there were miraculously inspired men in those days, they may supposably have understood the thought given in the passage in the light of all the future history of mankind; but it was not for such men that the utterance was chiefly given. The givers of the message claim to be inspired, but it was to uninspired though thoughtful men that the message was immediately directed. So far forth as we can assume their attitude, we are in shape to understand the utterances that were primarily designed for them. III. The order of treatment adopted in this volume is based in part on a conception of the relative presentday importance of the several topics treated. Order of The greatest interest we feel in the prophets treatment arises from the doctrine they taught concerning the Messiah. On the basis of this fact, the subject separates into two principal parts, dealing respectively with the prophets as the men who promulgated the messianic promise and with the promise which they promulgated. In treating the first of these two parts we must necessarily begin by some discussion of the terms used. Then we pass naturally to a biographical and historical account of the succession of persons known as the prophets. Nowhere in history can we find a line of men more picturesque and interesting in themselves, or whose achievements have been more significant. They figure more prominently than any other men in the history of Israel. A series of the biographies of the prophets would be a complete history of Israel. This particularly attractive part of our subject, however, we must dismiss with a single chapter, instead of allowing it to expand into a volume. With the questions of the personal presentment and the functions of the prophet we must deal somewhat more fully. Further, the authorship of the Old Testament is attributed to the prophets, alike in the Old Testament itself, in the New Testament, and in Jewish and Christian tradition. There is no studying the Old Testament or Old Testament criticism, apart from the prophets. We must discuss this claim, though briefly. These topics will occupy the first part of the volume, leading up to the consideration, in the second part, of the messianic promise. The second part naturally closes with the question of the bearing of the whole upon Christian Apologetics. It may not be superfluous to mention a few matters of detail. Most of the scriptural passages used have Certain mat- been freshly translated. The translating has ters of detail been done with the fact in mind that readers are likely to have the current English versions within reach. The translations I have given are ordinarily more literal than those in the versions. In some cases I have deliberately made them so at the cost of literary smoothness. Occasionally, however, the variation from the common translation is made for the purpose of bringing out the point under discussion. The use of Hebrew type has been avoided. In transliterating Hebrew words the attempt has been to make them look as little un-English as possible, and to avoid employing unusual type. Proper names and other words familiar to the eye of English readers have been retained in their traditional form. In words less familiar a more accurate transliteration has been used, though even in these the vocal sh'was are sometimes represented by a short vowel instead of an apostrophe. The continental vowel system has been used in transliterating, on account of the clumsiness of our English way of writing the vowels. Waw is represented by zu, and Yodh by y. The quiescing Waw is omitted, save in special instances. The quiescing Yodh is omitted after Hhiriq, but retained after Tsere and Seghol, to distinguish these words from those that are spelled with Aleph. I have not thought it necessary to distinguish between Sin and Samekh, or between Taw and Teth. Readers who know even a little Hebrew can make these distinctions for themselves, and for others the matter is unimportant. Aleph and Ayin are commonly omitted in transliteration, though for distinction Aleph is sometimes represented by the spiritus lenis, and Ayin by the spiritus asper. Tsadhe is represented by ts, and Hheth by hh. For the name of the national God of Israel I have used the form Yahaweh. No one should judge this name until he has first acquired the habit of The name pronouncing it correctly, according to the Yahaweh analogies commonly accepted in pronouncing Hebrew. Accent the last syllable, make the middle h distinctly a consonant, and pronounce the middle a so short as to make it a mere breathing. I do not care to discuss the question whether "Yahweh" is theoretically a more correct transliteration. Whoever tries to pronounce the word with this spelling will inevitably either accent the first syllable, or fail to sound the middle h, or introduce a slight vowel sound after it. The third is the correct alternative. If the word were rare, the best transliteration might be Yah'weh, but for a frequent word, Yahaweh pleases the eye better. For the rest, the purposes of this volume require that this word shall be distinguished as a proper name, and it seems to me that the correct form of the word is better for this purpose than the artificial combination "Jehovah." As for other designations of the supreme Being. The name Yah should not be confounded with Yaha weh, as is done in the English versions. Even if one holds that Yah is an abbreviated form of Yahaweh, he must also acknowledge that the two are used distinctively. The Hebrew word El is most exactly our English word God, while Elohim is a more abstract term, like our English word Deity. Sometimes in this volume Elohim is translated Deity, for distinction; but more commonly it is translated God, following the established practice. |