Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

then, was before the following occurrence recorded in Kings. "Pharaoh had gone up and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites thąt dwelt in the city, and given it, for a present, unto his daughter, Solomon's wife.” 1 K. ix. 16.

Singularly enough, De Wette quotes these passages to prove that these books were not written, till after the time of Solomon, when they prove the very opposite. If the author of the book, wrote the passages, quoted from Joshua and Judges, then the books were written before the time of Solomon. If the redactor, or copy. ist, wrote them, then these passages belong back of the time of Solomon; and the original writing much further back.

There is a reference to Jerusalem, that is similar to the references to Gezer; and it is sometimes quoted to prove the same thing, but without good reason.

In Jos. xv. 63, it is said that the Jebusites, and the Israelites dwelt together in Jerusalem. The same is repeat. ed in Judges. i. 21. But in 2 Sam. v. 7-9, we read that David got possession of Jerusalem, and made it his seat of government.

One might infer that the Jebusites were destroyed, and no longer dwelt with the Israelites. But David did not get possession of the whole city, but only a part of it, namely Sion, which he called the city of David," and the rest of the city was still occupied by the Jebusites. One prominent man of this tribe, denominated a “king, and probably the chief of the tribe, was, at a late day in the life of David, the owner of a threshing floor, which he sold to the latter; and on which the renowned temple of Solomon was afterwards built. 2 Sam. xxiv. 23. This passage, therefore, is not to the point; while the others remain in all their force, and are indeed sufficient for the purpose had in view.

In Judges xviii. 30, it is said, that Jonathan and his sons were priests, in the tribe of Dan, until the day of the captivity of the land. This, being taken as the language of the original writer, has been used for proof that the book was not written till the captivity at Babylon. And if the original writer is the author of it, the proof is conclusive. But since we know that such passages were often added, at a later period, and this has a similar appearance, the proof fails.

The next verse, (31st,) would suggest an earlier date. “And they set them up Micah's graven image which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh." The house of God, that is, the tabernacle, was in Shiloh, only till about the time of Solomon; if indeed, it was not removed thence to Nob anterior to the reign of David. It was evidently at the latter place, when David was a fugitive from Saul. 1 Sam. xxi. 1-6.

The book of Judges was written before the books of Samuel; for the latter make allusions to the former. There is a reference to the war with Sisera, and the hosts of Hazor, with the Philistines and Moabites. There is reference to their chief captains, namely, Jerubbaal or Gideon, Jephthah and Samuel. 1 Sam. xii. 9-11.

The indications of the date of Samuel, are no more satisfactory, than those we have quoted from Joshua and Judges. Certain things are said to remain unto this day, but generally there is no telling what day is meant. See 1 Sam. v. 5; vi. 18; xxvii. 6; xxx. 25. 2 Sam. iy. 3; vi. 8. That the time referred to, was before the captivity, is a reasonable inference, from the expression, in one of the above passages, that Ziklag remained to Judah unto this day; and from another, that the Beerothites were sojourners in Gittaim, unto this day. Considerable time is implied, as intervening between the events and the history of them, in the statement, that it was customary to call a prophet a seer; but the custom had now passed out of use. Also that the conduct of Saul had passed into a proverb, “Is Saul also among the prophets ?" 1 Sam. ix. 9; x. 12.

The references to Israel and Judah, show that these passages were written after the separation of the two

kingdoms; or rather, after it became customary to speak of them in this way; which appears to have been some time before the actual separation. 1 Sam. xviii. 16; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1; comp. 2 Sam. v. 1-5; xix. 41 ; xx. 2.

That some of these references may belong to the original record, is quite probable; while it is certain that others were written by the compiler or copyist. Additional evidences bearing on the question of the early or late writing of these books, will appear in our remarks on the next particular.

SECTION III. — AUTHORS.

If there are indications in these books, as we have shown, of their having been written by men who had a personal interest in the narrative, then we may reasonably look to Joshua, or one of his scribes, as being the author of the book that bears his name to one of the last of the judges, or a scribe appointed to do that work, as the author of Judges — to Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, as having written the books of Samuel. And in respect to these last, we have the express authority of the author of Chronicles. “The acts of David, the king, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel, the seer; and in the book of Nathan, the prophet: and in the book of Gad, the seer.” 1 Chr. xxix. 29. .

Samuel could have written only so much of this history as is embraced in First Samuel, to chapter 25th as his death occurs at this point. The rest must have been written by Nathan and Gad; but how much by each, we have no means of determining. It is not indeed absolutely certain, that our books of Samuel, are the books referred to, as having been written by Samuel, Nathan and Gad; but, as it is expressly stated that they wrote the life of David, and as no other has come down to us, or has ever been recognized by the Jewish people, the plain inference is, that these are the books.

The reader will observe that every evidence, which goes to show, that these men, or their cotemporaries,

wrote the books, at the same time, proves the early writing, and shows that the passages, which indicate a later date, are the work of compilers and copyists. It would be useless for us, to enter extensively into the discussion of the question of authorship, in regard to these books; as men who have examined the subject much more than we, have failed to reach any

satisfac

tory result.

SECTION IV.-COMPOSITION. The more we have examined the theory of the two “documents," as the basis of the five books of Moses, the more we have been inclined to accept it. The documents can there be plainly traced. See Biblical Review, Vol. I, page 18. De Wette attempts to point out the passages which belong to these documents, in the book of Joghua, the Judges, and the following books. Here the distinction is not so clear; though it is evident that the author of Joshua was acquainted with the documents, as existing in the Pentateuch, and, to some extent, modified his style by their peculiarities.

The theory of De Wette is, that the first twelve chapters of Joshua, are, in the main, Jehovistic, or from the Jehovistic document. But of these twelve chapters, he excepts

six passages, which he places in the Elohistic col

Then in these six passages, he finds single expressions, that are Jehovistic. The balance of the book, consisting of twelve. chapters more, he divides about equally; but the changes from one document to the other, are very frequent, and some passages are mixed. The following passages are Jehovistic: Ch. xiii. 1-14; xiv. 6-15; xv. 13 – 19; xviii. 1-10; xxiv. 1-28. Elohistic:-xiii. 15 - 32; xiv. 1-5; xv. 1-12; xy. 20-62; xvi 1-xvii. 13; xviii. 11 - xix. 51; xx. 1xxi. 43.

Then 22 to 24 is mixed, some of it Elohistic, and some Jehovistic; and on either side, are found single expressions, that belong on the other; so that only the general character of the passages can be determined.

umn.

Then some passages are thought to belong to neither document, but to differ from both. And it should be added, that a great diversity of opinion exists, with this class of expounders, as to the application of the theory.

The book of Judges exhibits but few traces of the documents; and hence De Wette does not attempt to classify the passages. He remarks, however, that "the style is like the Jehovistic parts of Deuteronomy, though there are Elohistic passages.

It is not to be denied that some parts of the book indicate a diversity of sources, from which the history was derived.

"It is evident that the history of Gideon and of Abimelech, is derived from at least two separate docnments. In one (vi. 11 – viii. 28) the son of Joash is called Gideon throughout, with but a single exception, (vii. 1,) though his name is repeated more than thirty times ; in viii

. 29 -35, he is called indifferently Gideon and Jerubbaal; but in ch. ix., he is always called Jerubbaal * * * *

The appendix (xvii. - xxi.) evidently contains two separate documents. xvii. – xviii. and xix -xxi. But both have the same author, who is distinguished by his love of a kingly government. (xvii

. 6; xix. 1.) The passage, xx. 36 – 46, appears to be a supplement to the previous account of the battle. Perhaps this was derived from an independent popular legend. There is a slight numerical difference between the two accounts, in one 25,100 perish, in the other 25,000."

The author above quoted finds plenty of evidence that the books of Samuel were made up from different sources, though he does not find the distinguishing marks of the " Jehovah” and “Elohim” documents. The “contradictions" which he finds in these books, he accounts for, by referring the conflicting passages to different documents. This, surely, is a charitable view of the subject; for it is better to believe men err, than to believe they lie and deceive.

We hope, however, we have shown that neither alternative is necessary.

« PredošláPokračovať »