the contents of the prophecy, where the writer'R personal history is wholly unnoticed. He calls himself" the son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, th,, Hon of Arnariah, the son of Hizkiah.'' .A.a it is nsual to mention only the name of the father, it has been inferred that the genealogy is carried np t,, the fourth generation because Hizkiah, i.e. Hezekiah, was a cclebrntr•rl personage, and most probably the famous King of Judah. Bnt the infer- ence is not undoubted. Hizkiah is not called "King of Judah" in the genealogy, which would naturally have been done had he been the ancestor intended, as in Prov. x.xv. l; Isa. xxxviii. 9. There is room enough, indeed, between Hezekiah and Josiah for the four specified descents, though only three are named in the case of Josiah himself; bot the name Hezekiah was not unknown among the Jews, and we cannot assume without further support that the person here mentioned is the king. It is fair to argue that the insertion of the genealogical details shows that the prophet was of distinguished birth; but farther it is impossible to go with a.ny certainty. The name of the prophet is variooslyexplained, as" The Lord hath hid," or "The Lord hath guarded," or "The Lord's Watch-tower." Keil is generally followed in interpreting it as "He whom Jehovah hides, or shelters.'' The LXX. writes it lo<f,ov{a.,;: Vnlgate, Sophoniah. There were others who bore this name (see 2 Kings xx:v. 18; l Chron. vi 36; Zech. vi. 10, 14). The details given by Pseodo-Dorothens and Psendo-Epiphanins (' De Vit. Proph.,' :xix.), among which is the assertion that he was a member of the tribe of Simeon, have no historical basis.
§ Ill. DATE. Zephaniah, in the inscription of his book, states that he prophesied "in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, King of Judah;" and this assertion has never been seriously disputed. The only question is in what part of that king's reign did he exercise his office. Josiah reigned thirty-one years, according to the usually received dates-from B.c. 640 to B.c. 609. The destruction of Nineveh, which Zephaniah foretold, took place quite at the end of Josiah's reign, and his prophecy must have been uttered some time before this event. No other data for determining the question exist save what may be gathered from internal evidences. And these are most uncer- tain, depending chiefly upon inferences drawn from the great reforma- tion effected by the good king. Did he prophesy before this reformation was begnn, or after it was effected, that is to say, in the first or second half of Josiah's reign? A third alternative may be added-Was it during the progress of this religions amelioration ? Those who assign the prophecy to the earlier period, before the king's eighteenth year, when his vigorous measures produced their happy results, rely upon the fact that the prophet speaks as though idolatry and the disorders which Josiah repressed were still rampant, even the members of the royal family being implicated in the ZEPHANIAH. b Iv INTRODUCTION TO
general iniquity. It is inconceivable, they say, that Zephaniah should have taken this gloomy view, and he.ve entirely omitted all mention of the young prince's noble efforts to effect a change for the better, had this nttempt already been commenced. A.11 this points to e. time when Josiah wa,~ st.ill a minor, and before he had begun to assert himself in the direction of 11ffa,irs. On the other hand, it is contended that certain statements in the body of the work prove that the reformation was being canied on at the time when it was composed: the public worship of Jehovah existed (eh. iii. 4, 5), and this side by side with that of Baal and with many idolat,rous practices ( eh. i. 4, 5) ; there were priests of Jehovah as well as priests of false gods at the same time. Nor can we reason from Zepha.niah's silence concerning reforms that none had been essayed; for Jeremiah, who began to prophesy in the thirteenth year of Josiah, is quite as strong as Zepha.nia.h in his denunciations of idolatry, the fact being that, though it was publicly abolished, it was still practised extensively in secret. Others, again, claim a. still later date for the prophecy, because it speaks of the extermination of the remnant of Ba.al ( eh. i. 4), which implies that the purification had already been effected, and that only isolated instances still existed; the prophet also speaks of and refers to the Mosaic books as well known to bis hearers (comp. eh. i. 13, 15, 17; ii. 2, 5, 7, 11; iii. 5, 19, 20), which could only have been after the discovery of the" book of the Law" in Josiah's eighteenth yea.r (2 Kings xxii. 8). It must be noted that on this occasion reference was made to the Prophetess Huldah, not to Zephaniah (2 Kings xxii 14). Hence some suppose that he was dead at this time. From this brief recapitulation of arguments it will be seen that each of the three theories mentioned above has much to be said in its favour; and that the only safe conclnsion to adopt is this-that although· the present book, as now displayed in the sacred ea.non, forms one connected whole, it is composed of prophecies uttered at various times and gathered by their author into a volume and arranged on a definite plan. Its place in the canon is tbe same both in the Hebrew and Greek, and coincides with the chronological order to which it is assigned.
§ IV. GENERAL CHARACTER.
Some critics have spoken disparagingly of the style of Zephania.h's prophecy, as being prosaic and bearing no comparison with any of the other Hebrew poets. There is some truth in this criticism; but the censure is exaggerated and unjust. Of the remarkable purity of his language there can be no doubt; and if his rhythm is at times faulty, judged by the standard of the highest models, and sinks into prose; if he is wanting in f;nblimity and elegance; it must be allowed that he is always easy and full of life, often vehement-, fiery, and severe, and that the force and concideness of his utterances leave a definite imprc6sion on the mind which ne!'ds na THE DOOR OF ZEPHANIAH. V