1825,] 
riod. It is exceedingly difficult to class 
them; the language, in some of the later 
productions, being such a successful imi- 
tation of the older Psalms, and (such as 
the songs of the Korahites, for instance) 
perhaps surpass them in poetical beauty. 
Nevertheless, the classing of them is of 
the utmost importance, and it has been 
justly laid down as a rule, that we might 
consider a certain heaviness, conciseness 
and boldness, a certain contest between the 
subject and the language, as criterions of 
antiquity. Later poets followed the beaten 
road, which those of the earlier times had 
to break. The collection of Proverbs, in 
which more unity of character and language 
prevails; contains no parts that seem to 
make their later composition necessary. 
Next to this stands the book of Job, al- 
though, in some respects, it inclines to a 
more recent period. 
** The prophets offer the least difficulty 
for fixing their period and genuineness ; the 
only occasional obstacle being to deter- 
mine their relative ages. The four contem- 
poraries, dmos, Hosea, Micah and Isaiah,* 
among which Hosea, in particular, is dis- 
tinguished for his antiquated weight and 
concinnity of expression. The nearest to 
them are Joel, Nahum and Habakkuk, 
alike distinguished for poetical elevation, 
lively colouring, and a certain classical con- 
cinnity, in which Joel surpasses them all.+ 
Obadiah, Zephaniah and Jeremiah, were 
nearly contemporaneous witnesses of the 
destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, 
and the captivity of the nation. The lat- 
ter, indeed, sang his dirges on the ruins of 
the temple. Ezekiel, however, uttered his 
oracles during the captivity. Although the 
most original poet, whose rich fancy riots 
in a new gigantic grotesque imagery, he 
possesses too little taste and purity to de- 
serve the name of a classical author. 
“ A few of the changes that occurred in 
the language are even remarked by the 
Bible itself; such as ] Sam. ix. 91, the note 
that formerly, z.¢. in the time of Samuel 
7X4 (prophet), was used for N12) > in 
Exod. iii, 14, the mention that 7737 
had been introduced for "1W. Notes 
* From the latter prophet, however, we 
must deduct several later pieces, especially 
that from chap. 40 to 66, which form a sub- 
ject for themselves, and must have been 
composed towards the end of the Babylonian 
captivity, and, although drawn out and dis- 
figured by many repetitions, still possess 
some great excellencies of diction. 
+ Several parallels, especially of a histo- 
rical kind, in Joel and Amos, point them 
out as contemporaries, Nahum and Ha- 
_ bakkuk are very little later; the former 
making mention of the irruption of the 
Assyrians, and the latter of that of the Chal- 
deans. 
Antiquity of the different Parts of the Old Testament. 
389. 
about the change of names of places are 
frequent. 
“A new period, for Janguage and litera- 
ture, appears with the captivity, which 
shews itself especially in the approxima- 
tion of the language to the East Aramaic 
dialect. The Jews accustomed themselves 
to it during those times; it ultimately 
completely supplanted the Hebrew as a 
national language, so that, at the return 
from the captivity, its use was confined to 
literary purposes alone, till the time of the 
Maccabees, however not without an ad- 
mixture of the popular dialect. This ad- 
mixture is, nevertheless, not equally great 
in all the literary productions of the period, 
and several pieces, which are referred to it 
by their historical character, are as pure in 
their language as any of the works of the 
preceding period. Of this description are 
the last 27 chapters attributed to Isaiah, 
the Psalms 44, 84, and 85, most of the . 
songs of degrees (as they are called), from 
120 upwards, which, for the most part, 
belong to the exile, and the period imme- 
diately following it; and even the Psalms 
74.and 79, in which we recognize the age 
of the Maccabees. Purity of language can, 
therefore, not serve as a sure criterion of 
antiquity, although, on the other hand, an 
admixture of the Chaldaic is a certain sign 
of a late authorship. 
“This age is, however, as inferior to 
the foregoing, in point of historical and 
poetical composition in general, as it is in 
point of language. The later prophets, 
Haggai and Malachi, and several of the 
later psalmists, write, for the most part, 
in a meagre and watery style, and are 
poor in invention, and content themselves 
with putting together phrases from the 
older authors.* The books of Daniel, 
Esther and Jonah, contain legends in an 
inferior Jewish taste; and, lastly, the Chro- 
nicles are a bad compilation of older his- 
torical works, made by priests of a late 
period. This sentence ought, however, 
not to be passed too sweepingly, since the 
Maccabean period shows us that the an- 
cient spirit had not entirely departed from 
the severely-oppressed nation; and that, 
on the contrary, in some individuals it rose 
with greater energy than ever. And, in- 
deed, most of the above-named pieces 
are possessed of much poetical worth, in 
point of taste, ideas and expression—ex- 
cellencies which are even apparent in such 
of them whose language is already tinc- 
tured with the Chaldaic. Among these 
are the beautiful Psalm 139, the book Ko- 
heleth (Ecclesiastes), the Idyls of the Song 
of Solomon, some of the sublime visions of 
Daniel (for instance, ch. 7, &c.). 
““ The books in which the Chaldaized 
language 
* For instance, the Psalms 69 (with 
which compare 22), 25, 35, 88, the songs in 
the Chronicles, and the hymn of Jonah, 
3D2 
