.^m

S

^. I

4 / V'"'*^ \
•"A
FJV'i
it
I
M£xM:dl
^IQ K
». J^f
;?'.,
JT
* '¦'" M
}&,~^
^'"¦'"Ji'
1^^
^fr
r

fer-Jie. fsuTubag if a. College. &i. t/ttf Coloay"

THE BRITISH ACADEMY
The Composition of the Book of Isaiah
in the
Light of History and Archaeology
By
The Rev. Robert H. Kennett, D.D.
Regius Professor of Hebrew
and Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge
Canon of Ely

The Schweicli Lectures
1909

London
Tublished for the British Academy
By Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press
Amen Corner, E.G.
1910

TO MY DEAR WIFE
iniiTiD JIVT pS''1 31ti NVO ntJ'N NVn

PREFACE
The three lectures contained in this volume, which were delivered
in the summer of 1909 as the second annual course of the Schweich
Lectures, are an attempt to tell in a simple way the story of the
book of Isaiah, and are not to be regarded as a commentary upon
the book. In many cases I have been content merely to indicate,
by means of quotations, that view of the origin and date of particular
sections which commends itself to me, and I have made no attempt
to give in detail the arguments for the theory which I have thus
suggested. Had I done this, the length of the lectures would have
been enormously increased, and the amount of detail would, in all
probability, have tended to distract attention from the points which
I desire particularly to make prominent. I have intentionally ab
stained from multiplying references, especially when referring to
uncontroverted facts which are not of vital importance to my argu
ment. Although no discussion of the problems of the book of Isaiah
can be altogether adequate which is not based on the original Hebrew,
I have endeavoured, a.s far as possible, to keep before myself the needs
of English readers.
I gladly avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my thanks
to several friends for help which they have kindly given in the pre
paration and publication of these lectures. The Rev. C. H. W. Johns,
Litt.D., Master of S. Catharine's College, and formerly Fellow and
Lecturer of Queens' College, Cambridge, has not only allowed me to
consult him on many occasions on questions of Assyriology, but has also
read through the first lecture in manuscript. To my friend and col-
eague, Mr. A. B. Cook, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer of Queens' College,
Cambridge, and Reader in Classical Archaeology, I am indebted for
much information on Greek archaeology and religion. My obligation

VI PREFACE
to him is indeed much greater than might be supposed from the
number of cases in which his name is directly mentioned. My thanks
are also due to the Rev. W. Emery Barnes, D.D., Hulsean Professor
of Divinity, and to Mr. H. Loewe, who have read these lectures in
proof. It is, however, only fair to state that I alone am responsible
for the opinions here set forth. For the indexes I am indebted to
the willing co-operation of my daughter
ROBERT H. KENNEIT.

Queens' College, Cambridke.
October 25, 1910.

CONTENTS

LECTURE I PAGE
The Nucleus of the Book of Isaiah ..... 1

LECTURE II
Enlargement of the original Book of Isaiah by the addition
OF Prophecies composed in the Babylonian and Persian
Periods  23
LECTURE HI
Modification of the enlarged Book of Isaiah during the
Maccabaean Period, and addition to it of Prophecies
recently composed ........ 43
Index ........... 87
Passages of ScEirruRE quoted or referred to . . . 92

THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK OF
ISAIAH IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY
AND ARCHAEOLOGY
LECTURE I
THE NUCLEUS OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH
Among the prophetical books of the Old Testament that which
bears the name of Isaiah is generally held in the greatest reverence,
not only among Christians but also among Jews. Here the former find
in fullest measure the great conceptions which they believe to be
' fulfilled ' in the life and work of Jesus Christ : here the latter are
consoled with the comfortable words which can dispel the gloom of
oppression and wrong ; so that even those who walk in darkness have
a sure and certain hope that they will see a great light. It is but
natural, therefore, that there should be a general desire to gain some
idea of the influences under which conceptions so noble came to be
uttered. The zeal with which scholar after scholar has applied him-
sielf to the analytical study — the ' Higher Criticism ', as it is called —
of the book of Isaiah is in itself an eloquent testimony to the greatness
of the book. The present lecturer treads a path which has been
trodden before him by many great scholars whom it would be an im
pertinence to praise. Right and left of him are piled up the accumu
lated stores of years of patient research. Other men have laboured,
and, in so far as he has attained any fresh result, he enters into their
labours. The work is, however, by no means completed. Many
a theory, which at first sight has seemed to oflier a satisfactory solu
tion of the problems of the book, is found to be untenable in the light
of a more microscopic examination. Again and again, perhaps, it
will be found necessary to re-examine all the evidence available, before
any theory of the composition of the book can be regarded as other
than tentative.
This then must be the present lecturer's justification for choosing as
the subject of these lectures a study which has been so thoroughly
treated by some of the greatest Biblical scholars. His indebtedness to
others. is very great ; probably it exists in many cases where he him
self is unconscious of it. He has, however, endeavoured to form an inde
pendent judgement on the evidence before him rather than to cata
logue or to discuss the opinions of others. In many cases, therefore,
where he makes no claim to priority in setting forth opinions, he
believes that he has arrived at such opinions by independent study,
and' that his conclusions have theiefore this merit, that they may
Ll

2 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
serve to confirm the opinions set forth by other people. It is accord
ingly unnecessary to attempt to give a bibliography of the book of
Isaiah. There is, however, one name which every student of this book
must hold in highest reverence — one which the very stones would cry
out, if an English lecturer omitted to mention it — the name of
Professor Cheyne. Of his stimulating and inspiring work the present
lecturer cannot speak too gratefully. He feels indeed that he may
claim Professor Cheyne as his teacher even where he ventures to differ
from him in his conclusions. Among the foreign scholars who have
contributed to the elucidation of Isaiah the foremost place must
unquestionably be assigned to Bernhard Duhm.
Thanks to the labours of these and many other scholars there is
much which at the present day may be taken for granted. To argue
at length that the book of Isaiah is not all the work of Isaiah the
son of Amoz, but a composite document, would be but to slay the
slain. We no longer refer to the ' Deutero-Isaiah ', unless it be in
inverted commas. The careful .study of the form of Hebrew pro
phecy, and the recognition of the fact that much which was for
merly regarded as prose is in reality poetry, have demonstrated
the patchwork character of much which was once considered homo
geneous. The philological study of the Hebrew language combined
with textual criticism has made it clear that originally prophets and
psalmists arranged their ideas logically and consecutively, and that it
was as impossible for them in speaking or writing as it is for ourselves
to jumble up all three persons without giving some explanation of the
change of person. Thus the canons with which the modern student
begins his study of the Old Testament reveal to him at once many
phenomena which escaped the notice of former generations. Diffi
culties in the way of the traditional views of Scripture, or even of the
earlier critical views, leap to the eye at once. As the result of this
new literary equipment it is now pretty generally recognized that the
analysis of the book of Isaiah is a work of the utmost complexity,
each of the main divisions of the book consisting of documents of
different provenance and date. The problem therefore which now lies
before us is to discover the origin and date of these documents— or
perhaps they should rather be described as fragments— as well as the
cause of their combination into one book. Here we require more than
one class of criteria. Literary criticism, invaluable as it is in analysis,
cannot afford us in such a book as Isaiah the same help which may be
derived from it, for example, in the study of the Pentateuch ; though
even there it must be supplemented by historical criticism. JMere
lists of words and pfirases are r^ot enoqgh either to prove or: to

LECTURE I 3
disprove the authorship of Isaiah. It would obviously be absurd to
contend that the diction of a man whose ministry extended over not
less than forty years must always have exhibited the same peculiarities.
And as in such a case diversity of style would not necessarily prove
diversity of authorship, so also similarity of language does not estab
lish identity of authorship. For similarity between two passages may
be due to the fact that the one is an imitation of the other, separated
from it, perhaps, by a long interval of time ; or it may be merely
a doublet. In case of intentional imitation the later writer may
bewray himself by some minor difference of idiom ^ ; but it may
frequently happen that no such clue is to be found.
In view of the great stress which is laid by some scholars on literary
criticism alone, it may perhaps be well to give an illustration of this
point from English literature. Let it be supposed that at the present
day a German acquainted with the English language, but not familiar
with English literature, found himself required to sort out and to
arrange from internal evidence only a collection of tattered fragments
of English similar to the collection of Hebrew manuscripts which
Dr. Schechter brought to Cambridge from the Genizah of the Old
Synagogue at Cairo. Let it be supposed that on one fragment he
found the National Anthem as it was sung in the reign of her late
Majesty, Queen Victoria, and, isolated, on another fragment this verse :
Lips touched by Seraphim
Breathe out the choral hymn,
' God save the Queen ' ;
Sweet as if angels sang,
Loud as that trumpet's clang
Wakening the world's dead gang —
God save the Queen. —
would any one blame him if he supposed the second fragment to be
a continuation of the hymn on the first .'' And if he combined the
two fragments together into one hymn, would mere literary criticism
of such a hymn, at a later date ever establish the fact that originally
the first three stanzas were an utterance of most fervent loyalty to the
throne, and the fourth an utterance of the fiercest republicanism .'*
And, to apply this illustration, just as it was possible for Shelley to
adopt in one sense a phrase and a form of verse which loyal English
men used in a different way, so it was possible for a Hebrew after the
time of Isaiah to use the phrase, 'A remnant will return,' ^ in a sense
^ Thus, for example, the author of Gen. vii. 8 shows himself to be the imitator
of vii. 2, and not the same writer, by his use of the expression .TlinD nsyNI "IK'S
instead of X'n iTlinp Ni? HB'N' ' ' ' ''
2 Cf. Isa. X. 21^

* THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
fundamentally different from that which it originally bore in the
mouth of the prophet himself.
Literary criticism, therefore, is inadequate by itself to solve such
a problem as that presented by the book of Isaiah, and must needs
be supplemented by historical criticism ; that is to say, it is necessary to
inquire with reference to each section or fragment which literary criti
cism declares to be homogeneous, at what period every one of its phrases
would have a clear meaning. It cannot be denied that there are
some passages of which the text is corrupt past all restoration ; in
many cases, however, the corruptions, though they may cause uncer
tainty as to individual phrases, do not materially affect the general
sense of the whole context. The textual critic of many portions of
the Old Testament finds himself somewhat in the position of an archi
tect who is called upon to restore a Gothic church which is grievously
mutilated, and has lost every atom of tracery from its windows.
Under such circumstances it is obviously impossible for the most
skilful and learned architect to claim that the tracery which he inserts
is of the same design as that which was originally there. But he can
decide from other features of the building, such as the moulding of the
arches, whether, for example, the tracery should be Decorated or Per
pendicular ; and the church as restored by him may be regarded as
corresponding essentially to the design of the original architect. In
like manner, to apply this illustration, in many cases where it is
impossible to restore the exact tracery oi a. Hebrew prophecy or psalm
enough remains to enable us to determine, so to speak, the order ot
architecture to which it belongs, and the purpose which it was intended
to carry out. Stones may be chipped and broken ; we may have
' churchwarden windows ' instead of the original delicate tracery ; but
we can nevertheless see clearly the purpose of the building, and it
will remain as a valuable witness to the history of the age in which it
arose. Historical criticism, therefore, is as essential as literary criticism ;
and to history must be added archaeology, which is indeed but
a department of history. The consensus of literary, historical, and
archaeological criticism forms a threefold cord which is not easily
broken, however' slight may be each of its several strands. In the
course of these lectures oUr attention will be concentrated mainly on
the witness of history and archaeology, though it may sometimes be
necessary to consider problems of a more definitely literary character. ^
' A convenient and valuable analysis of the book of Isaiah has been recently
published by the Rev. G. H. Box. The present lecturer, however^ considers that
in many places a still more drastic analysis is necessary.

LECTURE I ' 5
In an inquiry into the light which is thrown upon the book ot
Isaiah by history and archaeology two courses are open to us : either
we may take the sections of the book in the order in which they are
now arranged, and may examine each in the light of history ; or we
may first consider the history of Israel, and then look in the book of
Isaiah for prophecies which exactly correspond with it. The first
method is, perhaps, the most thorough and convincing, but it would
take far too long for the time at our disposal ; moreover, since the
sections are not arranged in chronological order, it would be extremely
confusing. It will be well for us therefore to follow the second
method, and to consider briefly the history of Judah from Isaiah's
time onward, dealing more particularly with those incidents to which
passages in the book of Isaiah may be considered definitely to refer.
Of course, strictly speaking, it is only by a process of elimination
that a passage can be proved to belong to a certain date, viz. by
showing that it is inapplicable to the circumstances of any other
time. But if history repeats itself, it seldom does so to such an
extent that every word and phrase of a document written in one age
will be equally suitable in another ; and for practical purposes it will
usually be enough to point out one period of history to which such
a document really corresponds in all its parts.
One preliminary question, however, must be considered before we
can profitably study the nucleus of the book of Isaiah (i.e. those
passages which may plausibly be assigned to Isaiah the son of
Amoz) : in what way were Isaiah's prophecies originally published ?
Did the prophet deliver his message by the pen, or by word of
mouth .'' And if the latter, did he himself commit his words to
writing, or to what agency are we indebted for their preservation.''
A full discussion of the literary characteristics of the passages
generally assigned to Isaiah is impossible here ; but it is not al
together arbitrary to state that it seems to be extremely improbable
that the prophecies were committed to writing by the prophet him
self, at least at the time when they were first composed. Had this
been the case, we should be compelled to conclude that in the present
book of Isaiah excerpts were made from the original documents
without the slightest regard to their original connexion. Students of
the Synoptic Gospels will indeed be willing to adinit that an ancient
editor treated his sources with the greatest freedom ; but although
there might be good reason for the dislocation of material, when, as
in the case of the Pentateuch, it was necessary to combine into one
two or more documents of different provenance, it is difficult to account
for the tearing asunder of that which had been written by the author

6 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
himself, and presumably was arranged as he intended it, in order to
re-arrange it in a manner which obscures the connexion. The present
lecturer trusts that he will not be understood as casting any doubt
upon Isaiah's ability to write, if he states that in his opinion the
evidence points to an oral stage in the transmission of his words. In
fact Isaiah himself has given us a hint which is unmistakable. In
chap. viii. 16, 17 we have his declaration that his prophetic teaching
must be made as it were into a sealed parcel, laid up in his disciples
as in a depository, in order that it may not be lost. The words,
it is true, have been understood to mean that Isaiah determined
to prepare a written record of his teaching, and to commit this as
a sealed document to the custody of his disciples. But though
there might have been some point in laying up in a sealed envelope
a definite prediction until the time when the prophet declared that it
would be fulfilled, it is difficult to see what purpose could be served
by sealing up exhortations to repentance, teaching as to the will of
Jehovah, warnings against superstition and sin. It is more natural
to understand the words to mean that the prophet's teaching must be
written on the fleshy tables of his disciples' hearts, where it might be
known and read of all men.
If we may suppose that Isaiah's disciples preserved orally their
master's teaching, just as the Apostles preserved that of our Lord,
we have a clue to much that is otherwise puzzling. Our Lord and
St. John the Baptist did not adopt an entirely new mode of life, but
lived and taught as many prophets had lived and taught before
them. And if, in what is universally admitted to have been a literary
age, neither of these committed his words to writing, but ' sealed them
up ' among his disciples, it is still more probable that in an earlier
age the prophets would have done the same. Indeed, in the case of
the prophet Jeremiah it is clearly implied that it was only after he
had been preaching for more than twenty years that he made any
attempt to commit his words to writing ; and it is probable that he
would not have done so even then, had it not been for his desire to
make his preaching known at court. Another indication that the
prophecies of Isaiah were originally published orally is to be found in
the poetical form of some of them. A poem can be easily learnt by
heart and repeated, and in this way the prophetic teaching would
quickly spread over the land.
That a written book of Isaiah did not exist for a considerable
period after Isaiah's death is also made probable by the absence of
any reference to it, or quotation from it, in the book of Jeremiah.
True, arguments from silence are not conclusive, if taken alone, but it

LECTURE I 7
must'be admitted that in the present instance the silence is difficult
to aeicount for on the supposition that a book of Isaiah's prophecies
actually existed in the days of Jeremiah. Jerusalem as Jeremiah
knew it, at all events at the beginning of his ministry, had not
materially altered since the time of Isaiah, for, at any rate, the
reforms of Hezekiah had been undone by Manasseh. The political
and religious condition of Judah in the days of Jeremiah presented
many points of similarity with the state of things with which Isaiah
had been confronted ; yet Jeremiah never points a lesson by remind
ing his hearers how his great predecessor's words were vindicated by
the event ; and when the prophet is on his trial, the precedent to
which his advocates appeal is drawn not from Isaiah, but from Isaiah's
co)3(iparatively obscure contemporary, Micah.
This, of course, does not imply that the teaching of Jeremiah
presents no parallels with that of Isaiah, but only that there are no
such verbal parallels as we should expect, if the words of Isaiah had
been accessible in a written form, and had been generally regarded
somewhat in the light of Scripture.
One other preliminary remark is necessary. It i.s probable that
even the earliest collection of Isaiah's utterances has been considerably
modified, and that only a portion of it has come down to us. It
would seem that it has been subjected to somewhat the same sort of
revision as that of which the book of Hosea shows unmistakable signs.
Hosea, like Isaiah, evidently told his story to his disciples in the first
person. But an editor of Hosea's prophecies has endeavoured, not
very successfully, to give some account of the prophet himself, draw
ing his facts from the book of prophecies which lay before him ; and
in doing this he uses phrases which he has culled from the collection of
Hosea's own words, but in a connexion in which we may feel pretty sure
Hosea never used them. There is no reason to doubt that Hosea,
when speaking of his unsuccessful struggle in his own home against
primitive superstition, either actually applied to his wife the term
D''3131 OB'S, or let it be inferred from his words that such a description
would not be inapt, and, similarly, he may have spoken of his children
as D''?W! '''1^! ; but it is extremely improbable that he represented
Jehovah as saying to him, ' Go, take thee a wife of whoredom, and
children of whoredom ' ; for though one speaks of ' taking ' a wife, one
does not speak of ' taking ' children. The awkwardness of the expres
sion is due to the fact that a later editor is not telling the story in
his own words, but is trying to use words and phrases of Hosea.
That a similar process has been carried out in the collection of
the genuine prophecies of Isaiah is evident, for example, from such

8 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
a passage as chap. vii. 2, where the words, ' and his heart was moved, and
the heart of his people, as the trees of the forest are moVed with the
wind', are obviously derivfid from a poem, probably composed on the
situation by Isaiah himself, which, however, has not come down to us.
Why any editor should have deliberately omitted from his book any
prophecy which he had reason to consider genuine it is hard to say^
and it would be rash to speak dogmatically. It may, however, be
suggested as a possible explanation that long after Isaiah's death,
probably at least as late as the time of the Exile, there arose a desire
to know something of the lives of the prophets, and that an attempt
was made to tell their story in somewhat the same manner as the
stories of Elijah and Elisha in the book of Kings. If narratives of
this kind existed, it may well be that in later times they took' the
place of the original prophetical books, or that later editors of the
prophecies, having only mutilated manuscripts to deal with, were glad
to make good to some extent the deficiencies by reference to them.
In this way it would be possible to explain the introduction of
narratives into the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and, to a less
extent, Haggai.
One cause of the dislocation of prophecies is very evident, viz.i the
introduction of consolatory passages into denunciations and predic
tions of woe. To the close of the Canon the Jewish Church never
entirely lost consciousness of the fact that it was a living Church.
Its Scriptures were, so to speak, brought up to date frora time to time
to suit its needs. Those whose teeth were grievously set on edge by
the sour grapes which their fathers had eaten, if they were to keep
their faith in a God whose mercy endures for ever, required something
more than the denunciations which had been addressed to their fathers.
And even when the Canon was definitely closed, and the books of
Scripture were regarded as too sacrosanct to be modified in any way,
the principle which had guided the editors of the Scriptures regulated
the practice of the Synagogue. As is well known, in reading Isaiah,
the collection of the Twelve Minor Pi'ophets, Lamentations, and
Ecclesiastes it is customary for the reader after reading the last' verse
to repeat the last verse but one, in order to avoid closing with words
of woe.
In like manner we perpetually find in the prophets comfort added
to woe. The consequence in many cases has been not unlike what
would result, if a painter were to take a picture of a storm in which
the whole sky was painted black with clouds, and were to paint between
the clouds bright patches of blue sky. Through almost his whole
ministry Isaiah was called upon, so to speak, to paint storms : later

LECTURE I 9
prophets have painted blue sky and bright sunshine in the middle of
the blackness. It is little wonder, therefore, if the pictures in their
later form, regarded as landscapes, cause perplexity as to their precise
meaning. With these preliminary remarks we may pass on to consider the
light which history throws upon the book of Isaiah. It is natural to
begin with the circumstances of Isaiah's own time, although here the
ground is for the most part familiar and well trodden.
Isaiah received his call, as he himself tells us, in the year that King
Uzziah (or Azariah) died. Unfortunately the chronology of the book
of Kings for the eighth century b. C. is contradictory and untrust
worthy, and we are only on sure ground when the evidence of the
monuments is clear and unmistakable. We may, therefore, for
practical purposes, leave on one side the biblical chronology for this
period, and base our dates on the evidence of the Assyrian inscrip
tions. Now Tiglath Pileser III, in describing a punitive expedition
which he carried out in Northern Syria in the year 739 b. c. says,
' Nineteen districts of the town Hamath, together With the towns in
their circuit, which are situated on the sea of the setting of the sun,
which in their faithlessness made revolt to Azriau, I turned into the
territory of Assyria ; my officers, my governors I placed over them.' ^
Another fragmentary inscription of the same date which gives a list
of princes who paid tribute to Tiglath Pileser apparently mentions
Azariah of Judah (Azriau of Yaudi), but it would be rash to assume
that he is spoken of as tributary, for the reference to him may be of
the same character as that in the inscription just quoted. It is indeed
asserted by some Assyriologists that Azriau of Yaudi has nothing to
do with Azariah, King of Judah, but belonged to the north of Syria.
Winckler's arguments on this point, however, scarcely appear conclu
sive. Assuming the identity of the names, we need not suppose either
that Judah was the foremost military power in the west, or that the
alliance between Hamath and Judah was directed against Assyria.
Judah and the states of Northern Syria had good cause for alliance quite
irrespective of Assyria. It is now becoming more and more generally
recognized that throughout the greater part of the history of the two
Israelite kingdoms, North Israel and Judah, the latter was tributary to
the former. The pride of the Jewish editors, through whose labours the
historical books ofthe Old Testament have assumed their present form,
has, indeed, avoided direct mention of Judah's vassalage, though facts
are recorded which are scarcely intelligible on any other hypothesis.
^ See Sehrader, vol. i^ pp. 211 f., 243.

10 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
It was, no doubt, the desire to obtain independence which had induced
Uzziah's predecessor, Amaziah, to undertake the war against Joash of
Israel which had ended so disastrously ; and it is clear from the language
of Isaiah that the temper of the Judaean government at the end of
Uzziah's reign had not materially changed since the time of Amaziah.
And if the King of Judah was anxious to throw off the yoke of North
Israel, the rulers of the Northern Syrian states may well have felt that
the same yoke was a menace to them. For Jeroboam II had consider
ably enlarged his kingdom, of which the northern boundary had finally
reached to ' the entering in of Hamath '. If we may suppose that
Hamath and the neighbouring states had sought an alliance with
Uzziah against North Israel, we can understand the motives which led
to the Syro-Ephraimitic invasion of Judah. The faithlessness of the
house of David having been manifested inthe intrigues with Hamath
which Tiglath Pileser made the excuse for his expedition in 739, the
King of Israel felt it necessary, now that the danger from Assyria
had come so near, to protect himself from the possibility of a stab in
the back by removing the Davidic king from the throne of Judah.
There is no reason to suppose that Tiglath Pileser really believed
that there was any danger from Judah to be feared by Assyria. It was
sufficient for his purpose that states over which he claimed suzerainty
had given him an excuse for plunder by making an alliance with a
foreign state.
But though the identification of Azariah of Judah with Azriau,
King of Yaudi, if correct, throws a valuable sidelight on the political
situation of the time, even without it the hints given by the books of
Isaiah and Kings point to the conclusion that it was against North
Israel that the warlike designs of Judah were directed. Throughout
the long reign. of Uzziah the resources of Judah, dissipated under
Amaziah, had been carefully husbanded. The ' house of David ' were
on the watch for an opportunity which would enable them to carry out
successfully the policy which under Amaziah had had such deplorable
consequences. The rejection of the proposed identification of Azriau
with Azariah would only deprive us of the exact date of Isaiah's call,
which in any case cannot have been long before 740 b. c.
From Isaiah vii. 3 we learn incidentally that Isaiah had a son bear
ing the symbolical name Shear-jashub (i. e. 'A remnant will return'),
who in 735 b. c. was old enough to accompany his father on the occasion
of his celebrated meeting with Ahaz, and who therefore cannot have
been bom much later than 739 b. c. Since in 734 we find the prophet
giving another son a symbolical name which, following the example of
his older contemporary Hosea, he made the subject of an address to the

LECTURE I 11
people, it is only reasonable to suppose that Shear-jashib was in like
manner the text of a sermon.
What, then, was the truth which Isaiah desired to impress upon the
minds of his countrymen at the beginning of his ministry by the use of
the pregnant phrase Shear-jashub ? If we depend solely upon literary
criticisn), we must reply, arguing from chap, x. 22, that the prophet
intended to teach that in a time of apostasy ' a remnant would return '
to the God of Israel ; and we must regard the words as a promise, or
at l^ast as a mitigation ofa message' jof woe. But at his call Isaiah's
view of the future was as gloomy as it well could be ; for chap. vi. 13,
which in the Masoretic text seems to imply a ray of hope, certainly
cannot be claimed as an original utterance of Isaiah : it is extremely
awkward in syntax, and moreover the last clause is wanting in the
Septuagint. If,' then, the phrase Shear-jashub sums up a sermon of most gloomy
prognostication, there can be very little doubt as to its original meaning,
which must be ' Only a remnant will return ' ; and the precise signifi
cance of the word ' return ' may perhaps be illustrated by a reference
to the words of Micaiah the son of Imlah (1 Kings xxii. 28) : ' If thou
return in peace (sc. from battle), Jehovah hath not spoken by me.' The
interpretation of the phrase Shear-jashub which best fits the circum-
staiices Of the time is ' Only a remnant will return from the war (sc.
against North Israel) which the house of David is so wantonly provok
ing \ It is quite possible that, as the prophet Hosea at the close ofhis
ministry, ora disciple ofhis, preached a sermon of consolation fromthe
text Jezreel, which in its original (historical) associations had suggested
nothing but woe, so the prophet Isaiah at the end of his ministry gave
a new meaning to the phrase Shear-jashub, understanding it to mean
that a remnant of the nation would turn with whole-hearted devotion
to i Jehovah ; but it must be admitted that the word ' remnant ' (^^^)
implies that all those members ofthe nation not included in it will have
perished : that is to say, the word does not mean *a portion of IsraeF,
but ' all that remains of Israel', sc. when the rest of the nation has been
annihilated. It would seem that the house of David were not checked in their
schemes for political independence by the disaster wliich had over
whelmed their northern allies. For more than half a century Judah
had been involved in no war of any magnitude, and the various little
wars against the Philistines and others, if we may trust the book of
Chronicles, had brought wealth into the king's exchequer. Isaiah alone
seems to have had a clear conception of what must be the outcome of
the warlike spirit which dominated Judah. To this early period of his

12 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
ministry may be assigned portions of chap. ii. 6 ff. The passage;
however, is not homogeneous; it contains more than one hiatus. Bind
the great description of the day of the Lord is not necessarily origi
nally part of the same discourse as ii. 6-8 ; though the mention of the
ships of Tarshish suggests a date earlier than 735 b. c, when Elath,
the only Judaean port, was taken by the allied forces of North Israel
and Damascus.
While Isaiah was vainly endeavouring to convince his people that
a little .state such as Judah could not expect to maintain indejren-
dence, the political situation in Palestine changed. The Palestinian
states, which in their petty rivalries had been blind to the approach
of the foe who threatened to destroy them all, had their eyes suddenly
opened. When Northern Syria was subject to Tiglath Pileser, it was
plain both in Samaria and in Damascus that the Assyrian's hand was
being stretched out ever farther and farther, and that soon all the
land would be held in his relentless grip. There seemed to be but
one possibUity of successful resistance, viz. that Israel and Damascus,
and possibly the Philistines, should present a united front to the
common foe. The one obstacle, however, to this policy was ' the
attitude of the house of David. Blinded as they were by their own
ambition to the Assyrian danger, their maxim was that North Israel's
difficulty was Judah's opportunity. It is not impossible that Judah
had already been guilty of some provocative act ; ^ in any case it was
clear that there could be no safety for North Israel in a war against
Assyria until Judah had been thoroughly humbled. The result was
the invasion of Judah in 735 b.c, or possibly as early as 736, by thei
combined fm-ces of North Israel and Damascus. It was an epoch in
Isaiah's ministry, and a careful consideration of the history of this
time will enable us to sort out and to date a number of utterances
which are otherwise most confusing. It is probable from Isaiah's
stern words to Ahaz in chap. vii. 13 that the policy of the house of
David which had resulted in the invasion of Judah by the allied forces
had already been denounced by the prophet. Inasmuch as the parable
of the vineyard (v. 1-7) appears to have been composed before
Jehovah had broken down the wall of His vineyard, that is to say,
before the couiitry had actually suffered from invasion, it may be
that it belongs to the period before the Syro-Ephraimitic war. i By
the vineyard, however, the prophet may mean Jerusalem rather than
Judah, in which case the parable may possibly be later. Notwith
standing the statements in 2 Kings xvi. 5, Isa. vii. 1 it is doubtful
^ Cf. Hos. v. 10. The passage, hoyi^ever, is too obscure to allow any argument
to be based upon it.

LECTURE I 13
whetbeir Jerusalem itself was besieged at this time. There is no hint
of a present siege in the story of Isaiah's interview with Ahaz:
Possibly the invaders, knowing the strength of Jerusalem, and being
unwilling to spend time on a long siege, desired to induce Ahaz to
fight in the open. It is evident that the country districts of Jeru
salem suffered grievously in the invasion, and by the capture of the
port of Elath Judah''s outlet to the sea was cut off.
It would' seem that the panic-stricken Ahaz determined at once to
appeal; to Assyria, whereupon Isaiah, knowing of this determination,
made a strong effort to induce him to abandon the idea of so disastrous
a step. The invasion itself was but the natural result of the policy
against which Isaiah had protested from the first, and of which he had
declared that the consequence would be that only a remnant would
return. Accordingly in the spring or early summer of 735 b.c. he
sought an audience with the king outside the walls of Jerusalem. It was
but natural that he should wish to remind Ahaz that the prediction
which he had uttered some four or five years previously was in the
way of being realized, and he accordingly took with him into the king's
presence his little son Shear-jashub as the living text of the sermon
which had originally been preached to deaf ears.
As we have noticed, the political situation had to some extent
changed since Isaiah had received his call. The prophet now per
ceived; clearly that the permanent danger to Judah was not from
Ephraim (North Israel) and Damascus, for these powers were played
out ; but from Assyria. For the present, however, there was no need
for panic. Even though Judah had suffered severely in the invasion,
Jerusalem had no cause to fear. The smoking firebrands of Ephraim
and Damascus would be burnt out before they could kindle a con
flagration in Jerusalem. The proper policy of Ahaz for the present
was to remain calmly on the defensive. Jerusalem could stand a siege
for a considerable time, and Isaiah was convinced that within three
years or so the power of the invaders would be broken. At the naming
oi Shear-jashub the prophet had probably affirmed that by the time the
child reached a certain age the prediction implied by his name would be
fulfilled. He now proceeded to give a similar sign, making use, however,
for his purpose not of any particular child, but of a whole generation of
phildren. It is not improbable that, as he talked to the king, his eye
caught sight of one or more young women of marriageable age (nDPyn) —
perhaps they were spreading out, or gathering up, the clean linen in the
fuller's field near by — who within a few months would probably be wives,
arid Within less than two years mothers. An appropriate name for
the firstborn child of any §uch young woman would, he maintained, be

14 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
Immanuel (' God is with us ') : for by the time that the child would
know what things hurt him and what things were good for him — ^that
is to say within three or four years of the time when Isaiah spOke —
Jerusalem would be delivered from the present danger, and it would
be evident that God was with His people. Indeed, before the child
would be able to sav Father and Mother, Damascus and Samaria would
be plundered by the king of Assyria.
It is evident from the very name Immanuel that Isaiah intended
io encourage Ahaz to remain calmly on the defensive: it is therefore
surprising to find, apparently connected with the same date (viz. the
time when the child, or generation of children, would be barely old
enough to refuse the evil and to choose the good), a statement that
the staple food of the land of Judah will be curds and wild honey,
because all the land of Judah is to be laid waste and cultivatioli is to
cease. An explanation of the difficulty is probably to be found in the
confusion with the Immanuel prophecy of another similar prediction
spoken some nine months later.^
Isaiah's interview with Ahaz in 735 b. c. showed that the lattet-was
not to be turned from his purpose in calling in the aid of the king of
Assyria. Isaiah knew that by this policy Judah would only jump out
of the frying-pan into the fire : it would be no gain to exchange the
comparatively easy yoke of North Israel, or even of North Israel and
Damascus, for the heavy yoke of Assyria. And considering the temper
of the ruling classes in Judah, it was probable that the Assyrian yoke
would not be accepted without a struggle sooner or later which would
end in the absolute ruin of Judah. The plundering and looting of
Jerusalem (of which he had had no fear in the Syro-Ephraimitic war)
was now, Isaiah felt assured, near at hand. The prophet, however,
bad to deal with those who scorned his predictions so long as they
were unfulfilled, and, when they were fulfilled, denied that they had
been made. He accordingly wrote down on a tablet in the presence of
credible witnesses, of whom one was no less notable a person than the
chief priest ofthe sanctuary attached to the king's own palace, the words
Maher-shalal-hash-baz (ti B'n bbp nno, i.e. 'Plundering hastens, lo6ting
speeds '). Some nine months afterwards — probably early in the year
734 — a son was born to Isaiah, on whom he bestowed as a name the
words which he had written on the tablet. By this time Ahaz had
^ The cause of confusion to the first editor of the book was doubtless' the misr
understanding of viii. 4, which originally belonged to the Immanuel prophecy,
but which in consequence of its containing the word ?7B' he supposed to belong
to the Maher-shalal-liash-baz prophecy. This necessitated the transference to
Immanuel a{ vii. 15, which originally referred to Maher-shalal-Iulsh-bdz. ' ''''' "''' '

LECTURE I 15
taken the fatal step of appealing to Assyria, and Tiglath Pileser was
preparing to invade North Israel. As the name of his eldest boy had
already furnished him with a text for a sermon, so Isaiah used the name
of his second son to point the lesson which he was endeavouring to teach
his people. The plundering of Jerusalem was rapidly approaching ;
its looting was at hand ; ^ indeed, by the time that the child would be
old enough to distinguish between things which hurt him and things
which delighted him, his food would consist only of curds and wild
honey ; for, since cultivation would be at an end, and vineyards and
cornfields would have become a common pasture ground, there would
be no food for any one in Judah except wild honey and the milk of
the cattle and flocks, which would be able to graze without let or
hindrance on the hills which had once been renowned for their
vineyards. The statement of 2 Kings xv. 29 that ' in the days of Pekah, King
of Israel, came Tiglath Pileser, King of Assyria, and took Ijon and
Abel-beth-maacah and Janoah and Kedesh and Hazor and Gilead
and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali ; and he carried them captive to
Assyria ', is confirmed and amplified by Tiglath Pileser's own account
of his expedition. He claims to have deported to Assyria ' the whole
of the inhabitants of the land of Omri ' ; and we learn that Hoshea
(who in the account of 2 Kings appears as the leader in a conspiracy
against Pekah) was placed ou the throne of Samaria by Tiglath
Pileser after he had put Pekah to death. We can take the Assyrian
king''s boast that he has transported all the inhabitants of the land of
Omri for what it is worth ; but his statement is valuable as showing,
what we should not have suspected from the biblical account, that not
only Galilee and Gilead suffered in Tiglath Pileser's invasion, but the
southern portion of the kingdom also. Indeed, the Assyrian army
appears to have passed right through the kingdom of Israel and
through the Philistine territory to the southern frontier of Palestine.
Gaza was captured, and Hanno its king fled to Egypt. Well might
Isaiah declare that his people, having forsaken the waters of Siloam
that flowed gently, had brought into the land a river whose mighty
onrush could never be checked.^
Having worked his will on Palestine, Tiglath Pileser turned his
attention to Damascus. Since the Assyrian accounts represent expe
ditions against this kingdom in two successive years, 733 and 732, it
is probable that Damascus was able to offer a more successful resis-
* This view of the original significance of the name receives some confirmation
from chap. x. 6.
2 Chap. viii. 7f. . ^

16 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
tance than North Israel. It was taken in 732, and Rezin was put to
death. It was at this time that Ahaz wiis summoned to Damascus,
among other tributary princes, to nlake his submission to the great
king, Isaiah's predictions had been verified only too exactly; but
even yet the ruling classes of Judah had not learnt the lesson which
the prophet had endeavoured to teach. The heart of the people had
indeed waxed fat, and their ears were heavy, and their eyes shut.
Of the years following 732 we have little information. It is
probable that Ahaz continued subject to Assyria throughout his
reign. He is mentioned by Tiglath Pileser in an inscription of the
year 728 b. c. as paying tribute.
The Judaean politicians who had chafed at the suzerainty of North
Israel were not likely to accept quietly the heavy yoke of Assyria ;
moreover, a powerful inducement to them to rebel was supplied by the
policy of Egypt. It was becoming obvious that tlie real objective of
Assyria was Egypt, and it was naturally the policy of the rulers ofthe
latter to place one or more buffer states between their own country
and their great rival. Accordingly any schemes of revolt against
Assyria which might be formed among the Palestinian states were
sure of finding sympathy and promises of help in Egypt. Even after
734 Palestinian politicians did not realize the full power of Assyria.
In Samaria the disaster which had overwhelmed Galilee, and had
affected in varying measure the whole of the kingdom of Israel, seems
to have been regarded as a regrettable reverse which, however, would
have no effect on the ultimate issue ofthe struggle. If the bricks had
fallen down, the political building up of the future, it was contended,
should be carried out in hewn stone ; if the sycomores had been cut
down, they should be replaced by cedars (Isa. ix. 9 f.). It was, of
course, impossible to renew at once the struggle with Assyria, but
upon the accession of Shalmaneser IV in 727 schemes of revolt began
to be formed. In 725 Hoshea, relying upon Egyptian aid, refused
his tribute, with the result that there was another invasion of the
northern kingdom. The city of Samaria made a stubborn resistance,
but was finally taken in 722 in the reign of Sargon, who had succeeded
Shalmaneser during the siege. Sargon claims to have carried into
captivity 27,280 Of the inhabitants of Samaria.
Owing to the extreme uncertainty as to the chronology of the book
of Kings, it is impossible to say with certainty in what year Ahaz was
succeeded by his son Hezekiah. The latter is said to have reigned
twenty-nine years (2 Kings xviii. 2), and if this is correct, we may
perhaps calculate the year of his accession by reckoning backward
from the reign of Josiah.

LECTURE I 17
It is generally admitted that Josiah came to the throne about
639 B.C., and, since his predecessor Amon reigned two years, 641 b.c.
will be approximately the date of Manasseh 's death. Inasmuch as
there must have been a considerable number of people still living at
the beginning of the Exile who remembered Manasseh's rule, there is
a strong presumption that the number of years assigned to his reign
is correct. If, then, we add fifty-five years to the date of Manasseh's
death, we obtain the date of his accession and of the death of Heze
kiah, viz. 696 B.C. Again, adding to this date twenty-nine years for
Hezekiah's reign, we obtain 725 as the date of his accession, and 711,
or thereabouts, as the date of his illness, which was believed to have
occurred fifteen years before his death (2 Kings xx. 6, Isaiah xxxviii. 5).
Since the embassy of Merodach Baladan, which in the biblical account
is connected with Hezekiah's recovery, is in harmony with the known
political circumstances of this time, we may, in the absence of more
certain indications, accept 711 or 712 as its date.
The chief objection to this date is the statement that Sennacherib,
who only succeeded to the throne of Assyria in 705, came up against
all the fenced cities of Judah in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah
(2 Kings xviii. 1 3). If, however, we read ' the twenty-fourth ' for ' the
fourteenth' year we obtain the date 701, the year in which the
Assyrian inscriptions place Sennacherib's campaign.
After the conquest of Samaria, Sargon was compelled to give his
attention to Babylon, and the opportunity was not lost by the states
of Syria and Palestine. Formidable revolts broke out in Hamath,
Arpad, Simyra, Damascus, and Samaria, and further south Hanno,
King of Gaza, formed an alliance with Egypt. In 720 Sai-gon re
turned to the west, and after dealing with the revolt of which Hamath
was the centre he advanced against the allied forces of Egypt and
Gaza. A battle took place at Raphiah in which the Assyrians were
victorious. Sargon claims to have received tribute from Pharaoh, King
of Egypt, as well as from some Arabian kingdoms. It may, however,
fairly be doubted whether Egypt really acknowledged Assyrian suze
rainty at this time. We need not necessarily suppose that what the
Assyrian kings describe as tribute would have been so described by
those who are said to have paid it. In like manner, when Sargon styles
himself 'the subjector of the land of Judah', we need not infer that
any fighting had actually taken place in Judah. Hezekiah's unresisting
submission must needs be described in terms which implied greater
prowess on the part of the Assyrian king.
For some years Sargon had no further difficulty in the west, and
consequently in the absence of Assyrian armies schemes of revolt began
l2

18 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
again to be formed. In an inscription of the year 711 Sargon describes
an expedition which he dispatched against Ashdod in which he men
tions Philistia, Judah, Edom, and Moab as having formed an alliance
with Pharaoh, King of Egypt. It is to this expedition that Isa. xx. 1
refers. Since Sargon does not mention any fighting in Judah, it is prob
able that Hezekiah saved himself by a timely submission. Merodach
Baladan's embassy to Hezekiah probably preceded this campaign against
Ashdod. In the years 710 and 709 Sargon was engaged in Babylonia against
Merodach Baladan. The latter was driven from his throne, and Sargon
became master of Babylonia. It is not impossible that Isaiah's predic
tion in chap, xxxix, 7 in its original form referred to Sargon's capture
of Babylonia, though in the form in which we have it it obviously refers
to Nebuchadnezzar.
Sargon died in 705, and the Philistine states, now that the rod which
had smitten them was broken,^ began to dream of independence. For
some time Hezekiah appears to have held aloof from any political
combination. It was not long, however, before the opportunity of re
gaining independence appeared too good to be lost. On the one hand
Merodach Baladan, who had been supplied with troops by the King of
Elam, reoccupied Babylon, and Sennacherib's attention was claimed
by the revolt in that region ; on the other hand Tirhakah of Ethiopia
was extending his power, and was encouraging the Palestinian states
to rebel against Assyria. Apparently all the southern states of Pales
tine, and possibly the northern also, had at this time entered into
a confederacy against Assyria. In this Hezekiah seems to have been
the moving spirit, the only dissentient being Padi, King of Ekron,
whose subjects accordingly deposed him and sent him as a prisoner to
Hezekiah. Probably Isaiah was one of the few who realized the
futility of the whole scheme, and the poetical prophecy in chap. v.
26-30, as well as the graphic account of the advance of the Assyrian
army of which only a mutilated fragment remains in chap. x. 28-32, is
plausibly assigned to this period.
After subduing the Babylonian revolt and carrying out a campaign
in the mountains north of Elam, Sennacherib turned his attention to
the west, where he carried out an expedition in the year 701. He first
subdued the Phoenician cities of the north, and then advanced to the
' The prophecy in Isa. xiv. 29 if. has been plausibly assigned to this date, in
which case we must correct the heading in ver. 28, reading lltS'K if^li for
in? "yW ¦ The text, however, has suffered considerably, and has apparently
been modified at a later date. There is no evidence for the supposition that
Ahaz subdued Philistia, unless we are to find it in 2 Chron. xxviii. 18 !

LECTURE I 19
Philistine plain. In the course of the expedition he received the sub
mission of the kings of Ammon, Moab, and Edom. Ashkelon, as well
as a number of tributary towns, was besieged and taken. At Eltekeh
Sennacherib was met by troops from Egypt and Ethiopia which had
advanced to the help of the Philistines. He claims to have defeated
them, and they apparently retired from the country. Sennacherib
thereupon besieged Ekron, which he captured. He then proceeded to
assert his power over Judah. Forty-six strong cities of Judah were
captured and added to the kingdoms of Ashdod, Ekron, and Gaza.
Sennacherib claims also to have besieged Hezekiah in Jerusalem —
though he does not mention the capture of Jerusalem — to have
imposed an increased tribute, and to have received from Hezekiah an
enormous amount of gold and silver and treasures, as well as the king's
own daughters and a number of slaves.
The reconciliation of Sennacherib's account of this campaign with
the biblical account is a matter of extreme difficulty. It must, how
ever, be admitted that the Assyrian king's description is not marked
by lucidity : he claims, for example, to have received the submission
of Ammon, Moab, and Edom, but does not tell us at what stages in
the campaign their submission was made. Moreover, the absence of
any mention of the taking of Jerusalem is noteworthy, and it may be
inferred that the amount of gold and of treasures which Hezekiah
sent to Sennacherib was by way of buying him off'.
It is by no means impossible, therefore, that the account given in the
book of Kings is substantially correct, viz. that Hezekiah made his
submission to Sennacherib before an Assyrian army had advanced on
Jerusalem, and that the enormous amount of gold and silver and trea
sures, which both the inscriptions and the Bible represent Hezekiah
as paying to the King of Assyria, was dispatched from Jerusalem at
this time. Thereupon it would seem that Sennacherib, having come
to the conclusion that he had let Hezekiah off too easily, sent a detach
ment of his army to besiege the city, but that the siege was suddenly
raised in consequence of an outbreak of plague in the main arm}'. If
Sennacherib relates events in the order in which they happened, it
is difficult to see why Ammon, Moab, and Edom should have made
their submission before Hezekiah ; and if the siege of Jerusalem ended
in the capture of the city by the Assyrians, Hezekiah's continued
occupation of the throne is quite inexplicable.
Moreover, if Sennacherib's demand for the unconditional surrender
of Jerusalem involved a breach of faith on his part, the attitude of
Isaiah is more easily understood. That he should have opposed
revolt against Assyria is in harmony with all that we know of his

20 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
principles. In later times the prophet Ezekiel (chap. xvii. 15, 16) con
sidered the oath of allegiance which the King of Judah had taken to
Nebuchadnezzar to be binding, and we have no reason to suppose that
Isaiah's view would have been more lax in the similar case of Hezekiah.
But when Sennacherib had put himself in the wrong, the prophet
who had uttered to Ahaz the prophecy of Immanuel was perfectly
consistent in giving similar encouragement to Hezekiah. The Assy
rian had been indeed the rod of Jehovah's anger ; but the rod had
fulfilled Jehovah's purpose of chastisement, and the time had come
when it should be broken. Isaiah had seen the evil which intense
arrogance had brought on Palestinian kings : it was not difficult to
believe that like arrogance on the part of the King of Assyria would
be followed by a similar result. The year 701 b.c. is memorable as
the year when against all seeming probability Isaiah foretold the
downfall of Sennacherib, and his prediction was verified. It is reason
able to suppose that it was at this period that he prevailed upon
Hezekiah to attempt a thorough-going reformation ; for the prophet's
chief opponents, who at an earlier period had scouted him, were now
discredited by the falsification of their predictions. Another reason
for putting Hezekiah's reforms and the destruction of the brazen
serpent after 701 is the recrudescence of superstition in the age of
Manasseh. If the chronology adopted above is correct, it was only
four or five years at most between the reformation carried out by
Hezekiah and the reaction under Manasseh.
It is thus obvious that during the whole period of Isaiah''s ministry
the shadow of Assyria lay dark upon his path. The loss of forty-six
fortified cities, besides many small towns and villages and the capture
of 200,150 men, was a blow from which the kingdom of Judah never
recovered. Even if Sennacherib's force was compelled to retire without
compelling Jerusalem to surrender, there is no evidence that Judah
was freed. The deliverance only meant that Jerusalem did not under
go the horrors of a capture, and that Hezekiah was not impaled or
flayed alive. There is no indication that from the first appearance of
Isaiah to the time when we lose sight of him any event took place in
Judah which would awake a cry of victory.
Of the prophecies in the book of Isaiah which may reasonably be
assigned to Isaiah the son of Amoz many cannot be dated with any
certainty. The denunciations of the ruling classes (i. 10-17, 21-23,
iii. 14, 15. V. 8-10, ix. 13 ff., xxii. 15-23, xxviii. 7-22) are shown by
a comparison with the book of Micah to be as appropriate in the reign
of Hezekiah as in the reign of Ahaz. The various references to the
ruin of Judah and Jerusalem (e.g. i. 7-9, iii. 6-9) are perhaps more

LECTURE I 21
naturally understood of the events of 701, but they may belong to
an earlier date. The ' woes ' may be spread over the whole of Isaiah's
ministry. That no argument as to date can be drawn from the exist
ing position of sections, which are, moreover, in many cases made up
of quite disconnected fragments, may be seen by a comparison of, for
example, i. 9 with i. 10. In ver. 9 the names Sodom and Gomorrah
are used as examples of a terrible destrnction ; in ver. 10 as examples
'of great wickedness.
It is impossible to read the book of Isaiah Avithout being impressed
by the comparative absence of direct attacks upon the superstitions
of his time. With the exception of chap. i. 11-14 there is in those
portions of the book which may plausibly be assigned to Isaiah himself
no denunciation of the sacrificial system against which such a splen
did protest is made in Mic. vi, and on which still later Jeremiah
poured out his scathing sarcasm (Jer. vii. ^1) ; no denunciation of the
abominations committed at the high places which had called forth
the eloquence of Hosea ; no denunciation of the sacrifice of the first
born son of Ahaz ; and this in a book which bears the name, and
undoubtedly preserves some of the teaching, of a man whose horror of
idolatry and superstition was so great that under his influence even
the brazen serpent which Moses had made was broken up ! Can it be
that that venerable idol was destroyed before Isaiah had publicly
lifted up his voice against it ? Surely the earnest exhortations, the
teaching which Isaiah sealed up among his disciples, must have
contained reference to these things. We can only account for their
omission on the supposition that we have mere fragments of Isaiah's
prophecies. Whether they were omitted by intention or accident it is
impossible to say definitely. If, however, we may assume a fairly
long oral stage in the transmission of Isaiah's teaching, so that it was
not actually committed to writing till the reforms of Josiah had
become recognized as law, we may perhaps account most easily for the
omission. To condemn the worship of the brazen serpent or human
sacrifice to people who were not addicted to either would have been
superfluous. It may well be that much of the teaching of Isaiah was
forgotten because it had no direct bearing on the conditions of a later
age. One thing, hoWever, could never be forgotten, viz. Isaiah's
declaration that, though the Assyrian was the rod of Jehovah's anger,
the Assyrian himself had no such view, but was actuated entirely by
insensate ambition which must lead to his punishment. Such teaching
could not but bring comfort to those who had but to substitute
Chaldaean for Assyrian in order to apply it to their own case. It
was perhaps in this way that Isaiah, the stern preacher of repentance,

22 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
came to be regarded as the comforter of his people. If this was so,
we can understand why words of comfort spoken during the Exile were
added to his book, which thus became the model for subsequent com
forters. And when the book of Isaiah had once come to be regarded
as a book of national consolation, the tendency, which we find in other
books of the prophets, to interpolate comfort into woes would here be
specially prominent. There would be no desire to retain at all cost the
ipsissinia verba of the prophet, but only to edify the Church ; the
interest which Isaiah's words possessed for later ages was not historic,
or antiquarian, but religious.

LECTURE II
ENLARGEMENT OK THE ORIGINAL BOOK OF ISAIAH BY THE
ADDITION OF PROPHECIES COMPOSED IN THE
BABYLONIAN AND PERSIAN PERIODS
For upwards of seventy years from the time that Isaiah disappears
from our view the forces at work in Judah appear to have been
altogether reactionary. The reformation which Hezekiah had carried
out had gone beyond the popular conscience. It is not improbable
that many who were sincerely desirous of some measure of reform
stood aghast at the iconoclasm which destroyed the brazen serpent.
Hezekiah's son and successor, Manasseh, who was a mere boy when he
ascended the throne, was in the hands of the reactionary party, and
continued, either from conviction or from motives of policy, to set his
face ruthlessly against the reformers, reintroducing the practices which
in his father's reign had been made illegal. From a religious point of
view Manasseh's reign was a time of the deepest gloom, nor was the
political horizon any brighter. Esar-haddon, who succeeded Sen
nacherib 680 B.C., claims to have received tribute from Manasseh
among the kings of the Palestinian states, and also from various
Phoenician and North Syrian kingdoms. Esar-haddon carried out a
campaign in Egypt in 670, when Memphis was taken. The introduc
tion of colonists into Samaria mentioned in Ezra iv. 2 is probably to
be dated about this time. There may have been some insurrection in
the province of Samaria which was the immediate cause of this policy.
Certainly the glossator who added the latter half of ver. 8 of Isa. vii
imagined that sixty-five years after the conversation of Isaiah with
Ahaz, i.e. about 670 b.c, something happened which deprived the
people of what had been the northern kingdom of any right to
consider themselves a nation. Ashur-bani-pal, who succeeded in 668,
carried on the war in Egypt, and received the tribute of the kings
of the seacoast, including Manasseh. The statement in Ezra iv. 10,
which there is no reason to doubt, that Asnappar (i. e. Ashur-bani-pal)
transferred a number of people from the eastern portions of his
dominions to the province of Samaria, shows that during his reign
Assyria was in close touch with Palestine. It is probable, therefore, that
Josiah, who succeeded to the throne of Judah in 639 b.c, reigned as
vassal of the Assyrian king, and took an oath of allegiance to him.
Ashur-bani-pal died in 626, the year in which Jeremiah began to
prophesy, and under his successors the empire declined rapidly. At

24 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
this time the Scythian hordes were pouring into Western Asia, and
were exercising a disintegrating influence on the unwieldy Assyrian
empire, which had been extended solely for purposes of plunder, and
had never been welded together into a political whole. It is probable
that the foe from the north whom Jeremiah had in view at the begin
ning of his ministry was none other than the Scythian. Whether
Judah actually suffered from the Scythian invasion is doubtful. The
danger at any rate came very near, for the Scythians advanced into
Philistia as far as Ashkelon, and Scythopolis (the Greek name of the
city known in earlier times as Beth Shan) perhaps implies that they
effected a settlement in the plain of Jezreel.
At the same time that the Scythians were pouring into the empire
from the north, other barbarous Aryan tribes, the Umm,an-manda as
they are called by Nabonidus, of whom the Medes appear to have been
a branch, were harassing it on the east. Nor were these the only foes.
On the death of Esar-haddon his younger son Shamash-shumukin had
succeeded to the throne of Babylon. For some years he acknowledged
the suzerainty of his elder brother Ashur-bani-pal, but finally with the
support of the King of Elam and a king of Arabia he revolted. The
revolt was put down by Ashur-bani-pal, but the power of Babylon was
not broken. Finally, Nabopolassar, who became king in 625 B.C.,
found an opportunity of establishing his independence in the invasion
of Assyria by the Medes, with whom he formed an alliance, marrying
his son Nebuchadnezzar to the daughter of Cyaxares, the Median king.
The combined armies of the Medes and Babylon attacked Nineveh,
which fell about 606 b.c
It is conceivable that, even if Nineveh had not been thus attacked,
the fall of the great empire might have come about through Egypt.
In 608 Pharaoh Necho, son of Psammetichus I, determined to win back
the Asiatic dominion of Egypt. He was vainly opposed at Megiddo
by Josiah, who, presumably, was acting as vassal ofthe King of Assyria,
and he advanced victoriously as far as the Euphrates, For three years
Judah was compelled to accept the suzerainty of Egypt, but in 605 a
battle was fought at Carchemish between Nebuchadnezzar and Necho,
with the result that the latter was utterly routed, and was obliged to
retire from Asia,
Nebuchadnezzar was unable immediately to press his advantage ;
for, while he was pursuing Pharaoh, his father, Nabopolassar, died in
Babylon, and it was necessary for him to return home. As soon as he
had been installed as king, however, he exacted the submission of Syria
and Palestine, and Jehoiakim, who had been placed on the throne by
Pharaoh, was compelled to take an oath of allegiance to him.

LECTURE II 25
It was not long before schemes of revolt again began to be mooted
in the west. After paying tribute for three years Jehoiakim withheld
it. According to 2 Kings xxiv. 2 Nebuchadnezzar at first sent to
Jerusalem an army composed in part of levies raised from the neigh
bouring kingdoms, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites being specially
mentioned. It must be admitted, however, that the statement of the
book of Kings is somewhat vague ; moreover, it is difficult to reconcile
it with the fact that in Jer. xxv (which apparently contains the gist of
prophecies uttered by Jeremiah about the year 604, though these
prophecies have scarcely been preserved in their original form) it seems
to be implied that all the Palestinian states are confederate against the
Chaldaeans. It is at any rate clear from Jer. xl, xli that at the time
of the murder of Gedaliah Ammon was opposed to the Chaldaeans.
In 597, however, while the siege of Jerusalem was in progress, Nebu
chadnezzar himself took the command of the Babylonian troops.
Jehoiachin, who had succeeded to the throne of Jerusalem three months
before, surrendered, and together with the queen- mother and many
members of the royal family was taken to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar
is stated to have plundered the temple of all its treasures, and to have
taken away from Jerusalem all the nobility and gentry as well as all
the fighting men. This is almost certainly an exaggeration, but
Jerusalem evidently suffered grievously at this time. The numbers
of the captives are variously given in the Old Testament. 2 Kings
xxiv. 14 mentions 10,000 captives exclusive of the artisans ; 2 Kings
xxiv. 16 (which Stade rightly regards as taken from, a different source)
mentions 8,000 in all ; while Jer. Iii. 28 (which, notwithstanding the
fact that the year of the siege of Jerusalem is called the seventh year
of Nebuchadnezzar instead of the eighth, as in 2 Kings xxiv. 12, must
refer to the same occasion) gives 3,023.
Jehoiachin's uncle Mattaniah, who now took the name of Zedekiah,
was placed on the throne of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, who first
exacted from him a solemn oath of allegiance (Ezek, xvii, 13-16),
For some years Zedekiah quietly accepted his position; but in the
year 588 b.c. Psammetichus II of Egypt, who had reigned for six
years, was succeeded by his son Apries (Hophra), and the latter,
unhappily for Judah, at once revived the policy of Necho, and began
to. instigate the Palestinian states to rebel. Jerusalem was besieged
by the army of Nebuchadnezzar early in the year 587. An Egyptian
army which came to the aid of the Jews was repulsed by Nebuchad
nezzar, and Jerusalem fell in the summer of 586. Zedekiah, who had
fled, was taken prisoner and carried to Riblah (2 Kings xxv. 6), where
Nebuchadnezzar was at the time ; his sons were put to death before his

26 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
eyes ; he himself was blinded and carried captive to Babylon. A month
later the Chaldaean general burnt the palace at Jerusalem and the
temple attached to it, as well as all the larger houses, and razed to the
ground a great portion of the wall. A second time a large number
of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were transported to Babylon, those
who remained in the city being apparently the poorest of the poor.
A considerable portion of Zedekiah's army continued to elude the
Chaldaeans, and for a time found refuge beyond the Jordan; and
doubtless a number of well-to-do, if not noble, families remained in
other parts of the kingdom. According to Jer. Iii. 29 the number of
those carried away to Babylon at this time was 832.
The fact that the Chaldaean general appointed as governor of Judah
a Jew named Gedaliah the son of Ahikam is in itself sufficient proof
that the country was not depopulated. Nor can it be argued from
Gedaliah's residence at Mizpah instead of Jerusalem that the latter city
was destitute of inhabitants, although it is probable that for some
time after the termination of the siege it was scarcely habitable. We
know that it had endured the worst extremities of famine (2 Kings
xxv. 3), and in such cases famine is accompanied by pestilence. Those
who could live elsewhere must have been glad to do so.
In course of time the circumstances of Judah began to improve.^
Gedaliah, evidently acting on the authority of Nebuchadnezzar,
promised an amnesty to all fugitives if they would settle down quietly
in the country and accept the rule of the King of Babylon ; whereupon
many who had fled to the neighbouring lands returned to their homes,
and cultivation was resumed. Unfortunately for the peace of Judah
a number of guerrilla bands still remained in the country, whose generals
were deterred from making their submission, partly, perhaps, through
doubt as to the good faith of Nebuchadnezzar, partly through the
vain hope that resistance to the Chaldaeans might even yet prove
successful. Gedaliah would probably have succeeded in inducing
these generals to disband their forces, for the majority of them were
evidently disposed to accept his promise, had it not been the policy of
the surrounding states to hinder the pacification of Judah. The King
of Ammon in particular knew that as soon as Judah was utterly
crushed his own country would be brought under the yoke of the
King of Babylon (cf. Ezek. xxi. 18 ff.). At his instigation one of the
Judaean generals, Ishmael by name, treacherously murdered Gedaliah
' Perhaps it was during the governorship of Gedaliah that Jeremiah or one of
his disciples composed the prophecy which has come down to us in various forms
in Jer. xxiii. 5ff., xxxiii. 14 ff"., which is I'eferred to in Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12, and
imitated in Isa. xi. 1.

LECTURE II 27
at Mizpah, together with his Chaldaean bodyguard and a number of
Jews who were associated with him. The remainder of the population
of Mizpah Ishmael carried oft", intending to take them to Ammon.
He was, however, pursued by the other generals, who intercepted
him at Gibeon and released his captives. Ishmael himself, however,
contrived to escape to Ammon. '^ Thereupon the other generals and
their men, together with the people whom they had recovered from
Ishmael, fearing the vengeance of the Chaldaeans, fled at once to
Egypt, where other Jews and perhaps refugees from the province of
Samaria had probably found an asylum, thus forming the nucleus of
the very considerable Jewish population which we know from the
Mond papyri to have been settled in Egypt in the fifth century b.c.
The date of the murder of Gedaliah is uncertain, for though the
biblical account at first sight implies that it took place in the same
year as the destruction of Jerusalem, viz. 586 b. c, two months (cf.
2 Kings xxv. 8, 25) would appear to be barely sufficient for the events
recorded in Jer. xl. It is therefore possible that a considerable time
elapsed between the appointment of Gedaliah and his murder, and it
may be that the third transportation of Jews to Babylon in the year
581 B. c mentioned in Jer. Iii. 30 was the immediate consequence of
Ishmael's action.
Still, however, Judah was not depopulated. The story of Gedaliah
shows that, at all events as late as 586, there was a large fighting ele
ment in Judah, and this alone should be sufficient to disprove the old
idea that all the Jews were taken to Babylon. In any case Mizpah
and the Jerusalem district would have suffered most. There is no evi
dence that Southern Judah was equally affected, though it is obvious
that apart from damage inflicted by the Chaldaeans the whole country
must have suffered to some extent in the absence of any effective
government. By these events in the year 581 b. c the population of Judah which
had survived the wars and famines of the last sixteen years had been
divided into three distinct parts, of which one remained in Judah itself,
one, consisting of most of the aristocracy and the priesthood, had been
carried to Babylon, and one had voluntarily settled in Egypt. All
three parts were destined in later times to exercise an influence on the
fortunes of the nation.
Ofthe Egyptian dispersion until recent years there was no evidence
apart from the Bible, It is now certain, however, from the various
papyri discovered in the neighbourhood of Syene (Assouan) that a very
^ Perhaps it was this agreement between Ammon and Ishmael that so embittered
the prophets against that country, Cf. Ezek. xxv and also Deut. xxiii. 3.

28 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
large number of Jews were settled in that district in the fifth cen
tury B. c. Indeed, in the Elephantine papyri it is claimed that since the
time of Cambyses (c. 525 b. c.) the Jews of that place have had a temple
where sacrifices have been offered to Jehovah ( Yahu). It is certainly sur
prising to find a .Jewish colony so far south at such an early date. The
book of Jeremiah (chaps, xliv, xlvi) implies that at the time when the
historical chapters were written the Jews who had fled to Egypt were
settled mainly in the north, especially in the neighbourhood of Tah-
panhes (i. e. the modern Tel Defenneh, about 25 miles south-west ofthe
ruins of Pelusium), Noph (i. e. Memphis, about 10 miles south of modern
Cairo), and Migdol (probably in the north-east not far from Pelusium).
Pathros (Upper Egypt) is also mentioned in Jer. xliv as containing
settlements of Jews — though it must be admitted that in this connexion
we should expect a name belonging to northern Egypt — and the de
scription of the southern limit of Egypt as given in Ezek. xxx. 6 ('from
Migdol to Syene ') points in the same direction. It is not, of course,
necessary to suppose that all these settlers were Jews in the strict sense
ofthe term. Many of them may have migrated from Samaria. Life in
Palestine must have been hard in the sixth centui-y b, c, and there was
every inducement to its inhabitants to migrate to a country which
was less likely to be a perpetual battlefield. If we may suppose that
the communities of Jews in Syene and other parts of Egypt were com
posed of immigrants from more than one district of Palestine, we can
the more easily account for the fact that the language of the papyri is
not Hebrew but Aramaic. It is probable that after the importation
of colonists into the province of Samaria, Aramaic was there spoken
almost to the same extent as Hebrew. Moreover, the words put into
the mouth of Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah, though scarcely representing
an actual speech in the reign of Hezekiah, not improbably reflect some
incident in one of the later sieges of Jerusalem, and may at any rate
be taken as evidence that in the last days of the kingdom of Judah many
natives of Jerusalem understood Aramaic. Since the refugees who fled
to Egypt from Judah belonged for the most part to the well-to-do
classes — that is, to that section of the population which we may sup
pose to have been to a great extent bilingual — they would naturally
adopt Aramaic as the medium of communication with the monoglot
worshippers of Jehovah who had migrated to Egypt from Aramaic
districts of Samaria, Certainly as early as the sixth century b. c Ara
maic was understood throughout Assyria and Babylonia proper, and
was doubtless the official language of communication.
After the fall of Jerusalem in 586 Nebuchadnezzar set himself to
subdue Tyre. The siege lasted from 585 to 572, and apparently even

LECTURE II 29
at the end of this long time the island city was still unsubdued. Eze
kiel, who in 586 or 585 had expected the speedy ruin of Tyre (Ezek.
XX vi), declared in 571 that since Nebuchadnezzar had had 'no wages, nor
his army, from Tyre, for the service that he had served against it ', he
should have Egypt by way of compensation (chap. xxix. 17-20). A
fragment of one of Nebuchadnezzar's inscriptions describes him as at
war with Egypt in his thirty-seventh year (568-7 b. c).
Nebuchadnezzar died in 561, and was succeeded by his son Amel-
Marduk (Evil-merodach), who after a reign of two years was murdered
by his brother-in-law Nergal-sharezer (Neriglissar). In 556 the latter
was succeeded by his son Labashi-Marduk, whose nobles murdered
him nine months later, and placed on the throne Nabunaid (Nabonidus),
the son of Nabubalatshu-ikbi.
Meanwhile the Medes were rapidly increasing their power. Phraortes,
their king, carried out successfully campaigns against Armenia and
Cappadocia, and also waged war for five years against the kingdom
of Lydia. A great battle against the Ly dians having been inter
rupted by a total eclipse of the sun on May 28, 585 b. c, Nebuchad
nezzar, who throughout his reign maintained friendly relations with
the Medes, and the King of Cilicia acted as arbiters. Phraortes died
in 585, and was succeeded by Astyages, whose empire included Anshan
(an Elamite province with Susa for capital), of which Cyrus was
a vassal prince. In 553, the third year of Nabonidus, a revolt took
place in the Median empire against Astyages, whereupon the Persians
under Cyrus revolted. About 551 Astyages was betrayed to Cyrus,
who imprisoned him and sacked his capital Ecbatana. Cyrus thus
succeeded to the throne of Media, and united the Medes and the
Persians (i.e. Elam), or rather made the Persian portion of the Median
empire, which had been subordinate, the more important.
Almost immediately after the overthrow of Astyages Cyrus was
called to the north-west. Croesus, King of Lydia, having invaded
Cappadocia, and thereby violated the treaty of 585, Cyrus advanced
into Lydia, and took Sardis. Leaving his general Harpagus to com
plete the subjection of Lydia and the Ionian cities, Cyrus returned
home, and spent the next few years in consolidating his rule in Persia.
The conquest of Lydia had broken up a triple alliance between Lydia,
Babylon, and Egypt, and in 539 Cyrus set himself to subdue the second
of these powers. Nabonidus had alienated his Babylonian subjects,
and his kingdom was weakened by internal dissensions. Belsharusur
(Belshazzar), who was in command of the army, met Cyrus, but was
defeated, and at the same time northern Babylonia revolted. Thereupon
Sippar and Babylon opened their gates to Cyrus without resistance.

30 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
These events are apparently referred to in each of the two great
divisions of the book of Isaiah, though the drastic revision to which
the book has been subjected at a later date makes it difficult to deter
mine the original form of the prophecies. Chap, xiii contains a pre
diction of Babylon's ruin at the hands of the Medes combined with
a description of the Day of the Lord belonging to a later date, and
chap, xiv contains a md,shdl in which the poet gloats over the fall of
the King of Babylon.
Prom which section of the Jewish people did these prophecies ema
nate ? They contain several points of similarity with Jer. 1, Ii, but
chap, xiv in some respects also resembles Ezekiel. It is not neces
sary, however, to suppose any actual acquaintance on the part of the
author with Ezekiel's prophecies. And since Ezekiel was of full age
when he was taken into captivity, it may be that many of the phrases
which he uses were already current in Judah in the days of Jehoiakim.
There is therefore no difficulty in supposing that these prophecies in
their original form were composed in Palestine.
In Isa. xxi. 1-10 (though the passage has not come down to us
in its original form) we have the words of a Palestinian prophet who
is anxious for the fate of the Jews in Babylon when the city shall be
given up to the soldiers of the conqueror. A barbarous foe, apparently
identified in ver. 2 with Elam and Media, is advancing to plunder Baby
lon. The city is unprepared and is given up to feasting. Finally, the
news comes of the fall of Babylon, but the prophet is unable to draw
from it any consolation for his oppressed people.
The downfall of Babylon, which is the subject of the prophecies just
mentioned, is dealt with again, and in some respects more definitely,
in chaps, xl ff. Unfortunately the literary criticism of these chapters
shows that they are extraordinarily complex, and it is no easy matter,
if indeed it is possible, to sort out the various passages accordino-
to their several authors. Nowhere has the hand of the editor done
such drastic work, and it is much easier to analyse than to reconstruct.
Many indeed will be loth to believe that chapters of which the present
effect is so beautiful can be a mere mosaic of fragments. The story of
the Flood, however, in the book of Genesis is an illustration of the
manner in which original documents could be rent asunder and recom-
bined ; and if such recombination is possible in narrative, how much
more must it have been possible in passages containing but few defi
nite historical allusions, and dwelling mainly on Israel's reasons for
keeping faith in Jehovah. In Isa. xl-xlviii we read of the coming
of Cyrus, of its effect on the world in general and on the Jews in
particular, of the helplessness of the Babylonian idols, and of the

LECTURE II 31
greatness and wisdom of Jehovah ; but these subjects are treated in
fragments, undated and anonymous, which moreover are arranged in
no discoverable order, and with them are combined other passages,
apparently much later, which seem to have been primarily intended
to encourage the Jewish Church in a struggle against the heathen.
It is obvious that in the case of mere fragments it is difficult with
any certainty to fix either the exact date or place of their composition,
and it is therefore not surprising that these chapters, made up as they
are of fragments, have been variously ascribed both to Babylonian and
to Palestinian prophets. Probably both views are to some extent true.
That certain portions of these chapters are probably Palestinian will
be shown later, but there is good reason for believing that at any rate
some portions were composed in Babylonia.
Thus in the opening words of chap, xl, the prophet, whoever he may
be, exhorts his hearers to comfort God's people, who, as the context
shows, are the people of Jerusalem and, presumably, its neighbourhood.
Since those who are bidden to give the comfort are obviously not the
same as those who are comforted, it is reasonable to suppose that we
have here an address to the Babylonian section of the Jewish Church —
the section, that is to say, which stood in the closest relation with the
coming of Cyrus — in which its members are bidden to comfort desolate
Judah with the thought that at last her absent children will be re
stored to her. Associated with this prophecy we have (chap. xl. 9-11)
a fragment of another similar prophecy, in which the Church in Baby
lon, personified as a woman, is exhorted to get up into a high moun
tain (perhaps having journeyed back by the road which Jehovah has
ordered to be made ready for Himself and His people), and thence
to proclaim to the cities of Judah the advent of Jehovah.
From the calm joy of xl. 1-11 as contrasted with (for example)
xlvi. 1, 2, xlvii, xliv. 24-xlv. 7, in which victory over Babylon by force
of arms seems to be contemplated, it may perhaps be inferred that it
was composed when Babylon had opened its gates to Cyrus ; possibly
when the proclamation of Cyrus authorizing the restoration of the
gods to their shrines and of captive populations to their homes had
caused the Jews to hope that a similar clemency was to be extended
to them.
Probably to this period should be assigned also the composition of
the prophecy in Isa. Ixi. 1 ft'., which in its original connexion appears
to have been a soliloquy put into the mouth of Cyrus.^ Apart from
' The original reference to Cyrus is made probable by the fact that the speaker
claims (Ixi. 1) to have been anointed by Jehovah, and in xiv. 1 Cyrus is
called Jehovah's anointed. The only other alternative, if the passage belongs

32 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
its historical meaning and its use by our Lord (St. Luke iv. 18, 19)
the passage possesses an interest for us in the fact that it is apparently
referred to by Ben Sira (Ecclus. xlviii. 24) as part of the book of Isaiah.
Verse 7 also is perhaps quoted in Zech. ix. 12.
Other portions of these chapters are, however, composed in a differ
ent strain, and show that before the actual coming of Cyrus to Babylon
there was a certain amount of anxiety among the Babylonian Jews as
to their fate. This, as we have seen, is implied in chap, xxi, and it
may perhaps be inferred also from a fragmentary verse (xlviii. 20), in
which the Jews are exhorted to flee from Babylon, apparently in order
that they may not be overwhelmed in its ruin. Whether this frag
ment is Babylonian or Palestinian it is impossible to say with cer-
tainty.i Similarly such passages as xli. 1-7, xlvi, xlvii, probably
Babylonian in origin, appear to have been composed at a time when it
was expected that Cyrus would treat Babylonia as the Chaldaeans had
treated Judah. So also the section xliv. 24-xlv. 7, though in it Cyrus
is hailed as conqueror and as the deliverer of the Jews, seems to anti
cipate a certain amount of opposition to him — opposition, however,
which will be overborne by Jehovah.
Whether the hopes which were based on the coming of Cyrus found
any realization is extremely doubtful. The discovery of the Cylinder
inscription of Cyrus makes it clear that this king was by no means
a monotheist, as he is represented in Ezra i, and there is no evidence
that he gave permission to all the transported populations within his
dominions to return to their original homes. He only mentions in this
connexion Asshur and Susa, Agade, the land of Eshnunak (Umliash),
Zamban, Me-Turnu, and DCir-ilu to the border of Qutu, the districts
on the banks of the Tigris.^ In fact, after the wholesale transporta
tions which had been carried out by kings of Assyria and Babylonia
within the two centuries preceding Cyrus's capture of Babylon, a general
return of all the exiles in the empire to their several homes would have
caused a ferment in Western Asia the end of which no one would have
been able to foresee. It was Cyrus's policy to gain the goodwill of
Assyria proper and Babylon, for he doubtless considered that, having
gained this, he would be strong enough to suppress any risings in other
to this period, is to suppose that a prophet is the speaker ; but it is difficult to
believe that an anointed prophet would be anonymous. The anointing of a
prophet is mentioned in 1 Kings xix. 16, and is apparently implied in Ps. cv. 15.
^ This verse bears a strong resemblance to Zech. ii. 6, 7. Unfortunately,
however, the latter passage is also fragmentary, and it is doubtful whether it is
in its right context.
'^ See Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light ofthe Historical Records of Assyria
and Babylonia, p. 422.

LECTURE II 33
portions of his dominions. The story of his giving back the Jews'
sacred vessels is directly at variance with the statement of 2 Kings
xxiv. 13 — a statement which is not likely to have been invented by
any one who had heard the story of Cyrus as given in Ezra i — and
from Hag. ii. 6-8 it is a fair inference that in the second year of
Darius there was little or no gold or silver in the Temple at Jerusalem.
Moreover, Haggai and Zechariah consistently refer to the Persian
empire in terms which show that they regard the King of Persia as
the oppressor, not as the deliverer. It is also difficult to explain why, if
free permission was given to the Jews in the first year of Cyrus (when
the recollection of their Judaean homes must have been still fresh in
the memories of many), such a vast number, and they, as the subse
quent history shows, zealous for the faith of their fathers, preferred
to remain behind in Babylonia. It is safe to conclude that in the
book of Ezra we have the inference which a later Jew drew from the
reference to Cyrus in the book of Isaiah, combined, perhaps, with
some hazy knowledge of Cyrus's proclamation known to us from the
Cylinder inscription. There is no evidence that the conquests of
Cyrus made any immediate difference in the fortunes of the Jews.
Cyrus died about 529 b.c, and was succeeded by his son Cambyses,
who in the fourth year of his reign invaded Egypt, which he entirely
subdued. This invasion had momentous consequences for the Egyp
tian Jews. At Elephantine, where there was a large Jewish colony,
a temple where sacrifices were offered to Jehovah was built at this
time, and it seems to be suggested that it was the invasion of Cam
byses which thwarted the opposition which the Egyptian priests had
made to its building. In this way the worship of Jehovah, albeit
worship of a kind which would hardly have been approved in Jeru
salem, was being maintained in Egypt as well as in Babylonia.
Cambyses was succeeded in 522 b.c by Darius I, who adopted
a liberal conciliatory policy towards the subject states of his empire.
To the Jews he showed his favour by appointing as governor of Judah
a prince of the Judaean royal family named Zerubbabel.^ This
policy, it is true, may have been due more to a desire to keep the Jews
loyal amid the wide-spread revolts which occurred at the beginning of
the reign of Darius than from any particular goodwill towards them.
It is remarkable that neither Haggai nor Zechariah shows any grati
tude to Darius ; while both prophets apparently hope for great things
from the revolts in the east.
The appointment of Zerubbabel raised high hopes in the Jewish
' That it was Darius I, and not Darius II, who appointed Zerubbabel appears
certain from Zech. i. 12. l3

34 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
community, which, however, were not to be realized. It is probable
that Zerubbabel had inherited something of the old temper of the
house of David, against which Isaiah and Jeremiah had contended in
vain. It would seem that a scheme for fortifying Jerusalem, earnestly
deprecated by the prophet Zechariah, aroused the suspicion of the
Samaritans, who at this time acknowledged Jerusalem as the one
legitimate sanctuary, and that they accused the governor of dis
loyalty to Darius. At any rate we hear no more of Zerubbabel, and
the experiment of appointing a Jewish prince appears not to have
been repeated.
To some extent, no doubt, the appointment of Zerubbabel must
have brought the Babylonian Jews into closer touch with their Judaean
brethren. It was not, however, till the latter half of the next
century, under Nehemiah, that the unification of the two was accom
plished, and then only at the cost of the Samaritan schism.
For some sixty years or so after the completion of the Temple the
tension between Jews and Samaritans continually increased, culmi
nating about 460-455 b.c. in an attack on Jerusalem by Samaritans,
Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites, who destroyed the wall which
had apparently been just completed, and wreaked their vengeance on
the city. For some few years Jerusalem lay at the mercy of its
enemies ; then came a sudden change in its fortunes. In 445 B.C.
a Jew named Nehemiah was appointed by Artaxerxes governor of
Judah, and about this time, though the exact year cannot be decided,
there was an invasion of the countries bordering on the wilderness by
Arabs, or at all events by people from the desert. Such invasions
were not a new thing, for early in the sixth century Ezekiel had
anticipated disaster to Ammon, Moab, and Edom from this direction ;
there is, however, no evidence that these nations suffered any serious
calamity in this way till the days of Malachi, that is, about the time
of Nehemiah.' Then indeed Edom, whose treacherous attack on them
the Jews never forgave, was harried and left desolate, and it is
probable that Moab suffered about the same time. To this period
may be assigned the original composition of Isa. xv and xvi and
perhaps xxi. 11 ff. For the foe who devastates Moab comes first
upon Ar (by the Arnon), then upon Dibon (some four miles north of
the Arnon), then upon Nebo in the north of Moab, and upon Medeba
(some four or five miles south-east of Nebo). Thence the invaders
' It is not perhaps absolutely certain that the Dip ''ja, 'children ofthe east,'
are, strictly speaking, Arabs : they may be of Aramaean stock. At any rate
they were Bedouin from the wilderness. The invaders of Edom, however, are
not called fflj? 'ja and appear to have come from the south.

LECTURE II 35
advance to Heshbon (five or six miles north-east of Nebo), thence
to Nimrim in the north-west of Moab. Since the route of the enemy
is from the south or south-east to the north or north-west, it is obvious
that the Chaldaeans cannot be intended, but invaders from the wil
derness. Chap, xvi, the text of which, however, is very mutilated,
apparently belongs in its original form to the same date. It has, how
ever, been re-edited at a much later date, when there again seemed
to be a likelihood of the utter ruin of Moab (cf. ver. 13 : ' This is
the word that the Lord spake concerning Moab in time past. But
now,' etc.).
For a century after the time when Nehemiah published the amal
gamated law in Jerusalem, i.e. from 433-333 b.c, the history is nearly
a blank. We are unable to fix precisely the date of the Samaritan
schism, though, since it occurred during the governorship of Nehemiah,
it was presumably within twenty years of the publication of the law.'
The only other events, so far as the Jews are concerned, of which we
have any knowledge are the appeal of the Elephantine Jews to Jeru
salem about 411 B.C. for help to rebuild their temple, and the quarrel
between the High Priest and his brother, which Bagoas, who had
apparently succeeded Nehemiah as governor of Judah, made an excuse
for levying a tax on the sacrifices at Jerusalem. The period generally
appears to have been otherwise uneventful. The fact that Samaria
had severed its connexion with Jerusalem, and that Nehemiah had
quarrelled with the surrounding nations, makes it improbable that
Judah was involved in the risings which took place in the days of
Artaxerxes Ochus.
The reign of Artaxerxes Ochus, it is true, is believed by many to
furnish a clue to the composition of at least many elements in
Isa. xxiv-xxvii. Thus, to quote from a recent expositor, the Rev. G. H.
Box ^ says : ' The most satisfactory solution, from every point of view,
is that of Cheyne. This scholar assigns the Apocalypse to the latter
years of the Persian period, when the Persian Empire was desolated
by war, and was in the throes of dissolution (350-330 b.c). During
this gloomy time Judah must have suffered much from the collision of
Persian and Egyptian forces. " The frequent passage of large Persian
armies was itself a calamity for the Jews, and once, if not twice, the Jews
appear to have been concerned in a revolt against Persia. Cruelly was
their rebellion punished by the able but unscrupulous Artaxerxes
Ochus " (Cheyne, Introduction, p. 155 f ). The gloomy description in
' Joseph us, who brings the schism into connexion with the conquest of Palestine
by Alexander the Great, is very hazy in his chronology of all this period.
^ The Book of Isaiah, p. 113.

36 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
27'°' " refers to Jerusalem as it was soon after 347 b. c, after Arta
xerxes, having reconquered Egypt, and destroyed Sidon, had wreaked
his vengeance on the Jews for their share in the general rebellion.
The songs of praise which the Jews in far countries raise in honour of
Jahveh, referred to in 24"~'*% were probably the result of Alexander
the Great's victorious march through Asia Minor in 334 b, c This
will mark the terminus ad quern for the date of the composition of the
Apocalypse proper. The date of the other pieces is probably some
what later. Alexander's great victory at Issus has intervened. Cheyne,
therefore, plausibly dates them circa 332 b.c'''
But though there may have been some small risings among the Jews
when Persian oppression was particularly galling, it must be confessed
that the Jews' relations with their immediate neighbours from the
time of Nehemiah onwards do not favour the supposition that the
Jews took part in a general vising. It is noteworthy that those Psalms
which have sometimes been assigned to this period ^ represent the sur
rounding nations (Ammonites, Moabites, etc.) as hostile to the Jews,
not as allies, and the reference to Moab in Isaiah xxv. 10 ff. implies
a similar point of view. Moreover, Judah need not necessarily have
suffered from the passage of Persian or Egyptian armies, for the route
of these would naturally be through the Philistine plain. Finally, the
similarity of thought in these chapters to that found in late Psalms
and in Zech. ix-xiv is a strong argument in favour of a later date.
In 333 B, c Alexander the Great landed in the East and in the
following year he had made himself master of Coele-Syria and Pales
tine. Notwithstanding the description of his kingdom in Daniel vii
(which refers primarily to the extraordinary breaking up of old
boundaries and kingdoms by Alexander), there is no reason to
suppose that Judah suffered at his hands. Josephus, indeed, believed
the contrary, but Josephus's chronology at this period is so chaotic,
and his stories of the time just preceding the period ofthe Maccabees
are so incredible, that he may, for our present purpose, be left out of
account. Although, as we have seen, portions of the remarkable collection of
prophecies in chapters xxiv-xxvii are by some commentators assigned
to this period, there are grave difficulties in the way of accepting this
date for their composition. How, for example, could it have been said
in the days of Alexander that Jehovah had extended all the boun
daries ofthe land.? (xxvi. 15). This collection contains a number of
poetical fragments, but it is impossible to reduce it as a whole to any
1 G. H. Box, The Book of Isaiah, p. 113.
^ E. g. Pss. Ix, Ixxxiii.

LECTURE II 37
poetical system. It seems to be the work of a later writer, or
writers, who borrows freely, like the author of the book of Revelation,
from the older Scriptures, the style of which he attempts to imitate.
There are numerous parallels with the Psalms and also with the book
of Daniel.
It is, however, not improbable that we have one passage composed at
the time of Alexander's conquest of Palestine in the prophecy on Tyre
(ch. xxiii). Unfortunately the text is mutilated in some places beyond
restoration. It appears, however, that the poem was composed after
a defeat of Tyre so crushing that the ' Tarshish ships ' could no longer
find there a harbour. The only time of which we have any informa
tion, when these words would appear to be justified, is that of
Alexander the Great, who, having subdued Phoenicia with the excep
tion of Tyre, constructed a causeway to the island-city through the sea,
and took it in July 332 b.c A difficulty in referring the prophecy
to this date may, indeed, be found in the fact that Sidon is apparently
associated with Tyre (verses 4, 12), whereas Sidon had opened its
gates to Alexander. In some portions of the Old Testament, however,
Sidon seems to be used as the name of the country of which Tyre was
a chief city. Thus in 1 Kings v, Hiram is king of Tyre, but his
subjects are Sidonians.
If this view is correct, ver. 1 b (which is much mutilated) is a refer
ence to Alexander's coming from the land of Kittim (cf. Num. xxiv,
24, Dan. xi. 30, 1 Mace. i. 1). Then after a reference to the former
trade of Tyre in verses 2, 3, the poet bids Sidon be ashamed, inasmuch
as Tyre her greatest ornament is depopulated. The fall of Tyre is an
ill omen for Egypt, of which, as a matter of fact, Alexander became
master in 332 b.c'
The later addition to the prophecy of Tyre (verses 17, 18), like the
prophecy itself, is very obscure, and it is not easy to fix on a period
of seventy years when Tyre was ' forgotten '. Indeed, after its ruin
by Alexander, Tyre recovered its prosperity in a marvellous way.
Although it was to some extent transformed into an Hellenic city, a
large element, probably the majority of its population, was Phoenician.
' The coins of Tyfe . . . bear Phoenician legends alongside of Greek
legends and the heads of the Macedonian rulers. As late as the
Christian era there were many people in Tyre who did not even
understand Greek.' *
' N.B. The use of the term n'3V33 (ver. 8) favours a late origin. Similarly in
ver. 11, fy33 = Phoenicia, a usage quite different from that of Genesis. It is,
however, impossible from the existing text to establish any theory with certainty,
and the corruption is too deep to make emendation safe.
''¦ Bevan, The House of Seleucus, vol. i, p. 229.

38 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
It is noteworthy that ' Tyre strikes coins of Ptolemy with an era
dating from 275-274, that is, from about the time when hostilities'
(as between Ptolemy and Antiochus I) ' were opened in Syria,' ' and
that in 202 b.c. Antiochus the Great became master of Tyre, where
'Seleucid coins were struck as early as 112 aer. Sel. = 201-200 b.c"*
Perhaps in this period of seventy-three or seventy-two years when
Tyre was under the acknowledged dominion of the Ptolemies, we may
see an explanation of the ' seventy years ' of Isa. xxiii. 17, which is of
course a round number. Though the condition of Judaea under the
Ptolemies appears to have been far better than under Persian rule,
the Jews had little love for their Egyptian masters, and when after
the battle of the Panion in 198 b.c. Antiochus III took possession of
Palestine, he was hailed by many in Judaea as a deliverer. Perhaps
associations with the old Egyptian bondage in which their fathers
had been made to serve with rigour had something to do with the
Jewish dislike of Ptolemaic rule ; but the transportation of a number
of Jews to Egypt by Ptolemy Soter (if we may believe Josephus ^)
may well have embittered them. Moreover, the methods of men like
the sons of Tobiah — though we need not assume the truth of all that
Josephus relates — would not tend to make Egyptian government
popular. If then the Jews looked upon the time of Ptolemaic rule as one of
oppression, it would not be unnatural for them to represent Tyre
during the same period as 'forgotten'.* The conclusion of the
appendix to the prophecy on Tyre — ver. 18, which is probably sorae
what later than ver. 17 — belongs to the same period as Ps. Ixxxvii.
Though Jerusalem appears to have opened its gates to Alexander
the Great, his coming had not less momentous consequences for the
Jews than for Tyre. It had been the policy of Nehemiah— a policy
abundantly justified by the event — to isolate the Jews from all the
surrounding nations. For just one hundred years they had lived in a
sort of Ghetto-like isolation, becoming every year more devoted to
the Law, which was their peculiar glory, and raore completely
differentiated frora the other nations of the earth.^ Humanly speaking,
had it not been for this century of isolation, Judaism must have been
absorbed in Hellenism ; for Nehemiah had found it no easy task to
induce his people to keep the Law, and his work might have been
1 lb., p. 235. 2 lb., vol. ii, p. 32. = See Antiquities, xii. 1.
* By ' the days of one king ' we need not understand tbe life of one individual
king. The expression here means ' the period of one domination '.
" The result of this isolation becomes apparent in the Macedonian period.
While Samaritans, Edomites, and others gave up circumcision, and became more
or less Hellenized, the Jews alone clung to their ancestral customs.

LECTURE II 39
undone if Alexander had landed a centui-y earlier. The period from
433 to 332 B.C. was the time of Israel's tutelage, when the nation was
being prepared for the great work which God had chosen it to perform.
It is difficult for us adequately to realize the extraordinary change
which the coming of Alexander brought about in the world ofthe Jews.
At his death in 323 b. c the old barriers had been broken down.
East and west and north and south the way was open, and it was for
the Jews to decide whether they would take advantage of it, or con
tinue the old hemmed-in life, vainly looking for the restoration of the
Hebrew monarchy, which, indeed, seemed as far off as ever. We may
well imagine that the prospect of a freer mingling with the nations of
the world after so long a period of isolation would be regarded by
many religious Jews with dread. Doubtless there were not a few who
argued that, if Nehemiah had laboured so earnestly to keep thera from
the contamination of Ashdod, he would have guarded them still more
rigorously from the pollution of Macedonia. Happily, however, there
were some in Judah who took a wider and a grander view. Imbued
with the teaching of the prophet Malachi as well as the older prophets,
they regarded Jehovah not as the God of Judah only, but also of the
whole world. Frora the peculiar relation of Judah to Jehovah which
their fathers had taught, and they themselves believed, they drew the
lesson Noblesse oblige. Judah had been chosen ajid called by Jehovah
not for Judah's sake alone, but for the sake of the whole world. In
other words, Judah was to be to the world what the great prophets
had been to Judah. It is to this period in all probability that the
coraposition of the book of Jonah is to be assigned — that great allegory
of Israel's mission, with its marvellous philanthropy and equally mar
vellous faith — a book which may probably be regarded as representing
the dawning of Judah's consciousness of its missionary responsibilities.
It is true that it is difficult, if not impossible, to fix precisely the date
of an idea. That which strikes us to-day as having the force of
novelty may have been familiar enough to our forebears. But if we
may argue from such literature as we are able to date with tolerable
certainty, we may reasonably maintain that there has not been
preserved to us any passage of undoubtedly earlier date than the book
of Jonah which embodies this missionary spirit in Judah.
But at this stage, before passing on to consider the remaining
prophecies contained in the book of Isaiah, it will be well for us to
attempt to gain some idea of the growth of the book. In the course
of the present lecture we have observed that prophecies as late as, or
later than, the time of Cyrus are not confined to the second great sec
tion (chaps, xl-lxvi), as might have been expected, but are found in the

40 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
first section also ; and therefore, since the well-marked division of the
book into two main sections is not due to chronological arrangement,
we must look to some other consideration for an explanation of it.
From the reference to Isaiah in Ecclus. xlviii. 22 ff. it may be regarded
as certain that in the time of Ben Sira (200-180 b. c) there existed a
book bearing the name of Isaiah which contained portions of each of
the two great sections ; and inasmuch as the prophecy which is now
read, in Ixi. 1 and which in its original form we have assigned to the
time of Cyrus, appears to be actually quoted by Ben Sira, it is
probable that this book contained also the other prophecies relating to
the coming of Cyrus. We have also observed that some of the
contents of this book appear to have originated in Palestine and others
in Babylonia. Under what circumstances, therefore, were these hetero
geneous elements combined into one book .''
To such a question various answers may be given, and, though one
may be more probable than another, there is little likelihood of our
being able to decide the matter with absolute certainty. It is
conceivable, perhaps, that the words of Isaiah the son of Amoz having
been first committed to writing in Babylonia by the successors of
Isaiah's original disciples, and there combined with a collection of
prophecies by an unknown prophet of the Captivity, the document so
composed was brought to Jerusalem in the time of Ezra, where it was
combined with certain prophecies composed in Palestine, in order to
bring the entire list of the prophetical books into harmony with
a conventional number. If, however, this was the case, it is difficult
to see why, for example, chaps, xiii, xiv, xxi. 1-10, which ex hypothesi
would have been added to the book after it had been brought to
Palestine, were not placed among the Cyrus prophecies.
Another more probable view is to suppose that the genuine words
of Isaiah the son of Amoz were written down in Palestine at some time
subsequent to Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem, and that
there were afterwards appended to this book later predictions by
Palestinian prophets relating to the downfall of Babylon because of
the parallelism between these and Isaiah's great prediction of the
downfall of Assyria. There raay have been at the tirae of this earlier
redaction some idea of assimilating the book of Isaiah to that of
Jeremiah which contained a number of prophecies against the nations ;
and if so, after prophecies against Assyria and Babylon it would have
seemed natural to add compositions directed against Moab, Edom, etc.
When at the coraing of Ezra the scriptures of the Babylonian Jews
(including the book of Ezekiel) were brought to Palestine, the small
anonymous collection of prophecies on the coming of Cyrus which had

LECTURE II 41
been composed in Babylonia was probably added to the Palestinian
book of Isaiah, which contained predictions of the downfall of
Babylon. Although there is no very obvious reason why the utterances
of the Babylonian Jewish prophet should not have been preserved as
a separate book, the words of Ben Sira may possibly furnish us with
a clue. Since in his great list of the famous men of Israel, after
mentioning by narae Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Ben Sira refers to
the rest of the canonical prophets as 'the twelve Prophets', it is
certainly not improbable that in his time the twelve minor Prophets
already formed one book. The phrase ' the twelve Prophets ' is
remarkable, for in the absence of any distinguishing epithet applied
to the prophets so enumerated one would naturally suppose the phrase
to refer to all the canonical prophets; just as by 'the twelve
Apostles ' we understand all the members of the original Apostolic
band. It must be confessed that the number twelve in this connexion
is somewhat suspicious, and it is difficult to avoid the inference that
its correspondence with the number of the tribes of Israel is not
a mere coincidence. We have no means of deciding exactly at what
date the first collection of prophetical books was made, but it is ex
tremely probable that within a generation after the publication of the
Law in 433 b. c the Jewish Church at Jerusalem made a more or less
authoritative collection of the Scriptures, which next to the Law it held
in the highest reverence. Now the conception of Israel as a com
raunity consisting of twelve tribes is, as Kosters has pointed out,'
peculiarly prominent in the account of the return from captivity
under Ezra, and it is observable also in some late insertions in the
book of Kings (e.g. 1 Kings xi. 29 ff., xviii. 31) which are pro
bably later than the Samaritan schism. But if during the Persian
period the prophets were reckoned as twelve in number, this enume
ration must have included the greater prophets, for some at least of
the minor prophets (e. g. Joel and Jonah, and perhaps Obadiah) are
almost certainly later than the coming of Alexander. We cannot tell
how the books were originally arranged, nor whether some now
considered separate were originally reckoned together. It is certainly
not impossible that Haggai and Zechariah originally formed one roll.
On this supposition the greater prophets will have been separated
from the rest when the recognition of later prophets (such as Joel and
Jonah) as canonical made it impossible in any other way to retain the
traditional number twelve.^
' Encyclopaedia Biblica, article Ej^ra, col. 1475.
° Similarly it is possible that the list of ' Judges ' has been determined by
a desire to make these twelve in number.

42 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
If then at the first formation of the canon of the Prophets, twelve
was fixed as the conventional number, the primary aim of a Hebrew
editor would be to arrange his documents in such a way as to produce
twelve books ; and if two of these documents, though of different
origin, were parallel in their teaching, he would have little scruple in
combining them into one book. On this hypothesis we can account for
the combination of Palestinian and Babylonian documents.
Further, if the nucleus of the first section of the book of Isaiah is
Palestinian, and the nucleus oi the second section Babylonian, we are
able to explain why the historical chapters were inserted between the
two sections. There was also a certain suitability in making the
prophecies of deliverance from Babylon follow the story of Isaiah's
prediction of the captivity.

LECTURE III
MODIFICATION OF THE ENLARGED BOOK OF ISAIAH DURIN
THE MACCABAEAN PERIOD, AND ADDITION TO IT OF
PROPHECIES RECENTLY COMPOSED
We have seen that the Biblical account of the migration to Egypt
frora Palestine during the sixth century b. c is confirmed by the
papyri, from which we learn that in southern Egypt as early as 525 b. c,
the immigrants had built a temple in which they offered sacrifices to
Yahu (Jehovah). The present lecturer has argued elsewhere ' frora
independent evidence that the book of Deuteronomy was not published
in Jerusalem till after the murder of Gedaliah, and there is good
reason for supposing that for some time neither the Jewish comraunity
in Babylon nor that in Egypt possessed any written law limiting
sacrifice to one sanctuary. The reason that the Babylonian Jews did
not, like their brethren in Egypt, build a temple to Jehovah in
Babylon is probably to be found in the fact that they had in their
midst the Zadokite priest Ezekiel, who had doubtless ministered in the
Temple at Jerusalem, and who looked both for the rebuilding of that
Temple and for the return from captivity. If we may suppose that
the compact between southern Samaria (i. e. the district of which
Bethel was the chief sanctuary) and Judah to raake Jerusalera the one
place of sacrifice for both districts ^ dates frora a time subsequent to
Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem, the law of Deuteronomy
which embodies and extends this compact raust be placed still later.
It is practically certain frora the book of Deuteronomy itself that the
law of the One Sanctuary was only extended gradually over those
districts which had originally belonged to the Kingdom of North
Israel : it would seem that first southern Samaria accepted it ; then
northern Samaria (i.e. the district of which Shechem would be the
chief sanctuary) ; then Galilee, to use the later name (i. e. the district
north of, and perhaps including, the great plain of Megiddo) ; finally
Gilead and Bashan beyond the Jordan. It is a fair inference from
Joshua xxi. 32, which undoubtedly presupposes Deut. xix, that
Kedesh in Naphtali and the surrounding district accepted the law of
the One Sanctuary in the sixth century b. c. If then Naphtali (i. e.
the district extending from near the later town of Tiberias up to the
^ See ' The Date of Deuteronomy ', Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1906.
^ See ' The Origin of the Aaronite Priesthood ', Journal of Theological Studies,
January, 1905.

44 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
northern limit of Palestine) received the Deuteronoraic law at this
time, it is reasonable to suppose that Zebulun (i. e. the district to the
south and south-west of Naphtali) did the same ; especially since of the
two districts Naphtali had borne to a greater extent than Zebulun
the brunt of Tiglath Pileser's invasion. The mention also of Golan in
Bashan (Joshua xxi. 27) and Ramoth in Gilead (ib. 38) as cities of
refuge proves that about the same time Bashan and Gilead accepted
the law of the One Sanctuary. In addition to these, Bezer (two railes
south-west of Dibon) in the tribe of Reuben, that is, in Moabite
territory, is described as a city of refuge in Deut. iv. 43, Joshua xx. 8 ;
but as it is not so described in the list of cities given in Joshua xxi, we
raay perhaps conclude that the Jewish population in Moab disap
pointed the hopes of the legislators (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 6).
But though the passages just referred to afford evidence that in the
sixth century b. c there existed in these outlying districts of the Holy
Land an Israelitish (to use a coraprehensive term) population more or
less loyal to the Deuteronoraic law, which would therefore be likely to
accept in 433 the law published by Nehemiah, it would certainly be
a great mistake to suppose that the population of these districts as
a whole was Israelitish in the same degree as the population of Judaea
or even of Samaria. Even apart from the colonists whom the kings of
Assyria had introduced from various parts of their vast empire, Ara
maeans from Coele-Syria and Damascus had for centuries been pour
ing into Bashan, Gilead, and Galilee. It must not be forgotten that
Nehemiah sought to purify Judah from foreign influences not only by
making Judah loyal to the Law, but also by expelling the foreigners —
(cf. Neh. xiii). But though Nehemiah could carry his point with
a high hand in Judah, where he was governor, he could not carry out
so drastic a policy in Galilee and beyond the Jordan. The result was
that in these districts the Jews, that is to say, those who accepted the
Jewish law, were probably but a minority in a heathen population.
It is likely that Zebulun and Naphtali might have been fittingly
described as ' the circuit of the nations ' (D^isn ?V?)-
What was the effect on these districts of the Samaritan schism .''
Unfortunately of direct evidence there is none ; but it is probable
that the schism affected only the province of Samaria, not the district
to the north of it, nor yet the region beyond Jordan. Some slight
indication of the religious condition of the non-Judaean portions of
Palestine may perhaps be found in the account given in 2 Chron. xxx
of the Passover in the reign of Hezekiah. The Chronicler's statements,
where they are not borne out by other evidence, cannot always indeed
be accepted as authoritative history for the period with which they

LECTURE III 45
ostensibly deal ; for throughout his work the Chronicler ascribes to the
past the conditions of his own time. It is, however, noteworthy that
he represents as coming to Jerusalem to keep the Passover people from
Asher (under which name he probably includes also Naphtali, which lay
immediately to the east), Manasseh (i. e. perhaps, the part of Manasseh
beyond Jordan, but possibly northern Samaria), and Zebulun ; while
later on in the same chapter (ver. 18) he speaks of some coming also
from Ephraim (i.e. from Samaria). We may therefore conclude that
the Chronicler, who, be it remembered, had a perfect horror of the
Samaritan dissenters, whom he regarded as quite beyond the pale of
Judaism, considered that many loyal Jews were to be found in the
districts to the north and east of the province of Samaria, and — what
is far more remarkable — some in Samaria itself.
This description of the Chronicler's, though we may hesitate to ac
cept it as historically correct for the tirae of Hezekiah, probably gives
a fairly accurate view of Palestine during the third century b. c. It is
certainly likely that under Macedonian and Ptolemaic rule the Jews of
the outlying districts were brought into closer touch with Jerusalem.
For some time after the Samaritan schism, indeed, when the Jews of
Judaea were at feud with all their immediate neighbours, it is not im
probable that their co-religionists in Gilead, Bashan, and Galilee found
it no easy matter to keep the feasts at Jerusalem : but during the
first century and a half of Greek rule the influence of Judah and
Jerusalera with the suzerain power appears to have increased, and it
is probable that in the High-priesthood of Simon the son of Oniah,
Jews from Galilee, Bashan, and Gilead could go up to the Temple at
Jerusalem without let or hindrance.
We have no information as to the institution of synagogues, but
we hear from Ezekiel that the elders of Israel were wont to assemble
in his house, where he expounded to them the will of God ; and as early
as the time when the story of Elisha was written we hear of people
betaking themselves to the prophets on holy days (new moons and sab
baths). In gatherings such as these we may well see the germ from
which the synagogues developed ; and indeed it is likely that we can
actually point out the time when the development took place. In
Neheraiah viii we have a description of the publication of the law
(probably in the year 433 b. c) to a large concourse of people in
Jerusalem. Obviously, so complex a law could not have been learnt
by the people on that one occasion. When those who had heard it
read at Jerusalera returned to their horaes, many a question must have
cropped up which they would feel unable to answer without a careful
exposition of the Law with reference to the present contingency. Con-

46 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
sidering the earnest efforts of Nehemiah and his supporters to make
the Law a reality to the Jews, we cannot but conclude that provision
was made for their regular instruction. Thus the institution of syna
gogues was the natural consequence of the work of Ezra and Nehemiah,
The meetings at the houses of the prophets would become as a matter
of course meetings for instruction in the Law,
But if in the meetings to hear the prophets we may see the germ
from which the synagogues developed, we must recognize that with this
development the old order changed, and gave place to something
altogether new. The gift of prophecy did not necessarily carry with it
a knowledge of the written tora ; when, therefore, the written tora had
been canonized, the prophet of necessity gave place to the scribe, that
is to say, the literatus, the doctor, the raan trained in the interpretation
of that which had been made the authoritative rule of life. Not that
the prophets as a class disappeared all at once. Zechariah xiii. 2-6
is evidence that an order of men calling themselves prophets, and
wearing the old prophetic dress, existed as late as the second century
B.C. There is no reason for regarding these men as mere imitators
of an order that had long passed away. For even in the golden age
of prophecy the words of the canonical prophets show conclusively that
the majority of the prophets were unworthy of respect. It is sometimes
objected by Jewish scholars that the denunciations ofthe Pharisees in
the Gospels are altogether unjust. It must, however, be remembered
that these denunciations are no sterner than those which we find the
canonical prophets uttering against members of their own order. In
fact, if we did not know that such men as, for example, Isaiah had
accepted the title oiprophet,\ve should be likely to conclude from a peru
sal of their words that prophet and hypocrite were synonymous terms.
When therefore the oral teaching as to the will of Jehovah gave place
to a written law, and the true prophet — the man who aimed at teaching
his people faithfully the true will of Jehovah — gave place to the expo
nent of the written Scripture — in a word, when the place of the true
prophets had been taken by the scribes, there remained as prophets
only men of the type that Micah had held up to scorn. There were
fools to be duped in the fifth, the fourth, the third, the second, centuries
before Christ as there had been in the eighth, and as there are in this
twentieth century of the Christian era. Men of the type that in the
days of Micah had prophesied for a dinner ' five hundred years after
Micah's death still wore the hairy garment to deceive. Thus it
came about that in the days in which the latest passages of the Old
Testament were composed, those who had a great message to deliver to
' See Mic. iii.

LECTURE III 47
their people no longer preached by word of mouth in the Temple courts
or in the streets of Jerusalem. Had they done so, they could have
collected an audience of the riff-raff of Jerusalem, but not those whose
hearing they wanted to gain. Accordingly they put their message
into the riiouth of one of the saints of old — Job, Daniel, Enoch. The
author of the book of Job is surely not less truly a prophet than Isaiah
himself; but it was the institution of synagogues which indirectly
decided the form in which his message was delivered.
We may, then, take it for granted that at the time when the Jews
exchanged the rule of Darius for that of Alexander, synagogues were
a recognized institution in all parts of Palestine, and that they existed
also in Babylonia. Whether they existed in Egypt at this date is
doubtful. In 411 b.c the Jews of Upper Egypt apparently had not
yet received the Law which had been published in Jerusalera in 433 ;
and since the High Priest of Jerusalem had taken no notice of their
communication to him, it is probable that they were regarded by
their brethren in Judah with little favour. If the statement of
Josephus ' is to be believed that about 320 b. c Ptolemy transferred
a number of Jews from Jerusalem and Judaea, and also from Samaria,
to Alexandria, and other places in Egypt, we may well believe that
under their influence the Egyptian Jews would be brought to some
extent into line with their Palestinian brethren. In any case, how
ever, during the Ptolemaic rule, Judaean and Egyptian Jews would
be brought into contact, and the Church of Jerusalem would naturally
desire to win over the latter. No doubt it would require a good
deal of persuasion to induce those who had been in the habit of sacri
ficing to Jehovah in Egypt to regard Jerusalem as the only legi
timate place of sacrifice, and without a written law to appeal to, it
would be impossible. Since Hebrew was not understood in Egypt,
except perhaps by sorae of those who had been most recently trans
ported thither, the original text of the Law was in Egypt a sealed
book. The Egyptian Jews, therefore, could only be brought into
line with their orthodox brethren by receiving the Law in their own
vernacular. It is probable that to this exigency the real origin of the
translation known as the Septuagint is due. It may well have been
the case that, when the translation was made, it occasioned interest in
circles other than the Jewish community ; but we raay feel pretty sure
that the original motive, in making the translation, was not literary,
not antiquarian, but a desire to supply the religious needs of Jews
who in their ignorance of the Law were as sheep without a shepherd.
It is certainly difficult to believe that the Jewish community in
' Antiquities, bk. xii, cliap. i .

48 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
Egypt would have been content to accept as a Bible a translation
which had originally been made only to give completeness to a library
founded by a heathen king.
The Septuagint translation, that is, the Pentateuch, doubtless did
for the Egyptian Jews what the publication of the Law by Ezra
and Neheraiah had done for the Jews of Judah and Babylonia. In
433 B. c, by the amalgamation of the Babylonian and Palestinian
Jewish law, two of the three separate sections of the Jews were
brought into religious unity ; by the translation of this amalgamated
law into Greek this unity was extended to the third section also.
If this view of the origin of the Alexandrine version is correct, and
it was only in the third century b.c that the law of the One Sanctuary
was at all generally recognized in Egypt, it is only reasonable to
suppose that a considerable time would elapse before the Egyptian
Jews as a whole accepted the Law with the whole-hearted loyalty of
their brethren elsewhere. We can thus explain how it was that
Oniah, when he built a temple at Leontopolis,' could find at least
a good deal of support among Egyptian Jews ; while from Zech. xiv.
18 we may perhaps infer that as late as the second century B.C. the
attitude of Egyptian Jews towards Jerusalera still left something to
be desired, though the threat may be aimed directly at the temple of
Leontopolis. It will thus be seen that in the third century b.c the position of
the Jewish Church in the world had enormously improved. True,
Judah proper— i.e. that portion of the country about Jerusalem of
which the population was predominantly Jewish — was a very small
province, probably considerably smaller than Cambridgeshire ; but its
capital Jerusalera was regarded as the religious metropolis of Judaism
by Jews in Gilead, Bashan, and Galilee, as well as in Babylonia and
Egypt, in fact wherever Jews had been transported by their foreign
rulers, or had settled in the way of business. Moreover, frora Ben Sira's
account of the great works which Simon carried out in Jerusalem (see
Ecclus. 1. 1-5) it is evident that at the end of the third century b.c
Jerusalem was no longer the poverty-stricken place which it had been
in the days of the prophet Haggai, or even in the time of Nehemiah.
Taxes, indeed, had to be paid to Egypt, and since the ways of oriental
tax-gatherers are seldom all that could be wished, no doubt the lot of
^ The schismatical action of Oniah is, on any view of the case, remarkable ;
but it may be that he interpreted the law of the One Sanctuary as meaning
merely that there could only be one legitimate place of .sacrifice in any portion
of the world. He may have argued that, Jerusalem being in the hands of the
heathen, another sanctuary must be built elsewhere.

LECTURE III 49
the Judaean peasant was frequently anything but a happy one. On
the other hand there were many wealthy and influential Jewish
families. The revenues of the Temple were enormous, and supported
a numerous priestly aristocracy of which the High Priest was the
head. The High Priest appears to have been the virtual, if not the
actual, ruler of Judah proper.
Of this small Jewish province Jerusalem was incomparably the most
important place. Within the boundaries of the district occupied
mainly by Jews there were few other towns of any importance, so that
some two hundred years before Christ the names Judah and .Jerusalem
virtually denoted country people and townspeople respectively. And
here we have a clue to the interpretation of the history of the great
struggle between Judaism and Hellenism. It had been the policy of
Alexander and his successors to found throughout the empire nominally
free cities after the Greek model. It was in the cities of Syria and
Palestine, therefore, that the results of the Macedonian conquest were
most evident. In the cities Greek was spoken by the educated classes,
and Greek ideas were everywhere forcing a way. In the country, on
the other hand, Greek influence was comparatively little felt. The
Judaean peasant who took the produce of his land to Jerusalem for
sale might hear Greek spoken, and see people wearing a strange and
new-fangled dress, but his own thought and conduct were no more
affected by what he heard and saw than the thought and conduct of
the country people who come in every Saturday to the Cambridge
market is directly affected by the University under whose shadow they
sell their butter and chickens and vegetables.
Under such circumstances it is not surprising that there should
have been a gradually widening rift between Jerusalem and the country
districts of Judah. Not, of course, that every one in Jerusalera was
equally bitten by Hellenism and every one in the country equally
opposed to it ; only that the dominant influence in Jerusalem was not
the same as the dominant influence in Judah.
Down to the days of Ben Sira, the High Priest appears to have kept
in check the more ardent Hellenizers in Israel. Hellenism, it is trUe,
had affected orthodox Judaism, but it had acted rather as a stimulus
to thought, which remained truly Jewish,' than as changing the
character of that thought.
The members of the conservative Jewish party, which, as we have
^ Thus the development of the ' wisdom ' literature which falls in this period
was no doubt stimulated by the presence of Greek philosophy, but it cannot be
too emphatically stated that the wisdom is Hebrew wisdom. Nowhere in the Old
Testament, unless it is in Ecclesiastes, are there any traces of Greek thought.
L 4

50 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
seen, was most strouglv represented in the country districts, came to
be called Hasidim (A.V. Assideans, R.V. Hasidaeans).' We do not
know the origin of the name ; that is to say, whether those who were
so called had originally applied the name to theraselves, or whether it
was a nickname bestowed on them bv their opponents, and ultimately
accepted by them as an honourable title. In any case it denotes those
who specially insisted on the quality of hesed, piety.
It may be that the delight which the Jews felt at being freed from
Ptolemaic rule in 198 b. c. disposed them to look more favourably on
the Seleucid king, Antiochus III, than they had ever looked on the
Ptolemies ; and if so, it was but natural that they should be raore
open to Macedonian influences coraing through Antioch than to those
which had come to them through Egypt. Certainly from about this
time leaven of Hellenism was working rapidly in Jerusalem and among
the upper classes of Judah. One sign of the passing away of the old
order is to be found in the Greek names which we now find borne by
Jews. Thus in the reign of Seleucus I\' (187-176 b. c) we find a Jew
whose father bears the Hebrew name Tobijah with the Greek name
Hyrcanus,^ and Jeshua, the younger son of Simon the Just, takes the
name of Jason.*
Oniah the son of Simon, whom we find High Priest in the reign of
Seleucus IV, appears to have had little or no sympathy with the
HeUenizing movement, and accordingly, though he was reverenced by
the Hasidim, i. e. the poorer merabers of the community, he found no
support among the influential Jewish families. Even his own brother
Jeshua or Jason was an ardent Hellenizer.
The beginning of trouble, according to the account given in
2 Maccabees, was a quarrel between Oniah and a certain Benjamite
aristocrat named Simon ; in consequence of which the latter slandered
the High Priest to Seleucus, until Oniah, finding his position in
Jerusalem precarious, left the Holy City in order to represent his case
to Seleucus at Antioch.*
^ The spelling of the Greek 'Ao-iSalot suggests that the word was current in
Egypt in an Aramaic form, viz. Nl^On pi. K*1'Cn.
' 2 Mace. iii. 11. ' Josephus, Antiquities, bk. xii, chap, v, § 1.
* Since it is clear that the good shepherd of Zech. xi who feeds the flock of
slaughter (i. e. the Jewish people) for tbe sheep merchants (i. e. the Seleucid
kings, who were ready to sell to the highest bidder the High-priesthood and with
it the Jewish people) is the chief Jexcish ruler, it seems scarcely possible that any
one but Oniah can be intended. Unfortunately the passage has not come down
to us entire : there is a hiatus between ver. 7 and ver. 8, and again one between
ver . 8 a and ver. 8 6. ^'erse 9 probably refers to Oniah's determination to leave
Jerusalem, and ver. 12 to an appeal made by him to his flock for funds to enable

LECTURE III 51
So long as the High Priest, the head of the Jewish community,
was himself loyal to the law of his fathers, and remained to protect
his people, the Hellenizers, however much they might despise the
Hasidim, could not openly persecute thera ; but when the good
shepherd was taken away, evil days came upon the flock of the Lord.
In 176 B.C. Seleucus IV was murdered in a conspiracy formed against
hira by his ambitious minister Heliodorus. His elder son, Demetrius,
who at the time of his father's murder was about nine years old, was
then in Rome, whither he had been sent as a hostage. Another son,
an infant, was probably proclaimed king by Heliodorus.' Thereupon
Antiochus, the brother of the late king, who was living at Athens,
crossed over into Asia Minor, and with the help of Eumenes of Per-
garaos declared himself king of Syria. It was not long before he
succeeded in winning over the kingdom of his brother. The infant
son of Seleucus he contrived to have assassinated. The true heir to
the throne, however, was in Rome, safe frora Antiochus's clutches.
It was the policy of Antiochus IV, or, to give hira the name by
which he is iriore commonly known, Antiochus Epiphanes, to weld
together his heterogeneous empire, consisting of ' all peoples, nations,
and languages ', by encouraging everywhere the adoption of Hellenism.
It was no wonder therefore that under such a ruler the HeUenizing
party at Jerusalem began to assert themselves. At the beginning of
the reign of Antiochus (i.e. in 175 b.c) Jason, the brother of Oniah,
by the promise of a large sum of money induced ths King to appoint
him High Priest in place of his brother, who still remained at Antioch,
at the same tirae applying for perraission to remodel Jerusalem as
a Greek city. A gymnasiura was built there, and the young Jewish
aristocrats adopted Greek dress.
It is noteworthy that Jason and his faction, however far they may
h.ave been from showing themselves blameless as touching the righteous
ness which is in the Law, appear to have been guilty of no definite
act of apostasy. It is indeed related by the author of 2 Maccabees
that ' the envoys of .Jason to the games at Tyre were unwilling to
contribute to the sacrifice to Heracles, and obtained leave to divert
the money they carried to a secular purpose.' ^ But though neither
the gymnasium nor Greek dress in themselves constituted apostasy,
him to defend himself at Antioch. Oniah must have known that without money
his case was hopeless ; but the richer people in Jerusalem had little sympathy
for him, and the Hasidim had little money to bestow. The sum subscribed was so
small— it is compared to the amount specified by the Law (Exod. xxi. 32) as com
pensation for injury done to a slave— that Oniah indignantly repudiated it.
' See Bevan, House of Seleucus, vol. ii, p. 126. - Ibid., p. 170.

52 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
they exposed their votaries to temptation to apostasy — temptation to
which, as a matter of fact, many Jews yielded.' It must not be
forgotten that, save for the fact that his brother Oniah was still
living, Jason was the legitimate High Priest.
Jason did not long retain the High-priesthood which he had
obtained so unscrupulously. He was destined soon to find out that
the tools which he had used against his brother could be used against
himself Within three years, Menelaus, a Benjamite, the brother of
the Simon who had intrigued against Oniah, began to intrigue against
Jason. Antiochus was in need of money, and Menelaus, by promising
to pay to him a larger sum than Jason had paid, found little diffi
culty in getting himself appointed High Priest. The garrison which
Antiochus had in the citadel of Jerusalem made resistance on the part
of Jason hopeless. He was corapelled to flee to the country east of
the Jordan, and Menelaus reigned in his stead. As a Benjamite
Menelaus was, of course, quite ineligible for the High-priesthood, and
no doubt many whose sympathies were on the whole with the Hellen
izers were not prepared for so violent a breach of the Jewish law.
Fearing probably that his position would be insecure while Oniah
lived, Menelaus bribed Andronicus, whom Antiochus had left in
charge of affairs at Antioch, to murder him. The conduct of Mene
laus in the position which he had usurped was so outrageous, that in
all probability after the death of Oniah the Hasidim as well as the
more moderate of the Hellenizers gave their sympathy to Jason.
Inasmuch, however, as Menelaus had been appointed by Antiochus,
it was easy to represent any opposition to him as disloyalty to the
King. For some time, however, there was no open revolt.
In 170-169 B.C. war broke out between Antiochus and his young
nephew, Ptolemy Philometor, King of Egypt. The regents Eulaeus
and Lenaeus, in whose hands was the government, were confident of
recovering Coele-Syria for Egypt. Antiochus, however, met the
Egyptian army near Pelusium, and utterly defeated it, and shortly
afterwards the j'oung King Ptolemy, who had attempted to escape,
was captured by Syrians, and fell into the hands of Antiochus.
Thereupon the people of Alexandria made king the youngest brother
of Ptolemy Philometor with the surname Euergetes. At the beginning
of the war, Antiochus had not been the aggressor, but the turn of
events had now given him a pretext for the invasion of Egypt. He
represented himself as the champion of the rightful king, Ptolemy
Philometor, against his usurping brother, and as such found a con-
1 See 1 Mace. i. 15.

LECTURE III 53
siderable amount of support among the Egyptians. He seized
Pelusium, and was soon master of all lower Egypt except Alexandria,
' The seat of the rival government for which Ptolemy Philometor was
to serve as figure-head ' ' was fixed at Memphis. In a short time
Antiochus had begun the siege of Alexandria, and a general panic
prevailed. It is in all probability to this period that we should assign the
prophecy in Isa. xix, 1-15. It must be remembered that the Jews
had no love for the Ptolemaic rule, and that they had welcomed
Antiochus III a.s a deliverer. Antiochus Epiphanes had as yet shed
no blood in Jerusalera. He was not held responsible for the raurder
of Oniah ; ^ and if he had favoured the Hellenizers, and put into the
High-priesthood a man unqualified for the office, there was no reason
to suppose that a Ptolemy would in such respects prove a better
ruler, especially since the Sons of Tobiah, the chief supporters of
Menelaus, had in the old days been supporters of Ptolemaic rule.
The dread of passing again under the Egyptian yoke must have been
dissipated by the news of Antiochus's victory over the Egyptian army,
and it seemed as though Antiochus were the scourge in the hand of
the Lord to chastise the boastful Egyptian nation. We have a refer
ence to the suddenness of Antiochus's attack on Egypt, and the panic
caused by it, in the words of ver. 1 : ' Behold, Jehovah rideth upon
a swift cloud, and cometh to Egypt ; and the idols of Egypt will be
moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt will melt in the
midst of it.' The conditions of things in Egypt after Antiochus's
seizure of Pelusium, when a state of civil war prevailed (Antiochus,
who represented Ptolemy Philometor, being opposed to Alexandria,
which had made Ptolemy Euergetes king), is clearly indicated in
ver. 2 : ' And I will incite Egypt against Egypt, and they will fight
one against his brother, and one against his friend ; city against city,
kingdom against kingdom,' In the 'hard master' (nE*!? D'J'lN) and the
' stern king ' (TV ^bo) into whose hand Egypt is to be given, there is
a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, who is described in the book of
Daniel (chap, viii, 23) as ' stern-faced ' (D'?? W), and in the Sibylline
Oracles (iii, 389, 390) as avrjp TTop<l)vper]v Xwinqv (¦nuip.ivo's apois,
aypios, aWobUrfs, c^Xoyo'eiy.^ In ver. 13 we may see a reference to Pelu
sium, for Zoan (i.e. Tanis, eight miles north-west of Pelusium) is used
(e.g. Ps. Ixxviii. 12, 43) as the name of the district in which Pelusium
stood ; and Noph is, of course, Memphis, where Antiochus fixed his
government. "The Egyptians had good cause to complain of their
1 House of Seleucus, vol. ii, p. 137. ^ 2 Mace. iv. 37
^ Quoted by Driver, Daniel, Camb. Bible for Schools, p. 98.

54 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
leaders who had brought matters to such a pass : ' those who were
the corner-stones of the tribes ' of Egypt had ' misled ' their people.'
For some unexplained reason Antiochus suddenly raised the siege
of Alexandria, and returned to Syria, retaining however a garrison in
Pelusium, and leaving Ptolemy Philometor reigning at Memphis in
opposition to his brother Ptolemy Euergetes, at Alexandria. But his
plans were upset by a reconciliation between the brothers, who, it was
arranged, were to reign as joint-kings. Antiochus had therefore no
excuse for the continued occupation of Egypt ; nevertheless he was
determined not to be baulked in his schemes. In the spring of 168 b. c.
he again invaded Egypt, but when he seemed to hold the country al
most in the hollow of his hand, he was suddenly compelled by the
intervention of Rome to evacuate it.
Meanwhile the storm which the writer of Isaiah xix. 1-15 had ex
pected to devastate Egypt broke upon Jerusalem. During Antiochus'.'s
campaign of 170-169 '^ a false report had reached Jason in the Am
monite country that the king was dead. Thereupon, having by some
means collected a band of one thousand men, Jason suddenly attacked
and took Jerusalem. Menelaus was compelled to take refuge in the
citadel, which was held by a garrison of Syrian troops. A large
number of his supporters, i. e. the party friendly to the Syrian govern
ment, were massacred by Jason. During the struggle between the
rival factions in Jerusalem a certain amount of injury appears to have
been done to the Temple, of which one, or more, of the gatehouses was
burnt.^ This attack on the nominee of Antiochus was not unnaturally
' The apocalyptic character of this prophecy, with its quotations from, and
implied references to, older passages of Scripture, is in harmony with a late
date. The figure of the drying up of the river (ver. 5) is employed to denote the
ruin of the nation, since the life of Egypt depended upon the Nile. Other
prophets (cf. xiii. 16 ; 1. 2) state generally Jehovah's power to dry up the sea.
The thought here is perhaps derived from the curse on the Nile in Exod.
vii. 14-21.
The text of this prophecy has certainly suffered to some extent. The form of
verses 115, 12n suggests that Pharaoh is directly addressed, and that the
passage should run : ' How sayest thou, O Pharaoh, I am the son of the wise,
the son of ancient kings ? ' (i. e. n's)"lS ^D^^j'l ^''N).
Tlie use of the name Pharaoh is no argumeilt against the date here assigned to
this prophecy, for ' in old Coptic (of the second century a. d.) the descendant of
Pr'-o is simply IIEPO "the king"' (Hastings' Dictionary qf the Bible, art.
Pharaoh, p. 819.)
Verses 16, 17 would seem to be an appendix to the prophecy though of much
the same date. The meaning is that so terribly will Jehovah have avenged the
wrong done by Egypt to the land of Judah, that to the Egyptians the very name
of Judah will be ominous of evil.
See House of Seleucus, vol. ii, p. 297, Appendix G.
' Cf. 1 Mace. iv. 38 ; 2 Mace. i. 8, viii. .33.

LECTURE III 55
regarded by the king as a revolt against his rule, and on his return
from Egypt he marched to Jerusalem to crush the rebellion, Jason
had already fled to the Ammonite territory, but the Holy City bore all
the brunt of Antiochus's wrath. For three days there n-as an indiscrimi
nate massacre by the Syrian soldiery, Antiochus, guided by Menelaus,
entered the Temple, which he stripped of its treasures.
After the collapse of his plans in Egypt, Antiochus again turned
his attention to Jerusalera, The story of what followed has been so
admirably told by Mr. E. R. Bevan that it cannot be given better
than in his own words.' ' Since Antiochus could no longer after 168
protect the Coele-Syrian province by holding any Egyptian territory,
its internal consolidation became imperative in the first degree. The
weak spot was Jerusalera. What the Seleucid court believed it saw
there was a loyal party, readily accepting the genial culture which
was to harmonize the kingdom, on the one hand, and on the other
a people perversely and dangerously solitary, resisting all efforts
to amalgaraate them with the general system, and only waiting the
appearance of a foreign invader to rebel. And on what ground did
this people maintain its obstinate isolation .-' On the ground of an
unlovely barbarian superstition. Very well : the religion of Jehovah
must be abolished. The Hellenization of Jerusalem must be made
perfect. If part of the population took up an attitude of irreconcil
able obstruction, they must be exterminated and their place filled by
Greek colonists.
'Apollonius, the commander of the Mysian mercenaries, was
charged with the first step of effecting a strong military occupation of
Jerusalem. His errand was concealed ; he went with a considerable
force, ostensibly in connexion with the tribute from southern Syria,
and seized Jerusalem by a coup de main. A fresh massacre, directed
probably by Menelaus and his adherents, cleared Jerusalem of the ob
noxious element. A new fortress of great strength was built on Mount
Zion, and a body of royal troops, " Macedonians," established in it to
dominate the city.
' But now came the second part of the process, the extinguishing of
the Jewish religion. It was siraple enough in Jerusalem itself.
Jehovah was identified with Zeus Olympius, and Zeus Olympius, it
would appear, with Antiochus. The ritual was altered in such a way
as to raake the breach with Judaism most absolute. A Greek altar —
the " Abomination of Desolation '' ^ — was erected upon the old Jewish
altar in the Teraple court, and swine sacrificed upon it. The High-
priest partook of the new sacrificial feasts, of the " broth of abominable
' House of Seleucus, vol. ii, p. 172 ff. '' 1 Maec. i. 54.

56 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
things". To partake was made the test of loyalty to the King. The
day of the King's birth was monthly celebrated with Greek rites.
A Dionysiac festival was introduced, when the population of Jerusalem
went in procession, crowned with ivy. That everything might conform
to the purest Hellenic type, the framing of the new institutions was
entrusted to one of the King's friends from Athens.'
'At the same tirae that the transformation was accomplished in
Jerusalem, the other temple built to Jehovah in Shechem, the religious
centre of the Samaritans, was constituted a temple of Zeus Xenios.
'To purge Jerusalem of all trace of Judaism was comparatively
easy ; it was another matter to master the country. In the country
villages and smaller towns of Judaea the royal officers met with in
stances of extreme resistance. Their instructions were to compel the
population to break with the old religion by taking part in the cere
monies of Hellenic worship, especially in eating the flesh of sacrificed
swine, and to punish even with death mothers who circumcised their
children. The books of which the Jews made so much were destroyed
if found, or disfigured by mocking scribbles, or defiled with unholy
broth.' These events are pretty clearly referred to in raore than one passage
of the book of Isaiah. Thus the section Ivi. 9 - Ivii. 13, which is to
a great extent an imitation of older prophecy,^ begins with a sarcastic
invitation to wild beasts to come and devour the flock of the Lord,
inasmuch as those who should act the part of sheep-dogs and shep
herds care only for their own ease and gain.^ And in consequence the
righteous man perishes, and none interposes to save him, and men of
piety (Heb. hesed, i. e. the Hasidim) are taken away, Jerusalem has
forsaken her true husband Jehovah, and has joined herself to a foreign
god. The offspring of this guilty union,* i. e, the HeUenizing Jews,
mock the Hasidim and ridicule them.^ A high and lofty raountain,
' Cf. 2 Maec. vi. 1.
^ It cannot be too strongly insisted upon that early phrases are no evidence
that the passage in which they occur was composed at an early date, as is proved
by a study of the Apocalypse of S. John, which abounds in quotations from, and
imitations of, the Old Testament.
^ For this denunciation of the shepherds compare Zech. xi. 15-17, which was
certainly composed about this time, and probably refers to Menelaus.
' Compare the use of the term ' bastard ' ("IIDD) in the nearly contemporary
passage Zech. ix. 6, which refers to the mixed population, half Philistine, half
Greek, of the Philistine cities.
° Verse 5 is apparently inserted here by an editor from another, probably
much older, prophecy. That it was not originally part of its present context is
proved by the fact that it is written in a different rhythm, and uses the word
D''!?! ill a different sense from that which it bears in ver. 4.

LECTURE III 57
i. e. Jerusalera, is the scene of this idolatrous worship.' Though the
doors and doorposts are inscribed with Jehovah's narae (cf Deut. vi. 9),
idolatrous symbols are in the background. Jerusalem has striven to
make herself attractive to the King (i.e. Antiochus Epiphanes) like
a woman who strives to increase her charms with choice scents,^ and
has sent embassies to heathen cities far off.^ Are the Jerusalem
people afraid of Antiochus Epiphanes, that they thus dissemble their
religion and profess to be Greek ?
Again in chapter Ixv we have a vehement denunciation of idolatrous
practices, most, if not all, of which are to be found on Greek soil.
Jehovah complains that He has revealed Himself in vain to people who
seek Him not ; people who sacrifice in gardens, and burn incense upon
bricks ; who sit araong the graves, and lodge in the secret places ; who
eat swine's flesh, and in whose vessels is broth of aborainable things ;
who say that they are holy, and must not be touched by those who
are not purified like themselves.* Now we know that there was at
Athens a cult of Aphrodite in the Gardens ('A(|>po8irrj iv kyittois), who
was worshipped in the north-west of the Acropolis •'' ; and that in the
enclosure sacred to this goddess certain mysteries were performed. It
is reasonable to see in the gardens mentioned in this chapter and also
in Ixvi. 17, i. 29 a reference to this cult.
The burning of incense or other sacrifice on bricks is rather difficult
to explain. A movable incense altar of terra cotta was found at Tell
Ta'annek (the Taanach of the Bible) a description of which has been
given by Professor Driver in his Schweich Lectures, 1908, pp. 84, 85 ;
but it is scarcely possible that the word '"'J?,'', which means properly
brick or tile, could be used to raean earthenware generally. But in
the Heroum of Olympia a small quadrangular altar was found, which
' The language of much of this passage seems to be an imitation of Ezek. xvi
^ The text here is not above suspicion, but this seems to be the meaning.
^ Compare 2 Mace. iv. 18-20.
* Instead of ^'ntyip, which is translated— though it cannot possibly bear
such a meaning—' t am holier than thou,' we must read "W^li^ ' I am holy '.
The final kaph of TTItrnp is probably only the first letter of the word '3 (' for "),
with which the next verse should begin. The suggestion that only the pointing
of the Masoretic text should be changed, so as to read the Pi el for the Kal, and
that the clause should be translated, ' for I should sanctify thee,' though made
by one of the greatest scholars of the last century, Robertson Smith, cannot be
accepted. The sense which he proposed to give to the clause would be expressed
in Hebrew by ia'"ni2*?"|S- ('« the purificatory rites performed in connexion
with the mysteries see Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion,
pp. 151 ff.
^ See Frazer, Pausanias' Description of Greece, vol. i, pp. 26, 40, vol. ii, p. 344 f. ;
Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, p. 132.

58 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
Professor J. G. Frazer describes as follows : ' ' It is forraed siraply of
hard earth mixed with ashes and charcoal, but is covered on the top
with a broad flat brick. The three visible sides ' (the fourth being
close to the wall) ' were coated with plaster and painted. The altar
rests on the ground without any steps ; its dimensions are as follows :
length -54 metre, breadth '38 metre, height '37 metre. That burnt
sacrifices were offered on the altar is clear from the marks of fire on
its top, as well as from the ashes and charcoal that were found.
On both sides were observed the traces of libations that had flowed
down here. The plaster on the front and sides had plainly been
often renewed, and as it exhibited traces of paintings and letters, the
German excavators had it peeled carefully off on the front. Thus
they discovered no less than twelve successive coats of plaster.
Alraost every coat had a leafy branch or two painted on it, the
stalks being coloured brown and the leaves green. . , , Moreover, on
each coat was painted in violet letters the word HPiiOP or HPI102
(" of the hero ") or HPi2£2N (" of the heroes "), Thus we learn that
the altar was sacred to a hero or heroes.^ '
The interest of the Heroum for our purpose lies in the fact that it
seems to have served as the model for the Philippeum, which was
begun by Philip of Macedon in 338 b.c, and corapleted by Alexander
the Great.^ Although no traces of any altar, brick or otherwise,
have been found in this building, the builders appear to have had
some special reason for preferring brick to stone. Pausanias indeed
states that it was built of baked bricks, but the present lecturer
is informed by his friend and colleague Mr. A. B. Cook, who first
called his attention to the brick altar in the Heroum, that it was in
reality built of stone w^hich was painted to repre.'ient brick. It must
not be forgotten that Antiochus Epiphanes before his accession had
been living at Athens, and 'had not only become an Athenian
citizen, but had even been elected to the chief magistracy (that of
orparrjyos e77i ra oirXa) '.* Further, in order ' that everything might
conform to the purest Hellenic type, the framing of the new institu
tions was entrusted to one of the king's friends from Athens'.'
Here, therefore, although raore light on the subject is desiderated,
we have an illustration of the ritual which so horrified the Hasidim,
viz. the burning of sacrifice on altars or hearths of brick, in defiance
of the law (Exod. xx. 25) which requires unhewn stone.
^ Pausaidas' Description of Greece, vol. iii, p. 579.
' See also Olympia, Die Ergebnisse, vol. ii.
¦* Frazer, op. oil., p. 622 seq. * Bevan, House of Seleucus, vol. ii, p. 126.
'' Bevan, op. cil., p. 173.

LECTURE III 59
The exact nature of the heathenish practices next mentioned is not
quite clear. It has been held that the special object of those 'who
sit in the graves and pass the night in the secret places ' was to get
inspired drearas (by incubatio) or, possibly, necromantic oracles.'
The context, however, seems to imply not mere ordinary necromancy
such as is prohibited in Deut. xviii. 11, but a mystery which would be
an integral part of some heathenish worship.
On the eating of swine's flesh (Ixv. 4) there is no need to dwell ;
for the books of Maccabees distinctly state that the Jews were
required to partake of such sacrifices, and it is well known that swine
were sacrificed by the Greeks.^
Further on in the same chapter we find another reference to foreign
superstitions which points in the same direction. 'Ye that forsake
the Lord, ' writes the prophet, ' that forget my holy mountain, that
prepare a table for Fortune (Gad, ^5), and that fill up mingled wine
unto Destiny (MSni, ^30).' By forgetfulness of Jehovah's holy mountain
we are probably to understand the ignoring of the Temple's claim to
be the only sanctuary by the erection of altars elsewhere.^ Now
'Gad is the name of an old Semitic god of fortune, mentioned
particularly in Aramaic inscriptions from Hauran and Palmyra,'*
who seems to have been worshipped in Palestine in early times (cf.
Joshua xi. 17, xii. 7, xiii. 5, xv. 37); and accordingly it has been
supposed that we have here a reference to some Aramaean cult. If
this were the case, however, we should expect Meni raentioned in the
parallel clause to be likewise the name of a Semitic deity, and of this
there is no evidence. It seems, therefore, more probable that we
should regard both Gad and MSnt as translations. Certainly, by those
who did not speak Greek, Baal was used as the equivalent of Zeus,^
and there is therefore no difficulty in supposing that Semitic
equivalents were found for the names of other Greek divinities. If
then Gad be regarded as a translation of a Greek name, there can be
little difficulty in identifying the original. The cult of Tvxt), Fortune,
was introduced into Syria in the Macedonian period. Antioch had
a temple of Tj^'xi, which possessed a representation of the goddess
seated upon a rock with the river Orontes at her feet.'' We have
evidence also of the existence of the same cult much nearer to
Jerusalem, e.g. in Philistia, where the HeUenizing policy of Antiochus
' Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, p. 366.
2 See Harrison, Prolegomena, p. 153 ; Frazer, Pausanias, vol. iii, p. 593
' See 1 Mace. i. 54. * Driver, The Book of Genesis, p. 274.
° A. A. Bevan, The Book of Daniel, p. 193.
" See Bevan, House of Seleucus, vol. i, p. 213 ; vol. ii, plate iv. 11.

60 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
Epiphanes seems to have raet with little or no opposition.' Thus
Gaza possessed a temple of Tvxr], and the name occurs also on coins
of Ashkelon.^
In the allusion to the spreading of a table and the filling up of
mixed wine Dr. Skinner sees a reference to the ^ lectisternia, well
known throughout the ancient world, in which a table was spread
furnished with meats and drinks, as a meal for the gods'." It is,
however, not improbable that we should here think rather of a table
altar,^ such as is actually found to T^x.') at Antioch.^
It is more difficult to decide what god or goddess is intended by
Meni C^B), translated in the Revised Version Destiny.'^ The word
would indeed be a natural translation of the Greek Moipa ; ' but even
assuming this to be correct, it yet remains doubtful whether Meni
denotes the same deity as Gad (according to the idiom known as com
plementary parallelism) or is distinct. In the earliest Greek litera
ture Moipa was regarded as single.* It is remarkable that Pindar
(quoted by Pausanias,, bk. viii, chap. xxvi. 3) regards Ti^xij as one of
the Moi/iat. According to Pausanias (bk. i, chap. xix. 2) an inscrip
tion on the statue of 'A<^po8iV?j kv K7;7;oi$ sets forth that Heavenly
Aphrodite is the eldest of the Fates.
Similarly in chap. Ixvi there are pretty clear indications that what
is denounced is the heathenish worship of the days of Menelaus.
The chapter consists of fragments composed at various times, but all
within thirty years of the desecration of the Temple. Unfortunately
the text of ver. 17 is somewhat mutilated, but there can be little
doubt that the gardens are to be explained in the same manner as in
' Cf. Zech. ix. 5 ff.
'^ Baethgen, Beitriige eur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte, pp. 66, 76-80.
' Skinner, Isaiah, vol. ii, p. 215.
* See Reisch in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopddie, vol. i, p. 1676.
^ See British Museum Catalogufe of Greek Coins, Galatia, S;c., plate xix. 9,
xxii. 2.
" This sense is implied, though not proved, by the subsequent words Tl'iDI
3'inp DrnS. The verb in tbe latter clause certainly seems to be used according
to the late, Aramaic, usage of 11313 found in Jon. ii. 1, iv. 6-8 ; Job vii. 3 ;
Dan. i. 5, 10, 11 ; 1 Chron. ix. 29 ; and perhaps Ps. Ixi. 8.
The difficulty of determining the meaning of Meni is increased by the fact that
we have no evidence elsewhere of the existence of the word either as a proper
name or as a common noun. This does not of course prove that such a noun did
not exist. Feminine names from the same root are found both in Arabic and
Aramaic, in the former as the name of a goddess, but this does not prove the
existence of a male deity either among the Hebrews or Aramaeans.
' The ordinary text of the LXX renders Ii (Gad) by dm/j-oviou and ^3D (Meni)
by Tvxri, but Field (Hcxapla, p. 561) gives some evidence of the I'everse order.
* See Roscher, Lexikon der Griechischen und Rljmischen Mythologie, art. Moira.

LECTURE III 61
Ixv. 3, and that the reference is to certain mysteries of which cere
monial purification was an important feature.' It would seem that
these mysteries involved the eating of certain things which to a Jew
were unclean ; for the prophet continues, ' eating swine's flesh, and
the abomination and the mouse.' It is not indeed actually stated
that the unclean food is eaten in heathen worship, but the context
seems to imply it. ' The dormouse (Glis esculentu.s), which the
Talmud mentions under the name N^3^ Nn33V (wild mouse) as a daintv
bit with epicures, was fattened, as is well known, by the Romans in
their glisaria,' ^ According to Maimonides the Harranians sacrificed
field mice.''
If, however, the other references to heathenism are correctly ex
plained of Greek customs, we must look for the eating of the mouse
in the Greek area. Here we naturally think of Apollo Smintheus, who
was worshipped at Alexandria Troas, and elsewhere. The present
lecturer is again indebted to his friend Mr. A. B. Cook for calling his
attention to a vase-painting,* which represents a young man, kneeling
apparently, on the Sioj; Kuibiov, the sacred fleece, stretching out his
right hand towards a mouse or rat. Apparently it is a representation
of some mystery.^ It is also noteworthy that in the collection of
Imhoof-Blumer," there is a silver drachraa of Alexander the Great,
the reverse of which shows Zeus enthroned, with an eagle in his right
hand, a sceptre in his left ; the symbol in the field before him being
a mouse. Silver staters of Nagidos struck about 374-333 b.c have as
obverse type Aphrodite enthroned, with a mouse as her attribute
beneath her throne. '^
The plight of the Hasidim seeraed desperate. Unfortunately, of
events, other than raartyrdoms, at and immediately following the
desecration of the Temple, we have no information. But three years
later the writer of 1 Maccabees (iv. 38) describes the condition of the
Temple as follows : ' And they saw the sanctuary laid desolate, and
the altar profaned, and the gates burned up, and shrubs growing in
' Cf . Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, passim.
' Delitzsch on this passage.
' Robertson Smith, Religion ofthe Semites, 2nd ed., p. 293.
* See C. Lenormant et J. de Witte, ^lite des Monuments ceramographiques, vol. ii,
p. 353, plate 104.
" For the eating in mysteries of creatures otherwise sacred or taboo see
Robertson Smith, Religion ofthe Semites, 2nd ed., p. 290 ff., and also Frazer,
Pausanias' s Description of Greece, vol. iii, p. 250.
' See Imhoof-Blumer und Otto Keller, Tier- und Pflansenlilder auf Miinzen und
Gemmen, p. 11, no. 6. plate 2. fig. 6.
' See British Museum Catalogue of Coins, Lycaonia, Sjc, p 113 f., plate xx, 1 ff.

62 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
the court as in a forest, or as on one ofthe mountains, and the priests'
chambers pulled down.' The description is remarkable, for, though
the plundering of the Temple is recorded in 1 Mace. i. 21 ff., the
previous account of Antiochus's doings at Jerusalem does not imply
that either the Temple itself or the buildings in its precincts had
been destroyed. Mr. E. R. Bevan comments on this description as
follows : ' ' Modern writers are apt to lose sight of something which
the ancient Jewish writers did all they could to cover with obhvion—
this HeUenizing Jewish community. It is one of the most interesting
facts which Niese's Kritik has brought out, that in representing
Jerusalem as desolate, and the Temple courts overgrown with wild
shrubs in 165, the writer of 1 Maccabees is intentionally raaking
a vacuum where really there was a Hellenistic population. The two
accounts of what happened to the Temple, (1) that it was given over
to heathen worship, (2) that it was forsaken, are in fact inconsistent.'
Here, however, Mr. Bevan appears to have read into the description
of the Temple more than the words necessarily imply.^ Thus the
statement that the sanctuary (a-j/lacrpa) was desolate (rjpr]p.iupivov) need
not be pressed to raean that the main buildings oi the Temple were in
actual ruins. Again, it is not said that wild shrubs were growing in
the Temple courts. The raost costly and beautiful trees or shrubs
would be altogether anathema to those who held fast by the law of
Deut. xvi. 21, and such people in describing a breach of this law
would be likely to use soraewhat exaggerated language. When an
opponent of harvest-festival decorations complains nowadays that
' the church is turned into a greengrocer's shop ', we do not take his
words too literally. Inasmuch as the writer of 1 Maccabees distinctly
states that only three years elapsed between the desecration of the
Temple and its re-dedication, we can scarcely suppose that he in
tended people to believe that in so short a time wild shrubs sprang
up in profusion on the top of a hill watered by so small a rainfall as
Jerusalem possesses. There is no difficulty in supposing that trees had
been planted by the Hellenizers and, possibly, that some of the very
gardens which are denounced in Isa. Ixv. 3 had been laid out in the
Temple courts. In like manner we need not suppose that the priests'
chambers had been left in ruins. They m>ay have been pulled down
to make room for something raore beautiful ; but to the Hasidim
there was no beauty in anything heathenish. That the Temple did
' House of Seleucus, vol. ii, p. 298 f. ^
^ Similarly in 1 Mace. iii. 45 the description of the desolation of Jerusalem,
which is a quotation from the older scriptures, is not to be taken quite literally.
The latter part of the verse indeed shows in what sense the first part must he
understood.

LECTURE III • 63
suffer at this time seems clear from Ps. Ixxiv. 4 ff.' ; for though un
fortunately the text of the Psalm is not very certain in places, ver. 7
makes it perfectly plain that some part of the sanctuary had been
burnt. Perhaps in ver. 5 f. there is a reference to the stripping off of
the Temple ornaraent mentioned in 1 Mace. i. 22. Now according to
2 Mace. i. 8 a gatehouse, apparently of the Temple, was burnt at
the revolt of Jason (fveTTv^inav rbv TivXava) : and in 2 Mace. viii. 33
we read of 'those that had set the sacred gatehouses (roi/j Upovs
¦nvX&vas) on fire '. It is unfortunately impossible from the uncertainty
of the text in 2 Mace. viii. 33 to say when the burning of these gate
houses took place ; " it raay, however, be regarded as certain that more
than one portion of the sacred enclosure had suffered from fire.
Here then we have a clue to the words which we now read in
Isaiah Ixiv. 10, 11 : 'The holy cities are become a wilderness, Zion
is become a wilderness, Jerusalera a desolation. Our holy and
beautiful house, ^ where our fathers praised thee, is burned with fire.'
The language of this passage is quite unsuitable to the time of
Nebuchadnezzar; we can hardly suppose that any one in his days
would have spoken of the cities of Judah as ' Jehovah's holy cities '.
It is indeed conceivable that the Temple suffered in the attack upon
Jerusalem implied in Neh. i. 3 ; but if so, Nehemiah's silence on the
subject is inexplicable.*
When Antiochus Epiphanes set up in the Temple the image of
Olympian Zeus, and placed on the great altar another altar on which
swine were sacrificed, for the first time in a period of eight hundred
years Jerusalem was left without a place of sacrifice to Jehovah.
Even after Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed the Temple, people had
continued to offer their sacrifices within the Teraple area. But now
there was no place in the whole world where they could worship
' For arguments for the Maccabaean date of this Psalm see Wellhausen's notes
in the Polychrome Bible.
' If the damage had been done at the time of Jason's revolt one would have
expected that it would have been repaired in Antiochus's reorganization of the
Temple. It must, however, be remembered that Antiochus was occupied else
where, and that Menelaus was not the man to lay out his own wealth on the
Temple. The damage may have been done wantonly by the agents of Antiochus
as the opposition to the work which they were carrying out increased.
^ The word ' house ' does not necessarily denote the Temple proper. Thus iu
Jer. xli. 5, the Temple enclosure is called the house of the Lord, though the
Temple itself was not standing.
* It is very questionable whether the very plain structure built by Zerubbabel
(cf. Hag. ii. 3), as it was in the days of Nehemiah, could have been described as
a ' beautiful house ' (nnKSri H"?). But in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes the
Temple had been greatly restored by Simon the son of Oniah (Ecclus. 1. 1 f.).

64 ' THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
after the ancient manner the God of their fathers. It was small
wonder if some people were perplexed as to what they ought to do.
Probably there were some who argued that the Law merely affirmed
the principle ofa single sanctuary and laid down no injunction as to
its situation. If during the forty years' wanderings the Lord's taber
nacle had been pitched now in this place, now in that ; if, before He
made Jerusalem the place of His feet. He had made His name to dwell
at Shiloh ; would not the Jewish Church be justified, it might be argued,
in building a Temple anywhere, provided that it built only one ?
Was it not the divinely chosen priesthood, and the divinely appointed
ritual that constituted the sanctuary rather than the locality .'' Might
not those who feared the Lord take refuge in Egypt or in sorae other
place beyond the clutches of Antiochus ? Had not Isaiah himself
declared that to Jehovah belonged the fullness of the whole earth ?
Of the intense yearning for sacrificial worship which was felt by
those who were deprived of it, we have a beautiful illustration in
Ps. Ixiii : ' O God, thou art my God ; earnestly will I seek thee : my
soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee, in a dry and weary
land where no water is.' '
There is evidence that some at least of the Jews did argue in the
way suggested above. For a younger Oniah (it cannot be determined
whose son he was) fled to Egypt, and under the patronage of Ptolemy
Philometor built a temple to Jehovah at Leontopolis in the nome of
Heliopolis. Josephus, who relates the story in three places (Wars
of the Jews, vii. 10 § 3 ; Antiquities, xii. 9 § 7, xiii. 3 § 1), places
the flight of Oniah in the lifetime of Antiochus, but after the
putting to death of Menelaus and the appointment of Alcimus !
Josephus is an untrustworthy guide in chronological matters, but it is
probable that Oniah went to Egypt while the Temple at Jerusalem
was still in the hands of the heathen. Josephus states (Ant. xiii. 3 § 3)
that Oniah had a following among priests and Levites as well as
among the laity.
But if there were some who thought that a temple might legitimately
be built and sacrifices offered to Jehovah in the land of Egypt, there
were others in Palestine who took a different view. To offer such
worship as Oniah and his party contemplated was in their eyes to
mistake the whole character of the religion of Israel, to lay stress on
the outward and visible signs of Israel's sacraments rather than on the
inward spiritual grace which in emergency could be independently
received. It is probable that in Ps. 1 we have a protest against the
project of building another temple which some of the perplexed
^ Cf. also Ps. xiii, xliii.

LECTURE III 65
Hasidim (note especially ver. 5) were inclined to favour. The
psalmist declares that God's saints need not fear that He will refuse
them on the score that they have ceased to sacrifice. What indeed is
sacrifice, that God should require it ? Will He eat the flesh of bulls,
or drink the blood of goats .^ And similarly in Isa. Ixvi. Ijff., in
words which set forth for all time an ideal of spiritual worship, the
prophet ranges himself on the side of the psalmist : ' Thus saith
the Lord, The heaven is ray throne, and the earth is my footstool :
what manner of house will ye build unto me ? and what place shall
be my rest ? For all these things hath mine hand made, and so all
these things came to be, saith the Lord : but to this man will I look,
even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth
at my word. He that killeth an ox is as he that slayeth a man ; he
that sacrificeth a lamb, as he that breaketh a dog's neck ; he that
offereth an oblation, as he that offereth swine's blood'; he thatburneth
frankincense, as he that blesseth an idol.' ^
Perhaps it was the temptation to the Hasidim to look to Egypt at
this time, either as a refuge or to furnish help against Antiochus,
which caused the modification and re-editing of the old prophecies
against Egypt contained in Isa. xxx, xxxi.
But if the faith of some failed, and they looked to Egypt for help,
this was not the case with the Hasidim as a whole. The words which
in Daniel iii. 17 are put into the mouth of Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abednego accurately represent the temper of the Hasidim : ' If our
God whom we serve be able to deliver us, from the burning fiery furnace
and from thy hand, O king, He will deliver us. But if not, be it
known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship
the golden image which thou hast set up.'
There is no power on earth that can compel a people with a faith
such as this. Death and torture availed nothing to make the Hasidim
eat of the King's meat or worship the image which he had set up.
For God's sake they were killed all the day long, they were accounted
as sheep for the slaughter. When they were attacked on the sabbath
day, they perished unresistingly rather than profane the sabbath.^
All their old ideas of retribution, of compensation to the righteous
before death,* were shattered by the stern logic of events, and yet they
were faithful. They were perplexed. They cried, as One still greater
' For swine's blood cf. Frazer, Pausanias' s Description of Greece, vol. iii,
pp. 277, 593.
^ Therefore the people against whom the prophet's protest is directed are 7iot
idolaters, but Jews with a perverse idea of worship.
» 1 Mace. ii. 29 ff. * Cf. e.g. Ecclus. xi. 25-28. L 5

66 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
cried in His agony; 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me ? ' They were mocked by their HeUenizing brethren, who hated
them and cast them out for Jehovah's name's sake ; who said ' Let the
Lord be glorified, that we may see your joy ' (Isaiah Ixvi. 5). They
were despised as fools, shunned as lepers ; they were made the off-
scouring of the world, a spectacle to angels and to men. But they
knew that they were the true Israel, the liOrd's chosen servant. The
Lord God had revealed himself to them, and they were not rebellious,
neither turned away backward. They gave their back to the smiters,
and their cheeks to thera that plucked off the hair : they hid not their
face frora shame and spitting. For they knew that the Lord Jehovah
would help them : therefore they were not confounded : therefore they
set their face like a flint, and knew that they would not be ashamed !'
'And the Lord saw that there was no man, and wondered that
there was none to interpose : therefore His own arm brought salvation
unto Him ; and His righteousness, it upheld Him.' ^
It is impossible within the limits of these lectures to dwell on the
events of the struggle.^ It must suffice to say that one family, the
sons of Mattathias, whom we know as the Maccabees or the Hasmo-
naeans, from the name of their family, raised the standard of revolt,
and exhorted the persecuted people to fight for their laws. It seemed
a hopeless enterprise, but a war in the East demanded the attention of
Antiochus, and he was unable to crush the rebellion. Within three
years of the desecration of the Temple, Lysias, the general who had
comraanded the king's forces in Judaea, was corapelled, probably owing
to the death of Antiochus, to come to terms with the insurgents, by
which they were allowed to take possession again of the Temple, and
were granted religious freedom. But the Hasraonaeans, having once
felt their power, were not disposed to be content with mere religious
freedom. Moreover, it was impossible that the Hasidim should accept
Menelaus, who still remained High Priest. Accordingly, the Hasrao
naeans, who had set their heart on obtaining independence, continued
the war. Whether they would have succeeded in their enterprise if the
Syrian government had been united, is very doubtful ; but during the
long struggle which ensued there were generally rival claimants to the
throne of Syria, and by throwing in their lot, now with one, now with
another, the Hasraonaeans were able continually to obtain fresh con
cessions. It is a remarkable testimony to the thoroughness of the work which
^ See chap. 1. 4ff. ^ Chap. lix. 16.
" The story is most admirably told in a popular form by Mr. E. R. Bevan in
his book, Jerusalem under the High Priests.

LECTURE III 67
had been done by Neheraiah in the fifth century b.c, that it was
araong the Jews alone of all the Palestinian nations that Hellenism
met with any serious opposition. In the Maccabaean period the larger
cities of Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Ammon appear to have possessed
a very considerable Greek eleraent side by side with the native
population ; and we may form some idea of the progress which
Hellenism had made from the statement that towards the end of the
second century the Edomites, who had originally been circumcised
like the Jews, were compelled by John Hyrcanus to accept circumcision.'
It is therefore not to be wondered at, if in the days of Antiochus
Epiphanes, when the process of Hellenization was going on rapidly,
the Jews dwelling in the non-Judaean cities of Palestine who refused
to conform were exposed to more or less active persecution at the
hands of their heathen neighbours.
As soon as the Hasraonaeans had got possession of the sanctuary
of Mount Sion, they deterrained to rescue these .Tews, and to take
vengeance on the heathen for the sufferings which they had inflicted on
them. Those who flattered themselves that Jehovah had been driven
from His land were now to discover that He was in His holy Temple.
There was ' a voice of tumult from the city, a voice from the Teraple,
a voice of the Lord that rendereth recompence to His enemies.' ^ In
Galilee, Gilead, Ammon, Moab,^ Edom, and Philistia the Maccabees
took frightful vengeance on those who had oppressed the Jews in their
midst. Campaigns against the Edomites are related in 1 Mace. v. 3,
65, and, although few details are given, we are able to form some idea
of the hori'ors which were perpetrated from the account of what the
Maccabees did in Gilead.*
In Isa. Ixiii. 1-6 we have a song of triumph composed apparently
' See Josephus Antiquities, xiii. 9. § 1. We need not, ot course, understand
this statement to mean that circumcision had altogether died out in Edom, or
that Hellenism had any strong hold on the Edomite peasantry ; only that,
whereas in the country districts of Judah Hellenism had encountered the
most determined resistance, in Edom and the other neighbouring nations it
was at all events tolerated. 'Where there was no opposition to the Hellen
ization that was being carried out in the cities, the agents of Antiochus would
not be likely to investigate inquisitorially the religion of the country people.
' Isa. Ixvi. 6.
" The details of the Moabite campaign are obscure, but Baean (1 Mace. v. 4 ff. ;
cf. 2 Mace. x. 18 ff.) is almost cei-tainly in Moab, even if the probable identifica
tion of it with Baal-Meon is rejected. See Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. Baal-Meon.
* The statement of 1 Mace. v. 28 that at Bosora in Gilead Judas ' took the
city, and slew all the males with the edge of the sword ' bears a suspicious
resemblance to the language of the Old Testament ; but there is no reason to
doubt that the slaughter was terrible.

68 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
at the tirae of one of these campaigns against Edom. The poet
represents Jehovah as returning from Edom with garments dyed
crimson in the blood of the Edomites.' It is to be noted that the
punishment which the Edomites have suffered has been inflicted by
the Jews alone. It is distinctly stated that none of the peoples had
a hand in it.^ We are therefore precluded from thinking of the Arab
invasion of Edom in the fifth century b.c Chap, xxxiv would seera to
have been suggested by the same events.
To about the same period we should probably assign the short
prophecy on Moab in xxv. 10 f. The author believes that when the
hand of the Lord rests upon Zion, Moab will be trodden under the
feet of the victorious Jews as straw is trodden under foot on the dung-
heap, and will be incapable of rising.^
In 152 B.C., Jonathan, who had been allowed by King Demetrius to
return to Jerusalem and to maintain a military force, was raade High
Priest by the rival king, Alexander Balas, who at the same time
ennobled him ; and two years later, after the defeat and death of
Demetrius, he was appointed by Alexander governor of Judaea. Some
two years later Demetrius II, the son of the former king of that name,
appeared in Syria to claim his kingdom, and Jonathan on behalf of
Alexander carried out a campaign against the Philistine cities which
had espoused the cause of Demetrius. The triumph of the Jews was
complete, and Jonathan was rewarded by having the city of Ekron
assigned to him as a private possession.
It is probable that these campaigns, of which that against Philistia
is almost certainly referred to in Zech. ix. 5-7, suggested the descrip
tion of the expansion of the Jewish dorainion which we find in Isa. xi,
14, coraposed, perhaps, some few years later : ' And they shall swoop
down upon the flank of the Philistines on the west ; together shall
they spoil the children of the east: they will put forth their hand
upon Edom and Moab ; and the children of Ammon will obey them.' *
^ The figure is suggested by the name Bozrah, which resembles the word for
vintage. " ' Of the peoples there was no man with me ' (ver. 3).
' Moab is not thought of as swimming, but as lying on the ground in the
attitude of a swimmer. A man who lies flat on his chest with arms and legs
extended, with the foot ofhis enemy planted on his back, is in the most helpless
position. The curious figure is, perhaps, derived ultimately from Mal. iv. 2,
where the i-ighteous are compared to fatted oxen (i.e. the most heavily treading
animals in Jerusalem in Malachi's day) who tread heavily (not ' gambol ') on the
wicked as on ashes. The figure of stall-fed (i.e. fatted) oxen may have
suggested the substitution of straw for ashes as well as the mention of the
dung-heap ; cf. Ps. Ixxxiii 10.
* Cf. Ps. Ixxxiii, Ix. 8 (= cviii. 9).

LECTURE III 69
On the death of Alexander Balas in 145 b. c. Jonathan came to
terms with Demetrius II, who, on consideration of the payment of
300 talents down, consented to make no further claira for tribute.
In a few months, however, the infant son of Alexander Balas, known
as Antiochus Dionysus, was proclaimed king by Tryphon, one of his
father's generals ; whereupon the Jews, deserting Demetrius, went
over to his side. Tryphon confirmed to Jonathan the honours which
had been conferred upon him by Alexander Balas, and at the same
time appointed his brother Simon governor of the whole district
' from the Ladder of Tyre to the borders of Egypt '.' Shortly after
wards Jonathan, acting for Antiochus, carried out successful campaigns
against the districts which remained loyal to Demetrius : we hear of
operations in Philistia, beyond the Jordan as far as Damascus, and
in Galilee. Suddenly, however, he was treacherously seized at Ptolemais
by Tryphon, who thought that he was becoming too powerful (c. 143
B. c). Simon, however, nothing daunted, strengthened the fortifica
tions of Jerusalera ; and seizing Joppa, which was already held by
a Jewish garrison, he expelled the native population, and replaced it
by Jews. It was an event which could not but stimulate the imagina
tion of Jewish patriots. The possession of a harbour on the Mediter
ranean suggested the extension of Jewish influence to the west ; the
time was coming when the isles would wait for Jehovah, and the ships
of Tarshish would bring back the dispersed of Israel laden with rich
offerings to the sanctuary of the Lord.^
Tryphon attempted an invasion of Judaea, but found it imprac
ticable. He, however, put Jonathan to death. Shortly afterwards
Ti-yphon murdered the infant king, Antiochus Dionysus, whereupon
Simon came to terms with Demetrius, who granted the Jeivs full
exemption from all taxes or tribute to the Syrian government. ' The
yoke of the heathen was taken away from Israel.' ^ In the following
year (142-141) Gezer was taken by Simon, and made a Jewish
stronghold ; and finally, the Syrian garrison, which had hitherto held
the citadel of Jerusalem, surrendered. On May 23, 141 b. c Simon
' entered into it with praise and palm branches, and with harps, and
with cymbals, and with \ iols, and with hymns, and with songs : because
a great enemy was destroyed out of Israel '.*
It had been a long struggle, and yet from one point of view it
might be described as very short. Almost at the beginning of the
affliction it had been shown by whose means the deliverance should
1 1 Mace. xi. 59. " Cf. Ix. 9, xiii. 4.
2 1 Mace. xiii. 41. * 1 Mace. xiii. 51.

70 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
come, Alraost before Judaea had travailed she had brought forth ;
almost before her pain came, she had been delivered of a man child.
The Jewish community, which had seemed in danger of utter exter
mination, had become a nation. An unheard-of thing had come to
pass ; a nation had been brought forth at once ; ' for as soon as Zion
travailed, she brought forth her children,' Jehovah had vindicated
his righteousness : ' Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring
forth.!* saith the Lord: shall I that cause to bring forth shut the
womb .'' saith thy God.' '
So marvellous were the successes which Simon and his brothers had
gained, that, though Simon was not of the high-priestly family,
'the Jews and the priests were well pleased that Simon should be
their leader and high priest ybr ever, until there should arise a faithful
prophet.' ^
No wonder that there was ecstatic joy in Jerusalem and Judaea as
well as in other districts of Palestine where the Jews had been op
pressed by the heathen. The old horror had passed away, and seemed
like a hideous dream in the morning sunlight. In future men would
'muse on the terror' of the past, and would scarcely believe their
eyes when they saw no more evidence of the presence of those who
had exacted the tribute paid to the foreign oppressor.^ Jehovah had,
as it seemed, swallowed up for ever death from war and persecution,
and He would wipe away tears frora off all faces, and the rebuke of
His people He would take away from off all the land.*
It is, in all probability, to this period that we must assign the
magnificent outburst of triumph in chap. ix. The land that was
sore afflicted had seen a great light : the Way of the Sea (i. e. the
Philistine plain, the plain of Sharon, and the coast to the north), the
district beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations, had been brought to
honour in that they were now to some extent occupied by Jews who
were free to worship God according to the law of Israel. It seemed
an earnest of a more complete restoration of the land of Israel. The
Lord had multiplied the exultation ; He had increased the joy : for
the yoke of the heathen was broken. Israel had travailed and had
brought forth a man child. The government had come upon his
back : he had proved himself a ' marvellous designer ' (J'JJi' xl?i),
a 'mighty warrior' (¦>i3? ???) ; his dynasty would be a permanent
one, a ' father in perpetuity ' (ny '3N) to Israel ; and to crown the
other blessings, war would give way to peace : the ruler of the future
would be a ' prince of peace ' (Di?B' lb').
» Isa. Ixvi. 7ff. ; cf. Ix. 22. ^ j ^^^^_ ^j^ ^^
» Cf. Isa. xxxiii, 18. ¦> Cf. xxv. 7.

LECTURE III 71
This view of the date of Isa. ix. 1-7 is made probable not only by
the fact that no other period is known to us to which every clause of
the prophecy is applicable, but also by an archaeological detail. In
describing the abolition of war and all associated with it the prophet
writes, according to the literal meaning of the Hebrew, 'For every
boot of noisily booted one, and garment rolled (? read ' stained ' i. e,
n^Nto for nbbiJO) in blood shall be made into a bonfire, into fuel of
fire.' The boots here contemplated are evidently those which make
a noise as the wearer walks, i. e. heavy nailed boots as distinct frora
the light shoes worn by orientals. Now high nailed boots were a
characteristic of the Macedonian soldiery, and were still worn by the
Syrian soldiers in the second centui-y b. c' In Theocritus, Id. xv. 6.
Gorgo the Syracusan is represented as exclairaing on the occasion of
a military procession in Alexandria, 'Everywhere military boots!'
(xpriTribes). Isaiah in speaking (v. 27) of the equipment of the
Assyrians uses the ordinary Hebrew word for shoe (hvi).^
The rule of Simon as a virtually independent prince raised the
hope of a complete restoration of the Kingdom. Already, probably
at the time of Jonathan's successes in Philistia, a Hebrew pi'ophet had
predicted that the Jews would have a king of their own : ' Rejoice
greatly, O daughter of Zion ; shout, O daughter of Jerusalera : be
hold, thy king will come unto thee : one just and victorious ; and
(withal) poor and riding upon an ass, yea on a choice he-ass the
foal of an ass."' This prediction now seemed likely to be fulfilled.
Those who had agonized under a foreign tyrant might now hope to
see 'a king in his beauty', and to 'behold a far stretching land',*
Now they might hope for a settled governraent founded in righteous
ness which would be a protection to the poor and helpless : ' Behold,
a king will reign in righteousness, and princes will rule in justice.
And one will be as a hiding place from the wind, and as a covert from
the tempest ; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great
rock in a weary land.' ^
We know that it is the will of our Heavenly Father to make perfect
through suffering. In the Jewish Church at the close of the Mac-
' See Darenberg and Saglio : Crepida, C'repidula, Kp-qms.
^ For a fuller discussion of the whole passage see the present lecturer's
article in the Journal qf Theological Studies, vol. vii, p. 321 ff.
' Zech. ix. 9. Note the future ' will come' (not 'cometh'). The looked-for
king is to be poor, i.e. poor in an official sense, he will belong to the Hasidim.
He is represented as riding not on a horse, the symbol of war, but as the
Judges of Israel rode in the days of old on the ass, the ordinary riding animal
of the country.
* Isa. xxxiii. 17. ^ Isa. xxxii. 1 f. ; cf. also xi. 1 ff.

72 THE SCHAVEICH LECTURES, 1909
cabaean struggle we see one fruit of its long discipline.' It has at
length learnt the meaning of martyrdom. Those who had once set
the Hasidim at nought now recognized their true greatness, and
perceived that they, and they alone, could rightly claim to be the true
Israel. It was not their own apostasy but that of their brethren
which had brought their sufferings upon them ; yet their brethren who
had opposed them, or had, at best, been passive spectators of their
sufferings, had been partakers in the benefits which by their constancy
they had won. In Isaiah Iii. 13 -liii we have, in all probability, the
meditation of Israel as a whole upon the sufferings of the Hasidim,
the true Church of Israel, Jehovah's true servant. The passage has,
indeed, been frequently understood to be an ideal description of the
means by which a coming deliverer will achieve the salvation of his
people ; but such an interpretation does violence to Hebrew graramar.
A careful study of the tenses of the verbs here used shows with absolute
certainty that the suffering of the Lord's servant is an accomplished fact,
and that this suffering has already issued in the deliverance of the
nation, frora which still further blessings are looked for in the future.
By their steadfastness in a tirae of apostasy the Hasidira had proved
theraselves to be the true Israel ; but further, it was owing to them
that the national existence of Israel was preserved, so that it could be
said of them in the days of Simon that they had been chosen as
Jehovah's servant ' to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the
preserved of Israel '.^ But this was not all ; when the yoke of the
heathen was taken away from Israel, there was opened up a prospect
of a wider Judaism, the influence of which would be seen throughout
the world. Hitherto it had been impossible for the Jews of the Dis
persion, whether in Egypt or in Assyria, i. e. the Seleucid empire,*
to come up to Jerusalem to keep the feasts. But now all such
difficulties would be a thing of the past. Jehovah, of whom it had been
said long before that He would have a highway through the desert
' This is true of the Church as a whole, but we must not, of course, imagine
that all the Jews were equally purified in the furnace of affliction . The utterances
of this period are not all equally in harmony with the spiritual teaching of the
book of Jonah. Tlie voice which speaks, for example, in Isa. Ixiii. Iff., and
which so often finds expression in the books of Maccabees, is not the same as that
which speaks in Isa. liii, which represents more truly the faith of those whose
martyrdom is described in 1 Mace. ii. 29 ff. It is doubtful whether for the
Maccabaean leaders themselves any virtue can be claimed except personal
courage and a certain amount of patriotism, largely mingled, however, if not
swallowed up, with personal ambition.
^ Isa. xlix. 6.
' For this use of Assyria (TIEJ'K), cf. Ezra vi. 22, Isa. xi. 16, xix. 23 ff.

LECTURE III 73
(xl. 3 ff), would dry up the tongue of the Egyptian Sea, and divide the
Euphrates into seven streams, so that men should go over dryshod.'
By the removal of physical obstacles we are, of course, to understand
the removal of political obstacles. It was felt that when there was no
longer any hindrance to worshipping the Lord in His Temple, the
teaching committed to Israel would have its perfect work : ' out of
Zion would go forth the law, and the word of the Lord frora Jerusa
lem.' ^ Then Jehovah's servant Israel, having raised up the tribes of
Jacob, would be a light to the Gentiles, and would bring Jehovah's
salvation to the end ofthe earth.*
In Zechariah xiv, a passage which was probably composed about
the time of Simon's High-priesthood, the stream of living water which
Ezekiel (xlvii) had described as flowing eastward from the Teraple to
the healing of the district east of it, is duplicated (ver. 8), so that it
flows not only eastward to the regeneration of the heathen world of
Asia, but also westward to the regeneration of the heathen world
which lay round the Mediterranean. The streara of living water is
the revelation committed to Israel. Perhaps, however, there were some
who contemplated the future missionary work of Israel with serious
misgivings, and thought that contact with heathenism involved danger
to Israel itself. It may be that they argued that if a river issued from
Jerusalem ships of heathenism might, so to speak, sail up to its source.
But the prophet to whom we owe the exquisite passage Isaiah xxxiii.
13-24 had no such fears. He declared that on the broad rivers and
streams of living water which would issue from Zion there would go
no galley with oars, neither would any warship sail thereby.* It was
felt that the peace of Jerusalem would be unbroken, for all nations
would recognize its pre-eminence. They would beat their swords into
plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks : nation would not lift
up sword against nation, neither would they learn war any more.'^
At the outset of the Maccabaean struggle, when the Jews were
opposed by the great empire of Antiochus, composed as it was of ' all
peoples, nations, and languages', it had seemed as though all the
nations of the world were gathered together to fight against Jeru
salem. This is the picture which is represented to us in Zech. xiv. 2.°
But in the High-priesthood of Simon the victory which the I-ord had
gained was believed to be final. Those who had fought against Hira
' Isa. xi. 15. ^ Isa. ii. 3. ' Isa. xlix. 6.
* This must not be understood to mean that there is here any direct reference
to Zech. xiv. The thought of this stream of water was probably common at
this period ; cf. Ps. xlvi. 4, Joel iii. 18.
5 Cf. ii. 2ff. " Cf. Joel iii. 11 ff.

74 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
and whose dead bodies lay unburied outside Jerusalem, slowly vanish
ing as worms and bonfires did their work, would never again, like
the bones in Ezekiel's vision, 'arise and stand upon their feet an
exceeding great army ', to imperil the name and the seed of Israel.
'Their worm would not die, neither would their fire be quenched,'
and those who assembled to worship in Jerusalem ' would recognize in
their destruction the final triumph of the Lord.^
We have seen that during the time that Palestine was subject to
Ptolemaic rule, when the Jewish colonies in Egypt were increased by
fresh migrations from Judaea, the Jews of Egypt were brought into
closer relations with their Palestinian brethren. These relations
were doubtless interrupted when the Seleucid kings of Syria gained
possession of Palestine. But when Judaea had become virtually
independent, it was hoped not only that the Jews of Egypt would
be able without let or hindrance to keep the feasts at Jerusalem, but
also that the Egyptians themselves would be converted, and would ac
company them ; * and that Egyptian opposition to Jehovah's people
would so entirely disappear, that Egypt would become to some extent
a Jewish colony speaking the Hebrew language.* There seemed
reason to hope indeed that Egypt would, so to speak, ha^¦e its Jeru
salem, and that, as the worship of the Temple had been brought into
thorough harmony with the Law, so Leontopolis, the place where
Oniah had established a schismatical Jewish worship, would in like
manner be raade to conform with the Law of the One Sanctuary.®
The altar built by Oniah need not be destroyed, but might be left —
like the altar built by the Reubenites, Gadites, and half the tribe of
Manasseh — as a witness in Egypt to the fact that Jehovah alone is
God.® Egypt indeed should be recognized as Jehovah's land, and
a pillar on the frontier should witness to the fact, as the pillars which
had once been set up on Mt. Ebal ^ witnessed to His being the God
1 Cf. XXV. 6. 2 Cf. Ixvi. 22-24.
^ Cf. Zech. xiv. 16-19. * Isa. xix. 18.
' The statement that ' one city shall be called the city of Piety ' (reading with
Prof. F. C. Burkitt, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. i. p. 568 f., lOn piety
for Din destruction) can only mean that one city in Egypt will conform to the
ideal of the Hasidim. This probably means that, as the Hasidim of Judaea had
reformed the worship of the Temple, so the Hasidim of Egypt would reform the
worship of Leontopolis.
* Cf. Joshua xxii.
' Cf. Deut. xxvii. It is probable that the prophet has in view the narratives
of Joshua xxii and Deut. xxvii. It is difficult to suppose that any section of
the Church at Jerusalem was prepared to tolerate sacrificial worship at Leonto
polis. Certainly all other passages insist in the strongest terms on the unique
character of Jerusalem.

LECTURE III 75
of Samaria. Finally Egypt and Assyria (i.e. the Seleucid empire),
being converted to the Lord by the Jews dwelling in their midst,
would be as blessed as Israel itself, ' for that the Lord of hosts had
blessed them, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the
work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.'
In the calra which for a while succeeded the storra, it seemed as if
the reign of war had come to an end, and the reign of peace had
begun. No longer would Jew oppress his brother Jew : Hellenizers
and Hasidim would live in peace together. ' The wolf and the lamb
would feed together, and the lion would eat straw like the ox.' ' No
longer would men live in constant fear of danger and oppression, of
which darkness is the natural symbol : ^ ' Thy sun shall no more go
down, neither shall thy moon withdraw itself : for the Lord shall be
thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.' *
Old things appeared to have passed away : all things had become new.
The Lord was creating, as it were, a new heaven and a new earth, an
earth which should be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters
cover the sea.
We have seen that the opposition to Hellenism came from the coun
try districts of Judah rather than from Jerusalem, and that the leader
of apostasy was the High Priest. Of the part taken by the inferior
clergy who ministered in the Temple at the time of its desecration we
have no information. No priests are mentioned among those who
suffered for their adherence to the Law,* and there is no indication that
either Jason, Menelaus or Alcimus encountered any opposition from
the clergy of the Teraple. We are told, indeed, that for the purifi
cation of the Teraple, Judas chose ' blaraeless priests such as had
pleasure in the law ;'® but these, like the faraily of Mattathias, raay
well have had their horaes outside Jerusalem. In any case Menelaus
and Alcimus, though they might find it expedient to conform to the
main essentials of the ritual law, were not the raen to feel any great
enthusiasm for the Scriptures which the Hasidim so dearly prized.
At the outset of the struggle an attempt had been made to destroy
aU copies of the Law ; » and, since we cannot suppose that the king's
officers would be likely to discriminate between the Law proper and
other sacred books, it is evident that there must have been a whole
sale destruction of all Scriptures and writings associated with them,
' Chap. Ixv. 26 ; cf. xi. 6. ' Cf. Zech. xiv. 6, 7. ' Chap. Ix. 20.
' Unless it be in 1 Mace. iii. 51. But the writer here is so obviously trying
to write in a scriptural strain, that his words are not very convincing.
= 1 Mace. iv. 42. " 1 Mace. i. 56 f .

76 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
It is probable that when the Temple was given up to the Maccabees
there were no whole copies of the Scriptures remaining in Jerusalera.
We read ' indeed of the opening of the book of the Law, but this is at
Mizpah, not Jerusalem.
Further it must be remembered that, although, in all probability,
the Temple had originally possessed copies of the Scriptures, it is
extremely unlikely that it had ever been a place for the study of the
Scriptures. It existed for sacrificial and ritual worship, not for
instruction. It was in the synagogues, and probably the synagogues
of the country towns and districts, that the scribes' influence was
paramount. It is therefore likely that the first efforts to replace the
Scriptures which had been so ruthlessly destroyed would be made, not
by the priests of Jerusalem, but by the scribes of the synagogues,
more especially the country synagogues.
But it is unlikely that even after the re-dedication of the Temple
the influence of the scribes was rauch felt at Jerusalera, at all events
for a considerable time. Neither Menelaus, who remained High
Priest, nor his successor Alcimus, was likely to further any attempt
to restore a very un-Hellenic Bible, and even the ' blameless priests '
chosen by Judas may have cared more for orthodox ritual than for
the more spiritual aspect of religion. There is no probability that
the scribes would have been able to influence Jerusalem before the
High-priesthood of Jonathan, and it is doubtful whether, at any rate
at first, Jonathan's appointment was acceptable to the Hasidim.
Those who had been willing to accept Alcimus on the ground that
he was a priest of the seed of Aaron '^ may have looked askance at
one who, though of priestly family, had no claim to the High-
priesthood, and was regarded as a soldier rather than as a priest.
At all events, we hear of no popular confirmation of Jonathan's
High-priesthood as in the case of Simon.*
But by the time of Simon's succession to the High-priesthood the
feelings of the majority of the Jewish nation had undergone a change.
Much which at the outset would have been opposed both by the
Hasidira and by the Hellenists seemed to have found justification in
the course of events. If the Hasidira did not find in Siraon all that
they could have desired, they could not shut their eyes to the fact
that he and his brothers had won for thera freedora to worship God,
and that his rule promised greater advantages to the nation than it
had enjoyed since the days of the kings. And in like manner, when
the nationalist movement among the Jews had been so successful that
Greek kings had been glad to come to terms with the Jewish leaders,
1 1 Mace. iii. 48. ^ 1 Mace. vii. 13, 14. ' 1 Mace. xiv. 41, 46.

LECTURE III 77
those who had once sought to escape frora a social stigma by the
adoption of Hellenism no longer had cause to be asharaed of their
nationality. Moreover, inasmuch as the national existence of the
Jews had been saved rather by the struggles of the inhabitants of
the country districts of Judah than by the action of the citizens
of Jerusalem, the former, who had once been despised as provincials,
now felt that they were on an equality with the latter. The Lord had
saved the horaes of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David
and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem might not be magnified
above Judah.'
And with the change in the position of the Hasidim there had come
a change in their attitude towards those who had opposed them. If
in the bitterness of the conflict they had prayed that the Hellenists
might be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written
with the righteous,- now they felt that repentance would atone for
all that was past : ' Let the wicked forsake his way, and the un
righteous man his thoughts : and let him return unto the Lord, and
he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abundantly
pardon.' *
It is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that in the High-
priesthood of Simon the scribes possessed a far greater influence than
for many years previously ; and that Jerusalem having turned ' to the
law and to the testimony ', there was a deraand in the Holy City for
copies of the Scriptures. It is certainly probable that, if such a demand
existed at this time, it could not be supplied from Jerusalera. Those
who had in view the redaction of an authoritative edition of the
Scriptures would be compelled to seek among the country synagogues
such manuscripts as had escaped the fury of the persecutors. There
would probably be few, if any, lohole copies of the Scriptures which
Ben Sira had known ; but together with the torn and mutilated rolls
which the synagogues had saved from the general destruction there
would doubtless be fragments of more recent date, psalms and hymns
and spiritual songs, utterances of despair or songs of victory, in which
the struggling people had poured out their souls to God. We cannot
tell from how wide an area manuscripts were gathered up ; * it may
be that GalUee as well as Judaea contributed its writings.
• Zech. xii. 7. ' Ps. Ixix. 28. ' Isa. Iv. 7.
* Some evidence of a composition, or at all events an editing, at a distance
from Jerusalem may be found inthe statement of Zech. xiv. 4, that the Mount
of Olives is ' before Jerusalem on the east '. Even if this be a gloss, which is
by no means certain, it is . gloss which no inhabitant of Jerusalem would be
likely to add.

78 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
In Ben Sira's great list of famous men of Israel it is said of Isaiah '
that ' he saw by an excellent spirit what should come to pass at the
last ; and he comforted them that mourned in Sion.' If, then, Isaiah
was honoured as the prophet of consolation, and as one who had
received special knowledge of ' what should come to pass at the
last ', it is little wonder that the scribes added to the collection of
prophecies which already bore Isaiah's name others which seemed to
be a worthy expression of his spirit. The Canon of the Prophets had
already been decided so far as the names and number of the prophetical
books were concerned, but not as to the contents of the books. As
it had been possible in the age following Nehemiah's reforms to add
to the words of Isaiah of Jerusalem the utterances of a Babylonian
Jewish prophet, so it was possible now to add to this great book of
consolation the utterances of some of those who were entitled to be
reckoned among Israel's greatest prophets, although they did not
claira any such title. It is, no doubt, impossible to deterraine pre
cisely what principles of arrangeraent guided the latest redactors,
though here and there we can, perhaps, discover their reasons for
placing a late passage with earlier corapositions. Thus, for example,
ix. 1-7 was probably placed in its present context because it seemed
a fitting sequel to the Immanuel prophecy. It is possible that the
various compositions in the section xxiv-xxvii had been collected into
one roll in a synagogue before they became the property of the Church
generally. How long the process of redaction lasted we cannot say,
but there is certainly no great difficulty in supposing that it may have
been finished in, or shortly after, the year 140 b. c^
We have seen that, so far as we are able to form any opinion frora
the scanty evidence available, the Jewish community in Egypt did
not in all probability possess the Law till the third century b.c,
when it was translated into Greek. It is certainly unlikely that the
prophetical books were known in Egypt at an earlier date than
the Law ; for the formation of the mufleus of the second portion
of the Hebrew Canon is probably to be regarded as the outcome of
1 Ecclus. xlviii. 22 ff.
^ It may perhaps be felt by some that the arguments adduced to support so
late a date for the book of Isaiah vvould have equal force in bringing down its
composition to a still later period. Thus it might be urged that John Hyrcanus
treated the Edomites more severely than Judas. But the inference which is
naturally drawn from the language of such passages as Ixiii. 4f. is that the
persecution of the Jews by the Edomites has continued unchecked until
Jehovah's great act of vengeance which the prophet here describes ; and this
inference, though it is in accordance with the time of Judas, does not suit the
time of John Hyrcanus.

LECTURE III 79
the work which the school of Ezra had accomplished in combining the
law of the Church of Palestine with that of the Jewish comraunity
in Babylonia. Even if Jewish irainigrants had taken with them to
Egypt copies of the earlier prophetical Scriptures, these must have
been in Hebrew, of which most Jews in Egypt seera to have had little
or no knowledge. Now inasrauch as in the days of Ben Sira there
appear to have been fifteen prophetical books (exclusive of those
which in the Jewish Canon are regarded as the Earlier Prophets) it
is, perhaps, not impossible that a translation of some of these books
may have been made at the same time as the translation of the Law.
But though we cannot say that such a translation was not made, there
is no evidence that it was. In the first place there can be no ques
tion that in the third century b. c. the Law had the pre-eminence
among the Scriptures in the Church of Palestine ; and in order
to carry out so great a reform as the imposition of the Law on the
.Jewish community in Egypt, the reformers would probably at first
content themselves with insisting only upon what they considered to
be essential. It is moreover evident from a study of the style of the
Septuagint translation that the version was not all completed at one
time.' Further, the position of the book of Daniel in the Greek
Bible is in itself a weighty arguraent against the supposition that the
Egyptian Jews received the Prophets with the Pentateuch. For if
the Jewish community in Egypt had already possessed the Canon of
the Prophets for a considerable length of time when the book of
Daniel was translated into Greek, it is extremely improbable that
this book, which the Palestinian Church placed on a lower level of
canonicity, would have been admitted into its present place. The
evidence, so far as it goes, points to the conclusion that the Jewish
Church in Egypt received the Scriptures, other than the Pentateuch,
piece-meal ; in much the same way as a modern Church planted in
a heathen country receives the Scriptures in instalments, as the
missionaries are able to translate them. Finally, the existence in the
Greek Canon of books which the Palestinian Church did not accept
as canonical leads us to the same conclusion. If, for exaraple, Ben
Sira's book was translated into Greek about the time that Greek
versions of the canonical Scriptures were being made, we can under
stand its reception into the Canon in Egypt.
We have seen that the book of Isaiah contains passages which may
have been composed as late as about 141 b.c, and therefore, if this
view be correct^ the Greek version of the book cannot have been made
' See Ryle, Canon oJ the Old Testament, p. 90.

80 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
before this date. We have now to inquire what is the latest date to
which it can be assigned. It is evident frora the Prologue to the
book of Ecclesiasticus that the translator believed his grandfather
Jesus to have been acquainted with ' the Law and the Prophets and
the other books of the Fathers ' ; which is a clear indication that he
himself was acquainted with a threefold division of the Canon, though
it does not prove, at all events in the case of the last division, that
the Canon was finally closed. We cannot, however, argue that the
author of the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus found the Law and the
Prophets and the other books mentioned by him all already trans
lated into Greek when he arrived in Egypt ; but only that transla
tions of them had been corapleted before his own version of his
grandfather's book was ready, which, it is implied, was some time,
perhaps a very considerable tirae, after his arrival in 132 b. c
There is therefore no reason for assuming that the translation of
the book of Isaiah into Greek was begun in Egypt before, at the
earliest, 132 b. c, and this would give ample time for the final
redaction of the Hebrew book. It is, however, possible, as Mr. Hart
has suggested,' that avy)(povl.n-as means ' I stayed in Egypt so long as
king Euergetes reigned ' ; which, if Euergetes be Euergetes II, brings
us down to the year 117 b. c
Mr. Hart, indeed, endeavours to identify Euergetes with Euergetes I,
understanding by 'the thirty-eighth year' the thirty-eighth year of
the preceding king, Ptolemy Philadelphus, who died before its com
pletion ; but his chief argument for this somewhat difficult interpreta
tion of the date is not altogether convincing. He maintains that
' unless the unanimous testimony of all known historians be set aside
as proceeding from a conspiracy of malicious liars, the conclusion, that
any sane Jew came to Egypt in this reign and was able to remain
there until he had rendered some Jewish book or books into Greek
is incredible '.^
But, as a raatter of fact, those who are coraraonly reputed sane, both
Jews and Gentiles, do not infrequently settle in places which appear
to offer little attraction and much danger. If Ptolemy Euergetes II
persecuted many Alexandrian Jews who had favoured his brother's
cause, we are not corapelled to believe that all Jews as such were in
danger even in Alexandria, There is no evidence that there was at
this time a general persecution of the Jews in Egypt : certainly all
the Jews were not turned out of Egypt, for the Temple at Leontopolis
continued down to the time of Josephus.* Mr. Hart indeed says, ' It is
^ Hart, Ecclesiasticus in Greek, p. 259. ^ Ibid., p. 254.
^ See Josephus, Wars of tlie Jews, book vii, chap. x. 2, 3.

LECTURE III 81
possible of course — all things are possible — that in some secluded
corner of Egypt the work of the translators of the Scripture went
forward aided by such recruits from Palestine, in spite, let us say, of
Ptolemy Philopator and now of Ptolemy Physcon ' ; ' but he adds,
'But our writer speaks of publishing the book, and this involves
a publicity which would have been disastrous.'
Yet books both Jewish and Christian have been published in tiraes
of persecution, soraetimes, indeed, because of the persecution. Cer
tainly if in the reign of Euergetes II the Jews were persecuted as Jews,
those who knew the inspiring influence of the Hebrew Prophets and
Psalmists would have the strongest inducement to encourage their
oppressed brethren in Egypt by bringing to them also a knowledge
of the teaching which had enabled the Palestinian Jews to triumph
over their heathen persecutors.
In the absence of any conclusive evidence for the early date
commonly postulated for the Septuagint translation of the Prophets
and Hagiographa, and in view of the fact that from the known
circumstances of the period beginning about 176 b.c and ending in
the High-priesthood of Simon it is possible to find a satisfactory
explanation of every translatable clause, not of one passage of
Scripture only, but of many, which cannot be satisfactorily explained
from the known circumstances of any other period, it is surely not
unreasonable to assert that a Maccabaean date is proved for these
passages in so far as proof in a matter of this sort is at all possible.
And finally, a protest must be made against the all-too-common
assumption that those who assign any portion of the Old Testament
to so late a date are to be regarded as ' wild ' or ' sceptical '. If there
is any scepticism involved in the critical study of Holy Scripture, it
is shared by all who deviate, be it ever so little, from the traditional
view. If, for example, the assignment of portions of the book of
Isaiah to the close of the Persian period (i.e. some four centuries later
than the time of Isaiah the son of Amoz) be compatible with faith —
and who in these days will dare to assert that it is not ? — why should
it be supposed that the assignment of these portions to the Macca
baean period is the outcome of scepticism ? The history of the
change in religious thought during the past generation should surely
be a lesson to us not to set up in our hearts an idol of orthodoxy,
albeit critical orthodoxy, but to follow the example of the Jews of
Beroea,^ and to search the Scriptures to see what they really teach.
Inasmuch as things which thirty years ago were not so much as
1 Op. cit. p. 257. ^ Art,"; -xvii. 11.

82 THE SCHWEICH LECTURES, 1909
whispered in the ears of the most promising students of Theology in
the English Universities, at all events at Cambridge, are now pro
claimed on the very housetops, and are set forth in books intended
for school use, it is surely not over bold to maintain that there may
still be many questions connected with the Old Testament on which
the last word has not yet been spoken. In any case, with honest,
patient, and reverent study there will come a fuller revelation of Him
who spake by the Prophets ; for ' the grass withereth, the flovver
fadeth ; but the word of our God shall stand for ever '.

CLASSIFICATION
OF THE SECTIONS OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH
, The following list is an attempt to classify roughly for the convenience
of readers the various sections of the book of Isaiah according to the
periods to which in their present form they appear most naturally to belong.
Thus sections which, though they may be composed of genuine Isaianic
phrases, are more suitable as they stand to the period of the Maccabees
than to that of Isaiah will be found classified with the compositions
of the second century b. c. It is not impossible, indeed, that comparatively
early prophecies of considerable extent may have been modified at various
dates to meet the exigencies of later times ; and in cases of this sort the
assignment of such passages in their present form to a late date must not
be understood as a denial of the possibility of an early origin. The book
of Daniel, in which Nebuchadnezzar and his successors are represented in
the rSle which in the time of the author of the book was filled by
Antiochus Epiphanes, shows how natural it was to a Judaean prophet —
fbr we need not grudge the name of prophet to the author of the book of
Daniel — to modify denunciations of Babylon to suit the circumstances of
his own age. Indeed, at a much later date we find a similar method
of treating existing Scriptures. Thus the Targum Yerushalmi gives the
following rendering of Numbers xxiv. 19 : ' And he will destroy and bring
to an end the remnant that is left of Constantinople the guilty city.'
Nor is there any difficulty in imagining the combination of passages of
entirely different provenance. Students of the Synoptic Gospels, at all
events, will admit that early Jewi,sh editors dealt with their documents
in the freest manner possible. In the book of Isaiah, as it has come
down to us, and, indeed, in other books also, we have to a great extent
what we are accustomed to in Handel's Oratorio The Messiah, in which
Isaiah xl. 1 1 is immediately followed by S. Matthew xi. 28 ; the two
passages being so welded together by the melody, that the description of
the ideal Shepherd at once suggests the invitation, ' Come unto Him.'
We must never lose sight of the fact that the compilers of the books of
the Prophets were actuated not by any archa;ological interest in the
sayings of the holy men of old, but by a desire to provide spiritual
edification for their own time.
This consideration will serve also as a warning against imagining that
those passages which manifestly refer to the time of Isaiah must have
come down to us in all respects unchanged.

84

CLASSIFICATION OF THE SECTIONS OF

Passages which may be assigned to Isaiah the son of Amoz.^
i. 2-23.
ii. 6-21.
iii. iv. I.
V.
vi.
vii.
viii. 1-18.

ix. 8-21.
X. 1-19, 28-32.
xiv. 28-32.
xvii. 1-3.
XX.
xxii.^
xxviii.' xxxi.

Passages which may be assigned to the time of Cyrus.

Xlll. xiv. 1-27.
xxi.'' xl.
xli. 1-7, 21-29-
xliii .^

xliv. 9-20, 24-28.
xiv. 1-13.
xlvi."
xlvii.
xlviii. 12-15, 20, 21.

Passages which may be assigned to the period between Nebuchadnezzar
and Alexander the Great, but which cannot be dated precisely.

XV.
xvi. 1-12.
xxxvi.

xxxvn.
xxxviii.^ xxxix.

A passage which may be assigned to the time of Alex.\nder the
Great (332 b. c).
xxiii. 1-14.

' N. B. No attempt is made in this list to analyse sections which, though
probably Isaianic, are not homogeneous, nor to arrange the sections in exact
chronological order. The division of the chapters is that of the English Bible.
^ In the main. But in the earlier part of the chapter the text is too corrupt
to speak with certainty, and in verses 20-5 we have additions to the original
prophecy, which were perhaps made successively somewhat later.
' Verses 23-9 probably belong to a later age, viz. the period of the develop
ment ofthe Wisdom literature, i.e. the third or second century b.c.
* With the doubtful exception of verses 13-17.
' In the main ; but with considerable later modifications.
" In the main.
' The psalm (verses 9-20) is an insertion from another source, and may be
considerably later.

THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

85

Passages which may be assigned to the second century b.c

i. 24-31.
ii. 1-5, 22.'
iv. 2-6.
viii. 19-22."
ix. 1-7.
X. 20-27, 33, 34.
xi.
xii.
xvi. 13, 14.
xvii. 4-14.
xviii.' xix.
xxiii. 15-18.
xxiv. xxv.
xxvi.
xxvii. xxix. xxx.
xxxii.
xxxiii.xxxiv. xxxv.

xli. 8-20.
xiii.
xliv. 1-8, 21-23.
xiv. 14-25.
xlviii. 1-11, 16-19, 22.
xlix. 1.
Ii.
Hi.
liii.liv. Iv.
Ivi.
Ivii."
Iviii. lix. Ix.
Ixi.
Ixii.
Ixiii. Ixiv. Ixv.
Ixvi

* But possibly this verse is still later.
' Probably.
' Obscure from corruption of the text. Possibly based on a genuine Isaianic
prophecy. * Except verse 5.

GENERAL INDEX

'n' refers to the notes iit the bottom of the pages.

Agade, 32.
Ahaz rebuked by Isaiah, 12.
— summoned to Damascus, 16.
— name incorrectly read for that of King
of Assyria, 18 n.
— reign of, 20, 21.
Alcimus, 64, 75, 76.
Alexander Balas, rival of King Deme
trius, 68.
 death of, 69.
Alexander the Great, 35 n.
— conquers Asia Minor, Phoenicia, and
Palestine, 36 f.
— • effect of his coming on Jerusalem, 38 f.
— policy of, 49.
— completes Heroum, 58.
Alexandria proclaims Ptolemy Euergetes
king, 52.
— besieged by Antiochus Epiphanes, 53,
54.
— Jewish inhabitants of, 80.
Amaziah, 10.
Amel Marduk, accession of, 29.
Ammon submits to Sennacherib, 19.
— hinders pacification of Judah, 26 f.
— joins in attack on Jerusalem, 34.
— influenced by Hellenism, 67.
Amon, date of accession, 17.
Amos, Book of, 8.
Andronicus murders Oniah, 52.
Anshan, 29.
Antioch, seat of Seleucid Government,
50-52.
— temple of Tuxv at, 59 f.
Antiochus I, becomes master of Tyre, 38.
Antiochus III takes possession of Pales
tine, 38.
— welcomed by the Jews, 38, 50, 53.
Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) declares him
self King of Syria, 51.
— appoints Jason High Priest, 51.
— appoints Menelaus in place of Jason,
52.
— invades Egypt, 52-54.
— determines on Hellenization of Jeru
salem, 55 f.
— OTpaTTjyds eirl ra oirXa at Athens, 58.
Aphrodite in the Gardens, 57.
Apollonius seizes Jerusalem, 56.
Apries (Hophra), accession of, 25.
Ar, 34.
Aramaic, spoken in Syene, 28.
Armenia, attacked by Phraortes, 29.
Arpad, 17.
Artaxerxes (Longimanus), 84.
Artaxerxes Ochus, 35 f.

Ashdod, Sargon's expedition against, 18.
Asher, not affected by Samaritan schism,
45.
Ashkelon, taken by Sennacherib, 19.
— invaded by Scythians, 24.
Ashur-bani-pal (Asnappar), colonizes
Samaria, 28.
— quells revolt in Babylon, 24.
Asshur, 32.
Assideans, see Hasidim.
Assouan (Syene), Jewish settlement at,
27 f.
Assyria, ambitious policy of, 10, 12-14.
— Isaiah's teaching concerning, 20 f.
— decline of, 24.
— Cyrus's policy towards, 82.
— name used to denote Seleucid empire,
72.
— expected conversion of, 75.
Astyages, 29.
Athens, the source of Antiochus's innova
tions at Jerusalem, 56 ff.
A zariah (Azri au), probable identity of, 9 f.
Baal, name used as equivalent of Zeus, 59.
Babylon, relations of, with Assyria, 17,
24.
— Jews carried captive to, 26 f.
— opens its gates to Cyrus, 29.
— prophecies relating to, 30 ff.
'BRethgen, Beitriige zur semitischen Religions
geschichte, 60 «.
Bagoas, governor of Judah, 35.
Bashan, 43-45, 48.
Belsharusur (Belshazzar), 29.
Ben Sira quotes book of Isaiah, 32, 40, 78.
 reference to thecanonicalprophets,
41.
Beth Shan (Scythopolis), 24.
Bevan, Pi-of. A. A., Tlie Book of Daniel, 59 n.
Bevan, E. E., Jerusalem under the High
Priest, 66.
— . — House of Seleucus, 37 n, 51 n, 53 n,
54 TC, 55, 58 m, 59 n, 62.
Box, Rev. G. H., Book of Isaiah, 4, 85, 36 n.
Burkitt, Prof. r. C, 74 «.
Cambyses, accession of, 33.
— mentioned in Elephantine papyri, 28.
Cappadocia invaded by the Medes, 29.
Captives carried to Babylon, numbers of,
25.
Carchemish, battle of, 24.
Cheyne, Professor, 2, 35 f., 59 n.
Chronicles, 11, 44 f.
Coele-Syria conquered by Alexander, 36.

88

GENERAL INDEX

Confederacy of Palestinian states against
Assyria, 18.
Consolatory passages introduced into
denunciations, 8.
Cook, Mr. A. B., 58, 61.
Croesus, King of Lydia, 29.
Cyaxaies, King of Media, 24.
Cylinder inscriptions of Cyrus, 32 f.
Cyrus succeeds to throne of Media, 29.
— enters Babylon, 29 f.
— policy of, 32 f.
— prophecies relating to, 31 f.
Damascus, alliance with N. Israel, 12 f.
— attacked by Tiglath Pileser, 15 f.
— revolts against Sargon, 17.
— scene of Jonathan's campaign, 69.
Daniel, book of : pai-allels with book of
Isaiah, 37.
 relation to prophetic literature,
46 f.
— — position in Greek Bible, 79.
Darenberg and Saglio, 71 n.
Darius I, policy of, 38.
David, House of, policy of, 10 f , 34.
Delitzsch, 61 n.
Demetrius I, hostage in Rome, 51.
Demetrius II, relations with the Jews,
68 f.
Deuteronomy, date of, 43.
Dibon invaded by a foe from the desert,
34.
Driver, Prof. S. R., 53 n, 57, 59 «.
Duhm, 2.
Diir-ilu, 32.
Ebal, 74.
Ecbatana sacked by Cyrus, 29.
Ecclesiastes, Synagogue practice in read
ing, 8.
Ecclesiasticus, date of translation, 80.
Edom, alliance with Egypt, 18.
— submits to Sennacherib, 19.
— joins in attack on Jerusalem, 34.
— invaded by Bedouin, 34.
— Hasmonaean vengeance on, 67 f.
Egypt, policy of, 16 f.
— war with Assyria, 23 f.
— Jewish refugees settle in, 27 f.
— subdued by Cambyses, 33.
— subdued by Artaxerxes, 36.
— subdued by Alexander, 87.
— Ptolemaic rule in, 38.
— condition of Jews in, 47 f.
— war with Antiochus, 52 ff.
— building of temple in, 64 f.
— expected conversion of, 72 ff.
— gradual reception of the Scriptures,
79 ff.
Ekron deposes Padi, 18.
— captured by Sennacherib, 19.
— assigned to Jonathan, 68.
Elam aids Merodach Baladan, 18.
— alliance with Shamash-shumukin, 24.
— united with Media, 29 f.
Elath, capture of, 12 f.

Elephantine, temple at, 28, 33, 35.
Eliakim, speech of, 28.
Elijah and Elisha, stories of, 8, 45.
Eltekeh, battle of, 19.
Enoch, book of, 47.
Esar-haddon, reign of, 23 f.
Eshnunak, 32.
Euergetes II, reign of, 52 f., 80 f.
Eulaeus, regent of Egypt, 52.
Eumenes of Pergamos, 51.
Ezekiel declares the King of Judah's
oath of allegiance to be binding, 20.
— prophesies the defeat of Egypt, 29.
— phraseology of, 30.
— foretells ruin of Ammon, &c., 34.
— book of, brought to Palestine, 40 f.
— influence of, in Babylonia, 43, 45.
— referred to, in book of Isaiah, 73 f.
Ezra, book of, reference to Cyrus, 33.
— brings to Palestine scriptures of Baby
lonian Jews, 40 f.
— influence on the Hebrew Canon, 78 f.
Flood narratives in Genesis, 30.
Frazer, Prof. J. G., 57 m, 58 k, 59 n, 65 n.
Gad, name of Semitic god of fortune, 59 f.
Galilee, invaded by Tiglath Pileser, 15.
— accepts Deuteronomy, 43 f.
— effect of Samaritan schism on, 45, 48,
— Maceabean campaigns iu, 67, 69 f.
Gaza, captured by Tiglath Pileser, 15.
— alliance with Egypt, 17.
— receives part of Judaean territory, 19.
Gedaliah, appointed governor of Judah,
26.
— murder of, 26 f.
Gezer, taken by Simon, 69.
Gilead, invaded by Tiglath Pileser, 15.
— accepts Deuteronomic Law, 43 f.
— effect of Samaritan schism on, 45.
— relations with Jerusalem, 48.
— Maceabean campaign in, 67.
Golan, city of refuge, 44.
Gomorrah (see Sodom), 21.
Haggai, book of, how edited, 8.
— perhaps originally joined with Zecha
riah, 41.
— regards Persian empire as an oppres
sor, 33.
Hagiographa, date of translation, 81.
Hamath, alliance with Judah, 9f.
— revolts against Sargon, 17.
Hanno, King of Gaza, 15, 17.
Harpagus, 29.
HaiTanians, mice sacrificed by, 61.
Harrison, Miss J., Prolegomena to the Study
of Greek Religion, 57 m, 59 n, 61 n.
Hart, Mr. J. H. A., Ecclesiasticus in Greek,
80 f.
Hasidim, 50 ff., 56, 58, 61.
— addressed in Ps. 1, 64 f.
— referred to in Isaiah Iii. 13-llii, 72.
— altered attitude towards Hellenists, 77.
Hasmonaeans, origin of name, 66.

GENERAL INDEX

89

Hebrew not understood in Egypt, 28, 47,
74, 79.
Heliodorus conspires against Seleucus
IV, 51.
Heliopolis, 64.
Hellenism, spread of, 49 ft'., 67, 75.
Hellenization of Jerusalem, 55 f.
Heracles, sacrifice to, 51.
Heroum, description of, 57 f.
Heshbon invaded by Bedouin, 35.
Hezekiah, year of accession, 16 f .
— relations with Assyria, 18 ff.
— refoi-ms of, 20.
— passover in reign of, 44 f .
Historical criticism necessary to supple
ment literary criticism, 4.
Hophra (Apries) instigates Palestinian
states to rebel, 25.
Hosea, book of, 7.
Hoshea, placed on throne by Tiglath
Pileser, 15.
— refuses tribute, 16.
Hyrcanus, son of Tobijah, .50.
Imhoof-BlumerundOttoKeller,2'ie»-MnfZ P/lansenbilder auf Miinsenimd Gemmen, 61.
Immanuel, prophecy of, 13 f., 78.
Isaiah, call of, 9.
— meeting with Ahaz, 13.
. — gives his sons svmbollcal names, 11,
13 f.
— opposes schemes of revolt, 18.
— foretells downfall of Assyria, 20.
Isaiah, book of, nucleus of, 6 ff.
— not quoted by Jeremiah, 6.
— absence of direct attack on super
stitions of Isaiah's time, 21.
— regarded as book of national con
solation, 22.
— combined with Liter prophecies, 30 ff.,
39 ff.
— quoted by Ben Sira, 78.
— date of, 79 f.
Ishmael murders Gedaliah, 26.
Issus, 36.
Jason (Jeshua), an ardent Hellenizer, 50.
— . appointed High Priest, 51.
— deposed in favour of Menelaus, 52.
— attacks Jei-usalem, 54, 63.
Jehoiakim takes oath of allegiance to
Nebuchadnezzar, 24.
— revolts, 25.
Jeremiah, book of, 8, 40 f.
Jeroboam II, 10.
Jerusalem taken by Nebuchadnezzar, 25.
— burnt by the Chaldeans, 26.
— attacked by Samaritans, 34.
— oppressed by Bagoas, 35.
— influenced by Hellenism, 49-51.
— massacre in, 54 f.
— remodelled by Antiochus Epiphanes,
55 ff., 61 ff.
— regained by the Maccabees, 66.
— surrender of Syrian garrison, 69.
Jeshua, see Jason.

Jezreel, text of Hosea's sermon, 11.
Joash, King of Israel, 10.
Job, book of, 47.
Joel, book of, 41.
Jonah, book of, 39, 41.
Jonathan, campaign in Philistia, 68, 71.
— made High Priest, 68.
— makes terms with Demetrius II, 69.
— put to death by Tryphon, 69.
Joppa, seized by Simon, 69.
Josephus, 35 n, 36, 38, 47, 50 n, 64, 67 n,
80 «.
Josiah, date of accession, 17, 23.
— opposes Pharaoh Necho, 24.
Judah, tributary to N. Israel, 9 f.
— invaded by Syro-Ephraimitic army,
10.
— subject to Sargon, 17.
— invaded by Sennacherib, and deprived
of forty-six strong cities, 19.
— subject to Assyria till the death of
Josiah, 23 f.
— prophetic teaching concerning, 39.
— antagonistic to Hellenism, 49, 66 f., 77.
Judas, ' blameless priests ' chosen by,
75 f.
Kedesh in Naphtali, 43.
Kings, booi of, uncertain chronology,
9, 16.
Kittim, 87.
Kosters, 41.
Labashi-Marduk, 29.
Lamentations, Synagogue reading of, 8.
Law, book of, published by Nehemiah,
35, 41, 45 f.
 translation of, 47 f. , 78.
 attempt to destroy, 75 f.
Lenaeus, regent of Egypt, 52.
Lenormant et de Witte, Mite des Monu
ments ceramographiques, 61 n.
Leontopolis, Temple of, 48, 64, 74, 80.
Literary criticism insufficient by itself, 4.
Lydia, 29.
Lysias, general of Antiochus, 66.
Maccabees, 66 ff.
Maher-shalal-hash-baz, 14 f.
Maimonides, 61.
Malachi, teaching of, 39.
Manasseh, reign of, 23.
Manasseh, district of, contains loyal
Jews, 45.
Mattaniah (Zedekiah), placed on the
throne by Nebuchadnezzar, 25.
Mattathias, 66.
Medeba, invasion of, 84.
Medes, Assyria attacked by, 24.
— united with Persians, 29 f.
Megiddo, battle of, 24.
Memphis, taken by Esarhaddon, 23.
— Jewish refugees settle in, 28.
— seat of Ptolemy Philometor's govern
ment, 53 f.
Menelaus appointed High Priest, 52.

90

GENERAL INDEX

Menelaus carries out the Hellenization
of Jerusalem, 55 f., 75 f.
Merodach Baladan, 17 f.
MS-Turnu, 32.
Micah, quoted as a precedent in time of
Jei-emiah, 7.
— denounces ruling classes in reign of
Hezekiah, 20.
— denounces prophets, 46.
Micaiah, son of Imlah, 11.
Migdol, 28.
Minor Prophets, Synagogue reading of, 8.
Mizpah, residence of Gedaliah, 27.
— reading of the Law at, 76.
Moab, alliance with Egypt, 18.
— makes submission to Sennacherib, 19.
— Invasion of, by Bedouin, 34 f.
— hostile to the Jews, 36.
— insignificant Jewish population, 44.
— Maceabean vengeance on, 67 f.
Mond papyri, 27.
Nabonidus, 29.
Nabopolassar, 24.
Nagidos, coins of, 61.
Naphtali receives Deuteronomy, 43 ff.
Nebo, 34.
Nebuchadnezzar, reign of, 24 ff.
— besieges Tyre, 28 f.
Necho, King of Egypt, 24.
Nehemiah, j)ublication of the Law by,
35.
— policy of, 38 f., 44.
— lasting effects of his work, 67.
Nergal-sharezer (Neriglissar), 29.
Nimrim, 35.
Nineveh, fall of, 24.
Noph (Memphis), 28, 53.
North Israel, Kingdom of, relations with
Judah, 9, 12.
 history of, inthe reign of Manasseh,
23.
Obadiah, date of, 41.
Olympia Heroum, 57.
Oniah, High Priest, 50 ff.
— murdered at Antioch, 52.
Oniah, Priest of Leontopolis, 48, 64, 74.
Padi, King of Ekron, 18.
Palmyra, Aramaic inscriptions of, 59.
Panion, battle of, 38.
Passover (Hezekiah's^. 44 f.
Pathros, 28.
Pausanias' Description of Greece, quoted,
57-61.
Pekah, King of Israel, 15.
Pelusium, 28, 52 ff.
Pentateuch, Septuagint translation of,
48, 79.
Persia, united with Media, 29.
— attitude of prophets towards, 33.
— supposed Jewish revolt against, 35.
Pharaoh, name still used iu second cen
tury a.d., 54 n.
Pharisees, denounced in the Gospels, 46.

Philippeum, begun by Philip of Mace
don, 58.
Philistia, alliances with, 12, 18.
— Scythian invasion of, 24.
— Hellenization of, 59 f., 67.
— Maceabean campaign in, 67 ff., 71.
Phoenicia, subdued by Sennacherib, 18 f.
— tributary to Esarhaddon, 23.
— subdued by Alexander, 37.
Phraortes, King of Media, 29.
Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of
the Historical Records of Assyria and
Babylonia, 32 n.
Pindar, 60.
Prophets, character of, 40.
Prophets, Canon of the, 41 f. , 78 ff.
Psalms, parallels with book of Isaiah,
36 f.
Psammetichus I, 24.
Psammetichus II, 25.
Ptolemais, Jonathan seized at, 69.
Ptolemy (Soter) ti-ansfers Jews to Egypt,
38, 47.
Ptolemy Euergetes I, 80.
Ptolemy Euergetes II, 52 ff., 80 f.
Ptolemy Philadelphus, 80.
Ptolemy Philometor, 52, 54, 64.
Ptolemy Philopator, 81.
Ptolemy Physcon, 81.
Qutu, 32.
Ramoth in Gilead, 44.
Raphiah, battle of, 17.
Reisch, 60 n.
Reuben, 44.
Riblah, 25.
Rome compels Antiochus to evacuate
Egypt, 54.
Roscher, Lexikon, der Griechischen und
Romischm Mythologie, 60 n.
Sacrificial worshij), yearning for, 64.
Samaria taken by Sargon, 16.
Samaria, province of, colonized, 23, 28.
 accepts Deuteronomic law, 43 f
— — quarrels with Judah, 34 f.
Sanctuary, One, law of, 43 f., 48, 74.
Sardis, taken by Cyrus, 29.
Sargon, reign of, 16ff.
Schechter, Dr., 3.
Sehrader, 9»!.
Scribes, origin of, 46.
— influence of, 76 f.
Scriptures, destruction of, 56, 75 f.
— translation of, 79 ff.
Scythians, 24.
Scythopolis, 24-
Seleucus IV, 50 f.
Sennacherib, reign of, 17 ff.
Septuagint, origin of, 47 f.
— date of, 79 ff.
Shalmaneser, 16.
Shamash-shumukin, 24.
Sharon, Plain of, 70.
Shear-jashub, meaning of, 10 f.

GENERAL INDEX

91

Shebna, 28.
Shechem, chief sanctuary of Samaria,
43, 56.
Shelley's imitation of the National
Anthem, 3.
Sibylline Oracles, 53.
Sidon, destroyed by Artaxerxes, 36.
— opens its gates to Alexander, 37.
Siloam, 15.
Simon, son of Oniah, High Priesthood
of, 45, 48.
Simon Maccaboeus appointed Governor
of Palestine, 69.
 acknowledged High Pi-iest, 70.
 High Priesthood of, 71 ff.
Simyra, 17.
Sippar, 29.
Skinner, Dr., Commentary on Isaiah, 60.
Smith, Robertson, 57 n, 61 m.
Sodom, variable use of name, 21.
Superstitions, absence of direct attack on,
in genuine Isaiah, 21.
Susa, 29, 32.
Syene, 27.
Synagogues, origin of, 45 f.
— importance of, 76 f.

Tahpanhes (Tel Defenneh), 28.
Tanis (Zoan), 53.
Tarshish, ships of, 37, 69.
Tell Ta'annek, 57.
Temple (of Jerusalem) plundered by
Nebuchadnezzar, 25.
— wealth of, in second century e. c, 48 f.

Temple (of Jerusalem), injured in strug
gle between Jason and Menelaus, 54.
— desecrated by Antiochus Epiph.ines,
55 ff.
— condition of, in 165 e. c, 61 ff'.
— regained by the Maccabees, 66.
Temple of Leontopolis, 48, 64, 74, 80.
Tiglath Pileser III, 9 f., 15, 44.
Tigris, 32.
Tirhakah, 18.
Tobiah, the sons of, 38, 53,
Tobijah, father of Hyrcanus, 50.
Tryphon, general of Alexander Balas, 69.
Tyre besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, 28.
— prophecy on, 37 f.
— games at, 51.
Uzziah, probable identification with
Azriau of Yaudi, 9 f.
Wellhausen, 63 n.
Winckler, 9.
Zamban, 32.
Zebulon, 44 f.
Zechariah, attitude of, towardsPersia, 33.
— depi'ecates fortification of Jerusalem,
34.
Zedekiah, revolt of, 25.
Zerubbabel appointed Governor of Judah ,
33 f.
Zeus, represented iu Hebrew and Ara
maic by Baal, 55 f.
Zion fortified by Antiochus, 55.
Zoan (Tanis), 53.

PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED OR
REFERRED TO

GiSNESIS : PAOE
vii. 2, 8  3 k.
Exodus :
vii. 14-21  54m.
XX. 25  58
xxi. 32  51 w.
Numbers :
xxiv. 24  87
Deutekojjomy :
iv. 48  44
vi. 9  57
xvi. 21  62
xviii. 11  59
xix  43
xxiii. 3 . . . . .... 27 m.
xxvii  74 ».
xxxiii. 6  44
Joshua :
xi. 17  59
xii. 7  59
xiii. 5  59
XV. 37  59
XX. 8  44
xxi. 27, 38  44
XXI. 32  43
xxii  74».
1 Kings :
V  37
xi. 29ff.  41
xviii. 31  41
xix. 16  32m.
xxii. 28  11
2 Kings :
XV. 29  15
xvi. 5  12
xviii. 2  16
xviii. 13  17
XX. 6  17
xxiv. 2, 12, 14, 16  25
xxiv. 13  38
xxv. 3  26
xxv. 6  25
xxv. 8, 25  27
1 Cheonicles :
ix. 29  60ra.
2 Chbonioles: xxviii. 18  18 «.
xxx  44
Ezra: i  ^ 22
iv. 2, 10 ......! .' 28
vi. 22  72n.
Nehemiah :
i. 8  68
xiii  44

Job : page
vii. 3  60n.
Psalms :
xxii. 1  66
xiii  64 m.
xliii  64 «.
xliv. 22  65
xlvi. 4  73«.
1  64
Ix  36
Ix. 8  68m.
Ixi. 8  60«.
Ixiii  .64
Ixix. 28  77 m.
Ixxiv. 4 ff.  63
Ixxviii. 12, 43  53
Ixxxiii  36, 68 m.
Ixxxiii. 10  68 m.
Ixxxvii. . .  38
cv. 15  32m.
Isaiah :
i.4ff.  66».
i. 7-9  20
i. 10-17  20
i. 11-14  21
i. 21-23  20
i. 29  57
ii. 3  73 ,(.
ii. 6f.  12
iii. 6-9  20
iii. 14, 15  20
V. 8-10  20
v. 26-30  18
vi. 13  u
vii. 1-7  12
vii. 2  8
vii. 3  10
vii. 8  28
vii. 13  12
viii. 7ff.  i5k.
viii. 16, 17  6
ix. 1-7  71 78
ix. 9 ff.  16
ix. 13 ff.  20
X. 6  15m.
X. 21  3
X. 22  11
X. 28-32  ." ' ! 18
3ti. 1  26, 71 n.
XI. 6  75„.
xi. 9  75
xi. 14  68
xi. 15  73m.
xi. 16  72m.
xiii  30, 40

PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED, ETC. 93

IsAiAii {continued) :

page

XIV 

. 30,40

xiv. 29 f. 

. . 18m.

XV. . . ...

. 34,35

XVI. ... ...

. . 34, 35

xix. 1-15 ....

. . 53, 54

xix. 18 

. . 74m.

xix. 23ff. ...

. 72 m.

XX. 1 

, . 18

xxi. 1-10 .

. 30, 40

. . 34

xxii. 15 23 

. . 20

. . 37

xxiii. 17 

. . 38

XXIV  XXVll 

35, 36, 78

xxv. 6 

. . 74m.

xxv. 7 . . ...

70)1.

xxviii. 7-22 ....

. . 20

xxx 

. . 65

XXXI 

. 65

xxxii. If. . ...

71m.

xxxiii. 13-24 . .

. . 73

xxxiii. 17 .

. . 71m.

xxxiii. 18 . .

. . . 70n.

. . 68

xxxviii. 5 

. . 17

xxxix. 7 

. . . 18

xl— xlviii. . ...

. 30

xl. 1-11 

. . 31

xl— Ixvi 

. 39

xl. 3ff. 

73

xli. 1-7 

. . 32

xlli. 4 

. . 69 n.

xliv. 24— xiv. 7 . . .

. . . 31

xlvi. 1, 2 

. . 81, 32

xlvii 

. . 31, 82

xlviii. 20 

. . . 82

xlix. 6 

72 n, 73 m.

Iii. 13— liii. . . .

. . . 72

liii 

. . 72 n.

Iv. 7 

. . 77«..

Ivi. 9— Ivii. 13 . . .

. . 56

lix. 16 ... .

. . 66 n.

Ix. 9 

. . 69 H.

. . . 75 n.
Ix. 22 
. . 70m.
. . 31, 40
Ixiii. Iff- 
. . . 72m.
Ixiii. 1-6 
. . 67
Ixiii. 4 ft'. ....
. . 78 m.
Ixiv. 10, 11 ....
. . . 63
Ixv. 3 
. . 61, 62
Ixv. 4, 11 
. 59
Ixv. 17 
. . 75
Ixv. 25 
. . 75 n.
Ixvi. Iff. 
. . . 65
Ixvi. 5 
. . . 66
Ixvi. 6 
. . . 67m.
Ixvi. 7 
. . . 70m.
Ixvi. 17 
. . 57, 60
Ixvi. 22-24 ....
. . . 74«.
Jeremiah :
vii. 21 
. . . 21
xxiii. 5 ff. 
. . . 26m.
xxiii. 14 
. . . 26m.
xxv 
. . . 25
Jeremiah {continued) -. page
xl  2.5, 27
xli  25
xli. 5  63m.
xliv  28
xlvi  28
1  30
Ii  30
Iii. 28  25
Iii. 29  26
Iii. 30  27
Ezekiel :
xvi  57 m.
xvii. 13-16  25
xvii. 15, 16  20
xxi. 18 ff.  26
xxv  27m.
xxvi.  29
xxix. 17-20  29
xxx. 6  28
xlvii  .73
Daniel :
i. 5, 10, 11  60m.
iii. 17  65
viii. 28  53
xi. 30  37
Hosea :
v. 10  12m.
Joel: iii. 11, 18  73n.
Jonah :
ii. 1  60n.
iv. 6-8  60n.
Micah :
iii  .46
vi  21
Haggai :
ii. 3  63n.
ii. 6-8  33
Zechariah :
i. 12  83m.
ii. 6, 7  82 n.
iii. 8  26m.
vi. 12  26m.
ix — xiv  36
ix. 5ff.  60b.
ix. 5-7  68
ix. 6  56 «.
ix. 9  71m.
ix. 12  82
xi  50m.
xi. 15-17  56m.
xiii. 2-6  46
xiii. 7  77m.
xiv  73
xiv. 2  73
xiv. 4  77 n.
xiv. 6, 7  75 m.
xiv. 16-19  74 m.
xiv. 18  48
Malachi :
iv. 2  • 68n.
Ecclesiasticus :
i 1 f  63 m.
iil-S  48
xi. 25-28  65n.
94

PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED, ETC.

Ecclesiasticus {continued) : page
xlviii. 22 ff.  40, 78 m.
xlviii. 24  82
1 Maccabees :
1
i. 15
i. 21 ff.
22
i. 54  55 m, 59 m.
56f.  75ji.
ii. 29 ff.  65n, 72 n.
iii. 45  62 B.
iii. 48  76 m.
iii. 51  75 n.
iv. 38  54 m, 61
iv. 42  75m.
V. 3, 65  67

1 Maccabees {continued) : page
V. 4ff.,28  67 m.
vii. 13, 14  76 m.
xi. 59  69m.
xiii. 41, 51  69m.
xiv. 41  70 ft.
xiv. 41, 46  76 ft.
2 Maccabees :
i. 8  54 ft, 63 m.
iii. 11  50 m.
iv. 18-20  57 m.
iv. 37  53 m.
vi. 1  56 m,
viii. 38  54 n, 68
X. 18ff.  67 n.
S. Luke :
iv. 18, 19  32

Oxford : Horjice Hart, Printer to the University

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 7884