« AnteriorContinuar »
GENEALOGIES OF THE CHRONICLES.
(father of Moses and Aaron), Izehar, Hebron, and Uzziel. Korah is the son of Izehar, and Elkanah is the son of Korah. Even at this early stage the genealogical table of the Chronicles is so far inconsistent with this, that in one instance it mentions an Amminadab as the son of Kohath, and in a second table entirely omits Elkanah the son of Korah'. The Chronicles borrow from 1 Sam. i. 1. the genealogy of Samuel as far upwards as Zuph, and seek to make a Levite of this illustrious man; but they term the very same ancestor in one case Nahath (verse 26) and in another Toah (verse 34), because, previous to the time of Zuph, the names had to be invented. A similar licence has been used in the line of successive priests from the time of Aaron Eleazar and Phinehas, who are borrowed from the Pentateuch down to Jehozadak, who was carried away captive by Nebuchadnezzara. We find but twenty-two names to distribute over the immense interval of nearly two thousand years, and yet many remarkable men whose names occur in the historical
I “ The sons of Kohath ; Amminadab his son, Korah his son, Assir his son.”—1 Chron. vi. 22, &c. See also “ the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah,” verse 37. [See Exod. vi. 24.]
2 " The sons of Levi ; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. And the sons of Kohath ; Amram, Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel. And the children of Amram ; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. The sons also of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. Eleazar begat Phinehas, Phinehas begat Abishua; and Abishua begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi ; and Uzzi begat Zerahiah, and Zerahiah begat Meraioth; Merai. oth begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub; and Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Ahimaaz ; and Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan; and Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priest's office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem): and Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub; and Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum ; and Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah ; and Azariah begat Seraiah, and Seraiah begat Jehozadak; and Jehozadak went into captivity when the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar."-1 Chron. vi. 1-15.
writings are introduced among them; Zadok, for instance, and Ahimaaz under Davidl, and Azariah under Uzziah ?, and between these we have only Azariah (under Solomon), and Johanan, though it is manifest that the long period of more than two centuries which intervened between David and Uzziah cannot possibly have been filled up by only two priests. The extraordinary poverty in this collection of names is also worthy of notice, for the Azariah we have mentioned is succeeded by Amariah, Ahitub and Zadok, who occur in precisely the same order before the time of David,—a coincidence which cannot be explained by any supposed similarity in the names of forefathers and their descendents. In the other genealogies of the Chronicles the same difficulty in manufacturing names is repeatedly apparent; nay in some cases even cities are called in to supply the deficiency, and are made, like Hebron, to stand in the place of men; for instance, Kirjath-jearim, Ephratah (which conducted the compiler by a natural transition to Bethlehem“), Penuel, Tekoa?, Anathoths, and even Thar
1“And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests; and Seraiah was the scribe.”—2 Sam. viii. 17. .
“The king said also unto Zadok the priest, Art not thou a seer? return into the city in peace, and your two sons with you, Ahimaaz thy son, and Jonathan the son of Abiathar.”—2 Sam. xv. 27.
2 “And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, that were valiant men.”--2 Chron. xxvi. 17. .
3 “And these were the princes which he had, Azariah the son of Zadok, the priest.”—1 Kings ix. 2.
4 Under Jehosaphat, 2 Chron. xix. 11. See note (%), p. 199.
5 « These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah ; Shobal the father of Kirjath-jearim, Salma the father of Bethlehem.”-1 Chron. ii. 50, 51.
Verse 51. Compare 1 Chron. iv. 4. 7 “And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.”--] Chron, iv. 5.
* "And the sons of Becher, Zemira, and Joash, and Eliezer, and.
sish'. It is clear from these examples how easily such registers of names could be constructed, to suit the pleasure of the writer, and could be carried backwards as far as it might seem necessary,-a process which has long been familiar to the Brahmins of India. The most learned apologist for the Chronicles goes so far as to admit that authors in ancient times allowed themselves great license in the construction of their tables of genealogy, and that the variations can only be explained by the supposition that the whole has been compiled from a number of different authorities; he believes that the Chronicles give us these tables exactly as they found them; though it cannot be denied that, in some instances, even uncommon names are repeated in the same order at different times or under different circumstances”. So that, in this as in every other instance, the Pentateuch would appear to gain very little by the support it derives from the Chronicles.
Elioenai, and Omri, and Jerimoth, and Abiah, aad Anathoth, and Alometh. All these are the sons of Becher."-1 Chron. vii. 8.
1 “The sons also of Jediael ; Bilhan : and the sons of Bilhan ; Jeush, and Benjamin, and Ehud, and Chenaanah, and Zethan, and Tharshish, and Ahishashar.”-1 Chron. vii. 10.
2 Movers, pages 81, 235, 237.
THE PROPHETS AND THEIR PROPHECIES.
We have attempted, in the preceding chapter, to sketch from Hebrew history a brief outline of the progress of the priesthood. We have shown that, in the first instance, the priestly dignity was combined with secular authority, and that it remained so connected, in accordance with ancient custom and with the uniform practice of the patriarchal age; that under Samuel it assumed a more independent form, and thenceforth in the progress of time it grew up into a regular hierarchy. But with this remarkable man, who may be justly regarded as having given the first impulse to the spiritual culture of the Hebrews, a new prophetic element makes its earliest appearance in their history; and, before proceeding further, we must devote a few pages to a brief consideration of its nature.
In ancient as in modern times it has been the uniform and very natural practice of princes in the East to employ the wisest of their subjects as their counsellors, poets, and bards, and as the recognized interpreters of the sovereign will of Heaven,—all which ideas are combined in the Hebrew word nabil (or prophet]. The Indian monarchs
Compare Exod. vii. 1, xv. 20, &c. :“ And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh : and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”—Exod. vii. 1.
“And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in RELIGIOUS POETS.
maintained their peculiar court-bards (vaitalikás) for this especial purpose; but, in addition to these paid eulogists and monitors, the holy penitents, who discharged a similar office, ought also to be mentioned. In Persia the Saadi, and more particularly the ascetics not belonging to the priesthood, were animated by a kindred spirit, and the caliph Haroun is even said to have eagerly sought these preachers of repentance, in the hope of being warned or moved by their political and religious exhortations?. When a powerful priesthood is seeking to obtain a political supremacy, these religious poets (who by the purity of their views are best fitted to elevate the popular belief,) are generally to be found in direct opposition to the sacerdotal spirit; they strive to resist its overgrown pretensions, whenever these are exclusively directed either to the mere externals of religion or to the acquisition of power. Thus the later Hebrew prophets stand as mediators between the throne and the sacerdotal caste; thus too, in the collection of ancient Indian fables (called the Hitopadesa) intended for the instruction of their princes, and in other ethical works of that nation, we not unfrequently detect a direct opposition to the settled institutes of Brahminism..
At its first commencement however, before the prophetic office assumed this character among the Hebrews, or reached the high and peculiar dignity it afterwards acquired, there are only two facts which can be deduced, with any certainty, from the obscure allusions and scanty evidence of their early history: first, that it was originally combined
her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.”—Exod. xv. 20.
See Kosegarten, Chrest. Arab. p. 35, &c. Gesenius on Isaiah i. 23.