Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/criticalintroducOOgrayrich A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES IN THEOLOGY Christianity and Ethics. Bv Archibald B. D. Alexander, M.A., D.D. The Environment of Early Christianity. By S. Angus, M.A., Ph.D. History of the Study of Theology. Vol. I. «' " " VoLIL By Dr. C. A. Briggs. The Christian Hope. By W. Adams Brown, Ph.D., D.D. Christianity and Social Questions. By William Cunningham, F.B.A., D.D., D.Sc The Justification of God. By Rev. P. T. Forsyth. Christian Apologetics. By Rev. A. E. Garvie. A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament. By George Buchanan Gray, D.D., D.Litt. Gospel Origins. By William West Holdsworth, M.A. Faith and Its Psychology. By William R. Inge, D.D. Christianity and Sin. By Robert Mackintosh, D.D. Protestant Thought Before Kant. By A. C. McGiFFERT, Ph.D., D.D. The Theology of the Gospels. By James Moffatt, D.D., D.Litt. History of Christian Thought Since Kant By Edward Caldwell Moore, D. D. The Doctrine of the Atonement. By J. K. MozLEY, M.A. Revelation and Inspiration. By James Orr, D.D. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament By Arthur Samuel Peake, D.D. Philoso^y and Religion. By Hastings Rashdall, D.Litt. (Oxon.), D.CXi (Durham), F.B.A. The Holy Spirit By T. Rees, M.A. (Lond.), B.A. (Oxon.). The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament By H. Wheeler Robinson, M.A. The Text and Canon of the New Testament By Alexander Souter, D.Litt. Christian Thought to the Reformation. By Herbert B. Workman, D.Litt. The Theology of the Epistles. By H. A. A. Kennedy, D.Sc., DJ>. The Pharisees and Jesus. By A. T. Rouertson, A.M., D.D., LL.D, The Originality of the Christian Message. By H. R. Mackintosh, D.D., D.Phil. A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT BY GEORGE BUCHANAN GRAY D.D., D.LITT. PROFESSOR OF HEBREW AND OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS IN MANSFIELD COLLEGE, OXFORD NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1920 57 PREFACE Iw spite of the fact that it is customary to bind it in a single volume, the Old Testament contains a considerable body of literature. Yet, if that literature were simply and unquestionably the product of the small number of authors recognised by * tradition,' though there would be a place for histories of Hebrew literature, there would be little or none for what it has become customary to call critical introductions. But * tradition ' is no longer really accepted even by * conservative ' scholars : they may, indeed, maintain, for example, that the Pentateuch is the work of Moses, but they recognise at the same time that it has received additions from later hands than his, additions, too, of considerably greater extent than the record of Moses" death, which even Jewish * tradition ' admitted, though not imanimously, to have been written by another. The inquiries, then, with which critical introductions are concerned, are necessary, and the real difficulty is to do justice to them within the compass of a small volume. What I have attempted is to show first of all that a problem exists, that tradition is inadequate to explain the facts which are revealed by any careful study of the several books. The actual solution of the various problems can often be but very partial ; and the answers to many of the questions that arise tentative, and far from certain. To many of the problems many different solutions or variations of the same solution have been given. It 418771 ■ vi CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT would have been impossible to give even an inadequate account of all of these, and I determined to devote my allotted space to as full a presentation of the evidence as possible, and an indication of one or two of the more probable conclusions, or at least of the direction in which such conclusions must be sought. Under the circum- stances I felt it best to take upon myself in most cases the responsibility for the conclusions suggested, lest for lack of space I might do injustice to the form in which other scholars have previously presented them. For this reason, there is less allusion in the body of the work to other scholars than there would otherwise have been; and it is all the more important, therefore, to state here once for all that beyond the selection and presentation of the material, and now and again, perhaps, a fresh turn to an argument, this volume lays no claim to originality, and that the names of scholars in whose footsteps I have followed, or of whose work I have availed myself, will be found, if not in the main body of the work, in the Bibliography at the end. I have written my book throughout with a view to being intelligible to those who are unfamiliar with Hebrew. For a just estimate of the often very important linguistic evidence a knowledge of Hebrew is, indeed, necessary : but for the most part I have confined myself to indicating the general character and significance of this evidence, and would refer the reader who wishes to consider it more fully to the larger work of Dr. Driver in which it is so admirably collected and interpreted. For the rest, though the subject can doubtless be better pursued by making a constant use of the Hebrew Bible, the arguments can, I believe, be sufficiently followed with the help of a good translation; and though, wherever possible, it will be PREFACE vii wise to make use of a more critical translation, such as some of the more recent commentaries and other works mentioned in the BibUography contain, the Revised Version, which is for all critical study incomparably superior to the Authorised Version, will in general suffice, especially if care- ful use is made of the margins, which contain so much of the most valuable work of the Revisers. The several books are discussed in the order in which they stand in the EngUsh Bible, with three exceptions, and these will, I trust, cause no inconvenience : I have grouped Ruth with Esther at the end of the historical books. Lamentations with the non-prophetical, poetical books, and reserved Daniel for the last chapter. Chapter xiv. is reprinted with some shght alterations, and the omission of sections on the titles and religious characteristics of the Psalter (which would not have fallen within the scope of the present work), from the article * Psalms' in Dr. Hastings's Dictionary oj the. Bible in One Volume* I take this opportunity of gratefully acknow- ledging the courtesy of the publishers, Messrs. T. and T. Clark, who kindly gave me permission to reproduce these portions of the article. G. BUCHANAN GRAY. SepUmiber 1912. CONTENTS 9AQ9 PRBFACB ••••••r>V CHAPTER I INTRODUCTOET ....•• I CHAPTER II HISTORICAL LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY • . 7 CHAPTER III THE PENTATEUCH I TRADITION AND CRITICISM , . .13 CHAPTER IV THE PENTATEUCH : ITS SOURCES • » • .18 CHAPTER V THE PENTATEUCH : DATES OP THE SOURCES . • .81 CHAPTER VI THE PENTATEUCH : ITS ORIGINS AND THE HISTORY OF ITS GROWTH ......* 39 CHAPTER VII THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS : (1) JOSHUA AND JUDQES . 52 CHAPTER VIII THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS : (2) I. IL SAMUEL . • 66 CHAPTER IX THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS : (3) I. IL KINGS • • 76 X CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT CHAPTER X PAOB THB LATER HI8TORI0AL BOOKS : (1) L II. CHRONICLBS . 87 CHAPTER XI THB LATER HISTORICAL BOOKS : (2) EZRA AND NEHEMIAH . 97 CHAPTER XU >IUTH AND ESTHER . . . « .108 CHAPTER XIII JOB • • • • • • 115 CHAPTER XIV PSALMS • • • . . • • . 128 CHAPTER XV PROVERBS • • . . • • .142 CHAPTER XVI ECCLESIASTS8 • • . • • •149 CHAPTER XVII THE BONO or 80NQ8 ...••• 155 CHAPTER XVIII LAMENTATIom ...••• t 1C3 CHAPTER XIX THE FEOPHETIO UTERATURS : INTRODUCTORY • • • 168 CHAPTER XX ISAIAH •«•..••• 178 CHAPTER XXI JEREMIAH • . . . 189 BZEKIKL • THE TWELVE PROPHETS HOSEA JOEL AMOS OBADIAH JONAH HICAH NAHUM HABAKKUE ZEPHANIAH HAOQAI . ZECHARIAH HALACHI • CONTENTS CHAPTER XXII • • • CHAPTER XXIII DANIEL BlBLIOQRAFHT • Ikdkjc • • CHAPTER XXIV rAOB . 198 . 203 . 204 . 207 . 210 . 213 . 215 . 217 . 220 . 221 . 225 . 226 . 227 , 231 . 240 • S49 A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CHAPTER I INTRODUCTOBT Before the New Testament was written, the Old Testament formed the sacred Scriptures of the Christian community ; for Christianity, springing out of Judaism, had from its birth these sacred Scriptures of the earlier religion. It was but gradually that a selection from the Uterature written by members of the Christian community itself acquired an authoritative and sacred character, and so became part of the Christian Scriptures ; and, even then, the distinction between what had first ranked as Scriptures, and what only later acquired the same authoritative character, was kept clear. This distinction has never been obliterated, and the division of the Christian Bible into Old Testament and New Testament is a standing witness to an important historical fact. The Old Testament, the Jewish Bible, had itself had a similar history, though this is unfortunately concealed in the Enghsh version in much the same way that the history of the Christian Bible would have been concealed, if the Old and New Testaments, instead of being kept distinct, had been fused, and the Gospels and Acts, as historical books, placed among the historical books of the Old Testa- ment. On the other hand, the Hebrew Bible both by its title and its arrangement bears witness to its history : to an original collection of Scriptures, the Law, there was added, first a collection of prophetic writings, and then / 2 XJI?iTICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTMIENT [cH. another v4ib?:b:iQaBfcefiaiicbus collection. The Hebrew feible is entitled * Law, Prophets, Writings ' from these three collections of which it consists : and these three parts stand in the following order, and contain respectively the following books : — i. Law. — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deutero- nomy. ii. Prophets, — Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, * the Twelve.* iii. Writings, — Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles. Not only, however, is the Old Testament a collection of sacred Scriptures ; it is also a corpus of Hebrew Uterature, including all that survives of what was written before the Exile (586 B.C.), and much of what was written between the Exile and the Christian era. But much else that was written in this later period, though not included in the Canon, also survives, and even in a special study of the canonical books, it is important constantly to bear in mind the existence of extra-canonical hterature, and to compare the examples of any type of hterature within the Canon with other examples of the same types that survive with- out the Canon — Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, for example, with Proverbs and Job, Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs with Daniel, the Psalms of Solomon with the canonical Psalter, Tobit and Judith with Esther. Little even of the canonical Uterature was written with any immediate intention that it should form part of a sacred book ; and consequently an enquiry into the origin and history of this hterature has two quite distinct ques- tions, or sets of questions, to consider : the one question is how and when did the Jewish community accept this literature as sacred and authoritative ; the other question is how and when were the contents of this hterature written. The present volume is immediately concerned with the eecond only of these questions ; the first, the question of I.] INTRODUCTORY 8 the Canon, is reserved for another volume of the series. Yet the two questions though distinct are in certain respects related, and it may be convenient to record here the con- clusions which many have reached and in which the present writer concurs. Parts of the * Law ' were accepted as an - authoritative book as early as Josiah's Reformation in 621 B.C. ; the whole, or substantially the whole, Law was so accepted by 444 B.C. ; the ' Prophets ' became part of Jewish Scripture not improbably soon after 250 B.C. ; and the * Writings ' gradually obtained the same position within the next two or three centuries. Christianity, like Islam, had from the first a sacred book. It was otherwise with the Hebrews. The Hebrew reUgion had already had a long history before its adoption yj. in 621 B.C. of an authoritative docimient ; and a long period during which rehgious Ufe was moulded by custom, or by the words of priest or prophet expounding the will of God, preceded the period when ' that which was written in the law of Moses ' became the regular norm. Much of the contents of the Old Testament was written in the earHer period before the religion of the Hebrews could in any sense be caUed a book rehgion. Again, though the contents of the New, hke that of the Old, Testament were not originally intended to form a sacred volume, yet they were the Hterary expression of a community that was created and maintained by other than national ties ; they sprang out of the conditions and circumstances, and aimed at satisfying the needs, of a religious community. And in this respect, too, the Old Testament is different : parts of it, indeed, and the setting of the whole, are products of post-exilic Judaism, a U^ community which is often described, and with substantial / ^ accuracy, as religious ra^r than national. But in part also the Old Testament consists of the remnants of the earlier national literature of the Hebrews ; and however great may have been the genius of the Hebrews for religion, and however large the part played by religion in hterature even while the Hebrew nation existed, the national genius 4 CRinOAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. certainly expressed itself also in literature that was either in no sense religious, or that was but httle affected by religion. David's elegies over Saul and Jonathan and over Abner are not reUgious poems, nor was Jotham's parable intended to point any religious lesson. The Old Testament, then, consists of (1) the remnants of a national hterature selected and probably adapted for the needs of a community that had become, or was becom- ing, far more rehgious than national in its character, and was passing, or had passed, through the transition from a bookless to a book rehgion ; and (2) literature that was the product of this later reUgious community. Since even this later hterature was not written in the firat instance to form part of the sacred Book, it, too, may have seemed to call for adaptation when it was ultimately included in it. Whether such adaptation either of the earUer national or the later rehgious Hterature actually took place, and to what extent in different cases, must be left for subsequent consideration ; but in attempting any critical inquiry into the origin of the Old Testament it is important con- stantly to bear in mind that it does not, hke the Koran, consist of the work of a single man, the founder of a rehgion, nor, hke the New Testament, of the hterary product of not more than two generations of a rehgious community, but of all that remains of the national hterature of the Hebrews down to the fall of the state in 586 B.C., together with a large part of what remains of the hterature produced by the Jewish rehgious community, whether in Palestine or abroad, between 686 and c. 150 B.C. Two methods of deahng with this hterature are possible : we might, starting with the earhest period, attempt to show how all that survives of each period sprang out of and reflects the circumstances of that period, and so write a history of Hebrew hterature ; but before that can be done it is necessary to determine, as far £is is possible, the date at which and the circumstances under which these several elements came into being : it is this prehminary arxJ analytic process that we have here to follow. Yet even L] INTRODUCTORY 6 this can only be followed to a certain distance within the limits of the present volume ; for the Uteratm-e is in large part anonymous and of uncertain date, and most of the books that compose the Old Testament appear to have reached the form in which we have received them by more or less lengthy and complicated processes of combination, abbreviation, annotation, and rearrangement, which would take long to describe, even if critical analysis had succeeded in rendering these processes in aU respects clear and certain : as a matter of fact, as soon at all events as we pass beyond the main processes, we are faced with much imcertainty which gives rise to many theories; these it would take still longer to state and discuss at all exhaustively. Over against the more or less probable, and sometimes conflicting, conclusions which have been drawn from a critical study of the Old Testament, there is still not in- frequently set what is described as Jewish tradition, or traditional views. In detail these must be left to be referred to as occasion arises ; but it will be convenient at the outset to cite the important summary of Jewish tradition, or, to speak more properly, of Rabbinic criticism (between c. 200 and 500 a.d.), contained in the Talmudic tractate Baba Baihra (146. 15a.) : this passage makes a T^ perfectly definite statement with regard to the writing of each book of the Old Testament ; according to it Moses was the earliest and Ezra the latest of those who wrote the Scriptures : it reads as follows : — * Moses wrote his own book, and the section about Balaam and Job. Joshua wrote his own book, and eight verses in the Torah. Samuel wrote his own book, and the Books ?\ of Judges and Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalms at the direction of the ten elders, the first man, Melchizedek, and Abraham, and Moses, and Heman, and Jeduthun, and Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his own book, and the Book of Kings and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. The men of the Great Synagogue 6 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. wrote Ezekiel, and the Twelve (Minor Prophets), Daniel, and the Roll of Esther. Ezra wrote his own book and the genealogies in Chronicles down to his own time.' This passage contains the prevailing Rabbinic opinion, but what follows indicates clearly that it was opinion not derived from any continuous tradition, but based on a very crude criticism, and that it was not on all points undisputed. Thus the conclusion that Joshua wrote eight verses of the ^^ Law, viz. Deut. xxxiv. 5-12, rests on the inference that it was not possible that * Moses should in his Ufetime have written the words " And he died there " * ; on the contrary another Rabbi argued that when it was said, * Take this book of the law,' the book must have been complete, and consequently that Moses wrote the Law down to the very end. * Verily, up to this point [at which Moses' death is recorded] the Almighty dictated and Moses wrote ; but from that point onwards the Almighty dictated, and Moses 'A wrote with tears.' It was also inferred that the statement in Joshua of Joshua's death was added by Eleazar, of Eleazar's death by Phinehas and the elders, and the statement of Samuel's death in Samuel by Gad and Nathan. The crudeness of the criticism underlying this Rabbinic opinion may be judged from a further illustration : Job was contemporary with Moses, for the same Hebrew particle, epho, occurs in Job xix. 23 and Ex. xxxiii. 16, and Moses wrote the book of Job, for Job expresses the wish that his words were inscribed in a book (Job xix. 23), and Moses is called the ' inscriber * (Deut. xxxiii. 21). iLl HISTORICAL LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER II HISTORICAL LITERATURE: INTRODUCTORY Rather more than half of the Old Testament is history ; included in the historical books is also all that survives of Hebrew law. Before examining the several books in detail it will be convenient to take a survey of the scope of them as a whole, and also to consider in the light of the whole certain methods of Hebrew historians. Opening with narratives of the Creation and early history of the world, the Pentateuch rapidly narrows down to a record of Israel, and the history is carried as far as the first stage of the Israelite conquest of Canaan and the death of Moses ; Joshua and Judges carry on the story of conquest and settlement to the eve of the establishment of the monarchy ; the establishment of the monarchy and the history of the people under it to its fall in 586 B.C. is recorded in Samuel and Kings. Chronicles is a parallel history : it, too, starts with the first man, Adam, and it, too, rapidly narrows down to the history of the chosen people and, narrower in this respect than the other series of books, after the death of Solomon, to the history of the kingdom of Judah only. The narrative is carried rather further than in Kings, to the return from captivity in 537 B.C. From the point at which Chronicles breaks off, Ezra and Nehemiah carry on the story down id the age of Ezra and Nehemiah, i.e. to the year 432 B.C. There remain two books which are not associated in the Hebrew Bible with any of those just mentioned, but which are included in the E. V. in the historical section of the Old Testament : these are (1) Ruth, which relates an episode 8 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [C5H. in the period of the Judges relating to an ancestress of David ; and (2) Esther, which relates an episode in the life of the Jews in Persia at a time immediately previous to Ezra and Nehemiah. Ruth and Esther within, hke the similar books of Judith and Tobit without, the Canon thus stand outside both of the two series of narratives which bring down the history of Israel, in the one case to 586, in the other to 432 B.C. The second of the two great series of narratives — Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah — is not independent of the first, but in large part rests upon it, and there is no better or surer way to an understanding of the methods of a Hebrew historian than by a comparison of corresponding parts of Chronicles and of Samuel or Kings. The later writer, with an earlier work before him, was content to copy out word for word passages of the earUer work without any particular acknowledgment that he was so doing ; at times also he ab- v- breviated, at times he expanded ; at times he intro- duced purely verbal modifications ; at times he introduced modifications that greatly affected the sense of the original. A fuller discussion of those methods, as illustrated by Chronicles, will be found below (ch. x.), but it is im- portant before approaching the special problems of other historical books to study carefully some examples of the method actually followed by a Hebrew historian in composing a historical narrative. Subjoined are extracts in parallel columns from Samuel and Chronicles : the variations in Chronicles from the source are itahcised. 2 Sam. X. 1-5. 1 Chr. xix. 1-5. ^ And it came to pass after ^ And it came to pass after this, that the king of the children this, that Nahash the king of of Ammon died, and Hanun his the children of Ammon died, and son reigned in his stead. * And his son reigned in his stead. David said, I will shew kindness ■ And David said, I will shew unto Hanun the son of Nahash, kindness unto Hanun the son as his father shewed kindness of Nahash, because his father unto me. So David sent by the shewed kindness to me. So band of his servants to com- David sent messengers to com- fort him concerning his father, fort him concerning his father. n.] HISTORICAL LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY 9 2 Sam. X. 1-6. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon. * But the princes of the children of Ammon said unto Hanun their lord, Thinkest thou that David doth honour thy father, that he hath sent comforters unto thee ? hath not David sent his servants unto thee for the sake of searching the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it ? * So Hanun took David's servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut o£E their gar- ments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away. * Then (certain persons) told David. And he sent to meet them ; for the men were greatly ashamed. And the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return. 1 Chr. xix. 1-5. And David's servants came unio the land of the children of Am- mon to Hanun to comfort him. • But the princes of the children of Ammon said to Hanun , Thinkest thou that David doth honour thy father, that he hath sent comforters unto thee 7 Are not his servants come unto thee for to search, and to over- throw, and to spy out the land ? * So Hanun took David's ser- vants, and shaved them, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their hips, and sent them away. • Then (certain persons) went and told David how the men were served. And he sent to meet them ; for the men were greatly ashamed. And the king said. Tarry at Jericho until that your beards be grown, and then return. 2 Sam. xxiv. 1-10. ^ And again the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying. Go, num- ber Israel and Judah. * And the king said to Joab, the cap- tain of the host, which was with him, Go now to and fro through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, and muster ye the people, and so I shall know the number of the people. ^ And Joab said unto the king. Now Yahweh thy God add unto the people an hundred times so many more as ever they be, and may the eyes of my 1 Chr. xxi 1-8. * And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. ^ And David said to Joab and to the captains of the people, Go number Israel from Beer-sheba even to Dan ; and bring me word, that I may know the num- ber of them. ^ And Joab said , Yahweh add unto his people an hundred times so many more as they be ; (but), my lord 10 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. 2 Sam. xxiv. 1-10. lord the king see it: but why hath my lord the king delight in this thing. * And (yet) the king's word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to muster the people of IsraeL • And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that is in the middle of the valley of Gad, and unto Jazer. • Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtim-hodshi ; and they oame to Dan-jaan, and round about to Zidon, ' and came to the stronghold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites: and they went to the south of Judah, at Beer-sheba. • And (so) they went to and fro through all the land, and came to Jeru- salem at the end of nine months and twenty days. • And Joab gave up the number of the muster of the people unto the king: and (the number of) Israel was 800,000 valiant men that drew sword ; and the men of Judah were 500,(XX) men. ^ And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto Yahweh, I have sinned greatly in that I have done : but now, 1 Chr. XXL 1-8. the king, are ihey not all my lord^a servants ? Why doth my lord require this. Why will he 6e a cavse of guilt unto IsraeLf * But the king's word prevailed against Joab • And Joab weol oat and werd up and down through all Israel^ and came to Jeru- salem . • And Joab gave up the number of the muster of the people unto David. And (the number of) all Israel was 1,100,000 men that drew sword : and Judah was 470,000 men thai drew »word. • Bui Levi and Benjamin he mustered not among them: for the king's toord was ahomirvable to Joab. ' And Qod was displeased unth this thing: and {so) he smote IsraeL • And David said unto Qodf I have sinned greatly in tha* I have done this thing : but noWr n.] HISTORICAL LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY 11 2 Sam. xxiv. 1-ia 1 Chr. xxi. 1-8. O Yahweh, put away. I beseech put away, I beseech thee the iniquity of thy servant : thee, the iniquity of thy servant ; for I have done very f ooUshly. for I have done very f ooHshly. Whether the author of Chronicles had other sources which he treated in the same way as he treated the earlier series of historical books still surviving in the Old Testa- ment, now copying word for word, now introducing modifi- cations, is a question which must be deferred ; but in any case we cannot watch his treatment of such sources, for they have perished. But how would a Hebrew historian have proceeded, if he had been working with two or more narratives of the same events ? The question cannot be answered by reference to any Hebrew historical work of which such multiple sources survive ; but we can watch the method adopted by a later Semite in a work which found most favour with Semitic, and, in particular, with Syrian readers. The Diatessaron of Tatian (f c. a.d. 150) is a life of our Lord composed by piecing together passages from four parallel sources — to wit, the four Gospels. The following passage, cited from Mr. Hamlyn Hill's translation, consists of the following extracts from the sources : Matt. iii. 13 ; Luke iii. 23a. ; John i. 29-31 ; Matt. iii. 14-15 ; Luke iii. 21a. ; Matt. iii. 16b. ; Luke iii. 22a. ; Matt. iii. 17 ; John i. 32-56 :— * Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John to be baptized of him. And Jesus was about thirty years of age, and was supposed to be the son of Joseph. Now John saw Jesus coming unto him, and saith. This is the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said. After me shall come a man, which is preferred before me, for he is before me. And I knew him not ; but that he may be made manifest to Israel, for this cause am I come baptizing in water. Now John was forbidding him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me ? Jesus answered him, and said, Suffer it now : thus it becometh us to fulfil all 12 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. righteousness. Then he suffered him. And when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized; and he went up straightway from the water : and the heaven was opened unto him. And the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove's body : and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And John bare witness, sa3dng, Furthermore I saw the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven ; and it abode upon him.' Nor are the methods which we can actually observe, having both the later works and their sources before us, in the case of Chronicles and Tatian's DiatessaroUy in any way singular in Semitic Uterature. Arabic Uterature affords many examples of the same methods, and instruc- tive illustrations of the method from Arabic writers have been given both by Professor Guidi * and Professor Bevan.» In Chronicles the passages derived from the earlier works and the matter peculiar (so far as we know) to Chronicles are sharply distinguished in style ; conse- quently where in other works we find marked differences of style, in the light of the proved methods of Semitic writers, it will be an obvious and probable hypothesis, that the difference is due to the incorporation of passages, or even of sentences merely, from an earlier work. 1 Revut BMique, 1906, pp. 509-519. i * Historical Methods in uie Old Testamest,' i» Cambridge Biblical £$sav$^ •d. H. B. Swete, 1909. ni.l THE PENTATEUCH: TRADITION AND CRITICISM 13 CHAPTER III THE PENTATEUCH: TRADITION AND CRITICISM The Pentateuch is a single work which after its completion \ was divided into five parts : these parts received from the Greek translators the distinctive names, Genesis, Exodus, L«viticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. In Jewish usage the single term Torah, Law, covers the whole, and that the five sections are parts of a single whole is further implied by the Jewish term for them — the * five-fifths of the law.* Within the Pentateuch, indeed, according to modem critical theory, many different books or works are frag- mentarily preserved; but no book postulated by this theory coincides with any of the five divisions of the Pentateuch. Among the independent or older works included in the Pentateuch are books of law, and from these the Jewish title for the whole is derived ; yet the Pentateuch as a whole, though entitled * the Law,* is in form a history \ containing law rather than law containing historyr^ Opening with the Creation of the world, the narrative in Genesis passes rapidly through the story of the early stages in the history of mankind, to follow with greater particularity the fortunes of Abraham and his descendants, and of these principally the fine of Isaac, Israel (or Jacob), and the twelve sons of Israel. So far Genesis. Exodus carries on the narrative of Israel's descendants ; their enslavement in Egypt, their release, their journey to Sinai, and their reception of the Law. Then follows a long section mainly consisting of laws and instructions (Ex. xx.- Num. X. 10). The narrative is resumed with the departure 14 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch from Sinai (Num. x. 11 ff.), the subsequent wanderings in the wilderness, and the conquest of Eastern Canaan ; and then, after another long section of law that occupies the central part of Deuteronomy, it closes with the death and burial of Moses. One thing would appear to follow at once and of necessity from this brief survey of the work, viz., that Moses was not its author, but that it was written after his death. And the necessity of this conclusion did not escape the Jewish Rabbis whose opinion has been already cited (p. 5) ; but they attempted to turn the force of it by a very simple hypothesis : Moses wrote the whole Torah with the ex- ception of the narrative of his death, and that was added by Joshua ; or in other words, the Torah was the work of two writers, though the contribution of the second was exiguous. Even this admission was challenged, and some Rabbis continued to maintain that the whole law was written by Moses, including the narrative of his death and burial ; for, with less acuteness than Hobbes, they had not perceived that * it were a strange interpretation to say Moses spake of his own sepulchre, though by prophecy, that it was not found to that day wherein he was yet hving.' The Rabbinic opinion just discussed is obviously not pure tradition ; there was no tradition that Joshua wrote the eight verses recording the death of Moses ; but it is criticism (and, however slight, yet correct so far its negation is concerned) playing upon a long-estabUshed method of speech according to which the law was the law of Moses, so that citations from it were described indifferently as from * the law * or from * Moses.* How far back can this method of speech be traced ? What exactly did it imply ? What is the age of, and how explicit is, the tradition that associates Moses with the Pentateuch ? In the New Testament the name of Moses is cited not only for individual laws (e.g. Matt. viii. 4, xix. 7, xxii., 24 ; Mark vii. 10 ; 1 Cor. ix. 9), but also for narratives (Mark xii. 26) in the Pentateuch. And in several passages m.]THE PENTATEUCH: TRADITION AND CRITICISM 15 * Moses,' or * the law of Moses,' is used in such connections that we may safely understand them to be modes of refer- ence to the entire Pentateuch, see e.g. Luke xvi. 29, 31 ; 2 Cor. iii. 15 ; Acts xxviii 23 ; cp. John i. 45. In the later books of the Old Testament also, we find frequent references to a written work that is called ' the law of Moses,' ' the book of Moses,' or * the book of the law of Moses,' and in some of these it is probable, or at least possible, that the entire Pentateuch is intended : see e.g. 2 Chron. xxiii. 18, xxv. 4, xxxv. 12 ; Ezra iii. 2, vi. 18 ; Neh. xiii. 1 ; Dan. ix. 11, 13. In books, parts of which are earUer than those just cited, we find similar references : see 1 Kings ii. 3 ; 2 Kings xiv. 6 ; Josh. viii. 31 f., xxiii. 6. . But in the first place, the date at which such passages were V written is an open question, and secondly the implication of them is uncertain ; they do not necessarily imply a book CO- extensive with the Pentateuch ; they would be com- pletely expHcable, if a book of law pure and simple, un- mingled with narrative, existed. We cannot, therefore, leaving the date involved open, even assert that the tradi- tion that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is as ancient as the earhest of these references ; all we can say is that a tradition existed at such date that Moses was the author of a book of the law. But there probably underlay all these references the tacit understanding that Moses was as closely associated with the whole as with any part of the whole referred to : it may be that the manner of speech in question arose in the first instance because a given Hterary work contained * laws of Moses,' though it was not at first considered to be in its entirety, in its accompanying narratives, for example, the work of Moses ; but, be this as it may, those who subsequently used or heard the phrases, * the law of Moses,' * the book of Moses,' in so far as they thought of the matter at all, must have thought of Moses as the author of the whole ; it was only the critical minds of Jewish Rabbis that excepted the closing section, and inferred that it was the work of another. 16 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. Beyond this slight and obvious criticism no considerable advance was made for centmies. But in the twelfth century a.d. the distinguished Jewish scholar Ibn Ezra drew attention to certain passages which indicated that the non-Mosaic element in the Pentateuch was much more considerable than the earlier Rabbinic criticism had ad- mitted. His words, in which he prudently abstained from explicitly drawing a conclusion, are : * If you penetrate the secret of the twelve [i.e. probably the twelve verses recording Moses' death], also of " And Moses wrote " (Ex. xxiv. 4 ; Num. xxxiii. 2 ; Deut. xxxi. 9, 22), and " The Canaanite was then in the land " (Gen. xii. 6), and " In the mountain of the Lord he appears *' (Gen. xxii. 14), and " his bedstead was a bedstead of iron " (Deut. iii. 11), you will discover the truth.' I It is not possible here to follow the history of critical .observation, but by degrees attention was drawn to a number of passages which were obviously of non-Mosaic < authorship, and some of them obviously also of post-Mosaic origin. The closing section of Deuteronomy must have been written after the death of Moses ; the Ust of Edomite -V-- kings (Gen. xxxvi. 31-43) that reigned * before there reigned any king over the children of Israel ' must have been written at least as late as Saul, the first Hebrew king ; Gen. xiv. 14, which alludes to Dan at least as late as the period of the Judges, when the ancient city of Laish first received the name Dan (Judges xviii. 29) ; such statements as ' the Canaanite was then in the land ' (Gen. xii. 6, xiii. 7) after the period of the Judges when the Canaanites still continued to be an important part of the population of the land (Judges i. 27, 29, 32, 33). There are also other archae- ological notices which point scarcely less conclusively, if not quite so obviously and immediately, to the post-Mosaic age : Og, according to the story, was a contemporary of Moses, but his bed in Rabbath is to the writer of Deut. iii. 11 a curious relic of a bygone age. See also Deut. ii. 10-12, 20-23. A slight extension of the old Rabbinic theory might in.] THE PENTATEUCH: TRADITION AND CRITICISM 17 suffice to explain isolated phenomena of the kind referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if observation had discovered nothing more than these, it would be a possible hypothesis that a work of Moses had been sUghtly expanded and glossed by one or more later writers. But such a theory loses all probability as soon as a further point, which Ibn Ezra appears to have appreciated, is also duly considered. ->i Throughout the Pentateuch, except in speeches placed in \ his mouth, Moses is spoken of in the third person. There are, of course, analogies in Uterature, such as the Com- mentaries of Caesar, for an author speaking of himself in the third person, and if there were no indications of post- Mosaic date in the work, it might be reasonable to continue to consider the possibiUty of Moses being its author ; but as we have seen there are numerous indications of post- Mosaic origin. Moreover, it is to be observed that Moses, no less than Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is throughout treated as a figure in the history of a past age : judgment is passed upon him in an entirely objective way : * the man Moses was very meek, above aU the men which were upon the face of the earth ' (Num. xii. 3). In brief, the Pentateuch itself makes no claim to be the V work of Moses. On the other hand, reference is made in certain passages to records which were written by Moses, and in some of these passages it is more or less clearly intimated that the records in question are incorporated in, or form, to some extent, the basis of, the Pentateuchal narrative : see Ex. xvii. 14, xxiv. 4, xxxiv. 27 ; Num. xxxiii. 2 ; Deut. xxxi. 9-13, 22, 24-26. But m view even of the evidence already adduced the conclusion is scarcely to be avoided that the narrative incorporating ' Mosaic records ' is not itself Mosaic, and this conclusion is independently suggested by a fuller consideration of the sources of the Pentateuch to which we must now pass. 18 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [cai. CHAPTER IV THE PENTATEUCH: ITS SOURCES The Pentateuch is a narrative at first of the history of mankind, and then of the descendants of Abraham, and in vj' particular of the IsraeUtes, down to the death of Moses. Into this narrative are introduced at divers places bodies of law. These laws are commonly introduced as having been spoken to Moses, and many of them could be regarded, for anything that the narrative of the Pentateuch says to the contrary, as having been first written as part of that work. I But in Ex. xxiv. 4, Deut. xxxi. 9 ff., there are unmistakable allusions to laws now in the Pentateuch having been written prior to the narrative that refers to them. Thus the Pentateuch draws upon, if indeed it does not actually incorporate, previously independent legal documents. Further, the Pentateuch contains poems attributed to several different authors — the song of Lamech (Gen. iv. 23 f.), the curse of Noah (Gen. ix. 26 f.), a divine oracle (Gen. XXV. 23), the blessings of Isaac (Gen. xxvii. 27-29, 39 f.), the blessing of Jacob (Gen. xhx. 2-27), the song of Moses Ex. XV. 1-18), the song of Miriam (Ex. xv. 21), a poetical fragment cited from the Book of the Wars of Yahwen (Num. xxi. 14 f.), a folk-song (Num. xxi. 17 f.), a paean recited by the professional reciters (Num. xxi. 27-30), songs of Balaam (Num. xxiii. 7-10, 18-24, xxiv. 3-9, 15-24), the song of Moses (Deut. xxxii. 1-43), the blessing of Moses (xxxiii. 1-29). To a considerable extent, then, the Pentateuch is a compilation from previously existing material — written legal documents, and poems, of which some at least had IV.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS SOURCES 19 already been committed to writing (Num. xxi. 14). But what of the main narrative of the Pentateuch ? Obviously no writer could have written a narrative extending over thousands of years out of his own personal knowledge : he must have written it either from hearsay, or on the basis of written historical documents. In the latter case it would be reasonable to expect that he pursued the historical method discussed in chapter ii., and therefore that, as he certainly incorporated the actual words of previously existing legal documents and poems, so he also incorporated the actual words of previously written historical narratives. If he actually did so, the different documents incorporated in, and his own contributions to, the narrative should be more or less clearly distinguishable by differences of style and points of view. If such differences of style were Umited to the narrative of the pre-Mosaic age, the fact would create some presumption in favour of the theory that Moses, or a contemporary of his, composed the narrative down to his age from documents, but the narrative of his own age from his own personal knowledge ; on the other hand, if the differences extend throughout the entire work down to the death of Moses, if in particular the narra- tive of Moses' death is, though distinguishable in style from some parts, indistinguishable from others, we should necessarily find in this fact independent proof that Moses, though he may have been the author of works cited in it, was not the author of the Pentateuch itself. Starting from the assumption that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, Jean Astruc in the eighteenth century ,\ was the first to attempt a systematic literary analysis of the narratives of Genesis together with Ex. i.-ii., where alone in the Pentateuch, on the prevailing assumption of Mosaic authorship, it was reasonable either to suspect or to admit the incorporation of previously existing historical narratives. In his work, published in 1753, and entitled Conjectures sur les mimoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse e^est servi pour composer le livre de la GenisCt he argued that Genesis was mainly derived from two docu- 20 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. ments, one of which was characterised by its use of the divine term Elohim (God), and the other by its use of the Hebrew proper name for God — Yahweh. In spite of some recent attempts to show that the Hebrew textual tradition in respect of the use of the divine names is thoroughly untrustworthy, Astruc's conjectures, though very inadequate, have been, so far as his fimdamental thesis is concerned, strongly confirmed by subsequent observation : the historical narrative of Genesis, though not of Genesis alone, is composite, not simple ; it rests on previously existing sources; and these sources were not merely consulted for information, but were in large measure cited word for word, even as are the books of Samuel and Kings largely cited word for word in Chronicles (pp. 8-11). Jean Astruc, an upholder of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, used the differences in the use of the divino names as his clue to the documents on which Genesis rested. Yet it would be quite a delusion to suppose that the theory that the narrative of the Pentateuch is not a simple narrative, but that it is throughout compiled from more than one previously existing document, rests merely, or even principally, on the differing use of the divine names. The theory that different documents are incorporated in the Pentateuch rests on a vastly wider basis ; it is only the degree of detail with which the incorporated documents can be separated from one another that would be affected even if recent attempts to prove the complete untrust- worthiness of the textual tradition of the divine names had been successful ; but this they have not been. There are, it is true, a few passages in which the Jewish and Samaritan recensions of the Hebrew text differ from one another, one reading Yahweh, the other Elohim ; but the agreement of these two recensions in the vast majority of cases is strong proof of the substantial accuracy of the tradition in this matter. It is true, again, that the Greek version often has ^€os where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, and Kvptoi where the Hebrew has Elohim, though the normal Greek equiva- lents are Kvpio% ior Yahweh and ^c($? for Elohim ; true, also, IV.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS SOURCES 21 that in most cases the Greek MSS. differ among themselves, 80 that there is more or less imcertainty in determining whether the original Greek text read the one or the other term, and whether it agreed with or differed from the Hebrew text. But before, in a case of this kind, a version can be used either in support of or against evidence in the original language, it is necessary to determine the idiosyn- crasies of the version. Was Kvptos not only the normal, but the invariable equivalent of Elohim adopted by the original translators ? As a matter of fact there are reasons for believing that kv/oios was not in all cases used in the version where Yahweh stood in the Hebrew. The general conclusion that the narrative of the Hexa- teuch is composite, and results from methods similar to those employed in Chronicles, in Tatian's Diatessaron and in many other specimens of Semitic Uterature (see ch. ii.), rests on a group of phenomena which may be classified with illustrations as follows : — 1. The same incidents or episodes are narrated more than once, and sometimes with inconsistent variations. Thus the story of Creation is told in Gen. i.-ii. 4a, and again in ii. 4b-22 : in the first story, man (male and female) is represented as the final and crowning work of creation ; in the second, man (male) is created before plants or animals or woman. The change of Jacob's name to Israel is re- corded in Gen. xxxii. 27 f., and also in Gen. xxxv. 10 ; the death of Aaron on mount Hor is recorded in Num. xxxiii. 38, and his death at Moserah in Deut. x. 6b ; the separation of Levi from the rest of the tribes in Num. iii. 5 ff. (cp. viii.), and in Deut. x. 8. Some repetitions might indeed be attributed to the fact that similar incidents actually occurred twice. Yet this hypothesis is no natural, even where it is an abstractly possible, explanation of any of the foregoing, or of the three records of the laughter that gave its name to Isaac (Gen. xvii. 17-19, xviii. 12, xxi. 6), the two narratives of Hagar's expulsion from Abraham's tent (xvi. 4-14, xxi. 9-21), the two narratives of the revelation of the name of Yahweh to Moses (Ex. iii. 14 f ., vi. 2 f .), the two X 22 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch narratives of the appointment of Aaron as Moses' prophet or spokesman (Ex. iv. 10-16, vi. 29-vii. 2), or of many others. 2. Within narratives at present continuous, differences occur that point to a fusion (such as regularly takes place in Tatian's DicUessaron) of originally independent narratives of the same event. Such are the statements in the story of the Flood that * the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights' (Gen. vii. 12), and that 'the waters pre- vailed upon the earth an himdred and fifty days ' (vii. 24) ; and again the commandment to Noah to take into the ark one pair of each of all the kinds of animals (vi. 19), and the commandment in vii. 2 to take seven (pairs) of all kinds of clean, and one pair of all kinds of unclean animals. So again in the story of the Spies we find conflicting descriptions of the extent of country that was visited, and of the report which the Spies brought back ; according to Num. xiii. 2, 21 the Spies were commanded to spy out, and they actually spied out, the whole land of Canaan from the southern border to the entrance of Hamath on the far northern border (cp. e.g. Num. xxxiv. 8) of what was subsequently the land of Israel and Judah ; according to Num. xiii. 17b-22 they were to go up into the Negeb, i.e. the dry country in the south of Judah, and they did actually go as far north as Hebron, which, however, lies some twenty-five miles south of Jerusalem, itself situated in the south of the land of promise. The report of the Spies was, according to Num. xiii. 26-28, that the land was fertile, but its inhabitants invincible, and its cities im- pregnable ; according to Num. xiii. 33 the Spies reported that the land was insufficiently productive to support its inhabitants. 3. Very marked differences of style and diction are observable in different parts of the narrative : moreover, such differences of style coincide with the Umits of such repetitions of episodes as have been given under (1), or with the parts of continuous narratives (see under 2) that conflict with one another in substance. For example, IV.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS SOURCES 23 throughout Gen. i.-ii. 4a the word hard, to create, is repeatedly used ; in Gen. ii. 4b- 22 the same idea is expressed several times, but by different words — 'asah or yasar. Again in Ex. iv. 10-16 anoki, one form of the Hebrew pronoun of the first person, occurs five times, but the other form, am, does not occur once, whereas in Ex. vi. 29-vii. 3 ani occurs four times, but anoki not once. So also in the conflate story of the Flood ' male and female ' in Gen. vi. 19, vii. 16 is zakar un^kebah, but in vii. 2 * the male and his female ' is Hsh vfishto, Hterally a man and his mfe. The last illustration serves also as one among many differences extending beyond vocabulary to general characteristics of style ; of two stories of the same episode one is often characterised by greater vividness or picturesqueness ; so in the story of the Spies over against the bald command * to spy out ' the land (Num. xiii. 2, 17a), stands the more detailed, vivid, and picturesque terms of the commission in xiii. 17b-20. 4. Differences in rehgious conceptions also characterise sections that are distinguished from one another both as being independent narratives of the same incident, and as marked by difference of style and diction. In Gen. i.-ii. 4a. creation proceeds simply and directly by the fiat of God ; in Gen. ii. 4a.- 15 creation proceeds, so to speak, by experi- ment ; it is only by experiment that it is discovered that man requires woman as his mate. Noticeable in the story of the Flood is the ignoring in part of it of the distinction between clean and unclean animals. Thus far we have seen that the Pentateuch rests on previously existing poems, on previously existing legal documents, and on previously existing historical narratives. At this point it will be convenient to give illustrations of these further facts : (1) as the narrative of the Pentateuch contains conflicting statements of fact, so the laws of the Pentateuch contain conflicting rules of practice ; (2) as differences of style accompany different narratives of the same incident, so also they accompany different laws on the same subject ; (3) certain groups of laws are V 24 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT? [oa associated with certain groups of narratives by a common standpoint, or common featm'es of style. The laws of Ex. xxi. 1-6 and Deut. xv. 12-18, in spite of some sUght differences, agree in permitting the Hebrews to hold a fellow Hebrew as a bond-servant (R.V. marg.), or slave, for a period of years, and in certain cases for life ; but Lev. XXV. 39-46 absolutely forbids the enslavement of Hebrews for any period, and permits only that of foreigners. As the Pentateuch contains three laws of slavery, so also it contains three laws of homicide : on the main point, that intentional and accidental homicide are to be differently treated, all three are in agreement ; but on the procedure they differ : according to Ex. xxi. 12-14 the homicide who takes refuge at the altar is, if a wilful murderer, not to be allowed, but, if his act was accidental, he is to be allowed, the asylum of the altar (im- pUcit in V. 13, cp. v. 14). Deut. xix. 1-13 and Num. xxxv. 9-24 agree as against Exodus in saying nothing about Yahweh's altar^ but in enjoining the setting apart of a certain definite numbers of cities in which the accidental homicide is to remain secure, not forfeiting his life, whereas the wilful murderer, though he flees for refuge to one of these cities, is to be dehvered up to death. The law in Numbers is certainly more full and detailed than in Deuteronomy, and certain differences between the two are probably impUcit, but these cannot be discussed here. As illustrations of differences of style accompanying differences of law on the same subject, we may note that the technical term, * cities of refuge,' which occurs several times in Num. xxxv. 9-34, is never used in Deuteronomy, though the law there also refers several times to * cities * that were to serve as a refuge. Note also the different modes of expressing the absence of intention : * if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand * (Ex. xxi. 13), * through error' (Num. xxxv. 11, 15), 'unawares* (Deut. xix. 4) ; so in the law of the slaves note the varia- tions : * a Hebrew ' (Ex. xxi. 2), * thy brother the Hebrew' (Deut. XV. 12), ' thy brother ' (Lev. xxv. 39). IV.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS SOURCES 26 The laws of tithe in Num. xviii. 21-32, Deut. xiv. 22-29, partly because they conflict so remarkably with one another in substance, offer relatively few points in which similarity and distinction of style can be tested ; but they afford an illustration of one point of difference which recurs again and again when the laws in Deuteronomy are compared with laws elsewhere. In Deut. xiv. 22-29 the phrase * Yahweh thy God' occurs seven times; in Num. xviii. 21-32 neither this nor the variant * Yahweh your God,' which the prevailing use there of the plural would have required, occurs a single time ; on the other hand, ' Yahweh ' simply, which occurs not once in Deut. xiv. 22-29, occurs five times in Num. xviii. 21-32. The last-mentioned point of style will also serve as a good illustration of the way in which one group of laws and narratives is marked off from another group ; the use of * Yahweh thy (our, your) God ' occurs upwards of three hundred times in Deuteronomy, in the historical retrospect (see e.g. i. 19-46, ii. 26-37) as well as in the laws ; the phrases occur, though with far less frequency, elsewhere. Common, again, to laws and narratives in Deuteronomy, but occurring nowhere else, is the combination of the three terms * com and wine and oil ' (e.g. vii. 13, xiv. 23) ; and ' with all thy (your) heart and with all thy (your) soul ' occurs nine times in Deut. (e.g, iv. 29, vi. 6, xiii. 3), but nowhere else in the Pentateuch. At this stage of our discussion when no attempt has yet been made to indicate more than an occasional analysis of the narrative of the first four books of the Pentateuch, it would be impossible even to illustrate adequately the styhstic Hnks between elements in these narratives and any of the laws ; but it may even now prove suggestive to draw attention to certain pecuHar or characteristic usages in Gen. i.-ii. 4a which do not recur, for example, in the different account of Gen. ii. 4b-22, nor in the laws of Ex. xxi.-xxiii., but do recur in laws in Leviticus ; we may notice, then, ' after its (their) kind ' ten times in Gen. i. (e.gr. V. ll)andalsoinLev. xi. 14, 15, 16, 19; the verb Ho t 26 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. swarm * (R.V. * bring forth abundantly/ * creep ') in Gen. i. 20, and also in Lev. xi. 29, 41, 42, 43, 46, and the cognate noun * swarming things ' (in R.V. variously rendered) in Gen. i. 20 and also in Lev. v. 2, xi. 10, 20 ; ' for food ' (I* ochlah) in Gen. i. 29-30 and also in Lev. xi. 39, xxv. 6 ; * male '. and * female,' as in the phrase of Gen. vi. 19, but not of Gen. vii. 2 (see above p. 23), in Gren i. 27 and also in Lev. iii. 1, 6, xii. 7, xv. 33. It is impossible here to reproduce and discuss further the actual details of style which have been observed and classified ; but as a result of investigation it has been found that the Pentateuch can be analysed into three great masses of matter easily distinguishable from one another in style : one style is found to separate off nearly the whole of Deuteronomy from the rest of the Pentateuch ; it pervades practically the whole of that book except the / poem in ch. xxxiii., a few verses in ch. xxxi. (14 f ., 23) and most of ch. xxxi v., but appears, at most, very sporadically elsewhere in the Pentateuch. Another style marks off 9 o most of the concluding parts of Exodus (chs. xxv.-xxxi., xxxiv. 29-xl. 38), the whole of Leviticus, Num. i.-x. 28, and { considerable parts of Genesis (including i. 1-ii. 4a), of the first half of Exodus, and of the remainder of Numbers. Easily 9 distinguishable in style from either of the foregoing, and "^ at the same time in some measure bound together by common quahties, is practically all that remains of the Pentateuch. On the other hand, along with common features, there are also some differences in this remain- der. For these three main elements in the Pentateuch, or for the writers severally responsible for them, it is now customary to use the symbols D, P, JE, viz. D for all (save -^ the slight exceptions indicated) of Deuteronomy, P for Leviticus and all thereto related, JE for the remainder, the two elements in which remainder are separately indicated by J and E. But the same three types of style re-appear in the book of Joshua, and it seems that the narrative of that book rests upon the same main sources as the narrative of the ivj THE PENTATEUCH : ITS SOURCES 27 Pentateuch. For this reason the Pentateuch with Joshua is frequently comprehended under the term Hexateuch. Yet it is very doubtful whether the Pentateuch with Joshua ever constituted an independent literary work ; if it did so, at some stage in the history, Joshua must have been removed from this larger work ; but of this process we have no evidence, nor even indirect proof. This, then, we may say : the Pentateuch is the final \ hterary unity known alike to Jewish and Samaritan tradition ; the Jews subsequently adopted Joshua with many other books as Scripture though not as part of the Law ; the Samaritan Scriptures consisted of the Pentateuch alone. At the same time, the sources underlying the Pentateuch and Joshua are common ; in other words, the scope of the sources and of the final literary unities is not the same ; the Pentateuch carries down the history no further than the death of the law-giver Moses, the sources were histories of national origins, and carried down the story to the settlement in Canaan, and some of them perhaps to a yet later period (see below pp. 62-73). The extent of D in the Pentateuch has already been indicated (p. 26). In Joshua, according to Dr. Driver's analysis, the following passages are derived from D* (see below p. 42), i., ii. 10, 11 ; iii. 2-4, 6-9 ; iv. lib, 12, 14, 21- 24 ; V. 1, 4-7 ; viii. 30-35 ; ix. 1, 2, 9b, 10, 24, 25, 27b ; x. 8, 12a, 14b, 25, 28-43 (ii. 2f., 6f., 8b.) ; xi. 10-23 ; xii., xviii. 7 (xx. 4, 5, 6) ; xxi. 43-45 ; xxii. 1-6 (7-8) ; xxiii. xxiv. lib, 13, 31. Again, according to Dr. Driver's analysis, fihe parts of the Hexateuch derived jErom P are : — Genesis i. 1-ii. 4a ; v. i.-28, 30-32 ; vi. 9-22 ; vii. 6, 11, 13-16a, 17a (except jTortt/ days), 18-21, 24 ; viii. l-2a, 3b-6, 13a, 14-19 ; ix. 1-17, 28-29 ; x. 1-7, 20, 22f, 31f. ; xi. 10-27, 31-32 ; xii. 4b, 5 ; xiii. 6, llb-12a ; xvi. la, 3, 15, 16 ; xvii., xix. 29 ; xxi. lb, 2b-5 ; xxiii, xxv. 5-lla, 12-17, 19-20, 26b ; xxvi. 34-35 ; xxvii. 46-xxviii. 9 ; xxix. 24, 29 (fragments in XXX. la, 4a, 9b, 22a) ; xxxi. 18b ; xxxiii. 18a ; xxxiv. l-2a, 4, 6. 8-10, 13-18, 20-24, 25 (partly), 27-29 ; xxxv. 28 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ck 9-13, 15, 22b-29 ; xxxvi. (in the main) ; xxxvii. 1, 2a, xU. 46 ; xlvi. 6-27 ; xlvii. 6-6a (LXX.), 7-11, 27b-28 ; xlviii. 3-6, 7 ? xUx. la, 28b-33 ; L 12-13. Exodus i. 1-6, 7, 13, 14 ; ii. 23b-25 ; vi. 2-vii. 13, 19, 20a ; vii. 21b-22 ; viii. 5-7, 15b-19 ; ix. 8-12 ; xi. 9, 10 ; xii. 1-20, 28, 37a, 40, 41, 43-61 ; xiii. 1, 2, 20 ; xiv. 1-4, 8-9, 16-18, 21a, 21C-23, 26, 27a, 28a, 29 ; xvi. 1-3, 6-24, 31-36 ; xvii. la; xix l-2a; xxiv. 16-18a; xxv. 1-xxxi. 18a; xxxiv. 29-35 ; xxxv.-xl. Leviticus i.-xvi. (xvii.-xxvi. largely H : see p. 41), xxvii. Numbers i. 1-x. 28, 34 ; xiii. l-17a, 21, 25, 26 (to Paran) ; xiii. 32a ; xiv. (1, 2), 5-7, 10, 26-30, 34-38 ; xv, xvi. la, 2b-7a; (7b-ll) (16, 17), 18-24, 27a, 32b, 35 (36-40), 41-50 ; xvii.-xix., xx. la (to month), 2, 3b-4, 6-13, 22-29 ; xxi. 4a (to Hor)y 10, 11 ; xxii. 1 ; xxv. 6-18 ; xxvi.- xxxi, xxxii. 18, 19, 28-32 (with traces in xxxii. 1-17, 20- 27) ; xxxiii.-xxxvi. Deuteronomy i. 3 ; xxxii. 48-52 ; xxxiv. la (in the main), \ 5b, 7a, 8, 9. Joshua iv. 13, 15-17, 19 ; v. 10-12 ; vii. 1 ; ix. 15b, 17-21 ; xiii. 15-32 ; xiv. 1-5 ; xv. 1-13, 20-44, 48-62 ; xvi. 4-8 ; xvii. la, 3, 4, 9a, 9c-10a ; xviii. 1, 11-28 ; xix. 1-8, 10-46, 48-51 ; XX. 1-3 (except * and unawares '), 6a (from until to jiLdgment), 7-9 ; xxi. 1-42 (xxii. 9-34). As already observed, practically the whole of the re- mainder of the Pentateuch, when D and P have been eliminated, in so far as it rests on sources and is not editorial, is derived from JE. It must suffice here to define in detail only some of the longer, or more important, or more easily distinguishable passages derived from the separate sources, J and E. To J may be ascribed substantially all that re- mains, after the removal of P (see above), of Gen. i.-xiii., xvi., xviii., xix., xxiv.-xxvi., xlvi. 28-xlvii. 31 (except xlvii. 12), xlix. 1-1. 14; Ex. viii. 1-ix. 7 ; also Gen. xxxviii., xxxix., xiii. 38-xliv. 34 (except xliii. 14 and the last sentence of xliii. 23); Ex. iii. 2-4 (to see), 5, 7, 8, 16-18; iv. 1-6; V. 6-vi. 1 ; X. 1-11, To E may be ascribed Gen. xx. 1-17 ; xxi. 6-32 ; xxii. 1-13, 19 ; xl. 1-xlii. 37 (except xl. lb, 3b. IV.] THE PENTATEUCH: ITS SOURCES 29 15b ; xli. 14 j xlii. 27-28) ; xlv. 1-xlvi. 6 (in the main) ; Ex. ii. 1-14 ; iii. 1, 4b, 6, 9-15, 19-22 ; xviii. (in the main). Much even of the analysis as here indicated of the composite JE into its components, J and E, would, indeed, become uncertain, if the argument from the differing use of Yahweh and Elohim were proved unsound (see above p. 20), though the separation of the Pentateuch into the three sources JE, P, and D would remain substantially unaffected. But in concluding this discussion of the sources and the analysis it may be convenient briefly to indicate a little more fully what the argument from the use of the divine names is, and how far it carries us. The Pentateuch itself gives us reason to expect a dis- crimination in the use of the divine names, for as to the origin and use of the divine name Yahweh two theories are directly stated or implied. According to Gen. iv. 26 (J) familiarity with the name Yahweh extends back to the early days of mankind ; after the birth of Adam's grandson Enosh it is recorded that * then men began to call upon the name of Yahweh.' According to Ex. vi. 2 (P), on the other hand, the name Yahweh was imknown to the Hebrews before the time of Moses : * And God spake unto Moses, and said imto him, I am Yahweh ; and I appeared imto Abraham, imto Isaac, and unto Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I was not made known to him.' In Ex. iii. 13-15 (E) we have a different account of the revela- tion to Moses, which nevertheless agrees with Ex. vi. 2 in representing Yahweh as a name unknown to the Hebrews before Moses ; Ex. vi. 2 directly asserts that it was un- known to them before, and Ex. iii. 13-16 shows us the name, so to speak, in the making. We have thus three accounts of the origin of the name, pointing, as other threefold repetitions point, to at least three sources underlying the Pentateuchal narrative. According to one of these sources the name was primeval ; according to the other two it was first revealed to the Hebrews in the days of Moses. Now an accurate and particular writer who held the latter theory might reason- 30 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. ably be expected to avoid the use of Yahweh before his story of the revelation of the name, using instead the general term God (Elohim), or other names which he regarded as primeval, such as El Shaddai. We might surmise, there- fore, that the narratives in Genesis and Ex. i. ii. which use Yahweh are from the author of the theory impUed in Gen. iv. 26, and narratives that use Elohim from one of the other two sources, but from which of the two this criterion by itself could not of course determine. As a matter of fact without the use of this criterion P, the author of Ex. vi. 2, can be easily distinguished from JE. The use of the divine names is, therefore, only of im- portance in distinguishing throughout Grenesis and in Ex. i. ii. the work of J, the Yahwist, who held by the primeval antiquity of the name Yahweh, from that of E, the Elohist, who held that it was first revealed to Moses. After the revelation to Moses P naturally enough employs Yahweh ; and so does E to some extent, though throughout his work he seems to betray a relative preference for Elohim. The use of the criterion, which is of Umited value in Genesis and Ex. i. ii., becomes almost neghgible in the rest of the Hexa- teuch. Astruc met with the success that he did in his analysis of Genesis, because in Genesis J, on the one hand, and P and E, on the other, appear to have been remarkably consistent in their use of Yahweh and Elohim respectively : he could not go further and distinguish the three main sources of Genesis because the single criterion only sufficed to distinguish two, and even had he been free from the assumption of Mosaic authorship he would have been unable to distinguish sources at all in the later parts of the Pentateuch, because the criterion ceases to be of consistent applicability after Ex. ilL, vi ?.J THE PENTATEUCH ; DATES OF THE SOURCES 81 CHAPTER V THE PENTATEUCH: DATES OF THE SOURCES Leaving over till the next chapter the question whether D and P are respectively the works of a single writer, and JE of two writers and no more, we shall here inquire how far, and by what kinds of argument, it is possible to deter- mine either the relative or the absolute dates of what in any case may be regarded as the main work comprehended under the symbols D and P and J and E. One point follows immediately, if the conclusion (p. 26) be sound that the sources of the Pentateuch reappear in Joshua ; if P and J and E related the story of the settle- ment after the death of Moses, they are necessarily one and all post-Mosaic. In greater detail D falls first for discussion. In the year 621 B.C. a * book of the law ' was found in the Temple at Jerusalem, and, as a result, great changes in religious practice took place. Such in brief is the story of 2 Kings xxii.-xxiii. We turn to Deuteronomy, and we find within it * a book of the law * that enjoins what Josiah effected : for example, the law enjoins the destruction of the high places, and Josiah destroyed them ; the law prescribes that all sacrifices shall be offered in one place only, and Josiah did his best by destroying altars outside Jerusalem to secure that all sacrifices should be offered on the Temple altar in Jerusalem ; the law forbids the Passover to be observed in any of the ' gates,' i.e. the (provincial) cities, and commands that it shall be observed in one place only ; in 621 the Passover was observed in Jerusalem (2 Kings V 32 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ca xxii. 23), and thus for the first time in history was it kept according to the recently discovered book of the covenant (2 Kings xxiii. 21, 22). In spite of the fact that in form Deuteronomy consists of speeches of Moses and does not define Jerusalem by name as the one place in which the people were to sacrifice, it is not surprising that some even of the early Christian Fathers, including Jerome, already identified the Book of the Law discovered in 621 with the book of Deuteronomy. It may be that the book discovered was not the whole of Deuteronomy as we now possess it ; a part might more easily have been read twice (2 Kings xxii. 8, 10) in a short time than the whole of it. But it is altogether improbable that the book discovered was the entire Pentateuch ; not only is it unlikely that the book was so large ; but some parts of the Pentateuch contain laws confiicting with the very laws that guided Josiah's practice, and a long miscellaneous work such as the whole Pentateuch would have been far less Hkely than Deuteronomy to create the terror of the king : Deuteronomy, even in its present extent, consists mainly of laws and of admonitions, and particularly of warnings as to what will befaU those who fail to act upon the laws. But how long before 621 had the book been written ? The narrative gives us no direct answer to the question, nor is it of the first importance to determine it. Other evidence confirms the more important conclusion that it was first jmblished then. For example, from this time onward, the singularly well-marked style of Deuteronomy affects other writers, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah, the compiler of Kings. On the other hand, the prophetic writings of the eighth century, of Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Micah, show no traces of it. If, then, D makes its first appearance in Jewish history towards the end of the seventh century B.C., when did JE and P do so ? — before or after ? That JE is prior to D is a matter of general agreement ; and the now prevalent critical opinion is that P is poste- v.] THE PENTATEUCH : DATES OF THE SOURCES 33 nor to D ; but down to the last quarter of the nineteenth century the prevalent critical opinion, of which Ewald may be cited as an outstanding exponent, was that P was prior to D, and indeed the earliest of the documents. To the theory, then, that the chronological order of the documents was P, JE, D has succeeded the theory (of Graf and Wellhausen) that the order is JE, D, P. Since it is impossible to discuss this question of date in any way exhaustively here, it will be best to dwell mainly on the Une of argument that has brought about this change in critical judgment. The earlier critical school was led to postulate the priority of P mainly by the consideration that P forms with its systematic arrangement and chronological scheme the groundwork of the whole — a very precarious argument, for, as we shall see, the frameworks of the books of Judges and Kings are certainly later than much of the narrative of these books, which is derived from earlier sources. The now prevalent critical opinion that P is the latest of the three main documents rests largely on a Qpmparison of the three codes with the actual course of history y so far as that is known. Such a comparison shows (1) that the practice of the Hebrews prior to the seventh century follows the laws in JE {i.e. mainly Ex. xx.-xxiii) ; (2) that the practice of the Jews at the Reformation of Josiah, and subsequently, changes from earlier practice in the direction of the laws of D, where they differ from those of JE ; and (3) that the practice of the Jews from the time of Ezra onwards follows P, where this is in conflict with the laws of JE or D. Our knowledge of the history is incomplete ; and con- sequently it is impossible to find records of practice in regard to innumerable details in the laws. Moreover, certain laws remained constant throughout, as we can see from the repetition of some laws without material alteration in successive law-books ; and many laws and regulations, which first appear in literature in a late code of laws, may nevertheless have existed long before : even the latest law- o K 34 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH, book contains much ancient material, and perpetuates, with or without modification, many ancient practices. The argument, then, is Umited to laws that differ in the extant codes ; and the argument can only be fuUy carried through where the recorded history refers to difference of practice corresponding to difference of laws. One or two illustrations must sufl&ce. In Ex. XX. 24-26 we find a law regulating the structure of altars on which burnt-offerings and other sacrifices were to be offered ; these altars must be of earth or undressed stones, but may not be built of hewn stone ; these alterna- tive regulations tacitly imply a multiplicity of legitimate altars, and the same assumption underhes the last part of V. 24 : every place that has been the scene of a theophany will be Hkely to have its altar at which the Hebrew may sacrifice and receive a blessing from God. Early Hebrew practice follows this law : there were many altars, such as that improvised by Saul at Michmash (I Sam. xiv. 33 ff), or that on which Solomon offered burnt-offerings in the high place at Gibeon (1 Kings iii. 4). Moreover, Ehjah regards the destruction of Yahweh's (many) altars as a sin (1 Kings xix. 14), and himself repairs the altar on Carmel (I Kings xviii. 30). So also in the narrative of JE we find approving allusions to the construction of altars by the patriarchs (e.g. Gen. xii. 7, 8). Deuteronomy (xii.) enjoins the destruction of all Canaanite altars, forbids the offering of burnt-offerings in a multipUcity of places, strictly Umiting the offering of such offerings and the discharge of other similar religious ritual to a single place. In practice Josiah carries out this law (2 Kings xxiii.). Law and practice have so completely changed that the destruction of altars, which to Ehjah in the ninth century was a sin, is in Josiah at the end of the seventh century a meritorious act. In P there is neither direct prohibition of many altars, nor direct command to confine sacrifices to a single place ; but it is throughout assumed that legitimate sacrifice can only be offered on the one altar built in accordance with the v.] THE PENTATEUCH: DATES OF THE SOURCES 35 instructions given at Sinai. The narrative of P is, more- over, very significant. In marked contrast to JE, P records no instance of an altar used by the Patriarchs ; he records theophanies to them {e.g. Gen. xvii. 1), but no act of sacrifice by them. While there were many altars, there was ample means of asylum (Ex. xxi. 13, 14) ; for in axjtual early practice the altar was the place of asylum (1 Kings i. 60). With the aboHtion -of all altars but one, it became necessary to invent fresh asylums : hence the * cities ' of D's law (Deut. xix. 1-13), * the cities of refuge ' of P (Num. xxxv. C?-34). With regard to the extent of the priesthood we find three differences in Hebrew practice, or in Hebrew theory of what was legitimate : (1) it is not Hmited even to the j tribe of Levi, though a preference for a Levite as priest might exist (Judges xvii. 6, 13) ; (2) the priesthood was Al,^^^ Hmited to the tribe of Levi, but co-extensive with it ; any Levite could exercise priestly functions ; against this limitation Jeroboam offended in making non-Levitical priests (1 Kings xii. 31); (3) the priesthood was hmited to a section of the Levites : this was the practice from the time of Ezra onwards ; priests and Levites were thus no longer synonymous terms : all priests were Levites, but not all Levites were priests. No law regulating or recognising the earhest practice exists ; for the laws of JE do not define the priesthood ; but in D, the law tacitly approves the second stage of practice ; priests and Levites are co- extensive terms (Deut. xviii. 1 and elsewhere). D dis- tinguishes, indeed, two classes of Levites, those Hving in the capital and those living in the provincial cities, but expressly secures to the latter as well as to the former the right of exercising priestly functions (Deut. xviii. 6-8). The third stage of practice follows the laws of P, which sharply mark off the priests, as sons of Aaron the Levite, from all other Levites (Ex. xxviii., xxix ; Num. iii.). In this particular instance we can trace the transition from D to P through a document of known date, to wit A s 36 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ca the book of Ezekiel (592-571) ; in Ezek. xliv. 6-16 Ezekiel takes a survey of the past and lays down rules for the future : he looks back to the conditions tacitly assumed and approved in Deuteronomy, and still continuing to his own day : all Levites have been priests, some exercising priestly functions in the provincial cities, some (the sons of Zadok) in Jerusalem ; unUke D, Ezekiel lays down that the country Levites shall no longer exercise priestly functions, but shall become subordinate ofl&cials of the Temple. We thus see in Ezekiel the origin late in history of a distinction which P carries back to the giving of the law at Sinai. The significance of Ezek. xhv. 6-16 has, Uke everything else, been questioned ; if it has been correctly indicated here, this passage by itself would prove the posteriority of P to D. The practice in the matter of slavery down to the Exile follows the laws of JE and D, and conflicts with that of P (see p. 24) ; Hebrews were held by their fellow Hebrews in slavery (2 Kings iv. 1-7 ; Jer. xxxiv. 8 ff.). We may proceed now from the question of the relative antiquity of JE, D, and P to consider how closely it is possible to determine the absolute dates of JE and P ; D, as we have already seen, first appears in Jewish history in 621 B.C. As * the book of the law ' in 2 Kings xxii. appears to be D (in whole or in part), so * the book of the law of Moses,' which, according to Neh. viii., was read by Ezra on several successive days (in 444 B.C.) to a public gathering of the Jews, appears to be, or to have included, P (in whole or in part) : for in consequence, the people observe the feast of booths for eight days (Neh. viii. 14-18) as the law of P (Lev. xxiii. 36) required, not merely for the «evcji days fixed by D (Deut. xvi. 13). The composition of P would thus fall between 621, the date of D, and 444, when it was publicly read by Ezra. In style there are marked similarities to Ezekiel ; in view of the relation aheady discussed as existing between the theories of the priesthood in Ezekiel and P, we must v.] THE PENTATEUCH : DATES OF THE SOURCES 37 conclude that Ezekiel has influenced P and not vice versa. The common working hypothesis is that P was composed in / , Babylon about 500 b.o. The closer determination of the date of JE is more difficult ; but even the combined work JE may be, and certainly the separate narratives J and E and the law book ^ ^ (Ex. xx.-xxiii.) are, earlier than D. In style, the narratives j-^ ^ resemble the early sources of Judges, Samuel, and Kings ' (see below, pp. 62, 73), both generally in their vividness and picturesqueness as contrasted with the dry style of P, and in respect of certain usages that point to an earlier period, such as the relative preference for the pronominal form dnoki and the use of the old Canaanite names for the V^*^ months in place of which P, in common with writers from the sixth century onwards, defines the months by number. But the style does not serve to define the dates of those works at all closely ; it would be natural in works of the eighth or ninth centuries B.C., but also a century or two earlier, and, on the other hand, scarcely inconceivable somewhat later. The laws have in view a settled agricultural people, with fields and vineyards in the possession of individuals, and provide for a fallow year once in seven (Ex. xxii. 6 f., xxiii. 10 f.). Similarly such an anachronism as speaking of Canaan as ' the land of the Hebrews ' in Gen. xl. 15, and such modes of speech as occur, e.g., in Gen. xii. 6, xiii. 7 (cp. p. 16), and Num. xxii. 41 (cp. Judges x. 4) are most naturally, if not alone, exphcable by the assumption that J and E were written long after the settlement in Canaan. In Josh. X. 13, a source, the ' book of Jashar,' is cited which also contained a poem of David (2 Sam. i. 17). The age of the ' book of the wars of Yahweh ' (Num. xxi. 14 f.), or of the songs cited in JE, cannot be exactly determined ; but the mode of reference in Num. xxi. 14, 27 rather sug- gests that the days of Moses lie far behind. The age to which J and E are commonly assigned is therefore that of the early monarchy — after David (c. 1000 B.C.) and before the prophets of the eighth century B.C., ^ 38 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH. who 'perhaps allude to these narratives : they certainly allude to traditions incorporated in them (Am. ii. 9 ; Hos. xii. 3 £., 12 f .), and certainly also represent a more advanced religious point of view. As to the relative age of J and E opinion differs, and the question cannot even be satisfactorily discussed apart from the question of the unity of each source. As to the place of origin there is also difference of opinion as regards J, though it is commonly held to have been composed in Judah : Judah in J's narrative of Joseph takes the lead, though Reuben, who in E takes the lead, was by common consent Jacob's eldest bom ; and there are other more or less clear indications that Judah holds the upper place in the affections of this writer. E, whose work gives promin- ence to famous places of the northern kingdom, such as Shechem and Bethel, and to the Ephraimite hero Joshua, is more generally regarded as belonging to the northern kingdonu ▼1.1 THE PENTATEUCH: ITS ORIGINS CHAPTER VI THE PENTATEUCH: ITS ORIGINS AND THE HISTORY OF ITS GROWTH [n chapter iii. it was argued that the Pentateuch is not the work as it stands of Moses ; in chapter iv. that it can be analysed into three main constituent elements, now denoted by the symbols JE, D, P, each of which consisted (even as now fragmentarily preserved in the Pentateuch), in part of narrative, in part of law ; in chapter v. some of the lines of arguments have been indicated by which the conclusion is reached that J and E are works of the period of the early, monarchy, that D was first published in 621, and P com-^ posed about 500. It has also been pointed out that*^ included in, or in addition to, these three main sources, we find in the Pentateuch a number of poems attributed to different persons living at widely different periods. By what processes were these various elements brought together ? How are these various elements related to one another ? How complex are works such as JE, D, P which analysis in the first instance discriminates ? On what do the earliest narratives rest ? These and other questions have naturally arisen and have naturally also received different answers. All that can be here attempted is to indicate the more important evidence available, and, in brief outline, the form which such answers should probably take. And first the question of the unity of the sources, and here, again, in the first instances of P. As over against D and JE the style of all that is comprehended under P is sharply defined ; but within P certain smaller variations of style 40 CRITICAL INTRODOCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [cH. have been observed ; in themselves they might prove little, but within P certain differences of law have been discerned, and certain suspicions awakened that even in the narrative of P there can be distinguished what is original and what secondary. A transitional theory in the last century ventured, indeed, to separate by several centuries the entire narrative of P from the laws of P ; but the similarities of style between laws and narrative are too significant to admit of such a theory surviving ; moreover, the very narrative of P is by its dominant interest most intimately connected with the laws : it is pre-eminently a history of the origin of the sacred institutions of the Jews — of thej^ Sabbath at Creation, of circumcision in the time of Abraham, ' of the divine name Yahweh in the days of Moses, of the priesthood and the sacrificial system at Sinai, of the cities of refuge, and the sacred cities of the Levites. But it is possible that the original narrative of P, written, say, c. 500 B.C., was later expanded. For example. Num. vii. 1-88, which in its wearisome repetition might almost pass for a parody of the style of P, appears to be an addition of a writer famiUar (w. 5-9) with the functions ascribed to the several divisions of Levi in Num. iii. ; yet chrono- logically it should precede Num. i. (cp. Num. vii. 1, 10 with Ex. xl. 2, 17). Again, in Num. xvi. we have grafted on to a story from the main narrative of P, which records a revolt of representatives of the whole people against the Levites, represented by Aaron and Moses, in vindication of their equal holiness, certain additions (xvi. 8-11, 36-40), the object of which is to condemn non-Aaronio Levites for seeking the priesthood. When we turn to the legal parts of P we are faced with two possibilities, and in all probability have to reckon with two actual facts : the compiler of P may have incorporated in his work laws previously formulated, deriving them straight from some priestly code of laws ; on the other hand, after the compilation of P circumstances may have necessitated change of practice, and a law regulating the change may have been interpolated in P ; or laws prior to VI.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS ORIGINS 41 F, but not at first incorporated in it, may have been inserted later for greater completeness. A distinct element, now embedded in, and even in parts interwoven with, P, has generally been recognised in Lev. xvii.-xxvi. : the major part of these chapters is distin- guished by marked peculiarities of style and motive : on account of one of its characteristics, the prominence given to holiness, which appears as the leading motive of the whole, this code has been termed the Law of Holiness ; it is denoted by the symbol H or Pi», and may have been written early in the Exile. It is perfectly possible that other laws, such as those regulating the different kinds of sacrifice in Lev. i.-iii., may have been already formulated before they were incorporated in the historico-legal work, P. An example of conflicting regulations within P, pointing to the presence of additions to the main work, is afforded by the comparison of Num. iv. 3 and viii. 23-26 : the one passage defines the age of Levitical service as from thirty to fifty, the other as from twenty-five to fifty. For these different strata of P different symbols have been employed such as P^, P^, P^, etc., but it is obviously difficult to determine the exact number of different con- tributors to this part of the Pentateuch, or to distribute it in detail among such different contributors. The important general conclusion is that P in its entirety is a historico-legal work, compiled probably about 500 B.C., on the basis largely of previously existing Temple practice, and perhaps incorporating previously formulated laws of that practice, to which later writers, sharing the same fundamental reUgious ideas and belonging to the same school as the author of the main work, made more or less extensive additions. We turn next to D. Here again a general homogeneity of style marks off the whole from JE and P ; but (1) it may be questioned whether ' the book of the law,' read and re-read on the day of its discovery (2 Kings xxii. 8, 10), was so large a work as Deuteronomy, and there is no 42 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. reason for supposing that it contained the passages marked by the same style in Joshua ; (2) Deuteronomy itself gives indications of having been expanded: iv. 44- v. 2 reads less Uke a resumption of i. 3-6 than an independent com- mencement ; and possibly different final orations or con- clusions may be detected towards the close of the book, note e.g. the paralleUsm of chs. xxviii. and xxix 2-xxx. 20, and that the latter passage is probably the work of one who, Uving a generation or so later than 621, had actually witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, and the captivity of the people, and the desolation of the land by the Babylonians. A theory that meets these and other facts is, that the original book of Josiah's Reformation did not include more than iv. 44-xxvi. together with ch. xxviii., and that this work (specifically D^) was enlarged by a fresh introductory discourse, i. 1-iv. 43 and other matter by one or more writers of the same school (D^). But whatever the extent of D in its original form, on what did it rest ? Whence were the laws it contains derived ? Whence the material worked up into the opening and concluding orations ? If the laws contained in D were without exception related to the changes wrought at the reformation that followed its discovery, they might be explained as the sole and immediate work of the author of the book. But^ the scope of the laws is extensive ; the aim of the book is to regulate the whole of life on the basis of prophetic teaching ; and for this purpose it abrogates certain old laws in favour of new laws intended to secure the centralisation of worship, and to make due provision for consequential changes {e.g. Deut. xii. 20-22) ; but it also perpetuates many old laws that were not out of harmony with the new conditions aimed at, but had sprung out of old custom, and had proved to be in the interests of orderly and brotherly social hfe. A considerable part of the laws of D are directly drawn from the earlier code in Ex. zx.-zxiii.« the bulk of which (with the exception of VL] THE PENTATEUCH: ITS ORIGINS 43 Ex. xxi. 18-xxii. 16) re-appears in Deuteronomy, sometimes verbatitn, sometimes expanded with a view especially to enforce the teaching of the book. And it is probable that many other laws, such as those in xxi. 10-xxv. 16, had been previously formulated, if not also previously written. The narratives or orations in the book also obviously rest for their information, and to some extent also even for their phraseology, on known sources, viz. J and E ; or, perhaps exclusively, and certainly in the main, on E, some of the characteristics of which source, such as the use of the name Horeb (not Sinai) for the mount of the law, thus become characteristics also of Deuteronomy. Of dependence on P there is no trace either in the laws or the orations of D ; and for a perfectly obvious reason, if the conclusion that P is a century or more later than D is correct. The question of the more exact relation of D to JE cannot be pursued here ; it must suffice to hint that if the dependence of D is on E to the exclusion of J, then it would follow that J and E had not yet been combined, or, at least, that the combined work was not followed by D ; and i/, further, E was compiled in the northern kingdom, and J in the south, a certain pre- sumption in favour of a theory that has occasionally been suggested, viz. that D was composed in the northern kingdom, would arise. But whether that presumption would be of much weight as against the difficulties that would beset such a theory is another question. We reach, finally, the earHest main sources, J and E. Do these symbols cover each a single writer only ? On what does each rest ? The first question is not rendered easier of discussion by the fact that we cannot reconstruct either work with anything Hke the completeness, or degree of probability, with which we can reconstruct either P or D. In the first place, as already indicated, the analysis of the complex JE into the two elements J and E is itself often difficult and uncertain ; then again there are indications of some departure from the order of the contents of the original works in the order in which 44 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch the excerpts from these works now stand in the Pentateuch ; Xand finally it is highly probable that less relatively of J and E has been preserved than of P. Here it must suffice to say that the presence within the same source of similar incidents, and of passages marked by respectively more or less advanced theological con- ceptions, are among the types of evidence that have led many to postulate earlier and later writers of the same school (J^ J2, E\ E^), so that while J* E^ may have been written as early as c. 900 and c. 750 respectively, J^ E^ will represent additions as late, in some cases, as the seventh century. In other words, J and E should be understood ^ not as symbols for individuals and their respective works, but for schools and products of schools. However we interpret the symbols J and E, it is obvious that to some extent the writers in question had hooks relating to the past or containing laws at their disposal : see e.g. Num. xxi. 14 ; Josh. x. 13 ; cp. Ex. xxiv. 4, 7. But we have certainly no proof that either J or E rested to anything Uke the same extent as D (pp. 42, 43) on a literary basis ; and it is probable that as a matter of fact they did not, but that in the main J and E represent the literary origins of the Pentateuch. The basis of J and E was probably, in the main, oral ; each of these works was the first attempt to reduce to writing the stories of the origin of the world, of the patriarchs, of the earliest history of the people, as these had been wont to be told at local shrines, such as Shechem, Hebron, Bethel, which many of these stories serve to celebrate, or by wandering minstrels or reciters. Those who committed these stories to writing, connecting them, if they had not already been 80 connected, in cycles, and giving to them or enhancing their religious significance, adorned their work also with songs, some of which had been written, and some of which they had learned from the mouths of professional reciters (cp. p. 18). These works also contained laws, and in this respect they resembled D and P; but there is a difference : D of necessity VI.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS ORIGINS 45 contained laws, for its purpose was to regulate society and in some important respects anew ; P was a history of the sacred institutions of the Hebrews, among which the law of Moses and in particular the developed and elaborate sacrificial system stood pre-eminent ; but neither J nor E was written to effect a change in society, nor was either limited or even primarily devoted to the history of institu- tions ; each is a story of the past of the nation and of Yahweh's dealings with it ; it is as one of Yahweh's gifts to the nation that the laws are introduced. But J and E were not written in days of change, and the laws introduced into them were not new laws : they had been in part at least already committed to writing ; they may in part also represent the first written form of ancient case law, as it gradually established itself at one or other of the priestly ^ i and judicial centres. » iV^' In any case the legal part of (J)E is not all of the same character, nor probably all of the same origin. The most important difference in character is between ' the words ' \^ and ' the judgments ' (Ex. xxiv. 3) ; the ' words ' are abso- ' lute commands of which the best known are the * ten words ' (or commandments) in Ex. xx. 3-17, but of which Ex. xxxiv. 10-26 ; xx. 23-26 ; xxii. 18-22, 28-31 ; xxiii. 1-3 are further examples ; the * judgments ' are hjrpothetical , instructions for cases that, having doubtless often arisen /^fi^ in the past, were likely to recur ; this latter type of Hebrew ^ ^ law, which has a most striking ancient parallel in the far * older Babylonian code of Hammurabi, occurs in Ex. xxi. 2-14, 18, 36 ; xxii. 1-17, 25 f. ; xxiii. 4 f., and reappears in parts of Deut. (e.g. xxii. 13 ff.). Along both lines, that of local story and consuetudinary law, the pre-Hterary origins of JE stretch l)ack into the dim and distant past : some of the law may well enough run back to the agj of Moses, some of it may rest on local custom among the predecessors of the Hebrews in Canaan, just as we know that some of the stories in Genesis (Creation, the Flood) run back to a distant past fin Babylonian history. 46 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH. From these remote origins it is necessary to turn for a moment to some elements in the Pentateuch that have not yet been considered, and some of which belong either certainly or possibly to the latest period of its history. Of the date and origin of the poetry incorporated in the Pentateuch, it is not possible to speak at length here. Most of it, as cited on p. 18, occurs at present in JE, and probably stood originally in either J or E, and on that account must be regarded as at least as early as those early sources in which it was included. Gen. xHx. is probably as late as the reign of David, for it is famihar with Judah as the tribe of the ruler (v. 10) ; but not necessarily much later ; Deut. xxxiii. is later than Gen. xHx., for in it Levi has ceased to be a secular and has become a sacred tribe, the tribe of Reuben is nearly extinct, and Simeon is not mentioned, probably because it had already become extinct ; but the poem indicates throughout no sense of present or imminent national disaster, takes small notice of Judah, but magnifies the two divisions of Joseph, viz. Ephraim and Manasseh, and therefore was most probably written in the northern kingdom before the fatal advance of Assyria westwards, which began in 745 B.C. A similar sense of national security and prosperity dominates the first four songs of Balaam, for which on this ground the same inferior Umit may be set as for Deut. xxxiii. ; the allusion to the monarchy in Num. xxiv. 7, 17 points to a aate at least as late as Saul. The product of a later age is to be discovered in Deut. xxxii. 1-43, for here the sense of national disaster is conspicuously present, and the poem is scarcely earlier than the end of the seventh century B.C. The priests' blessing in P (Num. vi. 24-26) may also belong to this period, and be an expression of the centrahsation effected by Josiah ; or it may be earher. The curse of Noah (Gen. ix. 24 f), the divine oracle in Gen. xxv. 23, the Song of Miriam in Ex. xv. 21, are scarcely the work of the author of the prose setting in which they now occur, but are of a greater antiquity which cannot be closely defined. VI.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS ORIGINS 47 On the other hand the Song of Moses, which now appears in Ex. XV. 1-18, and may be regarded as an expansion of the couplet attributed to Miriam (note Ex. xv. lb=xv. 21), may be the product of a much later writer living, perhaps, Uttle if at all before the Exile. There remains for brief consideration a prose passage that stands somewhat isolated and is in some respects of unique character : this is Gen. xiv. In style it stands apart from JE, D, and P, and not less so in its presentation of Abraham, who here only in the Pentateuch appears as a warrior, the conqueror of mighty kings of the East, blessed by the mysterious and otherwise unknown Melchizedek, king of Salem, but proudly refusing, in the consciousness that his riches came from elsewhere, to receive the sHghtest acknowledgment by way of gift from the king of Sodom. On account of the more or less exact correspondence of the names of the Eastern kings Amraphel, Arioch, and Tidal, with the now famous Hammurabi (c. 2000 B.C.), Eriaku of Larsa and Tudchula, son of Gazza, whose existence is attested by inscriptions, and of the genuine Elamitic form of the name Chedorlaomer, it has frequently been attempted of late to maintain that the passage is of extremely ancient origin and in all respects to be accepted as historical. But along with the presence of such indications of relatively late date as the use of the name Dan (see p. 16), there are many other features in the passage that render such a view difi&cult, not to say impossible, to maintain ; the use of Salem (cp. Ps. Ixxvi. 2) for Jerusalem is probably a pseudo-archaism, for Jerusalem itself in the form Urusahmu is already the name of the city in the earliest contemporary reference to it (Tell el-Amama Tablets, c. 1400 B.C.) ; and various points of style, including some affinities with P, suggest that, at aU events in its present form, Gren. xiv. is no earUer than Ezekiel, and probably enough later stiU. The passage is best regarded as a Midrash (cp. p. 95), based on some accurate information with regard to Babylonian and other early rulers, and possibly some further accurate information about the period of these rulers, but composed for the pur- 48 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. pose of magnifying the great patriarch, and bringing him into relation with Jerusalem. Our survey of the hterary elements that have coalesced in the Pentateuch, undergoing in the process more or less modification, is now all but complete. There remains for consideration the nature of the process or processes of co- alescence, and the extent of the modifications involved ; in other words, the question of what editor or editors brought together the sources, and how far such editors adhered to the method adopted by Tatian in the Diatessaron (p. 11), of arranging freely and interweaving, but making httle or no change by way of omission or addition, or how far such editors adopted the method of the author of Chronicles, who cites much verbatim from the source, but also adds, omits, and changes (cp. pp. 8-11). Between the distant pre-Hterary origins of the Pentateuch and the latest hterary elements that we have yet considered there hes a period of something approaching a thousand years. Of the history of the growth from those origins to the complete work, we have practically no external evidence apart from the narratives of 2 Kings xxii.-xxiii. and Neh. viii. Whatever theory of that history we form must rest on internal evidence, and this is often ambiguous, and in many points, even so, of the scantiest. It is not surprising that different theories have been framed, and that none can be regarded as certain. The simplest theory, possible in the abstract but im- probable, would be that a single editor in the fifth century B.C. brought together all the different elements that analysis discovers, and that till then had continued to exist apart. But a theory that is to do justice to facts and probabilities must certainly be more complex than that : more than one editor or redactor must be assumed. But this question of editors is closely associated with the question already considered of the possible existence of different strata in the sources denominated J, E, D, P ; for if it be assumed that an editor R*" combined J and E, and in combining made additions of his own, the work of R^" YL] THE PENTATEUCH: ITS ORIGINS 49 and J2, where the latter stands for expansions of J, may be ahnost indistinguishable. The extent of difference be- tween some different theories can be readily estimated, and understood to be slight, if this is borne in mind. It is impossible to examine, in any detail here, work which appears to be editorial rather than derived from a source ; moreover, it must be remembered that work which at one point must be regarded as editorial becomes itself a source when editorial additions or modifications are cited indiscriminately with words of an earlier source by a later editor. It will perhaps be convenient to say all that our limi- tations permit on this point in connection with a synthetic and historical summary based on the previous analytical discussion. The ultimate origins of the Pentateuch are oral — songs that were recited before they were written down, stories of the past that had long been told with characteristic differences in different localities before they were welded into a fixed oral cycle, and later into Hterary form, laws that had been formulated, but were at first handed down orally from generation to generation of priests, at the several sanctuaries. These oral origins belong to the eighth and ninth and many earlier centuries ; and even as late as the seventh century, or later still, D and P, may have drawn afresh from fixed oral tradition laws that had not pre- viously been written. Books of songs may have existed as early as David's time, or even earher, though one of those actually cited in the Pentateuch was certainly not earlier than the age of David. Written law existed as early as the eighth century (cp. Hos. viii. 12). From these books of song, and books of law, the earliest narratives preserved in the Pentateuch drew ; but in the main J and E are the earliest Hterary form of the stories told in them. J was, perhaps, com- posed c. 900 in the southern kingdom, E, perhaps, about 750 in the northern kingdom. Both J and E may have received expansions while they continued distinct works, D 50 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. and such expansions may be termed J* and E* respectively. How early J and E were combined is uncertain ; but if, as is probable, they were combined independently of D, the editor who combined them, and any additions he made in so doing, may be conveniently described as R*^". D was published in 621 ; further work of the same school written within the next generation or so (D^) appears in Joshua and to some extent in Deuteronomy. D, and some pas- sages {e.g., Deut. i.) which possibly belong to D^, are certainly based on E, possibly also on J ; if exclusively on E, then probably JE was not yet combined, and R"'" was later than D, and probably also than D* ; and indeed the possibility would remain that J, E, D were brought to- gether by a single editorial hand, R'^"^, and that R*^^ had no separate existence ; but if D can be shown to rest on J also, then probably, and if on R*^^, then certainly, the union of JE took place prior to 621, say c. 650 b.o. The old prophetic narratives JE, either separately, or more probably already combined, were next united with D, and at the same time here and there slightly expanded or modified by a member or members (R") of the Deuteronomio school, the resultant work being JED. This work carried down the narrative to the settlement in Canaan, and contained much of what now stands in Josh, i.-xii., xxii.- xxiv. This editorial process may be assigned to the sixth century B.C. The last main editorial stage in the history of the Penta- teuch consisted of the combination of so much of JED and so much of P as dealt with the history down to the death of Moses ; this was the work of an editor (R**), whose method was to fit excerpts from JED into the framework of P. This process took place (shortly) after rather than before 444 B.o. JEDP represents, approximately, the complete Penta- teuch ; yet after the union of the four main works, addi- tions such as Gen. xiv., and some of P", such as Ex. xxxv.- xl., which latter chapters also survive in an extensively and significantly different form in the LXX., were not im- VI.] THE PENTATEUCH : ITS ORIGINS 51 probably added. In view of the variations in the LXX., it is doubtful whether the argument can be too rigidly pressed that the Samaritan schism must have taken place in 432, that after that date the Samaritans would neither have accepted as their sacred book the Jewish law, nor any additions subsequently made to the Jewish law previously adopted by them, and that, therefore, all that is common to the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Jewish law (i.e., sub- stantially the entire work) is as early as 432 B.C. As com- pared with the Jewish the Samaritan recension shows certain variations, such as reading Gerizim in place of Ebal in Deut. xxvii. 4, and the expansion of the narrative in certain places by the addition to it of passages found else- where. For example, Deut. i. 6-8 is inserted after Num. X. 10. These changes were probably introduced by the Samaritans at the time of, or later than, the schism. 52 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ca. CHAPTER VI THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS: (1) JOSHUA AND JUDGES The later historical narrative contained in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah is probably a single work. On the other hand, of the books that contain the earUer narrative, not only does the Pentateuch stand apart, but the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Bangs, in spite of certain connecting Unks, attained substantially their present form by different editorial processes. Yet those editorial processes, though different, have so much in common that Judges, Samuel, and Kings, and to some extent Joshua, remain as the expression of a school dominated by the ideas and style of D (pp. 26, 31), and sharply dis- tinguished from Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, which is a work dominated by the ideas, and, in some measure, by the style of P (pp. 26, 34 f.). In spite of some minor annotations or modifications made from the standpoint of P, (Joshua), Judges, Samuel, and Kings substantially represent his- tory OB apprehended by, and its significance for, the Jews at the end of the seventh and in the sixth century B.C. ; Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah the same history interpreted by Jews of about 300 B.C. While, then, the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings cannot in detail be discussed together, for they are not a single work, and, though edited from a similar religious standpoint, have not undergone exactly the same editorial processes, two further facts which help to give them a certain closeness of connection and simi- larity of character must be constantly borne in mind : (1) these books, one and all, rest on sources : as the Chronicler vn.] JOSHUA AND JUDGES 63 embodied large extracts of Samuel and Kings in his work, so the authors or compilers of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings each embodied large extracts from yet earlier works in their own ; and (2) the divisions in these sources do not appear to have coincided with the divisions represented by the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings ; in other words, two or more of these books cite from the same sources : Joshua and Judges cite certain identical passages from an older source (p. 54) ; and it is probable that Samuel incorporates parts of a source also used in Judges (cp. pp. 67, 69), and Kings parts of a source used in Samuel (p. 85) . So much in general may be safely said and wiU be substantiated below ; but within the compass of the present work it will be impossible to enter into all the details which would illustrate more fully this closeness of connection. One further general consideration may be stated : when we compare Chronicles with Samuel and Kings, we find that the modifications introduced by the later writer entirely change the impression given, or the meaning in- tended, by the earHer source which he cites ; it is necessary to remember that, though, not having the sources, we can never absolutely prove it, the earlier historical narratives of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings may also, through modifications of their sources, have handed on to later times a story really different in some of its implications from that which stood in these sources. Though Joshua and Judges must certainly be regarded as distinct works, it will be convenient to discuss them in the first instance together. The opening words of Joshua are, * And it came to pass after the death of Moses ' ; the opening words of Judges are, * And it came to pass after the death of Joshua.' If we could regard Joshua and Judges as two parts of the same work dealing with two epochs, the lifetime of Joshua and the period that began with his death, the similarity of these openings would have a sufficiently obvious explanation in common authorship. But Joshua and Judges are not the 64 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. work of the same author, and we may attribute the opening words of Judges to an attempt, by bringing together the books of Joshua and Judges, to obtain as far as possible a continuous history of Israel ; not improbably this link is due to those who established the second part of the Hebrew canon, * the prophets.' Unfortunately the opening clause of Judges creates an impression of more exact continuity than is justified by the contents of the books of Joshua and Judges : Judges is in reaUty no direct continuation of Joshua : it is, in part at least, parallel to it. The farewell, death, and burial of Joshua are recorded with a summarising account of what followed, not only at the end of the book of Joshua (xxiv. 28-33), but also in Judges, and that not at the beginning as though to estabUsh a continuity or to recall an original continuity of the books,* but in ii. 6-10; what precedes Judges ii. 6, viz. i. 1-ii. 6, at least, is not, as the opening clause of Judges suggests, subsequent to what is related at the end of Joshua, but prior to it, and parallel with the first part of Joshua : a detail confirms this obvious conclusion : Gilgal, the headquarters of the Hebrews after the passage of Jordan (Josh. iv. 19 ; v. 10 ; ix. 6 ; x. 9 ; xiv. 6) is still such in Judges ii. 1 though it had ceased to be so in Josh, xviii. 1, xxiv. Further, with Josh. xvi. 10, cp. Judges i. 29 ; with Josh. xvii. 11-13, cp. Judges i. 27 f. ; with Josh. xix. 46, 47, cp. Judges xviii. i. 34; and with Josh. XV. 63, cp. Judges i. 2. The paralleHsm of the books is, however, in reality much greater : they are throughout differing accounts of one and the same historical movement — the effective occupation of Canaan by the Hebrews : according to the book of Joshua the whole of the Hebrews formed a single army under Joshua ; the entire land of promise * waa rapidly conquered, and then distributed among the twelve tribes ; accord- ing to Judges i. the several tribes acting separately, or one or two together, attacked different parts of the coimtry; » Cp. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22 f. =E2ra L 1-8, and see p. 97* « Joah. xL 16-xiu. « ; xxL 43-45. VII.J JOSHUA AND JUDGES 56 at first their success was very partial, and it was but gradu- ally that they became masters of even the greater part of the country. But Judges i. is substantially in agreement with much of the remainder of the book, for this deals with the changing fortunes of the tribes, now attacking, now subject to, now obtaining temporary reUef from the Canaanites or others, till one and all have secured settle- ment in the districts which they subsequently retained. It is not till towards the close of the book (xvii., xviii.) that Dan makes good its position, yet not till then did the effective occupation of Canaan by the Hebrews even approach completion ; in other words Judges xviii. carries down the historical development no further than, if indeed as far as, Joshua xxiv. ; and thus the two books are in reahty parallel narratives. Joshua The title of the book of Joshua defines the subject, not the author, of it. Joshua is the outstanding figure in it ; under his leadership Western Canaan is conquered, under his direction the land of promise is divided among the twelve tribes. The book may be briefly summarised as follows : — i.-xii. — Conquest of Western Canaan. The book opens immediately after the death of Moses : Joshua has suc- ceeded Moses in the command of the people, who are still on the east of Jordan. Jordan is crossed and other preliminaries to the attack on Jericho, the city commanding the Jordan valley, are carried out (i.-iv.). The Israehtes encamp at Gilgal, and capture Jericho (v., vi.). Stages in the Conquest of Southern Palestine : capture of Ai (vii. 1- viii. 29), submission of the Gibeonites (ix.), defeat of the kings of Jerusalem and other cities of the south (x.). Inserted in the midst of these is a brief reference, not indeed to the conquest itself, but to a step which implies the previous conquest of Central Palestine^ viz. the building of an altar on Mount Ebal (viii. 30-35). More briefly is 56 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. described the conquest of Northern Palestine (xi. 1-15). Then follows a summary of conquest, and a list of thirty conquered kings, mostly of places in the south, but also of places in Central and Northern Palestine (xi. 16-xii. 24). xiii.-xxi. Division of the conquered land among the twelve tribes as follows : (a) the two and a half Eastern tribes, xiii. ; (6) the Western tribes ; in the South, Caleb- Judah (xiv. f.), Benjamin and Simeon (xviii. 11- xix. 9) ; in Central Palestine, Ephraim and half-Manasseh (xvi. f.) ; in the North, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Dan (xix. 9-48). Then follows the appointment of cities of refuge (xx.), and the allotment of Levitical cities (xxi.). xxii.-xxiv. — Conclusion. — ^The conquest and distribution of the land being complete, Joshua dismisses to their homes with his blessing the Eastern tribes, who had co-operated in the Conquest of the West (xxii.), takes farewell of the people, dies and is buried (xxiii. f.). It is obvious from the conclusion that this book was written neither by Joshua, nor within his lifetime. The closer determination of date and character must rest mainly on conclusions reached in chapters iii.-vi., for Joshua is intimately connected, through its use of the same sources, with the Pentateuch. But there are certain entirely independent considerations that suggest so much at least as this : the book was written long after the age of Joshua, and in Judah. (1) The presentation of the Hebrew settlement in Canaan as the result of a rapid and complete conquest appears to be due to the idealising of long past events : the book of Joshua must on this account be judged much later than the age which gave birth to the account in the first chapter, and to the stories that form the substance, of the book of Judges : for the account in Judges, in its broad features, accords, the representation that dominates Joshua is entirely at conflict, with what the conditions and historical movements prevailing about 1400 B.C., and revealed to us by the contemporary Tell ?n.] JOSHUA 57 el-Amarna tablets, would lead us to expect the nature of the Hebrew settlement, which took place somewhat later, actually to have been. (2) In Josh. xv. 63 we read : * But the Jebusite(s), the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Israel were unable to dispossess ; and (so) the Jebusite has dwelt with the children of Judah in Jerusalem until this day.' With the substitution of * Benjamin ' for ' Judah * these words recur in Judg. i. 21. Probably in both books the words are cited from a common, and ancient source ; in any case there is no probability that Judges borrows from Joshua ; and so in Joshua at least the words are a quotation. But these words throw back the (partial) conquest to a past age, which is tacitly con- trasted with ' the present day.' That we should infer from a comparison with 2 Sam. v. 4-10, which relates David's capture of Jerusalem, that * the present day ' of Josh. XV. 63=Judg. i. 21 was, though later than Joshua, yet earlier than David is by no means certain ; Jebusites continued to live in Jerusalem after David's capture of it (2 Sam. xxiv. 18 £f.). In any case the book which cites the passage must be later than the source it cites, and consequently the product of an age later certainly than Joshua, possibly also later than David. (3) The reference to the book of Jashar (x. 13) certainly implies a date later than David, for that book contained, among others, poems of David (2 Sam. i. 18). (4) Interest in South Palestine and specifically in Judah dominates the book. The hero himself is indeed an Ephraimite (xix. 49 f, xxiv. 30) ; but if we consider the book of Joshua as a whole, this cannot be said to receive emphasis ; what was doubtless a datum of tradition is accepted, but in no way magnified, by the author of the book. On the other hand, both in the aocount of the Conquest and in that of the division of the land the South is dealt with much more fully, and the district of Judah is more minutely described than that of any other tribe. The conquest of Central Palestine, the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh, is entirely omitted, and it is only at the end of the book that this 58 CRrriCAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH. district comes into any prominence ; and then almost of necessity, for Joshua naturally goes to his own country to make his farewell and die. Presupposing the conclusions of the criticism of the Pentateuch we may formulate a theory of the origin of Joshua as follows : early narratives (J, E), written perhaps in the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. respectively, carried down the history of God's guidance of His people to the point at which it culminated in the settlement of the people in the land that God had promised them ; a later work (P), written about 500 B.C., carried down the history to the same point. In the earUer narratives the Conquest of Canaan was represented as gradual ; but an editor, D^ (p. 42), though drawing mainly on these sources (J, E), so modified them by large additions of his own, that, in spite of some tell-tale fragments left unmodified, the new narrative as a whole gave the impression that the conquest was rapid and complete. This work was subsequently expanded by another editor (R^), who inserted brief passages * from P into the story of the conquest, and much more extensive passages* from the same source into the story of the distribution of the land. Judges Saul (c. 1050 B.C.) was the first Hebrew king ; the time before Saul forms, therefore, an epoch of a distinct char- acter: it is the pre-monarchic period in the history of the Hebrews in Canaan. This period, with the exception of its closing years, is the subject of the book of Judges ; and since the period extended over at least some generations the book of Judges cannot be a contemporary record of all the events described in it. But, further, the book in » tv. 18, 15-17, 19 ; v. 10-12 ; vii. 1 ; ix. 16b, 17-21. See Drirer, Introduction to th4 Literature of the Old Testament, p. 159. « xiii. 16-82; xiv. 1-5; xv. 1-13, 20-44 (45-47), 48-62; xvi 4-8; xvii. la, 8, 4. 7, 9ft, 9c.l0a; xviii. 1, 11-28; xix. 1-8, 10-46, 48 61; xx. 1-8 (except *and unaware!'); xx. «* (to 'judgment'), 7-9 (cp. LXX.); xxi. 1-42 (xxlL 9-84). SMDriTer,2,«. vn.] JUDGES 69 its present form is very much later than the period which is the subject of it ; there are several allusions in it to the monarchy,^ and one (xviii. 30) unmistakable allusion to the captivity of Northern Israel in the eighth century B.C. A closer examination and analysis of the book suggests other sufficiently probable and more precise conclusions. Judges consists of three unequal and dissimilar sections : (1) i. 1-ii. 5, introduction : the partial conquest of Canaan by the Hebrew tribes ; (2) li. 6-xvi. 31, stories of the DeUverers or Judges of Israel ; (3) xvii.-xxi., an appendix, containing other stories of the pre-monarchic period. The theory now commonly held is that the central portion of the book (ii. 6-xvi. 31) contains a history of the period of the Judges written about 600 B.C., and that this history was subsequently (say c. 400 B.C.) expanded into the form of the present book by prefixing (a) ch. i., (6) ii. 1-5, and by appending chs. xvii.-xxi., and probably by making certain insertions (see below, p. 63). All three sections of the book ahke incorporate a large amount of material derived from sources very much earKer than 600 B.C. The general nature of the reasons for this theory will become clear from a somewhat fuller examination of certain characteristics of the book, and in particular of ii. 6-xvi. 31. The central section (ii. 6-xvi. 31) of Judges consists of brief notices or longer narratives of a number of people, who ' judged * or ruled Israel, fitted into a moralising and chronological framework as follows ; — 1 XTii. d, ZTiii. 1, ziz. 1, zxL 9& 60 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. Period of (o) pre- Fnmework Notice or NarratiT. Name of Judge, etc. Tribe or locality of Judge Preceding Oppressor ceding oppres- sion, (b) Judge- ship il (6), 7. (8-10), 11-23 (ui. 1-6) (iii 7-11) Othniel Caleb Aram- Naharaim a. 8 6.40 iiLl2-15a,iii.29f. iii. 156-28 Ehud Benjamin Moab «.18 6.80 iii. 81 Shamgar Philistines ir. 1-8, T. 81ft ir. 4-v. 80 a f Deborah \ Barak Ephraim Naphtali / N. Cana- \ anites a.' 20 6.40 (vi. 1-10), viiL 28, vi.ll-vm.27a Gideon, Manasseh Midian a. 7 83-5 ix. followed bv his son Abimelech 6. 40 6. 3 X. If. Tola Issachar ••• 6.23 x.8-5 Jair Gilead ... 6.22 (x.6-18)(xiL7) xi 1-xil. 6 Jephthah Gilead Ammon a. 18 6. 6 xii. 8-10 Ibzan Bethlehem ... 6! 7 xii. 11-12 Elon Zebulon ... 6.10 xii. 13-16 Abdon Ephraim ... 6. 8 xm. 1, IV. 20 (xTi. xiii. 2-xv. 19 Samson Dan Philistines a. 40 81b) xvi. 6.20 Total . 410 year* The author of the framework had a very clear theory of the period and expressed it cleariy : after the death of Joshua, the Israelites proved disloyal to Yahweh ; Yahweh punished them by deUvering them into the hand of their enemies, but, as often as they cried to him for help, raised up a deliverer, who overthrew the oppressor and gave the people peace for a long period. The tenses in ii. 18 f., a passage which states the theory summarily, are frequenta- tives : the entire period, according to this general state- ment of the writer, consisted of recurrent cycles of sin, punishment, penitence, deliverance and peace — of periods of oppression closing in a cry to God for help, moments of deUverance, and periods of freedom and prosperity closing in forgetf ulness of God. The periods of enslavement and freedom consist in vn.J JUDGES 61 40 several instances of 40, or 40x2, or — years ; the total of 410 years added to the date of Saul (c. 1050) would carry back the beginning of the period into the fifteenth century B.C., when, as the contemporary Tell el-Amama tablets indicate, the Hebrew tribes were not yet settled in Canaan. The chronology of the book must, therefore, be regarded as an incorrect and artificial scheme. But the chronology is not the only artificial element in the framework : the judges are not only fitted into a definite and exact chronological sequence, they become one and all deliverers or rulers of all Israel : they judge Israel, and under them the land, i.e., the entire land of all the Hebrew tribes, enjoys rest. Yet when we pass from the introductory and closing remarks into the heart of the stories of the several judges, the judges appear as tribal or local heroes : e.g., Samson, according to the framework, judged (all) Israel ; but his exploits are confined to a small district in the south-west of the land of Israel. And similarly Gideon is the deKverer and ruler of central Palestine. Deborah and Barak, indeed, summoned to their aid most of the tribes of Israel (though not Judah) : yet their exploit was a deliverance, at least primarily, of Northern Palestine : and there is no indication either in the story of ch. iv., or the poem of ch. v., that either Barak or Deborah continued to judge the whole people, or to rule over the whole land. The tone and style of the framework bring it into close relation with Deuteronomy ; if the publication of Deuter- onomy is rightly placed in 621, the editing of old stories of the judges in a manner and with additions that point the moral of the reforming school of Josiah's reign may be with probability placed about 600 B.C. The stories incorporated in and forming the bulk of this Deuteronomic history of the Judges appear themselves to have been drawn from different sources : this is most obvious in the two accounts of Deborah and Barak ; one of these (ch. iv.) is in prose, the other (ch. v.) is in verse. Q2 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. and there are material, as well as these formal, differences between the two accounts. The song in ch. v. is the oldest element in the book of Judges, and not improbably the oldest surviving piece of Hebrew Uterature : it appears to have been composed by a contemporary of the events described, and these must have occurred about 1100 B.C. From V. 7, as rendered in R. V., it might, indeed, be inferred that Deborah herself was the composer of the song ; but that verse should rather read, * until thou, Deborah, didst arise, till thou didst arise,' etc., or * imtil Deborah arose . . . arose ' (so the most ancient versions). Else- where in the poem Deborah is addressed (v. 12), or spoken of in the third person (v. 15). The stories of Samson are homogeneous, and are derived from a source that has affinities, and is by some identified, with the source so largely drawn upon in the Hexateuch and known as J (ninth century B.C., see p. 37). From the same source may be derived the story of Ehud, and parts of the stories of Gideon and Abimelech ; but in these last stories the extracts from this source are combined with extracts from another source {e.g., ix. 1-21, 42-55) having some affinities with, and again by some identified with, the source E (eighth century B.C., p. 44) of the Pentateuch. For fuller details, reference must be made to the critical commentaries on the book. The question has arisen : Did the Deuteronomic editor himself combine these different sources, or did he make use of an earlier pre-Deuteronomic book of Judges in which the combination had already taken place ? The latter alternative is not improbable, and may be kept in view in considering some further pecuUarities of the central section of the present book. A reference back to the contents of the book as given on p. 60 will show that six only of the stories are really fitted into the framework ; only in the case of Othniel, Ehud, Deborah-Barak, Gideon, Jephthah and Samson have we all three data that the scheme of the framework requires, viz. (1) a foreign oppression before the appearance of the VTL] JUDGES 63 judge, (2) the length of this oppression, and (3) the length of the period of rest that followed the deUverance. The brief notice of Shamgar mentions indeed an oppressor, but neither gives the origin of the judge, nor defines the period either of oppression or rule. The judgeships of Jair, Ibzan, Elon and Abdon follow no period of oppression : nor is either the nature or the period of the preceding oppres- sion stated in the notice of Tola. And the long story of Abimelech stands also free of the framework. In brief, within the central portion of the present book of Judges we have sections which, Uke the Introduction (i. 1-ii. 6) and the Appendix (xvii.-xxi.), stand free of the framework. It may be that all these sections ahke, and not merely the Introduction and Appendix, were absent from the Deutero- nomic book of Judges. Then we may frame a more detailed theory of the origin and history of our book as follows : — Oral stories of the pre-monarchic period, and songs composed at that period, were in circulation in Israel during the earher monarchic period : some of these were collected and written down in various Uterary works during, say, the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. In the seventh century, a writer drawing on more than one of such Uterary sources, and himself perhaps providing a chronological framework, and generahsing the local leaders into rulers of all Israel, composed what we may term the pre-Deuteronomic book of Judges : this con- tained the greater part of what now stands in Judges (apart from the Deuteronomic framework), and not impro- bably stories also of the last judges, EU and Samuel, some of which now appear in 1 Samuel. About 600 B.C. the Jewish editor of the Deuteronomic book of Judges extracted from the pre-Deuteronomic book of Judges the stories of (Othniel), Ehud, Deborah-Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, placed the notice of the Calebite, i.e. Jewish, hero, Othniel, whom the earlier work had noticed, if at all, but scantly, at the place of honour at the head of the series of judges, and provided the whole with its moralising and 64 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. generalising framework. Both books lived on, the more extensive and less moralising pre-Deuteronomic, and the smaller but more moralising Deuteronomic, books of Judges, till another editor expanded the Deuteronomic book by adding much that had been omitted from it of the pre- Deuteronomic work. One object which he had in view was to produce a work on * the Twelve Judges of Israel.' For this purpose he added the five brief and similar notes on the five judges mentioned in x. 1-5, xii. 8-15, and the longer story of Abimelech who is impUed by x. 1 to have formed one of the series of deliverers or judges. Yet later some reader of the book of the Twelve Judges, thinking Abimelech no true member of the series, completed the number twelve by introducing the short note on Shamgar who (like Samson) delivered from the Phihstines ; but perhaps he inserted his note not where it now stands in iii. 31, but after xvi. 31, where certain MSS. of the LXX. read, ' And after Samson arose Shamgar * etc. The other additions made by the editor of * the Book of the Twelve Judges ' may have included ch. xvi., for it would be easy to explain the curious way in which xv. 16 anticipates xvi. 31b, if we suppose that the Deuteronomic editor brought his story to an end with the concluding formula in xv. 20. The Introduction (i. 1-ii. 5) and Appendix (xvii.-xxi.), together with certain sections within ii. 6-xvi. 31, show no trace of the pecuUar Deuteronomic tone and style of the author of the framework. In the main both Introduction and Appendix seem to go back ultimately to an early source having affinities with the early Hexateuchal source J (see also p. 27). But in chs. xix.-xxi. (more especially chs. xx.-xxi.) the story derived from this old source appears to have been extensively modified by a writer of Midrashic (cp. p. 95) tendencies : in parts of the story Israel acts together ' as a single man * ; this particular trait by itself might suggest a Deuteronomic editor (cp. Joshua, Deutero- nomic book of Judges) ; but the phraseology suggests the influence of a still later school, that, namely, of P of the viLi . JUDGES ee Hexateuch ; Israel is, as in Ex. xii. 3 and frequently in P, * the congregation/ and allusion is made to Aaron's grand- son Phinehas (xx. 28). Following this clue we may, if P is correctly dated c. 500 B.C., fix the date of the history of the Twelve Judges with Introduction and Appendix about 400 B.a ee CRITICAL INTRODUanON TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. CHAPTER VIII THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS: (2) 1 AND 2 SAMUEL The historical work entitled Samuel was originally, as it continued to be in Hebrew MSS., and in printed editions of the Hebrew Bible prior to 1517 a.d., an undivided narrative. In the Septuagint, on the other hand, it is divided into two books; and these are by title closely connected with Kings : 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings are in the Septuagint, 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kingdoms (Jerome : Kings). The subject of Samuel is the estabUshment of the Hebrew monarchy : it is at the same time a record of three Uves that overlap, viz., of (a) Samuel — priest, seer, prophet, judge, 1 Sam. i.-xii. ; (b) Saul — king, 1 Sam. xiii.-xxxi. ; (c) David — king, 2 Sam. The work has also been differ- ently divided so as to bring out a dramatic characteristic of it ; 1 Sam. i.-vii. depicts Samuel superseding Eh ; 1 Sam. viii.-xv. Saul superseding Samuel ; 1 Sam. xvi.-2 Sam. viii. David superseding Saul; and 2 Sam. ix.-l Kings ii. David's sons superseding David. The history of the monarchy begun in Samuel is com- pleted in Kings ; Samuel and Kings together relate the estabhshment of the monarchy and the history of the Hebrew people under it. The common subject, the common title, and the fact that the last days and death of David are related not in Samuel but in Kings suggest an intimate connection between Samuel and Kings, if not indeed an original unity. But the period which from one standpoint may be regarded as that of the establishment of the monarchy is. vm.] SAMUEL 67 regarded from another, the conclusion of the period of the Judges. Samuel was the king-maker, and as such stands at the head of the history of the monarchy recorded in Samuel and Kings ; he was also, together with his sons (1 Sam. viii. 1), the last of the judges, whose history forms the subject of the book of Judges : Samuel judged Israel forty (LXX. twenty) years (1 Sam. iv. 18), or, as it is other- wise put, ' all the days of his life ' (1 Sam. vii. 16). Moreover, the monarchy arose in the conflict of the Hebrews with the Philistines, and the opening stages or scenes of that conflict are recorded not in Samuel, but in Judges. Thus Samuel is intimately connected both with Judges and Kings : it is the complement to the one, the prelude to the other work. This fact becomes significant when we attempt to trace the original history of the books of Samuel. The period covered by Samuel is nearly the equivalent of two long lives : it extends from the days immediately preceding the birth of Samuel to the days immediately preceding the death of David, and the years common to the Uves of Samuel and David scarcely exceeded twenty- five. Approximately, then, the period covered by Samuel is a century, say, from about 1070, or, as others put it, 1050, to about 970 B.C. It follows that Samuel, unUke Kings, covers a period that could fall within a couple of memories ; it might, so far as this consideration alone is concerned, have been written from the direct knowledge of an old man at the close of David's reign, and the information given to him by his father. Again, Samuel, imlike Kings, does not regularly refer to sources as containing information about the past which the author is describing : the one source cited by name is the book of Jashar : ^ this is said to have contained David's elegy over Saul and Jonathan. Other poems or poetical fragments, certainly or presumably not the work of the author of Samuel, are the song of Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 1-10), the women's distich (1 Sam. xviii. 7,xxi. 11, xxix. 5), David's elegy over Abner (2 Sam. iii.33f.), » 2 Sam. i. 18 ; cp. Jos. x. 13. 68 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. Ps. xviii. (=2 Sam. xxii.), David's last words (2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7) ; but no source is cited for any of these, nor is it necessarily implied that the author knew of them in written form. Is it, then, possible, that Samuel was written by a con- temporary of David ? It is, of course, impossible that Samuel himself wrote the book (see p. 6), for more than half of it describes the period subsequent to the death of Samuel. But in its present form it cannot even have been written by any other contemporary, elder or younger, of David ; for in 1 Sam. xxvii. 6 we read that * Ziklag per- taineth unto the kings of Judah unto this day * ; and the author of these words obviously Uved after the disruption of the monarchy that followed the death of Solomon, and after there had already been several kings of the separate kingdom of Judah. Moreover, in 1 Sam. xxx. 25, 2 Sam. vi. 8 the days of David are regarded as belonging to a past age. * Affinities in thought and expression with Deuteronomy * point to the influence on parts of the book of the seventh or even of the sixth century ; see e.gr. 1 Sam. ii. 27-36. But if the compilation of Samuel must be placed centuries after the death of David, it is possible and, indeed, highly probable, that there are embedded in these books records much less remote from the period which they describe ; for, in spite of the absence of references to sources, the occurrences of duplicate narratives and some disorder and lack of continuity indicate somewhat clearly that the author of Samuel, Uke the authors of Judges, Kings, and Chronicles, incorporated in his own work large parts of earlier works. Down to the end of 1 Sam. vii. the order and development of events is not conspicuously broken, nor is there any obvious duplication of narratives, though a closer examination may discover reasons for questioning the homogeneity of even this section of the work, and for con- cluding that much is of considerably earlier origin than the late passage at the end of the second chapter (ii. 27-36). It is not, however, until we reach the account of how vm.] SAMUEL 69 Saul became king (1 Sam. 8-12) that it becomes quite evident that Samuel is based, in part at least, on two records that regarded the same events from different standpoints. And not only is the narrative based on two different records, but it consists almost entirely of alternating extracts from them. It wiU be found that chs. viii., X. 17-24*, xii. tell the story in question in one way ; chs. ix.-x. 16,2 xi. 1-11 ^ in another ; for brevity of reference the last-named passages may be referred to as A, the former as B. Briefly summarised, so as to bring out the more significant differences, these two stories run as follows : according to A, Saul in search of his father's asses comes to Samuel, not as it would have seemed to him at the time through a mere accident, but led by Yahweh, who had the previous day (ix. 16) told Samuel to expect him, and, when he came, to anoint him leader or prince (n'gid) ; for, by means of Saul, Yahweh intends to deUver his people from the Philistines, who are now oppressing them,* and against whom they have cried to him,^ not (as in viii. 5, 19 f.) specifically for a king, but, as those who have been wronged, for help. Samuel, thus warned, receives Saul with honour, anoints him leader (x. 1), and teUs him that the spirit of Yahweh will invade him and that, thereafter, he is to seize the (first) opportunity of exercising his leadership (x. 7). A month or so later* this opportunity presents itself, and Saul seizes it : he dehvers Jabesh-Gilead from the assault and threats of the Ammonites (xi. 11) : thereupon the people make Saul king at Gilgal (xi. 15). The subsequent narra tives of chs. xiii.' and xiv. relate how Saul carried out the main purpose for which Yahweh had selected him (ix. 16) by deHvering the people from the PhiHstines. In story B we find the same dramatis personce — Yahweh, Samuel, Saul, the people — but the attitudes and motives of 1 Or X. 17-27 (to * present '). 2 Perhaps omitting x. 8. » Reading in x; 27 b, xi. 1, ' And it came to pass after about a month that Nahash the Ammonite,' etc. (so LXX.). * Cp. Judg. X. 7. 6 Cp. Judg. X. 16. • xi. 1 LXX. ; see note a y In ch. xiii. rers. 8-15a, 19-22 may be later. 70 CRITICAL INTRODUCnON TO OLD TESTAMENT [cjh. the several actors are entirely different. The starting point here is not Yahweh's solicitude for his people, but the bUndness of the people to their own peculiar destiny and privileges which leads them into a treasonable dis- regard of the existing sovereignty of Yahweh (viii. 7, x. 19), so that they demand a king that they may be ' Uke the nations ' (viii. 6). The occasion of this demand is the evil conduct of Samuel's sons, whom in his old age he had appointed his deputies to judge the people. Samuel is offended at the demand, but Yahweh, though he treats it as treasonable, grants it, at the same time instructing Samuel to draw for the people a vivid picture of all the tyrannical acts of kings (viii. 9 ff.). Samuel summons the people to Mizpah (x. 17), and there discovers, by means of successive lots (x. 19-21), whom Yahweh has chosen to be king. Having thus served as Yahweh's instrument in satisfying the demand of the people, and presenting them with a king (xii. 1), Samuel takes farewell of the people ; he promises that in future Yahweh will overlook their treason (xii. 12, 19 f.), if they and their king obey him (xii. 14) ; but a thimderstorm in harvest is brought about at Samuel's invocation to bring home to them the wicked- ness they have committed (xii. 17). Saul does not obey Yahweh (ch. xv., especially v. 22) ; he is, therefore, rejected, and if ch. xv. was, as it may well have been, the immediate sequel to ch. xii., then according to story B, Saul was no sooner king than he provoked Yahweh's anger and was rejected by him. The brief allusion to the war with Amalek in xiv. 48 breathes a different spirit. Thus the story of the origin of the monarchy is characterised not merely by duplications, nor even merely by such apparent inconsistency of details as the statement in xi. 16, that the king-making took place at Gilgal, and in X. 17 that it took place at Mizpah. The story as it now stands is alternately dominated by two entirely different judgments of the Heorew monarchy : the kingship appears now as an unsolicited blessing given by Yahweh to his people for their comfort and help, now as a thing coveted vin.] SAMUEL 71 by the people, and, in response to their demand, given to them indeed by Yahweh, but as a means of chastisement, for the king will treat them ill (viii. 9 ff.). A difference such as this indicates that the present narrative is a combination of two narratives originally distinct. To the person who combined these narratives, or to some later hand, we may attribute some superficial attempts to connect the two, such as the clause inserted in B, * and when ye saw that Nahash, the King of Ammon, came against you ' (xii. 12), which refers back to an incident related in A (xi.), but not in B. Duplication of mutually discordant narratives is scarcely less evident in the account of the choice of David and of his introduction to Saul. According to one story (A),* David is first introduced to Saul as a skilful harpist who is to charm away the melancholia of the king, and who is, thereafter, Hke other brave men, whom Saul was con- stantly watching to discover, employed by Saul also against the Philistines (xiv. 52) : by his striking success he wins popular favour, but at the same time excites the envy of the king, who, utilising David's affection for his daughter Michal, endeavours by a stratagem to get rid of him : the stratagem fails, and David marries Michal. According to the other story (B),* David, while yet unknown to Saul or his court, first distinguishes himself in the con- flict with the Philistines by slaying Goliath (contrast 2 Sam. xxi. 19), and in consequence of this success is from that time forward attached to the court. Here, too, David arouses popular favour and the fear of the king ; the king's stratagem is more vaguely alluded to, but in this story Saul breaks his promise, and when the time comes withholds from David the hand of his daughter, here called Merab, and gives her to another. Again chs. xxiv. and xxvi. are more probably two different versions of a popular story than records of two similar, but distinct, series of events. 1 1 Sam. xiv. 62 ; xvi. 14-23 ; xviii. 6-11, 20^ « 1 Sam. xvii.-xviii. 4 ; xviiL 13-19. 72 CRITICAL mTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH. Obviously, two such sources as the phenomena which have just been observed indicate need not throughout have covered precisely the same ground ; each may have treated of matters that were left unnoticed in the other. On the other hand, it would be conceivable that A and B in chs. viii.-xv. and in chs. xvi.-xix. were not derived from the same two works, but that more than two sources were drawn upon in these and other chapters. Yet, as a matter of fact, the greater part of 1 and 2 Samuel may be divided up into narratives that are at least related to A, and narratives related to B, whether that relation be throughout one due to identity of authorship, or merely to the similarity of style and standpoint shared by two or more writers of the same school. Belonging to, or related to, A are (following Budde's analysis, but without noting here glosses and minor intrusions), 1 Sam. ix.-x. 7, 9-16 ; xi. 1-11, 14, 16 ; xiii. 1-7, 15 (from ' And Saul ')-18, 23 ; xiv. 1-46, 52 ; xvi. 14-23 ; xviii. 5-11, 20-30 ; xx. 1-4, 18-39 ; xx. 42 ; xxii. 1-5, 6-9, 11- 19, 21-23 ; xxiii. 1-14, 19-28 ; xxiv. 1-20, 23 (from * And Saul *) ; XXV. 2-44 ; xxvii. 1-xxviii. 15 ; xxviii. 19 (from ' and on the morrow ') -25 ; xxix.-xxxi. ; 2 Sam. i. 1-4, 11, 12, 17-27 ; ii. 1-v. 3 ; v. 6-25 ; vi. viii. 7-18 ; ix.-xii. 7 (to * the man *), 9 (from * thou hast smitten '), 13-31 ; xiii.-xiv. 24 ; xiv. 28-33 ; xv.-xx. 22 ; xxi. 16-22 ; xxiii. 5-39 ; xxiv. Related to B are 1 Sam. i., ii. 11-26 ; iii. 1-10, 16-21 ; iv. (omitting 16, 22 and last clause of v. 18) ; v. vi. (omitting lib, 16, 17, 18c) vii.-viii. 1-22 (down to 'king'); x. 17-24; xii. 1-11, 12 (from 'and ye said ') ; XV., xvii. 1-11, 14-58 ; xviii. 1-4, 12-19 ; xix. (mostly), xxi. 2-10 ; xxiii. 14 (from * and Saul ')-18 ; xxvi. ; 2 Sam. i. 6-10, 13-16 ; vii. Of these two sources or groups of sources, B appears to be, or to include, the more recent ; for the attitude to the monarchy found in A is most naturally explained if the writer belonged to the earlier days of that institution before disillusionment had become complete and widely ^m.] SAMUEL 73 prevalent, and similarly the attitude in B is that to be expected after disillusionment had set in. Again the story of Goliath in B appears to postulate a longer or shorter interval between A and B, during which a celebrated feat of David's reign, attributed in the first instance, as it still is in A, to one of David's servants, became transformed into an act of personal prowess on the part of David himself in his youth while Saul was still reigning. If we pass from the question of relative to that of absolute dates, it may be observed that A was certainly written after l)avid's death if it included either 1 Sam. xxvii. 6 or 1 Kings i., ii. (in the main), and it probably included both, and almost certainly even if it included neither : the narra- tives in 2 Sam. ix.-xx. refer to a period in David's life when his children were already mature and capable of acting against him pohtically, and the Hsts in xxiii. 8-39 seem to be Hsts of a reign and period that is closed. On the other hand, there is a freshness and vividness about the stories, and an absence of indication of prolonged development of tradition that favour a date not very remote from the events described. With this accords the attitude to the monarchy and the style. The source, or sources, denoted by A may well be as early as, or even considerably earUer than, c. 800 B.C. B, later than A, may well be as late as, or later than, Hosea (c. 760-740 B.C.), whose judgment of the monarchy (Hos. xiii. 11) is similar. To the same date certain affini- ties of style that have been detected between B and the Pentateuchal source E would also point; see Driver, Introduction, p. 177. The question whether A and B respectively represent a single source, or more than one, hangs together with the question of the nature and purpose of those sources. Were they biographies of Samuel, Saul, David ? In this case each biography in each series might be the work of a dif- ferent hand. Or were they narratives of the origins of the monarchy ? If they were, unity of source in either case 74 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. is sufficiently probable. The discussion of the question cannot be carried further here. It remains to consider briefly certain other points in the history of the books of Samuel ; and as a preliminary to this, one or two remarkable features of Samuel in its present form. Both at the end of what is now the first and at the end of the second book, the order is strange. 1 Sam. xxviii. 3-25 is obviously misplaced ; for (1) it relates the eve of the battle of Gilboa (vers. 4, 19), and is thus the introduction not to chs. xxix., xxx., but to ch. xxxi. ; (2) in xxviii. 4 Saul and the Philistines are encamped at Gilboa and Shunem respectively, i.e., at some four miles distance from one another, in readiness for battle, whereas in xxix. I the PhiHstines have proceeded no further than Aphek, which lay in the plain of Sharon, a good day's march at least from Gilboa, and not till xxix. II do they reach Jezreel just under Gilboa. More curious still is the position of 2 Sam. xxi.-xxiv., and also the arrangement of the sections within these chapters. The sections are as follows : — (a) xxi. 1-14, Yahweh punishes David's land with famine, but listens to David's prayer. (6) xxi. 15-22, details of the wars with the Philistines. (c) xxii., a Psalm (=Ps. xviii.). (d) xxiii. 1-8, another poem : * David's last words.' (c) xxiii. 8-39, heroes in the war with the Philistines, and other soldiers of David. (/) xxi v., Yahweh again punishes David's land, this time with pestilence, which, however, in answer to David's prayer, he stays. Note xxiv. 1 con- tinues xxi. 14b ; cp. also xxiv. 25. Now it is obvious that of these sections a and /, b and c, c and d respectively are most intimately connected with one another, and so much so that it looks as if 6 and e must first have been inserted between a and /, and then c and d between b and c. Again, the section as a whole looks Uke an appendix to the account of David's reign in 2 Sam. i.-xz., vm.] SAMUEL 76 or an interpolation, if 2 Sam. i.-xz. and 1 Kings i., ii. be treated as continuous ; for whereas 2 Sam. xx. and the immediately preceding chapters deal with an advanced period in David's reign and life, and naturally lead up to the account of his last days in 1 Kings i. ii., 2 Sam. xxi. 1-14 clearly, and 2 Sam. xxiv., possibly, belong to a much earlier period of the king's reign ; so also do the wars with the Philistines. Other instances of misplacement have also been surmised, and it has been suggested by Mr. S. A. Cook that even 2 Sam. ix.-xx. is neither homogeneous nor in order ; but that Absalom's revolt belonged to a relatively early, the Ammonite war to a later, period of the reign, and that we should approximate more nearly to the meaning of the sources of 2 Sam. by re-arranging thus, ii.-iv. (Ishbaal), ix. Meribaal ; xiii.-xx., Absalom's revolt ; x.-xii. Ammonite war ; and by referring y.-viii. and 2;xi.-xxiv. to a separate source. 76 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT Lea CHAPTER IX THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS: (3) 1 AND 2 KINGS Kings, like Samuel, was originally a single undivided work. The existing division into two books, which is as ancient as the Greek version, unhke the similar division of Samuel, corresponds to no marked turn in the history, but divides the narrative in the middle of the unimportant reign of Ahaziah of Israel. Kings must have been written during or after the Exile, for it brings the history down to the fall of the monarchy and the Exile (586 B.C.), and in 2 Kings xxv. 27 ff. the release of Jehoiachin in 561 B.C. and his subsequent Ufe are summarily referred to. Moreover, 1 Kings iv. 24 was written by one to whom Gaza is beyond ^ the River (Euphrates), i.e. by one who, probably having settled as a captive in Babylon in 597 or 586 B.C., was at the time hving east of the Euphrates. Other pre-suppositions of Exile may be found in 2 Kings xvii. 19 f. ; xxiii. 26 f., if not also in certain passages that are given in the form of prophecies ; see 1 Kings ix. 7-9 ; 2 Kings xx. 17 f. ; xxi. 10-15 ; xxii. 15-20. Since no return from Exile is recorded, it is possible that the writer, who recorded the release of Jehoiachin, wrote before the release of the people as a whole in 538 B.C. Kings is a history of the Hebrew Monarchy from the death of David and the accession of Solomon (c. 970 B.C.) to its extinction in 586. Incorporated at places into this history of the monarchy are narratives concerning the » 3«© R.V. marg. : the rendering of A.V. and R.V. text is quite Illegitimate. IX.] KINGS 77 prophets ; and, even apart from these special narratives, though the subject of the book is the monarchy, its standpoint is prophetic, or, to speak more specifically, Deuteronomic. The work falls naturally into three divisions : — (1) 1 Kings i. 1 (ii. 12)-xi. Solomon (c. 970-930). (2) 1 Kings xii.-2 Kings xvii. The Divided Monarchy (c. 930-722). (3) 2 Kings xviii.-xxv. The Jewish Monarchy (722- 686). In the first and third section a simple chronological method was possible, and to this extent was adopted that the reigns of the successive Jewish kings are dealt with successively and separately. In the second section the difficulty that always presents itself when separate histories are treated together had to be met ; and the writer's method is as follows : starting with Jeroboam, the first king of the northern kingdom after the Disruption, he carries the narrative of this reign to a close; and, then turning to Judah, continues the history of Judah through the reigns of Rehoboam, Abijam and Asa, i.e. down to the end of the reign of the last king who was to any extent contemporary with Jeroboam. The commence- ment of Rehoboam's reign coincided with that of Jeroboam ; with Abijam (i. xv. 1) the writer begins, and with (xv. 9) Asa continues, what was to be his regular method of dating: the accession of each king is dated by reference to the year of the king then reigning in the sister kingdom. Having related the history of all Jewish kings in any degree con- temporary with Jeroboam, the writer now describes the reigns of all kings of Israel in any degree contemporary with Asa, king of Judah : these are Nadab (xv. 25), Baasha (xv. 33), Elah (xvi. f.), Zimri (xvi. 15), Omri (xvi. 21), Ahab (xvi. 2a). The effect of the method just described is that Jehosha- phat is introduced as the reigning king of Judah into a narrative of the northern kingdom (1 Kings xxii. 2) before 78 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. the commencement of his reign has been formally recorded (xxii. 41) in the narrative of the southern kingdom. The simultaneous deaths of Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah at the hands of Jehu, who succeeded to the throne of Israel (2 Kings ix.), called for some modifica- tion of the method ; for Jehu could not be said to have begun to reign in year a; of a reigning king of Judah, nor Athahah (2 Kings xi. 1) in year a; of a reigning king of Israel. The writer meets the case by inserting the reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kings viii. 26-29) before} and not, as his method in normal circumstances would have re- quired, after the end of the reign of Joram of Israel. Occasionally a narrative falls outside the regnal scheme : thus the account of EUjah's death (2 Kings ii.) is inserted between the records of Ahaziah's death and the accession of his successor (2 Kings i. 17 f., iii. i. f.)- So also the ac- count of Ehsha's death (2 Kings xiii. 14-21) falls between the death of Joash (2 Kings xiii. 13) and the accession of Jeroboam (2 Kings xiv. 23). The author of a history extending over several centuries may for the last few years of it write out of his own personal knowledge of events, but for the most part he must be dependent on sources. Of what sources did the writer of Kings avail himself, and how did he use them ? From our examination of other Hebrew historical works we should be prepared to expect that he has incorporated, with httle or no modification, extracts from the sources at his command ; and the marked difference in style between different parts of Kings confirms this expectation. Just as little as the Chronicler does the author of Kings freely compose his narrative in its entirety ; he composes a framework into which he (or, as some hold, a later editor) inserts, with or without modifications, extracts from various sources. The framework consists in part of facts, such as a king's age at accession, length of reign and so forth, which the author obtained from statements in his sources or by inference from such statements, and in part of his reflections 1 Yet Bee also 2 Kings iz. 29. IX.] KINGS 79 on the facts, suoh as his judgments on the character of the several kings. It will be convenient to examine first the framework, and then to consider the sources named, or used unnamed, by its author or by later scribes who have brought the work into its present form. The exact extent of the framework or free composition of the author of Kings may be open to some doubt, but the framework proper, the scheme which holds the whole book together, is clear : it consists of certain similar sections or formulae that occur regularly in connection with the several reigns, and constitute the minimum notice taken of any reign ; the amount of additional matter introduced into this framework differs greatly for different reigns. These recurring formulae occiu: with some variations of form and completeness, which are admirably and exhaus- tively tabulated by Dr. Bumey in his Notes , , , on Kings, pp. X ff.; but normally the contents of the formulae are as follows : — 1. At the beginning of a reign of a king of Judah the formula gives : — (a) A synchronism of the date of accession with the regnal year of the reigning king of Israel (neces- sarily omitted after the fall of the northern king- dom, which took place in the reign of Hezekiah) ; (b) King's age at accession ; (c) Length of his reign ; (d) The name of the king's mother ; (e) A judgment on the king's character. 2. At the beginning of a reign of a king of Israel the formula gives : — (a) A synchronism with the reigning king of Judah ; (b) The length of the king's reign ; (c) A judgment, in most cases in two parts — (a) in general terms, (y8) by comparison with the sinful Jeroboam. 80 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAIVIENT [ch. 3. At the end of a reign, whether of a king of Judah qi Israel, the full formula gives :-^ (o) The source in which further information may be obtained ; (h) Notice of the king's death and burial ; (c) The name of his successor. Solomon's reign is not introduced by a formula ; instead, judgment after the manner of formula 1 is passed on him in 1 Kings iii. 3, xi. 4-6, and the statement of the length of his reign is inserted (1 Kjngs xi. 42) in the middle of the concluding formula (1 Kings xi. 41-43) : op. 1 Kings ii. 10 f. of David. Typical examples may be found of formula 1 in 1 Kings xxii. 41-43 ; 2 Kings xv. 1-4 ; of formula 2 in 1 Kings xv. 33 f. ; of formula 3 in 1 Kings xvi. 5 f. ; 2.Kings xv. 6, 7. Formula 3 is entirely lacking at the end of the reigns of Athaliah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah of Judah, and of Jehoram and Hoshea of Israel, and the formula is more often incomplete at the end of a king of Israel's reign than at the end of a king of Judah's. If the free composition of the author of Kings were hmited to these formulae, it would be simplest to suppose that he Uved after the fall of the Jewish kingdom in 586 B.C., for the reign of the last king is, Uke the rest, introduced by formula 1 (2 Kings xxiv. 18-20), which, since it gives the length of the reign, implies that the author outlived it. But there is an alternative possibiUty : the author of the main part of the framework may have hvcd before the Exile, and his work may have been extended by a supple- menter who adopted the formula? used in the main body of the work for the additional reigns which he recorded. In view of this possibility it is necessary to consider how nearly the date of the main body of the framework can be deteripined independently of this consideration ; and the conclusion suggested is that the main body of the frame- work was written after the date of Josiah's reformation in 621 B.C., for the judgments passed on the several kings of Et] KINGS 81 Israel and Judah are judgments determined by the centralis- ation of worship in Jerusalem which formed the leading objective of the reformation ; stated otherwise, the standpoint of the framework is throughout, as is also the phraseology, Deuteronomic. Consequently all the kings of Israel except Shallum, on whom no formal judgment is passed, are judged to have done evil, because they failed to reverse the action of Jeroboam who, by cutting off the northern kingdom from the south, cut it off also from access to the sanctuary in Jerusalem. There are other parts of Kings besides the formulae that are more or less clearly Deuteronomic in tone and temper as well as in style; and some of these, such as Solomon's prayer, which is markedly Deuteronomic (1 Kings viii. 15-53), and others (1 Kings xi. 36 ; 2 Kings viii. 19 ; 1 Kings ix. 3), seem to imply that the kingdom of Judah, or the Davidic monarchy, or the Temple, still existed, and consequently that the passages in question were written before 586 B.C. Certain passages, too, by referring to conditions which, strictly speaking, ceased at the Exile, as continuing ' unto this day,' seem to imply that they were written before those conditions ceased to exist, i.e. before the Exile ; see 1 Kings viii. 8, ix. 21, xii. 19 ; 2 Kings viii. 22, xvi. 6 ; but if 2 Kings viii. 22 imphes a date prior to 586, 1 Kings xii. 19 should imply a date prior to 722. In several cases either the inference as to pre-exilic date is precarious, or the connection of the passage with the framework uncertain. Into the minuter analysis of the parts of Kings which may be regarded as Deuteronomic and not earUer than 621 B.C., it is impossible to enter here. But it may be con- venient to give the passages assigned by Stade either (a) to the author of the framework whom he calls the Epitomist, or (6) to other writers of the Deuteronomic school ; these passages are (a) 1 Kings iii. lb, 3, 4a ; viii. 11-13 ; ix. llb-13, 16, 17a, 20, 26-28 ; x. 28 f. ; xi. la, 3, 7 f., 9a, 41-43 ; xii. 1 f., 25-28a, 29-31 ; xiii. 33b, 34 ; xiv. 19-31 (mainly) ; xv. (except v. 3) ; xvi. 5 f., 8-11, 14-34 ; V 82 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH. xxii. 39-46, 51-54 ; 2 Kings i. (17), 18 ; iii. 1-3 ; viii. 16-18, 20-29 ; X. 28 f., 32, 34-36 ; xii. 1-4, 18-22 ; xiii. 1-3, 7-11, 22, 25a ; xiv. 1-5, 15 f., 18-21, 23, 24, 26-29 ; xv. 1-xvi. 3 ; xvi. 5 f., 19 £. ; xvii. 1-6, 21-23 ; xviii. 1 f., 5-7, 9-11, 13, 16 ; XX. 20, 21 ; xxi. 1, 2a, 16-20, 23-26 ; xxii. 1 f. ; xxiii. 24 f., 28-37 ; xxiv. 5 f. ; (6) ii. 1-12, 27 ; iii. la, 2, 15; V. 16-19; vi. 11-14; vii. 47-50; viii. 9, 14-24, 26, 28-32, 35-66; ix. 1-9; xi. lb, 2, 4, 29-31, 33-38; xii. 15 ; xiv. 21 (in part) ; xv. 4 ; xvi. 33b ; 2 Kings viii. 19; x. 30 f . ; xiii. 4-6, 12 f., 23, 25b; xiv. 6; xvi. 3b, 4 ; xvii. 7-14, 15b-18, 34b-40 ; xxi. (1-15), 21 f. ; xxiii. 3b, 26 f. ; xxiv. 2-4, 7-10, 12, 16-19 ; xxv. 1-15, 18-28, 30. To some, though probably not to ail, of the written sources on which he drew in compiUng his work, the author refers by name. These named sources may be considered first : they are three : (1) the hook of the acts (dibri) of Solomon, which is cited in 1 Kings xi. 41 for the reign of Solomon ; (2) the book of the Chronicles (dibrt hayydmim) of the kings of Israel, which is cited, first in 1 Kings xiv. 19, and seventeen times in all, for the reigns of all kings of the northern kingdom except Jehoram and Hoshea ; (3) the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah, which is cited first in 1 Kings xiv. 29, and fifteen times in all, for the reigns of all the kings of Judah except Ahaziah, Athahah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. The kind of information Hkely to be found in what the Hebrews called ' a book of chronicles,' or, more hterally rendered, * a book of the affairs of the days,' might be inferred from 1 Chron. xxvii. 24 ; Neh. xii. 23, which men- tion chronicles containing statistical and genealogical material : the particular kind of material actually con- tained in the sources named by the author of Kings can be inferred from the brief descriptions given by him : these sources recorded illustrations of Solomon's wisdom (1 Kings xi. 41), or of a king's might (1 Kings xxii. 45 and other passages) ; they gave details of a king's conquests (2 Kings xiv. 28), of the water-works he constructed (2 Kings xx. 20), IX.] KINGS 83 of the cities he built (1 Kings xxii. 39 f.), of the costly palace he may have erected (1 Kings xxii. 39), or of the conspiracy by which he may have won his way to the throne (1 Kings xvi. 20 ; 2 Kings xv. 16) ; and, once, one of these sources is referred to for a record of the sin which the king sinned (2 Kings xxi. 17). Many details of the kind just indicated may well have been recorded at the time in royal records, such as that of Mesha, king of Moab, inscribed on what is known as the Moabite stone, and it is commonly held that the com*t official, whose duty it was to keep such records, is mentioned under the name of the mazTcir (E. V. recorder) in 2 Sam. viii. 16, XX. 24 ; 1 Kings iv. 3 ; 2 Kings xviii. 18-37 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 8. Be this as it may, the author of Kings does not refer to these primary and contemporary records, but to comprehensive works based upon them : except in the case of Solomon he refers not to the chronicle or record of a particular king, but to works containing, in the one case, records of (all) the kings of Israel, and, in the other, records of (all) the kings of Judah. As to the date at which these two comprehensive works were composed, much the same question arises as in the case of Kings itself : it would be simplest to infer that the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel was compiled after the fall of the northern kingdom in 722, and the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah after 586 ; but an alternative theory is possible,' viz., that such comprehensive works were compiled in each kingdom after several kings had already reigned, and that they were subsequently added to. Babylonian literature contains a work similar in character to that just inferred. The Babylonian chronicle is a record of pohtical events in the reigns of the kings of Babylon from 745-668 B.C. A few Unes from the opening of this work may suffice to illustrate the similarity of the Babylonian work, which exists in a copy made in the fifth century B.C., and the Hebrew chronicles, the nature of which is inferred from the allusion to them in Kings. The Babylonian chronicle opens thus : 84 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. * In the third year of Nabonassar, king of Babylon, Tiglath- pileser took his seat on the throne in Assyria. In the same year he marched against Akkad and plundered the cities of Rapiku and Khamranu. The gods of the city of Shapazza he carried away. 'During the reign of Nabonassar, Borsippa separated itself from Babylon. The battle of Nabonassar against Borsippa is not recorded. * Li the fifth year of Nabonassar, Ummanigash took his seat on the throne in Elam. *In the fourteenth year Nabonassar fell ill and died in his palace. Nabonassar ruled fourteen years over Babylon. Nadinu, his son, took his seat on the throne in Babylon. In the second year Nadinu was killed in a revolt. Nadinu reigned two years in Babylon. Shumukin, a governor of the province, a rebel, took his seat on the throne.' ^ Chronicles of the kings would probably be confined to the record of political events ; it is altogether unlikely that they would also contain long narratives in which prophets, not kings, play the chief part ; yet Kings contains such narra- tives.2 When we add to this negative consideration the fact that these nanatives are distinguished by peculiarities of style,'* we may safely infer that the author of Kings neither derived them from the chronicles which he so frequently mentions, nor composed them himself : they are derived from other written works compiled, perhaps, by prophets, and, as the diction is commonly supposed to indicate, in the northern kingdom, before its fall in 722 B.C. But just as the author of Chronicles certainly modifies his extracts from Samuel and Kings (pp. 8-11, 89-91), so the compiler, who incorporated these stories, almost certainly also modi- fied them more or less. A third type of source has not improbably contributed to » From Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Tentament (1912). by R. W. Rogers, who f(ives a translation of the Chronicle in full (pp. 208-219) * The narratives in question are probably not all derivwl from one source : one group may be found in 1 Kings xvii.-xix. ; xxi. ; 2 Kings i, 2-17a; ii. ; iv. • V. ; vi. 1-7 ; viii. 1-15 ; ix. 1-10, 28 ; xiii. 14-29 ; another iu 1 Kings xx. ; xxii. 1-38 : 2 Kings ii. 3, 4-27 ; vi. 8-33 ; vii. (xiv. 8-14) ; see Burney, np. 210-215. » C. F. Burney, Notes . . . Kings, p. 208 f. 8. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature qf tlie Old Testament, p. 188 n. a.] KINGS 86 the present form of Kings : the full details concerning the Temple given not only in 1 Kings vi., vii., but also in 2 Kings xi. 4 ff. ; xii. 4-16 ; xvi. 10-18 ; xxii. 3 fif., cannot with any probability be traced back to the same source as the prophetic narratives, nor with much probability to the royal chronicles : we may more safely infer the use of Temple records. It is altogether improbable that a writer who consulted and cited from sources throughout the whole of the rest of his work wrote the account of David's last days (1 Kings i. f .) out of his own head ; yet none of the sources already enumerated seem to lie at the basis of that narrative, but rather sources which were used in the compilation of Samuel (see above p. 73). Kings has reached us in two recensions, the one that of the Hebrew text and the English versions, the other that of the LXX. It is probable that neither recension retains the exact form which the book had assumed about 550 B.C., but that each in some measure reflects modifications, whether of arrangement, addition, or omission, which the book underwent after the Exile. The order of the last four chapters of 1 Kings (xix., xxi., xx., xxii.), and the shorter form of 1 Kings viii. 1-11 in the LXX. are examples of variations in which it is probable that the Greek recension represents an earlier form of the book than the Hebrew recension. Some of the matter absent from the Greek but present in the Hebrew text bears clear signs of the influence of P (p. 26), and on this ground these additions to the text may be assigned to a date at least as late as the fifth century B.C. Examples of these additions are (1) * and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers (houses) of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem,' in viii. 1 ; (2) * and the priests and Levites brought them up ' (R. V. * even these did the priests,' etc.), in viii. 4 ; (3) ' the congregation of,' in viii. 5. The diagram given below represents the main stages in the history of the Book of Kings ; the broken line on the right represents an alternative theory according to which 86 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. the stories of the prophets did not become associated with the annalistic and didactic (Deuteronomic) parts of Kings till after the Exile. Temple Pecords ffoya/ Records (from Solomon c. 9 70 ax. onwards) Prophetic Narratives (partly at feast betb/v 722 B.C.) /lets of Chronicles of Chronicles . Solomon, Kings of Judah, of Kings of/ Israel. ^ Framework, c. 600 ec. I Supplement, c 550 B.C. Later Additions ( Oeuteronom/cj /idditt'ons (PriesllyJ Hebrehf Recension Creels Recension CHRONICLES ^ 87 CHAPTER X THE LATER HISTORICAL BOOKS: (1) CHRONICLES The first and second books of Chronicles are merely two sections of one work, though the division, Hke the corre- sponding division of Kings, is already found in the Greek version. But even the two books of Chronicles do not represent the entire extent of the original work ; for of this work the books of Ezra and Nehemiah almost certainly formed the last sections (p. 97) ; but, since this conclusion rests on the converging evidence of several features common to these books it will be convenient to consider Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah in the main separately, not basing argu- ments as to the date and character of Chronicles exclusively on evidence drawn from Ezra-Nehemiah, nor vice versa. The narrative of Chronicles is carried down to the first year of Cyrus (2 Chron. xxxvi. 22), i.e. 537 B.C., and it necessarily follows that the work is post-exilic. But it is possible to go further and to say that the book was com- piled somewhat late in the post-exilic period — not earlier than c. 400 B.C., and more probably about 300, or even perhaps 200 B.C. Two pieces of evidence in Chronicles itself may be noted here : (1) in 1 Chron. iii. 19-24, the genealogy of David is carried down to the sixth generation, or, if we prefer the text of the Greek version, to the eleventh genera- tion, after Zerubbabel (fl. 520 B.C.) ; if we allow twenty years only to a generation, and follow the Hebrew text, this would carry us down to c. 400 as the earliest date at which Chronicles can have been composed ; if we follow the Greek text and allow thirty years to th-e generation 88 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. we obtain c. 190 B.C. as the earliest date ; (2) in 1 Chron. xxix. 7 the anachronism by which a sum of money is given in terms of the Persian coin ' daric * named after Darius i. (522-485 B.C.), shows that that coin had long been intro- duced, and that the writer Uved at earUest far on in the Persian period (538-332 B.C.). Even if Ezra-Nehemiah were not part of the same work, the occurrence in Chronicles and in Ezra-Nehemiah of similar linguistic pecuharities would point to the books belonging to much the same period, and Ezra-Nehemiah must certainly be dated later than 400 B.C. Chronicles divides naturally into three sections, as follows ! — (1) 1 Chron. i.-ix. : a thin thread of history from Adam to Saul, given in the form of genealogies : viz. i. 1-33, Adam to Isaac ; 24-68, Isaac's descendants through Esau ; ii.-ix. Isaac's de- scendants through Israel. (2) 1 Chron. x.-2 Chron. ix. (in all twenty-nine chapters) ; a history of the united monarchy over all Israel from the death of Saul to the death of Solomon. Saul is scarcely more than allusively referred to : David is the true leader even in Saul's lifetime (1 Chron. xi. 2=2 Sam. v. 2). (3) 2 Chron. x.-xxxvi. : a history of Judah oTiZy, from the disruption of the monarchy to the captivity (686 B.C.), and the Restoration (637 B.C.). In Ezra-Nehemiah the history is carried down from 637- 432 B.C. In the first division of his work the Chronicler is dependent in part on the Pentateuch in (substantially) its complete form ; he quotes from, or his information is based on, psussages belonging to both JE and P ; what lay before him was the combined work JEDP (cp. p. 50). So, for example, 1 Chron. i. 6-7=Gen. x. 2-4 (P) ; i. 8-16=Gen X. 6-7 (P)+Gen. x. 8, 13-18a (J) ; i. 17-23=Gen. x. 22, 23 x.] CHRONICLES 89 (P)-f Gen. X. 24-29 (J). Other parts of 1 Chron. i. are condensations of parts of Genesis which so much pre- suppose familiarity with Genesis that they would be un- intelligible without a knowledge of the earher work : the lists of names in vers. 1-4 and 24-27, for example, rest on Gen. V. (P), xi. 10-26 (P). In other parts of 1 Chron. i.-ix. the author is dependent on Joshua, Samuel or Kings ; for example, 1 Chron. iii. 1-9 is drawn from 2 Sam. iii. 2-5 ; v. 14-16 : in yet other parts the information is not derived from any known source. The scope and purpose of Chronicles can be best discerned by observing what parts of Samuel and Kings the author fails to reproduce, and what additions he makes, whether of his own or drawn from other sources. It must suffice to refer here to the larger omissions and additions, and also to a few of the smaller omissions or modifications, by way of illustrating the writer's dominant interests. The most extensive omission made in citing from the earUer sources is the entire history of the northern king- dom : this carries with it the omission of the great pro- phetic narratives about EHjah and Elisha which play so conspicuous a part in Kings. The only allusion to EUjah is in 2 Chron. xxi. 12, which is not derived from Kings ; and Elisha is not mentioned at all. But from the history even of the united monarchy as told in Samuel, there are also extensive omissions. The Hfe and reign of Saul are neglected ; only the story of his death (1 Chron. x. 1-12=1 Sam. xxxi.) is reproduced, and this in order to lead up to the moral pecuHar to the Chroni- cler (1 Chron. x. 13 f.). Then 2 Sam. i.-iv., with its record of David's affection for the great though fallen, but to the Chronicler the merely wicked, king, and of David's long wars with the house of Saul are entirely passed over ; so also is 2 Sam. v. 4 f., recording the length of David's reign over Judah only before he became king of all Israel. The effect of these omissions is striking, and was probably intended : had we only 1 Chron. x., xi. 1-9, and no other narrative in Samuel, we should suppose that David, crowned 90 CRmCAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. at Hebron immediately after Saul's death, moved at once to Jerusalem, becoming immediately and without opposition king of all Israel. In the same way the abortive attempts to interfere with Solomon's succession, recorded in 1 Kings i.-ii. 11, are omitted in Chronicles. The story of David's wars with the Ammonites (1 Sam. X. 1-19; xi. 1, 26, ; xii. 30 f.) is reproduced in 1 Chron. xix. 1- XX. 3 ; but the whole of the remainder of the long section in Samuel (2 Sam. ix.-xx) in which this narrative stands, but which is in the main a record of the court and family life of David, the king's failings, and the dissensions in his family, is omitted. Of the longer additions made in Chronicles to the narra- tive of Samuel and Kings, we may note : (1) 1 Chron. xv. 1-24; xvi. 4-42 (of which xvi. 8-36 is from Ps. cv., xcvi., and cvi.) : this is an amplification of the story of the re- moval of the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. vi.) ; according to the additions in Chronicles, David concludes that the disaster attending the first attempt to bring up the ark to Jerusalem WEis due to the absence of Levites, and provides Levites who on this occasion bear the ark, thus carrying out the law of Moses (1 Chron. xv. 12-15). (2) A second and yet longer addition is 1 Chron. xxii. 2- xxix. 30, of which 1 Chron. xxix. 23a, 27 (=1 Kings ii. 12a 11) is alone drawn from known sources. This section is almost exclusively devoted to the numbers and duties of the Levites, the priests , and other persons attached to the Temple (chs. xxiii.-xxvi.), and David's instructions to Solomon and the people touching the Temple (chs. xxii., xxviii., xxix.). (3) Another long addition (2 Chron. xvii. lb-19, xix. 1-xx. 30) occurs in the record of Jehoshaphat's reign, and here, too, Levites are conspicuous ; for example, the Levites sing and the Jewish army conquers. In a large number of other but smaller additions, more- over, Levites are introduced ; or, again, Levites take the place of other actors in the early story. See e.g. 1 Chron. xiii. 1-6 (=2 Sam. vi. 1) ; 2 Chron. xiii. 2-22 ; viii. 12-16 (an expansion of 1 Kings ix. 25). X.] CHRONICLES 91 While not merely the stories of Elijah and Elisha, which necessarily went with the history of the northern kingdom, but other stories of the prophets in Samuel or Kings are omitted (2 Sam. xii.-Nathan), or abbreviated (2 Kings xviii.-xx.-Isaiah), many longer or shorter stories of prophets otherwise unknown are added ; and in these the prosperity that awaits good conduct in a king, and the adversity that awaits bad conduct, are mainly dwelt on : see e.g. 2 Chron. xii. 6-8 ; xv. 1-15 ; xvi. 7-10. Other moralising additions also occur with frequency : see e.g. 2 Chron. xii. 2b ; xxi. 10b ; xxii. 7-9. A short but characteristic and significant addition occurs in 2 Chron. i. 3b-6a : the story in 1 Kings iii. 4-13 of Solomon's sacrifice in Gibeon presented a problem to the Chronicler ; how could a king legitimately sacrifice at Gibeon, if David had already removed to Jerusalem not only the ark, but the tent which contained it, and the one legitimate altar before the tent, which Bezalel had built in the wilderness (Ex. xxxi. 1-9 ; xxxviii. 1-7 P) ? He meets the problem by the theory that, though the ark had gone, tent and altar had remained at Gibeon : on this altar accordingly, and not in * the great high place ' (1 Kings iii. 4), was the sacrifice offered. Other illustrations of small modifications may be seen in the parallel passages cited on pp. 8-11. Chronicles, then, is a history of the Jews and of Levi, with a genealogical introduction relating Judah and Levi to their place in Israel, and Israel to the world at large, and tracing also the development of the tribe of Levi into its different sections — of priests, Levites, singers. Nearly half the genealogical introduction, and substantially the whole of the remainder of the work are devoted to Judah and Levi. But not only is the writer's interest exclusively fixed on the Jews together with the Levites ; in the history of the Jews it chiefly centres on the Temple and the sacred classes. The work, from the conclusion of the genealogies onwards, is based on Sanauel and Kings ; these sources are largely reproduced, but also freely 92 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch treated : outgrown theological ideas are effaced, as we see when Satan replaces Yahweh in 1 Chron. xxi. 1 (=2 Sam. xxiv. 1) ; the history is persistently moralised, even at the expense of much loss of the vividness of the earher sources ; for example, a veil is drawn over David's pohtical struggles, his moral faiUngs, the intrigues that disturbed the close of his reign and interfered with the undisputed succession of Solomon ; David in Chronicles is the typically pious king, who wastes no words of praise or generous feelings on sinful Saul, becomes king without difficulty over all Israel, reigns to the end undisturbed by family or internal disturbances, and passes on the succession undisputed to Solomon. He wages some wars, indeed, but mainly devotes himself to religious and ecclesiastical matters, in which he acts scrupulously according to the commands of the late priestly legislation (P). And the way in which the character of David is recreated is but the most extreme example of the writer's method elsewhere. What we have in Chronicles, then, is a restatement of the earlier history of Judah as conceived by one who held that the late priestly legislation (P) was of Mosaic origin, and consequently already in force in the time of David, and necessarily, therefore, carried out by him and all pious kings. The same writer as he passed on (in Ezra-Neh.) into post-exiUo times, when the priestly legis- lation actually came into force, naturally found records that told a story more inteUigible to him £U9 it stood, and called for less correction and ampUfication. As a document, then, that preserves the spirit, and the moral, religious and ecclesiastical ideals of the Jews about 300-200 B.C., Chronicles is invaluable, and most so, because then its meaning is most clearly expressed, when we can watch the author modifying those earlier sources which we still possess. But as an independent source for pre- exilic history Chronicles is of far more limited value, and needs to be used with the greatest caution, though additional statements {e.g, 2 Chron. xxvi. 9 f.)f which do X.1 CHRONICLES 98 not appear in any way to expness the dominant interests of the writer, or to be overmuch colom*ed with the con- ditions of his own age, may rest on lost documents, and preserve correct information. What, then, were the sources of Chronicles ? Chronicles consists in large part, as we have seen, of extracts from the books of Samuel and Kings, and is based to a less extent on the Pentateuch and Joshua. Does Chronicles also contain extracts from other sources now lost ? If so, to what extent, and what were the character of these sources ? An examination shows that the author or compiler refers either to a large number of sources, or to a smaller number of sources cited under a large variety of titles, in which fuller accounts of what he is recording may be found. These titles or forms of reference are as follows : — 1. The book of the Kings of (preposition) Judah and Israel : n. xvi. II. 2. The book of the Kings of (genitive) Judah and Israel : n. xxv. 26 ; xxviii. 26. See also No. 15 below. 3. The book of the Kings of Israel and Judah : n. xxvii 7 ; XXXV. 27; xxxvi. 8 ; cp. i. ix. I (LXX.). 4. The Midrash of the book of the Kings : n. xxiv. 27. 6. The Midrash of the prophet Iddo : n. xiii. 22. 6. The history (Hebrew, luords or acts) of the kings of Israel : n. xxxiii. 18. 6b. The book of the Kings of Israel : see No. 11. ; cp, I., ix. 1 (MT). 7. The history (Hebrew toords) of Samuel the seer : i xxix. 29. 8. The history of Nathan the prophet ; i. xxix. 29 ; n. ix. 29. 9. The history of Gad the vision-seer : i. xxix. 29. 10. The history of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the vision-seer for reckoning by genealogies : n. xii. 15. 94 CRITICAIj introduction to old testament [oh. 11. The history of Jehu, the son of Hanani, which it inserted in the book of the Kings of Israel: n. XX. 34. 12. The history of . . . (the reading of the definition of the history is uncertain) : n. xxxiii. 19. 13. The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite : ii. ix. 29. 14. The visions of Iddo (the name is corrupt in Hebrew), the vision-seer concerning Jeroboam, the son of Nebat : n. ix. 29. 15. The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, the prophet, in the book of the Kings of Judah and Israel : n. xxxii. 32. References of a different type from the foregoing are : — 16. ' The rest of the history of Uzziah, first and last, Isaiah, the son of Amoz, wrote * : n. xxvi. 22. 17. The (book of the) chronicles of King David ': i. xxvii. 24. 18. The later history of David : i. xxiii. 27 : but this rendering is doubtful, and the meaning of the Hebrew ambiguous. 19. The lamentations : n. xxxv. 25 (see p. 165). 20. I. V. 17 seems to imply familiarity with a genea- logical register of the eighth century. The references to the source or sources numbered 1-15 are introduced by a formula which appears with several slight variations : e.g. * And the rest of the acts (Hebrew, " words ") of Amaziah, the first and the last, are they not written in . . .' ? Occasionally the formula is, ' And behold the acts,' etc. In either case, but especially in the first, the reference is in form a reference to a source in which further details may be found, rather than to the sources whence the Chronicler has drawn verbatim^ or in substance, his own narrative. But there is Uttle doubt that the refer- ence covers both facts : that the Chronicler has drawn on the source in question, and that further information may be found there. But what are theae sources ? X.] CHRONICLES 96 It can scarcely be questioned that numbers 1-3 are merely various forms of the title of one and the same book ; nor can there be much doubt that number 6 is yet another name for the same work. The vision of Isaiah (number 15) may once have been a distinct work, but it is definitely cited as forming part of number 2. Nor again can there be any doubt that the books referred to in numbers 1-3, 6, 11, 15, Uke the canonical books of Kings, contained the history of the kings of Israel as well as of Judah ; for otherwise the reference to Israel in the titles, although the work is referred to for information about kings of Judah exclusively y would be inexpUcable. If now we consider (1) that the Chronicler cites for each reign subsequent to Solomon only a single source, and (2) that the vision of Isaiah (number 15) and the history [ehu (number 11) are clearly cited as parts of the book le kings of Judah and Israel, and (3) that for the reigns >avid and Solomon, for each of which three special references are given, the general work is not cited, and if (4) we compare 2 Chron. xxxiii. 19 (R. V. margin) with ver. 18, we may hold it probable that numbers 7-14 are, Hke number 15, merely specific references to sections of the same comprehensive work — the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (numbers 1-3, 6). Were even the Midrash of the book of Kings (number 4) and the Midrash of Iddo (number 5) distinct works ? It is, at least, possible that they were not, for why just for the reigns of Joash and Abijah should the Chronicler refer to the Midrash, and for all other reigns to the work on which the Midrash was based ? But the term Midrash is significant whether the Midrash of the book of the kings of Israel was one of the main sources, or only an occasional source, of Chronicles. Midrash, from the root drshy to search out, investigate, is a term famihar in the later, post-bibhcal Jewish Hterature for the large inferential development of Scripture themes, or histories, by which lacunae were filled up or difficulties removed by searching out, or exploring to its depths, the words ci 96 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ca Scripture. No better example of one tjrpe of Midrash could be cited than the passage akeady discussed (p. 91), in which it is inferred that the one legitimate altar remained at Gibeon till Solomon's days. In other cases Midrash may weave an entirely fresh story round a name, as when in the apocryphal addition to the book of Daniel the story of Susannah suppUes what was missing in the book of Daniel, a reason for the name Daniel, i.e. ' God is my judge.' A Midrash on the books of Kings would, then, probably be a work based on the canonical book of Kings and amplified by exegetical inferences and edifying details or stories told to enhance the glory or the moral significance of some of the persons or events in the original work. On the whole, it seems most probable that Chronicles rests mainly on two sets of sources : (a) the canonical books from Genesis to Kings ; (6) a single work coving the history of Israel and Judah. This second source i Jnot identical with Samuel and Kings for it is appealed to (e.g, in 1 ix. 1 ; 2 xxvii. 7; xxxiii. 18) for facts not now at Jpast to be found in those books ; nor is it the separate and dis- tinct sources in which the histories of Israel and Judah were related separately, and which had been used by, the author of the canonical Kings. The question has arisen whether it is necessary to assume the direct use by the Chronicler of (a), i.e. the canonical books at all, and whether the extracts from those books did not come to him through (6). This question cannot be pursued here, but it may be said that in that casfe most of what has been said of the author of Chronicles is then apphcable to the author of this source, and that relatively little beyond compilation is then to be attributed to the final editor. An important point, however, to bear in mind is that all parts of Chronicles not derived from the canonical books share the same strongly marked and peculiar late style. XLj EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 97 CHAPTER XI THE LATER HISTORICAL BOOKS! (2) EZRA AND NEHEMIAH Ezra and Nehemiah are in reality not two distinct books, but sections of one and the same book. In Hebrew MSS. and in Hebrew references to the Canon they form one work entitled, or ascribed to, Ezra. In the Greek Bible they also form one work entitled 2 Esdras, i.e., the second book of Ezra ; and I Esdras, or the first book of Ezra, is (in the main) a different recension of parts of Ezra and Nehemiah (see p. 106). In the Vulgate, 2 Esdras of the Greek, i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah of the English, Bible is divided into two parts corresponding to the division in the EngKsh Bible into Ezra and Nehemiah, but under the titles of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, while 1 Esdras of the Greek Bible and of the Enghsh Apocrypha becomes in the Vulgate 3 Esdras. 4 Esdras of the Latin MSS., which forms part of the Enghsh Apocrypha under the name of 2 Esdras, is an apocaljrptic work having no connection beyond the name with any of the other books entitled Ezra or Esdras. Further; it is, as already stated (p. 87), practically certain, and it is generally admitted, that Ezra and Nehemiah, which are the direct continuation of Chronicles, originally formed part of that work. The closing verses of Chronicles (2 Chron. xxxvi. 22 f .) are identical with the opening verses of Ezra (i. 1-3 to ' go up ') ; there is a striking similarity in style between all those parts of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah which are not reproduced word for word from the sources used by the compiler ; the dominant interest throughout is in the same subjects — the Temple and the Temple- worship, the priesthood, genealogies, statistics; and the G 98 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. date at which Ezra-Nehemiah was written can be shown independently to be much the same as that of Chronicles. The date at which Ezra-Nehemiah was written is not earher, but need not be later, than about 300 B.C. The generation that succeeded the return from the Exile and lived c. 500 B.C., and the generation of Ezra and Nehemiah (c. 460-430 B.C.) are coupled together as periods that are (long) past (Neh. xii. 26). In Neh. xii. 11, 22 reference is made to Jaddua the great-grandson of Eliashib, Nehemiah's contemporary (Neh. xiii. 28). The Persian Empire, which was overthrown by Alexander the Great in 332, is to the author of these books already a thing of the past : for so only can we account for the addition of the words * of Persia * to ' the king ' in Ezra i. 1 ; iii. 7; iv. 3 ; vii. 1 : this became natural, if not necessary, when * the king ' un- defined would have meant to a Jewish reader a king that was not Persian ; but we have abundant evidence that it was not customary to use such a definition while the Persian Empire lasted ; thus Haggai (i. 1, 15) and Zechariah (vii. 1) call the ruhng monarch simply * Darius the king,' and the same usage is foimd in the sources of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra iv. 8, 11 ; v. 6 ; vi. 3), which in their turn look back to an independent kingdom of Babylon as a thing of the past and consequently speak of Nebuchadnezzar as * king of Babylon ' (Ezra v. 12). So again in the business documents on papyrus discovered at Assouan, and written in the fifth century B.C., the date is always given in the form, * year ... of Xerxes (or Artaxerxes, or Darius) the king * ; the words * of Persia * are never added. And in the Elephantine papyrus (Sachau Pap. 1), written in 408/7, B.C., we read of ' Darius the king ' ; so in fines 13, 14, which read, * And already in the days of the king(s) of Egypt had our fathers built this temple . . . and when Cambyses entered Egypt,' etc., the native kingdom of Egypt is a thing of the past, but Cambyses who, though he fived more than a century before the letter was written, belonged to the still reigning dynasty, did not need to be, and was not, described as ' the Persian.' The period covered by Ezra and Nehemiah is, aocord« XL) EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 00 ing to the chronological statements of the book, from the first year of Cyrus (Ezra i. 1) to the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes (Neh. xiii. 6). The thirty-second year of Artaxerxes is in itself an ambiguous date, for it might refer to 433 B.C., the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes I. (Longimanus), or to 372 B.C., the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes n. (Mnemon) ; but the Artaxerxes of Neh. xiii. 6, since he was a contemporary of Nehemiah, must also have been the contemporary of Sanballat (ID^^aJD, Neh. iv. 1 ; xiii. 28-34) ; and Sanballat was either dead, or at least belonged to the older generation aHve, in the year 408/7 ; for in that year the Jews of Elephantine addressed a letter ' to Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat (tDi>3NJD), the Governor of Samaria ' (Papyrus Sachau, i. 29). The books of Ezra and Nehemiah thus contain a record of the history of just over one hundred years — 537-433 B.C., into which there enter occasional allusions to later persons or events ; but the record is not a sustained and continuous narrative ; there are long gaps in the history, and at least one curious misplacement. Dates are given in these books by the years of the Persian kings, the corresponding dates B.C., and the references are as follows : — 1 Cyrus 537 B.O. Ezra i. 1 (op, ▼. 13, 2 of the Return 536 vi. 3). Ezra iii. 8 Darius, imtil the until 522 Ezra iv. 6. reign of Xerxes, beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes 485 between 465 and 425 Ezra iv. 6. Ezra iv. 7-23 2 Darius 520 Ezra iv. 24, 6 Darius 516 Ezra vi. 15. 7 Artaxerxes 458 Ezra vii. 7 f. (cp. 20 Artaxerxes 445 vii. 1-9, viii. 31). Neh., ii. 1 (so also, ? 32 Artaxerxes 433 by error, in i, 1). Neh. xiii. 6. 100 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. Thus the sixteen years from 536 to 620 B.C. are dis- missed with a mere summarising reference (Ezra iv. 6, 24), for the verses that intervene between Ezra iv. 5 and iv. 24 refer not to this period, but, as is distinctly stated (iv. 6), to 485 B.C. and later. Again, but for the ill-placed passage Ezra iv. 6-23 just referred to, the narrative passes over in silence the three-quarters of a century that he between 516 and 458 ; and even the period of the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah is described not in a continuous narrative, but with reference to three particular years, viz. the years 458, 445 and 433 B.C. This concentration on certain points of time and neglect of the longer or shorter intervening periods are probably due less to any lack of interest on the part of the Chronicler than to the meagreness of the sources of information at his disposal. We can not of course be certain that he did not omit to use sources which he might have used ; but the sources which we can discern that he actually did cite or make use of were, from their very nature, of hmited scope. Chief among these sources are certain autobiographical memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah. Each of these men wrote memoirs describing how he was led to leave, Ezra his home in Babylon (Ezra viii. 1), Nehemiah his place at the Persian court in Shushan (Neh. 1. 1), and go up to join his fellow-Jews in Jerusalem, and also some of his experiences in Jerusalem. As in Chronicles some extracts are given from the books of Kings and Samuel almost verbatimf others much changed and modified, so, it would seem, in Ezra-Nehemiah the Chronicler cites considerable sections of Ezra's memoirs, and still larger sections of Nehemiah's, with scarcely even a verbal alteration, whereas at other times, while still substantially dependent on one or other of these sources, he appears to be abbreviating and otherwise considerably modifying the form of the memoirs : in these modified passages the first person proper to autobiography, and found in the extracts cited verbatim from the memoirs, is replaced by the third person of biography : cf. e.g. Ezra viii. f. (first person) with Ezra x. (third person). Denoting passages cited, XL] EZRA AND NlfHlMlAH 101 apparently iinaltered, or with slight and immaterial variations, from the memoirs of Ezra by E, passages based on, or cited in a much modified form from the same som'ce by e, passages cited unaltered from the memoirs of Nehemiah by N, and modified citations from the same source by n, we may represent the composition of Ezra vii. 1-Neh. xiii. 31 in the following table : — E Ezra vii. 27-ix. 16. e Ezra vii. 1-26 (in part perhaps freely composed by the Chronicler), x. N Neh. i.-vii. 73 ; xiii. 4-31. n Neh. xi., xii. Moreover, Neh. viii.-x., in which Ezra is the main actor, but both Ezra and Nehemiah are referred to in the third person, appears to be based on a well-informed con- temporary document, 'possibly the memoirs of Ezra. Possibly parts of Neh. xi. ff. {e.g, xii. 12-26 ; xiii. 1-3) are based, not on the memoirs of Nehemiah but on other contemporary documents, or on compilations such as ' the book of the chronicles ' mentioned in xii. 23. Occa- sionally in these chapters, as also in Ezra vii., the Chronicler appears not only to abbreviate or modify his source, but to make substantial additions of his own : see Neh. xii. 10 f., 22-26, 44-47, which refer to events, or imply a writer living, after the age of Nehemiah ; similar additions are perhaps to be detected in Ezra vii. 1-10, Neh. xi. 25-xii. 11. The memoirs of Nehemiah were obviously completed after 433 B.C. (Neh. xiii. 6), but presumably not long after, for the events seem fresh in the writer's memory. Both these and Ezra's memoirs may well have been composed about 430-425 B.C. In reading these memoirs, more especially where the compiler has left them unaltered, we are enabled to see very vividly, through the eyes of the chief actors in them, events which proved to be of profound importance for the whole subsequent history of Judaism. But whether the Chronicler places these events before us in their right sequence cannot be assumed off- hand, for in one instance at least he has certainly not 102 CRITICAL INTEOI'UOTON TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. arranged his material in chronological order (see below, p. 104). It is, therefore, a possibility to be considered that though the Chronicler placed his extracts from Ezra's memoirs before the extracts from Nehemiah's memoirs, thus giving the impression that Ezra arrived in Jerusalem thirteen years before Nehemiah (Ezra vii. 8, Neh. ii. 1), the actual facts may have been, as some have argued, that Ezra's visit was after Nehemiah's. As has been pointed out above, the date in Ezra vii. 8 is ambiguous, being identical with either 458 or 397 B.C. Yet unless Neh. viii. 9 is false, Ezra was certainly in Jerusalem tvith Nehemiah, and therefore long before 397 (see above, p. 99). It is, however, remarkable that in Nehemiah's memoirs as preserved by the Chronicler there is no allusion to Ezra, and in Ezra's no reference to Nehemiah, unless Neh. viii.-x. is based on Ezra's memoirs, and the allusions to Nehemiah in Neh. viii. 9, x. 1 are derived from thence. In the relatively short section, Ezra i.-vi., which deals with the far longer period of time (536-458 B.C.), the Chronicler is ultimately dependent on certain official documents, or on what at least purport to be such ; these documents are incorporated, though perhaps not without considerable modifications, by him in his work. Most of these documents (like that cited in e — Ezra vii. 11-26) are in Airamaic, as are certain brief connecting finks of narrative which may be the work of the Chronicler himself, for, though in Aramaic, they exhibit similarities to the style of the Chronicler. Chs. i., iii. 2-iv. 6, vi. 19-22 (written in Hebrew) clearly display the style of the Chronicler. As a first analysis of this section then we may present this scheme : — Chronicler, i., iii. 2-iv. 6, vi. 19-22 (in Hebrew) ; perhaps also iv. 24, V. If., 16-18 (in Aramaic). Documents, (a) in Hebrew, ii. ; (6) in Aramaic, iv, 6- 23, V. 6-17, vi. 3-12. Aramaic narrative, v. 3-5, vi. 1 f., 13-15. XL] EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 103 It should be observed that ch. i. also contains what purports to be a decree of Cyrus (i. 2-4) ; but, unlike the other Persian documents in iv., vi., vii., this is in Hebrew ; moreover, the phraseology and the standpoint are purely Jewish. At best this ' decree ' of Cyrus is but a very free paraphrase in the Chronicler's own language of some Persian document, which would have been written in Aramaic, the language used by the Persian court in ofiQcial communications with its Western Asian subjects. The remaining documents are : — A. In Hebrew : A register of those who returned from Exile : ch. ii. B. In Aramaic : — (a) After an allusion to correspondence with Xerxes [485-465 B.C.] which is not cited, a letter is cited which was sent to Artaxerxes [465-425 B.C.] by certain opponents of the Jews, charging the latter with treasonable intent in building the walls of Jerusalem : iv. 11-16. (6) Reply to (a), directing that the rebuilding of the city should be suspended : iv. 17-22. (c) Letter of the Governor Tattenai to Darius [522- 485], inquiring whether the Jews really had permission to build the Temple as they are now doing : v. 6-17. (d) Reply to (c) stating that search had been made, and a decree of Cyrus permitting the rebuilding of the Temple found ; the answer confirms the decree of Cyrus, and directs that, so far from hindering the work, the king's officers are to contribute towards the expenses of it from the king's revenue (Ezra vi. 1-12). The register in Ezra ii. is taken over from Neh. vii. 6-73a, where it stands as part of Nehemiah's memoirs ; unless, aa many scholars do, we treat Neh. vii. 7 (=Ezra ii. 2) as an addition made by the Chronicler, the register itself implies 104 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ca that it is a register of contemporaries of Zerubbabel, who, as we see from Haggai and Zechariah, was active in the early years (520-518) of Darius ; such a Mst is not unsuitably given a place immediately before the account in Ezra iii. of what Zerubbabel did after reaching Jerusalem. Ezra ii. 68-69a is a variation of the Chronicler's on the register as it stands in Neh. (vii. 71) ; moreover, Ezra ii. 69b differs from Neh. vii. 72. Not only the register but the opening of the following narrative (Neh. vii. 73b, viii. la) is also transferred to Ezra, with the result that the seventh month, which in Neh. refers to the year 445 (see Neh. ii. 1), in Ezra iii. 1 remains undefined. The whole of the Aramaic documents have been regarded by some as fabrications ; alternative theories are (1) that here, as elsewhere, the Chronicler has modified his sources (cp. pp. 8-11, 89-91), and that the Jewish colouring or the point of view ^ which in places appears in these documents is due to him ; or (2) that the Jewish colouring is due to the fact that the documents were drafted by Jews, and submitted for approval or modification to the Persian authorities. The documents themselves, if genuine, were probably obtained from the pubUc archives in Jerusalem, where it would be natural to keep copies of letters sent to, and the originals (or copies) of letters sent from, the Persian court, just as a copy of the letter sent by the Jews of Elephantine, to the Persian official Bagoi, and the letter received in reply from him, were kept by the Jewish community in Elephan- tine, and lay there till they were discovered in 1907. But the arrangement of these documents, though it may be, and indeed from iv. 24 would appear to be, original, is neither chronological, nor logical : it is not chronological, for the correspondence with Artaxerxes (465-425) is placed before the correspondence with Darius (622-485) ; nor is it logical, for though the correspondence with Artaxerxes refers ex- clusively to the rebuilding of the walls or city of Jerusalem, that is to say with the work undertaken and carried > Ob V. 16b, 6«;« ;». loi^. XI.] EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 105 through by Nehemiah, it is introduced into a narrative that refers exclusively to the building of the Temple (iv. 1-5, 24), which was the work of Zerubbabel and Joshua, who lived a couple of generations before Nehemiah. It is clear that the correspondence in iv. 7-23 took place before Nehemiah*s visit to Jerusalem in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, for he then, by permission of the king, completed the walls ; it would be in place, therefore, before Neh. i. and probably (if Ezra's visit is correctly placed before Nehemiah' s) after Ezra X. On what the Chronicler rested for his narratives in Ezra i. and iii. cannot be determined ; it has been argued that these chapters rest on no historical reahty, but are mere inferences from prophecy ; that Cyrus issued no decree authorising the return of the Jews or the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra i.), and that the foundation of the Temple was not laid in 536 B.C. (Ezra iii.), nor continued in building from 536 to 520 (Ezra v. 16) ; but that all this is elaborated on the basis of an inference from Is. xliv. 28, etc. The pohcy ascribed to Cyrus in Ezra i., however, accords with well-known Unes of Persian pohcy, which has recently been illustrated afresh by the evidence of the Elephantine Papjmis (Sachau i.) to the action of Cyrus' successor Cambyses at the time of his conquest of Egjrpt (525 B.C.) in sparing the Temple of the Jewish community settled on the Nile at the southern frontier of Egypt ; moreover, the statement of Ezra that Cyrus gave the Jews permission to return to Judah conflicts with no existing evidence. On the other hand, the statement that the commencement of the building of the Temple took place in 536 is hard to reconcile with the statements made in 520 B.C. by Haggai (i. 2-9, ii. 15-18 ^) and Zechariah (i. 16), and w/zy be nothing more than an inference from the fact that Cyrus had permitted, or enjoined, the building of the Temple immediately after the return. Even a brief sketch of the Uterary history of Ezra and Nehemiah would be incomplete without referen^^e to the 1 In Hag. ii, 18 since should be/rovi. 106 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. book of 1 Esdras, which is a fragment (it ends in the middle of a sentence) consisting of certain parts of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah differently arranged^ and of one long section not found elsewhere, thus : 1 Esdras i.=2 Chron. xxxv. 1-xxxvi. 21. „ ii. l-15=Ezra i. (first year of Cyrus : 637). „ ii. 16-25=Ezra iv. 7-24 (Artaxerxes : 465-425). „ iii. 1-v. 6 not in Ezra-Nehemiah. This section explains how Zerubbabel obtained and acted upon permission from Darius (522-485) to go up (obviously for the first time) in the second year of Darius, i.e. 520 B.C., to Jerusalem and to build the walls of the city and the Temple. 1 Esdras v. 7-70=Ezra ii. 1-iv. 3 (Ezra, iii. 8=536 B.C., iv. 6=522 B.C. ; see above, p. 99). ^ vi.-ix. 36=Ezra (iv. 24) v.-x. (Ezra vi. 16= 616 B.C.). „ ix. 37-55=Neh. vii. 73b-viii. 13a. It must suffice to point out that the position given to Ezra iv. 7-24 in 1 Esdras ii. 16-25 secures (chronology apart) a more logical narrative ; but the order of the narratives is not less violently in conflict with what is now known co have been the real sequence of the Persian kings. The premier place given to 1 Esdras in the early Greek Church, from which the influence of Jerome dislodged it in the Western Church, corresponds to the preference accorded to it by Josephus, who in his history follows the order not of Ezra-Nehemiah, but of 1 Esdras. But Josephus, pre- sumably because he was aware of the true sequence of the Persian kings, substituted Cambyses for the Artaxerxes of his source (1 Esdras iv. 7-24), and thus removed the most conspicuous violation of chronological order in the story as told in 1 Esdras. It is remarkable that in Ezra iii. 7 (=1 Esdras v. 55) we find, apparently, an allusion back to 1 Esdras iv. 48, and that this allusion is not explained by anything in the XL] EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 107 present text of Ezra. It is noticeable, moreover, that parts of the narrative peculiar to 1 Esdras betray the same interests as the Chronicler (see 1 Esdras iv. 52-56, 63, v. 2). A theory, elaborated by Prof. Torrey, is therefore worthy of consideration — that 1 Esdras iv. 47 (from ' wrote,' the sub- ject in Chronicles having been Cyrus) to iv. 56, iv. 62-v. 6 (omitting ' who spake wise sentences before Darius the king of Persia '), once stood in the Chronicler's work immedi- ately after Ezra i. 11 and immediately before Ezra ii. 1. In that case 1 Esdras iii. 1-iv. 42 (the storj^- of the three pages of Darius who dispute ' what is the strongest ') is an interpolation, and iv. 43-46, 57-61, v. 6a, together with the words * the same is Zerubbabel ' in iv. 13 and the sub- stitution of Cyrus in iv. 47 and v. 2, are harmonising modifications of the interpolator. 108 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT Even M tbfti of beasts : od. Pi. oir. 29. XVL] ECCLESIASTES 161 book : the righteous and unrighteous are not in like case (viii. 11-13), for judgment, complete in its survey, unerring in its decisions, awaits all men : * God shall judge the righteous and the wicked ' (iii. 17, cp. xi. 96, xii. 14). The true practical rule of life is not to seize the present moment in order to eat, drink, and be merry, but to fear God and to keep his commandments (xii. 13, cp. xii. 1). In Job also there is a sharp conflict of ideas, but for the most part in that book, even as it now stands, the conflict is immediately explained by the form of the book ; different and opposed ideas are championed by different people. There is no hint in Ecclesiastes that two or more different persons are discussing Ufe, and presenting opposed interpretations of it. It has, however, been suggested that the book represents an inner conflict, the struggle within the same man between a lower and a nobler self. Unfortunately there is not the slightest indication of this apart from the inconsistencies themselves ; and, remark- ably enough, if this were the true explanation, the nobler self is allowed much less opportunity of enforcing its view of hfe. It is true the book finishes on the higher note ; but then xii. 9-14 reads too much Hke an appendix, and says nothing whatever that really meets, in such a way as we should expect in a real debate even of the two selves, what has gone before ; it records, speaking of him in the third person, Ecclesiastes* methods of study and instruction, deprecates the multiplying of books, and closes with the true end of life and the certainty of judgment to come ; but none of this is brought into any relation with the complaint that life moves on to old age, and to the darkness of nothingness that follows it. It becomes, then, almost impossible to avoid the con- clusion that the book has been interpolated in places by one or more pious scribes who endeavoured to correct and quahfy the tendency of the original work. When we recall the fact that Ecclesiastes had no small difficulty in finding its way into the Canon, we may believe that a book which, perhaps on the ground of its assumed 152 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. Solomonic authorship, made good its claim to con- sideration was in some measm^ corrected in the interests of edification. A few other verses of the book may be due to the same pious scribe. Another type of interpolations has been suspected, though on less strong grounds ; it is claimed that the isolated proverbial hues or couplets which occur in iv. 5, 9-12, vii. 4-6, 7-12, 19 ; x. 1-3, 8-14a, and m a few other places, interrupt the main argument, and are distinguished by their frigidity from the main work. It has been sug- gested that these, together with xii. 11 f., were inserted by one of * the wise ' (xii. 11). The title (i. 1) is probably enough editorial, and possibly also xii. 9 f. The transparent disguise of the writer, who would pass as the pre-eminently wise (i. 16) Jewish king, (i. 12), by whom, of course, Solomon (i. 1) is intended, was sufficient to secure, though whether in accordance with the writer's wish we cannot say, a misunderstanding of the book for many centuries. Luther, however, broke away from what had become the tradition that Solomon was the actual, and not merely the assumed author, of Ecclesiastes ; and the tradition now scarcely finds defenders. The author was apparently so careless of his disguise as to imply that many generations of Jews, and not David's only, had preceded him in Jerusalem (i. 16, ii. 9) ; and, again, he so far disregards his disguise as to write frequently not from the standpoint of the ruler, but from that of the subject, stung to the quick (iii. 16, iv. 1) by the iniquities of the pohtical system under which he fives, with its many grades of subordinate officials under the highest authority of all (v. 8). So far from being the illustrious king of an independent people, with Jerusalem as his capital, the author is a subject fiving in a province of a great empire, rendered bitter by constant observation of wrong and injustice, which has led him to be surprised at nothing the official system may perpetrate, and rendered cautiouB or ready to caution others against the ubiquitous XVI.] ECCLESIASTES 163 spy (x. 20). The political and social conditions of the writer's time are clearly enough those of a province under the Persian Empire (637-332), or under the Greek dominion that succeeded it. So, also, Ecclesiastes makes apparently no attempt to accommodate his style to classical Hebrew. Most of the late writers, including Ben Sirach, wrote greatly under the influence of the earUer hterature, and probably with a more or less deUberate intention of imitating it. Ecclesi- astes writes Hebrew, not Aramaic, and with that he seems to have been content ; he freely accepts the change from the old to the new, and in some respects perhaps gains thereby ; his is less an ineffective imitation of an older model than a transitional style, not without considerable vigour of its own, to the Hebrew of the Mishnah. Ara- maisms abound, and words or meanings that only reappear in the Mishnah ; certain old syntactical usages disappear, while the syntax of the Mishnah is in certain respects anticipated. Persian words and possibly y as some have supposed, though this is really very much open to question, Grecisms occur. On the ground of language alone it must be held that the book was written at the earliest in the fourth century B.C., and more probably at least a century or two later. A downward limit of date is obtained if the opinion, which has gained ground of late, that Ben Sirach was familiar with Ecclesiastes is correct. Ecclesiastes was, in that case, written before 180 B.C., say about 200 B.C. The similarities both of language and thought between Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus are certainly numerous ; the only question is whether the dependence is unmis- takably on the part of Ben Sirach. On the one hand, it has been urged that Ben Sirach was, both on the express testimony of his grandson and the internal evidence of his book, an imitator of earUer writers ; while Ecclesiastes, though not unfamiliar with the Scriptiu'es to which he makes some very definite allusions (e.gr. in xii. 7), was a very independent stylist. On the other hand, it might 154 CRITICAL INTRODUCTIGN TO OLD TESTAMENT [cb. be urged that the marks of lateness in Ecclesiastes are more numerous and conspicuous than in the Hebrew of Ben Sirach ; but this fact can also be accounted for by the difference between an imitative and an independent writer of the same age. Attempts to date the book more closely by interpreta- tions of what may be a reference to specific contemporary events in iv. 13-16 have proved unsuccessful. *vii.J THE SONG OF SONGS U6 CHAPTER XVn THE SONG OF SONGS The title (i. 1) ascribes this book to Solomon ; it is * the song of the songs/ t.e. the best of the songs, for which Solomon was famous (1 Kings iv. 32). But this title, which uses a form of the relative pronoun never used in the book itself, was scarcely prefixed by the author ; it is rather the mistaken inference of a scribe or editor, from the fact that Solomon is the most famous person mentioned in the book ; similar mistaken inferences seem to have been responsible for the ascription in the title to it of Ps. cxxii. to David, and of the ascription in the Talmud (p. 6) of the Book of Joshua to Joshua. The Song of Songs was written neither by Solomon nor in the age of Solomon. The author of the title treated the book as a single poem and so have most of those who have discussed it since. The book must have owed its admission to the Canon to the fact that it had come to be treated as throughout an allegory ; and this view of it dominated both Jewish and Christian interpretation down to the seventeenth century, since when, at least among Protestants, it has become increasingly less influential and now scarcely finds whole- hearted defenders. Even in the second century a.d., however, we find evidence that points to a very different though a severely condemned conception : R. Akiba declares that those who trill parts of the book in taverns and treat it as a mere profane song have no portion in the world to come. Even at the Reformation attempts to 166 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ca break free from the traditional type of interpretation were also visited with pains and penalties ; for treating the Song as an erotic poem the humanist and evangelical scholar CasteUio was compelled by Calvin to vacate his position at Geneva. To one important feature of the book even the allegorical interpretation did justice : it recognised the element of dialogue ; but then, according to the religious standpoint and the ingenuity of the interpreter, the book was treated as the conversation exchanged between Yahweh and his people, Christ and the Church, Christ and the individual soul, and so forth. Setting aside, or at least subordinating, the allegorical interpretation, most modem commentators have concluded that the book is a drama, the subject being the love between man and woman. This theory of the book has been elaborated along two main Unes. According to some there are only two chief persons of the drama, Solomon and a country maiden (Shulamith). DeUtzsch, who adopted this view, regarded the drama as consisting of six acts, each divided into two scenes. * The first act (i. 2-ii. 7) is played both in the dining-room and in the wine-room appertaining to the women of the royal palace. In the second act (ii. 8-iii. 6), Shulamith is again at home. In the third act (iii. 6- v. 1), which represents the marriage, the bride makes her entrance into Jerusalem from the wilderness, and what we further then hear occurs during the marriage festival. The locaUty of the fourth act (v. 2-vi. 9) is Jerusalem, without being more particularly defined. That of the fifth act (vi. 10-viii. 4) is the park of Etam, and then Solomon's country house there. And in the sixth act (viii. 6-14) we see the newly-married pair first in the way to Shulem, and then in Shulamith's parental home. In the first half of the dramatic pictures, Shulamith rises to an equality with Solomon ; in the second half, Solomon descends to an equality with Shulamith. At the close of the first, Shulamith is at home in the king's palace ; at th^ close of the second, Solomon is at home with xvn.] THE SONG OF SONGS 167 her in her Galilean home.* ^ On this theory the dramatic movement is slight and free from compUcation, and the course of true love runs quite smoothly up to the marriage, which is assumed to take place between Acts iii. and iv. ; thereafter a temporary estrangement is assumed to have occurred ; but a dream which the bride relates to the ladies of the court (v. 2-8) leads her to repentance, and with Solomon's entrance (vi. 4-9) all becomes happy again. The more elaborate dramatic theory developed by Ewald finds three chief characters and a plot of greater complexity. On this theory the country maiden, who has already plighted her troth to a country lover, is surprised by Solomon on a progress through GaUlee, and taken off by him to Jerusalem, where, however, he woos her in vain ; she is true to her first love, and all ends happily, the last act bringing before us the lovers hand in hand, and the Shulamite obKging her lover (viii. 13) by singing a song (viii. 14). The stage directions which are demanded by this theory, and have to be suppHed by the interpreter, are numerous. A specimen must sujBfice : Ewald divided the drama into thirteen scenes divided among five acts ; the first act (i. 2-ii. 7), as stated by Dr. Driver in his presentation of Ewald's theory, is as follows : — * Scene 1 {The Shulamite and Ladies of the Court), The Shulamite, i. 2-7 (longing for the caresses of her absent shepherd-lover, complaining that she is detained in the royal palace against her will, and inquiring eagerly where he may be found). The ladies of the Court, i. 8 (in reply — ironically). 'Scene 2 {Solomon enters), — Solomon, i. 9-11 (seeking to win the Shulamite's love). The Shulamite, i. 12 {aside), 13, 14 (parrying the king's compHments with reminiscences of her absent lover). Solomon, i. 15. The Shulamite {aside) ^ i. 16-ii. 1 (taking no notice of the king's remark in v. 15, and applying the figmres suggested by it to her shepherd-lover). 1 Franz Delitzsch, Comm. on the Song of Songs (English translation, Ekiinburgh, 1877). p. 11. ^ ^ » -i 158 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. Solomon, ii. 2. — The Shulamite (aside) y ii. 3-7 (applying similarly to her lover the comparison suggested by v. 2. La V. 5 f . she sinks down in a fit of half-delirious sickness ; in V. 7 she reminds the ladies of the Court that love is an affection which arises spontaneously, and entreats them not to excite it artificially in Solomon's favour).' The directions for the remaining scenes are not less elaborate ; and a later variation of this theory has still further compHcated matters by discovering an intermezzo in which, in addition to the country lovers of the main play, there appears another pair of country lovers distinguished from the first by the fact that the maiden is a shepherdess (not a vineyard-keeper) and her marriage with her lover more imminent (i. 7 f., 15-17, iv. 8-v. 1). The simpler two-character theory has been criticised probably beyond recovery : the three-character theory still has many supporters. The main question is whether the httle drama, in some respects very charming, con- structed by Ewald, was constructed by him out of the text, or simply read by him into the text. Under the guise of stage instructions has he not actually supplied a modern Targum, which as completely transforms and misrepresents an ancient piece of hterature as Jewish Targums which turned it into a history of Israel, or Christian commentaries that made it relate the history of the Incarna- tion ? We might find minor causes for scepticism in regard to this theory in the degree, httle, if at aU, short of absurd- ity, to which the use of the theatrical aside is postulated in Act i., scene 2 (see above), and many details which cannot here be discussed. If the Song of Songs actually is the sole surviving specimen of ancient Semitic drama, it is singularly un- fortunate that its author failed to supply, or scribes excused themselves from the trouble of copying, the very necessary stage directions. The allegorical and the two-character dramatic theories of the poem rightly detected dialogue in the book ; the three-charactei theory rightly discerned that we are not xvn.] THE SONG OF SONGS 16i» throughout witnessing only the courtship of a country maiden by a king, but also the affection of two country lovers ripening into marriage ; the intermezzo theory is probably right in recognising that the theme of two country lovers is handled more than once, and only wrong in not recognising that this additional complication really strained the dramatic theory to the breaking-point. That we already reach the actual marriage of a pair as early in the book as ii. 6 is not admitted by the dramatic theories, but is nevertheless probably the fact, and a fact that works havoc with those theories. Another theory of the book then is required, and has found occasional advocates since Herder in the eighteenth century ; but it has been elaborated afresh by Budde on the basis of Wetzstein's observations of modem Syrian life and its bearing on the Song of Songs. According to this theory the book consists of a number of different poems or poetical fragments, all aUke having as their subject court- ship, marriage, and its attendant ceremonies, and the beauty of bride and bridegroom. Instead of having to postulate the negligence of a dramatist in supplying no stage directions, or of a scribe in omitting them, all that this theory needs to postulate is that different love-poems have been written continuously without marks of dis- tinction, just as different Psalms and different prophetic poems have almost certainly received similar treatment at the hands of original editors, or of some of those who have transmitted the text (cp. pp. 159). What lends great probabiUty to this theory is that modem Syrian custom explains the character of, and even offers parallels to, the several poems. * The happiest period in the life of the Syrian countryman is the first seven days after his wedding, during which he and his young wife play the part of king and queen, being treated as such by their own and any neighbouring communities who may be invited. The majority of the more important village weddings take place in the month of March, the most delightful of the Syrian year . . . consequently tht 160 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch, "weddings are celebrated in the open on the village thi-eshing floor ' where a throne is erected to the singing of a song that treats of war or love, and mostly both together. The bridal pair being seated on the throne, a great dance in their honour takes place, ' the accompanying song is devoted entirely to them, its chief contents consisting of the inevitable wasf, I.e. a description of the bodily perfection of both, and of their ornaments. Naturally, the praise of the queen is fuller; and naturally, too, it deals more with her visible than her concealed charms, for to-day she is a wife, and, more- over, the wasf sung yesterday during her sword dance left nothing to be desired. . . . With this dance begin the games which last seven days. . . . During the whole week their two majesties are dressed in wedding attire, and are not allowed to do anything or attend to any business, but all they have to do is to watch the games played before them.' 1 It is suggested that the Song of Songs includes in iv.-vii. specimens of the descriptions of bride and bridegroom sung at ancient Hebrew country weddings and corresponding to the loasf of the modem Syrian wedding celebrations In iv. 1-7, of which vi. 4-7 may be regarded as a fragmentary duplicate, we have the description of the visible charms of the newly married wife, in vi. 10-vii. 6 the less restrained description of the bride as she danced on the wedding day, and in v. 2-16 the description of the bridegroom. Again, iii. 6-11 may well be the song sung as the throne is brought on to the threshing floor, the bridegroom playing here the r6le not merely of any king, but of the famous and glorious King Solomon. The remainder of the book containing other songs sung, some of them, later in the wedding week, as e.g. ii. 4-7, which celebrates the nuptial night ; or representing the admiration of the bride for the bridegroom, or of the bride- groom for the bride. In some of these songs there is dia« logue : so clearly, c.gr., even in short poems Uke i. 7-8, 16-17, 1 The paragraph is based on Btidrle, Das Hohelied, pp. zrii, zriii ; tht words in invert^ commas are a translation of Wetzstein's. xvn.] THE SONG OF SONGS 161 ii. 1-3 ; but the opening poem, i. 2-4, may owe its present appearance of dialogue to textual corruption, and origin- ally have represented entirely the speech of the bride con- gratulating herself on being alone the happy possessor of the bridegroom, ' the king,' who had won the hearts of aU her mates by his charms. Other separate poems are ii. 8-14 (love in springtime), iii. 1-5 (the maiden's dream), viii. 1-2, (5-)6-7 (love invincible), viii. 8-10 (the child becomes the mature maiden). If the Song of Songs is thus rightly explained, it is essentially folk-poetry, a collection of the wedding songs that were sung in some Hebrew village. Similar songs were doubtless in use throughout the country ; but the recurrence of certain peculiarities of phrase suggests that we have rather the poems of a single locahty than a^ miscellaneous collection from the country at large. From the address to the daughters, i.e. the women, of Jerusalem in several passages, it may perhaps be inferred that the locahty of the poems was some village near Jerusalem^'^ From mere references to places it seems hazardous to draw conclusions, for the places mentioned are widely distri- buted : e.g, Engedi, David's tower (in Jerusalem) belong to the South, Carmel and Sharon to the West, Hermon and Lebanon to the North, Gilead and Heshbon to the East. Yet on the groimd of the frequent references to Lebanon it has commonly been held by upholders of the dramatic theory that the book is of North Palestinian origin. In folk-poetry of this kind we need not expect, and in the Song we certainly do not find, any clear allusions to contemporary history. The age of David and Solomon seems to belong to the distant past : David's name is introduced in connection with a tower in Jerusalem, Solomon as typical of kingly splendour and luxury. An air of serenity, peace and happiness breathes through the book ; but it would be hazardous to argue from this that the book must have been written in days of national independence and success, for it would be a bold assertion L 162 CRITICAL INTRODUOTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oB. that village life was necessarily harder after Jewish inde- pendence had been lost than before it, under the Persians, the Ptolemies, or the Seleucids, than under Solomon, Ahab, Uezekiah or many another native ruler ; and ' certainly if the modem Syrian peasant under Turkish rule can, as spring returns, celebrate weddings with seven days of sport and jollity, and pay homage to the bridal * king ' and * queen,' we have no reason to beUeve that such happy interludes were uncommon in Hebrew villages during the centuries of foreign dominion. The determination of the date of the book must turn, then, mainly on the language. It is urged that the purity and brightness of the style favour an early origin. But over against this general consideration, which cannot be regarded as conclusive, stand certain very striking details which are most obviously explained by assuming that the Song is a post-exilic work, and perhaps, indeed, was written as late as the third or second century B.C. The most significant of these details is the use of the relative sh' to the exclusion of the usual form "sher : sh' occurs indeed in the present text — sporadically in Judges, and in 2 Kings vi. 1 1 ; otherwise it is confined to post-exilic literature, and occurs with frequency elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Eccles. : in the Mishnah it is the regular form of the relative. Another feature pointing to a late date is the occurrence of foreign words Uke the Persian pardes in iv. 13, and appiryon, probably optLov, in iii. 9. It is questionable whether the alternative theory that the Song is of early North Palestinian origin would really meet the facts, even if other grounds (p. 161) for attri- buting the SoDg to the North were stronger than they are. xinvkl LAMENTATIONS U3 CHAPTER XVIII LAMENTATIONS The book of Lamentations is divided into five chapters, each containing a single complete poem. Three of these poems are what the Hebrews termed kindthy i.e, dirges, or elegies (R.V. lamentations). Hebrew elegies were com- posed either, like those of David over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. i. 17 ff.) and Abner (2 Sam. iii. 33), over deceased individuals, or, like those in Amos v. 2, Ezek. xxvi. 17 f., with reference to the overthrow of a nation or city. In the latter class, to which Lam. i., ii., iv. belong, the city or nation is personified, and its overthrow or destruction cor- responds to the death of an individual. The three dirges of the book of Lamentations refer to the death of the city of Sion, or the Jewish nation, i.e. to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. Lam. iii. describes, figuratively, the sufferings through which the writer in common with his fellow-Jews (vers. 40-47) has passed in consequence of the anger of Yahweh which they had provoked by their sins. Lam. v. is a prayer of the Jews to Yahweh : in their prayer they describe the suffer- ings which have come upon them for the sins of their fathers (ver. 7) and themselves (ver. 16), and lament that Yahweh*s anger shows no signs of abatement. The three dirges and also ch. iii. are acrostics ; in chs. i. and ii. each strophe consists of three long fines, and the successive strophes open with successive letters of the alphabet ; in ch. iv. the strophe is shorter, consisting of but two fines, and again the successive strophes open with thd successive letters of the alphabet. In ch. iii. each 161 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT ^ of the first three lines begins with the first letter of the alphabet, each of the next three with the second, and so forth ; but whereas in chs. i., ii., iv. the several alphabetic sections are also true strophes, in so far that they corre- spond to well-marked divisions of thought, in ch. iii. many of the sections are marked ofiE merely by the alphabetic form; for example, vers. 46-48 all begin with the sam« letter ; but whereas ver. 48 goes closely with ver. 49, it is sharply divided from ver. 47, with which verse the prayer begun in ver. 42 comes to an end. Another difference marks off ch. i. from chs. ii. and iv. (and also ch. iii.). In ch. i. the sequence of the initial letters is that which still holds in the modem Hebrew alphabet, but in chs. ii. and iv. (and iii.) the seventeenth letter of that alphabet precedes the sixteenth. An ancient tradition or theory ascribes the book of Lamentations to Jeremiah ; and this accounts for the full title of the book in E. V. — the Lamentations of Jeremiah. This full title is ancient — certainly as ancient as the fourth century a.d., for it stands in the Sinaitic MS. of the Septuagint, and it is probably as ancient as the second century a.d., for it is the title of the book in the Syriao and old Latin versions. But it is probably younger than the date of the Greek version, for in the Vatican MS. (fourth century a.d.), which probably represents on this point the original text of the version, and in many other MSS., the shorter title, Lamentations, by which the book was also known among the early Jewish Rabbis, is found. But, apart from its title, the Greek version enables us to trace a pre-Christian association of Lamentations with Jeremiah : not indeed because in that version Lamentations stands among the Jeremianic hterature, after Jeremiah and Baruch, and before the Epistle of Jeremy, for the date of that arrangement is unknown, and the version of Lamentations is not from the hands of the translators of Jeremiah, but because it contains at the head of the first chapter this note, * And it came to pass, after Israel was led into captivity, and Jerusalem laid waste, that xvm.] LAMENTATIONS 165 Jeremiah sat weeping, and composed this dirge over Jerusalem and said.' This note has, indeed, often been understood to mean that Jeremiah was the author of the entire book of five poems; but the phrase Wprjvrja-tv tov Oprjvov TovTov, composed this dirge, is identical with that used of David's single elegy over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. i. 19) ; it is, therefore, most naturally to be understood here also of a single poem, that poem, xmless the note has become misplaced, being the first dirge. This early form of tradition, then, ascribed not all the book, but ch. i. only, to Jeremiah. Possibly the same form of tradition is expressed in 1 Chron. xxxv. 25 (though some consider * the (book of) Lamentations ' there mentioned a different work from the canonical book of that name), and in Josephus Ant. x. v. 1. If the evidence of 1 Chron. xxxv. 25 be admitted, Jeremiah was believed to be at least part author of Lamentations as early as about 200 or 300 B.C., i.e, about three or four centuries after Jeremiah's death. It is doubtful whether even the most ancient form of the tradition is true to fact ; in other words, it is doubtful whether Jeremiah composed any, and exceedingly impro- bable that he composed all, of the poems in the book. There is, it is true, much in the vocabulary and phraseology of the elegies that is found also in Jeremiah ; much, too, in the general tone and temper of parts of Jeremiah {e.g. chs. xiii., xiv.) that reappears in Lamentations. On the other hand, the attempt to find allusions in Lamentations (e.g. in iii. 53) to personal experiences of the prophet recorded in Jeremiah rests on the highly questionable method of taking one or two statements as hteral in a series of statements which must be mostly figurative. As well might we identify the author with Jonah, over whose head water flowed (Jonah ii. 3-5, cp. Lam. iii. 54), but of whom we are not told that he was cast into a dungeon, as with Jeremiah, of whom we are told (Jer. xxxviii. 6 ff., cp. Lam. iii. 53) that he was cast into a waterless pit, but not that T^ater flowed over his head. But it is the positive difference between Lamentations 166 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH. and Jeremiah that makes the ancient theory or tradition of common authorship doubtful. These differences are found both in the vocabulary and in the substance of the poems. For example, a form of the relative pronoun {sh*^ cp. p. 162), never used by Jeremiah or by any pre-exiUo Jewish writer, occurs in ii. 15, 16, iv. 9, v. 18 ; and the term Adonai, Lord, is used by itself fourteen times in chs. i.-iii., though Jeremiah uses it only in combination with Yahweh. The very poems (chs. ii. and iv.) which read most Hke the work of an actual eyewitness of the fall of Jerusalem, and might, therefore, possibly have been the work of Jeremiah, betray also the standpoint of a member of the * patriotic ' party whom Jeremiah had denounced and warned in vain. Jeremiah had anticipated the fall of Jerusalem {e,g, Jer. xxvi. 5-9), and that Yahweh would in this way turn into the enemy of Sion; he had denounced the prophets (xxiii. 9-40) who, by promising the people peace, had done everything to prevent the people being prepared for the fall of the city ; he had clearly seen that the help promised by Egypt was worthless (see e.g. Jer. xxxvii. 6-10) ; nor could he ever have expected the Jewish monarch to secure the safety of the state (see e.g, Jer. xxiv. 8-10). On the other hand, the author of Lam. ii. and iv. writes * as if he had been among the dupes of the prophets,' and * the fall of the monarch and princes, to whom he imputes no blame, he feels as a desecration ' ; * and * that the Lord could become the enemy had startled and shocked him ' ; more- over, he had hoped up to the last that the help (of Egypt) would not prove vain : see Lam. ii. 14, 9c (prophets), ii. 6c, 9b, iv. 20 (king and princes), iv. 17 (the expected help), iv. 12 (unpreparedness for the fall of Jerusalem). The writer may even have been one of those who shared Zedekiah's flight down the deep descent from Jerusalem to Jericho, and his subsequent capture (2 Kings xxv. 4 f.= Jer. xxxix 4 f., cp. Lam. iv. 19) ; and he was apparently familiar with the writings of Ezekiel (692-571 B.C.). Setting aside, then, the traditional authorship of the book, i a A. Smith, Jerusalem, ii. 272. xvm.J LAMENTATIONS 167 what can be said with reference to the origin of it ? An anonymous collection of poems, and such in the Hebrew Bible Lamentations is, need not necessarily be the work of a single author; and the differences described above (pp. 163, 164) point, as a matter of fact, rather to diversity than unity of authorship. So also does the absence in chs. i., iii., v. of those vivid touches which have convinced most (though not all) students of the book that chs. ii. and iv. are the work of a man who had passed through the siege of Jerusalem in 588-586. If that conviction is correct those two poems at least were written within some twenty or thirty years of, though, if the influence of Ezekiel is rightly traced in them, not immediately after, the events they describe — say, about 570-560 B.C. The determination of the date of the remain- ing poems is more difficult : to some ch. i. has seemed dependent upon and therefore subsequent to chs. ii. and iv. ; and it is not impossible that ch. iii. belongs to a much later age. The evidence on which a decision turns depends mainly on a minute analysis of language and literary affinities which cannot be reproduced here. 168 CRITICAL LNTRODUCIIOJ^ TO OLD TEiSTAMENT [ch. CHAPTER XIX THE PROPHETIC LITERATURE: INTRODUCTORY The remains of ancient Hebrew prophetic literature were preserved by the Jews in four collections entitled respec- tively Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve ; and these all stand together in the Hebrew Bible. In the Enghsh Bible, which is influenced by the arrangement of the Septuagint, Lamentations, on account jt the ascription of that book to Jeremiah, is inserted between Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Daniel between Ezekiel and the first section of The Twelve. Lamentations has no prophetic character ; on the other hand, parts of Daniel resemble in character parts of the prophetic books. Lamentations has already been considered ; Daniel may be deferred to the end. There are certain common features presented, or common questions raised, by all the prophetical books, and it will be convenient to consider these in the present chapter before passing to the detailed consideration of the separate books in the chapters that follow. Prophets were primarily not writers, but speakers ; . and the prophetical books, Uke so much other Hebrew literature, enshrine in Uterary form what was in its origin oral. Not indeed that everything in the four prophetic collections, or in Daniel, nms back to an oral origin ; as a matter of fact it does not ; but prophecy was in its origin something spoken, and this in some measure affects the hterary form even of later productions of prophetic or quasi-prophetio character that had no oral origin. The early prophets were men of speech, and men of action, and stories gathered round them which have preserved XIX.] PROPHETIC LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY 169 for us some account both ol what they said and what they did ; pre-eminent among such narratives about the early prophets are those of which Ehjah and Elisha are the sub- ject, though it is well also to recall here the narrative in 2 Samuel xii. about Nathan, which preserves a more complete specimen of prophetic speech. But we have no reason to beheve that these earher prophets themselves either wrote down what they had spoken, or took measures to have their words perpetuated, and in any case it is not till we reach the eighth century B.C. that we find prophets whose words and teaching have formed the substance of books that still exist. It has become customary to speak of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah &8 the earliest literary prophets ; yet this term must not be allowed to become misleading ; these men, and in the next century Jeremiah, were, Uke the prophets that had preceded them, speakers ; their mode of communication was still primarily oral, and only secondarily, and doubtless, too, only very partially, did it become Hterary also. Least of all were they merely Uterary men, personally withdrawn from the circles whom they sought to influence ; by spoken word, but also often by their whole manner of life they made their appeal. And thus about some of these men, as about Elijah and Elisha, we have received narratives. Speaking broadly, then, we have to distinguish in the literature that passes under the names of the prophets that have been mentioned three elements, though not all of these are present in all the books in question : we have (1) the Uterary form in which the speech, or oral teach- ing, of these prophets is preserved; (2) autobiographical notices which some of these prophets composed ; and (3) bio- graphical notices, of which some were written by a com- panion with immediate knowledge, while others may rather be the hterary embodiment of popular stories that had gathered round the prophet. But the prophetic Uterature of the Old Testament is the deposit of a long period of history, extending from the eighth century down to at least the fifth century B.C. ; 170 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. and during this period prophecy underwent a change. It passed in the persons of some at least of its exponents into what was primarily and purely a hterary form of expression ; much at least of Ezekiel (e.g, chs. xl.-xlviii.), possibly the whole of the work of the Deutero-Isaiah (xl.-lv.), and certainly apocalyptic work such as Is. xxiv.-xxvii. and the visions of Daniel, rest on no previously spoken word. It is unnecessary here to dwell further either on the autobiographical and biographical elements in the prophetic books ; or on those prophetic books or parts of books that rest on no oral basis, but were from the first Hterary. On the other hand, that large part of the books of Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Jeremiah, Zephaniah, probably also of Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, that are obviously related to the spoken word of the prophet calls for some further consideration. A very sUght examination of the prophetic books suffices to show that they do not contain verbatim reports of speeches or sermons. In large part the prophetic teaching is preserved in the form of poemSy and for the most part these poems are short. The problem then is : How do these poems stand related to the speech and teaching of the prophet ? Did he compose poems and recite them in pubUc ? or did he or some disciple of his from time to time enshrine the substance of the prophet's teaching in short poems ? Such short poems, even though they were committed to writing, could and would continue to be learnt, for the circulation even of small books (or rolls) was scarcely large. Though on certain occasions, taking a hint from the professional singers or reciters who, as Num. xxi. 27 sug- gests, recited existing poems, the prophet too may have recited in public such poems, perhaps, as Isaiah's parable of the vineyard, which he had previously composed, the greater number of the prophetic poems are more probably the subsequent artistic expression of thoughts and ideas that had formed the tenor of the prophet's publio SIX.] PROPHETIC LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY 171 utterances. This may account for the comparative absence of detailed allusions or applications of the prophetic teaching in the poems ; and this in turn may explain why it is often a very difficult and uncertain task to determine the chronological order either of prophecies in general, or of the prophecies of a particular prophet. In his actual speech the prophet doubtless often pointed his teaching by reference to passing events, and details of the moment ; in the poems, which at once condensed and perpetuated his teaching, such details tended to disappear. The composition of some of these prophetic poems may have been virtually simultaneous with the committing of them to writing. On the other hand, these two processes may often have been separated from one another by a considerable interval, so that there were three well-defiied stages before prophetic speech issued in a book, viz. : (1) the pubHc utterance of the prophet, or his instruction more privately communicated to a circle of disciples ; (2) the reduction of the substance of this teaching to poetic form ; (3) the committing of the poems to writing, with any alterations, additions or explanations that may have seemed advisable. The books of Isaiah and Habakkuk give one or two hints, the book of Jeremiah a fuller account of the cir- cumstances under which, and the manner in which, a prophet actually committed his teaching to writing. The earliest record that a prophet received a command from Yahweh not, as was usually the case, to speak {e.g. Amos vii. 16, Is. vi. 9, Jer. vii. 2), but to write, is in Is. viii. 1 : here Isaiah records that he was bidden (shortly before 732 B.C.) to write on a great tablet a single ominous name — Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and to have the inscription attested by witnesses. Of tablets inscribed with some word or words of prophetic teaching we also read in Hab. ii. 2-4 : Write the vision (i.e. the prophecy), and make it plain upon tablets, that he that readeth it may run {i.e. read it fluently). Even this inscription, though longer than the previous one, probably consisted of one great saying 172 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. only, which ran (adopting a probable emendation), * Behold, as for the unrighteous, his s ul is not 3ven within him ; but the righteous shall live by Lis faitiiiulness.' The written word here is a word of assv^-ance for the righteous, among whom the prophet may in the first instance have reckoned his disciples. In neither of the instances just noted does the prophet speak of writing a book, but merely of a word or a saying. But the existence of such tablets containing some pregnant saying may account for certain brief and unconnected sayings that occur in the present prophetical books. Another passage in Isaiah speaks of the preparation not only of tablets, but of a book or rather a roll. In Is. xxx. 8 the prophet records that he was bidden, instead of going about as heretofore and addressing the people, to go home and prepare a written precis of what he had lately been speaking in public to a public that will not heed, in order that this book may become what the spoken word cannot be, a lasting memorial of the prophet's teaching. Finally, we have the very instructive narrative preserved in Jer. xxxvi. According to this it was not until the year 604 B.C., ».c. more than twenty years after the call to prophesy came to him (626 B.C.), that Jeremiah had any consciousness that it was God's will that he should write as weU as speak. In that year Yahweh said to him, * Take thee a roll of a book, and write in it all the words that I have spoken unto thee concerning Israel (or rather, as the LXX. reads, Jerusalem), and concerning Judah, and concerning all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.' Accordingly Jeremiah dictated to Baruch, who wrote them on the roll, ' all the words of Yahweh, which he had spoken to ' Jeremiah. It has, indeed, been suggested that Jeremiah had written down some of the words of Yahweh before this time, and that he dictated to Baruch out of an earher book (or books) of his prophecies ; but there is not the slightest indication of this in the narrative, and it is particularly difficult to believe, if Jeremiah had XIX.] PROPHETIC LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY 173 dictated to him out of a book, that Baruch's reply to the inquiry how he wrote the book could have run as it does : * He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in a book.' Moreover, the main reason assigned for assuming written prophecies of Jeremiah earlier than the roll prepared in 604 B.C. is quite insufficient. Even if it be correct that * the early prophecies bear so unmistakably the marks of the time when they were originally uttered, and are so full of the prophet's youthful energy and fire, that we cannot regard them as compositions of twenty years later' (Peake), nothing more, necessarily, follows than this, that Jeremiah had before this time reduced some of his teaching to poetic form ; this is probable enough, though we are not justified in concluding that everything committed to writing in 604 had reached even this fixity of form previously. In any case, the conclusion of the narrative is suggestive : King Jehoiakim obtains the roll, and destroys it ; there- upon, again at Jeremiah's dictation, Baruch writes on another roll all the words that had been on the former; * and there were added besides unto them many hke words.' The last statement warns us that ' all the words of Yahweh,' spoken to Jeremiah and written on the first roll, must be taken, as in any case it would be sufficiently obvious to take it, to mean the substance of all Yahweh's revelation to the prophet. And, further, the additions made to the second roll suggest, what again would in any case be likely enough, that the purpose of the roll was to perpetuate past teaching in a form, and with explanations, suitable for the present and the future. Down to Jeremiah, then, prophets seem first to have spoken, and then, often perhaps many years later, to have written. With Ezekiel (ch. ii.) the book plays a part even in the commission to prophesy : he sees a book and absorbs it ; however we may exactly explain the ' eating ' of the book, this narrative is significant, standing, as it does, at the head of the work of a prophet much at least of whose activity must have been primarily hterary. 174 CRITICAL INTRODUCnON TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. Except in the case of Ezekiel, there Kes between the early books written by the prophets themselves, or at their dictation by others, and the four collections in which the prophetic Uterature has been preserved a more or less comphcated history, which will be considered in each case as it arises. But the date at which the four collections can be first traced can better be considered here, for the avail- able evidence is in the case of all four the same. The * Book of the Twelve ' includes prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah who hved at the end of the sixth, and of Malachi who lived in the fifth century B.C. At earHest, then, the * Book of the Twelve ' was not compiled earher than the fifth century B.C. If, as seems probable (see p. 229), it also includes prophecies written as late as the third century B.C., the collection itself can be no earUer than that century. And much the same might be said, for reasons given below and which need not be anticipated here, about the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah. But at the beginning of the second century we find clear traces of prophetic collections corresponding more or less closely to, if not exactly identical with, the four existing collections — Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve. In the celebrated praise of the famous men of Israel with which the book of Ecclesiasticus (written c. 180 B.C.) closes, the author mentions by name Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, adding a reference to some striking phrases or ideas in the books that bear the names of these prophets. Thus ; — * For Hezekiah did that which was good, And was strong in the ways of David, Which Isaiah the prophet commanded (him), Who was great and faithful in his vision. In his days the sun stood still, And he added life to the king : By the spirit of might he saw the end, And comforted the mourners in Sion ; For ever he declared things that should be^ And hidden things before they came. XIX.] PROPHETIC LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY 175 By the hand of Jeremiah, for they aiRicted him, Yet from the womb he was formed (to be) a prophet, To pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, And in like manner to build up, to plant and to Eiake strong. Ezekiel saw the vision, And declared divers kinds of chariol; Also he made mention of Job, Who maintained all the ways of righteousness.' Eoclus. xlviii. 22-25, xlix. 6-9. The writer then proceeds to refer to the remaining prophetic writers, not individually, but by the collective term, * the Twelve Prophets,* thus : — ' Moreover the Twelve Prophets, May their bones flourish out of their places, Who recovered Jacob to health. And restored him by confidence of hope.* EcoluB. xlix. 10. From this so much at least may be inferred : (1) that Ben Sirach was famiKar with a book of Isaiah that included chs. xl.-lxvi. of Isaiah in whole or in part (see below, p. 182) : (2) that a prophetic collection entitled ' The Twelve Prophets ' already existed ; and (3) that Ben Sirach was famiUar with ch. i. of Jeremiah and with Ezekiel 1. and xiv. 14. In a word, Ben Sirach at the beginning of the second century was familiar with four prophetic collections which passed under the names of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve (Prophets), and, apparently, with no other similar (Scriptural) books : he makes no allusion to Daniel. The question, however, remains: Were the prophetic volumes with which Ben Sirach was familiar co-extensive with the four existing prophetic collections : and if not, how nearly ? In the case of ' The Twelve/ unless we con- template the improbable possibility that the work of one prophet was bodily substituted for another, the framework of that volume has never suffered alteration since c. 180 ; it consisted of twelve sections bearing the names of twelve 176 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. prophets then, it consists of twelve exactly similar sections still. But this does not necessarily imply that either the book of The Twelve or the other collections were secure thence- forward against all interpolation or alteration; on the other hand, they almost certainly suffered such modifica- tions to some greater or less extent ; for the differences both in the matter of arrangement and in extent between the Hebrew text and the Greek translation (? c. 100 B.C.) of the book of Jeremiah is considerable, and there are differences, though they are very much sUghter, in the other three collections. Yet allowing due weight to the significant differences of the Greek version, the character of the allusions in Ben Sirach, coupled with the fact that he makes no reference to Daniel, and that Daniel never gained a place in the prophetic Uterature, creates a considerable presumption in favour of the conclusion that four great prophetic collections already existed c. 180 B.C. possessing the same outstanding features as, and approximately co-extensive with, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and The Twelve as they now stand in the Hebrew Bible. The editors, then, who, by bringing together the various elements that now compose Isaiah, The Twelve, and Jeremiah, disposed the remains of ancient prophecy in three volumes which, with the already existing book of Ezekiel, made four, probably Uved in, and perhaps towards the close of, the third century B.C. Did these editors merely compile, or did they also modify ? Did the editors of prophetic hterature, in the interests of the edification of their own age, feel as free as the prophets themselves had felt (see p. 173) to add to the words received ' many Uke words ' ? If we approach the question from our modem attitude towards Scripture, which makes addition to the text of it impossible, and compels all addition or modification that may be made in the interests of edification to take the form of commentary or interpretation, we are ready to answer, No. Yet a com- parison of the Hebrew and Greek text of Jeremiah in XIX.] PROPHETIC LITERATURE : INTRODUCTORY 177 particular, but also of the other books, should give us pause. Moreover, it is certain that the prophetic books have re- ceived some late accretions ; most conclusive is the presence in Jer. x. 10 of a gloss written in Aramaic^ which has in- truded into the middle of a sentence of the original prophecy which was written in Hebrew. The question whether the prophetic writings have been subject to more extensive editorial modification than the mere addition to them of such glosses as that just mentioned will be dealt with, so far as the scope of the present work allows it to be dealt with at all, in the following chapters. But here an important general consideration may be briefly stated : between the prophetic and Uterary activity of Isaiah, Amos, Micah, Hosea, Jeremiah and others, and the editorial activity which resulted in the production of four collections or volumes of prophetic literature, three, at least, and probably five, centuries elapsed. But within even the shorter of these two intervals prophecy had undergone a profound change : the emphasis, which at first lay on denunciation of the sin of Yahweh's people and warning of judgment to come upon them, has been exchanged for an em- phasis on promises of their coming delivery ; and the pro- minence given by the earlier prophets to an approaching judg- ment on Judah yields to an increasing tendency in the later prophets to speak of an approaching world judgment. Did the editors allow the threats uttered against former genera- tions of Jews to stand unrelieved in the books they prepared for their own age ? Or are they responsible for adding to, or interweaving with, the ancient prophecies of judgment to come, passages of promise written at a more recent date ? The answer appears to be that to a certain extent they are responsible for such additions and modifications ; exactly to what extent it is difiicult to say, but see below, e.g, pp. 187, 207, 213, 218, 226. 178 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. CHAPTER XX ISAIAH Prophecies of the prophet Isaiah, who was active in the latter half of the eighth century B.C., and perhaps outlived it, and narratives about him, form the most conspicuous elements in the first of the four collections of prophetic hterature. His name gives its title to the collection, and he came to be regarded as the author of the entire book ; numerous passages from many parts of the book are cited as his words in the New Testament ; and Ecclus. xlviii. 24 f . (cited above on p. 178) refers to him passages in Is. xl.-b5:vi. as weU as in i.-xxxix. And yet nothing is clearer than that large parts of this collection are not the work of Isaiah. In the first place, chs. xl.-lv., which are in the main homogeneous and the work of a single age and author, clearly imply that they were written long subsequent to the age of Isaiah. And these implications do not consist in the fact that specific events that took place two centuries after the opening of Isaiah's career are foretold ; for, though it is not customary in prophecy to mention by name persons yet unborn, still such a case might be met by assuming an exceptional particularity in this particular prophecy. What is con- clusive is that a person who was not bom, events that did not happen, and conditions that did not begin to prevail, till a century or more after Isaiah's death, are here pre- supposed as abeady actually existing, or as having already happened. The Babylonian Exile which began in 597 and 586 B.C., the emergence of Cyrus on the field of history e. 650 B.C., the desolation of Jerusalem, are not predicted ; XX.] ISAIAH 179 they are elements in the historical situation actually existing at the time at which the author of these chapters wrote ; Uving under those conditions he makes certain predictions of the way in which those conditions will change, or of what will arise out of them : the Exile will come to an end, the Jews will return to Jerusalem, Cyrus will let them go and provide for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The inevitable conclusion is that these chapters were written after Cyrus had already become famous, and (unless we treat the predictions as vaticinia post eventum, for which there is not the slightest reason) before he actually destroyed the Babylonian Empire and the Jews returned and rebuilt Jerusalem, t.c. after 550 and before 538 B.C. In the history of criticism a large place has been given to the linguistic argument that the style and language of large parts of chs. i.-xxxix. and of xl.-lxvi. are so different that they cannot be the work of a single author. The differences are, as a matter of fact, very great, and the argument is weighty. But even if the differences were much slighter, the conclusion that the origins of the sections of the book of Isaiah in question were separated from one another by nearly two centuries would not be affected; this rests not, as is sometimes mistakenly suggested, on a denial of the predictive element in prophecy, nor again on philology, but on the fact that the age out of which these two bodies of prophecy arose, and from the standpoint of which the predictions each contains were made, is, as shown by the contemporaries to which the writers severally refer, in the one case the age of Sargon and Sennacherib, of Ahaz and Hezekiah, i.e. the eighth century B.C., and in the other the age of Cyrus, t.e. the sixth century. Moreover, it is not the case that the prophecies of the sixth century contained in the book of Isaiah are confined to the last twenty-seven chapters, so that the book could be explained as due to the accidental union, in a single roll, of prophecies of Isaiah and prophecies of a 'Great Unknown ' living in the sixth century. That the book of 180 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. Isaiah is the work of two authors thus distributed is a widespread popular misconception of critical conclusions, due largely no doubt to the fact that it has been found convenient to employ the term Deutero-Isaiah for that eidlic writer who, next to Isaiah, has contributed most largely to the book. Deutero-Isaiah was the term employed down to 1892 to denote the author of Is. xl.-lxvi. : since then, as a result of Duhm's criticism, it has been increasingly recognised that the work of * Deutero-Isaiah ' does not extend beyond chs. xl.-lv. ; for ch. Ivi.-lxvi. Duhm invented the term Trito-Isaiah. But, again, this only means that three prophets have contributed an important body of prophecy to the book ; it neither implies that not more than three prophets have contributed anything, nor that all of chs. i.-xxxix. was the work of one man ; the last point has never been advocated by any critical scholar since the unity of the entire book was abandoned. Within chs. i.-xxxix. there are passages, such as ch. xiii., which as unmistakably presuppose the conditions of the sixth century as chs. xl.-lv. : the author of ch. xiii. hved at a time when not Nineveh and the Assyrians, a^s in the time of Isaiah, were respectively the political centre and the imperial people of the ancient world, but Babylon, ' the glory of kingdoms,' and the Babylonians, i.e. after the fall of Nineveh and the destruc- tion of the Assyrian Empire in 607, and after the founda- tion of its successor, the Neo-Babylonian Empire, by Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, but before Cyrus arose and in turn overthrew the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. Scarcely less unmistakable is the evidence that other parts of the book such as chs. xxiv.-xxvii. and Ivi.-lxvi. were written after the Exile ; but even if this were not so, the exilic origin of ch. xiii., the late exilic origin of chs. xl.-lv. justifies the conclusion that the book of Isaiah is a post- exilic compilation or collection of prophetic literature, the work of different authors and of different ages. Not only so : there is evidence that the book of Isaiah is XX.] ISAIAH ' 181 not a collection of prophecies of different authors and different ages freely gathered and arranged once for all by a single post-exilic editor. It not only contains prophecies of different prophets, but it incorporates different books or collections of prophecies that must have had their own previous history. This is indicated by the presence in the book of several titles, and certain other features. Guided by these features, we may divide the book as follows : — (a) i. 2-31. Prophecies preceded by a general title (i. 1) ascribing authorship to Isaiah. (6) ii.-xii. Prophecies mainly concerning Judah and Jerusalem, ascribed in a title (ii. 2) to Isaiah. (c) xiii.-xxiii. * Oracles,* which the title to the first section (xiii. 1) probably intends to ascribe to Isaiah, but which certainly contains some prophecies written as late as the Exile (e,g, oh. xiii., xxi. I-IO). (d) xxiv.-xxvii. Anonymous prophecy (post-exilic). (e) xxviii.-xxxiii. A group of prophetic poems begin- ning with the interjection Ah! (R.V, Woe! or Ho !). (/) xxxiv.-xxxv. Anonymous prophecy (exiUo or post- • exilic). {g) xxxvi.-xxxix. Mainly extracts, referring to Isaiah, from 2 Kings. (Jt) xl.-lxvi. Anonymous prophecy. The exact processes by which this group of books, or extracts, gradually coalesced into the existing book of Isaiah must remain uncertain. But the analogy of the book of Jeremiah in which the last chapter is an extract from Kings suggests that the extract from Kings in Is. xxxvi.- xxxix. once formed the close of the book ascribed in the title (i. 1) to Isaiah, and consequently that i.-xxxix. (or the major part thereof) and xl.-lxvi. each once existed as separate books; we may find some confirmation of this in the fact that 2 Chron. xxxvi. 20-23 impUes that the 182 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. author of Chronicles regarded Is. xl.-lxvi., or at least Is. xliv. 28, not as the work of Isaiah, but of Jeremiah ! The prophetic collection that concluded with the extract from Kings must itself have been formed in the post- exiUc period : this is true also of some, if not all, of the yet smaller books or collections now included within chs. i.-xxxix., certainly of the ' Oracles ' (xiii.-xxiii.), probably even of chs. ii.-xii. which consist so largely of prophecies of Isaiah. The indications that several different and successive stages in the history of the book of Isaiah took place after the Exile suggest that the final stage by which the book in its present form was reached must not be placed very early in the post-exiUc period — probably not earUer than the third century B.C., in any case, and certainly not if, as sug- gested above, the Chronicler associated Is. xl.-lxvi. with Jeremiah. Whether any considerable additions were made much after the beginning of the second century B.C. is doubtful ; the terms in which Ben Sirach (c. 180 B.C.) refers to Isaiah, in the passage quoted on p. 174, might very well cover the present book : the extract from Kings is referred to in xlviii. 23 ; xlviii. 24 f. refers to (parts of) xl.-lxvi., and the * vision,' i.e. the prophetic teaching, might very well cover chs. i.-xxxv. Still, it cannot be said that this evidence absolutely excludes the interpolation into the book of Isaiah known to Ben Sirach even of a long section such as chs. xxiv.-xxvii. Yet considerations based on the history of the canon, and the evidence of the Greek version which contains the whole book with the exception of a verse or two (ii. 22, xxxviii. 15, xl. 7, Ivi. 12), and a clause or two besides {e.g. vi. 13, last clause), render the theory of late second-century interpolations hazardous. We may now proceed to a brief detailed consideration of the chief constituents of this post-exilic prophetic collection, firstly of those parts of it directly related to Isaiah, then of the exihc prophecies, then of the post-exilic prophecies, and finally of some ol the chronologically more ambiguoua passages. XX.] ISAIAH 183 The work of or relating to Isaiah is confined to, though it does not constitute the whole of, the following sections of the book : i.-xii., xiii.-xxiii., xxviii.-xxxiii., xxxvi.-xxxix. Within these chapters we find (a) prophetic poems and fragments or sayings of Isaiah ; (h) autobiographical notices, vi.-viii. 18 (in the main) ; (c) biographical notices about the prophet, xx., xxxvi.-xxxix. The notices, whether autobiographical or biographical, do not give a continuous account of Isaiah's life, but only information about certain periods of it : ch. vi. records the circumstances of his call (c. 740 B.C.), and vii. 1-viii. 18 contains some notices of his activity during the years 735- 733 B.C. ; then, except perhaps for ch. xxxix., which may refer to an event in the interval, follows a blank of more than twenty years till the year 711 B.C. to which ch. xx. refers ; then another blank of ten years ; and then the story of Isaiah's activity in 701 is told in chs. xxxvi.-xxxix. These chapters would also give information of yet later activity of Isaiah, if the theory were correct that xxxvi. f. contains not, as is commonly held, two different accounts of Sennacherib's campaign in 701, but accounts of two different campaigns — one in 701, and another, of which as yet there is no distinct historical evidence, some years later. The prophecies of Isaiah cannot aU be assigned with any certainty to any of the points in Isaiah's career described by himself or others, or to other definite periods. Perhaps the earliest is ii. 6-19, which may have been composed before the Assyrian campaign of 738 disturbed the prevalent con- fidence in the wealth and material resources of the kingdom. A Httle later, but before the Syro-Ephraimitish war, say in 737 B.C., may be placed the composition of the longest surviving poem of Isaiah's, ix. 8-x. 4, together with v. 26-29, the misplaced conclusion of the poem. Before 732, the year in which Damascus fell, must be placed the poem, xvii. 1-11, which 'predicts the fall of that city ; and, for a similar reason, xxviii. 1-4 must have been composed before 722, the year of the destruction of Samaria. On the other 184 CRITICAL, INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH. hand, an allusion to the capture of Carchemish indicates that X. 6-15 was composed after 717. To the time immedi- ately preceding or dming Sennacherib's campaign may be referred (apart from later modifications) i. 5-9, xviii., xxviii.- xxxi., xxii. 1-14. Prophecies more or less clearly Isaiah's, but of ambiguous date, are i. 2-4, 10-26, iii. 1-iv. 1, v., X. 27-32, xiv. 28-32 (in part), xxii. 15-25. The disregard of chronological arrangement in Isaiah i.-xxxix., which the foregoing paragraphs indicate, is in part at least due to the way in which the book arose ; the editor who brought together chs. ii.-xii., xiii.-xxiii., xxviii.-xxxiii., and xxxvi.-xxxix. might of course have freely rearranged his materials ; he preferred to preserve the Uterary con- nections, and to give the chronology only second considera- tion ; ii.-xii. stands first as containing immistakable allusions to the times of Uzziah and Ahaz, xiii.-xxiii. which aUudes to the death of Ahaz follows, and then xxviii.-xxxiii. and xxxvi.-xxxix. which refer to the days of Ahaz's successor, Hezekiah. The exilic elements in the book of Isaiah include xiii. (see p. 180), xxi. 1-10 (in which the threatened city is almost certainly Babylon, and the situation similar to that in ch. xiii.), xl.-lv., and perhaps xiv. 4 b.-21 and xxi. 11-15. Of chs. xl.-lv. it is necessary to speak further, for import- ant questions of the extent and integrity of this prophecy arise, many holding that Ivi.-lxvi. is also the work of the same author, while some, on the other hand, argue that even into xl.-lv. extraneous and later material has been interpolated. The chief features in the actual situation out of which xl.-lv. arose, and the chief elements in the future predicted, are these : (1) the Jews are now exiles in Babylon ; the writer predicts that they will shortly return to Sion (see xlviii. 14, 20, H. 11, xliii. 14 ff., cp. xl. 1 f.) ; (2) Sion is now waste, but is to be rebuilt (see xliv. 28, xlix. 14-21, li. 3, 17-23, Iii. 7-12, liv.) ; (3) Babylon is now exalted, but is to be brought low (see xlvii., cp. xlvi. 1, 2) ; (4) Cyrus is already well known (xHv. 28, xiv. 1), and, for such is xx.l ISAIAH 185 probably the implication of xli. 25 ff., has united Persia to the east and Media to the north of Babylon (549 B.C.) ; on the other hand, he has not yet achieved, as the prophecy predicts that he will, and as, in 538 B.C., he actually did, achieve the capture of Babylon. It is clear, therefore, that xl.-lv. was written between 649 and 638. Was the closing section of Isaiah, Ivi.-lxvi., written at the same period ? Was it the work of the same author, but written in whole or in part, as some have supposed, shortly after the return in 537 ? Or was it the work both of another author or other authors and of a different period ? The following considerations suggest that the last is the correct view : — (1) The general purpose and subject are different. The whole of xl.-lv. is dominated by one ruUng purpose — ^to rouse the exiles out of their despondency, and to fiU them, ' the servant of Yahweh,' with enthusiasm for their true destiny, which is to instruct the world at large in true religion. For this purpose the writer dwells on such sub- jects as the omnipotence of Yahweh, his intention to redeem the Jews, the powerlessness of idols and consequently of the people, though they be the imperial Babylonians themselves, who serve them. These chapters, then, though they may not show an uninterrupted development of thought, are yet held together by a few closely related ideas. The contrast afforded by Ivi.-lxvi. is great ; these last chapters are not governed by any single dominating pur- pose, but are quite miscellaneous, now describing the terms on which eunuchs and strangers may be admitted to the Jewish community (Ivi. 1-8), now denouncing a Jewish com- munity in which the people generally resort to illegitimate practices, from which the righteous perish, and in which the watchmen are neglectful (Ivi. 9-lvii. 21), or which is sedulous in fasting, but given to inhumanity and the pro- fanation of the Sabbath (Iviii., Hx.), now depicting the restoration and future glory of Sion (Ix.-Lxii.), or Yahweh returning victorious from his conjflict with Edom (Ixiii. 1-6), now providing: a Utursrical confession (Ixiii. 7-lxiv.), and 186 CRinOAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. finally contrasting the characters and destinies of the apostates and the loyal (Ixv., Ixvi.). (2) The historical and social background of Ivi.-lxvi. is different from that of xl.-lv. : no more allusions to Cjo-us or Babylon occur ; on the other hand, at times in these chapters the people addressed seem to be hving not on the alluvial plains of Babylon, but amid the rocky, mountain- ous scenery of Palestine (Ivii. 3-7) ; subject to native, though neglectful, leaders (Ivi. 10 f. : cp. e.g. Jer. vi. 17, ii.8), and to native, though unjust, tribunals (Ux. 3-9, 14). Again, some at least of the references to the Temple and the altar are predictions not of the restoration of what is non-existent, but of what is hereafter to happen in a Temple or on an altar that already exists : see Ivi. 5, 7, Ix. 7. On the other hand, Ix. 10 suggests that the walls of Jerusalem had not yet been rebuilt. (3) In addition to what has been noted under (1), as illustrations of difference in ideas between xl.-lv. and Ivi.- lxvi., the prominence given to the Sabbath in Ivi. and Iviii., and the reference to the Holy Spirit (Lxiii. 10, 11), may be noticed. (4) Between xl.-lv. and most of Ivi.-lxvi. there is a difference of style. A criterion referred to in another connection is available ; the shorter form of the first personal pronoun is but three times as frequent as the longer in xl.-lv. ; in Ivi.-Lxvi. it is eight times as frequent. The force of these converging fines of evidence has led many subsequent writers to follow Duhm in concluding that Ivi.-lxvi. is not the work of the same author as xl.-lv. The various sections of Ivi.-Lxvi. are not necessarily the work of one author or one date ; but the major part of the section may with probability be assigned to the middle of the fifth century B.C., when the Temple was standing, but Nehemiah had not yet restored the ruined walls, and when the observance of the Sabbath and the status of aUens were occupying the attention of the people. The chief question of the integrity of xl.-lv. gathers round certain of the passages which treat of the Servant of XX.] ISAIAH 187 Yahweh, viz. xlii. 1-4, xHx. 1-6, 1. 4-9, lii. 13-Iiii. 12. To speak of these as the * Servant Songs ' is rather misleading ; the passages in question are poetical, but so also is the rest of xl.-lv : they refer to the Servant, but so also do other parts of xl.-lv. It is impossible here to consider the vast variety of opinions as to the origin of these passages, or the grounds on which some treat them as aHen to, and others, with whom the present writer agrees, as an integral part of chs. xl.-iv. Among the longer post-exilic sections in the book of Isaiah, next to Ivi.-Lxvi., which has just been considered, is xxiv.-xxvii. In this section the political and social conditions of the Jews after the Exile are reflected ; they are pohtically dependent, without a king of their own ; the priesthood is the highest rank among them ; many of them are scattered over the earth ; those in Palestine appear to be few in number, and mingled with the heathen ; yet the writer, Uving in Jerusalem (xxv. 6), anticipates a world-judgment and the intervention of Yahweh to deHver his people, now poor, distressed, and helpless. Striking ideas, such as those of resurrection and the aboHtion of death, and style and language, point no less surely to a post-exilic date. It is only when a more precise deter- mination of date is attempted that imcertainty arises. Was the prophecy written as late as about 200 B.C., to which some of the striking ideas might most naturally point, or as early as about 400 B.C., which would more obviously explain the linguistic character of the section ? Other probably post-exilic passages arexi. 9-xii. 6, xv.-xvi. (written in part perhaps c. 470 B.C.), xix. (at least in part), xxxiii., and some at least of the passages of promise {e.g. xxix. 17-24) now interwoven with the prophecies of judgment in xxviii.-xxxi. Of the passages which it is more difficult to classify with any certainty a^ belonging to the eighth century, or the Exile, or the post-exiHc period, the most interesting and important are several eschatological poems. It would be precarious to argio that Isaiah could not have spoken of 188 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. the future beyond judgment, as well as of judgment itself : as a matter of fact, he did (i. 24) ; but most of the poems in question seem on other grounds more likely to have been the work of a later age. Taken in its most obvious sense, xi. 1 seems to imply that the dynasty of David has been overthrown : but if this be so, xi. 1-8 was written after 686 B.C. Then was ix. 2-7 the work of Isaiah, or of one who had actually shared with his people the long darkness of the Babylonian exile ? The answer wiU be largely deter- mined by the significance attached to the ideas. So, again, do iv. 2-6 and ii. 2-4 (=Micah iv. 1-3) embody Isaiah's conception of the ideal Jerusalem, or those of exilic or post- exilic writers ? Other passages of doubtful origin are xiv. 4-21 (more probably exilic than Isaianic), xxiii., xxxiv. f. The last section contains some post-exilic work, but parts of it may be ezilio. xzi.] JEREMIAH li^ CHAPTER XXI JEREMIAH The book of Jeremiah resembles in two respects Is. i.- xxxix — i.e. the book of Isaiah before the second part became attached to the first. Like Is. i.-xxxix., Jeremiah concludes with an extract from the book of Kings, and it is not governed in its arrangement exclusively, or even very largely, by a chronological principle. The neglect ol the chronological principle has introduced into Jeremiah, though it is in some respects a less miscellaneous collection, almost greater confusion than exists in Isaiah. The extract from Kings with which this collection closes (ch. lii.) refers to the release of Jehoiachin in the year 561 ; and to * all the (subsequent) days ' of his Hfe down to his death. The presence of this chapter, which cannot have been written till some time after 661, nor included in the book of Jeremiah till later still, is one of the most obvious of many indications that Jeremiah, who began to prophesy in 626, and cannot have been bom much, if at all, later than 660, did not write the book that now bears his name. Compared with the entire book of Isaiah, Jeremiah dis plays certain differences : it contains no long anonymous prophecies such as occur in Is. xxiv.-xxvii., xl.-lxvi., nor any great proportion of prophetic material clearly revealing historical situations of which it can be asserted with cer- tainty that they only arose after the prophet's death. Chs. 1., li. are commonly and rightly regarded as revealing an historical situation later than that of Jeremiah's lif*^- time ; other prophecies in Jeremiah also appear to many to be the work of later writers, but this is mainly on th« 190 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. ground of the ideas contained in them or of their Uterary aflSnities. Broadly speaking, almost the whole book of Jeremiah consists of prophecies claiming to be by Jere- miah, or of narratives about him. This being so, it will be convenient to consider the disposition of the various elements in the book first, and then the degree to which earher and genuine work has received accretions. In the first instance, Jeremiah may be divided into four sections distinguished from one another by certain general differences of character : — 1. Prophecies mainly referring to Judah, with some narrative sections interspersed : chs. i.-xxv. 2. Narratives, including some prophecies (especially in xxx.-xxxiii.) : chs. xxvi.-xlv. 3. Prophecies concerning foreign nations : chs. xlvi.-li. ; Cp. XXV. 4. Extract from 2 Kings (xxv.) : ch. lii. In section one (chs. i.-xxv.) the narratives or notes are autobiographical ; exceptional references to Jeremiah in the third person occur only in the general title, i. 1-3, the titles or introductory formulae in vii. 1, xi. 1, xiv. 1, xxi. 1, and also in xix. 14, xx. 1-3, xxi. 3. On the other hand, in sections two and three Jeremiah is regularly referred to in the third person. Thus the first section has the appearance of being in the main derived from, or based on, a collection of prophecies made by Jeremiah himself, and provided by him with certain autobiographical memoirs : see, for example, i. 4-19, xi. 9-xii. 6, xv., xvii. 14-18, xviii., xx. 7-18. On the other hand, the second section of the book appears to have its origin in a biography of the prophet, or different biographical notices about him. Another indication that sections one and two have different origins lies in the fact that they contain, in chs. vii. and xxvi., two different accounts of the same occasion. In Jeremiah, then, as in Isaiah, we appear to have the same three elements : prophecies or prophetic poems of the prophet, autobiographical memoirs written by him, XXL] JEREMIAH 191 biographical notices written about him by others. But what is the Uterary history of these elements? The first two might from the beginning have been included in a single book, the third in a single other book, and the two united by a single editor, who also added ch. lii. subse- quently. Yet this, the simplest hypothesis which would do justice to the facts already mentioned, is too simple to do justice to other facts, however far these remaining facts may fall short of clearly revealing the really com- plicated Hterary history of the book of Jeremiah. The numerous titles and introductory formulae are not all of such a kind as to indicate as clearly as the titles in Isaiah that originally independent books or booklets have been incorporated in Jeremiah. They are many of them more of the nature of the chronological note in Is. xiv. 28, and may be explained more obviously as explanatory notes within a collection of prophecies than as titles prefixed to such independent collections. That many independent collections are incorporated in Jeremiah is probable enough : for this would serve to account for the extra- ordinary and otherwise inexplicable disregard of chronology. Again, as the analogy of the brief book of Obadiah suggests, many such collections may have been quite small. But it is probable that Professor Schmidt in the Encyclopcedia Biblica considerably over-estimates the number of such collections included in Jeremiah when he suggests that * by the aid of the superscriptions the following collections may be recovered : (1) i.-xx. ; (2) xxi.-xxiv. ; (3) xxv., xlvi.-li. ; (4) xxvi.-xxix. ; (5) xxx.-xxxiii. ; (6) xxxiv.- xxxix. ; (7) xl.-xliv.' ; and that many of these in turn contain earHer and smaller collections, as, for example, iii. 6-vi. 30 ; vii.-x. ; xiv.-xvii. Beyond the differences in character of different parts of the book and the occurrence of several titles, there are other indications of difference of source. Thus chs. xxvii.-xxix. are distinguished from the rest of the book by a preference for the longer forms of proper names compounded with Yahweh, viz. Yirmeyahu, not Yirmeyah, and the use of the 1»2 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oa really incorrect form Nebuchadnezzar instead of Nebu- chadrezzar. It is not possible here to follow further the intricate paths opened up by these features of the book ; but we may turn now to a further consideration of the origin of the book in the Hght of the definite information given in xxxvi. The historical value of this chapter has, indeed, occasionally been called in question, but on inadequate grounds. The general significance of this narrative has already been discussed in ch. xix. : here we start from the facts there recorded that Jeremiah first prepared a book of his teaching in the year 604, and, this having been destroyed, reproduced the contents with additions in the next year, 603. Unless this book completely disappeared, its contents must survive, though not necessarily entire, within the existing book of Jeremiah ; it cannot, of course, be identical with the present book, for that contains much that was said, and narratives by others of much that was done, by Jeremiah after that date. We may therefore rule out at once as in no way related to Jeremiah's book of the year 603 the biographical narratives in xxvi.-xlv. and also Hi. More- over, all the prophecies or narratives in i.-xxv. that clearly presuppose a later date than 603 must be similarly ruled out. We might be incHned to go further, and rule out certain sections within i.-xxv. and the whole of xlvi.-li., on the ground that in them Jeremiah is referred to in the third person, whereas the autobiographical character of the greater part of i.-xxvi. strengthens what would be our natural expectation, viz. that Jeremiah's roll of 603 wa« autobiographical in form ; but it is necessary to allow foi later editorial additions, or even editorial alterations of the first person into the third (see p. 100). The following scheme will serve at once as a provisional chronological distribution of the prophecies in Jeremiah, and as an indication of the extent to which the contents ol the book of 603 may have survived. Passages enumerated under 1 may have stood in that book, those given vmder 2-6 cannot have done so : — nu.] JEREMIAH 193 1. Belonging to Josiah's reign, or to the opening years of Jehoiakim (626-603) : i. 4-19, iii. 6-18, and probably (most of) the remainder of ii.-vi., vii. 1-ix. 26, X. 17-25, xi. 1-xii. 6, xxii. 10-19 (judg- ments on Josiah, Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, now grouped with judgments on two later kings in xxi. 11-xxiii. 9). Possibly also parts of xiv.- xvii., xviii.-xx. also belong to this period. 2. Late in Jehoiakim's reign, between 604 and 597 : possibly xiv.-xvii. (except 19-27), xviii.-xx., if these are not earher (see under 1), xii. 7-17. 3. Reign of Jehoiachin (597 B.C.) : xxii. 20-37, and parts of xiii. (at least 18, 19). 4. Reign of Zedekiah (597-586) : xxiv., xxiii. 9-40 (probably), xxi. 1-10, 13 f. (588 B.C.). To this period, or to a time after the fall of the monarchy, may belong the genuine fragments (e.g, xxxi. 31-34) preserved among much later and non- Jeremianic matter in xxx. f . 5. Finally, we may classify the narratives of xxvi.-xlv. not necessarily according to the time at which they were written, but according to the time to which they refer : this is in many cases specified : — Date Chapter Jehoiakim (608 B.C.) xxvi. 4 and 5 (604, 603) xlv., xxxvi. (c. 600) XXXV. Zedekiah (c. 597) xxvii., xxix. „ 4 (593) xxviii., U. 59-64. w 9-11 (688-686) xxxiv. 1-7 (first part of the siege of Jerusalem) ; xxxvii. . 1-10 and xxxiv. 8-22 (in- terval during which the siege was raised) ; xxxvii. 11-xxxviii. 28a, xxxix. 15- 18, xxxii., xxxiii. (second part of the siege). After the fall of Jerusalem xxxviii. 28b, xxxix. 3-14, xl.-xliv. N 194 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. In addition to the fact of its date we leam from Jer. xxxvi. two things about the book prepared by the prophet in 604 : (1) the general subjects of it included not only Judah and Israel, but also * all the nations/ xxxvi. 2 ; (2) it contained the specific prophecy that the king of Babylon would come and destroy Judah (xxxvi. 29). The specific prophecy of xxxvi. 29 corresponds not indeed verbally, but in substance very closely, with xxv. 9, 10 ; and the remainder of xxv. apart from w. 12-14, which predict a judgment on Babylon and interrupt the connection between xxv. 11 and xxv. 15, consists of a prediction of the judgment which Yahweh is about to send on Judah and many nations by the agency of the Babylonians. It has been suggested that this chapter formed the sole contents of Jeremiah's books of 604 and 603. But this chapter by itself hardly satisfies the description that Yahweh gives of what that book was to contain : ' all the words that I have spoken to thee con- cerning Israel (LXX. Jerusalem), and concerning Judah, and concerning all the nations . . . from the days of Josiah unto this day * (xxxvi. 2) ; for the still existing re- mains of Jeremiah's teaching from 626-604, as indicated above, are far wider in scope than ch. xxv. The theory more commonly held is therefore preferable : the books of 604 and 603 contained so much at least as now survives of Jeremiah's prophecies belonging to the time before 604. Do any of Jeremiah's prophecies of that period against the nations survive ? The fact that Jeremiah was * a prophet to the nations ' (i. 5) was indeed challenged by Stade who proposed to correct the phrase just cited into ' a prophet to the nation (viz. Judah),' and to eliminate the clause * and concerning the nations ' in xxxvi. 2. Unless we accept these or similar suggestions, we must conclude that Jeremiah did utter prophecies against the nations, and did include them in his book ; then there would be a presumption that the section of the present book, viz. chs. xlvi.-li., which contains prophecies against the nations, stood, if not in its entirety, yet at least XXI.] JEREMIAH 196 in part, in the book of 604. And yet a closer examination of xlvi.-li. reveals much that cannot have been written by Jeremiah, and still less before 604. Moreover though some of the definitions of time (xlvi. 2, 13 ; xlvii. 1 ; xlix. 25) are either definitely consistent, or at least not clearly inconsistent, with a date before 604, others actually refer two sections to a date later than 604 (see xlix. 34, li. 59). Among the sections of xlvi.-H. that are most clearly not the work of Jeremiah is 1. 1-li. 58 : the situation pre- supposed is not earher than the end of the Exile, say c. 540 ; the destruction of the Temple in 586 is long past, and still unavenged (1. 28, li. 11, 51), but the destruction of Babylon is now imminent. On these and other grounds the genuineness of this section is now generally denied. Another very doubtful section is xlyiii., for this incor- porates large parts of an elegy which also appears, com- bined with other matter, in Is. xv. f. ; the date of the elegy is not improbably c. 470. Into a detailed examination of the remainder of xlvi.-li. it is impossible to enter here ; over against the presumption in favour of genuineness already mentioned must be set the fact that later sections have certainly gained places here. Yet it is possible to discover in some of the oracles a nucleus at least which cannot be positively shown to contain anything incon- sistent with Jeremiah's authorship. Before referring to doubtful passages in other parts of the book, it will be convenient to refer briefly to the very important differences between the Hebrew text and the Greek version. The Greek version differs from the Hebrew text first of all in its arrangement ; the second and third sections of the book change places : the prophecies on the nations (xlvi.-h.) together with xxv. 15-36 immediately follow the prophecies on Judah (i.-xxv. 13), thus leaving the mainly narrative section (xxvi.-xlv.) to be rounded off with the narrative extract from Kings. Further, the order within the section containing the foreign prophecies differs : the order in the Hebrew text is 1 Egypt ; 2 PhiHstine ; 3 Moab ; 196 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch 4 Ammon ; 6 Edom ; 6 Damascus ; 7 Kedar ; 8 Elam ; 9 Babylon : in the Greek version the order is 8, 1, 9, 2, 5, 4, 7, 6, 3. In addition to these remarkable differences of arrange- ment, there are striking differences in the text itself ; the Greek version occasionally has words or clauses not found in the Hebrew text, but far more often words and clauses, and occasionally sections, of the Hebrew text are absent from the Greek version, so that the version repre- sents a text shorter by an eighth than the Hebrew text. Very different views have been taken as to the relative merits of the Hebrew and Greek texts or recensions ; but one thing is clear : in certain quarters the text of Jeremiah was subject down to a relatively late date to a very free treatment ; nor is there much doubt that some and probably most of the sections found in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek, are accretions. Such sections absent from the Greek version are viii. lOa^-12 ; xi. 7-8ba ; xxix. 16-20; XXX. 10, 11, 15, 22; xxxiii. 14-26. There are other sections which, though present both in the Hebrew and Greek texts, are also probably the work not of Jeremiah but of a later age : such are (1) x. 1-16, which interrupts the connection between ix. 22 and x. 17, and has itself received accretions, certainly the Aramaic gloss in x. 11, and perhaps also certain verses absent from the Greek version ; the section seems to presuppose Is. xl.-lv. and consequently to have been written at earUest at the very end of the Exile ; (2) xvii. 19-27 (cp. Is. Ivi. 1-8, Iviii. 13 ; Neh. xiii. 15-22) ; (3) large parts of xxx., xxxi., though scarcely xxxi. 31-34, a passage which is entirely in harmony with Jeremiah*8 personaUty and teaching ; (4) xxxii. 17-23, and much else in xxxii., xxxiii. The biographical chapters in xxvi.-xlv. make no claim to be, and are obviously not, the work of Jeremiah ; but they may be in large part the work of contemporaries — possibly though not necessarily of Baruch. Thus in brief the history of the book of Jeremiah may be summarised as follow^ : the prophet's teaching for thi) XXL] JEREMIAH 197 previous twenty-three years, already in part expressed in poems, was summarised in a book which also contained some autobiographical matter : this book was written in 604 and perished ; it was re- written and expanded in 603. Between 603 and 586 or later, Jeremiah continued to teach, still recording his teaching in his poems, and, probably whether we care to cite xxx. 2 in evidence or not, from time to time committing these to writing. But especially during this period he had gathered round him disciples, some of whom are most Ukely the authors of the main body of the biographical portions of Jeremiah (in xxvi.-xlv.). Both the books of prophecies prepared by Jeremiah and of biographies by his disciples suffered interpolation and rearrangement either before or after, or both before and after, they were brought together into a single book. This collection of material has reached us in two forms — the Hebrew and the Greek — which are differently arranged, and differ in extent. One or other of these forms may have continued open to accretion and interpolation till well into the second century B.C. ' Jeremiah * was known to Ben Sirach in 180 B.C., but his allusion imfortunately only covers the first chapter of the present book : whether the book was known to him in a form more nearly approach*' ing the Greek or the Hebrew does not appear. 198 CRITICAL LNTRODUCriON TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. CHAPTER XXII EZEKIEL The reasons which led the Rabbis to conclude that * the men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel ' are unknown : but the conclusion itself is a curiosity, for no other book of the Old Testament is distinguished by such decisive marks of imity of authorship and integrity as this. It is written throughout, with the exception of i. 2 f . (cp. xxiv. 24), in the first person ; the same strongly individuaUsed style characterises all parts ahke ; and it forms a well- articulated whole. The book of Ezekiel is occupied with two closely related subjects — the approaching fall of Jerusalem, and the restoration of Jerusalem after its fall : in i.-xxiv. prophecies deUvered before the fall of the city in 586 B.C. are gathered together ; these agree in predicting that the Babylonians will capture Jerusalem and overthrow the Jewish state, and that thus Yahweh will vindicate his honour and hoHness against his own people who by their iniquities have shown throughout their history a persistent disregard for him. The second half of the book is devoted to the restoration of Jerusalem and of the Jewish community, which will be brought about by Yahweh in order that he may vindicate his honour and power in the eyes of the world. This part of the book falls into three sections ; chs. iLxv.-xxxii. contain the judgments on several nations, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre and Egypt, which may be regarded as preparatory to the restoration of the Jews ; xxxiii.-xxziz. deal with the re-creation of the land xxn.] EZEKIEL 199 and people ; xl.-xlviii. with the constitution of the new ommunity. The book of Ezekiel claims to be, and is, a work of the first part of the sixth century B.C. The genuineness of the book has not, indeed, passed quite so unchallenged as its integrity. Now and again it has been suggested that the book was written in the fifth, or the second, or even the first century B.C. ! But the insufficiency of the reasons advanced . in favour of these theories in reahty serves only to enforce the claims which the book itself most clearly makes. It is the work of Ezekiel, a priest, who was one of the captives of the year 597 B.C. It fell to his lot to settle at Tell-abib on the Great Canal (R.V. the river Chebar). Here, in the heart of Babylonia, at a spot in easy communciation with most of the important towns of the country, Ezekiel lived among his fellow captives. To them, especially to their elders who sought him out {e.g. XX. 1 ff.), in the six years preceding the event, Ezekiel predicted and explained the approaching fall of Jerusalem. Still a captive in Babylonia fourteen years after the fall of Jerusalem, in the year 572 B.C., he sketched out the constitution for the future community whose centre was to be the Temple of Yahweh in Sion. In discussing the origin of the book of Ezekiel, the ques- tion of sources arises just as Httle as the question of integ- rity. His mind worked with a considerable variety of material ; but it worked freely, not to say creatively ; as a priest he was famiUar with the structure of the Temple that was destroyed in 586, and with the character of its services and administration ; as a prophet he was doubtless familiar with the words of his predecessors, and he shares with his older contemporary Jeremiah an increasing per- ception of the religious value of the individual ; as a resident in Babylonia he was open to the influence of Babylonian ideas, hterature, and s5miboUsm, and as chapter i., for example, shows, he was not impervious to it. But he incorporates no ancient priestly document, no earlier prophetic oracle, no Babylonian story in his book ; he re- 200 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. moulds his material, whencesoever derived, into a work that bears throughout the stamp of his own personality. Only one question of origin arises : the latest date men- tioned in the book is the twenty-seventh year (after the captivity of Jehoiachin), i.e. 570 B.C. ; but Ezekiel's earliest teaching, which forms the substance of the first half of the book, was given in the years 592-586. Did he commit this earlier teaching to writing at the time ? Were his predictions of the fall of Jerusalem written as well as spoken before the actual fall of the city ? If so, how does the present book stand related to such earlier records of Ezekiel ? The series of dates with which the book is provided, and the very limited amount of the book that is in poetical form, both have a bearing on these questions. The dates given in the book may be tabulated as follows : the first column containing the reference, the second the year and month given in the text by the era of the cap- tivity, the third the year b.o. : — Year and Month of Captivity. S.O. i. (1,) 2 6.4 692. July. viii. 1 6.6 691. September. XX. 1 7.6 690. August. xxiv. 1 0.10 687. January. xxvi. 1 11 686. April, or later. xxix. 1 10.10 686. January. xxix. 17 27.1 670. ApriL XXX. 20 11.1 686. April xxxi. 1 11.3 686. June. xxxii. 1 12.12 684. March. xxxii. 17 12 (.12) (685-) 684 (March). xxxiii. 21 12.10 [11.10] 684 [ 586]. January. xLl 26.(1) 672. It will be seen from this table that the book is in the main arranged in chronological order : chapter xxxii., though two, or (adopting a necessary correction of the text in xxxiii. 21) fourteen, months later than the section Intro* xxn.] EZEKIEL 201 duced by xxxiii. 21, stands before it for an obvious reason ; it is a prophecy concerning the nations, and chronological sequence is disregarded in order to keep all the prophecies concerning the nations together in xxv.-xxxii. For the same very sufficient reason xxix. 17 &. is inserted in a section dated sixteen years earlier. Why xxvi. 1 ff. precedes xxix. 1 ff. is not obvious. But we seem justified in con- cluding that unless by a definite date he suggested the contrary, Ezekiel intended the order to be chronological. Are we then to assume that i.-vii. is a section written by Ezekiel in 692-591, viii.-xix. another written in 591- 590, and so on, and that towards the end of his life he simply put together these various note-books ? The general uniformity of style, and the careful arrangement of the book, and its very real unity, are most unfavourable to such a theory. On the other hand, it seems unnecessary to treat the dates merely as part of the Hterary setting of the book. It is more reasonable to suppose that Ezekiel had some record of his teaching at specific times in his career, that the various sections substantially reproduce that teaching, but that the entire book was planned and written after 572, and, indeed, after 570, unless we prefer to suppose that the prophet's correction (xxix. 17-24) in 570 of what he had said erroneously (xxvi. 12) in 586 was inserted by himself in a work which he had completed as early as 572. While the various sections of the book sub- stantially and generally reproduce the teaching of Ezekiel at the dates specified, occasional exceptions to this rule certainly seem to occur, and these, too, are most naturally explained if we assume a free construction of the book, on the basis of some definite records, at the close of Ezekiel's career. Such an exception is the allusion to Zedekiah's breach of faith with Nebuchadnezzar (xvii. 15-18), which took place after 591, the date assigned to viii-xix. The practice adopted by the earlier prophets of summar- ising their teaching in poems was followed to a very sHght extent by Ezekiel. The elegies in xix., xxvi. 17, xxvii. 3 ff., 32-36 are poems ; but by far the greater part of the book 202 CRITIGAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. is prose. It is worth observing, however, that ch. xvii., in which some have detected a different expectation from that which is expressed in xl.-xlviii. with regard to the place of the monarchy in the restored commmiity, is, if not actually throughout in poetical form, yet bound together by its allegorical form. It is reasonable to infer that this parable stands much as it was propounded in the first instance to the house of Israel (zvii. 2) at some time before 586. xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS CHAPTER XXIII THE TWELVE PROPHETS The fourth collection of Hebrew prophetic Kterature, * The Twelve,' is professedly more miscellaneous than any of the other three — ^Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. It may not, indeed, contain many more distinct elements than Isaiah, but it differs from Isaiah in this, that the several sections of the book are referred by name to different prophets. The arrangement of this collection appears to have been determined primarily by chronological considerations. The editor, doubtless, identified the author of the book of Jonah with the prophet of that name mentioned in 2 Kings xiv. 25 as a contemporary of Jeroboam n., who was Hving and reigning in the first half of the eighth century B.C. ; for less obvious reasons he probably regarded Obadiah and Joel as prophets of the same period. Thus the collection opens with the work of six prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, who actually lived, or were regarded as having Hved, in the eighth centm^y B.C. ; then follow three, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, who Hved in the seventh century ; then two, Haggai and Zechariah, who prophesied in 620-518 ; and finally the book of Malachi, a prophet of the fifth century, closes the volume. The order of the last six prophets is the same in the Greek version, but the first six appear in a different order, viz. Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah. The fact that the work of twelve prophets who are named gave its title to the collection, probably not long after it came into existence, is no proof that the collection does not also contain anonymous prophecies ; as a matter of fact, such prophecies do occur in Zechariah ix,-xiv. 204 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. The dates apparently attributed to the several books by the editor are not in all cases the actual dates of the book. Anticipating the detailed discussions we may date the several prophets as follows : Amos, Hosea, IVCcah in the eighth century; Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Nahum in the seventh century ; Haggai and Zechariah in the sixth century ; Malachi and Obadiah (?) in the fifth ; Joel, Jonah, and Zech. ix.-xiv. later in the post-exilic period. * The Twelve/ then, is a collection of prophetic hterature, or of earUer collections of prophetic Hterature, extending over many centuries, viz. from the eighth century down to probably the third (see p. 229). Much of the hterature, and some of the earUer collections, here preserved, must then have had a long history before it found its place in * The Twelve.* Some of the fortunes of this history can be traced, and will be referred to in the detailed discussion* that follow. 1. HOSBA The book of Hosea shares with that of Amos the pecuh- arity of being mainly, if not in its original form exclusively, addressed to or concerned with the northern kingdom of Israel, or, as the prophet commonly calls it, Ephraim. But Hosea, unhke Amos, is a subject of the northern kingdom : the king of Samaria is his king (vii. 6). His book, there- fore, is a piece of Ephraimite literature — the only book of a northern prophet that has survived. Hosea hved and prophesied in part before the fall of the house of Jehu (i. 4), which took place c. 746 b.o. His book and that of Amos, written probably somewhat earher, are the earhest surviving books of Hebrew prophecy. The book of Hosea consists mainly of a collection of prophetic poems : but the first and third chapters (in prose) purport to relate incidents in his fife, partly (ch. i.) in the third, partly (ch. iii.) in the first person. Both these chapters have at times been regarded as allegory, but whatever be the truth about ch. iii., ch. i. must bo regarded as a record of certain outward facts and certain inner xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: HOSEA 205 experiences of the prophet. Hosea had control over the names of his cliildren, and, Uke Isaiah, used the opportunity to make them express some element in his prophetic teach- ing ; but Jezreel, Lo-ruhamah, Lo-ammi are on this account no more to be accounted mere allegorical figures than are Isaiah's children. Shear- Yashub and Maher-shalal- hash-baz. And the fact that the names of his wife and father-in-law, over which he would have had no control, have no meaning relevant to his teaching, is the strongest possible proof that father-in-law, wife, and children were one and aU actual persons. And so the allusion to the weaning of Lo-ruhamah in i. 8 would be meaningless in allegory, but natural enough in a father's record of his family life. We may then use the facts of Hosea's hfe recorded in ch. i. to throw light on the origin of the book. When the prophet's first child was born the house of Jehu was still on the throne : whether the other children were also bom before the overthrow of that house is less clear. In any case, we may assume that by the time of Jezreel's birth Hosea had already appeared as a public teacher, denounc- ing, hke Amos, inhumanity, and attacking the reigning house which had been established with bloodshed, and under which cruelty and injustice were now prevalent. But the same narrative that records the birth of Jezreel, and gives a hint of the character of Hosea's teaching at the time, also records the birth of the next two children, with a hint that between the birth of the second and the third something hke three years elapsed. Consequently something Hke five years at least lay between Hosea's marriage, something Uke four years at least between the birth of Jezreel and Hosea's teaching of which that name formed a text, and the record of these events as given in ch. i. The interval may have been longer, for we have no reason to conclude that Hosea wrote the narrative immediately after Lo- ammi's birth. This being so, it is quite unnecessary to infer that chs. i.-iii. were written earUer than iv.-xiv., or that in every respect they record an earlier type of teaching. 206 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. It is, indeed, improbable that Hosea realised before marriage that his wife either was unchaste or would prove unfaithful ; and consequently we cannot safely assume that he began to teach so early as his marriage that * the land doth commit great whoredom in departing from Yahweh.' But he had certainly reaUsed the character of his wife, and become possessed of the thought of Ephraim's unfaithful- ness to Yahweh, before he wrote ch. i. ; the same thought reappears e,g, in iv. It is then not impossible, nor improbable, that Hosea wrote the record of his life and committed his prophetic poems to writing at one and the same time. Several of the poems point to the period of anarchy that followed the overthrow of the house of Jehu, when king succeeded king with rapidity, and rival factions maintained the advantage of reUance on Assyria or Egypt ; see v. 13, vii. 11, viii. 9, xii. 1 : vii. 3-7, viii. 4. In v. 13, x. 6, 6 there is probably a specific allusion to the tribute paid by Menahem to Tiglath- pileser in 738 B.C. Since the book imphes no knowledge of the Syro-Ephraimitish war, we may infer that Hosea com- piled his book before 735 : it contained the history of his life or the substance of his teaching for some ten years at least. Hosea'a book does not appear to have reached us un- modified. Nor is this surprising : it is a piece of prophecy addressed to the northern kingdom in the eighth century ; it owes its survival to post-exilic collectors or editors of the southern kingdom, and apparently has undergone a Judaean revision. To this revision may be attributed the title, for an Ephraimite would scarcely date his book by reference to a series of Jeunsh kings, and still less equate with Jeroboam of the northern kingdom and his auccessorSt Uzziah, who himself outlived Jeroboam. Elsewhere a Jewish editor may have substituted Judah where Israel stood in the original text, with a view to adapting an ancient Ephraimite prophecy to later Jewish needs : the play On names in xii. 3, which may be roughly represented by rendering * in the womb he Jacobed his brother, and in xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: JOEL 207 his manhood Israeled with God/ suggests that Israel and Jacob were the names originally employed in xii. 3, not as now Judah and Jacob. Similar alterations may have taken place in v. 10, 12, 13, 14 ; vi. 4 ; xii. 2 ; and the following may be Jewish additions to or modifications of Hosea's words : 1. 7, 1. 10-ii. 1, the words * and David their king ' in iii. 6 (cp. Jer. xxx. 9), iv. 15a, v. 5 (last clause), vi. 11, viii. 14, x. 11, xi. 12b. Some at least of the passages of promise, i. 7, i. 10- ii. 1, ii. 14, 23, iii. 1-5 (if an allegory of the restoration of the people), V. 15, vi. 3, xi. 10, 11, xiv., may be additions to Hosea's prophecies ; yet (1) it is not safe to assume that Hosea cannot at any time or to any circle of his hearers have held out such hopes, and then have given them a place in his book (cp. p. 187), and (2) some of these passages (e.g. ch. xiv.) savour strongly of Hosea's style. Of the passages enumerated perhaps i, 7 and i. 10-ii. 1 are most likely to be later additions. 2. Joel The title gives no indication of the time at which this book was written. It stands indeed among the group of six books probably regarded by the compilers of the Twelve (cp. p. 203) as pre-exilic : but it may owe its position, and consequently this imphcit theory of its date, to nothing more relevant than the repetition of iii. 16 in Amos i. 2. Internal evidence indicates that the book was written after the Exile. The first half of the book, i. 2-ii. 17 (23), which many ancient and a few, but very few, modem expositors have erroneously regarded as allegorical, describes the actual circumstances out of which the book sprang. Severe visitations of locusts in successive (cp. ii. 25) years, and severe drought had led to great scarcity, so that the daily sacrifices in the Temple could not be maintained. These disasters suggested that the final day of Yahweh might be approaching (i. 15, ii. 1 ff.), when further hordes of locusts, 208 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [cjh. resembling a well disciplined and irresistible army, with Yahweh at their head, would advance and strike terror into all hearts (ii. 1-11). A solemn fast and penitence on the part of the whole people might, it was felt, turn aside this last great judgment : and it actually did do so. Yahweh took pity on his people (ii. 18) ; rain has already fallen,* and there is promise of good harvests (ii. 19-22). The latter half of the book is a prediction, immediately, of good harvests, and, thereafter, of a day of Yahweh in which the Jews shall escape and receive Yahweh's spirit, but all nations shall be gathered together before Jerusalem and there condemned to punishment for their treatment of the Jews (ii. 28-iii. 21). The experiences which the prophet had shared with his people and which he so vividly describes, do not serve to date the prophecy : for visitations of locusts and droughts recur in all periods. The date must, then, be determined by the conditions which are the subject of allusion merely, and by the language and the Uterary affinities of the prophecy. The historical background, though it has been, and stiU is occasionally, interpreted differently, seems clearly to be that of the post-exilic period, perhaps in particular of about 400 B.o. The dispersion of the Jews among the nations, and the occupation of Judah by other people (iii. 1, 2) can scarcely refer to anything but the events of 586 b.o. and those that followed. But the (second) Temple is standing, and the cultus has been regularly administered till the famine occasioned by the disasters interrupted the daily sacrifice. This carries the book down below 616 B.C., when the Temple was com- pleted ; and if we may infer from the reference in ii. 9 to the (city-) wall that the walls also of Jerusalem were already restored, the book was written after Nehemiah (c. 445). There is much else that admirably fits the post-exilio situation, and can with difficulty, if at all, be reconciled with a pre-exilic date : for example, priests and elders are mentioned, but there is no allusion to either king or princes ; > In il 23 render hath given, not giveth {R.V.). xxin.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: JOEL 209 and the assembly of the whole people in the Temple on Sion, which is more than once referred to, far more closely resembles that which gathered round Ezra (Neh. viii.), than the community addressed by Bang Josiah (2 Kings xxiii.). There are allusions to Tyre, Sidon, the Philistines, the Greeks, Egypt, Edom, and the Sabaeans, but no allusion to either Assyria or Babylon, though one of these powers is mentioned by name in every pre-exiHo prophet except Amos, and by him Assyria, though unnamed, is unmistak- ably described. Joel seems rather to be the spokesman of his people, than, Uke most of the pre-exiHc prophets, one who stands over against them : and though the book con- tains a general call to repentance, it contains no condem- nation of oppression and injustice, on the one hand, or of idolatry on the other. The cessation of the daily sacrifice is as distressing to Joel as it was to the author of Daniel. Most of those who have maintained a pre-exiHc date, though Konig in arguing for the end of the seventh century forms an exception, have sought to explain the book by the circumstances of the minority of Joash (2 Kings xii.) ; but though the early date (ninth century) would explain the absence of reference to Assyria, and the regency of the high priest might just possibly account for the absence of any allusion to a king, it does not really explain the total situation implied by the book, and is very strongly opposed by the language and Kterary affinities. The argument from the style and language can be but barely indicated : Uke Is. xxiv.-xxvii., Joel has many of the quahties of earlier and good prophetic style, but also contains several words, forms or phrases that together point strongly away from the ninth and even from the seventh century. Everything, on the other hand, is entirely explained if we regard Joel as the work of a post- exilic writer familiar with the earUer Uterature and influenced by it. As a matter of fact, either Joel was greatly influenced by earlier writers, or, himself living early, his prophecy was remarkably influential over a large number of later writers. 210 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. If Joel lived in the ninth century then Amos, ' Isaiah ' (ii. 4), Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Obadiah, Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah, Malachi, the author of Is. xiii., and some Psahnists all quoted from this short prophecy ; on the other hand, if he lived about 400 B.C., it is he who quotes from the authors and writings named. Which is the more probable alternative, even if there was nothing else (as there is much) to be said on the point ? Exactly the same alternative cannot, of course, be presented if it be sug- gested that Joel hved in the seventh century, yet this consideration must be faced even then : Joel ii. 27 consists of a combination of phrases that occur separately in Deutero-Isaiah (e.g. Is. xlv. 5), Ezek. (e.g. xxxix. 28) and Lev. (e.g. xviii. 2) ; the phrases common to this passage in Joel and Ezekiel and Lev. xvii.-xxvi. (H) are strikingly characteristic of Ezekiel and Leviticus respectively ; that common to Joel and Deutero-Isaiah expresses a characteristic idea of Deutero-Isaiah. If Joel be late, all this is capable of easy explanation : phrases characteristic of Deutero- Isaiah, Ezekiel, and H, and impressed upon Joel's memory by their frequency, have been combined into one. But how improbable is the alternative : three different writers borrowed from a single verse of an earUer prophet their characteristic phrases which embodied their fundamental conceptions ! It might reasonably be claimed that any one of the three hnes of argument which have been indicated would suffice to overthrow the theory of a ninth-century origin ; taken together they rule out even a seventh-century origin. Joel cannot have been written before the Exile. 3. Amos The main subject of this book is the same as that of the book of Hosea — the sins and approaching downfall of the northern kingdom ; but, unlike Hosea, Amos was a Jew, and his book from the first a piece of Jewish Uterature. Though living at Tekoa, some twelve miles south of xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: AMOS 211 Jerusalem, Amos proceeded to Bethel, about the same distance north of Jerusalem, to utter in this royal town of the northern kingdom his prophetic message : Jeroboam (c. 786-746 B.C.) was reigning at the time. So much is recorded with all clearness in vii. 10-15. But we are left to speculate whether Amos himself wrote the entire book that now bears his name, and if so why, or how, or how long after he had spoken, and if not, how it arose. The period within the long reign of Jeroboam at which Amos either spoke or wrote is not exactly defined. The title, indeed, records that the prophecy was deHvered during the reign of Uzziah (Azariah) king of Judah, two years before the earthquake in that reign (Zech. xiv. 5). Since, now, according to 2 Kings xv. 1 the first year of Uzziah was the twenty-seventh of Jeroboam, and Jeroboam reigned in all forty-one years (2 Kings xiv. 23), c. 760 seems the earliest date at which the prophetic activity of Amos should be placed. The data on which this argument rests are by no means all secure ; but the conclusion that Amos prophesied about 760-750 B.C. is probably correct ; the general prosperity reflected in the book, and the particular reference in vi. 14, suggest that Jeroboam had been reigning for some considerable time, and had already won the successes recorded in 2 Kings. Into the very elaborate speculations which have been put forward regarding the origin of the book of Amos, it is impossible to enter here : it must suffice to draw attention to certain general characteristics of the book and its arrangement, and also to certain elements in it that are more or less clearly of, or may be later than, the age of Amos. The general plan is obvious : the book opens (chs. i.-ii.), after the title i. 1, with an elaborate poem dealing, in a series of more or less similar strophes, with the sins com- mitted by, and the judgment imminent over, five surround- ing nations and Judah, and then at much greater length with the sins and punishment of Israel (ii. 6-16). Chs. iii.-vi. contain a number of shorter poems, mainly concerned with Israel, and arranged, in part at least, according to their 212 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. opening worgb: note * Hear this word ' in iii. 1, iv. 1, v. 1 ; ' Ah ! they tMt ' (R.V. ' Woe to them that ') in v. 18, vi. 1, and originally perhaps in v. 7. Chs. vii.-ix. describe four visions depicting the approaching end of Israel, and contain also an account of the prophet's commission to prophesy, and of his fortunes in carrying it out (vii. 10-17), and a con- cluding section promising future feUcity under the Davidic dynasty (vii. 11-15). Whether this arrangement goes back substantially to Amos himself, or whether brief rolls containing one or more of the prophetic poems, or the story of his prophetic mission, were subsequently brought into the scheme that now governs it, must here be left without special discussion, and with a simple reference, for some of the general questions involved, to ch. xrx. The position of the biographical (or autobiographical ?) section vii. 10-17 in the middle of the five visions is curious : the prophet is hkely to have declared the contents of all five in his speech at Bethel ; or should we infer that he was interrupted before he could get farther than the third ? The first person used in the prose introduction to the visions may be due to the fact that the writer represents thereby the form in which he spoke at Bethel, and the third person in vii. 10-17 an objective way of referring to himself in written narrative (op. Hosea i.). Otherwise we might infer either differ- ence of origin, or some editorial modifications in these chapters. In considering the possibihty of later elements in the book, we turn first to the references to Judah. The case is rather different from that of Hosea (see p. 206) : for Amos was himself a Jew, and might very weU have added subse- quently references to Judah even though they formed no part of his teaching at Bethel. Yet the most extensive of the references to Judah in the present text is a strophe (ii. 4 f.) that differs in form from the normal strophe in the opening poem ; the charges against Judah are vague and general as compared with the specific charges against the other nations • and the language savours somewhat xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: OBADIAH 213 of the Deuteronomic style. The other references to Judah are in iii. lb, vi. 1 (the words ' are at ease in Sion and '). The concluding section of the book appears to presuppose, as having already taken place, the fall of the Davidio dynasty in 586, and predicts its restoration. If this be so, ix. 11-15 at least was not written before the Exile. Whether the more restrained promise of ix. 8-10 is from the same hand as ix. 11-15 is uncertain ; if it is not, the chief reason for suspecting it to be later than Amos would be that it blunts the edge of the threats that characterise the book ; see e.g. ix. 1-4. It is exceedingly difficult to believe that v. 8, 9 originally stood between v. 7 and v. 10 ; to make even a tolerable connection it is necessary with B.V. to insert at the begin- ning of ver. 8 something that has absolutely no warrant in the text. Moreover, iv. 13, ix. 6, 6 are not closely related to their respective contexts. Since these three passages are characterised by a Deutero-Isaianic ring and by the stress which they lay on the creative activity of Yahweh, and since this curious combination of Deutero-Isaianic style, Deutero-Isaianic thought, and looseness of connection, or inconsistency, with the context, does not occur elsewhere in the book, it is probable that all these passages are the work of a post-exiHc writer. Finally it may be remarked that in the opening poem other strophes besides that on Judah, for one reason or another, awaken suspicion : possibly the poem as written by Amos consisted simply of three strophes devoted to Damascus, Ammon, Moab, and three strophes devoted to Israel. 4. Obadiah The title to this book also fails to define its date : it merely states that the book consists of the ' vision of, t.e. the record of the prophetic revelation received by, Obadiah.' The attempts to identify this prophet, whose name is one of the commonest, with any of the other persons so named and mentioned in the Old Testament, have been imsuccessf ul. 214 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. Nearly a third of this brief book also occurs with textual variations elsewhere in the Old Testament, Obad. vv. 1-4, 5, 6, 8=Jer. xlix. 14-16, 9, 10a, 7. On the ground that Jer. xlvi.-xlix. formed part of the Jeremiah's roll prepared in 604 (cp. pp. 194, 196), and that the common matter occurs in its more original form in Obadiah, it was customary to infer that Obadiah was a pre-exilic prophet. But since it is difficult to maintain that Jer. xlvi.-xhx. in its present form existed as eariy as 604, this argument is for this, even if for no other, reason very precarious. Whether Obadiah incorporates part of a pre-exilio prophecy in vv. 1-9, as some have held, or not, the book certainly contains post-exiUc elements : for the allusion to foreigners entering into and casting lots on Jerusalem (ver. 11) can be satisfactorily explained alone by the assumption that the destruction of Jerusalem in 686 was already past. It is, however, probable that here, as in Is. xv., xvi., a description of past calamity has, by the addition of pre- dictive elements, been turned into prophecy ; here, more- over, the predictive element includes the still future judgment of Edom as an incident in the universal judgment which the prophet regards as imminent. The analysis of the prophecy admits of difference of opinion as to details ; but the main points seem to be these. The calamity which has already befallen the Edomites is that they have been expelled from their land by a number of nations once their friends : in this calamity the writer sees Yahweh's retribu- tion on Edom for its treatment of the Jews in their distress (vv. 1-7, 10-14, 16b). The predictive part of the book foretells the near approach of the day of Yahweh on all nations, the annihilation of Esau (i.e. Edom) by the Jews, and the reoccupation by the Jews and Israelites, who will have returned from exile, of the whole of the territory anciently held by them (Obcwi. 16a, 16-21). Little can be said with any confidence as to the more precise date of the several elements in the book, or of their combination. Perhaps, however, the calamity that has actually befallen Edom was connected with that north- xxni.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: JONAH 216 ward movement of Arabs which was aheady threatening at the beginning of the sixth century (Ezek. xxv. 4, 5, 10) and actually resulted in the occupation of the Edomite capital, Petra, by 312 B.C. The descriptive element in the book depicts a situation similar to that imphed in Mai. i. 2-5, and may have been written in the same period, i.e. the fifth century B.C. 6. Jonah The book of Jonah existed earlier than c. 200 B.C., for we must conclude that it was one of the Twelve Prophets referred to by Ben Sirach c. 180 B.C. (see p. 175). How long before 200 it was written is more difficult to define. The references to Nineveh in iii. 3 seem to imply that the writer looks on that city as a city of the past ; and the * king of Nineveh ' is an expression that would scarcely have been used by a writer living while the Assyrian Empire existed. We might infer from this that the book was written long after 606. The evidence of language is more decisive : Aramaisms and later words or forms occur with frequency, particularly in i. 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 ; ii. 1 ; iii. 7 ; iv. 6, 7, 8, 10 ; a post-exihc date is certainly implied, and perhaps most probably some date between 450 and 250 B.C. Jonah contains no prophecies or prophetic poems ; but it is a story about a prophet. It thus stands quite apart in character from the remamder of * the Twelve ' ; and, so far as its Hterary form is concerned, more nearly resembles the stories about Daniel, or the story about Habakkuk at the end of Bel and the Dragon. Its inclusion and its par- ticular position in * the Twelve ' are doubtless due to the fact that the subject of the book, a prophet of the eighth century B.C. (2 Kings xiv. 25), was mistakenly regarded as its author, even as Joshua came to be regarded as the author of Joshua, and Samuel of Samuel. The psalm of thanksgiving in ch. ii. was probably inter- polated into the narrative ; it has no real relation to the circumstances of Jonah, who is represented as uttering it while in the belly of the fish ; nor would it be really suitable 216 CRITICAL INTRODUOTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. even if it were placed after ver. 10, and treated as a thanks- giving for delivery from the fish. The date of this psalm, as of other individual psalms (pp. 134, 137), cannot be closely determined ; but, consisting as it does largely of reminis- cences, it may safely be considered relatively late. With the exception of the psalm, the book is the work of a single hand : the attempts to treat it as a combination of several literary sources have been mere freaks of criticism. It is certainly unnecessary to suppose that the story is the pure invention of the writer. Whether it has any historical basis in anything that really happened to Jonah, the son of Amittai, may be doubted. The suggestions which the writer received may rather have been derived from floating stories, or even perhaps from certain mytho- logical motives. In this connection attention has been drawn to the fact that the neighbourhood of Joppa, which is the scene of Jonah's deUvery from the fish, was also the scene of Andromeda's dehvery from the sea-monster by Perseus ; and also to Egyptian and Indian stories, in one of which a son takes passage in disobedience to his mother, the ship is stayed by some unknown power, lots are cast, the disobedient son is discovered to be the culprit, and is sent afloat on a raft, and thereafter the ship pursues its course. These and similar parallels open up a study in the migration of stories which cannot be pursued further here. But whatever suggestions the author may have received, and whencesoever he may have derived them, he uses the story as the vehicle for what is pecuharly his own ; and this is some of the noblest thought in the Old Testament : the largeness of God's mercy passes far beyond the current conceptions of his own peculiar people ; it is over all mankind, who are without exception the works of his labour and the objects of his care : if men anywhere repent, and turn from their evil ways, God, too, turns away the pimishment due to those who do evil. In the person of Jonah, the author rebukes the narrow interests of his people ; the messenger of Yahweh should enter into the xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: MICAH 21? largeness of God's thoughts, and not desire the destruction of the nations, but rather that they should turn from their "Nakedness and live. If, so far as its Uterary form goes, which is that of a story gathering round the person of an ancient Hebrew prophet, the book of Jonah may be compared to the rather trivial story of Habakkuk who performs a miraculous journey and brings a dinner to Daniel in the hons' den, in virtue of the nobility of its thought it takes its place with the greatest literature of the Old Testament, with those poems in which the Deutero-Isaiah depicts the prophetic mission of Israel to the nations. 6. MiOAH The book of Micah consists of three well-defined parts, different in character and probably different also in origin, though the substantial unity of Micah is still frequently and vigorously defended. The first part consists of chs. i.-iii. ; this, whether judged by internal evidence or the direct testimony of Jer. xxvi. 18, is the work of a prophet hving towards the end of the eighth century B.C. The subject of chs. i.-iii. is the sins of Judah, with which in one passage (i. 5) Samaria is associated, and the judgment for these sins which is imminent. The second part of the book (chs. iv., V.) consists in the main, if not entirely, of promises and predictions of delivery and restoration and future glory. The third part of the book (chs. vi., vii.) is more miscellaneous in character. The work of Micah, who, unlike his contemporary Isaiah, belonged not to Jerusalem, but was a native of Moresheth- gath, which lay a good day's journey from the capital, is probably confined to the Bist part of the book ; one or two fragments in ch. v. may also possibly belong to the eighth century, but even so are not necessarily the work of Micah j in standpoint they differ from chs. i.-iii. According to Jer. xxvi. 18 it was in the reign of Hezekiah that Micah made the announcement that Jerusalem was to 218 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [cjh. be razed to the ground (iii. 12) ; unfortunately the chron- ology of Hezekiah's reign is uncertain ; he may have ac- ceded as early as 727, or not until 715. According to the title (i. 1) Micah prophesied also in the preceding reigns of Jotham and Ahaz. It would be unwise to lay much weight on the testimony of the title ; but obviously we are not bound to conclude from Jer. xxvi. 18 that Micah's activity was confined to Hezekiah's reign ; even though Micah iii. 12 was spoken after 715, some of the prophecies in chs. i.-iii. may have been spoken earlier. And the view commonly taken that the reference to Samaria in i. 5 imphes a date prior to the capture of that city by Sargon in 722 still perhaps remains the most probable. An alternative theory, starting from the consideration that Samaria though captured was not destroyed in 722, finds the occasion of the prophecies of Micah in the advance of Sennacherib in 701. when there was more reason to expect an attack on Jerusa- lem than shortly before 722. Yet as against this con- sideration, it may be asked whether in 701 Samaria remained sufficiently important for a Jewish prophet to couple it with Jerusalem, and indeed to mention it first. The alternative theories, then, place Micah's activity about 724, or about 701. Within chs. i.-iii. the promise in ii. 12 f., which appears to presuppose the scattering of Israel, may be a post- exilic addition. Other additions have been suspected in i. 7, which stands awkwardly before 1. 8, and interrupts a possible connection between i. 6 and i. 8, and with less reason in i. l-5a, 10-16, ii. 6. The citation of iii. 12 in Jer. xxvi. 18 does not of course prove that even the first part of Micah already existed in its present extent before the end of the seventh century B.C. ; still less that the book of Micah then included chs. iv.-vii. We may rather infer that these chapters did not then follow chs. i.-iii. ; if the book of Micah consisted then, as it does now, even more of promise than of condemna- tion and threatenings, and if, in particular, the threat of the destruction of Sion was then, as now, immediately xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: MICAH 219 followed by a glowing description of its future glory, could the elders have risked the retort that, if Jeremiah, like Micah, would wipe out the effect of his threats by promises, all would be different, and Jeremiah might safely be forgiven ? Chs. iv. and v. consist of a number of brief poems or frag- ments, viz. iv. 1-4, 5, 6-8, 9 f., 11-14, v. 1, 2-6, 7-9, 10-15. The first of these stands also in Is. ii. 2-4 ; just as psalms, like xiv.=hii., were included in two collections, so this prophetic poem, probably of the exiUc or post-exilic period, has been included in two prophetic collections. The references to Babylon in iv. 10, to the 'former dominion' in iv. 6-8, and the representation of Jacob as reduced to a remnant in v. 7, suggest a date no earlier than the Exile : in dweUing on the inviolabihty of Sion, iv. 11-13 represents a standpoint strikingly unUke Micah's (iii. 12, Jer. xxvi 18) ; and the expectation of a judgment on the nations in general (iv. 13, v. 15) is at least much more conspicuous in late than in early prophecy. If chs. iv. and v. contain any fragments of pre-exiUc prophecy, these are to be sought in V. 10-14 and v. 1 ; but some have suspected that v. 13- 14 is post-Deuteronomic on account of the opposition to Asherim, obeUsks and graven images, which are all mentioned together, as in Deut. vii. 5, xii. 3. The third part of the book opens (vi. 1-8) with a passage that has very generally, since Ewald, been assigned to the reign of Manasseh. Even if this date be correct it is not very probable that vi. 1-8 and chs. i.-iii., which breathe such a different spirit, are from one and the same writer. The use of the term * burnt-offering * and not the more specific * sin-offering ' of later writers, the nature of the allusion to Balaam, and the reference to the sacrifice of the firstborn, perhaps, point to a date not lat-er than the seventh century ; it is at least questionable whether we could safely refer this prophecy to the fifth century, on the ground that these considerations are outweighed by the use of the term ' God of the height,* impljdng, it is urged, an emphasis on the transcendence of God, and the appeal 220 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT' [ch. to *man' in ver. 8 implying, again, it is urged, an emphasis on the individual that points to an age after Jeremiah. It is possible that vi. 9-16 and vii. 1-6, even if not from the same hand, may belong to much the same period as vi. 1-8. On the other hand, vii. 7-20 seems widely separated from those sections. ' What was present in vii. 1-6, viz. moral disorder and confusion in the existing Jewish state, is in vii. 7-20 pxst ; what is thQiQ future, viz., the retribution of vii. 4b has here come to pass, and has been continuing for some time. Between vii. 6 and vii. 7 yawns a century ' (Wellhausen). This last section of the book, vii. 7-20, seems to have been written at least as late as the Exile. 7. Nahxtm The prophecy of Nahum was written between 663, the date of the sack of Thebes (No-Ammon) by the Assyrians, to which the prophet alludes (iii. 8), and the fall of Nineveh in 607, which the prophet predicts. The occasion of it is most likely to have been either the attack made on Nineveh by Cyaxares the Mede about 623, or, more pro- bably, the circumstances immediately leading up to the destruction of the city in 607. In either case Nahum would have been a contemporary of Jeremiah, but a prophet occupying, as we know from Jeremiah himself that many prophets of the time did, a very different position from his. Nahum is convinced that Nineveh must fall, because the Assyrians had attacked the Jews and (under Sennacherib) Jerusalem ; Jeremiah was convinced that Jerusalem must fall because the Jews had sinned, of which fact Nahum has not a word to say. * The oraole of Nineveh * is strictly speaking confined to chs. ii. (except ver. 2) and iii. and a verse or two in ch. i. The prophecy probably opened with the address to Nineveh in ver. 11, which, adopting a sUght emendation, may be rendered, *Did not one come forth out of thee, who imagined evil against Yahweh, who counselled villainy ? * xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: NAHUM 221 Then follows Yahweh's decree that Nineveh shall bo destroyed (i. 14, also ? ver. 12), and then in chs. ii. and iii. an imaginative description of its fulfilment and reflections upon it. The verses addressed to Judah i. 13-15, as also ii. 2, which interrupt the main theme are probably later additions. Prefixed to the oracle is the first half of an alphabetic poem the structure of which has been slightly obscured, but is clear enough down to ver. 9. Ver. 10 may also have belonged to this poem. There are several objections to an alternative theory that the oracle begins at i. 9 : (1) i. 9 seems to be still part of the alphabetic poem ; (2) i. 11 is a much more effective opening ; (3) i. 9 has the second person plural, and so is unlike i. 11, 14. The presence of this mutilated alphabetic poem at the beginning of the book is to be attributed to an editor rather than to Nahum ; the effect of the addition is to make the destruction of Nineveh, the opponent of the Jews, an illustration of the general truth that Yahweh takes vengeance on the guilty, but deUvers those that trust in him. The determination of the date of the alphabetic poem is not easy : no other such poem that can be at aU securely dated is earlier than the earliest dirges in Lamentations, t.e. than the Exile. Most probably the poem is of post- exilic origin, and the present form of Nahum due to a post-exilio editor. 8. Habakkuk The book of Habakkuk consists of (1) prophecies, or prophetic fragments : chs. i., ii. ; (2) a psalm : ch. iii. Ch. iii. appears to be derived from some collection of Psalms ; like fifty-four psalms in the Psalter it is described as 'of the chief musician.' The title in iii. 1, which does not necessarily possess any more credibility than other titles to Psalms, ascribes this psalm to the prophet Habakkuk, even as the LXX. ascribes Psalms cxlvi.-cxlviii. to the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. For reasons 222 CRmCAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ch. indicated in ch. xiv. it is difficult to determine the date at all precisely, but it is probably post-exib'c ; in iii. 13b Yahweh's ' anointed * is the theocratic people (iii. 13a) at a time when no human Je^vish monarchy existed. At what period the psalm was attached to the prophecies, whether before, or at the time of, or even after, the com- pilation of ' The Twelve ' cannot be determined. The remainder of the book is very Ukely not all the work of a single author, or even of a single generation. The questions of origin and purpose, which are intimately bound up with the detailed exegesis of the book, are peculiarly difficult ; and the lack of unambiguous data allows only of very partial and uncertain answers. The two points that seem clearest are these : (1) i. 6-10 and whatever else exegesis may show to be of one piece with this passage, and consequently to have been written at the same time with it, belong to a prophecy written at the time when the Chaldeans (i. 6) were emerging into prominence as an active and irresistible world-power. The attitude of the writer to the Chaldeans is similar to that of Isaiah towards the (unnamed) Assyrians in an early poem (v. 26-29) written within a few years of the beginning of the western advance of Assyria. (2) Ch. ii. 5-19 (in the main at least) is a prophetic denunciation of a world-power with a long career of conquest and brutahty already behind it from which the prophet and his people have themselves Buffered. From this it follows that i. 5-10, and whatever else goes with it, was written towards the end of the seventh century — certainly after the founding of the Neo-Babylonian (Chal- dean) Empire by Nabopolassar in 625, and probably after the fall of Nineveh in 607, and also after, and indeed im- mediately after, the battle of Carchemish in 605, in which, by defeating the Egyptians, the Babylonians estabUshed their supremacy. An attempt to avoid this conclusion and to find in the prophecy a reference to the revolts of Chal- deans in the eighth century within the Assyrian Empire (which remained unshaken) has proved unsuccessful ; and xxui.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: HABAKKUK 223 the substitution of another term such as Chittim (t.e. Greeks) for Chaldeans in i. 6 is unjustified. But, further, ii. 5-19, either, if it also refers to the Chal- deans, must have been written long after i. 5-10, or, if it was written even approximately at the same time, it must refer to another power, and, since the dominance of Egypt over Judah (609-605) and its career of conquest was so short, this power must have been Assyria. Between these two alternatives, that ii. 5-19 was written, say, about 615 B.C., and is a denunciation of Assyria, the oppressor of Judah for more than a century, but now tottering to its fall before the rising power of the Chaldeans, and that it is a denun- ciation of the Chaldeans written long after i. 5-10, and scarcely much if at all before 550, it is difficult to decide ; the first would be compatible with the common author- ship of i. 5-10 and ii. 5-19, the second scarcely ; the first would imply an attitude to Assyria similar to Nahum's, the second an attitude to Babylon similar to that which is displayed, on the common interpretation of that poem, in Is. xiv. 4-21. Since the name of the oppressor in ii. 5-19 is never mentioned, the passage might even refer to Persians or Greeks, but the absence of marks of lateness in the language would be quite unfavourable to such a theory. It should be added with regard to ii. 6-19 that the apparently intimate connection with what precedes, im- pHed by the opening words, is probably due to textual corruption. In ii. 5, it is probable that a new and inde- pendent section began with the line : ' Ah ! the treacherous dealer, the haughty man, that resteth not.' The general character and purpose of ii. 6-19 is clear, whatever its age, and whichever the power denounced may have been. Not so i. 1-ii. 4 ; the main question here is this : is the prophet's perplexity (i. 2-4) caused (1) by the prevalence of wickedness unrebuked and unpunished in Judah generally ; or (2) by the oppression imder which the righteous, viz. the Jews, suffer at the hands of the wicked, oppressing world-power; or (3) by the oppression and 224 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [ca ill-treatment of a class of righteous individual Jews or unrighteous Jews. If the first view be correct, then to the prophet's com- plaint (i. 2-4) i. 6 fF. may contain Yahweh's reply, ' Behold ye faithless (Jews),' as, following the LXX., we may render i. 5, ' , . . I raise up the Chaldeans as a judgment upon you.' But then i. 11, 12 ff., at least in its present form, can scarcely be the immediate sequence of i. 2-10 ; for the * wicked ' in ver. 13 would mean the Chaldeans, and thus have a different meaning from the same term in vers. 2-4, and, moreover, would imply, Uke ii. 5-19, that the Chaldeans already had had a long career of brutal conquest behind them, and thus be incompatible with i. 5-10. If the second of the above views be adopted, i. 5-11 must be out of place ; but throughout i. 2-4, 12-17, ii. 1-4 the ' righteous ' will mean the Jews, and the * wicked ' the nation oppressing them ; and the prophecy wiU close with the revelation that the arrogant empire will come to ruin, but the Jews will endure. The third of the above views is only possible if we Umit the discussion of the righteous and the wicked to these verses : i. 2-4, 12a, 13, ii. 1-4 ; and even then whether ii. 1 is as suitable on this view as on a view that allows the prophet to mount his watch-tower in order to look far out into the world (cp. Is. xxi. 1) may be doubted. On the first of the views just discussed, i. 2-10 will have been written, in reference to the wickedness prevalent in Judah in Jehoiakim's reign ; and the date of the remainder will remain uncertain. On the second view, i. 5-10 wiU have been written about 605 ; but i. 2-4, 12-17, ii. 1-4 presents a difi&culty. The postulate that Judah is righteous is un- likely to have been made before Josiah's reformation in 621 ; on the other hand, the oppression of the wicked seems to have lasted long (i. 2-4, 17) — longer, perhaps, than the time between the establishment of Babylonian supre- macy (606) and the fall of the Jewish state (586). Yet the alternatives are difficult: Assyria, whose grip was rapidly loosening even before 621, can scarcely be the oppressor ; and, if we are inclined to treat the prophecy xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: ZEPHANIAH 226 as from the same hand as ii. 5-19, and to bring it down to about 550, the question arises whether i. 2-4 is likely to have been written out of Judah and in exile. A bare reference to another solution that has been offered must suffice : Budde, in the Encycl. Bibl.y has proposed that the original order of i. 1-ii. 4 was i. 2-4, 12-17, ii. 1-4, i. 6-11, and that the prophet depicted the oppression of Judah by Assyria and received the divine revelation that the Chaldeans would overthrow Assyria. One reason for not accepting this solution has been hinted at in the last paragraph. 9. Zephaniah The title to this book asserts that Zephaniah was the great-great-grandson of Hezekiah (by whom in all proba- bility is intended the king of Judah contemporary with Isaiah), and that he prophesied in the reign of Josiah. The two assertions are compatible with one another and pro- bably correct, though if, as is then most Ukely, Zephaniah prophesied c. 627, and certainly before 621, when Josiah abolished the idolatrous practices described in i. 4, 5, he must have been, Uke Jeremiah, a young man when he began to prophesy. The occasion of the prophecy in this case was doubtless the same as that of Jeremiah's earUest prophecy — a danger threatening from the north (Jer. i.). This is commonly understood to have been the descent of the Scythians, which actually took place about this time : according to Herod, i. 104 f. the Scythians swarmed through Palestine further south than Ashkelon. Abandon- ing the evidence of the title, Konig prefers to place the prophecy in Jehoiakim's reign, though in part necessarily (cp. ii. 13) before the fall of Nineveh ; seeing in i. 4, 5 a description of the survival of idolatry under Jehoiakim and in the instrument of judgment the Chaldeans (cp. Hab. i. 5-10, p. 222), he lays stress on the phrase * the remnant (but LXX. " the names ") of Baal * in i. 4 as incompatible with a date before Josiah's reformation. 226 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH. Chs. i. and ii. predict a universal judgment that will affect in particular Judah, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Ethiopia and Assyria. It has been suggested that Zephaniah's original prophecy addressed itself particulariy to Judah, Phihstia, Ethiopia and Assyria, and that it subsequently received universahsing touches (especially ii. 11), and the addition after 586 B.C. of the denunciation of Moab and Ammon (ii. 8-10), which betrays the same attitude as that of Ezekiel (xxv. 1-11) towards Edom. Possibly also the promises in ii. 3, 7 are additions. With ch. iii. a new section begins : iii. 1-7 may be another denunciation of Jerusalem by Zephaniah, or is perhaps of later origin. The prediction of a universal judgment which only the godly remnant of Judah will escape (iii. 8, 11-13), the verses interpolated (iii. 9, 10) in this prediction and foreteUing that Yahweh will be universally worshipped (cp. ii. 11), and the description of the glory of the Jews after Yahweh has delivered them from their present captivity (iii. 14-20) are all probably, and especially iii. 9-10, 14-20, post-exiUc prophecies added to the pre-exilic book of Zephaniah, perhaps by the same editor who interpolated, if they be interpolations, ii. 3, 7. 10. Haooai The book of Haggai contains an account of the argu- ments and promises with which Haggai (Ezra v. 1, vi. 14) urged the Jewish community to undertake the rebuilding of the Temple, and designated Zerubbabel as the chosen of Yahweh to establish the Messianic kingdom. Whether this record of Haggai's activity and teaching was prepared by the prophet himself or one of his hearers is uncertain : the reference to Haggai throughout in the third person, and the frequent addition to his name of the title * prophet,* rather favour the second alternative. In any case, the book was probably written within a year or two at most of 520 B.C., and has reached us, apart from a little textual corruption and glossing, as it left the hands xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: HAGGAI 227 of its author ; for occasional attempts to detect secondary elements in ii. 10-19, 20-23 have proved quite unsuccessful and foimd no acceptance. Haggai's prophecies, like EzekiePs and Zechariah's, are accurately dated. The dates of the prophecies of the two contemporaries, Haggai and Zechariah, may be shown in a single table : — Reference. Day and month and B.C. year of Darius. Hag. i. 1. vi. 2 620. September. Hag. ii. 1-9 21. vii. 2 620. October. Zech. i. 1-6 viii. 2 620. November. Hag. ii. 10-13 24. ix. 2 620. December. Zech. i. 7-vi. 16 24. xi. 2 619. February. Zech. vii., viii. 4.ix,4 11. Zbohaiiiah 618. December. The book of Zechariah consists of (1) chs. i.-viii., the teaching of Zechariah in the years 520-518 ; (2) chs. ix.-xiv., anonymous prophecies of a later date. The prophecies of Zechariah are accurately dated (see above) ; in the formal dating, the prophet speaks of himself in the third person, elsewhere in the first person — an intelligible distinction. We may assume, then, that Zechariah prepared his own resume of his public teaching (i. 2-6, 14-17, ii. 10-17, iv. 6-lOa, vii. 3-viii. 23), and him- self wrote the account of his visions which constitute the remaining and chief part of his book. Possibly Zechariah wrote chs. i.-vi. in 519 B.C., and added chs. vii. f. in 517 ; there is no clear hint at all events that the book was written after Zerubbabel had failed to maintain his position, and still more to fulfil the Messianic expectations of Haggai and Zechariah. There is no reason to suspect any serious later additions to Zechariah's book ; but a misplacement in iv., which appears to be merely accidental, and an intentional 228 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oa modification in vi., have greatly obscured Zechariah's meaning in these passages. In ch. iv., the prophetic saying, extending from ver. 6b (' this is the word of the Yahweh,' etc.) to ver. 10a (' in the hand of Zerubbabel '), has accidentally intruded into the middle of one of the visions ; the vision originally ran straight on from ver. 6a to 10b : * then he answered and spake unto me, saying, these seven are the eyes of Yahweh which run to and fro, etc.' In Zech. vi. 11-13 it is almost certain that the original text spoke of one crown only, and that for Zerubbabel ; and predicted that Zerubbabel should sit on the throne and Joshua ' on his right hand ' (so the LXX. still), and that * the counsel of peace ' should be * between them both.' At some time after the line of David had failed to maintain even the position which Zerubbabel had actually occupied, and the high priest had become supreme in Jadah, an editor by a slight alteration entirely transformed the purport of the promise by making it a prediction of the rule of the high priest. Zechariah ix.-xiv. The first impulse to realise that these chapters are of entirely distinct and independent origin, and are not the work of Zechariah, or even of his age, came from the con- sideration that Zech. xi. 12 f. is cited in Matt, xxvii. 9 f. as the words not of Zechariah, but of Jeremiah. This at first led most to postulate for the chapters a pre-exilic origin, a view which, more or less modified, is still some- times maintained ; but it is now more commonly held that these chapters are entirely of post-exilic origin. Where the work of Zechariah ends, and that of the anonymous writer(8) begins, is clear beyond mistake : it would be diflficult to conceive a greater difference than that between the precisely dated sections of Zechariah, with their clear reflection of the times and conditions of the prophet's activity, and the difficult, vague, and obscure xxm.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: ZECHARIAH 229 chapters that begin with ch. ix. Textual comiption and the constant difficulty of interpretation render many ques- tions that arise difficult to answer, and in particular that as to the unity of ix.-xiv. Are these chapters a single prophecy, or the work of more than one writer, and mainly of two ix.-xi. (-fxiii. 7-9), xii.-xiv. ? Both views have been taken. At first sight an outward indication of diversity seems present in the curious title * the oracle of the word of Yahweh,' which appears in ix. 1, xi. 1, Mai. i. 1, and nowhere else in the Old Testament ; yet these titles may proceed not from the compiler of * the Twelve,' who thus distinguished prophecies he knew to be anonymous, but from a later scribe. In favour of unity is the vague, enigmatic style that is common to all parts of ix.-xiv., and much similarity in sentiment and outlook. The date of the prophecy, or of ix.-xi. at least, seems clearly defined by the reference in ix. 13 to Greece (Javan) as the great power opposed to the Jews : this would indicate Alexander's conquests as the terminus a quo. The differentiation of Assyria and Egypt (x. 11) may then imply that Alexander's Empire had already been divided, and that the Seleucids of * Assyria ' and the Ptolemies of Egypt were to the writer hving, say, about 280 B.C., the prominent Greek dynasties. Others, taking *the Greeks' of ix. 13 to be defined by ix. 1 f., think the Seleucid Empire in particular is intended, and, finding identifications of the * three shepherds ' (xi. 8), at least as probable as others that have been offered, in the three successive high priests Lysimachus, Jason, and Menelaus, and in xii. 10 an allusion to the death of Onias ni. in 170, regard the book as having been written about 160 B.C. But all this rests on the security of the word * Greece ' in ix. 13. The doubt cast on this word, and the proposal, for example, of Konig to substitute Nineveh, seem, indeed, to lack justification. Yet it is worth while considering the evidence for date, eis it would stand if ' Greece ' in ix. 13 were eUminated. Even so the cumulative evidence, as in Is. xxiv.-xxvii., which this prophecy resembles in its enig- 230 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. matio, apocalyptic character, would point to the post-exilic period. But this evidence would turn to a great extent on questions of literary dependence, and the history of ideas, which are themselves subjects of discussion. Certainly the language does not point to so late a date as the second century, and one usage, viz. the great pre- ponderance of anoki over am (p. 23), would even suggest, taken by itself, the pre-exilic period. If late, the relative purity of the style will be due, as in Joel and Is. xxiv.- xxvii., to close study of the earlier Uterature of which Zech. ix.-xiv., would then give abundant and unmistakable evidence. Among the points claimed as indicating a pre-exilio date are the references to Ephraim and Israel (ix. 10, 13, xi. 14) as distinct from and exclusive of Judah, the coupUng of Assyria and Egypt (x. 10, 11) as in Hosea (but see above), the allusions to teraphim and diviners (x. If.); but sorcerers are mentioned in Mai. iii. 6 ; and Ezekiel, who if Zech. ix.-xiv. be late, has profoundly influenced it, looks to the restoration of the tribes of Israel as well as of Judah (t.e. Ezek. xxxvii. 16 ff. ; cp. also Zech. xi. 7 ff.). On the other hand, among the indications of post-exilic date are the references to captivity and dispersion (ix. 11 f., x. 6-9), and the absence of any reference to an existing Jewish monarchy combined with the probable implication (cp. p. 188) in xiv. 6 that the Jewish monarchy was a thing of the past. The * house of David * retained its distinctness long into the post-exilic period (1 Chr. iii. 17 ff. ; Ezra viii. 2) : and the reflection on the * house of David,* and the coupUng of it with other families, seem far more probable when, not being the royal family, its head did not of right exercise supreme power in the state. The conditions suggested by such passages as xii. 7, 8, 12, 14, xiii. 1 do not exactly corresi)ond to what is knotm of any period ; but the co- ordination of the Davidic and Levitical houses, and the attempt of Jerusalem under their leadcrsliip to lord it over the country districts of Judah in a way that was resented, can much more readily be explained by the general xxin.] THE TWELVE PROPHETS: MALACHI 231 conditions of post-exilic than of pre-exilic Judah. Again, do not xi. 4-17 depend on Ezek. xxxiv. and xxxvii. 16 ff., and xiv. 8 on Ezek. xlvii. 1-10, and not vice versa ? Does not xii. 1 owe its ring to the Deutero-Isaiah ? Are the ideas in ix. 7-1 la ; xii. 2 f., 9 ; xiv. 1 f., 9, 12, 16, 20 f. more likely to occur in pre-exilic or post-exilic prophecy ? 12. MALAom This book may be, strictly speaking, anonymous. The name Malachi means * my messenger,' and may have been merely inferred from iii. 1. In any case it must have passed as the proper name of the author of the book, before the whole collection could receive the title of * the Twelve.' The book of Malachi was written during the Persian period, while Judah was governed by a pehah, or (Persian) governor ; cp. e.g. Hag. i. 1 ; Neh. v. 14. Moreover, imply- ing as it does the existence of the Temple (iii. 1, 10; cp. i. 6-14), it must have been written after 516 B.C. The con- demnation of mixed marriages (cp. Ezra ix. 2, x. ; Neh. xiii. 23 ff.) and slackness in the payment of sacred dues (cp. Neh. xiii. 10-13) point towards the period of Ezra and Nehemiah. The closer agreement of iii. 10 (cp. Neh. x. 38 f.) with Num. xviii. 21-33 (P) than with Deut. xiv. 22-29 in the matter of tithe may merely reflect practice moving towards the ordinances of P, and not famiUarity with P itself ; and certainly * Horeb ' in iv. 4 points to the influence not of P, but of Deuteronomy. It is doubtful, therefore, whether it is necessary to place Malachi after the pubHcation of P in 445 B.C. : it may perhaps have been written a little before the arrival of Ezra and Nehemiah, say c. 460 B.C. The unity of the book has been seldom questioned; yet to some the condemnation of mixed marriages in ii. 11 f. appears to interrupt the connection between ii. 10 and ii. 13 f., to be out of harmony with the remarkably universal- istic outlook of i. 11, and, together with some clauses in ii. 14 f., to be less probably original than the work of a 232 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [CH. supplementer who was anxious to condemn the faithlessness to Yahweh involved in marriage with foreigners no less than the faithlessness of man to man (ii. 10), or of a husband in hghtly divorcing the wife of his youth (ii. 14-16). On slighter grounds iv. 4-6 has also been questioned. xzivj DANIEL 233 CHAPTER XXIV DANIEL Thi evil genius of this book, though, in accordance with the general rule of apocalyptic literature, he is never mentioned by name, is quite clearly Antiochus Epiphanes * (175-164 B.C.) : and the purpose of the book is to encourage the Jews not to submit to his attempts to seduce or persecute them into the worship of Zeus and disloyalty to their law, but to persist at whatever cost in their fidelity to God. The method of the book is twofold : by stories (chs. i.-vi.) of God's deUvery and reward of those who in the past faithfully endured religious persecution, it encourages its readers Hkewise to endure ; and, in a series of visions (chs. vii.-xii.), it interprets the past as the unfolding of God's purpose, which is, within a year or so, to culminate in the overthrow of Antiochus and the Seleucid empire, and in the establishment on earth of the everlasting kingdom of the Most High, whose vice-gerent will be the Jewish nation, whom all other kingdoms will serve and obey. In brief outline, the origin, purpose, and method of Daniel, as these are now generally recognised, have been stated at the outset ; for no book of the Old Testament more clearly bears its own testimony to its date and character than this, however obscure or ambiguous many of its details may be. And yet for long the traditional theory that it is the work of a Jewish captive at the Baby- lonian court under Nebuchadnezzar, and subsequent kings, was hotly defended. The chief facts which render ' See especiaUy vii. 8, 20 f. ('the little horn') ; Tiii. 9-14, 28-26 ; ix. 26 f. ; xi. 21-46 (xu. 6 ff.). Cp. 1 Mace. i. 10-Ti. 17. 234 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT [oh. this — ^perhaps the least tenable of all traditional views regarding the origin of the Old Testament Uterature — untenable may be stated and their significance briefly indicated first ; and then the reasons which point definitely to the year 165 as that in which Daniel was actually written. (1) Daniel formed no part of the prophetic canon, but was included in the Hebrew scriptures merely as one of * the writings * (see ch. i.). This, as also the fact that Daniel is not mentioned in Ecclus. xhx., has not received, and probably never will receive, any other satisfactory explanation except that Daniel was not yet written in 180 B.C. Further, the earKest certain reference to the book of Daniel is in 1 Mace. ii. 59-60 (written c. 90 B.C.). (2) The language is entirely inconsistent with the theory that the book was written in Babylon in the sixth century B.C. The main facts are these : (1) the book is written partly (i.-ii. 4a, viii.-xii.) in Hebrew, partly in Aramaic (ii. 4b-vii.). The Hebrew contains many Aramaisms, words and uncouth constructions found predominantly or exclusively in the latest books of the Old Testament : it is thus sharply marked off from actual writings of the sixth century B.C., such as Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah, but closely related to Chronicles, Esther, Ecclesiastes. (2) The Aramaic of Daniel is Western Aramaic, and closely alhed with that found in the Pahnyrene and Nabataean inscriptions (first century B.C. — third century a.d.), but decisively distinguished from early Aramaic, and, in particular, from the Aramaic in use in Babylon in the sixth century B.C. (3) Both the Hebrew and the Aramaic parts of the book contain Persian words : in the whole book there are some fifteen at least : this cannot naturally be explained if the book was written before, or even immediately after, the overthrow of the Babylonian empire by Cyrus in 538 B.C. (4) The book also contains at least three Greek words : these are the terms for some of the musical instruments mentioned in ch. iii., viz.: kitharo8=sKk6apii; psanterin^rl^akTripioy ; arav.] DANIEL 236 8umponyah=a-vfi(l>,60. Rj«i>, 60. Ri", 60, 68. Recorders, 83. Samaritan Scriftubsb, 27, 61. Satan, 9, 92, 125, 126. Septuagint (Greek Version), 50, 64^ 66, 76, 85, 87, 97, 108, 114, 128^ 164, 168, 176, 182, 195, 197. * Servant Songs,' 187. Shaddai, 126. Slavery, laws of, 24, 86. Solomon, Book of the Acts of, 82. Proverbs of, 142. Psalms of, 2, 128, 129. Susannah, 96. Tatian's Diatessaront 11, 21, 22. Tell el-Amarna Tablets, 47, 67, 61. Temple records, 85. Tithe, laws of, 25. Titles, in Psalter, 180-134. in prophetical books, 181, 191. Tobit, 2, 8. Torah (the Law), 14. Tradition, Jewish, 5, 14 1L Trito-Isaiah, 180. Twelve Judges, book of the, 64. Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of the, 2. Wars op Yahwbh, book of 37. Wisdom Literature, 145, 148, 149. •Wise, the,' 148, 152. • Words ' (= commands), 46i. « Writings, The,' 2, 8. Tahwxh, use of name in the Pent» tench, 20, 29, 30. in the Psalter, 131, 132. •Ta]iwehth7God,'26. 262 CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT INDEX (II) (0/ some eectiona of Scripiure) Q^mOm, L-ii 4*, and ii. 4»».22, pp. 21, 23, 25, 27. „ ir. 26, p. 29. N ix. 24, 25, p. 48. „ xiy., p. 47. „ zzT. 23. p. 46. „ xxxTi. 81-43, p. 16. „ xlix., p. 46. ExoduB, i ii., p. 19, 80. „ ' iii. 13-15, p. 29. „ ir. 10-16, p. 28. „ Ti. 2, pp. 29, 80. „ vi. 29-vii. 8, p. 23. „ XT. 1-18. 21, pp 46, 47. M zzi.-xxiii., p. 25, 83, 87, 42, 45. Numbers, vi. 24-26, p. 46. „ xiii., pp. 22, 28. „ xxii-xxir., p. 46. Leriticus, xvli.-xxyi. 41. Denteronomj, xxziL., p. 46. „ xxziii., p. 46. „ xxxiT., p. 6. 1 Samuel viii. , x, 17-24, xii. vUi.,x, 17-24, xii.) and \ ix-x. 16, xi 1-11. -^ pp. 69-71. 2 Samuel, z. 1-5, pp. 4. 6. „ ix.-xx., pp. 78, 76. „ xxi-xziT., p. 74. ,. zziT. 1-10, p. 9. 1 ring., I ii., pp. 78, 76, 88w 1 Chroniclet, ziz. 1-5, p. 8. zzi. 1-8, p. 9. Job, i. ii., pp. 115, 116, 117. „ lil.-zzzi., pp.116,117. „ zxTiL 7-28, p. 122. „ zzTiii., pp. 122. 128. ^ zxzli.-zzzTlL, pp. 116-118, 126. ^ xzzTiiL-xliL 8, pp. 116, 120-122. Job, zL 15-zli. 34, p. 118. Isaiah, L-ixxii., pp. 178-180, 182,184 „ i., pp. 181, 183, 184. „ iL-zii., pp. 181-184. ,. ii. 2-4, p. 188. H ii. 6-19, p. 188. „ iii. l.-iv. 1, v., p. 184. „ iv. 2-6. p. 188. „ T. 26 29, p. 183. „ Ti, 1-viii. 18, p. 188, „ iz. 2-7, p. 188. „ iz. 8-z. 4, p. 188. „ z. 6-15, p. 184. „ X. 27-82, p. 184. „ zi. 1-8, p. 188. „ zi. 9-xii. 6. p. 187. „ ziii-ziiii., pp. 181-184. „ ziii., pp. 180, 184. „ ziT. 4-21, pp. 184, 18& „ ZiT. 28-32, p. 184. „ ZT. zvi., p. 187. „ ZTii. 1-11, p. 188. „ ZTiii. p. 184. ,. ziz. p. 187. „ zz., p. 183. „ zzi. 1-10, p. 184. „ zzL 11-15, p. 184. „ zzii 1-14. p. 184. „ zzii. 15-25, p. 184. „ zziii., p. 188. „ zziT.-zzTii., pp. 126, 127, 180- 182, 187, 189. „ zzTiii-zzzi., pp. 181, 183, 184, 187. „ zzTiii. 1-4, p. 188. „ zziz. 17-24, p. 187. „ zzziii., p. 187. „ zzxiT., zxiv., p. 181,1188. ,, zzzTi.-zzziz. 181. 183, 181 INDEX 253 Isaiah, x1.4t. and Iri.-lxvi., p. 180- i J«remiah,zxx., xxxi., p. 196. 182, 184-187. Jeromiah, L-zxy., pp. 190. „ Tii. p. 190. ^ x. 1-16, p. 196. ^ xviL 19-27. p. 196. M zxvi-xlT., pp. 190, 19^ 195, 196. M zxTii.-xxix., f. 181. xxxi. 81-34. p. 196. xxxii. 17-23. p. 196. xxxTi., pp. 172, 173, 194. xlTi.-li. . p. 190, 196. V, li., p. 189, M.I pp. 189» 1^« 192. 19^ ''I, 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. ™s boo. . d^ °/. *^'- ^- -^«i be.ow. o. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 26*Gc>oiM iCL,w u Lt ■fflnrres-^i^ " [JiWb IS/3- «£C'OLD JUI^~r73-JJ/iM6 3 LD2lA-60m-8.'65 (r2386gl0)476B General Libraiy Unjversity of California Berkeley n VB ZI600 S»B»i 419774 (?7 UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA LIBRARY f''r,fi,i X. '. ^*