Gambar halaman

and Kuenen admit to be “full and accurate." Let us see what the latter has to say as to the distinction so sharply drawn therein between the priests and the various orders of the lower clergy, upon which Dr. Hayman bases so much. The whole passage is worth attention, and I think disposes of the question from the critical standpoint. Professor Kuenen says:

“Before we proceed farther, we will glance at the composition of the new colony. From the list of those who returned (Ezra ii. ; Neh. vii.) 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 (Ezra ii. 21-35; Neh. vii. 26-38). The continued use of the sacred number, twelve (Ezra ii. 2, vi. 17), 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 (Ezra ii. 36-39 ; Neh. vii. 39-42), the Levites (Ezra ii. 40; Neh. vii. 43), the singers (Ezra ii. 41 ; Neh. vii. 44), the porters (Ezra ii. 42; Neh. vii. 45), the Netthinim, 'those given,’i.e., temple slaves (Ezra ii. 43-54 ; Neb. vii. 46-56), and the children of Solomon's servants (Ezra ii. 55-58 ; Neh. vii. 57-60), i.e., the Canaanites whom Solomon had made his slaves, and who had thus been incorporated into Israel (1 Kings ix. 20, 21). If we add the number of all these upper and lower temple servants together we obtain a total of more than 5,000 ; 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 (comp. Ezra ii. 64; Neh. vii. 66). 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 Yahveh 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 4,000 in number (Ezra ii. 36, 39; Neb. vii. 39-42); the Levites only amount to a total of 74, or 341, if we include the singers and porters (Ezra ii. 40-42). 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 de regarded as degraded priests ; probably they were less numerous than their brethren at Jerusalem from the very first, but at any rate the desire to go up to Jerusalem must have been less strong in them than in the men who had the prospect of occupying the highest rank in the temple (Ezra viii. 15). And finally, it does not escape our notice that in the list already mentioned of those who returned, the singers and porters occur next to the Levites, and thus are distinguished from the latter. If this only happened here we might perhaps suspect a slight inaccuracy of expression, and, in agreement with the Chronicler (1 Chron. xxv., xxvi. 1-17) and tradition, assume that the whole of the servants of the temple belonged to the tribe of Levi. But the same distinction is made elsewhere (Ezra vii 7, 24, x. 23, 24 ; Neh. viii., x. 28, 29). The singers are included among the Levites for the first time in a document of considerably younger date (Neh. xi. 15-18), and the porters also still more recently by the Chronicler. It appears, therefore, from the historical accounts themselves, that it was only by degrees that the whole temple service was assigned to the tribe of Levi, yet not by removing from their posts the non-Levitical families connected with it, but by including them in the tribe of Levi” (Kuenen's Religion of Israel, ii. 202-204),

From this we see that the distinction between priests and Levites which first prominently arose at the time of Josiah's reformation in 621 B.c. (the former being the priests of the central sanctuary, the latter those of the country high places) would naturally be well known in 536 B.C.

2. Dr. Hayman assumes that Hebrew was an “obsolete" tongue in the year 444 B.C., when the Pentateuch was promulgated by Ezra and Nehemiah, and the people bound themselves to its observance for the first time (Neh. viii.-x.). Was this the case? Here let me quote Professor Driver:

“The idea that the Jews forgot their Hebrew in Babylonia, and spoke in Chaldee' when they returned to Palestine, is unfounded. Haggai and Zechariah and other postExilian writers use Hebrew ; Aramaic is exceptional. Hebrew was still normally spoken in 430 B.c. in Jerusalem (Neh. xiii. 24). The Hebrews after the Captivity acquired gradually the use of Aramaic from their neighbours in and about Palestine. (See Wright, Comp. Grammar of the Semitic Languages, 1890, p. 16.) 'Now do not for a moment suppose that the Jews lost the use of Hebrew in the Babylonian Captivity and brought back with them into Palestine this so-called Chaldaic. The Aramaic dialect, which gradually got the upper hand since 4-5 centuries B.C., did not come that long journey across the Syrian desert. It was there, on the spot ; and it ended by taking possession of the field, side by side with the kindred dialect of the Samaritans'" (Driver, Introd. to Lit. of 0. T., p. 471, n. 3). Hence, then, there is nothing wonderful in the fact that the priests compiled their code in Hebrew, the ancient language of their race, and that in that form it was amalgamated with the other component parts of the Pentateuch.

3. Dr. Hayman admits that it is “violently improbable" that the dues mentioned in Nehemiah x. 32 ff., and especially “the tithe of the tithes " to the priests, had been paid during the whole period of the monarchy, and so uniformly that they could be claimed even after the dislocation of the Captivity as a recognized custom; and yet he argues that it is still more “ violently improbable” that they should be new imposts laid upon the people by Ezra and Nehemiah, on account of the opposition they would naturally evoke. The fact is that it was their very novelty which did evoke the unceasing opposition encountered by both these reformers, of which their memoirs are full, and which led to the complaints made by Malachi and the later prophets as to the remissness of the people in paying those dues.

4. With regard to the description given of the setting up of the altar and the holding of the Feast of Tabernacles in the seventh month of the first Return under Zerubbabel, 536 B.C. (Ezra iii. 2-6), and also with regard to the letter of Artaxerxes (Ezra vii.) it will be, I think, sufficient to say that in this part of the book of Ezra (iii.-vi. and vii.) the Chronicler is writing in his own person, and that consequently the language is coloured by the ideas and customs of his own age, 332 B.C., at earliest. This is consistent with his uniform practice throughout (Driver, Introd. to 0. T. Lit., p. 513).

And here a very striking fact must be noticed, which serves to answer many of the points raised by Dr. Hayman, and it is this : If the central portion of the Pentateuch, the Book of Leviticus, and great parts of Exodus and Numbers, which, with certain parts of Genesis, is considered to make up the Priestly Code as we now have it, was known to the prophets and the people on the return from the Exile, how comes it that Haggai, for instance, wishing to settle a question of ceremonial cleanness or uncleanness, bids the people “go to the priests for Torah,” instruction, the universal meaning of the word in the pre-Exilian literature (comp. Deut. xxxiii. 10), instead of simply referring them to Numbers xix. 11, where the precept is fully laid down?

I will leave this part of the subject with a few words as to the last matter touched upon by Dr. Hayman, viz., the laws as to “vows." These are, no doubt, scattered in an apparently aimless way throughout the central portions of the Pentateuch, and this would be surely just as strange on the assumption of the Mosaic authorship as on that of Ezra and the priests of Jerusalem. On the latter assumption it may be the easier explained for two reasons : (1) the different subjects to which the vows relate; and (2) the fact that the priests were merely giving written expression to customs which had long had the force of law, and which were reduced to writing on different occasions, some in Babylonia, some in Jerusalem. “A separate law is devoted to the law of the Nazarite (Num. vi. 1-21); another law treats of vows in general (Lev. xxvii.), and is further amplified by regulations as to the vows of women and young girls (Num. xxx.). All these precepts are most remarkable. A vow from its nature is something voluntary, a natural product of religious belief in a certain stage of development. The Israelite can dedicate himself to Yahveh as a Nazir (1 Sam. i. 11-28; Judg. xiii. 3). He can give up to him a part of his means; banning (cherem) can also take place in consequence of a previous vow to Yahveh (comp. Num. xxi. 2, 3). Now, what does the priestly lawgiver do with the natural product ? He prunes and regulates and assesses it, until it is in danger of losing all its significance and worth.So says Kuenen (Rel. of Israel, ii. 284), and after discussing the nature of these laws, he adds, “ It cannot be denied that by laws of this kind the free utterance of the religious sentiment is fettered, and the real character of the religious action is in great part lost.” This is characteristic of the priestly ordinances.

And it is the realization of this fact, through the patient investigation of the books, that has led, more than anything else, to the critical view of the origin and growth of the religion of Israel. In the early days religion was free, spontaneous, and unfettered. There was no distinction between Levite and priest; there was no central sanctuary ; sacrifices were festal occasions, performed anywhere, especially at the shrines consecrated by memories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (see Exod. xx., xxiii., and xxxiv.; and Judg. and Sam., passim, and the Books of Kings for the uniform practice in Northern Israel). Later on, with the building of Solomon's temple, and the consequent disfavour into which the high places fell, through the danger of the worship performed at them becoming assimilated to the heathen worship around, the Jerusalem priesthood gained more and more authority, until after a temporary reformation under Hezekiah, and a terrible reaction under Manasseh, the



[ocr errors]

reformation of Josiah, under the influence and authority of Deuteronomy, then“ found,” was effected. Then the central sanctuary was established as the one lawful shrine, and the country priests were degraded to the position of Levites (see the Books of Kings, written under the influence of Deuteronomy, passim, and note especially 2 Kings xxii., xxiii.; contrast also the influence of Deuteronomy on Jeremiah and the subsequent prophets, and the entire absence of its influence on Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah i.). Upon Josiah’s reformation followed the awful purification of the Exile, and then it was that codes like that contained in the Law of Holiness (Lev. xvii. xxvi.), and that contained in Ezekiel xl. xlviii., and others, were constructed as memorials and improvements upon former temple practice. This law, not yet fully arranged, nor combined with the earlier writings, and Deuteronomy, Ezra brought with him from Babylon in 458 B.C.; and after fourteen years, during which he was, no doubt, perfecting and completing it with the help of the Jerusalem priests, the finished Pentateuch was read in the ears of the people in 444 B.C. (Neh. viii. 1).

This was the publication of the Thorah, or written law, and twelve years afterwards, in 432 B.C., Manasseh, the grandson of Eliashib, on being expelled from Jerusalem by Nehemiah, and taking refuge with his father-inlaw, Sanballat the Horonite, in Samaria, would carry with him this finished Pentateuch. His quarrel was with Nehemiah, not with the law; and, seeing that the Samaritans were becoming more and more eager to prove themselves of the seed of Israel, he would have no difficulty in gaining their adhesion to this law. It was to his interest to do so, especially as he was about to inaugurate a schismatic temple on Mount Gerizim with himself and his successors as chief priests. Thus, by a somewhat long digression, we are brought back to the point from which we started—the question of the date and acceptance of the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Thorah or Pentateuch was the only canon of the Jewish Church at the time of the secession, and the growing and finally dominant hostility between Jews and Samaritans prevented these latter from ever accepting the books subsequently canonized by the Jews as Scripture.

Two facts let me notice with regard to the Samaritan Pentateuch itself.

1. Its archaic characters, of which so much is made in some quarters, but which are not referred to by Canon Garratt or Dr. Hayman, are most important to the question at issue, for it has been proved that they are those in use in Judah at the time of the schism, and would therefore be those that Manasseh took with him to Samaria. They afterwards fell into gradual disuse in Judah, and were replaced by the “square" letters of our Hebrew Bible, just as Hebrew fell into disuse as the spoken language, and was replaced by Aramean (see Professor Kirkpatrick's Divine Library of the Old Testament, pp. 60-62).

2. The various readings, which Canon Garratt sweeps aside as in no way affecting the argument, are again most important, for they are mostly


inserted to favour the Samaritan worship, and must therefore have been introduced into the original document at the time of the secession; e.g., the substitution of Gerizim for Ebal in Deut. xxvii. 5, and many others.

One word I must say in conclusion, with all due respect to Canon Garratt and Dr. Hayman. In common with so many writers of the conservative school, they asseverate that the Higher Criticism virtually charges the composers or compilers of the Scriptures with “forgery tion.” So much does the Canon allow his righteous indignation to run away with him, that it lands him in the anachronism of speaking of “Jeremiah” forging the law in the early part of the reign of Hezekiah, a century before the prophet's birth!

Against this attitude I must ask leave to protest. No good purpose is secured in controversy by the use of strong language or by accusing your opponent of being less honest than you lay claim to be yourself.

The spirit of the age in which we live is a critical one. "Criticism," says M. Anatole France (a modern French writer), “is the most recent of all the manifestations of literature, and perhaps it will end by absorbing all the other forms. It is admirably suited to a very civilized society, whose souvenirs are rich, and whose traditions are already of long date. It proceeds at once from philosophy, and from history. Its development demands an epoch of absolute intellectual liberty.” Against this spirit it is hopeless to fight; our aim must be to lead it into right and safe channels.

On behalf, then, of the Higher Criticism I would earnestly disclaim the charge that it makes the writers guilty of “ forging" or “concocting” the Books of the Old Testament. The Higher Criticism, it appears to me, is based on the recognition of two facts. Having observed, from a study of science and philosophy, the unity of God's methods of working in the world of nature, and in the moral sphere, it realizes that His dealings with His ancient people Israel in His method of giving them His revelation, and in His education of them by means of it, were agreeable to His dealings with all other nations of mankind, and to His works in nature.

1. It recognizes the progressive character of revelation. Just as no river bursts full-born from the mountain side, but issues in a tiny rill, which, as it descends, gathers to itself other rills, which swell and swell its volume till it forms the majestic river rolling placidly to the sea; so Revelation and the Old Testament, its record, ran the same course. Beginning with the first small law-book and the records of the early traditions of the race, swollen as it descended the hills of time by new codes and new laws, by prophecy and psalm, and history and drama, it becomes at last the majestic “River of God," rolling placidly onwards, till it is merged in the ocean of God's love, as it is revealed in Jesus Christ.

And 2, It recognizes and endeavours to explain the composite character of the Old Testament generally, and of the Pentateuch in particular. Just as the geologist, if he would learn the history of the formation of the earth's crust, must examine and break up the rocks, and in so doing finds evidence that

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »