Priestly Literary Activity. 105 narratives, not at the stage of floating vague tradition, but at a time at which men wrote with care about persons and events that they considered historical. What more is implied in this fact we shall consider more fully in the next chapter. In our endeavour to estimate the amount of literary and educational activity in ancient Israel, we must not overlook the work of the priests, who were at least as early and as well marked a class as the prophets. Although a great part of the admitted literature is of a popular or prophetic character, yet Wellhausen has told us (above, p. 61) that at an early period "certain collections of laws and decisions of the priests" were also committed to writing. The "legal documents" also, and "family reminiscences," which furnished materials for the first historiography, were most probably, as in other countries, under priestly custody; and Stade says1 that it was under priestly influence that the patriarchal legends assumed their peculiar form. All this implies a considerable degree of literary activity; and the preservation of legal and family documents presupposes such activity in a still earlier time. Though their literary labours may have been chiefly technical, and restricted to a somewhat professional circle, yet in their work as popular educators the priests must take rank with the prophets. The bearing of this on the more outward features of the religion will be seen in the sequel.2 1 Geschichte, vol. i. p. 145. 2 See particularly chap. xv. p. 391. 106 CHAPTER V. TESTIMONY OF THE NINTH AND EIGHTH CENTURIES Following up the conclusions of preceding chapters, the inquiry is raised whether it is possible, from the admitted writings, to determine the outstanding facts of the previous history-Not a question of the order of composition of books, or of origin of observances, but an appeal to the consciousness of the nation-Amos and Hosea are found to hold essentially, for the period succeeding Moses, the same scheme of history which is by modern critics pronounced to be late and unhistorical—Their testimony confirmed by the song of Deborah—In regard to patriarchal history, the intimations of the prophets, so far as they go, are in accord with the Pentateuch—Wellhausen's dictum in regard to the patriarchal stories examined; an illustration of his method of interpretation-His explanation of the genealogical system: its failure to account for Abraham-His canon at fault in regard to "outward features"Peculiarities distinguishing patriarchal stories from Gentile legendsNebular hypothesis of early history—Conclusion: that the eighth century is a time of broad historic day, when Israel had a definite account to give of itself and of its early history. IN the preceding chapters it has been argued that the admitted writings of the so-called earliest literary age imply a time of antecedent preparation and training of both a literary and a religious kind. We have also seen that the earliest writing prophets appeal to prophetic men of kindred spirit before them, and we have endeavoured to show that there is evidence of such a prophetic Attempt to reach actual Events. 107 line from Samuel downwards, capable of giving to the history the peculiar cast in which it appears in the historical books. One feature of these books, the minute accuracy in topographical detail, has led to the conclusion that the writers of history in the so-called earliest literary period, unless they are to be regarded as clever romancers, wrote down what to them was not vague, plastic myth, but actual history. And it is claimed that this minute correspondence of locality with narrative is inconsistent with the account given by critical writers of the origin of these narratives and the trustworthiness of the writers. Let us now go a step further and open up a new line of inquiry: Is it possible from the writings to which we have restricted ourselves to draw any conclusions with regard to the outstanding events of the antecedent history? We have precluded ourselves from accepting the books composing the Pentateuch as evidence regarding the period to which they relate. But it may be possible, from the books which we are allowed to use, to derive such indications as will either confirm the books which are reserved or show in what manner their unhistorical statements (as they are called) arose. That we need not expect to find in the prophetic writings anything like a full account of the history is evident from the very nature of the compositions, to say nothing of their very limited bulk. But by a comparison of these with one another and with other books, we may be able to draw a parallel or a contrast between the modes in which the history of the time to which we refer was regarded by the respective writers, and reach whatever conclusions we can as to the actual facts. As to the method of this inquiry, it is to be remarked that what we seek primarily to determine is neither the order of composition of books nor the history of religious observances. The method usually followed by apologists is to show by references" or "quotations" that the books of the Pentateuch, for example, are older than the prophetic writings. It is obvious, however, that the argument from references and quotations may be turned the other way; and this mode of reasoning becomes very precarious and unsatisfactory, since questions of integrity and genuineness in the books supposed to be referred to are sure to arise. On the other hand, the method pursued generally by critical writers of tracing the history of the religion by the aid of outward rites and observances is liable to similar and other equally strong objections, which will be stated farther on.1 Our point is, that in the writings of contemporaneous prophets, and admitted productions of the same age, we get upon firm ground. The slightest glance at the prophetical literature will show that the history turned upon something very different from written books or outward observances. By the time of the earliest writing prophets it is evident that certain fundamental religious conceptions are firmly grasped a certain view is entertained of the antecedent course of religious history; for proof of which appeal is made not to written books or outward observances, but to the general consciousness of the nation. If we can penetrate to the origin of these, we shall come at a knowledge of the nation's religious life and history in a much more effectual way than by settling the order in which books were written and legal codes came into existence; and it will perhaps be found that, standing on such firm ground, we shall be in a better position to pronounce judgment on those other questions of books and institu1 See chap. xiii. p. 328. Testimony of Amos and Hosea. 109 tions. What we propose, therefore, to do in the present chapter, is to inquire what views prevailed, in the period to which we have restricted ourselves, in regard to the antecedent religious history, and what inferences may safely be drawn as to the actual facts. Confining ourselves at the outset to Amos and Hosea, we take it to be quite clear that by their time a certain. outline (and from the limited materials and nature of the books we cannot expect more) of the past history of the nation, was firmly fixed and held undisputed in the national mind. Particular stress must be laid on the fact that it is not the individual testimony of two men that we have on this point, but the testimony of the generation they addressed. All the proof Amos advances, when he refers to past history, is the appeal to the knowledge of his hearers, "Is it not so, O house of Israel?" (Amos ii. 11.) And the testimony is all the stronger here because the people are unwilling witnesses, the prophet's references to the past being made not for the purpose of flattering national vanity, but of rebuking national backsliding. The argument used here is one which critical writers can employ with effect when occasion requires. Daumer, for example, argues from the statement of Amos regarding worship in the wilderness (Amos v. 26 ff.), not merely that it was a fact that Israel for forty years worshipped not Jahaveh but Moloch, but also that this was a wellknown and undisputed fact in the prophet's days. Attention may be drawn, at the outset, to the manner in which these two men address their generation and speak of their nation. "Israel" stands not only for the northern kingdom, but for the combined people. And when one message is given to the whole under one name, and when 1 Feuer und Moloch-dienst der Alten Hebräer, p. 49. So others. |