Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/672

 fide divergences of tradition and to assume that more rudimentary or primitive thought was excluded by the admitted development of religious-social ideals. The oldest nucleus of historical tradition appears to belong to Samaria, but it has been adjusted to other standpoints or interests, which are apparently connected partly with the half-Edomite and partly with the old indigenous Judaean stock. Genesis—Kings (incomplete; some further material in Jeremiah) and the later Chronicles—Nehemiah are in their present form posterior to Nehemiah’s time. Unfortunately the events of his age are shrouded in obscurity, but one can recognize the return of exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem and its environs—now half-Edomite—and various internal rivalries which culminate in the Samaritan schism. The ecclesiastical rivalries have left their mark in the Pentateuch and (the later) Chronicles, and the Samaritan secession appears to have coloured even the book of Kings. These sources then are “post-exilic,” and the elimination of material first composed in that age leaves historical, legal and other material which was obviously in circulation (so, e.g., the non-priestly portions of Genesis). The relatively earlier group of books is now the result of two complicated and continuous redactions, “Deuteronomic” (Deut.-Kings) and “Priestly” (Genesis-Joshua, with traces in the following books). The former is exceptionally intricate, being in its various aspects distinctly earlier, and in parts even later than the “priestly.” Its standpoint, too, varies, the phases being now northern or wider Israelite, now half-Edomite or Judaean, and now anti-Samarian.

Moreover, there is a late incorporation of literature, sometimes untouched by and sometimes merely approximating to “Deuteronomic” language or thought. How very late the historical books are in their present text or form may be seen from the Septuagint version of Joshua, Samuel and Kings, and from their internal literary structure, which suggests that only at the last stages of compilation were they brought into their present shape. The result as a whole tends to show that the “canonical” history belongs to the last literary vicissitudes, and that similar influences (which have not affected every book in the same manner) have been at work throughout. The history of the past is viewed from rather different positions which, on the whole, are subsequent to the relatively recent changes

that gave birth to new organizations in Samaria and Judah. Consequently, in addition to the ordinary requirements of historical criticism, biblical study has to take into account the intricate composite character of the sources and the background of these positions. It is the criticism of sources which have both a literary and an historical compositeness. Not only are the standpoints of local interest (Samaria, Benjamin, Judah and the half-Edomite Judah being involved), but there are remarkable developments in the ecclesiastical bodies (Zadokites of Jerusalem, country and half-Edomite priests, Aaronites) which have influenced both the writing and the revision of the sources (see ). Yet it is noteworthy that the traditions are usually reshaped, readjusted or reinterpreted, and are not replaced by entirely new ones. Thus, the Samaritans claim the traditions of the land; the Chronicler traces the connexion between “pre-exilic” and “post-exilic” Judaeans, ignoring and obscuring intervening events; the south Palestinian cycle of tradition is adapted to the history of a descent into and an exodus from Egypt; Zadokite priests are enrolled as Aaronites, and the hierarchical traditions

reveal stages of orderly and active development in order to authorize the changing standpoints of different periods and circles. This feature recurs in later Palestinian literature (see, ) where there are later forms of thought and tradition, some elements of which although often of older origin, are almost or entirely wanting in the Old Testament. Much that would otherwise be unintelligible becomes more clear when one realizes the readiness with which settlers adopt the traditional belief and custom of a land, and the psychological fact that teaching must be relevant and must satisfy the primary religious feelings and aspirations, that it must not be at entire variance with current beliefs, but must represent the older beliefs in a new form. Any comparison of the treatment of biblical figures or events in the later literature will illustrate the retention of certain old details, the appearance of new ones, and an organic connexion which is everywhere in accordance with contemporary thought and teaching. If this raises the presumption that even the oldest and most isolated biblical evidence may rest upon still older authority, it shows also that the fuller details and context cannot be confidently recovered, and that earlier forms would accord with earlier Palestinian belief. Hence, although records may be most untrustworthy in their present form or connexion, one cannot necessarily deny that a romance may presuppose a reality of history or that it may preserve the fact of an event even at the period to which it is ascribed (e.g. Abraham and Amraphel in Gen. xiv.; the invasions before 1000, &c.). But in all such cases the present form of the material may be more profitably used for the study of the historical or religious conceptions of its age. At the same time, the complexity of the vicissitudes of traditions, exemplified in modern Palestine itself, cannot be ignored. Finally, biblical history is an intentional and reasoned arrangement of material, based upon composite sources, for religious and didactic purposes. Regarded as an historical work there is a remarkable absence of proportion, and a loss of perspective in the relation between antediluvian, patriarchal, Mosaic and later periods. From the literary-critical results, however, it is not so much the history of consecutive periods as the account of consecutive periods by compilers who are not far removed from one another as regards dates, but differ in standpoints. There was, in one case, a retrospect, which did not include the deluge, and in another the patriarchs were actual settlers, a descent into Egypt and subsequent exodus being ignored; moreover, the standpoints of those who did not go into exile and of those who did and returned would naturally differ. In weaving the sources together the compilers had some acquaintance of course with past history, but on the whole it manifests itself only slightly (see, § 24), and the complete chronological system belongs to the latest stage. Investigation must concern itself not with what was possibly or probably known, but with what is actually presented. The fact remains that when accepted tradition conflicts with more reliable evidence it stands upon a level by itself; and it is certain that a compilation based upon the knowledge which modern research—whether in the exact sciences or in history—has gained would have neither meaning for nor influence upon the people whom it was desired to instruct. A considerable amount of earlier history and literature has been lost, and it is probable that the traditions of the origins of the composite Israelites, as they are now preserved, embody evidence belonging to the nearer events of the 8th–6th centuries. The history of these centuries is of fundamental importance in any attempt to “reconstruct” biblical history. The fall of Samaria and Judah was a literary as well as a political catastrophe, and precisely how much earlier material has been