[382]Above, p. 134, n.362.[383]עֻקְּלָהinstead ofעֻפְּלָה.[384]Rom. i. 17; Gal. iii. 11.[385]אֱמוּנָה.[386]Exod. xvii. 12.[387]2 Chron. xix. 9.[388]Hosea ii. 22 (Heb.).[389]Prov. xiv. 5.[390]Isa. xi. 5.[391]Prov. xii. 17: cf. Jer. ix. 2.[392]Prov. xii. 22, xxviii. 30.[393]Heb. x. 37, 38.[394]See above, pp.125f.[395]See above, pp.125f. Nowack (1897) agrees that Cornill’s and others’ conclusion that vv. 9–20 are not Habakkuk’s is too sweeping. He takes the first, second and fourth of the taunt-songs as authentic, but assigns the third (vv. 12–14) and the fifth (18–20) to another hand. He deems the refrain, 8band 17b, to be a gloss, and puts 19 before 18. Driver,Introd., 6th ed., holds to the authenticity of all the verses.[396]The text reads,For also wine is treacherous, under which we might be tempted to suspect some such original as,As wine is treacherous, so(next line)the proud fellow, etc. (or, as Davidson suggests,Like wine is the treacherous dealer), were it not that the wordwineappears neither in the Greek nor in the Syrian version. Wellhausen suggests thatהיין,wine, is a corruption ofהוי, with which the verse, like vv. 6b, 9, 12, 15, 19, may have originally begun, but according to 6athe taunt-songs, opening withהוי, start first in 6b. Bredenkamp proposesוְאֶפֶס כְּאַיִן.[397]The text isינוה, a verb not elsewhere found in the Old Testament, and conjectured by our translators to meankeepeth at home, because the noun allied to it meanshomesteadorresting-place. The Syriac givesis not satisfied, and Wellhausen proposes to readירוהwith that sense. See Davidson’s note on the verse.[398]A.V.thick clay, which is reached by breaking up the wordעבטיט,pledgeordebt, intoעב,thick cloud, andטיט,clay.[399]Literallythy biters,נשכיך, butנשך,biting, isinterestorusury, and the Hiphil ofנשךisto exact interest.[400]LXX. sing., Heb. pl.[401]These words occur again in ver. 17. Wellhausen thinks they suit neither here nor there. But they suit all the taunt-songs, and some suppose that they formed the refrain to each of these.[402]Dynasty or people?[403]So LXX.; Heb.cutting off.[404]The grammatical construction is obscure, if the text be correct. There is no mistaking the meaning.[405]כפיס, not elsewhere found in the O.T., is in Rabbinic Hebrew bothcross-beamandlath.[406]Micah iii. 10.[407]Jer. xxii. 13.[408]Literallyfire.[409]Jer. li. 58: which original?[410]After Wellhausen’s suggestion to readמסף חמתוinstead of the textמספח חמתך,adding, ormixing,thy wrath.[411]So LXX. Q.; Heb.their.[412]Readהרעל(cf. Nahum ii. 4; Zech. xii. 2). The text isהערל, not found elsewhere, which has been conjectured to meanuncover the foreskin. And there is some ground for this, as parallel tohis nakednessin the previous clause. Wellhausen also removes the first clause to the end of the verse:Drink also thou and reel; there comes to thee the cup in Jehovah’s right hand, and thou wilt glut thyself with shame instead of honour.[413]So R.V. forקיקלון, which A.V. has taken as two words—קיfor which cf. Jer. xxv. 27, where however the text is probably corrupt, andקלון. With this confusion cf. above, ver. 6,עבטיט.[414]Read with LXX.יחתךforיחיתןof the text.[415]See above, ver.8.[416]תָּפוּשׂ?[417]Above, pp.126ff.[418]רגזnowhere in the Old Testament meanswrath, but either roar and noise of thunder (Job xxxvii. 2) and of horsehoofs (xxxix. 24), or the raging of the wicked (iii. 17) or the commotion of fear (iii. 26; Isa. xiv. 3).[419]Jehovah from Sinai hath come,And risen from Se‘ir upon them;He shone from Mount Paran,And broke from Meribah of Ḳadesh:From the South fire ... to them.Deut. xxxiii. 2, slightly altered after the LXX.South: some form ofימיןmust be read to bring the line into parallel with the others;תימן, Teman, is from the same root.Jehovah, in Thy going forth from Se’ir,In Thy marching from Edom’s field,Earth shook, yea, heaven dropped,Yea, the clouds dropped water.Mountains flowed down before Jehovah,Yon Sinai at the face of the God of Israel.Judges v. 4, 5.[420]Exod. xv.[421]In this case ver. 17 would be the only one that offered any reason for suspicion that it was an intrusion.[422]תפלה, lit. Prayer, but used for Psalm: cf. Psalm cii. 1.[423]Sinker takes with this the first two words of next line:I have trembled, O LORD, at Thy work.[424]תודע, Imp. Niph., after LXX. γνωσθήσῃ. The Hebrew hasתּוֹדִיעַ, Hi.,make known. The LXX. had a text of these verses which reduplicated them, and it has translated them very badly.[425]רֹגֶז,turmoil,noise, as in Job: a meaning that offers a better parallel toin the midst of the yearsthanwrath, which the word also means. Davidson, however, thinks it more natural to understand thewrathmanifest at the coming of Jehovah to judgment. So Sinker.[426]Vulg.ab Austro,from the South.[427]LXX. adds κατασκίον δασέος, which seems the translation of a clause, perhaps a gloss, containing the name of Mount Se‘ir, as in the parallel descriptions of a theophany, Deut. xxiii. 2, Judg. v. 4. See Sinker, p. 45.[428]Wellhausen, readingשׂםforשׁם, translatesHe made them, etc.[429]So LXX. Heb.and measures the earth.[430]This is the only way of rendering the verse so as not to make it seem superfluous: so rendered it sums up and clenches the theophany from ver. 3 onwards; and a new strophe now begins. There is therefore no need to omit the verse, as Wellhausen does.[431]LXX. Ἀίθιοπες; but these are Kush, and the parallelism requires a tribe in Arabia. Calvin rejects the meaningEthiopianon the same ground, but takes the reference as to King Kushan in Judg. iii. 8, 10, on account of the parallelism with Midian. The Midianite wife whom Moses married is called the Kushite (Num. xii. 1). Hommel (Anc. Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, p. 315 and n. 1) appears to take Zerah the Kushite of 2 Chron. xiv. 9 ff. as a prince of Kush in Central Arabia. But the narrative which makes him deliver his invasion of Judah at Mareshah surely confirms the usual opinion that he and his host were Ethiopians coming up from Egypt.[432]Forהבנהרים,is it with streams, readהבהרים,is it with hills: because hills have already been mentioned, and rivers occur in the next clause, and are separated by the same disjunctive particle,אִם, which separatesthe seain the third clause from them. The whole phrase might be rendered,Is it with hillsThou artangry, O Jehovah?[433]Questionable: the verbתֵּעוֹר, Ni. of a supposedעוּר, does not elsewhere occur, and is only conjectured from the nounעֶרְוָה,nakedness, andעֶרְיָה,stripping. LXX. has ἐντείνων ἐνέτεινας, and Wellhausen reads, after 2 Sam. xxiii. 18,עוֹרֵר תְּעוֹרֵר,Thou bringest into action Thy bow.[434]שְׁבֻעוֹת מַטּוֹת אֹמֶר, literallysworn are stavesorrods of speech. A.V.: accordingto the oaths of the tribes, even Thyword. LXX. (omittingשְׁבֻעוֹתand addingיהוה) ἐπὶ σκῆπτρα, λέγει κύριος. These words “form a riddle which all the ingenuity of scholars has not been able to solve. Delitzsch calculates that a hundred translations of them have been offered” (Davidson). In parallel to previous clause about abow, we ought to expectמטות,staves, though it is not elsewhere used forshaftsorarrows.שׁבעותmay have beenשַׂבֵּעְתָּ,Thou satest. The Cod. Barb. reads: ἐχόρτασας βολίδας τῆς φαρέτρης αὐτοῦ,Thou hast satiated the shafts of his quiver. Sinker:sworn are the punishments of the solemn decree, and relevantly compares Isa. xi. 4,the rod of His mouth; xxx. 32,rod of doom. Ewald:sevenfold shafts of war. But cf. Psalm cxviii. 12.[435]Uncertain, but a more natural result of cleaving thanthe rivers Thou cleavest into dry land(Davidson and Wellhausen).[436]But Ewald takes this as of the Red Sea floods sweeping on the Egyptians.[437]רום ידיהו נשא=he lifts up his hands on high. But the LXX. readמריהו, φαντασίας αὐτῆς, and tookנשאwith the next verse. The readingמריהו(forמראיהו) is indeed nonsense, but suggests an emendation toמרזחו,his shout or wail: cf. Amos vi. 7, Jer. xvi. 5.[438]Reading forהושיע ישע, required by the acc. following.Thine anointed, lit.Thy Messiah, according to Isa. xl. ff. the whole people.[439]Heb.יסוד,foundation. LXX.bonds. Some suggest laying bare from the foundation to the neck, but this is mixed unlessneckhappened to be a technical name for a part of a building: cf. Isa. viii. 8, xxx. 28.[440]Heb.his spearsorstaves;his own(Von Orelli). LXX. ἐν ἐκστάσει: see Sinker, pp. 56 ff.Princes:פְרָזָוonly here. Hitzig:his brave ones. Ewald, Wellhausen, Davidson:his princes. Delitzsch:his hosts. LXX. κεφαλὰς δυναστῶν.[441]So Heb. literally. A very difficult line. On LXX. see Sinker, pp. 60 f.[442]Forחֹמֶר,heap(so A.V.), read some part ofחמר,to foam. LXX. ταράσσοντας: cf. Psalm xlvi. 4.[443]So LXX.א(some codd.), softening the originalbelly.[444]Ormy lips quiver aloud—לקול,vocally(Von Orelli).[445]By the Hebrew the bones were felt, as a modern man feels his nerves: Psalms xxxii., li.; Job.[446]Forאשר, for which LXX. gives ἡ ἔξις μου, readאשרי,my steps; and forארגז, LXX. ἑταράχθη,ירגזו.[447]אָנוּחַ. LXX. ἀναπαύσομαι,I will rest. A.V.:that I might rest in the day of trouble. Others:I will wait for. Wellhausen suggestsאִנָּחֵם(Isa. l. 24),I will take comfort. Sinker takesאשרas the simple relative:I who will wait patiently for the day of doom. Von Orelli takes it as the conjunctionbecause.[448]יְגֻדֶנּוּ,it invades,brings up troops on them, only in Gen. xlix. 19 and here. Wellhausen:which invades us. Sinker:for the coming up against the people of him who shall assail it.[449]תפרח; but LXX.תפרה, οὐ καρποφορήσει,bear no fruit.[450]ForגזרWellhausen readsנִגזר. LXX. ἐξελιπεν.[451]De Civitate Dei, XVIII. 32.[452]So he paraphrasesin the midst of the years.[453]From the prayer with which Calvin concludes his exposition of Habakkuk.[454]עֹבַדְיָה, ‘Obadyah, the later form ofעֹבַדְיָהוּ, ‘Obadyahu (a name occurring thrice before the Exile: Ahab’s steward who hid the prophets of the Lord, 1 Kings xviii. 3–7, 16; of a man in David’s house, 1 Chron. xxvii. 19; a Levite in Josiah’s reign, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12), is the name of several of the Jews who returned from exile: Ezra viii. 9, the son of Jehi’el (in 1 Esdras viii. Ἀβαδιας); Neh. x. 6, a priest, probably the same as the Obadiah in xii. 25, a porter, and theעַבְדָּא, the singer, in xi. 17, who is calledעֹבַדְיָהin 1 Chron. ix. 16. Another ‘Obadyah is given in the eleventh generation from Saul, 1 Chron. viii. 38, ix. 44; another in the royal line in the time of the Exile, iii. 21; a man of Issachar, vii. 3; a Gadite under David, xii. 9; aprinceunder Jehoshaphat sentto teach in the cities of Judah, 2 Chron. xvii. 7. With the Massoretic pointsעֹבַדְיָהmeans worshipper of Jehovah: cf. Obed-Edom, and so in the Greek form, Ὀβδειου, of Cod. B. But other Codd., A, θ andא, give Ἀβδιου or Ἀβδειου, and this, with the alternative Hebrew formאַבְדָּאof Neh. xi. 17, suggests ratherעֶבֶד יָה,servant of Jehovah. The name as given in the title is probably intended to be that of an historical individual, as in the titles of all the other books; but which, or if any, of the above mentioned it is impossible to say. Note, however, that it is the later post-exilic form of the name that is used, in spite of the book occurring among the pre-exilic prophets. Some, less probably, take the name Obadyah to be symbolic of the prophetic character of the writer.[455]889B.C.Hofmann, Keil, etc.; and soon after 312, Hitzig.[456]Cf. the extraordinary tirade of Pusey in his Introd. to Obadiah.[457]The first in his Commentary onDie Zwölf Kleine Propheten; the other in hisEinleitung.[458]Caspari (Der Proph. Ob. ausgelegt1842), Ewald, Graf, Pusey, Driver, Giesebrecht, Wildeboer and König. Cf. Jer. xlix. 9 with Ob. 5; Jer. xlix. 14 ff. with Ob. 1–4. The opening of Ob. 1 ff. is held to be more in its place than where it occurs in the middle of Jeremiah’s passage. The language of Obadiah is “terser and more forcible. Jeremiah seems to expand Obadiah, and parts of Jeremiah which have no parallel in Obadiah are like Obadiah’s own style” (Driver). This strong argument is enforced in detail by Pusey: “Out of the sixteen verses of which the prophecy of Jeremiah against Edom consists, four are identical with those of Obadiah; a fifth embodies a verse of Obadiah’s; of the eleven which remain ten have some turns of expression or idioms, more or fewer, which occur in Jeremiah, either in these prophecies against foreign nations, or in his prophecies generally. Now it would be wholly improbable that a prophet, selecting verses out of the prophecy of Jeremiah, should have selected precisely those which contain none of Jeremiah’s characteristic expressions; whereas it perfectly fits in with the supposition that Jeremiah interwove verses of Obadiah with his own prophecy, that in verses so interwoven there is not one expression which occurs elsewhere in Jeremiah.” Similarly Nowack,Comm., 1897.[459]2 Chron. xx.[460]2 Chron. xxi. 14–17.[461]So Delitzsch, Keil, Volck in Herzog’sReal. Ency.II., Orelli and Kirkpatrick. Delitzsch indeed suggests that the prophet may have beenObadiah the princeappointed by Jehoshaphatto teach in the cities of Judah. See above, p. 163, n.454.[462]Driver,Introd.[463]Jer. xlix. 9 and 16 appear to be more original than Ob. 3 and 2b. Notice the presence in Jer. xlix. 16 ofתפלצתךwhich Obadiah omits.[464]2 Kings xiv. 22; xvi. 6, Revised Version margin.[465]Einl.³ pp. 185 f.: “In any case Obadiah 1–9 are older than the fourth year of Jehoiakim.”[466]“That the verses Obadiah 10 ff. refer to this event [the sack of Jerusalem] will always remain the most natural supposition, for the description which they give so completely suits that time that it is not possible to take any other explanation into consideration.”[467]Edom paid tribute to Sennacherib in 701, and to Asarhaddon (681—669). According to 2 Kings xxiv. 2 Nebuchadrezzar sent Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites [forארםreadאדם] against Jehoiakim, who had broken his oath to Babylonia.[468]For Edom’s alliances with Arab tribes cf. Gen. xxv. 13 with xxxvi. 3, 12, etc.[469]Ezek. xxv. 4, 5, 10.[470]Diod. Sic. XIX. 94. A little earlier they are described as in possession of Iturea, on the south-east slopes of Anti-Lebanon (Arrian II. 20, 4).[471]Psalm lxxxiii. 8.[472]i. 1–5.[473]E.g.in the New Testament: Mark iii. 8.[474]So too Nowack, 1897.[475]Deut. ii. 5, 8, 12.[476]Ezek. xxxv., esp. 2 and 15.[477]iv. 21: yetUzfails in LXX., and some takeארץto refer to the Holy Land itself. Buhl,Gesch. der Edomiter, 73.[478]It can hardly be supposed that Edom’s treacherous allies were Assyrians or Babylonians, for even if the phrase “men of thy covenant” could be applied to those to whom Edom was tributary, the Assyrian or Babylonian method of dealing with conquered peoples is described by saying that they took them off into captivity, not that theysent them to the border.[479]So even Cornill,Einl.³[480]This in answer to Wellhausen on the verse.[481]See below, p. 175, n.6.[482]Calvin, while refusing in his introduction to Obadiah to fix a date (except in so far as he thinks it impossible for the book to be earlier than Isaiah), implies throughout his commentary on the book that it was addressed to Edom while the Jews were in exile. See his remarks on vv. 18–20.[483]There is a mistranslation in ver. 18:שׂרידis rendered by πυρόφορος.[484]This is no doubt from the later writer, who before he gives the new word of Jehovah with regard to Edom, quotes the earlier prophecy, marked above by quotation marks. In no other way can we explain the immediate following of the words “Thus hath the Lord spoken” with “Wehave heard a report,” etc.[485]‘Sela,’ the name of the Edomite capital, Petra.[486]The parenthesis is not in Jer. xlix. 9; Nowack omits it.If spoilersoccurs in Heb. beforeby night: delete.[487]Antithetic tothievesandspoilers by night, as the sending of the people to their border is antithetic to the thieves taking only what they wanted.[488]לחמך,thy bread, which here follows, is not found in the LXX., and is probably an error due to a mechanical repetition of the letters of the previous word.[489]Again perhaps a quotation from an earlier prophecy: Nowack counts it from another hand. Mark the sudden change to the future.[490]Heb.so that.[491]With LXX. transfer this expression from the end of the ninth to the beginning of the tenth verse.[492]“When thou didst stand on the opposite side.”—Calvin.[493]Plural; LXX. and Qeri.[494]Sudden change to imperative. The English versions render,Thou shouldest not have looked on, etc.[495]Cf. Ps. cxxxvii. 7,the day of Jerusalem.[496]The day of his strangeness =aliena fortuna.[497]With laughter. Wellhausen and Nowack suspect ver. 13 as an intrusion.[498]פֶּרֶקdoes not elsewhere occur. It means cleaving, and the LXX. render it by διεκβολή,i.e.pass between mountains. The Arabic forms from the same root suggest the sense of a band of men standing apart from the main body on the watch for stragglers (cf.נגד, in ver. 11). Calvin, “the going forth”; Grätzפרץ,breach, but see Nowack.[499]Wellhausen proposes to put the last two clauses immediately after ver. 14.[500]The prophet seems here to turn to address his own countrymen: the drinking will therefore take the meaning of suffering God’s chastising wrath. Others, like Calvin, take it in the opposite sense, and apply it to Edom: “as ye have exulted,” etc.[501]Reel—forלעוּwe ought (with Wellhausen) probably to readנעוּ: cf. Lam. iv. 2. Some codd. of LXX. omitall the nations … continuously, drink and reel. Butאc.aA and Q haveall the nations shall drink wine.[502]So LXX. Heb.their heritages.[503]That is the reverse of the conditions after the Jews went into exile, for then the Edomites came up on the Negeb and the Philistines on the Shephelah.[504]I.e.of Judah, the rest of the country outside the Negeb and Shephelah. The reading is after the LXX.[505]Whereas the pagan inhabitants of these places came upon the hill-country of Judæa during the Exile.[506]An unusual form of the word. Ewald would readcoast. The verse is obscure.[507]So LXX.[508]The Jews themselves thought this to be Spain: so Onkelos, who translatesספרדbyאַסְפַּמְיָא= Hispania. Hence the origin of the name Sephardim Jews. The supposition that it is Sparta need hardly be noticed. Our decision must lie between two other regions—the one in Asia Minor, the other in S.W. Media.First, in the ancient Persian inscriptions there thrice occurs (great Behistun inscription, I. 15; inscription of Darius, II. 12, 13; and inscription of Darius from Naḳsh-i-Rustam) Çparda. It is connected with Janua or Ionia and Katapatuka or Cappadocia (Schrader,Cun. Inscr. and O. T., Germ. ed., p. 446; Eng., Vol. II., p. 145); and Sayce shows that, called Shaparda on a late cuneiform inscription of 275B.C., it must have lain in Bithynia or Galatia (Higher Criticism and Monuments, p. 483). Darius made it a satrapy. It is clear, as Cheyne says (Founders of O. T. Criticism, p. 312), that those who on other grounds are convinced of the post-exilic origin of this part of Obadiah, of its origin in the Persian period, will identify Sepharad with this Çparda, which both he and Sayce do. But to those of us who hold that this part of Obadiah is from the time of the Babylonian exile, as we have sought to prove above on pp. 171 f., then Sepharad cannot be Çparda, for Nebuchadrezzar did not subdue Asia Minor and cannot have transported Jews there. Are we then forced to give up our theory of the date of Obadiah 10–21 in the Babylonian exile? By no means. For,second, the inscriptions of Sargon, king of Assyria (721—705B.C.), mention a Shaparda, in S.W. Media towards Babylonia, a name phonetically correspondent toספרד(Schrader,l.c.), and the identification of the two is regarded as “exceedingly probable” by Fried. Delitzsch (Wo lag das Paradies?p. 249). But even if this should be shown to be impossible, and if the identification Sepharad = Çparda be proved, that would not oblige us to alter our opinion as to the date of the whole of Obadiah 10–21, for it is possible that later additions, including Sepharad, have been made to the passage.[509]Amos i. 11. See Vol. I., p.129.[510]John Hyrcanus, about 130B.C.[511]Irby and Mangles’Travels: cf. Burckhardt’sTravels in Syria, and Doughty,Arabia Deserta, I.[512]Obadiah 3.[513]Amos i.: cf. Ezek. xxxv. 5.[514]Obadiah 10.[515]C. I. S., II. i. 183 ff.[516]Obadiah 6.[517]Verse 6.[518]See the details in Vol. I., pp.129f.[519]Heb. xii. 16.[520]We even know the names of some of these deities from the theophorous names of Edomites:e.g.Baal-chanan (Gen. xxxvi. 38), Hadad (ib.35; 1 Kings xi. 14 ff.); Malikram, Ḳausmalaka, Ḳausgabri (on Assyrian inscriptions: Schrader,K.A.T.² 150, 613); Κοσαδαρος, Κοσβανος, Κοσγηρος, Κοσνατανος (Rev. archéol.1870, I. pp. 109 ff., 170 ff.), Κοστοβαρος (Jos., XV.Ant.vii. 9). See Baethgen,Beiträge zur Semit. Rel. Gesch., pp. 10 ff.[521]Obadiah 8: cf. Jer. xlix. 7.[522]Obadiah 11, 12: cf. Ezek. xxxv. 12 f.[523]1–5 or 6. See above, pp.167,171f.[524]Verse 7.[525]See above, p.171.[526]The chief authorities for this period are as follows:—A. Ancient: the inscriptions of Nabonidus, last native King of Babylon, Cyrus and Darius I.; the Hebrew writings which were composed in, or record the history of, the period; the Greek historians Herodotus, fragments of Ctesias in Diodorus Sic. etc., of Abydenus in Eusebius, Berosus. B. Modern: Meyer’s and Duncker’s Histories of Antiquity; art. “Ancient Persia” inEncycl. Brit., by Nöldeke and Gutschmid; Sayce,Anc. Empires; the works of Kuenen, Van Hoonacker and Kosters given on p.192[n.531]; recent histories of Israel,e.g.Stade’s, Wellhausen’s and Klostermann’s; P. Hay Hunter,After the Exile, a Hundred Years of Jewish History and Literature, 2 Vols., Edin. 1890; W. Fairweather,From the Exile to the Advent, Edin. 1895. On Ezra and Nehemiah see especially Ryle’sCommentaryin theCambridge Bible for Schools, and Bertheau-Ryssel’s inKurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch: cf. also Charles C. Torrey,The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, in theBeihefte zur Z.A.T.W., II., 1896.[527]Ezra iv. 5–7, etc., vi. 1–14, etc.[528]Havet,Revue des Deux Mondes, XCIV. 799 ff. (art.La Modernité des Prophètes); Imbert (in defence of the historical character of the Book of Ezra),Le Temple Reconstruit par Zorobabel, extrait duMuséon, 1888–9 (this I have not seen); Sir Henry Howorth in theAcademyfor 1893—see especially pp. 320 ff.[529]Another French writer, Bellangé, in theMuséonfor 1890, quoted by Kuenen (Ges. Abhandl., p. 213), goes further, and places Ezra and Nehemiah under thethirdArtaxerxes, Ochus (358—338).[530]Ezra iv. 6—v.[531]Kuenen,De Chronologie van het Perzische Tijdvak der Joodsche Geschiedenis, 1890, translated by Budde in Kuenen’sGesammelte Abhandlungen, pp. 212 ff.; Van Hoonacker,Zorobabel et le Second Temple(1892); Kosters,Het Herstel van Israel, inHet Perzische Tijdvak, 1894, translated by Basedow,Die Wiederherstellung Israels im Persischen Zeitalter, 1896.[532]Hag. ii. 3.[533]Zech. i. 12.[534]Ezra iv. 5.[535]Ezra ii. 2, iv. 1 ff., v. 2.[536]As Kuenen shows, p. 226, nothing can be deduced from Ezra vi. 14.[537]P. 227; in answer to De Saulcy,Étude Chronologique des Livres d’Esdras et de Néhémie(1868),Sept Siècles de l’Histoire Judaïque(1874). De Saulcy’s case rests on the account of Josephus (XI.Ant.vii. 2–8: cf. ix. 1), the untrustworthy character of which and its confusion of two distant eras Kuenen has no difficulty in showing.[538]When Nehemiah came to Jerusalem Eliyashib was high priest, and he was grandson of Jeshua, who was high priest in 520, or seventy-five years before; but between 520 and the twentieth year of Artaxerxes II. lie one hundred and thirty-six years. And again, the Artaxerxes of Ezra iv. 8–23, under whom the walls of Jerusalem were begun, was the immediate follower of Xerxes (Ahasuerus), and therefore Artaxerxes I., and Van Hoonacker has shown that he must be the same as the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah.[539]Kosters, p. 43.[540]vii. 1–8.[541]Neh. xii. 36, viii., x.[542]Vernes,Précis d’Histoire Juive depuis les Origines jusqu’à l’Époque Persane(1889), pp. 579 ff. (not seen); more recently also Charles C. Torrey of Andover,The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, in theBeihefte zur Z.A.T.W., II., 1896.[543]Pages 113 ff.[544]Page 237.[545]The failure of his too hasty and impetuous attempts at so wholesale a measure as the banishment of the heathen wives; or his return to Babylon, having accomplished his end. See Ryle,Ezra and Nehemiah, in theCambridge Bible for Schools, Introd., pp. xl. f.[546]42,360,besides their servants, is the total sum given in Ezra ii. 64; but the detailed figures in Ezra amount only to 29,818, those in Nehemiah to 31,089, and those in 1 Esdras to 30,143 (other MSS. 30,678). See Ryle on Ezra ii. 64.[547]Ezra i. 8.[548]Ezra v. 14.[549]Ib.16.[550]Ezra ii. 63.[551]יֵשׁוּעַ בֶּן־יוֹצָדָק: Ezra iii. 2, like Ezra i. 1–8, from the Compiler of Ezra-Nehemiah.[552]זְרֻבָּבֶל בֶּן־שְׁאַלְתִּיאֵל.[553]Ezra ii. 2.[554]Hag. i. 14, ii. 2, 21, and perhaps by Nehemiah (vii. 65–70). Nehemiah himself is styled both Peḥah (xiv. 20) and Tirshatha (viii. 9, x. 1).[555]As Daniel and his three friends had also Babylonian names.[556]Ezra ii. 63.[557]Cf. Ryle, xxxi ff.; and on Ezra i. 8, ii. 63.[558]Stade,Gesch. des Volkes Israel, II. 98 ff.: cf. Kuenen,Gesammelte Abhandl., 220.[559]Ezra i. 8.[560]Ezra i. compared with ii. 1.[561]Some think to find this in 1 Esdras v. 1–6, where it is said that Darius, a name they take to be an error for that of Cyrus, brought up the exiles with an escort of a thousand cavalry, starting in the first month of the second year of the king’s reign. This passage, however, is not beyond suspicion as a gloss (see Ryle on Ezra i. 11), and even if genuine may be intended to describe a second contingent of exiles despatched by Darius I. in his second year, 520. The names given include that of Jesua, son of Josedec, and instead of Zerubbabel’s, that of his son Joacim.[562]Ezra iii. 3–7.[563]Ib.8–13.[564]Ezra iv. 7.[565]See above, p.193.[566]iv. 24.[567]Ezra iv. 24—vi. 15.[568]There are in the main two classes of such attempts. (a) Some have suggested that the Ahasuerus (Xerxes) and Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezra iv. 6 and 7 ff. are not the successors of Darius I. who bore these names, but titles of his predecessors Cambyses and the Pseudo-Smerdis (see above, p.190). This view has been disposed of by Kuenen,Ges. Abhandl., pp. 224 ff., and by Ryle, pp. 65 ff. (b) The attempt to prove that the Darius under whom the Temple was built was not Darius I. (521—485), the predecessor of Xerxes I. and Artaxerxes I. (485—424), but their successor once removed, Darius II., Nothus (423—404). So, in defence of the Book of Ezra, Imbert. For his theory and the answer to it see above, pp.191f.[569]See above, pp.192ff.[570]For his work see above, p. 192, n.531. I regret that neither Wellhausen’s answer to it, nor Kosters’ reply to Wellhausen, was accessible to me in preparing this chapter. Nor did I read Mr. Torrey’sresumeof Wellhausen’s answer, or Wellhausen’s notes to the second edition of hisIsr. u. Jüd. Geschichte, till the chapter was written. Previous to Kosters, the Return under Cyrus had been called in question only by the very arbitrary French scholar M. Vernes in 1889–90.[571]ii. 6 ff. Eng., 10 ff. Heb.[572]His chief grounds for this analysis are (1) that in v. 1–5 the Jews are said to havebegunto build the Temple in the second year of Darius, while in v. 16 the foundation-stone is said to have been laid under Cyrus; (2) the frequent want of connection throughout the passage; (3) an alleged doublet: in v. 17—vi. 1 search is said to have been made for the edict of Cyrusin Babylon, while in vi. 2 the edict is said to have been foundin Ecbatana. But (1) and (3) are capable of very obvious explanations, and (2) is far from conclusive.—The remainder of the Aramaic text, iv. 8–24, Kosters seeks to prove is by the Chronicler or Compiler himself. As Torrey (op. cit., p. 11) has shown, this “is as unlikely as possible.” At the most he may have made additions to the Aramaic document.[573]Ezra v. 16.[574]Above, pp.201f.[575]Isa. xliv. 28, xlv. 1. According to Kosters, the statement of the Aramaic document about the rebuilding of the Temple is therefore a pious invention of a literal fulfilment of prophecy. To this opinion Cheyne adheres (Introd. to the Book of Isaiah, 1895, p. xxxviii), and adds the further assumption that the Chronicler, being “shocked at the ascription to Cyrus (for the Judæan builders have no credit given them) of what must, he thought, have been at least equally due to the zeal of the exiles,” invented his story in the earlier chapters of Ezra as to the part the exiles themselves took in the rebuilding. It will be noticed that these assumptions have precisely the value of such. They are merely the imputation of motives, more or less probable to the writers of certain statements, and may therefore be fairly met by probabilities from the other side. But of this more later on.[576]This is the usual opinion of critics, who yet hold it to be genuine—e.g.Ryle.[577]He seeks to argue that a List of Exiles returned under Cyrus in 536 could be of no use for Nehemiah’s purpose to obtain in 445 a census of the inhabitants of Jerusalem; but surely, if in his efforts to make a census Nehemiah discovered the existence of such a List, it was natural for him to give it as the basis of his inquiry, or (because the List—see above, p.203—contains elements from Nehemiah’s own time) to enlarge it and bring it down to date. But Dr. Kosters thinks also that, as Nehemiah would never have broken the connection of his memoirs with such a List, the latter must have been inserted by the Compiler, who at this point grew weary of the discursiveness of the memoirs, broke from them, and then—inserted this lengthy List! This is simply incredible—that he should seek to atone for the diffuseness of Nehemiah’s memoirs by the intrusion of a very long catalogue which had no relevance to the point at which he broke them off.[578]Hag. i. 2, 12; ii. 14.[579]Hag. i. 12, 14; ii. 2; Zech. viii. 6, 11, 12.[580]Hag. ii. 4; Zech. vii. 5.[581]Zech. ii. 16; viii. 13, 15.[582]It is used in Hag. i. 12, 14, ii. 2, only after the mention of the leaders; see, however, Pusey’s note 9 to Hag. i. 12; while in Zech. viii. 6, 11, 18, it might be argued that it was employed in such a way as to cover not only Jews who had never left their land, but all Jews as well who were left of ancient Israel.[583]Compare Cheyne,Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, 1895, xxxv. ff., who says that in the main points Kosters’ conclusions “appear so inevitable” that he has “constantly presupposed them” in dealing with chaps. lvi.—lxvi. of Isaiah; and Torrey,op. cit., 1896, p. 53: “Kosters has demonstrated, from the testimony of Haggai and Zechariah, that Zerubbabel and Jeshua were not returned exiles; and furthermore, that the prophets Haggai and Zechariah knew nothing of an important return of exiles from Babylonia.” Cf. also Wildeboer,Litteratur des A. T., pp. 291 ff.[584]iv. 4.[585]Of course it is always possible that, if there had been no great Return from Babylon under Cyrus, the community at Jerusalem in 520 had not heard of the prophecies of the Second Isaiah.
[382]Above, p. 134, n.362.
[383]עֻקְּלָהinstead ofעֻפְּלָה.
[384]Rom. i. 17; Gal. iii. 11.
[385]אֱמוּנָה.
[386]Exod. xvii. 12.
[387]2 Chron. xix. 9.
[388]Hosea ii. 22 (Heb.).
[389]Prov. xiv. 5.
[390]Isa. xi. 5.
[391]Prov. xii. 17: cf. Jer. ix. 2.
[392]Prov. xii. 22, xxviii. 30.
[393]Heb. x. 37, 38.
[394]See above, pp.125f.
[395]See above, pp.125f. Nowack (1897) agrees that Cornill’s and others’ conclusion that vv. 9–20 are not Habakkuk’s is too sweeping. He takes the first, second and fourth of the taunt-songs as authentic, but assigns the third (vv. 12–14) and the fifth (18–20) to another hand. He deems the refrain, 8band 17b, to be a gloss, and puts 19 before 18. Driver,Introd., 6th ed., holds to the authenticity of all the verses.
[396]The text reads,For also wine is treacherous, under which we might be tempted to suspect some such original as,As wine is treacherous, so(next line)the proud fellow, etc. (or, as Davidson suggests,Like wine is the treacherous dealer), were it not that the wordwineappears neither in the Greek nor in the Syrian version. Wellhausen suggests thatהיין,wine, is a corruption ofהוי, with which the verse, like vv. 6b, 9, 12, 15, 19, may have originally begun, but according to 6athe taunt-songs, opening withהוי, start first in 6b. Bredenkamp proposesוְאֶפֶס כְּאַיִן.
[397]The text isינוה, a verb not elsewhere found in the Old Testament, and conjectured by our translators to meankeepeth at home, because the noun allied to it meanshomesteadorresting-place. The Syriac givesis not satisfied, and Wellhausen proposes to readירוהwith that sense. See Davidson’s note on the verse.
[398]A.V.thick clay, which is reached by breaking up the wordעבטיט,pledgeordebt, intoעב,thick cloud, andטיט,clay.
[399]Literallythy biters,נשכיך, butנשך,biting, isinterestorusury, and the Hiphil ofנשךisto exact interest.
[400]LXX. sing., Heb. pl.
[401]These words occur again in ver. 17. Wellhausen thinks they suit neither here nor there. But they suit all the taunt-songs, and some suppose that they formed the refrain to each of these.
[402]Dynasty or people?
[403]So LXX.; Heb.cutting off.
[404]The grammatical construction is obscure, if the text be correct. There is no mistaking the meaning.
[405]כפיס, not elsewhere found in the O.T., is in Rabbinic Hebrew bothcross-beamandlath.
[406]Micah iii. 10.
[407]Jer. xxii. 13.
[408]Literallyfire.
[409]Jer. li. 58: which original?
[410]After Wellhausen’s suggestion to readמסף חמתוinstead of the textמספח חמתך,adding, ormixing,thy wrath.
[411]So LXX. Q.; Heb.their.
[412]Readהרעל(cf. Nahum ii. 4; Zech. xii. 2). The text isהערל, not found elsewhere, which has been conjectured to meanuncover the foreskin. And there is some ground for this, as parallel tohis nakednessin the previous clause. Wellhausen also removes the first clause to the end of the verse:Drink also thou and reel; there comes to thee the cup in Jehovah’s right hand, and thou wilt glut thyself with shame instead of honour.
[413]So R.V. forקיקלון, which A.V. has taken as two words—קיfor which cf. Jer. xxv. 27, where however the text is probably corrupt, andקלון. With this confusion cf. above, ver. 6,עבטיט.
[414]Read with LXX.יחתךforיחיתןof the text.
[415]See above, ver.8.
[416]תָּפוּשׂ?
[417]Above, pp.126ff.
[418]רגזnowhere in the Old Testament meanswrath, but either roar and noise of thunder (Job xxxvii. 2) and of horsehoofs (xxxix. 24), or the raging of the wicked (iii. 17) or the commotion of fear (iii. 26; Isa. xiv. 3).
[419]
Jehovah from Sinai hath come,And risen from Se‘ir upon them;He shone from Mount Paran,And broke from Meribah of Ḳadesh:From the South fire ... to them.
Jehovah from Sinai hath come,And risen from Se‘ir upon them;He shone from Mount Paran,And broke from Meribah of Ḳadesh:From the South fire ... to them.
Jehovah from Sinai hath come,And risen from Se‘ir upon them;He shone from Mount Paran,And broke from Meribah of Ḳadesh:From the South fire ... to them.
Jehovah from Sinai hath come,
And risen from Se‘ir upon them;
He shone from Mount Paran,
And broke from Meribah of Ḳadesh:
From the South fire ... to them.
Deut. xxxiii. 2, slightly altered after the LXX.South: some form ofימיןmust be read to bring the line into parallel with the others;תימן, Teman, is from the same root.
Jehovah, in Thy going forth from Se’ir,In Thy marching from Edom’s field,Earth shook, yea, heaven dropped,Yea, the clouds dropped water.Mountains flowed down before Jehovah,Yon Sinai at the face of the God of Israel.
Jehovah, in Thy going forth from Se’ir,In Thy marching from Edom’s field,Earth shook, yea, heaven dropped,Yea, the clouds dropped water.Mountains flowed down before Jehovah,Yon Sinai at the face of the God of Israel.
Jehovah, in Thy going forth from Se’ir,In Thy marching from Edom’s field,Earth shook, yea, heaven dropped,Yea, the clouds dropped water.Mountains flowed down before Jehovah,Yon Sinai at the face of the God of Israel.
Jehovah, in Thy going forth from Se’ir,
In Thy marching from Edom’s field,
Earth shook, yea, heaven dropped,
Yea, the clouds dropped water.
Mountains flowed down before Jehovah,
Yon Sinai at the face of the God of Israel.
Judges v. 4, 5.
[420]Exod. xv.
[421]In this case ver. 17 would be the only one that offered any reason for suspicion that it was an intrusion.
[422]תפלה, lit. Prayer, but used for Psalm: cf. Psalm cii. 1.
[423]Sinker takes with this the first two words of next line:I have trembled, O LORD, at Thy work.
[424]תודע, Imp. Niph., after LXX. γνωσθήσῃ. The Hebrew hasתּוֹדִיעַ, Hi.,make known. The LXX. had a text of these verses which reduplicated them, and it has translated them very badly.
[425]רֹגֶז,turmoil,noise, as in Job: a meaning that offers a better parallel toin the midst of the yearsthanwrath, which the word also means. Davidson, however, thinks it more natural to understand thewrathmanifest at the coming of Jehovah to judgment. So Sinker.
[426]Vulg.ab Austro,from the South.
[427]LXX. adds κατασκίον δασέος, which seems the translation of a clause, perhaps a gloss, containing the name of Mount Se‘ir, as in the parallel descriptions of a theophany, Deut. xxiii. 2, Judg. v. 4. See Sinker, p. 45.
[428]Wellhausen, readingשׂםforשׁם, translatesHe made them, etc.
[429]So LXX. Heb.and measures the earth.
[430]This is the only way of rendering the verse so as not to make it seem superfluous: so rendered it sums up and clenches the theophany from ver. 3 onwards; and a new strophe now begins. There is therefore no need to omit the verse, as Wellhausen does.
[431]LXX. Ἀίθιοπες; but these are Kush, and the parallelism requires a tribe in Arabia. Calvin rejects the meaningEthiopianon the same ground, but takes the reference as to King Kushan in Judg. iii. 8, 10, on account of the parallelism with Midian. The Midianite wife whom Moses married is called the Kushite (Num. xii. 1). Hommel (Anc. Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, p. 315 and n. 1) appears to take Zerah the Kushite of 2 Chron. xiv. 9 ff. as a prince of Kush in Central Arabia. But the narrative which makes him deliver his invasion of Judah at Mareshah surely confirms the usual opinion that he and his host were Ethiopians coming up from Egypt.
[432]Forהבנהרים,is it with streams, readהבהרים,is it with hills: because hills have already been mentioned, and rivers occur in the next clause, and are separated by the same disjunctive particle,אִם, which separatesthe seain the third clause from them. The whole phrase might be rendered,Is it with hillsThou artangry, O Jehovah?
[433]Questionable: the verbתֵּעוֹר, Ni. of a supposedעוּר, does not elsewhere occur, and is only conjectured from the nounעֶרְוָה,nakedness, andעֶרְיָה,stripping. LXX. has ἐντείνων ἐνέτεινας, and Wellhausen reads, after 2 Sam. xxiii. 18,עוֹרֵר תְּעוֹרֵר,Thou bringest into action Thy bow.
[434]שְׁבֻעוֹת מַטּוֹת אֹמֶר, literallysworn are stavesorrods of speech. A.V.: accordingto the oaths of the tribes, even Thyword. LXX. (omittingשְׁבֻעוֹתand addingיהוה) ἐπὶ σκῆπτρα, λέγει κύριος. These words “form a riddle which all the ingenuity of scholars has not been able to solve. Delitzsch calculates that a hundred translations of them have been offered” (Davidson). In parallel to previous clause about abow, we ought to expectמטות,staves, though it is not elsewhere used forshaftsorarrows.שׁבעותmay have beenשַׂבֵּעְתָּ,Thou satest. The Cod. Barb. reads: ἐχόρτασας βολίδας τῆς φαρέτρης αὐτοῦ,Thou hast satiated the shafts of his quiver. Sinker:sworn are the punishments of the solemn decree, and relevantly compares Isa. xi. 4,the rod of His mouth; xxx. 32,rod of doom. Ewald:sevenfold shafts of war. But cf. Psalm cxviii. 12.
[435]Uncertain, but a more natural result of cleaving thanthe rivers Thou cleavest into dry land(Davidson and Wellhausen).
[436]But Ewald takes this as of the Red Sea floods sweeping on the Egyptians.
[437]רום ידיהו נשא=he lifts up his hands on high. But the LXX. readמריהו, φαντασίας αὐτῆς, and tookנשאwith the next verse. The readingמריהו(forמראיהו) is indeed nonsense, but suggests an emendation toמרזחו,his shout or wail: cf. Amos vi. 7, Jer. xvi. 5.
[438]Reading forהושיע ישע, required by the acc. following.Thine anointed, lit.Thy Messiah, according to Isa. xl. ff. the whole people.
[439]Heb.יסוד,foundation. LXX.bonds. Some suggest laying bare from the foundation to the neck, but this is mixed unlessneckhappened to be a technical name for a part of a building: cf. Isa. viii. 8, xxx. 28.
[440]Heb.his spearsorstaves;his own(Von Orelli). LXX. ἐν ἐκστάσει: see Sinker, pp. 56 ff.Princes:פְרָזָוonly here. Hitzig:his brave ones. Ewald, Wellhausen, Davidson:his princes. Delitzsch:his hosts. LXX. κεφαλὰς δυναστῶν.
[441]So Heb. literally. A very difficult line. On LXX. see Sinker, pp. 60 f.
[442]Forחֹמֶר,heap(so A.V.), read some part ofחמר,to foam. LXX. ταράσσοντας: cf. Psalm xlvi. 4.
[443]So LXX.א(some codd.), softening the originalbelly.
[444]Ormy lips quiver aloud—לקול,vocally(Von Orelli).
[445]By the Hebrew the bones were felt, as a modern man feels his nerves: Psalms xxxii., li.; Job.
[446]Forאשר, for which LXX. gives ἡ ἔξις μου, readאשרי,my steps; and forארגז, LXX. ἑταράχθη,ירגזו.
[447]אָנוּחַ. LXX. ἀναπαύσομαι,I will rest. A.V.:that I might rest in the day of trouble. Others:I will wait for. Wellhausen suggestsאִנָּחֵם(Isa. l. 24),I will take comfort. Sinker takesאשרas the simple relative:I who will wait patiently for the day of doom. Von Orelli takes it as the conjunctionbecause.
[448]יְגֻדֶנּוּ,it invades,brings up troops on them, only in Gen. xlix. 19 and here. Wellhausen:which invades us. Sinker:for the coming up against the people of him who shall assail it.
[449]תפרח; but LXX.תפרה, οὐ καρποφορήσει,bear no fruit.
[450]ForגזרWellhausen readsנִגזר. LXX. ἐξελιπεν.
[451]De Civitate Dei, XVIII. 32.
[452]So he paraphrasesin the midst of the years.
[453]From the prayer with which Calvin concludes his exposition of Habakkuk.
[454]עֹבַדְיָה, ‘Obadyah, the later form ofעֹבַדְיָהוּ, ‘Obadyahu (a name occurring thrice before the Exile: Ahab’s steward who hid the prophets of the Lord, 1 Kings xviii. 3–7, 16; of a man in David’s house, 1 Chron. xxvii. 19; a Levite in Josiah’s reign, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12), is the name of several of the Jews who returned from exile: Ezra viii. 9, the son of Jehi’el (in 1 Esdras viii. Ἀβαδιας); Neh. x. 6, a priest, probably the same as the Obadiah in xii. 25, a porter, and theעַבְדָּא, the singer, in xi. 17, who is calledעֹבַדְיָהin 1 Chron. ix. 16. Another ‘Obadyah is given in the eleventh generation from Saul, 1 Chron. viii. 38, ix. 44; another in the royal line in the time of the Exile, iii. 21; a man of Issachar, vii. 3; a Gadite under David, xii. 9; aprinceunder Jehoshaphat sentto teach in the cities of Judah, 2 Chron. xvii. 7. With the Massoretic pointsעֹבַדְיָהmeans worshipper of Jehovah: cf. Obed-Edom, and so in the Greek form, Ὀβδειου, of Cod. B. But other Codd., A, θ andא, give Ἀβδιου or Ἀβδειου, and this, with the alternative Hebrew formאַבְדָּאof Neh. xi. 17, suggests ratherעֶבֶד יָה,servant of Jehovah. The name as given in the title is probably intended to be that of an historical individual, as in the titles of all the other books; but which, or if any, of the above mentioned it is impossible to say. Note, however, that it is the later post-exilic form of the name that is used, in spite of the book occurring among the pre-exilic prophets. Some, less probably, take the name Obadyah to be symbolic of the prophetic character of the writer.
[455]889B.C.Hofmann, Keil, etc.; and soon after 312, Hitzig.
[456]Cf. the extraordinary tirade of Pusey in his Introd. to Obadiah.
[457]The first in his Commentary onDie Zwölf Kleine Propheten; the other in hisEinleitung.
[458]Caspari (Der Proph. Ob. ausgelegt1842), Ewald, Graf, Pusey, Driver, Giesebrecht, Wildeboer and König. Cf. Jer. xlix. 9 with Ob. 5; Jer. xlix. 14 ff. with Ob. 1–4. The opening of Ob. 1 ff. is held to be more in its place than where it occurs in the middle of Jeremiah’s passage. The language of Obadiah is “terser and more forcible. Jeremiah seems to expand Obadiah, and parts of Jeremiah which have no parallel in Obadiah are like Obadiah’s own style” (Driver). This strong argument is enforced in detail by Pusey: “Out of the sixteen verses of which the prophecy of Jeremiah against Edom consists, four are identical with those of Obadiah; a fifth embodies a verse of Obadiah’s; of the eleven which remain ten have some turns of expression or idioms, more or fewer, which occur in Jeremiah, either in these prophecies against foreign nations, or in his prophecies generally. Now it would be wholly improbable that a prophet, selecting verses out of the prophecy of Jeremiah, should have selected precisely those which contain none of Jeremiah’s characteristic expressions; whereas it perfectly fits in with the supposition that Jeremiah interwove verses of Obadiah with his own prophecy, that in verses so interwoven there is not one expression which occurs elsewhere in Jeremiah.” Similarly Nowack,Comm., 1897.
[459]2 Chron. xx.
[460]2 Chron. xxi. 14–17.
[461]So Delitzsch, Keil, Volck in Herzog’sReal. Ency.II., Orelli and Kirkpatrick. Delitzsch indeed suggests that the prophet may have beenObadiah the princeappointed by Jehoshaphatto teach in the cities of Judah. See above, p. 163, n.454.
[462]Driver,Introd.
[463]Jer. xlix. 9 and 16 appear to be more original than Ob. 3 and 2b. Notice the presence in Jer. xlix. 16 ofתפלצתךwhich Obadiah omits.
[464]2 Kings xiv. 22; xvi. 6, Revised Version margin.
[465]Einl.³ pp. 185 f.: “In any case Obadiah 1–9 are older than the fourth year of Jehoiakim.”
[466]“That the verses Obadiah 10 ff. refer to this event [the sack of Jerusalem] will always remain the most natural supposition, for the description which they give so completely suits that time that it is not possible to take any other explanation into consideration.”
[467]Edom paid tribute to Sennacherib in 701, and to Asarhaddon (681—669). According to 2 Kings xxiv. 2 Nebuchadrezzar sent Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites [forארםreadאדם] against Jehoiakim, who had broken his oath to Babylonia.
[468]For Edom’s alliances with Arab tribes cf. Gen. xxv. 13 with xxxvi. 3, 12, etc.
[469]Ezek. xxv. 4, 5, 10.
[470]Diod. Sic. XIX. 94. A little earlier they are described as in possession of Iturea, on the south-east slopes of Anti-Lebanon (Arrian II. 20, 4).
[471]Psalm lxxxiii. 8.
[472]i. 1–5.
[473]E.g.in the New Testament: Mark iii. 8.
[474]So too Nowack, 1897.
[475]Deut. ii. 5, 8, 12.
[476]Ezek. xxxv., esp. 2 and 15.
[477]iv. 21: yetUzfails in LXX., and some takeארץto refer to the Holy Land itself. Buhl,Gesch. der Edomiter, 73.
[478]It can hardly be supposed that Edom’s treacherous allies were Assyrians or Babylonians, for even if the phrase “men of thy covenant” could be applied to those to whom Edom was tributary, the Assyrian or Babylonian method of dealing with conquered peoples is described by saying that they took them off into captivity, not that theysent them to the border.
[479]So even Cornill,Einl.³
[480]This in answer to Wellhausen on the verse.
[481]See below, p. 175, n.6.
[482]Calvin, while refusing in his introduction to Obadiah to fix a date (except in so far as he thinks it impossible for the book to be earlier than Isaiah), implies throughout his commentary on the book that it was addressed to Edom while the Jews were in exile. See his remarks on vv. 18–20.
[483]There is a mistranslation in ver. 18:שׂרידis rendered by πυρόφορος.
[484]This is no doubt from the later writer, who before he gives the new word of Jehovah with regard to Edom, quotes the earlier prophecy, marked above by quotation marks. In no other way can we explain the immediate following of the words “Thus hath the Lord spoken” with “Wehave heard a report,” etc.
[485]‘Sela,’ the name of the Edomite capital, Petra.
[486]The parenthesis is not in Jer. xlix. 9; Nowack omits it.If spoilersoccurs in Heb. beforeby night: delete.
[487]Antithetic tothievesandspoilers by night, as the sending of the people to their border is antithetic to the thieves taking only what they wanted.
[488]לחמך,thy bread, which here follows, is not found in the LXX., and is probably an error due to a mechanical repetition of the letters of the previous word.
[489]Again perhaps a quotation from an earlier prophecy: Nowack counts it from another hand. Mark the sudden change to the future.
[490]Heb.so that.
[491]With LXX. transfer this expression from the end of the ninth to the beginning of the tenth verse.
[492]“When thou didst stand on the opposite side.”—Calvin.
[493]Plural; LXX. and Qeri.
[494]Sudden change to imperative. The English versions render,Thou shouldest not have looked on, etc.
[495]Cf. Ps. cxxxvii. 7,the day of Jerusalem.
[496]The day of his strangeness =aliena fortuna.
[497]With laughter. Wellhausen and Nowack suspect ver. 13 as an intrusion.
[498]פֶּרֶקdoes not elsewhere occur. It means cleaving, and the LXX. render it by διεκβολή,i.e.pass between mountains. The Arabic forms from the same root suggest the sense of a band of men standing apart from the main body on the watch for stragglers (cf.נגד, in ver. 11). Calvin, “the going forth”; Grätzפרץ,breach, but see Nowack.
[499]Wellhausen proposes to put the last two clauses immediately after ver. 14.
[500]The prophet seems here to turn to address his own countrymen: the drinking will therefore take the meaning of suffering God’s chastising wrath. Others, like Calvin, take it in the opposite sense, and apply it to Edom: “as ye have exulted,” etc.
[501]Reel—forלעוּwe ought (with Wellhausen) probably to readנעוּ: cf. Lam. iv. 2. Some codd. of LXX. omitall the nations … continuously, drink and reel. Butאc.aA and Q haveall the nations shall drink wine.
[502]So LXX. Heb.their heritages.
[503]That is the reverse of the conditions after the Jews went into exile, for then the Edomites came up on the Negeb and the Philistines on the Shephelah.
[504]I.e.of Judah, the rest of the country outside the Negeb and Shephelah. The reading is after the LXX.
[505]Whereas the pagan inhabitants of these places came upon the hill-country of Judæa during the Exile.
[506]An unusual form of the word. Ewald would readcoast. The verse is obscure.
[507]So LXX.
[508]The Jews themselves thought this to be Spain: so Onkelos, who translatesספרדbyאַסְפַּמְיָא= Hispania. Hence the origin of the name Sephardim Jews. The supposition that it is Sparta need hardly be noticed. Our decision must lie between two other regions—the one in Asia Minor, the other in S.W. Media.First, in the ancient Persian inscriptions there thrice occurs (great Behistun inscription, I. 15; inscription of Darius, II. 12, 13; and inscription of Darius from Naḳsh-i-Rustam) Çparda. It is connected with Janua or Ionia and Katapatuka or Cappadocia (Schrader,Cun. Inscr. and O. T., Germ. ed., p. 446; Eng., Vol. II., p. 145); and Sayce shows that, called Shaparda on a late cuneiform inscription of 275B.C., it must have lain in Bithynia or Galatia (Higher Criticism and Monuments, p. 483). Darius made it a satrapy. It is clear, as Cheyne says (Founders of O. T. Criticism, p. 312), that those who on other grounds are convinced of the post-exilic origin of this part of Obadiah, of its origin in the Persian period, will identify Sepharad with this Çparda, which both he and Sayce do. But to those of us who hold that this part of Obadiah is from the time of the Babylonian exile, as we have sought to prove above on pp. 171 f., then Sepharad cannot be Çparda, for Nebuchadrezzar did not subdue Asia Minor and cannot have transported Jews there. Are we then forced to give up our theory of the date of Obadiah 10–21 in the Babylonian exile? By no means. For,second, the inscriptions of Sargon, king of Assyria (721—705B.C.), mention a Shaparda, in S.W. Media towards Babylonia, a name phonetically correspondent toספרד(Schrader,l.c.), and the identification of the two is regarded as “exceedingly probable” by Fried. Delitzsch (Wo lag das Paradies?p. 249). But even if this should be shown to be impossible, and if the identification Sepharad = Çparda be proved, that would not oblige us to alter our opinion as to the date of the whole of Obadiah 10–21, for it is possible that later additions, including Sepharad, have been made to the passage.
[509]Amos i. 11. See Vol. I., p.129.
[510]John Hyrcanus, about 130B.C.
[511]Irby and Mangles’Travels: cf. Burckhardt’sTravels in Syria, and Doughty,Arabia Deserta, I.
[512]Obadiah 3.
[513]Amos i.: cf. Ezek. xxxv. 5.
[514]Obadiah 10.
[515]C. I. S., II. i. 183 ff.
[516]Obadiah 6.
[517]Verse 6.
[518]See the details in Vol. I., pp.129f.
[519]Heb. xii. 16.
[520]We even know the names of some of these deities from the theophorous names of Edomites:e.g.Baal-chanan (Gen. xxxvi. 38), Hadad (ib.35; 1 Kings xi. 14 ff.); Malikram, Ḳausmalaka, Ḳausgabri (on Assyrian inscriptions: Schrader,K.A.T.² 150, 613); Κοσαδαρος, Κοσβανος, Κοσγηρος, Κοσνατανος (Rev. archéol.1870, I. pp. 109 ff., 170 ff.), Κοστοβαρος (Jos., XV.Ant.vii. 9). See Baethgen,Beiträge zur Semit. Rel. Gesch., pp. 10 ff.
[521]Obadiah 8: cf. Jer. xlix. 7.
[522]Obadiah 11, 12: cf. Ezek. xxxv. 12 f.
[523]1–5 or 6. See above, pp.167,171f.
[524]Verse 7.
[525]See above, p.171.
[526]The chief authorities for this period are as follows:—A. Ancient: the inscriptions of Nabonidus, last native King of Babylon, Cyrus and Darius I.; the Hebrew writings which were composed in, or record the history of, the period; the Greek historians Herodotus, fragments of Ctesias in Diodorus Sic. etc., of Abydenus in Eusebius, Berosus. B. Modern: Meyer’s and Duncker’s Histories of Antiquity; art. “Ancient Persia” inEncycl. Brit., by Nöldeke and Gutschmid; Sayce,Anc. Empires; the works of Kuenen, Van Hoonacker and Kosters given on p.192[n.531]; recent histories of Israel,e.g.Stade’s, Wellhausen’s and Klostermann’s; P. Hay Hunter,After the Exile, a Hundred Years of Jewish History and Literature, 2 Vols., Edin. 1890; W. Fairweather,From the Exile to the Advent, Edin. 1895. On Ezra and Nehemiah see especially Ryle’sCommentaryin theCambridge Bible for Schools, and Bertheau-Ryssel’s inKurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch: cf. also Charles C. Torrey,The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, in theBeihefte zur Z.A.T.W., II., 1896.
[527]Ezra iv. 5–7, etc., vi. 1–14, etc.
[528]Havet,Revue des Deux Mondes, XCIV. 799 ff. (art.La Modernité des Prophètes); Imbert (in defence of the historical character of the Book of Ezra),Le Temple Reconstruit par Zorobabel, extrait duMuséon, 1888–9 (this I have not seen); Sir Henry Howorth in theAcademyfor 1893—see especially pp. 320 ff.
[529]Another French writer, Bellangé, in theMuséonfor 1890, quoted by Kuenen (Ges. Abhandl., p. 213), goes further, and places Ezra and Nehemiah under thethirdArtaxerxes, Ochus (358—338).
[530]Ezra iv. 6—v.
[531]Kuenen,De Chronologie van het Perzische Tijdvak der Joodsche Geschiedenis, 1890, translated by Budde in Kuenen’sGesammelte Abhandlungen, pp. 212 ff.; Van Hoonacker,Zorobabel et le Second Temple(1892); Kosters,Het Herstel van Israel, inHet Perzische Tijdvak, 1894, translated by Basedow,Die Wiederherstellung Israels im Persischen Zeitalter, 1896.
[532]Hag. ii. 3.
[533]Zech. i. 12.
[534]Ezra iv. 5.
[535]Ezra ii. 2, iv. 1 ff., v. 2.
[536]As Kuenen shows, p. 226, nothing can be deduced from Ezra vi. 14.
[537]P. 227; in answer to De Saulcy,Étude Chronologique des Livres d’Esdras et de Néhémie(1868),Sept Siècles de l’Histoire Judaïque(1874). De Saulcy’s case rests on the account of Josephus (XI.Ant.vii. 2–8: cf. ix. 1), the untrustworthy character of which and its confusion of two distant eras Kuenen has no difficulty in showing.
[538]When Nehemiah came to Jerusalem Eliyashib was high priest, and he was grandson of Jeshua, who was high priest in 520, or seventy-five years before; but between 520 and the twentieth year of Artaxerxes II. lie one hundred and thirty-six years. And again, the Artaxerxes of Ezra iv. 8–23, under whom the walls of Jerusalem were begun, was the immediate follower of Xerxes (Ahasuerus), and therefore Artaxerxes I., and Van Hoonacker has shown that he must be the same as the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah.
[539]Kosters, p. 43.
[540]vii. 1–8.
[541]Neh. xii. 36, viii., x.
[542]Vernes,Précis d’Histoire Juive depuis les Origines jusqu’à l’Époque Persane(1889), pp. 579 ff. (not seen); more recently also Charles C. Torrey of Andover,The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, in theBeihefte zur Z.A.T.W., II., 1896.
[543]Pages 113 ff.
[544]Page 237.
[545]The failure of his too hasty and impetuous attempts at so wholesale a measure as the banishment of the heathen wives; or his return to Babylon, having accomplished his end. See Ryle,Ezra and Nehemiah, in theCambridge Bible for Schools, Introd., pp. xl. f.
[546]42,360,besides their servants, is the total sum given in Ezra ii. 64; but the detailed figures in Ezra amount only to 29,818, those in Nehemiah to 31,089, and those in 1 Esdras to 30,143 (other MSS. 30,678). See Ryle on Ezra ii. 64.
[547]Ezra i. 8.
[548]Ezra v. 14.
[549]Ib.16.
[550]Ezra ii. 63.
[551]יֵשׁוּעַ בֶּן־יוֹצָדָק: Ezra iii. 2, like Ezra i. 1–8, from the Compiler of Ezra-Nehemiah.
[552]זְרֻבָּבֶל בֶּן־שְׁאַלְתִּיאֵל.
[553]Ezra ii. 2.
[554]Hag. i. 14, ii. 2, 21, and perhaps by Nehemiah (vii. 65–70). Nehemiah himself is styled both Peḥah (xiv. 20) and Tirshatha (viii. 9, x. 1).
[555]As Daniel and his three friends had also Babylonian names.
[556]Ezra ii. 63.
[557]Cf. Ryle, xxxi ff.; and on Ezra i. 8, ii. 63.
[558]Stade,Gesch. des Volkes Israel, II. 98 ff.: cf. Kuenen,Gesammelte Abhandl., 220.
[559]Ezra i. 8.
[560]Ezra i. compared with ii. 1.
[561]Some think to find this in 1 Esdras v. 1–6, where it is said that Darius, a name they take to be an error for that of Cyrus, brought up the exiles with an escort of a thousand cavalry, starting in the first month of the second year of the king’s reign. This passage, however, is not beyond suspicion as a gloss (see Ryle on Ezra i. 11), and even if genuine may be intended to describe a second contingent of exiles despatched by Darius I. in his second year, 520. The names given include that of Jesua, son of Josedec, and instead of Zerubbabel’s, that of his son Joacim.
[562]Ezra iii. 3–7.
[563]Ib.8–13.
[564]Ezra iv. 7.
[565]See above, p.193.
[566]iv. 24.
[567]Ezra iv. 24—vi. 15.
[568]There are in the main two classes of such attempts. (a) Some have suggested that the Ahasuerus (Xerxes) and Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezra iv. 6 and 7 ff. are not the successors of Darius I. who bore these names, but titles of his predecessors Cambyses and the Pseudo-Smerdis (see above, p.190). This view has been disposed of by Kuenen,Ges. Abhandl., pp. 224 ff., and by Ryle, pp. 65 ff. (b) The attempt to prove that the Darius under whom the Temple was built was not Darius I. (521—485), the predecessor of Xerxes I. and Artaxerxes I. (485—424), but their successor once removed, Darius II., Nothus (423—404). So, in defence of the Book of Ezra, Imbert. For his theory and the answer to it see above, pp.191f.
[569]See above, pp.192ff.
[570]For his work see above, p. 192, n.531. I regret that neither Wellhausen’s answer to it, nor Kosters’ reply to Wellhausen, was accessible to me in preparing this chapter. Nor did I read Mr. Torrey’sresumeof Wellhausen’s answer, or Wellhausen’s notes to the second edition of hisIsr. u. Jüd. Geschichte, till the chapter was written. Previous to Kosters, the Return under Cyrus had been called in question only by the very arbitrary French scholar M. Vernes in 1889–90.
[571]ii. 6 ff. Eng., 10 ff. Heb.
[572]His chief grounds for this analysis are (1) that in v. 1–5 the Jews are said to havebegunto build the Temple in the second year of Darius, while in v. 16 the foundation-stone is said to have been laid under Cyrus; (2) the frequent want of connection throughout the passage; (3) an alleged doublet: in v. 17—vi. 1 search is said to have been made for the edict of Cyrusin Babylon, while in vi. 2 the edict is said to have been foundin Ecbatana. But (1) and (3) are capable of very obvious explanations, and (2) is far from conclusive.—The remainder of the Aramaic text, iv. 8–24, Kosters seeks to prove is by the Chronicler or Compiler himself. As Torrey (op. cit., p. 11) has shown, this “is as unlikely as possible.” At the most he may have made additions to the Aramaic document.
[573]Ezra v. 16.
[574]Above, pp.201f.
[575]Isa. xliv. 28, xlv. 1. According to Kosters, the statement of the Aramaic document about the rebuilding of the Temple is therefore a pious invention of a literal fulfilment of prophecy. To this opinion Cheyne adheres (Introd. to the Book of Isaiah, 1895, p. xxxviii), and adds the further assumption that the Chronicler, being “shocked at the ascription to Cyrus (for the Judæan builders have no credit given them) of what must, he thought, have been at least equally due to the zeal of the exiles,” invented his story in the earlier chapters of Ezra as to the part the exiles themselves took in the rebuilding. It will be noticed that these assumptions have precisely the value of such. They are merely the imputation of motives, more or less probable to the writers of certain statements, and may therefore be fairly met by probabilities from the other side. But of this more later on.
[576]This is the usual opinion of critics, who yet hold it to be genuine—e.g.Ryle.
[577]He seeks to argue that a List of Exiles returned under Cyrus in 536 could be of no use for Nehemiah’s purpose to obtain in 445 a census of the inhabitants of Jerusalem; but surely, if in his efforts to make a census Nehemiah discovered the existence of such a List, it was natural for him to give it as the basis of his inquiry, or (because the List—see above, p.203—contains elements from Nehemiah’s own time) to enlarge it and bring it down to date. But Dr. Kosters thinks also that, as Nehemiah would never have broken the connection of his memoirs with such a List, the latter must have been inserted by the Compiler, who at this point grew weary of the discursiveness of the memoirs, broke from them, and then—inserted this lengthy List! This is simply incredible—that he should seek to atone for the diffuseness of Nehemiah’s memoirs by the intrusion of a very long catalogue which had no relevance to the point at which he broke them off.
[578]Hag. i. 2, 12; ii. 14.
[579]Hag. i. 12, 14; ii. 2; Zech. viii. 6, 11, 12.
[580]Hag. ii. 4; Zech. vii. 5.
[581]Zech. ii. 16; viii. 13, 15.
[582]It is used in Hag. i. 12, 14, ii. 2, only after the mention of the leaders; see, however, Pusey’s note 9 to Hag. i. 12; while in Zech. viii. 6, 11, 18, it might be argued that it was employed in such a way as to cover not only Jews who had never left their land, but all Jews as well who were left of ancient Israel.
[583]Compare Cheyne,Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, 1895, xxxv. ff., who says that in the main points Kosters’ conclusions “appear so inevitable” that he has “constantly presupposed them” in dealing with chaps. lvi.—lxvi. of Isaiah; and Torrey,op. cit., 1896, p. 53: “Kosters has demonstrated, from the testimony of Haggai and Zechariah, that Zerubbabel and Jeshua were not returned exiles; and furthermore, that the prophets Haggai and Zechariah knew nothing of an important return of exiles from Babylonia.” Cf. also Wildeboer,Litteratur des A. T., pp. 291 ff.
[584]iv. 4.
[585]Of course it is always possible that, if there had been no great Return from Babylon under Cyrus, the community at Jerusalem in 520 had not heard of the prophecies of the Second Isaiah.