distant from his own, who had entirely misrepresented the facts, as they had come down to them, of their national history, ascribing to Moses, or rather to Jahveh, laws which they had themselves laid down, often for the aggrandisement of themselves or their order; and he resolved, it would seem, to take upon himself the task of supplying historical support for these pretensions. When, however, we consider that for more than twenty centuries, not only has the whole course of⚫ Jewish history been thrown into utter confusion through the acts of these writers, but Christianity itself owes to the existence of these fictions much of its past and present corruptions and superstitions, which have very greatly darkened its light and hindered its progress and triumph in the world, it is not right to speak lightly of a fraud which has had such enormous and far-reaching evil consequences; while we find here another warning-unhappily by no means unneeded in the present age-that 'lies spoken in the name of the LORD' (Zech.xiii.3), however well meant, with some plausible end in view, can never work out the good of man or the righteousness of God.

In Chap. XXV I have examined the Book of Esther, have shown its unhistorical character, and suggested what may perhaps have given rise to the establishment of the Feast of Purim, for which real fact this fictitious story of its origin has been substituted.

In Chap. XXVI, XXVII, I have examined in like manner the Books of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, and in Chap. XXVIII, XXIX, the Book of Psalms; and I have again considered, with the aid of the recent criticisms of LAND, the phenomena exhibited in Ps.lxviii, and have shown why I still adhere to the view that this psalm belongs to the age of David, in which case it implies very strongly that Jahveh, the "God of the land' of Canaan, had only lately been recognized under Samuel as the National Deity of Israel.

In Chap. XXX I have considered, in its bearing on the questions here discussed, the formation of the Canon of Hebrew Scripture.

In Chap. XXXI I have made some concluding remarks upon the whole subject, and have shown what further light the contents of the Moabite Stone throw upon these criticisms.

Lastly, I have supplied a series of Appendices in support of the statements made in this volume as to the Deuteronomistic insertions in 1K.i-xi, Samuel, and Judges (App.121-138).

In App.139, 140, I have noted the variations between two pairs of otherwise identical passages in 2Kings and Isaiah, and 2Kings and Jeremiah.

In App.141-6 I have exhibited the Chronicler's peculiarities of language in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, as well as those of Nehemiah himself in his own portions of the lastnamed book. These analyses show clearly that the additions made in Chronicles to the narrative in Samuel and Kings are almost without exception composed in the Chronicler's style, and made for the most part in the interest of the later ecclesiastical system. But they enable us also to trace his hand in the Books of Ezra, and Nehemiah, and even in the Chaldee parts of Ezra, and to see that not only the whole of the narrative in Ezra, and much of it in Nehemiah, but also decrees ascribed to Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, letters purporting to come from Tatnai and Artaxerxes, the prayer of Ezra and the Levites' prayer in Nehemiah, are all pure fictions of the Chronicler, as much so as the letters of Hiram, Elijah, Hezekiah, the speeches of David, Abijah, Jehoshaphat, Azariah, Hezekiah, the prayers of David, Asa, and Jehoshaphat, the prophecies of Shemaiah, Azariah, Hanani, Jehu, Jahaziel, Zechariah, Oded, in the Books of Chronicles, all of which exhibit plainly the Chronicler's own peculiar style, just exactly as all the speeches ascribed to different persons in Homer or Virgil, Thucydides or Tacitus, exhibit one and the same style, viz. that of the Greek or Roman writer to whose imagination they are due.

In App.147-8 I have shown what signs there are of Jeremiah's authorship in the Book of Lamentations.

In App.149 I have exhibited the evidence of style and language by which the Deuteronomist is identified with Jeremiah.

In App.150 I have given a more correct translation of Ps.lxviii than that in our English Bible or Prayer Book, with additional proofs that this psalm was composed for the occasion of bringing up the Ark to Mount Zion in the time of David.

In App.151 I have reprinted from my Translation of Oort's 'Baalim in Israel' an essay on the various ways in which Hebrew names are compounded with the Divine names.

Since the publication of Part VI of my work the 'New Bible Commentary' has appeared, by Bishops and other Clergy of the Anglican Church,' its plan having been settled and the writers appointed under the sanction of the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops of London, Llandaff, Gloucester, Chester, and other eminent persons, with Canon Cook as general editor, and a committee, consisting of the Archbishop of York, in consultation with the Regius Professors of Divinity of Oxford and Cambridge,' to 'advise with the general editor upon questions arising during the progress of the work.'

Having given a full account of the Bible Commentary' in its critical character, so far as regards the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, in my 'New Bible Commentary Critically Examined,'*

* I have completed a series of similar notes upon Prof. RAWLINSON'S Commentaries on 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, as also upon those of Bp. HERVEY on Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, which were intended to accompany this volume. But they would swell its bulk too much, and it is not worth while to publish them separately, since the character of all these Commentaries may be conjectured from the criticisms which I have already published, as above, upon the Commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. They all fall lamentably short of the original under

I will here only repeat some of the more important statements and admissions, which are made in that portion of the work under such high authority.

Thus it is freely admitted that we have no correct record of the Ten Commandments, as supposed to have been uttered by the Divine voice on Sinai, in either of the two Decalogues given in the Pentateuch (E.xx, D.v), which 'differ from each other in several weighty particulars,' especially in the reason assigned for observing the Sabbath (B.C.I.p.335). It is further suggested (after EWALD) that all the Ten Commandments may originally have been uttered 'in the same terse and simple form, such as would be most suitable for recollection,' as that which appears in the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth, and that some of them have been subsequently greatly enlarged by Moses. To which, however, it must be replied that, even in these reduced forms, the two versions of the Fourth Commandment, Remember the Sabbath-Day,' 'Observe the Sabbath-Day,' would not correspond in form to the other short commands, 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not steal,' &c. Nor would they be identical in expression, so that, in spite of these abbreviated formula being 'most suitable for recollection,' the lawgiver, it seems, could not-or did not-repeat correctly even these few words, supposed to have been Divinely uttered in the ears of all Israel!

6

Again, it is generally assumed throughout this Commentary that, except in respect of the Ten Commandments, Moses himself was the 'Lawgiver'—that, when the Scripture says 'the LORD spake unto Moses,' it is not meant that there was any

taking to provide a Commentary, 'in which the latest information might be made accessible to men of ordinary culture,' and in which 'every educated man might find an explanation of any difficulties which his own mind might suggest, as well as of any new objections raised against a particular book or passage' (Preface, p. iii).

oral communication. Only Moses prescribed certain laws and institutions for his people, which he had not unfrequently adopted from existing and ancient customs'; and, just as a later prophet would have said Thus saith the LORD,' without meaning that there was any oral utterance of the Divine Being, or just as Heathen and Mohammedan Legislators have ascribed to the Deity laws which they themselves had laid down, so Moses attributed his laws to a Divine source. A few instances of this peculiarity may here be given.

*

The fragmentary way in which the law has been recorded, regarded in connexion with the perfect harmony of its spirit and details, may tend to confirm both the unity of the authorship of the Book (Leviticus) in which it is contained, and the true inspiration of the Lawgiver.' I.p.494.

'It was not the object of the Legislator to give a scientific classification of animals.' p.546.

'The ordinance of Moses was for the whole nation.' p.557.

'It was the object of Moses not at once to do away with slavery, but to discourage and mitigate it.' p.634.

'The Jubilee, as instituted by Moses, appears to be without a parallel in the history of the world.' p.636.

'Moses knew the human heart, and he was acquainted with the temper and disposition of his own people.' p.643.

• This, then, like several other ordinances, was adopted by Moses from existing and probably very ancient and widely spread superstitions,' p.669—' superstitions!' viz. N.v.11-31, introduced with the words and the LORD spake unto Moses saying,' 0.11.

There is no evidence to show whether this usage (among certain tribes of Western Africa) sprang from imitation of the Law of Moses, or whether Moses himself in this, as in other things, engrafted his ordinance upon a previously existing custom,' p.670—viz. the 'superstition,' introduced, as above, with 'and the LORD spake unto Moses saying.'

* As Bp. STEERE says (Croydon Church Council, see Guardian, October 10, 1877, p.1386) The Mohammedan doctors have made a special difficulty against themselves, by teaching that the Koran was written from all eternity in heaven; whereas the Koran itself bears traces of growth, and the very men who say the whole book is eternal say also that what was first uttered by Mohammed was abrogated by a later revelation. Men may try to persuade themselves that the world stands still, but it moves notwithstanding.