PAGE LINE

554 13* for after read between

585 23-25 for these three lines read G.xi.10-32, 13 in G.xxv.13-15, 70 in G.xlvi -in all 112 names-and in the last two of these passages we have

seven names compounded with Elohim,' Ishmael, Adbeel, Israel Jemuel, Jahleel,

APPENDIX.

8 3* for as read which occurs also, dele comp.E.xv.15

36

120

2* for then we do not read we find 'set for

last, p. 9, l. 1 for these two lines read them a statute and an ordinance,' E.xv. 25, J.xxiv.25, both of which are Deuteronomistic insertions, from which it appears that this reasoning is not conclusive. And

13,14 for these two lines read v.46, as in iii.19, we find the same expression used-perhaps copied from xxxiv.6 (OS), or perhaps inserted here also by D himself, since he lays such particular stress upon it

3 for as in G.xlvii.11 (?)* read not elsewhere in J, but comp. the verb in G.xxxiv.10, xlvii.27*.

19 after Canaan insert a comma, and bring on lines 29-32.

125 14* add Probably the words 'as He hath said to thee' refer to E.xix.5,6 (D), to which also Jer.vii.23, xi.47, may refer, comp. D.vii.6, xiv.2,21, xxvi. 18, xxxii.9.

137 19.20, for antediluvians read postdiluvians, and vice versâ.

147 22 for 11d read 11; 1.10*, for 15 read 15'; for x.28,29, read xi.9,10.

9* for xi.9,10,xii.1-28 read xii.1-13,14-20,21-28.

148 14* dele 11, beo

152

11 dele x.28,29; for 1,8* insert (vi) N.B.x.28,29, which has been assigned (by mistake) in Part VI to LL, belongs clearly to OS.

Some of the above corrections would require, of course, corresponding changes to be made in the Table on p.3 of the Appendix to Part VI. But see the im proved Synoptical Table at the end of the Appendix to this Part

PREFACE.

THIS Volume completes my critical work on the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, of which Part I was published fifteen years ago (1862).

In Chap. I I have considered the authorship of the Books of Kings, and have shown how the view of Bp. Lord A. HERVEY, who assigns the composition of them, in accordance with Jewish tradition, to the Prophet Jeremiah, is reconciled with that of GRAF, who assigns it as confidently to the writer of Deuteronomy, by the simple fact that the Deuteronomist was no other than Jeremiah himself.

In Chap. II I have pointed out the Deuteronomistic passages in 1K.i-viii, and in Chap. III those in 1K.ix-xi; and I have also exhibited separately those portions of the older history in these chapters, continuing that in 1 and 2 Samuel, which appear to have come into Jeremiah's hands and to have been laid down by him, in an expanded form, as the commencement of the present Books of Kings. These he appears to have then completed down to the Captivity from the Annals of the two Kingdoms or other sources at his disposal, including his own personal knowledge for the last four reigns; and they were still further expanded, during or after the Captivity, by a few insertions, which may be classed with the Later or Levitical Legisla

tion (LL) of the Pentateuch, as coming from the same class of priestly writers. I have shown also that those older passages in 1K.i-xi, describing events in the reigns of David and Solomon, come probably from a contemporary and possibly from the chief Jehovistic writer of the Pentateuch.

In Chap. IV I have pointed out the Deuteronomistic insertions in the Books of Samuel and Judges, from which it appears that the whole history contained in Genesis-2Kings has been in part composed, but throughout revised and retouched, by the Deuteronomistic editor (Jeremiah).

In Chap. V I have considered the age of the earlier portions of the Book of Judges, and have shown that they are amongst the oldest portions of the Bible, having probably been written in the latter part of Saul's reign and the beginning of David's. And I have again drawn attention to the 'Song of Deborah' in Ju.v. in its relation to Ps.lxviii, and to the evidence which this psalm supplies of the fact that the name Jahveh (Jehovah) was first adopted as the name of the National Deity of Israel in the days of Samuel and Saul, when the kingdom was first established.

In Chap. VI I have examined all passages in Judges and Ruth, which might help to throw light upon the questions discussed in this work.

In Chap. VII, VIII, I have done the same with the two Books of Samuel, and have considered also the ages in which the different portions of those Books were written.

In Chap. IX-XI I have examined in like manner the two Books of Kings, which appear to be wholly the work of Jeremiah, except the older passages aforesaid in 1K.i-xi, some legendary stories about Elijah and Elisha (which he seems to have embodied in his history), the narrative about Rabshakeh's threaten

ing message to Hezekiah, Isaiah's reply, and Hezekiah's sickness (which Jeremiah appears to have adopted, making several modifications in it with his own hand, from some written record existing in his time), and some few insertions of the LL. I have here examined the remarks of Bp. HERVEY as to the finding of the Book of the Law in the Temple in Josiah's time; and I have summed up the arguments which tend to prove the identity of the Deuteronomist with Jeremiah.

In Chap. XII-XVI I have examined closely the prophetical writings before and after the Captivity, in order to see how far they support or contradict the views maintained in this work. And I have shown that JEREMIAH is the earliest prophet who betrays acquaintance with the Book of Deuteronomy, and EZEKIEL the earliest who knows anything of the Levitical Legislation-in exact accordance with the conclusions here arrived at as to the ages of those portions of the Pentateuch respectively.*

In Chap. XVII-XXII I have examined the two Books of' Chronicles, and have shown that in those Books the real facts of Jewish history, as given in Samuel and Kings, have been systematically distorted and falsified in order to support the fictions of the LL, and glorify the priestly and Levitical body, to which the Chronicler himself belonged.

In Chap. XXIII, XXIV, I have examined the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and have shown that the whole of Ezra and about half of Nehemiah are also the work of the Chronicler, and exhibit the same dishonest character as his other writings. In the examination of Chronicles I have been greatly helped by

* On the prophetical writings generally the reader is referred to the important work of Prof. KUENEN, ‘The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel,' Eng. Translation. (Longnians.)

GRAF's important work (Die Geschichtlichen Bücher des A.T.). But in respect of Ezra and Nehemiah, which GRAF (as far as I know) has left untouched, I have had to pursue my own path of enquiry, and have arrived at conclusions which, though agreeing substantially with those of KUENEN and other continental critics, yet differ from them on some points of importance, and have in any case been reached here by independent processes.

I commend especially this portion of my work to the reader's attention, inasmuch as passages from Chronicles are now for the first time read publicly in the congregation, as ordered in the New Lectionary of the Church of England. It is mainly these unscrupulous falsifications of the Chronicler which have helped to maintain for 2000 years the credit of the Levitical Legislation, as having Mosaic-if not Divine-authority, perplexing men's minds, and thoroughly confusing their ideas as to the course of the religious history of Israel. As I have said elsewhere (Lectures on the Pentateuch, p.345)

The time is past for glossing over such conduct as that of the Chronicler with fair words, and ascribing to him only error or exaggeration, but no intentional departure from the truth. He has set himself down deliberately to alter and reconstruct the history of his people as known to himself in the older records, and he has done this in the interest of the clerical body, to which in all probability he himself belonged. If the Chronicler had been writing merely from tradition, it would not have been surprising that he should have sought to stereotype, as it were, in this manner what might have been the genuine convictions of himself and of his age. But when we see him with the older history before him, from which he actually copies large portions word for word, intentionally giving an entirely different representation of the whole course of events, designedly misleading his too confiding readers, and teaching them to believe that from the earliest times the Levitical Law was in full force in Judah, it is impossible, with a due regard to the interests of truth, to acquit him of the grievous offence of falsifying for future generations the well-known facts of actual history.

But the Chronicler had before him the pernicious example of the Later Legislators of the Pentateuch-that is, of priestly writers of an age not very far