a general allusion to the exodus. For the 'continual sacrifice,' viii.11,12,13, xi.31, xii. 11, 'evening oblation,' ix.21, 'sacrifice and oblation,' v.27, comp. E.xxix.38-42 (LL), N.xxviii.3-8 (LL). The holy covenant,' xi.28,30,32, may allude to E.xix.5 (D), D.v.2,3, xxix.1, and the notice in i.8,10, about defilement' by food, either to D.xiv.3, &c., or to L.xi.(LL). Otherwise there is no express reference to the Pentateuch, except, perhaps, generally in ix.5, 'Thy precepts and Thy judgments.' No allusion whatever is made to the Ten Commandments; but in ix.10 we read of the laws which He set before us by His servants the prophets,' and in ix.12, of our judges that judged us,' laymen, apparently, not the Priests the Levites,' as in D.xvii.9.

334. We have now completed our examination of the prophetical writings. And, as the result of it, we find that from the oldest Prophet, Amos, downwards, there are traces of an acquaintance with incidents in the lives of the Patriarchs or the story of the exodus, derived apparently from the OS, though sometimes varying from it (245), and then probably depending on mere legendary tradition. But in no single passage is there the slightest reference to the existence of the Ten Commandments, supposed on the traditionary view to have been graven originally by the finger of Elohim' upon stones, as the basis of Jahveh's covenant with Israel at Sinai. Nor in any of the earlier Prophets is there the least sign of an acquaintance with the Deuteronomistic or Levitical Legislation. In JEREMIAH we first find plain evidence of familiarity, and, indeed, of a peculiar and intimate relation, in respect of views, generally, and language, with the Book of Deuteronomy, which probably he himself had written-but still no trace of the Levitical Legislation. In EZEKIEL we first find indications of acquaintance with some portions, at all events, of the latter, to which he appears to have himself contributed. And in the post-Captivity prophets we observe signs of acquaintance with both these Legislations;

but only in Mal.iv.4, Dan.ix.11,13, is any mention made of the 'Law of Moses.'

335. It is obvious that the views maintained in this work, as to the age in which the different portions of the Pentateuch were composed, are strongly confirmed by the above phenomena.

It is plain, for instance, that the Levitical Legislation, as a whole, cannot have been brought into operation till after the return from Babylon, much of it, perhaps, having been composed during the Captivity, in which work Ezekiel-after the example of Jeremiah in respect of Deuteronomy-seems to have led the way, though his idea of the 'faithful Levites, the sons of Zadok,' was subsequently set aside for the later expression 'the sons of Aaron,' and the distinction sharply drawn between the Priests and the Levites.

336. It is also plain that the Book of Deuteronomy was not known before Jeremiah's time, but was well-known to that Prophet; and from the fact that, although he quotes from it, he never appeals to it nor even names it, while the style of his prophecies resembles remarkably that of Deuteronomy, it can only be inferred that he was himself the writer of that Book, a fact to which other evidence also distinctly points. In other words, Jeremiah was the Deuteronomist, and therefore also the Editor or Compiler of the Pentateuch and Joshua, before the insertion of the Levitical Legislation, or, rather, the whole history in Genesis-2 Kings has throughout been retouched and enlarged by his hand.

337. Since the prophets from Amos (B.c.790–780) downwards appear to have been acquainted with the OS or rather with the Jahvistic portions of it, it follows that the Jahvist must have lived long enough before the time of Amos for his work to have already acquired a certain currency, so that the facts to which he refers would be familiarly known, even among the Ten Tribes, to whom his prophecies are specially directed. This makes it

improbable that KUENEN's view can be correct, (Religion of Israel, Eng. Ed.I.p.17)—

It may be assumed with great probability that some of these narratives were written about the middle of the eighth century (about 750 B.C.); others are evidently still more recent; not one can be proved to have been written before the year 800 B.C.

338. It is of course impossible that Amos, B.C.790, or even Hosea, B.C.773, could have referred to a narrative written about B.C.750.' But the main-if not the only-reason for KUENEN and others placing the Jahvist so low is the fact that in G.xxvii.40 he makes Isaac predict that Edom, after having been subject to the yoke of Israel, would at last succeed in throwing it off, and this (it is said) occurred in Joram's time, 2K.viii.20, B.C.892-885, after which accordingly the Jahvist must, accordding to KUENEN's view, have written these words. But surely, if the Jahvistic passages were written a short time only after this date, they would hardly have been referred to by Amos and Hosea as popularly known, after the lapse of only half-a-century; and this improbability is increased by the fact that the Jahvist wrote in the interest of Judah (V.192), and that Amos and Hosea chiefly prophesied against the Ten Tribes. Would these be likely to be so well acquainted with the recent literature of the Kingdom of Judah? But there is no necessity whatever for bringing the Jahvist down to so low a date on the ground of the prediction in G.xxvii.40, considered as a vaticinatio post eventum. No doubt, Edom revolted from Judah in Joram's time. But it seems certain that Edom shook off the yoke of Israel under Hadad at the beginning of Solomon's reign (59.iv). See (V.285), where the age of the Jahvist is fixed as B.C.1060-1010, in the age of David and Solomon. This would allow the Jahvistic matter to be referred to by Amos, B.c.790, as known familiarly in both Kingdoms, having been written before the separation of Judah and Israel.

339. The only passage of the Elohistic Narrative to which

any prophetical passage distinctly refers, is G.ix.11, comp. Is.liv.9 (319), which is enough, however, to show that this Narrative formed no part of the Levitical Legislation, as KUENEN and other eminent critics suppose.

For the grounds upon which it is maintained in this work that the Elohistic Narrative, in G.i.1-E.vi.5 was written in the age of SAMUEL and very possibly by his hand, as the basis of the whole story of the exodus, I must refer to V.Chap.VIII,IX, VI. Chap.XXVIII, App.12 and App.153 in this Part, where the objections of KOSTERS are examined at length.

304

CHAPTER XVII.

THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES (SOLOMON).

N.B. The small figures in Chap. XVII-XXIV refer to the Notes in App.152 on Prof. RAWLINSON'S Commentary (B.C.III) on 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

340. We shall next examine the Historical Books written after the Captivity, and first the two Books of Chronicles and those of Ezra and Nehemiah, which form, however, as will be seen, only one continuous work by the same author. These Books require a careful consideration, inasmuch as it is chiefly through their contents that the notion of the Later Legislation of the Pentateuch having been actually in force during the reigns of the kings of Judah, from the time of David downwards, has been generated and kept alive, in direct opposition to the testimony given by the Books of Samuel and Kings.

341. The first point to be settled is the age in which the Chronicler lived, as to which GRAF writes, G.B.p.119:

The questions, as to the connexion of the Chronicles with Ezra and Nehemiah as one whole, and as to the composition of this work by a Levite in the time of Alexander [B.c.336–323], one may regard as completely settled through the researches of BERTHEAU, and Ewald.

In fact, the Chronicler, as we have seen (II.234, and note) was most probably a Levite Chorister, who wrote at the earliest about B.C.332, i.e. about 250 years after the Captivity, but is set by KUENEN about 300B.c. or yet later' (Rel. of Israel, Eng.Ed.I.p.321), 'about 250B.C.' (Id.III.p.70).1

6

In consequence of his Levitical origin, his work is tinged