66

On the characteristics of "apocalyptic” literature, see further Lücke, Versuch einer vollst. Einl. in die Offenb. des Johannes, 1852, pp. 34-55; A. Hilgenfeld, Die Jüd. Apokalyptik, 1857, pp. 1-16, 34-50; A. Dillmann in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, iii. (1872) art. Propheten," p. 626 f.; E. Schürer [p. 465, n.], ii. p. 609 ff. [Eng. tr. II. iii. p. 44 ff.]; R. Smend, ZATW. 1885, p. 222 ff.; H. Schultz, Theol. des AT.'s, p. 384 f. The Book of Daniel determined the form assumed by subsequent writings of the same kind; and these ought properly to be compared with it. Some account of such of them as are extant will be found in J. Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, 1877, pp. 1-132; in Schürer, .c. p. 616 ff.; or, more briefly, in the Encycl. Brit. art. 'Apocalyptic Literature." The standard edition of the Book of Enoch

is that of Dillmann (text, 1851; transl. and notes, 1853); G. H. Schodde's English translation with notes (Andover, U.S. A. 1882) may also be consulted by the reader. (Abp. Laurence deserves the credit of having been the first to publish the Ethiopic text; but his edition and translation are both antiquated.) In estimating the critical view of Daniel, it is to be remembered that we have no right to argue, upon à priori grounds, if a passage or book proves not to contain the predictive element so largely as we had been accustomed to suppose, that, therefore, it can have no place in the economy of revelation. Prediction is one method, but by no means the only method, which it pleased God to employ for the instruction and education of His people. Hence, whether, or to what extent, a particular part of Scripture is predictive, cannot be determined by the help of antecedent considerations: it can only be determined by the evidence which it affords itself respecting the period at which it was written. In interpreting the prophets, it is, moreover, always necessary to distinguish between the substance of a prophecy and the form under which it is presented; for the prophets constantly clothe the essential truth which they desire to express in imagery that is figurative or symbolical (e.g. Is. 11, 15 f. 19, 16 ff. 23, 17 f. 66, 23). And the elements in the Book of Daniel which, upon the critical view of it, are predictive in appearance but not in reality, are just part of the symbolic imagery adopted by the writer for the purpose of developing one of the main objects which he had in view, viz. the theocratic significance of the history.

Why the Book of Daniel is written partly in Aram., partly in Heb., is not apparent, upon any theory of its authorship. The transition to Aramaic in 2, 4 might indeed be accounted for by the fact that it was, or was assumed to be, the language used at the Court of Babylon; but this does not explain why the Aramaic part should include c. 7. Meinhold (reviving the view of some older scholars) holds that 2, 4 -c. 6 is earlier in date than has been generally supposed by critics, having been written, he considers, in Aramaic c. 300 B.C., and incorporated by the later author of the rest of the book in his work; and he points to certain differences of scope and representation in support of this opinion. Not only, however, would 2, 4”—c. 6 be unintelligible without the introductory particulars contained in 1, 1—2, 4a, but c. 7, though added by the author who (ex hyp.) otherwise uses Hebrew, is in Aramaic; it is, moreover, so connected, on the one hand with c. 2, on the other with c. 8-12, that it seems to forbid the distribution of the Aramaic and Hebrew parts of the book between different writers. (Comp. also

Kuenen, §§ 87. 5, 6; 90. 11, 12.) Still Meinhold's theory deserves consideration; and these objections to it may not be decisive.

No conclusion of any value as to the date of Daniel can be drawn from the LXX translation. (1) The date of the translation is quite uncertain; the grounds that have been adduced for the purpose of showing that it was made in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes himself being altogether insufficient. (2) The "Septuagint" translation of different books (or, in some cases, of groups of books) is of course the work of different hands; but in all parts of the OT. the translators stand remarkably aloof from the Palestinian traditionoften, for instance, not only missing the general sense of a passage, but showing themselves to be unacquainted with the meaning even of common Hebrew words. Thus the errors in the LXX translation of Daniel merely show that the meaning of particular words was unknown in Alexandria at the time, whatever it may have been, when the translation was made; they do not, as has sometimes been supposed, afford evidence that the meaning was unknown in Palestine in the 2nd cent. B. C. The Greek translator of the Proverbs of Jesus, son of Sirach, though a grandson of the author himself, nevertheless often misunderstood the Hebrew in which they were written.

It has been shown above that the language of Daniel demands a date as late as c. 300 B. C., if not later; does it, however, veto a date as late as B.C. 168? Such, apparently, is the opinion of Professor Margoliouth (Expositor, April 1890, p. 300 f.), based on his restorations of the original text of Ecclesiasticus (above, p. 447, note). The time has not yet arrived for pronouncing a definitive judgment upon this opinion. Before it can be properly estimated, the restored text of Ben Sira must be completed (for something turns on the general complexion of the whole): it will then be necessary (1) to test the processes by which the restorations are effected, and to distinguish those results which are certain (or reasonably probable) from such as are tentative or hypothetical; (2) to estimate, in the parts which may be treated as fairly substantiated, the proportion which the New-Hebrew words (or idioms) bear to others; and (3) to consider whether, in the light of the fact that Ecclesiastes, notwithstanding its more pronounced Mishnic colouring, still belongs to the same general period as Esther and Chronicles, this proportion is such as to neutralise the considerations (p. 477 f.) which tend to show that the book dates from B.C. 168 rather than from c. B. C. 300. The restored text of Ben Sira is at present (Feb. 1891) not in a sufficiently ripe condition for the conclusions which it may authorise to be ascertained.

That the Book of Daniel, as we have it, whatever basis of tradition it may rest upon, is a work of the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, is a conclusion accepted by even the most moderate critics, e.g. not only by Delitzsch and Riehm (Einl. ii. 292 ff.), but also by Lücke, p. 41; Strack, Hdb. der Theol. Wissenschaften, i. (1885) p. 172 f.1 (cf. Herzog, vii. 419); v. Orelli, OT. Proph. p. 455 f.; K. Schlottmann, Compendium der ATlichen Theologie, 1889, § 87; Schürer, .c. p. 613 ff. [Eng. tr. ib. p. 49 ff.]; C. A. Briggs, Mess. Proph. p. 411 f., &c.

1 Einleitung in das AT. (reprinted separately), 1888, p. 69 f.

CHAPTER XII.

CHRONICLES, EZRA, AND NEHEMIAH.

§ 1. CHRONICles.

LITERATURE.-Ewald, Hist. i. p. 169 ff.; E. Bertheau in the Kgf. Hdb. 1854, (ed. 2) 1873; K. H. Graf in Die Gesch. Bücher des AT.s, 1866, pp. 114-247 (“Das B. der Chr. als Geschichtsquelle "); C. F. Keil (see p. 449); Wellhausen, Hist. of Israel, pp. 171-227; W. R. Smith in the Encycl. Brit. (1876) s.v.; C. J. Ball in Bp. Ellicott's Comm. for English Readers (1883); Kuenen, Onderzoek, ed. 2 (1887), i. p. 433 ff.; S. Oettli in Strack and Zöckler's Kgf. Komm. 1889.

The Books of Chronicles-in the Hebrew canon one book---with their sequel, the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah-in the Hebrew canon similarly one book, "Ezra "1-form the second great group of historical writings preserved in the Old Testament (above, p. 3). It is plain, from many indications, that these books form really a single, continuous work. Not only is their style-which is very marked, and in many respects unlike that of any other Book of the OT.-closely similar, but they also resemble each other in the point of view from which the history is treated, in the method followed in the choice of materials, as well as in the preference shown for particular topics (genealogies, statistical registers, descriptions of religious ceremonies, details respecting the sacerdotal classes, and the organisation of public worship). Moreover, the Book of Ezra-Neh. begins exactly at the point at which the Book of Chronicles ends, and carries on the narrative upon the same plan to the time when the theocratic institutions under which the compiler lived were finally established through the labours of Ezra and Nehemiah. In ordinary Hebrew texts (cf. p. 337, note), Ezr.-Neh., contrary to

1 The division into two books, in modern editions of the Hebrew Bible, arises from the same cause as the division of 1-2 Sam, and 1-2 Kings, viz. the influence of the LXX operating through the Christian Bible.

the chronology, precedes the Chronicles: in the LXX, and versions influenced by it, the books are arranged in accordance with chronological propriety. It will be convenient to follow the same order here.

The entire work, of which the Chronicles form thus the first part, comprises, though, of course, not with the same amount of detail throughout, the period from Adam to the second visit of Nehemiah to Jerusalem, B.C. 432. Although, however, the narrative embraces a wide period, the aim with which it is written is a limited one; it is that, viz., of giving a history of Judah, with special reference to the institutions connected with the Temple, under the monarchy, and after the restoration. The author (who seems to be the same throughout) begins, indeed, after the manner of the later Semitic historians, with Adam; but the genealogies in I I have merely the object of exhibiting, relatively to other nations, the position taken by the tribe of Judah, to which I 2 is wholly devoted, as I 3 is devoted to the descendants of King David. In I 4-8, dealing with the other tribes, it is the priestly tribe of Levi (I 6) that is treated at greatest length. Incidentally in these chapters, more decidedly in 9, 1-34, the interest of the writer betrays itself: his notices have constantly a bearing, direct or indirect, upon the organisation and ecclesiastical institutions of the post-exilic community. The introduction (I 1, 19, 34) ended, the history proper begins. The reign of Saul is passed over rapidly by the compiler; I 9, 35-44 his genealogy is repeated from 8, 29-38; I 10 (excerpted from 1 Sa. 31) contains the narrative of his death. Thereupon the narrator proceeds to David's election as king over all Israel at Hebron (= 2 Sa. 5, 1-10), omitting as irrelevant to his purpose the incidents of David's youth, his persecution by Saul, the reign of Ishbosheth, &c. He omits similarly events in David's reign of a personal or private nature (e.g. the greater part of 2 Sa. 9-20). The account of Solomon's reign is excerpted from 1 Kings with tolerable fulness. After the division of the kingdom no notice is taken of the history of the N. kingdom, except where absolutely necessary (as II 22, 7-9); on the other hand, the history of Judah is presented in a series of excerpts from 1-2 Kings, supplemented by additions contributed by the compiler. Though secular events are not excluded from the record, the writer, it is plain, dwells with the greatest satisfaction upon the ecclesiastical

aspects of the history. The same interest is not less apparent in Ezr.-Neh.; and hence the entire work (Chr. Ezr.-Neh.) has been not inaptly termed by Reuss the "Ecclesiastical Chronicle of Jerusalem."

The Hebrew name of the Chronicles is DD 77, lit. words (or acts) of days, a term which, as explained above (p. 177), is used to denote an official diary, containing minutes of events, lists of officers, &c. Its application in the present case is due probably to the fact that a large proportion of the contents, especially towards the beginning (I 1-27), are of a statistical character. In the LXX the two books are called rapaλsóμeva, a name no doubt suggested by the observation that they contain numerous particulars not found in the Books of Samuel and Kings. The title Chronicles is derived from Jerome, who used chronicon to express the Hebrew D' 7.

Date of Composition.-The only positive clue which the book contains as to the date at which it was composed is the genealogy in I 3, 17-24, which (if v. 21 be rightly interpreted) is carried down to the sixth generation after Zerubbabel. This would imply a date not earlier than c. 350 B.C. 3, 21 is, however, obscurely expressed; and it is doubtful if the text is correct.1 More conclusive evidence is afforded by the Books of Ezra and Neh., which certainly belong to the same age, and are commonly assumed to be the work of the same compiler. As will appear below, these books contain many indications of being the compilation of an author living long subsequently to the age of Ezra and Nehemiah themselves,-in fact, not before the close of the Persian rule. A date shortly after B.C. 332 is thus the earliest to which the composition of the Chronicles can be plausibly assigned; and it is that which is adopted by most modern. critics. From the character of his narrative it is a probable in

1 LXX, Pesh. Vulg. read four times for " ("And the sons of Hananiah Pelatiah, and Jesaiah his son, Rephaiah his son, Arnan his son, Obadiah his son, Shecaniah his son"-of the same type as vv. 10-14), yielding at once a sense consistent with the context, but bringing down the genealogy to the eleventh generation after Zerubbabel. It is quite possible that this is the true reading: the later date which it would necessitate for the Chronicles being no objection to it. Keil, wishing to uphold Ezra's authorship, disputes the integrity of the text in the opposite direction; but the opinion that the Chronicles are Ezra's composition is certainly incorrect.

2 Ewald, i. 173; Bertheau, p. xlvi; Schrader, § 238; Dillmann in Herzog, s.v. p. 221; Ball, p. 210; Oettli, p. 10: Kuenen is disposed to adopt a somewhat later date, § 29. 7, 8, 10 (c. 250): Nöldeke, AT. Lit. p. 64, one later