FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   464   465   466   467   468   469   470   471   472   473   474   475   476   477  
478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497   498   499   500   501   502   >>   >|  
But even assuming the existence of the Tower of the flock in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, is it anything else than the assumption of a pure _quid pro quo_, to assert, without assigning any reason, that the "Tower of the flock" stands for Bethlehem? _Rosenmueller_, at least, has felt this. He makes the attempt to assign a reason: "In substituting, however, an unknown hamlet in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, for Bethlehem itself, he intended to indicate that the dominion of David would be altogether weakened and brought low." But this reason is certainly not by any means sufficient; Bethlehem was, in itself, so small, that no further [Pg 456] diminution was required; compare v. 1 (2). It had, moreover, been always small, and had not by any means sunk down in the course of time from former greatness. Hence, such a designation, in contrast with its former glory, would be entirely out of place; and even supposing that it were not, the mode of this designation would always be inexplicable, unless we could assume a closer reference of the "Tower of the flock" to the Davidic family. It is only by establishing such a reference, that the whole explanation can be saved and confirmed. For this purpose, it would be necessary to suppose that Bethlehem, and the district belonging to it, were the general designation of the native place of the Davidic family, while the "Tower of the flock" was the special one. But there is not the slightest ground on which to support this hypothesis. Everywhere, Bethlehem itself appears as the residence of Jesse, the father of David (compare 1 Sam. xvi. 1, 18, 19, xvii. 12), and likewise of Boaz, Ruth ii. 4. The incorrectness of another explanation is still more evident. According to it, we are, by the "Tower of the flock," to understand a tower which is alleged to have stood at Jerusalem, near to the Sheep-gate. But the existence of such a tower is supported by no evidence whatsoever, and does not become even probable by the existence of a sheep-gate; for a Tower of the flock is not a tower which stands near the Sheep-gate, but a tower which is erected for the protection of the flock, as is clearly seen from _Migdal Eder_ in Genesis. But, even supposing that such a tower existed, is there anything which could somehow make it a suitable designation of the Davidic family? Let us now proceed to the establishment of our own opinion, by which the arguments advanced against the other explanations wil
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   464   465   466   467   468   469   470   471   472   473   474   475   476   477  
478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497   498   499   500   501   502   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Bethlehem

 

designation

 

reason

 

existence

 

family

 

Davidic

 

compare

 

explanation

 

reference

 

supposing


stands

 

neighbourhood

 

incorrectness

 

evident

 

alleged

 

understand

 
According
 

likewise

 

hypothesis

 

Everywhere


appears

 

support

 

assumption

 
slightest
 

ground

 
residence
 

father

 

Jerusalem

 

proceed

 

establishment


suitable

 

explanations

 
advanced
 
opinion
 

arguments

 

existed

 
Genesis
 

whatsoever

 

evidence

 

supported


assuming
 

probable

 
Migdal
 

protection

 

erected

 

special

 

attempt

 
assign
 
required
 

greatness