Anti-Semitism Ism

The "Amarna age" affords the first starting-point for any esti mate of Palestine and the history of Israel. The records reveal a state of anarchy in Palestine for which the weakness of Egypt and the downward pressure of North Syrian peoples were respon sible. Subdivided into a number of little local principalities, Pales tine was suffering both from internal intrigues and from the de signs of the northern powers. It is now that we find the restless Habiru, a name which is commonly identified with that of the "Hebrews". For such information as we possess, reference must be made to the articles ABRAHAM, AMORITES, CANAANITES, PHI LISTINES. Unfortunately the external evidence fails just when it would be most welcome. There comes a time when the fate of Palestine was no longer controlled by the great powers, and the curtain rises upon the historical traditions of the Old Testament.

2.

Biblical History.—For the rest of the first period the Old Testament forms the main source. It contains, in fact, the history itself in two forms : (a) from the creation of man to the fall of Judah (Genesis-2 Kings), which is supplemented and con tinued further to (b) the foundation of Judaism in the 5th cen tury B.c. (Chronicles.-Ezra-Nehemiah). In the light of con temporary monuments, archaeological evidence, the progress of scientific knowledge and the recognized methods of modern histor ical criticism, the account of the origin of mankind and of the his tory of the Jews in the Old Testament can no longer be implicitly accepted. Written by an oriental people and clothed in an oriental dress, the books of the Old Testament do not contain "objective" records, but history written for specific purposes. The history is a compilation, as may be illustrated from a comparison of Chroni cles with Samuel-Kings, and frequently depicts the past in the light of the present. (See CHRONICLES.) Scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that the internal features are best explained by the literary hypothesis associated with the work of Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen. According to this, the historical traditions are mainly due to two characteristic though very complicated recensions, one under the influence of the teaching of Deuteronomy (Joshua to Kings), the other, of a more priestly character (akin to Leviticus), of somewhat later date (Genesis to Joshua, with traces in Judges to Kings). (See G. F. Moore, Ency. Bibl., "Historical literature.") There are innumer able questions relating to the nature, limits and dates of these two recensions, of the incorporated sources, and of other sources (whether early or late) of independent origin ; and here there is naturally room for much divergence of opinion. Older material (often of composite origin) has been used, not so much for the purpose of providing historical information, as with the object of showing the religious significance of past history; and the series Joshua-Kings is actually included among the "prophets" in the Jewish canon. (See further BIBLE : Old Testament.) 3. Traditions of Origin.—At the age when, as we have

reason to suppose, the Old Testament historical writings were as suming their present form, it was possible to divide the imme diately preceding centuries into three distinct periods : (a) That of the two rival kingdoms: Israel (Ephraim or Samaria) in the northern half of Palestine, and Judah in the south. Then (b) the former lost its independence towards the close of the 8th cen tury B.c., when a number of its inhabitants were carried away ; and the latter shared the fate of exile at the beginning of the 6th cen tury, but succeeded in making a fresh reconstruction some 5o or 6o years later. Finally (c), in the "post-exilic" period, religion and life were reorganized under the influence of a new spirit ; rela tions with Samaria were broken off, and Judaism took its definite character, perhaps about the middle or close of the 5th century. The term "Jew" means properly "man of Judah," i.e., of that small district which, with Jerusalem as its capital, became the cen tre of post-exilic Judaism. The favourite name "Israel," with all its religious and national associations, is somewhat ambiguous in an historical sketch, since, although it is used as opposed to Judah (a), it ultimately came to designate the true nucleus of the wor shippers of the national god, Yahweh, as opposed to the Samari tans, the later inhabitants of Israelite territory (c). A more gen eral term is "Hebrew." (See HEBREW LANGUAGE, HEBREW RELIGION.) The traditions which prevailed among the Israelites concerning their origin belong to a time not when Judah and Israel were "brother" or rival kingdoms, but when they formed one body and Judah was among the "sons" of Israel (or Jacob), the son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham. The names of the "sons," or rather tribes, vary in origin and, probably, also in age ; and where they rep resent fixed territorial limits, the districts so described were in some cases certainly peopled by groups of non-Israelite ancestry. But as tribal names they invited explanation, and of the many characteristic traditions which were doubtless current, a number have been preserved, though not in any very early dress. Close relationship was recognized with the Aramaeans, with Edom, Moab and Ammon. Esau (Edom) is the "brother" of Jacob, Moab and Ammon are sons of Lot, Abraham's nephew. Abraham himself, it was traditionally narrated, came from Harran (Carrhae), pri marily from Ur, of the Chaldees, and Jacob re-enters from Gilead in the north-east, with his Aramaean wives and concubines and their families (Benjamin excepted). It is on this occasion that Jacob's name is changed to Israel. Such traditions of migration and kinship are in themselves not incredible ; but the detailed ac counts of the ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as given in Genesis, are inherently doubtful as regards both the internal con ditions, which the (late) chronological scheme ascribes to the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C., and the general circumstances of the life of these strangers in a foreign land.