« EdellinenJatka »
historical views. The bond of the theocracy became looser, and when a part of the people assembled again in their old and native land, it could never acquire its former strictness, for the theocracy, in the proper sense, was never restored. The influence of these circumstances, in the historical writings, is very striking, for in the modern historical books of the Old Testament, in Nehemiah and Ezra, the theocratic-religious pragmatism no longer prevails, but the narrative is constructed according to the natural laws of things, and approaches pure historical writing.
“ The same fact will be observed in the historical books of the Apocrypha; but with this difference, — there the historical and the religious views are intermingled. But this was the result of the spirit of the age and nation,
, at that time. For, after the exile, the Jews, on account of their outward condition, must mainly have given up their old theocratic ideas. Their religious ideas gradually became more fixed, and this result was not a little hastened by the expansion and increase of their moral ideas, consequent upon their acquaintance with the Babylonians, Persians, and other nations. In consequence of this, religious pragmatism appears in the historical books of the Apocrypha. It is not said in them, ‘God spake and it was done,' as in the old historical works, which were either written before the exile, or, after it, were compiled from more ancient, written documents, or popular legends. But still, for the most part, events are represented as under the influence and direction of God.
“ From these condensed remarks, it must become clear that the historical writings of the Bible are of such a character, that very few of its narratives admit of a lit
eral interpretation, or are to be regarded as purely historical. But they must be considered in part as the results of theocratic-religious, or simply religious pragmatism, and partly as mythical histories. Under these circumstances, they will not yield the historian any certain results, until historical criticism is applied to them.”]"
2. IN REFERENCE TO THEIR LITERARY ORIGIN.
The greatest part of these books are not the work of one hand, nor do they preserve their primitive form, but have principally arisen from compilation, either by weaving together and connecting different narratives, or by making extracts from larger historical works. In the historical literature of the Hebrews, we must separate the composition of independent history from mere historical compilation. The first is earlier, and belongs to the period when literature flourished in full bloom; while the latter indicates its decaying vigor.
Theocratical historiography probably owes its origin and formation to theocratical men, the prophets and the priests, since many prophets are actually referred to as
(Berger, Practische Einl. in A. B. vol. ii. p. xiii., sqq. On this subject, see the following works: On the phrase, “ God spake,” in O.T., Henke's Mag. vol. ii. p. 333, sqq., vol. iii. p. 1.] Hezel's Geist und Phil. der Sprache d. Alten Welt. vol. i. Gabler, Journal Theol. Lit. vol. ii. p. 43. Bertholdt, Einleit. vol. iii. p. 748, sqq. Augusti, § 84.
Augusti, l. c. $ 87. The Hebrew kings, however, had their annalists, (57772.) It is doubtful whether they were prophets. The transcription of the Law was, perhaps, the duty of the priest.
[Some think the school of the prophets performed the office of modern s historical societies,” and “ academies of science,” and that their productions were published anonymously, because they derived their authority
the authors of historical documents. This fact explains the great uniformity of all the historical books, both as to their plan and manner of execution. But their origin from compilation, connected with the one-sided theocratical pragmatism, plainly shows why so many chasms are left in the history, and why so many things are related very imperfectly and briefly.
The Jews named the entire work from its chief part, the Law, (niin, ó vóuos,) and, from its original
from the whole school, and not from the name of the writer. See Nachtigals essay on this subject, in Eichhorn's Allg. Bib. vol. ix. p. 379, sqq.)
• Clerici Comment. Rosenmüller, Schol.
Henr. Ainsworth, Annotations upon the Five Books of Moses ; Lond. 1627, fol.
Jac. Bonfrerii Pentat. Mos. comm. illustratus ; Antw. 1625, fol.
Jo. Markii Comm. in præcipuas quasd. Partes Pentateuchi; Lug. Bat. 1721, 4to.
J. S. Vater, Comm. über den Pentateuch, mit Einleitt. z. d. einz. Abschnitten, der eingeschalt. Uebers. von Dr. Aler. Geddes merkwürdigeren krit. u. exeg. Anmerkk. u. einer Abhandl. über Moses und die Verfasser des Pentateuchs; Halle, 1802-1805, 3 vols.
Jul. Sterringa, Observatt. phil. sac. in Pentateuchum; Lug. Bat. 1721, 4to.
Haitsma, Curæ philol. exeget. in Genes. ; Franequ. 1753, 4to. Comm. in Exod. ; 1771, 4to.
divisione into five books, the five fifths of the Law, (minn 77 nman.) The Greeks named it Ý TIɛvtáτευχος, that is, Βίβλος Πεντάτευχος, and the Latins called it Pentateuchus, that is, liber Pentateuchus.
The Jews call single books by their initial words, and the Christians name them according to their contents.
CONTENTS OF THESE BOOKS.
1. Genesis. (
The history of the establishment of the theocracy is contained in these books, in the following order: Ac
Hensler, Bemerkk. üb. Stellen in d. Psalm. u. d. Gen. ; Hamb. 1791, 8vo.
Pentateuchus Hebr. et Gr. c. Annotatione perp. ed. G. A. Schumann, vol. i. Gen. compl. ; Lips. 1829.
(Hartmann, Forschungen üb. die 5 BB. Moses ; Rost. 1831.
Diodati, Annotations on the Bible, translated from the Italian; Lond. 1664, fol. Geddes, Holy Bible; 1792, sqq.3 vols. 4to. Kidder, Commentary on the Five Books, &c.; 1694, 2 vols. 8vo. Jamieson, Critical and Practical Expos. of the Pentateuch; 1748, fol. Hughes, Analytical Exposition of the First Book of Moses, &c.; 1672, fol. Graves, Lectures, &c.; 1815, 2 vols. 8vo. Other works on the whole or a part of the Pentateuch have been written or compiled by the following authors: Durell, Lightfoot, (A Handful of Gleanings, &c.,) Dawson, Harwood, Franks, Dimock, Fuller, Rudge, Hopkins, &c.]
• Josephus recognizes this division, (C. Ap. i. 8;) but it does not appear to be alluded to in 1 Cor. xiv. 19, as Jerome supposes, (Ep. 103 ad Paulinum, tom. iv. pt. 2, p. 572:) Huc usque Pentateuchus, quibus quinque verbis loqui se velle apostolus in ecclesia gloriatur. • Origen, xiv. in Joh.
P. 218. 'See Terlullian, Cont. Marc. vol. i. p. 10. Compare, on the other side, Stange, Cujus Generis est Pentateuchus ? in Keil's and Tzschirner's Anal. vol. i. 1 pt.
• The following names also occur among the Jews: 15277777 Do, (Comp. Burtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1325,) ban main, or minim; O
, ; , . , Thes. Phil. p. 456, sqq. above, vol. i. p. 89, sqq.
,See Hottinger .סֵפֶר תּוֹכָחוֹת or ,מִשְׁנַח תוֹרָה ;סֵפֶר פּפּוּדִים or, הַמִּסְפָרִים
cording to the opinion of the Hebrews, the theocracy is the centre and object of the whole history of the world; it is therefore related in Genesis, that the ground of it was laid immediately after the creation of the world ; that the people of God was gradually separated from the other people, and the promise of the holy land, and of the holy constitution, was made to the patriarchs; and that even the fundamental laws of the state were then given.
Beside these principal matters, there are genealogical and ethnographical accounts and fragments of the first history of the human race inserted, as well as family histories of the descendants of Abraham. Among these, those which relate to Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph, are the most conspicuous.“
[It has often been asserted that the book of Genesis was designed to serve as an introduction to the Law. Thus, it is supposed, the fact that Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat of a certain tree, is related to sanction the prohibition of certain kinds of food forbidden to the Jews. The sad consequences which followed Adam's transgression were to warn the Jews against a similar offence. The misfortune which befell Lamech after marrying two wives, was " to show the Jews why the Law was not favorable to polygamy.” When the sons of God dwelt with the daughters of men, the race became corrupt, and the deluge was sent to punish
* The following passages are the most important to show the theocratic plan of the book, which has a certain unity in its present form: Gen. ii. 3, ix. 1–17, 20—27, xii. 1-3, xiii. 14–17, xv. xvii. xix. 30–38, xxi. 1-20, xxiii. xxiv. 248, xxv. 146, 19—34, xxvii. xxviii. xxxv. 9—15, xxxvi. 6, xlvi. 1—7, xlviii. xlix. 1. 7–13. See De Wette, Kritik der Israelit. Gesch., or Beiträge ins A. T. vol. ii. Ewald, Gen. § 17, 18. Tuch, 1. c. p. xxi.
Long passages, like xiii. 14—17, and xxiii., may be apologetic, in the proper sense of the word; i. e. designed to show the Hebrew nation was the favorite of Heaven, and that their customs and laws were very ancient. See Augusti, § 108.