9:1 Now in the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, on the thirteenth day of the same, when the king’s commandment and his decree drew near to be put in execution, in the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have rule over them; whereas it was turned to the contrary, that the Jews had rule over them that hated them; the Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, to lay hand on such as sought their hurt: and no man could withstand them; for the fear of them was fallen upon all the peoples. And all the princes of the provinces, and the satraps, and the governors, and they that did the king’s business, helped the Jews; because the fear of Mordecai was fallen upon them. For Mordecai was great in the king’s house, and his fame went forth throughout all the provinces: for the man Mordecai waxed greater and greater. And the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and destruction, and did what they would unto them that hated them. And in Shushan the palace the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men. And Parshandatha, and Dalphon, 8, 9 and Aspatha, and Poratha, and Adalia, and Aridatha, and Parmashta, and Arisai, and Aridai, and Vaizatha, the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Jews’ enemy, slew they; but on the spoil they laid not their hand. On that day the number of those that were slain in Shushan the palace was brought before the king. And the king said unto Esther the queen, The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the palace, and the ten sons of Haman; what then have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces! Now what is thy petition? and it shall be granted thee: or what is thy request further? and it shall be done. Then said Esther, If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews which are in Shushan to do to-morrow also according unto this day’s decree, and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged upon the gallows. And the king commanded it so to be done: and a decree was given out in Shushan; and they hanged Haman’s ten sons. And the Jews that were in Shushan gathered themselves together on the fourteenth day also of the month Adar, and slew three hundred men in Shushan; but on the spoil they laid not their hand. And the other Jews that were in the king’s provinces gathered themselves together, and stood for their lives, and had rest from their enemies, and slew of them that hated them seventy and five thousand; but on the spoil they laid not their hand. This was done on the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of the same they rested, and made it a day of feasting and gladness. But the Jews that were in Shushan assembled together on the thirteenth day thereof, and on the fourteenth thereof; and on the

19 fifteenth day of the same they rested, and made it a day of feasting and gladness. Therefore do the Jews of the villages, that dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting, and a good day, and of sending portions one to another. 20 And Mordecai wrote these things, and sent letters unto all the Jews that were in all the 21 provinces of the king Ahasuerus, both nigh and far, to enjoin them that they should keep 22 the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same, yearly, as the days wherein the Jews had rest from their enemies, and the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to gladness, and from mourning into a good day : that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor. 23 And the Jews undertook to do as they had begun, and as Mordecai had written unto them ; 24 because Haman the son of Hammadatha, the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had devised against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast Pur, that is, the lot, to consume them, 25 and to destroy them ; but when the matter came before the king, he commanded by letters that his wicked device, which he had devised against the Jews, should return upon his own 26 head ; and that he and his sons should be hanged on the gallows. Wherefore they called these days Purim, after the name of Pur. Therefore because of all the words of this letter, and of that which they had seen concerning this matter, and that which had come unto them, 27 the Jews ordained, and took upon them, and upon their seed, and upon all such as joined themselves unto them, so as it should not fail, that they would keep these two days according to the writing thereof, and according to the appointed time thereof, every year ; and that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city ; and that these days of Purim should not fail from among 28 the Jews, nor the memorial of them perish from their seed. Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with all authority to confirm this second 29 letter of Purim. And he sent letters unto all the Jews, to the hundred twenty and seven 30 provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, with words of peace and truth, to confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times, according as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had enjoined them, and as they had ordained for themselves and for their seed, in the matter 31 of the fastings and their cry. And the commandment of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim ; and it was written in the book.

10 : 1 And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea.

2. And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the full account of the greatness of Mordecai, whereunto the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chron- 3 icles of the kings of Media and Persia ? For Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren ; seeking the good of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed.

9 : 3-16. Mordecai’s position at the capital being known, and his power evidently established, the Persian governors of all grades understood it to be their duty to throw their weight into the scale on behalf of the Jews, and lend them whatever help they could (verse 3). The Jews everywhere got the better of their adversaries. In “Shushan the palace,” as it was called, or the upper town, of which the palace formed a part, they killed five hundred of them (verse 6). In the rest of the empire, if we accept the numbers of the present Hebrew text, as many as seventy-five thousand (verse 16). The Septuagint translators, however, who would have no reason for falsifying the text, give the number as fifteen thousand, which seems to be intrinsically more probable. They also, on the ensuing day, the 14th of Adar, by special permission of Ahasuerus, contended with their adversaries in Shushan a second time, and slew on this occasion three hundred (verse 15). Among the killed, the only persons mentioned by name are ten sons of Haman, who were slain in “Shushan the palace” on the first day, while on the second day permission was given to expose their bodies on crosses (verse 14). P. C.

5,6. The record shows (verse 2) that the Jews stood strictly on the defensive, that they made no attack on any, but simply repelled the assault of those who sought to destroy them. It also shows how furiously their enemies attacked them ; and that had self-defence been denied them, they would have been exterminated as a people.

10. But on the spoil they laid not their hands. According to the decree (8 : 11) the Jews were allowed " to take the spoil of them for booty;” but three times it is recorded (9 : 10, 15, 16) that “on the spoil they laid not their hands.” They were allowed also “to destroy, to kill, and cause to perish little children and women,” as well as “the force”—i.e., the military force, of the people; but the record expressly declares that they put to death only men (9 : 6, 12, 15). We can see how this would come out of the fact that the Jews stood on the defensive, and that only the armed force of the people—i.e., the men, would be the assailants. We have no evidence that the Jews had any desire to destroy the women and children. It was the edict of the heathen king, the counterpart of his previous decree (3 : 13), which gave them the liberty. But they were the people of God, and as such morally far above their oppressors. The wives and children of the slain men needed the property all the more that the husband and father had been taken from them. It was not plunder that the Jews sought, but self-protection, the right to exist unmolested.

12. This verse is important as showing that the idea of further slaughter originated not with Esther, but rather with the king himself. He suggests here that something more is needed, and asks what it shall be. Greene.

13. It would seem that the Jews in Susa gathered themselves in the upper town on the appointed day, and were engaged there the whole day with their enemies. Esther asks that they may be allowed a second day to complete their work and free themselves from all danger of further persecution from their foes. She is not likely to have made this request unless prompted to make it by Mordecai, who must have had means of knowing how matters really stood, and, as the chief minister over the whole nation, is likely to have been actuated rather by general views of policy than by a blind spirit of revenge. P. C.

There was no thirst for blood in Esther’s heart. Her whole character as delineated in this book is averse to this; but she was made of stuff stern enough to demand further bloodshed if it were needed to stay the unrighteous blotting out of her people and God’s church. This verse also shows that the right of self-defence was granted the Jews only as a special favor. There could be nothing wrong in asking that the privilege of self-defence might extend over all the days of the king’s reign. It is what subjects in all Christian civilized society enjoy. As to impaling Haman’s sons, that was intended to strike terror into the adversaries of the Jews. Nothing could have been better fitted to check the work of slaughter. They had been slain; now let them be hung up as a warning to all who had their spirit and were doing their fell work. These sons seem to have had the spirit and purpose of their father to “kill, destroy, and cause to perish” all the Jews. Doubtless Esther made this request at the prompting of Mordecai and such wise Jews as were in conference with him. Greene.

14. They hanged Haman’s ten sons.** A further instance of the retribution awaiting guilt. Haman had flattered his malicious and sanguinary spirit with the cruel hope of destroying the whole Jewish kindred; now his own sons (of the number of whom he had before boasted) are all cut off, and on the gallows share the reproach of their father. Bp. H.

16. Slew seventy and five thousand.** These persons were destroyed in consequence of their having obstinately persevered in measures of active hostility against the Jews, notwithstanding the change in the disposition of the king. Hales.—The people whom the Jews slaughtered were not, perhaps, in any case, Persians. The standing army of Persians which governed the empire was on the side of the Jews (Esth. 9 : 3); their enemies were the idolatrous people of the provinces, conquered races like themselves, for whom the Persians had little regard, and with whom they felt no sympathy. The number, seventy-five thousand, is uncertain, for it is replaced by fifteen thousand in the Septuagint version, and this latter figure is more in harmony with the eight hundred destroyed at Susa (verses 6, 15), than the larger number of the present Hebrew text. The “tameness, apathy and submission” objected to by the critics are imaginations of their own, founded merely on the silence of Scripture, which is always a weak ground, and here has no weight at all. It is the writer’s object to set before us broadly the great danger of the Jews, their deliverance, and their triumph—not to give us all the details and minor features of the transactions. He does not tell us what the Jews would have done had the original design of Haman been carried out, or what their enemies did when the Jews set upon them. It is quite a gratuitous supposition that there was no fighting, and that none of the Jews perished. G. R.

There not only is no evidence of there having been any indiscriminate slaughter on the part of the Jews, but presumably none were slain except such as rose up to slay. Esther and Mordecai desired one thing—the safety of their people. They wished for “rest from their enemies.” They probably felt that they were the ministers of righteous retribution. They desired that Haman’s ten sons “hanged on the gallows” should still drive home on an impressed populace the sense and conviction of what a force righteous retribution was, and how much men ought “to stand in awe” because of it; but there is no proof whatever that in all the relief to the bitterness of their soul revenge played any part. The lessons of this portion of the narrative are not needed for the pulpit on every Lord’s day certainly, but it may be they are provided here, in the universality of the use of the Divine Book, for some special and solemn crises. Barker.

17-32. Festival held, and feast of Purim instituted.** A natural instinct led the Jews, so soon as their triumph was accomplished, to indulge themselves in a day of rest and rejoicing (verse 17). The writer of the Book of Esther, practising his usual reticence, says nothing of the character of the “gladness;” but we can scarcely be wrong in believing it to have been in the main religious, and to have included gratitude to God for their deliverance, the ascription of praise to His name, and an outpouring of the heart before Him in earnest and prolonged thanksgiving. The circumstances of the struggle caused a difference, with regard to the date of the day of rejoicing, between the Jews of the capital and those of the provinces. The metropolitan Jews had two days of struggle, and could not “rest” until the third day, which was the 15th of Adar (verse 18); the provincial Jews began and ended their work in one day, the 13th, and so their thanksgiving-day was the 14th and not the 15th of the month (verse 17). The consequence was that it was wisely resolved to keep both days (verse 21). Nothing seems to have been determined as to the mode of keeping the feast, except that both days were to be “days of feasting and joy,” and days upon which the richer members of the community should send “portions” and “gifts” to the poorer ones (verse 22). The name, “feast of Purim,” was at once attached to the festival, in memory of Haman’s consultation of the lot, the word “Pur” meaning “lot” in Persian (verse 24). The festival became a national institution by the general consent of the Jews everywhere (verse 27), and has remained to the present day among the most cherished of their usages. It falls in early spring, a month before the Passover, and occupies two days, which are still those fixed by Mordecai and Esther, the 14th and 15th of

Adar. The day preceding the feast is observed as a fast day, in commemoration of Esther’s fast before going in uninvited to the king (chap. 4:16).

20. Mordecai wrote these things.** Mordecai seems, in the first instance, to have written to the provincial Jews, suggesting to them the future observance of two days of Purim instead of one, and explaining the grounds of his proposition, but without venturing to issue any order. When he found his proposition well received (verses 23, 27), he sent out a second letter, “with all authority” (verse 29), enjoining the observance. P. C.

22. And of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor.** They made it a day both of thanksgiving and praise to God, and of feasting with one another; and they sent portions and gifts to their poorer neighbors, that they might partake in the festival. Bp. Patrick.—In like manner almsgiving and attention to the poor ought to make part of every Christian festival. Bp. Andrews.

25. Should return upon his own head.** When such men as Haman are not only supplanted in their wicked contrivances, but chastised for them, these occurrences do more than insinuate Divine wisdom to intervene, countermining and confounding such devices. For he it is who, as the Scripture telleth us, maketh the diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish; disappointeth the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise; taketh the wise in their own craftiness, and turneth down the counsels of the froward headlong. Barrow.

27. We see in this verse a remarkable instance of national solidarity. The Jewish nation, in its present and prospective members, was one community. One life, one interest, one fate, has awaited that people wherever they have lived. In many respects the Jews are the most remarkable people that have ever lived upon the earth; and the cause of it, humanly speaking, is their national unity. The Jews in the time of Esther pledged themselves and their successors to a specific course of action. They did it not from selfish, worldly considerations, but out of regard to God and the interests of religion. Their children have accepted the action of their ancestors as their own, and faithfully complied with all its requisitions. Such a national unity as this cannot but be most powerful in moulding and shaping the character and destiny of a nation. The Jews, though they have been scattered to the four winds and oppressed beyond measure, are still a mighty and unified people, their hearts throbbing with one life-current, and their wills subject to one Lord and King. National unity founded in religion finds a signal illustration in the Jews. Greene.

28. That these days should be remembered.** Wherever Mordecai had sent to his people the messages of relief and the warrants to resist, there he now sends proposals which, if acceded to, will insure the perpetual memory of their deliverance, and will suggest ever new gratefulness for it. Esther joins heart and hand in the same, and the people themselves warmly approve the suggestion. They solemnly and enthusiastically adopt the proposal. They “undertook to do as they had begun, and as Mordecai had written to them.” The method of observing an anniversary to all generations is accepted as the means by which “the memorial” of their deliverance “shall never perish” from them or “their seed.” It is evident that a deep religious interest was thrown into this matter, and the account of it is repeated as many as four times, and with minuteness of detail. The example is good for individuals. The precedent is good for nations. P. C.

It was usual with God’s people in all ages to keep remarkable deliverances in perpetual remembrance. Most of the feasts that the Israelites had tended to this end, as the Passover and Feast of Tabernacles. For by memorials of mercy the memory of mercies is kept fresh; and men thereby are the more and oftener stirred up to praise God for them. Yea, by this means God’s mercies, manifested in one age, are propagated to many ages; whereby many ages have matter of praising God ministered unto them, and of believing in God, and of hoping for deliverance in their distress. Ainsworth.

That these days of Purim should not fail. Josephus bears testimony to the observance of this festival in his time in the following words: “Hence, even now all the Jews that are in the habitable earth keep these days festival, and send presents to one another.” It has also been regularly observed by the Jews to this day as an annual solemnity; and it forms a standing monument of the events recorded in this book. Gray.—The festival has been generally observed by a total rest from labor, by attendance in the synagogues, by sending presents to one another, by giving portions of food and gifts to the poor, and by great rejoicing and festivity. In the synagogue the

Book of Esther is solemnly read from beginning to end; all Jews, whether men, women, children, or servants, being required to attend, because they all had a share in the deliverance obtained by Esther. Before the reading begins three thanksgivings are briefly offered up; in the first they praise God for counting them worthy to attend this sacred solemnity; in the second, for His wonderful preservation of their forefathers; and in the third, for their having lived to keep another festival in memory of it. The history of Esther is always read on this occasion from a copy written on a roll of parchment, and never from a printed book, it bearing peculiarly the title of the Megillah, or roll of Esther. Prideaux.

29. This second letter of Purim.** Mordecai’s first letter (verse 20) was to some extent tentative, a recommendation. The Jews generally having accepted the recommendation (verses 23, 27), he and Esther now wrote a second letter, which was mandatory. The expression “this second letter” seems to imply that originally a copy of the letter followed. B. C.

30. Words of peace and truth.** Words are of inestimable weight, for evil or for good. Human words move men mightily; and of Christ’s words we know that they shall “never pass away.” This description of the message which Mordecai and Esther sent to their countrymen throughout the empire is very significant. It consisted of words which, while they were words of truth, concealing nothing, declaring all, were yet words of peace, speaking peace unto Israel.

Chap. 10. Conclusion: The greatness of Ahasuerus, and of Mordecai under him. The Book of Esther might have been expected to terminate with the institution of the Purim feast. All that has gone before is subordinate to this, and the reader would be satisfied, and require no more, if the book stopped at the end of chap. 9. But the writer, perhaps from personal attachment to Mordecai, perhaps from mere patriotic pride in him, cannot lay down the pen until he has put on record the strength and support that he was to the Jews of his day. For the rest of Ahasuerus’ “power and his might,” the writer is content to refer his readers to “the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia” (verse 2), which contained also an account of “the greatness of Mordecai, whereto the king advanced him.” This greatness forms the sole subject of the concluding verse, which declares Mordecai’s position (1) with respect to the Persians—“next to the king;” and (2) with respect to the Jews—“great among them,”

“accepted,” and their protector and benefactor, “seeking their wealth,” or welfare, and “speaking peace,” or insuring tranquillity, to all the whole race or people. P. C.

Under all revolutions, the Jews of the Captivity had the comfort to see that some persons of their own body were surprisingly advanced into power and authority to patronize and defend their cause; which, as it showed the concern of the Almighty for the welfare of the Jews, must also have excited in their minds a regard for His honor and glory, and must have confirmed their dependence upon His great and precious promises. Owen.

1. King Ahasuerus laid a tribute.** Some fresh arrangement of the tribute is likely to have followed on the return of Xerxes from Greece. His exchequer would be exhausted, and steps would have to be taken in order to replenish it. The expression in the original does not necessarily imply the first imposition of a tribute. Upon the isles of the sea. Cyprus, Aradus, the island Tyre, Platea, etc., remained in the hands of the Persians after the victories of the Greeks, and may be the “isles” here intended; or Xerxes may have ignored the loss of the Ægean Islands, and have “laid” his tribute upon them, though he might not be able to exact it.

2. Power and might.** In the later years of Xerxes his “power and might” were chiefly shown in the erection of magnificent buildings, more especially at Persepolis. He abstained from military expeditions. Kings of Media and Persia. Media takes precedence of Persia (contrarily to chap. 1: 3, 14, 18, etc.), because the kingdom of Media had preceded that of Persia, and in the “Book of the Chronicles” its history came first. B. C.

2,3. In these verses is set forth the greatness of Xerxes for the purpose of showing to what an elevation Mordecai, as the head and representative of the Jewish nation, had been raised. The book opened with the almost total obscuration of God’s people; it closes with them as the brightest star in the galaxy of nations which composed this great kingdom. Thus the providence of God is the more manifest in caring for, delivering, and promoting them who trust and love Him. Acceptable to the multitude of his brethren. Mordecai was so manifestly raised up by God for the deliverance and promotion of his nation, that the Jews everywhere felt that they honored God in honoring His instrument. Gratitude also for what Mordecai had done in their behalf would incite them to respect and affection. Seeking good for his people. Mordecai set a good example for all rulers. He did not seek self in honor or wealth; the good of the people was his aim. This is true patriotism. Speaking peace to all. Mordecai spoke words of cheer, hope, encouragement, and prosperity to his race. These are the closing words in the historical part of the Old Testament, and they seem to be a kind of prophecy of Him who was to come, bringing peace and salvation to all nations. Greene.

The wealth and peace of a people the patriot’s aim. It is a fine description of the aim of Mordecai’s public life with which this book closes. What more could be said of the patriotic statesman in any kingdom than this: that he was ever found “seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed”? Wealth includes not simply riches, but welfare in every sense: prosperity, security, progress, happiness—all that can truly enrich and bless a nation. He spoke peace to them. His acts had the effect of delivering them from the fear of their enemies. He held over them the shield of the king’s protection, and enabled them to live and work in quiet contentedness. It is reserved for the very last sentences of this book to give to one of the chiefest of its characters the place and testimony he had well earned. He has won for himself the name of the great and the good statesman. He is “next to Ahasuerus;” and what he did and what he was affected not the Jews only, but the whole empire—all of the various and wide dominion of the king. He is stamped on the sacred page as the type of a beneficent statesman.

Religious Character and Aim of this Book.

God’s name is absent from the whole book, but God Himself is in every chapter. There is no other book except Canticles in the sacred volume in which the Divine Being is neither mentioned nor obviously referred to. Yet no disbeliever in God could have written it; and no believer in God can read it without finding his faith strengthened thereby.

A national festival is historically accounted for. The feast of Purim was held in high honor, and observed with great regularity and solemnity and rejoicing among the Jews. “The temple may fail, but the Purim never,” was one of their proverbs. This Book of Esther was written to explain the origin of this national festival.

A valuable moral lesson pervades the whole narrative. Not only is the great general truth, that earthly greatness and prosperity are mutable and transitory, brought effectively before us, but we learn that God humbles the proud and exalts the lowly who trust in Him.

The providence of God is strikingly and memorably displayed. We are brought into contact with the righteousness and the rule of the Most High. A great deliverance is wrought; and while the means are human, the deliverance itself is Divine. God appears as “mighty to save.” The book is, accordingly, one peculiarly suitable to those in distress, perplexity, and trouble.

Its story is an illustration of the Divine providence. A complicated chain of events and actions is so governed as to work out the deliverance of the exiled Jews from a plot which aimed at their destruction; and this without any miracle or mention of Divine interposition. The fact is disclosed that the Jews, while in exile, under judgment, and without vision, were remembered and cared for by God. Outcast, they were not cast off; they were still the children of promise; God was still faithful to them. From this fact an inference may be drawn. There is a Divine providence in the world; no supernatural exercises of power are needed to enable God to effect His will; all laws and things are His creatures, and therefore under His control; human dramas and tragedies take place every day in which acutest plans are foiled, and, by seemingly natural processes, truth and right vindicated. P. C.

Three aspects of God’s providence strikingly illustrated. 1. That God overrules the designs of the wicked for a larger blessing upon the good. This is an absolute and universal truth as respects nations and individuals. 2. The Divine providence operates equally in things little and great. To effect the final deliverance and larger liberty of God’s oppressed people very many trivial occurrences were combined, each of which was indispensable to the ultimate result. 3. The agencies of Providence operate in response to the earnest and trustful prayers of God’s people. “In every province was great mourning and fasting and weeping, and many lay in sackcloth and ashes.” And a “three days’ fast” before God was kept by the Jews in Shushan and by Esther with her maidens. And we know by sure inference that Jehovah wrought deliverance for His people in answer to their fervent supplications. B.

The Old Testament history here terminates. For the space of nearly five hundred years— from the time of Nehemiah and Malachi to that of Paul—the Jews possessed no inspired writer; and their history, when recorded at all, was related in works which were not regarded by themselves as authoritative or canonical. All the evidence which we possess from profane sources of a really important and trustworthy character tends to confirm the truth of the history delivered to us in the sacred volume. The monumental records of past ages—Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Phoenician—the writings of historians who have based their histories on contemporary annals, as Manetho, Berosus, Dius, Menander, Nicolas of Damascus—the descriptions given by eye-witnesses of the Oriental manners and customs—the proofs obtained by modern research of the condition of art in the time and country—all combine to confirm, illustrate, and establish the veracity of the writers, who have delivered to us, in the Pentateuch, in Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, and Nehemiah, the history of the chosen people. That history stands firm against all the assaults made upon it; and the more light that is thrown by research and discovery upon the times and countries with which it deals, the more apparent becomes its authentic and matter-of-fact character. Sound criticism finds in the sacred writings of the Jews documents belonging to the times of which they profess to treat, and on a calm investigation classes them, not with romantic poems or mythological fables, but with the sober narratives of those other ancient writers, who have sought to hand down to posterity a true account of the facts which their eyes have witnessed. As in the New Testament, so in the Old, that which the writers “declare” to the world is in the main “that which they have heard, which they have seen with their eyes, which they have looked upon, and which their hands have handled.” It is not their object to amuse men, much less to impose on them by any “cunningly devised fables;” but simply to record facts and “bear their witness to the truth.” G. R.

And now came the great change in the map of Palestine which distinguishes the geography of the New Testament from that of the Old. For the Jews, being in time restored to their own land by the Persians, did not attempt to resume the occupation of the country by tribes, although remnants of all the Twelve Tribes may have been found among them (2 Chron. 30:11); but, first resorting to Jerusalem in a mass, and then spreading themselves upon the adjacent country, they afterward, in quest of further territory, passed round the central portion of the country possessed by the hated Samaritans, and settled the region to the north, between Gennesaret and the Mediterranean, hereafter known in history as Galilee. And, in the time of Christ, these were the three great divisions of the country—Judea on the south, Galilee on the north, and Samaria between. N. C. Burt.

1. Outline of the History.

Introductory Statements.

THE traditional space put in the binding of our Bibles between the Old and New Testaments is misleading as to the oneness of the whole Book. Matthew is as truly a continuation of Malachi as Malachi is of the foregoing prophets, from a number of whom he is separated by about the same interval of time that he is from Matthew. So “the Old and the New Testament Dispensations” is a misleading phrase, if taken to mean that blessings of an entirely different sort were dispensed under the “New” from those which were distributed under the “Old.” The terms respect, not the matter of the dispensations, but the manner only, just as the same gold of the king’s exchequer might be dealt out as either bullion, unrecognized save by a few as part of the royal treasure, or as coin of the realm, bearing clearly on its face the king’s image and superscription, and offered freely to all. So Christianity is but the bullion of Judaism coined in the gospel mint, to be scattered broadcast over the earth, and made the universal currency of the world. A. Ballard.

The canon of the Old Testament closes with the prophecies of Malachi. A period, therefore, of about four hundred years separates the last book of the Old from the first of the New Testament Scriptures. This period is one of supreme importance in the history of the Jewish nation. During it the Jews were brought under the most varied influences. (1) First they were subject to the dominion of Persia; (2) for nearly a century and a half they were under Greek rulers; (3) for a century they enjoyed independence under their native Asmonæan princes; and (4) for more than half a century, while nominally ruled by the family of Herod, they were in reality subject to the power of the great Roman empire.

In the course of this period a remarkable change was wrought in the condition of the elect nation. Whereas for many centuries they had been almost cut off from contact with the world around, they were now scattered everywhere, east and west, north and south, bearing about with them their peculiar customs and institutions, and diffusing wherever they went a knowledge of the law and the prophets. Corresponding to this wide diffusion of the people, which had so long “dwelt apart,” there had been brought about also a change in their vernacular tongue and in their mode of worship. The language spoken in the days of David and Solomon was gradually exchanged for the Chaldee or “Syrian tongue,” while the worship of the true God, before carried on only in the Temple at Jerusalem, was now celebrated, not only there on the occasion of the great festivals, but in synagogues, which arose out of the exigencies of the Captivity, and which were to be found, not only in every town, and almost in every village throughout Palestine, but also in every city in Syria, Asia Minor, Greece and Italy, where there was a Jewish settlement. Again, the intellectual culture of Greece had an important influence on Jewish development. It quickened independent thought, and led to the rise of various sects, “Freedom, ritualism and asceticism found a characteristic expression in Sudduces, Pharisees and Essenes,” while politicians, as represented by Herodians, looked to the family of Herod as a bulwark against Roman ambition, and pretended to trace in that dynasty the fulfilment of ancient prophecy. Lastly, the idea of the Messiah, which the “people of the future” had been raised up to foster and keep alive from generation to generation, had been affected in no slight degree by the variety of the influences under which the Jews had been brought. As before, so now, each period added or connected something necessary to the completeness of the conception, and the sadness of the Captivity ended what the mournful close of Solomon’s reign had begun. The “Son of David” gives place to the “Son of Man,” and the idea of the conqueror and the king is combined with that of the lawgiver, the prophet and the priest. G. F. Maclear.

Palestine Under the Persians: to B.C. 333.

A great historical chasm, about four hundred years in length, stretches between the close of the Old Testament history and the commencement of the New. During all that time there was neither prophet nor inspired writer of any kind among the Jews. Our knowledge of what took place among them is derived from the writings of Josephus, some of the books of the Apocrypha, and the notices of Greek and Latin historians. Though no further development of revealed religion took place during these four centuries, they constituted a very memorable period in general history. They witnessed the fall of the Persian empire, the rise and fall of the Macedonian, and the rise of the Roman. The seat of empire passed over from Asia to Europe; and the foundation was laid of those vast social changes which have so greatly raised the western and depressed the eastern and more ancient countries of the globe.

In sketching this long and important period, we shall follow the thread of Jewish history, glancing, right and left, as we proceed, at the leading nations that crowd the stage. The history of Palestine may be divided into six sections, corresponding to the different masters whose sway it owned.

1. The Persians were its nominal masters to the year B.C. 333. 2. Alexander the Great conquered it in that year, and was its master for ten years. 3. On his death (B.C. 323) it fell, after a long contest, under the Ptolemy, or Macedonian kings of Egypt; and so remained for more than a hundred years, to B.C. 204. 4. Then it came under the rule of the Macedonian kingdom of Syria, till it was set free by the Maccabees, B.C. 163. 5. It was ruled by the Maccabees for another century, till— 6. The Roman general Pompey conquered it

(B.C. 63), and made it tributary to the great mistress of the world.

For a considerable time after the days of Nehemiah the Persians continued masters of Judea; but during their rule nothing of much interest happened in Palestine. The country was annexed to the satrapy of Syria, but was allowed to be governed by the Jewish high-priests, acting under the Syrian satraps. The office of high-priest became a great object of ambition, and in consequence several disgraceful contests for it took place. Jeshua, a brother of Jonadab the high-priest, having endeavored to secure the honor for himself, was slain by Jonadab in the Temple. For this scandalous act, a heavy fine was imposed upon the Jews by the Persian governor.

Meanwhile, in Greece, the Peloponnesian war was brought to an end by the triumph of the Spartans and the humiliation and fall of Athens. Though partially restored afterward, Athens never again rose to its former influence and splendor. Artaxerxes Mnemon was now on the throne of Persia; and the early part of his reign was signalized by an attempt of his younger brother Cyrus to obtain the sceptre. Cyrus was defeated and slain near Babylon; and a body of ten thousand Greeks, who assisted him, had to make their retreat along the Tigris, and through the wilds of Armenia, until they reached the Black Sea. Of this celebrated retreat, an interesting account, well known to classical scholars, was written by Xenophon, the Greek historian, who conducted the expedition. It is interesting to observe, that the march of the ten thousand lay through the districts that formed the cradle of the human race, embracing, perhaps, the very land of Eden. War continued to rage between the Greeks and Persians for many years, till at length peace was concluded. But the power of the Spartans, which had predominated in Greece since the fall of Athens, was now destined to be overthrown. First at Leuctra, and again at Mantinea, they were defeated by the Thebans, under Epaminondas. The Theban supremacy was of short duration. At Cheronaea, Philip of Macedon overthrew the combined forces of the Thebans and Athenians, and made himself master of Greece. After this, Philip, having got himself appointed captain-general of all Greece, was preparing for a great war with Persia, when his life and his reign were cut short by his assassination. His son Alexander was only twenty when he succeeded him. The weapon with which the Persian empire was to be broken to pieces was now prepared. The mighty he-goat, that had been seen two hundred years before in Daniel’s vision on the banks of the Ulai, was advancing from the west to overturn the two-horned ram—the vast but now tottering Medo-Persian empire.

Palestine Under Alexander: B.C. 333 to 323.

It was B.C. 335 that Alexander began his memorable twelve years’ reign. After quelling the attempts at rebellion in Macedonia, he entered Greece, and defeated the Thebans in decisive engagements. Passing over into Asia, he encountered and defeated the forces of Darius, in the memorable battles of Granicus in Mysia and Issus in Cilicia. Proceeding toward Egypt, which had long been in a troubled condition, he passed through Syria and Palestine. Tyre withstood him for several months, but at last fell, being reached by a remarkable mole which he constructed, between the ruins of the old city on the mainland and the modern one on the adjacent island. Alexander then marched to Jerusalem. There is a tradition that, as he approached the city, he was met by a procession of priests in their robes of office, and that the impression made on him was such that he spared the city and granted favorable terms to the Jews. It is quite likely that the priests showed him the prophecies of Daniel, which foretold his conquests; and this may be the explanation of the story, that when he saw the high-priest, he recognized in him the person who had told him in a dream that he should conquer the world. From Jerusalem he proceeded to Egypt, which he rapidly subdued; and while there he founded the city of Alexandria, which still bears his name.

Returning to Asia, Alexander encountered Darius in the plains of Assyria, and in the battle of Arbela, not far from the ancient Nineveh, gave its death-blow to the Persian empire, which had subsisted about two hundred years. Not content with the limits of that mighty domain, he pushed eastward into India; and had not his Macedonians positively refused to go farther, he would have penetrated far beyond the countries of the Indus. He was occupied with various new projects, when he was cut off at Babylon, by a fever brought on or aggravated by drinking to excess at a banquet. He died at the age of thirty-two, B.C. 323.

Alexander the Great appears to have formed a highly favorable estimate of the Jews, and to have discovered, in their intelligence, steadiness, industry and zeal, the elements that make good citizens everywhere. Accordingly, when he founded Alexandria in Egypt, he encouraged the Jews to settle there, and gave them the privileges of citizens of the first class. He also encouraged them to settle in other newly founded cities, and generally throughout his empire. We have seen that, in the time of Esther, the Jews were widely scattered throughout the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of Persia. Now their dispersion, as well as their missionary influence, became still more extensive. In consequence of their distance from Jerusalem, the sacrificial part of their worship became less prominent, and the study of their sacred books occupied them more. Increased attention was thus given to the law and the prophets in the various countries of their dispersion; and, in consequence, the expectation of a coming Messiah was more and more widely diffused.

Palestine Under the Ptolemys: B.C. (about) 324 to 204.

On the death of Alexander, in fulfilment of the prophecy of Daniel, the great horn of the he-goat was broken; and for it came up four notable horns, “toward the four winds of heaven.” His great empire was ultimately divided among four of his generals—Ptolemy, Lysimachus, Cassander and Seleucus. Egypt fell to Ptolemy, and by and by Palestine was added to his share. He is distinguished in history as Ptolemy Soter. At first he treated the Jews with severity, but he soon came to see, like Alexander, that their superior character fitted them for high offices, and sent thirty thousand of them to various parts of his dominions, including Cyrenia and Libya in Africa. Of the Jews who went to Egypt at this time, some are very honorably mentioned by Greek and other writers.

The successor of Soter was Ptolemy Philadelphus, one of the most eminent of the kings of Egypt of this period, and very friendly to the Jews. The reign of this prince was signalized by many remarkable events. He built the famous lighthouse of Pharos, near the mouth of the Nile, which was counted one of the wonders of the world. He founded the great library of Alexandria—a magnificent collection of the works of the writers of all nations. It was under his patronage that the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek, according to the famous version of the Septuagint. This was one of the most important missionary works ever performed by man. The Hebrew Scriptures, and especially the Hebrew predictions of the coming Redeemer, might now be read wherever the Greek language was known. On the coast of Palestine, Ptolemy built the famous seaport of Acca, or Ptolemais, now called Acre, or Acho. The Ptolemys, for the most part, were excellent rulers, and under them Egypt enjoyed no small share of prosperity.

The most distinguished man in Judea about this time was the high-priest, Simon the Just. His character is given in the apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus. He bore the highest reputation for wisdom, integrity and piety; but he seems to have had not a little of the spirit of a Pharisee. The Jews have a number of traditions about him, silly and unfounded in themselves, but showing the high estimation in which he was held. A short time after Simon, flourished Antigonus of Socho, president of the Sanhedrim; one of whose pupils, Sadoc, is thought by some to have been the founder of the sect of Sadducees. Antigonus is reported to have taught that men ought not to serve God from a servile regard to rewards, but out of love and reverence; from which Sadoc drew the unwarrantable inference that there were no rewards at all after this life, no resurrection, and no future state. These were prominent tenets of the Sadducees at a later period, but it is very doubtful whether the sect had so early an origin.

During this period the foundations were laid of the great monarchy of Syria, or Syro-Macedonia, of which Palestine was afterward to form a part. Seleucus, son of Antiochus, one of Alexander’s generals, after various changes of fortune, ultimately acquired nearly the whole of Asia for his dominions. It was the fashion at the time to found new cities; and Seleucus, disregarding Damascus, Babylon, Susa and all the other ancient capitals, founded Seleucia and Antioch, making the one the eastern and the other the western capital of his kingdom. Seleucia was situated on the banks of the Euphrates, about forty miles distant from Babylon, which had now become a sort of enclosed park for wild beasts. Antioch was in Syria, on the banks of the Orontes, and was afterward famous as a centre and stronghold of Christianity. Like Alexander and Ptolemy, Seleucus encouraged the Jews to take up their residence in his new cities, and many accepted his invitation.

Much rivalry prevailed between the kings of Syria and those of Egypt, and the province of Palestine and Coele-Syria formed a constant bone of contention. These kings are believed to be the persons designated in chap. 11 of Daniel, as the “kings of the north” and “south.” The wars, alliances and other operations of these kings are prophetically described in that chapter with great minuteness. In the reigns of Ptolemy Philopator of Egypt and Antiochus the Great of Syria, the contest between the two powers came to a climax. In a pitched battle, fought at Raphia, near Gaza, Ptolemy conquered Antiochus. Visiting Jerusalem after the battle, he determined to enter the holy of holies in the Temple. The high-priest opposed him with all his might; but Ptolemy was not to be dissuaded from his purpose. It is said, however, that when he had got so far as the holy place, he was seized with such confusion and terror that he retreated in dismay. Afterward, on returning to Alexandria, he was so enraged at the Jews for having withstood him, that he deprived them of their privileges, and fined and persecuted them in the most scandalous manner. Among other wild proceedings, he brought to Alexandria all the Jews he could lay hands on from other parts of Egypt, shut them up in the hippodrome, intending to expose them for a spectacle to be destroyed by his elephants. The poor Jews ceased not to pray to the God of their fathers for deliverance. On the third day, when the king was present, and the elephants were brought forth and made drunk with wine mingled with frankincense, instead of falling upon the Jews, they turned their rage upon those who came to see the show, and destroyed great numbers of them! The king became alarmed at the evident tokens of God’s favor for the Jews, and recalled all his persecuting edicts. At his death he was succeeded by Ptolemy Epiphanes, an infant of five. Antiochus took the opportunity to wrest the districts of Coele-Syria and Palestine from Egypt; and from this time Palestine is to be regarded as subject to the kings of Syria. The era on which we now enter is a very dark one in Jewish history.

Palestine Under the Macedonian Kings of Syria: B.C. 204 to 165.

On the accession of the infant, Ptolemy Epiphanes, to the throne of Egypt, the Egyptians sent an embassy to Rome, craving the aid of the Romans against the encroachments of Antiochus. As the Roman people now began to take a prominent part in the affairs of the East, it is necessary to glance at their history during the preceding two centuries.

In the early part of this period the Romans made a very narrow escape from utter destruction, in consequence of an eruption of the Gauls. The Gauls, or Celts, were one of the great races that spread themselves over the continent of Europe, but of whom scarcely anything is known up to the time of their coming into contact with the Romans. The Roman histories tell that after Rome was taken and burned by them, and its inhabitants butchered, the invaders were suddenly attacked by the dictator Camillus, and driven in one day beyond the confines of Rome. Recovering power and courage, the Romans now began a career of conquest in the peninsula of Italy. While this was going on, the Tarentines, one of their foes, sought the aid of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, one of the outlying states of Greece, on the opposite shores of the Adriatic Sea. This was the first occasion of Greece and Rome coming together. Pyrrhus was a man of great enterprise, and a very skilful general. He landed in Italy with thirty thousand men and a train of elephants. The Romans had never before faced or even seen elephants in battle, and were obliged to retire before Pyrrhus; but so great loss had been inflicted on the Greek army, that Pyrrhus uttered the memorable saying, “Another such victory, and we are undone!” He was glad of a pretext for leaving Italy.

Meanwhile, the Romans enlarged their sphere of conquest, and having quarrelled with the Carthaginians about the island of Sicily, measured their strength with that people in three successive Carthaginian wars. It was during the first Carthaginian war that the Romans equipped the first fleet they ever possessed. The campaign ended in their favor; the Carthaginians had to give up their possessions in Sicily. The aid of the Romans now began to be sought by the Greek states in their endless wars with each other; but till after the second Carthaginian war, the Roman armies did not move to the East. That campaign began very disastrously for the Romans; the victorious Hannibal seemed about to carry all before him. But it ended as much in favor of the Romans as it had begun in favor of the Carthaginians, the latter being wholly defeated just about the time when Palestine became part of the kingdom of Syria. Hannibal, hunted from refuge to refuge, at last ended his days by poison in Bithynia, in Asia. The third Carthaginian war ended about fifty years after, in the total destruction of Carthage. The military power of the Romans was thus thoroughly established, and the conquest of the world lay before them.

War—war—war is the unchanging burden of the history of those times. War in Greece, where Aratus, followed by Philopæmen, generals of the Achæan league, have been making desperate but ineffectual efforts to stir up the old love of liberty, and set free their country; war in Macedonia, where the strong Roman legion is wrestling with what remains of valor in the Macedonian phalanx; war in Syria, war in Egypt—everywhere war; and yet all preparing the way for the establishment of the kingdom of the Prince of Peace!

In compliance with the request of the Egyptians, a Roman army was sent into Egypt to aid Ptolemy Epiphanes against Antiochus the Great. At first the Romans were unsuccessful, but ultimately they prevailed. Antiochus was compelled by the Romans to evacuate the whole country east of the Taurus, and pay the expenses of the war. He went eastward to raise the money; but having plundered a temple of Jupiter in the province of Elymais, he was murdered by the inhabitants. Thus ended the career of Antiochus the Great, B.C. 187.

Passing over his successor, Seleucus Philopator, in whose time little occurred in Judea of much interest, we arrive at a dark and troubled era—the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Epiphanes—i.e., the “Illustrious”—was illustrious only for the grossness of his character and the wickedness of his conduct. At his ascension, the high-priesthood at Jerusalem was in the hands of a worthy man, named Onias. But a brother of his having offered to pay Antiochus three hundred and sixty talents for the office, Onias was dispossessed, and the brother installed. Onias fled to Egypt, where he built a temple at Heliopolis, and acted as high-priest. The name of the usurper was Jesus; but not liking the Hebrew name, he changed it into the Greek name Jason. A Greek party now appears among the Jews. The sympathies of Jason were entirely with the Greeks; and to the utmost of his power he discountenanced the old Hebrew customs and religion. He even sent on one occasion an embassy to Tyre to take part in certain games in honor of the heathen god Hercules, and offer sacrifices on his altar. Jason, in his turn, was supplanted by another brother, who took the Greek name of Menelaus, and was still more of a Greek than Jason.

Antiochus now undertook an expedition into Egypt, and was successful. While he was there the Jews heard a report of his death, at which they showed signs of great joy. Hearing of this, Antiochus, on leaving Egypt, went to Jerusalem to chastise them. He besieged and took the sacred city; slew forty thousand Jews, and sold a like number as slaves; and, to show his contempt for the Jewish religion, entered the holy of holies, sacrificed a sow on the altar of burnt offering, and sprinkled broth made from its flesh all over the building.

Not content with these atrocities, Antiochus began a furious persecution against the religion of the Jews. He issued an edict requiring all the people under his sceptre to worship the same gods. The Samaritans conformed to the decree, and allowed their temple on Mount Gerizim to be dedicated to the Grecian Jove. The Temple at Jerusalem was forcibly consecrated to the same heathen deity, and the statue of Jupiter Olympus was erected on the altar of burnt offering. To observe any of the Jewish customs was made a capital offence; in short, the most rigorous measures were adopted absolutely to root out the Jewish faith.

But enough remained of the noble Jewish spirit of other days to resist such blasphemous tyranny. There was a family of the priestly class, sometimes called the Asmonæans, from Asmonæus, one of their ancestors; and sometimes the Maccabees, a name, it is said, formed of the initial letters of the motto which one of them, Judas, placed on his standard, from Ex. 15:11, “Who is like unto Thee among the gods, O Lord?” The Hebrew words are, MI CAMOKA BAELIM JEHOVAH; and from the letters M C B I was derived the word Macabi, or Maccabee, which became the surname of the family, and was applied also to all who joined their cause. Mattathias, the father of the family, had five sons—Johanan, Simon, Judas, Eleazar, and Jonathan. They dwelt at Modin, a city to the west of Jerusalem, in the Philistine plain, near the sea-coast. When the emissaries of Antiochus came to Mattathias, urging him to conform to the pagan worship, he declared he should never prove unfaithful to his God; and seeing a Jew presenting himself at the heathen altar to sacrifice to the gods, he fell upon him, like Phinehas of old, and killed him on the spot. Collecting his family and other like-minded persons, he withdrew to the mountains of Judea, occupied the same caves and fastnesses which David had held nearly a thousand years before, and bade defiance to Antiochus and his armies. One body of his followers, to the number of a thousand, had taken refuge in a cave, where they were attacked on a Sabbath by a Syrian troop; and deeming it unlawful to resist on that day, every man, woman, and child were put to death. Hearing of this, Mattathias and his friends held a council, and after deliberation, came to the conclusion that resistance to such attacks on the Sabbath was lawful.

The number of the patriot army under the Maccabees gradually increased; their aged leader, Mattathias, was removed by death, but his son Judas was eminently fitted to succeed him. The war of independence is a very interesting chapter of Jewish history, but our limits compel us to pass it over in a sentence. Three campaigns were undertaken by the Syro-Macedonians against the patriots. In all of these the Syrians were unsuccessful. One of them was undertaken by Antiochus in person. But the same loathsome disease which afterward cut off Herod attacked and destroyed him while breathing out threatening and slaughter against his foes. A civil war having broken out in Syria, peace was at last concluded. Judas Maccabeus became governor of Palestine, and though fresh troubles broke out speedily, a new era may be said to have begun.

Palestine Under the Maccabees: B.C. 165 to 63.

When Judas Maccabeus came into power, the Temple was purged and rededicated, and the ancient services resumed. But Judas was not allowed to prosecute his reforms in peace. He was again attacked by the Syrians; but, though successful once and again, he began to lose ground. He then applied to the Romans for help; but before it could be granted, he fell in battle. The command now devolved on his brother Jonathan. Owing, in a great measure, to the intrigues and plots that were going on for the Syrian throne, Jonathan contrived at last to get his authority acknowledged, and was declared meridarch or commander in Judea. But it was not long ere he was treacherously murdered. He was succeeded by his brother Simon, who, like Judas, appealed to the Romans, and, by studying their interests, obtained a large measure of power. The sovereignty was made hereditary in the family of Simon, and he was succeeded by his son, John Hyrcanus. The sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees were now keenly opposed to each other, and Hyrcanus joined first the one and then the other. Strife and commotion again prevailed. At last two rival Maccabees, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, grandsons of John Hyrcanus, contended for the dignity, and a civil war ensued in Judea. Meanwhile the Romans, under Pompey, had extended their victories into Syria, and Hyrcanus and Aristobulus both submitted their claims to Pompey’s decision. Hyrcanus was preferred. Aristobulus attempted to defend Jerusalem against Pompey, but in vain. After a three months’ siege, the city and Temple were taken, B.C. 63. Pompey impiously entered the holy of holies, thereby inflicting an unpardonable outrage on the feelings of the

Jews. It was remarked by them that after this his reverses of fortune began. He gave the government of Judea to Hyrcanus, but would not allow him to wear a crown. A yearly tribute to Rome was imposed. Aristobulus and some others were taken prisoners to Rome.

It would be impossible to narrate all the sieges, battles, murders and massacres that give their dark hue to this period of history. The effect on the state of religion among the Jews must have been very disastrous. Perhaps, however, religion suffered quite as much from the bitter contests between the Pharisees and the Sadducees as from any other cause. It is not certain that the Sadducees yet held all those impious doctrines which were afterward maintained by them. At first, their main characteristic was opposition to the traditions so strenuously upheld by the Pharisees. The Pharisees were generally the most numerous and powerful party. Now, as formerly, true piety probably flourished, like the ferns and mosses of our mountains, in shady nooks and lonely dells. Little of it can be discovered in the leaders of factions, or in any of the men who occupied prominent positions. The rose of Sharon and the lily of the valley must be sought for in more quiet and sequestered spots.

Palestine Under the Romans: B.C. 63 to 4.

When the Romans conquered Judea, they exacted a yearly tribute, but allowed the country to be still governed by the Maccabees, in conformity with its ancient laws and customs. But between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, the rival members of the Maccabee family, much strife and bloodshed arose. Hyrcanus was restored to the high-priesthood by Pompey, while Aristobulus, his brother, was carried to Rome to grace his triumph. But Aristobulus contrived to escape, and returned to renew the civil war in Judea. The contest was continued by his son Alexander, who was at last defeated with immense slaughter at Mount Tabor, in the plain of Esdraelon, the old battle-field of Palestine.

In the division of the Roman empire that had been made between the triumvirs, Cæsar, Pompey, and Crassus, Syria had been assigned to Crassus. But Crassus lost both his life and his reputation in a memorable defeat by the Parthians, near Carrhæ (Haran) in Mesopotamia—the place where Abraham sojourned after leaving Ur. The Parthians were now an important and formidable people. Formerly they constituted a province of the Persian empire, in the neighborhood of the Caspian; but, B.C. 250, they founded a kingdom of their own, under King Arsaces; and while the Syrian kingdom was decaying, they overran several of the countries that had belonged to Persia and Macedonia, including many of those where the Jews were dispersed. Ultimately, they fell under the dominion of Rome.

After the death of Crassus, Syria was administered for a time by Cassius, an eminent Roman general; but during the subsequent contest between Cæsar and Pompey, much disorder prevailed. Pompey having been killed in Egypt, Cæsar, now sole ruler of the empire, determined that Hyrcanus should rule as king at Jerusalem, and his family after him; and appointed Antipater, an Idumæan by birth, who had made himself very useful to Cæsar, procurator of Judea under Hyrcanus. The two sons of Antipater, Phasaelus and Herod (afterward Herod the Great), were made governors of Judea and Galilee. Antipater did not enjoy his dignity long—he was poisoned the following year, B.C. 47. Three years after, his royal patron, Julius Cæsar, suffered a similar fate, being assassinated in the senate at Rome, B.C. 44.

In the subsequent division of empire between the new triumvirs, Octavius, Antony, and Lepidus, Syria and the East were given to Antony. For the most part, Antony was favorable to Herod, and his friendship aided him in the ambitious projects which he was now beginning to form. Phasaelus, elder brother of Herod, had died in prison by his own hand. About this time Herod married Mariamne, a granddaughter of Hyrcanus, of extraordinary beauty, thus securing the interest of one branch of the Maccabee family. But a new commotion was raised by Antigonus, a son of Aristobulus, who, gaining a temporary success, caused the ears of Hyrcanus to be cut off, that, being mutilated, he might be incapacitated for the office of the high-priesthood; and pressed Herod so hard, that he had to retire to a fortress called Massada, on the Dead Sea. In this state of things Herod went to Rome, pictured to Antony the wretched disorders of Palestine, and getting him and the senate to believe that he alone could restore order, procured for himself the office and dignity of king. Antigonus was put to death; and the rule of the Asmonæan princes came formally and forever to an end.

For some years Antony continued to be the head of the eastern portion of the empire. Every reader of history knows well the shameful profligacy to which he abandoned himself, in company with Cleopatra, the beautiful but unprincipled queen of Egypt. In Egypt, at Antioch, at Jerusalem, and many other places, this outrage went on openly. We get a sad glimpse of the wretched state of morals in the Roman empire, when we see its highest men violating, as they did, the most sacred obligations of family life, living in open profligacy with the wives of other men, or going through the form of a divorce from their own, either to serve their convenience or gratify their lust by a new connection. At last a war broke out between Antony and Octavius, which was terminated by the battle of Actium, in Epirus, where Antony was completely defeated. About a year after, both he and Cleopatra committed suicide in Egypt, and the ancient kingdom of the Pharaohs and the Ptolemys sunk into a Roman province. Octavius, now known as Cæsar Augustus, became emperor of Rome.

Meanwhile Herod, crafty, clever, and cruel, was endeavoring to consolidate and extend his power in Judea. He was always in dread that some member of the Asmonæan family would start up to give him trouble, and coolly planned to get rid of as many of them as possible. One of his first victims was Aristobulus, a brother of his wife, a young man of remarkably fine appearance and manners, whom he had made high-priest; but as he became very popular among the Jews, Herod had him invited to his residence at Jericho, and induced him to bathe in a fish-pond, where, under pretence of sport, his head was held under the water by some of Herod’s officers until he was choked. The aged Hyrcanus was the next to suffer. That unfortunate prince, after his ears were cut off, had been protected by the Parthians; but Herod prevailed on him to come to Jerusalem, where he trumped up a false charge against him, on pretext of which he put him to death, in his eightieth year. These barbarous murders of her nearest male relatives alienated his wife Mariamne. At last she too fell under suspicion, as if engaged in plotting against him; and though Herod loved her most passionately, she was executed by his orders. After her death he was seized with fearful remorse, and became almost distracted. His temper became far more cruel, suspicious, and vindictive than ever, and many new deeds of blood stained the annals of his reign.

The feeling of the Jews toward Herod—never very cordial, seeing that he was an Idumæan—was becoming more and more hostile; so that he found it necessary to take steps for securing a measure of their good-will. He set about effecting improvements in his kingdom. An amphitheatre and a theatre were built by him at Jerusalem, for the amusement of the people. Samaria, which had lain a long time in ruins, was rebuilt, and named Sebaste, from Sebastos, the Greek word for Augustus. A magnificent palace was built for himself on Mount Zion. Another undertaking begun about this time was the building of a great seaport, between Joppa and Carmel—Cæsarea; afterward it became a place of great importance and the chief seat of government, when the Roman power was more firmly established in Palestine. It is remarkable that not one of all the many towns in Palestine that had been capitals was a seaport—not Hebron, nor Jerusalem, nor Gibeah, nor Shechem, nor Samaria, nor Tirzah, nor Jezreel, nor Mahanaim. The Jews had no love for the sea; in their view, it was the element of danger, and the emblem of strife and trouble; and in this light it is almost constantly presented in the imagery of the Bible, down to that vision of the Apocalypse where “there was no more sea.”

But the chief of Herod’s improvements was the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem. This work was undertaken shortly after Augustus had given a decision in favor of Herod regarding certain violent complaints that had been made against him. Herod had signalized that decision by building a temple of white marble in honor of Augustus, at Pancas, beside the sources of the Jordan; and by this and other heathenish proceedings had created great dissatisfaction in the minds of the Jews. It was therefore a very seasonable undertaking to rebuild the national Temple at Jerusalem. It was now about five hundred years since the second Temple had been built; and the natural process of decay, as well as the damage which it had sustained during the many sieges and wars that had taken place in Jerusalem, made it exceedingly desirable that it should be renewed. The Jews were afraid that if Herod pulled down the existing Temple before he built the new, something might occur to prevent the erection, and their city might be deprived of its highest glory. It was accordingly arranged that all the materials for the new Temple should be prepared before the old building was demolished. A thousand wagons were employed in conveying stones and timber; ten thousand workmen in fitting the materials for building; and a thousand priests, skilled in architecture, in superintending the work. It was about ten years before the building was so far finished as to be ready for dedication and Divine service; but for many years after a large body of men were employed about the outworks—justifying the remark of the Jews, “Forty and six years was this Temple in building.” Being regarded rather as a restoration than a new erection, it continued to be spoken of as the second Temple. By such important undertakings, and by the pains he took to embellish Jerusalem and improve the country generally, Herod did much to mitigate the detestation with which he otherwise would certainly have been regarded.

The domestic troubles and crimes of Herod were not yet ended. By his wife Mariamne he had two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, whom he intended to make his successors in the government. They were sent to Rome and introduced to Augustus, and seemed in a fair way of rising to honor and power. But the demon of suspicion haunted Herod, and he was surrounded by persons who were always trying, for their own interests, to persuade him that others were plotting for his life and his crown. At last his sons, like their mother, fell victims to his unnatural suspicion and brutal violence, and were strangled by his orders at Sebaste. Immense numbers of other persons were put to death at various times by his command, under the impression that they were engaged in conspiracies. On one occasion a large number of the Pharisees suffered this fate. These bloody and revolting deeds were perpetrated only a year or two before the birth of Jesus, and explain the suspicion which then filled Herod’s mind, and the wholesale massacre of the babes of Bethlehem, ordered by him with the purpose of getting rid of the unwelcome rival.

The Jews of the Dispersion.

We conclude this historical sketch with a glance at the state of the Jews in the chief countries of their dispersion up to the time of the birth of our Lord. In the countries to which they had been originally carried captive large numbers of Jews still remained, and in many of them they attained to great wealth and importance. In some of these countries they kept quite aloof from connection by marriage with the other inhabitants; but in other cases they were not so strict. This gave rise to various epithets, intended to mark the degree of purity of the Jewish blood. In the district between the Tigris and the Euphrates they were “healthy;” Media was “sickly;” Elymais, “in the last gasps;” and Mesene, “dead.” About the birth of our Lord, the Jews in Mesopotamia were exposed to a terrible persecution, in which above sixty thousand of them were slain. In other districts of Asia severe persecution often befell them. In Arabia many Jews found a home; and for a long time the throne of Yemen or Seba, in Arabia, where the queen of Sheba had reigned, was filled by Jews. They even penetrated to China; according to tradition, a body of six thousand emigrated thither from Persia fifty or sixty years B.C. Some of the Hebrews attained even to the rank mandarins. The descendants of these Jews are still found in China, with a sanctuary constructed after the model of the Temple of Jerusalem. Egypt was long an important settlement of the Jews. At Heliopolis, where Joseph’s father-in-law had been priest, they had a temple, built by Onias, the high-priest who fled from Jerusalem in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; and at Alexandria a synagogue, the magnificence of which was spoken of in the most glowing terms. In Cyrene, Libya, and other parts of Africa, their numbers were computed at about a million. Rome, too, had already begun to have its Jewish inhabitants. Under Pompey, Jews were sold in Rome as slaves. They soon, however, gained their liberty. Julius Caesar patronized the Jews greatly; and Augustus showed them favor, encouraged no doubt by the attachment which Herod had shown to him. An age or two later, their troubles and miseries began to thicken in almost all parts of the world; but at the birth of our Lord they were not only very widely dispersed, but enjoyed no small share of comfort and prosperity.

Kings of Persia.

Artaxerxes Mnemon…B.C. 404-359

Ochus…358-337

Arogus…337-335

Darius…335-331

Kings of Egypt.

Ptolemy Soter…B.C. 304-284

Ptolemy Philadelphus…285-247

Ptolemy Euergetes…247-222

Ptolemy Philopator…221-204

Antiochus the Great…B.C. 222-186

Seleucus Philopator…186-175

Antiochus Epiphanes… 175-164 Antiochus Eupator, etc… 164-162

Judas… B.C. 165-160 Jonathan… 160-143 Simon… 143-135 John Hyrcanus… 135-106 Aristobulus… 106-105 Alexander Jannæus… 105- 78 Alexander… 78- 69 Aristobulus… 69- 63 [Hyrcanus… 63- 40 Antigonus… 40- 37]

Pompey—Crassus—Cassius. Antipater—Herod.

Fall of Athens—Rise of Thebes—Rise of Philip of Macedon—Alexander the Great—Internal Struggles—Greece Subdued by Romans.

Invasion of Gauls—War with Pyrrhus—Car- thaginian Wars—Civil Wars—Conquests of Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Palestine —First Triumvirate: Julius Cæsar, Pompey, Crassus—Second Triumvirate: Octavius, An- tony, Lepidus—Cæsar Augustus, Emperor. W. G. Blaikie.

2. The Literature.

THE canon of the Old Testament rests on the testimony of the Jewish synagogue. But this is not sufficient for Christians. We accept the Old Testament on the authority of Christ and the apostles, who endorsed Moses and the prop- hets as the organs of Divine revelation. We be- lieve first in Christ, as our Lord and Saviour; next, the New Testament, as the authentic record of His teaching and example; and last, the Old Testament, as bearing witness of Him. The Roman Catholic Church accepts the canon of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, which in- clude the so-called Apocrypha. She puts the Apocrypha on a par with the other books. The Greek Church assigns them a subordinate po- sition. The Protestant churches accept only the Hebrew Scriptures as canonical, but they recog- nize the historical importance of the Apocrypha, which fill the gap between the Old and the New Testaments, and represent the history and re- ligious life of the Jews during that period. Luther’s Bible contains the Apocrypha, as “books which are not equal to the canonical Scriptures, yet useful and good to read.” The Reformed churches drew a sharper distinction between apocryphal and canonical books, but retained the former in the Swiss, French, Dutch, and English versions. The British and For- eign Bible Society and the American Bible So- ciety excluded them from their editions since 1826. Schaff.

Apocrypha is a term popularly applied to the following fourteen books: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Esther 10:4 to chap. 16, Wis- dom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Song of the Three Holy Children, History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees. These books represent the period of transition and decay after the return of the Jews from Babylon, and most (perhaps all) were probably written B.C. 300-30. We may notice in them (1) the absence of the prophetic element; (2) the almost total disappearance of the power shown in the poetry of the Old Tes- tament; (3) the appearance of works of fiction resting, or purporting to rest, on an historical foundation; (4) the growth of a purely legen- dary literature; (5) the tendency to pass off supposititious books under the cover of illustri- ous names; (6) the insertion of unauthenticated formal documents as authentic; (7) abundant errors and anachronisms; (8) some peculiarities connected with the religious and ethical development of Judaism, as the manifest influences of the struggle against idolatry under Antiochus, the growing hostility to the Samaritans, the prominence assigned in Tobit to almsgiving, with the growing belief in the individual guardianship of angels and the germs of a grotesque demonology there apparent, and (in Wisdom) the teachings in respect to wisdom, to the kingdom of God and its eternal blessings, and to the love and righteousness of God. Dic. B.

The general spirit of the apocryphal books we may characterize as rationalistic. The Messianic prophecies are divested in great degree of their supernatural character; the Messiah is a man, of David’s house, God’s instrument in their national restoration, as David was in the establishment of the kingdom. But His place is subordinate. His work is of chief importance as preparatory to that of Jehovah, which is to follow. The Messianic kingdom is a part of the present world, and serves to introduce the world to come; the resurrection and judgment follow it, not precede it. Thus the Messiah’s kingdom is only a reproduction of the Davidic in an enlarged and higher form. Andrewes.

The apocryphal books were not only written after the end of the living progress of the Old Testament revelation, but their contents add nothing to our knowledge of that progress, and therefore we can say on broad grounds of common-sense that these books must not be included in the Bible record, but that their value is simply that of documents for the history of the connection of the Old and the New Testament. W. R. Smith.

Brief Notice of Each Book.

1 Esdras. The greater part of this book reproduces what we find in the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and was manifestly written by a Greek, probably by an Alexandrian Jew, who was acquainted with them. It gives, as was natural in a compiler from documents more or less fragmentary, a narrative intended to be more concise and more continuous of the return of the Jews down to the close of the Book of Ezra, whose name it presents in the Greek form of Esdras. But the writer thought it necessary to embellish history, and so he interpolates what is the original, and practically therefore the most interesting portion of the book, the narrative of the debate between the three young men that were of the body-guard of Darius as to the respective power of wine, of women, and of truth. The advocate of truth is represented as being none other than the historical Zerubbabel, the prince of the house of David. It is through his eloquence that the king bids him ask what he will, and it should be given him. This was the secret history of the return from Babylon. Historically the book has but little value, is careless in its arrangements, and inconsistent with the Hebrew record. It has, however, left one legacy to the world which will not readily pass out of remembrance. When we hear in debates, religious or political, in the eloquence of statesmen or advocates, the familiar words, “Magna est veritas et prævalebit,” we are listening to a quotation from the apocryphal book of 1 Esdras (4 : 41).

2 Esdras. The strange book which bears this title is marked by an entirely different character. It is distinctly and professedly an apocalypse. No Greek text of it is extant, though versions exist both in Arabic and Ethiopic as well as Latin. The entire absence of any reference to it in Philo or Josephus or the writers of the New Testament, as well as of any historical landmarks in the book itself, leaves the date of its composition open to conjecture. No critic worthy of the name has assigned an earlier date than the time of Julius Cæsar, or a later date than that of Domitian. And yet, wild and strange as are the contents of the book, no one can read it without profound interest. It gives us, as no other book does, a vivid picture of one phase of the Jewish mind, in the wild, unsettled period that preceded or followed the destruction of Jerusalem. There we find the first trace of the legend that was afterward accepted as to the dictation to Ezra of the existing Hebrew Bible, and of a large number of secret revelations in addition (14 : 38-48). There, too, for the first time, we find the marvellous tale, the parent of so many yet more marvellous theories, how the Ten Tribes in the land of their exile resolved that they would go to a far-off country, “and keep there the statutes which they never kept in their own land” (13 : 40-46).

Tobit. Of this book we have, besides the Septuagint and the Latin version, two Hebrew texts. There is no reason, however, to think that it was originally written in Hebrew. And we know, both from Origen and Athanasius, that the Jews of their time did not recognize it as belonging to the canon. The existence of Hebrew translations is, however, interesting, as showing the popularity of the book, not only among Christians, to whom it came commended by its position in the Greek version of the Old Testament, but among Jews, who accepted it on its ethical and literary merits. Of these we need not hesitate to speak very highly. While to some extent reminding us of the Book of Ruth as being a domestic history, it is for us interesting as being one among the earliest examples of ethical fiction. Reverence for parents (4:3), the duty and the blessing of almsgiving (1:16, 17; 4:16; 14:11), purity and temperance (4:15), the holiness of marriage (8:7)—these are the leading lessons of the book; and though the story with which it is interwoven has for us a superstitious and almost ludicrous aspect, it has yet in parts a singular tenderness and beauty. The book, it must be added, has no claim to the character of history. The developed belief as to possession by evil spirits, the practice of exorcism, the names Asmodeus and Raphael, indicate a date subsequent to the Babylonian Captivity; and the personation of autobiography in chaps. 1-3 is but the well-known artifice which has been held legitimate by all writers of fiction.

Judith. Here, too, we are on the ground of historical fiction, and not of history; and the writer betrays himself by more serious anachronisms than those which we have found in Tobit. Nebuchadnezzar (= Nabuchodonosor) is made king of Nineveh, not of Babylon, at a time after the destruction of the former city; is called the king of the Assyrians, instead of the Chaldeans, as in the historical books of the Old Testament. The Israelites are represented as having returned from the Captivity and rebuilt their temple in the time of the very king who had destroyed the Temple and carried them into exile (4:3; 5:18, 19). Jerome speaks of it as written in the Chaldee language, and as read among the Hebrews. Josephus, singularly enough, does not even allude to it.

The rest of the chapters of the Book of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee. I have quoted the title of this fragment, as showing with sufficient clearness the grounds on which it was placed among the Apocrypha. In this instance, as in 1 Esdras, a canonical book was thought not sufficiently interesting, and was embellished with additions by the Greek translator. The writer indicates his own time with sufficient clearness by reference to “the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemeus and Cleopatra” (11:1). The additions are, it may be added, absolutely worthless.

The Wisdom of Solomon. The book which bears this name is in many respects the gem of the whole Apocrypha. Here again we know nothing of the writer, and can but roughly approximate to the date of the book. There is no trace of a Hebrew original, and it was never received by the Jews of Palestine. Our first actual knowledge of it comes from Christian sources, and this does not carry us further back than the latter part of the second century. The book is, however, clearly pre-Christian. There is no reference in it to the facts of the Gospel history, nor to its leading thoughts. The writer was an Alexandrian Jew, who, like Philo, had come in contact with the language and thoughts of Platonists, Stoics, Epicureans, and had sought, as Philo, without giving up the faith of his fathers, to show that it was in harmony with all that was truest and noblest in the philosophy of Greece. By many writers indeed, from Jerome onward, Philo has been regarded as the author, but of this there is no proof. We can scarcely resist the impression that the book is but the fragment of what was intended to have been a far larger work. It ends abruptly; its survey of the history of Israel being altogether incomplete, and with hardly even the semblance of the rhetorical peroration which the general character of the book would have led us to expect.

The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus. In this instance we have what we find in no other canonical or apocryphal book—an editorial preface, purporting to give something like a history of its origin. It represents it as the result of the labors of three generations. The elder Jesus, or Joshua, lived “almost after all the prophets,” a phrase which seems to indicate a date between Zechariah and Malachi. What the exceptional loftiness of the eighth chapter of Proverbs was at a later time to the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon, that the prudential morality of the rest of the book was to him. He became a collector of “the grave and short sentences of wise men,” and added “some of his own.” He bequeathed this collection to his son Sirach, who, in his turn, left it to a younger Jesus, named after his grandfather. To him belonged the work of arranging and editing, and if we accept the second prologue as genuine, we arrive at something like a definite statement as to the origin of the book which he thus edits. It was originally in Hebrew—i.e., the Aramaic of Jerusalem after the return from the Exile. He had come into Egypt when Euergetes was king, in the thirty-eighth year from some era to us undefined—probably, i.e., about B.C. 133—and thought it his duty to translate it for the benefit of those of his countrymen who, being settled in “a strange country,” were yet “willing to learn, being prepared before in manners to live after the law.” The later chapters of this book give us distinct internal evidence of date in harmony with the conclusion thus arrived at. Significant both as to the date of the book, its Hebrew or Palestine origin, and the growing antipathy which it indicates, is the passage in which the writer enumerates, among those whom his soul abhorreth, those “that sit upon the mountain of Samaria, and they that dwell among the Philistines, and that foolish people that dwell in Sichem” (50 : 26). This could hardly have been written before the rivalry between Gerizim and Jerusalem had become a definitely pronounced fact, and it stands among the earliest tokens of the antagonism which afterward rose to such a height that the Jews had “no dealings with the Samaritans.” The title of Ecclesiasticus, it may be noted, is of Latin, not Greek origin as applied to the book. In the Septuagint, and as quoted by the Greek fathers, it is always as the Wisdom of Sirach, sometimes the All-excellent Wisdom. When given to this book it was in the sense in which the whole body of the Apocrypha was sometimes called ecclesiastical—i.e., fit for being used in church, the pre-eminent popularity of the book, and possibly its general use for the ethical instruction of catechumens, winning for it the special application of the more general name. The fact that one of the sapiential books of the Old Testament had already received the title Ecclesiastes in a different sense, might contribute to the currency of the name as applied to a book which seemed to the superficial reader to belong to the same class.

Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy. Here also we have a book purporting to come from one who was prominent in the history of Israel, the secretary and companion of a prophet (Jer. 32 : 12 ; 36 : 4-10). There are no traces, however, of any Hebrew original, and the book has never been acknowledged as genuine either by the Jews themselves or by those who were brought into contact, as Jerome was, with the Jewish canon. There is not the slightest reference to it in the New Testament or in the early fathers. It must therefore be regarded as simply a compilation put together to meet the demands of Alexandrian Jews for additions to their religious literature, or to meet their religious dangers with edifying counsels. Its chief characteristic, in which it stands alone among the Apocrypha, is that it is manifestly modelled chiefly upon the writings of the prophetic books of the Old Testament ; and although the true prophet is not there, we at least hear echoes of the lofty imagery with which the older seers had set forth the future glories of Israel (4 : 30 ; 5 : 9). Like all the Alexandrian books, however, the note of the love of heavenly wisdom is not absent from it, and in 3 : 12-37 we have distinct traces of the influence of such passages as Job 28. Noticeable also is the prominence given to “the Everlasting” as the equivalent for the Hebrew Jehovah, instead of the more common “Lord” of the New Testament writers. Most readers will, it is believed, feel that it would be a gain to the majesty of our version if that or “the Eternal” had been adopted in like manner there, as it is in the French and some other versions.

The Epistle of Jeremy, annexed to Baruch, stands on just the same footing. As a composition it is every way inferior to it, and is not in any sense an imitation of the style of the prophet from whom it purports to come. It is, indeed, simply a long diatribe, partly modelled upon Isa. 46, against the folly of idolatry, and almost the only fact of interest in it is the incidental notice of the special forms of impurity connected with the Babylonian worship of Mylitta (verse 43), as that worship is described by Herodotus.

The Song of the Three Holy Children, the History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon. The three fragments that bear these titles appear in the Septuagint version of the Book of Daniel. The character of that book, as partly narrative, partly apocalyptic (perhaps also its position among the Hagiographa, and not among the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures), tempted the translator to embellish the book with narratives which may very probably have been based upon traditions already current, and to interweave a prayer and a psalm (both irrelevant and inappropriate, and scarcely rising above the level of rhetoric) into the narrative of the heroic confession, the martyrdom in will and deed, though not in result, of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. As incorporated with the text of Daniel in the Greek version, all portions were received by the early Christians with the same reverence, and passed in the same way into the Latin version. The Song of the Three Children was accepted in the fourth century as a hymn of the Christian Church, in the first instance by the Church of Spain, at the fourth Council of Toledo (Can. 14), and still retains its place in the Prayer-Book of the Church of England. The history of Susanna has probably become more conspicuous as having furnished painters with a biblical subject which admitted of a sensuous treatment, than as supplying preachers with a theme for homiletic instruction. Some of the early fathers, however, ventured upon an allegorical interpretation, and Susanna appeared as a type of the Christian Church suffering under calumny and persecution. The narrative of Bel and the Dragon is chiefly noticeable in connection with the history of the English Prayer-Book. Of all the apocryphal lessons, it was the one which the Puritan party most strongly objected to, and in deference to their feelings it was struck out of the Table of Lessons by the Hampton Court Conference under James I. When the Restoration came, the bishops and divines who revised the Prayer-Book thought fit to restore it. Happily it has disappeared with a good deal besides of apocryphal lumber in the last revision of 1870.

The Prayer of Manasses. The narrative of the repentance of Manasseh, and of his return from Babylon and restoration to his kingdom (2 Chron. 33 : 12, 13), and the fact that a Hebrew prayer attributed to him was extant at the time when the Books of Chronicles were compiled (2 Chron. 33 : 18), were naturally suggestive to the class of writers who undertook the task of filling up gaps or adorning the narratives of the Hebrew Bible. There is no reference to it or trace of its existence before A.D. 221; but its moral teaching and rhetorical power commended it for devotional use among Christians, and it is found in the great Alexandrian MS. of the Old Testament, not as part of the volume, but among the hymns and rhythmical prayers which are appended to the Psalter. The interest attaching to its supposed history has given it a prominence which it would hardly have attained otherwise.

1 and 2 Maccabees. The way in which these books are presented to us in the Apocrypha is to a certain extent misleading. Our first impression is that, as with 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, in the Old Testament, so here, that which is brought before us is a consecutive history. A very slight inspection serves to show that instead of this we have two entirely independent narratives, and that the second starts from an earlier period than the first, the events included in the one being from B.C. 180-161, in the other from B.C. 168-135. Each book has therefore to be dealt with separately. It is worth while noting that the two that we have are only a portion of a copious literature dealing with the great struggle of the Jews, headed in the first instance by Mattathias the Just, and afterward by Judas the Maccabee, his more famous son, against the attempt by

Antiochus Epiphanes to destroy their faith and crush out their national life. A third Book of Maccabees found a place in the Septuagint canon of Scripture, giving an account (as if an inverted order had seemed natural to the compiler) of events which preceded those recorded in the second. A fourth book, running parallel with the second, is extant in Greek, and was ascribed conjecturally to the authorship of Josephus. A fifth is extant, giving a summary of Jewish history from the attempt of Heliodorus (2 Macc. 3) to the time of our Lord. There are traces even of a sixth. The two which are now printed in the English Apocrypha owe their position to the fact that they were included in the Latin Vulgate. Jerome, it is true, though he says that he found the first book in Hebrew, did not translate them, and the Vulgate version is from the older Latin translation of the Old Testament that was current before Jerome’s work. The Council of Trent formally adopted them as part of the canon of Scripture. The reformed churches dealt with them as with the other books of the Apocrypha, but, unlike most of the others, they have never taken their place in the public reading of Scripture authorized by the Church of England.

1. Maccabees.* The book appears, from Jerome’s statement and from internal evidence, to have been written originally in Hebrew, but was probably soon translated for the use of the Alexandrian Jews. For the most part it tells its tale with a fairly sustained dignity, without exaggeration, and few can read the narrative of the heroic resistance of Mattathias and his sons to the insane tyranny of Antiochus (chaps. 1 and 2) without feeling their hearts glow within them. There is no intermixture of matter clearly legendary, as in the second book, and the narrative seems to have been based, as it professes to be, on “the chronicles of the priesthood” (16 : 24). If we feel distrust anywhere, it is where the writer professes to give actual copies of the official documents that had passed in the negotiations between the Maccabean chiefs on the one side, and the Romans and Lacedæmonians. It is probable enough that some such negotiations were carried on, and chap. 8 cannot fail to be read with interest, as recording the first direct contact between the great world-power of the West and the race of Abraham, and giving the impressions made upon the mind of the Jews by the power and simplicity of the Roman government, in which “none wore a crown or was clothed with purple to be magnified thereby” (8 : 14); but the style of the letter purporting to come from the Roman senate is not that of the official documents of the republic, and we can hardly believe that, even in the degenerate days which had then fallen upon Sparta, the Lacedamonians would distinctly admit that they and the Jews were brethren, and that both had come out of the stock of Abraham (12 : 21).

2 Maccabees. We come here upon a book of a very different and inferior stamp. The writer professes to base his narrative upon a larger work by Jason of Cyrene, in five books (2 : 23) —an indication, we may note in passing, that the Jews had already found their way to Western Africa. As Cyrene, like Alexandria, was distinctly a Greek colony, it was probable, in the nature of the case, that both the original work and the epitome were written in that language. The real beginning of the narrative does not meet us till chap. 2 : 19, and the actual opening of the book takes the form of an encyclical letter from the Jews at Jerusalem to their brethren in Egypt. The letter bears every mark of being spurious, and gives in a strangely incoherent way a series of legends as to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 : 1-16), the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles by Nehemiah, and the miraculous appearance of a flame after he had poured water on the stones of the altar (1 : 20-36). It then goes back to a remoter past, and tells how Jeremiah had ascended “the mountain where Moses climbed up and saw the heritage of God,” carrying (!!) the tabernacle (!), the ark, and the altar of incense, and hid them in the cave (2 : 1-8); then turns to the dedication of the Temple, and Solomon, and the formation of a sacred library by Nehemiah (2 : 9-14). All this is brought before us with a strange incoherence and confusion; then follows the notice of Jason of Cyrene; and in chap. 3 we enter on the real narrative. In part, as has been seen, it covers the same ground as the first book. Its narrative is, however, more highly colored. The story of martyrdoms, as in the cases of Eleazar and the seven brothers (chaps. 6, 7), is related with more circumstantial fulness. Heliodorus, in his outrage on the Temple, sees a vision of a “horse with a terrible rider,” is smitten for a time with blindness, and then repents and offers sacrifice (3 : 24-35). Horsemen are seen in the air, in cloth of gold, and armed with lances, over the streets of Jerusalem (5 : 1, 2). Antiochus is smitten of God, and eaten with worms (9 : 1-12); and he too repents, and makes a vow, and recalls his persecuting edicts. Judas Maccabeus sees in a vision the high priest Onias, and with him “a man with gray hairs, and exceeding glorious,” who is declared to be Jeremiah, the prophet of God, who “prayeth much for the people and the holy city” (15 : 12, 13). All this indicates the probability that the book was written to meet the demand for the marvellous, which was not satisfied by the simple record of the first book, and places it, as a history, on a far lower level. Bible Educator.

The Apocryphal Writings and Judaism.

From the period succeeding the return from the Exile to the Alexandrian period, roughly speaking, about a century intervened. This interval, which can scarcely be said to have a history in the true sense, nor a literature of its own, was the formative period of the nation in its new circumstances. Its certain outcome, as apparent in the next period, was something quite different from what had preceded it in what may be called Old Testament times. In religious literature its outcome was the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigraphic writings; in religion and life, that new direction which, in distinction to that of the Old Testament, is best characterized as Judaism, which in its full development we know as traditionalism and rabbinism. And yet, in or near to a period the outcome of which is admittedly so different, a certain school of critics would have us place a large portion of the legislation, and of the historical and didactic, if not the prophetic writings of the Old Testament!

Israel, emerging on the other side the Babylonian flood, appears not as Israel, but as the Jews. And of this their later literature bears ample evidence. We have here to reckon with three different tendencies. We notice, first, the working of the old spirit, which in due time would appear as traditionalism and rabbinism. This means reaction. Next, we have the new spirit, which in due time would appear as Hellenism. This means renewal and re-formation. Lastly, we have the ideal spirit, which, grasping the great hope of the future and of the Messianic kingdom, would in due time appear either as Jewish nationalism—in the great nationalist party (or in close connection with it)—or else as a pure apocalypticism. But as yet these three tendencies lay in great measure unseparated in the chaos over which the spirit of the future was brooding—waiting till outward events would differentiate them.

Two centuries had passed since the return from Babylon. At the end of them we find ourselves suddenly in the midst of a new-born activity in religious literature. We have suggested this as possibly the period of the final redaction—not composition—of some, though perhaps not of all the youngest portions in the Old Testament canon. The new literature springs forth in Palestine, but chiefly in Alexandria. It is debased in literary character, chiefly imitative of the Old Testament writings, and as we would naturally have expected of the youngest portions among them, so that one might almost infer the comparative lateness of an Old Testament book from its imitation by one or more of the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha themselves mark their line of separation from the canonical books. The distinction in favor of the Old Testament is fully vindicated, the more closely we examine the teaching of the Apocrypha. The presentation of the Divine Being is no longer as in the Old Testament. Sometimes it is Grecian in its form, as chiefly in the Book of Wisdom, and, in minor degree, in some portions of Ecclesiasticus; in other books, as in Judith and Baruch, it is Judaic, narrow and nationalistic; while in Tobit we have almost the later rabbinic view of the propitiation of God by alms. Similar remarks apply to the presentation of the doctrines of creation and of providence. As regards the doctrine of angels, the Apocrypha have much more developed teaching, which in the case of Tobit descends to the low level of superstition.

As might be expected, both Grecianism and Hebrewism appear even more markedly in what such books as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus have to tell us of man. The pre-existence of the soul, and its fall and degradation through its connection with the body, are taught side by side with a reluctant and almost solitary reference to the fall of man as presented in the Bible. But of the doctrine of original sin, as fully expressed in the New Testament, the Apocrypha, as Rabbinism, have nothing to tell us. In regard to moral duties, the tone of the Book of Proverbs is now absolutely secularized. A respectable religiosity and a sort of common-sense decency take the place of fervor of love and entirness of devotion. Reward in this life, or at most either in the Messianic world or in the life to come, are the leading motives; externalism of work, rather than deep inward spiritual views, characterizes the righteousness described. By the side of this we find in the Apocrypha of Grecian cast (Wisdom and partly Ecclesiasticus) a classification of the virtues after the philosophic model; while the Judaic Apocrypha (Judith and Tobit) represent on many points a low standard, not only in the story of Judith, but generally in regard to the relation between man and God. In Ecclesiasticus we find throughout a twofold, somewhat incompatible direction—the Hellenistic by the side of the Judaic. This strange eclecticism may have been due to the original author of the book, or, as seems more likely, been introduced by the translator.

As regards the “after death,” the characteristics of the Grecian Apocrypha, already noted, once more appear. Ecclesiasticus is not only less pronounced on these subjects than some of the canonical books, but is, to say the least, strangely silent on the “after death.” The Book of Wisdom, while acknowledging the immortality of the soul and the judgment, so systematically ignores the resurrection of the body as to lead to the inference of its denial. The same may even more strongly be predicated of 1 Maccabees, which, indeed, has been regarded as representing the views of the Sadducees; while 2 Maccabees, in this respect, markedly reproduces the views of the Pharisees. In reference to the Messianic hope, we can only say that its personal aspect, as regards the Messiah, if present at all, recedes behind that of Israelitish, national prospects. Of these, alike in the anti-Gentile sense and in the exaltation of Israel, there is the fullest anticipation.

Thus we have in the Apocrypha—which, as already stated, must be regarded as embodying the outcome of the previous period—a marked divergence, on all main points, from the lines followed in the canonical books of the Old Testament. The latter, as has been well remarked, led up to the manger of Bethlehem; the Apocrypha may, as regards dogmatic views, be considered only a kind of preface to later Judaism. The religion of the Old Testament was that of the great prophetic future; the religion and hope of the Apocrypha are of the Israelitish past, which vaingloriously seeks in the future a realization commensurate to its past disappointment. The hope of the Old Testament centred in the Person of the Messiah; that of the Apocrypha, in the nation of the Jews. It is Judaism and the synagogue with which we have henceforth to do. But not thither had the finger of prophecy pointed. Not to the Jews, but to the spiritual Israel; not to the synagogue, but to the Church, belonged the inheritance of the promises and the future of the world. A. E.

The Pseudepigraphic Writings.

The so-called Pseudepigraphic writings take up, and further develop in a peculiar direction, the predictions of the Old Testament; they present them in visions of the future, shaped in that peculiar imagery and language which we call apocalyptic; and they do so, not as the outcome of the inferences or speculations of their writers, but as bringing direct communications from Heaven, connected with such names as Enoch, Moses, Isaiah, Baruch, or Solomon. This, however, with notable exceptions; since perhaps the most interesting of these books is that which embodies the so-called Sibylline Oracles.

This describes one aspect of these writings. Another is their intensely Jewish character—not merely as setting forth the advantages and the future bliss of Israel, but in their references to the nations of the world; either hortatory—we might almost call it missionary—or else denunciatory; sometimes scornful, but always triumphant in tone. There are other tendencies, and of a party character, in these writings—mostly, as it seems to me, in opposition to the Pharisaic direction. Some of them are certainly of Hellenist origin—that is, they were the work not only of Western Jews, but are the outcome of Hellenist thought. But even those which may be regarded as springing from the soil of Palestine have not a Pharisaic cast. On the contrary, they all breathe, more or less, the new spirit. This is very remarkable, and bears witness to the fact that, with all its parade and pomp of Messianic assertion, traditionalism and rabbinism had no heart for and very little sympathy with the great Messianic hope of Israel. Theirs was another and, in many respects, antagonistic direction, in which the Messiah could only bear the part of a political deliverer. Yet another noteworthy point, of a different character, may here be mentioned. All the canonical books of the Old Testament have come down to us in Hebrew or Chaldee. But, as in the case of the Apocrypha, none of the pseudepigraphic writings have been preserved in that language, although some of them were no doubt written in the tongue of Palestine. We have them either in the Greek, or else in Ethiopic, in Latin, or other version. This also forms a line of demarcation, not to be quite ignored by those who would dispute the canonicity of some of the Old Testament writings.

The pseudepigraphic writings cover the period—from about 170 before to about 90 after Christ. Those preserved to us are eight in number: The Book of Enoch, the Sibylline Oracles, the Psalter of Solomon, Little Genesis, 4th Esdras (our 2d Esdras), the Ascension and Vision of Isaiah, the Assumption of Moses, and the Apocalypse of Baruch. Although, in their present form, some of them contain interpolated portions of a much later date, they are all deeply interesting and instructive; for, first, they give us an insight into the thoughts and expectations of the time—away from Pharisaism, Sadduceeism and Essenism. Secondly, they present to us the continuance of the great Messianic hope. If certain of the Apocrypha, such as the story of the Maccabees or of Judith, would to the old Jewish world have been what Foxe’s “Book of Martyrs” is to many of us, some of those visions of Israel and of the kingdom may have been eagerly read in Israel as a kind of apocalyptic “Pilgrim’s Progress.”

Probably the oldest of them is the so-called Book of Enoch, numbering 108 chapters. It consists, besides a prologue and an epilogue, of five portions, giving an account of the fall of the angels, of Enoch’s rapt journeys through heaven and earth, together with certain apocalyptic portions about the kingdom of heaven and the advent of the Messiah. The oldest part of it is supposed to date from about 150 B.C.; the second oldest from the time of Herod the Great; the date of the others cannot be fixed.

The Sibylline Oracles, in Greek hexameters, consist in their present form of twelve books. They are full of interpolations—the really ancient portions forming part of the first two books, and the largest part of book iii. (verses 97–807). These sections are deeply imbued with the Messianic spirit. They date from about 140 before our era, while another small portion of the same book is supposed to date from the year 32 B.C.

The small collection known as the Psalter of Solomon consists of eighteen psalms, and probably dates from more than half a century before our era. The work, which I regard as fragmentary, breathes ardent Messianic expectancy.

Little Genesis, or the Book of Jubilees, dates probably from about the time of Christ. It is a kind of supplement to the Book of Genesis, and breathes a strong anti-Roman spirit.

From about the same time, or a little earlier, dates the so-called Assumption of Moses—unfortunately only a fragment of twelve chapters. It consists of an historical and an apocalyptic portion, and is strongly anti-Pharisaic in spirit, especially as regards purifications. This is very remarkable; nor is it less interesting to find that this is one of the works from which Jude quotes (verse 9), the other being the Book of Enoch (verses 14, 15).

On the other hand, there are two of the Pseudepigrapha which bear evident reference to the writings of Paul. Both of them date after the destruction of Jerusalem; but the Apocalypse of Baruch is probably older than 4 Esdras (our apocryphal 2 Esdras). The Apocalypse of Baruch is also unfortunately not quite complete. It consists of eighty-seven chapters. Our interest is stirred by noticing how closely some of its teaching runs alongside that of Paul—either controversially, as in regard to the doctrine of justification, or conciliatorily and intermediately, as in regard to the consequences of the fall in original guilt; or imitatively, as in regard to the resurrection of the body. If the author of the Apocalypse of Baruch must have read the Epistles of Paul to the Romans and the First to the Corinthians, the influence of Pauline teaching appears even more strongly, almost exaggeratedly, in the statements of 4 Esdras in regard to the fall and original sin.

Lastly, among these works, we have to mention the so-called Ascension and Vision of Isaiah, describing the martyrdom of the prophet, and containing certain apocalyptic portions about what he saw in heaven. Although based on an older Jewish document, the book is chiefly of Christian heretical authorship.

Such are the monuments left us of the ancient apocalyptic—or, as from their assumption of spurious authorship it is called, pseudepigraphic—literature. Its interest is threefold. 1. Historical. They set before us another direction than either in the Apocrypha or in Hellenism. As previously stated, the Apocrypha are either historical—including the legendary—or else philosophizing. They carry us back to the glories of Judaism, or else seek to reconcile it with present thought and philosophy—which, indeed, is the final object of Hellenism. But this apocalyptic literature represents a quite different tendency. It lays, so to speak, one hand on the Old Testament hope, while with the other it gropes after the fulfilment in that dim future of which it seeks to pierce the gloom. 2. The Pseudepigrapha are of theological interest as showing what the Jews before and about the time of Christ—or at least one section of them—were expecting concerning the Messiah and Messianic times. One might indeed long to know something more of the personal views and feelings of yet another class—that represented in New Testament history by such names as Zacharias, Elizabeth, Anna, Simeon, and even Joseph and the Virgin Mother. But beyond the thought that their steadfast gaze was bent on the eastern sky, where sure prophecy taught them that the Sun of Righteousness would rise, we have not the means of associating with them anything more definite than intense, simple and receptive expectancy. 3. Yet another, and only in one sense inferior, interest attaches to these writings. We may designate it as exegetical. For if these books represent the symbolism and the form in which apocalyptic thoughts presented themselves to a large portion of the Jewish people, it will readily be understood that knowledge of it must also be of great importance in the study of the apocalyptic portions of the New Testament—not, indeed, as regards the substance, but the form and imagery of them. Edersheim.

[For a general account of the teaching of these writings concerning the Messiah and the Messianic kingdom, the reader is referred to Dr. Edersheim’s volume entitled “Philosophy and History in Relation to the Messiah,” from which the preceding summaries are taken. B.]

The Septuagint.

There is nothing in the whole course of the Jewish annals more remarkable than the series of events which led to the preparation of the Greek version of the Old Testament. What that work has accomplished in the diffusion of revealed truth through the world no human mind can ever estimate. How the way of the Lord was prepared by it, how it laid the foundations on which Christianity itself built up its higher and fuller communications, we can never perfectly describe, although the fact that it to a large extent superseded the Hebrew Bible, and was for a considerable period the sacred volume of the Christian Church, must be sufficient to show that it was a chosen instrument of Divine providence in the work of human salvation. Dr. Stanley remarks: “It was not the original Hebrew, but the Septuagint translation through which the religious truths of Judaism became known to the Greek and the Roman. It was the Septuagint which was the Bible of the Evangelists and Apostles in the first century, and of the Christian Church for the first age of its existence, which is still the only recognized authorized text of the Eastern Church, and the basis of the only authorized text of the Latin Church. Widely as it differs from the Hebrew Scriptures in form, in substance, in chronology, in language; unequal, imperfect, grotesque as are its renderings, it has, nevertheless, through large periods of ecclesiastical history, rivalled, if not superseded, those Scriptures themselves.” The probability is that the version originated quite naturally from the requirements of the Jews in Alexandria, as they adopted the Greek language, and became less familiar with Hebrew and Chaldee. Redford.

Intermitted Inspiration—Its Causes and Significance.

Of all the historical periods, the four centuries intervening between the close of the Old Testament inspiration and the birth of Christ seem to be the most obscure, and to have the least significance. Those centuries of great sorrow, of national aspiration, of unsurpassed heroism, and of final subjection and despair, are passed by without any inspired characterization. During this time Palestine had emerged from its provincial seclusion, and come within the whirl of the struggles of the great nations.

If we inquire into the causes of the cessation and withdrawal of inspiration during this period, it will be easy to see that prominent among them is that the necessity no longer existed. There had already been a sufficient Divine communication. The history of the development of the Church from one family, and the one man Abraham, and the migration from Egypt, and the growth into a kingdom, and the Exile, and the Return, had been fully given. A rich psalmody, by which the servants of Jehovah might express the joy and sorrow of the soul, had been produced. The prophets had spoken, and had so minutely described the coming of Christ, and His history and office, that even the manner of His sufferings was communicated by them to the people. All the light needed for instruction and reproof, and for the awakening of hope, had been furnished. Had a new race of prophets arisen, their revelations could not have altered either the reception given to our Lord, or in any vital sense have been an improvement upon the bold utterances of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and the lesser seers.

Further, it was during this time that the Jew had his first successful opportunity to learn that his prosperity did not depend on temporal glory. The brief national revival, under the Maccabean family, is a striking proof of the final failure of patriotism without the element of religion. We must sympathize with the aspirations of the aged Jewish priest Mattathias, who escaped, with his five sons, John, Simon, Judas, Eleazar and Jonathan, from the persecution in Jerusalem, and dwelt in Modin. He longed for deliverance from the heel of the foreigner. His ancestor, Chasmon, had given the Asmonæan name to the family, and it was now the hope of Mattathias that one of his sons, at least, might restore the kingdom. Judas was the leader. He was as brave as David had been. He passed into history as Maccabeus, or The Hammerer, just as, later, Charles was called Martel, because he gave the death-blow to his foes at Tours. The reign of the Maccabeans was brilliant. It became a terror to the surrounding nations. But it was political, and its inspiring motives were purely secular. There was no great moral background to it from beginning to end. In fact, there was a secularization of even the religious worship of the people. With the rulers of that family, the revival of Judaism was the political overthrow of the Greeks. In due time the Romans came, and not only captured the country, but supported on the throne the Herods, a family which combined all the corrupt qualities of both the Jewish and Roman races.

One can read in those centuries of intermittent inspiration the Divine purpose to preserve a remnant of the sacred people, as the starting-point of a new dispensation, in spite of the persistent attempts, on the part of both the Oriental conquerors and the Greeks, to blot out the worship of Jehovah. One would naturally expect that if the Persians did not complete the overthrow of the worship of Jehovah in Palestine, the Greeks would certainly succeed. Their culture and military glory would be likely to captivate, and make a long-despondent people look in other directions for the beginnings of a more hopeful career. But this rule, with its one hundred and sixty-four years of persistent effort to eradicate the worship of God and substitute the mythology of Greece, proved a failure. The Jewish people were more positive monotheists afterward than before. With all their infirmities, with their misreading of the prophetic Scriptures, and with their realistic interpretation of the Messianic predictions, they were still lovers of the Temple service, and lived in hope of a better time for the old faith of the fathers. There is just this philosophy, then, underlying the Greek rule: the Jew was a Jew still. He had faith, often mistaken and misguided, in Jehovah. No enchanting myth from beautiful Greece had any charm for him. He wanted the Greek, with all his splendid history and idealism, away. He was ready to die, but not to become a cultivated pagan.

When we remember that it was during this period that the world’s soil was prepared for the propagation of the Gospel, the significance of the interval assumes greater force. The Greek language became the vehicle for thought in all the centres, as a direct result of Alexander’s conquests. Alexandria was built up into a strong Hellenistic centre, whence went out in later years the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Jewish colonies, the point of pagan persecution, swarmed around the Mediterranean, and became the nuclei of the Pauline societies, and the beginning of universal Christianity. The Jewish nationality passed away forever, and paganism had proved its incapacity to take its place. It was a universal breaking up of the old soil, and its full preparation for the broadest sowing known to men, whose ripest harvest we have not yet seen. Bp. Hurst.

As expressing the controlling aim and purpose of this volume, we herewith present, in part, the admirable Preface of Dr. Henry Cowles to his volume entitled “Hebrew History.” Our large citations from Dr. Cowles in nearly all the volumes of the Bible-Work (with his full permission, given many years ago) indicate our high estimate of the exceeding and permanent worth of his thorough and life-long studies upon the entire Word of God. B.

“This volume presents the sacred history of the Hebrew people from the death of Solomon to the close of the Old Testament. Its special objects are—to trace the hand of God in this history, and to suggest the advancing revelations made of His character and moral government; to develop the leading human characters, and the significance of the great historic events; to explain difficult passages; to bring out the connections between sacred and profane history, in order both to illustrate and to confirm the records of Scripture; to place the history of the Old Testament by the side of its prophecy, in order to infuse into the history somewhat of its own living soul, and to give to prophecy its due illustration and impression. The author’s aim and hope have been to stimulate and aid the reading of these historical books entire, by setting forth incidentally the exquisite beauty of its narratives, the interest of its historic events, and its great wealth of most precious truth—every way worthy of an Author truly Divine. All history is useful in so far as it makes truthful revelations of man’s doings and of God’s agencies in and above them; how, then, does it behoove us to honor and to study this one unparalleled history in which the relations of God to men and of men to God are traced with God’s own unerring finger! How rich are we in having one model history of which we know that God Himself is the Author!”

Thomas Adams, 1614. Catherine Adorna. Henry Ainsworth, D.D., d. 1622. Rev. Wm. P. Alcott. J. W. A. James W. Alexander, D.D., d. 1859. A. J. Addison Alexander, D.D., d. 1860. Bp. William Alexander. Henry Allon, D.D., d. 1892. Bp. Lancelot Andrewes, d. 1626. Samuel J. Andrews, D.D. An Unknown Writer. An Unknown Writer. William Arnot, D.D., d. 1875. Carl August Auberlen, D.D. J. Balguy, D.D. S. Baring-Gould, D.D. Prof. P. C. Barker. Isaac Barrow, D.D., d. 1677. S. C. Bartlett, D.D. Richard Baxter, d. 1691. E. Bayley, D.D. W. J. B. Willis J. Beecher, D.D. A. J. F. Behrends, D.D. N. S. S. Beman, D.D. W. Benham, D.D. Bible Educator. T. R. Birks, D.D. E. C. B. Edward C. Bissell, D.D. W. G. B. William G. Blaikie, D.D. Dr. Blayney. Prof. Francis Bowen, d. 1890. Rev. Charles Bradley, d. 1871. Thomas Brainerd, D.D. Brit. Quar. British Quarterly. Bp. Phillips Brooks. Thomas Brooks, d. 1682. Bp. Geo. Bull, d. 1710. S. Burnham, D.D. E. F. Burr, D.D. G. S. Burroughs, D.D. Jeremiah Burroughs, d. 1646. N. C. Burt, D.D., 1874. H. B. Horace Bushnell, D.D., d. 1876. B. J. Glentworth Butler, D.D.

George W. Cable. Rev. Gordon Calthrop. R. S. Candlish, D.D., d. 1873. Joseph Caryl, d. 1673. T. C. Thomas Chalmers, D.D., d. 1847. Wm. W. Champneys, D.D., d. 1875. Adam Clarke, D.D., d. 1832. Rev. W. Clarkson. John Clifford, D.D. Rev. Elisha Cole. B. C. Bible (Speaker’s) Comment. P. C. Pulpit Commentary. Eustace R. Conder, D.D. Maj. F. R. Conder. H. C. Henry Cowles, D.D., d. 1881. Hebrew History. Samuel Cox, D.D. Howard Crosby, D.D. Ralph Cudworth, DD., d. 1688. A. D. Davidson, D.D. J. Thain Davidson, D.D. John De Liefde. Dictionary of Bible (Wm. Smith). D. B. S. R. Driver, D.D. Prof. Henry Drummond. J. W. Dulles, D.D. J. E. Dwinell, D.D. A. E. Alfred Edersheim, D.D., d. 1889. B. B. E. Bela B. Edwards, D.D., d. 1844. Jonathan Edwards, D.D., d. 1758. James Fells, D.D. Rufus Ellis, D.D. Fred’k W. Farrar, D.D. J. F. John Foster, d. 1843. D. F. Donald Fraser, D.D., d. 1892. William Fraser, D.D., d. 1879. E. L. Garbett. Frederick Gardiner, D.D.

| | C. D. Ginsburg, D.D. | | — | — | | E. H. G. | E. H. Gillett, D.D., d. 1875. R. B. Girdlestone, D.D. Thomas Gisborne, d. 1846. Francis Godet, D.D. Bp. Harvey Goodwin, d. 1892. | | E. M. G. | Edward M. Goulburn, D.D. Richard Graves, D.D., d. 1829. | | W. H. G. | Wm. Henry Green, D.D. Rev. J. M. Greene. William Gurnall, d. 1679. Thomas Guthrie, D.D., d. 1873. | | | Robert Haldane, d. 1842. William Hales, D.D., d. 1819. Rev. J. W. Haley. Book of Esther. Robert Hallam, D.D. John Hall, D.D. | | Bp. H. | Bp. Joseph Hall, d. 1656. Robert Hall, D.D., d. 1831. Joseph Hammond, D.D. Pul. Commentary. | | J. H. | John Harris, D.D., d. 1856. | | H. | Matthew Henry, D.D., d. 1714. Bp. A. C. Hervey, d. 1894. Thomas Hill, 1642. Roswell D. Hitchcock, D.D., d. 1887. | | | A. A. Hodge, D.D. | | M. H. | Mark Hopkins, D.D., d. 1887. M. L. Houghton. Notes on Kings, etc. Rev. T. H. Howat. John Howe, D.D. Rev. A. H. Huizinga. | | F. D. H. | Bp. Frederick D. Huntington. Bp. John F. Hurst. Interior (Chicago). Rev. C. H. Irwin. | | J. J. | Bp. John Jackson, d. 1885. Herrick Johnson, D.D. Joseph D. Jones, D.D., d. John Jortin, D.D., d. 1770. | | | J. F. Keil, D.D. John Ker, D.D., d. 1886. Benj. Kennicott, D.D., d. 1783. Rev. Charles Kingsley, d. 1875. | | A. F. K. | A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D. John Kitto, D.D., d. 1854. F. W. Krummacher, D.D., d. 1868. J. H. Kurtz, D.D. | | | J. P. Lange, D.D., d. 1884. E. A. Lawrence, D.D. |

| | Stanley Leathes, D.D. Structure of the Old Testament. | | — | — | | T. L. | Tayler Lewis, LL.D., d. 1877. Wm. H. Lewis, D.D. 1852. | | H. P. L. | Henry P. Liddon, D.D., d. 1890. Wm. Lowth, D.D. J. R. Lumby, D.D. Com. on Kings. Martin Luther, d. 1546. | | | Rev. J. A. Macdonald. James McCosh, D.D. Rev. A. Mackey. Rev. Alex. Mackennal. | | A. M. | Alexander Maclaren, D.D. Sermons and Studies in many vols. and serials. G. F. Maclear, D.D. Hugh Macmillan, D.D. S. J. MacPherson, D.D. | | T. M. | Thomas Manton, d. 1667. William Mason, d. 1791. | | J. R. M. | J. R. Miller, D.D. | | W. M. | W. Milligan, D.D. Elijah. H. H. Milman, D.D., d. 1868. Prof. O. M. Mitchell, d. 1862. S. S. Mitchell, D.D. Bp. George Moberly, d. 1885. | | | Sir Isaac Newton. Bp. Thos. Newton, d. 1782. Wm. Newton, D.D. | | | Rev. J. Ogle. J. Orr, D.D. | | O. | G. F. Oehler, D.D. Howard Osgood, D.D. J. F. Osterwald, D.D., d. 1747. John Owen, D.D., d. 1683. | | J. P. | Joseph Parker, D.D. | | C. H. P. | Chas. H. Parkhurst, D.D. Bp. Symon Patrick, d. 1707. William W. Patton, D.D., d. 1890. | | P. | Andrew P. Peabody, D.D. | | A. P. | Bp. J. J. Stewart Perowne. Austin Phelps, D.D., d. 1890. Studies of the Old Testament. A. T. Pierson, D.D. A. W. Pitzer, D.D. E. H. Plumptre, D.D., d. 1892. A. D. Pollock, D.D. R. S. Pool. Matthew Poole, d. 1679. J. L. Porter, D.D., d. 1889. | | E. de P. | E. De Pressence, D.D. |

John Prideaux, d. 1650. John Pulsford, 1857. Rev. Philip Pyle, d. 1799.

A. R. Alexander Raleigh, D.D., d. 1880. Leopold Ranke. George Rawlinson, D.D. Kings of Israel and Judah, Commentaries, Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. R. A. Redford, D.D. F. W. R. Frederick W. Robertson, D.D., d. 1853. James Robertson, D.D. S. R. Stuart Robinson, D.D., d. 1881. Henry Rogers. John Ruskin.

Bp. Robert Sanderson, d. 1663. Prof. A. H. Sayce. Philip Schaff, D.D. A. F. Schauffler, D.D. Geo. H. Schodde, D.D. Rev. A. L. Simpson. A. C. Smith. C. E. Smith, D.D. R. P. S. R. Payne Smith D.D. P. S. Philip Smith. Old Test, History. Robert South, D.D. d. 1716. Thomas Stackhouse, D.D., d. 1752. A. P. Stanley, D.D., d. 1881. R. S. S. Richard Salter Storrs, D.D. John Stoughton, D.D. Rev. Hugh Stowell, d. 1865. Owen Street, D.D. A. Symington, D.D.

I. T. Isaac Taylor, d. 1865. Bp. Jeremy Taylor, d. 1667. N. W. Taylor, D.D., d. 1858.

Wm. M. Taylor, D.D. Jesse B. Thomas, D.D. A. Thomson, D.D. Chas. L. Thompson, D.D. J. P. T. Joseph P. Thompson, D.D., d. 1879. R. E. Thompson, D.D. Abp. Tillotson, d. 1694. S. S. T. Sunday School Times (Phila.) R. T. Rev. Reuben Tinker. Rev. Geo. Townsend. H. B. Tristram, D.D. H. C. T. H. Clay Trumbull, D.D.

Van O. C. W. Van Develde, 1854. J. J. Van Oosterzee, D.D., d. 1882. H. Van Santwood. James Vaughan, D.D. E. Venables, D.D. Marvin R. Vincent, D.D. Alexander Vinet, D.D., d. 1847.

Bp. H. W. Warren, D.D. Bp. Richard Watson, d. 1816. Edward Wells, D.D., d. 1727. Bp. Brooke Foss Westcott. Chas. White, D.D. F. Whitfield, D.D. Sir Chas. Wilson. Bp. Thos. Wilson, d. 1755. Prof. Winchell. E. C. Wines, D.D., d. 1879. J. L. Withrow, D.D. Wm. Wogan, d. 1754. T. D. W. Theodore D. Woolsey, D.D., d. 1889. G. F. Wright, D.D.

Francis N. Zabriskie, D.D., d. 1891. Rev. J. A. Zahm.

Date Due

| MY 23 ‘50 | | | | — | — | — | | AUG 24 ‘50 | | | | SEP 30 2007 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

THE

THE REVISED TEXT; WITH CRITICAL EXPOSITION, AND COMMENTS SELECTED FROM THE CHOICEST MOST ILLUMINATING AND HELPFUL THOUGHT OF THE CHRISTIAN CENTURIES.

| Prophet and Prophecy, | PAGE | | — | — | | The Prophet Isaiah, | 7 | | | 12 |

| Isaiah I., | 16 | | — | — | | “ II., } | | | “ III., } | 26 | | “ IV., } | | | “ V., | 33 | | “ VI., | 40 | | “ VII., | 47 | | “ VIII., IX., 1-7, | 55 | | “ IX., 8-21, } | | | “ X., } | 70 | | “ XI., } | | | “ XII., } | 76 | | “ XIII., } | | | “ XIV., 1-27, } | 83 | | “ XIV., 28-32, } | | | “ XV., } | | | “ XVI., } | 91 | | “ XVII., } | | | “ XVIII., } | | | “ XIX., } | 96 | | “ XX., } | | | “ XXI., } | | | “ XXII., } | 103 | | “ XXIII., | 110 | | “ XXIV., } | | | “ XXV., } | 113 | | “ XXVI., | 122 | | “ XXVII., | 131 | | “ XXVIII., | 135 | | “ XXIX., | 143 | | “ XXX., } | | | “ XXXI., } | 147 | | “ XXXII., | 154 | | “ XXXIII., | 161 | | “ XXXIV., | 168 | | “ XXXV., | 173 | | “ XXXVI., } Vol. VII., page 356. | | | “ XXXVII., } | | | “ XXXVIII., } Vol. VII., page 343. | | | “ XXXIX., } | | iv

| | Introductory, | PAGE | | — | — | — | | Isaiah | XL., | 179 | | “ | XLI., | 202 | | “ | XLII., | 213 | | “ | XLIII., | 217 | | “ | XLIV., | 224 | | “ | XLV., | 229 | | “ | XLVI., | 235 | | “ | XLVII., | 242 | | “ | XLVIII., | 247 | | “ | XLIX., | 255 | | “ | L., | 262 | | “ | LI., | 266 | | “ | LII., 1-12, | 271 | | “ | LII., 13-15, | 276 | | “ | LIII., | | | “ | LIV., | 292 | | “ | LV., | 298 | | “ | LVI., | 314 | | “ | LVII., | 319 | | “ | LVIII., | 328 | | “ | LIX., | 338 | | “ | LX., | 344 | | “ | LXI., | 353 | | “ | LXII., | 359 | | “ | LXIII., | 362 | | “ | LXIV., | | | “ | LXV., | 374 | | “ | LXVI., | 381 |

| | Introduction, | 390 | | — | — | — | | Jeremiah | I., | 397 | | “ | II., | 402 | | “ | III., 1-5, | | | “ | III., 6-25, | 409 | | “ | IV., | | | “ | V., | 421 | | “ | VI., | | | “ | VII., | | | “ | VIII., | 431 | | “ | IX., | | | “ | X., | 443 | | “ | XI., | 448 | | “ | XII., | | | “ | XIII., | 455 | | “ | XIV., | 462 | | “ | XV., | | | “ | XVI., | 471 | | “ | XVII., | 475 |

V

| Jeremiah | XVIII., | | | | | | | | | | | | PAGE | | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | | “ | XIX., | | | | | | | | | | | | 485 | | “ | XX., | | | | | | | | | | | | | | “ | XXI., | Vol. VII., | page 436. | | | | | | | | | | | | “ | XXII., | | | | | | | | | | | | 499 | | “ | XXIII., | | | | | | | | | | | | | | “ | XXIV., | | | | | | | | | | | | 516 | | “ | XXV., | | | | | | | | | | | | 519 | | “ | XXVI., | Vol. VII., | page 399. | | | | | | | | | | | | “ | XXVII., | | | | | | | | | | | | | | “ | XXVIII., | Vol. VII., | page 430. | | | | | | | | | | | | “ | XXIX., | | | | | | | | | | | | 524 | | “ | XXX., | | | | | | | | | | | | 531 | | “ | XXXI., | | | | | | | | | | | | 536 | | “ | XXXII., | Vol. VII., | page 442. | | | | | | | | | | | | “ | XXXIII., | | | | | | | | | | | | 551 | | “ | XXXIV., | Vol. VII., | page 433. | | | | | | | | | | | | “ | XXXV., | “ | “ | “ | 411. | | | | | | | | | | “ | XXXVI., | “ | “ | “ | 400. | | | | | | | | | | “ | XXXVII., | “ | “ | “ | 436. | | | | | | | | | | “ | XXXVIII., | “ | “ | “ | 437. | | | | | | | | | | “ | XXXIX., | 1-7. | “ | “ | 419. | | | | | | | | | | “ | XXXIX., | 8-18. | “ | “ | 448. | | | | | | | | | | “ | XL., | “ | “ | “ | 456. | | | | | | | | | | “ | XLI., | “ | “ | “ | 457. | | | | | | | | | | “ | XLII., | “ | “ | “ | 457. | | | | | | | | | | “ | XLIII., | “ | “ | “ | 458. | | | | | | | | | | “ | XLIV., | “ | “ | “ | 458. | | | | | | | | | | “ | XLV., | “ | “ | “ | 401. | | | | | | | | | | “ | XLVI., | | | | | | | | | | | | | | “ | XLVII., | | | | | | | | | | | | 558 | | “ | XLVIII., | | | | | | | | | | | | 564 | | “ | XLIX., | | | | | | | | | | | | 571 | | “ | L., | | | | | | | | | | | | 577 | | “ | LI., | | | | | | | | | | | | 581 | | “ | LII., | 1-11, | Vol. VII., | page 418. | | | | | | | | | | | “ | “ | 12-30, | “ | “ | 447. | | | | | | | | | | “ | “ | 31-34, | “ | “ | 418. | | | | | | | | |

| Lamentations | I. | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | 589 | | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | | “ | II. | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | 595 | | “ | III. | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | 600 | | “ | IV. | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | 614 | | “ | V. | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | 619 |

THE simplest classification of the Old Testament Books is threefold : 1. Seventeen Historical. 2. Five Ethical and Spiritual. 3. Seventeen Prophetic. In this Work the seventeen Historical Books are treated in Volumes I., II., III., and VII. ; the five middle Books in Volumes IV., V., VI. ; and the seventeen Prophetic Books in Volumes VIII. and IX.

Noting thus the place of these closing Books, the general reader is further reminded that these seventeen Books of Prophecy are largely and closely related to the History contained in Volume VII.—that is, to the history of the People of Israel from the Division of Solomon’s Kingdom to and through the Captivity and Return of Judah, with traces of reference to events of the after history up to the Advent of Christ. Hence, in these two Prophetic volumes (VIII. and IX.) will be found a continual reference to the pages of Volume VII., as well as succinct statements of the main historical events with which the several Prophets have to do. The reader, therefore, who would thoroughly grasp their meaning must carefully study and compare the prophecy and the history at every step.

It is to be further noted, that the ultimate and highest teachings of these seventeen Prophets far outreach the period of Messiah’s Advent. Their supreme purpose and most essential disclosures cover the great facts of that Advent, including the Person and office-work of the promised Redeemer, while they further traverse the broad range of events to the close of the Christian Dispensation, and clearly interpret the vital meaning of that Dispensation.

Another suggestion may be helpful to readers who may have been somewhat wearied by the very frequent reiteration of the same charges and threatenings, entreaties and promises which occur in almost all of these Prophecies. A sufficient reason and justification of these oft-repeated statements is found in the fact that through the history of more than five centuries the same spirit of disobedience and rebellion characterized all the successive generations of God’s chosen people. But another, and to us more helpful reason for this seeming redundancy of warning and promise, may be found in the fact that therein we are furnished with cumulative evidence and proof of Jehovah’s kind and gracious intent toward His people through those long ages, an evidence and proof equally needed and applicable in all subsequent ages until now. Nowhere else can we find so instructive and impressive a series of lessons touching man’s natural disobedience and dislike of God, and God’s forbearing and forgiving mercy toward man. These considerations fully justify, while they demand our deepest gratitude for, every line of prophetic denunciation, entreaty and promise.

It may be added, in reference to the treatment of these Prophetic Books, that a considerable portion of the text, consisting largely of repetitions or enlargements of main themes or statements, has required and received but little attention. But the great themes and events of prophecy with their lessons, together with the many high and helpful spiritual truths suggested therein, are fully set forth in these pages.

THE primary concept of the word “prophet” is that of announcer, or forth-speaker. The prophet is one who speaks in the place of God, who conveys God’s word to men, who is an interpreter of God to men. W. L. A.—A prophet is a man specially called and sent by God to communicate a Divine revelation. This is apparent from the names given to those Divine messengers. They are called prophets, seers, men of God, men of the Spirit. The Hebrew word for prophet (“nabi”) and the English word as used in the Old Testament are fully explained by a comparison of two passages in the Book of Exodus—7:1 and 4:16. Moses was to be as God to Aaron, Aaron as prophet, mouth, or spokesman to Moses; Moses to communicate to Aaron, and Aaron to declare the message. According to this, prophet means the declarer or interpreter of the Divine will. He is one who does not speak of himself, the workings of his own mind, but declares the mind and will of God, and speaks what he receives from without. To declare the will of God and deliver His message, whether it regarded the past, the present or the future, was the prophet’s great duty. To have received a call and message direct from God, and to deliver it, constituted the essence of prophetism. A. MeCaul.

The etymology of “nabi” and the cognate verbal forms makes it impossible to look upon foresight or prediction as their primary and necessary import. The only derivation which can now be regarded as philologically tenable is that which makes the word originally signify the act of pouring forth or uttering, a natural figure in all languages for speech, and more especially for public, solemn and continuous discourse. In actual usage, the Hebrew words are admitted by modern writers of all schools and creeds to signify specifically one who speaks (or the act of speaking) for God, not only in His name and by His authority, but under His influence—in other words, by Divine inspiration. A complete induction of particulars would show, with scarcely the appearance of a doubtful case or an exception, that the essential idea, running through the whole Hebrew usage of the verb and noun, is that of inspiration.

Another obvious deduction from the usage of the language is, that although “nabi,” like many other terms of such perpetual occurrence, is employed both in a wider and a more restricted sense, the distinction thus made is not that between inspiration in general and the foresight of the future in particular. There is probably not a single instance in which the word denotes the latter, except as one important function of the power which it properly describes. The gift of prophecy included that of prophetic foresight, but it included more. The prophet was inspired to reveal the will of God, to act as an organ of communication between God and man. The subject of the revelations thus conveyed embraced the past and present, and extended to those absolute and universal truths which have no relation to time. This is what we should expect a priori in a Divine revelation, and it is what we actually find it to contain. That the prophets of the old dispensation were not mere foretellers of things future is apparent from their history as well as from their writings. The historical argument is stated forcibly by Gill when he observes that Daniel proved himself a prophet by telling Nebuchadnezzar what he had dreamed, as much as by interpreting the dream itself; that it was only by prophetic inspiration that Elijah knew what Gehazi had been doing; and that the woman of Samaria very properly called Christ a prophet, because He told her all things that ever she did. In all these cases, and in multitudes of others, the essential idea is that of inspiration, its frequent reference to things still future being accidental—i.e., not included in the uniform and necessary import of the terms.

With respect to the nature of the inspiration under which these prophets spoke and acted, there can be no doubt that the Bible itself represents it as plenary, or fully adequate to the attainment of its end (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). Where this end was external action, it was sufficiently secured by the gift of courage, strength and practical wisdom. Where the instruction of God’s people was the object, whether in reference to the past, the present or the future; whether in word, in writing, or in both; whether for temporary ends, or with a view to perpetual preservation, the prophets are clearly represented as infallible—i.e., incapable of erring or deceiving, with respect to the matter of their revelation. How far this object was secured by direct suggestion, by negative control, or by an elevating influence upon the native powers, is a question of no practical importance to those who hold the essential doctrine that the inspiration was in all cases such as to render those who were inspired infallible. Between this supposition and the opposite extreme, which denies inspiration altogether, or resolves it into mere excitement of the imagination and the sensibilities, like the afflatus of a poet or an orator, there seems to be no definite and safe position. Either the prophets were not inspired at all in any proper sense, or they were so inspired as to be infallible. As to the mode in which the required impression was made, it seems both vain and needless to attempt any definite description of it. The ultimate effect would be the same in any case, if not upon the prophet, upon those who heard or read his prophecies. This whole question is rather one of curiosity than use, even in reference to interpretation. A.

The prophets as an order were penetrated with a sense of responsibility to a Divine commission. They professedly spoke and acted in obedience to its commands. There is no one of the sixteen prophetical books which does not bear witness to the truth of this assertion. Each writer rests upon his own individual consciousness of a mission. It is ever, “The word of the Lord came unto me.” The prophet, then, was a person who stood in a position of exceptional nearness to God, and was the human agent through whom, on special occasions, the Divine will was made known to man. And, from first to last, there is no instance in which the prophetic office may not be thus characterized. All claimed to “speak in the word of the Lord,” to one and all “the word of the Lord came,” sometimes coupled with predictive utterances, sometimes without them, but their message always rested on a foundation of “Thus saith the Lord.” Leathes.

The same spirit animates them all; they are all interpreters and laborers of Jehovah; they defend, all of them, the faith of God against idolatry, justice and right against tyranny, the national independence against foreign dominion. In the name of the God of Abraham and of Jacob they labor and succeed in maintaining or in reanimating religious and moral life amid the decay and servitude of Israel. “All the time,” says Augustine, “from the epoch when the holy Samuel began to prophesy, to the day when the people of Israel was led captive into Babylonia, is the period of the prophets.” Even while calling the people of Israel back to the faith of their fathers, the prophets open to them new perspectives. While reproaching them with the errors that have led to their decay and servitude, they permit them yet to see the future delivery and regeneration. It is their Divine character to live at once in the past and in the future; to confide alike to the ordinances of the Eternal and to His promises. They move forward, but they change not; they believe, they hope; they are faithful to Moses while they announce the Messiah. Guizot.

First God, then everything else; be it man, kingdoms, demons, power, even word as from God, or signs and miracles! This is the truth which Israel’s history had evolved, which Israel’s institutions embodied, which Israel’s prophecies set forth, and by which, in turn, according to Deuteronomy, Israel’s prophecy was to be tested. This then is the meaning of the canon in De. 13: Try the prophet by his confession of God. And similarly, we read it in the New Testament (1 John 4): “Try the spirits, whether they are of God. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God; and this is the spirit of the Antichrist.” And in Old Testament prophecy everything is spiritual, comes from and points to God. Divine revelation meets the moral wants of man, and directs him to God. This one thing appears most clearly throughout the whole Old Testament: that there is absolutely no power in any outward things to produce prophecy, nor yet has the prophet himself any power to produce it within himself by any means of his own, but that in all cases it comes straight from God, to whom, when, how and where He pleases; that a man becomes a prophet as God gives him the message, and is such only and so long as God continues to send it. On the other hand, God did meet this deep want and longing of His children by sending His prophets and putting His word into their mouths. Hence to receive or else to resist them could not be matter of indifference, since they were the direct ambassadors of God; but it involved either obedience to Him or else guilt.

The prophet, as preacher, views the present in the light of the future; as foreteller, the future in the light of the present. He points out present sin, duty, danger or need, but all under the strong light of the Divine future. He speaks of the present in the name of God, and by His direct commission; of a present, however, which, in the Divine view, is evolving into a future, as the blossom is opening into the fruit. And when he foretells the future, he sees it in the light of the present; the present lends its colors, scenery, the very historic basis for the picture. This will help to explain alike the substance and the form of the prophetic message. To the prophetic vision the present is ever enlarging, widening, extending. The hills are growing, the valley is spreading, the light is gilding the mountain tops. And presently the hills are clothed with green, the valleys peopled with voices; the present is merging into the future, although exhibited in the form of the present. The prophet is speaking of Moab, Ammon, Tyre, Assyria; and these are gradually growing into the shapes of future foes, or future similar relations. And in the midst of such references here and there appears what applied exclusively to that Messianic kingdom which is the goal and final meaning of all, and of all prophecy. It is an entire misunderstanding to regard such prophecies as not applying to the Messianic future, because they occur in the midst of references to contemporary events. As the rapt prophet gazes upon those hills and valleys around him, they seem to grow into gigantic mountains and wide tracts, watered by many a river and peopled with many and strange forms, while here and there the golden light lies on some special height, whence its rays slope down into valleys and glens; or else the brightness shines out in contrasted glory against dark forest, or shadowy outline in the background. And the prophet could not have spoken otherwise than in the forms of the present. For, had he spoken in language and introduced scenery entirely of the future, not only would his own individuality have been entirely effaced, but he would have been wholly unintelligible to his contemporaries. A. E.

Place and Functions of the Prophets.

The prophets, as God’s living witnesses, seem to have stood between the priesthood and the monarchy; on the one hand, seeking to keep the forms of religion vital with their proper spiritual significance, and, on the other, to secure the administration of the government in the interests of morality and religion. Of course, prophets would be indispensable in the kingdom of Israel, unless that kingdom was to be immediately abandoned of God as apostate. Bart.

They were the national poets of Judea. Music and poetry, chants and hymns, were a main part of the studies of the class from which, generally speaking, they were derived. As is natural, we find not only the songs previously specified, but the rest of their compositions, poetical or breathing the spirit of poetry.

They were annalists and historians. A great portion of Isaiah, of Jeremiah, of Daniel, of Jonah, of Haggai, is direct or indirect history.

They were preachers of patriotism, their patriotism being founded on the religious motive. To the subject of the theocracy the enemy of his nation was the enemy of God, the traitor to the public weal was a traitor to his God; a denunciation of an enemy was a denunciation of a representative of evil, an exhortation in behalf of Jerusalem was an exhortation in behalf of God’s kingdom on earth, “the city of our God, the mountain of holiness, beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, the city of the great King” (Ps. 48: 1, 2).

They were preachers of morals and of spiritual religion. The symbolical teaching of the law had lost much of its effect. Instead of learning the necessity of purity by the legal washings, the majority came to rest in the outward act as in itself sufficient. It was the work, then, of the prophets to hold up before the eyes of their countrymen a high and pure morality, not veiled in symbols and acts, but such as none could profess to misunderstand.

They were extraordinary, but yet authorized exponents of the law. As an instance of this, we may take Isaiah’s description of a true fast (58: 3-7); Ezekiel’s explanation of the sins of the fathers being visited on the children (chap. 18); Micah’s preference of “doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God,” to “thousands of rams and ten thousands of rivers of oil” (6: 6-8). In these, as in other similar cases (cf. Hos. 6: 6; Amos 5: 21), it was the task of the prophets to restore the balance which had been overthrown by the Jews and their teachers dwelling on one side or on the outer covering of a truth or of a duty, and leaving the other side or the inner meaning out of sight.

They were a political power in the State. Strong in the safeguard of their religious character, they were able to serve as a counterpoise to the royal authority when wielded even by an Ahab.

But the prophets were something more than national poets and annalists, preachers of patriotism, moral teachers, exponents of the law, pastors, and politicians. Their most essential characteristic is, that they were instruments of revealing God’s will to man, as in other ways, so specially by predicting future events, and in particular by foretelling the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the redemption effected by Him. P. S.

The Kingdom and its King, Messiah, their Chief Theme.

In the whole history of man we can trace the course of one shaping, overmastering and progressive power before which all others have bowed, and that is the spiritual kingdom of God. Henry B. Smith.

If we regard the collective contents of the prophetic books of the Old Testament, we must say that prophecy is employed entirely in promoting the interests of the kingdom of God, and that its main office is to unfold its ways. O.

The whole Old Testament is prophetic. Its special predictions form only a part, although an organic part, of the prophetic Scriptures; and all prophecy points to the kingdom of God, and to the Messiah as its King. The narrow boundaries of Judah and Israel were to be enlarged so as to embrace all men, and one King would reign in righteousness over a ransomed world that would offer to Him its homage of praise and service. All that had marred the moral harmony of earth would be removed; the universal Fatherhood of God would become the birthright of redeemed, pardoned, regenerated humanity; and all this blessing would centre in and flow from the Person of the Messiah. Such is the promise of the Old Testament which the New Testament declares to have been fulfilled in Christ Jesus. And this Messianic idea is the moving spring of the Old Testament. It is also its sole raison d’être, viewed as a revelation. Otherwise the Jewish people and their history could only have an archaeological or a political interest for us. Hebrewism, if it had any Divine meaning, was the religion of the future, and Israel embodied for the world the religious idea which, in its universal application, is the kingdom of God. . . . Thus the Old Testament pointed beyond itself to the perfectness which it announced and for which it prepared. That perfectness consists in the removal of all the evil which sin has wrought, in the restoration of man to God, and in the fulness of blessings which flows from fellowship between God and man. This is the kingdom of God. To announce it and to prepare for it was the object of the Old Testament.

It is in the light of the wider view of fulfilled prophecy which, as a whole and in all its parts, refers to the kingdom of God upon earth, that we must study individual predictions. They pass far beyond anything actual at the time of their utterance to the underlying ideal. They are not exaggerated Orientalisms for simple facts, but there was one grand moving idea set forth with ever unfolding clearness: the hope of a great Fatherhood of God, of a great brotherhood of man, in which the grand connecting link, alike with God and man, should be the One who embodied all that was ideally possible in man, and who manifested all that could be manifested of God; who united the highest point in the human with the utmost condescension of the Divine—God and man; who brought God’s reconciliation to man, and by it reconciled man to God, combining in Himself these two—the suffering of man and the conquering of God, and organically united them in conquering by suffering; One who, by so doing, made possible and introduced the Messianic kingdom of God, through the willing submission of man. Thus the God-Man fully realized the theanthropic idea of the whole Old Testament. As each event in His history kindled into light, it shone upon the individual prophecies, and made them bright. A. E.

Prophecy is systematic, progressive, and all-inclusive. The theory of a revelation of redemption accounts for these features. Christ is then the centre, and hence all is connected in Him; and at the same time the Messianic part of revelation is largest, most important, most like the heart in the economy of the whole. This accounts also for the progress in all directions and toward all issues, but all conditioned by the approach of Christ, and by the fulness of the disclosure as to His person and work and its consequences. And this accounts for the all-inclusive character of the predictions. The Gentile future must stand in the light of the Jewish past, and be indebted to it. The Jewish unbelief must serve as a foil to the Gentile faith, and be at length reconciled to it and one with it. The world’s kingdoms must go through their crises of trial and judgment, to prepare the world as a whole for the Heavenly King. Thus, with prophecy, there is a Redeemer, and with Him a philosophy of history leading upward; without prophecy, no redemption, but law and sin fastened down by it. Cairns.

The Hebrew prophets enunciate those great moral and even political axioms, which are permanent prophecies because they are at the same time eternal truths, predictions which in containing the grounds of fulfilment involve the principle of foresight, and teach the science of the future in its perpetual elements. Coleridge.

There are prophecies which unfold great prospects and results in respect to the manifestation of God’s purposes of grace and truth toward men. Such prophecies were of necessity general and comprehensive in their terms, and admitted of manifold fulfilments. It is of them that we would understand the singularly pregnant and beautiful remark of Lord Bacon that “Divine prophecies, being of the nature of their author, with whom a thousand years are as but one day, are therefore not fulfilled punctually at once, but have springing and germinant accomplishment; though the height or fulness of them may refer to some one age.” The very first prophecy ever uttered to fallen man—the promise given of a seed through the woman which should bruise the head of the serpent—and that afterward given to Abraham of a seed of blessing, may be fitly specified as illustrations of the principle; since in either case—though by virtue, not of a double sense, but of a wide and comprehensive import—a fulfilment from the first was constantly proceeding, while “the height and fulness” of the predicted good could only be reached in the redemption of Christ and the glories of His kingdom. P. Fairbairn.

It was one of the special functions of those ancient prophets to minister to the faith and hope of the few yet found faithful among the many faithless. To them, and primarily for their sake, God spake, through His servants, of the great things then in the future of His Zion. The Messiah yet to come; the work He should achieve while yet among men in the flesh; the mission of the Holy Spirit; the conversion of the Gentiles; the fortunes of the Jews—at first mostly cast off for their unbelief, but ultimately brought in through great mercy; the abrogation of the sacrificial system; the outgoing of the gospel to the distant nations of the earth; the mission of truth and its triumphs in every land, and the final victory of Christ over all opposing powers—these things are grouped to gether into these glorious visions of the then distant future—a grand and sublime panorama of the Christian age in whole, making revelations even to us who live midway in their fulfilment, such as no lover of his race and lover of Christ can contemplate without being quickened anew in faith and love for the prayer and the work to which Christ calls him. How earnestly do these prophecies invite the most careful study! We do not wonder that Peter should endorse and commend them to his Christian brethren, saying: “We have also the word of prophecy made more sure” (i.e., by its incipient fulfilment), “whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as to a light that shineth in a dark place until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts” (2 Pet. 1: 19). H. C.

How plain the Hebrew prophets talk to us, how easily we understand their essential message, when taken out of its partial aspects of time and place! We know well the chronological periods of their predictions; we are not at all ignorant of their primary applications, nor of the peculiar, the very peculiar historical states that furnish the ground of their impassioned admonitions; most special indeed, most exclusive are they in their national and ethical aspects; and yet we cannot help feeling that these ancient seers are talking to us, talking to all men, to all ages. Their words are just the words, just the figures, which are needed now, and found to be most appropriate now, in rebuking every form of wrong, of oppression, of public or private wickedness. T. Lewis.

They are most profitable for holiness, both personal, ecclesiastical and national. They reveal God in all His fulness and variety of being; they speak in human ears the strains of heaven. Oh, how very sublime, how very pathetic, how very moral, how very Divine they are! It is the richest tissue of discourse that was ever woven. The poet, the orator, the merchant, the statesman, the divine, every form of spiritual workman, will find the instruments, and the measures, and the rules, and the chief performances of his art, therein. How many sided are the prophets! How they stretch athwart the middle space between heaven and earth, lying all abroad in the most varied beauty! E. Irving.

The sixteen prophets may be divided into four groups: the prophets of the northern kingdom—Hosea, Amos, Jonah; the prophets of the southern kingdom—Joel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Obadiah. Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk,

Zephaniah; the prophets of the Captivity—Ezekiel and Daniel; the prophets of the Return—Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

They may be arranged in the following chronological order—namely, Joel, Jonah, Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Ha-

Habbakkuk, Obadiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. But it will be more convenient to take them in the order in which they stand in the Old Testament, speaking first of the four great prophets, and then of the twelve minor prophets. P. S.

THE prophet Isaiah is by general consent the greatest of all Hebrew writers, and the foremost of the long list of seers who form so remarkable an element in the history of the Jewish race. And yet we know but little of his personal history. His writings are his great memorial, and these so fully describe the person and offices of the Messiah, that from the time of Jerome downward he has been known as the Evangelical Prophet. R. P. S.

Jerome, in his introduction to the prophecies of Isaiah, says, “He is to be regarded not so much as a prophet as an evangelist. For he revealed all the mysteries of Christ and of the Church so plainly, that you would not think that he was prophesying concerning future events, but rather relating the history of the past.” Other fathers in the Latin Church have bestowed upon him the same and similar appellations; especially does Augustine love to emphasize the Gospel truths of the great prophet. Nor did the fathers of the Greek Church fail to recognize this prominent feature in Isaiah’s writings, as the words of Cyril, Theodoret, and others sufficiently testify. The reformers, too, re-echo these sentiments. Luther says, “He is full of loving, comforting, cheering words for all poor consciences and wretched, afflicted souls,” and thus virtually repeats what the Jewish commentator Abarbanel had said centuries before him, “The whole Book of Isaiah is full of consolation.” Vitringa, to the present day yet the master commentator of Isaiah, in his edition of 1714 quotes with strong terms of approbation the words of Jerome; while the commentators of the present day, both conservative or liberal, can only approve the sentiment of their predecessors as to the evangelical contents of Isaiah. The voice of the Church in this regard is but the echo of Christ and His disciples, as is apparent from almost every book in the New Testament. No writer of the Old Testament is so frequently quoted in the New as the son of Amoz. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans is almost built on the great prophet. Sebastian Munster, in his commentary of 1660, declares that the “testimonies of Isaiah ornament as would stars and jewels the most pregnant letter of Paul to the Romans.”

Isaiah, more than any of his prophetic brethren, spiritualized and denationalized all the prominent ideas with which prophecy is accustomed to deal. The central idea of both Testaments, and the connecting link between them, is the idea of the kingdom of God. The revelations of both covenants are Christo-centric only because the establishment of this kingdom is possible through Christ Jesus alone. Isaiah’s sermons, like those of all the other prophets, deal with this cardinal doctrine, but in a peculiar manner. What distinguishes him from them and brings him so near to the evangelists of the New Testament is the fact that he more than others points to the coming Messiah as the chosen servant of Jehovah to accomplish the end of which the others had spoken. With the vividness of an eye-witness he describes the manner in which this Messiah will fulfil His mission, and the personal characteristics and attributes that enable Him, and Him alone, to accomplish this. In other words, a New Testament and evangelical atmosphere pervades the preaching of Isaiah, because he goes beyond the other seers of the Old Testament, and does not, like them, restrict himself to the simple announcement of the new dispensation, but, with a clear and clarion voice of a messenger bringing the most glorious news, describes more definitely than all his predecessors the person and the work of the chosen medium. He takes one vast stride beyond his prophetic brethren, looks more deeply than they into the mysterious plans of the Godhead, and has been enlightened beyond their knowledge. Where in all pre-Christian revelation could we find a clearer elucidation of the work of redemption than in the redemption of the servant of Jehovah (Isa. 40-66), especially in that most glorious fifty-third chapter, the climax and corner-stone of the whole Old Testament? The sufferings and vicarious death of the innocent servant, the deliverance of the captives from sin and its consequences, and the redemption of all mankind through Him who bears away all our sins, and in whose stripes all are healed, have the vividness of historical narrative.

In this manner Isaiah, about seven centuries before Christ, proclaims the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. The prophet becomes an apostle; the lines of time are erased; the centuries still to come are overleaped, and the work yet to be accomplished described as though it were already done. Truly the pious fathers of the Church did not go astray when they called this chief among the prophets “the Evangelist of the Old Testament.” No book of the Old Testament is so replete with Gospel truth as that of the son of Amoz. Prophecy reached in him its highest development, and he stands unrivalled as the first among his peers among God’s preachers in the old covenant. Schodde.

Isaiah is by far the greatest of the writing prophets. We cannot open his book anywhere but we meet with the grasp of a great spirit. There is a rush of eloquence that carries you away; there is a splendor of diction and conception like that of a seraph; and whereas in other prophets perhaps a single idea stands out with lonely grandeur, here you have a perfect Alpine range of great truths, rising peak behind peak, up into the very heavens. Yet it is not difficult, I think, to see which is the greatest idea in the whole Book of Isaiah. It is the idea of God. That might, indeed, be said to be the leading idea in all the prophets, because what made them prophets was the vividness of their conception of God. Undoubtedly; yet none of the others come nearly up in this respect to Isaiah. It was given to him to speak about God as God never was spoken of by mortal lips until the Son came forth to reveal the Father. Stalker.

Whatever there is of poetry in the roll of the prophets, whatever of truth, of purity, and of elevation as to moral principle and theistic doctrine, and especially whatever there is of catholicity and of hopefulness for all nations, is preeminently found in the prophecies of Isaiah. These prophecies may well be said to embrace and to comprehend, and, in a sense, at once to recapitulate the revelations of all preceding ages, and to foreshow the revelations that were yet to come. The moral law is there in the fixedness of its eternal axioms; the spiritual life is there, and the substance of the Gospel is there; for the Redeemer of the world and the most signal of all events in the world’s history are there; and with the Saviour the brightness of the latest ages of the human family sheds a light upon this prophecy. Revelation culminates in the pages of this prophet; for the Old and the New Covenants are therein represented. I. T.

Guided by the Spirit, he took in and pondered the leading particulars of Christ’s person, history, and work. He was enabled to contemplate Him as a child born, as a son given, as a rod out of the stem of Jesse, as a branch growing out of his roots, and also as Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace. He speaks of His teaching and of His miracles—of His life and of His death; fully and with wonderful exactitude does he portray His sufferings, and with unmistakable distinctness declare their sacrificial nature. He proclaims Messiah as Prophet, Priest, and King, and especially amplifies, under a variety of the most beautiful images, the glory and blessedness of His reign. And as his eye sweeps over this range of evangelical truth—as he seems as if reading beforehand the pages of the New Testament, we wonder not at his clear recognition of a future life, of the living again of the dead, of the dwellers in the dust awakening to sing, of a freshness of life covering them like the dew of herbs. The knowledge of a resurrection and a blessed immortality seems inseparably related to the knowledge of a Saviour, without whom there could be no resurrection, and future existence could not be life, but everlasting death. And therefore we see how to the man before whom there was lifted up the veil of futurity, to behold the Messiah so distinctly, there was also lifted up the veil for the beholding of immortality. Stoughton.

The style of Isaiah has been universally admired as the most perfect model of the sublime; it is distinguished for all the magnificence and for all the sweetness of the Hebrew language. The variety of his images and the animated warmth of his expressions characterize him as unequalled in point of eloquence; and if we were desirous of producing a specimen of the dignity and beauties of the Scripture language, we should have recourse to Isaiah. Jerome speaks of him as conversant with every part of science, and indeed the marks of a cultivated and improved mind are stamped in every page of his book; but these are almost eclipsed by the splendor of his inspired knowledge. In the delivery of his prophecies and instructions he utters his enraptured strains with an elevation and majesty which unhallowed lips could never have attained. From the grand exordium in the first chapter to the concluding description of the Gospel, to “be brought forth” in wonders and to terminate in the dispensation of eternity; from first to last there is one continued display of inspired wisdom, revealing its oracles and precepts for the instruction of mankind. Gray.—His style is always in perfect harmony with the objects he describes; and as the subjects vary, so his style varies also. If he makes a recital, it is with a natural simplicity, in which the skill of the writer is felt but not seen. When he exhorts or rebukes, his invectives are piercing and his aspect is terrible. When he casts his prophetic glance forward to happier times, his genius seems to struggle with his subject for the invention of images more beautiful and comparisons more just. But his chief merit, and that which gives him a marked pre-eminence over the poets of the East, is the admirable precision of his expressions, the richness of his imagery, and the perfect contour of his periods. Eichhorn.

In Isaiah we see prophetic authorship reaching its culminating point. Everything conspired to raise him to an elevation to which no prophet, either before or after, could as a writer attain. Among the other prophets, each of the more important ones is distinguished by some one particular excellence and some one peculiar talent. In Isaiah all kinds of talent and all beauties of prophetic discourse meet together so as mutually to temper and qualify each other. It is not so much any single feature that distinguishes him as the symmetry and perfection of the whole. . . . Both as prophet and as author Isaiah stands upon that calm, sunny height which in each several branch of ancient literature one eminently favored spirit at the right time takes possession of, which seems, as it were, to have been waiting for him, and which, when he has come and mounted the ascent, seems to keep and guard him to the last as its own right man. In the sentiments which he expresses, in the topics of his discourses, and in the manner of expression, Isaiah uniformly reveals himself as the kingly prophet. Ewald.—Isaiah stands pre-eminent above all other prophets, as well in the contents and spirit of his predictions as in their form and style.

Simplicity, clearness, sublimity and freshness are the never-failing characteristics of his prophecies. The spiritual riches of the prophet are seen in his style, which always befits his subject. When he rebukes and threatens, it is like a storm, and when he comforts, his language is as tender and mild as (to use his own words) that of a mother comforting her son. Hengstenberg.

For sixty years this noble and heroic man, who after David fills the foremost place in the story of the chosen people, discharged the varied offices of prophet and seer, writer and statesman, in a most critical and eventful period of his nation’s history. To his devoted loyalty to the God who loved Israel, to his unswerving faith, to his splendid patriotism was owing the great moral revolution which was rewarded by the golden reign of the great Hezekiah, and the strange spectacle of the comparatively little kingdom of Judah successfully defying the mighty power of the greatest nation of the Eastern world. And although Isaiah survived the good and great Hezekiah, and lived long enough to witness the relapse of the court and people into their old sin and degradation, his writings and his work lived on long after Jerusalem was a byword and her temple a ruin. Though, to human eyes, Isaiah and his work seemed a failure, and his words as though only traced in the sand, the words and the work, the one dictated and the other inspired by the Eternal of Hosts, men now see possess a deathless power which increases as the centuries roll on in their solemn course. The words have been—nay, still are—in part, at least, the basis of the theology of Christendom. On them the pious Jew still loves to linger, because they represent to him the noblest, truest aspirations of his race. In them, century after century, devout Christians in every nation under heaven find written in the sublimest yet in the simplest language those sweet and blessed promises which, in all the stress and fever of life’s trials, nerve men and women to suffer and be strong, and which again and again whisper to them of the coming times when sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

Like so many of earth’s great ones, the prophet-statesman—so runs the sad tradition—passed through pain and agony to his rest. Now in the bosom of God he sees the fruit of his long and noble though, as far as earth was concerned, ill-requited toils—sees the souls of unnumbered harassed ones finding in his story of Messiah new and ever new bulwarks for the faith which must save them; reading in his sweet and comfortable promises great and fresh assurances of the perfect peace which passeth understanding. May we not say of Isaiah as of Isaiah’s Master, “He sees of the travail of his soul, and is satisfied”? Spence.

From first to last Isaiah’s character stands before us as one of almost superhuman elevation. When we think of him during those sixty years discharging so many varied offices—prophet, apostle, psalmist, instructor, intercessor, evangelist, apocalyptic seer; expostulating, reproving, expounding, comforting; doing all with deepest self-resignation and unfaltering faith toward God, and with serene dignity toward men, we seem to be contemplating one who, while retaining all human sympathies, has had a portion of seraphic nature communicated to him; one who was fitted to bear witness to the perfect “servant of the Lord” in prophecy, but even, in some degree, to foreshadow His character in actual life. W. Kay.

Isaiah was not only a prophet, but also a prophet-historian—a prominent instance, under the general law, that the prophets, as a class, wrote out the historic annals of their respective times. He wrote “the acts of Uzziah” (2 Chron. 26 : 22) and of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 32 : 32). The close resemblance between the two extant histories of the great Assyrian invasion—the first in 2 K. 18 : 13 to the end of chap. 20, and the second in Isaiah, chaps. 36–39—leaves scarcely a doubt that Isaiah wrote the former as well as the latter, and if so, then also, generally, the annals of his time. H. C.

Unity of Authorship of the Book.

This book not only forms a part of the Old Testament canon as far as we can trace it back, but has held its place there without any change of form, size or contents, of which the least external evidence can be adduced. The allusions to this prophet, and the imitations of him in the later books of the Old Testament, are not confined to any one part of the book or any single class of passages. The apocryphal writers who make mention of it use no expressions which imply that it was not already long complete in its present form and size. The same thing seems to be implied in the numerous citations of this book in the New Testament. Without going here into minute details, a correct idea of the general fact may be conveyed by simply stating that of the sixty-six chapters of Isaiah, as divided in our modern Bibles, forty-seven are commonly supposed to be directly quoted or distinctly alluded to, and some of them repeatedly. The same thing may be illustrated clearly on a smaller scale by stating that in the twenty-one cases where Isaiah is expressly named in the New Testament, the quotations are drawn from the first, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twenty-ninth, fortieth, forty second, fifty-third, sixty-first, and sixty-fifth chapters of the book before us. These facts, together with the absence of all countervailing evidence, show clearly that the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Luke 4 : 17), known and quoted by our Lord and His apostles, was, as a whole, identical with that which we have under the same name. We find accordingly a long, unbroken series of interpreters, Jewish and Christian, through a course of ages not only acquiescing in this general statement, but regarding all the passages and parts of which the book consists as clearly and unquestionably genuine. A.

The lifetime of Isaiah is the first key to the true arrangement of his prophecies. During its course the Assyrian power rose to its height, scourged and wasted the nations, led Ephraim captive, afflicted Judah, dashed itself against the rock of God’s promise to Zion and the house of David, and then began to decay, its chief mission being fulfilled. The prophet lived through the gathering of this thunder-cloud. He saw it burst over his country, was chosen to announce the fall of the destroyer, and survived till after the peaceful close of Hezekiah’s reign. Thus his prophecies fall naturally into two main divisions, contrasted in their character and tone, Assyrian and post-Assyrian. To make this contrast plainer, and show the historical basis on which it rests, four chapters of direct history are interposed between them (36–39), which recount the Assyrian overthrow, the reprieve of the kingdom, and the Babylonian embassy. The Assyrian prophecies all converge on the great crisis of Sennacherib’s overthrow. The post-Assyrian diverge from the brief warning of Judah’s exile, occasioned by the message of Merodach, when all the royal treasures and the royal seed of David would be carried away to Babylon (39 : 6, 7).

Again, Isaiah’s ministry before Sennacherib’s fall includes three periods, marked by diverse characters. Twenty years—from the last of Uzziah to the third of Ahaz—saw the gradual advance of the Assyrian, through the reign of Pekah, till a first crisis, when Pekah was slain by Hoshea and Rezin by Tiglath-pileser, and