Jahn's Biblical archaeology

381쪽

NoTE. Genera Vieto of the Argument that Palestine ad fromtime immemorial been the propers of Hebrei Herrimen ; and that thetiraelites ad a right o laim it again rom the Canaanites, on theqround that thenwere unluti ut O88eSSOrg. A the propriet O Dr. Jahit' conclusion in the above ectiondeponds essentiali O the proos,hicli an e exhibited that the Hebrews in aut originali possesse Palestine, and ad no done anythin by Way os relinquishin sueti possesSion, but o the On-trao ad in Variou Ways, asserte the continuance of their claim in sal territory, it Will e propero give in his place a generalvie of the argument, hicli is orae into, to ho that such asthe case. The opinion Os Our author coincide in the main onthis subjeci, illi hos of the ingenious writer Os Commentaries onthe Lares of Moses an it ill probabi an8wer at the purpos sorthos by hom his TRANSLATION ill e read is the state1nent of that writer, hicli sorm thera Ist Article of his ork, shouldi here inserted J From time immemorial Palestine ad been a an occupied by anderin Hebre herdsmen, in hieli ven Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, ad exercise the right O proprietOrship traversing twith herds, without ein in subjection O any one or achnOWledging the Canaanites a thei masters. The Phenicians Or Canaanites, ere certainlymo the origina possessors of this and but adat irst wel o the Red ea, as Herodotus relates; illi homJusti an Abulsed in s sa coincide, as that the forme SayS, that he had another country bes ore the came to wel O the Lahe os Gennesareth, o Dead ea and the alter, that the firstdwel in Arabia Moses is o far rom contradietin Herodotus here, as has been commoni belleved that he ather Xpresstyconsarm his account, by twice Vin in the histor of Abraham, Theianaianites Vere then in the and Gen. 12 6, and 13 7. The Mor then, anno impi that the contrary was the case in his oWntime so then the Canaanites stili dwel in Palestine, and their expulSion Only began unde his successor, ostiua so that he Ve u clearly to understand that there ad formerly been a time hen the dwel not in that an aut omeWhere else. Butanother relation hich e ives in Gen. 36 20 30, compare With Deut 2 12, 22, is stili more decisive He there describes an ancient peopte that bes ore the time o Edom, had wel in Seir, or 8 e

382쪽

and thei nation the Israelites ad neve give u to the Canaanites and theres ore the had a right to reclaim it, and O re-conquerit, by sorde. I the solicite from ther nations a passage into Palestine, it a meret in come ita their OWn properi again; and when hebri sed the Jordan, and ound the Canaanites in a sagainst them, the lalteriadio longe a legitimate causerio maintain, sor they anted o heep possessionis the propert of another pe0pleb force. I cannot even e here objected that the Israelites by their

383쪽

account of a famine an ii as illi the ope an determinationo returning again, a the divine promise give to Jacob, Genesis 46:4, confirms do no here inquire into, O dra an conclusionstom the divinit the promise sumetent sor me that, Whether tria o false Jacob ave ut that he had in a visio sueha promise ad him; ecause it prove the certaint of his haviniit in ieW, and mahin no secret oscit, that his posterit shouldone a go ac in Palestine. hether rescription old amorig

i is place in the cleares light. For e testistes to his rethren, bis certain inope that God ould re-conduci thei posteriis into Palestine; and theres ore ae destre noto b buriel in Egypt, but bene that his od might, after the ancient Egyptia man-

385쪽

corruption.

But wer no the Israelites in duo bound firstrio send the her-alds, and formali demand thei land again fro the Canaanites PThis question I must leave completet unan8Wered, parti beeauserit

i Way o conclusion I must stili ake notice of two objections, Whichrum ephe has made io, opinion, and on hicli I have notyet Ouehed Butaecause the are o more eight tha thos bes ore noticed Pought perhaps, ratheroo ascribe them to Prosessor Stiebrit himself. In the frat placo, he is of opinion, that the Israelites ought noto have re-appropriate a lan possessed by Wandering herdsmen, unies ad the posterit os sue herdsmen ad transse re thei right to them.' ut et it e remembered that thequestion here is no concerning Wanderintherd8men quite neOnnected illi ac othor, ut ni concerning thos o Hebre Origin and of these more particularly the ancestor of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: ando do no See here re sue a transfer could have been necessary, since e must here judge no by civit, but by natural la only. I severa persons have an qua littet a certain OSsession, and Ome of them, ister rom ea. nes O QOWardice, domo mine it good, and relinquisti it amother, Wh has the Ourage to et therWise, oes no from heir

pusillanimit lose a partici of his right anxifle conquer the land whic the have bandoned he olds, frst, his Wn quota by the right o forme proprietorship and then, the remaining part by the right o conquest; hiel in the case of a legitimate ar, Sequali legitimate. The ther claimanis horai no supportaim, an had relinquished thei righis, an mahe no retension to the fruit of his victories and the unlawsul possessors, ho ad carriedo an urius War, have it to than sor subjecting them to greaterlos than the Would probabi have experienced i the had yieldedwith a good graee. In the secon place, he objecis, 'thato ascribe the war is a cause, to hicli Moses himself has no referre it and that, as

386쪽

particular cause to hic it a b ascribed. An o ad causes, that to hie I ascribe it, has the best 1 undation in the histor recordedi Moses, through hicli histor he generali paves the Waysor his laWS. I mustoet add that his surther objection has been aderi myopinion, stat a Wandering eople could ardi be considere asproprietor O a count , in hichis individua could specif any particular ground as his own Dom his alWays histin his abod Domone pluee o noster. Iaad not indeed considere it necessis tonotice this objection, beeaus the fac stat a community ma possessundivide proper , is o very notorious; ut a a lesrne person, Who in his ritings, osten refers to m Mosaic laW, has latet repeatexit, taeeomes m duinto explain mysei more sullyin hispoint; andis answerris this :- A communit an even a WhOle natio ma poSSes propertyundivided, and in common. What, indeed, is more frequentamon OurSelves, than Such Ommon properties Man a villa gehas a common ood of hic not a reo, nor an ineli of theground belong to an individua villager, and et the whol istheir oin property and whoever, Without fui right an leave, carries os Wood, o even eli a tree, fauill of thest. O againu

convenienti portioned ut into individua properties; at eas nopar of it elong to an private person exclusively and yet thewhese to the communit at large. Di thos to hom proper

in common appear Such a Strange matter, neve hear, that in Germany there are many uel commonages, hic Our modern

387쪽

TO PALESTINE. 369green pasturedand sor instance, hieli mirat e sed to muta et- ter purpOS under illage, elong meret as a common to ne Ormore villages. The isadvantage of the present system, is niversali understood and the alloiment of suta land to particula tenanis is uel to e destred: ut then the r is that communities are noto be deprived of thei ancient rights. Eventhe corn-seld are in the Same siluation in soriar a the ma notbe enced, and must si fallo at certain times, an aster harvestbe subjected to the servitude of havin the herd drive to pastureupo them, from perhaps a communit Of many VillageS, here eventhos who have nota 1 ot of round of theiriwn, an assert a right to this privilege, from the mere circumstance of Occiapying a OuSe.

This to is justi considere as extremel prejudicia to the publicgood, o meret by individua economisis, ut in Ome Ountries, even by the legislative authorities, and the wish to alter it is very general; ut it cannotio done sor, i is aid asae re, o mancis tobe deprived of his right.

mutisve a hole nation V, in the manner, have a common

divide property. Thus hole nations by particular reaties, erio the right o certain fisheries, sue a statis Newseundiand, Without his properi bein actuali divided, o even possibi divisibi amon individua fishermen Thias also the Indians in North America, posses their immense Orest undivided, a Wandering hunters an have usu made great complainis, hen atan time the Englis o Freneli colonisis have attempte to clear an cultivate hos foresis, Without reriousi purehasin them, Whic is generali done or a mere trisse. I remember o haverea a reat many years ago, in an Engligit ournat, Hister the London o Genilemen' Magagine, the speec os an India chie Whichae made in a congress of the Indians illi the Englisti, and in hichae represente the injustice of this in a very rationes andassecting manner observing that hos soresis hiel the reat Spirit ad os id given to the Indians, an in hicli the hadalways lived, eremo by gome of the Englis dati more an more circumscribed, o that in the en the would have o wellingplace est them. I anno recollec the particula place here Isound that speeta; ut allowin it ad been entiret fictilious, Whieli it bymo means seeme to e ascit ore at the marks Oftruth, i is ver certain that the Englisti governments in America

388쪽

By the fame common right have many great peopte alWays possesse thei lands, an stili posses them a sor instanee, thepresent Mongui tribes, ho live by breedin horses Thei sod is eXtremel ricli, an susceptibi of the ighest cultivation the grassgrows to an uncommon eight in the fields; ut the whol country

ita cultivation the would unite to des en thei right to it with assthei might just astu Teutoni ancestor defende thei sorest aspublic proper , against the Romans. I hould theres ore, hink, that untii a neis codem natura an civi law hali e devised, andRS long as e must, On account of common possessions abide by the old objections liko the present can have no Orce. Commentarie On

389쪽

32 28. Hire soldiers probabi in imitatio of the Phenicians, Egeh. 7:11, are mentione in AEam. 10 6, and also inta Chron. 25 6 9;

but sueti participate in the potis, as et asithers, sor the moneypaid appear noto have beensaida the oldier themselves, but toth hingi prince, O Whom the were hired. The oldier unde the Persia monarchy received a regula stipend but the had a portio also in the spolis, hic mas an addi

The Maccabees, in imitationis the Greelis, allowed mage to their soldiers 1 Maec. 14 32. ence, it is notis ali surprising that me find the wage of a soldie frequently mentione in the New Testament, and 80metimes tropicady Luke 3 14. Rom. 6 23. 1 Cor. 9 7. Cor. 11 8. 2 Tim 2 4. The spolis consiste no oni o properi in goods, but semen, Women, and children alti Whom is the had been tho inhabitaniso cities, that were aliena assauit, ere sol int flavery, Gen. 1411 12. The Hebre soldiers ere a liber , Num. 31 48-54,)to appropriate to themselve Whateve spolis the might win, illithe exception o soch an men Articles of great value eresomelimes laimed by the eader of the expedition Judg. 8 24, 25; praetice hieli David imself imitated, and by means of Whicli, he was nable to collect theoreasures hicli ere subsequentlyemployed in the erectio of the temple 2 Sam 8 11 12. 12 30. Chron. 28 1 19. When the spoil Was divided the soch and the captives ere assemble together, and wlta the had been numbered, ere divide into two paris, ne of hicli a givento the oldiers, ho ad remesne at home, and who ere obligedis ive the fiftiet par of it to the Levites the olliser hal Wasgiven to the oldier Who ad been actuali engaged, and WhO, Onthei pari, ere oblige to ive ni the sive hundredi par to the Priesis. Compare Gen. 14 20. The division of the properi tahenamong the oldier Was equat, hether the had been in batile, ormeret guarde the encampmen and a mage 1 Sam 30 20-25. In orde to rende the distribution equat, the focks, catile, an priS- onera appear o have been publici sold, and a distributio made A

390쪽

o the spolis hielicit offered, and everything, generali Speaing, Wasdestroyed, Deut 2 34. 3 7. Num 31 9 Lev. 27 28. Jogli. 6 2426 8 26-28. 10 28-30 11 11.

It was a principi among nation anciently that aleople, after thecommencement O a War, could atri mali piunder of the proper , whieli had been deposited or est amon them in any Way Whatever, previousi to the war' breahing ut In accordane Wit this right, the preciOu VaSes and armenis, etc. Whicli ere borrowed by the

Hebrew Do the gyptians, a mentione in Exod 3 22 11 2,beeme, hen Pharaoli commence War po thema pursu g With his army leges Spoli. An objection to this te of the subject arises rom the laci, that God imself commande the Hebrews, through Moses, toborro the articles, and that the gyptians evidenti lent themwith the expectationi their ein returned, and would not ther-wis have done it But it is nevertheless, the ac lihewise, that the Hebrem ha a much Xpectationis returning aid articles, a the Egyptians ad that the would sor it is altogether ut of the

question to suppose, that he had an knowledge of the communications, hieli, in Exod 3 22, passe belween o and Moses onthe subjeci. The transaction a clearly an event in divine Providenre so the propriet of hicli infinite isdom is a sufficient guaranty, hiel Was designe to place thos artietes in the andsof the Hebrews, as a compensation, an certaint notoo large aone, sor the ouses hiel the lest. Supposin it, then, to e thecase, that the wer borrowed illi the expectation faein returned, o blam certaint can e attache to the Hebrere so the detentio of them, sine the were rive aWay by sueti a decidedani sudde actis hostilily that it a no in theirio eruo do the

The word m, litorali to tunderi rob, hicli in Exod 3 22, is used in reserenue t this Subjeci appear tot employed tropices , and out o iis usual Signification.