diversity in detail, and no agreement even in general outline.[1]
It is evident that such constructions will never reach any satisfactory result unless they find some point of support in the history of the period as gathered from contemporary sources. The second millennium B.C. is thought to have witnessed one great movement of Semitic tribes to the north, viz., the Aramæan. About the middle of the millennium we find the first notices of the Aramæans as nomads in what is now the Syro-Arabian desert. Shortly afterwards the Ḫabiri make their appearance in Palestine. It is a natural conjecture that these were branches of the same migration, and it has been surmised that we have here the explanation of the tradition which affirms the common descent of Hebrews and Aramæans. The question then arises whether we can connect this fact with the patriarchal tradition, and if so with what stratum of that tradition. Isaac and Joseph are out of the reckoning, because neither is ever brought into contact with the Aramæans; Rebekah is too insignificant. Abraham is excluded by the chronology, unless (with Corn.) we bring down his date to c. 1500, or (with Steuer.) regard his migration as a traditional duplicate of Jacob's return from Laban. But if Jacob is suggested, we encounter the difficulty that Jacob must have been settled in Canaan some generations before the age of the Ḫabiri. In the case of Abraham there may be a conflation of two traditions,—one tracing his nativity to Ḥarran and the other to Ur; and it is conceivable that he is the symbol of two migrations, one of which might be identified with the arrival of the Ḫabiri, and the other might have taken place as early as the age of Ḫammurabi. But these are speculations no whit more reliable than any of those dealt with above; and it has to be confessed that as yet archæology has furnished no sure basis for the reconstruction of the patriarchal history. It is permissible to hope that further discoveries may bring to light facts which shall enable us to decide more definitely than is possible at present how far that history can be explained on ethnological lines.[2]
- ↑ Luther (ZATW, 1901, 36 ff.) gives a conspectus of four leading theories (We. Sta. Gu. Corn.), with the purpose of showing that the consistent application of the method would speedily lead to absurd results (46). He would undoubtedly have passed no different verdict on later combinations, such as those of Steuernagel, Einwanderung der. Isr. Stämme; Peters, Early Hebrew Story, 45 ff.; Procksch, Nordhebr. Sagenbuch, 330 ff. etc.—What Grote has written about the allegorical interpretation of the Greek legends might be applied word for word to these theories: "The theorist who adopts this course of explanation finds that after one or two simple and obvious steps, the way is no longer open, and he is forced to clear a way for himself by gratuitous refinements and conjectures" (Hist. of Greece, ed. 1888, p. 2).
- ↑ To the whole class of theories considered above (those which try to go behind the Exodus), Luther (l.c. 44 f.) objects that they demand a contiguous occupation of Palestine from the time when the legends were
