The post-exilic priestly spirit represents a tendency which is not to be found in the "Deuteronomic" book of Kings, but is conspicuous in the later, and to some extent parallel, book of Chronicles (q.v.). The "priestly" traditions of the Creation and of the patriarchs are in marked contrast to the earlier narratives, and appear in a further developed form in the still later book of Jubilees (q.v.) or "Little Genesis," where they are used to demonstrate the pre-Mosaic antiquity of the priestly or Levitical institutions. There is also an unmistakable development in the laws; and the priestly legislation, though ahead of both Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, not to mention still earlier usage, not only continues to undergo continual internal modification, but finds a further distinct development in the way of definition and inter pretation, outside the Old Testament—in the Talmud (q.v.). Though one may often be repelled by the post-exilic priestly literature, their lack of spontaneity and their ritualism, it must be recognized that they placed Monotheism upon a firm basis. "It was a necessity that Judaism should incrust itself in this manner; without those hard and ossified forms the preservation of its essential elements would have proved impossible. At a time when all nationalities, and at the same time all bonds of religion and national customs, were beginning to be broken up in the seeming cosmos and real chaos of the Graeco-Roman empire, the Jews stood out like a rock in the midst of the ocean. When the natural conditions of independent nationality all failed them, they never theless artificially maintained it with an energy truly marvellous, and thereby preserved for themselves, and at the same time for the whole world, an eternal good." (Wellhausen.) Yet the whole experience of subsequent history, through the heroic age of the Maccabees (q.v.) and onwards, proves that the minuteness of ritual procedure could not cramp the heart. The work represented in Nehemiah and Ezra, and effected by the supporters of an exclusive Judaism, certainly won the day, and it left its impress upon the historical traditions. But Yahwism, like Islam, had its sects and tendencies, and the opponents to the stricter ritualism always had followers. Whatever the predomi nant party might think of foreign marriages, the tradition of the half-Moabite origin of David serves, in the beautiful idyll of Ruth (q.v.), to emphasize the debt which Judah and Jerusalem owed to one of its neighbours. Again, although some desired a self-contained community opposed to the heathen neighbours of Jerusalem, the story of Jonah (q.v.) implicitly contends against the attempt of Judaism to close its doors. The conflicting ten dencies were incompatible, but Judaism retained the incompatibili ties within its limits, and the two tendencies, prophetical and priestly, continue, the former finding its further development in the rise of Christianity.
See the bibliography to BIBLE, Old Testament; Kittel, Geschichte des V olkes Israels; and Camb. Anc. History, ii, ch. xiv.; iii. ch. xvii.-xx., and vi. ch. vii. with their bibliographies. Also HEBREW RELIGION. (S. A. C.) Hebraism and Hellenism.—The Jews came into contact with Greek culture when they were fully conscious of their own. They had been moulded by suffering: they had already achieved a his tory. They could look back to a kingdom which, for several centuries, had stood happily and honourably, which had fallen heroically and which had reared a race whose religion and patriot ism neither misfortune could kill nor prosperity corrupt. Their memories of the past were vivid, enshrining traditions of divine messages and teachings of great prophets. This spiritual heritage fortified them in captivity to preserve their identity and to live with unquenchable hope for the day of return. They had, in pro cess of time, achieved their desire and they had consolidated their state anew. Ezra had rescued the Torah and his institutions had
schooled the Jews to meet alike the onslaught of enemies and the influence of foreign cultures, without loss of individuality. There fore, the work of the past was now accomplished : present and future were assured. Judaism was safe in the custody of the Jew. At this juncture he was confronted with Hellenism. Alex ander swept into Asia with ease : he planted Greek seeds on an Oriental soil and his tree flourished. The kingdom of Bactria which he founded was an outpost of Greek civilization: his settlers, artists and craftsmen, introduced elements which never disappeared entirely. Indian statuary has preserved traces of the models which these Greeks in Bactria showed to their Indian pupils and apprentices. The reasons for Alexander's swift suc cess, for the absence of difficulties and for the results he achieved need not be discussed here. The contrasts between the conditions he encountered in Asia and those which prevailed in Palestine will readily suggest themselves. But if it be accurate to hold that his work further East so largely decayed through the indifference, inertia and lack of homogeneity of the populations over which he imposed his sway, no similar verdict can apply to Palestine. Here none of these qualities can be held responsible. The advent of Alexander mattered little to the Jews because the Jew had already made up his mind what his destiny was to be and what his mission demanded of him.
Compared with. Rome, Greece has touched the Jew but slightly. To this day the Jew sits down to a Passover celebration in which many details of Roman table etiquette survive. From White chapel to Cochin, from New York to Cairo, Jews, poor and rich alike, unconsciously reproduce on Passover night the habits of the triclinium and dine as Horace dined at the feasts of Maecenas. No other people, no cultural force, has left so deep an imprint on the Jew. Neither Egypt, Persia, Greece, nor the Renaissance penetrated Jewish culture as deeply as did Rome, the power, moreover, that destroyed the Temple and finally broke up the Jewish State. The influence of the Greeks on the Jews was post poned until long after the Greeks had lived. When mediaeval Jews set themselves to translate Aristotle and transmit his philos ophy to Europe, the two cultures may be said to have met. But it was Aristotle the master, not Alexander the disciple, who brought about the meeting. Two causes may be held responsible for this. It may be that the premature death of Alexander pre vented the fulfilment of his plans, which his successors had not the breadth of vision to complete, or it may be that the Jewish mind was essentially practical and temperamentally incapable of re acting to Athenian culture : the Torah and Plato's Republic are by some regarded as representing different and incongruent ex pressions of life. It may be alleged that the loss of one individ ual, however influential, is powerless to stem a cultural flood, nevertheless it would seem that in this case the death of Alex ander is the more correct answer. Jew and Greek did in fact meet. liyay is as Jewish as it is Greek in spirit. There are books in the Old Testament canon as well as in the Apocrypha which reflect Greek thought. Job is a Hebrew Prometheus Vinctus, Esther is composed on the stylistic model of a Euripidean drama and the parallels between Canticles and Theocritus, though often exaggerated, are not to be overlooked. Philo strove to make Jewish literature known to the Greeks while, at last, Paul, an offshoot of Judaism, combined Jewish-Christian teaching with Hellenic method and expression. During four centuries the Jews were under Greek influence because from the time of Alexander until the destruction of Jerusalem, Greek culture prevailed in Palestine, irrespective of the nationality of the governor of the province.