« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
views, or internal religious character, yet all agree in being supernaturalists. A historian might still hold to the genuineness without being a supernaturalist—not so the theologian ;-for be could not possibly avoid the theological consequences of this opinion.
At the head of this party stands J. D. Michaelis, who in his Einleitung ins A. T. s. 171 ff. shows at length, that the opposers of revelation must necessarily deny the genuineness of the Pentateuch. The opposition to the genuineness, which was not fully developed till after his defence of it, found its first able antagonist in Jahn partly in his Einleitung (Introduction to Old Testament,) and partly in two treatises in Bengel's Archiv. Bd. 2, 3. He has been lately joined by two worthy followers of his own church, the acute Hug in the two treatises, 'Beytrag zur Geschichte des Sam. Pent.' Heft 7; der Freib. Zeitschrift. s. 27. ff. and • Untersuchung über das Alter der Schreibkunst bei den Hebräen ;' and Movers, in the article, über die Auffindung des Gesetzbuches unter Josias, etc.' in the Zeitschrift für Philos. u. Kath. Theol., Heft 12, Köln, 1834, s. 79 ff. and Hest 13, s. 87 ff. The most important part of this last article is the proof of Jeremiah's and Zephaniah's acquaintance with the Pentateuch shown from prophecies of theirs uttered before this discovery of the book of the law by Hilkiah.* Of the evangelical Church of Germany are to be mentioned the following: Kelle in his 'vorurtheilsfreien Wurdigung der Mos. Schriften,' 3 Hefte Freib./1811, (not important); Fritsche, in bis · Prufung d. Grunde mit denen neuerlich die Aechtheit d. Bücher Mosis bestritten worden ist,' Leipz. 1814, (superficial); Scheibel, in the Untersuchungen über Bibel u. Kirchengeschichte,' Th. 1. Bresl. 1816, s.61.ff.; Kanne, in bis ‘Bibl. Auslegungen,' Erl. 1819, where are found (Th. I. s. 79 ff.) reinarks against Vater's treatise, (Th, 2. s. 1 ff.) against De Wette's Beiträge, and (s. 72 ff.) remarks against Vater continued. The author touches only single points, especially alleged contradictions and marks of a later age, and with much that is arbitrary, has some good things ;-Rosenmueller, in the 3d edition of his Commentary on the Pentateuch, who is so bashful and timid with his supernaturalism, that only once where he can get along in no other way, he ventures to say that the author obtained aliunde the information which he had no means of knowing himself; Sack in his Apologetik s. 156 ff., who saw that the defence of the genuineness of the Pentateuch must be based on the overthrow of the hypothesis of its fragmentary character, and pointed out some evidences against the mythical character of the work, hitherto overlooked, especially the intrinsic truth observable in the representation of the different characters, such as no mythical work can show; that "the character of Moses, for example, appears always exactly the same, from his first judicial act, to his laying down the judicial office;" Ranke, in his Untersuchungen ueber den Pentateuch, (Erlangen, 1834, Th. 1,) the best work on the genuineness that has yet appeared ; Dettinger, who in his article on Gen. 4:1–6,8, in the Tübing. Ztitschrift, (1835, Heft, 1. s. 1 ff.), ably shows that the charge of want of connection and of a legendary character, has its origin, especially in the case of this passage, in indolence and superficialness ; finally the Licentiate Bauer, in his treatise Der Mosaischer Ursprung der Gesetzgebung des Pent. vertheidigt, in the Zeitschr. für speculat. Theol. 1, 1, (Berl. 1836), s. 140 ff. of the writings of foreigners, only such belong here as are connected with the researches of the Germans. Here are to be mentioned, besides the work of the Danish bishop Hertz,
* The theory of many, namely, is, that the Pentateuch had never been known before this production of it by the priest Hilkiah during the reign of Josiah.-TR.
Spuren des Pent. in. d. Buechern d. Könige,' Alt. 1822, only the two works of Pareau, Institutio interpretis V. T. (Utr. 1822,) and · Disputatio de Mythica sacri codicis interpretatione,' (Utr. 1824.) The latter work especially deserves the most careful attention, which however has in Germany been carefully denied it.
The second difference above mentioned, related to the historical character of the accounts of the Pentateuch. It exists among those who agree in rejecting everything supernatural, and also with few exceptions in denying the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. Some of them endeavor to save, out of that part of the Pentateuch which is not opposed to their opinions, as much as possible for true history. They asserted the principle, without qualification, that whatever transcended the natural course of things was mythical; everything else approached the character of credible history : (Meyer, Apologie der. Geschichtl. Auffassung des Pent., Sulzb.1811,s.13). So Eichhorn, Bauer, Meyer, Bertholdt, and Gesenius, if we may judge from his manner of citing the Pentateuch. The transition to the other view
was commenced by Vater, who did not indeed set himself in decided and uniform opposition to the historical character of the accounts of the Pentateuch, and yet satisfied himself generally with a simple perhaps' in favor of a historic basis for them, and, by always carefully insisting that nothing certain could be determined on the matter, maintained a position entirely skeptical. But the opposite doctrine was fully developed by De Wette, who asserted (See the results, Kritik, s. 397. ff.) that the Pentateuch had no historical character at all it contained not one fixed historical point-all was mythical—and nothing but the want of metre had denied it the character of poetry which really belonged to it. De Wette is followed in this by Baur, von Bohlen, Vatke* and others.
That this latter hypothesis has, over the other, the advantage of consistency, that one who takes the mythical ground can avoid it only by determining arbitrarily what is, and what is not history, is so plain that it needs no proof. But that the former one could nevertheless arise, that it can maintain itself after the other has been formed, and after glaring proof of its own arbitrary character, that it continually finds favor anew, and is adopted in particular cases even by those who strictly and entirely reject it in principle-all shows how deeply the Pentateuch is stamped with the impress of an historical character, and so serves as evidence against the mythical interpretations of it in general. This cause of the origin and long duration of an hypothesis which thus stops on half-way ground, is given by Meyer himself one of its advocates (1. c. p. 16:) “ These mythical commentators had yet an obscure feeling, which was produced as well by the whole individual character of some of these ancient traditions, as their definite references to time and place, and their close connection with some later and better established facts, which feeling forbade them to regard every thing as mere fable which they were compelled to explain as mythical.” The completion and the carrying out of the thoroughly mythical hypothesis, is then to be regarded as a gratifying advance, for the very reason that it stands in such glaring contradiction with all sound historical feeling ;-for it is a general truth that every error must be fully carried out and driven to its extreme before there will be a reaction towards truth. We may rejoice so much more unreservedly at this advance, since that which the half-mythical hypothesis had suffered to remain, was not the sacred but the common history; so that in a religious point of view, nothing is lost or gained by it. But the thoroughly mythical hypothesis might, and indeed with some justice, take the credit of restoring to religion her violated rights, inasınuch as she placed a sacred poesy in the stead of common history. See for instance De Wette's remark (s. 67) in reference to Eichhorn's opinion that circumcision was intended to remove Abraham's unfruitfulness : “ What would our pious old theologians say at this ! Truly they were theologians, we are not." And (s. 116) in reference to Isaac's getting his wife : “ A Hebrew read this narrative as poetry, as connected with his religion and the theocracy, and with a mythical faith-shall we read it otherwise? Shall we destroy and strip off the delicate poetical flowers by a fruitless, tasteless historical handling?" Were this effort to substitute a sacred poesy in the place of common history really an earnest one, this thorough-going mythical hypothesis must be regarded as a forerunner of the truth in still another way. If the spirit of the book, so long mistaken and denied, is again restored to its rights, the history must also gain something. If the bistory regarded as poetry, excites religious feeling, touches, edifies, men will no longer be so estranged from it, and the way is open to the adoption of the bistory as history. For human nature cannot be satisfied simply with ideas or what is ideal ; but has an innate irrepressible desire to see them realized in history -for only when the ideal becomes real history, can it be an assurance to us that God is not far off, that he kindly condescends and reveals himself to man, and that a holy life is possible in this world of sin. But although the principal champion of the mythical interpretation (De Wette) does sometimes do a little towards fulfilling his promise [in the last quotation above) as e. g. in his remarks on the offering up of Isaac (s. 103) and in his discussion against the crude deduction of the doctrine of angels (s. 108,) yet in the general, in direct contradiction to his promise, bis effort is only to change common history into common poetry. The good taste which one obtains by reading the classic poets must be brought with him to the reading of the Hebrew writers (s. 82). — The mythos concerning the cursing of Canaan is very awkwardly conceived, a production of the national hatred of the Hebrews for the people they had conquered (s. 76).—Abraham's intercession for Sodom does no great honor to the taste of the narrator (s. 92).—The account
* How far this last writer goes, is shown by assertions like the following: The book of Genesis affords so little historical material, that it does not even determine the native land of the Patriarchs, (1. c. 184); the relation of Aaron to Moses is to be rejected as unhistorical (s. 227); the Mosaic state has not a historical character (s. 204 ff.); Moses did not establish a connected system of religious worship, and consecrated no race of priests for it (s. 218); it is doubtful whether the Levites were originally a tribe in the same sense as the other tribes (s. 221); doublful whether the original names of the tribes have come down to us (s. 223). Of holy seasons, he allows only the sabbath and perhaps the new moon to bave been ancient; the three great feasts originated in a later age, and still later was the reference given them to the ancient history of the people, etc. etc. The author has only to take one step more, viz. with Voltaire (questions s. l'encyclopedie § 127), to call upon his opponents to prove that such a man as Moses ever existed.
ughters is a pure fiction, of a very tasteless and invidious character (s. 94.).—He speaks also in Th. 1. s. 259, of sacred legends' and ' moral tirades.'
There is also a difference among those who embrace the thorough-going mythical interpretation of the Pentateuch, inasmuch as some, like De Wette, satisfy themselves with pulling down, and actively protest against all building up again; others will also build up, as for instance Baur and Vatke. (For Baur see his article . ueber d. Passah fest u. ueber d. Beschneidung, Tueb. Zeitsch. f. Theol. 1832, Heft 1. s. 40 ff). A spirit of rare boldness is necessary in order to do this; such as could scarcely be found in the department of profane history. There every one sees that without stone, nothing but castles in the air can be built. But there are also there none but common historians. The philosophical historian has the principles in accordance with which history must develop itself. But necessity includes and proves reality. Why then should special testimonies be still needed to prove what has really taken place? They are in fact only a hindrance, and we must be glad when we have none of them. For where we have, they do not in the general agree with those principles, and we then liave the trouble of modifying, transforming, adapting, and setting them aside. For that the principles may not be modified so as to suit the facts, is clear enough. Every such contradiction, that is based only on testimonies as to facts, is, for science,' and these its priests, of no sort of importance. (See Vatke, s. VII.) Common criticism can only kill; philosophical criticism can also make