FOOTNOTES[1]Cambridge Bible for Schools, 1897[2]See Vol. I., p.viii.[3]Expositor’s Bible,Isaiah xl.—lxvi., Chap.II.[4]It is uncertain whether Hezekiah was an Assyrian vassal during these years, as his successor Manasseh is recorded to have been in 676.[5]2 Kings xviii. 4.[6]The exact date is quite uncertain; 695 is suggested on the chronological table prefixed to this volume, but it may have been 690 or 685.[7]Cf. McCurdy,History, Prophecy and the Monuments, § 799.[8]Stade (Gesch. des Volkes Israel, I., pp. 627 f.) denies to Manasseh the reconstruction of the high places, the Baal altars and the Asheras, for he does not believe that Hezekiah had succeeded in destroying these. He takes 2 Kings xxi. 3, which describes these reconstructions, as a late interpolation rendered necessary to reconcile the tradition that Hezekiah’s reforms had been quite in the spirit of Deuteronomy, with the fact that there were still high places in the land when Josiah began his reforms. Further, Stade takes the rest of 2 Kings xxi. 2b-7 as also an interpolation, but unlike verse 3 an accurate account of Manasseh’s idolatrous institutions, because it is corroborated by the account of Josiah’s reforms, 2 Kings xxiii. Stade also discusses this passage inZ.A.T.W., 1886, pp. 186 ff.[9]See Vol. I., p.41. In addition to the reasons of the change given above, we must remember that we are now treating, not of Northern Israel, but of the more stern and sullen Judæans.[10]2 Kings xxi., xxiii.[11]Filled from mouth to mouth(2 Kings xxi. 16).[12]Jer. ii. 30.[13]We have already seen that there is no reason for that theory of so many critics which assigns to this period Micah. See Vol. I., p.370.[14]2 Kings xxi. 10 ff.[15]Whether the parenthetical apostrophes to Jehovah as Maker of the heavens, their hosts and all the powers of nature (Amos iv. 13, v. 8, 9, ix. 5, 6), are also to be attributed to Manasseh’s reign is more doubtful. Yet the following facts are to be observed: that these passages are also (though to a less degree than v. 26 f.) parenthetic; that their language seems of a later cast than that of the time of Amos (see Vol. I., pp.204,205: though here evidence is adduced to show that the late features are probably post-exilic); and that Jehovah is expressly named as theMakerof certain of the stars. Similarly when Mohammed seeks to condemn the worship of the heavenly bodies, he insists that God is their Maker. Koran, Sur. 41, 37: “To the signs of His Omnipotence belong night and day, sun and moon; but do not pray to sun or moon, for God hath created them.” Sur. 53, 50: “Because He is the Lord of Sirius.” On the other side see Driver’sJoel and Amos(Cambridge Bible for Schools Series), 1897, pp. 118 f., 189.How deeply Manasseh had planted in Israel the worship of the heavenly host may be seen from the survival of the latter through all the reforms of Josiah and the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer. vii. 18, viii., xliv.; Ezek. viii. Cf. Stade,Gesch. des V. Israel, I., pp. 629 ff.).[16]The Jehovist and Elohist into the closely mortised JE. Stade indeed assigns to the period of Manasseh Israel’s first acquaintance with the Babylonian cosmogonies and myths which led to that reconstruction of them in the spirit of her own religion which we find in the Jehovistic portions of the beginning of Genesis (Gesch. des V. Isr., I., pp. 630 ff.). But it may well be doubted (1) whether the reign of Manasseh affords time for this assimilation, and (2) whether it was likely that Assyrian and Babylonian theology could make so deep and lasting impression upon the purer faith of Israel at a time when the latter stood in such sharp hostility to all foreign influences and was so bitterly persecuted by the parties in Israel who had succumbed to these influences.[17]Chaps. v.—xxvi., xxviii.[18]621B.C.[19]2 Chron. xxxiii. 11 ff.[20]2 Kings xxi. 23.[21]But in his conquests of Hauran, Northern Arabia and the eastern neighbours of Judah, he had evidently sought to imitate the policy of Asarhaddon in 675 f., and secure firm ground in Palestine and Arabia for a subsequent attack upon Egypt. That this never came shows more than anything else could Assyria’s consciousness of growing weakness.[22]The name of Josiah’s (יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ) mother was Jedidah (יְדִידָה), daughter of Adaiah (עֲדָיָה) of Boṣḳath in the Shephelah of Judah.[23]2 Kings xxii., xxiii.[24]Zeph. i. 4: the LXX. readsnames of Baal. See below, p. 40, n.87.[25]Ibid., 5.[26]Ibid., 8–12.[27]I. 102 ff.[28]Herod., I. 105.[29]The new name of Bethshan in the mouth of Esdraelon, viz. Scythopolis, is said to be derived from them (but seeHist. Geog. of the Holy Land, pp. 363 f.); they conquered Askalon (Herod., I. 105).[30]2 Kings xvii. 6:and in the cities(LXX.mountains)of the Medes. The Heb. isמָדָי, Madai.[31]Mentioned by Sargon.[32]Sayce,Empires of the East, 239: cf. McCurdy, § 823 f.[33]Herod., I. 103.[34]Heb. Kasdim,כַּשְׂדִּים; LXX. Χαλδαῖοι; Assyr. Kaldâa, Kaldu. The Hebrew form withsis regarded by many authorities as the original, from the Assyrian rootkashadu, to conquer, and the Assyrian form withlto have arisen by the common change ofshthroughrintol. The form withsdoes not occur, however, in Assyrian, which also possesses the rootkaladu, with the same meaning askashadu. See Mr. Pinches’ articles on Chaldea and the Chaldeans in the new edition of Vol. I. of Smith’sBible Dictionary.[35]About 880B.C.in the annals of Assurnatsirpal. SeeChronological Tableto Vol. I.[36]No inscriptions of Asshur-itil-ilani have been found later than the first two years of his reign.[37]Billerbeck-Jeremias, “Der Untergang Niniveh’s,” in Delitzsch and Haupt’sBeiträge zur Assyriologie, III., p. 113.[38]Nahum ii.[39]See below, p.120.[40]Abydenus (apud Euseb.,Chron., I. 9) reports a marriage between Nebuchadrezzar, Nabopolassar’s son, and the daughter of the Median king.[41]2 Kings xxiii. 29. The history is here very obscure. Necho, met at Megiddo by Josiah, and having slain him, appears to have spent a year or two in subjugating, and arranging for the government of, Syria (ibid., verses 33–35), and only reached the Euphrates in 605, when Nebuchadrezzar defeated him.[42]The reverse view is taken by Wellhausen, who says (Israel u. Jüd. Gesch., pp. 97 f.): “Der Pharaoh scheint ausgezogen zu sein um sich seinen Teil an der Erbschaft Ninives vorwegzunehmen, während die Meder und Chaldäer die Stadt belagerten.”[43]See above, p. 20, n.37.[44]I. 106.[45]A stele of Nabonidus discovered at Hilleh and now in the museum at Constantinople relates that in his third year, 553, the king restored at Harran the temple of Sin, the moon-god, which the Medes had destroyed fifty-four years before,i.e.607. Whether the Medes did this before, during or after the siege of Niniveh is uncertain, but the approximate date of the siege, 608—606, is thus marvellously confirmed. The stele affirms that the Medes alone took Niniveh, but that they were called in by Marduk, the Babylonian god, to assist Nabopolassar and avenge the deportation of his image by Sennacherib to Niniveh. Messerschmidt (Mittheilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, I. 1896) argues that the Medes were summoned by the Babylonians while the latter were being sore pressed by the Assyrians. Winckler had already (Untersuch., pp. 124 ff., 1889) urged that the Babylonians would refrain from taking an active part in the overthrow of Niniveh, in fear of incurring the guilt of sacrilege. Neither Messerschmidt’s paper, nor Scheil’s (who describes the stele in theRecueil des Travaux, XVIII. 1896), being accessible to me, I have written this note on the information supplied by Rev. C. H. W. Johns, of Cambridge, in theExpository Times, 1896, and by Prof. A. B. Davidson in App. I. toNah., Hab. and Zeph.[46]Berosus and Abydenus in Eusebius.[47]This spelling (Jer. xlix. 28) is nearer the original than the alternative Hebrew Nebuchadnezzar. But the LXX. Ναβουχοδονόσορ, and the Ναβουκοδρόσορος of Abydenus and Megasthenes and Ναβοκοδρόσορος of Strabo, have preserved the more correct vocalisation; for the original is Nabu-kudurri-uṣur = Nebo, defend the crown![48]But see below, pp.123f.[49]Below, pp.121ff.[50]2 Kings xxii. 11–20. The genuineness of this passage is proved (as against Stade,Gesch. des Volkes Israel, I.) by the promise which it gives to Josiah of a peaceful death. Had it been written after the battle of Megiddo, in which Josiah was slain, it could not have contained such a promise.[51]Jer. vii. 4, viii. 8.[52]vi. 1.[53]All these reforms in 2 Kings xxiii.[54]Jer. xxii. 15 f.[55]Ibid., ver. 16.[56]We have no record of this, but a prince who so rashly flung himself in the way of Egypt would not hesitate to claim authority over Moab and Ammon.[57]2 Kings xxiii. 24. The question whether Necho came by land from Egypt or brought his troops in his fleet to Acre is hardly answered by the fact that Josiah went to Megiddo to meet him. But Megiddo on the whole tells more for the land than the sea. It is not on the path from Acre to the Euphrates; it is the key of the land-road from Egypt to the Euphrates. Josiah could have no hope of stopping Pharaoh on the broad levels of Philistia; but at Megiddo there was a narrow pass, and the only chance of arresting so large an army as it moved in detachments. Josiah’s tactics were therefore analogous to those of Saul, who also left his own territory and marched north to Esdraelon, to meet his foe—and death.[58]A. B. Davidson,The Exile and the Restoration, p. 8 (Bible Class Primers, ed. by Salmond; Edin., T. & T. Clark, 1897).[59]2 Kings xxiii. 33–35.[60]Jer. xxii. 13–15.[61]Jer. xi.[62]xxv. 1 ff.[63]xxxvi.[64]2 Kings xxiv. 1. In the chronological table appended to Kautzsch’sBibelthis verse and Jehoiakim’s submission are assigned to 602. But this allows too little time for Nebuchadrezzar to confirm his throne in Babylon and march to Palestine, and it is not corroborated by the record in the Book of Jeremiah of events in Judah in 604—602.[65]Nebuchadrezzar did not die till 562.[66]SeeIsaiah i.—xxxix.(Expositor’s Bible), pp.223f.[67]See above, p. 26, n.56.[68]2 Kings xxiv. 2.[69]Jer. xxxvii. 30, but see 2 Kings xxiv. 6.[70]So Josephus puts it (X.Antiq., vii. 1). Jehoiachin was unusually bewailed (Lam. iv. 20; Ezek. xvii. 22 ff.). He survived in captivity till the death of Nebuchadrezzar, whose successor Evil-Merodach in 561 took him from prison and gave him a place in his palace (2 Kings xxv. 27 ff.).[71]i. 3b, 5b; ii. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 last word, 14b; iii. 18, 19a, 20.[72]i. 14b; ii. 1, 3; iii. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17.[73]i. 3b, 5b; ii. 2, 6; iii. 5 (?).[74]For details see translation below.[75]i. 3,מַכְשֵׁלוֹת, only in Isa. iii. 6; 15,משואה, only in Job xxx. 3, xxxviii. 27—cf. Psalms lxxiii. 18, lxxiv. 3; ii. 8,גדפים, Isa. xliii. 28—cf. li. 7; 9,חרול, Prov. xxiv. 31, Job xxx. 7; 15,עליזה, Isa. xxii. 2, xxiii. 7, xxxii. 13—cf. xiii. 3, xxiv. 8; iii. 1,נגאלה, see next note but one; 3,זאבי ערב, Hab. i. 8; 11,עליזי גאותך, Isa. xiii. 3; 18,נוגי, Lam. i. 4,נוגות.[76]i. 11,המכתשas the name of a part of Jerusalem, otherwise only Jer. xv. 19;נטילי כסף; 12,קפאin pt. Qal, and otherwise only Exod. xv. 8, Zech. xiv. 6, Job x. 10; 14,מַהֵר(adj.), but the pointing may be wrong—cf. Maher-shalal-hash-baz, Isa. viii. 1, 3;צרחin Qal, elsewhere only once in Hi. Isa. xlii. 13; 17,לחוםin sense of flesh, cf. Job xx. 23; 18,נבהלהif a noun (?); ii. 1,קששin Qal and Hithpo, elsewhere only in Polel; 9,מכרה ,ממשק; 11,רזה, to make lean, otherwise only in Isa. xvii. 4, to be lean; 14, ארזה (?); iii. 1, מראה, pt. of יונה ;מרה, pt. Qal, in Jer. xlvi. 16, l. 16, it may be a noun; 4,אנשי בגדות; 6,נצדו; 9,שכם אחד; 10,עתרי בת־פוצי(?); 15,פנה in sense toturn away; 18,ממך היו (?).[77]i. 8, etc.,פקד על, followed by person, but not by thing—cf. Jer. ix. 24, xxiii. 34, etc., Job xxxvi. 23, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23, Ezek. i. 2; 13,משׁסה, only in Hab. ii. 7, Isa. xlii., Jer. xxx. 16, 2 Kings xxi. 14; 17,הֵצֵר, Hi. ofצרר, only in 1 Kings viii. 37, and Deut., 2 Chron., Jer., Neh.; ii. 3,ענוה; 8גדופים, Isa. xliii. 28, li. 7 (fem. pl.); 9,חרול, Prov. xxiv. 31, Job xxx. 7; iii. 1,נגאלה, Ni, pt. = impure, Isa. lix. 3, Lam. iv. 14;יונה, a pt. in Jer. xlvi. 16, l. 16; 3,זאבי ערב, Hab. i. 8—cf. Jer. v. 6,זאב ערבות; 9,ברור, Isa. xlix. 2,ברר, Ezek. xx. 38, 1 Chron. vii. 40, ix. 22, xvi. 41, Neh. v. 18, Job xxxiii. 3, Eccles. iii. 18, ix. 1; 11,עליזי גאוה, Isa. xiii. 3; 18,נוּגֵי, Lam. i. 4 hasנוּגות.[78]So Hitzig, Ewald, Pusey, Kuenen, Robertson Smith (Encyc. Brit.), Driver, Wellhausen, Kirkpatrick, Budde, von Orelli, Cornill, Schwally, Davidson.[79]So Delitzsch, Kleinert, and Schulz (Commentar über den Proph. Zeph., 1892, p. 7, quoted by König).[80]So König.[81]Jer. xxv.[82]Jer. vii. 18.[83]i. 3.[84]Kleinert in his Commentary in Lange’sBibelwerk, and Delitzsch in his article in Herzog’sReal-Encyclopädie², both offer a number of inconclusive arguments. These are drawn from the position of Zephaniah after Habakkuk, but, as we have seen, the order of the Twelve is not always chronological; from the supposition that Zephaniah i. 7,Silence before the Lord Jehovah, quotes Habakkuk ii. 20,Keep silence before Him, all the earth, but the phrase common to both is too general to be decisive, and if borrowed by one or other may just as well have been Zephaniah’s originally as Habakkuk’s; from the phraseremnant of Baal(i. 4), as if this were appropriate only after the Reform of 621, but it was quite as appropriate after the beginnings of reform six years earlier; from the condemnation ofthe sons of the king(i. 8), whom Delitzsch takes as Josiah’s sons, who before the great Reform were too young to be condemned, while later their characters did develop badly and judgment fell upon all of them, butsons of the king, even if that be the correct reading (LXX.house of the king), does not necessarily mean the reigning monarch’s children; and from the assertion that Deuteronomy is quoted in the first chapter of Zephaniah, and “so quoted as to show that the prophet needs only to put the people in mind of it as something supposed to be known,” but the verses cited in support of this (viz. 13, 15, 17: cf. Deut. xxviii. 30 and 29) are too general in their character to prove the assertion. See translation below.[85]König has to deny the authenticity of this in order to make his case for the reign of Jehoiakim. But nearly all critics take the phrase as genuine.[86]See above, p.15. For inconclusive reasons Schwally,Z.A.T.W., 1890, pp. 215—217, prefers the Egyptians under Psamtik. See in answer Davidson, p. 98.[87]Not much stress can be laid upon the phraseI will cut off the remnant of Baal, ver. 4, for, if the reading be correct, it may only mean the destruction of Baal-worship, and not the uprooting of what has been left over.[88]See below, p. 47, n.105.[89]If 695 be the date of the accession of Manasseh, being then twelve, Amariah, Zephaniah’s great-grandfather, cannot have been more than ten, that is, born in 705. His son Gedaliah was probably not born before 689, his son Kushi probably not before 672, and his son Zephaniah probably not before 650.[90]Z.A.T.W., 1890, Heft 1.[91]Bacher,Z.A.T.W., 1891, 186; Cornill,Einleitung, 1891; Budde,Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1893, 393 ff.; Davidson,Nah., Hab. and Zeph., 100 ff.[92]Z.A.T.W., 1891, Heft 2.[93]By especially Bacher, Cornill and Budde as above.[94]See Budde and Davidson.[95]The ideal of chap. i.—ii. 3, of the final security of a poor and lowly remnant of Israel, “necessarily implies that they shall no longer be threatened by hostility from without, and this condition is satisfied by the prophet’s view of the impending judgment on the ancient enemies of his nation,”i.e.those mentioned in ii. 4–15 (Robertson Smith,Encyc. Brit., art. “Zephaniah”).[96]See, however, Davidson for some linguistic reasons for taking the two sections as one. Robertson Smith, also in 1888 (Encyc. Brit., art. “Zephaniah”), assumed (though not without pointing out the possibility of the addition of other pieces to the genuine prophecies of Zephaniah) that “a single leading motive runs through the whole” book, and “the first two chapters would be incomplete without the third, which moreover is certainly pre-exilic (vv. 1–4) and presents specific points of contact with what precedes, as well as a general agreement in style and idea.”[97]Schwally (234) thinks that the epithetצדיק(ver. 5) was first applied to Jehovah by the Second Isaiah (xlv. 21, lxiv. 2, xlii. 21), and became frequent from his time on. In disproof Budde (3398) quotes Exod. ix. 27, Jer. xii. 1, Lam. i. 18. Schwally also points to נצדוas borrowed from Aramaic.[98]Budde, p. 395; Davidson, 103. Schwally (230 ff.) seeks to prove the unity of 9 and 10 with the context, but he has apparently mistaken the meaning of ver. 8 (231). That surely does not mean that the nations are gathered in order to punish the godlessness of the Jews, but that they may themselves be punished.[99]See Davidson, 103.[100]Josiah, bornc.648, succeededc.639, was about eighteen in 630, and then appears to have begun his reforms.[101]See above, pp.40f., n.85.[102]Jer. i. 5.[103]See G. B. Gray,Hebrew Proper Names.[104]Josiah.[105]It is not usual in the O.T. to carry a man’s genealogy beyond his grandfather, except for some special purpose, or in order to include some ancestor of note. Also the name Hezekiah is very rare apart from the king. The number of names compounded with Jah or Jehovah is another proof that the line is a royal one. The omission of the phraseking of Judahafter Hezekiah’s name proves nothing; it may have been of purpose because the phrase has to occur immediately again.[106]It was not till 652 that a league was made between the Palestine princes and Psamtik I. against Assyria. This certainly would have been the most natural year for a child to be named Kushi. But that would set the birth of Zephaniah as late as 632, and his prophecy towards the end of Josiah’s reign, which we have seen to be improbable on other grounds.[107]Jer. xxi. 1, xxix. 25, 29, xxxvii. 3, lii. 24 ff.; 2 Kings xxv. 18. The analogous Phœnician nameצפנבעל, Saphan-ba’al = “Baal protects or hides,” is found in No. 207 of the Phœnician inscriptions in theCorpus Inscr. Semiticarum.[108]Chap. i. 15. With the above paragraph cf. Robertson Smith,Encyc. Brit., art. “Zephaniah.”[109]Chap. i. 14b.[110]In fact this forms one difficulty about the conclusion which we have reached as to the date. We saw that one reason against putting the Book of Zephaniah after the great Reforms of 621 was that it betrayed no sign of their effects. But it might justly be answered that, if Zephaniah prophesied before 621, his book ought to betray some sign of the approach of reform. Still the explanation given above is satisfactory.[111]Chap. i. 12.[112]Sowine upon the leesis a generous wine according to Isa. xxv. 6.[113]Jer. xlviii. 11.[114]The text readsthe ruins(מַכְשֵׁלוֹת, unless we prefer with Wellhausen מִכְשֹׁלים,the stumbling-blocks, i.e.idols)with the wicked, and I will cut off man(LXX.the lawless)from off the face of the ground.Some think the clause partly too redundant, partly too specific, to be original. But suppose we readוְהִכְשַׁלְתִּי(cf. Mal. ii. 8, Lam. i. 14 andpassim: this is more probable than Schwally’sכִּשַׁלְתִּי,op. cit., p. 169), and forאדםthe reading which probably the LXX. had before them, אדם רשע(Job xx. 29, xxvii. 13, Prov. xi. 7: cf.אדם בליעלProv. vi. 12) orאדם עַוָּל(cf. iii. 5), we get the rendering adopted in the translation above. Some think the whole passage an intrusion, yet it is surely probable that the earnest moral spirit of Zephaniah would aim at the wicked from the very outset of his prophecy.[115]LXX.names, held by some to be the original reading (Schwally, etc.). In that case the phrase might have some allusion to the well-known promise in Deut.,the place where I shall set My name. This is more natural than a reference to Hosea ii. 19, which is quoted by some.[116]Some Greek codd. take Baal as fem., others as plur.[117]So LXX.[118]Heb. readsand them who bow themselves, who swear, by Jehovah. So LXX. B withandbeforewho swear. But LXX. A omitsand. LXX. Q omitsthem who bow themselves. Wellhausen keeps the clause with the exception ofwho swear, and so reads (to the end of verse)them who bow themselves to Jehovah and swear by Milcom.[119]Or Molech = king. LXX.by their king. Other Greek versions: Moloch and Melchom. Vulg. Melchom.[120]LXX.His.[121]So LXX. Heb.sons.[122]Is this some superstitious rite of the idol-worshippers as described in the case of Dagon, 1 Sam. v. 5? Or is it a phrase for breaking into a house, and so parallel to the second clause of the verse? Most interpreters prefer the latter. The idolatrous rites have been left behind. Schwally suggests the original order may have been:princes and sons of the king, who fill their lord’s house full of violence and deceit; and I will visit upon every one that leapeth over the threshold on that day, and upon all that wear foreign raiment.[123]TheSecondor New Town: cf. 2 Kings xxii. 14, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 22, which state that the prophetess Huldah lived there. Cf. Neh. iii. 9, 12, xi. 9.[124]The hollow probably between the western and eastern hills, or the upper part of the Tyropœan (Orelli).[125]Heb.people of Canaan.[126]נטיל, found only here, fromנטל, to lift up, and in Isa. xl. 15 to weigh. Still it may have a wider meaning,all they that carry money(Davidson).[127]See above, p.52.[128]The Hebrew text and versions here add:And they shall build houses and not inhabit(Greekin them),and plant vineyards and not drink the wine thereof.But the phrase is a common one (Deut. xxviii. 30; Amos v. 11: cf. Micah vi. 15), and while likely to have been inserted by a later hand, is here superfluous, and mars the firmness and edge of Zephaniah’s threat.[129]ForמהרWellhausen readsממהר, pt. Pi; butמהרmay be a verbal adj.; compare the phraseמהר שלל, Isa. viii. 1.[130]Dies Iræ, Dies Illa![131]Heb. sho’ah u-mesho’ah. Lit. ruin (or devastation) and destruction.[132]Some take this first clause of ver. 18 as a gloss. See Schwallyin loco.[133]Readאףforאך. So LXX., Syr., Wellhausen, Schwally.[134]In vv. 1–3 of chap. ii., wrongly separated from chap. i.: see Davidson.[135]Heb.וָקשּׁוּהִתְקוֹשְׁשׁוּ. A.V.Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together(קוֹשֵׁשׁisto gather straw or sticks—cf. Arab.ḳash, to sweep up—and Nithp. of the Aram. is to assemble). Orelli:Crowd and crouch down. Ewald compares Aram.ḳash, late Heb.קְשַׁשׁ,to grow old, which he believes originally meantto be withered, grey. Budde suggestsבשו התבששו, but, as Davidson remarks, it is not easy to see how this, if once extant, was altered to the present reading.[136]נִכְסָףis usually thought to have as its root meaningto be paleorcolourless,i.e.either white or black (Journal of Phil., 14, 125), whenceכֶּסֶף,silverorthe pale metal: hence in the Qal to long for, Job xiv. 15, Ps. xvii. 12; so Ni, Gen. xxxi. 30, Ps. lxxxiv. 3; and hereto be ashamed. But the derivation of the name for silver is quite imaginary, and the colour of shame is red rather than white: cf. the mod. Arab. saying, “They are a people that cannot blush; they have no blood in their faces,”i.e.shameless. Indeed Schwally says (in loco), “Die Bedeutung fahl, blass ist unerweislich.” Hence (in spite of the meanings of the Aram.כסףboth to lose colour and to be ashamed) a derivation for the Hebrew is more probably to be found in the rootkasaf, to cut off. The Arab.کﺴف, which in the classic tongue means to cut a thread or eclipse the sun, is in colloquial Arabic to give a rebuff, refuse a favour, disappoint, shame. In the formsinkasafanditkasafit means to receive a rebuff, be disappointed, then shy or timid, andkasûfmeans shame, shyness (as well as eclipse of the sun). See Spiro’sArabic-English Vocabulary. In Ps. lxxxiv.נכסףis evidently used of unsatisfied longing (but see Cheyne), which is also the proper meaning of the parallelכלה(cf. other passages whereכלהis used of still unfulfilled or rebuffed hopes: Job xix. 27, Ps. lxix. 4, cxix. 81, cxliii. 7). So in Ps. xvii. 4כסףis used of a lion who is longing for,i.e.still disappointed in, his prey, and so in Job xiv. 15.[137]LXX. πρὸ γένεσθαι ὑμᾶς ὡς ἄνθος (here in error readingנץforמץ) παραπορευόμενον, πρὸ τοῦ ἐπελθεῖν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς ὀργὴν κυρίου (last clause omitted byאc.b). According to this the Hebrew text, which is obviously disarranged, may be restored toבְּטֶרֶם לאֹ־תִהיוּ כַמֹּץ עֹבֵר בְּטֶרֶם לאֹ־יָבֹא עֲלֵיכֶם חֲרוֹן יהוה.[138]This clause Wellhausen deletes. Cf. Hexaplar Syriac translation.[139]LXX. take this also as imperative,do judgment, and so co-ordinate to the other clauses.[140]See above, pp.41ff.[141]Some, however, think the prophet is speaking in prospect of the Chaldean invasion of a few years later. This is not so likely, because he pictures the overthrow of Niniveh as subsequent to the invasion of Philistia, while the Chaldeans accomplished the latter only after Niniveh had fallen.[142]According to Herodotus.[143]ver. 7, LXX.[144]The measure, as said above, is elegiac: alternate lines long with a rising, and short with a falling, cadence. There is a play upon the names, at least on the first and last—“Gazzah” or “‘Azzah ‘Azubah”—which in English we might reproduce by the use of Spenser’s word for “dreary”:For Gaza ghastful shall be.“‘Eḳron te’aḳer.” LXX. Ἀκκαρων ἐκριζωθήσεταὶ (B), ἐκριφήσεται (A). In the second line we have a slighter assonance, ‘Ashkĕlōn lishĕmamah. In the third the verb isיְגָרְשׁוּהָ; Bacher (Z.A.T.W., 1891, 185 ff.) points out thatגֵּרַשׁis not used of cities, but of their populations or of individual men, and suggests (from Abulwalid)יירשוה,shall possess her, as “a plausible emendation.” Schwally (ibid., 260) prefers to alter toיְשָׁרְשׁוּהָ, with the remark that this is not only a good parallel toתעקר, but suits the LXX. ἐκριφήσεται.—On the expressionby noonsee Davidson,N. H. and Z., Appendix, Note 2, where he quotes a parallel expression, in the Senjerli inscription, of Asarhaddon: that he took Memphis by midday or in half a day (Schrader). This suits the use of the phrase in Jer. xv. 8, where it is parallel tosuddenly.[145]Canaan omitted by Wellhausen, who readsעליךforעליכם. But as the metre requires a larger number of syllables in the first line of each couplet than in the second, Kĕna’an should probably remain. The difficulty is the use of Canaan as synonymous withLand of the Philistines. Nowhere else in the Old Testament is it expressly applied to the coast south of Carmel, though it is so used in the Egyptian inscriptions, and even in the Old Testament in a sense which covers this as well as other lowlying parts of Palestine.[146]An odd long line, either the remains of two, or perhaps we should take the two previous lines as one, omitting Canaan.[147]So LXX.: Hebrew textand the sea-coast shall become dwellings, cots(כְּרֹת)of shepherds. But the pointing and meaning ofכרתare both conjectural, and thesea-coasthas probably fallen by mistake into this verse from the next. On Kereth and Kerethim as names for Philistia and the Philistines seeHist. Geog., p. 171.[148]LXX. addsof the sea. So Wellhausen, but unnecessarily and improbably for phonetic reasons, as sea has to be read in the next line.[149]So Wellhausen, reading forעַל־הַיָּם עֲליהֶם.[150]Some words must have fallen out, forfirsta short line is required here by the metre, andsecondthe LXX. have some additional words, which, however, give us no help to what the lost line was: ἀπὸ προσώπου υἱῶν Ἰούδα.[151]As stated above, there is no conclusive reason against the pre-exilic date of this expression.[152]Cf. Isa. xvi. 6.[153]LXX.My.[154]Doubtful word, not occurring elsewhere.[155]Heb. singular.[156]LXX. omitsthe people of.[157]LXX.maketh Himself manifest,נראהforנורא.[158]ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The passive of the verb meansto grow lean(Isa. xvii. 4).[159]מקוםhas probably here the sense which it has in a few other passages of the Old Testament, and in Arabic, ofsacred place.Many will share Schwally’s doubts (p. 192) about the authenticity of ver. 11; nor, as Wellhausen points out, does its prediction of the conversion of the heathen agree with ver. 12, which devotes them to destruction. ver. 12 follows naturally on to ver. 7.[160]Wellhausen readsHis sword, to agree with the next verse. Perhapsחרביis an abbreviation forחרב יהוה.[161]See Budde,Z.A.T.W., 1882, 25.[162]Heb. readsa nation, and Wellhausen translatesein buntes Gemisch von Volk. LXX.beasts of the earth.[163]קאת, a water-bird according to Deut. xiv. 17, Lev. xi. 18, mostly taken aspelican; so R.V. A.V.cormorant.קִפֹּדhas usually been taken fromקפד, to draw together, thereforehedgehogorporcupine. But the other animals mentioned here are birds, and it is birds which would naturally roost on capitals. Thereforebitternis the better rendering (Hitzig, Cheyne). The name is onomatopœic. Cf. Eng. butter-dump. LXX. translateschameleons and hedgehogs.[164]Heb.:a voice shall sing in the window, desolation on the threshold, for He shall uncover the cedar-work. LXX. καὶ θηρία φωνήσει ἐν τοῖς διορύγμασιν αὐτῆς, κόρακες ἐν τοῖς πυλῶσιν αὐτῆς, διότι κέδρος τὸ ἀνάστημα αὐτῆς: Wild beasts shall sound in her excavations, ravens in her porches, because (the) cedar is her height. Forקול,voice, Wellhausen readsכוס,owl, and with the LXX.ערב,raven, forחרב,desolation. The last two words are left untranslated above.אַרְזָהoccurs only here and is usually taken to mean cedar-work; but it might be pointedhercedar.ערה,he, orone, has stripped the cedar-work.[165]See above, pp.17,18.[166]At the battle of Karkar, 854.[167]Under Tiglath-Pileser in 734.[168]See above, pp.43-45.[169]Heb.the city the oppressor. The two participles in the first clause are not predicates to the noun and adjective of the second (Schwally), but vocatives, though without the article, afterהוֹי.[170]LXX.wolves of Arabia.[171]The verb left untranslated,גרמו, is quite uncertain in meaning.גרםis a root common to the Semitic languages and seems to mean originallyto cut off, while the nounגרםisa bone. In Num. xxiv. 8 the Piel of the verb used with another word for bone meansto gnaw,munch. (The only other passage where it is used, Ezek. xxiii. 34, is corrupt.) So some take it here:they do not gnaw bones till morning,i.e.devour all at once; but this is awkward, and Schwally (198) has proposed to omit the negative,they do gnaw bones till morning, yet in that case surely the impf. and not the perf. tense would have been used. The LXX. renderthey do not leave over, and it has been attempted, though inconclusively, to derive this meaning from that ofcutting off, i.e.laying aside(the Arabic Form II. means, however,to leave behind). Another line of meaning perhaps promises more. In Aram. the verb meansto be the cause of anything, to bring about, and perhaps contains the idea ofdeciding(Levysub vocecompares κρίνω,cerno); in Arab. it means, among other things,to commit a crime, be guilty, but in mod. Arabicto fine. Now it is to be noticed that here the expression is used ofjudges, and it may be there is an intentional play upon the double possibility of meaning in the root.[172]Ezek. xxii. 26:Her priests have done violence to My Law and have profaned My holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane, between the clean and the unclean.Cf. Jer. ii. 8.[173]Schwally by altering the accents:morning by morning He giveth forth His judgment: no day does He fail.[174]On this ver. 6 see above, p.44. It is doubtful.[175]Ordiscipline.[176]Wellhausen:that which I have commanded her. Cf. Job xxxvi. 23; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23; Ezra i. 2.[177]So LXX., readingמֵעֵינֶיהָfor the Heb.מְעוֹנָהּ,her dwelling.[178]A frequent phrase of Jeremiah’s.[179]משפטי, decree, ordinance, decision.[180]Heb.My anger.LXX. omits.[181]That is to say, the prophet returns to that general judgment of the whole earth, with which in his first discourse he had already threatened Judah. He threatens her with it again in this eighth verse, because, as he has said in the preceding ones, all other warnings have failed. The eighth verse therefore follows naturally upon the seventh, just as naturally as in Amos iv. ver. 12, introduced by the sameלָכֵןas here, follows its predecessors. The next two verses of the text, however, describe an opposite result: instead of the destruction of the heathen, they picture their conversion, and it is only in the eleventh verse that we return to the main subject of the passage, Judah herself, who is represented (in harmony with the close of Zephaniah’s first discourse) as reduced to a righteous and pious remnant. Vv. 9 and 10 are therefore obviously a later insertion, and we pass to the eleventh verse. Vv. 9 and 10:For then(this has no meaning after ver. 8)will I give to the peoples a pure lip(elliptic phrase:turn to the peoples a pure lip—i.e.turn theirevil lip intoa pure lip: pure =picked out,select,excellent, cf. Isa. xlix. 2),that they may all of them call upon the name of the Lord, that they may serve Him with one consent(Heb.shoulder, LXX.yoke).From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia—there follows a very obscure phrase,עֲתָרַי בַּת־פּוּצַי,suppliants (?) of the daughter of My dispersed, but Ewaldof the daughter of Phut—they shall bring Mine offering.[182]Wellhausendespair.[183]Heb.the jubilant ones of thine arrogance.[184]See vv. 4, 5, 11.[185]Heb.the.[186]מִשְׁפָּטַיִךְ. But Wellhausen readsמְשׁוֹפְטַיִךְ, thine adversaries: cf. Job ix. 15.[187]Readingתִּרְאִי(with LXX., Wellhausen and Schwally) forתִּירָאִיof the Hebrew text,fear.[188]Lit.hero,mighty man.[189]Heb.will be silent in,יַחֲרִישׁ, but not in harmony with the next clause. LXX. and Syr. renderwill make new, which translatesיַחֲדִישׁ, a form that does not elsewhere occur, though that is no objection to finding it in Zephaniah, orיְחַדֵּשׁ. Hitzig:He makes new things in His love. Buhl:He renews His love. Schwally suggestsיחדה,He rejoices in His love.
[1]Cambridge Bible for Schools, 1897
[2]See Vol. I., p.viii.
[3]Expositor’s Bible,Isaiah xl.—lxvi., Chap.II.
[4]It is uncertain whether Hezekiah was an Assyrian vassal during these years, as his successor Manasseh is recorded to have been in 676.
[5]2 Kings xviii. 4.
[6]The exact date is quite uncertain; 695 is suggested on the chronological table prefixed to this volume, but it may have been 690 or 685.
[7]Cf. McCurdy,History, Prophecy and the Monuments, § 799.
[8]Stade (Gesch. des Volkes Israel, I., pp. 627 f.) denies to Manasseh the reconstruction of the high places, the Baal altars and the Asheras, for he does not believe that Hezekiah had succeeded in destroying these. He takes 2 Kings xxi. 3, which describes these reconstructions, as a late interpolation rendered necessary to reconcile the tradition that Hezekiah’s reforms had been quite in the spirit of Deuteronomy, with the fact that there were still high places in the land when Josiah began his reforms. Further, Stade takes the rest of 2 Kings xxi. 2b-7 as also an interpolation, but unlike verse 3 an accurate account of Manasseh’s idolatrous institutions, because it is corroborated by the account of Josiah’s reforms, 2 Kings xxiii. Stade also discusses this passage inZ.A.T.W., 1886, pp. 186 ff.
[9]See Vol. I., p.41. In addition to the reasons of the change given above, we must remember that we are now treating, not of Northern Israel, but of the more stern and sullen Judæans.
[10]2 Kings xxi., xxiii.
[11]Filled from mouth to mouth(2 Kings xxi. 16).
[12]Jer. ii. 30.
[13]We have already seen that there is no reason for that theory of so many critics which assigns to this period Micah. See Vol. I., p.370.
[14]2 Kings xxi. 10 ff.
[15]Whether the parenthetical apostrophes to Jehovah as Maker of the heavens, their hosts and all the powers of nature (Amos iv. 13, v. 8, 9, ix. 5, 6), are also to be attributed to Manasseh’s reign is more doubtful. Yet the following facts are to be observed: that these passages are also (though to a less degree than v. 26 f.) parenthetic; that their language seems of a later cast than that of the time of Amos (see Vol. I., pp.204,205: though here evidence is adduced to show that the late features are probably post-exilic); and that Jehovah is expressly named as theMakerof certain of the stars. Similarly when Mohammed seeks to condemn the worship of the heavenly bodies, he insists that God is their Maker. Koran, Sur. 41, 37: “To the signs of His Omnipotence belong night and day, sun and moon; but do not pray to sun or moon, for God hath created them.” Sur. 53, 50: “Because He is the Lord of Sirius.” On the other side see Driver’sJoel and Amos(Cambridge Bible for Schools Series), 1897, pp. 118 f., 189.
How deeply Manasseh had planted in Israel the worship of the heavenly host may be seen from the survival of the latter through all the reforms of Josiah and the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer. vii. 18, viii., xliv.; Ezek. viii. Cf. Stade,Gesch. des V. Israel, I., pp. 629 ff.).
[16]The Jehovist and Elohist into the closely mortised JE. Stade indeed assigns to the period of Manasseh Israel’s first acquaintance with the Babylonian cosmogonies and myths which led to that reconstruction of them in the spirit of her own religion which we find in the Jehovistic portions of the beginning of Genesis (Gesch. des V. Isr., I., pp. 630 ff.). But it may well be doubted (1) whether the reign of Manasseh affords time for this assimilation, and (2) whether it was likely that Assyrian and Babylonian theology could make so deep and lasting impression upon the purer faith of Israel at a time when the latter stood in such sharp hostility to all foreign influences and was so bitterly persecuted by the parties in Israel who had succumbed to these influences.
[17]Chaps. v.—xxvi., xxviii.
[18]621B.C.
[19]2 Chron. xxxiii. 11 ff.
[20]2 Kings xxi. 23.
[21]But in his conquests of Hauran, Northern Arabia and the eastern neighbours of Judah, he had evidently sought to imitate the policy of Asarhaddon in 675 f., and secure firm ground in Palestine and Arabia for a subsequent attack upon Egypt. That this never came shows more than anything else could Assyria’s consciousness of growing weakness.
[22]The name of Josiah’s (יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ) mother was Jedidah (יְדִידָה), daughter of Adaiah (עֲדָיָה) of Boṣḳath in the Shephelah of Judah.
[23]2 Kings xxii., xxiii.
[24]Zeph. i. 4: the LXX. readsnames of Baal. See below, p. 40, n.87.
[25]Ibid., 5.
[26]Ibid., 8–12.
[27]I. 102 ff.
[28]Herod., I. 105.
[29]The new name of Bethshan in the mouth of Esdraelon, viz. Scythopolis, is said to be derived from them (but seeHist. Geog. of the Holy Land, pp. 363 f.); they conquered Askalon (Herod., I. 105).
[30]2 Kings xvii. 6:and in the cities(LXX.mountains)of the Medes. The Heb. isמָדָי, Madai.
[31]Mentioned by Sargon.
[32]Sayce,Empires of the East, 239: cf. McCurdy, § 823 f.
[33]Herod., I. 103.
[34]Heb. Kasdim,כַּשְׂדִּים; LXX. Χαλδαῖοι; Assyr. Kaldâa, Kaldu. The Hebrew form withsis regarded by many authorities as the original, from the Assyrian rootkashadu, to conquer, and the Assyrian form withlto have arisen by the common change ofshthroughrintol. The form withsdoes not occur, however, in Assyrian, which also possesses the rootkaladu, with the same meaning askashadu. See Mr. Pinches’ articles on Chaldea and the Chaldeans in the new edition of Vol. I. of Smith’sBible Dictionary.
[35]About 880B.C.in the annals of Assurnatsirpal. SeeChronological Tableto Vol. I.
[36]No inscriptions of Asshur-itil-ilani have been found later than the first two years of his reign.
[37]Billerbeck-Jeremias, “Der Untergang Niniveh’s,” in Delitzsch and Haupt’sBeiträge zur Assyriologie, III., p. 113.
[38]Nahum ii.
[39]See below, p.120.
[40]Abydenus (apud Euseb.,Chron., I. 9) reports a marriage between Nebuchadrezzar, Nabopolassar’s son, and the daughter of the Median king.
[41]2 Kings xxiii. 29. The history is here very obscure. Necho, met at Megiddo by Josiah, and having slain him, appears to have spent a year or two in subjugating, and arranging for the government of, Syria (ibid., verses 33–35), and only reached the Euphrates in 605, when Nebuchadrezzar defeated him.
[42]The reverse view is taken by Wellhausen, who says (Israel u. Jüd. Gesch., pp. 97 f.): “Der Pharaoh scheint ausgezogen zu sein um sich seinen Teil an der Erbschaft Ninives vorwegzunehmen, während die Meder und Chaldäer die Stadt belagerten.”
[43]See above, p. 20, n.37.
[44]I. 106.
[45]A stele of Nabonidus discovered at Hilleh and now in the museum at Constantinople relates that in his third year, 553, the king restored at Harran the temple of Sin, the moon-god, which the Medes had destroyed fifty-four years before,i.e.607. Whether the Medes did this before, during or after the siege of Niniveh is uncertain, but the approximate date of the siege, 608—606, is thus marvellously confirmed. The stele affirms that the Medes alone took Niniveh, but that they were called in by Marduk, the Babylonian god, to assist Nabopolassar and avenge the deportation of his image by Sennacherib to Niniveh. Messerschmidt (Mittheilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, I. 1896) argues that the Medes were summoned by the Babylonians while the latter were being sore pressed by the Assyrians. Winckler had already (Untersuch., pp. 124 ff., 1889) urged that the Babylonians would refrain from taking an active part in the overthrow of Niniveh, in fear of incurring the guilt of sacrilege. Neither Messerschmidt’s paper, nor Scheil’s (who describes the stele in theRecueil des Travaux, XVIII. 1896), being accessible to me, I have written this note on the information supplied by Rev. C. H. W. Johns, of Cambridge, in theExpository Times, 1896, and by Prof. A. B. Davidson in App. I. toNah., Hab. and Zeph.
[46]Berosus and Abydenus in Eusebius.
[47]This spelling (Jer. xlix. 28) is nearer the original than the alternative Hebrew Nebuchadnezzar. But the LXX. Ναβουχοδονόσορ, and the Ναβουκοδρόσορος of Abydenus and Megasthenes and Ναβοκοδρόσορος of Strabo, have preserved the more correct vocalisation; for the original is Nabu-kudurri-uṣur = Nebo, defend the crown!
[48]But see below, pp.123f.
[49]Below, pp.121ff.
[50]2 Kings xxii. 11–20. The genuineness of this passage is proved (as against Stade,Gesch. des Volkes Israel, I.) by the promise which it gives to Josiah of a peaceful death. Had it been written after the battle of Megiddo, in which Josiah was slain, it could not have contained such a promise.
[51]Jer. vii. 4, viii. 8.
[52]vi. 1.
[53]All these reforms in 2 Kings xxiii.
[54]Jer. xxii. 15 f.
[55]Ibid., ver. 16.
[56]We have no record of this, but a prince who so rashly flung himself in the way of Egypt would not hesitate to claim authority over Moab and Ammon.
[57]2 Kings xxiii. 24. The question whether Necho came by land from Egypt or brought his troops in his fleet to Acre is hardly answered by the fact that Josiah went to Megiddo to meet him. But Megiddo on the whole tells more for the land than the sea. It is not on the path from Acre to the Euphrates; it is the key of the land-road from Egypt to the Euphrates. Josiah could have no hope of stopping Pharaoh on the broad levels of Philistia; but at Megiddo there was a narrow pass, and the only chance of arresting so large an army as it moved in detachments. Josiah’s tactics were therefore analogous to those of Saul, who also left his own territory and marched north to Esdraelon, to meet his foe—and death.
[58]A. B. Davidson,The Exile and the Restoration, p. 8 (Bible Class Primers, ed. by Salmond; Edin., T. & T. Clark, 1897).
[59]2 Kings xxiii. 33–35.
[60]Jer. xxii. 13–15.
[61]Jer. xi.
[62]xxv. 1 ff.
[63]xxxvi.
[64]2 Kings xxiv. 1. In the chronological table appended to Kautzsch’sBibelthis verse and Jehoiakim’s submission are assigned to 602. But this allows too little time for Nebuchadrezzar to confirm his throne in Babylon and march to Palestine, and it is not corroborated by the record in the Book of Jeremiah of events in Judah in 604—602.
[65]Nebuchadrezzar did not die till 562.
[66]SeeIsaiah i.—xxxix.(Expositor’s Bible), pp.223f.
[67]See above, p. 26, n.56.
[68]2 Kings xxiv. 2.
[69]Jer. xxxvii. 30, but see 2 Kings xxiv. 6.
[70]So Josephus puts it (X.Antiq., vii. 1). Jehoiachin was unusually bewailed (Lam. iv. 20; Ezek. xvii. 22 ff.). He survived in captivity till the death of Nebuchadrezzar, whose successor Evil-Merodach in 561 took him from prison and gave him a place in his palace (2 Kings xxv. 27 ff.).
[71]i. 3b, 5b; ii. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 last word, 14b; iii. 18, 19a, 20.
[72]i. 14b; ii. 1, 3; iii. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17.
[73]i. 3b, 5b; ii. 2, 6; iii. 5 (?).
[74]For details see translation below.
[75]i. 3,מַכְשֵׁלוֹת, only in Isa. iii. 6; 15,משואה, only in Job xxx. 3, xxxviii. 27—cf. Psalms lxxiii. 18, lxxiv. 3; ii. 8,גדפים, Isa. xliii. 28—cf. li. 7; 9,חרול, Prov. xxiv. 31, Job xxx. 7; 15,עליזה, Isa. xxii. 2, xxiii. 7, xxxii. 13—cf. xiii. 3, xxiv. 8; iii. 1,נגאלה, see next note but one; 3,זאבי ערב, Hab. i. 8; 11,עליזי גאותך, Isa. xiii. 3; 18,נוגי, Lam. i. 4,נוגות.
[76]i. 11,המכתשas the name of a part of Jerusalem, otherwise only Jer. xv. 19;נטילי כסף; 12,קפאin pt. Qal, and otherwise only Exod. xv. 8, Zech. xiv. 6, Job x. 10; 14,מַהֵר(adj.), but the pointing may be wrong—cf. Maher-shalal-hash-baz, Isa. viii. 1, 3;צרחin Qal, elsewhere only once in Hi. Isa. xlii. 13; 17,לחוםin sense of flesh, cf. Job xx. 23; 18,נבהלהif a noun (?); ii. 1,קששin Qal and Hithpo, elsewhere only in Polel; 9,מכרה ,ממשק; 11,רזה, to make lean, otherwise only in Isa. xvii. 4, to be lean; 14, ארזה (?); iii. 1, מראה, pt. of יונה ;מרה, pt. Qal, in Jer. xlvi. 16, l. 16, it may be a noun; 4,אנשי בגדות; 6,נצדו; 9,שכם אחד; 10,עתרי בת־פוצי(?); 15,פנה in sense toturn away; 18,ממך היו (?).
[77]i. 8, etc.,פקד על, followed by person, but not by thing—cf. Jer. ix. 24, xxiii. 34, etc., Job xxxvi. 23, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23, Ezek. i. 2; 13,משׁסה, only in Hab. ii. 7, Isa. xlii., Jer. xxx. 16, 2 Kings xxi. 14; 17,הֵצֵר, Hi. ofצרר, only in 1 Kings viii. 37, and Deut., 2 Chron., Jer., Neh.; ii. 3,ענוה; 8גדופים, Isa. xliii. 28, li. 7 (fem. pl.); 9,חרול, Prov. xxiv. 31, Job xxx. 7; iii. 1,נגאלה, Ni, pt. = impure, Isa. lix. 3, Lam. iv. 14;יונה, a pt. in Jer. xlvi. 16, l. 16; 3,זאבי ערב, Hab. i. 8—cf. Jer. v. 6,זאב ערבות; 9,ברור, Isa. xlix. 2,ברר, Ezek. xx. 38, 1 Chron. vii. 40, ix. 22, xvi. 41, Neh. v. 18, Job xxxiii. 3, Eccles. iii. 18, ix. 1; 11,עליזי גאוה, Isa. xiii. 3; 18,נוּגֵי, Lam. i. 4 hasנוּגות.
[78]So Hitzig, Ewald, Pusey, Kuenen, Robertson Smith (Encyc. Brit.), Driver, Wellhausen, Kirkpatrick, Budde, von Orelli, Cornill, Schwally, Davidson.
[79]So Delitzsch, Kleinert, and Schulz (Commentar über den Proph. Zeph., 1892, p. 7, quoted by König).
[80]So König.
[81]Jer. xxv.
[82]Jer. vii. 18.
[83]i. 3.
[84]Kleinert in his Commentary in Lange’sBibelwerk, and Delitzsch in his article in Herzog’sReal-Encyclopädie², both offer a number of inconclusive arguments. These are drawn from the position of Zephaniah after Habakkuk, but, as we have seen, the order of the Twelve is not always chronological; from the supposition that Zephaniah i. 7,Silence before the Lord Jehovah, quotes Habakkuk ii. 20,Keep silence before Him, all the earth, but the phrase common to both is too general to be decisive, and if borrowed by one or other may just as well have been Zephaniah’s originally as Habakkuk’s; from the phraseremnant of Baal(i. 4), as if this were appropriate only after the Reform of 621, but it was quite as appropriate after the beginnings of reform six years earlier; from the condemnation ofthe sons of the king(i. 8), whom Delitzsch takes as Josiah’s sons, who before the great Reform were too young to be condemned, while later their characters did develop badly and judgment fell upon all of them, butsons of the king, even if that be the correct reading (LXX.house of the king), does not necessarily mean the reigning monarch’s children; and from the assertion that Deuteronomy is quoted in the first chapter of Zephaniah, and “so quoted as to show that the prophet needs only to put the people in mind of it as something supposed to be known,” but the verses cited in support of this (viz. 13, 15, 17: cf. Deut. xxviii. 30 and 29) are too general in their character to prove the assertion. See translation below.
[85]König has to deny the authenticity of this in order to make his case for the reign of Jehoiakim. But nearly all critics take the phrase as genuine.
[86]See above, p.15. For inconclusive reasons Schwally,Z.A.T.W., 1890, pp. 215—217, prefers the Egyptians under Psamtik. See in answer Davidson, p. 98.
[87]Not much stress can be laid upon the phraseI will cut off the remnant of Baal, ver. 4, for, if the reading be correct, it may only mean the destruction of Baal-worship, and not the uprooting of what has been left over.
[88]See below, p. 47, n.105.
[89]If 695 be the date of the accession of Manasseh, being then twelve, Amariah, Zephaniah’s great-grandfather, cannot have been more than ten, that is, born in 705. His son Gedaliah was probably not born before 689, his son Kushi probably not before 672, and his son Zephaniah probably not before 650.
[90]Z.A.T.W., 1890, Heft 1.
[91]Bacher,Z.A.T.W., 1891, 186; Cornill,Einleitung, 1891; Budde,Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1893, 393 ff.; Davidson,Nah., Hab. and Zeph., 100 ff.
[92]Z.A.T.W., 1891, Heft 2.
[93]By especially Bacher, Cornill and Budde as above.
[94]See Budde and Davidson.
[95]The ideal of chap. i.—ii. 3, of the final security of a poor and lowly remnant of Israel, “necessarily implies that they shall no longer be threatened by hostility from without, and this condition is satisfied by the prophet’s view of the impending judgment on the ancient enemies of his nation,”i.e.those mentioned in ii. 4–15 (Robertson Smith,Encyc. Brit., art. “Zephaniah”).
[96]See, however, Davidson for some linguistic reasons for taking the two sections as one. Robertson Smith, also in 1888 (Encyc. Brit., art. “Zephaniah”), assumed (though not without pointing out the possibility of the addition of other pieces to the genuine prophecies of Zephaniah) that “a single leading motive runs through the whole” book, and “the first two chapters would be incomplete without the third, which moreover is certainly pre-exilic (vv. 1–4) and presents specific points of contact with what precedes, as well as a general agreement in style and idea.”
[97]Schwally (234) thinks that the epithetצדיק(ver. 5) was first applied to Jehovah by the Second Isaiah (xlv. 21, lxiv. 2, xlii. 21), and became frequent from his time on. In disproof Budde (3398) quotes Exod. ix. 27, Jer. xii. 1, Lam. i. 18. Schwally also points to נצדוas borrowed from Aramaic.
[98]Budde, p. 395; Davidson, 103. Schwally (230 ff.) seeks to prove the unity of 9 and 10 with the context, but he has apparently mistaken the meaning of ver. 8 (231). That surely does not mean that the nations are gathered in order to punish the godlessness of the Jews, but that they may themselves be punished.
[99]See Davidson, 103.
[100]Josiah, bornc.648, succeededc.639, was about eighteen in 630, and then appears to have begun his reforms.
[101]See above, pp.40f., n.85.
[102]Jer. i. 5.
[103]See G. B. Gray,Hebrew Proper Names.
[104]Josiah.
[105]It is not usual in the O.T. to carry a man’s genealogy beyond his grandfather, except for some special purpose, or in order to include some ancestor of note. Also the name Hezekiah is very rare apart from the king. The number of names compounded with Jah or Jehovah is another proof that the line is a royal one. The omission of the phraseking of Judahafter Hezekiah’s name proves nothing; it may have been of purpose because the phrase has to occur immediately again.
[106]It was not till 652 that a league was made between the Palestine princes and Psamtik I. against Assyria. This certainly would have been the most natural year for a child to be named Kushi. But that would set the birth of Zephaniah as late as 632, and his prophecy towards the end of Josiah’s reign, which we have seen to be improbable on other grounds.
[107]Jer. xxi. 1, xxix. 25, 29, xxxvii. 3, lii. 24 ff.; 2 Kings xxv. 18. The analogous Phœnician nameצפנבעל, Saphan-ba’al = “Baal protects or hides,” is found in No. 207 of the Phœnician inscriptions in theCorpus Inscr. Semiticarum.
[108]Chap. i. 15. With the above paragraph cf. Robertson Smith,Encyc. Brit., art. “Zephaniah.”
[109]Chap. i. 14b.
[110]In fact this forms one difficulty about the conclusion which we have reached as to the date. We saw that one reason against putting the Book of Zephaniah after the great Reforms of 621 was that it betrayed no sign of their effects. But it might justly be answered that, if Zephaniah prophesied before 621, his book ought to betray some sign of the approach of reform. Still the explanation given above is satisfactory.
[111]Chap. i. 12.
[112]Sowine upon the leesis a generous wine according to Isa. xxv. 6.
[113]Jer. xlviii. 11.
[114]The text readsthe ruins(מַכְשֵׁלוֹת, unless we prefer with Wellhausen מִכְשֹׁלים,the stumbling-blocks, i.e.idols)with the wicked, and I will cut off man(LXX.the lawless)from off the face of the ground.Some think the clause partly too redundant, partly too specific, to be original. But suppose we readוְהִכְשַׁלְתִּי(cf. Mal. ii. 8, Lam. i. 14 andpassim: this is more probable than Schwally’sכִּשַׁלְתִּי,op. cit., p. 169), and forאדםthe reading which probably the LXX. had before them, אדם רשע(Job xx. 29, xxvii. 13, Prov. xi. 7: cf.אדם בליעלProv. vi. 12) orאדם עַוָּל(cf. iii. 5), we get the rendering adopted in the translation above. Some think the whole passage an intrusion, yet it is surely probable that the earnest moral spirit of Zephaniah would aim at the wicked from the very outset of his prophecy.
[115]LXX.names, held by some to be the original reading (Schwally, etc.). In that case the phrase might have some allusion to the well-known promise in Deut.,the place where I shall set My name. This is more natural than a reference to Hosea ii. 19, which is quoted by some.
[116]Some Greek codd. take Baal as fem., others as plur.
[117]So LXX.
[118]Heb. readsand them who bow themselves, who swear, by Jehovah. So LXX. B withandbeforewho swear. But LXX. A omitsand. LXX. Q omitsthem who bow themselves. Wellhausen keeps the clause with the exception ofwho swear, and so reads (to the end of verse)them who bow themselves to Jehovah and swear by Milcom.
[119]Or Molech = king. LXX.by their king. Other Greek versions: Moloch and Melchom. Vulg. Melchom.
[120]LXX.His.
[121]So LXX. Heb.sons.
[122]Is this some superstitious rite of the idol-worshippers as described in the case of Dagon, 1 Sam. v. 5? Or is it a phrase for breaking into a house, and so parallel to the second clause of the verse? Most interpreters prefer the latter. The idolatrous rites have been left behind. Schwally suggests the original order may have been:princes and sons of the king, who fill their lord’s house full of violence and deceit; and I will visit upon every one that leapeth over the threshold on that day, and upon all that wear foreign raiment.
[123]TheSecondor New Town: cf. 2 Kings xxii. 14, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 22, which state that the prophetess Huldah lived there. Cf. Neh. iii. 9, 12, xi. 9.
[124]The hollow probably between the western and eastern hills, or the upper part of the Tyropœan (Orelli).
[125]Heb.people of Canaan.
[126]נטיל, found only here, fromנטל, to lift up, and in Isa. xl. 15 to weigh. Still it may have a wider meaning,all they that carry money(Davidson).
[127]See above, p.52.
[128]The Hebrew text and versions here add:And they shall build houses and not inhabit(Greekin them),and plant vineyards and not drink the wine thereof.But the phrase is a common one (Deut. xxviii. 30; Amos v. 11: cf. Micah vi. 15), and while likely to have been inserted by a later hand, is here superfluous, and mars the firmness and edge of Zephaniah’s threat.
[129]ForמהרWellhausen readsממהר, pt. Pi; butמהרmay be a verbal adj.; compare the phraseמהר שלל, Isa. viii. 1.
[130]Dies Iræ, Dies Illa!
[131]Heb. sho’ah u-mesho’ah. Lit. ruin (or devastation) and destruction.
[132]Some take this first clause of ver. 18 as a gloss. See Schwallyin loco.
[133]Readאףforאך. So LXX., Syr., Wellhausen, Schwally.
[134]In vv. 1–3 of chap. ii., wrongly separated from chap. i.: see Davidson.
[135]Heb.וָקשּׁוּהִתְקוֹשְׁשׁוּ. A.V.Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together(קוֹשֵׁשׁisto gather straw or sticks—cf. Arab.ḳash, to sweep up—and Nithp. of the Aram. is to assemble). Orelli:Crowd and crouch down. Ewald compares Aram.ḳash, late Heb.קְשַׁשׁ,to grow old, which he believes originally meantto be withered, grey. Budde suggestsבשו התבששו, but, as Davidson remarks, it is not easy to see how this, if once extant, was altered to the present reading.
[136]נִכְסָףis usually thought to have as its root meaningto be paleorcolourless,i.e.either white or black (Journal of Phil., 14, 125), whenceכֶּסֶף,silverorthe pale metal: hence in the Qal to long for, Job xiv. 15, Ps. xvii. 12; so Ni, Gen. xxxi. 30, Ps. lxxxiv. 3; and hereto be ashamed. But the derivation of the name for silver is quite imaginary, and the colour of shame is red rather than white: cf. the mod. Arab. saying, “They are a people that cannot blush; they have no blood in their faces,”i.e.shameless. Indeed Schwally says (in loco), “Die Bedeutung fahl, blass ist unerweislich.” Hence (in spite of the meanings of the Aram.כסףboth to lose colour and to be ashamed) a derivation for the Hebrew is more probably to be found in the rootkasaf, to cut off. The Arab.کﺴف, which in the classic tongue means to cut a thread or eclipse the sun, is in colloquial Arabic to give a rebuff, refuse a favour, disappoint, shame. In the formsinkasafanditkasafit means to receive a rebuff, be disappointed, then shy or timid, andkasûfmeans shame, shyness (as well as eclipse of the sun). See Spiro’sArabic-English Vocabulary. In Ps. lxxxiv.נכסףis evidently used of unsatisfied longing (but see Cheyne), which is also the proper meaning of the parallelכלה(cf. other passages whereכלהis used of still unfulfilled or rebuffed hopes: Job xix. 27, Ps. lxix. 4, cxix. 81, cxliii. 7). So in Ps. xvii. 4כסףis used of a lion who is longing for,i.e.still disappointed in, his prey, and so in Job xiv. 15.
[137]LXX. πρὸ γένεσθαι ὑμᾶς ὡς ἄνθος (here in error readingנץforמץ) παραπορευόμενον, πρὸ τοῦ ἐπελθεῖν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς ὀργὴν κυρίου (last clause omitted byאc.b). According to this the Hebrew text, which is obviously disarranged, may be restored toבְּטֶרֶם לאֹ־תִהיוּ כַמֹּץ עֹבֵר בְּטֶרֶם לאֹ־יָבֹא עֲלֵיכֶם חֲרוֹן יהוה.
[138]This clause Wellhausen deletes. Cf. Hexaplar Syriac translation.
[139]LXX. take this also as imperative,do judgment, and so co-ordinate to the other clauses.
[140]See above, pp.41ff.
[141]Some, however, think the prophet is speaking in prospect of the Chaldean invasion of a few years later. This is not so likely, because he pictures the overthrow of Niniveh as subsequent to the invasion of Philistia, while the Chaldeans accomplished the latter only after Niniveh had fallen.
[142]According to Herodotus.
[143]ver. 7, LXX.
[144]The measure, as said above, is elegiac: alternate lines long with a rising, and short with a falling, cadence. There is a play upon the names, at least on the first and last—“Gazzah” or “‘Azzah ‘Azubah”—which in English we might reproduce by the use of Spenser’s word for “dreary”:For Gaza ghastful shall be.“‘Eḳron te’aḳer.” LXX. Ἀκκαρων ἐκριζωθήσεταὶ (B), ἐκριφήσεται (A). In the second line we have a slighter assonance, ‘Ashkĕlōn lishĕmamah. In the third the verb isיְגָרְשׁוּהָ; Bacher (Z.A.T.W., 1891, 185 ff.) points out thatגֵּרַשׁis not used of cities, but of their populations or of individual men, and suggests (from Abulwalid)יירשוה,shall possess her, as “a plausible emendation.” Schwally (ibid., 260) prefers to alter toיְשָׁרְשׁוּהָ, with the remark that this is not only a good parallel toתעקר, but suits the LXX. ἐκριφήσεται.—On the expressionby noonsee Davidson,N. H. and Z., Appendix, Note 2, where he quotes a parallel expression, in the Senjerli inscription, of Asarhaddon: that he took Memphis by midday or in half a day (Schrader). This suits the use of the phrase in Jer. xv. 8, where it is parallel tosuddenly.
[145]Canaan omitted by Wellhausen, who readsעליךforעליכם. But as the metre requires a larger number of syllables in the first line of each couplet than in the second, Kĕna’an should probably remain. The difficulty is the use of Canaan as synonymous withLand of the Philistines. Nowhere else in the Old Testament is it expressly applied to the coast south of Carmel, though it is so used in the Egyptian inscriptions, and even in the Old Testament in a sense which covers this as well as other lowlying parts of Palestine.
[146]An odd long line, either the remains of two, or perhaps we should take the two previous lines as one, omitting Canaan.
[147]So LXX.: Hebrew textand the sea-coast shall become dwellings, cots(כְּרֹת)of shepherds. But the pointing and meaning ofכרתare both conjectural, and thesea-coasthas probably fallen by mistake into this verse from the next. On Kereth and Kerethim as names for Philistia and the Philistines seeHist. Geog., p. 171.
[148]LXX. addsof the sea. So Wellhausen, but unnecessarily and improbably for phonetic reasons, as sea has to be read in the next line.
[149]So Wellhausen, reading forעַל־הַיָּם עֲליהֶם.
[150]Some words must have fallen out, forfirsta short line is required here by the metre, andsecondthe LXX. have some additional words, which, however, give us no help to what the lost line was: ἀπὸ προσώπου υἱῶν Ἰούδα.
[151]As stated above, there is no conclusive reason against the pre-exilic date of this expression.
[152]Cf. Isa. xvi. 6.
[153]LXX.My.
[154]Doubtful word, not occurring elsewhere.
[155]Heb. singular.
[156]LXX. omitsthe people of.
[157]LXX.maketh Himself manifest,נראהforנורא.
[158]ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The passive of the verb meansto grow lean(Isa. xvii. 4).
[159]מקוםhas probably here the sense which it has in a few other passages of the Old Testament, and in Arabic, ofsacred place.
Many will share Schwally’s doubts (p. 192) about the authenticity of ver. 11; nor, as Wellhausen points out, does its prediction of the conversion of the heathen agree with ver. 12, which devotes them to destruction. ver. 12 follows naturally on to ver. 7.
[160]Wellhausen readsHis sword, to agree with the next verse. Perhapsחרביis an abbreviation forחרב יהוה.
[161]See Budde,Z.A.T.W., 1882, 25.
[162]Heb. readsa nation, and Wellhausen translatesein buntes Gemisch von Volk. LXX.beasts of the earth.
[163]קאת, a water-bird according to Deut. xiv. 17, Lev. xi. 18, mostly taken aspelican; so R.V. A.V.cormorant.קִפֹּדhas usually been taken fromקפד, to draw together, thereforehedgehogorporcupine. But the other animals mentioned here are birds, and it is birds which would naturally roost on capitals. Thereforebitternis the better rendering (Hitzig, Cheyne). The name is onomatopœic. Cf. Eng. butter-dump. LXX. translateschameleons and hedgehogs.
[164]Heb.:a voice shall sing in the window, desolation on the threshold, for He shall uncover the cedar-work. LXX. καὶ θηρία φωνήσει ἐν τοῖς διορύγμασιν αὐτῆς, κόρακες ἐν τοῖς πυλῶσιν αὐτῆς, διότι κέδρος τὸ ἀνάστημα αὐτῆς: Wild beasts shall sound in her excavations, ravens in her porches, because (the) cedar is her height. Forקול,voice, Wellhausen readsכוס,owl, and with the LXX.ערב,raven, forחרב,desolation. The last two words are left untranslated above.אַרְזָהoccurs only here and is usually taken to mean cedar-work; but it might be pointedhercedar.ערה,he, orone, has stripped the cedar-work.
[165]See above, pp.17,18.
[166]At the battle of Karkar, 854.
[167]Under Tiglath-Pileser in 734.
[168]See above, pp.43-45.
[169]Heb.the city the oppressor. The two participles in the first clause are not predicates to the noun and adjective of the second (Schwally), but vocatives, though without the article, afterהוֹי.
[170]LXX.wolves of Arabia.
[171]The verb left untranslated,גרמו, is quite uncertain in meaning.גרםis a root common to the Semitic languages and seems to mean originallyto cut off, while the nounגרםisa bone. In Num. xxiv. 8 the Piel of the verb used with another word for bone meansto gnaw,munch. (The only other passage where it is used, Ezek. xxiii. 34, is corrupt.) So some take it here:they do not gnaw bones till morning,i.e.devour all at once; but this is awkward, and Schwally (198) has proposed to omit the negative,they do gnaw bones till morning, yet in that case surely the impf. and not the perf. tense would have been used. The LXX. renderthey do not leave over, and it has been attempted, though inconclusively, to derive this meaning from that ofcutting off, i.e.laying aside(the Arabic Form II. means, however,to leave behind). Another line of meaning perhaps promises more. In Aram. the verb meansto be the cause of anything, to bring about, and perhaps contains the idea ofdeciding(Levysub vocecompares κρίνω,cerno); in Arab. it means, among other things,to commit a crime, be guilty, but in mod. Arabicto fine. Now it is to be noticed that here the expression is used ofjudges, and it may be there is an intentional play upon the double possibility of meaning in the root.
[172]Ezek. xxii. 26:Her priests have done violence to My Law and have profaned My holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane, between the clean and the unclean.Cf. Jer. ii. 8.
[173]Schwally by altering the accents:morning by morning He giveth forth His judgment: no day does He fail.
[174]On this ver. 6 see above, p.44. It is doubtful.
[175]Ordiscipline.
[176]Wellhausen:that which I have commanded her. Cf. Job xxxvi. 23; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23; Ezra i. 2.
[177]So LXX., readingמֵעֵינֶיהָfor the Heb.מְעוֹנָהּ,her dwelling.
[178]A frequent phrase of Jeremiah’s.
[179]משפטי, decree, ordinance, decision.
[180]Heb.My anger.LXX. omits.
[181]That is to say, the prophet returns to that general judgment of the whole earth, with which in his first discourse he had already threatened Judah. He threatens her with it again in this eighth verse, because, as he has said in the preceding ones, all other warnings have failed. The eighth verse therefore follows naturally upon the seventh, just as naturally as in Amos iv. ver. 12, introduced by the sameלָכֵןas here, follows its predecessors. The next two verses of the text, however, describe an opposite result: instead of the destruction of the heathen, they picture their conversion, and it is only in the eleventh verse that we return to the main subject of the passage, Judah herself, who is represented (in harmony with the close of Zephaniah’s first discourse) as reduced to a righteous and pious remnant. Vv. 9 and 10 are therefore obviously a later insertion, and we pass to the eleventh verse. Vv. 9 and 10:For then(this has no meaning after ver. 8)will I give to the peoples a pure lip(elliptic phrase:turn to the peoples a pure lip—i.e.turn theirevil lip intoa pure lip: pure =picked out,select,excellent, cf. Isa. xlix. 2),that they may all of them call upon the name of the Lord, that they may serve Him with one consent(Heb.shoulder, LXX.yoke).From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia—there follows a very obscure phrase,עֲתָרַי בַּת־פּוּצַי,suppliants (?) of the daughter of My dispersed, but Ewaldof the daughter of Phut—they shall bring Mine offering.
[182]Wellhausendespair.
[183]Heb.the jubilant ones of thine arrogance.
[184]See vv. 4, 5, 11.
[185]Heb.the.
[186]מִשְׁפָּטַיִךְ. But Wellhausen readsמְשׁוֹפְטַיִךְ, thine adversaries: cf. Job ix. 15.
[187]Readingתִּרְאִי(with LXX., Wellhausen and Schwally) forתִּירָאִיof the Hebrew text,fear.
[188]Lit.hero,mighty man.
[189]Heb.will be silent in,יַחֲרִישׁ, but not in harmony with the next clause. LXX. and Syr. renderwill make new, which translatesיַחֲדִישׁ, a form that does not elsewhere occur, though that is no objection to finding it in Zephaniah, orיְחַדֵּשׁ. Hitzig:He makes new things in His love. Buhl:He renews His love. Schwally suggestsיחדה,He rejoices in His love.