German biblical critic, was
See also:born at Hauingen, Baden, where his
See also:father was a pastor, on the 23rd of
See also:June 1807 . He studied
See also:theology at
See also:Heidelberg under H . E . G . Paulus, at
See also:Halle under Wilhelm Gesenius and at
See also:Gottingen under Ewald . Returning to Heidelberg he became Privatdozent in theology in 1829, and in 1831 published his Begriff der Kritik am
See also:Allen Testamente praktisch ervrtert, a study of Old Testament
See also:criticism in which he explained the critical principles of the grammatico-
See also:historical school, and his
See also:Des Propheten
See also:Jonas Orakel uber
See also:Moab, an exposition of the 15th and 16th chapters of the
See also:book of Isaiah attributed by him to the
See also:prophet Jonah mentioned in 2
See also:Kings xiv . 25 . In 1833 he was called to the university of Zurich as
See also:professor ordinarius of theology . His next
See also:work was a commentary on Isaiah with a
See also:translation (Ubersetzung u . Auslegung des Propheten Jesajas), which he dedicated to Heinrich Ewald, and which Hermann
See also:Hupfeld (1796–1866), well known as a commentator on the Psalms (1855-1861), pronounced to be his best exegetical work . At Zurich he laboured for a
See also:period of twenty-eight years, during which, besides commentaries on The Psalms (1835–1836; 2nd ed.; 1863–1865), The Minor Prophets (1838; 3rd ed., 1863),
See also:Jeremiah (184r; 2nd ed., 1866), Ezekiel (1847), Daniel (185o), Ecclesiastes (1847),
See also:Canticles (1855), and
See also:Proverbs (1858), he published a monograph, Uber Johannes Markus u.
See also:seine Schriften (1843), in which he maintained the
See also:chronological priority of the second
See also:gospel, and sought to prove that the Apocalypse was written by the same author . He also published various treatisesof archaeological
See also:interest, of which the most important are Die Erfindung des Alphabets (184o), Urgeschichte u .
Mythologie der Philistder (1845), and Die Grabschrift des Eschmunezar(1855) . After the
See also:death of
See also:Friedrich Umbreit (1795–1860), one of the founders of the well-known Studien and Kritiken, he was called in 1861 to succeed him as professor of theology at Heidelberg . Here he wrote his Geschichte des Volkes
See also:Israel (1869-187o), in two parts, extending respectively to the end of the Persian domination and to the fall of Masada, A.D . 72, as well as a work on the Pauline epistles, Zur Kritik Paulinischer Briefe (187o), on the Moabite
See also:Stone, Die Inschrift des Mescha (187o), and on
See also:Assyrian, Sprache u . Sprachen Assyriens (1871), besides revising the commentary on
See also:Job by Ludwig Hirzel (1802-1841), which was first published in 1839 . He was also a contributor to the Monatsschrift des wissenschaftlichen Vereins in Zurich, the Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, the Theologische Studien u . Kritiken, Eduard
See also:Zeller's Theologische Jahrbucher, and Adolf Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie .
See also:Hitzig died at Heidelberg on the 22nd of
See also:January 1875 . As a
See also:Hebrew philologist he holds high
See also:rank; and as a constructive critic he is remarkable for acuteness and sagacity . As a historian, however, some of his speculations have been considered fanciful . " He places the
See also:cradle of the . Israelites in the south of
See also:Arabia, and, like many other critics, makes the historical times begin only with Moses " (F .
See also:History of German Theology, p . 569) . His lectures on biblical theology (Vorlesungen iiber biblische Theologie u. messianische Weissagungen) were published in 188o after his death, along with a portrait and
See also:sketch byy his
See also:pupil, J . J . Kneucker (b . 1840), professor of theology at Heidelberg . See Heinrich
See also:Ferdinand Hitzig (1882); and Adolf Kamphausen's article in Herzog-Hauck's Realencyklopddie . HIUNG-NU, HIONG-NU, HEUNG-NU, a
See also:people who about the end of the 3rd century B.C. formed, according to
See also:Chinese records, a powerful
See also:empire from the
See also:Wall of
See also:China to the
See also:Caspian . Their ethnical
See also:affinities have been much discussed; but it is most probable that they were of the
See also:Turki stock, as were the
See also:Huns, their later western representatives . They are the first
See also:Turkish people mentioned by the Chinese . A theory which seems plausible is that which assumes them to have been a heterogenous collection of Mongol, Tungus, Turki and perhaps even Finnish hordes under a Mongol military caste, though the Mongolo-Tungus
See also:element probably predominated . Towards the close of the 1st century of the Christian era the Hiung-nu empire broke up .
Their subsequent history is obscure . Some of them seem to have gone westward and settled on the Ural
See also:river . These, de Guiques suggests, were the ancestors of the Huns, and many ethnologists hold that the Hiung-nu were the ancestors of the
See also:Turks . See Journal Anthropological Institute for 1874;
See also:Sir H . H . Howorth, History of the
See also:Mongols (1876–188o) ; 6th Congress of Orientalists,
See also:Leiden, 1883 (Actes,
See also:part iv. pp . 177-195) ; de Guiques, Histoire generale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mongoles, et des autres Zartares occidentaux (1756–1758) .
There are no comments yet for this article.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.
Links to articles and home page are encouraged.