with Joash king of Judah, we find no single instance of this; (ii) the imitation would have been very servile, and often nothing but a repetition of what had been said before. Rather than ascribe so little originality to men like Jehu son of Hanani, Elijah, and Elisha (at whose command the young man speaks in 2K.ix), we place the uniformity of their addresses to the credit of tradition and the writer.

'The address also of Ahijah to Jeroboam, 1K.xi.29- 39, was certainly not uttered in the form in which it is here recorded. The whole address has been written, at least in its present form, by one who was more deeply interested in David's line, Jerusalem, and the Temple, than the Ephraimite Ahijah could then have been, comp. v.32,33,34,36,38".'

231. With the above our view entirely agrees, except that we have seen reason to assign all the prophetical addresses, inserted in the book of Kings, except that of Isaiah, in 2K.xix.20-34, to the hand of Jeremiah, with whose style in his prophecies. and in the book of Deuteronomy the style of these prophecies thoroughly agrees. Of course, tradition may have handed down that Ahijah, &c., were active as prophets in the time of Jeroboam, &c. But the words here assigned to one and all of them are Jeremiah's.

There is no trace of the writer's having witnessed the return from the Babylonian Exile; though, possibly, 1K.viii.46–51 may express the hope entertained by Jeremiah for the repentance and restoration, not only of the Ten Tribes from the Assyrian Captivity, but of the Jews who were carried off to Babylon with Jehoiachin, 2K.xxiv.12-16, before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which are both referred to in 1K.viii.8, as still existing.

232. It may be well to sum up here briefly the chief arguments which tend to identify the writer of the Book of Kings (Jeremiah) with the writer of Deuteronomy.

(i) It is admitted that there is a very strong resemblance between the style of Jeremiah and that of the Deuteronomist (216). Thus in the New Bible Commentary we read, I.p.794,—

'The writings of Jeremiah often strikingly recall passages of Deuteronomy. The prophet repeatedly employs words and phrases which are characteristic of Deuteronomy. Numerous illustrations and examples are given by COLENSO on 'Pent.' VOL. V.

Q

III.556; and there is also at times a remarkable similarity of general style and treatment. These resemblances are neither few nor insignificant. It is needless in this place to demonstrate their existence and importance, which are now admitted on all hands. See App. 149, where this fact is fully established.

(ii) This resemblance cannot be accounted for by supposing that Jeremiah had so devoutly studied the Book of Deuteronomy, beyond all other portions of the Pentateuch, that he had made its very style, as well as its thoughts, his own; since in that case it is incredible that he should never once have referred by name to the 'Book of the Law,' if he regarded it as Mosaic and Divine. It follows that the very great resemblance in style and ideas can only point to an identity of authorship.

(iii) The Books of Kings contain passages, e.g. 1K.ii.3,4, viii. 22-61, 2K.xvii,xxii. 15-20, which are also identical in style and thought with Deuteronomy (App. 121, 124,203,212); and, in fact, GRAF ascribes these Books, as a whole, to the Deuteronomist: whereas Lord A. HERVEY with like confidence assigns them to Jeremiah, saying that the Jewish tradition, which ascribes these Books to Jeremiah is borne out by the strongest internal evidence, in addition to that of the language' (31), and that we may safely affirm that on the whole the peculiarities of diction in these Books point pretty distinctly to the age of Jeremiah' (4).

(iv) Many eminent critics agree in placing the Deuteronomist nearly or quite in the same age as Jeremiah (III.863), as GRAF says (VI.24), 'Among the most generally admitted results of the Historical Criticism of the Old Testament, for all those who do not simply take up a position of antagonism against those results altogether, may be reckoned the composition of Deuteronomy in the time of Josiah.' And there is no reason à priori why Jeremiah should not have written it as well as any other contemporary prophet; while there is no known prophet of that age to whom, from consideration of its style and contents, it could be assigned with any degree of probability except Jeremiah; and, on the other hand, it is very unlikely that a writer, who, in so late an age-an age known to us historicallycould compose such a book as Deuteronomy, should have disappeared utterly from the annals of the time, and left no other trace of his activity behind him.

(v) The attempt of KÖNIG to prove that essential differences, as well as remarkable resemblances, exist between the style of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy, as represented by a selection of his strongest arguments, have been shown to be altogether fallacious in my recent work, 'The New Bible Commentary, critically examined,' Part V, Intr. to Deut. 18–21—it being remembered that some differences in style must be of course expected between Deuteronomy, if written by Jeremiah in his younger days, within the first five years of his prophetical life, comp.2K.xxii.3, Jer.i.2, and the prophecies extending over at least forty-two years, Jer.xxxix-xliv, but none of them written down, in the form in which we now possess them, till eighteen years after the Book of the Law was found in the Temple, xxxvi.

(vi) The probable relationship of Jeremiah to Hilkiah and Huldah as his father and aunt (212)—the fact that the deputies sent by Josiah did not consult Jeremiah,

then in full activity as a prophet (211)—and the circumstance that in all Jeremiah's prophecies no allusion is made to so remarkable an event as the 'Finding of the Book,' which must have made a great stir in his time-all tend to confirm the suspicion that he was himself personally and intimately concerned in that discovery.

(vii) The fact that Jeremiah does more than once quote the identical words of Deuteronomy (216) shows that he was certainly acquainted with this Book, as indeed he must necessarily have been under the circumstances: while, on the other hand, the fact that he very rarely quotes from it, implies that he did not regard it as a work of most venerable paramount authority, Mosaic and Divine.

(viii) The fact that neither Jeremiah nor Ezekiel anywhere appeals by name to the 'Book of the Law' or the 'Book of the Covenant,' though Jeremiah began to prophesy five years before it was found, and Ezekiel was carried captive twenty-five years after that event, is a sign that, after the first moment of discovery, it was no longer regarded by any in that age as an authoritative document, an actual transcript of the Law of Moses.

(ix) Ezekiel had some share in writing the Later Legislation, and in particular he wrote L.xxvi, in which he makes use of some expressions of D.xxviii and D.xxxii, as he does also in his prophecies (VI.App.1.viii), and thus shows his familiarity with Deuteronomy, though he never once refers distinctly to the Book itself or even mentions Moses or the Law of Moses. And-what is perhaps more noticeable still in one who on the traditionary view was himself dignified as a 'son of Aaron,' and who expressly lays down a priestly system for the Israelites on their return from the Captivity, Ez.xl, &c.-he never once names Aaron, nor does Jeremiah name him, though also (it is supposed) one of the 'sons of Aaron.' All this not only shows that the L.L., in which Aaron fills so prominent a place, was not yet in existence, but helps to confirm the view that Jeremiah was the writer of Deuteronomy, whose example, in making additions to the 'Books of Moses' as existing in his time, was merely followed by Ezekiel.

228

CHAPTER XII.

AMOS, ZECHARIAH I, AND HOSEA.

233. We shall next examine the prophetical writings, more especially those composed before the Captivity, and see whether these give any signs that their writers were acquainted with the different portions of the Pentateuch. If the whole Pentateuch was regarded by the prophets as Mosaic, not to say Divine-if it was even in existence in their days and recognised as an ancient and venerable work-we should expect to find them making frequent references to it,—at all events, to the most important portions of it, as the Ten Commandments, the Book of Deuteronomy, and the Levitical Legislation.

234. It will be convenient for the purpose of reference to prefix a Table of the principal events in the history of the two Kingdoms of Judah and Ephraim, the dates being taken from the margin of the English Bible, with those of KUENEN where he differs, included in ( ).

610 (608). Jehoahaz, son of Josiah: Jehoiakim, son of Josiah.

599 (597). Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim: Zedekiah, son of Josiah.

588 (586). Captivity of Jerusalem.

(558.) Rebellion of the Persians under Cyrus.

538. Cyrus conquers Babylon.

536. End of the Babylonish captivity: Zerubbabel leads the returning exiles.

(521.) Darius Hystaspis.

515. The Second Temple finished.

(485.) Xerxes.

(465.) Artaxerxes Longimanus.

457. Ezra goes to Jerusalem.

445. Nehemiah's first visit to Jerusalem.

434. Nehemiah's second visit to Jerusalem.

(336.) Darius Codomannus: Alexander the Great.

(332.) Palestine under the Greeks.

(323.) Death of Alexander.

(175.) Antiochus IV, Epiphanes, King of Syria.

(167.) The Temple-worship stopped and the 'abomination of desolation' set up:

revolt of the Maccabees.

We here also give a list of the ages at which, according to our view, the different canonical Books of the Old Testament were composed.

N.B. The dates here adopted for the prophetical writings &c. are for the most part those assigned by KUENEN, who supports from the internal evidence his judgment in each case. But it will be seen, as we proceed, that for our