its origin to some period after the death of Joshua must be still further qualified for in the next verse of the same chapter we read as follows:

CHAP. xxiv, v. 31. And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that over-lived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel.

How could Joshua write that Israel served the Lord a long time after he was dead, nay-after all those who outlived him were dead also? If some later writer, as Samuel or Ezra, inserted all these additions to the original work of Joshua, he would certainly have not done so in a clandestine or covert manner, but with a note attached, that "so far is the work of Joshua, and the continuation is by a later hand." Even the monkish chroniclers have displayed this species of common honesty for we always, or nearly always, find a mark attached to those passages which begin the writing of a new author-"Hactenus dominus Radulfus scripsit Chronica &c." or Explicit dominus Rogerus, incipit dominus Matthæus. &c." Even the supposition of these additions made by later writers, goes far towards a concession of the fact which I would establish; namely, that we have not the Hebrew writings in their original state, but that they are a compilation, put together after the nation had returned, with fresh lights and a fresh intellectual impetus, from Babylon.

66

CHAPTER 15.

THE BOOK OF JUDGES SIMILARLY EXAMINED.

The editor of the Pictorial Bible gives an account of this book, which contains many remarkable observations : I therefore copy it without abridgment:

The name of this book is taken from the title of the functionaries whose actions and administration it principally relates. This name is , shophetim, plural of V, shophet, a judge. This word designates the ordinary magistrates, properly called judges; and is here also applied to the chief rulers, perhaps because ruling and judging are so intimately connected in the east, that sitting in judgment is one of the principal employments of an oriental monarch (see Gesenius in D.)

It is remarkable that the Carthaginians who were descended from the Tyrians and spoke Hebrew, called their chief magistrates by the same name: but the Latins, who had no such sh, as the Hebrews and Carthaginians had, and as we and the Germans have, wrote the word with a sharp s, and, adding a Latin termination, denominated them Suffetes. These functionaries are compared to the Roman consuls, and appear in office as well as name, to have borne considerable resemblance to the Hebrew shophetim, "judges." For some observations on the Hebrew "judges," and the nature of their administration, see the note on chap. ii, 16.

The book is easily divisible into two parts; one ending with chap. xvi, contains the history of the Judges, from Othniel to Samson; and the other, which occupies the rest of the book, forms a sort of appendix, relating particular transactions, which, not to interrupt the regular history, the author seems to have reserved for the end. If these transaction had been placed in order of time, we should probably have found them in a much earlier portion of the work, as the incidents related seem to have occurred not long after the death of Josh 1a.

The author of the book is unknown. Some ascribe it to Samuel, some to Hezekiah, and others to Ezra. The reason which has principally influenced the last determination of the authorship is found in chap. xviii, 30: "He and his son were priests to the tribe of Dan until

"

the day of the captivity of the land." But this may have referred to the captivity of the ark among the Philistines, or to some particular captivity of the tribe of Dan, or rather of that part of the tribe settled in the north; or the reference may have been to both circumstances. It is also possible that the clause, " until the day of the aaptivity of the land," may actually have been added after the captivity. That the book itself was not then written is evident from the absence of Chaldee words, which so often occur in the books which we know to have been posterior to that event. Most of the Jewish and Christian commentators assign the authorship to Samuel; probably because internal evidence places it pretty clearly about his time, and in his time he is the most likely person to whom the authorship could be attributed. That it was written after the establishment of the monarchical government, appears from the habit which the author has of saying that the event he is relating happened in the time when "there was no king in Israel; which renders it evident that there was a king when he wrote. But that it was written very soon after the establishment of kingly government is no less clear from other passages. Thus we see, from chap. i, 21, that the Jebusites were still in Jerusalem in the time of the author; but this ceased to be the case in the time of David, by whom they were expelled from that city. (2 Sam. v, 6). So also, in 2 Sam. vi, 21, there is a distinct and precise reference to a fact recorded in Judges ix, 53, which seems another proof that this book was written before the second book of Samuel: but this does not appear to be of a conclusive nature; as the fact may have been known to David, even had the book of Judges not been then written. Upon the whole, there is little question that the book was composed, in its present form, either in the reign of Saul, or during the first seven years of the reign of David: and this renders it more probable that it was compiled, from the public registers and records, by Samuel, than by any of the other prophets, priests or kings, to whom it is assigned.*

The chronology of this book is attended with much difficulty, and is stated by various chronologers with very serious difference. This chiefly arises from the period of servitudes, being by some counted as

* The uncertainty which attends this question, is admitted by all writers. It is unknown by whom the book of the Judges was composed, although most probably by different persons at different times; as it appears to be a collection of detached pieces of history, in which the chronological order is not strictly observed, and in some places is not easy to adjust. These accounts relate to a period extremely tumultuous and troublesome; a period of barbarism ignorance and anarshy; in which the Israelites, almost continually harassed by intestine commotions, oppressed by foreign enemies or employed in repelling their aggressions, had little leisure to attend to the accuracy of their national annals. BIGLAND'S LETTERS ON HISTORY, page 75-76.

part of the years of the judges, while others count them separately; and also from judges being thought by some to have been successive, whom others consider to have been contemporary in different parts of Palestine. There are some also, who prolong the account by supposing several anarchies or interregnums, the duration of which the history does not mention. The result of Dr Hales's elaborate investigations gives 498 years (B. C. 1608 to B. C. 1110) from the passage of the Jordan to the election of Saul; and 400 years (B. C. 1582 to 1182) from the death of Joshua to the death of Samson, which is the period more peculiarly comprehended in the present book. The period is, however, frequently stated as little exceeding 300 years.

It may be gathered from this extract that those who assign an early date to this book, are obliged to admit that it could not at all events have been written earlier than the reign of Saul or David, that is 300, or 400, and according to Dr Hales, nearly 500 years after the passage of the river Jordan. I shall proceed to enumerate the passages found in the book itself, which give evidence of a late origin; among these are those texts which have led writers to limit its composition as not later, at all events, than the reign of David, but which may be shewn by no means to warrant such an inference.

CHAP. i, 21. And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.

The Jebusites were certainly reduced to submission by David, but not driven out: they still dwelt in the land with the Israelites: the words 'unto this day' may therefore apply to the time after the Captivity. See See pp. 127-128.

CHAP. i, 26. And the man went into the land of the Hittites, and built a city, and called the name thereof Luz: which is the name thereof unto this day.

CHAP. xvii, 6. In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

CHAP. Xviii, i. ln those days there was no king in Israel and in

:

those days the tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance to dwell in; for unto that day all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel.

CHAP. Xviii, 30. And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sous were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land.

6

The Babylonish captivity' is called the 'captivity' par excellence. The plain meaning of the words cannot be eraded; and this book was written after the Babylonish captivity.

CHAP. xix, i. And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehem-judah.

CHAPTER 16.

THE BOOK OF RUTH EXAMINED.

The book of Ruth, as has been already said, is properly part of the book of Judges, from which it has been separated, for no very obvious reasons. From its brevity it is not likely to contain many passages to aid us in our present enquiry. Those which I have discovered, are the following:

CHAP. i, v. 1. Now it came to pass in the days when the Judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land.

This was written after the Judges had ceased to rule;