(r) The undivided kingdom :— 1 S 9-2 S 20''. A large part of 2 S consists of a court historj of Daviil of great historii al value. 2 S 21'-24'''' is in apiionilix of less value. 1 K I'-ll** (apart frjm additions by the Deuteronomic editor).
(rf)Thedi\-ided kingdom, (a) 1 K 13-2 K 17 (mainly concerned with the Northern kingdom) ; the parallel passages of Chronicles add little to our information, b\it much illustrative matter can be obtained from Amos and Hosea. (j3) 2 Ch 11-2S (mainly concerned with the Southern kingdom, and mostly treated as a romance by modern critics). (7) 2 K 18-25 (the fall of Judah) ; this part of the history receives much illustration from Isaiah (first half), ^licah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Monuments (Moabite, Egyptian, and especially Assyrian and Babylonian) give some additional light, but the statements of classical writers, e.g. Herodotus, are confused for the most part and untrust- worthy.
(e) The Persian Period. Ezra and Nehemiah are valuable in that they contain the memoirs of those two great men, but the books as a whole are ill compiled and incomplete, and it is difficult to ex- tract a coherent storv from them. Haggai and Zechariah (1-8) furnish valuable information.
(/) The Greek Period. Josephus [Atit. XI. viii.- XIII. vii.) gives some information, but his romantic stories are doubtful. For the age of the Macca- bees we have a generally trustworthy guide in
1 Mac, and some hints may be gathered from
2 Mac. The Book of Daniel (wTitttn c. 167 B.C. ?) is generally appealed to in illustration of this age.
v. The History.
1. The Origins of Israel. — The relationships of the Israelite people according to the earliest source preserved in Genesis are shown in the following table : —
Terah.
Haraa.
Lot
I
Ab)
raham.
Ighmael.
Nahor.
Kemuel
MOAB AiniOH Edoh Isbail BotAmc Nohads Aram (Gnl93i>*iJ). (Gn2530J). (Gn2518J). (Gn2'.jaj)
That Moab, Ammon, Edom, and Israel formed together a group of tribes of kindred origin, ia generally acknowledged and need not be doubted. It has, however, been questioned whether Israel was really related to Aram (the Ararafeans or ' Syrians '), and Wellhausen has suggested that Israel's claim to such relationship was founded not on fact, but on an ambitious desire to be reckoned to belong to ' the mighty Aramseans ' (IJG ' p. 8). i et against this we may set the fact asserted by Kittel [Geschichte, i. 155), that it is an unchanging trait of Israelite tradition that the origins of the Hebrew people lay beyond the Eu- phrates, i.e. in Aram-naliaraira, ' Aram of the two rivers,' the country between the Euphrates and the 5abor. To the passages in Genesis we may add two interesting references outside it. In Dt2ti' (D) the Israelite is told to call his ancestor ' a wander- ing (or ' lost ') Aramaean ' (cf. RVm), and in Hos 12" (12" Heb.) — an interpolation ace. to Nowack {in loco), but even so, probably independent of the
5 resent form of Genesis — we have mention of acob's flight into 'the field of Aram' (RV), an event which surely implies some pre\ious connexion with the people of Aram.
On the other hand, the nearness of kinship between Israel and the population of the Sinai peninsula is pronounced by Wellhausen ' > 317
ISRAEL, HISTORY OF
ISR.VEL, HISTORY OF
509
probable,' and he points out that ' the real Iiome of the Patriarchs lay between Edora and K^ijypt,* where the South of Palestine mer{;e8 itself in the Desert ' {GeschiclUe, \>. 9). On the whole, however, it seems best to accei)t both relationships of Israel, for the two are equally well attested in the earliest records. Israel was no more homo<;eneous than any other tribe which niijjrates and conquers. Abraham's grand-nephew Laban w.as of IJaran (Gn 27" 29'', both J), and Isaac's wife came from Arara-naharaim (so RVm Gn 24'° J), whence Abra- ham hinuself also derived his origin (v.* J). (Sue art. AiiUAHAM.vol.i. p. 15'). On the other hand, the genealogical table given above shows a relationship between Israel and the nomads of Sinai, and the CaJebite origin of a large part of the tribe of Judah has already been alluded to. The general presenta- tion in the earliest sources of the history of the patriarchs, viz. that Israel Wiis a tribe from the nortli drawn southward, falling under tlie spell of Egyptian influence, and leaving behind it in the Sinaitic peninsula nomads akin to it in blood, has the strongest claims to be received as true. The historic 111 character of the lives of the patriarchs theiMselves is di.scussed elsewhere; see especially AiiitAiiAM, vol. i. p. 15, and JACOB, below, p. 5331)'. 2. Israel under the Egyptians. — It has been denied that Israel was ever 'in Egypt'; it is therefore necessary to ascertain exactly what is asserted in the biblical accounts. The people dwelt in (ioslien apart from the Egyptians (Gn -16^-47* J), as indeed the narrative of the plagues presup- jiDscs (cf. Ex 8- 9''"', both J). Such passages as Kx 0-- IP'- (both E) do not essentially disagree with this representation : Goshen (i/ Pitliom and Kameses, y,\ 1" J, were in Goshen, and if the lirst of these cities has been correctly identified by N.aville with ancient remains near the .Sweet Water Canal) bordered on Egypt proper, so that tlie Israelites •would have Egyptian ' neighbours ' north and west of tliem. Now the fact that we lind no certain mention of tlie Hebrews (Israelites) on the Egj'|itian iMuiuiiiients (at present known) belonging (presum- ably) to the period of the Oppression and of the Exodus, does not discredit tnis story of Israel's sojourn and servitude in Goshen. Israel was not the only people which was impressed to work on Pharaoh's buildings ; the story of Israel might very well be lost to the Egyptians amid a dozen similar memories. As a matter of fact, however, one name does meet us in the Egyptian records which recalls the name of the Chosen People. Certain foreigners called 'prw C.'Apciru) were employed on task-work under Ramses II., and as late as the time of Itamses IV. This name has been compared with 'Ihhri ('Hebrew'). The fact th.at the Exodus is always supposed to have taken place before the reign of the latter monarch is of small account. The name may have been passed on from the sons of I.srael to their successors m the task-work. (See, however, art. EoYl'T, vol. 1. p. 605). If the IJnhiri, so often mentioned on the 'fel elAmarna tablets as the foes of Egypt in Syria, be the Hebrews, then the Exodus must have taken i)lace as ciuly as the time of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and the same conclusion must be drawn if the Y-si-r-'l of the recently discovered stele of Mereuptah (Mencptah) be Israel, for Y-si-r-'l appears as a Syrian people nion whom tlie chastisement of Pharaoh has fallen (cf. G. Stein.lorir, ZA TW xvi. 330 If.). Of the true date of the Kxnilus we still know nothing for cer- tain (see Cili:oNol.or.v OK Oi.l) TtST., vol. i. pp. 398, 399 ; and articles by Sayce, Hommcl, etc., in Expos. Times, vols. viii. and ix.).