Book Overview - Joshua
by Arthur Peake
BY THE REV. SAMUEL HOLMES
THE Book of Joshua professes to narrate the invasion and conquest of Palestine by the Hebrews. The date of these events, according to tradition, is about 1450 B.C. From Egyptian history, however, we know that Palestine was under Egyptian dominion from about 1600 to 1200 B.C., so that the traditional date is probably wrong by about 200 years and must be corrected. We have also to correct the general account of the invasion given in this book. The impression is conveyed that Joshua invaded a country which was previously Canaanitish and on his death left it practically Israelitish. That this view is erroneous, we see from the more reliable traditions retained in Judges 1; from the well-known passage in Exodus 23:30, repeated in Deuteronomy 7:22 ("By little and little I will drive them out from before thee"); together with Judges 2:20-23, where three reasons are offered why the Canaanites were not driven out at once. The representation of rapid conquest given in our book is due to writers of a much later age, who summed up as having happened in a few years, events that required generations for their accomplishment.
It will perhaps be well to state shortly what we know about the inhabitants and rulers of Canaan prior to the occupation of the country by the Hebrews. (See further p. 63.)
The Canaanites, like the Hebrews themselves, belonged to the Semitic stock, and had occupied the country since about 2000 B.C. They were first under the rule of Babylon, then from 1600 to 1200, except for a short interval, under Egypt. Our knowledge of the Babylonian supremacy is indirect. "When, or how, this (i.e. the Babylonian) influence began we do not definitely know . . . but, at all events, Canaan had remained under it so long that, at least for official purposes, the practice of using the language and writing of Babylonia continued to prevail, even after Canaan had become a province of the Egyptian Empire" (Driver, Schweich Lectures, p. 34). Our knowledge, however, of the Egyptian supremacy rests upon contemporary inscriptions and other documentary evidence. In 1887 there were discovered the famous Tell el-Amarna tablets (p. 55), dating from the reigns of Amenhetep III (1414-1383) and Amenhetep IV (1383-1365), which throw considerable light upon the dependent condition of the Canaanites and their exposure to attack from their neighbours, the moment Egyptian help was withdrawn. We learn that the Canaanites were at this time attacked by certain invaders whom they called Khabiri (pp. 34, 55), and being unable to defend themselves sent pitiful supplications to Egypt for help. This help Amenhetep IV was unable to afford, and the rule of Egypt over Canaan practically lapsed. Forty or fifty years later, however, the Egyptians under Sety I (1326-1300) recovered their supremacy and kept it till about 1200, when they themselves fell into a state of confusion and anarchy. Being no longer able to maintain their hold over Canaan, they left the way open for others to invade and dominate the country. The Hebrew invasion was the result.
As stated above, records of the Egyptian supremacy are found in contemporary inscriptions which have been discovered in the last twenty or thirty years. From these we obtain three facts which have an important bearing on early Hebrew history. (1) In an inscription of Thothmes III (1500-1450) recording his conquests in Palestine, we find Jacob-el certainly, and Joseph-el possibly, as names of places in Central Palestine. (2) Again in a document dating from the reign of Rameses II (1300-1234) the title "Mount of User" (i.e. Asher) is given to a district in the north of Palestine; and finally (3) in an inscription of Merenptah (1243-1214) recording the overthrow of certain places in South Palestine, Israel is mentioned after Gezer, as a people that had been "destroyed."
The significance of these three facts in helping us to reconstruct the history will appear later on.
A tentative reconstruction may be given as follows. It is, no doubt, historically true that some Semitic clans or tribes known as Leah tribes and Rachel tribes established themselves on the E. of Jordan and made occasional raids into Palestine across the river. In doing this they only followed the practice of the E. Jordan tribes they had conquered or allied themselves with, as we see from the Tell el-Amarna tablets.
On the basis of Genesis 38 some scholars have gone so far as to affirm that there was no organised invasion of Palestine at all by the Hebrews; but most have been content to admit that some time after the sporadic raids of the Leah tribes, Joshua led the Rachel tribe or tribes across the Jordan and wrested a considerable amount of territory from the Canaanites in the hill country in the centre of Palestine.
We may assume, then, that the first incursions into Palestine by the Hebrews were probably begun by three of the Leah tribes—Judah, Simeon, and Levi; the other Leah tribe, Reuben, remained on the E. of the Jordan contented with its lot. The invading or immigrating tribes came into the centre of Palestine round about Shechem and settled there peaceably. But Simeon and Levi came to grief on account of a treacherous attack on the Shechemites, Judah was driven S. and according to the general interpretation of Genesis 38 established itself by alliances with various Canaanitish clans: the alliance with the Kenites, Calebites, and others took place later. So far as we can judge, it occupied the district where we find Israel mentioned in the inscriptions of Merenptah referred to above, and we may conjecture that it adopted the name Israel as that of its ancestor. It is true that there is in Judges 1 an account of the raids of Simeon and Judah which is inconsistent with the above, but the indirect accounts preserved in the old legends are of more value than the direct statements of later times.
Some time later the Rachel tribes or tribe invaded the centre of Palestine. The notice in Judges 1 of Joseph's treacherous capture of Bethel may have some historical basis, and indeed may be a doublet of the original narrative of the taking of Jericho. These Rachel clans settled down in districts where, as we learn from the inscription of Thothmes III, towns named Jacob-el and perhaps Joseph-el were situated. In the same way as Judah had adopted Israel, the Rachel tribes adopted Jacob and perhaps Joseph as their ancestors; Joseph being regarded as the son, since his territory was occupied later than that of Jacob-el. When the tribes were united under the monarchy, it was necessary to identify Israel with Jacob, and this was done in the well-known story in Genesis 32.
The name Joseph was still remembered as the designation of the Rachel tribe when the earliest part of the Book of Joshua was written. The tribe subsequently split up into Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin. Ephraim, no doubt, means "a fertile tract," Benjamin "the son of the south," while the meaning of Manasseh is still unknown. When Joseph broke up into Ephraim and Manasseh, Ephraim retained the centre of Palestine, and Manasseh settled a little to the N.; while its territory on the E. of the Jordan, which, according to tradition, was allotted to it by Moses, was probably gained by conquest when the settlements on the W. side were found to be insufficient. This conjecture is as early as Ewald, and is strengthened by Budde's emendation in Joshua 17:11, where the tribe of Joseph asks for more territory. (In passing, it may be noted that the request, and the granting of it, are quite inconsistent with the division of the land as narrated in the last part of the book.) Benjamin was, in all probability, the southern part of the Joseph or Ephraim tribe. In 2 Samuel 19:20, Shimei, of the tribe of Benjamin, claims to be of the house of Joseph.
When we come to discuss the origin of the other northern tribes we are involved in obscurities. We can only say that the Song of Deborah shows that some two or three generations after the conquest of the hill country by Rachel tribes, other Hebrew clans had settled in the N. It is possible also that some native Canaanitish tribes allied themselves to the invaders and became members of the confederacy. The likelihood of this is illustrated by the case of Asher. As already mentioned, a district in N. Palestine was called User or Asher before the date of the Conquest, while in historical times Asher was the name of a tribe of Israel located in the same neighbourhood. The explanation of this may be that a Hebrew clan took possession of the district called Asher and adopted the ancient name as its own, or else that the Asherites, a Canaanitish clan, deliberately allied themselves to the Hebrews. The narrative of the Gibeonites shows that the latter theory has some probability on its side. Why Issachar and Zebulun should be connected with the Leah tribes is not clear. It is possible that they were earlier settlers than the Rachel tribes, and were, on that account, reckoned to Leah by the early writers. The Zilpah and Bilhah tribes—Gad and Asher, Dan and Naphtali—probably joined the Hebrew confederacy last. Zilpah and Bilhah were, therefore, said to have been concubines of Jacob. The assignment of two sons or tribes to each may be arbitrary, but it is worth noticing that it corresponds to the breaking up of Joseph into the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.
The account of Judah's marriage and offspring in Genesis 38, which shows very plainly that this tribe made alliances with the Canaanites, is no doubt the reason why some scholars have denied any historicity to the account of the Conquest in our book. But against this must be set the fact that Judah apparently took some time to assimilate the other clans and present a united front to its neighbours and enemies; while the northern tribes, if we may judge from the Song of Deborah, were capable of resisting an oppressor; i.e. were more of a fighting unit than Judah was. Such unity would come from their having obtained their territory by conquest. The Rachel tribes may have obtained their land by the sword and the Book of Joshua may contain reminiscences of it.
If this reconstruction of the history of the Conquest is approximately true, the narratives of our book are simply an unscientific endeavour to account for certain historical facts known to the writers. In historical times the nation was divided into twelve tribes (see the Blessing of Jacob and the Blessing of Moses). The Israelitish historians naturally asked how this division came to pass. Their answer is given in Joshua, but it has no basis in history, and has no more value than the stories about some of the tribes in 1 Chronicles 4 f.; or to take an instance from our own book, the account of the institution of circumcision at Gilgal. The events recorded in chs. 1-12 can, according to most scholars, be taken as having some historical basis. We have the capture of Jericho, Ai, and Bethel, and the defeat of two coalitions against Israel, one in the S. at Beth-horon, and the other in the N. at the waters of Merom.
The last twelve chapters of the book are generally admitted to have little if any historical value. The casting of lots by the tribes for their territory is purely "ideal." There are, however, some fragments which contain material for history, e.g. Joshua 15:13 ff., the conquest of Hebron by Caleb and of Kirjath-sepher by Othniel. We may also accept Joshua 17:11 ff., referred to above, as showing that part of the Joseph tribe migrated to the W. of the Jordan in search of further territory. Most of these later chapters come from the Priestly writer, and were written after the Exile; they tell us the positions which the tribes occupied in historical times, and are so far valuable in enabling us to locate roughly where they were settled.
In the last two chapters we have two "ideal" speeches of Joshua, i.e. they contain sentiments such as the writers thought Joshua would be likely to utter under the given circumstances.
The great uncertainty which exists as to the history of the Hebrews before the Conquest can be seen from the fact that Professor Flinders Petrie, the eminent Egyptologist, considers that the invaders of Palestine were descended from the Hyksos kings who, having reigned over Egypt for some generations were finally expelled about 1600 B.C. and found a temporary home at Sharuhen (see Joshua 19:6*). These kings were probably Semites, they occupied a powerful position in Egypt, and were subsequently driven out (pp. 52, 64). These are historical facts, which is more than we can say for the accounts in Genesis.
Literature.—Commentaries: (a) Cooke (CB), J. S. Black (SCB), Bennett (SBOT), Robinson (Cent.B), (c) Dillmann (KEH), Steuernagel (HK), Holzinger (KHC). Other Literature: articles in HDB, EBi, SDB2; Holmes, Joshua, the Hebrew and Greek Texts. Driver, Modern Research as Illustrating the Bible (Schweich Lectures).
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
BY DR. F, J. FOAKES JACKSON
Bible History, "Prophetical"—The OT contains books which may be termed historical, but although they are grouped together in our Bibles, this is not the case in the arrangement adopted by the Jews. The only book which they perhaps recognised as history, the Chronicles (Dibhrê hayyâmîm, "words of years"), is placed at the very end of the sacred volume, whilst the main portion of the books known to us as "historical" is styled "prophetical." Thus the story of Israel is to the Jews in itself a prophecy (that is, a telling forth) of God's will and purpose to His people. In accordance with this ideal we find historical episodes interwoven, as in Isaiah and Jeremiah, with prophetic utterances. In judging the historical books, therefore, we must bear in mind that they do not conform to the standard demanded of modern historical writing. They are "prophetical"—that is, written with a view to edify and instruct—and are not designed to be text-books replete with colourless if accurate historical information.
Main Features of Historical Writing in the Bible.—The Hebrews are remarkable for the interest taken in the past of their nation, and this is the more strange as the Jew does not seem by nature to be disposed towards historical composition. Between the close of the OT story and the dissolution of the Jewish nation in the days of Hadrian, the people passed through some of the most stirring crises in the tragedy of humanity, yet many of the most important are scarcely recorded. But for the renegade Josephus we should have had no particulars of the fall of Jerusalem before the army of Titus. Yet in the OT, though the interest is almost entirely religious, we have a fairly complete record of Israel's fortunes from the conquest of its inheritance in Palestine to the restoration of the Jewish polity by Nehemiah.
Variety.—Bible history is remarkable, among other things, for its variety. No book in its present form is arranged like the others. Judges is unmistakable as compared with Joshua; Samuel and Kings have little resemblance; whilst Ezra-Nehemiah belongs to an entirely different school of thought, and Esther is absolutely unique in the OT and even in the Apocrypha. The materials, moreover, of which many of the books are composed are of the most varied description. We have in Kings, to take but a single example, the framework of a chronological history arranged in regnal years, chronicles of the kingdoms, Temple records, biographies, intermingled with which are stories told with all the magic art of portraying scenes inherent in the Eastern raconteur. We find in other books an admixture of pious exhortation, legal formulae, genealogies, and the like. In short, it may be said of the OT books of history that each has its own variegated pattern, which reveals the individuality of its author or compiler.
Choice of Subjects.—In their choice of subjects the prophetical historians of the Hebrew nation display characteristic peculiarities. We are surprised alike at what they tell us and what they omit. They are in a sense the least, and in another the most, patriotic of historians. They dwell but little on the national glories. How briefly are the successes of Saul over the Philistines, or the victories of Omri or Jeroboam II, or even those of the pious kings of Judah, recorded! Their story is often rather that of the nation's failure to reach its ideal, and even of how it fell short of the standard attained by less favoured peoples. And yet we cannot read the historical books without feeling chat they are instinct with a love of country and filled with a sense of Yahweh's protecting power. But the seeker after historical information will often be disappointed at the lack of facts where he most desires them. No details are given as to how Joshua conquered Central Palestine and conducted the nation to Shechem, its ancient capital. We learn nothing about the arrival of the Philistines, those formidable enemies of Israel. Nothing except the bare fact is preserved of the conquest of Og and his seventy cities. We seek in vain for the cause of David's feebleness, which made the revolt of Absalom so formidable. On the other hand, we have abundant details about the feuds with the Shechemites of a person so comparatively unimportant as Abimelech, the son of Gideon, of David's flight and his escapes from Saul, etc. The historical books were, as has been asserted, written for edification rather than for information; and it is not always easy, at times it is even impossible, to make a connected narrative out of them. Much of the story as related by the biblical writers must be reconstructed by a process which can hardly receive a name more honourable than that of guesswork.
Chronology.—One of the most formidable difficulties which the student of OT history has to face is that of chronology. In the later parts of the historical and prophetical books we are on fairly sure ground, because the writers give us the date by the year of the reigning kings of Persia. Even in the Books of Kings though there are serious discrepancies in the periods assigned to the kings of Israel and Judah respectively, we are able to date an event within say, ten years or so. We are also assisted by the more accurate chronology of the Assyrians. But the earliest date in Israelite history is that of a defeat inflicted on Ahab and his allies, which is not alluded to in the Bible. This is 854 B.C. From it we can infer that David lived, roughly, about 1000 B.C., but beyond this all is uncertainty. According to 1 Kings 4:1, Solomon's Temple was erected 480 years after the Exodus; but, by adding together the periods of affliction and repose given in the Book of Judges, we get an even longer period. But we are told in Exodus 1:11 that the Israelites during their oppression built Pithom and Raamses in Egypt, presumably under the great Rameses II, whose long reign was in the thirteenth century B.C. Consequently the Exodus must have taken place not much earlier than 200 or 250 years before the building of the Temple. The fact is that the ancient Hebrews seem to have used the number 40 and its multiples to express a period of time with considerable vagueness, and we really cannot tell whether they are speaking literally when they mention periods of 40, 20, or 120 years. To give a date even approximately before David is, to say the least, hazardous. We know that Jaddua, the last high priest mentioned in the OT, was alive in 333 B.C., and that Ezra and Nehemiah were in Jerusalem about 432 B.C.; but as to when the Exodus took place, or Joshua conquered Palestine and the events related in the historical books strictly so called begin, we have only the faintest idea.
Survey of Period of "Prophetic History."—The Book of Joshua, with which the history of Israel opens, has now generally been recognised as an integral part of the Pentateuch or five books of the Law. It certainly possesses the same structural peculiarities. It begins, where Deuteronomy leaves off, when Israel is encamped in the plains of Moab. Moses is dead, and Joshua is recognised as his successor. To him God says: "As I have been with Moses, so will I be with thee." The conquest of W. Palestine by Joshua is related under two headings: (1) the reduction of the south—the fall of Jericho and Ai and the defeat of the five kings; (2) che victory over the northern king, Jabin of Hazor (but see Judges 4). Central Palestine, viz. Shechem, is assumed already to have fallen into Israelite hands. Only two tribes, Joseph and Judah, receive inheritances from Joshua, Gad and Reuben having already been allotted territory in E. Palestine by Moses. The remaining seven tribes cast lots for the territory which they are permitted to conquer. The different inheritances are given with an abundance of detail, characteristic of P. Joshua charges Israel, as Moses did before his death, and dies on his property at Timnath Serah.
Judges is professedly a continuation of Joshua, but it is very different in style, scope, and arrangement; whereas Joshua is closely akin to the legal books, Judges rather resembles the historical. It covers a much longer period, extending over twelve judgeships, and is arranged on a distinct plan. In each case Israel sins, God punishes by an invasion, the nation repents, and a deliverer is raised up. Two supplementary narratives close the book, to show the state of the country when there was no king. It may be that the Book of Ruth is a third supplement, to show the origin of the great royal house of David.
The next four books, Samuel and Kings, are called by the Greek translators Books of Kingdoms" ( βασιλειῶν). 1 S. opens with the story of Samuel's birth in the days of Eli, the priestly judge, and gives an account of the loss of the Ark and the utter degradation of Israel under the Philistine yoke. Samuel, the first of the prophets, is the leader in the great struggle, and is compelled by the people to set a king over the nation in the person of Saul, who does much for the emancipation of his people, but is rejected by God and falls in battle against the Philistines. The main part of the last half of 1 S. is chiefly occupied with the hairbreadth escapes and adventures of David, the real founder of the monarchy, who is described as the "man after God's own heart." More space is given to him than to any other person mentioned in the Bible, about half 1 S., all 2 S., and two chapters of 1 K. forming his biography. 1 Kings is divided between the reign of Solomon, with an elaborate account of the Temple and its dedication, and the story of the division of the kingdom till the death of Ahab. The second book carries the reader down through the later history of the divided monarchy, relating the fall of the northern, and concluding with a history of the southern kingdom, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Captivity, to the restoration of Jehoiachin to a certain degree of honour by the son of Nebuchadrezzar. The latter period has to be supplemented by the historical portions of Jeremiah and the allusions to contemporary events in Isaiah and Ezekiel.
Characteristics of Prophetical History.—The books we have already considered represent the standpoint of the prophets of Israel; and, as we have seen, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are known as the first four of the prophetical books. Generally speaking, the view they take of the nation is that it is the people of God, who are specially bound to act in accordance with their high calling, though as a rule they fail lamentably to attain the standard demanded of them. But in no case is Israel represented as having a law like that known in after days as the "Law of Moses"; or, if it had, the majority of the nation, priests and prophets included, were completely ignorant of its contents. The ritual practices of all the saints and heroes of Israel throughout these books are quite different from those prescribed in Lev. and Nu., and if there is any Law it is rather that of the earliest legal chapters in Ex. (20-23).
Later Historical Writings.—Of the remaining historical books, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah (the two latter being often reckoned as one book) form a complete series. Chronicles is a sort of revised edition of all the earlier history, whilst the two other books continue the narrative. The object of the writer of Chronicles is to give the impression that the kings of Judah—for Israel is only incidentally mentioned—were scrupulous in carrying out the Pentateuchal Law as it appears in the Priest's Code. Thus David will allow only Levites to bear the Ark, and we read much of his care to provide for the ritual, and especially the music, of the sanctuary. Solomon, represented as a powerful though not always faithful monarch in the Book of Kings, here appears as a blameless ruler. When a king like Uzziah presumes to undertake priestly functions, he is smitten with disease. In short, the whole is permeated by a priestly conception of history entirely foreign to the Book of Kings. Chronicles takes us to the end of the Captivity, and closes with the decree of Cyrus commanding the Jews to return and rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. Ezra-Nehemiah, for the two books are really one, opens with this edict, relates how the altar was set up and the Temple commenced, and how the proceedings were hindered by the "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" (i.e. the Samaritans). During the reign of two Persian kings nothing was done, but under Darius the work was resumed and completed about 516 B.C. Then there is a complete silence for nearly two generations, when, in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus (464-424 B.C.), Ezra, a Jewish priest, was permitted to lead a company of exiles back to Jerusalem. A Jewish governor named Nehemiah was then appointed, and we are told how he and Ezra restored Jerusalem, and made the nation obey the Law of Moses. With these two great men the Bible history concludes about the year 432 B.C.
Extant Hebrew History the Fragment of a Lost Literature.—There is little doubt that the literature of ancient Israel was not confined to the OT as we now have it. On the contrary, the books bear evident traces of having been compressed into their present limits by the omission of facts which must have been recorded, and are almost necessary to a right understanding of what stands recorded. To take but a single example: the reign of Omri (1 Kings 16:29-34) is related with the utmost brevity, and many things are omitted which would have thrown light on the subsequent history, and cannot fail to have been known by the author. Nothing, for instance, in Kings would lead us to suppose that the king who defeated Tibni and built Samaria was so important that rulers of Israel, though belonging to the very dynasty which had supplanted his own, should call themselves "sons of Omri." 2 Kings 3 relates a rebellion of Moab against Israel, and we know from the Moabite Stone (p. 305) that Omri had oppressed Moab and probably imposed upon it the onerous conditions hinted at in this chapter. Further, the severe terms exacted by the Syrians in the days of Omri (1 Kings 20) imply a serious defeat of Israel, to which no allusion is made. Although it cannot be proved that these were recorded in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel, it is highly probable that this was the case, and that the writer of Kings deliberately hurried over this important reign in order to record events which seemed to him to be of greater interest or more to the edification of his readers.
But the historical writers in the OT openly confess the fact that there was a considerable literature to which their readers might have access. The Book of Jashar (Jos., 2 S.), the Chronicles of Israel and of Judah, alluded to in Kings, and the many works cited in the late Book of Chronicles, show that there was an extensive literature in existence even as late as 300 B.C. which has completely disappeared, and that we have only fragments from which to reconstruct the story of ancient Israel.
The External Sources of Hebrew History.—Besides the sources mentioned in the historical books we may mention the external sources which connect the history of the Hebrews with that of the world at large, in addition to those which criticism has indicated as the materials used by the writers and redactors of the historical books.
(a) One of the most serious objections to the antiquity of the Jewish people, which Josephus had to answer, was the silence of the Greek authors regarding them. He accounts for this by the fact that the ancestors of the Jews did not inhabit a maritime country and engaged little in trade, being occupied m living their own peculiarly religious life (Apion. 12). Josephus appeals, however, to the Tyrian records for the building of Solomon's Temple, quoting Dius (ch. 17) and Menander of Ephesus (ch. 18). He also quotes the testimony of the Babylonian Berossus (ch. 19) to the story of Noah, and on the treatment of the Jews by Nebuchadrezzar, and he relates that a writer named Megasthenes alludes to the first destruction of Jerusalem. But Josephus is evidently able to give his readers very little testimony, external to the Scriptures, for the history of Israel.
(b) Nor was more light thrown upon the subject till recent years, when the secrets of the hieroglyphic and of the cuneiform characters were revealed. Direct allusions to the Israelites are few, and can be easily enumerated: (a) The word Is-ra-e-ru, "Israelite," occurs on the stele of Merenptah (thirteenth century B.C.), describing Egyptian victories over Israel; (b) Shishak (1 K.) relates his devastation of Palestine (tenth century B.C.); (c) Ahab is mentioned in the Qarqara inscription as one of the kings allied against Assyria (864 B.C.); (d) Jehu's name, as of a king paying tribute to Shalmaneser II, is found on the Black Obelisk (British Museum), 842 B.C.; (e) Pekah and Hoshea (2 Kings 15) appear in an inscription, 737 B.C. and the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C.; (f) Hezekiah's name appears on the Taylor Cylinder (British Museum), 701 B.C.; (g) at an earlier date, probably in the ninth century B.C., we have on the Moabite stone Mesha's account of his rebellion against Israel (2 Kings 3:1).
(c) As in the case of the Pentateuch, the materials used by the writers other than those specified by them are mainly matters of conjecture, but they may be roughly enumerated as follows: Judges, like the Pentateuch, is probably made up of two early documents, J and E, which were thrown into their present form—subject, however, to revision—by a Deuteronomic editor, whilst portions were added by a reviser of the school of P. The Books of Samuel, like Judges, have been subject to Deuteronomic and post-exilic revisions; but in the life of Saul we have a combination of two works, one hostile and the other friendly to monarchical institutions. The compiler drew upon traditions of David, a life of Samuel, and a very ancient account of David's reign (2 Samuel 9-20). In 2 Samuel 1:18 the Book of Jashar (cf. Joshua 10:12-14) is quoted. The author of Kings alludes to the chronicles of the kings of Israel and the chronicles of the kings of Judah, and he probably had before him independent narratives of Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, etc., as well as the records of the Temple at Jerusalem.
The Miraculous in Hebrew History.—The historian has a natural distrust of the miraculous when he meets with it in records, not because he cannot believe in its possibility—for experience has taught him to be very cautious in saying that any event could not have occurred—but because a natural love of the marvellous makes men credulous in accepting supernatural explanations of events. Moreover, it is undeniable that the Hebrew writers regarded the whole story of the nation as a far greater miracle than any apparent interference with the laws of nature, because in every event they thought they saw the hand of the Lord of the whole earth shaping and directing the destinies of Israel. Nevertheless the impartial reader is impressed more by the absence than by the superabundance of miracle in the story of a people so intimately connected with its God as Israel, in so ancient and confessedly so religious a record as that found in the historical Scriptures. When we divide the miraculous events into (a) subjective wonders—i.e. visions, Divine messages, and the like, which may, at any rate, be accounted for by the state of mind of those who experienced them; (b) signs which were an acknowledged medium of God's communication with Israel; and (c) wonders interrupting the natural course of history. we have to acknowledge the comparative rarity of the last-named.
Taking 1 K. as an example, the presence of the miraculous under the above classification is :
In 1 Kings 1-11, which relates the accession of Solomon and his reign, only two miracles are recorded—Solomon's vision at Gibeon (1 Kings 3:5), and the cloud filling the Temple at its dedication (1 Kings 8:10). These may be classed under (a) visions and (b) signs respectively.
1 Kings 12-16, the account of the division of the kingdoms. No miracle appears except the signs which accompany the denunciation of the schism of Jeroboam in 1 Kings 13—i.e. the temporary drying up of the king's hand, the rending of the altar, and the punishment of the disobedient prophet. These all come into the category (b), signs.
1 Kings 17 - 2 Kings 2. Even in the life of Elijah, a man with admittedly supernatural powers, miracle is rare. His being fed by ravens is perhaps a doubtful miracle (see Commentary). The multiplying of the widow's cruse, the raising of her son from the dead, and the destruction of the captains of fifty, come under class (c) wonders; unless we include the descent of fire at Carmel on the sacrifice, which may be regarded as a sign (b), or the prophet's ascension, which may also be explained as a vision (a). Considering its momentous character and the great men who lived in it, in the period from David to Elijah miracles are conspicuous by their absence.
History as Compared with Prophecy.—Though, as we have seen, the supernatural as manifested in miracle is of comparatively rare occurrence in Hebrew history, it is assumed throughout that events are under the control of Yahweh, the God of Israel. This is, as a rule, revealed in history by the prophets. It is their function to declare the will of God and His immediate purpose, together with the punishment which will follow if it be disregarded. Rarely is the prophet made to disclose the remote future, as when the messenger to Jeroboam predicts the destruction of his altar by a king of Judah, "Josiah by name." As a rule the prophets in history play somewhat the same part as the chorus in a Greek play: they explain events as the tragedy of Israel progresses. It is not till a late period, almost at the close of the history of the northern kingdom, that we get the literary prophet supplementing the narrative, and that we are able to construct history from the fragments preserved in the utterances of the prophets. The literary prophets from the eighth century onward stand in much the same relation to the recorded history in the OT as do the Epistles of Paul towards the Acts of the Apostles. Both are documents contemporary with the events, but, as a rule, these abound in allusions, the meaning of which can only be conjectured. Amos and Hosea give a view of Israel's later history, and Isaiah of Judah's relations with Assyria, differing from the records in Kings; just as the Epistle to the Galatians gives a very different impression of the controversy between the Jewish and Gentile Christians from what could be gathered from the Acts. It is, however, necessary to exercise much discretion in the use of the prophets for historical purposes, as both the Hebrew text and the genuineness of many passages are subjects of considerable dispute.
How far does the OT Give us Strict History?—The Bible, it has been already suggested, can hardly be said to record history with the strict accuracy demanded of a modern work. As it is easy to see from the Pss., the prophets, the Apocryphal literature, and the NT, the religious interest in history practically ceased with David, and was mainly centred in the primitive story as told in Genesis and in the deliverance from Egypt and the wanderings in the wilderness. The record from Joshua to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans as it appears in the OT is a fragmentary story of Israel, gathered from a number of lost sources and told for the sake of showing how the nation fell short of the ideal designed for it, and of the punishments which ensued. The writers or compilers, living centuries after the event, are usually less interested in the accuracy of their narrative than in the moral they wished to point. Formerly what was called inspiration was deemed to be so bound up with the exact truth of the record as to stand or fall with it. Consequently the unbeliever made his main point of attack some disputable statement, which the faithful were in honour bound to defend. Now, however, it is generally recognised that no early record can be expected to give the exact circumstances, especially when much of it is demonstrably not contemporary with the events; and in a work like the historical section of the OT we look rather to the purpose of the author than the details in which it is discoverable. The former is, in the biblical narrative, sufficiently clear. The history is professedly a commentary on the dealing of Yahweh with His people, showing in what manner He bore with their backslidings, punished and delivered them. The books were never intended to supply an accurate and exhaustive chronicle of events for the modern historian. All that can be claimed for them is that they give an outline, often singularly dispassionate and impartial, of the fortunes which befell the nation of Israel.
the Second Week of Lent