Transcriber’s Note: As a result of editorial shortcomings in the
original, some reference letters in the text don’t have matching
entries in the reference-lists, and vice versa.
THE HISTORIANS’ HISTORY OF THE WORLD
[Illustration: CHEYNE]
THE HISTORIANS’
HISTORY
OF THE WORLD
A comprehensive narrative of the rise and development of nations
as recorded by over two thousand of the great writers of all ages:
edited, with the assistance of a distinguished board of advisers
and contributors, by
HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS, LL.D.
[Illustration]
IN TWENTY-FIVE VOLUMES
VOLUME II--ISRAEL, INDIA, PERSIA, PHOENICIA,
MINOR NATIONS OF WESTERN ASIA
The Outlook Company
New York
The History Association
London
1905
COPYRIGHT, 1904,
BY HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS.
_All rights reserved._
THE TROW PRESS
201-213 E. 12TH ST.
NEW YORK
U. S. A.
Contributors, and Editorial Revisers.
Prof. Adolf Erman, University of Berlin.
Prof. Joseph Halévy, College of France.
Prof. Thomas K. Cheyne, Oxford University.
Prof. Andrew C. McLaughlin, University of Michigan.
Prof. David H. Müller, University of Vienna.
Prof. Alfred Rambaud, University of Paris.
Capt. F. Brinkley, Tokio.
Prof. Eduard Meyer, University of Berlin.
Dr. James T. Shotwell, Columbia University.
Prof. Theodor Nöldeke, University of Strasburg.
Prof. Albert B. Hart, Harvard University.
Dr. Paul Brönnle, Royal Asiatic Society.
Dr. James Gairdner, C.B., London.
Prof. Ulrich von Wilamowitz Möllendorff, University of Berlin.
Prof. H. Marczali, University of Budapest.
Dr. G. W. Botsford, Columbia University.
Prof. Julius Wellhausen, University of Göttingen.
Prof. Franz R. von Krones, University of Graz.
Prof. Wilhelm Soltau, Zabern University.
Prof. R. W. Rogers, Drew Theological Seminary.
Prof. A. Vambéry, University of Budapest.
Prof. Otto Hirschfeld, University of Berlin.
Dr. Frederick Robertson Jones, Bryn Mawr College.
Baron Bernardo di San Severino Quaranta, London.
Dr. John P. Peters, New York.
Prof. Adolph Harnack, University of Berlin.
Dr. S. Rappoport, School of Oriental Languages, Paris.
Prof. Hermann Diels, University of Berlin.
Prof. C. W. C. Oman, Oxford University.
Prof. I. Goldziher, University of Vienna.
Prof. W. L. Fleming, University of West Virginia.
Prof. R. Koser, University of Berlin.
CONTENTS
VOLUME II
PART IV. ISRAEL
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. ISRAEL AS A WORLD INFLUENCE. By Bernhard Stade 1
A CRITICAL SURVEY OF THE SCOPE AND SOURCES OF ISRAELITIC HISTORY
TO THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM 4
HEBREW HISTORY IN OUTLINE (1180 B.C.-70 A.D.) 30
CHAPTER I
LAND AND PEOPLE 45
The land, 46. The people, 48.
CHAPTER II
ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY (2300-1200 B.C.) 56
The age of the patriarchs, 57. Early movements of the
Israelites, 57. The Egyptian sojourn, 58. Biblical account of
Moses and the Exodus, 61. Israel’s early neighbours, 63. The
conquest of Canaan, 66.
CHAPTER III
THE JUDGES (1200-1020 B.C.) 72
CHAPTER IV
SAMUEL AND SAUL (1020 B.C.-1002 B.C.) 77
Samuel and Saul, 78. The rise of David, 79. David in revolt
against Saul, 80. The death of Saul and the struggle for the
succession, 83. David secures the crown, 85.
CHAPTER V
DAVID’S REIGN (1002-970 B.C.) 86
David’s greatness in time of peace, 89. Further wars break out,
91. David and Absalom, 93. Renan’s estimate of David, 98.
CHAPTER VI
SOLOMON IN HIS GLORY (970-930 B.C.) 99
The early years of Solomon’s reign, 100.
CHAPTER VII
DECAY AND CAPTIVITY (930-586 B.C.) 106
The schism of the Ten Tribes, 106. The Moabite stone, 109.
Destruction of the two kingdoms, 113. The Babylonian Captivity,
118.
CHAPTER VIII
THE RETURN FROM CAPTIVITY (586-415 B.C.) 122
The prophecy of the return, 122. The condition of the exiles,
125. The coming of Cyrus, 126. The return to Jerusalem, 127.
The walls upraised again, 130.
CHAPTER IX
FROM NEHEMIAH TO ANTIOCHUS (415-166 B.C.) 133
Under Persian rule, 133. Persian influences on Jewish religion,
134. Alexander the Great, 134. Under the Seleucids, 135. The
Syrian dominion; Antiochus the Great, 138. Antiochus Epiphanes,
139. Jason and Antiochus torment the people, 140.
CHAPTER X
THE MACCABÆAN WAR (166-142 B.C.) 147
Independence, 156.
CHAPTER XI
FROM THE MACCABEES TO THE ROMANS (135-4 B.C.) 159
The warring sects, 160. Antipater, 163. Herod, 164.
CHAPTER XII
THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (4 B.C.-62 A.D.) 168
A critical view of Christ and other messiahs, 168. The
development of the messianic idea, 169.
CHAPTER XIII
THE REVOLT AGAINST ROME (62-68 A.D.) 177
The defence of Jotapata described by Josephus, 180.
CHAPTER XIV
THE FALL OF JERUSALEM (68-73 A.D.) 190
Josephus’ account of the famine, 193. The close of Jewish
history, 199.
CHAPTER XV
HEBREW CIVILISATION 203
The life and customs of the Israelites, 205. Hebrew art,
architecture: the temple tombs, etc., 209.
CHAPTER XVI
THE PROPHETS AND THE HISTORY OF SEMITIC STYLE. By Dr. D. H. Müller 213
BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS 227
A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL 229
PART V. PHŒNICIA
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. INDIVIDUALITY OF PHŒNICIAN HISTORY, AND
ORIGIN OF THE NAME. By Richard Pietschmann 243
PHŒNICIAN HISTORY IN OUTLINE (3800 B.C.-1516 A.D.) 246
CARTHAGINIAN HISTORY IN OUTLINE (813 B.C.-697 A.D.) 251
CHAPTER I
LAND AND PEOPLE 255
Origin of the Phœnicians, 259.
CHAPTER II
EARLY HISTORY AND INFLUENCES 263
Beginnings of the history and civilisation of Phœnicia, 263.
The colonies, 270. Voyages and trading-stations, 274.
CHAPTER III
THE PHŒNICIAN TIME OF POWER (980-532 B.C.) 279
The reign of Hiram I, 279. The successors of Hiram, 283.
CHAPTER IV
PHŒNICIA UNDER THE PERSIANS (525-323 B.C.) 289
CHAPTER V
PHŒNICIA UNDER THE GREEKS, THE ROMANS, AND THE SARACENS (301
B.C.-1516 A.D.) 301
CHAPTER VI
THE STORY OF CARTHAGE (813 B.C.-697 A.D.) 308
The site and early history of Carthage, 310. Mommsen’s account
of Carthage, 312. War in Sicily between Rome and Carthage, 319.
Rome and Carthage, 321. Last days of Carthage, 325.
CHAPTER VII
PHŒNICIAN COMMERCE 329
Sea trade, 330. Manufactures and land trade of the Phœnicians,
334. Silver and gold in antiquity as money, 339. The slave
trade of Phœnicia, 342.
CHAPTER VIII
PHŒNICIAN CIVILISATION 346
The Phœnicians and the alphabet, 347. Manners and customs;
religion, 348. Culture; art, 352. The Phœnician influence on
history, 353.
APPENDIX A
CLASSICAL TRADITIONS 356
“The voyage of Hanno, beyond the pillars of Hercules, which he
deposited in the temple of Saturn,” 356. Himilco’s voyage of
discovery, 358. Pomponius Mela on the Phœnicians, 359. Appianus
Alexandrinus on the founding of Carthage by Dido, 360.
BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS 361
A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PHŒNICIAN HISTORY 363
PART VI. WESTERN ASIA
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. THE POSITION OF ASIA MINOR IN HISTORY. By
William J. Hamilton 373
HISTORY IN OUTLINE OF THE MINOR KINGDOMS OF WESTERN ASIA
(1528-546 B.C.) 380
CHAPTER I
THE HITTITES 391
Recent Hittite research, 393. The Hittites and the Egyptians,
394. The Hittites and the Hebrews, 395. Hittite art, 396.
Hittite monuments in Asia Minor, 397.
CHAPTER II
SCYTHIANS AND CIMMERIANS 400
The Scythians, 400. Scythian influences in Asia Minor, 400.
Scythian movements, 401. Herodotus on the customs of the
Scythians, 404. The Cimmerians, 410.
CHAPTER III
SOME PEOPLES OF SYRIA, ASIA MINOR, AND ARMENIA 413
The Aramæans, 413. Phrygia, 413. The Cappadocians, 415. The
Cilicians, 416. Pamphylia and Pisidia, 416. The Carians, 417.
The Lycians, 417. The Mysians, 419. The Bithynians and the
Paphlagonians, 419. Armenia, 420.
CHAPTER IV
THE LYDIANS 421
The land, 422. The people, 423. Sardis and the name of
Asia, 424. Early history of Lydia, 426. Ardys, 427. Early
dynasties, 429. Gyges, 430. The triumph of Persia, 431. Lydian
civilisation, 433. A picture of life in Lydia, 434.
APPENDIX A
CLASSICAL TRADITIONS 438
Justin’s account of the Scythians and the Amazons, 438.
Pomponius Mela on the Scythians and other tribes, 441. Diodorus
on the Amazons and the Hyperboreans, 444. Herodotus on the
legendary Gyges, 446. The story of Crœsus as told by Herodotus,
448. Crœsus and Solon, 449. The vision of Crœsus, 451. Crœsus
loses his son, 453. Crœsus consults the oracles, 454. The reply
of the oracles, 455. Crœsus makes an alliance with Sparta, 456.
Crœsus invades Cappadocia, 457. Crœsus in conflict with Cyrus,
458. The siege of Sardis, 460. The fate of Crœsus, 460.
BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS 464
A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE HISTORY OF THE MINOR NATIONS OF
WESTERN ASIA 465
PART VII. ANCIENT INDIA
INDIAN HISTORY IN OUTLINE (2000 B.C.-1556 A.D.) 475
Græco-Bactrian dominion in the Indus region, 480.
CHAPTER I
LAND AND PEOPLE 482
The land, 484. The early peoples of India, 488.
CHAPTER II
INDIAN HISTORY--LEGEND AND REALITY 493
Chronology and ancient history of the Hindus, 493. The
authority of the Vedas, 496. Monumental records, 496. Legends
of the early heroes, 498. An inscription of Asoka, 499.
Traditional kings, 500. Brahmanic learning, 501. The epochs of
Indian history, 502. Vedic period, 503. The Buddhist period,
503. Chandra Gupta, 504. Twelve centuries of obscurity, 505.
CHAPTER III
MANNERS AND CUSTOMS OF THE ANCIENT HINDUS 508
Division and employment of classes, 508. The property of the
Brahman, 510. The despised Sudra, 511. Mixture of classes, 513.
The administration of justice, 515. Criminal law, 516. Civil
law, 517. Hindu commerce, 519. Precious metals, 520. Coinage;
precious stones; weaving, 520. Intoxicants; spices; perfumery,
521. Commercial routes, 523.
CHAPTER IV
BRAHMANISM AND BUDDHISM 525
The origin and development of Brahmanism, 525. The Vedas, 529.
Soul transmigration, 533. Buddhism, 535. Disappearance of
Buddhism in India, 538. New light on Buddhism, 542. The actual
piety of the Hindus and the Hindu separation of religion from
fine morals, 545.
BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS 549
A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF INDIAN HISTORY 550
PART VIII. ANCIENT PERSIA
PERSIAN HISTORY IN OUTLINE (700-330 B.C.) 559
CHAPTER I
LAND AND PEOPLE 565
Racial and dynastic origins, 567. The land, 568. The people,
569. Character of the empire of the Achæmenides, 570.
CHAPTER II
THE MEDIAN OR SCYTHIAN EMPIRE (700-550 B.C.) 573
The rise and fall of the Median Empire according to Herodotus,
573. The Median Empire: a modern interpretation, 580. New light
on the Medes, 583.
CHAPTER III
THE EARLY ACHÆMENIANS AND THE ELAMITES, CYRUS AND CAMBYSES
(836-522 B.C.) 587
The death of Cyrus, 593. Character and influence of Cyrus, 596.
Xenophon’s estimate of Cyrus, 596. A modern estimate of the
character and importance of Cyrus, 597. Cambyses, 600.
CHAPTER IV
THE PERSIAN DYNASTY: DARIUS I TO DARIUS III (521-330 B.C.) 605
Darius I, 605. Organisation of Darius’ empire, 607. Later
conquests of Darius, 609. Affairs in Egypt since the Persian
conquest, 611. Xerxes I, 614. The successors of Xerxes, 615.
Darius II, 618. Artaxerxes II, 619. Artaxerxes III, 626. The
fall of the empire, 630. The old Orient at the end of the
Persian Empire, 631.
CHAPTER V
PERSIAN CIVILISATION 634
Religion and social orders, 635. Organisation of the Persian
court, 641. Administration of the provinces; financial system;
satraps, 645. Military methods, 652. The fine arts, 657.
BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS 662
A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PERSIAN HISTORY 663
PART IV
THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
BASED CHIEFLY UPON THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES
ERNEST BABELON, THE HOLY BIBLE, T. K. CHEYNE, MAX DUNCKER,
G. H. A. EWALD, EDWARD GIBBON, F. HITZIG, J. JAHN,
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, RUDOLF KITTEL, E. LEDRAIN,
MAX LÖHR, L. MÉNARD, H. H. MILMAN, D. H.
MÜLLER, SALOMON MUNK, F. W. NEWMAN,
E. RENAN, A. H. SAYCE, GEORGE
SMITH, BERNHARD STADE
TOGETHER WITH AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY ON
ISRAEL AS A WORLD INFLUENCE
BY
BERNHARD STADE
A CRITICAL SURVEY OF THE SCOPE AND SOURCES OF
ISRAELITIC HISTORY
BY
THOMAS KELLY CHEYNE
AND A STUDY OF
THE PROPHETS AND THE HISTORY OF SEMITIC STYLE
BY
DAVID HEINRICH MÜLLER
AND WITH ADDITIONAL CITATIONS FROM
THE APOCRYPHA, DAVID CASSEL, DION CASSIUS, J. G. EICHHORN, G. W. F.
HEGEL, JUSTIN, F. R. LAMENNAIS, GASTON C. C. MASPERO, FELIX
PERLES, T. G. PINCHES, POLYBIUS, EDUARD REUSS, CLEMENS
ROMANUS, ASARJA DE ROSSI, BARUCH SPINOZA,
STRABO, SUETONIUS, CORNELIUS TACITUS,
COMTE DE VOLNEY, GEORG WEBER,
R. T. M. WEHOFER,
J. ZENNER
COPYRIGHT, 1904,
BY HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS.
_All rights reserved._
PART IV.--ISRAEL
ISRAEL AS A WORLD INFLUENCE
BY BERNHARD STADE
Translated for the present work from _Geschichte des Volks Israel_.
Many a nation has walked God’s earth, has long enjoyed its good things,
has come into being and passed away, without our knowing anything of
its history, or even whether it had a history at all. For no nation
has a history except one that makes history, that is to say, that
influences the course of human development. It is with races as with
individuals; none is kept in mind by posterity save those who have
distinguished themselves by ideas that have modified the life of
mankind, or (which comes to the same thing) have been pioneers in fresh
fields of action. The greater the spiritual gain a nation has brought
to the rest of the world, the longer and more steadily its life has
flowed in the channels it was the first to make, the longer is its
history told among them. The nations of history are those which have
put forward, in one fashion or another, their claim to the dominion of
the world.
Thus we may fitly ask what claim it is that is made upon our interest
by the history of the Jewish nation. And the answer will be, that
nothing which excites our attention, or stirs us to admiration or
imitation in the history of other nations, is here present in any large
measure. Israel was always a small, nay, a petty nation, settled in a
narrow space, never of any considerable importance in the political
history of the East; it never brought forth a Ramses II, a Sargon, an
Esarhaddon, an Asshurbanapal, a Nebuchadrezzar, or a Cyrus to bear its
banner into distant lands. Yet, for all this, the history of Israel
has, for us, an interest quite different from that of those other
nations of antiquity.
And if, as we see, Israel is far surpassed in martial glory by the
peoples of the great empires, and by the Romans in their influence on
the development of law, there are yet other points in which it must
yield unquestioned precedence to other nations of antiquity. We do not
find in Israel the same feeling for beauty as among the Greeks, who,
like no nation before them or after, showed forth the laws of beauty in
every sphere of intellectual life, and to this day, in such matters,
stand forth in a perfection which has never again been attained, far
less excelled. Among the Hebrews there is nothing analogous, nothing
comparable to what we admire in the Hellenic people. It has no epic,
nothing that can be compared with the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_,
against which the Germans set the _Nibelungen Lied_, and the Finns
the _Kalewala_; it has not the slightest rudiments of a drama--the
Song of Songs and Job are not dramas. There is a school of lyrical
poetry unsurpassed for all time, and the music that corresponds to it.
But the bent towards science, which actuates the Greeks, is wholly
lacking--wholly lacking the bent towards philosophy. Nor was it
ever eminent in ancient days, in the walks of commerce, enterprise
and invention, by which, also, a nation may conquer the world; its
intellectual life is absolutely one-sided, a one-sidedness that
produces on us the effect of extreme singularity.
But the attraction it has for us does not lie in this singularity.
It is due, rather, to the circumstance that this small nation has
exerted a far greater influence over the course of the history of the
whole human race than the Greeks or Romans, that to us it has become
typical in many more respects than they. Our present modes of thought
and feeling, our lives and actions, are far more profoundly influenced
by the world of thought and feeling which Israel brought to the
birth, than by that of Greece or Rome. Our whole civilisation to-day
is saturated with tendencies and impulses which have their origin in
Israel.
The reason for this is that in Israel one side of human nature had
developed to a very high perfection, a side which is of far greater
consequence to mankind in general than art or science, law or
philosophy. While in Hellas, philosophy first, and then, indirectly,
science, developed out of mythology, in Israel the age of mythology
was succeeded by that of religion. And we may say that the religion of
Israel is still the active religion of mankind in a far higher degree
than the philosophy of the Greeks is still its active philosophy.
What Israel did in the sphere of religion is without a doubt far more
epoch-making, unique, and effective than what the Romans did in the
sphere of politics, or the Greeks in that of art or science. As Israel
assumed the leadership of the human race in religion, so Rome did in
matters of government, and Greece in questions of philosophy; but while
the civilised nations which adopted Roman law strove with increasing
energy to free themselves from the band of Roman legal conceptions;
while the relics of Greek art and science only roused the enthusiasm
of a chosen few, and the philosophy which the Greeks had created was
confined within ever-narrowing limits by religion on the one hand, and
the ever-widening field of science on the other; religion embraces all
classes of the people, from the king to the beggar, and strives more
and more to embrace all the nations upon earth. Moreover, however men
may shut their eyes to the fact, among ourselves to-day religion is
a subject of far more universal interest than art, science, or any
political institution whatsoever. Disputed questions of religion shake
kingdoms and kindle the most sanguinary wars. By this means it changes
the character of nations and brings forth new national types. The
spiritual features of mankind at the present time, under Mohammedan
and European civilisation alike, are substantially the product of the
monotheistic religion that arose in Israel.
We cannot find a more striking example of the effect of Israelitish
ideas on mankind nowadays than by recalling the importance of the
religious figures of ancient Israel in the eyes of our own people. For
the bulk of the nation, Biblical history stands for all the history
there is. The populace knows more about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
about Saul, David, and Solomon, about Samuel and Elijah, than about the
heroes of its own history, and feels them (in marked contrast with its
sentiments towards their posterity, which it beholds with the eyes of
the body and not with the eyes of the spirit) to be flesh of its flesh
and bone of its bone. In this respect our own nation is thoroughly
Hebraised, or, if you prefer it, Semiticised.
And this is even more strikingly the case with nations which have
adopted the creed of Islam. In the eyes of Mohammedans, Abraham was a
Mohammedan; through Ishmael, his first-born and rightful heir, he is
the progenitor of the People of the Revelation; in their eyes all the
religious figures of Israel of old are Mohammedan saints.
Thus the importance of Israel in the history of mankind, and,
consequently, our interest in its own history, is due to the
leading part it took in the sphere of religion. In Israel, indeed,
religion--or, as most people prefer to express it, monotheism--first
came into being. Let not the reader misunderstand the latter word. The
monotheism of Israel is not the acknowledgment that there is but one
Supreme Being. That is not a religious but a philosophical idea. The
God of the Israel of old is not to be defined as the sole, supreme,
and absolutely perfect being, but as the Not-World, or, better still,
as the sum of all forces present and active in the world conceived of
apart from the substratum through which they are manifest in phenomena.
Hence the God of Israel of old is simply the Mighty One. But in the
eyes of the Israelite of old the world was no wider than the land that
nourished him. For this reason the God of ancient Israel is the God
of the Land of Israel, and the actual existence of the gods of other
nations is not denied. They exercise in the lands of other nations the
same sway as Israel’s God in the world of Israel.
[Illustration: BRAZEN FOUNTAIN USED FOR SUPPLYING WATER TO THE TEMPLE,
ANCIENT JUDEA]
A CRITICAL SURVEY OF THE SCOPE AND SOURCES OF ISRAELITIC HISTORY TO THE
DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM
WRITTEN SPECIALLY FOR THE PRESENT WORK
BY REV. THOMAS KELLY CHEYNE, D. LITT., D. D.
Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Scripture, Oxford; Joint
Editor of the Encyclopædia Biblica
DOUBTFUL TRADITIONS EXAMINED; MOSES
The difficulty of sketching the outlines of the history of Israel in
pre-Maccabean times is unusually great. Historical curiosity was denied
to this people, and the Captivities were literary as well as political
disasters. The record of events which may have been kept, partly in
the royal archives, partly perhaps in the temples, had disappeared;
nor have any royal inscriptions as yet been discovered. It is only
the land of Moab which has yielded up an historical inscription, to
which we shall refer in due course as an illustration of contemporary
Israelitish history. It is probable that the disciples of the
prophets kept some record of interesting events in the lives of their
masters--and the greater prophets were personages of political as well
as religious importance--but the inveterate tendency of such history
to become hagiology, compels us to read the fragments of prophetic
narrative literature which have survived, even more critically than the
passages of narrative which may, perhaps, have been derived from royal
annals.
There were also, however, collections of popular traditions which,
though suffused with imagination, were doubtless more precious to
the early Israelites than the dry facts of contemporary or nearly
contemporary history. They were the imaginative vesture of vague and
distorted recollections of long-past events. In the form in which they
have reached us, they must have lost much of the original spirit and
of the primitive phraseology; on the other hand, the narrators, some
of whom were gifted writers as well as religiously progressive men,
have contributed original elements which, for many of us, must outweigh
the most interesting folklore, because we find in them the germs of
Jewish monotheism. The historian, however, must constantly remember
the consciously or unconsciously didactic object of these narrators,
or rather schools of narrators. Five of them are specially well known,
and of these it is only the so-called Elohist who is comparatively free
from preoccupation with definite ethical and religious principles.
The Yahvist is very distinctly on the side of the greater prophets;
the Deuteronomist, the Priestly Narrator, and the Chronicler have
for their chief object the direct or indirect enforcement of the
religious principles of the earlier or the later law, to which in
the Chronicler’s case we may add the glorification of the temple at
Jerusalem, its various classes of ministers, and its ritual.
The composition of these works ranges over a long period, extending at
any rate from the eighth to the third century B.C.; the upper limit
is not certain. It is the task of the critic to extract the passages
belonging to the first four of these narrators (or rather sometimes
schools of narrators) from the composite works in which they are found,
and also to investigate the sources from which they may have been
drawn. On the first part of this task much skill has been lavished by
a long succession of critics, but the second part is still very far
behindhand. And it must regretfully be said that owing to the backward
condition of the criticism of the text of the Old Testament, there is
some uncertainty in the basis of all constructive treatment of the
political and religious history. The scantiness of outside material,
which is peculiarly needed as a check on the subjective Hebrew writers,
is also no slight hindrance to the formation of thoroughly trustworthy
conclusions.
Tradition tells that the founder of the Israelitish nation first saw
the light in Egypt, where a number of Hebrew tribes were sojourning.
A change in the sentiments of the court towards the Hebrews had
brought about a cruel oppression. According to the Elohist (one of
the narrators mentioned above, fragments of whose work are preserved
in the Pentateuch), Moses, the child of a Hebrew man and woman of a
tribe called Levi, was hidden in an “ark of bulrushes” by the Nile, on
account of a royal edict that all male children of the Hebrews should
be put to death. Pharaoh’s daughter saw the child, had compassion on
him, and finally adopted him as her son. This, however, is by no means
a contemporary account, and the details would never have been thought
of, but for the existence in popular Hebrew tradition of a mythic tale
of the setting adrift of a divine or at least heroic infant on water.
The earliest traditions respecting Moses knew nothing of this. They
place the cradle of the national existence of the Israelites, and must
consequently have placed the cradle of the deliverer Moses, not in
Mizraim or Egypt, but in a region of northern Arabia called Mizrim, the
border of which on one side adjoined Egypt.
THE EXODUS FROM EGYPT
The whole story of the Exodus from Egypt appears to be due to a
confusion between Mizraim and Mizrim--a confusion which is presupposed
by what remains of the Yahvist’s and the Elohist’s narratives in their
present form, but which was probably not made by these narratives in
their original form, and cannot be shown indisputably to have been made
by the earliest prophets (Amos ii. 10; iii. 1; v. 25; ix. 7; Hosea ii.
15; viii. 13; ix. 3; xi. 1, 5; xii. 9, 13; xiii. 4).
The residence of Moses in Egypt constitutes, in fact, a considerable
difficulty. Had Moses been reared as an Egyptian prince, he would have
received an Egyptian name, an Egyptian office and an Egyptian wife. We
are told, however, that he married one of the seven daughters of Hobab,
the priest of a tribe of Midianites (or Kenites) which dwelt not
far from Yahveh’s sacred mountain, Horeb. Her name is Zipporah, and,
in accordance with the undoubtedly true theory that the relations of
tribes were expressed by the Hebrews under the form of genealogies, we
may assume that the seven daughters of Hobab were the tribes occupying
seven districts in Arabia, in the neighbourhood of Horeb. Where Horeb
or Sinai was, is disputed; it is even doubted whether the Old Testament
is entirely consistent with itself on this point. The traditional
view, however, which comes down to us from Christian antiquity, that
the mountain of the giving of the Law was on the western side of the
Sinaitic peninsula, is sufficiently refuted by this one historical
fact, that in the days when the Exodus from Egypt (if Egypt was really
the temporary abode of the primitive Israelites) may be conceived to
have taken place, a portion of the peninsula was occupied by Egyptian
officials and miners, and garrisoned by Egyptian troops. The student
may well be perplexed by the divergent views as to the situation of
Horeb (which in the original tradition was probably a synonym for
Sinai), nor can we digress to relieve his perplexity. All that we can
say is that, if he accepts our guidance, he will have provisionally
to adopt the view (strongly opposed to the later tradition) that
Horeb or Sinai was near the sacred town of Kadesh, better known as
Kadesh-Barnea, on the northern Arabian border, and also to assume that
Zipporah (the name of the traditional wife of Moses) is connected with
Zarephath (the vowels of this name are uncertain), a place which Moses
(_i.e._, the Moses-clan) may be supposed to have acquired, either by
cession or by conquest.
MOSES PROBABLY A CLAN NAME
To couple this with the traditional belief that there was once a
person called Moses, would be to misconceive the possible range of
oral tradition, and to forget the universal tendency to imagine the
ancestors or founders of tribes and races. That there was a clan
bearing a name like Mosheh or Moses; that, owing to a close connection
with a Yahveh-worshipping tribe of Kenites, this clan became ardently
devoted to the service of Yahveh; and that its chief centre was at
Zarephath [Sarepta] (whence, be it noted, another prophetic hero of
tradition, Elijah, probably sprung), may, however, be admitted as
probable. Other kindred clans must have gathered round that which
bore the name of Moses, and we find that when the northward migration
of those whom we know as Israelites took place, the number of the
emigrants was increased by the adhesion of other North Arabians. All
who were thus brought together must have had the link of a common
worship--the worship of the god called Yahveh, a name which must
originally have expressed a physical relation or phenomenon, but which
in course of time came to be explained by some as meaning the truly
existent or the self-manifesting One.
This God was believed to be specially present on Mount Sinai, whence
it is natural that the Yahveh-worshipping tribes of Israel conceived
themselves to have derived laws and institutions which were really
of late origin. The Israelites in Arabia were nomads, but the three
great annual festivals referred to in the Pentateuch are those of an
agricultural people, and must have been adopted by the Israelites after
they had passed into a settled mode of life. One portion of the first
of these feasts, however--the so-called Passover--is really a monument
of the nomadic life of the Israelites; it corresponds to a similar
spring-festival which we know to have been observed by the ancient
Arabians. The festival of the New Moon, which was entirely unconnected
with agriculture, and that of sheep-shearing, may have been retained by
the Israelites from their nomadic period.
The city of Zarephath seems to have been regarded as on the border-line
between the country known as Mizrim or Muzri, and the pastoral country
called in Hebrew the Negeb, though there are some Old Testament
passages which indicate that in later times a more southerly limit was
fixed, viz., at Kadesh. It is possible that among the pre-Israelitish
inhabitants of the Negeb were the “sons of Anak” or Anakites, and
that these Anakites (whose terribleness was magnified by legend) were
identical with, or closely related to, the “Rephaim” or Rephaites,
whose king, called Og, is commonly, by a very early error of the text,
transferred to the country on the east of the Jordan, and who were
really Amalekites, _i.e._, Jerahmeelites (the leading race of northern
Arabia in primitive times, including Edomites). In fact, Og and Agag
(the latter a traditional Amalekite name) are names which could only,
for some strong philological or historical reason, be separated.
THE FIRST MIGRATION FROM KADESH
It is too true that the Hebrew texts are often sadly corrupt, but among
other things we can still see, underneath the corruption, that the
first migration of the Israelites from Kadesh (near Horeb or Sinai) was
neither to the western nor to the eastern part of Canaan, but to the
country on the south of Palestine (the Negeb) where the inhabitants had
passed (as probably those of Mizrim had also passed) into a settled
mode of life and were flourishing agriculturists; their vineyards were
especially renowned in ancient legend. This region, in consequence,
became the scene of a large number of Hebrew legends, and the sacred
spots in it continued to draw reverent pilgrims as late as the fall
of the kingdom of Judah. (This follows from a critical examination
of Jeremiah xli.) Among these legends are those of the patriarchs in
their earlier form, and perhaps even those of the so-called Judges. The
period when the Israelitish centre was still in the Negeb was one in
which very little unity of action was possible, and the first attempts
to introduce personal sovereignty appear to have had full success only
within the sphere of single tribes (see especially the stories of
Jephthah and Gideon). It need hardly be added that regal government
presupposes the possession of cities, towns, and villages.
The most trustworthy record that we possess of the transitional
pre-regal period is the so-called Song of Deborah (Judges v.) which
celebrates the successful war of a number of Hebrew clans, confederated
for the present occasion, against the common enemy, who, according to
the corrupt text of Judges iv. (compare also v. 19, also corrupt), was
king of Canaan; but according to a more trustworthy reading, derived
by methodical criticism from the corrupt text, was king of Kenaz (a
widely spread tribe related to Edom). The Song appears to represent
tradition at a point when it may still be called historical. It shows
that in times of great need it was possible for the clans to unite,
and a parallel case, which we could easily believe to be historical,
is mentioned in Judges iii. 8-11: the oppression of the Israelites
by a Jerahmeelite king called Cushan (properly a race name), which
was closed by the intervention of a friendly clan of Kenizzite origin
called Othniel (Ethan?). This Othniel-clan must have had a leader of
more than common heroism, who induced the other clans to follow him.
Such occurrences, renewed, perhaps, at frequent intervals, must have
prepared the way for regal government.
The adversaries of Israel evidently derived their power not merely from
their superior armour and experience in warfare, but from their union.
It was possible for nomads, by the fierceness and suddenness of their
attacks, to effect conquests in settled and civilised territories; it
was not so easy to maintain these conquests against the assaults of
determined, united and well-equipped foes. To what extent the Israelite
clans had settled themselves in Canaan, as distinct from the Negeb, we
can hardly be said to know, but we find a territory known as Benjamin
in the hands of Israelite clans at the close of the transitional
period, and we cannot doubt that between Benjamin and the Negeb there
must have been settlements of Israelite clans interspersed with the
older populations; and we may venture to assert that one of the most
important of these clans was called Judah and another Caleb. That the
Israelites were also established in the centre and to some extent in
the north of Palestine is, of course, not to be questioned. But then,
no very certain Hebrew traditions on this point have been preserved,
and the supposition that the tribe of Asher was so called because its
seats were in the once important land of Asaru (mentioned in Egyptian
inscriptions) in what became western Galilee, and may, indeed, at one
time have possessed all Galilee, is less probable than the theory that
the name is a modification of Ashkhur, derived from a time when this
tribe dwelt in the neighbourhood of a Tekoa in Calebite territory far
away to the south (1 Chronicles ii. 24, iv. 5). We cannot, therefore,
say anything about the Israelitish occupation of central and northern
Palestine, nor can we venture to assume that the Israelites of this
region were in any sense, however limited, subjects of King Saul.
HELP FROM MENEPTAH AND TEL-EL-AMARNA LETTERS
As to the chronology of the events of the pre-regal period, great
uncertainty prevails. We are not, indeed, without some light from
external sources, but this light leads us in an unexpected and
undesired direction. In 1896 Professor Flinders Petrie discovered an
inscription of the Pharaoh Meneptah in which that king speaks of having
conquered not only Askalon, Gezer, and Yenuam, but Israel. Kharu (a
land) is also mentioned, the exact position of which is uncertain.
The situation of Askalon and Gezer is well known. The former is a
Philistine city, the site of the latter is on the right of the railway
from Joppa to Jerusalem, south of Lydda. The position of Yenuam is less
certain. A city called Janoah is mentioned in 2 Kings xv. 29 between
Abel-beth-maacah and Kadesh, in connection with Gilead, Galilee, and
Naphtali, but the correctness of the received geographical view of the
reference of these old names cannot be implicitly relied upon. Naville
thinks that we may identify Yenuam with Jabneel or Jamnia, but the
names can hardly be connected philologically. We do know, however,
that Naamah is a clan name of southern Palestine and northern Arabia,
and there being in 2 Kings xv. 29 probably a confusion between Asshur
(Assyria) and Ashkhur (a northern Arabian kingdom, perhaps Melukhkha,
often mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions), it appears most critical to
assume that Meneptah’s Yenuam was in the south of Palestine. It thus
becomes a plausible view that clans of Israelites existed in the south
of Palestine about 1273 B.C.
Let us go a step further. From the treaty of peace between Ramses II
(father of Meneptah) and the king of the Kheta or Hittites (about
1300 B.C.) we seem to gather that the south of Palestine was at that
time garrisoned by Egyptian troops. Only the south was Egyptian; the
north continued to be under the control of the Hittites. Even Seti I
(father of Ramses II), who had a course of unbroken success in northern
Arabia and southern Palestine, could occupy permanently no fortress
in Canaan to the north of Megiddo. From these facts we may conclude
that one section of Israelites may perhaps have penetrated from Kadesh
into southern Palestine before the reign of the Pharaoh Seti I, during
the period of the decline of the Egyptian authority in Asia. And it
so happens that we have in the famous Tel-el-Amarna correspondence
unimpeachable statements of the trouble caused in southern Palestine in
the century preceding Ramses II by certain people called Khabiri, whom
some have identified with the Israelites; and it is Abd-khiba, king or
at least governor of Urusalim or Jerusalem, who complains to his liege
lord the king of Egypt that the king’s dominion is being lost to the
Khabiri.
These Khabiri were apparently plundering nomad tribes, which were on
the way to adopt a settled mode of life. It is not improbable that
the name is equivalent to Ibrim (Hebrews); only if we adopt this
equation, we must not confine the application of the term “Hebrews”
to the Israelites, but extend it to “all the sons of Eber” (Genesis
x. 24), a Biblical phrase which shows that the Israelites themselves
were by no means narrow in the use of the term. Sooner than identify
the Khabiri with the Israelites, who probably became to a large extent
agriculturists in the Negeb, one would suppose the chieftain of
Jerusalem to refer to those whom we know as the Amalekites. Still one
cannot deny the bare possibility that the people in southern Canaan
called “Israel” by the Pharaoh Meneptah may have been partly derived
from some of the plundering clans called Khabiri.
The facts of importance for the history of Israel to be gained from the
Tel-el-Amarna letters are these:
1. The continuance of the Babylonian language and the cuneiform
characters--a proof of the intensity of the early Babylonian influence
over Syria and Palestine.
2. The semi-independence of the cities--a consequence of the
disintegration of the Egyptian empire in Asia.
3. The existence of names (Milkili, Abd-Milki) pointing to a
Jerahmeelite element in the settled population of Palestine.
4. The name Urusalim (Jerusalem), and the importance of the city
so-called.
5. The name Khabiri, possibly connected with Ibrim, “Hebrews.”
6. The importance of the Hittites in northern Palestine (including the
later kingdom of Israel).
7. The restless activity of warlike nomads, some of whom entered the
service of kings and chiefs.
8. The favour shown to natives of Palestine at the Egyptian court,
reminding us of the story of Joseph.
We cannot pause to comment on each of these facts, but may point out
that the story of Joseph, as it now stands, certainly has a more
historical appearance than any other of the early Hebrew legends. The
Egyptian functionary who superintends the magazines of grain in the
land of Yarimuta, according to the Amarna tablets, reminds us of Joseph
in a similar office; and the question arises whether at the root of the
story of Joseph there may not be a tradition of some gifted member of
one of the clans of Jacob or Israel who found favour and employment at
the court of Amenhotep IV (one of the Pharaohs of the Amarna tablets).
Still, the story of Joseph may, like the other ancient Hebrew legends,
have had an earlier form, in which the scene of the events was in the
wide region to the south of Palestine, and the king spoken of was a
North Arabian. And though there may have been an “Israel” in South
Palestine in the thirteenth century B.C., yet the same authority which
appears to state this as a fact also says that the victorious Egyptian
king laid Israel waste, leaving no fruits of the field, and the context
suggests that the male population had been carried captive, or slain.
SAUL AND DAVID
We return to Saul, whom the legend represents as the first king
of Israel, but who, if his story be critically regarded, was no
more than the dictator of the South Israelitish tribes in a time
of continually renewed warfare. His foes, according to our present
texts, were the Ammonites, the Philistines, and the Amalekites, but
in the original legends, only one great foe was referred to--those
whom the Amarna tablets called the Khabiri, _i.e._, North Arabian
tribes, sometimes called Jerahmeelites (whence the name “Amalekites”),
sometimes Zarephathites (whence probably “Pelethites” and “Pelishtim”
or Philistines). The notice in 1 Samuel xiv. 47, 48, that Saul had
wars with other foreign foes besides these here mentioned, viz., the
northern Aramæans, is not to be relied upon; it is evident that there
has been both interpolation and confusion of names. It is only the
latter part that concerns the historian, for it gives the achievement
of the reign of Saul in a nutshell, “He smote Amalek, and delivered
Israel out of the hand of his spoiler.” Another pithy and truthful
saying is, “There was sore war against the Philistines (Zarephathites)
all the days of Saul” (1 Samuel xiv. 52).
It is probable, however, that Saul had another foe. This is not
expressly indicated in our texts, but the language of 1 Samuel xvi.
28; xviii. 8 acquires a new force when regarded as an echo of this
deliberately suppressed fact. That foe was the man who became Saul’s
successor--David. It is important to know where this opponent of
Saul came from. He was a native of one of several places called
(originally) Beth-jerahmeel: a later editor made a geographical mistake
and supposed that it was a Beth-jerahmeel better known as “Beth-lehem
of Judah,” whereas really it was a Beth-jerahmeel in the “Negeb” or
steppe-country. It is a significant fact that David’s sister Abigail
married a man of Jezreel (near Carmel in Judah, whence came David’s
favourite wife Abigail), and that David himself took his first wife
from that place. All this points to a place nearer than Beth-lehem
to northern Arabia; probably it was not far from Maon and Carmel.
Nominally this district of the Negeb was a part of Saul’s dominion.
This we infer from 2 Samuel ii. 9, which states (rightly interpreted)
that Saul’s son (and consequently Saul, himself, before him) was
king over (the southern Gilead) Asshur, Jezreel and Ephraim, as well
as over Benjamin. Judah is not mentioned, because, according to the
legend, David had lately been made king over the “house of Judah” in
Hebron. But to hold so many semi-independent clans in check was beyond
Saul’s power, and David, a member of one of them, conceived the idea
of carving out a principality for himself in the south till such time
as the ripe fruit of a larger kingdom should drop into his mouth. His
political rôle began when he gathered round him a band of freebooters,
consisting partly of his own kinsmen, partly of desperate outlaws.
Among his haunts are especially mentioned Adullam, Keilah, Carmel and
Ziklag--all places in the “Negeb.” The last-named place is represented
to us as belonging to Achish, king of Gath. But a Philistine suzerain
of an Israelite free-lance is inconceivable, and again and again in the
Hebrew narratives we find that the name Gath has sprung by corruption
out of a mutilated fragment of “Rehoboth.” A little to the northeast
of the site of Rehoboth (Ruhaibeh), in the direction of Beersheba,
stand the ruins of Halasa, the Elusa of the early Christian age, famous
in that period for its peculiar heathen cult. This is not improbably
David’s Ziklag. While David was prince of Ziklag, the fatal contest
between Saul and the Zarephathites (Philistines) took place, the scene
of which was not Mount Gilboa in the north (as textual criticism
shows), but Mount Jerahmeel in the south. Whether the traditional
narrative is right in asserting David’s abstention from the battle, no
one can tell.
That David all this time had acted with consummate craft, we need
not doubt. At the time of the death of Saul, he was not only lord of
Ziklag, but had become by marriage chief of a powerful clan settled in
the neighbourhood of the southern Carmel, _i.e._, probably near his own
home. His object must have been to detach the clans of the Negeb from
Saul, and to prepare them to receive himself as their lord, or, where
Saul had not even won the nominal allegiance of a clan, to bring the
clans into personal relation to himself by doing them some service.
At last David was strong enough to have himself proclaimed king. This
implies that a number of clans dwelling near together (compare 1 Samuel
xxx. 27-31) trusted or feared him enough to promise him obedience. What
was the centre of his dominion? and was he really independent, or was
he the vassal of a more powerful king?
DAVID RECOGNISED AS KING
The capital of David’s earlier realm was Hebron, that is, he had
succeeded in winning allegiance where Saul had failed. The clan of
Judah (not as yet a “tribe”), and with it other clans which had common
interests with Judah, joined together, and recognised David as their
king. After this David carried out another great stroke of policy.
He was scheming for a larger kingdom than that of Judah, and at once
selected and fought for his capital. This capital was a Jebusite
(Ishmaelite, _i.e._, Jerahmeelite) city, which had succeeded thus far
in preserving its independence--Jerusalem. Its geographical position
and natural strength, and the circumstance that it was unconnected with
any Israelite clan or tribe, made it admirably suited for the capital
of an extensive Palestinian kingdom. But before he could proceed
further he had to cope with foes. The Rehobothites and Zarephathites,
who had been not unfriendly to David, regarding him as the foe of
Saul, now saw that he had stepped into the position of Saul, and would
carry on that king’s patriotic work. In the neighbourhood of “Gob” or
“Gath” or rather Rehoboth (of which both names are a corruption), and
also in the valley of Rephaim, David and his warriors fought with and
conquered the Zarephathites, and it is a reasonable conjecture that
the “Cherethites and Pelethites,” who, according to the present text,
became David’s bodyguard, were men of Rehoboth and Zarephath, who,
seeing that it was hopeless to fight against David, chose the next
best part--that of fighting with him. It must have been this victory
which enabled David to bring back the sacred ark of Yahveh from its
place of captivity among the Jerahmeelites.
DAVID’S CONQUESTS
David’s next task was to put down Saul’s successor, Eshbaal or
Ishbosheth, and to conquer what remained to this weakling of Saul’s
realm. That more blood was shed than our texts allow, may be assumed.
The legend-makers idealised David, but the historian is bound to go
behind the legend. The epithets hurled at David by Shimei, according
to 2 Samuel xvi. 7, must have something more for their justification
than the concession professedly made by David to the vengeance of
the Gibeonites (2 Samuel xxi. 1-14); and the strange legend of the
destruction of Benjamin in Judges xx., xxi., is probably a disguise
of an historical fact which took place later than the period assumed
in the legend. Both Benjamin and parts of the Negeb had to be won
by force, and from the nature of the case, as well as from the fact
that Saul’s general and relative, Abner, took the side of Eshbaal,
we may assume that this war lasted for some time. What took place in
the large part of Palestine, which did not, so far as we can be said
to know, enter into the dominion of Saul, we would gladly be able to
tell, but the traditions have faded away. That David had statecraft
as well as great ability in war, may be accepted from the tradition,
and the advantages of unity may have been patent to tribes which had a
fertile territory, and were liable to be swept by Midianite and Aramæan
invasions. Still, fear of David, as well as a regard for self-interest,
may have contributed to the annexation, as we may fairly call it, of
central and northern Israel to the empire of the adventurer from the
Negeb. Probably, however, this event did not take place as soon as the
present form of our texts suggests; probably, too, the union of north
and south was never as close as that which came to exist between Judah,
and part, at least, of Benjamin. Further investigation may throw some
rays of light on this subject.
REVOLT FROM DAVID
Two revolts are recorded as having occurred in the latter part of
David’s reign. In both cases the narratives have to be closely and
critically examined. At the present stage of the inquiry it appears
that the rebellion of Sheba is wrongly connected with the revolt of
Absalom, and occurred at an earlier part of David’s reign. David had
probably not as yet succeeded in crushing the independent spirit of the
Benjamites, and Sheba, who was sheikh of the important clan (it was
Saul’s clan) of the Bicrites, raised the standard of revolt supported
not only by the Bicrites, but to some extent by the Israelitish
inhabitants of Maacah in the Negeb (2 Samuel xx. 14). What he aimed
at was probably a revival of the kingdom of Saul, and a definite
renunciation of the ambitious scheme of a Palestinian empire. His
attempt, however, failed. The revolt of Absalom was similar, but its
chief supporters were not in Benjamin (which, indeed, had most probably
by this time been subjugated), but in Judah. This tribe was, no doubt,
the creation of David, but the elements which had been combined with
the old clan of Judah, being Calebite or Jerahmeelite, still felt the
keenest interest in the country to the south of Palestine called the
Negeb, and when Absalom, the child of a northern Arabian mother,
adopted their aspirations as his own, the whole Israelitish population
of the Negeb flocked to his standard. This well-conceived plan,
however, which probably presupposes further successful warfare of David
against the southern Aram (_i.e._, the Jerahmeelites in and near the
Negeb), was also doomed to failure.
SOLOMON AND JEROBOAM
David’s successor, Solomon, reached the throne by a _coup d’état_.
His success was largely due to the energy of the Jerusalem priest,
Zadok, who was devoted to the service of David’s new sanctuary on
Mount Zion. The friendship of the priestly party had important results
both for Solomon (whom the priests of Jerusalem naturally idealised in
legend) and for the state, which now possessed a sanctuary officially
recognised as supreme. The erection of a temple required a large supply
both of timber and of stone, and our texts represent that the timber
and the stone came from Lebanon by the friendly offices of the king
of Tyre, to whose territory Lebanon is supposed to have belonged.
Underneath the present texts, however, we can discern a different
and much more probable form of text, in which the king whose help is
requested is the king of Mizzur (the North Arabian land of Muzri), and
it is also presumably the same king (called in this case the king of
Muzri) whose daughter became Solomon’s wife.
SOLOMON AND HIRAM
Afterwards, however, the relations between the two kings, Solomon and
Hiram, appear to have changed for the worse. Twenty cities are recorded
to have been ceded by Solomon to Hiram, and (in the original text) a
large sum of money to have been paid. We can hardly doubt that this
was the price of peace; hostilities must have broken out between the
two kings, whose territories adjoined each other. It is possible that
the war was occasioned, not only by the memories of wrongs done to
Mizrim by David, but also by the desire on Hiram’s part for commercial
advantages. Solomon was bent on enriching himself by commercial
voyages, and Hiram would not be behind him. Ezion-geber, at the head
of the Gulf of Akabah, formed part of Solomon’s dominion. Hiram can
have had no mariners of his own, but was resolved not to allow all the
profits of the voyages which started from Ezion-geber to go to his
rival. So he sent his own “servants,” _i.e._, probably commissioners
and merchants, to carry on traffic for him at the different ports
touched at, the chief of which was doubtless Ophir, the port of the
great Arabian or East African gold-land. Nor was the King of Mizrim
the only North Arabian prince who made Solomon’s position a difficult
one. For a time the region adjoining the Negeb, called Cusham, had
received Israelite garrisons, but an adventurer named Rezon expelled
the Israelites, and founded a new line of kings of Cusham, which was
destined to cause infinite trouble to future Israelite kings.
SOLOMON’S OPPONENTS
Another bitter opponent of Solomon was the once fugitive Edomite or
rather Aramite prince, Hadad, who returned to his own country (the
southern Aram or Jerahmeel) and distressed Israel. And a third was
Jeroboam, son of Nebat, an Ephrathite of mixed parentage (his mother
was a Mizrite). That he belonged to the northern tribe of Ephraim,
cannot be safely argued; Ephrath was the name of a district in the
Negeb, and it was the district to which Jeroboam belonged. His home
was at Zeredah, otherwise called Tirzah, and seeing that he was
“industrious” and specially interested in the Negeb, Solomon “put him
in charge over all the burden of the house of Ishmael,” _i.e._, over
the compulsory work (the _corvée_) of the northern Arabian subject
population. This position of trust Jeroboam used for his own ambitious
ends. Naturally, he incurred Solomon’s resentment, and had to flee for
his life to his mother’s country, Mizrim.
The suppression of Jeroboam’s revolt left behind it angry feelings
towards the Davidic family. When, therefore, the fugitive returned
after Solomon’s death, the Israelites in the Negeb were prepared
to espouse his claims to sovereignty. What line was taken by the
Israelites of Ephraim and the other northern tribes, was not expressly
stated in the original narrative. We may be sure, however, that they
took no interest in Solomon’s temple, but the greatest possible
interest in the sanctuaries of the Negeb. They had to support Jeroboam
because they loved the land in which the patriarchs had dwelt.
Its sanctuaries were to them the holiest spots upon earth; Canaan
without the Negeb would have been like a temple without its altar.
Consequently, whether the northern tribes sent representatives, or not,
on the death of Solomon, to the national assembly at the venerable city
of Cusham-Jerahmeel (later scribes, and hardly by mere accident, wrote
“Shechem”), the voice of the nation was adequately expressed, and the
doom pronounced on the house of David, in the name of the northern
Israelites and the kindred clans in the Negeb, was final.
THE DIVIDED KINGDOM
Most probably, however, the story of the national assembly is a legend,
and Jeroboam and his party at once appealed to the arbitrament of
war. There may have been fighting on the northern border, but the
field of battle was no doubt chiefly in the Negeb, which, henceforth,
according to several indications in our texts, was partly Israelite,
partly Judahite, at least when Aramite or Jerahmeelite invaders did not
take advantage of some temporary relaxation of vigilance on the part
of Israel and Judah. So Jeroboam, not unaided perhaps by his Mizrite
friends, became the king of the northern, and Rehoboam, the son of
Solomon, of the southern part of Israel.
All the Israelite tribes from Asher to Ephraim adhered to Jeroboam;
Judah and Benjamin to Rehoboam. The Holy Land of the Negeb appears to
have been claimed by both, but especially by northern Israel. Jeroboam,
we are assured, occupied Beth-el, and if we may venture to hold that
this means the southern Bethel (in the Negeb), a new light is thrown
on many Old Testament passages of great importance for the history of
religion. In the Bethel sanctuary Jeroboam is said to have placed an
image of a bull overlaid with gold. This bull must have represented
the Jerahmeelite Baal, whom Jeroboam identified with the Yahveh, whose
worship the ancient Israelites adopted from the Kenites of Kadesh (on
the border of the Jerahmeelite Negeb), who conducted them in their
migration. To this cultus Jeroboam was naturally devoted. We cannot,
indeed, suppose that there was no such image of Baal at Bethel till he
placed one there, but at least by making Bethel the “king’s sanctuary”
(Amos vi. 13) he gave fresh prestige to the cultus.
We cannot, therefore, be surprised if in northern Israel the
Jerahmeelite Baal more and more threw Yahveh into the shade, so
that men swore, not by Yahveh, but by the Baal of Beth-el, and shut
themselves entirely off from the forces, so active in Judah, which made
for religious progress. Meantime the outward condition both of Israel
and of Judah was so prosperous, that even a king of Egypt (Shashanq)
thought it worth while to raid both territories. Sculptures on the
south wall of the great temple at Karnak (Egyptian Thebes) appear to
record this.
JEROBOAM’S SUCCESSORS
The new dynasty did not long maintain itself. Jeroboam’s son, Nadab,
was slain by Baasha, of the tribe of Issachar, while he was besieging
(so our text says) Gibbethon in Philistia. It was a military revolution
such as became frequent in northern Israel. Baasha energetically
resumed the war with Judah, whose king Asa, however, paralysed Baasha
by invoking the help of Ben-Hadad (probably Bir-dadda), king of Cusham
in northern Arabia, who sent an army against the cities of Israel
(in the Negeb). It is remarkable to see the two kings, who jointly
represent Israel, contending with one another for the favour and
protection of a northern Arabian power. Presumably, Asa offered a
larger payment than Baasha. Elah, Baasha’s son, quickly suffered the
fate of Nadab, before the Philistine fortress of Gibbethon. Whether the
singularly exact correspondence between the circumstances of the first
two northern Israelite dynasties is historical, has not unnaturally
been questioned.
Zimri, “who slew his master,” did not live many days in the enjoyment
of royalty. The majority of the warriors were not on his side, but
favoured the commander-in-chief Omri. The late king had been murdered
in Tirzah. From Gibbethon, therefore, Omri and the army moved to
Tirzah, and besieged the city. Zimri met his death in his burning
palace.
But Omri had yet to fight for his crown. Another party of the people
favoured the claims of Tibni; after a civil war, the party of Omri
finally prevailed. The result was for the good of northern Israel.
Omri, though not always fortunate in war (1 Kings xx. 34), was a highly
capable ruler. This appears from three particulars which have come down
to us; (1) the subjugation of Moab by northern Israel in his reign, (2)
his foundation of the city of Shomeron, or, rather, Shimron, better
known as Samaria, and we may perhaps add, (3) the respect given to his
name by the Assyrians, who after his death designated the kingdom of
northern Israel _mat Khumri_ or _Bit Khumri_, “land” or “house of Omri.”
THE MOABITE STONE
The first of these facts is recorded in the famous “Moabite Stone,”
which tells how Omri afflicted Moab and took possession of the land of
Medeba, and how Israel dwelt therein, during his days, and half his
son’s days--forty years. The second, if correctly reported, is equally
interesting; for Omri’s predecessors, and Omri himself for the first
six years of his reign, held their court at Tirzah, which appears to
have been a strong city in the Negeb. If Omri really built the northern
Shimron, he not improbably named it after a city called Shimron in
the Negeb, not far from Beth-el. The resolution to place his capital
in central Palestine, if it be a fact, was a most judicious one,
considering the increasing danger from Assyria and from the northern
Aram. Perhaps, some day, the spade of the excavator may remove the
slight doubt which seems to exist on this point.
HEBREW RELATIONS WITH ASSYRIA AND ARAM
The misfortune is that the fragments of Hebrew historical tradition,
critically regarded, tell us very little that can be trusted respecting
the contact of the northern Israelites with these two powers at this
period. Shalmaneser II tells us in an inscription that (in 854 B.C.)
he was victorious at Qarqar, near Hamath, over a league of kings,
the first of whom was Dad-idri, or Bir-idri, of Damascus, the second
Irkhulina of Hamath, and the third Akhabbu of Israel (?). Of this
important fact not a hint is given in 1 Kings; indeed, the Hebrew
account of the last campaign of Ahab is not strictly reconcilable with
the Assyrian inscription. The same Assyrian king records that (in 842)
Yaua, son of Khumri, together with the Tyrians and Sidonians, paid him
tribute. Not a word of this in 1 Kings. Similar records of the northern
Aramæans are, unhappily, not extant. The final editor of the narratives
in 1 Kings must have believed that the Israelites had serious conflicts
with northern Aram, but underneath the traditional Hebrew text, lie
narratives, which can still be approximately restored, in which the
contending powers were not Israel and Aram-Damascus, but Israel and
Aram-Cusham. The Shimron and the Jezreel spoken of in these narratives
are not Samaria and the northern Jezreel, but places bearing those
names in the “Negeb.”
The name Ben-Hadad, given in 1 Kings to the king of Aram, corresponds
not to Bir-idri (the name of a contemporary king of Damascus), but to
Bir-dadda, the possibility of which, as the name of a North Arabian
king, is shown by its occurrence in the inscriptions. Hazael, too,
is equally possible on similar grounds, as the name of a king of
the northern Arabian land of Cusham. Elijah and Elisha, too, in the
original Hebrew narratives, were certainly represented (according
to recent criticism) as prophets of the Negeb. The appearances and
disappearances of Elijah now cease to be meteoric; he has not so very
far to go either to Shimron to meet the king, or to Horeb to revive his
spiritual energies by communion with the God who specially dwelt on the
summit of that mountain.
THE WORSHIP OF BAAL
The whole religious history of northern Israel now becomes a good deal
more intelligible. It is the Jerahmeelite Baal whom the Israelites
worship, identifying him with the God of the Exodus; and the
unprogressive character of his cultus, which addressed itself largely
to the senses, was the reason why the prophets of Judah used such
vehement language in denouncing its votaries. Elijah, we may be sure,
that is, the school of prophets whom he represents (_i.e._, Amos),
never entered a Jerahmeelite temple. But the sanctity of Horeb, in so
far as it was not impaired by a corrupt cultus and its buildings, was
not denied by these successors of Moses.
It is commonly held that Ahab was the husband of a Tyrian wife and
the promoter of a newly imported Tyrian variety of Baal-worship.
The analogous history of Solomon, however, warns us to caution, and
a critical view of the text shows that Ahab’s wife was a northern
Arabian princess from Mizrim, and his offence, from the point of view
of Elijah, was in giving a fresh official sanction to what we may call
Jerahmeelitism. Jeroboam had given his royal favour to the sanctuary
of Bethel; Ahab conferred a similar distinction on the new sanctuary
at Shimron. It was this southern city of Shimron, and not its northern
namesake, that Ben-Hadad (Bir-dadda?) of Cusham besieged. The ultimate
result of the siege, of which we have probably two accounts (1 Kings
xxi. 22 and 2 Kings vi. 24-vii.), was fortunate for Ahab. On the other
hand, Ramoth (or Ramath), in the southern Gilead, still had to be
fought for by Ahab, and the brave king met his death by a chance shot
from an Aramite bow. It was also before Ramoth in Gilead that Jehoram,
son of Ahab, who succeeded his elder brother Ahaziah, received those
wounds of which we hear in the story of the rebellion of Jehu.
REHOBOAM AND HIS SUCCESSORS
Turning to the southern kingdom, we notice that it was some time
before the Davidic king made an effort to obtain foreign protection.
In Jeroboam’s time, indeed, it would have been useless. In Rehoboam’s
fifth year the king of Mizrim proved his regard for Jeroboam and
for his own selfish advantage by invading the Jewish dominion.
Resistance was hopeless; Jerusalem itself was taken, and the departure
of Cushi (the name is corrupted in our own texts into Shishak) was
only purchased at a great price. It was the third king, Asa, who,
finding himself in danger of becoming the vassal of Baasha, became
virtually the vassal of the king of Cusham; the story of his having
defeated an army of Cushite invaders (at Zephath, or Zarephath?) must
surely be apocryphal. Asa and his son Jehoshaphat are both praised
for their fidelity to Yahveh. The latter king, however, managed to
exchange a Cushite for an Israelite suzerain, and according to the
(late) Chronicler gained a victory over the (southern) Aramites or
Jerahmeelites in the Negeb (the text of 2 Chronicles xx. has suffered,
as regards the geographical setting).
In the war against Moab, Jehoshaphat did a vassal’s service to Ahab,
and we may suppose that there was a Judahite contingent in the force
of ten thousand men sent by Ahab to the battle of Qarqar. We are also
told that he sought to open once more direct communication by sea with
the gold-country Ophir. His son Jehoram continued loyal to the northern
Israelitish king. Asa had found it impossible to oppose a marriage
between the crown-prince and Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel. So,
officially at any rate, there was religious as well as political union
between northern and southern Israel; Jehoram, we are told, “walked in
the way (_i.e._, practised the cultus) of the house of Ahab.”
The revolt of the Edomites, who had hitherto recognised the supremacy
of Judah, marks the reign of Jehoram. His son Ahaziah continued
his policy, and just after he had performed a vassal’s duty before
Ramoth in the southern Gilead (still fought for by the Aramites), he
fell a victim with his uncle and suzerain, Jehoram of Israel, to the
machinations of the ambitious general, Jehu. The name of Jehu (as it
seems, an Israelite of the Negeb) is attached to a revolution which had
different results from those which had been contemplated. We have only
the account of it which was given by the prophetic school of narrators.
According to this, the revolution was planned by a prophet named
Elisha, and received the sanction of the sheikh of a subdivision of the
Kenites, called Rechabites. Certainly it is probable enough that the
prophets of the Negeb interfered with politics, and that that portion
of the Kenites which had not adopted a settled mode of life was greatly
agitated by the continuance of that sensuous form of cultus which was
favoured by the house of Omri.
JEHU AND FOLLOWING KINGS
Jehu, too, may have been widely known as an energetic and unscrupulous
man whose ambition could be used in the interests of religious
reformation. At any rate the Baal-worship of the court, which, as we
are assured, had become aggressive, was violently put down by Jehu,
and this bold adventurer now began to scheme for a united kingdom of
Israel, like David’s of old. With this object, he massacred not only
Jehoram of Israel, but Ahaziah of Judah, though, as the event proved,
he reckoned without his host, for Athaliah, the queen-mother in Judah,
on her side, massacred all the children of the other wives of Jehoram
of Judah, and, in intention, also the son of Ahaziah (he escaped,
however), and usurped the throne. The consequence was that north and
south Israel, for the present, went each its own way.
In 842 B.C. Jehu found it expedient to send rich presents to
Shalmaneser II, which this king denominated “tribute.” Here we are
painfully conscious of the meagreness of our information. What was the
policy of the queen of Judah during the six years of her reign? Did she
intrigue with Cusham against northern Israel? We know that Hazael, the
Cushamite king, renewed the war in the Negeb with double fury. Next,
what was the policy of the other Hazael--the king of Damascus--towards
northern Israel? The editor of Kings seems to have thought that this
Hazael was an opponent of Jehu. This might account for the “present”
sent by Jehu to Shalmaneser, who waged war with Hazael. On the other
hand, Jehu does not appear to have sent any gifts in 839 B.C., when
Shalmaneser had his second encounter with Hazael, and Tyre, Sidon,
and Gebal again sent tribute. Had Jehu in the interval been obliged
to become a vassal of the king of Damascus, who was still able to
withstand the repeated attacks of the Assyrians?
The furious onslaught of Hazael of Cusham continued after Jehu’s death.
So large a part of the Negeb was taken either by Hazael or by his
successor Ben-Hadad, _i.e._, Bir-dadda, and so many of its Israelite
inhabitants had been either slain in battle or carried away into
slavery, that the most valued jewel in the crown of Israel’s kings
seemed to have been lost. A turn for the better in Israel’s fortunes
took place under Joash. Probably this was mainly due to the victories
of the Assyrian king, Adad-nirari III, who claims to have received
tribute from Tyre, Sidon, Khumri (Israel), Edom, and Philistia, and who
humbled, though he did not destroy, Mari, the brave king of Damascus.
If, as one may plausibly suppose, the latter king punished Jehoahaz
for his father’s Assyrian proclivities, we can understand that when
Damascus ceased to be dangerous, the son of Jehoahaz, stimulated by
prophets like Elisha, might make a supreme, successful effort against
invaders of the Negeb.
The work of liberation, however, had still to be completed; this was
the achievement of Jeroboam II. It was he who reconquered the venerable
city of Cusham-jerahmeel, and recovered the region of Maacath (or
Jerahmeel) for Israel. This period, as criticism is able to show,
receives vivid illustration from the work of Amos, the account of
whose conflict with Amaziah, the priest of the southern Bethel, refers
to Jeroboam by name. The war was still going on, however, when this
prophet of evil tidings wrote. It is probable that for some part of
the reigns of Joash and Jeroboam the king of Judah was once more in
vassalage to the king of Israel.
DECLINE AND FALL OF SAMARIA
The death of Jeroboam was the beginning of the end for the northern
realm. Murders and revolutions succeeded each other with fearful
rapidity. Of Zechariah and Shallum there is nothing to be said.
Menahem’s reign, however, marks an epoch. Tiglathpileser III states in
his Annals that he received tribute from Kushtashpi of Kummukh, Rasunnu
of Damascus and Minihimi of Samirina. It is plausible to identify the
third king with Menahem of Samaria. The identification, however, is
not certain; some other city may perhaps have been meant. Moreover,
the Hebrew record speaks of an invasion of the northern kingdom, and
calls the invader Pul (a Greek reading is Paloch) king of Asshur. Now
there is good evidence in the Book of Hosea that the Israelites at this
period were suing for the favour of the North Arabian kings of Mizrim
and of Asshur. Mizrim we know to be the land otherwise called Muzri;
Asshur (Ashkhur) we may suspect to be the land called by the Assyrians
Melukhkha. Probably, therefore, it is the king of Melukhkha, the
greatest of the North Arabian kings, who invaded Menahem’s realm, and
exacted tribute from Menahem. In this case it was not central Palestine
which he invaded, but the Negeb. In the next reign but one--that of
Pekah--the same king of Asshur (called this time, not Pul, but by the
equally inaccurate name Tiglath pileser or Tilgath pilneser) returned
to the Negeb, a part of which he conquered, deporting its Israelite
inhabitants into northern Arabia.
ASSYRIAN OPPRESSION
Probably he was displeased because the impoverished kingdom of Israel
could not pay its tribute. The North Arabian king, however, must
have had some additional reason for his activity. The true Assyrian
Tiglathpileser tells us of the queen of Aribi and of the minor Arabian
sheikhs who paid him tribute, and we may well suppose that, knowing the
ambitious projects and the intrigues of Assyria, the greatest North
Arabian potentate sought to strengthen the North Arabian border by
introducing colonists on whom he could depend. Shortly afterwards he
treated Cusham in a similar manner, deporting its inhabitants to Kir.
Again we must regret the paucity of external information illustrating
this period. The Hebrew text as it stands speaks of Pekah of Israel as
joining the king of the northern Aram in an invasion of Judah. This,
as we shall see, is highly doubtful. There is also much besides in
the traditional history of this period which is liable to revision.
The confusion between the two Shimrons and the two Asshurs is as
troublesome as the confusion between the two Arams and the two Muzurs.
But, have the Assyrian inscriptions no facts to communicate? On the
contrary, they mention both Pekah and Hoshea. The former they present
to us as a member of the anti-Assyrian party which existed in Samaria,
as elsewhere, and we gather from the Annals that, as a punishment for
this, the inhabitants of a large part of Bit-Khumri (Samaria) were
deported by the Assyrians, and that when Pekah had been assassinated,
Tiglathpileser ratified the appointment of Hoshea as king of the scanty
remnant of North Israel (733 B.C.).
From the same source we learn that early in Sargon’s reign (722 B.C.?)
that king besieged and captured Samirina (Samaria), carried away
27,290 of its inhabitants, reserved fifty of their chariots, placed
a governor over the remnant of the people, and imposed upon them the
tribute of the former king. This is all that we know about the doings
of the Assyrians; for those of the Asshurites we must turn to the
prophet Hosea and to the second Book of Kings. The former, writing
probably when the doom of the southern Shimron was already sealed,
prophesies not only that it will be taken, but that the king of Israel
will meet his death through Asshur. He also probably gives the name of
the Asshurite king who succeeded Pul or Paloch as Shalman (Hosea xi.
14), referring to some typical barbarities of which this king had been
guilty.
Shalman appears incorrectly in 2 Kings as Shalmaneser. We learn that
for some years Hoshea paid tribute to Shalman (eser), but that after
this, relying upon the help of the king of Mizrim, he withheld it;
the Asshurite king therefore cast him into prison. If the letter of
2 Kings xvii. 4, 5, is correct, this preceded an Asshurite invasion
of the land (_i.e._, the Negeb), which ended with a siege of Shimron.
The siege lasted three years, at the end of which the king of Asshur
took Shimron, and deported a large part of the remaining Israelite
population of the Negeb into his own land, filling their place in the
Negeb with North Arabian colonists. These new Shimronites are the
people who caused the Jews so much trouble in the days of Nehemiah.
Thus the two sections of that large part of Israel which had rejected
the Davidic Dynasty were all but annihilated, for history can take
no further account of the remnants which survived both in northern
Israel and in the Negeb, remnants which, though they retained the
divine name Yahveh, in their cultus, were in no essential respect
different from the non-Israelites with whom they mingled. We do,
indeed, gather from 2 Kings xvii. 25-33 that the North Arabian
colonists in the Negeb combined the ritual worship of Yahveh with that
of their own gods, and we may assume that they learned the “manner”
or ceremonial prescriptions of Yahveh, not from a single priest--the
sole representative of Israel in the wide land of the Negeb--but from
a scanty remnant of Israelites left by the conqueror (compare 2 Kings
xxiii. 20). But of what value or significance for the history of Israel
or of Israel’s history, is this poor and uninteresting fact? Henceforth
the world-historical mission of Israel was confined to that portion
of the people which was loyal to the Davidic Dynasty, and in which,
thanks to prophets largely drawn from the Negeb (a land of opposites in
religion), the elements of progress were still active in spite of great
hindrances.
LATER FORTUNES OF JUDAH
We return to Athaliah, and her bold attempt to naturalise more fully
the sensuous religious developments of North Arabia in Judah. After
six years, both she and her movement came to a sudden end. The only
surviving male representative of David was set upon the throne. The
priest Jehoiada won over the “prætorian guard” on which Athaliah had
relied; the usurper was slain and the house of Baal broken down. The
new king Jehoash conformed to the directions of the priests. This did
not, however, avert a serious calamity. A Cushamite invasion took
place, and the retirement of Hazael had to be bought at a high price.
Jehoash was succeeded by his foolhardy son Amaziah, who seems to have
had a dream of throwing off the suzerainty of North Israel. As the
first step to this, he tried his martial prowess on the Jerahmeelites,
whom he encountered in a valley in the Negeb, but when Joash of Israel,
who had no mind to let Judah become predominant in that region, came
down upon him with his army, the result was disastrous for Judah.
Jerusalem was taken, so that the suzerainty of northern Israel was
secured, and the king, Amaziah, met with a violent death. His son and
successor, Azariah (or Uzziah), is to some extent a mystery; we have
two narratives respecting him, one of which surprises us as much by its
brevity as the other (2 Chronicles xxvi.) by its particularity. The
probability, however, is that the account in 2 Kings xv. 1-7 omits all
detailed reference to Azariah’s wars in the south because of a great
humiliation which he received in the course of them. That heavy blow
was probably nothing less than captivity in Mizrim, from the record of
which, accidentally or deliberately, the later tradition extracted the
statement that Azariah was smitten with leprosy. During his father’s
enforced absence, Jotham acted as regent. We can hardly believe that
the period of these two reigns was in any sense a prosperous one for
Judah. No special misfortune, indeed, is put down to Jotham, but we are
informed that the king of Aram or Cusham began those incursions into
Judah which became such a serious danger in the next reign. Whether
either Azariah or Jotham succeeded in becoming independent of Israel,
we cannot say.
AHAZ AND ISAIAH
It was Ahaz, so well known to us from the prophet Isaiah, who succeeded
Jotham. The editors of the Books of Kings and of Isaiah believed that
the “Aram,” which became so troublesome to Ahaz, was the North Aramæan
kingdom of Damascus, and that the ruler of this state in conjunction
with Pekah, king of Israel, fearing the aggressions of Assyria, sought
to force Judah into alliance with them. It was notorious that Ahaz
favoured a different policy, but the allies thought themselves strong
enough to capture Jerusalem and to place a nominee of their own upon
the throne of Judah.
It is probable, however, that here, as elsewhere, the editors have
adjusted the narratives and prophecies to historical and geographical
ideas which were not those of the narrators. In reality, it was the
king of Aram (_i.e._, Cusham) and the king of Ishmael (_i.e._, some
other North Arabian principality) who sought the humiliation of
Judah. The object, as the experience of the past had shown, was not
unattainable, but since the time when the king of Mizrim humiliated
Rehoboam, the suzerain of all the smaller kings--the great “Arabian
king” (Asshur)--had become more jealous of the ambitious activity of
his lieges. Hence, as soon as Ahaz sent an importunate message to
the king wrongly called Tiglathpileser, deliverance came to him, and
ruin to Cusham through an Asshurite intervention. The prophet Isaiah,
however, took a different position. According to him, trust in the
true Yahveh and obedience to his righteous law (of which Isaiah and
those like him were the exponents) was the sure, the only sure, defence
against human foes, while for Ahaz to send for the Asshurite king was
to put his head into the mouth of a lion. But how could such trust and
obedience be expected of Judah? Ever since Solomon’s time this little
country had hankered after a worldly prosperity which was inconsistent,
as the most high-minded prophets believed, with the worship of the true
Yahveh. Consequently both Isaiah and Micah, like Amos and Hosea, saw
nothing for their people to expect but ruin.
In the next reign it appeared as if this prophecy were about to be
fulfilled. Two invasions took place--one of the Assyrians, the other of
the Asshurites of northern Arabia--which have been confounded by the
editors who brought the Books of Kings and of Isaiah into their present
form. The difficulties which have been found in reconciling the Hebrew
narratives with the inscription of Sennacherib are partly due to this
confusion. We may suppose that the Asshurite invasion, which ended in
the hurried departure of the invaders, came first; it is this which is
referred to in the prophetic utterances of Isaiah. Whether or no Isaiah
lived to see the second invasion (which took place in 701) is a problem
for critics. The prophet has at any rate given us a vivid picture of
the alarm of Judah and the neighbouring countries in the Asshurite
crisis, and we can venture to supplement this to some extent with facts
from the late narratives in 2 Kings xviii. 13; xix. 37 (Isaiah xxxvi.
1-xxxvii. 38), provided that a methodical criticism has first been
applied to the text.
INVASION OF SENNACHERIB
From Sennacherib himself we have particulars respecting his operations
in Judah. He asserts that he took 46 towns and carried off 200,150
persons; that he shut up Hezekiah like a cage-bird in Jerusalem, made
him deliver up a captive Ekronite king, imposed a heavy fine upon him
and curtailed his territory. We can easily believe that Judah was not
in a position to resist a second invasion, even though the first was
not quite so calamitous as it might have been. It is also plausible to
suppose that the misfortune arising from Sennacherib’s invasion may
have led Hezekiah to put himself under the tuition of the priests of
Jerusalem, and begin a movement for the centralisation of the cultus.
If so, his son and successor Manasseh revised his policy, and initiated
a reaction in the direction of North Arabian heathenism. Worshippers of
the true Yahveh found in the king’s subsequent career a divine judgment
upon such wickedness. The generals of the king of the North Arabian
Asshur (such is the most tenable explanation of 2 Chronicles xxxiii.
11) brought him as captive to the capital of that country, but he was
afterwards restored. It must be confessed, however, that we do not know
to what North Arabian people the Hebrew compiler applies the old name
of Asshur; the kingdom of Melukhkha appears not to have recovered from
the blow dealt to it by the Arabian invasion of Esarhaddon. One thing
is certain from the Assyrian inscriptions--that Manasseh gave no cause
of complaint to the northern Asshur. Among the vassals who paid them
homage, both Esarhaddon and Asshurbanapal mention Manasseh king of
Judah.
JOSIAH; HIS RELATIONS TO NORTH ARABIA
Manasseh’s son Amon continued to promote the religious reaction. After
two years he was murdered, but the “people of the land,” who appear to
have sympathised with Amon’s views, punished the murderers. This was
about 636 B.C., noteworthy as the date of the accession of the young
Josiah. Assyria was still powerful, and few could have foreseen its
impending decline and fall. But it was not Assyria to which the prophet
Jeremiah pointed as the executor of Yahveh’s judgment, nor yet (as many
have supposed) the hordes of Scythian nomads, but a people or peoples
of northern Arabia. Josiah, however, did not lose his composure. He
had thrown himself into the arms of the priests, and the priests and
prophets (not Jeremiah) combined to produce a law-book (our Deuteronomy
has grown out of it), obedience to which might be expected to insure
prosperity.
The reform of the cultus, and the prohibition of more than the one
sanctuary, were far-reaching measures which affected the daily life
of every Israelite. We are even told (2 Kings xxiii. 15-20) that the
reformation extended to Beth-el and the cities of Shimron, _i.e._, to
the Negeb. This view of the narrator’s meaning is a solid result of
criticism, and certainly the detail has no slight verisimilitude. The
realm of Judah needed expansion, and what region could Josiah more
reasonably covet than the Negeb, so dear to Israelite tradition? Events
proved, however, that a greater potentate also had designs upon it,
viz., the king of Mizrim. We do not know what race predominated at
this time in the ancient Muzri, but we can hardly doubt the fact that
the king of a territory adjoining the Negeb, who was at any rate more
powerful than Josiah, went upon an expedition against Kidsham (_i.e._,
Kadesh), or perhaps Cusham (_i.e._, Cusham-jerahmeel), and found his
passage barred by Josiah. A battle took place in Maacath-migdol (if we
rightly read the name), and the king of Judah was mortally wounded.
All Judah mourned. The people had lost a king, and were in danger of
losing a faith. For the religious law book promising prosperity to the
obedient, which they had accepted in deference to the king and the
priests, seemed to have been proved a delusion and a snare.
JOSIAH’S SUCCESSORS AND THE KING OF MIZRAIM
Thus the power most dreaded by Judah is once more the North Arabian
Mizrim, though the race which now predominated in Mizrim had, perhaps,
only lately arrived there. The late editor of Kings, however,
confounded Mizrim with Mizraim (Egypt), and represented the king whom
Josiah encountered as Neku of Egypt; he also confounded the place-name
Migdol with Megiddo. It is not impossible that the enterprising Neku
of Egypt really did interfere with the affairs of Syria, but, if so,
it was hardly Josiah whom he had to deal with. It appears to be clear
from the Hebrew narratives, critically interpreted, that it was first
the Mizrites and then the Babelites or Jerahmeelites (_i.e._, the
peoples to which the Hebrew writers, archaising, apply these names) who
interfered with southern Palestine. The Mizrite king is said to have
deposed Josiah’s successor, Jehoahaz, after a reign of three months,
and nominated a brother of Jehoahaz named Eliakim or Jehoiakim, as king
(608 or 607 B.C.?). It was a short-lived suzerainty; another king,
miscalled by the later editor the king of Babel (the name should be
“Jerahmeel”), appeared, and asserted his claim to the Negeb. Jehoiakim
became his vassal, but after three years rebelled, preferring the
old vassalage to the new. Apparently he died before a fresh invasion
took place; it was his son Jehoiachin who, yielding to necessity,
surrendered to the Jerahmeelite army, and together with the principal
citizens of Jerusalem, including the prophet Ezekiel, was deported.
A third son of Josiah, named Mattaniah or Zedekiah, was appointed
king by the conqueror. The early part of his reign was quiet, but
the unenlightened war party, which trusted in the oracles of its own
prophets and in the promises of the king of Mizrim, forced the king
to revolt, thus involving his people in the fate long foreseen by the
prophet Jeremiah. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and a
second captivity, followed. The sons of Zedekiah were slain; he himself
was blinded.
OPERATIONS OF NEBUCHADREZZAR
It is true, the possibility must be allowed for, that the Arabians
were but the helpers of the (true) Babylonians in their destructive
operations, and that captives were carried away, partly to Babylon,
partly into northern Arabia. It is at any rate difficult to believe
that no captives of Judah at all went to Babylon. It is stated by
the late Babylonian historian Berosus (if we may trust Josephus)
that Nebuchadrezzar, who succeeded his father Nabopolassar after the
destruction of Nineveh, conquered Egypt, Syria, Phœnicia and Arabia,
from which countries he carried away captives. Egypt, however,
Nebuchadrezzar cannot, apparently, be shown to have conquered, and the
statement made by Berosus in another quotation of Josephus relative
to the destruction of Jerusalem may not contain the whole truth.
Inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar are urgently wanted. At any rate, so
far as we can learn from the evidence producible by criticism from the
Hebrew writings, the bulk of the captives went into northern Arabia,
and the oppression of the Jews in Judah, wherever this is referred to,
appears to have proceeded from Arabians.
FALL OF JUDAH; RISE OF A NEW JEWISH PEOPLE
The events of the following period, however, are only known in a
legendary form. The disciples of Jeremiah appear to have remembered
that a Judahite was the first governor set up in the land of Judah,
by which is probably meant the cities occupied by Judahites in the
Negeb. Also that numerous fugitives escaped for a time into the land
still known as Mizrim. Ezekiel was hardly in Babylonia, but in a
northern Arabian territory; the text of Ezekiel which refers to “the
land of Chaldea” has been manipulated. This prophet was one of the
heroes of the monotheistic movement, but he did not confine himself,
like Jeremiah, to denouncing the corrupt popular religion; he saw
that only by a strict organisation of the ritual could the people be
trained to a pure worship of the one true God. His successors, nameless
but influential men, carried on his work, the description of which,
however, belongs rather to a history of the literature of Judaism than
to a history of the Jews.
The facts relating to the revival of the Jewish people in their own
land are difficult to ascertain. Our most trustworthy records are
the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah (i.-viii.). From these we
learn that Zerubbabel (this form of the name is hardly original),
the civil head of the Judahite community, laid the foundation of the
temple, and with him we hear of the high priest Jeshua as stirring
up the people to the work of rebuilding. There are also traces of
ambitious hopes of the recovery of the national independence through
Zerubbabel. Whether the chronological statements of these books in
their present forms can be relied upon is more doubtful, while to
restore to some extent the original forms of the Books of Ezra and
Nehemiah requires a keen criticism such as has only lately been begun.
So much, however, is plain that our ideas of this period require not
a little reconstruction. The chief opponents of the Jews in Judah
were not “Samaritans,” but Shimronites (_i.e._, the mixed population
of the Negeb) and Arabians, and there is reason to suspect that the
historical and geographical framework of both books was originally such
as we should expect from the prominence of the northern Arabians in the
destruction of Jerusalem.
CYRUS; AND THE LIBERATION
That the liberator of the Jewish captives was Cyrus, is at first sight
plausible, but no mention occurs in the extant inscriptions of Cyrus of
any restoration of exiles to their native land, nor do the prophecies
of Haggai and Zechariah appear to presuppose any such restoration on a
large scale. It is very possible, however, that some Jewish exiles had
returned from northern Arabia before the surrender of Babylon to Cyrus,
and, indeed, that Haggai and Zechariah exercised their ministry before
that event. Ezekiel (vi. 4) expects the captivity of Judah to last only
forty years, and part of his book is occupied by a kind of programme
for the restored theocracy. There is also a tradition (2 Kings xxv.
27) that a Babelite (Jerahmeelite) king signalised his accession by
releasing Jehoiachin from prison in the thirty-seventh year of his
captivity.
That by degrees more and more Babylonian Jews returned, is also a
probable conjecture, and even those who stayed behind were doubtless
serviceable both by pecuniary and by intellectual contributions. The
intellectual help of the Jews of Babylon must, indeed, have been
considerable; the highly developed literary and religious cultus
of Babylon cannot have been altogether lost upon them, nor must we
underrate the religious influence of Persia. It would seem, however,
that though Judah doubtless became part of the Persian empire, it
continued to groan under Arabian oppression. The expansion of the
northern Arabian races was irresistible, and the Persian rulers do not
seem to have interfered in behalf of the Jews. As time went on, these
rulers themselves appear to have altered for the worse.
THE PTOLEMIES AND SELEUCIDÆ AS LORDS OF PALESTINE; THE MACCABEES
Hence, like other nations, the Jews were ready to welcome Alexander
the Great as a God-sent deliverer. Long before his arrival a more
developed law-book, carrying out Ezekiel’s ideas, had been introduced
at Jerusalem, in spite of considerable opposition. It is said to have
been brought by the scribe Ezra from Babel, but whether Babylon or the
land of Jerahmeel was originally meant, is disputed.
For the following period we are mainly dependent on Josephus and on
the Book of Maccabees. The former is not very trustworthy; the first,
and, to some extent, the second Book of Maccabees, however, repay the
student. Under the first three Ptolemies (306-221) the Jews were well
off, but during the struggle between the Ptolemies and the Seleucidæ,
they became not disinclined for a change of masters. From 198-197 B.C.
onwards Judea formed part of the Syrian kingdom, and in this period
we meet with a movement among the Jews towards Greek culture. This was
favoured by the ruling power; the Seleucidæ were favourable, as the
Ptolemies now were, to a Hellenising of the subject nationalities.
Antiochus Epiphanes went further than his predecessors, and dreamed
of a universal adoption of Greek culture and of the recognition by
all races of the Olympian Zeus as supreme God. Other Syrian peoples
complied with his demands. If the Jews refused, it was obstinacy which
deserved punishment.
The priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem brought themselves to yield;
Yahveh and Zeus could be regarded as identical. But there were Jews
who saw the inherent weakness of compromise, and valued their ideals
more than life, so successful had been the movement towards strict
legal orthodoxy, connected with the name of Ezra. It was a country
priest named Mattathias, who, with his sons, set an example of heroic
resistance. The supreme command of the revolters was taken by the third
of the brothers, Judas Maccabæus (166 B.C.), and such was his success
that exactly three years after the temple had been profaned, the signs
of heathenism were removed and the legal cultus restored. This was
the main object of the struggle. Judas, however, was not content with
the concession, which was offered to the Jews, of religious liberty.
We need not deny that earthly ambition had to do with his refusal,
but, no doubt, he also thought that without political independence the
freedom of the pious community was insecure. And it so happened that
the disputes between the various claimants of the Syrian throne made
it easy for Jonathan--a diplomatist not less than a general--to gain
more and more advantages. In 143-142 B.C., Jonathan’s successor, Simon,
concluded formal peace with Demetrius II, and in the following year the
Syrian garrison evacuated the Acra at Jerusalem. Simon himself was,
by a popular decree, made hereditary high priest and ethnarch. He was
succeeded by his son, John Hyrcanus, who extended his comparatively
narrow territory by conquest; Shechem, Samaria and Edom became Jewish.
JUDAS ARISTOBULUS; END OF THE ASMONÆAN MONARCHY
Of Judas Aristobulus, according to Josephus, not much good can be
said (105-104 B.C.). All considerations of piety were sacrificed to
political expediency. Strabo, however, in the name of Timagenes, speaks
favourably of him. As a Sadducee and a “philhellen” it is possible that
he was calumniously misrepresented by the Pharisees. He was the first
of his family to assume the title of king. The eldest of his three
brothers, Alexander Jannæus (104-78 B.C.), came to the throne by the
favour of Alexandra, or Salome, his deceased brother’s widow, who also
gave him her hand. His aim was to extend the limits of his kingdom,
so that he was almost always conducting military operations. At home
his struggle with the Pharisees and their friends (inevitable in the
first instance, no doubt) was carried on with a cruelty worthy of a
heathen. On one occasion six hundred Jews were massacred for insulting
him while he was discharging his priestly office. He was succeeded by
his widow, Alexandra, who nominated her eldest son, Hyrcanus II, high
priest. By the advice, it is said, of Jannæus, she made peace with the
Pharisees; indeed, as the same authority (Josephus) assures us, “she
had indeed the name of royalty, but the Pharisees had the power.” In
fact, there was a Pharisean reaction, and the Talmud represents the
age of Simon ben Shetach (a celebrated Pharisee) and Queen Salome as
a golden age, in which even the grains of corn attained a miraculous
size. Externally, the queen showed both energy and prudence. A serious
danger from Tigranes of Armenia was arrested, partly by bribes, partly
by a diversion caused by the Romans under Lucullus (69 B.C.).
No sooner was the queen dead than a war broke out between the
brothers, Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, the one able and daring, the
other easy-going and indolent, which was destined to close with the
extinction of Jewish liberty. Hyrcanus, being the eldest son, had the
right of succession, but ill success in war induced him to abdicate
the royal and high-priestly dignities in favour of Aristobulus, on
condition that he was left in the enjoyment of his property. But this
arrangement did not last long. The younger Antipater, governor of
Idumæa, and himself an Idumæan, saw clearly that he could do better for
himself under the weakling Hyrcanus than under the warlike Aristobulus.
Taking Hyrcanus’ side, he persuaded him that his life was in danger,
and that he must flee to the Nabatæan prince Aretas III. This he did,
and Aretas took the field against Jerusalem to redress his wrongs.
Aristobulus defended himself in the temple, and the siege promised
to be a long one, when Pompey, who was then in Asia, sent his legate
Scaurus into Syria (65 B.C.), who at first decided for Aristobulus. In
the spring of 63 B.C. Pompey himself appeared, and finally decided for
Hyrcanus, who was therefore again installed as high priest. Aristobulus
was arrested; his adherents defended themselves in the temple, which
was at length captured by the Romans. The Asmonæan monarchy was at an
end. All the succeeding high priests were vassals of the Romans.
ROMAN RULE; DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM
Judea now became a subdivision of the Roman province of Syria. The
religious institutions, however, which antedated the Maccabæan rising
still continued; liberty of worship was guaranteed by Pompey. But so
strong was the attachment of the people to the Asmonæan family that
a succession of revolts broke out. Meantime, the power of Antipater
went on increasing; Hyrcanus was too weak to oppose him; from Rome,
too, he received signal marks of favour, being even made governor of
Judea. A rival, however, gained over the cupbearer of Hyrcanus, who put
Antipater to death by poison as he was one day dining with Hyrcanus (43
B.C.).
Thus Antipater had fallen, but the power of his family was not
diminished thereby. One of his sons, Herod, had already shown his
energy as governor of Galilee; he now displayed his craft in adapting
himself to the vicissitudes of the supreme Roman power. A closing
struggle between Herod and Antigonus--the last representative of the
Asmonæan family--terminated in Herod’s favour. Antigonus was beheaded
at Antioch by order of Mark Antony, “supposing he could in no other way
bend the minds of the Jews so as to receive Herod whom he had made king
in his stead” (Josephus).
On the news of the battle of Actium (31 B.C.), Herod lost no time
in passing over to the winning side. Though aware of his loyalty to
Antony, Octavian confirmed him in his kingship. It is an eternal blot
upon Herod’s character that he swept away the last representatives of
the Asmonæan family. It is true, he considered this indispensable to
the security of his throne. By princely gifts he kept the Romans on his
side, though the concessions of Cæsar and the senate were sufficiently
justified by the proof of his capacity as a governor. He put down
Arabian robbers, created magnificent cities, and helped his people in
times of famine. Yet the Jews were never drawn to his person; he was
after all only an Edomite, and he curried favour with a heathen power.
Herod died 4 B.C. Mommsen, the historian of the Roman Empire, has said
that there is no royal house of any age in which such bloody domestic
quarrels raged.
His dominions were apportioned among his sons Archelaus, Antipas and
Philip. Archelaus became ethnarch of Idumæa, Judea, and Samaria, with
the exception of certain cities; Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and
Peræa; Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis, Batanæa, Gaulanitis and Paneas.
This arrangement soon came to an end, so far as the government of
Archelaus was concerned. He was deposed by Augustus, and his dominions
were incorporated in the province of Syria, but specially entrusted to
a procurator. The vicissitudes of the other governments we cannot here
follow. Herod Agrippa had for a time the realm of his grandfather, but
after his death (44 A.D.) the whole of Palestine came under the direct
authority of Rome, and was ruled by procurators (Pontius Pilate, 26-36
A.D.) under the supervision of the governor of Syria.
The Jews had wished this, but the oppressiveness of the new rule was
powerfully felt. Discontent became rife. At length Gessius Florus
disregarded justice to such an extent that war became inevitable. In
Jerusalem the war party obtained the predominance. Preparation was made
for the defence of the country, which was mapped out into districts,
each with its own commander. The man responsible for Galilee was
Josephus, a Pharisee, but destined to become a friend of the Romans,
and the historian of the war. Nero, when informed of the threatening
state of affairs, summoned the general, Vespasian, and entrusted him
with the conduct of the war against the revolters. Vespasian’s son,
Titus, brought two legions from Alexandria; he himself proceeded to
Antioch, and took command of another legion together with auxiliary
troops. The scene of war was at first in Galilee.
The Jews met with great misfortunes, but this only intensified the
fanatical excitement of the party of zealots, which obtained the upper
hand in Jerusalem. Vespasian adopted a waiting attitude, and was at
length precluded from taking a decisive step by grave news from Rome.
Vitellius had followed Otho as emperor, but the legions in the East
disapproved, and in July, 67, Vespasian was acclaimed emperor. He
hastened to Rome, leaving the siege of Jerusalem to his son Titus. For
two years party strife had raged in the city. The priestly aristocrats
were accused of treachery; the zealots were too obviously careful for
nothing but the intoxication of an otherworldly enthusiasm.
Many false prophets arose and led many astray, as an apocalyptic
passage in the Gospel says; Josephus asserts that they were suborned by
the tyrants (_i.e._ by the dominant faction) to keep the people from
deserting. At length the end came. The city and temple were destroyed.
The golden altar of incense, the golden candlestick and the Book of the
Law were taken to Rome and exhibited to the populace in the triumph of
Vespasian and Titus.
Still, though the temple was destroyed, the Jewish religion remained,
and the wonder is that the Pharisees and teachers of the Law should
have been able so skilfully to adjust the religious and social systems
to the altered circumstances. Could the Jews have put aside the hope
of a sudden divine intervention, and devoted themselves to the task of
witnessing for righteousness within the wide limits of the Roman world,
the Jewish people would yet have recovered from even such a great
humiliation. But the transcendentalism which pervades so much of the
later Jewish literature was too deeply seated to be expelled from the
national mind. And the command of the emperor Hadrian that Jerusalem
should be rebuilt as a Roman colony, was the spark which rekindled the
flame of revolt.
Again the Jews in Palestine flew to arms with the sympathy of the
entire Jewish world. Their leader was a certain Simon, surnamed
Bar Kosiba, or Bar Kocheba, who claimed to be the Messiah, and was
recognised as such even by Rabbi Alciba. His coins bear the legend
“Simon, Prince of Israel.” He actually succeeded in “liberating”
Jerusalem; the sacrificial system, too, was probably restored. Julius
Severus had to be brought from Britain to crush the rebellion. The
closing struggle took place at Bether, now Bittir, to the southwest
of Jerusalem. After a heroic resistance the fortress was taken, Bar
Kocheba having been already slain. The war had probably lasted three
and a half years (132-135 A.D.).
The history of the expansion of Judaism from a national to a universal
religion has too many lacunæ for us to attempt it here. We have but
given the outward history of the people which was the appointed
bearer of the monotheistic idea. These facts are themselves highly
significant. They show the wonderful receptivity of the Jewish race;
they also show that there was, at least, in certain heroes of the race,
a moral enthusiasm which converted all experiences, as well as all
intellectual acquisitions, into the basis of an ever higher and nobler
faith in God. The evolution, however, of pure spiritual religion was
far from complete when the old Jerusalem passed away forever, and the
name of Israel had become little more than a rhetorical archaism.
HEBREW HISTORY IN OUTLINE
A PRELIMINARY SURVEY COMPRISING A CURSORY VIEW OF THE SOURCES OF HEBREW
HISTORY, THE SWEEP OF EVENTS, AND A TABLE OF CHRONOLOGY
The modern historian knows as little of the origin of the Hebrews as he
knows of the beginnings of the racial history of any other nation. The
Hebrew traditions, according to which the race originated in Chaldea,
and migrated thence under Father Abraham, are familiar to every one
through the Bible records. There is no reason to doubt that here, as
elsewhere, the national tradition represents at least a general outline
of the historical truth. But the scientific historian of to-day looks
askance at all unverified traditions of antiquity, and it is becoming
more and more common to begin the history of Israel with the Egyptian
sojourn, or at least to treat the prior history of the race as merely
traditional.
There are ethnologists, indeed, who regard the Hebrews as primarily of
Egyptian origin; but such a theory is only tenable on the assumption
that the entire Semitic race came originally from the valley of the
Nile. For it is not at all in question that the Hebrews were closely
related ethnically to the Semitic races of Mesopotamia. Whatever the
ultimate origin of the Semites, it need not be doubted that the Hebrews
were the offshoot of that portion of the race which had settled at
an early day in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates. It must be
admitted, however, that the present day historian has no such tangible
records of the pre-Egyptian history of the Hebrews as have been
discovered for the early period of Babylonian history.
Even as regards the Egyptian sojourn of the Hebrews, our records are by
no means so secure as could be wished. Despite patient searching, the
monuments of Egypt fail to reveal any traces of the Jewish captivity.
A few years ago it was thought that a monument discovered by Professor
Flinders Petrie, in the tomb of Meneptah at Thebes, had at last
furnished the long looked for mention of the people of Israel. As
Meneptah, the son and successor of Ramses II, was believed to be the
Pharaoh of the Exodus, this inscription naturally excited the widest
curiosity and the most eager expectations. But when fully elucidated,
the record was found to contain merely a somewhat doubtful reference to
the Hebrews as a people existing at the time of Meneptah, throwing no
light whatever on the vexed question of the Exodus. No other reference
to the people of Israel has been found in the Egyptian records. Of
course, such a record may exist as yet undiscovered; but as the task
of searching the Egyptian monuments goes on, this becomes increasingly
improbable. It would appear that national egoism, which is the
birthright of every people, gave to the Egyptian sojourn an importance
in the eyes of the Hebrews themselves, which it did not possess for
their captors. There is little reason, therefore, to suppose that the
Hebrews made any important impression on the course of Egyptian history.
It is quite otherwise, however, when we consider the probable influence
of the Egyptian residence upon the Hebrews themselves. What they may
have been, before going to Egypt, is only inferential; but there is no
reason to suppose that they were other than an uncultivated, partially
civilised, nomadic race. The contact with the high civilisation of
the Egyptians may have had upon them some such effect as the contact
with the Romans had in later times upon the barbaric German hordes. In
any event it is notable that the Hebrews after their migration, and
throughout the period of their subsequent history, were firmly imbued
with some essentially Egyptian ideas. They alone, of ancient people
other than the Egyptians, practised a circumcision. It is at least an
open question whether the Hebrew belief in the immortality of the soul
was not gained through contact with the people of the Nile. This entire
subject, however, is too new and too deeply hedged in by prejudice and
preconception, to be susceptible of full and satisfactory handling
at the present time. Fortunately, the main facts of Hebrew political
history may be discussed with greater certitude.
After leaving Egypt, the Hebrews settled in the region of the Jordan,
and entered upon a localised national existence. But for several
centuries they made too small a mark to be remembered otherwise than by
vague tradition; and even at their best, they cut no very large figure
in the scheme of political news in the ancient world. There was but one
period when they attempted, with any measure of success, to rival their
powerful neighbours. This was the brief period when David and his son
Solomon occupied the throne. The wars of David, if not so extensive
as those of some of his contemporaries, have left no less sanguinary
records of pillage and plunder than the records of other oriental
conquests; and Solomon, under whose government the kingdom reached its
apex of political glory, so far succeeded in vying with other kings,
that his name became a byword of magnificence to later generations,
though it probably did not dazzle his contemporaries. If the national
tendency toward exaggeration has not played false to the facts, Solomon
established a record, in one regard at least, that has not been
equalled to this day: his harem of a thousand wives and concubines has
no historical counterpart.
Yet after all the Hebrew monarchy, in its golden age, must have seemed
a petty state as viewed from the contemporary standpoint of the
Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and, perhaps, even the Hittites. The
absence of contemporary references is sufficient evidence of this fact.
And after the death of Solomon almost every vestige of world-historical
importance vanished from the divided Hebrew nation. The weak and
senescent people, whose whole time of glory had compassed but two brief
generations, was from this time on to struggle for national existence,
with no thought of conquest; it asked only that it might be allowed to
live. And this boon was vouchsafed, despite vicissitudes of fortune
that would have pressed out the very life of almost any other nation.
The Assyrians and the Babylonians repeatedly put the Israelites to the
sword; yet that conquered people maintained its integrity long after
these persecutors had ceased to have national existence. In one sense,
this time of decline had greater importance than any other period that
preceded it, because its vicissitudes gave rise to that impassioned
poetry of denunciation which remained, and will always remain, the
chief glory of Hebrew history. Thanks largely to this poetry, the
Hebrews first began to have a truly world-historical importance
some centuries after the Romans effected their final dispersion.
All through their life as an autonomist nation they vainly strove
to vie with their neighbours in royal power, looking out upon other
peoples jealously, and accepting their own insignificance with angry
protest. Yet by a strange irony of fortune the despised Hebrew was to
be chiefly responsible for preserving the memory of his more glorious
contemporaries. For two thousand years the swords of the Assyrians and
Babylonians were remembered chiefly because the stylus of the Hebrew
scribe had told of their prowess.
OUR SOURCES
A little over half a century ago James Ferguson, the historian of
architecture, commented on the lack of Hebrew records as follows:
“It is one of the peculiarities of the Jewish history, and certainly
not one of the least singular, that all we know of them is derived from
their written books. Not one monument, not one sculptured stone, not
one letter of an inscription, not even a potsherd, remains to witness
by a material fact the existence of the Jewish kingdom. No museum ever
possessed a Jewish antiquity, while Egypt, Assyria, Greece, and all the
surrounding countries teem with material evidence of former greatness,
and of the people that once inhabited them.”
Half a century of investigation has altered somewhat the aspect of
Hebrew archæology. It is no longer quite true that there are no Hebrew
antiquities in any museum. But the number of these antiquities is so
small, and their importance so slight from an historical standpoint,
that Ferguson’s criticism remains true in spirit if not in letter.
The most patient researches in Palestine, beginning with the famous
tour of Ernest Renan, have failed to bring to light more than two
or three Hebrew inscriptions, as against the tens of thousands of
records from Mesopotamia. Nor is it at all probable that any startling
finds will ever be excavated. In all probability the ancient records
of the Hebrews have almost utterly perished, whereas in Mesopotamia
there are doubtless myriads of inscribed tablets to reward the future
searcher. In Palestine it is almost certain there are no such stores
of buried treasure undiscovered. Nor is the reason for this paucity of
antiquities hard to find. The explanation is found in the seemingly
paradoxical fact that the cities of the Israelites were not destroyed
in ancient times, and continued to be inhabited far into the Middle
Ages, or, as in the case of Jerusalem, until the present day. It will
be recalled that the Babylonian and Assyrian tablets were preserved
beneath the ruins of destroyed cities, and the most important
collections have come from Nineveh, the city that was overthrown in
the most cataclysmic manner. It requires but a moment’s consideration
to make it clear that all of the tablets that were preserved beneath
the ruins of Nineveh would long since have been scattered or broken
had they continued to be accessible to successive generations of that
destructive animal, man. Making the application to the case of the
Hebrews it is clear that their antiquities were in fact scattered and
destroyed in the course of time as those of Nineveh would have been
under those circumstances.
It should be added, however, that it is doubtful whether the Hebrews
produced inscriptions on relatively imperishable materials in such
relative abundance as did the Mesopotamians. The Hebrews came upon
the historical field at a comparatively late day. It has been doubted
whether any of their records were written much before the eighth or
ninth century B.C.; and it is probable that they largely employed such
perishable materials as the papyrus and animal skins to receive their
writings. Doubtless the clay tablet of Babylonia was well known to
them; indeed, they cannot have failed to be familiar with this document
through the experiences of the Babylonian captivity. But it does not
follow that they largely adopted the customs of their Mesopotamian
cousins. There is, then, perhaps, a double reason for the paucity of
ancient Hebrew inscriptions: the destructive agency of time acting upon
a supply which was relatively meagre in the beginning.
All this applies to original inscriptions comparable to those which
have come down to us from Egypt and Mesopotamia. But as every one
knows, the story is quite different when we consider the Hebrew records
that have come down to us through the efforts of successive generations
of copyists. Here again we find that the case of the Israelites is
sharply contrasted with that of the Assyrio-Babylonians. The records of
the latter, produced in such abundance, and preserved by burial, were
soon forgotten, because no lineal descendants of the people who made
them were at hand to interest themselves in their preservation. The
Hebrew records were passed down from one generation to another through
a never ending series of copies: so that, curiously enough, the same
agency which resulted in the destruction of the original documents
themselves effected at the same time a permanent preservation of their
contents. Thus it has happened that the oriental nation which has left
us the fewest antiquities has sent down to us the most voluminous and
complete literature.
It is to this literature of the Hebrews themselves that we must chiefly
look for the history of that people. Contemporary nations paid but
little attention to the Israelites, and the historians of Egypt,
Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome have left us only random references,
which in the aggregate suffice to give only the barest glimpses of
Hebrew history. Aside from the Bible, including the apocryphal books,
the only considerable texts that have come down to us, even from
classical times, is the work of Josephus; and that author, it will be
recalled, was himself a Jew, though he wrote in the Greek language.
But for that matter the oldest existing texts of the Bible itself are
also in the Greek language. No Hebrew text is known from earlier than
the ninth century A.D.; whereas three reasonably complete Greek codices
date from the fourth century A.D.
The authenticity of the various texts of the Hebrew writings need not
be discussed here. It is estimated that the various manuscripts in the
Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and other languages that are to-day preserved,
present, when their texts are critically compared, about one hundred
and fifty thousand discrepancies. Under these circumstances there must
obviously be certain doubts about the exact reading of many texts; but
it is held that the discrepancies as a whole are of minor importance;
and doubtless in most instances it may safely be assumed that such is
the case. In the main, the chief substance of the original text has
probably been preserved, even where details have been consciously or
unconsciously altered.
As to the reliability of the original records thus preserved, opinions
differ widely. It seems to be generally conceded that the Hebrews
were somewhat lacking in the true historical sense, being in this
regard comparable rather to the Egyptians, than to their relatives the
Babylonians. But on the other hand, what has already been said about
the general reliability of national traditions may be applied with full
force here. The most sceptical historian will hardly deny that in their
broad outlines the books of the Old Testament give expression to the
actual facts of Hebrew history, however prejudiced the point of view,
and however lacking the sense of chronology. In any event, whatever
doubt may be cast upon the authenticity of any particular Bible record,
the fact remains that, generally speaking, the Bible records as a whole
constitute practically our sole source for ancient Hebrew history. As
has been said, the references made here and there by other nations, by
which the Bible records may be checked, have abundant interest, but
can hardly be said to be truly consequential. There is, indeed, but
a single inscription known to us in the original which makes direct
reference to a specific event mentioned in the Bible. This unique
monument is the famous Moabite stone, which bears an inscription in
which King Mesha refers to an encounter with the Hebrews, which is told
of from the other standpoint in the Bible reference. For all practical
purposes, then, it is to the Bible alone that the historian must turn
in attempting to reconstruct the history of Israel. No one need be
reminded with what zeal this source has been investigated.
The attitude of the modern critic towards the Hebrew texts has changed
very radically within the past few generations. As long ago as the
year 1753 Dr. Astruc, court physician to Louis XV, pointed out that
the earlier books of the Old Testament were not homogeneous. The
suggestion was at that time regarded as most iconoclastic, and it
had little influence. But in the nineteenth century a new school of
scientific criticism arose which went back virtually to the position of
Dr. Astruc, then forged ahead to still more iconoclastic conclusions.
It was pointed out that two different sources had been used in the
compilation of the first two chapters of Genesis. A further analysis
placed the heterogeneous nature of the Pentateuch, or as one school of
critics would prefer, the Hexateuch, seemingly beyond question. The
upshot of the matter, so far as this can be phrased in a few words, is
that many books of the Old Testament, once regarded as of undisputed
authorship, are now considered by the dominant school of critics to be
anonymous. Indeed, this remark applies, according to Professor Ewald,
to the narrative books of the Old Testament without exception. Ewald’s
views on the subject are worth quoting _in extenso_ as showing the
opinion of a recognised leader of this new school of criticism.
“There is one general token by which, in spite of its apparent
insignificance, we can at once recognise with tolerable certainty the
whole distinctive character of Hebrew historiography in relation to a
special science of history. This token is the anonymous character of
the historical books.
“The historian did not mention himself as the author nor do the readers
make much inquiry after his name; this custom is persistent throughout
and was only gradually changed in the last centuries, as may be
concluded from the book of Ezra and Nehemiah, and from the Chronicles
which question more particularly as to the names of the authors of
more ancient histories. Moreover, it is only in these last days of the
ancient people that names like ‘Book of Moses’ or ‘Books of Samuel’
appear, as will be shown presently. We must say that the practice of
writing anonymously was established for the historical works from the
very first, and that in the most flourishing times of historiography
it was retained unaltered; it was just this that constituted the
fundamental distinction between the writing of Hebrew history and that
of both Greek and Arab (especially Mohammedan), and here was a failing
from which it never properly freed itself even in later times. Much as,
amongst the Indians, little inquiry has from ancient times been made
concerning the author of a Purana, and the individual himself did not
usually mention his own name.”
This estimate may doubtless be regarded as fairly representative of
the opinions of such modern authorities as Wellhausen, Stade, Kittel,
and Cheyne. It would be far afield from the present purpose to enter
into a discussion of this subject in detail. Needless to say, there is
scarcely any other topic that has excited more general interest or more
acrimonious controversy. But for the purposes of the general historian
it suffices to know that the historical writings of the Hebrews are now
subjected to the same kind of analysis that is applied to the other
writings of antiquity, and that, making the usual allowances for the
ambiguities of an unscientific age, for the national prejudice of a
peculiarly stubborn and egotistical people, and for the chronological
inaccuracies of a race somewhat deficient in the historical sense, the
Hebrew writings, like the writings of the old Greek historians, may be
said to have stood fairly well the test of modern criticism.
Overlooking, for the present purpose, the traditional early wanderings
of the race, the history of Israel as a nation properly begins with the
occupation of the land of Canaan. The tribes practically occupy the
territories subsequently called after them, and become consolidated
into a nation. But the Philistines and Phœnicians still hold the coast
land, and the Canaanites some of their central strongholds.
THE AGE OF THE JUDGES (1180-1020 B.C.)
B.C. The so-called judges are tribal chiefs, military leaders,
who in this period stand at the head of the state. There
is no regular transmission of authority, and no one is at
the head of all the tribes at once. Sometimes they rule
contemporaneously. In this age of settlement the bonds
between the different tribes gradually become dissolved
as they attain to security and peace. The earlier judges
carry on the conquest of Canaan, and repel some outside
invaders. Barak of Kadesh prompted by the prophet Deborah
deals a crushing blow on the banks of the Kishor to a strong
coalition of northern Canaanites under the leadership of
Sisera. Gideon, one of the judges, puts a stop to the
frequent incursions of the Midianites. The need of a
monarchy begins to be felt. Gideon refuses a crown offered
by the tribes of central Palestine, but his son Abimelech,
aided by Shechemite kinsfolk, attempts to found a kingship.
He is unsuccessful owing to internal dissension among his
followers.
Jephthah leads the Gileadites in a successful campaign
against the Ammonites, and this leads to a bloody tribal
conflict between the Gileadites and Ephraimites. There are
short wars with Philistia, with which the name of Samson the
Danite is connected. In one of them the Israelites are
1040 badly beaten at Aphek and the Ark of the Covenant captured.
The latter is returned after seven months, and sent to
Kirjath-jearim for safe keeping. The tribes are rapidly
becoming disorganised, though by conquest and fusion with
the Canaanites they have become a large and vigorous people.
The old religion is almost forgotten. In this age probably
belongs the beginning of Hebrew literature, and the use of
writing becomes common.
About twenty years after the battle of Aphek, Samuel, the
last of the judges, calls an assembly of the tribes at
Mizpeh. Law and order are restored in the community, and
the covenant with Yahveh renewed. To complete the work of
unification, Saul of Benjamin is elected king of Israel, and
anointed by Samuel. Samuel also establishes schools of the
prophets (Nebiim) in various parts of the land, whose main
duties are to keep the light of religion from dying out, and
to preserve the feeling of national unity.
THE MONARCHY TO THE DIVISION OF ISRAEL (1020-930 B.C.)
1020 =Saul.=--He delivers Jabesh-Gilead from the besieging
Ammonites, and assisted by his son Jonathan, conducts a
successful war against the Philistines. His leniency towards
Agag, king of the Amalekites, brings about his rejection
by Samuel. David, an unknown youth, becomes attached to
the king’s person, probably on account of his skill as a
musician. Saul finally regards David as a rival, and exiles
him. David gathers his tribesmen and many malcontents about
him, and makes the Cave of Adullam his stronghold. He attacks
1010 the Philistines and the Amalekites. Saul and three sons are
slain at Mount Gilboa in a battle with the Philistines, and
=Eshbaal= (=Ishbosheth=), a surviving son, is made king
by Abner, Saul’s general. David returns to Hebron and is
anointed king of Judah. After several conflicts between the
forces of the rival kings, Abner quarrels with Eshbaal and
makes overtures to David, but is shortly assassinated by
Joab.
1002 Murder of Eshbaal. =David= is invited to the throne of all
Israel. Judah becomes the leading tribe. The Philistines
revolt. David defeats them at Baal-perazim and Rephaim. Gath
becomes tributary. David dislodges the Canaanites from Jebus
and refounds the city, now Jerusalem. Royal palace on Mount
Zion built. The Ark is brought from Kirjath-jearim to the
new capital. David goes to war to defend and consolidate his
kingdom. Campaigns against Edom, Moab, and Ammon. Rabbath
Ammon captured, and inhabitants barbarously put to death.
His son =Absalom= rebels and receives such support that
David flees from Jerusalem, and Absalom takes possession.
The king returns after Absalom’s death. The revolt of
Sheba is suppressed and punished. Through her influence,
Bathsheba succeeds in having her son Solomon appointed heir
over Adonijah, the eldest son. The kingdom now extends from
the borders of Egypt to the Euphrates on the west, and the
Orontes on the north.
970 =Solomon.=--King at David’s death. He puts Adonijah, Joab,
and Shimei to death at once. Banishes Abiathar the high
priest, and installs Zadok. Marries daughter of the Pharaoh
(probably Pasebkhanu II). Makes alliance with Hiram of Tyre.
Builds fortresses and institutes an elaborate system of
taxation, which arouses discontent and jealousy.
966-959 Building of the temple at Jerusalem. In the luxuries
of the court various forms of heathen worship creep in,
and the oppression of the people to support the king’s
splendour, paves the way to disruption. Hadad of Edom and
Rezon of Damascus become powerful rivals.
940 Jeroboam of Ephraim, revolts with the help of Ahijah of
Shiloh. The plot fails, and Jeroboam seeks refuge with
Shashanq I of Egypt.
930 At death of Solomon, the ten northern tribes which get
no promise of better treatment from his successor, openly
revolt, and sending for Jeroboam, elect him their king.
Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, retains Judah and Benjamin only.
THE DIVIDED KINGDOM
JUDAH (930-586 B.C.) ISRAEL (930-722 B.C.) (Judah and Benjamin) (The
Ten Northern Tribes)
930 =Rehoboam= attempts to win back 930 =Jeroboam I= becomes leader of
the ten tribes; finally prevented a democratic movement looking
by the prophet Shemaiah. to the abolishment of the
elective monarchy. Makes Dan
925 Invasion of Judah by Shashanq I and Bethel the chief centres
of Egypt. of religion, where Yahveh
is worshipped in the form of a
Capture and sack of Jerusalem. bull. A new non-Levitical
priesthood started. Ahijah,
920 =Abijam=, king of Judah. the prophet, denounces these
reactionary measures.
917 =Asa=, king of Judah. Wars 917 =Nadab= succeeds his father,
with Israel continue. Asa is murdered after two years by
allies himself with Ben-Hadad 915 =Baasha=, a captain of
I of Damascus. the army, while besieging
Gibbethon. Baasha makes himself
king, and is denounced by the
prophet Jehu. Ben-Hadad
invades Israel.
892 =Elah=, Baasha’s son succeeds
him, and is slain in conspiracy
890 by =Zimri=, one of his
officers, who, usurping the
throne for seven days, is
killed by =Omri=, the commander
of the Israelites, who takes
the throne after slaying
another pretender, Tibni. The
capital of the kingdom is
transferred from Sechem to
Samaria, built by Omri. He
founds the first secure
dynasty in Israel--makes the
Moabites pay tribute, but is
hard pressed by the growing
power of Damascus.
874 =Jehoshaphat=, king of Israel. 875 =Ahab=, king of Israel. Defeats
Alliance of Judah and Israel the Syrians twice, and then, to
through marriage of Jehoram the offence of the prophets,
and Athaliah, daughter of allies himself with them,
Ahab. probably to resist Assyria.
854 Shalmaneser II of Assyria
invades Syria, and defeats
Israelites and Syrians at
Qarqar. The alliance comes to
an end, and Ahab is killed the
following year in attempting to
recover Ramoth-gilead from
Ben-Hadad. Ahab marries
Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal of
Tyre, and the worship of Baal
is instituted at Tyre. The
prophet Elijah vigorously
denounces this course. Contest
between Baal and Yahveh,
after which the latter is
rehabilitated. Elijah flees.
853 =Ahaziah=, king of Israel.
Elijah rebukes him for calling
on Baal-zebub, the god of
Ekron.
851 =Jehoram= succeeds his brother
with help of Jehoshaphat.
Attempts to recover allegiance
of Moabites, but fails.
849 =Jehoram=, son of Jehoshaphat, Elisha, servant and successor
succeeds his father. Athaliah of Elijah, comes into
attempts to introduce the prominence, and makes fierce
heathenism and profligacy of war upon Baal worship, and in
Israel into Judah. The Edomites the course of this anoints
successfully revolt. The Jehu, an officer of the army,
Philistines invade and pillage king. Jehu in revolt at once
Jerusalem. attacks Jehoram and Ahaziah,
who are visiting him, and slays
them both.
844 =Ahaziah= succeeds his father. 843 =Jehu.= Roots out Baal worship
Is killed by Jehu. by fire and sword. The house of
Omri is entirely exterminated.
842 =Athaliah= usurps throne. Kills Comes to terms and pays tribute
all the royal house except Joash, to Shalmaneser II, to protect
who is concealed by the high his kingdom from Syria.
priest Jehoiada. The cult of
Baal established in Jerusalem.
836 Jehoiada organises an
insurrection. Athaliah is
murdered and =Joash= made king.
Reaction against Baal worship,
although the cult still
continues. Prophecies of
Zechariah. Hazael of Damascus
invades Judah.
815 =Jehoahaz=, Jehu’s son,
succeeds him. Ben-Hadad III of
Damascus besieges Samaria, but
withdraws on approach of
Assyrian army.
802 =Jehoash.= Defeats Syrians and
recovers lost cities. Israel
797 =Amaziah.= The Edomites defeated delivered from the Syrian yoke.
in the valley of Salt. Death of Elisha. Defeat and
Declares war upon Israel and capture of Amaziah at
is badly defeated. Assassinated Beth-shemesh. Enters Jerusalem.
at Lachish in a conspiracy. 782 =Jeroboam II=, his son,
succeeds. Recovers all of lost
territory from Syria, reduced
to impotency by Assyria, and
Israel extends once more from
“the entering in of Hamath unto
the sea of the Arabah.”
778 =Azariah (Uzziah).= Builds harbour An era of peace and prosperity
of Elath. Era of commercial begins, although the attitude
prosperity. Kingdom made of Assyria is threatening.
secure against the Philistines.
Uzziah dies a leper. Prophecies of Amos and Hosea.
They denounce the corruption
and heathenism of the people,
and predict the fall of the
kingdom.
741 =Zechariah=, king of Israel.
740 =Jotham=, his son, becomes 740 =Shallum=, a conspirator,
king, after a short regency. murders the king and takes the
throne.
738 =Menahem=, a soldier, kills and
replaces Shallum. Levies an
immense tax to purchase
Tiglathpileser III’s support to
his claim on the throne.
737 =Pekahiah=, his son, succeeds.
736 =Ahaz=, a man of weak character, 736 =Pekah=, an officer at the head
succeeds his father. In spite of a military plot, slays the
of the prophet Isaiah’s warnings, king and seizes the throne.
calls upon Tiglathpileser Allies himself with Rezin of
III to help resist Pekah and Damascus to attack Judah.
Rezin. Religion is in a state
of corrupt decay. Prophecies 734 =Hoshea=, supported by
of Isaiah and Micah. Isaiah Tiglathpileser, slays Pekah,
preaches against the consequences and becomes an Assyrian vassal.
of the Assyrian alliance
to the nation and religion
of Judah, and advises a policy
of quietness; Micah against
the condition of the poor.
727 =Hezekiah.= Carries out moderate
religious reforms in early
years of reign. The religion 725 Hoshea, on Shabak’s advice,
centralised at Jerusalem. withholds tribute from
Many administrative Shalmaneser IV, who at once
improvements in the kingdom. lays siege to Samaria.
722 Capture of Samaria by
Shalmaneser’s successor Sargon
II. The population is deported
beyond the Euphrates, and
replaced by Assyrio-Babylonian
settlers. Absorption of the
northern kingdom by Assyria.
Growing strength, in spite of Isaiah’s warning of the
702 anti-Assyrian party until finally Hezekiah withholds
tribute from Assyria; his example is followed by other
vassal states of Palestine.
701 Sennacherib invades Palestine. Battle of Eltekeh
(Altaku). Tirhaqa of Egypt comes to Hezekiah’s assistance.
The Assyrians, disabled by great pestilence, return to
Nineveh without taking Jerusalem, but Hezekiah resumes
payment of tribute.
695 =Manasseh= succeeds Hezekiah. Revival of Baal worship.
Reaction against disciples of the prophets who are
persecuted. Adoration of the sun and stars introduced from
Assyria, where Manasseh spends some time as a hostage to
Asshurbanapal.
641 =Amon=, king of Judah. Persecution of the faithful Jews
continues.
639 =Josiah=, son of Amon, succeeds at age of eight.
Terrible social and moral conditions exposed in prophecies
of Zephaniah and Nahum.
621 Pretended discovery by Hilkiah of the “Book of the Law”
leading to religious reforms. Idolatrous emblems are cast
out and local sanctuaries abolished.
608 Neku II of Egypt enters Palestine on a career of
conquest. Josiah meets him at Megiddo and is slain.
=Jehoahaz= elected king by the people over his elder
brother, Jehoiakim.
607 Jehoahaz made prisoner by Neku, and =Jehoiakim= placed
on the throne. Judah, weakened and in disorder, becomes an
Egyptian province.
605 Defeat of Neku by Nebuchadrezzar at Carchemish, in
consequence whereof
601 Jehoiakim becomes a vassal of the Babylonian king.
597 Jehoiakim slain in a Chaldean invasion; his son
=Jehoiachin= succeeds. After three months’ reign is carried
captive to Babylon, after the surrender of Jerusalem to
Nebuchadrezzar. The flower of the population is deported
also. =Mattaniah=, Jehoiachin’s uncle, is appointed king and
his name changed to =Zedekiah=. Jeremiah counsels complete
submission to Babylon, but,
588 Zedekiah rebels, relying on the vain promise of Uah-ab-Ra
[Hophra] of Egypt, and as a consequence
588-586 Siege and capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar.
586 The Jews “except the poorest of the land” are carried
into captivity at Babylon. Gedaliah is appointed governor
over the remnant left behind. A few surviving leaders flee
and settle in Egypt, among them Jeremiah. End of the Hebrews
as a nation. Henceforth they exist as a religious community.
Beginning of Judaism.
THE EXILE AND RESTORATION TO THE HEREDITARY HIGH PRIESTS (586-415 B.C.)
586-536 The Period of Exile. The Jews form the nucleus
of a new people. Jehoiachin is released by Amil Marduk
(Evil-Merodach) and treated with kindness. Ezekiel labours
with his people to bear their burden and cheers them with
the hope of restoration. They spend much time in compiling
and revising the literary records of the past. The “Priestly
Code” is compiled.
538 Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus. Persian dominion.
536 Cyrus issues decree permitting Jews to return to
Jerusalem with their sacred vessels and to rebuild the
temple. A band sets out at once headed by Zerubbabel and
Jeshua.
534 The rebuilding of the temple is begun, but interrupted
on account of the opposition of the Samaritans. Haggai and
Zechariah exhort the Jews to complete the temple.
520 The rebuilding is renewed.
516 The temple is dedicated.
510-460 A period whose history is unknown. Zerubbabel may
have been crowned king, but this is doubtful. Judea now
an insignificant province of the empire, controlled by
Persian satraps whose rulers are corrupt and oppressive.
Religious faith again begins to decay. The Law is evaded
and disobeyed, and in this condition of things a small
reactionary and zealous party increase in numbers and
influence.
483 Ezra, a Zadokite priest, is encouraged to visit
Jerusalem on a mission of reform, by Artaxerxes I, who
wishes to conciliate the Jews in Babylon, who are uneasy at
the condition of religion in Judea. His mission fails.
445 Nehemiah, a Babylonian Jew, arrives in Jerusalem with
Artaxerxes’ permission to repair the city’s walls. Ezra
reappears. The Law Book is published and the covenant
between Israel and Yahveh is renewed. The foundation stone
of Judaism is laid. The Law is now the possession of each
Israelite. Nehemiah improves the social condition of the
poor and returns to Persia (433).
432 Second visit of Nehemiah. He finds some of the old
abuses again in practice. The founding of the Samaritan
colony gets rid of those opposed to Nehemiah, and unifies
the loyal Jews.
415 Death of Nehemiah. The internal administration of Judea
passes to the line of hereditary high priests.
THE HIGH PRIESTS TO THE MACCABÆAN RISING (415-167 B.C.)
415 =Eliashib=, high priest. He and his successors direct
the affairs of Judea assisted by a council of elders and
priests.
413 =Joiada= becomes high priest.
373 =Johanan= murders his brother Joshua, who attempts to
seize the high-priesthood. The Persian satrap interferes
and fines the Jews.
350 Judea ravished by Artaxerxes III, while suppressing a
Syrian revolt. The temple destroyed. Many Jews deported.
341 =Jaddua= becomes high priest. The age of “Wisdom”
literature (Khokmah).
333 Overthrow of the Persian Empire by Alexander at the
battle of Issus. Israel has a new master.
323 At death of Alexander, Judea becomes a part of the
satrapy of Syria.
321 =Onias I= becomes high priest.
320 Conquest of Jerusalem by Ptolemy Lagus. He deports some
of the inhabitants to Egypt.
314-302 Judea a Syrian province.
302 Ptolemy Lagus retakes Judea.
300 =Simon the Just= becomes high priest. He repairs the
temple and strengthens the fortifications of the city.
294-280 Judea nominally a Seleucid province.
285 Ptolemy Philadelphus succeeds his father, who abdicates.
The Septuagint version of the Bible begun under his
patronage.
250 =Onias II= becomes high priest. Tries to withhold
tribute from Ptolemy.
247 Ptolemy Euergetes succeeds his father.
222 Ptolemy Philopator succeeds his father.
219 In the war between Antiochus the Great and Ptolemy
Philopator, Jerusalem is pillaged and the temple profaned
by the latter.
217 =Simon II= becomes high priest.
204 Judea lost to the Ptolemies, under whom she has been
happier than any time since she lost her independence,
and comes under the rule of the Seleucidæ.
198 =Onias III= becomes high priest. Antiochus makes a
bloodless capture of Jerusalem. His treatment of the
Jews is very favourable.
187 Seleucus Philopator succeeds Antiochus.
176 Attempt of Heliodorus, instigated by the viceroy
Apollonius, to plunder the temple.
175 Antiochus Epiphanes succeeds Seleucus.
175 =Onias=, friendly to the Egyptian party, is deposed by
Antiochus IV, and retiring to Egypt with his followers
founds Leontopolis. =Jason= becomes high priest. A Greek
gymnasium established at Jerusalem.
172 =Menelaus= ousts Jason from the priesthood.
Antiochus intervenes in the resulting quarrel. Menelaus
is forcibly installed as high priest and Apollonius takes
Jerusalem. Profanation of the temple. Daily sacrifice and
other rites suspended.
THE MACCABÆAN RISING TO THE FALL OF JERUSALEM (167 B.C.-70 A.D.)
167 There is a rising at Modin, under the priest Mattathias,
because Syrian officers try to compel the Jews to worship
heathen deities. Many desperate adherents flock to
Mattathias’ standard, and a large band is soon roaming
the country destroying heathen altars and enforcing
circumcision. Mattathias dies (166) making Judas Maccabæus
his successor. A systematic campaign is now decided upon.
166 Judas Maccabæus defeats the Syrians at Emmaus.
165 Judas Maccabæus defeats the Syrians at Bethzur,
reconsecrates the temple and restores daily sacrifice.
164 Antiochus Eupator. The Book of Daniel is written.
162 Judas attempts to expel the Syrian garrison from Acra,
meets a crushing defeat from the Syrians at Bethzur.
=Alcimus=, leader of the Hellenistic party, becomes high
priest, to the resentment of the Maccabæans.
Demetrius I usurps the Syrian throne, and has Antiochus
killed.
161 Judas defeats Nicanor, the Syrian, at Beth-horon
(Adasa). Nicanor slain. Judas defeated and killed at Elasa.
He had made secret overtures to Rome. Judas’ brother
Jonathan succeeds to the leadership of the party.
159 Death of Alcimus. An interregnum in the high-priestship.
Jonathan establishes himself at Michmash as governor of the
Jewish nation.
153 Alexander Balas, a pretender to the Syrian throne, makes
=Jonathan= high priest.
150 Death of Demetrius.
145 Alexander Balas killed by Ptolemy Philometor. Demetrius
II succeeds. Confirms Jonathan in the priesthood.
142 Trypho, the general of Alexander Balas, and his son
Antiochus, seize Jonathan and put him to death. Simon, son
of Mattathias, assumes the leadership, and induces Demetrius
to release Judea from tribute. Capture of Acra by Simon.
Judea free from Syrian control.
141 =Simon= confirmed as high priest. A time of peace and
prosperity. The Law finally re-established.
135 Murder of Simon and his two sons by his son-in-law,
Ptolemy. The third son, =John Hyrcanus=, succeeds to the
high-priesthood. The position becomes one of practically
independent sovereignty. Antiochus VII attempts to recover
Judea. He devastates the country and Hyrcanus is obliged to
purchase the withdrawal of the army, and the immunity of the
capital.
128 Antiochus killed in Parthia. Hyrcanus annexes new
territory. Captures Shechem and Samaria. Era of grandeur for
the Jewish commonwealth.
105 John Hyrcanus dies. His son =Aristobulus= imprisons
his mother, kills two brothers, and assumes title of king.
Conquest and annexation of Ituræa.
104 =Alexander Jannæus= succeeds his brother. The growing
opposition of the Scribes and Pharisees to the development
of the Maccabæan commonwealth into a kingdom, leads to civil
war, during which the Pharisees summon assistance from Syria
and drive Alexander from Jerusalem, but he recovers the
throne and works bloody revenge upon the Pharisees.
79 =Hyrcanus II= succeeds his father Alexander.
78 Alexandra (widow of Jannæus) makes terms with the
Pharisees.
69 =Aristobulus II= wrests power from his brother Hyrcanus.
Antipater, governor of Idumæa, sides with the latter.
Aristobulus defeated, and Hyrcanus nearly succeeds in
65 regaining the throne, but the Romans appear in Syria,
and take sides with Aristobulus.
63 Pompey, appealed to by both princes, captures Jerusalem;
Hyrcanus retains his title, but Judea is made tributary to
Rome.
47 =Antipater= made procurator of Judea, Samaria, and
Galilee by Julius Cæsar. Hyrcanus assumes title of ethnarch.
43 Assassination of Antipater. His son =Phasael= is governor
of Jerusalem. His son =Herod= is governor of Galilee.
40 Phasael captured by Antigonus, son of Aristobulus II, and
commits suicide. Herod flees to Rome and is made king of the
Jews.
37 Herod captures Jerusalem in his war against Antigonus.
He reorganises the sanhedrim, and the Pharisees become
nearly as numerous in it as the priests and elders.
35-25 Herod removes the surviving members of the Asmonæan
family from his path.
20 Herod begins reconstruction of the temple. He founds the
cities of Antipatris and Cæsarea.
7-6 Herod causes the sons of Mariamne to be condemned and
strangled.
4 Birth of Jesus--Death of Herod. He wills his dominions to
his surviving sons, =Herod Antipas= and =Archelaus=.
6 A.D. The Jews appeal to Rome on account of Archelaus’
misgovernment. Augustus deposes the ethnarch, and Judea
becomes a Roman province.
7 The census of Quirinius takes place. =Coponius= is
procurator. He is followed by =Marcus Ambivius= and =Annius
Rufus=.
15 =Valerius Gratus= appointed procurator.
26 =Pontius Pilate= appointed procurator. The procurators
are subordinate to the Imperial Legates of Syria and reside
at Cæsarea.
29 Jesus begins his ministry.
33 Death of Jesus.
36 =Marcellus= appointed procurator.
37 =Marullus= appointed procurator.
38 Persecution of the Jews for refusing to worship Caligula.
41 The emperor Claudius commits the former kingdom of Herod
to the latter’s grandson, =Agrippa=.
44 Death of Agrippa. =Cuspius Fadus= appointed procurator.
The insurrection of Theudas takes place.
46 =Tiberius Alexander= appointed procurator.
48 =Cumanus= appointed procurator. Signs of revolt among the
Jews appear.
52 =Felix= appointed procurator. The state of anarchy
increases. The Zealots become the dominant party.
60 =Porcius Festus= appointed procurator.
62 =Albinus= appointed procurator.
64 =Gessius Florus=, the last procurator, appointed.
66 =Florus= seizes the temple treasure. After other
atrocities the Jews revolt. The Syrian legate appears before
Jerusalem, but quickly raises the siege. The emperor then
appoints Vespasian to conduct the war.
67 Vespasian arrives in Galilee. Siege and capture of
Jotapata. Josephus the insurgent general taken.
68 Siege of Jerusalem begins.
70 Fall of Jerusalem.
[Illustration: JERUSALEM]
CHAPTER I. LAND AND PEOPLE
It is difficult nowadays to realise how unimportant the people of
Israel seemed in their own time, as viewed by contemporaries. Thanks to
their traditions, which the Western world accepted almost unchallenged
for many centuries, the Hebrews came to be thought of as occupying a
central position in the Oriental world. In point of fact they had no
such position. They were quite overshadowed by numerous competitors.
Except for a brief period under David and Solomon, they were never a
conquering people, or of political consequence. They could not compete
in culture with the Egyptians on the one hand, or with the Assyrians
on the other. They were not great traders like their neighbours, the
Phœnicians. We shall see that they even turned to the latter for aid in
building their famous temple which, after all, as it appears, was but
an insignificant structure compared with the great pyramids and temples
of their neighbours.
Nevertheless, the importance which the Hebrews attained in the eyes
of subsequent generations through their literature, gives them a
world-historical status fully on a plane with that of any other
oriental nation. The smallness of the land, and the relative feebleness
of the people, only serve to emphasise the contrast between material
prosperity and possible intellectual influence. It is curious, however,
looking back from a modern standpoint, to realise how little influence
the Hebrews had in their own day. One can never escape this thought; it
returns to one constantly as one scans the history of the inhabitants
of the tiny land of Palestine.
We have already seen that the Hebrews were a Semitic race, closely
allied to the Mesopotamians. We shall come across many Semitic traits
in dealing with the Israelites, that are familiar through our studies
of the Babylonians and Assyrians. Despite the contention of some modern
ethnologists, most readers will probably feel that the Semite was a
peculiarly cruel and relentless victor when fortune favoured his arms;
but it must be admitted that he was a stubborn, heroic sufferer under
reverses. The persistence of the Hebrew race, scarcely modified to the
present day--the most extraordinary case of racial preservation in all
history--may be traced directly to the dominant ideas which the people
entertained from the earliest times, and which they never relinquished.
A word should be said as to the names “Hebrew,” “Israelite,” and
“Jew,” which are so often used synonymously. Etymologically, a Hebrew
is a descendant of Heber, a great grandson of Shem; an Israelite is a
descendant of Israel, a name given to Jacob after he had proved himself
what the name implies, a “warrior of God”; while a Jew is a descendant
of the kingdom of Judah. The fact that the northern branch of the
divided kingdom took the specific name of Israel, in contradistinction
to the kingdom of Judah, has led to the restricted application of the
name Israel. Nevertheless, it is customary to apply the word in its
wider or original sense, and the more recent historians generally make
the name “Israelite” synonymous with “Hebrew,” as applying to the
entire race from earliest times. It is customary, however, for careful
writers to use the name “Jew” only in reference to the later period of
racial history, as it was the descendants of the kingdom of Judah alone
that maintained racial existence after the Babylonian captivity.[a]
THE LAND
Palestine is the southern portion of Syria. It extends from Mount
Hermon to the desert of Arabia Petræa, between the thirty-first and
thirty-second degree north latitude. The inhabitants of the country
called it Canaan, and its borders are thus defined in the Book of
Genesis: “The border of the Canaanites was from Sidon as thou camest
to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and
Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.” Its eastern boundary, of which
Genesis makes no mention, was probably the Jordan. To the seacoast
the Greeks gave the name of Phœnicia; as for that of Palestine, it
originally denoted only the southwestern part, which was inhabited by
the Pelesheth or Philistines. After the Hebrew conquest, the country
of Canaan, now become the land of Israel, stretched beyond the right
bank of Jordan towards the desert. After the division of the Israelite
tribes into two kingdoms, the southern portion, west of the Dead
Sea, became the land of Judah, whence comes the name of Judea. Under
the Maccabees, the name of Judea included the whole region which, in
earlier days, had been the land of Israel. The Romans divided the
country into four provinces; the first three, on the western bank of
Jordan, being--Galilee, in the north, next Samaria, and then Judea;
the fourth, Peræa, was on the eastern bank. This division corresponds
roughly with the character of the country; and is that which we meet
with in Greek and Latin authors, in the New Testament, and in the
Fathers of the Church.
Two ranges of mountains, with the Jordan flowing between, traverse
Palestine from north to south and connect Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon
with Horeb and Sinai. They are intersected by valleys and plains, and
the principal peaks bear names hallowed by historical associations
or mythological traditions. The most famous are the hills about
Jerusalem--Zion, Moriah, and the Mount of Olives. Proceeding
northwards, we come to Mount Gerizim, where stood a rival sanctuary
to that at Jerusalem; Carmel, the abode of Elijah the prophet; Tabor,
where St. Jerome places the scene of the Transfiguration; and, east of
Jordan, to Mount Nebo, whence Moses viewed the Promised Land before he
died. To the north the mountains are clothed with trees and vegetation;
to the south, in Judea proper, they are barren rocks; even the plains
on the shore of the Dead Sea are untilled and waste. The contrast
becomes even more marked when we pass beyond the borders of Palestine;
to the south, rugged Idumæa, the country of Job, and beyond it the
sandy deserts where reigns the burning simoon, the wrath whereof is
a devouring fire; and the holy mountain of Sinai, where the One God
revealed himself in tempest and lightnings. To the north, the deep
gorges of Lebanon, whence spring the sources of the Jordan; and those
gardens of God, the hollow of Syria and the plain of Damascus; and the
snowy peaks of Mount Hermon, whence the sons of God came down to join
themselves, under the shade of the great cedars, with the daughters
of men. After the lapse of many centuries, this marriage of heaven
and earth was destined to be renewed in a chaster form, and Eden and
Galilee to see bloom, like a lily under green palm trees, the new Eve,
the Virgin who should bear a God.
The Jordan first traverses a small lake, which is almost dry in summer,
and then flows into the lake of Gennesareth or Tiberias, also called
the Sea of Galilee, and famous in Christian tradition. The shape of
this lake is an irregular oval, twenty kilometres in length by about
nine in breadth. The water is fresh and fit for drinking, but the
volcanic nature of the soil is indicated by springs of hot water in the
vicinity, and by the basaltic rocks that cover its shores. Its level is
two hundred and thirty metres below that of the sea. This low level has
been found constant throughout the whole valley of the Jordan, which,
leaving the lake of Gennesareth, continues its course southwards, and,
at a distance of twenty-five leagues from it, falls into the Dead Sea.
The mouth is four hundred metres below the level of the Mediterranean.
The Dead Sea, also called Lake Asphaltites, because of the bitumen
which floats upon its surface, is a lake with no outlet, and loses by
evaporation about the same amount of water that it receives from the
Jordan and its other affluents. It is sixty-four kilometres in length,
its breadth varies from eight to thirteen kilometres, its greatest
depth is about four hundred metres. Its basin is the bottom of the
great valley which extends from Mount Hermon to the Gulf of Akabah on
the Red Sea. This basin is in all likelihood due to the giving way of
a vast crater formed by the great volcanic eruption which swallowed
up the cities of Pentapolis. Genesis has preserved the memory of
this cataclysm, which it calls a rain of fire and brimstone. In the
neighbourhood we find deposits of lava, pumice-stone, sulphur, and
bitumen. The saltness and causticity of the water of the Dead Sea
explain why no fish nor any sort of animal can live in it; it contains
twenty-four to twenty-six and a quarter per cent. of saline matter,
in place of the four per cent. of other seas. Its specific gravity
is greater by a fifth than that of the water of the ocean, and it is
consequently impossible to drown in it. The saline concretions met with
in such regions as this may have given rise to the fable of Lot’s wife,
who was changed into a pillar of salt.
The sacred writers frequently extol the fertility of Palestine, “a
country of wheat, of barley, of vines, of fig trees, and pomegranate
trees, a country of olive trees, of oil, and of honey.” It is true
that the soil about Jerusalem is barren and stony, a fact which
caused Strabo to say that the people led by Moses had had no trouble
in conquering a country that did not deserve to be defended; but the
whole of Palestine is not like the environs of Jerusalem. Latin authors
confirm the testimony of the Bible as to the fertility of Judea. “The
soil,” says Tacitus, “yields in abundance the products of our country,
and balm and the palm tree beside.” According to Justin, the balm
of Judea, which was grown chiefly in the plain of Jericho, was the
principal source of the wealth of the country. Ammianus Marcellinus
speaks in the same way of the rich husbandry of Palestine. To this day,
in spite of Turkish misgovernment and Arab raids, it retains--in the
north more especially--many traces of its ancient fertility. The valley
of Jordan is rich in pastures. The olives of Palestine are said to be
preferable to those of Provence. Judea itself, though on the whole
barren, has some districts which yield good harvests, and, above all,
excellent wine. But the scourge of the country, according to the Turks
and Arabs, is locusts. “The number of these insects,” says Volney, “is
incredible to any one who has not seen it with his own eyes: the ground
is covered with them for the space of several leagues. The noise they
make, browsing on the trees and herbs, can be heard from afar, like an
army pillaging by stealth. It is better to have to do with Tartars than
with these destructive little creatures, it is as though fire followed
in their wake. Wherever their legions repair, verdure disappears from
the land like a curtain rolled up; trees and plants, stripped of their
leaves and reduced to mere branches and stalks, make the hideous aspect
of winter succeed, in the twinkling of an eye, to the bounteous scenes
of spring. When these clouds of locusts rise on the wing, to surmount
some obstacle or to cross some desert place more rapidly, it is
literally true to say that they darken the sky.”[b]
[Illustration: ANCIENT JOPPA]
THE PEOPLE
The inhabitants of the country just described have each and all (with
exceptions so small as to count for nothing in the mass) belonged to a
race which we are in the habit of calling “Semitic,” or the “nations of
the Semitic tongue.” The term has been so much abused, in scientific
works no less than in public life, that we must first determine its
real significance. The name of “Semite” is derived from “Shem,” who
appears in the tenth chapter of Genesis (in the language of the
genealogising historiographer) as the ancestor of the Hebrews and a
number of neighbouring tribes.
Because most of the nations whose descent is traced from Shem, in
Genesis x., speak languages alike in structure and entirely different
from other languages, we have accustomed ourselves, ever since the days
of Eichhorn, to call these nations and languages Semitic. And because
peoples who speak analogous languages are always, to a certain extent,
connected by similarity of descent, and consequently, by physical and
mental resemblances, we likewise speak of a Semitic race. Under this
heading we class all the nations that speak languages of the Hebrew
type, and these are the Aramæans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanites,
Phœnicians, Arabs, and a large proportion of the Abyssinians. Hence the
phrase Semitic peoples or languages is, like so many that are used in
science, merely a conventional term.
As far back as history goes, the inhabitants of Palestine have always
been people of Semitic speech, _i.e._ of a language of the Hebrew type.
In the very earliest times to which historical research can give us any
clew, the period before the immigration of the Israelites into the land
west of Jordan, the population of Palestine varied, exactly as it does
now, according to the character of the various parts of the country.
Moreover, then as now, the Jordan and the Jordan Valley constituted
the main barrier between these Semitic peoples. To the west of Jordan
dwells an agricultural population, divided up into numerous small
tribes, which we are in the habit of calling Canaanite. The collective
term Canaanite had of course been extended from a single district
or tribe named Canaan to the whole body of cognate peoples. The
inhabitants of the Phœnician maritime cities are of the same race, and
so are those of the kingdom of the Hittites, which lies to the north of
Palestine.
On the farther side of Jordan, however, dwell Semitic tribes, in many
cases still nomadic, speaking the same language as the rest, but
inferior to them in civilisation, who are each and all styled “Ibrim”
(Hebrews), _i.e._ “those beyond” or those that dwell beyond Jordan.
But along the southern, no less than on the eastern, frontier of the
land west of Jordan, wandered nomadic tribes (intermingled to a great
extent with Canaanite and Hebrew tribes), who are classed, according to
common opinion, under the general heading of Arab, a view to which the
few remains in the shape of proper names which have come down to us,
offers no contradiction.
This order of things was disturbed when one of the aforesaid Hebrew
tribes began to migrate by degrees into the country west of Jordan, to
settle there, and ultimately to take possession of it more and more
completely. During the process it mingled freely with the original
Canaanite population, whose civilisation it gradually assimilated,
while at the same time some other Hebrew and Arabian tribes were merged
in it.
The product of this intermixture is the people of Israel. It first came
into being by the immigration into the country west of the Jordan,
which consequently has a perfect title to pass in legend for the
Promised Land. It did not come out of Egypt as an organised nation,
and arrive on the west of Jordan after many wanderings to and fro. It
was as little a nation of pure blood as any on earth, for it admitted
persons of Aramæan and Egyptian descent as well as the Canaanite,
Hebrew and Arabic elements already mentioned.
The people of Israel never succeeded in possessing themselves of
the whole country west of Jordan. And only on that condition could
it have grown into one of the greater nations and established a
homogeneous state of commanding importance. Nay, it could not so much
as permanently hold its own in its old territory east of Jordan. That
would only have been possible if it had been able to occupy the regions
northwards from the plain of Megiddo to Lebanon and the opposite
districts on the east of Jordan with a dense population of settlers.
There no obstacle interferes with intercourse between the two halves of
the country. There a compact population could have developed, a unit in
customs and interests; and by this means the southern portions of the
country, divided by the river Jordan, would have been held together.
But in those parts of the country west of the river, which lie to the
north of the plain of Megiddo, the Israelite population was never
numerous in the days of the kingdom of Israel. It had always a strong
intermixture of Canaanite elements which it was unable to assimilate.
Hence many of the Israelite families which settled there were early
lost to the nation.
But since the people of Israel were not numerically strong enough to
win these regions for Israelite nationality, and since a compact body
of Israelitish inhabitants existed on the highlands south of the plain
of Megiddo to the southern margin of the Dead Sea, and these parts
accordingly became the nucleus of the kingdom of Israel; the latter
bore the seeds of destruction within itself from the beginning. And
there was another factor to add to the difficulties of the situation:
before the regions which afterwards formed the nucleus of the Israelite
state had passed into the whole possession of the immigrants, before
the fusion of Canaanite, Hebrew, and Arabian families with the tribes
of Israel was everywhere complete, before, that is, they could
contemplate the conquest of the coast, two other claimants of the land
west of Jordan appeared on the scene. From the northeast, Aramæan
tribes pressed forward as far as Anti-Lebanon, from the southwest came
the warlike nation of the Philistines. Like the Israelites, they both
amalgamated with the original Canaanite population of the territory
they conquered. They, and not the Canaanite population of the coast,
were for centuries the real adversaries of the state of Israel. Nay,
the nation was first called into being by the danger that menaced it
from the Philistines.
Thus the strength of the Israelite nation was exhausted in the struggle
for the possession of the land west of Jordan. A people less tenacious,
less valiant, less persevering, would never have maintained its
national existence so long under the circumstances. By holding its own
against Philistines and Aramæans, and succumbing only to the onset of
the great Asiatic empires, Israel gave proof of its high capacities in
the sphere of politics.
But how did an Israelite state come into being at all under such
circumstances? Why did not the Hebrews who migrated to the west of
Jordan join themselves to the original Canaanite population which
spoke the same language and was ethnologically so closely akin to
them? Why did not a Canaanite state arise, seeing that in all points
of civilisation the Canaanites were the instructors of the Hebrew
immigrants? The answer to this question is to be found in the fact
that the immigrant Hebrew clans who gave the first impulse to the
creation of the nation of Israel, were prevented from so doing by
the difference between their religion and that of the Canaanites.
Before their migration across the Jordan they had separated from the
rest of the Hebrew tribes and adopted a religion of a far higher type
than that of the original Canaanite dwellers west of Jordan. By this
means they had already become one people. Concerning the process by
which it came to pass we have nothing but myth and legend. But if we
compare these with the observations we have been able to make in the
case of religion, civilisation, and customs of other Hebrew tribes,
we can at all events draw general conclusions as to the course of the
movements which led to this result. Let us therefore next consider the
relation in which the children of Israel stand to other Hebrew peoples.
According to what has been said in the foregoing pages, there are three
things which distinguish the children of Israel from the rest of the
Hebrews. Firstly, the large intermixture of Canaanite blood--in one,
at least, of the latter races there was a larger measure of Arab blood
than in the children of Israel. Secondly, their adoption of Canaanite
civilisation, and, as a consequence, a more complete transition to
agricultural life. Thirdly, the worship of Jehovah as their national
god.
Israel represents that section of the Hebrew race which, on the one
hand, was most strongly influenced by Canaanite civilisation, and on
the other, had advanced farthest in religious development, and was most
largely permeated with foreign elements. Generally speaking, the other
nations of the same class are of purer Hebrew blood and have remained
partly nomadic, and therefore--with the exception of the Moabites--they
have remained more barbarous in a lower stage of development. In
the earliest times, more particularly, the differences between the
Israelites and the Hebrews proper were vague and undefined. Several
Hebrew clans found admittance into Judah, a tribe which is not even
mentioned among those of Israel in the Song of Deborah, and at that
time when Numbers xxv. 1-5 was composed, a licentious worship of Baal
of Peor was in vogue in that neighbourhood. But all the Old Testament
records prove that the Moabites worshipped one god only, the divinity
Chemosh. Hence, since such a narrative as the Yahvistic text is
absolutely trustworthy in such matters, we are forced to conclude that
it was Chemosh who was thus worshipped in that neighbourhood as the
Baal (_i.e._ Lord) of Peor. The conduct of the Moabite men and women is
in no way different from that of Israel of old in the lament of Hosea
iv. 13-15. That the Moabites, like the Israelites, gave their god the
name of Baal, _i.e._ Lord, may be deduced from the two Moabite local
names of Baal Meon and Bamoth Baal. It is therefore unnecessary to have
recourse to the theory that the phrase “Baal Peor” may have been coined
by the Israelites.
The language of the Moabites is merely a dialect of that in which
the Old Testament scriptures are written, and which we usually call
Hebrew, though Israelitish would be the better word. The affinity of
the two languages is not only evident from Moabitish proper names that
have come down to us; it is raised above the reach of doubt by Mesha’s
inscription. From this inscription it is plain that Moabitish presents
some points of contact with Arabic, a fact that can be explained by the
contiguity of the two languages.
The idea that the Israelites conquered the country north of Arnon as
early as the days of Moses must be given up as unhistorical. It is
derived from an uncritical application of Numbers ii. From this chapter
the inference is usually drawn that an Amorite invasion of Moab had
taken place shortly before the time of Moses. They are supposed to have
conquered all the northern half of Moab and the farther side of Jordan
and then to have been defeated and destroyed by Moses. The groundwork
of the passage in Numbers xxi. is a narrative taken from the Elohistic
text xxi. 4-9, 12-18, 21-25, 27, 30. According to this, there existed
in the time of Moses a kingdom of the Amorites (_i.e._ Canaanites)
under a king named Sihon, to the north of Arnon, between that river
and the Jabbok, and bordered on the east by the land of the Ammonites.
Verse 26 is warrant that this king Sihon had taken his country from
the Moabites. But this verse is an interpolation which interrupts the
continuity of vv. 25 and 27, and is intended to bring the view of the
Elohistic text into line with that which prevailed elsewhere, and
according to which these districts belonged to Moab.
In support of the opinion that this district was invested from the
Moabites in the time of Moses, the Elohistic text refers to an ancient
song, probably taken from the Book of the Wars of Jehovah. In vv. 27-30
he says, “wherefore they that speak in proverbs say:
‘Come into Heshbon, let the city of Sihon be built and prepared:
For there is a fire gone out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon:
It hath consumed Ar of Moab, and the lords of the high places of Arnon.
Woe to thee, Moab! thou art undone, O people of Chemosh:
He hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters into captivity,
(unto Sihon, king of the Amorites.)
We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon.’”
But this song contradicts at all points the statement which the
Elohistic text brings it forward to verify. King Sihon, who was
conquered according to the song, is rather a king of the Moabites,
and his conquerors, who in the introduction are invited to settle in
conquered cities, are obviously Israelites, since the invitation comes
in an Israelite song. The “Sihon, king of the Amorites” put in brackets
above, is proved by its incompatibility with the whole tenor of the
song to be a gloss, interpolated for the purpose of bringing it into
harmony with the presuppositions of v. 26. The song is a poem, composed
on the occasion of such an inroad from the north into Moabite territory
north of the Arnon, as the inscription of Mesha describes.
Hence it is out of the question that Israel should have settled in
northern Moab after the conquest of an Amorite king, Sihon by name,
at a period anterior to the migration into the land west of Jordan.
The settlement took place much later, and Sihon, king of the Amorites,
whom Moses is supposed to have conquered, came into being by a
misinterpretation of the song just quoted.
This same settlement of Israel in the northern half of Moab was
temporary only. According to Isaiah xv.-xvi. the whole region north of
Arnon, which Numbers xxi. represents to us as having been conquered by
Moses and which the Fundamental Writing gives to Reuben, is part of the
kingdom of Moab. Jeremiah xlviii. also names the cities north of Arnon
as Moabite. Hence, in the region between the northern margin of the
Dead Sea and the Arnon, the conflict between the two cognate nations
of Moab and Israel surged to and fro for centuries. And probably the
immediate object of each was the possession of the walled cities. They
must have been held first by one nation and then by the other. The
country population may have changed less; it fled before the invading
foe and submitted to the victor. A large proportion of it was probably
Moabite even while Israel was in temporary possession of the cities.
And this was, of course, even more the case when the whole of Moab was
tributary to Israel.
All the hatred of Israel for the kindred tribe of Moab that defended
its territory and won back their conquests from them finds expression
in the legend that Moab and the people of Ammon took their rise from
the incestuous intercourse of Lot with his daughters (Genesis xix. 30
_seq._). The bias of the whole legend is betrayed by its ignorance of
the names of the daughters. It is obviously nothing but a malicious
travesty of the view that made the Moabites sons of Lot (Deuteronomy
ii., ix., xix.).
The figure of Lot, on the other hand, is not an invention of Jewish
legend or an interpretation of some physical phenomena observed on
the Dead Sea, but the name of a Hebrew or Moabitish clan. The figure
of Lot’s wife (who is also anonymous) alone is a nature-myth. It is
the interpretation given to a block of rock-salt, exposed by the
action of water, on the shore of the Dead Sea, in which the beholders
fancied they saw the figure of a woman, an idea found repeatedly in the
legendary lore of the most diverse races. A pillar of salt of this kind
is shown at the present day. The ethnological origin of Lot, on the
contrary, can be maintained with the more assurance since we meet with
the adjective “Lotan,” derived from _Lot_ as the name of an Edomite
clan in Genesis xxxvi. 20, 29.
The second Hebrew people with which we have to do, the Bene-Ammon,
the sons of Ammon or Ammonites, of whose putative descent from Lot’s
younger daughter we have already spoken, seems to have been a genuine
desert race. The land east of Jordan being occupied by Moab in the
south and Israel in the north, there certainly were but few districts
fit for tillage left for them. Nevertheless, attempts were not wanting
on their part to gain possession of the east side of Jordan.
The Edomites, the third of these Hebrew peoples, were those with
whom Israel came most into contact. The close relations and frequent
intermixtures which took place between Edomite and Israelite clans find
expression in the legend that makes Esau, the progenitor of the tribe,
the brother of Jacob and, like him, the son of Isaac of Beersheba. Esau
is really the name of a god, and we meet with it again in Phœnician
mythology in its Hellenised form of Usoos. The divine nature of Esau is
also betrayed in the fact that in the Elohistic text it is he, while
in the Yahvistic text, it is God, who meets Jacob at Penuel (Genesis
xxxii. 31, 33, _seq._). The name of this divinity was probably in old
times the name of the clan that worshipped him. At any rate, we never
meet with Esau as the collective name of this people; it is invariably
Edom. But Edom itself is the name of a half-forgotten god, as is
evident from the proper name Obed-Edom.
The Edomites were no more a nation of pure Hebrew blood than the
Israelites. They sprang from the fusion of Hebrew immigrants with
the population that already occupied the country, on the one hand,
and with Arab tribes, on the other. And these two elements which the
Edomite race absorbed must have retained their distinctive character
to a comparatively late period, for on no other supposition can we
explain the extent and definiteness of the information which has come
down to us on the subject. In the west, the Edomites spread from the
southern margin of the Dead Sea and from the Nachal ha ’Arabum (Brook
of the Arab Bushes, now the Wady Alachsi) to the Gulf of Akabah. In
the west and north they forfeited much of their nationality. For at
one time they occupied the whole of what was afterwards southern
Judah, though intermixed with Arab clans. The Edomites united with
Judah later--probably constrained to do so by their geographical
situation--and possessed the hegemony in the time of David. The capital
of this Edomite district was the ancient city of Hebron.
Its union with Judah was naturally accompanied by a corresponding
loss to Edom, which from that time forward passed for less powerful
than Israel in those parts, whereas, in earlier times, being united
under the rule of kings, it had been superior to the kingless state of
Israel, divided up into tribes, each eager in pursuit of its personal
ends. The national monarchy of Israel is no sooner consolidated than it
is strong enough to subdue Edom.
This is expressed in legend by making Esau the elder brother of Jacob,
but only the elder of twins, with whom the younger strives even in the
womb and tries to prevent him from being the first to issue forth.
Ultimately, Esau is cheated of his birthright by Jacob or sells it to
him for a mess of pottage. Edom, on the other hand, always maintained
his dominions, although for a while under the suzerainty of Israel or
Judah, in the wild and barren mountain tract of Seir, which rises to
the south of the mountains of Judah. But this is precisely where the
aboriginal inhabitants whom the Edomites had found in possession held
their ground longest, protected by the unfertility of their country,
which made agriculture impossible and compelled its inhabitants to
adopt the rude life of shepherds and hunters.
These aboriginal inhabitants were called Horites, _i.e._ cave-dwellers.
There may have been Horite elements even in the Edomite population
of southern Judah, for we still find cave-dwellings at Beit-Jibrin
(Bethogabris) and meet with Horite clan-names amongst those of Judah.
It may also be conjectured that a very primitive state of civilisation
had survived among them, for a great many of these little clans are
called by the names of animals. But neither from this circumstance
nor from the form of their names can we deduce any conclusion as to
the branch of the Semitic race to which these Horites belonged. For
the names of animals are found as tribal names among all Semites, and
the form of these names--even supposing it to have been handed down
accurately--would allow of their being considered either Hebrew or
Arabic.
In the course of Jewish history the vicissitudes of the fortune of the
Edomite nation occupy us again and again. Just such a Hebrew tribe, or
coalition of Hebrew tribes, as they were, amalgamating with the Semitic
population already in possession to form the nations of the Ammonites,
Moabites, and Edomites, was the stock from which, by amalgamation with
Canaanite and other elements, the people of Israel sprang. Israel,
Men of Israel, Children of Israel, was in historic times the title
of honour which it bestowed upon itself and its members. But even
after its migration and settlement in the land west of Jordan, the
non-Israelite inhabitants of the country called it by the collective
name of the Hebrews, and thus it comes about that to this day it bears
that name in the speech of all nations, and its language is spoken of
as Hebrew.
What, then, is the origin of the national name of Israel? It must have
become the name of the nation in the same way as the names of other
nations come into being; by extension from one tribe to the whole
body of those who belong to the same national coalition. Accordingly,
there must once have been a tribe of Israel which distinguished itself
in some way and won fame, and whose name was then assumed by others.
Nothing of the sort has ever taken place in historic times. But this
fact does not affect the correctness of the conclusion that tribal
names are very liable to alteration by the division of old tribes and
the rise of new ones. This forgotten tribe of Israel, which gave its
name to the whole people, may have its dwelling-place in the land
east of Jordan, on both banks of the Jabbok, and at the spot where
Mahanaim, a city of the highest importance in the earliest period of
the monarchy, was situated. For the memories of Israel that survive in
legend centre about the land east of Jordan, Mahanaim, and Penuel more
particularly. At Mahanaim Jacob sees the army (_machane_) of angels;
or, according to another etymological legend, he there divides his army
into two parts (_machanajin_); at the Jabbok he wrestles with God, or
meets with Esau. There he receives the name of Israel.
The double name of Jacob-Israel may be explained by the identification
and amalgamation of two mythological figures revered as eponymous
heroes. Israel is attested as such by his wrestling with God. The
figure of Jacob, on the other hand, belongs to the west of Jordan. This
is proved by the association of his name with Bethel. If Jacob-Israel
had been a single figure from the beginning, we should expect to find
reminiscences of Israel west of Jordan.
A hypothesis has recently been started to the effect that this tribe of
Israel was not Hebrew at all, but Arab, _i.e._ that it belonged not to
the Canaanite group of northern Semites, but to the southern Semitic
group.
Two arguments have been advanced in support of this contention with
some show of reason. One of these is the borrowing of the religion of
Jehovah from the Kenites; the other the name of Israel. But religions
are equally likely to pass from one nation to kindred or alien
peoples. The determining factor is not the greater or less degree of
consanguinity, but the circumstance that they are at the same stage
of civilisation. Religion, the most universal of all phenomena common
to the human race, has everywhere something of an international
character. The second argument is even less to the purpose. It is true
that the word Israel is formed like Ishmael, Jerahmeel, Abdeel. But on
the other hand we find Jiphtah-el as the name of a valley in northern
Palestine, called after some forgotten nation that was certainly
Canaanite. Nay, we find identical tribal names among Semitic nations of
different descent, _e.g._ among Edomites, Hebrews, Canaanites and Arabs.
If the clan which bore the name of Israel was Arab by origin, it must
have been merged in a Hebrew majority. For the nation of Israel that
arose spoke a Hebrew language, that is, one that belonged to the north
Semitic group, nay, actually to the Canaanite division of it.
From the foregoing considerations it is clear how the second title
of honour, the name of Jacob, must be explained. This, too, was in
the first instance the name of a clan and of the eponymous hero from
whom it claimed descent. He was worshipped in various places west of
Jordan, more particularly at Bethel. But the use of the name Jacob to
denote the whole nation of Israel is confined to prophets and poets,
no historical document ever applies it to Israel. Possibly the name of
Israel had become the name of the nation before the migration west of
Jordan. Moreover, we cannot even assert that the figure of Jacob is of
necessity Hebrew. It may have been associated with Bethel before the
immigration and transmitted to the Hebrews by the original Canaanite
inhabitants.
Even before its migration west of Jordan, Israel was distinguished from
all other Hebrews by the worship of Jehovah as the national divinity.
It is a right instinct, therefore, which makes the rise of Israelite
nationality and the rise of the religion of Jehovah coincide in the
mythical reminiscences of the people of Israel. Legend alone, and
no historic document, records the rise of this worship. But legend,
rightly interrogated, gives us hints as to how we should suppose it to
have come to pass. And legend connects it with the immigration into the
Holy Land and more particularly with the conquest of the land east of
Jordan.[c]
[Illustration: HEBREW DOLMEN AT ALA-SAFAT]