their false visions with their base lives. Origen long ago saw the truth of the matter, in this and other points; and I quote this brief extract: "In regard to the prophets among the Jews, some of them were wise even before they became divinely inspired prophets, while others became wise by the illumination which their minds received when divinely inspired. They were selected by Divine Providence to receive the Divine Spirit, and to be the depositories of His holy oracles, on the ground of their leading a life of almost unapproachable excellence, intrepid, noble, unmoved by danger or death. For reason teaches that such ought to be the character of the prophets of the Most High";1 and we may add, the record shows that such was their character.

Our Lord stated the same truth in another way when He gave warning against false prophets: "By their fruits ye shall know them." And the fruit which Jesus meant was not only of the lips, but of the life as well. That our Lord meant moral fruits as well as eloquence or orthodoxy is clearly shown by another saying in the same passage: "Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven."2 To call Jesus "Lord" is indeed well; but alone it does not suffice. Many

may do that, and be barred from the Kingdom, a fate which will never befall a simple soul who does the will of God.

The Hebrew prophet was made what he was by Divine inspiration and by moral character. Another 1 Against Celsus, chap. vii. 2 Matt vii. 21.

factor contributed a share to his equipment. The greatest of all was the best educated, for example. But inspiration and character are the two essential requirements.

Prophets are needed in every age. The model for all modern seers is found in the Bible. Then let him who aspires to visions of God not forget the fundamental condition, purity of heart. The more perfect a man's mental fitness, the higher may be his visions; but no matter what his other acquirements are, his visions of God will be dependent upon the cleanness of his life.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

(1) RAMAH (p. 5)

AUL'S servant said, "There is a man of God in

SAU

this city," but the name of the city is not mentioned here or elsewhere in the narrative. It is clear, however, that the writer meant the city where Samuel resided permanently, for on entering the city Saul asks the to him unknown Samuel, "Tell me I pray where the seer's house is."2

The later narrative of the Books of Samuel always námes Ramah as Samuel's residence; it was, in fact, his birthplace, residence, and burial-place. It is plain that Ramathaimzophim1 is an error, and that we should probably read, “a man of the Ramathites, a Zuphite."5

On the authority of this later narrative nearly all Biblical scholars have identified the unnamed city of ix. 6 with Ramah. Budde, however, contends that if the author had known the name of the city he would have given it, and that the situation of Ramah makes it inadmissible here." The author may not have known the name of Samuel's city, but it does not follow that even a later writer may not have been better informed. As to the geographical situation, it must be admitted that the journey of Saul and his servant' is not very clear to us.

The stages of the journey are given as Mt. Ephraim, Shalishah, Shaalim, land of the Benjamites, land of Zuph. At the last-named place Saul resolved to turn back, lest his father 1 I Sam. ix. 6. 2 Ib. v. 18.

3 1 Sam. i. 19; ii. 11; vii. 17; viii. 4; xx. 34; xvi. 13; xix. 18 ff.; xxv. 1; xxviii. 3.

I Sam. i. I.

6 Die Bücher Samuel, in loc.

5 Budde, H. P. Smith.

7

I Sam. ix. 4 f.

should worry about the searchers more than the lost. It is natural, therefore, that Zuph should mark the furthest point on the journey. If that is the case, then the land of Benjamin could not be the fourth stage in their course, but must have been the first, for Benjamin was their home and starting-point. Moreover, Saul would scarcely have said, “Let us go back,' if they were already returned to the vicinity of his home. Efforts have been made to locate Shalishah and Shaalim, but so far no convincing suggestion has appeared. The fact seems to be that the text is in disorder, Benjamin and Ephraim having been transposed. Changing the verbs to the plural, as the sense requires, and as the LXX. reads, we then get the following: "And they went through the land of Benjamin, and did not find them; and they went through the land of Shalishah, and did not find them ; and they went through the land of Shaalim, and they were not there; and they went through Mt. Ephraim: they had come into the land of Zuph, and Saul said to his servant, who was with him, Come, let us go back." This makes the journey intelligible as far as we know it, and brings the searchers to a halt in the country of Samuel, for Zuph was in Mt. Ephraim, or on its borders. Cheyne's proposal to read Mizpah instead of Zuph1 gives us a city with which Samuel was intimately associated, but the change is arbitrary and unnecessary.

The emendation proposed has this further support: the phrase, "they did not find them" (or an equivalent), occurs after each place-name until we come to Mt. Ephraim and Zuph, where it is lacking. The author here is concerned with the return of the searchers, and evidently did not regard Mt. Ephraim and Zuph as successive stages, but as essentially identical. Ramah, too, was in the hill country of Ephraim, and is very likely the place where Saul found Samuel.

(2) AMOS iii. 7 (p. 10)

This passage has long been regarded as the classic instance of the prophet's foreknowledge. Steiner long ago said, "These

1 “Zuph,” Encyc. Bibl.

words contain the justification of prophecy in general and of Amos in particular." It has seemed to be significant that this view of prophecy should be found in the first literary prophet.

In recent days, however, the authenticity of the passage has been seriously questioned. All the arguments are summed up by Marti: (1) It intolerably disturbs the connexion. (2) It is of a different structure from 4-6, 8. (3) Its theological character marks it as secondary. (4) T1D "secret," except in Genesis xli. 6, is first found in Jeremiah, and a (to reveal a secret) is found elsewhere only in Proverbs. (5) “His servants the prophets" is a favourite expression of the Deuteronomist. Marti quotes Löhr and Baumann in support of his theory that it is a gloss added long after Amos.1

It must be frankly admitted that most of Marti's premises are sound, but still I cannot accept his conclusion. Every writer inserts explanatory clauses which necessarily disturb the sequence of thought. We know that the idea that God forewarned the prophets of His intentions was common in Jeremiah's day, but it may have been held long before. The whole Book of Amos is full of the idea. He was warning Samaria because God had apprised him of impending disaster: why should he not state the doctrine which underlies his words? The favourite expressions of the Deuteronomist, or of any other writer, are not necessarily words coined by him.

The introductory "for" and the close connexion between verses 6 and 8 are the real problems. Driver says of "for," "The reason, however, following not in v. 7, but in v. 8, to which v. 7 is subordinate." 2 Oort changes to, and Oetli transposes verses 7 and 8. Löhr transposes and gives this order, 66, 6a, 8.* We are somewhat distrustful of such solutions, aiming to remove a difficulty, but not succeeding altogether. The words in question, "The Lord Jahveh will take no action except He disclose His purpose to His prophets," do not

1 Handbuch zum A.T., in loc.; cf. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, pp. 18, 77, 97; Cornill, Prophets of Israel, p. 35. 3 Theol. Tigd. xiv. 135.

2 Cambridge Bible, in loc.

4 Beihefte zur Z.A. T. W., iv.