01.13. Footnotes

Footnotes [1]--I am here using the term in the ordinary sense, not in that which will be explained in the sequel.

[2]--It is exceedingly interesting to me to find that a distinguished critic belonging to a very different school (Professor Nöldeke) has similarly expressed his objection to the new arrangement of the Pentateuch, proposed by Wellhausen. He denies any ‘development along a straight line.’ (‘In der gesetzlichen Litteratur ist keine geradlinige Entwickelung zu erkennen.’) Comp. Herzog, Real-Encykl., 2nd edition, vol. xi. p. 444.

[3]--Sanh 97a.

[4]--On Song of Solomon 2:14

[5]--The Old Testament, in contradistinction to the Apocrypha, are a series of spurious writings mostly professing to be derived from Old Testament personages or else dealing with Old Testament events, but all of them Apocalyptic, though in varying measure, and bearing distinctly, though in different degree, on the Messianic Kingdom. For their fuller characterisation and enumeration, see Lecture X.

[6]--Jos. Ant. xiv.3. 2; comp. xiv.5. 4; War, ii.6. 2.

[7]--The Pentateuch question is discussed in subsequent Lectures.

[8]--Otho, Lex..Rabb., p. 173.

[9]--This Lecture was delivered on the first Sunday in Advent, 1880.

[10]--In Antiq. xviii.3.3.

[11]--Ant. iv.6.5.

[12]--Ant. x.10.4.

[13]--For a full discussion of the Messianic allusions in the writings of Josephus, I take leave to refer to my article on ‘Josephus’ in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iii. p. 458.

[14]--In. the popular use of the term ‘purpose,’ it is only less objectionable than the words ‘plan’ and ‘scheme’ which are so often applied by theologians to the Divine Being. In our A. V. the word ‘purpose’ occurs ha reference to God both in the Old and the New Testament. In the former it occurs only in Isaiah and Jeremiah (Numbers 14:34, margin, is a wrong rendering), The equivalents for it in Isaiah are יעצ to counsel, or take counsel, and יצרto form — in this aspect: to form ideally, to predestine, of which usus Isaiah 22:11; Isaiah 37:26; Isaiah 43:7; Isaiah 46:11, are instances. In Jeremiah the word used is חשב to think, with the solitary exception of Jeremiah 4:28, where it is זמםwhich has more the’ meaning of meditating. In the New Testament it only occurs in the Pauline writings, where it uniformly stands for πρόθεσις (or its verb) in the sense of placing before one’s self. It seems to me best explained by the expression εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο in Romans 9:17. But neither in the Old nor the New Testament does it mean what we call ‘purpose.’

[15]--Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, p. 376.

[16]--The chief exceptions are when not a general sketch of, but a special feature in the great prophetic future is set before us (such as Micah 5:1, in the A.V. Micah 5:2, or certain parts of Psalms 22:1-31.) In such cases we would naturally expect absolute literality. [17]--Subject, of course, to the exception mentioned in the previous note. [18]--So — it may be said, without enumerating them — by all writers. But, as instances, Oehler (Theologie d. A. Test.) may be mentioned as an instance on the one side, and Anger (Vorles. ii d. Gesch. d. Mess. ldee), on the other side.

[19]--Annal. iii.18, iv.1, xvi.16.; Hist. iii.72.

[20]--De finibus bon. V. 24, 69. Comp. Döllinger’s Heidenth, u. Judah. p. 732, and, generally, the admirable section pp. 728-734.

[21]--The rendering of this passage seems sufficiently established. See Note at the end of this Lecture.

[22]-- Genesis 12:3; Genesis 18:18; Genesis 22:18. This relation of Abraham to the world at large seems, as Dr. Bacher rightly infers, implied in the Talmudic statement (Baba B, p. 91a), that at the death of Abraham all the great ones of the world stood as mourners, and exclaimed: ‘Woe to the world which has lost its guide; woe to the ship which has lost its helmsman’ (Bacher, The Agada d. Bab. Amoræer, p. 13).

[23]--Keim, Jesu von Nazara, ii. pp. 35, 36.

[24]--See Lectures VII. and VIII. and Appendix II.

[25]--For some instances of this, see Lecture VIII.

[26]--In his various writings, especially in the Geschichte Israel’s, and in the article ‘Israel’ in vol. xiii. of the present edition of the Encyclop.

[27]--On these points see the recent very interesting tractate by König, Die Hauptprobleme d. altier, Religionsgesch.

[28]--Kuenen, u. s., p. 568.

[29]--Kuenen, u. s., pp. 587, 588.

[30]--Kuenen, u. s. pp. 589, 590.

[31]--The words are those of Schultz, but adopted by Kuenen, u. s., p. 540.

[32]--U. s., p. 543.

[33]--Pp. 34, 35.

[34]--Perhaps I may be allowed to say that this is a task which I have in view, in another book.

[35]--See especially the second and third ‘Conference,’ and notably pp. 134, etc. I may be allowed here to quote a sentence from a well-known Jewish writer which seems to me apposite: ‘It is certainly no exaggeration if I say that from one aspect I prefer the orthodox representation of the origines of Christianity to that of Renan’ (Joël, Bl. in el. Relig.-Gesch. ii. p. 9). He then proceeds to show the serf- contradictory character of some of Renan’s views.

[36]--Comp. Wittichen, Leben Jesu, p. 47.

[37]--The argument is in no way affected by the undoubted existence of religious interpolations in early writings, and the introduction of spurious ones, or other ‘pious frauds.’ For neither was this done by Apostolic men, nor yet did they set forth foundation-facts or truths which were universally and unquestioningly received, nor yet were their authors prepared to stake their lives on the veracity of their accounts. But the main element is the moral — that Spirit of Truth sent by the Father into the hearts of the Apostles to lead them into all truth.

[38]--According to Wittichen (u. s., p. 14) these are, Romans (with the exception of the greater part of the two last chapters), Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, parts of Colossians and of 2 Timothy, Philemon, and Philippians.

[39]--I have taken (and re-arranged) these references from Wittichen (n. s., p. 50), whom, in general, I have followed in his argument, and that the more readily because he represents the very extreme of negative criticism. I have thus sought to support my argument on grounds taken from our most pronounced opponents, and based it on their admissions.

[40]--Holtzmann, Kritik d. Eph. u. Col. brief, pp. 248-250. Most of the instances there mentioned are certainly very striking, although a few seem strained.

[41]--These references to the Sermon on the Mount are peculiarly interesting.

[42]--Wittichen, u. s. p. 54. For other instances, see Canon Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 174, Note 2. In general comp. ib. pp. 173-179.

[43]--Wittichen, u. s.

[44]--Wittichen, p. 47.

[45]--I refer here especially to the detailed compilation which Wittichen has made, while at the same time I would use the strongest expressions in my power to indicate my absolute disagreement with the conclusion at which this critic has arrived.

[46]--Shabb. 116a. The quotation appears in a curious connection: — A Christian philosopher (judge) under the influence of bribery first arguing ‘since your dispersion from your land the Law of Moses has been taken away and another law given,’ and then next day, having received a larger bribe on the other side, reversing his decision and saying that in the passage at the end of

[following in] the book (the Gospel) he saw it was written, ‘I have come not to diminish from the Law of Moses, nor yet have I come to add to the Law of Moses.’ Professor Delitzsch, Anlag.. d. ersten Evang. p. 22, seems to adopt the reading אלא לאוספיinstead of ולא, which would alter the meaning to ‘but to add to the Law of Moses have I come..

[47]--See, in general, the brochure of Professor Delitzsch just quoted, which has much of interest on these points.

[48]--I must here refer the reader to the quotations and the discussion of the point in my Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. ii. pp. 193, 194.

[49]--I refer here to Joël, Blicke in d. Relig. Gesch. i. and ii., but especially to Friedländer, Patrist. u. Talmud. Stud., whose reasoning I have tried to follow. I may here be allowed specially to refer to a statement by Joël, u. s. p. 58, of some interest as regards the criticism of the Synoptic Gospels, although tinged with that spirit of hypercriticism which characterises so many writers of that school. Joël maintains that the Talmud derived its knowledge of the origines of Christianity from such parts of Evangelic tradition as had reached it, and from what had been witnessed in the second century. He regards Sanh. xi.4, and Tos. Sanh. xi.7, which enacted that one who had incited to apostacy was to be brought before the great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, kept there till one of the great feasts, and executed on the Feast-day, as an ex post facto Halachah, due to this that Rabbi Akiba had known from the synoptic tradition that Christ had been crucified on the Passover Day, and that he had wished to give the Law for it. This seems to me very doubtful (comp. Siphré on Deuteronomy 21:22). Still more so is the explanation that — what he regards as a younger Mishnah — Sanh iv.1, which orders that a process involving life or death was not to be begun on the eve of a Sabbath or of a feast day, was brought in, because the fourth Gospel places (according to Joël) the death of Christ on the day before the feast. This is quite too ingenious — besides being wholly unsupported. But even if the theory of the origin of those Mishnahs were correct, Sanh. iv. 1 might as readily be ascribed to the desire of controverting the Evangelical tradition about the death of Christ-as to any regard for the supposed chronology of the fourth Gospel.

[50]--Friedländer, u. s. p. 78.

[51]--Friedländer, u. s. pp. 62, 67, 68.

[52]--So even Tryphon in Justin’s Dial., c. 88.

[53]--Ab. Z. 27b.

[54]--Shabb. 116a.

[55]--Abh. Z. 28a.

[56]--Qohel. R. ed. Warsh, p. 80a.

[57]--Comp. on this point also Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. ii. p. 194.

[58]--Chag. 5b.

[59]--u. s. pp. 193, 194.

[60]--Ab. Z. 16b. The words of Eliezer which gave rise to the misunderstanding have been differently rendered by Jewish scholars. Comp. Toettermann, Eliez. b. Hirc. p. 21.

[61]--See the account in my Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. ii. pp. 193, 194.

[62]--Ber. R. 8, ed. Warsh. p. 18a; Comp. Sanh. 88b.

[63]--It seems, in fact, to have been a Scriptural discussion of the Plurality of Persons in the Divine Being.

[64]--The whole of this subject is very ably discussed by Toettermann.

[65]--Ab. Z. 4a. This inference is, of course, my own. In the Talmud Abbahu is represented as giving by a parabolic illustration a satisfactory explanation of the verse.

[66]--Friedländer, u. s., p. 77.

[67]--Comp. Shabb. 116a.

[68]--Comp. Abh. Z. 27b, Midr. on Eccl. i.9.

[69]--In general, see the collation of passages giving his history in the Seder Haddoroth, ed. Warsh. 1878; part ii. p. 93a, col. b.

[70]--Midr. on Ecclesiastes 1:9. And yet Ber. 63 a shows that he was not in good relations with Palestine, while the conjunction of his name in that passage with those of Abbahu and Saphra may have a peculiar meaning.

[71]--Ber. 28a.

[72]--Comp. Freudenthal, p. 78, and especially p. 141, note 11.

[73]--Ber. 29a, 33b, 34a.

[74]--Ber. 28b, 29a. In connection with this there is a curious and enigmatic story about the author of this formula having forgotten it next year, and requiring several hours to recall it. The context also is somewhat mysterious, and almost seems to point to hesitation about the whole matter. The remarks of Joël on the subject (ii. 93, 94) are not quite satisfactory.

[75]--See here Delitzsch, u. s. pp. 19, 90; Fürst, Kultur u. lit. Gesch. p. 235, note 741; Dukes, Rabb. Blumenlese, p. 163; Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. vols. i. and iii. sub voc.: and especially the Aruch, ed. Kohut, vol. ii. pp. 45-47. Joël, u.s. ii. pp. 91, 92, strongly maintains that the Be Abhidan referred simply and exclusively to Ebionite meetings. On the occasion he makes an interesting sad not unlikely suggestion as to the origin of the name Minim (heretics) for Christians. He supposes that the original designation for those Jews who believed in Jesus was Maaminim, which he regards as equivalent to πιστοί, and that, when the hostility towards the Christians began, the first part of the word was dropped, and the Christians were called Minim, which would mean the adherents of a falsehood.

[76]--This is not the place to speculates to the words from which these puns may have been derived. No doubt they were intended as opprobrious designations.

[77]--In Baba K. 117a, R. Huna is said to have arrived לבי אביזני.

[78]--In the Targum בידיןstands for τύθων. But as in one of the three Talmudic passages in which Be Abhidan is mentioned (Shabb. 153a; the other two are Shabb. 116a, Abh. Z. 17b), the Emperor (Hadrian) is said to have questioned R. Joshua why he did not attend those discussions, the inference seems suggested that general religious disputations may also have been held in those places. For the reason stated by Levy (vol. i. p. 9b, it seems impossible to suppose that Parsee doctrines were there discussed.

[79]--Shabb. 116a.

[80]--On the life, writings, and testimony of Josephus I must take leave to refer to my article in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Biography, vol. iii pp. 441-460.

[81]--Ant. xviii.5. 2.

[82]--Ant. xx.9. 1.

[83]--Ant. xviii.3. 8.

[84]--This is substantially the conclusion of most modern critics, such as Ewald, Renan, Joël. The latter (u. s. ii. p. 52) says, not without presumptive good reason, that the writings of Josephus may originally have contained more than our present copies. But he goes beyond the bounds of the likely when he suggests extensive falsifications, especially in regard to the Pharisees.

[85]--Even Wittichen, Leben Jesu, p. 4, declares it, ‘without doubt authentic;’ so also Dr. Mill in his classical work on the Myth. Interpret. of the Gospels, p. 289, note 36, and Lardner, in his Co//. of Jewish and Heathen Testim. (Works, vol. vii. pp. 113-119). In general, the remarks of Dr. Mill on those passages in Josephus (u. s. pp. 289-292), and the whole chapter in Lardner’s great work (pp. 113-137, ed. 1788) should he carefully considered by students.

[86]--The passage in Josephus concerning the Baptist reads as follows: — But to some of the Jews it appeared that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and, indeed, as a just punishment on account of what had been done to John, who was surnamed the Baptist. For Herod ordered him to be killed, who was a good man and had called upon the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. For so would the baptising be acceptable to Him if they made use of it, not for the putting away (remission, expiation) of some sins, but for the purification of the body after the soul had been previously cleansed by righteousness.

[87]--Comp. Schürer, Neutest. Zeitgesch. pp. 238, 239.

[88]--The evidential value of the statements of Tacitus (Ann. xv.44) has been very moderately set forth by Wittichen (comp. Lardner, u. s. pp. 253-255). They attest the origin of Christianity in Judæa by Christ; the crucifixion of Christ by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; the revival of the movement which seemed suppressed; its transplantation to Rome, its separation from the Synagogue; and its opposition to heathenism.

[Wittichen accentuates, although on insufficient grounds, that the Christians are charged not with scelera, or crimes, but with flagitia.] On the epistle of Pliny comp. Lardner, u. s. pp. 287-318. The Latin text is given at the end of this Lecture. Joël (Blicke in d. Relig. Gesch. ii passim, but especially Sect. v.) has, in my view, without sufficient reason, denied the existence of a sharply- defined distinction between the Synagogue and the Church at the time of Nero.

[89]--The supposed silence of Josephus can, therefore, not be of any evidential force against Christianity.

[90]--See here Lardner, u. a, p. 308.

[91]--Plinii, lib. x. epist. 96

[al. 97].

[92]--In revising this Lecture for publication I found that some parts of the argument had been more fully set forth in a Sermon preached before the University of Oxford. As the latter has not been published, and the two Lectures treat, in some parts .of them, of substantially the same subject, I have thought it best to incorporate in this such portions of my University Lecture as more fully expound the views which I wished to present. At the same time, in now elaborating an argument which had been indicated in a former Lecture, it was impossible to avoid occasional repetition of what had been previously stated.

[93]--Thus G. Baur in his very thoughtful Geschichte d. Messianischen Weissagungen — a book which contains the substance of much that a very large proportion of a certain class of critics have since had to say — only in more moderate language than theirs.

[94]--Nidd. 49a.

[95]--The use of the word in 1 Chronicles 25:1-8 deserves special consideration as implying a wider and more general application.

[96]--I am here only treating of one aspect of the question; but, as it seems to me, the most important.

[97]--An explanation may be allowed as to the difference as regards fulness of treatment between some of these Lectures and others which follow. In the more detailed Lectures I had to proceed upon lines that were new, setting forth views derived from fresh study of the great subject. These required therefore to be fully explained and vindicated. In the other Lectures I travelled, perhaps necessarily, along lines which, more or less, others had followed. Hence the treatment could be more concise. And, indeed, a fuller discussion of all the subjects referred to would have necessitated a treatment quite beyond the plan and scope of this course of Lectures. For a similar reason I have made large use of the works of the ablest writers on the various branches of the subject, such as Oehler (Theol. d. A. Test. 2 vols.); König (d. Offenb. Begr. d. A. Test.), and his last very able book, d. Hauptquellen d. Isr. Relig.-Gesch., without, however, adopting his views on the Pentateuch; Küper (Prophetenthum. d A. Bandes); Riehm (d. Mess. Weissag.); Köhler (Prophet d. Hebr. u. d. Mantik d. alten Griechen); and, besides others which will be incidentally mentioned, Bredenkamp (Gesetz u. Propheten). To the latter I am specially indebted in this and the following Lecture. This general acknowledgment must suffice instead of burdening the pages with references.

[98]--It is, therefore, only in a modified sense that I can adopt the saying of Rückert, that all prophecy moves around these three words — guilt, judgment, redemption. It touches the human at these three points because there the moral in man, consciously or unconsciously, stretches forth its hands towards God.

[99]--Compare here generally the very thoughtful essay by Dr. K. Köhler, d. Prophet, d. Hebr. u. d. Mantik el. alten Griechen.

[100]--Compare the article ‘Prophet’ by Kleinert in Riehm’s Handwörterb. d. Bibl. Alt. vol. ii. pp. 1230, &c.

[101]--It should be explained that this Lecture was written and delivered when the so- called Anti-Semitic movement was at its height (Feb. 1882), and a thrill of horror passed through us all, as day by day we read of those deeds of cruelty and bloodshed inflicted upon innocent, suffering Israel. No language could be too strong to express abhorrence of such a movement. The passage is retained in this book not only as a standing protest, but because an agitation, which is equally the humiliation of the Church and a foul blot on the civilisation of this century, has not yet passed away, and even finds encouragement where other than might have been expected.

[102]--On what follows, see specially Bredenkamp. u. s

[103]--Romans 2:28-29. We may here note as an illustrative passage per contra, Ber. R. 48, where Abraham is said to be seated at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent those of Israel who were circumcised falling into its flames. But, as regards grievous sinners in Israel, he puts upon them the foreskins of such children as have died before they could be circumcised, and then casts them into Gehenna.

[104]--Fairly interpreted they only convey that in the alternative between obedience and the mere opus operatum of sacrifices, the former is the more important; but they do not imply any depreciation of sacrifices such as some critics contend for. The critical exaggeration in this case resembles that in regard to the Pauline teaching about the Law.

[105]--In the historic part of this outline I have largely availed myself of the contributions of Professor Strack in Zückler’s Handb. d. Theol. Wissenech. vol. i., and in the article ‘Pentateuch’ in vol. xi. of the 2nd ed. of Herzog’s Real- Encyklop., as well as of other works — especially the various Introductions to the Old Testament, and Reuss, Gesch. d. h. Sehr. d. A. T. (passim — for the history, pp. 71 &c., 452 &c., 475 &c.).

[106]--In that number the following may be reckoned: Isaac Israeli (in the tenth century); Luther, in his Table-Talk, implies, if not the possibility of doubt, yet the unimportance of the question of Mosaic authorship (Diestel, Gesch. d. A. Test. p. 250); Karlstadt (unfavourably known in Luther-history; de canon. Ser. S. libris, 1520); A. Masius (ob. R. C.), Comm. on Josh. in Crit. S. vol. i. (died 1573); Hobbes, Leviathan (1651); La Peyrère, Syst. Theol. ex Præadam. hyp. (1655); Spinoza, Tract. Theol.-pol. (1670); R. Simon, Hist. Crit. du V. Test. (1678) — the two latter remarkable works, specially that of Simon (comp. Diestel, u. s, pp. 352 &c., 357, 540, 541); Le Clerc (Clericus, 1657-1736), Sentim. de quelques Theol. de Holl., and then specially in the Diss. de Script. Pent.; Vitringa (1659- 1722), Observ. S. lib. i.; Floury, Mæurs des Isr., 1760; and Le François Preuves de la Relig. Chrét. i. 2.

[107]--A very full analysis of the work is given by Böhmer (article ‘Astruc’ in Herzog’s Real-Encykl. (2nd ed., vol. i.).

[108]--These letters do not, however, mark their respective dates and succession.

[109]--Jerusalem, Briefe ii. d. Mos. Schr., 1762.

[110]--However we may differ from his views, Eichhorn was one of the most learned and brilliant, and happily also one of the most successful theological writers of Germany. He became Professor at Jena in 1775, when only twenty-three years of age; he lectured twenty-four hours (and more) every week — -even at the close of his life, eighteen hours a week; treated of and wrote on a great variety of historical subjects not connected with theology, and died in 1827 at the age of seventy-five. His investigations are thorough, lucid, and able. He may not only be designated the father of modern German criticism, but his investigations have been of such permanent influence that, until the latest development of Pentateuch- criticism, the remark of Diestel (u. s. p. 610) held true that, apart from questions about authorship and date, criticism has not since advanced any really new element. And, however we may dispute some of his conclusions, or differ from the direction which criticism has since taken, we cannot but agree with Bertheau (Herzog’s Real-Encykl. iv. p. 115) that Eichhorn’s main object was apologetic, in de fence — as he conceived it — of the Bible against the Deists and Materialists of his time. This, indeed, impresses itself on my own mind in almost every part of his ‘Introduction,’ and he has even anticipated and answered objections which E. Reuss (u.s.) has lately restated and urged as if they had never been met.

[111]--The edition from which I quote is the fourth (1823, 1824).

[112]--Eichhorn, vol. iii 91.

[113]--This is vindicated in detail, pp. 110-135.

[114]--Specially Leviticus 1:1. to 2:34.

[115]--Urkunden d. Jerus. Tempel-Arch., 1798.

[116]--Die Quellen d. Gen., 1853.

[117]--Beitr. z. Einl. in d. A. Test., 1806.

[118]--First in Rosenmüller’s Bibl. Repertor. 1822.

[119]--Comm. z. Pent., 1802-1805.

[120]--Hist. Krit. Forsch, 1810.

[121]--Comm. ii. d. Gin ., 1838.

[122]--Kanaan, 1844.

[123]--Comm. ii. d. Gen.

[124]--Comp. Diestel, u. s. pp. 616-618; and Strack, .Real-Encyk. xi.. p. 442.

[125]--Such as the Decalogue, the Book of the Covenant: Exodus 20:22-26, Exodus 23:1., the principal part of Exodus 15:1-27, and other pieces.

[126]--The former in the Real-Encykl., the latter in Zöckler’s Handbuch.

[127]--See the points of agreement and disagreement in Zöckler (u. s.), pp. 135-138.

[128]--Die Bibl. Theol.

[129]--Die Aelter. Jüd. Feste — both works in 1855.

[130]--Judges, Samuel, and partly Kings.

[131]--See Reuss, Gesch. d. h. Schr. pp. 87, 92, 231, 249-254. The details do not care to reproduce.

[132]--Die Gesch. Bücher d. A. T., 1866.

[133]--Das Vorexil. B. d. Urgesch. Isr., 1874.

[134]--Gesch. Israel’s, Berlin, 1878.

[135]--Vol. xiii. pp. 396, &c.

[136]--442 pages.

[137]--To these two works must now be added the Prolegomena zur Gesch. Isr. (1883), which is only a second edition, with quite unimportant changes, of the ‘History,’ and with a new Preface, the tone of which, irrespective of theological opinions, even the most ardent admirers of Wellhausen must deplore; and, lastly, the book called Skizzen und Vorarbeiten (1884), of which the first fasciculus is devoted to an abstract of Israelitish history. This is, in reality, a slightly altered form of the article in the Encycl. Brit. But a curious literary question arises in connection with it. While the article in the Encycl. is apparently a translation of the German original now given, there are, as I have found on comparison of some parts, modifications in the wording, some of them slight, but all producing a decidedly softening effect as regards the argument in its English garb. To one important alteration I will here call attention. In the Encycl. Brit., p. 398b, we read of the Ark of the Covenant, ‘It was a standard [the italics are always ours] adapted primarily to the requirements of a wandering and warlike life; brought back from the field, it became a symbol of Jehovah’s presence, the central seat of His worship.’ In the Skizzen u. Vorarb., however, the passage reads thus: ‘It [the Ark] was an idol, which was primarily intended [berechnet] for a wandering and camp-life; brought back from the field, it still remained, as token of the presence of Jehovah, the central point of His worship.’ Is the difference between the two passages due to a later modification or to a fuller expression of his views by Wellhausen? The difference between them is, at least, sufficiently marked and important.

[138]--Gesch., p. 309.

[139]--Note that ‘the original document,’ or ‘the first Elohist,’ is Wellhausen’s Priest- Code; the ‘second Elohist’ is his E, while the Jahvist (not Jehovist, who is JE) is J.

[140]--Encycl. Brit. xiii. pp. 418 b, 419 a; Gesch. pp. 423-425.

[141]--Nehemiah 13:28; Jos. Ant. xi. 7. 8.

[142]--Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1831, p. 604.

[143]--I am quite aware that the earlier historical books are only supposed to have been recast Deuteronomistically, i.e. in the spirit of Deuteronomy, while Chronicles is said to have been done in that of the Priest-0ode. But Wellhausen himself says, in regard to Judges, Samuel, and Kings, that in them ‘the fact of a radical difference between the ancient practice and the

[Deuteronomic] Law as a whole is not denied, although in some instances the past is recast (umgedichet) in conformity with the ideal,’ so that the existence of the contrast side by side is admitted. Besides, it seems to me impossible to believe that those who were influential enough to manufacture and introduce the Priest-Code and Chronicles — not to speak of so much else — would have been unable to remove from the other historical books what was grossly inconsistent with the assertions on which their whole system was based. And Wellhausen himself admits a reference to the Priest-Code in the account of the Temple (1Ki 6:-8.), which, for reasons which do not clearly appear, he declares to be full of corrections and interpolations, and from which in 1 Kings 8:64 and 2 Kings 16:14-15, the notice of Solomon’s altar of brass had been removed, ‘in order to avoid collision with the altar of brass [earth?] of Moses (p. 294). Similarly 1 Samuel 2:22 is a Priest- Code.interpolation, because it speaks of the ‘tabernacle,’ which, according to Wellhausen, never existed, and was only an invention of the Priest-Code. The notices 1Sa 4:-6, are even represented to be inconsistent with the existence of the Tabernacle, while the reference in 1 Kings 8:4 is manipulated in a particular manner (pp. 43-46). Such notices as, for example, Joshua 9:27 are declared ‘anachronisms.’

[144]--It is even more difficult to believe that a twofold account, grossly inconsistent with each other, should have been placed side by side in the historical books. Such, however, Wellhausen finds in the Song of Deborah as compared with the preceding historical account of the event, and in the narrative about Gideon closing Joshua 8:1-3 as compared with that which he supposes to open with Joshua 8:4. I venture to assert that unprejudiced readers will not discover any such inconsistencies between the supposed twofold narratives as the hyper-ingenuity of Wellhausen has discovered. Naturally, it will be otherwise if the narratives are approached with Wellhausen’s theory on the wind.

[145]--Wellhausen, Gesch. p. 309.

[146]--See page 212 and the notes.

[147]--See the notes above referred to. Many instances of critical violence might here be quoted. Thus it is difficult to understand how Exodus 20:24 can be quoted in proof that there was no central place of sacrifice, but that these might be offered in any place, or to accept this explanation of the expressly limiting words, ‘in all places where I record My Name’: ‘This means no more than that people did not like it to appear that the place where the intercession between heaven and earth took place had been arbitrarily chosen, but regarded it as somehow (irgendwie ) selected by the Deity itself for its service’ (Gesch. p. 81). Similarly — to mention only one other instances — it seems difficult to discover in Neh 8:-10, any warrant for the statement that the Pentateuch had been unknown till then, and was now for the first time published and introduced. There are many other similar instances of critical violence, but these cannot be examined in detail in this book.

[148]--Comp. Strack in the Real-.Encykl. p. 458, and the authorities there referred to.

[149]--Comp. Hoffmann, Mag. für d. Wissensch. d. Judenth ., 1879, pp. 210-215. The remarkable series of articles of which this forms part, and the special relation between Ezekiel and the Priest-Code, will be referred to in the next Lecture.

[150]--Among these Strack mentions the Urim and Thummim (Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8; Numbers 27:21 as comp. with Ezra 2:68; Nehemiah 7:65); the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8, &c.); Levite cities (Numbers 35:1, &c.); and the law concerning spoil (Numbers 31:26, &c.); while Bredenkamp (u. s. p. 186) points out this inconsistency in Wellhausen’s theory, that the ‘Priest- Code’ orders only the functions of the Levites during the wanderings in the wilderness, but makes no reference to such when settled in the land of Palestine.

[151]--Among these Strack mentions: the friendly reference to Egypt, Deuteronomy 23:8, as compared with the later views in Isaiah 30:1, &c.; 31:1; Jeremiah 2:18; Jeremiah 2:36; the friendly reference to Edom in Deuteronomy 23:8; and the hostile reference to Moab and Ammon in Deuteronomy 23:4-5 as compared with the opposite in Jeremiah 49:17-18; Jeremiah 48:47; Jeremiah 49:6; and as regards Edom, also Joel 4:19; Obad.; and Isaiah 63:1-6. Similarly, he points to the ordinances, Deuteronomy 24:16-18; Deuteronomy 25:17-19; Deuteronomy 20:10-15; Deuteronomy 20:19-20, as unsuited to the time of Josiah, and hence incompatible with the idea of their invention at that period.

[152]--In the preface to his Prolegomena (page v.) Wellhausen gives a peculiar reply to the charge that he ‘first arranges for himself the basis on which he proceeds, by an arbitrary treatment of the text from which he quotes, in which he introduces alterations according to his pleasure.’ To this he answers: ‘I decide à potiori, and then seek to estimate in accordance with it every such instance.’ But this answer only involves another vicious begging of the question, and aggravates instead of removing the charge brought against him. Indeed, it seems a strange process to found charges against the Pentateuch upon certain notices in the historical books, and then to brand as spurious other notices which run counter to his theory. Why are these not the potius, or, at least equally ‘berechtigt’ (warranted) as the others; and may there not be a higher conciliation of what at first sight seems inconsistent, without resorting to the declaration that one or the other must be spurious?

[153]--Gesch. p. 299.

[154]--P. 308, note 2.

[155]--I cannot help expressing how painfully such language affects one as this in the same note, which I prefer to give in the original: ‘Die realistische Vergröberung des prophetischen Einflusses tritt am plumpsten in der Legende, 2 Reg. i. auf, wo Elias zu einem übermenschlichen Popanz entstellt ist.’ The reader will now understand what I meant by the difference between the language held in the Encycl. Brit. and in the Geschichte .

[156]--For particulars about these revisions, and about the Canon generally, see Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. ii. pp. 684-690.

[157]--Skizzen u. Vorarb. zu d. Bibel, 1884, p. 11.

[158]--See the Introduction to König’s Hauptprobl. d. altisrael Relig.-Gesch., 1884.

[159]--This, indeed, is the exact title of the little book referred to in the previous note, in which these questions are very ably treated, although I must guard myself against being understood as accepting all the concessions which the learned writer makes.

[160]--In his principal works, De Godsdienst van Israël, 1869. See König, u. s.

[161]--Daumer, 1842.

[162]--Ghillany, 1842.

[163]--Noack, 1853.

[164]--Goldziher, 1876.

[165]--Docy, 1864.

[166]--Gesch. d. Folk. Isr., 1881, pp. 5, 113, 114, 128.

[167]--Thus, for example, Kuenen controverts the Canaanitish derivation of the name Jehovah, but he denies the Mosaic origin of the prohibition of image-worship.

[168]--In the Abhandl. el. Königl. Gesellsch. el. Wissensch. zu Göttingen, vol. xxvi. (1880), Erklärung hebr. Wörter, pp. 20 &c.

[169]--Comp. 1 Samuel 6:15; 2 Samuel 15:24. By the side of this we may place the hypothesis of Maybaum (Entwickwl. d. altier. Priesterth p. 11) as to the origin of the later ‘legend’ about the descent of the priesthood from one tribe, traced up to one ancestor. The explanation is, that groups of families had gathered around the great religious centres in the land. In these families the priesthood became hereditary. We are asked to trace this in the family of Kohath. We know that Hebron was a priest-city; but, according to Exodus 6:18, Hebron was also a son of Kohath. Here is the origin of the Kohathites. As for the Gershonites, according to Exodus 6:16, Gershon was a son of Levi; but, according to Judges 18:30, Gershon, the son of Moses [so, after the better reading], was the father of that Jonathan who founded a priest-family in Dan. Thus, we are assured, the son of Moses was turned into a son of Levi, in order to trace back all the Levitas to three family groups! And this is serious criticism! According to Wellhausen, the ancient tribe of Levi, and also its territory, disappear in the time of the Judges, but the ancient name was somehow taken up again by a priestly caste which originated several centuries later (comp. Hoffmaun, Mag. für d. Wissesch d. Jud. 1880, p. 156).

[170]--Gesch. pp. 298, 299.

[171]--The Lecture was delivered on an Advent-Sunday, and the reference to it is retained to explain the special expressions employed.

[172]--I might not, in principle, shrink from even such a word as ‘interpolations’ — if I had only space and time to define what may be meant by that term, with what important explanations and limitations it may be applicable, and to what portions in the Old Testament it might be referred. In general I must here remind the reader, that I am not definitely stating my views of the composition of the Pentateuch, which, even considering the space at my command, could not be done, but only marking the delimitations of my standpoint.

[173]--This so far as regards the kernel of the Mosaic legislation, is energetically maintained also by König (Offenbar. Begr. d. A. Test, vol. ii. p. 333), although that writer is an adherent of the Wellhausen theory, so far as it applies to the date of the Priest-Codex. König insists on the supernatural revelation of God to Moses, on the miraculous exodus from Egypt, and on the reality of the Covenant made by God with Israel on Sinai. All this, as well as that the Prophets reflected upon a preceding common basis, as against Kuenen, Stade, and others (u. s pp. 334-336).

[174]--Comp. Amos 5:25. See here D. Hoffmann in the Magaz. für d. Wissensch. d. Judenth. (Jahrg. vi, 1879, pp. 7 &c.). The two occasions, Exodus 17;15 and 24:4, were special and exceptional, and before the setting up of the Tabernacle. Similarly, we have the sacrifices of Jethro (Exodus 18:12), in the feast of which Moses, Aaron, and the elders took part. But all these instances bear evidence of their exceptional character. But the contention of Wellhausen (Gesch. pp. 58 &c.), that the polemics of Amos 5:22 &c., and of the other prophets, prove that they knew nothing of any Mosaic and Divine institution of sacrifices as the central part of worship, seems to me based on wrong reasoning. Their polemics are not against sacrifices, but against sacrifices brought as a meritorious.opus operatum by an impenitent and law-breaking people. It is against the externalisation, nay, the perversion of sacrifices, that they protest. If a Puritan inveighed, as has not unfrequently been done in Scotland, against the crowds that thronged the Communion Table, and against the pomp of solemnity by which its celebration was surrounded, it would not follow that the Holy Communion had not been regarded as of New Testament institution.

[175]--Really = Ohel hivvaed (Pappenheim), misleadingly rendered in the A. V. ‘tabernacle of the congregation.’

[176]--Exodus 20:24. I accept the common reading, azkir.; not that proposed, tazkir. The Rabbis regard the passage as prohibiting the use of the name Jehovah, outside the Temple (Mekhilta, ed. Weiss. p. 80b).

[177]--Comp., for example, Deuteronomy 12:1-32.

[178]--According to the Talmud, sacrifices on heights and by the firstborn were only forbidden after the erection of the Tabernacle; the former was again allowed till they came to Shiloh, and once more, when the Tabernacle was at Nob and at Gibeon, but wholly prohibited when it came to Jerusalem (Zebhach. 112 b, about the middle).

[179]--Wellhausen’s date for Chronicles — three hundred years after the Exile — is manifestly impossible. Even if we regard Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah as originally one book, it could not be dated later than (with Dillmann) about 330. And the supposed final additions (after 440) to the Pentateuch would bring it close to that date.

[180]--That the great festivals were connected with the seasons of the year, had its deep symbolism, just as we connect Christmas with winter, Easter with the bursting forth of spring, and Trinity with the ripening of the rich harvest.

[181]--I cannot see any reference to the Feast of Tabernacles in 1 Sam. i. 20 (marg.). For the feast of the 15th of Ab, see The Temple and its Services, pp. 286, 287. The same dances are stated to have been held on the Day of Atonement.

[182]--On the historical character of this Passover-notice, comp. Bertheau, Bücher d. Chron. pp. 386-388; and Zöckler (ad loc.) in Lange’s Bibe/-Werk, vol. viii.

[183]--I ought here to state, that with reference to the harmony of the different parts of the Pentateuch — JE, PC, and D — in regard both to sacrifices and the .festivals, I must refer the reader to the full argumentation of D. Hoffmann in the Magaz. für d. Wissensch. d. Judenth . vol. vi., 1879, pp. 91-114. As I cannot here enter into details, I must content myself with the results of the discussion.

[184]--There are not a few instances of this; but I have here in my mind such contentions as about Genesis, certain parts of which First ascribed to pre-Mosaic times, Wellhausen to the exilian period.

[185]--See, for example, Dr. S. Maybaum, Entwickel. d. altisr. Priesterth. p. 2. But I must specially refer those interested in the question to the more exhaustive treatment of this point by Maybaum in the Zeitschr. für Völkerpsychol. u. Sprachwiss. (vol. xiv. 1883, Heft 3, pp. 193, &e.). I regret that want of space prevents my giving even the barest notion of his argument, which K6znig (Hauptprobl p. 16) has too lightly set aside in a single sentence

[186]--De Elohistæ Pentateuchici Sermone, 1878. Ryssel contends that, with the exception of traces in certain sections, belonging to the second period of the language (700-540 B.C.), all else ‘ad origines litterarum gentis Israeliticm referendas ease.’

[187]--F. Giesehrecht in the Zeitschr. für d. Alte Test., 1881,179.177-276.

[188]--I cannot but think that König has treated this subject too cursorily, .and that his support of the theory of Reuss on linguistic, as well as generally on other, grounds is not satisfactory nor convincing (see the argument in his work: Der Offenbarungsbegr. d. A. Test, 1882, pp. 322-332).

[189]--In the Journal of Philol. for 1882, ch. xi. pp. 201-936.

[190]--Stanley Leathes, Witness of the Old Testament to Christ, p, 282, &c.

[191]--How this contention can be made to agree with Wellhausen’s view that few, perhaps none, of the Psalms date from before the Exile, it is not for me to say.

[192]--The references to the Law, both in the historical books and in the prophets, are enumerated in App. II. at the end of this volume.

[193]--Ch. 40.-48.

[194]--I must here specially refer to Hoffmann in the Magaz. f. Wiss. d. Judenth., 1879, pp. 209, &c. His argument Strack states to have never been really met. In a previous article (u. s. pp. 90, &c.) Hoffmann discusses, among other things, the bearing of sayings in the other prophets and in Ezekiel upon the Priest-Code, 8o far as regards sacrifices and the festivals.

[195]--As a comparatively small number of readers may have access to Hoffmann’s Articles, I give, in Note 2 to this Lecture, Hoffmann’s complete list, adducing, however, only the passages, as any reader of the Hebrew Bible will be able to see the parallelisms for himself.

[196]--The list of these k also given in Note 2 to this Lecture.

[197]--See it in Strack, u. s.

[198]--The essential differences between this and the law of entail, under which property may indeed be mortgaged, but can never pass out of the possession of the head of a family into that of another owner, lie on the surface.

[199]--This must always be kept in view in regard to what are admitted to have been the earlier parts of the Pentateuch.

[200]--Wellhausen assigns even Exo 20:-23, to a period when the people were not only settled in the land, but had become a thoroughly agricultural nation. (See Strack, Real-.Encykl. p. 446.) [201]--For the later Rabbinic modifications of the ‘Priest-Code; see App. II.

[202]--Sheb. x.8, and the Jer. Talm.

[203]--Sheb. x.3, 4; Gitt, 36a.

[204]--Comp. 2 Chronicles 26:8, and the fact that David was of Moabitish descent.

[205]--Where the same verse is adduced several times, the reference is to different expressions in the same verse, which have to be compared with parallel expressions in Ezekiel, marked by the same number. I have compared the references, and corrected some mistakes in Hoffmann’s text, due, of course, only to slips or errors of the press. The convincing force of this argument will he felt on comparison of the passages, and is enhanced by the close contiguity of so many of the parallelisms in Ezekiel.

[206]--These are only mentioned as instances, and no attempt is here made to indicate the compass of the post-exilian Biblical prophetic writings.

[207]--For the same mason as that indicated in the previous note, only a general indication of the literature is given, without specifying the books, or parts of books, which I have in view.

[208]--I would here mention, not only the difference in tone of the Apocrypha, but their exclusion from the Canon, especially that of The Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, not to speak of the consensus of tradition.

[209]--For the names of these writers, the character of their works, and translations from them, I take leave to refer to my History of the Jewish Nation, pp. 370-372.

[210]--See this in Böhl, Forsch,, nach e. Volksbibel, pp. 82-84. But the whole of the section about the Septuagint is very interesting and deserves careful consideration.

[211]--Comp. especially Sir 48:18 with the LXX of Isaiah 37:8; also Sir 48:24 with Isaiah 40:1.

[212]-- 1Ma 4:46, 1Ma 9:27, 1Ma 14:41.

[213]--Ch. i.-iii.8. A very striking parallelism has been noted between Baruch and the Pseudepigraphic Psalter of Solomon.

[214]--See the full and clear analysis in the Introduction to Dr. Bissell’s Comment. an the Apocrypha, pp. 43-49.

[215]--Comp. here Sir 24:23-27; Sir 48:24; Sir 49:2, Sir 49:4, Sir 49:7, Sir 49:10; 1Ma 12:9; 2Ma 2:13; 2Ma 6:23; 1Es 1:28; 1Es 6:1; Bar 2:21.

[216]--The sneer of Nöldeke (Alttest. p. 105) on this point 8eema to me singularly unjust, as well as out of taste.

[217]--Comp. on this, Bissell, u.s.

[218]--Possibly, Sir 47:11; more probably, Sir 48:10-11; doubtfully, Bar 4:22.

[219]--As in Sir 36:1-10; Sir 39:23; Bar 4:25, Bar 4:31-35.

[220]--As in Sir 36:11-17; Bar 4:22-25, Bar 4:36-37; v.; comp. Tob 13:1-18; Tob 14:1-15. (passim).

[221]--Bissell, p. 48.

[222]-- 1Ma 1:4. So in all other Talmudic references to the question. See Bähr, Ges. ii. falseAe Zeugen, pp. 29 &c.

[223]--The ‘Daniel come to judgment’ of The Merchant of Venice is the Daniel of the Book of Susanna — that is, the Biblical Daniel, although at a very early, pre- biblical, period of his life.

[224]--Comp., for example, the form of the prayer in Sir 1:22-24, with that in the Syriac version, which evidently gives the Hebrew original. See Geiger, in the Zeitschr. d. deutsch, morgenl. Gesellsch. Vol. xii. pp. 536 &c.

[225]--Ecclesiasticus is often quoted in Talmudic writings; and 1 Maccabees , 3 Esdr., and the additions to Esther by Josephus.

[226]--The common quotation, ‘Magna est veritas, et prævalebit,’ is from 3 (I.) Esdr. iv.41.

[227]-- Tob 13:16-18.

[228]--Philo, De Execrationibus, par. 8, 9 (ed. Mangey, ii. 435, &c.).

[229]--De Præmiis et Pœnis (ed. Mangey, ii. 421-428.

[230]--I refer here only to such of the Pseudepigrapha as exist in a more or less complete form, not to those of which we have only fragment.;Comp. the literature of the subject — especially the edition of the Pseudepigrapha by O. F. Fritzsche, Lips. 1871; J. A. Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigr. Vet. Test., 2rid ed., 1722; Hilgenfeld, Messias Judæorum, Lips. 1869; and Drummond, The Jewish Messiah. For later Hebrew Pseudepigrapha — though not in the strict sense of the term — see Jellinek, Beth ha Midrash, 6 Parts, 1857-73. But, indeed, the literature of the subject is large, and, comparatively speaking, not always easy to master,

[231]--On this subject generally, I must refer to my book on The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, which I have naturally followed in this outline.

[232]--vv. 286, 287. Some have, however, referred this to Cyrus.

[233]--ver. 652.

[234]--vv. 652-807, passim.

[235]--cv.2.

[236]--xc.37.

[237]--xvii.5, 23-25, 32-35, 38, 47.

[238]--lvii., comp. xc. 33.

[239]--iii. 652-735.

[240]--iii. 766-783.

[241]--comp. xxxiii.

[242]--iii.795-806.

[243]--v.1-3; vi 18-28.

[244]--xxiii.

[245]--iii.633-652.

[246]--vv. 660-697.

[247]--xc.16-38, passim.

[248]--Supposed to be referred to in Deut. xxv.17-19.

[249]--Ant. iv. 8. 48.

[250]--De Hab. Mulieb. iii.

[251]--De Vita Mosis, iii.39.

[252]--Comp. 4 Esdr. xiv.18 &c.

[253]--The letters a and b indicate the first or the second half of a verse. Comp. for this analysis Jahrb. für Deutsche Theol., 1876; Strack, in Herzog’s Encykl., vol. xi. p. 457; and Hoffmann in the Magazin für d. Wissensch. d. Judenth., 1879, p. 4.

[254]--Leviticus 22:2-9; comp. Sanh. 81b.

[255]--Chol. 24a.

[256]--On the various Temple officials, see The Temple, its Ministry and Services.

[257]--Bikkur. i.3.

[258]--Chall. ii.5, 7; comp. Jos. Ant. ii.4.4.

[259]--Ter. iii.6; iv.3.

[260]--Zebhach. 56b.

[261]--Rosh ha-Sh.12b.

[262]--Chol. 27a; 32a.

[263]--Kerith. 6a; Jer. Yom. 41d.

[264]--Castelli (La Legge, pp. 90, 91) marks retrogression upon the Bible in the multiplication and aggravation of observances and commandments; and progression in the mitigation of the primitive civil and criminal code. In truth, it is neither the one nor the other — but evidence of the ancient date of the Pentateuch legislation, which was afterwards adapted both to new circumstances and new forms of thought.

[265]--By the side of this element there is that other of unceasing elaboration of the Law, with the view of preventing any possible breach of it, and, in fact, adding to its requirements, so as to ensure a perfect obedience of them.

[266]--For the criticism of the objections raised by Wellhausen from a comparative view of the contents of the Pentateuch, I can in this place only once more refer to the Articles of Hoffmann, previously mentioned.