was outgrown. Its driving power was gone. A new interpretation of history was the need of the hour. New conceptions and ideals must be substituted for those outworn.

Zephaniah was not the man to supply this need. He had no new ideals. He furnished no new constructive principles. He saw no further into the meaning of current events than his predecessors. He was content to apply the interpretations that had long rendered good service in the hands of the prophets. His preaching was not positive and constructive in tone, but wholly negative and destructive. Denunciation and threatening constitute his message.

As Amos and Hosea were called out by the approach of danger from the north, so it is probable that Zephaniah and Jeremiah were aroused by the imminence of the Scythian invasion. As earlier prophets had seen in the Assyrian army the herald of the day of Yahweh, so Zephaniah interpreted the approach of the Scythian hordes; this was the one great absorbing theme of his prophecy. Again, like Amos, he saw the day of Yahweh as fraught with destruction, as near at hand and as coming not only upon other nations, viz., Philistia, Egypt and Assyria, but also, and pre-eminently, upon Yahweh's own nation (14. 7. 14 24. 12.). Unlike Jeremiah, his contemporary, who uttered warnings of coming catastrophe while his heart was breaking, Zephaniah betrays no sympathy, compassion or emotion of any kind over the impending fate of his people. He speaks almost as a disinterested spectator.

The purpose of the approaching judgment as understood by Zephaniah was moral. It was a condemnation of sin and an expression of the ethical righteousness of Yahweh. Yet this ethical motive finds expression only in the announcement of the judgment upon Judah; it plays no part in the threats against the nations. In these latter utterances, the old narrow particularism seems to find free course. The nations are overthrown as enemies of Israel and Israel's God. Out of the general catastrophe, a remnant of Israel will survive to worship Yahweh in undisturbed serenity. The spirit which will characterise this group, as noted by a later hand, will be one of humility, meekness, straightforward

ness, trust in Yahweh and genuine piety (311. 12). It is the type of religion enjoined in Mi. 60-8.

In only one particular has Zephaniah ever been credited with originality. Until within recent years he has been generally acknowledged as the first of the prophets to announce the coming of a universal judgment. It is doubtful, however, whether this claim for him can now stand.* For a prophet who displays no capacity for constructive thought elsewhere, so great an advance step as this seems unlikely. The feature of the day of Yahweh which holds the foremost place in his thought is evidently a war (110-18 212), presumably the Scythian invasion, not a world-wide catastrophe. The latter is only the dark background against which the concrete impending disaster is shown in lurid colours. The catastrophic, cataclysmic subversion of the physical universe seems rather to be a part of the eschatology of the times to which he fell heir. This phase of the judgment has no definite aim; it is totally lacking in moral discrimination; it exhibits a certain inconsistency of presentation (e. g., 17; cf. 12); and it is without any definite warrant, no reason being offered for its coming. It bears the marks of its origin in the misty realm of myth; and myths do not arise in the clear light of history. The conception of a worlddestroying judgment belongs in the same category with the story of the Deluge. Like the latter, its origin probably dates back to prehistoric days. Zephaniah, like his predecessors (e. g., Am. 12 (?) 518-20 74-6 Ho. 43 Mi. 13 f. Is. 210 ff.), does but endeavour to adjust the old conceptions to the new conditions created by the approach of the Scythians. The essential sanity and clear vision of Zephaniah and his predecessors is evinced in the fact that they lay their emphasis not upon the old, unethical and cataclysmic features of the current eschatology, but rather upon the definite historical forces of their own time, which are interpreted by them as great ethical agencies for the purificatory chastisement of Israel at the hand of Yahweh.

The conception of a day of universal judgment does not in and of itself demonstrate a monotheistic idea of God. The Deluge

*Cf. Gunk., Zum religionsgesch. Verständnis des N. T. (1903), 21 ff.; Gressmann, Eschatologie (1905), 144 f..

myth in Babylonia arose in the midst of a crass polytheism; and the story found a hospitable reception in Israel long before monotheism was developed. Nor does Zephaniah's attack upon the syncretism in the religion of his day (1) guarantee his monotheism; this attitude of mind had long been characteristic of the prophets, who had always insisted upon exclusive loyalty to Yahweh as over against foreign deities. Yet these views are not at all inconsistent with a view of Yahweh as the Lord of lords and the only God. That such was Zephaniah's view is rendered probable by the emphasis he lays upon the ethical requirements of Yahweh, for it was by this route that Israel arrived at monotheism. This probability is reinforced by the fact that the religious writings of his contemporaries, e. g., Jeremiah and Deuteronomy, reflect a monotheistic theology. It may be, indeed, that Zephaniah himself was one of the group who wrought out the Deuteronomic Code and aided in the promulgation of the reform. Whether or not he was directly engaged in this enterprise we have no means of knowing; but it may be readily granted that his preaching had much to do with preparing the minds and hearts of the people and the court for the reformation.

§ 5. LITERATURE ON THE BOOK OF ZEPHANIAH.

I. Commentaries.

The more important commentaries of recent times are: Ewald (1867), Reinke (1868), Hitzig-Steiner (1881), Orelli (1888; 3d ed., 1908), Wellhausen (1892; 3d ed., 1898), Davidson (1896), Nowack (1897; 2d. ed., 1903), G. A. Smith (1898), Marti (1903), Halévy (1905), Driver (1906), van Hoonacker (1908), Rothstein (in Kau., 1909), and Lippl (1910).

2. On Introduction.

The chief writings on isagogic problems are cited in § 32. Special attention may be directed here to the studies of Stade, Schwally, Budde, van Hoonacker and Lippl. Useful summaries

will be found in the well-known "Introductions" of Driver, Cornill, König, Kuenen and Wildeboer; in the Dictionary articles by Selbie (DB.), W. R. Smith and Driver (EB.), and Beer (PRE.3); and in E. Besson, Introduction au Prophète Sophonie (1910).

Discussions of the poetic form and character of the book are listed in § 33.

3. The Teaching.

In addition to the sections in the commentaries and "Introductions" setting forth the thought and teaching of Zephaniah, expositions of this subject that are worthy of mention will be found in Duhm, Die Theologie der Propheten (1875), 222-25; Kuenen, The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel (1875), 171 f.; Orelli, Old Testament Prophecy (1885), $ 34; Marti, Geschichte der israelitischen Religion3 (1897), 184; Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte (1899), 243 f.; R. H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of the Future Life in Israel, in Judaism and in Christianity (1899), 97-99; Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments (1905), 250 f.; Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie (1905), 141; Köberle, Sünde und Gnade (1905), 195 f.; Staerk, Das Assyrische Weltreich im Urteil der Propheten (1908), 165-170; Cheyne, The Two Religions of Israel (1911), 44-46.

A COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK

OF ZEPHANIAH.

§ 1. THE SUPERSCRIPTION (11).

This introduces the author, traces his lineage, declares the source and authority of his message and states the period of his public activity.

The statements of the superscription are supported by the contents of the book at least so far as any evidence is forthcoming. Yet in view of the slight stress laid upon authorship in early Hebrew literature, much of it being anonymous, and in the light of the superscriptions to the remaining prophetic books, the majority of their titles being certainly of late origin, the probability is that this one is likewise from the hand of an editor (contra Hi.). There is no basis, however, for Marti's supposition that the chronological clause is of later origin than the remainder.

1. The word of Yahweh] V. H.AH, 201 f..-Which came unto] V. on Mi. 1'.-Zephaniah] Nothing is known of him except what is to be learned from his book (v. Intr., § 1).-The son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hezekiah] This is the most extended of the prophetic genealogies. Eight of the prophets are left without any family history;* the fathers of six others are named; † while Zechariah's father and grandfather are both recorded; but Zephaniah is traced two generations still further back. This variation is certainly not without reason and the most natural explanation is that offered by the view that the Hezekiah here listed was the king by that name. This probability is supported by the fact that the name Hezekiah is not borne

Viz., Dn., Am., Ob., Mi., Na., Hb., Hg., Mal..

Viz., Is., Je., Ez., Ho., Jon., Jo..

So, e. g., AE., Hi., We., Schw., Dav., Now., GASm., Marti; contra Abar., De., Cor., Or. et al..