sations, and illustrates the manner in which apparent evil is always overruled, in their experience, for positive good. A principal object of the unknown author was, however, to record a link in the genealogy of David, and his descent from Judah during ten generations, but the book has no evidence whatever of being divinely inspired. The history is generally considered as belonging to the same period as that of the book of Judges, and is placed by Bishop Tomline about 1250 B. C., but the chronology is very uncertain. It has been attributed by some to Ezra the Scribe, by others to Hezekiah. The Talmudists reckon it as a book of the Hagriographa; there is no reference to it in the New Testament. ESTHER. The female whose history is related in this book was a Jewish captive, named Esther, or Edessa, or Hadassa, who appears to have been promoted to the throne of Persia. The events recorded are supposed to come in between the 6th and 7th chapters of Ezra, and to extend over a period not exceeding twenty years. Of king Ahasuerus nothing appears to be known in history. Archbishop Usher supposed that he was Darius Hytaspes; Scaliger and others contended that he was Xerxes; Josephus and Dean Prideaux considered that he was Artaxerxes Longimanus, and the name is always so translated in the Septuagint version; others have asserted, however, that he was Cyaxeres, and others again affirm that Cambyses is meant. It is not known with the least certainty who was the author. Some have attributed it to Mordecai, her uncle (ix. 20); others have contended that it was composed by Joachim, the High Priest; and others, again, have ascribed it to Ezra. The Talmudists regarded it as a production of the joint labors of the Great Synagogue which succeeded Ezra.—(See Gray and Percy's Key, p. 119.) Some commentators have been of opinion that it was translated from the Persian chronicles. (Kotting. Thesau Philol., lib. ii., cat. i., p. 488. Aben. Ez. Com. in Proem. Selden in Theol., lib. iii., exercit. 5, p. 486. Gray and Percy's Key, p. 122.) The authenticity of the entire production has been widely questioned, and the chronology is most uncertain. There is no reference to it in the New Testament. It contains no prophecy, no allusion to the doctrines of religion, and is in no way distinguished from ordinary history. It affords not the slightest indication of being inspired, even in the lowest sense; indeed, the name of God, or Lord, or any other appellation by which the God of Israel was known, never once occurs in it. The Greek and Romish versions reckon six chapters and ten verses more than the authorized English translation, which are not extant in Hebrew, and are supposed to have been forged by some Hellenistic Jew. It was not regarded as canonical by Melito; Athanasius rejected it altogether; and Gregory Nazienzen (A. D. 370) had such grave doubts respecting it, that he omitted it altogether from his canon. (See J. Collyer Knight, on The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, p. 50.) Calmet asserts that it was not inserted in the earliest canon. (See Stuart's canon.) Luther expressed a wish that it might be expunged from the Protestant canon. (Conv. Serm., p. 494, and Lib. Arbit., tom. iii., p. 82.) Gilfillan calls it "a fine romantic fragment of Jewish history." "That the book of Esther is, for the most part, a translated extract from the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia," is a point which Dr. Henderson remarks, "is now very generally admitted among those who are conversant with Biblical criticism" (Insp., p. 322); but De Wette affirms that "it violates all historical probability, and contains the most striking difficulties, and many errors in regard to Persian manners." ( 198, a.) Dr. Davidson, in his Introductory Essay to Stuart's Canon, observes that "the books of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song, present perplexing anomalies, which have never been cleared away." (P.xv.) JOB. This book appears to be a very ancient dramatic composition, of wonderful power and great poetic beauty, designed to personify integrity towards God. rather, that it was intended, as I have said, for an instructive or moral drama. Yet we find it referred to by Ezekiel and St. James, in the same manner as if it were a real history; because its moral or doctrinal part could not fail to have the same effect in one way as in the other." (Essay, etc.) From the mention of Job in Ezek. xiv. 14, and James v. 11, most Christian commentators have regarded Job as a real person. From its Aramæan and Arabic diction it is supposed to have been written either by an Aramæan or an Arabian, and though containing no allusion whatever to Jewish history, it has been quoted by almost every uninspired Hebrew writer from the age of Moses to that of Malachi. It contains very important instructions, and transmits to us the earliest records of the patriarchal doctrines of religion. It is said by Horne to approximate in its form to the Mekana, or philosophical discourses of the Arabian poets. "Who wrote it? When was it written? annexed to the Canon?" says Stuart, “are questions about which there has been, and will be, endless dispute." The book is mentioned by neither Philo nor Josephus. When Dr. C. Middleton says: "The book of Job, according to the most probable opinion, is nothing else but a kind of fable, or poetic drama, designed to inculcate the certainty of a Divine Providence; the duty of patience in afflictions, and of submission to the will of God under all his dispensations, how severe or afflicting soever they may happen to be. This was the sense of the most ancient and learned Jews, who had no clear account or probable tradition concerning either Job himself, or the author of the book, which some ascribe to Moses; some to David; some to Isaiah, "This book," says the Rev. S. Noble, or one of the later prophets; while others "makes nearer approaches to the charsuppose it to have been written after the acter of an inspired composition [than Babylonish captivity: yet all of them any of those we have considered], havseem to think that Job himself, if such ing been written in very ancient times, a person ever really existed, must have by a highly illuminated person, deeply lived in the times of the Patriarchs. grounded in the wisdom of those times, But, be that as it will, it is evident that and in the science of correspondences, every part of the book breathes a dra- which formed a great part of that wismatic and fabulous air: the council of dom: whence the book is composed in angels convoked by God; the appearance a style approaching to that of the Word of Satan among them; his debate with God, itself, being written by correspondences, and commission from Him; the several and thence containing an internal sense, speeches of Job and his friends; the con- though not exactly of the same kind, clusion of the whole by the appearance of nor arranged in the same perfect order God himself in a whirlwind; and all this, and unbroken series, as is the internal as the critics observe, delivered in verse, sense of the Sacred Books themselves." make it highly probable, or certain-Int. Rep., New Series, Vol. ii., p. 378. or sentences in this book of Proverbs." Many of them have evidently descended from very ancient times, and some are founded on correspondence. This collection of Proverbs has usually "The book of Job is, by learned theologians, said not to be a Hebrew production. Job lived in the land of Luz -Aramen-of which Edom was a district, and Arabia our modern designation. Job was not a Hebrew of the Hebrews, but an Arabian; and, accord-been ascribed to Solomon, though doubts ing to Hales, his probable epoch was about 2337 B. C., that is, from 600 to 800 years before Moses."-Gliddon's Ancient Egypt, p. 12. The Hindoos have a beautiful drama, similarly constructed to the book of Job, which gives an account of "a perfect man," called Ara-Chaudram, and who is represented as the sovereign of a large kingdom. For a detail of the leading facts, and a comparison of them with those which occur in Job, see Roberts's Oriental Illust., 2d ed., pp. 245-254. have been entertained whether he really was the compiler of the whole. It also includes the Proverbs said to have been transcribed or copied out by the scribes of Hezekiah, king of Judah, whom he employed to restore the services and writings of the Jewish dispensation (Prov. xxv. 1); the instructions delivered by Agur to his pupils Ithiel and Ucal (Prov. xxx. 1); and the precepts of King Lemuel by his mother (xxxi. 1). There is no trace of plenary inspiration in them; and “with regard to the interpretation of them," says Nicholls, "it is important to remark that some of them, though expressed without limitation, are yet not to be understood as universally true."-Help to Reading the Bible, pp. 264, 265. "Our opinion on the book of Job agrees with those who consider it a parable to explain the different opinions on Divine Providence. Some of our rabbis expressed themselves in the Talmud by the words 'Job never really existed, but is only a fable;' others, who "The book of Proverbs never once maintained his real existence, did not appeals to the Pentateuch, and owing all agree as to the time and the place to this and other discrepancies from where he lived, so that some of them the book of the law, was only adopted thought him to have been a contempo- into the canon after strong opposition." rary of the patriarchs; others place him-Tract. Schabb., ch. ii., fo. 30; see also coeval with Moses; others, again, fix his Von Bohlen, Int. to Gen. period in the reign of David; and, last of all, some class him among those who returned from Babylon; which differences only strengthen the opinion that he never existed."-Moreh Nebuchim, part 3, ch. 22, trans. M. B. H., Heb. Review, vol. ii., 1835, p. 184. PROVERBS. This book contains a collection of concise and sententious maxims for the regulation of the life, designed to admonish the young and to urge them to the diligent study of true wisdom. "We are not," says Bishop Hopkins, "generally to expect connection either of sense ECCLESIASTES. This book, like the former, is traditionally attributed to Solomon. In Hebrew it received its name from the initial words-"The words of the preacher." Its object seems to have been to demonstrate the eternal duration of the soul, the vanity of all earthly conditions and pleasures, and the inestimable advantages of religion; "that skepticism never satisfies and quiets the mind, and the deliverance from it is the greatest of all good, as well as the highest duty" (see Stuart). "As it stands in our Vulgate," says a ing honors; and at the same time to instruct them not to increase the troubles of life by denying themselves the enjoyment of harmless, though uncertain and fleeting pleasures."-Introd., pp. 215, 217. p. 129. 'In Vayyikra Rabba (? 28, p. 161, c. 2) it is said, 'Our wise men were desirous to keep back or conceal the book of Coheleth, because they found in it words which might lead to heresy.' modern writer, "it certainly bears but tion of the writer was to repress the few marks of inspiration, and, indeed, restless and eager efforts of men, which we cannot but feel that it needed none | hurry them on in heaping up wealth, to its production. Valuable and inter- in securing pleasures, and in acquiresting in its own way, especially from its age and authorship, and more particularly from the impressive and edifying nature of its last chapter, commentators have rather looked upon it as the moralizing of a Jewish Dr. Johnson, founded entirely on worldly Stuart writes that "the philosophic experience the 'night thoughts' of doubts and puzzles of Ecclesiastes, and the wise king, when the world went the manner of discussing them, have wrong with him-than one of super- no parallel either in Proverbs, or in human authority, justifying the faith any other part of the Hebrew Scripand hopes of the Christian reader." tures. They remind one of many It contains no prophecy, and is not re-things discussed by Socrates in the ferred to in the New Testament. "The Dialogues of Plato."-Crit. Hist. and claims of Solomon to be the author of Defence of the O. T. Canon, Dr. DavidEcclesiastes have not passed entirely son's Eng. ed., without dispute." In prop. iv., p. 348, of his Demonstratio Evangelica, Huet refutes the opinions of Grotius, who ascribes the work to Zerubbabel; of the Talmudists, who considered Hezekiah to be the author; and of Kimchi, | The Talmud speaks of some 'who found who ascribes it to Isaiah. Huet decides with St. Jerome and Leusden in favor of Solomon. Jahn says that "it is impossible to say who was the author." Zirkel, in his Critical Examination (pub. 1792), considers it to have been written by some of the later Hebrew writers, between the years 380 and 130 B. C., or long after the time of the latest inspired Hebrew prophet. The Jena Reviewers ascribe it to a Jew of Alexandria, about 240 B. C. As to this book, it is full of ancient wisdom, and Desvœux thinks it is designed "to prove the immortality of the soul, or rather the necessity of another state after this This book, otherwise entitled "A life, from such arguments as may be Song of Songs," is supposed by many afforded by reason and experience" commentators to have been written by (Philosop. and Crit. Essays on Eccl.; Solomon, or some contemporary, as an Maltby's Sermons, notes, vol. ii., p. 493; Epithalamium, on the occasion of his Dr. A. Clarke's Comment.). Jahn asserts marriage with an Ethiopian, and genthat "the contents are not adapted to tile daughter of Pharaoh Shishak, or the multitude;" and that "the inten-Shishank, King of Egypt, under whose contradictions in it.' I have seen some among the Jews, who maintained that the book teaches the doctrines of Epicurus."-Ib., p. 337. If it were the production of Solomon, it must, it is said by some, have been composed in his old age, when he had recovered from the partial apostacy into which he had allowed himself to be most unhappily betrayed by his idolatrous wives. In this case it may have been the result of serious reflection, and it is hoped of deep repentance. THE SONG OF SOLOMON. from any other portion of his Word, that these things are so? . . . . The principal part of the commentators on this book, especially those who have made it their separate study, have in general taken it for granted that this mode of interpretation is incontrovert influence he established in Israel an infamous idolatry. It contains many correspondences, and many beautiful metaphors, but exhibits no connected series, like the pure inspired Word of God. It contains no prediction, is never quoted in Scripture, and is only received as tradition. It serves, how-ible; and have proceeded to spiritualize ever, the important purpose of supplying illustration and confirmation as to the meaning of many Hebrew words, and some ancient correspondences. A writer in the Crit. Bib. observes respecting this book, that "it is a mere human composition; that there is not the least intimation in it of a pretension or claim to inspiration; no 'THUS SAITH THE LORD;' that it does not once mention the name of God; and that we have no quotation from it in the New Testament;" and is disposed to ascribe it to some unknown contemporary writer; that "while it may still be suited to the tastes and habits of oriental nations, with us, in the occidental world, it is better, for many reasons, to abstain from the use of it;" | and that "it has had its day." (Vol. iv., p. 557). Dr. Adam Clarke says, "there have been some doubts concerning the author of this book. . . . . Strictly speaking, the Book of Canticles is neither an Ode, an Idyll, a Pastoral, or an Epithalamium; it is rather a composition | sui generis, and seems to partake more of the nature of what we call a MASK, than anything else, an entertainment for the guests who attended the marriage ceremony, with a dramatic cast throughout the whole, though the persons who speak and act are not formally introduced. . . . . The name of God is not found in it; nor is it quoted in the New Testament.. Is it not a very solemn and indeed awful thing to say, 'This is the voice of Christ to His Church,' 'This is the voice of the Church of Christ,' etc., etc., when there is no proof from God, nor .... every figure and every verse, as if they had a divine warrant for all they have said. Their conduct is dangerous; and the result of their well-intentioned labors has been of very little service to the cause of Christianity in general, or to the interests of true morality in particular. . . . . The conviction on my mind, and the conclusion to which I have conscientiously arrived, are the result of frequent examination, of careful reading, and close thinking, at intervals, for nearly fifty years; and however I may be blamed by some, and pitied by others, I must say it as fearlessly as I do conscientiously, that in this inimitably fine Hebrew ode I see nothing of Christ and his Church, and nothing that appears to have been intended to be thus understood; and nothing, applied in this way, that, per se, can promote the interests of true Godliness, or cause the simple and sincere to 'know. Christ after the flesh.' Here I conscientiously stand; may God help me."-See Commentary Introduction to the Canticles, 1844, vol. iii, pp. 2563 et seq. Wharton refused to admit its divine authority. Origen, in his preface to the commentary on this book, holds it to be an epithalamium, or marriage song, as Ewald supposed in the form of a drama. Bishop Lowth calls it "a nuptial dialogue." This idea has been, in modern times, improved by Louth, Bossuet, Michaelis, and other commentators. Bossuet, a critic of profound learning, calls it also a pastoral eclogue, consisting of seven acts, each act filling a day, concluding with the Sabbath, |