صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

ws» in use. The discovery at Gezer of Assyrian contracttablets (651 and 648 B.C.)—one relating to the sale of land by a certain Nethaniah—at least suggests the prevalence of Assyrian custom, and this is confirmed by the technical business methods illustrated in Jer. xxxii. Moreover, among the Jewish families settled in the 5th century B.C. in Egypt (Elephantine) and Babylonia (Nippur), the Babylonian-Assyrian principles are in vogue, and the presumption that they were not unfamiliar in Palestine is strengthened further by the otherwise unaccountable appearance of Babylonian-Assyrian elements later in the Talmudic law. The denunciations in the prophetical writings of gross injustice, oppression and maladministration seem to presuppose definite laws, which either were ignored or which fell with severity upon the poor and unfortunate. They point to a considerable amount of written law, which was evidently class-legislation of an oppressive character.1 The Babylonian code is essentially class-legislation, and from the point of view of the idealism of the Old Testament prophets, which raises the rights of humanity above everything else, the steps which the code takes to safeguard the rights of property (slaves included therein) would naturally seem harsh. The code also regulates wages and prices, and shows a certain humanity towards debtors; and here any failure to carry out these laws would obviously be denounced. While the code, according to its own lights, aims Pmpfici* al strict justice rather than charity, the Old Tcstafodttu: mcnt has reforming aims, and the religious, legislative L**' and social ideals are characterized by the insistence upon a lofty moral and ethical standard. These ideals arc more religious than democratic. The appeal of the prophets, "is not for better institutions but for better men, not for the abolition of aristocratic privileges but for an honest and godly use of them."1 The writers have in view a people with individual and collective rights and responsibilities, united by feelings of the deepest loyalty and kindliness and by common adherence to their only God. There is a marked growth of refinement and of ideas of morality, and a condemnation of the shameless vice and oppression which went on amid a punctilious and splendid worship. It is extremely significant that between the teaching of the prophetical writings and the spirit of the Mosaic legislation there is an unmistakable bond. The Mosaic law, in its reforming aspect, is characterized by the denunciation of heathenism and heathenish usages which belong to the old religion. There is an insistence upon individual responsibility (Dcut. xxiv. 16; 2 Kings xiv. 6; cf. Jcr. xxxi. 29 seq.; Ezek. jcviii., xxxiii.), the more noteworthy when one considers the tenacity of the savage taiio and its retention, though with some modifications, in the Babylonian code. There is a tendency to mitigate slavery, and the law of fugitive slaves is a particularly instructive innovation (Deut. xxiii. 15 seq., subsequently confined to the slave from outside). Corporal punishment is kept within limits (xxv. 3), but its very existence points to state-life rather than to the desert. Some attempt is made to diminish the destructivcncss of war (xx. 10-20), but the passage is a remarkable illustration of a barbarous age. The endeavour is also made to improve the monarchy of the future (xvii. 14 sqq.), but mainly on religious grounds, in order to diminish foreign intercourse. Noteworthy, again, is the appeal to religious and ethical considerations in order to prevent injustice to the widow and fatherless and to unhappy debtors; statutory laws are cither unknown, or, more probably, are presupposed. The pcntatcuchal legislation as a w'lo'e "* pk»ccd at the very beginning of Israelite 'national history. Amid constant periods of apostasy two epoch-making events stand out: (a) the rediscovery of the Book of the Law (Deuteronomy is meant) in the time of Josiah (2 Kings xxii.) followed by a reform of sundry religious abuses dating from the foundation of the temple, and (A) the promulgation by Ezra of the Law of Yahweh, the law of Moses (Ezra. vii. 10, 14; Neh. viii. j), in the age of Nehemiah, at the very close of biblical history. This legislation, endorsing

1 0. C. WTiitehouse, Century Bible, on Isa. x. I seq.

* See W. R. Smith, Old Tat. in lilt Jew. Church (London, 1892),

Pp- 348.

(in certain well-defined portions) priestly authority, excludes a monarchy and stands at the head of a lengthy development in the way of expansion and interpretation. Its true place in biblical history has been the problem of generations of scholars,1 and the discovery (Dec. looi-Jan. 1902) of the Babylonian code has brought new problems of relationship and of external influences. Although on various grounds there is a strong probability that the code of Khammurabi must have been known in Palestine at some period, the Old Testament does not manifest such traces of the influence as might have been expected. Pcntateuchal law is relatively unprogressivc, it is marked by a characteristic simplicity, and by a spirit of reform, and the persisting primitive social conditions implied do not harmonize with other internal and external data. The existence of other laws, however, is to be presupposed, and there appear to be cases where the Babylonian code lies in the background. An independent authority concludes that "the co-existing likeness and differences argue for an independent recension of ancient custom deeply influenced by Babylonian law."4 The questions are involved with the reforming spirit in biblical religion and history. On literary-historical grounds the Pentateuch in its present form is post-exilic, posterior to the old monarchies and to the ideals of the earlier prophetical writings. The laws are (a) partly contemporary collections (chiefly of a ritual and ceremonial character) and (b) partly collections of older and different origin, though now in post-exilic frames. The antiquity of certain principles and details is undeniable — as also in the Talmud — but since one must start from the organic connexions of the composite sources, the problems necessitate proper attention- to the relation between the stages in the literary growth (working backwards) and the vicissitudes which culminate in the postexilic age. The simplicity of the legislation (traditionally associated with Moab and Sinai and with Kadesh in South Palestine), the humanitarian and reforming spirit, the condemnation of abuses and customs arc features which, in view of the background and scope of Deuteronomy, can hardly be severed from the internal events which connect Palestine of the Assyrian supremacy with the time of Nehemiah.6

The introduction, spread and prominence of the name Yahweh, the development of conceptions concerning his nature, his supremacy over other gods and the lofty monotheism character which denied a plurality of gods, are questions o/ o. T. which, like the biblical legislative ideas, cannot be w's""y. adequately examined within the narrow compass of the Old Testament alone.

The biblical history is a " canonical " history which looks back to the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, the law-giving and the covenant with Yahweh at Sinai, the conquest of Palestine by the Israelite tribes, the monarchy, the rival kingdoms, the fall and exile of the northern tribes, and, later, of the southern (Judah), and the reconstructions of Judah in the times of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxcrxes. It is the first known example of continuous historical writing (Genesis to Kings, Chronicles-EzraNchcmi.ih), and represents a deliberate effort to go back from

1 Sec Bible: Old Ttst. Criticism; Jews. §§ 16, 23.

4C. H. W. Johns, Hastings's Did. Bible, v. 611 seq., who points out that the intrusion of priestly power into the law courts is a recrudescence under changed conditions of a state of things from which the Babylonian code shows an emancipation nearly complete. The view formerly maintained by the present writer (Laws of Moses and Code of Hammurabi, 1903, pp. 204 sqq , 279 tcq ,&c.) relied upon the difference between the exilic or post-exilic sources which unambiguously reflect Babylonian and related ideas, and the absence in other biblical sources of the features which an earlier comprehensive Babylonian influence would have produced, and it incorrectly assumed that the explanation might be found in the ordinary reconstructions of Israelite history. Cf. above, p. 182, n. I.

'On the later history of the canonical law (Mishnah, Gemara, &c.) see Talmud. The Talmud embodies law, which is related to

.., . ,

No. 1, Jews' College. London. With the removal of Judaism from Palestine and internal social changes the archaic primitive law reappeared, now influenced, however, by Mahommcdan legislation.

the days when the Judaeans separated from the Samaritans to the veiy beginning of the world. A characteristic tone pervades the history, even of the antediluvian age, from the creation of Adam; or rather, the history of the earliest times has been written under its influence. It reveals itself in the days of the Patriarchs, before the " Amarna " age—or rather in the narratives relating to these remote ancestors. It will be perceived that an objective attitude to the subjective writings must be adopted, the starting-point is the writings themselves and not individual preconceptions of the authentic history which they embody. Although there are various points of contact with Palestinian external history, there is a failure to deal with some events of obvious importance, and an emphasis upon others which are less conspicuous in any broad survey of the land. There are numerous conflicting details which unite to prove that various sources have been used, and that the structure of the compilation is a very intricate one, the steps in its growth being extremely obscure.1 In studying the internal peculiarities and the different circles of thought involved, it is found that they often imply written traditions which have a perspective different from that in which they are now placed. As regards the. premonarchical period, some evidence points to a settlement /•:,-• (apparently from Aramaean localities) of the patri

moatraikal archs, and of Israel (Jacob) and his sons, i.e. the fvr/in/. ii cnjidrcn of Israel." It ignores a descent into Egypt and the subsequent invasion.1 The parallel account in the book of Joshua of the entrance of the " children of Israel" is, in its present form, the sequel to the journey of the people along the east of Edom and Moab after the escape from Egypt, and after a sojourn at Kadesh (Exodus-Deuteronomy). But other evidence also points to an entrance from Kadesh into Judah, and associates the kin of Moses, Kenitcs, Calebites and others. Thus, the tradition of a residence in Egypt, implied also in the stories of Joseph, has certainly become the "canonical " view, but the recollection was not shared by all the mixed peoples of Palestine; and to this difference of historical background in the traditions must be added divergent traditions of the earlier population. Traditions, oral and written, with widely differing standpoints have been brought together and merged. Moreover, the elaborate account of the vast invasion and conquest, the expulsion, extermination and subjugation of earlier inhabitants, and the occupation of cities and fields, combine to form a picture which cannot be placed in Palestine during the isth-izth centuries. It must not be denied that the recollection of some invasion may have been greatly idealized by late writers, but it happens that there were important immigrations and internal movements in the Sth-6th centuries, that is to say, immediately preceding the post-exilic age, when this composite account in the Pentateuch and Joshua reached its present form. An enormous gap severs the pre-monarchical period from this age, and while the tribal schemes and tribal traditions can hardly be traced during the monarchies, the inclusion of Judah among the " sons " of Israel would not have originated when Judah and Israel were rival kingdoms. Yet the tribes survive in post-exilic literature and their traditions develop henceforth in Jubilees, Testament of the XII Patriarchs, Sec. During the changes from the 8th century onwards a nonmonarchical constitution naturally prevailed, first in the north and then in the south, and while in the north the mingled peoples of Samaria came to regard themselves as Israelite, the southern portion, the tribe of Judah, proves in i Chron. ii. & iv. to be largely of haU-Edomite blood. A common ground previous to the Samaritan schism is ignored; it is found only in the period before the rival kingdoms. The political history of these

1 In the art. Jews, §§ 1-Ji, the biblical history is taken as the foundation, and the internal historical difficulties arc noticed from btagc to stage. In the present state of biblical historical criticism this plan seemed more advisable than any attempt to reconstruct the history; the necessity for some reconstruction will, however, be clear to the reader on the grounds of both the internal intricacies and the external evidence.

'See, in the first instance, E. Meyer (and B. Luther), Die Israeliicn taut ilire Nachtarslamme (Halle, 1906); also art. Genesis.

monarchies in the book of Kings is singularly slight considering the extensive body of tradition which may be pre-supposed, e.g. for the reigns of Jeroboam II. and I'zziah, or which may be inferred from the evidence for different j^MrcSii. sources dealing with other periods. The scanty political data in the annalistic notices of the north kingdom are .supplemented by more detailed narratives of a few years leading up to the rise of the last dynasty, that of Jehu. The historical problems involved point to a loss of perspective (Jtws, | ii), and (he particular interest in the stories of Elijah and Elisha in an historical work suggests that the political records passed through the hands of communities whose interest lay in these figures. Old tradition suggests the " schools of the prophets " at Jericho, Gilgal and Bethel, and in fact the proximity of these places, especially Bethel, to Judaean soil may be connected with the friendly and sometimes markedly favourable attitude to Judah in these narratives. The rise of the kingdom of Israel under Saul is treated at length, but more prominence is given to the influence of the prophet Samuel; and not only is Saul's history written from a didactic and prophetical standpoint (cf. similarly Ahab), but the great hero and ruler is handled locally as i petty king at Gibeah in Benjamin. The interest of th? narratives clings around north Judah and Benjamin, and more attention is given to the rise of the Judaean dynasty, the hostility of Saul, and the romantic friendship between his son Jonathan and the young David of Bethlehem. The history of the northern and southern kingdoms is handled separately in Kings; but in Samuel the rise of each is closely interwoven, and to the greater glory of David. The account of his steps contains details touching Judah and its relation to Israel which cannot be reconciled with certain traditions of Saul and the Ephraimite Joshua. It combines amid diverse material a hero of Bethlehem and rival of Saul with the idea oi a conqueror of this district; it introduces peculiar traditicss of the ark and sanctuary, and it associates David with Hebron, Calebites and the wilderness of Paran.' The books of Samuel and Kings have become, in process of compilation, the natural sequel to the preceding books, but the conflicting features and the perplexing differences of standpoint recur elsewhere, and the relationship between them suggests that similar causes have been operative upon the compilation. The history of Judah is, broadly speaking, that of the Davidic dynasty and the Temple, and it begins at the time of the first king of the rival north. Care is taken to record the transference of secular power and of Yahweh's favour from Saul to David, and David accomplishes more successfully or on a larger scale the ackirrements ascribed to Saul. The religious superiority of Jerusalem over the idolatrous north and over the " high places " is the main theme, and with it is the supremacy of the native Zadokite priests of Jerusalem over others (e.g. of Shiloh), who are connected with the desert traditions. The political history is relatively slight and uneven, and the framework is rehandled in Chronicles upon more developed lines and from a later ecclesiastical standpoint, which suggests that many traditions of the mooarclry were extant in a late dress. Both books represent the tame general trend of political events, even where the "canonical" representation is most open to criticism. Chronicles, with tie book of 'Ezra and Nehemiah, makes a continuity c%r«afc4«c— between the old Judah which fell in 586 and the Em— return (time of Cyrus), the rebuilding of the temple •>**»"*«*(Darius), and the reorganization associated with Nehemiab and Ezra (Artaxcrxcs) Historical material after 586 is scanty in the extreme, and, apart from the records of Xeherruah a\nd a few other passages, the interest lies in the religious history of the communities and reformers who returned from BabytamaThe late and composite book of Chronicles places at the head of the Israelite divisions, which ignore the ezpdus (i Chroa, vL 1 Whence the theory that David was of S. Judaean or S. PaJ*s>tinian origin (Marquart, Winckler, Chcyne, Enty. BA. cols, icrro. 26l3 scq.), and, also, that he knit together the southern Judaean clans (see David, Judah). But it is preferable to raco) different traditions of distinct origin and to inquire what gee elements of history each may contain.

14, 20-24), a Judah consisting of fragments of an older stock replenished with families of South Palestinian, Edomite and North Arabian affinity. This half-£domite population, recognizable also in Benjamin, manifests its presence in the official lists, and more especially in the ecclesiastical bodies inaugurated by David, from whose time the supremacy of this Judah is dated. The historical framework contains traditions of the reconstruc tion and repair of temple and cult, of the hostility of southern peoples and their allies, and of conflicts between king and priests. This retrospect of the Judaean kingdom must be taken with the following books, where the crucial features are (a) the presence (c. 444) of an aristocracy, partly (at all events) of half-Edomilc affinity, before the return of any important body of exiles (Neh. in); (b) the gaps in the history between the fall of Samaria (722) and Jerusalem (586) to the rise of the hierocracy, and (c) the relation between the hints of renewed political activity in Zenibbabd's time, when the Temple was rebuilt (c. 520-516), and the mysterious catastrophe (with perhaps another disaster to the Temple), probably due to Edom, which is implied in the book of Nehcmiah (c. 444). (See Jews, 5 22.) These data lead to the fundamental problem of Old Testament history. Since 1870 (Wellnausen's De gentibus . . . Judaeis) it has been recognized that i Chron. ii. and iv. accord with certain details in i Samuel, and appear to refer to a half-Edomite Judah in David's time (c. looo B.C.)-1 More recently E. Meyer, on the basis of a larger induction, has pointed out the relation of this Judah to a large group of Edomite or Edomite-Ishmaclite tribes.1 The stories in Genesis represent a southern treatment of Palestinian tradition, with local and southern versions of legends and myths, and with interests which could only belong to the south.3 It has long been perceived that Kadesh in South Palestine was connected with a law-giving and with some separate movement into Judah of clans associated with the family of Moses, Caleb, Kenites, &c. (see Exodus, The). With this it is natural to connect the transmission and presence in the Old Testament of specifically Kenite tradition, of the "southern" stories in Genesis, and of the stories of Levi.4 ' The rise of this new Judah is generally attributed to David, but the southern clans remain independent for some five centuries, only moving a few miles nearer Jerusalem; and this vast interval severs the old halfEdomite or Arabian Judah from the sequel—the association of such names as Korah, Ethan and Heman with temple-psalms and psalmody.6 It has long been agreed that biblical religion and history are indebted in some way to groups connected with Edom and North Arabia, and repeated endeavours have been made to explain the evidence in its bearing upon this lengthy period.* The problem, it is here suggested, is in the first instance a literary one—the literary treatment by southern groups, who have become Israelite, of a lengthy period of history. When the whole body of evidence is viewed comprehensively, it would seem that there was some movement northwards of semi-Edomitc blood, tradition and literature, the date of which may be placed during the internal disorganization of Palestine, and presumably in the 6th century. Such a movement is in keeping with the course of Palestinian history from the traditional entrance of the Israelite tribes to the relatively recent migration of the tribe » " The population of South Judah was of half-Arab origin**' (W. R. Smith, Old Test. Jew. Church, p. 279). 1 Meyer and Luther, op. cit., p. 446, et passim. * So especially Meyer and Luther, op. cit. \ cf. also H. Grossman n, Zcit, f. att-ttst. Wissens. (1910), p. 28 seq. Note also the view that the grand book of Job (g.r.) has an Edomite background.

Levitbs, and Jews, } 20,

* On the names, sec Genealogy : Biblical; Lbvites, § 2, end, and Eruy. Bib. col. 1665 seq.

• W. R- Harper (Amos and ffosea, iax>5, p. liv.) observes: "Every year since the work of W. R. Smith brings Israel into closer relationship with Arabia"; cf. also N. Schmidt's conclusions (Hibbert Journal, 1908, p. 342),and the Jerahmeclite theory of T. K. Cheyne, who writes (Decline and Fall of the Kingdom of Judah, London, 1908, p. xxxvii.) "... by far the greater part of the extant literary monuments of ancient Israel are precisely those monuments whose producers were most preoccupied by N. Arabia."

ot 'Amr.T In the Old Testament popular feeling knows of two phases: Edom, the more powerful brother of Jacob (or Israel) —both could share in the traditions of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and the hatred of the treacherous Edom in the prophetical writings. Earlier phases have not survived, and the last-mentioned is relatively late,* after the southern influence had left itself upon history, legend, the Temple and the ecclesiastical bodies. On these grounds, then, it would seem that among the vicissitudes of the Sth and following centuries may be placed a movement of the greatest importance for Israelite history and for the growth of the Old Testament, one, however, which has been reshaped and supplemented (in the account of the Exodus and Invasion) and deliberately suppressed or ignored in the history of the age (viz. in Ezra-Nehcmiah).

The unanimous recognition on the part of all biblical scholars that the Old Testament cannot be taken as it stands as a trustworthy account of the history with which it deals, necessitates a hypothesis or, it may be, a scries of crMOtm hypotheses, which shall enable one to approach the more detailed study of its history and religion. The curious and popular tradition that Ezra rewrote the Old Testament (2 Esd. xiv.), the concessions of conservative scholars, and even the view that the Hebrew text is too uncertain for literary criticism, indicate that the starting-point of inquiry must be the present form of the writings. The necessary work of literary analysis reached its most definite stage in the now famous hypothesis of Graf (1865-1866) and especially Wcllhausen (1878), which was made more widely known to English readers, directly and indirectly through W. Robertson Smith, in the 9th edition of this Encyclopaedia." The work of literary criticism and its application to biblical history and religion passed into a new stage as external evidence accumulated, and, more particularly since 1900, the problems have assumed new shapes. The tendency has been to assign more of the Old Testament, in its present form, to the'Persian age and later; and also to work upon lines which are influenced sometimes by the dose agreement with Oriental conditions generally and sometimes by the very striking divergences. It is the merit of Hugo Winckler especially to have lifted biblical study out of the somewhat narrow lines upon which it had usually proceeded, but, at the time of writing (1910), Old Testament criticism still awaits a sound reconciliation of the admitted internal intricacies and of the external evidence for Palestine and that larger area of which it forms part. Upon the convergence of the manifold lines of investigation rest all reconstructions, all methodical studies of biblical religion, law and prophecy, and all endeavours to place the various developments in an adequate historical framework.

The preliminary hypotheses, it would seem, must be both literary and historical. The varied standpoints (historical, social, legal, religious, &c.) combine with the fragmentary character of much of the evidence to suggest that the literature has passed through different circles, with excision or revision of older material, and with the incorporation of other material, sometimes of older origin and of independent literary growth. Consequently, one is restricted in the first instance to such literature as survives and in the form which the last editors or compilers gave it. Different views as regards history (e.g. invasions, tribal movements, rival kingdoms) and religion («.g. the Yahweh of Kadesh, Sinai, Jerusalem, &c.), and different priestly, prophetical and popular ideas arc only to be expected, considering the character of Palestinian population. Hence to weave the data into a single historical outline or into an orderly evolution of thought is to overlook the probability of bona

[ocr errors]

fide divergences of tradition and to assume that more rudimentary or primitive thought was excluded by the admitted development of religious-social ideals. The oldest nucleus of historical tradition appears to belong to Samaria, but it has been adjusted to other standpoints or interests, which are apparently connected partly with the half-Edomite and partly with the old indigenous Judaean stock.1 Genesis-Kings (incomplete; some further material in Jeremiah) and the later Chronicles—Nehemiah arc in their present form posterior to Nehemiah's time. Unfortunately the events of his age are shrouded in obscurity, but one can recognize the return of exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem and ita environs—now half-Edomite—and various internal rivalries which culminate in the Samaritan schism.1 The ecclesiastical rivalries have left their mark in the Pentateuch and (the later) Chronicles, and the Samaritan secession appears to have coloured even the book of Kings. These sources then are "post-exilic," and the elimination of material first composed in that age leaves historical, legal and other material which was obviously in circulation (so, e.g., the non-priestly portions of Genesis).1 The relatively earlier group of booits is now the result of two complicated and continuous redactions, " Deuteronomic" (Deut.-Kings) and " Priestly" (Genesis—Joshua, with traces in the following books). The former is exceptionally intricate, being in its various aspects distinctly earlier, and in parts even later than the " priestly." Its standpoint, too, varies, the phases being now northern or wider Israelite, now half-Edomite or Judaean, and now anti-Samarian.

Moreover, there is a late incorporation of literature, sometimes untouched by and sometimes merely approximating to " Deuteronomic " language or thought. How very late the historical books are in their present text or form may be seen from the Septuagint version of Joshua, Samuel and Kings, and from their internal literary structure, which suggests that only at the last stages of compilation were they brought into their present shape.' The result as a whole tends to show that the " canonical " history belongs to the last literary vicissitudes, and that similar influences (which have not affected every book in the same manner) have been at work throughout.

The history of the past is viewed from rather different positions which, on the whole, are subsequent to the relatively recent changes Dm h if that gave birth to new organizations in Samaria and ofTndfr Judah. Consequently, in addition to the ordinary require. 'ments of historical criticism, biblical study has to take into

account the intricate composite character of the sources and the background of these positions. It is the criticism of sources which have both a literary and an historical compositeness. Not only are the standpoints of local interest (Samaria, Benjamin, Judah and the half-Edomite Judah being involved), but there are remarkable developments in the ecclesiastical bodies (Zadokites of Jerusalem, country and half-Edomite priests, Aaronites) which nave influenced both the writing and the revision of the sources (see Levites). Yet it is noteworthy that the traditions are usually reshaped, readjusted or reinterpreted, and are not replaced by entirely new ones. Thus, the Samaritans claim the traditions of the land; the Chronicler traces the connexion between "pre-cxilic" and "post-exilic" Judaeans, ignoring and obscuring intervening vents; the south Palestinian cycle of tradition is adj

dition is adapted to the from Egypt; Zadokite priests are enrolled as Aaronites, and the hierarchical traditions

history of a descent into and an exodus from Egypt; Zadokite

rchic

1A Samarian (or Ephraimite or N. Israelite) nucleus may be recognized in the books of Joshua-Kings; see the articles on these books, Jews, § 6; cf. Meyer, pp. 478 n. 2, 486 seq,, and K. Linckc, Samaria, u, seine Prophcten (1903), p. 24. These preserve old poetical literature (Ju°g. v2 Sam. i,), stories of conquest and settlement, and they connect with the liturgy in Deut, xxvii. Joshua's covenant at Shcchem and the Shcchemite covenant-god (cf. Kcnnctt, Journ. Theol. Stud., 1906, pp. 495 sqq.; Linckc, op, cit., p. 89. W. Erbt, Die Htbrder (1906), pp. 27 sqq.; Meyer and Luther, pp. 542 sqq., 550 sea.).

1 There seems to be both political and religious animosity, but it is not certain that Josephus is wronjj in placing the schism at the close of the Persian period; see, on this point, J7 Marquart, Isr. u. Jiid. Gcsch. (1896), p. 57 seq.; C. Steuernagcl, Thtolov. Stud. u. Krit. (1909), p. 5; G. Jahn, Sucker Esra u. Nehemia (Leiden, 1909), PP- 173/176; C. C. Torrcy, Eva Studies (Chicago, 1910), pp. 321 sqq. Old priestly rivalries between Cutha and Babylon may explain why the mixed Samaritans became known as Cuthacans; according to the prevailing theory their predecessors, the "ten tribes "had been exiled in the 8th century.

* The term " post-exilic" is applied to literature and history after the return of exiles and the religious reconstruction of Judah. This, on the traditional view, woulol be in 537, if there were then any prominent return. Failing this, one must descend to the time of Nehemiah, which the biblical history itself regards as epoch-making. The tendency to make the exile an abrupt and complete change in life is based upon the theory underlying Chromctes-Nehemiah and is misleading (see Torrcy, of. cit. pp. 287 sqq., &c.).

4 Cf. the "Deuteronomic" form of Samuel, and the dependence of the literary growth of Genesis and the account of the exodus and invasion of Palestine upon the "southern" cycle of tradition.

reveal stages of orderly and active development in order to authorize the changing standpoints of different periods and circles.* This feature recurs in later Palestinian literature (see Mideash, Talmud) where there are later forms of thought and tradition, some elements of which although often of older origin, are almost or entirely wanting in the Old Testament. Much that would otherwise be unintelligible becomes more clear when one realizes the readiness with v !-;. h settlers adopt the traditional belief and custom of a land, and the psychological fact that teaching must be relevant and must satisfy the primary religious feelings and aspirations, that it must not be at entire variance with current beliefs; but must represent the older beliefs in a new form. Any comparison of the treatment of biblical figures or events in the later literature will illustrate the retention of certain old details, the appearance of new ones, and an organic connexion which is everywhere in accordance with contemporary thought and teaching. If this raises the presumption that even the oldest and most isolated biblical evidence'may rest upon stiH older authority, it shows also that the fuller details and context cannot be confidently recovered,* and that earlier forms would accord with earlier Palestinian belief.* Hence, although records may be most untrustworthy in their present form or connexion, one cannot necessarily deny that a romance may presuppose a reality of history or that it may preserve the fact of an event even at the period to which it is ascribed {e.g. Abraham and Amrapbel in Gen. xiv.; the invasions before 1000 B.c., &c.). But in all sucb cases the present form of the material may be more profitably used for the study of the historical or religious conceptions of its age. At the same time, the complexity of the vicissitudes of traditions, exemplified in modern Palestine itself, cannot be ignored.1 FinaBy, biblical history is an intentional and reasoned arrangement of material, based upon composite sources, for religious and didactic purposes. Regarded as an historical work there is a remarkable absence of proportion, and a loss of perspective in the relatJo* between antediluvian, patriarchal, Mosaic and later periods. Frora the literary-critical results, however, it is not so much tbe history of consecutive periods as the account of consecutive periods by Compilers who are not far removed from one another as regards dates, but differ in standpoints. There was, in cae case, a retrospect which did not include the deluge, and in another the patriarchs were actual settlers, a descent into Egypt and subsequent exodus being ignored; moreover, the standpoints of those who did not go into exile and of those who did and returned would naturally differ. In weaving the sources together the compilers had some acquaintance of course with past history, but on the whole it manifests itself only slightly (see Jews, | 241, and the complete chronological system belongs to the latest stage. Investigation must concern itself not with what was possibly or probably known, but with what is actually presented. The {act remains that when accepted tradition conflicts with more reliable evidence it stands upon a level by itself;* and it is certain that a compilation based upon the knowledge which modern research— whether in the exact sciences or in history—has gained wocJd have neither meaning for nor influence upon the people whom k was desired to instruct. A considerable amount of earlier history and literature has been lost, and it is probable that the tradttioB* of the origins of the composite Israelites, as they are now preserved, embody evidence belonging to the nearer events of the 8th-fcth centuries. The history of these centuries is of fundamental importance in any attempt to "reconstruct *' biblical history.* The fall of Samaria and Judah was a literary as well as a political catastrophe, and precisely how much earlier material has beet

[graphic]

1 Cf. S. A. Cook, Critical Notes on Old Testament History (1907), pp. 62 seq., 67, 75 sqq., 112 seq.

* This applies also to the prophetical writings, the study of which is complicated by their use of past history to give point to tefr ideas and by the recurrence in history of somewhat nmHar events. As regards the situations which presuppose the noa of Jerusalem and a return of exiles, the obscure events after the time of Zcrubbabel cannot be left out of account. (See jits. §§ U. i? [p. 282], 22 n. 5, and art* Zephaniah.)

T Note the rapid growth and embellishment of tradition, the inextricable interweaving of fact and fiction, the circumstantial or rationalized stories of imaginary beings, the supernatural or mythical stories of thoroughly historical persons, the absolute \am of perspective, and a reliance not upon the merits of a tradition b«t upon the authority with which it is associated.

* Cf. the remarkable Arabian stories of their predecessors, or the mingling of accurate and inaccurate data in Manctho and Ctesas.

* The evidence for Jewish colonies at Elephantine in Upper Egypt ($th century B.c.) has opened up new paths for inquiry. Accordiag to some scholars it is probable that they were descended from the soldiers settled by Psamtck I. (7th century), and not only are they ia touch with Judah and Samaria, but in Psamtek's time an effort vas made by the Asiatic and other mercenaries to escape into Ethiopia

[ocr errors]

preserved is a problem in itself. It ifl very noteworthy, however, thar. while no care was taken to preserve the history of the Chaldean and Persian Empires—and consequently the most confused ideas subsequently arose—the days of the Assyrian supremacy leave a much clearer imprint (cf. even the apocryphal book of Tobit). It nuy perhaps be no mere chance that with the dynasties of Omri and Jehu the historical continuity is more firm, that older forms of prophetical narrative are preserved (the times from Ahab to Jehu), ana that to the reign of the great Jeroboam (first half of the 8th century), the canonical writers have ascribed the earliest of the extant prophetical writings (Amos and Hosea).

External evidence for Palestine, in emphasizing the necessity for a reconsideration of the serious difficulties in the Old Testament, and in illustrating at once its agreement and still more Saatattfy. perplexing disagreement with contemporary conditions, furnishes a more striking proof of its uniqueness and of its permanent value. The Old Testament preserves traces of forgotten history and legend, of strange Oriental mythology, and the remains of a semi-heathenish past. "Canonical '* history, legislation and religion assumed their present forms, and, while the earlier stages can only incompletely be traced, the book stands at the head of subsequent literature, paving the way for Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism, and influencing the growth of Mahommcdamsm. In leaving, the land of its birth it has been taken as a whole, and for many centuries has been regarded as an infallible record of divinely granted knowledge and of divinely shaped history. During what is relatively a very brief period deeper inquiry and newer knowledge have forced a slow, painful but steady readjustment of religious convictions. While the ideals and teaching of the Old Testament have always struck a responsive chord, scientific knowledge of the evolution of man, of the world's history and of man's place in the universe, constantly reveals the difference between the value of the old Oriental legacy for its influence upon the development of mankind and the unessential character of that which has had inevitably to be relinquished. Yet, wonderful as the Old Testament has ever seemed to past generations, it becomes far more profound a phenomenon when it is viewed, not in its own perspective of the unity of history—from the time of Adam, but in the history of Palestine and of the old Oriental area. It enshrines the result of certain influences, the teaching of certain truths, and the acquisition of new conceptions of the relations between man and man, and man and God. Man's primary religious feeling seeks to bring him into association with the events and persons of his race, and that which in the Old Testament appears most perishable, most defective, and which suffers most under critical inquiry, was necessary in order to adapt new teaching to the commonly accepted beliefs of a bygone and primitive people.1 The place of the Old Testament in the genera] education of the world is at the close of one era and at the beginning of another. After a lengthy development in the history of the human race a, definite stage seems to have been reached about 5000 B.c., which step by step led on to those great ancient cultures (Egyptian, Aegean, Babylonian) which surrounded Palestine.1 These have influenced all subsequent civilization, and it was impossible that ancient Palestine could have been isolated from contemporary thought and history. After reaching an astonishing height (roughly 2500-1500 B.c.) these civilizing powers slowly decayed, and we reach the middle of the first millennium B.c.—the age which is associated with the " Deutero-Isaiah" (Isa. xl.-ly.), with Cyrus and Zoroaster, with Buddha and Confucius, and with Phocyhdes and Socrates.* This age, which comes midway between the second Egyptian dynasty (c. 3000 B.c.) and the present day, connects the decline of the old Oriental empires with the rise of the Persian*, Greeks and Romans. In both Babylonia and Egypt it was an age of revival, but there was no longer any vitality in the old soil. In Palestine, on the other hand, the downfall of the old monarchies and the infusion of new blood gave fresh life to the land. There had indeed been previous immigrations, but the passage from the desert into the midst of Palestinian culture led to the adoption of the old semi-heathenism of the land, a declension, and a descent from the relative simplicity of tribal life.4 Now, however, the political conditions were favourable, and for a time Palestine could work out its own development. In these vicissitudes which led to the growth of the Old Testament, in its preservation among a devoted people, and in the results which have ensued down to to-day, it is impossible not to believe that the history of the past, with its manifold evolutions of thought and action, points the way to the religion of the future. (S. A. C.)

« Cf. P. Gardner, ffiit. View of New Test. (1904) 26. 44. sqq.

* See Meyer's interesting remarks, Geseh. d. Alt, i. §§ 592 sqq.

»Cf. A. P. Stanley, Jewish Church (1865), Lectures xlv. seq.; A. Jeremias, Monoth. Stromungen (Leipzig, 1904), p. 43 seq. Among the developments in Greek thought of this period, especially interesting for the Old Testament is the teaching associated with Phocylides of Miletus; see Lincke, Samaria, pp. 47 seq.

4 Cf. G. A. Smith. Hist. Geog. pp. 85 sqq., also the Arab historian I bo Khaldun on the effects of civilization upon Arab tribes (sec f X R- A. Nicholson, Lit. Hist, of the Arabs [London, 1907], pp. 439

•qq)

II.—From Alexander the Great to AJ>. 70.

After the taking of Tyre Alexander decided to advance upon Egypt. With the exception of Gaza, the whole of Syria Palacstine (as it was called) had made its submission. That—in summary form—is the narrative of the Greek historian Arrian (Anabasis, ii. 35). Apart from the facts contained in this statement, the phraseology is of some importance, as the district of " Palestinian Syria " clearly includes more than the territory of the Philistines, which the adjective properly denotes (Josephus, Antiquities, i. 6, a, xiii. v. 10). From the military point of view—and Arrian drew upon the memoirs of two of Alexander's lieutenants—the significant thing was that not merely was .the coast route from Tyre to Gaza open, but also there was no danger of a flank attack as the expeditionary force proceeded. Palestinian Syria, in fact, is here synonymous with what is commonly called Palestine. Similarly Josephus quotes from Herodotus the statement that the Syrians in Palestine are circumcised and profess to have learned the practice from the Egyptians (C. Apioncm* i. 22, §§ 169,171, Niese); and be comments that the Jews are the only inhabitants of Palestine who do so. These two examples of the wider use of the adjective and noun seem to testify to the forgotten predominance of the Philistines in the land of Canaan.

But, in spite of the statement and silence of Arrian, Jewish tradition, as reported by Josephus (Ant. xi. 8, 3 sqq.), represents the high priest at Jerusalem as refusing Alexander's offered alliance and request for supplies. The Samaritans—the Jews ignored in their records all other inhabitants of Palestine— courted his favour, but the Jews kept faith with Darius so long as he lived. Consequently a visit to Jerusalem is interpolated in the journey from Tyre to Gaza; and, Alexander, contrary to all expectation, is made to respect the high priest's passive resistance. He had seen his figure in a dream; and so he sacrificed to God according to his direction, inspected the book of Daniel, and gave them—and at their request the Jews of Babylon and Media—leave to follow their own laws. The Samaritans were prompt to claim like privileges, but were forced to confess that, though they were Hebrews, they were called the Sidonians of Shechcm and were not Jews. The whole story seems to be merely a dramatic setting of the fact that in the new age inaugurated by Alexander the Jews enjoyed religious liberty. The Samaritans are the villains of the piece. But it is possible that Palestinian Jews accompanied the expedition as guides or exerted their influence with Jews of the Dispersion on behalf of Alexander.

It appears from this tradition that the Jews of Palestine occupied little more than Jerusalem. There were kings of Syria in the train of Alexander who thought he was mad when he bowed before the high priest. We may draw the inference that they formed an insignificant item in the population of a small province of the Persian Empire, and yet doubt whether they did actually refuse—alone of all the inhabitants of Palestine —to submit to the conqueror of the whole. At any rate they came into line with the rest of Syria and were included in the province of Coele-Syria, which extended from the Taurus and Lebanon range to Egypt. The province was entrusted first of all to Parmcnio (Curtius iv. i, 4) and by him handed over to Andromachus (Curtius iv. 5, 9). In 331 B.c. the Samaritans rebelled and burned Andromachus alive (Curtius iv. 8, 9): Alexander cai"e up from Egypt, punished the rebels, and settled Macedonians in their city. The loyalty of the Jews he rewarded by granting them Samaritan territory free of tribute—according to a statement attributed by Josephus (c. Apioncm, ii. § 43, Niesc) to Hccataeus.

After the death of Alexander (323 B.c.) Ptolemy Lagi, who became satrap and then king of Egypt by right of conquest (Diodorus xviii. 39), invaded Coele-Syria in 320 B.c. Then or after the battle of Gaza in 312 B.c. Ptolemy was opposed by the Jews and entered Jerusalem by taking advantage of the Sabbath rest (Agatharchides ap. Jos. c. Apionem i. 22, §§ 209 seq.; cf. Ant. xii. i, i). Whenever this occupation

« السابقةمتابعة »