The Historical Standpoint [stub]

1884 The Old Testament Student  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact THE OLD TESTAIMENT STUDENT. THE OLD TESTAIMENT STUDENT. as being reckoned under the Book of Kings would naturally lead us to suppose that the others were not reckoned in the same category. Besides, it is doubtful, in the second case, whether the vision of Isaiah is not to be understood as an authority besides the Book of Kings. This meaning is favored by the translation of the Septuagint, which, together with Chaldee, is followed by the English version. (5) When we duly weigh all these points, we do not wonder that Graf was at last inclined to admit that he had gone too far in maintaining that the Chronicler had only freely adapted our Books of Kings to his own views. We have, as it seems to us, abundantly shown that the Chronicler had reliable authorities, and that the assumption that he has deliberately changed the historical facts for a didactic purpose, is entirely without foundation. The question now remains, In what shape did he consult these authorities ? Professor Dr. Franz Delitzsch, my honored friend and teacher, answers the question as follows:-The Chronicler had (1) our two Books of Samuel; (2) our two Books of Kings; (3 ) a Mlidrash Sepher ha-Melakim-,that is, a commentary on an older Book of Kings,--in which this older book was illustrated by excerpts out of the official annals of Judah and Israel, and out of many prophetic documents of different times. It is probable that Ezra was the compiler of this great work, which closed with the history of his own time. While we hold, with Professor Delitzsch, that the Chronicler had our Books of Samuel and Kings, we find lno adequate proof that the mass of the material was comprehended under a compilation from the older documents named, or that that the expression Midrash Sepher ha-MIelakim is equivalent to Sepher IMalche Israel ve Jehuda. (a) As we have already observed, there is no evidence that Dibre Natthan, Dibre Gad, Nebuath Ahijah, Chazoth Yedo, Dibre Shemaiah, Dibre Iddo, and Midrash Iddo were contained in one work. Indeed, it is far more probable that they existed as independent documents. The fact that the work of Jehu the son of Hanani is mentioned as being embodied in the Book of Kings, 2 Chron. xx., 34, does not indicate that those above mentioned were collected in the same work; it rather shows that the others were not included in it. (1) Althougll the Chronicler does not quote his main source without some slight variations, yet we cannot argue from this that he considers Midrash Sepher ha-Melachim equivalent to Sepher Malche Israel, which he mentions twice, or to Sepher Malch7e Jehtda ve Israel, to which he refers four times, much less that the above-mentioned documents of Nathan, Gad, etc., were all constituent parts of a larger work. (7) Our theory is that the Chronicler had access to these documents, which all illustrated the history of the regal period, and with which he was perfectly familiar. Since we cannot identity the Sepher Malche Jehuda ve Israel with Dibre ha-Yanim, which is so often quoted in the Book of Kings, it is probable that our present Books of Samuel and Kings lay before our author, from which he took the basis of an enlarged and modified work, which was enriched by the sources already mentioned, and which truly represents the course of history during the regal period from a Levitical standpoint.-From Cutrtiss' The Levitical Priests.