job 0:0
The Book of Job
Introduction
1. The Problem of the Book of Job
Why do afflictions upon afflictions befall the righteous man? This is the question, the answering of which is made the theme of the book of Job. Looking to the conclusion of the book, the answer stands: that afflictions are for the righteous man the way to a twofold blessedness. But in itself, this answer cannot satisfy; so much the less, as the twofold blessedness to which Job finally attains is just as earthly and of this world as that which he has lost by affliction. This answer is inadequate, since on the one hand such losses as those of beloved children cannot, as the loss of sheep and camels, really be made good by double the number of other children; on the other hand, it may be objected that many a righteous man deprived of his former prosperity dies in outward poverty. There are numerous deathbeds which protest against this answer. There are many pious sufferers to whom this present material issue of the book of Job could not yield any solace; whom, when in conflict at least, it might the rather bring into danger of despair. With reference to this conclusion, the book of Job is an insufficient theodicy, as in general the truth taught in the Old Testament, that the end, אהרית, of the righteous, as of the unrighteous, would reveal the hidden divine recompense, could afford no true consolation so long as this אהרית flowed on with death into the night of Hades, שׁאול, and had no prospect of eternal life.
But the issue of the history, regarded externally, is by no means the proper answer to the great question of the book. The principal thing is not that Job is doubly blessed, but that God acknowledges him as His servant, which He is able to do, after Job in all his afflictions has remained true to God. Therein lies the important truth, that there is a suffering of the righteous which is not a decree of wrath, into which the love of God has been changed, but a dispensation of that love itself. In fact, this truth is the heart of the book of Job. It has therefore been said - particularly by Hirzel, and recently by Renan - that it aims at destroying the old Mosaic doctrine of retribution. But this old Mosaic doctrine of retribution is a modern phantom. That all suffering is a divine retribution, the Mosaic Thora does not teach. Renan calls this doctrine la vielle conception patriarcale. But the patriarchal history, and especially the history of Joseph, gives decided proof against it. The distinction between the suffering of the righteous and the retributive justice of God, brought out in the book of Job, is nothing new. The history before the time of Israel, and the history of Israel even, exhibit it in facts; and the words of the law, as Deu 8:16, expressly show that there are sufferings which are the result of God's love; though the book of Job certainly presents this truth, which otherwise had but a scattered and presageful utterance, in a unique manner, and causes it to come forth before us from a calamitous and terrible conflict, as pure gold from a fierce furnace. It comes forth as the result of the controversy with the false doctrine of retribution advanced by the friends; a doctrine which is indeed not Mosaic, for the Mosaic Thora in the whole course of the history of revelation is nowhere impugned and corrected, but ever only augmented, and, consistently with its inherent character, rendered more complete.
To this question the book furnishes, as it appears to us, two answers: (1.) The afflictions of the righteous are a means of discipline and purification; they certainly arise from the sins of the righteous man, but still are not the workings of God's wrath, but of His love, which is directed to his purifying and advancement. Such is the view Elihu in the book of Job represents. The writer of the introductory portion of Proverbs has expressed this briefly but beautifully Pro 3:11; cf. Heb 12). Oehler, in order that one may perceive its distinction from the view of the three friends, rightly refers to the various theories of punishment. Discipline designed for improvement is properly no punishment, since punishment, according to its true idea, is only satisfaction rendered for the violation of moral order. In how far the speeches of Elihu succeed in conveying this view clear and distinct from the original standpoint of the friends, especially of Eliphaz, matters not to us here; at all events, it is in the mind of the poet as the characteristic of these speeches. (2.) The afflictions of the righteous man are means of proving and testing, which, like chastisements, come from the love of God. Their object is not, however, the purging away of sin which may still cling to the righteous man, but, on the contrary, the manifestation and testing of his righteousness. This is the point of view from which, apart from Elihu's speeches, the book of Job presents Job's afflictions. Only by this relation of things is the chagrin with which Job takes up the words of Eliphaz, and so begins the controversy, explained and justified or excused. And, indeed, if it should be even impossible for the Christian, especially with regard to his own sufferings, to draw the line between disciplinary and testing sufferings so clearly as it is drawn in the book of Job, there is also for the deeper and more acute New Testament perception of sin, a suffering of the righteous which exists without any causal connection with his sin, viz., confession by suffering, or martyrdom, which the righteous man undergoes, not for his own sake, but for the sake of God.
If we, then, keep in mind these two further answers which the book of Job gives us to the question, "Why through suffering to blessedness?" it is not to be denied that practically they are perfectly sufficient. If I know that God sends afflictions to me because, since sin and evil are come into the world, they are the indispensable means of purifying and testing me, and by both purifying and testing of perfecting me, - these are explanations with which I can and must console myself. But this is still not the final answer of the book of Job to its great question. And its unparalleled magnitude, its high significance in the historical development of revelation, its typical character already recognised in the Old Testament, consists just in its going beyond this answer, and giving us an answer which, going back to the extreme roots of evil, and being deduced from the most intimate connections of the individual life of man with the history and plan of the world in the most comprehensive sense, not only practically, but speculatively, satisfies.
2. The Chokma-Character of the Book
But before we go so far into this final and highest answer as the province of the Introduction permits and requires, in order to assign to the reader the position necessary to be taken for understanding the book, we ask, How comes it that the book of Job presents such a universal and absolute solution of the problem, otherwise unheard of in the Old Testament Scriptures? The reason of it is in the peculiar mental tendency (Geistesrichtung) of the Israelitish race from which it proceeded. There was in Israel a bias of a universalistic, humanic, philosophical kind, which, starting from the fear or worship (religion) of Jehovah, was turned to the final causes of things, - the cosmical connections of the earthly, the common human foundations of the Israelitish, the invisible roots of the visible, the universal actual truth of the individual and national historical. The common character of the few works of his Chokma which have been preserved to us is the humanic standpoint, stripped of everything peculiarly Israelitish. In the whole book of Proverbs, which treats of the relations of human life in its most general aspects, the name of the covenant people, ישׁראל, does not once occur. In Ecclesiastes, which treats of the nothingness of all earthly things, and with greater right than the book of Job may be called the canticle of Inquiry,
(Note: The book of Job, says H. Heine, in his Vermischte Schriften, 1854, i., is the canticle of Inquiry (das Hodhelied der Skepsis), and horrid serpents hiss therein their eternal Wherefore? As man when he suffers must weep his fill, so must he cease to doubt. This poison of doubt must not be wanting in the Bible, that great storehouse of mankind.)
even the covenant name of God, יהוה, does not occur. In the Son of Songs, the groundwork of the picture certainly, but not the picture itself, is Israelitish: it represents a common human primary relation, the love of man and woman; and that if not with allegorical, yet mystical meaning, similar to the Indian Gitagovinda, and also the third part of the Tamul Kural, translated by Graul.
So the book of Job treats a fundamental question of our common humanity; and the poet has studiously taken his hero not from Israelitish history, but from extra-Israelitish tradition. From beginning to end he is conscious of relating an extra-Israelitish history, - a history handed down among the Arab tribes to the east of Palestine, which has come to his ears; for none of the proper names contain even a trace of symbolically intended meaning; and romantic historical poems were moreover not common among the ancients. This extra-Israelitish history from the patriarchal period excited the purpose of his poem, because the thought therein presented lay also in his own mind. The Thora from Sinai and prophecy, the history and worship of Israel, are nowhere introduced; even indirect reference to them nowhere escape him. He throws himself with wonderful truthfulness, effect, and vividness, into the extra-Israelitish position. His own Israelitish standpoint he certainly does not disavow, as we see from his calling God יהוה everywhere in the prologue and epilogue; but the non-Israelitish character of his hero and of his locality he maintains with strict consistency. Only twice is יהוה found in the mouth of Job (Job 1:21, Job 12:9), which is not to be wondered at, since this name of God, as the names Morija and Jochebed show, is not absolutely post-Mosaic, and therefore may have been known among the Hebrew people beyond Israel. But with this exception, Job and his friends everywhere call God אלוהּ, which is more poetic, and for non-Israelitish speakers (vid., Pro 30:5) more appropriate than אלהים, which occurs only three times (Job 20:29; Job 32:2; Job 38:7); or they call Him שׁדּי, which is the proper name of God in the patriarchal time, as it appears everywhere in Genesis, where in the Elohistic portions the high and turning-points of the self-manifestation of God occur (Job 17:1, Job 35:11, cf. Exo 6:3), and when the patriarchs, at special seasons, pronounce the promise which they have received upon their children (Gen 28:3, Gen 48:3, Gen 49:25; cf. Gen 43:14). Even many of the designations of the divine attributes which have become fixed in the Thora, as אפּים ארך, חנּוּן, רחוּם, which one might well expect in the book of Job, are not found in it; nor טוב, often used of Jehovah in Psalms; nor generally the too (so to speak) dogmatic terminology of the Israelitish religion;
(Note: קרושׁ, of God, only occurs once (Job 6:10); חסד but twice (Job 10:12, and with Elihu, Job 37:13); אהב with its derivatives not at all (Gen. only Gen 19:19). In the speeches of the three, צדיק (only with Elihu, Job 34:17), משׁפט, and שׁלּם, as expressions of the divine justitia recompensativa, are not to be found; נסּה and בחן become nowhere synonymous to designate Job's sufferings by the right name; מסּה appears (Job 9:23) only in the general signification of misfortune.)
besides which also this characteristic, that only the oldest mode of heathen worship, star-worship (Job 31:26-28), is mentioned, without even the name of God (צבאות יהוה or צבאות אלהים) occurring, which designates God as Lord of the heavens, which the heathen deified. The writer has also intentionally avoided this name, which is the star of the time of the Israelitish kings; for he is never unmindful that his subject is an ante-and extra-Israelitish one.
Hengstenberg, in his Lecture on the Book of Job, 1856, goes so far as to maintain, that a character like Job cannot possibly have existed in the heathen world, and that revelation would have been unnecessary if heathendom could produce such characters for itself. The poet, however, without doubt, presupposes the opposite; and if he did not presuppose it, he should have refrained from using all his skill to produce the appearance of the opposite. That he has nevertheless done it, cannot mislead us: for, on the one hand, Job belongs to the patriarchal period, therefore the period before the giving of the law, - a period in which the early revelation was still at work, and the revelation of God, which had not remained unknown in the side branches of the patriarchal family. On the other hand, it is quite consistent with the standpoint of the Chokma, that it presupposes a preparatory self-manifestation of God even in the extra-Israelitish world; just as John's Gospel, which aims at proving in Christianity the absolute religion which shall satisfy every longing of all mankind, acknowledges τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ διεσκορπισμένα also beyond the people of God, Joh 11:52, without on this account finding the incarnation of the Logos, and the possibility of regeneration by it, to be superfluous.
This parallel between the book of Job and the Gospel by John is fully authorized; for the important disclosure which the prologue of John gives to us of the Logos, is already in being in the book of Job and the introduction to the book of Proverbs, especially ch. 8, without requiring the intervening element of the Alexandrine religious philosophy, which, however, after it is once there, may not be put aside or disavowed. The Alexandrine doctrine of the Logos is really the genuine more developed form, though with many imperfections, of that which is taught of the Chokma in the book of Job and in Proverbs. Both notions have a universalistic comprehensiveness, referring not only to Israel, but to mankind. The חכמה certainly took up its abode in Israel, as it itself proves in the book Σοφια Σειραχ, ch. 24; but there is also a share of it attainable by and allotted to all mankind. This is the view of the writer even beyond Israel fellowship is possible with the one living God, who has revealed himself in Israel; that He also there continually reveals himself, ordinarily in the conscience, and extraordinarily in dreams and visions; that there is also found there a longing and struggling after that redemption of which Israel has the clear words of promise. His wonderous book soars high above the Old Testament limit; it is the Melchizedek among the Old Testament books. The final and highest solution of the problem with which it grapples, has a quarry extending out even beyond the patriarchal history. The Wisdom of the book of Job originates, as we shall see, from paradise. For this turning also to the primeval histories of Genesis, which are earlier than the rise of the nations, and the investigation of the hieroglyphs in the prelude to the Thora, which are otherwise almost passed over in the Old Testament, belong to the peculiarities of the Chokma.
3. Position in the Canon
As a work of the Chokma, the book of Job stands, with the three other works belonging to this class of the Israelitish literature, among the Hagiographa, which are called in Hebrew simply כתובים. Thus, by the side of תורה and נביאים, the third division of the canon is styled, in which are included all those writings belonging neither to the province of prophetic history nor prophetic declaration. Among the Hagiographa are writings even of a prophetic character, as Psalms and Daniel; but their writers were not properly נביאים. At present Lamentations stands among them; but this is not its original place, as also Ruth appears to have stood originally between Judges and Samuel. Both Lamentations and Ruth are placed among the Hagiographa, that there the five so-called מגלות or scrolls may stand together: Schir ha-Schirim the feast-book of the eight passover-day, Ruth that of the second Schabuoth-day, Kinoth that of the ninth of Ab, Koheleth that of the eight Succoth-day, Esther that of Purim. The book of Job, which is written neither in prophetico-historical style, nor in the style of prophetic preaching, but is a didactic poem, could stand nowhere else but in the third division of the canon. The position which it occupies is moreover a very shifting one. In the Alexandrine canon, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, follow the four books of the Kings. The historical books therefore stand, from the earliest to the latest, side by side; then begins with Job, Psalms, Proverbs, a new row, opened with these three in stricter sense poetical books. Then Melito of Sardis, in the second century, places Chronicles with the books of the Kings, but arranges immediately after them the non-historical Hagiographa in the following order: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job; here the Salomonic writings are joined to the Davidic Psalter, and the anonymous book of Job stands last. In our editions of the Bible, the Hagiographa division begins with Psalms, Proverbs, Job (the succession peculiar to MSS of the German class); in the Talmud (Bathra, 14b), with Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs; in the Masora, and in MSS of the Spanish class, with Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs. All these modes of arrangement are well considered. The Masora connects with the אחרונים נביאים the homogeneous book, the Chronicles; the Talmud places the book of Ruth before the Psalter as an historical prologue, or as a connection between the prophetico-historical books and the Hagiographa.
(Note: That Job stands after the Psalms is explained by his being contemporary with the Queen of Sheba, or, accepting Moses as the writer of the book (in which case it should stand at the head of the Chethubim), by its not being placed foremost, on account of its terrible contents (according to the maxim בפרענותא מתחילינן לא).)
The practice in our editions is to put the Psalms as the first book of the division, which agrees with Luk 24:44, and with Philo, who places ὕμνους next to the prophetical books. Job stands only in the lxx at the head of the three so-called poetic books, perhaps as a work by its patriarchal contents referring back to the earliest times. Everywhere else the Psalter stands first among the three books. These three are commonly denoted by the vox memoralis מתספרי א; but this succession, Job, Proverbs, Psalms, is nowhere found. The Masora styles them after its own, and the Talmudic order אםספרי ת.
4. The System of Accentuation
Manner of Writing in Verses, and Structure of the Strophe
The so-ciphered three books have, as is known, this in common, that they are (with the exception of the prologue and epilogue in the book of Job) punctuated according to a special system, which has been fully discussed in my Commentary on the Psalms, and in Baer's edition of the Psalter. This accent system, like the prosaic, is constructed on the fundamental law of dichotomy; but it is determined by better organization, more expressive and melodious utterance. Only the so-called prose accents, however, not the metrical or poetic (with the exception of a few detached fragments), have been preserved in transmission. Nevertheless, we are always still able to discern from these accents how the reading in the synagogue divided the thoughts collected into the form of Masoretic verses, into two chief divisions, and within these again into lesser divisions, and connected or separated the single words; while the musical rhythm accommodated itself as much as possible to the logical, so that the accentuation is on this account an important source for ascertaining the traditional exegesis, and contains an abundance of most valuable hints for the interpreter. Tradition, moreover, requires for the three books a verse-like short line stich-manner of writing; and פסוק, versus, meant originally, not the Masoretic verse, but the separate sentence, στίχος, denoted in the accent system by a great distinctive; as e.g., Job 3:3 :
Let the day perish wherein I was born,
And the night, which said, There is a man-child conceived,
is a Masoretic verse divided into two parts by Athnach, and therefore, according to the old order, is to be written as two στίχοι.
(Note: The meaning of this old order, and the aptness of its execution, has been lost in later copyists, because they break off not according to the sense, but only according to the space, as the στίχοι in numbering the lines, e.g., of the Greek orators, are mere lines according to the space (Raumzeile), at least according to Ritschl's view (Die alex. Bibliotheken, 1838, S. 92-136), which, however, has been disputed by Vmel. The old soferish order intends lines according to the sense, and so also the Greek distinction by πέντε στιχηραὶ (στιχήρεις) βίβλοι, i.e., Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes.)
This also is important. In order to recognise the strophe-structure of Hebrew poems, one must attend to the στίχοι, in which the poetic thoughts follow one another in well-measured flow. Parallelism, which we must likewise acknowledge as the fundamental law of the rhythm of Hebrew poetry, forms the evolutions of thought not always of two members, but often - as e.g., Job 3:4, Job 3:5, Job 3:6, Job 3:9 - also of three. The poetic formation is not, however, confined to this, but even further combines (as is most unmistakeably manifest in the alphabetical psalms,
(Note: That from these we may proceed, the ancients here and there conjectures; as e.g., Serpilius says, "It may perhaps occur to some, whether now and then a slight judgment of the Davidic species of verse and poesy may not be in some way formed from his, so to speak, alphabetical psalms.")
and as recently also Ewald inclines to acknowledge)
(Note: On strophes in the book of Job, Jahrb. iii. 118: "That the Masoretic division of the verses is not always correct, follows also from a more exact consideration of the strophes. Here comes a further question, whether one must determine the limit of such a strophe only according to the verses, which are often in themselves very irregular, or rather, strictly according to the members of the verse? The latter seems to me, at least in some parts, certainly to be the case, as I have already had opportunity to remark." Nevertheless, he reckons the strophes in Neue Bemerkungen zum B. Ijob, Job 9:35-37, according to lines = Masoretic verses.)
such distichs and tristichs into a greater whole, forming a complete circle of thought; in other words, into strophes of four, eight, or some higher number of lines, in themselves paragraphs, which, however, show themselves as strophes, inasmuch as they recur and change symmetrically. Hupfeld has objected that these strophes, as an aggregate formed of a symmetrical number of stichs, are opposed to the nature of the rhythm = parallelism, which cannot stand on one leg, but needs two; but this objection is as invalid as if one should say, Because every soldier has two legs, therefore soldiers can only march singly, and not in a row and company. It may be seen, e.g., from Job 36:22-25, Job 36:26-29, Job 36:30-33, where the poet begins three times with הן, and three times the sentences so beginning are formed of eight lines. Shall we not say there are three eight-line strophes beginning with הן? Nevertheless, we are far from maintaining that the book of Job consists absolutely of speeches in the strophe and poetic form. It breaks up, however, into paragraphs, which not unfrequently become symmetrical strophes. That neither the symmetrical nor mixed strophe-schema is throughout with strict unexceptional regularity carried out, arises from the artistic freedom which the poet was obliged to maintain in order not to sacrifice the truth as well as the beauty of the dialogue. Our translation, arranged in paragraphs, and the schemata of the number of stichs in the paragraph placed above each speech, will show that the arrangement of the whole is, after all, far more strophic than its dramatic character allows, according to classic and modern poetic art.
(Note: What Gottfr. Hermann, in his diss. de arte poesis Graecorum bucolicae, says respecting the strophe-division in Theocritus, is nevertheless to be attentively considered: Verendum est ne ipsi nobis somnia fingamus perdamusque operam, si artificiosas stropharum comparationes comminiscamur, de quibus ipsi poetae ne cogitaverint quidem. Viderique potest id eo probabilius esse, quod saepenumero dubitari potest, sic an aliter constituendae sint strophae. Nam poesis, qualis haec bucolicorum est, quae maximam partem ex brevibus dictis est composita, ipsa natura sua talis est ut in partes fere vel pares vel similes dividi possit. Nihilo tamen minus illam strophicam rationem non negligendam arbitror, ut quae apud poetas bucolicos in consuetudinem vertisse videatur, etc.)
It is similar in Canticles, with the melodramatic character of which it better agrees. In both cases it is explained from the Hebrew poesy being in its fundamental peculiarity lyric, and from the drama not having freed itself from the lyric element, and attained to complete independence. The book of Job is, moreover, not a drama grown to complete development. Prologue and epilogue are treated as history, and the separate speeches are introduce din the narrative style. In the latter respect (with the exception of Job 2:10), Canticles is more directly dramatic than the book of Job.
(Note: Hence there are Greek MSS, in which the names of the speakers (e.g., ἡ νύμφη, αἱ νεανίδες, ὁ νυμφίος) are prefixed to the separate parts of Canticles (vid., Repertorium fr bibl. u. morgenl. Lit. viii. 1781, S. 180). The Archimandrite Porphyrios, who in his Travels, 1856, described the Codex Sinaiticus before Tischendorf, though unsatisfactorily, describes there also such διαλογικῶς written MSS of Canticles.)
The drama is here in reference to the strophic form in the garb of Canticles, and in respect of the narrative form in the garb of history or epopee. Also the book of Job cannot be regarded as drama, if we consider, with G. Baur,
(Note: Das B. Hiob und Dante's Gttliche Camdie, Studien u. Krit. 1856, iii.)
dramatic and scenic to be inseparable ideas; for the Jews first became acquainted with the theatre from the Greeks and Romans.
(Note: See my Geschichte der jdischen Dramatik in my edition of the Migdal Oz1 (hebr. handling of the Pastor fido of Guarini) by Mose Chajim Luzzatto, Leipz. 1837.)
Nevertheless, it is questionable whether the drama everywhere presupposes the existence of the stage, as e.g., A. W. v. Schlegel, in his Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, maintains. Gthe, at least, more than once asserts, that "drama and a composition for the stage may be separate," and admits a "dramatic plot and execution" in Canticles.
(Note: Werke (neue Ausg. in 30 Bden.), xiii. 596; xxvi. 513f.)
5. The Dramatic Art of the Plot and Execution
On the whole, we have as little hesitation as Hupfeld in calling the book of Job a drama; and it is characteristic of the Israelitish Chokma, that by Canticles and the book of Job, its two generic manifestations, it has enriched the national poesy with this new form of poetic composition. The book of Job is, though not altogether, yet substantially, a drama, and one consisting of seven divisions: (1) ch. 1-3, the opening; (2) ch. 4-14, the first course of the controversy, or the beginning entanglement; (3) ch. 15-21, the second course of the controversy, or the increasing entanglement; (4) ch. 22-26, the third course of the controversy, or the increasing entanglement at its highest; (5) ch. 27-31, the transition from the entanglement (δέσις) to the unravelling (λύσις): Job's monologues; (6) ch. 38-42:6, the consciousness of the unravelling; (7) Job 42:7., the unravelling in outward reality. In this we have left Elihu'a speeches (ch. 32-37) out of consideration, because it is very questionable whether they are a part of the original form of the book, and not, on the contrary, the introduction of another poet. If we include them, the drama has eight divisions. The speeches of Elihu form an interlude in the transition from the δέσις to the λύσις. The book of Job is an audience-chamber, and one can readily suppose that a contemporary or later poet may have mixed himself up with the speakers. Whether, however, this is really the case, may remain here undecided. The prologue is narrative, but still partly in dialogue style, and so far not altogether undramatical. In form it corresponds most to the Euripidean, which also are a kind of epic introduction to the pieces, and it accomplishes what Sophocles in his prologues so thoroughly understands. At the very beginning he excites interest in the occurrences to be brought forward, and makes us acquainted with that which remains concealed from the actors. After the knot of the puzzle is tied in the prologue, it becomes more and more deeply entangled in the three courses of the controversy. In the monologues of Job it begins to be disentangled, and in the sixth part the unravelling follows, well prepared for, and therefore not ἀπὸ μηχανῆς, and is perfected in the epilogue or exodus: the servant of God, being so far as necessary cleared by penitence, is justified in opposition to his friends; and the victor, tried in accordance with the divine utterance, is crowned. It is therefore a continually progressing history. The remark of Herder,
(Note: Geist der Ebrischen Poesi, 1805, i. S. 137.)
"Here all is stationary in long conversations," is superficial. It is from beginning to end a stream of the most active life, with external incident only in the opening and in the unravelling; what Shlegel says of Gthe's Iphigenie holds good of the middle of the book, that the ideas are worked into incidents, and brought, as it were, before the eye. Moreover, as in Gthe's Tasso, the deficiency of external action is compensated by the richness and precision with which the characters are drawn. Satan, Job's wife, the hero himself, the three friends, - everywhere diversified and minute description. The poet manifests, also, dramatic skill in other directions. He has laid out the controversy with a masterly hand, making the heart of the reader gradually averse to the friends, and in the same degree winning it towards Job. He makes the friends all through give utterance to the most glorious truths, which, however, in the application to the case before them, turn out to be untrue. And although the whole of the representation serves one great idea, it is still not represented by any of the persons brought forward, and is by no one expressly uttered. Every person is, as it were, the consonant letter to the word of this idea; it is throughout the whole book taken up with the realization of itself; at the end it first comes forth as the resulting product of the whole. Job himself is not less a tragic hero than the Oedipus of both Sophicles' tragedies.
(Note: Schultens says: Quidquid tragoedia vetus unquam Sophocleo vel Aeschyleo molita est cothurno, infra magnitudinem, gravitatem, ardorem, animositatem horum affectuum infinitum quantum subsidet. Similarly Ewald (Jahrb. ix. 27): Neither the Hindoos, nor the Greek sand Romans, have such a lofty and purely perfected poem to produce. One would perhaps compare it with one of Aeschylus or Sophocles' tragedies as the nearest, but we cannot easily find a single one among these approaching its unblemished height and perfection in the midst of the greatest simplicity.)
What is there an inevitable fate, expressed by the oracle, is in the book of Job the decree of Jehovah, over whom is no controlling power, decreed in the assembly of angels. As a painful puzzle the lot of affliction comes down on Job. At the beginning he is the victor of an easy battle, until the friends' exhortations to repentance are added to suffering, which in itself is incomprehensible, and make it still harder to be understood. He is thereby involved in a hard conflict, in which at one time, full of arrogant self-confidence, he exalts himself heavenward; at another time, sinks to the ground in desponding sadness.
The God, however, against which he fights is but a phantom, which the temptation has presented to his saddened eye instead of the true God; and this phantom is in no way different from the inexorable fate of the Greek tragedy. As in that the hero seeks to maintain his inward freedom against the secret power which crushes him with an iron arm; so Job maintains his innocence against this God, which has devoted him to destruction as an offender. But in the midst of this terrific conflict with the God of the present, this creation of the temptation, Job's faith gropes after the God of the future, to whom he is ever driven nearer the more mercilessly the enemies pursue him. At length Jehovah really appears, but not at Job's impetuous summons. He appears first after Job has made a beginning of humble self-concession, in order to complete the work begun, by condescendingly going forth to meet him. Jehovah appears, and the fury vanishes. The dualism, which the Greek tragedy leaves unabolished, is here reconciled. Human freedom does not succumb; but it becomes evident that not an absolute arbitrary power, but divine wisdom, whose inmost impulse is love, moulds human destiny.
6. Time of Composition
That this masterpiece of religious reflection and systematic creative art - this, to use Luther's expression, lofty and grand book, in which, as the mountains round an Alpine valley, all the terribly sublime that nature and human history present is ranged one above another - belongs to no other than the Salomonic period, we might almost assume, even if it were not confirmed on all sides. The opinion that Moses wrote the book of Job before the giving of the law, is found in the Talmuds (jer. Sota V. 8; b. Bathra, 15a). This view has been recently revived by Ebrard (1858). But how improbable, all but impossible, that the poetical literature of Israel should have taken its rise with such a non plus ultra of reflective poetry, and that this poem should have had Moses the lawgiver for its author? "Moses certainly is not the composer of the book of Job," says Herder rightly,
(Note: Geist der Ebr. Poesie, 1805, i. S. 130.)
"or Solon might have written the Iliad and the Eumenides of Aeschylus." This opinion, which is also found in Origen, Jerome, Polychronius, and Julian of Halicarnassus, would surely never have suggested itself to any one, had not the studious avoidance in the book of all reference to the law, prophecy, history, religious worship, and even of the religious terminology of Israel, consequent on its design, produced the appearance of a pre-Sinaitic origin. But, first, this absence of such reference is, as we have already seen, the result of the genius and aim which belong to the book; secondly, the writer distinctly enough betrays his acquaintance with the Thora: for as the Chokma for the most part necessarily presupposes the revelation of God deposited in the Thora, and is even at pains to show its universal and eternal ideas, and its imperishable nature full of meaning for all men, so a book like the book of Job could only have been written by an Israelitish author, only have sprung from the spiritual knowledge and experience rendered possible by the Thora.
(Note: Reggio indeed maintains (Kerem Chemed, vi. 53-60) in favour of the Mosaic pre-Sinaitic composition: "God is only represented as the Almighty, the Ruler of the universe: His love, mercy, forbearance - attributes which the Thora first revealed - are nowhere mentioned;" and S. D. Luzzatto concludes from this even the non-Israelitish origin of the book: "The God of Job is not the God of Israel, the gracious One: He is the almighty and just, but not the kind and true One;" but although the book does not once use the words goodness, love, forbearance, compassion of God, it is nevertheless a bright example of them all; and it is the love of God which it manifests as a bright ray in the dark mystery of the affliction of the righteous.)
For as insight into the groping of the heathen world after divine truth is only possible in the light of Christianity, so also such a spiritually bold and accurate reproduction of an old patriarchal tradition was only possible in the light of the revelation of Jehovah: not to mention that the middle part of the book is written in the style of the book of Proverbs, the surrounding parts in evident imitation of the style of the primitive histories of the Pentateuch.
But as the supposition of a pre-Salomonic composition is proved invalid, so also are all the grounds on which it has been sought to prove a post-Salomonic. Ewald, whom Heiligstedt and Renan follow, is of opinion that it shows very unsettled and unfortunate times in the background, and from this and other indications was written under Manasseh; Hirzel, that the writer who is so well acquainted with Egypt, seems to have been carried into Egypt with King Jehoahaz; Stickel, that the book presupposes the invasion of the Asiatic conqueror as begun, but not yet so far advanced as the destruction of Jerusalem; Bleek, that it must belong to the post-Salomonic period, because it seems to refer to a previous comprehensive diversified literature. But all this rests on invalid grounds, false observation, and deceptive conclusions. Indeed, the assumption that a book which sets forth such a fearful conflict in the depths of affliction must have sprung from a time of gloomy national distress, is untenable: it is sufficient to suppose that the writer himself has experienced the like, and experienced it at a time when all around him were living in great luxury, which must have greatly aggravated his trial. It would be preferable to suppose that the book of Job belongs to the time of the exile (Umbreit and others), and that Job, though not exactly a personification of Israel, is still לרשׂראל משׁל,
(Note: Vid., c. 90 of Ez chajim, by Ahron b. Elias of Nicomedia, edited by Delitzsch, 1841, which corresponds to More Nebuchim, iii. 22-24. The view that the poet himself, by Job intended the Israel of the exile (according to Warburton, the Israel of the restoration after the exile; according to Grotius, the Edomites carried into exile by the Babylonians), is about the same as the view that the guilty Pericles may be intended by King Oedipus, or the Sophists by the Odysseus of the Philoctetes.)
a pattern for the people of the exile (Bernstein); for this view, interesting indeed in itself, has the similarity of several passages of the second part of the book of Isaiah in its favour: comp. Isa 40:14 with Job 21:22; Isa 40:23 with Job 12:24; Isa 44:25 with Job 12:17, Job 12:20; Isa 44:24 with Job 9:8; Isa 49:4 with Job 15:35; Psa 7:15. These, however, only prove that the severely tried ecclesia pressa of the exiles might certainly recognise itself again in the example of Job, and make it seem far more probable that the book of Job is older than that period of Israel's suffering.
The literature of the Chokma began with Solomon. First in the time of Solomon, whose peculiar gift was worldly wisdom, a time which bears the character of peaceful contemplation resulting from the conflicts of belief of David's time,
(Note: Thus far Gaupp, Praktische Theol. ii. 1, 488, is in some degree right, when he considers the book of Job a living testimony of the new spirit of belief which was bursting forth in David's time.)
the external and internal preliminary conditions for it existed. The chief part of Proverbs and Canticles is by Solomon himself; the introductory passages (Prov 1-9) represent a later period of the Chokma, probably the time of Jehoshaphat; the book of Ecclesiastes, which is rightly assigned by H. G. Bernstein in his Questiones Kohelethanae to the time between Artaxerxes I Longimanus, and Darius Codomannus, and perhaps belongs to the time of Artaxerxes II Mnemon, represents the latest period. The book of Job is indicated as a work of the first of these three periods, by its classic, grand, and noble form. It bears throughout the stamp of that creative, beginning-period of the Chokma, - of that Salomonic age of knowledge and art, of deeper thought respecting revealed religion, and of intelligent, progressive culture of the traditional forms of art, - that unprecedented age, in which the literature corresponded to the summit of glorious magnificence to which the kingdom of the promise had then attained. The heart of Solomon (according to Kg1 5:9., Hebrew version; Kg1 4:29, English version) enclosed within itself a fulness of knowledge, "even as the sand that is on the seashore:" his wisdom was greater than the קרם בני, from whom the traditional matter of the book of Job is borrowed; greater than the wisdom of the מצרים, with whose country and natural marvels the author of the book of Job is intimately acquainted. The extensive knowledge of natural history and general science displayed in the book of Job, is the result of the wide circle of observation which Israel had reached. It was a time when the chasm between Israel and the nations was more than ever bridged over. The entire education of Israel at that time took a so to speak cosmopolitan direction. It was a time introductory to the extension of redemption, and the triumph of the religion of Israel, and the union of all nations in belief on the God of love.
7. Signs from the Doctrinal Contents
That the book of Job belongs to this period and no other, is confirmed also by the relation of its doctrinal contents to the other canonical writings. If we compare the doctrine respecting Wisdom - her super-eminence, applicability to worldly matters, and co-operation in the creation of the world - in Prov 1-9, especially ch. 8, with Job 28, it is there manifestly more advanced, and further developed. If we compare the pointing to the judgment of God, Job 19:29, with the hint of a future general judgment, which shall decide and adjust all things, in Ecc 12:14, we see at once that what comes forward in the former passage only at first as an expression of personal belief, is in the latter already become a settled element of general religious consciousness.
And however we may interpret that brilliant passage of the book of Job, Job 19:25-27, - whether it be the beholding of God in the present bodily, future spiritual, or future glorified state, - it is by no means an echo of an already existing revelation of the resurrection of the dead, that acknowledgment of revelation which we see breaking forth and expanding throughout Isa 26:19, comp. Isa 25:8, and Ezek 37 comp. Hos 6:2, until Dan 12:2. The prevailing representations of the future in the book of Job are exactly the same as those in the Psalms of the time of David and Solomon, and in the Proverbs of Solomon. The writer speaks as one of the same age in which Heman sighed, Psa 88:11., "Wilt Thou show wonders to the dead? or shall the shades arise and praise Thee? Shall Thy loving-kindness be declared in the grave, Thy faithfulness in the abyss?" Besides, the greatest conceivable fulness of allusion to the book of Job, including Elihu's speeches, is found in Ps 88 and 89, whose authors, Heman and Ethan, the Ezrahites, are not the same as the chief singers of David and of the same name, but the contemporaries of Solomon mentioned in Kg1 5:11. These two psalms coincide with the book of Job, both in expressions with which remarkable representations are united, as קרושׁים of the celestial spirits, רפאים of the shades in Hades, אבדון of Hades itself, and also in expressions which do not occur elsewhere in the Old Testament, as אמים and בּעתים; and the agreement is manifest, moreover, in the agreement of whole verses either in thought or in expression: comp. Psa 89:38 with Job 16:19; Psa 89:48 with Job 7:7; Psa 89:49 with Job 14:14; Psa 88:5 with Job 14:10; Psa 88:9 with Job 30:10; Psa 89:8 with Job 31:34. In all these passages, however, there is no such similarity as suggests a borrowing, but an agreement which, since it cannot possibly be accidental, may be most easily explained by supposing that the book of Job proceeds from just the same Chokma-fellowship to which, according to Kg1 5:11, the two Ezrahites, the writers of Ps 88 and 89, belong.
One might go further, and conjecture that the same Heman who composed Ps 88, the gloomiest of all the Psalms, and written under circumstances of suffering similar to Job's, may be the author of the book of Job - for which many probable reasons might be advanced; by which also what G. Baur rightly assumes would be confirmed, that the writer of the book of Job has himself passed through the inward spiritual conflict which he describes, and accordingly gives a page from his own religious history. But we are satisfied with the admission, that the book of Job is the work of one of the wise men whose rendezvous was the court of Solomon. Gregory of Nazianzen and Luther have already admitted the origin of the book in Solomon's time; and among later critics, Rosenmller, Hvernick, Vaihinger, Hahn, Schlottmann, Keil, and Hofmann (though in his Weissagung und Erfllung he expressed the opinion that it belongs to the Mosaic period), are agreed in this.
(Note: Also Professor Barnwell, in the Carolina Times, 1857, No. 785, calls the book of Job "the most brilliant flower of this brighter than Elizabethan and nobler than Augustan era.")
8. Echoes in the Later Sacred Writings
It may be readily supposed, that a book like this, which is occupied with a question of such vital import to every thinking and pious man, - which treats it in such a lively manner, riveting the attention, and bespeaking sympathy, - which, apart from its central subject, is so many-sided, so majestically beautiful in language, and so inexhaustible in imagery, - will have been one of the most generally read of the national books of Israel. Such is found to be the case; and also hereby its origin in the time of Solomon is confirmed: for at this very period it is to Ps 88-89 only that it stands in the mutual relation already mentioned. But the echoes appear as early as in the חכמים דברי, which are appended to the Salomonic משׁלי in the book of Proverbs: comp. the teaching from an example in the writer's own experience, Pro 24:30. with Job 5:3. The book of Job, however, next to the Proverbs of Solomon, was the favourite source of information for the author of the introductory proverbs (Prov 1-9). Here (apart from the doctrine of wisdom) we find whole passages similar to the book of Job: comp. Pro 3:11 with Job 5:17; Pro 8:25 with Job 15:7; Pro 3:15 with Job 28:18.
Then, in the prophets of the flourishing period of prophetic literature, which begins with Obadiah and Joel, we find distinct traces of familiarity with the book of Job. Amos describes the glory of God the Creator in words taken from it (Amo 4:13; Amo 5:8, after Job 9:8; cf. Job 10:22; Job 38:31). Isaiah has introduced a whole verse of the book of Job, almost verbatim, into his prophecy against Egypt (Isa 19:5 = Job 14:11): in the same prophecy, Isa 19:13. refer to Job 12:24., so also Isa 35:3 to Job 4:4. These reminiscences of the book of Job are frequent in Isaiah (Isa 40-66). This book of solace for the exiles corresponds to the book of Job not only in words, which exclusively belong in common to the two (as גּזע and צאצאים), and in surprising similarity of expression (as Isa 53:9, comp. Job 16:17; Isa 60:6, comp. Job 22:11), but also in numerous passages of similar thought and form (comp. Isa 40:23 with Job 12:24); and in the description of the Servant of Jehovah, one is here and there involuntarily reminded of the book of Job (as Isa 50:6, comp. with Job 16:10). In Jeremiah, the short lyric passage, Jer 20:14-18, in which he curses the day of his birth, falls back on Job 3: the form in which the despondency of the prophet breaks forth is determined by the book of Job, with which he was familiar. It requires no proof that the same prophet follows the book of Job in many passages of Lamentations, and especially the first part of Lam 3: he makes use of confessions, complaints, and imagery from the affliction of Job, to represent the affliction of Israel.
By the end of the time of the kings, Job was a person generally known in Israel, a recognised saint: for Ezekiel, in the year 593-2 b.c. (Eze 14:14.), complains that the measure of Israel's sin is so great, that if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in the midst of Israel, though they might save themselves, they would not be able to hold back the arm of divine justice. The prophet mentions first Noah, a righteous man of the old world; then Daniel, a righteous man of contemporary Israel; and last of all Job, a righteous man beyond the line of the promise.
(Note: Hengstenberg (Beitrge, i. 72) thinks Job is mentioned last because less suited to Ezekiel's purpose than Noah and Daniel. Carpzov (Introd. in ll. poet. p. 35) is more ingenious, but too artificial, when he finds an anti-climax in the order: Noachus in clade primi mundi aecumenica, Daniel in clade patriae ac gentis suae, Iobus in clade familiae servatus est.)
He would not, however, have been able to mention him, if he had not, by means of the written narrative, been a person well known among the people to whom the prophetical discourse was addressed. The literature of the Old Testament has no further reference to the question of the time of the composition of the book of Job; for, on a comparison of Ecc 5:14 with Job 1:21, it scarcely remains a question to which the priority belongs.
9. The Chief Critical Questions
Whether, however, the whole book, as we now have it, comes from the time of Solomon, as the work of one poet, or of one chief poet,
(Note: Compare Bttcher, Aehrenlese, S. 68: "Respecting the mode of composition, we think there was one chief poet, with several contemporary associates, incited by a conversation on the then (i.e., according to Bttcher's view, in the reign of Manasseh) frequent afflictions of the innocent.")
is a question which can be better determined in the course of the exposition. More or less important doubts have been entertained whether some constituent parts of the whole belong to the original setting. By far the most important question of criticism respects the six chapters of Elihu's speeches (ch. 32-37), respecting which the suspicion entertained by the fathers, and first decidedly expressed by Stuhlmann (1804), that not only in form are they inferior to the artistic execution of the rest of the work, but also in contents are opposed to its original plan, is not yet set aside, and perhaps never will be altogether satisfactorily settled. Besides this, Kennicot also has suspected the speech of Job, Job 27:11-28:28, because there Job seems to yield to the friends' controverted doctrine of retribution. De Wette is more inclined here to suppose a want of connection on the part of the writer than an interpolation. We shall have to prove whether this speech of Job really encroaches upon the province of the unravelling, or renders the transition more complete.
The whole description of Behemoth and Leviathan, Job 40:15-41:26, is regarded by Ewald as a later addition: De Wette extends this judgment only to Job 41:4-26: Eichhorn was satisfied at first with changing the order of Jehovah's speeches; but in the last edition of his Einleitung ascribed the passage about the two monsters to a later poet. The exposition will have to bring the form of expression of the supposed interpolation, and its relation to the purpose of the second speech of Jehovah, in comparison with the first, under consideration. But we need not defer our judgment of the prologue and epilogue. All the doubts raised by Stuhlmann, Bernstein, Knobel (diss. de carminis Iobi argumento, fine ac dispositione, and Studien u. Kritiken, 1842, ii.), and others, respecting both these essential parts, are put an end to by the consideration, that the middle part of the book, without them, is a torso without head and feet.
10. The Satan of the Prologue
But the Satan in the prologue is a stumbling-block to many, which, if it does not lead them to doubt the authenticity of the prologue, still causes them to question whether the composition of the book belongs to the time of Solomon. For Satan is first definitely named, Zac 3:1-10, and Ch1 21:1; consequently in writings of the period after the exile. On the other hand, שׁטן, Num 22:22, appellatively describes one who comes forward hostilely, or as a hindrance; and Psa 109:6 is at least open to question whether the prince of evil spirits may not be meant, which, according to Zac 3:1, seems to be intended. However, in Micaiah's vision, Kg1 22:19-23, where one might expect השׂטן, הרוח is used. It is even maintained in the present day, that the idea of Satan was first obtained by the Israelitish race from contact with the East-Asiatic nations, which began with Israel in the time of Menahem, with Judah in the time of Ahaz; the view of Diestel, that it is the copy of the Egyptian Set-Typhon, stands at present alone. When we consider that the redemptive work of Jesus Christ is regarded by Him and His apostles from one side as the overthrow of Satan, it were a miserable thing for the divine truth of Christianity that this Satan should be nothing more than a copy of the Persian Ahriman, and consequently a mere phantom. However, supposing there were some such connection, we should then have only two periods at which the book of Job could possibly have been composed, - the time after the exile, and the time of Solomon; for these are the only periods at which not only collision, but also an interchange of ideas, between Israel and the profane nations could have taken place. It is also just as possible for the conception of Satan to have taken possession of the Israelitish mind under Solomon as during the exile, especially as it is very questionable whether the religion of Cyrus, as found in the Zend books, may not have been far more influenced by Israel, than, contrariwise, have influenced Israel.
But the conception of Satan is indeed much older in its existence than the time of Solomon: the serpent of paradise must surely have appeared to the inquiring mind of Israel as the disguise of an evil spirit; and nothing further can be maintained, than that this evil spirit, which in the Mosaic worship of the great day of atonement is called עזאזל (called later זבוב בעל, a name borrowed from the god of Ekron), appears first in the later literature of Israel under the name השׂטן. If now, moreover, the Chokma of the Salomonic period was specially conversant with the pre-Israelitish histories of Genesis, whence indeed even the chief thought of Canticles and the figure of חיים עץ, e.g., frequently occurring in Proverbs are drawn, it is difficulty to conceive why the evil spirit, that in its guise of a serpent aimed its malice against man, could not have been called השׂטן so early as the Salomonic period.
The wisdom of the author of the book of Job, we have said above, springs from paradise. Thence he obtains the highest and ultimate solution of his problem. It is now time to give expression to this. At present we need only do so in outline, since it is simply of use to place us from the commencement at the right standpoint for understanding the book of Job.
11. The Ultimate Solution of the Problem
The nature of sin is two-sided. It consists in the creature's setting up himself in opposition to God, who is the essence of the personality of the creature. It consists also, on the other side, in the stirring up of the depth of the nature of the creature, whose essential consistence has its harmony in God; and by this stirring up, falls into a wild confusion. In other words, evil has a personal side and a natural side. And just so, also, is God's wrath which it excites, and which operates against it. For God's wrath is, on the one hand, the personal displeasure or aversion into which His love is changed, since the will of the creature and the will of God are in opposition; on the other hand, an excited condition of the contrary forces of the divine nature, or, as Scripture expresses it, the kindling of the fire of the divine glory, in which sense it is often said of wrath, that God sends it forth, that He pours it forth, and that man has to drink of it (Job 21:20, comp. Job 6:4).
(Note: Vid., my Proleg. to Weber's book on the Wrath of God.)
In reference to the creature, we call evil according to its personal side ἔχηθρα, and according to its natural side ἀταξία, turba.
(Note: Vid., Biblische Psychologie, S. 128, 160.)
Both personal evil and natural evil have originated in the spirit world: first of all, in a spirit nearest to God, which as fallen is called השׂטן. It has sought its own selfish ends, and thereby deranged its nature, so that it has become in every respect the object of the divine wrath, and the material for the burning of the divine wrath: for the echthra and turba have the intention and the burning of the wrath of God in themselves as divine correlata; but Satan, after that he has become entirely possessed of these divine powers (Energien), is also their instrument. The spirit of light and love is altogether become the spirit of fire and wrath; the whole sphere of wrath is centred in him. After having given up his high position in the realm of light, he is become lord of the realm of wrath.
He has, from the commencement of his fall, the hell within himself, but is first cast into the lake of fire at the end of the present dispensation (Mat 25:41; Rev 20:10 : comp. Dan 7:11). In the meantime, he is being deprived of his power by the Son of man, who, in the midst of His own and His disciples' victories over the demons, beholds him fall as lightning from heaven (Luk 10:18), and by His death gives him his deathblow, - a final judgment, which, later on, becomes fully manifest in the continuous degradation of the vanquished (comp. Rev 12:9; Rev 20:3, Rev 20:10). Accordingly, when Satan, in the book of Job, still appears among the angles of God in heaven, and indeed as κατήγωρ, it is quite in accordance with the disclosures which the New Testament Scriptures give us respecting the invisible angelic side of the present dispensation.
Thus Job's suffering is a dispensation of love, but brought about by the wrath-spirit, and with every appearance of wrath. It is so with every trial and chastisement of the righteous. And it cannot be otherwise; for trial is designed to be for man a means of overcoming the evil that is external to him, and chastisement of overcoming the evil that is within him. There is a conflict between evil and good in the world, which can issue in victory to the good only so, that the good proves itself in distinction from the evil, withstands the assault of evil, and destroys the evil that exists bound up with itself: only so, that the good as far as it is still mixed with the evil is refined as by fire, and more and more freed from it.
This is the twofold point of view from which the suffering of Job is to be regarded. It was designed, first of all, that Job should prove himself in opposition to Satan, in order to overcome him; and since Job does not pass through the trial entirely without sinning, it has the effect at the same time of purifying and perfecting him. In both respects, the history of Job is a passage from the history of God's own conflict with the evil one, which is the substance of the history of redemption, and ends in the triumph of the divine love. And Gaupp
(Note: Praktische Theologie, ii. 1, S. 488f.)
well says: In the book of Job, Satan loses a cause which is intended only as prelude to the greatest of all causes, since judgment is gone forth over the world, and the prince of darkness has been cast forth. Accordingly the church has always recognised in the passion of Job a type of the passion of Jesus Christ. James (Jam 5:11) even compares the patience of Job and the issue of the Lord's sufferings. And according to this indication, it was the custom after the second century to read the book of Job in the churches during passion-week.
(Note: Vid., Origen's Opp. t. ii. p. 851: In conventu ecclesiae in diebus sanctis legitur passio Iob, in deibus jejunii, in diebus abstinentiae, in diebus, in quibus tanquam compatiuntur ii qui jejunant et abstinent admirabili illo Iob, in deibus, in quibus in jejunio et abstinentia sanctam Domini nostri Jesu Christi passionem sectamur. Known thus from the public reading in the churches, Job was called among the Syrians, Machbono, the Beloved, the Friend (Ewald, Jahrb. x. 207); and among the Arabs, Es-ssabûr, the patient one.)
The ultimate solution of the problem which this marvellous book sets forth, is then this: the suffering of the righteous, in its deepest cause, is the conflict of the seed of the woman with the seed of the serpent, which ends in the head of the serpent being trampled under foot; it is the type or copy of the suffering of Christ, the Holy God, who has himself borne our sins, and in the constancy of His reconciling love has withstood, even to the final overthrow, the assault of wrath and of the angel of wrath.
The real contents of the book of Job is the mystery of the Cross: the Cross on Golgotha is the solution of the enigma of every cross; and the book of Job is a prophecy of this ultimate solution.
12. The History of the Exposition
Before proceeding to the exposition, we will take a brief review of the history of the exposition of the book. The promise of the Spirit to lead into all truth is continually receiving its fulfilment in the history of the church, and especially in the interpretation of Scripture. But nowhere is the progress of the church in accordance with this promise so manifest as in the exposition of the word, and particularly of the Old Testament. In the patristic and middle ages, light was thrown only on detached portions of the Old Testament; they lacked altogether, or had but an inadequate knowledge of, the Hebrew language. They regarded the Old Testament not as the forerunner, but allegory, of the New, and paid less attention to it in proportion as the spiritual perception of the church lost its apostolic purity and freshness. However, so far as inward spiritual feeling and experience could compensate for the almost entire absence of outward conditions, this period has produced and handed down many valuable explanations.
But at the time of the Reformation, the light of the day which had already dawned first spread in all its brightness over the Old Testament. The knowledge of Hebrew, until then the private possession of a few, became the public property of the church: all erroneous interventions which had hitherto separated the church both from Christ and from the living source of the word were put aside; and starting from the central truth of justification by faith and its results, a free but still not unrestricted investigation commenced. Still there was wanting to this period all perception of historical development, and consequently the ability to comprehend the Old Testament as preparing the way for the New by its gradual historical development of the plan of redemption. The exposition of Scripture, moreover, soon fell again under the yoke of an enslaving tradition, of a scholastic systematizing, and of an unhistorical dogmatizing which mistook its peculiar aim; and this period of bondage, devoid of spirituality, was followed by a period of false freedom, that of rationalism, which cut asunder the mutual relation between the exposition of Scripture and the confession of the church, since it reduced the covenant contents of the church's confession to the most shallow notion of God and the most trivial moral rules, and regarded the Old Testament as historical indeed, but with carnal eyes, which were blind to the work of God that was preparing the way in the history of Israel for the New Testament redemption. The progress of exegesis seemed at that time to have been stayed; but the Head of the church, who reigns in the midst of His enemies, caused the exposition of His word to come forth again from the dead in a more glorious form. The bias towards the human side of Scripture has taught exegesis that Scripture is neither altogether a divine, nor altogether a human, but a divine-human book. The historical method of regarding it, and the advanced knowledge of language, have taught that the Old Testament presents a divine-human growth tending towards the God-man, a gradual development and declaration of the divine purpose of salvation, - a miraculous history moving inward towards that miracle of all miracles, Jesus Christ. Believing on Him, bearing the seal of His Spirit in himself, and partaking of the true liberty His Spirit imparts, the expositor of Scripture beholds in the Old Testament, with open face, now as never before, the glory of the Lord.
The truth of this sketch is confirmed by the history of the exposition of the book of Job. The Greek fathers, of whom twenty-two (including Ephrem) are quoted in the Catena,
(Note: It contains as basis the Greek text of the book of Job from the Cod. Alexandrinus, arranged in stichs.)
published by Patricius Junius, 1637, furnish little more than could be expected. If there by any Old Testament book whose comprehensive meaning is now first understood according to the external and internal conditions of its gradual advance to maturity, it is the book of Job. The Greek fathers were confined to the lxx, without being in a position to test that translation by the original text; and it is just the Greek translation of the book of Job which suffers most seriously from the flaws which in general affect the lxx. Whole verses are omitted, others are removed from their original places, and the omissions are filled up by apocryphal additions.
(Note: On this subject vid., Gust. Bickel's De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae in interpretando l. Iobi, just published (1863).)
Origen was well aware of this (Ep. ad Afric. 3f.), but he was not sufficiently acquainted with Hebrew to give a reliable collation of the lxx with the original text in his Tetrapla and Hexapla; and his additions (denoted by daggers), and the passages restored by him from other translators, especially Theodotion (by asterisks), deprive the Septuagint text of its original form, without, however, giving a correct impression of the original text. And since in the book of Job the meaning of the whole is dependent upon the meaning of the most isolated passage, the full meaning of the book was a perfect impossibility to the Greek fathers. They occupied themselves much with this mysterious book, but typical and allegorical could not make up what was wanting to the fathers, of grammatical and historical interpretation. The Italic, the next version to the lxx, was still more defective than this: Jerome calls the book of Job in this translation, Decurtatus et laceratus corrosusque. He revised it by the text of the Hexapla, and according to his own plan had to supply not less than about 700-800 versus (στίχοι). His own independent translation is far before its age; but he himself acknowledges its defectiveness, inasmuch as he relates, in his praefatio in l. Iob, how it was accomplished. He engaged, non parvis numis, a Jewish teacher from Lydda, where there was at that time an university, but confesses that, after he had gone through the book of Job with him, he was no wiser than before: Cujus doctrina an aliquid profecerim nescio; hoc unum scio, non potuisse me interpretari nisi quod antea intellexeram. On this account he calls it, as though he would complain of the book itself, obliquus, figuratus, lubricus, and says it is like an eel - the more tightly one holds it, the faster it glides away. There were then three Latin versions of the book of Job, - the Italic, the Italic improved by Jerome, and the independent translation of Jerome, whose deviations, as Augustine complains, produced no little embarrassment. The Syrians were better off with their Peschito, which was made direct from the original text;
(Note: Perhaps with the use of the Jewish Targum, though not the one extant, for Talmudic literature recognises the existence of a Targum of the book of Job before the destruction of the temple, b. Sabbath, 115a, etc. Besides, the lxx was considered of such authority in the East, that the monophysite Bishop Paulus of Tela, 617, formed a new Syriac translation from the lxx and the text of the Hexapla Published by Middeldorff, 1834-35; cf. his Curae hexaplares in Iobum, 1817).)
but the Scholia of Ephrem (pp. 1-19, t. ii. of the three Syriac tomi of his works) contain less that is useful than might be expected.
(Note: Froriep. Ephraemiana in l. Iobi, 1769, iv., says much about these Scholia to little purpose.)
The succeeding age produced nothing better.
Among the expositors of the book of Job we find some illustrious names: Gregory the Great, Beda Venerabilis (whose Commentary has been erroneously circulated as the still undiscovered Commentary of Jerome), Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus,
(Note: His Postillae super Iob are still unprinted.)
and others; but no progress was made in the interpretation of the book, as the means were wanting. The principal work of the middle ages was Gregory the Great's Expositio in beatum Iob seu Moralium, ll. xxxv., a gigantic work, which leaves scarcely a dogmatic-ethical theme untouched, though in its own proper sphere it furnishes nothing of importance, for Gregory explained so, ut super historiae fundamentum moralitatis construeret aedificium et anagoges imposuerit culmen praestantissimum
(Note: Notker quoted by Dmmler, Formelbuch des Bischof's Salomo von Constanz, 1857, S. 67f.)
but the linguistic-historical foundation is insufficient, and the exposition, which gives evidence of significant character and talent, accordingly goes off almost constantly into digressions opposed to its object.
It was only towards the end of the middle ages, as the knowledge of the Hebrew language began, through Jewish converts, to come into the church, that a new era commenced. For what advance the Jewish exposition of the book of Job had hitherto made, beyond that of the church, it owed to the knowledge of Hebrew; although, in the absence of any conception of the task of the expositor, and especially the expositor of Scripture, it knew not how fittingly to turn it to account. Saadia's (born 890) Arabic translation of the book of Job, with explanations,
(Note: Vid., Ewald-Duke's Beitrge zur Gesch. der ltesten Auslegung und Spracherklrung des A. T. 2 Bdd. 1844.)
does not accomplish much more than that of Jerome, if we may in general say that it surpasses it. Salomo Isaaki of Troyes (Raschi, erroneously called Jarchi), whose Commentary on the Book of Job (rendered incomplete by his death, 1105) was completed by his grandson, Samuel b. Mer (Raschbam, died about 1160),
(Note: Respecting this accounts are uncertain: vid., Geiger, Die franzsische Exegetenschule (1855), S. 22; and comp. de Rossi, Catalogus Cod. 181. Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur.)
contains a few attempts at grammatical historical exposition, but is in other respects entirely dependent on Midrash Haggada (which may be compared with the church system of allegorical interpretation), whose barren material is treasured up in the catena-like compilations, one of which to the collected books of the Old Testament bears the name of Simeon ha-Darschan (שמעוני ילקוט); the other to the three poetical books, the name of Machir b. Todros (מכירי ילקוט). Abenezra the Spaniard, who wrote his Commentary on the Book of Job in Rome, 1175, delights in new bold ideas, and to enshroud himself in a mystifying nimbus. David Kimchi, who keeps best to the grammatical-historical course, has not expounded the book of Job; and a commentary on this book by his brother, Mose Kimchi, is not yet brought to light. The most important Jewish works on the book of Job are without doubt the Commentaries of Mose b. Nachman or Nahmanides (Ramban), born at Gerona 1194, and Levi b. Gerson, or Gersonides (Ralbag), born at Bagnols 1288. Both were talented thinkers; the former more of the Platonic, the latter of the Aristotelic type. Their Commentaries (taken up in the collective Rabbinical Commentaries), especially that of the latter, were widely circulated in the middle ages. They have both a philosophical bias.
(Note: Other older commentaries bearing on the history of exposition, as Menahem b. Chelbo, Joseph Kara, Parchon, and others, are not yet known; also that of the Italian poet Immanuel, a friend of Dante, is still unprinted. The rabbinical commentaries contain only, in addition, the Commentary of Abraham Farisol of Avignon (about 1460).)
What is to be found in them that is serviceable on any point, may be pretty well determined from the compilation of Lyra. Nikolaus de Lyra, author of Postillae perpetuae in universa Biblia (completed 1330), possessed, for that age, an excellent knowledge of the original text, the necessity of which he acknowledged, and regarded the sensus literalis as basis of all other sensus. But, on the one hand, he was not independent of his Jewish predecessors; on the other, he was fettered by the servile unevangelical spirit of his age.
With the Commentary of Albert Schultens, a Dutchman (2 vols. 1737), a new epoch in the exposition begins. He was the first to bring the Semitic languages, and chiefly the Arabic, to bear on the translation of the book. And rightly so,
(Note: Though not in due proportion, especially in Animadversiones philologicae in Iobum (Op. minora, 1769), where he seeks to explain the errors of translation in the lxx from the Arabic.)
for the Arabic has retained more that is ancient than any other Semitic dialect; and Jerome, in his preface to Daniel, had before correctly remarked, Iob cum arabica lingua plurimam habet societatem. Reiske (Conjecturae in Iobum, 1779) and Schnurrer (Animadv. ad quaedam loca Iobi, 1781) followed later in the footsteps of Schultens; but in proportion as the Israelitish element was considered in its connection with the Oriental, the divine distinctiveness of the former was forgotten. Nevertheless, the book of Job had far less to suffer than the other biblical books from rationalism, with its frivolous moral judgments and distorted interpretations of Scripture: it reduced the idea of the book to tameness, and Satan, here with more apparent reason than elsewhere, was regarded as a mythical invention; but there were, however, no miracles and prophecies to be got rid of.
And as, for the first time since the apostolic period, attention was now given to the book as a poetical masterpiece, substantial advantage arose to the exposition itself from the translations and explanations of an Eckermann, Moldenhauer, Stuhlmann, and others. What a High-German rhymster of the fourteenth century, made known by Hennig, and the Florentine national poet Juliano Dati at the beginning of the sixteenth century, accomplished in their poetical reproductions of the book of Job, is here incomparably surpassed. What might not the fathers have accomplished if they had only had at their disposal such a translation of the book of Job as e.g., that of Bckel, or of the pious Miss Elizabeth Smith, skilled in the Oriental languages (died, in her twenty-eighth year, 1805), or of a studious Swiss layman (Notes to the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, together with a Translation of the Book of Job, Basel 1841)?
The way to the true and full perception of the divine in Scripture is through the human: hence rationalism - especially after Herder, whose human mode of perception improved and deepened - prepared the way for a new era in the church's exposition of the book of Job. The Commentaries of Samuel Lee (1837), Vaihinger (1842), Welte (1849), Hahn (1850), and Schlottmann (1851),
(Note: Vid., the review of the last two by Oehler in Reuter's Repertorium, Feb. 1852; and Kosegarten's Aufsatz ber das B. Hiob in der Kieler Allgem. Monatsschrift, 1853, S. 761-774.)
are the first-fruits of this new period, rendered possible by the earlier Commentaries of Umbreit (1824-32), Ewald (1836-51), and Hirzel (1839, second edition, edited by Olshausen, 1852), of whom the first
(Note: Vid., Ullmann-Riehm's Bltter der Erinnerung an F. W. C. Umbreit (1862), S. 54-58.)
is characterized by enthusiasm for the poetical grandeur of the book, the second by vivid perception of the tragical, and the third by sound tact and good arrangement, - three qualifications which a young Scotch investigator, A. B. Davidson, strives, not unsuccessfully, to unite in his Commentary (vol. i. 1862).
(Note: The author, already known by a Treatise on the Hebrew Accentuology, is not to be mistaken for Sam. Davidson. In addition, we would call attention to the Commentary of Carey (1858), in which the archaeology and geography of the book of Job is illustrated by eighty woodcuts and a map.)
Besides these substantially progressive works, there is the Commentary of Heiligstedt (1847), which is only a recapitulatory clavis after the style of Rosenmller, but more condensed; and for what modern Jewish commentaries, as those of Blumenfeld, Arnheim (1836), and Lwenthal (1846), contain beyond the standpoint of the earlier פרושׁים and באורים, they are almost entirely indebted to their Christian predecessors. Also in the more condensed form of translations, with accompanying explanations, the understanding of the book of Job has been in many ways advanced. We may mention here the translations of Kster (1831), who first directed attention to the strophe-structure of Hebrew poetry, but who also, since he regarded the Masoretic verse as the constructive element of the strophe, has introduced an error which has not been removed even to the present day; Stickel (1842), who has, not untastefully, sought to imitate the form of this masterpiece, although his division of the Masoretic verse into strophe lines, according to the accents, like Hirzel's and Meier's in Canticles, is the opposite extreme to the mistake of Kster; Ebrard (1858), who translates in iambic pentameters, as Hosse had previously done;
(Note: Vid., Schneider, Die neuesten Studien ber das B. Hiob, Deutsche Zeitschr. fr christl. Wissensch., 1859, No. 27.)
and Renan, who solely determines his arrangement of the stichs by the Masoretic division of verses, and moreover haughtily displays his scornful opposition to Christianity in the prefatory Etude.
(Note: Against which Abb Crelier has come forward: Le livre de Job venge des interprtations fausses et impies de M. Ernest Renan, 1860.)
Besides, apart from the general commentaries (Bibelwerke), among which that of Von Gerlach (Bd. iii. des A. T. 1849) may be mentioned as the most noted, and such popular practical expositions as Diedrich's (1858), many - some in the interest of poetry generally (as Spiess, 1852), others in the interest of biblical theology (as Haupt, 1847; Hosse, 1849; Hayd, 1859; Birkholz, 1859; and in Sweden, Lindgren, Upsala 1831) - have sought to render the reading of the book of Job easier and more profitable by means of a translation, with a short introduction and occasional explanations.
Even with all these works before us, though they are in part excellent and truly serviceable, it cannot be affirmed that the task of the exposition has been exhaustively performed, so that absolutely no plus ultra remains. To adjust the ideal meaning of the book according to its language, its bearing on the history of redemption, and its spiritual character, - and throughout to indicate the relation of the single parts to the idea which animates the whole is, and remains, a great task worthy of ever-new exertion. We will try to perform it, without presuming that we are able to answer all the claims on the expositor. The right expositor of the book of Job must before everything else bring to it a believing apprehension of the work of Christ, in order that he may be able to comprehend this book from its connection with the historical development of the plan of redemption, whose unity is the work of Christ. Further, he must be able to give himself up freely and cheerfully to the peculiar vein of this (together with Ecclesiastes) most bold of all Old Testament books, in order that he may gather from the very heart its deeply hidden idea. Not less must he possess historical perception, in order that he may be able to appreciate the relativeness with which, since the plan of salvation is actually and confessedly progressive, the development of the idea of the book is burdened, notwithstanding its absolute truth in itself. Then he must not only have a clear perception of the divinely true, but also of the beautiful in human art, in order to be able to appreciate the wonderful blending of the divine and human in the form as in the contents. Finally, he must stand on the pinnacle of linguistic and antiquarian knowledge, in order to be able to follow the lofty flight of its language, and become families with the incomparably rich variety of its matter. This idea of an expositor of the book of Job we will keep in view, and seek, as near as possible, to attain within the limit assigned to this condensed exegetical handbook.
Appendix to the Commentary on Job
The Monastery of Job in Hauran, and the Tradition of Job
The oral tradition of a people is in general only of very subordinate value from a scientific point of view when it has reference to an extremely remote past; but that of the Arabs especially, which is always combined with traditions and legends, renders the simplest facts perplexing, and wantonly clothes the images of prominent persons in the most wonderful garbs, and, in general, so rapidly disfigures every object, that after a few generations it is no longer recognisable. So far as it has reference to the personality of Job, whose historical existence is called in question or denied by some expositors, it may be considered as altogether worthless, but one can recognise when it speaks of Job's native country. By the ארץ עוּץ the writer of the book of Job meant a definite district, which was well known to the people for whom he wrote; but the name has perished, like many others, and all the efforts of archaeologist to assign to the land its place in the map of Palestine have been fruitless. Under these circumstances the matter is still open to discussion, and the tradition respecting Job has some things to authorize it. True, it cannot of itself make up for the want of an historical testimony, but it attains a certain value if it is old, i.e., if it can be traced back about to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, when reliable information was still obtainable respecting that district, although its name was no longer in use.
In all the larger works of travel on Palestine and Syria, we find it recorded that Haurn is there called Job's fatherland. In Hauran itself the traveller hears this constantly; if any one speaks of the fruitfulness of the whole district, or of the fields around a village, he is always answered: Is it not the land of Job (bildd jb)? Does it not belong to the villages of Job (di' jb)? Thus to Seetzen
(Note: Seetzen, Reisen durch Syrien, etc., i. 66.)
Bosr was pointed out as a city of Job; and to Eli Smith
(Note: Ed. Robinson, Palstina, iii. 911 Germ. edit..)
even the country lying to the east of the mountains was called the land of Job. In Kanawat, a very spacious building, belonging to the Roman or Byzantine period, situated in the upper town, was pointed out to me as the summer palace of Job (the inscription 8799 in Corp. Inscr. Graec. is taken from it). The shepherds of D'il, with whom I passed a night on the Wdi el-Lebwe, called the place of their encampment Job's pasture-ground. In like manner, the English traveller Buckingham, when he wandered through the Nukra, was shown in the distance the village of Gherbi (i.e., Chirbet el-ghazale, which from its size is called el-chirbe κατ ̓ εξοχήν) as the birthplace and residence of Job,
(Note: C. Ritter, Geogr. von Syr. u. Pal. ii. 842 = Erdkunde, xv. Pt. 2, p. 842].)
and it seems altogether as though Hauran and the Land of Job are synonymous. But if one inquires particularly for that part of the country in which Job himself dwelt, he is directed to the central point of Hauran, the plain of Hauran (sahl Haurn),
(Note: Whether the word מישׁר, Deu 3:10, only signifies the plain of Hauran or its southern continuation, the eastern Belk, may be doubtful, because in that passage both the Amorite kingdoms are spoken of. But since it is the "cities" of the plain, of which the eastern Balk can have had but few or none, that are spoken of, מישׁר will surely exclude the latter.)
and still more exactly to the district between the towns of Naw and Edre't, which is accounted the most fertile portion of the country, covered with the ruins of villages, monasteries, and single courts, and is even now comparatively well cultivated. Among the nomads as well as among the native agricultural population, this district is called from its formation Nukra or Nukrat esh-Shm,
(Note: On this name, which belongs to the modern geography of the country, comp. my Reisebericht ber Hauran u. d. Trachonen, S. 87.)
a name by which this highly-favoured plain is known and celebrated by the poets in the whole Syrian desert, as far as 'Irk and Higz.
But even the national writers are acquainted with and frequently make mention of the Hauranitish tradition of Job; yet they do not call Job's home Nukra, - for this word, which belongs only to the idiom of the steppe, is unknown to the literature of the language, - but Bethenje (Betanaea). It is so called in a detailed statement of the legends of Job:
(Note: Catalogue of Arab. MSS collected in Damascus by J. G. Wetzstein. Berlin 1863, No. 46, p. 56.)
After the death of his father, Job journeyed into Egypt
(Note: The connection with Egypt, in which these legends place Job, is worthy of observation. - Del.)
to marry Rahme (רחמה) the daughter of Ephraim, who had inherited from her grandfather Joseph the robe of beauty; and after he had brought her to his own country, he received from God a mission as prophet to his countrymen, viz., to the inhabitants of Haurn and Batanaea (Arab. b‛ṯh 'llh t‛ rsûlâ 'lâ qûmh whm 'hl ḥûrân w-'l-btnı̂t). The historian of Jerusalem, Mugr ed-dn el-Hambeli, in the chapter on the legend of the prophets, says: "Job came from el-'s, and the Damascene province of Batanaea was his property." In like manner, in the Geography of Jkt el-Hamawi,
(Note: Orient. MSS in the Royal Library in Berlin, Sect. Sprenger, No. 7-10.)
under the art. Bethenje, it is said: "and in this land lived Job (wakn jb minh)."
Modern exegetes, as is known, do not take the plain of Hauran, but the mountain range of Hauran with its eastern slope, as the Provincia Batanaea. I have sought elsewhere
(Note: Reisebericht, S. 83-87.)
to show the error of this view, and may the more readily confine myself to merely referring to it, as one will be convinced of the correctness of my position in the course of this article. One thing, however, is to be observed here, that the supposition that Basan is so called as being the land of basalt rocks, is an untenable support of this error. The word basalt may be derived from βασάντις, or a secondary formation, βασάλτις, because Basan is exclusively volcanic;
(Note: Vid., p. 540, comp. p. 542, note 1, of the foregoing Commentary.)
but we have no more right to reverse the question, than to say that Damascus may have received its name from the manufacture of damask.
(Note: In the fair at Muzrb we again saw the sheikh of the Wsje-Beduins, whose guest we had been a week before at the Springs of Joseph in western Gln, where he had pitched his tent on a wild spot of ground that had been traversed by lava-streams. In answer to our question whether he still sojourned in that district, he said: "No, indeed! Nâzilin el-jôm bi-ard bethêne shêle (we are not encamped in a district that is completely bethêne)." I had not heard this expression before, and inquired what it meant. The sheikh replied, bethêne (Arab. buṯaynat) is a stoneless plain covered with rich pasture. I often sought information respecting this word, since I was interested about it on account of the Hebrew word בּשׁן, and always obtained the same definition. It is a diminutive form, without having exactly a diminutive signification, for in the language of the nomads it is an acknowledged fact that such a form takes the place of the usual form. The usual form is either bathne or bathane. The Kms gives the former signification, "a level country." That the explanation of the Kamus is too restricted, and that of the Sheikh of Wjje the more complete, may be shown from the Kamus itself. In one place it says, The word moreover signifies (a) the thick of the milk (cream); (b) a tender maiden; (c) repeated acts of benevolence. These three significations given are, however, manifestly only figurative applications, not indeed of the signification which the Kamus places Primo loco, but of that which the Sheikh of the Wjje gave; for the likening of a "voluptuously formed maiden," or of repeated acts of benevolence, to a luxurious meadow, is just as natural to a nomad, as it was to the shepherd Amos (Amo 4:1) to liken the licentious women of Samaria to well-nourished cows of the fat pastures of Basan. Then the Kamus brings forward a collective form buthun (Arab. butun, perhaps from the sing. bathan = בּשׁן, like Arab. usud from asad) in the signification pastures (Arab. ryâd); pastures, however, that are damp and low, with a rich vegetation. That the word is ancient, may be seen from the following expression of Chlid ibn el-Weld, the victor on the Jarmk: "'Omar made me governor of Damascus; and when I had made it into the buthêne, i.e., a stoneless fertile plain (easy to govern and profitable), he removed me." Jkt also mentions this expression under Bethenje. Chlid also uses the diminutive as the nomads do (he was of the race of Machzm); probably the whole word belongs only to the steppe, for all the women who were called buthêne, e.g., the beloved of the poet Geml, and others mentioned in the "Dwn of Love" (Dı̂wân es-sabâbe), were Beduin women.
After what has been said, we cannot assign to the Hebr. בּשׁן any other signification than that of a fertile stoneless plain or low country. This appellation, which was given, properly and originally, only to the heart of the country, and its most valuable portion, viz., the Nukra, would then a potiori be transferred to the whole, and when the kingdom of Basan was again destroyed, naturally remained to that province, of which it was the proper designation.)
The home of Job is more definitely described in the following passages. Muhammed el-Makdeshi
(Note: Orient. MSS in the Royal Library at Berlin; Sect. Sprenger, No. 5.)
says, p. 81 of his geography: "And in Haurn and Batanaea lie the villages of Job and his home (di' jb wa-diruh). The chief place (of the district) is Naw, rich in wheat and other cereals." The town of Naw is still more definitely connected with Job by Jkt el-Hamawi under the article Naw: "Between Nawa and Damascus in two days' journey; it belongs to the district of Hauran,
(Note: If writers mention Haurn alone, they mean thereby, according to the usage of the language of the Damascenes, and certainly also of the prophet Ezekiel (Eze 47:16, Eze 47:18), the plain of Haurn as far as the borders of the Belk, including the mountains of Haurn, the Leg, and Gdr; it is only in the district itself, where special divisions are rendered necessary, that the three last mentioned parts are excluded. If writers mention Haurn and Bethenje together, the context must determine whether the former signifies the whole, and the latter the part, as in the above quotation from Makdeshi, or whether both are to be taken as coordinate, as in a passage of Istachri (edited by Mller, Botha 1839): "And Haurn and Bethenje are two provinces of Damascus with luxuriant corn-fields." Here the words are related to one another as Auranitis (with the chief town Bostra) to Batanaea (with the chief town Adratum, i.e., Edre't), or as the Haurn of the Beduins and the Nukra of the same. The boundary between both is the Wdi 'Ir, which falls into the Zd south of Edre't.)
and is, according to some, the chief town of the same. Naw was the residence (menzil) of Job;" and Ibn er-Rbi says, p. 62 of his essay on the excellences of Damascus:
(Note: Catalogue of Arab. MSS collected in Damascus, No. 26.)
"To the prophets buried in the region of Damascus belongs also Job, and his tomb is near Naw, in the district of Hauran." Such passages prove at the same time the identity of the Nukra with Batanaea; for if the latter is said to be recognisable from the fact of Job's home being found in it, and we find this sign in connection with the Nukra in which Naw with its surrounding country is situated, both names must denote one and the same district.
That, according to the last citation, Job's tomb is also shown in the Nukra, has been already observed in my Reisebericht, S. 121. Jkt, under Dr jb, thus expresses himself: "The Monastery of Job is a locality in Hauran, a Damascene province, in which Job dwelt and was tried of God. There also is the fountain which he made to flow with his foot, and the block of rock on which he leant. There also is his tomb." What Kazwni ways in his Wonders of Creation (‛agâib el-machlûkât), under Dr jb, accords with it: "The Monastery of Job lies in one of the Damascene provinces, and was the place of Job's residence, in which God tried him. There also is the fountain which sprang forth at the stamping of his foot, when at the end of his trial God commanded him, and said: Strike with thy foot - (thus a fountain will spring forth, and) this shall be to thee a cool bath and a draught (Korn, xxxviii. 41ff.). There is also the rock on which he sat, and his tomb." Recurring to the passage of the Koran cited, we shall see that the stone of Job, the fountain and the tomb, are not situated in the Monastery itself, but at some little distance from it.
I came with my cortge out of Gln, to see the remarkable pilgrim fair of Muzrb, just when the Mekka caravan was expected; and since the Monastery of Job, never visited by any one now-a-days, could not lie far out of the way, I determined to seek it out, because I deluded myself with the hope of finding an inscription of its founder, 'Amr I, and in fact one with a date, which would have been of the greatest importance in reference to the history of the Ghassanides, - a hope which has remained unfulfilled. In the evening of the 8th of May we came to Tesl. Here the Monastery was for the first time pointed out to us. It was lighted up by the rays of the setting sun, - a stately ruin, which lay in the distance a good hour towards the east. The following morning we left Tesl. Our way led through luxuriant corn-fields and fields lying fallow, but decked with a rich variety of flowers in gayest blossom, to an isolated volcanic mound, Tell el-Gum',
(Note: "Hill of the heaps of riders." The hill is said to have been named after a great engagement which took place there in ancient days. Among the 'Aneze the gem‛, נמע, plur. gumû‛ is a division of 400-600 horsemen.) from which we intended to reconnoitre the surrounding country.
from this point, as far as the eye could reach, it swept over fields of wheat belonging to the communities of Sahm, Tell Shihb, Tesl, Naw, and Sa'dje, which covered a region which tradition calls the home of Job. True, the volcanic chaos (el-wa'r) extended in the west to the distance of some three miles up the hill on which we stood, and on the north the plain was bounded partly by Tell el-Gbia and the "tooth of Naw" (sinn Naw), a low ridge with a few craters; but towards the E. and S. and S.W. the plain was almost unbounded, for isolated eminences, as Tell 'Ashtar, T. Ash'ar, T. Shihb, T. el-Chammn, and others, rose above the level of the plain only like mole-hills; and the deep gorges of the Meddn, Jarmk, Ht, and Muchbi, were sudden and almost perpendicular ravines, either not seen at all, or appeared as dark marks. The plain slopes gently and scarcely perceptibly towards Kufr el-m, Kufr es-smir, Zzn, and Bendek; and the Naher el'Owrid, a rover abounding in water in its level bed, resembles a glistening thread of silver. If this district had trees, as it once had, - for among the ruins one often discovers traces of vineyards and garden walls, which it can have no longer, since the insecurity and injustice of the country do not admit of men remaining long in one and the same village, therefore not to take hold upon the soil and establish one's self, and become at home anywhere, - it would be an earthly paradise, by reason of its healthy climate and the fertility of its soil. That even the Romans were acquainted with the glorious climate of Hauran, is proved by the name Palaestina salutaris, which they gave to the district.
(Note: This appellation is erroneously given to the province of Petra (Palaestina tertia) in Burckhardt's Travels (Gesenius' edition, S. 676). Bcking also, Not. dign. or. pp. 139, 345, and 373, is guilty of this oversight. Comp. thereon, Mommsen, Verzeichniss der rm. Provinzen aufgesetzt um, 297, in the Transactions of the Berlin Acad. der Wissensch. 1862, S. 501f.)
The inhabitants of Damascus say there is no disease whatever in Haurn; and as often as the plague or any other infectious disease shows itself in their city, thousands flee to Hauran, and to the lava-plateau of the Leg. This healthy condition may arise from the volcanic formation of the country, and from the sea-breeze, which it always has in connection with its position, which is open towards the west. Even during the hottest days, when e.g., in the Ghta a perfect calm prevails, so that no breeze is felt, this cool and moist sea-breeze blows refreshingly and regularly over the plain; and hence the Hauranitish poet never speaks of his native country without calling it the "cool-blowing Nukra" (en-nukra el-‛adı̂je). But as to the fertility of the district, there is indeed much good arable land in the country east of the Jordan, as in Irbid and Suwt, of the same kind as between Salt and 'Ammn, but nowhere is the farming, in connection with a small amount of labour (since no manure is used), more productive than in Hauran, or more profitable; for the transparent "Batanaean wheat" (hinta bethenı̂je) is always at least 25 per cent. higher in price than other kinds. Hence the agriculture of that region also, in times of peace and security (during the first six centuries after Christ), produced that fondness for building, some of the magnificent memorials of which are our astonishment in the present day; and, in fact, not unfrequently the inscriptions testify that the buildings themselves owe their origin to the produce of the field. Thus, in the locality of Nhite in the Nukra, I found the following fragment of an inscription:...Μασαλέμου Ράββου κτίσμα ἐξ ἰδίων κόπων γεωργικῶν ἐν ἔτι στ, Masalemos son of Rabbos set up (this memorial) out of the produce of his farming in the year 280. Of a like kind is the following remains of two distichs in Marduk: . . . δρός τε σαόφρων . . . μεγαρόν . . . ις ἀνάπαυμα μέγιστον . . . γεωπονίης. In Shakk the longer inscription of a mausoleum in a state of good preservation begins:
Βάσσος ἑῆς πάτρης μεγακύδεος ἀγλαὸν ὄμμα
Ἐκ σφετέρου καμάτοιο γεωπονίης τέ μ ̓ ἔδειμεν.
Bassos, beaming eye of the honourable city of his birth,
Has built me out of the produce of his own tillage.
Similar testimonies are to be found in the inscriptions of Burckhardt.
After a long sojourn on the hill, which was occasioned by the investigation of some interesting plants in the crater of the mound, we set out for Sa'dje, which is built on the slope of a hill. After a good hour's journey we arrived at the Makm jb, "the favoured tomb of Job," situated at the southern base of the hill, and rendered conspicuous by two white domes, and there we dismounted. The six attendants and alumni of the Makm, or, as the Arabs thoughtfully call them, "the servants of our master Job" (chdimn sjidna jb), received us, with some other pilgrims, at the door of the courtyard, and led us to the basin of the fountain of Job, by the side of which they spread out their mantles for us to rest upon under the shade of walnut tree and a willow. While the rest were negated in the duties of hospitality, the superior of the Makm, the Sheikh Sa'd el-Darfri (from Darfr) did not leave us, and made himself in every way obliging. Like him, all the rest of the inhabitants of the place were black, and all unmarried; their celibacy, however, I imagine, was only caused by the want of opportunity of marrying, and the limited accommodation of the place. Sheikh Sa'd believed himself to be fifty years of age; he left his home twenty years before to go on pilgrimage to Mekka, where he "studied" four years; the same length of time he sojourned in Medna, and had held his present office ten years. Besides his mother tongue, he spoke Arabic and a little Turkish, having been in Constantinople a few years before. His judgment of the inhabitants of that city is rather harsh: he charges them with immorality, drunkenness, and avarice. In one year, said he, I could hardly save enough to travel by the steamer to Chdscha Bk (Odessa). How different was my experience to the inhabitants of this city! I was there three months, during which time I had nothing to provide for, and left with ninety Mnt (imperials), which just sufficed to set up these dilapidated relics again. A Russian ship brought me to Smyrna, whence I travelled by the Nemswi (Austrian Lloyd steamer) to Syria.
According to the account given by the inhabitants of Sa'dje, the Makm has been from ancient times a negro hospice. These Africans, commonly called 'Abd in Damascus, and in the country Tekrine, come chiefly from Tekrr in Sdn; they first visit Mekka and Medna, then Damascus, and finally the Makm of Job. Here they sojourn from twenty to thirty days, during which time they wash themselves daily in Job's fountain, and pray upon Job's stone; and the rest of the day they either read or assist the dwellers in the Makm in their tillage of the soil. When they are about to leave, they received a testimonial, and often return home on foot across the Isthmus of Suez, often by water, chiefly from Jf, by the Austrian Lloyd ship to Egypt, and thence to their native country. These pilgrims, so far as the requirements of their own country are concerned, are literati; and it appears as though by this journey they obtained their highest degree. I have frequently met them in my travels. They are known by their clean white turban, and the white broad-sleeved shirt, which reaches to the ankles, their only garment. They carry a small bundle over the shoulder upon a strong staff, which may serve as a weapon of defence in case of need. In this bundle they carry a few books and other effects, and above this their cloak. They are modest, taciturn men, who go nimbly onward on their way, and to whom one always gladly gives a supper and a night's lodging.
We visited the holy places in the company of the Sheikh Sa'd. The Makm, and the reservoir, which lies fifty paces to the front of it, are surrounded by a wall. This reservoir is filled by a strong, rapid, and cold stream of water, which comes from the fountain of Job, about 400 paces distant. The fountain itself springs up by the basalt hill on which the village and the Job's stone are situated; and it is covered in as far as the reservoir (called birke), in order to keep the water fresh, and to guard against pollution. Between the fountain and the Makm stand a half-dozen acacias and a pomegranate, which were just then in full bloom. The Makm itself, on which the wretched habitations for the attendants and pilgrims adjoin, is a one-storey stone building, of old material and moderate circumference. The first thing shown us was the stone trough, called gurn, in which Job bathed at the end of his trial. The small space in which this relic stands, and over which, so far as I remember, one of the two domes is raised, is called wadjet sjidn jb, "the lavatory of our lord Job." Adjoining this is the part with the tomb, the oblong mound of which is covered with an old torn green cloth. The tomb of Sa'd was more carefully tended. Our Damascene travelling companions were divided in their opinions as to the person whose tomb was near that of Job, as in Syria it is hardly possible to find and distinguish the makms of the many men of God (rigl Allh) or favoured ones of God (auli) who bear the same names; but a small white flag standing upon the grave informed us, for it bore the inscription: "This is the military emblem (rje) of our lord Sa'd ab Merzka."
Perhaps the preservation of the Makm of Job is due to the tomb of Sa'd, as its endowments have long since disappeared, while the tomb of Sa'd still has its revenues. From 'Agln it receives tribute of oil and olives yearly. And several large vegetable gardens, which lie round about the Makm, and are cultivated by its attendants, must also contribute something considerable towards its maintenance. In these gardens they grow dura (maize), tobacco, turnips, onions, and other things, for their own use and for sale. The plants, which can be freely watered from the fountain of Job, are highly esteemed. The government levies no taxes on the Makm, and the Arabs no tribute; and since, according to the popular belief, that Beduin horse that is watered from the birke dies, the Beduins do not even claim the rights of hospitality, - a fortunate circumstance, the removal of which would speedily cause the ruin of the hospice. From nightly thieves, who not unfrequently break through the walls of the stables in the villages of the plain, and carry off the smaller cattle, both the Makm and the village are secure; for if the night thieves come, they see, as every one in Hauran testifies, a surging sea around the place, which prevents their approach.
From the Makm we ascended the hill of the village, on the highest part of which is the stone of Job (Sachrat jb). It is inside a small Mussulman hall of prayer, which in its present form is of more modern origin, but is undoubtedly built from the material of a Christian chapel, which stood here in the pre-Muhammedan age. It is an unartistic structure, in the usual Hauranitish style, with six or eight arches and a small dome, which is just above the stone of Job. My Mussulman attendants, and a Hauranite Christina from the village of Shemiskn, who had joined us as we were visiting the Sachra, trod the sacred spot with bare feet, and kissed the rock, the basaltic formation of which is unmistakeable. Against this rock, our guide told us, Job leaned "when he was afflicted by his Lord" (hı̂n ibtelâ min rabbuh).
(Note: As is generally known, the black stone in Mekka and the Sachra in Jerusalem are more celebrated than the stone of Job; but less revered are the Mebrak en-nka in Bosr, the thievish stone of Moses in the great mosque at Damascus, the doset en-neb on the mountain of el-Hgne, and others.)
While these people were offering up their 'Asr (afternoon) prayer in this place, Sa'd brought me a handful of small long round stones and slag, which the tradition declares to be the worms that fell to the ground out of Job's sores, petrified. "Take them with thee," said he, "as a memento of this place; let them teach thee not to forget God in prosperity, and in misfortune not to contend with Him." The frequent use of these words in the mouth of the man might have weakened them to a set phrase: they were, however, appropriate to the occasion, and were not without their effect. After my attendants had provided themselves with Job's worms, we left the Sachra. These worms form a substantial part of the Hauranitish tradition of Job, and they are known and revered generally in the country. Our Christian attendant from Shemiskn bound them carefully in the broad sleeve of his shirt, and recited to us a few verses from a kasde, in which they are mentioned. The poem, which a member of our company, the dervish Regeb, wrote down, is by a Hauranite Christian, who in it describes his unhappy love in colours as strong as the bad taste it displays. The lines that are appropriate here are as follows: -
Min ‛azma nârı̂ nâra jôm el-qijâma,
Tûfâna Nûha 'dmû‛ a 'ênı̂ ‛anuh zôd.
Ja‛ qûba min hoznı̂ hizânuh qisâma
Min belwetı̂ Ejûba jerta‛ bihe ‛d-dûd.
(Note: The metre forms two spondeo-iambics and trochaeo-spondaics.)
The fire of hell at the last day will kindle itself from the glow of my pain,
And stronger than the flood of Noah are the tear-streams of mine eyes.
The grief of Jacob for his son was but a small part of my grief;
And, visited with my misery, Job was once the prey of worms.
(Note: Comp. p. 576 of the foregoing Commentary.)
The village, which the peasants call Shch Sa'd, and the nomads Sa'dje, is, as the name implies, of later origin, and perhaps was founded by people who fled hither when oppressed elsewhere, for the sake of being able to live more peacefully under the protection of the two tombs. That the place is not called jbje, is perhaps in order to distinguish it from the Monastery of Job.
In less than a quarter of an hour we rode up to the Dr jb, a square building, standing entirely alone, and not surrounded by ruins. When the Arabian geographers call it a village, they reckon to it the neighbouring Sa'dje with the Makm. It is very extensive, and built of fine square blocks of dolerite. While my fellow-traveller, M. Drgens, was engaged in making a ground-plan of the shattered building, which seemed to us on the whole to have had a very simple construction, I took some measurements of its sides and angles, and then searched for inscriptions. Although the ground-floor is now in part hidden in a mezbele,
(Note: On the word and subject, vid., p. 573 of the foregoing Commentary.)
which has been heaped up directly against the walls, on the east side, upon the architrave, not of the chief doorway, which is on the south, but of a door of the church, is found a large Greek inscription in a remarkable state of preservation. The architrave consists of a single carefully-worked block of dolerite, and at present rests almost upon the ground, since the rubbish has filled the whole doorway. The writing and sculpture are hollowed out.
In the center is a circle, and the characters inscribed at each side of this circle are still undeciphered; the rest of the inscription is easy to be read: αὕτη ἡ πύλη κ(υρίο)υ δίκαιοι εἰσελεύσοντε ἐν αὐτῇ· τοῦτο τὸ ὑπέρθυρον ἐτέθη ἐν χρόνοις Ἠελίου εὐλαβεστ(άτου) ἡγουμ(ένου) μ(ηνί) Ἰουλίῳ κε ἰνδ(ι)κ(τίωνος) ιε τοῦ ἔτους πηντακοσιοστοῦ τρικοστοῦ ἕκτου κ(υρί)ου Ἰ(ης)οῦ Χ(ριστ)οῦ Βασιλεύοντος. The passage of Scripture, Psa 118:20, with which this inscription beings, is frequently found in these districts in the inscriptions on church portals.
This inscription was an interesting discovery; for, so far as I know, it is the oldest that we possess which reckons according to the Christian era, and in the Roman indiction (indictio)
(Note: Vid., Gibbon, ed. Smith, ii. 333. - Tr.)
we have an important authority for determining its date. Now, since there might be a difference of opinion as to the beginning of the "kingdom of Christ," I was anxious to have the judgment of an authority in chronology on the point; and I referred to Prof. Piper of Berlin, who kindly furnished me with the following communication: - "...The inscription therefore furnishes the following data: July 25, indict. xv., year 536, κυρίου Ιοῦ Χοῦ βασιλεύοντος. To begin with the last, the Dionysian era, which was only just introduced into the West, is certainly not to be assumed here. But it is also by no means the birth of Christ that is intended. Everything turns upon the expression βασιλεύοντος. The same expression occurs once in an inscription from Syria, Corp. Inscr. Graec. 8651: βασιλεύοντος Ιουστινιανοῦ τῷ ια ἔτει. The following expression, however, occurs later concerning Christ on Byzantine coins: Rex regnantium and βασιλεὺς βασιλέων (after Rev 17:14; Rev 19:16), the latter under John Zimiszes (died 975), in De Saulcy, Pl. xxii. 4. But if the βασιλεία of Christ is employed as the era, we manifestly cannot refer to the epoch of the birth of Christ, but must take the epoch of His ascension as our basis: for with this His βασιλεία first began; just as in the West we sometimes find the calculation begins a passione. Now the fathers of the Western Church indeed place the death (and therefore also the ascension) of Christ in the consulate of the two Gemini, 29 a.d. Not so with the Greek fathers. Eusebius takes the year of His death, according to one supposition, to be the 18th year of Tiberius, i.e., 785 a.u.c. = 32 a.d. Supposing we take this as the first year regnante Jesu Christo, then the year 536, of the inscription of the Monastery of Job, is reduced to our era, after the birth of Christ, by adding 31. Thus we have the number of the year 567, to which the accompanying xv. indictio corresponds, for 567 + 3 = 570; and 570/15 has no remainder. XV is therefore the indiction of the year 567, which more accurately belongs to the year from 1st Sept. 566 to 31st Aug. 567. And since the day of the month is mentioned in the inscription, it is the 25th July 567 that is indicated. For it appears to me undoubted that the indictions, according to the usual mode of computation among the Greeks, begin with the 1st Sept. 312. Thus a Sidonian inscription of dec. 642 a.d. has the I indiction (Corp. Inscr. Gr. 9153)...."
Thus far Prof. Piper's communication. According to this satisfactory explanation of its date, this inscription is perhaps not unqualified to furnish a contribution worth notice, even for the chronology of the life of Jesus, since the Ghassinides, under whom not only the inscription, but the Monastery itself 300 years earlier, had its origin, dwelt in Palestine, the land of Christ; and their kings were perhaps the first who professed Christianity.
The "festival of the Monastery of Job," which, according to Kazwn's Syrian Calendar,
(Note: Calendarium Syriacum Cazwinii, ed. Guil. Volck, Lips. 1859, p. 15.)
the Christians of the country celebrated annually on the 23rd April, favours the pre-Muhammedan importance of the Monastery. This festival in Kazwn's time, appearing only by name inf the calendar, had undoubtedly ceased with the early decline of Christianity in the plain of Hauran, for the historically remarkable exodus of a large portion of the Ghassinides out of the cities of Hauran to the north of Georgia had taken place even under the chalifate of Omar. The Syrian Christians of the present day celebrate the festival of Mr Gorgius (St. George), who slew the dragon (tennn) near Beirt, on the 23rd April. A week later (the 1st May, oriental era) the Jews of Damascus have the sm jb (the fast of Job), which lasts twenty-four hours. In Kazwn's calendar it is erroneously set down to the 3rd May.
Moreover, with reference to the Monastery, it must be mentioned that, according to the history of Ibn Kethr,
(Note: Comp. A. v. Kremer, Mittelsyrien, etc., Vienna 1853, S. 10.)
the great Greco-Ghassinide army, which, under the leadership of Theodoric, a brother of the Emperor Heraclius, was to have repulsed the attack of the Mussulmans on Syria, revolted in its neighbourhood in the 13th year of the Hegira (Higra), while the enemy was encamped on the south bank of the Meddn, and was drawn up near Edre't. After several months had passed came the battle known as the "battle of the Jarmk," the issue of which cost the Byzantines Syria. The volcanic hollows of the ground, which for miles form a complex network of gorges, for the most part inaccessible, offer great advantages in defensive warfare; and here the battle near Edre', in which 'Og king of Bashan lost his kingdom, was probably fought.
According to the present division of the country, the Monastery of Job and the Makm are in the southern part of Gdr, an administrative district, which is bounded on the north by the Wd Brt, on the east by the W. el-Horr and the high road, on the south by the Jarmk, and on the west by the W. Hit and by a range of volcanic mounds, which stretch to the south-east corner of the Snow-mountain (el-Hermn); this district, however, has only a nominal existence, for it has no administration of its own. Either it is added to Haurn, or its revenues, together with those of Gln, are let out to the highest bidder for a number of years. Gdr is the natural north-western continuation of the plain of Haurn; and the flat bed of the Horr, which does not form a gorge until it comes to the bridge of Sra, forms no boundary proper. Moreover, the word is not found in ancient geography; and the Arabian geographers, even the later ones, who recognised the idea of Gdr, always so define the position of a locality situated in Gdr, that they say it is situated in the Haurn. Thus Jkt describes the town of el-Gbia, situated in western Gdr, and in like manner, as we have seen above, Naw and the Monastery of Job, etc.
(Note: Jkt says under Gdr, "It is a Damascene district, it has villages, and lies in the north of Haurn; according to others, it is reckoned together with Haurn as one district." The last words do not signify that Gdr and Haurn are words to be used without any distinction; on the contrary, that Gdr is a district belonging to Haurn, and comprehended in it.)
There is no doubt that, as the Gdr of the present day is reckoned in the Nukra, so this country also in ancient days, at least as far as its northern watershed, has belonged to the tetrarchy of Batanaea.
The Monastery of Job is at present inhabited. A certain sheikh, Ahmed el-Kdir, has settled down here since the autumn of 1859, as partner of the senior of the Damascene 'Omarje (the successors of the Chalif 'Omar), to whose family endowments (waqf) the Monastery belongs, and with his family he inhabits a number of rooms in the inner court, which have escaped destruction. He showed us the decree of his partner appointing him to his position, in which he is styled Sheikh of the Dr jb, Dr el-Lebwe, and 'Ashtar. Dr el-Lebwe, "the monastery of the lion,"
(Note: The name of this monastery, which is about a mile and a half north-east of the Dr Ejb, is erroneously called D. el-leb in Burckhardt's Travels in Syria (ed. Gesenius, S. 449). The same may be said of D. en-nubuwwe in Annales Hamzae, ed. Gottwaldt, p. 118.)
was built by the Gefnide Eihem ibn el-Hrith; and we shall have occasion to refer to 'Ashtar, in which Newbold,
(Note: C. Ritter, Geogr. v. Syr. u. Pal. ii. 821 [Erdk. xv. Pt. 2, p. 821].)
in the year 1846, believed he had found the ancient capital of Basan, 'Ashtart, further on. But the possessor of all these grand things was a very unhappy man. While we were drinking coffee with him, he related to us how the inhabitants of Naw had left him only two yoke (feddân) of arable land from the territory assigned to him, and taken all the rest to themselves. The harvest of that year, after the deduction of the bedhâr (the new seed-corn), would hardly suffice to meet the demands of his family, and of hospitality; and for his partner, how had advanced money to him, there would be nothing left. In Damascus he found no redress; and the Sheikh of Naw, Dhib el-Medhjeb, had answered his last representation with the words, "He who desires Job's inheritance must look for trials." Here also, as in Arabia generally, I found that intelligence and energy was on the side of the wife. During our conversation, his wife, with one of her children, had drawn near; and while the child kissed my hand, according to custom, she said: "To-morrow thou wilt arrive at Muzrb; Dhib will also be going thither with contributions for the pilgrims. We put our cause in thy hands, arrange it as seems thee best; this old man will accompany thee." And as we were riding, the Sheikh Ahmed was also obliged to mount, and his knowledge of the places did us good service on Tell Ashtar and Tell el-Ash'ar. In Muzrb, where the pilgrim fair and the arriving caravans for Mekka occupied our attention for five days, we met Dhib and the Ichtirje (elders of the community) of Naw; and, after some opposition, the sheikh of the Monastery of Job obtained four feddân of land under letter and seal, and returned home satisfied.
The case of this man is no standard of the state of the Hauranites, for there are so many desolated villages that there is no lack of land; only round about Naw it is insufficient, since this place is obliged to take possession of far outlying fields, by reason of its exceedingly numerous agricultural population.
(Note: That the Sheikh Ahmed was permitted to take up his abode in the Monastery, was owing to a religious dread of his ancestor (gidd), 'Abdel-Kdir el-Glni, and out of courteousness towards his partner.)
The more desolate a land exposed to plunder becomes, the more populous must its separate towns become, since the inhabitants of the smaller defenceless villages crowd into them. Thus the inhabitants of the large town of Kenkir at the present time till the fields of twelve neighbouring deserted villages; and Salt, the only inhabited place in the Belk, has its corn-fields even at a distance of fifteen miles away. The poet may also have conceived of Job's domain similarly, for there were five hundred ploughmen employed on it; so that it could not come under the category of ordinary villages, which in Syria rarely have above, mostly under, fifty yoke of oxen. According to the tradition, which speaks of "Job's villages" (di' jb), these ploughmen would be distributed over several districts; but the poet, who makes them to be overwhelmed by one ghazwe, therefore as ploughing in one district, will have conceived of them only as dwelling in one locality.
It might not be out of place here to give some illustration of the picture which the poet draws of Job's circumstances and position as a wealthy husbandman. Haurn, the scene of the drama (as we here assume), must at that period, as at present, have been without protection from the government of the country, and therefore exposed to the marauding attacks of the tribes of the desert. In such a country there is no private possession; but each person is at liberty to take up his abode in it, and to cultivate the land and rear cattle at his own risk, where and to what extent he may choose. Whoever intends doing so much first of all have a family, or as the Arabs say, "men" (rigâl), i.e., grown-up sons, cousins, nephews, sons-in-law; for one who stands alone, "the cut off one" (maktû‛), as he is called, can attain no position of eminence among the Semites, nor undertake any important enterprise.
(Note: In the present day the household is called ‛ashı̂ra, and all families of important in Haurn are and call themselves ‛ashâir (Arab. ‛šâ'r); but the ancient word batn does also occur, and among the Semitic tribes that have migrated to Mauritania it is still in use instead of the Syrian ‛ashı̂ra. Batn, collect. butûn, is the fellowship of all those who are traced back to the בּטן of one ancestral mother. Thus even in Damascus they say: nahn ferd batn, we belong to one family; in like manner in the whole of Syria: this foal is the batn of that mare, i.e., its young one; or: I sold my mare without batn, or with one, two, three-fourths of her batn, i.e., without her descendants, or so that the buyer has only 6 or 12 or 18 kı̂rât right of possession in the foals she will bear. In all these applications, batn is the progenies uteri, not the uterus itself; and, according to this, בני בטני, Job 19:17, ought to be explained by "all my relations by blood.")
Then he has to make treaties with all the nomad tribes from which he has reason to fear any attack, i.e., to pledge himself to pay a yearly tribute, which is given in native produce (in corn and garments). Thus the community of el-Hgne, ten years since, had compacts with 101 tribes; and that Job also did this, seems evident from the fact that the poet represents him as surprised not by neighbouring, but by far distant tribes (Chaldaeans and Sabaeans), with whom he could have no compact.
(Note: These sudden attacks, at any rate, do not say anything in favour of the more southernly position of Ausitis. If the Beduin is but once on his horse or delûl, it is all the same to him whether a journey is ten days longer or shorter, if he can only find water for himself and his beast. This, however, both bands of marauders found, since the poet distinctly represents the attacks as having been made in the winter. The general ploughing of the fallow-lying wâgiha of a community (it is called shiqâq el-wâgiha), ready for the sowing in the following autumn, always takes place during January and February, because at this time of the year the earth is softened by the winter rains, and easy to plough. While engaged in this work, the poet represents Job's ploughmen as being surprised and slain. Hence, for the destruction of 500 armed ploughmen - and they were armed, because they could only have been slain with their weapons in their hands in consequence of their resistance - at least 2000 horsemen were necessary. So large a ghazwe is, however, not possible in the summer, but only in the winter, because they could not water at a draw-well, only at the pools (ghudrân) formed by the winter rains. For one of these raids of the Chaldaeans, Haurn, whither marauding bands come even now during the winter from the neighbourhood of Babylon in six or seven days, lay far more convenient than the country around Ma'n and 'Akaba, which is only reached from the Euphrates, even in winter, by going a long way round, since the Nufd (sandy plains) in the east, and their western continuation the Hlt, suck in the rain without forming any pools. On the other hand, however, this southern region lay nearer and more convenient for the incursions of the Sabaeans, viz., the Keturaean (Gen 25:3), i.e., Petraean tribe of this name. The greater or less distance, however, is of little consequence here. Thus, as the Shemmar of Negd from time to time make raids into the neighbourhood of Damascus, so even the tribes of Wdi el-Kor might also do the same. Moreover, as we observed above, the poet represents the sudden attacks as perpetrated by the Sabaeans and Chaldaeans, probably because they only, as being foreign and distant races which never had anything to do with Job and his men, and therefore were without any consideration, could practise such unwonted barbarities as the robbery of ploughing heifers, which a ghazwe rarely takes, and the murder of the ploughmen.)
Next he proceeds to erect a chirbe, i.e., a village that has been forsaken (for a longer or shorter period), in connection with which, excepting the relations, slaves, and servants of the master, all those whom interest, their calling, and confidence in the good fortune of the master, have drawn thither, set about the work. Perhaps Job 15:28 has reference to Job's settlement.
(Note: Verbally, Job 3:14, which we, however, have interpreted differently, accords with this. - Del.)
With reference to the relation of the lord of a village (ustâd beled, or sâhib dê‛a) to his work-people, there are among the dependents two classes. The one is called zurrâ‛, "sowers," also fellâhin kism, "participating husbandmen," because they share the produce of the harvest with the ustâd thus: he receives a fourth while they retain three-fourths, from which they live, take the seed for the following season, give their quota towards the demands of the Arabs, the village shepherds, the field watchmen, and the scribe of the community (chatı̂b); they have also to provide the farming implements and the yoke-oxen. On the other hand, the ustâd has to provide for the dwellings of the people, to pay the land-tax to the government, and, in the event of a failure of the crops, murrain, etc., to make the necessary advances, either in money or in kind at the market price, and without any compensation. This relation, which guarantees the maintenance of the family, and is according to the practice of a patriarchal equity, is greatly esteemed in the country; and one might unhesitatingly consider it therefore to be that which existed between Job and his ploughmen, because it may with ease exist between a single ustâd and hundreds, indeed thousands, of country people, if Job 1:3 did not necessitate our thinking of another class of country people, viz., the murâbi‛ı̂n, the "quarterers." They take their name from their receiving a fourth part of the harvest for their labour, while they have to give up the other three-fourths to the ustâd, who must provide for their shelter and board, and in like manner everything that is required in agriculture. As Job, according to Job 1:3 (comp. on Job 42:12), provided the yoke-oxen and means of transport (asses and camels), so he also provided the farming implements, and the seed for sowing. We must not here think of the paid day-labourer of the Syrian towns, or the servants of our landed proprietors; they are unknown on the borders of the desert. The hand that toils has there a direct share in the gain; the workers belong to the aulâd, "children of the house," and are so called; in the hour of danger they will risk their life for their lord.
This rustic labour is always undertaken simultaneously by all the murâbi‛ı̂n (it is so also in the villages of the zurrâ‛) for the sake of order, since the ustâd, or in his absence the village sheikh, has the general work of the following day announced from the roof of his house every evening. Thus it is explained how the 500 ploughmen could be together in one and the same district, and be slain all together.
The ustâd is the sole judge, or, by deputy, the sheikh. An appeal to the government of the country would be useless, because it has no influence in Hauran; but the servant who has been treated unjustly by his master, very frequently turns as dachı̂l fi 'l-haqq (a suppliant concerning his right) to his powerful neighbour, who is bound, according to the customs of the country, to obtain redress for him (comp. Job 29:12-17). If he does not obtain this by persuasion, he cries for force, and such a demand lies at the root of many a bloody feud.
Powerful and respected also as the position, described in Job 29:1, of such a man is, it must, according to the nature of its basis, fall in under strokes of misfortune, like those mentioned in Job 1:14-19, and change to the very opposite, as the poet describes it in Job 30:1.
After these observations concerning the agricultural relations of Hauran, we return to the tradition of Job. As we pursue the track of this tradition further, we first find it again in some of the Christina writers of the middle ages, viz., in Eugesippus (De distanc. loc. terr. sanct.), in William of Tyre (Histor. rerum a Francis gest.), and in Marino Sanuto (De secretis fid. cruc.). The passages that bear upon the point are brought together in Reland (Palest. pp. 265f.); and we would simply refer to them, if it were possible for the reader to find his way among the fabulous confusion of the localities in Eugesippus and Sanuto.
The oldest of these citations is from Eugesippus, and is as follows: One part of the country is the land of Hus, out of which Job was; it is also called Sueta, after which Bildad the Suhite was named. Sanuto tells us where this locality is to be sought. "Sueta is the home of Baldad the Suite, Below this city (civitas), in the direction of the Kedar-tribes, the Saracens are accustomed to assemble out of Aram, Mesopotamia, Ammon, Moab, and the whole Orient, around the fountain of Fiale; and, on account of the charms of the place, to hold a fair there during the whole summer, and to pitch their coloured tents." In another place he says: fontem Fialen Medan, i.e., aquas Dan, a Saracenis nuncupari.
Now, since according to an erroneous, but previously prevalent etymology, "the water of Dan" (מי דן = יאר דּן) denoted the Jordan, and since we further know from Josephus (Bell. iii. 10, 7) that the Phiala is the small lake of Rm, whose subterranean outflow the tetrarch Philip is said to have shown to be the spring of the Jordan, which comes to light deeper below, we should have thought the country round about the lake of Rm, at the south foot of Hermn, to be the home of Job and Bildad. This discovery would be confirmed by the following statement of Eugesippus (in Reland, loc. cit.): "The river Dan flows under ground from its spring as far as the plain of Meldan, where it comes to light. This plain is named after the fair, which is held there, for the Saracens call such an one Meldan. At the beginning of the summer a large number of men, with wares to sell, congregate there, and several Parthian and Arabian soldiers also, in order to guard the people and their herds, which have a rich pasture there in the summer. The word Meldan is composed of mel and dan." It is indeed readily seen that the writer has ignorantly jumbled several words together in the expression meldan, as m Dan, "water of Dan," and Mdn or mı̂dân, "market-place;" perhaps even also leddân, the name of the great fountain of the Jordan in the crater of the Tell el-Kdi. In like manner, the statement that the neighbourhood of Phiala, or that of the large fountain of the Jordan, might formerly have been a fair of the tribes, is false, for the former is broken up into innumerable craters, and the latter is poisoned by the swamp-fevers of the Hle; but as to the rest, both Eugesippus and Sanuto seem really to speak of a tradition which places Job's or Bildad's home in that region. And yet it is not so: their tradition is no other than the Hauranitish; but ignorance of the language and geography of the country, and some accidental circumstances, so confused their representations, that it is difficult to find out what is right. The first clue is given us by the history of William of Tyre, in which (l. xxii. c. 21) it is said that the crusaders, on their return from a marauding expedition in the Nukra, wished to reconquer a strong position, the Cavea Roob, which they had lost a short time before. "This place," says the historian, "lies in the province of Suite, a district distinguished by its pleasantness, etc.; and that Baldad, Job's friend, who is on that account called the Suite, is said to have come from it." This passage removes us at once into the neighbourhood of Muzrb and the Monastery of Job, for the province of Suete is nothing but the district of Suwt (Arab. ṣwı̂t),
(Note: Reisebericht, S. 46; comp. Ritter, Syr. u. Pal. ii. 1019 [Erdk. xv. Pt. 2, p. 1019].)
the north-western boundary of which is formed by the gorge of the Wd Rahb. The Cavea Roob, which was first of all again found out by me on my journey in 1862, lies in the middle of the steep bank of that wadi, and is at present called maghret Rahb, "the cave of R.," or more commonly mu'allakat Rahb, "the swinging cave of R.," and at the time of the Crusades commanded the dangerous pass which the traveller, on ascending from the south end of the Lake of Galilee to Edre't by the nearest way, has to climb on hands and feet. In another passage (xvi. 9), where the unhealthy march to Bosr is spoken of, Will. of Tyre says: "After we had come through the gorge of Roob, we reached the plain which is called Medan, and where every year the Arabs and other oriental tribes are accustomed to hold a large fair." This plain is in the vicinity of Muzrb, in which the great pilgrim-fair is held annually. We find something similar in xiii. 18: "After having passed Decapolis
(Note: Here in the more contracted sense, the district of Gadara, Kefrt, and Irbid.)
we came to the pass of Roob, and further on into the plain of Medan, which stretches far and wide in every direction, and is intersected by the river Dan, which falls into the Jordan between (Tiberias and Scythopolis (Bsn)." This river, the same as that which Sanuto means by his aquae Dan (M Dn), is none other than the Wdi el-Meddn, called "the overflowing one," because in the month of March it overflows its banks eastward of the Gezzr-bridge. It is extremely strange that the name of this river appears corrupted not only in all three writers mentioned above, but also in Burckhardt; for, deceived by the ear, he calls it Wd Om el-Dhan.
(Note: Burckhardt, Travels in Syr. and Pal. (ed. Gesenius, S. 392).)
The Meddn is the boundary river between the Suwt and Nukra plains; it loses its name where it runs into the Makran; and where it falls into the valley of the Jordan, below the lake of Tiberias, it is called el-Muchb.
We have little to add to what has been already said. The Fiale of Sanuto is not the Lake Rm, but the round begge, the lake of springs of Muzrb, the rapid outflow of which, over a depth of sixty to eighty feet, forms a magnificent waterfall, the only one in Syria, as it falls into the Meddn near the village of Tell Shihb.
The unfortunate confusion of the localities was occasioned by two accidental circumstances: first, that both the springs of the Jordan below Bnis and the lake of Muzrb, have a village called Rahb (רחוב) in their vicinity, of which one is mentioned in Jdg 18:28., and the other, about a mile below the Cavea Roob, is situated by a fountain of the same name, from which village, cavern, and wadi derive their names; secondly, that there, as here, there is a village Abil (אבל): that near Dan is situated in the "meadow-district of 'Ijn" (Merg. 'Ijn); and that in the Suwt lies between Rahb and the Makran, and was visited by Seetzen as well as by myself. Perhaps the circumstance that, just as the environs of Muzrb have their Mdn,
(Note: The word el-mı̂dân and el-mêdân signifies originally the hippodrome, then the arena of the sham-fight, then the place of contest, the battle-field, and finally a wide level place where a large concourse of men are accustomed to meet. In this sense the Damascenes have their el-mı̂dân, the Spanish cities their almeidân, and the Italians their corso.)
so the environs of Bnis have their Ard el-Mejdn, "region of battle-fields," may also have contributed to the confusion; thus, for example, the country sloping to the west from the Phiala towards the Hle, between Gubbt ez-zt and Za'ra, is called, perhaps on account of the murderous encounters which took place there, both in the time of the Crusades and also in more ancient times. It is certainly the ground on which the battle narrated in the book of Joshua, Jos 11:1, took place, and also the battle in which Antiochus the Great slew the Egyptian army about 200 b.c.)
What we have gained for our special purpose from this information (by which not a few statements of Ritter, K. v. Raumer, and others, are substantiated), is not merely the fact that the tradition which places Job's home in the region of Muzrb existed even in the middle ages (which the quotation given above from Makdesh, who lived before the time of the Crusades, also confirms), and even came to the ears of the foreigners who settled in the country as they then passed through the land, but also the certainty that this tradition was then, as now, common to the Christians and the Mussulmans, for the three writers previously mentioned would hardly have recorded it on the testimony of the latter only.
(Note: Estri ha-Parchi, the most renowned Jewish topographer of Palestine, in his work Caftor wa-ferach, completed in 1322 (newly edited by Edelmann, published by Asher, Berlin, 1852, S. 49), says דאר איוב lies one hour south of נבו, since he identifies Naw with the Reubenitish Neb, Num 32:38, as Zora'' with יעזר, Num 32:35; so that he explains ארץ עוץ by ארץ יעזר, although he at the same time considers the name, according to Saadia, as one with אלגוטה (el Ghuta). His statements moreover are exact, as one might expect from a man who had travelled for seven years in all directions in Palestine; and his conclusion, ארץ עוץ היא ארץ קדם לארץ ישׂראל כנגד טבריא, perfectly accords with the above treatise. - Del.)
There can be no doubt as to which of these two religions must be regarded as the original mother of this tradition. The Hauranite Christians, who, from their costume, manners, language, and traditions, undoubtedly inherited the country from the pre-Muhammedan age, venerate the Makm perhaps even more than the Muhammedans; which would be altogether impossible in connection with the hostile position of the two religious sects towards one another, and in connection with the zealous scorn with which the Syrian Christians regard the religion of Islam, if the Hauranitish tradition of Job and the Makm were of later, Muhammedan origin. It is also possible that, on a closer examination of the Makm and the buildings about the Sachra, one might find, besides crosses, Greek inscriptions (since they are nowhere wanting in the Nukra), which could only have their origin in the time before the occupation of Islam (635 a.d.); for after this the Hauranite Christians, who only prolong their existence by wandering from chirbe to chirbe, have not even built a single dwelling-house, much less a building for religious worship, which was forbidden under pain of death in the treaty of Omar. But in connection with the pre-Islam Monastery of Job, which owed its origin only to the sacred tradition that held its ground in that place, are monumental witnesses that this tradition is pre-Islamic, and has been transferred from the Christians to the Mussulmans, required? We may go even further, and assert that Muhammed, in the Sur. xxxviii. 41ff. of the Korn, had the Hauranitish tradition of Job and the localities near Sa'dje definitely before his mind.
We must regard the merchandise caravans which the inhabitants of Tehma sent continuously into the "north country," esh-shâm,
(Note: In Jemen the Higz, Syria may have been called Shm in the earliest times. The name was taken into Syria itself by the immigration of the Jemanic tribes of Kud'a, and others, because they brought with them the name of Syria that was commonly used in their native land.)
and the return freight of which consisted chiefly of Hauranitish corn, as proof of a regular intercourse between the east Jordanic country and the west of the Arabian peninsula in the period between Christ and Muhammed. Hundreds of men from Mekka and Medina came every year to Bosr; indeed, when it has happened that the wandering tribes of Syria, which were, then also as now, bound for Hauran with the kêl, i.e., their want of corn, got before them, and had emptied the granaries of Bosr, or when the harvests of the south of Hauran had been destroyed by the locusts, which is not unfrequently the case, they will have come into the Nukra
(Note: The remarkable fair at Muzrb can be traced back to the earliest antiquity, although Bosr at times injured it; but this latter city, from its more exposed position, has been frequently laid in ruins. It is probable that the merchants of Damascus pitched their tents for their Kasaba, i.e., their moveable fair, twice a year (in spring and in autumn) by the picturesque lake of Muzrb. If, with the tradition, we take the Nukra to be the home of Job, of the different ways of interpreting Job 6:19 there is nothing to hinder our deciding upon that which considers it as the greater caravan which acme periodically out of southern Arabia to Hauran (Bosr or Muzrib). Tm with its well, Heddg (comp. Isa 21:14), celebrated by the poets of the steppe, from which ninety camels (sâniât) by turns raise a constantly flowing stream of clear and cool water for irrigating the palms and the seed, was in ancient times, perhaps, the crossing point of the merchant caravans going from south to north, and from east to west. Even under the Omajad Cahlifs the Mekka pilgrim-route went exclusively by way of Tm, just as during the Crusades so long as the Franks kept possession of Kerak and Shbak. An attempt made in my Reisebericht (S. 93-95) to substitute the Hauranitish Tm in the two previously mentioned passages of Scripture, I have there (S. 131) given up as being scarcely probable.)
as far as Naw, sometimes even as far as Damascus, in order to obtain their full cargo.
If commerce often has the difficult task of bringing together the most heterogeneous peoples, and of effecting a reciprocal interchange of ideas, it here had the easy work of sustaining the intercourse among tribes that were originally one people, spoke one idiom, and regarded themselves as all related; for the second great Sabaean migration, under 'Amr and his son Ta'labe, had taken possession of Mekka, and left one of their number, Rab'a ibn Hritha, with his attendants (the Chuz'ites), behind as lord of the city. In the same manner they had become possessed of Jathrib (el-Medna), and left this city to their tribes Aus and Chazreg: the remainder of the people passed on to Peraea and took possession of the country, at that time devastated, as far as Damascus, according to Ibn Sa'd, even including this city. By the reception of Christianity, the Syrian Sabaeans appear to have become but slightly or not at all estranged from their relatives in the Higz, for Christianity spread even here, so that the Caesars once ventured to appoint a Christian governor even to the city of Mekka. This was during the lifetime of the Gefnite king 'Amr ibn Gebele. At the time of Muhammed there were many Christians in Mekka, who will for the most part have brought their Christianity with the Syrian caravans, so that at the commencement of Islm the Hauranitish tradition of Job might have been very well known in Mekka, since many men from Mekka may have even visited the Makm and the Sachra, and there have heard many a legend of Job like that intimated in the Korn xxxviii. 43. Yea, whoever will give himself the trouble to investigate minute commentaries on the Koran, especially such as interpret the Koran from the tradition (hadı̂th), e.g., the Kitb ed-durr el-muchtr, may easily find that not merely Kazwn, Ibn el-Ward, and Jkt, whose observations concerning the Monastery of Job have been given above, but also much older authorities, identify the Koranish fountain of Job with the Hauranitish.
A statement of Eusebius, of value in connection with this investigation, brings us at one stride about three hundred years further on. It is in the Onomastikon, under Καρναείμ, and is as follows: "Astaroth Karnaim is at present (about 310 a.d.) a very large village (κώμη μεγίστη) beyond the Jordan, in the province of Arabia, which is also called Batanaea. Here, according to tradition (ἐκ παραδόσεως), they fix the dwelling (οἶκος) of Job." On the small map which accompanies these pages, the reader will find in the vicinity of the Makm the low and somewhat precipitous mound, not above forty feet in height, of Tell 'Ashtar, the plateau of which forms an almost round surface, which is 425 paces in diameter, and shows the unartistic foundations of buildings, and traces of a ring-wall. Here we have to imagine that 'Astarot Karnaim. Euseb. here makes no mention whatever of the city of Astaroth, the ancient capital of Basan, for this he does under Astaroo'th; the hypothesis of its being the residence of king 'Og, which Newbold
(Note: C. Ritter, Geogr. v. Syr. u. Pal. ii. 819ff. [Erdk. xv. 2, p. 819ff.] The information of Newbold, which is printed in the Zeitschr. d. Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellschaft, i. 215f., is unfortunately little to be relied on, and is to be corrected according to the topography of the mound given above.)
set up here, consequently falls to the ground. The κώμη μεγίστη of Eusebius must, in connection with the limited character of the ground, certainly be somewhat contracted; but the identity of the localities is not to be doubted in connection with the great nearness of the οἶκος (the Makm).
(Note: A small, desolated stone village, situated a quarter of an hour's journey from the mound of 'Ashtar, which however has not a single house of any importance, has two names among the inhabitants of that region, either Chirbt 'Ijn en-Nle (the ruins near the Nila-springs) or Chirbt 'Ashtar, which can signify the ruins of 'Ashtar and the ruins near 'Ashtar. Since it is, however, quite insignificant, it will not be the village that has given the name to the mound, but the mound with its buildings, which in ancient days were perhaps a temple to Astarte, surrounded by a wall, has given the name to the village.)
Let us compare another statement that belongs here; it stands under Ἀσταρὼθ Καρναείμ, and is as follows: "There are at the present time two villages of this name in Batanaea, which lie nine miles distant from one another, μεταξὺ ΑΔΑΡΩΝ καὶ ΑΒΙΛΗΞ." Jerome has duo castella instead of two villages, by which at least the κώμη μεγίστη is somewhat reduced; for that it is one of these two castles
(Note: The meaning of "castle," as defined by Burckhardt, Travels in Syr. etc. p. 657, should be borne in mind here. "The name of Kal'at or castle is given on the Hadj route, and over the greater part of the desert, to any building walled in and covered, and having, like a Khan, a large courtyard in its enclosure. The walls are sometimes of stone, but more commonly of earth, though even the latter are sufficient to withstand an attack of Arabs." - Tr.)
can be the less doubtful, since they also regulate the determining of the respective localities. If the reading ΑΒΙΛΗΞ is correct, only Abil (אבל) in the north of Suwt can (since, without doubt, the Arabian names of the places in Hauran existed in Eusebius' day) be intended; and ΑΔΑΡΩΝ ought then to be changed into ΑΛΑΡΩΝ, in order to denote the large village of El-hr, on the lofty peak of the same name in the plain of Gdr. El-hr lies to the north, and Abil to the south of 'Ashtar. If, however, as is most highly probable, instead of ΑΒΙΛΗΞ (which form Euseb. does not use elsewhere, for he calls the town of Abil Ἀβέλ, and the inscription in Turra has the form πόλεως Ἀβέλις), ΑΒΙΔΗΞ is to be read, which corresponds to the Ἀβιδᾶ of Ptolemy (ed. Wilberg, p. 369) and the modern /Abidn near Btirr, thus the name of the other village is to be changed from ΑΔΑΡΩΝ to ΑΡΑΡΩΝ (for which the Cod. Vat. erroneously has ΔΡΑΡΩΝ), the modern 'Arr.
(Note: Some, in connection with this word, have erroneously thought of the city of Edre't, which Eusebius calls Ἀδρά in the immediately preceding article Ἀδραά, and in the art. Edraei'.)
'Abdn, however, lies nine miles west, and 'Arr nine miles east of 'Ashtar.
Now, as to the second village, and its respective castle, which is mentioned in the second citation from the Onomastikon, I believe that both Euseb. and Jerome intend to say there are two villages, of which the one has the byname of the other; consequently the one is called Astart (Karnaim), and the other Karnaim (Astart). Twelve miles west of 'Ashtar lies the Golanite village of Kornje (קרניּה), which in old Kantra I have taken up in my trigonometrical measurements.
We find also a third passage in the Onomast. which belongs here; it is under Ἰαβώκ in Cod. Vat., under Ἰδουμαία in Cod. Leid. and Vellarsi, and runs: "According to the view of a certain one (κατά τινος), this region is the land of Asitis (Ausitis), the home of Job, while according to others it is Arabia (ἡ Ἀραβία); and again, according to others, it is the Land of Shn." Whether genuine or not, this passage possesses a certain value. If it is genuine, Jerome would have left it accordingly untranslated, because he would not be responsible for its whole contents, for he not unfrequently passes over or alters statements of Eusebius where he believes himself to be better informed; but, taken exactly, he could only have rejected the views of those who seek Job's native country on the Jabbok (if the passage belongs to the art. Ἰαβώκ) or in Edom (if it belongs to Ἰδουμαία), or in the Belk, the land of Shn; but not the view of those who make Arabia (Batanaea) to be Ausitis, for the statement of Eusebius with reference to this point under Carnaei'm he translates faithfully. If the passage is not genuine, it at any rate gives the very early testimony of an authority distinct from Eusebius and Jerome in favour of the age of the Hauranitish tradition concerning Job, while it has only a single (κατά τινος) authority for the view of those who make Edom to be Ausitis, and even this only when the passage belongs to Ἰδουμαία.
By means of these quotations from the Onomastikon, that passage of Chrysostom (Homil. V. de Stud. 1, tom. ii. p. 59), in which it is said that many pilgrims from the end of the earth come to Arabia, in order to seek for the dunghill on which Job lay, and with rapture to kiss the ground where he suffered ( - - ἀπὸ περάτων τῆς γῆς εἰς τῆν Ἀραβίαν τρέχοντες, ἵνα τῆν κοπρίαν ἴδωσι, καὶ θεασάμενοι καταφιλήσωσι τῆν γῆν), appears also to obtain its right local reference. This Arabia is certainly none other than that which Eusebius explains by ἣ καὶ Βαταναία, and that κοπρία or mezbele to be sought nowhere except near the Makm jb. And should there by any doubts upon the subject, ought they not to be removed by the consideration that the proud structure of the Monastery of Job, with its spring festivals mentioned above, standing like a Pharos casting its light far and wide in that age, did not allow either the Syrian Christians or the pilgrims from foreign parts to mistake the place, which tradition had rendered sacred, as the place of Job's sufferings?
There is no monastery whose origin, according to an unimpeachable testimony, belongs to such an early date as that of the Monastery of Job. According to the chronicles of the peoples (ta'rı̂ch el-umem), or the annals of Hamze el-Isfahni (died about 360 of the Hegira), it was built by 'Amr I, the second Gefnide. Now, since the first Ghassanitish king (Gefne I) reigned forty-five years and three months, and 'Amr five years, the Monastery would have been in existence about 200 a.d., if we place the beginning of the Gefnide dynasty in the time 150 a.d. Objections are raised against such an early date, because one is accustomed on good authority to assign the origin of monasteries to about the year 300 a.d. In the face of more certain historical dates, these objections must remain unheeded, for hermit and monastery life (rahbanı̂ja) existed in the country east of Jordan among the Essenes and other societies and forms of worship, even before Christianity; so that the latter, on its appearance in that part, which took place long before 200 a.d., received the monasteries as an inheritance: but certainly the chronology of the Gefnide dynasty is not reliable. Hamze fixes the duration of the dynasty at 616 years; Ibn Sa'd,
(Note: Wetzstein, Catal. Arab. MSS collected in Damascus, No. 1, p. 89.)
in his history of the pre-Islamic Arabs, at 601 years; and to the same period extends the statement of Mejnishi,
(Note: Wetzst. Catal. Arab. MSS collected in Damascus, No. 24, p. 16.)
who, in his topography of the Ka'be, says that between the conquest of Mekka by Ta'lebe and the rule of the Kos in this city was 500 years. On the contrary, however, Ibn Jusef
(Note: Hamzae Isfahan. Annales, ed. Gottwald, Vorrede, p. xi.)
informs us that this dynasty began "earlier" than 400 years before Islamism. With this statement accord all those numerous accounts, according to which the "rupture of the dyke" (sêl el-‛arim), the supposed cause of the Jemanic emigration, took place rather more than 400 years before Islamism. If therefore, to content ourselves with an approximate calculation, we make Islamism to begin about 615 (the year of the "Mission" was 612 a.d.), and the Gefnide dynasty, with the addition of the "earlier," 415 years previous, then the commencement of the reign of Gefne I would have been 200 a.d., and the erection of the Monastery shortly before 250.
When the tribe whose king later on built the Monastery migrated from Jemen into Syria, the Trachonitis was in the hands of a powerful race of the Kud'ides, which had settled there in the first century of our era, having likewise come out of Jemen, and become tributary to the Romans. This race had embraced Christianity from the natives; and some historians maintain that it permitted the Gefnides to settle and share in the possession of the country, only on the condition that they likewise should embrace Christianity. In those early times, these tribes, of course, with the new religion received the tradition of Job also from the first hand, from the Jews and the Jewish Christians, who, since the battle of the Jewish people with the Romans, will have found refuge and safety to a large extent in Petraea, and especially in the hardly accessible Trachonitis. The Nukra also, as the most favoured region of Syria and Palestina, will have had its native population, among which, in spite of the frequent massacres of Syrians and Jews, there will have been many Jews. Perhaps, moreover, the protection of the new Jemanic population of Hauran again attracted Jewish settlers thither: Naw
(Note: If Naw is not also of Jewish origin, its name is nevertheless the old Semitic נוה, "a dwelling" (Job 5:3, Job 5:24; Job 8:6; Job 18:15), and not, as Jkt supposes, the collective form of nawât, "the kernel of a date.")
at least is a place well known in the Talmud and Midrash, which is mentioned, as a city inhabited by the Jews among those who are not Jews, and as the birth-place of several eminent teachers.
(Note: No less than three renowned teachers from Naw appear in the Talmud and Midrash: ר שׁילא דנוה, Schila of Nawa (jer. Sabbath cap. ii., Wajikra rabba cap. xxxiv., Midrasch Ruth on ii. 19a), ר פלטיא דנוה (Midr. Koheleth on i. 4b) and ר שׁאול דנוה (ib. on xii. 9a). נוה is mentioned as an enemy of the neighbouring town of חלמיש in Wajikra rabba c. xxiii., Midr. Echa on i. 17a, and Midr. Schir on ii. 1. - Del.)
Moreover, in Syria the veneration of a spot consecrated by religious tradition is independent of its being at the time inhabited or desolate. The supposed tombs of Aaron near Petra, of Hud near Gerash, of Jethro (Su'b) in the valley of Nimrn, of Ezekiel in Melhat Hiskn, of Elisha on the el-Jesha' mountains, and many other mezâre (tombs of the holy, to which pilgrims resort), are frequently one or more days' journey distant from inhabited places, and yet they are carefully tended. They are preserved from decay and neglect by vows, by the spring processions, and especially by the piety of the Beduins, who frequently deposit articles of value near the mezâre, as property entrusted to the care of the saint. The Makm of Job may also have been such a consecrated spot many centuries before the erection of the Monastery, and perhaps not merely to the Jews, but also to the Aramaean and Arab population. The superstitious veneration of such places is not confined among the Semites to a particular religious sect, but is the common heritage of the whole race; and the tradition of Job in particular was, originally, certainly not Israelitish, but Aramaean.
Job is not mentioned in the writings of Josephus, but we do find there a remarkable passage concerning Job's native country, the land of the Usites, viz., Ant. i. 6: "Aram, from whom come the Aramaeans, called by the Greeks Syrians, had four sons, of whom the first was named Οὔσης, and possessed Trachonitis and Damascus." The first of these two, Trachonitis, has usually been overlooked here, and attention has been fixed only on Damascus. The word el-Ghta (Arab. 'l-gûṭt), the proper name of the garden and orchard district around Damascus, has been thought to be connected in sound with 'Us, and they have been treated as identical: this is, however, impossible even in philological grounds. Ghta would certainly be written עוּטה in Hebrew, because this language has no sign for the sound Gh (Arab. g); but Josephus, who wrote in Greek, ought then to have said Γούσης, not Οὔσης, just as he, and the lxx before him and Eusebius after him, render the city עזה by Γάζα, the mountain עיבל by Γαιβάλ, the village עי by Γαΐ́, etc. In the same manner the lxx ought to have spoken of a Γαυσῖτις, not Αὐσῖτις, if this were the case. Proper names, also, always receive too definite and lasting an impress for their consonants, as ץ and ט, to be easily interchanged, although this is possible with the roots of verbs. Moreover, if the word עוץ had had the consonant ץ (Arab. ḍ), Josephus must have reproduced it with τ or θ, not with s, in accordance with the pronunciation (especially if he had intended to identify עוץ and Ghta). And we see from Ptolemy and Strabo, and likewise from the Greek mode of transcribing the Semitic proper names in the Haurnite inscriptions of the Roman period, e.g., Μάθιος and Νάταρος for Arab. mâḍâ and nḍr, that in the time of Josephus the sound of ץ had already been divided into Arab. ṣ and ḍ; comp. Abhandl. der Berlin. Acad. d. Wissenschaft, 1863, S. 356f. Hence it is that Josephus manifestly speaks only of one progenitor Οὔσης, therefore of one tribe; while the word Ghta, often as a synonym of buq'a (בקעה), denotes a low well-watered country enclosed by mountains, and in this appellative signification occurs as the proper name of several localities in the most widely separated parts of Arabia (comp. Jkt, sub voce), which could not be the case if it had been = ארץ עוץ.
(Note: On the name 'Us, as the name of men and people, may be compared the proper names 'As and 'Aus, together with the diminutive 'Ows, taken from the genealogies of the Arabs, since the Old Testament is wanting in words formed from the root עוץ, and none of those so named was a Hebrew. In Hebr. they might be sounded עוץ, and signify the "strong one," for the verbal stems Arab. ‛ṣṣ, ‛wṣ, ‛ṣy (comp. Arab. ‛ṣb, ‛ṣr, ‛ṣm, and others) have the signif. "to be compressed, firm, to resist.")
The word Ausitis used by the lxx also has no formation corresponding to the word Ghta, but shows its connection with עוּץ ארץ by the termination; while the word Ghta rendered in Greek is Gouthata' (in Theophanes Byzant. Gouthatha'), in analogy e.g., with the form Cheblatha' for Ribla (Jos. Ant. x. 11).
(Note: On this word-formation comp. Reisebericht, S. 76.)
But why are we obliged to think only of Damascus, since Josephus makes Trachonitis also to belong to the land of the Usites? If we take this word in its most limited signification, it is (apart from the eastern Trachon) that lava plateau, about forty miles long and about twenty-eight broad, which is called the Leg in the present day. This is so certain, that one is not obliged first of all to recall the well-known inscription of the temple of Mismia, which calls this city situated in the Leg, Μητροκώμη τοῦ Τράχωνος. From the western border of this Trachon, however, the Monastery of Job is not ten miles distant, therefore by no means outside the radius that was at all times tributary to the Trachonites (Arab el-wa'r), a people unassailable in their habitations in the clefts of the rocks.
(Note: Comp. Jos. Ant. xv. 10, 3; Zeitschr. fr allg. Erdkunde, New Series, xiii. 213.)
According to this, the statement of Josephus would at least not stand in open contradiction to the Hauranitish tradition of Job. But we go further and maintain that the Monastery of Job lies exactly in the centre of Trachonitis. This word has, viz., in Josephus and others, a double signification - a more limited and a wider one. It has the more limited where, together with Auranitis, Batanaea, Gamalitica, and Gaulonitis, it denotes the separate provinces of the ancient kingdom of Basan. Then it signifies the Trachonitis kat' exochee'n, i.e., the wildest portion of the volcanic district, viz., the Leg, the Haurn mountain range, the Saf and Harra of the Rgil. On the other hand, it has the wider signification when it stands alone; then it embraces the whole volcanic region of Middle Syria, therefore with the more limited Trachonitis the remaining provinces of Basan, but with the exception, as it seems, of the no longer volcanic Galadine (North Gilead). In this sense, therefore, as a geographical notion, Trachonitis is almost synonymous with Basan.
Since it is to the interest of this investigation to make the assertion advanced sure against every objection, we will not withhold the passages in support of it. Josephus says, Ant. xv. 10, 3, the district of Hle (Οὐλαθά) lies between Galilee and Trachonitis. He might have said more accurately, "between Galilee and Gaulonitis," but he wished to express that the great basaltic region begins on the eastern boundary of the Hle. The word Trachonitis has therefore the wider signification. In like manner, in Bell. iii. 10 it is said the lake of Phiala lies 120 stadia east of Paneion (Bnis) on the way to the Trachonitis. True, the Phiala is a crater, and therefore itself belongs to Trachonitis, but between it and Bnis the lava alternates with the chalk formation of the Hermn, whereas to the south and east of the Phiala it is everywhere exclusively volcanic; Trachonitis has therefore here also the wider signification. Ant. xvii. 2, it is said Herod had the castle of Βαθύρα built in Batanaea (here, as often in Josephus, in the signification of Basan), in order to protect the Jews who travel from Babylon (vi Damascus) to Jerusalem against the Trachonite robbers. Now, since this castle and village (the Btirr mentioned already), which is situated in the district of Gamalitica on an important ford of the Muchbi gorge between 'Abidin and Sebbte, could not be any protection against the robbers of Trachonitis in the more limited sense, but only against those of Golan, it is manifest that by the Trachonites are meant the robbers of Trachonitis in the wider sense. Aurelius Victor (De Hist. Caes. xxvii.) calls the Emperor M. Julius Philippus, born in Bosr, the metropolis of Auranitis, quite correctly Arabs Trachonites; because the plain of Hauran, in which Bosra is situated, is also of a basaltic formation, and therefore is a part of the Trachonitis.
The passage of Luke's Gospel, Luk 3:1, where it says Herod tetrarch of Galilee, and Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis, also belongs here. That Philip possessed not perhaps merely the Trachonitis (similar to a province assigned to a man as banishment rather than for administration, producing little or no revenue) in the more limited sense, but the whole Basanitis, is shown by Josephus, who informs us, Ant. xvii. 11, 4 and freq., that he possessed Batanaea (in the more restricted sense, therefore the fruitful, densely populated, profitable Nukra), with Auranitis, Trachonitis, etc. We must therefore suppose that in the words τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας in Luke, one district is meant, which by Ἰτουραίας is mentioned according to the marauding portion of its population, and by Trachooni'tidos more generally, according to its trachonitic formation.
(Note: Eusebius in his Onomast. also correctly identifies the two words, at one time under Ἰτουραία, and the other time under Τραχωνῖτις. After what we have said elsewhere (Reisebericht, S. 91ff.) on the subject, surely no one will again maintain that the peaceful villages of the plain of Gdr were the abodes of the Ituraeans, the wildest of all people (Cic. Phil. ii. 11; Strabo, xvi. 2). Their principal hiding-places will have been the Trachonitis in the more restricted sense, but one may seek them also on the wooded mountains of Gln and in the gorges of the Makran. That Ptolemy and Josephus speak only of the Trachonites and never of the Ituraeans (in the passage Ant. xiii. 11, 3, Ἰδουμαία is to be read instead of Ἰτουραία), and Strabo, on the other hand, speaks only of the latter, favours the identity of the two; of like import is the circumstance, that Pliny (H. N. v. 23) makes the inhabitants of the region of Baetarra (Btirr) Ituraeans, and Josephus (Ant. xvii. 2) Trachonites. But in spite of the identity of the words Trachonitis and Ituraea, one must not at the same time overlook the following distinction. If the Trachonites are called after the country, it must be the description of all the inhabitants of the country, whereas the Ituraeans, if they gave the name to the country, are not necessarily its exclusive population. The whole of the district of which we speak has a twofold population in keeping with its double character (rugged rock and fruitful plain), viz., cattle-rearing freebooters in the clefts of the rocks, and peaceful husbandmen in the plain; the former dwelling in hair tents (of old also in caves), the latter in stone houses; the former forming the large majority, the latter the minority of the population of the district. If writers speak of the Ituraeans, they mean exclusively that marauding race that hates husbandry; but if they speak of the Trachonites, the connection must determine, whether they speak of both classes of the population, or only of the marauding Trachonites (the Ituraeans), or of the husbandmen of the plain (of the provinces of Batanaea and Auranitis). The latter are rarely intended, since the peaceful peasant rarely furnishes material for the historian.)
Ioannes Malalas (Chronogr. ed. Dindorf, p. 236), who, as a Syrian born, ought to be well acquainted with the native usage of the language, hence calls Antipas, as a perfectly adequate term, only toparch of Trachonitis; and if, according to his statement (p. 237), the official title of this Herod was the following: Σεβαστὸς Ἡρώδης τοπάρχης καὶ θεσμοδότης Ἰουδαίων τε καὶ Ἑλλήνων, Βασιλεὺς τῆς Τραχωνίτιδος, it is self-evident that "king of Trachonitis" here is synonymous with king of Basan. In perfect harmony with this, Pliny says (H. N. v. 18) that the ten cities of Decapolis lay within the extensive tetrarchies of Trachonitis, which are divided into separate kingdoms. Undoubtedly Pliny adds to these tetrarchies of Trachonitis in the wider sense, which are already known to us, Galadine also, which indeed belonged also the pre-Mosaic Basan, but at the time of Josephus is mostly reckoned to Peraea (in the more limited sense).
On the ground of this evidence, therefore, the land of the Usites of Josephus, with the exception of the Damascene portion, was Trachonitis in the wider sense; and since the Makm jb is in the central point of this country, this statement accords most exactly with the Syrian tradition. It is clear that the latter remains untouched by the extension of the geographical notion in Josephus, for without knowing anything more of a "land of the Usites," it describes only a portion of the same as the "native country of Job;" and again, Josephus had no occasion to speak of Job in his commentary on the genealogies, therefore also none to speak of his special home within the land of the Usites. Eusebius, on the other hand, in his De Originibus (ix. 2, 4), refers to this home, and says, therefore limiting Josephus' definition: Hus, Traconitidis conditor, inter Palaestinam et Coelesyriam tenuit imperium; unde fuit Iob.
With this evidence of agreement between two totally independent witnesses, viz., the Syrian tradition and Josephus, the testimony of the latter in particular has an enhanced value; for, although connected with the Bible, it nevertheless avails as extra-biblical testimony concerning the Usites, it comes from an age when one might still have the historical fact from the seat of the race, and from an authority of the highest order. True, Josephus is not free from disfigurements, where he has the opportunity of magnifying his people, himself, or his Roman patrons, and of depreciating an enemy; but here he had to do with nothing more than the statement of the residence of a people; and since the word Ou'sees also has no similarity in sound with the words Damascus and Trachonitis, that might make a combination with them plausible, we may surely have before us a reliable historical notice here, or at least a tradition which was then general (and therefore also for us important), while we may doubt this in connection with other parts of the genealogies, where Josephus seems only to catch at that which is similar in sound as furnishing an explanation.
But that which might injure the authority of Josephus is the contradiction in which it seems to stand to a far older statement concerning Ausitis, viz., the recognised postscript of the lxx to the book of Job, which makes Job to be the Edomitish king Jobab. The identification, it may be said, can however only have been possible because Ausitis was in or near Edom. But the necessity of this inference must be disputed. It is indeed unmistakeable that that postscript is nothing more than a combination of the Jews beyond Palestine (probably Egytpio-Hellenistic), formed, perhaps, long before the lxx, - such a vagary as many similar ones in the Talmud and Midrash. From the similarity in sound of Ἰωβάβ with Ἰώβ, and the similarity in name of Ζαρά, the father of Jobab, with a son of Re'l and grandson of Esau (Gen 36:13), Job's descent from Esau has been inferred. That Esau's first-born was called Elphaz and his son Temn, seemed to confirm this combination, since (in accordance with the custom
(Note: From this custom, which is called the grandfather's "living again," the habit, singular to us, of a father calling his son jâ abı̂, "my father!" or jâ bêjı̂, "my little father," as an endearing form of address, is explained.)
of naming the grandson as a rule after his grandfather) Elphaz the Temanite might be regarded as grandson of that Elphaz, therefore like Job as great-grandson of Esau and πέμπτος ἀπὸ Ἀβραάμ. The apparent and certainly designed advantages of this combination were: that Job, who had no pedigree, and therefore was to be thought of as a non-Israelite, was brought into the nearest possible blood-relationship to the people of God, and that, by laying the scene in the time of the patriarchs, all questions which the want of a Mosaic colouring to the book of Job might excite would be met. Now, even if the abode of Job were transferred from the land of 'Us to Edom, it would be only the consequence of his combination with Jobab, and, just as worthless as this latter itself, might lead no one astray. But it does not seem to have gone so far; it is even worthy of observation, that מבצרה (from Bosra, the Edomite city),
(Note: It need hardly be mentioned that one is not to think of the Hauranitish Bosr (Arab. bṣrâ), since this name of a city only came into use some centuries after Christ.)
being attached to the misunderstood υἱὸς Ζαρά ἐκ Βοσόῤῥας, Gen 36:33, is reproduced in the lxx by μητρὸς Βοσόῤῥας, as also that Job's wife is not called an Edomitess, but a γυνὴ Ἀράβισσα. And it appears still far more important, that Ausitis lies ἐν τοῖς ὁρίοις τῆς Ἰδουμαίας καὶ Ἀραβίας, so far as the central point of Ἰδουμαία is removed by the addition καὶ τῆς Ἀραβίας, and Job's abode is certainly removed from the heart of Idumaea. The Cod. Alex. exchanges that statement of the place, even in a special additional clause, for ἐπὶ τῶν ὁρίων τοῦ Εὐφράτου, therefore transfers Ausitis to the vicinity of the Euphrates, and calls the father of Jobab (= Job) Ζαρὲθ ἐξ ἀνατολῶν ἡλίου (מבני קדם). Nevertheless we attach no importance to this variation of the text, but rather offer the suggestion that the postscript gives prominence to the observation: οὗτος (viz., Ἰώβ) ἑρμεενεύεται ἐκ τῆς Συριακῆς βίβλου.
(Note: It is indeed possible that the Hebrew text is meant here, for Philo usually calls the Hebrew Χαλδαΐστί, and the Talmud describes the Jewish country-dialect as סורסי; it is possible, and even more probable, that it is a Syrian, i.e., Aramaean Targum - but not less possible that it is a Syrian original document. According to Malalas (ed. Dindorf, p. 12), Origen understands ἐκ τῆς Συριακῆς βίβλου elsewhere of a Hebrew original, but in c. Celsum iii. 6 he describes the Hebrew language in relation to the Syriac and Phoenician as ἑτέρα παρ ̓ ἀμθοτέρας, and the Homilies on Job in Opp. Origenis, ed. Delaure, ii. 851, say: Beati Iob scriptura primum quidem in Arabia Syriace scripta, ubi et habitabat. - Del.)
If we compare the postscript of the lxx with the legend of Islam, we find in both the Esauitish genealogy of Job; the genealogy of the legend is: jb ibn Zrih (זרח) ibn Re'l ibn el-'Ais ibn Ishk ibn Ibrhm; and we may suppose that it is borrowed directly from the lxx, and that it reached Arabia and Mekka even in the pre-Islamic times by means of the (Arabian) Christians east of Jordan, who had the Old Testament only in the Greek translation. Even the Arabic orthography of the biblical proper names, which can be explained only on the supposition of their transfer from the Greek, is in favour of this mode of the transmission of the Christian religion and its legends to the people of the Higaz. Certainly there can be no doubt as to an historical connection between the postscript and the legend, and therefore it would be strange if they did not accord respecting the home of Job. The progenitor el-'Ais (עיץ), in the genealogy of the legend, is also a remarkable counterpart to the Ausitis ἐν τοῖς ὁρίοις τῆς Ἰδουμ. καὶ Ἀρ., for it is a blending of עשׂו and עוּץ, and it has to solve the difficult problem, as to how Job can be at the same time an Usite and an Esauite; for that Job as an Aisite no longer belongs to Idumaea, but to the district of the more northern Aramaeans, is shown e.g., from the following passage in Mugr ed-dn's History of Jerusalem: "Job belonged to the people of the Romans (i.e., the Aisites),
(Note: We will spare ourselves the ungrateful task of an inquiry into the origin of this 'Ais and his Protean nature. Biblical passages like Lam 4:21, or those in which the readings ארם and אדום are doubtful, or the erroneous supposition (Jos. Ant. viii. 7) that the Ben-Hadad dynasty in Damascus is of Edomitish origin, may have contributed to his rise. Moreover, he is altogether one and the same with the Edom of the Jerish tradition: he is called the father of Rm, Asfar, Sfar, Sfn (מלך חצפון), and Nidr (Hamz. Isfah. Ann. p. 79, l. 18, read Arab. ndr for ntsr, and Zeitschr. d. d. m. Gesellsch. ii. 239, 3, 6, read ennidr for ennefer), i.e., of the Messiah of the Christians (according to Isa 11:1))
for he sprang from el-'Ais, and the Damascene province of Batanaea was his property."
The κοπρία of the lxx, at Job 2:8, leads to the same result; that it is also found again as mezbele in the later legend, is a further proof how thoroughly this accords with the lxx, and how it has understood its statement of the position of Ausitis. It may also be maintained here, that it was only possible to translate the words בתוך־חאפר by ἐπὶ τῆς κοπρίας ἔξω τῆς πόλεως when "heap of ashes" and "dunghill" were synonymous notions. This, however, is the case only in Hauran, where the dung, as being useless for agricultural purposes, is burnt from time to time in an appointed place before the town (vid., p. 573),
(Note: Comp. p. 576, note, of the foregoing Commentary. The Arabic version of Walton's Polyglot translates after the Peschito in accordance with the Hebr. text: "on the ashes (er-remâd)," whereas the Arabic translation, of which Tischendorf brought back fifteen leaves with him from the East, and which Fleischer, in the Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr. 1864, S. 288ff., has first described as an important memorial in reference to the history of MSS, translates after the Hexapla in accordance with the lxx: "on the dunghill (mezbele) outside the city."-Del.)
while in every other part of Syria it is as valuable and as much stored up as among us. If the lxx accordingly placed the kopri'a of Job in Hauran, it could hardly represent Ausitis as Edom.
But how has the Ausitis of the lxx been transferred hither? Certainly not as the "land of 'Us" (in the sense of the land of Basan, land of Haurn), for without wasting a word about it, there has never been such an one in the country east of the Jordan: but as "the land of the Usites" in the sense of the Arabic dir 'Us (dwelling-place of the Usites) or ard ben 'Us. A land receives designations of this kind with the settlement of a people in it; they run parallel with the proper name of the country, and in the rule vanish again with that people. These designations belong, indeed, to the geography of the whole earth, but nowhere have they preserved their natural character of transitoriness more faithfully than in the lands where the Semitic tongue is spoken. It is this that makes the geographical knowledge of these countries so extremely difficult to us, because we frequently take them to be the names of the countries, which they are not, and which - so far as they always involve a geological definition of the regions named - can never be displaced and competently substituted by them. In this sense the land of the Usites might, at the time of the decay of both Israelitish kingdoms, when the ארם דמשׂק possessed the whole of Peraea, very easily extend from the borders of Edom to the gates of Damascus, and even further northwards, if the Aramaean race of 'Us numbered many or populous tribes (as it appears to be indicated in כל מלכי ארץ העוץ, Jer 25:20), in perfect analogy with the tribe of Ghassn, which during five hundred years occupied the country from the Aelanitic Gulf to the region of Tedmor, at one time settling down, at another leading a nomadic life, and Hauran was the centre of its power. By such a rendering the Ἀραβία of the postscript would not be different from the later provincia Arabiae, of which the capital was the Trachonitish Bostra, while is was bounded on the south end of the Dead Sea by Edom (Palaestine tertia).
But should any one feel a difficulty in freeing himself from the idea that Ausitis is to be sought only in the Ard el-Hlt east of Ma'n, he must consider that the author of the book of Job could not, like that legend which places the miraculous city of Iram in the country of quicksands, transfer the cornfields of his hero to the desert; for there, with the exception of smaller patches of land capable of culture, which we may not bring into account, there is by no means to be found that husbandman's Eldorado, where a single husbandman might find tillage for five hundred (Job 1:3), yea, for a thousand (Job 42:12) yoke of oxen. Such numbers as these are not to be depreciated; for in connection with the primitive agriculture in Syria and Palestine, - which renders a four years' alternation of crops necessary, so that the fields must be divided into so many portions (called in Hauran wâgihât, and around Damascus auguh, Arab. 'wjh), from which only one portion is used annually, and the rest left fallow (bûr), - Job required several square miles of tillage for the employment of his oxen. It is all the same in this respect whether the book of Job is a history or poem: in no case could the Ausitis be a country, the notorious sterility of which would make the statement of the poet ridiculous.
Our limited space does not admit of our proving the worth which we must acknowledge to the tradition, by illustrating those passages of the Old Testament scriptures which have reference to עוץ and ארץ עוץ. But to any one, who, following the hints they give, wishes again to pursue the investigations, elsewhere useless, concerning the position of the land of the Usites, we might indicate: (1) that עוץ the first-born of Aram (Gen 10:23) is the tribe sought, while two others of this name - a Nahorite, Job 22:21, and a Horite, Job 36:28 - may be left out of consideration; the former because the twelve sons of Nahor need not be progenitors of tribes, and the latter because he belongs to a tribe exterminated by the Edomites in accordance with Deu 2:12, Deu 2:22 : (2) that ארץ העוץ, Jer 25:20, is expressly distinguished from אדום in the Jer 25:21, and - if one compares the round of the cup of punishment, Jer. 25, with the detailed prophecies which follow in Jer 46:1, to which it is a prooemium that has been removed from its place - corresponds to דמשׂק (with Hamt and Arpad), Jer 49:23 : (3) that therefore Lam 4:21, where יושׁבת בארץ עוץ would be devoid of purpose if it described the proper habitable land of Edom, must describe a district extending over that, in which the Edomites had established themselves in consequence of Assyria having led away captive the Israelitish and Aramaean population of the East Jordanic country and Coele-Syria. In connection with Jer 25:20 one must not avoid the question whether עוץ is the name of the ארם דמשׂק that has been missed. Here the migration of the Damascene Aramaeans from Kr (Amo 9:7) ought to be considered, the value of the Armenian accounts concerning the original abode of the Usites tested, what is erroneous in the combination of קיר with the river Kur shown and well considered, and in what relations both as to time and events that migration might have stood to the overrunning of Middle Syria by the Aramaean Sbaean tribes (from Mesopotamia) under Hadad-ezer, and to the seizure and possession of the city of Damascus by Rezon the Sbaean? Finally, one more tradition might be compared, to which some value may perhaps be attached, because it is favoured by the stone monuments, whose testimony we are not accustomed otherwise to despise in Palestine and Syria. The eastern portal of the mosque of Ben Umja in Damascus, probably of the very temple, the altar of which king Ahaz caused to be copied (Kg2 16:10), is called Grn or the Gerun gate: the portal in its present form belongs to the Byzantine or Roman period. And before this gate is the Grnje, a spacious, vaulted structure, mostly very old, which has been used since the Mussulman occupation of the city as a mêda'a, i.e., a place for religious ablutions. The topographical writings on Damascus trace these two names back to a Grn ibn Sa'd ibn 'Ad ibn 'Aus (עוץ) ibn Iram (ארם) ibn Sm (שׁם) ibn Nh (נוח), who settled in Damascus in the time of Solomon (one version of the tradition identifies him with Hadad, Jos. Ant. viii. 7), and built in the middle of the city a castle named after him, in which a temple to the planet (kôkeb) Mushteri, the guardian-god of the city, has been erected. That this temple, which, as is well known, under Theodosius, at the same time with the temple of the sun at Ba'lbek, passed over to the Christians, was actually surrounded with a strong, fortified wall, is capable of proof even in the present day. In this tradition, which has assumed various forms, a more genuine counterpart of the biblical עוץ appears than that 'Ais which we have characterized above as an invention of the schools, viz., an 'Aus (Arab. ‛wṣ), father of the Adite-tribe which is said to have settled in the Damascene district under that Grn, and also ancestor of the prophet Hd, lost to the tradition, whose makâm on the mountains of Sut rises far above Gerash a city of pillars, this true Iram dht el-'imd, the valley of the Jabbok and the Sawd of Gilead.
It is with good reason that we have hitherto omitted to mention the Αἰσῖται of Ptolemy v. 18 (19). The Codd have both Αἰσεῖται and Αἰσῖται; different Semitic forms (e.g., the name of the Arab. bny hays, which, according to Jkt, once dwelt in the Harra of the Ragil) may lie at the basis of this name, only not the form עוּץ, which ought to be Οὐσῖται, or at least Αὐσῖται (which no Cod. reads). As to the abodes of the Αἰσῖται, Ptolemy distributes them under nine greater races or groups of races, which in his time inhabited the Syrian steppe. Three of these had their settlements in the eastern half of the Syrian steppe towards the Euphrates of on its western banks: the Καυχαβηνοί in the north, the Αἰσῖται in the middle, and the Ὀρχηνοί in the south. According to this the Αἰσῖται would have been about between Ht and Kfa, or in that district which is called by the natives Ard el-Wudjan, and in which just that race of the Chaldaeans might have dwelt that plundered Job's camels. There we are certainly not to seek the scene of the drama of Job; and if the Edomites were dispersed there (Lam 4:21), they were not to be envied on account of their fortune. But if the Aisi'tai are to be sought there, we may not connect the Καυχαβηνοί with the village of Cochabe (Arab. kawkab) on the Hermon (Epiphan. Haer. x. 18), in order then to remove the Aisi'tai, dwelling "below them," to Batanaea.
And now, in concluding here, I have still to explain, that in writing these pages I was not actuated by an invincible desire of increasing the dull literature respecting the ארץ עוץ by another tractate, but exclusively by the wish of my honoured friend that I should furnish him with a contribution on my visit to the Makm jb, and concerning the tradition that prevails there, for his commentary on the book of Job.
As to the accompanying map, it is intended to represent the hitherto unknown position of the Makm, the Monastery, and the country immediately around the, by comparing it with two localities marked on most maps, Naw and the castle of Muzrb. The latter, the position of which we determined in 1860 as 32 44' north lat. and 35 51' 45" east long. (from Greenwich), lies three hours' journey on horseback south of the Monastery. The Wdi Jarmk and Wdi Ht have the gorge formation in common with all other wadis that unite in the neighbourhood of Zzn and from the Makran, which is remarkable from a geological point of view: a phenomenon which is connected with the extreme depression of the valley of the Jordan. For the majority of the geographical names mentioned in this essay I refer the reader to Carl Ritter's Geographic von Syrien und Palstina;
(Note: Translated by W. L. Gage, and published by T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1866, 4 vols.)
others will be explained in my Itinerarien, which will be published shortly. Next: Job Chapter 1
psa 0:0
The Book of Psalms
Introduction to the Psalter
Πάντα ὥσπερ ἐν μεγάλῳ τινὶ καὶ κοινῷ ταμιείῳ τῇ βίβλῳ τῶν ψαλμῶν τεθησαύρισται.
Basil
1. Position of the Psalter among the Hagiographa, and More Especially among the Poetical Books
The Psalter is everywhere regarded as an essential part of the Kethubim or Hagiographa; but its position among these varies. It seems to follow from Luk 24:44 that it opened the Kethubim in the earliest period of the Christina era.
(Note: Also from 2 Macc. 2:13, where τὰ τοῦ Δαυίδ appears to be the designation of the כתובים according to their beginning; and from Philo, De vita contempl. (opp. II 475 ed. Mangey), where he makes the following distinction νόμους καὶ λόγια θεσπισθέντα διὰ προφητῶν καὶ ὕμνους καὶ τὰ ἄλλα οἷς ἐπιστήμη καὶ εὐσέβεια συναύξονται καὶ τελειοῦνται.)
The order of the books in the Hebrew MSS of the German class, upon which our printed editions in general use are based, is actually this: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and the five Megilloth. But the Masora and the MSS of the Spanish class begin the Kethubim with the Chronicles which they awkwardly separate from Ezra and Nehemiah, and then range the Psalms, Job, Proverbs and the five Megilloth next.
(Note: In all the Masoretic lists the twenty four books are arranged in the following order: 1) בראשׁית; 2) ואלה שׁמות; 3) ויקרא; 4) וידבר (also במדבר); 5) אלה הדברים; 6) יהושׁע; 7) שׁופטים; 8) שׁמואל; 9) מלכים; 10) ישׁעיה; 11) ירמיה; 12) יחזקאל; 13) תרי עשׂר; 14) דברי הימים; 15) תהלות; 16) איוב; 17) משׁלי; 18) רות; 19) שׁיר השׁירים; 20) קהלת; 21) קינות (איכה); 22) אחשׁורושׁ (מגלה); 23) דניאל; 24) עזרא. The Masoretic abbreviation for the three pre-eminently poetical books is accordingly, not מתא but (in agreement with their Talmudic order) אםת (as also in Chajug'), vid., Elia Levita, Masoreth ha-Masoreth p. 19. 73 (ed. Ven. 1538) ed. Ginsburg, 1867, p. 120, 248.)
And according to the Talmud (Baba Bathra 14b) the following is the right order: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs; the Book of Ruth precedes the Psalter as its prologue, for Ruth is the ancestor of him to whom the sacred lyric owes its richest and most flourishing era. It is undoubtedly the most natural order that the Psalter should open the division of the Kethubim, and for this reason: that, according to the stock which forms the basis of it, it represents the time of David, and then afterwards in like manner the Proverbs and Job represent the Chokma-literature of the age of Solomon. But it is at once evident that it could have no other place but among the Kethubim.
The codex of the giving of the Law, which is the foundation of the old covenant and of the nationality of Israel, as also of all its subsequent literature, occupies the first place in the canon. Under the collective title of נביאים, a series of historical writings of a prophetic character, which trace the history of Israel from the occupation of Canaan to the first gleam of light in the gloomy retributive condition of the Babylonish Exile (Prophetae priores) is first attached to these five books of the Thra; and then a series of strictly prophetical writings by the prophets themselves which extend to the time of Darius Nothus, and indeed to the time of Nehemiah's second sojourn in Jerusalem under this Persian king (Prophetae posteriores). Regarded chronologically, the first series would better correspond to the second if the historical books of the Persian period (Chronicles with Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther) were joined to it; but for a very good reason this has not been done. The Israelitish literature has marked out two sharply defined and distinct methods of writing history, viz., the annalistic and the prophetic. The so-called Elohistic and so-called Jehovistic form of historical writing in the Pentateuch might serve as general types of these. The historical books of the Persian period are, however, of the annalistic, not of the prophetic character (although the Chronicles have taken up and incorporated many remnants of the prophetic form of historical writing, and the Books of the Kings, vice versa, many remnants of the annalistic): they could not therefore stand among the Prophetae priores. But with the Book of Ruth it is different. This short book is so like the end of the Book of the Judges (ch. 17-21), that it might very well stand between Judges and Samuel; and it did originally stand after the Book of the Judges, just as the Lamentations of Jeremiah stood after his prophecies. It is only on liturgical grounds that they have both been placed with the so-called Megilloth (Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, as they are arranged in our ordinary copies according to the calendar of the festivals). All the remaining books could manifestly only be classed under the third division of the canon, which (as could hardly have been otherwise in connection with תורה and נביאים) has been entitled, in the most general way, כתובים ,, - a title which, as the grandson of Ben-Sira renders it in his prologue to Ecclesiasticus, means simply τὰ ἄλλα πάτρια βιβλία, or τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων, and nothing more. For if it were intended to mean writings, written ברוח הקדשׁ, - as the third degree of inspiration which is combined with the greatest spontaneity of spirit, is styled according to the synagogue notion of inspiration-then the words ברוח הקדשׁ would and ought to stand with it.
2. Names of the Psalter
At the close of the seventy-second Psalm (72:20) we find the subscription: "Are ended the prayers of David, the Son of Jesse." The whole of the preceding Psalms are here comprehended under the name תּפלּות. This strikes one as strange, because with the exception of Psa 17:1-15 (and further on Ps 86; 90; 102; Psa 142:1-7) they are all inscribed otherwise; and because in part, as e.g., Psa 1:1-6 and Psa 2:1-12, they contain no supplicatory address to God and have therefore not the form of prayers. Nevertheless the collective name Tephilloth is suitable to all Psalms. The essence of prayer is a direct and undiverted looking towards God, and the absorption of the mind in the thought of Him. Of this nature of prayer all Psalms partake; even the didactic and laudatory, though containing no supplicatory address-like Hannah's song of praise which is introduced with ותתפלל (Sa1 2:1). The title inscribed on the Psalter is תּהלּים (ספר) for which תּלּים (apocopated תּלּי deta) is also commonly used, as Hippolytus (ed. de Lagarde p. 188) testifies: Ἑεβραῖοι περιέγραψαν τὴν βίβλον Σέφρα θελείμ.
(Note: In Eusebius, vi. 25: Σέφηρ Θιλλήν; Jerome (in the Preface to his translation of the Psalms juxta Hebraicam veritatem) points it still differently: SEPHAR THALLIM quod interpretatur volumen hymnorum. Accordingly at the end of the Psalterium ex Hebraeo, Cod. 19 in the Convent Library of St. Gall we find the subscription: Sephar Tallim Quod interpretatur volumen Ymnorum explicit.)
This name may also seem strange, for the Psalms for the most part are hardly hymns in the proper sense: the majority are elegiac or didactic; and only a solitary one, Ps 145, is directly inscribed תהלה. But even this collective name of the Psalms is admissible, for they all partake of the nature of the hymn, to wit the purpose of the hymn, the glorifying of God. The narrative Psalms praise the magnalia Dei, the plaintive likewise praise Him, since they are directed to Him as the only helper, and close with grateful confidence that He will hear and answer. The verb הלּל includes both the Magnificat and the De profundis.
The language of the Masora gives the preference to the feminine form of the name, instead of תהלים, and throughout calls the Psalter ספר תהלות (e.g., on Sa2 22:5).
(Note: It is an erroneous opinion of Buxtorf in his Tiberias and also of Jewish Masoretes, that the Masora calls the Psalter הלילא (hallla). It is only the so-called Hallel, Ps 113-119, that bears this name, for in the Masora on Sa2 22:5; Psa 116:3 is called הברו דהלילא (the similar passage in the Hallel) in relation to Psa 18:5.)
In the Syriac it is styled ketobo demazmûre, in the Koran zabûr (not as Golius and Freytag point it, zubûr), which in the usage of the Arabic language signifies nothing more than "writing" (synon. kitâb: vid., on Psa 3:1), but is perhaps a corruption of mizmor from which a plural mezâmir is formed, by a change of vowels, in Jewish-Oriental MSS. In the Old Testament writings a plural of mizamor does not occur. Also in the post-biblical usage mizmorı̂m or mizmoroth is found only in solitary instances as the name for the Psalms. In Hellenistic Greek the corresponding word ψαλμοί (from ψάλλειν = זמּר) is the more common; the Psalm collection is called βίβλος ψαλμῶν (Luk 20:42; Act 1:20) or ψαλτήριον, the name of the instrument (psantêrı̂n in the Book of Daniel)
(Note: Νάβλα - say Eusebius and others of the Greek Fathers - παρ ̓ Ἑβραίοις λέγεται τὸ ψαλτήριον ὃ δὴ μόνον τῶν μουσικῶν ὀργάνων ὀρθότατον καὶ μὴ συνεργούμενον εἰς ἦχον ἐκ τῶν κατωτάτω μερῶν, ἀλλ ̓ ἄνωθεν ἔχων τὸν ὑπηχοῦντα χαλκόν. Augustine describes this instrument still more clearly in Psa 42:1-11 and elsewhere: Psalterium istud organum dicitur quod de superiore parte habet testudinem, illud scilicet tympanum et concavum lignum cui chordae innitentes resonant, cithara vero id ipsum lignum cavum et sonorum ex inferiore parte habet. In the cithern the strings pass over the sound-board, in the harp and lyre the vibrating body runs round the strings which are left free (without a bridge) and is either curved or angular as in the case of the harp, or encompasses the strings as in the lyre. Harps with an upper sounding body (whether of metal or wood, viz., lignum concavum i.e., with a hollow and hence sonorous wood, which protects the strings like a testudo and serves as tympanum) are found both on Egyptian and on Assyrian monuments. By the psalterium described by Augustine, Casiodorus and Isidorus understand the trigonum, which is in the form of an inverted sharp-cornered triangle; but it cannot be this that is intended because the horizontal strings of this instrument are surrounded by a three-sided sounding body, so that it must be a triangular lyre. Moreover there is also a trigon belonging to the Macedonian era which is formed like a harp (vid., Weiss' Kostmkunde, Fig. 347) and this further tends to support our view.)
being transferred metaphorically to the songs that are sung with its accompaniment. Psalms are songs for the lyre, and therefore lyric poems in the strictest sense.
3. The History of Psalm Composition
Before we can seek to obtain a clear idea of the origin of the Psalm-collection we must take a general survey of the course of the development of psalm writing. The lyric is the earliest kind of poetry in general, and the Hebrew poetry, the oldest example of the poetry of antiquity that has come down to us, is therefore essentially lyric. Neither the Epos nor the Drama, but only the Mashal, has branched off from it and attained an independent form. Even prophecy, which is distinguished from psalmody by a higher impulse which the mind of the writer receives from the power of the divine mind, shares with the latter the common designation of נכּא (Ch1 24:1-3), and the psalm-singer, משׁרר, is also as such called חזה (Ch1 25:5; Ch2 29:30; Ch2 35:15, cf. Ch1 15:19 and freq.); for just as the sacred lyric often rises to the height of prophet vision, so the prophetic epic of the future, because it is not entirely freed from the subjectivity of the prophet, frequently passes into the strain of the psalm.
The time of Moses was the period of Israel's birth as a nation and also of its national lyric. The Israelites brought instruments with them out of Egypt and these were the accompaniments of their first song (Ex 15) - the oldest hymn, which re-echoes through all hymns of the following ages and also through the Psalter (comp. Exo 15:2 with Psa 118:14; Exo 15:3 with Psa 24:8; Exo 15:4, Exo 14:27 with Psa 136:15; Ex 15: with Psa 78:13, Exo 15:11 with Psa 77:14; Psa 86:8; Psa 89:7.; Exo 15:13, Exo 15:17 with Psa 78:54, and other parallels of a similar kind). If we add to these, Ps 90 and Deut 32, we then have the prototypes of all Psalms, the hymnic, elegiac, and prophetico-didactic. All three classes of songs are still wanting in the strophic symmetry which characterises the later art. But even Deborah's song of victory, arranged in hexastichs, - a song of triumph composed eight centuries before Pindar and far outstripping him, - exhibits to us the strophic art approximating to its perfect development. It has been thought strange that the very beginnings of the poesy of Israel are so perfect, but the history of Israel, and also the history of its literature, comes under a different law from that of a constant development from a lower to a higher grade. The redemptive period of Moses, unique in its way, influences as a creative beginning, every future development. There is a constant progression, but of such a kind as only to develope that which had begun in the Mosaic age with all the primal force and fulness of a divine creation. We see, however, how closely the stages of this progress are linked together, from the fact that Hannah the singer of the Old Testament Magnificat, was the mother of him who anointed, as King, the sweet singer of Israel, on whose tongue was the word of the Lord.
In David the sacred lyric attained its full maturity. Many things combined to make the time of David its golden age. Samuel had laid the foundation of this both by his energetic reforms in general, and by founding the schools of the prophets in particular, in which under his guidance (Sa1 19:19.), in conjunction with the awakening and fostering of the prophetic gift, music and song were taught. Through these coenobia, whence sprang a spiritual awakening hitherto unknown in Israel, David also passed. Here his poetic talent, if not awakened, was however cultivated. He was a musician and poet born. Even as a Bethlehemite shepherd he played upon the harp, and with his natural gift he combined a heart deeply imbued with religious feeling. But the Psalter contains as few traces of David's Psalms before his anointing (vid., on Psa 8:1-9; Psa 144:1-15) as the New Testament does of the writings of the Apostles before the time of Pentecost. It was only from the time when the Spirit of Jahve came upon him at his anointing as king of Israel, and raised him to the dignity of his calling in connection with the covenant of redemption, that he sang Psalms, which have become an integral part of the canon. They are the fruit not only of his high gifts and the inspiration of the Spirit of God (Sa2 23:2), but also of his own experience and of the experience of his people interwoven with his own. David's path from his anointing onwards, lay through affliction to glory. Song however, as a Hindu proverb says, is the offspring of suffering, the חloka springs from the חoka. His life was marked by vicissitudes which at one time prompted him to elegiac strains, at another to praise and thanksgiving; at the same time he was the founder of the kingship of promise, a prophecy of the future Christ, and his life, thus typically moulded, could not express itself otherwise than in typical or even consciously prophetic language. Raised to the throne, he did not forget the harp which had been his companion and solace when he fled before Saul, but rewarded it with all honour. He appointed 4000 Levites, the fourth division of the whole Levitical order, as singers and musicians in connection with the service in the tabernacle on Zion and partly in Gibeon, the place of the Mosaic tabernacle. These he divided into 24 classes under the Precentors, Asaph, Heman, and Ethan = Jeduthun (1 Chron 25 comp. Ch1 15:17.), and multiplied the instruments, particularly the stringed instruments, by his own invention (Ch1 23:5; Neh 12:36)
(Note: I tended, says David in the Greek Psalter, at the close of Ps, my father's sheep, my hands made pipes (ὄργανον = עוגב) and my fingers put together (or: tuned) harps (ψαλτήριον = נבל) cf. Numeri Rabba c. xv. (f. 264a) and the Targum on Amo 6:5.).
In David's time there were three places of sacrifice: on Zion beside the ark (Sa2 6:17.), in Gibeon beside the Mosaic tabernacle (Ch1 16:39.) and later, on the threshing-floor of Ornan, afterwards the Temple-hill (Ch1 21:28-30). Thus others also were stimulated in many ways to consecrate their offerings to the God of Israel. Beside the 73 Psalms bearing the inscription לדוד, - Psalms the direct Davidic authorship of which is attested, at least in the case of some fifty, by their creative originality, their impassioned and predominantly plaintive strain, their graceful flow and movement, their ancient but clear language, which becomes harsh and obscure only when describing the dissolute conduct of the ungodly-the collection contains the following which are named after contemporary singers appointed by David: 12 לאסף (Ps 50; 78:1-83:18), of which the contents and spirit are chiefly prophetic, and 12 by the Levite family of singers, the בני־קרה (Ps 42-49; 84:1-85:13; 87:1-88:18, including Psa 43:1-5), bearing a predominantly regal and priestly impress. Both the Psalms of the Ezrahite, Ps 88 by Heman and Ps 89 by Ethan, belong to the time of Solomon whose name, with the exception of Ps 72, is borne only by Psa 127:1-5. Under Solomon psalm-poesy began to decline; all the existing productions of the mind of that age bear the mark of thoughtful contemplation rather than of direct conception, for restless eagerness had yielded to enjoyable contentment, national concentration to cosmopolitan expansion. It was the age of the Chokma, which brought the apophthegm to its artistic perfection, and also produced a species of drama. Solomon himself is the perfecter of the Mashal, that form of poetic composition belonging strictly to the Chokma, Certainly according to Kg1 5:12 [Hebr.; Kg1 4:32, Engl.] he was also the author of 1005 songs, but in the canon we only find two Psalms by him and the dramatic Song of Songs. This may perhaps be explained by the fact that he spake of trees from the cedar to the hyssop, that his poems, mostly of a worldly character, pertained rather to the realm of nature than to the kingdom of grace.
Only twice after this did psalm-poesy rise to any height and then only for a short period: viz., under Jehoshaphat and under Hezekiah. Under both these kings the glorious services of the Temple rose from the desecration and decay into which they had fallen to the full splendour of their ancient glory. Moreover there were two great and marvellous deliverances which aroused the spirit of poesy during the reigns of these kings: under Jehoshaphat, the overthrow of the neighbouring nations when they had banded together for the exstirpation of Judah, predicted by Jahaziel, the Asaphite; under Hezekiah the overthrow of Sennacherib's host foretold by Isaiah. These kings also rendered great service to the cause of social progress. Jehoshaphat by an institution designed to raise the educational status of the people, which reminds one of the Carlovingian missi (Ch2 17:7-9); Hezekiah, whom one may regard as the Pisistratus of Israelitish literature, by the establishment of a commission charged with collecting the relics of the early literature (Pro 25:1); he also revived the ancient sacred music and restored the Psalms of David and Asaph to their liturgical use (Ch2 29:25.). And he was himself a poet, as his מכתב (מכתם?) (Isa 38) shows, though certainly a reproductive rather than a creative poet. Both from the time of Jehoshaphat and from the time of Hezekiah we possess in the Psalter not a few Psalms, chiefly Asaphic and Korahitic, which, although bearing no historical heading, unmistakeably confront us with the peculiar circumstances of those times.
(Note: With regard to the time of Jehoshaphat even Nic. Nonne has acknowledge this in his Diss. de Tzippor et Deror (Bremen 1741, 4to.) which has reference to Psa 84:4.)
With the exception of these two periods of revival the latter part of the regal period produced scarcely any psalm writers, but is all the more rich in prophets. When the lyric became mute, prophecy raised its trumpet voice in order to revive the religious life of the nation, which previously had expressed itself in psalms. In the writings of the prophets, which represent the λεῖμμα χάριτος in Israel, we do indeed find even psalms, as Jon 2:1-10, Isa 12:1-6; Hab 3:1, but these are more imitations of the ancient congregational hymns than original compositions. It was not until after the Exile that a time of new creations set in.
As the Reformation gave birth to the German church-hymn, and the Thirty years' war, without which perhaps there might have been no Paul Gerhardt, called it into life afresh, so the Davidic age gave birth to psalm-poesy and the Exile brought back to life again that which had become dead. The divine chastisement did not fail to produce the effect designed. Even though it should not admit of proof, that many of the Psalms have had portions added to them, from which it would be manifest how constantly they were then used as forms of supplication, still it is placed beyond all doubt, that the Psalter contains many psalms belonging to the time of the Exile, as e.g., Ps 102. Still far more new psalms were composed after the Return. When those who returned from exile, among whom were many Asaphites,
(Note: In Barhebraeus on Job and in his Chronikon several traditions are referred to "Asaph the Hebrew priest, the brother of Ezra the writer of the Scriptures.")
again felt themselves to be a nation, and after the restoration of the Temple to be also a church, the harps which in Babylon hung upon the willows, were tuned afresh and a rich new flow of song was the fruit of this re-awakened first love. But this did not continue long. A sanctity founded on good works and the service of the letter took the place of that outward, coarse idolatry from which the people, now returned to their fatherland, had been weaned while undergoing punishment in the land of the stranger. Nevertheless in the era of the Seleucidae the oppressed and injured national feeling revived under the Maccabees in its old life and vigour. Prophecy had then long been dumb, a fact lamented in many passages in the 1st Book of the Maccabees. It cannot be maintained that psalm-poesy flourished again at that time. Hitzig has recently endeavoured to bring forward positive proof, that it is Maccabean psalms, which form the proper groundwork of the Psalter. He regards the Maccabean prince Alexander Jannaeus as the writer of Psa 1:1-6 and Psa 2:1-12, refers Ps 44 to 1 Macc. 5:56-62, and maintains both in his Commentary of 1835-36 and in the later edition of 1863-65 that from Ps 73 onwards there is not a single pre-Maccabean psalm in the collection and that, from that point, the Psalter mirrors the prominent events of the time of the Maccabees in chronological order. Hitzig has been followed by von Lengerke and Olshausen. They both mark the reign of John Hyrcanus (b.c. 135-107) as the time when the latest psalms were composed and when the collection as we now have it was made: whereas Hitzig going somewhat deeper ascribes Ps 1-2; Psa 150:1-6 with others, and the arrangement of the whole, to Hyrcanus' son, Alexander Jannaeus.
On the other hand both the existence and possibility of Maccabean psalms is disputed not only by Hengstenberg, Hvernick, and Keil but also by Gesenius, Hassler, Ewald, Thenius, Bttcher, and Dillmann. For our own part we admit the possibility. It has been said that the ardent enthusiasm of the Maccabean period was more human than divine, more nationally patriotic than theocratically national in its character, but the Book of Daniel exhibits to us, in a prophetic representation of that period, a holy people of the Most High contending with the god-opposing power in the world, and claims for this contest the highest significance in relation to the history of redemption. The history of the canon, also, does not exclude the possibility of there being Maccabean psalms. For although the chronicler by Ch1 16:36 brings us to the safe conclusion that in his day the Psalter (comp. τὰ τοῦ Δαυίδ, 2 Macc. 2:13)
(Note: In the early phraseology of the Eastern and Western churches the Psalter is simply called David, e.g., in Chrysostom: ἐκμαθόντες ὅλον τὸν Δαβίδ, and at the close of the Aethiopic Psalter: "David is ended.")
was already a whole divided into five books (vid., on Psa 96:1-13; 105:1-106:48): it might nevertheless, after having been completely arranged still remain open for later insertions (just as the ספר הישׁר cited in the Jos 1:1 and 2 Sam 1, was an anthology which had grown together in the course of time). When Judas Maccabaeus, by gathering together the national literature, followed in the footsteps of Nehemiah (2 Macc. 2:14: ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ Ἰούδας τὰ δεισκορπισμένα διὰ τὸν πόλεμον τὸν γεγονότα ἡμῖν ἐπισυνήγαγε πάντα, καὶ ἔστι παρ ̓ ἡμῖν), we might perhaps suppose that the Psalter was at that time enriched by some additions. And when Jewish tradition assigns to the so-called Great Synagogue (כנסת הגדולה) a share in the compilation of the canon, this is not unfavourable to the supposition of Maccabean psalms, since this συναγωγή μεγάλη was still in existence under the domination of the Seleucidae (1 Macc. 14:28).
It is utterly at variance with historical fact to maintain that the Maccabean period was altogether incapable of producing psalms worthy of incorporation in the canon. Although the Maccabean period had no prophets, it is nevertheless to be supposed that many possessed the gift of poesy, and that the Spirit of faith, which is essentially one and the same with the Spirit of prophecy, might sanctify this gift and cause it to bear fruit. An actual proof of this is furnished by the so-called Psalter of Solomon (Ψαλτήριον Σαλομῶντος in distinction from the canonical Psalter of David)
(Note: First made known by De la Cerda in his Adversaria sacra (1626) and afterwards incorporated by Fabricius in his Codex Pseudepigraphus V. T. pp. 914ff. (1713).)
consisting of 18 psalms, which certainly come far behind the originality and artistic beauty of the canonical Psalms; but they show at the same time, that the feelings of believers, even throughout the whole time of the Maccabees, found utterance in expressive spiritual songs. Maccabean psalms are therefore not an absolute impossibility - no doubt they were many; and that some of them were incorporated in the Psalter, cannot be denied priori. But still the history of the canon does not favour this supposition. And the circumstance of the lxx version of the Psalms (according to which citations are made even in the first Book of the Maccabees) inscribing several Psalms Ἀγγαίου καὶ Ζαχαρίου, while however it does not assign the date of the later period to any, is against it. And if Maccabean psalms be supposed to exist in the Psalter they can at any rate only be few, because they must have been inserted in a collection which was already arranged. And since the Maccabean movement, though beginning with lofty aspirations, gravitated, in its onward course, towards things carnal, we can no longer expect to find psalms relating to it, or at least none belonging to the period after Judas Maccabaeus; and from all that we know of the character and disposition of Alexander Jannaeus it is morally impossible that this despot should be the author of the first and second Psalms and should have closed the collection.
4. Origin of the Collection
The Psalter, as we now have it, consists of five books.
(Note: The Karaite Jerocham (about 950 a.d.) says מגלות (rolls) instead of ספרים.)
Τοῦτό σε μὴ παρέλθοι, ὦ φιλόλογε - says Hippolytus, whose words are afterwards quoted by Epiphanius - ὅτι καὶ τὸ ψαλτήριον εἰς πέντε διεῖλον βιβλία οἱ Ἑβραῖοι, ὥστε εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸ ἄλλον πεντάτευχον. This accords with the Midrash on Psa 1:1 : Moses gave the Israelites the five books of the Thτra and corresponding to these (כנגדם) David gave them the book of Psalms which consists of five books (ספר תהלים שׁישׁ בו חמשׁה ספרים). The division of the Psalter into five parts makes it the copy and echo of the Thפra, which it also resembles in this particular: that as in the Thפra Elohistic and Jehovistic sections alternate, so here a group of Elohistic Psalms (42-84) is surrounded on both sides by groups of Jehovistic (1-41, 85-150). The five books are as follow:-1-41, 42-72, 83-89, 90-106, 107-150.
(Note: The Karaite Jefeth ben Eli calls them אשׁרי ספר, כאיל ס etc.)
Each of the first four books closes with a doxology, which one might erroneously regard as a part of the preceding Psalm (Ps 41:14; Psa 72:18., 89:53; Psa 106:48), and the place of the fifth doxology is occupied by Ps as a full toned finale to the whole (like the relation of Ps 139 to the so-called Songs of degrees). These doxologies very much resemble the language of the liturgical Beracha of the second Temple. The אמן ואמן coupled with ו (cf. on the contrary Num 5:22 and also Neh 8:6) is exclusively peculiar to them in Old Testament writings. Even in the time of the writer of the Chronicles the Psalter was a whole divided into five parts, which were indicated by these landmarks. We infer this from Ch1 16:36. The chronicler in the free manner which characterises Thucydides of Livy in reporting a speech, there reproduces David's festal hymn that resounded in Israel after the bringing home of the ark; and he does it in such a way that after he has once fallen into the track of Ps 106, he also puts into the mouth of David the beracha which follows that Ps. From this we see that the Psalter was already divided into books at that period; the closing doxologies had already become thoroughly grafted upon the body of the Psalms after which they stand. The chronicler however wrote under the pontificate of Johanan, the son of Eliashib, the predecessor of Jaddua, towards the end of the Persian supremacy, but a considerable time before the commencement of the Grecian.
Next to this application of the beracha of the Fourth book by the chronicler, Psa 72:20 is a significant mark for determining the history of the origin of the Psalter. The words: "are ended the prayers of David the son of Jesse," are without doubt the subscription to the oldest psalm-collection, which preceded the present psalm-pentateuch. The collector certainly has removed this subscription from its original place close after Psa 72:17, by the interpolation of the beracha Psa 72:18, but left it, as the same time, untouched. The collectors and those who worked up the older documents within the range of the Biblical literature appear to have been extremely conscientious in this respect and they thereby make it easier for us to gain an insight into the origin of their work, - as, e.g., the composer of the Books of Samuel gives intact the list of officers from a later document Sa2 8:16-18 (which closed with that, so far as we at present have it in its incorporated state), as well as the list from an older document (Sa2 20:23-26); or, as not merely the author of the Book of Kings in the middle of the Exile, but also the chronicler towards the end of the Persian period, have transferred unaltered, to their pages, the statement that the staves of the ark are to be found in the rings of the ark "to this day," which has its origin in some annalistic document (Kg1 8:8; Ch2 5:9). But unfortunately that subscription, which has been so faithfully preserved, furnishes us less help than we could wish. We only gather from it that the present collection was preceded by a primary collection of very much more limited compass which formed its basis and that this closed with the Salomonic Ps 72; for the collector would surely not have placed the subscription, referring only to the prayers of David, after this Psalm if he had not found it there already. And from this point it becomes natural to suppose that Solomon himself, prompted perhaps by the liturgical requirements of the new Temple, compiled this primary collection, and by the addition of Ps 72 may have caused it to be understood that he was the originator of the collection.
But to the question whether the primary collection also contained only Davidic songs properly so called or whether the subscribed designation תהלות דוד is only intended a potiori, the answer is entirely wanting. If we adopt the latter supposition, one is at a loss to understand for what reason only Ps 50 of the Psalms of Asaph was inserted in it. For this psalm is really one of the old Asaphic psalms and might therefore have been an integral part of the primary collection. On the other hand it is altogether impossible for all the Korahitic psalms Psa 42:1 to have belonged to it, for some of them, and most undoubtedly Psa 48:1 and Psa 48:1 were composed in the time of Jehoshaphat, the most remarkable event of which, as the chronicler narrates, was foretold by an Asaphite and celebrated by Korahitic singers. It is therefore, apart from other psalms which bring us down to the Assyrian period (as Psa 66:1, Psa 67:1) and the time of Jeremiah (as Ps 71) and bear in themselves traces of the time of the Exile (as Psa 69:35), absolutely impossible that the primary collection should have consisted of Psa 2:1, or rather (since Psa 2:1 appears as though it ought to be assigned to the later time of the kings, perhaps the time of Isaiah) of Psa 3:1. And if we leave the later insertions out of consideration, there is no arrangement left for the Psalms of David and his contemporaries, which should in any way bear the impress of the Davidic and Salomonic mind. Even the old Jewish teachers were struck by this, and in the Midrash on Psa 3:1-8 we are told, that when Joshua ben Levi was endeavouring to put the Ps. in order, a voice from heaven cried out to him: arouse not the slumberer (אל־תפיחי את־ישׁן) i.e., do not disturb David in his grave! Why Psa 3:1-8 follows directly upon Psa 2:1-12, or as it is expressed in the Midrash פרשׁת אבשׁלום follows פרשׁת גוג ומגוג, may certainly be more satisfactorily explained than is done there: but to speak generally the mode of the arrangement of the first two books of the Psalms is of a similar nature to that of the last three, viz., that which in my Symbolae ad Psalmos illustrandos isagogicae (1846) is shown to run through the entire Psalter, more according to external than internal points of contact.
(Note: The right view has been long since perceived by Eusebius, who in his exposition of Psa 63:1-11 (lxx 62), among other things expresses himself thus: ἐγὼ δὲ ἡγοῦμαι τῆς τῶν ἐγγεγραμμένων διανοίας ἕνεκεν ἐφεξῆς ἀλλήλων τοὺς ψαλμοὺς κεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον, οὕτως ἐν πολλοῖς ἐπιτηρήσας καὶ εὑρών, διὸ καὶ συνῆφθαι αὐτοὺς ὡσανεὶ συγγένειαν ἔχοντας καὶ ἀκολουθίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· ἔνθεν μὴ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους ἐμφέρεσθαι, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν τῆς διανοίας ἀκολουθίαν (in Montfaucon's Collectio Nova, t. i. p. 300). This ἀκολουθία διανοίας is however not always central and deep. The attempts of Luther (Walch, iv. col. 646ff.) and especially of Solomon Gesner, to prove a link of internal progress in the Psalter are not convincing.)
On the other side it cannot be denied that the groundwork of the collection that formed the basis of the present Psalter must lie within the limits of Psa 3:1, for nowhere else do old Davidic psalms stand so closely and numerously together as here. The Third book (Psa 73:1) exhibits a marked difference in this respect. We may therefore suppose that the chief bulk of the oldest hymn book of the Israelitish church is contained in Psa 3:1. But we must at the same time admit, that its contents have been dispersed and newly arranged in later redactions and more especially in the last of all; and yet, amidst these changes the connection of the subscription, Psa 72:20, with the psalm of Solomon was preserved. The two groups Psa 3:1, Psa 73:1, although not preserved in the original arrangement, and augmented by several kinds of interpolations, at least represent the first two stages of the growth of the Psalter. The primary collection may be Salomonic. The after portion of the second group was, at the earliest, added in the time of Jehoshaphat, at which time probably the book of the Proverbs of Solomon was also compiled. But with a greater probability of being in the right we incline to assign them to the time of Hezekiah, not merely because some of the psalms among them seem as though they ought to be referred to the overthrow of Assyria under Hezekiah rather than to the overthrow of the allied neighbouring nations under Jehoshaphat, but chiefly because just in the same manner "the men of Hezekiah" appended an after gleaning to the older Salomonic book of Proverbs (Pro 25:1), and because of Hezekiah it is recorded, that he brought the Psalms of David and of Asaph (the bulk of which are contained in the Third book of the Psalms) into use again (Ch2 29:30). In the time of Ezra and Nehemiah the collection was next extended by the songs composed during and (which are still more numerous) after the Exile. But a gleaning of old songs also had been reserved for this time. A Psalm of Moses was placed first, in order to give a pleasing relief to the beginning of the new psalter by this glance back into the earliest time. And to the 56 Davidic psalms of the first three books, there are seventeen more added here in the last two. They are certainly not all directly Davidic, but partly the result of the writer throwing himself into David's temper of mind and circumstances. One chief store of such older psalms were perhaps the historical works of an annalistic or even prophetic character, rescued from the age before the Exile. It is from such sources that the historical notes prefixed to the Davidic hymns (and also to one in the Fifth book: Psa 142:1-7) come. On the whole there is unmistakeably an advance from the earliest to the latest; and we may say, with Ewald, that in Psa 1:1 the real bulk of the Davidic and, in general, of the older songs, is contained, in Psa 42:1 predominantly songs of the middle period, in Psa 90:1 the large mass of later and very late songs. But moreover it is with the Psalm-collection as with the collection of the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel: the chronological order and the arrangement according to the matter are at variance; and in many places the former is intentionally and significantly disregarded in favour of the latter. We have often already referred to one chief point of view of this arrangement according to matter, viz., the imitation of the Thra; it was perhaps this which led to the opening of the Fourth book, which corresponds to the Book of Numbers, with a psalm of Moses of this character.
5. Arrangement and inscriptions
Among the Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa has attempted to show that the Psalter in its five books leads upward as by five steps to moral perfection, ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ ὑψηλότερον τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπερτιθεὶς, ὡς ἂν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀκρότατον ἐφίκηται τῶν ἀγαθῶν;
(Note: Opp. ed. Paris, (1638) t. i. p. 288.)
and down to the most recent times attempts have been made to trace in the five books a gradation of principal thoughts, which influence and run through the whole collection.
(Note: Thus especially Sthelin, Zur Einleitung in die Psalmen, 1859, 4to.)
We fear that in this direction, investigation has set before itself an unattainable end. Nevertheless, as we shall see, the collection bears the impress of one ordering mind. For its opening is formed by a didactic-prophetic couplet of psalms (Psa 1:1), introductory to the whole Psalter and therefore in the earliest times regarded as one psalm, which opens and closes with אשׁרי; and its close is formed by four psalms (Psa 146:1) which begin and end with הללו־יה. We do not include Ps for this psalm takes the place of the beracha of the Fifth book, exactly as the recurring verse Isa 48:22 is repeated in 57:21 with fuller emphasis, but is omitted at the close of the third part of this address of Isaiah to the exiles, its place being occupied by a terrifying description of the hopeless end of the wicked. The opening of the Psalter celebrates the blessedness of those who walk according to the will of God in redemption, which has been revealed in the law and in history; the close of the Psalter calls upon all creatures to praise this God of redemption, as it were on the ground of the completion of this great work. Bede has already called attention to the fact that the Psalter from Psa 146:1-10 ends in a complete strain of praise; the end of the Psalter soars upward to a happy climax. The assumption that there was an evident predilection for attempting to make the number 150 complete, as Ewald supposes, cannot be established; the reckoning 147 (according to a Haggadah book mentioned in Jer. Sabbath xvi., parallel with the years of Jacob's life), and the reckoning 149, which frequently occurs both in Karaitic and Rabbinic MSS, have also been adopted; the numbering of the whole and of particular psalms varies.
(Note: The lxx, like our Hebrew text, reckons 150 psalms, but with variations in separate instances, by making 9 and 10, and 114 and 115 into one, and in place of these, dividing 116 and 147 each into two. The combination of 9 and 10, of 114 and 115 into one has also been adopted by others; 134 and 135, but especially 1 and 2, appear here and there as one psalm. Kimchi reckons 149 by making Ps 114 and 115 into one. The ancient Syriac version combines Ps 114 and 115 as one, but reckons 150 by dividing Ps 147.)
There are in the Psalter 73 psalms bearing the inscription לדוד, viz., (reckoning exactly) 37 in book 1; 18 in book 2; 1 in book 3; 2 in book 4; 15 in book 5. The redaction has designed the pleasing effect of closing the collection with an imposing group of Davidic psalms, just as it begins with the bulk of the Davidic psalms. And the Hallelujahs which begin with Psa 146:1-10 (after the 15 Davidic psalms) are the preludes of the closing doxology. The Korahitic and Asaphic psalms are found exclusively in the Second and Third books. There are 12 Asaphic psalms: 50, 73-83, and also 12 Korahitic: 42, 43, 44-49, 84, 85, 87, 88, assuming that Psa 43:1-5 is to be regarded as an independent twin psalm to Psa 42:1 and that Ps 88 is to be reckoned among the Korahitic psalms. In both of these divisions we find psalms belonging to the time of the Exile and to the time after the Exile (Psa 74:1, Psa 79:1, Psa 85:1). The fact of their being found exclusively in the Second and Third books cannot therefore be explained on purely chronological grounds. Korahitic psalms, followed by an Asaphic, open the Second book; Asaphic psalms, followed by four Korahitic, open the Third book.
The way in which Davidic psalms are interspersed clearly sets before us the principle by which the arrangement according to the matter, which the collector has chosen, is governed. It is the principle of homogeneousness, which is the old Semitic mode of arranging things: for in the alphabet, the hand and the hollow of the hand, water and fish, the eye and the mouth, the back and front of the head have been placed together. In like manner also the psalms follow one another according to their relationship as manifested by prominent external and internal marks. The Asaphic psalm, Ps 50, is followed by the Davidic psalm, Psa 51:1, because they both similarly disparage the material animal sacrifice, as compared with that which is personal and spiritual. And the Davidic psalm Psa 86:1 is inserted between the Korahitic psalms Psa 85:1 and Psa 87:1, because it is related both to Psa 85:8 by the prayer: "Show me Thy way, O Jahve" and "give Thy conquering strength unto Thy servant," and to Psa 87:1-7 by the prospect of the conversion of the heathen to the God of Israel. This phenomenon, that psalms with similar prominent thoughts, or even with only markedly similar passage, especially at the beginning and the end, are thus strung together, may be observed throughout the whole collection. Thus e.g., Psa 56:1-13 with the inscription, "after (the melody): the mute dove among strangers," is placed after Ps 55 on account of the occurrence of the words: "Oh that I had wings like a dove!" etc., in that psalm; thus Ps 34 and 35 stand together as being the only psalms in which "the Angel of Jahve" occurs; and just so Ps 9 and Psa 10:1 which coincide in the expression יתות בצרה.
Closely connected with this principle of arrangement is the circumstance that the Elohimic psalms (i.e., those which, according to a peculiar style of composition as I have shown in my Symbolae, not from the caprice of an editor,
(Note: This is Ewald's view (which is also supported by Riehm in Stud. u. Kirt. 1857 S. 168). A closer insight into the characteristic peculiarity of the Elohim-psalms, which is manifest in other respects also, proves it to be superficial and erroneous.)
almost exclusively call God אלהים, and beside this make use of such compound names of God as יהוה צבאות, יהוה אלהים צבאות and the like) are placed together without any intermixture of Jehovic psalms. In Psa 1:1 the divine name יהוה predominates; it occurs 272 times and אלהים only 15 times, and for the most part under circumstances where יהוה was not admissible. With Psa 42:1-11 the Elohimic style begins; the last psalm of this kind is the Korahitic psalm Psa 84:1, which for this very reason is placed after the Elohimic psalms of Asaph. In the Psa 85:1 יהוה again becomes prominent, with such exclusiveness, that in the Psalms of the Fourth and Fifth books יהוה occurs 339 times (not 239 as in Symbolae p. 5), and אלהים of the true God only once (Psa 144:9). Among the psalms of David 18 are Elohimic, among the Korahitic 9, and the Asaphic are all Elohimic. Including one psalm of Solomon and four anonymous psalms, there are 44 in all (reckoning Psa 42:1-11 and Psa 43:1 as two). They form the middle portion of the Psalter, and have on their right 41 and on their left 65 Jahve-psalms.
Community in species of composition also belongs to the manifold grounds on which the order according to the subject-matter is determined. Thus the משׂכּיל (Psa 42:1, Psa 44:1, Psa 45:1, Psa 52:1) and מכתּם (Psa 56:1) stand together among the Elohim-psalms. In like manner we have in the last two books the המּצלות שׁיר (Psa 120:1) and, divided into groups, those beginning with הודוּ (Psa 105:1) and those beginning and ending with הללוּיהּ (Psa 111:1, Psa 146:1) - whence it follows that these titles to the psalms are older than the final redaction of the collection.
It could not possibly be otherwise than that the inscriptions of the psalms, after the harmless position which the monographs of Sonntag (1687), Celsius (1718), Irhof (1728) take with regard to them, should at length become a subject for criticism; but the custom which has gained ground since the last decade of the past century of rejecting what has been historically handed down, has at present grown into a despicable habit of forming a decision too hastily, which in any other department of literature where the judgment is not so prejudiced by the drift of the enquiry, would be regarded as folly. Instances like Hab 3:1 and Sa2 1:18, comp. Psa 60:1, show that David and other psalm-writers might have appended their names to their psalms and the definition of their purport. And the great antiquity of these and similar inscriptions also follows from the fact that the lxx found them already in existence and did not understand them; that they also cannot be explained from the Books of the Chronicles (including the Book of Ezra, which belongs to these) in which much is said about music, and appear in these books, like much besides, as an old treasure of the language revived, so that the key to the understanding of them must have been lost very early, as also appears from the fact that in the last two books of the Psalter they are of more rare, and in the first three of more frequent occurrence.
6. The Strophe-System of the Psalms
The early Hebrew poetry has neither rhyme nor metre, both of which (first rhyme and then afterwards metre) were first adopted by Jewish poesy in the seventh century after Christ. True, attempts at rhyme are not wanting in the poetry and prophecy of the Old Testament, especially in the tephilla style, Psa 106:4-7 cf. Jer 3:21-25, where the earnestness of the prayer naturally causes the heaping up of similar flexional endings; but this assonance, in the transition state towards rhyme proper, had not yet assumed such an established form as is found in Syriac.
(Note: Vid., Zingerle in the Deutsch. Morgenlnd. Zeitschrift. X. 110ff.)
It is also just as difficult to point out verses of four lines only, which have a uniform or mixed metre running through them. Notwithstanding, Augustine, Ep. cxiii ad Memorium, is perfectly warranted in saying of the Psalms: certis eos constare numeris credo illis qui eam linguam probe callent, and it is not a mere fancy when Philo, Josephus, Eusebius, Jerome and others have detected in the Old Testament songs, and especially in the Psalms, something resembling the Greek and Latin metres. For the Hebrew poetry indeed had a certain syllabic measure, since, - apart from the audible Sheb and the Chateph, both of which represent the primitive shortenings, - all syllables with a full vowel are intermediate, and in ascending become long, in descending short, or in other words, in one position are strongly accented, in another more or less slurred over. Hence the most manifold rhythms arise, e.g., the anapaestic wenashlı̂cha mimrénnu abothémo (Psa 2:3) or the dactylic áz jedabbér elêmo beappó (Psa 2:5). The poetic discourse is freer in its movement than the Syriac poetry with its constant ascending ( _ _́ ) or descending spondees ( ́_ _ ); it represents all kinds of syllabic movements and thus obtains the appearance of a lively mixture of the Greek and Latin metres. But it is only an appearance - for the forms of verse, which conform to the laws of quantity, are altogether foreign to early Hebrew poetry, as also to the oldest poetry; and these rhythms which vary according to the emotions are not metres, for, as Augustine says in his work De Musica, "Omne metrum rhythmus, non omnis rhythmus etiam metrum est." Yet there is not a single instance of a definite rhythm running through the whole in a shorter or longer poem, but the rhythms always vary according to the thoughts and feelings; as e.g., the evening song Psa 4:1-8 towards the end rises to the anapaestic measure: ki-attá Jahawé lebadád, in order then quietly to subside in the iambic: labétach tôshibéni.
(Note: Bellermann's Versuch ber die Metrik der Hebrer (1813) is comparatively the best on this subject even down to the present time; for Saalschtz (Von der Form der hebr. Poesie, 1825, and elsewhere) proceeds on the erroneous assumption that the present system of accentuation does not indicate the actual strong toned syllable of the words-by following the pronunciation of the German and Polish Jews he perceives, almost throughout, a spondaeo-dactylic rhythm (e.g., Jdg 14:18 lûle charáshtem beegláthi). But the traditional accentuation is proved to be a faithful continuation of the ancient proper pronunciation of the Hebrew; the trochaic pronunciation is more Syrian, and the tendency to draw the accent from the final syllable to the penult, regardless of the conditions originally governing it, is a phenomenon which belongs only to the alter period of the language (vid., Hupfeld in the Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr. vi. 187).)With this alternation of rise and fall, long and short syllables, harmonizing in lively passages with the subject, there is combined, in Hebrew poetry, and expressiveness of accent which is hardly to be found anywhere else to such an extent. Thus e.g., Psa 2:5 sounds like pealing thunder, and Psa 2:5 corresponds to it as the flashing lightning. And there are a number of dull toned Psalms as Psa 17:1, Psa 49:1, Psa 58:1, Psa 59:1, Psa 73:1, in which the description drags heavily on and is hard to be understood, and in which more particularly the suffixes in mo are heaped up, because the indignant mood of the writer impresses itself upon the style and makes itself heard in the very sound of the words. The non plus ultra of such poetry, whose very tones heighten the expression, is the cycle of the prophecies of Jeremiah Jer 24:1.
Under the point of view of rhythm the so-called parallelismus membrorum has also been rightly placed: that fundamental law of the higher, especially poetic, style for which this appropriate name as been coined, not very long since.
(Note: Abenezra calls it כּפוּל duplicatum, and Kimchi שׁונות בּמלּות ענין כּפל, duplicatio sententiae verbis variatis; both regard it as an elegant form of expression (דוך צחות). Even the punctuation does not proceed from a real understanding of the rhythmical relation of the members of the verse to one another, and when it divides every verse that is marked off by Silluk wherever it is possible into two parts, it must not be inferred that this rhythmical relation is actually always one consisting of two members merely, although (as Hupfeld has shown in his admirable treatise on the twofold law of the rhythm and accent, in the D. M. Z. 1852), wherever it exists it always consists of at least two members.)
The relation of the two parallel members does not really differ from that of the two halves on either side of the principal caesura of the hexameter and pentameter; and this is particularly manifest in the double long line of the caesural schema (more correctly: the diaeretic schema) e.g., Psa 48:6, Psa 48:7 : They beheld, straightway they marvelled, bewildered they took to flight. Trembling took hold upon them there anguish, as a woman in travail. Here the one thought is expanded in the same verse in two parallel members. But from the fact of the rhythmical organization being carried out without reference to the logical requirements of the sentence, as in the same psalm Psa 48:4, Psa 48:8 : Elohim in her palaces was known as a refuge. With an east wind Thou breakest the ships of Tarshish, we see that the rhythm is not called into existence as a necessity of such expansion of the thought, but vice versa this mode of expanding the thought results from the requirements of the rhythm. Here is neither synonymous or identical (tautological), nor antithetical, nor synthetical parallelism, but merely that which De Wette calls rhythmical, merely the rhythmical rise and fall, the diastole and systole, which poetry is otherwise (without binding itself) wont to accomplish by two different kinds of ascending and descending logical organization. The ascending and descending rhythm does not usually exist within the compass of one line, but it is distributed over two lines which bear the relation to one another of rhythmical antecedent and consequent, of proodo's and epoodo's. This distich is the simplest ground-form of the strophe, which is visible in the earliest song, handed down to us, Gen 4:23. The whole Ps 119 is composed in such distichs, which is the usual form of the apophthegm; the acrostic letter stands there at the head of each distich, just as at the head of each line in the likewise distichic pair, Ps 111-112. The tristich is an outgrowth from the distich, the ascending rhythm being prolonged through two liens and the fall commencing only in the third, e.g., Psa 25:7 (the ח of this alphabetical Psalm):
Have not the sins of my youth and my transgressions in remembrance,
According to Thy mercy remember Thou me
For Thy goodness' sake, O Jahve!
This at least is the natural origin of the tristich, which moreover in connection with a most varied logical organization still has the inalienable peculiarity, that the full fall is reserved until the third line, e.g., in the first two strophes of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, where each line is a long line in two parts consisting of rise and fall, the principal fall, however, after the caesura of the third long line, closes the strophe:
Ah! how doth the city sit solitary, otherwise full of people! She is become as a widow, the great one among nations, The princess among provinces, she is become tributary. By night she weepeth sore and her tears are upon her cheeks; There is not one to comfort her of all her lovers, All her friends have betrayed her, they are become her enemies. If we now further enquire, whether Hebrew poesy goes beyond these simplest beginnings of the strophe-formation and even extends the network of the rhythmical period, by combining the two and three line strophe with ascending and descending rhythm into greater strophic wholes rounded off into themselves, the alphabetical Ps 37 furnishes us with a safe answer to the question, for this is almost entirely tetrastichic, e.g.,
About evil-doers fret not thyself,
About the workers of iniquity be thou not envious.
For as grass they shall soon be cut down,
And as the green herb they shall wither,
but it admits of the compass of the strophe increasing even to the pentastich, (Psa 37:25, Psa 37:26) since the unmistakeable landmarks of the order, the letters, allow a freer movement:
Now I, who once was young, am become old,
Yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken
And his seed begging bread.
He ever giveth and lendeth
And his seed is blessed.
From this point the sure guidance of the alphabetical Psalms
(Note: Even the older critics now and then supposed that we were to make these Ps. the starting point of our enquiries. For instance, Serpilius says: "It may perhaps strike some one whether an opinion as to some of the modes of the Davidic species of verse and poetry might not be formed from his, so-to-speak, alphabetical psalms.")
fails us in investigating the Hebrew strophe-system. But in our further confirmatory investigations we will take with us from these Psalms, the important conclusion that the verse bounded by Sôph pasûk, the placing of which harmonizes with the accentuation first mentioned in the post-Talmudic tractate Sofrim,
(Note: Even if, and this is what Hupfeld and Riehm (Luth. Zeitschr. 1866, S. 300) advance, the Old Testament books were divided into verses, פסוקים, even before the time of the Masoretes, still the division into verses, as we now have it and especially that of the three poetical books, is Masoretic.)
is by no means (as, since Kster, 1831, it has been almost universally supposed) the original form of the strophe but that strophes are a whole consisting of an equal or symmetrical number of stichs.
(Note: It was these stichs, of which the Talmud (B. Kiddushin 30 a) counts eight more in the Psalter than in the Thra, viz., 5896, which were originally called פסוקים. Also in Augustine we find versus thus used like στίχος. With him the words Populus ejus et oves pascuae ejus are one versus. There is no Hebrew MS which could have formed the basis of the arrangement of the Psalms in stichs; those which we possess only break the Masoretic verse, (if the space of the line admits of it) for ease of writing into the two halves, without even regarding the general injunction in c. xiv. of the tractate Sofrim and that of Ben-Bileam in his Horajoth ha-Kore, that the breaks are to be regulated by the beginnings of the verses and the two great pausal accents. Nowhere in the MSS, which divide and break up the words most capriciously, is there to be seen any trace of the recognition of those old פסוקים being preserved. These were not merely lines determined by the space, as were chiefly also the στίχοι or ἔπη according to the number of which, the compass of Greek works was recorded, but liens determined by the sense, κῶλα (Suidas: κῶλον ὁ ἀπηρτισμένην ἔννοιαν ἔχων στίχος), as Jerome wrote his Latin translation of the Old Testament after the model of the Greek and Roman orators (e.g., the MSS of Demosthenes), per cola et commata i.e., in lines breaking off according to the sense.)
Hupfeld (Ps. iv. 450) has objected against this, that "this is diametrically opposed to the nature of rhythm = parallelism, which cannot stand on one leg, but needs two, that the distich is therefore the rhythmical unit." But does it therefore follow, that a strophe is to be measured according to the number of distichs? The distich is itself only the smallest strophe, viz., one consisting of two lines. And it is even forbidden to measure a greater strophe by the number of distichs, because the rhythmical unit, of which the distich is the ground-form, can just as well be tristichic, and consequently these so-called rhythmical units form neither according to time nor space parts of equal value. But this applies still less to the Masoretic verses. True, we have shown in our larger Commentary on the Psalms, ii. 522f., in agreement with Hupfeld, and in opposition to Ewald, that the accentuation proceeds upon the law of dichotomy. But the Masoretic division of the verses is not only obliged sometimes to give up the law of dichotomy, because the verse (as e.g., Psa 18:2; Psa 25:1; Psa 92:9), does not admit of being properly divided into two parts; and it subjects not only verses of three members (as e.g., Psa 1:1; Psa 2:2) in which the third member is embellishingly or synthetically related to the other two - both are phenomena which in themselves furnish proof in favour of the relative independence of the lines of the verse - but also verses of four members where the sense requires it (as Psa 1:3; Psa 18:16) and where it does not require it (as Psa 22:15; Psa 40:6), to the law of dichotomy. And these Masoretic verses of such various compass are to be the constituent parts according to which strophes of a like cipher shall be measured! A strophe only becomes a strophe by virtue of its symmetrical relation to others, to the ear it must have the same time, to the eye the same form and it must consequently represent the same number of lines (clauses). The fact of these clauses, according to the special characteristic of Hebrew poetry, moving on with that rising and falling movement which we call parallelism until they come to the close of the strophe where it gently falls to rest, is a thing sui generis, and, within the province of the strophe, somewhat of a substitute for metre; but the strophe itself is a section which comes to thorough repose by this species of rhythmical movement. So far, then, from placing the rhythm on one leg only, we give it its two: but measure the strophe not by the two feet of the Masoretic verses or even couplets of verses, but by the equal, or symmetrically alternating number of the members present, which consist mostly of two feet, often enough however of three, and sometimes even of four feet.
Whether and how a psalm is laid out in strophes, is shown by seeing first of all what its pauses are, where the flow of thoughts and feelings falls in order to rise anew, and then by trying whether these pauses have a like or symmetrically correspondent number of stichs (e.g., 6. 6. 6. 6 or 6. 7. 6. 7) or, if their compass is too great for them to be at once regarded as one strophe, whether they cannot be divided into smaller wholes of an equal or symmetrical number of stichs. For the peculiarity of the Hebrew strophe does not consist in a run of definite metres closely united to form one harmonious whole (for instance, like the Sapphic strophe, which the four membered verses, Isa 16:9-10, with their short closing lines corresponding to the Adonic verse, strikingly resemble), but in a closed train of thought which is unrolled after the distichic and tristichic ground-form of the rhythmical period. The strophe-schemata, which are thus evolved, are very diverse. We find not only that all the strophes of a poem are of the same compass (e.g., 4. 4. 4. 4), but also that the poem is made up of symmetrical relations formed of strophes of different compass. The condition laid down by some,
(Note: For instance Meier in his Geschichte der poetischen Nationalliteratur der Hebrer, S. 67, who maintains that strophes of unequal length are opposed to the simplest laws of the lyric song and melody. But the demands which melody imposes on the formation of the verse and the strophe were not so stringent among the ancients as now, and moreover - is not the sonnet a lyric poem?)
that only a poem that consists of strophes of equal length can be regarded as strophic, is refuted not only by the Syriac
(Note: Vid., Zingerle in the Dm. M. Z. x. 123, 124.)
but also by the post-biblical Jewish poetry.
(Note: Vid., Zunz, Synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters, S. 92-94.)
We find the following variations: strophes of the same compass followed by those of different compass (e.g., 4. 4. 6. 6); as in the chiasmus, the outer and inner strophes of the same compass (e.g., 4. 6. 6. 4); the first and third, the second and fourth corresponding to one another (e.g., 4. 6. 4. 6); the mingling of the strophes repeated antistrophically, i.e., in the inverted order (e.g., 4. 6. 7. 7. 6. 4); strophes of equal compass surrounding one of much greater compass (e.g., 4. 4. 10. 4. 4), what Kster calls the pyramidal schema; strophes of equal compass followed by a short closing stanza (e.g., 3. 3. 2); a longer strophe forming the base of the whole (e.g., 5. 3. 3. 7), and these are far from being all the different figures, which the Old Testament songs and more especially the Psalms present to us, when we arrange their contents in stichs.
With regard to the compass of the strophe, we may expect to find it consisting of as many as twelve lines according to the Syrian and the synagogue poetry. The line usually consists of three words, or at least only of three larger words; in this respect the Hebrew exhibits a capacity for short but emphatic expressions, which are inadmissible in German [or English]. This measure is often not uniformly preserved throughout a considerable length, not only in the Psalms but also in the Book of Job. For there is far more reason for saying that the strophe lies at the basis of the arrangement of the Book of Job, than for G. Hermanjn's observation of strophic arrangement in the Bucolic writers and Kchly's in the older portions of Homer.
7. Temple Music and Psalmody
The Thra contains no directions respecting the use of song and music in divine worship except the commands concerning the ritualistic use of silver trumpets to be blown by the priests (Numbers 10). David is really the creator of liturgical music, and to his arrangements, as we see from the Chronicles, every thing was afterwards referred, and in times when it had fallen into disuse, restored. So long as David lived, the superintendence of the liturgical music was in his hands (Ch1 25:2). The instrument by means of which the three choir-masters (Heman, Asaph, and Ethan-Jeduthun) directed the choir was the cymbals (מצלתּים or צלצלים)
(Note: Talmudic צלצל. The usual Levitic orchestra of the temple of Herod consisted of 2 Nabla players, 9 Cithern players and one who struck the Zelazal, viz., Ben-Arza (Erachin 10 a, etc.; Tamid vii. 3), who also had the oversight of the duchan (Tosiphta to Shekalim ii).)
which served instead of wands for beating time; the harps (נבלים) represented the soprano, and the bass (the male voice in opposition to the female) was represented by the citherns an octave lower (Ch1 15:17-21), which, to infer from the word לנצּח used there, were used at the practice of the pieces by the מנצּח appointed. In a Psalm where סלה is appended (vid., on Psa 3:1-8), the stringed instruments (which הגּיון סלה Job 9:17 definitely expresses), and the instruments generally, are to join in
(Note: Comp. Mattheson's "Erlutertes Selah" 1745: Selah is a word marking a prelude, interlude, or after-piece with instruments, a sign indicating the places where the instruments play alone, in short a so-called ritornello.)
in such a way as to give intensity to that which is being sung. To these instruments, besides those mentioned in Psa 150:1-6; Sa2 6:5, belonged also the flute, the liturgical use of which (vid., on Psa 5:1) in the time of the first as of the second Temple is undoubted: it formed the peculiar musical accompaniment of the hallel (vid., Psa 113:1-9) and of the nightly torch-light festival on the semi-festival days of the Feast of Tabernacles (Succa 15 a). The trumpets (חצצרות) were blown exclusively by the priests to whom no part was assigned in the singing (as probably also the horn שׁופר Psa 81:4; Psa 98:6; Psa 150:3), and according to Ch2 5:12. (where the number of the two Mosaic trumpets appears to be raised to 120) took their turn unisono with the singing and the music of the Levites. At the dedication of Solomon's Temple the Levites sing and play and the priests sound trumpets נגדּם, Ch2 7:6, and at the inauguration of the purified Temple under Hezekiah the music of the Levites and priests sound in concert until all the burnt offerings are laid upon the altar fire, and then (probably as the wine is being poured on) began (without any further thought of the priests) the song of the Levites, Ch2 29:26-30. In the second Temple it was otherwise: the sounding of the trumpets by the priests and the Levitical song with its accompanying music alternated, they were not simultaneous. The congregation did not usually sing with the choir, but only uttered their Amen; nevertheless they joined in the Hallel and in some psalms after the first clause with its repetition, after the second with hallelujah (Maimonides, Hilchoth Megilla, 3). Ch1 16:36 points to a similar arrangement in the time of the first Temple. Just so does Jer 33:11 in reference to the "Give thanks unto the Lord, for He is good." Antiphonal singing in the part of the congregation is also to be inferred from Ezr 3:10. The Psalter itself is moreover acquainted with an allotment of the עלמות, comp. משׁררות Ezr 2:65 (whose treble was represented by the Levite boys in the second Temple, vid., on Psa 46:1) in choral worship and speaks of a praising of God "in full choirs," Psa 26:12; Psa 68:27. And responsive singing is of ancient date in Israel: even Miriam with the women answered the men (להם Exo 15:21) in alternating song, and Nehemiah (Neh 12:27.) at the dedication of the city walls placed the Levites in two great companies which are there called תודות, in the midst of the procession moving towards the Temple. In the time of the second Temple each day of the week had its psalm. The psalm for Sunday was 24, for Monday 48, Tuesday 82, Wednesday 94, Thursday 81, Friday 93, the Sabbath 92. This arrangement is at least as old as the time of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae, for the statements of the Talmud are supported by the inscriptions of Psa 24:1; Psa 48:1; Psa 94:1; Psa 93:1 in the lxx, and as respects the connection of the daily psalms with the drink-offering, by Sir. 50:14-16. The psalms for the days of the week were sung, to wit, at the time of the drink-offering (נסך) which was joined with the morning Tamı̂d:
(Note: According to the maxim אין אומר שׁירה אלא על היין, "no one singeth except over the wine.")
two priests, who stood on the right and left of the player upon the cymbal (Zelazal) by whom the signal was given, sounded the trumpets at the nine pauses (פרקים), into which it was divided when sung by the Levites, and the people bowed down and worshipped.
(Note: B. Rosh ha-Shana, 31a. Tamd vii. 3, comp. the introduction to Psa 24:1-10; Psa 92:1-15 and Ps 94.)
The Levites standing upon the suggestus (דּוּבן) - i.e., upon a broad staircase consisting of a few steps, which led up from the court of the laity to that of the priests-who were both singers and musicians, and consequently played only on stringed instruments and instruments of percussion, not wind-instruments, were at least twelve in number, with 9 citherns, 2 harps, and one cymbal: on certain days the flute was added to this number.
(Note: According to B. Erachin 10a the following were the customary accompaniments of the daily service: 1) 21 trumpet blasts, to as many as 48; (2) 2 nablas, to 6 at most; 2 flutes (חלילין), to 12 at most. Blowing the flute is called striking the flute, הכּה החליל. On 12 days of the year the flute was played before the altar: on the 14th of Nisan at the slaying of the Passover (at which the Hallel was sung), on the 14th of Ijar at the slaying of the little Passover, on the 1st and 7th days of the Passover and on the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles. The mouth-piece (אבּוּב according to the explanation of Maimonides) was not of metal but a reed (comp. Arab. anbûb, the blade of the reed), because it sounds more melodious. And it was never more than one flute (אבוב יחידי, playing a solo), which continued at the end of a strain and closed it, because this produces the finest close (חלּוּק). On the 12 days mentioned, the Hallel was sung with flute accompaniment. On other days, the Psalm appointed for the day was accompanied by nablas, cymbals and citherns. This passage of the treatise Erachin also tells who were the flute-players. On the flute-playing at the festival of water-drawing, vid., my Geschichte der jdischen Poesie S. 195. In the Temple of Herod, according to Erachin 10b, there was also an organ. This was however not a water-organ (הדוליס, hydraulis), but a wind-organ (מגרפה) with a hundred different tones (מיני זמר), whose thunder-like sound, according to Jerome (Opp. ed. Mart. v. 191), was heard ab Jerusalem usque ad montem Oliveti et amplius, vid., Saalschtz, Archol. i. 281-284.)
The usual suggestus on the steps at the side of the altar was changed for another only in a few cases; for it is noticed as something special that the singers had a different position at the festival of water-drawing during the Feast of Tabernacles (vid., introduction to Psa 120:1), and that the flute-players who accompanied the Hallel stood before the altar, לפני המזכח (Erachin 10a). The treble was taken by the Levite youths, who stood below the suggestus at the feet of the Levites (vid., on Psa 46:1-11). The daily שׁיר הקרבן (i.e., the week-day psalm which concluded the morning sacrifice) was sung in nine (or perhaps more correctly 3)
(Note: This is the view of Maimonides, who distributes the 9 trumpet-blasts by which the morning sacrifice, according to Succa 53b, was accompanied, over the 3 pauses of the song. The hymn Haaznu, Deut 32, which is called הלוים שׁירת par excellence, was sung at the Sabbath Musaph-sacrifice - each Sabbath a division of the hymn, which was divided into six parts - so that it began anew on every seventh Sabbath, vid., J. Megilla, sect. iii, ad fin.)
pauses, and the pauses were indicated by the trumpet-blasts of the priests (vid., on Ps 38; Psa 81:4). Beside the seven Psalms which were sung week by week, there were others appointed for the services of the festivals and intervening days (vid., on Ps 81), and in Biccurim 3, 4 we read that when a procession bearing the firstfruits accompanied by flute playing had reached the hill on which the Temple stood and the firstfruits had been brought up in baskets, at the entrance of the offerers into the Azara, Psa 30:1-12 was struck up by the Levites. This singing was distinct from the mode of delivering the Tefilla (vid., on Ps 44 ad fin.) and the benediction of the priests (vid., on Psa 67:1-7), both of which were unaccompanied by music. Distinct also, as it seems, from the mode of delivering the Hallel, which was more as a recitative, than sung (Pesachim 64a, קראוּ את ההלל). It was probably similar to the Arabic, which delights in shrieking, long-winded, trilling, and especially also nasal tones. For it is related of one of the chief singers that in order to multiply the tones, he placed his thumb in his mouth and his fore finger ביו הנימין (between the hairs, i.e., according to Rashi: on the furrow of the upper lip against the partition of the nostrils), and thus (by forming mouth and nose into a trumpet) produced sounds, before the volume of which the priests started back in astonishment.
(Note: Vid., B. Joma 38b and J. Shekalim v. 3, comp. Canticum Rabba on Canticles Psa 3:6.)
This mode of psalm-singing in the Temple of Herod was no longer the original mode, and if the present accentuation of the Psalms represents the fixed form of the Temple song, it nevertheless does not convey to us any impression of that before the Exile. It does, however, neither the one nor the other.
The accents are only musical, and indirectly interpunctional, signs for the chanting pronunciation of the synagogue. And moreover we no longer possess the key to the accents of the three metrical (i.e., consisting of symmetrical stichs and strophes) books as musical signs. For the so-called Sarkatables (which give the value of the accents as notes, beginning with Zarka, זרקא), e.g., at the end of the second edition of Ngelsbach's Gramm., relate only to the reading of the pentateuchal and prophetic pericope, - consequently to the system of prose accents. In the German synagogue there is no tradition concerning the value of the so-called metrical accents as notes, for the Psalms were not recited according to the accents; but for all the Psalms, there are only two different modes, at least in the German ritual, viz., 1) the customary one according to which verse after verse is recited by the leader and the congregation, as e.g., Psa 95:1; Psa 29:1 every Friday evening; and 2) that peculiar to Ps 119 in which the first seven verses of the eight are recited alternately by the leader and the congregation, but the eighth as a concluding verse is always closed by the congregation with a cadence. This psalmody does not always follow the accents. We can only by supposition approximately determine how the Psalms were to be recited according to them. For we still possess at least a few statements of Ben-Asher, Shemtob and Moses Provenzalo (in his grammatical didactic poem בּשׁם קדמון) concerning the intonation of single metrical accents. Pazzer and Shalshleth have a like intonation, which rises with a trill; though Shalshleth is more prolonged, about a third longer than that of the prose books. Legarme (in form Mahpach or Azla followed by Psik) has a clear high pitch, before Zinnor, however, a deeper and more broken tone; Rebia magnum a soft tone tending to repose. By Silluk the tone first rises and then diminishes. The tone of Mercha is according to its name andante and sinking into the depths; the tone of Tarcha corresponds to adagio. Further hints cannot be traced: though we may infer with respect to Ole we-jored (Mercha mahpachatum) and Athnach, that their intonation ought to form a cadence, as that Rebia parvum and Zinnor (Zarka) had an intonation hurrying on to the following distinctive accent. Further, if we place Dechi (Tiphcha initiale) and Rebia gereshatum beside the remaining six servi among the notes, we may indeed produce a sarka-table of the metrical accentuation, although we cannot guarantee its exact agreement with the original manner of singing.
Following Gerbert (De musica sacra) and Martini (Storia della musica), the view is at present very general that in the eight Gregorian tones together with the extra tone (tonus peregrinus),
(Note: Vid., Friedr. Hommel's Psalter nach der deutschen Uebersetzung D. M. Luthers fr den Gesang eingerichtet, 1859. The Psalms are there arranged in stichs, rightly assuming it to be the original mode and the most appropriate, that antiphonal song ought to alternate not according to the verses, as at the present day in the Romish and English church, but according to the two members of the verse.)
used only for Psa 113:1-9 (=Psa 114:1 in the Hebrew numeration), we have a remnant of the ancient Temple song; and this in itself is by no means improbable in connection with the Jewish nationality of the primitive church and its gradual severance at the first from the Temple and synagogue. In the convents of Bethlehem, which St. Paula founded, psalms were sung at six hours of prayer from early morn till midnight, and she herself was so well versed in Hebrew, ut Psalmos hebraice caneret et sermonem absque ulla Latinae linguae proprietate personaret (Ep. 108 ad Eustoch. c. 26). This points to a connection between the church and synagogue psalm-melodies in the mos orientalium partium, the oriental psalmody, which was introduced by Ambrose into the Milanese church. Nevertheless, at the same time the Jewish element has undergone scarcely any change; it has been developed under the influence of the Greek style, but is, notwithstanding, still recognizable.
(Note: Vid., Saalschtz, Geschichte und Wrdigung der Musik bei den Hebrern, 1829, S. 121, and Otto Strauss, Geschichtliche Betrachtung ber den Psalter als Gesang-und Gebetbuch, 1859.)
Pethachja of Ratisbon, the Jewish traveller in the 12th century, when in Bagdad, the ancient seat of the Geonim (גאונים), heard the Psalms sung in a manner altogether peculiar;
(Note: Vid., Literaturblatt des Orients, 4th years, col. 541.)
and Benjamin of Tudela, in the same century, became acquainted in Bagdad with a skilful singer of the Psalms used in divine worship. Saadia on Psa 6:1, infers from על־השׁמינית that there were eight different melodies (Arab. 'l-hân). And eight נגינית are also mentioned elsewhere;
(Note: Steinschneider, Jewish Literature p. 336f.)
perhaps not without reference to those eight church-tones, which are also found among the Armenians.
(Note: Petermann, Ueber die Musik der Armenier in the Deutsche Morgenl. Zeitschrift v. 368f.)
Moreover the two modes of using the accents in chanting, which are attested in the ancient service-books,
(Note: Zunz, Synagogale Poesie, S. 115.)
may perhaps be not altogether unconnected with the distinction between the festival and the simpler ferial manner in the Gregorian style of church-music.
8. Translations of the Psalms
The earliest translation of the Psalms is the Greek Alexandrine version. When the grandson of the son of Sirach came to Egypt in the year 132 b.c., not only the Law and the Prophets, but also the Hagiographa were already translated into the Greek; of course therefore also the Psalms, by which the Hagiographa are directly named in Luk 24:44. The story of the lxx (lxxII) translators, in its original form, refers only to the Thra; the translations of the other books are later and by different authors. All these translators used a text consisting only of consonants, and these moreover were here and there more or less indistinct; this text had numerous glosses, and was certainly not yet, as later, settled on the Masoretic basis. This they translated literally, in ignorance of the higher exegetical and artistic functions of the translator, and frequently the translation itself is obscure. From Philo, Josephus and the New Testament we see that we possess the text of this translation substantially in its original form, so that criticism, which since the middle of the last century has acquired many hitherto unknown helps,
(Note: To this period belong 1) the Psalterium Veronense published by Blanchini 1740, the Greek text in Roman characters with the Italic at the side belonging to the 5th or 6th century (vid., Tischendorf's edition of the lxx, 1856, Prolegg. p. lviii.f.); 2) the Psalterium Turicense purpureum described by Breitinger 1748, Greek Text likewise of the 5th or 6th century (vid., ibid. p. lix.f.); 3) Palmorum Fragmenta papyraccea Londinensia (in the British Museum), Psa 10:2; 20:14-34:6, of the 4th century, given in Tischendorf's Monumenta Sacra Inedita. Nova Collectio t. i.; 4) Fragmenta Psalmorum Tischendorfiana Psa 141:7, Psa 142:1, Psa 144:7, of the 5th or 4th century in the Monumenta t. ii. There still remain unused to the present time 1) the Psalterium Graeco-Latinum of the library at St. Gall, Cod. 17 in 4to, Greek text in uncial characters with the Latin at the side; 2) Psalterium Gallico-Romano-Hebraico-Graecum of the year 909, Cod. 230 in the public library at Bamberg (vid., a description of this MS by Schnfelder in the Serapeum, 1865, No. 21) written by Solomon, abbot of St. Gall and bishop of Constance (d. 920), and brought to Bamberg by the emperor Henry II (d. 1024), who had received it as a gift when in St. Gall; as regards the criticism of the text of the lxx it is of like importance with the Veronense which it resembles.)
more especially also in the province of the Psalms, will not need to reverse its judgment of the character of the work. Nevertheless, this translation, as being the oldest key to the understanding of the language of the Old Testament writings, as being the oldest mirror of the Old Testament text, which is not to be excepted from modest critical investigation, and as an important check upon the interpretation of Scripture handed down in the Talmud, in the Midrash, and in that portion of the national literature in general, not originating in Egypt, - is invaluable.
In one other respect this version claims a still greater significance. Next to the Book of Isaiah, no book is so frequently cited in the New Testament as the Psalter. The Epistle to the Hebrews has grown up entirely from the roots of the language of the Old Testament psalms. The Apocalypse, the only book which does not admit of being referred back to any earlier formula as its basis, is nevertheless not without references to the Psalter: Psa 2:1-12 in particular has a significant part in the moulding of the apocalyptic conceptions and language. These New Testament citations, with few exceptions (as Joh 13:18), are based upon the lxx, even where this translation (as e.g., Psa 19:5; Psa 51:6; Psa 116:10), only in a general way, correctly reproduces the original text. The explanation of this New Testament use of the lxx is to be found in the high esteem in which this translation was held among the Jewish people: it was accounted, not only by the Hellenistic, but also by the Palestinian Jews, as a providential and almost miraculous production; and this esteem was justified by the fact, that, although altogether of unequal birth with the canonical writings, it nevertheless occupies a position in the history of divine revelation which forms a distinct epoch. For it was the first opportunity afforded to the gentile world of becoming acquainted with the Old Testament revelation, and thus the first introduction of Japheth into the tents of Shem. At the same time therewith, a distinct breaking down of the barriers of the Old Testament particularism was effected. The Alexandrine translation was, therefore, an event which prepared the way for that Christianity, in which the appointment of the religion of Israel to be the religion of the world is perfected. This version, at the outset, created for Christianity the language which it was to use; for the New Testament Scriptures are written in the popular Greek dialect (κοινή) with an Alexandrine colouring. And in a general way we may say that Alexandrinism moulded the forms beforehand, which Christianity was afterwards to fill up with the substance of the gospel. As the way of Jesus Christ lay by Egypt (Mat 2:15), so the way of Christianity also lay by Egypt, and Alexandria in particular.
Equally worthy of respect on account of its antiquity and independence, though not of the same importance as the lxx from a religio-historical point of view, is the Targum or Chaldee version of the Psalms: a version which only in a few passages assumed the form of a paraphrase with reference to Midrash interpretations. The date of its composition is uncertain. But as there was a written Targum to the Book of Job
(Note: Vid., Tosefta to Sabb. xvi. Jer. Sabb. xiv. 1, Bab. Sabb. 115a, Sofrim v., 15.)
even during the time of the Temple, there was also a Targum of the Psalms, though bearing in itself traces of manifold revisions, which probably had its origin during the duration of the Temple. In distinction from the Targums of Onkelos to the Pentateuch and of Jonathan to the minor Prophets the Targum of the Psalms belongs to the so-called Jerusalem group,
(Note: Vid., Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, S. 166f.)
for the Aramaic idiom in which it is written-while, as the Jerusalem Talmud shows, it is always distinguished in no small degree from the Palestinian popular dialect as being the language of the literature-abounds in the same manner as the former in Greek words (as אנגּלין ἄγγελοι, אכסדרין ἐξέδραι, קירים κύριος), and like it also closely approximates, in sound and formation, to the Syriac. From this translation which excels the lxx in grammatical accuracy and has at its basis a more settled and stricter text, we learn the meaning of the Psalms as understood in the synagogue, as the interpretation became fixed, under the influence of early tradition, in the first centuries of the Christian era. The text of the Targum itself is at the present day in a very neglected condition. The most correct texts are to be found in Buxtorf and Norzi's Bibles. Critical observations on the Targums of the Hagiographa are given in the treatise עוטה אור by Benzion Berkowitz (Wilna, 1843).
The third most important translation of the Psalms is the Peshı̂to, the old version of the Syrian church, which was made not later than in the second century. Its author translated from the original text, which he had without the vowel points, and perhaps also in a rather incorrect form: as is seen from such errors as Psa 17:15 (אמונתך instead of תמונתך), Psa 83:12 (שדמו ואבדמי dele eos et perde eos instead of שיתמו נדיבמו), Psa 139:16 (גמלי retributionem meam instead of גלמי). In other errors he is influenced by the lxx, as Psa 56:9 (בנגדך lxx ἐνώπιόν σου instead of בנאדך), he follows this version in such departures from the better text sometimes not without additional reason, as Psa 90:5 (generationes eorum annus erunt, i.e., זראותיו שׁנה יהיו, lxx τὰ ἐξουδενώματα αὐτῶν ἔτη ἔσονται), Psa 110:3 (populus tuus gloriosus, i.e., נדבוּת עמך in the sense of נדיבה, Job 30:15, nobility, rank, lxx μετὰ σοῦ ἡ ἀρχή). The fact that he had the lxx before him beside the original text is manifest, and cannot be done away by the supposition that the text of the Peshto has been greatly distorted out of the later Hexaplarian translation; although even this is probable, for the lxx won such universal respect in the church that the Syrians were almost ashamed of their ancient version, which disagreed with it in many points, and it was this very circumstance which gave rise in the year 617 a.d. to the preparation of a new Syriac translation from the Hexaplarian lxx-text. It is not however merely between the Peshto and the lxx, but also between the Peshto and the Targum, that a not accidental mutual relation exists, which becomes at once apparent in Psa 1:1-6 (e.g., in the translation of לצים by ממיקני and of תורת by נמוסא) and hardly admits of explanation by the use of the Christian Peshto on the part of Jewish Targumist.
(Note: Although more recently we are told, Hai Gaon (in Babylonia) when he came upon a difficult passage in his Academical lectures on the Psalms enquired of the patriarch of the Eastern church how he interpreted it, vid., Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, p. 125f.)
It may be more readily supposed that the old Syriac translator of the Psalms, of whom we are now speaking, was a Jewish Christian and did not despise the welcome assistance of the Targum, which was already at hand, in whatever form it might be. It is evident that he was a Christian from passages like Psa 19:5; Psa 110:3, also from Psa 68:19 comp. with Eph 4:8; Jer 31:31 comp. with Heb 8:8; and his knowledge of the Hebrew language, with which, as was then generally the case, the knowledge of Greek was united, shows that he was a Jewish Christian. Moreover the translation has its peculiar Targum characteristics: tropical expressions are rendered literally, and by a remarkable process of reasoning interrogative clauses are turned into express declarations: Psa 88:11-13 is an instance of this with a bold inversion of the true meaning to its opposite. In general the author shuns no violence in order to give a pleasing sense to a difficult passage e.g., Psa 12:6, Psa 60:6. The musical and historical inscriptions, and consequently also the סלה (including הגיון סלה Psa 9:17) he leaves untranslated, and the division of verses he adopts is not the later Masoretic. All these peculiarities make the Peshto all the more interesting as a memorial in exegetico-historical and critical enquiry: and yet, since Dathe's edition, 1768, who took the text of Erpenius as his ground-work and added valuable notes,
(Note: The fragments of the translation of the Ps., which are cited under the name ὁ Σύρος, Dathe has also there collected in his preface.)
scarcely anything has been done in this direction.
In the second century new Greek translations were also made. The high veneration which the lxx had hitherto enjoyed was completely reversed when the rupture between the synagogue and the church took place, so that the day when this translation was completed as no longer compared to the day of the giving of the Law, but to the day of the golden calf. Nor was it possible that it should be otherwise than that its defects should become more and more perceptible. Even the New Testament writers found it requiring correction here and there, or altogether unfit for use, for the Palestinian text of the Old Testament which had been handed down, was not merely as regards the consonants but also as to pronunciation substantially the same as that which has been fixed by the Masoretes since the sixth century. Consequently Aquila of Pontus (a proselyte from heathenism to Judaism) in the first half of the 2nd century, made a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which imitated the original text word for word even at the risk of un-Greek expressions, and in the choice of the Greek words used is determined by the etymology of the Hebrew words. Not to lose any of the weighty words he translates the first sentence of the Thra thus: Ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ἔκτισεν ὁ Θεὸς σὺν (את) τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν (את) τὴν γῆν. In the fragments of the translation of the Psalms, one of which has been preserved in the Talmudic literature (vid., on Ps. 48:15), we do not meet with such instances of violence in favour of literalness, although also even there he forces the Greek into the form of the Hebrew, and always renders the words according to their primary meaning (e.g., דביר χρηματιστήριον, מגלה εἴλημα, פתח ἄνοιγμα, רהב ὅρμημα, אמן πεπιστευμένως), sometimes unhappily and misled by the usage the language had acquired in his time. In some passages he reads the text differently from our present pointing (e.g., Psa 10:4 ὅταν ὑψωθῇ), but he moreover follows the tradition (e.g., סלה ἀεὶ, שׁדי ἱκανός, מכתם τοῦ ταπεινόφρονος καὶ ἁπλοῦ = מך ותם) and also does not despise whatever the lxx may offer that is of any worth (e.g., במנים ἐν χορδαῖς), as his translation throughout, although an independent one, relies more or less upon the pioneering work of its predecessor, the lxx. His talent as a translator is unmistakeable. He has perfect command of the Hebrew, and handles the treasures of the Greek with a master-hand. For instance, in the causative forms he is never in difficulty for a corresponding Greek word (הפיל πτωματίζειν, הריץ δρομοῦν, השׂכיל ἐπιστημοῦν and the like). The fact that he translated for the synagogue in opposition to the church is betrayed by passages like Psa 2:12; Psa 22:17; Psa 110:3 and perhaps also Psa 84:10, comp. Dan 9:26, where he prefers ἠλειμμένου to Χριστοῦ: nevertheless one must not in this respect charge him with evil intentions throughout. Even Jerome, on calmer reflection, moderated his indignation against Aquila's translation to a less harsh judgment: ut amicae menti fatear, quae ad nostram fidem pertineant roborandam plura reperio, and praised it even at the expense of the translations of Theodotion and Symmachus: Isti Semichristiani Judaice transtulerunt, et Judaeus Aquila interpretatus est ut Christianus.
The translation of Theodotion is not an original work. It is based upon the lxx and brings this version, which was still the most widely used, into closer relation to the original text, by making use of Aquila's translation. The fragments that are preserved to us of passages independently translated contain nothing pre-eminently characteristic. Symmachus also takes the lxx as his basis, but in re-moulding it according to the original text he acts far more decidedly and independently than Theodotion, and distinguishes himself from Aquila by endeavouring to unite literalness with clearness and verbal accuracy: his translation of the Psalms has even a poetic inspiration about it. Both Aquila and Symmachus issued their translations twice, so that some passages are extant translated in a twofold form (vid., Psa 110:3).
Beside the lxx Aq. Symm. and Theod. there are also a fifth, sixth and seventh Greek translation of the Psalms. The fifth is said to have been found in Jericho under the emperor Caracalla, the sixth in Nicopolis under the emperor Alexander Severus. The former, in its remains, shows a knowledge of the language and tradition, the latter is sometimes (Psa 37:35; Hab 3:13) paraphrastic. A seventh is also mentioned besides, it is not like Theodotion. In the Hexapla of Origen, which properly contains only six columns (the Hebrew text, the Hebr. text in Greek characters, Aq., Symm., lxx, Theod.), in the Ps. and elsewhere a Quinta (Ε), Sexta (ς), and Septima (Ζ) are added to these six columns: thus the Hexapla (apart from the Seventh) became an Octapla. Of the remains of these old versions as compiled by Origen, after the labours of his predecessors Nobilius and Drusius, the most complete collection is that of Bernard de Montfaucon in his Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt (2 vols. folio, Paris 1713); the rich gleanings since handed down from many different quarters
(Note: Thus e.g., Montfaucon was only able to make use of the Psalter-MS Cod. Vat. 754 for 16 Psalms; Adler has compared it to the end and found in it valuable Hexapla fragments (vid., Repert. fr Bibl. u. Morgenl. Lit. xiv. S. 183f.). The Psalm-commentary of Barhebraeus and the Psalterium Mediolanense have also been begun to be worked with this object; but as yet, not the Syriac Psalter of the Medici library mentioned by Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum i. 240 and supposed to be based upon the Quinta.)
are unfortunately still scattered and uncollated.
Euthymius Zigadenus mentions beside the lxx, Aq., Symm., Theod., V, and VI, as a Seventh version that of Lucian which attempts to restore the original Septuagint-text by a comparison with the original text. Lucian died as a martyr 311 a.d. in Nicomedia, whither he had been dragged from Antioch. The autograph of this translation was found in Nicomedia, hidden in a small rough-plastered tower.
(Note: Comp. the Athanasian synopsis in Montfaucon, Hexapla t. 1 p. 59 and the contribution from a Syriac MS in the Repertorium fr Bibl. u. Morgenl. Lit. ib. (1784) S. 48f.)
We are as little able to form a conception of this Septuagint-recension of Lucian as of that of the contemporary Egyptian bishop Hesychius, since not a single specimen of either is extant. It would be interesting to know the difference of treatment of the two critics from that of Origen, who corrected the text of the κοινή after the Hebrew original by means of Theodotion's, obelis jugulans quae abundare videbantur, et quae deerant sub asteriscis interserens, which produced a confusion that might easily have been foreseen.
From the Old Latin translation, the so-called Itala, made from the lxx, we possess the Psalter complete: Blanchini has published this translation of the Psalms (1740) from the Veronese Psalter, and Sabbatier in the second volume of his Latinae Versiones Antiquae (1751) from the Psalter of the monastery of St. Germain. The text in Faber Stapulensis' Quincuplex Pslaterium (1509) is compiled from Augustine; for Augustine, like Hilary, Ambrose, Prosper, and Cassiodorus, expounds the Psalms according to the old Latin text. Jerome first of all carefully revised this in Rome, and thus originated the Psalterium Romanum, which has been the longest retained by the church of Milan and the Basilica of the Vatican. He then in Bethlehem prepared a second more carefully revised edition, according to the Hexaplarian Septuagint-text
(Note: Illud breviter admoneo - says Jerome, Ep. cvi. ad Sunniam et Fretelam - ut sciatis, aliam esse editionem, quam Origenes et Caesareensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores Koinee'n id est, Communem appellant atque Vulgatam et a plerisque nunc Λουκιανός dicitur; aliam Septuaginta Interpretum, quae in Ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur et a nobis in Latinum sermonem fideliter versa est et Hierosolymae atque in Orientis ecclesiis decantatur.)
with daggers (as a sign of additions in the lxx contrary to the original) and asterisks (a sign of additions in the lxx from Theodotion in accordance with the original), and this second edition which was first adopted by the Gallican churches obtained the name of the Psalterium Gallicanum. It is not essentially different from the Psalter of the Vulgate, and appeared, with its critical signs, from a MS of Bruno, bishop of Wrzburg (died 1045), for the first time in the year 1494 (then edited by Cochleus, 1533): both Psalters, the Romish and the Gallican, are placed opposite one another in Faber's Quincuplex Psalterium, in t. x. p. 1 of the Opp. Hieronymi, ed. Vallarsi and elsewhere.
The Latin Psalters, springing from the common or from the Hexaplarian Septuagint-text, as also the Hexapla-Syriac and the remaining Oriental versions based upon the lxx and the Peshto, have only an indirectly exegetico-historical value. On the contrary Jerome's translation of the Psalter, juxta Hebraicam veritatem, is the first scientific work of translation, and, like the whole of his independent translation of the Old Testament from the original text, a bold act by which he has rendered an invaluable service to the church, without allowing himself to be deterred by the cry raised against such innovations. This independent translation of Jerome has become the Vulgate of the church: but in a text in many ways estranged from its original form, with the simple exception of the Psalter. For the new translation of this book was opposed by the inflexible liturgical use it had attained; the texts of the Psalterium Romanum and Gallicanum maintained their ground and became (with the omission of the critical signs) an essential portion of the Vulgate. On this account it is the more to be desired that Jerome's Latin Psalter ex Hebraeo (Opp. ed. Vallarsi t. ix. p. 333) were made more generally known and accessible by a critical edition published separately. It is not necessary to search far for critical helps for such an undertaking. There is an excellent MS, Cod. 19, in the library of St. Gall, presented by the abbot Hartmot (died 895).
Origen and Jerome learnt the language of the Old Testament from Jewish teachers. All the advantages of Origen's philological learning are lost to us, excepting a few insignificant remains, with his Hexapla: this gigantic bible which would be the oldest direct monument of the Old Testament text if it were but extant. Whereas in Jerome's Old Testament translated from the original text (canon Hebraicae veritatis) we have the maturest fruit of the philological attainments of this indefatigable, steady investigator inspired with a zeal for knowledge. It is a work of the greatest critical and historical value in reference to language and exegesis. The translation of the Psalter is dedicated to Sophronius who had promised to translate it into Greek: this Greek translation is not preserved to us.
Jerome's translation of the Psalter has not its equal either in the synagogue or the church until the time of Saadia Gaon of Fajum, the Arabian translator of the Psalms. Two MSS of his translation of the Psalms are to be found at Oxford; but the most important, which also contains his annotations complete, is in Munich. Schnurrer (1791) contributed Psa 16:1-11; 40 and Psa 110:1-7 to Eichhorn's Biblioth. der Bibl. Lit. iii, from Cod. Pocock. 281, then Haneberg (1840) Ps 68 and several others from the Munich Cod.; the most extensive excerpts from Cod. Pocock. 281 and Cod. Huntingt. 416 (with various readings from Cod. Mon. appended) are given by Ewald in the first vol. of his Beitrge zur ltesten Ausleg. u. Spracherklrung des A. T. 1844. The gain which can be drawn from Saadai for the interpretation of the Psalms, according to the requirements of the present day, is very limited; but he promises a more interesting and rich advantage to philology and the history of exegesis. Saadia stands in the midst of the still ever mysterious process of development out of which the finally established and pointed text of the Old Testament came forth. He has written a treatise on the punctuation (ניקוד) to which Rashi refers in Psa 45:10, but in his treatment of the Old Testament text shows himself to be unfettered by its established punctuation. His translation is the first scientific work on the Psalms in the synagogue. The translation of Jerome is five hundred years older, but only the translation of Luther has been able to stand side by side with it and that because he was the first to go back to the fountain head of the original text.
The task, which is assigned to the translator of the sacred Scriptures, was recognised by Luther as by no one before him, and he has discharged it as no one up to the present day since his time has done. What Cicero said of his translation of the two controversial speeches of Demosthenes and Aeschines holds good also of Luther: Non converti ut interpres, sed ut orator, sententiis iisdem et earum formis tanquam figuris, verbis ad nostram consuetudinem aptis: in quibus non verbum pro verbo necesse habui reddere, sed genus omnium verborum vimque servavi; non enim ea me adnumerare lectori putavi oportere, sed tanquam adpendere - he has lived in thought and feeling in the original text in order not to reproduce it literally with a slavish adherence to its form, but to re-mould it into good and yet spiritually renewed German and at the same time to preserve its spirit free and true to its deepest meaning. This is especially the case with his translation of the Psalms, in which even Moses Mendelssohn has thought it to his advantage to follow him. To deny that here and there it is capable of improvement by a more correct understanding of the sense and in general by greater faithfulness to the original (without departing from the spirit of the German language), would indicate an ungrateful indifference to the advance which has been made in biblical interpretation - an advance not merely promised, but which we see actually achieved.
9. History of the Exposition of the Psalms
If we now take a glance over the history of the exposition of the Psalms, we shall see from it how late it was before the proper function of scientific exposition was recognised. We begin with the apostolic exposition. The Old Testament according to its very nature tends towards and centres in Christ. Therefore the innermost truth of the Old Testament has been revealed in the revelation of Jesus Christ. But not all at once: His passion, resurrection, and ascension are three steps of this progressive opening up of the Old Testament, and of the Psalms in particular. Our Lord himself, both before and after His resurrection, unfolded the meaning of the Psalms from His own life and its vicissitudes; He showed how what was written in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets and in the Psalms was fulfilled in Him; He revealed to His disciples the meaning τοῦ συνιέναι τάς γραφάς Luk 24:44. Jesus Christ's exposition of the Psalms is the beginning and the goal of Christian Psalm-interpretation. This began, as that of the Christian church, and in fact first of all that of the Apostles, at Pentecost when the Spirit, whose instrument David acknowledges himself to have been (Sa2 23:2), descended upon the Apostles as the Spirit of Jesus, the fulfiller and fulfilment of prophecy. This Spirit of the glorified Jesus completed what, in His humiliation and after His resurrection, he had begun: He opened up to the disciples the meaning of the Psalms. How strongly they were drawn to the Psalms is seen from the fact that they are quoted about seventy times in the New Testament, which, next to Isaiah, is more frequently than any other Old Testament book. From these interpretations of the Psalms the church will have to draw to the end of time. For only the end will be like the beginning and even surpass it. But we must not seek in the New Testament Scriptures what they are not designed to furnish, viz., an answer to questions belonging to the lower grades of knowledge, to grammar, to contemporary history and to criticism. The highest and final questions of the spiritual meaning of Scripture find their answer here; the grammatico-historico-critical under-structure, - as it were, the candlestick of the new light, - it was left for succeeding ages to produce.
The post-apostolic, patristic exposition was not capable of this. The interprets of the early church with the exception of Origen and Jerome possessed no knowledge of the Hebrew tongue, and even these two not sufficient to be able to rise to freedom from a dependence upon the lxx which only led them into frequent error. Of Origen's Commentary and Homilies on the Ps. we possess only fragments translated by Rufinus, and his ὑπόμνημα εἰς τοὺς ψαλμοὺς (edited complete by Kleopas, 1855, from a MS in the monastery of Mar-Saba). Jerome, contra Rufinum i. 19, indeed mentions Commentarioli on the Ps. by himself, but the Breviarium in Psalterium (in t. vii. p. ii. of his Opp. ed. Vallarsi) bearing his name is allowed not to be genuine, and is worthless as regards the history of the text and the language. The almost complete Commentary (on Ps 1-119 according to the Hebrew reckoning) of Eusebius, made known by Montfaucon (Collectio nova Patrum et Scriptorum Graec. t. i.) is unsuspected. Eusebius, though living in Palestine and having a valuable library at command, is nevertheless so ignorant of the Hebrew, that he considers it is possible Μαριαμ (מרחם) in Psa 110:1-7 may refer to Mary. But by contributions from the Hexapla he has preserved many acceptable treasures of historical value in connection with the translation, but of little worth in other respects, for the interpretation is superficial, and capriciously allegorical and forced. Athanasius in his short explanation of the Psalms (in t. i. p. ii. of the Benedictine edition) is entirely dependent on Philo for the meaning of the Hebrew names and words. His book: πρὸς Μαρκελλῖνον εἰς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν ψαλμῶν (in the same vol. of the Benedictine edition) is a very beautiful essay. It treats of the riches contained in the Psalms, classifies them according to their different points of view, and gives directions how to use them profitably in the manifold circumstances and moods of the outward and inner life. Johann Reuchlin has translated this little book of Athanasius into Latin, and Jrg Spalatin from the Latin of Reuchlin into German (1516. 4to.). Of a similar kind are the two books of Gregory of Nyssa εἰς τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν τῶν ψαλμῶν (Opp. ed. Paris, t. i.), which treat of the arrangement and inscriptions; but in respect of the latter he is so led astray by the lxx, that he sets down the want of titles of 12 Ps. (this is the number according to Gregory), which have titles in the lxx, to Jewish ἀπιστία and κακία. Nevertheless there are several valuable observations in this introduction of the great Nyssene. About contemporaneously with Athanasius, Hilarius Pictaviensis, in the Western church, wrote his allegorizing (after Origen's example) Tractatus in librum Psalmorum with an extensive prologue, which strongly reminds one of Hippolytus'. We still have his exposition of Ps. 1, 2, 9, 13, 14, 51, 52, 53-69, 91, 118-150 (according to the numbering of the lxx); according to Jerome (Ep. ad Augustin. cxii)
(Note: The following Greek expositors of the Psalms are mentioned there: 1) Origen, 2) Eusebius of Caesarea, 3) Theodore of Heraclea (the Anonymus in Corderius' Catena), 4) Asterius of Scythopolis, 5) Apollinaris (Apolinarios) of Laodicea, 6) Didymus of Alexandria. Then the following Latin expositors: 1) Hilary of Poictiers, who translated or rather remodelled Origen's Homilies on the Psalms (Jerome himself says of him, Ep. lvii. ad Pammach.: captivos sensus in suam linguam victoris jure transposuit), 2) Eusebius of Vercelli, translator of the commentary of Eusebius of Caesarea, and 3) Ambrose, who was partly dependent upon Origen. Of Apollinaris the elder, we have a Μετάφρασις τοῦ ψαλτῆρος διὰ στὶχων ἡρωΐκῶν preserved to us. He has also translated the Pentateuch and other Old Testament books into heroic verse.)
it is transferred from Origen and Eusebius. It is throughout ingenious and pity, but more useful to the dogmatic theologian than the exegete (t. xxvii., xxviii. of the Collectio Patrum by Caillau and Guillon).
(Note: Vid., the characteristics of this commentary in Reinkens, Hilarius von Poitiers (1864) S. 291-308.)
Somewhat later, but yet within the last twenty years of the fourth century (about 386-397), come Ambrose's Enarrationes in Psa 1:1-6, 35-40, Psa 43:1-5, 45, Psa 47:1-9, Psa 48:1-14, Psa 61:1-8, 118 (in t. ii. of the Benedictine edition). The exposition of Psa 1:1-6 is likewise an introduction to the whole Psalter, taken partly from Basil. He and Ambrose have pronounced the highest eulogiums on the Psalter. The latter says: Psalmus enim benedictio populi est, Dei laus, plebis laudatio, plausus omnium, sermo universorum, vox Ecclesiae, fidei canora confessio, auctoritatis plena devotio, libertatis laetitia, clamor jucunditatis, laetitiae resultatio. Ab iracundia mitigat, a sollicitudine abdicat, a maerore allevat. Nocturna arma, diurna magisteria; scutum in timore, festum in sanctitate, imago tranquillitatis, pignus pacis atque concordiae, citharae modo ex diversis et disparibus vocibus unam exprimens cantilenam. Diei ortus psalmum resultat, psalmum resonat occasus. After such and similar prefatory language we are led to expect from the exposition great fervour and depth of perception: and such are really its characteristics, but not to so large an extent as might have been the case had Ambrose - whose style of writing is as musical as that of Hilary is stiff and angular - worked out these expositions, which were partly delivered as sermons, partly dictated, and his own hand.
The most comprehensive work of the early church on the Psalms was that of Chrysostom, which was probably written while at Antioch. We possess only the exposition of 58 Ps. or (including Psa 3:1-8 and Psa 41:1-13, which in their present form do not belong to this work) 60 Ps. (in t. v. of Montfaucon's edition). Photius and Suidas place this commentary on the Psalms in the highest rank among the works of Chrysostom. It is composed in the form of sermons, the style is brilliant, and the contents more ethical than dogmatic. Sometimes the Hebrew text according to the Hexapla is quoted, and the Greek versions which depart from the original are frequently compared, but, unfortunately, generally without any name. There is hardly any trace in it of the renowned philologico-historical tendency of the school of Antioch. Theodoret (in t. ii. p. ii. of the Halle edition) was the first to set before himself the middle course between an extravagant allegorising and an unspiritual adherence to the literal historical sense (by which he doubtless has reference to Theodore of Mopsuestia), and thus to a certain extent he makes a beginning in distinguishing between the province of exegesis and practical application. But this scientific commencement, with even more of the grammatico-historical tendency, is still defective and wanting in independence. For example, the question whether all the Psalms are by David or not, is briefly decided in the affirmative, with κρατείτω τῶν πλειόνων ἡ ψῆφος.
(Note: In the Talmud R. Meir, Pesachim 117 a, adopts the view that David is the author of all the Ps.: כל תשׁבחות שׁבספר תהלים כולן דוד אמרן, which in Bathra 14b ten authors are supposed: דוד כתב ספר תהלים על ידי ערשׂה זקנים, vid., on this Midrash to Sol 4:4 and Ecc 7:19. In the former passage לתלפיות is explained as an emblematic name of the Psalter: ספר שׁאמרוהו לו פיות הרבה, the book of David, to which the mouths of many have contributed. And there are two modern commentaries, viz., by Klauss, 1832, and Randegger, 1841, which are written with the design of proving all the Psalms to be Davidic.)
The designed, minute comparison of the Greek translators is most thankworthy; in other respect, this expositor, like the Syrians generally, is wanting in the mystic depth which might compensate for the want of scientific insight. All this may be also said of Euthymius Zigadenus (Zigabgenues): his commentary on the Psalms (in Greek in t. iv. of the Venetian edition of the Opp. Theophylacti), written at the desire of the emperor Alexius Comnenus, is nothing but a skilful compilation, in the preparation of which he made good use of the Psalm-catena, likewise a compilation, of the somewhat earlier Νικήτας Σερρῶν,
(Note: This information is found in the modern Greek edition of Euthemius' Commentary on the Ps. by Nicodemos the Agiorite (2 vols. Constantinople 1819-21), which also contains extracts from this catena of Nicetas Serronius.)
which is to be found on Mount Athos and is still unprinted.
The Western counterpart to Chrysostom's commentary are Augustine's Enarrationes in Psalmos (in t. iv. of the Benedictine edition). The psalm-singing in the Milaneses church had contributed greatly to Augustine's conversion. But his love to his Lord was fired still more by the reading of the Psalms when he was preparing himself in solitude for his baptism. His commentary consists of sermons which he wrote down in part himself and in part dictated. Only the thirty-two sermones on Ps 118 (119), which he ventured upon last of all, were not actually delivered. He does not adopt the text of Jerome as his basis, but makes use of the older Latin version, the original text of which he sought to establish, and here and there to correct, by the lxx; whereas Arnobius, the Semi-Pelagian, in his paraphrastic Africano-Latin commentary on the Psalms (first edition by Erasmus, Basileae, Forben. 1522, who, as also Trithemnius, erroneously regarded the author as one and the same with the Apologist) no longer uses the so-called Itala, but takes Jerome's translation as his basis. The work of Augustine far surpassing that of Chrysostom in richness and depth of thought, has become, in the Western church, the chief mine of all later exposition of the Psalms. Cassiodorus in his Expositiones in omnes Psalmos (in t. ii. of the Bened. ed.) draws largely from Augustine, though not devoid of independence.
What the Greek church has done for the exposition of the Psalms has been garnered up many times since Photius in so-called Σειραί, Catenae. That of Nicetas archbishop of Serra in Macedonia (about 1070), is still unprinted. One, extending only to Ps 50, appeared at Venice 1569, and a complete one, edited by Corderius, at Antwerp 1643 (3 vols., from Vienna and Munich MSS). Folckmann (1601) made extracts from the Catena of Nicetas Heracleota, and Aloysius Lippomanus began a Catena from Greek and Latin writers on the largest scale (one folio vol. on Psa 1:1, Romae 1585). The defects to be found in the ancient exposition of the Psalms are in general the same in the Greek and in the Western expositors. To their want of acquaintance with the text of the original was added their unmethodical, irregular mode of procedure, their arbitrary straining of the prophetic character of the Psalms (as e.g., Tertullian, De spectaculis, takes the whole of Psa 1:1-6 as a prophecy concerning Joseph of Arimathea), their unhistorical perception, before which all differences between the two Testaments vanish, and their misleading predilection for the allegorical method. In all this, the meaning of the Psalms, as understood by the apostles, remains unused; they appropriate it without rightly apprehending it, and do not place the Psalms in the light of the New Testament fulfilment of them, but at once turn them into New Testament language and thoughts. But the church has never found such rapturous delight in the Psalms, which it was never weary of singing day and night, never used them with richer results even to martyrdom, than at that period. Instead of profane popular songs, as one passed through the country one might hear psalms resounding over the fields and vineyards. Quocunque te verteris, writes Jerome to the widow of Marcellus from the Holy Land, arator stivam tenens Alleluja decantat, sudans messor psalmis se avocat et curva attondens vitem falce vinitor aliquid Davidicum canit. Haec sunt in hac provincia carmina, hae (ut vulgo dicitur) amatoriae cantiones, hic pastorum sibilus, haec arma culturae. The delights of country life he commends to Marcella in the following among other words: Vere ager floribus pingitur et inter querulas aves Psalmi dulcius cantabuntur. In Sidonius Apollinaris we find even psalm-singing in the mouth of the men who tow the boats, and the poet takes from this a beautiful admonition for Christians in their voyage and journey through this life:
Curvorum hinc chorus helciariorum
Responsantibus Alleluja ripis
Ad Christum levat amicum celeusma.
Sic, sic psallite, nauta et viator!
And how many martyrs have endured every form of martyrdom with psalms upon their lips! That which the church in those days filed to furnish in writing towards the exposition of the Psalms, it more than compensated for by preserving the vitality of the Psalms with its blood. Practice made far more rapid progress than theory.
(Note: Vid., besides the essay by Otto Strauss, already mentioned: Armknecht, Die heilige Psalmodie oder der psalmodirende Knig David und die singende Urkirche, 1855; and W. von Glick, Das Psalterium nach seinem Hauptinhalte in seiner wissenschaftlichen und praktischen Bedeutung (a Catholic prize essay) 1858; partly also Rudelbach's Hymnologische Studien in the Luther. Zeitschrift 1855, 4, 1856, 2. and especially no penitential psalm-singing Zckler's Geschichte der Askese (1863) S. 256-264.)
These patristic works are patterns for every age of the true fervour which should characterise the expositor of the Psalms.
The mediaeval church exposition did not make any essential advance upon the patristic. After Cassiodorus, came Haymo (d. 853) and Remigius of Auxerre (d. about 900), still less independent compilers; the commentary of the former, edited by Erasmus, appeared Trib. 1531, of the latter, first Colon. 1536, and then in the Bibl. maxima Lugdunensis. That of Petrus Lombardus (d. about 1160) is a catena taken directly from earlier expositors from Jerome to Alcuin. Of a more independent character are the commentaries of Thomas Aquinas, who however only completed 51 Ps., and Alexander of Hales, if the Commentary which appeared under his name (Venet. 1496) is not rather to be attributed to cardinal Hugo. Besides, these, Bonaventura (d. 1274) and Albertus Magnus (d. 1280) stand out prominently in the Middle Ages as expositors of the Psalms; and on the border of the Middle Ages Michael Ayguanus (about 1400) whose commentary has been frequently reprinted since its first appearance, Mediol. 1510. If you know one of these expositors, you know them all. The most that they have to offer us is an echo of the earlier writers. By their dependence on the letter of the Vulgate, and consequently indirectly of the lxx, they only too frequently light upon a false track and miss the meaning. The literalis sensus is completely buried in mysticae intelligentiae. Without observing the distinction between the two economies, the conversion of the Psalms into New Testament language and thought, regardless of the intermediate steps of development, is here continued. Thus, for example, Albertus Magnus in his commentary (Opp. t. vii.), on the principle: Constat, quod totus liber iste de Christo, at once expounds Beatus vir (Psa 1:1), and the whole Ps., de Christo et ejus corpore ecclesia. But as we find in the Fathers occasional instances of deep insight into the meaning of passages, and occasional flashes of thought of lasting value, so even here the reading, especially of the mystics, will repay one. - The greatest authority in psalm-exposition for the Middle Ages was Augustine. From Augustine, and perhaps we may add from Cassiodorus, Notker Labeo (d. 1022), the monk of St. Gall, drew the short annotations which, verse by verse, accompany his German translation of the Psalms (vol. ii. of H. Hattemer's Denkmahle des Mittelalters). In like manner the Latin Psalter-catena of bishop Bruno of Wrzburg (d. 1045), mentioned above, is compiled from Augustine and Cassiodorus, but also from Jerome, Bede and Gregory. And the Syriac annotations to the Psalms of Gregory Barhebraeus (d. 1286), - of which Tullberg and Koraen, Upsala 1842, and Schrter, Breslau 1857, have published specimens, - are merely of importance in connection with the history of exposition, and are moreover in no way distinguished from the mediaeval method.
The mediaeval synagogue exposition is wanting in the recognition of Christ, and consequently in the fundamental condition required for a spiritual understanding of the Psalms. But as we are indebted to the Jews for the transmission of the codex of the Old Testament, we also owe the transmission of the knowledge of Hebrew to them. So far the Jewish interpreters give us what the Christian interpreters of the same period were not able to tender. The interpretations of passages from the Psalms scattered up and down in the Talmud are mostly unsound, arbitrary, and strange. And the Midrash on the Ps., bearing the title טוב שׁוחר (vid., Zunz, Vortrge, 266ff.), and the Midrash-catenae entitled ילקוט, of which at present only ילקוט שׁמעוני (by Simeon Kara ha-Darshan) is known, and ילקוט מכירי (by Machir b. Abba-Mari), contain far more that is limitlessly digressive than what is to the point and usable. This class of psalm-exposition was always employed for the thoroughly practical end of stimulating and edifying discourse. It is only since about 900 a.d., when indirectly under Syro-Arabian influence, the study of grammar began to be cultivated among the Jews, that the exposition and the application of Scripture began to be disentangled. At the head of this new era of Jewish exegesis stands Saadia Gaon (d. 941-2), from whose Arabic translation and annotations of the Ps. Haneberg (1840) and Ewald (1844) have published extracts. The Karaites, Salmon b. Jerocham and Jefeth, both of whom have also expounded the Psalms, are warm opponents of Saadia; but Jefeth whose commentary on the Psalms
(Note: It is to be found in MS partly in Paris, partly in St. Petersburg: the former having been brought thither from Egypt by Munk in 1841 and the latter by Tischendorf in 1853.)
has been in part made known by Bargs (since 1846), nevertheless already recognises the influence of grammar, which Saadia raised to the dignity of a science, but which Salmon utterly discards. The next great expositor of the Psalms is Rashi (i.e., Rabbi Salomo Isaaki) of Troyes (d. 1105), who has interpreted the whole of the Old Testament (except the Chronicles) and the whole of the Talmud;
(Note: But on some parts of the Talmud, e.g., the tractate Maccoth, we have not any commentary by Rashi.)
and he has not only treasured up with pithy brevity the traditional interpretations scattered about in the Talmud and Midrash, but also (especially in the Psalms) made use of every existing grammatico-lexical help. Aben-Ezra of Toledo (d. 1167) and David Kimchi of Narbonne (d. about 1250) are less dependent upon tradition, which for the most part expended itself upon strange interpretations. The former is the more independent and genial, but seldom happy in his characteristic fancies; the latter is less original, but gifted with a keener appreciation of that which is simple and natural, and of all the Jewish expositors he is the pre-eminently grammatico-historical interpreter. Gecatilia's (Mose ha-Cohen Chiquitilla) commentary on the Psalms written in Arabic is only known to us from quotations, principally in Aben-Ezra. In later commentaries, as those of Mose Alshch (Venice 1601) and Joel Shob (Salonica 1569), the simplicity and elegance of the older expositors degenerates into the most repulsive scholasticism. The commentary of Obadia Sforno (d. at Bologna 1550), Reuchlin's teacher, is too much given to philosophising, but is at least withal clear and brief. Their knowledge of the Hebrew gives all these expositors a marked advantage over their Christian contemporaries, but the veil of Moses over their eyes is thicker in proportion to their conscious opposition to Christianity. Nevertheless the church has not left these preparatory works unused. The Jewish Christians, Nicolaus de Lyra (d. about 1340), the author of the Postillae perpetuae, and Archbishop Paul de Santa Maria of Burgos (d. 1435), the author of the Additiones ad Lyram, took the lead in this respect. Independently, like the last mentioned writers, Augustinus Justinianus of Genoa, in his Octaplus Psalterii (Genoa, 1516, folio), drew chiefly from the Midrash and Sohar. The preference however was generally given to the use of Aben-Ezra and Kimchi; e.g., Bucer, who acknowledges his obligation to these, says: neque enim candidi ingenii est dissimulare, per quos profeceris. Justinianus, Pagninus, and Felix were the three highest authorities on the original text at the commencement of the Reformation. The first two had gained their knowledge of the original from Jewish sources and Felix Pratensis, whose Psalterium ex hebreo diligentissime ad verbum fere translatum, 1522, appeared under Leo X, was a proselyte.
We have now reached the threshold of the Reformation exposition. Psalmody in the reigning church had sunk to a lifeless form of service. The exposition of the Psalms lost itself in the dependency of compilation and the chaos of the schools. Et ipsa quamvis frigida tractatione Psalmorum - says Luther in his preface to Bugenhagen's Latin Psalter - aliquis tamen odor vitae oblatus est plerisque bonae mentis hominibus, et utcunque ex verbis illis etiam non intellectis semper aliquid consolationis et aurulae senserunt e Psalmis pii, veluti ex roseto leniter spirantis. Now, however, when a new light dawned upon the church through the Reformation - the light of a grammatical and deeply spiritual understanding of Scripture, represented in Germany by Reuchlin and in France by Vatablus - then the rose-garden of the Psalter began to breathe forth its perfumes as with the renewed freshness of a May day; and born again from the Psalter, German hymns resounded from the shores of the Baltic to the foot of the Alps with all the fervour of a newly quickened first-love. "It is marvellous" - says the Spanish Carmelite Thomas Jesu, - "How greatly the hymns of Luther helped forward the Lutheran cause. Not only the churches and schools echo with them, but even the private houses, the workshops, the markets, streets, and fields." For converted into imperishable hymns (by Luther, Albinus, Franck, Gerhardt, Jonas, Musculus, Poliander, Ringwaldt, and many more) the ancient Psalms were transferred anew into the psalmody of the German as of the Scandinavian
(Note: The Swedish hymns taken from the Psalms have been recently remodelled for congregational use and augmented by Runeberg (Oerebro 1858).)
Lutheran church. In the French church Clment Marot translated into verse 30 Ps., then 19 more (1541-43) and Theodore Beza added the rest (1562).
(Note: Vid., Flix Bovet, Les Psaumes de Marot et de Bze, in the Lausanne magazine, Le Chrtien Evanglique, 1866, No. 4.)
Calvin introduced the Psalms in Marot's version as early as 1542 into the service of the Geneva church, and the Psalms have since continued to be the favorite hymns of the Reformed church. Goudimel, the martyr of St. Bartholemew's night and teacher of Palestrina, composed the melodies and chorales. The English Established church adopted the Psalms direct as they are, as a portion of its liturgy, the Congregational church followed the example of the sister-churches of the Continent. And how industriously the Psalter was moulded into Greek verse, as by Olympia Morata (d. 1555)
(Note: Vid., examples in Bonnet's life of Olympia Morata. Germ. transl. by Merschmann 1860 S. 131-135.)
and under the influence of Melanthon
(Note: Vid., Wilhelm Thilo, Melanchthon im Dienste an heil. Schrift (Berlin, 1859), S. 28.)
into Latin! The paraphrases of Helius Eoban Hesse (of whom Martin Herz, 1860, has given a biographical sketch),
(Note: His Psalms (to which Veit Dietrich wrote notes) passed through forty editions in seventy years.)
Joh. Major, Jacob Micyllus (whose life Classen has written, 1859), Joh. Stigel (whose memory has been revived by Paulus Cassel 1860), Gre. Bersmann (d. 1611), and also that begun by Geo. Buchanan during his sojourn in a Portuguese monastery, are not only learned performances, but productions of an inward spiritual need; although one must assent to the judgment expressed by Harless, that the best attempts of this kind only satisfy one in proportion as we are able first of all to banish the remembrance of the original from our mind.
But since the time of the Reformation the exegetical functions of psalm-exposition have been more clearly apprehended and more happily discharged than ever before. In Luther, who opened his academical lectures in 1514 with the Ps. (in Latin in Luther's own hand writing in Wolfenbttel) and began to publish a part of them in 1519 under the title Operationes in duas Psalmorum decades, the depth of experience of the Fathers is united to the Pauline recognition (which he gave back to the church) of the doctrine of free grace. It is true, he is not entirely free from the allegorising which he rejected in thesi, and, in general, from a departure a sensu literae, and there is also still wanting in Luther the historical insight into the distinctive character of the two Testaments; but with respect to experimental, mystical, and withal sound, understanding he is incomparable. His interpretations of the Psalms, especially of the penitential Ps. and of Ps 90, excel every thing hitherto produced, and are still a perpetual mine of wealth. Bugenhagen's exposition of the Psalms (Basel 1524, 4to. and freq.) continued the interrupted work of Luther, who in a brief but forcible preface says in its praise, that it is the first worthy of the name of an exposition. Penetration and delicacy of judgment distinguish the interpretation of the five books of the Psalms by Aretius Felinus i.e., Martin Bucer (1529, 4to. and freq.). The Autophyes (= a se et per se Existens), by which throughout he translates יהוה, gives it a remarkable appearance. But about the same time, as an exegete, Calvin came forward at the side of the German reformer. His commentary (first published at Geneva 1564) combines with great psychological penetration more discernment of the types and greater freedom of historical perception, but is not without many errors arising from this freedom. Calvin's strict historical method of interpretation becomes a caricature in Esrom Rdinger, the schoolmaster of the Moravian brethren, who died at Altorf in 1591 without being able, as he had intended, to issue his commentary, which appeared in 1580-81, in a new and revised form. His is an original work which, after trying many conjectures, at last assigns even the first Psalm to the era of the Seleucidae.
Within the range of the post-Reformation exposition the first that meets us is Reinhard Bakius, the persevering and talented pastor of Magdeburg and Grimma during the Thirty-years' war, whose Comm. exegetico-practicus on the Ps. (in the first edition by his son 1664) is a work of extensive reading and good sense, in many respects a welcome supplement to Luther, crammed full of all kinds of notable things about the Psalms, under which, however, the thread of simple exposition is lost. Martin Geier keeps the work of the exposition most distinctly before him, adhering more closely to it and restraining himself from digression. His lectures on the Psalms delivered at Leipzig extended over a period of eighteen years. Deep piety and extensive learning adorn his commentary (1668), but the free spirit of the men of the Reformation is no longer here. Geier is not capable of turning from dogmatics, and throwing himself into the exegesis: a traditional standard of exegesis had become fixed, to overstep which was accounted as heterodox. In the Reformed church Cocceius stands prominently forward (d. 1669). He was an original and gifted man, but starting from false principles of hermeneutics, too fond of an eschatological literalness of interpretation.
Not only the two Protestant churches, but also the Romish church took part in the advancing work of psalm-exposition. Its most prominent expositors from 1550-1650 are Genebrardus, Agellius, and De Muis, all of whom possessing a knowledge of the Semitic languages, go back to the original, and Gallarmin, who brings to the work not merely uncommon natural talents, but, within the limits of papistical restraint, a deep spiritual penetration. Later on psalm-exposition in the Romish church degenerated into scholasticism. This is at its height in Le Blanc's Psalmorum Davidicorum Analysis and in Joh. Lorinus' Commentaria in Psalmos (6 folio vols. 1665-1676). In the protestant churches, however, a lamentable decline from the spirit of the men of the Reformation in like manner manifested itself. The Adnotationes uberiores in Hagiographa (t. i. 1745, 4to.: Ps. and Prov.) of Joh. Heinrich Michaelis are a mass of raw materials: the glossarial annotations groan beneath the burden of numberless unsifted examples and parallel passages. What had been done during the past sixteen hundred years remains almost entirely unnoticed; Luther is not explored, even Calvin within the pale of his own church no longer exerts any influence over the exposition of Scripture. After 1750, the exposition of Scripture lost that spiritual and ecclesiastical character which had gained strength in the seventeenth century, but had also gradually become torpid; whereas in the Romish church, as the Psalm-expositions of De Sacy, Berthier and La Harpe show, it never sank so low as to deny the existence of revealed religion. That love for the Ps., which produced the evangelical hymn-psalter of that truly Christian poet and minister Christoph Karl Ludwig von Pfeil (1747),
(Note: Vid., his Life by Heinr. Jerz (1863), 111-117.)
prefaced by Bengel, degenerated to a merely literary, or at most poetical, interest, - exegesis became carnal and unspiritual. The remnant of what was spiritual in this age of decline, is represented by Burk in his Gnomon to the Ps. (1760) which follows the model of Bengel, and by Chr. A. Crusius in the second part of his Hypomnemata ad Theologiam Propheticam (1761), a work which follows the track newly opened up by Bengel, and is rich in germs of progressive knowledge (vid., my Biblisch-prophetische Theologie, 1845). We may see the character of the theology of that age from Joh. Dav. Michaelis' translation of the Old Testament, with notes for the unlearned (1771), and his writings on separate Psalms. From a linguistic and historical point of view we may find something of value here; but besides, only wordy, discursive, tasteless trifling and spiritual deadness. It has been the honour of Herder that he has freed psalm-exposition from this want of taste, and the merit of Hengstenberg (first of all in his Lectures), that he has brought it back out of this want of spirituality to the believing consciousness of the church.
The transition to modern exposition is marked by Rosenmller's Scholia to the Ps. (first published in 1798-1804), a compilation written in pure clear language with exegetical tact and with a thankworthy use of older expositors who had become unknown, as Rdinger, Bucer, and Agellius, and also of Jewish writers. De Wette's commentary on the Psalms (first published in 1811, 5th edition by Gustav Baur, 1856) was far more independent and forms an epoch in exegesis. De Wette is precise and clear, and also not without a perception of the beautiful; but his position in relation to the Scripture writers is too much like that of a reviewer, his research too sceptical, and his estimate of the Ps. does not sufficiently recognise their place in the history of redemption. He regards them as national hymns, partly in the most ordinary patriotic sense, and when his theological perception fails him, he helps himself out with sarcasm against the theocratic element, which he carries to the extreme of disgust. Nevertheless, De Wette's commentary opens up a new epoch so far as it has first of all set in order the hitherto existing chaos of psalm-exposition, and introduced into it taste and grammatical accuracy, after the example of Herder and under the influence of Gesenius. He is far more independent than Rosenmller, who though not wanting in taste and tact, is only a compiler. In investigating the historical circumstances which gave rise to the composition of the different psalms, De Wette is more negative than assumptive. Hitzig in his historical and critical commentary (1835. 36), which has appeared recently in a revised form (Bd. 1, 1863, Bd. 2. Abth. 1, 1864, Abth. 2, 1865), has sought to supplement positively the negative criticism of De Wette, by ascribing to David fourteen Ps. of the seventy three that bear the inscription לדוד, assigning all the Ps. from the 73 onwards, together with 1, 2, 60 (these three, as also 142-144, 150, by Alexander Jannaeus) to the Maccabean period (e.g., 138-141 to Alexander's father, John Hyrcanus), and also inferring the authors (Zechariah, Ch2 26:5; Isaiah, Jeremiah) or at least the date of composition of all the rest.
Von Lengerke, in his commentary compiled half from Hengstenberg, half from Hitzig (1847), has attached himself to this so-called positive criticism, which always arrives at positive results and regards Maccabean psalms as the primary stock of the Psalter. Von Lengerke maintains that not a single Ps. can with certainty be ascribed to David. Olshausen (in his Comment. 1853), who only leaves a few Ps., as 2, 20, 21, to the time of the kings prior to the Exile, and with a propensity, which he is not able to resist, brings down all the others to the time of the Maccabees, even to the beginning of the reign of John Hyrcanus, also belongs to the positive school. Whereas Hupfeld in his commentary, 1855-1862 (4 vols.), considers it unworthy of earnest investigation, to lower one's self to such "childish trifling with hypotheses" and remains true to De Wette's negative criticism: but he seeks to carry it out in a different way. He also maintains that none of the Ps. admit of being with certainty ascribed to David; and proceeds on the assumption, that although only a part of the inscriptions are false, for that very reason none of them can be used by us.
We stand neither on the side of this scepticism, which everywhere negatives tradition, nor on the side of that self-confidence, which mostly negatives it and places in opposition to it its own positive counter-assumptions; but we do not on this account fail to recognise the great merit which Olshausen, Hupfeld and Hitzig have acquired by their expositions of the Psalms. In Olshausen we prize his prominent talent for critical conjectures; in Hupfeld grammatical thoroughness, and solid study so far as it is carried; in Hitzig the stimulating originality everywhere manifest, his happy perspicacity in tracing out the connection of the thoughts, and the marvellous amount of reading which is displayed in support of the usage of language and of that which is admissible according to syntax. The commentary of Ewald (Poetische Bcher, 1839, 40. 2nd edition 1866), apart from the introductory portion, according to its plan only fragmentarily meets the requirements of exposition, but in the argument which precedes each Ps. gives evidence of a special gift for piercing the emotions and throbbings of the heart and entering into the changes of feeling.
None of these expositors are in truly spiritual rapport with the spirit of the psalmists. The much abused commentary of Hengstenberg 1842-1847 (4 vols. 2nd edition 1849-1852) consequently opened a new track, in as much as it primarily set the exposition of the Psalms in its right relation to the church once more, and was not confined to the historico-grammatical function of exposition. The kindred spirited works of Umbreit (Christliche Erbauung aus dem Psalter 1835) and Stier (Siebenzig Psalmen 1834. 36), which extend only to a selection from the Psalms, may be regarded as its forerunners, and the commentary of Tholuck (1847) who excludes verbal criticism and seeks to present the results of exegetical progress in a practical form for the use of the people, as its counterpart. For the sake of completeness we may also mention the commentary of Kster (1837) which has become of importance for its appreciation of the artistic form of the Psalms, especially the strophe-system, and Vaihinger's (1845). Out of Germany, no work on the Psalms has appeared which could be placed side by side with those of Hengstenberg, Hupfeld and Hitzig. And yet the inexhaustible task demands the combined work of many hands. Would that the examples set by Bjrk, by Perret-Gentil, Armand deo Mestral and J. F. Thrupp, of noble rivalry with German scholarship might find many imitators in the countries of the Scandinavian, Latin, and English tongues! Would that the zealous industry of Bade and Reinke, the noble endeavours so Schegg and Knig, might set an example to many in the Romish church! Would that also the Greek church on the basis of the criticism of the lxx defended by Pharmakides against Oikonomos, far surpassing the works on the Ps. of Nicodimos and Anthimos, which are drawn from the Fathers, might continue in that rival connection with German scholarship of which the Prolegomena to the Psalm-commentary of the Jerusalem patriarch Anthimos, by Dionysios Kleopas (Jerusalem 1855. 4to.) give evidence! Non plus ultra is the watchword of the church with regard to the word of God, and plus ultra is its watchword with regard to the understanding of that word. Common work upon the Scriptures is the finest union of the severed churches and the surest harbinger of their future unity. The exposition of Scripture will rear the Church of the Future.
10. Theological Preliminary Considerations
The expositor of the Psalms can place himself on the standpoint of the poet, or the standpoint of the Old Testament church, or the standpoint of the church of the present dispensation - a primary condition of exegetical progress is the keeping of these three standpoints distinct, and, in accordance therewith, the distinguishing between the two Testaments, and in general, between the different steps in the development of the revelation, and in the perception of the plan, of redemption. For as redemption itself has a progressive history, so has the revelation and growing perception of it a progressive history also, which extends from paradise, through time, on into eternity. Redemption realizes itself in a system of facts, in which the divine purpose of love for the deliverance of sinful humanity unfolds itself, and the revelation of salvation is given in advance of this gradually developing course of events in order to guarantee its divine authorship and as a means by which it may be rightly understood. In the Psalms we have five centuries and more of this progressive realizing, disclosing, and perception of salvation laid open before us. If we add to this the fact that one psalm is by Moses, and that the retrospective portions of the historical psalms refer back even to the patriarchal age, then, from the call of Abraham down to the restoration of Israel's position among the nations after the Exile, there is scarcely a single event of importance in sacred history which does not find some expression in the Psalter. And it is not merely facts external to it, which echo therein in lyric strains, but, because David, - next to Abraham undoubtedly the most significant character of sacred history in the Old Testament, - is its chief composer, it is itself a direct integral part of the history of redemption. And it is also a source of information for the history of the revelation of redemption, in as much as it flowed not from the Spirit of faith merely, but mainly also from the Spirit of prophecy: but, pre-eminently, it is the most important memorial of the progressive recognition of the plan of salvation, since it shows how, between the giving of the Law from Sinai and the proclamation of the Gospel from Sion, the final, great salvation was heralded in the consciousness and life of the Jewish church.
We will consider 1) the relation of the Psalms to the prophecy of the future Christ. When man whom God had created, had corrupted himself by sin, God did not leave him to that doom of wrath which he had chosen for himself, but visited him on the evening of that most unfortunate of all days, in order to make that doom the disciplinary medium of His love. This visitation of Jahve Elohim was the first step in the history of redemption towards the goal of the incarnation, and the so-called protevangelium was the first laying of the foundation of His verbal revelation of law and gospel - a revelation in accordance with the plan of salvation, and preparing the way towards this goal of the incarnation and the recovery of man. The way of this salvation, which opens up its own historical course, and at the same time announces itself in a form adapted to the human consciousness, runs all through Israel, and the Psalms show us how this seed-corn of words and acts of divine love has expanded with a vital energy in the believing hearts of Israel. They bear the impress of the period, during which the preparation of the way of salvation was centred in Israel and the hope of redemption was a national hope. For after mankind was separated into different nations, salvation was confined within the limits of a chosen nation, that it might mature there, and then bursting its bounds become the property of the human race. At that period the promise of the future Mediator was in its third stage. The hope of overcoming the tendency in mankind to be led astray into evil was attached to the seed of the woman, and the hope of a blessing for all peoples, to the seed of Abraham: but, at this period, when David became the creator of psalm-poesy for the sanctuary service, the promise had assumed a Messianic character and pointed the hope of the believing ones towards the king of Israel, and in fact to David and his seed: the salvation and glory of Israel first, and indirectly of the nations, was looked for from the mediatorship of Jahve's Anointed.
The fact that among all the Davidic psalms there is only a single one, viz., Psa 110:1-7, in which David (as in his last words Sa2 23:1-7) looks forth into the future of his seed and has the Messiah definitely before his mind, can only be explained by the consideration, that he was hitherto himself the object of Messianic hope, and that this hope was first gradually (especially in consequence of his deep fall) separated from himself individually, and transferred to the future. Therefore when Solomon came to the throne the Messianic desires and hopes of Israel were directed towards him, as Ps 72 shows; they belonged only to the one final Christ of God, but they clung for a long time enquiringly and with a perfect right (on the ground of 2 Sam 7) to the direct son of David. Also in Ps 45 it is a son of David, contemporary with the Korahite singer, to whom the Messianic promise is applied as a marriage benediction, wishing that the promise may be realized in him.
But it soon became evident that He, in whom the full realization of the idea of the Messiah is to be found, had not yet appeared either in the person of this king or of Solomon. And when in the later time of the kings the Davidic line became more and more inconsistent with its vocation in the sacred history, then the hope of the Messiah was completely weaned of its expectation of immediate fulfilment, and the present became merely the dark ground from which the image of the Messiah, as purely future, stood forth in relief. The בן־דוד, in whom the prophecy of the later time of the kings centres, and whom also Psa 2:1-12 sets forth before the kings of the earth that they may render homage to Him, is an eschatological character (although the אחרית was looked for as dawning close upon the border of the present). In the mouth of the congregation Ps 45 and 132, since their contents referred to the future, have become too prophetically and eschatologically Messianic. But it is remarkable that the number of these psalms which are not merely typically Messianic is so small, and that the church of the period after the Exile has not enriched the Psalter with a single psalm that is Messianic in the stricter sense. In the later portion of the Psalter, in distinction from the strictly Messianic psalms, the theocratic psalms are more numerously represented, i.e., those psalms which do not speak of the kingdom of Jahve's Anointed which shall conquer and bless the world, not of the Christocracy, in which the theocracy reaches the pinnacle of its representation, but of the theocracy as such, which is complete inwardly and outwardly in its own representation of itself, - not of the advent of a human king, but of Jahve Himself, with the kingdom of God manifest in all its glory. For the announcement of salvation in the Old Testament runs on in two parallel lines: the one has as its termination the Anointed of Jahve, who rules all nations out of Zion, the other, the Lord Himself sitting above the Cherubim, to whom all the earth does homage. These two lines do not meet in the Old Testament; it is only the fulfilment that makes it plain, that the advent of the Anointed one and the advent of Jahve is one and the same. And of these two lines the divine is the one that preponderates in the Psalter; the hope of Israel, especially after the kingship had ceased in Israel, is directed generally beyond the human mediation directly towards Jahve, the Author of salvation. The fundamental article of the Old Testament faith funs ישׁועתה ליהוה (Ps. 3:9; Jon 2:10). The Messiah is not yet recognised as a God-man. Consequently the Psalms contain neither prayer to Him, nor prayer in His name. But prayer to Jahve and for Jahve's sake is essentially the same. For Jesus is in Jahve. Jahve is the Saviour. And the Saviour when he shall appear, is nothing but the visible manifestation of the ישׁועה of this God (Isa 49:6).
In considering the goal of the Old Testament history in its relation to the God-man, we distinguish five classes of psalms which are directed towards this goal. After 2 Sam 7 the Messianic promise is no longer in a general way connected with the tribe of Judah, but with David; and is referred not merely to the endless duration of his kingdom, but also to one scion of his house, in whom that to which God has appointed the seed of David in its relation to Israel first, and from Israel to all the other nations, shall be fully realised, and without whom the kingdom of David is like a headless trunk. Psalms in which the poet, looking beyond his own age, comforts himself with the vision of this king in whom the promise is finally fulfilled, we call eschatological psalms, and in fact directly eschatologically Messianic psalms. These connect themselves not merely with the already resisting prophetic utterances, but carry them even further, and are only distinguished from prophecy proper by their lyric form; for prophecy is a discourses and the psalms are spiritual songs.
The Messianic character of the Psalms is, however, not confined to prophecy proper, the subject of which is that which is future. Just as nature exhibits a series of stages of life in which the lower order of existence points to the next order above it and indirectly to the highest, so that, for instance, in the globular form of a drop we read the intimation of the struggle after organism, as it were, in the simplest barest outline: so also the progress of history is typical, and not only as a whole, but also most surprisingly in single traits, the life of David is a vaticinium reale of the life of Him, whom prophecy calls directly עבדי דוד Eze 34:23., Psa 37:24. and דוד מלכם Hos 3:5; Jer 30:9, as the David who is, as it were, raised from the dead in a glorified form. Those psalms in which David himself (or even a poet throwing himself into David's position and mood) gives expression in lyric verse to prominent typical events and features of his life, we call typically Messianic psalms. This class, however, is not confined to those, of which David is directly or indirectly the subject, for the course of suffering of all the Old Testament saints, and especially of the prophets in their calling (vid., on Psa 34:20. and Ps 69), was to a certain extent a τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος. All these psalms, not less than those of the first class, may be quoted in the New Testament with the words ἵνα πληρωθῇ, with this difference only, that in the former it is the prophetic word, in the latter the prophetic history, that is fulfilled. The older theologians, especially the Lutheran, contended against the supposition of such typological citations of the Old Testament in the New: they were destitute of that perception of the organic element in history granted to our age, and consequently were lacking in the true counterpoise to their rigid notions of inspiration.
But there is also a class of Psalms which we call typico-prophetically Messianic, viz., those in which David, describing his outward and inward experiences, - experiences even in themselves typical, - is carried beyond the limits of his individuality and present condition, and utters concerning himself that which, transcending human experience, is intended to become historically true only in Christ. Such psalms are typical, in as much as their contents is grounded in the individual, but typical, history of David; they are, however, at the same time prophetic, in as much as they express present individual experience in laments, hopes, and descriptions which point far forward beyond the present and are only fully realised in Christ. The psychological possibility of such psalms has been called in question; but they would only be psychologically impossible, if one were obliged to suppose that David's self-consciousness must under such circumstances pass over into that of his antitype; but it is in reality quite otherwise. As the poet in order to describe his experiences in verse, idealises them, i.e., seizes the idea of them at the very root, and, stripping off all that is adventitious and insignificant, rises into the region of the ideal: so David also in these psalms idealises his experiences, which even in itself results in the reduction of them to all that is essential to their continuance as types. This he does, however, not from his own poetic impulse, but under the inspiration of the Spirit of God; and a still further result which follows from this is, that the description of his typical fortunes and their corresponding states of feeling is moulded into the prophetic description of the fortunes and feelings of his antitype.
Beside these three classes of Messianic psalms one may regard psalms like Psa 45:1 and Psa 72:1 as a fourth class of indirectly eschatologically Messianic psalms. They are those in which, according to the time of their composition, Messianic hopes are referred to a contemporary king, but without having been fulfilled in him; so that, in the mouth of the church, still expecting their final accomplishment, these psalms have become eschatological hymns and their exposition as such, by the side of their chronological interpretation, is fully warranted.
A fifth class is formed by the eschatologically Jehovic psalms, which are taken up with describing the advent of Jahve and the consummation of His kingdom, which is all through brought about by judgment (vid., Psa 93:1-5). The number of these psalms in the Psalter greatly preponderates. They contain the other premiss to the divine-human end of the history of salvation. There are sudden flashes of light thrown upon this end in the prophets. But it remains reserved to the history itself to draw the inference of the unio personalis from these human and divine premises. The Redeemer, in whom the Old Testament faith reposed, is Jahve. The centre of the hope lay in the divine not in the human king. That the Redeemer, when He should appear, would be God and man in one person was alien to the mind of the Old Testament church. And the perception of the fact that He would be sacrifice and priest in one person, only penetrates in single rays into the Old Testament darkness, the cynosure of which is יהוה, and יהוה only.
Coming now to consider 2) the relation of the Psalms to the legal sacrifice, we shall find this also different from what we might expect from the stand-point of fulfilment. Passages certainly are not wanting where the outward legal sacrifice is acknowledged as an act of worship on the part of the individual and of the congregation (Psa 66:15; Ps 51:21); but those occur more frequently, in which in comparison with the λογικὴ λατρεία it is so lightly esteemed, that without respect to its divine institution it appears as something not at all desired by God, as a shell to be cast away, and as a form to be broken in pieces (Psa 40:7, Psa 50:1, Psa 51:18). But it is not this that surprises us. It is just in this respect that the psalms contribute their share towards the progress of sacred history. It is that process of spiritualisation which beings even in Deuteronomy, and which is continued by reason of the memorable words of Samuel, Sa1 15:22. It is the spirit of the New Testament, growing more and more in strength, which here and in other parts of the Psalter shakes the legal barriers and casts off the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου as a butterfly does its chrysalis shell. But what is substituted for the sacrifice thus criticised and rejected? Contrition, prayer, thanksgiving, yielding one's self to God in the doing of His will, as Pro 21:3 to do justly, Hos 6:6 kindness, Mic 6:6-8 acting justly, love, and humility, Jer 7:21-23 obedience. This it is that surprises one. The disparaged sacrifice is regarded only as a symbol not as a type; it is only considered in its ethical character, not in its relation to the history of redemption. Its nature is unfolded only so far as it is a gift to God (קרבן), not so far as the offering is appointed for atonement (כפרה); in one word: the mystery of the blood remains undisclosed. Where the New Testament mind is obliged to think of the sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ, it is, in Psa 51:9, the sprinkling of the legal ritual of purification and atonement that is mentioned, and that manifestly figuratively but yet without the significance of the figure. Whence is it? - Because the sacrifice with blood, as such, in the Old Testament remains a question to which Isaiah, in Isa 53:1, gives almost the only distinct answer in accordance with its historical fulfilment; for passages like Dan 9:24., Zac 12:10; Zac 13:7 are themselves questionable and enigmatical. The prophetic representation of the passion and sacrifice of Christ is only given in direct prophetic language thus late on, and it is only the evangelic history of the fulfilment that shows, how exactly the Spirit which spoke by David has moulded that which he says concerning himself, the type, into correspondence with the antitype. The confidence of faith under the Old Testament, as it finds expression in the Psalms, rested upon Jahve even in reference to the atonement, as in reference to redemption in general. As He is the Saviour, so is He also the one who makes the atonement (מכפר), from whom expiation is earnestly sought and hoped for (Psa 79:9; Psa 65:4; Psa 78:38; Psa 85:3 and other passages). It is Jahve who at the end of His course of the redemptive history is the God-man, and the blood given by Him as the medium of atonement (Lev 17:11) is, in the antitype, His own blood.
Advancing from this point, we come to examine 3) the relation of the Psalms to the New Testament righteousness of faith and to the New Testament morality which flows from the primary command of infinite love. Both with respect to the atonement and to redemption the Psalms undergo a complete metamorphosis in the consciousness of the praying New Testament church - a metamorphosis, rendered possible by the unveiling and particularising of salvation that has since taken place, and to which they can without any reserve be accommodated. There are only two points in which the prayers of the Psalms appear to be difficult of amalgamation with the Christian consciousness. These are the moral self-confidence bordering on self-righteousness, which is frequently maintained before God in the Psalms, and the warmth of feeling against enemies and persecutors which finds vent in fearful cursings. The self-righteousness here is a mere appearance; for the righteousness to which the psalmists appeal is not the merit of works, not a sum of good works, which are reckoned up before God as claiming a reward, but a godly direction of the will and a godly form of life, which has its root in the surrender of one's whole self to God and regards itself as the operation and work of justifying, sanctifying, preserving and ruling grace (Psa 73:25., Psa 25:5-7; Psa 19:14 and other passages). There is not wanting an acknowledgement of the innate sinfulness of our nature (Psa 51:7), of the man's exposure to punishment before God apart from His grace (Psa 143:2), of the many, and for the most part unperceived, sins of the converted (Psa 19:13), of the forgiveness of sins as a fundamental condition to the attainment of happiness (Psa 32:1.), of the necessity of a new divinely-created heart (Psa 51:12), in short, of the way of salvation which consists of penitential contrition, pardon, and newness of life.
On the other hand it is not less true, that in the light of the vicarious atonement and of the Spirit of regeneration it becomes possible to form a far more penetrating and subtle moral judgment of one's self; it is not less true, that the tribulation, which the New Testament believer experiences, though it does not produce such a strong and overwhelming sense of divine wrath as that which is often expressed in the psalms, nevertheless sinks deeper into his inmost nature in the presence of the cross on Golgotha and of the heaven that is opened up to him, in as much as it appears to him to be sent by a love that chastens, proves, and prepares him for the future; and it is not less true, that after the righteousness of God - which takes over our unrighteousness and is accounted even in the Old Testament as a gift of grace - lies before us for believing appropriation as a righteousness redemptively wrought out by the active and passive obedience of Jesus, the distinctive as well as the reciprocally conditioned character of righteousness of faith and of righteousness of life is become a more clearly perceived fact of the inner life, and one which exercises a more powerful influence over the conduct of that life.
(Note: Cf. Kurtz, Zur Theologie der Psalmen, III: The self-righteousness of the psalmists, in the Dorpater Zeitschrift 1865 S. 352-358: "The Old Testament righteousness of faith, represented by the evangelium visibile of the sacrificial worship, had not as yet the fundamental and primary, helpful position assigned to it, especially by Paul, in the New Testament, but only a more secondary position; justification is conceived not as a condition of the sanctification which is to be striven after, but as a supplementing of that which is wanting in the sanctification thus defectively striven after.)
Nevertheless even such personal testimonies, as Psa 17:1-5, do not resist conversion into New Testament forms of thought and experience, for they do not hinder the mind from thinking specially, at the same time, of righteousness of faith, of God's acts which are performed through the medium of sacraments, and of that life resulting from the new birth, which maintains itself victorious in the old man; moreover the Christian ought to be himself earnestly warned by them to examine himself whether his faith is really manifest as an energising power of a new life; and the difference between the two Testaments loses its harshness even here, in the presence of the great verities which condemn all moral infirmity, viz., that the church of Christ is a community of the holy, that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin, and that whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.
But as to the so-called imprecatory psalms,
(Note: Cf. Kurtz, ibid. IV: The imprecatory Psalms, ibid. S. 359-372 and our discussions in the introductions to Ps 35 and 109, which belong to this class.)
in the position occupied by the Christian and by the church towards the enemies of Christ, the desire for their removal is certainly outweighed by the desire for their conversion: but assuming, that they will not be converted and will not anticipate their punishment by penitence, the transition from a feeling of love to that of wrath is warranted in the New Testament (e.g., Gal 5:12), and assuming their absolute Satanic hardness of heart the Christian even may not shrink from praying for their final overthrow. For the kingdom of God comes not only by the way of mercy but also of judgment; and the coming of the kingdom of God is the goal of the Old as well as of the New Testament saint (vid., Ps 9:21; Psa 59:14 and other passages), and every wish that judgment may descend upon those who oppose the coming of the kingdom of God is cherished even in the Psalms on the assumption of their lasting impenitence (vid., Psa 7:13., Psa 109:17). Where, however, as in Ps 69 and Ps 109, the imprecations go into particulars and extend to the descendants of the unfortunate one and even on to eternity, the only justification of them is this, that they flow from the prophetic spirit, and for the Christian they admit of no other adoption, except as, reiterating them, he gives the glory to the justice of God, and commends himself the more earnestly to His favour.
Also 4) the relation of the Psalms to the Last Things is such, that in order to be used as prayer expressive of the New Testament faith they require deepening and adjusting. For what Julius Africanus says of the Old Testament: οὐδέπω δέδοτο ἐλπίς ἀναστάσεως σαφής, holds good at least of the time before Isaiah. For Isaiah is the first to foretell, in one of his latest apocalyptic cycles (Psa 24:1), the first resurrection, i.e., the re-quickening of the martyr-church that has succumbed to death (Isa 26:19), just as with an extended vision he foretells the termination of death itself (Psa 25:8); and the Book of Daniel-that Old Testament apocalypse, sealed until the time of its fulfilment-first foretells the general resurrection, i.e., the awakening of some to life and others to judgment (Dan 12:2). Between these two prophecies comes Ezekiel's vision of Israel's return from the Exile under the figure of a creative quickening of a vast field of corpses (Psa 37:1) - a figure which at least assumes that what is represented is not impossible to the wonder-working power of God, which is true to His promises. But also in the latest psalms the perception of salvation nowhere appears to have made such advance, that these words of prophecy foretelling the resurrection should have been converted into a dogmatic element of the church's belief. The hope, that the bones committed, like seed, to the ground would spring forth again, finds expression first only in a bold, but differently expressed figure (Psa 141:7); the hopeless darkness of Shel (Psa 6:6; Psa 30:10; Psa 88:11-13) remained unillumined, and where deliverance from death and Hades is spoken of, what is meant is the preservation of the living, either experienced (e.g., Psa 86:13) or hoped for (e.g., 118:17) from falling a prey to death and Hades, and we find in connection with it other passages which express the impossibility of escaping this universal final destiny (Psa 89:49). The hope of eternal life after death is nowhere definitely expressed, as even in the Book of Job the longing for it is never able to expand into a hope, because no light of promise shines into that night, which reigns over Job's mind, - a night, which the conflict of temptation through which he is passing makes darker than it is in itself. The pearl which appears above the waves of temptation is only too quickly swallowed up again by them.
Also in the Psalms we find passages in which the hope of not falling a prey to death is expressed so broadly, that the thought of the final destiny of all men being inevitable is completely swallowed up by the living one's confidence of living in the strength of God (Ps 56:14 and esp. Psa 16:9-11); passages in which the covenant relation with Jahve is contrasted with this present life and its possession, in such a manner that the opposite of a life extending beyond the present time is implied (Psa 17:14., Psa 63:4); passages in which the end of the ungodly is compared with the end of the righteous as death and life, defeat and triumph (Psa 49:15), so that the inference forces itself upon one, that the former die although they seem to live for ever, and the latter live for ever although they die at once; and passage in which the psalmist, though only by way of allusion, looks forward to a being borne away to God, like Enoch and Elijah (Psa 49:16; Psa 73:24). Nowhere, however, is there any general creed to be found, but we see how the belief in a future life struggles to be free, at first only, as an individual conclusion of the believing mind from premises which experience has established. And far from the grave being penetrated by a glimpse of heaven, it has, on the contrary, to the ecstasy of the life derived from God, as it were altogether vanished; for life in opposition to death only appears as the lengthening of the line of the present ad infinitum. Hence it is that we no more find in the Psalms than in the Book of Job a perfectly satisfactory theodicy with reference to that distribution of human fortunes in this world, which is incompatible with God's justice. - Ps 7, Ps 49, Ps 73 certainly border on the right solution of the mystery, but it stops short at mere hint and presage, so that the utterances that touch upon it admit of different interpretation.
(Note: Vid., Kurtz, ibid. II: The doctrine of retribution in the Psalms, ibid. S. 316-352.)
But on the other hand, death and life in the mind of the psalmists are such deep-rooted notions (i.e., taken hold of at the very roots, which are grounded in the principles of divine wrath and divine love), that it is easy for the New Testament faith, to which they have become clear even to their back ground of hell and heaven, to adjust and deepen the meaning of all utterances in the Psalms that refer to them. It is by no means contrary to the meaning of the psalmist when, as in passages like Psa 6:6, Gehenna is substituted for Hades to adapt it to the New Testament saint; for since the descent of Jesus Christ into Hades there is no longer any limbus patrum, the way of all who die in the Lord is not earthwards but upwards, Hades exists only as the vestibule of hell. The psalmists indeed dread it, but only as the realm of wrath or of seclusion from god's love, which is the true life of man. Nor is it contrary to the idea of the poets to think of the future vision of God's face in all its glory in Psa 17:15 and of the resurrection morn in Psa 49:15; for the hopes expressed there, though to the Old Testament consciousness they referred to this side the grave, are future according to their New Testament fulfilment, which is the only truly satisfying one. There is, as Oetinger says, no essential New Testament truth not contained in the Psalms either νοΐ́ (according to its unfolded meaning), or at least πνεύματι. The Old Testament barrier encompasses the germinating New Testament life, which at a future time shall burst it. The eschatology of the Old Testament leaves a dark background, which, as is designed, is divided by the New Testament revelation into light and darkness, and is to be illumined into a wide perspective extending into the eternity beyond time. Everywhere, where it begins to dawn in this eschatological darkness of the Old Testament, it is the first morning rays of the New Testament sun-rise which is already announcing itself. The Christian also here cannot refrain from leaping the barrier of the psalmists, and understanding the Psalms according to the mind of the Spirit whose purpose in the midst of the development of salvation and of the perception of it, is directed towards its goal and consummation. Thus understood the Psalms are the hymns of the New Testament Israel as of the Old. The church by using the language of the Psalms in supplication celebrates the unity of the two Testaments, and scholarship in expounding them honours their distinctiveness. Both are in the right; the former in regarding the Psalms in the light of the one great salvation, the latter in carefully distinguishing the eras in the history, and the steps in the perception, of this salvation.
The Fifteen Songs of Degrees, or Gradual Psalm - Ps. 120-134
These songs are all inscribed שׁיר המּעלות. The lxx, according to the most natural signification of the word, renders: ᾠδὴ τῶν ἀναβαθμων; the Italic and Vulgate, canticum graduum (whence the liturgical term "gradual Psalms"). The meaning at the same time remains obscure. When, however, Theodotion renders ᾆσμα τῶν ἀναβάσεων, Aquila and Symmachus ᾠδὴ εἰς τάς ἀναβάσεις (as though it were absolutely למּעלות, as in Psa 121:1), it looks even like an explanation. The fathers, more particularly Theodoret, and in general the Syria church, associate with it the idea of ἡ ἀπὸ Βαβυλῶνος ἐπάνοδος. Ewald has long advocated this view. In his Introduction to Die poetischen Bcher des Alten Bundes (1839), and elsewhere, he translated it "Songs of the Pilgrim caravans" or "of the homeward marches," and explained these fifteen Psalms as old and new travelling songs of those returning from the Exile. The verb עלה certainly is the usual word for journeying to Palestine out of the Babylonian low country, as out of the country of the Egyptian Nile Valley. And the fact that the Return from the Exile is called המּעלה מבּבל in Ezr 7:9 is enticing. Some of these Psalms, as Psa 121:1-8, Psa 123:1, Psa 129:1-8, Psa 130:1-8, Ps 132, Psa 133:1-3, are also suited to this situation, or can at least be adapted to it. But Psa 120:1-7, if it is to be referred to the Exile, is a song that comes out of the midst of it; Psa 126:1-6 might, so far as its first half is concerned, be a travelling song of those returning, but according to its second half it is a prayer of those who have returned for the restoration of the whole of Israel, based upon thanksgiving; and Psa 122:1-9 assumes the existence and frequenting of the Temple and of the holy city, and Psa 134:1-3 the full exercise of the Temple-service. It is also inconvenient that מעלה, which in itself only expresses a journey up, not a journey homewards, is without any closer definition; and more particularly since, in connection with this form of the word, the signification of a something (a step, a sun-dial, rising thoughts. Eze 11:5) is at least just as natural as that of an action. שׁיר העלים would have been at once palpable. And what is meant by the plural? The interpretation of the plural of the different caravans or companies in which the exiles returned, assumes a usus loquendi with which we are altogether unacquainted.
Relatively more probable is the reference to the pilgrimage-journeyings at the three great feasts - according to a later Hebrew expression, the שׁלשׁ רגלים. This going up to Jerusalem required by the Law is also usually called עלה. So Agellius (1606), Herder, Eichhorn, Maurer, Hengstenberg, Keil, and others, and so now even Ewald in the second edition (1866) of the Introduction to Die Dichter des Alten Bundes, so Kamphausen, and Reuss in his treatise Chants de Plerinage ou petit Psautier des Plerins du second temple (in the Nouvelle Revue de Thologie, i. 273-311), and Liebusch in the Quedlinburg Easter Programm, 1866: "The pilgrim songs in the Fifth Book of the Psalter." But מעלה in this signification is without precedent; and when Hupfeld says in opposition to this, "the fact that a noun accidentally does not occur in the Old Testament does not matter, since here at any rate it is a question of the interpretation of a later usage of the language," we may reply that neither does the whole range of the post-biblical Hebrew exhibit any trace of this usage. Thenius accordingly tries another way of doing justice to the word. He understands מעלות of the different stations, i.e., stages of the journey up, that are to be found in connection with the festive journeys to high-lying Jerusalem. But the right name for "stations" would be מסּעות or מעמדות; and besides, the notion borrowed from the processions to Mount Calvary is without historical support in the religious observances of Israel. Thus, then, the needful ground in language and custom for referring this title of the Psalms to the journeyings up to the feasts is taken from under us; and the consideration that the first three and the last three songs are suited to the hymn-book of a festal pilgrimage, and that they all bear in them, as Liebusch has demonstrated, the characteristic features of the spiritual national song, is not able to decide the doubtful meaning of מעלות.
We will now put the later Jewish interpretation to the proof. According to Middoth ii. 5, Succa 15b, a semi-circular staircase with fifteen steps led out of the court of the Israelitish men (עזרת ישראל) down into the court of the women (עזרת נשׁים), and upon these fifteen steps, which correspond to the fifteen gradual Psalms, the Levites played musical instruments on the evening of the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles in connection with the joyful celebration of the water-drawing,
(Note: Vid., my Geschichte der jdischen Poesie, S. 193f.)
and above them in the portal (upon the threshold of the Nicanor-gate or Agrippa-gate)
(Note: It was called the Nicanor-gate in the Temple of Zerubbabel, and the Agrippa-gate in the Temple of Herod: in both of them they ascended to its threshold by fifteen steps; vid., Unruh, Das alte Jerusalem und seine Bauwerke (1861), S. 137, cf. 194.)
stood two priests with trumpets. It has been said that this is a Talmudic fable invented on behalf of the inscription שׁיר המעלות, and that the fifteen steps are not out of Eze 40:26, Eze 40:31 by reading the two verses together. This aspersion is founded on ignorance. For the Talmud does not say in that passage that the fifteen Psalms have taken their name from the fifteen steps; it does not once say that these Psalms in particular were read aloud upon the fifteen steps, but it only places the fifteen steps on a parallel with the fifteen Psalms; and, moreover, interprets the name שׁיר המעלות quite differently, viz., from a legend concerning David and Ahithophel, Succa 53a, Maccoth 11a (differently rendered in the section Chelek of the tractate Sanhedrin in the Jerusalem Talmud). This legend to which the Targum inscription relates (vid., Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud. s.v. קפא) is absurd enough, but it has nothing to do with the fifteen steps. It is not until a later period that Jewish expositors say that the fifteen Psalms had their name from the fifteen steps.
(Note: Lyra in his Postillae, and Jacob Leonitius in his Hebrew Libellus effigiei templi Salomonis (Amsterdam 1650, 4to), even say that the Levites sang one of the fifteen songs of degrees on each step. Luther has again generalized this view; for his rendering "a song in the higher choir" is intended to say, cantores harum odarum stetisse in loco eminentiori (Bakius).)
Even Hippolytus must have heard something similar when he says (p. 190, ed. Lagarde): πάλιν τε αὐτοῦ εἰσί τινες τῶν ἀναβαθμῶν ᾠδαί, τὸν ἀριθμὸν πεντεκαίδεκα, ὅσοι καὶ οἱ ἀναβαθμοὶ τοῦ ναοῦ, τάχα δελοῦσαι τάς ἀναβάσεις περιέχεσθαι ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ καὶ ὀγδόῳ ἀριθμῷ, upon which Hilary relies: esse autem in templo gradus quindecim historia nobis locuta est; viz., 15 (7 + 8) steps leading out of the court of the priests into the Holy of holies. In this, then, the allegory in which the interpretation of the church delighted for a long time seemed naturally at hand, viz., as Otmar Nachtgal explains, "Song of the steps or ascents, which indicate the spirit of those who ascend from earthly things to God." The furtmaier Codex in Maihingen accordingly inscribes them "Psalm of the first step" (Psalm der ersten staffeln), and so on. If we leave this sensus anagogicus to itself, then the title, referred to the fifteen steps, would indeed not be inappropriate in itself (cf. Graduale or Gradale in the service of the Romish Church), but is of an external character such as we find nowhere else.
(Note: Hitzig, in his Commentary (1865), has attempted a new combination of these Psalms, in regard to the number of verses of 120 and 121 (7 + 8) and their total number, with the steps of the temple.)
Gesenius has the merit of having first discerned the true meaning of the questioned inscription, inasmuch as first in 1812 (Hallische Lit. Zeitschrift, 1812, Nr. 205), and frequently since that time, he has taught that the fifteen songs have their name from their step-like progressive rhythm of the thoughts, and that consequently the name, like the triolet (roundelay) in Western poetry, does not refer to the liturgical usage, but to the technical structure. The correctness of this view has been duly appraised more particularly by De Wette, who adduces this rhythm of steps or degrees, too, among the more artificial rhythms. The songs are called Songs of degrees or Gradual Psalms as being songs that move onward towards a climax, and that by means of plokee' epiplokee'), i.e., a taking up again of the immediately preceding word by way of giving intensity to the expression; and they are placed together on account of this common characteristic, just like the Michtammim, which bear that name from a similar characteristic. The fact, as Liebusch objects, that there is no trace of מעלות in this figurative signification elsewhere, is of no consequence, since in the inscriptions of the Psalms in general we become acquainted with a technical language which (apart from a few echoes in the Chronicles) is without example elsewhere, in relation to poetical and musical technology. Neither are we refuted by the fact that this as it were climbing movement of the thoughts which plants upon a preceding word, and thus carried itself forward, is not without example even outside the range of these fifteen songs in the Psalter itself (e.g., Psa 93:1-5, Psa 96:1-13), as also elsewhere (Isa 17:12., Psa 26:5., and more particularly in the song of Deborah, Jdg 5:3, Jdg 5:5-6, etc.), and that it is not always carried out in the same manner in the fifteen Psalms. It is quite sufficient that the parallelism retires into the background here as nowhere else in fifteen songs that are linked together (even in Psa 125:1-5, Psa 127:1-5, Psa 128:1-6, Ps 132); and the onward course is represented with decided preference as a gradation or advance step by step, that which follows being based upon what goes before, and from that point advancing and ascending still higher. Next: Psalms Chapter 1
isa 0:0
The Prophecies of Isaiah
Introduction
Time of the Prophet
The first prerequisite to a clear understanding and full appreciation of the prophecies of Isaiah, is a knowledge of his time, and of the different periods of his ministry. The first period was in the reigns of Uzziah (b.c. 811-759) and Jotham (759-743). The precise starting-point depends upon the view we take of Isa 6:1-13. But, in any case, Isaiah commenced his ministry towards the close of Uzziah's reign, and laboured on throughout the sixteen years of the reign of Jotham. The first twenty-seven of the fifty-two years that Uzziah reigned run parallel to the last twenty-seven of the forty-one that Jeroboam II reigned (b.c. 825-784). Under Joash, and his son Jeroboam II, the kingdom of Israel passed through a period of outward glory, which surpassed, both in character and duration, any that it had reached before; and this was also the case with the kingdom of Judah under Uzziah and his son Jotham. As the glory of the one kingdom faded away, that of the other increased. The bloom of the northern kingdom was destroyed and surpassed by that of the southern. But outward splendour contained within itself the fatal germ of decay and ruin in the one case as much as in the other; for prosperity degenerated into luxury, and the worship of Jehovah became stiffened into idolatry. It was in this last and longest time of Judah's prosperity that Isaiah arose, with the mournful vocation to preach repentance without success, and consequently to have to announce the judgment of hardening and devastation, of the ban and of banishment. The second period of his ministry extended from the commencement of the reign of Ahaz to that of the reign of Hezekiah. Within these sixteen years three events occurred, which combined to bring about a new and calamitous turn in the history of Judah. In the place of the worship of Jehovah, which had been maintained with outward regularity and legal precision under Uzziah and Jotham; as soon as Ahaz ascended the throne, open idolatry was introduced of the most abominable description and in very various forms. The hostilities which began while Jotham was living, were perpetuated by Pekah the king of Israel and Rezin the king of Damascene Syria; and in the Syro-Ephraimitish war, an attack was made upon Jerusalem, with the avowed intention of bringing the Davidic rule to an end. Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser, the king of Assyria, to help him out of these troubles. He thus made flesh his arm, and so entangled the nation of Jehovah with the kingdom of the world, that from that time forward it never truly recovered its independence again. The kingdom of the world was the heathen state in its Nimrodic form. Its perpetual aim was to extend its boundaries by constant accretions, till it had grown into a world-embracing colossus; and in order to accomplish this, it was ever passing beyond its natural boundaries, and coming down like an avalanche upon foreign nations, not merely for self-defence or revenge, but for the purpose of conquest also. Assyria and Rome were the first and last links in that chain of oppression by the kingdom of the world, which ran through the history of Israel. Thus Isaiah, standing as he did on the very threshold of this new and all-important turn in the history of his country, and surveying it with his telescopic glance, was, so to speak, the universal prophet of Israel. The third period of his ministry extended from the accession of Hezekiah to the fifteenth year of his reign. Under Hezekiah the nation rose, almost at the same pace at which it had previously declined under Ahaz. He forsook the ways of his idolatrous father, and restored the worship of Jehovah. The mass of the people, indeed, remained inwardly unchanged, but Judah had once more an upright king, who hearkened to the word of the prophet by his side - two pillars of the state, and men mighty in prayer (Ch2 32:20). When the attempt was afterwards made to break away from the Assyrian yoke, so far as the leading men and the great mass of the people were concerned, this was an act of unbelief originating merely in the same confident expectation of help from Egypt which had occasioned the destruction of the northern kingdom in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign; but on the part of Hezekiah it was an act of faith and confident reliance upon Jehovah (Kg2 18:7). Consequently, when Sennacherib, the successor of Shalmaneser, marched against Jerusalem, conquering and devastating the land as he advanced, and Egypt failed to send the promised help, the carnal defiance of the leaders and of the great mass of the people brought its own punishment. But Jehovah averted the worst extremity, by destroying the kernel of the Assyrian army in a single night; so that, as in the Syro-Ephraimitish war, Jerusalem itself was never actually besieged. Thus the faith of the king, and of the better portion of the nation, which rested upon the word of promise, had its reward. There was still a divine power in the state, which preserved it from destruction. The coming judgment, which nothing indeed could now avert, according to Isa 6:1-13, was arrested for a time, just when the last destructive blow would naturally have been expected. It was in this miraculous rescue, which Isaiah predicted, and for which he prepared the way, that the public ministry of the prophet culminated. Isaiah was the Amos of the kingdom of Judah, having the same fearful vocation to foresee and to declare the fact, that for Israel as a people and kingdom the time of forgiveness had gone by. But he was not also the Hosea of the southern kingdom; for it was not Isaiah, but Jeremiah, who received the solemn call to accompany the disastrous fate of the kingdom of Judah with the knell of prophetic denunciations. Jeremiah was the Hosea of the kingdom of Judah. To Isaiah was given the commission, which was refused to his successor Jeremiah - namely, to press back once more, through the might of his prophetic word, coming as it did out of the depths of the strong spirit of faith, the dark night which threatened to swallow up his people at the time of the Assyrian judgment. After the fifteenth year of Hezekiah's reign, he took no further part in public affairs; but he lived till the commencement of Manasseh's reign, when, according to a credible tradition, to which there is an evident allusion in Heb 11:37 ("they were sawn asunder"),
(Note: According to b. Jebamoth, 49b, it was found in a roll containing the history of a Jerusalem family; and according to Sanhedrin, 103b, in the Targum on Kg2 21:16.)
he fell a victim to the heathenism which became once more supreme in the land. To this sketch of the times and ministry of the prophet we will add a review of the scriptural account of the four kings, under whom he laboured according to Isa 1:1; since nothing is more essential, as a preparation for the study of his book, than a minute acquaintance with these sections of the books of Kings and Chronicles.
I. Historical Account of Uzziah-Jotham - The account of Uzziah given in the book of Kings (Kg2 15:1-7, to which we may add Kg2 14:21-22), like that of Jeroboam II, is not so full as we should have expected. After the murder of Amaziah, the people of Judah, as related in Isa 14:21-22, raised to the throne his son Azariah, probably not his first-born, who was then sixteen years old. It was he who built the Edomitish seaport town of Elath (for navigation and commerce), and made it a permanent possession of Judah (as in the time of Solomon). This notice is introduced, as a kind of appendix, at the close of Amaziah's life and quite out of its chronological position, because the conquest of Elath was the crowning point of the subjugation of Edom by Amaziah, and not, as Thenius supposes, because it was Azariah's first feat of arms, by which, immediately after his accession, he satisfied the expectations with which the army had made him king. For the victories gained by this king over Edom and the other neighbouring nations cannot have been obtained at the time when Amos prophesied, which was about the tenth year of Uzziah's reign. The attack made by Amaziah upon the kingdom of Israel, had brought the kingdom of Judah into a state of dependence upon the former, and almost of total ruin, from which it only recovered gradually, like a house that had fallen into decay. The chronicler, following the text of the book of Kings, has introduced the notice concerning Elath in the same place (Ch2 26:1, Ch2 26:2 : it is written Eloth, as in Kg1 9:26, and the Septuagint at Kg2 14:22). He calls the king Uzziahu; and it is only in the table of the kings of Judah, in Ch1 3:12, that he gives the name as Azariah. The author of the book of Kings, according to our Hebrew text, calls him sometimes Azariah or Azariahu, sometimes Uzziah or Uzziahu; the Septuagint always gives the name as Azarias. The occurrence of the two names in both of the historical books is an indubitable proof that they are genuine. Azariah was the original name: out of this Uzziah was gradually formed by a significant elision; and as the prophetical books, from Isa 1:1 to Zac 14:5, clearly show, the latter was the name most commonly used.
Azariah, as we learn from the section in the book of Kings relating to the reign of this monarch (Kg2 15:1-7), ascended the throne in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam's reign, that is to say, in the fifteenth year of his sole government, the twenty-seventh from the time when he shared the government with his father Joash, as we may gather from Kg2 13:13. The youthful sovereign, who was only sixteen years of age, was the son of Amaziah by a native of Jerusalem, and reigned fifty-two years. He did what was pleasing in the sight of God, like his father Amaziah; i.e., although he did not come up to the standard of David, he was one of the better kings. He fostered the worship of Jehovah, as prescribed in the law: nevertheless he left the high places (bamoth) standing; and while he was reigning, the people maintained in all its force the custom of sacrificing and burning incense upon the heights. He was punished by God with leprosy, which compelled him to live in a sick-house (chophshuth = chophshith: sickness) till the day of his death, whilst his son Jotham was over the palace, and conducted the affairs of government. He was buried in the city of David, and Jotham followed by him on the throne. This is all that the author of the book of Kings tells us concerning Azariah: for the rest, he refers to the annals of the kings of Judah. The section in the Chronicles relating to Uzziah (2 Chron 26) is much more copious: the writer had our book of Kings before him, as Ch2 26:3-4, Ch2 26:21, clearly proves, and completed the defective notices from the source which he chiefly employed - namely, the much more elaborate midrash.
Uzziah, he says, was zealous in seeking Elohim in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding in divine visions; and in the days when he sought Jehovah, God made him to prosper. Thus the prophet Zechariah, as a faithful pastor and counsellor, stood in the same relation to him in which Jehoiada the high priest had stood to Joash, Uzziah's grandfather. The chronicler then enumerates singly the divine blessings which Uzziah enjoyed. First, his victories over the surrounding nations (passing over the victory over Edom, which had been already mentioned), viz.: (1.) he went forth and warred against the Philistines, and brake down the wall of Gath, and the wall of Jabneh, and the wall of Ashdod, and built towns b'ashdod and b'phelistim (i.e., in the conquered territory of Ashdod, and in Philistia generally); (2.) God not only gave him victory over the Philistines, but also over the Arabians who dwelt in Gur-baal (an unknown place, which neither the lxx nor the Targumists could explain), and the Mehunim, probably a tribe of Arabia Petraea; (3.) the Ammonites gave him presents in token of allegiance, and his name was honoured even as far as Egypt, to such an extent did his power grow. Secondly, his buildings: he built towers (fortifications) above the corner gate, and above the valley gate, and above the Mikzoa, and fortified these (the weakest) portions of Jerusalem: he also built towers in the desert (probably in the desert between Beersheba and Gaza, to protect either the land, or the flocks and herds that were pasturing there); and dug many cisterns, for he had large flocks and herds both in the shephelah (the western portion of Southern Palestine) and in the mishor (the extensive pasture-land of the tribe territory of Reuben on the other side of the Jordan): he had also husbandmen and vine-dressers on the mountains, and in the fruitful fields, for he was a lover of agriculture. Thirdly, his well-organized troops: he had an army of fighting men which consisted - according to a calculation made by Jeiel the scribe, and Maaseiah, the officer under the superintendence of Nahaniah, one of the royal princes - of 2600 heads of families, who had 307,500 men under their command, "that made war with mighty power to help the king against the enemy." Uzziah furnished these, according to all the divisions of the army, with shields, had spears, and helmet, and coats of mail, and bows, even with slinging-stones. He also had ingenious slinging-machines (balistae) made in Jerusalem, to fix upon the towers and ramparts, for the purpose of shooting arrows and large stones. His name resounded far abroad, for he had marvellous success, so that he became very powerful.
Up to this point the chronicler has depicted the brighter side of Uzziah's reign. His prosperous deeds and enterprises are all grouped together, so that it is doubtful whether the history within these several groups follows the chronological order or not. The light thrown upon the history of the times by the group of victories gained by Uzziah, would be worth twice as much if the chronological order were strictly observed. But even if we might assume that the victory over the Philistines preceded the victory over the Arabians of Gur-baal and the Mehunim, and this again the subjugation of Ammon, it would still be very uncertain what position the expedition against Edom - which was noticed by anticipation at the close of Amaziah's life - occupied in relation to the other wars, and at what part of Uzziah's reign the several wars occurred. All that can be affirmed is, that they preceded the closing years of his life, when the blessing of God was withdrawn from him.
The chronicler relates still further, in Isa 26:16, that as Uzziah became stronger and stronger, he fell into pride of heart, which led him to perform a ruinous act. He sinned against Jehovah his God, by forcing his way into the holy place of the temple, to burn incense upon the altar of incense, from the proud notion that royalty involved the rights of the priesthood, and that the priests were only the delegates and representatives of the king. Then Azariah the high priest, and eighty other priests, brave men, hurried after him, and went up to him, and said, "This does not belong to thee, Uzziah, to burn incense of Jehovah; but to the priests, and sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary, for thou sinnest; and this is not for thine honour with Jehovah Elohim!" Then Uzziah was wroth, as he held the censer in his hand; and while he was so enraged against the priests, leprosy broke out upon his forehead in the sight of the priests, in the house of Jehovah, at the altar of incense. When Azariah the high priest and the rest of the priests turned to him, behold, he was leprous in his forehead; and they brought him hurriedly away from thence - in fact, he himself hasted to go out - for Jehovah had smitten him. After having thus explained the circumstances which led to the king's leprosy, the chronicler follows once more the text of the book of Kings - where the leprosy itself is also mentioned - and states that the king remained a leper until the day of his death, and lived in a sick-house, without ever being able to visit the temple again. But instead of the statement in the book of Kings, that he was buried in the city of David, the chronicler affirms more particularly that he was not placed in the king's sepulchre; but, inasmuch as he was leprous, and would therefore have defiled it, was buried in the field near the sepulchre. But before introducing this conclusion to the history of Uzziah's reign, and instead of referring to the annals of the kings of Judah, as the author of the book of Kings has done, or making such citations as we generally find, the author simply states, that "the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write."
It cannot possibly be either the prophecies of Isaiah of the time of Uzziah, or a certain historical portion of the original book of Isaiah's predictions, to which reference is here made; for in that case we should expect the same notice at the close of the account of Jotham's reign, or, at any rate, at the close of that of Ahaz (cf., Ch2 27:7 and Ch2 28:26). It is also inconceivable that Isaiah's book of predictions should have contained either a prophetical or historical account of the first acts of Uzziah, since Isaiah was later than Amos, later even than Hosea; and his public ministry did not commence till the close of his reign-in fact, not till the year of his death. Consequently the chronicler must refer to some historical work distinct from "the visions of Isaiah." Just as he mentions two historical works within the first epoch of the divided kingdom, viz., Shemaiah's and Iddo's - the former of which referred more especially to the entire history of Rehoboam, and the latter to the history of Abijah - and then again, in the second epoch, an historical work by Jehu ben Hanani, which contained a complete history of Jehoshaphat from the beginning to the end; so here, in the third epoch, he speaks of Isaiah ben Amoz, the greatest Judaean prophet of this epoch as the author of a special history of Uzziah, which was not incorporated in his "visions" like the history of Hezekiah (cf., Ch2 32:32), but formed an independent work. Besides this prophetical history of Uzziah, there was also an annalistic history, as Kg2 15:6 clearly shows; and it is quite possible that the annals of Uzziah were finished when Isaiah commenced his work, and that they were made use of by him. For the leading purpose of the prophetical histories was to exhibit the inward and divine connection between the several outward events, which the annals simply registered. The historical writings of a prophet were only the other side of his more purely prophetic work. In the light of the Spirit of God, the former looked deep into the past, the latter into the present. Both of them had to do with the ways of divine justice and grace, and set forth past and present, alike in view of the true goal, in which these two ways coincide.
Jotham succeeded Uzziah, after having acted as regent, or rather as viceroy, for several years (Kg2 15:32-38). He ascended the throne in the second year of Pekah king of Israel, in the twenty-fifth year of his age, and reigned for sixteen years in a manner which pleased God, though he still tolerated the worship upon high places, as his father had done. He built the upper gate of the temple. The author has no sooner written this than he refers to the annals, simply adding, before concluding with the usual formula concerning his burial in the city of David, that in those days, i.e., towards the close of Jotham's reign, the hostilities of Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel commenced, as a judgment from God upon Judah. The chronicler, however, makes several valuable additions to the text of the book of Kings, which he has copied word for word down to the notice concerning the commencement of the Syro-Ephraimitish hostilities (vid., Ch2 27:1-9). We do not include in this the statement that Jotham did not force his way into the holy place in the temple: this is simply intended as a limitation of the assertion made by the author of the book of Kings as to the moral equality of Jotham and Uzziah, and in favour of the former. The words, "the people continued in their destructive course," also contain nothing new, but are simply the shorter expression used in the Chronicles to indicate the continuance of the worship of the high places during Jotham's reign. But there is something new in what the chronicler appends to the remark concerning the building of the upper gate of the temple, which is very bold and abrupt as it stands in the book of Kings, viz., "On the wall of the Ophel he built much (i.e., he fortified this southern spur of the temple hill still more strongly), and put towns in the mountains of Judah, and erected castles and towers in the forests (for watchtowers and defences against hostile attacks). He also fought with the king of the Ammonites; and when conquered, they were obliged to give him that year and the two following a hundred talents of silver, ten thousand cors of wheat, and the same quantity of barley. Jotham grew stronger and stronger, because he strove to walk before Jehovah his God." The chronicler breaks off with this general statement, and refers, for the other memorabilia of Jotham, and all his wars and enterprises, to the book of the Kings of Israel and Judah.
This is what the two historical books relate concerning the royal pair - Uzziah-Jotham - under whom the kingdom of Judah enjoyed once more a period of great prosperity and power - "the greatest since the disruption, with the exception of that of Jehoshaphat; the longest during the whole period of its existence, the last before its overthrow" (Caspari). The sources from which the two historical accounts were derived were the annals: they were taken directly from them by the author of the book of Kings, indirectly by the chronicler. No traces can be discovered of the work written by Isaiah concerning Uzziah, although it may possibly be employed in the midrash of the chronicler. There is an important supplement to the account given by the chronicler in the casual remark made in Ch1 5:17, to the effect that Jotham had a census taken of the tribe of Gad, which was settled on the other side of the Jordan. We see from this, that in proportion as the northern kingdom sank down from the eminence to which it had attained under Jeroboam II, the supremacy of Judah over the land to the east of the Jordan was renewed. But we may see from Amos, that it was only gradually that the kingdom of Judah revived under Uzziah, and that at first, like the wall of Jerusalem, which was partially broken down by Joash, it presented the aspect of a house full of fissures, and towards Israel in a very shaky condition; also that the Ephraimitish ox- (or calf-) worship of Jehovah was carried on at Beersheba, and therefore upon Judaean soil, and that Judah did not keep itself free from the idolatry which it had inherited from the fathers (Amo 2:4-5). Again, assuming that Amos commenced his ministry at about the tenth year of Uzziah's reign, we may learn at least so much from him with regard to Uzziah's victories over Edom, Philistia, and Ammon, that they were not gained till after the tenth year of his reign. Hosea, on the other hand, whose ministry commenced at the very earliest when that of Amos was drawing to a close, and probably not till the last five years of Jeroboam's reign, bears witness to, and like Amos condemns, the participation in the Ephraimitish worship, into which Judah had been drawn under Uzziah-Jotham. But with him Beersheba is not referred to any more as an Israelitish seat of worship (Amo 5:5); Israel does not interfere any longer with the soil of Judah, as in the time of Amos, since Judah has again become a powerful and well-fortified kingdom (Hos 8:14, cf., Hos 1:7). But, at the same time, it has become full of carnal trust and manifold apostasy from Jehovah (Hos 5:10; Hos 12:1); so that, although receiving at first a miraculous deliverance from God (Hos 1:7), it is ripening for the same destruction as Israel (Hos 6:11).
This survey of the kingdom of Judah in the time of Uzziah-Jotham by the Israelitish prophet, we shall find repeated in Isaiah; for the same spirit animates and determines the verdicts of the prophets of both kingdoms.
II. Historical Account of Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimitish War. - The account of Ahaz, given in the book of Kings and in the Chronicles (2 Kings 16; Ch2 28:1), may be divided into three parts: viz., first, the general characteristics; secondly, the account of the Syro-Ephraimitish war; and thirdly, the desecration of the temple by Ahaz, more especially by setting up an altar made after the model of that at Damascus.
(Note: On the temple at Damascus, whose altar Ahaz imitated, see the Commentary on the Book of Job.)
(1.) Kg2 16:1-4. Ahaz ascended the throne in the seventeenth year of Pekah. He was then twenty years old (or twenty-five according to the lxx at Ch2 28:1, which is much more probable, as he would otherwise have had a son, Hezekiah, in the tenth years of his age), and he reigned sixteen years. He did not please God as his forefather David had done, but took the way of the kings of Israel, and even made his son pass through the fire (i.e., burnt him in honour of Moloch), according to the abominations of the (Canaanitish) people whom Jehovah had driven out before Israel; and he offered sacrifice and burnt incense upon the high places, and upon the hills, and under every green tree. The Deuteronomic colouring of this passage is very obvious. The corresponding passage in the Chronicles is Ch2 28:1-4, where the additional fact is mentioned, that he even made molten images for Baalim, and burnt incense in the valley of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire ("his children," a generic plural like "the kings" in Ch2 28:16, and "the sons" in Ch2 24:25 : "burnt," ויּבער, unless the reading ויּעבר be adopted, as it has been by the lxx, "he caused to pass through.") (2.) Kg2 16:5-9. Then (in the time of this idolatrous king Ahaz) the following well-known and memorable event occurred: Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel, went up against Jerusalem to war, and besieged Ahaz, "but could not overcome him," i.e., as we may gather from Isa 7:1, they were not able to get possession of Jerusalem, which was the real object of their expedition. "At that time" (the author of the book of Kings proceeds to observe), viz., at the time of this Syro-Ephraimitish war, Rezin king of Aram brought Elath to Aram (i.e., wrested again from the kingdom of Judah the seaport town which Uzziah had recovered a short time before), and drove the Judaeans out of Elath (sic); and Aramaeans came to Elath and settled there unto this day. Thenius, who starts with the needless assumption that the conquest of Elath took place subsequently to the futile attempt to take Jerusalem, gives the preference to the reading of the Keri, "and Edomites (Edomina) came to Elath," and would therefore correct l'aram (to Aram) into l'edom (to Edom). "Rezin," he says, "destroyed the work of Uzziah, and gave Edom its liberty again, in the hope that at some future time he might have the support of Edom, and so operate against Judah with greater success." But, in answer to this, it may be affirmed that such obscure forms as ארומים for ארמּים are peculiar to this account, and that the words do not denote the restoration of a settlement, but mention the settlement as a new and remarkable fact. I therefore adopt Caspari's conclusion, that the Syrian king transplanted a Syrian colony of traders to Elath, to secure the command of the maritime trade with all its attendant advantages; and this colony held its ground there for some time after the destruction of the Damascene kingdom, as the expression "to this day," found in the earlier source of the author of the book of Kings, clearly implies.
But if the conquest of Elath fell within the period of the Syro-Ephraimitish war, which commenced towards the end of Jotham's reign, and probably originated in the bitter feelings occasioned by the almost total loss to Judah of the country on the east of the Jordan, and which assumed the form of a direct attack upon Jerusalem itself soon after Ahaz ascended the throne; the question arises, How was it that this design of the two allied kings upon Jerusalem was not successful? The explanation is given in the account contained in the book of Kings (Kg2 16:7): "Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pelezer (sic) the king of Asshur, to say to him, I am thy servant, and thy son; come up, and save me out of the hand of Aram, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, who have risen up against me. And Ahaz took the silver and the gold that was found in the house of Jehovah, and in the treasures of the palace, and sent it for a present to the king of Asshur. The king hearkened to his petition; and went against Damascus, and took it, and carried the inhabitants into captivity to Kir, and slew Rezin." And what did Tiglath-pileser do with Pekah? The author of the book of Kings has already related, in the section referring to Pekah (Kg2 15:29), that he punished him by taking away the whole of the country to the east of the Jordan, and a large part of the territory on this side towards the north, and carried the inhabitants captive to Assyria. This section must be supplied here - an example of the great liberty which the historians allowed themselves in the selection and arrangement of their materials. The anticipation in Kg2 16:5 is also quite in accordance with their usual style: the author first of all states that the expedition against Jerusalem was an unsuccessful one, and then afterwards proceeds to mention the reason for the failure - namely, the appeal of Ahaz to Assyria for help. For I also agree with Caspari in this, that the Syrians the Ephraimites were unable to take Jerusalem, because the tidings reached them, that Tiglath-pileser had been appealed to by Ahaz and was coming against them; and they were consequently obliged to raise the siege and made a speedy retreat.
The account in the Chronicles (2 Chron 28:5-21) furnishes us with full and extensive details, with which to supplement the very condensed notice of the book of Kings. When we compare the two accounts, the question arises, whether they refer to two different expeditions (and if so, which of the two refers to the first expedition and which to the second), or whether they both relate to the same expedition. Let us picture to ourselves first of all the facts as given by the chronicler. "Jehovah, his God," he says of Ahaz, "delivered him into the hand of the king of Aram, and they (the Aramaeans) smote him, and carried off from him a great crowd of captives, whom they brought to Damascus; and he was also given into the hand of the king of Israel, who inflicted upon him a terrible defeat." This very clearly implies, as Caspari has shown, that although the two kings set the conquest of Jerusalem before them as a common end at which to aim, and eventually united for the attainment of this end, yet for a time they acted separately. We are not told here in what direction Rezin's army went. But we know from Kg2 16:6 that it marched to Idumaea, which it could easily reach from Damascus by going through the territory of his ally - namely, the country of the two tribes and a half. The chronicler merely describes the simultaneous invasion of Judaea by Pekah, but he does this with all the greater fulness.
"Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah a hundred and twenty thousand in one day, all valiant men, because they forsook Jehovah, the God of their fathers. Zichri, an Ephraimitish hero, slew Ma'asejahu the king's son, and Azrikam the governor of the palace, and Elkanah, the second in rank to the king. And the Israelites carried away captive of their brethren two hundred thousand women, boys, and girls, and took away much spoil from them, and brought this booty to Samaria." As the Jewish army numbered at that time three hundred thousand men (Ch2 25:5; Ch2 26:13), and the war was carried on with the greatest animosity, these numbers need not be regarded as either spurious or exaggerated. Moreover, the numbers, which the chronicler found in the sources he employed, merely contained the estimate of the enormous losses sustained, as generally adopted at that time of the side of Judah itself.
This bloody catastrophe was followed by a very fine and touching occurrence. A prophet of Jehovah, named Oded (a contemporary of Hosea, and a man of kindred spirit), went out before the army as it came back to Samaria, and charged the victors to release the captives of their brother nation, which had been terribly punished in God's wrath, and by so doing to avert the wrath of God which threatened them as well. Four noble Ephraimitish heads of tribes, whose names the chronicler has preserved, supported the admonition of the prophet. The army then placed the prisoners and the booty at the disposal of the princes and the assembled people: "And these four memorable men rose up, and took the prisoners, and all their naked ones they covered with the booty, and clothed and shod them, and gave them to eat and drink, and anointed them, and conducted as many of them as were cripples upon asses, and brought them to Jericho the palm-city, to the neighbourhood of their brethren, and returned to Samaria." Nothing but the rudest scepticism could ever seek to cast a slur upon this touching episode, the truth of which is so conspicuous. There is nothing strange in the fact that so horrible a massacre should be followed by a strong manifestation of the fraternal love, which had been forcibly suppressed, but was not rekindled by the prophet's words. We find an older fellow-piece to this in the prevention of a fratricidal war by Shemaiah, as described in Kg1 12:22-24.
Now, when the chronicler proceeds to observe in Ch2 28:16, that "at that time Ahaz turned for help to the royal house of Assyria" (malce asshur), in all probability this took place at the time when he had sustained two severe defeats, one at the hands of Pekah to the north of Jerusalem; and another from Rezin in Idumaea. The two battles belong to the period before the siege of Jerusalem, and the appeal for help from Assyria falls between the battles and the siege. The chronicler then mentions other judgments which fell upon the king in his estrangement from God, viz.: (1.) "Moreover the Edomites came, smote Judah, and carried away captives;" possibly while the Syro-Ephraimitish war was still going on, after they had welcomed Rezin as their deliverer, had shaken off the Jewish yoke, and had supported the Syrian king against Judah in their own land; (2.) the Philistines invaded the low land (shephelah) and the south land (negeb) of Judah, and took several towns, six of which the chronicler mentions by name, and settled in them; for "Jehovah humbled Judah because of Ahaz the king of Israel (an epithet with several sarcastic allusions), for he acted without restraint in Judah, and most wickedly against Jehovah." The breaking away of the Philistines from the Jewish dominion took place, according to Caspari, in the time of the Syro-Ephraimitish war. The position of Ch2 28:18 in the section reaching from Ch2 28:5 to Ch2 28:21 (viz., Ch2 28:18, invasion of the Philistines; Ch2 28:17, that of the Edomites) renders this certainly very probable, though it is not conclusive, as Caspari himself admits.
In Ch2 28:20, Ch2 28:21, the chronicler adds an appendix to the previous list of punishments: Tiglath-Pilnezer (sic) the king of Asshur came upon him, and oppressed him instead of strengthening him; for Ahaz had plundered both temple and palace, and given the treasures to the king of Asshur, without receiving any proper help in return. Thenius disputes the rendering, "He strengthened him not" (cf., Eze 30:21); but Caspari has shown that it is quite in accordance with the facts of the case. Tiglath-pileser did not bring Ahaz any true help; for what he proceeded to do against Syria and Israel was not taken in hand in the interests of Ahaz, but to extend his own imperial dominion. He did not assist Ahaz to bring ether the Edomites or the Philistines into subjection again, to say nothing of compensating him for his losses with either Syrian or Ephraimitish territory. Nor was it only that he did not truly help him: he really oppressed him, by making him a tributary vassal instead of a free and independent prince - a relation to Asshur which, according to many evident signs, was the direct consequence of his appeal for help, and which was established, at any rate, at the very commencement of Hezekiah's reign. Under what circumstances this took place we cannot tell; but it is very probable that, after the victories over Rezin and Pekah, a second sum of money was demanded by Tiglath-pileser, and then from that time forward a yearly tribute. The expression used by the chronicler-"he came upon him" - seems, in fact, to mean that he gave emphasis to this demand by sending a detachment of his army; even if we cannot take it, as Caspari does, in a rhetorical rather than a purely historical sense, viz., as signifying that, "although Tiglath-pileser came, as Ahaz desired, his coming was not such as Ahaz desired, a coming to help and benefit, but rather to oppress and injure."
(3.) The third part of the two historical accounts describes the pernicious influence which the alliance with Tiglath-pileser exerted upon Ahaz, who was already too much inclined to idolatry (Kg2 16:10-18). After Tiglath-pileser had marched against the ruler of Damascus, and delivered Ahaz from the more dangerous of his two adversaries (and possibly from both of them), Ahaz went to Damascus to present his thanks in person. There he saw the altar (which was renowned as a work of art), and sent an exact model to Uriah the high priest, who had an altar constructed like it by the time that the king returned. As soon as Ahaz came back he went up to this altar and offered sacrifice, thus officiating as priest himself (probably as a thanksgiving for the deliverance he had received). The brazen altar (of Solomon), which Uriah had moved farther forward to the front of the temple building, he put farther back again, placing it close to the north side of the new one (that the old one might not appear to have the slightest preference over the new), and commanded the high priest to perform the sacrificial service in future upon the new great altar; adding, at the same time, "And (as for) the brazen altar, I will consider (what shall be done with it)." "And king Ahaz," it is stated still further, "broke out the borders of the stools, and took away the basons; and the sea he took down from the oxen that bare it, and set it upon a stone pedestal (that took the place of the oxen). And the covered sabbath-hall which had been built in the temple, and the outer king's entrance, he removed into the temple of Jehovah before the king of Assyria." Thenius explains this as meaning "he altered them" (taking away the valuable ornaments from both), that he might be able to take with him to Damascus the necessary presents for the king of Asshur. Ewald's explanation, however, is better than this, and more in accordance with the expression "before," viz., "in order that he might be able to secure the continued favour of the dreaded Assyrian king, by continually sending him fresh presents." But הסבdoes not mean to alter, and בית ה = בבית ה would be an unmeaning addition in the wrong place, which would only obscure the sense. If the great alterations mentioned in Kg2 16:17 were made for the purpose of sending presents to the king of Assyria with or from the things that were removed, those described in Kg2 16:18 were certainly made from fear of the king; and, what appears most probable to me, not to remove the two splendid erections from the sight of the Assyrians, nor to preserve their being used in the event of an Assyrian occupation of Jerusalem, but in order that his relation to the great king of Assyria might not be disturbed by his appearing as a zealous worshipper of Jehovah. They were changes made from fear of man and servility, and were quite in keeping with the hypocritical, insincere, and ignoble character of Ahaz. The parallel passage in the Chronicles is Ch2 28:22-25. "In the time of his distress," says the chronicler in his reflective and rhetorical style, "he sinned still more grievously against Jehovah: he, king Ahaz. He sacrificed to the gods of Damascus, who had smitten him. For the gods of the kings of Aram, he said, helped them; I will sacrifice to them, that they may also help me. And they brought him and all Israel to ruin. And Ahaz collected together the vessels of the house of God, and cut them in pieces, and shut the doors of the house of Jehovah, and made himself altars in ever corner of Jerusalem. And in every town of Judah he erected high places to burn incense to other gods, and stirred up the displeasure of Jehovah the God of his fathers." Thenius regards this passage as an exaggerated paraphrase of the parallel passage in the book of Kings, and as resting upon a false interpretation of the latter. But the chronicler does not affirm that Ahaz dedicated the new altar to the gods of Damascus, but rather that in the time of the Syro-Ephraimitish war he attempted to secure for himself the same success in war as the Syrians had obtained, by worshipping their gods. The words of Ahaz, which are reported by him, preclude any other interpretation. He there states - what by no means contradicts the book of Kings - that Ahaz laid violent hands upon the furniture of the temple. All the rest - namely, the allusion to his shutting the temple - gates, and erecting altars and high places on every hand - is a completion of the account in the book of Kings, the historical character of which it is impossible to dispute, if we bear in mind that the Syro-Ephraimitish war took place at the commencement of the reign of Ahaz, who was only sixteen years old at the time.
The author of the book of Kings closes the history of the reign of Ahaz with a reference to the annals of the kings of Judah, and with the remark that he was buried in the city of David (Kg2 16:19-20). The chronicler refers to the book of the kings of Judah and Israel, and observes that he was indeed buried in the city (lxx "in the city of David"), but not in the king's sepulchre (Ch2 28:26-27). The source employed by the chronicler was his midrash of the entire history of the kings; from which he made extracts, with the intention of completing the text of our book of Kings, to which he appended his work. His style was formed after that of the annals, whilst that of the author of the book of Kings is formed after Deuteronomy. But from what source did the author of the book of Kings make his extracts? The section relating to Ahaz has some things quite peculiar to itself, as compared with the rest of the book, viz., a liking for obscure forms, such as Eloth (Kg2 16:6), hakkomim (Kg2 16:7), Dummesek (Kg2 16:10), and Aromim (Kg2 16:6); the name Tiglath-peleser;
(Note: This mode of spelling the name, also the one adopted by the chronicler (Tiglath-pilnezer), are both incorrect. Pal is the Assyrian for son, and according to Oppert (Expdition Scientifique en Msopotamie), the whole name would read thus: Tiglatḣpalli̇shiar, i.e., reverence to the son of the zodiac (the Assyrian Hercules).)
מכף instead of מיד, which is customary elsewhere; the rare and more colloquial term jehudim (Jews); the inaccurate construction את־המסגרות המכונות (Kg2 16:17); and the verb בּקּר (to consider, Kg2 16:15), which does not occur anywhere else.
These peculiarities may be satisfactorily explained on the assumption that the author employed the national annals; and that, as these annals had been gradually composed by the successive writings of many different persons, whilst there was an essential uniformity in the mode in which the history was written, there was also of necessity a great variety in the style of composition. But is the similarity between Kg2 16:5 and Isa 7:1 reconcilable with this annalistic origin? The resemblance in question certainly cannot be explained, as Thenius supposes, from the fact that Isa 7:1 was also taken from the national annals; but rather on the ground assigned by Caspari - namely, that the author of the Chronicles had not only the national annals before him, but also the book of Isaiah's prophecies, to which he directs his readers' attention by commencing the history of the Syro-Ephraimitish war in the words of the portion relating to Ahaz. The design of the two allies, as we know from the further contents of Isaiah 1, was nothing less than to get possession of Jerusalem, to overthrow the Davidic government there, and establish in its stead, in the person of a certain ben-Tāb'êl ("son of Tabeal," Isa 7:6), a newly created dynasty, that would be under subjection to themselves. The failure of this intention is the thought that is briefly indicated in Kg2 16:5 and Isa 7:1.
III. Historical Account of Hezekiah, more especially of the first six years of his reign. - The account given of Hezekiah in the book of Kings is a far more meagre one than we should expect to find, when we have taken out the large section relating to the period of the Assyrian catastrophe (2 Kings 18:13-20:19), which is also found in the book of Isaiah, and which will come under review in the commentary on Isaiah 36-39. All that is then left to the author of the book of Kings is Kg2 18:1-12 and Kg2 20:20, Kg2 20:21; and in these two paragraphs, which enclose the section of Isaiah, there are only a few annalistic elements worked up in Deuteronomical style. Hezekiah began to reign in the third year of Hosea king of Israel. He was twenty-five years old when he came to the throne, and reigned twenty-nine years. He was a king after the model of David. He removed the high places, broke in pieces the statutes, cut down the Asheroth, and pounded the serpent, which had been preserved from the time of Moses, and had become an object of idolatrous worship. In his confidence in Jehovah he was unequalled by any of his followers or predecessors. The allusion here is to that faith of his, by which he broke away from the tyranny of Asshur, and also recovered his supremacy over the Philistines. We have no means of deciding in what years of Hezekiah's reign these two events - the revolt from Asshur, and the defeat of the Philistines - occurred. The author proceeds directly afterwards, with a studious repetition of what he has already stated in Isa 17:1-14 in the history of Hosea's reign,
(Note: The Chabor nehar Gozan (Eng. ver.: Habor by the river of Gozan), which is mentioned in both passages among the districts to which the Israelitish exiles were taken, is no doubt the Châbūr, which flows into the Tigris from the east above Mosul, and of which it is stated in Merâsid ed. Juynboll, that "it comes from the mountains of the land of Zauzn," a district of outer Armenia lying towards the Tigris, which is described by Edrisi in Jaubert's translation, Pt. ii. p. 330. Another river, on the banks of which Ezekiel's colony of exiles lived, is the Chebar, which flows from the north-east into the Euphrates, and the source of which is in the Mesopotamian town of Râs-el-'ain, a place celebrated through the marvellous springs of this Chaboras, the praises of which have often been sung.)
to describe Shalmanassar's expedition against Israel in the fourth year of Hezekiah's reign (the seventh of Hosea's), and the fall of Samaria, which took place, after a siege of three years, in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign, and the ninth of Hosea's. But as Shalmanassar made no attack upon Judah at the time when he put an end to the kingdom of Israel, the revolt of Hezekiah cannot have taken place till afterwards. But with regard to the victory over the Philistines, there is nothing in the book of Kings to help us even to a negative conclusion. In Kg2 20:20, Kg2 20:21, the author brings his history rapidly to a close, and merely refers such as may desire to know more concerning Hezekiah, especially concerning his victories and aqueducts, to the annals of the kings of Judah.
The chronicler merely gives an extract from the section of Isaiah; but he is all the more elaborate in the rest. All that he relates in 2 Chron 29:2-31 is a historical commentary upon the good testimony given to king Hezekiah in the book of Kings (Kg2 18:3), which the chronicler places at the head of his own text in Ch2 29:2. Even in the month Nisan of the first year of his reign, Hezekiah re-opened the gates of the temple, had it purified from the defilement consequent upon idolatry, and appointed a re-consecration of the purified temple, accompanied with sacrifice, music, and psalms (Isa 29:3.). Hezekiah is introduced here (a fact of importance in relation to Isaiah 38) as the restorer of "the song of the Lord" (Shir Jehovah), i.e., of liturgical singing. The Levitical and priestly music, as introduced and organized by David, Gad, and Nathan, was heard again, and Jehovah was praised once more in the words of David the king and Asaph the seer. The chronicler then relates in Isaiah 30 how Hezekiah appointed a solemn passover in the second month, to which even inhabitants of the northern kingdom, who might be still in the land, were formally and urgently invited. It was an after-passover, which was permitted by the law, as the priests had been busy with the purification of the temple in the first month, and therefore had been rendered unclean themselves: moreover, there would not have been sufficient time for summoning the people to Jerusalem. The northern tribes as a whole refused the invitation in the most scornful manner, but certain individuals accepted it with penitent hearts. It was a feast of joy, such as had not been known since the time of Solomon (this statement is not at variance with Kg2 23:22), affording, as it did, once more a representation and assurance of that national unity which had been rent in twain ever since the time of Rehoboam. Caspari has entered into a lengthened investigation as to the particular year of Hezekiah's reign in which this passover was held. He agrees with Keil, that it took place after the fall of Samaria and the deportation of the people by Shalmanassar; but he does not feel quite certain of his conclusion. The question itself, however, is one that ought not to be raised at all, if we think the chronicler a trustworthy authority. He places this passover most unquestionably in the second month of the first year of Hezekiah's reign; and there is no difficulty occasioned by this, unless we regard what Tiglath-pileser had done to Israel as of less importance than it actually was. The population that was left behind was really nothing more than a remnant; and, moreover, the chronicler draws an evident contrast between tribes and individuals, so that he was conscious enough that there were still whole tribes of the northern kingdom who were settled in their own homes. He then states in Ch2 31:1, that the inhabitants of the towns of Judah (whom he calls "all Israel," because a number of emigrant Israelites had settled there) went forth, under the influence of the enthusiasm consequent upon the passover they had celebrated, and broke in pieces the things used in idolatrous worship throughout both kingdoms; and in Ch2 31:2., that Hezekiah restored the institutions of divine worship that had been discontinued, particularly those relating to the incomes of the priests and Levites. Everything else that he mentions in 32:1-26, Ch2 32:31, belongs to a later period than the fourteenth year of Hezekiah's reign; and so far as it differs from the section in Isaiah, which is repeated in the book of Kings, it is a valuable supplement, more especially with reference to Kg2 22:8-11 (which relates to precautions taken in the prospect of the approaching Assyrian siege). But the account of Hezekiah's wealth in Ch2 32:27-29 extends over the whole of his reign. The notice respecting the diversion of the upper Gihon (Ch2 32:30) reaches rather into the period of the return after the Assyrian catastrophe, than into the period before it; but nothing can be positively affirmed.
Having thus obtained the requisite acquaintance with the historical accounts which bear throughout upon the book of Isaiah, so far as it has for its starting-point and object the history of the prophet's own times, we will now turn to the book itself, for the purpose of acquiring such an insight into its general plan as is necessary to enable us to make a proper division of our own work of exposition.
Arrangement of the Collection
We may safely enter upon our investigation with the preconceived opinion that the collection before us was edited by the prophet himself. For, with the exception of the book of Jonah, which belongs to the prophetico-historical writings rather than to the literature of prediction, or the prophetical writings in the ordinary acceptation of the term, all the canonical books of prophecy were written and arranged by the prophets whose names they bear. The most important to our purpose is the analogy of the larger books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. No one denies that Ezekiel prepared his work for publication exactly as it lies before us now; and Jeremiah informs us himself, that he collected and published his prophecies on two separate occasions. Both collections are arranged according to the two different points of view of the subject-matter and the order of time, which are interwoven the one with the other. And this is also the case with the collection of Isaiah's prophecies. As a whole, it is arranged chronologically. The dates given in Isa 6:1; Isa 7:1; Isa 14:28; Isa 20:1, are so many points in a progressive line. The three principal divisions also form a chronological series. For Isaiah 1-6 set forth the ministry of Isaiah under Uzziah-Jotham; Isaiah 7-39, his ministry under Ahaz and Hezekiah down to the fifteenth year of the reign of the latter; whilst Isaiah 40-66, assuming their authenticity, were the latest productions of the deepest inner-life, and were committed directly to writing. In the central part, the Ahaz group (Isaiah 7-12) also precedes the Hezekiah group (Isaiah 13-39) chronologically. But the order of time is interrupted in several places by an arrangement of the subject-matter, which was of greater importance to the prophet. The address in Isaiah 1 is not the oldest, but is placed at the head as an introduction to the whole. The consecration of the prophet (Isa 6:1-13), which ought to stand at the beginning of the Uzziah-Jotham group, if it relates to his original consecration to his office, is placed at the end, where it looks both backwards and forwards, as a prophecy that was in course of fulfilment. The Ahaz group, which follows next (Isaiah 7-12), is complete in itself, and, as it were, from one casting. And in the Hezekiah group (Isaiah 13-39) the chronological order is frequently interrupted again. The prophecies against the nations (Isa 14:24-32), which belong to the Assyrian period, have a massa upon Babel, the city of the world's power, for their opening piece (Isaiah 13-14:23); a massa upon Tyre, the city of the world's commerce, which was to be destroyed by the Chaldeans, for their finale (Isaiah 23); and a shorter massa upon Babel, for a party-wall dividing the cycle into two halves (Isa 21:1-10); and all the prophecies upon the nations run into a grand apocalyptic epilogue (Isaiah 24-27), like rivers into a sea. The first part of the Hezekiah group, the contents of which are pre-eminently ethnic (Isaiah 13-27), are interwoven with passages which may not have been composed till after the fifteenth year of Hezekiah's reign. The grand epilogue (Isaiah 34-35), in which the second portion of the Hezekiah group dies away, is also another such passage. This second part is occupied chiefly with the fate of Judah, the judgment inflicted upon Judah by the imperial power of Assyria, and the deliverance which awaited it (Isaiah 27-33). This prediction closes with a declaration, in Isaiah 34-35, on the one hand, of the judgment of God upon the world of Israel's foes; and on the other hand, of the redemption of Israel itself. This passage, which was composed after the fifteenth year of Hezekiah's reign, is followed by the historical portions (Isaiah 36-39), which enclose in a historical frame the predictions of Isaiah delivered when the Assyrian catastrophe was close at hand, and furnish us with the key to the interpretation not only of Isaiah 7-35, but of Isaiah 40-66 also.
Taking the book of Isaiah, therefore, as a whole, in the form in which it lies before us, it may be divided into two halves, viz., Isaiah 1-39, and Isaiah 40-66. The former consists of seven parts, the latter of three. The first half may be called the Assyrian, as the goal to which it points is the downfall of Asshur; the second the Babylonian, as its goal is the deliverance from Babel. The first half, however, is not purely Assyrian; but there are Babylonian pieces introduced among the Assyrian, and such others, as a rule, as break apocalyptically through the limited horizon of the latter. The following are the seven divisions in the first half. (1.) Prophecies founded upon the growing obduracy of the great mass of the people (Isaiah 2-6). (2.) The consolation of Immanuel under the Assyrian oppressions (Isaiah 7-12). These two form a syzygy, which concludes with a psalm of the redeemed (Isa 12:1-6), the echo, in the last days, of the song at the Red Sea. The whole is divided by the consecration of the prophet (Isa 6:1-13), which looks backwards and forwards with threatenings and promises. It is introduced by a summary prologue (Isaiah 1), in which the prophet, standing midway between Moses and Jesus the Christ, commences in the style of the great Mosaic ode. (3.) Predictions of the judgment and salvation of the heathen, which belong, for the most part, to the time of the Assyrian judgment, though they are enclosed and divided by Babylonian portions. For, as we have already observed, and oracle concerning Babel, the city of the world-power, forms the introduction (Isaiah 13-14:23); an oracle concerning Tyre, the city of the world's commerce, which was to receive its mortal wound from the Chaldeans, the conclusion (Isaiah 23); and a second oracle on the desert by the sea, i.e., Babel, the centre (Isa 21:1-10). (4.) To this so thoughtfully arranged collection of predictions concerning the nations outside the Israelitish pale, there is attached a grand apocalyptic prophecy of the judgment of the world and the last things (Isaiah 24-27), which gives it a background that fades away into eternity, and forms with it a second syzygy. (5.) From these eschatological distances the prophet returns to the realities of the present and of the immediate future, and describes the revolt from Asshur, and its consequences (Isaiah 28-33). The central point of this group is the prophecy of the precious corner-stone laid in Zion. (6.) This is also paired off by the prophet with a far-reaching eschatological prediction of revenge and redemption for the church (Isaiah 34-35), in which we already hear, as in a prelude, the keynote of Isaiah 40-66. (7.) After these three syzygies we are carried back, in the first two historical accounts of Isaiah 36-39, into the Assyrian times, whilst the other two show us in the distance the future entanglement with Babylon, which was commencing already. These four accounts are arranged without regard to the chronological order, so that one half looks backwards and the other forwards, and thus the two halves of the book are clasped together. The prophecy in Isa 39:5-7 stands between these two halves like a sign-post, with the inscription "To Babylon" upon it. It is thither that the further course of Israel's history tends. There, from this time forward, is Isaiah buried in spirit with his people. And there, in Isaiah 40-66, he proclaims to the Babylonian exiles their approaching deliverance. The trilogical arrangement of this book of consolation has been scarcely disputed by any one, since it was first pointed out by Rckert in his Translation and Exposition of Hebrew Prophets (1831). It is divided into three sections, each containing three times three addresses, with a kind of refrain at the close.
The Critical Questions
The collection of Isaiah's prophecies is thus a complete work, most carefully and skilfully arranged. It is thoroughly worthy of the prophet. Nevertheless, we should be unable to attribute it to him in its present form, (1.) if it were impossible that Isaiah 13-14:23; Isa 21:1-10; 23; 24-27; 34-35, could have been composed by Isaiah, and (2.) if the historical accounts in Isaiah 36-39, which are also to be found in 2 Kings 18:13-20:19, have been copied from the book of Kings, or even directly from the national annals. For if the prophecies in question be taken away, the beautiful whole unquestionably falls into a confused quodlibet, more especially the book against the nations; and if Isaiah 36-39 were not written directly by Isaiah, the two halves of the collection would be left without a clasp to bind them together. It would be irregular to think of deciding the critical questions bearing upon this point now, instead of taking them up in connection with our exegetical inquiries. At the same time, we will put the reader in possession at once of the more general points, which cause us to dissent from the conclusions of the modern critics, who regard the book of Isaiah as an anthology composed of the productions of different authors.
The critical treatment of Isaiah commenced as follows: It began with the second part. Koppe first of all expressed some doubts as to the genuineness of Isaiah 1. Doderlein then gave utterance to a decided suspicion as to the genuineness of the whole; and Justi, followed by Eichhorn, Paulus, and Bertholdt, raised this suspicion into firm assurance that the whole was spurious. The result thus obtained could not possibly continue without reaction upon the first part. Rosenmller, who was always very dependent upon his predecessors, was the first to question whether the oracle against Babylon in Isaiah 13-14:23 was really Isaiah's, as the heading affirms; and to his great relief, Justi and Paulus undertook the defence of his position. Further progress was now made. With the first oracle against Babylon in Isaiah 13-14:23, the second, in Isa 21:1-10, was also condemned; and Rosenmller was justly astonished when Gesenius dropped the former, but maintained that the arguments with regard to the latter were inconclusive. There still remained the oracle against Tyre in Isaiah 23, which might either be left as Isaiah's, or attributed to a younger unknown prophet, according to the assumption that it predicted the destruction of Tyre by Assyrians or by Chaldeans. Eichhorn, followed by Rosenmller, decided that it was not genuine. But Gesenius understood by the destroyers the Assyrians; and as the prophecy consequently did not extend beyond Isaiah's horizon, he defended its authenticity. Thus the Babylonian series was set aside, or at any rate pronounced thoroughly suspicious. But the keen eyes of the critics made still further discoveries. Eichhorn found a play upon words in the cycle of predictions in Isaiah 24-27, which was unworthy of Isaiah. Gesenius detected an allegorical announcement of the fall of Babylon. Consequently they both condemned these three chapters; and it had its effect, for Ewald transferred them to the time of Cambyses. Still shorter work was made with the cycle of predictions in Isaiah 34-35, on account of its relation to the second part. Rosenmller pronounced it, without reserve, "a song composed in the time of the Babylonian captivity, when it was approaching its termination." This is the true account of the origin of the criticism upon Isaiah. It was in the swaddling-clothes of rationalism that it attained its maturity. Its first attempts were very juvenile. The names of its founders have been almost forgotten. It was Gesenius, Hitzig, and Ewald, who first raised it to the eminence of a science.
If we take our stand upon this eminence, we find that the book of Isaiah contains prophecies by Isaiah himself, and also prophecies by persons who were either directly or indirectly his disciples. The New Testament passages in which the second half of the book of Isaiah is cited as Isaiah's, are no proof of the contrary, since Psa 2:1-12, for example, which has no heading at all, is cited in Act 4:25 as David's, merely because it is contained in the Davidic Psalter, and no critic would ever feel that he was bound by that. But many objections present themselves to such a conclusion. In the first place, nothing of the kind can be pointed out in any of the other canonical books of prophecy, except indeed the book of Zechariah, in which Isaiah 9-14 is said to stand in precisely the same position as Isaiah 40-66, according to Hitzig, Ewald, and others; with this difference, however, that Isaiah 40-66 is attributed to a later prophet than Isaiah, whereas Zech. 9-14 is attributed to one or two prophets before the time of Zechariah. But even De Wette, who maintained, in the first three editions of his Introduction to the Old Testament, that Zech was written before the captivity, altered his views in the fourth edition; and Khler has lately confirmed the unity of the book of Zechariah after an unbiased investigation. It is Zechariah himself who prophesies of the last times in Isaiah 9-14, in images drawn from the past, and possibly with the introduction of earlier oracles. It remains, therefore, that not a single book of prophecy is open to any such doubts as to the unity of its authorship and Hitzig admits that even the book of Jeremiah, although interpolated, does not contain spurious sections. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that something extraordinary might have taken place in connection with the book of Isaiah. But there are grave objections even to such an assumption as this in the face of existing facts. For example, it would be a marvellous occurrence in the history of chances, for such a number of predictions of this particular kind to have been preserved - all of them bearing so evidently the marks of Isaiah's style, that for two thousand years the have been confounded with his own prophecies. It would be equally marvellous that the historians should know nothing at all about the authors of these prophecies; and thirdly, it would be very strange that the names of these particular prophets should have shared the common fate of being forgotten, although they must all have lived nearer to the compiler's own times than the old model prophet, whose style they imitated. It is true that these difficulties are not conclusive proofs to the contrary; but, at any rate, they are so much to the credit of the traditional authorship of the prophecies attacked. On the other hand, the weight of this tradition is not properly appreciated by opponents. Wilful contempt of external testimony, and frivolity in the treatment of historical data, have been from the very first the fundamental evils apparent in the manner in which modern critics have handled the questions relating to Isaiah. These critics approach everything that is traditional with the presumption that it is false; and whoever would make a scientific impression upon them, must first of all declare right fearlessly his absolute superiority to the authority of tradition. Now tradition is certainly not infallible. No more are the internal grounds of the so-called higher criticism, especially in the questions relating to Isaiah. And in the case before us, the external testimony is greatly strengthened by the relation in which Zephaniah and Jeremiah, the two most reproductive prophets, stand not only to Isaiah 40-66, but also to the suspected sections of the first half. They had these prophecies in their possession, since they evidently copy them, and incorporate passages taken from them into their own prophecies; a fact which Caspari has most conclusively demonstrated, but which not one of the negative critics has ventured to look fairly in the face, or to set aside by counter-proofs of equal force. Moreover, although the suspected prophecies do indeed contain some things for which vouchers cannot be obtained from the rest of the book, yet the marks which are distinctly characteristic of Isaiah outweigh by far these peculiarities, which have been picked out with such care; and even in the prophecies referred to, it is Isaiah's spirit which animates the whole, Isaiah's heart which beats, and Isaiah's fiery tongue which speaks in both the substance and the form.
Again, the type of the suspected prophecies - which, if they are genuine, belong to the prophet's latest days - is not thoroughly opposed to the type of the rest; on the contrary, those prophecies which are acknowledged to be genuine, present many a point of contact with this; and even the transfigured form and richer eschatological contents of the disputed prophecies have their preludes there. There is nothing strange in this great variety of ideas and forms, especially in Isaiah, who is confessedly the most universal of all the prophets, even if we only look at those portions which are admitted to be genuine, and who varies his style in so masterly a way to suit the demands of his materials, his attitude, and his purpose. One might suppose that these three counter-proofs, which can be followed up even to the most minute details, would have some weight; but for Hitzig, Ewald, and many others, they have absolutely none. Why not? These critics think it impossible that the worldwide empire of Babel, and its subsequent transition to Medes and Persians, should have been foreseen by Isaiah in the time of Hezekiah. Hitzig affirms in the plainest terms, that the very same Caligo futuri covered the eyes of the Old Testament prophets generally, as that to which the human race was condemned during the time that the oracle at Delphi was standing. Ewald speaks of the prophets in incomparably higher terms; but even to him the prophetic state was nothing more than a blazing up of the natural spark which lies slumbering in every man, more especially in Ewald himself. These two Coryphaei of the modern critical school find themselves hemmed in between the two foregone conclusions, "There is no true prophecy," and "There is no true miracle." They call their criticism free; but when examined more closely, it is in a vice. In this vice it has two magical formularies, with which it fortifies itself against any impression from historical testimony. It either turns the prophecies into merely retrospective glances (vaticinia post eventum), as it does the account of miracles into sagas and myths; or it places the events predicted so close to the prophet's own time, that there was no need of inspiration, but only of combination, to make the foresight possible. This is all that it can do. Now we could do more than this. We could pronounce all the disputed prophecies the production of other authors than Isaiah, without coming into contact with any dogmatical assumptions: we could even boast, as in the critical analysis of the historical books, of the extent to which the history of literature was enriched through this analysis of the book of Isaiah. And if we seem to despise these riches, we simply yield to the irresistible force of external and internal evidence. This applies even to Isaiah 36-39. For whilst it is true that the text of the book of Kings is the better of the two, yet, as we shall be able to prove, the true relation is this, that the author of the book of Kings did not obtain the parallel section (2 Kings 18:13-20:19) from any other source than the book of Isaiah. We have similar evidence in Kg2 24:18. and Isa 25:1, as compared with Jer, that the text of a passage may sometimes be preserved in greater purity in a secondary work than in the original work from which it was taken. It was Isaiah's prophetico-historical pen which committed to writing the accounts in Isaiah 36-39. The prophet not only wrote a special history of Uzziah, according to Ch2 26:22, but he also incorporated historical notices of Isaiah in his "vision" (Ch2 32:32). We reserve the fuller demonstration of all this. For whilst, on the one hand, we consider ourselves warranted in rejecting those tendencies of modern criticism, to which naturalistic views of the world have dictated at the very outset full-blown negative results, and we do so on the ground of supernatural facts of personal experience; on the other hand, we are very far from wishing to dispute the well-founded rights of criticism as such.
For centuries, yea, for thousands of years, no objection was raised as to the Davidic origin of a psalm headed "a psalm of David," to say nothing of a prophecy of Isaiah; and therefore no such objection was refuted. Apart from the whims of a few individuals,
(Note: e.g., that of Abenezra, who regarded king Jehoiakim, who was set free in the thirty-seventh year of his Babylonian captivity, as the author of Isaiah 40-60.).
which left no traces behind them, it was universally assumed by both Jewish and Christian writers down to the last century, that all the canonical books of the Old Testament had the Holy Ghost as their one auctor primarius, and for their immediate authors the men by whose names they are called. But when the church in the time of the Reformation began to test and sift what had been handed down; when the rapid progress that was made in classical and oriental philology compelled the students of the Scriptures to make larger if not higher demands upon themselves; when their studies were directed to the linguistic, historical, archaeological, aesthetic - in short, the human-side of the Scriptures, and the attempt was made to comprehend the several aspects presented by sacred literature in their progressive development and relation to one another - Christian science put forth many branches that had never been anticipated till then; and biblical criticism sprang up, which from that time forward has been not only an inalienable, but a welcome and even necessary, member in the theological science of the church. That school of criticism, indeed, which will not rest till all miracles and prophecies, which cannot be set aside exegetically, have been eliminated critically, must be regarded by the church as self-condemned; but the labour of a spiritual criticism, and one truly free in spirit, will not only be tolerated, because "the spiritual man discerneth all things" (Co1 2:15), but will be even fostered, and not looked upon as suspicious, although its results should seem objectionable to minds that are weakly strung, and stand in a false and fettered attitude in relation to the Scriptures. For it will be no more offended that the word of God should appear in the form of a servant, than that Christ Himself should do so; and, moreover, criticism not only brings any blemishes in the Scriptures to the light, but affords an ever-deepening insight into its hidden glory. It makes the sacred writings, as they lie before us, live again; it takes us into its very laboratory; and without it we cannot possibly obtain a knowledge of the historical production of the biblical books.
Exposition in Its Existing State
It was at the time of the Reformation also that historico-grammatical exposition first originated with a distinct consciousness of the task that it had to perform. It was then that the first attempt was made, under the influence of the revival of classical studies, and with the help of a knowledge of the language obtained from Jewish teachers, to find out the one true meaning of the Scriptures, and an end was put to the tedious jugglery of multiplex Scripturae sensus. But very little was accomplished in the time of the Reformation for the prophecies of Isaiah.
Calvin's Commentarii answer the expectations with which we take them up; but Luther's Scholia are nothing but college notes, of the most meagre description. The productions of Grotius, which are generally valuable, are insignificant in Isaiah, and, indeed, throughout the prophets. He mixes up things sacred and profane, and, because unable to follow prophecy in its flight, cuts off its wings. Aug. Varenius of Rostock wrote the most learned commentary of all those composed by writers of the orthodox Lutheran school, and one that even now is not to be despised; but though learned, it is too great a medley, and written without discipline of mind. Campegius Vitringa († 1722) threw all the labours of his predecessors into the shade, and none even of his successors approach him in spirit, keenness, and scholarship. His Commentary on Isaiah is still incomparably the greatest of all the exegetical works upon the Old Testament. The weakest thing in the Commentary is the allegorical exposition, which is appended to the grammatical and historical one. In this the temperate pupil of the Cocceian school is dependent upon what was then the prevalent style of the commentary in Holland, where there was an utter absence of all appreciation of the "complex-apotelesmatical" character of prophecy, whilst the most minute allusions were traced in the prophets to events connected with the history of both the world and the church. The shady sides of the Commentary are generally the first to present themselves to the reader's eye; but the longer he continues to use it, the more highly does he learn to value it. There is deep research everywhere, but nowhere a luxuriance of dry and dead scholarship. The author's heart is in his work. He sometimes halts in his toilsome path of inquiry, and gives vent to loud, rapturous exclamations. But the rapture is very different from that of the Lord Bishop Robert Lowth, who never gets below the surface, who alters the Masoretic text at his pleasure, and goes no further than an aesthetic admiration of the form.
The modern age of exegesis commenced with that destructive theology of the latter half of the eighteenth century, which pulled down without being able to build. But even this demolition was not without good result. The negative of anything divine and eternal in the Scriptures secured a fuller recognition of its human and temporal side, bringing out the charms of its poetry, and, what was of still greater importance, the concrete reality of its history. Rosenmller's Scholia are a careful, lucid, and elegant compilation, founded for the most part upon Vitringa, and praiseworthy not only for the judicious character of the selection made, but also for the true earnestness which is displayed, and the entire absence of all frivolity. The decidedly rationalistic Commentary of Gesenius is more independent in its verbal exegesis; displays great care in its historical expositions; and is peculiarly distinguished for its pleasing and transparent style, for the survey which it gives of the whole of the literature bearing upon Isaiah, and the thoroughness with which the author avails himself of all the new sources of grammatical and historical knowledge that have been opened since the days of Vitringa. Hitzig's Commentary is his best work in our opinion, excelling as it does in exactness and in the sharpness and originality of its grammatical criticisms, as well as in delicate tact in the discovery of the train of thought and in thoroughness and precision in the exposition of well-pondered results; but it is also disfigured by rash pseudo-critical caprice, and by a studiously profane spirit, utterly unaffected by the spirit of prophecy. Hendewerk's Commentary is often very weak in philological and historical exposition. The style of description is broad, but the eye of the disciple of Herbart is too dim to distinguish Israelitish prophecy from heathen poetry, and the politics of Isaiah from those of Demosthenes. Nevertheless, we cannot fail to observe the thoughtful diligence displayed, and the anxious desire to point out the germs of eternal truths, although the author is fettered even in this by his philosophical standpoint. Ewald's natural penetration is universally recognised, as well as the noble enthusiasm with which he dives into the contents of the prophetical books, in which he finds an eternal presence. His earnest endeavours to obtain deep views are to a certain extent rewarded. But there is something irritating in the self-sufficiency with which he ignores nearly all his predecessors, the dictatorial assumption of his criticism, his false and often nebulous pathos, and his unqualified identification of his own opinions with truth itself. He is a perfect master in the characteristics of the prophets, but his translations of them are stiff, and hardly to any one's taste. Umbreit's Practical Commentary on Isaiah is a useful and stimulating production, exhibiting a deep aesthetic and religious sensibility to the glory of the prophetic word, which manifests itself in lofty poetic language, heaping image upon image, and, as it were, never coming down from the cothrunus. Knobel's prose is the very opposite extreme. The precision and thoroughness of this scholar, the third edition of whose Commentary on Isaiah was one of his last works (he died, 25th May 1863), deserve the most grateful acknowledgment, whether from a philological or an archaeological point of view; but his peculiar triviality, which amounts almost to an affectation, seems to shut his eyes to the deeper meaning of the work, whilst his excessive tendency to "historize" (historisiren, i.e., to give a purely historical interpretation to everything) makes him blind even to the poetry of the form. Drechsler's Commentary was a great advance in the exposition of Isaiah. He was only able to carry it out himself as far as Isa 27:1-13; but is was completed by Delitzsch and H. A. Hahn of Greifswald († 1st Dec. 1861), with the use of Drechsler's notes, though they contained very little that was of any service in relation to Isaiah 40-66. This was, comparatively speaking, the best commentary upon Isaiah that had appeared since the time of Vitringa, more especially the portion on Isaiah 13-27. Its peculiar excellency is not to be found in the exposition of single sentences, which is unsatisfactory, on account of the comminuting, glossatorial style of its exegesis, and, although diligent and thorough enough, is unequal and by no means productive, more especially from a grammatical point of view; but in the spiritual and spirited grasp of the whole, the deep insight which it exhibits into the character and ideas of the prophet and of prophecy, its vigorous penetration into the very heart of the plan and substance of the whole book. In the meantime (1850), there had appeared the Commentary written by the catholic Professor Peter Schegg, which follows the Vulgate, although with as little slavishness as possible, and contains many good points, especially the remarks relating to the history of translation. At the same time there also appeared the Commentary of Ernst Meier, the Tbingen orientalist, which did not get beyond the first half. If ever any one was specially called to throw fresh light upon the book of Isaiah, it was C. P. Caspari of Christiania; but all that has yet appeared of his Norwegian Commentary only reaches to the end of Isaiah 5. Its further progress has been hindered partly by the exhaustive thoroughness at which he aimed, and the almost infinite labour which it involved, and partly by the fact that the Grundtvig controversy involved him in the necessity of pursuing the most extensive studies in ecclesiastical history. In the meantime, he has so far expanded his treatise om Serapherne (on the Seraphim), that it may be regarded as a commentary on Isa 6:1-13; and rich materials for the prophetic sayings which follow may be found in his contributions to the introduction to the book of Isaiah, and to the history of Isaiah's own times, which appeared as a second volume of our biblico-theological and apologetico-critical Studien (1858), his Programme on the Syro-Ephraimitish war (1849), and his comprehensive and by no means obsolete article, entitled, "Jeremiah a witness to the genuineness of Isaiah 34, and therefore also to that of Isaiah 13:1-14:23, and Isa 21:1-10," which appeared in the Zeitschrift fr d. ges. luth. Theologie u. Kirche (1843), together with an excursus on the relation of Zephaniah to the disputed prophecies of Isaiah.
We shall reserve those works which treat more particularly of the second part of the book of Isaiah for our special introduction to that part. But there are two other distinguished commentaries that we must mention here, both of them by Jewish scholars: viz., that of the M. L. Malbim (Krotoshin 1849), which is chiefly occupied with the precise ideas conveyed by synonymous words and groups of words; and that of S. D. Luzzatto of Padua - a stimulating work, entitled Profeta Isaia volgarizzato e commentato ad uso degli Israeliti, which aims throughout at independence, but of which only five parts have yet appeared.
Appendix to Isaiah
Introduction/Exposition of Its Existing State
In the commentary on the second half of Isaiah 40-66, I have referred here and there to the expositions of J. Heinemann (Berlin 1842) and Isaiah Hochstdter (Carlsruhe 1827), both written in Hebrew - the former well worthy of notice for criticism of the text, the latter provided with a German translation. For the psalm of Hezekiah (ch. 38) Professor Sam. David Luzzatto of Padua lent me his exposition in manuscript. Since then this great and noble-minded man has departed this life (on the 29th Sept. 1865). His commentary on Isaiah, so far as it has been printed, is full of information and of new and stirring explanations, written in plain, lucid, rabbinical language. It would be a great misfortune for the second half of this valuable work to remain unprinted. I well remember the assistance which the deceased afforded me in my earlier studies of the history of the post-biblical Jewish poetry (1836), and the affection which he displayed when I renewed my former acquaintance with him on the occasion of his publishing his Isaiah; so that I lament his loss on my own account as well as in the interests of science. "Why have you allowed twenty-five years to pass," he wrote to me on the 22nd Feb. 1863, "without telling me that you remembered me? Is it because we form different opinions of the עלמה and the ילד ילד לנו of Isaiah? Are you a sincere Christian? Then you are a hundred times dearer to me than so many Israelitish scholars, the partizans of Spinoza, with whom our age swarms." These words indicate very clearly the standpoint taken in his writings.
Of the commentaries written in English, I am acquainted not only with Lowth, but with the thoroughly practical commentary of Henderson (1857), and that of Joseph Addison Alexander, Prov. in Princeton (1847, etc.), which is very much read as an exegetical repertorium in England also. But I had neither of them in my possession.
Isa 1:1
What I have said here on Isa 1:1 as the heading to the whole book, or at any rate to Isaiah 1-39, has been said in part by Photios also in his Amphilochia, which Sophocles the M.D. has published complete from a MS of Mount Athos (Athens 1858, 4).
Isa 6:13
Hofmann in his Schriftbeweis (ii. 2, 541) maintains with Knobel, that מצּבת cannot be shown to have any other meaning than "plant." It is never met with in this sense, which it might have (after נצב = נטע = נ), though it is in the sense of statua and cippus, which, when applied to a tree deprived of its crown, can only mean stipes or truncus. - We take this opportunity of referring to a few other passages of his work: Isa 8:22. "And the deep darkness is scared away: menuddâch with the accusative of the object used with the passive." But this is only possible with the finite verb, not with the passive participle. Isa 9:2. "By the fact that Thou hast made the people many, Thou hast not made the joy great; but now they rejoice before Thee (who hast appeared)." It is impossible that הרבית and הגדלת, when thus surrounded with perfects relating to the history of the future, should itself relate to the historical past - Isa 18:1-7. "It is Israel in its dispersion which is referred to here as a people carried away and spoiled, but which from that time forward is an object of reverential awe - a people that men have cut in pieces and trampled under foot, whose land streams have rent in pieces." But does not this explanation founder on נורא מן־הוא והלאה? In the midst of attributes which point to ill-treatment, can this passage be meant to describe the position which Israel is henceforth to hold as one commanding respect (see our exposition)? - Isa 19:18. "Egypt the land of cities will be reduced to five cities by the judgment that falls upon it." But how can the words affirm that there will be only five cities in all, when there is nothing said about desolation in the judgment predicted before? - Isa 21:1-10. "What the watchman on the watch-tower see is not the hostile army marching against Babel, but the march of the people of God returning home from Babel." Consequently tsemed pârâshı̄m does not mean pairs of horsemen, but carriages full of men and drawn by horses. But we can see what tsemed pârâshı̄m is from Kg2 9:25 (rōkhebhı̄m tsemâdı̄m), and from the combination of rekhebh and pârâshı̄m (chariots and horsemen) in Isa 22:7; Isa 31:1. And the rendering "carriages" will never do for Isa 21:7, Isa 21:9. Carriages with camels harnessed to them would be something unparalleled; and rekhebh gâmâl (cf., Sa1 30:17) by the side of tsemed pârâshı̄m has a warlike sound.
Isa 10:28-32
Professor Schegg travelled by this very route to Jerusalem (cf., p. 560, Anm. 2): From Gifneh he went direct to Tayibeh (which he imagined to be the ancient Ai), and then southwards through Muchmas, Geba, Hizmeh, 'Anata, and el-Isawiye to Jerusalem.
Isa 33:21-22
No (Nō' 'Amōn in Nah 3:8) is the Egyptian nu-Amun = Διόσπολις (nu the spelling of the hieroglyphic of the plan of the city, with which the name of the goddess Nu̇ t = Rhea is also written). The ordinary spelling of the name of this city corresponds to the Greek ̓Αμμωνόπολις.
Isa 33:23
(Compare Grashof, Ueber das Schiff bei Homer und Hesiod, Gymnasial-programm 1834, p. 23ff.). The μεσόδμη (= μεσοδόμη) is the cross plank which connects the two sides of the ship. A piece is cut out of this on the side towards the rudder, in which the mast is supported, being also let into a hole in the boards of the keel (ἱστοπέδη) and there held fast. The mast is also prevented from falling backwards by ropes or stays carried forward to the bows (πρότονοι). On landing, the mast is laid back into a hollow place in the bottom of the ship (ἱστοδόκη). If the stays are not drawn tight, the mast may easily fall backwards, and so slip not only out of the μεσόδμη but out of the ἱστοπέδη also. This is the meaning of the words בּל־יהזּקוּ כן־תּרנם. It would be better to understand kēn as referring to the ἱστοπέδη than to the μεσόδμη. The latter has no "hole," but only a notch, i.e., a semicircular piece cut out, and serves as a support to the mast; the former, on the contrary, has the mast inserted into it, and serves as a kēn, i.e., a basis, theca, loculamentum. Vitringa observes (though without knowing the difference between μεσόδμη and ἱστοπέδη): "Oportet accedere funes, qui thecam firment, h. e. qui malum sustinentes thecae succurrant, qui quod theca sola per se praestare nequit absque funibus cum ea veluti concurrentes efficiant."
Isa 34:16
This transition from words of Jehovah concerning Himself to words relating to Him, may also be removed by adopting the following rendering: "For my mouth, it has commanded it, and its (my mouth's) breath, it has brought it together" (rūchō = rūăch pı̄, Psa 30:6; Job 15:30).
Isa 37:30
I am wrong in describing it here as improbable that the land would have to be left uncultivated during the year 713-12 in consequence of the invasion that had taken place, even after the departure of the Assyrians. Wetzstein has referred me to his Appendix on the Monastery of Job (see Comm. on Job, Appendix), where he has shown that the fallow-land (wâghia) of a community, which is sown in the autumn of 1865 and reaped in the summer of 1866, must have been broken up, i.e., ploughed for the first time, in the winter of 1864-65. "If this breaking up of the fallow (el-Būr) were obliged to be omitted in the winter of 1864-65, because of the enemy being in the land, whether from the necessity for hiding the oxen in some place of security, or from the fact that they had been taken from the peasants and consumed by the foe, it would be impossible to sow in the autumn of 1865 and reap a harvest in the summer of 1866. And if the enemy did not withdraw till the harvest of 1865, only the few who had had their ploughing oxen left by the war would find it possible to break up the fallow. But neither the one nor the other could sow, if the enemy's occupation of the land had prevented them from ploughing in the winter of 1864-65. If men were to sow in the newly broken fallow, they would reap no harvest, and the seed would only be lost. It is only in the volcanic and therefore fertile region of Haurân (Bashan) that the sowing of the newly broken fallow (es-sikak) yields a harvest, and there it is only when the winter brings a large amount of rain; so that even in Haurân nothing but necessity leads any one to sow upon the sikak. In western Palestine, even in the most fruitful portions of it (round Samaria and Nazareth), the farmer is obliged to plough three times before he can sow; and a really good farmer follows up the breaking up of the fallow (sikak) in the winter, the second ploughing (thânia) in the spring, and the third ploughing (tethlith) in the summer, with a fourth (terbı̄a) in the latter part of the summer. Consequently no sowing could take place in the autumn of 713, if the enemy had been in the land in the autumn of 714, in consequence of his having hindered the farmer from the sikak in the winter of 714-3, and from the thânia and tethlith in the spring and summer of 713. There is no necessity, therefore, to assume that a second invasion took place, which prevented the sowing in the autumn of 713."
Isa 38:7-8
On Kg2 20:9 - Even הלך is syntactically admissible in the sense of iveritne; see Gen 21:7; Psa 11:3; Job 12:9.
Isa 47:12-15
ἀλμενιχακά in Plut., read Porph., viz., in the letter of Porphyrios to the Egyptian Anebo in Euseb. praep. iii. 4, init.: τάς τε εἰς τοὺς δεκανοὺς τομὰς καὶ τοὺς ὡροσκόποὺς καὶ τοὺς λεγομένους κραταιοὺς ἡγεμόνας, ὧν καὶ ὀνόματα ἐν τοῖς ἀλμενιχιακοῖς φέρεται; compare Jamblichos, de Mysteriis, viii. 4: τά τε ἑν τοῖς σαλμεσχινιακοῖς μέρος τι βραχύτατον περιέχει τῶν ̔Ερμαικῶν διατάξεων. This reading σαλμεσχινιακοῖς has been adopted by Parthey after two codices and the text in Salmasius, de annis clim. 605. But ἀλμενιχιακοῖς is favoured by the form Almanach (Hebr. אלמנק, see Steinschneider, Catal. Codd. Lugduno-Batav. p. 370), in which the word was afterwards adopted as the name of an astrological handbook or year-book. In Arabic the word appears to me to be equivalent to 'l-mnâch, the encampment (of the stars); but to all appearance it was originally an Egyptian word, and possibly the Coptic monk (old Egyptian mench), a form or thing formed, is hidden beneath it.
Isa 57:10
נואשׁ - Fleischer says: "Just as in Arabic 'ml and rj' the meaning of hope springs out of the idea of stretching and drawing out, so do Arabic ayisa and ya'isa (spem deposuit, desperavit) signify literally to draw in, to compress; hence the old Arabic ya'asun = sillun, consumption, phthisis. And the other old Arabic word waysun, lit., squeezing, res angustae = fakr wa-faka, want, need, and penury, or in a concrete sense the need, or thing needed, is also related to this."
Isa 65:11
Μήνη appears in μηναγύρθς = μητραγύρθς as the name of Cybele, the mother of the gods. In Egyptian, Menhi is a form of Isis in the city of Hat-uer. The Ithyphallic Min, the cognomen of Amon, which is often written in an abbreviated form with the spelling men (Copt. MHIN, signum), is further removed.
Isa 65:23
לבּהלה. Fleischer says: "בּהל and Arabic bahala are so far connected, that the stem בהל, like בלהּ, signifies primarily to let loose, or let go. This passes over partly into outward overtaking or overturning, and partly into internal surprise and bewildering, and partly also (in Arabic) into setting free on the one hand, and outlawing on the other (compare the Azazel-goat of the day of atonement, which was sent away into the wilderness); hence it is used as an equivalent for Arabic la‛ana (execrare)." Next: Isaiah Chapter 1
dan 4:0
Nebuchadnezzar's Dream and His Madness - Daniel 4:1-37 (3:31-4:34)
This section (Daniel 4) is in the form of a proclamation by king Nebuchadnezzar to all the peoples of his kingdom, informing them of a wonderful event in which the living God of heaven made Himself known as the ruler over the kingdoms of men. After a short introduction (Daniel 3:31-4:2 [Dan 4:1-3]) the king makes known to his subjects, that amid the peaceful prosperity of his life he had dreamed a dream which filled him with disquietude, and which the wise men of Babylon could not interpret, until Daniel came, who was able to do so (Daniel 4:1-5 [Dan 4:4-8]). In his dream he saw a great tree, with vast branches and bearing much fruit, which reached up to heaven, under which beasts and birds found a lodging, shelter, and food. Then a holy watcher came down from heaven and commanded the tree to be cut down, so that its roots only remained in the earth, but bound with iron and brass, till seven times shall pass, so that men may know the power of the Most High over the kingdoms of men (vv. 6-15 [Dan 4:9-18]). Daniel interpreted to him this dream, that the tree represented the king himself, regarding whom it was resolved by Heaven that he should be driven forth from men and should live among the beasts till seven times should pass, and he should know that the Highest rules over the kingdoms of men (vv. 16-24 [Dan 4:19-27]). After twelve months this dream began to be fulfilled, and Nebuchadnezzar fell into a state of madness, and became like a beast of the field (vv. 25-30 [Dan 4:28-33]). But after the lapse of the appointed time his understanding returned to him, whereupon he was again restored to his kingdom and became exceeding great, and now praised and honoured the King of heaven (vv. 31-34 [Dan 4:34-37]).
If the preceding history teaches how the Almighty God wonderfully protects His true worshippers against the enmity of the world-power, this narrative may be regarded as an actual confirmation of the truth that this same God can so humble the rulers of the world, if in presumptuous pride they boast of their might, as to constrain them to recognise Him as the Lord over the kings of the earth. Although this narrative contains no miracle contrary to the course of nature, but only records a divine judgment, bringing Nebuchadnezzar for a time into a state of madness, - a judgment announced beforehand in a dream, and happening according to the prediction, - yet Bleek, v. Leng., Hitz., and others have rejected its historical veracity, and have explained it as only an invention by which the Maccabean pseudo-Daniel threatens the haughty Antiochus Epiphanes with the vengeance of Heaven, which shall compel him to recognise One higher than himself, namely, the God of Israel. A proof of this assertion of theirs they find in the form of the narrative. The proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar to all the nations of his kingdom, in which the matter is set forth, shows, in its introduction and its close, greater familiarity with biblical thoughts than one would have expected in Nebuchadnezzar. The doxologies, Daniel 3:33 (Dan 4:3) and Daniel 4:31 (Dan 4:34), agree almost literally with Psa 145:13; and in the praise of the omnipotence and of the infinite majesty of God, Daniel 4:32 (Dan 4:35), the echoes of Isa 40:17; Isa 43:13, Isa 43:24, Isa 43:21 cannot fail to be recognised. The circumstance that in vv. 25-30 (Dan 4:28-33) Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of in the third person, appears to warrant also the opinion that the writing was composed by some other person than by the king. But the use of the third person by Nebuchadnezzar in the verses named is fully explained from the contents of the passage (see Exposition), and neither justifies the conclusion that the author was a different person from the king, nor the supposition of Hv. that the vv. 26-30 (Dan 4:29-33) are a passage parenthetically added by Daniel to the brief declaration of the edict, v. 25 (Dan 4:28), for the purpose of explaining it and making the matter better understood by posterity. The circumstance that v. 31 (Dan 4:34) refers to the statement of time in v. 26 (Dan 4:29), and that the royal proclamation would be incomplete without vv. 26-30 (Dan 4:29-33), leads to the opposite conclusion. The existence of these biblical thoughts, however, even though not sufficiently explained by the supposition that Nebuchadnezzar had heard these thoughts and words in a conference on the matter with Daniel, and had appropriated them to himself, cannot be adduced against the genuineness of the edict, but only shows this much, that in the composition of it Nebuchadnezzar had made use of the pen of Daniel, whereby the praise of God received a fuller expression than Nebuchadnezzar would have given to it. For in the whole narrative of the event the peculiar heathen conceptions of the Chaldean king so naturally present themselves before us, that beyond question we read the very words used by Nebuchadnezzar himself.
Then it has been found in the highest degree strange that Nebuchadnezzar himself should have published to his people an account of his madness, instead of doing all to make this sad history forgotten. But, notwithstanding that the views of the ancients regarding madness were different from ours, we must say, with Klief. and others, on the contrary, that "publicity in such a case was better than concealment; the matter, besides, being certainly known, could not be made either better or worse by being made public. Nebuchadnezzar wishes to publish, not his madness, but the help which God had imparted to him; and that he did this openly does honour indeed to his magnanimous character."
But the principal argument against the historical veracity of the occurrence is derived from the consideration that no mention is anywhere else made of he seven years' madness, an event which certainly could not but introduce very important changes and complications into the Babylonian kingdom. It is true that the Hebrew history does not at all refer to the later years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, though it extends, Jer 52:31, to a period later than these times, and should, without doubt, give as much prominence to such a divine judgment against this enemy as to the fate of Sennacherib (Kg2 19:37) (Hitz.). But the brief notice, Jer 52:31, that king Jehoiachin, thirty-seven years after his deportation, was delivered from prison by Evilmerodach when he became king, afforded no opportunity to speak of Nebuchadnezzar's madness, which for a time rendered him incapable of conducting the affairs of government, but did not cause his death. And the reference to the murder of Sennacherib proves nothing regarding it, because, according to the view of Jeremiah and the biblical historians, Nebuchadnezzar occupied an altogether different relation to the theocracy from that of Sennacherib. Nebuchadnezzar appeared not as an arch-enemy, but as the servant of Jehovah he executed the will of God against the sinful kingdom of Judah; Sennacherib, on the contrary, in daring insolence derided the God of Israel, and was punished for this by the annihilation of his host, and afterwards murdered by his own son, while Nebuchadnezzar was cured of his madness.
But when the opponents of the genuineness moreover argue that even the Chaldean historian Berosus can have announced nothing at all regarding Nebuchadnezzar's madness, since Josephus, and Origen, and Jerome, who were well-versed in books, could find nothing in any author which pointed to such an event, it is to be replied, in the first place, that the representations of seven years' duration of the madness, and of the serious complications which this malady must have brought on the Babylonian kingdom, are mere frivolous suppositions of the modern critics; for the text limits the duration of the malady only to seven times, by which we may understand seven months as well as seven years. The complications in the affairs of the kingdom were, moreover, prevented by an interim government. Then Hgstb. (Beitr. i. p. 101ff.), Hv., Del., and others, have rightly shown that not a single historical work of that period is extant, in which one could expect to find fuller information regarding the disease of Nebuchadnezzar, which is certainly very significant in sacred history, but which in no respect had any influence on the Babylonian kingdom. Herodotus, the father of history, did not know Nebuchadnezzar even by name, and seems to have had no information of his great exploits - e.g., of his great and important victory over the Egyptian host as Carchemish. Josephus names altogether only six authors in whose works mention is made of Nebuchadnezzar. But four of these authorities - viz.: The Annals of the Phoenicians, Philostratus, author of a Phoenician history, Megasthenes, and Diocles - are not here to be taken into account, because the first two contain only what relates to Phoenicia, the conquest of the land, and the siege of Tyre, the capital; while the other two, Megsth. in his Indian history, and Diocles in his Persian history, speak only quite incidentally of Nebuchadnezzar. There remain then, besides, only Berosus and Abydenus who have recorded the Chaldean history. But of Berosus, a priest of Belus at Babylon in the time of Alexander the Great, who had examined many and ancient documents, and is justly acknowledged to be a trustworthy historian, we possess only certain poor fragments of his Χαλδαι"κά quoted in the writings of Josephus, Eusebius, and later authors, no one of whom had read and extracted from the work of Berosus itself. Not only Eusebius, but, as M. v. Niebuhr has conclusively proved, Josephus also derived his account from Berosus only through the remains of the original preserved by Alexander Polyhistor, a contemporary of Sulla, a "tumultuous worker," whose abstract has no great security for accuracy, and still less for integrity, although he has not purposely falsified anything; cf. M. v. Niebuhr, Gesh. Assurs, p. 12f. Abydenus lived much later. He wrote apparently after Josephus, since the latter has made no use of him, and thus he was not so near the original sources as Berosus, and was, moreover, to judge of his fragments which are preserved by Eusebius and Syncellus, not so capable of making use of them, although one cannot pass sentence against the trustworthiness of the peculiar sources used by him, since the notices formed from them, notwithstanding their independent on Berosus, agree well with his statements; cf. M. v. Niebuhr, p. 15f.
But if Josephus did not himself read the work of Berosus, but only reported what he found in the extracts by Polyhistor, we need not wonder though he found nothing regarding Nebuchadnezzar's madness. And yet Josephus has preserved to us a notice from Berosus which points to the unusual malady by which Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted before his death, in the words, "Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the fore-mentioned wall, fell sick and departed this life, when he had reigned forty-three years" (contra Apion, i. 20). In these words lies more than the simple remark, that Nebuchadnezzar, as is wont to happen to the most of men, died after an illness going before, and not suddenly, as Berth., Hitz., and others wish to interpret it. Berosus uses a formula of this kind in speaking neither of Nabonedus nor of Neriglissor, who both died, not suddenly, but a natural death. He remarks only, however, of Nebuchadnezzar's father: "Now it so fell out that he (his father Nabopolassar) fell into a distemper at this time, and died in the city of Babylon," because he had before stated regarding him, that on account of the infirmity of old age he had committed to his son the carrying on of the war against Egypt; and hence the words, "at that time he fell into a distemper," or the distemper which led to his death, acquire a particular significance.
(Note: When Hitzig adduces Kg2 13:14 in support of his view, he has failed to observe that in this place is narrated how the tidings of Elisha's sickness unto death gave occasion to the king Joash to visit the prophet, from whom he at that time received a significant prophetical announcement, and that thus this passage contains something quite different from the trivial notice merely that Elisha was sick previous to his death.)
If, accordingly, the "falling sick" pointed to an unusual affliction upon Nebuchadnezzar, so also the fact that Berosus adds to the statement of the distemper the account of his death, while on the contrary, according to this chapter, Nebuchadnezzar again recovered and reigned still longer, does not oppose the reference of the "distemper" to the king's madness; for according to Berosus, as well as according to Daniel, the malady fell upon Nebuchadnezzar in the later period of his reign, after he had not only carried on wars for the founding and establishment of his world-kingdom, but had also, for the most part at least, finished his splendid buildings. After his recovery down to the time of his death, he carried forward no other great work, regarding which Berosus is able to give any communication; it therefore only remained for him to mention the fact of his death, along with the statement of the duration of his reign. No one is able, therefore, to conclude from his summary statement, that Nebuchadnezzar died very soon after his recovery from the madness.
A yet more distinct trace of the event narrated in this chapter is found in Abydenus, in the fragments preserved by Euseb. in the Praepar. evang. ix. 41, and in the Chronic. Armen. ed. Aucher, i. p. 59, wherein Abydenus announces as a Chaldee tradition (λέγεται πρὸς Χαλδαίων), that Nebuchadnezzar, after the ending of his war in the farther west, mounted his royal tower, i.e., to the flat roof, and, there seized by some god (κατασχεθείη θεῷ ὅτεω δὴ), he oracularly (θεσπίσαι) announced to the Babylonians their inevitable subjugation by the Πέρσης ἡμίονος united with the Medes, who would be helped by their own Babylonian gods. He prayed that the Persian might be destroyed in the abyss of the sea, or condemned to wander about in a desert wilderness, inhabited only by wild beasts; and for himself he wished a peaceful death before these misfortunes should fall on the Chaldean empire. Immediately after this utterance Nebuchadnezzar was snatched away from the sight of men (παραχρῆμα ἠφάνιστο). In this Chaldean tradition Eusebius has recognised
(Note: In the Chron. Arm. p. 61, Eusebius has thus remarked, after recording the saying by Abyd.: "In Danielis sane historiis de Nabudhadonosoro narratur, quomodo et quo pacto mente captus fuerit: quod si Graecorum historici aut Chaldaei morbum tegunt et a Deo eum acceptum comminiscuntur, Deumque insaniam, quae in illum intravit, vel Daemonem quendam, qui in eum venerit, nominant, mirandum non est. Etenim hoc quidem illorum mos est, cuncta similia Deo adscribere, Deosque nominare Daemones.")
a disfigured tradition of this history; and even Bertholdt will not "deny that this strange saying is in its main parts identical with our Aramaic record." On the other hand, Hitz. knows nothing else to bring forward than that "the statement sounds so fabulous, that no historical substance can be discovered in it." But the historical substance lies in the occurrence which Daniel relates. As, according to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar was on the roof of his palace when he was suddenly struck by God with madness, so also according to Abydenus he was ὡς ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὰ βασιλήΐα when seized by some god, or possessed. Here not only the time and the place of the occurrence agree, but also the circumstance that the king's being seized or bound was effected by some god, i.e., not by his own, but by a strange god. Not the less striking is the harmony in the curse which he prayed might fall on the Persian - "May he wander in the wilderness where no cities are, no human footstep, where wild beasts feed and the birds wander" - with the description of the abode of the king in his madness in Dan 5:21 : "And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses; and they fed him with grass like oxen." Moreover, though the designation of the Persian as ἡμίονος in Abyd. may not be formed from the ערדין of Daniel, but derived from old oracles regarding Cyrus diffused throughout the East, as Hv. (N. Krit. Unters. p. 53, under reference to Herod. i. 55, 91) regards as probable, then the harmony of the Chaldean tradition in Abyd. with the narrative in Daniel leaves no doubt that the fact announced by Daniel lies at the foundation of that tradition, but so changed as to be adapted to the mythic glorification of the hero who was celebrated, of whom Megasthenes says that he excelled Hercules in boldness and courage ( ̔Ηρακλέως ἀλκιμώτερον γεγονότα, in Euseb. Praep. ev. l.c.).
To represent the king's state of morbid psychical bondage and want of freedom as his being moved by God with the spirit of prophecy was natural, from the resemblance which the mantic inspiration in the gestures of the ecstasy showed to the μανία (cf. The combination of וּמתנבּא משׁגּה אישׁ, Jer 29:26; Kg2 9:11); and in the madness which for a time withdrew the founder of the world-kingdom from the exercise of his sovereignty there might appear as not very remote to the Chaldeans, families with the study of portents and prodigies as pointing out the fate of men and of nations, an omen of the future overthrow of the world-power founded by him. As the powerful monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar was transferred to the Πέρσης ἡμίονος not a full generation (25-26 years) after the death of its founder, it might appear conformable to the national vanity of the Chaldeans to give the interpretation to the ominous experience of the great king, that the celebrated hero himself before his death - θεῷ ὅτεω δὴ κατάσχετος - had prophesied its fall, and had imprecated on the destroyer great evil, but had wished for himself a happy death before these disasters should come.
But even if there were no such traditional references to the occurrence mentioned in this chapter, yet would the supposition of its invention be excluded by its nature. Although it could be prophesied to Antiochus as an ̓Επιμανής (madman) that he would wholly lose his understanding, yet there remains, as even Hitz. is constrained to confess, the choice of just this form of the madness, the insania zoanthropica, a mystery in the solution of which even the acuteness of this critic is put to shame; so that he resorts to the foolish conjecture that the Maccabean Jew had fabricated the history out of the name נבוכדנצר, since נבוך means oberravit cum perturbatione, and כדן, to bind, fasten, while the representation of the king as a tree is derived from the passages Isa 14:12; Eze 31:3. To this is to be added the fact, that the tendency attributed to the narrative does not at all fit the circumstances of the Maccabean times. With the general remark that the author wished to hold up as in a mirror before the eyes of Antiochus Epiphanes to what results haughty presumption against the Most High will lead, and how necessary it is penitentially to recognise His power and glory if he would not at length fall a victim to the severest judgments (Bleek), the object of the invention of so peculiar a malady becomes quite inconceivable. Hitzig therefore seeks to explain the tendency more particularly. "The transgressor Nebuchadnezzar, who for his haughtiness is punished with madness, is the type of that arrogant ̓Επιμανής, who also sought unsuitable society, as king degraded himself (Polyb. xxvi. 10), and yet had lately given forth a circular-letter of an altogether different character (1 Macc. 1:41ff.)."
"If in v. 28 (Dan 4:31) the loss of the kingdom is placed before the view of Nebuchadnezzar (Antiochus Epiphanes), the passage appears to have been composed at a time when the Maccabees had already taken up arms, and gained the superiority (1 Macc. 2:42-48)." According to this, we must suppose that the author of this book, at a time when the Jews who adhered to their religion, under the leadership of Mattathias, marched throughout the land to put an end by the force of arms to the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes, had proposed to the cruel king the full restoration of his supremacy and the willing subjection of the Jews under his government, on the condition that he should recognise the omnipotence of their God. But how does such a proposal of peace agree with the war of the Jews led by Mattathias against the πׂδψσ, against the heathen and transgressors, whose horn (power) they suffer not to prosper (1 Macc. 2:47, 48)? How with the passionate address of the dying Mattathias, "Fear ye not the words of a sinful man (ἀνδρὸς ἁμαρτωλοῦ, i.e., Antiochus), for his glory shall be dung and worms" (v. 62)? And wherein then consists the resemblance between the Nebuchadnezzar of his chapter and Antiochus Epiphanes? - the latter, a despot who cherished a deadly hatred against the Jews who withstood him; the former, a prince who showed his good-will toward the Jews in the person of Daniel, who was held in high esteem by him. Or is Nebuchadnezzar, in the fact that he gloried in the erection of the great Babylon as the seat of his kingdom, and in that he was exhorted by Daniel to show compassion toward the poor and the oppressed (v. 24 [Dan 4:27]), a type of Antiochus, "who sought improper society, and as king denied himself," i.e., according to Polybius as quoted by Hitzig, delighted in fellowship with the lower classes of society, and spent much treasure amongst the poor handicraftsmen with whom he consorted? Or is there seen in the circular-letter of Antiochus, "that in his whole kingdom all should be one people, and each must give up his own laws," any motive for the fabrication of the proclamation in which Nebuchadnezzar relates to all his people the signs and wonders which the most high God had done to him, and for which he praised the God of heaven?
And if we fix our attention, finally, on the relation of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, shall that prophet as the counsellor of the heathen king, who in true affection uttered the wish that the dream might be to them that hated him, and the interpretation thereof to his enemies (v. 16 [Dan 4:19]), be regarded as a pattern to the Maccabees sacrificing all for the sake of their God, who wished for their deadly enemy Antiochus that his glory might sink into "dung and the worms?" Is it at all conceivable that a Maccabean Jew, zealous for the law of his fathers, could imagine that the celebrated ancient prophet Daniel would cherish so benevolent a wish toward the heathen Nebuchadnezzar, in order that by such an invention he might animate his contemporaries to stedfast perseverance in war against the ruthless tyrant Antiochus?
This total difference between the facts recorded in this chapter and the circumstances of the Maccabean times described in 1 Macc. 2:42-48, as Kranichfeld has fully shown, precludes any one, as he has correctly observed, "from speaking of a tendency delineated according to the original of the Maccabean times in the name of an exegesis favourable to historical investigation." The efforts of a hostile criticism will never succeed on scientific grounds in changing the historical matters of fact recorded in this chapter into a fiction constructed with a tendency. Daniel 4:1
dan 5:0
Belshazzar's Feast and the Handwriting of God
The Chaldean king Belshazzar made a feast to his chief officers, at which in drunken arrogance, by a desecration of the sacred vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from the temple at Jerusalem, he derided the God of Israel (Dan 5:1-4). Then he suddenly saw the finger of a hand writing on the wall of the guest-chamber, at which he was agitated by violent terror, and commanded that the wise men should be sent for, that they might read and interpret to him the writing; and when they were not able to do this, he became pale with alarm (Dan 5:5-9). Then the queen informed him of Daniel, who would be able to interpret the writing (Dan 5:10-12). Daniel, being immediately brought in, declared himself ready to read and interpret the writing; but first he reminded the king of his sin in that he did not take warning from the divine chastisement which had visited king Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4), but offended the Most High God by desecrating the holy vessels of His temple (Dan 5:13, Dan 5:14). He then interpreted to him the writing, showing the king that God had announced to him by means of it the end of his reign, and the transference of the kingdom to the Medes and Persians (Dan 5:25-28). Daniel was thereupon raised to honour by Belshazzar, who was, however, in that same night put to death (Dan 5:29, Dan 5:30).
This narrative presents historical difficulties, for a Chaldean king by the name of Belshazzar is nowhere else mentioned, except in the passage in Baruch 1:11f., which is dependent on this chapter of Daniel; and the judgment here announced to him, the occurrence of which is in part mentioned in Dan 5:30, and in part set forth in Dan 6:1 (Dan 5:31), does not appear to harmonize with the extra-biblical information which we have regarding the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom.
If we consider closely the contents of this chapter, it appears that Belshazzar, designated in Dan 5:30 as king of the Chaldeans, is not only in Dan 5:22 addressed by Daniel as Nebuchadnezzar's son, but in Dan 5:11, Dan 5:13, and Dan 5:18 is also manifestly represented in the same character, for the queen-mother (Dan 5:11), Belshazzar himself (Dan 5:13), and Daniel (Dan 5:18) call Nebuchadnezzar his אב, father. If now אב and בּר do not always express the special relation of father and son, but אב is used in a wider sense of a grandfather and of yet more remote ancestors, and בּר of grandsons and other descendants, yet this wider interpretation and conception of the words is from the matter of the statements here made highly improbable, or indeed directly excluded, inasmuch as the queen-mother speaks of things which she had experience, and Daniel said to Belshazzar (Dan 5:22) that he knew the chastisement which Nebuchadnezzar had suffered from God in the madness that had come upon him, but had not regarded it. In that case the announcement of the judgment threatening Belshazzar and his kingdom (Dan 5:24-28), when compared with its partial fulfilment in Belshazzar's death (Dan 5:30), appears to indicate that his death, together with the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom and its transference to the Medes and Persians (Dan 6:1[5:31]), occurred at the same time. Nevertheless this indication, as has already been remarked, appears to have more plausibility than truth, since neither the combination of the two events in their announcement, nor their union in the statement of their fulfilment, by means of the copula וin Dan 6:1, affords conclusive proof of their being contemporaneous. Since only the time of Belshazzar's death is given (Dan 5:30), but the transference of the Chaldean kingdom to the Median Darius (Dan 6:1) is not chronologically defined, then we may without hesitation grant that the latter event did not happen till some considerable time after the death of Belshazzar, in case other reasons demand this supposition. For, leaving out of view the announcement of the judgment, the narrative contains not the least hint that, at the time when Belshazzar revelled with his lords and his concubines, the city of Babylon was besieged by enemies. "Belshazzar (Dan 5:1-4) is altogether without care, which he could not have been if the enemy had gathered before the gates. The handwriting announcing evil appears out of harmony with the circumstances (Dan 5:5), while it would have had a connection with them if the city had been beleaguered. Belshazzar did not believe (Dan 5:29) that the threatened end was near, which would not have been in harmony with a state of siege. All these circumstances are not to be explained from the light-mindedness of Belshazzar, but they may be by the supposition that his death was the result of an insurrection, unexpected by himself and by all." Kliefoth, p. 148.
Now let us compare with this review of the chapter the non-biblical reports regarding the end of the Babylonian monarchy. Berosus, in a fragment preserved by Josephus, c. Ap. i. 20, says that "Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded in the kingdom by his son Evilmerodach, who reigned badly (προστὰς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀνόμως καὶ ἀσελγῶς), and was put to death (ἀνηρέθη) by Neriglissor, the husband of his sister, after he had reigned two years. This Neriglissor succeeded him, and reigned four years. His son Laborosoarchod, being still a child (παῖς ὤν), reigned after him nine months, and was murdered by his friends (διὰ τὸ πολλὰ ἐμφαίνειν κακόηθη ὑπὸ τῶν φίλων ἀπετυμπανίσθη), because he gave many proofs of a bad character. His murderers by a general resolution transferred the government to Nabonnedus, one of the Babylonians who belonged to the conspirators. Under him the walls of Babylon along the river-banks were better built. But in the seventeenth year of his reign Cyrus came from Persia with a great army and took Babylon, after he had subjugated all the rest of Asia. Nabonnedus went out to encounter him, but was vanquished in battle, and fled with a few followers and shut himself up in Borsippa. But Cyrus, after he had taken Babylon and demolished its walls, marched against Borsippa and besieged Nabonnedus. But Nabonnedus would not hold out, and therefore surrendered himself. He was at first treated humanely by Cyrus, who removed him from Babylon, and gave him Carmania as a place of residence (δοὺς οἰκητήριον αὐτῷ Καρμανίαν), where he spent the remainder of his days and died."
Abydenus, in a shorter fragment preserved by Eusebius in the Praepar. Ev. ix. 41, and in the Chron. Armen. p. 60f., makes the same statements. Petermann's translation of the fragment found in Niebuhr's Gesch. Assurs, p. 504, is as follows: - "There now reigned (after Nebuchodrossor) his son Amilmarodokos, whom his son-in-law Niglisaris immediately murdered, whose only son Labossorakos remained yet alive; but it happened to him also that he met a violent death. He commanded that Nabonedokhos should be placed on the throne of the kingdom, a person who was altogether unfit to occupy it." (In the Praepar. Evang. this passage is given in these words: Ναβοννίδοχον ἀποδείκνυσι βασιλέα προσήκοντα οἱ οὐδέν). "Cyrus, after he had taken possession of Babylon, appointed him margrave of the country of Carmania. Darius the king removed him out of the land." (This last passage is wanting in the Praep. Ev.)
(Note: With these statements that of Alexander Polyhistor, in Euseb. Chron. Armen. ed. Aucher, i. p. 45, in the main agrees. His report, according to Petermann's translation (as above, p. 497), is as follows: - "After Nebuchodrossor, his son Amilmarudokhos reigned 12 years, whom the Hebr. hist. calls Ilmarudokhos. After him there reigned over the Chaldeans Neglisaros 4 years, and then Nabodenus 17 years, under whom Cyrus (son) of Cambyses assembled an army against the land of the Babylonians. Nabodenus opposed him, but was overcome and put to flight. Cyrus now reigned over Babylon 9 years," etc. The 12 years of Amilmarudokhos are without doubt an error of the Armenian translator or of some transcriber; and the omission of Loborosoarchod is explained by the circumstance that he did not reign a full year. The correctness of the statement of Berosus is confirmed by the Canon of Ptolemy, who names as successors of Nabokolassar (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned 43 years), Illoarudmos 2 years, Nerigassolassaros 4 years, and Nabonadius 17 years; thus omitting Laborosoarchod on the grounds previously mentioned. The number of the years of the reigns mentioned by Berosus agrees with the biblical statements regarding the duration of the exile. From the first taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoiakim are mentioned - Jehoiakim 7 years, Jehoiachin 3 months, and his imprisonment 37 years (Jer 52:31), Evilmerodach 2 years, Neriglissar 4 years, Laborosoarchod 9 months, and Nabonnedus 17 years - in all 68 years, to which, if the 2 years of the reign of Darius the Mede are added, we shall have 70 years. The years of the reigns of the Babylonian kings amount in all to the same number; viz., Nebuchadnezzar 44 1/4 years, - since he did not become king till one year after the destruction of Jerusalem, he reigned 43 years, - Evilmerodach 2 years, Neriglissar 4 years, Laborosoarchod 9 months, Nabonnedus 17 years, and Darius the Mede 2 years - in all 70 years.)
According to these reports, there reigned in Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar four other kings, among whom there was no one called Belshazzar, and only one son of Nebuchadnezzar, viz., Evilmerodach; for Neriglissar is son-in-law and Laborosoarchod is grandson (daughter's son) of Nebuchadnezzar, and Nabonnedus was not at all related to him, nor of royal descent. Of these kings, only Evilmerodach and Laborosoarchod were put to death, while on the contrary Neriglissar and Nabonnedus died a natural death, and the Babylonian dominion passed by conquest to the Medes, without Nabonnedus thereby losing his life. Hence it follows, (1) that Belshazzar cannot be the last king of Babylon, nor is identical with Nabonnedus, who was neither a son nor descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, and was not put to death by Cyrus at the destruction of Babylon and the overthrow of the Chaldean kingdom; (2) that Belshazzar could neither be Evilmerodach nor Laborosoarchod, since only these two were put to death - the former after he had reigned only two years, and the latter after he had reigned only nine months, while the third year of Belshazzar's reign is mentioned in Dan 8:1; and (3) that the death of Belshazzar cannot have been at the same time as the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and Persians.
If we now compare with these facts, gathered from Oriental sources, those narrated by the Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon, we find that the former speaks of several Babylonian kings, but says nothing particular regarding them, but, on the other hand, reports many sayings and fabulous stories of two Babylonian queens, Semiramis and Nitocris, to whom he attributes (i. 184f.) many exploits, and the erection of buildings which Berosus has attributed to Nebuchadnezzar. Of Babylonian kings he names (i. 188) only Labynetos as the son of Nitocris, with the remark, that he had the same name as his father, and that Cyrus waged war against this second Labynetos, and by diverting the Euphrates from its course at the time of a nocturnal festival of its inhabitants, stormed the city of Babylon (i. 191), after he had gained a battle before laying siege to the capital of the Babylonians (i. 190). Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 5, 15ff.), agreeing with Herodotus, relates that Cyrus entered the city by damming off the Euphrates during a festival of its inhabitants, and that the king was put to death, whose name he does not mention, but whom he describes (v. 2. 27, iv. 6. 3) as a youth, and (iv. 6. 3, v. 2. 27f., v. 3. 6, vii. 5. 32) as a riotous, voluptuous, cruel, godless man. The preceding king, the father of the last, he says, was a good man, but his youngest son, who succeeded to the government, was a wicked man. Herodotus and Xenophon appear, then, to agree in this, that both of them connect the destruction of Babylon and the downfall of the Chaldean kingdom by Cyrus with a riotous festival of the Babylonians, and both describe the last king as of royal descent. They agree with the narrative of Daniel as to the death of Belshazzar, that it took place during or immediately after a festival, and regarding the transference of the Chaldean kingdom to the Medes and Persians; and they confirm the prevalent interpretation of this chapter, that Belshazzar was the last Chaldean king, and was put to death on the occasion of the taking of Babylon. But in their statements concerning the last king of Babylon they both stand in opposition to the accounts of Berosus and Abydenus. Herodotus and Xenophon describe him as the king's son, while Nabonnedus, according to both of these Chaldean historians, was not of royal descent. Besides this, Xenophon states that the king lost his life at the taking of Babylon, while according to Berosus, on the contrary, he was not in Babylon at all, but was besieged in Borsippa, surrendered to Cyrus, and was banished to Carmania, or according to Abydenus, was made deputy of that province. Shall we then decide for Herodotus and Xenophon, and against Berosus and Abydenus? Against such a decision the great imperfection and indefiniteness of the Grecian account must awaken doubts. If, as is generally supposed, the elder Labynetus of Herodotus is the husband of Nitocris, who was the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, then his son of the same name cannot be identical with the Nabonnedus of Berosus and Abydenus; for according to the testimonies of biblical and Oriental authorities, which are clear on this point, the Chaldean kingdom did not fall under the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and then the statement of Herodotus regarding the two Labynetuses is certainly incorrect, and is fabricated from very obscure traditions. Xenophon also shows himself to be not well informed regarding the history of the Chaldean kings. Although his description of the last of these kings appears to indicate an intimate knowledge of his character, and accords with the character of Belshazzar, yet he does not even know the name of this king, and still less the duration of his reign.
Accordingly these scanty and indefinite Grecian reports cannot counterbalance the extended and minute statements of Berosus and Abydenus, and cannot be taken as regulating the historical interpretation of Daniel 5. Josephus, it is true, understands the narrative in such a way that he identifies Belshazzar with Nabonedus, and connects his death with the destruction of the Babylonish kingdom, for (Ant. x. 11, 2f.) he states that, after Nebuchadnezzar, his son Evilmerodach reigned eighteen years. But when he died, his son Neriglissar succeeded to the government, and died after he had reigned forty years. After him the succession in the kingdom came to his son Labosordacus, who continued in it but nine months; and when he was dead (τελευτήσαντος αὐτοῦ), it came to Baltasar, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus (Nabonnedus), against whom Cyrus the king of Persian and Darius the king of Media made war. While they besieged Babylon a wonderful event occurred at a feast which the king gave to his magnates and his wives, as described by Daniel 5. Not long after Cyrus took the city and made Baltasar prisoner. "For it was," he continues, "under Baltasar, after he had reigned seventeen years, that Babylon was taken. This was, as has been handed down to us, the end of the descendants of Nebuchadnezzar." But it is clear that in these reports which Josephus has given he has not drawn his information from sources no longer accessible to us, but has merely attempted in them to combine the reports of Berosus, and perhaps also those of the Greek historians, with his own exposition of the narrative of Daniel 5. The deviations from Berosus and the Canon of Ptolemy in regard to the number of the years of the reign of Evilmerodach and of Neriglissar are to be attributed to the transcriber of Josephus, since he himself, in his work contra Apion, gives the number in harmony with those stated by those authors without making any further remark. The names of the four kings are derived from Berosus, as well as the nine months' reign of Labosordacus and the seventeen years of Naboandelus; but the deviations from Berosus with respect to the death of Evilmerodach, and the descent of Neriglissar and Nabonnedus from Nebuchadnezzar, Josephus has certainly derived only from Jer 27:7 and Daniel 5; for the statement by Jeremiah, that all the nations would serve Nebuchadnezzar, his son and his son's son, "until the very time of his land come," is literally so understood by him as meaning that Evilmerodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, was succeeded by his own son, who again was succeeded by his son, and so on down to Belshazzar, whom Daniel (Dan 5:22) had called the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and whom Josephus regarded as the last king of Babylon, the Nabonnedus of the Babylonians. Josephus did not know how to harmonize with this view the fact of the murder of Evilmerodach by his brother-in-law, and therefore he speaks of Evilmerodach as dying in peace, and of his son as succeeding him on the throne, while he passes by in silence the death of Labosordacus and the descent of Baltasar, and only in the closing sentence reckons him also among the successors of Nebuchadnezzar.
But if in the passages quoted Josephus gives only his own view regarding the Chaldean rulers down to the time of the overthrow of the kingdom, and in that contradicts on several points the statements of Berosus, without supporting these contradictions by authorities, we cannot make use of his narrative as historical evidence for the exposition of this chapter, and the question, Which Babylonian king is to be understood by Belshazzar? must be decided on the ground of existing independent authorities.
Since, then, the extra-biblical authorities contradict one another in this, that the Chaldean historians describe Nabonnedus, the last king of the Chaldean kingdom, as a Babylonian not of royal descent who, after putting to death the last descendant of the royal family, usurped the throne, which, according to their account, he occupied till Babylon was destroyed by Cyrus, when he was banished to Carmania, where he died a natural death; while, on the other hand, Herodotus and Xenophon represent the last Babylonian king, whom Herodotus calls Labynetus = Nabonedos = Nabonned = Nabonid, as of royal descent, and the successor of his father on the throne, and connect the taking of Babylon with a riotous festival held in the palace and in the city generally, during which, Xenophon says, the king was put to death; - therefore the determination regarding the historical contents of Daniel 5 hinges on this point: whether Belshazzar is to be identified, on the authority of Greek authors, with Nabonnedus; or, on the authority of the Chaldean historians, is to be regarded as different from him, and is identical with one of the two Babylonian kings who were dethroned by a conspiracy.
The decision in favour of the former I have in my Lehrb. der Einl., along with many interpreters, contended for. By this view the statements of Berosus and Abydenus regarding Nabonned's descent and the end of his life must be set aside as unhistorical, and explained only as traditions intended for the glorification of the royal house of Nebuchadnezzar, by which the Babylonians sought to lessen the undeniable disgrace attending the downfall of their monarchy, and to roll away the dishonour of the siege at least from the royal family of the famed Nebuchadnezzar. But although in the statements of Berosus, but particularly in those of Abydenus regarding Nebuchadnezzar, their laudatory character cannot be denied, yet Hvernick (N. Krit. Unterss. p. 70f.) and Kranichfeld, p. 30ff., have with justice replied that this national partiality in giving colour to his narrative is not apparent in Berosus generally, for he speaks very condemnatorily of the son of Nebuchadnezzar, saying that he administered the affairs of government ἀνόμως καὶ ἀσελγῶς; he also blames the predecessor of Nabonnedus, and assigns as the reason of the murder of the former as well as of the latter their own evil conduct. Nor does it appear that Berosus depreciated Nabonnedus in order to benefit his predecessors, rather he thought of him as worthy of distinction, and placed him on the throne in honour among his predecessors. "What Herodotus says (i. 186) of the wife of Nebuchadnezzar is expressly stated by Berosus to the honour of the government of Nabonnedus, namely, that under his reign a great part of the city wall was furnished with fortifications (τὰ περὶ τὸν ποταμὸν τείχη τῆς Βαβυλωνίων πόλεως ἐχ ὀπτῆς πλίνθου καὶ ἀσφάλτου κατεκοσμήθη); and it is obviously with reference to this statement that in the course of the narrative mention is made of the strong fortifications of the city which defied the assault of Cyrus. Moreover, in the narrative Nabonnedus appears neither as a traitor nor as a coward. On the contrary, he goes out well armed against the enemy and offers him battle (ἀπαντήσας μετὰ τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ παραταξάμενος); and the circumstance that he surrendered to Cyrus in Borsippa is to be accounted for from this, that he only succeeded in fleeing thither with a very small band. Finally, it is specially mentioned that Cyrus made war against Babylon after he had conquered the rest of Asia. From this it is manifest that the fame of the strength of Babylon was in no respect weakened by Nabonnedus' seventeen years' reign." (Kranichfeld.) All these circumstances stand in opposition to the opinion that there is a tendency in Berosus to roll the disgrace of the overthrow of the kingdom from off the family of Nebuchadnezzar, and to attribute it to an incapable upstart.
What Berosus, moreover, says regarding the treatment of Nabonnedus on the part of Cyrus shows no trace of a desire to depreciate the dethroned monarch. That Cyrus assigned him a residence during life in Carmania is in accordance with the noble conduct of Cyrus in other cases, e.g., toward Astyages the Mede, and toward the Lydian king Croesus (Herod. i. 130; Justin. i. 6, 7). In addition to all this, not only is the statement of Berosus regarding the battle which preceded the overthrow of Babylon confirmed by Herodotus, i. 190, but his report also of the descent of Nabonnedus and of his buildings is established by inscriptions reported on by Oppert in his Expdit. Scient. i. p. 182ff.; for the ruins of Babylon on both banks of the Euphrates preserve to this day the foundations on which were built the walls of Nabonnedus, consisting of hard bricks almost wholly covered with asphalt, bearing the name of Nabonetos, who is not described as a king's son, but is only called the son of Nabobalatirib. Cf. Duncker, Gesch. des Alterth. ii. p. 719, 3rd ed.
After all that has been said, Berosus, as a native historian, framing his narratives after Chaldean tradition, certainly merits a preference not only to Herodotus, who, according to his own statement, i. 95, followed the Persian tradition in regard to Cyrus, and is not well informed concerning the Babylonian kings, but also to Xenophon, who in his Cyropaedia, however favourably we may judge of its historical value, follows no pure historical aim, but seeks to set forth Cyrus as the pattern of a hero-king, and reveals no intimate acquaintance with the history of the Chaldean kings. But if, in all his principal statements regarding Nabonnedus, Berosus deserves full credit, we must give up the identification of Belshazzar with Nabonnedus, since the narrative of Daniel 5, as above remarked, connects the death of Belshazzar, in point of fact indeed, but no in point of time, with the destruction of the Babylonian kingdom; and the narratives of Herodotus and Xenophon with respect to the destruction of Babylon during a nocturnal revelry of its inhabitants, may rest also only on some tradition that had been transmitted to their time.
(Note: Kranichfeld, p. 84ff., has so clearly shown this origin of the reports given by Herodotus and Xenophon regarding the circumstances attending the taking of Babylon by Cyrus, that we cannot refrain from here communicating the principal points of his proof. Proceeding from the Augenschein (appearance), on which Hitzig argues, that, according to Dan 5:26., the death of Belshazzar coincided with the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom, since both events are announced together in God's writing, Kranichfeld assumes that this appearance (although it presents itself as an optical illusion, on a fuller acquaintance with the manner of prophetic announcement in which the near and the more remote futures are immediately placed together) has misled the uncritical popular traditions which Herodotus and Xenophon record, and that not from first and native sources. "The noteworthy factum of the mysterious writing which raised Daniel to the rank of third ruler in the kingdom, and certainly, besides, made him to be spoken of as a conspicuous personage, and the interpretation which placed together two facta, and made them apparently contemporaneous, as well as the factum of one part of the announcement of the mysterious writing being actually accomplished that very night, could in the course of time, even among natives, and so much the sooner in the dim form which the tradition very naturally assumed in foreign countries, e.g., in the Persian tradition, easily give occasion to the tradition that the factum mentioned in the mysterious writing occurred, as interpreted, in that same night." In this way might the Persian or Median popular tradition easily think of the king who was put to death that night, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, as also the last Babylonian king, with whom the kingdom perished, and attribute to him the name Labynetus, i.e., the Nabonnedus of Berosus, which is confirmed by the agreement of Herodotus with Berosus in regard to the battle preceding the overthrow of Babylon, as well as the absence of the king from Babylon at the taking of the city. - "The historical facts with respect to the end of the Chaldean kingdom, as they are preserved by Berosus, were thrown together and confused along the dim course of the tradition with a narrative, preserved to us in its original form by Daniel, of the contents of the mysterious writing, connecting the death of the king with the end of the kingdom, corresponding with which, and indeed in that very night in which it was interpreted, the murder of the king took place; and this dim tradition we have in the reports given by Herodotus and Xenophon. But the fact, as related by Daniel 5, forms the middle member between the statement given by Berosus and the form which the tradition has assumed in Herodotus and Xenophon." "This seems to me," as Kran., in conclusion, remarks, "to be the very simple and natural state of the matter, in view of the open contradiction, on the one side, in which the Greek authors stand to Berosus and Abydenus, without, however (cf. Herodotus), in all points differing from the former; and, on the other side, in view of the manifest harmony in which they stand with Daniel, without, however, agreeing with him in all points. In such circumstances the Greek authors, as well as Berosus and Abydenus on the other side, serve to establish the statements in the book of Daniel."
Against this view of the origin of the tradition transmitted by Herodotus and Xenophon, that Cyrus took Babylon during a riotous festival of its inhabitants, the prophecies of Isa 21:5, and of Jer 51:39, cannot be adduced as historical evidence in support of the historical truth of this tradition; for these prophecies contain only the thought that Babylon shall suddenly be destroyed amid the tumult of its revelry and drunkenness, and would only be available as valid evidence if they were either vaticinia ex eventu, or were literally delivered as predictions.)
But if Belshazzar is not the same person as Nabonnedus, nor the last Babylonian king, then he can only be either Evilmerodach of Laborosoarchod, since of Nebuchadnezzar's successors only these two were murdered. Both suppositions have found their advocates. Following the example of Scaliger and Calvisius, Ebrard (Comm. zur Offb. Johannes, p. 45) and Delitzsch (Herz.'s Realencykl. iii. p. 277) regard Belshazzar as Laborosoarchod or Labosordacus (as Josephus writes the name in the Antt.), i.e., Nebo-Sadrach, and Bel = Nebo; for the appearance of the queen leads us to think of a very youthful king, and Belshazzar (Dan 5:13) speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as if all he knew regarding him was derived from hearsay alone. In v. 6:1 (Jer 5:31) it is indicated that a man of advanced age came in the room of a mere youth. If Daniel reckons the years of Belshazzar from the death of Evilmerodach (cf. Jer 27:7), for Belshazzar's father Neriglissar (Nergal-Sar), since he was only the husband of a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, could only rule in the name of his son, then Belshazzar (Nebo-Sadrach) was murdered after a reign of four years and nine months, of which his father Nergal-Sar reigned four years in his stead, and he himself nine months. With Belshazzar the house of Nebuchadnezzar had ceased to reign. Astyages, the Median king, regarded himself as heir to the Chaldean throne, and held as his vassal Nabonnedus, who was made king by the conspirators who had murdered Belshazzar; but Nabonnedus endeavoured to maintain his independence by means of a treaty with the king of Lydia, and thus there began the war which was directed first against the Lydian king, and then against Nabonnedus himself.
But of these conjectures and combinations there is no special probability, for proof is wanting. For the alleged origin of the war against the Lydian king and against Nabonnedus there is no historical foundation, since the supposition that Astyages regarded himself, after the extinction of the house of Nebuchadnezzar, as the heir to the Chaldean throne is a mere conjecture. Neither of these conjectures finds any support either in the fact that Nabonnedus remained quiet during the Lydian war instead of rendering help to the Lydian king, or from that which we find on inscriptons regarding the buildings of Nabonnedus. According to the researches of Oppert and Duncker (Gesch. d. Alterthums, ii. p. 719), Nabonetus (Nabunahid) not merely completed the walls left unfinished by Nebuchadnezzar, which were designed to shut in Babylon from the Euphrates along both sides of the river; but he designates himself, in inscriptions found on bricks, as the preserver and the restorer of the pyramid and the tower, and he boasts of having built a temple at Mugheir to the honour of his deities, the goddess Belit and the god Sin (god of the Moon). The restoration of the pyramid and the tower, as well as the building of the temple, does not agree with the supposition that Nabonnedus ascended the throne as vassal of the Median king with the thought of setting himself free as soon as possible from the Median rule. Moreover the supposition that Neriglissar, as the husband of Nebuchadnezzar' daughter, could have conducted the government only in the name of his son, is opposed to the statements of Berosus and to the Canon of Ptolemy, which reckon Neriglissar as really king, and his reign as distinct from that of his son. Thus the appearance of the queen in Daniel 5 by no means indicates that Belshazzar was yet a boy; much rather does the participation of the wives and concubines of Belshazzar in the feast point to the age of the king as beyond that of a boy. Finally, it does not follow from Dan 5:13 that Belshazzar knew about Nebuchadnezzar only from hearsay. In the verse referred to, Belshazzar merely says that he had heard regarding Daniel that he was one of the Jews who had been carried captive by his father Nebuchadnezzar. But the carrying away of Daniel and of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar took place, as to its beginning, before he had ascended the throne, and as to its end (under Zedekiah), during the first half of his reign, when his eldest son might be yet a mere youth. That Belshazzar knew about Nebuchadnezzar not from hearsay merely, but that he knew from personal knowledge about his madness, Daniel tells him to his face, Dan 5:22.
Finally, the identification of Labosordacus, = Nebo-Sadrach, with Belshazzar has more appearance than truth. Bel is not like Nebo in the sense that both names denote one and the same god; but Bel is the Jupiter of the Babylonians, and Nebo the Mercury. Also the names of the two kings, as found on the inscriptions, are quite different. For the name Λαβοσόρδαχος (Joseph. Ant.) Berosus uses Λαβοροσοάρχοδος; and Abydenus (Euseb. praep. ev. ix. 41) Λαβασσάρασκος; in the Chr. arm. it is Labossorakos, and Syncellus has Λαβοσάροχος. These names do not represent Nebo-Sadrach, but that used by Berosus corresponds to the native Chaldee Nabu-ur-uzuurkud, the others point to Nabu-surusk or -suruk, and show the component parts contained in the name Nabu-kudrussur in inverted order, - at least they are very nearly related to this name. Belshazzar, on the contrary, is found in the Inscription published by Oppert (Duncker, p. 720) written Belsarrusur. In this Inscription Nabonetus names Belsarrusur the offspring of his heart. If we therefore consider that Nabonnedus represents himself as carrying forward and completing the work begun by Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, the supposition presses itself upon us, that also in regard to the name which he gave to his son, who was eventually his successor on the throne, he trod in the footsteps of the celebrated founder of the Babylonian monarchy. Consequently these Inscriptions would indicate that Belshazzar (= Belsarrusur) of Daniel was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and his successor on the throne.
Though we may rest satisfied with this supposition, there are yet weighty reasons for regarding Belshazzar as the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, who was put to death by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, and thus for identifying him with Evilmerodach (Kg2 25:27; Jer 52:31). Following the example of Marsham in Canon chron. p. 596, this opinion is maintained among modern critics by Hofmann (Die 70 Jahre, p. 44ff.), Hvernick (N. K. Unt. p. 71), Oehler (Thol. Litt. Anz. 1842, p. 398), Hupfeld (Exercitt. Herod. spec. ii. p. 46), Niebuhr (Ges. Ass. p. 91f.), Zndel (p. 33), Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth. In favour of this opinion we notice, first, that Belshazzar in the narrative of Daniel is distinctly declared to be the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. The statement of Berosus, that Evilmerodach managed the affairs of the government ἀνόμως καὶ ἀσελγῶς, entirely harmonizes also with the character ascribed to Belshazzar in this chapter, while the arguments which appear to oppose the identity of the two are unimportant. The diversity of names, viz., that Nebuchadnezzar' successor both in Kg2 25:27 and Jer 52:31 is called אויל מרדך, and by Berosus, Abydenus, and in the Canon of Ptolemy Εὐειλμαράδουχος, Amilmarodokos, ̓Ιλλοαρούδαμος (in the Canon only, written instead of ̓Ιλμαρούδακος), but by Daniel בּלשׁאצּר, is simply explained by this, that as a rule the Eastern kings had several names: along with their personal names they had also a surname or general royal name, the latter being frequently the only one that was known to foreigners; cf. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs u. Babels, p. 29ff. In the name Evilmerodach, the component parts, Il (= El), i.e., God, and Merodach, recur in all forms. The first part was changed by the Jews, perhaps after the tragic death of the king, into 'ewiyl, stultus (after Psa 53:1-6?); while Daniel, living at the Babylonian court, transmits the name Belshazzar, formed after the name of the god Bel, which was there used. Moreover the kind benevolent conduct of Evilmerodach towards king Jehoiachin, who was languishing in prison, does not stand in contradiction to the vileness of his character, as testified to by Berosus; for even an unrighteous, godless ruler can be just and good in certain instances. Moreover the circumstance that, according to the Canon of Ptolemy, Evilmerodach ruled two years, while, on the contrary, in Dan 8:1 mention is made of the third year of the reign of Belshazzar, forms no inexplicable discrepancy. Without resorting to Syncellus, who in his Canon attributes to him three years, since the numbers mentioned in this Canon contain many errors, the discrepancy may be explained from the custom prevalent in the books of Kings of reckoning the duration of the reign of a king only in full years, without reference to the months that may be wanting or that may exceed. According to this usage, the reign might extend to only two full years if it began about the middle of the calendar year, but might extend into three calendar years, and thus be reckoned as three years, if the year of the commencement of it and the year in which it ended were reckoned according to the calendar. On the other side, it is conceivable that Evilmerodach reigned a few weeks, or even months, beyond two years, which were in the reckoning of the duration of his reign not counted to him, but to his successor. Ptolemy has without doubt observed this procedure in his astronomical Canon, since he reckons to all rulers only full years. Thus there is no doubt of any importance in opposition to the view that Belshazzar was identical with Evilmerodach, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar.
With the removal of the historical difficulty lying in the name Belshazzar the historical credibility of the principal contents of this narrative is at the same time established. And this so much the more surely, as the opponents of the genuineness are not in a position to find, in behalf of their assertion that this history is a fiction, a situation from which this fiction framed for a purpose can be comprehended in the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes and in the relations of the times of the Maccabees. According to Berth., v. Leng., Hitz., and Bleek, the author sought on the one hand to represent to the Syrian prince in the fate of Belshazzar how great a judgment from God threatened him on account of his wickedness in profaning the temple, and on the other, to glorify Daniel the Jew by presenting him after the type of Joseph.
But as for the first tendency (or purpose), the chief matter is wholly wanting, viz., The profanation of the holy vessels of the temple by Antiochus on the occasion of a festival, which in this chapter forms the chief part of the wickedness for which Belshazzar brings upon himself the judgment of God. Of Antiochus Epiphanes it is only related that he plundered the temple at Jerusalem in order that he might meet his financial necessities, while on the other hand the carrying away by Nebuchadnezzar of the vessels belonging to the temple (Dan 1:2) is represented as a providence of God.
(Note: According to Bleek and v. Leng., this narrative must have in view 1 Macc. 1:21ff. and 2 Macc. 5:15ff., where it is related of Antiochus as something in the highest degree vicious, that he entered into the temple at Jerusalem, and with impure hands carried thence the golden basins, cups, bowls, and other holy vessels. But in spite of this wholly incorrect application of the contents of the passages cited, Bleek cannot but confess that the reference would be more distinct if it were related - which it is not - that Antiochus used the holy vessels at a common festival, or at least at the time of offering sacrifice. But if we look closely at 1 Macc. 1:21ff., we find that Antiochus not only took away the utensils mentioned by Bleek, but also the golden altar, the golden candlestick, the table of shew-bread, the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which (gold) he pulled off, and took also the silver and gold, and the hidden treasures which he found; from which it clearly appears that Antiochus plundered the temple because of his pecuniary embarrassment, as Grimm remarks, or "for the purpose of meeting his financial necessities" (Grimm on 2 Macc. 5:16). Hitzig has therefore abandoned this reference as unsuitable for the object assumed, and has sought the occasion for the fiction of Daniel 5 in the splendid games and feasts which Antiochus held at Daphne (Polyb. xxxi. 3, 4). But this supposition also makes it necessary for the critic to add the profanation of the holy vessels of the temple at these feasts from his own resources, because history knows nothing of it. Polybius merely says that the expense of these entertainments was met partly by the plunder Antiochus brought from Egypt, partly by the gifts of his allies, but most of all by the treasure taken from the temple.)
As regards the second tendency of the composition, the glorifying of Daniel after the type of Joseph, Kliefoth rightly remarks: "The comparison of Daniel with Joseph rests on hastily collected indefinite resemblances, along with which there are also found as many contrasts." The resemblances reduce themselves to these: that Daniel was adorned by the king with a golden chain about his neck and raised to the highest office of state for his interpretation of the mysterious writing, as Joseph had been for the interpretation of the dream. But on this Ewald
(Note: P. 380 of the 3rd vol. of the second ed. of his work, Die Propheten des A. Bundes.)
himself remarks: "The promise that whoever should solve the mystery would be made third ruler of the kingdom, and at the same time the declaration in Daniel 6:3 (Dan 6:2show that in the kingdom of Babylon there existed an arrangement similar to that of the Roman empire after Diocletia, by which under one Augustus there might be three Caesars. Altogether different is the old Egyptian law set forth in Gen 41:43., and prevailing also in ancient kingdoms, according to which the king might recognise a man as the second ruler in the kingdom, or as his representative; and since that mentioned in the book of Daniel is peculiar, it rests, to all appearance, on some old genuine Babylonish custom. On the other hand, the being clothed with purple and adorned with a golden chain about the neck is more generally the distinguishing mark of men of princely rank, as is seen in the case of Joseph, Gen 41:42."
To this it must be added, that Belshazzar's relation to Daniel and Daniel's conduct toward Belshazzar are altogether different from the relation of Antiochus to the Jews who remained faithful to their law, and their conduct toward that cruel king. That the conduct of Belshazzar toward Daniel does not accord with the times of the Maccabees, the critics themselves cannot deny. Hitzig expresses his surprise that "the king hears the prophecy in a manner one should not have expected; his behaviour is not the same as that of Ahab toward Micah, or of Agamemnon toward Calchas." Antiochus Epiphanes would have acted precisely as they did. And how does the behaviour of Daniel harmonize with that of Mattathias, who rejected the presents and the favour of the tyrant (1 Macc. 2:18ff.), and who put to death with the sword those Jews who were submitting themselves to the demands of the king? Daniel received the purple, and allowed himself to be adorned with a golden chain by the heathen king, and to be raised to the rank of third ruler in his kingdom.
(Note: "In short, the whole accompaniments of this passage," Kranichfeld thus concludes (p. 213) his dissertation on this point, "are so completely different from those of the Maccabean times, that if it is to be regarded as belonging peculiarly to this time, then we must conceive of it as composed by an author altogether ignorant of the circumstances and of the historical situation.")
While thus standing in marked contrast to the circumstances of the Maccabean times, the narrative is perfectly consistent if we regard it as a historical episode belonging to the time of Daniel. It is true it has also a parenetic character, only not the limited object attributed to it by the opponents of the genuineness - to threaten Antiochus Epiphanes with divine judgments on account of his wickedness and to glorify Daniel. Rather it is for all times in which the church of the Lord is oppressed by the powers of the world, to show to the blasphemers of the divine name how the Almighty God in heaven punishes and destroys the lords of this world who proceed to desecrate and abuse that which is sacred, without taking notice of the divine warnings addressed to them on account of their self-glorification, and bestows honour upon His servants who are rejected and despised by the world. But when compared with the foregoing narratives, this event before us shows how the world-power in its development became always the more hardened against the revelations of the living God, and the more ripe for judgment. Nebuchadnezzar demanded of all his subjects a recognition of his gods, and prided himself in his great power and worldly glory, but yet he gave glory to the Lord of heaven for the signs and wonders which God did to him. Belshazzar knew this, yet it did not prevent him from blaspheming this God, nor did it move him to seek to avert by penitential sorrow the judgment of death which was denounced against him. Daniel 5:1
dan 6:0
Daniel in the Den of Lions
Darius, the king of the Medes, had it in view to place Daniel as chief officer over the whole of his realm, and thereby he awakened against Daniel (vv. 1-6 [Dan 5:31]) the envy of the high officers of state. In order to frustrate the king's intention and to set Daniel aside, they procured an edict from Darius, which forbade for the space of thirty days, on the pain of death, prayer to be offered to any god or man, except to the king (vv. 7-10 [Dan 6:6]). Daniel, however, notwithstanding this, continued, according to his usual custom, to open the windows of his upper room, and there to pray to God three times a day. His conduct was watched, and he was accused of violating the king's edict, and thus he brought upon himself the threatened punishment of being thrown into the den of lions (vv. 11-18 [Dan 6:10]). But he remained uninjured among the lions; whereupon the king on the following morning caused him to be brought out of the dean, and his malicious accusers to be thrown into it (vv. 19-25 [Dan 6:18]), and then by an edict he commanded his subjects to reverence the God of Daniel, who did wonders (vv. 26-28 [Dan 6:25]). As a consequence of this, Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and of Cyrus the Persian (v. 29 [Dan 6:28]).
From the historic statement of this chapter, that Darius the Mede took the Chaldean kingdom when he was about sixty-two years old (v. 1 [Dan 5:31]), taken in connection with the closing remark (v. 29 [Dan 6:28]) that it went well with Daniel during the reign of Darius and of Cyrus the Persian, it appears that the Chaldean kingdom, after its overthrow by the Medes and Persians, did not immediately pass into the hands of Cryus, but that between the last of the Chaldean kings who lost the kingdom and the reign of Cyrus the Persian, Darius, descended from a Median family, held the reins of government, and that not till after him did Cyrus mount the throne of the Chaldean kingdom, which had been subdued by the Medes and Persians. This Median Darius was a son of Ahasuerus (Dan 9:1), of the seed of the Medes; and according to Dan 11:1, the angel Gabriel stood by him in his first year, which can mean no more than that the Babylonian kingdom was not taken without divine assistance.
This Darius the Mede and his reign are not distinctly noticed by profane historians. Hence the modern critics have altogether denied his existence, or at least have called it in question, and have thence derived an argument against the historical veracity of the whole narrative.
According to Berosus and Abydenus (Fragmenta, see p. 163), Nabonnedus, the last Babylonian king, was, after the taking of Babylon, besieged by Cyrus in Borsippa, where he was taken prisoner, and then banished to Carmania. After this Cyrus reigned, as Alex. Polyhistor says, nine years over Babylon; while in the Fragments preserved by Eusebius in his Chron. Armen., to the statement that Cyrus conferred on him (i.e., nabonet), when he had obtained possession of Babylon, the margraviate of the province of Carmania, it is added, "Darius the king removed (him) a little out of the country." Also in the astronomical Canon of Ptolemy, Nabonadius the Babylonian is at once followed by the list of Persian kings, beginning with Κῦρος, who reigned nine years.
When we compare with this the accounts given by the Greek historians, we find that Herodotus (i. 96-103, 106ff.) makes mention of a succession of Median kings: Dejoces, Phraortes, Cyaxares, and Astyages. The last named, who had no male descendants, had a daughter, Mandane, married to a Persian Cambyses. Cyrus sprung from this marriage. Astyages, moved with fear lest this son of his daughter should rob him of his throne, sought to put him to death, but his design was frustrated. When Cyrus had reached manhood, Harpagus, an officer of the court of Astyages, who out of revenge had formed a conspiracy against him, called upon him at the head of the Persians to take the kingdom from his grandfather Astyages. Cyrus obeyed, moved the Persians to revolt from the Medes, attacked Astyages at Pasargada, and took him prisoner, but acted kindly toward him till his death; after which he became king over the realm of the Medes and Persians, and as such destroyed first the Lydian, and then the Babylonian kingdom. He conquered the Babylonian king, Labynetus the younger, in battle, and then besieged Babylon; and during a nocturnal festival of the Babylonians he penetrated the city by damming off the water of the Euphrates, and took it. Polyaenus, Justin, and others follow in its details this very fabulous narrative, which is adorned with dreams and fictitious incidents. Ctesias also, who records traditions of the early history of Media altogether departing from Herodotus, and who names nine kings, yet agrees with Herodotus in this, that Cyrus overcame Astyages and dethroned him. Cf. The different accounts given by Greek writers regrading the overthrow of the Median dominion by the Persians in M. Duncker's Ges. d. Alterh. ii. p. 634ff., 3rd ed.
Xenophon in the Cyropaedia reports somewhat otherwise regarding Cyrus. According to him, the Median king Astyages, son of Cyaxares I, gave his daughter Mandane in marriage to Cambyses, the Persia king, who was under the Median supremacy, and that Cyrus was born of this marriage (i. 2. 1). When Cyrus arrived at man's estate Astyages died, and was succeeded on the Median throne by his son Cyaxares II, the brother of Mandane (i. 5. 2). When, after this, the Lydian king Croesus concluded a covenant with the king of the Assyrians (Babylonians) having in view the overthrow of the Medes and Persians, Cyrus received the command of the united army of the Medes and Persians (iii. 3. 20ff.); and when, after a victorious battle, Cyaxares was unwilling to proceed further, Cyrus carried forward the war by his permission, and destroyed the hots of Croesus and the Assyrians, on hearing of which, Cyaxares, who had spent the night at a riotous banquet, fell into a passion, wrote a threatening letter to Cyrus, and ordered the Medes to be recalled (iv. 5. 18). But when they declared, on the statement given by Cyrus, their desire to remain with him (iv. 5. 18), Cyrus entered on the war against Babylon independently of Cyaxares (v. 3. 1). Having driven the Babylonian king back upon his capital, he sent a message to Cyaxares, desiring him to come that he might decide regarding the vanquished and regarding the continuance of the war (v. 5. 1). Inasmuch as all the Medes and the confederated nations adhered to Cyrus, Cyaxares was under the necessity of taking this step. He came to the camp of Cyrus, who exhibited to him his power by reviewing before him his whole host; he then treated him kindly, and supplied him richly from the stores of the plunder he had taken (v. 5. 1ff.). After this the war against Babylonia was carried on in such a way, that Cyaxares, sitting on the Median throne, presided over the councils of war, but Cyrus, as general, had the conduct of it (vi. 1. 6); and after he had conquered Sardes, taken Croesus the king prisoner (vii. 2. 1), and then vanquished Hither Asia, he returned to Babylon (vii. 4. 17), and during a nocturnal festival of the Babylonians took the city, whereupon the king of Babylon was slain (vii. 5. 15-33). After the conquest of Babylon the army regarded Cyrus as king, and he began to conduct his affairs as if he were king (vii. 5. 37); but he went however to Media, to present himself before Cyaxares. He brought presents to him, and showed him that there was a house and palace ready for him in Babylon, where he might reside when he went thither (viii. 5. 17f.). Cyaxares gave him his daughter to wife, and along with her, as her dowry, the whole of Media, for he had no son (viii. 5. 19). Cyrus now went first to Persian, and arranged that his father Cambyses should retain the sovereignty of it so long as he lived, and that then it should fall to him. He then returned to Media, and married the daughter of Cyaxares (viii. 5. 28). He next went to Babylon, and placed satraps over the subjugated peoples, etc. (viii. 6. 1), and so arranged that he spent the winter in Babylon, the spring in Susa, and the summer in Ecbatana (viii. 6. 22). Having reached an advanced old age, he came for the seventh time during his reign to Persia, and died there, after he had appointed his son Cambyses as his successor (viii. 7. 1ff.).
This narrative by Xenophon varies from that of Herodotus in the following principal points: - (1) According to Herodotus, the line of Median kings closes with Astyages, who had no son; Xenophon, on the contrary, speaks of Astyages as having been succeeded by his son Cyaxares on the throne. (2) According to Herodotus, Cyrus was related to the Median royal house only as being the son of the daughter of Astyages, and had a claim to the Median throne only as being the grandson of Astyages; Xenophon, on the other hand, says that he was related to the royal house of Media, not only as being the grandson of Astyages and nephew of Cyaxares II, but also as having received in marriage the daughter of his uncle Cyaxares, and along with her the dowry of the Median throne. (3) According to Herodotus, Cyrus took part in the conspiracy formed by Harpagus against Astyages, slew his grandfather in battle, and took forcible possession of the dominion over the Medes; on the contrary Xenophon relates that, though he was at variance with Cyaxares, he became again reconciled to him, and not only did not dethrone him, but permitted him to retain royal dignity even after the overthrow of Babylon, which was not brought about with his co-operation.
Of these discrepancies the first two form no special contradiction. Xenophon only communicates more of the tradition than Herodotus, who, according to his custom, makes mention only of the more celebrated of the rulers, passing by those that are less so,
(Note: Solere Herodotum praetermissis mediocribus hominibus ex longa regum serie nonnisi unum alterumve memorare reliquis eminentiorem, et aliunde constat et ipsa Babyloniae historia docet, et qua unius Nitocris reginae mentionem injicit, reliquos reges omnes usque ad Labynetum, ne Nebucadnezare quidem excepto, silentio transti (i. 185-187). - Ges. Thes. p. 350.)
and closes the list of Median kings with Astyages. Accordingly, in not mentioning Cyaxares II, he not only overlooks the second relationship Cyrus sustained to the Median royal house, but also is led to refer the tradition that the last of the Median kings had no male descendant to Astyages. The third point only presents an actual contradiction between the statements of Herodotus and those of Xenophon, viz., that according to Herodotus, Cyrus by force of arms took the kingdom from his grandfather, overcame Astyages in a battle at Pasargada, and dethroned him; while according to Xenophon, the Median kingdom first fell to Cyrus by his command of the army, and then as the dowry of his wife. Shall we now on this point decide, with v. Leng., Hitzig, and others, in favour of Herodotus and against Xenophon, and erase Cyaxares II from the list not only of the Median kings, but wholly from the page of history, because Herodotus and Ctesias have not made mention of him? Has then Herodotus or Ctesias alone recorded historical facts, and that fully, and Xenophon in the Cyropaedia fabricated only a paedagogic romance destitute of historical veracity? All thorough investigators have testified to the very contrary, and Herodotus himself openly confesses (i. 95) that he gives only the sayings regarding Cyrus which appeared to him to be credible; and yet the narrative, as given by him, consists only of a series of popular traditions which in his time were in circulation among the Medes, between two and three hundred years after the events. Xenophon also has gathered the historic material for his Cyropaedia only from tradition, but from Persian tradition, in which, favoured by the reigning dynasty, the Cyrus-legend, interwoven with the end of the Median independence and the founding of the Persian sovereignty, is more fully transmitted than among the Medes, whose national recollections, after the extinction of their dynasty, were not fostered. If we may therefore expect more exact information in Xenophon than in Herodotus, yet it is imaginable that Xenophon transformed the narrative of the rebellion by Cyrus and his war against Cyaxares into that which he has recorded as to the relation he sustained towards Cyaxares, in order that he might wipe out this moral stain from the character of his hero. But this supposition would only gain probability under the presumption of what Hitzig maintains, if it were established: "If, in Cyrop. viii. 5. 19, the Median of his own free will gave up his country to Cyrus, Xenophon's historical book shows, on the contrary, that the Persians snatched by violence the sovereignty from the Medes (Anab. iii. 4. 7, 11, 12);" but in the Anab. l.c. Xenophon does not say this, but (8) only, ὅτε παρὰ Μήδων τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐλάμβανον Πέρσαι.
(Note: Concerning the expression ἐλάμβανον τὴν ἀρχὴν , Dindorf remarks: "Verbum hoc Medos sponte Persarum imperio subjectos significat, quanquam reliqua narratio seditionem aliquam Larissensium arguere videatur. Igitur hic nihil est dissensionis inter Cyropaediam et Anabasin ... . Gravius est quod Xenophon statim in simili narratione posuit, ὅτε ἀπώλεσαν τὴν ἀρχὴν ὑπὸ Περσῶν Μῆδοι. Sed ibidem scriptor incolarum fidem antestatur." Thus the philologists are in their judgment of the matter opposed to the modern critics.)
Thus, supposing the statement that the cities of Larissa and Mespila were besieged by the Persia king at the time when the Persians gained the supremacy over the Medes were historically true, and Xenophon communicated here not a mere fabulam ab incolis narratam, yet Xenophon would not be found contradicting his Cyropaedia, since, as Kran. has well observed, "it can be nothing surprising that among a people accustomed to a native royal dynasty, however well founded Cyrus' claim in other respects might be, manifold commotions and insurrections should arise, which needed to be forcibly suppressed, so that thus the kingdom could be at the same time spoken of as conquered."
Add to this the decisive fact, that the account given by Herod. of Cyrus and the overthrow of Astyages, of which even Duncker, p. 649, remarks, that in its prompting motive "it awakens great doubts," is in open contradiction with all the well-established facts of Medo-Persian history. "All authentic reports testify that in the formation of Medo-Persia the Medes and the Persians are separated in a peculiar way, and yet bound to each other as kindred races. If Herod. is right, if Astyages was always attempting to take Cyrus' life, if Cyrus took the kingdom from Astyages by force, then such a relation between the 'Medes and Persians' (as it always occurs in the O.T.) would have been inconceivable; the Medes would not have stood to the Persians in any other relation than did the other subjugated peoples, e.g., the Babylonians" (Klief.). On the other hand, the account gives by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, "the identity of the two is beyond a doubt." If, according to Xen., Cyrus conquered Babylon by the permission of Cyaxares, and after its overthrow not only offered him a "residence" there (Hitzig), but went to Media, presented himself before Cyaxares, and showed him that he had appointed for him in Babylon, in order that when he went thither εἰς οἰκεῖα κατάγεσθαι, i.e., in order that when, according to Eastern custom, he changed his residence he might have a royal palace there, so, according to Daniel, Darius did not overthrow the Chaldean kingdom, but received it (Dan 6:1), and was made king (המלך, Dan 9:1), namely, by Cyrus, who, according to the prophecies of Isaiah, was to overthrow Babylon, and, according to Daniel 6:29, succeeded Darius on the throne. The statement, also, that Darius was about sixty-two years old when he ascended the throne of the Chaldean kingdom, harmonizes with the report given by Xenophon, that when Cyaxares gave his daughter to Cyrus, he gave him along with her the kingdom of Media, because he had no male heir, and was so far advance din years that he could not hope to have now any son. Finally, even in respect of character the Cyaxares of Xen. resembles the Darius of Daniel. As the former describes the conduct of Cyrus while he revelled in sensual pleasures, so Darius is induced by his nobles to issue an edict without obtaining any clear knowledge as to its motive, and allows himself to be forced to put it into execution, however sorrowful he might be on account of its relation to Daniel.
After all this, there can be no reason to doubt the reign of Darius the Mede. But how long it lasted cannot be determined either from the book of Daniel, in which (Dan 9:1) only the first year of his reign is named, or from any other direct sources. Ptolemy, in his Canon, places after Nabonadius the reign of Cyrus the Persian for nine years. With this, the words of Xenophon, τὸ ἕβδομον ἐπὶ τῆς αὑτοῦ ἀρχῆς, which by supplying ἔτος after ἕβδομον are understood of even years' reign, are combined, and thence it is concluded that Cyaxares reigned two years. But the supplement of ἔτος is not warranted by the context. The supposition, however, that Darius reigned for two years over Babylon is correct. For the Babylonian kingdom was destroyed sixty-eight years after the commencement of the Exile. Since, then, the seventy years of the Exile were completed in the first year of the reign of Cyrus (Ch2 36:22.; Ezr 1:1), it follows that Cyrus became king two years after the overthrow of Babylon, and thus after Darius had reigned two years. See at Dan 9:1-2.
From the shortness of the reign of Darius, united with the circumstance that Cyrus destroyed Babylon and put an end to the Chaldean kingdom, it is easy to explain how the brief and not very independent reign of Darius might be quite passed by, not only by Herodotus and Ctesias, and all later Greek historians, but also by Berosus. Although Cyrus only as commander-in-chief of the army of Cyaxares had with a Medo-Persian host taken Babylon, yet the tradition might speak of the conquering Persian as the lord of the Chaldean kingdom, without taking at all into account the Median chief king, whom in a brief time Cyrus the conqueror succeeded on the throne. In the later tradition of the Persians,
(Note: "In the Babylonian tradition," Kranichfeld well remarks, "the memorable catastrophe of the overthrow of Babylon would, at all events, be joined to the warlike operations of Cyrus the conquering Persian, who, according to Xenoph., conducted himself in Babylon as a king (cf. Cyrop. vii. 5. 37), and it might be very indifferent to the question for whom he specially undertook the siege. The Persian tradition had in the national interest a reason for ignoring altogether the brief Median feudal sovereignty over Babylon, which, besides, was only brought about by the successful war of a Persian prince.")
from which all the historians known to us, with the exception of Berosus, have constructed their narrative, the Median rule over the Chaldean kingdom naturally sinks down into an insignificant place in relation to the independent government of the conqueror Cyrus and his people which was so soon to follow. The absence of all notice by Berosus, Herod., and Ctesias of the short Median reign can furnish no substantial ground for calling in question the statements of Xen. regarding Cyaxares, and of Daniel regarding the Median Darius, although all other witnesses for this were altogether of no force, which is indeed asserted, but has been proved by no one.
(Note: Of these witnesses the notice by Abydenus (Chron. Armen., Euseb.) already mentioned, p. 164, bears in its aphoristic brevity, "Darius the king removed him out of the land," altogether the stamp of an historical tradition, and can be understood only of Darius the Mede, since Eusebius has joined it to the report regarding the dethroning of the last Babylonian king by Cyrus. Also, the often-quoted lines of Aeschylus, Pers. 762-765, are in the simplest manner explained historically if by the work which the first Mede began and the second completed, and which yet brought all the glory to the third, viz., Cyrus, is understood the taking of Babylon; according to which Astyages is the first, Cyaxares II the second, and Cyrus the third, and Aeschylus agrees with Xenophon. Other interpretations, e.g., of Phraortes and Cyaxares I, agree with no single report. Finally, the Darics also give evidence for Darius the Mede, since of all explanations of the name of this gold coin (the Daric) its derivation from a king Darius is the most probable; and so also do the statements of the rhetorician Harpocration, the scholiast to Aristophanis Ecclesiaz. 589, and of Suidas, that the Δαρεικοί did not derive their name, as most suppose, from Darius the father of Xerxes, but from another and an older king (Darius), according to the declaration of Herodot. iv. 166, that Darius first struck this coin, which is not outweighed by his scanty knowledge of the more ancient history of the Medes and Persians.)
This result is not rendered doubtful by the fact that Xenophon calls this Median king Κυαξάρης and describes him as the son of Astyages, while, on the contrary, Daniel calls him Darjawesch (Darius) the son of Ahasuerus (Dan 9:1). The name Κυαξάρης is the Median Uwakshatra, and means autocrat; ̓Αστυάγης corresponds to the Median Ajisdahâka, the name of the Median dynasty, meaning the biting serpent (cf. Nieb. Gesch. Assurs, p. 175f.). דּריושׁ, Δαρεῖος, the Persian Dârjawusch, rightly explained by Herod. vi. 98 by the word ἐρξείης, means the keeper, ruler; and אחשׁורושׁ, Ahasverus, as the name of Xerxes, in the Persian cuneiform inscriptions Kschajârschâ, is certainly formed, however one may interpret the name, from Kschaja, kingdom, the title of the Persian rulers, like the Median "Astyages." The names Cyaxares and Darjawesch are thus related to each other, and are the paternal names of both dynasties, or the titles of the rulers. Xenophon has communicated to us the Median name and title of the last king; Daniel gives, as it appears, the Persian name and title which Cyaxares, as king of the united Chaldean and Medo-Persian kingdom, received and bore.
The circumstances reported in this chapter occurred, according to the statement in v. 29a, in the first of the two years' reign of Darius over Babylon. The matter and object of this report are related to the events recorded in Daniel 3. As in that chapter Daniel's companions are condemned to be cast into the fiery furnace on account of their transgression of the royal commandment enjoining them to fall down before the golden image that had been set up by Nebuchadnezzar, so here in this chapter Daniel himself is cast into the den of lions because of his transgression of the command enjoining that prayer was to be offered to no other god, but to the king only. The motive of the accusation is, in the one case as in the other, envy on account of the high position which the Jews had reached in the kingdom, and the object of it was the driving of the foreigners from their influential offices. The wonderful deliverance also of the faithful worshippers of God from the death which threatened them, with the consequences of that deliverance, are alike in both cases. But along with these similarities there appear also differences altogether corresponding to the circumstances, which show that historical facts are here related to us, and not the products of a fiction formed for a purpose. In Daniel 3 Nebuchadnezzar requires all the subjects of his kingdom to do homage to the image he had set up, and to worship the gods of his kingdom, and his command affords to the enemies of the Jews the wished-for opportunity of accusing the friends of Daniel of disobedience to the royal will. In Daniel 6, on the other hand, Darius is moved and induced by his great officers of state, whose design was to set Daniel aside, to issue the edict there mentioned, and he is greatly troubled when he sees the application of the edict to the case of Daniel. The character of Darius is fundamentally different from that of Nebuchadnezzar. The latter was a king distinguished by energy and activity, a perfect autocrat; the former, a weak prince and wanting in energy, who allowed himself to be guided and governed by his state officers. The command of Nebuchadnezzar to do homage to his gods is the simple consequence of the supremacy of the ungodly world-power; the edict extorted from Darius, on the contrary, is a deification of the world-power for the purpose of oppressing the true servants of God. The former command only places the gods of the world-power above the living God of heaven and earth; the latter edict seeks wholly to set aside the recognition of this God, if only for a time, by forbidding prayer to be offered to Him. This tyranny of the servants of the world-power is more intolerable than the tyranny of the world-ruler.
Thus the history recorded in this chapter shows, on the one side, how the ungodly world-power in its progressive development assumes an aspect continually more hostile toward the kingdom of God, and how with the decrease of its power of action its hatred against the true servants of God increases; and it shows, on the other side, how the Almighty God not only protects His worshippers against all the intrigues and machinations of the enemy, but also requites the adversaries according to their deeds. Daniel was protected against the rage of the lions, while his enemies were torn by them to pieces as soon as they were cast into the den.
This miracle of divine power is so vexatious to the modern critics, that Bleek, v. Leng., Hitzig, and others have spared no pains to overthrow the historical trustworthiness of the narrative, and represent it as a fiction written with a design. Not only does the prohibition to offer any petition to any god or man except to the king for a month "not find its equal in absurdity," but the typology (Daniel an antitype of Joseph!) as well as the relation to Daniel 3 betray the fiction. Darius, it is true, does not show himself to be the type of Antiochus Epiphanes, also the command, Dan 6:26 and Dan 6:27, puts no restraint in reality on those concerned; but by the prohibition, Dan 6:7, the free exercise of their religion is undoubtedly attacked, and such hostility against the faith found its realization for the first time only and everywhere in the epoch of Antiochus Epiphanes. Consequently, according to Hitzig, "the prohibition here is reflected from that of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc. 1:41-50), and exaggerates it even to a caricature of it, for the purpose of placing clearly in the light the hatefulness of such tyranny."
On the contrary, the advocates of the genuineness of Daniel have conclusively shown that the prohibition referred to, Dan 6:7, corresponds altogether to the religious views the Medo-Persians, while on the other hand it is out and out in contradiction to the circumstances of the times of the Maccabees. Thus, that the edict did not contemplate the removal or the uprooting of all religious worship except praying to the king, is clearly manifest not only in this, that the prohibition was to be enforced for one month only, but also in the intention which the magnates had in their eye, of thereby effecting certainly the overthrow of Daniel. The religious restraint which was thus laid upon the Jews for a month is very different from the continual rage of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jewish worship of God. Again, not only is the character of Darius and his relation to Daniel, as the opponents themselves must confess, such as not to furnish a type in which Antiochus Epiphanes may be recognised, but the enemies of Daniel do not really become types of this tyrant; for they seek his overthrow not from religious antipathy, but, moved only by vulgar envy, they seek to cast him down from his lofty position in the state. Thus also in this respect the historical point of view of the hostility to Daniel as representing Judaism, is fundamentally different from that of the war waged by Antiochus against Judaism, so that this narrative is destitute of every characteristic mark of the Seleucidan-Maccabee aera. Cf. The further representation of this difference by Kranichfeld, p. 229ff. - The views of Hitzig will be met in our exposition. Daniel 6:1
dan 7:0
The Vision of the Four World-Kingdoms; the Judgment; and the Kingdom of the Holy God
After presenting to view (Daniel 3-6) in concrete delineation, partly in the prophetically significant experiences of Daniel and his friends, and partly in the typical events which befell the world-rulers, the position and conduct of the representatives of the world-power in relation to the worshippers of the living God, there follows in this chapter the record of a vision seen by Daniel in the first year of Belshazzar. In this vision the four world-monarchies which were shown to Nebuchadnezzar in a dream in the form of an image are represented under the symbol of beasts; and there is a further unfolding not only of the nature and character of the four successive world-kingdoms, but also of the everlasting kingdom of God established by the judgment of the world-kingdoms. With this vision, recorded like the preceding chapters in the Chaldean language, the first part of this work, treating of the development of the world-power in its four principal forms, is brought to a conclusion suitable to its form and contents.
This chapter is divided, according to its contents, into two equal portions. Dan 7:1-14 contain the vision, and Dan 7:15-28 its interpretation. After an historical introduction it is narrated how Daniel saw (Dan 7:2-8) four great beasts rise up one after another out of the storm-tossed sea; then the judgment of God against the fourth beast and the other beasts (Dan 7:9-12); and finally (Dan 7:13, Dan 7:14), the delivering up of the kingdom over all nations to the Son of man, who came with the clouds of heaven. Being deeply moved (Dan 7:15) by what he saw, the import of the vision is first made known to him in general by an angel (Dan 7:16-18), and then more particularly by the judgment (Dan 7:19-26) against the fourth beast, and its destruction, and by the setting up of the kingdom of the saints of the Most High (Dan 7:27). The narrative of the vision is brought to a close by a statement of the impression made by this divine revelation on the mind of the prophet (Dan 7:28).
(Note: According to the modern critics, this vision also is to be regarded as belonging to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; and, as von Lengerke says, the representation of the Messianic kingdom (Dan 7:13 and Dan 7:14) is the only prophetic portion of it, all the other parts merely announcing what had already occurred. According to Hitzig, this dream-vision must have been composed (cf. Dan 7:25, Dan 8:14) shortly before the consecration of the temple (1 Macc. 4:52, 59). On the other hand, Kranichfeld remarks, that if this chapter were composed during the time of the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, "then it would show that its author was in the greatest ignorance as to the principal historical dates of his own time;" and he adduces in illustration the date in Dan 7:25, and the failure of the attempts of the opponents of its genuineness to authenticate in history the ten horns which grew up before the eleventh horn, and the three kingdoms (Dan 7:7., 20). According to Dan 7:25, the blaspheming of the Most High, the wearing out of the saints, and the changing of all religious ordinances continue for three and a half times, which are taken for three and a half years, after the expiry of which an end will be made, by means of the judgment, to the heathen oppression. But these three and a half years are not historically proved to be the period of the religious persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes. "In both of the books of the Maccabees (1 Macc. 1:54; 2 Macc. 10:5) the period of the desecration of the temple (according to v. Leng.) lasted only three years; and Josephus, Ant. xii. 7. 6, speaks also of three years, reckoning from the year 145 Seleucid. and the 25th day of the month Kisleu, when the first burnt-offering was offered on the idol-altar (1 Macc. 1:57), to the 25th day of Kisleu in the year 148 Seleucid., when for the first time sacrifice was offered (1 Macc. 4:52) on the newly erected altar." But since the βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως was, according to 1 Macc. 1:54, erected on the 15th day of Kisleu in the year 145 Seleucid., ten days before the first offering of sacrifice upon it, most reckon from the 15th Kisleu, and thus make the period three years and ten days. Hitzig seeks to gain a quarter of a year more by going back in his reckoning to the arrival in Judea (1 Macc. 1:29, cf. 2 Macc. 5:24) of the chief collector of tribute sent by Apollonius. C. von Lengerke thinks that the period of three and a half years cannot be reckoned with historical accuracy. Hilgenfeld would reckon the commencement of this period from some other event in relation to the temple, which, however, has not been recorded in history. - From all this it is clear as noonday that the three and a half years are not historically identified, and thus that the Maccabean pseudo-Daniel was ignorant of the principal events of his time. Just as little are these critics able historically to identify the ten kings (Dan 7:7 and Dan 7:20), as we shall show in an Excursus on the four world-kingdoms at the close of this chapter.)
Appendix to Daniel 1-7
The Four World-Kingdoms
There yet remains for our consideration the question, What are the historical world-kingdoms which are represented by Nebuchadnezzar's image (Daniel 2), and by Daniel's vision of four beasts rising up out of the sea? Almost all interpreters understand that these two vision are to be interpreted in the same way. "The four kingdoms or dynasties, which were symbolized (Daniel 2) by the different parts of the human image, from the head to the feet, are the same as those which were symbolized by the four great beasts rising up out of the sea." This is the view not only of Bleek, who herein agrees with Auberlen, but also of Kranichfeld and Kliefoth, and all church interpreters. These four kingdoms, according to the interpretation commonly received in the church, are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman. "In this interpretation and opinion," Luther observes, "all the world are agreed, and history and fact abundantly establish it." This opinion prevailed till about the end of the last century, for the contrary opinion of individual earlier interprets had found no favour.
(Note: This is true regarding the opinion of Ephrem Syrus and of Cosmas Indicopleustes, who held that the second kingdom was the Median, the third the Persian, and the fourth the kingdom of Alexander and his successors. This view has been adopted only by an anonymous writer in the Comment. Var. in Dan. in Mai's Collectio nov. Script. Vett. p. 176. The same thing may be said of the opinion of Polychronius and Grotius, that the second kingdom was the Medo-Persian, the third the monarchy of Alexander, and the fourth the kingdom of his followers - a view which has found only one weak advocate in J. Chr. Becmann in a dissert. de Monarchia Quarta, Franc. ad Od. 1671.)
But from that time, when faith in the supernatural origin and character of biblical prophecy was shaken by Deism and Rationalism, then as a consequence, with the rejection of the genuineness of the book of Daniel the reference of the fourth kingdom to the Roman world-monarchy was also denied. For the pseudo-Daniel of the times of the Maccabees could furnish no prophecy which could reach further than the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. If the reference of the fourth kingdom to the Roman empire was therefore a priori excluded, the four kingdoms must be so explained that the pretended prophecy should not extend further than to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. For this end all probabilities were created, and yet nothing further was reached than that one critic confuted another. While Ewald and Bunsen advanced the opinion that the Assyrian kingdom is specially to be understood by the first kingdom, and that the Maccabean author of the book was first compelled by the reference to Nebuchadnezzar to separate, in opposition to history, the Median from the Persian kingdom, so as to preserve the number four, Hitzig, in agreement with von Redepenning, has sought to divide the Babylonian kingdom, and to refer the first kingdom to Nebuchadnezzar and the second to his successor Belshazzar; while Bertholdt, Jahn, and Rosenmller, with Grotius, have divided the kingdom of Alexander from the kingdom of his successors. But as both of these divisions appear to be altogether too arbitrary, Venema, Bleek, de Wette, Lcke, v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig (Daniel vii.), Hilgenfeld, and Kranichfeld have disjoined the Medo-Persian monarchy into two world-kingdoms, the Median and the Persian, and in this they are followed by Delitzsch. See Art. Daniel in Herz.'s Real Encyc.
When we examine these views more closely, the first named is confuted by what Ewald himself (Die Proph. iii. 314) has said on this point. The four world-kingdoms "must follow each other strictly in chronological order, the succeeding being always inferior, sterner, and more reckless than that which went before. They thus appear in the gigantic image (Daniel 2), which in its four parts, from head to feet, is formed of altogether different materials; in like manner in Daniel 7 four different beasts successively appear on the scene, the one of which, according to Daniel 8, always destroys the other. Now it cannot be said, indeed, in strict historical fact that the Chaldean kingdom first gave way to the Median, and this again to the Persian, but, as it is always said, the Persian and Median together under Cyrus overthrew the Chaldean and formed one kingdom. This is stated by the author himself in Daniel 8, where the Medo-Persian kingdom is presented as one under the image of a two-horned ram. According to this, he should have reckoned from Nabucodrossor only three world-kingdoms, if he had not received the number of four world-kingdoms from an old prophet living under the Assyrian dominion, who understood by the four kingdoms the Assyrian, the Chaldean, the Medo-Persian, and the Grecian. Since now this number, it is self-evident to him, can neither be increased nor diminished, there remained nothing else for him than to separate the Median from the Persian kingdom at that point where he rendered directly prominent the order and the number four, while he at other times views them together." But what then made it necessary for this pseudo-prophet to interpret the golden head of Nebuchadnezzar, and to entangle himself thereby, in opposition not only to the history, but also to his own better judgment, Daniel 8, if in the old sources used by him the Assyrian is to be understood as the first kingdom? To this manifest objection Ewald has given no answer, and has not shown that in Daniel 2 and 7 the Median kingdom is separated from the Persian. Thus this hypothesis is destitute of every foundation, and the derivation of the number four for the world-kingdoms from a prophetic book of the Assyrian period is one of the groundless ideas with which Ewald thinks to enrich biblical literature.
Hitzig's opinion, that Daniel had derived the idea of separating the heathen power into four kingdoms following each other from the representation of the four ages of the world, has no better foundation. It was natural for him to represent Assyria as the first kingdom, yet as he wished not to refer to the past, but to future, he could only begin with the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. Regarding himself as bound to the number four, he divided on that account, in Daniel 2, the Chaldean dominion into two periods, and in Daniel 7, for the same reason, the Medo-Persian into two kingdoms, the Median and the Persian. This view Hitzig founds partly on this, that in Dan 2:38 not the Chaldean kingdom but Nebuchadnezzar is designated as the golden head, and that for Daniel there exist only two Chaldean kings; and partly on this, that the second מלכוּ (Dan 2:39) is named as inferior to the Chaldean, which could not be said of the Medo-Persian as compared with the Chaldean; and, finally, partly on this, that in the vision seen in the first year of Belshazzar (Daniel 7), Nebuchadnezzar already belonged to the past, while according to Dan 7:17 the first kingdom was yet future. But apart from the incorrectness of the assertion, that for the author of this book only two Chaldean kings existed, it does not follow from the circumstance that Nebuchadnezzar is styled the golden head of the image, that he personally is meant as distinct from the Chaldean king that succeeded him; on the contrary, that Nebuchadnezzar comes to view only as the founder, and at that time the actual ruler, of the kingdom, is clear from Dan 2:39, "after thee shall arise another kingdom" (מלכוּ), not another king (מלך), as it ought to be read, according to Hitzig's opinion. Belshazzar did not found another kingdom, or, as Hitzig says, another dominion (Herschaft), but he only continued the kingdom or dominion of Nebuchadnezzar. The two other reasons advanced have been already disposed of in the interpretation of Dan 2:39 and of Dan 7:17. The expression, "inferior to thee" (Dan 2:39), would not relate to the Medo-Persian kingdom as compared with the Chaldean only if it referred to the geographical extension of the kingdom, which is not the case. And the argument deduced from the words "shall arise" in Dan 7:17 proves too much, and therefore nothing. If in the word יקוּמוּן (shall arise) it be held that the first kingdom was yet to arise, then also the dominion of Belshazzar would be thereby excluded, which existed at the time of that vision. Moreover the supposition that מלכוּ means in Dan 2:39 the government of an individual king, but in Dan 2:4 a kingdom, the passages being parallel in their contents and in their form, and that מלכין in Dan 7:17 ("the four beasts are four kings") means, when applied to the first two beasts, separate kings, and when applied to the two last, kingdoms, violates all the rules of hermeneutics. "Two rulers personally cannot possibly be placed in the same category with two kingdoms" (Kliefoth).
But the view of Bertholdt, that the third kingdom represents the monarchy of Alexander, and the fourth that of his διάδοχοι (successors), is at the present day generally abandoned. And there is good reason that it should be so; for it is plain that the description of the iron nature of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 breaking all things in pieces, as well as of the terribleness of the fourth beast in Daniel 7, by no means agrees with the kingdoms of the successors of Alexander, which in point of might and greatness were far inferior to the monarchy of Alexander, as is indeed expressly stated in Dan 11:4. Hitzig has, moreover, justly remarked, on the other hand, that "for the author of this book the kingdom of Alexander and that of his successors form together the יון מלכוּת, Dan 8:21 (the kingdom of Javan = Grecia). But if he had separated them, he could not have spoken of the kingdom of the successors as 'diverse' in character from that of Alexander, Dan 7:7, Dan 7:19. Finally, by such a view a right interpretation of the four heads, Dan 7:6, and the special meaning of the legs which were wholly of iron, Dan 2:33, is lost."
Now, since the untenableness of these three suppositions is obvious, there only remains the expedient to divide the Medo-Persian world-kingdom into a Median and a Persian kingdom, and to combine the former with the second and the latter with the third of Daniel's kingdoms. But this scheme also is broken to pieces by the twofold circumstance, (1) that, as Maurer himself acknowledges, history knows nothing whatever of a Median world-kingdom; and (2) that, as Kranichfeld is compelled to confess (p. 122ff.), "it cannot be proved from Dan 5:28; Dan 7:1, 29; Dan 9:1; Dan 11:1, that the author of the book, in the vision in Daniel 2 or 7, or at all, conceived of an exclusively Median world-kingdom, and knew nothing of the Persian race as an inner component part of this kingdom." It is true the book of Daniel, according to Daniel 8, recognises a distinction between a Median and a Persian dynasty (cf. Dan 8:3), but in other respects it recognises only one kingdom, which comprehends in its unity the Median and the Persian race. In harmony with this, the author speaks, at the time when the Median government over Babylon was actually in existence, only of one law of the kingdom for Medes and Persians (Dan 6:9, Dan 6:13, Dan 6:16), i.e., one law which rested on a common agreement of the two nations bound together into one kingdom. "The author of this book, who at the time of Darius, king of the Medes, knew only of one kingdom common to both races," according to Kran., "speaks also in the preceding period of the Chaldean independence of the Medes only in conjunction with the Persians (cf. Dan 5:28; Dan 8:20), and, after the analogy of the remark already made, not as of two separated kingdoms, but in the sense of one kingdom, comprehending in it, along with the Median race, also the Persians as another and an important component part. This finds its ratification during the independence of Babylon even in Dan 8:20; for there the kings of the Medes and the Persians are represented by one beast, although at the same time two separate dynasties are in view. This actual fact of a national union into one kingdom very naturally and fully explains why, in the case of Cyrus, as well as in that of Darius, the national origin of the governors, emphatically set forth, was of interest for the author (cf. Dan 9:1; Dan 6:1; Dan 11:1; Dan 6:28), while with regard to the Chaldean kings there is no similar particular notice taken of their origin; and generally, instead of a statement of the personal descent of Darius and Cyrus, much rather only a direct mention of the particular people ruled by each - e.g., for these rulers the special designations 'king of the Persians,' 'king of the Medes'-was to be expected
(Note: Kranichfeld goes on to say, that Hilgenfeld goes too far if he concludes from the attribute, the Mede (Dan 6:1 Dan 5:31), that the author wished to represent thereby a separate kingdom of the Medes in opposition to a kingdom of the Persians at a later time nationally distinct from it; further, that as in the sequel the Median dynasty of the Medo-Persian kingdom passed over into a Persian dynasty, and through the government of the Persian Cyrus the Persian race naturally came forth into the foreground and assumed a prominent place, the kingdom was designated a potiori as that of the Persians (Dan 10:1, Dan 10:13, Dan 10:20; Dan 11:2), like as, in other circumstances (Isa 13:17; Jer 51:11, Jer 51:28), the Medians alone are a potiori represented as the destroyers of Babylon. "As there was, during the flourishing period of the Median dynasty, a kingdom of the Medes and Persians (cf. Dan 5:28; Dan 8:20), so there is, since the time of Cyrus the Persian, a kingdom of the Persians and Medes (cf. Est 1:3, Est 1:18, 1 Macc. 1:1; 14:2). We find in Daniel, at the time of the Median supremacy in the kingdom, the law of the Medes and Persians (Dan 6:9, Dan 6:13, Dan 6:16), and subsequently we naturally find the law of the Persians and Medes, Est 1:19.")
(cf. Dan 8:20; Dan 10:1, Dan 10:13, Dan 10:20; Dan 11:2)." Hence, as Kranichfeld further rightly judges, it could not (Daniel 8) appear appropriate to suppose that the author had Persian in view as the third kingdom, while in the visions Daniel 2 and 7 we would regard Persian as a kingdom altogether separated from the Median kingdom. Moreover the author in Daniel 8 speaks of the one horn of the ram as growing up after the other, in order thereby to indicate the growing up of the Persian dynasty after the Median, and consequently the two dynasties together in one and the same kingdom (Dan 8:3, cf. Dan 8:20). Yet, in spite of all these testimonies to the contrary, Daniel must in Daniel 2 and 7 have had in view by the second world-kingdom the Median, and by the third the Persian, because at that time he did not think that in the relation of the Median and the Persian no other change in the future would happen than a simple change of dynasty, but because, at the time in which the Median kingdom stood in a threatening attitude toward the Chaldean (both in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar and in the first year of his son Belshazzar, i.e., Evilmerodach), he thought that a sovereign Persian kingdom would rise up victoriously opposite the Median rival of Nebuchadnezzar.
As opposed to this expedient, we will not insist on the improbability that Daniel within two years should have wholly changed his opinion as to the relation between the Medians and the Persians, though it would be difficult to find a valid ground for this. Nor shall we lay any stress on this consideration, that the assumed error of the prophet regarding the contents of the divine revelation in Daniel 2 and 7 appears irreconcilable with the supernatural illumination of Daniel, because Kranichfeld regards the prophetic statements as only the produce of enlightened human mental culture. But we must closely examine the question how this reference of the world-kingdoms spoken of stands related to the characteristics of the third and fourth kingdoms as stated in Daniel 2 and 7.
The description of the second and third kingdoms is very briefly given in Daniel 2 and 7. Even though the statement, Dan 2:39, that the second kingdom would be smaller than the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar could point to a Median kingdom, and the statement that the third kingdom would rule over the whole earth might refer to the spread of the dominion of the Persians beyond the boundaries of the Chaldean and Medo-Persian kingdom under Darius, yet the description of both of these kingdoms in Dan 7:5 sufficiently shows the untenableness of this interpretation. The second kingdom is represented under the image of a bear, which raises itself up on one side, and has three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. The three ribs in its mouth the advocates of this view do not know how to interpret. According to Kran., they are to be regarded as pointing out constituent parts of a whole, of an older kingdom, which he does not attempt more definitely to describe, because history records nothing of the conquests which Darius the Mede may have gained during the two years of his reign after the conquest of Babylon and the overthrow of the Chaldean kingdom by Cyrus. And the leopard representing (Dan 7:6) the third kingdom has not only four wings, but also four heads. The four heads show beyond a doubt the vision of the kingdom represented by the leopard into four kingdoms, just as in Daniel 8 the four horns of the he-goat, which in Dan 8:22 are expressly interpreted of four kingdoms rising out of the kingdom of Javan. But a division into four kingdoms cannot by any means be proved of the Persian world-kingdom. Therefore the four heads must here, according to Kran., represent only the vigilant watchfulness and aggression over all the regions of the earth, the pushing movement toward the different regions of the heavens, or, according to Hitzig, the four kings of Persia whom alone Daniel knew. But the first of these interpretations confutes itself, since heads are never the symbol of watchfulness or of aggressive power; and the second is set aside by a comparison with Dan 8:22. If the four horns of the he-goat represent four world-kingdoms rising up together, then the four heads of the leopard can never represent four kings reigning after one another, even though it were the case, which it is not (Dan 11:2), that Daniel knew only four kings of Persia.
Yet more incompatible are the statements regarding the fourth world-kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7 with the supposition that the kingdom of Alexander and his followers is to be understood by it. Neither the monarchy of Alexander nor the Javanic world-kingdom accords with the iron nature of the fourth kingdom, represented by the legs of iron, breaking all things in pieces, nor with the internal division of this kingdom, represented by the feet consisting partly of iron and partly of clay, nor finally with the ten toes formed of iron and clay mixed (Dan 2:33, Dan 2:40-43). As little does the monarchy of Alexander and his successors resemble a fearful beast with ten horns, which was without any representative in the animal world, according to which Daniel could have named it (Dan 7:7, Dan 7:19). Kranichfeld rejects, therefore, the historical meaning of the image in Daniel 2, and seeks to interpret its separate features only as the expression of the irreparable division of the ungodly kingdom assailing the theocracy with destructive vehemence, and therein of dependent weakness and inner dissolution. Hitzig finds in the two legs the representation of a monarchy which, as the Greek domination, sets its one foot on Europe and its other on Asia; and he regards Syria and Egypt as the material of it - Syria as the iron, Egypt as the clay. Others, again, regard the feet as the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, and in the ten horns they seek the other kingdoms of the Διάδοχοι. On the other hand, Kliefoth justly asks, "How came Syria and Egypt to be feet? And the toes go out of the feet, but the other kingdoms of the Διάδοχοι do not arise out of Syria and Egypt." And if in this circumstance, that it is said of the fourth terrible beast that it was different from all the beasts that went before, and that no likeness was found for it among the beasts of prey, Kran. only finds it declared "that it puts forth its whole peculiarity according to its power in such a way that no name can any longer be found for it," then this in no respect whatever agrees with the monarchy of Alexander. According to Hitz., the difference of the fourth beast is to be sought in the monarchy of Alexander transplanted from Europe into Asia, as over against the three monarchies, which shared in common an oriental home, a different kind of culture, and a despotic government. But was the transference of a European monarchy and culture into Asia something so fearful that Daniel could find no name whereby to represent the terribleness of this beast? The relation of Alexander to the Jews in no respect corresponds to this representation; and in Daniel 8 Daniel does not say a word about the rapidity of its conquests. He had thus an entirely different conception of the Greek monarchy from that of his modern interpreters.
Finally, if we take into consideration that the terrible beast which represents the fourth world-power has ten horns (Dan 7:7), which is to be explained as denoting that out of the same kingdom ten kings shall arise (Dan 7:24), and, on the contrary, that by the breaking off from the he-goat, representing the monarchy of Alexander, of the one great horn, which signified the first king, and the subsequent springing up of four similar horns, is to be understood that four kingdoms shall arise out of it (Dan 8:5, Dan 8:8,Dan 8:21-22); then the difference of the number of the horns shows that the beast with the ten horns cannot represent the same kingdom as that which is represented by the he-goat with four horns, since the number four is neither according to its numerical nor its symbolical meaning identical with the number ten. Moreover, this identifying of the two is quite set aside by the impossibility of interpreting the ten horns historically. Giving weight to the explanation of the angel, that the ten horns represent the rising up of ten kings, Berth., v. Leng., Hitz., and Del. have endeavoured to find these kings among the Seleucidae, but they have not been able to discover more than seven: 1. Seleucus Nicator; 2. Antiochus Soter; 3. Antiochus Theus; 4. Seleucus Callinicus; 5. Seleuchus Ceraunus; 6. Antiochus the Great; 7. Seleucus Philopator, the brother and predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes, who after Philopator's death mounted the throne of Syria, having set aside other heirs who had a better title to it, and who must be that little horn which reached the kingdom by the rooting up of three kings. The three kings whom Antiochus plucked up by the roots (cf. Dan 7:8, Dan 7:20,Dan 7:24) must be Heliodorus, the murderer of Philopator; Demetrius, who was a hostage in Rome, the son of Philopator, and the legitimate successor to the throne; and the son of Ptolemy Philometor, for whom his mother Cleopatra, the sister of Seleucus Philopator and of Antiochus Epiphanes, claimed the Syrian throne. But no one of these three reached the royal dignity, and none of them was dethroned or plucked up by the roots by Antiochus Epiphanes. Heliodorus, it is true, strove for the kingdom (Appian, Syriac. 45); but his efforts were defeated, yet not by Antiochus Epiphanes, but by Attalus and Eumenes. Demetrius, after his death, was the legitimate heir to the throne, but could not assert his rights, because he was a hostage in Rome; and since he did not at all mount the throne, he was not of course dethroned by his uncle Antiochus Epiphanes. Finally, Ptolemy Philometor, after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, for a short time, it is true, united the Syrian crown with the Egyptian (1 Macc. 11:13; Polyb. 40:12), but during the life of Antiochus Epiphanes, and before he ascended the throne, he was neither de jure nor de facto king of Syria; and the "pretended efforts of Cleopatra to gain for her son Philometor the crown of Syria are nowhere proved" (Hitzig).
Of this historical interpretation we cannot thus say even so much as that it "only very scantily meets the case" (Delitzsch); for it does not at all accord with the prophecy that the little horn (Antiochus Epiphanes) plucked up by the roots three of the existing kings. Hitzig and Hilgenfeld (Die Proph. Esra u. Daniel p. 82) have therefore dropped out of view the Syrian kingdom of Philometor, and, in order to gain the number ten, have ranked Alexander the Great among the Syrian kings, and taken Seleucus Philopator into the triad of the pretended Syrian kings that were plucked up by the roots by Antiochus Epiphanes. But Alexander the Great can neither according to the evidence of history, nor according to the statement of the book of Daniel, be counted among the kings of Syria; and Seleucus Philopator was not murdered by Antiochus Epiphanes, but Antiochus Epiphanes lived at the time of this deed in Athens (Appian, Syr. 45); and the murderer Heliodorus cannot have accomplished that crime as the instrument of Antiochus, because he aspired to gain the throne for himself, and was only prevented from doing so by the intervention of Attalus and Eumenes. Hilgenfeld also does not venture to reckon Heliodorus, the murderer of the king, among the triad of uprooted kings, but seeks to supply his place by an older son of Seleucus Philopator, murdered at the instigation of Antiochus Epiphanes according to Gutschmid; but he fails to observe that a king's son murdered during the lifetime of his father, reigning as king, could not possibly be represented as a king whom Antiochus Epiphanes drove from his throne. Of the ten kings of the Grecian world-kingdom of the branch of the Seleucidae before Antiochus Epiphanes, whom Hilgenfeld believes that he is almost able "to grasp with his hands," history gives as little information as of the uprooting of the three Syrian kings by Antiochus Epiphanes.
But even though the historical relevancy of the attempt to authenticate the ten Syrian kings in the kingdom of the Seleucidae were more satisfactory than, from what has been remarked, appears to be the case, yet this interpretation of the fourth beast would be shattered against the ten horns, because these horns did not grow up one after another, but are found simultaneously on the head of the beast, and consequently cannot mean ten Syrian kings following one another, as not only all interpreters who regard the beast as representing the Roman empire, but also Bell. and Kran., acknowledge, in spite of the reference of this beast to the Javanic world-kingdom. "We are induced," as Bleek justly observes, "by Dan 7:8, where it is said of the little horn that it would rise up between the ten horns, to think of ten contemporaneous kings, or rather kingdoms, existing along with each other, which rise out of the fourth kingdom." Therefore he will "not deny that the reference to the successors of Alexander is rendered obscure by the fact that Daniel 8 speaks of four monarchies which arise out of that of Alexander after his death." This obscurity, however, he thinks he is able to clear up by the remark, that "in the kind of development of the historical relations after the death of Alexander, the parts of his kingdom which formed themselves into independent kingdoms might be numbered in different ways." Thus, in Daniel 7, "as ten from the number of the generals who in the arrangements of the division of the kingdom (323 b.c.) retained the chief provinces: 1. Kraterus (Macedonia); 2. Antipater (Greece); 3. Lysimachus (Thrace); 4. Leonatus (Phrygia Minor on the Hellespont); 5. Antigonus (Phrygia Major, Lycia, and Pamphylia); 6. Cassander (Karia); 7. Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia); 8. Laomedon (Syria and Palestine); 9. Pithon (Media); 10. Ptolemy Lagus (Egypt)." But Zndel justly observes in opposition to this view, that "these kingdoms could only have significance if this number, instead of being a selection from the whole, had been itself the whole. But this is not the case. For at that time the kingdom, according to Justin, hist. L. xiii. 4, was divided into more than thirty separate parts.
(Note: Justinus, l.c., mentions the following, viz.: 1. Ptolemy (Egypt, Africa, Arabia); 2. Laomedon (Syria and Palestine); 3. Philotas (Cilicia); 4. Philo (Illyria); 5. Atropatos (Media Major); 6. Scynus (Susiana); 7. Antigonus (Phrygia Major); 8. Nearchus (Lycia and Pamphylia); 9. Cassander (Caria); 10. Menander (Lydia); 11. Leonatus (Phrygia Minor); 12. Lysimachus (Thracia and Pontus); 13. Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia); 14. Taxiles (the countries between the Hydaspes and the Indus); 15. Pithon (India); 16. Extarches (Caucasus); 17. Sybirtios (Gedrosia); 18. Statanor or Stasanor (Drangiana and Aria); 19. Amyntas (Bactria); 20. Seytaeus (Sogdiana); 21. Nicanor (Parthia); 22. Philippus (Hyrcania); 23. Phrataphernes (Armenia); 24. Tlepolenus (Persia); 25. Peucestes (Babylonia); 26. Archon (the Pelasgi); 27. Arcesilaus (Mesopotamia). Besides these there were other generals not named.)
Although all the names do not perfectly agree as given by different writers, yet this is manifest, that there is no information regarding a division of the kingdom of Alexander into ten exclusively. History knows nothing of such a thing; not only so, but much more, this reckoning of Bleek's falls into the same mistake as the oldest of Porphyry, that it is an arbitrary selection and not a fixed number." But if Bleek wishes to support his arbitrary selection by references to the Sibylline Oracles, where also mention is made of the horns of Daniel in connection with Alexander, Hilgenfeld (Jd. Apokal. p. 71ff.) has, on the contrary, shown that this passage is derived from Daniel, and is therefore useless as a support to Bleek's hypothesis, because in it the immediate successors of Alexander are not meant, but ten kings following one another; this passage also only shows that the sibyllist had given to the number ten an interpretation regarded by Bleek himself as incompatible with the words of Daniel.
But notwithstanding the impossibility of interpreting the ten horns of the Greek world-kingdom, and notwithstanding the above-mentioned incompatibility of the statements of Daniel 2 and 7 regarding the third kingdom with those of Daniel 8 regarding the Medo-Persian kingdom,
(Note: This incompatibility Kliefoth has so conclusively (p. 245f.) stated, that in confirmation of the above remarks we quote his words. "The bear and the panther," he says, "are related to each other as the ram and the he-goat; but how, in two visions following each other and related to each other, the one Medo-Persian kingdom could be likened to beasts so entirely different as a winged panther and a he-goat is quite inconceivable. The interpreters must help themselves by saying that the choice of the beasts is altogether arbitrary. Daniel 8 describes Medo-Persia as a kingdom comprehending two peoples united together within it; but Daniel 7 says regarding its third kingdom with four heads, that after an original unity it shall fall to pieces on all sides. And interpreters are compelled to meet this contradiction by explaining the four heads, some in one way, and others in another, but all equally unsuccessfully. According to Daniel 8 Medo-Persia will extend itself only into three regions of the earth, while according to Daniel 7 the third kingdom with its four wings will extend itself on all sides. It comes to this, therefore, that these interpreters must divide Medo-Persia in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 into two kingdoms, of Media and Persia, while in Daniel 8 they must recognise but one Medo-Persian kingdom.")
yet, according to Kranichfeld, the identification of the fourth kingdom of Daniel with the Javanic world-kingdom receives a confirmation from the representation of Daniel 11 and Dan 12:1-13, particularly by the striking resemblance of the description of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7 with that of the Javanic in Daniel 8ff. "As in Daniel 2 and 7 the inward discord of the fourth kingdom is predicated, so this is obviously represented in the inner hateful strife of the kingdom, of which Dan 11:3. treats; as here the discord appears as inextinguishable, so there; as to the special means also for preventing so striking that it can overbalance the fundamental differences? "Of all that Daniel 8 says, in Dan 8:5-8, Dan 8:21, Dan 8:22, of Macedonia, nothing at all is found in the statements of Daniel 2 and 7 regarding the fourth kingdom." Kliefoth. Also the inner dissolution predicated of the fourth kingdom, Dan 2:41., which is represented by the iron and clay of the feet of the image, is fundamentally different from the strife of the prince of the south with the prince of the north represented in Dan 11:3. The mixing of iron and clay, which do not unite together, refers to two nationalities essentially different from each other, which cannot be combined into one nation by any means of human effort, but not at all to the wars and conflicts of princes (Dan 11:3.), the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae, for the supremacy; and the attempts to combine together national individualities into one kingdom by means of the mingling together of different races by external force, are essentially different from the political marriages by which the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae sought to establish peace and friendship with each other.
(Note: How little political marriages were characteristic of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae, rather how much more frequently they took place among the Romans, from the time of Sulla down to that of Diocletian, and that often in a violent way - cum frequenti divortio et raptu gravidarum - as a means of obtaining or holding the government, is shown from the numerous collection of cases of this sort compiled by J. C. Velthusen in his treatise Animad. ad Dan. 2:277-25, imprimis de principum Romanorum connubiis ad firmandam tyrannidem inventis, Helmst. 1783, in vol. v. of the Comentatt. Theolog. of Velth., edited by Kuinoel and Ruperti. Since this treatise has not received any attention from modern critics, we will quote from it the judgment which Cato passed on Caesar's triplex ad evertendam rempublicam inventa politicarum nuptiarum conspiratio. His words are these: "rem esse plane non tolerabilem, quod connubiorum lenociniis imperium collocari (διαμαστρωπεύεσθαι) caeperit, et per mulieres sese mutuo ad praefecturas, exercitus, imperia auderet introducere" (p. 379).)
There is more plausibility in criticism which gives prominence to the resemblance in the description of the two violent persecutors of the people of God who arise out of the Javanic and the fourth world-kingdom, and are represented in Daniel 8 as well as in Daniel 7 under the figure of a little horn. "If" - for thus Kran. has formulated this resemblance - "in the fourth kingdom, according to Dan 7:8, Dan 7:11, Dan 7:20-21, Dan 7:25, the heathen oppressor appears speaking insolent words against the Most High and making war with the saints, so Dan 8:10., 24, Dan 11:31, Dan 11:36, unfolds, only more fully, in his fundamental characteristics, the same enemy; and as in Dan 7:25 the severe oppression continues or three and a half times, so also that contemplated in Dan 8:14 and in Dan 12:7, in connection with Dan 12:1. and Daniel 11." On the ground of this view of the case, Delitzsch asks, "Is it likely that the little horn which raised itself up and persecuted the church of God is in Daniel 8. Antiochus Epiphanes rising up out of the divided kingdom of Alexander, and in Daniel 7, on the contrary, is a king rising up in the Roman world-kingdom? The representation of both, in their relation to Jehovah, His people, and their religion, is the same. The symbolism in Daniel 7 and 8 coincides, in so far as the arch-enemy is a little horn which rises above three others." We must answer this question decidedly in the affirmative, since the difference between the two enemies is not only likely, but certain. The similarity of the symbol in Daniel 7 and 8 reaches no further than that in both chapters the persecuting enemy is represented as a little horn growing gradually to greater power. But in Dan 8:9 this little horn arises from one of the four horns of the he-goat, without doing injury to the other three horns; while in Dan 7:8 the little horn rises up between the ten horns of the dreadful beast, and outroots three of these horns. The little horn in Daniel 8, as a branch which grows out of one of these, does not increase the number of the existing horns, as that in Daniel 7, which increases the number there to eleven. This distinction cannot, as Kranichfeld supposes, be regarded merely as a formal difference in the figurative representation; it constitutes an essential distinction for which the use of different symbols for the representation of the world-kingdoms in Daniel 2 and 7 furnishes no true analogue. By these two different images two wholly different things are compared with each other.
The representations of the four world-kingdoms in Daniel 2 and in Daniel 7 are only formally different - in Daniel 2 a human image, in Daniel 7 four beasts - but in reality these representations answer to each other, feature for feature, only so that in Daniel 7 further outlines are added, which entirely agree with, but do not contradict, the image in Daniel 2. On the contrary, in Daniel 7 and 8 essential contradictions present themselves in the parallel symbols - four horns and ten horns - which cannot be weakened down to mere formal differences. As little does the description of the enemy of the people of God, portrayed as a little horn in Daniel 8, correspond with that in Daniel 7. The fierce and crafty king arising out of the kingdoms of Alexander's successors will become "great toward the south and toward the east and toward the pleasant land, and wax great even to the host of heaven, and cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground; yea, he will magnify himself even to the prince of the host, and take away the daily sacrifice, and cast down the place of the sanctuary" (Dan 8:9-12, Dan 8:23-25). On the other hand, the king who rises up out of the fourth world-kingdom, who overthrows three other kings, will "speak great things against the Most High, and make war against the saints of the Most High, and prevail against them, and think to change times and laws" (Dan 7:8, Dan 7:20,Dan 7:25). These two enemies resemble each other in this, that they both make war against the people of God; but they differ in that he who arises out of the third world-kingdom, extending his power toward the south and the east, i.e., towards Egypt and Babylon, and towards the Holy Land, shall crush some of the people of God, and by the taking away of the daily worship and the destruction of the sanctuary in Jerusalem, will rise up against God; while, on the contrary, he that shall arise out of the fourth world-kingdom will go much further. He will establish his kingdom by the destruction of three kingdoms, by great words put himself in the place of God, and as if he were God will think to change the times and the laws of men. Conformably to this, the length of time during which the persecution of these two adversaries will continue is different. The laying waste of the sanctuary by the power of the little horn arising out the Javanic world-kingdom will continue 2300 evening-mornings (Dan 8:14): to the power of the little horn arising out of the fourth world-kingdom the saints of the Most High must be given up for a time, two times, and half a time (Dan 7:25). No one will be persuaded, with Kranichfeld, that these two entirely different periods of time are alike. This difference of the periods of time again appears in Dan 12:7, Dan 12:11-12, where also the three and a half times (Dan 12:7) agree neither with the 1290 nor with the 1335 days. It is therefore not correct to say that in Daniel 8 and 7 Antichrist, the last enemy of the church, is represented, and that the aspects of the imagery in both chapters strongly resemble each other. The very opposite is apparent as soon as one considers the contents of the description without prejudice, and does not, with Kranichfeld and others, hold merely by the details of the representation and take the husk for the kernel. The enemy in Daniel 8 proceeds only so far against God that he attacks His people, removes His worship, and lays waste the sanctuary; the enemy in Daniel 7 makes himself like God (לצד, Dan 7:25), thinks himself to be God, and in his madness dares even to seek to change the times and the laws which God has ordained, and which He alone has the power to change. The enemy in Daniel 8 it is an abuse of words to call Antichrist; for his offence against God is not greater than the crime of Ahaz and Manasseh, who also took away the worship of the true God, and set up the worship of idols in His stead. On the other hand, it never came into the mind of an Ahaz, nor of Manasseh, nor of Antiochus Epiphanes, who set himself to put an end to the worship of God among the Jews, to put themselves in the place of God, and to seek to change times and laws. The likeness which the enemy in Daniel 8, i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes, in his rage against the Mosaic religion and the Jews who were faithful to their law, has to the enemy in Daniel 7, who makes himself like God, limits itself to the relation between the type and the antitype. Antiochus, in his conduct towards the Old Testament people of God, is only the type of Antichrist, who will arise out of the ten kingdoms of the fourth world-kingdom (Dan 7:24) and be diverse from them, arrogate to himself the omnipotence which is given to Christ, and in this arrogance will put himself in the place of God.
The sameness of the designation given to both of these adversaries of the people of God, a "little horn," not only points to the relation of type and antitype, but also, as Kliefoth has justly remarked, to "intentional and definite" parallelism between the third world-kingdom (the Macedonian) and the fourth (the Roman). "On all points the changes of the fourth kingdom are described similarly to the changes which took place in the Macedonian kingdom; but in every point of resemblance also there is indicated some distinct difference, so that the Macedonian kingdom in its development comes to stand as the type and representative of the fourth kingdom, lying as yet in the far-off future." The parallelism appears in this, that in the he-goat, representing the Javanic kingdom, after the breaking of the one great horn four considerable horns come up; and the fourth beast has ten horns; and the horns in both show that out of the one kingdom four, and out of the other ten, kingdoms shall arise;-further, that as out of one of the Javanic Diadoch kingdoms, so also from among the ten kingdoms into which the fourth kingdom is divided, a little horn comes up; the little horn in the Javanic kingdom, however, developes itself and founds its dominion differently from that of the fourth kingdom. If one carefully considers the resemblances and the differences of this description, he cannot fail to observe "the relation of an imperfect preliminary step of heathenish ungodliness to a higher step afterwards taken," which Kran. (p. 282) seeks in a typical delineation. For the assertion of this critic, that "in the pretended typical, as in the antitypical situation, the same thoughts of the rising up against the Most High, the removal of His worship, and the destruction of the sanctuary always similarly occur," is, according to the exegetical explanation given above, simply untrue. The difference reduces itself not merely to the greater fulness with which, "not the chief hero, but the type," is treated, but it shows itself in the diversity of the thoughts; for the elevation to the place of God, and the seeking to change the times and the laws, manifests one of a higher degree of godlessness than the removing of the Jewish sacrificial worship and the desecration of the Jewish temple.
Finally, the relation of the type to the antitype appears yet more distinctly in the determining of the time which will be appointed to both enemies for their opposition to God; for, though apparently they are alike, they are in reality very differently designated, and particularly in the explanation of the angel, Dan 8:17, Dan 8:19, and in the representation of the conduct of both enemies in Daniel 11 and Dan 12:1-13, as we shall show in our exposition of these chapters.
Since, then, neither the division of the Medo-Persian kingdom into the Median and the Persian is allowable, nor the identification of the fourth kingdom, Daniel 2 and 7, with the Javanic world-kingdom in Daniel 8, we may regard as correct the traditional church view, that the four world-kingdoms are the Chaldean, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman. This opinion, which has been recently maintained by Hv., Hengst., Hofm., Auberl., Zndel, Klief., and by C. P. Caspari and H. L. Reichel, alone accords without any force or arbitrariness with the representation of these kingdoms in both visions, with each separately as well as with both together. If we compare, for instance, the two visions with each other, they are partly distinguished in this, that while Nebuchadnezzar sees the world-power in its successive unfoldings represented by one metallic image, Daniel, on the other hand, sees it in the form of four ravenous beasts; partly in this, that in Daniel 7 the nature of the world-power, and its relation to the kingdom of God, is more distinctly described than in the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 2. These diversities have their foundation in the person of the respective recipients of the revelation. Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, sees its development in its unity and in its earthly glory. As opposed to the kingdom of God, the world-kingdoms, in all the phases of their development, form a united power of outward glory. But its splendour gradually decreases. The image with the golden head has its breast and arms of silver, its belly of brass, its legs of iron, its feet of iron and clay mixed. Thus the image stands on feet that are weak and easily broken, so that a stone rolling against them can break in pieces the whole colossus. Since, then, the image must represent four phases of the world-kingdoms following each other, they must be represented by the separate parts of the image. Beginning with the head, as denoting the first kingdom, the second kingdom is in natural order represented by the breast and arms, the third by the belly, and the fourth by the legs and feet. Since this of necessity follows from the image being that of the human body, yet in the interpretation we may not attach any weight to the circumstance that the second kingdom is represented by the breasts and the two arms, and the fourth by the two legs; but this circumstance may be taken into consideration only in so far as importance is given to it by the interpretation which is furnished in the text, or as it finds corresponding importance in the vision of Daniel 7.
If we thus consider now the image, Daniel 2, the selection of different metals for its separate parts must be regarded as certainly designed not only to distinguish the four world-kingdoms from each other, but also at the same time to bring to view their different natures and qualities. This is evident from the interpretation in Dan 2:39., where the hardness and the crushing power of the iron, and the brittleness of the clay, are brought to view. From this intimation it is at the same time obvious that the metals are not, as Auberlen, p. 228ff., thinks, to be viewed only as to their worth, and that by the successive depreciation of the materials - gold, silver, brass, iron, clay - a continuous decline of the world-power, or a diminution of the world-kingdoms as to their inner worth and power, is intended. Though Aub. says many things that are true and excellent regarding the downward progress of the world-development in general, the successive deterioration of humanity from paradise to the day of judgment, yet this aspect of the subject does not come here primarily before us, but is only a subordinate element in the contemplation. Daniel does not depict, as Aub. with P. Lange supposes, the world-civilisations in the world-monarchies; he does not describe "the progress from a state of nature to one of refined culture - from a natural, vigorous, solid mode of existence to a life of refinement and intellectualism, which is represented by the eye (Dan 7:8) of Antichrist;" but he describes in both visions only the development of the world-power opposite to the kingdom of God, and its influence upon it in the future. If Aub. holds as the foundation of his opinion, that "gold and silver are nobler and more valuable metals, but that, on the other hand, iron and brass are infinitely more important for the cause of civilisation and culture," he has confounded two different points of view: he has made the essential worth and value of the former metals, and the purpose and use of the latter, the one point of comparison. Gold and silver are nobler and more valuable than brass and iron, yet they have less intrinsic worth. The difference is frequently noticed in the Old Testament. Gold and silver are not only more highly valued than brass and iron (cf. Isa 60:17), but silver and gold are also metonymically used to designate moral purity and righteousness (cf. Mal 3:3 with Isa 1:22); brass and iron, on the contrary, are used to designate moral impurity (cf. Jer 6:28; Eze 22:18) and stubborn rebellion against God (Isa 48:4). With reference to the relative worth of the metals, their gradation in the image shows, without doubt, an increasing moral and religious deterioration of the world-kingdoms. It must not, however, be hence thought, as Auberlen does, "that the Babylonian and Persian religions presuppose more genuine truthfulness, more sacred reverence for that which is divine, deeper earnestness in contending against the evil, in the nations among whom they sprung up, than the Hellenic, which is so much richer and more beautifully developed;" for this distinction is not supported by history. But although this may be said of the Persian, it cannot be held as true of the Babylonian religion, from all we know of it. Kranichfeld (p. 107) is more correct when in the succession of the metals he finds "the thought conceived by the theocrat of a definite fourfold procedure or expression of character comparatively corresponding to them, of a fourfold דּרך (way, Jer 6:27) of the heathen kingdoms manifesting an increasing deterioration." The two first kingdoms, the golden and the silver, in general appear to him in their conduct as proportionally noble, virtuous, and in their relation to the theocracy even relatively pious; the two latter, on the contrary, which presented themselves to him in the likeness of brass and iron, as among the four morally base, as standing in the moral scale lower and lowest, and in relation to the theocracy as more relentless and wicked (see v. 40)
(Note: Kliefoth (p. 93) in a similar manner says, "From the application which in Dan 2:40 is made of the iron material, we see that the substances representing the different kingdoms, and their deterioration from the gold down to the iron, must denote something else than that the world-power, in the course of its historical formation, will become always baser and more worthless - that also its more tender or more cruel treatment of the nations, and of the men subdued by it, must be characterized. If the bonds which the Babylonian world-monarchy wound around the nations which were brought into subjection to it, by its very primitive military and bureaucratic regulations, were loose, gentle, pliable as a golden ring, those of the Medo-Persian were of harder silver, those of the Macedonian of yet harder copper, but the yoke of the fourth will be one of iron.")).
With this the declaration of the text as to the position of the four world-kingdoms and their rulers with referenced to the people of God stand in accord; for, on the one hand, Nebuchadnezzar, and the first rulers of the second kingdom, Darius the Median and Cyrus the Persian, respect the revelations of the living God, and not only in their own persons give honour to this God, but also command their heathen subjects to render unto Him fear and reverence; on the other hand, on the contrary, from the third and the fourth kingdoms the greatest persecutors of the kingdom of God, who wish utterly to destroy it (Daniel 7, 8), arise. In this respect the two first world-kingdoms, seen in their rulers, are like gold and silver, the two latter like copper and iron.
The relation of the world-kingdoms to the kingdom and people of God, represented by this gradation of the metals, corresponds only to the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman world-kingdoms, but not to the Babylonian, Median, and Persian. This appears more manifest in the representation of them by four ravenous beasts, the lion, the ear, the leopard, and another beast to which no likeness can be found, Daniel 7. Its eagle's wings were torn from the lion, and it had given to it, by God, a man's heart; the bear shows only wild voracity-holding its prey between its teeth, it raises its one side for new prey; the leopard with four heads and four wings springs forward as in flight over the whole earth, to seize it and to exercise dominion over it; the fourth nameless beast devours and breaks in pieces with its iron teeth all that remains, and stamps upon it with its iron feet, and thus represents godless barbarity in its fullest development. But for the historical interpretation there comes yet particularly into view the circumstance that the fourth beast is represented by no animal existing in nature, and is designated by no historical name, as in the case of the first (Dan 2:38) and the second and third (Dan 8:20-21); for the two first had already come into existence in Daniel's time, and of the third, the people at least out of whom it was to arise had then already come into relation to the people of Israel (Joe 3:6, Joe 3:8). The fourth kingdom, on the contrary, is represented by a nameless beast, because in Daniel's time Rome had not come into contact with Israel, and as yet lay beyond the circle of vision of Old Testament prophecy. Although Daniel receives much more special revelations regarding this world-kingdom (Daniel 7) than Nebuchadnezzar does in his dream (Daniel 2), yet all the separate lines of the representation of the beast and its horn are given with so much want of precision that every reference to a historical people is at fault, and from the vision and its interpretation it was not to be known where this kingdom would arise, whether in Asia or elsewhere. The strength of the monster, devouring and trampling mercilessly on all things, is in harmony with its iron nature, and in its ten horns its powerful armour is depicted. The very concrete expressions regarding the little or eleventh horn contain only ideal traces respecting the position of the king or kingdom represented by it, which distinctly show, indeed, the elevation of the same above all human and divine authority, but give no indication at all of any special historical connections.
Thus it appears that the two vision, on the one hand, do not copy their prophetic representation from historical facts, that the prophecy is not vaticinium ex eventu; but, on the other hand, also that it is not derived from general ideas, as Hitz. and Kran. have attempted to show. While Hitzig thinks that the idea of the four ages of the world lies at the foundation, not of the fourfoldness of the monarchies, but of the kind of representation given of them in Daniel 2, - an idea which came from India to Greece, and was adopted by Daniel in its Greek form, - Kranichfeld considers that, under divine enlightenment, Daniel delineated the ideal of the advancing completion of heathen depravation in four stages (not in five, six, etc.), after the notion of the four ages of the world which we find not only in the Indian four jugas, but also in the Greco-Roman representation of the metallic aeons. Now although for this book of Daniel no special dependence on the Greeks can be proved from the use and value of the metals, because they were used by the ancient Hebrews as metaphorical symbols, yet the combination of the idea of the ages of the world so firmly and definitely stamped with just the number four remains a very noteworthy phenomenon, which must have had a deeper foundation lying in the very fact itself. This foundation, he concludes, is to be sought in the four stages of the age of man.
This conjecture might appear plausible if Kranichfeld had proved the supposed four stages of the age of man as an idea familiar to the O.T. He has not, however, furnished this proof, but limited himself to the remark, that the combination of the number four with the ages of the life of man was one lying very near to Daniel, since the four phases of the development of heathenism come into view (Daniel 2) in the image of a human being, the personification of heathendom. A very marvellous conclusion indeed! What, then, have the four parts of the human figure - the head, breast, belly, feet - in common with the four stages of the age of man? The whole combination wants every point of support. The idea of the development of the world-power in four kingdoms following after each other, and becoming continually the more oppressive to the people of God, has no inward connection with the representation of the four ages of the world, and - as even Ewald (Daniel p. 346), in opposition to this combination, remarks - "the mere comparison with gold, silver, brass, iron lies too near for the author of this book to need to borrow it from Hesiod." The agreement of the two ideas in the number four (although Hesiod has inserted the age of the heroes between the brazen and the iron aeon, and thus has not adhered to the number four) would much more readily have been explained from the symbolical meaning of four as the number of the world, if it were the mere product of human speculation or combination in the case of the world-ages as of the world-kingdoms, and not much rather, in the case of the world-ages, were derived from the historical development of humanity and of Daniel's world-kingdoms, from divine revelation. Yet much less are the remaining declarations regarding the development and the course of the world-kingdoms to be conceived of as the product of enlightened human thought. This may be said of the general delineation of the second and third world-kingdoms (Daniel 2 and 7), and yet much more of the very special declaration regarding them in Daniel 8, but most of all of the fourth world-kingdom. If one wished to deduce the fearful power of this kingdom destroying all things from the idea of the rising up of hostility against that which is divine, closely bound up with the deterioration of the state of the world, and to attach importance to this, that the number ten of the horns of the fourth beast, corresponding to the number of the toes of the feet, is derived from the apprehension of heathendom as the figure of a man, and is not to be understood numerically, but symbolically; yet there remains, not to mention other elements, the growth of the little horn between the ten existing horns, and its elevation to power through the destruction of three existing horns, which are deduced neither from the symbolical meaning of the numbers nor are devised by enlightened human thought, but much rather constrain us to a recognition of an immediate divine revelation.
If we now approach more closely to the historical reference of the fourth world-kingdom, it must be acknowledge that we cannot understand by it the Grecian, but only the Roman world-power. With it, not with the Macedonian monarchy, agree both the iron nature of the image (Daniel 2), and the statements (Dan 7:23) that this kingdom would be different from all that preceded it, and that it would devour and break and trample upon the whole earth. The Roman kingdom was the first universal monarchy in the full sense. Along with the three earlier world-kingdoms, the nations of the world-historical future remained still unsubdued: along with the Oriental kingdoms, Greece and Rome, and along with the Macedonia, the growing power of Rome.
First the Roman kingdom spread its power and dominion over the whole οἰκουμένη, over all the historical nations of antiquity in Europe, Africa, and Asia. "There is" (says Herodian, ii. 11. 7) "no part of the earth and no region of the heavens whither the Romans have not extended their dominion." Still more the prophecy of Daniel reminds us of the comparison of the Roman world-kingdom with the earlier world-kingdoms, the Assyrico-Baylonian, the Persian, and the Grecian, in Dionys. Halicar., when in the proaem. 9 he says: "There are the most famous kingdoms down to our time, and this their duration and power. But the kingdom of the Romans ruled through all the regions of the earth which are not inaccessible, but are inhabited by men; it ruled also over the whole sea, and it alone and first made the east and the west its boundaries." Concerning the other features of the image in Daniel 2, we can seek neither in the two legs and feet of the image, nor in the twofold material of the feet, any hint as to the division of the Roman kingdom into the Eastern and Western Rome. The iron and clay are in the image indeed not so divided as that the one foot is of iron and the other of clay, but iron and clay are bound together in both of the feet. In this union of two heterogeneous materials there also lies no hint that, by the dispersion of the nations, the plastic material of the Germanic and the Slavic tribes was added to the Old Roman universal kingdom (Dan 2:40) with its thoroughly iron nature (Auberl. p. 252, cf. with Hof. Weiss. u. Erf. i. p. 281). For the clay in the image does not comes into view as a malleable and plastic material, but, according to the express interpretation of Daniel (v. 42), only in respect of its brittleness. The mixing of iron and clay, which do not inwardly combine together, shows the inner division of the nations, of separate natural stocks and national character is, which constituted the Roman empire, who were kept together by external force, whereby the iron firmness of the Roman nation was mingled with brittle clay.
The kingdoms represented by the ten horns belong still to the future. To be able to judge regarding them with any certainty, we must first make clear to ourselves the place of the Messianic kingdom with reference to the fourth world-kingdom, and then compare the prophecy of the Apocalypse of John regarding the formation of the world-power - a prophecy which rests on the book of Daniel.
The Messianic Kingdom and the Son of Man
In the image of the monarchies, Daniel 2, the everlasting kingdom of God is simply placed over against the kingdoms of the world without mention being made of the king of this kingdom. The human image is struck and broken to pieces by a stone rolling down against its feet, but the stone itself grows into a great mountain and fills the whole earth (Dan 2:34.). This stone is a figure of that kingdom which the God of heaven will erect in the days of the kings of the fourth world-kingdom; a kingdom which to all eternity shall never be destroyed, and which shall crush all the kingdoms of the world (Dan 2:44). In Daniel 7, on the contrary, Daniel sees not only the judgment which God holds over the kingdoms of the world, to destroy them for ever with the death of their last ruler, but also the deliverance of the kingdom to the Messiah coming with the clouds of heaven in the likeness of a son of man, whom all nations shall serve, and whose dominion shall stand for ever (Dan 7:9-14, cf. Dan 7:26.).
In both visions the Messianic kingdom appears in its completion. Whence Auberlen (p. 248), with other chiliasts, concludes that the beginning of this kingdom can refer to nothing else than to the coming of Christ for the founding of the so-called kingdom of the thousand years; an event still imminent to us. In favour of this view, he argues (1) that the judgment on Antichrist, whose appearance is yet future, goes before the beginning of this kingdom; (2) that this kingdom in both chapters is depicted as a kingdom of glory and dominion while till this time the kingdom of heaven on the earth is yet a kingdom of the cross. But the judgment on Antichrist does not altogether go before the beginning of this kingdom, but only before the final completion of the Messianic kingdom; and the Messianic kingdom has the glory and dominion over all the kingdoms under heaven, according to Daniel 2 and 7, not from the beginning, but acquires them only for the first time after the destruction of all the world-kingdoms and of the last powerful enemy arising out of them. The stone which breaks the image becomes for the first time after it has struck the image a great mountain which fills the whole earth (Dan 2:35), and the kingdom of God is erected by the God of heaven, according to Dan 2:44, not for the first time after the destruction of all the world-kingdoms, but in the days of the kings of the fourth world-monarchy, and thus during its continuance. With this Daniel 7 harmonizes; for, according to Dan 7:21, Dan 7:22, Dan 7:25, Dan 7:27, the little horn of the fourth beast carries on war with the saints of the Most High till the Ancient of days executes judgment in their behalf, and the time arrives when the saints shall possess the kingdom. Here we distinctly see the kingdom of heaven upon earth bearing the form of the cross, out of which condition it shall be raised by the judgment into the state of glory. The kingdom of the Messiah is thus already begun, and is warred against by Antichrist, and the judgment on Antichrist only goes before the raising of it to glory. (3) Auberlen adduces as a third argument, that (according to Roos, Hofm., etc.) only the people of Israel in opposition to the heathen nations and kingdoms can be understood by the "people of the saints of the Most High" (Dan 7:18, Dan 7:27), because Daniel could only think of this people. But to this Kranichfeld has rightly replied, that Daniel and the whole O.T. knew nothing whatever of such a distinction between a non-Israelitish and an Israelitish epoch within the kingdom of Messiah, but only a Messianic kingdom in which Israel forms the enduring centre for the heathen believing nations drawing near to them. To this we add, that the division of the kingdom of heaven founded by Christ on the earth into a period of the church of the Gentiles, and following this a period of a thousand years of the dominion of Jewish Christians, contradicts the clear statements of Christ and the apostles in the N.T., and is only based on a misconception of a few passages of the Apocalypse.
Daniel certainly predicts the completion of the kingdom of God in glory, but he does not prophesy that the kingdom of heaven will then for the first time begin, but indicates its beginnings in a simple form, although he does not at large represent its gradual development in the war against the world-power, just as he also gives only a few brief intimations of the temporary development of the world-kingdoms. If Aub. (p. 251) replies that the words of the text, Dan 2:35, "then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to pieces together," cannot at all permit the thought of the co-existence of the fourth world-kingdom and the kingdom of God, he attributes to these words a meaning which they do not bear. The "together" refers only to the breaking in pieces of the five substances named, of which the world-kingdoms are formed, the destruction of the world-power in all its parts, but not that this happened at one and the same moment, and that then for the first time the kingdom of God which is from heaven began. The stone which brake the image in pieces, then first, it is true, grows up into a great mountain filling the whole earth. The destruction of the world-kingdoms can in reality proceed only gradually along with the growth of the stone, and thus also the kingdom of God can destroy the world-kingdoms only by its gradual extension over the earth. The destruction of the world-power in all its component parts began with the foundation of the kingdom of heaven at the appearance of Christ upon earth, or with the establishment of the church of Christ, and only reaches its completion at the second coming of our Lord at the final judgment. In the image Daniel saw in a moment, as a single act, what in its actual accomplishment or in its historical development extends through the centuries of Christendom. Auberlen has in his argument identified the image with the actual realization, and has not observed that his conception of the words Dan 2:35 does not accord with the millennium, which according to Rev 20:1-15 does not gradually from small beginnings spread itself over the earth - is not to be likened to a stone which first after the destruction of the world-kingdom grows up into a mountain.
So also in Daniel 7 Daniel sees the judgment of the world-kingdoms in the form of an act limited to a point of time, by which not only the beast whose power culminates in the little horn is killed, but also the dominion and the kingdom over all nations is given over to the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven and appearing before God the Judge. If one here identifies the form of the prophetic vision with the actual fact, then he places Daniel in opposition to the teaching of the N.T. regarding the judgment of the world. According to N.T. doctrine, Christ, the Son of man, receives the dominion and power over all nations not for the first time on the day of judgment, after the destruction of the world-kingdoms by the Father, but He received it (Mat 28:18) after the completion of His work and before His ascension; and it is not God the Father who holds the judgment, but the Son raised to the right hand of the Father comes in the clouds of heaven to judge the world (Mat 25:31). The Father committed the judgment to the Son even while He yet sojourned on this earth in the form of a servant and founded the kingdom of heaven (Joh 5:27). The judgment begins not for the first time either before or after the millennium, about which chiliasts contend with one another, but the last judgment forms only the final completion of the judgment commencing at the first coming of Christ to the earth, which continues from that time onward through the centuries of the spread of the kingdom of heaven upon earth in the form of the Christian church, till the visible return of Christ in His glory in the clouds of heaven to the final judgment of the living and the dead. This doctrine is disclosed to us for the first time by the appearance of Christ; for by it are unfolded to us for the first time the prophecies regarding the Messiah in His lowliness and in His glory, in the clear knowledge of the first appearance of Christ in the form of a servant for the founding of the kingdom of God by His death and resurrection, and the return of the Son of man from heaven in the glory of His Father for the perfecting of His kingdom by the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment.
That which has been said above, avails also for explaining the revelation which Daniel received regarding the King of the kingdom of God. While His appearance in the form of a son of man with the clouds of heaven, according to the statements of the N.T. regarding the second coming of Christ, points to His coming again in glory, yet, as above remarked, His coming before the Ancient of days, i.e., before God, and receiving from God the kingdom and the dominion, does not accord with the statements of the N.T. regarding the return of Christ to judge the world; so that we must here also distinguish between the actual contents and the form of the prophetic representation, and between the thought of the prophecy and its realization or historical fulfilment. Only because of a disregard of this distinction could Fries, e.g., derive from Dan 7:13 an argument against the parallelizing of this passage with Mat 24:30; Mar 14:62, and Rev 1:7, as well as against the reference to the Messias of the personage seen by Daniel in the clouds of heaven as a son of man.
In the vision, in which the Ancient of days, i.e., God, holds judgment over the world and its rulers, and in the solemn assembly for judgment grants to the Son of man appearing before Him the kingdom and the dominion, only this truth is contemplated by the prophet, that the Father gave to the Son all power in heaven and in earth; that He gave the power over the nations which the rulers of the earth had, and which they used only for the oppression of the saints of God, to the Son of man, and in Him to the people of the saints, and thereby founded the kingdom which shall endure for ever. But as to the way and manner in which God executes judgment over the world-power, and in which He gives (Dan 7:22, Dan 7:27) to the Son of man and to the people of the saints the dominion and the power over all the kingdoms under the heavens - on this the prophecy gives no particular disclosures; this much, however, is clear from Dan 7:27, that the judgment held by the Ancient of days over the world-power which was hostile to God is not a full annihilation of the kingdoms under the whole heavens, but only an abolition of their hostile dominion and power, and a subjection of all the kingdoms of this earth to the power and dominion of the Son of man, whereby the hostile rulers, together with all ungodly natures, shall be for ever destroyed. The further disclosures regarding the completion of this judgment are given us in the N.T., from which we learn that the Father executes judgment by the Son, to whom He has given all power in heaven and on earth. With this further explanation of the matter the passages of the N.T. referring to Dan 7:13, regarding the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven to execute judgment over the world, easily harmonize. To show this, we must examine somewhat more closely the conception and the use of the words "Son of man" in the N.T.
The Son of Man, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
It is well known that Jesus only during His sojourn on earth made use of this designation of Himself, as appears in the N.T. Bengel on Mat 16:13 remarks: "Nemo nisi solus Christus a nemine dum ipse in terra ambularet, nisi a semetipso appellitatus est filius hominis." Even after Christ's ascension the apostles do not use this name of Christ. In the passages Act 7:56 and Rev 1:13; Rev 14:14, where alone it is found in the N.T. beyond the Gospels, the title is borrowed from Dan 7:13. It is, moreover, generally acknowledged that Jesus wished by thus designating Himself to point Himself out as the Messiah; and "this pointing Himself out as the Messiah is founded," as H. A. W. Meyer on Mat 8:20 rightly remarks, "not on Psa 8:1-9, but, as is manifest from such passages as Mat 24:30; Mat 26:64 (cf. also Act 7:56), on the description of that prophetic vision, Dan 7:13, well known to the Jews (Joh 12:34), and found also in the pre-Christian book of Enoch, where the Messiah appears in the clouds of heaven = כּבר אנשׁὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, amid the angels of the divine judgment-seat." The comparison in the = כὡς to a son of man refers to the form in which He is seen by the prophet (see pp. 645f.), and affirms neither the true humanity nor the superhuman nature of Him who appeared. The superhuman or divine nature of the person seen in the form of a man lies in the coming with the clouds of heaven, since it is true only of God that He makes the clouds His chariot; Psa 104:3, cf. Isa 19:1. But on the other hand, also, the words do not exclude the humanity, as little as the ὅμοιος υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου, Rev 1:13; for, as C. B. Michaelis has remarked, כ non excludit rei veritatem, sed formam ejus quod visum est describit; so that with Oehler (Herz. Realenc.) we may say: The Messiah here appears as a divine being as much as He does a human. The union of the divine and the human natures lies also in the self-designation of Christ as ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, although as to the meaning Jesus unites with it there is diversity of opinion.
That this was a designation of the Messiah common among the Jews in the time of Jesus, we cannot positively affirm, because only Jesus Himself made use of it; His disciples did not, much less did the people so style the Messiah. If, then, Jesus speaks of Himself as the Son of man, He means thereby not merely to say that He was the Messiah, but He wishes to designate Himself as the Messiah of Daniel's prophecy, i.e., as the Son of man coming to the earth in the clouds of heaven. He thereby lays claim at once to a divine original, or a divine pre-existence, as well as to affirm true humanity of His person, and seeks to represent Himself, according to John's expression, as the Logos becoming flesh.
(Note: Meyer justly remarks: "The consciousness from which Jesus appropriates to Himself this designation by Daniel was the antithesis of the God-sonship, the necessary (contrary to Schleiermacher) self-consciousness of a divine pre-existence appearing in the most decided manner in John, the glory (δόχα) of which He had laid aside that He might appear as that ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου of Daniel in a form not originally appertaining to Him ... . Whatever has, apart from this, been found in the expression, as that Christ hereby designated Himself as the Son of man in the highest sense of the word, as the second Adam, as the ideal of humanity (Bhme, Neander, Ebrard, Olsh., Kahnis, Gess, and Weisse), or as the man whom the whole history of mankind since Adam has in view (Hofm. Schriftbew. ii. 1, p. 81, cf. Thomas. Chr. Pers. u. Werk, ii. p. 15), is introduced unhistorically with reference to Daniel 7.")
This view of the expression will be confirmed by a comparison of the passages in which Jesus uses it. In Joh 1:51, "Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man," the divine glory is intimated as concealed in the lowliness of the Son of man: the Son of man who walks on the earth in the form of a man is the Son of God. So also in the answer which Jesus gave to the high priest, when he solemnly adjured Him to say "whether He were the Christ, the Son of God" (Mat 26:63), pointing distinctly to Dan 7:13, "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." In like manner in all the other passages in the Gospels in which Jesus designates Himself the Son of man, He points either to His present lowliness or to His future glory, as is abundantly proved by Fr. A. Philippi (Kirch. Glaubenslehre, iv. 1, p. 415, der 2 Auf.) by a lucid comparison of all the passages in the Gospel of Matthew.
From the use of the expression "the Son of man" by Jesus (not only where He refers to His supernatural greatness or His divine pre-existence, but also where He places His human lowliness in contrast with His divine nature), it follows that even in those passages which treat of His coming to judgment, connected with the description, borrowed from Dan 7:13, of His coming in the clouds of heaven, He seeks to prove not so much His appearance for judgment, as rather only the divine power and glory which the Father gave Him, or to indicate from the Scriptures that the Father gave Him dominion over all people, and that He will come to reveal this dominion by the judgment of the world and the completion of His kingdom. The power to execute judgment over the living and the dead, the Father, i.e., God as the Lord of the world, has given to His Son, to Christ, because He is the Son of man (Joh 5:27), i.e., because He as man is at the same time of a divine nature, by virtue of which He is of one essence with the Father. This truth is manifested in the vision, Dan 7:13-14, in this, that the Ancient of days gives glory and the kingdom to Him who appears before Him in the form of a man coming in the clouds of heaven, that all people and nations might honour Him. Therewith He gave Him also implicite the power to execute judgment over all peoples; for the judgment is only a disclosure of the sovereignty given to Him.
The Little Horn and the Apocalyptic Beast
The giving of the kingdom to the Son of man goes before the appearance of the great adversary of the people of God represented by the little horn - the adversary in whom the enmity of the world against the kingdom of God reaches its highest manifestation. But to form a well-founded judgment regarding the appearance of this last enemy, we must compare the description given of him in Dan 7:8, Dan 7:24. with the apocalyptic description of the same enemy under the image of the beast out of the sea or out of the abyss, Rev 13:1-8 and Rev 17:7-13.
John saw a Beast Rise Up Out Of The Sea which had seven heads and ten horns, and on its horns ten crowns; it was like a leopard, but had the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion, and the dragon gave him his throne and great power. One of its heads appears as if it had received a deadly wound, but its deadly wound was healed, Rev 13:1-3. In this beast the four beasts of Daniel, the lion, the bear, the leopard, and the nameless ten-horned beast (Dan 7:7), are united, and its heads and horns are represented, like the beasts of Daniel, as kings (Rev 17:9, Rev 17:12). The beast seen by John represents accordingly the world-power, in such a way that the four aspects of the same, which Daniel saw in the form of four beasts rising up one after another, are a whole united together into one. In this all interpreters are agreed. Hofmann is wrong (Schriftbew. ii. 2, p. 699), however, when from the circumstance that this beast has the body of a leopard, has its peculiar form like that of a leopard, he draws the conclusion "that John sees the Grecian kingdom rise again in a new form, in which it bears the lion's mouth of the Chaldean, the bear's feet of the Median or Persian, and the ten horns of the last kingdom." For the apocalyptic beast has the body of a leopard from no other reason than because the fourth beast of Daniel was to be compared with no other beast existing in nature, whose appearance could be selected for that purpose. In these circumstances nothing else remained than to lay hold on the form of Daniel's third beast and to make choice of it for the body of the beast, and to unite with it the feet, the mouth or the jaws, and the ten horns of the other beasts.
But that the apocalyptic beast must represent not the rising again of Daniel's third world-kingdom, but the appearance of the fourth, and that specially in its last form, which Daniel had seen as the little horn, appears evidently from this, not to mention the explanation given in Rev 17, that the beast with the seven heads and ten horns, with the name of blasphemy on its heads (Rev 13:1), the marks of the little horn of Daniel, speaks great things and blasphemies, and continues forty and two months (Rev 13:5), corresponding to the three and a half times of Daniel, Dan 7:25. Hofmann, on the other hand, rightly remarks, that the beast must represent not merely the last world-power, but at the same time the last world-ruler, the chief enemy of the saints of God. As with Daniel the world-power and its representative are conceived of as one and the same, so here also with John. This is seen in the insensible transition of the neuter to the masculine, τῷ θηρίῳ ὅς ἔχει, v. 14. In this beast not only does the whole world-power concentrate itself, but in it also attains to its personal head. The ten horns are to be conceived of as on one of the heads, and that the seventh or last, and not (Dsterdieck, etc.) as distributed among the seven heads, so that one horn should be assigned to each head, and three horns should be conceived as between the sixth and the seventh head. This wonderful supposition owes its origin only to the historical reference of the beast to the first Roman emperor, and stands in opposition to the interpretation of the beast which is given by John, Rev 17:7. There John sees the woman, the great Babylon, the mother of harlots and abominations, sitting on a scarlet-coloured beast, which was full of names of blasphemy, and had ten horns (Rev 17:3). The identity of the seven-headed beast (Daniel 13) with the scarlet-coloured beast (Rev 17) is justly recognised by the greater number of recent interpreters, even by Dst. Of this red beast the angel, Rev 17:8, says first, "The beast that thou sawest was and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit and go into perdition; and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder ... when they behold the beast that was and is not, and yet is" (καὶ πάρεσται = shall come, be present, i.e., again, according to a more accurate reading). In these words the most of interpreters find a paraphrase of the statement, Rev 13:3, Rev 13:12, Rev 13:14, that the beast was wounded to the death, but that its deadly wound was healed. "The distinguishing of the two statements (viz., of the not-being and the death-wound, the coming again and the healing of the wound) has," as A. Christiani (uebersichtl. Darstellung des Inhalts der Apok., in der Dorpater Zeitschriftf. Thel. 1861, iii. p. 219) rightly remarks, "its foundation (against Ebrard) either in the false supposition that the beast in Rev 17 is different from that in Rev 13, or in this, that there must abstractly be a distinction between the world-power (Rev 13) and the ruler of the world (Rev 17); whereby, moreover, it is not clear wherein the difference between the death-wound and the not-being consists (against Aub.)." The being, the not-being, and the appearing gain of the beast, are not to be understood of the present time as regards the seer, so as to mean: the beast existed before John's time, after that it was not, and then one day shall again appear, which has been combined with the fable of Nero's coming again; but the past, the present, and the future of the beast are, with Vitringa, Bengel, Christ., to be regarded from the standpoint of the vision, according to which the time of the fulfilment, belonging to the future, is to be regarded as the point of time from which the being, the not-being, and the appearing again are represented, so that these three elements form the determination of the nature of the beast in its historical manifestation.
Hereupon the angel points out to the seer the secret of the woman and of the beast which bears the woman, beginning with the interpretation of the beast, Rev 17:9. "The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth; and there are seven kings." The heads are thus defined in a twofold way: For the woman they are seven mountains, on which she sits; but in so far as they belong to the beast, they are seven kings (Hofm. p. 711, Christ., etc.). The reference of the mountains to the seven hills of Rome is to be rejected, because it is difficult to understand how the heads can represent at one and the same time both mountains and kings. Mountains are, according to the prophetic view, seats of power, symbols of world-kingdoms (cf. Psa 68:17; Psa 76:5; Jer 51:25; Eze 35:2), and thus are here as little to be thought of as occupying space along with one another as are the seven kings to be thought of as contemporaneous (Hofm., Aub.). According to this, the βασιλείς are not also separate kings of one kingdom, but kingships, dominions, as in Daniel ruler and kingdom are taken together. One need not, however, on this account assume that βασιλείς stands for βασιλείαι; for, according to Dan 8:20-22, "the kingdom is named where the person of the ruler is at once brought into view; but where it is sought to designate the sovereignty, then the king is named, either so that he represents it altogether, or so that its founder is particularly distinguished" (Hofm. p. 714).
The angel further says of the seven heads: "Five (of these sovereignties) are fallen," i.e., are already past, "one is," i.e., still exists, "the other is not yet come; and when it cometh, it must continue a short space." This explanation is obviously given from the point of view of the present of the seer. The five fallen βασιλείς (sovereignties) are Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Medo-Persia, and Greece (Hengst., Aub., Christ.), and not Assyria, Chaldea, Persia, Grecia, and the kingdom of the Seleucidae, as Hofmann, with Ebrard and Stier, affirms. The reception of the Seleucidae or of Antiochus Epiphanes into the rank of world-rulers, depends, with Hofmann, on the erroneous interpretation of the apocalyptic beast-image as representing the reappearance of the Grecian world-kingdom, and falls with this error. The chief argument which Hofmann alleges against Egypt, that it was never a power which raised itself up to subdue or unite the world under itself, or is thus represented in the Scriptures, Aub. (p. 309) has already invalidated by showing that Egypt was the first world-power with which the kingdom of God came into conflict under Moses, when it began to exist as a nation and a kingdom. Afterwards, under the kings, Israel was involved in the wars of Egypt and Assyria in like manner as at a later period they were in those of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae. For this reason Egypt and Assyria are often named together by the prophets, particularly as the world-powers with which the people of God committed whoredom, yea, by the older prophets generally as the representatives of the world-power (Kg2 17:4; Hos 7:11; Hos 12:1; Hos 9:3; Hos 11:5, Hos 11:11; Mic 7:12; Isa 52:4; Isa 19:23-25; Jer 2:18, Jer 2:36; Zac 10:10). On the other hand, the Seleucidan appears before us in Daniel 8 and 11:1-25 as an offshoot of the Grecian world-kingdom, without anything further being intimated regarding him. In Daniel 7 there is as little said of him as there is in Zechariah's vision of the four-horsed chariots.
The sixth sovereignty, which "is" (ὁ εἷς ἔστιν), is the Roman world-power exercising dominion at the time of John, the Roman emperor. The seventh is as yet future, and must, when it comes, continue a short time (ὀλίγον). If the sixth sovereignty is the Roman, they by the seventh we may understand the world-powers of modern Europe that have come into its place. The angel adds (Rev 17:11), "The beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth (king), and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition." By that which is called "even the eighth" can properly be meant only the seventh. The contrast lying in the καὶ αὐτὸς ὀγδοός demands this. But that instead of the seventh (Rev 17:10, ὁ ἄλλος the beast itself is named, therewith it is manifestly intimated that in the eighth the beast embodies itself, or passes into its completed form of existence as a beast. This is supported partly by the expression ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά which is added to ὀγδοός, partly by the designation as "the beast that was and is not." That addition does not merely say, one out of the seven, for which John would have written εἷς ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά (cf. Rev 17:1 and Rev 21:9), or, formed like the seven, but, growing up out of the seven, as the blossom out of the plant (βλαστάνων, as the Greek Andreas explains, and erroneously adds ἐκ μίας αὐτῶν). It is the comprehensive essence of these seven, the embodiment of the beast itself, which for the first time reaches in it to its perfect form (Aub., Dsterd., Christ.). As such it is placed over against the seven as the eighth; but it is not therefore an eighth kingdom, for it is not represented by an eighth head, but only by the beast-only the beast which was, and is not, and then shall be again (πάρεσται, Rev 17:11, cf. Rev 17:8). If now this definition, according to the above, means the same thing as is intended in Daniel 13 by the deadly wound of the beast and the healing again of the wound, then these words mean that the world-power in one of its heads (the seventh?) receives the deadly wound, so that the beast is not-i.e., it cannot show its power, its beast-nature-till the healing of the same, but after the healing of the wound it will appear as the eighth ruler in its full nature as a beast, and will unfold the power of its ten horns. Of these ten horns the angel says, Rev 17:12, "They are ten kings which have received no βασιλείαν, but will receive power as kings one hour with the beast." By this is it affirmed, on the one side, that the ten horns belong to the seventh beast; but, on the other, it appears from this interpretation of the angel, taken in connection with that going before, that the ruler with the ten horns and the highest phases of the development of the world-power, and is to be regarded as contemporary with the ten βασιλείς which receive power as kings with the beast.
The statement, however, that the seventh ruler is also an eighth, and must represent the beast in its perfect form, without his being denoted by an eighth head to the beast, has its foundation, without doubt, in the dependence of the apocalyptic delineation on Daniel's prophecy of the fourth world-power, in which (Daniel 2) the iron legs are distinguished from the feet, which consist partly of iron and partly of clay; and yet more distinctly in Daniel 7 the climax of the power of the fourth beast is represented in the little horn growing up between its ten horns, and yet neither is it called in Daniel 2 a fifth kingdom, nor yet in Daniel 7 is the little horn designated as a fifth world-ruler.
The apocalyptic delineation of the world-power and the world-ruler is related, therefore, to the prophecy of Daniel in such a manner that, in the first place, it goes back to the elements of the same, and gathers them together into one combined image, according to its whole development in the past, present, and future, while Daniel's prophecy goes forth from the present, beginning with the Chaldean world-kingdom. Moreover, the Apocalypse discloses the spiritual principle working in the world-power. The dragon, i.e., Satan, as prince of this world, gave his throne and his power to the beast. Finally, the Apocalypse extends itself at large over the unfolding, as yet future, of the ungodly world-kingdom; for it places in view, in addition to the sixth ruler existing in the presence of the seer, the rising up of yet a seventh, in which the beast, healed of its death-wound, will first as the eighth ruler fully reveal its ungodly nature. The dividing of the fourth world-kingdom of Daniel between two rulers has its foundation in the purpose to gain the significant number seven. By the number seven of the heads while Daniel saw only four beasts, the apocalyptic beast must be represented as the diabolical contrast to the Lamb. The seven heads and ten horns the beast has in common with the dragon, which gave his power to the beast (cf. Rev 13:1-2 with Rev 12:3). The seven heads of the dragon and of the beast are the infernal caricature and the antithesis of the seven Spirits of God, the seven eyes and seven horns of the Lamb (Rev 5:6), just as the seven mountains on which the woman sits are the antitype and the antithesis of the hill of Zion, the chosen mountain of the Lord. (Cf. Lmmert, Babel, das Thier u. der falsche Prophet, 1863, p. 84.) From the symbolical signification of the numbers, it is also clear how the beast which was and is not can also appear as the eighth ruler. The eighth, arising from the addition of one to seven, denotes a new beginning, or the beginning of a new life, as frequently in the laws relating to religious worship, as e.g., regarding circumcision, the consecration of priests, the purification of lepers, the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles, etc. Cf. Leyrer in Herz.'s Real. Encycl. xviii. p. 370. According to him, the beast is called καὶ αὐτὸς ὀγδοός (Rev 17:11), "because, although it is of the seven which hitherto have constituted the antichristian development in its completeness, a new one presumes to establish itself in self-deification, and in open rebellion against God, raising itself to the experiment of an absolute world-monarchy before the final judgment passes upon it."
As the number seven of the heads of the beast in the Apocalypse, so also the number four of the beasts rising up out of the sea in Daniel's vision comes first under consideration, according to their symbolical meaning as the number of the world. For the sake of this significance of the number four, only the four world-kingdoms are spoken of, while in the fourth there are distinctly two different phases of the development of the world-kingdom. If we look at this significance of the numbers, the difference between the representation of Daniel and that of the Apocalypse reduces itself to this, that Daniel designates the world-power simply only in opposition to the kingdom of God; the Apocalypse, on the contrary, designates it according to its concealed spiritual background, and in its antichristian form. The world-number four appears here augmented to the antichristian contrast to the divine number seven. But in both representations the beast forming the last phase of the world-kingdom has ten horns. This number also has a symbolical meaning; it is the signature of definitive completeness, of fullest development and perfection. "The ten horns are kings; for 'horn' as well as 'king' signifies might crushing, conquering" (Lmmert, p. 78). The little horn which outrooted three existing ones and entered into their place, makes, with the remaining seven, eight; but eight is seven augmented. It is therefore the beast itself in its highest power, and ripe for judgment, just as the beast which was and is not mounts up as the eighth ruler, to be destroyed, after a short period of action, by the judgment.
But while we attach a symbolical import to the numbers, we do not, however, wish to dispute that their numerical worth may not also be realized in the fulfilment. As the comparison of Daniel 7 with 8 beyond doubt shows that the second and third kingdoms which the prophet saw have historically realized themselves in the succession of the Medo-Persian and Grecian kingdoms after the Babylonian; as, moreover, in the prophet delineation of the fourth world-kingdom the character of the Roman world-power is not to be mistaken; finally, as in the Apocalypse the first six heads of the beast are referred to the world-powers that have hitherto appeared in history: so may also the prophecy of the seven heads and of the ten horns of the beast (in Daniel. and the Apoc.) perhaps yet so fulfil itself in the future, that the antichristian world-power may reach its completion in ten rulers who receive power as kings one hour with the beast, i.e., as companions and helpers of Antichrist, carry on war for a while against the Lord and His saints, till at the appearance of the Lord to judgment they shall be destroyed, together with the beast and the dragon.
How indeed this part of the prophecy, relating to the last unfolding of the ungodly and antichristian world-power, shall fulfil itself, whether merely according to the symbolical meaning of the numbers, or finally also actually, the day will first make clear. Daniel 7:1