Chapter I
The Historical Actuality of Revelation
As has been observed above, there is a logical distinction between the historical actuality and the divine origin of revelation. In this chapter we are concerned solely with the existence or objective truth of revelation. Our present task, therefore, is to ascertain whether the doctrines revealed in the Old and New Testaments were actually communicated to men and whether the events connected with their communication form a part of the authentic history of that time.
The certitude which we can obtain on this head is called historical or, in consideration of its basis, moral. It is a true certitude, that is, a real assent of the mind given without fear of error. While metaphysical certitude presupposes the general laws of being, and physical certitude postulates the immutability of the laws of nature, moral certitude, as its name indicates, is grounded upon the constancy of the laws which govern the conduct of free rational beings. In the present connection we regard the moral law from one point of view only, to wit, in as far as it regulates man’s striving after the truth. It expresses itself in the fact that every normal man has a natural inclination to acknowledge and proclaim the truth, and that he will not resort to lies and deception except when impelled to do so by a special motive strong enough to push his will in a direction opposite to that indicated by the law of nature. “Nemo gratis mendax.”1
Of the different historical sources at our disposal we shall employ almost exclusively written tradition as contained in the books of the Old and New Testament, together with a few extra-biblical, partly Jewish and partly pagan documents. Both the Old and the New Testament, according to Catholic teaching, were written at the special instigation of God, under the impulse of supernatural inspiration. However, we shall here consider them merely as historical sources, not as divinely inspired books, since this is a point which remains to be proved.
Upon the character of these sources, their value and reliability, depends the degree of certitude which we can obtain regarding the facts of sacred history. Only if the genuineness and credibility of the sources is absolutely beyond doubt, can the facts reported therein be accepted as certain. Hence, the genuineness and credibility of the Bible, in general and in particular, will form the subject of our next inquiry.
§ I. Genuineness and Credibility of the Bible in General
1. Genuineness of the Bible
A historical document is called genuine “if it actually is what it is commonly believed to be.”2 More definitely we can say that the genuinity of a document consists in this that it is written by the author whose name it bears and at the time to which it is generally ascribed. This quality is also called authenticity. Note, however, that historical authenticity differs from doctrinal authenticity, which latter consists in the essentially correct reproduction of an inspired Biblical text and rests solely upon a declaration made by the Church.3
In demonstrating the genuineness or authenticity of the various books of the Bible it cannot be our task to show that the original text was genuine. The text has come down to us only in copies and translations, and it is the authenticity of these copies and translations that is the question at issue. The present versions of the books of Sacred Scripture admittedly do not agree in every minute detail with the original text. The constant multiplication of copies and versions has resulted in a large number of variant readings. However, these variants are not important, as there is perfect agreement in every essential detail. That the most ancient extant codices, which date from the fourth and fifth centuries, agree substantially with the originals, is proved by the Scriptural citations found scattered through the works of Philo, Flavius Josephus, and other ancient writers, as well as by the fact that the Bible was in constant public use, and the Church from the very beginning of her existence watched with the greatest solicitude over the preservation of the text. All we have to show, therefore, is that the books constituting the Old and New Testaments were written at the time to which they are commonly ascribed and by the authors whose names they bear.
The genuineness of these books can be demonstrated in a twofold way, namely, by means of external testimonies and from internal criteria.
2. Credibility of the Bible
The credibility of a book is based on the character of its author. If he has reliable knowledge of the things he writes about, and is minded to tell the truth, he is credible, i. e., deserving of belief. To test the credibility of a historic narrative, therefore, it is sufficient to answer these two questions: (1) Was the author in a position to know the truth? (2) Was he willing to tell the truth?
1. In order to answer the former question, we must inquire whether the author, if he claims to speak as an eye-witness, actually lived at the time when the event took place, whether he was present when it happened, and whether his position and environment were favorable for accurate observation. Other factors to be taken into consideration are: the author’s power of observation and his understanding of the things which he reports. If he has employed extraneous sources, it becomes necessary to ascertain the reliability of the latter.
In making this investigation we must remember that an absolutely perfect reproduction of an event is hardly possible. The limitations of his senses do not permit man to perceive all the details of an event completely and with unerring accuracy. Hence the impression which an external occurrence makes upon the observer, as a rule, does not fully correspond to the reality. That which strikes the attention most powerfully is remembered, while the rest is forgotten. The imagination frequently influences sense perception, especially when fear or lively expectation are at work. Nor are the ideas formed in the mind, and the written narrative that is based upon them, capable of furnishing a perfect reproduction of the actual facts. The work of even the most objective historian necessarily has a strong subjective tinge. Absolute objectivity is and remains an ideal which should be striven for, but can never be fully attained.
2. In answering the second question, attention must above all be paid to the moral character of the witness, and especially to his veracity, which is just as important as his intellectual capacity. Since the soul of man is created for, and naturally strives after truth, intentional deception on the part of a witness, prompting him to falsify and misrepresent the facts, cannot be assumed without weighty reasons. Of course, if a writer is convicted of intentional deception, he loses the right to be trusted.
3. The veracity of a witness can best be ascertained from his life and character. If no information is available on these points, we must try to utilize the indications contained in his writings. We must inquire what was the attitude of the witness towards the facts which he reports. Even where no deception is intended, prejudice, passion, partisanship, selfishness, or some other improper motive may influence a writer and cause him to see the facts in a false light. The surest guarantee of accuracy is offered by those documents which show the least traces of self-seeking on the part of the witness.
4. It is a sign of trustworthiness if an account is transmitted in two or more mutually independent sources, for two or more witnesses will hardly invent the same story independently of each other, or distort the truth in exactly the same way. Even more important for the evaluation of historical sources is their agreement with coins, inscriptions, and other relics of the age in which the events are reported to have occurred.
If two or more witnesses do not agree, the contradiction is often only apparent and traceable to one-sided observation. If the evidence cannot be harmonized from this point of view, and if there are no adequate means available to ascertain the truth, it is necessary to suspend one’s judgment regarding the reliability of the sources.4
History-Writing in Antiquity.—To evaluate a historical document rightly, we must pay due regard to the time in which it originated. The quality of history-writing is governed by the general level of education and the cultural attainments of the age. Hence, we must not expect ancient documents like the Bible to be written in conformity with the rules of the modern critical method. The ancient historians wrote for their contemporaries. They enjoyed greater freedom than modern writers in the use of historical materials, which they felt free to arrange according to rhetorical or esthetic points of view, without informing their readers of the fact. Nor were they bound as closely as present-day historians are to the chronological sequence of events.5
Historical Research and Philosophy.—The rules which have been laid down for ascertaining the genuineness and credibility of historical documents possess universal validity. They are not bound up with any religious creed or philosophical world-view, and consequently are accepted as reliable by all scholars. Only when there is question of miraculous events do some Rationalists balk and deny the validity of the critical method. Miracles are impossible, they contend, and therefore none can have happened. Some of these writers, like David Friedrich Strauss, bluntly deny the reality of the miraculous events reported in the Bible. “To the extent that a document reports a phenomenon or an occurrence with the express or tacit implication that it was wrought immediately by God Himself (theophanies, voices from heaven) or by human individuals in virtue of a supernatural equipment (miracles, prophecies), we need not admit it as historical.”6 This is an unjustifiable conclusion. If trustworthy witnesses report a miraculous occurrence, we are not free to deny it for the reason that it is opposed to our preconceived philosophical notions. To do so would be to leave the solid ground of history for that of metaphysical speculation. “For here the question at issue no longer is to ascertain the actuality of an event, which is the first and principal task of all historical inquiry. On the contrary, this point is set aside from the start, and the historian is limited to the task of demonstrating when and how such and such a report originated. The objective of historical research is thus imperceptibly altered: it is no longer to ascertain the facts, but to explain how the report of an antecedently impossible event can have originated.”7
Other writers of the Rationalist persuasion do not deny the historicity of miraculous phenomena when reported by trustworthy witnesses, but try to explain them in a purely natural way. They doubt the competency of the witnesses who interpreted the respective phenomena as miracles. Thus Bernheim says: “What does the testimony in all these cases signify? That certain events took place which the witnesses considered miraculous. That these events really happened, we have no reason to doubt in the case of St. Bernard and a hundred others, and no one, no matter what his religious convictions may be, can doubt it if he wishes to understand the Middle Ages. What we may doubt is the miraculous interpretation of these events. If we question this interpretation, and thus emancipate ourselves from the judgment of the witnesses on the strength of our diverging views and superior knowledge, we only do what we claim to have a methodic right to do whenever there is question of criticizing and interpreting authors. We would exceed this privilege only if we doubted the authentically recorded facts themselves.”8 But there are authentically recorded facts (e. g., the miraculous cure of Peter de Rudder, mentioned above (p. 54, note 46) which defy every attempt at a purely natural explanation, regardless of the interpretation put upon them by eyewitnesses. In such cases, according to the Rationalists, it would be necessary to doubt the actuality of an event in spite of convincing evidence in its favor.9 For this inconsistency we cannot blame the historical method as such, but must censure the unjustifiable reluctance of Rationalist historians to acknowledge the existence of miracles.
The dogmatic teaching of the Church on the value of Sacred Scripture is formulated by the Vatican Council as follows: “This supernatural revelation, according to the universal belief of the Church, declared by the Holy Synod of Trent, is contained ‘in the written books and unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand, have come down even to us.’ And these books of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical in their integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the decree of the said Council, and are contained in the ancient Latin edition of the Vulgate. These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not only because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; not only because they contain revelation with no admixture of error; but also because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and have been delivered as such to the Church itself.”10
“If anyone shall not receive as sacred and canonical the books of Holy Scripture, entire with all their parts, as the Holy Synod of Trent has enumerated them, or shall deny that they have been divinely inspired; let him be anathema.”11
§ II. Genuineness and Credibility of the Old Testament
1. If the demonstration of the divine origin of Christian revelation on the basis of the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament is to have an independent standing, the authenticity and credibility of the writings contained in that portion of the Bible must be established without regard to the New Testament. Hence we cannot in this connection appeal to the utterances of Jesus Christ to prove the genuineness or credibility of the Old Testament.
2. It is unnecessary for our present purpose to deal separately with each book of the Old Testament. It will suffice to enumerate the principal arguments for the genuineness and credibility of those books which we intend to use as sources of proofs later on. The rest belongs to the special theological disciplines of Biblical Introduction and Exegesis.12
1. Genuineness of the Old Testament
We assert that the writings contained in the Old Testament are genuine. The proof for this thesis is based partly on extrinsic testimonies and partly on intrinsic criteria.
1. Extrinsic Testimonies.—a) The genuineness of all the writings contained in the Old Testament is guaranteed by the constant tradition of the Jews. This tradition goes back to the earliest times and is all the more trustworthy because in many passages of these writings the Jews or their rulers appear in a highly unfavorable light. Forgeries of this sort would not have been tolerated. The most ancient non-Biblical witness for the genuineness of at least the protocanonical writings of the Old Testament is Flavius Josephus.13
b) The later books of the Old Testament are not all, it is true, attested by extra-biblical witnesses, but they contain many references to the former, references which show that especially the Pentateuch was known to and accepted by the Jewish people.14
2. Intrinsic Criteria.—The contents of nearly all the books of the Old Testament allow us to identify their authors and to fix the time of their composition with considerable assurance. Thus the Pentateuch in several places mentions that Moses made a record of certain events or laws.15 In these texts there is question only of particular passages; but the strict unity which informs all parts of the Pentateuch permits us to conclude that the remaining sections also were written by Moses.16
The geographical views expressed in the Pentateuch show that this portion of the Old Testament was composed before the Israelites took possession of the Promised Land. Thus Egypt is mentioned as a country well known to them.17 Certain localities in Chanaan are described as resembling places in Egypt,18 but Chanaan itself is still an unknown country.19
The Book of Josue, though perhaps not altogether the work of the author whose name it bears, originated soon after the Israelites had entered Chanaan and while they were still engaged in subjugating its inhabitants. This is evident from the description of existing conditions. Rahab, the harlot, who had shielded the spies of Josue, was still alive when this book was written.20
The author of the Book of Judges (presumably Samuel) made use of existing records.21 The compilation of these records must have taken place soon after the accession of Saul, for we are repeatedly assured that “in those days there was no king in Israel, but every one did that which seemed right to himself.”22 This remark points to a time when the royal office was still new and its blessings were vividly felt by the people.
The first and second Books of Kings were written while the country was divided into two monarchies,23 evidently some time after the death of Samuel.24 The name of the author, who was probably not an eye-witness of all the events which he records, is unknown.
The third and fourth Books of Kings repeatedly refer to older sources of information.25 These two books were manifestly written during the first half of the Babylonian Captivity, since the fourth in its last verses mentions the thirty-seventh year of the imprisonment of Jechonias, but not the end of the Captivity.26
The two books of Paralipomena date from the period after the Exile27 and, to judge by their contents, were written by Esdras.
The two books which bear the name of Esdras are compiled from a number of separate documents, which were incorporated with the text; they also originated after the Babylonian Exile and were probably amalgamated into one whole by the author under whose name they have been handed down to us.
The two books of the Machabees, which narrate the history of the Chosen People under the command of Judas Machabeus and his brethren, were composed before the end of the second century B.C.28 Their authors are not known, but their authenticity is unquestioned.
The Psalms, called in Hebrew Tehillim (that is, “Hymns of Praise”), were composed by several authors, as their titles and contents indicate. A large number of them are the work of King David. Some were composed by Asaph. The final hymns were probably added to the collection at the time of the Babylonian Captivity. The Psalter was completed under Nehemias and Esdras.29
The Book of Isaias embodies a vision of a prophet who lived under Ezechias, King of Juda.30 Its author, Isaias, the son of Amos, is also mentioned in the fourth Book of Kings,31 where there is question, as in the book of Isaias itself, of the intimate relations between the Prophet and King Ezechias. Chapters XIX and XX of the Fourth Book of Kings are manifestly taken from Is. XXXVII-XXXIX. Hence there can be no reasonable doubt that Isaias lived at the time of Ezechias. He himself claims the authorship of the prophecy that goes under his name, and we have no reason to challenge his claim.32
The Prophecy of Jeremias is the work of a prophet who exercised his office under King Josias.33 Jeremias was repeatedly commanded to write down the words that God had spoken to him concerning Israel and Juda.34 He dictated them to his friend Baruch, son of Nerias, who probably welded the different parts of the book together.35 The collection, which pertains mainly to the Exile, was undoubtedly completed before the end of that period, since if it had not yet been closed, the termination of the Exile would undoubtedly have been mentioned in XXV, 11, and XXIX, 10.
The Prophet Daniel acknowledges himself as the writer of the book of Daniel, and both form and contents indicate that the prophecy was composed at the court of Babylon.36
The author of the prophecy of Micheas, according to his own testimony,37 was a Morasthite, who lived in the days of Ezechias, king of Juda. This statement is confirmed in Jer. XXVI, 18, where Mich. III, 12 is assigned to the reign of Ezechias. The prophecy of Micheas must have been written before the destruction of Samaria and the fall of the northern kingdom, for both events are represented as future.
The Prophecy of Aggeus, as can be gathered from its contents, was written soon after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Exile, and the authorship is confirmed by 1 Esd. V, 1, and VI, 14.
The Prophecy of Zacharias belongs to the same period, since the author began his prophetical career two months after Aggeus.38 The First Book of Esdras mentions both these prophets.39
The Prophecy of Malachias was written somewhat later, after the completion of the Temple.40 But it is probable that this prophet was still living under Nehemias and Esdras, since he combats the same abuses against which Nehemias raised his voice.41
2. Credibility of the Old Testament
We maintain that the writings of the Old Testament are credible, i. e., deserving of trust.
1. The authors of these writings were in a position to know and to tell the truth. Many of the events which they record were known to them from personal experience. That they did not lack keenness of observation nor the requisite knowledge of contemporary affairs, is evident from the nature of the events recorded as well as from the manner in which they are described. These events were external occurrences, for the observation and recording of which normal powers of perception and common sense were quite sufficient. That the authors were endowed with these necessary qualifications is proved by the manner in which they deal with the various subjects that form the bulk of their writings.
In some cases, it is true, extraneous sources in the form of oral traditions and written records had to be laid under contribution. But these also were used critically and were no doubt quite reliable. Thus the oral tradition that is to be presupposed for at least a portion of the Book of Genesis, may be regarded as absolutely dependable, especially where it deals with important events and beliefs current among the people. To this must be added the well-known fidelity and tenacity of the Oriental memory and the fact that Moses most probably employed written records in compiling his book. The stories which were told in later Babylonian times about the heroes of the period of Hammurapi are evidently derived from ancient documents.42
The other written sources of the Old Testament seem to have perished, and we are consequently not in a position to investigate their reliability. But the fact that the books which contained quotations from them found a favorable reception and general recognition at a time when the sources themselves were still in existence and the memory of the events in question was fresh among the people, is sure proof that the sources used by the sacred writers were reliable and can be fully trusted.
2. The Old Testament writers were willing to tell the truth. Those who are known to us are without exception men of good moral character, deep religious convictions, and nobly unselfish in their efforts to promote the glory of God and the welfare of the Chosen People. Such witnesses can reasonably be expected to tell the truth.
Their statements are, moreover, frequently confirmed by extra-Biblical sources. The nations enumerated in the tenth chapter of Genesis, for instance, have nearly all been traced in Assyrian inscriptions.43 King Amraph-el of Sennaar44 is identical with Hammurapi, King of Babylon. His ally, Arioch, King of Pontus, is identified by some scholars with Eriaku45 of the cuneiform inscriptions.46 Ur of the Chaldees,47 the home of Abraham, is the Uru of the inscriptions.48 It has lately been excavated. King Hammurapi mentions it in the introduction to his code:49 “The royal scion [Ham], whom Sin created, who made rich the city of Ur, the humble petitioner who brings superfluity to Ekissirgal [the temple of the Moon God Ur].”50 The Hebrews51 occur as “Habiri” in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, which date from the middle of the fifteenth century B.C.52 The famous “Israel Stele” of the Pharaoh Merneptah (about 1250 B.C.), discovered in 1894, contains the name Israel,53 applying it to a portion of the people of Chanaan who had been defeated by Merneptah. The inscription of the Mesha (Mesa) Stone (ninth century B.C.) furnishes a parallel to 4 Kings I, 1 and III, 3 sqq.54 Omri, the father of Achab, and his subjugation of the Moabites55 and the military expedition of Joram against Moab are mentioned there. An inscription on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser (Salmanassar) II (ninth century B.C.) tells of an Assyrian expedition against Hazaël, king of Damascus,56 and of a tribute paid by the Tyrians, the Sidonians, and Yahua, the son of Khumri.57 The annals of Tiglath-Pileser III (733 B.C.) confirm 4 Kings XV, 29 sq.58 The annals of Sargon59 (721-705 B.C.) record the conquest of Samaria, whence he deported 27,290 people.60 Sennacherib’s expedition to Jerusalem (701 B.C.) under King Ezechias61 is mentioned in an inscription discovered in the ruins of Nineveh.62 Another inscription, dating from about the same period, describes the scene at Lachis63 as follows: “Sanherib [Sennacherib], king of the world, king of Assyria, seated himself upon his throne, and the prisoners from Lachish marched before him.”64 The “Babylonian Chronicle,” in agreement with the Biblical65 account, describes Sennacherib’s death as follows: “On the twentieth day of Tebet [681 B.C.] Sinahheriba, king of Assyria, was killed by his son in revolt.”66 And of his successor, Esarhaddon,67 the Chronicle says: “On the 28th of Adar, Asurahiddina, his son, ascended the throne.”68 Isaias XLV, 1 is confirmed by this inscription: “Marduk looked around and sought for a just king, and chose a man according to his own heart, calling Kurash [Cyrus] to be king over the whole world.”69 Of Nabuchodonosor (B.C. 605–562), who destroyed Jerusalem,70 an ancient cuneiform inscription found in a cave says that he went on a military expedition against Ammananu (Anti-Lebanon).71
For the time antedating the rule of Cyrus the Great we have up to now no confirmation in the cuneiform texts. But even if detailed records of that time had come down to us, we could hardly expect to find in them a report concerning the dismissal of the Jews from captivity.72
A further confirmation of the Old Testament is to be found in the stories of the creation and the flood which were spread in a more or less distorted form over the whole earth.73 The striking resemblances between these traditions, especially regarding the Deluge, render it probable that they had a common source, which is “most accurately quoted in the Biblical and Babylonian versions.”74
The account given in Genesis, which is free from mythological admixtures, is evidently not based upon the Babylonian version, but upon some other oral or written source, from which not only the Babylonians, but all nations originally derived their information concerning that catastrophic event.
A final proof for the credibility of the Old Testament is its detailed agreement with the conditions of ancient Oriental civilization.75 The judicial customs of the time of Abraham, as illustrated by the relation of Sara to Hagar,76 and that of Rachel to Balam,77 correspond exactly with the laws of Hammurapi.78 The Tel-el-Amarna letters permit us to recognize the social background of the story of Joseph of Egypt (d. about 1635 B.C.).79 Grain and other victuals are stored at Yarimuta, and Yanhamu, whom the king has appointed as his minister, sells food to buyers from Chanaan, for which he is paid with silver and wood, and youths and maidens too.80
Besides these extra-Biblical sources, parallel reports contained in the revealed books themselves may be employed for testing their credibility, provided, of course, they are of independent provenience.81
Notes
Cfr. Ch. de Smedt, Principes de la Critique Historique, Liège and Paris, 1883, pp. 60 sq.; A. Feder, Lehrbuch der historischen Methodik, 2nd ed., Ratisbon, 1921, pp. 212 sqq.
↩E. Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode, 6th ed., Leipsic, 1908, p. 330.
↩Cfr. Kirchen-Lexikon, 2nd ed., Vol. I, col. 1730; Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 137; Vol. XIII, p. 639; Vol. XIV, p. 531; H. Pope, The Catholic Student’s “Aids” to the Study of the Bible, revised edition, Vol. I, The Old Testament (General), London, 1926, pp. 230 sqq. There is also a distinction between historical authenticity and genuineness. A genuine work is one written by the author whose name it bears; an authentic work is one which relates truthfully the matter of which it treats. Authenticity refers to truth in fact; genuineness to truth in origin (authorship). See the Century (s. v. “Authentic” and quotation by Bp. Watson.) The distinction can also be found in Hurter (Theol. Dogmat. Comp., 12th ed., Vol. I, p. 39.
↩Cfr. Bernheim, Lehrbuch der hist. Methode, 6th ed., Leipsic, 1908, pp. 479 sqq.; Ch. de Smedt, Principes de la Critique Historique, Liège and Paris, 1883, pp. 117 sqq.
↩F. Tillmann in Esser-Mausbach, Religion, Christentum, Kirche, Vol. II, 5th ed., Kempten, 1923, p. 190; cfr. E. Bernheim, op. cit., pp. 514 sqq.
↩Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, Vol. I, 13th ed., Tübingen, 1904, p. 100.
↩Esser-Mausbach, Religion, Christentum, Kirche, 5th ed., Vol. II, p. 193.
↩Bernheim, op. cit., pp. 328 sq.
↩Cfr. L. Fonck, S.J., Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten, 2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1916, pp. 233 sqq.; J. Donat, S.J., Die Freiheit der Wissenschaft, 2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1912, pp. 299-304.
↩Conc. Vat., Sess. III, c. 2, de Revel. (Denzinger-Bannwart-Umberg, n. 1787).
↩Conc. Vat., Sess. III, can. 4, de Rev. (Denzinger-Bannwart-Umberg, n. 1809). Cfr. Decretum “Lamentabili,” prop. 9–19 (Denzinger-Bannwart-Umberg, n. 2009–2019); and the Response of the Biblical Commission of June 30, 1909 (quoted in M. Seisenberger, Practical Handbook for the Study of the Bible, new ed., New York, 1925, pp. 485 sq.) and of June 26, 1912 (ibid., pp. 490 sqq.).
↩Cfr. M. Seisenberger, Practical Handbook for the Study of the Bible, new revised ed., New York, 1925; H. Pope, O.P., Catholic Student’s “Aids” to the Bible, The Old Testament, new ed., 3 vols., The New Testament, 2 vols., London, 1926 sqq.; Brüll-Messmer, Outlines of Bible Knowledge, 2nd ed., Freiburg i. B., 1927. See also the resp. articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
↩Contra Ap., I, 8, 38; Ant. Iud., Proem., III; XII, 2, 1. For a brief sketch of the life of Josephus see J. P. Arendzen, Men and Manners in the Days of Christ, London, 1928, pp. 271-287; for his testimony on Christ, infra, pp. 131 sqq. Cfr. B. Poertner, Die Autorität der deuterokanonischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, Münster i. W., 1893, pp. 27 sq.
↩Cfr. 1 Kings XXI, 2 sqq.; 3 Kings II, 3; 4 Kings XIV, 6.
↩Ex. XVII, 14; XXIV, 4, 7; Num. XXXIII, 2; Deut. XXXI, 9, 22; XXVIII, 58.
↩H. Pope, O.P., Catholic Student’s “Aids” to the Study of the Bible, Vol. II, London, 1928.
↩Gen. XLVI, 28; XLI, 45; Ex. I, 11; XIII, 20; XIV, 2.
↩Gen. XIII, 10; Num. XIII, 23.
↩Gen. XXIII, 2, 19; XXXIII, 18; Deut. XI, 10.
↩Jos. VI, 25.
↩Judg. V.
↩Judg. XVII, 6; XVIII, 1, 31; XXI, 24; cfr. J. F. Smith, Studies in Hebrew History, London, 1928, pp. 28 sqq.
↩1 Kings XXVII, 6. It is significant that these two books should also be called, as by an alternative title, Books of Samuel. Cfr. J. F. Smith, Studies in Hebrew History, p. 37.
↩1 Kings IX, 9; cfr. 1 Par. IX, 22; XXVI, 28; XXIX, 29; cfr. J. F. Smith, op. cit., pp. 37 sqq.
↩3 Kings XI, 41; XIV, 29; 4 Kings I, 18.
↩4 Kings XXV, 27 sqq.
↩1 Par. III, 19-24.
↩1 Mach. XVI, 23 sq.; 2 Mach. I, 10.
↩2 Mach. II, 13; cfr. Flavius Josephus, C. Ap., I, 8.
↩Is. I, 1.
↩4 Kings XX, 1 sqq.
↩Is. I, 1. We know nothing about Isaias except what he himself tells us. The first incident which he records is his vision in the Temple and the commission entrusted to him by Yahweh. But we can gauge his character from his writings, and there is extant a rabbinical tradition to the effect that he was of royal blood, which is quite in harmony with his career. Indeed his evident influence at court gives weight to the supposition that he was a nephew of King Amasias and hence a kinsman of the succeeding monarchs in whose reigns he lived. For a short but graphic sketch of Isaias and his times see J. F. Smith, Studies in Hebrew History, London, 1928, pp. 69–87.
↩Jer. I, 2.
↩Jer. XXXVI, 2; XXVIII.
↩Jer. XXXVI, 4, 18, 32. On the life and time of Jeremias see J. F. Smith, Studies in Hebrew History, pp. 88–98.
↩Dan. VII, 1 sq.; VIII, 1, 26; XII, 4. On Daniel and his times see Smith, op. cit., pp. 118–126; Joh. Goettsberger, Das Buch Daniel, Bonn, 1928, pp. 1 sqq.
↩Mich. I, 1; III, 1.
↩Zach. I, 1, 7; VII, 1.
↩1 Esdr., l. c.
↩Mal. I, 10; III, 1, 10.
↩2 Esdr. XIII, 4, 5; 10-13, 23-30. On the prophetical books of the Old Testament cfr. F. Kaulen, Einleitung in die hl. Schrift, Vol. II, 5th ed., Freiburg, 1913, pp. 197-299; R. Cornely, S.J., Compendium Introductionis in S. Scripturas, 8th ed., Paris, 1927; Brüll-Messmer, Outlines of Bible Knowledge, 2nd ed., Freiburg i. B., 1927, pp. 99-116; M. Seisenberger, Practical Handbook for the Study of the Bible, revised ed., N. Y., 1925, pp. 304-333.
↩A. Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, tr. by C. L. Beaumont and C. H. W. Jones, Vol. II, London and New York, 1911.
↩A. Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 275 sqq.
↩Gen. XIV, 1; cfr. H. Pope, O.P., The Catholic Student’s “Aids” to the Bible, Vol. I, London, 1913, p. 33.
↩A. Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 321.
↩H. Winckler, Keilschriftliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament, 3rd ed., Leipsic, 1909, Introduction, p. ix.
↩Gen. XI, 31.
↩A. Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 6 sq.
↩Code of Hammurapi, col. II, 13 sqq.
↩H. Gressmann, Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testament, Vol. I, Tübingen, 1909, p. 141.
↩Gen. XIV, 13.
↩Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 339. These clay tablets, found in 1887 in the ruins of Chut-Aten (now Tel-el-Amarna), are political documents from the reigns of Pharaoh Amenophis III and especially Amenophis IV, therefore about 1450 B.C. There are some 300 fragments, preserved in the Berlin Museum, in the Museum of Gizeh (Cairo), and in the British Museum; some are private property. Cfr. Gressmann, op. cit., p. 131, 4 a; H. Pope, O.P., The Catholic Student’s “Aids” to the Study of the Bible, Vol. I, London, 1913, pp. 34 sq.
↩Gressmann, op. cit., p. 195; Pope, op. cit., p. 20 sq.; Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 332 sq.
↩Gressmann, op. cit., p. 172; Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 238, gives a picture of this stone and a translation of the inscription, and says: “The statements of Mesha agree entirely with the Bible” (ibid., p. 239).
↩Cfr. 3 Kings XVI, 28.
↩Cfr. 4 Kings VIII, 8 sqq.
↩Cfr. 4 Kings IX, 2 sqq. Pope notes (op. cit., 131) that while these monuments do not confirm the Biblical history, which makes no mention of any such campaign, they show how slight a knowledge of the history of Israel we can acquire from the Bible alone, which was not given us as a history of Israel, but of God’s dealings with the Chosen People—all else is secondary. We are enabled to date the eighteenth year of Shalmaneser II referred to on the Black Obelisk (which is in the British Museum) from the Assyrian Eponym Canon (cfr. Pope, op. cit., pp. 137 sq.), which shows that it was B.C. 842.
↩Here the respective portion of the text: “Bit-Humria [the house of Omri, i. e., the family of the King of Israel], the whole of his people with their possessions I conducted to Assyria. As they had dethroned Pakaha [Phacee], their king, I set up Ausi [Osee] to rule over them. I received ten talents of gold and ten talents of silver as tribute from them.” Tiglath-Pileser (Theglathpalasar) is called Phul (Pul) in 4 Kings XVI, 26 and 1 Par. V, 26. The same name (Pulu) occurs in the Babylonian list of kings, and it was probably the official title of Tiglath-Pileser in Babylon, as distinguished from Assyria (Pope, op. cit., p. 132). The Greek form of the name is Poros. He died in 727. Cfr. Schuster-Holzammer, Handbuch zur biblischen Geschichte, Vol. I, 8th ed. by Jos. Selbst, Freiburg i. B., 1925, p. 640, n. 8; Gressmann, Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testament, Vol. I, p. 115; A. Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 214.
↩Cfr. Is. XX, 1 (722 B.C.); Gressmann, op. cit., p. 116.
↩4 Kings XVII, 6; cfr. Pope, op. cit., p. 132; Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 218 sq.
↩4 Kings XVIII, 13 sqq. He says that he brought out Padi, the king of Accaron, from Jerusalem, that he besieged that city, and shut up Ezechias in it “like a bird in a cage,” that he captured forty-six cities belonging to him, and that he made him send after him to Ninive “thirty talents of gold and eight talents of silver.” The Bible (4 Kgs. XVIII, 14) has: “three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.” Pope (op. cit., p. 133) notes that “while this account corroborates the Biblical narrative in many particulars, it yet diverges from it in others; this is not the place to attempt a reconciliation of the discrepancies; suffice it to say that Sennacherib may possibly have made two separate invasions of Palestine, and that, owing to the unfavorable issue of one of them, the Assyrian annalist may have combined the accounts of both into one narrative. It is possible that we have a hint of this in the Bible, for in 4 Kgs. XVIII, 16, there seems to be a gap, as though the subsequent narrative were concerned with a later invasion.” Dr. A. Jeremias thinks Sennacherib waged three campaigns against Jerusalem (op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 222 sqq.).
↩Cfr. Gressmann, op. cit., I, 119 sq.
↩4 Kings XVIII, 14: “Then Ezechias, king of Juda, sent messengers to the king of the Assyrians to Lachis, saying: I have offended, depart from me: and all that thou shalt put upon me, I will bear. And the king of the Assyrians put a tax upon Ezechias, king of Juda, of three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.”
↩Cfr. Gressmann, op. cit., I, p. 121; Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 225.
↩4 Kings XIX, 37.
↩Cfr. Gressmann, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 126; Pope, op. cit., p. 133; Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 227.
↩Cfr. 4 Kings XIX, 37.
↩Gressmann, l. c. Esarhaddon was reputed to be the mildest of all Assyrian kings, yet the Bible says of him (2 Paral. XXXIII, 11) that he had Manasses taken “bound with chains [Hebrew: with hooks] and fetters to Babylon.” At Zenjirli, near Aleppo, there was discovered a figure in relief representing Esarhaddon, before whom are kneeling Tirhaka, king of Egypt, and another, who is probably the king of Samala, both with hooks in their noses, and the Assyrian king is holding them by a leash. Cfr. Is. XIX, 4 and 4 Kgs. XIX, 28. (Pope, op. cit., pp. 133 sq.)
↩Cfr. Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 232.
↩Cfr. 4 Kings XXIV, 1, 10 sqq.
↩Gressmann, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 126 sq.; Winckler, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, 3rd ed., 1903, pp. 107 sqq.; Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 230.
↩Cfr. H. Winckler, Keilschriftliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament, XX; Pope, op. cit., pp. 330, 336, 339.
↩The most important of these are listed by A. Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, tr. by Beaumont and Johns, Vol. I, London and New York, 1911, pp. 142 sqq., 245 sqq.; cfr. Pope, op. cit., pp. 193–198.
↩Cfr. Gressmann, Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testament, Vol. I, pp. 1–31, 39–61.
↩Cfr. A. Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 1 sqq.
↩Gen. XVI, 1 sqq.
↩Gen. XXX, 1 sqq.
↩Cfr. Gressmann, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 156 sq. (144-146); Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 355 sqq.
↩Gen. XXXIX sqq.
↩Cfr. Jeremias, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 70 sqq. Georg Ebers says in Ägypten und die Bücher Mosis (1868): “The whole story of Joseph must be designated as corresponding throughout to the true circumstances of ancient Egypt.” (Quoted by Jeremias, op. cit., II, 68.)
↩Compare, e.g., Ps. XVII and 2 Kings XXII; Ps. L and 2 Kings XII; Ps. LXII and 1 Kings XXII, 5.
↩
