Clark, 1880), also by Franz Delitzsch, trans.
It was not till after the rejection of “the abode of Shiloh,” at and after the removal of the ark of the covenant by the Philistines (1 Sam 4), ), with which the “tabernacle of Joseph” as also rejected, that God selected the tribe of Judah and chose David ( Psa 78:60-72). Keil, Carl Friedrich, 1807-1888: Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (Edinburgh: T. Even if the assembling of the congregation of Israel at Shiloh ( Jos 18:1) formed so far a turning point between two periods in the history of Israel, that the erection of the tabernacle for a permanent continuance at Shilo was a tangible pledge, that Israel had now gained a firm footing in the promised land, had come to rest and peace after a long period of wandering and war, had entered into quiet and peaceful possession of the land and its blessings, so that Shilo, as its name indicates, became the resting-place of Israel Judah did not acquire the command over the twelve tribes at that time, nor so long as the house of God remained at Shilo, to say nothing of the submission of the nations. Moreover, Shilo itself was not the point at which the leadership of Judah among the tribes was changed into the command of nations. The sceptre or command was held by the Levite Moses during the journey through the desert, and by the Ephraimite Joshua at the conquest and division of Canaan. The tribe of Judah took the first place in the camp and on the march ( Num 2:3-9 Num 10:14), - formed in fact the van of the army but it had no rule, did not hold the chief command. For, in the first place, up to the time of the arrival of the congregation at Shilo, Judah did not possess the promised rule over the tribes. If it were to this event that Jacob's words pointed, they should be rendered, “till they come to Shiloh,” which would be grammatically allowable indeed, but very improbable with the existing context.
But although this meeting of the whole congregation at Shilo, and the erection of the tabernacle there, was generally of significance as the turning point of the history, it was of equal importance to all the tribes, and not to Judah alone. He also published commentaries on Maccabees and New Testament literature.Tribe of Joseph had received their inheritance by lot, the congregation assembled at Shilo, and there erected the tabernacle, and it was not till after this had been done, that the partition of the land was proceeded with and brought to completion. The work remains his most enduring contribution to biblical studies. To this aim he edited (with Franz Delitzsch) his principal work, a commentary on the Bible, Biblischer Kommentar über das Alte Testament (5 vols., 1866–82 Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 5 vols., 1872–77). He maintained the validity of the historico-critical investigation of the Bible only if it proved the existence of New Testament revelation in the Scriptures. He strongly supported Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Keil was a conservative critic who reacted strongly against the scientific biblical criticism of his day. In 1887 he moved to Rödletz, where he died. In 1859 he was called to serve the Lutheran church in Leipzig.
Keil was appointed to the theological faculty of Dorpat in Estonia where he taught Bible, New Testament exegesis, and Oriental languages. Johann Friedrich Karl Keil or Carl Friedrich Keil (26 February 1807 – ) was a conservative German Lutheran Old Testament commentator. Rödlitz near Lichtenstein, Kingdom of Saxony
0 kommentar(er)
