123 _Ibid._, 1884, pp. 87 ff., 93 ff.
124 See Schrader, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, III. ii., pp. 140 f.
125 The hypothesis of a joint reign of Hophra and Amasis from 570 to 564 (Wiedemann) may or may not be necessary to establish a connection between the Babylonian inscription and that of Nes‐hor; it is certain that Amasis began to reign in 570, and that Hophra is _not_ the Pharaoh mentioned by Nebuchadnezzar.
126 Jerusalem was taken in the fourth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah or of Ezekiel’s captivity. The announcement reached Ezekiel, according to the reading of the Hebrew text, in the tenth month of the twelfth year (ch. xxxiii. 21)—that is, about eighteen months after the event. It is hardly credible that the transmission of the news should have been delayed so long as this; and therefore the reading “eleventh year,” found in some manuscripts and in the Syriac Version, is now generally regarded as correct.
127 Jer. xxxix. 9.
128 It is possible, however, that the word _happālît_, “the fugitive,” may be used in a collective sense, of the whole body of captives carried away after the destruction of the city.
129 Ch. xxiv. 21‐24.
130 Chs. xvii. 22‐24, xxi. 26, 27.
131 See pp. 102 ff.
132 Cf. especially ch. xxii.
133 See below, pp. 318 f., and ch. xxviii.
134 Pointing the Hebrew text in accordance with the rendering of the LXX.
135 This seems to me to be the clear meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah in the beginning of the ninth chapter, although the contrary is often asserted. Micah v. 1‐6 may, however, be an exception to the rule stated above.
136 Ver. 25. The idea is based on Hosea ii. 18, where God promises to make a covenant for Israel “with the beasts of the field, and the birds of heaven, and the creeping things of the ground.” This is to be understood quite literally: it means immunity from the ravages of wild beasts and other noxious creatures. Ezekiel’s promise, however, is probably to be explained in accordance with the terms of the allegory: the “evil beasts” are the foreign nations from whom Israel had suffered so severely in the past.
137 This is the sense of the expression מטע לשׂם in ver. 29 (literally “a plantation for a name”). The LXX., however, read מטע שׁלם, which may be translated “a perfect vegetation.” At all events the phrase is not a title of the Messiah.
138 The word “men” in ver. 31 should be omitted, as in the LXX.
139 Cf. Amos ix. 11 f.; Hosea ii. 2, iii. 5; Isa. xi. 13; Micah ii. 12 f., v. 3.
140 1 Kings xii. 16 (cf. 2 Sam. xx. 1). It should be mentioned, however, that the last clause in the LXX. is replaced by a more prosaic sentence: “for this man is not fit to be a ruler nor a prince.”
141 Jer. xxxiii. 15‐17.
142 Cf. ch. xliii. 7, xlv. 8, xlvi. 16 ff.
143 Ch. xxxvii. 25.
144 “Das Königthum wird diese [the Davidic] Familie nicht wieder erhalten, denn Ezechiel fährt fort: ‘Ich Iahwe werde ihnen Gott sein und mein Knecht David wird _nâsî_ d. h. Fürst in ihrer Mitte sein.’ Also _nur ein Fürstenthum_ wird der Familie Davids in der besseren Zukunft Israel’s zu Theil.”—STADE, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, vol. ii., p. 39.
145 Ch. xxxvii. 22‐24.
146 On the whole subject of the relation of the gods to the land see Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 91 ff.
147 Josh. xxii. 19; 1 Sam. xxvi. 19; Hosea ix. 3‐5.
148 Ch. xxxvi. 13.
149 Ch. xxxvi. 30: cf. xxxiv. 29.
150 Gen. xxvii. 28, 39.
151 Numb. xiii. 32.
152 Isa. lxii. 4.
153 Vv. 18, 19. The words in brackets are wanting in the LXX.