the book was not then suoh as it has reached our hands, and such as all the ver~ions make it to be. The care exhibited in assigning the other pro- phetical works to their rightful authors, even in the case of the brief propheoy of Obadiah, would surely not be wanting in the case of this long and important oraole. The uniform consensus of antiquity can only be overborne by most cogent arguments. If, indeed, later critics were of one mind on the subject; if, induced by weighty considerations, supported by the new appliances of modern scholarship and fresh discoveries, they were unanimous in affixing a definite date or author to the disputed chapters, there would be, perhaps, sufficient reason to subvert the traditional op1111on. But unanimity is rem!l.rkably wanting in the theories that have been published. While some affirm merely that the six last chapters are not written by the author of the first eight, others assert that this portion of the book is the work of two authors living at different periods. Many later critics assign eh. ix.-xi. to an anonymous prophet who lived in pre-exilian times, and oh. xii.-xiv. to another Zechariah who :flourished just before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The diversity of date assigned to these supposed authors is wide indeed. Dr. Pusey, in his edition of the • Minor Prophets,' gives (p. 511, etc.) a curious "Table of dates which in this century have been assigned to Zech. ix.-xiv." By this it appears that the evidence which satisfies one critic that Zachariah wrote in Uzziah's reign (s.c. 770), convinces another that he lived some four hundred and fifty years later-about B.C. 330. The internal evidence which produces such astonishing results must be very uncertain in itself, or be manipulated and interpreted in the loosest manner. The arguments on both sides of the question have been discussed at great length, and will be found set forth in order in the ' Dictionary of the Bible,' and in the works of Dr. Pusey, Dr. Wright, and many others, ::ad succinctly in Archdeaoon Perowne's useful edition of ' The Prophet Zeohariah.' We add here a brief view of the matter, the objections against the unity of the book and the answers to these objections following one another. The objections may be classed under two heads, viz.: A, differences in style in the two parts of the book; and, B, historical and chronological references which are inconsistent with the traditionary view of the authorship. A. Differences in style. That there is a marked difference between the style of eh. i.-vii. and the other parts is evident. 1. The first is prosaic, Unimaginative, cold; the second is fervid, poetical, lofty, mysterious. But this variety is aocount.ed for by the change of subject. 'l'he description of certain visions which really occurred to the writer required a plain, unvar- nished narrative, in which flights of imagination and oratorical effects would have been unsuitable. The grand prophecies which follow, uttered probably many years later, and whioh bear a. great similarity to tho later Jewish apocalyptic lite1·ature, allowed a different treatment. The writer's ,·iii INTRODUC'l'ION 'l'O
iudiTiduality might here appear; he might bostow oare 011 the form and diction of his communications, and make his language equal his theme. The prophetic&! inspiration oame, it may be, slowly and gradually, giving him time to elaborate.the scenes presented and to paint them with the hues of imagination. Many men write both prose and poetry, and it would often be very difficult to decide from internal considerations that these composi- tions wel"3 the work of the same autho1·. It must also be obsorved that the passage eh. ii. 10-13 rises into poetry, while eh. xi. 4, etc., sinks to ordinary prose. 2. Special phrases and idioms which occur in one part a1·e nut found in the other. Thus the introductory formulre, "The word of the Lord came" (eh. i. 7; iv. 8; vi. 9, etc.)," Thus saith the .Lord of hosts" (which occurs very frequently), "I lifted up mine eyes, and saw" (oh. i. 18; ii. l; v. 1; vi. 1), are never found in the second part; while the phrase, "in that day," which is very common in the latter ( e.g. eh, ix. 16; xi,. 11; xii. 3, 4, etc.), is entirely absent from the former. Now, Hosea uses introductory formulm in the first five chapters of his book, but none in the last nine; yet no one disputes the integrity of that work. How little dependence can be placed on such variations may be seen by an ex11-min~~ tion of three of Milton's poems by Professor StanleyLeathes, quoted py Dr. Pusey, p. 505, note 9, by which it appears that in 'L'Allegro' ther~ are 325 words not in ' Il Penseroso,' and 315 not in 'Lycidas,' and that.~n '11 Penseroso ' there are nearly 440 words not in ' Lycidas.' Some of the formulm mentioned are not needed in the second part, and theh-. abseI1ce proves nothing. On the other hand, there are certain rare. expressions common to both portions. Thus: "None passed through nor returned" ( eh. vii 14 and ix. 8); "Sing and rejoice, 0 daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come" ( eh. ii. 10 end ix. 9). There is a peculiar .use of the word "eye" in eh. iii. 9; iv. 10; and eh. ix. 1, 8. The appellations, "Judah and Israel,'.' "Ephraim and Joseph,'' are applied to the theocracy( eh. i. 12; ii. 2, 12; viii. 15; and ix. 13; x. 6; xi. 14, etc.). In both divisions the destruction of the enemies of Israel is predicted ( eh. i. 14, 15; vi. 8; and ix.1-6; x,ii. 2, etc.; xiv. 14); Messiah is celebrated and highly exalted (eh. iii. 8; vi, 12; and ix. 9, 10); the tribes are invited to return (eh. ii. 0, 7 and ix. 11, 12); the nations shall be converted and join themselves to Israel (eh. ii. 11; vi. 15; viii. 22; and xiv. 16, 17); holiness shall be found pre-eminently in the restored community ( eh. iii. 2, etc. ; v. 1, etc. ; and xiii. 1, etc.; xiv. 20, 21 ). We may compare also the promises of abundance, peace, and happiness, in eh. i. 16, 17; ii. 2, 12; iii. 2; viii. 3-5, with those in eh. ix. 8, etc.; xii. 2, etc.; xiii. 1 ; xiv. 8, etc.; and of the return. of the tribes and their consolation in eh. viii. 8, 9 and x. 6, 10 (Knabenbauer). 3. The mention of the prophet's own name or the names of his contemporaries (eh. i. 1, 7; iii. 1; iv. 6; vi. 10, 14; vii. 1, 2, 8); the notes of time (eh. i. 1, 7 ; vii. 1); the introduction of Satan ( eh. iii. 1, 2). All these things, fouud in the first part, are absent in the second. Naturally so. 'l'he eurli,sr bection dealc directly with contemporary persons and events, the 'l'llE llOOK OF ZECHAIUAH. ix