A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W X Z

Introduction to the Old Testament

J >> John Edgar McFadyen >> Introduction to the Old Testament




The documentary sources which lie at the basis of the Pentateuch are
present, though in different proportions, in the book of Joshua, and
in their main features are easily recognizable. The story of the
conquest (i.-xii.) is told by the prophetic document JE, while the
geographical section on the distribution of the land (xiii.-xxii.)
belongs in the main to the priestly document P. Joshua, in common
with Judges, Samuel (in part) and Kings, has also been very plainly
subjected to a redaction known to criticism as the Deuteronomic,
because its phraseology and point of view are those of Deuteronomy.
This redactional element, which, to any one fresh from the study of
Deuteronomy, is very easy to detect, is more or less conspicuous in
all of the first twelve chapters, but it is especially so in chs. i.
and xxiii., and it would be well worth the student's while to read
these two chapters very carefully, in order to familiarize himself
with the nature of the influence of the Deuteronomic redaction upon
the older prophetico-historical material. Very significant, e.g.,
are such phrases as "the land which Jehovah your God giveth you to
possess," i. 11, Deuteronomy xii. 1: equally so is the emphasis upon
the law, i. 7, xxiii. 6, and the injunction to "love Jehovah your
God," xxiii. 11.

The most serious effect of the Deuteronomic influence has been to
present the history rather from an ideal than from a strictly
historical point of view. According to the redaction, e.g., the
conquest of Canaan was entirely effected within one generation and
under Joshua, whereas it was not completely effected till long after
Joshua's death: indeed the oldest source frankly admits that in many
districts it was never thoroughly effected at all (Jud. i. 27-36). A
typical illustration of the Deuteronomic attitude to the history is
to be found in the statement that Joshua obliterated the people of
Gezer, x. 33, which directly contradicts the older statement that
Israel failed to drive them out, xvi. 10. The Deuteronomist is, in
reality, not a historian but a moralist, interpreting the history
and the forces, divine as well as human, that were moulding it. To
him the conquest was really complete in the generation of Joshua, as
by that time the factors were all at work which would ultimately
compel success. The persistency of the Deuteronomic influence, even
long after the priestly code was written, is proved by xx. 4-6,
which, though embodied in a priestly passage, is in the spirit of
Deuteronomy (cf. Deut. xix.). As this passage is not found in the
Septuagint, it is probably as late as the third century B.C.

P is very largely represented. Its presence is recognized, as usual,
by its language, its point of view, and its dependence upon other
parts of the Pentateuch, demonstrably priestly. While in the older
sources, e.g., it is Joshua who divides the land, xviii. 10, in P
not only is Eleazar the priest associated with him as Aaron with
Moses (Exod. viii. 5, 16), but he is even named before him (xiv. 1,
cf. Num. xxxiv. 17). It is naturally also this document which
records the first passover in the promised land, v. 10-12. The
cities of refuge and the Levitical cities are set apart (xx., xxi.)
in accordance with the terms prescribed in a priestly chapter of
Numbers (xxxv.). The prominence of Judah and Benjamin in the
allocation of the land is also significant. The section on the
memorial altar, xxii. 9-34, apparently belonging to a later stratum
of P, is clearly stamped as priestly by its whole temper--its
formality, _v_, 14, its representation of the "congregation" as
acting unanimously, _v_. 16, its repetitions and stereotyped
phraseology, and by the prominence it gives to "Phinehas the son of
Eleazar the priest," _vv_. 30-32. That this document in Joshua
was partly narrative so well as statistical is also suggested by its
very brief account of Achan's sin in ch. vii., and of the treachery
and punishment of the Gibeonites, ix. l7-2l--an account which may
well have been fuller in the original form of the document.

The most valuable part of Joshua for historical purposes is
naturally that which comes from the prophetic document, which is the
oldest. It is here that the interesting and concrete detail lies,
notably in chs. i.-xii., but also scattered throughout the rest of
the book in some extremely important fragments, which indicate how
severe and occasionally unsuccessful was the struggle of Israel to
gain a secure footing upon certain parts of the country.[1] Many of
the difficulties revealed by a minute study of i.-xii. make it
absolutely certain that the prophetic document is really composite
(JE), but owing to the thorough blending of the sources the analysis
is peculiarly difficult and uncertain. That there are various
sources, however, admits of no doubt. The story of the crossing of
the Jordan in chs. iii., iv., if we follow it carefully step by
step, is seen to be unintelligible on the assumption that it is a
unity. In iii. 17 all the people are already over the Jordan, but in
iv. 4, 5, the implication is that they are only about to cross. Ch.
iv. 2 repeats iii. 12 almost word for word. In iv. 9 the memorial
stones are to be placed in the Jordan, in iv. 20 at Gilgal. In vii.
25_b_, 26_a_, Achan alone appears to be stoned, in
_v_. 25_c_ the family is stoned too. A similar confusion
prevails in the story of the fall of Jericho (vi.). In one version,
Israel marches six days silently round the city, and on the seventh
they shout at the word of Joshua; on the other, they march round
seven times in one day, and the seventh time they shout at the blast
of the trumpet.
[Footnote 1: Cf. xv. 14-19, 63; xvi. 10; xvii. 11-18; xix. 47.]

Enough has been said to show that the prophetic document, as we have
it, is composite, though there can seldom be any manner of certainty
about the ultimate analysis into its J and E constituents. There is
reason to believe that most of the isolated notices of the struggle
with the Canaanites scattered throughout xiii.-xxii. and repeated in
Judges i. are from J, while ch. xxiv., with its interest in Shechem
and Joseph, and its simple but significant statement, "They
presented themselves before _God_ (Elohim)," xxiv. 1, is almost
entirely from E.

It used to be maintained, on the strength of a phrase in v. 1--"until
_we_ were passed over"--that the book of Joshua must have been
written by a contemporary. But the true reading there is undoubtedly
that given by the Septuagint--until _they_ passed over-which
involves only a very slight change in the Hebrew. On what, then, do
the narratives of the book really rest? The answer is suggested by
x. 12, 13, where the historian appeals to the book of Jashar in
confirmation of an incident in Joshua's southern campaign. Doubtless
the whole battle was described in one of the war-ballads in this
famous collection (cf. Jud. v.), and it is not unreasonable to suppose
that other narratives in the book of Joshua similarly rest upon other
ballads now for ever lost. The capture of Jericho, e.g., may well have
been commemorated in a stirring song which was an inspiration alike
to faith and patriotism.

If, however, it be true that the book of Joshua has thus a poetic
basis, it is only fair to remember that its prose narratives must
not be treated as bald historical annals; they must be interpreted
in a poetic spirit. There is the more reason to insist upon this, as
a later editor, by a too inflexible literalism, has misinterpreted
the very passage from the book of Jashar to which we have alluded.
What the precise meaning of Joshua's fine apostrophe to sun and moon
may be, is doubtful--whether a prayer for the prolongation of the
day or rather perhaps a prayer for the sudden oncoming of darkness.
The words mean, "Sun, be thou still," and if this be the prayer, it
would perhaps be answered by the furious storm which followed. But,
in either case, the appeal to the sun and moon to lend their help to
Israel in her battles is obviously poetic--a fine conception, but
grotesque if literally pressed. This, however, is just what has been
done by the editor who added x. 14, and thus created a miracle out
of the bold but appropriate imagery of the poet. Similarly it is not
necessary to suppose that the walls of Jericho fell down without the
striking of a blow on the part of Israel, for this too may be
poetry. It may be just the imaginative way of saying that no walls
can stand before Jehovah when He fights for His people. That this is
the real meaning of the story, and that there was more of a struggle
than the poetical narrative of ch. vi. would lead us to believe, is
made highly probable by, the altogether incidental but very explicit
statement in xxiv. 11, "The men of Jericho _fought_ against
you."

With its large geographical element the book of Joshua is not
particularly rich in scenes of direct religious value; yet the whole
narrative is inspired by a sublime faith in the divine purpose and
its sure triumph over every obstacle. In particular, the story of
the Gibeonites suggests the permanent obligation of reckoning with
God in affairs of national policy, ix. 14, while Gilgal is a
reminder of the duty of formally commemorating the beneficent
providences of life (iii., iv.). The story of Achan reveals the
national bearings of individual conduct and the large and disastrous
consequences of individual sin. The valedictory addresses of Joshua
are touched by a fine sense of the importance of a grateful and
uncompromising fidelity to God. But perhaps the greatest thing in
the book is the vision of the heavenly leader encouraging Joshua on
the eve of his perilous campaign, v. 13-15, a noble imagination,
fitted to remind those who are fighting the battles of the Lord that
they are sustained and aided by forces unseen.




THE PROPHETIC AND PRIESTLY DOCUMENTS


Of the three principal documents, J, E and P, to whose fusion is due
the account of Israel's origin and early history contained in the
Hexateuch, nothing can be known except by inference; but within
certain limits their date and origin may be fixed. In Genesis, J and
E alike love to trace the sacred places of the Hebrews to some
revelation or incident in the life of the patriarchs. Now from the
prominence assigned to Hebron in J, together with the rôle assigned
to Judah in the story of Joseph, xxxvii. 26, and the special
interest in Judah displayed by Genesis xxxviii., it may be inferred
that J originated in Judah; while the special attention paid in E to
the sanctuaries of the northern kingdom, such as Shechem and Bethel,
is not unreasonably held to imply that E originated in Israel.

It is impossible to assign more than an approximate date to the
origin of these documents, but they can hardly be earlier than the
monarchy, which is clearly alluded to in Genesis xxxvi. 31. Such
incidental statements as that the Canaanite was _then_ in the
land, xii. 6, xiii, 7, imply that by the author's time the situation
had changed; and, as their subjection was not attained till the time
of Solomon (1 Kings ix. 21) the documents can hardly be earlier than
that. The sanctuaries glorified in the Pentateuch are the very
sanctuaries at which a sumptuous but misguided worship was practised
as late as the eighth century, in the days of Amos and Hosea (cf.
Amos iv. 4; Hosea xii. II); but, generally speaking, the conception
of God found in the prophetic history, though as robust and intense
as that of the early prophets, is more primitive. It is not afraid
of anthropomorphisms (Gen. iii. 8; Exod. iv. 24), and theophanies,
and it has not very clearly grasped the idea that God is spirit. On
these grounds alone it would not be unfair to place the prophetic
documents somewhere between Solomon and Amos. J probably belongs to
the ninth century, and E, which, as we saw reason to believe, was
later, to the eighth.

P takes us into a totally different world. The witchery of the
prophetic documents has disappeared; poetry has given place to
legislation, theophany to ritual, religion to theology. From the
late historical books, such as Ezra-Nehemiah, we learn that legalism
dominated post-exilic religion to an extent out of all proportion to
what can be proved, or what is probable, for pre-exilic times; and
it would be natural to suppose that another writing, such as P,
dominated by precisely the same spirit, is a product of the same
time. This supposition becomes a practical certainty in the light of
two or three facts. Firstly, in not a few respects P is at variance
with the legislative programme drawn up by the exilic prophet
Ezekiel (xl.-xlviii.). Now if P had been in existence, such a
programme would have been unnecessary, and, in any case, Ezekiel
would hardly have ventured to contradict a code which enjoyed so
venerable a sanction and bore the honoured name of Moses. It is
easier to suppose that Ezekiel's programme is a tentative sketch,
which was modified and improved upon by the authors of P. Again
there was every inducement during and immediately after the exile to
formulate definitely the ritual practice of pre-exilic times, and to
modify it in the direction of existing or future needs. So long as
the temple stood, custom could be trusted to take care of the ritual
tradition, but the violent breach with their country and their past
would impose upon the exiles the necessity of securing those
traditions in permanent and accessible form. P is therefore referred
almost unanimously by scholars to the exilic and early post-exilic
age, and may be roughly put about 500 B.C.

The documents J, E and P, which, for convenience, we have treated as
if each were the product of a single pen, represent in reality
movements which extended over decades and even centuries. The
Jehovist, e.g., who traces the descent of shepherds, musicians, and
workers in metal to antediluvian times (Gen. iv. 19-22), cannot be
the Jehovist who told the story of the Flood, which interrupted the
continuity of human life. These distinctions are known to criticism
as Jl, J2, etc.; but, though they stand for undoubted literary
facts, it is altogether futile to attempt, on this basis, an
analysis of the entire document into its component parts. The
presence of several hands may also be detected, though not so
readily, in E. Most scholars suppose J to precede E, but one or two
reverse the order. The truth is that there are passages in J
inspired by splendid prophetic conceptions, which must be later than
the earliest edition of E; and the moment it is recognized that a
long period elapsed before either document reached its present form,
the question of priority becomes relatively unimportant.

P is even more obviously the result of a long process marked by
repeated additions and refinements. Numbers xviii. 7, e.g., implies
that ordinary priests might pass within the vail, whereas in
Leviticus xvi. this is possible only to the high priest, and even to
him only once a year. Exodus xxix. 7 represents only the high priest
as anointed, Exodus xxviii. 41 the other priests as well. The
section in Exodus xxx. 1-10 on the altar of incense must be later
than the list in xxvi. 31-37, where it is not mentioned. The age,
too, at which the Levites might enter upon their service appears to
have been repeatedly changed; in Numbers iv. 3 it is put at thirty
years, in viii. 24 at twenty-five (and i Chron. xxiii. 24 at
twenty). All this only shows the unceasing attention that was paid
by the priests to the problem of worship; and the length of the
period over which this attention was spread may be inferred from the
fact that, even in the third century B.C., as we know from the
Septuagint, the Hebrew text of Exodus xxxv.-xl. was not absolutely
fixed.

We may conceive the composition of the Pentateuch to have passed
through approximately the following stages. Earliest of all and
fundamental to all come the ancient traditions and the ancient
poetry, such as the book of the wars of Jehovah, and the book of
Jashar. Upon this basis, during the monarchy men of prophetic spirit
in both kingdoms--not improbably at the sanctuaries--wrote the
history of the Hebrew people. These documents, J and E, were
subsequently combined into a single history (JE), possibly in the
seventh century, though how long, if at all, J and E continued to
enjoy an independent existence we have no means of knowing. During
the exile, the book of Deuteronomy was added (JED). Its influence,
as we have seen, is very prominent in Joshua, and occasionally
traceable even in the earlier books (cf. Gen. xviii. 19, xxvi. 5).
After the exile P was incorporated, and the Hexateuch had assumed
practically its present form about the middle of the fifth century
B.C.




JUDGES


For the understanding of the early history and religion of Israel,
the book of Judges, which covers the period from the death of Joshua
to the beginning of the struggle with the Philistines, is of
inestimable importance; and it is very fortunate that the elements
contributed by the later editors are so easily separated from the
ancient stories whose moral they seek to point. That moral is most
elaborately stated in ii. 6-iii. 6, which is a sort of programme or
preface to iii. 7-xvi. 31, which constitutes the real kernel of the
book of Judges--chs. xvii.-xxi., as we shall see, being a supplement
and i. 1-ii. 5 an introduction. Briefly stated, the moral is this:
in the ancient history, unfaithfulness to Jehovah was regularly
followed by chastisement in the shape of foreign invasion, but when
the people repented and cried to Jehovah He raised up a leader to
deliver them. Unfaithfulness, chastisement; penitence, forgiveness.
This philosophy of history, if such it can be called, had of course
the practical object of inspiring the people with a sense of the
importance of fidelity to Jehovah. Both the ideas and the
phraseology of this passage, ii. 6-iii. 6, are unmistakably those of
Deuteronomy: therefore here, as in Joshua, we speak of the
Deuteronomic redaction.

The moral expressed in the preface and repeated in a less elaborate
form elsewhere, vi. 7-10, x. 6-16, is amply illustrated by the
stories that follow--the stories of Othniel, Ehud, Deborah and
Barak, Gideon, Jephthah and Samson. This does not exhaust the list
of judges, but it exhausts the list of those whose stories are used
to illustrate the Deuteronomic scheme. The story of Abimelech, e.g.
(ix.), has no such preface or conclusion as these six have; neither
has the notice of Shamgar in iii. 31; the preface is also lacking in
the very bald notices of the five minor judges, x. 1-5, xii. 8-15.
It is clear, therefore, that they fell without the original
Deuteronomic scheme; but it is equally clear that the later editors
of the book intended to represent the period by twelve judges,
Abimelech being apparently reckoned a judge, though he is not called
one. Another computation, which ignored Abimelech, reached the
number twelve by adding Shamgar, iii. 31, whom a comparison of iii.
31 with iv. 1 shows not to have belonged to the original book; the
name was probably suggested by v. 6_a_.

Chs. xvii.-xxi., which consist of two appendices (xvii., xviii, the
origin of the sanctuary at Dan, and xix.-xxi., the vengeance of
Israel on Benjamin for the outrage at Gibeah), also clearly fell
without the Deuteronomic redaction: the section is untouched either
by the language or ideas of Deuteronomy. Further, these chapters are
clearly out of place where they stand; for, generally speaking, the
order of the book is chronological, beginning with the death of
Joshua and ending with the Philistine invasion which lasted on into
the days of Samuel, whereas both stories in the appendix refer to
quite an early period, two of the characters named being the
grandsons of Moses and Aaron respectively (xviii. 30, xx. 28).[1]
[Footnote 1: In ch. xviii. 30 the word now read as Manasseh was
originally Moses.]

The introduction, i. I-ii. 5, also plainly falls without the scheme,
for the book proper, ii. 6ff., is a direct continuation[1] of Joshua
xxiv. 27, and i. i-ii. 5 really duplicates, in the main, accounts
and isolated notices scattered through Joshua xv., xvi., xvii., xix.
The incidents related in these chapters are assigned to Joshua's
lifetime; the phrase with which the book of Judges begins--"It came
to pass _after the death of Joshua_"--is clearly a later
attempt to connect the two books, and inconsistent with ii. 6ff.,
which carries the story back to a period before Joshua's death.
[Footnote 1: 2 Ch. ii. 6, 7=Josh. xxiv. 28, 31; Jud. ii. 8, 9=Josh.
xxiv. 29, 30.]

The original book of Judges, then, as edited by the Deuteronomist,
is represented[1] by ii. 6-xv., minus the notices of Shamgar,
Abimelech and the minor judges. The moral pointed by the redaction,
valuable as it may be, is not always suggested by the history. The
redaction assigns the national misfortunes to idolatry, though only
once is idolatry mentioned with reprobation in the ancient stories
themselves, vi. 25-32. The redaction shows a further indifference to
history in giving a national[2] turn to the tale of apostasy and
deliverance, whereas the original stories show that the interests
are really not as yet national, but only tribal. The chronology of
the book--which is also part of the redaction--with its round
numbers, 20, 40, 80, etc., appears to contain an artificial element,
and to form part of the scheme indicated in i Kings vi. 1, which
assigns 480 years, i.e. twelve generations, to the period between
the exodus and the building of the temple. Many considerations make
it practically certain that the periods of the judges, which are
represented as successive, were often really synchronous, and that
therefore the period covered by the entire book is only about two
centuries.
[Footnote 1: Note that ch. xv. 20 was apparently designed to
conclude the story of Samson, raising the suspicion that ch. xvi.
(with a similar conclusion) was added later.]
[Footnote 2: Cf. iii. 12. The children of Israel did evil again in
the sight of Jehovah, and Jehovah strengthened Eglon the King of
Moab against _Israel_; so _vv_. 14, 15, etc.]

There is reason to believe that the original Deuteronomic book of
Judges included the stories of Eli and Samuel, and ended with I
Samuel xii. It is expressly said in Judges xiii. 5 that Samson is to
_begin_ to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines,
and it is reasonable to suppose that the completion of the
deliverance was also related; besides, Samuel's farewell address
contains many reminiscences of the familiar formulae of the book of
Judges (I Sam. xii. 9ff.) and an appropriate summary of the teaching
and some of the facts of that book (cf. _v_. 11). It is easy to
imagine, however, why the stories of Eli and Samuel were ultimately
separated from the book of Judges: partly because they were felt to
be hardly judges in the old sense of defenders, deliverers--Eli was
a priest, and Samuel a prophet--and still more because the story of
Samuel, at any rate, was bound up with the history of the monarchy.

The book received its present form from post-exilic redactors. This
is rendered certain by the unmistakable marks of the influence of
the priestly code in chs. xx., xxi. The unanimity with which Israel
acts, the extraordinarily high numbers,[1] the prominence of such
words as "congregation," constitute indubitable evidence of a
priestly hand. Some post-Deuteronomic hand, if not this same one,[2]
added the other appendix, xvii., xviii., the introduction, i.-ii. 5,
and the sections in the body of the book already shown to be
late.[3]. The motives which prompted these additions were varied.
With regard to the minor judges, e.g., some suppose that the object
was simply to make up the number twelve; but generally speaking, the
motive for the additions would be the natural desire to conserve
extant relics of the past. The introduction, and appendix, though
added late, contain very ancient material. Many of the historical
notices in ch. i. are reproductions of early and important notices
in the book of Joshua, though with significant editorial additions,
usually in honour of Judah; [Footnote: Cf. ch. i. 8, which
contradicts i. 21; and i, 18, which contradicts i. 19.] and the
story of the origin of the sanctuary at Dan, with its very candid
account of the furniture of the sanctuary and the capture of the
priest, is obviously very old. Doubtless also there is a historical
element in xix.-xxi., though it has been seriously overlaid by the
priestly redaction--possibly also in the notices of the minor
judges.
[Footnote 1: Ch. xx. 2 (of. Num. xxxi.). Contrast Jud. v. 8.]
[Footnote 2: Note the phrase in both stories. "In those days there
was no king in Israel," xviii. i, xix. I.]
[Footnote 3: Shamgar iii. 31; Abimelech (ix); minor judges, x. 1-5,
xii. 8-15; Samson (xvi.)]

This raises the question of the sources and historical value of the
stories in the body of the book, which, as we have seen, are very
easily separated from the redactional elements. Indeed, as those
elements are confined to the beginning and the end of the stories,
we may assume that the stories themselves were not composed by the
redactors, but already reached them in a fixed and finished form.
Further, it is important to note that, just as in the prophetic
portions of the Hexateuch, duplicates are often present--very
probably in the stories of Ehud, iii. 12ff., Deborah and Barak
(iv.), Abimelech (ix.), and Micah (xvii., xviii.), but certainly in
the story of Gideon[1] (vi.-viii.). According to the later version,
Gideon is the deliverer of Israel from the incursions of the
Midianites, and the princes slain are Oreb and Zeeb, vii. 24-viii.
3; according to the earlier version, viii. 4-21, which is on a
smaller scale, Gideon, accompanied by part of his clan, takes the
lives of Zebah and Zalmunna to avenge his brothers, whom they had
slain. In the case of duplicated stories, the Deuteronomic redactors
apparently found the stories already in combination, so that the
original constituent documents must be further back still. As the
narratives, with their primitive religious ideas and practices and
their obvious delight in war, are clearly the echo of an early time,
we shall be safe in relegating the original documents, at the
latest, to the eighth or ninth century B.C. It is a point on which
unanimity has not yet been reached, whether these documents are the
Jehovist and Elohist of the Hexateuch; but considering the fact that
the older notices in i.-ii. 5, on account of the prominence of Judah
and for other reasons, are usually assigned to J, and that some of
the characteristics of these two documents recur in the course of
the book, the hypothesis that J and E are continued at least into
Judges must be regarded as not improbable.
[Footnote 1: In the story of Jephthah, ch. xi. 12-28, which
interrupt the connexion and deals with Moab, not with Ammon, is a
later interpolation.]

Copyright (c) 2007. famouswriterz.com. All rights reserved.