Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/673

 preserved is a problem in itself. It is very noteworthy, however, that, while no care was taken to preserve the history of the Chaldean and Persian Empires—and consequently the most confused ideas subsequently arose—the days of the Assyrian supremacy leave a much clearer imprint (cf. even the apocryphal book of Tobit). It may perhaps be no mere chance that with the dynasties of Omri and Jehu the historical continuity is more firm, that older forms of prophetical narrative are preserved (the times from Ahab to Jehu), and that to the reign of the great Jeroboam (first half of the 8th century), the canonical writers have ascribed the earliest of the extant prophetical writings (Amos and Hosea).

External evidence for Palestine, in emphasizing the necessity for a reconsideration of the serious difficulties in the Old Testament, and in illustrating at once its agreement and still more perplexing disagreement with contemporary conditions, furnishes a more striking proof of its uniqueness and of its permanent value. The Old Testament preserves traces of forgotten history

and legend, of strange Oriental mythology, and the remains of a semi-heathenish past. “Canonical” history, legislation and religion assumed their present forms, and, while the earlier stages can only incompletely be traced, the book stands at the head of subsequent literature, paving the way for Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism, and influencing the growth of Mahommedanism. In leaving the land of its birth it has been taken as a whole, and for many centuries has been regarded as an infallible record of divinely granted knowledge and of divinely shaped history. During what is relatively a very brief period deeper inquiry and newer knowledge have forced a slow, painful but steady readjustment of religious convictions. While the ideals and teaching of the Old Testament have always struck a responsive chord, scientific knowledge of the evolution of man, of the world’s history and of man’s place in the universe, constantly reveals the difference between the value of the old Oriental legacy for its influence upon the development of mankind and the unessential character of that which has had inevitably to be relinquished. Yet, wonderful as the Old Testament has ever seemed to past generations, it becomes far more profound a phenomenon when it is viewed, not in its own perspective of the unity of history—from the time of Adam, but in the history of Palestine and of the old Oriental area. It enshrines the result of certain influences, the teaching of certain truths, and the acquisition of new conceptions of the relations between man and man, and man and God. Man’s primary religious feeling seeks to bring him into association with the events and persons of his race, and that which in the Old Testament appears most perishable, most defective, and which suffers most under critical inquiry, was necessary in order to adapt new teaching to the commonly accepted beliefs of a bygone and primitive people. The place of the Old Testament in the general education of the world is at the close of one era and at the beginning of another. After a lengthy development in the history of the human race a definite stage seems to have been reached about 5000, which step by step led on to those great ancient cultures (Egyptian, Aegean, Babylonian) which surrounded Palestine. These have influenced all subsequent civilization, and it was impossible that ancient Palestine could have been isolated from contemporary thought and history. After reaching an astonishing height (roughly 2500–1500 ) these civilizing powers slowly decayed, and we reach the middle of the first millennium —the age which is associated with the “Deutero-Isaiah” (Isa. xl.-lv.), with Cyrus and Zoroaster, with Buddha and Confucius, and with Phocylides and Socrates. This age, which comes midway between the second Egyptian dynasty (c. 3000 ) and the present day, connects the decline of the old Oriental empires with the rise of the Persians, Greeks and Romans. In both Babylonia and Egypt it was an age of revival, but there was no longer any vitality in the old soil. In Palestine, on the other hand, the downfall of the old monarchies and the infusion of new blood gave fresh life to the land. There had indeed been previous immigrations, but the passage from the desert into the midst of Palestinian culture led to the adoption of the old semi-heathenism of the land, a declension, and a descent from the relative simplicity of tribal life. Now, however, the political conditions were favourable, and for a time Palestine could work out its own development. In these vicissitudes which led to the growth of the Old Testament, in its preservation among a devoted people, and in the results which have ensued down to to-day, it is impossible not to believe that the history of the past, with its manifold evolutions of thought and action, points the way to the religion of the future.

II.—From Alexander the Great to 70.

After the taking of Tyre Alexander decided to advance upon Egypt. With the exception of Gaza, the whole of Syria Palaestine (as it was called) had made its submission. That—in summary form—is the narrative of the Greek historian Arrian (Anabasis, ii. 25). Apart from the facts contained in this statement, the phraseology is of

some importance, as the district of “Palestinian Syria” clearly includes more than the territory of the Philistines, which the adjective properly denotes (Josephus, Antiquities, i. 6, 2, xiii. v. 10). From the military point of view—and Arrian drew upon the memoirs of two of Alexander’s lieutenants—the significant thing was that not merely was the coast route from Tyre to Gaza open, but also there was no danger of a flank attack as the expeditionary force proceeded. Palestinian Syria, in fact, is here synonymous with what is commonly called Palestine. Similarly Josephus quotes from Herodotus the statement that the Syrians in Palestine are circumcised and profess to have learned the practice from the Egyptians (C. Apionem, i. 22, 169, 171, Niese); and he comments that the Jews are the only inhabitants of Palestine who do so. These two examples of the wider use of the adjective and noun seem to testify to the forgotten predominance of the Philistines in the land of Canaan.

But, in spite of the statement and silence of Arrian, Jewish tradition, as reported by Josephus (Ant. xi. 8, 3 sqq.), represents the high priest at Jerusalem as refusing Alexander’s offered alliance and request for supplies. The Samaritans—the Jews ignored in their records all other inhabitants of Palestine—courted his favour, but the Jews kept faith with Darius so long as he lived. Consequently a visit to Jerusalem is interpolated in the journey from Tyre to Gaza; and, Alexander, contrary to all expectation, is made to respect the high priest’s passive resistance. He had seen his figure in a dream; and so he sacrificed to God according to his direction, inspected the book of Daniel, and gave them—and at their request the Jews of Babylon and Media—leave to follow their own laws. The Samaritans were prompt to claim like privileges, but were forced to confess that, though they were Hebrews, they were called the Sidonians of Shechem and were not Jews. The whole story seems to be merely a dramatic setting of the fact that in the new age inaugurated by Alexander the Jews enjoyed religious liberty. The Samaritans are the villains of the piece. But it is possible that Palestinian Jews accompanied the expedition as guides or exerted their influence with Jews of the Dispersion on behalf of Alexander.

It appears from this tradition that the Jews of Palestine occupied little more than Jerusalem. There were kings of Syria in the train of Alexander who thought he was mad when he bowed before the high priest. We may draw the inference that they formed an insignificant item in the population of a small province of the Persian Empire, and yet doubt whether they did actually refuse—alone of all the inhabitants of Palestine—to submit to the conqueror of the whole. At any rate they came into line with the rest of Syria and were included in the province of Coele-Syria, which extended from the Taurus and Lebanon range to Egypt. The province was entrusted first of all to Parmenio (Curtius iv. 1, 4) and by him handed over to Andromachus (Curtius iv. 5, 9). In 331 the Samaritans rebelled and burned Andromachus alive (Curtius iv. 8, 9): Alexander came up from Egypt, punished the rebels, and settled Macedonians in their city. The loyalty of the Jews he rewarded by granting them Samaritan territory free of tribute—according to a statement attributed by Josephus (c. Apionem, ii. § 43, Niese) to Hecataeus.

After the death of Alexander (323 ) Ptolemy Lagi, who became satrap and then king of Egypt by right of conquest (Diodorus xviii. 39), invaded Coele-Syria in 320 Then or after the battle of Gaza in 312 Ptolemy was opposed by the Jews and entered Jerusalem by taking advantage of the Sabbath rest (Agatharchides ap. Jos. c. Apionem

i. 22, §§ 209 seq.; cf. Ant. xii. 1, 1). Whenever this occupation