Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions Part 24

to his master, and reproved him.

In ancient fables or stories in which animals play prominent parts, each creature is endowed with the power of speech. This idea was common in the whole of Western Asia and Egypt. It is found in various Egyptian and Chaldean stories.[91:3] Homer has recorded that the _horse_ of Achilles spoke to him.[91:4]

We have also a very wonderful story in that of

JOSHUA'S COMMAND TO THE SUN.

This story is related in the tenth chapter of the book of Joshua, and is to the effect that the Israelites, who were at battle with the Amorites, wished the day to be lengthened that they might continue their slaughter, whereupon Joshua said: "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. _And the sun stood still_, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. . . . And there was no day like that before it or after it."

There are many stories similar to this, to be found among other nations of antiquity. We have, as an example, that which is related of Bacchus in the Orphic hymns, wherein it says that this G.o.d-man arrested the course of the sun and the moon.[91:5]

An Indian legend relates that the sun stood still to hear the pious e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.ns of Arjouan after the death of Crishna.[91:6]

A holy Buddhist by the name of Matanga prevented the sun, at his command, from rising, and bisected the moon.[91:7] Arresting the course of the sun was a common thing among the disciples of Buddha.[91:8]

The _Chinese_ also, had a legend of the sun standing still,[91:9] and a legend was found among the _Ancient Mexicans_ to the effect that one of their holy persons commanded the sun to stand still, which command was obeyed.[91:10]

We shall now endeavor to answer the question which must naturally arise in the minds of all who see, for the first time, the similarity in the legends of the Hebrews and those of other nations, namely: have the Hebrews copied from other nations, or, have other nations copied from the Hebrews? To answer this question we shall; _first_, give a brief account or history of the Pentateuch and other books of the Old Testament from which we have taken legends, and show about what time they were written; and, _second_, show that other nations were possessed of these legends long before that time, _and that the Jews copied from them_.

The Pentateuch is ascribed, in our _modern_ translations, to _Moses_, and he is generally supposed to be the author. This is altogether erroneous, as Moses had _nothing whatever_ to do with these five books.

Bishop Colenso, speaking of this, says:

"The books of the Pentateuch _are never ascribed to Moses in the inscriptions of Hebrew ma.n.u.scripts, or in printed copies of the Hebrew Bible_. Nor are they styled the '_Books of Moses_' in the Septuagint[92:1] or Vulgate,[92:2] _but only in our modern translations_, after the example of many eminent Fathers of the Church, who, with the exception of Jerome, and, perhaps, Origen, were, one and all of them, very little acquainted with the Hebrew language, and still less with its criticism."[92:3]

The author of "The Religion of Israel," referring to this subject, says:

"The Jews who lived _after_ the Babylonish Captivity, and the Christians following their examples, ascribed these books (the Pentateuch) to Moses; and for many centuries the _notion_ was cherished that he had really written them. _But strict and impartial investigation has shown that this opinion must be given up_; and that _nothing_ in the whole Law really comes from Moses himself except the Ten Commandments. _And even these were not delivered by him in the same form as we find them now._ If we still call these books by his name, it is only because the Israelites always thought of him as their first and greatest law-giver, _and the actual authors grouped all their narratives and laws around his figure, and a.s.sociated them with his name_."[92:4]

As we cannot go into an extended account, and show _how this is known_, we will simply say that it is princ.i.p.ally by _internal_ evidence that these facts are ascertained.[92:5]

Now that we have seen that Moses did not write the books of the Pentateuch, our next endeavor will be to ascertain _when_ they were written, and _by whom_.

We can say that they were not written by any _one_ person, nor were they written _at the same time_.

We can trace _three_ princ.i.p.al redactions of the Pentateuch, that is to say, the material was _worked over_, and _re-edited_, with _modifications_ and _additions_, by _different people_, at _three distinct epochs_.[93:1]

The two princ.i.p.al writers are generally known as the _Jehovistic_ and the _Elohistic_. We have--in speaking of the "Eden Myth" and the legend of the "Deluge"--already alluded to this fact, and have ill.u.s.trated how these writers' narratives conflict with each other.

The _Jehovistic_ writer is supposed to have been a prophet, who, it would seem, was anxious to give Israel a history. He begins at Genesis, ii. 4, with a _short_ account, of the "_Creation_," and then he carries the story on regularly until the Israelites enter Canaan. It is to him that we are indebted for the _charming_ pictures of the patriarchs. _He took these from other writings, or from the popular legends._[93:2]

About 725 B. C. the Israelites were conquered by Salmana.s.sar, King of a.s.syria, and many of them were carried away captives. _Their place was supplied by a.s.syrian colonists from Babylon, Persia, and other places._[93:3] This fact is of the greatest importance, and should not be forgotten, as we find that the _first_ of the three writers of the Pentateuch, spoken of above, _wrote about this time_, and the Israelites heard, _from the colonists from Babylon, Persia, and other places--for the first time--many of the legends which this writer wove into the fabulous history which he wrote, especially the accounts of the Creation and the Deluge_.

The Pentateuch remained in this, its _first_ form, until the year 620 B.

C. Then a certain _priest_ of marked prophetic sympathies wrote a book of law which has come down to us in Deuteronomy, iv. 44, to xxvi., and xxviii. Here we find the demands which the _Mosaic_ party at _that day_ were making thrown into the form of laws. It was by King Josiah that this book was first introduced and proclaimed as authoritative.[93:4] It was soon afterwards _wove into_ the work of the _first_ Pentateuchian writer, and at the same time "_a few new pa.s.sages_" were added, some of which related to Joshua, the successor of Moses.[94:1]

At this period in Israel's history, Jehovah had become almost forgotten, and "other G.o.ds" had taken his place.[94:2] The Mosaic party, so called--who worshiped Jehovah exclusively--were in the minority, but when King Amon--who was a worshiper of Moloch--died, and was succeeded by his son Josiah, a change immediately took place. This young prince, who was only eight years old at the death of his father, the Mosaic party succeeded in winning over to their interests. In the year 621 B.

C., Josiah, now in the eighteenth year of his reign, began a thorough reformation which completely answered to the ideas of the Mosaic party.[94:3]

It was during this time that the _second_ Pentateuchian writer wrote, and _he_ makes _Moses_ speak as the law-giver. This writer was probably Hilkiah, _who claimed to have found a book, written by Moses, in the temple,[94:4] although it had only just been drawn up_.[94:5]

The princ.i.p.al objections which _were_ brought against the claims of Hilkiah, _but which are not needed in the present age of inquiry_, was that Shaphan and Josiah read it off, not as if it were an _old_ book, _but as though it had been recently written_, when any person who is acquainted, in the slightest degree, with language, must know that a man could not read off, at once, _a book written eight hundred years before_. The phraseology would necessarily be so altered by time as to render it comparatively unintelligible.

We must now turn to the _third_ Pentateuchian writer, _whose writings were published 444 B. C._

At that time Ezra (or Ezdras) _added_ to the work of his two _predecessors_ a series of _laws_ and _narratives_ which had been drawn up _by some of the priests in Babylon_.[94:6] This "series of laws and narratives," which was written by "some of the (Israelitish) priests in Babylon," was called "_The Book of Origins_" (probably containing the Babylonian account of the "_Origin of Things_," or the "_Creation_").

Ezra brought the book from _Babylon_ to Jerusalem. He made some modifications in it and const.i.tuted it a code of law for Israel, _dove-tailing it into those parts of the Pentateuch which existed before_. A few _alterations_ and _additions_ were subsequently made, but these are of minor importance, and we may fairly say _that Ezra put the Pentateuch into the form in which we have it_ (about 444 B. C.).

These priestly pa.s.sages are partly occupied with historical matter, comprising a very free account of things from the creation of the world to the arrival of Israel in Canaan. Everything is here presented from the _priestly_ point of view; some events, elsewhere recorded, are _touched up in the priestly spirit, and others are entirely invented_.[95:1]

It was the belief of the Jews, a.s.serted by the _Pirke Aboth_ (Sayings of the Fathers), one of the oldest books of the _Talmud_,[95:2] as well as other Jewish records, that Ezra, acting in accordance with a divine commission, re-wrote the Old Testament, the ma.n.u.scripts of which were said to have been lost in the destruction of the first temple, when Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem.[95:3] This we _know_ could not have been the case. The fact that Ezra wrote--adding to, and taking from the already existing books of the Pentateuch--was probably the foundation for this tradition. The account of it is to be found in the Apocryphal book of Esdras, a book deemed authentic by the Greek Church.

Dr. Knappert, speaking of this, says:

"For many centuries, both the Christians and the Jews supposed that Ezra had brought together the sacred writings of his people, united them in one whole, and introduced them as a book given by the Spirit of G.o.d--a Holy Scripture.

"The only authority for this supposition was a very modern and altogether untrustworthy _tradition_. The historical and critical studies of our times have been emanc.i.p.ated from the influence of this tradition, and the most ancient statements with regard to the subject have been hunted up and compared together. These statements are, indeed, scanty and incomplete, and many a detail is still obscure; but the main facts have been completely ascertained.

"_Before the Babylonish captivity, Israel had no sacred writings._ There were certain laws, prophetic writings, and a few historical books, but no one had ever thought of ascribing binding and divine authority to these doc.u.ments.

"_Ezra brought the priestly law with him from Babylon, altering it and amalgamating it with the narratives and laws already in existence, and thus produced the Pentateuch in pretty much the same form_ (though not quite, as we shall show) _as we still have it. These books got the name of the 'Law of Moses,' or simply the 'Law.'_ Ezra introduced them into Israel (B. C. 444), and gave them binding authority, _and from that time forward they were considered divine_."[95:4]

From the time of Ezra until the year 287 B. C., when the Pentateuch was translated into Greek by order of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, these books evidently underwent some changes. This the writer quoted above admits, in saying:

"Later still (viz., after the time of Ezra), _a few more changes and additions were made_, and so the Pentateuch grew into its present form."[96:1]

In answer to those who claim that the Pentateuch was written by _one_ person, Bishop Colenso says:

"It is certainly inconceivable that if the _Pentateuch_ be the production of _one and the same hand throughout_, it should contain _such a number of glaring inconsistencies_. . . . No single author could have been guilty of such absurdities; but it is quite possible, and what was almost sure to happen in such a case, that, if the Pentateuch be the work of _different authors_ in _different ages_, this fact should betray itself _by the existence of contradictions in the narrative_."[96:2]

Having ascertained the origin of the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Old Testament, it will be unnecessary to refer to the others _here_, as we have nothing to do with _them_ in our investigations. Suffice it to say then, that: "In the earlier period after Ezra, _none of the other books_ which already existed, enjoyed the same authority as the Pentateuch."[96:3]

It is probable[96:4] that Nehemiah made a collection of historical and prophetic books, songs, _and letters from Persian kings_, not to form a second collection, but for the purpose of saving them from being lost.

The scribes of Jerusalem, followers of Ezra, who were known as "the men of the Great Synagogue," _were the collectors of the second and third divisions of the Old Testament_. They collected together the historical and prophetic books, songs, &c., which were then in existence, _and after altering many of them_, they were added to the collection of _sacred_ books. It must not be supposed that any fixed plan was pursued in this work, _or that the idea was entertained from the first, that these books would one day stand on the same level with the Pentateuch_.[96:5]

In the course of time, however, many of the Jews began to consider _some_ of these books as _sacred_. The Alexandrian Jews adopted books into the canon which those of Jerusalem did not, _and this difference of opinion lasted for a long time, even till the second century after Christ. It was not until this time that all the books of the Old Testament acquired divine authority._[96:6] It is not known, however, _just when_ the canon of the Old Testament was closed. _The time and manner in which it was done is altogether obscure._[97:1] Jewish tradition indicates that the full canonicity of several books was not free from doubt till the time of the famous Rabbi Akiba,[97:2] who flourished about the beginning of the second century after Christ.[97:3]

After giving a history of the books of the Old Testament, the author of "The Religion of Israel," whom we have followed in this investigation, says:

"The great majority of the writers of the Old Testament had no other source of information about the past history of Israel than simple _tradition_. Indeed, it could not have been otherwise, for in primitive times no one used to record anything in writing, and the only way of preserving a knowledge of the past was to hand it down by word of mouth.

The father told the son what his elders had told him, and the son handed it on to the next generation.

"Not only did the historian of Israel draw from tradition with perfect freedom, and write down without hesitation anything they heard and what was current in the mouths of the people, _but they did not shrink from modifying their representation of the past in any way that they thought would be good and useful_. It is difficult for us to look at things from this point of view, because our ideas of historical good faith are so utterly different. When we write history, we know that we ought to be guided solely by a desire to represent facts exactly as they really happened. All that we are concerned with is _reality_; we want to make the old times live again, and we take all possible pains not to remodel the past from the point of view of to-day. All we want to know is what happened, and how men lived, thought, and worked in those days. The Israelites had a very different notion of the nature of historical composition. When a prophet or a priest related something about bygone times, his object was not to convey knowledge about those times; on the contrary, he used history merely as a vehicle for the conveyance of instruction and exhortation. Not only did he confine his narrative to such matters as he thought would serve his purpose but he never hesitated to modify what he knew of the past, _and he did not think twice about touching it up from his own imagination, simply that it might be more conducive to the end he had in view and chime in better with his opinions. All the past became colored through and through with the tinge of his own mind._ Our own notions of honor and good faith would never permit all this; but we must not measure ancient writers by our own standard; they considered that they were acting quite within their rights and in strict accordance with duty and conscience."[97:4]

It will be noticed that, in our investigations on the authority of the Pentateuch, we have followed, princ.i.p.ally, Dr. Knappert's ideas as set forth in "The Religion of Israel."

This we have done because we could not go into an extended investigation, and because his words are very expressive, and just to the point. To those who may think that his ideas are not the same as those entertained by other Biblical scholars of the present day, we subjoin, in a note below, a list of works to which they are referred.[98:1]

We shall now, after giving a brief history of the Pentateuch, refer to the legends of which we have been treating, and endeavor to show from whence the Hebrews borrowed them. The first of these is "_The Creation and Fall of Man_."