HISTORICAL BOOKS AFTER JOSHUA

1, In the Book of Judges the Pentateuchal laws and history are repeatedly and variously recognized.

God's covenant with Israel, the prohibition of leagues with the nations of Canaan¹ and of intermarriages² with them, the separation of the Levites to the priestly office,³ the law of the Nazarite,⁴ circumcision,⁵ a central place of worship,⁶ and many other laws and institutions are mentioned just as they are set forth in Deuteronomy and other books of the Pentateuch.

The message which Jephthah sent to the king of the Ammonites, and much else that is contained in the eleventh chapter of Judges, have all the marks of quotations from the twentieth and twenty-first chapters of Numbers. That they really are such, and that Jephthah quoted the very language of that book, is not likely to be denied by any, except by those who have an hypothesis to maintain.

2. The books of Samuel, in like manner, presuppose the Pentateuchal laws and institutions.

In them Shiloh appears as the one place of central worship. Here were the tabernacle of the congregation, the ark of the covenant, the altar, the show-bread, and the Levitical priests, clothed with the ephod. To Shiloh the Israelites came yearly to eat and to drink before the Lord, to worship and to offer sacrifices. There were various services and sacrifices — the yearly sacrifice and special sacrifices, burnt-offerings and whole burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, trespass-offerings, vows, incense, offerings of meal and wine, the burning of the fat upon the altar, and a portion for the priests.⁷ Besides these incidental allusions, there is a more distinct recognition of many of the Mosaic laws — the divine appointment of the Levitical priesthood;⁸ the festival of the new moon;⁹ ceremonial cleanness and uncleanness;¹⁰ the regulations in regard to the slaughtering of animals for food and the prohibition of the eating of blood;¹¹ the capital punishment of wizards and witches;¹² the Lord's purpose and command to exterminate the Amalekites;¹³ and many other allusions to laws, institutions, and customs which are known to us only in the Pentateuchal books.

The analytic critics endeavor to set aside the testimony of the books of Samuel to the early existence of the Mosaic laws and institutions and of the Pentateuch by their convenient hypothesis of revisions and interpolations. They claim that some of the statements are Deuteronomic insertions, and that others are even of post-exilic origin. Besides this, they claim that these books are not trustworthy, anyhow. Wellhausen says of one portion, "Es genügt den Inhalt dieser Geschichte zu referiren, um ihre geistliche Mache und ihre innere Unmöglichkeit sofort zur Empfindung zu bringen"¹⁴ ("It is sufficient to refer to the contents of this history in order to make us at once perceive its ghostly make-up and its inherent impossibility"). Again he exclaims, "An der ganzen Erzählung kann kein wahres Wort sein"¹⁵ ("In the whole narrative there is not a truthful word"). Of course, there are many of the analytic school who would not go so far as Wellhausen in denying and making void the Holy Scriptures. Less logical, as well as less daring, than he, they do not so fully realize what must be done in order to defend the analytic hypothesis.

3. The books of Kings and Chronicles.

These books unmistakably refer to the Mosaic laws and the Pentateuch. David charged Solomon, saying, "And keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses."¹⁶ Here the written laws, statutes, commandments, and judgments are mentioned. Again, "And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, that he slew his servants which had slain the king his father. But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying. The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin."¹⁷ Here we have a quotation from "the book of the law of Moses," as contained in Deuteronomy.¹⁸ There are various other passages in which the book and the law of Moses are either expressly or impliedly mentioned.¹⁹ So strong, indeed, is the testimony to the existence of the Mosaic institutions and books in the time of the kings that the analysts are compelled to apply their india-rubber hypothesis of interpolations by later writers, and to deny the historical character of these two books.

That the books of Chronicles refer to and mention the book and the law of Moses, goes without saying. Thus are mentioned "the statutes and judgments which the Lord charged Moses with concerning Israel."²⁰ Of King Jehoshaphat it is recorded that "also in the third year of his reign he sent to his princes [five are named]. . . to teach in the cities of Judah. And with them he sent Levites [nine are named]. . . ; and with them Elishama and Jehoram, priests. And they taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the Lord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught the people."²¹ It is not necessary to quote the many other passages in which reference is made to Mosaic institutions and writings.²²

In order to nullify the testimony of Chronicles to the early existence of the Pentateuch, the analytics represent them as a late production, and deny their historical character. Wellhausen maintains that they were written three hundred years after the exile, and, besides, charges their author with invention, fiction, discrepancy, contradiction, mutilation, deliberate mutilation, and with nearly everything else that is improper and discreditable in a historical writer. He sneers at what he calls "the law-blessed (crazed) fancy of the chronicler."²³

Though these critics endeavor to set aside the testimony of the books of Kings by the hypothesis of interpolations, and that of Chronicles by the charge of historical untrustworthiness, they are more than willing to avail themselves of any statements contained in one or the other that seem in any way favorable to the analytic hypothesis. Hence they accept, at least in part, the account of the finding of the book of the law in the temple, by Hilkiah, in the time of King Josiah.²⁴ The most of the analysts claim that Deuteronomy was the book that was thus found. But on this point they are far from unanimous. Voltaire flitted between the hypothesis that the book thus found was the entire Pentateuch and that other hypothesis which assigns its origin to the exilic period. Graf maintains that the newly-found book was Deuteronomy.²⁵ Wellhausen dogmatically affirms that the book, when found, was purely a law-book, and embraced only chapters 12-26 of Deuteronomy.²⁶ Kuenen is quite confident that it contained only "the laws and exhortations that make up the kernel of the Book of Deuteronomy,"²⁷ and he suggests that it may have been "a still smaller collection."²⁸ Reuss goes still further and says, "Que le code publié du temps du roi Josiyah n'était autre que ce que nous lisons anjourd'hui dans le Deuteronome chap. v. à xxvi. and chap, xxviii."²⁹ ("That the code published in the time of King Josiah is what we now read in Deuteronomy, chapters 5-26 and chapter 28"). Though this critic concedes that much that is contained in Deuteronomy was not new, being a reproduction of former laws and the teaching of the prophets, he yet seems to hold that the book contains no writing of earlier origin than the times of Josiah or the age immediately preceding. He also brings in the hypothesis of additions and interpolations by later writers.

Such are the disagreements of the leaders of the analytic school in their efforts to keep out of the book found in the temple by Hilkiah everything that does not fall in with their views and theories. They cannot allow the lost and found book to be either the Pentateuch or even Deuteronomy without endangering the whole analytic hypothesis; hence their labors and difficulties. Of these critics Reuss is about the only one who thinks it proper to argue the points connected with this particular subject. The others seem to think it sufficient that they should imperiously inform mankind how, in their judgment, matters stand.

One of the contentions of Reuss is, that the book found in the temple was read twice in one day, and therefore could not have been the Pentateuch. "On nous dit que le prêtre en fit lecture au secrétaire, et que celui-ci alia incontinent en faire lecture au roi. Deux fois en un seul jour, lecture du Pentateuque entier!"³⁰ ("They tell us that the priest read it to the secretary, and that the latter went immediately to read it to the king. The reading of the entire Pentateuch twice in a single day!") We have here both inaccuracy and assumption. The record does not say that Hilkiah read the book to Shaphan, but that Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan and that he read it.³¹ But the chief error of Reuss and other critics is the groundless assumption that the reading of the book by Shaphan and his reading of it to the king necessarily took place on the same day. For anything that is contained in the narrative, these readings may have taken place, each at several sittings, on different days. As well might our critic include the assembling of the people and the reading of the book to them, and, indeed, all the events recorded in the two chapters, for there is no break in the narrative, and nearly all the verses are connected by the copulative "and" (Hebrew, waw). Reuss and his fellow-critics ignore the obvious fact that in Bible history the time intervening between one event and another is often passed over in silence. Perhaps some critic, in the advocacy of his favorite notion, will maintain that according to the Bible narrative Noah built the ark, gathered in all the animals, and stowed away all the necessary food in a single day.

Again, it is a groundless assumption that the whole book was read, either by Shaphan for himself, or to the king. The sacred narrative neither says nor implies it. The statement is, indeed, that the book was read, but there is a difference between reading a book or newspaper and reading it through. We have an illustration of this in the account of the reading of Jeremiah's roll to King Jehoiakim. "And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king." But not all the roll was read, for it is immediately added, ''That when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he [the king] cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth."³²

The further plea of Reuss that the Pentateuch is not adapted to produce the profound impression that is ascribed to the book found in the temple is altogether futile, since it is not maintained that the book contained anything that is contradicted in the Pentateuch. Surely, the other books of the Pentateuch would not neutralize the influence of Deuteronomy, or whatever portion of it our critics are willing to admit was contained in the book found in the temple. Besides, Hilkiah and Shaphan, who were favorable to the reformation, would be sure to call the attention of Josiah to those portions of the Pentateuch that demanded the changes they desired.

The proof that the book found in the temple, whether the whole of the Pentateuch or only a part of it, was of Mosaic origin, is as follows:

(1) The direct testimony of both Kings and Chronicles. The book is called expressly the "book of the law" and the "book of the covenant."³³ It is idle to say that this language does not describe the book as an ancient one, and as one that had originated in Mosaic times. Besides this, it is expressly stated that Josiah in his reformation proceeded " according to all the law of Moses."³⁴ Still further, it is declared that this reformation was carried on "according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Moses," and "as it is written in the book of Moses."³⁵ It is clearly in evidence, then, that what was found in the temple by Hilkiah and became the guide to Josiah and the people in their reformatory acts was the book and the law of Moses. If this testimony is not to be accepted, we may as well treat the whole account as a fiction and deny that any book at all was found in the temple. The course of Reuss and his fellow-critics in this affair, as in many others, is entirely arbitrary, inconsistent, and illogical. They introduce witnesses to prove that Deuteronomy was first published and became known in the time of King Josiah, and was written not earlier than the reign of Manasseh. But when their own witnesses testify that the newly-found book was a very old one and of Mosaic origin, they turn against them and declare them to be untruthful and untrustworthy. In a civil court an attorney is not allowed to assail witnesses that he has himself introduced.

(2) Evidently Hilkiah, Shaphan, the king, and all who saw the newly-found book must have known whether it was a new or an old one. Hilkiah and Shaphan certainly were intelligent enough to distinguish between a book written in the time of Moses and one written in the time of Manasseh or Josiah. Reuss asks "how the priest and the scribe could read so fluently'' and readily a writing eight centuries old." Our critic is still proceeding on the mistaken and absurd notion that all the events connected with this affair took place in a single day. But scholars in our own day can readily read manuscripts even one thousand five hundred years old, though written in a dead and foreign language. Surely these scholarly Jews might readily read in their mother-tongue a book not more than eight hundred years old. And, besides, if the newly-found book was a production of their own age, they were not such ignoramuses as to mistake it for an ancient book, written in Mosaic times, eight centuries before. But they call it the book of the law and the book of the covenant. If, then, it was not an ancient book, the old book of the law and of the covenant which had been known and reverenced in former times, these men must have been guilty of willful and deliberate misrepresentation and lying. If they were not, the analytic theory in regard to the origin of Deuteronomy is false.

(3) The book itself purported to be ancient. It enjoined old laws and commandments. The very first reading of it aroused apprehension in Josiah of divine displeasure and punishment. He was alarmed because, as he said, "our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book."³⁶ It certainly was not the promulgation of new laws, but the neglect and violation of laws enacted long before, that caused the king to rend his clothes and to fear the wrath of the Lord.

(4) Deuteronomy itself speaks of a book of the law again and again.³⁷ When Moses had finished "writing the words of this law in a book," he commanded the Levites, saying, "Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God."³⁸ The only way to avoid the conclusion that this book of the law, written by Moses, and placed by Moses' command in the ark, was the book of the law found afterward in the temple, is simply to deny the truthfulness of the history.

(5) Josiah and his people, in order to avert the wrath of God on account of their own and their fathers' neglect and violations of God's laws as contained in the newly-found book, prosecuted the already-begun reformation more vigorously than before. The facts stated in regard to this reformation indicate that the laws which guided the reformers are contained, not in Deuteronomy alone, but at least partly in other books of the Pentateuch.

(a) Josiah and the people engaged "to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book."³⁹ This points to Exodus 24:7, 8.

(b) One of the prevalent sins at that time was idolatry, and this caused apprehensions of divine wrath and punishment. The reformers burned the vessels of Baal, stamped the images to powder, and put down the idolatrous priests.⁴⁰ The warrant for these proceedings is found in Exodus 23:24; 34:13; Numbers 33:52.

(c) The sodomites were suppressed.⁴¹ The Levitical law provided capital punishment for such transgressors. Leviticus 18:22, 29; 20:13.

(d) Josiah defiled Topheth, so that the offerings of children to Molech might cease.⁴² See Leviticus 18:21; 20:1-5.

(e) The priests of the high places were destroyed.⁴³ Leviticus 26:30.

(f) The wizards and witches were destroyed.⁴⁴ Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:31; 20:27.

(g) The Passover was observed with unusual solemnity.⁴⁵ The institution of the Passover and directions for its observance are recorded in the three middle books of the Pentateuch: Exodus 12:3-28; 13:3-10; 23:15; 34:18; Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 9:2-14; 28:16, 17. It is indeed true that the Passover is mentioned in Deuteronomy;⁴⁶ but the day of the month on which this feast was to be celebrated is not there specified, nor what kind of animal the victim should be, nor is anything said about the sprinkling of its blood, the cooking and eating of its flesh, nor about many other things pertaining to the manner of observing this ordinance. If left to the guidance of Deuteronomy alone in the observance of this feast, Josiah and his people would not have known how to proceed. The same is true, in a large measure, in regard to other reforms introduced in Josiah's time. Some of the laws and regulations which were then resuscitated and enforced are indeed mentioned in Deuteronomy but mainly for the purpose of supplement or modification. For a full knowledge of them we must refer to the preceding books. The reformation of Josiah's time was therefore based, not on Deuteronomy, but on the laws and regulations contained in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers; hence, these books were known in Josiah's time, or at least the laws and regulations contained in them. Either conclusion is fatal to the analytic hypothesis.

4. Ezra and Nehemiah.

It is not necessary to prove that the Pentateuch was in use among the Jews immediately after their return from Babylon. The hypothesis of the analysts is, that the first four books and the priestly code are of exilic origin. The foremost champion of the analytic school, in his usual oracular style, says, "Gleichwie bezeugt wird, dass das Deuteronomium im Jahr 621 bekannt geworden, bis dahin unbekannt gewesen ist, geradeso wird bezeugt, dass die anderweitige Thora des Pentateuchs — denn das Gesetz Ezra's der ganze Pentateuch gewesen ist, unterliegt keinem Zweifel — im Jahre 444 bekannt geworden, bis dahin unbekannt gewesen ist"⁴⁷ ("As it is in evidence that Deuteronomy became known in the year 621, until which time it was unknown, so also it is in evidence that the further torah of the Pentateuch — for that the law of Ezra was the whole Pentateuch does not admit of a doubt — became known in the year 444, until which time it was unknown").

Our critics, then, hold that Ezra introduced the Pentateuch after the exile, though they may not be entirely agreed as to whether he was the writer or only the chief redactor of it; and their belief is founded mainly on the testimony of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. It is admitted, then, that Ezra introduced the Pentateuch. It was, of course, written before it was introduced. But who wrote it, and when was it written? Wellhausen expresses the opinion that Ezra was only "the real and chief redactor of the Pentateuch." Be it so. It, of course, was in existence before he began to work upon it. Whence came it into his hands? May not the Pentateuch be the book which was found in the temple in Josiah's time, and which was recognized as ancient, and as being the law-book of Moses?

(I) The law-book which Ezra introduced was declared by him impliedly, if not expressly, to be the production of Moses. "This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given."⁴⁸ "And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water-gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel."⁴⁹ It is thus shown that Ezra represented the book and law which he introduced to be the book and the law of Moses. It is further shown that Nehemiah joined with him in this representation.⁵⁰ Now, if the Pentateuch was a production of their age, they must have known it, and their representing and declaring it to be of Mosaic origin must have involved willful, deliberate, and long-continued deception and falsehood. It is of no avail to attempt to soften this charge of deception and falsehood by the use of the terms legal fiction and pious fraicd. Lying does not lose its criminality, though practiced in the name of God and professedly for a holy purpose.

(2) The analysts, in dealing with Ezra and Nehemiah, pursue, as is of frequent occurrence with them, an arbitrary, inconsistent, and illogical course. They accept the testimony of these books just so far as it harmonizes with their preconceived views, but so far as it does not they discredit it and cast it aside. All that they believe or know in regard to the introduction of the Pentateuch and the Pentateuchal laws after the exile they obtain from Ezra and Nehemiah and accept on their testimony alone; but they accuse these same witnesses of misrepresentation and falsehood, when they testify that these books and laws did not originate in their own, but in former times. The statements in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah in regard to the improper observance of the Feast of Tabernacles from the time of Joshua on down to the return from Babylon, and other such matters, are accepted as true and trustworthy, but the statement that the book of the law came from Moses is treated as incorrect and false. Nor may our critics plead that the testimony of these witnesses on this point is rejected on the ground that, living long after Moses, they were incompetent to testify in regard to his authorship of the Pentateuch and its laws; for their testimony that these did not originate in their times, a point in regard to which they were competent witnesses, is rejected also. Evidently the principle on which the critics proceed is this, that all testimony which conflicts with their preconceived views is to be rejected as false.

(3) According to the hypothesis that the first four books of the Pentateuch and the laws contained in them were gotten up during the exile, Ezra and Nehemiah certainly engaged in a stupendous undertaking in endeavoring to palm off these books and laws as the work of Moses. But how admirably they succeeded! They completely deceived their own countrymen, and nearly the entire intelligent world besides. The fraud has lasted for more than two thousand years, and has not yet fully run its course. To undo the deception and expose the fraud has cost " the higher critics" immense and long-continued labor and has tasked their learning, ingenuity, and skill to the utmost; and, withal, their success is only partial. What adepts in the art of deception Ezra and his coadjutors must have been!

(4) Yet on the hypothesis that Ezra intended to deceive mankind in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch, it is unaccountable that he omitted to do some things that he might have done in furtherance of this design. The analysts maintain that the Pentateuch itself does not claim to be the production of Moses. This is one of their trusted arguments. They proceed upon the idea that if there were only a declaration in the Pentateuch itself, expressly affirming its Mosaic origin, the question would be forever and completely settled. Why, then, did not Ezra and his shrewd and skillful cooperators insert such a declaration? Wellhausen is of the opinion that Ezra went from Babylon to Jerusalem carrying in his hand the Pentateuch ready to be fastened on the returned Jews as the work of Moses, and he can only conjecture why he waited fourteen years before proceeding to promulgate it as such.⁵¹ Reuss affirms that it is indubitably proved that he "did not bring it all redacted from Babylon, and that it required him to labor thirteen years, if not to make out a fair copy, at least to secure its acceptance."⁵² While engaged in working over and correcting the Pentateuch and getting it ready for promulgation as the book of Moses, why did he not, in the beginning of each book, insert some such declaration as this: ''The words (or the writing) of Moses, the man of God"? This would have been the probable procedure of a man who was intending to publish a book in another's name, and he thus would have conformed to the prevalent style in Ezra's own time, as shown by the writings of the prophets.

(5) The style of the Pentateuch is adverse to the hypothesis that it, or a large portion of it, was written by Ezra, or in Ezra's time, or that it was much changed by Ezra or by any redactor in Ezra's time. Doubtless many a modern critic considers himself a competent judge of Hebrew style. Even Thomas Paine argues from the style of Deuteronomy against the Mosaic authorship. Yet style in general is a matter largely of taste, and most assuredly there are very few competent judges of the peculiarities of style in Hebrew. But we certainly risk nothing in saying that all the books of the Pentateuch, and these books in all their parts, even those parts that are said by critics to have been supplied by editors, redactors, or interpolators, are written in pure Hebrew. Professor Green, of Princeton, who is certainly one of the most accomplished Hebrew scholars of our age, says, "The language of the Pentateuch is, throughout, the Hebrew of the purest period, with no trace of later words, or forms, or constructions, or of the Chaldaisms of the exile."⁵³ Testimony to the same effect has been given by many other distinguished scholars and critics. The purity of the language of the Pentateuch is by no means a favorite idea with the analytic critics. It would suit them much better to find in the Pentateuch many of the later Hebrew words, Aramaisms, and other characteristics of the postexilic style. But even they are compelled expressly or impliedly to confess the purity of the Pentateuchal Hebrew. Reuss says, "La langue du Pentateuque est à peu près la même que celle de la presque totalité des livres de l'Ancien Testament"⁵⁴ ("The language of the Pentateuch is almost the same with that of nearly all of the books of the Old Testament"). There are some of the Old Testament books, then, that differ much in st3'le from the Pentateuch. These confessedly are Chronicles, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, all of which were written after the transportation to Babylon, and contain words, sentences, and whole passages in Aramaic. On this point the testimony of Professor Driver is, that in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles "man)'- new words appear, often of Aramaic origin, occasionally Persian, and frequently such as continued in use afterwards in the 'New Hebrew' of the Mishna."⁵⁵

Now the problem for the analytic critics to solve is this: How came it to pass that men who had such a mixed and mongrel style after all wrote the purest Hebrew, as it is found in the Pentateuch? Why did not Ezra and his colaborers put some of their Aramaic idioms, new words, or words with a new meaning into the five books which they either wrote or redacted? It is in vain to plead that Ezra was not the author, but only one of the redactors, of the Pentateuch. For in that case there ought to be many passages marked by the impurities of the exilic style of the redactors. Besides, the analytic hypothesis is, that the first four books of the Pentateuch were gotten up in exilic times, and hence must have been composed by an author or authors whose style was equally impure with that of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and the author of Chronicles.

(6) Another difficulty presents itself. If the Pentateuch was originated by Ezra or near his time, how comes it that it contains no allusion to the temple, nor to its worship, nor to Jerusalem, nor to David, Solomon, or any of the kings, nor to any historical event after the time of Moses? It is, perhaps, not altogether inconceivable that a set of writers in exilic or postexilic times, intent on fastening a priestly code of their own devising on their people, manufactured four or five books of history and law, partly out of preëxisting documents, and partly out of their own compositions, mingling together the original documents with their own interpolations, substitutions, additions, and emendations; and that all these writers, compilers, interpolators, and emendators, either with or without formal agreement, not only repressed their own linguistic peculiarities and weeded out those of others, imitating to perfection the older Hebrew style which prevailed many centuries before their time, but also, with wonderful self-restraint and caution, avoided making any statement, allusion, or suggestion in regard to any occurrence in all the Jewish history after the death and funeral of Moses, and succeeded in saying absolutely nothing in all their writings to indicate that they did not live in Mosaic times. All this is perhaps conceivable, but is certainly very improbable. How exceedingly shrewd and skillful those exilic writers, compilers, interpolators, and redactors who got up the Pentateuch must have been! Here is a very weak point in the analytic hypothesis. Its advocates have much to say about the silence of succeeding writers concerning the Pentateuch, a claim which the traditionalists deny. But here is absolute silence in regard to the whole Jewish history from the crossing of the Jordan to the Babylonian exile.⁵⁶

1) Judg.2-2; Deut.7:2,3.

2) Judg. 3:6.

3) Judg. 17:7-13; Num. 3:5-10.

4) Judg. 13:4, 5; Num. 6:2-12.

5) Judg. 14. 3.

6) Judg. 19:18.

7) I. Sam. 1:3, 9,11, 25; 21:15.

8) I. Sam. 2:27-29.

9) I. Sam. 20:5, 18.

10) I. Sam. 20:26; 21:4, 5.

11) I. Sam. 14. 33.35. Lev. 20:27.

12) I. Sam. 28:10, with Ex. 22:18; Lev. 20:2.

13) I. Sam. 15:1-3, with Ex. 17:16; Deut. 25:19.

14) Prolegomena, p. 257.

15) Idem, p. 258.

16) I. Kings 2:3.

17) II. Kings 14:5, 6.

18) Deut. 24:16.

19) II. Kings 10:31; 17:13, 34, 37; 23:21, 24, 25.

20) I. Chr. 22:13.

21) II. Chr. 17:7-9.

22) I. Chr. 16:40; 22:12, 13; II. Chr. 5:10; 6:16; 12:1; 33:8; 34 :14, 15, 19; 35; 12, 26.

23) "Gesetzesseligen Phantasie." — Prolegomena, p. 201.

24) II. Kings 22:8-13; II. Chr. 34:14-19.

25) Die Geschichtlichen Bücher des Allen Testaments, pp. 2-5.

26) "Ein reines Gesetzhuch.''— Prolegomena, p. 360.

27) Hexateuch, p. 214.

28) Idem, p. 215.

29) L'Histoire Sainte, Int., p. 160.

30) L'Histoire Sainte, Int., p. 159.

31) II. Kings 22:8.;

32) Jer. 36:21, 23.

33) II. Kings 22:8; 23:2.

34) II. Kings 23:25.

35) II. Chr. 35:6, 12,

36) II. Kings 22:13.

37) Deut. 28:58; 29:21; 30:10.

38) Deut. 31:24-26.

39) II. Kings 23:3.

40) II. Kings 23:4-6.

41) II. Kings 23:7.

42) II. Kings 23:10.

43) II. Kings 23:20.

44) II. Kings 23:24.

45) II. Kings 23:21, 22; II. Chr. 35:1-10.

46) Deut. 16:1-8.

47) Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 427

48) Ezra 7:6.

49) Neh. 8:1, 2.

50) Neh. 8:9.

51) Prolegomena, p. 424 sqq.

52) L'Histoire Sainte, Int., p. 233.

53) Religious Encyclopedia, Schaff-Herzog, Vol. III., p. 1799.

54) L'Histoire Sainte, Int., p. 13o.

55) Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pp. 473, 519.

56) See Part III., ch. x.