« PoprzedniaDalej »
of many, nevertheless, and were circulated generally. For if they were only submitted to his inspection, he could not have appealed to them and referred his readers to them. In many respects it is well to bear this in mind.
We obtain now a completer explanation of these documents themselves, through comparison with the citations in the Chronicles, which refers to its own sources with a similar formula. A whole series of paragraphs in our books is repeated word for word in the Chronicles. In this case there is no reference to one of our three documents, but to the writings of given individuals, as their source. So, first of all, with the history of Solomon, in which the following sections are consonant with each other, viz. : 2 Chron. vi. 1-40 with 1 Kings viii. 12-50; 2 Chron. vii. 7–22 with 1 Kings viii. 64-ix. 9; 2 Chron. viii. 2 to the 10th ver. and ver. 17 with 1 Kings ix. 17–23, and ver. 26; 2 Chron. ix. 1-28 with 1. Kings x. 1-28, etc. Here the Chronicles does not, like our author, refer to “the book of the history of Solomon," but to the
737 of Nathan the prophet, and 10 of the (prophet] Ahijah the Shilonite, and the nin of Iddo the Seer” (2 Chron. ix. 29). Consequently the book of the “ acts” of Solomon must either have consisted of these three prophetic writings, or at least must have contained essential portions of them. So also in respect of our second document, the book of the “acts” of the kings of Judah. The account of Rehoboam in 2 Chron. x. 1-19 is fully consonant with that in 1 Kings xii, 1-19, that also in 2 Chron. xi. 1-4 with that in 1 Kings xii. 20-24, that still farther in 2 Chron. xii. 13 89. with that in 1 Kings xiv. 21 sq.; but the source is not, as in 1 Kings xiv. 29, called the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah, but "'???
of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the Seer” (2 Chron. xii. 15). In the history of king Abijam, the very much abbreviated account in 1 Kings xv. 1–8 refers for what is more extended, to the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah. The Chronicles, on the other hand, which gives the more extended narrative, refers to the "u??? of the prophet Iddo” (2 Chron. xiii. 22). Such, too, is the case in the history of the kings Uzziah and Manasseh. Our author, in both instances, appeals to the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah (2 Kings xv. 6; xxi. 17), (but) the chronicler, in the case of the former, to the "3np of Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz” (2 Chron. xxvi. 22), and in that of the latter to the "rin ???” (2 Chron. xxxiii. 18, 19). From all these references, it follows plainly that the book of the kings of Judah consisted of the historical writings of different prophets or seers.
Still more decisively and unanswerably do the following places confirm this. In the history of king Jehoshaphat, 1 Kings xxii. 2–35 coincides with 2 Chron. xviii. 2–34. As usual, our author here refers to the book of the kings of Judah; but the chronicler to the '??? of Jehu the son of Hanani, $xminan 100-%y nyo nex, i. e., which are inserted, received into, etc. (2 Chron. xx. 34). So also for the history of Hezekiah, our author appeals again simply to the book of the kings of Judah (2 Kings xx. 20); but the chronicler to the niin of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, 200-Sy of the kings of Judah (2 Chron. xxxii. 32). Hence it happens that the purely historical sections in Isaiah, chapters xxxvi. to xxxix., and in Jeremiah, chapter lii., are reproduced in 2 Kings xviii. 30 to xx. 19, and in xxiv. 18 to xxv. 30, since they were certainly regarded as having come from the prophets. But our author, at least in the history of Hezekiah, refers, not to the book of the prophet Isaiah, but to the book of the kings of Judah (2 Kings xx. 20). —After all, if the three documents forming the foundation of our books were not the production of one author, but each of them was made up of the writings of different, and, in fact, prophetic authors, who had recorded the history of their own times, they were historical compilations (comp. Bleek, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, sec. 157 sq.; Bertheau, Die Bücher der Chron. Einl., § 3).
That prophets generally were the historians of the Israelitish people, is universally acknowledged (Knobel, Der Prophet. der Hebr., i. 8. 58 87.), and has its reason in the nature and destiny of this nation. “In order to recognize Jehovah in the directing of His people, and to explain and gather up all the particular facts in the connection of the theocratic guidance, the Spirit of God was the subjective condition. The history was not to be estimated as an aggregate of facts to be gathered by inquiry, and to be set forth with talent, but as a revelation of Jehovah
in continuous acts, to understand which, properly, the Spirit of God seemed essential as Organ, just as much as for the comprehension of particular, immediate signs, facts (Geschichte), and oracles of Jehovah ” (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. 8. 412, Not. 2). The secular historian does not know Hebrew antiquity. The historical books of the Old Testament carry the collective name in the Canon D'x???, and are distinguished from the books strictly prophetical only in this, that the adjective D'10X7, priores, is applied to them, and to the latter Dinox, posteriores. But if in any age history would have been written by prophets, this most certainly would have happened when prophecy was in the period of its bloom, and this was in the time of the monarchy (comp. Bleck). The prophets did not write the history of Israel as private persons, but as servants of Jehovah, as“ men of God.” They are the historiographers of the kingdom of God, of the theocracy, and their narrative has for the people of God an official character, which imparts to their historical, not less than to their strictly prophetical, writings, authority and value in the judgment of the people. Were it not so, our author and the chronicler could not have appealed to them so constantly.
If the three documentary sources of our books consisted, as has been stated above, of several prophetical isolated pieces, the question then arises, when and by whom were the latter collected and combined into each of the three bined. In the lack of all specific accounts, this admits only of a conjectural reply. If it were the business of the prophets to write the history of Israel as God's people, and to exhibit in it the threads of divine guidance and revelation, it must, of necessity, have occurred to them that their narrative would not only be continued always, but, also, that the historical material already in hand would be preserved and secured for future generations. This may have been attended to in the smaller prophetical circles, especially in the so-called schools of the prophets. It is hence highly improbable that, as Keil pretends, "just before the fall of the kingdom of Judah,” the isolated pieces which had been composed within the period of some centuries, which were scattered about here and there, should have been collected and made up into one whole; for the time immediately preceding the fall of the kingdom was a time of utter disorder, which was least of all fit for such an undertaking, apart from the consideration that the kingdom of Israel perished 130 years sooner, and its history was contained in a special work (Sammelwerk), viz., in the third documentary source. More can be said for the supposition that the compilation was not completed at once, in a given time, but gradually, and that the latter isolated pieces were added to the earlier, which would have been entirely natural and easily done. Since our author, as we have remarked above, carefully distinguishes the three documents in his citations, adduces each one separately, and never, in any one of the thirty-four places, confounds the second with the third, we are justified in the opinion that in his day, the three documentary sources were distinct works. In the time of the chronicler the second and third may have been formed into one whole, since he frequently refers to the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chron. xvi. 11; xxv. 26; xxviii. 26; xxxii. 32; xxvii. 7; xxxv. 27; xxxvi. 8); once, also, simply to the book of the Kings (2 Chron. xxiv. 27). We cannot deduce anything from this with entire certainty, however, for the Chronicles, although it often names prophetical individual works, does not, in this respect, observe the accuracy of our books, as, e. 9., when in the case of Jehoshaphat and Manasseh, kings of Judah, it refers to the “ book of the kings of Israel” (2 Chron. xx. 34; xxxiii. 18), where we must assume either an exchange or an omission of the words and Judah."
Our author, in his use of the three documents, does not give a uniformly continuous extract from them. Sometimes, indeed, in accordance with the special design of his work (see below, $ 5), he quotes entire sections literally, as is clear from sections in Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Chronicles, which are duplicates of each other. Sometimes he abbreviates them very much, as, e. g., is shown by a comparison of 1 Kings xv. 1-8 with 2 Chron. xiii. 1-23. If he have not prepared the historical material furnished him in an independent way, special remarks, insertions, and transitions may, nevertheless, have originated with him. But it is very hazardous to attempt to determine this accurately. Of one section only, viz., 2 Kings xvii. 7–23, can we claim with certainty that it is the author's own.
The sections upon the life and activity of the two great prophets, Elijah and Elisha, form no small portion of our books. In these we miss the usual appeal to one of the three docu. mentary sources. Those which relate to Elijah bear certainly an unmistakably peculiar mark (comp., 6.9., 1 Kings xvii. with the preceding chapter); but it does not at all follow that they belong to another than the third document, for this, like the other two, was a col. lection of isolated pieces of different authors. For since those two prophets were felt so powerfully in the history of the monarchy, and they exerted generally, upon the development of the Old Testament theocracy, an influence vastly greater than that of many a king, a narrative devoted to them would scarcely have been wanting in the compilation. Besides, we cannot conceive why our author, who usually adduces his sources so carefully, and refers to them even in the most insignificant portions of the history of the kings, should have been silent, in the most weighty history of the two prophets, as to whether he had derived the same from another source than that he was constantly making use of (comp. Bleek, a. a. 0., 8. 371). If then of any one portion of our books, of this it is certain and self-evident, that it is the production of a prophet. If prophets have written the history of the kings, how much more their own!
What has thus far been submitted respecting the documentary sources of our books, differs more or less from the view now current. Almost universally, by the cited and are understood“ public annual registers ” or “ annals,” which were kept by some royal official, and deposited in the state archives. Besides these chief sources, the author (it is thought) has used others still, viz., prophetic writings. According to Delitzsch (in Drechsler, Der Proph. Jesaja, ii. 2, s. 253, and Commentar über den Proph. Jesaja, 8. ix.), the historical composition was both annalistic and prophetic. “ The aims of the two are distinct. The aim of the prophetic is to exhibit the inner divine connections of the outward event which the annalistic registers."
“ With David began the official writing of annals, which resulted in those historical works out of which the authors of the book of the Kings and of the Chronicles have chiefly, if not immediately, drawn. We behold David as the supreme chief of the kingdom, exercising the highest authority on all sides, and we find several offices created wholly by him. Under these is included that of the 7a!?, i. c., as the Septuagint, frequently explaining, translates, útovnuaróypaços; or (2 Sam. viii. 16) éri =ūv ÚTopivnuátw (Hieron., genuinely Roman, a commentariis).
7a2 was required to keep the annals of the kingdom. His office is different from that of the pid or chancellor. It was the duty of the aid (chancellor) to issue the public documents, and of the ga!? (recorder) to preserve them and to incorporate them into the proper connection of the history of the kingdom. Throughout the ancient East both offices existed generally. Reference to the annals begins at 1 Chron. xxvii. 24 with the busin 1797 of David, and is continued in nap 37 p1 Kings xi. 41. ... If we regard the state annals as a completed work, it falls naturally into four portions. The first two treated of the history of the kingdom in its unity, the last two were annals of the kings of Judah and of Israel—the history of the dissevered kingdom. The original of the state archives was destroyed doubtless when the Chaldæans burned Jerusalem. But excerpted copies of it were preserved, and the histories of the reign of David and of Soloroon, rich especially in annalistic particulars in the historical books in our possession, show that diligence was devoted conspicuously to the circulation of copies of the annals of these sovereigns, and that they probably appeared in separate tractates." Ewald also (Gesch. Israels, iii. 8. 180, 338) maintains that amongst the highest royal functionaries named in 2 Sam. viii. 16, and 1 Kings iv. 3, the 7012 was “he whose business it was to record all weighty incidents concerning the royal house and kingdom, and who, at the close of a reign, gave publicly a résumé of the history of it.” He was also court-historiographer.” David created this “ courtoffice," and it was never afterwards "given up.” Besides the "public annals” prescribed by David, there were also in the kingdom of Israel “numerous and continuous propheticohistorical summaries," which were fused subsequently into one work, which again was “perhaps retouched and partially enlarged, yet much more sensibly abbreviated.” Our author is
the “latest elaborator,” and “the fifth.” We remark, against these very plausible assumption, the following:
(a) There is not a single passage of the Old Testament to show that the ya was the writer of the court and kingdom records; that he drew up “protocolled " and "original" archives that were deposited among the “state archives.” He never appears the least in the light of a historiographer or annalist when mentioned, or when his function is alluded to, but as a civil officer (comp. 2 Kings xviii. 18, 37; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 8: comp. Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 309). Thenius justly remarks, on 1 Kings iv. 3, the maskir “received his name from his office as urhuuv, whose duty it was to bring to the king's remembrance the state affairs to be settled, and about which he was consulted.” Had David “newly" founded the office of a court and state scribe, David's own history would have been the first to have been written by this official; but 1 Chron. xxix. 29 says of this very history, that it is “written" 797-by of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer.” Neither could “the book of the acts of Solomon" (1 Kings xi. 41) have been written by the maskir, for the Chronicles, that has so many parallel sections with this history (see above), says that these acts were written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the ?
of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the niin of Iddo the seer” (2 Chron. ix. 29). If the office of maskir existed at all in the kingdom of Judah under the kings of David's house, there is not the least trace of it in the separated kingdom of Israel. Here the dynasty was changed nine times, and each was completely cut off by the new ruler. Was then the history of each king written by the maskir of his successor (granting that there was such an official), and preserved among the state archives? Would, for instance, a Jehu, who so unmercifully destroyed the whole house of Ahab (2 Kings x. 11-14) have the history of that house written by a royal official, or have preserved the already-existing annals among the archives of his kingdom ? Would a Jezebel have suffered the court-historian to have written yearly accounts of all her shameful acts ? Lastly, the assertion that the neid had to prepare the public documents, and the map to preserve them, is a pure invention, without any support from a single passage.
() That there was a d'a?? ???? 'Dp of the Medeo-Persian kings (Esth. x. 2), even supposing that archives drawn up by a court-scribe were meant, can never prove that the office of a court-scribe was instituted by David 600 years before, and that this office continued without interruption from that time on in both kingdoms during their separation. But even suppose that there were such archives kept in Israel as well as in Judah, and deposited in the archive-building, yet it must be considered that our author wrote in the latter half of the Babylonian captivity, consequently at a time when the residences of Samaria and Jerusalem had been for a long while destroyed, and when also, as is admitted, the annals that had been preserved in the archive-building no longer existed. The supposition that the Assyrians and Chaldæans kept the archives of conquered dynasties in their capitals, and allowed those exiles who had acquired the favor of the conqueror to make use of them (Stähelin, Einl. in's Alte Testament, 8. 129), is as unfounded as it is arbitrary. At the destruction of Jerusalem, not only the royal palace, but also “ all the great horises were burned” (2 Kings xxv. 9). And how could our author refer his readers to writings that either did not exist then, or at least were not within the range of all? But the assertion that excerpted extracts from the originals of the state archives had been preserved, rests on the presupposition that “the annals of each dynasty were made public when it became extinct,”—a presupposition which is again without the shadow of support, and which, though helping out a difficulty, is a purely arbitrary notion.
(c) Least of all can the contents of the book of Kings be adduced to prove that the “ archives of the kingdom” were the principal authorities for it. The history of the reigns of each of the nineteen kings of Israel begins with the expression: “He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.” The same expression occurs with regard to twelve of the twenty kings of Judah, and it expresses the general character of their rule. It is even told at length how deeply even the greatest and most glorious king, Solomon, fell. The sin of
Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin," is represented as the source of all the evils of the king
the conspiracies and murders of a Baasha, a Shallum, a Menahem; the wicked deeds of an Abab, a Jezebel, and Manasseh, are told unsparingly; and, finally, the chronicler says of king Jehoiakim of Judah : “his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah” (2 Chron. xxxvi. 8). How can we then suppose that all this and much more like it was protocolled by the “court-historiographer" with the knowledge and in the service of the king; that it was recorded in official archives of the kingdom, and then made public ? No court-officials could have written books of such contents, none but free-souled prophets who were perfectly independent of the court. Ewald adduces, as unmistakable remains" of the official archives (a. a. 0., 8. 182), the sections that refer to Solomon's officers, over his household, and his buildings. But we cannot perceive why these sections only should have been written by a court-official. A man who stood so near Solomon as the prophet Nathan, who, according to 2 Chron. ix. 29, wrote a history of that king, could and must know well what officials and how many he had, how he managed his kingdom and court, and how the temple and palace built by him were constructed. The accounts of the building of the tabernacle are much fuller than those of the temple, and yet are certainly not written by secular officials. There is, in fact, nothing in these books that a x'? may not have known and written; and it is indeed astonishing that, notwithstanding all this, people should still insist on the supposed "archives of the kingdom," and obstinately object to the prophetic origin of the three documentary sources.
(d) Because there is so much matter that could not possibly have been in the official annals, they have been driven to a wholly unfounded supposition, viz., that the author used other authorities also, which are not named. But this is disproved by the fact that the three authorities used were not official annals at all. The author refers to the sources whence he drew his facts about thirty times, and he refers to them even when he wrote of those kings that only reigned a short time; but he does not once quote any other work. Now, as the greater part of the contents of our books could not possibly have been taken from court-annals, it would be inexplicable that the author should never have named his other authorities. The conclusion that, because everything could not have been found in the archives, the author drew from other sources, is therefore false. We should be much more justified in the inverse conclusion, that because everything may have been contained in the historico-prophetical works of Samuel (and the author only quotes these), they alone, and not such as he never names, were his authorities.
Thenius has put forward a view regarding the sources of the books of the Kings (Comm. über die Bücher der Könige, Einleit. S 3) which differs from the view we have just discussed, and also from our own. He asserts that there are three " different component parts : " namely, the “ properly historical,” the “traditional," and these passages that were really written by the elaborator.” There were, he thinks, two different sources of the historical parts, and, in fact, “a larger work,” which fell into two halves according to the two kingdoms, and “when the official yearly records of both kingdoms were used, may have been principally composed of what was written regarding the influence of the prophets that had so much weight in public affairs ; written partly by the prophets themselves, and partly by others of their time, or recorded soon after.” There was then an “extract from this larger work,” which he supposes our author to have “found,” and to which the “summary accounts contained in our books," and the invariable form of quotation, belong. The traditional portions are in part separate “descriptions drawn from tradition,” and in part are peculiarly “ a book composed by and for the prophets-a sort of prophet-mirror, the chief design of which was to impress on the pupils of the prophets the necessity for the most implicit obedience to the divine exhortations." Whilst all the sections that enter into detail are taken from the first-named “larger work," the narratives of the prophets, as the history of Elijah and Elisha, were taken from the “prophet-mirror.” Thenius has tried to determine precisely to which of these different component parts the separate sections and verses of our books belong. Against this view we advance the following: