BIBLICAL SOCIOLOGY 231
tlemeiit in Canaan than they are in the narratives dealing with affairs after the settlement. Hence, it is manifest that the Hexateuch, dealing with history from the creation of the world to the conquest of Canaan, is more exposed to suspicion than are the more sober narratives in the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings.
At this point there are always some who rise to ask how the new methods can draw clear and trustworthy distinctions between myth and fact in the biblical accounts. This question implies the hostile assumption that criticism of the Bible is a purely sub- jective process which depends upon the caprice of the individual scholar. It is assumed that the biblical material itself yields no objective criteria for the guidance of the investigator. It is taken for granted that the critic employs arbitrary standards which give one set of results in one case, and an opposing set of results in another case. The only basis for this charge is the immaturity of criticism itself. Although differences have arisen between scholars who have undertaken literary and historical criticism of the Bible, these differences are outweighed by agree- ments upon common methods and results. Many of the differ- ences between biblical scholars are due to the fact that the real nature of the Bible itself has not been fully perceived. The question as to the standard of comparison between fact and myth in the biblical narratives does not merely concern the special situation which is before us in the problem of Israel's history; it relates equally to the problem of all history. And it cannot be answered without showing the assimilation of Israel to the rest of human society.
We have already indicated three different items of agree- ment between biblical traditions and scientific study of history. One of these is that the Israelites are not a people apart from the world, but that they belong to a great race consisting of several divisions, or families. Another is, that prior to the settlement in Canaan the Israelites were nomads in the Arabian wilderness. The third is, that the fortunes of the Israelite clans during the nomadic period were dependent upon the natural food supply. These three propositions are established by modern research inde-
