That David sacrificed on the occasion of his having officiated' (p. 133) is true, but it is no mark of date. Kings in all ages were priests as well, and in the latest days of the Temple service King Agrippa is said to have taken part in the ritual. Again, from the simple notice of the meeting of Jehu with the son of Rechab† near Samaria is elaborated the theory that the Rechabites arose in the northern kingdom' and 'continued to subsist in Judah.'‡ We know very little of the Rechabites, and this assertion travels far beyond the facts. The author is unwilling to admit that the Levites are mentioned in early times. Accordingly a passage in which they are noticed is certainly not written by Jeremiah' (p. 141), because the Septuagint omits Jeremiah xxxiii. 14-26. The position of the Levites differed at different times, but there is no reason to assume that they cannot be noticed in early ages. The power of the priests naturally increased when the people, under foreign rule, had no native king; and it sank again to the shadow of a shade under the Herodians and Romans. In the "Priestly Code," on the other hand, which was not in a position to shape the future freely out of the present, but was compelled to accept archæological restrictions, the motives are historically concealed, and almost paralysed. . . . Jerusalem and the Temple, which, properly speaking, occasioned the whole arrangement, are buried in silence, with a diligence which is in the highest degree surprising.' (Pp. 163-4.) . The meaning of this passage is that in the chapters of Genesis which the critic assigns to the period after the Captivity there is no mention of the conditions which prevailed at that late period; and therefore, in order to meet the natural objections of the majority of scholars, who regard this narrative as very ancient, Wellhausen attributes concealed motives to the author. The same weak explanation is attempted in other passages, when the opinions and the demonstrations of his opponents have to be encountered. The remarks on Chronicles, with which the second part of the work opens, are not of much importance, since the late date of that work is generally acknowledged; but it is important to note that the author of Chronicles continually refers to the older works whence he drew his information. Hence we gather that it was a Jewish practice so to refer when the chronicle was not original, and the fact that no † 2 Kings x. 15. Jer. xxxv. 19. *Sotah vii. 8. authorities are cited in other books is in such case an argument favouring their originality, and not favouring the view that an 'editor' or 'redactor' incorporated ancient fragments in his work, without any statement to that effect. We may note in passing that the assertion, According to the 'older views angels have no wings' (p. 179), is contradicted by monumental evidence, which shows that angelic figures were represented with wings at least as early as 1500 B.C. The notices of Saracens beyond Jordan (p. 163) and Carians in Jerusalem (p. 196) are eccentricities of little importance, as is the theory that the Hebrews sailed round Africa to Spain (p. 205), which is quite unfounded. It is in his treatment of the early narratives of Judges and Samuel that the critic strives most fruitlessly to tear to pieces the ancient books, freely supposing glosses and interpolations, and various documents welded together by an editor, and 'overgrown with later accretions.' The attempt fails, since no criticism of style or language is undertaken, but merely a supposed contrast between various statements, which has no real existence, but arises from want of appreciation of the ancient author's meaning and thoughts. There is, perhaps, no book of the Old Testament which is more vigorous and archaic in character, or which has suffered less at the hands of copyists through the lapse of ages, than that most lifelike picture of primitive customs which we recognise in the chronicle named after its earliest hero, Samuel, but continued by its author down to the latest years of David. It is naturally here that the critic is least in sympathy with the piety and simplicity of the story. The remarks on the Book of Judges are of no particular importance, though the statement that Sisera was a 'great 'king' (p. 240) is quite unfounded, and shows want of acquaintance with the social conditions of the age, when the Canaanites were still under Egyptian rule in Galilee, as proved by monumental records. Wellhausen cannot understand how Gideon's followers can have had swords, when they were holding pitchers, torches, and trumpets (p. 244). He may be assured by the information that the ancients slung their swords to their thighs, and drew them when required. Speaking of Samuel's victory over the Philistines, he says: The mere recapitulation of the contents of this narrative makes us feel at once what a pious make-up it is, and how full of inherent impossibilities to think of all that is compressed into the space of one VOL. CLXXVI. NO. CCCLXI. F day!' (P. 248.) 'There cannot be a word of truth in the whole narrative. Its motives, however, are easily seen.' (P. 249.) The motive was to record an important victory. The events are easily to be understood as occupying only a few hours. The pious tone is that which is natural to the age and the writer, and there is no reason to doubt that the events related* occurred. Such wholesale condemnation is flippant, and not scholarly, and detracts only from the critic's authority. He believes that 'more probably the religious way of telling the story was preceded by a way considerably more profane' (p. 245); but Hebrew writers never are profane, and a little study of the language used by Rameses II., or by Assurbanipal much later, when he records the vision related to him by a seer, might have shown the critic that ancient history is not written in the tone of a modern war correspondent's despatches. We are informed that the artificial frame- and net-work does not make itself much felt' in Samuel (p. 245), and descending to details we discover that the 'Deuteronomist revision' is responsible only for one note of time, which the Septuagint omits (pp. 246-8), which means, in other words, that criticism fails to discover any later elements in this ancient chronicle. On the other hand, because Saul is first anointed by Samuel, and afterwards chosen by lot at Mizpah, we are asked to consider the two accounts to be by different authors, and told that the renewal of the kingdom' after Saul's second victorious campaign is a 'transparent artifice of the author of viii. 10, 17 seq. to incorporate in his own. narrative the piece which he had borrowed from some other quarter' (p. 251). As a fact the whole narrative reads continuously. Saul is secretly chosen, and afterwards openly appointed, by the divine guidance; but his power over the more unruly sons of Belial' is only established by continued success in war. The criticism is rather a transparent artifice, on the part of the modern reader, to support an unnecessary theory of double authorship in the chronicle. It is not by such methods that the cause of truth can be advanced. Further proof of the post-Deuteronomic and Jewish origin of these narratives is supposed to be found (p. 256) in the fact that Israel assembled at Mizpah, as in the later days of Judas Maccabæus. When we consider that Jerusalem in * 1 Sam. vii. both instances was in the hands of enemies, and in the time of Samuel was not as yet a sacred centre, such an argument falls to the ground; while the assertion that the whole 'passage about the meeting of the king with the prophet at Gilgal is the insertion of a later hand' is equally unproven, since it arises from want of complete knowledge of the topography of the episode. Gibeah of Saul and Gilgal were not separated by any very great distance, and the notice of Gilgal as a sacred place points to the early period, before this site had become odious to the prophets as the scene of idolatrous abuses, and before Jerusalem had been made the capital. A similar attempt is made (p. 260) to show a supposed discrepancy in the topography of Saul's last fight with the Philistines; but it rests on the false assumption that Aphek was a place in the Sharon plain. There were several Apheks in Palestine and in Syria, and the topography of this episode presents no difficulty to the serious student. According to Wellhausen, the account † of Saul's pursuit of David in the wilderness is a good-natured jest telling how the two played hide-and-seek round a hill' (p. 265). Perhaps, had he stood in that grim desert under such circumstances, he might have otherwise regarded his enemy's stealthy advance. There is no passage in the Bible which gives a more vivid picture of the invariable methods of desert warfare. When, however, he speaks of David 'amus'ing himself by going first towards the north,' and speaks of this episode as a worthless anachronistic anecdote' (pp. 267-271), he fails to understand what the author describes. David fled to the protection of the dreaded Samuel, and of the holy place where he lived, and had little thought of amusement. In the same connexion (p. 268) a supposed distinction between the Roeh, or seer, and the Nabi, or prophet,' is argued, and the explanation § is said to be a 'gloss,' but that its statement is scarcely quite correct.' It is, in fact, one of the interesting marks of archaism in the work, but the distinction supposed cannot be shown to have existed. The Books of Kings, belonging to a much later period, may be briefly passed over; but here also some very curious assertions may be noticed. The blessing of Jacob * 1 Sam. xiii. 7-15. † 1 Sam. xxiii. 14. § 1 Sam. ix. 9. 1 Sam. xix. 18 seq. and the blessing of Moses are said to show us the sentiment ' of Northern Israel,' because in both passages the tribe of Joseph is blessed. But in quoting the former it is difficult to understand why the important notice of Judah as the royal tribe is silently ignored, except that it expresses the sentiment of Southern Israel. The natural conclusion would be that these ancient hymns belong to a time prior to that when Jew and Samaritan became enemies. If the words bring him back to his people'† are correctly understood by the translators, we may still ask the critic what security exists that this obscure phrase, on which he hangs a theory, is not an interpolation.' The concluding paragraphs of this part of the work equally show a misconception of their subject. 'It may be said of this class of narratives generally that the prophets are brought too much into the foreground in them. In the time of Ahab and Jehu the Nebiim were a widespread body, and organised in orders of their own, but were not highly respected; the average of them were miserable fellows.' (P. 293.) There is no foundation for such an opinion. The position of prophet, or man inspired,' was held in all ages, and continues to be held, to be the highest to which a human being can attain; and the right understanding of the Old Testament is not advanced by such an assertion. The last chapter of the second part treats of the Narrative of the Hexateuch,' by which is meant the Pentateuch story and the narrative of Joshua, considered to form a single document. The term is the symbol of a theory of the nineteenth century. The term Pentateuch represents a traditional belief in the unity of certain books. If their limit is exceeded it is as reasonable to speak of the Heptateuch (including Judges) or of the Polyteuch, adding other historical narratives; but nothing is gained by making a new and arbitrary classification. The distinction between the Pentateuch and the Prophets is ancient among the Jews. The Samaritans accepted the former, but never, as far as we know, the latter; and this not because the latter had as yet no existence, for in the belief of all critics many of the narratives of Hebrew history, not included in the Pentateuch, are older than parts of the Pentateuch itself. No reason has been given which stands the test of enquiry for drawing a new line which no ancient version recognises. It is in this section, however, that the main contention of Gen. xlix. 9-10. + Deut. xxxiii. 7. |