fide divergences of tradition and to assume that more
rudimentary or primitive thought was excluded by the admitted development
of religious-social ideals. The oldest nucleus of historical
tradition appears to belong to Samaria, but it has been adjusted
to other standpoints or interests, which are apparently connected
partly with the half-Edomite and partly with the old
indigenous Judaean
stock.[1] Genesis—Kings (incomplete; some further
material in Jeremiah) and the later Chronicles—Nehemiah are in
their present form posterior to Nehemiah’s time. Unfortunately
the events of his age are shrouded in obscurity, but one can
recognize the return of exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem and its
environs—now half-Edomite—and various internal rivalries which
culminate in the Samaritan
schism.[2] The ecclesiastical rivalries
have left their mark in the Pentateuch and (the later) Chronicles,
and the Samaritan secession appears to have coloured even the
book of Kings. These sources then are “post-exilic,” and the
elimination of material first composed in that age leaves historical,
legal and other material which was obviously in circulation (so,
e.g., the non-priestly portions of
Genesis).[3] The relatively earlier
group of books is now the result of two complicated and continuous
redactions, “Deuteronomic” (Deut.-Kings) and “Priestly”
(Genesis-Joshua, with traces in the following books). The former
is exceptionally intricate, being in its various aspects distinctly
earlier, and in parts even later than the “priestly.” Its standpoint,
too, varies, the phases being now northern or wider Israelite, now
half-Edomite or Judaean, and now anti-Samarian.
Moreover, there is a late incorporation of literature, sometimes untouched by and sometimes merely approximating to “Deuteronomic” language or thought. How very late the historical books are in their present text or form may be seen from the Septuagint version of Joshua, Samuel and Kings, and from their internal literary structure, which suggests that only at the last stages of compilation were they brought into their present shape.[4] The result as a whole tends to show that the “canonical” history belongs to the last literary vicissitudes, and that similar influences (which have not affected every book in the same manner) have been at work throughout. The history of the past is viewed from rather different positions which, on the whole, are subsequent to the relatively recent changes Reshaping of Tradition. that gave birth to new organizations in Samaria and Judah. Consequently, in addition to the ordinary requirements of historical criticism, biblical study has to take into account the intricate composite character of the sources and the background of these positions. It is the criticism of sources which have both a literary and an historical compositeness. Not only are the standpoints of local interest (Samaria, Benjamin, Judah and the half-Edomite Judah being involved), but there are remarkable developments in the ecclesiastical bodies (Zadokites of Jerusalem, country and half-Edomite priests, Aaronites) which have influenced both the writing and the revision of the sources (see Levites). Yet it is noteworthy that the traditions are usually reshaped, readjusted or reinterpreted, and are not replaced by entirely new ones. Thus, the Samaritans claim the traditions of the land; the Chronicler traces the connexion between “pre-exilic” and “post-exilic” Judaeans, ignoring and obscuring intervening events; the south Palestinian cycle of tradition is adapted to the history of a descent into and an exodus from Egypt; Zadokite priests are enrolled as Aaronites, and the hierarchical traditions reveal stages of orderly and active development in order to authorize the changing standpoints of different periods and circles.[5] This feature recurs in later Palestinian literature (see Midrash, Talmud) where there are later forms of thought and tradition, some elements of which although often of older origin, are almost or entirely wanting in the Old Testament. Much that would otherwise be unintelligible becomes more clear when one realizes the readiness with which settlers adopt the traditional belief and custom of a land, and the psychological fact that teaching must be relevant and must satisfy the primary religious feelings and aspirations, that it must not be at entire variance with current beliefs, but must represent the older beliefs in a new form. Any comparison of the treatment of biblical figures or events in the later literature will illustrate the retention of certain old details, the appearance of new ones, and an organic connexion which is everywhere in accordance with contemporary thought and teaching. If this raises the presumption that even the oldest and most isolated biblical evidence may rest upon still older authority, it shows also that the fuller details and context cannot be confidently recovered, and that earlier forms would accord with earlier Palestinian belief.[6] Hence, although records may be most untrustworthy in their present form or connexion, one cannot necessarily deny that a romance may presuppose a reality of history or that it may preserve the fact of an event even at the period to which it is ascribed (e.g. Abraham and Amraphel in Gen. xiv.; the invasions before 1000 B.C., &c.). But in all such cases the present form of the material may be more profitably used for the study of the historical or religious conceptions of its age. At the same time, the complexity of the vicissitudes of traditions, exemplified in modern Palestine itself, cannot be ignored.[7] Finally, biblical history is an intentional and reasoned arrangement of material, based upon composite sources, for religious and didactic purposes. Regarded as an historical work there is a remarkable absence of proportion, and a loss of perspective in the relation between antediluvian, patriarchal, Mosaic and later periods. From the literary-critical results, however, it is not so much the history of consecutive periods as the account of consecutive periods by compilers who are not far removed from one another as regards dates, but differ in standpoints. There was, in one case, a retrospect, which did not include the deluge, and in another the patriarchs were actual settlers, a descent into Egypt and subsequent exodus being ignored; moreover, the standpoints of those who did not go into exile and of those who did and returned would naturally differ. In weaving the sources together the compilers had some acquaintance of course with past history, but on the whole it manifests itself only slightly (see Jews, § 24), and the complete chronological system belongs to the latest stage. Investigation must concern itself not with what was possibly or probably known, but with what is actually presented. The fact remains that when accepted tradition conflicts with more reliable evidence it stands upon a level by itself;[8] and it is certain that a compilation based upon the knowledge which modern research—whether in the exact sciences or in history—has gained would have neither meaning for nor influence upon the people whom it was desired to instruct. A considerable amount of earlier history and literature has been lost, and it is probable that the traditions of the origins of the composite Israelites, as they are now preserved, embody evidence belonging to the nearer events of the 8th–6th centuries. The history of these centuries is of fundamental importance in any attempt to “reconstruct” biblical history.[9] The fall of Samaria and Judah was a literary as well as a political catastrophe, and precisely how much earlier material has been
- ↑ A Samarian (or Ephraimite or N. Israelite) nucleus may be recognized in the books of Joshua Kings; see the articles on these books, Jews, § 6; cf. Meyer, pp. 478 n. 2, 486 seq., and K. Lincke, Samaria u. seine Propheten (1903), p. 24. These preserve old poetical literature (Judg. v., 2 Sam. i.), stories of conquest and settlement, and they connect with the liturgy in Deut, xxvii. Joshua’s covenant at Shechem and the Shechemite covenant-god (cf. Kennett, Journ. Theol. Stud., 1906, pp. 495 sqq.; Lincke, op. cit., p. 89. W. Erbt, Die Hebräer (1906), pp. 27 sqq.; Meyer and Luther, pp. 542 sqq., 550 seq.).
- ↑ There seems to be both political and religious animosity, but it is not certain that Josephus is wrong in placing the schism at the close of the Persian period; see, on this point, J. Marquart, Isr. u. Jüd. Gesch. (1896), p. 57 seq.; C. Steuernagel, Theolog. Stud. u. Krit. (1909), p. 5; G. Jahn, Bücher Esra u. Nehemia (Leiden, 1909), pp. 173-176; C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (Chicago, 1910), pp. 321 sqq. Old priestly rivalries between Cutha and Babylon may explain why the mixed Samaritans became known as Cuthaeans; according to the prevailing theory their predecessors, the “ten tribes” had been exiled in the 8th century.
- ↑ The term “post-exilic” is applied to literature and history after the return of exiles and the religious reconstruction of Judah. This, on the traditional view, would be in 537, if there were then any prominent return. Failing this, one must descend to the time of Nehemiah, which the biblical history itself regards as epoch-making. The tendency to make the exile an abrupt and complete change in life is based upon the theory underlying Chronicles-Nehemiah and is misleading (see Torrey, op. cit. pp. 287 sqq., &c.).
- ↑ Cf. the “Deuteronomic” form of Samuel, and the dependence of the literary growth of Genesis and the account of the exodus and invasion of Palestine upon the “southern” cycle of tradition.
- ↑ Cf. S. A. Cook, Critical Notes on Old Testament History (1907), pp. 62 seq., 67, 75 sqq., 112 seq.
- ↑ This applies also to the prophetical writings, the study of which is complicated by their use of past history to give point to later ideas and by the recurrence in history of somewhat similar events. As regards the situations which presuppose the ruin of Jerusalem and a return of exiles, the obscure events after the time of Zerubbabel cannot be left out of account. (See Jews, §§ 14, 17 [p. 282], 22 n. 5, and art. Zephaniah.)
- ↑ Note the rapid growth and embellishment of tradition, the inextricable interweaving of fact and fiction, the circumstantial or rationalized stories of imaginary beings, the supernatural or mythical stories of thoroughly historical persons, the absolute loss of perspective, and a reliance not upon the merits of a tradition but upon the authority with which it is associated.
- ↑ Cf. the remarkable Arabian stories of their predecessors, or the mingling of accurate and inaccurate data in Manetho and Ctesias.
- ↑ The evidence for Jewish colonies at Elephantine in Upper Egypt (5th century B.C.) has opened up new paths for inquiry. According to some scholars it is probable that they were descended from the soldiers settled by Psamtek I. (7th century), and not only are they in touch with Judah and Samaria, but in Psamtek’s time an effort was made by the Asiatic and other mercenaries to escape into Ethiopia (T. H. Breasted, Eg. hist. doc. iv. 506 seq.). It is already suggested that allusions to a sojourn in Egypt may refer, not to the remote times of Jacob and Moses but to the circumstances of the 7th century; see C. Steuernagel, op. cit. pp. 7-12; E. Meyer, Sitzungsberichte of the Berlin Academy, June 1908, p. 655. n. i.
