400 ISRAEL Histori cal pre supposi tions of Mosaism, Early in vasions of Pales tine proper. Occupa tion of central plateau. out of theological intellectualism an attribute found with special frequency among non-theologians. Moses gave no new idea of God to his people. The question whence he could have derived it there fore need not be raised. It could not possibly be worse answered, however, than by a reference to his relations with the priestly caste of Egypt and their wisdom. It is not to be believed that an Egyptian deity could inspire the Hebrews of Goshen with courage for the struggle against the Egyptians, or that an abstraction of esoteric speculation could become the national deity of Israel. It is not inconceivable indeed, although at the same time quite incapable of proof, that Moses was indebted to the Egyptian priests for cer tain advantages of personal culture, or that he borrowed from them on all hands in external details of organization or in matters of ritual. But the origin of the germ which developed into Israel is not to be sought for in Egypt, and Jehovah has nothing in common with the colourless divinity of Penta-ur or with the God-forsaken dreariness of certain modern Egyptologists. That monotheism must have been a foreign importation, because it is contrary to that sexual dualism of Godhead which is the fundamental characteristic of Semitic religion, is an untenable exaggeration which has recently become popular out of opposition to the familiar thesis about the monotheistic instinct of the Semites (Noldeke, Literar. Ccntralbl. , 1877, p. 365). Moab, Ammon, and Edom, Israel s nearest kinsfolk and neighbours, were monotheists in precisely the same sense in which Israel itself was ; but it would be foolish surely in their case to think of foreign importation. Manetho s statements about the Israelites are for the most part to be regarded as malicious inventions: whether any genuine tradi tion underlies them at all is a point much needing to be investi gated ; the identity of Osarsiph and fpDSDK is really very question able. The story of Exod. ii. 1 sqq. is a mythus of frequent recur rence elsewhere, to which no further significance is attached, for that Moses was trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians is vouched for by no earlier authorities than Philo and the New Testament. According to the Old Testament tradition his connexion is with Jethro s priesthood or with that of the Kenites. This historical presupposition of Mosaism has external evidence in its favour, and is inherently quite probable. 2. The kingdom of Sihon did not permanently suffice the Israelites, and the disintegration of the Canaan ites to the west of Jordan in an endless number of kingdoms and cities invited attack. The first essay was made by Judah in conjunction with Simeon and Levi, but was far from prosperous. Simeon and Levi were annihilated ; Judah also, though successful in mastering the mountain land to the west of the Dead Sea, was so only at the cost of severe losses which were not again made up until the accession of the Kenite families of the south (Caleb). As a conse quence of the secession of these tribes, a new division of the nation into Israel and Judah took the place of that which had previously subsisted between the families of Leah and Rachel ; under Israel were included all the tribes except Simeon, Levi, and Judah, which three are no longer mentioned in Judg. v., where all the others are carefully and exhaustively enumerated. This half-abortive first invasion of the west was followed by a second, which wasr stronger and attended with much better results. It was led by the tribe of Joseph, to which the others attached themselves, Reuben and Gad only remaining behind in the old settlements. The district to the north of Judah, inhabited afterwards by Benjamin, was the first to be attacked. It was not until after several towns of this district had one by one fallen into the hands of the con querors that the Canaanites set about a united resistance. They were, however, decisively repulsed by Joshua in the neighbourhood by Gibeon ; and by this victory the Israelites became masters of the whole central plateau of Palestine. The first camp, at Gilgal, near the ford of Jordan, which had been maintained until then, was now removed, and the ark of Jehovah brought further inland (perhaps by way of Bethel) to Shiloh, where henceforward the headquarters were fixed, in a position which seemed as if it had been expressly made to favour attacks upon the fertile tract lying beneath it on the north. The Bne Rachel now occupied the new territory which up to that time had been acquired, Benjamin, in immediate con tiguity with the frontier of Judah, then Ephraim, stretching to beyond Shiloh, and lastly Manasseh, furthest to the north, as far as to the plain of Jezreel. The centre of gravity, so to speak, already lay in Ephraim, to which belonged Joshua and the ark. It is mentioned as the last achievement of Joshua that at the waters of Merom he defeated Jabin, king of Hazor, arid the allied princes of Galilee, thereby opening up the Galilee, north for Israelitish settlers. It is quite what we should expect that a great and united blow had to be struck at the Canaanites of the north before the new comers could occupy it in peace ; and King Jabin, who reappears at a later date, certainly does not suit the situation described in Judg. iv., v. The book of Joshua represents the conquest of western Palestine Narra- as having been the common undertaking of all the tribes together, tives oi which, after the original inhabitants have been extirpated, are ex- Joshua habited as laying the ownerless country at Joshua s feet in order and that he may divide it by lot amongst them. But this is a " syste- Judges, matic" generalization, contradicted by the facts which we otherwise know. For we possess another account of the conquest of Palestine, that of Judg. i., which runs parallel with the book of Joshua, It is shorter indeed and more superficial, yet in its entire mode of pre senting the subject more historical. According to its narrative, it appears that Joshua was the leader of Joseph and Benjamin only, with whom indeed Issachar, Zebulon, Dan, Naphtali, and Asher made common cause. But before his time the tribe of Judah had already crossed the Jordan and effected a lodgment in the territory which lay between the earlier seat of the nation in the wilderness of Kadesh and its then settlement on the plateau of Moab, forming in some degree a link of connexion between the two. It might be supposed that the tribe of Judah had not taken the longer route to the eastward of the Dead Sea at all, but had already at Kadesh broken off from the main body and thence turned its steps directly northward. But the representation actually given in Judg. i. , to the effect that it was from the direction of the Jordan and not from that of the Negeb that they came to take possession of their land, finds its confirmation in the fact that the southern portion of their terri tory was the last to come into their possession. The tradition is unwavering that Hebron was taken not by Judah but by Caleb, a family which stood in friendly relations with Israel, but had no connexion with it by blood. It was only through the policy of David that Caleb, Othniel, Jcrachmeel, and the rest of the Kenites who had their homes in the Negeb became completely incorporated with Judah, so that Hebron became at last the capital of that tribe. Its oldest seats, however, lay further to the north, in the region of Tekoa, Bethlehem, Baal Judah. It harmonizes well with this view to suppose that Simeon and Simeoi] Levi must have made at the same time their attempt to effect a and settlement in the hill country of Ephraim. One of their families, Levi. Dinah bath Leah, met with a favourable reception in the town of Shechem, and began to mix freely with its population, and thus the way was paved for the establishment of peaceable relations between the old inhabitants of the land and the new importations. But these relations were brought to an end by the two brothers who, in concert it must be supposed with their sister, fell upon the She- chcmites and massacred them. The final result proved disastrous. The Canaanites of the surrounding country united against them and completely destroyed them. There can be no doubt as to the trustworthiness of the somewhat enigmatical records of those events which are given in Gen. xlix. and xxxiv. ; in no other way is it possible to explain why Simeon and Levi, which originally came upon the stage of history on an equal footing with Reuben and Judah, should have already disappeared as independent tribes at the very beginning of the period of the judges. Now, that the de struction of Shechem by the Manassite Abimelech is quite distinct from the attack made by Simeon and Levi need hardly be said. On the other hand, the occurrence cannot be regarded as pro-Mosaic, but must be assigned to a time previous to the conquest of the hill country of Ephraim by Joseph ; for after Joseph s settlement there the two sons of Leah had manifestly nothing more to hope for in that locality. We are shut up, therefore, to the conclusion that they crossed the Jordan at the same time as Judah separated himself from the main body in search of a suitable territory. That Simeon accompanied Jndah in the first westward attempt is expressly stated in Judg. i. The fate of Levi, again, cannot be separated from that of Simeon (Gen. xlix. 5-7); that he is not expressly mentioned in Judg. i. ought not to cause surprise, when it is considered that later generations which regarded Levi as neither more nor less than a priest would have some difficulty in representing him as a thoroughly secular tribe. Such nevertheless he must have been, for the poet in Gen. xlix. 5-7 puts him on a footing of perfect equality with Simeon, and attributes to both brothers a very secular and bloodthirsty character ; he has no conception that Levi has a sacred vocation which is the reason of the dispersion of the tribe; the
