That's French for "the ancient system," as in the ancient system of feudal privileges and the exercise of autocratic power over the peasants. The ancien regime never goes away, like vampires and dinosaur bones they are always hidden in the earth, exercising a mysterious influence. It is not paranoia to believe that the elites scheme against the common man. Inform yourself about their schemes here.


Postby admin » Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:52 pm

Part 3 of 4

Lecture V.

Note 1, p. 191. — The literature of the book of Isaiah, with which we shall be mainly occupied in the next four Lectures, is enormous; for an account and estimate of the commentators it is enough to refer to Mr. Cheyne's tenth essay appended to his Prophecies of Isaiah, 1881. This exceedingly useful book gives the English reader so complete a view of the present state of the exegetical questions connected with Isaiah that a general reference to it may take the place of many notes on individual points which would otherwise have called for remark. The book is indispensable to every one who has not access to a full library of Continental exegesis, while, on the other hand, those who have themselves worked in the same field will best appreciate the exhaustive studies witnessed to on every page. In addition to other help which these Lectures derive from it, I ought here to acknowledge repeated obligations to the translation for felicitous phrases. On the other hand, it will appear by and by that I am in very many cases at variance with Mr. Cheyne as regards the order and date of the several prophecies, a point on which he seems to have been misled by the Assyriologists. Of modern foreign commentaries, those of Gesenius, Ewald, Hitzig, and Delitzsch may be chiefly recommended to the student. The learned commentary of Dr. Kay offers little assistance in the mainly historical objects contemplated in the present Lectures. For the historical exegesis of the Prophet, the labours of Ewald are the necessary starting-point of every student, though in part now antiquated by Assyrian researches. The student should not overlook the contributions of Lagarde in his Prophetoe Chaldaice, p. il., and in his Semitica, I.

Note 2, p. 193. — This is the natural inference from the fact that for a time Jeroboam retired from Shechem to Penuel beyond the Jordan (1 Kings xii. 25).

Note 3, p. 194. — For the chronology of Ahaz's predecessors we must take as our point of departure the campaign of Tiglath Pileser against Pekah and Rezin B.C. 734. At this time Ahaz was king of Judah. Further we know that Menahem was still alive B.C. 738 (supra, p. 160), while 2 Kings xv. 37 shows that Pekah was king and had begun to attack Judah before the death of Ahaz's father Jotham, Ahaz, therefore, must have come to the throne between 738 and 734; and, as it is hardly to be supposed that the Syro-Ephraitic war was prolonged more than one or two years before the Assyrians interfered, the date of Jotham's death may be taken approximately as B.C. 735, so that 734 would count as the first year of Ahaz. Now reckoning backwards we find that the Judsean chronology assigns to the reigns from Athaliah to Jotham inclusive, 6 + 40 + 29 + 52+16 = 143. The northern chronology gives for the same period 102 years of the dynasty of Jehu, 10 of Menahem, and some 3 years more up to the expedition of Tiglath Pileser — in all about 115 years. The Assyrian monuments (supra, p. 150) show that this reckoning is right within a few years, but if anything is rather too long than too short, so that the Judaean chronology of the period is out by about 30 years. The discrepancy may be so far reduced by assuming that part of Jotham's reign fell in his father's lifetime, as we know that he acted as vizier while Uzziah was a leper (2 Kings xv. 5). But even this does not put all right, and is at best a mere hypothesis, which finds a very uncertain stay in the supposed Assyrian reference to Azariah or Uzziah B.C. 740. In reality it seems probable that the necessary shortening of Judaean reigns must be sought at more than one part of the period with which we are dealing, and that the error is distributed between the 69 years of Joash and Amaziah and the 68 of Uzziah and Jotham. For Amaziah, Uzziah's father, was contemporary with King Joash of Israel, and his defeat by that monarch seems to have fallen near the close of Amaziah's reign. At least it is a highly plausible conjecture of Wellhausen (Z.f. d. Theol., 1875, p. 634) that Amaziah's murder in a popular rising was due to the discontent produced by his absurd challenge to Joash and the misfortunes that followed. In this case the first year of Uzziah cannot have fallen anything like so late as the 15th year of Jeroboam II., to which the present Judaean chronology appears to assign it (6 + 40 + 29 = 75 = 28 + 17 + 16 + 14). But, on the other hand, the campaign of Joash against Jerusalem must have fallen in his later prosperous years. [The three campaigns of Joash against Syria must be at the end of his reign, since it was left to his son to improve his victories.] Thus we are led to conclude that Uzziah came to the throne about the same time with Jeroboam II. The rest of the error belongs to the prosperous days of Uzziah and Jotham, Avhich may very well be reduced by 15 or 16 years, and yet leave time for the great internal changes alluded to in the early chapters of Isaiah.

The chronology from B.C. 734 downwards offers a much more complicated problem, for here we have to deal with a multitude of discordant data. According to the present chronology of the book of Kings, Manasseh's accession opens the last third of the second 480 years of Israel's history, and so falls 160 years before the return or 110 before the destruction of the temple in the 11th year of Zedekiah (B.C. 586). For the last part of these 110 years we have a sure guide in the chronology of the book of Jeremiah, in which the reckoning by years of kings of Judah is adopted, and checked by another reckoning by years of Jeremiah's ministry, and by a third by years of Nebuchadnezzar, whose dates are known by the Canon of Ptolemy (Syncellus, p. 388). Now, the book of Kings divides the 110 years as follows: --

Manasseh: 55
Amon: 2
Josiah: 31
Jehoiakim: 11
Zedekiah: 11

The 11 years of Zedekiah are certain from Jer. xxxii. 1; 2 Kings XXV. 8. Further,

4 Jehoiakim = 23 Jeremiah (Jer. xxv. 1), 13 Josiah = 1 Jeremiah (Jer, xxv. 3).

Therefore 1 Jehoiakim = 20 Jeremiah = 32 Josiah; that is, Josiah reigned 31 years as stated in Kings. But now, if Jehoiakim really reigned 11 years, 21 Jehoiakim =10 Zedekiah =18 Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xxxii. 1), and so 4 Jehoiakim = 1 Nebuchadnezzar, an equation actually given in the Hebrew text of Jer. xxv. 1, but rightly wanting in the Septuagint. For in reality 4 Jehoiakim is, according to Jer. xlvi. 2, the year of the battle of Carchemish, when Nabopolassar was still on the throne, but in his last year (Berosus ap. Jos., c. 'Apion. i. 1 9). Hence we must conclude that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar — that is, the first year which began in his reign — was really the fifth of Jehoiakim, and that the latter reigned not 11 but 12 years. [1] The 12 years of Jehoiakim seem also to be confirmed by Ezek. i. 1 seq., which Wellhausen uses to support the current chronology. According to Ezekiel, the fifth year of Jehoiachin's captivity (i. 2) is the 30th year of another unnamed era. It appears from xxiv, 1 , where the ninth year is the ninth of Zedekiah, that Ezekiel counts as the first year of captivity the first year of Zedekiah — that is, the first year that began in exile. Thus the first year of the anonymous era will be the 18th of Josiah if Jehoiakim reigned 11 years, but the 19th if he reigned 12. As the 18th year of Josiah is that of his great reformation, it would appear that Ezekiel reckons from that event. His era is the era of reformed worship. But in that case it seems a mistake to assume, as Wellhausen does (ut supra, p. 623), that the 18th year would be the first of the reformed era. If the first year of captivity is the first that began in captivity, the first year of reformation must be that which began after the reformation, or the 19th of Josiah. It is indeed probable, since Ezekiel reckons by Babylonian months, and so begins the year in the spring, that his first year begins with Josiah's reformed passover. But if so, the spring era was already in use in Josiah's time in priestly circles (comp. 2 Kings xxii. 3, LXX.), and so, in spite of 2 Kings xxiii. 23, which belongs to the editor, not to the sources, and therefore has no chronological authority, that passover must have fallen in the 19th year of the king. For it is to be noted that it is always in priestly circles or in connection with events of the temple that a reckoning by years of the king is found. The assignation of 11 years to Jehoiakim instead of 12 may be a mere oversight, the Hebrew chronicler supposing that Nebuchadnezzar commanded at Carchemish as king. It may, however, be systematic, as the number 11 is the key to the last 110 years of the kingdom (Manasseh, 55; Amon + Josiah = 33). In any case it would have the effect of disordering by one year any calculations as to earlier dates.

Let us now go back to the time of Hezekiah. Taking the reigns from Manasseh to Zedekiah inclusive at 110 years, and that of Hezekiah at 29, we get 1 Hezekiah == B.C. 724; but allowing one more year for Jehoiakim the date is 725. But for the reign of Hezekiah we have the following synchronisms: —

(1) 2 Kings xviii. 9; 4 Hezekiah = the year of the commencement of the siege of Samaria = B.C. 724-722 by the Assyrian monuments.

(2) 2 Kings xviii. 13; 14 Hezekiah = the year of Sennacherib's invasion = B.C. 701 by the monuments.

These dates are quite inconsistent with one another, and the question arises which we shall take as our guide. Let us begin with (1). It is plain that, according to the received chronology, this date is at least one year out; but if we introduce the correction already found requisite for Jehoiakim it is probably exact (supra, p. 403). In other words, if this date is original and accurate, the book of Kings is probably right — certainly not more than two years wrong — in assigning 29 + 55 + 2 = 86 Years to Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Anion taken together. There is therefore high probability that (1) is an independent and valuable datum, and that the sum of the years of Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Anion is also accurately known. And in general this result is borne out by the statement of Jer. xxvi. 18, that Micah, who predicts the fall of Samaria, prophesied under Hezekiah, a statement inconsistent with synchronism (2), which makes Ahaz be still on the throne when Samaria was captured.

When we pass now to (2) we are encountered by a very complex problem; for the statement that Sennacherib attacked Samaria in Hezekiah's fourteenth year is closely connected with the assignation to that prince of a total reign of 29 years. The connection is as follows: — At 2 Kings xx. 1 we learn that Hezekiah's sickness took place about the time of the Assyrian invasion, and at verse 6 we find that after this sickness Hezekiah lived 15 years. Now 29= 14 + 15, which at first sight seems to bear out (2). A closer examination, however, shows that there is something wrong. Merodach Baladan, whose embassy is placed after Hezekiah's sickness, was no longer king in B.C. 701, and the history contains internal evidence (ver. 6) that Hezekiah's sickness fell before the expedition of Sennacherib. One, therefore, of the numbers 14, 15, 29 is certainly false, and has been calculated from the other two. In that case we have three possibilities, (a) 14 and 29 are right and the 15 is wrong. If so, Manasseh came to the throne in 686, and not in 695 as the received chronology states. In this there is no intrinsic improbability, for to make that king begin the third section of the 480 years from Solomon's temple seems to be certainly a part of the artificial chronology. But in that case it is very singular that the artificial chronology should have found its end served by a date for Manasseh which is indeed false, but combined with 29 and with 2 Kings xviii. 9 gives a date almost, if not quite, exact for the fall of Samaria. Such a coincidence could only be the result of design, and the design is an incredible one, for it implies knowledge of the true Assyrian chronology and a determination to fix the fall of Samaria (a non-Judaean date) correctly, at the expense of the date 701, which directly affected Judah. (6) 14 is right and 29 is wrong, and derived from a combination of the 14 with 15. In this case a similar argument applies. The false 29, and the artificial (but independent) date for Manasseh combine to give the true date for the fall of Samaria. And neither (a) nor (6) gives the least clue to the reason of the discordant data (1) and (2). (c) There remains a third hypothesis, viz. that 15 and 29 are the dates from which the 14 has been derived, and this view, I think, enables us to give a tenable hypothesis for the whole system of numbers.

To develop it, I return to the assumptions already found probable, that the fourth year of Hezekiah coincides with the first year of the siege of Samaria, and that Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Amon together reigned 86 years. I do not assume that the years of each king are truly known, for the accession of Manasseh seems to be an artificial date. But it is highly probable that the true reign of each of these kings was once known. For in the time of Uzziah dates were not yet popularly reckoned by years of kings (Amos i. 1), while this reckoning appears under Hezekiah. This does not seem to be accident. The sundial of Ahaz, as well as his interest in star worship, point to the fact that astronomy (combined, of course, with superstition) was one of his foreign tastes, and it is impossible that he could have dealt with astronomy without feeling the need for a more exact calendar on the Assyrian model. It seems also that the reckoning by years of kings really went by the Assyrian Calendar from the time of Josiah downwards, If so, the time of Ahaz or Hezekiah is almost the only one at which it could have been introduced. I apprehend, then, that from the time of Ahaz downwards there was an exact record of years reigned, such as there is no trace of at an earlier date, except in concerns of the temple (the latter probably reckoned by the Phoenician Calendar; see Dillmann's essay in Monatb. Berl. Ac., 27 Oct. 1881). Again, though the book of Kings in its present form dates from the Exile, or indeed, as regards the schematised chronology, from after the restoration, the main stock of it is certainly earlier even in its redaction, and so might well contain the true years for Hezekiah and his successors. If so, the schematiser of the chronology would not change more than was necessary, and if he lengthened Manasseh's reign would correspondingly shorten Hezekiah's. Thus it is intelligible that the fourth year of Hezekiah comes in at the true date, or, at least, within a year or two. We may assume, therefore, that the choice of the number 29 was not arbitrary. But now again it is the independent judgment of critics that, in its present form, 2 Kings xviii. 13-xx. 19, with the exception of the remarkable versos xviii. 14-16 (not found in the parallel passage in Isaiah), belongs to a pretty late date (Wellhausen, in Bleek, § 131), or at least was retouched after the fall of the kingdom. In that case it is easy to understand how the fourteenth year of Hezekiah may be an insertion or correction made on the presupposition that Hezekiah's sickness corresponded with the year of Sennacherib's invasion. It is not quite certain that this even requires us to hold the 15 to be part of the original tradition, for Jerome gives an interpretation of Isa. xxxviii. 10 which makes the sickness fall at the bisection of Hezekiah's clays, and it is probable that this explanation was traditional.

The foregoing argument is undoubtedly of a very hypothetical character, but it seems to show that at all events it is possible to explain (2) from (1), but not vice versa; and this, combined with the argument from the date of Micah, and the fact that (1) gives a date for the siege of Samaria as accordant with the monuments as we can possibly expect, seems to entitle us to give it the preference. Hezekiah's first year is thus fixed for 725 (724). It does not follow that Manasseh's first year was 695, for that is a schematised date, and there is force in Wellhausen's argument that the strength of the prophetic party in Judah at the time of the reaction under Manasseh makes it probable that Hezekiah reigned some considerable time after the defeat of Sennacherib.

If the first year of Hezekiah was 725, Ahaz's reign is shortened to some ten years. But his 16 years will not fit with either (1) or (2); and, though the ages given to him and Hezekiah at their accessions rather demand a lengthening than a shortening of his reign, it is difficult to assign much value to these, when numbers so much more essential to be remembered are indubitably most corrupt.

Note 4, p. 202. — The nature of this divination by means of familiar spirits, as the wizard or Ba'al Ob pretended, is seen from the narrative of the witch of Endor. In reality, the performance was a form of ventriloquism, and the Ob or familiar spirit seemed to speak from beneath the ground or out of the stomach of the diviner. The Greeks called such diviners , and their father Eurycles was said to prophesy truly "by the daemon that was within him," Schol. on Arist., Vespae, 984 (1019); Iamblichus cited by Lagarde, Abhandlungen, p. 189. In Syriac these subterranean spirits are called Zakkure, and the conception is well illustrated in the second Syriac romance of Julian the Apostate, published by Hoffmann (Julianos der abtrunnige, Leyden, 1880, p. 247), translated by Noldeke, Z. V. M. G., xxviii. 666 seq. See also Noldeke's note.

Note 5, p. 211. — Compare O. T. in J. Ch., Lect. iv. p. 109 seq.; Lect. vi. p. 159 seq.

Note 6, p. 217. — Mr. Cheyne, mainly following Kleinert in Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1877, p. 174 seq., defends the authorship of Isa. xxi. 1-10 by Isaiah, arguing that the ideas and phraseology are Isaiah's, that the second part of the prophecy seems to have been written at a distance from Babylon, with the fate of which the prophet expresses a certain sympathy, and that the reference may therefore be to the siege of Babylon by Sargon in 709, to which date Mr. Cheyne assigns the expedition of Merodach Baladan to Hezekiah. I do not think that these arguments have all the weight claimed for them. There is good reason for holding that the embassy of Merodach Baladan fell in the reign of Sennacherib (infra, Lect. VIII), and it seems impossible to question that the destruction of Babylon, spoken of in ver. 2 as effected by Elam and Media, must be the capture of the city by Cyrus. The prophecy, therefore, belongs to the Chaldaean cycle.

Note 7, p. 217. — It may here be convenient to give in connected form the chronological order of the chief prophecies, according to the results of the following Lectures. Of course, there is necessarily a large element of hypothesis in the details.

First Period. — From the year of Uzziah's death to the outbreak of the Syro-Ephraitic war. Chaps. ii.-v., and probably (as Ewald conjectures), ix. 8 — x. 4, the latest part of this collection dating apparently from the first epoch of the war, circa 735 B.C.

Second Period. — Prophecies at the time of Ahaz's resolution to do homage to Assyria, and during the ensuing campaign of Tiglath Pileser (734 B.C.). Chaps, vii. 1 — ix. 7 (chap, vi., recording Isaiah's first vision, seems to have been published as a preface to this collection). Chap, xvii. 1-11 seems also to date from the same period.

Third Period. — The time of Assyrian domination.

(a) Prophecies apparently occasioned by the impending fall of Samaria, 722-720 B.C., or restating the prophet's position after that event. Chap, xxviii. (before the fall of Samaria); chap. x. 5— xi. (after that event).

(b) At the time of the revolt of Ashdod, 711 B.C. Chap. XX.

(c) Under Sennacherib: — (1) During the first movements of revolt in Philistia, 704 B.C. Chap. xiv. 29-32.

(c) Prophecies addressed to Judah while the plan of revolt was ripening, 704-701 B.C. Chaps, xxix.- xxxii. (3) Against the other nations in revolt against Assyria. Chap. xxi. 11-17, Duma and the nomads of the Syro- Arabian desert; chap, xxiii., Tyre; chap, xviii., Ethiopia; chap, xix., Egypt, The re- issue of the old prophecy against Moab, chaps, xv. xvi., may belong to the same period. (4) During the campaign in Judaea, 701 B.C. Chaps, i., xxii. (5) In the last stage of the campaign, after the fall of the party opposed to Isaiah. Chaps, xxxvii. 6, 7; xxxvii. 21-35; xxxiii. (6) Chaps, xiv, 24-27; xvii. 12-14, seem to belong to this period, but their exact position in it is uncertain.

Irregular as the arrangement of these prophecies seems to be, it is not without a principle. Chap. i. seems to have been prefixed as a general introduction to the whole book, for which its contents well ht it. With this exception, the part of the book that precedes the large Babylonian prophecy of chaps, xiii. xiv. is well arranged, apart at least from the trans- position of ix. 8 — x. 4. It contains two sections which Isaiah himself may have published very much as they stand, followed by a great and self-contained prophecy against Assyria, which might well be chosen as the close of a first attempt at a collected edition of some of Isaiah's principal pieces. Again, from chap, xiii. to chap, xxiii. we have a collection of prophecies which, with the exception of chap, xxii., are all directed against foreign nations. As it now stands, this collection contains also Babylonian prophecies, and so must be of Exilic or post-Exilic date. But the main part of it may well be of earlier collection, and chaps, xiii., xiv. 1-23, perhaps do not properly belong to it at all. Finally, from chap. xxix. onward we have prophecies of the time of Sennacherib addressed to Judah. That xxviii., which dates from an earlier period, is associated with these is explicable from the subject, and it is not unlikely that Isaiah himself may have published it as a preface to the later prophecies with which it is now associated. The chief breaches of chronological order are entirely due to the plan adopted of putting the prophecies against foreign nations together, as was also done in the collection of the oracles of Jeremiah. A study of the varying order of the several parts of the last-named book in the Hebrew and LXX. respectively is the best exercise by which one can convince oneself that the order in which a. collection now stands cannot be held to afford any sure clue to the chronological order.

Note 8, p. 218. — See Cheyne on the passage, and, as regards the Cherubim, his article in Encyc. Brit., s.v., where references to the relevant literature are collected. If the Seraphim are a personification of the lightning flash they have some analogy to the Phoenician (C. I. S., p. 38).

Note 9, p. 224. — On the idea of holiness a great deal has been written. I need only refer to two of the most recent discussions. Duhm (Theologie der Propheten, p. 169 seq.) lays particular emphasis on the relation of the idea to the worship of God. The idea is aesthetic; Jehovah's majesty presents itself as holiness to the worshipper in the act of worship. It would be more correct to say that the idea of consecration to God is a religious or aesthetic and not strictly an ethical idea; it becomes ethical in the prophets because religion becomes ethical. In the elaborate article on the notion of holiness in the Old Testament in Baudissin's Studien, part ii. (1878), there is a useful collection of material. The most important thing in it, as Noldeke observes in his review of the book (Lit. Centralbl., 1879, No. 12), is the part devoted to show that the notion of holiness has not the primary sense of purity. It may be now held as agreed among scholars that the Arabic words on which this idea was based are taken from the Greek . That the word is old Arabic in the sense of holy seems clear from Kuds as the name of two mountains in Arabia (Yakut iv. 38, seq.; see also Noldeke, l. c.); but its use in the Koran is influenced by Judaism; the word seems almost to have disappeared from the ordinary Arabic vocabulary, and the explanation of the commentators on Sur, ii. 28 that kadasa fi'l ard, like sabaha fi'l ard, means "to go far off" (Ibn Sa'ud, Egn. ed., i. 59), does not go for much. So Noldeke judges that the arguments from Arabic for the sense of "depart" require confirmation. The Aramaic Kdasha, an earring, literally a "holy thing," that is, no doubt, an amulet (comp. the lehashim or amulets as articles of finery, Isa. iii. 20), is noteworthy. The remarks on the idea of holiness in the text of this Lecture are exclusively based on the earlier parts of the Old Testament down to the time of Isaiah.

Lecture VI.

Note 1, p. 236. — In viii. 1 for roll read tablet. That a tablet inscribed in large letters to catch the eye of every one is meant is the plausible explanation of Ewald, Propheten, i. 8. A facsimile of the Siloam inscription, with commentary, etc., will appear in the forthcoming part of the Oriental series of the Palaeographical Society.

Note 2, p. 239. — The explanation of ix. 14 given in the following verse is regarded as a later and inaccurate gloss by most recent critics.

Note 3, p. 246. — On this topic, and in general on Isaiah's theocratic ideal, see Wellhausen, Geschichte, i. 431 seq.

Note 4, p. 248,— The (A. V. Branch) of Isa. iv. 2 is not, as in Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15, a sprout from the stock of David, but, more generally, that which Jehovah causes to spring forth, viz. from the land, as appears from the parallel "the fruit of the land." This, I think, excludes all reference to the king of chap, xi., such as is still thought of by Lagarde, Semitica, i. 8 seq., in spite of his apt illustration from Semitic heathenism, where Baal's land is, like the land of Canaan, such as derives fertility from the rains of heaven, not from irrigation (comp. Hosea ii. 21). The word is best rendered, I think, by "spring" in the old English sense of young, fresh growth (as in Shakspeare's poems). This enables us to keep up the connection with the cognate verb, as in Zech. vi. 12 (" the man whose name is Spring and from under him it shall spring up," that is, wherever he treads fresh life and growth follow), as well as to feel the identity of the word in such a passage as Psalm lxv. 10, "Thou blessest the springing thereof."

Note 5, p. 250. — In justification of the Authorised Version in this rendering see Lagarde, Semitica, i. 13.

Note 6, p, 251. — Compare Ewald, Geschichte, iii. 664; and on 2 Kings xvi. 18, to which allusion is made a few lines down the page, see ibid., p. 667.

Note 7, p. 267. — This verse, certainly mistranslated in the Authorised Version, may run, "In that day shall his strong cities be like the deserted places of forest and hill-top, which were left desert before the children of Israel." Possibly, however, we should correct by the aid of the Septuagint (Lagarde, Semitica, i. 31) "the deserted places of the Hivite and the Amorite."

Note 8, p. 267. — Flesh is never a common article of food with the peasantry of Syria. Bread and other cereal preparations with milk, generally eaten sour, and dibs, or grape honey, are the ordinary diet, as Seetzen, for example, found in the Hauran (Reisen, i. 48; comp. Prov. xxvii. 27; Burckhardt, Travels in Syria, 1822, p. 293). Where there is much cultivation of cereals the supply of milk is of course correspondingly limited. According to Isaiah vii. 22, the whole land of Judah shall become free pasture ground, with the result that the kine and ewes shall yield abundance of milk, and the man who has a young cow and two sheep shall have abundance of milk for his family, but no bread or wine, As the vineyards are the first thing to be destroyed, requiring as they do the most sedulous cultivation, the honey mentioned by Isaiah is doubtless natural honey, such as John the Baptist found in the desert, or Jonathan in the woods. As the wild bee frequents desert places, swarming in the woody or in the rocky sides of deep watercourses, the abundance of honey is another indication of the desolation of the land. At vii. 15 the true rendering is that the child whose infancy falls at the time of the destruction of Damascus shall eat butter and honey when he is of age to distinguish the good from the bad. That is, when his infancy begins to pass into rational childhood the land shall be already reduced to the state of depopulation described in verses 21 seq.

Note 9, p. 272. — The view that the sign given by Isaiah refers in its original sense to the birth of our Lord is still upheld by Dr. Kay, and some remarks on the subject, with reference to his argument, may not be out of place. The first point is the meaning of the word 'almah, rendered the oldest version, and "virgin" in the A. V. The word is not a very common one, though rather commoner than the masculine ''elem, a young man or lad, of which it is the regular feminine. This fact is alone sufficient to show that virginity is not the radical idea, and a comparison with the Arabic and Aramaic leaves no doubt that both in the masculine and the feminine the meaning is a young person of marriageable age. There is in fact another and common word for a virgin (bethulah). Even the latter word can be used of a young bride (Joel i. 8), and when the idea of virginity is to be made prominent it is not out of place to express it more directly (Gen. xxiv. 16; Judges xxi. 12). But is it then at least the ease that usage limits the word 'almah to a virgin? The word only occurs six times apart from our passage; twice it is used of a grown-up girl still unmarried (Gen. xxiv. 43; Exod. ii. 8), twice it seems to be used of the slave girls of Solomon's harem (Cant. i. 3; vi. 8). In Prov. XXX. 19 Dr. Kay feels the force of the argument against his view so much that he backs up his appeal to Hengstenberg by the suggestion that the passage is allegorical; Ps. lviii. 25 may be fairly taken with the two passages first quoted. On the whole the evidence does not bear out the supposition that virginity is an essential in the notion; though a marriageable girl naturally stands distinguished from a married woman, and thus Isaiah probably means a young woman who has not yet been a mother. But this suits the acceptation of the passage which we have adopted. The prophet's point is that before a woman presently to be married can have a child emerging from babyhood certain things will occur. That this is at all events the correct determination of the date which he has in view (viz. the following year) is absolutely clear. For the same date is given again in the parallel prophecy viii. 3, 4, by a similar and quite unambiguous sign.

The objection to all this is mainly that the sign offered by Jehovah must be of a grander and miraculous character. But what is the nature of a prophetic "sign"? Another "sign" given by Isaiah is his walking naked and barefoot for three years (xx. 3); he and his children are living signs to Israel (viii. 18). So, too, in Ezek. iv. 3; xii. 6, 11; xxiv. 24, 27, the signs are mere symbolic actions or God-given pledges for the fulfilment of His word. They are, as it were, seals set to prophecy, by which its truth can he put to the test in the future. What Dr. Kay further urges for the Messianic references from combination with Isa. ix. 7, Micah v. 3, is plainly not demonstrative, for the combination is not indicated in the Bible itself.

Note 10, p. 273. — See Ewald on the passage, and Lagarde, Semitica, i. 31 seq., where the identity of Na'aman with Adonis in ably maintained. Note further that the river now called the Nahr Na'man is the ancient Belus, which seems to confirm the view that Na'man is a divine name.

Note 11, p. 276. — I here follow what I may call the certain correction made independently by Selwyn and Studer.
Site Admin
Posts: 28781
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:54 pm

Part 4 of 4

Lecture VII

Note 1, p. 279. — At this point the Assyrian records begin to be of the highest service for the history of Israel and of Isaiah's work. I shall not refer to them at each point, but it will be convenient to indicate where English translations of them may be found. The Annals of Sargon, translated by M. Oppert, are given in Rec. of the Past, vol. vii., the inscription on his palace at Khorsabad, ibid., vol. ix., and other inscriptions of the same reign in vol. xi. The Koyunjik cylinder, chiefly relied upon by those who refer several prophecies of Isaiah to a supposed invasion and siege of Jerusalem by Sargon, is translated by George Smith, Eponym Canons p. 129 (Assyrian Discoveries, p. 289). It is, unhappily, in a very fragmentary condition. For the whole question of the relations of Judah with Sargon, as reflected in the prophecies of Isaiah, it is enough to refer to Mr. Cheyne's Prophecies of Isaiah, under chaps, i., X, XX,, but especially in his introduction to chaps, xxxvi.-xxxix., where the literature of the subject is fully cited. It will be seen in the text of this Lecture that I am unable to follow the conclusion which has recommended itself to Mr. Cheyne on the basis of suggestions by Dr. Hincks, Prof. Sayce, and other Assyriologists. Mr. Cheyne's commentary should he taken along with his article Isaiah, in the Encyc. Brit., ninth ed., vol. xiii. In regard to the bearing of the narrative of Kings on this question, the most satisfactory discussion is that of Wellhausen in his edition of Bleek's Einleitung (1878), p. 254 seq., and again in Encyc. Brit., vol. xiii. p. 414.

Note 2, p. 280. — Rafia is called Kafeh by Mr. Chester (Palestine Survey; Special Papers, p. 11), and Bir Refa in Baedeker's Handbook to Palestine, Route 11. The true Arabic name, however, is Rafah (Yukut, ii. 796; Istakhry and Mokaddasy soepius; Makrizy, Hitat wa-Athar, i. 189). Yakut places it eighteen miles from Gaza, at the termination of the sandy desert, with a great sycamore grove three miles on the Gaza side of it. It was, and still is, regarded as the frontier between Egypt and Syria (Istakhry, p. 45). The latest notice of the place is in the Archduke Ludwig Salvator's Caravan Route (Eng. Tr. 1881, p. 54), with a view of the columns that mark the site of an ancient temple.

Note 3, p. 287. — The difficulties of interpretation that encompass the book of Micah, and the very corrupt state of some parts of the text, are well known, and have received special attention from various critics since the publication of the Commentarius in Vaticinium Michae of Taco Roorda (1869). Notwithstanding the discussion by Stade in his Zeitschrift for 1881, I still think that chaps. i.-v. form a single well-connected book. The question of chaps, vi.-vii. does not belong to the subject of the present Lecture. At the same time, it will be seen in Note 5 that the text of Micah i.-v. has suffered from interpolation, and it is an open question whether, besides the passages there spoken of, ii. 12, 13 does not break the connection and at least require to be transposed. There is, however, nothing in the thought of these verses which is not perfectly congruous with chap, v., and Ewald's suggestion that they are inserted as a specimen of false prophecy is therefore untenable. The false prophets of Micah's time flattered the rulers and supported the status quo, while the verses in question give precisely Micah's idea of a rejuvenescence of the mass of the nation under Jehovah and Jehovah's king — a popular, not an aristocratic conception.

Note 4, p. 289. — In Micah ii. 8, and similarly in Isa. xxx. 33, the punctuation is not meant to be a variation of , but expresses a different exegetical tradition, in which the phrase is explained from " over against." In Isaiah both traditions (and so both pronunciations) are ancient, but that with probably more ancient (LXX., Aq., Sym., Theod., Syr.). The conflate rendering of the Targum expresses both. In Micah the weight of tradition is for (Aq., Hieron., Tgm., as against Sym. and perhaps LXX. j Syr. thinking of the root The variation can be traced down into the time of the pointed text; see Cod. Petrop., edited by Strack, where in each place a later hand has put for . The passage, then, is one in which there was an early divergence of tradition, and in which therefore we are thrown back on the consonantal text, which probably had originally no But the opposition of vers. 7, 8 is that of sharp contrast, which suggests that we should begin with a pronoun Combining this conjecture with Roorda's for the latter of which gives no good sense, and omitting one of the four consecutive mems ( for ) or reading for (which, though less likely, is certainly possible, Ols. §68, h), we get the sense, "But ye are to My people as a foe rising up against one that is at peace with him; ye strip off the cloak from them that pass by securely, averse from [not thinking of] war." For we probably should read , the final having disappeared in "that following, and the garment meant is probably the hairy mantle which, as worn by the prophets, was doubtless the garment of the simpler classes. Of interpretations retaining the present text the most ingenious is certainly that of Abulwalid (col. 764), who anticipates Roorda in taking as " against." The almost total neglect of this greatest of mediaeval Hebraists by expositors subsequent to Gesenius is much to be deplored.

Note 5, p. 290. — The words are rejected as a gloss by Noldeke in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon, iv. 214 (1872), and by Kuenen, Theol. Tijdsch., 1872, p. 291. Kuenen forcibly points out that a precisely similar gloss has been introduced by the LXX. in ver. 8. That the words are no part of the original context appears, I think, very clearly from the sense. To say that the daughter of Zion shall be delivered in Babylon from the hand of all her enemies gives no good sense. We can speak of deliverance from captivity, but not of deliverance in it. On the other hand, to say that the population of Zion shall be delivered in the field, i.e. in the open country, agrees, as is shown in the text of the Lecture, with the context and the general tenor of Micah's thought. The words "And thou shalt come unto Babylon " cannot, however, be the only interpolation in chap. iv., for the impossibility of reconciling vers. 11-13 with ver. 10 is plain. According to ver. 10 Zion shall be captured by the enemy, and this agrees with iii. 12. But in the following verses the besieging hosts of many nations are broken beneath the Avails of Jerusalem. The force of this difficulty has been recognised by most recent writers on the question, by Oort (Theol. Tijdsch., 1872, p. 507); Kuenen (ibid., 1872, p. 62 — in the later paper already cited he endeavours to meet the difficulty); Wellhausen (Bleek's Einl., 4th ed., p. 426); Stade (Z.f. AT. W., 1881, p. 167); and Steiner (ad k). The solutions proposed are various, but the simplest seems to be that of Oort, who treats vers. 11-13 as an interpolation. In accepting Oort's view thus far, I by no means agree with his general treatment of the passage, which, as Kuenen has remarked (l. c), has no necessary connection with the genuineness of the verses in question. Stade, who separates out the whole pericope, iv. 11- V. 4 (Heb., V. 3) as a separate propjecy, seems to me to miss the point of the prophet's thought.

Note 6, p. 291. — The sinfulness of these things is elsewhere emphasised by the prophets, inasmuch as they are earthly things which come between man and Jehovah (Isa. ii.). But the thought of Micah goes further than this. Hosea had taught that Judah shall not be delivered by horses and horsemen, but also not by weapons of human war (i. 7; ii. 1 8). Micah, though he looks forward to a reign of peace among the nations, thinks of Judah as delivered by the sword (v. 6). His objection to fortresses and horses is not an objection to war. Nor is it a mere objection to the misuse of these things. They are themselves out of place in restored Israel. This is parallel to Deut. xvii. 16, where the multiplication of horses is spoken of as a fault in the king. Horses and chariots were in fact in ancient times the counterpart of the standing armies and artillery of which free peoples in modern times have been naturally jealous as dangerous to liberty. And the maintenance of the royal establishment of horses was accompanied by oppressive exactions, as we see from 1 Kings xviii, 5, and the mention of the first grass crop as the "king's mowings " in Amos vii. 7.

Note 7, p. 297. — A few words may here be added on the special points in the prophecies assigned by Mr. Cheyne to the invasion of Sargon, which he lays stress on as hardly consistent with a reference to the wars of 701. On chap. i. the argument that there are no points of contact between this prophecy and those composed -with reference to Sennacherib's invasion is not valid if we distinguish in that campaign two periods, one before Hezekiah's submission, and another after the shameless breach of faith of which Sennacherib was guilty, in demanding the surrender of the fortress of Zion, after he had come to terms with Hezekiah. That the sketch of the moral and religious condition of Judah will not apply to Hezekiah's time is also an assumption based on the view that the reforms of that king preceded the repulse of Sennacherib, which is, at all events, very doubtful (see Lect. VIII.). In chap. xxii. "the severe tone of the prophecy" is again to be explained by referring it to the siege in the first part of the campaign, when Hezekiah made submission to Sennacherib, in chaps, xxix.-xxxii. Mr. Cheyne himself does not seem to reject the reference to Sennacherib, in spite of his remark at p. 155, that they "were evidently delivered at various stages of the Assyrian intervention under Sargon." See his notes on xxx. 29, 33.

Note 8, p. 298. — Several points of contact between Isa. x. xi. and Isa. xxviii. (x. 12: xxviii. 21; x. 23: xxviii. 22; x. 26: xxviii. 15, 18) have been pointed out by Ewald and Cheyne, and to these may be added x. 20: xxviii 15; xi. 2: xxviii. 6. In their whole conception, indeed, the two chapters are most closely allied, the essential points of difference being (a) that in the one Samaria has fallen, in the other is only about to fall; (b) that chap, xxviii. is mainly addressed to the godless rulers, while chaps. X. xi., in which very little reference is made to the sin of Judah, seem rather to be a word of comfort to the true remnant — primarily we may suppose to Isaiah's own circle. The thought that Judah and Assyria cannot long remain on terms appears already in xxviii. 20, and, taken with the lesson of the fall of Samaria, would easily lead to the thought of the decisive contest of chap. X., without the intervention of any actual war between Judah and Israel. Further, that chap. xi. was written at a considerably earlier date than the prophecies of the reign of Sennacherib seems probable from the prominence given in the former chapter to the new Davidic kingship, in that contrast to the old monarchy which disappears in later prophecies. The chief reason why many commentators feel themselves obliged to refer x. xi. to a time of actual war is the extraordinary vividness and detail of the description of the approach of the Assyrian through the pass of Michmash. We know, however, that Sennacherib's advance was not made by this road, which disposes at all events of the still not quite abandoned theory of a vaticinium ex eventu. Moreover, if Isaiah wrote this prophecy, as has also been supposed by some, when the Assyrian was already close at hand, he could not have chosen this route for his description, for it must have been plain from the beginning of the campaign that Sennacherib's plan was to advance by the sea-coast. In any case, therefore, the picture is an ideal one, and Isaiah gives it the most impressive form possible by depicting an advance from the North by way of Scopus. His thought is that from the conquered land of Samaria the Assyrian will move on against Jerusalem; his progress is southwards in steady course, and this determines the details.

Note 9, p. 307. — The first and last of the four names bestowed on the child of Isa. ix. 6 certainly do not imply anything that involves a transcendental personality. The king who is equipped as is described. in chap. xi. may well be called ''Wonderful Counsellor" (these words are to be united in a single idea as in , Gen. xvi. 12), and "Prince of Peace." The interpretation of the third name is disputed. It is sometimes taken to mean "Father of booty," but at all events the phrase "everlasting mountains" (Hab. iii. 6) shows that it has not the transcendental idea of eternity. The words in Hebrew which we render by eternity mean only a duration the commencement or completion of which lies in the mist of extreme remoteness, or is not contemplated by the speaker. ''God the mighty one," construed as an apposition, is a quite unique name, such appositional forms not occurring in pure Hebrew names of persons (Olshausen, Sprachlehrbuch, p. 613). If we rendered it "God is the mighty one," it would be parallel to such names as Elnaam, "God is graciousness;" Eliphelet or Elphelet, "God is deliverance;" Joah, "Jehovah is a brother." But, according to Hebrew idiom, a being in whom is God's name is one through which God manifests Himself to men, and so the prophet probably means this wondrous name to describe the manifestation of Jehovah's kingship through His human representative. It is through the New Testament that we learn that a complete and adequate manifestation of God to man can only be made through a God-man.

Note 10, p. 309. — The relation of these two passages has been so often and fully discussed that it is needless to go into it again. It seems to be quite clearly made out that Micah does not quote from Isaiah, but also there are no indications in the context that he quotes from any one at all, while the idea that the passage stands in Isaiah as the text for the remarks that follow is somewhat arbitrary and hardly borne out by the context. The opening words at Isa. ii. 2 show that the passage as it stands in Isaiah is divorced from its original connection, and it has just enough of apparent bearing on ii. 5 to make it possible that a copyist inserted it at that place.

Lecture VIII.

Note 1, p. 317. — The Assyrian inscriptions bearing on this revolt are given in G. Smith's posthumous History of Sennacherib, 1878; Eponym Canon, p. 131. See also Alexander Polyhistor, ap. Euseb., Chron., ed. Schoene, vol. i. p. 27; G. Syncellus (Bonn ed.), vol. i. p. 391. The Assyrians ruled Babylon by means of a vassal king, and so the two years "without a king" in the Canon given by Syncellus are those of Merodacha Baladan's revolt. His embassy to Judah can hardly fall later than 704.

Note 2, p. 319. — The title prefixed to this prophecy (xiv. 28) refers it to the year of Ahaz's death. In that case Ahaz must be the fallen oppressor of the Philistines, and Hezekiah the new and more terrible conqueror, and this view is supported by those who accept the title (e.g., Delitzsch, ad loc.) by reference to the victories of Hezekiah over the Philistines, 2 Kings xviii. 8. But in ver. 31 the destroying force is unquestionably the Assyrian, as Delitzsch himself admits, and thus the title breaks the unity of the oracle. If Hezekiah continued a dominion over the Philistines commenced in the reign of his father, both must have done so as agents of the Assyrian. There is no trace of this, and in any case such a supremacy could hardly have afforded the motive for our prophecy. It is possible that Hezekiah's operations in Philistia were connected with the rising against Sennacherib, when he seems to have been accepted as head of the Philistine revolt, and held Padi the Assyrian vassal-king of Ekron as n captive. Or more probably the reference in Kings is to operations undertaken after the defeat of Sennacherib to recover the districts which, as Ave learn from the monuments, Sennacherib in the first prosperous part of his expedition detached from Judah and handed over to the sovereigns of Ashdod, Ekron, and Gaza. Before the war with Sennacherib, at all events, it was with Assyria, not with Hezekiah, that the Philistines had to reckon, and it is to Assyria that the prophecy clearly points. The titles of prophecies have by no means the same authority as the text; they are often demonstrably incorrect and mere late conjectures. In the present case the conjecture may have been founded on the Rabbinical exegesis expressed, as Bochart has noticed, in the Targum, which makes the root of the serpent (Nahash) mean the stock of Jesse, according to the well-known identification of Jesse with the Nahash of 2 Sam. xvii. 25. If the prophecy refers to the death of an Assyrian monarch, it is Sargon, not Shalmaneser, who must naturally be thought of.

Note 3, p. 322. — The Altaku of the monuments (in the neighbourhood of Tamna or Timnath) is generally and plausibly identified with the Eltekeh of Josh. xix. 44; xxi. 23, of which nothing further is known, except that it lay like Timnath in Danite territory.

Note 4, p. 335.— It was, I think, a saying of Napoleon, that under a good government the Delta encroaches on the desert, while under a, bad government the desert encroaches on the Delta. Not only are the public works, the great canals, apt to fall into ruin under a bad government, but the peasantry, having no security for the enjoyment of the fruit of their labour, will not do their part. Thus every traveller by the overland route to India must have been struck with the small amount of cultivation along the banks of the great freshwater canal. The water was there, provided at the cost of many thousand lives, but there was not such confidence in the equity of Ismail Pasha as to encourage cultivators to risk their capital in improvements which might be rendered worthless in a moment by a rise in the water-rate or by the water being cut off. The real cure for the miseries of Egypt is still a government in which the people can have sufficient confidence to venture to help themselves, and to utilise the vast number of small hoards now lying buried in the earth or in holes in the walls of houses. It is not free institutions, but a just and firm administration that is beneficial to the East.

Note 5, p. 336. — On the discussion as to the authorship of Isa. xix. 16-25 see Cheyne's introduction to the chapter; Kuenen, Onderzoek, ii. 74. The passage may have been retouched, and at least the variants on the name of the city in ver. 18 (city of destruction, city of the sun, city of righteousness) may have something to do with the Onias temple at Leontopolis; but that an interpolation in favour of this sanctuary could have entered the Hebrew text, as Hitzig and Geiger suppose, is hardly possible. And the allusion to the consecrated macceba, ver. 19, is quite inconsistent with a date subsequent to the reformation of Josiah and the acceptance of the Deuteronomic law of worship.

Note 6, p, 345. — The variety of opinion as to the history of the relations of Assyria to Judah, to which reference has been made in the notes on last Lecture, is nowhere more remarkable than in the accounts given by different historians and expositors of Sennacherib's campaign in Judah. The opinion which distinguishes two invasions under Sargon and Sennacherib respectively has been already discussed and rejected. On the other hand, the theory of Professor Rawlinson that Sennacherib was twice in Judaea (e.g. 701, and again B.C. 699), that Hezekiah's surrender and tribute belong to the first occasion and the great deliverance to the second (Ancient Monarchies, ii. 165), has no basis whatever except pure conjecture. Sennacherib seems to have been in quite a different quarter in the latter year (Smith, History of Sennacherib, p. 87). It is therefore necessary to place both the surrender and the deliverance of Jerusalem, as recorded in Kings, in the campaign of 701. The first part of the campaign, in which the Assyrians were victorious, is described in Kings exactly as on the monuments (see Encyc. Brit., xiii. 414). That .Sennacherib does not relate the calamity which subsequently befell his host and compelled him to retire is quite what we should expect from the exclusively boastful style of the Assyrian monuments, and his record is manifestly imperfect, for it does not tell how Sennacherib settled matters with Tirhakah or mention the conclusion of peace with him. Further, the immediate outbreak of a fresh rebellion in Babylon and the fact that Sennacherib did not again appear to make war on Egypt are clear proofs that his retreat was inglorious, in spite of the spoil he carried home from Judah. But it is arbitrary in Schrader and Duncker to suppose that the battle of Eltekeh was really the last event in the campaign, and was a virtual defeat. That battle was merely due to an attempt to raise the siege of Ekron, and the operations farther south at Libnah and Lachish must have occurred subsequently. It is plain, too, from the Egyptian tradition given in Herodotus that the Egyptians had a knowledge of the campaign and defeat of the Assyrians, but did not ascribe it to their own prowess. It is very probable that the mice which figure in the legend in Herodotus are a symbol of pestilence (Hitzig, Gesch. d. V. Israel, p. 125, 222; Urgeschichte der Philistaer, p. 201; Wellhausen on 1 Sam. vi. 4), in which case the Egyptian mythus points to the true account as given in the Bible.

Note 7, p. 345. — The first chapter of Isaiah must have been written at this time. It cannot well belong to the Syro-Ephraitic war, which, when the theory of invasion under Sargon is rejected, is the only other date that comes into consideration; for then the distress had not reached such a pitch as Isaiah describes. The points of contact with the contemporary chap. xxii. are manifest. The wicked rulers of chap. i. are the associates of Shebna in chap. xxii. Even the many sacrifices of i. 11 seq. reappear at xxii. 13, for at that time feast and sacrifice were identical; and the comparison of the two texts throws an instructive light on the popular worship as it displayed itself among Isaiah's opponents. The reading which I have adopted in i. 7 is that of Ewald, Lagarde, Cheyne, and others.

Note 8, p. 350. — Rabshakeh's attempt to gain the populace to his side was perhaps suggested by the course of the previous siege when, as Sennacherib relates, the garrison of Jerusalem "inclined to submission" (Smith, Sennacherib, p. 63; Duncker, ii. 365).

Note 9, p, 351. — I here follow the brilliant correction of Wellhausen (Bleek's Einleitung, p. 257), which has found general acceptance.

Note 10, p. 352. — I cannot see that the Bible narrative, as Mr. Cheyne supposes, implies that the calamity attacked a part of Sennacherib's army lying before Jerusalem, It seems to have been the main body of the host that suffered, presumably on the borders of Egypt, as we learn from the monuments that Sennacherib took Lachish, from the siege of which he sent his last summons to Hezekiah.

Note 11, p. 363. — The idea of the one sanctuary, the place chosen by Jehovah out of all the tribes of Israel to put His name there, and at which alone Israel's homage can be acceptably offered, is formulated in the book of Deuteronomy — especially in chap. xii. — and is presupposed in the Priestly Legislation. In the latter it appears as a, fixed idea, traditionally established, and no longer requiring explanation or justification. Indeed, it is hardly too much to say that the fundamental idea of the Priestly Legislation is not the unity of the sanctuary but the prerogative of the Aaronic priesthood and ritual. The sanctuary at which these are found is the only true sanctuary, because only at it can Jehovah be approached through the mediators, and under the ceremonial forms, apart from which He, is either altogether inaccessible, or manifests Himself only in wrath. Of this point of view there is absolutely no trace in the history before the Exile; it appears exclusively in the priestly parts of the Hexateuch and in the Chronicles, and this is one of the most notable general facts which combine with a multitude of special arguments to establish the post- Exile date of the Priestly Legislation. For nothing is historically more certain than that the doctrine of the exclusive privilege of the priesthood of Aaron, in the sense of the Priestly Legislation, did not yet exist at the time when Josiah brought up the priests of the high places to Jerusalem and nourished them on the unleavened bread of the sanctuary along with their "brethren" of the house of Zadok, or even at the time of Ezekiel, to whom the privilege of the Zadokites is still a law for the future, not a fixed religious principle of the past. In the book of Deuteronomy, on the other hand, the unity of the sanctuary stands by itself, and rests on argument derived from the prophets of the eighth century. To the Deuteronomist, as to the prophets, it appears as an essential of true religion to maintain the separation between the worship of Israel and the worship of the Canaanite holy places. Jehovah is to be worshipped in a single sanctuary of His own choosing, in order that His service may be kept free from heathenish elements. In this argument the question of the hierarchy has no place: the law of Deuteronomy is a solution of the problem, which became practical after the victory of Isaiah, how the national worship can be reorganised so as to answer the conditions of sacrificial cultus, while yet excluding all danger of Canaanite influence. The lines in which the solution is sought are not, however, explicitly suggested either by Isaiah or Micah, neither of whom draws an express contrast between the legitimate altar and the provincial holy places. Between the prophetic condemnation of the popular worship and the Deuteronomic plan of worship centralised in one sanctuary a link is wanting, and that link is found in the shape assumed by Hezekiah's reforms under the special conditions of the land at the time when the provincial sanctuaries i had been destroyed by Sennacherib. Hezekiah's reforms were not permanent because they were largely guided by temporary circumstances. The Deuteronomic code endeavours to develop an adequate and permanent scheme for the whole worship of Israel, in which the principle of centralisation is carried out in all its consequences, and adapted to every requirement of social life. See the argument for this in detail, O. T. in J. Ch., Lect. xii.

Here, however, the question arises, how far the religious pre-eminence which was thus accorded to Zion corresponded with tendencies already at work before the catastrophe of Sennacherib, and which might have ultimately produced the same result even in other circumstances. We have first to consider the attitude taken up towards Zion by the prophets. According to Amos i. 2, Jehovah roars from Zion and sends forth His voice from Jerusalem. Zion, therefore, to this Judaean prophet is already the centre of Jehovah's self-manifestation. But the prophetic doctrine of Jehovah's manifestation in judgment has nothing to do with His appearance to His people in their acts of worship. To Amos the organs of Jehovah's intercourse with His people are not the priests, but the prophets and Nazarites (ii. 12). Jehovah's relation to "His people Israel" is that of the supreme judge: not the temple but the tent of David occupies the central place in his picture of restoration; the future glory of Jerusalem consists in its restoration to the position of a great capital, the centre of a dominion embracing the vassal nations, "over whom Jehovah's name was called" in the days of David. The last expression shows most clearly how little the idea of worship at the sanctuary of Jerusalem has to do with Amos's notion of the religious importance of Zion; the subjects of the house of David are, as such, subjects of Jehovah. We shall not err, then, if we say that to Amos Zion is the seat of divine manifestation because it is the seat of the Davidic king- dom. Precisely in the same way the tent of David appears in a position of central importance in the old prophecy, Isa. xvi. It is in this relation also that Zion holds a central place in the ideal of Isaiah and Micah. Jehovah manifests Himself on Zion, not at the altar but on the throne of judgment. And so in Isa. xix. the conversion of Egypt is followed by the worship of Jehovah, not at the altar of Jerusalem, but within the land of Egypt itself. The tributary homage of Tyre and Ethiopia (Isa. xviii. 7; xxiii. 1 8) is paid to the capital of Jehovah's kingdom, and enriches the inhabitants of Jerusalem, not the priests. Had the priests been meant in Isa. xxiii. 18, the prophet would have said, "them that stand before Jehovah." At the same time it is obvious that the temple had necessarily a great preeminence over all other holy places because it was the royal, and so in a sense the national, sanctuary. This comes out most clearly in the old war-hymn for a king of Judah, Ps. xx. Another point which doubtless had great weight with the masses was the presence of the ark in Zion. That the ark was the token of Jehovah's presence was the ancient belief of Israel, and appears in a striking way in 2 Sam. xv. 25. On the old view the ark was the sanctuary of the armies of Israel, which led them to battle, and the words of David in the passage just cited are noteworthy as forming in a certain sense the transition from this view to that embodied in Solomon's temple, that Jehovah has now taken up His permanent dwelling-place in the seat of kingship. In this there lies a real step towards religious centralisation — only, we know that no inference was practically drawn from it for the abolition or limitation of local worship. All that is historically certain is that the autumn feast at Jerusalem, and perhaps the passover there, became great pilgrimage feasts. In this sense Isaiah himself seems to recognise Jerusalem as the religious centre of the land (xxx. 29; xxxiii. 20), and here we must, no doubt, seek another practical facilitation of the centralisation of worship. But the prophets lay no weight on the ark as the central point of Jerusalem's holiness. To Isaiah the whole mountain land of Israel, but especially the whole plateau of Zion, is holy (xi. 9; iv. 5). The code, as distinguished from the framework, of Deuteronomy never mentions the ark; according to Jeremiah the ark of the covenant of Jehovah is a thing of no consequence. In the days of Israel's repentance it shall not be sought for or repaired, but "Jerusalem shall be called Jehovah's throne" (iii. 1 7). Thus it is still as the scat of Jehovah's kingship that Jerusalem has central religious importance; the political not the priestly ideal is that which prevails among all the prophets before Ezekiel.

Note 12, p. 364. — Ashtoreth, Moloch or Milcom, and Chemosh, in whose worship similar elements prevailed with those of Moloch worship (2 Kings iii. 27), and who was also associated with Ashtoreth, as we learn from the compound Ashtar-Kemosh of the stone of Mesha, are the deities mentioned in connection with these sanctuaries in 1 Kings xi., 2 Kings xxiii. 13. And in the time from Manasseh onwards, Moloch-worship and worship of the "queen of heaven" appear as prominent new features of Judah's idolatry. It is also probable that the local high places took on their restoration a more markedly heathenish character than before. Isaiah and Micah do not speak in detail of Canaanite abominations in Judah, such as are mentioned for Ephraim in Amos and Hosea, while the book of Deuteronomy regards the high places as purely Canaanitish. This is very natural, for Sennacherib's invasion must have led captive a larger proportion of the higher than of the lower classes, and the latter, no doubt, were more mixed with Canaanite elements, the Israelites having long been a sort of aristocracy in the land (Horim, or freemen). Compare Jer. v. 4. Note 13, p. 365. — Ewald is doubtless right in assigning these chapters to the reign of Manasseh. The times are worse than those of Micah i.-v., but the religion of Judah has lost its old naive, joyful character. Without any true sense of sin, there is a strong sense of Jehovah's displeasure, a, readiness to make any sacrifice — even that of the firstborn son — to appease His wrath. Then, too, the statutes of the house of Omri are kept (vi. 16). These are precisely the notes of the reign of Manasseh as described in Kings. One correction, however, must be made on Ewald's view. Wellhausen's argument that the prophecy breaks off abruptly at vii. 6, and that the following verses are "written from the standpoint of Babylonian exile (Bleek's Einl., p. 425 seq.) will, I think, when carefully weighed, be found to be conclusive. The enemy of vii. 10 cannot be the heathenish party in Judah; the restoration looked forward to is not a turn of affairs in a still existing kingdom of Judah, but the recall of the nation from banishment in Egypt and Assyria. The situation is no longer, as in the previous prophecy, one of prevailing national sin, the judgment on which cannot long be delayed, but a situation of present calamity and darkness, the punishment of past sins which are acknowledged by a penitent nation.



1. It will not do to get over this argument by supposing that the fourth year of Jehoiakim was reckoned from autumn, and that thus, if the battle of Carchemish fell in late autumn, part of that year on the Judaean reckoning might still coincide with Nebuchadnezzar's first year reckoned from the following Easter. For the ninth month of Jeremiah's calendar is a winter month, Jer. xxxvi. 9, 22, showing that he reckons by Babylonian years, beginning in spring. To suppose that Jeremiah habitually mixed up two calendars is altogether out of the question. Besides, it is highly improbable that the encounter of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar on the Euphrates took place in late autumn, as the river can be forded in summer.
Site Admin
Posts: 28781
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Postby admin » Sun Oct 25, 2015 10:05 pm


Adonis, 201 ; gardens of, 273.

Ahab, 48, 76 seq.

Ahaz, 200, 239; alliance with Assyria, 250 seq.; his idolatrous buildings, 251 ; refuses to hear Isaiah, 266.

Allegorical interpretation of prophecy, 339.

Amaziah, priest of Bethel, 101, 123 seq. ; king of Judah, 194.

Amorites, 26.

Amos of Tekoah, 120 ; at Bethel, 122 seq.; his style, 125 seq.; his range of knowledge, 127 seq.; prophecy of Assyrian conquest, 129 seq. ; his doctrine of Jehovah, 132 seq.; prophecies against foreign nations, 134 ; against Israel, 135 seq. ; duty of Israel, 138 ; sins of Israel, 139 ; eschatology, 142, 186; contrasted with Hosea, 160 seq., 163, 187; influence on Isaiah, 209 ; does not condemn the calf-worship, 175 seq.; commentaries on, 394 ; supposed interpolations in, 398 seq.; Amos v. 26 discussed, 399 seq.

Aramaeans, 23 seq. Ark and its sanctuary, 36 seq., 437.

Ashdod, 280; Isaiah's prophecy against, 281.

Ashera (sacred pole), 96, 292, 362.

Ashtoreth, 26, 172.

Assyria, war with Damascus, 91 ; in the book of Amos, 130 ; relations to Judah, 194 seq., 250 seq., 294 seq., 321 seq., 366.

Assyrian inscriptions, 19, 376 seq.; chronology, 150.

Baal, 26, 38 ; Tyrian Baal (Melkarth), 48, 52 seq., 76 ; prophets of, 57, 391 ; Dionysiac worship of, 84, 140; Land of, 172; Baal=husband, 171.

Ba'l and 'Athariy, 172, 409.

Byblus or Gebal, 51.

Calves, golden, symbols of Jehovah, 175 seq.

Canaanites, 24, 26 ; relations to Israel, 30 seq. ; in Jerusalem 204.

Carchemish, 23, 377 seq.

Cheyne, Mr., on the prophecies of the reign of Sargon, 295 seq.

Chronology of the Hebrew kingdoms, 145 seq., 402, 413 seq.

Church, birth of the idea of, 275.

Damascus, wars with Israel, 90 seq., 131 ; with Assyria, 91, 130.

Davidic kingship, 45 seq.; in the prophecy of Amos, 137, 186 j in Hosea 185 seq.; in Isaiah, 301, 309 seq., in Micah, 291.

Day of Jehovah, 131 seq., 396.

Deuteronomic law influenced by Micah, 293 ; relation to Hezekiah's reformation, 363 seq.

Development of revelation, 3 seq.

"Dogs," 391.

Ecclesiastical tradition, 5.

Edom, 28 seq., 135, 192, 203, 322.

Egypt, 22 ; united to the throne of Ethiopia, 279 ; its part in Hebrew politics, 280 seq., 294 seq., 319, 321 seq., 349.

Ekron, siege of, by Sennacherib, 322.

Elath, 203, 215, 238, 250.

Eliakim, 307, 346 seq.

Elijah, 76 seq.

Elijah and. Elisha, history of, 116.

Elisha, 85, 87, 131, 208.

Eltekeh (Altaku), battle of, 322.

Ephod (plated image), 98.

Eponym Canon, 150.

Feasts, religions, 38, 383 seq.

Federal theology, 375.

Fir-trees, 411.

Forty as round number, 148, 403.

Future state, doctrine of, 63 seq.

Geographical knowledge of the Hebrews, 21 seq.; of Amos, 127 seq.

Gomer bath Diblaim, 179 seq.

Hesed (pietas) explained, 160 seq., 406.

Hezekiah, his early years, 287 seq. ; receives ambassadors of Merodach Baladan, 318 ; intrigues with Egypt, 321 ; attacked by Sennacherib, 345; surrenders, 347 ; encouraged to resist by Isaiah, 350; his weak character, 347 ; his reformation, 359 seq.

Hierodouloi, 228.

High places, abolition of, 362 seq.

Historical books of O. T., 109, 114 seq.

Hittites, 23, 377 seq.

Holiness, conception of, 224, 422; as developed by Isaiah, 225 seq. ; of the land of Israel, 228 seq. ; symbolism of fire and water, 232.

Hosea, date of, 144, 155 ; belonged to Northern Kingdom, 154; attitude to the priests, 113, 156; isolation of, 157 ; his prophecy of judgment, 158; his doctrine of Jehovah's love, 159 seq.; of His covenant, 161; Fatherhoood of Jehovah, 167 seq.; treats Ephraim as a moral individual, 165, 190 ; his references to past history, 165 ; contrasted with Amos, 160, 163, 186 ; his allegory of son- ship and marriage, 167 seq.; his attitude to the golden calves, 175 seq.; his personal history, 179 seq.; his condemnation of the revolution of Jehu, 183 seq.; restoration of Davidic monarchy, 185 ; his eschatology, 187 seq.; title of his prophecy, 404.

Hosea iv., 4 seq., 405 ; chap. vii. 5, 410 ; chap. xiv. 8, 411.

Hoshea, king of Samaria, 152, 279.

Image -worship, 175 seq. ; 240.

Immanuel (God with us), 270, 271 seq.

Inscriptions: Moabite (Mesha), 50, 382 ; Phoenician (Gebal), 51, (Sidon) 64, (Marseilles) 56 ; of Siloam, 236.

Isaiah, 205 seq.; his Influence, 206 seq., 320, 350 ; compared with Elisha, 208 ; with Amos and Hosea, 209 seq., 229 seq., 254 seq.; with Jeremiah, 259 seq.; with Micah, 289 seq.; order of his book, 210 ; critical questions, 213 seq.; periods of his ministry, 214 ; inaugural vision, 217 seq.; doctrine of Jehovah's holiness, 224 seq.; his lips purged, 230 seq.; doctrine of the remnant, 209, 234, 258 ; use of writing as a vehicle of teaching, 235 seq.; his first prophetic book, 236 seq.; condemnation of the unrighteous nobles, 241, 283 seq., 346 ; doctrine of Jehovah's kingly righteousness, 226, 245 ; earliest eschatological ideal, 248 ; first appearance as a practical politician, 254 ; doctrine of inviolability of Jerusalem, 258 seq. ; opposition to Assyrian alliance, 265 seq. ; his interpretation of the Assyrian advance, 269 seq.; "God with us," 270 seq.; formation of a prophetic party, 207 seq., 274 ; Messianic teaching, 276 seq., 301 seq.; prophecy against Ashdod, 281 ; prophecies on the eve of Samaria's fall, 282 seq.; argument from husbandry, 285 ; picture of the career and fall of Assyria, 297 seq.; his definition of miracle, 315 ; prophecy upon the death of Sargon, 319 ; prophecies under Sennacherib, 322 seq.; universalism, 331 seq. ; conversion of Ethiopia, 332; of Tyre, 334; of Egypt and Assyria, 335 seq.; prophecies during the invasion of Judah, 345 seq,; against Shebna, 346; encourages Hezekiah, 350 seq.; his great victory, 352 seq.; last words of Isaiah, 354 seq.

Isaiah i., 215, 345 ; ii.-v., 215, 236 seq.; vi., 217 seq.; vii. 1-ix. 7, 258 seq.; ix. 8-x. 4, 215, 238 ; x. 5-xi. 16, 297 seq.; xiv. 24-27, 300 ; xiv. 29 seq.^ 319; xv. xvi., 92; xvii., 273, 331; xviii., 331 seq.; xix., 333, 335 ; xx., 281 ; xxi. 1-10, 420; xxi. 13 seq., 333 ; xxii., 346 seq.; xxiii,, 333 seq.; xxviii., 282 seq.; xxix. - xxxii., 307, 314, 322 seq. ; xxxiii., 354 seq.; xxxvii., 351 seq.

Israel in Egypt, 29 ; in Canaan, 30 seq.; early religion, 32 seq.; consolidated into a kingdom, 45, 47 ; division of the kingdom, 48 ; tribal organisation, 93 ; ancient life, 94 ; social decay, 88, 95 seq.; early ideal of, as a warlike kingdom victorious in Jehovah, 119; Israel Jehovah's spouse, 170 seq.; unfaithfulness of, 176 seq.

Jehovah (Iahwe) God of Israel, 20, 32 seq.; Syncretism with Baal, 38, 173 ; God of the armies of Israel (Iahwe Cebaoth), 39, 42, 62, 76, 131 ; His attributes, 62 ; God of righteousness, 71 seq., 245 seq. ; a jealous God, 79, 119 ; His love to Israel, 159 seq.; His covenant, 161 ; holiness of, 224 seq.; the Holy One of Israel, 227 ; Jehovah and the idols, 240 ; His spirit, 304 ; meaning of the name, 385 seq.

Jehoshaphat, 112.

Jehu, house of, 88, 95, 183 seq.

Jeroboam II., 89, 92 seq.

Jirbas, 377.

Jonadab the Rechabite, 84.

Judah, foreign elements in, 28, 201 ; history of, after the schism, 191 seq.; inferiority to Ephraim, 192 seq.; in Blessing of Moses, 118; suffers from Hazael, 193 ; relations to Assyria, 194 seq.; character of the Judaean monarchy, 196 seq.; religious condition, 199 seq.; prosperity under Uzziah, 203 seq.; social disintegration. 204 seq.; sins of the nobles, 241, 287 seq.; under Hezekiah, 294 seq., 318 seq.

Kenites, 29.

Manasseh, reaction under, 206, 365.

Marriage, religious symbolism of, 171 seq.

Menahem, 151 seq.

Merodach Baladan, 281, 317 seq.

Messiah, 302 seq.

Micah, 287 seq.; prophecy against Samaria, 288 ; description of the sins of Judah, 288 seq.; the wrongs of the peasantry, 289 ; democratic character of his prophecy, 290 ; fall of Jerusalem, 291 ; the new David, 291 ; great influence of Micah, 292 seq., 363 ; interpolations in Micah, 427 seq.

Micah ii. 8 emended, 427; Micah vi. vii., 365, 372, 439.

Miracle, 315.

Moab, 24, 28 ; religion of, 50 ; wars with Northern Israel, 75 ; subdued by Jeroboam II., 91 ; ancient prophecy against (Isa. xv. xvi), 92 seq.; in the prophecy of Amos, 135 ; In Assyrian period, 294, 322.

Monotheism, 54, 59 seq., 225 seq.

Moresheth Gath, 287.

Moses, 32 seq.; his work, 35 seq.; as judge or lawgiver, 110 seq.; Blessing of (Dent, xxxiii.), 49, 117 seq.

Naboth, murder of, 77, 87.

Nazarites, 84, 137 seq., 437.

Omri, house of, 75 seq., 95.

Palestine, physical features of, 24 seq.; inhabitants, 26, 28 ; conquest by Hebrews, 29 seq.

Patriarchs, history of, 116, 166.

Pekah, 152, 194, 250.

Pentateuch contains strata of very different dates, 108 seq. ; oldest laws, 113 seq.

Philistines, 45, 134, 137 ; wars with Judah, 192, 239 ; with Assyria, 279 seq., 294, 318, 322.

Phoeniciaus, 22, 25 seq.; their religion, 26 seq.; influence of their art in the Temple, 56, 385.

Priests of the northern sanctuaries, 98, 100 ; corruption of in eighth century, 101.

Prophetic party of Isaiah, 207 seq., 274, 320 ; its victory, 348 seq.; its decadence, 370 ; prophetic prediction, interpretation of, 268, 336 seq.

Prophets, their work, 69 seq. ; Rabbinical conception of, 83 ; sons of (prophetic guilds), 85 seq.; contrasted with diviners, 219 seq., the name nabi, 389 seq.

Psalm xlvi., 352.

Raphia, 280, 426.

Religion, the subject of, in O. T., is the nation of Israel, 20 ; religion and morality, 72 seq.; chief merit of the popular Hebrew religion, 312 ; true and false religion, 273.

Remnant, prophetic doctrine of, 106 seq., 209, 234, 258.

Rephaim (shades), 64.

Revelation, development of, 3 seq.; objections to doctrine of special revelation in Israel, 9 seq.; answer to these objections, 11 seq.; evidence of the truth of the Bible revelation, 16.

Righteousness, 71 seq., 245, 388.

Sabbath, 384.

Samaria, Ashera in, 140 ; siege of, 151, 403 ; vassal kingdom in, 153.

Samaritans, 153.

Sanctuaries, local, 37, 43 ; their ritual and priesthood, 97 seq. ; places of judgment, 100 seq. : in Judah, 199 seq.; abolished, 362.

Sargon, king of Assyria, 279 seq., 294 seq.; his death 317.

Saul, 45, 381, 391, 393. Sebech or So, 279 seq. Semitic races, 22 ; their religion, 50 seq. ; characteristics of their literature, 126.

Sennacherib, 297, 317 seq., 345 seq.

Seraphim, 218.

Shechem, 31, 99, 118.

Siu, early Hebrew conception of, 102 seq.; in Isaiah, 246 seq.

Sinai, seat of Jehovah, 34, 39 ; legislation at, 111.

So, king of Egypt, 279.

Solomon, heathen shrines of, 76, 111, 202, 364 ; despotism of, 95, 198.

Sonship, doctrine of, in Old Testament, 20, 167 seq.

Spirit, 60 seq.; of Jehovah, 304 seq.

Supernatural, prophetic view of the, 310 seq.

Sycamore, 395.

Syria or Aram, 22 seq. ; wars with Israel, 88, 90 seq. See Damascus.

Tekoa, 120, 394.

Teraphim, 33, 98.

Theocracy, 51 seq. ; origin of the name, 52 ; among heathen Semites, 52 seq.

Tirhakah, 322, 349.

Tithes, 53, 382 seq.

Tyre, Isaiah's prophecy concerning, 333, 334.

Uriah, the friend of Isaiah, 207.

Urim and Thummim, 100.

Uzziah, 194, 203 seq.

Vision, prophetic, 219 seq.

Wine, 388.

Zechariah ix.-xiv., 412.


Second Edition, 8vo, price 7s. 6d.
And Other Sermons.

In crown 8vo, Ninth Edition, price 7s. 6d.
And Other Sermons.

In foolscap 8vo, cloth, price is. 6d.

In crown 8vo, price is. 6d., Third Edition.
And Other Meditations.

In foolscap 8vo, price 3s. Qd.



Third Edition, crown 8vo, cloth, New Edition, price 7s. Gd.

In crown 8vo, Second Edition, price 6s.
With Biographical Sketch.

Crown 8vo, price 8s. 6d.
A Series of Discourses,

In crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d.
OR, The Two Great Commandments,
Being an Exposition of the 12th Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.

In crown 8vo, price 3s. 6d.

In crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d.
And Other Kindred Subjects.

In crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.

In foolscap 8vo, New Edition (the 4th), carefully Revised, price 5s. 6d.
Being Discourses on the Resurrection.

Fourth Edition, crown 8vo, price 5s. 6d.

Fifth Edition, with a Supplementary Volume, crown 8vo, price 10s. 6d.
The Cunningham Lectures for 1864.

Crown 8vo, 1867.



In demy 8vo, cloth, price 10s. 6d.
As Contrasted with its Earlier and Later History,
Principal and Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics in the
United Presbyterian College.


Lecture I. — Unbelief of the First Four Centuries.
Lecture II. — Unbelief in the Seventeenth Century.
Lecture III. — Unbelief in the Eighteenth Century — English
Lecture IV. — Unbelief in France — The Encyclopedists.
Lecture V. — Unbelief in Germany — Rationalism.
Lecture VI. — Unbelief in the Nineteenth Century — Strauss —
Renan — Mill.


Note A. — The Eighteenth Century as one of Progress.
Note B. — Dutch Edition of Grotius's De Veritate.
Note C. — Herbert's Notitiae Communes.
Note D. — Did Bayle formally reject Christianity ?
Note E. — Woolston's Imprisonment and Death.
Note F. — "Warburton's "Divine Legation of Moses."
Note G. — Relation of Rousseau to Christianity.
Note H. — Doctrinal Creed of Eichhorn.
Note I. — The alleged Pantheism of Lessing.
Note K. — A Critical Theory of the Gospels necessary to a Life of Christ.
Note L. — The Quarrel of Strauss with Rationalism.
Note M. — John Stuart Mill's last word on the Character of Christ.
Note N. — Dr. Baur's Sketch of Pauline Justification.

Site Admin
Posts: 28781
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Ancien Regime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests