Content:

Genesis. Patriarchs. Noah. Noah's Ark. Tower of Babel. Abraham. Joseph.

Exodus. Pasch or Passover. Leviticus. Tabernacle. The Jewish Priesthood. Numbers.

Deuteronomy. Authenticity. Moses. Cana, Canaanites.

First and Second Books of Kings. King David. The Books of Paralipomenon (Chronicles). Elijah. Ezechias. Manasses.

Esdras (or Ezra). I Esdras. II Esdras. III Esdras. IV Esdras. Book of Nehemiah. Esther. Book of Esther.

The Machabees. The Books of Machabees. The First Book of Machabees. The Second Book of Machabees. The Third and Fourth Books of Machabees. Book of Tobias. Book of Judith.

Biblical Chronology. Israelites. Jerusalem. Temple of Jerusalem. Samaria. Babylonia. Nabuchodonosor. Persia. Assyria. Rome.

In Greek pentateuchos, is the name of the first five books of the Old Testament. Though it is not certain whether the word originally was an adjective, qualifying the omitted noun biblos, or a substantive, its literal meaning "five cases" appears to refer to the sheaths or boxes in which the separate rolls or volumes were kept.

At what precise time the first part of the Bible was divided into five books is a question not yet finally settled. Some regard the division as antedating the Septuagint translation; others attribute it to the authors of this translation; Blessed Jerome was of opinion (Ep. 52, ad Paulin., 8; P.L. XXII, 545) that St. Paul alluded to such a division into five books in I Cor. 14:19. At any rate, Philo and Josephus are familiar with the division now in question ("De Abrahamo," I; "Cont. Apion." I, 8).

However ancient may be the custom of dividing the initial portion of the Old Testament into five parts, the early Jews had no name indicating the partition. They called this part of the Bible hattorah (the law), or torah (law), or sepher hattorah (book of the law), from the nature of its contents (Jos. 8:34; 1:8; 1 Esdr. 10:3; 2 Esdr. 8:2-14; 10:35-37; 2 Par. 25:4. They named it torath Mosheh (law of Moses), sepher Mosheh (book of Moses), sepher torath Mosheh (book of the law of Moses) on account of its authorship (Jos. 8:31-32; 23:6; 3 Kings 2:3; 4 Kings 14:16; 23:25; Dan. 9:11; I Esdr. 3:2; 6: 18; II Esdr. 8:1; 13:1; etc.). Finally, the Divine origin of the Mosaic Law was implied in the names: law of Yahweh (I Esdr. 7:10; etc.), law of God (II Esdr., 8:18; etc.), book of the law of Yahweh (II Par. 17:9; etc.), book of the law of God (Jos. 24:26; etc.).

The word law in the foregoing expressions has been rendered by nomos, with or without the article, in the Septuagint version. The New Testament refers to the Mosaic law in various ways: the law (Matt. 5:17; Rom. 2:12; etc.); the law of Moses (Luke 2:22; 24:44; Acts 28:23); the book of Moses (Mark 12:26); or simply, Moses (Luke 24:2; Acts 15:21). Even the Talmud and the older Rabbinic writings call the first part of the Bible the book of the law, while in Aramaic it is simply termed law (cf. Buxtorf, "Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum Rabbinicum," 791, 983; Levy, "Chaldaisches Worterbuch," 268, 16; Aicher, "Das Alte Testament in der Mischna," Freiburg, 1906, p. 16).

The Greek name pentateuchos, implying a division of the law into five parts, occurs for the first time about A.D. 150-75 in the letter to Flora by the Valentinian Ptolemy (cf. St. Epiphan., "Haer.," XXXIII, iv; P.G. XLI, 560). An earlier occurrence of the name was supposed to exist in a passage of Hippolytus where the Psalter is called kai auto allon pentateuchon (cf. edition of de Lagarde, Leipzig and London, 1858 p. 193); but the passage has been found to belong to Epiphanius (cf. "Hippolytus" in "Die griechischen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte," Leipzig, 1897, t. I, 143). Origen uses the name (Comment. in Ev. Jo., t. II; P.G. XIV, 192; cf. P.G. XIII, 444), as does St. Athanasius (Ep. ad Marcellin., 5; P.G. 27: 12), and, several times, St. Epiphanius (De mensur. et ponderib., 4, 6; P.G. XLIII, 244). In Latin, Tertulian uses the masculine form Pentateuchus (Adv. Marcion., I, 10; P.L. II, 257), while Isidore of Seville prefers the neuter Pentateuchum (Etym., VI 2:1, 2; P.L. LXXXII, 230). The analogous forms Octateuch, Heptateuch, and Hexateuch have been used to refer to the first, eight, seven, and six books of the Bible respectively. The Rabbinic writers adopted the expression "the five-fifths of the law" or simply "the five-fifths" to denote the five books of the Pentateuch.

Both the Palestinian and the Alexandrian Jews had distinct names for each of the five books of the Pentateuch. In Palestine, the opening words of the several books served as their titles; hence we have the names: bereshith, we'elleh shemoth or simply shemoth, wayyiqra, wayedhabber, and elleh haddebarim or simply debarim. Though these were the ordinary Hebrew titles of the successive Pentateuchal books, certain Rabbinic writers denote the last three according to their contents; they called the third book torath kohanim, or law of priests; the fourth, homesh happiqqudhim, or book of census; the fifth, mishneh thorah, or repetition of the law.

The Alexandrian Jews derived their Greek names of the five books from the contents of either the whole or the beginning of each division. Thus the first book is called Genesis kosmou or simply Genesis; the second, Exodus Aigyptou or Exodus; the third, Leueitikon; the fourth, Arithmoi; and the fifth, Deuteronomion. These names passed from the Septuagint into the Latin Vulgate and from this into most of the translations of the Vulgate. Arithmoi however was replaced by the Latin equivalent Numeri, while the other names retained their form.

The contents of the Pentateuch are partly of an historical, partly of a legal character. They give us the history of the Chosen People from the creation of the world to the death of Moses, and acquaint us too with the civil and religious legislation of the Israelites during the life of their great lawgiver.

Genesis may be considered as the introduction to the other four books. It contains the early history down to the preparation of Israel's exit form Egypt. Deuteronomy, consisting mainly of discourses, is practically a summary repetition of the Mosaic legislation. It concludes also the history of the people under the leadership of Moses.

The three intervening books consider the wanderings of Israel in the desert and the successive legal enactments. Each of these three great divisions has its own special introduction (Gen. 1:1-2:3; Ex. 1:1-7; Deut. 1:1-5). Since the subject matter distinguishes Leviticus from Exodus and Numbers, not to mention the literary terminations of the third and fourth books (Lev. 27:34; Num. 26:13), the present form of the Pentateuch exhibits both a literary unity and a division into five minor parts.

The Book of Genesis prepares the reader for the Pentateuchal legislation. It tells us how God chose a particular family to keep His Revelation, and how He trained the Chosen People to fulfill its mission. From the nature of its contents, the book consists of two rather unequal parts; cc. 1-11 present the features of a general history, while cc. 12-49 contain the particular history of the Chosen People.

By a literary device, each of these parts is subdivided into five sections differing in length. The sections are introduced by the phrase elleh tholedhoth (these are the generations) or its variant zeh sepher toledhoth (this is the book of the generations). "Generations," however, is only the etymological meaning of the Hebrew toledhoth; in its context the formula can hardly signify a mere genealogical table, for it is neither preceded nor followed by such tables.

As early Oriental history usually begins with genealogical records, and consists to a large extent of such records, one naturally interprets the above introductory formula and its variant as meaning, "this is the history" or "this is the book of the history." We understand history, in these phrases, not as a narrative resting on folklore, but as a record based on genealogies. Moreover, the introductory formula often refers back to some principal feature of the preceding section, thus forming a transition and connection between the successive parts. Gen. 5:1, e. g., refers back to Gen. 2:7 sqq.; 6: 9 to 5:29 sqq. and 6:8; 10:1 to 9:18-19, etc. Finally, the sacred writer deals very briefly with the non-chosen families or tribes, and he always considers them before the chosen branch of the family. He treats of Cain before he speaks of Seth; similarly, Cham and Japhet precede Sem; the rest of Sem's posterity precedes Abraham; Ismael precedes Isaac; Esau precedes Jacob.

Bearing in mind these general outlines of the contents and the literary structure of Genesis, we shall easily understand the following analytical table.

Introduction (Genesis 1:1-2:3) — Consists of the Hexaemeron; it teaches the power and goodness of God as manifested in the creation of the world, and also the dependence of creatures on the dominion of the Creator.

General History (2:4-11:26) — Man did not acknowledge his dependence on God. Hence, leaving the disobedient to their own devices, God chose one special family or one individual as the depositary of His Revelation.

History of Heaven and Earth (2:4-4:26) — Here we have the story of the fall of our first parents 2:5-3:24; of the fratricide of Cain 4:1-16; the posterity of Cain and its elimination 4:17-26.

History of Adam (5:1-6:8) — The writer enumerates the Sethites, another line of Adam's descendants 5:1-32, but shows that they too became so corrupt that only one among them found favor before God 6:1-8.

History of Noe (6:9-9:29) — Neither the Deluge which destroyed the whole human race excepting Noe's family 6:11-8:19, nor God's covenant with Noe and his sons 8:20-9:17, brought about the amendment of the human family, and only one of Noe's sons was chosen as the bearer of the Divine blessings 9:18-29.

History of the Sons of Noe (10:1-11:9) — The posterity of the non-chosen sons 10:1-32, brought a new punishment on the human race by its pride 11:1-9.

History of Sem (11:10-26) — The posterity of Sem is enumerated down to Thare the father of Abraham, in whose seed God shall bless all the nations of the earth.

Special History (11:27-50:26) — Here the inspired writer describes the special Providence watching over Abraham and his offspring which developed in Egypt into a large nation. At the same time, he eliminates the sons of Abraham who were not children of God's promise. This teaches the Israelites that carnal descent from Abraham does not suffice to make them true sons of Abraham.

History of Thare (11:27-25:11) — This section tells of the call of Abraham, his transmigration into Chanaan, his covenant with God, and His promises.

History of Ismael (25:12-28) — This section eliminates the tribes springing from Ismael.

History of Isaac (25:19-35:29 — Here we have the history of Isaac's sons, Esau and Jacob.

History of Esau (36:1-37:1) — The sacred writer gives a list of Esau's posterity; it does not belong to the number of the Chosen People.

History of Jacob (37:2-50:26) — This final portion of Genesis tells of the fate of Jacob's family down to the death of the Patriarch and of Joseph.

The above shows a uniform plan in the structure of Genesis, which some scholars prefer to call "schematism."

1. The whole book is divided into ten sections.
2. (ii) Each section is introduced by the same formula.
3. (iii) The sections are arranged according to a definite plan, the history of the lateral genealogical branches always preceding that of the corresponding part of the main line.
4. (iv) Within the sections, the introductory formula or the title is usually followed by a brief repetition of some prominent feature of the preceding section, a fact duly noted and explained by as early a writer as Rhabanus Maurus (Comment. In Gen., II, xii; P.G. CVII, 531-2), but misconstrued by our recent critics into an argument for a diversity of sources.
5. (v) The history of each Patriarch tells of the development of his family during his lifetime, while the account of his life varies between a bare notice consisting of a few words or lines, and a more lengthy description.
6. (vi) When the life of the Patriarch is given more in detail, the account usually ends in an almost uniform way, indicating the length of his life and his burial with his ancestors (cf. 9:29; 11:32; 25:7; 35:28; 47:28). Such a definite plan of the book shows that it was written with a definite end in view and according to preconceived arrangement. The critics attribute this to the final "redactor" of the Pentateuch who adopted, according to their views, the genealogical framework and the "schematism" from the Priestly Code. The value of these views will be discussed later; for the present, it suffices to know that a striking unity prevails throughout the Book of Genesis.

The word patriarch as applied to Biblical personages comes from the Septuagint version, where it is used in a broad sense, including religious and civil officials (e.g. I Par. 24:31; 27:22). In the more restricted sense and common usage, it is applied to the antediluvian fathers of the human race, and more particularly to the three great progenitors of Israel: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In the New Testament, the term is extended also to the sons of Jacob (Acts 7:8-9) and to King David (ibid. 2:29).

The earlier patriarchs comprise the antediluvian group, and those who are placed between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. Of the former, the Book of Genesis gives a twofold list. The first (Gen. 4:17-18, passage assigned by critics the so-called "J" document) starts with Cain and gives as his descendants Henoch, Irad, Maviael, Mathusael, and Lamech. The other list (Gen. 5:3-31, ascribed to the priestly writer, "P") is far more elaborate, and is accompanied by minute chronological indications. It begins with Seth and, strange to say, it ends likewise with Lamech. The intervening names are Enos, Cainan, Malaleel, Jared, Henoch, and Mathusala.

The fact that both lists end with Lamech, who is doubtless the same person, and that some of the names common to both are strikingly similar, makes it probable that the second list is an amplification of the first, embodying material furnished by a divergent tradition. Nor should this seem surprising when we consider the many discrepancies exhibited by the twofold genealogy of the Saviour in the First and Third Gospels. The human personages set forth in these lists occupy a place held by the mythical demi-gods in the story of the prehistoric beginnings of other early nations. It may well be that the chief value of the inspired account given of them is didactic, destined in the mind of the sacred writer to inculcate the great truth of monotheism which is so distinctive a feature of the Old Testament writings.

Be that as it may, the acceptance of this general view helps greatly to simplify another difficult problem connected with the Biblical account of the early patriarchs, viz. their enormous longevity. The earlier account (Gen. 4:17-18) gives only the names of the patriarchs there mentioned, with the incidental indication that the city built by Cain was called after his son Henoch. The later narrative (Gen. 5:3-31) gives a definite chronology for the whole period. It states the age at which each patriarch begot his first-born son, the number of years he lived after that event, together with the sum total of the years of his life. Nearly all of the antediluvian fathers are represented as living to the age of 900 or thereabouts, Mathusala, the oldest, reaching 969.

These figures have always constituted a most difficult problem for commentators and Bible readers; and those who defend the strict historical character of the passages in question have put forward various explanations, none of which are considered convincing by modern Biblical scholars.

Thus it has been conjectured that the years mentioned in this connation were not of ordinary duration but of one or more months. There is, however, no warrant for this assumption in the Scripture itself, where the word year has a constant signification, and is always clearly distinguished from the minor periods.

It has also been suggested that the ages given are not those of individuals, but signify epochs of antediluvian history, and that each is named after its most illustrious representative. The hypothesis may be ingenious, but even a superficial reading of the text suffices to show that such was not the meaning of the sacred writer. Nor does it help the case much to point out a few exceptional instances of persons who in modern times are alleged to have lived to the age of 150 or even 180. For even admitting these as facts, and that in primitive times men lived longer than at present (an assumption for which we find no warrant in historic times), it is still a long way from 180 to 900.

Another argument to corroborate the historical accuracy of the Biblical account has been deduced from the fact that the legends of many people assert the great longevity of their early ancestors, a circumstance which implies an original tradition to that effect. Thus the first seven Egyptian kings are said to have reigned for a period of 12,300 years, making an average of about 1757 years for each, and Josephus, who is preoccupied with a desire to justify the Biblical narrative, quotes Ephorus and Nicolaus as relating "that the ancients lived a thousand years." He adds, however, "But as to these matters, let every one look upon them as he thinks fit" (Antiq. I 3:in fine).

On the other hand, it is maintained that as a matter of fact there is no trustworthy historic or scientific evidence indicating that the average span of human life was greater in primitive than in modern times. In this connation, it is customary to cite Gen. 6:3, where God decrees by way of punishment of the universal corruption which was the occasion of the Flood, that henceforth the days of man "shall be a hundred and twenty years." This is taken as indicating a point at which the physical deterioration of the race resulted in a marked decrease in longevity. Despite the critical considerations which bear on this passage, it is strange to note further on (Gen. 11) that the ages of the subsequent patriarchs were by no means limited to 120 years. Sem lived to the age of 600, Arphaxad 338 (Massoretic text 408), Sale 433, Heber 464, etc.

The one ground on which the accuracy of all these figures can be defended is the a priori reason that being contained in the Bible, they must of a necessity be historically correct. The older commentators maintain this position generally. Many scholars, on the other hand, are agreed in considering the genealogical and chronological lists of Gen. 5 and 11, to be mainly artificial, and this view seems to be confirmed, they say, by a comparison of the figures as they stand in the Hebrew original and in the ancient versions. The Vulgate is in agreement with the former (with the exception of Arphaxad), showing that no substantial alteration of the figures has been made in the Hebrew at least since the end of the fourth century A.D.

But when we compare the Massoretic text with the Samaritan version and the Septuagint, we are confronted by many and strange discrepancies which can hardly be the result of mere accident. Thus, for instance, with regard to the antediluvian patriarchs, while the Samaritan version agrees in the main with the Massoretic text, the age at which Jared begot his first-born is set down as 62 instead of the Hebrew 162. Mathusala, likewise, who according to the Hebrew begot his first-born at the age of 187, was only 67 according to the Samaritan; and though the Hebrew places the same event in the case of Lamech when he was 182, the Samaritan gives him only 53. Similar discrepancies exist between the two texts as regards the total number of years that these patriarchs lived, viz. Jared, Heb. 962, Sam. 847; Mathusala, Heb. 969, Sam. 720; Lamech, Heb. 777, Sam. 653.

Comparing the Massoretic text with the Septuagint, we find that in the latter the birth of the first-born in the case of Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Malaleel, and Henoch was at the respective ages of 230, 205, 190, 170, 165, and 165, as against 130, 105, 90, 70, 65, and 65 as stated in the Hebrew. The same systematic difference of 100 years in the period before the birth of the first-born appears likewise in the lives of the postdiluvian patriarchs, Arphaxad, Sale, Heber, Phaleg, Reu, and Sarug. For this list, however, the Samaritan agrees with the Septuagint as against the Massoretic text.

As regards the list of the antediluvians, the Hebrew and Septuagint agree as to the sum total of each patriarch's life, since the Greek version reduces regularly by a hundred years the period between the birth of the first-born and the patriarch's death. These accumulated differences result in a wide divergence when the duration of the entire patriarchal period is considered. Thus the number of years which elapsed from the beginning down to the death of Lamech is, according to the Hebrew, 1651, while the Samaritan gives 1307, and the Septuagint 2227. These are but a few of the peculiarities exhibited by the comparison of the perplexing genealogical lists. That the divergences are for the most part intentional seems to be a necessary inference from their systematic regularity, and the implied manipulation of the figures by the early translators goes far to make probable the more or less artificial character of these primitive chronologies as a whole.

[Hebrew Nôah, "rest"; Greek Noe; Latin Noe].

The ninth patriarch of the Sethite line, grandson of Mathusala and son of Lamech, who with his family was saved from the Deluge and thus became the second father of the human race (Genesis 5:25-9:29).

The name Noah was given to him because of his father's expectation regarding him. "This same," said Lamech on naming him, "shall comfort us from the works and labors of our hands on [or more correctly "from," i.e. "which come from"] the earth, which the Lord hath cursed." Most commentators consider Lamech's words as an expression of a hope, or as a prophecy, that the child would in some way be instrumental in removing the curse pronounced against Adam (Genesis 3:17 sqq.).

General corruption resulted from the marriages of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" (Genesis 6:2 sqq.), that is of the Sethites with the Cainite women. But amid this corruption, "Noah was a just and perfect man in his generations" and "walked with God" (6:9). Hence, when God decreed to destroy men from the face of the earth, he "found grace before the Lord." According to the common interpretation of Genesis 6:3, Noah first received divine warning of the impending destruction one hundred and twenty years before it occurred, and therefore when he was four hundred and eighty years old (cf. 7:11); he does not seem, however, to have received at this time any details as to the nature of the catastrophe.

After he reached the age of five hundred years three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth, were born to him (6:10). These had grown to manhood and had taken wives, when Noah was informed of God's intention to destroy men by a flood, and received directions to build an ark in which he and his wife, his sons and their wives, and representatives, male and female, of the various kinds of animals and birds, were to be saved (6:13-21). How long before the Deluge God imparted this revelation to him, it is impossible to say; it can hardly have been more than seventy-five years (cf. 7:11), and probably was considerably less.

Noah had announced the impending judgment and had exhorted to repentance (II Peter 2:5), but no heed was given to his words (Matthew 24:37 sqq.; Luke 17:26, 27; I Peter 3:20). When the fatal time arrived, no one except Noah's immediate family found refuge in the ark. Seven days before the waters began to cover the earth, Noah was commanded to enter the ark with his wife, his three sons and their wives, and to take with him seven pairs of all clean, and two pairs of all unclean animals and birds (7:1-4). It has been objected that, even though the most liberal value is allowed for the cubit, the ark would have been too small to lodge at least two pairs of every species of animal and bird. However, there can be no difficulty if, as is now generally admitted, the Deluge was confined to the Mesopotamian region.

After leaving the ark Noah built an altar, and taking of all clean animals and birds, offered holocausts upon it. God accepted the sacrifice, and made a covenant with Noah, and through him with all mankind, that He would not waste the earth or destroy man by another deluge. The rainbow would for all times be a sign and a reminder of this covenant. He further renewed the blessing which He had pronounced on Adam (Genesis 1:28), and confirmed the dominion over animals which He had granted to man. In virtue of this dominion, man may use animals for food, but the flesh may not be eaten with the blood (8:20-9:17).

Noah now gave himself to agriculture, and planted a vineyard. Being unacquainted with the effects of fermented grape-juice, he drank of it too freely and was made drunk. Cham found his father lying naked in his tent, and made a jest of his condition before his brothers; these reverently covered him with a mantle. On hearing of the occurrence, Noah cursed Chanaan, as Cham's heir, and blessed Sem and Japheth.

He lived three hundred and fifty years after the Deluge, and died at the age of nine hundred and fifty years (9:20-29). In the later books of Scripture Noah is represented as the model of the just man (Eccliasticus 44:17; Ezechiel, 14:14-20), and as an exemplar of faith (Hebrews 11:7). In the Fathers and tradition, he is considered as the type and figure of the Saviour, because through him the human race was saved from destruction and reconciled with God (Ecclus. 44:17-18). Moreover, as he built the ark, the only means of salvation from the Deluge, so Christ established the Church, the only means of salvation in the spiritual order, the Ark of salvation.

The Babylonian account of the Deluge in many points closely resembles that of the Bible. Four cuneiform recensions of it have been discovered, of which, however, three are only short fragments. The complete story is found in the Gilgamesh epic (Tablet 11) discovered by G. Smith among the ruins of the library of Assurbanipal in 1872. Berosus gives another version. In the Gilgamesh poem the hero of the story is Ut-napishtim (or Sit-napishti, as some read it, surnamed Atra-hasis "the very clever." In two of the fragments, he is simply styled Atra-hasis, which name is also found in Berosus under the Greek form Xisuthros.

The story in brief is as follows: A council of the gods having decreed to destroy men by a flood, the god Ea warns Ut-napishtim, and bids him build a ship in which to save himself and the seed of all kinds of life. Ut-napishtim builds the ship (of which, according to one version, Ea traces the plan on the ground), and places in it his family, his dependents, artisans, and domestic as well as wild animals, after which he shuts the door. The storm lasts six days; on the seventh, the flood begins to subside. The ship steered by the helmsman Puzur-Bel lands on Mt. Nisir. After seven days Ut-napishtim sends forth a dove and a swallow, which, finding no resting-place for their feet return to the ark, and then a raven, which feeds on dead bodies and does not return. On leaving the ship, Ut-napishtim offers a sacrifice to the gods, who smell the godly odor and gather like flies over the sacrificer. He and his wife are then admitted among the gods.

The story as given by Berosus comes somewhat nearer to the Biblical narrative. Because of the striking resemblances between the two, many maintain that the Biblical account is derived from the Babylonian. But the differences are so many and so important that this view must be pronounced untenable. The Scriptural story is a parallel and independent form of a common tradition.

The Hebrew name to designate Noah's Ark, the one which occurs again in the history of Moses' childhood, suggests the idea of a box of large proportions, though the author of Wisdom terms it a vessel (Wisd. 14:6). The dimensions attributed to it by the Bible narrative lead to the same conclusion: three hundred cubits in length, fifty in breadth, and thirty in height.

The form, very likely foursquare, was certainly not very convenient for navigation, but, as has been proven by the experiments of Peter Jansen and M. Vogt, it made the Ark a very suitable device for shipping heavy cargoes and floating upon the waves without rolling or pitching. The Ark was constructed of gofer wood, or cypress, smeared without and within with pitch, or bitumen, to render it watertight. The interior contained a certain number of rooms distributed among three stories. The text mentions only one window, and this measuring a cubit in height, but there existed possibly some others to give to the inmates of the Ark air and light. A door had also been set in the side of the Ark; God shut it from the outside when Noah and his family had gone in.

Apart from Noah's family, the Ark was intended to receive and keep animals that were to fill the earth again (Gen. 6:19-20; 7:2-3) and all the food which was necessary for them. After the Flood, the Ark rested upon the mountains of Armenia (Gen. 8:4 — according to Vulgate and Douay, the mountains of Ararat, according to Authorized Version). Tradition is divided as to the exact place where the Ark rested. Josephus (Ant. I 3:6), Berosus (Eus. Praep. Ev., IX 2, P.G. 21:697), Onkelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, St. Ephrem, locate it in Kurdistan. Berosus relates that a part of Xisuthrus's ship still remained there, and that pilgrims used to scrape off the bitumen from the wreck and make charms of it against witchcraft. Jewish and Armenian tradition admitted Mount Ararat as the resting place of the Ark. In the first century B.C. the Armenians affirmed that remnants of it could yet be seen. The first Christians of Apamea, in Phrygia, erected in this place a convent called the monastery of the Ark, where a feast was yearly celebrated to commemorate Noah's coming out of the Ark after the Flood.

Suffice it to remark that the text of Genesis (8:4) mentioning Mount Ararat is somewhat lacking in clearness, and the Scripture says nothing concerning what became of the Ark after the Flood. Critics raise many difficulties, especially in our epoch, against the pages of the Bible which narrate the history of the Flood and of the Ark. This is not the place to dwell upon these difficulties, however considerable some may appear. They all converge towards the question whether these pages should be considered as strictly historical throughout, or only in their outward form. The opinion that these chapters are mere legendary tales, Eastern folklore, is held by some scholars; according to others they preserve, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition. This view, were it supported by good arguments, could be readily accepted; it has, over the age-long opinion that every detail of the narration should be literally interpreted and trusted in by the historian, the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable.

The "Tower of Babel" is the name of the building mentioned in Genesis 11:1-9.

The descendants of Noe had migrated from the "east" (Armenia) first southward, along the course of the Tigris, then westward across the Tigris into "a plain in the land of Sennar." As their growing number forced them to live in localities more and more distant from their patriarchal homes, "they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven; and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands." The work was soon fairly under way; "and they had brick instead of stones, and slime (asphalt) instead of mortar." But God confounded their tongue, so that they did not understand one another's speech, and thus scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.

This is the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel. Thus far, no Babylonian document has been discovered which refers clearly to the subject. However, we find a possible reference to the Tower of Babel in the "History" of Berosus as it is handed down to us in two variations by Abydenus and Alexander Polyhistor respectively ("Histor. Graec. Fragm.," ed. Didot, II, 512; IV, 282; Euseb., "Chron.," I, 18, in P.G. XIX, 123; "Praep. Evang.," IX, 14, in P.G. 21:705). Special interest attaches to this reference, since Berosus is now supposed to have drawn his material from Babylonian sources.

Both the inspired writer of Genesis and Berosus place the Tower of Babel somewhere in Babylon. But there are three principal opinions as to its precise position in the city.

(1) Pietro della Valle ("Viaggi descritti," Rome, 1650) located the tower in the north of the city, on the left bank of the Euphrates, where now lie the ruins called Babil. Schrader inclines to the same opinion in Riehm's "Handworterbuch des biblischen Altertums" (I, 138), while in "The Cuneiform Inscriptions" (I, 108) he leaves to his reader the choice between Babil and the temple of Borsippa. The position of Babil within the limits of the ancient Babylon agrees with the Biblical location of the tower; the name Babil itself may be regarded as a traditional relic of the name Babel interpreted by the inspired writer as referring to the confusion of tongues.

(2) Rawlinson (Smith-Sayce, "Chaldean account of the Genesis," 1880, pp. 74, 171) places the tower on the ruins of Tell-Amram, regarded by Oppert as the remnants of the hanging gardens. These ruins are situated on the same side of the Euphrates as those of the Babil, and also within the ancient city limits. The excavations of the German Orientgesellschaft have laid bare on this spot the ancient national sanctuary Esagila, sacred to Marduk-Bel, with the documentary testimony that the top of the building had been made to reach Heaven. This agrees with the description of the Tower of Babel as found in Genesis 11:4: "The top whereof may reach to heaven." To this locality belongs also the tower Etemenanki, or house of the foundation of Heaven and earth, which is composed of six gigantic steps.

(3) Sayce (Lectures on the Religion of the Ancient Babylonians, p. 112-3, 405-7), Oppert ("Expédition en Mésopotamie," I, 200-16; "Études assyriennes," pp. 91-132), and others follow the more common opinion which identifies the tower of Babel with the ruins of the Birs-Nimrud, in Borsippa. These ruins, situated on the right side of the Euphrates, some seven or eight miles from the ruins of the city proper, are the ruins of the temple Ezida, sacred to Nebo, which according to the above-cited inscription of Nabuchodonosor, was repaired and completed by that king. A former ruler had left it incomplete in far distant days.

These data are too vague to form the basis of an apodictic argument. The Babylonian Talmud (Buxtorf, "Lexicon talmudicum," col. 313) connects Borsippa with the confusion of tongues; but a long period elapsed from the time of the composition of Genesis 11 to the time of the Babylonian Talmud. Besides, the Biblical account seems to imply that the tower was within the city limits, while it is hardly probable that the city limits extended to Borsippa in very ancient times. The historical character of the tower is not impaired by our inability to point out its location with certainty.

The form of the tower must have resembled the constructions which today exist only in a ruined condition in Babylonia. The most ancient pyramids of Egypt present a vestige of the same form. Cubic blocks of masonry, decreasing in size, are piled one on top of the other, thus forming separate stories; an inclined plane or stairway leads from one story to the other. The towers of Ur and Arach contained only two or three stories, but that of Birs-Nimrud numbered seven, not counting the high platform on which the building was erected. Each story was painted in its own peculiar colour according to the planet to which it was dedicated. Generally the corners of these towers faced the four points of the compass, while in Egypt the sides of the pyramids held this position. On top of these constructions there was a sanctuary, so that they served both as temples and as observatories. Their interior consisted of sun-dried clay, but the outer walls were coated with fire-baker brick. The asphalt peculiar to the Babylonian neighbourhood served as mortar; all these details are in keeping with the report of Genesis.

Though some writers maintain that every Babylonian city possessed such a tower, or zikkurat (meaning "pointed" according to Schrader, "raised on high" according to Haupt, "memorial" according to Vigouroux), no complete specimen has been preserved to us. The Tower of Khorsabad is perhaps the best preserved, but Assyrian sculpture supplements our knowledge of even this construction. The only indication of the time at which the Tower of Babel was erected, we find in the name of Phaleg (Genesis 11:10-17), the grandnephew of Heber; this places the date somewhere between 101 and 870 years after the Flood. The limits are so unsatisfactory, because the Greek Version differs in its numbers from the Massoretic text.

The original form of the name, Abram, is apparently the Assyrian Abu-ramu. It is doubtful if the usual meaning attached to that word, "lofty father," is correct. The meaning given to Abraham in Genesis 17:5 is popular word play, and the real meaning is unknown. The Assyriologist, Hommel suggests that in the Minnean dialect, the Hebrew letter Hê ("h") is written for long a. Perhaps here we may have the real derivation of the word, and Abraham may be only a dialectical form of Abram.

The story of Abraham is contained in the Book of Genesis, 11:26 to 25:18. We shall first give a brief outline of the Patriarch's life, as told in that portion of Genesis, then we shall in succession discuss the subject of Abraham from the viewpoints of the Old Testament, New Testament, profane history, and legend.

Thare had three sons, Abram, Nachor, and Aran. Abram married Sarai. Thare took Abram and his wife, Sarai, and Lot, the son of Aran, who was dead, and leaving Ur of the Chaldees, came to Haran and dwelt there till he died. Then, at the call of God, Abram, with his wife, Sarai, and Lot, and the rest of his belongings, went into the Land of Chanaan, amongst other places to Sichem and Bethel, where he built altars to the Lord. A famine breaking out in Chanaan, Abram journeyed southward to Egypt, and when he had entered the land, fearing that he would be killed on account of his wife, Sarai, he bade her say she was his sister. The report of Sarai's beauty reached the Pharao, and he took her into his harem, and honored Abram on account of her. Later, however finding out that she was Abram's wife, he sent her away unharmed, and, upbraiding Abram for what he had done, he dismissed him from Egypt.

From Egypt Abram came with Lot towards Bethel, and there, finding that their herds and flocks had grown to be very large, he proposed that they should separate and go their own ways. Lot chose the country about the Jordan, whilst Abram dwelt in Chanaan, and came and dwelt in the vale of Mambre in Hebron. Now, on account of a revolt of the Kings of Sodom and Gomorrha and other kings from Chodorlahomor King of Elam, after they had served him twelve years, he in the fourteenth year made war upon them with his allies, Thadal king of nations, Amraphel King of Senaar, and Arioch King of Pontus.

The King of Elam was victorious, and had already reached Dan with Lot a prisoner and laden with spoil, when Abram overtook him. With 318 men the patriarch surprises, attacks, and defeats him, he retakes Lot and the spoil, and returns in triumph. On his way home, he is met by Melchisedech, king of Salem who brings forth bread and wine, and blesses him and Abram gives him tithes of all he has; but for himself he reserves nothing.

God promises Abram that his seed shall be as the stars of heaven, and he shall possess the land of Chanaan. But Abram does not see how this is to be, for he has already grown old. Then the promise is guaranteed by a sacrifice between God and Abram, and by a vision and a supernatural intervention in the night. Sarai, far advanced in years, had given up the idea of bearing children, persuaded Abram to take to himself her handmaid, Agar. He does so, and Agar being with child despises the barren Sarai. For this Sarai afflicts her so that she flies into the desert, but is persuaded to return by an angel who comforts her with promises of the greatness of the son she is about to bear. She returns and brings forth Ismael.

Thirteen years later God appears to Abram and promises him a son by Sarai, and that his posterity will be a great nation. As a sign, he changes Abram's name to Abraham, Sarai's to Sara, and ordains the rite of circumcision. One day later, as Abraham is sitting by his tent, in the vale of Mambre, Jehovah with two angels appears to him in human form. He shows them hospitality. Then Abraham again receives the promise of a son named Isaac. The aged Sarah hears incredulously and laughs.

Abraham learns of the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha for their sins. But he obtains from Jehovah the promise that he will not destroy them if he finds ten just men therein. Then follows a description of the destruction of the two cities and the escape of Lot. Next morning Abraham, looking from his tent towards Sodom, sees the smoke of destruction ascending to heaven.

After this, Abraham moves south to Gerara, and again fearing for his life says of his wife, "she is my sister." The king of Gerara, Abimelech, sends and takes her, but learning in a dream that she is Abraham's wife he restores her to him untouched, and rebukes him and gives him gifts.

In her old age, Sarah bears a son, Isaac, to Abraham, and he is circumcised on the eighth day. Whilst he is still young, Sarah is jealous, seeing Ismael playing with the child Isaac, so she procures that Agar and her son shall be cast out. Then Agar would have allowed Ismael to perish in the wilderness, had not an angel encouraged her by telling her of the boy's future.

Abraham next has a dispute with Abimelech over a well at Bersabee, which ends when they make a covenant between them. It was after this that the great trial of the faith of Abraham takes place. God commands him to sacrifice his only son Isaac. When Abraham has his arm raised and is in the very act of striking, an angel from heaven stays his hand. The angel makes the most wonderful promises to him of the greatness of his posterity because of his complete trust in God.

Sarah dies at the age of 127, and Abraham, having purchased from Ephron the Hethite the cave in Machpelah near Mambre, buries her there. His own career is not yet quite ended for first of all he takes a wife for his son Isaac, Rebecca from the city of Nachor in Mesopotamia. Then he marries Cetura, old though he is, and has by her six children. Finally, leaving all his possessions to Isaac, he dies at age 170, and Isaac and Ismael bury him in the cave of Machpelah.

Abraham may be looked upon as the starting-point or source of Old Testament religion. From the days of Abraham men were wont to speak of God as the God of Abraham, whilst we do not find Abraham referring in the same way to anyone before him. Abraham's servant speaks of "the God of my father Abraham" (Gen. 24:12). Jehovah, in an apparition to Isaac, speaks of himself as the God of Abraham (Gen. 26:24), and to Jacob he is "the God of my father Abraham" (Gen. 31:42). The religion of Israel does not begin with Moses. God says to Moses: "I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham" etc. (Ex. 3:6). The same expression is used in the Psalms (46:10) and is common in the Old Testament.

Abraham is thus selected as the first beginning or source of the religion of the children of Israel and the origin of its close connection with Jehovah, because of his faith, trust, and obedience to and in Jehovah and because of Jehovah's promises to him and to his seed. So, in Genesis 15:6, it is said: "Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice." He showed this trust in God when he left Haran and journeyed with his family into the unknown country of Chanaan. He showed it principally when he was willing to sacrifice his only son Isaac, in obedience to a command from God. It was on that occasion that God said: "Because thou hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake I will bless thee" etc. (Gen. 22:16-17).

It is to this and other promises made so often by God to Israel that the writers of the Old Testament refer over and over again in confirmation of their privileges as the chosen people. These promises are recorded to have been made no less than eight times God will give the land of Chanaan to Abraham and his seed (Gen. 12:7). Abrahan’s seed shall increase and multiply as the stars of heaven; he himself shall be blessed. In him, "all the kindred of the earth shall be blessed" (12:3). Accordingly, the traditional view of the life of Abraham, as recorded in Genesis, is that it is history in the strict sense of the word.

St. Matthew traces the generation of Jesus Christ back to Abraham. And though in Our Lord's genealogy according to St. Luke, he is shown to be descended according to the flesh not only from Abraham but also from Adam, still St. Luke shows his appreciation of the fruits of descent from Abraham by attributing all the blessings of God on Israel to the promises made to Abraham. This he does in the Magnificat 3:55, and in the Benedictus 3:73. Moreover, as the New Testament traces the descent of Jesus Christ from Abraham, so it does of all the Jews; though as a rule, when this is done, it is accompanied with a note of warning, lest the Jews should imagine that they are entitled to place confidence in the fact of their carnal descent from Abraham, without anything further. Thus (Luke 3:8) John the Baptist says: "Do not begin to say: We have Abraham for our father, for I say to you God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." In Luke 19:9 our Saviour calls the sinner Zacheus a son of Abraham, as he likewise calls a woman whom he had healed a daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:16). But in these and many similar cases, is it not merely another way of calling them Jews or Israelites? For at times he refers to the Psalms under the general name of David, without implying that David wrote all the Psalms, and as he calls the Pentateuch the Books of Moses, without pretending to settle the question of the authorship of that work. However, importance is attatched not to carnal descent from Abraham, but rather to practising the virtues attributed to Abraham in Genesis.

Thus in John 8 the Jews, to whom Our Lord was speaking, boast (33): "We are the seed of Abraham," and Jesus replies (39): "If ye be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham." St. Paul, too, shows that he is a son of Abraham and glories in that fact as in II Cor. 11:22, when he exclaims: "They are the seed of Abraham, so am I." And again (Rom. 11:1): "I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham," and he addresses the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:26) as "sons of the race of Abraham." But, following the teaching of Jesus Christ St. Paul does not attach too much importance to carnal descent from Abraham; for he says (Gal. 3:29): "If you be Christ's, then you are the seed of Abraham," and again (Rom. 9:6): "All are not Israelites who are of Israel; neither are all they who are the seed of Abraham, children."

So, too, we can observe in all the New Testament the importance attached to the promises made to Abraham. In the Acts of the Apostles 3:25, St. Peter reminds the Jews of the promise, "in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." So does St. Stephen in his speech before the Council (Acts 7:), and St. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews 6:13.

Nor was the faith of the ancient patriarch less highly thought of by the New Testament writers. The passage of Genesis that was most prominently before them was 15:6: "Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice." In Romans 4, St. Paul argues strongly for the supremacy of faith, which he says justified Abraham; "for if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God."

The same idea is inculcated in the Epistle to the Galatians 3: where the question is discussed: "Did you receive the spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" St. Paul decides that it is by faith, and says: "Therefore they that are of faith shall be justified with faithful Abraham." It is clear that this language, taken by itself, and apart from the absolute necessity of good works upheld by St. Paul, is liable to mislead and actually has misled many in the history of the Church.

Hence, in order to appreciate to the full the Christian doctrine of faith, we must supplement St. Paul by St. James. In 2:17-22, of the Catholic Epistle we read: "So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works, show me thy faith without works, and I will show thee by works my faith. Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well; the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, and by works faith was made perfect?"

In the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Paul enters into a long discussion concerning the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ. He recalls the words of the 109th psalm more than once, in which it is said: "Thou art a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech." He recalls the fact that Melchisedech is etymologically the king of justice and also king of peace; moreover, that he is not only king, but also priest of the Most High God. Then, calling to mind that there is no account of his father, mother, or genealogy, nor any record of his heirs, he likens him to Christ king and priest; no Levite nor according to the order of Aaron, but a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech.

Coming now to look at the light thrown by profane history upon the stories of Abraham's life as given in Genesis, we have, first of all, the narratives of ancient historians, as Nicholas of Damascus, Berosus, Hecateus, and the like. Nicholas of Damascus tells how Abraham, when he left Chaldea lived for some years in Damascus. In fact, in Josephus he is said to have been the fourth king of that city. But then there is no practical doubt that this story is based on the words of Genesis 14:15, in which the town of Damascus is mentioned. As to the great man whom Josephus mentions as spoken of by Berosus, there is nothing to show that that great man was Abraham. In the "Praeparatio Evang." of Eusebius extracts are recorded from numerous ancient writers, but no historical value can be attached to them. In fact, as far as ancient historians are concerned, we may say that all we know about Abraham is contained in the book of Genesis.

A much more important and interesting question is the amount of value to attach to archaeological discoveries of Biblical and other explorers in the East. Archaeologists like Hommel, and more especially Sayce, are disposed to attach very great significance to them. They say, in fact, that these discoveries throw a serious element of doubt over many of the conclusions of the higher critics. On the other hand, critics, both advanced as Cheyne and moderate as Driver, do not hold the deductions drawn by these archaeologists from the evidence of the monuments in very high esteem, but regard them as exaggerations.

To put the matter more precisely, we quote the following from Professor Sayce, to enable the reader to see for himself what he thinks (Early Hist. of the Hebrews, 8). He writes, "Cuneiform tablets have been found relating to Chodorlahomor and the other kings of the East mentioned in the 14th chapter of Genesis, while in the Tel-el-Amarna correspondence the king of Jerusalem declares that he had been raised to the throne by the 'arm' of his God, and was therefore, like Melchisedech, a priest-king. But Chodorlahomor and Melchisedech had long ago been banished to mythland and criticism could not admit that archaeological discovery had restored them to actual history. Writers, accordingly, in complacent ignorance of the cuneiform texts, told the Assyriologists that their translations and interpretations were alike erroneous." That passage will make it clear how much the critics and archaeologists are at variance.

But no one can deny that Assyriology has thrown some light on the stories of Abraham and the other patriarchs. Thus the name of Abraham was known in those ancient times; for amongst other Canaanitish or Amorite names found in deeds of sale of that period are those of Abi-ramu, or Abram, Jacob-el (Ya'qub-il), and Josephel (Yasub-il). So, too, of the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, which relates the war of Chodorlahomor and his allies in Palestine, it is not so long ago that the advanced critics relegated it to the region of fable, under the conviction that Babylonians and Elamites at that early date in Palestine and the surrounding country was a gross anachronism. But since Professor Pinches deciphered certain inscriptions relating to Babylonia in which the five kings, Amraphel King of Senaar, Arioch King of Pontus, Chodorlahomor King of the Elamites, and Thadal King of nations, are identified with Hammurabi King of Babylon, Eri-aku, Kudur-laghghamar, and Tuduchula, son of Gazza, and which tells of a campaign of these monarchs in Palestine.

So that no one can any longer assert that the war spoken of in Genesis 14, can only be a late reflection of the wars of Sennacherib and others in the times of the kings. From the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, we know that Babylonian influence was predominant in Palestine in those days. Moreover, we have light thrown by the cuneiform inscriptions upon the incident of Melchisedech. In Genesis 14:18, it is said: "Melchisedech, the King of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the Most High God, blessed him." Amongst the Tel-el-Amarna letters is one from Ebed-Tob, King of Jerusalem (the city is Ursalim, i. e. city of Salim, and it is spoken of as Salem). He is priest appointed by Salem, the god of Peace, and is hence both king and priest. In the same manner, Melchisedech is priest and king, and naturally comes to greet Abraham returning in peace; and hence, too, Abraham offers to him as to a priest a tithe of the spoils.

While archeological findings are susceptible to different interpretations, there is no doubt that they have put an end to the idea that the patriarchal legends are mere myth. A state of things has been disclosed in patriarchal times quite consistent with much that is related in Genesis, and at times even apparently confirming the facts of the Bible.

The eleventh son of Jacob, the firstborn of Rachel, and the immediate ancestor of the tribes of Manasses and Ephraim. His life is narrated in Gen. 30:22-24; ch 37-39.

The date of his eventful career can be fixed only approximately at the present day, for the Biblical account of Joseph's life does not name the particular Pharaoh of his time, and the Egyptian customs and manners therein alluded to are not decisive as to any special period in Egyptian history. His term of office in Egypt falls probably under one of the later Hyksos kings. His name, either contracted from Jehoseph (Ps. 81:6, in the Heb), or abbreviated from Joseph-El (cf. Karnak inscription of Thothmes III, no. 78), is distinctly connected in Gen. 30:23, 24, with the circumstances of his birth and is interpreted: "may God add."

He was born in Haran, of Rachel, Jacob's beloved and long-barren wife, and became the favorite son of the aged patriarch. After Jacob's return to Chanaan, various circumstances made Joseph the object of the mortal hatred of his brothers. He had witnessed some very wicked deed of several among them, and they knew that it had been reported to their father. Moreover, in his partiality to Joseph, Jacob gave him an ample garment of many colors, and this manifest proof of the patriarch's greater love for him aroused the jealousy of Joseph's brothers to such an extent that "they could not speak peaceably to him." Finally, with the imprudence of youth, Joseph told his brothers two dreams which clearly portended his future elevation over them all, but which, for the present, simply caused them to hate him all the more (Gen. 37:1-11).

In this frame of mind, they seized upon the first opportunity to get rid of the one of whom they spoke as "the dreamer." As they fed their father's flocks in Dothain (now Tell Dothain, about fifteen miles north of Sichem), they saw from afar Joseph, who had been sent by Jacob to inquire about their welfare, coming to them, and they at once resolved to reduce to naught all his dreams of future greatness.

At this point, the narrative in Genesis combines two distinct accounts of the manner in which the brothers of Joseph actually carried out their intention of avenging themselves upon him. These accounts present slight variations, which commentators on Genesis examined in detail, and which, far from destroying, rather confirm the historical character of the fact that, through the enmity of his brothers, Joseph was brought down to Egypt. To protect themselves the brothers dipped Joseph's fine garment into the blood of a kid, and sent it to their father. At the sight of this bloodstained garment, Jacob naturally believed that a wild beast had devoured his beloved son, and he gave himself up to the most intense grief (37:12-35).

While thus bewailed as dead by his father, Joseph was sold into Egypt, and treated with the utmost consideration and the greatest confidence by his Egyptian master, to whom Gen., xxxvii, 36, gives the name of Putiphar ["He whom Ra (the sun-god) gave"] and whom it describes as Pharaoh's eunuch and as the captain of the royal body-guard (cf. 39:1). Quick and trustworthy, Joseph soon became his master's personal attendant. He was next entrusted with the superintendence of his master's house, a most extensive and responsible charge, such as was unusual in large Egyptian households. With Yahweh's blessing, all things, "both at home and in the field," became so prosperous under Joseph's management that his master trusted him implicitly, and "knew not any other things, save the bread which he ate."

While thus discharging with perfect success his manifold duties of major-domo (Egyp. mer-per), Joseph was often brought in contact with the lady of the house, for at that time there was as much free intercourse between men and women in Egypt as there is among us in the present day. Oftentimes she noticed the youthful and handsome Hebrew overseer, and carried away by passion, she repeatedly tempted him to commit adultery with her, till at length, resenting his virtuous conduct, she accused him of those very criminal solicitations wherewith she had herself pursued him. The credulous master believed the report of his wife, and in his wrath cast Joseph into prison. There also Yahweh was with His faithful servant: He gave him favor with the keeper of the prison, who soon placed in Joseph implicit confidence, and even committed to his charge the other prisoners (39:2-23).

Shortly afterwards two of Pharaoh's officers, the chief butler and chief baker, having incurred the royal displeasure for some reason unknown to us, were put in ward in the house of the captain of the guard. They also were placed under Joseph's charge, and as he came in to them one morning, he noticed their unusual sadness. They could not catch the meaning of a dream which each had had during the night, and there was no professional interpreter of dreams near at hand. Then it was that Joseph interpreted their dreams correctly, bidding the chief butler to remember him when restored to his office, as indeed he was three days after, on Pharaoh's birthday (11).

Two years rolled by, after which the monarch himself had two dreams, the one of the fat and lean kine, and the other of the full and withered ears. Great was Pharaoh's perplexity at these dreams, which no one in the realm could interpret. This occurrence naturally reminded the chief butler of Joseph's skill in interpreting dreams, and he mentioned to the king what had happened in his own case and in that of the chief baker. Summoned before Pharaoh, Joseph declared that both dreams signified that seven years of plenty would immediately be followed by seven years of famine, and further suggested that one-fifth of he produce of the years of plenty be laid by as provision for the years of famine.

Deeply impressed by the clear and plausible interpretation of his dreams, and recognizing in Joseph a wisdom more than human, the monarch entrusted to him the carrying out of the practical measure which he had suggested. For this purpose, he raised Joseph to the rank of keeper of the royal seal. This invested him with an authority second only to that of the throne. Pharaoh bestowed on him the Egyptian name of Zaphenath-paneah ("God spoke, and he came into life"), and gave him to wife Aseneth, the daughter of Putiphares, the priest of the great national sanctuary at On (or Heliopolis, seven miles north east of the modern Cairo).

Soon the seven years of plenty predicted by Joseph set in, during which he stored up corn in each of the cities from which it was gathered, and his wife, Aseneth, bore him two sons whom he called Manasses and Ephraim, from the favorable circumstances of the time of their birth. Next came the seven years of dearth, during which by his skilful management Joseph saved Egypt from the worst features of want and hunger, and not only Egypt, but also the various countries around, which had to suffer from the same grievous and protracted famine (41). Among these neighboring countries was counted the land of Chanaan where Jacob had continued to dwell with Joseph's eleven brothers.

Having heard that corn was sold in Egypt, the aged patriarch sent his sons thither to purchase some, keeping back, however, Rachel's second child, Benjamin, "lest perhaps he take harm in the journey." Admitted into Joseph's presence, his brothers failed to recognize in the Egyptian grandee before them the lad whom they had so cruelly treated twenty years before. He roughly accused them of being spies sent to discover the undefended passes of the eastern frontier of Egypt, and when they volunteered information about their family, he, desirous of ascertaining the truth concerning Benjamin, retained one of them as hostage in prison and sent the others home to bring back their youngest brother with them.

On their return to their father, or at their first lodging-place on the way, the brothers discovered the money that Joseph had ordered to be placed in their sacks. Great was their anxiety and that of Jacob, who for a time refused to allow his sons to return to Egypt in company with Benjamin. At length he yielded under the pressure of famine, sending, at the same time, a present to conciliate the favor of the Egyptian prime minister.

At the sight of Benjamin Joseph understood that his brothers had told him the truth at their first appearance before him, and he invited them to a feast in his own house. At the feast he caused them to be seated exactly according to their age, and he honored Benjamin with "a greater mess," as a mark of distinction (42-43). Then they left for home, unsuspecting that at Joseph's order his divining cup had been hidden in Benjamin's sack. They were soon overtaken, charged with theft of that precious cup, which, upon search, was found in the sack where it had been hidden. In their dismay, they returned in a body to Joseph's house, and offered to remain as his bondmen in Egypt, an offer that Joseph declined, declaring that he would only retain Benjamin. Whereupon Juda pleads most pathetically that, for the sake of his aged father, Benjamin be dismissed free, and that he be allowed to remain in his brother's place as Joseph's bondman. Then it was that Joseph disclosed himself to his brothers, calmed their fears, and sent them back with a pressing invitation to Jacob to come and settle in Egypt (44-45:24).

It was in the land of Gessen, a pastoral district about forty miles north-east of Cairo, that Joseph called his father and brothers to settle. There they lived as prosperous shepherds of the king, while in their misery the Egyptians were gradually reduced to sell their lands to the Crown, in order to secure their subsistence from the all-powerful prime minister of Pharaoh. And so Joseph brought it to pass that the former owners of landed property — with the exception, however, of the priests — became simple tenants of the king. These tenants paid to the royal treasury, as it were, an annual rent of one-fifth of the produce of the soil (46:28-47:26).

During Jacob's last moments, Joseph promised his father that he would bury him in Chanaan, and caused him to adopt his two sons, Manasses and Ephraim (47:25-48:). After his father's demise, he had his body embalmed and buried with great pomp in the Cave of Machpelah (1:1-14). He also allayed the fears of his brothers who dreaded that he should now avenge their former ill treatment of him. He died at the age of 110, and his body was embalmed and put in a coffin in Egypt (1:15-25). Ultimately, his remains were carried into Chanaan and buried in Sichem (Exod. 13:19; Josue 24:32).

Such, in substance, is the Biblical account of Joseph's career. In its wonderful simplicity, it sketches one of the most beautiful characters presented by Old-Testament history. As a boy, Joseph has the most vivid horror for the evil done by some of his brothers; and as a youth, he resists with unflinching courage the repeated and pressing solicitations of his master's wife. Cast into prison, he displays great power of endurance, trusting to God for his justification. When raised to the rank of viceroy of Egypt, he shows himself worthy of that exalted dignity by his skilful and energetic efforts to promote the welfare of his adopted countrymen and the extension of his master's power.

A character so beautiful made Joseph a most worthy type of Christ, the model of all perfection, and it is comparatively easy to point out some of the traits of resemblance between Jacob's beloved son and the dearly beloved Son of God. Like Jesus, Joseph was hated and cast out by his brethren, and yet wrought out their salvation through the sufferings they had brought upon him. Like Jesus, Joseph obtained his exaltation only after passing through the deepest and most undeserved humiliations; and, in the kingdom over which he ruled, he invited his brethren to join those whom heretofore they had looked upon as strangers, in order that they also might enjoy the blessings which he had stored up for them. Like the Savior of the world, Joseph had but words of forgiveness and blessing for all who, recognizing their misery, had recourse to his supreme power. It was to Joseph of old, as to Jesus, that all had to appeal for relief, offer homages of the deepest respect, and yield ready obedience in all things. Finally, to the Patriarch Joseph, as to Jesus, it was given to inaugurate a new order of things for the greater power and glory of the monarch to whom he owed his exaltation.

While thus recognizing the typical meaning of Joseph's career, one should not for a moment lose sight of the fact that one is in presence of a distinctly historical character. Efforts have indeed been made in certain quarters to transform the history of Joseph into a story of a tribe of the same name which, at some remote period, would have attained to great power in Egypt, and which, at a much later date, popular imagination would have simply pictured as an individual. But such a view of the Biblical account is decidedly inadmissible. To careful scholars it will always appear more difficult to think of Joseph as a tribe that rose to power in Egypt than as an individual who actually passed through the experiences which are described in Genesis. Again, they will always look upon the incidents narrated in the sacred record as too natural, and too closely related, to be entirely the product of fiction.

The same historical character of the Biblical narrative is powerfully confirmed by the substantial agreement which contemporary critics feel bound to admit between the two principal documents (J, E), which, according to them, have been used in its composition. Such an agreement points manifestly to an earlier oral tradition, which, when committed to writing in two distinct forms, was not materially affected by the altered circumstances of a later age. Finally, theEgyptian coloring comon to both these documents removes all possibility of doubt. This Egyptian element is no mere literary dress with which the poplar fancy of a later date and in a distant land could have vested more or less happily the incidents narrated. It belongs to the very core of the history of Joseph, and is plainly a direct reflection of the manners and customs of ancient Egypt. Its constant truthfulness to things Egyptian proves the existence of an ancient tradition, dating as far back as the Egyptian period, and faithfully preserved in the composite account of Genesis.

Scholars have closely investigated the extent of the Egyptian coloring just referred to in the history of Joseph, finding evidence in Egyptian customs and history for the element in the description of his life. The brown-skinned children of Israel, who brought camels richly laden from the East to the Nile, are drawn to life on the Egyptian monuments, and the three kinds of spices they were carrying into Egypt are precisely those which would be in demand in that country for medicinal, religious, or embalming purposes. The existence of various overseers in the houses of Egyptian grandees is in perfect harmony with ancient Egyptian society, and the mer-per or superintendent of the house, such as Joseph was, is in particular often mentioned on the monuments.

To the story of Joseph and his master's wife, there is a remarkable and well-known parallel in the Egyptian "Tale of the Two Brothers." The functions and dreams of the chief butler and chief baker are Egyptian in their minute details. In the seven cows which Pharaoh saw feeding in the meadow, we have a counterpart of the seven cows of Athor, pictured in the vignette of chapter cxlviii of the "Book of the Dead." Joseph's care to shave and change his raiment before appearing in the presence of Pharaoh is in agreement with Egyptian customs. His advice to gather corn during the seven years of plenty falls in with Egyptian institutions, since all the important cities had granaries. References to Egyptian monuments easily illustrate Joseph's investiture and his change of name at his elevation. The occurrence of famines of long duration, the successful efforts made to supply the corn to the people year after year while they lasted, find their parallels in inscriptions found by archeologists. The charge of being spies, made by Joseph against his brothers, was most natural in view of the precautions that the Egyptian authorities were known to have taken for the safety of their Eastern frontier.

The subsequent history of Joseph exhibits in a striking manner the great accuracy of the Biblical account in its numerous and oftentimes passing references to Egyptian habits and customs. These details appear in descriptions of his divining cup, his giving to his brothers changes of garments, the land of Gessen being set apart for his father and brethren, because the shepherd was an abomination to the Egyptians, Joseph's embalming of his father, the funeral procession for Jacob's burial, etc. Even the age of 110 years, at which Joseph died, appears to have been regarded in Egypt — as is shown by several papyri — as the most perfect age to be desired.

After the death of Joseph, Israel had grown into a people, and its history deals no longer with mere genealogies, but with the people's national and religious development. The various laws are given and promulgated as occasion required them; hence they are intimately connected with the history of the people, and the Pentateuchal books in which they are recorded are rightly numbered among the historical books of Scripture. Only the third book of the Pentateuch exhibits rather the features of a legal code. The Book of Exodus consists of a brief introduction and three main parts:

Introduction 1:1-7. A brief summary of the history of Jacob connects Genesis with Exodus, and serves at the same time as transition from the former to the latter.

(1) First Part 1:8-13:16. It treats of the events preceding and preparing the exit of Israel from Egypt.

(2) Second Part 13:17-18:27. Journey of Israel to Mt. Sinai and miracles preparing the people for the Sinaitic Law.

(3) Third Part 19:1-40:38. Conclusion of the Sinaitic covenant and its renewal. Here Exodus assumes more the character of a legal code.

Jews of all classes and ways of thinking look forward to the Passover holidays with the same eagerness as Christians do to Christmastide. It is for them the great event of the year. With the exception of the Temple sacrifices, their manner of observing it differs but little from that which obtained in the time of Christ. Directions for keeping the feast were carefully laid down in the Law, and carried out with great exactness after the Exile.

The feast of the Passover begins on the fourteenth day of Nisan (a lunar month which roughly corresponds with the latter part of March and the first part of April) and ends with the twenty-first. The Jews now, as in ancient times, make elaborate preparations for the festival. Every house is subjected to a thorough Spring cleaning.

The Saturday preceding the day of the Pasch (fifteenth) is called a "Great Sabbath," because it is supposed that the tenth day of the month Abib (or Nisan) — when the Israelites were to select the Paschal lambs, before their deliverance from Egypt — fell on a Sabbath. On this Sabbath, the day of the following week on which the Passover is to fall is solemnly announced.

Some days before the feast, culinary and other utensils to be used during the festival are carefully and legally purified from all contact with leaven, or leavened bread. They are then said to be kosher. Special sets of cooking and table utensils are often kept in every household.

On the evening of the thirteenth, after dark, the head of the house makes the "search for leaven" according to the manner indicated in the Mishna (Tractate Pesachim, I), which is probably the custom followed by the Jews for at least two thousand years. The search is made by means of a lighted wax candle. A piece of ordinary, or leavened, bread is left in some conspicuous place, generally on a window-sill. The search begins by a prayer containing a reference to the command to put away all leaven during the feast. The place of the piece of bread just mentioned is first marked to indicate the beginning of the search. The whole house is then carefully examined, and all fragments of leaven are carefully collected on a large spoon or scoop by means of a brush or bundle of quills. The search is ended when all come back to the piece of bread with which it began. This also is collected on the scoop. The latter, with its contents, and the brush are then carefully tied up in a bundle and suspended over a lamp to prevent mice from scattering leaven during the night and necessitating a fresh search. The master of the house then proclaims in Aramaic that all the leaven that is in his house, of which he is unaware, is to him no more than dust.

During the forenoon of the next day (fourteenth) all the leaven that remains is burnt, and a similar declaration is made. From this time till the evening of the 22nd, when the feast ends, only unleavened bread is allowed. The legal time when the use of leavened bread was prohibited was understood to be the noon on the fourteenth Nisan; but the rabbis, in order to run no risks, and to place a hedge around the Law, anticipated this by one or two hours.

On this day, the fourteenth, the first-born son of each family, if he be above thirteen, fasts in memory of the deliverance of the first-born of the Israelites, when the destroying angel passed over Egypt. On the evening of the fourteenth, the male members of the family, attired in their best, attend special services in the synagogue.

On their return home they find the house lit up and the Seder, or Paschal Table, prepared. The head of the family takes his place at the head of the table, where there is an arm-chair prepared for him with cushions or pillows. A similar chair is also ready for the mistress of the house. Ashkenaziac Jews call the meal Seder, while Sephardic Jews call it Haggadah (because of the story of the deliverance recited during it). All the members of the Jewish family, including servants, sit round the table.

In front of the head of the family is the Seder-dish, which is of such a kind as to allow three unleavened cakes or matzoth, each wrapped in a napkin, to be placed on it one above the other. A shank bone of lamb (with a small portion of meat attached), which has been roasted on the coals, is placed, together with an egg that has been roasted in hot ashes, on another dish above the three unleavened cakes. The roasted shank represents the Paschal lamb, and the roasted egg the chagigah, or free will offerings, made daily in the Temple. Bitter herbs, such as parsley and horseradish, a kind of sop called charoseth, consisting of various fruits pounded into a mucilage and mixed with vinegar, and salt water, are arranged in different vessels, sometimes disposed like candelabra above the leavened bread. The table is also furnished with wine, and cups or glasses for each person, an extra cup always being left for the prophet Elias, whom they expect as the precursor of the Messiah.

When all are seated around the table the first cup of wine is poured out for each. The head of the house rises and thanks God for the fruits of the vine and for the great day which they are about to celebrate. He then sits down and drinks his cup of wine in a reclining posture, leaning on his left arm. The others drink at the same time. In the time of the Temple, the poorest Jew was to drink four cups of wine during this joyful meal; and if he happened to be too poor, it was to be supplied out of public funds. Though four cups are prescribed, the quantity is not restricted to that amount. Some water is generally added to the wine. In early days, red wine was used; but on account of the fear of fostering the groundless blood accusations against Jews, this usage was discontinued. Unfermented raisin wine or Palestinian wine is now generally used.

After drinking the first cup, the master rises and washes his hands. The others remain seated. Eldersheim is of the opinion that it was at this point of the supper that Christ washed the disciples feet. After washing his hands, the head of the family sits down, takes a small quantity of bitter herbs, dips them in salt water, and eats them, reclining on his left elbow. Jewish interpreters say that only the first Passover was to be eaten standing, and with circumstances of haste. During the Passovers commemorative of the first they reclined "like a king [or free man] at his ease, and not as slaves" — in this probably following the example of the independent Romans with whom they came into contact. After the head of the family has eaten his portion of bitter herbs, he takes similar portions, dips them in salt water, and hands them round to be eaten by the others.

He then takes out the middle unleavened cake, breaks it in two, and hides away one-half under a pillow or cushion, to be distributed and eaten after supper. If this practice existed in the time of Christ, it is not improbable that it was from this portion, called afikoman, that the Eucharist was instituted. As soon as this portion is laid aside, the other half is replaced, the dish containing the unleavened cakes is uncovered, and all, standing up, take hold of the dish and solemnly lift it up, chanting slowly in Aramaic: "This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in Egypt. This year here, next year in Jerusalem. This year slaves, next year free."

The dish is then replaced and the shank bone, roasted egg, etc. restored to their places above it. All sit down, and the youngest son asks why this night above all other nights they eat bitter herbs, unleavened bread, and in a reclining posture. The head of the house then tells how their fathers were idolaters when God chose Abraham, how they were slaves in Egypt, how God delivered them, etc. They praise and bless God for His wondrous mercies to their nation. This first part of the ceremony is brought to a close by their breaking forth with the recitation of the first part of the Hallel (Psalms 112 and 114) and drinking the second cup of wine, which is triumphantly held aloft and called the cup of the Haggadah, or story of deliverance.

The ceremony so far has been only introductory. The meal proper now begins. First all wash their hands; the president then recites a blessing over the unleavened cakes, and, after having dipped small fragments of them in salt water, he eats them reclining. He next distributes pieces to the others. He also takes some bitter herbs, dips them in the charoseth, and gives them to the others to be eaten. He next makes a kind of sandwich by putting a portion of horse-radish between two pieces of unleavened bread and hands it around, saying that it is in memory of the Temple and of Hillel, who used to wrap together pieces of the paschal lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbs, and eat them, in fulfilment of the command of Exodus 12:8.

The supper proper is now served, and consists of many courses of dishes loved by Jews, such as soup, fish, etc., prepared in curious ways unknown to Gentiles. At the end of the meal, some of the children snatch the afikoman that has been hidden away, and it has to be redeemed by presents — a custom probably arising from a mistranslation of the Talmud. It is then divided between all present and eaten. Oesterly and Box think that this is a survival from an earlier time when a part of the paschal lamb was kept to the end and distributed, to be the last thing eaten.

When the afikoman is eaten, the third cup is filled; and grace after meals is said, and the third cup drunk in a reclining posture. A cup of wine is now poured out for the prophet Elias, in a dead silence which is maintained for some time, and the door is opened. Imprecations against unbelievers, taken from the Psalms and Lamentations, are then recited. These were introduced only during the Middle Ages.

After this, the fourth cup is filled and the great Hallel (Psalms 115-118) and a prayer of praise are recited. Before drinking the fourth cup, the Jews of some countries recite five poetical pieces and then the fourth cup is drunk. At the end a prayer asking God to accept what they have done is added. Among the German and Polish Jews, popular songs follow this prayer.

The same ceremonies are observed the next evening. According to the Law, the fifteenth and twenty-first were to be kept as solemn festivals and days of rest. At present the fifteenth and sixteenth, the twenty-first and twenty-second are whole holidays, a custom introduced among the Jews of the Dispersion to make sure that they fulfilled the precepts of the Law on the proper day. The other days are half-holidays. Special services are held in the synagogues throughout the Passover week. Formerly the date of the Pasch was fixed by actual observations. It is now deduced from astronomical calculations.

Leviticus, called by Rabbinic writers "Law of the Priests" or "Law of the Sacrifices," contains nearly a complete collection of laws concerning the Levitical ministry. They are not codified in any logical order, but still we may discern certain groups of regulations touching the same subject. The Book of Exodus shows what God had done and was doing for His people; the Book of Leviticus prescribes what the people must do for God, and how they must render themselves worthy of His constant presence.

(1) First Part 1:1-10:20. Duties of Israel toward God living in their midst.

(2) Second Part 11:1-27:34. Legal cleanness demanded by the Divine presence.

(Latin tabernaculum, tent).

Tabernacle in Biblical parlance usually designates the movable tent-like sanctuary of the Hebrews before the erection of Solomon's Temple. There are various expressions in the Hebrew text in reference to the Tabernacle ('ohel, tent; 'ohel mo'ed, tent of meeting; 'ohel ha-'eduth, tent of the testimony; mishkan, dwelling; mishkan ha- 'eduth, dwelling of the testimony; mishkan 'ohel, dwelling of the tent; beth Yahweh, house of Yahweh; qodesh, holy; miqdash, sanctuary; hekal, temple). While these enable us to form a fair idea of this construction, they raise, by the seeming consistency of the passages in which they severally occur, many problems with which all modern commentators of the Scriptures have to grapple. Thus, Exodus describes the ark as sheltered in a tent (33:7; Hebr. 'ohel mo'ed), whose position was "without the camp afar off" (Cf. Num. 11:16 sqq.; 24-30; 12; Deut. 31:14 sqq.), guarded by "Josue the son of Nun" (11), and at the door of which Yahweh was wont to manifest himself to Moses (9-11; cf. Num. 12:5; Deut. 31:15).

Independent critics urge that this "tent of tryst" (or better, perhaps, "tent of the oracle") was not identical with the tabernacle. They cite the fact that this 'ohel mo'ed was in existence before Beseleel and Ooliab commenced the construction of the Tabernacle (Ex. 35-36) and that the customary place of the latter was in the very midst of the encampment (Num. 2:1 sqq.; 10:15 sqq.). Much stress is laid upon this and other seeming discrepancies to conclude that the description of the tabernacle found in Ex., xxv-xxxi, xxxix-xl, is the work of post-exilian authors of the Priestly Code.

Assuming, however, the historical accuracy of the Biblical narratives, we shall limit ourselves here to a brief description of that "portable sanctuary" of the Hebrews. In this sanctuary, we should distinguish the tent or tabernacle proper from the sacred enclosure in which the tent stood. The "court of the tabernacle" (Ex. 27:9) was a rectangular space, measuring 100 by 50 cubits (probably the Egyptian cubit, 203/4 ins.). It was screened off by curtains of "fine twisted linen" (27:9), 5 cubits high, 100 cubits long on the north and south sides, 50 on the east and 15 on the west, and 20 cubits on either side of the entrance. The entrance was closed by a hanging of fine twisted linen, embroidered in violet, purple, and scarlet and "twice dyed" on a white ground (probable meaning of Ex. 27: 16). All these curtains were suspended from sixty pillars, but not in a "loose and flowing manner," as Josephus wrongly states, since the total length of the curtains is exactly the same as the perimeter of the court, one pillar being assigned to every five cubits of curtain.

These pillars of setimwood, five cubits high, stood on bases ("sockets," Ex. 39:39) of brass, and were held in position by means of cords (ibid. 39:40) fastened to brass pegs ("pins," ibid. 35:18). The pegs were stuck in the ground. The pillars ended in a capital ("head," Exod. 39:17, etc. We must believe that the height given above includes both the base and capital of the pillar) with a band or necking (to hang the curtain) overlaid with silver. East of the entrance were found successively: the altar of holocausts (Ex. 27: 1-8, etc.), the brazen layer (30:18-21; 38:8, etc.), and the tabernacle proper. The latter was conceived to be the dwelling-tent of God; hence, it consisted essentially of curtains, the wooden framework, though indispensable, being only of secondary importance. The whole structure measured 30 by 10 cubits, and was divided into two sections; the one to the west, the "Holy Place," containing the altar of incense, the golden candlestick, and the table of shewbreads; and the other, the "Holy of Holies," containing the Ark of the Covenant with the propitiatory and the cherubim. These sections were respectively 20 and 10 cubits long.

Jewish exegetical tradition, followed by almost every Christian exponent of the Bible, understood the wooden framework to consist of 48 massive boards (rather beams) of setim wood, measuring 10 by 11/2 by 1 cubit, placed side by side. This means a weight (about fifty tons) out of proportion with what these beams would have to bear, and very difficult to transport. Some scholars, having studied more closely the technical terms used in the original adopt another view. According to them, the "boards" of the tabernacle must be understood as light frames consisting of two uprights joined (probably at the top, middle, and bottom) by ties or cross-rails (the "mortises" in Ex. 26:17). Of these frames, overlaid with gold (26:29), there were 20 on the north side of the tabernacle, 20 on the south, and 6 on the east.

To provide solidity and rigidity, a slanting frame was put at the north-east and south-east corners to buttress the structure (26:23); the lower part of the uprights was sunk deep into silver sockets or bases, probably to be understood as square blocks (about 1 cubit high and 3/4 cubit square). Finally, five wooden bars, passing through rings attached to the frames, ran along the sides (26:26-28). On the west, the frames were to be replaced by five pillars of setimwood overlaid with gold, sunk in brass bases, and crowned with golden capitals (26:37). Four pillars of the same workmanship, with silver bases, separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies.

A curtain, two pieces of fine tapestry joined by golden rings, was spread over the whole framework; each piece of tapestry consisted of five strips, 28 by 4 cubits, fitted together by loops. The total dimension of this being 20 by 40 cubits, it must have reached on the north and south the top of the bases, against which it was possibly fixed (there were loops at the top of the curtains likely for this purpose), whereas on the east it reached to the ground. Covering this curtain was another woven of goats' hair (the ordinary tent material), fitted in somewhat similarly. Its dimensions, 11 (6+5) x 4 =44 by 30 cubits, were so calculated as to cover entirely the inside curtain on the north, east, and south sides and to hang down doubled on the west side, thus covering the tops and capitals of the pillars (Ex. 26:7-13). Two outer coverings (no dimensions are given), one of dyed rams' skin and one of dugongs' skins, protected the whole structure. A hanging of apparently the same workmanship as that closing the entrance of the court, screened the entrance of the tabernacle (ibid., 36); finally, a veil of the same tapestry as the inner curtain, hooked from the four pillars mentioned above, completed the separation of the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place.

Delayed by the people's outburst of idolatrous worship pending the long conversation of Moses with God on Mount Sinai, the construction was achieved by the skilful workmen selected by God, and was dedicated on the first day of the second year after the flight from Egypt. Henceforth the tabernacle, under the special care of the Levites of the family of Gerson, accompanied the Israelites through their wanderings in the wilderness. During marches, it came after the first six tribes and before the other six (Num. 2:3-34). In encampments, it occupied the middle of the camp, three tribes being on each side. After the crossing of the Jordan, it remained very likely at Galgala until its removal to Silo (Jos. 18:1), where it remained many years. In Saul's time, we hear of the tabernacle at Nobe (I Kings 21:1-6), and later at Gabaon (I Par. 16:39), until Solomon had it removed to his new Temple (III Kings 8:4; II Par. 5:5). It disappeared in the first years of the sixth century B.C., being either taken away by the Babylonian army in 588, or, if credence be given the letter prefacing II Mach., hidden by Jeremias in an unknown and secure place.

In the age of the Patriarchs, the offering of sacrifices was the function of the father or head of the family (cf. Gen. 8:20; 12:7, etc.; Job 1:5). But even before Moses, there were also regular priests, who were not fathers of family (cf. Ex. 19:22 sqq.). In the Mosaic priesthood we must distinguish: priests, Levites, and high-priest.

It was only after the Sinaitical legislation that the Israelitic priesthood became a special class in the community. From the tribe of Levi Jahweh chose the house of Aaron to discharge permanently and exclusively all the religious functions. Aaron himself and later the first-born of his family was to stand at the head of this priesthood as high-priest, while the other Levites were to act, not as priests, but as assistants and servants.

The solemn consecration of the Aaronites to the priesthood took place at the same time as the anointing of Aaron as high-priest and with almost the same ceremonial (Ex. 29:1-37; 40:12 sqq.; Lev. 8:1-36). This single consecration included that of all the future descendants of the priests, so that the priesthood was fixed in the house of Aaron by mere descent, and was thus hereditary. After the Babylonian Exile, strict genealogical proof of priestly descent was even more rigidly demanded, and any failure to furnish the same meant exclusion from the priesthood (I Esd. 2:61 sq.; II Esd. 7:63 sq.). Certain bodily defects, of which the later Talmudists mention 142, were also a disqualification from the exercise of the priestly office (Lev. 21:17 sqq.). Age limits (twenty and fifty years) were also appointed (II Par. 31:17). The priests were forbidden to take to wife a harlot or a divorced woman (Lev. 21:7). During the active discharge of the priesthood, marital intercourse was forbidden.

In addition to an unblemished earlier life, Levitical cleanness was also indispensable for the priesthood. Whoever performed a priestly function in Levitical uncleanness was to be expelled like one who entered the sanctuary after partaking of wine or other intoxicating drinks (Lev. 10:9; 22:3). To incur an uncleanness "at the death of his citizens," except in the case of immediate kin, was rigidly forbidden (Lev. 21:1 sqq.). In cases of mourning, no outward signs of sorrow might be shown (e.g. by rending the garments). On entering into their office, the priests had first to take a bath of purification (Ex. 29:4; 40:12), be sprinkled with oil (Ex. 29:21; Lev. 8:30), and put on the vestments.

The priestly vestments consisted of breeches, tunic, girdle, and mitre. The breeches (feminalia linea) covered from the reins to the thighs (Ex. 28:42). The tunic (tunica) was a kind of coat, woven in a special manner from one piece; it had narrow sleeves, extended from the throat to the ankles, and was brought together at the throat with bands (Ex. 28:4). The girdle (balteus) was three or four fingers in breadth and (according to rabbinic tradition) thirty-two ells long; it had to be embroidered after the same pattern and to be of the same colour as the curtain of the forecourt and the tabernacle of the covenant (Ex. 39:38). The official vestments were completed by the mitre (Ex. 39:26), a species of cap of fine linen. As nothing is said of foot-covering, the priests must have performed the services barefooted as Jewish tradition indeed declares (cf. Ex. 3:5). These vestments were prescribed for use only during the services; at other times, they were kept in an appointed place in charge of a special custodian. For detailed information concerning the priestly vestments, see Josephus, "Antiq." III 7:1 sqq.

The official duties of the priests related partly to their main occupations, and partly to subsidiary services. To the former category belonged all functions connected with the public worship, e.g. the offering of incense twice daily (Ex. 30:7), the weekly renewal of the loaves of proposition on the golden table (Lev. 24:9), the cleaning and filling of the oil-lamps on the golden candlestick (Lev. 24:1). All these services were performed in the sanctuary.

There were in addition certain functions to be performed in the outer court — the maintenance of the sacred fire on the altar for burnt sacrifices (Lev. 6:9 sqq.), the daily offering of the morning and evening sacrifices, especially of the lambs (Ex. 29:38 sqq.). As subsidiary services the priests had to present the cursed water to wives suspected of adultery (Num. 5:12 sqq.), sound the trumpets announcing the holy-days (Num. 10:1 sqq.), declare the lepers clean or unclean (Lev. 13-14; Deut. 24:8; cf. Matt. 8:4), and dispense from vows. They had to appraise all objects vowed to the sanctuary (Lev. 27:), and finally offer sacrifice for those who broke the law of the Nazarites, i.e. a vow to avoid all intoxicating drinks and every uncleanness (especially from contact with a corpse) and to let one's hair grow long (Num. 6:1-21).

The priests furthermore were teachers and judges. Not only were they to explain the law to the people (Lev. 10:11; Deut. 33:10) without remuneration (Mich. 3:11) and to preserve carefully the Book of the Law, of which a copy was to be presented to the (future) king (Deut. 17:18), but they had also to settle difficult lawsuits among the people (Deut. 17:8; 19:17; 21:5). In view of the complex nature of the liturgical service, David later divided the priesthood into twenty-four classes or courses, of which each in turn, with its eldest member at its head, had to perform the service from one Sabbath to the next (IV Kings 11:9; cf. Luke 1:8). The order of the classes was determined by lot (I Par. 24:7 sqq.).

The income of the priests came from the tithes and the firstlings of fruits and animals. To these were added as accidentals the remains of the food, and guilt-oblations, which were not entirely consumed by fire; also the hides of the animals sacrificed and the natural products and money vowed to God (Lev. 27; Num. 8:14). With all these perquisites, the Jewish priests seem never to have been a wealthy class, owing partly to the increase in their numbers and partly to the large families which they reared. But their exalted office, their superior education, and their social position secured them great prestige among the people. In general, they fulfilled their high position worthily, even though they frequently merited the stern reproof of the Prophets (cf. Jer. 5:31; Ezech. 22:26; Os. 6:9; Mich. 3:11; Mal. 1:7). With the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in A.D. 70 the entire sacrificial service and with it the Jewish priesthood ceased. The later rabbis never represent themselves as priests, but merely as teachers of the law.

As was said above, the real priesthood was hereditary in the house of Aaron alone. The other descendants of Levi held a subordinate position as servants and assistants of the priests. The latter are the Levites in the narrow sense. They were divided into the families of the Gersonites, Caathites, and Merarites (Ex. 6:16; Num. 26: 57), so named after Levi's three sons, Gerson, Caath, and Merari (cf. Gen. 46:11; I Par. 6:1). As simple servants of the priests, the Levites might not enter the sanctuary, nor perform the real sacrificial act, especially the sprinkling of the blood (aspersio sanguinis). This was the privilege of the priests (Num. 18:3, 19 sqq.; 18:6). The Levites had, however, to assist the latter during the sacred services, to prepare the different oblations and to keep the sacred vessels in proper condition.

Among their chief duties was the constant guarding of the tabernacle with the Ark of the Covenant. the Gersonites were encamped towards the west, the Caathites towards the south, the Merarites towards the north, while Moses and Aaron with their sons guarded the holy tabernacle towards the east (Num. 3:23 sqq.). When the tabernacle had found a fixed home in Jerusalem, David created four classes of Levites: servants of the priests, officials and judges, porters, and finally musicians and singers (I Par. 23:3 sqq.). After the building of the Temple by Solomon, the Levites naturally became its guardians (I Par. 26: 12 sqq.). When the Temple was rebuilt, Levites were established as guards in twenty-one places around (Talmud; Middoth, I, i). In common with the priests, the Levites were also bound to instruct the people in the Law (II Par. 17:8; II Esd. 8:7), and they even possessed at times certain judicial powers (II Par. 19:11).

They were initiated into office by a rite of consecration: sprinkling with the water of purification, shaving of the hair, washing of the garments, offering of sacrifices, imposition of the hands of the eldest (Num. 8:5 sqq.). As to the age of service, thirty years was fixed for the time of entrance and fifty for retirement from office (Num. 4:3; I Par. 23:24; I Esd. 3:8). The Law prescribed no special vestments for them; in the time of David and Solomon, the bearers of the Ark of the Covenant and the singers wore garments of fine linen (I Par. 15:27; II Par. 5:12).

At the division of the Promised Land among the Twelve Tribes, the tribe of Levi was left without territory, since the Lord Himself was to be their portion and inheritance (cf. Num. 18:20; Deut. 12:12; Jos. 13:14). In compensation, Jahweh ceded to the Levites and priests the gifts of natural products made by the people, and other revenues. The Levites first received the tithes of fruits and beasts of the field (Lev. 27: 30 sqq.; Num. 18:20 sq.), of which they had in turn to deliver the tenth part to the priests (Num. 18:26 sqq.). In addition, they had a share in the sacrificial banquets (Deut. 12:18) and were, like the priests, exempt from taxes and military service.

The question of residence was settled by ordering the tribes endowed with landed property to cede to the Levites forty-eight Levite towns, scattered over the land, with their precincts (Num. 35:1 sqq.); of these, thirteen were assigned to the priests. After the division of the monarchy into the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Juda, many Levites from the northern portion removed to the Kingdom of Juda, which remained true to the Law, and took up their abode in Jerusalem. After the Northern Kingdom had been chastised by the Assyrian deportation in 722 B.C., the Babylonians also overthrew the Southern Kingdom in 606 B.C., and numbers of the Jews, including many Levites, were hurried away into the "Babylonian exile." Only a few Levites returned to their old home under Esdras in 450 (cf. I Esd. 2:40 sqq.). With the destruction of the Herodian Temple in A.D. 70, the doom of the Levites was sealed.

At Jahweh's command Moses consecrated his brother Aaron first high-priest, repeated the consecration on seven days, and on the eighth day solemnly introduced him into the tabernacle of the covenant. The consecration of Aaron consisted in washings, investment with costly vestments, anointing with holy oil, and the offerings of various sacrifices (Ex. 29:). As a sign that Aaron was endowed with the fullness of the priesthood, Moses poured over his head the oil of anointing (Lev. 8:12), while the other Aaronites, as simple priests, had only their hands anointed (Ex. 29:7, 29). The high-priest was for the Jews the highest embodiment of theocracy, the monarch of the whole priesthood, the special mediator between God and the People of the Covenant, and the spiritual head of the synagogue. He was the priest par excellence, the "great priest" (Greek, archiereus), the "prince among the priests," and, because of the anointing of his head, the "anointed priest."

To this exalted office corresponded his special and costly vestments, worn in addition to those of the simple priests (Ex. 28). A (probably sleeveless) purple-blue upper garment (tunica) fell to his knees, the lower seam being ornamented alternately with small golden bells and pomegranates of coloured thread. About the shoulders he also wore a garment called the ephod; this was made of costly material, and consisted of two portions about an ell long, which covered the back and breast, were held together above by two shoulderbands or epaulets, and terminated below with a magnificent girdle. Attached to the ephod in front was the shield (rationale), a square bag bearing on the outside the names of the twelve tribes engraved on precious stones (Ex. 28:6), and containing within the celebrated Urim and Thummim (q.v.) as the means of obtaining Divine oracles and prophecies. A precious turban (tiara), which bore on a golden frontal plate the inscription: "Sacred to Jahweh," completed the vestments of the high-priest.

The high-priest had supreme supervision of the Ark of the Covenant (and of the Temple), of Divine service in general and of the whole personnel connected with public worship. He presided at the Sanhedrin. He alone could perform the liturgy on the Feast of Expiation, on which occasion he put on his costly vestments only after the sacrifices were completed. He alone might offer sacrifice for his own sins and those of the people (Lev. 4:5), enter the holy of holies (sanctum sanctorum), and seek counsel of Jahweh on important occasions. The office of high-priest in the house of Aaron was at first hereditary in the line of his first-born son Eleazar, but in the period from Heli to Abiathar (1131 to 973 B.C.) it belonged, by right of primogeniture, to the line of Ithamar. Under the rule of the Seleucidæ (from about 175 B.C.) the office was sold for money to the highest bidder. At a later period, it became hereditary in the family of the Hasmon. With the destruction of the central sanctuary by the Romans, the high-priesthood disappeared.

Without entering upon a detailed criticism of Wellhausen and the critical school, we may here remark in general that the conservative view can admit that additions, extensions, and adaptations to the original text by an inspired author of a later period are not excluded. It must also be admitted that, though one place of worship was appointed, sacrifices were offered even in early times by laymen and simple Levites away from the vicinity of the Ark of the Covenant, and that in restless and politically disturbed epochs the ordinance of Moses could not always be observed. In the gloomy periods marked by neglect of the Law, no attention was paid to the prohibition of hill-sacrifices, and the Prophets were often gratified to find that on the high places (bamoth) sacrifice was offered, not to pagan gods, but to Jahweh. However, the Pentateuch problem is one of the most difficult and intricate questions in Biblical criticism. The Wellhausen hypothesis with its bold assumptions of pious deceits and artificial projections is open to as great, if not greater, difficulties and mysteries as the traditional view, even though some of its contributions to literary criticism may stand examination. It cannot be denied that the critical structure has suffered a severe shock since the discovery of the Tell-el-Amarna letters dating from the fifteenth century B.C., and since the deciphering of the Hammurabi Code. The assumption that the oldest religion of Israel must have been identical with that of the primitive Semites (Polydæmonism, Animism, Fetishism, Ancestor-worship) has been proved false, since long before 2000 B.C. a kind of Henotheism, i.e., Polytheism with a monarchical head was the ruling religion in Babylon. The beginnings of the religions of all peoples are purer and more spiritual than many historians of religions have hitherto been willing to admit. One thing is certain: the final word has not yet been spoken as to the value of the Wellhausen hypothesis.

Numbers, at times called "In the Desert" by certain Rabbinic writers because it covers practically the whole time of Israel's wanderings in the desert. Their story began in Exodus, but the Sinaitic legislation interrupted it; Numbers takes up the account from the first month of the second year, and brings it down to the eleventh month of the fortieth year. But the period of 38 years is briefly treated, only its beginning and end being touched upon; for this span of time was occupied by the generation of Israelites that had been condemned by God.

(1) First Part 1:1-14:45. Summary of the happenings before the rejection of the rebellious generation, especially during the first two months of the second year. The writer inverts the chronological order of these two months, in order not to interrupt the account of the people's wanderings by a description of the census, of the arrangement of the tribes, of the duties of the various families of the Levites, all of which occurrences or ordinances belong to the second month. Thus he first states what remained unchanged throughout the desert life of the people, and then reverts to the account of the wanderings from the first month of the second year.

(a) 1:1-6:27. The census is taken, the tribes are arranged in their proper order, the duties of the Levites are defined, the regulations concerning cleanness are the camp are promulgated.

(b) 7:1-9:14. Occurrences belonging to the first month: offerings of the princes at the dedication of the tabernacle, consecration of the Levites and duration of their ministry, celebration of the second Pasch.

(c) 9:15-14:45. Signals for breaking up the camp; the people leave Sinai on the twenty-second day of the second month, and journey towards Cades in the desert Pharan; they murmur against Moses on account of fatigue, want of flesh-meat, etc.; deceived by faithless spies, they refuse to enter into the Promised Land, and the whole living generation is rejected by God.

(2) Second Part 15:1-19:22. Events pertaining to the rejected generation.

(a) 15:1-41. Certain laws concerning sacrifices; Sabbath-breaking is punished with death; the law of fringes on the garments.

(b) 16:1-17:13. The schism of Core and his adherents; their punishment; the priesthood is confirmed to Aaron by the blooming rod which is kept for a remembrance in the tabernacle.

(c) 18:1-19:22. The charges of the priests and Levites, and their portion; the law of the sacrifice of the red cow, and the water of expiation.

(3) Third Part 20:1-36:13. History of the journey from the first to the eleventh month of the fortieth year.

(a) 20:1-21:20. Death of Mary, sister of Moses; God again gives the murmuring people water from the rock, but refuses Moses and Aaron entrance to the Promised Land on account of their doubt; Aaron dies while the people go around the Idumean mountains; the malcontents are punished with fiery serpents.

(b) 21:21-25:18. The land of the Amorrhites is seized; the Moabites vainly attempt to destroy Israel by the curse of Balaam; the Madianites lead the people into idolatry.

(c) 26:1-27:23. A new census is taken with a view of dividing the land; the law of inheritance; Josue is appointed to succeed Moses.

(d) 28:1-30:17. Certain laws concerning sacrifices, vows, and feasts are repeated and completed.

(e) 31:1-32:40. After the defeat of the Madianites, the country across Jordan is given to the tribes of Ruben and Gad, and to half of the tribe of Manasses.

(f) 33: 1-40. List of encampments of people of Israel during their wandering in the desert.

(g) 33:50-36:13. Command to destroy the Chanaanites; limits of the Promised Land and names of the men who are to divide it; Levitical cities, and cities of refuge; law concerning murder and manslaughter; ordinance concerning the marriage of heiresses.

Deuteronomy is a partial repetition and explanation of the foregoing legislation together with an urgent exhortation to be faithful to it. The main body of the book consists of three discourses delivered by Moses to the people in the eleventh month of the fortieth year; but a short introduction precedes the discourses, and several appendices follow them.

Introduction 1:1-5. Brief indication of the subject matter, the time, and the place of the following discourses.

(1) First Discourse 1:6-4:40. God's benefits are enumerated, and the people are exhorted to keep the law.

(a) 1:6-3:29. The main occurrences during the time of the wandering in the desert are recalled as showing the goodness and justice of God.

(b) 4:1-40. Hence the covenant with God must be kept. By way of parenthesis, the sacred writer adds here (1) the appointment of three cities of refuge across the Jordan 4:41-43; (2) an historical preamble, preparing us for the second discourse 4:44-49.

(2) Second Discourse 5:1-26:19. This forms almost the bulk of Deuteronomy. It rehearses the whole economy of the covenant in two sections, the one general, the other particular.

(a) The General Repetition 5:1-11:32. Repetition of the decalogue, and reasons for the promulgation of the law through Moses; explanation of the first commandment, and prohibitions of all intercourse with the gentiles; reminder of the Divine favors and punishments; promise of victory over the Chanaanites; God's blessing on the observance of the Law, His curse on the transgressors.

(b) Special Laws 12:1-26:19. (1) Duties towards God: He is to be duly worshiped, never to be abandoned; distinction of clean and unclean meats; tithes and first fruits; the three principal solemnities of the year. (2) Duties towards God's representatives: toward the judges, the future kings, the priests, and Prophets. (3) Duties towards the neighbor: as to life, external possessions, marriage, and various other particulars.

(3) Third Discourse 27: 1-30:20. A renewed exhortation to keep the law, based on diverse reasons.

(a) 27:1-26. Command to inscribe the law on stones after crossing the Jordan, and to promulgate the blessings and curses connected with the observance or non-observance of the law.

(b) 28:1-68. A more minute statement of the good or evil depending on the observance or violation of the law.

(c) 29:1-30: 20. The goodness of God is extolled; all are urged to be faithful to God.

(4) Historical Appendix 31:1-34:12.

(a) 31:1-27. Moses appoints Josue as his successor, orders him to read the law to the people every seven years, and to place a copy of the same in the ark.

(b) 31:28-32:47. Moses calls an assembly of the Ancients and recites his canticle.

(c) 32:48-52. Moses views the Promised Land from a distance.

(d) 33:1-29. He blesses the tribes of Israel.

(e) 34:1-12. His death, burial, and special eulogium.

The contents of the Pentateuch furnish the basis for the history, the law, the worship, and the life of the Chosen People of God. Hence, the authorship of the work, the time and manner of its origin, and its historicity are of paramount importance. These are not merely literary problems, but questions belonging to the fields of history of religion and theology. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is inseparably connected with the question, whether and in what sense Moses was the author or intermediary of the Old-Testament legislation, and the bearer of pre-Mosaic tradition.

According to the trend of both Old and New Testament, and according to Jewish and Christian theology, the work of the great lawgiver Moses is the origin of the history of Israel and the basis of its development down to the time of Jesus Christ. But modern criticism sees in all this only the result, or the precipitate, of a purely natural historical development. The question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch leads us, therefore, to the alternative, revelation or historical evolution; it touches the historical and theological foundation of both the Jewish and the Christian dispensation. We shall consider the subject first in the light of Scripture; secondly, in the light of Jewish and Christian tradition; thirdly, in the light of internal evidence, furnished by the Pentateuch; finally, in the light of ecclesiastical decisions.

It will be found convenient to divide the Biblical evidence for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch into three parts: (i) Testimony of the Pentateuch; (ii) Testimony of the other Old-Testament books; (iii) Testimony of the New Testament.

The Pentateuch in its present form does not present itself as a complete literary production of Moses. It contains an account of Moses' death, it tells the story of his life in the third person and in an indirect form, and the last four books do not exhibit the literary form of memoirs of the great lawgiver. Besides, the expression "God said to Moses" shows only the Divine origin of the Mosaic laws, but does not prove that Moses himself codified in the Pentateuch the various laws promulgated by him. On the other hand, the Pentateuch ascribes to Moses the literary authorship of at least four sections, partly historical, partly legal, partly poetical.

1. After Israel's victory over the Amalecites near Raphidim, the Lord said to Moses (Ex. 17:14): "Write this for a memorial in a book, and deliver it to the ears of Josue." This order is naturally restricted to Amalec's defeat, a benefit which God wished to keep alive in the memory of the people (Deut. 25:17-19). The present pointing of the Hebrew text reads "in the book," but the Septuagint version omits the definite article. Even if we suppose that the Massoretic pointing gives the original text, we can hardly prove that the book referred to is the Pentateuch, though this is highly probable (cf. von Hummelauer "Exodus et Leviticus," Paris, 1897, p. 182; Idem, "Deuteronomium," Paris, 1901, p. 152; Kley, "Die Pentateuchfrage," Munster, 1903, p. 217).
2. Again, Ex. 24:4: "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord." The context does not allow us to understand these words in an indefinite manner, but as referring to the words of the Lord immediately preceding or to the so-called "Book of the Covenant," Ex. 22-23.
3. Ex. 34:27: "And the Lord said to Moses: Write thee these words by which I have made a covenant both with thee and with Israel." The next verse adds: "and he wrote upon the tables the ten words of the covenant." Ex. 34:1, 4, shows how Moses had prepared the tables, and Ex. 34:10-26, gives us the contents of the ten words.
4. Num. 33:1-2: "These are the mansions of the children of Israel, who went out of Egypt by their troops under the conduct of Moses and Aaron, which Moses wrote down according to the places of their encamping." Here we are informed that Moses wrote the list of the people's encampments in the desert; but where it this list to be found? Most probably it is given in Num. 33:3-49, or the immediate context of the passage telling of Moses' literary activity. There are, however, scholars who understand this latter passage as referring to the history of Israel's departure from Egypt written in the order of the people's encampments, so that it would be our present Book of Exodus. But this view is hardly probable; for its assumption that Num. 33:3-49, is a summary of Exodus cannot be upheld, as the chapter of Numbers mentions several encampments not occurring in Exodus.

Besides these four passages, there are certain indications in Deuteronomy which point to the literary activity of Moses. Deut. 1:5: "And Moses began to expound the law and to say"; even if the "law" in this text refer to the whole of the Pentateuchal legislation, which is not very probable, it shows only that Moses promulgated the whole law, but not that he necessarily wrote it. Practically the entire Book of Deuteronomy claims to be a special legislation promulgated by Moses in the land of Moab: 4:1-40; 44-49; 5:1 sqq.; 12:1 sqq.

But there is a suggestion of writing too: 17:18-9, enjoins that the future kings are to receive a copy of this law from the priests in order to read and observe it. Deut. 27:1-8, commands that on the west side of the Jordan "all the words of this law" be written on stones set up in Mount Hebal. Deut. 28:58, speaks of "all the words of this law, that are written in this volume" after enumerating the blessings and curses which will come upon the observers and violators of the law respectively, and which are again referred to as written in a book in 29:20, 21, 27, and 32:46-47. Now, the law repeatedly referred to as written in a book must be at least the Deuteronomic legislation. Moreover, 31:9-13 states, "and Moses wrote this law," and 31:26, adds, "take this book, and put it in the side of the ark . . .that it may be there for a testimony against thee." To explain these texts as fiction or as anachronisms is hardly compatible with the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. Finally 31:19, commands Moses to write the canticle contained in Deut. 32:1-43.

The Scriptural scholar will not complain that there are so few express indications in the Pentateuch of Moses' literary activity; he will rather be surprised at their number. As far as explicit testimony for its own, at least partial, authorship is concerned, the Pentateuch compares rather favorably with many other books of the Old Testament.

Witness of other Old-Testament Books.

(a) Josue. The narrative of the Book of Josue presupposes not merely the facts and essential ordinances contained in the Pentateuch, but also the law given by Moses and written in the book of the law of Moses: Jos. 1:7-8; 8: 31; 22:5; 23:6. Josue himself "wrote all these things in the volume of the law of the Lord" (24:26). Some maintain that this "volume of the law of the Lord" is the Pentateuch; others believe that it refers at least to Deuteronomy. At any rate, Josue and his contemporaries were acquainted with a written Mosaic legislation, which was divinely revealed.

(b) Judges; I, II Kings. In the Book of Judges and the first two Books of Kings there is no explicit reference to Moses and the book of the law, but a number of incidents and statements presuppose the existence of the Pentateuchal legislation and institutions. Thus Judges 15:8-10, recalls Israel's delivery from Egypt and its conquest of the Promised Land. Judges 11:12-28, states incidents recorded in Num. 20:14; 21:13,24; 22:2. Judges 13:4, states a practice founded on the law of the Nazarites in Num. 6:1-21. Judges 18:31, speaks of the tabernacle existing in the times when there was no king in Israel. Judges 20:26-8 mentions the Ark of the Covenant, the various kinds of sacrifices, and the Aaronic priesthood. The Pentateuchal history and laws are similarly presupposed in I Kings 10:18; 15:1-10; 10:25; 21:1-6; 22:6 sqq.; 23:6-9; II Kings 6.

(c) III, IV Kings. The last two Books of Kings repeatedly speak of the Law of Moses. To restrict the meaning of this term to Deuteronomy is an arbitrary exegesis (cf. III Kings 2:3; 10:31. Amasias showed mercy to the children of the murderers "according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses" (IV Kings 14:6). The sacred writer records the Divine promise of protecting the Israelites "Only if they will observe to do all that I have commanded them according to the law which my servant Moses commanded them" (IV Kings 21:8). In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josias was found the book of the law (IV Kings 22:8, 11), or the book of the covenant (IV Kings 23:2), according to which he conducted his religious reform (IV Kings 23:10-24), and which is identified with "the law of Moses" (IV Kings 23:25). Commentators are not at one whether this law-book was Deuteronomy.

(d) Paralipomenon. The inspired writer of Paralipomenon refers to the law and the book of Moses much more frequently and clearly. The objectionable names and numbers occurring in these books are mostly due to transcribers. The omission of incidents that would detract from the glory of the Israelite kings or would not edify the reader is not detrimental to the credibility or veracity of the work. Otherwise, one should have to place among works of fiction a number of biographical or patriotic publications intended for the young or for the common reader. On their part, the modern critics are too eager to discredit the authority of Paralipomena. "After removing the account of Paralipomena," writes de Wette (Beitrage, I, 135), "the whole Jewish history assumes another form, and the Pentateuchal investigations take another turn; a number of strong proofs, hard to explain away, for the early existence of the Mosaic books have disappeared, the other vestiges of their existence are placed in a different light." A glance at the contents of Parlipomenon suffices to explain the efforts of de Witte and Wellhausen to disprove the historicity of the books. Not only are the genealogies (I Par. 1-9) and the descriptions of worship traced after the data and laws of the Pentateuch, but the sacred writer expressly points out their conformity with what is written in the law of the Lord (I Par. 16:40), in the law of Moses (II Par. 23:18; 31:3), thus identifying the law of the Lord with that written by Moses (cf. II Par. 25:4). The reader will find similar indications of the existence and the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch in I Par. 22:12 seq.; II Par. 17:9; 33:4; 34:14; 25:12. By an artificial interpretation, indeed, the Books of Paralipomenon may be construed to represent the Pentateuch as a book containing the law promulgated by Moses; but the natural sense of the foregoing passages regards the Pentateuch as a book edited by Moses.

(e) I, II Esdras. The Books of Esdras and Nehemias, too, taken in their natural and commonly accepted sense, consider the Pentateuch as the book of Moses, not merely as a book containing the Law of Moses. This contention is based on the study of the following texts: I Esd. 3:2 sqq.; 6: 18; 7:14; II Esd. 1:7 sqq.; 8:1-14; 9:3; 10:34, 36; 13:1-3. Graf and his followers expressed the view that the book of Moses referred to in these texts is not the Pentateuch, but only the Priestly Code. But when we keep in mind that the book in question contained the laws of Lev. 23: and Deut. 7:2-4; 15:2, we perceive at once that the book of Moses cannot be restricted to the Priestly Code. To the witness of the historical books we may add II Mach. 2:4; 7:6; Judith 8:23; Ecclus. 24:33; 45:1-6; 45:18, and especially the Preface of Ecclus.

(f) Prophetic Books. Express reference to the written Law of Moses is found only in the later Prophets: Bar. 2:2, 28; Dan. 9:11, 13; Mal. 4:4. Among these, Baruch knows that Moses has been commanded to write the law, and though his expressions run parallel to those of Deut. 28:15, 53, 62-64, his threats contain allusions to those contained in other parts of the Pentateuch. The other Prophets frequently refer to the law of the Lord guarded by the priests (cf. Deut. 31:9), and they put it on the same level with Divine Revelation and the eternal covenant of the Lord. They appeal to God's covenant, the sacrificial laws, the calendar of feasts, and other laws of the Pentateuch in such a way as to render it probable that a written legislation formed the basis of their prophetic admonitions (cf. Osee 8:12), and that they were acquainted with verbal expressions of the book of the law. Thus in the northern kingdom Amos (iv, 4-5; 5:22 sqq) and Isaias in the south (1:11 sqq) employ expressions which are practically technical words for sacrifice occurring in Lev. 1-3; 7:12-16; and Deut. 12:6.

We need not show that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the whole of the Pentateuch as written by Moses. If they attributed to Moses all the passages which they happen to cite, if they ascribe the Pentateuch to Moses whenever there is question of its authorship, even the most exacting critics must admit that they express their conviction that the work was indeed written by Moses. When the Sadducees quote against Jesus the marriage law of Deut. 25:5, as written by Moses (Matt. 22:24; Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28), Jesus does not deny the Mosaic authorship, but appeals to Ex. 3:6, as equally written by Moses (Mark 12:26; Matt. 22:31; Luke 20:37). Again, in the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16:29), He speaks of "Moses and the prophets," while on other occasions He speaks of "the law and the prophets" (Luke 16:16), thus showing that in His mind the law, or the Pentateuch, and Moses are identical. The same expressions reappear in the last discourse addressed by Christ to His disciples (Luke 24:44-6; cf. 27): "which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me." Finally, in John 5:45-7, Jesus is more explicit in asserting the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch: "There is one that accuseth you, Moses . . . for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" Nor can it be maintained that Christ merely accommodated himself to the current beliefs of his contemporaries who considered Moses as the author of the Pentateuch not merely in a moral but also in the literary sense of authorship. Jesus did not need to enter into the critical study of the nature of Mosaic authorship, but He could not expressly endorse the popular belief, if it was erroneous.

The Apostles too felt convinced of, and testified to, the Mosaic authorship. "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him: We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write." St. Peter introduces a quotation from Deut. 18:15, with the words: "For Moses said" (Acts 3:22). St. James and St. Paul relate that Moses is read in the synagogues on the Sabbath day (Acts 15:21; II Cor. 3:15). The great Apostle speaks in other passages of the law of Moses (Acts 13:33; I Cor. 9:9); he preaches Jesus according to the Law of Moses and the Prophets (Acts 28:23), and cites passages from the Pentateuch as words written by Moses (Rom 10:5-8; 19). St. John mentions the canticle of Moses (Apoc. 15:3).

The voice of tradition, both Jewish and Christian, is so unanimous and constant in proclaiming the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch that down to the seventeenth century it did not allow the rise of any serious doubt. The following paragraphs are only a meagre outline of this living tradition.

It has been seen that the books of the Old Testament, beginning with those of the Pentateuch, present Moses as the author of at least parts of the Pentateuch. The writer of the Books of Kings believes that Moses is the author of Deuteronomy at least. Esdras, Nehemias, Malachias, the author of Paralipomena, and the Greek authors of the Septuagint Version consider Moses as the author of the whole Pentateuch. At the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, friend and foe take the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch for granted; neither our Lord nor His enemies take exception to this assumption.

In the first century of the Christian era, Josephus ascribes to Moses the authorship of the entire Pentateuch, not excepting the account of the lawgiver's death ("Antiq. Jud.," IV 8:3-48; cf. I Procem., 4; "Contra Apion." I, 8). The Alexandrian philosopher Philo is convinced that the entire Pentateuch is the work of Moses, and that the latter wrote a prophetic account of his death under the influence of a special divine inspiration ("De vita Mosis," II, II, III in "Opera," Geneva, 1613, pp. 511, 538). The Babylonian Talmud ("Baba-Bathra," II, col. 140; "Makkoth," fol. IIa; "Menachoth," fol. 30a; cf. Vogue, "Hist. de la Bible et de l'exegese biblique jusqua'a nos jours," Paris, 1881, p. 21), the Talmud of Jerusalem (Sota 5:5), the rabbis, and the doctors of Israel (cf. Furst, "Der Kanon des Alten Testaments nach den Überlieferungen im Talmud und Midrasch," Leipzig, 1868, pp. 7-9) bear testimony to the continuance of this tradition for the first thousand years. Though Isaac ben Jasus in the eleventh century and Abenesra in the twelfth admitted certain post-Mosaic additions in the Pentateuch, still they as well as Maimonides upheld its Mosaic authorship. He did not substantially differ in this point from the teaching of R. Becchai (thirteenth cent.), Joseph Karo, and Abarbanel (fifteenth cent.; cf. Richard Simon, "Critique de la Bibl. des aut. eccles. de E. Dupin," Paris, 1730, III, pp. 215-20). Only in the seventeenth century, Baruch Spinoza rejected the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, pointing out the possibility that the work might have been written by Esdras ("Tract. Theol. politicus," c. viii, ed. Tauchnitz, III, p. 125). Among the more recent Jewish writers, several have adopted the results of the critics, thus abandoning the tradition of their forefathers.

Christ Himself and the Apostles brought the Jewish tradition concerning the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch into the Christian Church. No one will seriously deny the existence and continuance of such a tradition from the patristic period onward; one might indeed be curious about the interval between the time of the Apostles and beginning of the third century. For this period we may appeal to the "Epistle of Barnabus" (x, 1-12; Funk, "Patres apostol.," 2nd ed., Tubingen, 1901, I, p. 66-70; 12:2-9k; ibid., p. 74-6), and to St. Clement of Rome (I Cor., xli, 1; ibid., p. 152). We appeal to St. Justin ("Apol. I," 59; P. G., VI, 416; I, 32, 54; ibid., 377, 409; "Dial.," 29; ibid., 537), to the author of "Cohort. Ad Graec" (9, 28, 30, 33, 34; ibid., 257, 293, 296-7, 361), to St. Theophilus ("Ad Autol.," III, 23; ibid., 1156; 11, 30; ibid., 1100), to St. Irenaeus (Cont. haer., I 2:6; P.G. VII, 715-6), to St. Hippolytus of Rome ("Comment. In Deut.," 31:9, 31, 35; cf. Achelis, "Arabische Fragmente etc.," Leipzig, 1897, I, 118; "Philosophumena," VIII, 8; 10:33; P.G. XVI, 3350, 3448), to Tertullian of Carthage (Adv. Hermog., XIX; P. L., II, 214), to Origen of Alexandria (Contra. Cels., III, 5-6; P. G., XI, 928; etc.), to St. Eusthatius of Antioch (De engastrimytha c. Orig., 21; P.G. XVIII, 656). For all these writers (and others might be added) bear witness to the continuance of the Christian tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. A list of the later Fathers who bear witness to the same truth may be found in Mangenot's article in the "Dict. de la Bible" (V, 74 seq.). Hoberg (Moses und der Pentateuch, 72 seq) has collected the testimony for the existence of the tradition during the Middle Ages and in more recent times.

However, Church tradition does not necessarily maintain that Moses wrote every letter of the Pentateuch as it is today, and that the work has come down to us in an absolutely unchanged form. This rigid view of the Mosaic authorship began to develop in the eighteenth century, and practically gained the upper hand in the nineteenth. The arbitrary treatment of Scripture on the part of Protestants, and the succession of the various destructive systems advanced by Biblical criticism, caused this change in the minds of some scholars.

The possibility of producing a written record at the time of Moses is no longer contested. The art of writing was known long before the time of the great lawgiver, and was extensively practiced both in Egypt and in Babylon. As to the Israelites, Flinders Petrie infers from certain Semitic inscriptions found in 1905 on the Sinaitic peninsula, that they kept written accounts of their national history from the time of their captivity under Ramses II. The Tell-el-Amarna tablets show the language of Babylon was in a way the official language at the time of Moses, known in Western Asia, Palestine, and Egypt; the finds of Taanek have confirmed this fact. But it cannot be inferred from this that the Egyptians and Israelites employed this sacred or official language among themselves and in their religious documents (cf. Benzinger, "Hebraische Archaologie," 2nd ed., Tubingen, 1907, p. 172 sqq.). It is not merely the possibility of writing at the time of Moses and the question of language that confronts us here; there is the further problem of the kind of written signs used in the Mosaic documents. The hieroglyphic and cuneiform signs were widely employed at that early date; the oldest inscriptions written in alphabetical characters date only from the ninth century B.C. However, there can hardly be any doubt as to the higher antiquity of alphabetic writing, and there seems to be nothing to prevent our extending it back to the time of Moses.

Finally, the Code of Hammurabi, discovered in Susa in 1901 by the French expedition funded by Mr. and Mrs. Dieulafoy, shows that even in pre-Mosaic times legal enactments were committed to, and preserved in, writing; for the Code antedates Moses some five centuries, and contains about 282 regulations concerning various contingencies in the civic life.

Thus far, it has been shown negatively that an historic and legal document claiming to be written at the time of Moses involves no antecedent improbability of its authenticity. But the internal characteristics of the Pentateuch show also positively that the work is probably Mosaic. It is true that the Pentateuch contains no express declaration of its entire Mosaic authorship; but even the most exacting of critics will hardly require such testimony. It is practically lacking in all other books, whether sacred or profane. On the other hand, it has already been shown that four distinct passages of the Pentateuch are expressly ascribed to the authorship of Moses. Deut. 31:24-9, is especially noted; for it knows that Moses wrote the "words of this law in a volume" and commanded it to be placed in the ark of the covenant as a testimony against the people who have been so rebellious during the lawgiver's life and will "do wickedly" after his death.

Again, a number of legal sections, though not explicitly ascribed to the writing of Moses, are distinctly derived from Moses as the lawgiver. Besides, many of the Pentateuchal laws bear evidence of their origin in the desert; hence they too lay an indirect claim to Mosaic origin. What has been said of a number of Pentateuchal laws is equally true of several historical sections. These contain in the Book of Numbers, for instance, so many names and numbers that they must have been handed down in writing. Unless the critics can bring irrefutable evidence showing that in these sections we have only fiction, they must grant that these historical details were written down in contemporary documents, and not transmitted by mere oral tradition.

Moreover, Hommel ("Die altisraelitische Überlieferung in inschriftlicher Beleuchtung," p. 302) has shown that the names in the lists of the Book of Numbers bear the character of the Arabian names of the second millennium before Christ. They can have originated only in the time of Moses, though it must be admitted that the text of certain portions, e.g., Num. 13 has suffered in its transmission. We need not remind the reader that numerous Pentateuchal laws and data imply the conditions of a nomadic life of Israel. Finally, both the author of the Pentateuch and its first readers must have been more familiar with the topography and the social conditions of Egypt and with the Sinaitic peninsula than with the land of Chanaan. Cf., e.g., Deut. 8:7-10; 11:10 sqq. These internal characteristics of the Pentateuch have been developed at greater length by Smith, "The Book of Moses or the Pentateuch in its Authorship, Credibility, and Civilisation," London, 1868.

Summary:

(1) The arguments accumulated by the critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the sacred books designated by the name Pentateuch are not of such weight as to give us the right to maintain that these books have not Moses as their author, but are compiled from sources for the greatest part later than the Mosaic age. We see this, having set aside numerous passages of both Testaments taken collectively, and having considered the continuous consensus of the Jewish people, the constant tradition of the Church, and internal indications derived from the text itself,

(2) The Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch does not necessarily require such a redaction of the whole work as to render it absolutely imperative to maintain that Moses wrote all and everything with his own hand or dictated it to his secretaries. The hypothesis of those can be admitted who believe that he entrusted the composition of the work itself, conceived by him under the influence of Divine inspiration, to others, but in such a way that they were to express faithfully his own thoughts, were to write nothing against his will, were to omit nothing. Finally, the work thus produced should be approved by the same Moses, its principal and inspired author, and published under his name.

(3) It may be granted without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch, that Moses employed sources in the production of his work, i.e., written documents or oral traditions, from which he may have drawn a number of things in accordance with the end he had in view and under the influence of Divine inspiration, and inserted them in his work either literally or according to their sense, in an abbreviated or amplified form.

(4) The substantial Mosaic authenticity and integrity of the Pentateuch remains intact if it be granted that in the long course of centuries the work has suffered several modifications. These modifications may be post-Mosaic additions either appended by an inspired author or inserted into the text as glosses and explanations; the translation of certain words and forms out of an antiquated language into the recent form of speech, and, finally, wrong readings due to the fault of transcribers, which one may investigate and pass sentence on according to the laws of criticism.

Scholars variously interpret the post-Mosaic additions and modifications allowed in the Pentateuch without removing it from the range of substantial integrity and Mosaic authenticity.

Finally, there is the question as the theological certainty of the thesis maintaining the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch.

(1) Certain scholars expressed their opinion that the thesis in question is not revealed in Scripture nor taught by the Church; that it expresses a truth not contained in Revelation, but a tenet that may be freely contested and discussed.

(2) Other writers grant that the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is not explicitly revealed, but they consider it as a truth revealed formally implicitly, being derived from the revealed formulae not by a syllogism in the strict sense of the word, but by a simple explanation of the terms. The denial of the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is an error, and the contradictory of the thesis maintaining the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is erronea in fide (cf. Mechineau, "L'origine mosaique du Pentateuque," p. 34).

(3) A third class of scholars considers the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch neither as a freely debatable tenet, nor as a truth formally implicitly revealed; they believe it has been virtually revealed, or that it is inferred from revealed truth by truly syllogistic deduction. It is, therefore, a theologically certain truth, and its contradictory is a rash (temeraria) or even erroneous proposition.

A detailed account of the opposition to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is neither desirable nor necessary. In itself, it would form only a noisome history of human errors; each little system has had its day, and its successors have tried their best to bury it in hushed oblivion. The actual difficulties we have to consider are those advanced by our actual opponents of today; only the fact that the systems of the past show us the fleeting and transitory character of the actual theories now in vogue can induce us to briefly enumerate the successive views upheld by the opponents of the Mosaic authorship.

Reuss had proposed a course of religious development in Israel in 1830 and 1834; Vatke proposed the same in 1835 and George in the same year. In 1865-66 Graf took up this idea and applied it to the literary criticism of the Hexateuch; for the critics had begun to consider the Book of Josue as belonging to the preceding five books, so that the collection formed a Hexateuch instead of a Pentateuch. Merx made the same application in 1869. Thus modified the documentary theory continued in its development until it reached the state described in the translation of the Bible by Kautzsch (3rd ed., with Introduction and Annotations, Tubingen, 1908 sqq.). In itself, there is nothing against the assumption of documents written by Moses; but we cannot ascribe with certainty anything of our literary remains to the hands of the Hebrew lawgiver.

The beginning of written accounts must be placed towards the end of the time of Judges; only then were fulfilled the conditions which must precede the origin of a literature properly so called, i.e., a general acquaintance with the art of writing and reading, stationary settlement of the people, and national prosperity. What then are the oldest literary remains of the Hebrews? They are the collections of the songs dating from the heroic time of the nation, e.g., the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14), the Book of the Just (Jos. 10:12 sqq.), the Book of Songs (III Kings 8:53; cf. Budde, "Geschichte der althebr. Literature," Leipzig, 1906, 17). The Book of the Covenant (Ex. 20:24-23:19) too must have existed before the other sources of the Pentateuch. The oldest historical work is probably the book of the Yahwist, designated by J, and ascribed to the priesthood of Juda, belonging most probably to the ninth century B.C.

Akin to this is the Elohim document, designated by E, and written probably in the northern kingdom (Ephraim) about a century after the production of the Yahweh document. A redactor into one work combined these two sources soon after the middle of the sixth century. Next follows the law-book, almost entirely embodied in our actual Book of Deuteronomy, discovered in the temple 621 B.C., and containing the precipitate of the prophetic teaching which advocated the abolition of the sacrifices in the so- called high places and the centralization of worship in the temple of Jerusalem. During the Exile originated the Priestly Code, P, based on the so-called law of holiness, Lev., xvii-xxvi, and the program of Ezechiel, 40-48; the substance of P was read before the post-exilic community by Esdras about 444 B.C. (II Esd., 8:-10), and was accepted by the multitude.

History does not tell us when and how these divers historical and legal sources were combined into our present Pentateuch; but it is generally assumed that there was an urgent call for a compilation of the tradition and pre-exilic history of the people. The only indication of time may be found in the fact that the Samaritans accepted the Pentateuch as a sacred book probably in the fourth century B.C. Considering their hatred for the Jews, one must conclude that they would not have taken this step, unless they had felt certain of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. Hence, a considerable time must have intervened between the compilation of the Pentateuch and its acceptance by the Samaritans, so that the work of combining must be placed in the fifth century.

It is quite generally agreed that the last redactor of the Pentateuch completed his task with great adroitness. Without altering the text of the older sources, he did all within man's power to fuse the heterogeneous elements into one apparent (?) whole, with such success that not only the Jews after the fourth century B.C., but also the Christians for many centuries could maintain their conviction that the entire Pentateuch was written by Moses.

As several Pentateuchal critics have endeavored to assign the last redaction of the Pentateuch to more recent dates, its placement in the fifth century may be regarded as rather favorable to conservative views. However, it is hard to understand why the patrons of this opinion should not agree in considering Esdras as the last editor. Again, it is quite certain that the last editor of the Pentateuch must have notably preceded its acceptance on the part of the Samaritans as a sacred book.

But is it probable that the Samaritans would have accepted the Pentateuch as such in the fourth century B.C., when the national and religious opposition between them and Jews was well developed? Is it not more probable that the mixed nation of Samaria received the Pentateuch through the priest sent to them from Assyria? Cf. IV Kings 17:27. Or again, as this priest instructed the Samaritan population in the law of the god of the country, is it not reasonable to suppose that he taught them the Pentateuchal law, which the ten tribes carried with them when they separated from Juda? At any rate, the fact that the Samaritans accepted as sacred only the Pentateuch, but not the Prophets, leads us to infer that the Pentateuch existed among the Jews before a collection of the prophetic writings was made. Further, we infer that Samaria chose its sacred book before even Juda placed the works of the Prophets on the same level with the work of Moses.

But this natural inference finds no favor among the critics; for it implies that the historical and legal traditions codified in the Pentateuch, described the beginning, and not the end, of Israel's religious development. The view of Israel's religious development prevalent among the critics implies that the Pentateuch is later than the Prophets, and that the Psalms are later than both. After these general considerations, we shall briefly examine the main principles, the methods, the results, and the arguments of the critical theory.

Without pretending to review all the principles involved in the theories of the critics, we draw attention to two: the historical development of religion, and the comparative value of internal evidence and tradition.

(i) The theory of the historical evolution of Israelitic religions leads us from Mosaic Yahwehism to the ethical monotheism of the Prophets, from this to the universalist conception of God developed during the Exile, and from this again to the ossified Phariseeism of later days. This religion of the Jews is codified in our actual Pentateuch, but critics fictitiously project it backwards in the historical books into the Mosaic and pre-prophetic times.

The idea of development is not a purely modern discovery. Meyer ("Der Entwicklungsgedanke bei Aristoteles," Bonn, 1909) shows that Aristotle was acquainted with it; Gunkel ("Weiterbildung der Religion," Munich, 1905, 64) maintains that its application to religion is as old as Christianity, and that St. Paul has enunciated this principle; Diestel ("Geschichte des A.T. in der chrislichen Kirche," Jena, 1869, 56 sqq.), Willmann ("Geschichte des Idealismus," 2nd ed., II, 23 sqq.), and Schanz ("Apologie des Christentums," 3rd ed. II, 4 sqq., 376) find the same application in the writings of the Fathers, though Hoberg ("Die Forschritte der bibl. Wissenschaften," Freiburg, 1902, 10) grants that the patristic writers often neglect the external forms which influenced the ideas the Chosen People.

The Fathers were not fully acquainted with profane history, and were more concerned about the contents of Revelation than about its historical development. Pesch ("Glaube, Dogmen und geschichtliche Thatsachen" in "Theol. Zeitfragen," IV, Freiburg, 1908, 183) discovers that Roman Catholic scholar Thomas Aquinas, too, admits the principle of development in his "Summa" (II-II, Q. i, a. 9, 10; Q. ii, a. 3; etc.). But the Orthodox conception of this principle avoids two extremes: the theory of degeneracy, based on the teaching of the early Lutheran theologians (cf. Giesebrecht, "Die Degradationshypothese und die altl. Geschichte," Leipzig, 1905; Steude, "Entwicklung und Offenbarung," Stuttgart, 1905, 18 sqq.); the theory of evolution which dissolves all truth and history into purely natural development to the exclusion of everything supernatural.

It is this latter extreme which Biblical critics amplify. Their description of the early religion of Israel is contradicted by the testimony of the oldest Prophets whose authority is not questioned by them. These inspired seers know of the fall of Adam (Osee 6:7), the call of Abraham (Is. 29:23; Mich. 7:20), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha (Osee 11:8; Is. 1:9; Amos 4:11), the history of Jacob and his struggle with the angel (Os. 12:2 sqq.), Israel's exodus from Egypt and dwelling in the desert (Os. 2:14; 7:16; 11:1; 12:9, 13; 13:4, 5; Am. 2:10; 3:1; 9:7), the activity of Moses (Os. 12:13; Mich. 6:4; Is. 63:11, 12), a written legislation (Os 8:12), and a number of particular statutes (cf. Kley, "Die Pentateuchfrage," Munster, 1903, 223 sqq.).

Again, the results of historical investigation increasingly contradict this theory of development. Weber ("Theologie und Assyriologie im Streit um Babel und Bibel," Leipzig, 1904, 17) points out that the recent historical results imply decadence rather than development in ancient oriental art, science, and religion; Winckler ("Religionsgeschichtler und geschichtl. Orient," Leipzig, 1906, 33) considers the evolutionary view of the primitive state of man as false, and believes that the development theory has, at least, been badly shaken, if not actually destroyed by recent Oriental research (cf. Bantsch, "Altorientalischer und israelitischer Monothesismus," Tubingen, 1906). Köberle ("Die Theologie der Gegenwart," Leipzig, 1907, I, 2) says that the development theory has exhausted itself, reproducing only the thoughts of Wellhausen, and deciding particular questions not in the light of facts, but according to the postulates of the theory. Finally, even the rationalistic writers have thought it necessary to replace the development theory by another more in agreement with historical facts. Hence Winckler ("Ex Oriente lux," Leipzig, 1905- 6; Idem, "Der Alte Orient," III, 2-3; Idem, "Die babylonische Geisteskultur in ihren Beziehungen zur Kulturentwicklung der Menschheit" in "Wissenschaft und Bildung,"

Leipzig, 1907; cf. Landersdorfer in "Historisch-Politische Blatter," 1909, 144) has originated the theory of pan-Babelism according to which Biblical religion is conceived as a conscious and express reaction against the Babylonian polytheistic state religion. It was not the common property of Israel, but of a religious sect that was supported in Babylon by certain monotheistic circles irrespective of nationality. This theory has found powerful opponents in Budde, Stade, Bezold, Köberle, Kugler, Wilke, and others; but it has also a number of adherents. Though wholly untenable from a Christian point of view, it shows at least the weakness of the historical development theory.

(ii) Another principle involved in the critical theory of the Pentateuch supposes that the internal evidence of literary criticism is of higher value than the evidence of tradition. But thus far the results of excavations and historical research have been favorable to tradition rather than to internal evidence. Let the reader only remember the case of Troy, Tiryns, Mycenae, and Orchomenos (in Greece). The excavations of the English explorer Evans in Crete have shown the historical character of King Minos and his labyrinth. Assyrian inscriptions have re-established the historical credit of King Midas of Phrygia. Similarly, Menes of Thebes and Sargon of Agade have been shown to belong to history; in general, the more accurate have been the scientific investigations, the more clearly have they shown the reliability of even the most slender traditions. In the field of New-Testament criticism the call "back to tradition" had begun to be heeded, and had been endorsed by such authorities as Harnack and Deissmann.

In the study of the Old Testament too there have been unmistakable signs of change. Hommel ("Die altisrealitische Überlieferung in inschriftlicher Beleuchtung," Munich, 1897) maintains that Old Testament tradition, both as a whole and in its details, proves to be reliable, even in the light of critical research. Meyer ("Die Entstehung des Judentums," Halle, 1896) concludes that the foundations of the critical Pentateuchal theory are destroyed, if it can be proved that even part of the impugned Hebrew tradition is reliable. The same writer proves the credibility of the sources of the Books of Esdras (cf. "Grundriss der Geographie und Geschichte des alten Orientes," Munich, 1904, 167 sqq.). S.A. Fries has been led by his critical studies, and without being influenced by dogmatic bias, to accept the whole traditional view of the history of Israel. Cornill and Oettli express the conviction that Israel's traditions concerning even its earliest history are reliable and will withstand the bitterest attacks of criticism. Dawson (cf. Fonck, "Kritik und Tradition im A.T." in "Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie," 1899, 262-81) and others apply to tradition the old principle which has been so frequently misapplied, "magna est veritas, et praevalebit". Gunkel ("Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbucher," II, Tubingen, 1906, 8) grants that Old Testament criticism has gone a little too far, and that many Biblical traditions previously rejected will be re-established.

The falsehood of the critical method does not consist in the use of criticism as such, but in its illegitimate use. Criticism became more common in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; at the end of the eighteenth, it was applied to classical antiquity. Bernheim ("Lehrbuch der historischen Methode," Leipzig, 1903, 296) believes that by this means alone history first became a science. In the application of criticism to the Bible, we are limited, indeed, by the inspiration and the canonicity of its books; but there is an ample field left for our critical investigations (Pesch, "Theol. Zeitfragen," III, 48).

Some of the principal sins of the critics in their treatment of Sacred Scripture are the following:

They deny everything supernatural, so that they reject not merely inspiration and canonicity, but also prophecy and miracle a priori (cf. Metzler, "Das Wunder vor dem Forum der modernen Geschichtswissenschaft" in "Katholik," 1908, II, 241 sqq.).

They seem to be convinced a priori of the credibility of non-Biblical historical documents, while they are prejudiced against the truthfulness of Biblical accounts. (Cf. Stade, "Geschichte Israel's," I, 86 seq., 88, 101.).

Depreciating external evidence almost entirely, they consider the questions of the origin, the integrity, and the authenticity of the sacred books in the light of internal evidence.

They overestimate the critical analysis of the sources, without considering the chief point, i.e., the credibility of the sources (Lorenz, "Die Geschichtswissenschaft in ihren Hauptrichtungen und Aufgaben," ii, 329 sqq.). Recent documents may contain reliable reports of ancient history. Some of the critics begin to acknowledge that the historical credibility of the sources is of greater importance than their division and dating (Stark, "Die Entstehung des A.T.," Leipzig, 1905, 29; cf. Vetter, "Tübinger theologische Quartalschrift," 1899, 552).

The critical division of sources is based on the Hebrew text, though it is not certain how far the present Massoretic text differs from that, for instance, followed by the Septuagint translators, and how far the latter differed form the Hebrew text before its redaction in the fifth century B.C.. Dahse ("Textkritische Bedenken gegen den Ausgangspunkt der heutigen Pentateuchkritik" in "Archiv fur Religionsgeschichte," VI, 1903, 305 sqq) shows that the Divine names in the Greek translation of the Pentateuch differ in about 180 cases from those of the Hebrew text (cf. Hoberg, "Die Genesis," 2nd ed., p. xxii sqq.). In other words and phrases the changes may be fewer, but it would be unreasonable to deny the existence of any. Again, it is antecedently probable that the Septuagint text differs less from the Massoretic than from the ante-Esdrine text, which must have been closer to the original. The starting point of literary criticism is therefore uncertain.

Here we must distinguish between the principles of criticism and its results. The principles of the historical development of religion, for instance, and of the inferiority of tradition to internal evidence, are not the outcome of literary analysis, but are its partial basis. Again, we must distinguish between those results of literary criticism that are compatible with the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch and those that contradict it. The patrons of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and even the ecclesiastical Decree relating to this subject, plainly admit that Moses or his secretaries may have utilized sources or documents in the composition of the Pentateuch. Both admit also that the sacred text has suffered in its transmission and may have received additions, in the form of either inspired appendices or exegetical glosses. If the critics, therefore, can succeed in determining the number and the limits of the documentary sources, and of the post-Mosaic additions, whether inspired or profane, they render an important service to the traditional tenet of Pentateuchal authenticity. The same must be said with regard to the successive laws established by Moses, and the gradual fidelity of the Jewish people to the Mosaic Law. Here again the certain or even probable results of sane literary and historical criticism will aid greatly the conservative commentator of the Pentateuch.

We do not quarrel with the legitimate conclusions of the critics, if the critics do not quarrel with each other. However, they do quarrel with each other. According to Merx (loc. cit), there is nothing certain in the field of criticism except its uncertainty; each critic proclaims his views with the greatest self-reliance, but without any regard to the consistency of the whole. Former views are simply killed by silence; even Reuss and Dillmann are junk-iron, and there is a noticeable lack of judgment as to what can or cannot be known.

Hence the critical results, in as far as they consist merely in the distinction of documentary sources, in the determination of post-Mosaic materials, e.g., textual changes, and profane or inspired additions, in the description of various legal codes, are not at variance with the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch. Nor can an anti-Mosaic character be pointed out in the facts or phenomena from which criticism legitimately infers the foregoing conclusions. Such facts or phenomena are, for instance, the change of the Divine names in the text, the use of certain words, the difference of style, the so-called double accounts of really, not merely apparently, identical events; the truth of falsehood of these and similar details does not directly affect the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

In which results then does criticism clash with tradition? Criticism and tradition are incompatible in their views as to the age and sequence of the documentary sources, as to the origin of the various legal codes, and as to the time and manner of the redaction of the Pentateuch.

(i) Pentateuchal Documents. As to the age and sequence of the various documents, the critics do not agree. Dillmann, Kittel, Konig, and Winckler place the Elohist, who is subdivided by several writers into the first, second, and third Elohist, before the Yahwist, who also is divided into the first and second Yahwist; but Wellhausen and most critics believe that the Elohist is about a century younger than the Yahwist. At any rate, both are assigned to about the ninth and eight centuries B.C.; both, too, incorporate earlier traditions or even documents.

All critics appear to agree as to the composite character of Deuteronomy; they admit rather a Deuteronomist school than single writers. Still, the successive layers composing the whole book are briefly designated by D1, D2, D3, etc. As to the character of these layers, the critics do not agree: Montet and Driver, for instance, assigned to the first Deuteronomist cc. 1-21; Kuenen, Konig, Reuss, Renan, Westphal ascribe to DN 4:45-9, and 5:-26:; a third class of critics reduce D1 to 12:1-26:19, allowing it a double edition: according to Wellhausen, the first edition contained 1:1-4:44; 12-26-27: while the second comprised 4:45-11:39; 12-26; 27-30; both editions were combined by the redactor who inserted Deuteronomy into the Hexateuch. Cornill arranges the two editions somewhat differently. Horst considers even cc. 22-26 as a compilation of pre-existing elements, gathered together without order and often by chance.

Wellhausen and his adherents do not wish to assign to D1 a higher age than 621 B.C., Cornill and Bertholet consider the document as a summary of the prophetic teaching. Colenso and Renan ascribe it to Jeremias, others place its origin in the reign of Ezechias or Manasses. Klostermann identifies the document with the book read before the people in the time of Josaphat, while Kleinert refers it back to the end of the time of the Judges. The Deuteronomist depends on the two preceding documents, J and E, both for his history land his legislation; the historical details not found in these may have been derived from other sources not known to us, and the laws not contained in the Sinaitic legislation and the decalogue are either pure fiction or a crystallization of the prophetic teaching.

Finally, the Priestly Code, P, is also a compilation: the first stratum of the book, both historical and legal in its character, is designated by P1 or P2; the second stratum is the law of holiness, H or Lev. 17:-26:, and is the work of a contemporary of Ezechiel, or perhaps of the Prophet himself (H, P2, Ph); besides, there are additional elements springing rather from a school than from any single writer, and designated by Kunen as P3, P4, P5, but by other critics as Ps and Px. Bertholet and Bantsch speak of two other collections of laws: the law of sacrifices, Lev. 1-7, designated as Po; and the law of purity, Lev. 11-15, designated as Pr.

The first documentary hypothesis considered PN as the oldest part of the Pentateuch. Duston and Dillmann place it before the Deuteronomic code, but other critics regard it as more recent than the other documents of the Pentateuch, and even later than Ezech. 44:10-46:15 (573-2 B.C.); the followers of Wellhausen date the Priestly Code after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, while Wildeboer places it either after or towards the end of the captivity. The historical parts of the Priestly Code depend on the Yahwistic and the Elohistic documents, but Wellhausen's adherents believe that the material of these documents has been manipulated so as to fit it for the special purpose of the Priestly Code. Dillmann and Driver maintain that facts have not een invented or falsified by P, but that the latter had at hand other historical documents besides J and E. As to the legal part of P, Wellhausen considers it as an a priori program for the Jewish priesthood after the return from the captivity, projected backwards into the past, and attributed to Moses. But other critics believe that P has systematized the pre-exilic customs of worship, developing then, and adapting them to the new circumstances.

What has been said clearly shows that the critics are at variance in many respects, but they are at one in maintaining the post-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuchal documents. What is the weight of the reasons on which they base their opinion?

The conditions laid down by the critics as prerequisites to literature do not prove that the sources of the Pentateuch must be post-Mosaic. The Hebrew people had lived for, at least, two hundred years in Egypt; besides, most of the forty years spent in the desert were passed in the neighborhood of Cades, so that the Israelites were not longer a nomadic people. Whatever one may say of their material prosperity, or of their proficiency in writing and reading, the above-mentioned researches of Flinders Petrie show that they kept records of their national traditions at the time of Moses.

If the Hebrew contemporaries of Moses kept written records, why should not the Pentateuchal sources be among these documents? It is true that in our actual Pentateuch we find non-Mosaic and post-Mosaic indications; but, then, the non-Mosaic, impersonal style may be due to a literary device, or to the pen of secretaries. The post-Mosaic geographical and historical indications may have crept into the text by way of glosses, or errors of the transcribers, or even inspired additions. The critics cannot reject these suggestions as mere subterfuges, for they should have to grant a continuous miracle in the preservation of the Pentateuchal text, if they were to deny the moral certainty of the presence of such textual changes.

But would not the Pentateuch have been known to the earlier Prophets, if it had been handed down from the time of Moses? This critical exception is really an argument e silentio, which is very apt to be fallacious, unless it be most carefully handled. Besides, if we keep in mind the labor involved in multiplying copies of the Pentateuch, we cannot be wrong in assuming that they were very rare in the interval between Moses and the Prophets, so that few were able to read the actual text. Again, it has been pointed out that at least one of the earlier Prophets appeals to a written mosaic law, and that all appeal to such a national conscience as presupposes the Pentateuchal history and law. Finally, some of the critics maintain that J views the history of man and of Israel according to the religious and the moral ideas of the Prophets; if there be such an agreement, why not say that the Prophets write according to the religious and moral ideas of the Pentateuch?

The critics urge the fact that the Pentateuchal laws concerning the sanctuary, the sacrifices, the feasts, and the priesthood agree with different stages of post-Mosaic historical development; that the second stage agrees with the reform of Josias, and the third with the enactments enforced after the time of the Babylonian Exile. However, one must keep in mind that the Mosaic Law was intended for Israel as the Christian law is intended for the whole world. If then two thousand years after Christ the greater part of the world is still un-Christian, it is not astonishing that the Mosaic Law required centuries before it penetrated the whole nation. Besides, there were, no doubt, many violations of the law, just as the Ten Commandments are violated today without detriment to their legal promulgation. Again, there were times of religious reforms and disasters as there are periods of religious fervor and coldness in the history of the Christian Church; but such human frailties do not imply the non-existence of the law, either Mosaic or Christian. As to the particular laws in question, it will be found more satisfactory to examine them more in detail.

(ii) Pentateuchal Codes. The critics endeavor to establish a triple Pentateuchal code: the Book of the Covenant, Deuteronomy, and the Priestly Code. Instead of regarding this legislation as applying to different phases in the forty years' wandering in the desert, they consider it as agreeing with three historical stages in the national history. As stated above, the main objects of this triple legislation are the sanctuary, the feast, and the priesthood.

At first, so the critics say, sacrifices were allowed to be offered in any place where the Lord had manifested his name (Ex. 20:24-6); then the sanctuary was limited to the one place chosen by God (Deut. 12:5); thirdly, the Priestly Code supposes the unity of sanctuary, and prescribes the proper religious rites to be observed. Moreover, the critics point out historical incidents showing that before the enforcement of the Deuteronomic law sacrifices were offered in various places quite distinct from the resting place of the ark. What do the defenders of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch answer?

First, as to the triple law, it points to three different stages in Israel's desert life: before the erection of the tabernacle at the foot of Mt. Sinai, the people were allowed to erect altars and to offer sacrifices everywhere provided the name of the Lord had been manifested. Next, after the people had adored the golden calf, and the tabernacle had been erected, sacrifice could be offered only before the tabernacle, and even the cattle killed for consumption had to be slaughtered in the same place, in order to prevent a relapse into idolatry. Finally, when the people were about to enter the Promised Land, the last law was abolished, being then quite impossible, but the unity of sanctuary was kept in the place which God would choose.

Secondly, as to the historical facts urged by the critics, some of them are caused by direct Divine intervention, miracle or prophetic inspiration, and as such are fully legitimate; others are evidently violations of the law, and are not sanctioned by the inspired writers. It should be admitted that before God had chosen the site of national sanctuary, it was not forbidden by law to sacrifice anywhere, even away from the place of the ark. After the building of the temple, the law was not considered so stringent as to bind under all circumstances. Thus far, then the argument of the critics is not conclusive.

According to the critics, the Book of the Covenant enjoined only the offering of the first fruits and the first-born of animals, the redemption of the first-born of men, and a free-will offering on visiting the sanctuary (Ex. 22:28-9; 23:15, [Heb. 23:19]). Deuteronomy more clearly defines some of these laws (15:19-23; 26:1-11), and imposes the law of tithes for the benefit of the poor, the widows, the orphans, and the Levites (26:12-5). The Priestly Code distinguishes different kinds of sacrifices, determines their rites, and introduces also incense offering. But history hardly bears out this view: as there existed a permanent priesthood in Silo, and later on in Jerusalem, we may safely infer that there existed a permanent sacrifice. The earliest prophets are acquainted with an excess of care bestowed on the sacrificial rites (cf. Amos 4:4, 5; 5:21- 2, 25; Osee, passim). The expressions of Jeremias (7:21-3) may be explained in the same sense. Sin offering was known long before the critics introduce their Priestly Code (Osee 4:8; Mich. 6:7; Ps. 39 [40]: 7; 1 Kings 3:14). Trespass offering is formally distinguished from sin offering in IV Kings 13:16 (cf. I Kings 6:3-15; Is. 53:10). Hence the distinction between the different kinds of sacrifice is due neither to Ezech., 45: 22- 5, nor to the Priestly Code.

The Book of the Covenant, so the critics tell us, knows only three feasts: the seven-days feast of the azymes in memory of the exodus form Egypt, the feast of the harvest, and that of the end of the harvest (Ex. 23:14-7). Deuteronomy ordains the keeping of the feasts at the central sanctuary adds to Pasch to the feast of the azymes, places the second feast seven weeks after the first, and calls the third, "feast of tabernacles," extending its duration to seven days (Deut. 16:1-17). The Priestly Code prescribes the exact ritual for five feasts, adding the feast of trumpets and of atonement, all of which must be kept at the central sanctuary.

Moreover, history appears to endorse the contention of the critics. Judges 21:19 knows of only one annual feast in Silo. I Kings 1:3, 7, 21 testifies that the parents of Samuel went every year to Silo to the sanctuary. Jeroboam I established in his kingdom one annual feast similar to that celebrated in Jerusalem (III Kings 12:32-3). The earliest Prophets do not mention the names of the religious feasts; the Pasch is celebrated for the first time after the discovery of Deuteronomy (IV Kings 23:21-3); Ezechiel knows only three feasts and a sin offering on the first day of the first and the seventh month. But here again, the critics use the argument e silentio, which is not conclusive in this case. The feast of atonement, for instance, is not mentioned in the Old Testament outside the Pentateuch; only Josephus refers to its celebration in the time of John Hyrcanus or Herod. Will the critics infer from this, that the feast was not kept throughout the Old Testament? History does not record facts generally known. As to the one annual feast mentioned in the early records, weighty commentators are of opinion that after the settlement of the people in the Promised Land, the custom was gradually introduced of going to the central sanctuary only once a year. This custom prevailed before the critics allow the existence of the Deuteronomic law (III Kings 12:26-31), so that the latter cannot have introduced it. Isaias (29:1; 30:29) speaks of a cycle of feasts, but Osee 12:9 alludes already to the feast of tabernacles, so that its establishment cannot be due to the Priestly Code as the critics describe it. Ezechiel (45:18-25) speaks only of the three feasts that had to be kept at the central sanctuary.

The critics contend that the Book of the Covenant knows nothing of an Aaronitic priesthood (Ex. 24:5). They maintain that Deuteronomy mentions priests and Levites without any hierarchical distinction and without any high priest, determines their rights, and distinguishes only between the Levite living in the country and the Levite attached to the central sanctuary. Finally, they hold that the Priestly Code represents the priesthood as a social and hierarchical institution, with legally determined duties, rights, and revenues. This theory is said to be borne out by the evidence of history. However, the testimony of history points in the opposite direction.

At the time of Josue and the early Judges, Eleazar and Phinees, the son and nephew of Aaron, were priests (Num. 26: 1; Deut. 10:6; Jos. 14:1 sqq.; 22:13, 21; 24:33; Judges 20:28). From the end of the time of Judges to Solomon, the priesthood was in the hands of Heli and his descendants (I Kings 1:3 sqq.; 14:3; 21:1; 22:1) who sprang from Ithamar the younger son of Aaron (I Par. 24:3; cf. I Kings 22:29; 14:3; 2:7 sqq.). Solomon raised Sadoc, the son of Achitob, to the dignity of the high priesthood, and his descendants held the office down to the time of the Babylonian Captivity (II Kings 8:17; 15:24 sqq.; 20:25; III Kings 2:26-27, 35; Ezech. 44:15); that Sadoc too was of Aaronic descent is attested by I Par. 6:8. Besides the Books of Josue and Paralipomenon acknowledge the distinction between priests and Levites; according to I Kings 6:15, the Levites handled the ark, but the Bethsamites, the inhabitants of a priestly city (Jos. 21:13-6), offered sacrifice.

A similar distinction is made in II Kings 15:24; III Kings 8:3 sq.; Is., lxvi, 21. Van Hoonacker ("Les pretres et les levites dans le livre d'Ezechiel" in "Revue biblique," 1899, VIII, 180-189, 192-194) shows that Ezechiel did not create the distinction between priests and Levites, but that supposing the traditional distinction in existence, he suggested division in to these classes were made according to merit, and not according to birth (xliv, 15-xlv, 5). Unless the critics simply set aside all this historical evidence, they must grant the existence of an Aaronitic priesthood in Israel, and its division into priests and Levites, long before the D and P codes were promulgated according to the critical theory. It is true that in a number of passages persons are said to offer sacrifice who are not of Aaronitic descent: Judges 6:25 sqq.; 13:9; I Kings 7:9; 10:8; 13:9; II Kings 6:17; 24:25; III Kings 8:5, 62; etc. But in the first place, the phrase "to offer sacrifice" means either to furnish the victim (Lev. 1:2-5) or to perform the sacrificial rite. Any devout layman might furnish the victim. Secondly, it would be hard to prove that God committed the priestly office in such a way to Aaron and his sons as not to reserve to himself the liberty of delegating in extraordinary cases a non-Aaronite to perform the priestly functions.

(iii) Pentateuchal Redaction. The four documentary sources of the Pentateuch thus far descried were combined not by any one individual. Critics require rather three different stages of combination: first, a Yahwistic redactor RXX or RX combined J and E with a view of harmonizing them, and adapting them to Deuteronomic ideas; this happened either before or after the redaction of D. Secondly, after D had been completed in the sixth century B.C., a redactor, or perhaps a school of redactors, imbued with the spirit of D combined the documents JE into JED, introducing however the modifications necessary to secure consistency. Thirdly, a last redactor RX imbued with the letter and the spirit of P, combined this document with JED, introducing again the necessary changes. The table of nations in Gen., xiv was according to Kunen added by this last redactor.

At first sight, one is struck by the complex character of this theory; as a rule, truth is of a more simple texture. Secondly, one is impressed by the unique nature of the hypothesis; antiquity has nothing to equal it. Thirdly, if one reads or studies the Pentateuch in the light of this theory, one is impressed by the whimsical character of the redactor; he often retained what should have been omitted, and omitted what should have been retained. The critics themselves have to take refuge, time and time again, in the work of the redactor, in order save their own views of the Pentateuch. One German writer does not hesitate to call the complex redactor ein genialer Esel. Fourthly, a truth-loving, straightforward reader is naturally shocked by the literary fictions and forgeries, the editorial changes and subterfuges implied in the critical theory of the Pentateuchal documents and redaction.

The more moderate critics endeavor to escape this inconvenience. Some appeal to the difference between the ancient and the modern standard of literary property and editorial accuracy; others practically sanctify the means by the end. Oettli considers the dilemma "either the work of Moses or the work of a deceiver" as the expression of sheer imprudence; Kautzsch unctuously points to the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God whose ways we cannot fathom, but must admire. The left wing of criticism openly acknowledges that there is no use in hushing up matters; it actually is the result of scientific research that both form and contents of a great part of the Old Testament are based on conscious fiction and forgery.

In some general introductions to the Pentateuch its messianic prophecies are specially considered, i.e., the so-called proto-evangelium, Gen. 3:15; the blessing of Sem, Gen. 9:26-7; the patriarchal promises, Gen. 12:2; 13:16; 15:5; 17:4-6, 16; 18:10-15; 22:17; 26:4; 28:14; the blessing of the dying Jacob, Gen. 49:8-10; the Prophecy of Balaam, Num. 24:15 sqq.; and the great Prophet announced by Moses, Deut. 18:15-19. But these prophecies belong rather to the province of exegesis than introduction. Again, some general introductions of the work consider the text of the Pentateuch. We have seen already that besides the Massoretic Text we have to take into account the earlier text followed by the Septuagint translators, and the still earlier readings of the Samaritan Pentateuch; a detailed investigation of this subject belongs to the field of textual or lower criticism. But the style of the Pentateuch can hardly be referred to any other department of Pentateuchal study.

As Moses no doubt employed pre-existent documents in the composition of his work, and as he must have made use too of the aid of secretaries, we expect antecedently a variety of style in the Pentateuch. It is no doubt due to the presence of this literary phenomenon that the critics have found so many points of support in their minute analysis. But in general, the style of the work is in keeping with its contents. There are three kinds of material in the Pentateuch: first, there are statistics, genealogies, and legal formularies; secondly, there are narrative portions; thirdly, there are parenthetic sections.

No reader will find fault with the writer's dry and simple style in his genealogical and ethnographic lists, in his table of encampments in the desert, or his legal enactments. Any other literary expression would be out of place in records of this kind. The narrative style of the Pentateuch is simple and natural, but also lively and picturesque. It abounds in simple character sketches, dialogues, and anecdotes. The accounts of Abraham's purchase of a burying-ground, of the history of Joseph, and of the Egyptian plagues are also dramatic. Deuteronomy has its peculiar style because of the exhortations it contains. Moses explains the laws he promulgates, but urges also, and mainly, their practice. As an orator, he shows a great deal of unction and persuasiveness, but is not destitute of the earnestness of the Prophets. His long sentences remain at times incomplete, thus giving rise to so-called anacolutha (cf. Dt. 6:10-12; 8: 11- 17; 9:9-11; 11:2-7; 24:1-4). Being necessarily a popular preacher, he is not lacking in repetitions. But his earnestness, persuasiveness, and unction do not interfere with the clearness of his statements. He is not merely a rigid legislator, but he shows his love for the people, and in turn wins their love and confidence.

Summary.

The various exegetical systems which exclude the literal and historical sense of the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis are not based on solid foundation. It should not be taught that these three chapters do not contain true narrations of facts, but only fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of earlier peoples, purged of the polytheistic errors and accommodated to monotheism. It should not be taught that they are allegories and symbols, with no objective reality, set forth in the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends partly historical and partly fictitious put together for instruction and edification. In particular, doubt should not be cast on the literal and historical sense of passages which touch on the foundations of the Christian religion, as, for instance, the creation of the universe by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness, integrity, and immortality of our first parents in the state of justice; the precept given by God to man to try his obedience; the transgression of the Divine precept, at the suggestion of the Devil, under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their original state of justice; the promise of a future Redeemer.

In explaining such passages in these chapters as the Fathers of the Church interpreted differently, one may follow and defend the opinion that meets his approval. Not every word or phrase in these chapters is always necessarily to be taken in its literal sense so that it may never have another, as when it is manifestly used metaphorically or anthropomorphically. The literal and historical meaning of some passages in these chapters presupposed, an allegorical and prophetical meaning may wisely and usefully be employed. As in writing the first chapter of Genesis the purpose of the sacred author was not to expound in a scientific manner the constitution of the universe or the complete order of creation, but rather to give to the people popular information in the ordinary language of the day, adapted to the intelligence of all, so here the strict propriety of scientific language is not always to be looked for in their terminology. The expression six days and their division should be taken in the sense of certain periods of time.

Hebrew liberator, leader, lawgiver, prophet, and historian, lived in the thirteenth and early part of the twelfth century, B.C.

Moshéh (M. T.), Mouses, Moses. In Ex. 2:10, a derivation from the Hebrew Mashah (to draw) is implied. Josephus and the Fathers assign the Coptic mo (water) and uses (saved) as the constituent parts of the name. Nowadays the view of Lepsius, tracing the name back to the Egyptian mesh (child), is widely patronized by Egyptologists, but nothing decisive can be established.

To deny or to doubt the historic personality of Moses is to undermine and render unintelligible the subsequent history of the Israelites. Rabbinical literature teems with legends touching every event of his marvellous career. Taken singly, these popular tales are purely imaginative, yet, considered in their cumulative force, they vouch for the reality of a grand and illustrious personage, of strong character, high purpose, and noble achievement, so deep, true, and efficient in his religious convictions as to thrill and subdue the minds of an entire race for centuries after his death. The Bible furnishes the chief authentic account of this luminous life.

Of Levitic extraction, and born at a time when by kingly edict had been decreed the drowning of every new male offspring among the Israelites, the "goodly child" Moses, after three months' concealment, was exposed in a basket on the banks of the Nile. An elder brother (Ex. 7:7) and sister (Ex. 2:4), Aaron and Mary (AV and RV, Miriam), had already graced the union of Jochabed and Amram. The second of these kept watch by the river, and was instrumental in inducing Pharaoh's daughter, who rescued the child, to entrust him to a Hebrew nurse. The one she designedly summoned for the charge was Jochabed, who, when her "son had grown up," delivered him to the princess. In his new surroundings, he was schooled "in all the wisdom of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22). Moses next appears in the bloom of sturdy manhood, resolute with sympathies for his degraded brethren. Dauntlessly he hews down an Egyptian assailing one of them, and on the morrow tries to appease the wrath of two compatriots who were quarrelling. He is misunderstood, however, and, when upbraided with the murder of the previous day, he fears his life is in jeopardy. Pharaoh has heard the news, and seeks to kill him. Moses flees to Madian. An act of rustic gallantry there secures for him a home with Raguel, the priest. Sephora, one of Raguel's seven daughters, eventually becomes his wife and Gersam his first-born. His second son, Eliezer, is named in commemoration of his successful flight from Pharaoh.

After forty years of shepherd life, Moses speaks with God. To Horeb (Jebel Sherbal?) in the heart of the mountainous Sinaitic peninsula, he drives the flocks of Raguel for the last time. A bush there flaming unburned attracts him, but a miraculous voice forbids his approach and declares the ground so holy that to approach he must remove his shoes. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob designates him to deliver the Hebrews from the Egyptian yoke, and to conduct them into the "land of milk and honey," the region long since promised to the seed of Abraham, the Palestine of later years.

Next, God reveals to him His name under a special form Yahweh (see article JEHOVAH) as a "memorial unto all generations." He performs two miracles to convince his timorous listener, appoints Aaron as Moses's "prophet," and Moses, so to speak, as Aaron's God (Ex. 4:16). Diffidence at once gives way to faith and magnanimity. Moses bids adieu to Jethro (Raguel), and, with his family, starts for Egypt. He carries in his hand the "rod of God," a symbol of the fearlessness with which he is to act in performing signs and wonders in the presence of a hardened, threatening monarch. His confidence waxes strong, but he is uncircumcised, and God meets him on the way and fain would kill him. Sephora saves her "bloody spouse," and appeases God by circumcising a son.

Aaron joins the party at Horeb. The first interview of the brothers with their compatriots is most encouraging, but not so with the despotic sovereign. Asked to allow the Hebrews three days' respite for sacrifices in the wilderness, the angry monarch not only refuses, but he ridicules their God, and then effectually embitters the Hebrews' minds against their new chiefs as well as against himself, by denying them the necessary straw for exorbitant daily exactions in brick making. A rupture is about to ensue with the two strange brothers, when, in a vision, Moses is divinely constituted "Pharaoh's God," and is commanded to use his newly imparted powers. He has now attained his eightieth year.

The episode of Aaron's rod is a prelude to the plagues. Either personally or through Aaron, sometimes after warning Pharaoh, or again quite suddenly, Moses causes a series of Divine manifestations, described as ten in number. In these he humiliates the sun and river gods, afflicts man and beast, and displays such unwonted control over the earth and heavens that even the magicians are forced to recognize in his prodigies "the finger of God."

Pharaoh softens at times but never sufficiently to meet the demands of Moses without restrictions. He treasures too highly the Hebrew labor for his public works. A crisis arrives with the last plague. The Hebrews, forewarned by Moses, celebrate the first Pasch or Phase with their loins girt, their shoes on their feet, and staves in their hands, ready for rapid escape. Then God carries out his dreadful threat to pass through the land and kill every first-born of man and beast, thereby executing judgment on all the gods of Egypt. Pharaoh can resist no longer. He joins the stricken populace in begging the Hebrews to depart.

At the head of 600,000 men, besides women and children, and heavily laden with the spoils of the Egyptians, Moses follows a way through the desert, indicated by an advancing pillar of alternating cloud and fire, and gains the peninsula of Sinai by crossing the Red Sea. A dry passage, miraculously opened by him for this purpose at a point today unknown, afterwards proves a fatal trap for a body of Egyptian pursuers, organized by Pharaoh and possibly under his leadership. The event furnishes the theme of the thrilling canticle of Moses.

For upwards of two months the long procession, much retarded by the flocks, the herds, and the difficulties inseparable from desert travel, wends its way towards Sinai. To move directly on Chanaan would be too hazardous because of the warlike Philistines, whose territory would have to be crossed; whereas, on the southeast, the less formidable Amalacites are the only inimical tribes and are easily overcome thanks to the intercession of Moses. For the line of march and topographical identifications along the route, the miraculous water obtained from the rock Horeb, and the supply of the quails and manna, bespeak the marvelous faith of the great leader. The meeting with Jethro ends in an alliance with Madian, and the appointment of a corps of judges subordinate to Moses, to attend to minor decisions.

At Sinai the Ten Commandments are promulgated, Moses is made mediator between God and the people, and, during two periods of forty days each, he remains in concealment on the mount, receiving from God the multifarious enactments, by the observance of which Israel is to be molded into a theocratic nation. On his first descent, he exhibits an all-consuming zeal for the purity of Divine worship, by causing to perish those who had indulged in the idolatrous orgies about the Golden Calf; on his second, he inspires the deepest awe because his face is emblazoned with luminous horns.

After instituting the priesthood and erecting the Tabernacle, Moses orders a census that shows an army of 603,550 fighting men. These with the Levites, women, and children, duly celebrate the first anniversary of the Pasch, and, carrying the Ark of the Covenant, shortly enter on the second stage of their migration. Hobab, Jethro’s son, who acts as a guide, accompanies them. Two instances of general discontent follow, of which the first is punished by fire, which ceases as Moses prays, and the second by plague. When the manna is complained of, quails are provided as in the previous year. Seventy elders- a conjectural origin of the Sanhedrin- are then appointed to assist Moses. Next Aaron and Mary envy their brother, but God vindicates him and afflicts Mary temporarily with leprosy. From the desert of Pharao Moses sends spies into Chanaan, who, with the exceptions of Joshue and Caleb, bring back startling reports which throw the people into consternation and rebellion. The great leader prays and God intervenes, but only to condemn the present generation to die in the wilderness.

The subsequent uprising of Core, Dathan, Abiron, and their adherents suggests that, during the thirty-eight years spent in the Badiet et-Tih, habitual discontent, so characteristic of nomads, continued. It is during this period that tradition places the composition of a large part of the Pentateuch (q.v.). Towards its close, Moses is doomed never to enter the Promised Land, presumably because of a momentary lack of trust in God at the Water of Contradiction. When the old generation, including Mary, the prophet's sister, is no more, Moses inaugurates the onward march around Edom and Moab to the Arnon.

After the death of Aaron and the victory over Arad, "fiery serpents" appear in the camp, a chastisement for renewed murmurings. Moses sets up the brazen serpent, "which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed." The victories over Sehon and Og, and the feeling of security animating the army even in the territory of the hostile Balac, led to presumptuous and scandalous intercourse with the idolatrous Moabites which results, at Moses's command, in the slaughter of 24,000 offenders. The census, however, shows that the army still numbers 601,730, excluding 23,000 Levites. Of these, Moses allows the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasses to settle in the east-Jordan district, without, however, releasing them from service in the west-Jordan conquest.

As a worthy legacy to the people for whom he has endured unparalleled hardships, Moses in his last days pronounces the three memorable discourses preserved in Deuteronomy. His chief utterance relates to a future Prophet, like to himself, whom the people are to receive. He then bursts forth into a sublime song of praise to Jahweh and adds prophetic blessings for each of the twelve tribes. From Mount Nebo — on "the top of Phasga" — Moses views for the last time the Promised Land, and then dies at the age of 120 years. He is buried "in the valley of Moab over against Phogor," but no man "knows his sepulchre." His memory has ever been one of "isolated grandeur." He is the type of Hebrew holiness, so far outshining other models that twelve centuries after his death, the Christ Whom he foreshadowed seemed eclipsed by him in the minds of the learned. It was, humanly speaking, an indispensable providence that represented him in the Transfiguration, side by side with Elias, and quite inferior to the incomparable Antitype whose coming he had predicted.

The Hebrew word Kenaan, denoting a person, occurs:

• in the Old Testament as the name of one of Ham's sons;
• in a lengthened form, Kenaanah (D.V., Chanana, Canaana) as the name of two other people (I Par. 7:10; II Par. 18:10);
• denoting a country, as the name of the region of the Canaanites or descendants of Canaan.

In the days when the trading Phoenicians held a prominent place, especially among the Canaanites, this word (Kena'ani), and even Canaan (e.g. Is. 23:8), got the signification of "merchant, trader." As the name of the country it occurs under the forms Kinahhi, Kinahni, and Kinahna, as early as two centuries before Moses in the cuneiform letters of Syrian and Palestinian princes to Egyptian Pharaos, found at Tell el-Amarna; and earlier still in Egyptian inscriptions, in the form Ka-n-'-na. The Phoenician town of Laodicea calls itself on coins from the second century B.C. "a mother in Kena'an." In Grecian literature too, evidence remains that the Phoenicians called one of their ancestors, as well as their country, Chna, and even at the time of St. Augustine the Punic country people near Hippo called themselves Chanani, i.e. Canaanites.

If the word be of Semitic origin, it should be derived from the root Kana, and mean originally, low, or, in a figurative sense, small, humble, despicable, subjected. Following this derivation in its original sense, "the land of Canaan" has been explained by various scholars as "the low land" — whether the name may have originally denoted only the flat seashore, or the mountainous country of Western Palestine as well, in opposition to the still higher mountains of the Lebanon and the Hermon.

But Biblical tradition rather seems to derive the name of the country from that of the person. It takes the "land of Canaan" as "the border of the Canaanites" (A.V. Gen. 10:19) i.e. of the race of Canaan, Ham's son, and it does not seem advisable to put against this so uncertain a conjecture as the etymology given above. The less so, as the figurative meaning of the word as a synonym of slave or servant, fits in very well with the little we know of Noah's grandson.

In Genesis 9:18 and 9:22, Ham appears as the father of Canaan, and in Noah's prediction (9:25-27) Canaan stands side by side with his "brothers" (in the larger sense of the Hebrew word) Shem and Japheth:

The curse called down on Canaan is undoubtedly connected with the sin of his father, Ham (verse 22). But it is rather hard to indicate the precise nature of this connection. Had Canaan in some way a share in his father's sin, and is it for this reason that what was said in verse 18 is repeated in the story of the sin, viz.: that Ham was the father of Canaan? Or is the latter struck by Noah's prophetic curse for the sins of his posterity, who were to imitate Ham's wickedness?

Certain it is, that this curse, as well as the blessing invoked upon Shem and Japheth, was especially fulfilled in their posterity. The descendants of Canaan were partly rooted out, partly subjected by the Israelites and all the Canaanite races, as such, disappeared from the scene of history. Others have tried to solve the problem by critical methods. It was supposed that Gen. 10:20-27 was derived from a source in which Canaan had taken the place of his father, Ham, and so was passed off as Noah's third son. It is as conceivable that in the original prophecy the name of Ham occurred, and that the Israelites, seeing the prophecy fulfilled, especially in the posterity of Canaan might have changed it to that of the son. But none of these critical conjectures has any solid foundation.

Quite uncertain, too, is the opinion that represents Canaan as the youngest of Ham's four sons. It is based on Gen. 10:6: "And the sons of Ham: Chus, and Mesram and Phuth, and Canaan." But this whole list of the descendants of Noah's sons is, at least in substance, ethnographical, and the order of succession geographical, hence an enumeration of tribes beginning with the most distant and ending in Palestine. In verses 16-20, therefore, there is question only of Canaanite tribes, and they occupy the last place because they dwell in or near, Palestine. Consequently, it cannot be concluded from this that Canaan was the youngest son of Ham.

With a few exceptions, the Biblical writers seem to indicate by this name at the least, the whole of Western or cis-Jordanic Palestine. It extends from the desert of Sin in the south to near Rohob and the entrance to Emath in the north (Num. 13:3, 18; cf. 22). A more accurate demarcation of the land of Canaan is in Num. 34:3-12, and Ezech., 47:15-20. For though the name does not occur in Ezechiel, the identity of the boundary lines is drawn there is not to be doubted. In either text, the western boundary is formed by the Mediterranean, and the greater part of the eastern by the Dead Sea and the lower course of the Jordan.

The southern frontier coincides with that of the territory of Juda (Jos. 15:1-4), whilst Cadesbarne (Ain Kedis), 30°33' N. latitude, may be taken as the most southern point. From this of Blessed Jerome’s time (In Ezech, Migne 25:476-478) the northern frontier was placed in Middle or even Northern Syria. From this passage of Blessed Jerome even a fons Daphnis (Daphne near Antioch) found its way into Vulgate (Num. 34:11) instead of the town of Ain. But though some of the border towns are not yet known with absolute certainty, we may take for granted nowadays that this northern boundary-line of Canaan must be drawn to the south of the Lebanon and Hermon, at about 33°18' N. lat. We may consider that it completely coincides with the northern frontier of the country conquered and inhabited by the Israelites, which, according to numerous quotations, stretched "from Dan to Bershabee" or "from the entering in of Emath unto the brook of Egypt." The northern part of the eastern boundary, however, seems to follow, not the upper course of the Jordan but the course of the Rukkad from Hasar-Enan (El-Hadr) to Ain (Ayun). Thus here the whole of Western Jaulan still seems to be included in the land Canaan — not, however, the land of Galaad or the country in general beyond the Jordan to the south of the Jarmuk.

All the places quoted above agree with this conception, and only twice does the name of the country Canaan occur in a more limited sense: first for the Phoenician coast (Is. 23:11), and secondly for the low land of the Philistines (Soph. 2:5) — both in a time when only these regions along the coast were still inhabited by Canaanites. We have already seen how the name was honored even later still in Phoenicia itself. In Egypt name of the country seems to be used especially for the seacoast; at the same time, the name Canaanites is also applied to the inhabitants of the mountainous country behind it. In the Tell el-Amarna letters the country of Kinahhi seems to include both the Phoenician coast and the mountains of Upper Galilee, and probably, farther to the north, the country of Amurri (Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon). Cf. H. Clauss Zeitschrift des Deutschell Palastinavereins (1907) 30:17-67.

Gen. 10:15-18 enumerates as the descendants of Canaan a series of tribes, most of which, and originally perhaps all, were settled outside Palestine proper and up to Northern Syria. "And Canaan begot Sidon, his firstborn, the Hethite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorrhite, and the Gergesite, the Hevite and the Aracite: the Sinite, and the Aradian, the Samarite, and the Hamathite: and afterwards the families of the Canaanites were spread abroad." These latter are the tribes peopling Biblical Canaan or western Palestine: "And the limits of Canaan were from Sidon as one comes to Gerara even Gaza, until thou enter Sodom and Gomorrha, and Adama, and Seboim even to Lesa."

If we may identify Lesa (A.V. Lasha) with Lesem (Jos. 19:47) or Lais (Judges 18:14, etc), the Dan of later days, the coast from Sidon to Gaza and Gerara is here indicated as the western boundary of Canaan, and the valley of the Jordan from the Pentapolis to Lais-Dan as the eastern boundary. But the "Codex Samaritanus" has in verse 19 quite another statement: "And the border of the Canaanite was from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, and [from the Euphrates] to the hindmost [or Western] Sea." Apparently by "the Canaanite" are here meant all the descendants of Canaan, mentioned in verses 15-18, of whom the Hethites, at least, lived close to the Euphrates.

It is hard to decide which reading is the original one. Both show the descendants of Canaan settled in the Biblical "land of Canaan," i.e. the later "land of Israel." As a rule, it is the pre-Israelite inhabitants of this "land of Canaan," taken collectively, who are indicated by this common name of Canaanites. It is thus in the Pentateuch, especially in parts attributed to a Jahvistic source, as e.g. Gen. 12:6, 24:37 38:2. Elsewhere, however, chiefly in so-called Elohistic parts, the name of Amorrhites is used in the same general sense. And very often as many as six or seven or even eleven, different tribes or peoples are distinguished; one of which in particular bears the name of Canaanites. Thus e.g. Exod. 3:8: "The Canaanite, and Hethite, and Amorrhite and Pherezite, and Hevite, and Jebusite." Repeatedly (e.g. Jos. 3:l0), the Gergesites, mentioned above (Gen 10:16), are added; and in Gen. 15:19-21, we find "the Cineans and Cenezites, Cedmonites . . . the Raphaim also"; whilst in Num. 14:25, the Amelectite; in A.V. Deut 2:23 and Jos. 13:3, the Avims; and in Jos. 11:21 (and elsewhere), the Enacims are named, leaving out other older, and probably trans-Jordanic, tribes like the Zuzim, the Emim, and the Chorreans (Gen. 14:5-6).

Of most of these tribes, little or nothing is known. The Hethites founded a mighty kingdom in Northern Syria, but it is uncertain whether their namesakes in the south of Palestine (Gen., 23:3, 24:34, etc) had anything in common with them besides the name. About the Canaanites in a more limited sense we learn that they had their dwelling-place to the east and west of the mountains, i.e. along the coast of the Mediterranean and in the valley of the Jordan and the Araba to the south of the Dead Sea (Num. 13:30 14:25; Deut 1:7; 11:29 sq; Jos. 5:1 11:3-13:3). So it is by this name that the Phoenicians are still called in Abd., 20; and the "Syrophenician" woman of Mark 7:26, is a Canaanite woman in Matth. 15:22.

It is not likely that all the various pre-Israelite tribes remained sharply distinguished from one another. "There are good reasons for believing that at a very early period the population of Palestine already presented a mixture of races, and that through intermarriage the dividing lines between these races became fainter in the course of time, until all sharp distinctions were obliterated. The problem of distinguishing between these various groups whom the Hebrews encountered upon setting in Palestine is at present incapable of solution" (Morris, Jastrow, Jr. Encyclop. Bibl., I, 642).

Still it does not seem too great a venture to distinguish (with Hughes Vincent, "Canaan," p. 455) two principal groups of tribes: the Amorrhites in the mountains and the Canaanites along the seacoast and in the valley of the Jordan, and perhaps in the plain of Esdrelon (Jos. 17:12-18). On the other hand, when the Israelites under Josue penetrated into Canaan they found this mixed "Canaanite" or "Amorrhite" population, not bound together politically under one government but divided into more than thirty petty kingdoms (Jos. 12:7-14), a state of things which must have made the conquest considerably easier for them.

This same system of cutting up the country into small parts obtained two or three centuries earlier, in the time of the Tell el-Amarna letters, which were for the greater part written by, or to a number of these city-kings — and apparently even earlier still in the days of Abraham (Gen. 14:2, 8, 18 20:2). In this respect, these letters contain a striking corroboration of the Biblical story. After the campaigns of Tothmes III in the sixteenth century B.C. all these small states acknowledged the supremacy of the Egyptian Pharaohs and paid them tribute. After a time, however, this sovereignty must have gradually become more and more nominal, and in spite of the later campaigns of Seti I and Rames II against Hethites, it left no traces after the conquest by Josue.

The further particulars given by the Bible about the Canaanites are rather scanty. We read occasionally of their cities "great and walled up to the sky" (Deut. 1:28; cf. Num. 13:29); of their "chariots of iron" (Jos. 17:16): and repeatedly of their gods Baal and Moloch and their goddesses Astarte and Ashera. We read of their altars and their stone pillars (masseboth) and wooden posts (asherim), in connection with these altars, of their sacrifices of children and manifold forms of moral perversity. We learn of the abominations on account of which "the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants" (A.V. Lev. 18:25), and which, in spite of the severe prohibition of the Law and the admonitions of the Prophets, found but too much imitation in Israel itself. Most of these particulars have received a splendid corroboration and explanation in archaeological discoveries, principally in consequence of the systematic excavations conducted in Palestine by W.H. Flinders Petrie and F.J. Bliss at Tell el-Hesy; by Bliss and M.R.A. Stewart Macalister at Tell Zakariya, Tell es-Safy, and Tell Jedeide. They’ve been borne out by Macalister at Teil Jezer; by E. Sellin at Thenac; by G. Schumacher at Tell el-Mutesallim — to all of which Sellin added in 1907 his labors at old Jericho.

Even before the tribes who are introduced to us as Canaanites in the Bible penetrated into Palestine (between 3000 and 2500 B.C.), there must have lived for many centuries an older population, dwelling there partly in caves, but also possessing their primitive "towns" surrounded by earthen walls. This period is characterized especially by stone instruments and very primitive earthenware. The Canaanite tribes who gradually took their place came from the north and were for a long time, if not under the supremacy, without a doubt under the manifold influence of Babylon, which Sellin added in 1907 his labors at old Jericho.

In the fifteenth century B.C., when the country was already politically subject to Egypt, the kings of the Canaanite towns used in their correspondence, not only with the Pharaos but also between themselves, the Babylonian cuneiform characters, and — with the addition of a number of Canaanite words — the language of Babylon as well. Macalister (Pal. Expl. fund Quart. Stat. 1905, 323 sq), and, quite lately, Sellin (Mitth.und Nach. des Deutschen Palastinavereins, 1907, 70) found some scanty evidence that the Old Hebrew or Phoenician characters were also known in those days.

Civilization meanwhile, had made immense progress, as is evident from the rise of bronze and other metals — soon, too, of iron. It appears evident from the building of dwelling-places, city stalls, towers, and strongholds; from the increasing number and value of objects of domestic and religious use. We learn it from the designs and fitting up of sanctuaries and burial caves; and from the richer variety of form, ornamentation, and painting in the products of the potter's art — though art does not appear to have enjoyed a continuous and even development.

When the Israelites (Num 13:29; Deut. 1:28) speak in awe of "great cities," the hyperbole is nearly as great as in the expression "walled up to the sky." Those explored have covered, at most, seven or eight hectares (about 19 acres), but the fortifications have been excellent. The walls of Jericho, built of burnt bricks, had a width of from three to twelve metres, i.e. from about 9 to 39 feet (Sellin. op. cit., p. 69).

If the ancient inhabitants offered their sacrifices in dish-like cups cut in the surface of the rocky ground, the Canaanites had their open-air temples, or Bamoth (high places), with altar, sacrificial pit, and stone pillars from about seven to nine feet high. At Gazer eight pillars were found, still standing, the smallest of which (about 51/2 feet high) seems to the oldest, and is perhaps the real emblem of the deity. Of the asherim, or wooden posts, only the stone bases seem to remain. Two large grottos situated under the sanctuary must also have played a part in this worship.

But the most disgusting traces of this idolatry are the skeletons of infants — mostly new-born babes — sacrificed to the deity, which at Gazer were found buried in jars beneath the floor of the sanctuary, and elsewhere, especially at Mageddo, in its immediate neighborhood. Several times the remains of these human victims, among which have been adults, were found beneath or in the foundations of houses and other buildings; a striking illustrations of the words of Jos. 6:26: "Cursed be the man before the Lord that shall raise up and build the city of Jericho. In [or with] his firstborn may be lay the foundation thereof, and in [or with] the last of his children set up its gates."

The naturalistic character of this religion becomes especially evident in the numerous Astarte plaques, or statuettes, of divergent types, and likewise in the often-occurring phallic emblems. Among these latter, some class part of the baetylic stone pillars, and find in a few bulls' heads representations of Baal or Moloch. Some representations of Babylonian deities also occur, and, still more frequently, images from Egyptian mythology. The Astarte plaques likewise show Egyptian inspiration. In short, the Canaanite civilization seems continually to have felt the influence of both these nations. In pottery, moreover, Aegean-Phoenician art produced marked results from the beginning of the fourteenth century B.C. On the other hand, the settlement of the Israelites in Canaan, judging from the explorations made, opened no new period in so far as archaeology is concerned, so that the "Canaanite" period (i.e. the various "Semitic" periods of Macalister, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements, 1907, p. 203) has been extended to about the ninth or eighth century B.C.

Indeed, the submission of the Canaanite was not made effectual nearly so soon as some chapters of the Book of Josue might lead us to expect. Particularly the places that have become best known to us through the excavations, Thenac, Mageddo, and Gazer, are among those that submitted to Israel only after a lapse of time (Jos. 17:11-13; Judges 1:27-29). Gazer even in the days of Solomon was still inhabited by Canaanites (III Kings 9:16). And in the same context (verses 20-21) we learn that Solomon, through forced statute labor, subjugated "unto this day," the whole of the Canaanite population of his realm. Thus, Canaan had become once and for all the servant of Shem. Afterwards Phoenicia with its colonies was subjugated by the Romans, sons of Japheth, and soon vanished altogether from the roll of nations.

The name of eight persons in the Old Testament, and of one of the Sacred Books.

('Oseé), a Bethsamite in whose field the ark stood on its way back from the land of the Philistines to Juda (I Kings 6:14, 18).

('Iesoûs), governor of Jerusalem whose idolatrous altars King Josias destroyed, during the latter's attempts to undo the evil wrought by his father Amon and grandfather Manasses (IV Kings 22:8).

('Iesoûs), the son of Josedec and the high­priest who returned with Zorobabel from the Babylonian Captivity to Jerusalem (I Esd. 2:2; II Esd. 7:7; 21:1). In I and II Esd. the Vulgate calls him Josue; in Agg. and Zach, Jesus. He assisted Zorobabel in rebuilding the Temple, and was most zealous for the restoration of the religion of Israel (I Esd. 3:2, 8; 4:3; 5:2). It was he whom Zacharias saw in vision stripped of filthy garments and clothed in clean robes and mitre, while the angel of the Lord proclaimed the high­priest the type of the coming Messias (Zach. 3).

('Iesoué, 'Iesoû), a head of the family of Phahath Moab, one of the families named in the list of Israelites that returned from the Babylonian Exile (I Esd. 2:6; II Esd. 7:11).

('Iesoî 'Iesoû), a head of the priestly family of Idaia, maybe the high­priest Josue mentioned above (I Esd. 2:36; II Esd. 7:39).

('Iesoûs, 'Iesoû), the name of a priestly family descended from Oduia, as also of various heads of that family after the Exile (I Esd. 2:40; 3:9; 8: 33; II Esd. 3:19; 7:43; 8: 7; 9:4, 5; 12:8, Vulg. Jesua; 12:24).

('Iesía), one of the sons of Herem who were ordered to put away their wives taken from the land of the stranger (I Esd. 10:31).

(First called Osee; Sept. 'Iesoûs, first Aúsé), the son of Nun; the genealogy of the family is given in I Par. 7:20-27; it belonged to the tribe of Ephraim. Josue commanded the army of Israel, after the Exodus, in its battle with Amalec (Ex. 17:9-13), was called the minister of Moses (24:13), accompanied the great lawgiver to and from Mount Sinai (31:17) and into the tabernacle of the covenant (33:11), and acted as one of twelve spies whom Moses sent to view the land of Chanaan (Num. 13:9).

On this occasion, Moses changed his servant's name from Osee to Josue (Num. 13:17). The new name most likely means "Jahweh is salvation." Josue and Caleb alone spoke well of the land, even though the people wished to stone them for not murmuring and these two lived on (Num. 14:38). Josue was chosen by God to succeed Moses. The words of the choice show the character of the chosen (Num. 27:17-18). Before Eleazar and all the assembly of the people Moses laid hands on Josue. Later this soldier was proposed by Moses to the people to lead them into the land beyond the Jordan (Deut. 31:3), and was ordered by the Lord to do so (31:23). After the death of Moses, Josue was filled with the spirit of wisdom and was obeyed by the children of Israel (Deut. 34:9). The rest of story of Josue is told in the Book of Josue.

The sixth book of the Old Testament; in the plan of the critics, the last book of the Hexateuch. In the Fathers, the book is often called "Jesus Nave." The name dates from the time of Origen, who translated the Hebrew "son of Nun" by uìòs Nauê and insisted upon the Nave as a type of a ship; hence in the name Jesus Nave many of the Fathers see the type of Jesus, the Ship wherin the world is saved.

The Book of Josue contains two parts: the conquest of the Promised Land and the division thereof. (a) The Conquest (1:-12:). Josue enters the land of promise, after being assured by spies that the way is safe. It is the tenth day of the first month, forty-one years since the Exodus. The channel of the Jordan is dry during the passage of Israel (1:-3:) A monument is erected in the midst of the Jordan, and one at Galgal, to commemorate the miracle. Josue camps at Galgal (4:). The Israelites born during the wandering are circumcised; the pasch is eaten the first time in the land of promise; the manna ceases to fall; Josue is strengthened by the vision of an angel (5:). The walls of Jericho fall without a blow; the city is sacked; its inhabitants are put to death; only the family of Rahab is spared (6:).

Israel goes up against Hai. The crime of Achan causes defeat. Josue punishes that crime and takes Hai (7-8:29); sets up an altar on Mount Hebal; subjugates the Gabaonites (8:30-9:), defeats the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jerimoth, Lachis, and Eglon; captures and destroys Maceda, Lebna, Lachis, Eglon, Hebron, Dabir, and the South even to Gaza; marches North and defeats the combined forces of the kings at the waters of Meron (10:-12:). (b) The Division of the Land among the Tribes of Israel (13:-22:). Epilogue: last message and death of Josue (23:-24:).

(a) In the Jewish canon Josue is among the Early Prophets Josue, Judges, and the four Books of Kings. It was not grouped with the Pentateuch, chiefly because, unlike Exodus and Leviticus, it contained no Torah, or law; also because the five books of the Torah were assigned to Moses. (b) In the Christian canon Josue has ever held the same place as in the Jewish canon.

Non-Orthodox have almost all followed the critics in the question of the "Hexateuch"; even the conservative Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible," ed. 1909, takes it for granted that Josue (Joshua) is a post-Exile patchwork.

The first part (1: -12:) is made up of two documents, probably J and E (Jehovistic and Elohistic elements), put together by J E and later revised by the Deuterocanonical editor (D); to this latter is assigned all of the first chapter. Very little of this portion is the work of P (the compiler of the Priestly Code).

In the second part (xiii-xxii), the critics are uncertain as to whether the last editing was the work of the Deuteronomic or the Priestly editor. They agree in this that the same hands those of J, E, D, and P are at work in both parts, and that the portions that must be assigned to P have characteristics that are not at all found in his work in the Pentateuch.

The final redaction is post-Exilic a work done about 440-400 B.C.

Such in brief is the theory of the critics, who differ here as elsewhere in the matter of the details assigned to the various writers and the order of the editing, which all assume was certainly done. (See G. A. Smith and Welch in Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible," large and small editions respectively, s. v. "Joshua"; Moore in Cheyne, "Encyc. Bibl."; Wellhausen, "Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des A. T.," Berlin, 1889; Driver, "Introd. to Lit. of O.T.," New York, 1892, 96.).

The Jews knew no such Hexateuch, no such six books set together by a final editor; they always kept a marked distinction between the Pentateuch and Josue, and rather linked Josue with Judges than with Deuteronomy. The well-known preface to Ecclus. (Sept.) separates the "Law" from the "Prophets." The Samaritans have the Torah entirely separate from the recently discovered Samaritan Josue.

The Church defends the pre-Exilic unity of composition of Josue and its editorial independence of the Pentateuch. This independence is shown by the completeness and originality of the plan of the book. We have seen the unity of this plan Josue's conquest and division of the Promised Land. The purpose is clear to carry on the history of the chosen people after the death of Moses. The purpose of the Pentateuch was very different, to codify the laws of the chosen people as well as to sum up their primitive history. No laws are codified in Josue. The critics argue that the death of Moses leaves a void to be filled up, i. e. the conquest of the land of promise, and therefore postulate this conquest for the historical, if not for the legal, completeness of the Pentateuch. Such an hypothesis would justify one in postulating also that the history of the conquest after the death of Josue be needed for the historical completeness of the Pentateuch.

Again, the completeness of Josue's narrative of the conquest of the Promised Land is clear from the fact that it repeats data that are already given in the Pentateuch and are details of that conquest. The orders of Moses to the children of Ruben and of Gad are clear-cut in the Pentateuch (Num. 32:20 sqq.). So, too, is the execution of these orders by the Rubenites and Gadites in the lands of the Amorrhites and of Basan (Num. 32:33-38).

If Josue is part of the composite and late composition which the critics make the Mosaic books out to be, how comes it that these very data concerning the children of Ruben and of Gad are repeated by the supposititious Deuteronomic D¹ or D² when he comes to set together the J and E and P of Josue? Why does he break in upon his continued narrative (see Jos. 1:12; 13:15-28)? Why this useless repetition of the same names, if not because of the unity of composition of Josue? Why are the cities of refuge given again (cf. 20:8; Deut. 4:41 sqq.)? To answer these and similar difficulties, the critics have recourse to an uncritical subterfuge. D¹ or D² was not brought up in the school of modern criticism; hence his blunderings. We cannot accept so uncritical and freehanded a writer as the God-chosen and inspired editor of the Pentateuch and Josue.

1. The Book of Josue was certainly written before the time of David, for the Chanaanite still dwelt in Gazer (16:10), the Jebusite in Jerusalem (15:63), and Sidon held supremacy in Phoenicia (14:28). Whereas, before the time of Solomon, the Egyptians had driven the Chanaanite from Gazer (III Kings 9:16), David had captured Jerusalem in the eighth year of his reign (II Kings 5:5), and Tyre (twelfth century B.C.) had supplanted Sidon in the supremacy of Phoenicia. Moreover, in David's time, no writer could have set down his allies the Phoenicians among the peoples to be destroyed (13:6).
2. Internal evidence favors the view that the author lived not long after the death of Josue. The territory assigned to each tribe is very exactly described. Only the land allotted to Ephraim is set down (16:5), since occupation was delayed (17:16); on the other hand, we are told not only the portion of land allotted to Juda and Benjamin, but the cities they had captured (15:1 sqq.; 18:11 sqq.); as for the other tribes, the progress they had made in winning the cities of their lot is told us with an accuracy which could not be explained were we to admit that the narrative is post-Exilic in its final redaction. Only the inadmissible bungling of the uncritical D¹ or D² will serve to explain away this argument.
3. The question remains: Did Josue write all save the epilogue? Opinions are divided. Most of the Fathers seem to have taken it for granted that the author is Josue; still there have ever been scholars who assigned the work to some one shortly after the death of the great leader. Theodoret (In Jos., q. xiv), Pseudo-Athanasius (Synopsis Sacr. Scrip.), Tostatus (In Jos. 1:q. xiii; vii), Maes ("Josue Imperatoris Historia," Antwerp, 1574), Haneberg ("Gesch. der bibl. Offenbarung," Ratisbon, 1863, 202), Danko ("Hist. Rev. Div. V. T.," Vienna, 1862, 200), Meignan ("De Moïse à David," Paris, 1896, 335), and many other authors admit that the Book of Josue contains signs of later editing; but all insist that this editing was done before the Exile.

The chief objection of rationalists to the historical worth of the book is the almost overwhelming force of the miraculous therein; this objection has no worth to the Biblical exegete. Saints Paul (Heb. 11:30, 31; 13:5), James (2:25), and Stephen (Acts 7:45), the tradition of the Synagogue and of the Church accept the Book of Josue as historical. To the Fathers Josue is an historical person and a type of the Messias. As an antidote to accusations that Josue was cruel and murderous, etc., one should read the Assyrian and Egyptian accounts of the almost contemporary treatment of the vanquished. Blessed Augustine solved the rationalistic difficulty by saying that the abominations of the Chanaanites merited the punishment which God, as Master of the world, meted out to them by the hand of Israel (In Hept., III, 56; P.L. 34:702, 816). These abominations of phallic worship and infant sacrifice have been proven by the excavations of the Palestine Exploration Fund at Gazer.

The Septuagint is preserved in two different recensions the Alexandrian (A) and Vatican (B) and varies considerably from the Masorah; the Vulgate often differs from all three (3:4; 4:3-13; 5:6). The Samaritan Josue recently discovered, resembles the Sept. more closely than the Masorah.

The seventh book of the Old Testament, second of the Early Prophets of the Hebrew canon.

The Hebrew name of the book was transliterated by Origen Safateím, and by Blessed Jerome Sophtim; it was translated by Melito and Origen Kritaí, by the Septuagint ì tôn kritôn bíblos or tôn kritôn, so, too, by the Greek Fathers; the Latins translated liber Judicum or Judicum.

The Hebrew verb meant originally "to act as a Divine judge," and was applied to God (Gen. 18:25), and to Moses acting as the specially inspired lawgiver and judge of Israel (Ex. 18:13, 16). In time, the elders of the people became the "judges." In this book the term judges (shôphatîm) is applied to the leaders of Israel, and would seem to indicate that their right was Divine (Judges 10:2, 3). The office of judge differed from that of king only in the absence of hereditary succession (12:7-15). It is worth noting that the Phoenicians, according to Livy, called their chief magistrate suffetes (XXVIII, xxxvii), and gave to the suffetes of Carthage a power analogous to that of the Roman consul (30, vii; 34, lxi).

(1) Introduction (1-25:5). A summary of the conquest of Chanaan (1:1-36). The angel of Jahweh reproves the tribes that made league with the stranger (2:1-5). (2) The history of Israel under the judges (2:6-16), introduced by a summary of its contents — Israel's forsaking of Jahweh, turning to Baal and Astaroth, defeat by her enemies, and deliverance by Jahweh (2:6-3:6). Then follow the wonderful deeds of the judges, of whom Gedeon and Samson are the chief heroes; to them are devoted seven chapters. (3) Two more stories of the times of the judges — the migration of Dan and their idolatrous worship of the idol of Michas (17-18), the crime of the Benjamites and their punishment by Israel (19:-21:).

The Book of Judges is admitted by all to belong to the canons of the Jews of Palestine, the Jews of the Dispersion (the Alexandrian canon), and the Christians. Only the authority of the Church can determine the canon of Sacred Scripture, and define the inspired meaning of the Books. Hence, Orthodox Christians may not go the way of Rationalists and of Protestants in the matter of the so-called late and manifold redaction of Judges.

The chief arguments for the authenticity of Judges are given below under Historicity and Sources. We now appeal to: The canonizing of the book by Jews and Christians as an authentic narrative of part of Israel's history; the life-like style of the work; the minute and accurate details of the narrative; the evident purpose of the narrator to give a history of the things whereof he knows.

Although the purpose of the narrator is evidently to give a history of the events that took place in Israel between the days of Josue and of Samuel, yet that purpose is rather epic and didactic than historical in the modern sense of the word.

(1) The narrator does not purpose history in the modern sense; he does not narrate in historical order all the important events of the period. This fact is clear from the appendixes (17:-21:), which give very important events outside their proper historical order.

(2) The historian of Judges has an epic purpose, as early historians (e.g. Herodotus) often had. The epos, or theme, of the historian of Judges is evolved in the summary (2:6-3:6), wherewith he introduces the history proper; he has it ever in mind to unfold why Jahweh allowed the foe to abide so long in the promised land, and even to defeat the chosen people, and why He raised up the judges. The idolatry of Israel is the reason.

(3) The didactic purpose of the book is to teach Israel that the commandments of Jahweh should be obeyed (3:4). When Israel leaves Jahweh, Jahweh leaves Israel, at least for the while; the foes of Israel triumph (cf. Aug., "De Civ. Dei," 16: 43).

The problem is complicated. Most contradictory theories have been proposed. In the matter of historical criticism of Judges, as of the Pentateuch, Biblical scholars do not deny the use of various sources by the inspired writer, but postulate that these documents shall have been written and put together very much earlier than the Rationalists wish. There is no proof whatsoever of the late and manifold redactions of these documents in our present book. Cornely (loc. cit., 214-22) and Hummelauer (In Lib. Jud. et Ruth, 27) both consider that the writer of Judges was probably Samuel; and both admit that the work shows signs of the use of pre-existing documents. Such is the opinion also of Kaulen ("Einleitung in die heilige Schrift," 3rd ed., Freiburg, 1890, 181).

(1) Judges, in its present state, cannot have been written before Israel had a king. Only in the time of a king could the writer have said: "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every one did that which seemed right to himself" (17:6; cf. 18:1; 21:24). These words appear only in the appendix (17:-21:), which we admit to be later than some of the sources used by the sacred writer; this appendix is generally admitted to be part of the work done by the last editor of Judges. This editor, then, wrote while Israel had a king.

(2) The book was not written after Solomon had done evil. The writer deems the lack of a king to be the explanation of the idolatry of the Danites and the misdeeds of the tribe of Benjamin. Such an explanation would have been out of the question had the writer known either of the idolatry brought in by Jeroboam and encouraged by Solomon or of the separation of Juda from Israel.

(3) This last editor must have written before David had reigned seven years. For Jerusalem was still called Jebus and was occupied by the Jebusites (19:11); whereas, in the seventh year of his reign, David took the citadel of Sion, called it the city of David, and destroyed the Jebusites (II Kings, 5:).

(4) Finally, it is likely that Judges antedates even the first seven years of David's reign and the last years of Saul's. The book purposes to keep the children of Israel from idolatry and from the Divine punishments thereof. In the beginning of David's and the end of Saul's reign there was no need of such purpose: Saul had "rooted out the magicians and soothsayers from the land" (I Kings 28:9). Moreover, in that period the writer would have seen that even a "king in Israel" did not prevent the tribal and internal dissensions of the days of the judges.

(5) Since, then, Judges was most likely written in the first years of Saul's reign, there is no more probable writer thereof than Samuel. He had yielded to Israel's clamors, and set up Saul as king. A new war was impending. There was none in Israel more likely to make the people ready for that war by driving home to them the thesis of Judges — that fidelity to Jahweh meant success against the foe of Israel.

(6) The use of previous documents by Samuel sufficiently explains the varied literary style on account of which the Rationalists frame their various hypotheses. The song of Debbora (5:) is archaic by contrast with the language of its setting. The story of Gedeon is originally from a different hand than that of the first writer of Samson's history.

The writer of Judges was contemporary with some of the events that he narrated; used documents written by those who were contemporary, or all but contemporary, with the deeds they told; and shows every sign of sincerity, care, and truth. The very concern of the writer to give the truth explains the manifold literary style of the book. He has preserved to us unchanged the style of the song of Debbora and that of the fable of Joatham. He has transmitted sayings peculiar to place and to person (2:5; 4:5; 6: 24, 32; 15:19; 18:12, 29). The nationalistic objections to the miraculous in the stories of Gedeon and Samson are generally accepted by Protestant writers, who look upon these portions of Judges as legendary; to Orthodox these are as historical as any other portion of the work. The enemies to the historicity of the book in vain insist that these stories are set down as legends to please the Israelites. The writer of Judges so berates the Israelites for idolatry and inter-tribal dissension that it is unscientific to accuse him of truckling to their pride in their heroes.

(a) Orthodox tradition is clear. The Fathers look upon the narrative of Judges as fact-narrative; all who deem that unanimity worth consideration admit their unanimity.

(b) O. T. testimony is manifold. The opening summary (1:1-2:5) gives details the historical value of which is attested by Josue: Juda's siege of Dabir (1:10-15; Jos. 15:14-19), the Jebusites in Jerusalem (1:21; Jos. 15:63), the Chanaanite in Gazer along with Ephraim (1:29; Jos. 16:10), the Chanaanite dwelling with Manasses (1:27; Jos. 17:11). Like details are the death of Josue (2:6-9; Jos. 24:28-31) and the capture of Lesem by Dan (17, 18; Jos. 19:47). The Books of Kings tell us as facts much that we read in Judges. Both books include Israel's forgetfulness of Jahweh, her defeat by the foe and salvation by the judges (I Kings 12:9-11); the death of Abimelech, son of Gedeon (9:53; II Kings 11:21). The Psalms dwell proudly on the deeds of the judges: the fate of Sisara, Jabin, Oreb, Zeb, Zebee, and Salmana (7:22, 25; 4:15; 8: 21; Ps. 82:10-12); the entire history of Judges in outline (Ps. 105: 34-46). The Prophets refer to real facts given in Judges: the defeat of Madian by Gedeon (Is. 9:4; 10:26); the crime at Gabaa (Osee 9:9; 10:9).

(c) In the N. T., St. Paul mentions the judges in their proper place between Josue and Samuel (Acts 13:20); praises some of the judges along with certain kings (Heb. 11:32).

(1) Hebrew. Kittel's edition shows that the Masoretic text is in very good condition. "It is better preserved than any other of the historical books" (Moore, "Judges," 43). The only serious difficulties are in the song of Debbora.

(2) Greek. We have two distinct Septuagint forms (cf. Lagarde, "Septuaginta-Studien," 1892, 1-72): one is seen in the Alexandrinus (A), Coislinianus (P), Basiliano­Vaticanus (V), and many cursives; the other version is represented by the Vatican (B), and a considerable number of cursives.

(3) Latin. Blessed Jerome's version is one of his most careful efforts at translation of the Masorah, and is of the greatest exegetical importance.

(Derived from the Hebrew word for "sun").

The last and most famous of the Judges of Israel. The narrative of the life of Samson and his exploits is contained in chapters 13-16 of the book of Judges. After the deliverance effected by Jephte, the Israelites again fell into their evil ways and were delivered over to the Philistines for forty years. An angel of the Lord in the form of a man appears to the barren wife of Manue of the tribe of Dan and promises her that she shall bear a son who shall deliver Israel from the oppression of the Philistines. He prescribes abstinence on the part of both mother and son from all things intoxicating or unclean, and that no razor shall touch the child's head, "for he shall be a Nazarite [q.v.] of God." The angel bearing a similar message again appears to Manue as well as to his wife, and it is only after his disappearance in the flame of a burnt offering that they recognize with great fear his celestial nature.

The child is born according to the prediction and receives the name Samson, and the narrative informs us that the "spirit of the Lord" was with him from his youth. Strangely enough, this spirit impels him in spite of his parents' opposition to choose a wife from among the ungodly Philistines (Judges 14:1-4). On a visit to Thamnatha, the town of his intended bride, Samson gives the first evidence of his superhuman strength by slaying a lion without other weapon than his bare hands. Returning later, he finds that a swarm of bees has taken up their abode in the carcass of the lion. He eats of the honey and the incident becomes the occasion of the famous riddle proposed by him to the thirty Philistine guests at the wedding festivities: "Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness."

In their inability to find the answer, the guests, toward the end of seven days' feast, induce Samson's wife to coax him to reveal it to her, and not sooner has she succeeded than she declares it to her countrymen. Samson, however, in order to provide the thirty garments pledged in the wager, goes down to Ascalon in "the spirit of the Lord" and slays thirty Philistines whose garments he gives to the guests who had declared the answer to the riddle. In anger he returns to his father's house, and his bride chooses one of his wedding companions for her husband.

He returns later to claim her and her father informs him that she has been given to one of his friends, but that he may have instead her younger and fairer sister. Samson declines the offer and catching three hundred foxes he couples them tail to tail, and having fastened torches between their tails turns them loose to set fire to the corn harvests of the Philistines which are thus destroyed together with their vineyards and olive-yards.

The Philistines retaliate by burning the faithless wife and her father, whereupon Samson makes a "great slaughter of them" and then retires to dwell in a cavern of Etam in the tribe of Juda. Three thousand Philistines follow him and take up their quarters at Lechi. The men of Juda, alarmed, blame Samson for this invasion and deliver him up bound to the enemy.

But when Sampson is brought to them the spirit of the Lord come upon him; he bursts his bonds and slays a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. Being thirsty after this exploit, he is revived by a spring of water that the Lord causes to flow from the jawbone. Later while Samson is visiting a harlot in Gaza the Philistines gather about the city gate in order to seize him in the morning, but he, rising at midnight, takes the gate, posts and all, and carries it to the top of a hill in the direction of Hebron.

Subsequently he falls in love with a woman named Dalila of the valley of Sorec, whom the Philistines bribe to betray him into their hands. After deceiving her three times as to the source of his strength, he finally yields to her entreaties and confesses that his power is due to the fact that his head has never been shaved. The paramour treacherously causes his locks to be shorn and he falls helpless into the hands of the Philistines who put out his eyes and cast him into prison. Later, after his hair has grown again he is brought forth on the occasion of the feast of the god Dagon to be exhibited for the amusement of the populace. The spectators, among whom are the princes of the Philistines, number more than three thousand, and they are congregated in, and upon, a great edifice that is mainly supported by two pillars. These are seized by the hero whose strength has returned; he pulls them down, causing the house to collapse, and perishes himself in the ruins together with all the Philistines.

Because of certain resemblances, some scholars have claimed that the biblical account of the career and exploits of Samson is but a Hebrew version of the pagan myth of Hercules. This view, however, is nothing more than a superficial conjecture lacking serious proof. Still less acceptable is the opinion which sees in the biblical narrative merely the development of a solar myth, and which rests on little more than the admitted but inconclusive derivation of the name Samson from shemesh, "sun." Both views are rejected by such eminent and independent scholars as Moore and Budde. The story of Samson, like other portions of the Book of Judges, is doubtless derived from the sources of ancient national legend. It has an ethical as well as a religious import, and historically it throws not a little light on the customs and manners of the crude age to which it belongs.

One of the proto-canonical writings of the Old Testament, which derives its name from the heroine of its exquisitely beautiful story.

The incidents related in the first part of the Book of Ruth (1-4:17) are briefly as follows. In the time of the judges, a famine arose in the land of Israel, in consequence of which Elimelech with Noemi and their two sons emigrated from Bethlehem of Juda to the land of Moab. After Elimelech's death Mahalon and Chelion, his two sons, married Moabite wives, and not long after died without children. Noemi, deprived now of her husband and children, left Moab for Bethlehem. On her journey thither, she dissuaded her daughters-in-law from going with her. One of them, however, named Ruth, accompanied Noemi to Bethlehem.

The barley harvest had just begun and Ruth, to relieve Noemi's and her own poverty, went to glean in the field of Booz, a rich man of the place. She met with the greatest kindness, and following Noemi's advice, she made known to Booz, as the near kinsman of Elimelech, her claim to marriage. After a nearer kinsman had solemnly renounced his prior right, Booz married Ruth who bore him Obed, the grandfather of David. The second part of the book (4:18-22) consists in a brief genealogy that connects the line of David through Booz with Phares, one of the sons of Juda.

In the series of the sacred writings of the Old Testament, the short Book of Ruth occupies two different principal places. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the English Versions give it immediately after the Book of Judges. The Hebrew Bible, on the contrary, reckons it among the Hagiographa or third chief part of the Old Testament. Of these two places, the latter is most likely the original one.

It is attested to by all the data of Jewish tradition, namely, the oldest enumeration of the Hagiographa in the Talmudic treatise "Baba Bathra," all the Hebrew MSS. whether Spanish or German, the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible, and the testimony of Blessed Jerome in his Preface to the Book of Daniel, according to which eleven books are included by the Hebrews in the Hagiographa. The presence of the Book of Ruth after that of Judges in the Septuagint, whence it passed into the Vulgate and the English Versions, is easily explained by the systematic arrangement of the historical books of the Old Testament in that ancient Greek Version.

As the episode of Ruth is connected with the period of the judges by its opening words "in the days . . .when the judges ruled," its narrative was made to follow the Book of Judges as a sort of complement to it. The same place assigned to it in the lists of St. Melito, Origen, Blessed Jerome (Prol. Galeatus), is traceable to the arrangement of the inspired writings of the Old Testament in the Septuagint, inasmuch as these lists bespeak in various ways the influence of the nomenclature and grouping of the sacred books in that Version, and consequently should not be regarded as conforming strictly to the arrangement of those books in the Hebrew Canon.

It has indeed been asserted that the Book of Ruth is really a third appendix to the Book of Judges and was, therefore, originally placed in immediate connection with the two narratives which are even now appended to this latter book (Judges 17-18; 19-21). But this view is not probable owing to the differences between these two works with respect to style, tone, subject, etc.

As the precise object of the Book of Ruth is not expressly given either in the book itself or in authentic tradition, scholars are greatly at variance concerning it. According to many, who lay special stress on the genealogy of David in the second part of the book, the chief aim of the author is to throw light upon the origin of David, the great King of Israel and royal ancestor of the Messias. Had this, however, been the main purpose of the writer, it seems that he should have given it greater prominence in his work. Besides, the genealogy at the close of the book is but loosely connected with the preceding contents, so it is not improbably an appendix added to that book by a later hand.

According to others, the principal aim of the author was to narrate how, in opposition to Deut. 23:3, which forbids the reception of Moabites into Yahweh's assembly, the Moabitess Ruth was incorporated with Yahweh's people, and eventually became the ancestress of the founder of the Hebrew monarchy. However, this second opinion is hardly more probable than the foregoing. Had the Book of Ruth been written in such full and distinct view of the Deuteronomic prohibition as is affirmed by the second opinion, it is most likely that its author would have placed a direct reference to that legislative enactment on Noemi's lips when she endeavoured to dissuade her daughters-in-law from accompanying her to Juda, or particularly when she received from Ruth the protestation that henceforth Noemi's God would be her God.

Several recent scholars have regarded this short book as a kind of protest against Nehemias's and Esdras's efforts to suppress intermarriage with women of foreign birth. However, this is plainly an inference not from the contents of the book, but from an assumed late date for its composition, an inference therefore no less uncertain than that date itself. Others finally, and indeed with greater probability, have maintained that the author's chief purpose was to tell an edifying story as an example to his own age and an interesting sketch of the past, effecting this by recording the exemplary conduct of his various personages who act as simple, kindly, God-fearing people ought to act in Israel.

The charming Book of Ruth is no mere "idyll" or "poetical fiction." It is plain that the Jews of old regarded its contents as historical, since they included its narrative in the Septuagint within the prophetic histories (Josue-Kings). The fact that Josephus in framing his account of the Jewish Antiquities utilizes the data of the Book of Ruth in exactly the same manner as he does those of the historical books of the Old Testament shows that this inspired writing was then considered as no mere fiction.

Again, the mention by St. Matthew of several personages of the episode of Ruth (Booz, Ruth, Obed), among the actual ancestors of Christ (Matt. 1:5), points in the same direction. Intrinsic data agree with these testimonies of ancient tradition. The book records the intermarriage of an Israelite with a Moabitess, which shows that its narrative does not belong to the region of the poetical. The historical character of the work is also confirmed by the friendly intercourse between David and the King of Moab which is described in I Kings 22:3, 4; by the writer's distinct reference to a Jewish custom as obsolete (Ruth 4:7), etc.

In view of this concordant, extrinsic and intrinsic, evidence, little importance is attached by scholars generally to the grounds which certain critics have put forth to disprove the historical character of the Book of Ruth. It is rightly felt, for instance, that the symbolical meaning of the names of several persons in the narrative (Noemi, Mahalon, Chelion) is not a conclusive argument that they have been fictitiously accommodated to the characters in the episode. More than the similar symbolical meaning of the proper names of well known and full historical personages mentioned in Israel's annals (Saul, David, Samuel, etc.). It is rightly felt likewise that the striking appropriateness of the words put on the lips of certain personages to the general purpose of edification apparent in the Book of Ruth does not necessarily disprove the historical character of the work, since this is also noticeable in other books of Holy Writ that are undoubtedly historical.

Finally, it is readily seen that however great the contrast may appear between the general tone of simplicity, repose, purity, etc., of the characters delineated in the episode of Ruth, and the opposite features of the figures which are drawn in the Book of Judges. Both writings describe actual events in the same period of Jewish history; for all we know, the beautiful scenes of domestic life connected in the Book of Ruth with the period of the judges may have truly occurred during the long intervals of peace that are repeatedly mentioned in the Book of Judges.

The Book of Ruth is anonymous, for the name which it bears as its title has never been regarded otherwise than that of the chief actor in the events recorded. In an ancient Beraitha to the Talmudic treatise "Baba Bathra" (Babylonian Talmud, c. i), it is definitely stated that "Samuel wrote his book, Judges, and Ruth"; but this ascription of Ruth to Samuel is groundless and hence almost universally rejected at the present day. The name of the author of the book of Ruth is unknown, and so is also the precise date of its composition. The work, however, was most likely written before the Babylonian exile.

On the one hand, there is nothing in its contents that would compel one to bring down its origin to a later date; and, on the other hand, the comparative purity of its style stamps it as a pre-exilic composition. The numerous critics who hold a different view overrate the importance of its isolated Aramaisms which are best accounted for by the use of a spoken patois plainly independent of the actual developments of literary Hebrew. They also make too much of the place occupied by the Book of Ruth among the Hagiographa, for, as can be easily realized, the admission of a writing into this third division of the Hebrew Canon is not necessarily contemporary with its origin. But, while the internal data supplied by the Book of Ruth thus point to its pre-exilic origin, they remain indecisive with regard to the precise date to which its composition should be referred, as clearly appears from the conflicting inferences which have been drawn from them by recent Biblical scholars.

For the First and Second Books of Kings in the Authorized Version.

In the Vulgate both titles are given (Liber Primus Samuelis, quem nos Primum Regum dicimus, etc.); in the Hebrew editions and the Protestant versions the second alone is recognized, the Third and Fourth Books of Kings being styled First and Second Books of Kings. To avoid confusion, the designation "First and Second Books of Samuel" is adopted by Western writers when referring to the Hebrew text, otherwise "First and Second Books of Kings" is commonly used.

The testimony of Origen, Blessed Jerome, etc., confirmed by the Massoretic summary appended to the second book, as well as by the Hebrew MSS., shows that the two books originally formed but one, entitled "Samuel." This title was chosen not only because Samuel is the principal figure in the first part, but probably also because, by having been instrumental in the establishment of the kingdom and in the selection of Saul and David as kings, he may be said to have been a determining factor in the history of the whole period comprised by the book. The division into two books was first introduced into the Septuagint, to conform to the shorter and more convenient size of scrolls in vogue among the Greeks. The Book of Kings was divided at the same time, and the four books, being considered as a consecutive history of the Kingdoms of Israel and Juda, were named "Books of the Kingdoms" (Basileiôn biblía).

Blessed Jerome retained the division into four books, which from the Septuagint had passed into the Itala, or old Latin translation, but changed the name "Books of the Kingdoms" (Libri Regnorum) into "Books of the Kings" (Libri Regum). The Hebrew text of the Books of Samuel and of the Books of Kings was first divided in Bomberg's edition of the rabbinical Bible (Venice, 1516-17), the individual books being distinguished as I B. of Samuel and II B. of Samuel, I B. of Kings and II B. of Kings. This nomenclature was adopted in the subsequent editions of the Hebrew Bible and in the Protestant translations, and thus became current among non­Orthodox.

I-II Books of Kings comprise the history of Israel from the birth of Samuel to the close of David's public life, and cover a period of about a hundred years. The first book contains the history of Samuel and of the reign of Saul; the second, the history of the reign of David, the death of Saul marking the division between the two books. The contents may be divided into five main sections: (1) 1:1-7:, history of Samuel; (2) 8-14 or, better 15: history of Saul's government; (3) 16:-31:, Saul and David; (4) II, 1-20, history of the reign of David; (5) xxi-xxiv, appendix containing miscellaneous matter. The division between (3) and (4) is sufficiently indicated by the death of Saul and by David's accession to power; the other sections are marked off by the summaries 7:15-17; 14:47-58; 20:23-26; 15:however, which is an introduction to what follows, according to the subject­matter belongs to (2).

Samuel's birth and consecration to the Lord, I, 1-11:11. Misdeeds of the sons of Heli and prediction of the downfall of his house 2:12-36. Samuel's call to the prophetic office; his first vision, in which the impending punishment of the house of Heli is revealed to him. 3: The army of Israel is defeated by the Philistines, Ophni and Phinees are slain and the ark taken; death of Heli. 4: The ark among the Philistines; it is brought back to Bethsames and then taken to Cariathiarim, 5: -7:1. Samuel as judge; he is instrumental in bringing the people back to the Lord and in inflicting a crushing defeat on the Philistines 7:2-17.

The people demand a king; Samuel reluctantly yields to their request, 8. Saul, while seeking his father's asses, is privately anointed king by Samuel, 9: -10:, 16. Samuel convokes the people at Maspha (Mizpah) to elect a king; the lot falls on Saul, but he is not acknowledged by all 10:17-27. Saul defeats the Ammonite king, Naas, and opposition to him ceases, 11:. Samuel's farewell address to the people, 12:. War against the Philistines; Saul's disobedience for which Samuel announces his rejection, 13:. Jonathan's exploit at Machmas; he is condemned to death for an involuntary breach of his father's orders, but is pardoned at the people's prayer 14:1-46. Summary of Saul's wars; his family and chief commander 14:47-52. War against Amalec; second disobedience and final rejection of Saul, 15:.

David, the youngest son of Isai (Jesse), is anointed king at Bethlehem by Samuel 16:1-33. He is called to court to play before Saul and is made his armor bearer 16:14-23. David and Goliath, 17:. Jonathan's friendship for David and Saul's jealousy; the latter, after attempting to pierce David with his lance, urges him on with treacherous intent to a daring feat against the Philistines by promising him his daughter Michol in marriage, 18:. Jonathan softens his father for a time, but, David having again distinguished himself in a war against the Philistines, the enmity is renewed, and Saul a second time attempts to kill him 19:1-10. Michol helps David to escape; he repairs to Samuel at Ramatha, but, seeing after Jonathan's fruitless effort at mediation that all hope of reconciliation is gone, he flees to Achis, King of Geth, stopping on the way at Nobe, where Achimelech gives him the loaves of proposition and the sword of Goliath. Being recognized at Geth he saves himself by feigning madness 19:11-21:.

He takes refuge in the cave of Odollam (Adullam), and becomes the leader of a band of outlaws; he places his parents under the protection of the King of Moab. Saul kills Achimelech and the priests of Nobe, 22:. David delivers Ceila from the Philistines, but to avoid capture by Saul he retires to the desert of Ziph, where Jonathan visits him. He is providentially delivered when surrounded by Saul's men, 23:. He spares Saul's life in a cave of the desert of Engaddi, 24:. Death of Samuel. Episode of Nabal and Abigail; the latter becomes David's wife after her husband's death, 25:. During a new pursuit, David enters Saul's camp at night and carries off his lance and cup, 26:. He becomes a vassal of Achis, from whom he receives Siceleg (Ziklag); while pretending to raid the territory of Juda, he wars against the tribes of the south, 27:. New war with the Philistines; Saul's interview with the witch of Endor, 28:. David accompanies the army of Achis, but his fidelity being doubted by the Philistine chiefs he is sent back. On his return he finds that Siceleg has been sacked by the Amalecites during his absence, and Abigail carried off with other prisoners; he pursues the marauders and recovers the prisoners and the booty, 29:-30:. Battle of Gelboe; death of Saul and Jonathan, 31:.

He hears of the death of Saul and Jonathan; his lament over them, II, i. He is anointed King of Juda at Hebron 2:1-7. War between David and Isboseth, or Esbaal (Ishbaal), the son of Saul, whom the other tribes recognize 2:8-32. Abner, the commander of Isboseth's forces, having quarrelled with his master, submits to David and is treacherously slain by Joab, 3:. Isboseth is assassinated; David punishes the murderers and is acknowledged by all the tribes, 4-5:5.

Jerusalem is taken from the Jebusites and becomes the capital 5:6-16. War with the Philistines 5:17-25. The ark is solemnly carried from Cariathiarim to Sion, 6:. David thinks of building a temple; his intention, though not accepted, is rewarded with the promise that his throne will last forever, 7:. Summary of the various wars waged by David, and list of his officers, 8:. His kindness to Miphiboseth, or Meribbaal, the son of Jonathan, 9:. War with Ammon and Syria, 10:.

His adultery with Bethsabee, the wife of Urias, 11:. His repentance when the greatness of his crime is brought home to him by Nathan 12:1-23. Birth of Solomon; David is present at the taking of Rabbath 12:24-31. Amnon ravishes Thamar, the sister of Absalom; the latter has him assassinated and flies to Gessur; through the intervention of Joab he is recalled and reconciled with his father, 13:-14:. Rebellion of Absalom; David flies from Jerusalem; Siba, Miphiboseth's servant, brings him provisions and accuses his master of disloyalty; Semei curses David; Absalom goes in to his father's concubines, 15:-16:. Achitophel counsels immediate pursuit, but Absalom follows the advice of Chusai, David's adherent, to delay, and thus gives the fugitive king time to cross the Jordan, 17:. Battle of Mahanaim; Absalom is defeated and slain by Joab against the king's order, 18:. David's intense grief, from which he is aroused by Joab's remonstrance. At the passage of the Jordan he pardons Semei, receives Miphiboseth back into his good graces, and invites to court Berzellai, who had supplied provisions to the army 19:1-39. Jealousies between Israel and Juda lead to the revolt of Seba; Amasa is commissioned to raise a levy, but, as the troops are collected too slowly, Joab and Abisai are sent with the bodyguard in pursuit of the rebels; Joab treacherously slays Amasa. Summary of officers 19:40-20.

The two sons of Respha, Saul's concubine, and the five sons of Merob, Saul's daughter, are put to death by the Gabaonites 21:1-14. Various exploits against the Philistines 21:15-22. David's psalm of thanksgiving (Ps. 17), 22. His "last words," 23:1-7. Enumeration of David's valiant men 23:8-39. The numbering of the people and the pestilence following it, 14.

I-II Books of Kings never formed one work with III-IV, as was believed by the older commentators and is still maintained by some writers, although the consecutive numbering of the books in the Septuagint and the account of David's last days and death at the beginning of III Kings seem to lend color to such a supposition. The difference of plan and method pursued in the two pairs of books shows that they originally formed two distinct works. The author of III-IV gives a more or less brief sketch of each reign, and then refers his readers for further information to the source whence he has drawn his data. While the author of I-II furnishes such full and minute details, even when they are of little importance, that his work looks more like a series of biographies than a history, and, with the exception of II 1:18, where he refers to the "Book of the Just," he never mentions his sources. Moreover, the writer of III-IV supplies abundant chronological data. Besides giving the length of each reign, he usually notes the age of the king at his accession and, after the division, the year of the reign of the contemporary ruler of the other kingdom; he also frequently dates particular events. In the first two books, on the contrary, chronological data are so scant that it is impossible to determine the length of the period covered by them.

The position taken by the author of III-IV, with regard to the facts he relates, is also quite different from that of the author of the other two. The former praises or blames the acts of the various rulers, especially with respect to forbidding or allowing sacrifices outside the sanctuary, while the latter rarely expresses a judgment and repeatedly records sacrifices contrary to the prescriptions of the Pentateuch without a word of censure or comment.

Lastly, there is a marked difference in style between the two sets of books; the last two show decided Aramaic influence, whereas the first two belong to the best period of Hebrew literature. At the most, it might be said that the first two chapters of the third book originally were part of the Book of Samuel, and were later detached by the author of the Book of Kings to serve as an introduction to the history of Solomon; but even this is doubtful. These chapters are not required by the object which the author of the Book of Samuel had in view, and the work is a complete whole without them. Besides, the summary, II 20:23-26, sufficiently marks the conclusion of the history of David. In any case, these two chapters are so closely connected with the following that they must have belonged to the Book of Kings from its very beginning.

The general subject of I-II Kings is the foundation and development of the Kingdom of Israel, the history of Samuel being merely a preliminary section intended to explain the circumstances which brought about the establishment of the royal form of government. On closer examination of the contents, however, it is seen that the author is guided by a leading idea in the choice of his matter, and that his main object is not to give a history of the first two kings of Israel, but to relate the providential foundation of a permanent royal dynasty in the family of David. This strikingly appears in the account of Saul's reign, which may be summarized in the words: elected, found wanting, and rejected in favor of David. The detailed history of the struggle between David and Saul and his house is plainly intended to show how David, the chosen of the Lord, was providentially preserved amid many imminent dangers and how he ultimately triumphed, while Saul perished with his house.

The early events of David's rule over united Israel are told in few words, even such an important fact as the capture of Jerusalem being little insisted on, but his zeal for God's worship and its reward in the solemn promise that his throne would last forever (II 7:11-16) are related in full detail. The remaining chapters tell how, in pursuance of this promise, God helps him to extend and consolidate his kingdom, and does not abandon him even after his great crime, though he punishes him in his most tender feelings. The conclusion shows him in peaceful possession of the throne after two dangerous rebellions. The whole story is thus built around a central idea and reaches its climax in the Messianic promise, II 7:11 sqq. Besides this main object a secondary one may be observed, which is to convey to king and people the lesson that to obtain God's protection they must observe His commands.

The Talmud attributes to Samuel the whole work bearing his name. This strange opinion was later adopted by St. Gregory the Great, who naïvely persuaded himself that Samuel wrote the events that occurred after his death by prophetic revelation. Rabbinical tradition and most of the older Christian writers ascribe to this prophet the part referring to his time (I, 1: -24:), the rest to the Prophets Gad and Nathan. This view is evidently based on I Par. 29:29, "Now the acts of king David first and last are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer." But the wording of the text indicates that there is question of three distinct works. Besides, the unity of plan and the close connection between the different parts exclude composite authorship; we must at least admit a redactor who combined the three narratives. This redactor, according to Hummelauer, is the prophet Nathan; the work, however, can hardly be placed so early. Others attribute it to Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechias, or Esdras. None of these opinions rests on any solid ground, and we can only say that the author is unknown.

The same diversity of opinion exists as to the date of composition. Hummelauer assigns it to the last days of David. Vigouroux, Cornely, Lesêtre, and Thenius place it under Roboam; Kaulen, under Abiam the son of Roboam; Haevernick, not long after David, Ewald, some thirty years after Solomon; Clair, between the death of David and the destruction of the Kingdom of Juda. According to other critics, it belongs to the seventh century, but received retouches as late as the fifth or even the fourth century. No sufficient data are at hand to fix a precise date. We can, however, assign certain limits of time within which the work must have been composed.

The explanation concerning the dress of the king's daughters in David's time (II 13:18) supposes that a considerable period had elapsed in the interval, and points to a date later than Solomon, during whose reign a change in the style of dress was most likely introduced by his foreign wives. How much later is indicated by the remark: "For which reason Siceleg belongeth to the kings of Juda unto this day" (I 27:6). The expression kings of Juda implies that at the time of writing the Kingdom of Israel had been divided, and that at least two or three kings had reigned over Juda alone. The earliest date cannot, therefore, be placed before the reign of Abiam. The latest date, on the other hand, must be assigned to a time prior to Josias's reform (621 B.C.).

As has been remarked, the author repeatedly records without censure or comment violations of the Pentateuchal law regarding sacrifices. Now it is not likely that he would have acted thus if he had written after these practices had been abolished and their unlawfulness impressed on the people, since at this time his readers would have taken scandal at the violation of the Law by such a person as Samuel, and at the toleration of unlawful rites by a king like David. The force of this reason will be seen if we consider how the author of II-IV Kings, who wrote after Josias's reform, censures every departure from the Law in this respect or, as in III 3:2, explains it. The purity of language speaks for an early rather than a late date within the above limits. The appendix, however, may possibly be due to a somewhat later hand. Moreover, additions by a subsequent inspired revisor may be admitted without difficulty.

It is now universally recognized that the author of I-II Kings made use of written documents in composing his work. One such document, "The Book of the Just," is mentioned in connection with David's lament over Saul and Jonathan (II 1:18). The canticle of Anna (I 2:1-10), David's hymn of thanksgiving (II 22:2-51; cf. Ps. 17), and his "last words" were very probably also drawn from a written source. But besides these minor sources, the writer must have had at hand, at least for the history of David, a document containing much of the historical matter that he narrates. This we infer from the passages common to I-II Kings and the First Book of Paralipomenon (Chronicles), which are shown in the following list:

Although these passages often agree word for word, the differences are such that the author of Paralipomenon, the later writer, cannot be said to have copied from I-II Kings, and we must conclude that both authors made use of the same document. This seems to have been an official record of important public events and of matters pertaining to the administration, such as was probably kept by the court "recorder" (II Kings 8:16; 20:24), and is very likely the same as the "Chronicles of King David" (I Par. 27: 24). To this document we may add three others mentioned in I Par. (29:29) as sources of information for the history of David, namely, the "Book of Samuel," the "Book of Gad," and the "Book of Nathan."

These were works of the three Prophets, as we gather from II Par. 9:29; 12:15; 20:34, etc.; and our author would hardly neglect writings recommended by such names. Samuel very probably furnished the matter for his own history and for part of Saul's; Gad, David's companion in exile, the details of that part of David's life, as well as of his early days as king; and Nathan, information concerning the latter part, or even the whole, of his reign. Thus between them they would have fairly covered the period treated of, if, indeed, their narratives did not partially overlap.

Besides these four documents other sources may occasionally have been used. A comparison of the passages of I-II Kings and I Par. given in the list above shows further that both writers frequently transferred their source to their own pages with but few changes. For, since one did not copy from the other, the agreement between them cannot be explained except on the supposition that they more or less reproduce the same document. We have therefore reason to believe that our author followed the same course in other cases, but to what extent we have no means of determining.

According to Protestant critics, I-II Kings is nothing but a compilation of different narratives so unskillfully combined that they may be separated with comparative ease. In spite of this comparative ease in distinguishing the different elements, the critics do not agree as to the number of sources, nor as to the particular source to which certain passages are to be ascribed. At present the Wellhausen-Budde theory is accepted, at least in its main outlines, by nearly the whole critical school. According to this theory, II, 9: -20:, forms one document, which is practically contemporary with the events described; the rest (excluding the appendix) is chiefly made up of two writings, an older one, J, of the ninth century, and a later one, E, of the end of the eighth or the beginning of the seventh century. They are designated J and E, because they are either due to the authors of the Jahwist and Elohist documents of the Hexateuch, or to writers belonging to the same schools. Both J and E underwent modifications by a revisor, J² and E² respectively, and after being welded together by a redactor, RJE, were edited by a writer of the Deuteronomic school, RD. After this redaction some further additions were made, among them the appendix. The different elements are thus divided by Budde:

J. –I 9:1-10:7, 9-16; 11:1-11, 15; 13:1-7a, 15b-18; 14:1-46, 52; 16:14-23; 18:5-6, 11, 20-30; 20:1-10, 18-39, 42b; 22:1-4, 6-18, 20-23; 23:1-14a; 26; 27:; 29:-31:. II 1:1-4, 11-12, 17-27; 2:1-9, 10b, 12-32; 3:; 4:; 5:1-3, 6-10, 17-25; 6:; 9:-11:; 12:1-9, 13-30, 13:-20:22.

J².–I 10:8; 13:7b- 15a, 19-22.

E. –I 4:1b-7:1; 15:2-34; 17:1-11, 14-58; 18:1-4, 13-29; 19:1, 4-6, 8-17; 21:1-9; 21:19; 22:19-xxiv, 19; 15; 28:. II 1:6-10, 13-16; 7:.

E². –I 1:1-28; 2:11- 22a, 23-26; 3:1-iv, 1a; 7:2-8:22; 10:17-24; 12.

RJE.–I 10:25-27; 11:12-14; 15:1; 18:21b; 19:2-3, 7; 20:11-17, 40-42a; 22:10b; 23:14b-18; 24:16, 20-22a. II 1:5.

RD.–1 4:18 (last clause); 7:2; 13:1; 14:47-51; 28:3. II 2:10a, 11; 5:4-5; 8:; 12:10-12.

Additions of a later editor.–I 4:15, 22; 6: 11b, 15, 17-29; 11:8b; 15:4; 24:14; 30:5. II 3:30; 5:6b, 7b, 8b; 15:24; 20:25- 26.

Latest additions.–I 2:1-10, 22b; 16:1-13; 17:12-13; 19:18-24; 20:10-15; 22:5. II 14:26; 21: -24:.

This minute division, by which even short clauses are to a nicety apportioned to their proper sources, is based on the following grounds. (1) There are duplicate narratives giving a different or even a contradictory presentation of the same event. There are two accounts of Saul's election (I 8:1-11:), of his rejection (13:1-14 and 15:), of his death (I 31:1 sqq., and II 1:4 sqq.), of his attempt to pierce David (I 23:10-11, and 19:9-10d). There are also two accounts of David's introduction to Saul (I 16:14 sqq. and 17:55-58), of his flight from court (19:10 sqq., and 21:10), of his taking refuge with Achis (21:10 sqq., and 27:1 sqq.), of his sparing Saul's life (24: and 26:). Lastly, there are two accounts of the origin of the proverb: "Is Saul too among the prophets?" (10:12; 19:24).

Some of these double narratives are not only different, but also contradictory. In one account of Saul's election the people demand a king, because they are dissatisfied with the sons of Samuel; the prophet manifests great displeasure and tries to turn them from their purpose; he yields, however, and Saul is chosen by lot. In the other, Samuel shows no aversion to the kingdom. He privately anoints Saul at God's command that he may deliver Israel from the Philistines. Saul is proclaimed king only after, and in reward of his victory over the Ammonite king, Naas. According to one version of Saul's death, he killed himself by falling on his sword; according to the other, he was slain at his own request by an Amalecite. Again, in 16:, David, then arrived at full manhood and experienced in warfare, is called to court to play before Saul and is made his armor bearer, and yet in the very next chapter he appears as a shepherd lad unused to arms and unknown both to Saul and to Abner.

Moreover, there are statements at variance with one another. In I 7:33, it is stated that "the Philistines . . . did not come any more into the borders of Israel . . . all the days of Samuel"; while in 9:16, Saul is elected king to deliver Israel from them, and in 13: a Philistine invasion is described. In I 7:15, Samuel is said to have judged Israel all the days of his life, though in his old age he delegated his powers to his sons (8:1), and after the election of Saul solemnly laid down his office (12:).

Finally, in I 15:35, Samuel is said never to have seen Saul again, and yet in 19:24, Saul appears before him. All this shows that two narratives, often differing in their presentation of the facts, have been combined, the differences in some cases being left unharmonized.

(2) Certain passages present religious conceptions belonging to a later age, and must therefore be ascribed to a later writer, who viewed the events of past times in the light of the religious ideas of his own. A difference of literary style can also be detected in the different parts of the work. If all this were true, the theory of the critics would have to be admitted. In that case, much of I-II Kings would have but little historical value. The argument from the religious conceptions assumes the truth of Wellhausen's theory on the evolution of the religion of Israel; while that from literary style is reduced to a list of words and expressions most of which must have been part of the current speech, and for this reason could not have been the exclusive property of any writer. The whole theory, therefore, rests on the argument from double narratives and contradictions. As this seems very plausible, and presents some real difficulties, it demands an examination.

Some of the narratives said to be doublets, while having a general resemblance, differ in every detail. This is the case with the two accounts of Saul's disobedience and rejection, with the two narratives of David's sparing Saul's life, and of his seeking refuge with Achis. Such narratives cannot be identified, unless the improbability of the events occurring as related be shown. But is it improbable that Saul should on two different occasions have disregarded Samuel's directions and that the latter should repeat with greater emphasis the announcement of his rejection? Or that in the game of hide-and-seek among the mountains David should have twice succeeded in getting near the person of Saul and should on both occasions have refrained from harming him? Or that under changed conditions he should have entered into negotiations with Achis and become his vassal?

Even where the circumstances are the same, we cannot at once pronounce the narratives to be only different accounts of the same occurrence. It is not at all strange that Saul in his insane moods should twice have attempted to spear David, or that the loyal Ziphites should twice have betrayed to Saul David's whereabouts. The two accounts of Saul among the prophets at first sight seem to be real doublets, not so much because the two narratives are alike, for they differ considerably, as because both incidents seem to be given as the origin of the proverb: "Is Saul too among the prophets?" The first, however, is alone said to have given rise to the proverb. The expression used in the other case–"Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?"–does not necessarily imply that the proverb did not exist before, but may be understood to say that it then became popular. The translation of the Vulgate, "Unde et exivit proverbium," is misleading.

There is no double mention of David's flight from court. When in 21:10, he is said to have fled from the face of Saul, nothing more is affirmed than that he fled to avoid being taken by Saul, the meaning of the expression "to flee from the face of" being to flee for fear of some one. The double narrative of Saul's election is obtained by tearing asunder parts that complement and explain one another. Many a true story thus handled will yield the same results. The story as it stands is natural and well connected. The people, disgusted at the conduct of the sons of Samuel, and feeling that a strong central government would be an advantage for the defence of the country, request a king. Samuel receives the request with displeasure, but yields at God's command and appoints the time and place for the election. In the meanwhile he anoints Saul, who is later designated by lot and acclaimed king. All, however, did not recognize him.

Influential persons belonging to the larger tribes were very likely piqued that an unknown man of the smallest tribe should have been chosen. Under the circumstances, Saul wisely delayed assuming royal power till a favorable opportunity presented itself, which came a month later, when Naas besieged Jabes. It is objected, indeed, that, since the Jabesites did not send a message to Saul in their pressing danger, chap. 1:4 sq., must have belonged to an account in which Saul had not yet been proclaimed king, whence a double narrative is clearly indicated. But even if the Jabesites had sent no message, the fact would have no significance, since Saul had not received universal recognition; nothing, however, warrants us to read such a meaning into the text.

At all events, Saul on hearing the news immediately exercised royal power by threatening with severe punishment anyone who would not follow him. Difficulties, it is true, exist as to some particulars, but difficulties are found also in the theory of a double account. The two accounts of Saul's death are really contradictory; but only one is the historian's; the other is the story told by the Amalecite who brought to David the news of Saul's death, and nothing indicates that the writer intends to relate it as true. We need have little hesitation in pronouncing it a fabrication of the Amalecite. Lying to promote one's interests is not unusual, and the hope of winning David's favor was a sufficient inducement for the man to invent his story.

With regard to the apparent contradiction between 16:14-23, and 17:, it should be remarked that the Vatican (B) and a few other MSS. of the Septuagint omit 17:12-31 and 17:55-18:5. This form of the text is held to be the more original, not only by some conservative writers, but by such critics as Cornill, Stade, W. R. Smith, and H. P. Smith. Though this text, if it were certain, would lessen the difficulty, it would not entirely remove it, as David still appears as a boy unused to arms. The apparent contradiction disappears if we take 16:14-23, to be out of its chronological place, a common enough occurrence in the historical books both of the Old and of the New Testament.

The reason of the inversion seems to be in the desire of the author to bring out the contrast between David, upon whom the spirit of the Lord came from the day of his anointing, and Saul, who was thenceforth deserted by the spirit of the Lord, and troubled by an evil spirit. Or it may be because with xvii the author begins to follow a new source. This supposition would explain the repetition of some details concerning David's family, if 17:17-21, is original. According to the real sequence of events, David after his victory over Goliath returned home, and later, having been recommended by one who was aware of his musical skill, he was called to court and permanently attached to the person of Saul. This explanation might seem inadmissible, because it is said (18:2) that "Saul took him that day, and would not let him return to his father's house." But as "on that day" is often used in a loose way, it need not be taken to refer to the day on which David slew Goliath, and room will thus be left for the incident related in 16:14-23.

It is not true, therefore, that it is impossible to reconcile the two accounts, as is asserted. The so-called contradictory statements may also be satisfactorily explained. As 7: is a summary of Samuel's administration, the words "the Philistines . . . did not come any more into the borders of Israel" must be taken to refer only to Samuel's term of office, and not to his whole lifetime. They do not, therefore, stand in contradiction with 13:, where an incursion during the reign of Saul is described. Besides, it is not said that there were no further wars with the Philistines; the following clause: "And the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines, all the days of Samuel," rather supposes the contrary. There were wars, indeed, but the Philistines were always defeated and never succeeded in gaining a foothold in the country. Still they remained dangerous neighbors, who might attack Israel at any moment. Hence it could well be said of Saul, "He shall save my people out of the hands of the Philistines" (9:16), which expression does not necessarily connote that they were under the power of the Philistines. Ch. 13:19-21, which seems to indicate that the Philistines were occupying the country at the time of Saul's election, is generally acknowledged to be misplaced. Further, when Samuel delegated his powers to his sons, he still retained his office, and when he did resign it, after the election of Saul, he continued to advise and reprove both king and people (cf. I 12:23). He can therefore be truly said to have judged Israel all the days of his life.

The last contradiction that Budde declares to be inexplicable rests on a mere quibble about the verb "to see." The context shows clearly enough that when the writer states that "Samuel saw Saul no more till the day of his death" (15:35), he means to say that Samuel had no further dealings with Saul, and not that he never beheld him again with his eyes. Really, is it likely that a redactor who, we are told, often harmonizes his sources, and who plainly intends to present a coherent story, and not merely a collection of old documents, would allow glaring contradictions to stand? There is no sufficient reason, then, why we should not grant a historical character to the section I, 1:-II 8:as well as to the rest of the work. Those internal marks–namely, lifelike touches, minuteness of detail, bright and flowing style–which move the critics to consider the latter part as of early origin and of undoubted historical value, are equally found in the first.

The Hebrew text has come down to us in a rather unsatisfactory condition, by reason of the numerous errors due to transcribers. The numbers especially have suffered, probably because in the oldest manuscripts they were not written out in full. In I 6:19, seventy men become "seventy men, and fifty thousand of the common people." In I 13:5, the Philistines are given the impossible number of thirty thousand chariots. Saul is only a year old when he begins to reign, and reigns but two years (I 13:1). Absalom is made to wait forty years to accomplish the vow he made while in Gessur (II 15:7). In I 8:16, oxen are metamorphosed into "goodliest young men," while in II 10:18, forty thousand footmen are changed into horsemen. Michol, who in II 6:23, is said to have had no children, in II 21:8, is credited with the five sons of her sister Merob (cf. I 18:19; 25:44; II 3:15). In II 21:19, Goliath is again slain by Elchanan, and, strange to say, though I Par. 20:5, tells us that the man killed by Elchanan was the brother of the giant; some critics here also see a contradiction. Badan in I 12:11, should be changed to Abdon or Barak, and Samuel, in the same verse, to Samson, etc. Many of these mistakes can readily be corrected by a comparison with Paralipomenon, the Septuagint, and other ancient versions. Others antedate all translations, and are therefore found in the versions as well as in the Massoretic (Hebrew) text. In spite of the work of correction done by modern commentators and textual critics, a perfectly satisfactory critical text is still a desideratum.

The Septuagint differs considerably from the Massoretic text in many instances; in others, the case is not so clear. The Vulgate was translated from a Hebrew text closely resembling the Massoretic; but the original text has been interpolated by additions and duplicate translations, which have crept in from the Itala. Additions occur: I 4:1; 5:6, 9; 8:18; 10:1; 11:1; 13:15; 14:22, 41; 15:3, 12; 17:36; 21:11; 30:15; II 1:26; 5:23; 10:19; 13:21, 27; 14:30; duplicate translations, I 9:15; 15:32; 20:15; 23:13, 14; II 1:18; 4:5; 6: 12; 15:18, 20.

In the Bible the name David is borne only by the second king of Israel, the great-grandson of Boaz and Ruth (Ruth 4:18 sqq.). He was the youngest of the eight sons of Isai, or Jesse (I Kings 16:8; cf. I Par. 2:13), a small proprietor, of the tribe of Juda, dwelling at Bethlehem, where David was born. Our knowledge of David's life and character is derived exclusively from the pages of Sacred Scripture, viz., I K., 16:; III K., 2:; I Par., 2: 3:, 10:-29:; Ruth 4:18-22, and the titles of many Psalms. According to the usual chronology, David was born in 1085 and reigned from 1055 to 1015 B.C. Recent writers have been induced by the Assyrian inscriptions to date his reign from 30 to 50 years later. Within the limits imposed, it is impossible to give more than a bare outline of the events of his life and a brief estimate of his character and his significance in the history of the chosen people, as king, psalmist, prophet, and type of the Messias.

The history of David falls naturally into three periods: (1) before his elevation to the throne; (2) his reign, at Hebron over Juda, and at Jerusalem over all Israel, until his sin; (3) his sin and last years. He first appears in sacred history as a shepherd lad, tending his father's flocks in the fields near Bethlehem, "ruddy and beautiful to behold and of a comely face." Samuel, the Prophet and last of the judges, had been sent to anoint him in place of Saul, whom God had rejected for disobedience. The relations of David do not seem to have recognized the significance of this unction, which marked him as the successor to the throne after the death of Saul.

During a period of illness, when the evil spirit troubled Saul, David was brought to court to soothe the king by playing on the harp. He earned the gratitude of Saul and was made an armor bearer, but his stay at court was brief. Not long afterwards, whilst his three elder brothers were in the field, fighting under Saul against the Philistines, David was sent to the camp with some provisions and presents; there he heard the words in which the giant, Goliath of Geth, defied all Israel to single combat, and he volunteered with God's help to slay the Philistine. His victory over Goliath brought about the rout of the enemy. Saul's questions to Abner at this time seem to imply that he had never seen David before, though, as we have seen, David had already been at court. Various conjectures have been made to explain this difficulty. As the passage which suggests a contradiction in the Hebrew text is omitted by Septuagint codices, some authors have accepted the Greek text in preference to the Hebrew. Others suppose that the order of the narratives has become confused in our present Hebrew text. A simpler and more likely solution maintains that on the second occasion Saul asked Abner only about the family of David and about his earlier life. Previously he had given the matter no attention.

David's victory over Goliath won for him the tender friendship of Jonathan, the son of Saul. He obtained a permanent position at court, but his great popularity and the imprudent songs of the women excited the jealousy of the king, who on two occasions attempted to kill him. As captain of a thousand men, he encountered new dangers to win the hand of Merob, Saul's eldest daughter, but, in spite of the king's promise, she was given to Hadriel. Michol, Saul's other daughter, loved David, and, in the hope that the latter might be killed by the Philistines, her father promised to give her in marriage, provided David should slay one hundred Philistines. David succeeded and married Michol. This success, however, made Saul fear the more and finally induced him to order that David should be killed. Through the intervention of Jonathan he was spared for a time, but Saul's hatred finally obliged him to flee from the court.

First he went to Ramatha and thence, with Samuel, to Naioth. Saul's further attempts to murder him were frustrated by God's direct interposition. An interview with Jonathan convinced him that reconciliation with Saul was impossible, and for the rest of the reign he was an exile and an outlaw. At Nobe, whither he proceeded, David and his companions were harbored by the priest Achimelech, who was afterwards accused of conspiracy and put to death with his fellow-priests. From Nobe David went to the court of Achis, king of Geth, where he escaped death by feigning madness. On his return, he became the head of a band of about four hundred men, some of them his relations, others distressed debtors and malcontents, who gathered at the cave, or stronghold, of Odollam (Adullam). Not long after their number was reckoned at six hundred. David delivered the city of Ceila from the Philistines, but was again obliged to flee from Saul.

His next abode was the wilderness of Ziph, made memorable by the visit of Jonathan and by the treachery of the Ziphites, who sent word to the king. David was saved from capture by the recall of Saul to repel an attack of the Philistines. In the deserts of Engaddi, he was again in great danger, but when Saul was at his mercy, he generously spared his life. The adventure with Nabal, David's marriage with Abigail, and a second refusal to slay Saul were followed by David's decision to offer his serves to Achis of Geth and thus put an end to Saul's persecution.

As a vassal of the Philistine king, he was set over the city of Siceleg, whence he made raids on the neighboring tribes, wasting their lands and sparing neither man nor woman. By pretending that these expeditions were against his own people of Israel, he secured the favor of Achis. When, however, the Philistines prepared at Aphec to wage war against Saul, the other princes were unwilling to trust David, and he returned to Siceleg. During his absence, the Amalecites had attacked it. David pursued them, destroyed their forces, and recovered all their booty. Meanwhile the fatal battle on Mount Gelboe (Gilboa) had taken place, in which Saul and Jonathan were slain. The touching elegy, preserved for us in II Kings 1: is David's outburst of grief at their death.

By God's command, David, who was now thirty years old, went up to Hebron to claim the kingly power. The men of Juda accepted him as king, and he was again anointed, solemnly and publicly. Through the influence of Abner, the rest of Israel remained faithful to Isboseth, the son of Saul. Abner attacked the forces of David, but was defeated at Gabaon. Civil war continued for some time, but David's power was ever on the increase. At Hebron six sons were born to him: Amnon, Cheleab, Absalom, Adonias, Saphathia, and Jethraam. As the result of a quarrel with Isboseth, Abner made overtures to bring all Israel under the rule of David; Joab however, treacherously murdered him without the king's consent. Two Benjamites murdered Isboseth, and David was accepted by all Israel and anointed king. His reign at Hebron over Juda alone had lasted seven years and a half.

By his successful wars, David succeeded in making Israel an independent state and causing his own name to be respected by all the surrounding nations. A notable exploit at the beginning of his reign was the conquest of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem, which he made the capital of his kingdom, "the city of David," the political centre of the nation. He built a palace, took more wives and concubines, and begat other sons and daughters. Having cast off the yoke of the Philistines, he resolved to make Jerusalem the religious center of his people by transporting the Ark of the Covenant (q.v.) from Cariathiarim. It was brought to Jerusalem and placed in the new tent constructed by the king. Later on, when he proposed to build a temple for it, the prophet Nathan told him that God had reserved this task for his successor. In reward for his piety, the promise was made that God would build him up a house and establish his kingdom forever.

No detailed account has been preserved of the various wars undertaken by David; only some isolated facts are given. The war with the Ammonites is recorded more fully because, whilst his army was in the field during this campaign, David fell into the sins of adultery and murder, bringing thereby great calamities on himself and his people. He was then at the height of his power, a ruler respected by all the nations from the Euphrates to the Nile. After his sin with Bethsabee and the indirect assassination of Urias, her husband, David made her his wife. A year elapsed before his repentance for the sin, but his contrition was so sincere that God pardoned him, though at the same time announcing the severe penalties that were to follow. The spirit in which David accepted these penalties has made him for all time the model of penitents.

The incest of Amnon and the fratricide of Absalom (q.v.) brought shame and sorrow to David. For three years, Absalom remained in exile. When he was recalled, David kept him in disfavor for two years more and then restored him to his former dignity, without any sign of repentance. Vexed by his father's treatment, Absalom devoted himself for the next four years to seducing the people and finally had himself proclaimed king at Hebron. David was taken by surprise and was forced to flee from Jerusalem. The circumstances of his flight are narrated in Scripture with great simplicity and pathos. Absalom's disregard of the counsel of Achitophel and his consequent delay in the pursuit of the king made it possible for the latter to gather his forces and win a victory at Manahaim, where Absalom was killed. David returned in triumph to Jerusalem. A further rebellion under Seba at the Jordan was quickly suppressed.

At this point in the narrative of II Kings we read that "there was a famine in the days of David for three years successively," in punishment for Saul's sin against the Gabaonites. At their request, seven of Saul's race were delivered up to be crucified. It is not possible to fix the exact date of the famine. On other occasions, David showed great compassion for the descendants of Saul, especially for Miphiboseth, the son of his friend Jonathan.

After a brief mention of four expeditions against the Philistines, the sacred writer records a sin of pride on David's part in his resolution to take a census of the people. As a penance for this sin, he was allowed to choose either a famine, an unsuccessful war, or pestilence. David chose the third and in three days 70,000 died. When the angel was about to strike Jerusalem, God was moved to pity and stayed the pestilence. David was commanded to offer sacrifice at the threshing-floor of Areuna, the site of the future temple.

The last days of David were disturbed by the ambition of Adonias, whose plans for the succession were frustrated by Nathan, the prophet, and Bethsabee, the mother of Solomon. The son who was born after David's repentance was chosen in preference to his older brothers. To make sure that Solomon would succeed to the throne, David had him publicly anointed. The last recorded words of the aged king are an exhortation to Solomon to be faithful to God, to reward loyal servants, and to punish the wicked. David died at the age of seventy, having reigned in Jerusalem thirty-three years. He was buried on Mount Sion. St. Peter spoke of his tomb as still in existence on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles (Acts 2:29). David is honored by the Church as a saint. He is especially celebrated, along with Sts. James and Joseph, on the Sunday after the Feast of the Nativity.

The historical character of the narratives of David's life has been attacked chiefly by writers who have disregarded the purpose of the narrator in I Par. He passes over those events that are not connected with the history of the Ark. In the Books of Kings all the chief events, good and bad, are narrated. The Bible records David's sins and weaknesses without excuse or palliation, but it also records his repentance, his acts of virtue, his generosity towards Saul, his great faith, and his piety. Critics who have harshly criticized his character have not considered the difficult circumstances in which he lived or the manners of his age. It is uncritical and unscientific to exaggerate his faults or to imagine that the whole history is a series of myths. The life of David was an important epoch in the history of Israel. He was the real founder of the monarchy, the head of the dynasty. Chosen by God "as a man according to His own heart,"

David was tried in the school of suffering during the days of exile and developed into a military leader of renown. To him was due the complete organization of the army. He gave Israel a capital, a court, a great center of religious worship. The little band at Odollam became the nucleus of an efficient force. When he became King of all Israel, there were 339,600 men under his command. At the census, 1,300,000 were enumerated capable of bearing arms. A standing army, consisting of twelve corps, each 24,000 men, took turns in serving for a month at a time as the garrison of Jerusalem. The administration of his palace and his kingdom demanded a large retinue of servants and officials. Their various offices are set down in I Par. 27:. The king himself exercised the office of judge, though Levites were later appointed for this purpose, as well as other minor officials.

When the Ark had been brought to Jerusalem, David undertook the organization of religious worship. The sacred functions were entrusted to 24,000 Levites; 6,000 of these were scribes and judges, 4000 were porters, and 4000 singers. He arranged the various parts of the ritual, allotting to each section its tasks. The priests were divided into twenty-four families; the musicians into twenty-four choirs. To Solomon had been reserved the privilege of building God's house, but David made ample preparations for the work by amassing treasures and materials, as well as by transmitting to his son a plan for the building and all its details. We are told in I Par. how he exhorted his son Solomon to carry out this great work and made known to the assembled princes the extent of his preparations.

The prominent part played by song and music in the worship of the temple, as arranged by David, is readily explained by his poetic and musical abilities. His skill in music is recorded in I Kings 16:18 and Amos 6:5. Poems of his composition are found in II Kings, 1: 22, and 23. His connection with the Book of Psalms, many of which are expressly attributed to various incidents of his career, was so taken for granted in later days that many ascribed the whole Psalter to him. The authorship of these hymns and the question how far they can be considered as supplying illustrative material for David's life is treated in the article Psalms.

David was not merely king and ruler. He was also a prophet. "The spirit of the Lord hath spoken by me and his word by my tongue" (II Kings 23:2) is a direct statement of prophetic inspiration in the poem there recorded. St. Peter tells us that he was a prophet (Acts 2:30). His prophecies are embodied in the Psalms he composed that are literally Messianic and in "David's last words" (II K., 23:). The literal character of these Messianic Psalms is indicated in the New Testament. They refer to the suffering, the persecution, and the triumphant deliverance of Christ, or to the prerogatives conferred on Him by the Father.

In addition to these his direct prophecies, David himself has always been regarded as a type of the Messias. In this, the Church has but followed the teaching of the Old Testament Prophets. The Messias was to be the great theocratic king; David, the ancestor of the Messias, was a king according to God's own heart. His qualities and his very name are attributed to the Messias.

Incidents in the life of David are regarded by the Fathers as foreshadowing the life of Christ. Bethlehem is the birthplace of both. The shepherd life of David points out Christ, the Good Shepherd. The five stones chosen to slay Goliath are typical of the five wounds. The betrayal by his trusted counselor, Achitophel, and the passage over the Cedron remind us of Christ's Sacred Passion. Many of the Davidic Psalms, as we learn from the New Testament, are clearly typical of the future Messias.

(Paraleipomenon; Libri Paralipomenon).

Two books of the Bible containing a summary of sacred history from Adam to the end of the Captivity. The title Paralipomenon, books "of things passed over," which, from the Septuagint, passed into the old Latin Bible and thence into the Vulgate, is commonly taken to imply that they supplement the narrative of the Books of Kings (otherwise known as I-II Sam. and I-II Kings); but this explanation is hardly supported by the contents of the books, and does not account for the present participle. The view of Blessed Jerome, who considers Paralipomenon as equivalent to "epitome of the Old Testament," is probably the true one. The title would accordingly denote that many things are passed over in these books. The Hebrew title is Dibhere Hayyamim, "the acts of the days" or "annals." In the Protestant, printed Hebrew, and many contemporary bibles, they are entitled "Books of Chronicles."

The two books are really one work, and are treated as one in the Hebrew manuscripts and in the Massoretic summary appended to the second book. The division was first made in the Septuagint for the sake of convenience, and thence was adopted into the Latin Bibles. The Hebrew text was first divided in Bomberg's edition of the rabbinical Bible (Venice, 1516-7). Moreover, there is a probability that Paralipomenon originally formed part of a larger work that included the two Books of Esdras (Esdras Nehemias). For not only is there similarity of diction and style, of spirit and method, but I Esdras begins where II Paralipomenon ends, the decree of Cyrus being repeated and completed.

It should be remarked, however, that these facts can be explained by simple community of authorship. In the Septuagint and Vulgate, as well as in the Protestant bibles, the Books of Paralipomenon are placed immediately after the Books of Kings. In the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible, they stand at the end of the third division, or Kethubhim.

The first part of I Paralipomenon (1: -9:), which is a sort of introduction to the rest of the work, contains a series of genealogical and statistical lists, interspersed with short historical notes. It comprises:

1. the genealogy of the patriarchs from Adam to Jacob (1:);
2. the genealogy of the twelve tribes (2:-8:);
3. a list of the families of Juda, Benjamin, and Levi dwelling in Jerusalem after the Exile, with the genealogy of the family of Saul repeated (9:).

The second part of I Paralipomenon contains the history of the reign of David preceded by the account of the death of Saul (10: -29:). II Paralipomenon comprises the reign of Solomon (1:-9:), and the reigns of the kings of Juda (10-36:21). Part of the edict of Cyrus allowing the Jews to return and to rebuild the temple is added as a conclusion (36:22-23). The historical part of Paralipomenon thus covers the same period as the last three Books of Kings. Hence naturally much of the matter is the same in both; often, indeed, the two narratives not only agree in the facts they relate, but describe them almost in the same words.

The Books of Paralipomenon also agree with the Books of Kings in plan and general arrangement. But side by side with these agreements, there are many differences. The Books of Paralipomenon narrate some events more briefly, or present them in a different manner, and omit others altogether (e.g., the adultery of David, the violation of Thamar, the murder of Amnon, and the rebellion of Absalom), while they dwell more on facts regarding the temple, its worship and its ministers, furnishing much information on these subjects which is not found in the other books. Moreover, they ignore the northern kingdom except where the history of Juda requires mention of it.

On comparing Paralipomenon with the Books of Kings, we are forced to the conclusion that the writer's purpose was not to supplement the omissions of these latter books. The objects of his interest are the temple and its worship. He intends primarily to write the religious history of Juda with the temple as its center, and, as intimately connected with it, the history of the house of David. This clearly appears when we consider what he mentions and what he omits. Of Saul, he narrates only his death as an introduction to the reign of David. In the history of David's reign he gives a full account of the translation of the ark to Mount Sion, of the preparations for the building of the temple, and of the levitical families and their offices; the wars and the other events of the reign he either tells briefly, or passes over altogether. Solomon's reign is almost reduced to the account of the building and the dedication of the temple. After the disruption of the kingdom the apostate tribes are hardly mentioned, while the reigns of the pious kings, Asa, Josaphat, Joas, Ezechias, and Josias, who brought about a revival of religion and showed great zeal for the temple and its worship, are specially dwelt on.

Again, the additions to the narrative of the Books of Kings in most cases refer to the temple, its worship and its ministers. Nor is the decree of Cyrus allowing the rebuilding of the temple without significance. The same purpose may be noted in the genealogical section, where the tribes of Juda and Levi are given special prominence and have their genealogies continued beyond the Exile. The author, however, writes his history with a practical object in view. He wishes to urge the people to a faithful and exact adherence to the worship of God in the restored temple, and to impress upon them that thus only will the community deserve God's blessings and protection. Hence, he places before them the example of the past, especially of the pious kings who were distinguished for their zeal in building the temple or in promoting the splendor of its worship.

Hence, too, he takes every occasion to show that the kings, and with them the people, prospered or were delivered from great calamities because of their attachment to God's worship, or experienced misfortune because of their unfaithfulness. The frequent mention of the Levites and of their offices was probably intended to induce them to value their calling and to carry out faithfully their duties.

The Books of Paralipomenon were undoubtedly written after the Restoration. For the genealogy of the house of David is carried beyond Zorobabel (I Paralipomenon 3:19-24), and the very decree of Cyrus allowing the return is cited. Moreover, the value of the sums collected by David for the building of the temple is expressed in darics (I Paralipomenon 29:7, Heb.), which were not current in Palestine until the time of the Persian domination. The peculiarities of style and diction also point to a time later than the Captivity. The older writers generally attributed the authorship to Esdras. Most modern non-Orthodox scholars attribute the work to an unknown writer and place its date between 300 and 250 B.C. The main reasons for this late date are that the descendants of Zorobabel are given to the sixth (in the Septuagint and the Vulgate to the eleventh) generation, and that in II Esdras (12:10-11, 22) the list of the high-priests extends to Jeddoa, who, according to Josephus, held the pontificate in the time of Alexander the Great. These lists, however, show signs of having been brought up to date by a later hand and cannot, therefore, be considered as decisive. On the other hand, a writer living in Greek times would not be likely to express the value of ancient money in darics. Moreover, a work written for the purpose mentioned above would be more in place in the time immediately following the Restoration, while the position and character of Esdras would point him out as its author. Hence, most Biblical scholars still adhere to Esdrine authorship, and place the time of composition at the end of the fifth or at the beginning of the fourth century B.C.

Critics such as de Wette, Wellhausen etc. have severely attacked the reliability of the Books of Paralipomenon as a historical work. They accuse the author of exaggeration, of misrepresenting facts, and even of appealing to imaginary documents. Other writers of the same school who, while admitting errors, absolve the author of intentional misrepresentation have considerably mitigated this harsh judgment. The objections urged against the books cannot be examined here in detail; a few general remarks in vindication of their truthfulness must suffice.

In the first place, the books have suffered at the hands of copyists; textual errors in names and in numbers, which latter originally were only indicated by letters, are especially numerous. Gross exaggerations, such as the slaying of 7000 charioteers (I Paralipomenon 19:18) as against 700 in II Kings (10:18) and the impossibly large armies mentioned in II Paralipomenon (13:3), are plainly to be attributed to this cause.

In the next place, if the one compares the sections common to Paralipomenon and the Books of Kings, one finds substantial agreement to exist between them. If the author, then, reproduces his sources with substantial accuracy in the cases where his statements can be controlled by comparing them with those of another writer who has used the same documents, there is no reason to suspect that he acted differently in the case of other sources. His custom of referring his readers to the documents from which he has drawn his information should leave no doubt on the subject.

In the third place, the omission of the facts not to the credit of the pious kings (e.g. the adultery of David) is due to the object that the author has in view, and proves no more against his truthfulness than the omission of the history of the northern tribes. He did not intend to write a full history of the kings of Juda, but a history for the purpose of edification. Hence, in speaking of the kings whom he proposes as models, he naturally omits details that are not edifying. Such a presentation, while one-sided, is no more untruthful than a panegyric in which the foibles of the subject are passed over. The picture is correct as far as it goes, only it is not complete.

Elijah (Heb. 'Eliahu, "Yahveh is God"; also called Elijah).

The loftiest and most wonderful prophet of the Old Testament. What we know of his public life is sketched in a few popular narratives enshrined, for the most part, in the First (Third) Book of Kings. These narratives, which bear the stamp of an almost contemporary age, very likely took shape in Northern Israel, and are full of the most graphic and interesting details. Every part of the prophet's life therein narrated bears out the description of the writer of Ecclesiasticus: He was "as a fire, and his word burnt like a torch" (48:1). The times called for such a prophet. Under the baneful influence of his Tyrian wife Jezabel, Achab, though perhaps not intending to forsake altogether Yahveh's worship, had nevertheless erected in Samaria a temple to the Tyrian Baal (1 Kings 16:32) and introduced a multitude of foreign priests (18:19). Doubtless, he had occasionally offered sacrifices to the pagan deity, and, most of all, hallowed a bloody persecution of the prophets of Yahveh.

Of Elijah's origin nothing is known, except that he was a Thesbite; whether from Thisbe of Nephtali (Tob. 1:2, Gr.) or from Thesbon of Galaad, as our texts have it, is not absolutely certain, although most scholars, on the authority of the Septuagint and of Josephus, prefer the latter opinion. Some Jewish legends, echoed in a few Christian writings, assert moreover that Elijah was of priestly descent; but there is no other warrant for the statement than the fact that he offered sacrifices.

His whole manner of life resembles somewhat that of the Nazarites and is a loud protest against his corrupt age. His skin garment and leather girdle (2 Kings, 1, 8), his swift foot (1 Kings 18:46), his habit of dwelling in the clefts of the torrents (17:3) or in the caves of the mountains (19:9), of sleeping under a scanty shelter (19:5), betray the true son of the desert. He appears abruptly on the scene of history to announce to Achab that Yahveh had determined to avenge the apostasy of Israel and her king by bringing a long drought on the land. His message delivered, the prophet vanished as suddenly as he had appeared. Guided by the spirit of Yahveh, betook himself by the brook Carith, to the east of the Jordan, and the ravens (some critics would translate, however improbable the rendering, "Arabs" or "merchants") "brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening, and he drank of the torrent" (17:6).

After the brook had dried up, Elijah, under Divine direction, crossed over to Sarepta, within the Tyrian dominion. There a poor widow whom the famine had reduced to her last meal hospitably received him (12). Her charity he rewarded by increasing her store of meal and oil all the while the drought and famine prevailed, and later on by restoring her child to life (14-24). For three years, there fell no rain or dew in Israel, and the land was utterly barren. Meanwhile Achab had made fruitless efforts and scoured the country in search of Elijah. At length the latter resolved to confront the king once more, and, suddenly appearing before Abdias, bade him summon his master (18:7, sq.).

When they met, Achab bitterly upbraided the prophet as the cause of the misfortune of Israel. But the prophet flung back the charge: "I have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy father's house, who have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and have followed Baalim" (18:18). Taking advantage of the discountenanced spirits of the silenced king, Elijah bids him to summon the prophets of Baal to Mount Carmel, for a decisive contest between their god and Yahveh. The ordeal took place before a great concourse of people whom Elijah, in the most forcible terms, presses to choose: "How long do you halt between two sides? If Yahveh be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him" (18:21). He then commanded the heathen prophets to invoke their deity; he himself would "call on the name of his Lord"; and the God who would answer by fire, "let him be God" (24).

An altar had been erected by the Baal-worshippers and the victim laid upon it; but their cries, their wild dances and mad self-mutilations all the day long availed nothing: "There was no voice heard, nor did any one answer, nor regard them as they prayed" (29). Elijah, having repaired the ruined altar of Yahveh that stood there, prepared thereon his sacrifice. Then, when it was time to offer the evening oblation, as he was praying earnestly, "the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the holocaust, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench" (38). The issue was fought and won. The people, maddened by the success, fell at Elijah's command on the pagan prophets and slew them at the brook Cison. That same evening the drought ceased with a heavy downpour of rain, in the midst of which the strange prophet ran before Achab to the entrance of Jezrael.

Elijah's triumph was short. The anger of Jezabel, who had sworn to take his life (19:2), compelled him to flee without delay, and take his refuge beyond the desert of Juda, in the sanctuary of Mount Horeb. There, in the wilds of the sacred mountain, broken spirited, he poured out his complaint before the Lord, who strengthened him by a revelation and restored his faith. Three commands are laid upon him: to anoint Hazael to be King of Syria, Jehu to be King of Israel, and Eliseus to be his own successor.

At once Elijah sets out to accomplish this new burden. On his way to Damascus, he meets Eliseus at the plough, and throwing his mantle over him, makes him his faithful disciple and inseparable companion, to whom the completion of his task will be entrusted. The treacherous murder of Naboth was the occasion for a new reappearance of Elijah at Jezrael, as a champion of the people's rights and of social order, and to announce to Achab his impending doom. Achab's house shall fall. In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth will the dogs lick the king's blood; they shall eat Jezabel in Jezrael; their whole posterity shall perish and their bodies be given to the fowls of the air (21:20-26). Conscience-stricken, Achab quailed before the man of God, and in view of his penance the threatened ruin of his house was delayed.

The next time we hear of Elijah, it is in connation with Ochozias, Achab's son and successor. Having received severe injuries in a fall, this prince sent messengers to the shrine of Beelzebub, god of Accaron, to inquire whether he should recover. They were intercepted by the prophet, who sent them back to their master with the intimation that his injuries would prove fatal. Several bands of men sent by the king to capture Elijah were stricken by fire from heaven; finally, the man of God appeared in person before Ochozias to confirm his threatening message. Another episode recorded by the chronicler (II Par., 21:12) relates how Joram, King of Juda, who had indulged in Baal-worship, received from Elijah a letter warning him that all his house would be smitten by a plague, and that he himself was doomed to an early death.

According to 2 Kings 3, Elijah's career ended before the death of Josaphat. This statement is difficult — but not impossible — to harmonize with the preceding narrative. However this may be, Elijah vanished still more mysteriously than he had appeared. Like Enoch, he was "translated," so that he should not taste death. As he was conversing with his spiritual son Eliseus on the hills of Moab, "a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder, and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings 2:11), and all the efforts to find him made by the sceptic sons of the prophets disbelieving Eliseus's recital, availed nothing.

The memory of Elijah has ever remained living in the minds both of Jews and of Christians. According to Malachias, God preserved the prophet alive to entrust him, at the end of time, with a glorious mission (4:5-6). At the New Testament period, this mission was believed to precede immediately the Messianic Advent (Matt. 17:10, 12; Mark 9:11); according to some Christian commentators, it would consist in converting the Jews (St. Jer., in Mal. 4:5-6); the rabbis, finally, affirm that its object will be to give the explanations and answers hitherto kept back by them. I Mach. 2:58, extols Elijah's zeal for the Law, and Ben Sira entwines in a beautiful page the narration of his actions and the description of his future mission (Ecclus. 48:1-12). Elijah is still in the N.T. the personification of the servant of God (Matt. 16:14; Luke 1:17; 9:8; John 1:21). No wonder, therefore, that with Moses he appeared at Jesus' side on the day of the Transfiguration.

Nor do we find only in the sacred literature and the commentaries thereof evidences of the conspicuous place Elijah won for himself in the minds of after-ages. To this day, the name of Jebel Mar Elyas, usually given by modern Arabs to Mount Carmel, perpetuates the memory of the man of God. Various places on the mountain.: Elijah's grotto; El-Khadr, the supposed school of the prophets; El-Muhraka, the traditional spot of Elijah's sacrifice; Tell el-Kassis, or Mound of the priests — where he is said to have slain the priests of Baal — are still in great veneration both among the Christians of all denominations and among the Moslems. Every year the Druses assemble at El-Muhraka to hold a festival and offer a sacrifice in honor of Elijah. All Moslems have the prophet in great reverence; no Druse, in particular, would dare break an oath made in the name of Elijah. Not only among them, but to some extent also among the Jews and Christians, many legendary tales are associated with the prophet's memory.

The old stichometrical lists and ancient ecclesiastical writings (Const. Apost., 6:16; Origen, Comm. in Matth. 27: 9; Euthalius; Epiphan., Haer., xliii) mention an apocryphal "Apocalypse of Elijah," citations from which are said to be found in I Cor. 2:9, and Eph. 5:14. Lost to view since the early Christian centuries, this work was partly recovered in a Coptic translation found (1893) by Maspéro in a monastery of Upper Egypt. Other scraps, likewise in Coptic, also have since been discovered. What we possess now of this Apocalypse — and it seems that we have by far the greater part of it — was published in 1899 by G. Steindorff; the passages cited in I Cor. 2:9, and Eph. 5:14, do not appear there; the Apocalypse on the other hand, has a striking analogy with the Jewish "Sepher Elia."

Ezechias (Hebrew = "The Lord strengtheneth"; Septuagint Ezekias; in the cuneiform inscriptions Ha-za-qi-ya-hu).

King of Juda, son and successor of Achaz. We learn from Second Kings, Chapter 18, that he began his reign in the third year of Osee, King of Israel, that he was then twenty-five years of age, that his reign lasted twenty-nine years, and that his mother was Abi, daughter of Zecharias. The account of his reign is beset with unsolved chronological difficulties, and there exists a difference of opinion among scholars as to the year in which he ascended the throne. The commonly received computation reckons his reign from 726 to 697 B.C.

In character and policy, Ezechias was pious and agreeable to God. He was a strenuous civil and religious reformer, and on this account, the sacred writer compares him to King David. The events of his reign are related in the Fourth Book of Kings, and also in the parallel account in the Second Book of Chronicles. But in the latter, as might be expected, stress is laid chiefly on the religious reforms that he carried out, whereas the earlier account mentions these briefly, and dwells at greater length on the civil and political aspects of his reign.

Among the religious reforms are mentioned the purification of the Temple, which had been closed by Achaz, the irreligious predecessor of Ezechias (II Chronicles 28-29), the resumption and proper celebration of the feast of the Passover which had been neglected (II Chronicles 30), and in general the extirpation of idolatry, and the reorganization of the Hebrew worship (II Kings 18, II Chronicles 31). The title prefixed to the twenty-fifth chapter of Proverbs states that the sayings contained in the following collection (25-29) were copied out by the "men of Ezechias." This would seem to indicate, on the part of the king, some literary interest and activity, and in the Talmudic tradition, these "men of Ezechias" are credited with the composition of several books of the Old Testament. Soon after his accession to the throne Ezechias threw off the yoke of the Assyrians, to whom his father had become a vassal (II Kings 18:). Other notable events of his reign are his sickness and miraculous cure, the embassy of Berodach Baladan, and the invasion of Sennacherib. The story of the sickness of Ezechias is narrated in II Kings 20, and in Isaiah 28.

The king having been stricken with some mortal disease, the prophet Isaiah comes in the name of Yahweh to warn him to put his affairs in order, for he is about to die. But Ezechias prays to the Lord, Who sends the prophet back to announce to him that he will recover, and that fifteen years are to be added to his life. As a sign of the fulfillment of this promise, Isaiah causes the shadow to recede a distance of ten lines on the sundial.

Connected with this event is the sending of an embassy by Berodach Baladan, King of Babylon, who having heard of the illness of Ezechias, sent messengers to him with presents. The motive of this action on the part of the Babylonian king was probably to enlist the services of Ezechias in a league against Sennacherib, King of Assyria. Ezechias received the envoys with great honor, and exhibited to them his various treasures and armaments of war. This spirit of ostentation was displeasing to the Lord, and Isaiah was sent to announce that the treasures, in which the king seemed to place his confidence, would be all carried off as plunder to Babylon.

Not long after (according to the cuneiform inscriptions, in the year 701), Sennacherib undertook a great campaign against Syria and Egypt. The story of this expedition is told, from the Assyrian standpoint, in the official cuneiform inscription known as the Taylor prism. The plan of Sennacherib was, first, to vanquish the kings of Ascalon, Sidon and Juda who had formed a coalition against him, and then to turn his attention to the land of the Pharaohs.

After subduing Ascalon and Accaron, the Assyrian invader captured and plundered all the fortified towns of Juda, and carried their inhabitants into exile. Then he besieged Jerusalem, and Ezechias, finding himself shut up "like a bird in a cage," resolved to come to terms with his enemy. Sennacherib demanded thirty talents of gold and three hundred talents of silver, and, in order to supply it, Ezechias was obliged to yield up not only the contents of the royal treasury, but also the silver belonging to the Temple, and the plates of gold which were on the doors thereof (II Kings 18).

However, when in addition to this, the Assyrian demanded the surrender of Jerusalem with a view to carrying its inhabitants into exile, the courage of Ezechias was revived, and he prepared himself for a vigorous resistance. Haughty demands of surrender were repulsed, and the king taking counsel with the prophet Isaiah turned in supplication to Yahweh; he received the assurance that the enemy would soon abandon the siege without doing any harm to the city. This prophecy was shortly verified when after the angel of the Lord slew in the night 185,000 of the besieging forces, the remainder fled with Sennacherib, and returned to Assyria. Echezias survived this deliverance only a few years, and he was buried with great pomp in the tomb of the sons of David (II Kings 20:21; II Chronicles 32:33).

MANASSES, thirteenth King of Juda (692-638 B.C. — cf. Schrader, "Keilinschr. und das A. T."), son and successor to Ezechias (IV Kings 20:21 sq.). The historian of IV Kings tells us much about the evil of his reign (21:2-10), and the punishment thereof foretold by the Prophets (verses 10-15), but practically nothing about the rest of the doings of Manasses. He brought back the abominations of Achaz; imported the adoration of "all the host of heaven," seemingly the astral, solar, and lunar myths of Assyria; introduced the other enormities mentioned in the Sacred text; and "made his son pass through fire" (verse 6) in the worship of Moloch. It was probably in this frenzy of his varied forms of idolatry that "Manasses shed also very much innocent blood, till he filled Jerusalem up to the mouth" (verse 16). The historian of II Par. tells much the same story, and adds that, in punishment, the Lord brought the Assyrians upon Juda. They carried Manasses to Babylon. The Lord heard his prayer for forgiveness and deliverance, and brought him again to Jerusalem, where Manasses did his part in stemming the tide of idolatry that he had formerly forced upon Juda (33:11-20).

At one time, doubt was cast on the historicity of this narrative of II Par., because IV Kings omits the captivity of Manasses. Schrader (op. cit., 2nd ed., Giessen, 1883, 355) gives cuneiform records of twenty-two kings that submitted to Assurhaddon during his expedition against Egypt; second on the list is Mi­na­si­i sar ir Ya­u­di (Manasses, king of the city of Juda). Schrader also gives the list of twenty-two kings who are recorded on a cuneiform tablet as tributaries to Asurbanipal in the land of Hatti; second on this list is Mi­in­si­i sar mat Ya­u­di (Manasses, king of the land of Juda). Since a Babylonian brick confirms the record of the historian of II Par., his reputation is made a little more secure in rationalistic circles. Winckler and Zimmern admit the presence of Manasses in Babylon (see their revision of Schrader's "Keilinschr. und das A. T.," I, Berlin, 1902, 274). Conjectures of the Pan-Babylonian School as to the causes that led to the return of Manasses, the groundwork of the narrative in IV Kings, etc., do not militate against the historical worth of the Inspired Record.

Esdras is a famous priest and scribe connected with Israel's restoration after the Exile. The chief sources of information touching his life are the canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias. A group of apocryphal writings is also much concerned with him, but they can hardly be relied upon, as they relate rather the legendary tales of a later age. Esdras was of priestly descent and belonged to the line of Sardoc (I Esdras 7:1-5). He styles himself "son of Saraias" (7:1), an expression which is by many understood in a broad sense, as purporting that Saraias, the chief priest, spoken of in IV Kings 25:18-21, was one of Esdras's ancestors. Nevertheless, he is known rather as "the scribe" than as "priest": he was "a ready scribe [a scribe skilled] in the law of Moses," and therefore especially qualified for the task to which he was destined among his people.

The chronological relation of Esdras's work with that of Nehemias is, among the questions connected with the history of the Jewish Restoration, one of the most mooted. Many Biblical scholars still cling to the view suggested by the traditional order of the sacred text (due allowance being made for the break in the narrative — I Esdras 4:6-23), and place the mission of Esdras before that of Nehemias. Others, among whom we may mention Professor Van Hoonacker of Louvain, Dr. T.K. Cheyne in England, and Professor C.F. Kent in America, to do away with the numberless difficulties arising from the interpretation of the main sources of this history, maintain that Nehemias's mission preceded that of Esdras. The former view holds that Esdras came to Jerusalem about 458 B.C., and Nehemias first in 444 and the second time about 430 B.C.; whereas, according to the opposite opinion, Esdras's mission might have taken place as late as 397 B.C. However this may be, since we are here only concerned with Esdras, we will limit ourselves to summarizing the principal features of his life and work, without regard to the problems involved, which it suffices to have mentioned.

Many years had elapsed after permission had been given to the Jews to return to Palestine; amidst difficulties and obstacles, the restored community had settled down again in their ancient home and built a new temple. But their condition, both from the political and from the religious point of view, was most precarious: they chafed under the oppression of the Persian satraps and had grown indifferent and unobservant of the Law. From Babylon, where this state of affairs was well known, Esdras longed to go to Jerusalem and use his authority as a priest and interpreter of the Law to restore things to a better condition. He was in favor at the court of the Persian king; he not only obtained permission to visit Judea, but a royal edict clothing him with ample authority to carry out his purpose, and ample support from the royal treasury. The rescript, moreover, ordered the satraps "beyond the river" to assist Esdras liberally and enacted that all Jewish temple officials should be exempt from toll, tribute, or custom. "And thou, Esdras, appoint judges and magistrates, that they may judge all the people, that is beyond the river" (I Esdras 7:25). Finally, the Law of God and the law of the king were alike to be enforced by severe penalties.

The edict left all Jews who felt so inclined free to go back to their own country. Some 1800 men, including a certain number of priests, Levites, and Nathinites, started with Esdras from Babylon, and after five months, the company safely reached Jerusalem. Long-neglected abuses had taken root in the sacred city. These Esdras set himself vigorously to correct, after the silver and gold he had carried from Babylon were brought into the Temple and sacrifices offered.

The first task that confronted him was that of dealing with mixed marriages. Regardless of the Law of Moses, many, even the leading Jews and priests, had intermarried with the idolatrous inhabitants of the country. Horror-stricken by the discovery of this abuse — the extent of which was very likely unknown heretofore to Esdras — he gave utterance to his feelings in a prayer which made such an impression upon the people that Sechenias, in their names, proposed that the Israelites should put away their foreign wives and the children born of them. Esdras seized his opportunity, and exacted from the congregation an oath that they would comply with this proposition. The princes and the ancients called a general assembly of the people. But the business could not be transacted easily at such a meeting and a special commission, with Esdras at its head, was appointed to take the matter in hand. For three full months, this commission held its sessions; at the end of that time the "strange wives" were dismissed.

What was the outcome of this drastic measure we are not told; Esdras's memoirs are interrupted here. Nor do we know whether, his task accomplished, he returned to Babylon or remained in Jerusalem. At any rate, we find him again in the latter city at the reading of the Law that took place after the rebuilding of the walls. No doubt, this event had rekindled the enthusiasm of the people; and to comply with the popular demand, Esdras brought the Book of the Law. On the first day of the seventh month (Tishri), a great meeting was held "in the street that was before the watergate," for the purpose of reading the Law. Standing on a platform, Esdras read the book aloud "from the morning until midday." At hearing the words of the Law, which they had so much transgressed, the congregation broke forth into lamentations unsuited to the holiness of the day; Nehemias therefore adjourned the assembly. Esdras resumed the reading on the next day, and they found in the Law the directions concerning the feast of the Tabernacles. Thereupon steps were at once taken for the due celebration of this feast, which was to last seven days, from the fifteenth to the twenty-second day of Tishri.

Esdras continued the public reading of the Law every day of the feast; and two days after its close a strict fast was held, and "they stood, and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers" (II Esdras 9:2). There was a good opportunity to renew solemnly the covenant between the people and God. This covenant pledged the community to the observance of the Law, the abstention from intermarriage with heathens, the careful keeping of the Sabbath and of the feasts, and to various regulations agreed to for the care of the Temple, its services, and the payment of the tithes. It was formally recited by the princes, the Levites, and the priests, and signed by Nehemias and chosen representatives of the priests, the Levites, and the people (strange as it may appear, Esdras's name is not to be found in the list of the subscribers — II Esdras 10:1-27).

Henceforth no mention whatever is made of Esdras in the canonical literature. He is not spoken of in connection with the second mission of Nehemias to Jerusalem, and this has led many to suppose that he was dead at the time. In fact, both the time and place of his death are unknown, although there is on the banks of the Tigris, near the place where this river joins the Euphrates, a monument purporting to be Esdras's tomb, and which, for centuries, has been a place of pilgrimage for the Jews.

Esdras's role in the restoration of the Jews after the exile left a lasting impression upon the minds of the people. This is due mostly to the fact that henceforth Jewish life was shaped on the lines laid down by him, and in a way from which, in the main, it never departed. There is probably a great deal of truth in the tradition which attributes to him the organization of the synagogues and the determination of the books hallowed as canonical among the Jews. Esdras's activity seems to have extended still further. The Talmud credits him with having compiled "his own book" (that is to say Esd. Nehem.), "and the genealogies of the book of Chronicles as far as himself" (Treat. "Baba bathra," 15a). Modern scholars, however, differ widely as to the extent of his literary work: some regard him as the last editor of the Hexateuch, whereas, on the other hand, they doubt his part in the composition of Esdras-Nehemias and Paralipomenon. At any rate, it is certain that he had nothing to do with the composition of the so-called Third and Fourth books of Esdras.

As is the case with many men who played an important part at momentous epochs in history, in the course of time Esdras's personality and activity assumed, in the minds of the people, gigantic proportions; legend blended with history and supplied the scantiness of information concerning his life. He was looked upon as a second Moses, to whom were attributed all institutions that could not possibly be ascribed to the former. According to Jewish traditions, he restored from memory — an achievement little short of miraculous — all the books of the Old Testament, which were believed to have perished during the Exile. He likewise replaced, in the copying of Holy Writ, the old Phoenician writing by the alphabet still in use. Until the Middle Ages, and even the Renaissance, the crop of legendary achievements attributed to him grew; it was then that Esdras was hailed as the organizer of the famous Great Synagogue — the very existence of which seems to be a myth — and the inventor of the Hebrew vocal signs.

Not a little confusion arises from the titles of these books. Esdras A of the Septuagint is III Esdras of Blessed Jerome, whereas the Greek Esdras B corresponds to I and II Esdras of the Vulgate, which were originally united into one book. Protestant writers, after the Geneva Bible, call I and II Esdras of the Vulgate respectively Ezra and Nehemiah, and III and IV Esdras of the Vulgate respectively I and II Esdras. It would be desirable to have uniformity of titles. We shall follow here the terminology of Blessed Jerome.

(Gr. Esdras B, first part; A.V. Ezra). As remarked above, this book formed in the Jewish canon, together with II Esdras, a single volume. However, Christian writers of the fourth century adopted the custom — the origin of which is not easy to assign — of considering them as two distinct works. This custom prevailed to such an extent that it found its way even into the Hebrew Bible, where it has remained in use. On the other hand, the many and close resemblances undeniably existing between Esd. Neh. and Par., and usually accounted for by unity of authorship, have suggested that possibly all these books formed, in the beginning, one single volume, for which the title of "Ecclesiastical Chronicle of Jerusalem" has been proposed as fairly expressing its contents.

Should these books be regarded as independent, or as parts of a larger work? There is little discussion as to the union of I and II Esdras, which may well be considered as a single book. As to the opinion holding Esd. Neh. and Par. to be only one work, although it seems to have gained ground among Biblical students, yet it is still strongly opposed by many who deem its arguments unable to outweigh the evidence in the opposite direction. We should not expect to find in I Esdras, any more than in II Esdras, a complete account of the events connected with the Restoration, even a complete record of the lives of Esdras and Nehemias. The reason for this lies in the author's purpose of simply narrating the principal steps taken in the re-establishment of the theocracy in Jerusalem. Thus, in two parallel parts, our book deals with the return of the Jews under the leadership of Zorobabel; with the return of another band commanded by Esdras.

In the former, with the decree of Cyrus (1:1-4) and the enumeration of the most prominent members of the caravan (2:), we read a detailed account of the rebuilding of the Temple and its successful completion, in spite of bitter opposition (3: -4:). The events therein contained cover twenty-one years (536-515). The latter part deals with facts belonging to a much later date (458 or 397). Opening with the decree of Artaxerxes (7:) and the census of the members of the party, it briefly relates the journey across the desert (8:), and gives all the facts connected with the enforcement of the law concerning marriages with foreign women (9: -10:).

I Esd. is a compilation the various parts of which differ in nature, in origin, and even in language. At least three of the parts may be recognized:

• the personal memoirs of Esdras (7:27-9:15);
• lists very likely taken from public documents (2:1-70; 7:1-5);
• Aramaic writings (4:7-6:18; 7:12-26), supposed with some probability to be a portion of "a more comprehensive history of the restored community" (Stade).

These the compiler put together into the present shape, adding, of course, now and then some remarks of his own, or some facts borrowed from sources otherwise unknown to us. This compilatory character does not, as some might believe, lessen in any way the high historical value of the work. True, the compiler was very likely not endowed with a keen sense of criticism, and he has indiscriminatingly transcribed side by side all his sources "as if all were alike trustworthy" (L.W. Batten). But we should not forget that he has preserved for us pages of the highest value. Even those that might be deemed of inferior trustworthiness are the only documents available with which to reconstruct the history of those times; and the compiler, even from the standpoint of modern scientific research, could hardly do anything more praiseworthy than place within our reach, as he did, the sources of information at his disposal. The composition of the work has long been attributed without discussion to Esdras himself. This view, taught by the Talmud, and still admitted by scholars of good standing, is, however, abandoned by several Protestant Biblical students, who, although their opinions are widely at variance on the question of the date, fairly agree, nevertheless, that the book is later than 330 B.C.

See the Book of Nehemiah.

(Gr. Esdras A; Protestant writers, I Esdras) Although not belonging to the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures, this book is usually found, ne prorsus intereat, in an appendix to the editions of the Vulgate. It is made up almost entirely from materials existing in canonical books. The following scheme will show sufficiently the contents and point out the canonical parallels:

The book is incomplete, and breaks off in the middle of a sentence. True, the Latin version completes the broken phrase of the Greek; but the book in its entirety probably contained also the narrative of the feast of Tabernacles (II Esdras 8:).

A very strange feature in the work is its absolute disregard of chronological order; the history, indeed, runs directly backwards, mentioning first Artaxerxes (2:16-31), then Darius (3-5:6), finally Cyrus (5:7-73). All this makes it difficult to detect the real object of the book and the purpose of the compiler. It has been suggested that we possess here a history of the Temple from the time of Josias down to Nehemias, and this view is well supported by the subscription of the old Latin version. Others suppose that, in the main, the book is rather an early translation of the chronicler's work, made at a time when Par., Esdras, and Neh. still formed one continuous volume. Be this as it may, there seems to have been, up to Blessed Jerome, some hesitation with regard to the reception of the book into the Canon. It was freely quoted by the early Fathers, and included in Origen's "Hexapla." This might be explained by the fact that III Esd. may be considered as another recension of canonical Scriptures. Unquestionably our book cannot claim to be Esdras's work. From certain particulars, such as the close resemblance of the Greek with that of the translation of Daniel, some details of vocabulary, etc., scholars are led to believe that III Esd. was compiled, probably in Lower Egypt, during the second century B.C. Of the author nothing can be said except, perhaps, that the above-noted resemblance of style to Dan. might incline one to conclude that both works are possibly from the same hand.

Such is the title of the book in most Latin manuscripts; the (Protestant) English apocrypha, however, give it as II Esdras, from the opening words: "The second book of the prophet Esdras." Modern authors often call it the Apocalypse of Esdras. This remarkable work has not been preserved in the original Greek text; but we possess translations of it in Latin, Syriac, Arabic (two independent versions), Ethiopian, and Armenian. The Latin text is usually printed in the appendix to the editions of the Vulgate; but these editions miss seventy verses between 7:35, and 7:36. The missing fragment, which was read in the other versions, was discovered in a Latin manuscript by R.L. Bensly, in 1874, and has been since repeatedly printed in the Latin. The book is divided into sixteen chapters. The two opening (1:, 2:) and the two concluding (15:, 16:) chapters, however, which are not to be found in the Eastern translations, are unhesitatingly regarded by all as later additions, foreign to the primitive work.

The body of the Fourth Book, the unity of which appears to be unquestionable, is made up of seven visions that Esdras is supposed to have seen at Babylon, the thirtieth year after the destruction of Jerusalem (the date given is wrong by about a century).

In the first vision (3:1-5:20), Esdras is lamenting over the affliction of his people. Why does not God fulfill his promises? Is not Israel the elect nation, and better, despite her "evil heart," than her heathen neighbors? The angel Uriel chides Esdras for inquiring into things beyond his understanding; the "prophet" is told that the time that is past exceeds the time to come, and the signs of the end are given him.

In another vision (5:21-6:34), he learns, with new signs of the end, why God "doeth not all at once."

Then follows (6:35-9:25) a glowing picture of the Messianic age. "My son" shall come in his glory, attended by those who did not taste death, Moses, Henoch, Elias, and Esdras himself; they shall reign 400 years, then "my son" and all the living shall die; after seven days of "the old silence," the Resurrection and the Judgment.

Next (9:26-10:60) Esdras beholds, in the appearance of a woman mourning for her son who died on his wedding day, an apocalyptic description of the past and future of Jerusalem. This vision is followed by another (11:1-12: 39) representing the Roman Empire, under the figure of an eagle, and by a third (13:) describing the rise of the Messianic kingdom.

The last chapter (14:) narrates how Esdras restored the twenty-four books of the Old Testament that were lost, and wrote seventy books of mysteries for the wise among the people.

The Fourth Book of Esdras is reckoned among the most beautiful productions of Jewish literature. Widely known in the early Christian ages and frequently quoted by the Fathers (especially St. Ambrose), and its veneration in the West has been profound. It may be said to have framed the popular Western belief of the Middle Ages concerning the last things. The second chapter has furnished the verse Requiem oeternam to the Office of the Dead (24-25 in the Roman-Catholic church). The response Lux perpetua lucebit sanctis tuis of the Office of the Martyrs during Easter time (35). The introit Accipite jucunditatem for Whit-Tuesday (36-37), the words Modo coronantur of the Office of the Apostles (45). In like manner, the verse Crastine die for Christmas Eve, is borrowed from 16:53.

However beautiful and popular the book, its origin is shrouded in mystery. The introductory and concluding chapters, containing evident traces of Christianity, are assigned to the third century (about A.D. 201-268). The main portion (3: -14:) is undoubtedly the work of a Jew — whether Roman, or Alexandrian, or Palestinian, no one can tell; as to its date, authors are mostly widely at variance, and all dates have been suggested, from 30 B.C. to A.D. 218; scholars, however, seem to rally more and more around the year A.D. 97.

Also called the second Book of Esdras (Ezra), this book is reckoned both in the Talmud and in the early Christian Church, at least until the time of Origen, as forming one single book with Esdras, and Blessed Jerome in his preface (ad Dominionem et Rogatianum), following the example of the Jews, still continues to treat it as making one with the Book of Esdras. The union of the two in a single book doubtless has its origin in the fact that the documents of which the Books of Esdras and Nehemiah are composed, underwent compilation and redaction together at the hands probably, as most critics think, of the author of Paralipomenon about B.C. 300. The separation of the Book of Nehemiah from that of Esdras, preserved in our editions, may in its turn be justified by the consideration that the former relates in a distinct manner the work accomplished by Nehemiah, and is made up, at least in the great part, from the authentic memoirs of the principal figure. The book comprises three sections:

(1) Comprises the account, written by Nehemiah himself, of the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem. Already in the reign of Xerxes (B.C. 485-65), and especially during the first half of the reign of Artaxerxes I (B.C. 465-24), the Jews had attempted, but with only partial success, to rebuild the walls of their capital, a work, up to then, never sanctioned by the Persian kings (see I Esd. 4:6-23). In consequence of the edict of Artaxerxes, given in I Esd. 4:18-22, the enemies of the Jews at Jerusalem forcibly stopped the work (ibid., 23) and pulled down a part of what had already been accomplished.

(2) With these events the beginning of the Book of Nehemiah is connected. Nehemiah, the son of Helchias, relates how, at the court of Artaxerxes at Susa where he fulfilled the office of the king's cup-bearer, he received the news of this calamity in the twentieth year of the king (Neh. 1:). He relates and how, thanks to his prudence, he succeeded in getting himself sent on a first mission to Jerusalem with full powers to rebuild the walls of the Jewish capital (Neh. 2:1-8). This first mission lasted twelve years (5:14; 13:6); he had the title of Perah (5:14; 12:26) or Athersatha (8:9; 10:1). It had long been the opinion of most historians of Israel that the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was certainly the first of that name, and that consequently the first mission of Nehemiah fell in the year B.C. 445. The Aramaic papyri of Elephantine, recently published by Sachau, put this date beyond the shadow of a doubt. For in the letter that they wrote to Bahohim, Governor of Judea, in the seventeenth year of Darius II (B.C. 408), the Jewish priests of Elephantine say that they have also made an application to the sons of Sanaballat at Samaria. Now Sanaballat was a contemporary of Nehemiah, and the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah, therefore, was the predecessor, and not the successor, of Darius II.

(3) On his arrival at Jerusalem, Nehemiah lost no time; he inspected the state of the walls, and then took measures and gave orders for taking the work in hand (2:3, 9-18). Chapter iii, a document of the highest importance for determining the area of Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century B.C., contains a description of the work, carried out at all points at once under the direction of the zealous Jewish governor. The high priest Eliasib is named first among the fellow workers of Nehemiah (3:1). To bring the undertaking to a successful termination the latter had to fight against all sorts of difficulties.

(4) First of all, the foreign element had great influence in Judea. The Jews who had returned from captivity almost a century before, had found the country partly occupied by people belonging to the neighboring races, and being unable to organize themselves politically, had seen themselves reduced, little by little, to a humiliating position in their own land. And so, at the time of Nehemiah, we see certain foreigners taking an exceedingly arrogant attitude towards the Jewish governor and his work. Sanaballat the Horonite, chief of the Samaritans (4: 1, 2), Tobias the Ammonite, Gossem the Arabian, claim to exercise constant control over Jewish affairs, and try by all means in their power, by calumny (2:19), scoffs (4:1 ff), threats of violence (4:7 ff), and craft (6:1 ff), to hinder Nehemiah' work or ruin him. The reason of this was that the raising up again of the walls of Jerusalem was destined to bring about the overthrow of the moral domination, which for many years’ circumstances had secured for those foreigners.

(5) A party of Jews, traitors to their own nation, upheld the cause of the foreigners. The prophet Noadias and other false prophets sought to terrify Nehemiah (6: 14); there were some who, like Samaia, allowed themselves to be hired by Tobias and Sanaballat to set snares for him (6: 10-14). Many Jews sided with Tobias because of the matrimonial alliances existing between his family and certain Jewish families. Nehemiah, however, does not speak of the mixed marriages as if they had been actually forbidden. The father-in-law of Tobias' son, Mosollam, the son of Barachias, on the contrary, was a fellow worker of Nehemiah (6:18; 3:4). The law of Deuteronomy only forbade marriages between Jews and Chanaanites (Deut. 7:1, 3).

(6) Difficulties of a social nature, the result of the selfish treatment of the poor by the rich, who misused the common distress for their own ends, likewise called for the energetic intervention of Nehemiah (5). On this occasion, Nehemiah recalls the fact that previous governors had practiced extortion, while he was the first to show himself disinterested in the discharge of his duties (5:15 ff).

(7) In spite of all these difficulties, the rebuilding of the wall rapidly progressed. We learn from vii, 15 that the work was completely finished within fifty-one days. Josephus (Ant. 5:7, 8) says that it lasted two years and four months, but his testimony, often far from reliable, presents no plausible reason for setting aside the text. The relatively short duration of the work is explained, when we consider that Nehemiah had only to repair the damage wrought after the prohibition of Artaxerxes (I Esd. 4:23), and finish off the construction, which might at that moment have been already far advanced [see above (1)].

After the expiration of his first mission, Nehemiah had returned to Susa in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes (B.C. 433; 13:6). Some time after, he was charged with a fresh mission to Judea, and it is with his doings during this second mission that 13:4-31 is concerned. The account at the beginning seems mutilated. Nehemiah relates how, at the time of his second arrival at Jerusalem, he began by putting an end to the abuses which Tobias, the Ammonite, supported by the high priest Eliasib, was practicing in the temple in the matter of the depository for the sacred offerings (13:4-9). He severely blames the violation of the right of the Levites in the distribution of the tithes, and takes measures to prevent its occurrence in future (13:10-14). He insists on the Sabbath being strictly respected even by the foreign merchants (13:15-22). Finally, he dealt severely with the Jews who were guilty of marriages with strange wives, and banished a grandson of Eliasib who had married a daughter of Sanaballat (13:23-28). To this son-in-law of Sanaballat is generally attributed the inauguration of the worship in the temple of Garizim. It is plain that Nehemiah' attitude during his second mission with regard to mixed marriages differs greatly from his attitude at the beginning of his first stay in Jerusalem [see section I, (5)].

(1) Contains accounts or documents relating to the work of politico-social and religious organization effected by Nehemiah, after the walls were finished. Here we no longer have Nehemiah speaking in the first person, except in 7:1-5, and in the account of the dedication of the walls (12:31-39). He relates how, after having rebuilt the walls, he had to proceed to erect houses, and take measures for bringing into the town a population more in proportion to its importance as the capital (7:1-5; cf. Ecclus. 49, 15).

(2) He gives (7:5 ff) the list of the families who had returned from captivity with Zorobabel. This list is in I Esd., ii. It is remarkable that in the Book of Nehemiah, following on the list we find reproduced (7:70 ff), with variants, the remark of I Esd. 2:68-70 about the gifts given towards the work of the temple by Zorobabel's companions, and the settlement of these latter in the country; and again that Neh. 8:1 resumes the narrative in the very words of I Esd. 3. This dependence is probably due to the redactor, who in this place gave a new form to the notes supplied him by the Jewish governor's memoirs which also explains the latter's being spoken of in the third person, Neh. 8:9.

(3) There is a description of a great gathering held in the seventh month under the direction of Nehemiah (8:9-12) at which Esdras reads the Law (8:13). They then kept the Feast of Tabernacles (8:13-18). When this feast is over, the people gather together again on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month (9:1 ff) to praise God, confess their sins, and to bind themselves by a written covenant faithfully to observe their obligations. Chapter X, after giving the list of the subscribers to the covenant, sets forth the obligations, which the people bind themselves to fulfill. In particular it covers the prohibition of mixed marriages (verse 30); the keeping of the Sabbath, especially in their treatment of foreign merchants (verse 31), the yearly tribute of a third part of a sicle for the Temple (verse 32), and other measures to ensure the regular celebration of sacrifices (verses 33-34). It includes the offering of the firstfruits and of the first born (verses 35-37), and the payment and the distribution of the tithes (verses 35-39). After chapter 10, it is advisable to read 12:43-13:1-3; the appointment of a commission for the administration of things brought to the Temple, and the expulsion of foreigners from among the community. Chapter 11:1, 2, recalls the measures taken to people Jerusalem; verses 3-36 give the census of Jerusalem and of other towns as Nehemiah' measures left it. In chapter xii, 27-43, we have the account of the solemn dedication of the walls of Jerusalem; Esdras the scribe is mentioned as being at the head of a group of singers (verse 35). The list in 12:1-26, has no connection whatever with the events of this epoch.

(4) The proceedings set forth in 8:-10: are closely connected with the other parts of the history of Nehemiah. The obligations imposed by the covenant, described in x, have to do with just the very matters with which Nehemiah concerned himself most during his second stay (see above, section III). Nehemiah recalls in 13:31 the regulation concerning the providing of the wood for the altar (10:34), and the very words used in 10:39 (end of verse), we find again in 13:11. The covenant entered into by the people during Nehemiah' first mission was broken in his absence. At the time of his second mission, he put down the abuses with severity. For instance, the attitude he takes towards mixed marriages is quite different from his attitude at the beginning of his first stay [see above section I (5); section III].

This change is explained precisely by the absolute prohibition pronounced against these marriages in the assembly described in 9:-10:. The view has been put forward that 8-10 gives an account of events belonging to the period of the organization of worship under Zorobabel, the names of Nehemiah (8:9; 10:1) and Esdras (8:1 ff) having been added later. But there was certainly sufficient reason for the reorganization of worship in the time of Nehemiah (cf. the Book of Malachias and Neh. 13). Others on the contrary would regard Neh. 8-10, as the sequel to the narrative of I Esdras 9: -10:, and they likewise hold that Nehemiah' name has been interpolated in Neh. 8:9, and 10:1.

This theory is equally untenable. It is true that in the Third Book of Esdras (the Greek I Esdras) the narrative of Neh. 8 is reproduced immediately after that of Esdras 9-10; but the author of the Third Book of Esdras was led to do this by the fact that Neh. 8 presents his hero as reader of the Law. He has moreover preserved (III Esd. 9:50) the information of Neh. 8:9, about the intervention of the Athersatha (Nehemiah), Esdras' superior, which clearly proves that this account does not refer to the epoch when Esdras had returned to Jerusalem entrusted by the king with full powers for the administration of the Jewish community. See, moreover, the following paragraph.

(5) According to our view the return of Esdras with his emigrants and the reform effected by him (I Esd. 7-10) ought, chronologically, to be placed after the history of Nehemiah, and the Artaxerxes, in the seventh year of whose reign Esdras returned to Jerusalem, is Artaxerxes II (B.C. 405-358). As a matter of fact, Esdras finds the wall of Jerusalem rebuilt (I Esd. 9:9), Jerusalem well populated (10:1 ff.), the Temple treasure under proper management (8:29 ff.), Jonathan, son of Eliasib, high priest (10:6; cf. Neh. 12:23, Hebrew text), and the unlawfulness of mixed marriages recognized by every one (9:1 ff.). The radical reform, which Esdras introduced in this matter without being troubled by foreigners who still held the upper hand at the time of Nehemiah' first coming, definitively put an end to the abuse in question which had proved rebellious to all preventive measures (10:). The politics and social situation described in the first six chapters of Nehemiah [see above, section I (4), (5), (6)], the religious situation to which the proceedings of the gathering in Neh. 10, bear witness [see above, section II (3)], do not admit of being explained as immediately following after the mission of Esdras. This is particularly so in virtue of the king's edict, disposed of very valuable resources for the celebration of worship (I Esd. 7: 8:25 ff.).

Esdras is again entirely unnoticed in Neh. 1: -6, and in the list of the subscribers to the covenant (10:1 ff.). He is mentioned in Neh. 8:1 ff., and in 12:35, as fulfilling subordinate functions. Considering the singular number of the verbs in Neh. 8:9, 10, it is probable that in the former of these two verses "Esdras and the Levites" being named as part of the subject of the phrase is due to a later hand. At the epoch of Nehemiah, therefore, Esdras was at the beginning of his career, and must have gone a little later to Babylonia, whence he returned at the head of a band of emigrantsin the seventh year of Artexerxes II (B.C. 398).

(6) Many critics have maintained that in Neh. 8, we have the history of the first promulgation of the "Priestly Code" by Esdras, but the narrative in question does not authorize such an interpretation. Esdras was probably still a very young man at this time, and all he does is to read the Law before the assembled people. It is quite true that in I Esd. 7 there is made mention in the royal edict of the Law of his God which Esdras has in mind (verse 14), but besides the fact that we hold the events related in I Esd. 7 to be posterior to Neh. 8: [see above (5)], these words must not be understood literally of a new document of which Esdras was the bearer. In the same terms, mention is made of the wisdom of his God, which Esdras has in mind (verse 25), and in this same passage, it is supposed that Esdras' compatriots already know the Law of their God.

From the Hebrew meaning star, happiness; Queen of Persia and wife of Assuerus, who is identified with Xerxes (485-465 B.C.). She was a Jewess of the tribe of Benjamin, daughter of Abihail, and bore before her accession to the throne the name of Edissa (Hádássah, myrtle). Her family had been deported from Jerusalem to Babylon in the time of Jechonias (599 B.C.). On the death of her parents, she was adopted by her father's brother, Mardochai, who then dwelt in Susan, the capital of Persia. King Assuerus, being angered at the refusal of his wife Vasthi to respond to his invitation to attend a banquet that he gave in the third year of his reign, divorced her and ordered the most attractive maidens of the kingdom brought before him that he might select her successor from among them. Among these was Esther, whose rare beauty captivated the king and moved him to place her on the throne. Her uncle Mardochai remained constantly near the palace so that he might advise and counsel her. While at the gate of the palace he discovered a plot of two of the king's eunuchs to kill their royal master. This plot he revealed to Esther, who in turn informed the king. The plotters were executed, and a record of the services of Mardochai was entered in the chronicles of the kingdom.

Not long thereafter, Aman, a royal favorite before whom the king had ordered all to bow, having frequently observed Mardochai at the gate of the palace and noticed that he refused to prostrate himself before him, cunningly obtained the king's consent for a general massacre in one day of all the Jews in the kingdom. Following a Persian custom, Aman determined by lot (pûr, pl. pûrîm), that the massacre should take place a twelvemonth hence. A royal decree was thereupon sent throughout the Kingdom of Persia. Mardochai informed Esther of this and begged her to use her influence with the king and thus avert the threatening danger. At first, she feared to enter the presence of the king unsummoned, for to do so was a capital offence. But, on the earnest entreaty of her uncle, she consented to approach after three days, which with her maids she would pass in fasting and prayer, and during which she requested her uncle to have all the Jews in the city fast and pray.

On the third day, Esther appeared before the king, who received her graciously and promised to grant her request whatever it might be. She then asked him and Aman to dine with her. At the banquet, they accepted her invitation to dine with her again on the following day. Aman, carried away by the joy that this honor gave him, issued orders for the erection of a gallows on which he purposed to hang the hated Mardochai. But that night the king, being sleepless, ordered the chronicles of the nation to be read to him. Learning that Mardochai had never been rewarded for his service in revealing the plot of the eunuchs, he asked Aman, the next day, to suggest a suitable reward for one "whom the king desired to honor." Thinking it was himself that the king had in mind, Aman suggested the use of the king's apparel and insignia. These the king ordered to be bestowed on Mardochai.

At the second banquet, when the king repeated to Esther his offer to grant her whatever she might ask, she informed him of the plot of Aman which involved the destruction of the whole Jewish people to which she belonged, and pleaded that they should be spared. The king ordered that Aman should be hanged on the gibbet prepared for Mardochai, and, confiscating his property, bestowed it upon the intended victim. He charged Mardochai to address to all the governors of Persia letters authorizing the Jews to defend themselves and to kill all those who, by virtue of the previous decree, should attack them. During two days, the Jews took a bloody revenge on their enemies in Susan and other cities. Mardochai then instituted the feast of Purim (lots), which he exhorted the Jews to celebrate in memory of the day which Aman had determined for their destruction, but which had been turned by Esther into a day of triumph.

The foregoing story of Esther is taken from the Book of Esther as found in the Vulgate. Jewish traditions place the tomb of Esther at Hamadân (Ecbatana). The Fathers of the Church considered Esther as a type of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In her, poets have found a favorite subject.

In the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint, the Book of Esther bears only the word "Esther" as title. But the Jewish rabbis called it also the "volume of Esther," or simply "the volume" (megillah) to distinguish it from the other four volumes (megilloth), written on separate rolls, which were read in the synagogues on certain feast days.

As this one was read on the feast of Purim and consisted largely of epistles (cf. Esth. 9:20, 29), it was called by the Jews of Alexandria the "Epistle of Purim." In the Hebrew canon the book was among the Hagiographa and placed after Ecclesiastes. In the Latin Vulgate, it has always been classed with Tobias and Judith, after which it is placed. The Hebrew text that has come down to us varies considerably from those of the Septuagint and the Vulgate. The Septuagint, besides showing many unimportant divergencies, contains several additions in the body of the book or at the end. The additions are the portion of the Vulgate text after ch. 10: 3. Although no trace of these fragments is found in the Hebrew Bible, they are most probably translations from an original Hebrew or Chaldaic text. Origen tells us that they existed in Theodotion's version, and that Josephus used them in his "Antiquities" (XVI).

Blessed Jerome, finding them in the Septuagint and the Old Latin version, placed them at the end of his almost literal translation of the existing Hebrew text, and indicated the place they occupied in the Septuagint. The chapters being thus rearranged, the book may be divided into two parts: the first relating the events which preceded and led up to the decree authorizing the extermination of the Jews (1-3:15; 11:2; 13:7); the second showing how the Jews escaped from their enemies and avenged themselves (4-5, 8; 13-15).

The Book of Esther, thus taken in part from the Hebrew Canon and in part from the Septuagint, found a place in the Christian Canon of the Old Testament. The chapters taken from the Septuagint were considered deuterocanonical, and, after Blessed Jerome, were separated from the ten chapters taken from the Hebrew, which were called protocanonical. A great many of the early Fathers clearly considered the entire work as inspired, although no one among them found it to his purpose to write a commentary on it. Its omission in some of the early catalogues of the Scriptures was accidental or unimportant.

The first to reject the book was Luther, who declared that he so hated it that he wished that it did not exist (Table Talk, 59). His first followers wished only to reject the deuterocanonical parts, whereupon these, as well as other deuterocanonical parts of the Scriptures, elsewhere in the non-Orthodox world were declared by the Council of Trent (Sess. IV, de Can. Scripturæ) to be canonical and inspired. With the rise of rationalism, the opinion of Luther found many supporters. When modern rationalists argue that the Book of Esther is irreligious in character, unlike the other books of the Old Testament, and therefore to be rejected, they have in mind only the first or protocanonical part, not the entire book, which is manifestly religious. However, although the first part is not explicitly religious, it contains nothing unworthy of a place in the Sacred Scriptures. And any way, as Driver points out (Introduc. to the Lit. of the Testament), there is no reason why every part of the Biblical record should show the "same degree of subordination of human interests to the spirit of God."

As to the authorship of the Book of Esther, there is nothing but conjecture. The Talmud (Baba Bathra 15a) assigns it to the Great Synagogue; St. Clement of Alexandria ascribes it to Mardochai; St. Augustine suggests Esdras as the author. Many, noting the writer's familiarity with Persian customs and institutions and with the character of Assuerus, hold that he was a contemporary of Mardochai, whose memoirs he used. But such memoirs and other contemporary documents showing this familiar knowledge could have been used by a writer at a later period. And, although the absence in the text of allusion to Jerusalem seems to lead to the conclusion that the book was written and published in Persia at the end of the reign of Xerxes I (485-465 B.C), or during the reign of his son Artaxerxes I (465-425 B.C.), the text seems to offer several facts which may be adduced with some show of reason in favour of a later date. They are:

• An implied statement that Susan had ceased to be the capital of Persia, and a vague description of the extent of the kingdom (1:1);
• An explanation of Persian usages that implies unfamiliarity with them on the part of the readers (1:13, 19; 4:11; 8: 8);
• The revengeful attitude of the Jews towards the Gentiles, by whom they felt they had been wronged, and with whom they wished to have little to do (3:8 sqq.);
• A diction showing many late words and a deterioration in syntax;
• References are made to "the Macedonians" and to the plot of Aman as an attempt to transfer "the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians" (16: 10, 14).

On the strength of these passages, various Protestant critics have assigned late dates for the authorship of the book, as, 135 B.C., 167 B.C., 238 B.C., the beginning of the third century B.C., or the early years of the Greek period that began 332 B.C. The majority accepts the last opinion.

Some of the modern critics who have fixed upon late dates for the composition of the book deny that it has any historical value whatever, and declare it a work of the imagination, written for the purpose of popularizing the feast of Purim. In support of their contention they point out in the text what appear to be historical improbabilities, and attempt to show that the narrative has all the characteristics of a romance, the various incidents being artfully arranged so as to form a series of contrasts and to develop into a climax. However, what seem to be historical improbabilities are in many cases trivial. Even advanced critics do not agree as to those which seem quite serious. For instance, some consider it wholly improbable that Assuerus and Aman should have been ignorant of the nationality of Esther, who was in frequent communication with Mardochai, a well-known Jew. Others maintain that it was quite possible and probable that a young woman, known to be a Jewess, should be taken into the harem of a Persian king, and that with the assistance of a relative she should avert the ruin of her people, which a high official had endeavored to effect. The seeming improbability of other passages, if not entirely explained, can be sufficiently explained to destroy the conclusion, on this ground, that the book is not historical.

As to artful contrasts and climax to which appeal is made as evidences that the book is the work of a mere romancer, it may be said with Driver (op. cit.) that fact is stranger than fiction, and that a conclusion based upon such appearances is precarious. There is undoubtedly an exercise of art in the composition of the work, but no more than any historian may use in accumulating and arranging the incidents of his history. A more generally accepted opinion among contemporary critics is that the work is substantially historical. Recognizing the author's close acquaintance with Persian customs and institutions, they hold that the main elements of the work were supplied to him by tradition, but that, to satisfy his taste for dramatic effect, he introduced details that were not strictly historical. However, the opinion held by most scholars is that the work is historical in substance and in detail. They base their conclusions especially on the following:

• the vivacity and simplicity of the narrative;
• the precise and circumstantial details, as, particularly, the naming of unimportant personages, the noting of dates and events;
• the references to the annals of the Persians;
• the absence of anachronisms;
• the agreement of proper names with the time in which the story is placed;
• the confirmation of details by history and archeology;
• the celebration of the feast of Purim in commemoration of the deliverance of the Jews by Esther and Mardochai at the time of the Machabees (II Mach. 15:37), at the time of Josephus (Antiq of the Jews, XI 6:13), and since.

The explanation of some that the story of Esther was engrafted on a Jewish feast already existing and probably connected with a Persian festival, is only a surmise. Nor has any one else succeeded better in offering an explanation of the feast than that it had its origin as stated in the Book of Esther.

(Gr. Hoi Makkabaioi; Lat. Machabei; most probably from Aramaic maqqaba="hammer").

A priestly family, which under the leadership of Mathathias initiated the revolt against the tyranny of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, King of Syria, and after securing Jewish independence, ruled the commonwealth till overthrown by Herod the Great. The name Machabee was originally the surname of Judas, the third son of Mathathias, but was later extended to all the descendants of Mathathias, and even to all who took part in the rebellion. It is also given to the martyrs mentioned in II Mach., 6:18-7. Of the various explanations of the word, the one given above is the most probable. Machabee would accordingly mean "hammerer" or "hammer-like," and would have been given to Judas because of his valor in combating the enemies of Israel. The family patronymic of the Machabees was Hasmoneans or Asmoneans, from Hashmon, Gr. Asamonaios, an ancestor of Mathathias. This designation, which is always used by the old Jewish writers, is now commonly applied to the princes of the dynasty founded by Simon, the last of the sons of Mathathias.

The rising under Mathathias was caused by the attempt of Antiochus IV to force Greek paganism on his Jewish subjects. This was the climax of a movement to Hellenize the Jews, begun with the king's approval by a party among the Jewish aristocracy, who were in favor of breaking down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile and of adopting Greek customs. The leader of this party was Jesus, or Josue, better known by his Greek name Jason, the unworthy brother of the worthy high priest, Onias III. By promising the king a large sum of money, and by offering to become the promoter among the Jews of his policy of Hellenizing the non-Greek population of his domains, he obtained the deposition of his brother and his own appointment to the high-priesthood (174 B.C.). As soon as he was installed, he began the work of Hellenizing and carried it on with considerable success.

A gymnasium was built below the Acra (citadel), in close proximity to the temple, where the youths of Jerusalem were taught Greek sports. Even priests became addicted to the games and neglected the altar for the gymnasium. Many, ashamed of what a true Jew gloried in, had the marks of circumcision removed to avoid being recognized as Jews in the baths or the gymnasium. Jason himself went so far as to send money for the games celebrated at Tyre in honor of Hercules (I Mach., 1: 11-16; II Mach., 4:7-20).

After three years, Jason was forced to yield the pontificate to Menelaus, his agent with the king in money matters, who secured the office by outbidding his employer. To satisfy his obligations to the king, the man, who was a Jew only in name, appropriated sacred vessels, and when the former high-priest Onias protested against the sacrilege, he procured his assassination. The following year Jason, emboldened by a rumor of the death of Antiochus, who was then warring against Egypt, attacked Jerusalem and forced Menelaus to take refuge in the Acra. On hearing of the occurrence, Antiochus marched against the city, massacred many of the inhabitants, and carried off what sacred vessels were left (I Mach., 1:17-28; II Mach., 4: 23-5: 23).

In 168 B.C. Antiochus undertook a second campaign against Egypt, but was stopped in his victorious progress by an ultimatum of the Roman Senate. He vented his rage on the Jews, and began a war of extermination against their religion. Apollonius was sent with orders to Hellenize Jerusalem by extirpating the native population and by peopling the city with strangers. The unsuspecting inhabitants were attacked on the Sabbath, when they would offer no defense; the men were slaughtered, the women and children sold into slavery. The city itself was laid waste and its walls demolished.

An order was next issued abolishing Jewish worship and forbidding the observance of Jewish rites under pain of death. A heathen altar was built on the altar of holocausts, where sacrifices were offered to Olympic Jupiter, and the temple was profaned by pagan orgies. Altars were also set up throughout the country at which the Jews were to sacrifice to the king's divinities. Though many conformed to these orders, the majority remained faithful and a number of them laid down their lives rather than violate the law of their fathers. The Second Book of Machabees narrates at length the heroic death of an old man, named Eleazar, and of seven brothers with their mother. (I Mach., 1: 30-67; II Mach., 5:24-7:41.)

The persecution proved a blessing in disguise. It exasperated even the moderate Hellenists, and prepared a rebellion that freed the country from the corrupting influences of the extreme Hellenist party. The standard of revolt was raised by Mathathias, as priest of the order of Joarib (cf. I Par., 24: 7), who to avoid the persecution had fled from Jerusalem to Modin (now El Mediyeh), near Lydda, with his five sons: John, Simon, Judas, Eleazar and Jonathan. When solicited by a royal officer to sacrifice to the gods, with promises of rich rewards and of the king's favor, he firmly refused, and when a Jew approached the altar to sacrifice, he slew him together with the king's officer, and destroyed the altar. He and his sons then fled to the mountains, where they were followed by many of those who remained attached to their religion. Among these were the Hasîdîm, or Assideans, a society formed to oppose the encroaching Hellenism by a scrupulous observance of traditional customs. Mathathias and his followers now overran the country destroying heathen altars, circumcising children, driving off aliens and apostate Jews, and gathering in new recruits. He died, however, within a year (166 B.C.). At his death, he exhorted his sons to carry on the fight for their religion, and appointed Judas military commander with Simon as adviser. He was buried at Modin amid great lamentations (I Mach., 2).

(166-161 B.C.).

Judas fully justified his father's choice. In a first encounter, he defeated and killed Apollonius, and shortly after routed Seron at Bethoron (I Mach., 3: 1-26). Lysias, the regent during Antiochus's absence in the East, then sent a large army under the three generals Ptolemee, Nicanor and Gorgias. Judas's little army unexpectedly fell on the main body of the enemy at Emmaus (later Nicopolis, now Amwâs) in the absence of Gorgias, and put it to rout before the latter could come to its aid; whereupon Gorgias took to flight (I Mach., 3:27-4: 25; II Mach., 8). The next year Lysias himself took the field with a still larger force; but he, too, was defeated at Bethsura (not Bethoron as in the Vulgate).

Judas now occupied Jerusalem, though the Acra still remained in the hands of the Syrians. The temple was cleansed and rededicated on the day on which three years before it had been profaned (I Mach., 4:28-61; II Mach., 10:1-8). During the breathing time left to him by the Syrians Judas undertook several expeditions into neighboring territory, either to punish acts of aggression or to bring into Judea Jews exposed to danger among hostile populations (I Mach., 5: II Mach., 10:14-38; 12:3-40).

After the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (164 B.C.) Lysias led two more expeditions into Judea. The first ended with another defeat at Bethsura, and with the granting of freedom of worship to the Jews (II Mach., 11). In the second, in which his ward, Antiochus V Eupator, accompanied Lysias, Judas suffered a reverse at Bethzacharam (where Eleazar died a glorious death); and Lysias laid siege to Jerusalem. Just then, troubles concerning the regency required his presence at home; he therefore concluded peace on condition that the city be surrendered (I Mach., 6: 21-63; II Mach., 13). As the object for which the rebellion was begun had been obtained, the Assideans seceded from Judas when Demetrius I, who in the meanwhile had dethroned Antiochus V, installed Alcimus, "a priest of the seed of Aaron," as high-priest (I Mach., 7: 1-19). Judas, however, seeing that the danger to religion would remain as long as the Hellenists were in power, would not lay down his arms till the country was freed of these men. Nicanor was sent to the aid of Alcimus, but was twice defeated and lost his life in the second encounter (I Mach., 7: 20-49; II Mach., 14: 11-15:37). Judas now sent a deputation to Rome to solicit Roman interference; but before the senate's warning reached Demetrius, Judas with only 800 men risked a battle at Laisa (or Elasa) with a vastly superior force under Baccides, and fell overwhelmed by numbers (I Mach., 8-9:20). Thus perished a man worthy of Israel's most heroic days. He was buried beside his father at Modin (161 B.C.).

The handful of men who still remained faithful to Judas's policy chose Jonathan as their leader. Arabs near Madaba soon after killed John, and Jonathan with his little army escaped the hands of Bacchides only by swimming the Jordan. Their cause seemed hopeless. Gradually, however, the number of adherents increased and the Hellenists were again obliged to call for help. Bacchides returned and besieged the rebels in Bethbessen; but disgusted at his ill success he returned to Syria (I Mach., 9:23-72). During the next four years, Jonathan was practically the master of the country.

Then began a series of contests for the Syrian crown, which Jonathan turned to such good account that by shrewd diplomacy he obtained more than his brother had been able to win by his generalship and his victories. Both Demetrius I and his opponent Alexander Balas sought to win him to their side. Jonathan took the part of Alexander, who appointed him high priest and bestowed on him the insignia of a prince. Three years later, in reward for his services, Alexander conferred on him both the civil and military authority over Judea (I Mach., 9: 73-10:66). In the conflict between Alexander and Demetrius II Jonathan again supported Alexander, and in return received the gift of the city of Accaron with its territory (I Mach., 10: 67-89). After the fall of Alexander, Demetrius summoned Jonathan to Ptolemais to answer for his attack on the Acra; but instead of punishing him, Demetrius confirmed him in all his dignities, and even granted him three districts of Samaria.

Jonathan having lent efficient aid in quelling an insurrection at Antioch, Demetrius promised to withdraw the Syrian garrison from the Acra and other fortified places in Judea. As he failed to keep his word, Jonathan went over to the party of Antiochus VI, the son of Alexander Balas, whose claims Tryphon was pressing. Jonathan was confirmed in all his possessions and dignities, and Simon appointed commander of the seaboard. While giving valuable aid to Antiochus, the two brothers took occasion to strengthen their own position. Tryphon fearing that Jonathan might interfere with his ambitious plans treacherously invited him to Ptolemais and kept him a prisoner (I Mach., 11: 19-12: 48).

(143-135 B.C.).

Simon was chosen to take the place of his captive brother, and by his vigilance frustrated Tryphon's attempt to invade Judea. Tryphon in revenge killed Jonathan with his two sons whom Simon had sent as hostages on Tryphon's promise to liberate Jonathan (I Mach. 13:1-23). Simon obtained from Demetrius II exemption from taxation and thereby established the independence of Judea. To secure communication with the port of Joppe, which he had occupied immediately upon his appointment, he seized Gazara (the ancient Gazer or Gezer) and settled it with Jews. He also finally drove the Syrian garrison out of the Acra. In recognition of his services, the people decreed that the high- priesthood and the supreme command, civil and military, should be hereditary in his family. After five years of peace and prosperity under his wise rule, Antiochus VII Sidetes threatened Judea, but his general Cendebeus was defeated at Modin by Judas and John, Simon's sons. A few months later Simon was murdered with two of his sons by his ambitious son-in-law Ptolemy (D.V. Ptolemee), and was buried at Modin with his parents and brothers, over whose tombs he had erected a magnificent monument (I Mach. 13:25-16:17). After him, the race quickly degenerated.

(135-105 B.C.).

Simon's third son, John, surnamed Hyrcanus, who escaped the assassin's knife through timely warning, was recognized as high priest and chief of the nation. In the first year of his rule, Antiochus Sidetes besieged Jerusalem, and John was forced to capitulate though under rather favorable conditions. Renewed civil strife in Syria enabled John to enlarge his possessions by the conquest of Samaria, Idumea, and some territory beyond the Jordan. By forcing the Idumeans to accept circumcision, he unwittingly opened the way for Herod's accession to the throne. In his reign, we first meet with the two parties of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Towards the end of his life, John allied himself with the latter.

(105-104 B.C.).

John left the civil power to his wife and the high priesthood to his oldest son Aristobulus or Judas. But Aristobulus seized the reins of government and imprisoned his mother with three of his brothers. The fourth brother, Antigonus, he ordered to be killed, in a fit of jealousy instigated by a court cabal. He was the first to assume the title King of the Jews. His surname Philellen shows his Hellenistic proclivities.

(104-78 B.C.).

Aristobulus was succeeded by the oldest of his imprisoned brothers, Alexander Jannæus (Jonathan). Though generally unfortunate in his wars, he managed to acquire new territory, including the coast towns except Ascalon. His reign was marred by a bloody feud with the Pharisees.

(78-37 B.C.).

Alexander bequeathed the government to his wife Alexandra Salome, and the high priesthood to his son Hyrcanus II. She ruled in accordance with the wishes of the Pharisees. At her death (69 B.C.), civil war broke out between Hyrcanus II and his brother Aristobulus II. This brought on Roman interference and loss of independence (63 B.C.). Hyrcanus, whom the Romans recognized as ethnarch, was ruler only in name. Aristobulus was poisoned in Rome by the adherents of Pompey, and his son Alexander was beheaded at Antioch by order of Pompey himself (49 B.C.). The Parthians made Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, king; but the next year he was defeated by Herod with the aid of the Romans, and beheaded at Antioch (37 B.C.). With him ended the rule of the Machabees. Herod successively murdered (a) Aristobulus III, the grandson of both Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II through the marriage of Alexander, the son of the former, with Alexandra, the daughter of the latter (35 B.C.); (b) Hyrcanus II (30 B.C.) and his daughter Alexandra (28 B.C.); (c) Mariamne, the sister of Aristobulus III (29 B.C.); and lastly his own two sons by Mariamne, Alexander and Aristobulus (7 B.C.). In this manner, the line of the Machabees became extinct.

The title of four books, of which the first and second only are regarded by the Church as canonical; the third and fourth, as Protestants consider all four, are apocryphal. The first two have been so named because they treat of the history of the rebellion of the Machabees, the fourth because it speaks of the Machabee martyrs. The third, which has no connection whatever with the Machabee period, no doubt owes its name to the fact that like the others it treats of a persecution of the Jews. For the canonicity of I and II Mach.

(Makkabaion A; Liber Primus Machabaeorum).

The First Book of the Machabees is a history of the struggle of the Jewish people for religious and political liberty under the leadership of the Machabee family, with Judas Machabeus as the central figure. After a brief introduction (1:1-9) explaining how the Jews came to pass from the Persian domination to that of the Seleucids, it relates the causes of the rising under Mathathias and the details of the revolt up to his death (1:10-2:). It tells of the glorious deeds and heroic death of Judas Machabeus (3: -9:22), the story of the successful leadership of Jonathan (9:23-12:), and of the wise administration of Simon (13-16:17). It concludes (16:18-24) with a brief mention of the difficulties attending the accession of John Hyrcanus and with a short summary of his reign. The book thus covers the period between the years 175 and 135 B.C.

The narrative in both style and manner is modeled on the earlier historical books of the Old Testament. The style is usually simple, yet it at times becomes eloquent and even poetic, as, for instance, in Mathathias's lament over the woes of the people and the profanation of the Temple (2:7-13), or in the eulogy of Judas Machabeus (3:1-9), or again in the description of the peace and prosperity of the people after the long years of war and suffering (14:4-15). The tone is calm and objective, the author as a rule abstaining from any direct comment on the facts he is narrating. The more important events are carefully dated according to the Seleucid era, which began with the autumn of 312 B.C. It should be noted, however, that the author begins the year with spring (the month Nisan), whereas the author of II Mach. begins it with autumn (the month Tishri). By reason of this difference some of the events are dated a year later in the second than in the first book. (Cf. Patrizzi, "De Consensu Utriusque Libri Mach.," 27 sq.; Schürer, "Hist. of the Jewish People," I, I, 36 sq.).

The text from which all translations have been derived is the Greek of the Septuagint. However, there is little doubt that the Septuagint is itself a translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original, with the probabilities in favor of Hebrew. Not only is the structure of the sentences decidedly Hebrew (or Aramaic); but many words and expressions occur which are literal renderings of Hebrew idioms (e.g. 1:4, 15, 16, 44; 2:19, 42, 48; 5:37, 40; etc.). These peculiarities can scarcely be explained by assuming that the writer was little versed in Greek, for a number of instances show that he was acquainted with the niceties of the language. Besides, there are inexact expressions and obscurities that can be explained only in the supposition of an imperfect translation or a misreading of a Hebrew original (e.g. 1:16, 28; 4:19, 24; 11:28; 14:5).

The internal evidence is confirmed by the testimony of Blessed Jerome and of Origen. The former writes that he saw the book in Hebrew: "Machabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi" (Prol. Galeat.). As there is no ground for assuming that Blessed Jerome refers to a translation, and as he is not likely to have applied the term Hebrew to an Aramaic text, his testimony tells strongly in favor of a Hebrew as against an Aramaic original. Origen states (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.," vi, 25) that the title of the book was Sarbeth Sarbane el, or more correctly Sarbeth Sarbanaiel. Though the meaning of this title is uncertain (a number of different explanations have been proposed, especially of the first reading), it is plainly either Hebrew or Aramaic. The fragment of a Hebrew text published by Chwolson in 1896, and later again by Schweitzer, has little claim to be considered as part of the original.

No data can be found either in the book itself or in later writers which would give us a clue as to the person of the author. Names have indeed been mentioned, but on groundless conjecture. That he was a native of Palestine is evident from the language in which he wrote, and from the thorough knowledge of the geography of Palestine that he possessed. Although he rarely expresses his own sentiments, the spirit pervading his work is proof that he was deeply religious, zealous for the Law, and thoroughly in sympathy with the Machabean movement and its leaders. However, strange to say, he studiously avoids the use of the words "God" and "Lord" (that is in the better Greek text; in the ordinary text "God" is found once, and "Lord" three times; in the Vulgate both occur repeatedly. But this is probably due to reverence for the Divine names, Jahweh and Adonai, since he often uses the equivalents "heaven," "Thou," or "He." There is absolutely no ground for the opinion, maintained by some modern scholars, that he was a Sadducee. He does not, it is true, mention the unworthy high priests, Jason and Menelaus; but as he mentions the no less unworthy Alcimus, and that in the severest terms, it cannot be said that he wishes to spare the priestly class.

The last verses show that the book cannot have been written till some time after the beginning of the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.), for they mention his accession and some of the acts of his administration. The latest possible date is generally admitted to be prior to 63 B.C., the year of the occupation of Jerusalem by Pompey; but there is some difference in fixing the approximately exact date. Whether it can be placed as early as the reign of Hyrcanus depends on the meaning of the concluding verse, "Behold these [the Acts of Hyrcanus are written in the book of the days of his priesthood, from the time (xx xx, "ex quo") that he was made high priest after his father." Many understand it to indicate that Hyrcanus was then still alive, and this seems to be the more natural meaning. Others, however, take it to imply that Hyrcanus was already dead. In this latter supposition, the composition of the work must have followed close upon the death of that ruler. For not only does the vivid character of the narrative suggest an early period after the events, but the absence of even the slightest allusion to events later than the death of Hyrcanus, and, in particular, to the conduct of his two successors which aroused popular hatred against the Machabees, makes a much later date improbable. The date would, therefore, in any case, be within the last years of the second century B.C.

In the eighteenth century the two brothers E.F. and G. Wernsdorf made an attempt to discredit I Mach., but with little success. Modern scholars of all schools, even the most extreme, admit that the book is a historical document of the highest value. "With regard to the historical value of I Mach.," says Cornill (Einl., 3rd ed., 265), "there is but one voice; in it we possess a source of the very first order, an absolutely reliable account of one of the most important epochs in the history of the Jewish people."

The accuracy of a few minor details concerning foreign nations has, however, been denied. The author is mistaken, it is said, when he states that Alexander the Great divided his empire among his generals (1:7), or when he speaks of the Spartans as akin to the Jews (12: 6, 7, 21). He is inexact in several particulars regarding the Romans (8:1 sq.); he exaggerates the numbers of elephants at the battle of Magnesia (8:6), and some other numbers (e.g. 5:34; 6: 30, 37; 11:45, 48). However, the author cannot be charged with whatever inaccuracies or exaggerations may be contained in viii, 1-16. He there merely sets down the reports, inexact and exaggerated, no doubt, in some particulars, which had reached Judas Machabeus. The same is true with regard to the statement concerning the kinship of the Spartans with the Jews. The author merely reproduces the letter of Jonathan to the Spartans, and that written to the high-priest Onias I by Arius.

When a writer simply reports the words of others, an error can be laid to his charge only when he reproduces their statements inaccurately. The assertion that Alexander divided his empire among his generals (to be understood in the light of vv. 9 and 10, where it is said that they "made themselves kings . . . and put crowns on themselves after his death") cannot be shown to be erroneous. Quintus Curtius, who is the authority for the contrary view, acknowledges that there were writers who believed that Alexander made a division of the provinces by his will.

As the author of I Mach is a careful historian and wrote about a century and a half before Q. Curtius, he would deserve more credit than the latter, even if he were not supported by other writers. As to the exaggeration of numbers in some instances, in so far as they are not errors of copyists, it should be remembered that ancient authors, both sacred and profane, frequently do not give absolute figures, but estimated or popularly current numbers. Exact numbers cannot be reasonably expected in an account of a popular insurrection, like that of Antioch (11:45,48), because they could not be ascertained. Now the same was often the case with regard to the strength of the enemy's forces and of the number of the enemy slain in battle. A modifying clause, such as "it is reported," must be supplied in these cases.

That the author used written sources to a certain extent is witnessed by the documents that he cites (8: 23-32; 10:3-6, 18-20, 25-45; 11:30-37; 12:6-23; etc.). But there is little doubt that he also derived most of the other matter from written records of the events, oral tradition being insufficient to account for the many and minute details. There is every reason to believe that such records existed for the Acts of Jonathan and Simon as well as for those of Judas (9:22), and of John Hyrcanus (16:23-24). For the last part he may also have relied on the reminiscences of older contemporaries, or even drawn upon his own.

The Greek translation was probably made soon after the book was written. The text is found in three uncial codices, namely the Sinaiticus, the Alexandrinus, and the Venetus, and in sixteen cursive MSS. The textus receptus is that of the Sixtine edition, derived from the Codex Venetus and some cursives. The best editions are those of Fritzsche ("Libri Apocryphi V. T.," Leipzig, 1871, 203 sq.) and of Swete "O. T. in Greek," Cambridge, 1905, III, 594 sq.), both based on the Cod. Alexandrinus. The old Latin version in the Vulgate is that of the Itala, probably unretouched by Blessed Jerome. Part of a still older version, or rather recension (chap. i-xiii), was published by Sabatier (Biblior. Sacror. Latinae Versiones Antiquae, II, 1017 sq.), the complete text of which was recently discovered in a MSS. at Madrid. Two Syriac versions are extant: that of the Peshitto, which follows the Greek text of the Lucian recension, and another published by Ceriani ("Translatio Syra photolithographice edita," Milan, 1876, 592-615), which reproduces the ordinary Greek text.

(Makkabaion B; Liber Secundus Machabaeorum).

The Second Book of Machabees is not, as the name might suggest, a continuation of the First, but covers part of the same ground. The book proper (2:20-15:40) is preceded by two letters of the Jews of Jerusalem to their Egyptian coreligionists (1:1-2:19). The first (1:1-10a), dated in the year 188 of the Seleucid era (i.e. 124 B.C.), beyond expressions of goodwill and an allusion to a former letter, contains nothing but an invitation to the Jews of Egypt to celebrate the feast of the Dedication of the Temple (instituted to commemorate its rededication, I Mach. 4:59; II Mach. 10:8). The second (i, 10b-ii, 19), which is undated, is from the "senate" (gerousia) and Judas (Machabeus) to Aristobulus, the preceptor or counselor of Ptolemy (D.V. Ptolemee) (Philometor), and to the Jews in Egypt. It informs the Egyptian Jews of the death of Antiochus (Epiphanes) while attempting to rob the temple of Nanea, and invites them to join their Palestinian brethren in celebrating the feasts of the Dedication and of the Recovery of the Sacred Fire. The story of the recovery of the sacred fire is then told, and in connection with it the story of the hiding by the Prophet Jeremias of the tabernacle, the ark and the altar of incense. After an offer to send copies of the books that Judas had collected after the example of Nehemias, it repeats the invitation to celebrate the two feasts, and concludes with the hope that the dispersed of Israel might soon be gathered together in the Holy Land.

The book itself begins with an elaborate preface (2:20-33) in which the author after mentioning that his work is an epitome of the larger history in five books of Jason of Cyrene states his motive in writing the book, and comments on the respective duties of the historian and of the epitomizer. The first part of the book (3-4:6) relates the attempt of Heliodoris, prime minister of Seleucus IV (187-175 B.C.), to rob the treasures of the Temple at the instigation of a certain Simon, and the troubles caused by this latter individual to Onias III. The rest of the book is the history of the Machabean rebellion down to the death of Nicanor (161 B.C.), and therefore corresponds to I Mach., I, 11-7: 50. Section iv, 7-x, 9, deals with the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (I Mach. 1:11-6:16), while section x, l0-xv, 37, records the events of the reigns of Antiochus Eupator and Demetrius I (I Mach. 6:17-7:50). II Mach. thus covers a period of only fifteen years, from 176 to 161 B.C. But while the field is narrower, the narrative is much more copious in details than I Mach., and furnishes many particulars, for instance, names of persons, which are not found in the first book.

On comparing the two Books of Machabees, it is plainly seen that the author of the Second does not, like the author of the First, write history merely to acquaint his readers with the stirring events of the period with which he is dealing. He writes history with a view to instruction and edification. His first object is to exalt the Temple of Jerusalem as the center of Jewish worship. This appears from the pains he takes to extol on every occasion its dignity and sanctity. It is "the great temple," (2:20), "the most renowned" and "the most holy in all the world" (2:23; 5:15), "the great and holy temple" (14:31). Even heathen princes esteemed it worthy of honor and glorified it with great gifts (3:2-3; 5:16; 13:23). The concern of the Jews in time of danger was more for the holiness of the Temple than for their wives and children (15:18). God protects it by miraculous interpositions (iii 14:31 sq.) and punishes those guilty of sacrilege against it (3:24 sq.; 9:16; 13:6-8; 14:31 sq.; 15:32); if He has allowed it to be profaned, it was because of the sins of the Jews (5:17-20). It is, no doubt, with this design that the two letters, which otherwise have no connection with the book, were prefixed to it. The author apparently intended his work especially for the Jews of the Dispersion, and more particularly for those of Egypt, where a schismatical temple had been erected at Leontopolis about 160 B.C.

The second object of the author is to exhort the Jews to faithfulness to the Law, by impressing upon them that God is still mindful of His covenant. He reminds them that God does not abandon them unless they first abandon Him; the tribulations they endure are a punishment for their unfaithfulness, and will cease when they repent (4:17; 5:17, 19; 6: 13, 15, 16; 7:32, 33, 37, 38; 8: 5, 36; 14:15; 15:23, 24). To the difference of object corresponds a difference in tone and method. The author is not satisfied with merely relating facts, but freely comments on persons and acts, distributing praise or blame as they may deserve when judged from the standpoint of a true Israelite. Supernatural intervention in favor of the Jews is emphasized. The style is rhetorical, the dates are comparatively few. As has been remarked, the chronology of II Mach. slightly differs from that of I Mach.

II Mach. is, as has been said, an epitome of a larger work by a certain Jason of Cyrene. Nothing further is known of this Jason except that, judging from his exact geographical knowledge, he must have lived for some time in Palestine. The author of the epitome is unknown. From the prominence that he gives to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, it has been inferred that he was a Pharisee. Some have even maintained that his book was a Pharisaical partisan writing. This last, at any rate, is a baseless assertion. II Mach. does not speak more severely of Alcimus than I Mach., and the fact that it mentions the high-priests, Jason and Menelaus, by name no more proves it to be a Pharisaic partisan writing than the omission of their names in I Mach. proves that to be a Sadducee production. Jason must have finished his work shortly after the death of Nicanor, and before disaster overtook Judas Machabeus, as he not only omits to allude to that hero's death, but makes the statement, which would be palpably false if he had written later, that after the death of Nicanor Jerusalem always remained in the possession of the Jews (15:38). The epitome cannot have been written earlier than the date of the first letter, that is 124 B.C.

As to the exact date, there is great divergence. In the very probable supposition that the first letter was sent with a copy of the book, the latter would be of about the same date. It cannot in any case be very much later, since the demand for an abridged form of Jason's history, to which the author alludes in the preface (2:25-26), must have arisen within a reasonably short time after the publication of that work. The second letter must have been written soon after the death of Antiochus, before the exact circumstances concerning it had become known in Jerusalem, therefore about 163 B.C. That the Antiochus there mentioned is Antiochus IV and not Antiochus III, as many Biblical commentators maintain, is clear from the fact that his death is related in connection with the celebration of the Feast of the Dedication, and that he is represented as an enemy of the Jews, which is not true of Antiochus III.

The two letters, which were addressed to the Jews of Egypt, who knew little or no Hebrew or Aramaic, were in all probability written in Greek. That the book itself was composed in the same language is evident from the style, as Blessed Jerome already remarked (Prol. Gal.). Hebraisms are fewer than would be expected considering the subject, whereas Greek idioms and Greek constructions are very numerous. Jason's Hellenistic origin, and the absence in the epitome of all signs that would mark it as a translation, are sufficient to show that he also wrote in Greek.

Historicity.

The Second Book of Machabees is much less thought of as a historical document by non-Orthodox scholars than the First, though Niese has recently come out strongly in its defense. The objections brought against the two letters need not, however, concern us, except in so far as they affect their authenticity, of which hereafter. These letters are on the same footing as the other documents cited in I and II Mach.; the author is therefore not responsible for the truth of their contents. We may, then, admit that the story of the sacred fire, as well as that of the hiding of the tabernacle, etc., is a pure legend, and that the account of the death of Antiochus as given in the second letter is historically false; the author's credit as a historian will not in the least be diminished thereby.

Some recent scholars have thought that errors could also be admitted in the book itself without casting any discredit on the epitomizer, inasmuch as the latter declines to assume responsibility for the exact truth of all its contents. But though this view may find some support in the Vulgate (2:29), it is hardly countenanced by the Greek text. Besides, there is no need to have recourse to a theory, which, while absolving the author from formal error, would admit real inaccuracies in the book, and so lessen its historical value. The difficulties urged against it are not such as to defy satisfactory explanation. Some are based on a false interpretation of the text, as when, for instance, it is credited with the statement that Demetrius landed in Syria with a mighty host and a fleet (14:1), and is thus placed in opposition to I Mach. 7:1, where he is said to have landed with a few men. Others are due to subjective impressions, as when the supernatural apparitions are called into question. The exaggeration of numbers has been dealt with in connection with I Mach.

The following are the main objections with some real foundation:

1. The campaign of Lysias, which I Mach. 4:26-34, places in the last year of Antiochus Epiphanes, is transferred in II Mach. 11: to the reign of Antiochus Eupator;
2. The Jewish raids on neighboring tribes and the expeditions into Galilee and Galaad, represented in I Mach. 5: as carried on in rapid succession after the rededication of the temple, are separated in II Mach. and placed in a different historical setting (8: 30; 10:15-38; 12:10-45);
3. The account given in II Mach. 9: differs from that of I Mach. 6: regarding the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is falsely declared to have written a letter to the Jews;
4. The picture of the martyrdoms in vi, 18-vii, is highly colored, and it is improbable that Antiochus was present at them.

To these objections it may be briefly answered:

1. The campaign spoken of in II Mach. 11: is not the same as that related in I Mach. 4.
2. The events mentioned in 8: 30 and 10:15 sq. are not narrated in I Mach. 5. Before the expedition into Galaad (12:10 sq.) can be said to be out of its proper historical setting, it would have to be proved that I Mach. invariably adheres to chronological order, and that the events grouped together in chap. 5 took place in rapid succession.
3. The two accounts of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes differ, it is true, but they fit very well into one another. Considering the character of Antiochus and the condition he was in at the time, it is not at all improbable that he wrote a letter to the Jews.
4. There is no reason to doubt that in spite of the rhetorical form the story of the martyrdoms is substantially correct. As the place where they occurred is unknown, it is hard to see on what ground the presence of Antiochus is denied. It should be noted, moreover, that the book betrays accurate knowledge in a multitude of small details, and that Josephus, who was unacquainted with it, often supports it. Even its detractors admit that the earlier portion is of the greatest value, and that in all that relates to Syria its knowledge is extensive and minute. Hence, it is not likely that it would be guilty of the gross errors imputed to it.

Although these letters have a clear bearing on the purpose of the book, they have been declared palpable forgeries. Nothing, however, justifies such an opinion. The glaring contradiction in the first letter, which represents the climax of affliction as having been experienced under Demetrius II, has no existence. The letter does not compare the sufferings under Demetrius with those of the past, but speaks of the whole period of affliction including the time the time of Demetrius. The legend of the sacred fire etc., proves nothing against the genuineness of the second letter, unless it be shown that no such legend existed at the time. The false account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes is rather a proof in favor of the authenticity of the letter. Such an account would be quite natural if the letter was written soon after the first news, exaggerated and distorted as first news often is, had reached Jerusalem. There remains only the so-called blunder of attributing the building of the Temple to Nehemias. The very improbability of such a gross blunder on the part of an educated Jew (the supposed forger) should have made the critics pause. Nehemias put the last touches to the Temple (II Esdr. 2:8; Josephus, "Antiq.," 11:5:6), which justifies the use of oikodomesas. Codex 125 (Mosquensis) reads oikonomesas "having ordered the service of the temple and altar"; this would remove all difficulty (cf. II Esdr. 10:32 sq.; 13 sqq.).

The Greek text is usually found in the same MSS. as I Mach.; it is wanting, however, in the Cod. Sinaiticus. The Latin version in the Vulgate is that of the Itala. An older version was published by Peyron and again by Ceriani from the Codex Ambrosianus. A third Latin text is found in the Madrid MSS., which contains an old version of I Mach. The Syriac version is often a paraphrase rather than a translation.

III Mach. is the story of a persecution of the Jews in Egypt under Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-205 B.C.), and therefore has no right to its title. Though the work contains much that is historical, the story is a fiction. IV Mach. is a Jewish-Stoic philosophical treatise on the supremacy of pious reason, that is, religious principles, over the passions. The martyrdom of Eleazar and of the seven brothers (II Mach. 6:18-7) is introduced to illustrate the author's thesis. Neither book has any claim to canonicity, though the first for a while received favorable consideration in some Churches.

A canonical book of the Old Testament.

In Cod. Alex., biblos logon Tobit; in Vat., Tobeit; in Sinaitic, Tobeith; in Latin manuscripts Liber Tobiae, Liber Tobit et Tobiae, Liber utriusque Tobiae. In the Vulgate and Hebrew Fagii, both father and son have the same name, Tobias, tobyyah. In other texts and version, the name of the father varies: tobi, "my good" is Jahweh, In Heb. Munster; Tobit or Tobeit in the Sept.; Tobis, or Tobit, standing for tobith "goodness" of Jahweh, in the Old Latin.

The original text, supposed to have been Hebrew, is lost; the reasons assigned for an Aramaic original warrant only a probable opinion that an Aramaic translation influenced our present Greek versions.

Blessed Jerome had not yet learned Aramaic when, with the aid of a rabbi who knew both Aramaic and Hebrew, he made the Vulgate version. The rabbi expressed in Hebrew the thought of the Aramaic manuscripts and Blessed Jerome straightway put the same into Latin. It was the work of only a day (cf. Praef. in Tobiam). The Old Latin certainly influenced this hurried version. The Vulgate recension of the Aramaic version tells the story in the third person throughout, as do the Aramaic of Neubauer and the two Hebrew texts of Gaster (HL and HG), whereas all the other texts make Tobias speak in the first person up to 3:15.

The following passages occur in the Vulgate alone: the wagging of the dog's tail (11:9); the comparison of the coating on Tobias's eye to the membrane of an egg (101:14); the wait of half an hour while the gall of the fish effected its cure (101:14); Tobias closing of the eyes of Raguel and Edna in death; also 2:12, 18; 3:19, 24; 6: 16- 18, 20, 21; 8: 4,5; 9:12b. Some parts of the Vulgate, such as the continence of Tobias (6:18; 7:4), were looked upon at times as Christian interpolations of Jerome until they were found in one of Gaster's Hebrew texts (HL). Lastly, the Vulgate and HL omit all mention of Ahikhar; Achior of Vulg. 11:20 is probably an addition to the text.

Besides the Aramaic version used by Jerome and now lost, there is the extant Aramaic text recently found in an Aramaic commentary on Genesis, "Midrash Bereshit Rabba." The writing of this Midrash is fifteenth-century work; it contains the Book of Tobias as a haggada on the promise Jacob makes to give tithes to God (Gen. 28:22). Neubauer edited the text, "The Book of Tobit, a Chaldee Text from a unique manuscript in the Bodleian Library" (Oxford, 1878). He thinks that it is a briefer form of Jerome's Aramaic text. This is not likely. The language is at times a transliteration of Greek and gives evidence of being a transliteration of one or other of the Greek texts. It agrees with the Vulgate in that from the outset the tale of Tobias is told in the third person; otherwise, it is closer to Codex Vaticanus and closer still to Cod. Sinaiticus.

There are three Greek recensions of Tobias. We shall refer to them by the numbers given to the Vatican and Sinaitic codices in Vigouroux, "La sainte bible polyglote," III (Paris, 1902).

(a) AB, the text of the Alexandrian (fifth century) and Vatican (fourth century) codices. This recension is found in many other codices of the Greek text, has been used for centuries by the Greek Church, is incorporated into the Sixtine edition of the Septuagint, and has been translated into Armenian as the authentic text of that rite. AB is preferred to the Sinaitic recension by Nöldeke, Grumm, and others, and yet rated by Nestle, Ewald, and Haris as a compendium rather than as a version of the entire original text. It condenses Edna's Prayer (10:13), omits the blessing of Gabael (9:6), and has three or four unique readings (3:16; 14:8, 10; 11:8).

(b) Aleph, the text of the Sinaitic (fourth-century) Codex. Its style is very much more diffuse than that of AB, which seems to have omitted of set purpose many stichoi of Aleph — cf. 2:12, "on the seventh of Dustros she cut the web"; 5:3, the incident of the bond divided into two parts, one for Tobias and the other for Raguel; 5:5, the long conversation between Raphael and young Tobias; 6: 8; 10:10; 12:8, etc. Aleph omits 4:7-19, and xiii, 6b-9, of AB.

(c) The Text of Codices 44, 106, 107 for 6:9-13:8. The first portion (1:1-6:8) and the last (13:9 to end) are identical with AB; the remainder seems to be an attempt at a better version of the original text. Independent work is shown by 6:9, to 7:17; 8: 1, to 12:6, is very close to the Syriac and nearer to Aleph than to AB; 12:7-13:8 resembles each text in various small details. Distinctive readings of these cursives are Edna's Gnostic prayer, "Let all the Æons praise thee' (8: 15); and the fact that Anna saw the dog running before Tobias (11:5).

(d) Grenfell and Hunt, in "Oxyrhyneus Papyri" (Oxford, 1911), present what seems to be a third recension of the second chapter, part viii. The text differs from both AB and Aleph and consequently the Greek cursives.

Before the Latin Vulgate translation of the Aramaic, recension (see above) there existed at least three Old Latin versions of a Greek text that was substantially Aleph;

1. The recension of Codex Regius Parisiensis 3654 and Cod. 4 of the Library of St-Germain;
2. The recension of Cod. Vat. 7, containing 1-6, 12;
3. The recension of the "Speculum" of St. Augustine.

Down to 7:9, it is a translation of AB; thereafter, it agrees with the Greek cursive text, save that 13:9-18, is omitted. This second part is clearly a second recension; its proper names are not spelled as in the first part. Ahikhar (14:10) is Achior (2:10); 'Edna (7:14) is 'Edna (7: 2) 'Arag (9:2) is Raga (4:1, 20).

There are four Hebrew versions of this deuterocanonical story:

1. HL, Hebrew Londinii, a thirteenth-century manuscript, found by Gaster in the British Museum, and translated by him in the "Proceedings of the Soc. of the Bibl. Archaeology" (xvii and xx). Besides a cento of Scriptural exhortations, this manuscript contains the narrative portion of Tobias, translated, Gaster thinks, from a text that stood in closest relation to the Aramaic used by Blessed Jerome. It is just possible, though not in the least probable, that the thirteenth-century Jewish author of HL made use of the Vulgate.
2. HG, Hebrew Gasteri, a text copied by Gaster from a Midrash on the Pentateuch and published in the "Proc. of the Soc. of Bib. Arch" (xix). This manuscript, now lost, agreed with the Aramaic of Neubauer and was in a compact style like that of the Vulgate recension.
3. HF, Hebrew Fagii, a very free translation of AB, done in the twelfth century by a Jewish scholar: it is found in Walton's "Polyglot"
4. HM, Hebrew Munsteri, published by Munster in Basle A.D. 1542, found in Walton's "Polyglot." This text agrees as a rule with Neubauer's Aramaic, even when the latter is at variance with AB. It is, according to Ginsburg, of fifth-century origin. The Hebrew versions together with the Aramaic omit reference to the dog, which plays a prominent part in the other versions.

The foregoing review of the various and diverse recensions of the Book of Tobias shows how hard it would be to reconstruct the original text and how easily textual errors may have crept into our Vulgate or the Aramaic, on which it depends.

Unless otherwise stated, these references are to the Vulgate recension, whereof the Douay is a translation. The story naturally divides itself into two parts:

1) The fidelity of Tobias the elder and of Sara to the Lord (1:1-3:25); (a) the fidelity of Tobias (1:1-3:6) shown by his acts of mercy to fellow captives (1:11-170 and especially to the dead (1:18-25), acts that resulted in his blindness (2:1-18), the taunts of his wife (2:19-23), and the recourse of Tobias to God in prayer (3:1-6). (b) The fidelity of Sara, daughter of Raguel and Edna (3:7-23). The very day that Tobias in Ninive was taunted by his wife and turned to God, Sara in Ecbatana was taunted by her maid as the murderess of seven husbands (3:7-10), and turned to God in prayer (3: 11-23). The prayers of both were heard (3:24-25).

2) The fidelity of the Lord to Tobias and to Sara through the ministrations of the angel Raphael (4:1-12:22). (a) Raphael cares for the young Tobias on his journey to Gabael in Rages of Media to obtain the ten talents of silver left in bond by his father (4:1-9:12). The young man set out, after long instruction by his father (4:1-23). Raphael joins him as guide (5:1-28). Tobias while bathing in the Tigris is attacked by a large fish, catches it, and, at the advice of Raphael, keeps its heart, liver, and gall (6:1-22). They pass through Ecbatana, stop at Raguel's; Tobias asks Sara for wife and receives her (7:1- 20); by continence and exorcism and the odor of the burning liver of the fish and the aid of Raphael, he conquers the devil who had slain the seven previous husbands of Sara (8:1-24); Raphael gets the money of Gabael in Rages, and brings him to Ecbatana to the marriage celebration of young Tobias (9:1-23). (v) Raphael cures the blindness of the elder Tobias, on the return of his son, and manifests the truth that he is an angel (10:2-12:31). Conclusion: the hymn of thanksgiving of Tobias the elder, and the subsequent history of both father and son (13:1-14:7).

To show that God is faithful to those that are faithful to Him is evidently the chief purpose of the book. Neubauer (op. cit., p. xvi) makes out the burial of the dead to be the chief lesson; but the lesson of almsgiving is more prominent. Ewald, "Gesch. des Volkes Israel," IV, 233, sets fidelity to the Mosaic code as the main drift of the author, who writes for Jews of the Dispersion. But the book is meant for all Jews, and clearly inculcates for them many secondary lessons and one that is fundamental to the rest-God is true to those who are true to Him.

The Book of Tobias is deuterocanonical, i.e. contained not in the Canon of Palestine but in that of Alexandria. That the Jews of the Dispersion accepted the book as canonical Scripture is clear from its place in the Septuagint. That the Palestinian Jews reverenced Tobias as a sacred book may be argued form the existence of the Aramaic translation used by Blessed Jerome and that published by Neubauer, as also from the four extant Hebrew translators. Then, most of these Semitic versions were found as Midrashim, or hagganda, of the Pentateuch.

Despite the rejection of Tobias from the Protestant Canon, its place in the Christian Canon of Holy Writ is undoubted. The Church has ever esteemed it as inspired. St. Polycarp (A.D. 117), "Ad Philippenses," 10:, urges almsgiving, and cites Tob. 4:10, and 12: 9, as authority for his urging. Deutero-Clement (A.D. 150), "Ad Corinthios," 16:, has praises of almsgiving that are an echo of Tob. 12:8,9. St. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190-210), in "Stromata," vi, 12 (P.G. IX, 324), cites as the words of Holy Writ: "Fasting is good with prayer" (Tob. 12:9); and in "Stromata," i, 21 2:23 (P.G. VIII, 853, 1089), "What thou hatest, do not unto another" (Tob. 4:16). Origen (about A.D. 230) cites as Scripture Tob. 3:24 and 12:12, 15, in "De oratione," II; Tob. 2:1, in sec. 14; Tob. 12:12, in sec. 31 (cf. P.G. XI, 448, 461, 553); and writing to Africanus (P.G. XI, 80) he explains that, although the Hebrews do not use Tobias, yet the Church does. St. Athanasius (A.D. 350) uses Tob. 12:7 and iv, 19, with the distinctive phrase "as it is written," cf. "Apol. contra arianos," II, and "Apol. ad Imper. Constantium" (P.G. 25:268, 616).

In the Western Church, St. Cyprian (about A.D. 248) very often refers to Tobias as of Divine authority just as he refers to other books of Holy Writ; cf. "De mortalitate," x; "De opere et eleemosynis," v, xx; "De patientia," xviii (P.G. IV, 588, 606, 634); "Ad Quirinum," i, 20 for Tob., xii; 3:1 for Tob. 2:2; and 4: 5-11; 2:62 for Tob. 4:12 (P.G. IV, 689, 728, 729, 767). St. Ambrose (about A.D. 370) wrote a book entitled "De Tobia" against usury (P.L. XIV, 759), and introduced it by referring to the Biblical work of that name as "a prophetic book," "Scripture." In the entire Western Church, however, the canonicity of Tobias is clearest from its presence in the Old Latin Version, the authentic text of Scripture for the Latin Church from about A.D. 150 until Blessed Jerome's Vulgate replaced it.

The canonical use of Tobias in that part of the Byzantine Church whose language was Syriac is seen in the writings of St. Ephraem (about A.D. 362) and of St. Archelaus (about A.D. 278). The earliest canonical lists all contain the Book of Tobias; they are those of the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393), the councils of Carthage (A.D. 397 and 419), St. Innocent I (A.D. 405), Blessed Augustine (A.D. 397). Moreover, the great fourth- and fifth- century manuscripts of the Septuagint are proof that not only the Jews but also the Christians used Tobias as canonical.

Against the canonicity of Tobias are urged several rather trivial objections, which would, at first sight, seem to impugn the inspiration of the narrative.

1. Raphael told an untruth when he said he was "Azarias the son of the great Ananias" (5:18). There is no untruth in this. The angel was in appearance just what he said he was. Besides, he may have meant by azaryah, "the healer of Jah"; and by ananyah, "the goodness of Jah." In this event, he only told the young Tobias that he was God's helper and the offspring of the great goodness of God; in this, there would be no falsehood.
2. A second objection is that the angelology of Tobias is taken over from that of the Avesta either directly by Iranian influence or indirectly by the inroad of Syriac or Grecian folklore. For Raphael says: "I am the angel Raphael, one of the seven who stand before the Lord" (12:15). These seven are the Amesha Spentas of Zoroastrianism: cf. Fritzsche, "Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apocr.," II (Leipzig, 1853), 61. The answer is that the reading seven is doubtful; it is in Aleph, AB, Old Latin, and Vulg.; it is wanting in the Greek cursive text, Syriac, and HM. Still, admitting the reading of the Vulgate, the Amesha Spentas have infiltrated into Avestic religion from the seven Angels of Hebraistic Revelation and not vice versa. Moreover, there are not seven Amesha Spentas in the angelology of the Avesta, but only six. They are subordinated to Ahura Mazda, the first principle of good. True, he is, at times, grouped with the six lower spirits as seven Amesha Spentas; but in this grouping, we have not by any means seven angels standing before the Deity.

The destructive criticism which, among Protestants, has striven to do away with the canonical books of the Old Testament have quite naturally had no respect for those books the critics call apocryphal. The Book of Tobias is to them no more than are the Testament of Job, the Book of Jubilees, and the story of Ahikhar. From the standpoint of historical criticism, it is to be grouped with these three apocryphal (J.T. Marshall, Principal of the Baptist College, Manchester, in Hasting's "Dict. of the Bible," s.v.). Simrock in "Der gute Gerhard und die dankbaren Todten" (Bonn, 1858) reduces the story to the folk-lore theme of the gratitude of the departed spirit; the yarn is spun out of this slim thread of fancy that the souls of the dead, whose remains Tobias buried, did not forget his benevolence. Erbt (Encycl. Biblica, s.v.) finds traces of Iranian legend in the name of the demon Asmodeus (Tob. 3:8) which is the Persian Aeshma daeva; as also in the dog — "with the Persians a certain power over evil spirits was assigned to the dog." And again: "the Jewish nation takes up a foreign legend, goes on repeating it until it has got it into fixed oral form, in order next to pass it on to some story-writer who is able to shape it into an edifying household tale, capable of ministering comfort to many succeeding generations." Moulton, "The Iranian background of Tobit" (Expository Time, 1900, p. 257), considers the book to be Median folklore, in which the Semitic and Iranian elements meet.

In the Ahikhar story, cf. "The Story of Ahikhar from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Greek, and Slavonic versions" by Conybeare, Harris, and Mrs. Smith, a work which will be brought back to 407 B.C. in a new edition soon to appear (Expositor, March 1912, p. 212).

Until recently there never was question in regard to the historicity of Tobias. It was among the historical books of the Old Testament. The Fathers had always referred to both elder and younger Tobias and to the other personages of the narratives as to facts and not to fancies. The stories of almsgiving, burial of the dead, angelophany, exorcism, marriage of Sara with Tobias the younger, cure of the elder Tobias — all these incidents were taken for granted as fact-narrative; nor was there ever any question of likening them to the tales of "The Arabian Nights" and the "Fables of Aesop." With few exceptions, Biblical exegetes are unanimous in clearly defending the historicity of Tobias.

Now, the arguments against the historical worth of Tobias are not at all solid; they are mere conjectures, which it would be most rash to admit. We shall examine some of these conjectures.

1. The Ahikhar story is not in the Vulgate at all. As it is in AB, Aleph, and the Old Latin, Blessed Jerome undoubtedly knew it. Why did he follow the Aramaic text to the exclusion of this episode? He may have looked upon it as an interpolation, which was not written by the inspired author. Even though it were not an interpolation, the Ahikhar episode of Tobias has not been proven to be a legend drawn from a non-canonical source.
2. The angelic apparition and all incidents connected therewith are no more difficult to explain than the angelophanies of Gen. 18:19, and Acts 12:6.
3. The demonology is not unlike to that of the New Testament. The name "Asmodeus" need not be of Iranian origin; but may just as readily be explained as Semitic. The Aramaic word ashmeday is cognate with the Hebrew hashmed, "destruction." And even though it be a mutilated form of some Iranian ancestor of the Persian Aeshma daeva, what more natural than a Median name for a demon whose obsession was accomplished upon Median soil? The slaying of the seven husbands was allowed by God in punishment of their lust (Vulg., v. 16); it is the youth Tobias, not the sacred writer, that suggests (according to AB, Aleph, and Old Latin) the demon's lust as the motive of his killing all rivals. The binding of the devil in the desert of Upper Egypt, the farthest end of the then known world (viii, 3), has the same figurative meaning as the binding of Satan for a thousand years (Apoc. 20:2).
4. The unlikelihood of the many coincidences in the Book of Tobias is mere conjecture (cf. Gigot, op. cit., 345). Divine Providence may have brought about these similarities of incident, with a view to the use of them in an inspired book.

(e) Certain historical difficulties are due to the very imperfect condition in which the text has reached us.

(i) It was Theglathphalasar III who led Nephthali (IV Kings 15:29) into captivity (734 B.C.), and not, as Tobias says (1:2), Salmanasar. Yet, this reading of the Vulgate, Old Latin, and Aramaic is to be corrected by the name Enemesar of AB and Aleph. The latter reading would be equivalent to the Hebrew transliteration of the Assyrian kenum sar. As the appellative sar "king," may precede or follow a personal name, kenum sar is sar kenum, that is Gargon (sarru-kenu II, B.C. 722). It can readily be that, twelve years after Theglath-phalasar III began the deportation of Israel out of Samaria, Sardon's scouts completed the work and routed some of the tribe of Nephthali from their fastnesses.

(ii) A like solution is to be given to the difficulty that Sennacherib is said to have been the son of Salmanasar (1:18), whereas he was the son of the usurper Sargon. The Vulgate reading here, as in i, 2, should be that of AB and Aleph, to wit, Enemesar; and this stands for Sargon.

(iii) In B 14:15, Ninive is said to have been captured by Ahasuerus (Asoueros) and Nabuchodonosor. This is a mistake of the scribe. Aleph reads that Achiacharos took Ninive and adds that "he praised God for all He had done against the children of Ninive and Assyria." The word for Assyria is Athoureias, Hebrew asshur, Aramaic ahur: This Greek word mislead the scribe to write Lsyeros for the name of the king, Achiacharos, i.e. the Median King Cyaxares. According to Berossus, Cyaxares was, in his campaign against Ninive, allied to the Babylonian King Nabopalassar, the father of Nabuchodonosor; the scribe of V has written the name for the son for that of the father, as Nabopalassar was unknown to him.

(iv) Rages is a Seleucid town and hence an anachronism. Not at all; it is an ancient Median town, which the Seleucids restored.

It is likely that the elder Tobias wrote at least that part of the original work in which he uses the first person singular, cf. 1:1-3:6, in all texts except the Vulgate and Aramaic. As the entire narrative is historical, this part is probably autobiographical. After revealing his angelic nature, Raphael bade both father and son to tell all the wonders that God had done them (Vulg. 12:20) and to write in a book all the incidents of his stay with them (cf. same verse in AB, Aleph, Old Latin, HF, and HM). If we accept the story as fact-narrative, we naturally conclude that it was written originally during the Babylonian Exile, in the early portion of the seventh century B.C.; and that all save the last chapter was the work of the elder and younger Tobias. Almost all Protestant scholars consider the book post-Exilic. Ewald assigns it to 350 B.C.; Hgen, the bulk to 280 B.C.; Gratz, to A.D. 130; Kohut, to A.D. 226.

Nabuchodonosor, King of Nineveh, sends his general Holofernes to subdue the Jews. The latter besieges them in Bethulia, a city on the southern verge of the Plain of Esdrelon. Achior, the Ammonite, who speaks in defense of the Jews, is maltreated by him and sent into the besieged city to await his punishment when Holofernes shall have taken it. Famine undermines the courage of the besieged and they contemplate surrender, but Judith, a widow, upbraids them and says that she will deliver the city. She goes into the camp of the Assyrians and captivates Holofernes by her beauty, and finally takes advantage of the general's intoxication to cut off his head. She returns inviolate to the city with his head as a trophy, and a sally on the part of the Jews results in the rout of the Assyrians. The book closes with a hymn to the Almighty by Judith to celebrate her victory.

The book exists in distinct Greek and Latin versions, of which the former contains at least eighty-four verses more than the later. Blessed Jerome (Praef. in Lib.) says that he translated it from the Chaldaic in one night, "magis sensum e sensu, quam ex verbo verbum transferens" (aiming at giving sense for sense rather than adhering closely to the wording). He adds that his codices differed much, and that he expresses in Latin only what he could clearly understand of the Chaldaic.

Two Hebrew versions are known at present, a long one practically identical with the Greek text, and a short one, which is entirely different; we shall return to the latter when discussing the origin of the book. The Chaldaic, from which Blessed Jerome made our present Vulgate version, is not recoverable unless it be identified with the longer Hebrew version mentioned above. If this be the case, we can gauge the value of Blessed Jerome's work by comparing the Vulgate with the Greek text. We at once find that Blessed Jerome did not exaggerate when he said that he made his translation hurriedly. Thus, a comparison between 6:11 and 8:9 shows us a certain confusion relative to the names of the elders of Bethulia — a confusion that does not exist in the Septuagint, where also 10:6, should be compared. Again, in 4:5, the high priest is Eliachim, which name is later changed into Joachim (15:9) — an allowable change but somewhat misleading: the Septuagint is consistent in using the form Joachim. Some of the historical statements in the Septuagint directly conflict with those of the Vulgate; for example, the thirteenth year (Vulg.) of Nabuchodonosor becomes the eighteenth in the Septuagint, which also adds a long address of the king to Holofernes. Blessed Jerome has also frequently condensed the original -- always on the supposition that the Septuagint and the longer Hebrew version do really represent the original. To give but one instance:

Septuagint (2:27): "And he came down into the plain of Damascus at the time of the wheat harvest, and burnt up all their fields, their flocks and their herds he delivered to destruction, their cities he ravaged, and the fruits of their fertile plains he scattered like chaff, and he struck all their young men with the edge of the sword."

Vulgate (2:17): "And after these things he went down into the plains in the days of the harvest, and he set all the corn on fire, and he caused all the trees and vineyards to be cut down."

With regard to the Septuagint version of the Book of Judith it should be noted that it has come down to us in two recensions: Codex B or Vaticanus on the one hand, and Codex Alexandrinus with Codex Sinaiticus on the other.

Scholars with very few exceptions accept the book of Judith as a narrative of facts, not as an allegory. Why carry out the genealogy of a fictitious person through fifteen generations? The Fathers have ever looked upon the book as historical. Blessed Jerome, who excluded Judith from the Canon, nonetheless accepted the person of the valiant woman as historical (Ep. 65:1).

Against this traditional view there are, it must be confessed, very serious difficulties, due, as Calmet insists, to the doubtful and disputed condition of the text. The historical and geographical statements in the book, as we now have it, are difficult to understand. Thus, Nabuchodonosor was apparently never King of Nineveh, for he came to the throne in 605, whereas Nineveh was destroyed certainly not later than 606, and after that, the Assyrians ceased to exist as a people. The allusion in i, 6, to Erioch, King of the Elicians, is suspicious; we are reminded of the Arioch of Gen. 14:i. The Septuagint makes him King of the Elumaens, presumably the Elamites, the character of Nabuchodonosor is hardly that portrayed for us on the monuments: in the India House Inscription, for example, his sentiments are remarkable for the modesty of their tone.

On the other hand, we must remember that, as Sayce says, the "Assyrian kings were most brazen-faces liars on their monuments." The name Vagao, or the Septuagint Bagoas, for the eunuch of Holofernes is suggestive of the Bagoses, who, according to Josephus (Antiquities, XI 7:1), polluted the temple and to whom apparently we have a reference in the recently discovered papyri from Assuan. The mixture of Babylonian, Greek, and Persian names in the book should be noted. The genealogy of Judith as given in the Vulgate is a medley: that given in the three principal Greek codices is perhaps better but varies in every one. Still, it is an historical genealogy, though ill-conserved; a geographical puzzle is presented by the Vulgate of 2:12-16; the Septuagint is much superior, and it should be noted that throughout this version, especially in Codex B, we have the most interesting details furnished us (cf. particularly 1:9; 2:13, 28-9).

The Septuagint also gives us information about Achior which is wanting in the Vulgate. It is apparently hinted in 6:2, 5, that he was an Ephraimite and a mercenary hired by Moad; Bethulia itself is a mystery: according to the Septuagint it was large, had streets and towers (7:22, 32), and withstood a long siege at the hands of a vast army. Its position, too, is stated with minuteness; it stood on the edge of the Plain of Esdrelon and guarded the pass to Jerusalem; yet no trace of the existence of such a place is to be found (unless we accept the theory of Conder, "Handbook," 5th ed., p. 239). The names, Judith (Jewess), Achior (brother of light), and Bethulia (perhaps Bethel, i.e. Jerusalem, or perhaps from the Hebrew word meaning "virgin" — in the shorter Hebrew version Judith is called not "the widow" but "the virgin," i.e. Bethulia), sound rather like symbolic names than those of historical places or persons. In Judith's speech to Holofernes, there is (11: 12, 15) some apparent confusion between Bethulia and Jerusalem; while the events are referred to the time of Nabuchodonosor, and therefore to the close of the Hebrew monarchy, we seem to have in 5:22, and 8:18-19, an allusion to the time subsequent to the Restoration. There is no king in Palestine (4:5), but only a high priest, Joachim or Eliachim; and in 4:8; 11:14; 15:8 (Sept.), the Sanhedrin is apparently mentioned; the book has a Persian and even a Greek coloring, as is evidenced by the recurrence of such names as Bagoas and Holofernes.

These are serious difficulties, and a Christian student must be prepared to meet them. There are two ways of doing so.

(a) According to what we may term "conservative" criticism, these apparent difficulties can every one be harmonized with the view that the book is perfectly historical and deals with facts which actually took place. Thus, the geographical errors may be ascribed to the translators of the original text or to copyists living long after the book was composed, and consequently ignorant of the details referred to. Calmet insists that the Biblical Nabuchodonosor is meant, while in Arphaxad he sees Phraortes whose name, as Vigoroux (Les Livres Saints et La Critique Rationaliste 4:4th ed). shows, could easily have been thus perverted.

Vigoroux, however, in accordance with recent Assyrian discoveries, identifies Nabuchodonosor with Assur-bani-pal, the contemporary of Phraortes. This enables him to refer the events to the time of the captivity of Manasses under Assur-bani-pal (II Par. 33:11; cf. Sayce, "Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments," 4th ed., p. 458). It is further maintained that the campaign conducted by Holofernes is well illustrated in the records of Assur-bani-pal, which have come down to us. And these facts will undoubtedly afford an explanation of the apparent allusion to the captivity; it was indeed a Restoration, but that of Manasses, not that under Esdras. The reference, too, to the Sanhedrin is doubtful; the term gerousia is used of the "ancients" in Lev. 9:3, etc.

Lastly, Conder's identification of Bethulia with Mithilia (loc. cit. supra) is highly probable. Moreover, the writer who described the strategical position in 4:1-6, knew the geography of Palestine thoroughly. And we are given details about the death of Judith's husband which (8:2-4) can hardly be attributed to art, but are rather indications that Judith represents a really existing heroine. With regard to the state of the text it should be noted that the extraordinary variants presented in the various versions are themselves a proof that the versions were derived from a copy dating from a period long antecedent to the time of its translators (cf. Calmet, "Introd. in Lib. Judith").

(b) Some few scholarly writers are not satisfied with Calmet's solution of the difficulties of the Book of Judith; they deem the errors of translators and of scribes to be no sufficient explanation in this matter. These few scholars, together with the non-Orthodox that do not care to throw the book over entirely into the realm of fiction, assure us that the Book of Judith has a solid historical foundation. Judith is no mythical personage, she and her heroic deed lived in the memory of the people; but the difficulties enumerated above seem to show that the story as we now have it was committed to writing at a period long subsequent to the facts. The history, so it is maintained, is vague; the style of composition, the speeches, etc., remind us of the Books of Machabees.

A remarkable knowledge of the Psalter is evinced (cf. 7:19 and Ps. 105:6; 7:21, and Ps. 78:10, 93:2; 9:6, 9, and Ps. 19:8; 9:16, and Ps. 146:10; 13:21, and Ps. 105:1). Some of these psalms must almost certainly be referred to the period of the Second Temple. Again, the High Priest Joachim must presumably be identified with the father of Eliashib, and must therefore have lived in the time of Artaxerxes the Great (464-424 B.C. Cf. Josephus, "Antiquities," XI, vi-vii). We referred above to a shorter Hebrew version of the book; Dr. Gaster, its discoverer, assigns this manuscript to the tenth or eleventh century A.D. (Proceedings of Soc. of Bibl. Archaeol., XVI, pp. 156 sqq.). It is exceedingly brief; some forty lines, and gives us only the gist of the story. Yet it seems to offer a solution to many of the difficulties suggested above. Thus Holofernes, Bethulia, and Achior, all disappear; there is a very natural explanation of the purification in 7:7; and, most noticeable of all, the enemy is no longer an Assyrian, but Seleucus, and his attack is on Jerusalem, not on Bethulia.

If it could be maintained that we have in this manuscript the story in its original form, and that our canonical book is an amplification of it, we should then be in a position to explain the existence of the numerous divergent versions. The mention of Seleucus brings us down to Machabean times, the title of Judith, now no longer the "widow" but the "virgin," may explain the mysterious city; the Machabean coloring of the story becomes intelligible, and the theme is the efficacy of prayer (cf. 8:14-21; 7:4; II Mach. 15:12-16).

The Book of Judith does not exist in the Hebrew Bible, and is consequently excluded from the Protestant Canon of Holy Scripture. But the Church has always maintained its canonicity.

Blessed Jerome, while rejecting in theory those books that he did not find in his Hebrew manuscript, yet consented to translate Judith because "the Synod of Nicaea is said to have accounted it as Sacred Scripture" (Praef. in Lib.). It is true that no such declaration is to be found in the Canons of Nicaea, and it is uncertain whether Blessed Jerome is referring to the use made of the book in the discussions of the council, or whether he was misled by some spurious canons attributed to that council. But it is certain that the Fathers of the earliest times have reckoned Judith among the canonical books; thus St. Paul seems to quote the Greek text of Judith 8:14, in I Cor. 2:10 (cf. also I Cor. 10:10, with Judith 8:25). In the early Christian Church, we find it quoted as part of Scripture in the writing of St. Clement of Rome (First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian.

Biblical chronology deals with the dates of the various events recorded in the Bible. It has to consider how far the Bible contains a chronology at all; to what extent the Sacred Writers aimed at exactness, or were satisfied with round numbers; whether, and to what extent, textual errors and other sources of corruption have crept into the numbers of the Bible; and finally, what relation exists between the chronologies that have been handed down by neighboring nations and that which exists in the Bible. "There is no Chronology of the Bible," wrote Silvester de Sacy; and, though this saying is too sweeping, it may be said with truth that for large parts of the Bible there is little to guide us to an exact determination as to when the events related happened.

It is not merely that in the matter of numbers the Hebrew text has not always reached us incorrupt (cf. the differences between the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Samaritan Pentateuchs), but the Books of Scripture, moreover, are not a mere history. Some of them, as the Psalms, are in no sense such. And even those that are so are not written primarily from the point of view of history. Else, e.g., why two parallel histories of the kingdom — Kings and Chronicles? It is because, as the Roman Catholic scholar Fr. Cornely says of the Book of Kings ("Introductio," Vol. II 1:p. 284), it had a higher end than the historical. That end is, to show the peoples of Israel and of Juda that it was their wickedness that brought destruction on them and, by setting before them the proofs of God's mercy, to lead them back to the observance of the Law. On the other hand, the Book of Chronicles (D. V. Paralipomenon) written after the Exile, by setting forth the splendors of ancient ritual, sought to move them to the worthy celebration of Divine worship (op. cit., p. 324).

What complicates the earlier periods of Bible history is the fact that there was no recognized era (such as the Dionysian Era of our own times) from which to reckon events. However, for the Roman world the founding of Rome in the eighth century B.C. gradually began to be recognized as such, and, in later times, among the Jews, the date of the defeat of Nicanor by Seleucus Nicator, and the establishment of the Seleucid domination in Syria (312 B.C.) came to be looked upon as a fixed era.

In this article the data that exist for the formation of a chronology of the Bible will be briefly discussed under the following heads: (1) Creation of the World; (2) Creation of Man; (3) Creation of Man to the Flood; (4) Flood to the Birth of Abraham; (5) Birth of Abraham to the Exodus; (6) Exodus to the building of Solomon's Temple; (7) Building of the Temple to Fall of Jerusalem; (8) Destruction of Jerusalem to Jesus Christ; (9) Date of the Nativity; (10) Beginning of the Ministry; (11) Duration of the Ministry; (12) Date of the Crucifixion; (13) The Acts of the Apostles.

In an article on Biblical chronology, it is hardly necessary in these days to discuss the date of the Creation. At least 200 dates have been suggested, varying from 3483 to 6934 years B.C., all based on the supposition that the Bible enables us to settle the point. However, it does nothing of the sort. It was natural that in the early days of the Church, the Fathers, writing with little scientific knowledge, should have had a tendency to explain the days of Genesis 1: as natural days of twenty-four hours. Still, they by no means all did so. Thus, the Alexandrian Fathers (St. Clement, Origen, St. Athanasius, and St. Cyril) interpreted the days of Creation ideally, and held that God created all things simultaneously. So some hesitate between idealism and literalism. Perhaps the words of Genesis (1:2): "The earth was void and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep," refer to the first phase of the Creation, the astronomical, before the geological period began. On such questions, we have no Biblical evidence, and the Christian is quite free to follow the teaching of science.

The question which this subject suggests is: Can we confine the time that man has existed on earth within the limits usually assigned, i.e. within about 4000 years of the birth of Christ? — The Church does not interfere with the freedom of scientists to examine into this subject and form the best judgment they can with the aid of science. She evidently does not attach decisive influence to the chronology of the Vulgate, the official version of the Western Church, since in the Martyrology for Christmas Day, the creat