Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

still the same contrast. But it is even more obvious here than elsewhere that the priestly narrator is not the older historian, but pre-supposes the older accounts and gives a summary of their contents in a few words; no other interpretation accounts for the manner in which the B. of O., in the verse which we have quoted, makes mention of Lot's deliverance.

f. We have drawn attention above (pp. 169 sq.) to the place which the B. of O. assigns to Aaron. Aaron also appears out of the Pentateuch, and this as, next to Moses, the liberator of Israel out of the Egyptian bondage; see Mic. vi. 4; 1 Sam. xii. 6, 8; Josh. xxiv. 15. We do not find him mentioned anywhere in pre-exile documents as high-priest and tribe-father of the lawful priesthood. But neither do the prophetic narratives of the Pentateuch depict him in this character. There too he is Moses' helper (Exod. iv. 14, 27—30, v. 1, 4, 20, &c., xvii. 10, xviii. 12, xix. 24, xxiv. 1, 9, 14, xxxii., xxxiv. 30, 31). In Num. xii. he appears as a prophet (verses 2, 6); this narrative is diametrically opposed to the notion that he was high-priest, and Exod. xxxii. was written at a time when that dignity had not yet been attributed to him. Deut. x. 6, on the contrary, speaks of the priestly office which he filled, and which passed at his death to Eleazar. The author of that account assumed without doubt that upon solemn occasions Aaron, by virtue of his intimate relation to Moses, offered up the sacrifices for the whole people, and consulted the oracle. But he is still so ignorant of any exclusive fitness of Aaron and his sons, that immediately afterwards he causes the whole tribe of Levi to be set apart for the priestly service (Deut. x. 8, 9). This conception is of earlier date than Ezekiel, who pre-supposes it (above, p. 116), just as the representation given in the B. of O. is later than that of this prophet.

g. We have already pointed out that the B. of O., quite unhistorically, refers Caleb to the tribe of Judah (Num. xiii. 6, xxxiv. 19), and thereby distinguishes itself unfavourably from

its prophetic predecessors, who either admit or at any rate do not deny Caleb's descent from Kenaz (above, p. 172, n. ¶; Vol. I. p. 137). A similar remark must be made with reference to Joshua. It is true, complete unanimity has not yet been attained with respect to the composition of the narrative, Num. xiii. xiv. (comp. Knobel; Kosters, pp. 38-56; H. Oort in Theol. Tijdschrift, III. 256 seq.; Nöldeke, pp. 75 seq.; de Wette's Einl. I. 289 sq.). But this much is certain, that Joshua is counted among the spies sent to Canaan for the first time in the B. of O1, and, in connection with this, is separated with Caleb from the other spies, and deemed worthy to enter Canaan. This not only conflicts with passages such as Exod. xxiv. 13, xxxii. 17; Num. xi. 28 (Joshua the servant of Moses), explained by Exod. xxxiii. 11 (where he is indicated by the same title, and besides this is called a "young man" or "boy"), but is also evidently a later notion, derived from a combination of the older accounts and by way of deduction from them. Deut. i. 19-46 (see especially verses 37, 38) and Josh. xiv. 6-15 (see especially verse 6), are of earlier date than the B. of O., and may have assisted to give rise to the notion-which otherwise the authors of those accounts do not share that Joshua had been one of the spies, and thus had been faithful with Caleb.

Compare together also Num. xxvii. 12-23 (Joshua ordained Moses' successor by Eleazar) and Deut. xxxi. 3, 7, 14, 23 (Joshua designated as Moses' successor). The first account, from the B. of O., was evidently unknown to the Deuteronomist (comp. Kosters, pp. 85 seq.), and moreover is decidedly younger than his time: the part which it ascribes to Eleazar is characteristic evidence in favour of the priestly author.

The remarks advanced here in support of the later origin of the B. of O. may be dismissed with the argument which Schrader (De Wette's Einl. I. 266, n. f.) employs against Graf: "wogegen indess schon die kritische Analyse ihr Veto einlegt." One of the results of that analysis, namely, is (p. 313, n. a) that “die

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

prophetischen Abschnitte Rücksicht nehmen auf die Schrift des annalistischen Erzählers" (= the B. of O.). But the reader must pardon me for preferring not to attempt to remove this difficulty. More weight must in justice be allowed to evidence such as that which we have put forward above, than to the arguments which Schrader seems to think decisive. It is often impossible to decide with certainty even whether two given pericopes can have arisen independently of each other. And, supposing that their mutual dependence must be allowed, the question of priority still remains unsettled and is frequently beyond settlement. Unless I be entirely mistaken, “die kritische Analyse" will have to yield to the considerations which are advanced on pp. 157-173 and in this note, and not the

reverse,

CHAPTER VIII.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY AND THE
INTRODUCTION OF THE LAW.

UNDER the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua, the Jewish exiles, a numerous company, full of glad anticipations, began the journey to their native land. No farther description is given us of their march, but it certainly was not free from troubles and privations. They succeeded, however, in overcoming all difficulties. Upon their arrival in Judæa, the various families settled down in their former dwelling-places.*

Before we proceed farther, we will glance at the composition of the new colony. From the list of those who returned we find, in the first place, that, irrespectively of the staff of the temple, they belonged to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin: the towns and villages whose former inhabitants went back, were all situated in the territory of these two tribes. The continued use of the sacred number twelve,§ therefore, proves—not that "the children of the exile" belonged to all the twelve tribes, but

-that they considered themselves the lawful representatives of all Israel. In the second place, our attention is attracted by the returns concerning the staff of the temple. Separate mention is made of: the priests,|| the Levites, T the singers,** the porters,++ the Nethînîm (“those given,” i.e. temple slaves),‡‡ and the children of Solomon's servants, §§ i.e. the Canaanites whom Solomon had made his slaves and who had thus been incorporated into

* Ezra ii. 70. The question whether Sheshbazzar (Ezra i. 8, 11, v. 14, 16) must be distinguished from Zerubbabel is passed over here, as it is not connected with the history of the religion.

+ Ezra ii.; Neh. vii.; comp. above, pp. 177 sq.

Ezra ii. 21-35; Neh. vii. 26-38.

Ezra ii. 36-39, vii. 39-42.

** Ezra ii. 41; Neh. vii. 44.

‡‡ Ezra ii. 43-54; Neh. vii. 46–56.

§ Ezra ii. 2, vi. 17.

Ezra ii. 40; Neh. vii. 43. ++ Ezra ii. 42; Neh. vii. 45.

§§ Ezra ii. 55-58; Neh. vii. 57–60.

Israel.* If we add the number of all these upper and lower temple-servants together, we obtain a total of more than 5000; thus they formed nearly an eighth of the entire colony, perhaps even about a sixth, if the returns of the numerical strength of the single families be more worthy of credit than the figure which is given as the total amount. Though this proportion is remarkable in itself, yet there is more that calls for our notice. The Levites, the singers, &c., are distinguished here from the priests—and this for the first time. Among the returning exiles, therefore, there were persons who were appointed to serve in the sanctuary, but were not considered fit for the actual priestly functions. If we remember, such under-priests-as one might call them had existed since Josiah's reformation (621 B.C.).‡ It was very natural that the line of demarcation between them and the priests had not been gradually obliterated, but rather defined more sharply. Ezekiel had ordained, in his description of the restored Israelitish state, that for the future only "the sons of Zadok," i.e. the descendants of the priestly families of Jerusalem, should take charge of the service of the altar, and had excluded from the priesthood the rest of the sons of Levi, precisely because they had been foremost in worshipping Jahveh on the high places.§ It is now evident that the reality began to answer these requirements of the prophet. But at the same time another circumstance is now explained. The priests are more than 4000 in number ;|| the Levites only amount to a total of 74, or 341 if we include the singers and porters. This proportion remains an insolvable riddle to any one who, with the (younger) Mosaic laws, holds the priests or sons of Aaron to be a small subdivision of the tribe of Levi. On the other hand, it is extremely natural, if the Levites be regarded as degraded priests probably they were less numerous than their brethren

* 1 Kings ix. 20, 21.

+ Comp. Ezra ii. 64; Neh. vii. 66; and above, pp. 180 sq.

[blocks in formation]

Ezra ii. 36-39 and Neh. vii. 39-42 agree in the number 4289.
Ezra ii. 40-42. According to Neh. vii. 43-45, the total is 360.

« НазадПродовжити »