50

CHAPTER III.

WRITINGS OF THE NINTH AND EIGHTH CENTURIES B.C.

AS LITERARY AND AS RELIGIOUS PRODUCTS.

The limitations imposed on our inquiry compel us to find a neutral and undisputed starting point- We accept the century 850 to 750 B.C., within which fall the earliest writing prophets, as well as certain other compositions which are assigned to this period—Value of contemporary documents-Enumeration of the writings admitted, and statement of the problem-First of all, the existence of a varied literature in this one century has to be explained-Writing implies reading and education of some kind and duration―Secondly, as religious products the writings call for explanation-The utterances of the earliest writing prophets, and their being addressed to the people, inconsistent with the idea that it is a time of rudimentary religious ideas—Conclusion that this period is neither the earliest literary age nor the time of commencement of the prophetic religion.

It follows, from the limitation we have set to our inquiry in the preceding chapter, that we cannot now proceed, as would otherwise be convenient, to trace the history of the religion of Israel downwards in a connected way from the earliest times. We must take our stand, at the commencement of our inquiry, upon common and undisputed ground. In order to have such a starting-point, we fix upon the period when the modern historians say we have. authentic written information - viz., the period within

Start from undisputed Ground.

51

which fall the earliest writing prophets, Amos and Hosea. With them we have contemporary accounts, so far as they go, of the religious beliefs of Israel; and from their writings as well as other compositions, which we are allowed to use as belonging to about the same age, we shall obtain, in the first place, those views, at least, which writers of that time held. And then, from the known and admitted, we must seek to determine, as best we can, the unknown or disputed. The discussion will thus be very much simplified; for it will not be legitimate for either party to take shelter behind any preconceived theory, either of the inspiration, authority, and sequence of books, or of a certain course of historical development. If there is a disadvantage in being deprived of contemporary written authority for an early period which we wish to determine, the disadvantage will lie equally against both sides. We shall be compelled to fix our attention on certain facts which are admitted, and by a process of inference, which must be closely watched, to make our way back to antecedent facts and situations.

The value of contemporary writings in a discussion of this kind is immense. From them we obtain a firm ground from which to start, for we derive information as to the conditions of thought and life at the time of the writers in hand. We are enabled to perceive not only the ideas of the writers themselves, but the conceptions and practices that were current in their time, so far as the writers have occasion to touch upon them. The writings of the prophets are in this respect particularly valuable; for these teachers were pre-eminently men of their time, addressing themselves directly to the situations in which. they were placed, and appealing to the consciousness of the people by whom they were surrounded.

It would be a mistake, however, to limit the value of contemporary writings to the mere information they give in regard to contemporary conditions. A writer is indeed the child of his age, but his age is the product of antecedent influences; and unless we can from contemporary writings find our way by safe inference to the causes that exerted them, we shall never make any progress. Histories of Israel written in this nineteenth Christian century reflect the spirit of the age; but their authors would not like to have them set aside as merely the afterthoughts of modern speculation projected backward into a distant time. And the writings of prophetical men, in the same way, are more than the expression of their own reflections. We must account for the turn which their reflections took, for the standpoint which they had reached; the men and their writings are historical facts which are to be historically explained. And as they were not ostensibly historians, any information they give us as to the history will be the more free from suspicion of tendency or bias.

The great point in this discussion is to determine as clearly as possible the religion of Israel in the period preceding the earliest writing prophets. This period is frequently spoken of in modern works as the "preprophetic period"; but this mode of speaking requires qualification. To say the " pre-prophetic " religion of Israel, is liable to involve the assumption that the writing prophets differed in their teaching from those that preceded them, which is just the point in dispute. We are not entitled at the outset to assume that the prophetic period, as a stadium in the religious history of Israel, begins with the prophets whose writings have come down to us; and therefore the expression, although convenient in some

The Writings specified.

53

respects, should not be employed without this necessary qualification.

Let us now endeavour to gain some idea of the period at which we have agreed to take our stand, and which may be roughly stated as the century 850 to 750 B.C. Though it is maintained that this is the earliest historical standingground in Israel's history, it is, according to the Biblical account, comparatively late; and in point of fact, it is not disputed on the other side that a great many important historical events had already happened. By the eighth century before Christ, the northern kingdom of the ten tribes had reached the culmination of its greatness, from which it rapidly declined to its fall. Amos prophesied in the time of Jeroboam II., in the first half of the eighth century-i.e., before 750 B.C.; and Hosea probably lived till near the ruin of the kingdom. Though the books of the Kings were not written till long after, and therefore cannot, with the limitations we have imposed upon our inquiry, be relied upon for the interpretation they put upon the events, yet the succession of rulers in the two kingdoms as the books give them, as well as the separation of the two kingdoms in the reign of Rehoboam, and in general the simple facts of the history as there recorded, are accepted. Moreover, there are certain compositions which are admitted as existing in or belonging to the same age. The stories of the patriarchs as given in the Jehovistic portions of the book of Genesis; the accounts of the doings and sayings of Elijah and Elisha which have become embodied in the books of Kings, are admitted to have been committed to writing in this period; and though they are not to be accepted as history-the stories of the patriarchs in par

1 See Note VIII.

ticular-yet they may be taken as embodying the ideas of the men who committed them to writing, and they are thus at least materials for judging of the views which at this time were entertained. Furthermore, it is not denied that in the book of Judges-later editorial interpretations excepted-we have a pretty accurate description of the time to which it refers; and that the books of Samuel- later glosses again excepted - relate certain facts as to the activity of Samuel, and the setting up of the kingdom. Lastly, although the book of Deuteronomy was not yet in existence, nor the Code of Laws and accompanying narrative of the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, yet there existed a brief written Code, the so-called Book of the Covenant contained in Exodus xx.-xxiii. It is, however, necessary to add, that though these writings are admitted to belong to the periods respectively stated, their historical value, it is maintained, can only be determined by the most careful criticism; and historical critics are very much divided among themselves as to the positive residuum of truth underlying them.

These then, roughly speaking, are the authorities at our disposal for the inquiry. Later writings, of course, which are undisputed, such as the prophecies of Micah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and bare facts of history which are not denied, may be referred to if there is occasion. But we are not to appeal to those so-called later "summaries" or reviews1 of the history, and what are regarded as interpretations of it in the light of later ideas, which the Biblical historians have, in certain places, superimposed upon earlier authentic documents. The ultimate point we wish to determine, by the aid of these authorities, is this, What actually was

1 See below, p. 116.