Christian Biblical Reflections.46

                9. Briggs-Driver-Plummer.  (This Selection is  still being edited. )




Critical & Exegetical Commentary. v1. AmosHosea. WRHarper. ICCHS. v19.BrgDrvPlm.NY.

Critical & Exegetical Commentary. v2. MicZephNahHabObadJoel. SmithWardBewer. ICCHS. v20. NY.

Critical & Exegetical Commentary. v3. HagZechMalJonah. MitchellSmithBewer. ICCHS. v21. NY.


PREFACE iii-iv



§ I. The Book of Micah 5-16

1. The Text 5H5

2. The Style 6

3. Poetic Form 6-8

4. Component Parts 8-16

5. The Formation of the Book of Micah . 16

§ 2. The Prophet Micah 17-19

1. His Name 17

2. His Home 17-18

3. His Character 18-19

§ 3. The Times of Micah 19-23

1. The Date of His Prophecies 19-21

2. The Background of Chs. 1-3 21-23

§ 4. The Message of Micah 23-26

§ 5. Recent Literature on the Book of Micah . . . 26-29



§ I. From the Fall of Thebes to the Fall of Nineveh 159-165

§ 2. Zephaniah and His Times 166-171

1. The Man 166-167

2. The Times 167-171

§ 3. The Book of Zephaniah 171-176

1. The Contents 171-172

2. Later Additions . 172-174

3. Poetic Form 174-176

§ 4. The Message of Zephaniah 177-180

§ 5. Literature on the Book of Zephaniah i8a-i8i




§ I. The Book of Nahum 267-274

Its Contents 267-268

Its Unity … 268-270

Its Poetic Form 270-274

§ 2. The Times of Nahum …. 274-279

§ 3. The Man and the Message 279-282

The Man 279-280

The Message 280-282

§ 4. Literature on the Book of Nahum 282-283



I. Index of Hebrew Words 361

II. Index of Subjects 362-363


Authorship and Date 3-7

Topical Analysis 7



§ I. The Composition of the Book 3-5

§ 2. The Date of the Book 6-9

§ 3. The Interpretation of the Book 10-13

§ 4. The Prophet and His Book 13-14

§ 5. The Text 15

§ 6. The Metre 15-17

§ 7. Modern Literature 17-18



§1.  Composition of the Book.

§2.  Date of the Book.

§3.  Interpretation of Book.

§4.  Prophet.

§5.  Text and Metre.

§6.  Modern Literature.


INDEXES TO OBADIAH AND JOEL 145-146              


§ 1. The Pre-prophetic Movement in General . . . .

§ 2. Pre-prophetic Participation in the Revolt of Jeroboam I. .

$ 3. Pre-prophetic Manifestation under Elijah’s Leadership .

4. Pre-prophetic Influences in the Time of Elisha . . .

$ 5. The Pre-prophetic Societies . . . . . .

$ 6. The Older and Younger Decalogues . . .

$ 7. The Book of the Covenant (=CC). . .

$ 8. The Judaean (Pre-prophetic) Narrative (= J) . . .

    9. The Ephraimite (Pre-prophetic) Narrative (= E) . .


§ 10. The Relation of Pre-prophetism to Mosaism

$11. The Essential Thought of Pre-prophetism .

                C. Amos.

$ 12. The Personal Life of Amos . . .

$ 13. The Message of Amos . . . .

$ 14. The Ministry of Amos . . . .

$ 15. The Literary Form of Amus . . .

                D. HOSEA.

$ 16. The Personal Life of Hosea . . .

$17. The Message of Hosea . . . .

§ 18. The Ministry of Hosea . . . .

$ 19. The Literary Form of Hosea . . .

                E. AMOS AND HOSEA.

§ 20. The Poetical Form of Amos and Hosea . .

$ 21. The Language and Style of Amos and Hosea .

$ 22. The Text and Versions of Amos and Hosea

$ 23. The Literature on Amos and Hosea . . .



                For a proper understanding of the place of Amos and Hosea in connection with Hebrew prophecy it is necessary to consider briefly the principal manifestations, during the two preceding centuries, of what may be called “pre-prophetism”;* the basis of this movement and its chief characteristics; likewise its fundamental thought (concerning God, man, worship, life, and the future),t as wrought out in this period. In the same connection some attention must be given to Assyria, which in these times touches Israel so closely and exercises so marked an influence upon the development of Israelitish thought. I With some of the data relating to these subjects in our possession, we shall be better prepared to take up the subjects connected with Amos and Hosea, viz. in each case the personal life, the message, the public ministry ; likewise the literary form of the prophetic work,

(* The distinction between prophetism proper (i.e. written prophecy) and that out of which it sprang is important, and may be maintained by using for the latter the word “pre-prophetism.” For the same reason, we may use nabhi’ (pl. nebhi’im) in speaking of those (not seers) who preceded Amos. Cf. the use of the terms Nebiןsmus and Prophetismus by R. Kraetzschmar in Prophet und Seher im Alten Israel (1901). *)

(+ In other words, the theology of these times, as it has been preserved in contemporaneous writings and in tradition. *)

(I A striking characteristic of Israel, in comparison with its sister nations, was a readiness to receive, from the outside, contributions in the form of new institutions and new thought. Much of this was bad and in time was lost; but much of it, being good, was retained. The gradual accumulation and assimilation of this outside material, under the guidance of an all-wise Providence, ultimately lifted Israel to a position of influence in world-history.*)

the versions in which it has come down to us, and the more important literature.

                The spirit of pre-prophetism was always alert and aggressive. Its manifestations were frequent, strong, and of a unique character. These manifestations were factors in preparing the way for that “point in the history of prophecy at which this great religious phenomenon rises -apparently, but surely not really — on a sudden to a higher level” (Che. EB. 3855); in other words, the point at which Amos and Hosea appear upon the scene of action. Unless a better explanation of the forward step taken at this time by the so-called writing prophets can be furnished than that which Budde (Rel. 131) proposes (viz. their utter failure to impress the people by oral speech), the question is to be regarded as a problem still unsolved.


                The participation of the nebhi’im in the revolt which resulted in the disruption of the united kingdom may be assumed,t notwithstanding the late date of those portions of the narrative { in which this participation is especially described.

(* Much is gained in thinking of Amos and Hosea as together presenting a single unit of thought; for, while each is in sharp contrast with the other in temperament and in message, neither, by himself, is complete. They must both be taken to secure the whole idea. *)

(+ Kue. (Rel. I. 198 f.) says, “The revolt of the ten tribes from the royal house of David was undoubtedly countenanced by the prophets, especially by those of Ephraim ” ; We. (Prol. 458), declares that they “ actually suggested and promoted it”; Kit. (Hist. II. 188) says, “Jeroboam was supported in his enterprise by a prophet, Ahijah of Shiloh”; Kent (Hist. II. 20) maintains that it was supported by prophets who selected the leader. So also Gu. (GVI. 130–132), Wade (0.7. Hist. 313), Paton (Hist. 191). Cf. Che. (EB. 2406), who, though treating the narratives as unhistorical, regards it as possible that Jeroboam had friendly relations with Ahijah who lived at Shiloh, and certain that the northern prophets were on Jeroboam’s side; and contra Winckler (GI. I. 159 f., II. 273) and H. P. Smith (0.T. Hist, 1903, pp. 177-80), who make no reference to prophetic influence; Sta. (GVI. I. 306 f.), who declares the narratives concerning the prophets to be without historical basis. *)

                There are four stories: (1) Ahijah, I K. 1129–40, of which vs.29-31 may be early (so Kit. and Skinner); but all is considered late by Wkl. (Untersuch. 8 f.), Kamphausen, Benz., and Sta. (SBOT.); (2) Shemaiah, 1 K. 1222-24, clearly late; (3) “the man of God out of Judah”and “the old prophet at Bethel,” I K. 131-32, all of which is late; (4) the visit of Jeroboam’s wife to Ahijah, 1 K. 141-18, which, if early, has been thoroughly worked over by a later editor, the Hebrew text seeming to be a late recension of 8, *)

                This assumption is based upon (1) the fact that the early prophets in their intense conservatism stand opposed to every advance of civilization; cf. the general policy of Elijah (p. xxxvi), the attitude of the Judean narrative toward the beginnings of civilization in Gn. 416-24, and the opposition of Isaiah (26f. 316-26) to everything that seemed to favor luxury in life; not to speak of the representation of this same idea by the Nazirites and Rechabites who were closely associated with nebhi’ism and prophetism (p. xxxi); (2) the probability that the spirit which later actuated Elijah (as well as Amos and especially Hosea) in reference to the acknowledgment of other gods existed, at least in germ, in the minds of these earlier nebhi’im (so e.g. WRS. Proph. 48 ff.; Bu. Rel. 102); (3) the consistency of this pre-prophetic action with that of Elijah and Elisha in the conspiracy against the dynasty of Omri, as well as with the alleged conspiracy of Amos himself (Am. 710-13) against Jeroboam II., at which time the prophetic temper was at all events regarded as revolutionary; and (4) the extreme likelihood that the prophetic stories, while late, represent in the main a true tradition, since they, at least, indicate one school of later opinion, the other school, led by Hosea (cf. Ho. 84 1311) regarding the revolt or schism as a great blunder.

                The effect of the disruption, in so far as the pre-prophetic movement is concerned, appears (1) in the fact that this movement takes place in the North, rather than under the Davidic dynasty in the South,* for until the last twenty years or so before the end of the Northern kingdom (721 B.C.) Judah produced little or nothing except the Judean narrative (p. lxix). This was true in part, because (2) a much greater liberty existed in the North, as a consequence of the failure of the Solomonic rיgime to ‘maintain in Israel the obligations which it succeeded in imposing upon Judah; and with this liberty, there was possible also (3) a far greater simplicity of life than in the South; there existed, in fact, a more democratic atmosphere, the extreme class distinctions being less emphasized ; † while (4) there was less interference from outside influence than would have been felt under a continuation of the Solomonic policy; likewise, (5) the disruption,

(* Che. (EB. 3863), after making the words “Gilgal,” “ Carmel,” “ Ephraim,” “Jordan,” ” Ramoth-gilead,” etc. (as they occur in the narrative), corruptions of the all-pervading Jerahmeel of North Arabia, and after assigning the homes of Elijah and Elisha, as well as of Amos, to this region, says, “We cannot therefore be certain that there were any settlements of prophets in Northern Israel.”*)

(* † Meinhold (p. 25) suggests that Yahweh was the champion of every Israelite against the despotism of Solomon, and that the nabhi’, therefore, as in later times the prophet, took the side of the deity against the despot. *)

in spite of the calves of Jeroboam, contributed very largely toward preparing the way for that ultimate separation of Yahweh from a place among the gods of the nations, and his elevation into the god of the heavens.* The revolt, in a word, was in some slight sense an anticipation of the later and more radical steps taken by Elijah and Elisha.


                1. Prophetic interference in the affairs of state took place under Elijah’s leadership in the days of Ahab (ca. 875-850 B.c.). In estimating the importance of this very notable and unique manifestation of the pre-prophetic spirit, account must first be taken of the different strata of material preserved. On this point students are practically agreed.

                Certain stories come from about 800 B.C., i.e. from within fifty years or so of Elijah’s own times, viz. (a) the early trouble with Ahab and the drought; the contest on Carmel; and the visit to Horeb (1 K. 172–183 a. 5-30 18326–199a. 11 6-21); (b) the story of Naboth’s vineyard (1 K. 211-20 a. 27); (c) Elijah’s encounter with Ahaziah’s messengers (2 K. 11-4.5-8). From a period twenty-five to fifty years later comes the account of Elijah’s last days with Elisha and his translation (2 K. 21-25). To a much later time belong the story of Elijah’s treatment of the companies sent out by Ahaziah (2 K. 19-18) and certain additions to the early stories (e.g. i K. 1836. 4. 31. 32 a 1996-11 a 219 b. 26. 28 f.; Benzinger makes 2 K. 13-8 also late, and Kamphausen the entire account, 2 K. 11-18). So substantially Kit., Benz., Kamphausen, Burney, and Skinner ; but Sta. (SBOT.) calls all the Elijah and Elisha material late except 1 K. 1831-32 a 1996. 10. 11 a. c. 2120 6. 21 f. 24 2 K. 21 a. 258 (cf. GVI. I 522, note); Meinhold (pp. 17-21) places the stories about 750 B.C. on the ground that such legends could not have developed in fifty years; and Todd (Politics and Religion in Ancient Isr. (1904), 195 ff.) minimizes Elijah’s significance and makes the entire Baal-story an allegory coming from Manasseh’s times.

                2. In the interpretation of these stories, the earlier, as well as the later, must be acknowledged to show two tendencies of a decided character. The narrator’s point of view is one strongly biassed by the attitude toward Baalism which prevailed in the times succeeding Jehu. The picture of Ahab and his relation to Baalism is greatly overdrawn, a very large legendary element having entered into it. * Besides this, Elijah, called nabhi’, or prophet, only once in the entire narrative (viz. 1 K. 1822 where no other designation could have been employed), is everywhere (especially in 1 K. 198-24 2 K. 1 212 28) represented as possessed of magical powers.f

                3. But after making full allowance for these elements, we may feel confident that Elijah represents a true historical character of a remarkable type, and that a proof of his greatness is this very “stupendous and superhuman” image of him here sketched. I We are not compelled to choose between the two extreme views, according to one of which, the prophet Elijah, while above the level of the nebhi’im of his time, is presented in greatly magnified form, the prophets of this period having had no such prominence as the narratives assign to them ; $ while the other treats him as a Titanic character creating a new epoch in Israel’s history, to be placed side by side with Moses himself. || His proper place may be determined by observing certain secondary points in connection with his contest with Ahab regarding Baalism, and with Ahab’s relations to Naboth, and all of this must be studied in the light of the issue of the whole matter as it appears in the case of Jehu under Elisha’s ministry.

Among other points, outside of the two main stories, the following should not be overlooked: (1) Elijah (v.s.) is not called nabhi’, because even at this time he is recognized as something different. He may not, however, be placed in the class of the writing prophets, because, unlike them, he has left         

nothing in written form; and unlike them, he is closely associated with man. ticism and magic. On the other hand, the facts seem make him both seer and nabhi’. Witness the point already suggested in reference to manticism and magic, and, in addition, the fact of his close relationship with the societies of nebhi’im, and his apparent leadership among them, his farewell visit to the various headquarters of these societies, their strong interest in the occasion and the manner of his final departure; and, still further, those great characteristics of sturdiness, strength, and courage which bespeak for him a place side by side with the seers of the past, viz. Moses, Joshua, Samuel. (2) The suddenness of his appearances and disappearances, so frequently a subject of comment (1 K. 172 187 ff. 2 K. 216), is to be attributed to the lacunae of the narrative, rather than to any effort upon the part of the writer to cultivate an atmosphere of mystery.

                                ( * This is the unanimous voice of critical opinion; cf. e.g. Kue. Einl. § 25; Kit. Hist. II. 267; Addis, art. ” Elijah,” EB.; We. Prol. 292 f.; Co. Proph. 29; Che. EB. 3859 f.; Meinhold; Sm. Rel.2 175 ff.; H. P. Smith, O. T. Hist. 188; K. DB. V. 655. *)

                († This is in accordance with the earlier conceptions of nebhi’ism which Israel held in common with other nations; cf. the power of Moses with his magician’s staff (Ex. 42 ff. 720 923, etc.), that of Joshua and his spear” (Jos. 18. 20), and the use of the arrow in divining referred to in 2 K. 1315 ff. See K. DB. V. 650 f.; Sm. Rel.2 154; Kit. Hist. II. 266 f.; Che, EB. 3856 f. *)

                (3) The impression of a magical personality (cf. the story of Samuel and the witch of Endor) is conveyed, not only in the miraculous power ascribed to him in general, but also in his special power over dew and rain (1 K. 172 181. 41-45), the deference paid to him by Obadiah (1 K. 187 ff.), the use of an extra quantity of water to prevent suspicion (1833 ff.), the physical performance in connection with his premonition of rain (1842-45), the ecstatic condition in which he ran five hours from Carmel to Jezreel (1846), the magical power ascribed to his mantle (1919, cf. 2 K. 28. 13 ff.), which Elisha may not resist, and with which the waters are divided ; and especially in the account of his marvellous translation by means of a chariot and horses of fire (2 K. 211.), a later expression of the feeling that his activity was enduring, and that his fellowship with God was “so close that its interruption seemed inconceivable” (K. DB. V. 655). In close connection with all this is (4) the strongly pronounced nomadic spirit, which, naturally, stands opposed to everything that indicates progress in civilization. This spirit appears in the simplicity of his food and dress (1 K. 196. 18 2 K. 18), in his isolation from his fellows, and in his opposition to the religious policy of Ahab (v.1.). Perhaps this furnishes the explanation, also, of the sudden character of his appearances and disappearances (v.s.): it is surely in accord with this that he is represented as living by the brook Cherith, which flows into the Jordan (1 K. 172-7); sojourning outside of his own country at Zarephath in Phoenicia (1 K. 178 ff.); paying a visit to Horeb, after a journey of forty days and forty nights (1 K. 195-8); and moving about from place to place (2 K. 1, 2); cf. the nomadic character of the Rechabites (p. lii), who arose about this time (v.2.). (5) Not a little light is thrown upon the story of pre-prophetism by the two incidents in Elijah’s life, in connection with which he left his native land and visited foreign countries. The earlier sojourn in Phoenicia, at Zarephath, together with the nature of the work performed, indicates, on his part, not only the nomadic tendency (in this case encouraged, doubtless, by fear of Ahab), but also an attitude toward non-Israelites which is broad and liberal, in spite of the narrow and intense zeal ordinarily attributed to him ; and besides, a leniency which meant that the hatred shown in connection with Baalism was not against that religion in itself, but only against its encroachment upon the realm of Yahweh (Sm. Rel? 178; Co. Proph, 31), who had now become recognized as, indeed, the god of the land of Israel, although not god also of Phoenicia. The visit to Horeb (1 K, 198 ff.), while illustrative of many elements in the prophet’s character (e.g. the longing for solitude characteristic of the nomad, and a deep spiritual nature, as well as a tendency to deep despondency), also calls attention to the prophet’s idea of Yahweh’s original home and dwelling-place, i.e. the place in which one can most easily secure his oracle ; and is better understood in the light of Ju. 56 (cf. also Dt. 332 Hb. 33 Ps. 688). This journey, although undertaken in a fit of discouragement, and because of Jezebel’s inimical attitude, cannot be easily explained on any other supposition than that the nabhi’, in accordance with the general conviction, makes this pilgrimage, in the fashion of all ages, to a place regarded as sacred from the oldest times, because there Yahweh had dwelt in the beginning (Bu. Rel. 18; K. DB. V. 626 f.; Barton, Semitic Origins, 277 ; Sta. GVI, I. 130 ff.).

                (6) The chief elements in certain situations described in the Elijah-stories had already been anticipated in earlier history, e.g. Solomon had erected sanctuaries for his foreign wives (1 K. 117f.) just as Aħab does for Jezebel (v.i.), and probably this constituted one of the charges in the prophetic indictment of that monarch. Even earlier, Nathan had taken precisely the same stand against the abuse of royal power (2 S. 121-15) as that taken by Elijah in the case of Ahab. Still further, the thought of Yahweh’s using Syria (1 K. 1915-17) in order to punish Israel for wrong-doing, does not, of itself, imply that Yahweh is other than a national god, as is clear from the presence of this same conception not only in earlier Israelitish times (Nu. 1440 ff. [J, E] Jos. 7 [J]), but also among other nations (cf. the part played by the gods in the fall of Babylon in the Cyrus Cylinder,* and the representations concerning Yahweh’s power at the time of the Exodus [J, E], and in the confusion of tongues at Babel (in J]; cf. Meinhold, 30 f.). On the further bearing of this, v.i. (7) Much turns upon the exact meaning assigned to the utterances concerning Yahweh and the Baalim in i K. 1824. 27. 37. 39 (Sm. Rel.? 178), v.i.

                (* * The words of Sennacherib’s general (2 K. 1825 = Is. 3610) might also be cited, were it not probable that they represent a later Israelitish view rather than the thought of the Assyrian (cf. Sta., Benz., Marti, Duhm, in loc.). It is hardly likely that the haughty Assyrian would represent himself as acting in obedience to the command of the god of a small, despised people. *)

                4. The uncertainty of the facts in the story of Elijah’s struggle with Ahab and the priests of Baal explains, if it does not justify, the varying interpretations which have been founded upon them. We may consider here those points which relate to the form of

the story, the actual facts as nearly as they can be determined, and the problems raised by these facts. But since Elijah’s contest is only part (or perhaps the beginning) of the great struggle which was closed, under the direction of Elisha, by Jehu, we shall state the problems and reserve a decision upon them until the additional help has been gained which is furnished by the events of Elisha’s career and a consideration of the actual denouement (pp. xlviii f.).

                (1) Reference has been made to the date of the material (v.s.), as well as to its prejudiced character. We cannot fail to note also its fragmentary form, e.g. its failure to furnish any introduction to the story of the challenge, from which an adequate knowledge of the events leading up to it may be obtained; the lack, also, of the end of the story, in which one might have expected to find out how Elijah executed the commission given him at Horeb, for surely 1 K. 1919. 20 cannot be accepted as a fitting conclusion; and, still further, the absence of anything that will throw light on the fulfilment of the prediction in 1 K. 1917. Perhaps the story of Naboth was intended, as Wellhausen suggests, to be the beginning of the judgment which overtook the worshippers of Baal. (2) The facts in the story itself are not always mutually consistent, and the statement throughout bears evidence of being too strongly colored against Ahab. The formal charge in 1 K, 1630-33 represents him as being actually the greatest sinner that has yet occupied Israel’s throne. But every accusation made, except that of building an altar in the house of Baal (v.32), comes from the Deuteronomic period, nearly two and a half centuries later, when the official spirit had altogether changed. Was the extension of this courtesy to his wife worse than the similar act of Solomon ? And then, we may not think that Ahab had altogether forsaken Yahweh, or that Yahwism was in so bad a state, when we learn that of Ahab’s children, three (1 K. 2240 2 K. 31 818. 26) were given names containing the word Yahweh as one element; that Ahab is able to find four hundred Yahweh prophets in one place, when there is occasion for their service (1 K. 226); and that the number of those who had not bowed the knee to Baal was seven thousand, while, on the other hand, all of the Bail adherents are able a little later to be accommodated in one house (2 K. 1921. 23). If, now, we add to this the statement of Jehu that Ahab served Baal only a little (2 K. 1018), and the evidence that Jezebel was, indeed, a malicious and vindictive woman, we may well suppose not only that the situation was less serious than it is represented, but also that Jezebel, rather than Ahab, was the chief sinner. Ahab, following the policy of David and Solomon, sought to strengthen his throne and benefit the nation by alliance with outside powers, and did not appreciate the full meaning of the struggle as it presented itself to Elijah. He regarded the question as one in which the royal authority was involved, and, encouraged doubtless by the Tyrian influence, acted accordingly (WRS. Proph. 76 ff.). But, on the other hand, Jezebel was zealous and persistent in her efforts to build up the Baal-party, for political as well as for religious purposes. The Tyrian Baal-worship threatened to a greater or less degree the Israelitish Yahweh-worship. (3) But these facts, even in this simpler and less sensational form, represent a contest. What was the point at issue ?

                The question, in general, is this : Does Elijah here draw the line between the spiritual Israel (i.e. the seven thousand), and Israel of the flesh, who, though of the nation, are not members of the elect, known later as “the remnant”?* Are the spiritual and the worldly here for the first time brought into conflict?t Does Elijah, then, give evidence of a conception of God higher than any that has yet been held? Or, on the other hand, shall we throw out this entire narrative of the Baal-struggle as absolutely unhistorical ; # and understanding that it had its origin a century or a century and a half later than was indicated above, regard it as consequently the expression of a time not earlier than that of Amos and Hosea ? In either case may we suppose that, after all, Elijah’s position is nothing more than Ahijah might have taken against Solomon, the fact being that the struggle is on behalf of the old idea, viz. an undefiled cultus, through a correct performance of which Yahweh’s demands are satisfied, § and not in behalf of the new idea, emphasized by the writing prophets, that Yahweh’s religion was something other than a cult? Does Elijah represent Yahweh as about to bring great punishment on Israel, through Syria, because of failure to observe a pure cult, or because of ethical shortcomings? This is the question at issue. The answer to it is of great concern in determining the value of the contribution of Amos and Hosea.

                5. The Naboth story is perhaps more significant than anything else connected with the life of Elijah, for here there is spoken the condemnation of governmental unrighteousness which receives so large a notice from later prophets.

                Some difficulties exist, likewise, in the form, as it is given us, of this story (1 K. 21). It is easy to see that it interrupts the connection of chaps. 20 and 22. If to this we add that in 6 it immediately follows chap. 19, and that it has many points of affinity with the narrative in chaps. 17, 19 (e.g. the

representation of Ahab as a weak man controlled by Jezebel; also the appar. ent dependence of 2120a upon 1817), sustaining no relation to chaps. 20, 22, we have a fairly strong case for the order given in 6 (v.s.). But now, if we put together the fact that Elijah is being introduced again by the same writer after his successor has been appointed (1 K. 1915-21); the fact that the murder of Naboth contributed more largely to the ruin of Ahab’s house than did his religious policy (Ew. Hist. IV.71, 107; Co. Proph. 31 ff.; Skinner, 255); and the better understanding gained of the Carmel episode if we suppose the murder of Naboth to have preceded it, and to have excited the feeling of the people against Ahab (Skinner, 255; WRS. EB. 2670), – we are compelled to assume either that chap. 21 originally stood between vs. 18 and 19 of chap. 19, or that it is an independent document (cf. its resemblance to 142-16, and the view of Burney that it belongs to the same source as 2 K. 9–1028).*

                Keeping in mind the difficulties which the form of the story presents, we may note in reference to its content: (a) that the main point, rebuke of the king for an outrageous act, is the same as that found in the Nathan-David story (v.s.), and forms one of the principal topics in the discourses of Amos and Hosea; (6) that, after all, Ahab’s act was not an unusual thing for an oriental monarch (v.s.) ; but, in this case, the ancient spirit of freedom is again aroused (as in the days of the disruption) against a personal despotism; (c) that it was this crime (v.s.), rather than Ahab’s defence of Baalism, that cost him his throne, a significant fact in the history of national ethics and of a true conception of religion. In this same connection we may observe further : (a) the thing which Yahweh is here represented as doing is something quite unusual; the threat that Ahab’s house is to be destroyed by a foreign power, viz. Syria, plainly makes Yahweh something other than a merely national god (v.1.); (b) the Naboth-story is to receive practically the same interpretation, whether we suppose it to have preceded the Carmel event, and to be closely connected therewith (furnishing, in fact, the basis of that popular uprising), or to have followed it and been entirely independent of it. In either case it is a cry for justice to those oppressed. Upon the whole, something tangible is gained if the two stories are joined together; (c) with both stories there may be connected logically the opening message of Elijah to Ahab (1 K. 171) containing the threat of drought; for, after all, this is the question at issue ; Who grants rain? Who is God? Yahweh or Baal? The chief purpose of this threat was to demonstrate that the God, whose servant is Elijah, is the sole ruler of nature, against whose will no power in heaven or earth can prevail” (Skinner). This, in brief, was Elijah’s great message (v.s.).

                (* * To this may still be added the lack of harmony between chap. 21 and 2 K. 9; cf. the position of Naboth’s “field” in 2 K. 916 tf., a little way from Jezreel, and Naboth’s “vineyard” close to Ahab’s palace (in Samaria ?), 1 K. 2118, and the variants of 6 in v.1; the visit of Ahab to his ill-gotten prize on the day after the murder in 2 K. 926, but apparently on the same day in 1 K. 21; also, the words of Jehu in 2 K. 926 tell us a fact not in 1 K. 2111-16, viz. that Naboth’s sons were killed. On the basis of these and other facts chap. 21 is assigned to an independent source, as an appendix to chaps. 17-1921, by Kue. Einl. III. 78; Meinhold, 12 ff.; Gunkel, Preussische Jahrb. XXVII. (1897), 18 ff.; Skinner; but cf. We. Hex. 283 ff.; WRS., art. “Kings,” EB. 2670; Kit, 159-162; Benz. in loc. *)

                § 4. PRE-PROPHETIC INFLUENCES IN THE TIME OF Elisha.

                1. Close coצperation of the prophet with the government, a conspiracy against the government and its overthrow by the instigation of the prophet, — all this took place in the days of Elisha (ca. 850-800 B.C.). In this we have the completion of the work initiated by Elijah.

                The portions of 2 K. concerned with the life of Elisha may be classified: (1) 22-25 42623 g1-15 1314-2), a series of early prophetic narratives of a personal or biographical character, loosely strung together and laying special emphasis on Elisha’s activity as a wonder-worker (to be designated by the symbol E”); (2) 34-27 624-7791-6. 11-28. 30_1027, a different collection of early prophetic narratives giving special attention to Elisha’s influence in affairs of state and in the campaigns against Syria and other nations (EP); (3) 31-3 718–20 g16-24. 26-29 97-10 10-31. 32-36, a series of later additions chiefly from the pen of the Deuteronomic compiler of Kings. Cf. the comm. of Kit., Benz., Burney, Skinner; and Kue. Einl. III. 80 ff.; We. Her. 286–90; Addis, art. “ Elisha,” EB.; Dr. LOT. 196 f.; WRS. and K., art. “Kings,” EB.

This material presents some of the characteristics named above, notably, eg. (a) the magical element (strikingly similar, and even stronger), but there is little or no basis for the opinion (H. P. Smith, 0, T. Hist., p. 194, and others; cf. contra, Addis, EB. 1276; Strachan, art. “ Elijah,” DB.; and the comm. of Kit., Benz., and Skinner) that the Elisha-memoirs are in large part a duplication of those of Elijah, and consequently unhistorical. (6) The lack of chronological order, as well as of chronological indication; and the result of this is to create a wrong impression of Elisha’s career (cf. Addis, EB. 1276;

Strachan, DB. I. 694; Benz. 129; Kit. 185); for who really gathers from the narrative that Elisha lived forty-five years after the revolt of Jehu? A true conception of the case is prevented by the placing of this story at the end, with all the anecdotes but one preceding.

                2. The following points, although of secondary interest, may not be ignored :

                (1) The first meeting, at which the call was extended (by Elijah, it would seem, rather than by Yahweh himself),* took place at the home of Elisha’s family (which must have possessed substance; and consequently Elisha, like Amos, was not an ordinary nabhi’), some time after Elijah’s visit to Horeb, t. perhaps six or seven years before Elijah’s final disappearance, I in all a dozen years or so before the great revolution which unseated the dynasty of Omri. Elisha differed greatly from Elijah in appearance (cf. the phrase hairy man, 2 K. 18 (unless with Kittel, Benzinger, and Skinner, we refer this to the hairy mantle], with the epithet bald-head, 2 K. 228) and in dress (cf. the mantle, i K. 1919, which Elisha does not seem to have worn in later life; note d’ua, 2 K. 429). He used a staff, which, with the mantle, served him in his work as a magician. In a true sense he was a successor, since he it was who gave political effect to Elijah’s teaching, $ or, in other words, faithfully and resolutely carried out the policy of annihilating Baal and all that belonged to Baal, which was Elijah’s great legacy to the nation. || In this case there is no exegetical nor historical sense in calling Elisha a “demagogue, conspirator, revolutionist, and agitator ” (Co. Proph. 33); the phrase “father and guide of the Northern kingdom” (Addis, EB. 1276) seems more appropriate (p. xliv). (2) The story of the separation is late, and exhibits some peculiarities, two or three of which deserve mention ; eg. how comes it that Elijah, who has always lived a solitary life, now sustains close personal relations with the pro. phetic societies? Perhaps he sees fit to change his habits now that the end is coming (Ew. Hist. IV. 80); or does this document present a different conception of Elijah (Skinner)? It is, rather, Elijah’s emphatic way of introducing his successor, to whom he intrusts a task so terrible in its seriousness. The passage, therefore, has closer connection with the “ Elisha-stories” than with the “ Elijah-stories.” The “double portion” (29) is not the portion of the first-born, Dt. 2117 (Thenius, Benz., Kit., Skinner, in loc.; and Addis, EB. 1277); nor may we follow the literalizing view of Sirach (that Elisha performed twice as many miracles as did Elijah); but rather it expresses Elisha’s desire that, having an even larger enduement of the divine spirit than his master, he may be able to carry the struggle of Yahweh begun by

Elijah to a successful issue (Maybaum, Proph. 76). On the purpose of the picture, as a whole, v.s., p. xxxvi. (3) The fact that Elisha’s habits were those of an agriculturalist at first, and later of a city dweller (in Jericho, 2 K, 218, Samaria, 682, Dothan, 613, Shunem, 410, Damascus, 87), plays an important part in contrast with Elijah’s nomadic manner of life (p. xxxvi). It is not enough to observe simply that here, as frequently, those are associated who differ greatly from each other (e.g. Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and Micah); or that one kind of mind is needed for initiation, another for final execution. The case is incomplete, unless we realize the full significance, in this long ministry of, perhaps, fifty years, of Elisha’s “easy familiarity” and gentle manners, not only when he is sought out by kings (2 K. 621 1314), but also when he is visited on new moon or Sabbath (2 K. 422 ff.) by the people who trust him implicitly. Was this demagoguery? Then Jesus also must have been a demagogue. Elijah’s whole career was a protest against civilization. Not so Elisha’s; but rather an example of wise and effective adjustment, in spite of his strict religious views, to the new environment created by Ahab. This suggests (4) other points of character which come out in connection with some of the smaller events, such as the remarkable spirit of toleration (cf. Elijah during his residence in Zarephath) in the advice given Naaman the Syrian (Strachan, DB. I. 694); of humaneness, in his attitude toward the Syrian captives (622); of intense love for Israel, in his reply to Hazael’s question, Why does my lord weep? (811-13); * of widely recognized sympathy, as shown by the coming to him of widows and orphans (41); of the tremendous energy and fruitfulness of his work, if we may accept the estimate placed in the mouth of king Joash (1314), for had he not been more to Israel than its chariots and horsemen?t It will be noted that the data suggestive of these elements in Elisha’s character lie, for the most part, outside of the field of his political activity, and the circumstances connected with the revolution, on which v.i.

                3. Nothing in prophecy, or indeed in the entire Old Testament scripture, is more suggestive of wonderland than the stories which recount Elisha’s miracles. This idealization finds explanation in more than a single way; e.g. the writer thus makes expression of the profound feeling of love and esteem entertained by the people for Elisha, as well as of an equally profound belief in the love of Yahweh for his people, a love exhibited in the beneficent activity of the great representative, Elisha. Whether emphasis is to be placed upon the first or the second of these ideas will be determined by one’s final estimate of Elisha’s work as a whole.

We cannot fail to make three comparisons: (1) Of these miracles with those of Elijah (v.s. p. xxxvi); but here we should regard Elisha’s miracles neither, on the one hand, as grotesque and vulgar in so far as they are not pure imitation, and as altogether lacking in sanctification and grandeur,* nor, on the other, as something altogether ideal and above criticism of any sort.f (2) Of Elisha’s relation to Samaria during the Syrian wars, with Isaiah’s relation to Jerusalem in 701 B.C. during Sennacherib’s invasion; but in making this comparison, we must remember that a century and a half full of good teaching for Israel has elapsed, and that while Elisha, as a matter of course, appears to less advantage than does Isaiah, it may well be questioned whether, upon the whole, the latter event was more critical than the former, and whether, likewise, the doctrine of Zion’s inviolability established in connection with Isaiah’s preaching in 701 B.C. was not far more injurious to the Israel of the future, both ethically and politically, than the severe and, indeed, terrible measures apparently sanctioned by Elisha in the uprooting of Baalism, (3) Of Elisha’s miracles with those of Jesus Christ; were they not of the same general character? Omitting the treatment of the children slain by bears, do they not represent the single idea of beneficence, that is, love ? From no other source does prophecy receive a contribution which so definitely represents or anticipates the Christlike element (Addis, EB. 1277). Surely this thought of love is a new idea in Israel’s religion. But is it just to attribute it to Elisha ? His life and work furnished the conception. Even if the stories are very late, and even if little historical fact may be found in them, they, at all events, reproduced Elisha’s character as it appeared to the people of his own times and of those that followed.

                Much in these miracles relates to the pre-prophetic societies (8 5). Elisha was strengthening and developing these societies for purposes of propaganda (Che. EB. 3863). These societies were capable of exercising great influence on Israel. This method of warfare was more diplomatic than that of Elijah. It does not mean, however, that Elisha lacked courage (2 K. 3134.). It is probable that in view of his feeling toward Joram, he did not use his house in Samaria to any great extent until after Jehu’s accession, but lived much of the time with the societies. This work was to have great significance in the further development of prophecy.

                4. The political activity of Elisha is full of interesting problems. (1) Pre-prophetism, acting through him, now controlled the state. He was not merely an adviser like Isaiah. He was himself an active participant in the affairs of administration, “a decisive power in court and camp” (Addis, EB. 1277). In this he followed the example of all his predecessors. The time had not yet quite come for the introduction of a new policy, viz. that of non-interference except in so far as moral suasion might exert an influence. (2) His relations with foreign kings and potentates are of a remarkable nature. They seek him out. His reputation must have been widespread. Meinhold is right in pointing out that Wellhausen underestimates the influence of the prophets in these times. It is quite inconceivable how certain writers * count Elisha as of so small a value to Israelitish thought. Greater justice is shown him by others.f

                (3) The account of the Moabite campaign of the king of Israel (2 K. 34-27) with his vassal kings of Judah and Edom possesses for us a larger interest even than that which its relation to the well-known Mesha inscription (a voucher for the historicity of this story) occasions, I because, being evidently from the series of political stories (p. xli), it assigns to Elisha an important rפle as political adviser, and, besides, refers to certain facts in connection with the prophet which aid us in formulating our estimate of him. We observe (a) the custom of making inquiry of the nebhi’im concerning war (cf. i K. 226 ff.), and when we recall the times of Saul and the beginning of the work of the nebhi’im, we find ground for the supposition that the primary aim of these dervishes was to awaken the spirit of the nation for purposes of war (Schwally, Semitische Kriegsaltertmer, I. (1901), 103 ff.; K. DB. V. 653); but (6) Elisha being discovered in the camp, the mere mention of his relation to Elijah (as the pourer of water on the hands = servitor) gives him standing in the eyes of the king of Judah, who in i K. 22 seems not to have known the Northern prophets. There is to be noted next (c) the statement of the king of Israel (v.13) which implies that the kings, in this case as in i K. 22, have undertaken this expedition by prophetic advice for which Yahweh was responsible; but (d) Elisha, following Elijah’s policy, will have no dealings with the king of Israel (whichever king it was) $; for the sake, however, of Judah’s king he will speak. But he cannot speak except in trance, and so (c) as was his custom (7971, and it used to be, is frequentative), he asks for a musician (v.15) in order by the influence of music to excite himself into the ecstatic condition. This act, attested by I S. 106, alluded to frequently in Arabian literature (WRS. Proph. 392), and recognized to-day as a powerful incentive to religious emotion (cf. the influence of music on Saul’s evil spirit, 1 S. 1616), seems to bear witness to three things : that Elisha (contra Elijah) is in close companionship with the nebhi’im; that, while the spirit of Yahweh takes hold of Elijah spontaneously, artificial means are resorted to in Elisha’s case; and that consequently he belongs rather with those that preceded him in the prophetic work (i.e. a lower order) than with those who followed (i.e. Amos and Hosea). The first of these all will accept; but are the other inferences strictly legitimate ? May not this act in his case have been merely the conventional way of announcing the oracle? Is it really any more derogatory to his standing as a prophet than the ecstatic visions of Amos or Isaiah or Jeremiah or Ezekiel (v.2.)? The method adopted to secure water (vs. 16–19) was adapted to the possibilities of the locality (known for its sand-pits); cf. the plagues of Egypt. (8) The evident recognition (326. 27) of the efficacy of the sacrifice of the king’s own son to Chemosh is of interest in fixing the theological point of view of the writer.

                (4) Evidence of Elisha’s political activity is seen, still further, in the stories of the healing of Naaman (51-19), of the entrapping of the Syrians in Samaria (68-23), of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad (624-72)), with each of which important difficulties are connected ; * but, in general, they show the high esteem in which Elisha was held by all classes of men, his international as well as national reputation, his almost unlimited influence at home and abroad, and, at the same time, the great breadth of his mind, and his entire devotion to the nation’s God, Yahweh. We may not go so far as to infer that Elisha’s international greatness and his international relations furnished the basis for the idea of an international god, which, in turn, prepared the way for Amcs’s position taken in chaps. I and 2; yet the high character of his work must be recognized.

                5. The great revolution instigated by Elisha and executed by Jehu, described in 2 K. 9, 10, is one of the most important events in Israel’s history; this importance relates to the political situation, but also, and especially, to the history of the pre-prophetic movement, the relation, in that movement, of both Elijah and Elisha to the history of Israel’s religion. This revolution placed on the throne the dynasty under which Amos and Hosea (in part) did their work. That Omri’s dynasty had greatly strengthened Israel at home and abroad is universally acknowledged.† That seed was sown in this revolution, which in the end proved Israel’s ruin, has not been denied since Hosea (14) first announced it. We may call Jehu ambitious and bloodthirsty, and, since he undoubtedly believed himself to be acting for and in the name of Yahweh, a fanatic.* Sacred history fails to furnish a more ghastly series of official murders, beginning with the shooting of Jehoram in his chariot, and closing with the horrible blood-bath of the Baal-worshippers in the temple. But there was prophetic precedent for the revolution, and the total destruction of the royal house, when dethroned, has been the regular routine in all Oriental revolutions.t Although by the revolution there was gained a destruction of the Baal cult, and although it was strictly in accord with Oriental policy, from the political point of view it was a blunder. $

                It is more difficult to reach a decision as to the meaning of this event in connection with the pre-prophetic movement, and of the rפle played by the individual prophets. Apparently no great fault has ever been found with Elijah because of his share in it, and yet it was he who conceived and initiated the movement, indicated the exact lines of its execution, and selected specifically the agents who were to complete its execution. On whom, then, rests the responsibility? If one may judge Elijah’s character by the impression which it produced upon his contemporaries and upon those immediately following him, he himself would have done, in detail, just what Jehu did; for did he not (1 K. 1840) actually slay the prophets of Baal (four hundred and fifty)? Did he not foretell the awful events which were to rid Israel of Baalism (1916-18) ? $

                On the other hand, severe criticism has been meted out to

Bu. (Rel. 122), concerning the reason for the prophets’ support of Jehu, says: “There can be no doubt that the reason why Jehu was made the candidate of the prophets for succession to the throne was that he was known as a zealot for the pure worship of Yahweh. For this reason alone we might be sure that he and his successors were unremitting in their zealous endeavor to maintain the worship of Yahweh in Israel pure and uncontaminated. This inference is fully confirmed if we may trust the popular tales of the Second Book of Kings — by the fact that for full two generations the prophet is found firmly established alongside the king, as the bulwark of the throne.” Cf. also K. DB. V. 653.

Elisha, who, it is maintained, is scarcely to be justified for his participation in the deeds of Jehu, even from the point of view of his own times.* It is suggested that he was entirely deceived as to Jehu’s character; † or, in any event, though meaning well, lived on that lower plane of religious life which, as in the case of the patriarchs, did not forbid intrigue and bloodshed. I Now, in making our estimate of Elisha, let us recall (a) the lack of any word of disapproval from the pen of the narrators; (6) the wonderfully beautiful character portrayed by these writers, in which the features especially emphasized are humaneness, tenderness, compassion, and love, – the very opposite of those ascribed to Elijah (who can imagine Elisha as suggesting or favoring the policy of Jehu, except under the constraint of a controlling religious conviction?); (c) the strangely solemn circumstances of his appointment to office, and of his reception of Elijah’s legacy; (d) the opinion of Joash, when Elisha’s life is just

closing, a strong testimony in favor of its magnificent value, while the estimate of Hosea is to be treated as we treat the anachronistםc utterances of other prophets whose judgments concerning earlier events are determined by the sympathies and antipathies of a later age.

                With these points in mind, the question briefly stated is this: Was the religious crisis one of sufficient magnitude to justify the revolution? We do not wish, in any sense, to justify the intrigue and bloodshed connected with the revolution.

                6. It remains to present, in the form of propositions, the answers to the questions that have thus far been raised (cf. pp. xxxviii ff. and xliv f.), all of which pei tain to the significance of the revolution in connection with the progress of Israel’s religion.

(1) The contest, initiated by Elijah and completed by Jehu under Elisha’s direction, was one for which the higher prophetism of the period (860 to 800 B.C.) was responsible. It signified for pre-prophetism a great victory, and lifted it higher than it had before reached.

(2) The contest was a struggle, not so much with the old Canaanitish Baalism, which had largely disappeared, but with Phoenician Baalism, a new form of syncretism which, in view of all the circumstances, involved far greater danger to the interests of the Yahweh-religion (v.s.).*

(3) The point at issue was nothing more nor less than that of Yahweh’s existence; it was not simply that of giving him a lower place, but rather of his complete rejection; † for if Baalism had conquered, Yahwism would sooner or later have disappeared, just as Baalism disappeared after the victory of Yahwism.

(4) The conception of Yahweh which the prophets represent is higher than that of the past. For them he is, to be sure, a national God, but he sustains relations also to other nations, and exercises over them a large controlling influence. This is moving in the direction of an international God, although it has not reached that point.

(5) The religion for which they contend is something other than a cult such as had existed in the past, but with its corruption eliminated. It may be elected or rejected. It is one which makes ethical demands. Its ideal life for men is that of sympathy and love.

(6) The distinction is now for the first time drawn (though very vaguely) between the spiritual and the worldly, in other words between a true spiritual religion and nature-worship.

                The content of these propositions prepares the way for an examination of other pre-prophetic influences which antedated the work of Anios and Hosea; but before it receives a final formulation it requires a consideration of the other influences.

                § 5. THE PRE-PROPHETIC SOCIETIES.

                Jehu etism d for : had

                1. The pre-prophetic societies constitute a phase in the development of pre-prophetism which bears closely on later prophecy. Omitting many points which do not stand in close relationship with the later development, the following may be regarded as the essential

features for our immediate purpose, viz. (1) the numbers of the nebhi’im, including the closely related sects of the Nazirites and Rechabites ; (2) the general purpose, character, and

habits of these associations; and (3) the question of their origin, their external and internal relations, and their place in history and prophecy.*

                2. That these societies represented a large movement (whether patriotic, or religious, or both) is clear from the great numbers of nebhi’im referred to (viz. the one hundred hidden by Obadiah, 1 K. 183; the four hundred in conference with Ahab, i K. 22® ; the fifty or more residing at Jericho, 2 K. 27.16), as well as the citation of some by name,f among whom we must select Micaiah ben Imlah for special mention, since a true estimate will place him side by side with Elijah and Elisha, and, in some respects, above both. These numbers signify not only deep interest in Yahweh-worship, but also an intense excitement because this worship was in danger from the Baalism of Tyre.

                The failure of EP, which describes the public activity of the nebhi’im, to make any definite reference to the societies (but cf. 2 K. 91= EP, and 1 K. 2035, probably late), as well as the silence of Eb concerning any public activity on their part, is not to be interpreted either as destroying the value of the representations made in each (for the narratives need not be taken as mutually exclusive ), nor as giving special weight to the opinion that the life of the societies was exclusively retired and devoted to worship and meditation, or, on the other hand, that it was largely public. As a matter of fact, it was both, the two narratives presenting different phases of the life of the nebhi’im.

                From the lack of any mention of the societies between the days of Samuel and those of Elijah and Elisha, a period of more than one hundred and fifty years, we may not assume that with the passing of the Philistine struggle they had died out and were later revived by Elijah. Against this may be urged, not only the numbers just mentioned, but also the standing which they had in Ahab’s time as an order that must be consulted (1 K. 226 f.).

This silence may be accidental, or it may be due to the fragmentary and incomplete character of the narratives as they have come down. So few are the names of preכxilic writing prophets preserved in the historical narratives (Isaiah alone, and in Je. 26186, Micah) * that, but for the preservation of their utterances, one might deny their very existence.

                In addition to the many nebhi’im, named and unnamed, and the societies which are so marked a feature of the times, cognizance must be taken of two sects, perhaps orders, viz. the Nazirites and Rechabites, the members of which, while not reckoned as nebhi’im, share to some extent their ideas and their work as servants of Yahweh.

                The Nazirites (pp. 56 f.), rarely mentioned, were individuals especially consecrated to Yahweh, the consecration taking the form of a vow or dedi. cation in which some restriction was assumed (e.g. in the case of Samson, his unshorn hair, the possession of which secured to him Yahweh’s spirit; note also the obligation placed upon his mother, during pregnancy, in reference to wine and unclean food). We are not here interested in the later codification (Nu. 62-8. 13. 21), but two things seem very suggestive : (a) the fact that Samson’s Nazirate involved exhibitions of great strength against Israel’s enemies, and was, in fact, a vow of abstinence solely for warlike purposes. t Was this perhaps the motive that led also to the organization of the bands of nebhiim (v.i.)? (6) The reference of Amos (211 f.) to Nazirites, in parallelism with prophets, who had been caused to drink wine, a sin as great as that which was committed in forbidding the prophets to prophesy. From this we must infer that the prohibition of wine (which was regarded by all nomadic tribes as a luxury belonging to agricultural life, and was, like sensuality, a part of the routine of Baal-worship $), as well as that of cutting the hair was, at one time or another, the restriction assumed in the consecration; but further, that this service was one which, like the prophetic service, received Yahweh’s approbation and was worthy of being cited along with it. Whether, now, this abstinence represented merely a service in war, uninterrupted by periods in which one yields himself to pleasure, that is, an absolutely unbroken service, || or rather (as with the Rechabites, v.i.) a sworn protest against Baalism (wine being a special product of Baal’s land), the general meaning is the same ; for in both cases the purpose is protest, that is, consecration to war.

Another society or sect which seems to have been prominent in these times was that of the Rechabites, who appear and disappear in Israelitish history almost mysteriously. Assuming * that the Jehonadab whom Jehu took up into his chariot and thus joined with himself in his bloody work for Yahweh (2 K. 1015f.) was the Jonadab cited in Jeremiah, chap. 35, as the ancestor of the Rechabites, who prohibited to his descendants the drinking of wine, we may make three assertions : (a) in Elisha’s times a sect or family or perhaps order existed, pledged not to drink wine (the symbol of a corrupted civilization), not to engage in agriculture or in the building of homes (that is, pledged to the primitive nomadic life); (6) this pledge was made in the service of Yahweh (cf. the names of those whom Jeremiah brought into a chamber of the temple, all of which end with Yah, and also Jeremiah’s closing words, viz. that for Yahweh’s service there shall always be sons of Jonadab); (c) the life of this society was a protest against luxury, intemperance, and idolatry, and against the Canaanitish civilization of the times; and was a reaction toward the primitive simplicity of Israel. We may leave unsettled the question whether this order was founded on the model of the Kenites + (cf. i Ch. 255, Ju. 116, 1 S. 156), or was really a family descended from them. “They represented in either case a type of anchorםtism” (Kautzsch) which was closely related in form, and especially in spirit, to that of the nebhi’im and the Nazirites, the three together constituting a comparatively new and extraordinary propaganda for the old-fashioned idea of Yahweh as the god of the desert, and of storm and battle, an idea which carried with it simplicity both of life and of cult.

                3. A few points relating to the general character and the habits of these prophetic associations deserve consideration.

                (1) While in Samuel’s time these societies were bands of men. roving from place to place (probably in order to draw others into their association by the contagion of their enthusiasm), in Elisha’s time, they had adopted, more or less fully, a settled mode of life, their residences being at great sanctuaries like Gilgal (2 K. 438), Bethel (2 K. 29), or at political centres like Samaria, bands of fifty or more living together (2 K. 2?), and sometimes at a common table (2 K. 438), while some among them were married (2 K. 42).

                (2) Samuel, although a prominent adviser, was probably never really a head (notwithstanding 1 S. 1929), and surely never lived with them (1 S. 1918), unless Naioth means “dwellings”;* while it was a common custom for them to sit before (2 K.4%, cf. 61) Elisha, as disciples before a master.

                (3) These associations have been improperly termed “schools” | since the members are already engaged in public work, and some of them are married, while no phrase occurs which would justify the use of the word. Moreover, the idiom of the title, sons of the nebhi’im, together with Semitic usage, requires the conception of guilds or corporations. Nevertheless,  we are warranted in supposing that instruction was imparted (cf. 2 K. 438 64); and probably the prophetic technique and nomenclature which Amos found in existence had its origin among them. I

                (4) The members of the association did not prophesy as individuals, but jointly in a body, and in their processions (1 S. 10″) they were, in fact, conducting a kind of public worship at the various high places or sanctuaries (cf. Is. 3029).

                (5) The ecstasy (1 S. 1918-24) was the physical and psychological condition & in which they performed their service, “the hand of Yahweh” (1 K. 1844 2 K. 315) being upon them; and this “holy frenzy,” which was frequently induced by music (cf. especially the case of Elisha), passed, according to E (Nu. 1117. 25 f.), in part, from Moses to the seventy elders, and lifted them into the condition of ecstasy. Still further, it may be inferred from i K. 2041 that the nebhi’im bore a peculiar mark, which distinguished their service.

                (6) In Samuel’s time this uprising had its occasion in the Philistine crisis, when Israel’s existence was threatened, and the result was “a national religious enthusiasm,” which again came forward, perhaps more strongly, in the crisis of the Tyrian Baalism in the times of Elijah and Elisha. These national disasters are the expression of Yahweh’s anger; hence the reaction in the form of patriotic spirit, in other words, the spirit of battle.

                (7) That Saul is thought to be insane, Elisha’s messenger “mad” (2 K. 91); that the word 947, to prophesy, means literally to drop (sc. foam), i.e. to foam at the mouth; and that the insane were looked upon in all Semitic antiquity with respect and awe as being controlled by demons (cf., 6.g., David at the court of Achish, I S. 212 f), — all point to the presence of a large element of superstition upon the subject of prophecy, and also show its emotional and ecstatic character. With these facts before us, we may conclude in general that the spirit of these associations, while intense and upon the whole correct, was nevertheless as narrow as it was intense, as crude as it was correct; and that it partook largely of the spirit of the four hundred and fifty Baal-prophets, an association of very similar nature (v.1.).

                4. The questions of their origin, their external and internal relations, are of great interest. (1) Concerning the origin we actually know little, but certain points may be grouped for consideration: The character of ancient Semitic life (v. e.g. WRS. Sem.; We. SV. III.; Barton, Sketch of Semitic Origins; Lagrange, ֹtudes sur les religions sיmitiques), especially as seen in its purest form in Arabia,* was but slightly changed in these early days of Israel; and Palestine, like Arabia, with its desert life, its compulsory fasts “ in which the soul easily detaches itself and hunger lends the mind a curious passion, mixed of resignation and hot anger” [GAS. HG. 29; cf. Schultz, Theol. I. 102 ff.]), its habit of continuous war, its uniformity of religious life (growing out of the exclusive attention to a tribal god), was well fitted to produce and develop fanaticism, as is shown by every century of past history, and by the presence to-day in the Mohammedan world of the dancing and howling dervishes, who, by a peculiar life and in strange ecstatic cries, seek to secure and to express their religious exaltation. Amid such surroundings the religious feeling, if at all awakened, becomes intense, and tends to an “entire self-surrender,” which finds concrete expression in a frenzied state, that sometimes involves self-mutilation, human sacrifice, and the tribute of maidens (Schultz, Theol. I. 104).

                (2) The presence of Baal-prophets among the Tyrians, together with the facts that most of the growth Israel’s ritual (and especially that of mantic and sorcery) came from the Canaanites, and that the idea of prophets or nebhi’im first appeared at this time, leads us to suppose that the pre-prophetic societies also were originally Canaanitish.* The occurrence of the word nabhi’ in Phoenician, as well as in the Assyrian Nebo (= Hermes), points in the same direction. The Israelites, observing the prophesying (that is, the transport and frenzy) of the Canaanitish worshippers, adopted it, as they adopted many other rites (cf. the view that Yahweh himself was a Canaanitish god adopted by Israel ; so Land, Th T. II. 160 ff.; Wkl. Babel-Bibel und BibelBabel; but v. Kue. Rel. I. 398 ff.; Kצ. Neue kirchl. Zeitschrift, XIII. 828– 883). This, of course, implies merely that the external form, as in the case of circumcision, was taken by the Israelites, for within a short time it was spirit. ualized. The connection of all this with the spirit of war developed by the Philistine oppression has already been noted. Cf. 1 S. 105, in which Saul is represented as entering into the state of frenzy at the very place in which the garrison (so AV., RV.), or pillar (so G, Thenius, Dr., Kit.; K. DB. V. 653), or administration (so H. P. Smith, BDB.) of the Philistines was placed.

                (3) While in the earliest times, priest, seer, and nabhi’ were one, they now begin to differentiate. But, until later, the relation of priest and prophet was very close, as, in these early days, was that of priest and seer (cf. Samuel, and the Arabic kגhin, denoting seer, or soothsayer, probably, in early times, one in charge of a shrine). In later days, when there seems to have been antagonism between priest and prophet, this difference existed, not so much between the two orders, as between the priestly order and individual prophets who had risen above their fellows, and represented the prophetic order in general as being on the same low level with the priests (cf. WRS. Proph. 85, 105 ff.). In Isaiah’s time a priest (82) was selected to witness concerning a prophecy, while Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets of later times were themselves priests. It is probable, therefore, that in the early times the nebhi’im were closely associated with the priests (McCurdy, HPM. § 488, note), as was true of the priests and prophets of Baal, and in Judah ; cf. Je. 201. 2 with 2926 Lam. 22) (v.i.). The bearing of this upon the attitude of Amos and Hosea is significant ; cf. Am. 710-17 Ho. 44-9 51 69.

                (4) The unity, or joint action, of the nebhi’im has been mentioned (v.s.). This was an essential element in their strength. Elijah and especially Elisha seem to have worked harmoniously with the various societies, although they stood far above them. In Elisha’s own days, however, there lived a man who stood above and against his fellow-nebhi’im, and to whom the word prophet in its later and higher usage might well be given. This was Micaiah ben Imlah, whose story is told in 1 K. 228 ff. (EP). The essential point for us in this story is neither (a) the large number of prophets living at the time,* nor (6) the fact that the word of Yahweh is called for through the body of prophets as if it were a matter of regular routine; nor (c) the fact that their advice is asked in reference to a matter of war, and that they return a unanimous.   These things are interesting, but they do not constitute the essential element, which is (d) that Micaiah (who not infrequently prophesied in opposition to the king’s wishes, and was for that reason obnoxious to him), when sent for, delivers a message which is remarkable in the history of preprophetism. The position taken by Micaiah in opposition to the others deserves notice, since he is the first to break the unity which had thus far existed, ” a cleavage in the ranks of the prophetic body, which runs through the whole subsequent history of the movement” (Skinner, in loc.). The significance of this cleavage is enhanced by certain features in the narrative, viz. the attitude of the king (already mentioned) (v.8); the earnest effort made by the messenger to bring Micaiah into harmony with those who have already spoken (v.13); the symbolical action of Zedekiah to corroborate and support the prediction of the four hundred (v.11); the statement of Micaiah that he will speak what Yahweh has sent to him (v.14); and his first utterance, which, after all, is identical with that already given, and promises success (v.15). This was probably a piece of irony, and was so recognized by Ahab. When adjured to speak the whole truth, and with the background thus indicated, he

announces two visions, the first, a prediction of Ahab’s death, and without special interest; the second, a vision in which (a) he distinguishes between Yahweh on the one hand, and on the other a spirit, evidently recognized as a superhuman power, which produces the prophetic ecstasy; (B) he clearly recognizes the independence of this agent, but this spirit, we are told, becomes a lying spirit in the mouths of the nebhi’im, and thus deceives them; () he thus makes two strange reprיsentations, viz, that he, Micaiah, rather than the spirit, knows the will of Yahweh; and further, that the falsehood which the four hundred have just spoken is to be charged, not “to the imperfection of its human medium,” but to the superhuman agent acting with Yahweh’s approval (K. DB. V. 656; Che. EB. 3859). In all this, however, it is to be understood that (8) he takes a position far above the ordinary nebhi’im, that knowledge comes to him which they do not share; in other words, that there are grades, or ranks, in the order, some higher and others lower. These “lower” or “false” prophets are thus pointed out even at this early time, although they are still understood to be made use of by Yahweh (Volz, EB. 3874 f.). They have been called “ prophets of a narrow range of vision” (Volz), “the belated representatives of an earlier stage of

prophetic development,” who “had closed their minds against the deepening of the idea of God to an unconditionally ethical conception, and were thus no longer able to penetrate into the depths of his counsel ” (Bu. Rel. 131). We are immediately concerned with the bearing of this on the actual condition of the nebhi’im in the days of Elisha, and on Elisha himself (for if he occupies a high place, one, for example, side by side with Micaiah, how can he, nevertheless, work harmoniously with the rest ?), and on the nebhi’im of Amos’s day. It is not quite fair to say that “under the protection of Jehu’s dynasty prophecy so-called sank to depths of hypocrisy and formalism” (WRS.). A better statement would be that at this time pre-prophetism continued to occupy the low place which it had always occupied, save when some great personality like Elijah, or Elisha, or Micaiah was raised up; or, better still, let us distinguish between prophecy, for which these great souls stood, and manticism (i.e. the nebhi’ismus), which is all that the others yet knew or cared for (Davidson, 0. T. Proph. 111 ff.; Kue. Rel. I. 196–7). Amos plainly shows his estimate of this crowd of nebhi’im, when he maintains very forcibly that he is not one of them, and his words perhaps imply that it is no great honor to be regarded as cne of their number (but v.i.).

                5. It remains only to note the stages of this development and to indicate its place in the history of the pre-Amos time. Starting on the Israelitish side with seers (who are closely akin to priests), and on the Canaanitish side with nebhi’im (or dervishes), we see the two classes gradually growing together. From among them, or in close association with them, there arise from time to time certain great characters who share their peculiarities and adopt their methods, but at the same time reach far above them in their knowledge of the divine will. These men, not yet prophets in the technical sense, are the forerunners of the prophets, the connecting link between the old and the new, which begins with the writing prophets. This is their place in the development. What did these societies of nebhi’im do for the people among whom they lived? What influence did they exercise upon them?

                It is certainly unjust to characterize them as “hotbeds of sedition” and to limit their activity almost entirely to the sphere of politics (HPS. O. T. Hist. 193), or to consider them “a species of begging friars,” with but little influence among the people (Co. Proph. 13). It is with a truer appreciation of their services that Cheyne (EB. 3857 f.) declares them to have been “a recognized sacred element in society, the tendency of which was to bind classes together by a regard for the highest moral and religious traditions.” Compare also the view of Kittel (Hist. II, 266), that their chief interest was the “fostering of religious thought,” and that, as compared with the priests, they were “the soul, the latter the hand and arm, of religion”; the opinion of Marti (Rel. 81 f.), that in times of peace they had little influence, but in national crises were invaluable in kindling a spirit of patriotism and devotion to Yahweh; the estimate of Wellhausen (Prol. 461; similarly, WRS. Proph. 85 ff.), that they were not of “first-rate importance,” historical influence having been exercised only by exceptional individuals among them, who rose above their level and sometimes opposed them, though always using them as a base of operations.

They constituted one of Israel’s greatest institutions, which, like many others, came by adoption from the outside. But in its coming it was purified and spiritualized, and itself gave rise directly to an influence perhaps the most distinctive and the most elevating ever exerted on Israelitish life and thought.

                $ 6. THE OLDER AND YOUNGER DECALOGUES. Two important documents known as decalogues were formulated, and probably promulgated, in the pre-prophetic period. These decalogues now form a part of the Judaean and Ephraimitic narratives, and might be considered in connection with those documents ; but they were originally independent of them, and their especial importance warrants a separate treatment. It is essential to ask : What was their origin? What was their message to the times in which they were published? What prophetic element do they contain? What is their relation to prophecy in general? We may not suppose that these, with the Book of the Covenant ($ 7), are the only laws of this early period that have been handed down; others are probably to be found in Deuteronomy and in the Holiness Code ; but these will be sufficient for the purpose we have in mind.

                1. The older decalogue,* found in Ex. 3412-26, consists, as reconstructed, of ten regulations. These deal with the worship of other gods, the making of molten images, the observance of three feasts and the sabbath, the offering of firstlings and first-fruits, and the avoidance of certain rites commonly practised in non-Israelitish religions.

                This code, as well as the chapter of which it is a part, belongs to the Judaean narrative, but fits in badly with what precedes and follows it. It would seem to follow logically J’s introduction to the Sinaitic Covenant (Ex. 1920-22. 25), for one would scarcely expect new legislation to be given after orders had been received (cf. Ex. 3234 331-3) to leave Horeb. In Ex. 3428 it is called the ten words, and so naturally constitutes J’s decalogue, corresponding to that of E in Ex. 20 and Dt. 5. (The discovery of this decalogue was made by Goethe in Zwei wichtige bisher unerצrterte Fragen, 1773 A.D.) While there may be some doubt whether this decalogue was a part of J from the beginning or found its present place in J at the hand of the editor who much later joined J and E, no one disputes its very primitive character, and, consequently, its early age. Arising in connection with some Judaean sanctuary (GFM. EB. 1446), it represents a ritual of worship which is not only of an early age, but also indicative of a national religion. The very fact that it is so strongly ritualistic shows the preprophetic age ; and this is further attested by the pains taken to forbid certain rites (e.g. seething of a kid in its mother’s milk) which were common in non-Israelitish religions. It is, as Moore (EB. 1446) says, the earliest attempt with which we are acquainted to embody in a series of brief injunctions, formulated as divine commands, the essential observances of the religion of Yahweh.” But, on the other hand, it had its origin after the conquest of Palestine, because the background is agricultural throughout.

                The message of the Judaean decalogue might thus be expressed : “Worship Yahweh, and Yahweh alone, without images (such as Northern Israel uses); let the worship be simple and in accord with the old usage; forbear to introduce the practices of your Canaanitish neighbors.”

                This message, notwithstanding its extremely ritualistic content, shows a perfect consistency with the pre-prophetic thought of 775-50 B.C.; for in three of the ten injunctions (viz. “Thou shalt worship no other gods,” “Thou shalt make thee no molten gods,” “Thou shalt not seethe a kid,” etc.) we have representations exactly in accord with the prevailing thought of the pre-prophetic reformers, while the other injunctions emphasize the simplicity of Yahweh’s requirements in contrast with the elaborate and sensuous ritual of Baalism.

                The earlier decalogue thus connects itself with the pre-prophetic movement as it has thus far found expression, and prepares the way for a higher expression later on. At the same time it was not instituted as a measure of reform, but rather as the codification of existing practice. The publication, however, was not simply for the sake of providing a law-book; it was rather an expression of the general prophetic (sometimes called historical) spirit illustrated by J (cf. Gray, EB. 2732).

                2. The younger decalogue, found in two forms, viz., Ex. 20 (E) and Dt. 5 (D), presents a much larger field for conjecture and consideration.* This code consisted originally of ten injunctions, positive and negative, covering the relation of man to God and to his fellow-men.

                In Ex. 1934. 9-19 we find, in a passage ascribed to E, the preparations leading up to the giving of the laws, and in 243-8 occurs the ratification of the same. The intervening chapters contain two important pieces of legislation, the decalogue (chap. 20) and the Book of the Covenant (chaps. 21-23).* In spite of the appropriateness of the present order (i.e. a body of general and fundamental principles, followed by a series of detailed laws dealing with the life of Israel in all its aspects), we are compelled to believe that the two codes have no direct relationship to each other, because (1) no such relationship is recognized in the historical part of the material ; (2) chap. 2018–26 contains no reference to CC; (3) chap. 24 shows no evidence for connecting the two ; (4) chaps. 32–34 make no mention of CC; (5) Dt., while it adopts the decalogue as the basis of its code, shows no acquaintance with any other law given at Horeb; (6) Jos. 24 makes no reference to any other law. In view of these facts, it may be concluded that E’s original Horeb legislation was not CC, but the (later) decalogue.

                But we are confronted with two or three important questions : (1) Is there other E material which could possibly have been connected with the Horeb legislation? (2) Is the decalogue in its present form (either Ex. 20 or Dt. 5) the original? (3) How?

                That this decalogue was not an original constituent of the E narrative is held by Sta., Co., Carpenter and Battersby, who assign it to a Judaean recension of E; by Stהrk (Deuteronomium), who finds the original decalogue of E scattered through the Book of the Covenant; by Kue., We. (SV. I. 68), Meissner (Der Dekalog). Bהntsch, Sm. (Rel.2 273), Marti (Rel. 174), Addis (EB. 1050), and Matthes (ZAW. XXIV. 17-41), who assign it to the seventh century. Holzinger (Exod., in loc.) places it in the latter half of the eighth century.

                (1) It is probably true * that there was an earlier legislation (E”) of which only fragments now exist, viz. the account of the tent of meeting (337-11), with, perhaps, an account of the construction of the tent (for which P’s elaborate description was substituted), and of the ark for which the tent was made, together with the ritual found in 2024-26. It will be noted that this earlier legislation of E, according to this hypothesis, was supplanted, partly by P’s material concerning the ark and the tent, partly by the decalogue (and the story of the golden calf, Ex. 32, which may be called E2), leaving certain fragments only (v.s.).

                (2) The present form of the decalogue gives evidence of considerable expansion from the original ten words, e.g. the very striking differences in the two versions as given in Ex. and Dt., the great difference in the length of the injunctions, and the internal character of the material itself. The original ten words, stripped of all these later additions, were probably as follows:


3). In eral and rith the o codes nship is ains no e two;

  1. Thou shalt have no other gods beside me.

 2. Thou shalt not make for thyself any graven image.

 3. Thou shalt not utter the name of thy God for an evil purpose.

 4. Remember the sabbath day to sanctify it.

 5. Honor thy father and thy mother.

 6. Thou shalt do no murder.

 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

 8. Thou shalt not steal.

 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.

                (3) How early, then, is the younger decalogue ? (a) It cannot † come from the times of Moses, for tradition regards Ex. 34 as “the ten words “; it is known to CC; it is in a measure inconsistent with the ritualistic religion of the pre-prophetic time. (6) Is it then as late as the days of Manasseh (cf. Mi. 66-8), † and if so, is it the product of the ripest prophetic thought? The answer turns upon the fulness of interpretation given to the several commandments, the turning-point in the whole matter being the specific prohibition of the use of images in the second commandment, and the alleged highly developed ethical system underlying the whole. The former, it is claimed, cannot be earlier than the eighth century, for until this time there seems to have been no knowledge of such a prohibition. The latter must, it is thought, represent the result of the prophetic teaching at least down to and including Isaiah. The question, therefore, of the prophetic character of the decalogue and of its relation to prophecy depends wholly on the date, and this on the degree of ethical development which it is found to contain.

                (c) We may not accept Eerdmans’s suggestion (Th7. XXXVII. 18 ff., made with a view to placing the original as early as Moses) that some other commandment originally stood in the place of what is now the second (the present second belonging to the seventh century), or that in the original form there were seven instead of ten; but the principle underlying this suggestion, which has been accepted by Kautzsch (DB. V. 633″), is sound and is to be allowed a controlling place in our decision; viz. that the commands and prohibitions of the decalogue “ have not an absolute, but a relative scope” (K.). This means that the ethical conceptions which are connected with the decalogue in our modern times have been read into it, and were not originally so understood. The earlier thought was one not of morals but of rights. Eerdmans goes still further and limits the application of the commandments, e.g. the killing to one’s countrymen, and the coveting to the appropriation of property that was ownerless. Nor is Wildeboer’s criticism (Th St., 1903, 109– 118) of this valid when he says that thus the deeper moral sense of the decalogue is degraded.

                (d) Concerning the second commandment in particular, it may be said in passing : Its close association with the chapter on the Northern calves (Ex. 32) has some significance. The fact that the central sanctuary in the times of Eli, David, and Solomon seems to have had no image indicates the presence of a strong sentiment opposed to image-worship, if not an actual prohibition. The non-observance of such a prohibition in Northern Israel is no evidence of the non-existence of the law. Account must also be taken of the sentiment in the South (as represented by Isaiah in his early ministry), which must have existed some time before Isaiah. The presence of a similar law in the older decalogue of J supports the early origin of the prohibition.

Upon the whole we shall be justified in assigning the formulation of the younger decalogue in its original form, even with the second commandment, to a period not much later than 750 B.C., the arguments for a still later date * not being convincing.f

                The message of this younger decalogue to its times was threefold: (1) Acknowledge (cf. in the older, worship) no other god, and follow not other religions in making images, or in using the divine name for purposes of sorcery; but observe the sabbath (as representing Yahweh’s ordinances), and pay respect to Yahweh’s representatives. These are Yahweh’s rights ; do not do violence to them. (2) Do not do violence to the rights of your neighbor, as they relate to his person, his wife, his property, or his reputation. Still further, (3) do not even think of doing violence to any of your neighbor’s rights.

                The younger decalogue thus harmonizes completely with the growth of the prophetic thought as thus far ( 760 B.C.) developed. With the higher conception of God (v.i.) a more rigid adherence to him is demanded, and a more concrete separation from the ritual customs which had been in vogue.

                Still further, sorcery must be banished. While as a corollary it follows that the institutions of Yahweh in their simplicity must be observed; and respect will be shown Yahweh by honoring those who, in his place, have power of life and death.* The prophetic element, in the first table, is clearly seen in the first, second, and third commandments ; but did the prophets really advocate the observance of institutions? Yes; for (1) they could not do away with all institutions, and in the very act of rooting out the Baal ritual, they must fall back on something, and besides (2) their connection with ritual is seen in J’s including the earlier decalogue, in E’s including another decalogue, in D’s including an enlarged code of ritual. As to the fifth commandment, while we are unable to distinguish the extent to which the spirit of ancestor-worship still influences opinion, it can hardly be supposed that all trace of it has yet disappeared.

                The original obligation in the fourth commandment was not that which P or D later inserted) to treat the Sabbath as Yahweh’s property, and therefore not put it to the profane uses which had formerly been customary in connection with the heathen cult † (cf. Am. 85 Ho. 211).

(* † The need of such a law and the prophetic character of it at once become apparent, if the supposition be correct that the sabbath was taken over’ from the Canaanites, who had themselves gotten it from Babylonia (so Reu. Gesch.d. Alt. Test. $71, Anm.; Sm. Rel.2 160; Now. Arch. I. 144; Benz. Arch, 202, 465; Holzinger, Exodus, 73). The task of prophecy was to purify it from its Canaanitish associa *)

                In the commandments of the second table the case is even clearer. With the examples of David and Solomon and Ahab, in connection with whom the prophets have actually said the same things that are found in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments, it is easy to see that a prophetic redaction after Elijah must contain just these points (v.s. as to meaning of each). The important step forward which the tenth commandment contains, viz. not to think of violating one’s neighbor’s rights, is noticeable, but, after all, in harmony with the active intellectual effort of the times which produced the philosophical work of J and E (v.1.).

                (6) With this understanding of the message, and of the prophetic element in it, we can discover its close connection with the pre-prophetic movement. Its formulation can be ascribed to the intense religious feeling which is just beginning to recognize the rights of Yahweh and of men; it is in a sense the product of prophetic thought, but, more strictly, that of pre-prophetic thought.

                § 7. THE BỌOK OF THE COVENANT.

                The Book of the Covenant (=CC), to which reference has already been made, was promulgated, substantially in its present form, with prophetic sanction, as early as 800 B.C., or half a century before Amos and Hosea. We may ask, as before, as to its origin and marks of date, its message, the prophetic element in the message, and its relation to the pre-prophetic movement.

                This book (Ex. 21-23) contains two kinds of material. The first part (212-221) is a series of “hypothetical instructions, based presumably on precedent” (Gray, EB. 2734); in a single word, judgments (cf. Ex. 211, 24*, Nu. 3524), or judicial decisions ; regulations, seemingly intended for the use of judges, and dealing with questions of civil and criminal law.* The second part (2218–2319) is a series (with some interruptions, e.g. 2222-27 234 f. 98. 13. 156. 17. 199) of precepts relating to life and worship,* evidently other than legal in character; regulations of a moral and religious character, having especially to do with the deity and worship.

                (* The following subjects are treated in this portion : (I) Regulations regarding slaves, 212-11; (2) personal injuries, 2112-27; (3) injuries and damages in connection with cattle, 2128–36 ; (4) theft, 221-4; (5) damages to crops, 225-6; (6) breaches of trust, 227-15; (7) seduction, 2216 f. *)

                2. An examination of the material scon discloses that (a) the original form of this material has suffered both in the way of mutilation and in actual loss, 1 for all of which full allowance must be made; while (6) a considerable amount of new material, joined with the original text, must be set aside (v.s.) if we are to reconstruct the original document or documents; still further, (c) the laws on ritual (2314-19) are practically identical, even verbally, with 3418-26 (the earlier decalogue), and belonged originally in chap. 34, whence they have been transferred by an editor; § (d) the second part (2218–2319) is more diverse in character than the first, and is itself plainly a compilation of different elements, || some of which betoken a Deuteronomic origin; (c) the narrative (2320-33), which in its present form is late, contains old material that originally stood in close connection with CC, viz. vs.21-22. 25. 26, and especially vs.28-31; 1 (1) the regulations in 2023-26 have no connection with the preceding decalogue (vs.1-17), and should be taken ** with the “words” (cf. 2228-31).

                (* The chief subjects of this portion are: (1) three precepts on sorcery, bestiality, and worship of foreign gods, 2218-20; (2) humanitarian laws, 2221; (3) reverence and offerings, 2228-31; (4) testimony, 231-3; (5) impartial administration of justice, 236-9; (6) Sabbath and sabbatical year, 2310-13; (7) feasts and offerings, 2314-19. . *)

3. CC, with such modifications as are involved in the preceding (cf. 2), now suggests two series of questions : (1) Did the author of the judgments also collect the precepts? or is CC, as we have it, a growth? Various schemes of reconstruction have been proposed,ft of which G. F. Moore’s is,

                # Sta. (GVI. I. 636) recognizes two divisions, viz. “words ” and “judgments,” questions whether they originally had any connection with each other, and suggests that the words originally all stood together under their own superscription; and that when the latter was dropped the present confusion arose. Rothstein (Bundesbuch, 1888) regards CC as an expansion of the decalogue and attempts by a series of violent transpositions, resulting in  worse confusion than that which now exists, to rearrange its contents in an order corresponding to that of the subject matter in the decalogue. Stהrk (Deuteronomium, 1894, 32 ff.) finds three strata of laws: (1) six laws, somewhat later than the J decalogue, viz. 2112. 15–19; (2) the “judgments” of

perhaps, the simplest, viz. there existed originally (a) a book of judgments; to this was added (6) the “main stock” of 2218–2313, i.e. the Horeb legislation of E; then (c) the ritual 2314-19 (taken from J, 3424 ff.) was attached, probably by the editor who (d) wrote the closing story (2320-33). In this case the substance of CC is as early as E (v.s.).

                (2) Some suppose that CC formed a part of the original E; * in this case CC would be: (a) the law given at Horeb as the basis of the Sinaitic Covenant (but we have both what may fairly be regarded as the original basis (El), as well as the decalogue substituted (v.s.) for the original); or (6) a continuation of the decalogue (Ex. 201-17) and so a part of the Sinaitic Covenant (v.s.); or (c) the document which led up to the renewal of the covenant and so was connected with Moses’ parting words in the plains of Moabt; or (d) the “statute and ordinance” of Jos. 2425-27, thus representing the law given as the basis of the covenant made at that time, whence it was removed by RD to its present position. I But no one of these suggestions is free from difficulties, although the consideration in favor of the proposition is important, viz. the general similarity of CC to E.

                It seems upon the whole easier to believe that CC was a separate book from E, $ inserted in E by the editor who was himself the compiler of CC. 212-2216, from a later date than the preceding; and    (3) a group of ethical and religious laws, a sort of programme of the prophetic activity, viz. 2024 ff. 2217. 20. 24 f. 27 f. 231-3. 6f. 10-12. 14. Bertheau (Sieben Gruppen Mosaischer Gesetze, 1840) first arranged CC in decades, viz. (1) 203–17; (2) 212-11, (3) 2112-27, (4) 2128_2216, (5) 2217-30, (6) 231-8, (7) 2314-19; this involved the treatment of 2022-26 as four introductory commands, 239–13 as an interpolation, and 2326–33 as a closing decalogue of promises. Briggs (Hex. 211-232) includes in the original CC only four pentades and one decalogue of “words,” viz. 2023-26 2227-29 231-3 236-9 2310–19. This was enlarged by the addition of two pentades, three decalogues, and a triplet of “judgments,” viz. 212-11 2118-25 2126-36 2137–223 224 f. 226-16. The remaining laws are later insertions showing traces of Deuteronomic redaction. Paton (JBL. XII. 79-93), by supposing Ex. 34 to contain another recension of CC, from which he supplements defective decalogues in CC, by considering 2122-25 221 f. 11 234 f. 9. 13. 14. 15c as later additions, and by restoring two pentades from Dt. 22, obtains an original CC consisting of ten decalogues, each being symmetrically divided into two pentades.

The material in this case may have had its origin as follows (v.s.)*: (a) Ex. 2314 ff. = = 34 (I); (6) the judgments may have been a part of E standing after chap. 18, which itself originally stood later in the narrative; (c) the precepts, now somewhat obscured in 2218 ff. 23, were probably that part of the Horeb legislation (El) for which the decalogue (v.s.) was substituted.

                It is to be observed that all of these various hypotheses agree in assigning to the substance of CC and in large measure to the form which we now have, an age contemporaneous with or preceding that of E (v.i.). CC embodies “the consuetudinary law of the early monarchy.” †

                4. The presence of CC in E (or JE) is due to a religious purpose on the part of the author or editor ; this purpose, however, partakes of the historical spirit rather than of the legal or reformatory spirit. In other words, no effort was being made, as later in the case of the Deuteronomic code or the Levitical code, to gain recognition from the people for a new legislation. This appears, not only from the small proportion of the whole of E which CC constitutes, but also from the fact that its laws are based on longestablished usage, or codify moral precepts which had already been taught; the presence of CC indicates also, from the point of view of E (or the editor), a complete harmony of thought between the content of CC and the material of E; the message of CC, therefore, becomes a part of the larger message of E, and receives interpretation from the latter.

                The regulations (“judgments” and “precepts “) are entirely consistent (1) in treating the deity as the direct and exclusive source of judgment and authority ; (2) in recognizing that a time has now come in the affairs of the nation when the rights of the community are to be considered, with a view to restricting the action of individuals in so far as they are injurious to the community (cf. the decalogue); (3) in continuing to accept certain principles which have long prevailed in Semitic life, e.g. (a) that of retaliation, which included the lex talionis, (6) that of blood revenge, and money compensation for injuries committed, there  being no punishment by way of degradation ; (4) in having as a basis on which everything rests the agricultural form of life.

                The regulations, as already indicated, (a) when studied from the point of view of worship, represent the customs of the past * in their cornparative purity and simplicity, but at the same time emphasize the restriction of such worship to Yahweh (monolatry); nothing new is here presented; (b) when considered from the point of view of ethics, emphasize two or three important points, viz. the setting apart of the sabbath as a day of rest, the giving to the poor of the produce of the land during one year in seven, the distinction between murder and manslaughter, the securing of justice to the foreigner, the restoration of ox or ass to one’s enemy, the urgency against oppression and maladministration of office.

                In general, then, the message was one of an elevating character in its moral attitude, advocating, as it does, absolute “rectitude and impartiality” in methods of administration; mildness, protection and relief from severe life for the poor, the foreigner, and the slave; a generous attitude even toward one’s enemy (2346).

                5. The prophetic element is manifest; so manifest, indeed, that many have regarded CC as the result of the later prophetic work. It is more correct, however, after making proper allowances for the Deuteronomic additions, to regard this as the expression of that religious and ethical development which had its source and strength in the movement of the times of Elijah and Elisha, and of J and E, and, therefore, as preparatory to the period of prophecy beginning with Amos and Hosea. $ This view is to be accepted because of (1) the marked

linguistic and phraseological affinity of CC to E; (2) the large proportion of the code given to the treatment of secular matters (cf. the similar nature of the Code of Hammurabi), a sign of a comparatively early date; * (3) the primitive character of many of the regulations and ideas, e.g. “the conception of God as the immediate source of judgment ” (Driver); the principle of retaliation and the law of blood revenge, ideas still dominant among the Bedouin; the more primitive tone of 22% as compared with 340; and the conception of woman which appears in the provision for the estimate of a daughter’s dishonor, as so much damage to property, to be made good in cash (cf. the higher ideal of Hosea).

                $ 8. THE JUDAEAN NARRATIVE (J).

                This narrative of world- and nation-history had its origin within the century 850–750 B.C., and, with the closely related Ephraimitic narrative, is at once an expression of the pre-prophetic thought and the basis for a still higher development of that thought. What may be gathered from this most wonderful narrative, throughout prophetic in its character, for a better understanding of the preAmos period ?

                1. Four propositions relating to the Hexateuch are now all but universally acknowledged and may be stated without discussion :

                (1) The Hexateuch is made up in general of three distinct elements, viz. the prophetic (JE), the prophetico-priestly, found mostly in Deuteronomy (D), and the priestly (P), these elements being joined together, first JE with D, and later JED with P. It is still a question whether the relationship of CC to the Code of Hammurabi is (a) one of direct dependence (as close, indeed, as the relation of the early stories in Genesis to the Babylonian legends), since, in a number of cases, the laws are practically identical (so Johnston, Johns Hopkins University Circular, June, 1903); or (2) one of racial affinity, i.e. of common tradition, without any direct influence, much less, borrowing (so Cook, D. H. Mller, Kohler); or, perhaps, (3) one of entire independence, with CC, however, greatly influenced by a Babylonian envi. ronment (so Johns, DB. V. 610 ff.). While the existence of such a code as that of Hammurabi, at the early date of 2250 B.C., strengthens the arguments for an early date of CC, it does not furnish any proof that CC could have existed in its present form earlier than the stage of civilization (viz. the agricultural) in which it is plainly imbedded.

                (2) The prophetic element, with which alone we are now concerned, is itself the result of a union of two distinct documents; and while these two documents may not be clearly distinguished from each other in certain phases, they nevertheless stand apart, in the greater portion of the material, to an extent which is no longer seriously questioned.*

                (3) J is a Judaean narrative, having its origin in the kingdom of Judah, while E (v.i.) arose in Northern Israel. The evidence of J’s Southern origin is not so clear as is that of E’s Northern origin, but with the practical certainty of the latter, the probability of the former follows. This, moreover, is strengthened when we observe (a) the prominence attached to certain distinctively Southern sanctuaries in the patriarchal narratives; (b) the conspicuous place assigned to Judah among Jacob’s sons (Gn. 372 438 4426. 18 49′), cf. the corresponding place assigned to Reuben and Joseph in E, and the absence in J of any very sure allusion to Joshua; (c) the improbability that two such similar narratives as ) and E circulated side by side in the Northern kingdom, and (d) the presence in Gn. 38 of traditions concerning families of Judah, which would have little interest for a non-Judahite.t

                (4) J, although for the sake of convenience spoken of as a narrative, or indeed as a narrator, represents a school of writers covering a period of perhaps a century or more. It is necessary, therefore, in the use of J to distinguish with care the different strata. For practical purposes, however, we may speak of Jl as the original J, and of the material assigned to Jor J as additions.

                The time relations of Ji seem to be those of 850 to 750 B.C., or possibly a, little later. Only a few would assign a later date.* This unanimity of opinion rests upon (a) the fact that the prophetic character of J is less definite than that of Amos and Hosea, seeming, therefore, to belong to a more primitive stage in the development of the spirit of prophecy; (b) the probability that Am. Ho. 910 123 f. 12 f. are based upon the written narrative of J; (c) the literary style and the religious development found in Amos and his immediate successors imply the existence of religious writings with which they and their listeners were familiar ; (d) the fact that the narrative of J continues into the days of Joshua implies its post-Mosaic origin; (e) the national spirit everywhere characteristic of it did not exist until the age of the monarchy, when Israel for the first time realized its unity; (f) the probability that the same school of writers has contributed to the Books of Samuel and Kings; (8) the friendly attitude toward the Philistines appearing in the narratives concerning the dealings of Abraham and Isaac with them could not have arisen until a long time after the hostilities of the reign of David; (h) the reign of Solomon is evidently looked back upon as a sort of golden age (cf. Gn. 1518 and 1 K. 421; Gn. 925 and 1 K. 920); (i) such names as Zaphenath-paneah and Poti-phera are unknown in Egyptian writings until the post-Solomonic period; (1) Jos. 626 points back to the reign of Ahab; cf. I K. 1634,

                2. The scope of J includes the history of the world from the creation of Adam down to Abraham, the history of Israel’s patriarchal ancestors from the selection of Abraham down to the residence in Egypt, the history of the nation under the leadership of Moses and Joshua (?) down to the conquest of Canaan. It is altogether probable that the same school (v.s.) of writers continued the work down through the times of the monarchy, giving us the earlier portions of Samuel and Kings.†

                The general framework of the narrative from the story of Eden

with the union of J and E, e.g. Gn. 2215–18 Ex. 329–14; (5) Deuteronomic additions to the legislation of J, e.g. Ex. 1936-6  to the settlement in Canaan discloses a definite purpose in the  mind of the author of this literary creation.* The purpose is  twofold, relating on the one hand to the origin of Israel as a   nation and Israel’s relation to the neighboring nations, and, on the other, to the close connection of Yahweh with this origin and

 development. Nearly every story in the long series finds its true  interpretation from this point of view.f This is in perfect harmony with the national motive which underlies the work of Elijah,  Elisha, and other nebhi’im (S$ 3-5), with the higher place which  Israel is just at this period taking among the nations, and, likewise, with the new ideas of Yahweh which were appealing with such force to those who breathed the prophetic inspiration  (p. xlix). This religio-political motive includes also the desire to give expression to new and larger conceptions of God and man  and life (7.1.). This historical interest does not concern itself  with matters of an institutional character (this was P’s great responsibility). It is the heroes of ancient history and the scenes  of the olden times that the Judaean narrative delights in. For this reason practically no care is given to providing chronological  indications, and hardly more to the chronological arrangement of the material. I It is the spirit that controls throughout, nowhere  the letter. It is not difficult to connect this expression of a true religious spirit with the reformation in Judah, almost contemporaneous (six years later) with that of Elisha and Jehu in Israel,  which was, after all, only the conclusion of the former, resulting,  as it did, in the overthrow of Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and


                3. One of the principal problems of the Judaean narrative requires at least a passing glance, viz. that of the world-stories with which the narrative of J opens. § What was their origin? What was their place in the narrative as a whole? We cannot longer deny the close formal connection of these traditions with the similar traditions of other peoples. * Nor can we suppose that the various forms which these same stories take on among other nations are derived from an original Israelitish form. Israel received this material from the same sources as those from which other nations received their stories. It is a heritage common to many nations. At the same time it is quite certain that Israel came into peculiar relations with the older Babylonian tradition, not so much in a direct way through the earliest ancestor Abraham, as in a more indirect manner, viz. through the Canaanitish element, which itself contained much that was Babylonian. The transformation which these stories have undergone is strictly in accordance with the spirit of the narrative as a whole, and might well be taken to represent the whole, since it shows the prophetic motive, not only in general, but in detail, and illustrates practically every phase of that spirit. Moreover, these stories (found in Gn. 2-11) furnish not only the starting-point, but the basis, for the Judaean narrative, establishing at the very beginning the essential view-point of the narrative. This is seen especially (1) in the place assigned Yahweh in reference to the outside nations; (2) in the importance attached to the conception of sin, and likewise that of deliverance; (3) in the attitude shown toward the progress of civilization; (4) in the preparation already made for giving Israel her place among the nations; and (5) in the details of prophetic method and procedure.

                4. This prophetic factor appears in several of the most important characteristics of the narrative. § Only a few of these may be mentioned :

                (1) The purpose and spirit (v.i.) are distinctly prophetic, since the writer assumes to be acquainted with the plans of the deity, and in fact to speak for that deity under all circumstances; e.g. he declares the divine purpose in the creation of woman (Gn. 218-24); he assigns the cause and motive of Yahweh’s act in sending the Deluge (Gn. 61-1); he knows the exact effect of Noah’s sacrifice upon the divine mind (Gn. 82 f.); he sees the divine purpose in the confusion of tongues (Gn. 11°f) and in the selection of Abram (Gn. 121-3); he also describes the scene between Moses and Yahweh on the top of Pisgah (Dt. 342 d. 4).

                (2) The national element, so prophetic in its character, displays itself (a) in the great prominence given to stories in which the principal heroes are reputed national ancestors, such as those concerning Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Joseph, Moses; (6) in the recital of events which had to do with the national progress, such as the journey into Egypt, the Exodus, the covenant at Sinai, the conquest, the settlement, — these being the very foundations of the national history; (c) in the evident desire to represent Israel as unique among the nations, since she, a direct descendant (through Noah, Abraham, and others) of the first man Adam, had been definitely chosen by Yahweh as his own peculiar people; and to represent the affairs of the world as arranged in such a way as to secure the best interest of a single people, Israel ; * (a) in the naןve and primitive method adopted to show Israel’s superiority to their more closely related neighbors, viz. by connecting some form of reproach with the origin of the nation concerned, e.g. Canaan in the story of Noah (Gn. 925 f.) as a slave to other peoples; Moab and Ammon (Gn. 1930-38) as the offspring of Lot by incest; † Ishmael (Gn. 1611 ff.) as the son of a handmaid ; Edom as inferior in ability and character from the beginning ; various Arabian tribes as being descended from Keturah, Abraham’s second wife, and as not receiving a share in Abraham’s property (Gn. 251-6).

                (3) The predictive element is, of course, prophetic; “the patriarchal history is, in his (J’s) hands, instinct with the consciousness of a great future” (Driver). (a) The history of sin is pictured (Gn. 314) with unerring accuracy, as a long and painful struggle; in which 2 as those S; (b) i progress t at Sinali undations represent :scendant dam, bad ple; and between humanity and the influences which tempt man to evil, a struggle which in the very nature of the case must mean victory for humanity ; * (6) Israel’s relations to other peoples are prophetically interpreted in Gn. 925-29; † (c) glimpses of Israel’s future numbers and power are given to the patriarchs, Isaac (Gn. 27 27 A), Jacob (Gn. 4815-19 491-27); while (d) a forecast of Israel’s future relations to the world at large is placed in the mouth of a foreign prophet (Nu. 2417-19).

These predictions represent the very thought of the prophet concerning the Israel of his own day, the position already gained, or that which, with the encouragement thus given (i.e. by the rhetorical and homiletical use of prediction), may be expected. They are, in other words, “prophetical interpretations of history” (Driver).

                (4) The prophetic element is seen also in the idealism which permeates the narrative throughout. The writer makes wordpictures of events and characters in life, in order that his contemporaries, observing the ideal life thus represented (whether it is an ideal of good or an ideal of bad), may lift their life from the lower plane to a higher.

                The story of Abraham is a pen-portrait presenting the ideal of intimate acquaintance and communion with Yahweh, and consequent faithfulness and obedience (cf. Che. EB. 24). In the story of Joseph, he pictures the final victory of purity and integrity in spite of evil machinations on the part of those who are rich and powerful (cf. Dr. DB. II. 770). In the picture given us of Israel’s oppression in Egypt, and deliverance from the same by the outstretched hand of Yahweh, we see Israel as a nation brought face to face with the mightiest power on earth, and triumphing over that power with all its gods. explaining the perpetual hostility of man and the serpent family, as a punishment for their league against Yahweh.

Stories of this kind, and there were many such, were intended to lead men into a higher life, and to give the nation a confidence in its destiny.*

                (5) A true prophetic conception expresses itself in the attitude of the Judaean narrative toward the progress of civilization. Here J follows in the footsteps of those who preceded him, and joins hands with the Nazirite and the Rechabite (v.s.).

                This antagonism, a corollary of the views entertained concerning sin (v.i.), shows itself in connection with (a) the story of the murder which accompanied the building of the first city (Gn. 43-16); (6) the beginnings of the arts, all of which led to the further spread of sin (Gn. 420-24 111-9); (c) the evident reproach joined to the beginning of the culture of the vine (Gn. 920 ff.); and (d) the beautiful representation everywhere made of the charm and simplicity of the pastoral life.

                (6) The Judaean narrative clearly presents the prophetic idea of the covenant relation entered into between Yahweh and the people of Israel, with the circumstances leading up to the making of the covenant, the basis on which it was to rest, and its formal ratification (Ex. 1920-25 242-9 341-28). We do not see the proof of the non-existence of this idea at this time in the assertion that the narratives (including that of E, cf. Ex. 20 and Dt. 5, and Ex. 2420-24) are legendary and self-contradictory, that the early writing prophets make no use of the conception, and that, consequently, we are to understand the entire covenant idea to be the result of prophetic teaching,† rather than one of its fundamental positions from the very beginning.

                This question will come up again, but it is well at this point to observe with Giesebrecht (Die Geschichtlichkeit d. Sinaibundes): (a) that while references to the fact of a Sinaitic covenant outside of JE are few and doubtful (e.g. 1 K. 1910. 14, in which mina is probably a later insertion, cf. G; on Ho. 67 and 81 v. commentary in loc.) until Jeremiah’s time, this is not conclusive that such a covenant was unknown; since (a) Hosea in chap. 1-3 plainly presents the fact of a covenant, although no name is used; (B) the primary meaning of nina (cf. Val. ZAW. XII. 1 ff., 224 ff., XIII. 245 ff.; Krהtzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im 4. 7.; K. DB. V. 630 ; contra Schmidt, EB. 928 ff.) is covenant, agreement, the only way of putting a law into force being that of mutual agreement; (v) the lack of more frequent reference to the existence of the covenant is explained in part on the ground that no writ, ings from the older prophets have come down to us ; in part, because few particular occasions  called for such mention, and, besides, after the expiration of so long a period it was unnecessary to make allusion to the initial act, especially when, as history shows, every great change in the national situation was accompanied by a new pledge of Yahweh’s loyalty and love. Further the leaders, in their continuous effort to use the cultus as an example of the demands growing out of the covenant-relation, and at the same time to adapt the instruction to the changing needs of the people, emphasized the new relations, rather than the old covenant made by Moses. And if it is asked why should such emphasis have been placed on it in the days of Jeremiah, the answer is close at hand : Israel’s religion is preכminently an historical religion; the time had come when the covenant was to be broken; this fact necessarily brings the old covenant into great prominence. Concern. ing the relation of Amos and Hosea to this covenant-idea v.i.

                (7) The prophetic element is seen still more strongly in the controlling place occupied in the narrative by the characteristic prophetic conception of sin and deliverance.* This factor seems to underlie everything else, beginning, as it does, with the story of the origin of sin in Eden and the forecast of its struggle with humanity (p. lxxv), and continuing with each forward step in the progress of civilization, until because of its terrible growth the race itself (except a single family) must perish. Starting again in the new world, it reappears in the account of Noah’s vine-culture and in the scattering of the nations; while the stories of the patriarchs, one after another, illustrate, for the most part, their deliverance by God’s grace from evil situations consequent upon sin; and the national stories seem to be chronicles only of sin and deliverance from sin, –in other words, of disgraceful acts of rebellion and backsliding, and rescue from enemies who, because of such sin on Israel’s part, had temporarily become Israel’s masters.

                5. The message of the Judaean narrative was a rich and varied one, lifting the minds of the Israelites (of pre-Amos times) to the contemplation of:-

(1) Yahweh, as a God who had controlled the affairs of humanity, since he first brought humanity into existence; a God also who is celebrated for mercifulness and long-suffering, and for faithfulness (cf. Gn. 68 821f. 1823 ff32″ etc.); a God, not only all-powerful, but ever-present with his people (Gn, 2684 2815 39* Nu. 149′).

(2) The origin of sin, and with it of human suffering; the power of temptation and the terrible results which follow its victory over man; the awful picture of the growth of evil in civilization; and, likewise, the possibility of deliverance from evil and distress through the kindness and love of Yahweh.

(3) Great characters, who, while not without fault, “on the whole maintained a lofty standard of faith, constancy, and uprightness of life, both among the heathen in whose land they dwelt, and also amid examples of worldly self-indulgence, duplicity,

and jealousy, afforded sometimes by members of their own family” (Driver, op. cit.). This life is intended to bring about the establishment of a holy people in the world (Gn. 1818f.).

(4) A future mission in the world (perhaps not yet to the world), where Israel is to be conspicuous by reason of the special privileges accorded. These blessings will take the form of material prosperity (cf. the spiritual gifts so great as to attract the envy of all nations, suggested later in Gn. 2278 264 [R.]).

                6. The place of the Judaean narrative in prophecy and its relation to the later prophets may receive only a brief statement. (1) The ideas of Yahweh as just and hating sin, as merciful, and as faithful, are the very ideas afterward emphasized, respectively by Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah ; the representation of him as all-powerful, and ever-present with his people, precedes Amos’s representation in chaps. 1, 2, and that of Isaiah’s Immanuel. (2) The conception of

sin, and the statement of its evil effects, contain the very substance of all subsequent prophetic utterance. (3) The germ of the Messianic hope, here appearing, in later years is to occupy a large place in religious thought. (4) The conception of Israel’s mission in the world ultimately develops into the doctrine of the servant of Yahweh.

                Besides this, the more specific allusions to J which are found in Amos and Hosea may be noted, e.g. : Am. z’, cf. Gn. 1899;

                § 9. THE EPHRAIMITE NARRATIVE (E).

                 This narrative of Israel’s early history took form as early as 800 B.C., and, with the Judaean narrative already discussed, furnishes us a remarkable picture of the life and thought of the period.

                1. Certain preliminary points concerning E require brief consideration : (1) The evidence of E’s Northern origin is found * in its interest in the sanctuaries of Northern Israel ; its assignment of the leadership in the Joseph story to Reuben (cf. J’s assignment of it to Judah); its giving of a conspicu. ous place to Joseph in Dt. 33, the account of his covenant with the tribes at Shechem, and the interment of his bones at Shechem; the mention of the tombs of many prominent persons, especially those located in the North; some points of contact with Aramaic in its language; the prophetic spirit which breathes through it and is characteristic of the North, the home of prophecy. +

                (2) The date of E is 800 B.C. to 750 B.C. $ The general historical situation of the writers seems to be the same as in the case of J, namely, the period of the monarchy. But the general theological standpoint of E is unanimously conceded to be more advanced than that of J; e.g. the conception of the deity is less anthropomorphic (cf. especially, Ex. 314); the idea of progress in revelation appears ; the whole representation of the method

                1 That E was prior to J was the prevailing opinion until the appearance of We.’s Gesch. Isr. (1. 370 ff.) in which the opposite view was adopted, which is now generally accepted. For the old view, v. Di. Num.-Dt.-Jos. 620 ff., 630 ff.; Kit. Hist. 1.76 ff. Kue. (Hex. 248-52) dates El about 750 and E2 about 650 B.C.; so Co. Einl. 51. Sta. (GVI. I. 58 f.) places E about 750 B.C., and maintains the possibility of additions to it after 722 B.C. (p. 582, note 1). Holzinger (Einl. 225 f.) puts El in the latter half of the eighth century and E2 early in the seventh century. Carpenter and Battersby assign El to the first half of the eighth century, and “affirm that E, like ). contains elements of various date, some of which may have been contributed to it after it had been adopted into the record of history and law preserved in Judah”; similarly Steuernagel, Deuteronomium, etc., 282 f. Wildeboer puts El about 750 B.C. and E% somewhere before 621. of the divine activity in the world is in the realm of the supernatural and superrational; the transcendent God makes known his will to men in dreams and visions and through angels, not by direct, personal speech as in J. Furthermore, in the case of stories common to J and E, not infrequently, the earlier form of the tradition is evidently that in J; eg. in Gn. 2626–33 (J) and 2122-31 (E), according to E the covenant is binding upon posterity, the oath becomes one of exculpation, and seven lambs are introduced in an attempt to explain the origin of the name Beer-sheba (cf. also Gn. 3014-16 [J] with 3017f. [E], and 3024 [J] with 3023 [E]). For a terminus ad quem 722 B.C. is the lowest possible date, since nowhere in E is there any allusion to the overthrow of the state, which a Northern writer must have mentioned had he been through that experience. The same may safely be said of the events of 734 B.C. The whole character of E’s narrative reflects a period of prosperity such as the reign of Jeroboam II.; the tone is one of confidence and hope, with no consciousness of recent disasters nor premonitions of approaching misfortunes. The points of contact between Hosea and E (v.1.) also seem to point to the priority of the latter, and so confirm the assignment of E to the date 800–750 B.C.

                (3) In comparing the scope of E with that of J, we observe (a) that in E the relation of Israel’s tradition to the outside world is altogether ignored, the barest allusion (e.g. Gn. 2013 Jos. 24%) being made to the Mesopotamian antecedents of Abraham’s family; but (6) the history of the family, and later of the nation, proceeds on lines quite parallel to those of. J. The more interesting variations are (c) the story of the intended sacrifice of Isaac (Gn. 22), the fuller statement of Jacob’s intercourse with Laban, the special attention given to the Joseph-episode, the very independent account of Moses and his times, as well as of the ceremony at Horeb where the “ten words” are proclaimed and the covenant instituted, after which (Ex. 249-8) follow the reception of the tables of stone in the mountain and the apostasy of the golden calf. Out of this came the establishment of the tent of meeting (Ex. 337-11),* in connection with which certain events of important prophetic significance occur (the prophetic inspiration of the seventy elders, Nu. 11248-50, the vindication of Moses’ peculiar prophetic office, 121-13). Thence the narrative passes on to the conquest and the distribution of the land and Joshua’s final

leave-taking at Shechem (Jos. 24). The narrative unquestionably continues through Judges and Samuel,* thus reaching down at least into the early history of the monarchy, perhaps even to the Elisha stories in 2 Kings.f

                (4) The purpose of this narrative is evidently to magnify the office of the leaders, and these leaders are prophets, e.g. Abraham (Gn. 20′), Isaac (Gn. 2739 f.), Jacob (4820 k.), Joseph (5025), and Moses (Nu. 127-15), to all of whom visions are granted of the future prosperity of the nation. Israel’s government is a theocracy, in which the prophets speak for God. When Israel has obeyed the theocratic representatives, she has always been the recipient of divine favor, which signified peace and plenty. When Israel disobeyed, the divine anger was visited upon her in the form of disaster. It is not the secular rulers upon whom her success depends, but the theocratic guides. This teaching, which the narrative throughout was intended to convey, is admirably summed up in Joshua’s farewell address (chap. 24).

                2. The prophetic element in E, as has been said, is most conspicuous ; $ and the narrative, for this reason, is of especial interest to us. We may recall the representation of Abraham as a prophet (Gn. 20?), the ascription to Joseph of the spirit of Elohim (Gn. 413), the unique place in pre-prophetism assigned to Moses (Nu. 122-14 ; cf. Dt. 3410-12), the treatment of Miriam as a prophetess (Ex. 15%), the recognition of the non-Israelitish Balaam as a prophet (Nu. 235-24), the prophetic inspiration and authority accorded to the seventy elders (Nu. 11 16 f. 24 6-30), the characterization of Joshua as the minister of Moses and the servant of Yahweh, the forecasts of Israel’s greatness made in the visions ascribed to dying patriarchs (Gn. 2739 f. 463 4820), the hero-stories which were pictures intended to serve as the ideals of the times in which the narratives were written, and, in fact, as anticipations or predictions of Israel’s future glory, and the general representation of theocratic guidance and control which is always present. In all this the prophetic element is pronounced. Furthermore, the emphasis of E upon ethical matters and everything pertaining to the impartial administration of justice is in keeping with its prophetic character; cf. the large amount of legislation concerning the rights of individuals and their mutual responsibilities incorporated in E, and especially the ethical character of E’s decalogue (p. lxi ff.) as compared with that of J, and the evident effort to remove from the old traditions everything detrimental to the reputation of the prophetic heroes. This ethical interest is in the direct line of the development of thought which culminates in Amos and the writing prophets. E possesses also a larger interest in priestly matters than J, but this is wholly subordinate in comparison with his prophetic tendency.

                3. The message of E* is after all quite distinct from that of J, although it contains very much, indeed, that is the same :

                (1) The teaching concerning God is characterized by (a) a recognition of three different stages of growth through which the conception has passed, viz. that of Israel’s early ancestors, polytheism (Jos. 24), that of Abraham and Jacob, cf. the reformation instituted by the latter after seeing Elohim’s angels at Bethel (Gn. 3524), and that connected with the revelation of Yahweh (Ex. 315); (6) the important place assigned to representatives (viz. prophetic spokesmen or angelic messengers Ex. 141′), as agents of the deity in his intercourse with the people, and to dreams as a method of communication, and the consequent absence of the crude, though picturesque, anthropomorphisms found in J; (c) the treatment of important events as the result, not of human effort in a natural way, but of the direct action of the deity (Ex. 178-11 Jos. 620), and in this same connection, the employment by the deity of men to accomplish his plans in spite of their ignorance or hostility (Gn. 50*9 455); (d) the use in connection with the deity of certain peculiar forms and phrasיs, e.g. the plural of the verbal form (Gn. 2013 31*3 35′ Ex. 22° Jos. 24”), the phrase “ fear of Isaac ” (Gn. 3142.63), the reference to the sacred stone (Gn. 28%), the pillar at the door of the tent speaking (Ex. 33°), the stone of witness (Jos. 24%), the “trying” of the people by the deity (Gn. 22′).

The whole idea of God is more theological and abstract (cf. the

than is (אהיה אשר אהיה .viz ,יהוה new interpretation given the word

the case in J. E’s God is an exalted personality far removed from his people, and working almost entirely in the realm of the supernatural. He is a God of transcendent power and majesty and of unchanging purpose.

                (2) Other characteristic elements in E’s message, already mentioned, may be briefly summarized as follows: (a) A keener ethical sense than J’s, as seen particularly in the evident desire to shield the reputation of the patriarchs by relieving them of the responsibility for certain transactions (e.g. Abraham expels Hagar only when commanded so to do (Gn. 2112), Jacob in his shrewd dealing with Laban is acting under the direct guidance of God (Gn. 3124. 29. 42). (6) A very definite recognition of the patriarchal cultus, with its tent of meeting (Ex. 337-11), placed under the charge of Joshua, rather than of Aaron and his sons (Nu. 1116-90), together with altars and pillars (Gn. 2818. 22 Ex. 244), but no priests. (c) An utter lack of interest in the outside world, or in the connection of Israel’s history with the outside world.

                (3) E’s message, briefly stated, was this : Israel’s God is a being of wonderful majesty and exalted personality, with unlimited power. His purpose concerning the nation is unchanging. He is not close at hand to communicate with you in person, but makes known to you his will through definite agents, prophets, and messengers; there is no occasion to be ignorant of his wishes, which have been declared so clearly by these agents raised up to represent him. History has shown conclusively that when the voice of these agents has been heeded, the nation has had peace and prosperity ; but when there has been rebellion against their injunctions, there have come ruin and disaster. In every important crisis of national history, Israel’s God has shown his interest by direct action on Israel’s behalf; but he has never hesitated to send punishment when Israel deserved the same. Israel may learn how Yahweh would have the nation act, if attention is given to the lives

of the old patriarchal ancestors and to the great events of early national history. These experiences of honor and glory will again be enjoyed, if only Israel will give heed to the lessons of the past, improve the standards of conduct, and worship Yahweh as did their ancestors.

                4. The relation of E to other prophets is quite clear. It is more advanced and higher than J. In many points it is on a level with Amos and Hosea. It is like Hosea, rather than J and Amos, in showing little or no interest in the larger world-view. It is interesting to note that the broader conception is confined to the two documents of Judaean origin. E sees no such danger in the cult as is evidenced by Amos and Hosea. E’s thought of sin is that of J. While E’s ethical standards (cf. p. Ixxxiii) are higher than those of J, they do not reach the level on which those of Amos and Hosea rest.

                In E we have the close of the pre-prophetic movement, for with Amos, as all agree, real prophecy has begun. We may now ask, what was the basis and character of this movement, taken as a whole?



                The question of the connection of pre-prophetism with Mosaism is as interesting as it is difficult. Such connection is taken for granted in J and E (likewise in D).* But does this assumption stand the historical test ? t The answer to this question bears most directly  upon the estimate which we shall finally place upon the work of Amos; for, in the fewest words, the case may thus be stated : Did the ethical idea which formed the essence of prophetic teaching have its origin in Amos? or is there clear trace of its existence before the days of Amos? Is it seen in the transforming work of J and E in their stories dealing with world-history and nationhistory (v.s.)? Is evidence of its presence to be seen farther back, in the legal formulations found incorporated in J and E (v.s.)? Is it seen still earlier, in the motives and methods of Elijah, Elisha, and the nebhi’im, whose work began in the days of the seer Samuel? And is the germ of it all to be discovered in Mosaism?

                If we are to reach a safe conclusion concerning Moses and his relation to the subsequent history of Israel and Israel’s religion, more, perhaps, is to be stated in the form of negation than in the form of affirmation. This is true, partly because so much that is unfounded has been affirmed, partly also because it is practically impossible to draw a sharp line between Mosaism and the preprophetic religion, or to trace with perfect satisfaction the relations between the two.

                1. It may safely be said that the pre-prophetic religion, even if this includes Mosaism as its basis, has little to do with Egypt or Egyptism ; * while, on the other hand, its relation to the desert of Sinai (or Horeb), and to the tribe of which Jethro was priest is very close. This locality, according to all tradition, was the scene and source not only of Moses’ education, but also of the call from the deity, as well as of the work of Jethro, who became the guide (religious and secular) of Moses (and likewise his father-in-law); † and this, also, was the place, according to all tradition, in which Israel later entered into covenant with Yahweh (v.s.).

                2. We must relinquish the conception (old and widely accepted as it may be) that Mosaism and the developments from it are identical, † an idea which has been the occasion of much error and confusion ; but we may regard it as established that Moses represents historically (a) the deliverance of Israel from Egypt,* (6) the union of several clans into one community (perhaps not yet a nation),t and (c) a new conception of deity expressed in, or in connection with, the word “Yahweh.” I

                3. We are no longer to argue, a priori, that the Moses of tradi. tion must have been just what the tradition represented him as being, for, on this basis, we cannot explain “the ethical impulse and tendency, which, at any rate from the time of the prophet Amos (and Amos, be it remembered, presupposes that this impulse is no novelty), is conspicuous in the history of the Israelitish religion” (Cheyne); but we are entirely justified in believing that Moses was the founder of a religion, and “brought to his people a new creative idea (viz. the worship of Yahweh as a national God), which moulded their national life” (Stade, GVI. I. 130 ; cf. Akad. Reden., 105 ff.). S

                4. We may safely deny the ascription to Moses of literary work of any kind, even the songs with which his name is connected (e.g. Ex. 151-18 Dt. 322-45 332-29), or the “judgments and precepts” of CC ($ 7), and the decalogues of E (Ex. 20), and of J (Ex. 34); || but, without much question, we may hold him responsible for the institution of the tent of meeting as the dwelling-place of the deity, together with the ark, and the beginning of a priesthood, and this is the germ of much of the institutional element that follows in later years.

                5. We may find greater or less difficulty in discovering the basis of an ethical development in Mosaism, either (a) in the essentially ethical character of the claim upon Israel, which grew out of the great act of mercy performed by Yahweh at the crossing of the Red Sea, Israel’s religion taking on gradually thereafter a moral character, because she is constantly impelled to pay due regard to the claim ; * or (6) in the new conception of God, viz. that he controls nature and history, involving the truth that Yahweh was not the God of a country but of a people, the relation of a deity to a people being more spiritual than that of a deity to a country ; † or (c) in the mutual loyalty of the tribes to one another and their common loyalty to one God, in contrast with the individual henotheism of Moab, Ammon, etc.

                It is probable, on the other hand, that a more reasonable hypothesis will be found in the view that this development has its roots in the fact that Israel’s relation to Yahweh was not that of blood-kindred, as in the case of nature religions, nor that simply of long observance which had become something inevitable ; but, rather, a relation entered into by choice, one which, unlike that of a nature religion, could be broken, but also one which Israel was led to preserve, because Yahweh had wrought great works in her behalf. Budde’s summary (p. 38) expresses this thought most exactly : “Israel’s religion became ethical because it was a religion of choice and not of nature, because it rested on a voluntary decision, which established an ethical relation between the people and its God for all time.”

                6. We may acknowledge quite freely the insufficiency and uncertainty of the materials at our command, and, as well, the difficulty of giving proper credit to the various agents and movements concerned with the development of the great ethical ideas concerning righteousness, which had before been unknown; but, at the same time, we cannot fail to recognize that certain facts  have been established which fit into hypotheses more or less satisfactory, the fundamental factor in which is the close logical and historical connection between pre-prophetism and Mosaism. Indeed, it may be asserted that Mosaism is as fundamental to preprophetism as is pre-prophetism to prophetism itself.

                § 11. THE ESSENTIAL THOUGHT OF PRE-PROPHETISM. Is it possible now to think of this movement in its unity, and, in spite of the many difficulties which exist, to separate and distinguish its thought from that which precedes and follows it? In making the effort to draw historical lines, we may observe :(1) That the case before us is, in some sense, a definite one, since we are concerned with Israel’s religious thought during the period in which Yahwism is in contact with Baalism as a rival religion. This contact began when Israel entered Canaan; it ended in the century in which Jehu, under the influence of the nebhi’im, uprooted it.* We might go farther and say that we are dealing with Yahwism itself; for, pure Yahwism, at the end of this period, passes into prophetism, which, still later, becomes Judaism. (2) Consequently, our question is a threefold one: What was Yahwism at the time of the entrance into Canaan? With what did Yahwism have to contend in the centuries from 1100 to 800 B.C.? What had Yahwism become at the close of the contest? Two or three subsidiary questions will arise, viz. : How was it that, in the end, Yahwism became supreme? Is the difference between the Yahwism of 1100 B.C. and that of 800 B.C. the sum contributed by the nebhi’im ? or did Yahwism draw from Baalism itself much that was of vital significance? And further, were the institutions of Baalism made use of by Yahwism in securing this position of superiority?

1. It is natural to consider first the idea of God. (1) When Yahwism, whatever may have been its origin, t came

into Canaan, it was, so far as the conception of God was concerned, simple and primitive, very crude and naןve, monotonous and severe.

                This appears in (a) the conception of Yahweh as the god of the mountain (Sinai), a conception which continued in one form or another until late in Israel’s history (Dt. 332 f. 1 K. 198 Ps. 688 Hb. 38). (6) The more widely prevailing conception of Yahweh as the god of war, an idea which found strong justification in the issue of the contest with Egypt (cf. also, the war. song with which camp was broken, Nu. 1036), as well as that with the Canaanites (cf. the fear of the Philistines, 1 S. 4?t., on account of Yahweh’s presence in the ark). This is seen also in the allusion to Israel’s armies as Yahweh’s armies (1 S. 1726 2528), and in the very name, Yahweh Sabaoth (cf. 2 S. 510). * (c) The conception of him also as the God of the desert (i.c. of the nomad), and especially in connection with storms, eg. at the giving of the law (Ex. 19), in the battle of Deborah (Ju. 546), in the storm exhibited to Elijah at Horeb (1 K. 1911 ff.), and in later times, v.s. It is here that the nomadic temperament of pre-prophetism (v.s.) finds its basis.t (d) The conception of the ark, a materialistic symbol of Yahweh’s presence, which plays a great rפle in this early period, I actually representing Yahweh, and not merely containing some image or symbolic stone. The history of its presence or absence in Israel’s armies, its transportation hither and thither until at last it is deposited in the Temple (1 K. 84.6 ff.), is full of significance in showing the crude and crass conceptions of deity entertained, not only by the people, but also by the leaders.

                (e) The use of images, involving family and clan conceptions of deity, distinct from that of Yahweh. S Some of these images, unquestionably, were employed to represent Yahweh, e.g. the , originally of wood or stone, and probably of human form (Ju. 173 r.), || likewise, the TDN (p. 221), perhaps originally the garment used to clothe the image, and later, the image itself, and used in obtaining oracles. But the teraphim (p. 222), used very frequently of Yahweh, are also images of ancestors, of the tribal or family gods, as in the case of Rachel (Gn. 31 19. 34 f. cf. 30.32), and of the king of Babylon (Ez. 2126). It is understood that all of these usages existed in the earliest times of the preprophetic period.

                (2) What, now, did Israel find in Canaan that required to be either assimilated or destroyed ? To what extent, and through what means, in the course of the struggle was Yahwism itself modified?

(a) The distribution of the clans among the Canaanites involved a serious risk, for they now acted more or less independently of each other, and much that had been gained by their union was lost. With Canaanites on every side of them, they were compelled to give a certain recognition to the gods of the people, who were, likewise, the gods of the land; and especially was this true in view of the fact that they were unable to drive out the Canaanites, but lived with them side by side (Ju. 1′ 181 ff.). How could they do other than express gratitude to the Baalim, i.e. the gods of the land, for the fruits which they gave?

(6) The new life, moreover, was an agricultural rather than a nomadic life, and demanded many modifications. The Israelites were the pupils of the Canaanites in all “the finer arts of field and vine culture,” and the association needed for this could not fail to exert a great influence on Israel’s life and thought. *

(c) The nation for the first time came into touch with real civilization, and civilization was for them identical with Baalism. This explains why the nebhi’im tended toward an isolated life, and seem in most cases to have opposed all progress toward civilization. The emblems of civilization, corn and oil, silver and gold, Israel believed, came from the Baalim (Ho. 28).

(d) The nature of Baalism itself t was something peculiarly attractive to people of a sensuous type. The great emphasis placed on reproduction and everything connected with it, whether in the realm of vegetable or animal or human life, gave it a pervasive influence, for all life in the narrower, if not in the broader, sense was involved. The strength of the ideas thus included is evident from the hold they took upon many nations of ancient times. There was a stimulus in all this, a warmth which, although greatly abused, produced also some good results.

(3) What actually occurred in the process of this long struggle was as follows: (a) Yahweh’s residence is changed; he gradually takes up his dwelling in the new territory. This means that the Baalim whom men worshipped at many different points, under various names, Baal-Peor, Baal-Hermon, etc. (cf. also Baal-Berith, Baal-Zebub), were displaced by Yahweh, who was worshipped at all the sacred places and bore different names according to the place (e.g. obuv 5x, the eternal God, Gn. 21*3 ; 5xana 5x, the God of Bethel, 3113 35%; 01bv “, Yahweh Shalom, Ju. 644, etc.). All this change has taken place before the times of J and E, for, as Kautzsch points out (DB. V. 646), the patriarchal narratives do not know of any Baal-worship in the land. Yahweh has taken Baal’s place, but in so doing the Yahweh ritual has absorbed so much of Baalism as to become, practically, a Baal ritual. (6) The idea grows that Yahweh “is enthroned as God in heaven.” This means much, for it implies that he is superior to all other gods. It is from heaven that he performs all those acts which indicate his power over the elements (e.g. rain, dew, fire, Gn. 1924) and over the fruits of the soil. He is called the God of heaven (Gn. 24′). Messengers must now be employed to represent him, and these angels call from heaven (21″ 22″), and, indeed, go up and down on ladders which unite heaven and earth (28!?), the “house of God” being identical with the “gate of heaven.” (c) His nature as the God of the desert is changed; he is no longer hostile to civilization. Yahwism could never have become without change the religion of a civilized people, still less of humanity. “He takes under his protection every new advance in civilization.”* (d) His nature as destroyer (war-god) is changed, for he is no longer the deity of desolation and silence. He is in continual touch with man’s activity, and everything is subordinated to secure his influence and blessing. The idea of beneficence and love has come. Warmth and color now exist, where all before was cold and stern. (e) Baalism, acting as a “decomposing reagent,” brings unity, solidarity, in so far as like conditions exist, and thereby all cult and family images must disappear. Hence arises the opposition to image-worship which forms so large an element in prophetism beginning with Hosea. Attempts are made to spiritualize the old physical conception of Yahweh. Among these are to be counted (a) the expression, “angel of Yahweh” (), which was at first used when Yahweh was represented as coming into contact with man (Gn. 167ff. cf. “); in other words, a method of Yahweh’s manifestation ;* (B) the face of Yahweh (J), i.e. the person (Ex. 3320-%), but not the full being,f and (y) the name of Yahweh (Ex. 2024 23^), in which “name” is a “personified power, placed side by side with the proper person of Yahweh.” | The use of these phrases § is an attempt to substitute something more spiritual for the thought of the human form, and marks great progress in the conception of God.

                (4) The agencies which bring about this change are in part : (a) Those of the old Yahwism, the strength of which continues to be felt in spite of the additions that have been taken on ; (6) those also of Baalism, among the chief of which was prophetism, adopted and adapted by Israel (v.s.); but (c) the immediate occasion of the acute attack which enabled Yahwism to throw off the gradually increasing burden that had almost proved its ruin, was the attempt to force upon Israel a new form of this same Baalism, that of Tyre. The situation was now essentially different from that which existed in the early days of the conquest; for at this time Yahweh had actually taken possession of the land, and the question was: Shall a foreign god, the deity of Tyre, who has already shown great power, come in and overpower the god of the land, who is now Yahweh? || On the nature of this struggle in detail, v.i. The old Baalism had become so intimate a part of Yahwism that at this time it is lost sight of in the new Baalism which threatens Israel. This distinction makes clear what at first seems contradictory, viz. the idea that Baalism was actually uprooted by Jehu, and the idea, which also existed, that Baalism was still a corrupting element in Israel’s religion.

                (5) At the close of the struggle, Yahwism is victorious ; f the conception of God which has now developed being as follows:

                (a) Yahweh is a god irresistible in nature and among nations, the idea of a merely national god having been outgrown. This is seen in the power attributed to Yahweh over other nations, e.g. Egypt, and Canaan, as well as in the extra-national existence involved in his residence at Sinai, and likewise in the later conception of a heavenly residence (v.s.). The narrower idea of Yahweh as the god of a land has never existed. He has been and is a national god, i.e. Israel’s God; but he is also something more than this, a god who controls nations and nature in Israel’s favor. It is not in this same sense that we may speak of Chemosh or Ashur.

                (6) He is, moreover, a god who is the moral ruler of his people ; this has not gone so far as to affect individuals, being still limited to families and nations. The interests of the individual are indeed conceived of as under the protection of Yahweh, but they are wholly subordinate to those of the nation, being in themselves of too slight importance to merit the especial and continuous consideration of the deity, except in so far as they contribute to the national life and progress.* Yahweh’s rule is characterized by justice, and his power to judge extends to heaven and to Sheol. Here we must estimate the true character of judgment in ancient times, for, although it came from Yahweh, it signified, not a “moral investigation and instruction,” but “an oracular response obtained by means of a sacred lot” (Ex. 226 4. Jos. 716 ff. 38 ff. 1 S. 14). This, as Budde says, is not moral, but intellectual knowledge. But this primitive judgment has nevertheless given place to the verdict against kings pronounced by Nathan and Elijah (v.s.).

                He is known for his personal interest and love, since he has shown himself to be, not only a helper and a friend, but, indeed, a father. $ This signifies something very great, for he is no longer simply a natural or even national god, and therefore compelled to render such service. If deliverances have been wrought, they have come through his affection. There is a sense, likewise, in which he is a holy god, and disobedience of his regulations is sin. This is implied in the claim of Elijah, who treats allegiance to any other god as sin ; in representations of J and E, that disregard of Yahweh’s will (cf. especially the story of the origin and progress of sin given by J in Gn. 3-11) is deserving of severe punishment and inevitably followed by judgment; in the decalogues, which present the ethical and the ritualistic demands of a god, himself holy, and therefore demanding an elevated character in those who serve him; and in CC, the regulations of which are everywhere regarded as the expression of the divine will.

                (c) Yahweh alone is the God of Israel, and he only may be worshipped, – this was the truth for which Elijah had contended, and his contest had been won. The significance of this victory can scarcely be overestimated. The fact that Yahweh had made and enforced such a demand in itself challenged attention. It emphasized the fundamental and far-reaching difference between Yahweh and the nature gods of Canaan and the surrounding peoples.* This difference consisted chiefly in the essentially ethical and spiritual nature of Yahweh, which must of necessity find expression in demands upon his people for a worship arising from the heart and a life devoted to ideals of justice and purity.

                2. In what has already been said, there is much that refers to the conceptions concerning man’s duty to God, as expressed in worship. We may add the following brief statement:

                (1) The priest, hardly known before the entrance into Canaan, has attained an important place. The story of the priest-work of Micah (Ju. 17, 18), and that of Eli and his sons (1 S. 1-4%), shed much light upon the early history of the priesthood. He was at first occupied with the care of the Ark (1 S. 44 2 S. 1524. 29), and with carrying or consulting the ephod (for no positive evidence exists that the priests participated in sacrificet). Out of this function grew later the giving of directions, i.e. tפrפth, in matters relating to law or ritual. But with the erection of the Temple, the priests took on larger service and rose to a higher place in society and in governmental affairs. Strong societies were organized, at first in Jerusalem, and later in Northern Israel (cf. Dt. 3386. [E], in which the priesthood is recognized as organized and as possessing high dignity and power). At the same time CC contains no reference to a priest; the whole matter is custom, not law.

                (2) The high places taken over from Baalism are still employed

without objection as the seats of popular worship. These represent the ancient holy places, and have now become thoroughly identified with Yahweh-worship, as distinguished from Baal-worship. The thought has not yet been suggested that worship shall be restricted to one place, Jerusalem. The impossibility of securing a pure worship at these high places has not yet been realized.

                (3) Sacrifice is, after all, the chief feature of worship. It appears in the meal of communion (1 S. 14 ff. 912 ff.); the offerer may kill the victim, the fat is reserved for Yahweh, and a portion is given to the priest (1 S. 213 f.); the flesh may not be eaten with the blood (1 S. 1432 f.). All sacrifices are gifts to the deity; the offerings of Gideon (Ju. 618 fr. and Manoah (Ju. 1319) represent the usage of the times.*

                (4) The passover, Israel’s only festival in pre-Canaanitish times, has now grown into several, among which are (a) the Sabbath (Ex. 3491 2312 Dt. 512), observed, however, with a humanitarian rather than a religious motive (v.s.); this same thing holds good also of (6) the seventh year, which is beginning to be observed. There are also (c) the new moon (1 S. 203 ff. 24 ff.), with festivities lasting for two days, and (d) the three festivals at which all males were to appear with gifts (Ex. 2314 ff. 3418 ff.); these were occasions of great joy and feasting, reaching even to excess, for sacred women at the high places prostituted themselves as a part of the religious ritual. Cf. Amos and Hosea passim.t

                (5) Custom has now in many cases been codified into law, for CC is clearly in existence (v.s.). These precedents are now recognized as having divine sanction; and while their scope is not broad, the essential content includes reference to many of the more important of the religious institutions.

                (6) The use of images continues, and oracles are consulted in order to ascertain the divine will. This was the use made of Urim and Thummim, which, in some way not quite clear, represented the sacred lot. Cf. 1 S. 1441 (G), and 143. 18. 36. I This usage, hardly consistent with a later and higher prophetism, was still a part of the system in vogue, and entirely consistent with that system.

                3. It is not easy to formulate, as the expression of this Canaanitish-Israelitish age, the opinion which prevailed concerning the relation of man to his fellow-man, his obligations, or, in other  words, the ethical standards which were in vogue. But certain things may be said, partly in the way of explanation, partly, also, in the way of interpretation :

                (1) It is unfair to the age, and to the subject, to base one’s conclusions on the extreme cases of immorality. Such cases occur in our own day. The record of such cases (e.g. that of Judah and Tamar (Gn. 38), and that of David and Bathsheba (1 Sam. 11, 12)) is evidence, not of their common occurrence, but of their heinousness in the sight of the prophet who makes the record.

                (2) While we may still hesitate concerning the actual basis of this ethical movement in Israel’s history, and its origin, it is comparatively easy to point out, not only the elements in the remarkable growth which has taken place in this period, but also the occasion of the growth, viz. the advance in a true conception of Yahweh (pp. xc ff.).

                (3) The conception of higher ideals is still restricted to the community (i.e. the family or clan), and has not received application to the individual.

                (4) This higher conception has influenced the attitude of Israel neither toward outside nations, nor, indeed, toward the stranger inside Israel’s gates. This is not to be regarded as strange in view of the definitely hostile relations which existed for the most part between every ancient nation and its neighboring nations. International comity and law must follow national law at a long distance.

                (5) Custom is still, in great measure, the standard of action, but this is more and more influenced by religious thought. And, as already suggested, custom has now been formulated into law. Crime is regarded as affecting Yahweh himself (2 S. 12%, following the reading of Lucian), and the enactments of CC, aside from its ritual content, take cognizance of the most common and important of the human relationships.

                (6) The later decalogue, properly interpreted (v.s.), marks the stage of advancement now reached. This is splendidly sup-. ported and, indeed, developed in CC (pp. lxiv ff.).

                (7) But, after all, the stories of the patriarchs give us the truest idea of the morals of the period.* They represent the highest ideals  of the teachers of Israel at the time they assumed literary form (cf. pp. lxxi, lxxix f.). Abraham is the type of the truly pious Israelite, exhibiting the qualities of faith and obedience under the most trying circumstances; while Jacob is the successful man of affairs, whose prosperity is due, not alone to his own shrewdness, but also to his faithful adherence to his God. The moral delinquencies of the patriarchs must be estimated in view of (a) the fact that in large part the questionable transactions are in relations with foreigners, toward whom ethical requirements did not hold to such a high degree (v.s.); (b) the effort of E to minimize the faults of the patriarchs (v.s.), which shows an ethical advance toward the close of the pre-prophetic period; (c) the indirect condemnation sometimes found within the stories themselves (cf. Gn. 209f. 26° F. 2712).

                (8) The stories of the kings enforce similar truths upon the attention. The special position of the king as “the anointed of Yahweh” and the most powerful personage in the nation added emphasis to the use of his life-story for purposes of moral and religious instruction. If David and his successors could achieve success only in so far as they obeyed Yahweh and refrained from evil, how much less could the nation at large disregard Yahweh’s will and prosper? The direct teaching of these stories is evident.

                4. Aside from the conceptions already considered, viz. those of God, of man in relation to God, and of man in relation to man, there are certain others with which the religious and ethical ideas are closely associated. These possess more of the speculative character and deal with the origins of things and the future.*

                (1) Ideas concerning the origin and nature of man had taken on quite definite form, e.g. (a) the body of man (Gn. 2?) is of earth and at death returns to the earth (Gn. 3”) ; while the breath (v.1.) is re-absorbed in the great Spirit of the universe; this body or flesh is transitory in its nature (cf. Is. 31°) and always subject to decay and destruction; it is, moreover, the occasion of moral weakness; but it is never represented as in itself sinful (i.e. as equivalent to oבpל) and unclean.

                (6) The blood is the life only in the sense that it is the source, or vehicle, or seat, of life; consequently it must not be eaten (1 S. 1432 ff. ; cf. Dt. 1223 Lv. 17′), for in so doing another life might be absorbed. The desire to bring about just such an identification of different lives was the basis of the earlier sacrificial meals, of which, however, no instance occurs in 0. T. literature. The significance of this conception of blood upon the later development of sacrifice is very evident.

                (c) The breath or spirit (7717) occupied a still larger place in the older thought. This breath represented life, and had its origin in the breath of Yahweh himself, which he breathed into the first man (Gn. 2″). When this divine breath (the spirit of life) is called back by Yahweh to himself (i.e. re-absorbed), death ensues. Nor was this spirit restricted to human beings, for animal life (Gn. 21 had the same origin (Nu. 16% 2716; cf. Ps. 10429 . Jb. 3414f.), although it was reckoned inferior, as is shown by the fact that man was treated more directly and individually in the act of creation, animals being animated, so to speak, as a species; and further, although animals are represented as created for man’s use, none of them is fit to be his “help.” But now, this spirit, breathed into humanity once for all in the case of the first man (= traducianism, rather than creationism), and including life of every kind, viz. thought, will, and action, is everywhere a manifestation of the divine spirit (cf. Acts 1728). *

                (2) The origin and purpose of the universe does not occupy a large place in Hebrew pre-prophetic thought, and yet certain definite ideas are contained in J’s statement in Gn. 24 ff. Perhaps something also is to be learned from what this passage does not contain (e.g. the lack of any mythical element). (a) This narrative, of which a portion (dealing with the creation of heaven and earth) doubtless has been lost, clearly points to Yahweh as the former of man and of man’s home (but this is only what other religious cosmogonies have done, each in its own way, and does not contradict the position that the doctrine of Yahweh as Creator is exilic or post-exilic, i.e. subsequent to the acceptance of monotheism).

                (6) The interest is centred in man, for whose benefit alone the animals are formed; and when no suitable companion is found for him among them, woman is created by another and different process; while (c) the climax is found in the representation concerning marriage.*

                (3) The origin and nature of sin is pictured in the story of the fall, for no other interpretation than that of a fall † will satisfy the demands. Concerning all this, it was believed (a) that man, at one time, lived in close association and communion with the deity ; but (6) pride led him to overstep certain bounds that had been set ; (c) this act of disobedience was followed by trouble, misery, and suffering. I

                (4) The state after death is a subject concerning which neither pre-prophecy nor prophecy had much to say, partly because the saying of anything would give encouragement to the superstitious survivals of animism, and partly, also, because no adequate teaching had as yet been worked out. That the ideas which prevailed in early Israel concerning Sheol came from the Canaanites (and perhaps farther back from Babylon) is probable; in any case, the popular belief was closely associated with necromancy, and consequently opposed to Yahwism. This belief (Gn. 3725 42:38 4429. 31 Nu. 16.30. 23, for which we are indebted to J) included, at least, the following points : (a) Sheol is a space to which one goes down; (6) no one ever returns; yet (c) by the influence of necromancers a “form” may be brought up, as in the case of Samuel (1 S. 2811 ff.); while (d) only thick darkness prevails. (e) It is a place of assembly for the departed; but there is no such thing as fellowship (Gn. 3735). (8) That which goes down is not the body (which decays in the grave), nor the spirit (which is absorbed by the spirit of God); but“ an indefinable something of the personality” which(= shade, or manes) is invisible and does not live, but merely exists. How far this popular belief was a survival of animism, and the extent to which it was really antagonized by Yahwism, cannot here be discussed.

                5. The general character of the pre-prophetic movement may now be briefly summarized in view of its history up to this point, and, likewise, in view of the real prophetic activity which is to grow out of it and, at the same time, to follow close upon its heels :

                (1) This movement is not exclusively or essentially Israelitish, but is of Canaanitish origin, † although itself at a later time hostile to Canaanitism and directly responsible for its destruction ; and in the long process of its growth it incorporates many Canaanitish ideas.

                (2) The struggle between pre-prophetism and Baalism is between the later idea of a relation with the deity, based upon a pact or covenant, and the earlier idea of a relation based upon the natural tie. In this case, the covenant idea lives and works several centuries with the nature idea, and, in the end, shakes it off, but only after absorbing all that was good in it.

                (3) The result of the movement, in so far as it concerns worship, is the endurance, if not the acceptance, of an elaborated cult, through which the religious sentiment has been enlarged and enriched, but in which Israel is soon to find that which will prove her ruin (cf. Judah and the doctrine of the inviolable Jerusalem).

                (4) The influence of the movement on conduct has been to raise the standard in a marked degree, and to define more closely the relations of man to man, without, however, going outside of Israel, or developing anything higher than that which pertains to the tribe or family.

                (5) The movement, in so far as it concerns the idea of God, is still henotheistic, not monotheistic.

                C. AMOS. § 12. THE PERSONAL LIFE OF AMOS.

                § 13. THE MESSAGE OF Amos.

                § 14. THE MINISTRY OF Amos.

`               § 15. THE LITERARY FORM OF Amos’s WRITINGS.

                The present form of the book of Amos suggests several problems. How much of the book did Amos himself leave? What portions are of later origin, and what motive suggested their insertion ?* Through what stages has the book gone? What contact has it had with other literature ? And still further, what is the form of composition employed, and what special features of that form deserve attention ?

                1. The table on p. cxxxii presents the contents of the book, showing (1) the larger divisions, viz. oracles, sermons, etc., (2) the smaller sections, and (3) the original and secondary elements within each section.

                2. The secondary material indicated in the table on p. cxxxii includes the passages (with the exception of a few words or phrases, v.i.) which have been treated as interpolations in the commentary. An examination of these passages shows that they fall into five groups :

                (1) The Judaistic insertion, made after the promulgation of Deuteronomy, and referring to the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, viz, the judgment on Judah, 24%..

                (2) Historical insertions, from a post-exilic date, (a) adding judgments upon Tyre (13f.) and Edom (1116.), thus bringing the whole number (with Judah) to seven; † (6) adding reference to the fall of Calneh, Hamath, and Gath, 62 (cf. Is. 109-“).

                (3) Theological insertions, from a post-exilic time, similar in tone and spirit to certain passages in Job § and Deutero-Isaiah. ||

                Men in later days of prophecy seem to have regarded it as a pious duty to illustrate older utterances by making application to their own times. If the older form of utterance appeared too harsh for the later age, it was modified; if too obscure, it was explained. The intention was not to preserve and transmit what the prophet had actually said, but rather to indicate what, in the opinion of the later editor, he would have had to say in order “to fulfil the religious purpose which he once meant to serve” (cf. K. DB. V. 671; Carpenter and Battersby, Hex. I. 110).

                $ E.g. 384 fr. 25 ff. 31 fr. 34-38.     | Ez.4021 ff. 4512 18 4812 f.,

19–10. 11-12 2+5 | Judgments upon Neighboring Nations, viz. Syria, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, Judah.

       Judgment upon the Nation Israel.      26-11. 13-16       212

                The Roar of the Lion: Destruction is coming.

    The Doom of Samaria.

           Israel’s Failure to understand the Divine Judgment.

   A Dirge, Israel’s Coming Destruction.

                                                         Transgressors shall come to Grief.

                The Doom of Captivity.

                Three Visions of Destruction.

  An Accusation and a Reply.

  A Fourth Vision, with Explanatory Discourse.

   A Fifth Vision, with a Passionate Description of the Ruin.

                Here belong (a) the heading of the book, 1′ (pp. 9 f.); (6) the well-known doxologies, 413 * 588 99%.t

                (4) Technical or archaeological insertions, which take the form of expansion, thus adding details to the more simple statement of the original. Here belong, (a) “each woman straight before her,” in 43; (6) “while yet there remained three months to the harvest,” in 4?“ (p. 97), also, “ together with the captivity of your horses,” in 40 (p. 100); (c) “one field being rained upon,” etc.,… “two or three cities staggering,” etc., in 47 b. 82 (pp. 97 f.); (d) “and unto wailing those skilled in lamentation,” in 576 (p. 127); “and the peace-offerings of your fatlings I will not regard,” in 52 (p. 135); (e) the detail of the inner part of the house, in 69-11 a. (p. 151); (f) “and lo! there were full-grown locusts after the king’s mowings,” in 778; (g) the extra technique, involving the question of Yahweh to Amos, in 78 a 824; (h) “buying the poor for silver,” etc., in 86; (i)“ your images, the star of,” in 55, “and it devour,” in 56, “and the oppressions within her,” in 39, “O children of Israel,” in 3?,, “with a storm in the day of tempest,” in 24, “plumb-,” in 7?, “ for thirst,” in 813.

                (5) The Messianic additions found in “Behold the days are coming,” in gila, and the long closing passage 92-15 connected with what precedes by 98c, in which the interpolator announces that the original message of destruction was intended only for Northern Israel.

                (6) Certain phrases, “ The Lord,” “God of Hosts,” “ It is the oracle of Yahweh,” “Has Yahweh said,” which have been inserted arbitrarily to emphasize some favorite thought of a reader, e.g. 10.8 216 313. 15 4 516 76 89. Cf. also, “in that day,” 83.

                                3. The internal history of the book (i.e. the various steps in the process of its growth) was probably as follows :

                (1) Amos himself left, not a book, but certain addresses or groups of addresses in writing.

                (2) These became a book, in all probability through the work of his disciples, before the times of Isaiah (v.i.), who, says Cheyne, “steeped himself in the originality of Amos before displaying his own truly original genius.” * Since Amos probably issued his addresses in Judah, it is questionable whether Hosea ever saw them (v..). +

                (3) A Deuteronomic insertion consisting of 24f. was probably made in Jeremiah’s time. This address would fit in just before the fall of Jerusalem, almost as appropriately as before the fall of Samaria. It is perhaps too much to call this a Deuteronomic redaction.

                (4) During the exilic experience (or a little after) important changes were introduced, viz. (a) those of an historical character (v.s.) in accord with the same spirit which gave rise to Obadiah 10-14 (cf. Is. 34 Ez. 251 359 Ps. 1377) Jo. 3 26. 19 ; and (b) those of a theological character (v.s.) in accord with the same spirit which found expression in the descriptions of the deity that occur in Job and Deutero-Isaiah (v.s.).

                (5) In a later post-exilic period there was added the large number of technical and archaeological explanations and expansions indicated above. At this time the superscription (14) probably had its origin. Many of these are glosses which found their way into the text without motive of any kind. Some, however, are the work of an editor who delighted to repeat in minute detail some point or description which had been passed over quite summarily. No definite line perhaps can be drawn between these two classes of additions.

                (6) Finally, in the spirit of the days of Zechariah and Zerubbabel, when men were thinking of the restoration of the throne of David, or perhaps still later, there was added the Messianic promise of 986-15 (v.s.). This closed the internal history of the book.

                4. The general structure of the book as understood by the present writer is indicated in the table (v.s.). Its character is extremely simple: A series of judgment oracles; a series of judgment sermons; a series of judgment visions. These various series have each its own unity of thought and its own unity of purpose. These have already been fully discussed.

                It remains, however, to notice some of the more important hypotheses put forward in recent times which offer different explanations of Amos’s structure.

                (1) Elhorst (1900) on the supposition that the text was originally written in parallel columns, the strophes being arranged so that 1, 3, 5, etc., fell in Column I. and 2, 4, 6, etc., in Column II, and that some copyist transferred the columns consecutively instead of alternating between the two, proposes the following order: 11. 2. 11. 12. 3. 5. 13-15. 6-8 21-3 19. 10 24. 5. 6 568.7 27.8 58.9 28-12 510-12 213-16 513-15 31. 2 516. 17 338 518-20 32-14 521-25 41-3 526. 27 4711 61-6 412 67 418 68 $-3 69-11 54.5 612. 13 56 614 71-9. 10-17 81-6 91-6 87-14 97-15. With this rearrangement, the prophecy falls into four divisions : (a) 11-26; (6) 26–614; (c) 71-17; (d) 814915.

                (2) Lצhr (1901) finds five main divisions; the first one consists of the introductory address, threatening Israel and her neighbors with punishment, and includes 11-8. 13-15 21-3. 6-14. 16. The second one contains two addresses, announcing destruction because of the exploitation of the poor by the rich and powerful; the first address consists of 316. 2-4 a. 5 a. 6. 8-15 41-3 8+-14 9114a, the second address comprises 51-6 a. 7. 10-12. 16-186. 20-27 61. 3-8. 11-14. The third division contains the mere fragment of a sermon against the sanctuaries and the ritual, viz. 4+-12 a. 314 6. 91a.7. The fourth division includes the four visions in 71-9 81-3; and the fifth division consists of the historical episode in 710-17.

                (3) Riedel (1902), regarding the book as an anthology of the most significant utterances of Amos, collected and arranged by a later editor, and treating 710-17 as a later addition, makes the following analysis : I. A poem announcing Yahweh’s judgment on the nations in general, and Israel in particular, chaps. I and 2. II. The central division (31-83), falling into three sections: (a) three addresses beginning with “Hear this word,” 31-5 41-13 51-17; (b) two addresses beginning with “Alas,” 518–27 61-14; (c) the four visions, 71-9 81-3. III. The closing address (84-915), likewise consisting of three sections: (a) 81-14, which again begins with “ Hear”; (6) 91-10, again narrating a vision; (c) 911-15, a word of promise, in part looking back to the first address (cf. 912 with 1 11 ff.).

                (4) Baumann* (1903) finds five addresses, all of similar structure. Each of the last four addresses has three main divisions, the last division in each case summing up the entire speech, and the second division, with one exception, consisting of four sections. First address : 12-8. 13-15 21-3. 6-11 a. 12. 116. 13. 14 a. 16 a. 148. 13 ao 15 8. 166 (with an appendix, 38-15). Second address : I. 31-66. 6 a. 8; II. (a) 41-3, (6) 84. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 13. 14. 1140, Third address : I. 44.5; II. (a) 46. 9–11, (6) 412 a 521-27; III. 546. Fourth address : I. 51. 2. 3. 16. 176; II. (a) 518-20, (6) 61, (C) 63-7, (d) 613. 12 a. 8; III. 614. 11. 12 8. 9. 10. Fifth address : I. 710–17; II. (a) 71-3, (6) 746, (c) 77-9, (d) 81-3; III. gla. 314 6. 918-4.7. Baumann summarizes the thought in the form of a dialogue as follows: First division (Amos): Yahweh will bring destruction upon Israel’s foes and also upon Israel; for every crime demands punishment. (Israel) : How unheard of, to maintain that Yahweh would destroy his own people! Who would listen to such folly? Second division (Amos): What I speak is not folly, but the decree of God. Hear, therefore, especially you leaders in iniquity, of impending disaster.

                (Israel) Our cultus at the sanctuaries will turn aside every sort of disaster. Third division (Amos): Vain labor of love! Have not past calamities taught you that Yahweh demands a better service? Seek him through the practice of morality and justice! But no, all warning is useless. Because you will not listen, you cannot be helped. Fourth division (Amos): It remains only to raise the funeral dirge and to wail over the blind. Destruction is inevitable. Fifth division (Amos’s justification of his message in response to the protests of Amaziah and the people): God, whom I have seen, has revealed to me what must come, and in spite of my earnest entreaties, has held fast to his decision.

                (5) Marti (1903) finds in the original book (a) an announcement of judgment upon Damascus, Ammon, Moab, and Israel herself: 13-5. 13-15 21-3. 6-9. 11. 13-16; (6) a series of fragments of fourteen sermons: 31a.: 34-6. 8 32-11 312 314 8. 1541-3 4+7 ao 8-12 a 51-3 54. 5 a. 6. 14. 15 57. 10–12. 16. 17 – 18. 20 b. 19. 21-25. 27 61. 3-6 a. 7 68-10 611. 12. 13 a. 68. 136. 14; (c) the five visions and the historical episode: 71-9 81-391-4.7 910-17, and some fragments within 8+-14, viz. 84. 5. 7. 11 a. 12. 136. 14.

                5. The external history of the book of Amos may be traced briefly through four periods :

                (1) Direct evidence of an external acquaintance with it by other prophets is perhaps slight. The similarity of expression found in certain passages in Hosea,* as compared with Amos, proves nothing; the two were dealing with the same historical traditions and were working in the same environment. The same thing may be said of the two or three passages in which Isaiah and Amos use similar expressions. In Jeremiah, on the other hand, because the situation is a similar (although not the same) one, more definite trace is found of Amos’s influence. I In Ezekiel, likewise, some points of external resemblance may be noted, especially in the passages directed against foreign nations.* In the other prophets, few cases of direct external influence may be discovered.

But it is not in such external manifestations that we should expect to find traces of Amos’s influence upon later prophets. That his ministry and message were known to them appears from several points in which they follow closely in his steps, e.g. in standing aloof from the great body of so-called prophets in their respective periods; in adopting the method of writing down their utterances; in the continued development of the sermonic discourse introduced by him ; in following the fashion of directing a certain portion of their attention to the foreign nations; † in basing their work on the fundamental doctrine of national judgment as presented by Amos; in holding up and completing the new ideas propounded by Amos concerning God and his ethical demands upon humanity.

                (2) The external relation of the book of Amos to the wisdom literature is not indicated by anything that has come down to us. That its influence was felt can scarcely be doubted, since in it we have the first definite formulation of Yahweh’s relation to the outside world, the idea which lay at the basis of all Hebrew wisdom; the assignment of Israel to a place upon a level with other nations (cf. the absence of any reference to Israel in the book of Proverbs); an example of Oriental learning in history, geography, social customs; the very essence of wisdom, in the emphasis placed upon honesty, purity, etc. ; together with an almost total absence of the religious sentiment (v.s.).

                (3) In later times reference is made to the Amos-book in Ecclus. 4910, where “the twelve prophets” are mentioned, showing that at  that time there was a book of Amos; in Tobit 20, where the book of Amos is first mentioned by name and a citation is made from 81°; in Acts 742 , where Am. 525 €. is quoted and assigned to “ the book of the prophets”; and in Acts 1516 f., a quotation of 911 in connection with other” words of the prophets.”

(4) The place of the book in the Canon is naturally with “ the twelve.” Its position in the Hebrew Canon, viz., third (following Joel), is different from that in G, where it is second (Joel being placed after Micah).

6. Partly on a priori grounds (it being thought impossible to conceive of a herdsman as a man of letters),* and partly on the ground of certain words which were wrongly spelled (these have more recently been discovered to be textual errors), † many explanations of the uncultivated and, indeed, rude speech of Amos have been deemed necessary. The fact has long been recognized, however, that these estimates were wrong. Recent writers, especially since W. Robertson Smith in 1882, have vied with each other in appreciation of the simplicity and refinement, as well as of the vigor of Amos’s literary style. $ The latest critics go even so far as to deny that the figures which he employs are prevailingly those of the shepherd-life.

                (1) The regular and simple structure of the book (p. cxxxii) exhibits at once Amos’s style of thought. What could be more natural and easy than the series of oracles, the series of sermons, and the series of visions? It is unfortunate that some recent critics seem as blind to the simplicity of Amos’s style of expression as were the older critics to its refined nature.

                (2) This regularity, or orderliness, exhibits itself in detail in the repetition of the same formulas for three transgressions, yea for four, etc., in the opening chapters (or, to put it otherwise, in the orderly arrangement of the nations); in the use of the refrain, but ye did not return, etc., in the poem describing Israel’s past chastisements (4+-13 I); in the entire form of the first three visions (71.9); in the almost artificial symmetry of form seen in the accusation (720-14) and the reply (714-17); in the series of illustrations employed with such effect in 33 ff. ; in the structure, in general, of the several pieces (v.i.). Moreover, these various series, “while not so long as to become tiresome, are long enough to impress upon the mind of the reader the truths that they are intended to illustrate and justify the use of them by the prophet.” There is here the skill, not only of the poet and the speaker, but also of the teacher. Every poem in the book is a notable example of this same direct, straightforward orderliness of thought.

                (3) The imagery of Amos, like that of Isaiah, is worthy of special study. Tradition has probably been wrong in emphasizing too strongly the prevailingly shepherd-characteristics (v.s.) which mark the figures employed by Amos. But no one will deny that he is especially fond of drawing his language from nature, and what, after all, is this but the field of rural life? He not only cites certain facts of agricultural significance, e.g. the recent drought, blasting and mildew (474.), the oppressive taxation of crops (5″), and the cheating of the grain merchants (8′), but he finds picturesque illustrations and comparisons in “ threshing instruments.” (1“), the loaded wagon on the threshing-floor (213), the height of the cedars and the strength of the oaks (2′), the roar of the lion in the forest (34 5), the shepherd rescuing remnants from the lion (3″), the snaring of birds (3″), the “kine of_Bashan” (4″), wormwood (5′ 619), the lion, bear, and serpent (5′), the perennial stream (54), horses stumbling upon rocks and ploughing the sea with oxen (61), swarms of locusts devouring the aftermath (77′.), and the “ basket of summer fruit” (81). — –

                (4) Other features of Amos’s style, which may only be mentioned, are (a) its originality (sometimes called unconventionality or individuality),* as seen in a certain kind of independence, probably due to the fact that he was a pioneer in the application of writing to prophetic discourse ; (6) its maturity, for nothing is more clear than that he had predecessors in this work who had developed, in no small degree, a technical nomenclature of prophecy (v.s.); (c) its artistic character, which is seen not only

                D. HOSEA.

                § 16. THE PERSONAL LIFE OF HOSEA.

                § 17. THE MESSAGE OF HOSEA.

                § 18. THE MINISTRY OF HOSEA.

                $ 19. THE LITERARY FORM OF HOSEA.

                The corrupt state of the text of Hosea makes the study of its literary problems both difficult and unsatisfactory.

                1. The table on p. clx exhibits a view of the book as we now have it, with (a) the larger divisions,* and (6) a separation of the original and secondary elements.

                2. The secondary passages f in the following table fall into four groups: (1) References in Hosea to Judah are for the most part the work of a Judaistic editor. The basis for this decision is found in the fact that in the great majority of cases no sufficient motive can be discovered to explain their Hoseanic origin, while the motive of the later editor is clearly evident; besides, these passages in nearly every case contain phrases which are late, or interfere with the rhythmic structure. The principal cases are the following: 1′, exempting Judah from the coming destruction (p. 213), the change of “Israel” to Judah in 5 10. 12. 13. 14 6* 10110 1 23 (2) ; 6114, threatening Judah with judgment (p. 291); 814, coupling Judah with Israel in transgression (p. 324); 1216 (11125), contrasting Judah’s faithfulness with Israel’s treachery (pp. 376 f.). While Kuenen is certainly too conservative in his treatment of the Judaistic passages, we cannot agree with Marti (p. 8) that Hosea never in a single case referred to Judah; one can scarcely conceive the possibility of such a thing. In 415 and 56 there is nothing which demands a later origin.

                (2) It is impossible to reconcile with Hosea’s situation and declarations certain passages referring to Israel’s future, the socalled Messianic allusions. The prophet plainly represents Israel’s ruin as close at hand (v.i.). Moreover, it is apparently an irretrievable disaster (13) which is threatened. In any case death and Sheol are first to do their work (13/4), nor is Yahweh a man to repent (11° 1324). These passages, therefore, are entirely inconsistent with Hosea’s point of view, and directly contradict the representations which are fundamental in his preaching ; nor can it be shown that they are spoken, either, to a different audience (viz. the faithful for their encouragement), or at a later time in Hosea’s ministry.* Besides, they interrupt the logical development of the thought in particular passages (v. in loc.), and show a definite connection with the thought of later prophecy. This material is unquestionably from exilic times.

                 The Superscription. Harlotry of Hosea’s Wife. Purchase of Gomer as a Slave, and her Retention “many days.”  Israel’s Harlotry and her Punishment therefor.  Later Voices describing Israel’s Return to Yahweh.  (246. 6. 12. 18 28-9. 16-17. 20-25. 1-3)

                Yahweh’s Contention with Israel on Account of Sins encouraged by the Priests. Guilt of Priests and Princes.  Fitful Repentance Insufficient to remove Guilt.  Confusion of the Nations.  Israel’s Kings and Idols Displeasing and Destructive.  Israel’s Exile.  Israel’s Corruption.  Israel’s Wickedness as Great as her Prosperity.  Israel’s Past History one of Sin.   Israel loved by Yahweh as his Son.    Israel’s Falsity and Faithlessness from the Beginning.   Israel’s Destruction Absolute.  Ephraim condemned to Sheol.   Later Words of Hope.  The Lesson to be learned.

                (1010. 148   1186. 9 a. 108. 11       1216. 46-7. 13. 14)

                The more important pieces are the following: 21-3 (110-22), promising restoration to Yahweh’s favor, great increase of population, and the reunion of Israel and Judah under one king (pp. 245 f.); 28. 9 (6. 7.) describing the disciplinary measures adopted by Yahweh to restore Israel to her senses (p. 236); 216–18 (14-16), setting forth Yahweh’s purpose to restore Israel to the purity and joy of her first love (p. 238); 220-25 (18-23), picturing the universal harmony and prosperity that will prevail when Yahweh again betroths Israel to himself (pp. 241, 244); 3), announcing Israel’s return to Yahweh and the Messianic King in the days to come (pp. 216, 223); 1186. 9 a. 106. 11, giving the assurance that Yahweh’s anger is appeased and that he will recall the exiles from Egypt and Assyria (p. 372); 142-9 (1-8), containing a call to repentance followed by a description of the great prosperity and peace consequent upon the restoration to Yahweh’s favor (pp. 408 f.).

                (3) A third group includes, as in the case of Amos (p. cxxxiv), phrases and sentences of a technical, archaeological, or historical character, inserted by way of expansion and explanation.

                Here belong, e.g. 413d, ” for good is its shade”; 59, “ with their flocks and their herds”; 74, the comparison of the princes to an oven and a baker kindling the fire ; 716c, “this their scorn”; 88b, “as a vessel wherein none delighteth”; 916, “corn”; 99a, “as in the days of Gibeah”; 910, “in its first season “; 105, “ on account of his glory because it has gone into exile from him “; 1014b, “as Shalman spoiled Betharbel in the day of battle”; 1214 (13), magnifying the prophetic phase of Moses’s work; 1348-7, presenting Jacob in a favorable light.

                (4) The fourth group will include miscellaneous glosses and interpolations for which, perhaps, no special motive may be discovered. As examples of the kind may be cited: 84, “ that they may be cut off”; 85, “ how long will they be incapable of punishment”; 810.14 91«; 989, “ with my God”; 988, “ enmity.” (5) Ch. 1410 stands by itself, and is a product of the later wisdom period (pp. 416 f.).*

3. The internal history of the Book of Hosea was perhaps as follows: —

                (1) Hosea himself prepared the collection of sermons (v.s.), together with the introduction explaining his call to preach. In this case the explanation of the call comes at the beginning (rather than, as in Amos, after the sermons of chaps. 3-6, or in Isaiah, after the sermons of chaps. 2-5) either because it was only a part of the book and had never been preached or made public, or because it was thought necessary to a proper understanding of what followed. (2) The fulfilment of Hosea’s threats in the fall of Samaria (721 B.C.) must have given great prominence to the book in Judah; in any case it was known to Isaiah, who follows Hosea † in using the words Serra 789 (Ho. 5″ = Is. 52), the thought of Ho. 10$ in the refrain of his terrible prophecy on the day of judgment (Is. 210. 21), and the phrase ’70 2.7 kg (Ho. 91, Is. 1%). (3) At some time, the book was worked over in a kind of Judaistic revision. This was not preכxilic, occurring in the days of Josiah, # but post-exilic ;  because (a) 1′ is apparently inserted with reference to the deliverance from Sennacherib, and its point of view presupposes the lapse of considerable time since that event, (6) the inclusion of Judah in 814 reflects the disaster of the exile. (4) At a later time, following Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah, the Messianic insertions (v.s.) were made which entirely changed the character and function of the book. (5) From time to time during all these periods modifications of a less important character were incorporated ; and the book did not take its present form until the Greek period, since 1410 was probably not a part of it until that time.

                4. The general structure || of the book as understood by the present writer has been presented essentially above. It includes three or four propositions :

                (1) 129 314 is a story, briefly and simply told, of the prophet’s own family experience, narrated in part to make known how he came to see the message which he was to deliver to his people.

                (2) 2+7. 10–14. 18. 19 is the prophet’s suggestion of the meaning, obtained in the light of his own experience, in its explanation of Israel’s situation.

                (3) Discourses uttered from time to time, put together without chronological or logical relationship,* — a group of thirteen, presenting, under varying circumstances, the double thought of guilt and inevitable punishment (4-14′).

                5. The external history of the Book of Hosea may be briefly traced. (1) On its connection with other prophetic books, v. pp. cxlvii f.; and on its more direct influence on prophetic thought, v. p. cxlvi. (2) In the apocryphal literature, Ecclus. 49′ mentions the “twelve prophets,” and it is quite certain that Hosea constituted one of the twelve. (3) Philo quotes Ho. 148 and 14″”, while Josephus † speaks of Isaiah and “the others which were twelve in number,” undoubtedly referring to the existing book of the twelve prophets. (4) In the New Testament: Ho. 225 is quoted in Rom. 925 f. (where the prophet is mentioned by name); 68 in Mat. 913 12?; 108 in Luke 23″, Rev. 616 ; 1′ in Mat. 215 ; and 1394 in 1 Cor. 1555. (5) Its place in the Canon at the head of the Book of the Twelve is probably due to its comparatively large volume. I Its right to a place in the Canon has never been questioned.

                E. AMOS AND HOSEA.

                § 20. The Poetical Form of Amos and Hosea . .

                $ 21. The Language and Style of Amos and Hosea .

                $ 22. The Text and Versions of Amos and Hosea

                $ 23. The Literature on Amos and Hosea . . .

Critical & Exegetical Commentary on Micah Zephaniah Nahum Habakkuk Obadiah & Joel.v2.



PREFACE iii-iv



§ I. The Book of Micah 5-16

1. The Text 5H5

2. The Style 6

3. Poetic Form 6-8

4. Component Parts 8-16

5. The Formation of the Book of Micah . 16

§ 2. The Prophet Micah 17-19

1. His Name 17

2. His Home 17-18

3. His Character 18-19

§ 3. The Times of Micah 19-23

1. The Date of His Prophecies 19-21

2. The Background of Chs. 1-3 21-23

§ 4. The Message of Micah 23-26

§ 5. Recent Literature on the Book of Micah . . . 26-29



§ I. From the Fall of Thebes to the Fall of Nineveh 159-165

§ 2. Zephaniah and His Times 166-171

1. The Man 166-167

2. The Times 167-171

§ 3. The Book of Zephaniah 171-176

1. The Contents 171-172

2. Later Additions . 172-174

3. Poetic Form 174-176

§ 4. The Message of Zephaniah 177-180

§ 5. Literature on the Book of Zephaniah i8a-i8i



§ I. The Book of Nahum 267-274

Its Contents 267-268

Its Unity … 268-270

Its Poetic Form 270-274

§ 2. The Times of Nahum …. 274-279

§ 3. The Man and the Message 279-282

The Man 279-280

The Message 280-282

§ 4. Literature on the Book of Nahum 282-283



I. Index of Hebrew Words 361

II. Index of Subjects 362-363


Authorship and Date 3-7

Topical Analysis 7



§ I. The Composition of the Book 3-5

§ 2. The Date of the Book 6-9

§ 3. The Interpretation of the Book 10-13

§ 4. The Prophet and His Book 13-14

§ 5. The Text 15

§ 6. The Metre 15-17

§ 7. Modern Literature 17-18









The Composition of the Book 49-56

The Date of the Book 56-62

The Interpretation of the Book 62-67

The Prophet 67-68

The Text and Metre 68-71

Modern Literature 71-72




                4. Component Parts.

                The book of Micah falls naturally into three parts, the existenceof which has long been recognised. They are chs. 1-3, chs. 4 and 5 and chs. 6 and 7. They are differentiated from each other by their contents, tone and point of view and to some extent by their poetic form (y. s.). Chs. 1-3 contain almost exclusively denunciations of sin and proclamations of approaching punishment; chs. 4 and 5 are devoted almost as exclusively to words of hope and cheer; while chs. ^ and’jS’ combine these two elements. But within these three main divisions the point of view and background change frequently; consequently many scholars have denied the unity of the book. Chs. 1-3, with the exception of i’- ” and 2″- ^ (q. v.), constitute the nucleus of the book and furnish a touchstone by which the genuineness of the remaining chapters may be tested. Stade and others have sought to athetize i”^, but, as it seems, without sufficient reason; see in loc.         The situation with reference to chs. 4-7 is quite different. The general condition here may be suggested by the following words from Hal(^vy, an ardent supporter of the unity of the book; his statement is particularly applicable to chs. 4-6: “The book of Micah has reached us in a critical state even worse than that of the books of Hosea and Amos. To say nothing of internal corruptions of words, many verses, and even groups of verses, have been torn from their context and inserted haphazard in passages which have no sort of suitable connection with their subject-matter.” * This hypothesis of Halevy’s, however, does not solve the problem. A bird’s-eye view of the history of the criticism of these chapters will place the difficulty squarely before us. For the sake of clearness and convenience, the two groups, chs. ^^==4 and 5-6, will be treated separately.

                The criticism of chs. 4-5.—Chs. 4 and 5 were first brought into prominence by Ew. who, on the basis of differences of style between them and ‘chs. 1-3, for a time regarded them as belonging to some prophet contemporary with Micah. Later, however, Ew. returned to the defence of Micah’s authorship, urging similarities of form, thought and diction, and especially the fact that the denial of chs. 4 and 5 to Micah (as well as chs. 6 and 7) would remove all the Messianic element from Micah’s utterance. Casp. followed with a detailed defence of the unity. In 1871, Oort {ThT., V, 501-512) characterised 4’-‘- “-” as an insertion by some pious reader who considered Micah a false prophet and tried to correct his errors. The ground for this was the fact that with the removal of these verses the connection becomes smooth and the improbability that Micah would have inserted a message of hope in the midst of an unfinished call to repentance and a threat of punishment. To this Kue. replied {ThT., VI, 45-66), defending the connection of 4’-‘, on the ground that the prophet here transports himself in imagination to the last days, and acknowledging that 4″” describes existing conditions and cannot therefore stand where it does, notwithstanding that it belongs to Micah. De Goeje {ThT., VI, 279-284) then proffered a weak defence of the connection of 4>’-‘». Kue., in a second article {ThT., VI, 285-302), suggested that some of the differences between chs. 1-3 and chs. 4-5 were due to the fact that the former deal with the godless leaders while the latter are addressed to the people as a whole who have some claim to pardon. He also emphasised the mobility and vivacity of Micah’s style, to which De Goeje had referred, as exempting him from submission to strict logical requirements. We., also, called attention (Bleek’s Einl., 4th ed., p. 425) to the contradiction between 4’ ‘° and 4″.      In 1881 appeared Sta.’s epoch-making article {ZAW., I, 161-172), in which he denied Micah’s authorship of chs. 4-5 in toto. The following considerations are urged in support of this view. It is improbable that Micah would have weakened the effect of his utterances in chs. 1-3 by introducing a message of directly opposite import in chs. 4-5. The content of this section departs widely from the ideas of Isaiah, while chs. 1-3 show close affinity to them; chs. 4-5 are, indeed, in full accord with Joel, Deutero-Isaiah and Zechariah, chs. 12-14. The section is full of postexilic conditions; e. g., 4’- ‘” presupposes the Exile as having occurred; s’-^ gives an indefinite, apocalyptic vision of the Messianic age, while pre-exilic ideas of the Messiah spring immediately out of the existing historical situation. The inconsistency and lack of connection within the chapters point to composite origin; e. g., 4″-5^ is wholly inconsistent with 4^-‘°, but it connects well with 4’-‘ and is continued in 58-x. These three passages constitute the contribution of a later writer who desired to brighten the dark picture left by Micah; into this addition a later writer, thinking it to be a part of Micah’s prophecy, inserted 4^-^’^ 5^- 5 in order to harmonise it with the actual course of events and with the development of prophecy.          Sta.’s discussion has greatly influenced all later scholarship. Giesebrecht {ThLZ., 1881, p. 443) followed him in rejecting ch. 4, but held to the genuineness of ch. 5 on the ground that without it Micah’s prophecy would be too one-sided. W. R. Smith, in 1882 [Proph., 2d ed., pp. 430/.), followed Oort in rejecting 4″”, but refused to go further. In 1883, Sta. {ZAW., Ill, 1-16) gave further arguments in support of his view, e. g., that Bethlehem and Ephratha (5′) are never identified except in postexilic literature. Cor., in 1884 {ZAW., IV., 89), was the first to place himself unreservedly on Sta.’s side. Now., in the same year {ZAW., IV, 277-290), yielded 4^-^- “-” to the interpolator, but rejected Sta.’s claim that chs. 4-5 as a whole were inconsistent with pre-exilic prophecy, citing Is. 18′ 19″ ii’o a. as parallels to the description of the coming of “many peoples ” to Jerusalem, and Is. ii< *• 9′- ^ as parallels to the picture of idyllic peace in 4”’. As parallel to the fact that these chapters oppose masseboth and asherim, to which Isaiah made no objection, Now. cites 3 ‘2 and the well-known attitude of Isaiah toward Jerusalem. Wildeboer, in 1884 {De Profeet Micha; so also in Letterkunde des Ouden Verbonds, 3d ed., 1903, 145/.), grants that Sta.’s objections might apply to the spoken word, but declares them inapplicable to the written word. Che., in his commentary (1885), rejects 45-‘” 5′-* on g:rounds of logic. Ry. discussed these chapters fully in his commentary (1887), gathering up and reinforcing the arguments of his predecessors in favour of unity. He explained the difficulties of the section as due to a redactor who arranged scattered utterances of Micah in an order of his own which is to us no order at ail. He also urged the general considerations that our knowledge of Hebrew history is too defective to enable us to determine whether a given thought was or was not possible at a certain time, and that the mere fact that a thought is much emphasised in some particular period does not preclude the possibility of its having been uttered previously. In 1889, Pont {Theol. Sludien, VII, 439-453) reaffirmed the unity, reiterating the old arguments. In the same year, Kue. again {Einl., II, 360-3) expressed himself upon these chapters, declaring it improbable that 3’= was Micah’s last word. Hence the authenticity of the following promises was probable. But inconcistencies, the lack of logical sequence and the presence of undoubtedly pre-exilic utterances alongside of others presupposing Judah’s captivity made it probable that 46-s- ” ” were postexilic, while s”* had undergone a thorough working over at a late day.     In 1891, Elh. put forth an ingenious but fanciful theory in defence of the unity of the entire book. In accordance with this, chs. 4-5 should follow chs. 6-7 and should be rearranged thus: 4′-8 5’-‘ 4«’« 5”^ However, even thus, 4″ is treated as a gloss and 4’-‘« 58 as postexilic additions. We., in his commentary (1892; 3d ed., 1898), finds possible remnants of genuine utterances of Micah in 49- lo- » s’-‘s. He emphasises the use of FT’-‘N-i’ (4′) as a technical eschatological term, the mutually exclusive conceptions of 49- ‘” and 4″”, and the allusion in 5′.’ to Is. 7″ which has apparently become a classic. In 1893, Kosters {ThT., XXVII, 249-274) aligned himself with Sta., making the two chapters postexilic. He regarded 5′-8 as the continuation of 46-8. He suggested also that the present book of Micah was a result of two independent recensions of the original. The one consisted of chs. 1-3 + chs. 4-5; the other contained chs. 1-3 + 6-7; later these two were combined. In the same year, We. {Kleine Propheten, 2d ed.) surrendered all but 4=- ‘”• ” 5′”. In 1896, GASm. rejected only s^^- 7-9 as inconsistent with Micah’s times. In 1897, Volz {Die vorexilische Jahweprophetic, 63-67), following We., granted to Micah 4^-^oa. u 59-14^ and 5^6 as a badly distorted fragment. 212 1. 46 f. lob- 13 56-8 are assigned to a later editor, while 4^ 5’- ‘ “” belong to another hand and are probably later than 4’-‘, which may be from the time of Deutero-Isaiah. Now.’s commentary (1897 ; 2d ed., 1903) agrees with We. and Volz and adds little. Dr., in his well-known Introduction, with characteristic caution declines to commit himself to an opinion on this question. Che. {EB., art. Micah; cf. in Introd. to WRS., Proph., 2d ed.) follows Sta., Cor. and Kosters in assigning these chapters to a postexilic date. Marti’s commentary (1904) arrives at the same result, but assigns the chapters to a larger number of sources than any of its predecessors had employed. Bu. {Gesch., 1906, p. 89) and Du. {Zwolf Propheten, 1910) also agree with Sta.

                Reference may be made to the following commentary for detailed statements of the position assumed here with reference to chs. 4-5. It suffices to say in this connection that the arguments of Stade against Micah’s authorship seem irrefutable, except possibly in the case of 4″ 5′”^^. Nothing short of a complete reversal of current views concerning Hebrew eschatology, such as that proposed by Gressmann,* could make these chapters intelligible for the age of Micah. Furthermore, as the foregoing history of criticism shows, it is impossible to regard the chapters as a unit in themselves; the attitude toward the heathen world, e. g., is wholly different in 4″- ^^ from that in 4^”^ nor is the view of the Messianic age in 5^- ^ consistent with that in ^^’^. But Stade’s division of the material between two sources cannot stand. Glosses are represented by 4*- ^ 5^- ^^- “; 4^-* stands alone; 4”-‘^ and 5^^ reflect the same background and breathe the same spirit; the remaining sections have no close affinity with any of the preceding or with one another. The chapters thus seem to contain a miscellaneous collection of fragments gathered up from various sources, and having little in common other than a hopeful outlook for the future.

                Criticism of chs. 6-7.—The story of the critical study of chs. 6-7 also begins with Ew. (1867). His argument in brief was: (i) chs. 1-5 are so complete in themselves that nothing additional is needed. (2) The style is quite different; there is nothing of the elevated force still met with in chs. 1-5; the tone is more like that of Jeremiah; and the peculiarities of language characteristic of chs. 1-5 are lacking here. (3) The artistic form is quite different; this section has a purely dramatic plan and execution; it is not the utterance of a speaker but that of an artist. “The entire piece proceeds amid changing voices; and there are not fewer than ten voices that are heard one after the other. But since the prophet still retains the ancient artistic form of the str., the whole falls into five strs., which are also five acts, thus completing all that has to be said and giving it a perfectly rounded form.” (Ew.’s strs. or “acts ” are 6′-* 6^-^^ 7′-8 -77-13 7U-20). (4) The historical background is wholly different. There is no trace of the stirring and elevated times of Isaiah’s activity. The nation seems to be very small and faint-hearted (6^ ‘• 7″ ‘•); the selfishness and faithlessness of individuals is greater (6’° ‘ 7’-‘); the idolatrous tendencies encouraged by Manasseh had long prevailed (6’«); and the more religious hardly ventured to name the king openly. The reign of Manasseh best complies with these conditions.     The next important contribution to the discussion was made by We. (Bleek’s Einl., 4th ed., 1878, pp. 425/.). He follows Ew. in assigning 6′-7^ to the reign of Manasseh, but concludes that 7′-” was added during the E.xile. He summarises his argument as follows: “Thus the situation in 7′-” is quite different from that in 7’-«. What was present there, viz., moral disorder and confusion in the existing Jewish state, is here past; what is there future, viz., the retribution of v. *^, has here come to pass and has been continuing for some time. What in w. ” was still unthought of, viz., the consolation of the people, tempted in their trouble to mistrust Yahweh, is in w. ^•° the main theme. Between v. ” and v. ‘ there yawns a century. On the other hand, there prevails a remarkable similarity between vv. ‘–o and Isaiah, chs. 40-66.” (Quoted from Dr.^””-, p. 2S3-) Ew.’s view, as modified by We., has been accepted fully, or with but slight variations, by Sta. {ZAW., I, 1881, 161/.), WRS. {Enc. Brit., art. Micah), Che., Kue. {Einl, II, 363 /.), Cor. {Einl, 1891, 183-6), Pont {Tkeol. Studien, 1892, p. 340.), Ko. {Einl., 1893, pp.329/.), Dr. {Intr., pp. ^Zif-) ^nd Du. {Zwolf Propheten, 1910). Cor., however, for a time maintained the authenticity of these chapters {ZAW., IV, 1884, 89 /.; so also Kirk., Doctrine of the Prophets, 1892, pp. 229/.; and van H., 1908), urging (i) that ever}’thing which may be brought forward in support of their origin in Manasseh’s day applies equally well to the time of Ahaz (2 K. 16^; cf. Mi. 60- (2) That the origin of the book would be inexplicable if ISIicah’s work ceased with ch. 3, for chs. 4-5 are enough to offset the gloomy tone of chs. 1-3—why then should there be added a section from the time of Manasseh having no inner connection with chs. 4-5 ? On the hypothesis of the late origin of chs. 6-7, they should immediately follow chs. 1-3, since they give reasons for the drastic punishment there threatened. (3) That 6’-7” shows traces of the author of chs. 1-3, having perfect parallels in them {e. g., i^- >3 = 6’«) as well as in the addresses of Isaiah from the reign of Ahaz. (4) That a late working over of j^–” must be granted.                 Now. at once replied {ZAW., IV, 288/.) to Cor. (i) that chs. 6-7 contain no thought not expressed in chs. 1-3 which could serve as a reason for the threat in 3 ‘2; reasons enough are stated in chs. 1-3; anything further would be superfluous; (2) that ch. 6 cannot be regarded as a continuation of 3’^ since the representation in 6′ “• is wholly different from that in i^ «• and scarcely consistent wath it; (3) that the judgment in 31- comes because of the sins of the leaders, priests and prophets, whereas in 6-7 the charge is quite general (72) and against no special classes; (4) that if chs. 6-7 come from the time of .\haz, as Cor. declares, *hey can hardly state the grounds for the judgment in chs. 1-3, uttered in the time of Hezekiah (Je. 26’^); (5) that the prophet who so sharply antagonises the wicked leaders in the time of the comparatively good king, Hezekiah, would not be likely to let them pass almost unnoticed in the reign of Ahaz, an exceedingly wicked king; (6) that “my people ” is the object of the prophet’s compassion in chs. 1-3, but in chs. 6-7 it is the object of his wrath. Wildeboer, in 1884 {De Profeet Micha, p. 57), adheres to Micah’s authorship, stating (i) that differences in artistic structure and manner of presentation do not necessarily involve different authorship; (2) that as there was human sacrifice under Ahaz and also under Manasseh, it is quite probable that there were some who practised it, at least in secret, in the time of Hezekiah; (3) that in 7’ the words “prince,” “judge,” “great one” are used collectively and thus disprove the charge that the leaders are not denounced in these chapters. In 1887, Ry. defended the authenticity of this material on the following grounds. The chapters were written in the beginning of Hezekiah’s reign when conditions were essentially the same as under Ahaz. The religious formalism alluded to in 6^- ‘• ‘”-‘2 is wholly out of keeping with the reign of Manasseh. 7’-‘ is an independent section and the immorality there described was possible in Hezekiah’s day; but if it must be interpreted literally, it is intelligible neither as coming from Hezekiah’s reign nor from that of Manasseh. The hope of return from Assyria and Egypt is indicative of pre-exilic origin; in Deutero-Isaiah the place of exile is always Babylon and Chaldaea. But if the chapters must be assigned to Manasseh’s reign, it is still reasonable to assign them to Micah, who may have been still living.                 In 1887 also, Sta. {Geschichte d. Volkes Israel, I, 634), expressed his conviction of the postexilic origin of ch. 6. In 1890, Gie. {Beitrdge zur Jesaiakritik, 216/.) declared himself with Ew. as to 6′-7% but assigned 77-20 to postexilic times. Elh. (1891), on the other hand, endorses the arguments of Cor. and Ry. in behalf of authenticity and attempts to ease all difficulties of connection by placing chs. 6-7 immediately after chs. 1-3 and by rearranging the text in this order: 6’-^ 71-6 6«-‘8 7″ 7’-‘^ -jn-ia^ In 1892, We. again puts himself on record {Kleine Proph., 2d ed.), stih maintaining the possibility of Micah’s authorship, even in the age of Manasseh, for 6′-8, declaring 6^-^^ independent of its context and without indications of definite date, assigning 7′-6 to the period of Malachi, and following Gie. with reference to 77-20. j^ 1893, Rosters, in connection with a searching review of Elh.’s commentary {ThT., XXVII, 249-274), suggested the postexilic origin of these chapters, citing many words and phrases as characteristic of postexilic language and thought. These chapters were written to explain the fall of Jerusalem as due to the corruption of the generation contemporary with that disaster, it being no longer believed that the children are punished for the sins of the father. The position of GASm. (1896) is near to that of We., for he holds to Micah’s authorship of 6′-*, is undecided as to 6’-‘^ and 7′-^ and regards y’-‘o as a psalm composed of fragments from various dates, of which •ju-\7 points to the eighth century B.C. by its geographical references, and 7″ to the period between the fall of Jerusalem and its rebuilding. Now., in his commentary (1897; 2d ed., 1905), considers the reign of Manasseh a possible date for 6’-7«, but denies Micah’s authorship even were he then alive. He would locate 7 ‘-2″ in the period between the decree of Cyrus and the journey of Nehemiah to Jerusalem. Dr.'”””- is inclined to agree with Ew. and to deny the necessity of separating 77-20 and assigning it to a later age. Che. (EB., art. Micah), makes both chapters postexilic and finds them concerned with the ubiquitous Jerahmeelites. Sta. gives a long list {ZAW., XXIII, 1903, 164-171), of poste.xilic parallels to 7’-‘” and assigns the whole of 6-7 to the postexilic age (in Bibl. Theol. d. Alt. Test., 1905, p. 230). Marti (1904) calls chs. 6-7 “a conglomerate, held together by the conviction that deliverance must finally come, though the sins of the present demand the continuance of God’s wrath.” Of this conglomerate 6’-‘ is editorial expansion; 6^-^ belongs probably to the fifth century, possibly to the sixth; and ch. 7 to the second century B.C. Bu. also resolves the two chapters into fragments and places them all in the postexilic age (Gesch., 1906). The last commentator, van H. (1908), insists upon the unity of the chapters and upon Micah’s authorship, basing it all upon the hypothesis that the two chapters are concerned with Samaria, not Jerusalem, and finding it necessary to transpose 7″”>-i3 to follow 7^ (see ad loc). Hpt. (1910) allows Micah only t,2,\ lines of text in chs. 1-3. Chs. 4-7 are assigned to the Maccabaean period (170-100 B.C.), while i’-‘ is a poem written in celebration of the destruction of Samaria by John Hyrcanus in 107 B.C. This represents a step beyond the conclusions of the foregoing critics, in that Hpt. leaves Micah less than any previous scholar and is confident in his assignment of the non-Micah material to the Maccabaean period and even to the specific years to which the several poems belong. Unfortunately, this confidence cannot be shared by scholars at large until more definite and convincing considerations are forthcoming.

                The conclusions arrived at in the following commentary may be briefly summarised. There is no logical unity within chs. 6 and 7; they resolve themselves into seven sections, no one of which connects closely with either its preceding or its following sections. The possibility of Micah’s authorship remains open for 6®”‘” and 7^-°, but is wholly excluded for the remainder. These two sections, together with 6′”^, might be placed in any period of Hebrew history subsequent to the appearance of the great prophets. 6°’* seems to reflect the wisdom of the sages and to belong in the earlier half of the postexilic age. f’^° and 7″”^” come apparently both out of the same conditions; Israel is suffering but hoping, looking back with longing upon the good old days and praying for vengeance; they are best located in the later postexilic period, after the work of Nehemiah and Ezra. 7″”^, however, is wholly detached from its context and is to be explained as coming from the period after the fall of Jerusalem, but before the rebuilding of the city walls. The two chapters thus seem to be a collection of miscellaneous fragments, coming from widely scattered periods and from at least four different authors.


                § I. The Superscription (1:1). This states the authority of the utterance and the author’s name

and clan, together with the period of his activity and the subjectmatter

of his writings.

                § 2 The Doom of Israel (1:2-9).  This oracle resolves itself into six strophes of four lines each,(i) The announcement of Yahweh’s appearance in judgment (v. ^). (2) The convulsions of nature attendant upon his coming (vv. ^• *^’ ^)’ (3) The occasion of this punitive manifestation is the sin of Israel, especially as represented in the capital cities (v. ^) . (4) Yahweh states that Samaria is to be razed to the ground because of her sins (v. “). (5) Therefore does the prophet break forth into inconsolable lamentation (v. ^). (6) For the destruction is irremediable and will extend even to Jerusalem (v. ®)

                § 3- Lamentation Over Israel’s Doom (1:10-16).

                In four strs. of four lines each, the prophet pictures desolationas it sweeps across the countryside with the march of an invading army. Wherever the blow falls, the piercing note of the dirge arises, (i) A call to some of the more northern to<\\Tis to give themselves to mourning>. (2) Disaster sent by Yahweh will smite the cities of Judah. (3) Let the inhabitants of Lachish and its environs flee in hot haste before the impending judgment. (4) Israel’s territory will be in the hands of the foe, and her inhabitants will be carried into exile.

                § 4. The Oppression of the Poor (2*-“).

                In six strs. in which the elegiac strain is predominant, Micah denouncesthe tyranny of the rich and warns them of coming judgment. Str. I, the prophet speaks: Woe to those who plot night and day to despoil their neighbours of houses and lands. Str. II, Yahweh speaks: For this reason I am about to bring upon this people a humihating and unbearable yoke. Str. Ill, Yahweh continues: Then the wail of the mourner will arise among you, ‘ Our land is allotted to others; we are wholly undone!’ Str. IV, the rich oppressors speak: Cease prating of such things. We are immime from calamity. Is Yahweh impotent, or can he mean anything but good to his own people? Str. V, Yahweh retorts: But ye are destroyers of my people, robbing and plundering them and driving the women and children into slavery. Str. VI, Yahweh pronoimces sentence: Rise and begone! Because of your sins, ye shall be hopelessly destroyed.

                § 5. The Return of the Exiles (2^2- ^^).

                A later editor, in a single eight-line str., prevailingly trimeter in

movement, offsets the announcement of exile made in § 4 by a

promise of Israel’s return from exile under the protection and

leadership of Yahweh.

                § 6. Denunciation of the Leaders and Prophets (3^”*).

                Of the seven four-line strs. constituting this poem, three are

devoted to the secular leaders, three to the rehgious, and the last

to Micah himself.

                § 7. The Doom of Israel (3®”^^).

                This is the climax of Micah’s utterances. He here groups together

the three leading classes in Judah, the princes, priests and

prophets, and lays upon them the full responsibility for the approaching

downfall of the capital city which he foretells.

                B. CHAPTERS 4 AND 5.

                Chs. 4 and 5 have given much trouble to interpreters, great varietyof opinion existing as to what portions, if any, may be attributed to Micah and as to the origin and date of the portions not thus assigned. All agree, however, that the chapters as they now stand are wholly lacking in logical continuity within themselves and must be regarded as composed of a series of more or less imrelated fragments. By some, this lack of logical unity is urged, with other considerations, as warrant for denying these chapters to Micah, in whole or in part. By others, it is held to be consistent with Micah’s authorship, either on the ground of the vivacity and mobility of his style, which is not to be confined within logical limits;* or because the spoken word permits of greater freedom from logical restraint than does the written word ;t or on the hypothesis that the present order is due to the work of a redactor who arranged fragments of Micah’s addresses in an order which is for us no order.|

                § 8. An Ideal of Yahweh^s World-Dominion (4:1-5).

                Three six-line strs. in trimeter movement, with a later expansion(vv. *• ^), annoimcing the coming world-wide supremacy of Yahweh and the beneficent results involved therein. Str. I states the fact that the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem is to become the religious rallying-point of the nations. Str. II indicates their motive in coming as the desire to learn of Yahweh’s ways at the only source of instruction. Str. Ill declares that Yahweh will be the world’s arbiter, and that the weapons and art of war will perish. The appendices add details to the picture of idyllic peace.

                § 9. The Doom of Exile and a Promise of Restoration (4:6-10)-

                This section reflects a period when Jerusalem was in imminentdanger from an invader. It foretells capture and exile as the inevitable outcome of the situation, but hastens to assuage the grief by the declaration that Yahweh will intervene, bringing deliverance from captivity and restoration to the home-land. It can be treated as a imit only by transposing vv. ^- ^^ to precede vv. *'”*; V. i.. Str. I pictures Israel’s bitter suffering and gently satirises the futility of human leaders. Str. II declares that even greater calamity is coming, but that Yahweh will thereupon deliver Israel from its foes. Str. Ill annovmces that Yahweh will then gather together the exiles. Str. IV promises their re-establishment as a mighty nation under Yahweh as their eternal king. Str. V reaches the climax with the assurance that Jerusalem will be restored as the nation’s capital.

                § 10. The Triumph of Israel (4:11-13).

In two strs. of six lines each and in trimeter measure, the prophet

describes the scene of Israel’s final vindication at Yahweh’s hands.

                § 11. A Call to Mourning (4:14).

                A fragment of an oracle dealing with some siege of Jerusalem,perhaps that of Sennacherib, or that of Nebuchadrezzar, or some one unknown. It seems to reflect an actual historical situation, rather than a prophet’s vision of the last days. But the material is too scant to furnish a basis for assignment to any specific date. Its closest connection is with w. ®- ^^ and it may have belonged originally after v. ^ or as a marginal note on v. *° (so Marti). It has been generally recognised that no connection exists with what precedes, as is shown by the absence of T from before nny and by the totally different thought conveyed. Halevy places it after 6′”, but no real connection is thereby attained.

                § 12. The Messianic King (5:1-3).               This eight-line str., secured by omitting v. ^ as a gloss, announces the coming of the Messiah, sprung from an ancient line, who shall rule as Yahweh’s representative and in his might over the entire world.      § 13. Israel’s Protection against Invasion (5:4,5).                 A ten-line str., the three closing lines of which are almost identical with its three opening lines. When the invader sets foot upon Israelitish soil there will be no lack of valiant leaders to repel him and to carry the war into his own territory. In contrast with the present defenceless, helpless condition, the Israel of the coming golden age will be adequately equipped to defend her own interests.                § 14. TJie Divine Emergence and Irresistible Might of the Remnant (5:6-8).        Two strs. of six lines each, in trimeter movement, set forth the glory of the remnant, as exhibited in its marvellous rise to power and in its victorious career, V. Ms a marginal note on v. ^ {v. i.). Str. I likens the emergence of the renmant, from among the nations whither Israel has been scattered, to the silently falling dew and to the showers which enable the grass to grow independently of human aid. Str. II presents the remnant vmder the figure of a roaring lion, ravaging defenceless flocks of sheep with none to say him nay.       § 15. IsraeVs Purification through Chastisement (5:9-14).               This piece consists of two four-line strs., with an introductory prose line (v. ^^) and two additional verses from the hands of editors (w. ^^- “). The original piece probably dates from some time in the Deuteronomic period. Str. I foretells the destruction of the munitions of war in which Israel places confidence instead of trusting in Yahweh. Str. II denoimces idolatrous practices which likewise lead Israel away from Yahweh.

                C. CHAPTERS 6 AND 7.

                That these two chapters as they stand could not belong to theeighth century B.C. has been generally recognised since the days of Ewald. Opinion has been divided however as to the time to which they do belong. Ew., followed by many interpreters, assigned them to the reign of Manasseh as a product of IMicah’s old age. Recent scholarship has been more inclined to place them in the postexilic period. In any case they do not constitute a logical unit, but must be interpreted as representing diflferent points of view and reflecting varying backgroimds. For detailed discussion of these questions reference is made to the Introduction, § 2, and to the introductory statements at the opening of the various sections into which the chapters are here analysed.          § 16. Yahweh’s Controversy with Israel (6:1-5).   Four strs. of four trimeter lines each, seek to bring home to the conscience of Israel the obligation resting upon her to be loyal to Yahweh in return for his great goodness to her. Str. I. Let Israel in the presence of the mountains present her case. Str. II. Let these mountains “full of memories and associations with both parties to the trial” be witnesses in the controversy between Yahweh and his people. Str. III. Yahweh has given Israel cause not for complaint but for thanksgiving; witness, the deliverance from Egypt. Str. IV. Let Israel only recall the period of the wanderings in the desert, in order to be reminded of the mighty interpositions of Yahweh in her behalf. § 17. The Character of True Religion (6:6-8). A discussion of the nature of Yahweh’s requirements which yields the finest summary of the content of practical religion to be found in the OT. The material readily resolves itself into three four-line strs. in trimeter movement; the opening of Str. II is marked by the introduction of a new subject, while the beginning of Str. Ill is indicated by the change from question to answer. Str. I represents an individual inquiring what type of ser\-ice Yahweh desires. Will gifts satisfy him? Str. II continues the inquiry in such a way as to show that even the most elaborate and costly gifts cannot secure Yahweh’s favour. Str. Ill answers the inquiry with a positive definition of “pure religion and undefiled.”    § 18. The Sin of the City atid the Punishment to Come (6:9-16).              This section gives a vivid poetical description of Israel’s wicked life and of the disasters which Yahweh must bring upon the nation as punishment. Yahweh himself is represented as speaking, and his utterance falls into five four-line strs. of prevailingly trimeter movement. Str. I addresses the city in Yahweh’s name and characterises it as an abode of violence and deceit. Str. II asserts that the riches of the town have been acquired by cheating and fraud in ordinary commercial transactions. Str. Ill announces that Yahweh’s hand will soon begin the task of chastisement and that all attempts at escape will be futile. Str. IV details the various forms which the chastisement will assume, all of them involving famine. Str. V states that all this terrible wickedness is due to persistence in the sins of the past and that the inevitable result is destruction. The first two strs., thus, denounce the city’s sins, the second two announce the consequent doom, while the last str. summarises both sin and punishment.                 § 19. Israel’s Lamentation Over the Faithlessness Among Her People (7:1-6).         This section is a group of six four-line strs. which bewail the general depravity in Israel. Str. I laments the state of general weakness into which Israel has fallen. Str. II accounts for this weakness by describing the wickedness universal in Israel. Str. Ill exposes the covetousness and bribery prevalent among the ruling classes. Str. IV declares their condition to be hopeless and their day of punishment to be close at hand. Strs. V and VI rise to a climax in the denunciation of sin, by shovnng that no man dare trust even his most intimate friends and nearest relatives. § 20. The Discomfiture of the Foe (7:7-10).           In four strs. of four lines each, the prophet expresses his conviction that Yahweh will vindicate his people by overthrowing their enemies. The poem sounds somewhat like an imprecatory psalm. Str. I warns the enemy not to rejoice too prematurely, for Israel’s distress is only temporary. Str. II expresses the resolution to bear Yahweh’s chastisement uncomplainingly, since it is due to sin and will end in Israel’s vindication. Str. Ill declares that the tables are to be turned upon Israel’s enemies ; those who have reviled her will themselves be put to shame.— Str. IV annoimces a time when those who scoffed at Israel’s God because of Israel’s calamities will in their turn be grotmd down by oppression. § 21. The Restoration of Jerusalem and the Return of Exiles (7:11-13).                 A single eight-line str. tells of the time when the city’s walls will be rebuilt, her borders extended and her citizens brought back from every quarter of the earth; while the heathen world will receive drastic punishment for the sin of its mhabitants. § 22. A Prayer for Yahwelt’s Intervention (7:14-20).   Three strs. of four lines each, in qtna rhythm, call for Yahweh’s manifestation as the deliverer of his people and base the appeal for deliverance upon his mercy. Str. I is a prayer to Yahweh for the resumption of his former attitude of favour toward his people. Str . II prays for the utter humiliation of the heathen nations and their complete subjection to Yahweh. Str. Ill recalls the wellknown character of Yahweh and reminds him of his oath to the patriarchs concerning the glory of Israel.

                ZEPHANIAH. Introduction.

                § I. From the Fall of Thebes to the Fall of Nineveh 159-165

                § 2. Zephaniah and His Times 166-171

1. The Man 166-167

2. The Times 167-171

                § 3. The Book of Zephaniah 171-176

1. The Contents 171-172

2. Later Additions . 172-174

3. Poetic Form 174-176

                § 4. The Message of Zephaniah 177-180

                § 5. Literature on the Book of Zephaniah i8a-i8i

                § 3. THE BOOK OF ZEPHANIAH.

                I. The Contents.

                The thought of the book is centred upon one great theme, thecoming of the day of Yahweh. As the book now stands, this theme is presented under four successive phases. Ch. i sets forth the first of these, viz., the announcement of the near approach of the great day with its overwhelming terrors which are to involve the world in general and Judah in particular. The prophet’s primary interest naturally is in the fate of his own people; hence his message is addressed to them. Ch. 2, the second phase of the subject, announces the coming of this same great day upon the neighbouring peoples, viz., the PhiHstines, Moabites, Ammonites, Ethiopians or Egyptians, and Assyrians. In the third division, ch. 3*”^, the prophet returns to his own people and contrasts their sinfulness with the righteousness of Yahweh. In this contrast lies the cause of the disaster coming upon Jerusalem. In the fourth and final stage of the presentation, ch. 3^”^*^, the thought leaps forward to the future, and declares that after the process of the purification of the people of Yahweh is completed, the nation will enjoy world-wide fame as the redeemed of Yahweh, the mighty God.            2. Later Additions. Critical study of the contents of the book during the last half century has resulted in the setting apart of certain portions of the text as belonging neither to Zephaniah nor to his times, but as due to accretion in later days. A presentation of the considerations which have produced this change of opinion may be found in the following commentary in connection with the various passages involved. Here we may present only a sketch of the history of this critical movement and a summary of the conclusions reached in this commentary.            The process of criticism began with Eichhorn (1824), Einl.\ and Theiner (1828), who decided against 2″-” as alien to the thought of Zephaniah. Forty years later, Oort, in Godgeleerde Bijdragen for 1865, pp. 812 ff., set aside 2′-” and 3″-2o as secondary matter. His view of the latter passage has now won general recognition. Sta.^^’^ (1887), 644, followed by denying the whole of ch. 3 to Zephaniah and questioning 2i-3- n. Kue., Onderzoek (1889), responded by denying the force of the arguments against all but 3H-20. in 1890, Schw. made an elaborate investigation of chs. 2 and 3, coming to the conclusion that Zephaniah wrote only 2i3-‘5 and possibly 2’-‘, while an exilic hand contributed 25’2 and a postexilic, 3’-2o. We. endorsed the views of Sta. and Schw. on ch. 3, athetized also 28-” and expressed doubt as to 2^- ‘. Bu. {SK., 1893, pp. 393 ff.; so also in Gesch., 1906) separated 2<-‘5 ^9. 10. 14-20 from the genuine material. Dav. made a careful examination of the arguments of all his predecessors and was content to give Zephaniah credit for all except 3″‘- ‘^-^o. Now. eliminated only 2^- ‘»«• s-” 3″-2o (similarly also Baudissin, Einl., 553 f. and Selbie, art. Zephaniah, DB.). GASm. accepted Bu.’s view of ch. 3, but dissented as to ch. 2, regarding ail but 2 s-” as genuine. Dr. [EB., IV (1903), 5406 /.; so also in his commentary (1906); in Intr. (1910) he adds 3’8-2<‘ to the passages that are “very probably later additions”], with customary caution, conceded the probability of the late origin of 2″‘- » 3’- ‘” and refused to decide as to 3X-20, the latter part of which, viz., 3’8-2o^ he considered “more open to suspicion than 3’*-“.” Marti, with enviable certainty as to the exact dates of the various additions, agreed with Sta. in taking away from Zephaniah the whole of ch. 3, but in ch. 2 deprived him only of 23. 8-11. 15^ aside from numerous glosses. Cor. accepted the view of Now. for the most part, setting aside 2″‘- =• s-” 3″-2”. Van H., a scholarly Catholic, contended for the unity of the book as the product of Zephaniah’s preaching, with the exception of a few glosses (e. g., 27-io- ‘i).     In the same year (1908), Beer gave essential adherence to Sta.’s position, rejecting 2’=’-i”- ^^, with the whole of ch. 3, and questioning 2′-3. The conclusions of Fag. are practically the same. Lippl, with Catholic caution and sound learning, concedes the later origin of only 2’»- ” “” 3′ 9- 20, though granting a reasonable doubt as to the originality of 28-n in its present form. Du., the most recent writer, follows closely after We,, dropping 2’^=– ^- ^^- ” s-“- ” and the whole of ch. 3. In this commentary, the following materials, in addition to minor glosses, are treated as of secondary origin. The oracle against Moab and Ammon (2^- ^) is relegated to later times since its phraseology presupposes the conditions of the exile as actually existing. An expansion of this oracle is found in 2**’- “. The fall of Nineveh is taken for granted in 2*^, which is therefore placed after that event. In the third chapter the only original matter is found in w. ^”^. Vv. ^’ ^ may possibly be old material; but in that case they are out of place in their present context. Vv. ^^^ are a postexihc addition, in which is now included a gloss (w. ^*^°) revealing a different attitude toward the heathen and interrupting the continuity of thought between w, ^ and “. Vv. ^^-^ are another addition from postexilic times, which has likewise imdergone some inner expansion.        The allowance of time necessary for the various additions to the book, together with the still later glosses upon those additions, necessitates placing the completion of the prophecy in its present form well along in the postexilic period. The final touches may have been given as late as the Greek period. The history of the growth of OT. books shows that they were all subject to this kind of treatment, at least until they were recognised as canonical. Indeed, it is by no means certain that canonicity in its early stages guaranteed immunity from such modifications. The Book of the Twelve was, in all probability, the last candidate to secure admission to the prophetic canon.


                § I. THE SUPERSCRIPTION (1:1). This introduces the author, traces his lineage, declares the source and authority of his message and states the period of his public activity.             § 2. THE DAY OF DOOM UPON JUDAH AND JERUSALEM (1:2-6). A single str. of eight lines announcing with prophetic finality the approaching day of judgment upon the world in general and Judah in particular.            § 3. THE TERRORS OF THE DAY OF YAHWEH (1:7-18).        A vivid picture of the terrible judgment now so near at hand. The poem falls into eleven short strs. of two lines each, as though the burden of the message were too heavy to be borne by strs. of greater length. Str. I announces the near approach of the dread day (i^); H pronounces judgment upon the king’s counsellors (j8a. 9b). jjj deals with those who practise social and religious customs of foreign origin (i^b. 9a). jy describes the woe to come upon every quarter of the city (i^**- “^) ; V vividly represents the impossibility of the escape of any guilty man (i^^^- ^); VI shows how such men will realise their mistake in disregarding Yahweh (ii2c. 13a). Yii reiterates the announcement that Yahweh’s day is near (i”); VHI and IX characterise that day with its terrors (i^^- ^^) ; X describes the pitiful condition of mankind on that day (i^^) ; and XI closes the poem with the threat of a most complete destruction (i^^^- “).              §4. A DAY OF DOOM UPON PHILISTIA (2:1-7). In a poem that has suffered many things at the hands of editors, the prophet foretells woe upon the Philistines. The reasons for the divine anger against Israel’s ancient foe were apparently so well knowTi to the prophet’s audience that they did not need to be rehearsed here. The poem is composed of four strs. of two lines each. Str. I sounds the note of warning to Philistia in view of the near approach of her day of judgment (2*- ^^). Str. II specifies four of the five great PhiUstine towns as doomed to destruction (2^). Str. Ill announces the complete depopulation of the whole Philistine coast (2’^). Str. IV represents this former abode of men as given over to the pasturage of flocks (2″- ”^).                 § 5- THE DIVINE VENGEANCE UPON MOAB AND AMMON (2:8-11).            In a single str. of six lines, the attitude of Moab and Ammon toward Judah in her calamity is recalled and the dire destruction of both people is foretold (v\. ^- ®). Later hands have expanded the oracle and made it foretell the world-wide dominion of Yahweh (vv. ^°””). The entire section belongs to the postexilic age.      § 6. THE DOOM OF ETHIOPIA AND ASSYRIA (2:12-15).      In another single str. of six lines, Zephaniah marks the southern limit of the Scythian invasion; then, returning to the opposite extreme of the world-empire of his day, annoimces the downfall of Assyria and describes in detail the desolation of Nineveh.                      § 7. THE SIN OF JERUSALEM AND THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF YAHWEH (3:1-7).          An incomplete prophecy of which only two full strs. and part of a third remain. Str. I charges Jerusalem with disobedience and faithlessness to Yahweh (vv. *• ^). Str. II arraigns the officials responsible for the political, judicial and religious welfare of the city (vv. ^- ^). Str. Ill sets in contrast with the foregoing the justice and faithfuhiess of Yahweh (v. ^). To this fragment are loosely attached two other fragments (vv. *• ‘), having no intimate connection with that which precedes them. § 8. JERUSALEM DELIVERED (3:8-13).               In three strs. of four lines each, Jerusalem is assured that the nations will perish, while she herself after her purification will be restored to the favour of Yahweh. Str. I bids Jerusalem look forward to the day when Yahweh’s judgment will overtake the nations of the earth (v. ^). Str. II informs her that a work of cleansing and elimination must take place among her own people (vv. “• ^^). Str. Ill states the characteristics of the remnant and predicts for it a happy and peaceful life.                 §9- THE WORLD-WIDE RENOWN OF REDEEMED ISRAEL (3:14-20).                 In two strs. of unequal length, a late writer contrasts the Israel of the coming Golden Age with the Israel as known in his own time. Str. I bids the people of Yahweh rejoice because Yahweh is about to repulse all their foes and to favour his own people with his gracious presence henceforth (w. “• ^^- “). Str. II declares that Yahweh is to destroy all Israel’s oppressors, rescue her afflicted ones and make his people the object of the world’s praise (w. ” ”).

                NAHUM. Introduction.

                § I. The Book of Nahum 267-274

Its Contents 267-268

Its Unity … 268-270

Its Poetic Form 270-274

                § 2. The Times of Nahum …. 274-279

                § 3. The Man and the Message 279-282

The Man 279-280

The Message 280-282

                § 4. Literature on the Book of Nahum 282-283

                § I. THE BOOK OF NAHUM.

                Its Contents.

                The first section of the book of Nahum as it now stands setsforth the avenging wrath of Yahweh (i^”^”). Though manifested with reluctance, yet its exhibition against the ungodly is inevitable. Its outpouring throws the physical universe into convulsions, but Yahweh furnishes shelter from his wrath to those that trust in him. Those that oppose him are irrevocably destroyed. The second section (i”-2^) alternates between words of reproach or threatening against some unnamed foe (supposedly Nineveh) and promises of comfort and deliverance to Judah.       The remainder of the book deals with one subject, viz. the approaching destruction of Nineveh. The material, however, divides itself into two sections, viz. 2*”” and 3^’^^. The former of these begins so abruptly as to suggest that the original beginning of the section is either lost or else embodied in i”-2^. The section as a whole gives a vivid picture of the attack upon Nineveh, the capture, the weeping of the women, the flight of the defenders and the plunder of the city’s treasures and closes with a taunt-song contrasting Nineveh’s past tyranny and robbery with the waste and desolate state which awaits her. The closing section (3*’^), addressed directly to the doomed city, first of all presents concretely the awful state in store for her. The reason for this is then assigned as lying in her treacherous treatment of other nations. Hence she is to be made the butt of the scorn of these nations. If she flatters herself that she is impregnable, let her recall the overthrow of the invincible Thebes. Panic will seize her defenders and she will fall an easy prey. No matter how zealous she be in Strengthening her defences, fire and sword will destroy her, and her population will scatter like a brood of locusts, leaving behind no clue. Her destruction will be total and final and will call forth the plaudits of all peoples.


                § I. THE SUPERSCRIPTIONS (1:1).               These inform us as to the name of the author, his clan, the nature of his book, and the subject of his preaching. In common with the superscriptions to Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Habakkuk and Malachi among the prophetic books, it refrains from any statement regarding the time of this prophet’s activity. Nahum is the only book in the OT. carrying two superscriptions at its head and is also the only prophecy entitling itself a ‘book.’                               § 2. THE AVENGING WRATH OF YAHWEH (1:2-10).             A fragment of an acrostic poem, the fifteen lines of which begin with the successive letters of the Heb. alphabet in their natural order. Owing to the formal character of the poem, there is no clearly marked logical progress, nor organisation into strs.. The general thought concerns itself with the terrors of Yahweh’s anger against his foes. In an ever-changing series of bold and striking metaphors, the poet seeks to create a vivid impression of this divine wrath and thus to quicken the faith and hope of those who have trusted in and obeyed Yahweh. § 3. WORDS OF COMFORT TO JUDAH (1:12,13-2:1, 3).     An eight-line str. declaring that the yoke of Israel’s oppressor is broken and the period of her affliction is complete. Deliverance and restoration now await the people of God. This section constitutes a later addition to the prophecy of Nahum.    § 4. THE FALL OF NINEVEH (1:11, 14-2:2, 4-14).         A series of five strs. portraying the destruction of Assyria’s capital. Str. I announces Yahweh’s punitive purpose and ironically urges Nineveh to her own defence (i”- ” 2′). Str. H presents a vivid picture of the attack upon Nineveh (2^-*’). Str. IH describes the distress within the city (2^-‘”). Str. IV sets forth the helplessness of Assyria (2″””). Str. V in Yahweh’s own words declares that the destruction will be thorough and complete (2″). This is the first of the genuine oracles of Nahum.             § 5. THE IMMINENT AND INEVITABLE END (3:1-19).           In six strophes addressed to Nineveh, Nahum once more exults over her approaching ruin. Str. I characterises the city, gives a glimpse of the coming attack upon her and states the reason for her fall; w. ^”\ Str. II represents the fallen city as exposed to the taunts of the nations; vv. ^^. Str. Ill reminds Nineveh of the fate of her ancient rival—Thebes, the queen of the Nile; vv. ^”‘*^. Str. IV declares that a similar fate awaits Nineveh, notwithstanding her strength; vv. “”‘^ Str. V ironically urges the city to put forth every effort on her own behalf, assuring her, however, that her forces will fail her in her time of need ; vv. “””. Str. VI, in dirge measure, states the hopelessness of Nineveh’s case and the universal joy that will greet the tidings of her fall; vv. ‘^-‘^

                HABAKKUK. Introduction.

                Authorship and Date 3-7

                Topical Analysis 7

                The Oracle begins with the complaint of Israel personated bythe prophet, occupying i^”*; followed by the response of Yahweh, embracing vv. ^”. In these eleven verses the wrong-doer is to be punished by the invasion of the Chaldeans, and therefore he is the wicked Jewish court and princes. This puts the date about 600 B.C., in the reign of Jehoiakim. With v. ^^ begins a second complaint against the foreign heathen oppressor, here necessarily the Babylonians themselves, concluding with 2^. This must be later than the time of Jehoiakim, as the Babylonians have now made their invasion. Yahweh’s response begins with V. ^; and this and v. ^ announce the vision to be fulfilled at a later period. It is to be preserved legibly written on clay tablets of the Babylonian style, and consists of two parts, one about the preservation of the righteous, and the other the overthrow of the wicked oppressor. The prophet has not made it quite clear where the inscribed vision ends. Indeed he seems to have continued the last part, that about the wrong-doer, into the first malediction. The second and third maledictions are too closely connected together to be separated; but the third contains three quotations from as many other prophets, and must therefore be later than the first malediction; and the fourth and fifth also seem to belong to a period considerably later than the Babylonian Captivity. The third chapter is intended for musical recitation in the temple worship, and may well be of the period of the last part of the second chapter. Being assigned to Habakkuk, we may presume that Habakkuk was the last compiler and editor of the first two chapters, and may have been the author of the last part of the second chapter. It is impossible in translation to reproduce the abounding alliterations of the original, or the prevailing poetic measure, consisting of three principal words in a line.


                ORACLE. (1:1)  The Oracle which Habakkuk the propliet did see. Thisverse is probably a later editorial title.                   1st COMPLAINT. (1:2-4)                 2-4. The conditions in these verses are plainly not those of war, but of domestic oppression. The law in v. * is not the Torah, but the religious institutions, corresponding to justice in the next line. When coupled with ^DJJ, pX means trouble. The latter part of V. * is not rhythmic, and is a marginal gloss. It is meant to elucidate the second member of the couplet, but it is a weak statement that the perversion of justice consists in circumventing the righteous.      RESPONSE. (1:5-11)         2nd COMPLAINT. (1:12-17)          WATCH FOR YAHWEH’S ANSWER. (2:1)   The response to the prophet’s second complaint is more elaborate than that to the first complaint, and is more formally introduced. The first complaint was against native oppression, and the response threatened their punishment by the Chaldean conquest. The second complaint is against these Chaldean conquerors, and so is later, unless we may regard i^'” as a dramatic retrospect, explaining the subject condition of the Jewish people. One may prefer the reading rock to tower, following the Vrss., but the longer m^D is probably genuine and more musically matches ‘»n”lDC’D by the latent paronomasia which the prophet much affects.   YAHWEH’S DIRECTION. (2:2,3)                 ORACLE. (2:4-5)                 Maledictions. (2:6-20)   Ist Malediction. (2:6 b-8    2nd Malediction. (2:9-11)  3rd Malediction. (2:12-14) 4th Malediction. (2:15-17)    5th Malediction. (2:18-20)      PSALM—CHAPTER 3.      Ch. 3 is not a recounting of past triumphs, contains only is 3 Hebrew simply considers the covert allusions early history. to It and and theophany a present seeks receives of deliver distress, Yahweh armed comes an with the guise of warrior, ance. in bow and and and storm horses quiver, in lightning, to chariot, overthrow the enemy. He starts from his Olympus in Mount Paran, moves northward to Palestine, and aflFrights land and sea with his thunder and tempest. It is to Palestine that Yahweh comes with help, but there is nothing by which we can decide what particular exigency required his aid. We are told of the possible or actual failure of the fruits of the earth, but whether by drought or by the ravages of war we are not told, but the aid of Yahweh implies the latter. Very likely this psalm belongs to the Maccabean period. 

                The Prayer of Habakkuk the Prophet. On the Stringed Instruments. (3:1)  Introductory Prayer for a Theophany. (3:2   Theophany in the Storm. (3:3-13)  3:12-15: It is evident that v. 15 is out of place after vv. 12-14.



                § I. The Composition of the Book

                § 2. The Date of the Book 

                § 3. The Interpretation of the Book 

                § 4. The Prophet and His Book 

                § 5. The Text 

                § 6. The Metre 

                § 7. Modern Literature 

                § I. THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.     The first literary problem in Ob. is the relation of w. ^”^ to Je. 49′ ^•, These passages are so much alike that they cannot be independent of one another. Either Ob. quoted from Je., or Je. quoted from Ob., or both quoted from an older oracle. Every one of these positions has been taken by scholars. At present, as a result of Caspari’s investigation, almost all writers beHeve that Je. 49 quoted from Ob. But a renewed comparison of both texts shows that the more original text is contained in Je. 49; that Ob. quoted w. ^-* ahnost, though not quite, literally; that he commented on this older oracle in w. ^”^ partly in the words of the older prophet, partly in his own words, in order to show that it had been fulfilled in his own day; and that in w. ^- ^ he quoted once more from the older oracle without any show of literahess. These conclusions involve the originality of w. ^- ^- ^ See the detailed discussion on pp. ss ff.   In w. ^°- ” Ob. proceeds to state the reasons for Edom’s calamity, continues with a vivid description of her cruel beha\’iour toward Judah at the fall of Jerusalem, thrown into the form of impassioned warnings (w. ^^”) and ends by declaring that her present punishment is in just requital for her own deeds (v. ^^^).—On an attempt to athetize w. ^” as secondary, cf. text. n. ad loc.                With V. ^'”^ we enter upon a different range of thought. The writer does not describe a present calamity but hopes for the punishment of Edom on the day when Yahweh will judge all nations. These verses have therefore grown out of a different situation. Ob. interpreted events that had just transpired, when Edom had been dispossessed by her former allies. This writer expects the day of Yahweh in the near future and confidently believes that Edom will be utterly destroyed by Israel. Evidently some time had passed since Ob, had written, Edom had, after all, not been completely destroyed but was living on, a menace and vexation to Judah. No redress seemed possible at present, and so the writer looks forward to the future, to the day when Yahweh will hold his judgment on all the nations. Then Edom’s turn will also come and its terrible pimishment will be administered by Israel. It is not likely that Ob. was the writer of these verses, and Wellhausen was right m regarding w. ^^^- ^””-^ as an appendix. There is also, if the text is correct, such a sudden change of address in v. ^^ from the Edomites to the Jews that the same author can hardly be credited with it.         There are two sections in this appendix, w. ^^^’ *^”^^ and vv. ^^^, and we may question whether they are by the same author. Vv. ^^’^^ are in the nature of a commentary on w. ^”^- ^^, and it seems that V. ^^ with its list of territories understood v. ^^^ as saying that the house of Jacob would regain its possessions. Originally v. “^ spoke of Judah’s conquest over her dispossessors (see text. n). That there existed this difiference of interpretation of v. “^ is clear from M and (i respectively. If this point is pressed we must probably conclude that vv. ^””‘^ are by a different author who understood V. “”^ not as its writer had meant it but of the reconquest of Israel’s territories, and who connected his list of such territories very ingeniously with his comment on v. ^*, by explaining that this prophecy will be fulfilled by what is still left of the house of Jacob and of the house of Joseph, i. e., the Israelitish and the Judean exiles. They will regain the land, the Israelites as far north as Sarephath, the Judeans including all the cities of the Southland. But the thoughts of the driving out of the dispossessors and of the regaining of the territories are closely enough related that the same writer may naturally pass from the one to the other, esp. when it is possible to express both by the same Heb. word. And we need not wonder that v. *^ thinks not only of the Edomites as to be driven out as in v. ” but of others also, when the setting which the writer gives to the punishment of Edom is the day of Yahweh’s judgment on all the nations.               That V. ‘^ looks like a conclusion is due to the final formula for Yahweh hath spoken. But this is really a quotation-formula. For contents and metre alike show that v. ^^ is an older prophecy which our author incorporated in order to establish the hope which he entertained concerning the future victory of Israel over Edom.

                Outline:                The title, the Vision of Obadiah, does not give time, home or father’s name of the prophet. Vision is a technical name for prophecy, referring to the divine communication received in the ecstatic state. Later it referred esp. to the eschatological drama which formed its contents. Here, as in Is. i\ Na. i\ it is used as the title of a book. The introd., thus saith the Lord Yahweh concerning Edoni, with its emphasis on the sovereignty of Yahweh (cf. Am. f 8^) may be intended either for the whole oracle or, better, only for the older oracle which is quoted in w. ^ ^•.                 Vv. 1-4. An older oracle had declared when certain nations were allying themselves for war against Edom that the outcome would be Edom’s downfall. Nothing would save her; even if her impregnable fortresses were still stronger, they would be of no avail, because Yahweh Himself would bring Edom down.       5-7. This older oracle has beenfulfilled. Thefallfrom the height has come. Ha! how completely Edom has just been cleaned out! How thoroughly her rich treasure-stores have just been rifled! And she herself has been driven from her impregnable seats to the border of her country. Former allies have done it by treachery which Edom was too stupid to see through!                       Vv. 8-9. Is not this in fulfilment of the prophecy which had declared that Yahweh would take away Edom’s wisdom in order to destroy her utterly ?       10-11. They have richly deserved this terrible punishment, because of their brutal behaviour toward their brother nation Judah (v. ^°) at the time when Jeriisalem was taken by the barbarians (v. “). 12-14. 15b. How malicious atid cruel Edom was at that time toward his brother! Ah, but now vengeance has come, he has received his due recompense!            Vv. 15a 16-18. The day of Yahweh is at hand when all the nations must drink the cup of his fury. The Jews indeed need not be afraid, for they have already received their punishment, and those of them that have escaped shall dwell on Mt. Zion without fear of ever again being driven out by foreign invaders. On the contrary, they will drive out those nations that had dispossessed them and more esp. Edom, which Jacob and Joseph, ace. to Yahweh’s decree, will completely destroy.                19-21. The second section of the appendix gives a historical explanation of w. “• ^*. V. *^ had said that the house of Jacob would dispossess all its dispossessors. This means, so these verses explain, that all the old territory in its ideal boimdary lines will again come back to Israel. The Negeb, now in the hands of the Edomites, the Shephelah, now occupied by the Philistines, Mt. Ephraim, now the territory of the Samaritans, and Gilead which is now Ammonitish, all shall belong once more to Israel (v. ^^). For the exiles will come back and reconquer the land. The Israelitish exiles will occupy their territory as far north as Sar^phath and the Judean exiles theirs in the south including the cities of the Negeb (v. ^°). They will come and march to Mt. Zion to help their brethren punish Edom. Then the golden time of Yahweh’s reign will begin (v. ^^)

                INTRODUCTION TO JOEL

                §1.  Composition of the Book.

                §2.  Date of the Book.

                §3.  Interpretation of Book.

                §4.  Prophet.

                §5.  Text and Metre.

                §6.  Modern Literature.

                § I. THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.

                                The book of Joel has usually been regarded as the work of oneauthor and is still treated as such by all recent commentators. And this in spite of the fact that M. Vemes as early as 1872 maintained that chs. 3, 4 were not written by the author of chs. i, 2.* He restated his position in 1874 and in a less dogmatic form in 1880, when he did not insist on difference of authorship, though he still maintained the difference and irreconcilability of the two sections. Vemes’ thesis remained imnoticed imtil, independently of him, J. W. Rothstein in 1896 argued for difference of authorship for chs. I, 2 and chs. 3, 4. Then Nowack called attention to Vemes and interpreted in his counter-arguments Vemes’ non-insistence on duality of authorship as a practical abandonment of his position. G. A. Smith and Marti followed Nowack’s lead in opposing Rothstein’s position, G. A. Smith not without reserve. But more recently Ryssel, Sievers, Duhm and P. Haupt have agreed that the book is no unity. Ryssel adopted Rothstein’s literary position, regarding chs. I, 2 from one author, chs. 3, 4 from another. Sievers considers 2^^”- ””” 3′-” 4′-‘- “””, Duhm 2^’-4” as later and both point out insertions in chs. i, 2.   It is clear that there is a decided difference of interest and subject-matter in both sections. Chs. i, 2 treat of a locust plague and a drought as disciplinary punishment of the Jews; chs. 3, 4 treat of the final judgment of the nations and of the protection and glory of the Jews, without mentioning the locust plague. But though the day of Yahweh dominates chs. 3, 4 the locust plague in chs. I, 2 is also brought into connection with it in a number of passages. And it is due to this fact, more than to any other, that the unity of authorship has oeen maintained so strongly even by critics like Nowack and Marti. But these references to the day of Yahweh in chs. i, 2 turn out to be interpolations.   1″. Nothing whatever in the context indicates that the prophet had in mind the day of Yahweh, on the contrary vv. * ^ exclude it. So does the fact that we have here a quotation from Is. 13^, when all through the address we have the words of an original poet and writer, i’* is a foreign element in the context. So also Siev., Du.              2″>- *. Again the phrases are taken aXmosi verbatim from other prophets, Zp. i’5 I’- ‘^ Mai. 3^- 2’. Moreover, the day of Yahweh and the day of the locusts are connected here in such a manner that it is not clear whether they are the same, or whether the locusts are merely the precursors of the day of Yahweh. The alarm is to be sounded, we are told, first because of the approach of the day of Yahweh and then, all of a sudden, because a huge locust swarm is coming. Then the description of the locust swarm is continued until we come to vv. ‘” ” where we again meet most unexpectedly a description of an eschatological army. Duhm also believes that 2″> ^ is an interpolation. 210. ii_ While the locusts in 2’ ^- might perhaps be interpreted as precursors of the day of Yahweh this is not possible in a'”- “. “In ch. ii. 10,” says Davidson, “the plague and the day of the Lord seem brought immediately together . . . this darkening of the sun and moon is not to be rationalised into the effects upon daylight produced by swarms of locusts in the sky, it is a sign of the near approach of the day of the Lord, though not identical with that day (ii. 31, Engl.) . . . these hosts of locusts were the army of the Lord . . . (ii. 25) and He was at the head of the army giving it command; and thus there was virtually that presence and manifestation of the Lord, at least in its beginnings, in which the day of the Lord was verified ” (pp. 202/.). These verses do not describe an actual locust flight, as the preceding had done, but the day of Yahweh ; and the locusts are the agents of His judgment. And yet in spite of this much more terrible danger of the day of Yahweh the appeal to repentance in vv. ‘*-” contains as little reference to it as do the prayer of the priests and Yahweh’s answer in 2’8 ff-. It is the locust plague and the drought that constitute the whole of these passages, the day of Yahweh is not mentioned at all. Rothstein already attributed 210. u to the editor who combined chs. x, 2 with chs. 3, 4. Siev. and Du. retain them, strangely enough.            2^. There are two further traces of this interpolator of the day of Yahweh who tried to connect chs. i, 2 with chs. 3, 4. The first of these is in 2^. This verse, though not absolutely incompatible with the context, interrupts the description of the advance of the locust swarm. It has more than once been pointed out that D^ay, nations or peoples, is rather        peculiar in this connection. Hi.’s transl. Leute, people, and his reference to I K. 22-‘ in justification of this do not hold good, because U’CB’ D’d;’, hear ye peoples, in i K. 22^8 is a gloss by a reader who wrote the beginning of the book of the prophet Micah, with whom he identified Micaiah, in the margin.               Why should the nations be introduced at this point, when Joel concentrates his attention upon his own people? It is significant that this verse shows contact with Is. 13 (v. *), i. e. with the same chapter from which the interpolator of the day of Yahweh had drawn his material in lis (= Is. i;^’), 2′” also is similar to Is. 13′”‘- “. The inference is therefore natural that 2« belongs also to the day of Yahweh interpolations. —On 2″ see com.          2*”. Another trace is in the name my northerner in 2′”. This is such an unusual and improbable term for a real locust swarm that we must interpret it as an eschatological term for the enemy from the north that had so long been prophesied. The whole context here again shows that Joel had in mind a real locust swarm, for he describes its destruction in terms which are not applicable to human forces. The expression is therefore due to the interpolator of the day of Yahweh. Rothstein attributed 2»« as a whole to the editor, W. R. Smith also regarded 2*» as a gloss.               After the removal of these interpolations the diflference of interest and subject-matter between chs. i, 2 and chs. 3, 4 becomes even clearer. Chs. i, 2 treat of a locust plague and drought, and contained originally no reference to the day of Yahweh. Chs. 3, 4 treat of the day of Yahweh, and contain no reference to the locust plague and the drought. The series of interpolations has been deliberately inserted in order to connect chs. i, 2 with chs. 3, 4. Originally they were distinct and not connected.   But does this conclusion necessarily involve difference of authorship for the two sections? May not Joel be the author of both, different though they are? Surely, the same writer may write on two different subjects at different times ! Yet even if we assume this, we cannot hold him responsible for the day of Yahweh interpolations in chs. 1,2. For it is most improbable that a man of such fine literary style, who knows so well how to express his thoughts in a manner all his own, should in every instance have inserted common, well-known phrases from other prophets into poems of such high literary beauty and finish. For it should be noticed that the literary parallels in chs. 1,2, which have been pointed     out so frequently, are all found in these interpolations. The genuine Joel is original in his expressions.      This is our difficulty with chs. 3, 4 also. As a whole they cannot be said to be stylistically on a level with chs. 1,2. Their style is so inferior that it argues against unity of authorship. From this must, however, be excepted 4^”^*, which are equal in strength and originality of expression as well as rhythmic beauty and effectiveness to chs. 1,2. Indeed, as soon as it is admitted that a single author may write on two such diverse themes as the locust plague with its accompanying drought and the judgment of the nations in the valley of Jehoshaphat there is every reason for believing that Joel wrote ^9-i4a That striking description of the march and attack of the locust army in ch. 2 has its counterpart in this description of the summoning of the nations to war. The same style and rhythm, the staccato movement, are used in both passages with equal effectiveness. There is thus no cogent reason for denying the authorship of 4®””^ to Joel.            In regard to the remainder of the chapter the matter is different. The author of 4^””^ has such an original manner in describing the preparations for the final attack of heathendom on Jerusalem that it is most improbable that he should have fallen back upon common prophetic phraseology for the description of the battle itself in vv. ^^- ^®. Indeed, even his dependence on Ezekiel for the general idea, for which see below, makes the originality in which he expresses this idea all the more impressive. From a writer of such force we should have expected a very vivid and striking portrayal of Yahweh’s judgment of the nations and we can hardly believe that he should have quoted verbatim from other prophets and have produced a passage so general and so lacking in definiteness that commentators have not been certain whether it was a description of the battle or not. Now it is to be noticed that these sentences correspond almost literally to the insertions of the interpolator of the day of Yahweh in 2^”- ” and we may therefore reasonably conclude that this interpolator who depended so much on other prophets for his thoughts and phrases worked over the second part of Joel also. And with this clue we may undertake to determine the extent of his work. 4Kb, if correctly presented, shows characteristic traces of the interpolator’s language, cf. i’* 2’. And 3″‘ bears his stamp also, cf. 2″ and Mai. 3″ from which 3^” is taken, just as he had taken the phrase in 2″ from Mai. 3^         4″ is also by the editor, for the first half of the verse is composed of phrases which are characteristic of Ezekiel and the Ploliness Code and ye shall know that I am Yahweh your God. And in the second half Ob. ‘” is quoted and an interpretation is added which is correct enough as an interpretation of Obadiah’s phrase but out of accord here with the situation of the preceding. The author of 4’-“”, even if he had written vv. “• “, could not have continued as 4″ does, and barbarians shall not pass through her again; he would have insisted that at that time, when all the heathen stood before Jerusalem, the Holy City would be safe because of Yahweh’s presence. Our editor, however, had the capture of 586 B.C. in mind, cf. vv. ‘• ‘, and explained the phrase of Obadiah accordingly. The sudden change of address in v. ” also would be strange in Joel, but is in line with 2″ which is very similar to 4″, It exhibits the editor’s quoting style and is therefore by him.             In 4’ 8″ we have evidences of the editor’s hand in v. ‘8»n which is quoted from Am. 9″. In 4’6 he had quoted from Am. i^ In v. ”b a significant phrase of Ob.'” is used and commented on. 4″ » belongs indissolubly with v. ‘^b; and v. 21 1 is very much like 4″ and 2″ which are both by the editor. 4-” may have been suggested by Am. g’^ cf. also the editor’s hope in 2″” and Am. 9″, though the terms used in v. ‘S” are favourite terms of Ezekiel. 4’8b is based on Ez. 47’ «f-. 4’8»^ seems to look back to i^o. The difference between Joel’s poetic but accurate statement of natural fertility in 2″ “• and the hyperbolic description of the fertility of the golden age in 4’8 is instructive.—All this indicates that the whole conclusion (4” -‘) comes from the editor whose fondness for quotations from other prophets we have already noted. We have also observed that the editor is not over-particular in his style, and that he changes occasionally from one person to the other in an abrupt way, cf. 2″ 4″, so that the sudden appearance of the first person in v. 2i», which should stand directly after v. “, need not surprise us since it is in line with his other work. But even so it is not impossible that v. ‘”‘^- ^’^ are still later insertions.     Thus far we have seen that ^ub-n are by the editor. We must now investigate for how much more he is responsible.                4’» is so closely connected in thought and expression with vv. •-‘<• that it appears to have belonged with it from the outset, although the thought is repeated in slightly different phraseology in v. ‘2. That v. ‘”^ forms an appropriate introduction to vv. »•’*’» cannot be denied. The metre is different, but we expect that, for the trimeter or hexameter is more appropriate for v. 2” than the staccato rhythm of w. « » •.     It is, however, not so evident that v. ^b (from on account of my people Israel on) and v. ‘ belong to Joel. They are only apparently inseparable from v. 2a^ in reality they are not in harmony with it. For according to V. 2a the judgment is universal, on all the nations, and is described as such also in vv. ^ ^ . But in vv. ^b. 3 the scope is narrower. Not all the nations were guilty of the cruel treatment of the Jews here charged against them. As a reason for the punishment of all, this would therefore hardly do. It is true that in later literature the cruel treatment of Israel is given as a reason for the punishment of the nations, but then not merely the conquerors and destroyers of Jerusalem are meant but all those nations among whom the Jews were scattered and by whom they had been treated with scorn and hatred. And those who had not known Israel are excepted from destruction. Here the reference, however, is definitely to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans in 586 B.C. Moreover, the rarely used phrase they cast lots in v. ‘ reminds us of Ob. “. And we remember that the editor had used phrases from Obadiah in 4″ 2o_ All this makes it very probable that vv. ^b. 3 are also part of the editor’s work.             The observation that the editor used Obadiah suggests that 3^ with its direct quotation from Ob. ‘^ (to authenticate the statement that every true Yahweh-worshipper would be safe on that great day) is also from him. This is made probable also by a comparison with 4” where the editor’s interest is also centred in the protection of Israel.        The difference of 3′-^* where Yahweh Himself speaks and 2)*^- ^ which are by the editor suggests that 3′-<» are not by the editor but by Joel. And this impression is strengthened by the originality of the thought and the effective manner in which it introduces the final judgment, for which see the commentary. Taking this into account there is no adequate reason for doubting the genuineness of 3””.—The insertion of 3«b. s necessitated a new introduction (4′) by the editor, who is probably also responsible for the editorial link in 3′, and it shall come to pass afterwards, and possibly also for in those days in 3′, cf. the same phrase in 4″.   We have come to the conclusion that 3’-<» 42a- 9-i<» are by Joel. There remains the examination of the digression in 4*-^. Though these verses are at once recognised as a digression they are not unconnected with 4^- 3. The sale of Jewish captives by the victorious Babylonian soldiers had been referred to in v. ‘. The slave-traders to whom they sold them, so we may supply, were the Phoenicians and the Philistines who had carried on slave-trade for centuries, cf. Am. i^- ‘ Ez. 27″, also later i Mac. 3″ 2 Mac. 8″. So this announcement of retribution seemed to the writer very appropriate in this place. It seemed to carry on the thought quite naturally, for these verses do not charge the Phoenicians and Philistines with an actual attack upon the Jews but with taking away their treasures and valuables and with selling Jews into slavery to the Greeks. They came as merchants and slave-traders to whom the soldiers sold their captives and for whose wares they exchanged their booty. That they profited immensely by these transactions was a matter of course. Thus we must interpret, if this section is the direct continuation of vv.            But there is no reference elsewhere to such activity of the Phoenicians and Philistines in 586 B.C. and it is most improbable in the light of Ezekiel’s silence on this point in his oracle against Tyre, although he speaks of its slave-trade with Greece (27″). We should doubtless have had a mention of it in 26-, where Tyre’s joy over Jerusalem’s fall, and in 28’^ where Sidon’s relation to Israel are spoken of, if the Phoenicians had made themselves so obnoxious to the Jews at that time. The same holds true of Phoenicia in 25″.—It has sometimes been supposed that the Phoenicians and Philistines were meant in vv. 2- 3^ but there is no reference anywhere in all the history of Israel and Judah to a conquest of Israel by the combined forces of Phoenicia and Philistia and of a dispersing of Israel by them among the nations or of a parcelling out of the land of Israel among themselves. The identification of vv. 2. 3 ^rj^j^ the plundering of Jerusalem by the Philistines and Arabians in 2 Ch. 21^^ < under Jehoram does not do justice to the words of these verses, even if the objection that the Phoenicians did not participate in that raid were not conclusive. The direct address, moreover, in 4’ mentioning the Phoenicians and Philistines in addition (dji) and singling them out especially indicates that they are not meant in vv. 2 • 3. Their wrong is defined in vv. 5. 6 and according to the whole tenor of the passage they are not the conquerors of w. ” ‘. Since they did not get the treasures and valuables of the Jews and the captives from the Babylonian soldiers who are quite clearly referred to in vv. ^- ‘, we must conclude that vv. •* refer to some other time than 586 B.C., and that they were not originally the continuation of v. ‘ but a later insertion. And the literary fact that w.*-^ interrupt the connection between w. ‘-‘and vv. ‘s- most awkwardly, points in the same direction. The context has a much wider horizon, and vv. <‘ are not easily harmonised with it. The universal judgment in the valley of Jehoshaphat, executed by Yahweh Himself, must embrace the Phoenicians and Philistines also. But here in vv. ‘•^ they are to receive a special punishment. And it is not that they are to be exterminated but that they are to be sold into slavery by Israel! 4*-^ give no indication of being aware that the judgment on all the nations is coming so soon, that it is already announced. In other words, vv. *-^ are out of line with their context.—It is true, of course, that apocalyptics are not always consistent and that a reference to their own historical situation frequently comes in where we do not expect it. But even with this clearly in mind it does not seem to me likely that the author of w. ”• » “• was responsible for vv. *-^. They have grown out of a situation when the Phoenicians and Philistines had but recently done to the Jews the things charged against them. And it is perhaps possible to suggest this situation more definitely. See com.            We must turn once more to the composition of ch. 2. Sievers regards 2 ‘2-14 as belonging to the secondary material because he finds in them a mixture of external and religio-ethical views of repentance which he cannot attribute to Joel but only to a wholly inferior intellect. But Sievers sees here contradictions which in religious practice need not exist at all. Outward form may well be filled with spirit. The verses are really quite important for the true understanding of i’^- ». According to Duhm the appendix begins at 2’8, and Sievers also regards 2″-” as secondary. This seems to me unjustifiable. Why should the prophet not have added the outcome of the intercession ? Compare the similar case of Haggai. Who else but Joel should have added this promise which fitted only that particular time ? What reason could another have had for doing this? And why should this other have given it in the form of a divine oracle ? Are we to suppose that a later writer who knew nothing of the peculiar circumstances of Joel’s time sat down and wrote a promise, which he put into Yahweh’s mouth, simply because he knew that the plague had passed away, since the people were still in existence? Moreover, the song in vv. “‘-si bears the stamp of originality. Not only its rhythmic beauty but also its phraseology are Joel’s own. And its origin can be explained by the reversal of the circumstances of chs. I, 2 as by nothing else. We would be glad if we knew the circumstances out of which the Psalms arose as well as we know those that gave rise to this song.      Our conclusion is (i) that Joel wrote chs. i, .2 (except i^^ 2ib. 2. 6. 10. 11. 27) ^^^ ^igQ 2i-4a 42a. 9-i4a. ^2) that an editor wrote the remainder, connecting chs. i, 2 with chs. 3, 4 by a series of interpolations which are characterised, as all his work is, by dependence on other prophecies; and (3) that 4*’^ are a still later insertion


                1. The title states merely that a divine communication had come to Joel. No date, not even of the period, no home from which Joel came, no hint to whom the oracle was directed, are given. Nor is the mode described in which Yahweh’s revelation came to him. Simply the common superscription, The word of Yahweh

which came to Joel the son of Pethuel, or Bethuel, cf. Ho. i* Mi. i* Zp. i^ Its simplicity appears to vouch for its genuineness. There is no reason to suppose that the names are not genuine names of historical persons.

                awful locust plague and drought (1:1).

                unprecented character of the plague and its extent (1:2-4)

                poetic picture of the distress of the winedrinkers (1:5-7)

                distress of the priests (1:8-10).

                distress of the husbandmen and of the vine dressers (1:11-12).

                call for a penitential assembly (1:13,14).

                insertion concerning the day of yahweh (1:15).

                prayer voicing  need of all creatures in view of famine & drought (1:16-20).

                invasion of the locust army (2:1-14).

                warning of an unparalleled locust invasion & its ravages (2:1-3).

                advance and attack of the locust army (2:4-9).

                insertion concerning the day of yahweh (2:10-11).

                call to heartfelt repentance (2:12-14).

                great penitential assembly and its prayer for mercy (2:15-17).

                yahweh’s answer & promise of relief & restoration (2:18-20, 25, 26a).

                song of joy over  beginnings of restoration (2:21-24, 26ab).

                editorial link (2:26b, 27).

                signs of the day of yahweh, (3:1-5) (engl. 2:28-32).

                announcement & reason of judgment on all  nations, (4:1-3) (engl. 3:1-3).

                special oracle against  phcenicians & philistines,(4:4-8 (engl. 3:4-8).

                preparations of  nations for  final conflict or judgment, (4:9-12) (engl. 3:9-12).

                signal for attack, (4:13) (engl. 3:13).

                battle, (4:14-17) (engl. 3:14-17).

                wonderful fertility & permanent happiness of judah in  glorious future, 4:18-21) (engl. 3:18-21).




PREFACE . . . v 





§ 1. Cyrus 3-14 

§ 2. Cambyses 14-17 

§ 3. Darius I, Hystaspes 17-24 


§ 1. Personal History of the Prophet 25-27 

§ 2. The Book of Haggai 27-30 

§ 3. The Text of Haggai 30-35 

§ 4. The Thoughts and Style of Haggai 36-39 


§ 1. The Movement to Rebuild the Sanctuary . . 40-57 

§ 2. The Resources of the Builders 58-65 

§ 3. The New Era of the Restored Temple . . . 66-76 

§ 4. The Future of the Leader Zerubbabel . . . 76-79 


§ 1. The Personal History of the Prophet . . . 81-84 

§ 2. The Structure of Chapters 1-8 84 

§ 3. The Text of Chapters 1-8 84-97 

§ 4. The Style of Zechariah 98-102 

§ 5. The Teaching of Zechariah 102-106 


1. The Introduction 108-115 

2. A Sertes of Visions with Their Interpretation . 1 15-194 

a. The Return from Captivity 115-147 

(1) The Hollow of the Myrtles . . . 1 15-130 

(2) The Horns and Their Destroyers . 130-136 

(3) The Man with the Measuring Line . 136-140 

(4) An Appeal to the Exiles …. 140-147 

b. The Anointed of Yahweh 147-168 

(1) The Accused High Priest …. 147-161 

(2) The Symbolic Candelabrum . . . 161-168 

c. The Seat of Wickedness 168-182 

(1) The Flying Roll 168-171 

(2) The Woman in the Ephah …. 1 71-177 

(3) The Four Chariots 177-182 

d. The Prince of Judah 183-194 

(1) A Symbolic Crown 183-190 

(2) Zerubbabel and the Temple . . . 190-194  3. A New Era 194-217 

a. An Inquiry from Bethel 194-198 

b. A Series of Oracles 198-217 

(1) The Teaching of the Past …. 199-205 

(2) The Promise of the Future . . . 206-209 

(3) The Past and Future in Contrast 209-215 

(4) The Reign of Joy and Gladness . . 215-217 


§ 1. The Structure of Chapters 9-14 218-220 

§ 2. The Text of Chapters 9-14 220-231 

§ 3. The Authorship of Chapters 9-14 232-259 


1. The Revival of the Hebrew Nation 260-320 

a. The New Kingdom 260-277 

b. A Promise of Freedom and Prosperity . 277-285 

c. The Plan of Restoration 286-302 

d. The Two Shepherds 302-320 

2. The Future of Judah and Jerusalem 320-357 

a. The Jews in Their Internal Relations . 320-340 

b. The Jews and the Nations 341-3 5 7 

INDEX 359-362 



§ 1. The Book of Malachi 3-5 

1. Its Contents 3 

2. Its Unity 3 

3. Its Style 4-5 

§ 2. The Times 5-9 

§ 3. The Prophet 9-11 

§ 4. The Message of Malachi n-15 

§ 5. Literature on the Book of Malachi …. 15-17 


§ 1. The Superscription 18-19 

§ 2. Proof of Yahweh’s Love 19-24 

§ 3. Yahweh Honours Them That Honour Him . . 25-46  § 4. Yahweh’s Protest against Divorce and Remar-  riage with Idolatrous Women 47-60 

§ 5. The Near Approach of the Day of Judgment . 60-69 

§ 6. The Payment of Tithes Wins the Blessing of God 69-75 

§ 7. The Final Triumph of the Righteous …. 76-85 

INDEX 87-88 



§ 1. The Character of the Story of Jonah … s~5 

§ 2. Origin and Purpose of the Story 6-1 1 

§ 3. Insertion of the Book in the Prophetic Canon ii 

§ 4. The Date of the Book n-13 

§ 5. The Unity of the Book 13-21 

§ 6. The Psalm in Chapter 2 21-24. 

§ 7. The Text of the Book 25 

§ 8. Modern Literature 25-27 


Jonah’s Disobedience and Flight 28-32 

The Storm on the Sea 32-34 

The Discovery of Jonah as the Guilty One . . . 34-38 

The Stilling of the Storm 38-40 

Jonah’s Deliverance 41-43 

A Prayer of Thanksgiving 43-49 

Yahweh’s Renewed Command and Jonah’s Preaching 

in Nineveh 50-53 

The Result of Jonah’s Preaching 53-56 

Jonah’s Displeasure 56-59 

Yahweh’s Rebuke of Jonah 59-62 

Application of the Object LESSdN 62-64 



                § 1. CYRUS.    § 2. CAMBYSES.  § 3. DARIUS I, HYSTASPES. 




                The book of Haggai consists largely of a series of four comparatively brief prophecies, all dated, the last two on the same day. It is evidently not, in its entirety, from the prophet’s own hand; for, both in the statements by which the several prophecies are introduced (1′ 24. 10. 20) and in the body of the third (212 f.), he is referred to only in the third person. Moreover, the first prophecy is followed by a description of its effect upon those to whom it was addressed (112-15) throughout which he is treated in the same objective manner. There are similar passages in Zechariah; a fact which has led Klostermann to conclude that the book of Haggai and Zc. 1-8 originally belonged to an account of the rebuilding of the temple in the reign of Darius, chronologically arranged and probably edited by Zechariah. This thesis, however, cannot be maintained; for, in the first place, as will be shown in the comments on 15, the point on which Klostermann bases his supposition, that the combined works of the two prophets once had a chronological arrangement, is mistaken, and, second, Budde has made it pretty clear that the narrative portions of Zc. 1-8, in their present form, were not written by the author of the prophecies.* In fact, it is possible to go still farther and say that, if Budde is correct in his analysis, Rothstein’s less definite form of this hypothesist also becomes untenable, the difference between the narrative portions of the books of Haggai and Zechariah being so marked that they cannot all be attributed to any single author. While, therefore, it is necessary to admit that the book of Haggai is his only in the sense that it contains his extant prophecies, it is equally necessary to insist that it is, and was intended to be, a separate literary production.

                The book is so brief that it seems almost ridiculous to suspect its unity. Yet some have not only raised the question, whether all the prophecies it contains are correctly attributed to Haggai, but actually found reasons for answering it in the negative. The most ambitious of these critics is Andrי, who claims (24.f.) to have shown that 210-19 is an interpolation, being, in fact, a prophecy delivered by an unknown person on the twenty-fourth of the ninth month, not of the second, but of the first, year of the reign of Darius. The following is an outline of his argument for this contention: 1. The passage interrupts the development of the preceding discourse, the conclusion of which is found in vv. 21-23. 2. The point of view in this passage is different from that of the rest of the book. 3. This message is addressed to Haggai, not, like the others, to the leaders and the people through him. 4. There are palpable contradictions between it and other portions of the book. 5. The vocabulary of these verses is different from that of the rest of the book. These statements, if they were all correct and relevant, would be conclusive against the genuineness of the passage in question. This, however, is not the case. In fact, in every instance either the allegation or the inference from it is mistaken. Thus, although 221 repeats a clause from v. 9, the fact that vv. 21 ff. are addressed to Zerubbabel alone makes it a distinct prophecy, which, moreover, could not have been attached immediately to * ZAW., 1906, 1 ft.

v.° without producing confusion.* The second statement is based on an exaggerated notion of the subtlety of the illustration used in , 212 ff.; which, according to Andrי, betrays the priestly legalist. It is really, as will be shown in the comments, a figure that might have occurred to any Jew zealous for his religion in the days of the prophet. The third point touches the style, not of Haggai, but of the editor by whom his prophecies were collected. Moreover, as will be shown, the original reading in 2′ was to, not by Haggai, and, when this correction is made, the alleged discrepancy has disappeared. The contradictions to which Andrי refers under his fourth head he finds in 217, 18, on the one hand, compared with 110 f. 15 on the other. For the solution of these difficulties, see the comments on the passages cited. There are, as Andrי, fifthly, asserts, differences of phraseology between 210-19 and the rest of the book, but there is not a case having any significance in which the word or phrase employed cannot be better explained than by calling it a mark of difference in authorship.

There is really no necessity for discussing the thirteen specifications under this head, but perhaps it should be done for the sake of showing how little science is sometimes mixed with criticism. The following are the words and phrases cited, with the reason, when there is one, for the use of each of them in the given connection:

                0. The use of 5997, temple, in 215. 18 for the more general term nia, kouse, of 13. 14 has no critical significance. It is used in a precisely similar connection, and exclusively, four times in Zc. 69-15, and with nya in Zc. 89. b. In 214 you, which means wearisome loil, and, when the instrument is to be expressed, is always followed by 12, palm, as in 1″, would not have been general enough; hence the use of 0717) nayo, work of their hands. c. In 712 oil is called ipe, and not, as in 1″, 1989, because it is regarded as a commodity rather than a product of the soil. d. The same explanation applies to the use of ?”, wine, for einn, must. e. The use of oun, granary, for the va, house, home, in 219 is explained by the fact that the author is here thinking of grain in storage, and not, as in 1′, on its way from the field or the threshing-floor. f. The word wa is the proper one for a single garment. Hence it, and not was, which generally means clothing, is used in 212, and often elsewhere, even in connection with the verb wah, clothe, of 16. Cf. Zc. 32. g. In 214 12, nation, is used of Israel, because a synonym is needed for 0%, people. Cf. Ex. 333. This is not the case anywhere else in the book. Cf. 18. 12. 13. 14 24. h. If in 214 the writer had had a verb denoting fear, he would

probably have used “DO instead of 35 for before, just as he does in 112, 1. The omission of 094377-50 in 215. 18 is due to the fact that here the verb has another object. Cf. 15.7. k. The use of 1979 without nias in 214.17 would have more significance if the last clause of v. 17 were undoubtedly genuine and Haggai did not employ the simple name three times (24(bls). 23) outside the passage under consideration. See also 113, an interpolation. 1. The omission of his title after the name of the prophet in 213 1. is just what one would expect in a passing reference. Cf. Bצhme, ZAW., 1887, 215. Elsewhere the title is used; except in 220, and there, on the testimony of 6, it should be. Cf. 11. 3. 12 21. m. The priests appear in 211 8., because the question is one that not only the high priest, but any of his associates, ought to be able to answer. In all cases where the high priest is introduced, he, like Zerubbabel, is a representative figure. Cf. 11. 12. 14 22. 1. The case of, 5x, to, for t’a, by, has already been discussed under point 3, p. 28.

He mentions incidentally the omission of the title after the name of the prophet in v. 20, laying the stress of objection upon (1) the use of the construction to (5x) for by (743; lit. by the hand of) in the same verse, and (2) the unnecessary repetition in v. 2 of a prophecy found in 26b. 7a, which, according to 22. 4, Zerubbabel had already heard. These objections, however, are easily answered. The missing title is found in 6; the construction with to is the one that was originally used in v. 1. 19; and the repetition of v. 6b, or rather, v. 6ba, -v.7a is not so literally reproduced,-is simply a device for connecting the fortunes of Zerubbabel with the same events for which the prophet had sought to prepare the people. The weakness of Bצhme’s argument is apparent. This, however, is not all. He has overlooked the fact that Zerubbabel was removed soon after Haggai ceased to prophesy, and that, therefore, his theory, as Marti remarks, implies that this final prophecy was added by a writer who knew that it could not be fulfilled.

                $ 3. THE TEXT OF HAGGAI.

                § 4. THE THOUGHT AND STYLE OF HAGGAI.


                § 1. THE MOVEMENT TO REBUILD THE SANCTUARY (1:1-15a).

                This topic occupies the whole of the first chapter, in its original

extent, but the prophet is the speaker only in vv .2-11, the rest of

the passage being an account of the effect of his message on those

to whom it was delivered . Hence it will be advisable to discuss

the chapter under two heads, the first being

                a. THE MESSAGE OF THE PROPHET (1:1-11).

                It begins abruptly with the citation of the adverse opinion among

the Jews with reference to the question of rebuilding the sanctuary

(v. 2). Haggai argues for the contrary , presenting two reasons

( vv. 1-6) calculated to appeal strongly to those to whom they were

addressed . Taking the validity of these arguments for granted ,

he proceeds to exhort his people to act in the matter (vv . ? ?.) ; but, instead of resting his case at this point, to make sure that his exhortation will be heeded he repeats the second of his arguments

(vv. 8-12), giving it a form so direct and positive that it cannot be

misunderstood , and so forcible that he who ignores it must take

the attitude of defying the Almighty.

                b . THE RESPONSE OF THE PEOPLE (1:12-15b).

                The leaders , Zerubbabel and Joshua , and all the people, being

impressed by Haggai’s message and especially assured of Yahweh ‘s

assistance in any effort they may make, are encouraged to begin

work ; which they do within a few days of the date of the prophet’s

first recorded appearance.

                $ 2 . THE RESOURCES OF THE BUILDERS (1:15b-2:9 ) .

                This prophecy was designed to meet an emergency arising from

the despondency that overtook the builders as soon as they

realised the magnitude of their task and the slenderness of their

resources. The prophet admits that they cannot hope to pro

duce anything like the splendid temple some of them can remem

ber, but he bids them one and all take courage, since Yahweh ,

whose are all the treasures of the earth , is with them and has

decreed the new sanctuary a glorious future.

                § 3. THE NEW ERA OF THE RESTORED Temple (2:10-19)

                A few weeks after Haggai’s second discourse there was occasion

for a third . The people were disappointed that Yahweh did not

at once testify his appreciation of their zeal in the restoration of

his sanctuary . The prophet, after an illustration calculated to

show them the unreasonableness of the complaint, promises that

henceforth they shall see a difference.

                4. THE FUTURE OF THE LEADER ZERUBBABEL (2:20-23)

                This prophecy is addressed to Zerubbabel alone. In it Haggai

foretells a great catastrophe by which kings will be overthrown

and kingdoms destroyed , but after which the prince, unharmed ,

will receive new honours from Yahweh .


                The book of Zechariah consists of fourteen chapters. The first

eight are universally recognised as thework of the prophet to whom

they are attributed . The authorship of the last six has long been

in dispute, butmost recent authorities on the question refer them

to some other author or authors. This opinion , the reasons for

which will in due time be given , is here taken for granted . The

subject of this chapter, therefore, more exactly stated , would be,

Zechariah as he reveals himself in the first eight chapters of the

book called by his name.


                § 2 . THE STRUCTURE OF CHAPTERS 1 – 8 .

                The genuine prophecies of Zechariah form a tolerably consistent

and intelligiblewhole. There is, first, a hortatory introduction ( 11 -6),

originally , to judge from the date prefixed to it , an independent

prophecy . Themain body of the collection (1?_ 623) naturally falls

into two parts, the first of which consists of a series of eight visions,

each with its interpretation , followed by a supplementary descrip

tion of a symbolical act which the prophet is commanded to per

form . The second part, chs. 7 f., contains only an account of the

mission of the men of Bethel and the oracle that the prophet was in

structed to deliver in response to their inquiry, the last paragraph

of which furnishes a suitable conclusion for the entire collection .


                § 4 . THE STYLE OF ZECHARIAH .

                5 . THE TEACHING OF ZECHARIAH .

                Outline. Chapters 1-8.

                The contents of these eight chapters, as already intimated , nat

urally fall into three parts. 1. The introduction (1:1-6). 2 . A series

of visions, with their interpretations (1:7-6:15). 3. A new era (7 -8 ).

                1. THE INTRODUCTION (1:1-6) .

                It consists of an exhortation backed by a reminder of the past

experience of the Jews, the result of their disregard for the warn

ings of former prophets


                There are eight of these visions. Some of them are described very briefly, others with considerable detail. They are not all equally distinct from one another, but fall into three groups, as follows: the first three, depicting The return from captivity (1?217/13); the fourth and fifth, of which the theme is The anointed of Yahweh (chs. 3 f., exc. 46ab-104); and the last three, which may be grouped under the general heading, The seat of wickedness (5–68). They are supplemented by a section on The prince of Judah (68-15 4625-102).

                a. The Return from Captivity (1?-217/13).

                The visions of the first group, three in number, present successive stages in the history of the Restoration and prepare the way for an appeal with which the section closes. In the first vision the scene is laid in

                (1) THE HOLLOW OF THE MYRTLES (1:7-17).

                In this vision the prophet sees a person to whom a troop of divinely commissioned messengers report, thus furnishing an occasion for an appeal to Yahweh in behalf of his people and a response assuring them of speedy deliverance.

                (2) THE HORNS AND THEIR DESTROYERS (21-4/118-21).

                The second vision attaches itself naturally and closely to the first. In it the prophet sees four horns, and, when their significance has been explained, as many workmen commissioned to destroy them; the whole being a picture of the process by which Yahweh intends to fulfil the promise of the first vision.

                (3) THE MAN WITH THE MEASURING LINE (25/1-975).

                In this his third vision the prophet sees a man on his way to measure the site of Jerusalem, to whom he afterward hears the interpreter send a message foretelling the limitless growth and prosperity of the city under the protection of Yahweh.

                (4) AN APPEAL TO THE EXILES (210/6-17/13).

                The rest of the chapter has usually been treated as a part of the preceding vision, but this arrangement must be abandoned. The reasons are as follows: (1) The speaker is not the same as in v. ‘, but the prophet now takes the place of the interpreter. This appears from his references to himself in vv. 12 f.; also from the fact, itself another reason for making these verses a separate paragraph, that (2) the persons addressed are no longer any of those who have appeared in the visions, but the Jews who still remain in Babylonia. Finally, (3) these verses are not an enlargement upon the third vision, but an appeal based upon the whole trio, in which the prophet exhorts his people to separate themselves from the nations destined to perish and return to Palestine, there to enjoy in a restored community the presence and protection of Yahweh.

                b. The anointed of Yahweh (34–482 4106-14). The second group consists of two visions. They have to do with the persons and fortunes of the two leaders who represented the Jewish community in the time of Haggai and Zechariah.

                (1) THE ACCUSED HIGH PRIEST (CH. 3). In this vision the high priest Joshua, haled before the angel of Yahweh by the Adversary, is acquitted (vv. 1-5), and endowed anew with high functions and privileges (vv. 8-10).

                (a) The acquittal (vv.1-5).—The prophet first sees the high priest, as a culprit, before the angel of Yahweh. The latter rebukes the Adversary for his complaint, and then, having released the accused, has him stripped of his soiled garments and clothed in becoming apparel.

                (b) The charge (vv. 6-10). The angel of Yahweh, addressing Joshua, promises him personally, on condition of loyalty, an exalted position, and his people forgiveness and prosperity.

                (2) THE SYMBOLICAL CANDELABRUM (41-6aa, 106-14).

                The fourth chapter, in its present arrangement, does not admit of analysis, but, if vv. Ba-10. 12 be removed, there remains a simple and coherent account of the fifth of Zechariah’s visions. In it he sees a lamp with seven lights, flanked by two olive trees, and receives from his attendant an interpretation of the things thus presented.

                C. The seat of wickedness (59–68).

                The third and final group, like the first, consists of three visions. They have to do with the subject of sin and the purpose of Yahweh concerning it. The first is that of

                (1) THE FLYING ROLL (51-4).

                In this vision the prophet sees a flying roll of which he asks the significance. Whereupon the interpreter explains to him that it is a curse sent forth by Yahweh to exterminate the thief and the perjurer from the land.

                (2) Woman in Ephah (5:5-11).

                In this, the seventh vision, the prophet sees an ephah which, when the cover is lifted, is found to contain a woman symbolising wickedness. She is thrust back into the measure and two other women with wings bear her away to deposit her in Babylonia.

                (3) THE FOUR CHARIOTS (61-8).

                In this, the eighth and last, vision the prophet sees four chariots, each with horses of a peculiar colour, equipped for the cardinal points, whither they are finally despatched. Especial attention is called to those that have gone northward, as having assuaged the spirit of Yahweh in that region.

                (1) A SYMBOLIC CROWN (69-14).

                The prophet is instructed to take with him certain persons to the house of Josiah, the son of Sephaniah, and there fashion a crown and predict the appearance of the Messiah.

                (2) ZERUBBABEL AND THE TEMPLE (48-10a, 6a-7 615).

                Zechariah receives a second message, in which the governor is assured of the divine assistance and promised ultimate success in the difficult task of rebuilding the ruined temple. The prophet is so confident of his inspiration that he stakes his reputation on the fulfilment of this prediction.

                3. A NEW ERA (chs. 78).

                This part of the book consists of the recital of an incident that gave Zechariah an occasion for resuming his prophetical activity, and a series of oracles setting forth what Yahweh requires of his people and what he purposes to do for them in the given circumstances.

                a. An inquiry from Bethel (71-3).

                The people of Bethel send to Jerusalem to inquire of the priests and the prophets whether they shall continue to observe the fast of the fifth month.

                b. A series of oracles (74-823).

                They are four in number. All of them but the third are introduced by the characteristic formula, “Then came the word of Yahweh of Hosts to me.” The general subject is the restoration of Judah to the favour of Yahweh. The first deals with (1) THE TEACHING OF THE PAST (74-14). The prophet holds that fasting is valueless as compared with the social virtues, and that the neglect of these latter was the cause of the banishment of his people from their country.   (2)THE PROMISE OF THE FUTURE .  The prophet announces that Yahweh will presently return to Jerusalem to bless it with wonderful prosperity, and that thenceforth there will be an unbroken covenant between him and its inhabitants. The paragraph consists of five declarations, each of which is introduced by a Thus saith Yahweh of Hosts.

                (3) THE PAST AND FUTURE IN CONTRAST (89-17).

                The prophet recalls the want and suffering through which his people have passed, assuring them that henceforth Yahweh will bless them with abundance and happiness, yet only on condition that they contribute to this end, not by observing fasts and other formalities, but by obeying faithfully the demands of righteousness.

                (4) THE REIGN OF JOY AND GLADNESS (818-23).

                The fasts will all be transformed into seasons of rejoicing, and the nations, seeing the blissful change in the condition of the Jews, will come to worship their God, that they may share his favour.


                The book of Zechariah, so called, contains, besides the eight

chapters universally attributed to the prophet of that name, six the

origin and authorship of which have long been in dispute. The

questions when and by whom they were written must therefore be

discussed and, if possible, settled; but first it seems necessary to

take a preliminary survey of the content of the chapters as a whole,

and especially to inquire into the condition of the text as it has been

transmitted by the Massoretes.

                § I. THE STRUCTURE OF CHS. 9-14.

                The ninth chapter begins with a word, sva, sometimes rendered burden, but more correctly utterance, which frequently appears in titles, especially in the book of Isaiah. Cf. 13° 15′, etc. It has generally been regarded as so used in this case, and, since another occurs in 12′, as the title, or a part of it, of chs. 9-11. Thus it has been customary to divide Second Zechariah, as it is called, into two parts, each of which has three chapters, and, probably by accident rather than design, the same number (46) of verses. The genuineness of 12°, however, is now pretty generally questioned. In its present form it is quite indefensible. Moreover, since the time of Ewald there have been those who have claimed that 137-9 is the conclusion of 1148. One cannot, therefore, take for granted the correctness of the Massoretic arrangement, but must reopen the case and make one’s own analysis.

                It must be remembered that the question concerns the arrangement, and not the authorship, of these chapters. If this distinction is kept in mind, there will not be much difficulty in deciding

that, whatever may be the case with the others, or any part of them, the first three chapters form a group with noticeable points of contact and connection. Thus the “also ” of 91 clearly indicates that, whoever may have written the preceding verses, the author of this one intended to connect them with what follows. The connection between 911 ff. and 104-11 is unmistakable; for, besides the references to Israel in both passages, there is the peculiar metrical form in which they are cast to mark them as parts of one composition. The rest of ch. It has not the same form,-in fact, most of it is plain prose,—and there is room for doubt whether it is the work of the same author as the first verses; but it evidently owes its present position in the book of Zechariah to the fact that, like 10°, it has for its subject worthless shepherds, and 137-8 should be, and no doubt originally was, attached to it for the same reason.

                Thus far there has been a traceable unity. Here, however, there comes a break, and from this point onward the marks that have been noted are conspicuously absent. The author of 12, therefore, whoever he was, was justified in introducing a new title. It suggests several questions. The only one germane to the present discussion is whether this title covers the rest of the book, 137-9 excepted, or, rather, whether there is a connection between the parts of this latter half similar to that which has been traced through the first three chapters. There seems to be such a connection. At any rate, Jerusalem is prominent throughout as a centre of interest and anticipation. In 132-8 this central point is for the time being lost sight of, but the passage can hardly be explained except as suggested by 12′, where “the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” are expressly mentioned. This being the case, one may still separate Second Zechariah into two divisions, the first consisting of chs. 9-11 and 137-9, and the second of 12-139 and 14.

                In the first division the first break naturally comes after 910. The place for the second is not so easy to determine. There are those who find none before the end of ch. 10. It is usual, however, to make one at the end of ch. 9 or after 10%. Hitzig makes one at each of these two points. So also We., Now., Marti, et al. The matter is well put by Keil: “The close connection between v. 2b and v.: shows that with v. there commences a new line of thought, for which, however, 917 prepares the way.” The third section, then, begins with 10′. It includes 111-, for (I) these last verses have the same metrical form as the preceding, and (2) they lose all significance unless they are so connected. The same may be said of 137-9 in relation to 114-17. In this case the fact that, as v. Ortenberg points out,* 111° is a parallel to Ez. 34* and 13′ to Ez. 34o confirms the inference from form and subject. It is suggested that the transfer of 13?t. to its present position in the Massoretic text was occasioned by a fancied relation between it and ch. 14.1 Perhaps the reviser thought that the capture and destruction of Jerusalem foretold in 141 was the fiery trial of 13°. Whatever may have been the reason for it, the opinion that such a change has been made is widely held among biblical scholars. The remainder, after the removal of 137ff., naturally divides itself into two sections, 12-13 and 14.

                § 2. THE TEXT OF CHS. 9-I4.  ADDITIONS.  OMISSIONS.  ERRORS.

                § 3. THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHS. 9-14.

                Outline. Chapters 9-14.

                The last six chapters of the book called after Zechariah natu-

rally fall into two divisions, separated by the title at the beginning

of ch. 12, or more exactly, as has already been explained, consist-

ing of chs. 9-1 1, with the addition of 13 7 ‘ 9 and chs. 12-14 without

the verses specified. The general subject of the first division is

                1. The revival of the Hebrew nation (o^-ii 17 13 7 ” 9 ).

                This division contains three sections, the contents of which come

from as many authors, writing at different dates and representing

more or less divergent lines of thought and expectation. The first

deals with

                a. THE NEW KINGDOM (9:1-10 ).

                This section must be viewed from two stand-points. Origi-

nally, as has been explained, it was probably a separate prophecy,

written soon after the battle of Issus by some one who saw in Alex-

ander the divinely appointed and directed instrument for the de-

liverance of his people and the restoration of the Hebrew state.

The author who gave it its present setting meant that it should be

taken differently, viewed as a picture, not of the time of Alexander,

but of a period still future when the highest hopes of his people

would be realised. Two thoughts may be distinguished, the first


                (1) The recovery of the Promised Land (9 1 ” 8 ). — When the Hebrews

invaded Palestine they were not able to obtain possession of the

whole country. Nor did their kings, the greatest of them, succeed

in bringing it entirely under their dominion. They believed, how-

ever, that the conquest would one day be completed. This prophecy is a picture of the final occupation of those parts of the country that the Hebrews had not been able to subjugate. The general

movement is from north to south, that is, from “the River” Eu-

phrates toward “the ends of the earth” (v. 10 ); but the writer does

not follow the precise order in which the points mentioned would

naturally be reached by an invader traversing the country in that

direction. Thus, Damascus precedes Hamath, and the cities of

Philistia follow one another apparently without reference to their

relative location. Compare Isaiah’s spirited sketch of the advance

of the Assyrians in io 27 ff \ The paragraph closes with a promise

not in the original prophecy, that Yahweh will protect his people

in the enjoyment of their increased possessions.

                2) The future ruler (go f.).—The coming king is announced, and his character and mission described; also the extent of his kingdom.

                b. A promise of freedom and prosperity (9 11 ” 17 ).

                Yahweh promises to restore the exiled Jews, inspire them with

courage to meet their oppressors, assist them in the conflict and

thenceforward bestow upon them his favour and protection.

                c. The plan of restoration (io 1 -!! 3 ).

                The prophet in a word points out the cause of past misfortunes,

then describes the means by which Yahweh purposes to restore his

people to their country. He will give them strength and courage

to resist and overcome their oppressors, and finally gather them

from the remotest regions to which they have been banished. The

prophecy closes with a lament for the powers that must perish in

the conflict.

                d. The two shepherds (114-17 137-9). The section naturally divides itself into two paragraphs, the first of which deals with

                (1) The careless shepherd (114-14).—The prophet represents himself as directed by Yahweh to take charge of a flock of sheep that are being reared for the market. He does so, but finally tires of his duties and asks to be dismissed; breaking one of the symbolic staves with which he has provided himself when he leaves the sheep, and the other when he receives his wages and deposits them in the temple treasury. The story is more complete in its details than that of 68 f., but the absence of definite persons and places and the neglect of the author to keep his narrative throughout distinct from the ideas symbolised indicate that, whatever one may think of the other case, one has here to do with a parable. Cf. Ez. 41 ff. 51 f. 1212 ff.

                (2) A foolish shepherd (1115-17 137-9).—The prophet is here directed to assume the part of a foolish shepherd, whose treatment of his flock is briefly described. Then Yahweh breaks into a denunciation of the shepherd, followed by intimations concerning the process of purification by which his people must be prepared for final deliverance.

                2. The future of Judah and Jerusalem (12′-139 14).

                This division of the book of Zechariah has a title of its own. In the Massoretic text it reads, An oracle of the word of Yahweh concerning Israel. The subject, however, is not Israel, nor is the name so much as mentioned from this point to the end of the book. For this reason it is necessary to substitute for Israel the more suitable name Jerusalem, or better, for concerning, to read to, as in Mal. 1′, thus making the title introduce a message to the Jewish world. There are two well-marked sections. The first deals with

                a. THE JEWS IN THEIR INTERNAL RELATIONS (12′-13).

                This in turn may be subdivided into three paragraphs, the topic of the first being

                (1) A power in Palestine (124-8).—The Jews in the strength of Yahweh triumph over their enemies, and dwell safely under his protection.

                (2) A great lamentation (128-14).—The people of Jerusalem, protected by Yahweh and transformed by his Spirit, will be smitten with remorse for their misdeeds, and especially for their cruelty toward a nameless sufferer for whom they will observe a period of poignant and universal mourning.

                (3) A great purification (131-0).-A general announcement is followed by a more detailed prediction concerning the suppression of idolatry and false prophecy.

                b. THE JEWS AND THE NATIONS (CH. 14).

                The thought of the chapter is one, but it takes four phases in the course of its development. The first has to do with       (1) The recovery of the Holy City (142-5).—The city is destined to be taken and plundered, but Yahweh will appear and by a stupendous miracle throw the nations into confusion and rescue the remaining inhabitants.       (2) The transformation of Judah (148-11).—The author interrupts himself at this point to describe another miracle by which the country about Jerusalem will become a Paradise.        (3) The fate of the nations (1412-15).- In this paragraph the prophet resumes his description of the relief of Jerusalem. The nations and their cattle will be smitten by a swift and deadly plague, and when, in their desperation, they turn their arms against one another, Judah will take advantage of the opportunity to attack and destroy them.



                § 1. THE BOOK OF MALACHI.

                1. Its Contents. The theme of the prophecy is stated clearly in the opening section of the book (12-5), viz. that Yahweh still loves Israel, notwithstanding the fact that appearances seem to tell against a belief in such love. The second and main section (19-312) points out in detail some of the obstacles that stand in the way of the full and free exercise of Yahweh’s love toward his people. These obstacles are found in the failure of the people in general and the priests in particular to manifest that respect and reverence toward Yahweh that are due from a people to its God (18–2); in the fact that native Jewish wives have been divorced in order that the way might be cleared for new marriages with foreign women-a proceeding exhibiting both inhumanity and apostacy (210-16); in the general materialism and faithlessness of the times, which call in question the value of faith and righteousness and will make necessary the coming of a day of judgment (217–30); and in the failure to render to Yahweh generously and willingly the tithes and offerings that are his due (37-12). The last section (318-4°) takes up again the note with which the prophecy opens, and it assures the pious that their labours have not been in vain; for in the day of Yahweh which is near at hand Israel’s saints will experience the protection of Yahweh’s fatherly love, whereas the wicked will perish. The book is evidently well planned, being knit together into a well-developed and harmonious whole.

                § 2. THE TIMES.

                § 3. THE PROPHET.

                $ 4. THE MESSAGE OF MALACHI.



                $ 1. THE SUPERSCRIPTION (1³).

                The superscription states the ultimate source of the prophecy, the people to whom it is addressed, and the agent of its transmission. The superscription of no prophetic book offers less of genuine information; those of Obadiah and Habakkuk are its only rivals in this respect.

                The editorial origin of this superscription is now quite generally conceded. This opinion is supported by the close resemblance in form between this superscription and those in Zc. 9′ 12′, which are likewise of editorial origin. It is probable that all three were written by the same hand; or, at least, that two of them were modelled after the third one. The structure is too unusual to make it likely that they were of independent origin (v. i.).

                1. Oracle of the word of Yahweh to Israel] For the use of the word “oracle,” v. note on Na. I’ in ICC.. This and Zc. 91 121 are the only passages in which “oracle” is followed by “word,” though “oracle of Yahweh” and “word of Yahweh” are common phrases. “Israel” here represents the Jewish community as the people of God for whom all the ancient promises and expectations are to be realised.—Through Malachi] The source of this statement is evidently 3′, where “Malachi” is not a proper name, but the equivalent of “my messenger” or “my angel.” 6 renders here “through his messenger.” T likewise treats it as a common noun, rather than as a proper name.For the personality and character of the prophet, v. Introduction, $ 3; and for the time of his activity, v. Introduction, $ 2.

                § 2. A PROOF OF YAHWEH’S LOVE (12-5).

                In this opening section the prophet meets the lament of his people that Yahweh has ceased to love Judah, by reminding them of the recent overthrow of Edom, their hated foe, as an evidence of the love that they are calling in question. This reference to the fate of Edom would seem to fix the date of this prophecy; but unfortunately the information here is too vague and our knowledge of the later history of Edom too incomplete to render any degree of certainty as to this question possible; v. Introduction, $ 2. These verses really state the theme of the whole book; for the writer’s task is that of showing Israel, on the one hand, that Yahweh loves her and, on the other, that her own sinful conduct prevents her from enjoying the full fruitage of that love.

                $ 3. YAHWEH HONOURS THEM THAT HONOUR HIM (18–29).

                Having shown in § 2 that there was no warrant for continuing to doubt the love of Yahweh toward his people, the prophet now proceeds to indicate the causes that make it impossible for Yahweh to let this love have full sway. Starting with the general principle that a people must show honour toward its God, he charges Israel with heaping dishonour upon Yahweh by indifference, carelessness, and deception in the bringing of its sacrificial gifts (16-9). No sacrifice at all were better than this (110). In the heathen world, due reverence is shown to Yahweh; but in his own city and temple he is treated with contempt. For blemished animals are substituted for sound and healthy ones which alone are suitable for sacrifice. Hence curses rather than blessings must be the lot of such worshippers (111-14). It is especially incumbent upon the priests, the ministers of Yahweh, to see to it that he is fitly honoured in the proper conduct of the ritual. Failure to secure this will bring upon them a terrible curse for their unfaithfulness to the covenant between them and Yahweh. In days gone by, the priesthood lived up to the full measure of its responsibility; but now, they are leaders in wickedness rather than in righteousness. Consequently, the low esteem in which they are now generally held is the due reward of their conduct as perverters of the law (21-9).


                This has been rightly called the most difficult section of the Book of Malachi. Its difficulties do not, however, obscure the general course of the thought. The prophet brings to light another obstacle in the way of the full manifestation of Yahweh’s love for Judah. He reminds the people of their common origin, and charges them with disloyalty to one another and to Yahweh in the fact that they have divorced their faithful Jewish wives and contracted new marriages with foreign women. In view of this sin, they need not wonder that Yahweh refuses to hear their prayers. He desires the propagation of a pure and godly race. Therefore his people must be loyal to their marriage relationships; for divorce is a deadly evil.

                § 5. THE NEAR APPROACH OF THE DAY OF JUDGMENT (217–39).

                The prophet cites another cause for Yahweh’s failure to bless Israel, viz. his people have lost all faith in their God. Therefore, he will send his messenger to prepare for the coming of the day of judgment. Then will there be a purification of the priestly order and a full exposure and condemnation of sinners of every kind. For Yahweh is unalterably opposed to sin, and the sinners in Israel must perish.

                § 6. THE PAYMENT OF TITHES WINS THE BLESSING OF GOD (37-12).

                The prophet takes up still another obstacle in the way of the free outpouring of Yahweh’s grace toward Israel. Israel has been unwilling to pay the price of his favour. Let the tithes and offerings be brought in to the full and showers of blessings will fall upon the land. The crops will be abundant and the land of Israel will become the envy of all the peoples.

                § 7. THE FINAL TRIUMPH OF THE RIGHTEOUS  (318–49).

                The prophet first sets forth the doubts that have troubled the pious regarding the value of their piety in Yahweh’s eyes. The facts of experience seem to tell against the profitableness of godliness (313-15). He then assures the pious that Yahweh has not forgotten them, but intends to treat them with a father’s love in the great day of judgment that is coming. They will then realise fully the distinction that Yahweh makes between the godly and the ungodly (316-18). For, in that day, the wicked will be wholly consumed, like stubble in the flames, whereas the pious will rejoice exceedingly and will triumph gloriously over their enemies (41-3). The book closes with a note of warning regarding the Law and an explanatory gloss concerning the day of Yahweh (44-6).

                INTRODUCTION TO JONAH.


                The story of the wilful prophet is one of the best known and most misunderstood in the Old Testament: an occasion for jest to the mocker, a cause of bewilderment to the literalist believer but a reason for joy to the critic. The Old Testament reaches here one of its highest points, for the doctrine of God receives in it one of its clearest and most beautiful expressions and the spirit of prophetic religion is revealed at its truest and best. It is sad that men have so often missed the spirit by fastening their attention on the form of the story. The form is indeed fantastic enough and, unless rightly understood, it is likely to create difficulties.

                At almost every step the reader who takes the story as a record of actual happenings must ask questions. How was it possible that a true prophet should disobey a direct divine command? Is it likely that God should send a storm simply in order to pursue a single person and thus cause many others to suffer too? Do such things happen in a world like ours? Is it not curious that the lot should fall upon Jonah at once, and evidently without manipulation on the part of the sailors, and that the sea should become calm directly after he had been thrown overboard? That the great fish was at once ready to swallow Jonah may be passed, but that Jonah should have remained in the fish for three days and three nights and should have prayed a beautiful psalm of thanksgiving inside, exceeds the limits of credibility, not to mention the point that the fish did not simply eject him but threw him up on the shore. What an exaggerated idea of the greatness of Nineveh the author had! What language did Jonah speak in Nineveh? How could the people understand him? And what a wonderful result followed his preaching! The greatest prophets in Israel had not been able to accomplish anything like it. It is so unprecedented that Jesus regarded it as the most astounding wonder of the story (Lk. 1149). Is it not strange that absolutely no trace has been left of the universal, whole-hearted repentance of the Ninevites and that the later prophets who prophesied against Assyria knew nothing of it? And what shall we say of the extraordinarily speedy growth of the plant?

                It is all passing strange. We are in wonderland! Surely this is not the record of actual historical events nor was it ever intended as such. It is a sin against the author to treat as literal prose what he intended as poetry. This story is poetry not prose. It is a prose poem not history. That is the reason why it is so vague at many points where it should have been precise, if it had been intended as a historical record. The author is not interested in things which a historian would not have omitted. So he says nothing about the place where Jonah was ejected or about his journey to Nineveh. He gives no name of the king, but he calls him simply “King of Nineveh,” a designation which was never used as long as the Assyrian empire stood. He does not speak of the time of his reign or of the later fate of Nineveh nor does he specify the sins which were responsible for Jonah’s mission. He is so little interested in the personal history of Jonah that he does not tell us what became of him after he had received his wellmerited rebuke. As soon as he has finished his story and driven home the truth he intended to teach he stops, for he is interested only in that. His story is thus a story with a moral, a parable, a prose poem like the story of the Good Samaritan, or Lessing’s Ring story in Nathan the Wise, or Oscar Wilde’s poem in prose, The Teacher of Truth. The very style of it with its repetition and stereotyped forms of speech shows its character, for these stylistic characteristics are not due to the author’s limited store of phrases but to his intention of giving a uniform character to the story.

                All its strangeness disappears as soon as we put the story into the category in which it belongs. Then we can give ourselves to the enjoyment of its beauty and submit to its teaching of a truth which is as vital and as much needed to-day as it was when it was first told.

                It is useless to collect similar instances to prove the possibility of the swallowing of Jonah by the huge fish. Nobody denies that a shark or a sperm-whale can swallow a man whole and alive. But none of the stories usually adduced prove that a man can live three days and three nights in the stomach of a large fish, even if the stories could be relied on as truthful. An illustration of what happens when the facts of such a story are really investigated is given by Luke A. Williams in the Expos. T., XVIII, Feb., 1907, p. 239, where he proves by documentary evidence that Kצnig’s story of the whale-hunter James Bartley who had been swallowed by a whale and taken out of its stomach alive on the following day (Kצnig, DB., II, p. 750 b., Expos. T., XVII, Aug., 1906, pp. 521 s.) is nothing but a sea yarn. A similar story adduced by v. Orelli would, I doubt not, have the same fate, if it were investigated.

                Another more interesting and at first sight more promising attempt to make the historicity of the miracle probable was made by Trumbull. He contended that it was most reasonable that Jonah should have been swallowed and later ejected by a fish in order that the Ninevites might regard him as an incarnation of their god Dagan, called Oannes by Berosus, who is represented on the monuments as a fish-man, and that they might believe his word more readily and repent. (Ferd. Chr. Baur, in 1837, had already connected Jonah with Oannes, but in a different manner.)

                Trumbull has to assume that there were witnesses who saw how Jonah came out of the fish, “say on the coast of Phזnicia, where the fish-god was a favourite object of worship,” and that “a multitude would be ready to follow the seemingly new avatar of the fish-god, proclaiming the story of his uprising from the sea, as he went on his mission to the city where the fish-god had its very centre of worship.”

                But these assumptions have not only no basis in the narrative, but are opposed to its spirit. Nothing is farther removed from the mind of the author than to say that Jonah, the prophet of Yahweh, who had proclaimed to the sailors that Yahweh was the God of heaven who had made the sea and the dry land, and who had been sent by Yahweh to proclaim Yahweh’s message, should have made upon the Ninevites the impression of being an incarnation of their fish-god, and that Yahweh should have desired “to impress upon all the people of Nineveh the authenticity of a message from himself” in this manner. Doubtless the Ninevites would have thought that the message Jonah was giving was from Dagan and not from Yahweh. It is most improbable that a Jewish author should have thought that Yahweh would accommodate himself so much to the capacity of these heathen as to minister to their superstitions and to strengthen their faith in another god (cf. Kצnig, DB., II, 752).

                § 2. ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE STORY.


                § 4. THE DATE OF THE BOOK.

                § 5. THE UNITY OF THE BOOK.

                § 6. THE PSALM IN CHAPTER 2.

                It is a psalm of thanksgiving for help received in great danger, not a prayer for help in the midst of danger. The danger is past, the psalmist is safe. So this cannot be the prayer which Jonah prayed, or which the author of the story would have put into Jonah’s mouth, while he was inside the fish, for it does not fit into the situation. Even though the fish was from the very first Yahweh’s instrument of deliverance to the narrator, so that from his point of view Jonah was safe as soon as he had been swallowed, he nowhere indicates that his hero thought so too, and this is certainly not self-evident. To be swallowed by a fish is usually not the same as to be saved! Our author is too good a narrator to omit a point like this.

                The psalm would fit better if it followed 2″. There a prayer of thanksgiving and praise is in place. In view of the many transpositions, accidental or otherwise, which have occurred in the OT. text, it is not improbable that the psalm has been displaced. And indeed v. ? and v. ” go well together, and the psalm follows naturally, And Jonah prayed to Yahweh his God out of the belly of the fish. And Yahweh spoke to the fish and it threw up Jonah on the dry land. Then Jonah (Jonah must be supplied) said, Out of my anguish I called to Yahweh, etc.

                Such a transposition is not difficult, and the displacement may be simply accidental. But even then it cannot be maintained that the psalm was composed by the author of the story. If it had been composed by him, he would have fitted it more closely into the situation. As it is, it does not fit very well. It does not mention the fish, nor speak of Jonah’s penitence, but quite generally of the experiences of a drowning man, who seemed doomed to death and was yet wonderfully saved by Yahweh upon whom he had called for help. One might try to explain the non-mention of the fish by the singer’s ignoring of the instrument in his thanks to the author of his deliverance. And one might say that the fish did not seem so important to the writer as it does to us. But why does he describe so minutely the sinking down to the roots of the mountains and the wrapping of sea-weeds around the singer’s head, and say nothing at all of the miraculous deliverance by the fish? Did the latter experience impress him so little? Was it not most extraordinary? One might also, especially if the psalm is placed after v. ” (Engl. v. 10), try to explain the lack of reference to Jonah’s repentance by assuming that his penitence was voiced in the prayer which he made according to v. 8 and as a result of which Yahweh saved him, and that his promise to obey Yahweh’s command, if saved, was expressed in v. 40. But after all is said that can be said for the fitness of the psalm, it still does not seem to be the kind of psalm which our author would have composed for this particular situation.

                Two possibilities present themselves at this point. Either the author selected this psalm, which seemed to him the most appropriate he could find, and inserted it after v. 1 (sic!) or a reader inserted it. If the latter view is adopted, we may either assume that the interpolator missed the prayer referred to in v. 2 and put it purposely after v.? To him the fish was the agent of deliverance from the very beginning, and he believed that Jonah could pray this psalm of thanksgiving even in the belly of the fish.* Or we may assume that a reader missed an expression of gratitude on the part of Jonah after he had been so miraculously delivered and thrown up on the shore (v. “), and so he inserted this psalm in the margin. Thence it was put after v. ? instead of after v. “, as he had intended. This latter view appears to me on the whole the more probable.

                In any case there can be no doubt that he who placed the psalm here interpreted the phrases connected with drowning literally. But in view of the frequent use in poetry, cf., e. g., Ps. 691. 2. 15, of figures of drowning for mortal danger and illness it is not certain that the original poet intended them to be taken literally. He may have used them figuratively

                The literary connection with various postexilic psalms argues for a postexilic date of the psalm. But how early or how late in the postexilic period it belongs we cannot tell. The Heb. is pure and no Aram. influence is apparent.

                It has long been noticed that the psalm contains a number of parallels to other psalms. Ps. 187 1201 use the same phraseology as v. 3a; Ps. 428b reads exactly like v. 46 (all thy breakers and thy billows have passed over me), but in Ps. 42 this is figurative. Ps. 3123 is almost the same (except one synonym) as v. 5 (I said, I am driven out of the sight of Thy eyes). The connection of Ps. 185 692 with v. 6a is slight. Ps. 304 (Yahweh, Thou hast brought up my soul from Sheol) is quite similar to v.7. With v. 8 cp. Ps. 1424 143* (when my spirit (Jonah: soul] fainted within me); 187 (may He hear my voice from His holy temple and may my prayer come before Him to His ears); 58 (into Thy holy temple); Ps. 883 (may my prayer come before Thee). Ps. 317 has the same phrase (they who care for idols) as v. ‘ V.10 – Ps. 425 (with loud singing and thanksgiving).

                These literary connections, with the exception of v. *b = Ps. 423b, are not striking enough to prove more than that the author was steeped in the religious language of the postexilic community. That he should have worked these “quotations” together into a psalm, taking them from these various other psalms, does not seem likely, for the psalm has unity and a certain amount of originality (cf. vv. 6. 7). The phrases it has in common with other psalms were the common property of the religious language of the author’s day.

                Interpretation of the Psalm.—The main lines that have been followed in the course of the history of interpretation are these:

                According to the literal interpretation Jonah is regarded as actually praying this psalm while inside of the fish. Others who do not believe that the story was intended as actual history, believe that the author of the story (not Jonah himself) composed the psalm and meant it to be taken literally as the expression of gratitude on the part of his hero for his deliverance from drowning. Still others believe that it was inserted (not composed) by the author of the story who interpreted it literally in accordance with the story, or by a later reader, who missed the prayer referred to in v. ? and supplied it from some collection as the one most suitable for Jonah’s condition.

                According to the figurative inter pretation the expressions for drowning are all metaphors for deliverance from disaster or mortal illness.

                According to the allegorical inter pretation the psalm refers to the Babylonian exile. Jonah is the symbol of Israel, the fish of the Babylonian world power. Israel is singing in exile this psalm of thanksgiving, which is really “a national liturgy.” Hpt. varies the allegorical interpretation somewhat by taking the psalm as a “song of thanks by Israel for deliverance from the Syrian persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes.”

                In regard to the composition of the psalm, Bצhme, who considers the entire psalm as a later addition, takes vv. 6. 7. 8 and the phrases in the heart of the sea (v.) and into Thy holy temple (v. 8) as interpolations. Ries. regards vv. 6. 7 as the original prayer of Jonah, the rest as later additions. He singles out the most striking and original lines of the psalm. But even then they do not fit the situation and cannot be by the author of the story, even if v. 7b is translated with 6 as a prayer, O mayest Thou bring up, etc. Ries. has perceived this and tries to account for it by the theory that the description of v. 6 was suggested by another form of the Jonah story which was similar to that of Paul’s shipwreck and to the Buddhist story of Mittavindaka (see com. on 17). But this is pure assumption.

                § 7. THE TEXT OF THE BOOK.

                $ 8. MODERN LITERATURE.


                JONAH’S DISOBEDIENCE AND FLIGHT (11-3).

                Jonah is commanded by Yahweh to go on a prophetic mission to Nineveh but refuses, and tries to escape from this obligation by fleeing on a ship to Tarshish.

                THE STORM ON THE SEA (14-6).

                Yahweh pursues Jonah in a terrible storn. The sailors try to save the ship first by prayer then by lightening it as much as possible. Jonah, who had fallen asleep in a corner of the lower deck, is also ordered by the captain to pray to his God.

                THE DISCOVERY OF JONAH AS THE GUILTY  ONE (17-10).

                Believing that the storm was sent by a deity in pursuit of a guilty offender on board their own vessel, the sailors throw lots to discover him. The lot falls on Jonah. The men ask him for particulars about himself and he confesses to their horror that he is a Hebrew who is fleeing from Yahweh, the God of heaven, the creator of the dry land and of the sea.


                Anxiously the sailors ask Jonah what they should do with him in order that the storm may cease. And he tells them to cast him into the sea, for he was sure that the storm had come on his account and that it would cease, if he were thrown overboard to placate the angry deity. The men follow his advice, but not before vainly trying once more to reach the shore and addressing a passionate prayer to Yahweh not to hold them guilty of murder, since He Himself had so plainly indicated His will. As soon as Jonah is cast into the sea, the storm ceases and the sea grows calm. Overawed by Yahweh’s might, and full of gratitude for His deliverance, the sailors offer sacrifices and make vows to Yahweh.

                JONAH’S DELIVERANCE, 21. 3. 11 (ENGL. 11? 21. 10).

                By Yahweh’s command Jonah was at once swallowed alive by a huge fish and remained in its stomach three days and three nights. Then he prayed to Yahweh, who commanded the fish to throw him up on the shore.


                Jonah promptly obeyed the renewed command, went to Nineveh and delivered Yahweh’s message that Nineveh would be destroyed in three days.

                THE RESULT OF JONAH’S PREACHING (35-10). The Ninevites repent, Yahweh relents and spares Nineveh.

                JONAH’S DISPLEASURE (41-5).

                Jonah, much vexed at the sparing of Nineveh, remonstrates with Yahweh. Had he not anticipated just this, when he was still at home? And had he not fled when the divine summons came to him the first time, simply in order to prevent just this? Did he not know that Nineveh was to be spared after all? Ah, if he were only dead! Quietly Yahweh asks him whether he thinks that his anger is justified, but he makes no reply. He leaves the city and sits down in sullen silence to the east of it.

                YAHWEH’S REBUKE OF JONAH (48-). Yahweh undertakes to cure Jonah of his refractoriness by an object lesson and so causes a ricinus tree to spring up very rapidly in order to provide shade for Jonah, who is much delighted over it. But his joy was doomed to be brief. For Yahweh orders a worm to attack and kill the tree on the next morning. At dawn the tree had already withered away. When now by God’s special ordering a

sirocco springs up at sunrise and later the sun beats down on Jonah’s head, which is no longer protected by the shade of the tree, he is so full of physical and mental misery that he wishes again to die, and passionately asserts in response to Yahweh’s question that he is quite justified in being so exceedingly angry over the death of the tree.

                APPLICATION OF THE OBJECT LESSON (410.11).

                Yahweh draws the unanswerable lesson for Jonah. If Jonah has taken such a deep interest in a wild, ephemeral plant, which had cost him no labour or thought, and thinks himself justified in it, how much more is Yahweh justified in taking a deep and compassionate interest in the great city of Nineveh with its thousands of inhabitants and tens of thousands of innocent children and animals!

                IN THE אלהים AND יהוה NOTE ON THE USE OF IN THE BOOK OF JONAH.

                 In chs. 1-3 the divine name used by the heathen is vahe or 0968.7, by the Hebrew it is niny. Only in 310 we might perhaps have expected 017, but diabeo is in line with the preceding. The real difficulty is in ch. 4, for here 179 and opbx or outhon are used promiscuously, without any reason for the variation. E. g., the same question is introduced —Now in v. ? GX* reads wv (= 117), L dominus; BAQ. 28. 36. 68. 62. 106. (147. 233 Kתpos d oeףs, GB Luc., Hes. • Debs. In v.: BAQ. 26. 153 Kתplos, dominus. In v. ‘ 6BQ. 18. 05. 186 Debs, 6 153. 233 Kתplos, L D dominus, CY Luc. Hes. GH Kתplos ף Deos. reads all through vv. 6-9 grabs 17174. These variants are significant. They show in regard to the reading Dwabx 77, in 48 that it is a conflation pure and simple. Note, e. 8., the similar process in 4’ where some Gk. mss. have kתpros, others ן טוע, still others ך‎סיןע ן ָוע. The process was the same in ַeb. mss. In view of this, it is remarkable that the view that our author is dependent on Gn. 2 for the combination base 117should still be entertained. Our author did not write that combination, he wrote simply 117. A copyist, or reader, under the influence of ch. 3 wrote 0175x probably all through ch. 4, but in some instances the orig. readings reasserted themselves. There can be no doubt that the author wrote oni all through ch. 4, for here there was no reason for Diabs, as in chs, 1, 3.

About mjmselim

Male, 68 in Oct., born in Jamaica, USA since 1961, citizen in 2002; cobbler for 40 plus years, retired, Christian since 1969; married to same wife since 1979; 6 daughters and 2 sons, with 8 grandkids. Slowly adapting to the digital world of computers and internet; hobby in digital editing.
This entry was posted in Bible & Scripture, Bible Reflections, Book of Daniel, Christian Doctrine, Christian Reflections, Minor Prophets, Prophecy, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s