Old Testament history

Front matter

2"!^

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE

SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND

Contents

CHAPTER

I. The Sources .

II. The Origins .

Preface

The purpose of the present volume is to put into narrative form the results of recent Old Testament study. The book might have been called a History of Israel ; but that title would indicate that the subject was treated in its relation to the general history of mankind, whereas for a series of theological handbooks it should be treated in its relation to our religion. From the beginning the Christian Church has assigned special importance to the body of writings which we call the Old Testament — Old Covenant would perhaps be a better title. To understand these writings is one of the first aims of theological study, and the endeavour to understand them has given rise to a number of separate sciences — Old Testament Introduction, Philology, Geography, Chronology, Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, and others. In our time it has become increasingly clear that no literature (and the Old Testament is first of all a hterature) can be understood without tracing the process of growth by which it came into being. The immense critical labour that has been expended on the Old Testament of late years is motived by a desire to discover the stages of growth by which this literature became what it is.

For the understanding of the literature we cannot stop with the investigation of purely literary questions. Criticism is a means to something beyond itself. The results of critical inquiry must be brought into relation with each other by a constructive reproduction of what has actually taken place in the past ; in other words, criticism must result in history before it can be considered complete. It follows that every new advance in criticism involves a rewriting of history. Otherwise it would be presumptuous to do again what has already been so often done before. As in what we call secular history new treatises are

vii

Vlll

PREFACE poured from the press year by year, so it must be with Biblical and ecclesiastical history. No science is ever complete, and Biblical science is no exception to the rule. The new and in some respects startling res.ults of recent Biblical science call for a new historical reconstruction. In recognising the necessity thus laid upon them, Old Testament students only put themselves in line with students in other branches of learning. Every other history is rewritten as often as the documents on which it is founded are seen in a new light ; Old Testament history cannot be an exception.

Minute and careful study of the Old Testament is no new thing; it has been carried on in every age since the time of the Apostles. Especially in the Protestant Church during the seventeenth century it was pursued with a thoroughness and devotion which are beyond praise. What distinguishes the work of our own day from that so laboriously carried on in earlier times is the new point of view. There was a time when, for theological study at least, the work of the critic consisted mainly in settling the meaning of each separate Biblical statement. Each dictum was then reckoned with in its isolation, as an authentic declaration of truth. In our day we find it impossible to content ourselves with this method of treatment. We cannot feel that we understand a Biblical statement when we know simply what it says. We are constantly going behind the word to the personality of the author; we inquire concerning his times, his circumstances, his ideals, his relation to his predecessors, his place in the chain of development. As we do not fully assure ourselves that our own recollections mean what we think they mean unless we can bring them into harmonious relations of time and space with other recollections, so it is with the traditions of the past — we must know not only what was at a certain date, but also how it is related to what came before and after.

Historical criticism is simply the careful examination of the facts of tradition in order to bring them into harmonious relation. It has always been exercised by reflecting men when they endeav-

PREFACE IX

oured to ascertain what had taken place in earlier ages. It is only within recent times, however, that criticism has been developed into a science. This is due partly to the increased systematisation of all branches of inquiry, partly to the discovery that all ancient documents must be subjected to the same process before they can be made to yield assured historical data. This necessity arises first from the constant intrusion of error in the process of transmission. The scribes to whom we owe the preservation of all ancient books can make no claim to infallibility. Mistakes in copying, in editing, in compiling, are liable to occur at every stage of the process of transmission. So far as our evidence concerning the past is contained in written documents it cannot be used until these mistakes are removed. Their removal is the object of textual criticism. For a long time scholars were not disposed to concede that the Old Testament was in need of textual criticism. For reasons which we easily understand, and which indeed command our sympathy, the Word of God (as the Bible was somewhat inexactly called) was supposed to be exempt from the ordinary tendencies of manuscript transmission. But at the present time the large majority of scholars find it necessary to examine the Old Testament text by the same methods which are applied to other ancient documents. It needs no demonstration that the historian must be familiar with these methods, and that he cannot use the Old Testament text except as it has been subjected to them.

The line between textual and historical criticism (the higher criticism as it is usually called) is not easily drawn, and indeed there isno sharp line of demarcation between them. The higher criticism is simply the process of examining and weighing the evidence in our hands. This evidence may be in the form of tradition, that is, documents which profess to tell us what has taken place, or in the form of monuments which indicate what has taken place without the direct purpose of describing it. Evidently a document which contains a tradition is also a monument of the time when the tradition took shape. Evidence concerning the past,

X PREFACE

whether direct (traditional) or circumstantial (monumental), must be interrogated before it can be used. For the danger of misapprehension is as constant a factor here as is the danger of corruption in the case of manuscript transmission. To understand our tradition, to date and locate our monuments — this is the object of the higher criticism. As applied to the Bible it is the same science which is constantly used in examining other historical documents.

The beginnings of Biblical higher criticism may be traced to Ibn Ezra, to Spinoza, with more justice to Astruc, as the beginnings of Biblical textual criticism may be traced to Cappel, Morin, and Simon. But it is only within the last forty years that both sciences have been recognised among English-speaking scholars. This period has been a period of conflict, but now the recognition of the validity of criticism in both kinds may be said to be complete. In the domain of the higher criticism the result has been to show the extraordinary complexity of the problems with which we have to deal. What we seek to do is to date the documents, analyse them where they are composite, estimate the personality of the writers, and arrange the results into a consistent picture. The complexity of the material ought not to surprise us. The Bible is a book of edification, and a book of edification must be recast in order to meet the wants of an age different from the one for which it was first written. The Old Testament has gone through this process more than once ; what modern scholars seek to attain by notes and comments, ancient scribes sought to attain by insertions and changes in the text. These repeated modifications of the text — redactions, combinations, glosses — are the first object of the historian's interest, for they are the marks of the historical process which he seeks to reconstruct. It is the realisation of this fact which makes the Old Testament study of to-day so different from the Old Testament study of fifty years ago.

It may be objected that if the problem be indeed so complex the historian should suspend his labours, and that he should not

PREFACE XI

write the history till the critical work is all done. But it is a mistake to suppose that the constructive work can wait till the criticism is complete. The constructive work is itself necessary to the critic. If history is based on criticism, criticism is tested by history. Criticism dates the documents; history arranges the testimony of the documents according to the scheme presented by criticism. If the resulting picture is inharmonious, out of proportion, or unnatural, it becomes evident that the criticism has been incomplete or one-sided. The analysis of the critic must constantly be checked by the historian's synthesis. Moreover, the historical presentation is needed to guard the critic from too great subjectivity. His danger is that in the details of the critical examination he may forget the larger whole with which he has to deal. So far as there is any justification for the charge that the higher critics are negative and destructive, it will be found in the fact that one and another has neglected to test his results by a positive combination of them in historic form. When the results are fairly tested by such a constructive use of them, they will be seen not only to further a correct appreciation of the individual documents or monuments, but also to give a more intelligible presentation of the whole subject with which they deal.'

As in all other history, so in Old Testament history, what interests us is the stream or movement of which the isolated facts are indications. In endeavouring to form a clear conception of this stream or movement, we are constantly compelled to lament the paucity of our materials. What we wish to reproduce is the process which extended over a thousand years, and we have as

' The most complete discussion of the relation between criticism and history may be found in Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode^ (1903). The lectures of Freeman, Methods of Hisioricnl Study, contain valuable hints, but fall far short of a systematic discussion. A suggestive little book is Droysen, Gundriss der Historik, published in English translation by E. Benjamin Andrews, Outline of the Principles of History (1893). On the progress of critical study as applied to the Bible (especially the Old Testament) the reader should consult the preface to Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament^'' (1902).

xii PREFACE

its evidence fragments sufficient to fill only one moderate-sized volume. Additional and welcome light is given by the records of Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, and Persia. This light, however, does not prove what it is sometimes claimed to prove ; it does not show that Israel was merely a part (and an insignificant part) of those great empires, and therefore that it has no history of its own. The political insignificance of Israel may be readily admitted. But the intellectual and spiritual life of Israel is a distinct entity, standing out apart from the life of the surrounding nations. This life which has made so distinct a contribution to civilisation must be understood from its own monuments, and can be understood from this source alone. It can be so understood, and the paucity of the remains which have come down to us should not discourage us. Critical inquirers have sometimes fallen into an exaggerated scepticism, as though nothing could be certainly known concerning antiquity — was not the theory once propounded that all the Greek and Latin texts in our hands were forgeries of the monks in the Middle Age? But such scepticism is unwarranted; the documents in our hands, fragmentary though they be, are facts, and it ought to be possible to interpret their testimony. The footprint in the sand on Robinson Crusoe's island was a fragmentary monument indeed, but it gave evidence that was unmistakable, and it gave its interpreter many an uneasy hour because of the distinctness of its message.

It is evident that no one man can perform all the labor of criticism and at the same time carry on all the lines of investigation, archaeological, geographical, and chronological. The worker in this field is one out of many, each one of whom is eager to make use of the results already obtained in order to make further discoveries. The constructive worker is engaged in a process of selection; he must constantly ask himself which of the so-called results is reliably established, which is only probable, which is too uncertain to build upon. The first requisite of the historian, therefore, is soundness of judgment. It is, indeed, impossible to get along without hypotheses — our science is in line with other

FKEl-AUt; XIU

sciences in this respect. But hypotheses differ widely among themselves. The ability to judge them soberly is of the first importance.

The ideal historian, therefore (in my judgment), is the one who is able to distinguish degrees of probability. To this must be added the ability to tell what he knows. What the specialist knows, his readers have a right to know. They have a right to see the picture which he sees, and to see it in the way in which he sees it. It has already become clear to us that a historical picture is made up of probabilities. Some of these probabilities stand out with a distinctness which is practical certainty. That David reigned over Israel, that Isaiah preached in Jerusalem, that Judas Maccabeus fought against the Gentiles — these are things which I can affirm with as little reserve as I affirm that twice two is four. I have the right and it is my duty, in making a historical picture, to draw these figures upon my canvas as firmly and distinctly as I can draw them. But as we fill in the picture, we are conscious that many details must be less sharply outlined ; some are in the shadow so deeply that we barely make them out. The successful historian I take to be the one who is able to reproduce the lights and shadows so that his readers will be able to see the picture just as he sees it. To do this without the monotonous and irritating repetition of " perhaps," " probably," or "it seems to me," is a matter of no little difficulty. Happy is the man who is able to feel that he has solved the problem with even a moderate degree of success.

The interest in history is as old as the Bible itself, as old as the oldest parts of the Bible, in fact. For we find among the earliest documents in Hebrew literature the songs and stories which rehearse the righteous acts of Yahweh, or which celebrate the deeds of Israel's heroes. We must not confound this interest in history with the interest felt by the modern student. Interest in history as history is a matter of comparatively recent growth. The earliest authors or singers were under the influence of patriotic or religious enthusiasm. And yet it does not seem forced

XIV

PREFACE when we say that the ancient and the modern motives are not far apart. The ancient writer was sure that he was setting forth God's working for His people; the modern historian sets forth what has taken place in the hope of discovering the law of human progress. The latter is broader and more philosophical in his views ; the former is more distinctly didactic in his tone. But the underlying motives are not very different. The narrative which was compiled from Israel's folk-stories, and which now fills the first section of our Old Testament, shows a genuine historic and philosophic interest. It is interesting to note even in the Bible itself the tendency to rewrite history to meet the views of succeeding generations ; for the narrative of the earlier books was recast by the Chronicler to meet the needs of his own time. If criticism needed any justification it would find it in this precedent.

The first attempt to write a history of Israel, made in post-Biblical times, was that of Josephus in his Antiquities. This author was, no doubt, moved by a desire to emulate the Greek and Latin historians with whose works he had become acquainted during his years of residence at Rome. But with this personal ambition there was a concurrent motive. The proud Jew was stung by the taunts levelled at his race by the anti-Semites of that day. He would answer them by showing that the career of Israel was no whit inferior in interest and importance to that of any other nation of antiquity. Josephus was not alone in this ambition. Justus of Tiberias, a contemporary of his, had the same ambition and wrote a history of the Hebrew kings from Moses to Agrippa. He was less fortunate than his rival, for his work early fell into oblivion.'

The Christian Church received the Old Testament from the Jews, first of all, as containing a divine revelation, and therefore as profitable for instruction in righteousness. It was for this rea-

' The most complete bibliography of Josephus, with a characterisation of the man and of his different works, is that of Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes ^ (1901), I, pp. 74-106. On Justus of Tiberias, ibid. , pp. 58-63.

PREFACE XV

son, and not with any distinctly historiral interest, that these books were read in the public assemblies as well as studied in private. Still there was a vague notion of historic progress in the Christian distinction between the old dispensation and the new. We are not surprised to find a New Testament writer contrasting the partial and fragmentary revelation of God in the prophets with the full revelation in Christ, and we recognise a real though rudimentary historic sense in such a contrast. But in the first centuries the historic interest was crowded out by others more pressing. On the one hand, the allegorical interpretation, already in vogue among the Jews, led to the search for mystical or theosophic revelations, and clouded the real historic meaning of the text. On the other hand, the attack made upon the Church by Jew and Gentile brought apologetics to the front, and emphasised philosophy rather than history.

Still the apologetic need resulted after a time in turning attention to history. The Greeks and Romans had their histories which were seen not to be in harmony with the scheme presented in the Biblical books. There was laid upon Christian writers much the same necessity which had been felt by Josephus ; they were challenged to reconcile the Scripture account of antiquity with those current among the Gentiles. They felt that they must, if possible, show the superiority of the sacred books. Julius Africanus is said first to have given attention to this matter. The result was his Chronographia, in which the Hebrew data were combined with those of Gentile writers. This work has been described as a handbook of universal history on the basis of the Biblical narrative. It has perished, except fragments, but it was the model after which many histories of the world were shaped, and the fashion has continued almost down to our own time.' Among the followers of Julius Africanus, the most important is Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote a book entitled Chronica. This work avows its apologetic purpose on its first page. ' Details may be read in Wachsmuth, Einleitung in das Stiidium der alien Geschichte (1895), pp. ISJ-'S^- xvi PREFACE

It gives parallel accounts of the history of the early ages, the Hebrew narrative (in outline) forming one section. The second part of the work is taken up with a chronological table, beginning with the time of Abraham. The author knows of the divergences between the Hebrew and Greek copies of the Pentateuch and decides in favour of the Greek.'

About the year 400 of our era, a compendious history Of the world was written by Sulpicius Severus of Gaul.'' Although continued down to the author's own times, this work might almost be called the first Biblical history. More than three-fourths of it are concerned with the Old Testament. The author dates the creation six thousand years before his own time, and follows closely the narrative of the Biblical books. His work is said to have been used as a text-book for the higher institutions of learning in the Netherlands, Germany, and France, as late as the seventeenth century. The sketch of Old Testament history given by Augustine, which may be mentioned in connexion with the work of Sulpicius, is a theological rather than a historical discussion.' And, as is well known, Augustine was the leader of the Church for many generations. Mediaeval study of the Scriptures was not carried on to learn history but to discover sound doctrine — that is, to justify the teaching of the Church and its institutions. Where the allegorical method prevails a real historical interest cannot assert itself While the allegorical method succeeded in confirming the theology of the Schoolmen, the literal interpretation of the Old Testament was admitted so far as it

1 The work has survived in an Armenian translation ; the second book also in the Latin translation of Jerome. A Latin version made from the Armenian (by Petermann) was published together with some Greek fragments and the Latin of Jerome, by Schoene, Eusebii Chronicorum Libri Duo (1875). Cf. also the same author's critical discussion, Die Wellchronik des Eusebius (1900).

' De Civitate Dei, XV-XVIII. The narrative is frequently interrupted by metaphysical disquisitions as well as by allegorical "improvements."

PREFACE XVn

confirmed the rights and prerogatives of the ecclesiastical orders. We should be wrong to suppose that the only motives for study of the Scripture were these : the Church always more or less distinctly reaUsed that it was called to teach. The Old Testament always had an immense practical interest ; it furnished texts, examples, and illustrations for the preacher. But we can hardly discover in either of these methods of treatment a really historical interest.

The Reformation emphasised the importance of the Scriptures as the sole authority in doctrine, and it discarded the allegorical interpretation. It revived the Pauline contrast of Law and Gospel, and to this extent quickened the historic sense. But the study of Scripture as authority still interfered with its study as a source of history, though the emphasis laid upon the literal sense contributed in the long run to a better historical apprehension.

The full force of the Protestant position was felt in the seventeenth century, when in conjunction with a renewed activity in all departments of literature the Bible received more exact and careful attention. The names of Cappel and Morin in textual criticism, of Hobbes, Spinoza, and Richard Simon in the higher criticism, belong in this century.' With this critical activity we find more attention given to Biblical history, which, however, is still treated as the introductory part of Church history. Of the seriousness with which the problems were attacked we have an evidence in Usher's di-scussion of Biblical chronology, as well as in his Annals." The latter work reproduces the data of the Biblical narrative in the order of time, beginning with the creation of the world "the evening before October 23 in the year 710 of the Julian Period," 4004 B.C. Each event is dated

' See the chapters on the higher criticism and on the history of Biblical History in Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture.

^ Annales Veteris Testamenti a prima Mundi Origine deducii una cum rerum Asiaticarum und jEgypticaritm Chronica, London, 1650, reprinted in the collected edition of his works (1847). The Chronologia Sacra may be found in volumes XI and XII of the same edition.

xviii PREFACE

from tliis era of the creation. Thus the Deluge began in the year 1656, Abraham was born 2008. The history of the world is divided into seven periods, of which six had elapsed at the birth of Christ. The author's theological interest is seen in his introduction of New Testament statements, like the one in which Paul says (following Rabbinical tradition) that the rock from which water flowed in Horeb followed the people in their wanderings ; another example is the declaration that Joshua is a type of Christ and Canaan the type of the heavenly fatherland. In general, however, allegory is avoided.

The historical interest of this work is seen in the introduction of Egyptian, Babylon, and other Gentile kings in their supposed proper place in the narrative. Thus, after the account of the exodus of Israel, we have Manetho's story of Egypt under Sesothis (Sesostris) ; in the year 2737 a.m. we have the statement of Herodotus concerning Ninus, the founder of the Assyrian empire. These citations from Gentile sources become more numerous later in the narrative, so that the work may be said, like the earlier ones already described, to give us universal history in a Biblical framework. But it does this on the basis of a fresh study of the sources.

The work of Usher, was, perhaps, the most important on this subject published between the Reformation and the year 1750. Others are mentioned by the bibliographers, some of which were sketches of Biblical history introductory to the history of the Church, others were theological and speculative rather than historical. As an example of the former class may be cited Spanheim's introduction to chronology and sacred history ; an example of the latter is Heidegger's " History of the Patriarchs." ' The next century saw the " Connexion " of Prideaux, which treated an important period of Old Testament history, and which still

' Spanheim, Introductio ad Chronologiam ei Historiam Ai:irra?« (1694); Heidegger, De Historia Sacra Patriarcharum (1667). Other works of this period are catalogued by Diestel, Geschichte des Alien Testanlentes- in der Christlichen Kirche (1869), pp. 460-464.

PREFACE XIX

has value. The same year with Prideaux's work was published on the continent an "Ecclesiastical History of the Old Testament," by Buddeus, a well-known theologian.' As the century advanced, the Deistic controversy gave occasion to re-examine many questions in Biblical history, though here again the purpose was primarily apologetic or polemic.^

The modern period of Old Testament study may be said to date from Astruc's "Conjectures," published in 1753. The preceding literature may be described by the term theological, on the Deistic as well as on the orthodox side. Astruc marked an epoch (isolated forerunners have already been mentioned), because he turned attention afresh to the phenomena of the Bible itself, and showed how many of these had escaped attention. For the time being, this caused men to neglect Biblical history, for the critical process became all absorbing. At the same time philosophical and theological discussion became more active. French scepticism (Voltaire is the best example) on one side, and a new philosophy (Kant) on the other, gave the defenders of tradition all they could do. The result was to make the time a period of confusion and strife. But through the welter a more correct apprehension of the Old Testament gradually worked its way to the front. Eichhorn is the best example of real critical advance, while Herder pointed the way to a more sympathetic construction of Biblical history.'

' Prideaux, A Historical Connexion 0/ the Old and New Testaments (1715). The work was primarily intended to cover the (supposed) period between the Old and New Testaments, but begins with the time of Ahaz. It suggested the less important work of Shuckford, The Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected (1727) which extends from the creation to the exodus. Buddeus, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti {i'!i^)h3uS gone through several editions.

^Although published a little later than the period we are discussing, I may mention here the most elaborate refutation of the Deistic objections to revelation: Lilienthal, Gute Sache der Gottlichen Offenbanmg {i']6o-l']%2) in sixteen volumes.

'Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1780-83; the fourth edi-

XX PRfeFACE

In the nineteenth century the progress of our science is marked by two great names — Ewald and Wellhausen. Ewald's chief work' contains an elaborate criticism of the sources, as well as a narrative of events and movements. At the very outset the author emphasises the necessity of distinguishing the story from its foundation, that is, of criticising the sources. Ewald's learning and acuteness are unquestioned. His work sometimes repels by its dogmatism, and, as we now know, its theory of the documents is wrong. But, all things considered, it is one of the most influential works which the last century produced. Its results were popularised in England and America by Dean Stanley's lectures on the history of the Jewish Church.^ Other histories by German scholars in this period are either based on critical hypotheses similar to those of Ewald, or else are anticritical in their bias. Among the former may be mentioned Hitzig and Weber, as well as the early volumes of Gratz.' Among the latter we may reckon Hengstenberg, Kurtz, and Kohler.* Eng-

tion appeared in 1823. Herder, Aelteste Urkunde des Menschmgeschlechts (1774); Geist der Hebrdischen Poesie (1782). Cf. Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture (1899), chapter XI, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch (1897), chapters III-VI.

^ Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 7 vols., 18430. The third edition appeared 1864-1868. An EngHsh translation of this edition was published 1869-1883. The Old Testament History ends with Vol. IV of the German, Vol. V of the English ; the remaining volumes treat of New Testament times.