When Israel began to recover its prosperity and regained confidence, its

policy halted between obedience to Assyria and reliance upon this

ambiguous "Egypt." The situation is illustrated in the writings of Hosea

(q.v.). When at length Tiglath-pileser died, in 727, the slumbering

revolt became general; Israel refused the usual tribute to its overlord,

and definitely threw in its lot with "Egypt." In due course Samaria was

besieged for three years by Shalmaneser IV. The alliance with So (Seveh,

Sibi) of "Egypt," upon whom hopes had been placed, proved futile, and

the forebodings of keen-sighted prophets were justified. Although no

evidence is at hand, it is probable that Ahaz of Judah rendered service

to Assyria by keeping the allies in check; possible, also, that the

former enemies of Jerusalem had now been induced to turn against

Samaria. The actual capture of the Israelite capital is claimed by

Sargon (722), who removed 27,290 of its inhabitants and fifty chariots.

Other peoples were introduced, officers were placed in charge, and the

usual tribute re-imposed. Another revolt was planned in 720 in which the

province of Samaria joined with Hamath and Damascus, with the Phoenician

Arpad and Simura, and with Gaza and "Egypt." Two battles, one at Karkar

in the north, another at Rapih (Raphia) on the border of Egypt, sufficed

to quell the disturbance. The desert peoples who paid tribute on this

occasion still continued restless, and in 715 Sargon removed men of

Tamud, Ibadid, Marsiman, Hayapa, "the remote Arabs of the desert," and

placed them in the land of Beth-Omri. Sargon's statement is significant

for the internal history; but unfortunately the biblical historians take

no further interest in the fortunes of the northern kingdom after the

fall of Samaria, and see in Judah the sole survivor of the Israelite

tribes (see 2 Kings xvii. 7-23). Yet the situation in this neglected

district must continue to provoke inquiry.

16. _Judah and Assyria._--Amid these changes Judah was intimately

connected with the south Palestinian peoples (see further PHILISTINES).

Ahaz had recognized the sovereignty of Assyria and visited

Tiglath-pileser at Damascus. The Temple records describe the innovations

he introduced on his return. Under his son Hezekiah there were fresh

disturbances in the southern states, and anti-Assyrian intrigues began

to take a more definite shape among the Philistine cities. Ashdod openly

revolted and found support in Moab, Edom, Judah, and the still ambiguous

"Egypt." This step may possibly be connected with the attempt of Marduk

(Merodach)-baladan in south Babylonia to form a league against Assyria

(cf. 2 Kings xx. 12); at all events Ashdod fell after a three years'

siege (711) and for a time there was peace. But with the death of Sargon

in 705 there was another great outburst; practically the whole of

Palestine and Syria was in arms, and the integrity of Sennacherib's

empire was threatened. In both Judah and Philistia the anti-Assyrian

party was not without opposition, and those who adhered or favoured

adherence to the great power were justified by the result. The

inevitable lack of cohesion among the petty states weakened the national

cause. At Sennacherib's approach, Ashdod, Ammon, Moab and Edom

submitted; Ekron, Ascalon, Lachish and Jerusalem held out strenuously.

The southern allies (with "Egypt") were defeated at Eltekeh (Josh. xix.

44). Hezekiah was besieged and compelled to submit (701). The small

kings who had remained faithful were rewarded by an extension of their

territories, and Ashdod, Ekron and Gaza were enriched at Judah's

expense. These events are related in Sennacherib's inscription; the

biblical records preserve their own traditions (see HEZEKIAH). If the

impression left upon current thought can be estimated from certain of

the utterances of the court-prophet Isaiah and the Judaean countryman

Micah (q.v.), the light which these throw upon internal conditions must

also be used to gauge the real extent of the religious changes ascribed

to Hezekiah. A brazen serpent, whose institution was attributed to

Moses, had not hitherto been considered out of place in the cult; its

destruction was perhaps the king's most notable reform.

In the long reign of his son Manasseh later writers saw the deathblow to

the Judaean kingdom. Much is related of his wickedness and enmity to the

followers of Yahweh, but few political details have come down. It is

uncertain whether Sennacherib invaded Judah again shortly before his

death, nevertheless the land was practically under the control of

Assyria. Both Esar-haddon (681-668) and Assur-bani-pal (668-c. 626)

number among their tributaries Tyre, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Ascalon, Gaza

and Manasseh himself,[28] and cuneiform dockets unearthed at Gezer

suggest the presence of Assyrian garrisons there (and no doubt also

elsewhere) to ensure allegiance. The situation was conducive to the

spread of foreign customs, and the condemnation passed upon Manasseh

thus perhaps becomes more significant. Precisely what form his worship

took is a matter of conjecture; but it is possible that the religion

must not be judged too strictly from the standpoint of the late

compiler, and that Manasseh merely assimilated the older Yahweh-worship

to new Assyrian forms.[29] Politics and religion, however, were

inseparable, and the supremacy of Assyria meant the supremacy of the

Assyrian pantheon.

If Judah was compelled to take part in the Assyrian campaigns against

Egypt, Arabia (the Syrian desert) and Tyre, this would only be in

accordance with a vassal's duty. But when tradition preserves some

recollection of an offence for which Manasseh was taken to Babylon to

explain his conduct (2 Chron. xxxiii.), also of the settling of foreign

colonists in Samaria by Esar-haddon (Ezra iv. 2), there is just a

possibility that Judah made some attempt to gain independence. According

to Assur-bani-pal all the western lands were inflamed by the revolt of

his brother Samas-sum-ukin. What part Judah took in the Transjordanic

disturbances, in which Moab fought invading Arabian tribes on behalf of

Assyria, is unknown (see MOAB). Manasseh's son Amon fell in a court

intrigue and "the people of the land," after avenging the murder, set up

in his place the infant Josiah (637). The circumstances imply a regency,

but the records are silent upon the outlook. The assumption that the

decay of Assyria awoke the national feeling of independence is perhaps

justified by those events which made the greatest impression upon the

compiler, and an account is given of Josiah's religious reforms, based

upon a source apparently identical with that which described the work of

Jehoash. In an age when the oppression and corruption of the ruling

classes had been such that those who cherished the old worship of Yahweh

dared not confide in their most intimate companions (Mic. vii. 5, 6), no

social reform was possible; but now the young Josiah, the popular

choice, was upon the throne. A roll, it is said, was found in the

Temple, its contents struck terror into the hearts of the priests and

king, and it led to a solemn covenant before Yahweh to observe the

provisions of the law-book which had been so opportunely recovered.

That the writer (2 Kings xxii. seq.) meant to describe the discovery

of Deuteronomy is evident from the events which followed; and this

identification of the roll, already made by Jerome, Chrysostom and

others, has been substantiated by modern literary criticism since De

Wette (1805). (See DEUTERONOMY; JOSIAH.) Some very interesting

parallels have been cited from Egyptian and Assyrian records where

religious texts, said to have been found in temples, or oracles from

the distant past, have come to light at the very time when "the days

were full."[30] There is, however, no real proof for the traditional

antiquity of Deuteronomy. The book forms a very distinctive landmark

in the religious history by reason of its attitude to cult and ritual

(see HEBREW RELIGION, § 7). In particular it is aimed against the

worship at the numerous minor sanctuaries and inculcates the sole

pre-eminence of the one great sanctuary--the Temple of Jerusalem. This

centralization involved the removal of the local priests and a

modification of ritual and legal observance. The fall of Samaria,

Sennacherib's devastation of Judah, and the growth of Jerusalem as the

capital, had tended to raise the position of the Temple, although

Israel itself, as also Judah, had famous sanctuaries of its own. From

the standpoint of the popular religion, the removal of the local

altars, like Hezekiah's destruction of the brazen serpent, would be an

act of desecration, an iconoclasm which can be partly appreciated from

the sentiments of 2 Kings xviii. 22, and partly also from the modern

Wahhabite reformation (of the 19th century). But the details and

success of the reforms, when viewed in the light of the testimony of

contemporary prophets, are uncertain. The book of Deuteronomy

crystallizes a doctrine; it is the codification of teaching which

presupposes a carefully prepared soil. The account of Josiah's work,

like that of Hezekiah, is written by one of the Deuteronomic school:

that is to say, the writer describes the promulgation of the teaching

under which he lives. It is part of the scheme which runs through the

book of Kings, and its apparent object is to show that the Temple

planned by David and founded by Solomon ultimately gained its true

position as the only sanctuary of Yahweh to which his worshippers

should repair. Accordingly, in handling Josiah's successors the writer

no longer refers to the high places. But if Josiah carried out the

reforms ascribed to him they were of no lasting effect. This is

conclusively shown by the writings of Jeremiah (xxv. 3-7, xxxvi. 2

seq.) and Ezekiel. Josiah himself is praised for his justice, but

faithless Judah is insincere (Jer. iii. 10), and those who claim to

possess Yahweh's law are denounced (viii. 8). If Israel could appear

to be better than Judah (iii. 11; Ezek. xvi., xxiii.), the religious

revival was a practical failure, and it was not until a century later

that the opportunity again came to put any new teaching into effect (§

20). On the other hand, the book of Deuteronomy has a characteristic

social-religious side; its humanity, philanthropy and charity are the

distinctive features of its laws, and Josiah's reputation (Jer. xxii.

15 seq.) and the circumstances in which he was chosen king may suggest

that he, like Jehoash (2 Kings xi. 17; cf. xxiii. 3), had entered into

a reciprocal covenant with a people who, as Micah's writings would

indicate, had suffered grievous oppression and misery.[31]

17. _The Fall of the Judaean Monarchy._--In Josiah's reign a new era was

beginning in the history of the world. Assyria was rapidly decaying and

Egypt had recovered from the blows of Assur-bani-pal (to which the

Hebrew prophet Nahum alludes, iii. 8-10). Psammetichus (Psamtek) I., one

of the ablest of Egyptian rulers for many centuries, threw off the

Assyrian yoke with the help of troops from Asia Minor and employed

these to guard his eastern frontiers at Defneh. He also revived the old

trading-connexions between Egypt and Phoenicia. A Chaldean prince,

Nabopolassar, set himself up in Babylonia, and Assyria was compelled to

invoke the aid of the Askuza. It was perhaps after this that an inroad

of Scythians (q.v.) occurred (c. 626 B.C.); if it did not actually touch

Judah, the advent of the people of the north appears to have caused

great alarm (Jer. iv.-vi.: Zephaniah). Bethshean in Samaria has perhaps

preserved in its later (though temporary) name Scythopolis an echo of

the invasion.[32] Later, Necho, son of Psammetichus, proposed to add to

Egypt some of the Assyrian provinces, and marched through Palestine.

Josiah at once interposed; it is uncertain whether, in spite of the

power of Egypt, he had hopes of extending his kingdom, or whether the

famous reformer was, like Manasseh, a vassal of Assyria. The book of

Kings gives the standpoint of a later Judaean writer, but Josiah's

authority over a much larger area than Judah alone is suggested by

xxiii. 19 (part of an addition), and by the references to the border at

Riblah in Ezek. vi. 14, xi. 10 seq. He was slain at Megiddo in 608, and

Egypt, as in the long-distant past, again held Palestine and Syria. The

Judaeans made Jehoahaz (or Shallum) their king, but the Pharaoh banished

him to Egypt three months later and appointed his brother Jehoiakim.

Shortly afterwards Nineveh fell, and with it the empire which had

dominated the fortunes of Palestine for over two centuries (see § 10).

Nabonidus (Nabunaid) king of Babylonia (556 B.C.) saw in the disaster

the vengeance of the gods for the sacrilege of Sennacherib; the Hebrew

prophets, for their part, exulted over Yahweh's far-reaching judgment.

The newly formed Chaldean power at once recognized in Necho a dangerous

rival and Nabopolassar sent his son Nebuchadrezzar, who overthrew the

Egyptian forces at Carchemish (605). The battle was the turning-point of

the age, and with it the succession of the new Chaldean or Babylonian

kingdom was assured. But the relations between Egypt and Judah were not

broken off. The course of events is not clear, but Jehoiakim (q.v.) at

all events was inclined to rely upon Egypt. He died just as

Nebuchadrezzar, seeing his warnings disregarded, was preparing to lay

siege to Jerusalem. His young son Jehoiachin surrendered after a three

months' reign, with his mother and the court; they were taken away to

Babylonia, together with a number of the artisan class (596).

Jehoiakim's brother, Mattaniah or Zedekiah, was set in his place under

an oath of allegiance, which he broke, preferring Hophra the new king of

Egypt. A few years later the second siege took place. It began on the

tenth day of the tenth month, January 587. The looked-for intervention

of Egypt was unavailing, although a temporary raising of the siege

inspired wild hopes. Desertion, pestilence and famine added to the usual

horrors of a siege, and at length on the ninth day of the fourth month

586, a breach was made in the walls. Zedekiah fled towards the Jordan

valley but was seized and taken to Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah (45 m. south

of Hamath). His sons were slain before his eyes, and he himself was

blinded and carried off to Babylon after a reign of eleven years. The

Babylonian Nebuzaradan was sent to take vengeance upon the rebellious

city, and on the seventh day of the fifth month 586 B.C. Jerusalem was

destroyed. The Temple, palace and city buildings were burned, the walls

broken down, the chief priest Seraiah, the second priest Zephaniah, and

other leaders were put to death, and a large body of people was again

carried away. The disaster became the great epoch-making event for

Jewish history and literature.

Throughout these stormy years the prophet Jeremiah (q.v.) had realized

that Judah's only hope lay in submission to Babylonia. Stigmatized as a

traitor, scorned and even imprisoned, he had not ceased to utter his

warnings to deaf ears, although Zedekiah himself was perhaps open to

persuasion. Now the penalty had been paid, and the Babylonians, whose

policy was less destructive than that of Assyria, contented themselves

with appointing as governor a certain Gedaliah. The new centre was

Mizpah, a commanding eminence and sanctuary, about 5 m. N.W. of

Jerusalem; and here Gedaliah issued an appeal to the people to be loyal

to Babylonia and to resume their former peaceful occupations. The land

had not been devastated, and many gladly returned from their

hiding-places in Moab, Edom and Ammon. But discontented survivors of the

royal family under Ishmael intrigued with Baalis, king of Ammon. The

plot resulted in the murder of Gedaliah and an unsuccessful attempt to

carry off various princesses and officials who had been left in the

governor's care. This new confusion and a natural fear of Babylonia's

vengeance led many to feel that their only safety lay in flight to

Egypt, and, although warned by Jeremiah that even there the sword would

find them, they fled south and took refuge in Tahpanhes (Daphnae, q.v.),

afterwards forming small settlements in other parts of Egypt. But the

thread of the history is broken, and apart from an allusion to the

favour shown to the captive Jehoiachin (with which the books of Jeremiah

and Kings conclude), there is a gap in the records, and subsequent

events are viewed from a new standpoint (§ 20).

The last few years of the Judaean kingdom present several difficult

problems.

(a) That there was some fluctuation of tradition is evident in the

case of Jehoiakim, with whose quiet end (2 Kings xxiv. 6 [see also

Lucian]; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8 [Septuagint]) contrast the fate

foreshadowed in Jer. xxii. 18 seq., xxxvi. 30 (cf. Jos. _Ant._ x. 6, 2

seq.). The tradition of his captivity (2 Chron. xxxvi. 6; Dan. i. 2)

has apparently confused him with Jehoiachin, and the latter's reign is

so brief that some overlapping is conceivable. Moreover, the prophecy

in Jer. xxxiv. 5 that Zedekiah would die in peace is not borne out by

the history, nor does Josiah's fate agree with the promise in 2 Kings

xxii. 20. There is also an evident relation between the pairs:

Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah (e.g. length of

reigns), and the difficulty felt in regard to the second and third is

obvious in the attempts of the Jewish historian Josephus to provide a

compromise. The contemporary prophecies ascribed to Jeremiah and

Ezekiel require careful examination in this connexion, partly as

regards their traditional background (especially the headings and

setting), and partly for their contents, the details of which

sometimes do not admit of a literal interpretation in accordance with

our present historical material (cf. Ezek. xix. 3-9, where the two

brothers carried off to Egypt and Babylon respectively would seem to

be Jehoahaz and his nephew Jehoiachin).

(b) Some fluctuation is obvious in the number, dates and extent of the

deportations. Jer. lii. 28-30 gives a total of 4600 persons, in

contrast to 2 Kings xxiv. 14, 16 (the numbers are not inclusive), and

reckons three deportations in the 7th (? 17th), 18th and 23rd years of

Nebuchadrezzar. Only the second is specifically said to be from

Jerusalem (the remaining are of Judaeans), and the last has been

plausibly connected with the murder of Gedaliah, an interval of five

years being assumed. For this twenty-third year Josephus (_Ant._ x. 9,

7) gives an invasion of Egypt and an attack upon Ammon, Moab and

Palestine (see NEBUCHADREZZAR).

(c) That the exile lasted seventy years (? from 586 B.C. to the

completion of the second temple) is the view of the canonical history

(2 Chron. xxxvi. 21; Jer. xxv. 11, xxix. 10; Zech. i. 12; cf. Tyre,

Isa. xxiii. 15), but it is usually reckoned from the first

deportation, which was looked upon as of greater significance than the

second (Jer. xxiv. xxix.), and it may be a round number. Another

difficulty is the interpretation of the 40 years in Ezek. iv. 6 (cf.

Egypt, xxix. 11), and the 390 in _v._ 5 (Septuagint 150 or 190; 130 in

Jos. x. 9, 7 end). A period of fifty years is allowed by the

chronological scheme (1 Kings vi. 1; cf. Jos. c. _Ap._ i. 21), and the

late book of Baruch (vi. 3) even speaks of seven generations. Varying

chronological schemes may have been current and some weight must be

laid upon the remarkable vagueness of the historical information in

later writings (see DANIEL).

(d) The attitude of the neighbouring peoples constitutes another

serious problem (cf. 2 Kings xxiv. 2 and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 5, where

Lucian's recension and the Septuagint respectively add the

Samaritans!), in view of the circumstances of Gedaliah's appointment

(Jer. xl. 11, see above) as contrasted with the frequent prophecies

against Ammon, Moab and Edom which seem to be contemporary (see EDOM;

MOAB).

(e) Finally, the recurrence of similar historical situations in

Judaean history must be considered. The period under review, with its

relations between Judah and Egypt, can be illustrated by prophecies

ascribed to a similar situation in the time of Hezekiah. But the

destruction of Jerusalem is not quite unique, and somewhat later we

meet with indirect evidence for at least one similar disaster upon

which the records are silent. There are a number of apparently related

passages which, however, on internal grounds, are unsuitable to the

present period, and when they show independent signs of a later date

(in their present form), there is a very strong probability that they

refer to such subsequent disasters. The scantiness of historical

tradition makes a final solution impossible, but the study of these

years has an important bearing on the history of the later Judaean

state, which has been characteristically treated from the standpoint

of exiles who returned from Babylonia and regard themselves as the

kernel of "Israel." From this point of view, the desire to intensify

the denudation of Palestine and the fate of its remnant, and to look

to the Babylonian exiles for the future, can probably be recognized in

the writings attributed to contemporary prophets.[33]

18. _Internal Conditions and the Exile._--Many of the exiles accepted

their lot and settled down in Babylonia (cf. Jer. xxix. 4-7); Jewish

colonies, too, were being founded in Egypt. The agriculturists and

herdsmen who had been left in Palestine formed, as always, the staple

population, and it is impossible to imagine either Judah or Israel as

denuded of its inhabitants. The down-trodden peasants were left in peace

to divide the land among them, and new conditions arose as they took

over the ownerless estates. But the old continuity was not entirely

broken; there was a return to earlier conditions, and life moved more

freely in its wonted channels. The fall of the monarchy involved a

reversion to a pre-monarchical state. It had scarcely been otherwise in

Israel. The Israelites who had been carried off by the Assyrians were

also removed from the cult of the land (cf. 1 Sam. xxvi. 19; Ruth i. 15

seq.). It is possible that some had escaped by taking timely refuge

among their brethren in Judah; indeed, if national tradition availed,

there were doubtless times when Judah cast its eye upon the land with

which it had been so intimately connected. It would certainly be unwise

to draw a sharp boundary line between the two districts; kings of Judah

could be tempted to restore the kingdom of their traditional founder, or

Assyria might be complaisant towards a faithful Judaean vassal. The

character of the Assyrian domination over Israel must not be

misunderstood; the regular payment of tribute and the provision of

troops were the main requirements, and the position of the masses

underwent little change if an Assyrian governor took the place of an

unpopular native ruler. The two sections of the Hebrews who had had so

much in common were scarcely severed by a border-line only a few miles

to the north of Jerusalem. But Israel after the fall of Samaria is

artificially excluded from the Judaean horizon, and lies as a foreign

land, although Judah itself had suffered from the intrusion of

foreigners in the preceding centuries of war and turmoil, and strangers

had settled in her midst, had formed part of the royal guard, or had

even served as janissaries (§ 15, end).

Samaria had experienced several changes in its original population,[34]

and an instructive story tells how the colonists, in their ignorance of

the religion of their new home, incurred the divine wrath. _Cujus regio

ejus religio_--settlement upon a new soil involved dependence upon its

god, and accordingly priests were sent to instruct the Samaritans in the

fear of Yahweh. Thenceforth they continued the worship of the Israelite

Yahweh along with their own native cults (2 Kings xvii. 24-28, 33).

Their descendants claimed participation in the privileges of the

Judaeans (cf. Jer. xli. 5), and must have identified themselves with the

old stock (Ezra iv. 2). Whatever recollection they preserved of their

origin and of the circumstances of their entry would be retold from a

new standpoint; the ethnological traditions would gain a new meaning;

the assimilation would in time become complete. In view of subsequent

events it would be difficult to find a more interesting subject of

inquiry than the internal religious and sociological conditions in

Samaria at this age.

To the prophets the religious position was lower in Judah than in

Samaria, whose iniquities were less grievous (Jer. iii. 11 seq., xxiii.

11 sqq.; Ezek. xvi. 51). The greater prevalence of heathen elements in

Jerusalem, as detailed in the reforms of Josiah or in the writings of

the prophets (cf. Ezek. viii.), would at least suggest that the

destruction of the state was not entirely a disaster. To this

catastrophe may be due the fragmentary character of old Judaean

historical traditions. Moreover, the land was purified when it became

divorced from the practices of a luxurious court and lost many of its

worst inhabitants. In Israel as in Judah the political disasters not

only meant a shifting of population, they also brought into prominence

the old popular and non-official religion, the character of which is not

to be condemned because of the attitude of lofty prophets in advance of

their age. When there were sects like the Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.), when

the Judaean fields could produce a Micah or a Zephaniah, and when Israel

no doubt had men who inherited the spirit of a Hosea, the nature of the

underlying conditions can be more justly appreciated. The writings of

the prophets were cherished, not only in the unfavourable atmosphere of

courts (see Jer. xxxvi., 21 sqq.), but also in the circles of their

followers (Isa. viii. 16). In the quiet smaller sanctuaries the old-time

beliefs were maintained, and the priests, often perhaps of the older

native stock (cf. 2 Kings xvii. 28 and above), were the recognized

guardians of the religious cults. The old stories of earlier days

encircle places which, though denounced for their corruption, were not

regarded as illegitimate, and in the form in which the dim traditions of

the past are now preserved they reveal an attempt to purify popular

belief and thought. In the domestic circles of prophetic communities the

part played by their great heads in history did not suffer in the

telling, and it is probable that some part at least of the extant

history of the Israelite kingdom passed through the hands of men whose

interest lay in the pre-eminence of their seers and their beneficent

deeds on behalf of these small communities. This interest and the

popular tone of the history may be combined with the fact that the

literature does not take us into the midst of that world of activity in

which the events unfolded themselves.

Although the records preserve complete silence upon the period now

under review, it is necessary to free oneself from the narrow outlook

of the later Judaean compilers. It is a gratuitous assumption that the

history of (north) Israel ceased with the fall of Samaria or that

Judah then took over Israelite literature and inherited the old

Israelite spirit: the question of the preservation of earlier writings

is of historical importance. It is true that the situation in Israel

or Samaria continues obscure, but a careful study of literary

productions, evidently not earlier than the 7th century B.C., reveals

a particular loftiness of conception and a tendency which finds its

parallels in Hosea and approximates the peculiar characteristics of

the Deuteronomic school of thought. But the history which the Judaean

writers have handed down is influenced by the later hostility between

Judah and Samaria. The traditional bond between the north and south

which nothing could efface (cf. Jos. _Ant._, xi. 8, 6) has been

carried back to the earliest ages; yet the present period, after the

age of rival kingdoms, Judah and Israel, and before the foundation of

Judaism, is that in which the historical background for the inclusion

of Judah among the "sons" of Israel is equally suitable (§§ 5, 20,

end). The circumstances favoured a closer alliance between the people

of Palestine, and a greater prominence of the old holy places (Hebron,

Bethel, Shechem, &c.), of which the ruined Jerusalem would not be one,

and the existing condition of Judah and Israel from internal and

non-political points of view--not their condition in the

pre-monarchical ages--is the more crucial problem in biblical

history.[35]

19. _Persian Period._[36]--The course of events from the middle of the

6th century B.C. to the close of the Persian period is lamentably

obscure, although much indirect evidence indicates that this age holds

the key to the growth of written biblical history. It was an age of

literary activity which manifested itself, not in contemporary

historical records--only a few of which have survived--but rather in the

special treatment of previously existing sources. The problems are of

unusual intricacy and additional light is needed from external

evidence. It will be convenient to turn to this first. Scarcely 40 years

after the destruction of Jerusalem, a new power appeared in the east in

the person of Cyrus the Great. Babylon speedily fell (539 B.C.) and a

fresh era opened. To the petty states this meant only a change of

masters; they now became part of one of the largest empires of

antiquity. The prophets who had marked in the past the advent of

Assyrians and Chaldeans now fixed their eyes upon the advance of Cyrus,

confident that the fall of Babylon would bring the restoration of their

fortunes. Cyrus was hailed as the divinely appointed saviour, the

anointed one of Yahweh. The poetic imagery in which the prophets clothed

the doom of Babylon, like the romantic account of Herodotus (i. 191),

falls short of the simple contemporary account of Cyrus himself. He did

not fulfil the detailed predictions, and the events did not reach the

ideals of Hebrew writers; but these anticipations may have influenced

the form which the Jewish traditions subsequently took. Nevertheless, if

Cyrus was not originally a Persian and was not a worshipper of Yahweh

(Isa. xli. 25), he was at least tolerant towards subject races and their

religions, and the persistent traditions unmistakably point to the

honour in which his memory was held. Throughout the Persian supremacy

Palestine was necessarily influenced by the course of events in

Phoenicia and Egypt (with which intercourse was continual), and some

light may thus be indirectly thrown on its otherwise obscure political

history. Thus, when Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, made his great

expedition against Egypt, with the fleets of Phoenicia and Cyprus and

with the camels of the Arabians, it is highly probable that Palestine

itself was concerned. Also, the revolt which broke out in the Persian

provinces at this juncture may have extended to Palestine; although the

usurper Darius encountered his most serious opposition in the north and

north-east of his empire. An outburst of Jewish religious feeling is

dated in the second year of Darius (520), but whether Judah was making a

bold bid for independence or had received special favour for abstaining

from the above revolts, external evidence alone can decide. Towards the

close of the reign of Darius there was a fresh revolt in Egypt; it was

quelled by Xerxes (485-465), who did not imitate the religious tolerance

of his predecessors. Artaxerxes I. Longimanus (465-425), attracts

attention because the famous Jewish reformers Ezra and Nehemiah

flourished under a king of this name. Other revolts occurred in Egypt,

and for these and also for the rebellion of the Persian satrap Megabyzos

(c. 448-447), independent evidence for the position of Judah is needed,

since a catastrophe apparently befell the unfortunate state before

Nehemiah appears upon the scene. Little is known of the mild and

indolent Artaxerxes II. Mnemon (404-359). With the growing weakness of

the Persian empire Egypt reasserted its independence for a time. In the

reign of Artaxerxes III. Ochus (359-338), Egypt, Phoenicia and Cyprus

were in revolt; the rising was quelled without mercy, and the details of

the vengeance are valuable for the possible fate of Palestine itself.

The Jewish historian Josephus (_Ant._ xi. 7) records the enslavement of

the Jews, the pollution of the Temple by a certain Bagoses (see BAGOAS),

and a seven years' punishment. Other late sources narrate the

destruction of Jericho and a deportation of the Jews to Babylonia and to

Hyrcania (on the Caspian Sea). The evidence for the catastrophes under

Artaxerxes I. and III. (see ARTAXERXES), exclusively contained in

biblical and in external tradition respectively, is of particular

importance, since several biblical passages refer to disasters similar

to those of 586 but presuppose different conditions and are apparently

of later origin.[37] The murder of Artaxerxes III. by Bagoses gave a

set-back to the revival of the Persian Empire. Under Darius Codomannus

(336-330) the advancing Greek power brought matters to a head, and at

the battle of Issus in 333 Alexander settled its fate. The overthrow of

Tyre and Gaza secured the possession of the coast and the Jewish state

entered upon the Greek period. (See § 25.)

During these two centuries the Jews in Palestine had been only one of

an aggregate of subject peoples enjoying internal freedom provided in

return for a regular tribute. They lived in comparative quietude;

although Herodotus knows the Palestinian coast he does not mention the

Jews. The earlier Persian kings acknowledged the various religions of

the petty peoples; they were also patrons of their temples and would

take care to preserve an ancient right of asylum or the privileges of

long-established cults.[38] Cyrus on entering Babylon had even

restored the gods to the cities to which they belonged.[39]

Consequently much interest attaches to the evidence which illustrates

the environment of the Jews during this period. Those who had been

scattered from Palestine lived in small colonies, sometimes mingling

and intermarrying with the natives, sometimes strictly preserving

their own individuality. Some took root in the strange lands, and, as

later popular stories indicate, evidently reached high positions;

others, retaining a more vivid tradition of the land of their fathers,

cherished the ideal of a restored Jerusalem. Excavation at Nippur

(q.v.) in Babylonia has brought to light numerous contract tablets of

the 5th century B.C. with Hebrew proper names (Haggai, Hanani,

Gedaliah, &c.). Papyri from Elephantine in Upper Egypt, of the same

age, proceed from Jewish families who carry on a flourishing business,

live among Egyptians and Persians, and take their oaths in courts of

law in the name of the god "Yahu," the "God of Heaven," whose temple

dated from the last Egyptian kings. Indeed, it was claimed that

Cambyses had left the sanctuary unharmed but had destroyed the temples

of the Egyptians. In Elephantine, as in Nippur, the legal usages show

that similar elements of Babylonio-Assyrian culture prevailed, and the

evidence from two such widely separated fields is instructive for

conditions in Palestine itself.[40]

20. _The Restoration of Judah._--The biblical history for the Persian

period is contained in a new source--the books of Ezra and Nehemiah,

whose standpoint and period are that of Chronicles, with which they are

closely joined. After a brief description of the fall of Jerusalem the

"seventy years" of the exile are passed over, and we are plunged into a

history of the return (2 Chron. xxxvi.; Ezra i.). Although Palestine had

not been depopulated, and many of the exiled Jews remained in Persia,

the standpoint is that of those who returned from Babylon. Settled in

and around Jerusalem, they look upon themselves as the sole community,

the true Israel, even as it was believed that once before Israel entered

and developed independently in the land of its ancestors. They look back

from the age when half-suppressed hostility with Samaria had broken out,

and when an exclusive Judaism had been formed. The interest of the

writers is as usual in the religious history; they were indifferent to,

or perhaps rather ignorant of, the strict order of events. Their

narratives can be partially supplemented from other sources (Haggai;

Zechariah i.-viii.; Isa. xl.-lxvi.; Malachi), but a consecutive sketch

is impossible.[41]

In 561 B.C. the captive Judaean king, Jehoiachin, had received special

marks of favour from Nebuchadrezzar's son Amil-marduk. So little is

known of this act of recognition that its significance can only be

conjectured. A little later Tyre received as its king Merbaal (555-552)

who had been fetched from Babylonia. Babylonia was politically

unsettled, the representative of the Davidic dynasty had descendants; if

Babylon was assured of the allegiance of Judah further acts of clemency

may well have followed. But the later recension of Judaean history--our

sole source--entirely ignores the elevation of Jehoiachin (2 Kings xxv.

27 sqq.; Jer. lii. 31-34), and proceeds at once to the first year of

Cyrus, who proclaims as his divine mission the rebuilding of the Temple

(538). The Judaean Sheshbazzar (a corruption of some Babylonian name)

brought back the Temple vessels which Nebuchadrezzar had carried away

and prepared to undertake the work at the expense of the royal purse. An

immense body of exiles is said to have returned at this time to

Jerusalem under Zerubbabel, who was of Davidic descent, and the priest

Jeshua or Joshua, the grandson of the murdered Seraiah (Ezra i.-iii.; v.

13-vi. 5). When these refused the proffered help of the people of

Samaria, men of the same faith as themselves (iv. 2), their troubles

began, and the Samaritans retaliated by preventing the rebuilding. The

next historical notice is dated in the second year of Darius (520) when

two prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, came forward to kindle the Judaeans

to new efforts, and in spite of opposition the work went steadily

onwards, thanks to the favour of Darius, until the Temple was completed

four years later (Ezra v. 2, vi. 13 sqq.). On the other hand, from the

independent writings ascribed to these prophets, it appears that no

considerable body of exiles could have returned--it is still an event of

the future (Zech. ii. 7, vi. 15); little, if anything, had been done to

the Temple (Hag. ii. 15); and Zerubbabel is the one to take in hand and

complete the great undertaking (Zech. iv. 9). The prophets address

themselves to men living in comfortable abodes with olive-fields and

vineyards, suffering from bad seasons and agricultural depression, and

though the country is unsettled there is no reference to any active

opposition on the part of Samaritans. So far from drawing any lesson

from the brilliant event in the reign of Cyrus, the prophets imply that

Yahweh's wrath is still upon the unfortunate city and that Persia is

still the oppressor. Consequently, although small bodies of individuals

no doubt came back to Judah from time to time, and some special mark of

favour may have been shown by Cyrus, the opinion has gained ground since

the early arguments of E. Schrader (_Stud. u. Krit._, 1867, pp.

460-504), that the compiler's representation of the history is

untrustworthy. His main object is to make the new Israel, the

post-exilic community at Jerusalem, continuous, as a society, with the

old Israel.[42] Greater weight must be laid upon the independent

evidence of the prophetical writings, and the objection that Palestine

could not have produced the religious fervency of Haggai or Zechariah

without an initial impulse from Babylonia begs the question.

Unfortunately the internal conditions in the 6th century B.C. can be

only indirectly estimated (§ 18), and the political position must remain

for the present quite uncertain. In Zerubbabel the people beheld once

more a ruler of the Davidic race. The new temple heralded a new future;

the mournful fasts commemorative of Jerusalem's disasters would become

feasts; Yahweh had left the Temple at the fall of Jerusalem, but had now

returned to sanctify it with his presence; the city had purged its

iniquity and was fit once more to become the central sanctuary. So

Haggai sees in Zerubbabel the representative of the ideal kingdom, the

trusted and highly favoured minister who was the signet-ring upon

Yahweh's hand (contrast Hag. ii. 24 with Jer. xxii. 23). Zechariah, in

his turn, proclaims the overthrow of all difficulties in the path of the

new king, who shall rule in glory supported by the priest (Zech. vi.).

What political aspirations were revived, what other writers were

inspired by these momentous events are questions of inference.

A work which inculcates the dependence of the state upon the purity of

its ruler is the unfinished book of Kings with its history of the

Davidic dynasty and the Temple. Its ideals culminate in Josiah (§ 16,

end), and there is a strong presumption that it is intended to impress

upon the new era the lessons drawn from the past. Its treatment of the

monarchy is only part of a great and now highly complicated literary

undertaking (traceable in the books Joshua to Kings), inspired with

the thought and coloured by language characteristic of Deuteronomy

(especially the secondary portions), which forms the necessary

introduction. Whatever reforms Josiah actually accomplished, the

restoration afforded the opportunity of bringing the Deuteronomic

teaching into action; though it is more probable that Deuteronomy

itself in the main is not much earlier than the second half of the 6th

century B.C.[43] It shows a strong nationalist feeling which is not

restricted to Judah alone, but comprises a greater Israel from Kadesh

in Naphtali in the north to Hebron in the south, and even extends

beyond the Jordan. Distinctive non-Judaean features are included, as

in the Samaritan liturgical office (Deut. xxvii. 14-26), and the

evidence for the conclusion that traditions originally of (north)

Israelite interest were taken over and adapted to the later standpoint

of Judah and Jerusalem (viz. in the Deuteronomic book of Kings)

independently confirms the inferences drawn from Deuteronomy itself.

The absence of direct testimony can be partially supplied by later

events which presuppose the break-up of no inconsiderable state, and

imply relations with Samaria which had been by no means so unfriendly

as the historians represent. A common ground for Judaism and

Samaritanism is obvious, and it is in this obscure age that it is to

be sought. But the curtain is raised for too brief an interval to

allow of more than a passing glimpse at the restoration of Judaean

fortunes; not until the time of Nehemiah, about 140 years after the

fall of Jerusalem, does the historical material become less imperfect.

Upon this blank period before the foundation of Judaism (§§ 21, 23)

much light is also thrown by another body of evidence. It has long

been recognized that 1 Chron. ii. and iv. represent a Judah composed

mainly of groups which had moved up from the south (Hebron) to the

vicinity of Jerusalem. It includes Caleb and Jerahmeel, Kenite or

Rechabite families, scribes, &c., and these, as "sons" of Hezron,

claim some relationship with Gilead. The names point generally to an

affinity with south Palestine and north Arabia (Edom, Midian, &c.; see

especially the lists in Gen. xxxvi.), and suggest that certain members

of a closely related collection of groups had separated from the main

body and were ultimately enrolled as Israelites. It is also recognized

by many scholars that in the present account of the exodus there are

indications of the original prominence of traditions of Kadesh, and

also of a journey northwards in which Caleb, Kenites and others took

part (§ 5). On these and on other grounds besides, it has long been

felt that south Palestine, with its north Arabian connexions, is of

real importance in biblical research, and for many years efforts have

been made to determine the true significance of the evidence. The

usual tendency has been to regard it in the light of the criticism of

early Israelite history, which demands some reconstruction (§ 8), and

to discern distinct tribal movements previous to the union of Judah

and Israel under David. On the other hand, the elaborate theory of T.

K. Cheyne involves the view that a history dealing with the south

actually underlies our sources and can be recovered by emendation of

the text. Against the former is the fact that although certain groups

are ultimately found in Judah (Judg. i.), the evidence for the

movement--a conquest north of Kadesh, almost at the gate of the

promised land--explicitly mentions Israel; and against the latter the

evidence again shows that this representation has been deliberately

subordinated to the entrance of Israel from beyond the Jordan.[44] In

either case the history of separate sections of people may have been

extended to Israel as a whole, but there is no evidence for any

adequate reconstruction. Yet the presence of distinct representations

of the history may be recognized, and since the Judaean compilers of

the Old Testament have incorporated non-Judaean sources (e.g. the

history of the northern monarchy), it is obvious that, apart from

indigenous Judaean tradition, the southern groups which were

ultimately enrolled in Judah would possess their own stock of oral and

written lore. Hence it is noteworthy that the late editor of Judges

has given the first place to Othniel, a Kenizzite, and therefore of

Edomite affinity, though subsequently reckoned as a Judaean (Judg i.

13, iii. 9; cf. Gen. xxxvi. 11; 1 Chron. iv. 13). Of Kenite interest

is the position of Cain, ancestor of heroes of culture and of the

worship of Yahweh (Gen. iv. 17 sqq.). One fragmentary source alludes

to a journey to the Midianite or Kenite father-in-law of Moses with

the Ark (q.v.); another knows of its movements with David and the

priest Abiathar (a name closely related to Jether or Jethro; cf. also

1 Chron. iv. 17). Distinctively Calebite are the stories of the eponym

who, fearless of the "giants" of Palestine, gained striking divine

promises (Num. xiv. 11-24); Caleb's overthrow of the Hebronite giants

finds a parallel in David's conflicts before the capture of Jerusalem,

and may be associated with the belief that these primitive giants once

filled the land (Josh. xi. 21 seq.; see § 7, and DAVID; SAMUEL, BOOKS

OF). Calebite, too, are Hebron and its patron Abraham, and both

increase in prominence in the patriarchal narratives, where, moreover,

an important body of tradition can have emanated only from outside

Israel and Judah (see GENESIS). Although Judah was always closely

connected with the south, these "southern" features (once clearly more

extensive and complete) are found in the Deuteronomic and priestly

compilations, and their presence in the historical records can hardly

be severed from the prominence of "southern" families in the vicinity

of Jerusalem, some time after the fall of Jerusalem. The background in

1 Chron. ii. presupposes the desolation after that disaster, and some

traces of these families are found in Nehemiah's time; and while the

traditions know of a separation from Edom (viz. stories of Jacob and

his "brother" Esau), elsewhere Edom is frequently denounced for

unbrotherly conduct in connexion with some disaster which befell

Jerusalem, apparently long after 586 B.C. (see § 22).[45] The true

inwardness of this movement, its extent and its history, can hardly be

recovered at present, but it is noteworthy that the evidence generally

involves the Levites, an ecclesiastical body which underwent an

extremely intricate development. To a certain extent it would seem

that even as Chronicles (q.v.) has passed through the hands of one who

was keenly interested in the Temple service, so the other historical

books have been shaped not only by the late priestly writers

(symbolized in literary criticism by P), but also by rather earlier

writers, also of priestly sympathies, but of "southern" or

half-Edomite affinity. This is independently suggested by the contents

and vicissitudes of the purely ecclesiastical traditions.[46]

Recent criticism goes to show that there is a very considerable body

of biblical material, more important for its attitude to the history

than for its historical accuracy, the true meaning of which cannot as

yet be clearly perceived. It raises many serious problems which

concentrate upon that age which is of the greatest importance for the

biblical and theological student. The perplexing relation between the

admittedly late compilations and the actual course of the early

history becomes still more intricate when one observes such a feature

as the late interest in the Israelite tribes. No doubt there is much

that is purely artificial and untrustworthy in the late (post-exilic)

representations of these divisions, but it is almost incredible that

the historical foundation for their early career is severed from the

written sources by centuries of warfare, immigration and other

disturbing factors. On the one hand, conservative scholars insist upon

the close material relation between the constituent sources; critical

scholars, on the other hand, while recognizing much that is relatively

untrustworthy, refrain from departing from the general outlines of the

canonical history more than is absolutely necessary. Hence the various

reconstructions of the earlier history, with all their inherent

weaknesses. But historical criticism is faced with the established

literary conclusions which, it should be noticed, place the

Deuteronomic and priestly compilations posterior to the great changes

at and after the fall of the northern monarchy, and, to some extent,

contemporary with the equally serious changes in Judah. There were

catastrophes detrimental to the preservation of older literary

records, and vicissitudes which, if they have not left their mark on

contemporary history--which is singularly blank--may be traced on the

representations of the past. There are external historical

circumstances and internal literary features which unite to show that

the application of the literary hypotheses of the Old Testament to the

course of Israelite history is still incomplete, and they warn us that

the intrinsic value of religious and didactic writings should not

depend upon the accuracy of their history.[47] Future research may not

be able to solve the problems which arise in the study of the period

now under discussion; it is the more necessary, therefore, that all

efforts should be tested in the light of purely external evidence (see

further § 24; and PALESTINE: _History_).

21. _Nehemiah and Ezra._--There is another remarkable gap in the

historical traditions between the time of Zerubbabel and the reign of

Artaxerxes I. In obscure circumstances the enthusiastic hopes have

melted away, the Davidic scion has disappeared, and Jerusalem has been

the victim of another disaster. The country is under Persian officials,

the nobles and priests form the local government, and the ground is

being prepared for the erection of a hierocracy. It is the work of

rebuilding and reorganization, of social and of religious reforms, which

we encounter in the last pages of biblical history, and in the records

of Ezra and Nehemiah we stand in Jerusalem in the very centre of

epoch-making events. Nehemiah, the cup-bearer of Artaxerxes at Susa,

plunged in grief at the news of the desolation of Jerusalem, obtained

permission from the king to rebuild the ruins. Provided with an escort

and with the right to obtain supplies of wood for the buildings, he

returned to the city of his fathers' sepulchres (the allusion may

suggest his royal ancestry). His zeal is represented in a twofold

aspect. Having satisfied himself of the extent of the ruins, he aroused

the people to the necessity of fortifying and repopulating the city, and

a vivid account is given in his name of the many dangers which beset the

rebuilding of the walls. Sanballat of Horon, Tobiah the Ammonite, and

Gashmu the Arabian (? Edomite) unceasingly opposed him. Tobiah and his

son Johanan were related by marriage to Judaean secular and priestly

families, and active intrigues resulted, in which nobles and prophets

took their part. It was insinuated that Nehemiah had his prophets to

proclaim that Judah had again its own king; it was even suggested that

he was intending to rebel against Persia! Nehemiah naturally gives us

only his version, and the attitude of Haggai and Zechariah to Zerubbabel

may illustrate the feeling of his partisans. But Tobiah and Johanan

themselves were worshippers of Yahweh (as their names also show), and

consequently, with prophets taking different sides and with the

Samaritan claims summarily repudiated (Neh. ii. 20; cf. Ezra iv. 3), all

the facts cannot be gathered from the narratives. Nevertheless the

undaunted Judaean pressed on unmoved by the threatening letters which

were sent around, and succeeded in completing the walls within fifty-two

days.[48]

In the next place, Nehemiah appears as governor of the small district of

Judah and Benjamin. Famine, the avarice of the rich, and the necessity

of providing tribute had brought the humbler classes to the lowest

straits. Some had mortgaged their houses, fields and vineyards to buy

corn; others had borrowed to pay the taxes, and had sold their children

to their richer brethren to repay the debt. Nehemiah was faced with old

abuses, and vehemently contrasted the harshness of the nobles with the

generosity of the exiles who would redeem their poor countrymen from

slavery. He himself had always refrained from exacting the usual

provision which other governors had claimed; indeed, he had readily

entertained over 150 officials and dependants at his table, apart from

casual refugees (Neh. v.). We hear something of a twelve-years'

governorship and of a second visit, but the evidence does not enable us

to determine the sequence (xiii. 6). Neh. v. is placed in the middle of

the building of the walls in fifty-two days; the other reforms during

the second visit are closely connected with the dedication of the walls

and with the events which immediately follow his first arrival when he

had come to rebuild the city. Nehemiah also turns his attention to

religious abuses. The sabbath, once a festival, had become more strictly

observed, and when he found the busy agriculturists and traders (some of

them from Tyre) pursuing their usual labours on that day, he pointed to

the disasters which had resulted in the past from such profanation, and

immediately took measures to put down the evil (Neh. xiii. 18; cf. Jer.

xvii. 20 sqq.; Ezek. xx. 13-24; Isa. lvi. 2, 6; lviii. 13). Moreover,

the maintenance of the Temple servants called for supervision; the

customary allowances had not been paid to the Levites who had come to

Jerusalem after the smaller shrines had been put down, and they had now

forsaken the city. His last acts were the most conspicuous of all. Some

of the Jews had married women of Ashdod, Ammon and Moab, and the

impetuous governor indignantly adjured them to desist from a practice

which was the historic cause of national sin. Even members of the

priestly families had intermarried with Tobiah and Sanballat; the former

had his own chamber in the precincts of the Temple, the daughter of the

latter was the wife of a son of Joiada the son of the high priest

Eliashib. Again Nehemiah's wrath was kindled. Tobiah was cast out, the

offending priest expelled, and a general purging followed, in which all

the foreign element was removed. With this Nehemiah brings the account

of his reforms to a conclusion, and the words "Remember me, O my God,

for good" (xiii. 31) are not meaningless. The incidents can be

supplemented from Josephus. According to this writer (_Ant._ xi. 7, 2),

a certain Manasseh, the brother of Jaddua and grandson of Joiada,

refused to divorce his wife, the daughter of Sanballat. For this he was

driven out, and, taking refuge with the Samaritans, founded a rival

temple and priesthood upon Mt Gerizim, to which repaired other priests

and Levites who had been guilty of mixed marriages. There is little

doubt that Josephus refers to the same events; but there is considerable

confusion in his history of the Persian age, and when he places the

schism and the foundation of the new Temple in the time of Alexander the

Great (after the obscure disasters of the reign of Artaxerxes III.), it

is usually supposed that he is a century too late.[49] At all events,

there is now a complete rupture with Samaria, and thus, in the

concluding chapter of the last of the historical books of the Old

Testament, Judah maintains its claim to the heritage of Israel and

rejects the right of the Samaritans to the title[50] (see § 5).

In this separation of the Judaeans from religious and social intercourse

with their neighbours, the work of Ezra (q.v.) requires notice. The

story of this scribe (now combined with the memoirs of Nehemiah)

crystallizes the new movement inaugurated after a return of exiles from

Babylonia. The age can also be illustrated from Isa. lvi.-lxvi. and

Malachi (q.v.). There was a poor and weak Jerusalem, its Temple stood in

need of renovation, its temple-service was mean, its priests unworthy of

their office. On the one side was the grinding poverty of the poor; on

the other the abuses of the governors. There were two leading religious

parties: one of oppressive formalists, exclusive, strict and

ritualistic; the other, more cosmopolitan, extended a freer welcome to

strangers, and tolerated the popular elements and the superstitious

cults which are vividly depicted (Isa. lxv. seq.). But the former gained

the day, and, realizing that the only hope of maintaining a pure worship

of Yahweh lay in a forcible isolation from foreign influence, its

adherents were prepared to take measures to ensure the religious

independence of their assembly. It is related that Ezra, the scribe and

priest, returned to Jerusalem with priests and Levites, lay exiles, and

a store of vessels for the Temple. He was commissioned to inquire into

the religious condition of the land and to disseminate the teaching of

the Law to which he had devoted himself (Ezra vii.). On his arrival the

people were gathered together, and in due course he read the "book of

the Law of Moses" dally for seven days (Neh. viii.). They entered into

an agreement to obey its teaching, undertaking in particular to avoid

marriages with foreigners (x. 28 sqq.). A special account is given of

this reform (Ezra ix. seq.) and the description of Ezra's horror at the

prevalence of intermarriage, which threatened to destroy the distinctive

character of the community, sufficiently indicates the attitude of the

stricter party. The true seed of Israel separated themselves from all

foreigners (not, however, without some opposition) and formed an

exclusively religious body or "congregation." Dreams of political

freedom gave place to hopes of religious independence, and "Israel"

became a church, the foundation of which it sought in the desert of

Sinai a thousand years before.

22. _Post-exilic History._--The biblical history for the period in the

books of Ezra and Nehemiah is exceptionally obscure, and it is

doubtful how far the traditions can be trusted before we reach the

reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra vii. sqq., Neh.). The records belonging to

this reign represent four different stages: (a) The Samaritans

reported that the Jews who had returned from the king to Jerusalem

were rebuilding the city and completing its walls, an act calculated

to endanger the integrity of the province. Artaxerxes accordingly

instructed them to stop the work until he should give the necessary

decree, and this was done by force (Ezra iv. 7-23, undated; 1 Esdras

ii. 16 sqq. mentions a building of the Temple!). (b) It was in the 7th

year (i.e. 458 B.C.) that Ezra returned with a small body of exiles to

promulgate the new laws he had brought and to set the Temple service

in order.[51] Fortified with remarkable powers, some of which far

exceed the known tolerance of Persian kings, he began wide-sweeping

marriage reforms; but the record ceases abruptly (vii.-x.). (c) In the

20th year (445 B.C.) Nehemiah returned with permission to rebuild the

walls, the citadel and the governor's house (Neh. ii. 5, 8; see § 21

above). But (d), whilst as governor he accomplishes various needed

reforms, there is much confusion in the present narratives, due partly

to the resumption of Ezra's labours after an interval of twelve years,

and partly to the closely related events of Nehemiah's activity in

which room must be found for his twelve-years' governorship and a

second visit. The internal literary and historical questions are

extremely intricate, and the necessity for some reconstruction is very

generally felt (for preliminary details, see EZRA AND NEHEMIAH). The

disaster which aroused Nehemiah's grief was scarcely the fall of

Jerusalem in 586 B.C., but a more recent one, and it has been

conjectured that it followed the work of Ezra (in _b_ above). On the

other hand, a place can hardly be found for the history of Ezra before

the appearance of Nehemiah; he moves in a settled and peaceful

community such as Nehemiah had helped to form, his reforms appear to

be more mature and schematic than those of Nehemiah; and, whilst

Josephus handles the two separately, giving Ezra the priority, many

recent scholars incline to place Nehemiah's first visit before the

arrival of Ezra.[52] That later tradition should give the pre-eminence

to the priestly reforms of Ezra is in every way natural, but it has

been found extremely difficult to combine the two in any

reconstruction of the period. Next, since there are three distinct

sources, for (a) above, and for the work of Nehemiah and of Ezra,

implicit reliance cannot be placed upon the present sequence of

narratives. Thus (a), with its allusion to a further decree, forms a

plausible prelude to the return of either Ezra (vii. 13) or Nehemiah

(i. 3, ii. 3); and if it is surprising that the Samaritans and other

opponents, who had previously waited to address Artaxerxes (Ezra iv.

14 sqq., v. 5, 17), should now interfere when Nehemiah was armed with

a royal mandate (Neh. ii. 7-9), it is very difficult not to conclude

that the royal permits, as now detailed, have been coloured by Jewish

patriotism and the history by enmity to Samaria. Finally, the

situation in the independent and undated record (a) points to a

return, a rebuilding (apparently after some previous destruction), and

some interference. This agrees substantially with the independent

records of Nehemiah, and unless we assume two disasters not widely

separated in date--viz. those presupposed in (a) and (c)--the record

in (a), may refer to that stage in the history where the other source

describes the intrigues of the Samaritans and the letters sent by

Tobiah (cf. Tabeel in Ezra iv. 7) to frighten Nehemiah (Neh. vi.

19).[53] Their insinuations that Nehemiah was seeking to be ruler and

their representations to Artaxerxes would be enough to alarm the king

(cf. Neh. vi. 5-9, 19, and Ezra iv. 15 seq., 20 seq.), and it may

possibly be gathered that Nehemiah at once departed to justify himself

(Neh. vii. 2, xiii. 4, 6). Nevertheless, since the narratives are no

longer in their original form or sequence, it is impossible to trace

the successive steps of the sequel; although if the royal favour was

endorsed (cf. the account ascribed to the time of Darius, Ezra v.

seq.), Nehemiah's position as a reformer would be more secure.

Although there was a stock of tradition for the post-exilic age (cf.

Daniel, Esther, 1 Esdras, Josephus), the historical narratives are of

the scantiest and vaguest until the time of Artaxerxes, when the

account of a return (Ezra iv. 12), which otherwise is quite ignored,

appears to have been used for the times of Darius (1 Esdras iv. seq.)

and subsequently of Cyrus (Ezra i.-iii.). Moreover, although general

opinion identifies our Artaxerxes with the first of that name, certain

features suggest that there has been some confusion with the

traditions of the time of Artaxerxes II. and III. (§ 19). But the

problems are admittedly complicated, and since one is necessarily

dependent upon scanty narratives arranged and rearranged by later

hands in accordance with their own historical theories, it is

difficult to lay stress upon internal evidence which appears to be

conclusive for this or that reconstruction.[54] The main facts,

however, are clear. Jerusalem had suffered some serious catastrophe

before Nehemiah's return; a body of exiles returned, and in spite of

interference the work of rebuilding was completed; through their

influence the Judaean community underwent reorganization, and

separated itself from its so-called heathen neighbours. How many years

elapsed from beginning to end can hardly be said. Tradition

concentrated upon Ezra and his age many events and changes of

fundamental importance. The canonical history has allowed only one

great destruction of Jerusalem, and the disaster of 586 B.C. became

the type for similar disasters, but how many there were criticism can

scarcely decide.[55] Allusions to Judah's sufferings at the hands of

Edom, Moab and Ammon often imply conditions which are not applicable

to 586. A definite series knows of an invasion and occupation by Edom

(q.v. end), a people with whom Judah, as the genealogies show, had

once been intimately connected. The unfriendliness of the "brother"

people, which added so much to the bitterness of Judah, although

associated with the events of 586 (so especially 1 Esdras iv. 45),

probably belongs to a much later date.[56] The tradition that Edomites

burned the Temple and occupied part of Judah (ib. _vv._ 45, 50) is

partially confirmed by Ezek. xxxv. 5, 10, xxxvi. 5; Ps. cxxxvii. 7;

but the assumption that Darius, as in 1 Esdras, helped the Jews

against them can with difficulty be maintained. The interesting

conjecture that the second Temple suffered another disaster in the

obscure gap which follows the time of Zerubbabel has been urged, after

Isa. lxiii. 7-lxiv. 12, by Kuenen (afterwards withdrawn) and by

Sellin, and can be independently confirmed. In the records of Nehemiah

the ruins of the city are extensive (ii. 8, 17, iii.; cf. Ecclus.

xlix. 13), and the tradition that Nehemiah rebuilt this Temple (Jos.

_Ant._ xi. 5, 6; 2 Macc. i. 18) is supported (a) by the explicit

references to the rebuilding of the Temple in the reign of Artaxerxes

(1 Esdras ii. 18, not in Ezra iv. 12; but both in a context relating

to the history of the Temple), and (b) by the otherwise inaccurate

statement that the Temple was finished according to the decree of

"Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia" (Ezra vi. 14).

The untrustworthy account of the return in the time of Cyrus (Ezra i.

sqq.) or Darius (1 Esdras iv. seq.; probably the older form) is

curiously indebted to material which seems to have belonged to the

history of the work of Nehemiah (cf. Ezra ii. with Neh. vii.), and the

important return in the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra iv. 12) seems to be

connected with other references to some new settlement (Neh. xi. 20,

23, 25, especially xii. 29). The independent testimony of the names in

Neh. iii. is against any previous large return from Babylon, and

clearly illustrates the strength of the groups of "southern" origin

whose presence is only to be expected (p. 285). Moreover, the late

compiler of 1 Chronicles distinguishes a Judah composed almost wholly

of "southern" groups (1 Chron. ii. and iv.) from a subsequent stage

when the first inhabitants of Jerusalem correspond in the main to the

new population after Nehemiah had repaired the ruins (1 Chron. ix. and

Neh. xi.). Consequently, underlying the canonical form of post-exilic

history, one may perhaps recognize some fresh disaster, after the

completion of Zerubbabel's temple, when Judah suffered grievously at

the hands of its Edomite brethren (in Malachi, date uncertain,

vengeance has at last been taken); Nehemiah restored the city, and the

traditions of the exiles who returned at this period have been thrown

back and focussed upon the work of Zerubbabel. The criticism of the

history of Nehemiah, which leads to this conjecture, suggests also

that if Nehemiah repulsed the Samaritan claims (ii. 20; cf. Ezra iv.

3, where the building of the Temple is concerned) and refused a

compromise (vi. 2), it is extremely unlikely that Samaria had hitherto

been seriously hostile; see also C. C. Torrey, _Ezra Studies_, pp.

321-333.

Biblical history ends with the triumph of the Judaean community, the

true "Israel," the right to which title is found in the distant past.

The Judaean view pervades the present sources, and whilst its David

and Solomon ruled over a united land, the separation under Jeroboam is

viewed as one of calf-worshipping northern tribes from Jerusalem with

its one central temple and the legitimate priesthood of the Zadokites.

It is from this narrower standpoint of an exclusive and confined Judah

(and Benjamin) that the traditions as incorporated in the late

recensions gain fresh force, and in Israel's renunciation of the

Judaean yoke the later hostility between the two may be read between

the lines. The history in Kings was not finally settled until a very

late date, as is evident from the important variations in the

Septuagint, and it is especially in the description of the time of

Solomon and the disruption that there continued to be considerable

fluctuations.[57] The book has no finale and the sudden break may not

be accidental. It is replaced by Chronicles, which, confining itself

to Judaean history from a later standpoint (after the Persian age),

includes new characteristic traditions wherein some recollection of

more recent events may be recognized. Thus, the south Judaean or south

Palestinian element shows itself in Judaean genealogies and lists;

there are circumstantial stories of the rehabilitation of the Temple

and the reorganization of cultus; there are fuller traditions of

inroads upon Judah by southern peoples and their allies. There is also

a more definite subordination of the royal authority to the priesthood

(so too in the writings of Ezekiel, q.v.); and the stories of

punishment inflicted upon kings who dared to contend against the

priests (Jehoash, Uzziah) point to a conflict of authority, a hint of

which is already found in the reconciliation of Zerubbabel and the

priest Joshua in a passage ascribed to Zechariah (ch. vi.).

23. _Post-exilic Judaism._--With Nehemiah and Ezra we enter upon the era

in which a new impulse gave to Jewish life and thought that form which

became the characteristic orthodox Judaism. It was not a new religion

that took root; older tendencies were diverted into new paths, the

existing material was shaped to new ends. Judah was now a religious

community whose representative was the high priest of Jerusalem. Instead

of sacerdotal kings, there were royal priests, anointed with oil,

arrayed with kingly insignia, claiming the usual royal dues in addition

to the customary rights of the priests. With his priests and Levites,

and with the chiefs and nobles of the Jewish families, the high priest

directs this small state, and his death marks an epoch as truly as did

that of the monarchs in the past. This hierarchical government, which

can find no foundation in the Hebrew monarchy, is the forerunner of the

Sanhedrin (q.v.); it is an institution which, however inaugurated, set

its stamp upon the narratives which have survived. Laws were recast in

accordance with the requirements of the time, with the result that, by

the side of usages evidently of very great antiquity, details now appear

which were previously unknown or wholly unsuitable. The age, which the

scanty historical traditions themselves represent as one of supreme

importance for the history of the Jews, once seemed devoid of interest,

and it is entirely through the laborious scholarship of the 19th century

that it now begins to reveal its profound significance. The

Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, that the hierarchical law in its complete

form in the Pentateuch stands at the close and not at the beginning of

biblical history, that this mature Judaism was the fruit of the 5th

century B.C. and not a divinely appointed institution at the exodus

(nearly ten centuries previously), has won the recognition of almost all

Old Testament scholars. It has been substantiated by numerous subsidiary

investigations in diverse departments, from different standpoints, and

under various aspects, and can be replaced only by one which shall more

adequately explain the literary and historical evidence (see further, p.

289).

The post-exilic priestly spirit represents a tendency which is absent

from the Judaean Deuteronomic book of Kings but is fully mature in the

later, and to some extent parallel, book of Chronicles (q.v.). The

"priestly" traditions of the creation and of the patriarchs mark a very

distinct advance upon the earlier narratives, and appear in a further

developed form in the still later book of Jubilees, or "Little Genesis,"

where they are used to demonstrate the pre-Mosaic antiquity of the

priestly or Levitical institutions. There is also an unmistakable

development in the laws; and the priestly legislation, though ahead of

both Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, not to mention still earlier usage, not

only continues to undergo continual internal modification, but finds a

further distinct development, in the way of definition and

interpretation, outside the Old Testament--in the Talmud (q.v.). Upon

the characteristics of the post-exilic priestly writings we need not

dwell.[58] Though one may often be repelled by their lifelessness, their

lack of spontaneity and the externalization of the ritual, it must be

recognized that they placed a strict monotheism upon a legal basis. "It

was a necessity that Judaism should incrust itself in this manner;

without those hard and ossified forms the preservation of its essential

elements would have proved impossible. At a time when all nationalities,

and at the same time all bonds of religion and national customs, were

beginning to be broken up in the seeming cosmos and real chaos of the

Graeco-Roman Empire, the Jews stood out like a rock in the midst of the

ocean. When the natural conditions of independent nationality all failed

them, they nevertheless artificially maintained it with an energy truly

marvellous, and thereby preserved for themselves, and at the same time

for the whole world, an eternal good."[59]

If one is apt to acquire too narrow a view of Jewish legalism, the whole

experience of subsequent history, through the heroic age of the

Maccabees (q.v.) and onwards, only proves that the minuteness of ritual

procedure could not cramp the heart. Besides, this was only one of the

aspects of Jewish literary activity. The work represented in Nehemiah

and Ezra, and put into action by the supporters of an exclusive Judaism,

certainly won the day, and their hands have left their impress upon the

historical traditions. But Yahwism, like Islam, had its sects and

tendencies, and the opponents to the stricter ritualism always had

followers. Whatever the predominant party might think of foreign

marriages, the tradition of the half-Moabite origin of David serves, in

the beautiful idyll of Ruth (q.v.), to suggest the debt which Judah and

Jerusalem owed to one at least of its neighbours. Again, although some

may have desired a self-contained community opposed to the heathen

neighbours of Jerusalem, the story of Jonah implicitly contends against

the attempt of Judaism to close its doors. The conflicting tendencies

were incompatible, but Judaism retained the incompatibilities within

its limits, and the two tendencies, prophetical and priestly, continue,

the former finding its further development in Christianity.[60]

The Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis (§ 4) does not pretend to be complete

in all its details and it is independent of its application to the

historical criticism of the Old Testament. No alternative hypothesis

prevails, mere desultory criticism of the internal intricacies being

quite inadequate. Maintaining that the position of the Pentateuch

alone explains the books which follow, conservative writers concede

that it is composite, has had some literary history, and has suffered

some revision in the post-exilic age. Their concessions continue to

become ever more significant, and all that follows from them should be

carefully noticed by those who are impressed by their arguments. They

identify with Deuteronomy the law-roll which explains the noteworthy

reforms of Josiah (§ 16); but since it is naturally admitted that

religious conditions had become quite inconsistent with Mosaism, the

conservative view implies that the "long-lost" Deuteronomy must have

differed profoundly from any known Mosaic writings to which earlier

pious kings and prophets had presumably adhered. Similarly, the "book

of the Law of Moses," brought from Babylon by Ezra (Ezra vii.; Neh.

viii.), clearly contained much of which the people were ignorant, and

conservative writers, who oppose the theory that a new Law was then

introduced, emphasize (a) the previous existence of legislation (to

prove that Ezra's book was not entirely a novelty), and (b) the gross

wickedness in Judah (as illustrated by the prophets) from the time of

Josiah to the strenuous efforts of the reformers on behalf of the most

fundamental principles of the national religion. This again simply

means that the Mosaism of Ezra or Nehemiah must have differed

essentially from the priestly teaching prior to their arrival. The

arguments of conservative writers involve concessions which, though

often overlooked by their readers, are very detrimental to the

position they endeavour to support, and the objections they bring

against the theory of the introduction of new law-books (under a

Josiah or an Ezra) apply with equal force to the promulgation of

Mosaic teaching which had been admittedly ignored or forgotten. Their

arguments have most weight, however, when they show the hazardous

character of reconstructions which rely upon the trustworthiness of

the historical narratives. What book Ezra really brought from Babylon

is uncertain; the writer, it seems, is merely narrating the

introduction of the Law ascribed to Moses, even as a predecessor has

recounted the discovery of the Book of the Law, the Deuteronomic code

subsequently included in the Pentateuch.

The importance which the biblical writers attach to the return from

Babylon in the reign of Artaxerxes forms a starting-point for several

interesting inquiries. Thus, in any estimate of the influence of

Babylonia upon the Old Testament, it is obviously necessary to ask

whether certain features (a) are of true Babylonian origin, or (b)

merely find parallels or analogies in its stores of literature;

whether the indebtedness goes back to very early times or to the age

of the Assyrian domination or to the exiles who now returned. Again,

there were priestly and other families--some originally of "southern"

origin--already settled around Jerusalem, and questions inevitably

arise concerning their relation to the new-comers and the literary

vicissitudes which gave us the Old Testament in its present form. To

this age we may ascribe the literature of the Priestly writers

(symbolized by P), which differs markedly from the other sources. Yet

it is clear from the book of Genesis alone that in the age of Priestly

writers and compilers there were other phases of thought. Popular

stories with many features of popular religion were current. They

could be, and indeed had been made more edifying; but the very

noteworthy conservatism of even the last compiler or editor, in

contrast to the re-shaping and re-writing of the material in the book

of Jubilees, indicates that the Priestly spirit was not that of the

whole community. But through the Priestly hands the Old Testament

history passed, and their standpoint colours its records. This is

especially true of the history of the exilic and post-exilic periods,

where the effort is made to preserve the continuity of Israel and the

Israelite community (Chronicles--Ezra--Nehemiah). The bitterness

aroused by the ardent and to some extent unjust zeal of the reforming

element can only be conjectured. The traditions reveal a tendency to

legitimate new circumstances. Priesthoods, whose traditions connect

them with the south, are subordinated; the ecclesiastical records are

re-shaped or re-adjusted; and a picture is presented of hierarchical

jealousies and rivalries which (it was thought) were settled once and

for all in the days of the exodus from Egypt. Many features gain in

significance as the account of the Exodus, the foundation of Israel,

is read in the light of the age when, after the advent of a new

element from Babylonia, the Pentateuch assumed its present shape; it

must suffice to mention the supremacy of the Aaronite priests and the

glorification of uncompromising hostility to foreign marriages.[61]

The most "unhistorical" tradition has some significance for the

development of thought or of history-writing, and thus its internal

features are ultimately of historical value. Only from an exhaustive

comparison of controlling data can the scattered hints be collected

and classified. There is much that is suggestive, for example, in the

relation between the "post-exilic" additions to the prophecies and

their immediately earlier form; or in the singular prominence of the

Judaean family of Perez (its elevation over Zerah, a half-Edomite

family, Gen. xxxviii.; its connexion with the Davidic dynasty, Ruth

iv.; its position as head of all the Judaean sub-divisions, 1 Chron.

ii. 5 sqq.); or in the late insertion of local tradition encircling

Jerusalem; or in the perplexing attitude of the histories towards the

district of Benjamin and its famous sanctuary of Bethel (only about 10

m. north of Jerusalem). Although these and other phenomena cannot yet

be safely placed in a historical frame, the methodical labours of past

scholars have shed much light upon the obscurities of the exilic and

post-exilic ages, and one must await the more comprehensive study of

the two or three centuries which are of the first importance for

biblical history and theology.

24. _Old Testament History and External Evidence._--Thus the Old

Testament, the history of the Jews during the first great period,

describes the relation of the Hebrews to surrounding peoples, the

superiority of Judah over the faithless (north) Israelite tribes, and

the reorganization of the Jewish community in and around Jerusalem at

the arrival of Ezra with the Book of the Law. The whole gives an

impression of unity, which is designed, and is to be expected in a

compilation. But closer examination reveals remarkable gaps and

irreconcilable historical standpoints. For all serious biblical study,

the stages in the growth of the written traditions and the historical

circumstances which they imply, must inevitably be carefully

considered, and upon the result depends, directly or indirectly,

almost every subject of Old Testament investigation. Yet it is

impossible to recover with confidence or completeness the development

of Hebrew history from the pages of the Old Testament alone. The keen

interest taken by the great prophets in the world around them is not

prominent in the national records; political history has been

subordinated, and the Palestine which modern discovery is revealing is

not conspicuous in the didactic narratives. To external evidence one

must look, therefore, for that which did not fall within the scope or

the horizon of the religious historians. They do not give us the

records of the age of the Babylonian monarch Khammurabi (perhaps

Amraphel, Gen. xiv.), of the Egyptian conquests in the XVIIIth and

following dynasties, or of the period illustrated by the Amarna

tablets (§ 3). They treat with almost unique fullness a few years in

the middle of the 9th century B.C., but ignore Assyria; yet only the

Assyrian inscriptions explain the political situation (§ 10 seq.), and

were it not for them the true significance of the 8th-7th centuries

could scarcely be realized (§ 15 seq.). It would be erroneous to

confuse the extant sources with the historical material which might or

must have been accessible, or to assume that the antiquity of the

elements of history proves or presupposes the antiquity of the records

themselves, or even to deny the presence of some historical kernel

merely on account of unhistorical elements or the late dress in which

the events are now clothed. External research constantly justifies the

cautious attitude which has its logical basis in the internal

conflicting character of the written traditions or in their divergence

from ascertained facts; at the same time it has clearly shown that the

internal study of the Old Testament has its limits. Hence, in the

absence of more complete external evidence one is obliged to recognize

the limitations of Old Testament historical criticism, even though

this recognition means that positive reconstructions are more

precarious than negative conclusions.

The naïve impression that each period of history was handled by some

more or less contemporary authority is not confirmed by a criticism

which confines itself strictly to the literary evidence. An interest

in the past is not necessarily confined to any one age, and the

critical view that the biblical history has been compiled from

relatively late standpoints finds support in the still later treatment

of the events--in Chronicles as contrasted with Samuel--Kings or in

Jubilees as contrasted with Genesis.[62] It is instructive to observe

in Egypt the form which old traditions have taken in Manetho (Maspero,

_Rec. de travaux_, xxvii., 1905, l. 22 seq.); cf. also the late story

of Rameses II. and the Hittites (J. H. Breasted, _Anc. Rec. of Egypt_,

iii. 189 seq.); while in Babylonia one may note the didactic

treatment, after the age of Cyrus, of the events of the time of

Khammurabi (A. H. Sayce, _Proc. Soc. Biblical Archaeol._, 1907, pp. 13

sqq.).

The links which unite the traditional heroes with Babylonia (e.g.

Abraham, Ezra), Mesopotamia (e.g. Jacob), Egypt (e.g. Joseph,

Jeroboam), Midian (e.g. Moses, Jethro), &c., like the intimate

relationship between Israel and surrounding lands, have a significance

in the light of recent research. Israel can no longer be isolated from

the politics, culture, folk-lore, thought and religion of western Asia

and Egypt. Biblical, or rather Palestinian, thought has been brought

into the world of ancient Oriental life, and this life, in spite of

the various forms in which it has from time to time been shaped, still

rules in the East. This has far-reaching consequences for the

traditional attitude to Israelite history and religion. Research is

seriously complicated by the growing stores of material, which

unfortunately are often utilized without attention to the principles

of the various departments of knowledge or aspects of study. The

complexity of modern knowledge and the interrelation of its different

branches are often insufficiently realized, and that by writers who

differ widely in the application of such material as they use to their

particular views of the manifold problems of the Old Testament. It has

been easy to confuse the study of the Old Testament in its relation to

modern religious needs with the technical scientific study of the much

edited remains of the literature of a small part of the ancient East.

If there was once a tendency to isolate the Old Testament and ignore

comparative research, it is now sometimes found possible to exaggerate

its general agreement with Oriental history, life and thought.

Difficulties have been found in the supernatural or marvellous stories

which would be taken as a matter of course by contemporary readers,

and efforts are often made to recover historical facts or to adapt the

records to modern theology without sufficient attention to the

historical data as a whole or to their religious environment. The

preliminary preparation for research of any value becomes yearly more

exacting.

Many traces of myth, legend and "primitive" thought survive in the Old

Testament, and on the most cautious estimate they presuppose a

vitality which is not a little astonishing. But they are now softened

and often bereft of their earlier significance, and it is this and

their divergence from common Oriental thought which make Old Testament

thought so profound and unique. The process finds its normal

development in later and non-biblical literature; but one can

recognize earlier, cruder and less distinctive stages, and, as surely

as writings reflect the mentality of an author or of his age, the

peculiar characteristics of the extant sources, viewed in the light of

a comprehensive survey of Palestinian and surrounding culture, demand

a reasonable explanation. The differences between the form of the

written history and the conditions which prevailed have impressed

themselves variously upon modern writers, and efforts have been made

to recover from the Old Testament earlier forms more in accordance

with the external evidence. It may be doubted, however, whether the

material is sufficient for such restoration or reconstruction.[63] In

the Old Testament we have the outcome of specific developments, and

the stage at which we see each element of tradition or belief is not

always isolated or final (cf. Kings and Chronicles). The early myths,

legends and traditions which can be traced differ profoundly from the

canonical history, and the gap is wider than that between the latter

and the subsequent apocalyptical and pseudepigraphical literature.

Where it is possible to make legitimate and unambiguous comparisons,

the ethical and spiritual superiority of Old Testament thought has

been convincingly demonstrated, and to the re-shaping and re-writing

of the older history and the older traditions the Old Testament owes

its permanent value. While the history of the great area between the

Nile and the Tigris irresistibly emphasizes the insignificance of

Palestine, this land's achievements for humanity grow the more

remarkable as research tells more of its environment. Although the

light thrown upon ancient conditions of life and thought has destroyed

much that sometimes seems vital for the Old Testament, it has brought

into relief a more permanent and indisputable appreciation of its

significance, and it is gradually dispelling that pseudo-scientific

literalism which would fetter the greatest of ancient Oriental

writings with an insistence upon the verity of historical facts. Not

internal criticism, but the incontestable results of objective

observation have shown once and for all that the relationship between

the biblical account of the earliest history (Gen. i.-xi.) and its

value either as an authentic record (which requires unprejudiced

examination) _or_ as a religious document (which remains untouched) is

typical. If, as seems probable, the continued methodical

investigation, which is demanded by the advance of modern knowledge,

becomes more drastic in its results, it will recognize ever more

clearly that there were certain unique influences in the history of

Palestine which cannot be explained by purely historical research. The

change from Palestinian polytheism to the pre-eminence of Yahweh and

the gradual development of ethical monotheism are _facts_ which

external evidence continues to emphasize, which biblical criticism

must investigate as completely as possible. And if the work of

criticism has brought a fuller appreciation of the value of these

facts, the debt which is owed to the Jews is enhanced when one

proceeds to realize the immense difficulties against which those who

transmitted the Old Testament had to contend in the period of Greek

domination. The growth of the Old Testament into its present form,

and its preservation despite hostile forces, are the two remarkable

phenomena which most arrest the attention of the historian; it is for

the theologian to interpret their bearing upon the history of

religious thought. (S. A. C.)