.C.). These are xiOaptt; (3 : 5, 7, 10, 15) (paAzifptov (3 : 5, 7, 10, 15) and oupvia (3:5, 15). Of these xWapt? is a Homeric word and might possibly have found its way to Babylon by Daniel's time but ipakzifpwv occurs first in Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) and aoptpmvia is found first in Plato (429-347 B.C.) Answer. — In reply we quote the words of Sayce, who nevertheless strongly affirms the Maccabean date for Daniel (Higher Criticism and the Monuments pp. 494- 495). "Cuneiform decipherment has made it ques tionable whether the occurrence of words which may be of Greek orgin is equally certain evidence of a late date — There were Greek colonies on the coast of Pales tine in the time of Hezekiah — The Tel-el-Amarna tablets have enabled us to carry back a contact between Greece and Canaan to a still earlier period — It is thus possible that there was intercourse and contact between the Canaanites or Hebrews in Palestine and the Greeks of the Aegean as far back as the age of Moses." Thus it is not at all improbable that through the Assyrian provinces of Asia Minor or from Palestine itself these musieal instruments were brought to Babylon. If the Jews were required to furnish music for their captors (Ps. ' 137 : 3) why may not captives from the Greek lands of Cyprus, Ionia, Lydia, and Cilicia have brought their musical instruments with them? The absence of two of these words from Greek literature as far back as Daniel's time does not prove that these instruments did not exist in his day. C. The critics confidently affirm that the Aramaic of Daniel is Western Aramaic identical with that of Ezra 326 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION and similar to that of Onkelos and Jonathan. Aramaic inscriptions from Babylon (725-500 B.C.) use the rela tive "J while Daniel uses "I. Answer. — Other writers affirm with equal confidence that the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra is Eastern Ara maic. It is natural that the Aramaic of the Hebrew exiles should differ somewhat from that current about them. If this argument is pressed, it can only prove that the Aramaic of Daniel was modified at a later date to conform to that in common use, not that the book was originally written in Palestine. D. The Hebrew of Daniel is said to be crude and late like that of Chronicles (about 300 B.C.). Answer. — This is exactly what we would expect from a man who spent the greater part of his life at a foreign court. Since however there is no necessity for dating the books of Chronicles later than 400 B.C. the simi larity of the Hebrew in Daniel to that of the Chronicles does not require a date later than Daniel himself. 3. Theological. The doctrines of angels, the judg ment, the resurrection, the kingdom of God, and the Messiah are much more fully developed than in the exilic or early post-exilic literature (Hag. and Zech.). That of angels in particular is said to resemble the post- Biblical literature as seen in the Book of Enoch, which belongs to the first century before Christ. Answer. — The weight of this argument depends upon the theological tendency of the writer. If it be admitted that Daniel received these doctrines by revelation, the propriety of their being given in his time is immediately seen. The severe afflictions of the Exile made the highly developed doctrines peculiarly appropriate. Nor is the doctrine of angels in Daniel comparable to that of the DANIEL 327 post-Biblical books in which Gabriel and Michael are two of the seven archangels (Tobit 12 : 15). Although no angels are mentioned by name in the Old Testament outside of Daniel, Zechariah makes a distinction of rank among them. The interpreting angel of Zechariah (1:9, 14, 19; 2:3; 4:4-6, 11-14; 5:5-11; 6:4-8) has the same function as Gabriel in Daniel and is probably identical with him (Dan. 8 : 16-17 ; 9 : 21-22) . Michael is not called an angel in Daniel but " one of the chief princes" (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1). He is probably the same as the angel of the Lord in Zechariah 3 : 1-3 (Jude 9). 4. Exegetical. It is affirmed that the interest of the book culminates in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, which could hardly be the case if the author lived in Babylon four centuries earlier. Accordingly the por tions of the book which refer to the period of the Exile are said to rest upon reliable traditions and to have been written during the persecutions of Antiochus in order to encourage the Jews to be faithful to Jehovah by the example of the great things which Jehovah did for his faithful ones under similar circumstances in Babylon. The critics assert that Antiochus is "the little horn " of 7 : 8, 24-25 as well as 8 : 9-12, 23-25 and that the clearness of Daniel's predictions terminates with him. Answer. — The real animus of this argument on the part of the more radical critics is evidently to eliminate the force of clear prediction as a sign of the super natural. But in this they must surely fail. Even though the events of Daniel's life were calculated to comfort the Jews under the dreadful persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes, and even though the Holy Spirit- 328 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION may have guided Daniel to record them partly for this purpose, they were composed in Babylon and not in Palestine. It is natural that Daniel's predictions in the Exile should give great prominence to the next great affliction of the Jews under a foreign tyrant. Yet the book does not present to us the history of the Exile from the standpoint of the time of Antiochus but the times of Antiochus from the standpoint of the Exile. And prominent as are those times in Daniel's prophetic view, they by no means eclipse what to him was beyond them. The efforts of the critics to exclude the Eoman Empire from the predictions of Daniel 2 and 7 are forced and unnatural. The four empires are the Assyro-Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Greek and the Eoman. The second cannot be divided into the Median and the Persian for these are always counted as one in Daniel (5 : 28 ; 6 : 8, 12, 15 ; 8 : 20) as well as in Esther (1 : 3, 14, 18-19) and the Persian did not have four heads as the third beast is said to have had (7:6). Nor can the Greek empire be divided into that of Alexander and that of his successors. Their kingdoms are said to be inferior to his (8:22) while the fourth kingdom is said to be "strong as iron" (2:40) and that it shall devour the whole earth and shall tread it down and break it in pieces (7:23). This was not true of the kingdom of Antiochus but was true of the Eoman Empire. Furthermore the two legs of the image cor respond remarkably to the Eastern and Western Eoman Empires, and the feet and toes, part of iron and part of clay, correspond in general to the ten kingdoms into, which the Eoman Empire (2:41-43; 7:23-24) was divided, which were a mixture of Latin with other races. DANIEL 329 Hence although " the little horn " in 8 : 9-12, 23-25 evidently refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, "the little horn" of 7:8, 24-26 does not refer to him but to an other great opponent of the kingdom of God, proceed ing from the fourth or Eoman rather than from the third or Greek kingdom. This is Antichrist (II Thess. 2:3-4, 8-10; I John 2:18; Eev. 13:5-7). The seventy weeks of Dan. 9 : 24-27 are not a mere reflection of the seventy years of exile nor do they end with Antiochus Epiphanes. They extended from the Exile to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and in clude the appearance and rejection of Christ (Matt. 24: 15-15). There are also certain positive arguments for the genuineness of the booh of Daniel. 1. The testimony of our Lord to it (Matt. 24: 15) is most distinct: "When therefore ye see the abomina tion of desolation, which was spoken of through ( dia ) Daniel the prophet, etc." This reference to Dan. 9 : 27 ; 11 : 31 and 12 : 11 does not speak of Daniel as a book but as the author of a book. The statement is so explicit that there are only two alternatives to those who deny that Daniel wrote the book — either that Christ spoke ignorantly or that he accommodates himself to the erroneous opinion of his day. How untenable both of these views are has been shown in the chapter on the Pentateuch. 2. The testimony of Ezekiel (14: 14, 20; 28: 3). In the first two verses Ezekiel mentions Daniel, Noah and Job as three notably righteous men, whose presence in a wicked city would nevertheless not save it from the judgment of God. Prince and others think that Ezekiel must here refer to some other Daniel, a great patriarch 330 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION who was worthy to be classed with Noah and Job. It is however inconceivable that such a great and well- known character should have been elsewhere entirely forgotten by the Jews. It certainly is remarkable that Ezekiel should mention a living man, and that a young man, as comparable with Noah and Job, but when we remember that Ezekiel's ministry did not begin until 592 B.C., fourteen years after Daniel's deportation to Babylon, we see that there was abundant opportunity for Daniel's reputation to be established among the exiles. Daniel was possibly 35 years old at the time of Ezekiel's allusion to him. From the high favor he enjoyed at court and his faithfulness to Jehovah he must have been viewed by the exiles as their special advocate and the personification of righteousness. The other reference fixes Daniel's identity more clearly: "Behold thou are wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that is hid from thee." It is not claimed that these references prove the existence of the Book of Daniel. They prove the existence of the man who is represented as the author of the book. The last refer ence also confirms the story of his having been one of the wise men of Babylon. 3. The fact that Daniel was received into the canon at all is strong evidence against the view of its origin suggested by the critics. They would have us believe that it was one of the latest books of the Old Testament, although it purports to have been written by a character who lived four centuries earlier and who was so highly respected that he is mentioned with Noah and Job. If it was so late, why was it not among the Antilegomena? The time between the alleged date of its writing (168 B.C.) and its alleged admission into the canon (130 B.C.) DANIEL 331 is not long enough to account for its universal accept ance. 4. The faithful representation of history in Babylon is evidence that it was composed there. Prince acknowl edges that Dan. 4 : 30 is a true reflection of Nebuchad nezzar's activity in building. That Darius as a fire- worshipper did not order Daniel thrown into the fire but into a den of lions is another incidental evidence of the truth of the story. Indeed amid all the intricacies of the history no error has ever been proven in the book. This could hardly be the case if it was not written until 168 B.C. III. Unity. The unity of the book is now generally admitted. A few critics however divide the Aramaic portions (2:4 through chapter 7) from the rest on the ground of the change of language, while others divide chapters 7-12 from 1-6 on account of the change of style and subject. The book is shown to be one by the following con siderations : — 1. It displays an evident plan. The image of chapter 2 corresponds to the beasts of chapter 7. The predic tions of chapters 7-12 are represented as the work of Daniel, the principal character of chapters 1-6, and are dated during the reigns of the kings mentioned in chapters 1-6. 2. The change in language does not correspond to the natural divisions of the book. Chapter 1 of the his torical portion is in Hebrew and chapter 7 of the pro phetic portions in Aramaic. The Aramaic portion be gins abruptly in the middle of a story. No entirely satisfactory explanation of this has been offered. The most likely is that Daniel wrote in Hebrew those portions 332 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION which were of special interest to the Jews and in Aramaic those portions which relate to the world empires. IV. Divisions. 1. The history of Daniel under the reigns of Ne buchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus. Chap ters 1-6. 2. Prophetic visions which Daniel received during the reigns of Belshazzar, Darius and Cyrus. Chapters 7-12. II EZEA-NEHEMIAH (1) Ezra I. Name. The book was named from its author and principal character toiy meaning "help." In the Septuagint it is called "EoBpas Ssorspov, and in the Vul gate Liber primus Esdrae. The English form of the name follows the Hebrew. II. Position. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were often counted as one book in the same manner as the double books (Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles) and the twelve Minor Prophets. In token of this, the Massoretic notes con cerning the number of verses in each book are placed after Nehemiah, the whole book is called Ezra, and its middle verse is said to be Neh. 3. 32. In modern Hebrew Bibles however as well as in the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate the two books are sepa rated. Origen speaks of them as First and Second Esdras. Although the two books are closely related, the repetition of the list of those who returned from the Exile (Ezra 2; Neh. 7: 6-70) shows that they can not have been one book originally. Their being counted so may have been in order to make the total number of books agree with the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet or because Nehemiah continues the history y/ of Ezra. 333 334 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION In the Septuagint the books of Ezra and Nehemiah follow Chronicles. It is possible that this was the original order in the Hebrew Bible since the Massoretic notes on the Kethubim stand not at the end of Chronicles but of Nehemiah, and since Ezra and Nehemiah carry on the history from the point where Chronicles drops it. III. Divisions. 1. Chaps. 1-6. Account of the return of the first com pany of exiles under Zerubbabel in 536 B.C. and their rebuilding the temple, based upon original documents. 2. Chaps. 7-10. Account of Ezra's going up to Jerusa lem in 458 B.C. and the reforms he instituted. IV. Theme. The purpose of the book was to give a connected popular history from the priestly standpoint of the re- establishment of the Jews in their land. This purpose explains the silence of the author concerning the whole period from the completion of the temple (516 B.C.) till his own journey to Jerusalem (458 B.C.). The only glimpse the Bible gives into this period is from the Book of Esther. It was apparently a time of spiritual declension and intermarriage with the sur rounding peoples (Ezra 9:1-4). Such a time fur nished no material for the historian of the regeneration of Israel. While the books of Haggai and Zechariah shed a side light upon Ezra 1-6, the remaining history in Ezra and Nehemiah has no parallel in the Old Testa ment. The canonical history appropriately closes with the establishment of Israel in their land, as though awaiting the coming of Christ. V. Authorship and Composition. The modern critical opinion is that the book of Ezra is a compilation, based partly on memoirs of Ezra EZEA-NEHEMIAH 335 which received its present form probably by the same author as Chronicles, a full century after Ezra. The first two verses of Ezra are the same as the last two of Chronicles. The portions in which the pronoun "I" is used (7: 29 through chapter 9) are acknowledged by some critics to be the work of Ezra but those in which he is mentioned in the third person ( Chap. 1 ; 3 : 1 to 4: 5 ; 4 : 24 to 5 : 5 ; 6 : 13-22 ; 7 : 1-10 and chapter 10) are assigned to the compiler. The remainder of the book consists of older documents. The arguments for the critical view are as follows: 1. Ezra being joined to Chronicles on the one hand and Nehemiah on the other, the evidences of the later production of these books are thought to carry down Ezra to a later time. Answer. — These evidences will be considered in their proper places. Since Ezra and Nehemiah are inde pendent books, marks of a late date in the latter do not prove the same for the former. And even if, as seems possible, Ezra and Chronicles were by the same author, there is nothing in either book which precludes the theory that that author was Ezra himself. 2. The change from the first to the third person and the mention of Ezra by name is thought to have been impossible if the book was the work of one writer. Answer. — The same change of person is found in Daniel whose integrity is almost universally admitted. One of the passages where this change of person is used is genealogical (7:1-10) and therefore Ezra's name is required, though written by himself. Possi bly the " I " passages are taken from a journal made at the time (7: 27-28) while the others were added later by Ezra. If so the impersonal style is quite natural. 336 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION 3. The remarks about Ezra (7:6, 10) are thought to be strange if made by himself. Answer. — They are not more laudatory than those of a faithful historian should be. They are needed to explain the story and the latter one exhibits a knowledge of Ezra's thoughts which argues that he wrote it. 4. The silence of the book concerning the sixty years before Ezra's time is taken as evidence that it was not written by him or in his time. Answer. — This objection is met by a consideration of the purpose of the book already stated. 5. It is said that Ezra would not have placed the section 4 : 6-23, which refers to events in the reigns of Xerxes (485-465 B.C.) and Artaxerxes (465-425 B.C.) where it now stands, before the record of events which transpired under Darius (521-485 B.C.). Answer. — Like every other historian, Ezra finishes one subject before going on to the next, even at the expense of direct chronological sequence. In chapter 4 he gives an account of the movements to hinder the re- establishment of Israel as far as the time of Artaxerxes. In chapter 5 he goes back to give the other side of the story, the persistence of the Jews in their work, begin ning with the reign of Darius. 6. The mention of Johanan (10:6), probably the same as Jonathan (Neh. 12:10, 22), the grandson of Eliashib, the high-priest in Ezra's day, is said to be a sign of a later author. Answer. — Johanan is not mentioned as high-priest in Ezra's time. As heir to that office he had a chamber adjoining the temple. Since a grandson of Eliashib is known to have been married in 432 B.C. (Neh. 13 : 28) EZEA-NEHEMIAH 337 why may not another grandson have been a youth when Ezra wrote (450-445 B.C.) ? 7. The title "king of Persia" (Ezra 1:1 to 2:8; 3:7; 4:3, 5, 7, 24; 7:1) is said to indicate another and later author. In the " I " passages Ezra speaks simply of "the king" (Ezra 7:27; 8:1, 22, 25, 36) as in the documents quoted (Ezra 4:8, etc.). It is affirmed that after the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, his title and that of his successors was "King of Babylon," " King of the lands," etc. Answer. — The titles "the king" and "king of Persia" are found together in the same passage (Ezra 1 : 1-2, 7-8; 7:1, 7) interchangeably as an Englishman might speak of "the king of England" or of "the king." The title " king of Persia " occurs in a document of Cyrus (Ezra 1:2) and in at least one genuine passage of Ezra (9:9). Darius calls himself " king of Persia " in the Behistun inscription. Thus there is sufficient authority for it in Ezra's time. The traditional view, that Ezra wrote this entire book is sustained. The Aramaic documents are em bedded in the history and the book displays a uniform plan throughout. It was written during the period of adversity which preceded the arrival of Nehemiah. Since the latter event occurred in 445 B.C. the book may be dated 450-445 B.C. VI. Chronology. The decree of Cyrus allowing re turn from the Exile 536 B.C. Cambyses 529-521 B.C. Pseudo-Smerdis (seven months). 521 B.C. Darius Hystaspis 521-485 B.C. Eebuilding of the temple 520-516 B.C. 338 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Xerxes 1 485-465 B.C. Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) 465-425 B.C. Ezra's Mission to Jerusalem 458 B.C. Nehemiah appointed Governor of Judea 445 B.C. Xerxes II (two months) 425 B.C. Sogdianus (seven months) 425 B.C. Darius II (Nothus) 424-395 B.C. EZEA-NEHEMIAH 339 (2) Nehemiah I. Name. In modern editions of the Hebrew Bible the book is named njpnj from its alleged author (Neh. 1 : 1) and principal character, although in ancient times it was counted with Ezra. The name means "whom Jehovah hath comforted." In the Septuagint it is named Neep(a$ and in the Vulgate Liber secundus Esdrse or Liber Nehemias. The English form of the name follows the Hebrew. II. Theme. Though like Ezra written from the priestly standpoint, the Book of Nehemiah is more secular than Ezra. A space of several years intervened between the last events recorded in Ezra and the first in Nehemiah. During this time the reforms instituted by Ezra seem to have been largely undone and the people of Jerusalem to have come under the oppression of foreigners. The Book of Nehemiah records his mission from Shushan to Jerusalem in 445 B.C., the building of the wall, the opposition he encountered from San- ballat and Tobijah, the reforms he instituted, his second mission to Jerusalem in 433 B.C., his further reforms and the census of the princes, priests, and Levites. III. Divisions. 1. Chapters 1-7. The rebuilding of the walls and the reforms instituted at Nehemiah's first visit. 2. Chapters 8-10. The public reading of the Law. The keeping of the feast of tabernacles and the covenant to keep the Law. 3. Chapter 11-13. Lists of princes, priests and 340 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Levites. The reforms of Nehemiah at his second visit in 433 B.C. IV. Authorship and Composition. The book is considered by the critics one with Ezra and both are assigned to the same author as Chronicles in the beginning of the Greek period (333 B.C.). Like Ezra, Nehemiah is considered a compilation based in part upon memoirs of Nehemiah himself. Neh. 1 : 1 to 7 : 73 is admitted to be almost word for word from Nehemiah, while chapters 11, 12 (27-43) and 13 (1-31) are thought to be slightly altered from Nehemiah. The remainder of the book is assigned to a later writer. The arguments for the critical position are as follows : 1. Part of the book is in the third person and Nehe miah is mentioned (8:1-6 etc.). Nehemiah is called the Tirshatha (8:9; 10:1) although he calls himself Pehah (5:14, 18; 12:26). Answer. — This may be explained satisfactorily in the same manner as in the Book of Ezra. The passages in which the third person is used are state documents or such as require the mention of Nehemiah officially by his name and title. The official Persian title Tirsha tha is found in the more formal passages and the com moner Pehah in the more personal. 2. Jaddua, the high-priest in B.C. 351-331, who held office when Alexander the Great entered the city, is men tioned (Neh. 12:11, 22). Answer. — The references to Jaddua occur in a cata logue of priests and Levites which is not an essential part of the book and might have been a later addition. Even this conclusion, however, is made unnecessary when we see that Jaddua is not mentioned as holding the office of high-priest at the time. He was the great EZEA-NEHEMIAH 341 grandson of Eliashib, the high-priest in Nehemiah's day. Since Nehemiah mentions a grandson of Eliashib as married in his time (13 : 28) why may he not have lived to see Eliashib's great-grandson and mention him as an heir to the priesthood ? This is confirmed by the tradition that Jaddua was very old when Alexander entered the city (332 B.C.). If he were ninety at that time, he might have been known to Nehemiah through out his boyhood. At any rate he and the others with him are mentioned as living in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra (12:26). 3. Darius the Persian, mentioned in the same verse as Jaddua, is thought from the context to be Darius Codomannus (336-332 B.C.) Neh. 12:22. Answer. — Since this verse mentions Jaddua not as high-priest but as heir to that office and in his boyhood, the Darius is Darius Nothus (424-395 B.C.). 4. The days of Nehemiah are mentioned as far past (Neh. 12:26,47). Answer. — In each case the expression " days of Nehe miah" is in connection with that of the days of some one before his time. It is natural that Nehemiah should use a similar expression concerning his own time to that which he had used concerning the times of his prede cessors. Over against these arguments for a late date the internal evidence strongly indicates that the book was written by Nehemiah. It is headed: "the words of Nehemiah, the son of Hachaliah " and Nehemiah speaks in the first person many times. Its composition may be placed in the reign of Darius Nothus (424-395 B.C.). It was written in the time of Malachi. Ill CHEONICLES I. Name. These two books were originally one. In the Hebrew Bibles the name is town nan meaning an nals (I Chron. 27:24). In the Septuagint they are separated and called HapaXsmophtav Ttpwrov and SsbTspov. This term means " omissions " and is thought by some to refer to the fact that these books contain many things not found in Samuel and Kings. The Vulgate trans literates this name (Liber primus Paralipomenon and Liber secundus Paralipomenon). Jerome however translates Cpjn na"! by chronicon — hence the English name Chronicles. The division into two books was introduced into the Hebrew Bible in the printed edition of Daniel Bomberg (1521 A.D.). II. Theme. From the position of the Books of Chronicles in the Hebrew canon and the examination of their contents, their main points of distinction from the Books of Samuel and Kings are clearly seen. While the Books of Samuel and Kings are written from the prophetic standpoint, the Chronicles are from the priestly. 1. Very great prominence is given to genealogies as was to be expected from a priest. They are carried back into the history covered by the books before Samuel. 2. In dealing with the history of the kings the priestly Chronicler naturally omits the history of Saul and of the northern kingdom, since Saul was not of the 342 CHEONICLES 343 faithful line and since the history of Israel furnished no material for the unfolding of his subject, the develop ment of the true worship of Jehovah at Jerusalem. In particular he omits the history of Elijah and Elisha whose ministry was in the northern kingdom and to whom the prophetic writer of Kings naturally gave great prominence because they marked a stage in the development of prophetism. 3. On the other hand the Chronicler gives a fuller account than Kings of all those things which relate to the priestly worship. Such are the arrangements of the Levites and the temple-singers, David's preparations for building the temple, the devotion of the Kings of Judah to the temple worship, and the relation of the rightful kings of David's dynasty to the worship of Jehovah in Jerusalem. Thus the Chronicles furnish a history of the priestly worship from the death of Saul to the decree of Cyrus, the very point where the Book of Ezra takes up the history. III. Divisions. Since these books continue the his tory without a break at the disruption of the kingdom under Jeroboam, they are properly divided into two parts. 1. Genealogies, especially those relating to the faith ful tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi from Adam to the death of Saul and Jonathan. I Chron. 1-10. 2. The history of the kingdom of Judah from the accession of David to the decree of Cyrus permitting the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem. I Chron. 11 to II Chron. 36. The greater prominence given to the reigns of David and Solomon is due to their special activity concerning the worship of the temple. IV. Date and Authorship. According to current 344 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION critical opinion, the Books of Chronicles were written soon after the beginning of the Greek period (about 300 B.C.) and by the same author as Ezra and Nehe miah. The arguments for this position are as follows: 1. The genealogy in I Chron. 3 : 17-24 is said to be carried down to the sixth or according to the Septuagint (which is preferred by Cornill and others) to the eleventh generation after Zerubbabel. Thus it extends several generations after Ezra and could not have been written by him. Answer. — The critics admit that this is the only his torical evidence of a late date in these books. An ex amination of the passage does not warrant the conclu sion derived from it. In this chapter the author gives the descendants of David. In verses 19-20 he mentions the sons of Zerubbabel and in verse 21a the grandsons of Zerubbabel. Then verse 21b reads : " The sons of Eephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shecaniah." Now there is no evidence whatever that these are four successive generations after the grandsons of Zerubbabel. The usual formula changes after verse 21a and these four names are added to the genealogy out of the chronological order. The argument from the reading of the Septuagint need not be consid ered, because the evidence shows that the text of the Septuagint is not as reliable, as the Massoretic text. 2. The language of Chronicles is said to be late. Answer. — True, but since it is acknowledged to be like the language of Ezra and Nehemiah, the books are admitted by the critics to have come from the same time. The time was that of Ezra and Nehemiah. 3. Since the critics affirm that Ezra and Nehemiah CHEONICLES 345 were written by the Chronicler, the arguments for a later date of these books are applied also to Chronicles. Answer. — These arguments have been met in their proper place. Since they are not sufficient to prove the books of Ezra and Nehemiah later than those authors, they cannot prove Chronicles later than Ezra. The mention of the Persian coin " darics " (I Chron. 29 : 7) shows that the books were written before the beginning of the Greek period. Nor can this word indicate a time in the Persian period after Darius Hystaspis and so after Ezra, for Sayce refers to the use of that word under Nabonidus and affirms that it was borrowed by the Persians from the Babylonians (Introduction to Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther pp. 40- 41). The traditional Jewish view considered Ezra the author of Chronicles. While this cannot be proved, the position of the book in the canon, the closing of its history at the very point where that of Ezra begins and its style make it possible if not probable. At any rate the date of the book must have been about 450-425 B.C. The fact that Ezra is a continuation of it, seems to indicate that Chronicles was written first and if so about 450 B.C. V. Sources. The Chronicler makes extensive use of the official records of Israel as well as of the books of the Pentateuch, Samuel and Kings. The extra-canon ical books referred to by him are the Book of Nathan the prophet (I Chron. 29:29; II Chron. 9:29), the Book of Gad the seer (I Chron. 29 : 29), the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (II Chron. 9 : 29), the Visions of Iddo the seer (II Chron. 9:29; 12:15), the Book of Shemaiah the prophet (II Chron. 12: 15), the Com- 346 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION mentary of the prophet Iddo (II Chron. 13 : 22) and the commentary of the book of the Kings (II Chron. 24:27). The book of the Kings which he possessed seems also to have contained matter not found in our Book of Kings (I Chron. 9 : 1; II Chron. 27 : 7; 33 : 18; 36:8). VI. Credibility. On account of the alleged lateness of the book and of the sources referred to in it, its evi dent didactic aim, its variations from Samuel and Kings especially in the use of larger numbers, and the improb ability of some of its independent statements, the Book of Chronicles is considered by many critics a work of secondary historical value, decidedly inferior to the Books of Samuel and Kings. On the other hand there are several considerations which indicate the trustworthiness of these boohs. 1. The fact that he referred to his authorities at all shows that the Chronicler was not a careless historian. This he does more than any other Old Testament writer. 2. The noteworthy agreement in most particulars between Samuel and Kings on the one hand and Chron icles on the other is evidence of the reliability of Chronicles. Some of the divergences may be due to textual errors, others can be easily reconciled, and the remainder could be reconciled if our knowledge of the full facts of the history were complete. Since the Chronicler had the books of Samuel and Kings before him and held them in high esteem, it is not likely that he would insert statements in his book in direct opposi tion to them. 3. The priestly tone and purpose of the books no more discredit them than the prophetic tone and purpose of Samuel and Kings discredit those books. There is no CHEONICLES 347 evidence that this purpose caused the Chronicler to misrepresent the facts. Indeed the priestly origin of the author confirms his statements on points where a priest would be specially informed by Levitical tradition. 4. There is a greater probability of textual errors in the numbers than in any other elements of the book. But the same is true of the numbers of all other books of the Old Testament. Errors of this kind in the exist ing text are no evidence of general inaccuracy in the record. 5. As in the Book of Daniel mere improbabilities in statements is certainly only a secondary argument against the credibility of the book. DATES OF OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS B.C. Pentateuch 1300 Joshua 1200 Judges 1050 Samuel 1025 Kings Soon after 586 Isaiah 758-697 Jeremiah 627-586 Ezekiel 592-570 Hosea 785-725 Joel 875-865 Amos 795-785 Obadiah 742-726 Jonah 825-784 Micah 745-700 Nahum 623 Habakkuk 608-600 Zephaniah 626-621 Haggai 520 Zechariah 520-475 Malachi 433 Psalms 1075-425 Proverbs 1000-700 Job 1000 Song of Solomon 1000 349 DATES OF OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS* B.C. Euth 1050 Lamentations 586 Ecciesiastes 433 Esther Before 425 Daniel 605-539 Ezra 450-445 Nehemiah , 420 Chronicles 450 BIBLIOGRAPHY The Entire Subject. Keil. Introduction to the Old Testament. Edinburgh 1869. Bleak. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Berlin 1870. W. R. Smith. The Old Testament in the Jewish Church. New York 1881. Wellhausen. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Edinburgh 1885. C. H. H. Wright. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York 1891. Konig. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Bonn 1893. Sayce. Higher Criticism and the Monuments. London Cornill. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Leipzig 1896. Strack. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Munich 1898. Kautzsch. The Literature of the Old Testament. Lon don 1898. Baudissin. Die Biicher des Alten Testamentes. Leipzig 1901. Driver. Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa- *" ment. Edinburgh 1902. McFadyen. Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church. New York 1903. Whitelaw. Old Testament Critics. London 1903. General Introduction. Buhl. Canon and Text of the Old Testament. Edin burgh 1892. Green. General Introduction. New York 1899. Gigot. General Introduction. New York 1901. 351 352 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION 1. The Canon. Reuss. History of the Canon. Edinburgh 1887. S. Davidson. Canon of the Old Testament. London 1876. Ryle. Canon of the Old Testament. London 1892. Wildeboer. Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament. London 1895. 2. The Text. Studia Biblica. Vol. III. Oxford 1891. Coppinger. The Bible and its Transmission. London 1897. Ginsburg. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edi tion of the Hebrew Bible. London 1897. Kittel. tiber die Notwendigkeit und Moglichkeit Einer Neuen Ausgebe der Hebraischeri Bibel. Leipzig 1902 3. The Semitic Languages. Renan. Histoire generale des langues semitiques. Paris 1863. Fried. Delitzsch. Prolegomena eines neuen Hebr-Aram. Worterbuchs. Leipzig 1886. W. Wright. Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Lan guages. Cambridge 1890. Zimmern. Vergleichende Grammatik der Semitischen Sprachen. Berlin 1898. Noldeke. Die Semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig 1899. (Based upon the article " Semitic Languages " in the Encyclopedia Britannica.) Konig. Hebraisch und Semitisch. 1901. The Pentateuch. Green. The Pentateuch Vindicated. New York 1863. Keil andJQelitzsch. Commentary. Edinburgh 1875. Green. Hebrew Feasts. New York 1885. Bissell. The Pentateuch. New" York 1885. Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes. New York 1886. Kuenen. The Hexateuch. London 1886. Briggs. Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. New York 1893. BIBLIOGEAPHY 353 Rupprecht. Das Ratsel des Fiinfbuches Mose. Giitersloh French (Editor). Lex Mosaica. London 1894. Hommel. The Ancient Hebrew Tradition. New York 1897. W. Moller. Are the Critics Right? New York 1899. MargolioutE. Lines of Defence of a Biblical Revelation. New York 1902. McFadyen. Messages of the Prophetic and Priestly His torians. New York 1901. Green. Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. New York — reos: 1. Genesis. T. Lewis in Lance's Commentary. New York 1884. Delitzsch. New Commentary. New York 1889. Bacon. The Genesis of Genesis. Hartford 1892. Strack in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1894. Dillmann. Commentary. Edinburgh 1897. Green. Unity oi Genesis., New York 1897. Ryle. Early Narratives of Genesis. London 1900. Dods in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Mitchell. The World before Abraham. New York 1901. Gunkel in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1902. 2. Exodus. Mead in Lange's Commentary. New York 1876. Bacon. Exodus. Hartford 1894. Strack in Kurzegefasster Kommentar. Munich 1894. Chadwick in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Baentsch In Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1903. 3. Leviticus. Bonar. Commentary. New York 1851. Kalisch. Historical and Critical Commentary. London 1872. Strack in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1894. Kellogg in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Baentsch in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1903. 4. Numbers. Dillmann in Kurzgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch. Leipzig 1886. 354 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Strack in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1894. Watson in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Baentsch in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1903. Gray in International Critical Commentary. New York 1903. 5. Deuteronomy. Dillmann in Kurzgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch. Leipzig 1886. Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1893. Driver in International Critical Commentary. New York 1895. A. Harper in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Steuernagel in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1900. Joshua. Keik- Commentary. Edinburgh 1857. Keiljtnd Delitsch. Edinburgh 1869. "Maclear in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1880. Dillman in Kurzgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch. Leipzig 1886. Strack in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1894. Steuernagel in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1900. B_laikieJn_Expijfijtor's Bible. New York 1900. McFadyen. Messages of the Prophetic and Priestly Historians. New York 1901. Judges. Keil and Delitzsch. Edinburgh 1869. deTm~m-Kurzgefa^ster Kommentar. Munich 1893. Moore in International Critical Commentary. New York 1895. Lias in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1896. Watson in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. McFadyen. Messages of Prophetic and Priestly His torians. New York 1901. Nowack in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1902. Samuel. Keil and Delitzsch. Edinburgh 1866. Kirkpatrick in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1881. BIBLIOGEAPHY 355 Klostermann in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1887. Driver. Notes on the Text of Samuel. Oxford 1890. Edersheim. Bible History. New York 1894. Girdlestone. Deuterographs. Oxford 1894. Crockett. Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. New York 1897. H. P. Smith in International Critical Commentary. New York 1899. Blaikie in Expositarls Bible. New York 1900. McFadyen. Messages of the Prophetic and Priestly His torians. New York 1901. Nowack in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1902. Kings. Keil and Bertheau. Commentary. Edinburgh 1857. Klostermann in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1887. Edersheim. Bible History. New York 1894. Girdlestone. " Deuterographs. Oxford 1894. Lumby in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1896. Crockett. Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. New York 1897. Farrar in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Kittel in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1900. McFadyen. Messages of the Prophetic and Priestly His torians. New York 1901. Burney. Notes on the Hebrew Text of Kings. Oxford 1903. Hebrew Prophecy. Fairbairn. Prophecy. New York 1866. Hfingstenhexg__ Christology of the Old Testament. Edinburgh 1868. Payne Smith. Prophecy a Preparation for Christ. Lon don 1869. Jlloag^ Messianic Prophecies. Edinburgh 1879. W. R. Smith. The Prophets of Israel. New York 1882. Edersheim. Prophecy and History. London 1885. Orelli. Old Testament Prophecy. Edinburgh 1885. 356 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Briggs. Messianic Prophecy. New York 1886. Delitzsch. Messianic Prophecy. New York 1891. KirkpatHck. Doctrine of the Prophets. London 1892. Woods. The Hope of Israel. Edinburgh 1896. Cornill. The Prophets of Israel. Chicago 1897. Riehm. Messianic Prophecy. Edinburgh 1900. Goodspeed. Israel's Messianic Hope. New York 1900. Davidson. Old Testament Prophecy. Edinburgh 1904. Isaiah. Alexander. Commentary. New York 1846. Mjtthewjy-jaQliJ, Isaiah 40-66. London 1875. Cheyne. Commentary. London 1880. Sayce. Times of Isaiah. New York (no date). Delitzsch. Commentary. New York 1891. Orelli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1891. Kennedy. Argument for Unity of Isaiah. London 1891. Douglas. Isaiah One and His Book One. New York 1895. Cheyne. Introduction to Book of Isaiah. London 1895. Skinner in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1897-8. Konig^ Exiles' Book of Consolation. Edinburgh 1899. Sanders and Kent. Messages of the Earlier Prophets. New York 1899. Sanders and Kent. Messages of the Later Prophets. New York 1899. G. A. Smith in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Duhm in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1902. Jeremiah. Keil. Commentary. Edinburgh 1873. Streane in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1881. Orelli. Commentary. Edinburgh 1889. Orelli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1891. Giesebrecht in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1894. Sanders and Kent. Messages of the Earlier Prophets. New York 1899. Ball in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Ezekiel. Fairbairn. Commentary. Edinburgh 1863. BIBLIOGEAPHY 357 Keil. Edinburgh 1866. Hengstenberg. Edinburgh 1869. Davidson in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1892. Orelli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1896. Sanders and Kent. Messages of the Later Prophets. New York 1899. Kraetzschmar in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1900. Skinner in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Minor Prophets. Hengstenberg. Christology of the Old Testament. Edin burgh 1861. Keil and Delitzsch. Edinburgh 1868. Ewald. The Prophets of the Old Testament. London 1875. / Pusey. New York 1888. Orelli. Edinburgh 1893. Wellhausen. Die Kleinen Propheten. Berlin 1893. Orelli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1896. Nowack in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1897. Sanders and Kent. Messages of Earlier Prophets. New York 1899. Sanders and Kent Messages of the Later Prophets. New York 1899. G. A. Smith in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Hosea. Cheyne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1884. Harper in International Critical Commentary. New York 1905. Joel. Credner Halle 1831. Driver in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1897. Amos. Driver in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1897. Harper in International Critical Commentary. New York 1905. Obadiah. Perowne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1898. 358 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Jonah. Kalisch. Bible Studies. London 1878. Trumbull. Jonah in Nineveh. Philadelphia 1892. Kennedy. On the Book of Jonah. London 1895. Perowne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1898. Micah. J. Taylor. Massoretic Text and Ancient Versions of Micah. London 1891. Cheyne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1895. Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah. Davidson in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1896. Haggai. Perowne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1897. Zechariah. David Kimchi (translated by A. McCaul). London 1837. Wright (Bampton Lectures for 1878). London 1879. Rubinkam. Second Part of Book of Zechariah. Basel 1892. Perowne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1897. Malachi. Perowne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1896. Hebrew Poetry. Lowth. Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. Andover 1829. Herder. The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry. Burlington (Vt.) 1833. I. Taylor. The Spirit of the Hebrew Poetry. London 1861. Margoliouth. Poetry of the Hebrew Pentateuch. Lon don 1871. Ewald in Appendix of Commentary on Psalms. London 1881. Drysdale. Early Bible Songs. London 1890. Casonowicz. Paranomasia in the Old Testament. Boston 1894. BIBLIOGEAPHY 359 Briggs. General Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament. New York 1899. Konig. Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetic. 1900. Psalms. Alexander. Psalms. New York 1852. Hengstenberg. Psalms. Edinburgh 1869. Delitzsch. Psalms. Edinburgh 1873. Fausset, Studies in the Psalms. London 1873. Ewald. Psalms. London 1880. Murray. Origin and Growth of the Psalms. New York 1880. Spurgeon. Treasury of David. New York 1882. Ker. The Psalms in History and Biography. l New York 1886. Van Dyke. The Story of the Psalms. New York 1887. Cheyne. The Book of Psalms. New York 1888. Wm. Alexander. Witness of the Psalms to Christ (Bamp ton Lectures). London 1890. Walsh. Voices of the Psalms. New York 1890. Cheyne. Historical Origin and Religious Ideas of the Psalter (Bampton Lectures). London 1891. De Witt. The Psalms. New York 1891. Perowne. The Psalms. London 1892. Kirkpatrick in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1897. Baethgen in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1897. James Robertson. The Poetry and Religion of the Psalms. New York 1898. Davison. The Praises of Israel. London 1898. Kessler in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1899. Cheyne. The Christian Use of the Psalms. New York 1900. Maclaren in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Prothero. The Psalms in Human Life. New York 1903. Cheyne. The Book of Psalms. New York 1904. Proverbs. Delitzsch. The Proverbs. Edinburgh 1874. Cheyne. Job and Solomon. New York 1887. Davison. Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament. London 1894. 360 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Kent. The Wise Men of Ancient Israel. Boston 1895. Frankenberg in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1898. Strack in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich 1899. Perowne in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1899. Toy in International Critical Commentary. New York 1899. Horton in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Job. Hengstenberg in Commentary on Ecciesiastes. Phila delphia 1860. Delitzsch. Job. Edinburg 1866. Froude. Short Studies on Great Subjects (Series 1) New York 1870. Green. Argument of the Book of Job. New York 1873. Godet in Biblical Studies on the Old Testament. London 1879. Davidson in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1884. Cheyne. Job and Solomon. New York 1887. Bradley. Lectures on Job. Oxford 1887. Gilbert. The Poetry of Job. Chicago 1889. Volck in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889. Budde in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1896. Watson in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Genung. Epic of the Inner Life. New York 1900. Song of Solomon. Ginsburg. The Song of Songs. London 1857. Hengstenberg in Commentary on Ecciesiastes. Phila delphia 1860. A. M. Stuart. Song of Songs. London 1877. Cheyne. Job and Solomon. New York 1887. Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889. Griffis. The Lily among Thorns. New York 1890. Delitzsch. Song of Songs. Edinburgh 1891. Siegfried in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1898. Adeney in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Ruth. Wright. The Book of Ruth. London 1864. Keil. Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, Edinburgh 1875. BIBLIOGEAPHY 361 Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889. Watson in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Nowack in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1902. Lamentations. Keil in Commentary on Jeremiah. Edinburgh 1874. Streane in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1881. Ewald in Psalms Vol. II. London 1881. Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889. Lohr in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1893. Adeney in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Ecciesiastes. Hengstenberg. Commentary. Philadelphia 1860. Ginsburg. Coheleth. London 1861. Plumptre in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1881. Wright. Donnellan Lectures. London 1883. Bradley. Lectures on Ecciesiastes. Oxford 1885. Cheyne. Job and Solomon. New York 1887. Volck in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889. Delitzsch Commentary. Edinburgh 1891. Siegfried in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1898. Cox in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Esther. Keil. Commentary. Edinburgh 1873. Sayce. Introduction to Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. London 1885. Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. NSrdlingen 1889. Haley. The Book of Esther. Andover 1895. Adeney in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Seigfried in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1901. Daniel. Stuart. Commentary. Boston 1850. Tregelles. Defence of the Authenticity of Daniel. Lon don 1852. Fuller. Essay on the Authenticity of Daniel. Cambridge 1864. Meinhold in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889, 362 OLD TESTAMENT INTEODUCTION Pusey. Daniel the Prophet. New York 1891. Keil. Commentary. Edinburgh 1891. Bevan. Short Commentary on Daniel. Cambridge 1892. Behrmann in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1894. Kennedy. The Book of Daniel from the Christian's Standpoint. London 1898. Prince. Commentary. New York 1899. Farrar in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Driver in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1900. Anderson. Daniel in the Critics' Den. New York 1902. Ezra and Nehemiah. Keil. Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. Edinburgh 1873. Sayce. Introduction to Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther. London 1885. Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordingen 1889. Hunter. After the Exile. Edinburgh 1890. Ryle in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1893. Torrey. The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra and Nehemiah. Giessen 1896. Adeney in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900. Siegfried in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1901. Chronicles. Keil. Chronicles. Edinburgh 1872. Oettli in Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Nordlingen 1889. Girdlestone. Deuterographs. Oxford 1894. Crockett. Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. New York 1897. Barnes in Cambridge Bible. Cambridge 1899. Bennett in Expositor's Bible. New York 1900 Kittel in Hand Kommentar. Gottingen 1902.