Nowack'8 transposition of v. 9b and v,8b ('i will punish the
princes and the king's sons, who All their master's house with violence and deceit; and I will punish all who leap over the threshold, and all who clothe themselves with foreign apparel ') is perhaps somewhat arbitrary, but it is attractive. As the clauses stand, the * leaping over the threshold ' is connected in such a way with the 'filling of their master's house with violence and deceit,' as to amount to a charging of the royal princes with housebreaking. Perha]>s the prophet means to bring such a charge ajjainst them (Davidson, et o/.); but, oo the other hand, there is much to be said in favour of the sup- position that what he has in view is their imitation of a foreign {? Philistine [see art. Ciifrbtmites, vol. i. p. S77»]) custom of leaping over the threshold in cnt^rinp a house. TTpon Nowack'B arrangement of the clauses, this habit and the apmg of foreign manners in dress fall into line with one another.
In that day Jahweh will search Jerusalem with lanterns {cf. for the figure Lk 15»), and hunt from their hiding-places (cf. Am 9^) the men who are now sunk in religious indiflerentism and who say, *The Lord will not do good, neit!ierwill he do evu' (v.*^ ; cf. Pa 10* 14^ etc., and, for the proverbial
ZEPHANIAH, BOOK OF
ZEPHANIAH, BOOK OF
975
expression, Is 41^, .ler 10'). The utter ruin and the war alarms of that day are furtlier described iu vv."'".
Then in 2''' the prophet turns to his countrymen with an appeal yet to seek the Lord, if perchance they may Ve hid in the da^ of His fierce anger, when the Philistines (vv. ■""'), Moab and Amnion (>-v.*-"), Cash (v."), and Assj-ria (vv."-'») shall be overwhelmed.
There la no sulHcient ground for Wellhausen's mippcsition that in 2* the situation and tone are pfiiR-wJiat different from those of ch. 1, a difference due to the clioice of the coast road by the Scythian host, and a consequent anticipation on the part of the proptiet that Judoli might, after all, escape the Btorm.
Vv.^-7 and 1^15 are in the ktvak measure (see Lamrntations, vol. iii. p. 20^, and Poetry, a'hove, p. 5), although the rhythm is, now at least, in several instances imperfect.
In 3''' Jerusalem is once more the subject of denunciation, as the rebellious, polluted, oppressing city, whose princes, judges, pro]ihets, priests, are all alike unfaithful to tlicir duty, and whose in- habitants have failed utterly to learn the lesson Ciod meant to teach them by His judgments upon the nations. V.* appears to form the connecting link between the Threatening and —
15. T/ie Promise, 3""=".
The faithful in Jerusalem are to wait till the judgment is accomplished, when all peoples shall lie brought to serve the LORD with one consent (vv.'''"). Israel's sinfulness and pride shall be no more, they shall trust in the name of the Lord and shall dwell .safely (vv."'"). The book closes with a triumphant i-all to the people to rejoice in the Lord wno <lwells in their midst, and who gives to them a high and honourable place amongst the nations (vv. '*■"»).
The general sense of these closing verses Is clear, but there Is sonic uncertainty as to details, .is the text is in several places more or less corrupt (see below, § iv.).
iii. Date and Unity. — 1. The title of the book a-ssigns the [^irojihecy, as we have seen, to the days of king Josiah. So far as ch. 1 is concerned, the correctness of this date is almost universally ad- mitted, even by those who do not regard the title as an original part of the book.
The only important exception is Ed. Konig (Einleit. ind. AT 852 f.), who would as^i^;n the prophecy to the period of reaction that followed the dcith of Josiah (B.C. COB). But, while much In the book would suit such a date, there is one circumstance which appears sutticient to condciim K(tnig's view, namely the aljsence of any censure upon the king in i*^. This is suitable In the case of Josiah but not of Jchoial^im (see 0. A. Smith, Twelve I'Tophtln, ii. S9 f.).
But the reign of .losiah (B.C. 639-608) is crossed by an important dividing line in the year 621, the date of the reformat ion on the basis of the Deutero- nomic law-lxiok. On which side of this line dois our prophecy naturally range itself? We have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the de- scription of the idolatrous practices in 1*'' and of the whole religious, moral, and social condition of things in l'- » '= (not to speak of 3' etc.), points to a period prior to the year 021. This o]]inion, whiili is the prevailing one among scholars (of moderns it may stillice to name A. 1$. Davidson, Driver, G. A. Smith, Wellhausen, Nowack, Cornill, Bnilde, Strack), is opposed for various reasons by Delitz.sch (in PEE"), Kleinert (in Lange's Bibel- werh), and ."^chulz (Com. 18il2), who would date the prophecy subsequent to the reforms of B.C. 6'_'1.
The argument for a late date, which is diawn from supposed echoes of Deuteronomy (e.g. Zejih ju. u. n compared with Dt 28="- »'), need not detain ns, for it is weak in the extreme. Nor can any great weight be laid upon the expression ' the remnant of Baal ' in 1^ as if this were an allusion to the survival of I!aal worship after the drastic mea-svires ado])tcd against it oy Josiah in 621. For (a) it is possible that the original text was