Chapter V: Part 5

Upon this blank period before the foundation of Judaism (§§ 21, 23)
much light is also thrown by another body of evidence. It has long
been recognized that 1 Chron. ii. and iv. represent a Judah composed
mainly of groups which had moved up from the south (Hebron) to the
vicinity of Jerusalem. It includes Caleb and Jerahmeel, Kenite or
Rechabite families, scribes, &c., and these, as "sons" of Hezron,
claim some relationship with Gilead. The names point generally to an
affinity with south Palestine and north Arabia (Edom, Midian, &c.; see
especially the lists in Gen. xxxvi.), and suggest that certain members
of a closely related collection of groups had separated from the main
body and were ultimately enrolled as Israelites. It is also recognized
by many scholars that in the present account of the exodus there are
indications of the original prominence of traditions of Kadesh, and
also of a journey northwards in which Caleb, Kenites and others took
part (§ 5). On these and on other grounds besides, it has long been
felt that south Palestine, with its north Arabian connexions, is of
real importance in biblical research, and for many years efforts have
been made to determine the true significance of the evidence. The
usual tendency has been to regard it in the light of the criticism of
early Israelite history, which demands some reconstruction (§ 8), and
to discern distinct tribal movements previous to the union of Judah
and Israel under David. On the other hand, the elaborate theory of T.
K. Cheyne involves the view that a history dealing with the south
actually underlies our sources and can be recovered by emendation of
the text. Against the former is the fact that although certain groups
are ultimately found in Judah (Judg. i.), the evidence for the
movement--a conquest north of Kadesh, almost at the gate of the
promised land--explicitly mentions Israel; and against the latter the
evidence again shows that this representation has been deliberately
subordinated to the entrance of Israel from beyond the Jordan.[44] In
either case the history of separate sections of people may have been
extended to Israel as a whole, but there is no evidence for any
adequate reconstruction. Yet the presence of distinct representations
of the history may be recognized, and since the Judaean compilers of
the Old Testament have incorporated non-Judaean sources (e.g. the
history of the northern monarchy), it is obvious that, apart from
indigenous Judaean tradition, the southern groups which were
ultimately enrolled in Judah would possess their own stock of oral and
written lore. Hence it is noteworthy that the late editor of Judges
has given the first place to Othniel, a Kenizzite, and therefore of
Edomite affinity, though subsequently reckoned as a Judaean (Judg i.
13, iii. 9; cf. Gen. xxxvi. 11; 1 Chron. iv. 13). Of Kenite interest
is the position of Cain, ancestor of heroes of culture and of the
worship of Yahweh (Gen. iv. 17 sqq.). One fragmentary source alludes
to a journey to the Midianite or Kenite father-in-law of Moses with
the Ark (q.v.); another knows of its movements with David and the
priest Abiathar (a name closely related to Jether or Jethro; cf. also
1 Chron. iv. 17). Distinctively Calebite are the stories of the eponym
who, fearless of the "giants" of Palestine, gained striking divine
promises (Num. xiv. 11-24); Caleb's overthrow of the Hebronite giants
finds a parallel in David's conflicts before the capture of Jerusalem,
and may be associated with the belief that these primitive giants once
filled the land (Josh. xi. 21 seq.; see § 7, and DAVID; SAMUEL, BOOKS
OF). Calebite, too, are Hebron and its patron Abraham, and both
increase in prominence in the patriarchal narratives, where, moreover,
an important body of tradition can have emanated only from outside
Israel and Judah (see GENESIS). Although Judah was always closely
connected with the south, these "southern" features (once clearly more
extensive and complete) are found in the Deuteronomic and priestly
compilations, and their presence in the historical records can hardly
be severed from the prominence of "southern" families in the vicinity
of Jerusalem, some time after the fall of Jerusalem. The background in
1 Chron. ii. presupposes the desolation after that disaster, and some
traces of these families are found in Nehemiah's time; and while the
traditions know of a separation from Edom (viz. stories of Jacob and
his "brother" Esau), elsewhere Edom is frequently denounced for
unbrotherly conduct in connexion with some disaster which befell
Jerusalem, apparently long after 586 B.C. (see § 22).[45] The true
inwardness of this movement, its extent and its history, can hardly be
recovered at present, but it is noteworthy that the evidence generally
involves the Levites, an ecclesiastical body which underwent an
extremely intricate development. To a certain extent it would seem
that even as Chronicles (q.v.) has passed through the hands of one who
was keenly interested in the Temple service, so the other historical
books have been shaped not only by the late priestly writers
(symbolized in literary criticism by P), but also by rather earlier
writers, also of priestly sympathies, but of "southern" or
half-Edomite affinity. This is independently suggested by the contents
and vicissitudes of the purely ecclesiastical traditions.[46]

Recent criticism goes to show that there is a very considerable body
of biblical material, more important for its attitude to the history
than for its historical accuracy, the true meaning of which cannot as
yet be clearly perceived. It raises many serious problems which
concentrate upon that age which is of the greatest importance for the
biblical and theological student. The perplexing relation between the
admittedly late compilations and the actual course of the early
history becomes still more intricate when one observes such a feature
as the late interest in the Israelite tribes. No doubt there is much
that is purely artificial and untrustworthy in the late (post-exilic)
representations of these divisions, but it is almost incredible that
the historical foundation for their early career is severed from the
written sources by centuries of warfare, immigration and other
disturbing factors. On the one hand, conservative scholars insist upon
the close material relation between the constituent sources; critical
scholars, on the other hand, while recognizing much that is relatively
untrustworthy, refrain from departing from the general outlines of the
canonical history more than is absolutely necessary. Hence the various
reconstructions of the earlier history, with all their inherent
weaknesses. But historical criticism is faced with the established
literary conclusions which, it should be noticed, place the
Deuteronomic and priestly compilations posterior to the great changes
at and after the fall of the northern monarchy, and, to some extent,
contemporary with the equally serious changes in Judah. There were
catastrophes detrimental to the preservation of older literary
records, and vicissitudes which, if they have not left their mark on
contemporary history--which is singularly blank--may be traced on the
representations of the past. There are external historical
circumstances and internal literary features which unite to show that
the application of the literary hypotheses of the Old Testament to the
course of Israelite history is still incomplete, and they warn us that
the intrinsic value of religious and didactic writings should not
depend upon the accuracy of their history.[47] Future research may not
be able to solve the problems which arise in the study of the period
now under discussion; it is the more necessary, therefore, that all
efforts should be tested in the light of purely external evidence (see
further § 24; and PALESTINE: _History_).

21. _Nehemiah and Ezra._--There is another remarkable gap in the historical traditions between the time of Zerubbabel and the reign of Artaxerxes I. In obscure circumstances the enthusiastic hopes have melted away, the Davidic scion has disappeared, and Jerusalem has been the victim of another disaster. The country is under Persian officials, the nobles and priests form the local government, and the ground is being prepared for the erection of a hierocracy. It is the work of rebuilding and reorganization, of social and of religious reforms, which we encounter in the last pages of biblical history, and in the records of Ezra and Nehemiah we stand in Jerusalem in the very centre of epoch-making events. Nehemiah, the cup-bearer of Artaxerxes at Susa, plunged in grief at the news of the desolation of Jerusalem, obtained permission from the king to rebuild the ruins. Provided with an escort and with the right to obtain supplies of wood for the buildings, he returned to the city of his fathers' sepulchres (the allusion may suggest his royal ancestry). His zeal is represented in a twofold aspect. Having satisfied himself of the extent of the ruins, he aroused the people to the necessity of fortifying and repopulating the city, and a vivid account is given in his name of the many dangers which beset the rebuilding of the walls. Sanballat of Horon, Tobiah the Ammonite, and Gashmu the Arabian (? Edomite) unceasingly opposed him. Tobiah and his son Johanan were related by marriage to Judaean secular and priestly families, and active intrigues resulted, in which nobles and prophets took their part. It was insinuated that Nehemiah had his prophets to proclaim that Judah had again its own king; it was even suggested that he was intending to rebel against Persia! Nehemiah naturally gives us only his version, and the attitude of Haggai and Zechariah to Zerubbabel may illustrate the feeling of his partisans. But Tobiah and Johanan themselves were worshippers of Yahweh (as their names also show), and consequently, with prophets taking different sides and with the Samaritan claims summarily repudiated (Neh. ii. 20; cf. Ezra iv. 3), all the facts cannot be gathered from the narratives. Nevertheless the undaunted Judaean pressed on unmoved by the threatening letters which were sent around, and succeeded in completing the walls within fifty-two days.[48]

In the next place, Nehemiah appears as governor of the small district of Judah and Benjamin. Famine, the avarice of the rich, and the necessity of providing tribute had brought the humbler classes to the lowest straits. Some had mortgaged their houses, fields and vineyards to buy corn; others had borrowed to pay the taxes, and had sold their children to their richer brethren to repay the debt. Nehemiah was faced with old abuses, and vehemently contrasted the harshness of the nobles with the generosity of the exiles who would redeem their poor countrymen from slavery. He himself had always refrained from exacting the usual provision which other governors had claimed; indeed, he had readily entertained over 150 officials and dependants at his table, apart from casual refugees (Neh. v.). We hear something of a twelve-years' governorship and of a second visit, but the evidence does not enable us to determine the sequence (xiii. 6). Neh. v. is placed in the middle of the building of the walls in fifty-two days; the other reforms during the second visit are closely connected with the dedication of the walls and with the events which immediately follow his first arrival when he had come to rebuild the city. Nehemiah also turns his attention to religious abuses. The sabbath, once a festival, had become more strictly observed, and when he found the busy agriculturists and traders (some of them from Tyre) pursuing their usual labours on that day, he pointed to the disasters which had resulted in the past from such profanation, and immediately took measures to put down the evil (Neh. xiii. 18; cf. Jer. xvii. 20 sqq.; Ezek. xx. 13-24; Isa. lvi. 2, 6; lviii. 13). Moreover, the maintenance of the Temple servants called for supervision; the customary allowances had not been paid to the Levites who had come to Jerusalem after the smaller shrines had been put down, and they had now forsaken the city. His last acts were the most conspicuous of all. Some of the Jews had married women of Ashdod, Ammon and Moab, and the impetuous governor indignantly adjured them to desist from a practice which was the historic cause of national sin. Even members of the priestly families had intermarried with Tobiah and Sanballat; the former had his own chamber in the precincts of the Temple, the daughter of the latter was the wife of a son of Joiada the son of the high priest Eliashib. Again Nehemiah's wrath was kindled. Tobiah was cast out, the offending priest expelled, and a general purging followed, in which all the foreign element was removed. With this Nehemiah brings the account of his reforms to a conclusion, and the words "Remember me, O my God, for good" (xiii. 31) are not meaningless. The incidents can be supplemented from Josephus. According to this writer (_Ant._ xi. 7, 2), a certain Manasseh, the brother of Jaddua and grandson of Joiada, refused to divorce his wife, the daughter of Sanballat. For this he was driven out, and, taking refuge with the Samaritans, founded a rival temple and priesthood upon Mt Gerizim, to which repaired other priests and Levites who had been guilty of mixed marriages. There is little doubt that Josephus refers to the same events; but there is considerable confusion in his history of the Persian age, and when he places the schism and the foundation of the new Temple in the time of Alexander the Great (after the obscure disasters of the reign of Artaxerxes III.), it is usually supposed that he is a century too late.[49] At all events, there is now a complete rupture with Samaria, and thus, in the concluding chapter of the last of the historical books of the Old Testament, Judah maintains its claim to the heritage of Israel and rejects the right of the Samaritans to the title[50] (see § 5).

In this separation of the Judaeans from religious and social intercourse with their neighbours, the work of Ezra (q.v.) requires notice. The story of this scribe (now combined with the memoirs of Nehemiah) crystallizes the new movement inaugurated after a return of exiles from Babylonia. The age can also be illustrated from Isa. lvi.-lxvi. and Malachi (q.v.). There was a poor and weak Jerusalem, its Temple stood in need of renovation, its temple-service was mean, its priests unworthy of their office. On the one side was the grinding poverty of the poor; on the other the abuses of the governors. There were two leading religious parties: one of oppressive formalists, exclusive, strict and ritualistic; the other, more cosmopolitan, extended a freer welcome to strangers, and tolerated the popular elements and the superstitious cults which are vividly depicted (Isa. lxv. seq.). But the former gained the day, and, realizing that the only hope of maintaining a pure worship of Yahweh lay in a forcible isolation from foreign influence, its adherents were prepared to take measures to ensure the religious independence of their assembly. It is related that Ezra, the scribe and priest, returned to Jerusalem with priests and Levites, lay exiles, and a store of vessels for the Temple. He was commissioned to inquire into the religious condition of the land and to disseminate the teaching of the Law to which he had devoted himself (Ezra vii.). On his arrival the people were gathered together, and in due course he read the "book of the Law of Moses" dally for seven days (Neh. viii.). They entered into an agreement to obey its teaching, undertaking in particular to avoid marriages with foreigners (x. 28 sqq.). A special account is given of this reform (Ezra ix. seq.) and the description of Ezra's horror at the prevalence of intermarriage, which threatened to destroy the distinctive character of the community, sufficiently indicates the attitude of the stricter party. The true seed of Israel separated themselves from all foreigners (not, however, without some opposition) and formed an exclusively religious body or "congregation." Dreams of political freedom gave place to hopes of religious independence, and "Israel" became a church, the foundation of which it sought in the desert of Sinai a thousand years before.

22. _Post-exilic History._--The biblical history for the period in the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah is exceptionally obscure, and it is
doubtful how far the traditions can be trusted before we reach the
reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra vii. sqq., Neh.). The records belonging to
this reign represent four different stages: (a) The Samaritans
reported that the Jews who had returned from the king to Jerusalem
were rebuilding the city and completing its walls, an act calculated
to endanger the integrity of the province. Artaxerxes accordingly
instructed them to stop the work until he should give the necessary
decree, and this was done by force (Ezra iv. 7-23, undated; 1 Esdras
ii. 16 sqq. mentions a building of the Temple!). (b) It was in the 7th
year (i.e. 458 B.C.) that Ezra returned with a small body of exiles to
promulgate the new laws he had brought and to set the Temple service
in order.[51] Fortified with remarkable powers, some of which far
exceed the known tolerance of Persian kings, he began wide-sweeping
marriage reforms; but the record ceases abruptly (vii.-x.). (c) In the
20th year (445 B.C.) Nehemiah returned with permission to rebuild the
walls, the citadel and the governor's house (Neh. ii. 5, 8; see § 21
above). But (d), whilst as governor he accomplishes various needed
reforms, there is much confusion in the present narratives, due partly
to the resumption of Ezra's labours after an interval of twelve years,
and partly to the closely related events of Nehemiah's activity in
which room must be found for his twelve-years' governorship and a
second visit. The internal literary and historical questions are
extremely intricate, and the necessity for some reconstruction is very
generally felt (for preliminary details, see EZRA AND NEHEMIAH). The
disaster which aroused Nehemiah's grief was scarcely the fall of
Jerusalem in 586 B.C., but a more recent one, and it has been
conjectured that it followed the work of Ezra (in _b_ above). On the
other hand, a place can hardly be found for the history of Ezra before
the appearance of Nehemiah; he moves in a settled and peaceful
community such as Nehemiah had helped to form, his reforms appear to
be more mature and schematic than those of Nehemiah; and, whilst
Josephus handles the two separately, giving Ezra the priority, many
recent scholars incline to place Nehemiah's first visit before the
arrival of Ezra.[52] That later tradition should give the pre-eminence
to the priestly reforms of Ezra is in every way natural, but it has
been found extremely difficult to combine the two in any
reconstruction of the period. Next, since there are three distinct
sources, for (a) above, and for the work of Nehemiah and of Ezra,
implicit reliance cannot be placed upon the present sequence of
narratives. Thus (a), with its allusion to a further decree, forms a
plausible prelude to the return of either Ezra (vii. 13) or Nehemiah
(i. 3, ii. 3); and if it is surprising that the Samaritans and other
opponents, who had previously waited to address Artaxerxes (Ezra iv.
14 sqq., v. 5, 17), should now interfere when Nehemiah was armed with
a royal mandate (Neh. ii. 7-9), it is very difficult not to conclude
that the royal permits, as now detailed, have been coloured by Jewish
patriotism and the history by enmity to Samaria. Finally, the
situation in the independent and undated record (a) points to a
return, a rebuilding (apparently after some previous destruction), and
some interference. This agrees substantially with the independent
records of Nehemiah, and unless we assume two disasters not widely
separated in date--viz. those presupposed in (a) and (c)--the record
in (a), may refer to that stage in the history where the other source
describes the intrigues of the Samaritans and the letters sent by
Tobiah (cf. Tabeel in Ezra iv. 7) to frighten Nehemiah (Neh. vi.
19).[53] Their insinuations that Nehemiah was seeking to be ruler and
their representations to Artaxerxes would be enough to alarm the king
(cf. Neh. vi. 5-9, 19, and Ezra iv. 15 seq., 20 seq.), and it may
possibly be gathered that Nehemiah at once departed to justify himself
(Neh. vii. 2, xiii. 4, 6). Nevertheless, since the narratives are no
longer in their original form or sequence, it is impossible to trace
the successive steps of the sequel; although if the royal favour was
endorsed (cf. the account ascribed to the time of Darius, Ezra v.
seq.), Nehemiah's position as a reformer would be more secure.

Although there was a stock of tradition for the post-exilic age (cf.
Daniel, Esther, 1 Esdras, Josephus), the historical narratives are of
the scantiest and vaguest until the time of Artaxerxes, when the
account of a return (Ezra iv. 12), which otherwise is quite ignored,
appears to have been used for the times of Darius (1 Esdras iv. seq.)
and subsequently of Cyrus (Ezra i.-iii.). Moreover, although general
opinion identifies our Artaxerxes with the first of that name, certain
features suggest that there has been some confusion with the
traditions of the time of Artaxerxes II. and III. (§ 19). But the
problems are admittedly complicated, and since one is necessarily
dependent upon scanty narratives arranged and rearranged by later
hands in accordance with their own historical theories, it is
difficult to lay stress upon internal evidence which appears to be
conclusive for this or that reconstruction.[54] The main facts,
however, are clear. Jerusalem had suffered some serious catastrophe
before Nehemiah's return; a body of exiles returned, and in spite of
interference the work of rebuilding was completed; through their
influence the Judaean community underwent reorganization, and
separated itself from its so-called heathen neighbours. How many years
elapsed from beginning to end can hardly be said. Tradition
concentrated upon Ezra and his age many events and changes of
fundamental importance. The canonical history has allowed only one
great destruction of Jerusalem, and the disaster of 586 B.C. became
the type for similar disasters, but how many there were criticism can
scarcely decide.[55] Allusions to Judah's sufferings at the hands of
Edom, Moab and Ammon often imply conditions which are not applicable
to 586. A definite series knows of an invasion and occupation by Edom
(q.v. end), a people with whom Judah, as the genealogies show, had
once been intimately connected. The unfriendliness of the "brother"
people, which added so much to the bitterness of Judah, although
associated with the events of 586 (so especially 1 Esdras iv. 45),
probably belongs to a much later date.[56] The tradition that Edomites
burned the Temple and occupied part of Judah (ib. _vv._ 45, 50) is
partially confirmed by Ezek. xxxv. 5, 10, xxxvi. 5; Ps. cxxxvii. 7;
but the assumption that Darius, as in 1 Esdras, helped the Jews
against them can with difficulty be maintained. The interesting
conjecture that the second Temple suffered another disaster in the
obscure gap which follows the time of Zerubbabel has been urged, after
Isa. lxiii. 7-lxiv. 12, by Kuenen (afterwards withdrawn) and by
Sellin, and can be independently confirmed. In the records of Nehemiah
the ruins of the city are extensive (ii. 8, 17, iii.; cf. Ecclus.
xlix. 13), and the tradition that Nehemiah rebuilt this Temple (Jos.
_Ant._ xi. 5, 6; 2 Macc. i. 18) is supported (a) by the explicit
references to the rebuilding of the Temple in the reign of Artaxerxes
(1 Esdras ii. 18, not in Ezra iv. 12; but both in a context relating
to the history of the Temple), and (b) by the otherwise inaccurate
statement that the Temple was finished according to the decree of
"Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia" (Ezra vi. 14).

The untrustworthy account of the return in the time of Cyrus (Ezra i.
sqq.) or Darius (1 Esdras iv. seq.; probably the older form) is
curiously indebted to material which seems to have belonged to the
history of the work of Nehemiah (cf. Ezra ii. with Neh. vii.), and the
important return in the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra iv. 12) seems to be
connected with other references to some new settlement (Neh. xi. 20,
23, 25, especially xii. 29). The independent testimony of the names in
Neh. iii. is against any previous large return from Babylon, and
clearly illustrates the strength of the groups of "southern" origin
whose presence is only to be expected (p. 285). Moreover, the late
compiler of 1 Chronicles distinguishes a Judah composed almost wholly
of "southern" groups (1 Chron. ii. and iv.) from a subsequent stage
when the first inhabitants of Jerusalem correspond in the main to the
new population after Nehemiah had repaired the ruins (1 Chron. ix. and
Neh. xi.). Consequently, underlying the canonical form of post-exilic
history, one may perhaps recognize some fresh disaster, after the
completion of Zerubbabel's temple, when Judah suffered grievously at
the hands of its Edomite brethren (in Malachi, date uncertain,
vengeance has at last been taken); Nehemiah restored the city, and the
traditions of the exiles who returned at this period have been thrown
back and focussed upon the work of Zerubbabel. The criticism of the
history of Nehemiah, which leads to this conjecture, suggests also
that if Nehemiah repulsed the Samaritan claims (ii. 20; cf. Ezra iv.
3, where the building of the Temple is concerned) and refused a
compromise (vi. 2), it is extremely unlikely that Samaria had hitherto
been seriously hostile; see also C. C. Torrey, _Ezra Studies_, pp.
321-333.

Biblical history ends with the triumph of the Judaean community, the
true "Israel," the right to which title is found in the distant past.
The Judaean view pervades the present sources, and whilst its David
and Solomon ruled over a united land, the separation under Jeroboam is
viewed as one of calf-worshipping northern tribes from Jerusalem with
its one central temple and the legitimate priesthood of the Zadokites.
It is from this narrower standpoint of an exclusive and confined Judah
(and Benjamin) that the traditions as incorporated in the late
recensions gain fresh force, and in Israel's renunciation of the
Judaean yoke the later hostility between the two may be read between
the lines. The history in Kings was not finally settled until a very
late date, as is evident from the important variations in the
Septuagint, and it is especially in the description of the time of
Solomon and the disruption that there continued to be considerable
fluctuations.[57] The book has no finale and the sudden break may not
be accidental. It is replaced by Chronicles, which, confining itself
to Judaean history from a later standpoint (after the Persian age),
includes new characteristic traditions wherein some recollection of
more recent events may be recognized. Thus, the south Judaean or south
Palestinian element shows itself in Judaean genealogies and lists;
there are circumstantial stories of the rehabilitation of the Temple
and the reorganization of cultus; there are fuller traditions of
inroads upon Judah by southern peoples and their allies. There is also
a more definite subordination of the royal authority to the priesthood
(so too in the writings of Ezekiel, q.v.); and the stories of
punishment inflicted upon kings who dared to contend against the
priests (Jehoash, Uzziah) point to a conflict of authority, a hint of
which is already found in the reconciliation of Zerubbabel and the
priest Joshua in a passage ascribed to Zechariah (ch. vi.).

23. _Post-exilic Judaism._--With Nehemiah and Ezra we enter upon the era in which a new impulse gave to Jewish life and thought that form which became the characteristic orthodox Judaism. It was not a new religion that took root; older tendencies were diverted into new paths, the existing material was shaped to new ends. Judah was now a religious community whose representative was the high priest of Jerusalem. Instead of sacerdotal kings, there were royal priests, anointed with oil, arrayed with kingly insignia, claiming the usual royal dues in addition to the customary rights of the priests. With his priests and Levites, and with the chiefs and nobles of the Jewish families, the high priest directs this small state, and his death marks an epoch as truly as did that of the monarchs in the past. This hierarchical government, which can find no foundation in the Hebrew monarchy, is the forerunner of the Sanhedrin (q.v.); it is an institution which, however inaugurated, set its stamp upon the narratives which have survived. Laws were recast in accordance with the requirements of the time, with the result that, by the side of usages evidently of very great antiquity, details now appear which were previously unknown or wholly unsuitable. The age, which the scanty historical traditions themselves represent as one of supreme importance for the history of the Jews, once seemed devoid of interest, and it is entirely through the laborious scholarship of the 19th century that it now begins to reveal its profound significance. The Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, that the hierarchical law in its complete form in the Pentateuch stands at the close and not at the beginning of biblical history, that this mature Judaism was the fruit of the 5th century B.C. and not a divinely appointed institution at the exodus (nearly ten centuries previously), has won the recognition of almost all Old Testament scholars. It has been substantiated by numerous subsidiary investigations in diverse departments, from different standpoints, and under various aspects, and can be replaced only by one which shall more adequately explain the literary and historical evidence (see further, p. 289).

The post-exilic priestly spirit represents a tendency which is absent from the Judaean Deuteronomic book of Kings but is fully mature in the later, and to some extent parallel, book of Chronicles (q.v.). The "priestly" traditions of the creation and of the patriarchs mark a very distinct advance upon the earlier narratives, and appear in a further developed form in the still later book of Jubilees, or "Little Genesis," where they are used to demonstrate the pre-Mosaic antiquity of the priestly or Levitical institutions. There is also an unmistakable development in the laws; and the priestly legislation, though ahead of both Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, not to mention still earlier usage, not only continues to undergo continual internal modification, but finds a further distinct development, in the way of definition and interpretation, outside the Old Testament--in the Talmud (q.v.). Upon the characteristics of the post-exilic priestly writings we need not dwell.[58] Though one may often be repelled by their lifelessness, their lack of spontaneity and the externalization of the ritual, it must be recognized that they placed a strict monotheism upon a legal basis. "It was a necessity that Judaism should incrust itself in this manner; without those hard and ossified forms the preservation of its essential elements would have proved impossible. At a time when all nationalities, and at the same time all bonds of religion and national customs, were beginning to be broken up in the seeming cosmos and real chaos of the Graeco-Roman Empire, the Jews stood out like a rock in the midst of the ocean. When the natural conditions of independent nationality all failed them, they nevertheless artificially maintained it with an energy truly marvellous, and thereby preserved for themselves, and at the same time for the whole world, an eternal good."[59]

If one is apt to acquire too narrow a view of Jewish legalism, the whole experience of subsequent history, through the heroic age of the Maccabees (q.v.) and onwards, only proves that the minuteness of ritual procedure could not cramp the heart. Besides, this was only one of the aspects of Jewish literary activity. The work represented in Nehemiah and Ezra, and put into action by the supporters of an exclusive Judaism, certainly won the day, and their hands have left their impress upon the historical traditions. But Yahwism, like Islam, had its sects and tendencies, and the opponents to the stricter ritualism always had followers. Whatever the predominant party might think of foreign marriages, the tradition of the half-Moabite origin of David serves, in the beautiful idyll of Ruth (q.v.), to suggest the debt which Judah and Jerusalem owed to one at least of its neighbours. Again, although some may have desired a self-contained community opposed to the heathen neighbours of Jerusalem, the story of Jonah implicitly contends against the attempt of Judaism to close its doors. The conflicting tendencies were incompatible, but Judaism retained the incompatibilities within its limits, and the two tendencies, prophetical and priestly, continue, the former finding its further development in Christianity.[60]

The Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis (§ 4) does not pretend to be complete
in all its details and it is independent of its application to the
historical criticism of the Old Testament. No alternative hypothesis
prevails, mere desultory criticism of the internal intricacies being
quite inadequate. Maintaining that the position of the Pentateuch
alone explains the books which follow, conservative writers concede
that it is composite, has had some literary history, and has suffered
some revision in the post-exilic age. Their concessions continue to
become ever more significant, and all that follows from them should be
carefully noticed by those who are impressed by their arguments. They
identify with Deuteronomy the law-roll which explains the noteworthy
reforms of Josiah (§ 16); but since it is naturally admitted that
religious conditions had become quite inconsistent with Mosaism, the
conservative view implies that the "long-lost" Deuteronomy must have
differed profoundly from any known Mosaic writings to which earlier
pious kings and prophets had presumably adhered. Similarly, the "book
of the Law of Moses," brought from Babylon by Ezra (Ezra vii.; Neh.
viii.), clearly contained much of which the people were ignorant, and
conservative writers, who oppose the theory that a new Law was then
introduced, emphasize (a) the previous existence of legislation (to
prove that Ezra's book was not entirely a novelty), and (b) the gross
wickedness in Judah (as illustrated by the prophets) from the time of
Josiah to the strenuous efforts of the reformers on behalf of the most
fundamental principles of the national religion. This again simply
means that the Mosaism of Ezra or Nehemiah must have differed
essentially from the priestly teaching prior to their arrival. The
arguments of conservative writers involve concessions which, though
often overlooked by their readers, are very detrimental to the
position they endeavour to support, and the objections they bring
against the theory of the introduction of new law-books (under a
Josiah or an Ezra) apply with equal force to the promulgation of
Mosaic teaching which had been admittedly ignored or forgotten. Their
arguments have most weight, however, when they show the hazardous
character of reconstructions which rely upon the trustworthiness of
the historical narratives. What book Ezra really brought from Babylon
is uncertain; the writer, it seems, is merely narrating the
introduction of the Law ascribed to Moses, even as a predecessor has
recounted the discovery of the Book of the Law, the Deuteronomic code
subsequently included in the Pentateuch.

The importance which the biblical writers attach to the return from
Babylon in the reign of Artaxerxes forms a starting-point for several
interesting inquiries. Thus, in any estimate of the influence of
Babylonia upon the Old Testament, it is obviously necessary to ask
whether certain features (a) are of true Babylonian origin, or (b)
merely find parallels or analogies in its stores of literature;
whether the indebtedness goes back to very early times or to the age
of the Assyrian domination or to the exiles who now returned. Again,
there were priestly and other families--some originally of "southern"
origin--already settled around Jerusalem, and questions inevitably
arise concerning their relation to the new-comers and the literary
vicissitudes which gave us the Old Testament in its present form. To
this age we may ascribe the literature of the Priestly writers
(symbolized by P), which differs markedly from the other sources. Yet
it is clear from the book of Genesis alone that in the age of Priestly
writers and compilers there were other phases of thought. Popular
stories with many features of popular religion were current. They
could be, and indeed had been made more edifying; but the very
noteworthy conservatism of even the last compiler or editor, in
contrast to the re-shaping and re-writing of the material in the book
of Jubilees, indicates that the Priestly spirit was not that of the
whole community. But through the Priestly hands the Old Testament
history passed, and their standpoint colours its records. This is
especially true of the history of the exilic and post-exilic periods,
where the effort is made to preserve the continuity of Israel and the
Israelite community (Chronicles--Ezra--Nehemiah). The bitterness
aroused by the ardent and to some extent unjust zeal of the reforming
element can only be conjectured. The traditions reveal a tendency to
legitimate new circumstances. Priesthoods, whose traditions connect
them with the south, are subordinated; the ecclesiastical records are
re-shaped or re-adjusted; and a picture is presented of hierarchical
jealousies and rivalries which (it was thought) were settled once and
for all in the days of the exodus from Egypt. Many features gain in
significance as the account of the Exodus, the foundation of Israel,
is read in the light of the age when, after the advent of a new
element from Babylonia, the Pentateuch assumed its present shape; it
must suffice to mention the supremacy of the Aaronite priests and the
glorification of uncompromising hostility to foreign marriages.[61]
The most "unhistorical" tradition has some significance for the
development of thought or of history-writing, and thus its internal
features are ultimately of historical value. Only from an exhaustive
comparison of controlling data can the scattered hints be collected
and classified. There is much that is suggestive, for example, in the
relation between the "post-exilic" additions to the prophecies and
their immediately earlier form; or in the singular prominence of the
Judaean family of Perez (its elevation over Zerah, a half-Edomite
family, Gen. xxxviii.; its connexion with the Davidic dynasty, Ruth
iv.; its position as head of all the Judaean sub-divisions, 1 Chron.
ii. 5 sqq.); or in the late insertion of local tradition encircling
Jerusalem; or in the perplexing attitude of the histories towards the
district of Benjamin and its famous sanctuary of Bethel (only about 10
m. north of Jerusalem). Although these and other phenomena cannot yet
be safely placed in a historical frame, the methodical labours of past
scholars have shed much light upon the obscurities of the exilic and
post-exilic ages, and one must await the more comprehensive study of
the two or three centuries which are of the first importance for
biblical history and theology.

24. _Old Testament History and External Evidence._--Thus the Old
Testament, the history of the Jews during the first great period,
describes the relation of the Hebrews to surrounding peoples, the
superiority of Judah over the faithless (north) Israelite tribes, and
the reorganization of the Jewish community in and around Jerusalem at
the arrival of Ezra with the Book of the Law. The whole gives an
impression of unity, which is designed, and is to be expected in a
compilation. But closer examination reveals remarkable gaps and
irreconcilable historical standpoints. For all serious biblical study,
the stages in the growth of the written traditions and the historical
circumstances which they imply, must inevitably be carefully
considered, and upon the result depends, directly or indirectly,
almost every subject of Old Testament investigation. Yet it is
impossible to recover with confidence or completeness the development
of Hebrew history from the pages of the Old Testament alone. The keen
interest taken by the great prophets in the world around them is not
prominent in the national records; political history has been
subordinated, and the Palestine which modern discovery is revealing is
not conspicuous in the didactic narratives. To external evidence one
must look, therefore, for that which did not fall within the scope or
the horizon of the religious historians. They do not give us the
records of the age of the Babylonian monarch Khammurabi (perhaps
Amraphel, Gen. xiv.), of the Egyptian conquests in the XVIIIth and
following dynasties, or of the period illustrated by the Amarna
tablets (§ 3). They treat with almost unique fullness a few years in
the middle of the 9th century B.C., but ignore Assyria; yet only the
Assyrian inscriptions explain the political situation (§ 10 seq.), and
were it not for them the true significance of the 8th-7th centuries
could scarcely be realized (§ 15 seq.). It would be erroneous to
confuse the extant sources with the historical material which might or
must have been accessible, or to assume that the antiquity of the
elements of history proves or presupposes the antiquity of the records
themselves, or even to deny the presence of some historical kernel
merely on account of unhistorical elements or the late dress in which
the events are now clothed. External research constantly justifies the
cautious attitude which has its logical basis in the internal
conflicting character of the written traditions or in their divergence
from ascertained facts; at the same time it has clearly shown that the
internal study of the Old Testament has its limits. Hence, in the
absence of more complete external evidence one is obliged to recognize
the limitations of Old Testament historical criticism, even though
this recognition means that positive reconstructions are more
precarious than negative conclusions.

The naïve impression that each period of history was handled by some
more or less contemporary authority is not confirmed by a criticism
which confines itself strictly to the literary evidence. An interest
in the past is not necessarily confined to any one age, and the
critical view that the biblical history has been compiled from
relatively late standpoints finds support in the still later treatment
of the events--in Chronicles as contrasted with Samuel--Kings or in
Jubilees as contrasted with Genesis.[62] It is instructive to observe
in Egypt the form which old traditions have taken in Manetho (Maspero,
_Rec. de travaux_, xxvii., 1905, l. 22 seq.); cf. also the late story
of Rameses II. and the Hittites (J. H. Breasted, _Anc. Rec. of Egypt_,
iii. 189 seq.); while in Babylonia one may note the didactic
treatment, after the age of Cyrus, of the events of the time of
Khammurabi (A. H. Sayce, _Proc. Soc. Biblical Archaeol._, 1907, pp. 13
sqq.).

The links which unite the traditional heroes with Babylonia (e.g.
Abraham, Ezra), Mesopotamia (e.g. Jacob), Egypt (e.g. Joseph,
Jeroboam), Midian (e.g. Moses, Jethro), &c., like the intimate
relationship between Israel and surrounding lands, have a significance
in the light of recent research. Israel can no longer be isolated from
the politics, culture, folk-lore, thought and religion of western Asia
and Egypt. Biblical, or rather Palestinian, thought has been brought
into the world of ancient Oriental life, and this life, in spite of
the various forms in which it has from time to time been shaped, still
rules in the East. This has far-reaching consequences for the
traditional attitude to Israelite history and religion. Research is
seriously complicated by the growing stores of material, which
unfortunately are often utilized without attention to the principles
of the various departments of knowledge or aspects of study. The
complexity of modern knowledge and the interrelation of its different
branches are often insufficiently realized, and that by writers who
differ widely in the application of such material as they use to their
particular views of the manifold problems of the Old Testament. It has
been easy to confuse the study of the Old Testament in its relation to
modern religious needs with the technical scientific study of the much
edited remains of the literature of a small part of the ancient East.
If there was once a tendency to isolate the Old Testament and ignore
comparative research, it is now sometimes found possible to exaggerate
its general agreement with Oriental history, life and thought.
Difficulties have been found in the supernatural or marvellous stories
which would be taken as a matter of course by contemporary readers,
and efforts are often made to recover historical facts or to adapt the
records to modern theology without sufficient attention to the
historical data as a whole or to their religious environment. The
preliminary preparation for research of any value becomes yearly more
exacting.

Many traces of myth, legend and "primitive" thought survive in the Old
Testament, and on the most cautious estimate they presuppose a
vitality which is not a little astonishing. But they are now softened
and often bereft of their earlier significance, and it is this and
their divergence from common Oriental thought which make Old Testament
thought so profound and unique. The process finds its normal
development in later and non-biblical literature; but one can
recognize earlier, cruder and less distinctive stages, and, as surely
as writings reflect the mentality of an author or of his age, the
peculiar characteristics of the extant sources, viewed in the light of
a comprehensive survey of Palestinian and surrounding culture, demand
a reasonable explanation. The differences between the form of the
written history and the conditions which prevailed have impressed
themselves variously upon modern writers, and efforts have been made
to recover from the Old Testament earlier forms more in accordance
with the external evidence. It may be doubted, however, whether the
material is sufficient for such restoration or reconstruction.[63] In
the Old Testament we have the outcome of specific developments, and
the stage at which we see each element of tradition or belief is not
always isolated or final (cf. Kings and Chronicles). The early myths,
legends and traditions which can be traced differ profoundly from the
canonical history, and the gap is wider than that between the latter
and the subsequent apocalyptical and pseudepigraphical literature.

Where it is possible to make legitimate and unambiguous comparisons,
the ethical and spiritual superiority of Old Testament thought has
been convincingly demonstrated, and to the re-shaping and re-writing
of the older history and the older traditions the Old Testament owes
its permanent value. While the history of the great area between the
Nile and the Tigris irresistibly emphasizes the insignificance of
Palestine, this land's achievements for humanity grow the more
remarkable as research tells more of its environment. Although the
light thrown upon ancient conditions of life and thought has destroyed
much that sometimes seems vital for the Old Testament, it has brought
into relief a more permanent and indisputable appreciation of its
significance, and it is gradually dispelling that pseudo-scientific
literalism which would fetter the greatest of ancient Oriental
writings with an insistence upon the verity of historical facts. Not
internal criticism, but the incontestable results of objective
observation have shown once and for all that the relationship between
the biblical account of the earliest history (Gen. i.-xi.) and its
value either as an authentic record (which requires unprejudiced
examination) _or_ as a religious document (which remains untouched) is
typical. If, as seems probable, the continued methodical
investigation, which is demanded by the advance of modern knowledge,
becomes more drastic in its results, it will recognize ever more
clearly that there were certain unique influences in the history of
Palestine which cannot be explained by purely historical research. The
change from Palestinian polytheism to the pre-eminence of Yahweh and
the gradual development of ethical monotheism are _facts_ which
external evidence continues to emphasize, which biblical criticism
must investigate as completely as possible. And if the work of
criticism has brought a fuller appreciation of the value of these
facts, the debt which is owed to the Jews is enhanced when one
proceeds to realize the immense difficulties against which those who
transmitted the Old Testament had to contend in the period of Greek
domination. The growth of the Old Testament into its present form,
and its preservation despite hostile forces, are the two remarkable
phenomena which most arrest the attention of the historian; it is for
the theologian to interpret their bearing upon the history of
religious thought. (S. A. C.)

II.--GREEK DOMINATION

25. _Alexander the Great._--The second great period of the history of the Jews begins with the conquest of Asia by Alexander the Great, disciple of Aristotle, king of Macedon and captain-general of the Greeks. It ends with the destruction of Jerusalem by the armies of the Roman Empire, which was, like Alexander, at once the masterful pupil and the docile patron of Hellenism. The destruction of Jerusalem might be regarded as an event of merely domestic importance; for the Roman cosmopolitan it was only the removal of the titular metropolis of a national and an Oriental religion. But, since a derivative of that religion has come to be a power in the world at large, this event has to be regarded in a different light. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 concludes the period of four centuries, during which the Jews as a nation were in contact with the Greeks and exposed to the influence of Hellenism, not wholly of their own will nor yet against it. Whether the master of the provinces, in which there were Jews, be an Alexander, a Ptolemy, a Seleucid or a Roman, the force by which he rules is the force of Greek culture. These four centuries are the Greek period of Jewish history.

The ancient historians, who together cover this period, are strangely indifferent to the importance of the Jews, upon which Josephus is at pains to insist. When Alexander invaded the interior of the Eastern world, which had hitherto remained inviolable, he came as the champion of Hellenism. His death prevented the achievement of his designs; but he had broken down the barrier, he had planted the seed of the Greek's influence in the four quarters of the Persian Empire. His successors, the Diadochi, carried on his work, but Antiochus Epiphanes was the first who deliberately took in hand to deal with the Jews. Daniel (viii. 8) describes the interval between Alexander and Antiochus thus: "The he-goat (the king of Greece) did very greatly: and when he was strong the great horn (Alexander) was broken; and instead of it came up four other ones--four kingdoms shall stand up out of his nation but not with his power. And out of one of them came forth a little horn (Antiochus Epiphanes) which waxed exceeding great towards the south (Egypt) and towards the East (Babylon) and towards the beauteous land (the land of Israel)." The insignificance of the Jewish community in Palestine was their salvation. The reforms of Nehemiah were directed towards the establishment of a religious community at Jerusalem, in which the rigour of the law should be observed. As a part of the Persian Empire the community was obscure and unimportant. But the race whose chief sanctuary it guarded and maintained was the heir of great traditions and ideals. In Egypt, moreover, in Babylon and in Persia individual Jews had responded to the influences of their environment and won the respect of the aliens whom they despised. The law which they cherished as their standard and guide kept them united and conscious of their unity. And the individuals, who acquired power or wisdom among those outside Palestine shed a reflected glory upon the nation and its Temple.

In connexion with Alexander's march through Palestine Josephus gives a
tradition of his visit to Jerusalem. In Arrian's narrative of
Alexander's exploits, whose fame had already faded before the greater
glory of Rome, there is no mention of the visit or the city or the
Jews. Only Tyre and Gaza barred the way to Egypt. He took, presumably,
the coast-road in order to establish and retain his command of the
sea. The rest of Palestine, which is called Coele-Syria, made its
submission and furnished supplies. Seven days after the capture of
Gaza Alexander was at Pelusium. According to the tradition which
Josephus has preserved the high priest refused to transfer his
allegiance and Alexander marched against Jerusalem after the capture
of Gaza. The high priest dressed in his robes went out to meet him,
and at the sight Alexander remembered a dream, in which such a man had
appeared to him as the appointed leader of his expedition. So the
danger was averted: Alexander offered sacrifice and was shown the
prophecy of Daniel, which spoke of him. It is alleged, further, that
at this time certain Jews who could not refrain from intermarriage
with the heathen set up a temple on Mt Gerizim and became the
Samaritan schism (§ 21 above). The combination is certainly artificial
and not historical. But it has a value of its own inasmuch as it
illustrates the permanent tendencies which mould the history of the
Jews. It is true that Alexander was subject to dreams and visited
shrines in order to assure himself or his followers of victory. But it
is not clear that he had such need of the Jews or such regard for the
Temple of Jerusalem that he should turn aside on his way to Egypt for
such a purpose.