the Second Week of Advent
Click to donate today!
Peake's Commentary on the Bible Peake's Commentary
by Arthur Peake
BY DR. W. O. E. OESTERLEY
Chronology.— As a preliminary step in the study of this book the two following tables of dates will be found useful:
( a) Dates of the Kings of Persia—
Cyrus 539– 629
Cambyses 529– 522
Darius I 521– 485
Xerxes I 485– 464
Artaxerxes I 464– 424
( b) Dates and events mentioned in Ezra-Nehemiah—
Ezra 1:1. 1st year of Cyrus ( cf. Nehemiah 5:13, Nehemiah 6:3) as ruler of the Jews. 537. The return of the Jews from Babylon to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel and Joshua. Ezra 3:1. 7th month (Tisri), presumably the same year ( cf. Nehemiah 3:6). 537. The rebuilding of the altar and restoration of the sacrificial system. Ezra 3:8. 2nd month (Iyar), 2nd year, presumably of Cyrus. 536. The laying of the foundation-stone of the Temple. Ezra 4:5. Cyrus– Darius. . . 536– 520. Cessation of Temple building “ all the days of Cyrus . . . even until the reign of Darius,” i.e. lus 2nd year; see below, 424. Ezra 4:6. Xerxes, presumably the beginning of his reign. 485. Samaritan accusation against the Jews sent to the king. Ezra 4:7. Artaxerxes, date not mentioned. . . . 464– 424. A letter written in Syrian to Artaxerxes, contents not specified. Ezra 4:8. Artaxerxes, date not mentioned. . . . 464– 424. A letter written to Artaxerxes by different authors from those of the preceding letter, in reference to the building of the walls of the city. Ezra 4:24. 2nd year of Darius ( cf. Nehemiah 4:5) 520. Cessation of the Temple building, which had been begun in 536 (see 38), until the 2nd year of Darius. [Note that according to Hag., Zech. the 2nd year of Darius was that in which the building of the Temple was begun. ] Ezra 6:15. 6th year of Darius, 3rd of Adar (12th month). 516. Completion of the Temple. Ezra 6:19. 1st month (Nisan), 14th day, presumably the following year. 515. Celebration of the Passover. Ezra 7:1 f. 7th year of Artaxerxes, 5th month (Ab). 458. Arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem. Ezra 10:16. 10th month (Tebeth), presumably same year. 458. Investigation in the matter of mixed marriages. Ezra 10:17. 1st month (Nisan), presumably the following year. 457. Investigation concluded. Nehemiah 1:1; Nehemiah 2:1. 20th year of Artaxerxes, in the month Chislev (9th month). 445. Nehemiah arrives in Jerusalem. Nehemiah 5:14. 20th– 32nd year of Artaxerxes. . . . 445– 433. The twelve years of Nehemiah’ s administration. Nehemiah 6:15. Elul (6th month) 25th day, presumably the year following Nehemiah’ s arrival. 444. Completion of the walls in fifty-two days. Nehemiah 8:1. 7th month (Tisri), presumably the same year. 444. The reading of the Law by Ezra. Nehemiah 13:6. 32nd year of Artaxerxes. 433. Nehemiah’ s return to Jerusalem (his departure is nowhere mentioned). Title and Place in Canon.— Although in the EV the book is divided into two parts, each with a different title, this was not so originally; for in the Hebrew MSS they appear as one book, and the contents themselves show that they belong to one book, since the details of Ezra’ s work occur partly in “ Ezr.” (7– 10) and partly in “ Neh.” ( Nehemiah 7:70 to Nehemiah 8:12), which are found all together in the LXX. But, further, it is in the highest degree probable that originally 1 and 2 Ch., Ezr., Neh. formed one large work under the title Dibre ha-jamim, “ Annals,” dealing with the history of Israel from the beginning. The fact that in the Hebrew Bible (though not in the LXX) Ch. follows Ezr.– Neh. is no argument against this, because Ch. was not admitted into the Canon until after Ezr.– Neh.; the former differed largely from the parallel history in the canonical historical books, while Ezr.– Neh. was the only book which gave the history of the period dealt with (Hag., Zech. are primarily prophetical, not historical books), So that originally the facts were probably as follows: the large Dibre ha-jamim was compiled from a number of sources; it was not part of the Scriptures; in course of time the portion dealing with the Persian period was detached and added to the Scriptures, but not in its logical place after 1 and 2 K., because it was not sanctified by antiquity; later still, when the question as to what books “ defiled the hands” ( i.e. were “ canonical,” see p. 39) or not became a burning one, it was ultimately decided to admit Ch. into the “ Canon.” The order of Ch. and Ezr.– Neh. in the Hebrew Bible, therefore, is not chronological, but that of their admission into the Canon.
Sources.— That the book is a compilation made from several sources may be regarded as certain; but to assign its source to each component part of the compilation can only be done tentatively. In a number of instances the source from which a passage is taken may be indicated with practical certainty; but with regard to others opinions not unnaturally differ because of the indefinite data in such passages themselves. The following enumeration will probably be regarded as correct in its general outline, though agreement as to all the details is not to be expected. The sources utilised by the Chronicler are the following:
( a) The Memoirs of Ezra.— The Chronicler made use of this source in two ways: he made verbatim extracts, as in Ezra 7:27 f; Ezra 8:1-36; Ezra 9:1-15; and he utilised this source without making verbal extracts, as in Ezra 7:12-26, and in a number of passages in which he has worked over extracts from this source and stamped them with the impress of his own point of view, viz. Ezra 1:1-4; Ezra 2:68-70; Ezra 7:1-10; Ezra 10:1-44, Nehemiah 7:73 b – Nehemiah 8:12-18; Nehemiah 9-11 (with the exception of a few verses in 11). The passage Ezra 2:1 to Ezra 6:7 (= Nehemiah 7:6-73 a) is also probably from the memoirs of either Ezra or Nehemiah, though originally from some other official source.
( b) The Memoirs of Nehemiah.— Here again the Chronicler has utilised his source in two ways: first, by making direct extracts from it ( Nehemiah 1:1 to Nehemiah 7:5, Nehemiah 13:4-31) and also by working over material from it in accordance with his own ideas ( Nehemiah 11:3-36; Nehemiah 12:27-47; Nehemiah 13:1-3).
( c) A Temple Record.— Extracts from what may well have been a document kept among the Temple records were made by the Chronicler in the accounts he gives of the building of the Temple ( Ezra 4:6-23; Ezra 5:1-6; Ezra 5:15).
( d) An Official List.— The list of the heads of priestly and Levitical families given in Nehemiah 12:1-26 is taken from another source; but the document used, like that found in the memoirs of Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 11:3-36), was in all probability kept among the Temple records.
( e) Other Sources.— The remaining passages of the book ( Ezra 1:5-11; Ezra 3:1-13; Ezra 4:1-5; Ezra 4:24; Ezra 6:14; Ezra 6:16-22; Ezra 7:11; Ezra 8:35 f.) are largely the work of the Chronicler; but they are based on material gathered from various sources, impossible to specify now.
Treatment of Material, and Historicity of the Book.— The sources at the disposal of the Chronicler in making his compilation were thus various and of unequal value, and they evidently did not supply data for the whole period of which he intended to give the history. In reading through the book one is struck by the want of historical sequence and by the looseness of the way in which the different incidente are jotted down. That the book as we now have it, was intended to be its final form cannot be believed. Judging from the narrative as given in the Greek Ezra one is justified in believing that our book existed in more than one form; and this may imply that several efforts were made to bring it into final shape, but that this really never took place. At any rate, the material which lay before the Chronicler was used in an arbitrary and selective manner, with the result that it is quite impossible to get a clear and certain picture of the course of events during the period treated. But the difficulties which this treatment of the material have occasioned to historical students have not deterred them from seeking solutions, even though these involved drastic courses; nor can it be denied that in some points the suggested solutions have much in their favour. It is contended that the account of the return of exiles under Zerubbabel in 537 ( Ezra 1:1 ff.) is unhistorical; that the Temple and the walls were rebuilt not by the returned exiles, but by those who (according to 2 Kings 25:12; 2 Kings 25:22) had been left in Palestine when their brethren were led away captive; that the return from the Exile took place under the leadership of Ezra after Nehemiah’ s term of administration, namely in the year 433, after which the public reading and acceptation of the Law, as recorded in Nehemiah 8, took place. The history as told in Ezr.– Neh. is thus regarded as having been theoretically constructed by the Chronicler in accordance with what he conceived it to have been. For the arguments and deductions which have been put forward in favour of this theory recourse must be had to the larger commentaries and other works (see Bibliography below). It must suffice to point out here that while the chaotic state in which our book has come down to us does, in some respects, justify the drastic solution just outlined (especially when the books of Hag. and Zech. and the Greek Ezra are taken into consideration), there are, on the other hand, grave difficulties in accepting it in its entirety. It is said in 2 Kings 25:12 that only the poorest of the land were left to be vine-dressers and husbandmen when the great leading away captive to Babylon took place. That these poverty-stricken labourers should have been able to rebuild the Temple and the city walls is highly improbable. It is true that this description of the people is contradicted by what is said in the same chapter ( 2 Chronicles 34:23 ff.); but according to 2 Chronicles 34:26 ( cf. Jeremiah 43:4-7) the flower of even the remnant of those left in the land emigrated to Egypt. From a religious point of view, too, the remnant in the land lacked the requisite zeal for rebuilding the Temple. Their ancestral faith cannot have been very deep-seated if what is said in Ezra 9 f. and Nehemiah 13 about their settling down among the heathen and intermarrying with them be true; and there is no reason to doubt this.
The estimate of the historical value of our book will, of course, largely depend upon the extent to which the views just mentioned are accepted; but, at any rate, all that has been incorporated from the personal memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah must be regarded as having a high historical value, even where it is evident that the Chronicler has to some extent coloured them. Some of the other documents utilised also give historical importance to the book, especially as some of the Temple records were laid under contribution. It is the fatal intrusion of the Chronicler’ s own ideas which has been so harmful to the history; nevertheless, the indispensability of the book is seen at once when it is realised that it constitutes our only authority for the period dealt with. (On the subject of the two preceding paragraphs see pp. 77– 79, 572f.).
Authorship and Date.— In what has been said it has been taken for granted that the author— more strictly compiler— was the Chronicler to whom we are indebted for the books of Chronicles. And this, indeed, does not admit of doubt; the special features of 1 and 2 Ch. are precisely those of Ezr.– Neh.; peculiarities of style, particular words and expressions, and, above all, the religious point of view whereby the narrative is coloured, are characteristic of these books and of these only; they come from the same hand. In dealing with the date it has to be remembered that since the book has incorporated material from various sources belonging to different ages, no one date can be assigned to it excepting as it exists in its present form. In so far as these sources are brought into connexion with the names of Persian kings, and assuming that this is correctly done, the dates of the kings in question will, of course, be the approximate dates of those parts of the book. So that the earliest portion will belong to the time of Cyrus, about 537, while the latest parts of the sources, the memoirs of Nehemiah, cannot have been written later than the end of the reign of Artaxerxes, about 424. As to the date of the book in its present form, we have two definite data; in Nehemiah 12:10; Nehemiah 12:22 Jaddua is mentioned in the list of high priests, and he lived in the time of Alexander the Great (Josephus. Antiq., XI. vii. 2, viii. 7), and in the same passage the expression “ the Persian” applied to Darius implies that the Persian empire was no more in existence. Our book, therefore, in its present form belongs to the Greek age; in all probability later than 300 B.C.
Literature.— ( a) Ryle (CB), T. Witton Davies (Cent.B), Crafer, Adeney (Ex.B). ( b) Guthe and Batten (SBOT), Batten (ICC). ( c) Bertheau-Ryssel (KEH), Oettli und Meinhold (KHS), Siegfried (HK), Bertholet (KHC). Other Literature: Sayce, Intr. to Ezra, Neh., and Esther; van Hoonacker, Nouvelles É tudes sur la restauration Juive; Kosters, Die Wiederherstellung Israels in der persischen Periode; E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums; G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, ii. pp. 187– 252; Sellin, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der jü dischen Gemeinde; Torrey, Ezra Studies; Sir Henry Howorth, PSBA 1901– 1902. The Introductions mentioned in the Literature to 1 and 2 Ch., and the relevant articles in the Bible Dictionaries.
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
BY DR. F, J. FOAKES JACKSON
Bible History, “ Prophetical”— The OT contains books which may be termed historical, but although they are grouped together in our Bibles, this is not the case in the arrangement adopted by the Jews. The only book which they perhaps recognised as history, the Chronicles ( Dibhrê hayyâ mî m, “ words of years” ), is placed at the very end of the sacred volume, whilst the main portion of the books known to us as “ historical” is styled “ prophetical.” Thus the story of Israel is to the Jews in itself a prophecy (that is, a telling forth) of God’ s will and purpose to His people. In accordance with this ideal we find historical episodes interwoven, as in Isaiah and Jeremiah, with prophetic utterances. In judging the historical books, therefore, we must bear in mind that they do not conform to the standard demanded of modern historical writing. They are “ prophetical”— that is, written with a view to edify and instruct— and are not designed to be text-books replete with colourless if accurate historical information.
Main Features of Historical Writing in the Bible.— The Hebrews are remarkable for the interest taken in the past of their nation, and this is the more strange as the Jew does not seem by nature to be disposed towards historical composition. Between the close of the OT story and the dissolution of the Jewish nation in the days of Hadrian, the people passed through some of the most stirring crises in the tragedy of humanity, yet many of the most important are scarcely recorded. But for the renegade Josephus we should have had no particulars of the fall of Jerusalem before the army of Titus. Yet in the OT, though the interest is almost entirely religious, we have a fairly complete record of Israel’ s fortunes from the conquest of its inheritance in Palestine to the restoration of the Jewish polity by Nehemiah.
Variety.— Bible history is remarkable, among other things, for its variety. No book in its present form is arranged like the others. Judges is unmistakable as compared with Joshua; Samuel and Kings have little resemblance; whilst Ezra-Nehemiah belongs to an entirely different school of thought, and Esther is absolutely unique in the OT and even in the Apocrypha. The materials, moreover, of which many of the books are composed are of the most varied description. We have in Kings, to take but a single example, the framework of a chronological history arranged in regnal years, chronicles of the kingdoms, Temple records, biographies, intermingled with which are stories told with all the magic art of portraying scenes inherent in the Eastern raconteur. We find in other books an admixture of pious exhortation, legal formulae, genealogies, and the like. In short, it may be said of the OT books of history that each has its own variegated pattern, which reveals the individuality of its author or compiler.
Choice of Subjects.— In their choice of subjects the prophetical historians of the Hebrew nation display characteristic peculiarities. We are surprised alike at what they tell us and what they omit. They are in a sense the least, and in another the most, patriotic of historians. They dwell but little on the national glories. How briefly are the successes of Saul over the Philistines, or the victories of Omri or Jeroboam II, or even those of the pious kings of Judah, recorded! Their story is often rather that of the nation’ s failure to reach its ideal, and even of how it fell short of the standard attained by less favoured peoples. And yet we cannot read the historical books without feeling chat they are instinct with a love of country and filled with a sense of Yahweh’ s protecting power. But the seeker after historical information will often be disappointed at the lack of facts where he most desires them. No details are given as to how Joshua conquered Central Palestine and conducted the nation to Shechem, its ancient capital. We learn nothing about the arrival of the Philistines, those formidable enemies of Israel. Nothing except the bare fact is preserved of the conquest of Og and his seventy cities. We seek in vain for the cause of David’ s feebleness, which made the revolt of Absalom so formidable. On the other hand, we have abundant details about the feuds with the Shechemites of a person so comparatively unimportant as Abimelech, the son of Gideon, of David’ s flight and his escapes from Saul, etc. The historical books were, as has been asserted, written for edification rather than for information; and it is not always easy, at times it is even impossible, to make a connected narrative out of them. Much of the story as related by the biblical writers must be reconstructed by a process which can hardly receive a name more honourable than that of guesswork.
Chronology.— One of the most formidable difficulties which the student of OT history has to face is that of chronology. In the later parts of the historical and prophetical books we are on fairly sure ground, because the writers give us the date by the year of the reigning kings of Persia. Even in the Books of Kings though there are serious discrepancies in the periods assigned to the kings of Israel and Judah respectively, we are able to date an event within say, ten years or so. We are also assisted by the more accurate chronology of the Assyrians. But the earliest date in Israelite history is that of a defeat inflicted on Ahab and his allies, which is not alluded to in the Bible. This is 854 B.C. From it we can infer that David lived, roughly, about 1000 B.C., but beyond this all is uncertainty. According to 1 Kings 4:1, Solomon’ s Temple was erected 480 years after the Exodus; but, by adding together the periods of affliction and repose given in the Book of Judges, we get an even longer period. But we are told in Exodus 1:11 that the Israelites during their oppression built Pithom and Raamses in Egypt, presumably under the great Rameses II, whose long reign was in the thirteenth century B.C. Consequently the Exodus must have taken place not much earlier than 200 or 250 years before the building of the Temple. The fact is that the ancient Hebrews seem to have used the number 40 and its multiples to express a period of time with considerable vagueness, and we really cannot tell whether they are speaking literally when they mention periods of 40, 20, or 120 years. To give a date even approximately before David is, to say the least, hazardous. We know that Jaddua, the last high priest mentioned in the OT, was alive in 333 B.C., and that Ezra and Nehemiah were in Jerusalem about 432 B.C.; but as to when the Exodus took place, or Joshua conquered Palestine and the events related in the historical books strictly so called begin, we have only the faintest idea.
Survey of Period of “ Prophetic History.”— The Book of Joshua, with which the history of Israel opens, has now generally been recognised as an integral part of the Pentateuch or five books of the Law. It certainly possesses the same structural peculiarities. It begins, where Deuteronomy leaves off, when Israel is encamped in the plains of Moab. Moses is dead, and Joshua is recognised as his successor. To him God says: “ As I have been with Moses, so will I be with thee.” The conquest of W. Palestine by Joshua is related under two headings: (1) the reduction of the south— the fall of Jericho and Ai and the defeat of the five kings; (2) che victory over the northern king, Jabin of Hazor (but see Judges 4). Central Palestine, viz. Shechem, is assumed already to have fallen into Israelite hands. Only two tribes, Joseph and Judah, receive inheritances from Joshua, Gad and Reuben having already been allotted territory in E. Palestine by Moses. The remaining seven tribes cast lots for the territory which they are permitted to conquer. The different inheritances are given with an abundance of detail, characteristic of P. Joshua charges Israel, as Moses did before his death, and dies on his property at Timnath Serah.
Judges is professedly a continuation of Joshua, but it is very different in style, scope, and arrangement; whereas Joshua is closely akin to the legal books, Judges rather resembles the historical. It covers a much longer period, extending over twelve judgeships, and is arranged on a distinct plan. In each case Israel sins, God punishes by an invasion, the nation repents, and a deliverer is raised up. Two supplementary narratives close the book, to show the state of the country when there was no king. It may be that the Book of Ruth is a third supplement, to show the origin of the great royal house of David.
The next four books, Samuel and Kings, are called by the Greek translators Books of Kingdoms” (βασιλειῶ?ν ) . 1 S. opens with the story of Samuel’ s birth in the days of Eli, the priestly judge, and gives an account of the loss of the Ark and the utter degradation of Israel under the Philistine yoke. Samuel, the first of the prophets, is the leader in the great struggle, and is compelled by the people to set a king over the nation in the person of Saul, who does much for the emancipation of his people, but is rejected by God and falls in battle against the Philistines. The main part of the last half of 1 S. is chiefly occupied with the hairbreadth escapes and adventures of David, the real founder of the monarchy, who is described as the “ man after God’ s own heart.” More space is given to him than to any other person mentioned in the Bible, about half 1 S., all 2 S., and two chapters of 1 K. forming his biography. 1 Kings is divided between the reign of Solomon, with an elaborate account of the Temple and its dedication, and the story of the division of the kingdom till the death of Ahab. The second book carries the reader down through the later history of the divided monarchy, relating the fall of the northern, and concluding with a history of the southern kingdom, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Captivity, to the restoration of Jehoiachin to a certain degree of honour by the son of Nebuchadrezzar. The latter period has to be supplemented by the historical portions of Jeremiah and the allusions to contemporary events in Isaiah and Ezekiel.
Characteristics of Prophetical History.— The books we have already considered represent the standpoint of the prophets of Israel; and, as we have seen, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are known as the first four of the prophetical books. Generally speaking, the view they take of the nation is that it is the people of God, who are specially bound to act in accordance with their high calling, though as a rule they fail lamentably to attain the standard demanded of them. But in no case is Israel represented as having a law like that known in after days as the “ Law of Moses” ; or, if it had, the majority of the nation, priests and prophets included, were completely ignorant of its contents. The ritual practices of all the saints and heroes of Israel throughout these books are quite different from those prescribed in Lev. and Nu., and if there is any Law it is rather that of the earliest legal chapters in Ex. (20– 23).
Later Historical Writings.— Of the remaining historical books, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah (the two latter being often reckoned as one book) form a complete series. Chronicles is a sort of revised edition of all the earlier history, whilst the two other books continue the narrative. The object of the writer of Chronicles is to give the impression that the kings of Judah— for Israel is only incidentally mentioned— were scrupulous in carrying out the Pentateuchal Law as it appears in the Priest’ s Code. Thus David will allow only Levites to bear the Ark, and we read much of his care to provide for the ritual, and especially the music, of the sanctuary. Solomon, represented as a powerful though not always faithful monarch in the Book of Kings, here appears as a blameless ruler. When a king like Uzziah presumes to undertake priestly functions, he is smitten with disease. In short, the whole is permeated by a priestly conception of history entirely foreign to the Book of Kings. Chronicles takes us to the end of the Captivity, and closes with the decree of Cyrus commanding the Jews to return and rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. Ezra-Nehemiah, for the two books are really one, opens with this edict, relates how the altar was set up and the Temple commenced, and how the proceedings were hindered by the “ adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” ( i.e. the Samaritans). During the reign of two Persian kings nothing was done, but under Darius the work was resumed and completed about 516 B.C. Then there is a complete silence for nearly two generations, when, in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus (464– 424 B.C.), Ezra, a Jewish priest, was permitted to lead a company of exiles back to Jerusalem. A Jewish governor named Nehemiah was then appointed, and we are told how he and Ezra restored Jerusalem, and made the nation obey the Law of Moses. With these two great men the Bible history concludes about the year 432 B.C.
Extant Hebrew History the Fragment of a Lost Literature.— There is little doubt that the literature of ancient Israel was not confined to the OT as we now have it. On the contrary, the books bear evident traces of having been compressed into their present limits by the omission of facts which must have been recorded, and are almost necessary to a right understanding of what stands recorded. To take but a single example: the reign of Omri ( 1 Kings 16:29-34) is related with the utmost brevity, and many things are omitted which would have thrown light on the subsequent history, and cannot fail to have been known by the author. Nothing, for instance, in Kings would lead us to suppose that the king who defeated Tibni and built Samaria was so important that rulers of Israel, though belonging to the very dynasty which had supplanted his own, should call themselves “ sons of Omri.” 2 Kings 3 relates a rebellion of Moab against Israel, and we know from the Moabite Stone (p. 305) that Omri had oppressed Moab and probably imposed upon it the onerous conditions hinted at in this chapter. Further, the severe terms exacted by the Syrians in the days of Omri (1 Kings 20) imply a serious defeat of Israel, to which no allusion is made. Although it cannot be proved that these were recorded in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel, it is highly probable that this was the case, and that the writer of Kings deliberately hurried over this important reign in order to record events which seemed to him to be of greater interest or more to the edification of his readers.
But the historical writers in the OT openly confess the fact that there was a considerable literature to which their readers might have access. The Book of Jashar (Jos., 2 S.), the Chronicles of Israel and of Judah, alluded to in Kings, and the many works cited in the late Book of Chronicles, show that there was an extensive literature in existence even as late as 300 B.C. which has completely disappeared, and that we have only fragments from which to reconstruct the story of ancient Israel.
The External Sources of Hebrew History.— Besides the sources mentioned in the historical books we may mention the external sources which connect the history of the Hebrews with that of the world at large, in addition to those which criticism has indicated as the materials used by the writers and redactors of the historical books.
( a) One of the most serious objections to the antiquity of the Jewish people, which Josephus had to answer, was the silence of the Greek authors regarding them. He accounts for this by the fact that the ancestors of the Jews did not inhabit a maritime country and engaged little in trade, being occupied m living their own peculiarly religious life ( Apion. 12). Josephus appeals, however, to the Tyrian records for the building of Solomon’ s Temple, quoting Dius (ch. 17) and Menander of Ephesus (ch. 18). He also quotes the testimony of the Babylonian Berossus (ch. 19) to the story of Noah, and on the treatment of the Jews by Nebuchadrezzar, and he relates that a writer named Megasthenes alludes to the first destruction of Jerusalem. But Josephus is evidently able to give his readers very little testimony, external to the Scriptures, for the history of Israel.
( b) Nor was more light thrown upon the subject till recent years, when the secrets of the hieroglyphic and of the cuneiform characters were revealed. Direct allusions to the Israelites are few, and can be easily enumerated: ( a) The word Is-ra-e-ru, “ Israelite,” occurs on the stele of Merenptah (thirteenth century B.C.), describing Egyptian victories over Israel; ( b) Shishak (1 K.) relates his devastation of Palestine (tenth century B.C.); ( c) Ahab is mentioned in the Qarqara inscription as one of the kings allied against Assyria (864 B.C.); ( d) Jehu’ s name, as of a king paying tribute to Shalmaneser II, is found on the Black Obelisk (British Museum), 842 B.C.; ( e) Pekah and Hoshea (2 Kings 15) appear in an inscription, 737 B.C. and the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C.; ( f) Hezekiah’ s name appears on the Taylor Cylinder (British Museum), 701 B.C.; ( g) at an earlier date, probably in the ninth century B.C., we have on the Moabite stone Mesha’ s account of his rebellion against Israel ( 2 Kings 3:1).
( c) As in the case of the Pentateuch, the materials used by the writers other than those specified by them are mainly matters of conjecture, but they may be roughly enumerated as follows: Judges, like the Pentateuch, is probably made up of two early documents, J and E, which were thrown into their present form— subject, however, to revision— by a Deuteronomic editor, whilst portions were added by a reviser of the school of P. The Books of Samuel, like Judges, have been subject to Deuteronomic and post-exilic revisions; but in the life of Saul we have a combination of two works, one hostile and the other friendly to monarchical institutions. The compiler drew upon traditions of David, a life of Samuel, and a very ancient account of David’ s reign (2 Samuel 9-20). In 2 Samuel 1:18 the Book of Jashar ( cf. Joshua 10:12-14) is quoted. The author of Kings alludes to the chronicles of the kings of Israel and the chronicles of the kings of Judah, and he probably had before him independent narratives of Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, etc., as well as the records of the Temple at Jerusalem.
The Miraculous in Hebrew History.— The historian has a natural distrust of the miraculous when he meets with it in records, not because he cannot believe in its possibility— for experience has taught him to be very cautious in saying that any event could not have occurred— but because a natural love of the marvellous makes men credulous in accepting supernatural explanations of events. Moreover, it is undeniable that the Hebrew writers regarded the whole story of the nation as a far greater miracle than any apparent interference with the laws of nature, because in every event they thought they saw the hand of the Lord of the whole earth shaping and directing the destinies of Israel. Nevertheless the impartial reader is impressed more by the absence than by the superabundance of miracle in the story of a people so intimately connected with its God as Israel, in so ancient and confessedly so religious a record as that found in the historical Scriptures. When we divide the miraculous events into ( a) subjective wonders— i.e. visions, Divine messages, and the like, which may, at any rate, be accounted for by the state of mind of those who experienced them; ( b) signs which were an acknowledged medium of God’ s communication with Israel; and ( c) wonders interrupting the natural course of history. we have to acknowledge the comparative rarity of the last-named.
Taking 1 K. as an example, the presence of the miraculous under the above classification is :
In 1 Kings 1-11, which relates the accession of Solomon and his reign, only two miracles are recorded— Solomon’ s vision at Gibeon ( 1 Kings 3:5), and the cloud filling the Temple at its dedication ( 1 Kings 8:10). These may be classed under ( a) visions and ( b) signs respectively.
1 Kings 12-16, the account of the division of the kingdoms. No miracle appears except the signs which accompany the denunciation of the schism of Jeroboam in 1 Kings 13— i.e. the temporary drying up of the king’ s hand, the rending of the altar, and the punishment of the disobedient prophet. These all come into the category ( b), signs.
1 Kings 17 – 2 Kings 2. Even in the life of Elijah, a man with admittedly supernatural powers, miracle is rare. His being fed by ravens is perhaps a doubtful miracle (see Commentary). The multiplying of the widow’ s cruse, the raising of her son from the dead, and the destruction of the captains of fifty, come under class ( c) wonders; unless we include the descent of fire at Carmel on the sacrifice, which may be regarded as a sign ( b), or the prophet’ s ascension, which may also be explained as a vision ( a). Considering its momentous character and the great men who lived in it, in the period from David to Elijah miracles are conspicuous by their absence.
History as Compared with Prophecy.— Though, as we have seen, the supernatural as manifested in miracle is of comparatively rare occurrence in Hebrew history, it is assumed throughout that events are under the control of Yahweh, the God of Israel. This is, as a rule, revealed in history by the prophets. It is their function to declare the will of God and His immediate purpose, together with the punishment which will follow if it be disregarded. Rarely is the prophet made to disclose the remote future, as when the messenger to Jeroboam predicts the destruction of his altar by a king of Judah, “ Josiah by name.” As a rule the prophets in history play somewhat the same part as the chorus in a Greek play: they explain events as the tragedy of Israel progresses. It is not till a late period, almost at the close of the history of the northern kingdom, that we get the literary prophet supplementing the narrative, and that we are able to construct history from the fragments preserved in the utterances of the prophets. The literary prophets from the eighth century onward stand in much the same relation to the recorded history in the OT as do the Epistles of Paul towards the Acts of the Apostles. Both are documents contemporary with the events, but, as a rule, these abound in allusions, the meaning of which can only be conjectured. Amos and Hosea give a view of Israel’ s later history, and Isaiah of Judah’ s relations with Assyria, differing from the records in Kings; just as the Epistle to the Galatians gives a very different impression of the controversy between the Jewish and Gentile Christians from what could be gathered from the Acts. It is, however, necessary to exercise much discretion in the use of the prophets for historical purposes, as both the Hebrew text and the genuineness of many passages are subjects of considerable dispute.
How far does the OT Give us Strict History?— The Bible, it has been already suggested, can hardly be said to record history with the strict accuracy demanded of a modern work. As it is easy to see from the Pss., the prophets, the Apocryphal literature, and the NT, the religious interest in history practically ceased with David, and was mainly centred in the primitive story as told in Genesis and in the deliverance from Egypt and the wanderings in the wilderness. The record from Joshua to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans as it appears in the OT is a fragmentary story of Israel, gathered from a number of lost sources and told for the sake of showing how the nation fell short of the ideal designed for it, and of the punishments which ensued. The writers or compilers, living centuries after the event, are usually less interested in the accuracy of their narrative than in the moral they wished to point. Formerly what was called inspiration was deemed to be so bound up with the exact truth of the record as to stand or fall with it. Consequently the unbeliever made his main point of attack some disputable statement, which the faithful were in honour bound to defend. Now, however, it is generally recognised that no early record can be expected to give the exact circumstances, especially when much of it is demonstrably not contemporary with the events; and in a work like the historical section of the OT we look rather to the purpose of the author than the details in which it is discoverable. The former is, in the biblical narrative, sufficiently clear. The history is professedly a commentary on the dealing of Yahweh with His people, showing in what manner He bore with their backslidings, punished and delivered them. The books were never intended to supply an accurate and exhaustive chronicle of events for the modern historian. All that can be claimed for them is that they give an outline, often singularly dispassionate and impartial, of the fortunes which befell the nation of Israel.