the form of these, the story might be relieved from some of its uncouthness. They are called lapedim, or, rather, lampadim, as the Chaldee and Syriac write it whence the Greek lampos, and our lamp. Now, these lamps, or burners, were placed between two jackals, whose tails were tied together, or, at least, there was a connection formed between them by a cord, as say the LXX., in the Complutensian. Possibly, then, this cord was of a moderate length, and the burner being tied in the middle of it, it had something of the effect which we have seen among ourselves, when wanton malice has tied to the tail of a dog crackers, squibs, etc., which, being fired, have worried the poor animal to his kennel, where, supposing them still to burn, they might set all around him on fire. It is the nature of the jackal, or fox, to roam about dwellings and out-houses, which would lead them to where the corn of the Philistines was stored; and this being ignited, would communicate the conflagration in every direction. Besides this, the fire giving them pain, they would naturally fight each one his associate, to which he was tied. This would keep them among the corn longer than usual; and few pairs thus coupled would agree to return to the same den which they had formerly occupied in the mountains; so that nothing could be better adapted to produce a general conflagration than this expedient of combustion-communicating jackals. We must therefore suppose, first, that the burners were at some distance from the animals, so as not to burn them. Secondly, that they were of a nature to hold fire long, without being consumed. Thirdly, that they were dim in the manner of their burning and their light, and not to be alarmingly distinguished by their illumination. They might burn dead, as we say; so that their effect might be produced too late. to prevent the mischief which attended them. Not to enlarge, we may remark, that if even the story cannot be solved on natural principles, we would suggest that the circumstances of God's chosen people, under the government of Samson, were such as to call for a Divine interposition, which interposition was evidently given in their behalf on more than one occasion during his administration. It is reasonably suggested that the Vulpinaria, or, Feast of the Foxes, celebrated by the Romans, was derived in all probability from this event. "But God clave a hollow place that was in the jaw, and there came water thereout; and when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he revived; wherefore he called the name thereof Enhakkore, which is in Lehi unto this day."-Ver. 19. THE difficulty here arises from the circumstance that the Hebrew Lehi denotes both a place and a bone. The margin of our English version correctly reads Lehi-" God clave an hollow place that was in Lehi"; that is, in the place called Lehi, and not in the jawbone; for as Kitto observes, "If we have jawbone here, we ought to retain it in the concluding clause of the verse; and instead of saying, "which is in Lehi unto this day," say "which is in the jawbone unto this day." CHAPTER XXI. The Benjamites and the daughters of Shiloh.-Ver. 16—23. THE chronological difficulties of this book of Judges are probably insuperable. There are intervals of time that are not specified, and round numbers instead of exact ones, while some of the judges, who were probably contemporary, are named as though the one succeeded the other. The attempts made to settle these points are not successful, and we see no way of placing them in a more satisfactory light. The occurrence mentioned in the text cannot have happened at the time which its place in the book would imply. But passing on, we may observe, that the expedient adopted for re-establishing the tribe of Benjamin, unveils a scene, which, as Russell remarks,* bears a closer resemblance to the idolatrous usages of the Gentiles than to the strict and guarded ritual of the Mosaic Law; and there can be no doubt that the occurrence took place during the anarchy; that is, when there was no judge in Israel, and when every man did that which was right in his own eyes (chap. xxi. 25). Lightfoot has assigned a number of reasons which go to show that the time could not have been long after Joshua's death.† "Connection of Sacred and Profane History," vol. i. p. 182. + Lightfoot's Works, vol. i. p. 46. THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL, KINGS, Ir may help to prevent some difficulties in the reading of these historical books, if we state two or three facts. 1. The books of Samuel and the books of Kings were formerly termed the first, second, third, and fourth books of Kings; as being the books in which the histories of the kings of Judah and Israel are comprised. Who the author was is not certainly known. The Jews made one book of the two of Samuel, and called them by his name, as we now do, believing the greater part of the first book to have been written by that prophet. Mention is certainly made of the book of Samuel the seer, in 1 Chron. xxix. 29, but that falls far short of identifying him as the author of these books. The best sustained opinion is, that the first twenty-four chapters of the first book were written by Samuel, and the remainder and the second book by the prophets Gad and Nathan. The latter prophet, who is first mentioned a short time after David was settled at Jerusalem (2 Sam. vii. 2), frequently appears in the subsequent part of his reign, the last time not long before his death (1 Kings i. 32). He was therefore well acquainted with all the transactions of that period, and is thought to have completed the second book of Samuel from the end of the fifth chapter. 2. The authors of the books of Kings and Chronicles avowedly composed their works, partly, at least, from older sources (see 1 Kings xi. 41; xiv. 29; xv. 7, 23; xxii. 45: 2 Kings viii. 23; xii. 20: 2 Chron. ix. 29; xxv. 26; xxviii. 26: xxxii. 32; xxxv. 27; xxxvi. 8, etc.), as some think, from the public annals of the kingdoms. Keil has shown, very satisfactorily, however, especially in reference to the Chronicles, that they by no means confined themselves to these state documents, but that they supplied much matter from their own knowledge, and also from writings by several of the other prophets. (See 1 Kings xiv. 25, comp. with 2 Chron. xii. 2-11; 2 Chron. xiii. 22, xxvi. 22). This is based not only on the distinct testimony of the writers, but is the only assumption that corresponds with the theoretical character of the history. Gradually formed annals of the kings were composed by various prophets living and acting contemporaneously. Besides these, other prophets noted, independently of them, their most important proceedings, in separate writings, which were handed down to posterity along with the annals. In this case it is easy to conceive how the chronicler, who employed both kinds of writings for his work, might find it to his purpose to refer, in different reigns, according to the nature of the sources before him, now to the annals,now to sundry prophetical writings, now to both at the same time. If an authentic representation of the history might be expected from the author of these works, we may cherish this expectation with still greater confidence, according to Keil's view of their sources. For they prepared |