VICTIMS U HEBREWS. - The Bible teaches us that the victims, existing among the Jews long before the appearance of Moses, were considered important by him that Moses had marked the exact nature, time, external ceremonies of various victims, made to Jehovah. But the rationalists do not want. considered in Moses the legislator of the Hebrews; ritual in their eyes, the Book of Leviticus, was made only after the return from captivity, and should be assigned Ezra. Assertions that the Bible clearly the opposite, trying to prove by showing that various details attributed to Moses, ritual generally known and common custom was introduced only after the captivity, the relevant views of the rationalists argued before the articles The temple, feasts, priesthood (now the Article.), But here we examine their scheme for the victims. According to them, in particular, according to Wellhausen, such sacrifices as are described in the book of Leviticus, to take effect only from Ezra: And if, say, carefully scan the documentation former from the historical figures, it will be seen in them, although the victim, but quite different from the victims of priestly ritual. So let's review in the wake of Wellhausen, holy books, to see the value of these arguments.
lo. Above critic notes that throughout the Pentateuch, the mere book of Leviticus, it is a ritual law of Moses, "attach a separate weight to kwestyi relating to various kinds of victims and their ritual ..." In the book of the covenant (Wyjś. XX - XXIII) silent speech about the ritual, only to recommend "not to submit victims of another god besides Jahveh ... Although some rules have been issued regarding the negative of the pagan deities, that's no mute sign of positive about the ritual, what to hold on to. "From this you can see what Wellhausen maintained: namely - to the conclusion that the Book of Exodus (XX - XXIII) is far older, than the author of the Book of Leviticus, one represents Hebreów from captivity, the second after the captivity. And all this for the fact that Moses says in Exodus of the same, what it says in Leviticus! With such logic, and we also could zawnioskować that the author Fire and sword, for example, is not the same writer as the author of Quo Vadis, because these two books are not written either in the same subject, either for the same purpose.
2-o. new argument is the first to add a bit of force, which it otherwise requires: jehovistyczne letter shows us many of the victims before Moses, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob offered sacrifice, and Cain and Abel also have sacrificed their victims to the Lord. On the contrary while in Leviticus silent speech of these ancient sacrifices, Moses przyszłemi deals only with the victims, and does not care for those who may have been before. "The striking contrast-to!" Wellhausen says, and has a great right, always there sometimes, "stark contrast" between the historical narrative, which is the Book of Genesis, which deals with the story of the past, a legal book, which is the book of Leviticus, which deals with the future of the device, would actually prove, above all, that Moses could not have neither one nor the other to write the book.
3-o. The said racyonalistowski critic wants to be taken as accurate and as detailed ritual of Leviticus only as a centralized cult. Well, without going into the value of this argument, we find only that he calls himself against the author, because the external cult Hebreów, from Moses, he had always considered legitimate basis for the unity of the church (now Article t...)
4-o. After these preliminary Wellhausen arguments failed to seek other evidence in the Pentateuch, which the system is discussed after the Easter collection for the issue: he takes so other books of history and tries to prove to them that, since Moses until the seizure of Jerusalem was not known ritual, now attributed to Moses . In confirmation of his assumption quotes, a) Gideon, whose sacrifice we discussed the innem place, as we demonstrated its validity (now Article. Gideon); b) Saul - meanwhile episode, which makes alluzyę Wellhausen (I Reg. XIV, 34), is not no victim, just a simple feast, and still more proof that the days of Saul was known, certain provisions of the ritual. It is yet another victim, since then, truer, made by Saul (XIII), but because it was made in spite of certain ritual prohibitions, because the Lord God had rejected Saul for what else-a critic of the victim is not mentioned at all? c) Naaman: Syrian talks about the sacrifices a family ritual podług Syriac (King IV. V, 17), it does not prove, however, means that the Hebrews had their own distinct ritual. In short, Wellhausen to prove that the Judges and the Kings of the Hebrews did not know the sacrificial ritual, relies on just such details that either are not victims, or that do not originate from the Hebrew people: a very clear examples and completely silent, confining itself to just empty claim that they come from "the later modifications."
5-o. When historians come the turn of the prophets, according to Wellhausen, the polemic of the latter is to combat the confusion at that time has created between the external cult. and religion, was already attached more importance to external practice, rather than to internal feelings, and reduce the significance of the prophets first, and others are important. Together with the critic to admit that the prophets are often requirements that disposition of the Hebrews to multiply the number of external actions and to consider are then exempt from the virtues of internal, inspired by the Bozeman held się w tem hasła, jakie im zostawił jeden z ich przodków: więcej warte posłuszeństwo aniżeli ofiara. Ale gdzie Wellhausen się myli, to przedewszystkiem, gdy z tego wnioskuje, że Hebreowie nie uważali wówczas praktyk kultu religijnego za instytucyę boską. Prawda, że ofiary te, aczkolwiek pochodziły od Jehowy, same przez się nic nie były warte, jeśli się nie przyczyniały do wzbudzania w duszy Hebreów uczuć czci, poszanowania i posłuszeństwa, jakie ci winni byli Bogu; jeśli ofiary tych skutków nie sprowadzały, wówczas były tylko czynnościami obojętnemi, a nawet złemi, w tem mianowicie znaczeniu, że forehead revealed some respect, a certain deference, which in fact did not exist in our hearts.
Let us add, moreover, that since the schism of the ten tribes, many of these victims to be made after Jerusalem, reactive, therefore, not surprising in temperature, as it relies Wellhausen, and Jehova spoken to the Israelites through the mouth of the prophet Amos: "Chodźcież to Bethel, and Do wickedly: to Gilgal, and multiply the offense: a przynoście poranu your sacrifices, for three days your tithes, - for we just want the children of Israel. "(IV, 4, 5). That in these poems seems to regard Amos habits of his contemporaries as "personal fantasy," it certainly does not mean that God never intended to require the victims, and tithes, and yes, it means that God forbade the rise of numerous temples, and that despite the Israelites went to Bethel and Gilgal, where the schism joined by idolatry. For that same reason, it is written a bit further: "I hate your feasts were turned down: neither speak your odor clusters" (V, 21). And this is for you? - Mainly because in all these ceremonies, the ritual has violated the law by Moses laid down, - for that there were only the victims themselves, and there was obedience. "I Izaliście obiatę victims were sacrificed in the wilderness for forty years house of Israel?" These words tłómaczy Wellhausen, that God said: "Do not you offered to me then, and it also did not you offer me today, while, on the contrary, these words contain the thoughts of the prophet One more complaint against Israel, who for the period Exodus from Egypt refused to obey God, to worship idols: such tłómaczenie tłómaczenia is older than modern criticism, because we find them in speech, which was St. Stephen to the Jews. (Act. Ap. VII, 42; PRW. Ps. XCIV, 10). Moreover
again Jehoya complains by the mouth of the prophet Hosea: "Namnożył Ephraira altars to grzeszeniu: fixed him up altars to sin. I will write him my numerous laws, which were reckoned as alien. The victims will bear, and the Lord will not accept them. "(Hos. VIII, 11, NST.). And here also mainly due to the multitude of altars and violations of numerous provisions Jehovy you do not accept the sacrifice Hebreów; are-are the same reasons that led God to say by Izaiasza: "full of burnt offerings of rams: tallow fat cattle." (I, 11), if the prophet Micah says: "Shall I give him a burnt offering? ... Shall you be ubłagan (can you please) with thousands of rams? Let me show you what iest good man, what were you want to you: Surely you did the court "(71, 6 + 8), if Jeremiah indignantly exclaims:" Throw your sacrifices for your sacrifices of thanksgiving were iedzcie their meat! "- It's always for one and the same reason: namely, that for the Hebrews to the victims not to include obedience. But here again another prophet, Ezekiel, clearly speaks of the sacrifices and ceremonies, in the image, showing future restoration of the Temple of Jerusalem (XI - XLVIII). It was therefore necessary to know the book of Ezekiel, Leviticus, and that temperature was the same token, the latter earlier than the fall of Judah in vain Wellhausen maintains that the prophet did not try to erect nigdyby this picture, if it existed before its eyes on the book of Leviticus is the prototype of what he presented intended. Some details I argue that the prophecy of Ezekiel is talking about an ideal, rather than a purely materyalnem, church renewal, so picture that had a distinct purpose, but nevertheless a number of its resemblance to the book Leviticus shows that the latter was already known, when it turned out the prophecy of Ezekiel.
Wellhausen zadawalnia not on establishing two periods in history the victims, one of which began with patryarchów, the second from the time of Ezra, and not from Moses, he goes further and determine the characteristics of thought, after which the victim can rozróżnićby first and second periods. So, lo his opinion, to Ezra sacrifice was not restricted to families Levi, or for any other privileged caste; teoryę refutes this Article. Priesthood. 2-o. This same critic thinks that, prior to Ezra the victim was usually combined with a feast, while it prevails after a holocaust, and the temperature feast same token, no longer silent as a burnt offering must be burnt whole. In support of his system Wellhausen cites a feast with the victims before the age of Ezra, but silent in temperature is not surprising, since the right of victims of a holocaust rozróżniało peace offerings, some of which could be ingested. The Passover feast in particular had a feature, and therefore in history the victims before Ezra hath nothing, he told was wrong with the existence of ritual sacrifices, and on the other hand again, if you can during this period of time combined with the victim's quote ucztami, it can also replace burnt well, such as made by Saul (ł Reg. XIII, 9), by Solomon (III Reg. III, 4), etc. 3-on will not be too much insisted on the latter marked by Wellhausen, and not supported by any evidence the difference: "From now on (after Ezra) is the cause of sin, sacrifice and the target - atonement. The idea was probably bogatemi questionable effects on the victims and threatening nature of deity, but the distance was then still think that some blame can be repaid by submitting to a particular victim. Ancient Hebrew did not know how in this way to measure and weigh the wrath of God. "
We, on the contrary, to assert emphatically that not only many-to Ezra's earlier victims was a propitiatory, but that everywhere, even among pagan peoples, lived the idea that god caused insults can fix przebłagalnemi victims: for example, the Philistines, and took away the ark of the LORD strzegłszy, do not give it without the prior sin of the victim (I Reg. VI), as well Jacob offered sacrifices for sins which his sons were able to commit. (Job I, V), and td It would, therefore, puzzling and even unlikely that Hebreowie before Ezra did not know the victims of sin, as it is. idea, which finds itself among all peoples, and that starting from the most remote antiquity. It would be necessary actually far more serious and more legitimate claim on it to break down in the Jewish and Christian tradycyę, which is attributed to Moses Leviticus legislation, and the temperature and the same token, the sacrificial ceremony.
(Duplessy).
XWS
lo. Above critic notes that throughout the Pentateuch, the mere book of Leviticus, it is a ritual law of Moses, "attach a separate weight to kwestyi relating to various kinds of victims and their ritual ..." In the book of the covenant (Wyjś. XX - XXIII) silent speech about the ritual, only to recommend "not to submit victims of another god besides Jahveh ... Although some rules have been issued regarding the negative of the pagan deities, that's no mute sign of positive about the ritual, what to hold on to. "From this you can see what Wellhausen maintained: namely - to the conclusion that the Book of Exodus (XX - XXIII) is far older, than the author of the Book of Leviticus, one represents Hebreów from captivity, the second after the captivity. And all this for the fact that Moses says in Exodus of the same, what it says in Leviticus! With such logic, and we also could zawnioskować that the author Fire and sword, for example, is not the same writer as the author of Quo Vadis, because these two books are not written either in the same subject, either for the same purpose.
2-o. new argument is the first to add a bit of force, which it otherwise requires: jehovistyczne letter shows us many of the victims before Moses, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob offered sacrifice, and Cain and Abel also have sacrificed their victims to the Lord. On the contrary while in Leviticus silent speech of these ancient sacrifices, Moses przyszłemi deals only with the victims, and does not care for those who may have been before. "The striking contrast-to!" Wellhausen says, and has a great right, always there sometimes, "stark contrast" between the historical narrative, which is the Book of Genesis, which deals with the story of the past, a legal book, which is the book of Leviticus, which deals with the future of the device, would actually prove, above all, that Moses could not have neither one nor the other to write the book.
3-o. The said racyonalistowski critic wants to be taken as accurate and as detailed ritual of Leviticus only as a centralized cult. Well, without going into the value of this argument, we find only that he calls himself against the author, because the external cult Hebreów, from Moses, he had always considered legitimate basis for the unity of the church (now Article t...)
4-o. After these preliminary Wellhausen arguments failed to seek other evidence in the Pentateuch, which the system is discussed after the Easter collection for the issue: he takes so other books of history and tries to prove to them that, since Moses until the seizure of Jerusalem was not known ritual, now attributed to Moses . In confirmation of his assumption quotes, a) Gideon, whose sacrifice we discussed the innem place, as we demonstrated its validity (now Article. Gideon); b) Saul - meanwhile episode, which makes alluzyę Wellhausen (I Reg. XIV, 34), is not no victim, just a simple feast, and still more proof that the days of Saul was known, certain provisions of the ritual. It is yet another victim, since then, truer, made by Saul (XIII), but because it was made in spite of certain ritual prohibitions, because the Lord God had rejected Saul for what else-a critic of the victim is not mentioned at all? c) Naaman: Syrian talks about the sacrifices a family ritual podług Syriac (King IV. V, 17), it does not prove, however, means that the Hebrews had their own distinct ritual. In short, Wellhausen to prove that the Judges and the Kings of the Hebrews did not know the sacrificial ritual, relies on just such details that either are not victims, or that do not originate from the Hebrew people: a very clear examples and completely silent, confining itself to just empty claim that they come from "the later modifications."
5-o. When historians come the turn of the prophets, according to Wellhausen, the polemic of the latter is to combat the confusion at that time has created between the external cult. and religion, was already attached more importance to external practice, rather than to internal feelings, and reduce the significance of the prophets first, and others are important. Together with the critic to admit that the prophets are often requirements that disposition of the Hebrews to multiply the number of external actions and to consider are then exempt from the virtues of internal, inspired by the Bozeman held się w tem hasła, jakie im zostawił jeden z ich przodków: więcej warte posłuszeństwo aniżeli ofiara. Ale gdzie Wellhausen się myli, to przedewszystkiem, gdy z tego wnioskuje, że Hebreowie nie uważali wówczas praktyk kultu religijnego za instytucyę boską. Prawda, że ofiary te, aczkolwiek pochodziły od Jehowy, same przez się nic nie były warte, jeśli się nie przyczyniały do wzbudzania w duszy Hebreów uczuć czci, poszanowania i posłuszeństwa, jakie ci winni byli Bogu; jeśli ofiary tych skutków nie sprowadzały, wówczas były tylko czynnościami obojętnemi, a nawet złemi, w tem mianowicie znaczeniu, że forehead revealed some respect, a certain deference, which in fact did not exist in our hearts.
Let us add, moreover, that since the schism of the ten tribes, many of these victims to be made after Jerusalem, reactive, therefore, not surprising in temperature, as it relies Wellhausen, and Jehova spoken to the Israelites through the mouth of the prophet Amos: "Chodźcież to Bethel, and Do wickedly: to Gilgal, and multiply the offense: a przynoście poranu your sacrifices, for three days your tithes, - for we just want the children of Israel. "(IV, 4, 5). That in these poems seems to regard Amos habits of his contemporaries as "personal fantasy," it certainly does not mean that God never intended to require the victims, and tithes, and yes, it means that God forbade the rise of numerous temples, and that despite the Israelites went to Bethel and Gilgal, where the schism joined by idolatry. For that same reason, it is written a bit further: "I hate your feasts were turned down: neither speak your odor clusters" (V, 21). And this is for you? - Mainly because in all these ceremonies, the ritual has violated the law by Moses laid down, - for that there were only the victims themselves, and there was obedience. "I Izaliście obiatę victims were sacrificed in the wilderness for forty years house of Israel?" These words tłómaczy Wellhausen, that God said: "Do not you offered to me then, and it also did not you offer me today, while, on the contrary, these words contain the thoughts of the prophet One more complaint against Israel, who for the period Exodus from Egypt refused to obey God, to worship idols: such tłómaczenie tłómaczenia is older than modern criticism, because we find them in speech, which was St. Stephen to the Jews. (Act. Ap. VII, 42; PRW. Ps. XCIV, 10). Moreover
again Jehoya complains by the mouth of the prophet Hosea: "Namnożył Ephraira altars to grzeszeniu: fixed him up altars to sin. I will write him my numerous laws, which were reckoned as alien. The victims will bear, and the Lord will not accept them. "(Hos. VIII, 11, NST.). And here also mainly due to the multitude of altars and violations of numerous provisions Jehovy you do not accept the sacrifice Hebreów; are-are the same reasons that led God to say by Izaiasza: "full of burnt offerings of rams: tallow fat cattle." (I, 11), if the prophet Micah says: "Shall I give him a burnt offering? ... Shall you be ubłagan (can you please) with thousands of rams? Let me show you what iest good man, what were you want to you: Surely you did the court "(71, 6 + 8), if Jeremiah indignantly exclaims:" Throw your sacrifices for your sacrifices of thanksgiving were iedzcie their meat! "- It's always for one and the same reason: namely, that for the Hebrews to the victims not to include obedience. But here again another prophet, Ezekiel, clearly speaks of the sacrifices and ceremonies, in the image, showing future restoration of the Temple of Jerusalem (XI - XLVIII). It was therefore necessary to know the book of Ezekiel, Leviticus, and that temperature was the same token, the latter earlier than the fall of Judah in vain Wellhausen maintains that the prophet did not try to erect nigdyby this picture, if it existed before its eyes on the book of Leviticus is the prototype of what he presented intended. Some details I argue that the prophecy of Ezekiel is talking about an ideal, rather than a purely materyalnem, church renewal, so picture that had a distinct purpose, but nevertheless a number of its resemblance to the book Leviticus shows that the latter was already known, when it turned out the prophecy of Ezekiel.
Wellhausen zadawalnia not on establishing two periods in history the victims, one of which began with patryarchów, the second from the time of Ezra, and not from Moses, he goes further and determine the characteristics of thought, after which the victim can rozróżnićby first and second periods. So, lo his opinion, to Ezra sacrifice was not restricted to families Levi, or for any other privileged caste; teoryę refutes this Article. Priesthood. 2-o. This same critic thinks that, prior to Ezra the victim was usually combined with a feast, while it prevails after a holocaust, and the temperature feast same token, no longer silent as a burnt offering must be burnt whole. In support of his system Wellhausen cites a feast with the victims before the age of Ezra, but silent in temperature is not surprising, since the right of victims of a holocaust rozróżniało peace offerings, some of which could be ingested. The Passover feast in particular had a feature, and therefore in history the victims before Ezra hath nothing, he told was wrong with the existence of ritual sacrifices, and on the other hand again, if you can during this period of time combined with the victim's quote ucztami, it can also replace burnt well, such as made by Saul (ł Reg. XIII, 9), by Solomon (III Reg. III, 4), etc. 3-on will not be too much insisted on the latter marked by Wellhausen, and not supported by any evidence the difference: "From now on (after Ezra) is the cause of sin, sacrifice and the target - atonement. The idea was probably bogatemi questionable effects on the victims and threatening nature of deity, but the distance was then still think that some blame can be repaid by submitting to a particular victim. Ancient Hebrew did not know how in this way to measure and weigh the wrath of God. "
We, on the contrary, to assert emphatically that not only many-to Ezra's earlier victims was a propitiatory, but that everywhere, even among pagan peoples, lived the idea that god caused insults can fix przebłagalnemi victims: for example, the Philistines, and took away the ark of the LORD strzegłszy, do not give it without the prior sin of the victim (I Reg. VI), as well Jacob offered sacrifices for sins which his sons were able to commit. (Job I, V), and td It would, therefore, puzzling and even unlikely that Hebreowie before Ezra did not know the victims of sin, as it is. idea, which finds itself among all peoples, and that starting from the most remote antiquity. It would be necessary actually far more serious and more legitimate claim on it to break down in the Jewish and Christian tradycyę, which is attributed to Moses Leviticus legislation, and the temperature and the same token, the sacrificial ceremony.
(Duplessy).
XWS
0 comments:
Post a Comment