ch. xxv.-xxxii., xxxv., xxxvi., xxxviii., and xxxix., published in Ger many by Gabler (neuestes theol. Journ. 1799, ii. 1, p. 322 ff.), which Jahn (Einl. ii. p. 600) has refuted at unnecessary length; also the attacks of Oeder and Vogel (freie Unters. über einige BB. des Alten Testaments herausgg. v. Vogel, pp. 344 ff., 373 ff.) upon the genuineness of ch. xl.-xlviii., and of Corrodi (Beleuchtung des jüdischen u. christl. Bibelkanons, i. p. 95 ff.) on ch. xxxviii.-xlviii., the frivolous nature of which has been shown by Beckhaus (Integrität der proph. Schriften, p. 251 ff.). Comp. Häv. Einl. pp. 270-1.

(2) The learned Jew Zunz (p. 158 ff.) is quite alone in the assertion (which he has put forward on account of the very special predictions, which are a stumblingblock to him), that Ezekiel and his visions stand nearer the Persian epoch and culture than is commonly believed, belonging perhaps to the age of Cyrus: but his arguments are entirely superficial, and can prove nothing. Against them comp. Häv. Einl. p. 271 ff.-Gesenius, Geschichte der hebr. Sprache, p. 35, remarks that "the book of Ezekiel belongs to that not very numerous class which from the beginning to the end maintain a unity of tone, which is evinced by favourite expressions and peculiar phrases; and by this, were there nothing else, every suspicion that particular sections may be spurious ought to be averted."

§ 80. Origination of the Book of Ezekiel.

It is manifest at once that Ezekiel committed all his prophecies to writing himself, from this circumstance, that he speaks of himself in the first person, with the exception of two instances, where the nature of the case forbade it, i. 3, xxiv. 24. But it is not true that he merely wrote them down and circulated them in a written form, without ever uttering them by the living voice (1): nor yet that he did not compose ch. i.-xxiv. till after the destruction of Jerusalem, so that for critical consideration the oral and the written discourses are coincident, and the very determinate predictions (xi., xxiv. 2, 26, comp. xxxiii. 21) are mere vaticinia ex eventu (2).-Also the collection of the prophecies and the publication of the book are to be traced back to the prophet himself: not only because there is a symmetry prevailing in the disposition and arrangement of the whole, which is edited in accordance with a steady plan that is intimately connected with the prophet's labours (§ 78); but also for this reason,

that in the whole book not the slightest trace is to be found of later groupings or transpositions (3).

(1) As Gramberg (Geschichte der Religion, ii. p. 403) and Hitzig, p. x. f., suppose.

(2) The way and manner in which Hitzig, p. xiv., tries to put a good face upon this assertion, only shows how cunningly rationalistic prejudices can stifle all susceptibility for truth.

(3) Jahn's (Einl. ii. p. 593) assumption, that there has been a later transposition of the oracles against the foreign nations, has arisen from mere want of insight into the principle of the arrangement of these prophecies according to the subject-matter.-Ewald also, p. 207 ff., goes off, like Eichhorn and Bertholdt, into all sorts of arbitrary combinations and guesses as to the way in which this book of Ezekiel originated: for instance, that the prophecies came to be written down only at a later period, and that the present book came into existence only by degrees, for which assertion he adduces arguments entirely destitute of value; that the prophet was no longer on the original scene of his labours at the time when his book was arranged (p. 214), an allegation which can by no means be inferred from i. 1, 3, iii. 15, 22; that he last of all inserted ch. xxix. 17-21 into the book, which in other respects was already completed,—a supposition which, without any reason whatever, identifies the process of receiving the revelations and committing them to writing with that of editing the book; that in ch. xlvi. 16-24 two little pieces have been wrongly placed, for some unknown reason, since xlvi. 16-18 ought to have come after xlv. 8, and xlvi. 19-24 after xlii. 14 (p. 218), in which instance his "unknown cause" at once awakens just suspicions of the correctness of the assertion. Even Hitzig, p. 360, remarks of the second piece, in spite of his finding the place which Ewald has assigned to it very suitable, "Yet that the section (vers. 19-24) did not stand there originally is clear: partly from the circumstance that, according to xlii. 1-9, Ezekiel was already at those cells mentioned in ver. 19, and if nothing lay between the two passages, he would not now describe them so circumstantially; partly from the absence of any connection between xlii. 15 and xlvi. 21, 22, where we are informed of the measurements of the exterior building." See the correct view as to the position of the entire ch. xlvi., and of its individual sections, in Häv. Comm. p. 719 ff. [Bleek, p. 515, agrees generally with the views of Keil in this section; and in particular, he looks on it as tolerably certain that Ezekiel edited his own prophecies.]

(תְּרֵיסַר or תְּרֵי עֲסַר) B. THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS

Commentaries:-Casp. Sanctius, see § 225.-Luther, Selneccer, Tarnov (c. præf. J. B. Carpzovii, Francofurti et Lipsiæ 1688, 1706, 4to), Seb. Schmidt.-Ecolampadius, Calvin, Mercerus (only the first five minor prophets), Drusius, Coccejus, Jo. Marckius, Clericus, Rosenmüller, Maurer, see § 224.-Phil. Dav. Burkii Gnomon in xii. proph. min, Heilbronnæ 1753, 4to.-C. F. Stäudlin, Beitrr. zur Erläut. der bibl. Propheten; als Versuche Hos. Nah. Hab. neu übersetzt und erläutert, Stuttgart 1786.-H. Hesselberg, die zwölf kleinen Propheten ausgelegt, Königsberg 1838.-Umbreit, prakt. Comm. üb. die kleinen Propheten mit. exeg. u. krit. Anmerkk., Hamburg 1845.-F. Hitzig, die 12 kleinen Propheten erklärt, Leipzig 1838, 2d ed., 1852 (Lief. 1 des kurzgefasst. exeget. Handbuchs).—Hengstenberg, Christologie des Alten Test., 2d ed., Berlin 1854-6, vols. i. and iii.-P. Schegg, die kleinen Propheten übersetzt u. erklärt, 2 Theile, Regensburg 1854.[Ed. Pocock, D.D., Commentaries on Hosea, Joel, Micah, and Nahum, in his Theol. Works, 2 vols., London 1740.-Eb. Henderson, D.D., The Twelve Minor Prophets, 2d ed., London 1858.-E. Pusey, The Minor Prophets, with a coinmentary and introductions (as far as Mic. i. 12), Oxford, Cambridge, and London, 1861.-K. F. Keil, die kleinen Propheten, Leipzig 1866.]

§ 81. Collection and Arrangement.

These twelve prophetic writings were combined into one work so early as at the collection of the Canon; and in the Canon they have ever been regarded and enumerated as one book (1).

(1) Already Jesus Sirach, xlix. 10, кaì тŵν Súdeка πро‡ηтŵv τà ὀστᾶ ἀναθάλοι ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῶν, κ.τ.λ. (although the passage lies under suspicion of being interpolated), regards them as one book; and so do Josephus, c. Ap. i. 8, and Gregory Nazianzen, Carm. xxxiii., Míav μέν εἰσιν ἐς γραφὴν οἱ Δώδεκα. Agreeably to this, the Rabbins speak of four D' D'N' [later prophets, in contradistinction to their socalled earlier prophets-namely, the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings], that is, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the dwdeкaπρóOnтov. Comp. Carpzov, p. 270 sq. Whether the writings of those minor prophets who lived earlier than the exile were before that time united into one collection, or written together upon a single roll, cannot now be determined. Kimchi, præf. Comm. in Hos., says,

"Tradunt doctores nostri piæ memoriæ, esse illos in unum librum coactos, ne si singuli seorsim manerent, unus aut alter ob parvitatem periret." [This is extremely likely, and seems in some measure to be confirmed by the very title, Minor Prophets, by which they are always known, and which of course has reference, not to their importance or authority, but solely to their smaller bulk. Thus Bleek, p. 517, quotes Jerome, proœm. in Esaiam, "Cum Esaias duodecim prophetis juxta numerum versuum aut equalis aut major sit:" and Augustine, de Civ. Dei, xviii. 29, "qui propterea dicuntur minores, quia sermones eorum sunt breves in eorum comparatione, qui majores ideo vocantur, quia prolixa volumina condiderunt." He says that undoubtedly this collection was made by the person who collected the second volume of the Canon, the "Prophets" of the Hebrew Bible, whom he takes to have been Nehemiah.]

The arrangement is chronological only to this extent, that the prophets of the Assyrian period (from Hosea to Nahum) precede the two prophets of the Chaldean age (Habakkuk and Zephaniah), which two again are followed by the three who lived after the exile. In other respects the arrangement has been so carried out, that the writings of Hosea are placed at the head, as being the largest in size : while the rest have been very naturally placed in order successively according to the statement of time in their superscriptions; or where no date was given, under the influence of the principle of the association of ideas, according to some association produced by similarity of contents (2). The order is also different in the Hebrew and in the Greek manuscripts; but in neither is the chronological order thoroughly carried out (3).

(2) Comp. Delitzsch in Rudelbach and Guericke's Zeitschrift, 1851, pp. 92-3. "Because Hosea, at the end of his prophetic writings, ch. xiv., foretold to penitent Israel, watered with the dew of divine grace, a rich harvest of corn, and a fresh verdure and blossoming, like the rose, the olive, and the vine; while Joel begins his prophetic writing, ch. i., at a time when the crop of corn, of wine, and of olives has come to nothing, and therefore calls the people to repentance: on this account the collector joins the two prophets together. With fine taste, again, he makes Amos follow Joel; because the latter says, towards the end of his writings, iv. 16 [English version, iii. 16], 'Jehovah also shall roar out of Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem,' while Amos begins his book with the same striking words.

A similar striking expression of Amos, ch. ix. 12, 'that they may possess the remnant of Edom,' is repeated by Obadiah, ver. 19, whose whole prophecy is, as it were, an unfolding of this prophetic prospect: therefore Obadiah stands after Amos. But why does Jonah come after Obadiah? Because Obadiah begins, 'We have heard a rumour from Jehovah, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen;' and what else is Jonah than such an ambassador sent among the heathen' from Jehovah? Comp. the second verse in Jonah with the first in Obadiah. Again, as a further reason, Jonah, Micah, and Nahum might be arranged together, because they have a common interest in that celebrated utterance of the law with respect to the attributes of God, Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7; see Jonah iv. 2, Micah vii. 18, Nahum i. 2 ff. (yet comp. also Joel ii. 13). Nahum and Habakkuk have a common character which brings them together, both of them having the title "The burden,' ; and Habakkuk stands behind Nahum, because he prophesies of the Chaldeans, who were the executioners of that judgment upon Nineveh which Nahum has depicted. Zephaniah has been thrown back thus far, because his writings bear the latest date of any that precede the captivity; and he takes his place behind Habakkuk, because he has in common with him the striking words Dл, Zeph. i. 7, Hab. ii. 20.” [The latter is shorter. remarks at the end of the

next Note.]

8" See additional

(3) In favour of the chronological principle of arrangement, there have decided Jerome, Prol. in xii. proph. min., "in quibus (prophetarum scriptis) tempus non profertur in titulo, sub illis eos regibus prophetasse, sub quibus et hi, qui ante eos habent titulos, prophetarunt;" and in recent times, particularly Caspari, Obadj. p. 37 ff., Iläv. Einl. pp. 26 and 275, and Hengstb. [Bleek, p. 518, considers this principle of Jerome's decidedly false: he thinks it in the highest degree probable that the collector was guided by the chronological principle, but holds him to have been mistaken in point of fact as to the age of several of the prophets.] On the contrary, Jäger, de ordine prophetarum min. chronol., Tubingæ, 2 PP. 1823, 1827 (abridged in the Tübingen Zeitschrift für Theol. 1828, H. ii.), and most of the recent critics; last of all Delitzsch, ibid. (who had previously expressed a different opinion in Rudelbach and Guericke's Zeitschrift, 1842, i. p. 14 ff.).—That the chronological principle of arrangement rests upon a firm traditional basis, with the strongest claims to credibility (Häv.), is not capable of proof.-The difference of arrangement in the Masoretic and Alexandrian copies is as follows [differing only as to the first six]: