question of the authenticity of vv. 11 and 12, against the heathen marriages. If they bear such plain marks of having been intruded into their position, we can understand the possibility of such an intrusion in subsequent days, when the question of the heathen marriages came to the front with Ezra and Nehemiah. Besides, these verses 11 and 12 lack the characteristic mark of all the other oracles of the book: they do not state a general charge against the people, and then introduce the people’s question as to the particulars of the charge. On the whole, therefore, these verses are suspicious. If not a later intrusion, they are at least out of place where they now lie. The peculiar remark in ver. 13, _and this secondly ye do_, must have been added by the editor to whom we owe the present arrangement. FOOTNOTES: [949]‎ מלאכיה or מלאכיהו. To judge from the analogy of other cases of the same formation (_e.g._ Abiyah = Jehovah is Father, and not Father of Jehovah), this name, if ever extant, could not have borne the meaning, which Robertson Smith, Cornill, Kirkpatrick, etc., suppose it must have done, of _Angel of Jehovah_. These scholars, it should be added, oppose, for various reasons, the theory that it is a proper name. [950] Cf. the suggested meaning of Haggai, Festus. Above, p. 231. [951] And added the words, _lay_ it _to your hearts_: ἐν χειρὶ ἀγγέλοῦ αὐτοῦ θέσθε δὴ ἐπὶ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν. Bachmann (_A. T. Untersuch._, Berlin, 1894, pp. 109 ff.) takes this added clause as a translation of וְשִׂימוּ בַלֵּב, and suggests that it may be a corruption of an original וּשְְׁמוֹ כָלֵב, _and his name was Kaleb_. But the reading וְשִׂימוּ בַלֵּב is not the exact equivalent of the Greek phrase. [952]‎ מַלְאֲכִי דְיִתְקְרֵי שְׁמֵיהּ עֶזְרָא סָפְרָא. [953] See Stade, _Z.A.T.W._, 1881, p. 14; 1882, p. 308; Cornill, _Einleitung_, 4th ed., pp. 207 f.