55.The American Continent.—Closely parallel with the progress of the Jews in England has been their steady advancement in America. Jews made their way to America early in the 16th century, settling in Brazil prior to the Dutch occupation. Under Dutch rule they enjoyed full civil rights. In Mexico and Peru they fell under the ban of the Inquisition. In Surinam the Jews were treated as British subjects; in Barbadoes, Jamaica and New York they are found as early as the first half of the 17th century. During the War of Independence the Jews of America took a prominent part on both sides, for under the British rule many had risen to wealth and high social position. After the Declaration of Independence, Jews are found all over America, where theyhave long enjoyed complete emancipation, and have enormously increased in numbers, owing particularly to immigration from Russia. The American Jews bore their share in the Civil War (7038 Jews were in the two armies), and have always identified themselves closely with national movements such as the emancipation of Cuba. They have attained to high rank in all branches of the public service, and have shown most splendid instances of far-sighted and generous philanthropy. Within the Synagogue the reform movement began in 1825, and soon won many successes, the central conference of American rabbis and Union College (1875) at Cincinnati being the instruments of this progress. At the present time orthodox Judaism is also again acquiring its due position and the Jewish theological seminary of America was founded for this purpose. In 1908 an organization, inclusive of various religious sections, was founded under the description “the Jewish community of New York.” There have been four Jewish members of the United States senate, and about 30 of the national House of Representatives. Besides filling many diplomatic offices, a Jew (O. S. Straus) has been a member of the cabinet. Many Jews have filled professorial chairs at the universities, others have been judges, and in art, literature (there is a notable Jewish publication society), industry and commerce have rendered considerable services to national culture and prosperity. American universities have owed much to Jewish generosity, a foremost benefactor of these (as of many other American institutions) being Jacob Schiff. Such institutions as the Gratz and Dropsie colleges are further indications of the splendid activity of American Jews in the educational field. The Jews of America have also taken a foremost place in the succour of their oppressed brethren in Russia and other parts of the world. (Full accounts of American Jewish institutions are given in theAmerican Jewish Year-Book, published annually since 1899.)
56.Anti-Semitism.—It is saddening to be compelled to close this record with the statement that the progress of the European Jews received a serious check by the rise of modern anti-Semitism in the last quarter of the 19th century. While in Russia this took the form of actual massacre, in Germany and Austria it assumed the shape of social and civic ostracism. In Germany Jews are still rarely admitted to the rank of officers in the army, university posts are very difficult of access, Judaism and its doctrines are denounced in medieval language, and a tone of hostility prevails in many public utterances. In Austria, as in Germany, anti-Semitism is a factor in the parliamentary elections. The legend of ritual murder (q.v.) has been revived, and every obstacle is placed in the way of the free intercourse of Jews with their Christian fellow-citizens. In France Edouard Adolphe Drumont led the way to a similar animosity, and the popular fury was fanned by the Dreyfus case. It is generally felt, however, that this recrudescence of anti-Semitism is a passing phase in the history of culture (seeAnti-Semitism).
57.The Zionist Movement.—The Zionist movement (seeZionism), founded in 1895 by Theodor Herzl (q.v.) was in a sense the outcome of anti-Semitism. Its object was the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine, but though it aroused much interest it failed to attract the majority of the emancipated Jews, and the movement has of late been transforming itself into a mere effort at colonization. Most Jews not only confidently believe that their own future lies in progressive developmentwithinthe various nationalities of the world, but they also hope that a similar consummation is in store for the as yet unemancipated branches of Israel. Hence the Jews are in no sense internationally organized. The influence of the happier communities has been exercised on behalf of those in a worse position by individuals such as Sir Moses Montefiore (q.v.) rather than by societies or leagues. From time to time incidents arise which appeal to the Jewish sympathies everywhere and joint action ensues. Such incidents were the Damascus charge of ritual murder (1840), the forcible baptism of the Italian child Mortara (1858), and the Russian pogroms at various dates. But all attempts at an international union of Jews, even in view of such emergencies as these, have failed. Each country has its own local organization for dealing with Jewish questions. In France the Alliance Israélite (founded in 1860), in England the Anglo-Jewish Association (founded in 1871), in Germany the Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden, and in Austria the Israelitische Allianz zu Wien (founded 1872), in America the American Jewish Committee (founded 1906), and similar organizations in other countries deal only incidentally with political affairs. They are concerned mainly with the education of Jews in the Orient, and the establishment of colonies and technical institutions. Baron Hirsch (q.v.) founded the Jewish colonial association, which has undertaken vast colonizing and educational enterprises, especially in Argentina, and more recently the Jewish territorial organization has been started to found a home for the oppressed Jews of Russia. All these institutions are performing a great regenerative work, and the tribulations and disappointments of the last decades of the 19th century were not all loss. The gain consisted in the rousing of the Jewish consciousness to more virile efforts towards a double end, to succour the persecuted and ennoble the ideals of the emancipated.
58.Statistics.—Owing to the absence of a religious census in several important countries, the Jewish population of the world can only be given by inferential estimate. The following approximate figures are taken from theAmerican Jewish Year-Bookfor 1909-1910 and are based on similar estimates in the EnglishJewish Year-Book, theJewish Encyclopedia, Nossig’sJüdische Statistikand theReportsof the Alliance Israélite Universelle. According to these estimates the total Jewish population of the world in the year named was approximately 11,500,000. Of this total there were in the British Empire about 380,000 Jews (British Isles 240,000, London accounts for 150,000 of these; Canada and British Columbia 60,000; India 18,000; South Africa 40,000). The largest Jewish populations were those of Russia (5,215,000), Austria-Hungary (2,084,000), United States of America (1,777,000), Germany (607,000, of whom 409,000 were in Prussia), Turkey (463,000, of whom some 78,000 resided in Palestine), Rumania (250,000), Morocco (109,000) and Holland (106,000). Others of the more important totals are: France 95,000 (besides Algeria 63,000 and Tunis 62,000); Italy 52,000; Persia 49,000; Egypt 39,000; Bulgaria 36,000; Argentine Republic 30,000; Tripoli 19,000; Turkestan and Afghanistan 14,000; Switzerland and Belgium each 12,000; Mexico 9000; Greece 8000; Servia 6000; Sweden and Cuba each 4000; Denmark 3500; Brazil and Abyssinia (Falashas) each 3000; Spain and Portugal 2500; China and Japan 2000. There are also Jews in Curaçoa, Surinam, Luxemburg, Norway, Peru, Crete and Venezuela; but in none of these does the Jewish population much exceed 1000.Bibliography.—H. Graetz,Geschichte der Juden(11 vols., 1853-1875; several subsequent editions of separate volumes; Eng. trans. 5 vols., 1891-1892); the works of L. Zunz;Jewish Encyclopedia passim; publications of Jewish societies, such asÉtudes Juives, Jewish historical societies of England and America, German historical commission, Julius Barasch society (Rumania), Societas Litteraria Hungarico-Judaica, the Viennese communal publications, and many others to which may be added the 20 vols. of theJewish Quarterly Review; Scherer,Rechtsverhältnisse der Juden(1901); M. GüdemannGeschichte des Erziehungswesens und der Cultur der Juden(1880, &c.); A. Leroy-Beaulieu,Israel among the Nations(1895); I. Abrahams,Jewish Life in the Middle Ages(1896); G. F. Abbott,Israel in Europe(1905); G. Caro,Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden(1908); M. Philippson,Neueste Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes(1907, &c.); Nossig,Jüdische Statistik(1903); and such special works as H. Gross,Gallia Judaica(1897), &c.
58.Statistics.—Owing to the absence of a religious census in several important countries, the Jewish population of the world can only be given by inferential estimate. The following approximate figures are taken from theAmerican Jewish Year-Bookfor 1909-1910 and are based on similar estimates in the EnglishJewish Year-Book, theJewish Encyclopedia, Nossig’sJüdische Statistikand theReportsof the Alliance Israélite Universelle. According to these estimates the total Jewish population of the world in the year named was approximately 11,500,000. Of this total there were in the British Empire about 380,000 Jews (British Isles 240,000, London accounts for 150,000 of these; Canada and British Columbia 60,000; India 18,000; South Africa 40,000). The largest Jewish populations were those of Russia (5,215,000), Austria-Hungary (2,084,000), United States of America (1,777,000), Germany (607,000, of whom 409,000 were in Prussia), Turkey (463,000, of whom some 78,000 resided in Palestine), Rumania (250,000), Morocco (109,000) and Holland (106,000). Others of the more important totals are: France 95,000 (besides Algeria 63,000 and Tunis 62,000); Italy 52,000; Persia 49,000; Egypt 39,000; Bulgaria 36,000; Argentine Republic 30,000; Tripoli 19,000; Turkestan and Afghanistan 14,000; Switzerland and Belgium each 12,000; Mexico 9000; Greece 8000; Servia 6000; Sweden and Cuba each 4000; Denmark 3500; Brazil and Abyssinia (Falashas) each 3000; Spain and Portugal 2500; China and Japan 2000. There are also Jews in Curaçoa, Surinam, Luxemburg, Norway, Peru, Crete and Venezuela; but in none of these does the Jewish population much exceed 1000.
Bibliography.—H. Graetz,Geschichte der Juden(11 vols., 1853-1875; several subsequent editions of separate volumes; Eng. trans. 5 vols., 1891-1892); the works of L. Zunz;Jewish Encyclopedia passim; publications of Jewish societies, such asÉtudes Juives, Jewish historical societies of England and America, German historical commission, Julius Barasch society (Rumania), Societas Litteraria Hungarico-Judaica, the Viennese communal publications, and many others to which may be added the 20 vols. of theJewish Quarterly Review; Scherer,Rechtsverhältnisse der Juden(1901); M. GüdemannGeschichte des Erziehungswesens und der Cultur der Juden(1880, &c.); A. Leroy-Beaulieu,Israel among the Nations(1895); I. Abrahams,Jewish Life in the Middle Ages(1896); G. F. Abbott,Israel in Europe(1905); G. Caro,Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden(1908); M. Philippson,Neueste Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes(1907, &c.); Nossig,Jüdische Statistik(1903); and such special works as H. Gross,Gallia Judaica(1897), &c.
(I. A.)
1On the homogeneity of the population, see further, W. R. Smith,Religion of the Semites(2nd ed., chaps, i.-iii.); T. Nöldeke,Sketches from Eastern History, pp. 1-20 (on “Some Characteristics of the Semitic Race”); and especially E. Meyer,Gesch. d. Altertums(2nd ed., i. §§ 330, sqq.). For the relation between the geographical characteristics and the political history, see G. A. Smith,Historical Geography of the Holy Land.2For fuller information on this section seePalestine:History, and the related portions ofBabylonia and Assyria,Egypt,Hittites,Syria.3OrlandIsrael, W. Spiegelberg,Orient. Lit. Zeit.xi. (1908), cols. 403-405.4It is useful to compare the critical study of the Koran (q.v.), where, however, the investigation of its various “revelations” is simpler than that of the biblical “prophecies” on account of the greater wealth of independent historical tradition. See also G. B. Gray,Contemporary Review(July 1907); A. A. Bevan,Cambridge Biblical Essays(ed. Swete, 1909), pp. 1-19.5See primarilyBible:Old Testament; the articles on the contents and literary structure of the several books; the various biographical, topographical and ethnical articles, and the separate treatment of the more important subjects (e.g.Levites,Prophet,Sacrifice).6On the bearing of external evidence upon the internal biblical records, see especially S. R. Driver’s essay in Hogarth’sAuthority and Archaeology; cf. also A. A. Bevan,Critical Review(1897, p. 406 sqq., 1898, pp. 131 sqq.); G. B. Gray,Expositor, May 1898; W. G. Jordan,Bib. Crit. and Modern Thought(1909), pp. 42 sqq.7For the sections which follow the present writer may be permitted to refer to his introductory contributions in theExpositor(June, 1906; “The Criticism of the O.T.”); theJewish Quarterly Review(July 1905-January 1907 =Critical Notes on O.T. History, especially sections vii.-ix.); July and October 1907, April 1908;Amer. Journ. Theol.(July 1909, “Simeon and Levi: the Problem of the Old Testament”); and Swete’sCambridge Bib. Essays, pp. 54-89 (“The Present Stage of O.T. Research”).8On the name seeJehovah,Tetragrammaton.9The story of Joseph has distinctive internal features of its own, and appears to be from an independent cycle, which has been used to form a connecting link between the Settlement and the Exodus; see also Ed. Meyer,Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme(1906), pp. 228, 433; B. Luther, ibid. pp. 108 seq., 142 sqq. Neither of the poems in Deut. xxxii. seq. alludes to an escape from Egypt; Israel is merely a desert tribe inspired to settle in Palestine. Apparently even the older accounts of the exodus are not of very great antiquity; according to Jeremiah ii. 2, 7 (cf. Hos. ii. 15) some traditions of the wilderness must have represented Israel in a very favourable light; for the “canonical” view, see Ezekiel xvi., xx., xxiii.10The capture of central Palestine itself is not recorded; according to its own traditions the district had been seized by Jacob (Gen. xlviii. 22; cf. the late form of the tradition in Jubilees xxxiv.). This conception of a conquering hero is entirely distinct from the narratives of the descent of Jacob into Egypt, &c. (see Meyer and Luther,op. cit.pp. 110, 227 seq., 415, 433).11This is especially true of the various ingenious attempts to combine the invasion of the Israelites with the movements of the Ḥabiru in the Amarna period (§ 3).12Cf. Winckler,Keil. u. das Alte Test.p. 212 seq.; also his “Der alte Orient und die Geschichtsforschung” inMitteilungen der Vorderasiat. Gesellschaft(Berlin, 1906) andReligionsgeschichtlicher u. gesch. Orient(Leipzig, 1906); A. Jeremias,Alte Test.(p. 464 seq.); B. Baentsch,Altorient. u. Israel. Monotheismus(pp. 53, 79, 105, &c.); alsoTheolog. Lit. Blatt(1907) No. 19. On the reconstructions of the tribal history, see especially T. K. Cheyne,Ency. Bib.art. “Tribes.” The most suggestive study of the pre-monarchical narratives is that of E. Meyer and B. Luther (above; see the former’s criticisms on the reconstructions, pp. 50, 251 sqq., 422, n. 1 andpassim).132 Chron. xii. 8, which is independent of the chronicler’s artificial treatment of his material, apparently points to some tradition of Egyptian suzerainty.14See for chronology,Babylonia and Assyria, §§ v. and viii.15SeeJew. Quart. Rev.(1908), pp. 597-630. The independent Israelite traditions which here become more numerous have points of contact with those of Saul in 1 Samuel, and the relation is highly suggestive for the study of their growth, as also for the perspective of the various writers.16See W. R. Smith (after Kuenen),Ency. Bib., col. 2670; also W. E. Addis, ib., 1276, the commentaries of Benzinger (p. 130) and Kittel (pp. 153 seq.) on Kings; J. S. Strachan, Hastings’sDict. Bible, i. 694; G. A. Smith,Hist. Geog. of Holy Land, p. 582; König and Hirsch,Jew. Ency.v. 137 seq. (“legend ... as indifferent to accuracy in dates as it is to definiteness of places and names”); W. R. Harper,Amos and Hosea, p. xli. seq. (“the lack of chronological order ... the result is to create a wrong impression of Elisha’s career”). The bearing of this displacement upon the literary and historical criticism of the narratives has never been worked out.17Careful examination shows that no a priori distinction can be drawn between “trustworthy” books of Kings and “untrustworthy books” of Chronicles. Although the latter have special late and unreliable features, they agree with the former in presenting the same general trend of past history. The “canonical” history in Kings is further embellished in Chronicles, but the gulf between them is not so profound as that between the former and the underlying and half-suppressed historical traditions which can still be recognized. (See alsoPalestine:History.)18For the former (2 Kings xii. 17 seq.) cf. Hezekiah and Sennacherib (xviii. 13-15), and for the latter, cf. Asa and Baasha (1 Kings xv. 18-20; above).19It is possible that Hadad-nirari’s inscription refers to conditions in the latter part of his reign (812-783B.C.), when Judah apparently was no longer independent and when Jeroboam II. was king of Israel. The accession of the latter has been placed between 785 and 782. It is now known, also, that Ben-hadad and a small coalition were defeated by the king of Hamath; but the bearing of this upon Israelite history is uncertain.20Cf. generally, 1 Sam. iv., xxxi.; 2 Sam. ii. 8; 1 Kings xx., xxii.; 2 Kings vi. 8-vii. 20; also Judges v. (seeDeborah).21Special mention is made of Jonah, a prophet of Zebulun in (north) Israel (2 Kings xiv. 25). Nothing is known of him, unless the very late prophetical writing with the account of his visit to Nineveh rests upon some old tradition, which, however, can scarcely be recovered (seeJonah).22This is philosophically handled by the Arabian historian Ibn Khaldūn, whose Prolegomena is well worthy of attention; see De Slane,Not. et extraits, vols. xix.-xxi., with Von Kremer’s criticisms in theSitz. d. Kais. Akad.of Vienna (vol. xciii., 1879); cf. also R. Flint,History of the Philosophy of History, i. 157 sqq.23Cf. J. G. Frazer,Adonis, Attis, Osiris(1907), p. 67: “Prophecy of the Hebrew type has not been limited to Israel; it is indeed a phenomenon of almost world-wide occurrence; in many lands and in many ages the wild, whirling words of frenzied men and women have been accepted as the utterances of an in-dwelling deity. What does distinguish Hebrew prophecy from all others is that the genius of a few members of the profession wrested this vulgar but powerful instrument from baser uses, and by wielding it in the interest of a high morality rendered a service of incalculable value to humanity. That is indeed the glory of Israel....”24The use which was made in Apocalyptic literature of the traditions of Moses, Isaiah and others finds its analogy within the Old Testament itself; cf. the relation between the present late prophecies of Jonah and the unknown prophet of the time of Jeroboam II. (see § 13, note 5). To condemn re-shaping or adaptation of this nature from a modern Western standpoint is to misunderstand entirely the Oriental mind and Oriental usage.25The condemnation passed upon the impetuous and fiery zeal of the adherents of the new movement (cf. Hos. i. 4), like the remarkable vicissitudes in the traditions of Moses, Aaron and the Levites (qq.v.), represents changing situations of real significance, whose true place in the history can with difficulty be recovered.26Formerly thought to be the third of the name.27Perhaps Judah had come to an understanding with Tiglath-pileser (H. M. Haydn,Journ. Bib. Lit., xxviii. 1909, pp. 182-199); seeUzziah.28The fact that these lists are of the kings of the “land Ḥatti” would suggest that the term “Hittite” had been extended to Palestine.29So K. Budde,Rel. of Israel to Exile, pp. 165-167. For an attempt to recover the character of the cults, see W. Erbt,Hebräer(Leipzig, 1906), pp. 150 sqq.30See G. Maspero,Gesch. d. morgenländ. Völker(1877), p. 446; E. Naville,Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archaeol.(1907), pp. 232 sqq., and T. K. Cheyne,Decline and Fall of Judah(1908), p. 13, with references. [The genuineness of such discoveries is naturally a matter for historical criticism to decide. Thus the discovery of Numa’s laws in Rome (Livy xl. 29), upon which undue weight has sometimes been laid (see Klostermann,Der Pentateuch(1906), pp. 155 sqq., was not accepted as genuine by the senate (who had the laws destroyed), and probably not by Pliny himself. Only the later antiquaries clung to the belief in their trustworthiness.—(Communicated.)]31Both kings came to the throne after a conspiracy aimed at existing abuses, and other parallels can be found (seeKings).32But see N. Schmidt,Ency. Bib., “Scythians,” § 1.33So also one can now compare the estimate taken of the Jews in Egypt in Jer. xliv. with the actual religious conditions which are known to have prevailed later at Elephantine, where a small Jewish colony worshipped Yahu (Yahweh) at their own temple (see E. Sachau, “Drei aram. Papyrusurkunde,” in theAbhandlungenof the Prussian Academy, Berlin, 1907).34Sargon had removed Babylonians into the land of Hatti (Syria and Palestine), and in 715B.C.among the colonists were tribes apparently of desert origin (Tamud, Hayapa, &c.); other settlements are ascribed to Esar-haddon and perhaps Assur-bani-pal (Ezra iv. 2, 10). See for the evidence, A. E. Cowley,Ency. Bib., col. 4257; J. A. Montgomery,The Samaritans, pp. 46-57 (Philadelphia, 1907).35The growing recognition that the land was not depopulated after 586 is of fundamental significance for the criticism of “exilic” and “post-exilic” history. G. A. Smith thus sums up a discussion of the extent of the deportations: “... A large majority of the Jewish people remained on the land. This conclusion may startle us with our generally received notions of the whole nation as exiled. But there are facts which support it” (Jerusalem, ii. 268).36On the place of Palestine in Persian history seePersia:History, ancient, especially § 5 ii.; alsoArtaxerxes;Cambyses;Cyrus;Darius, &c.37The evidence for Artaxerxes III., accepted by Ewald and others (see W. R. Smith,Old Testament in Jewish Church, p. 438 seq.; W. Judeich,Kleinasiat. Stud., p. 170; T. K. Cheyne,Ency. Bib., col. 2202; F. C. Kent,Hist.[1899], pp. 230 sqq.) has however been questioned by Willrich,Judaica, 35-39 (see Cheyne,Ency. Bib., col. 3941). The account of Josephus (above) raises several difficulties, especially the identity of Bagoses. It has been supposed that he has placed the record too late, and that this Bagoses is the Judaean governor who flourished about 408B.C.(See p. 286, n. 3.)38Thus a decree of Darius I. takes the part of his subjects against the excessive zeal of the official Gadatas, and grants freedom of taxation and exemption from forced labour to those connected with a temple of Apollo in Asia Minor (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, xiii. 529; E. Meyer,Entstehung des Judenthums, p. 19 seq.; cf. id.Forschungen, ii. 497).39In addition to this, the Egyptian story of the priest Uza-hor at the court of Cambyses and Darius reflects a policy of religious tolerance which illustrates the biblical account of Ezra and Nehemiah (Brugsch,Gesch. Aeg.pp. 784 sqq.; see Cheyne,Jew. Relig. Life after the Exile, pp. 40-43).40From Têma in north Arabia, also, there is monumental evidence of the 5th centuryB.C.for Babylonian and Assyrian influence upon the language, cult and art. For Nippur, seeBab. Exped. of Univ. of Pennsylvania, series A., vol. ix. (1898), by H. V. Hilprecht; for Elephantine, the Mond papyri, A. H. Sayce and A. E. Cowley,Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan(1906), and those cited above (p. 282, n. 1). For the Jewish colonies in general, see H. Guthe,Ency. Bib., art. “Dispersion” (with references); also below, § 25 sqq.41SeeEzra and Nehemiahwith bibliographical references, also T. K. Cheyne,Introd. to Isaiah(1895);Jew. Religious Life after the Exile(1898); E. Sellin,Stud. z. Entstehungsgesch. d. jüd. Gemeinde(1901); R. H. Kennett in Swete’sCambridge Biblical Essays(pp. 92 sqq.); G. Jahn,Die Bücher Esra u. Nehemja(1909); and C. C. Torrey,Ezra Studies(1910).42There is an obvious effort to preserve the continuity of tradition (a) in Ezra ii. which gives a list of families who returned from exile each to its own city, and (b) in the return of the holy vessels in the time of Cyrus (contrast 1 Esdras iv. 43 seq.), a view which, in spite of Dan. i. 2, v. 2 seq., conflicts with 2 Kings xxiv. 13 and xxv. 13 (see, however, v. 14). That attempts have been made to adjust contradictory representations is suggested by the prophecy ascribed to Jeremiah (xxvii. 16 sqq.) where the restoration of the holy vessels finds no place in the shorter text of the Septuagint (see W. R. Smith,Old Test. and Jew. Church, pp. 104 sqq.).43The view that Deuteronomy is later than the 7th century has been suggested by M. Vernes,Nouvelle hypothèse sur la comp. et l’origine du Deut.(1887); Havet,Christian. et ses origines(1878); Horst, inRev. de l’hist. des relig., 1888; and more recently by E. Day,Journ. Bib. Lit.(1902), pp. 202 sqq.; and R. H. Kennett,Journ. Theol. Stud.(1906), pp. 486 sqq. The strongest counter-arguments (see W. E. Addis,Doc. of Hexat.ii. 2-9) rely upon the historical trustworthiness of 2 Kings xxii. seq. Weighty reasons are brought also by conservative writers against the theory that Deuteronomy dates from or about the age of Josiah, and their objections to the “discovery” of a new law-roll apply equally to the “re-discovery” and promulgation of an old and authentic code.44See, for Cheyne’s view, hisDecline and Fall of Judah. Introduction(1908). The former tendency has many supporters; see, among recent writers, N. Schmidt,Hibbert Journal(1908), pp. 322 sqq.; C. F. Burney,Journ. Theol. Stud.(1908), pp. 321 sqq.; O. A. Toffteen,The Historic Exodus(1909), pp. 120 sqq.; especially Meyer and Luther,Die Israeliten, pp. 442-440, &c. For the early recognition of the evidence in question, see J. Wellhausen,De gentibus et familiis Judaeis(Göttingen, 1870);Prolegomena(Eng. trans.), pp. 216 sqq., 342 sqq., and 441-443 (from art. “Israel,” § 2,Ency. Brit.9th ed.); also A. Kuenen,Relig. of Israel(i. 135 seq., 176-182); W. R. Smith,Prophets of Israel, pp. 28 seq., 379.45For the prominence of the “southern” element in Judah see E. Meyer,Entstehung d. Judenthums(1896), pp. 119, 147, 167, 177, 183 n. 1;Israeliten, pp. 352 n. 5, 402, 429 seq.46See § 23 end, andLevites. When Edom is renowned for wisdom and a small Judaean family boasts of sages whose names have south Palestinian affinity (1 Chron. ii. 6), and when such names as Korah, Heman, Ethan and Obed-edom, are associated with psalmody, there is no inherent improbability in the conjecture that the “southern” families settled around Jerusalem may have left their mark in other parts of the Old Testament. It is another question whether such literature can be identified (for Cheyne’s views, seeEncy. Bib.“Prophetic Literature,” “Psalms,” and his recent studies).47One may recall, in this connexion, Caxton’s very interesting prologue to Malory’sMorte d’Arthurand his remarks on the permanent value of the “histories” of this British hero. [Cf. also Horace,Ep.1. ii. and R. Browning, “Development.”]48It is noteworthy that Josephus, who has his own representation of the post-exilic age, allows two years and four months for the work (Ant.xi. 5, 8).49The papyri from Elephantine (p. 282, n. 1, above) mention as contemporaries the Jerusalem priest Johanan (cf. the son of Joiada and father of Jaddua, Neh. xii. 22), Bagohi (Bagoas), governor of Judah, and Delaiah and Shelemiah sons of Sanballat (408-407B.C.) They ignore any strained relations between Samaria and Judah, and Delaiah and Bagohi unite in granting permission to the Jewish colony to rebuild their place of worship. If this fixes the date of Sanballat and Nehemiah in the time of the first Artaxerxes, the probability of confusion in the later written sources is enhanced by the recurrence of identical names of kings, priests, &c., in the history.50The Samaritans, for their part, claimed the traditions of their land and called themselves the posterity of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. But they were ready to deny their kinship with the Jews when the latter were in adversity, and could have replied to the tradition that they were foreigners with atu quoque(Josephus,Ant.ix. 14, 3; xi. 8, 6; xii. 5, 5) (seeSamaritans).51The statement that the king desired to avoid the divine wrath may possibly have some deeper meaning (e.g.some recent revolt, Ezra vii. 23).52It must suffice to refer to the opinions of Bertholet, Buhl, Cheyne, Guthe, Van Hoonacker, Jahn, Kennett, Kent, Kosters, Marquart, Torrey, and Wildeboer.53C. F. Kent,Israel’s Hist. and Biog. Narratives(1905), p. 358 seq. The objections against this very probable view undervalue Ezra iv. 7-23 and overlook the serious intricacies in the book of Nehemiah.54There are three inquiries: (a) the critical value of 1 Esdras, (b) the character of the different representations of post-exilic internal and external history, and (c) the recovery of the historical facts. To start with the last before considering (a) and (b) would be futile.55For example, to the sufferings under Artaxerxes III. (§ 19) have been ascribed such passages as Isa. lxiii. 7-lxiv. 12; Ps. xliv., lxxiv., lxxix., lxxx., lxxxiii. (see alsoLamentations). In their present form they are not of the beginning of the 6th century and, if the evidence for Artaxerxes III. proves too doubtful, they may belong to the history preceding Nehemiah’s return, provided the internal features do not stand in the way (e.g.prior or posterior to the formation of the exclusive Judaean community, &c.). Since the book of Baruch (named after Jeremiah’s scribe) is now recognized to be considerably later (probably after the destruction of JerusalemA.D.70), it will be seen that the recurrence of similar causes leads to a similarity in the contemporary literary productions (with a reshaping of earlier tradition), the precise date of which depends upon delicate points of detail and not upon the apparently obvious historical elements.56See H. Winckler,Keil. u. Alte Test., 295, and Kennett,Journ. Theol. Stud.(1906), p. 487;Camb. Bib. Essays, p. 117. The Chaldeans alone destroyed Jerusalem (2 Kings xxv.); Edom was friendly or at least neutral (Jer. xxvii. 3, xl. 11 seq.). The proposal to read “Edomites” for “Syrians” in the list of bands which troubled Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 2) is not supported by the contemporary reference, Jer. xxxv. 11.57It is at least a coincidence that the prophet who took the part of Tobiah and Sanballat against Nehemiah (vi. 10 seq.) bears the same name as the one who advised Rehoboam to acquiesce in the disruption (1 Kings xii. 21-24), or announced the divine selection of Jeroboam (ib. v. 24, Septuagint only).58SeeHebrew Religion, § 8 seq., and the relevant portions of the histories of Israel.59J. Wellhausen, art. “Israel,”Ency. Brit.9th ed., vol. xiii. p. 419; or hisProlegomena, pp. 497 seq.60An instructive account of Judaism in the early post-exilic age on critical lines (from the Jewish standpoint) is given by C. G. Montefiore,Hibbert Lectures(1892), pp. 355 sqq.; cf. also the sketch by I. Abrahams,Judaism(1907).61Cf. the story of Phinehas, Num. xxv. 6 sqq.; on Gen. xxxiv., seeSimeon. Apropos of hostility towards Samaria, it is singular that the term of reproach, “Cutheans,” applied to the Samaritans is derived from Cutha, the famous seat of the god Nergal, only some 25 m. N.E. of Babylon itself (see above, p. 286, n. 4).62The various tendencies which can be observed in the later pseudepigraphical and apocalyptical writings are of considerable value in any consideration of the development of thought illustrated in the Old Testament itself.63Reference may be made to H. Winckler,Gesch. Israels, ii. (1900); W. Erbt,Die Hebräer(1906); and T. K. Cheyne,Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel(1907).64On the writers mentioned below see articless.v.65For the importance of the Portuguese Jews, seePortugal:History.
1On the homogeneity of the population, see further, W. R. Smith,Religion of the Semites(2nd ed., chaps, i.-iii.); T. Nöldeke,Sketches from Eastern History, pp. 1-20 (on “Some Characteristics of the Semitic Race”); and especially E. Meyer,Gesch. d. Altertums(2nd ed., i. §§ 330, sqq.). For the relation between the geographical characteristics and the political history, see G. A. Smith,Historical Geography of the Holy Land.
2For fuller information on this section seePalestine:History, and the related portions ofBabylonia and Assyria,Egypt,Hittites,Syria.
3OrlandIsrael, W. Spiegelberg,Orient. Lit. Zeit.xi. (1908), cols. 403-405.
4It is useful to compare the critical study of the Koran (q.v.), where, however, the investigation of its various “revelations” is simpler than that of the biblical “prophecies” on account of the greater wealth of independent historical tradition. See also G. B. Gray,Contemporary Review(July 1907); A. A. Bevan,Cambridge Biblical Essays(ed. Swete, 1909), pp. 1-19.
5See primarilyBible:Old Testament; the articles on the contents and literary structure of the several books; the various biographical, topographical and ethnical articles, and the separate treatment of the more important subjects (e.g.Levites,Prophet,Sacrifice).
6On the bearing of external evidence upon the internal biblical records, see especially S. R. Driver’s essay in Hogarth’sAuthority and Archaeology; cf. also A. A. Bevan,Critical Review(1897, p. 406 sqq., 1898, pp. 131 sqq.); G. B. Gray,Expositor, May 1898; W. G. Jordan,Bib. Crit. and Modern Thought(1909), pp. 42 sqq.
7For the sections which follow the present writer may be permitted to refer to his introductory contributions in theExpositor(June, 1906; “The Criticism of the O.T.”); theJewish Quarterly Review(July 1905-January 1907 =Critical Notes on O.T. History, especially sections vii.-ix.); July and October 1907, April 1908;Amer. Journ. Theol.(July 1909, “Simeon and Levi: the Problem of the Old Testament”); and Swete’sCambridge Bib. Essays, pp. 54-89 (“The Present Stage of O.T. Research”).
8On the name seeJehovah,Tetragrammaton.
9The story of Joseph has distinctive internal features of its own, and appears to be from an independent cycle, which has been used to form a connecting link between the Settlement and the Exodus; see also Ed. Meyer,Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme(1906), pp. 228, 433; B. Luther, ibid. pp. 108 seq., 142 sqq. Neither of the poems in Deut. xxxii. seq. alludes to an escape from Egypt; Israel is merely a desert tribe inspired to settle in Palestine. Apparently even the older accounts of the exodus are not of very great antiquity; according to Jeremiah ii. 2, 7 (cf. Hos. ii. 15) some traditions of the wilderness must have represented Israel in a very favourable light; for the “canonical” view, see Ezekiel xvi., xx., xxiii.
10The capture of central Palestine itself is not recorded; according to its own traditions the district had been seized by Jacob (Gen. xlviii. 22; cf. the late form of the tradition in Jubilees xxxiv.). This conception of a conquering hero is entirely distinct from the narratives of the descent of Jacob into Egypt, &c. (see Meyer and Luther,op. cit.pp. 110, 227 seq., 415, 433).
11This is especially true of the various ingenious attempts to combine the invasion of the Israelites with the movements of the Ḥabiru in the Amarna period (§ 3).
12Cf. Winckler,Keil. u. das Alte Test.p. 212 seq.; also his “Der alte Orient und die Geschichtsforschung” inMitteilungen der Vorderasiat. Gesellschaft(Berlin, 1906) andReligionsgeschichtlicher u. gesch. Orient(Leipzig, 1906); A. Jeremias,Alte Test.(p. 464 seq.); B. Baentsch,Altorient. u. Israel. Monotheismus(pp. 53, 79, 105, &c.); alsoTheolog. Lit. Blatt(1907) No. 19. On the reconstructions of the tribal history, see especially T. K. Cheyne,Ency. Bib.art. “Tribes.” The most suggestive study of the pre-monarchical narratives is that of E. Meyer and B. Luther (above; see the former’s criticisms on the reconstructions, pp. 50, 251 sqq., 422, n. 1 andpassim).
132 Chron. xii. 8, which is independent of the chronicler’s artificial treatment of his material, apparently points to some tradition of Egyptian suzerainty.
14See for chronology,Babylonia and Assyria, §§ v. and viii.
15SeeJew. Quart. Rev.(1908), pp. 597-630. The independent Israelite traditions which here become more numerous have points of contact with those of Saul in 1 Samuel, and the relation is highly suggestive for the study of their growth, as also for the perspective of the various writers.
16See W. R. Smith (after Kuenen),Ency. Bib., col. 2670; also W. E. Addis, ib., 1276, the commentaries of Benzinger (p. 130) and Kittel (pp. 153 seq.) on Kings; J. S. Strachan, Hastings’sDict. Bible, i. 694; G. A. Smith,Hist. Geog. of Holy Land, p. 582; König and Hirsch,Jew. Ency.v. 137 seq. (“legend ... as indifferent to accuracy in dates as it is to definiteness of places and names”); W. R. Harper,Amos and Hosea, p. xli. seq. (“the lack of chronological order ... the result is to create a wrong impression of Elisha’s career”). The bearing of this displacement upon the literary and historical criticism of the narratives has never been worked out.
17Careful examination shows that no a priori distinction can be drawn between “trustworthy” books of Kings and “untrustworthy books” of Chronicles. Although the latter have special late and unreliable features, they agree with the former in presenting the same general trend of past history. The “canonical” history in Kings is further embellished in Chronicles, but the gulf between them is not so profound as that between the former and the underlying and half-suppressed historical traditions which can still be recognized. (See alsoPalestine:History.)
18For the former (2 Kings xii. 17 seq.) cf. Hezekiah and Sennacherib (xviii. 13-15), and for the latter, cf. Asa and Baasha (1 Kings xv. 18-20; above).
19It is possible that Hadad-nirari’s inscription refers to conditions in the latter part of his reign (812-783B.C.), when Judah apparently was no longer independent and when Jeroboam II. was king of Israel. The accession of the latter has been placed between 785 and 782. It is now known, also, that Ben-hadad and a small coalition were defeated by the king of Hamath; but the bearing of this upon Israelite history is uncertain.
20Cf. generally, 1 Sam. iv., xxxi.; 2 Sam. ii. 8; 1 Kings xx., xxii.; 2 Kings vi. 8-vii. 20; also Judges v. (seeDeborah).
21Special mention is made of Jonah, a prophet of Zebulun in (north) Israel (2 Kings xiv. 25). Nothing is known of him, unless the very late prophetical writing with the account of his visit to Nineveh rests upon some old tradition, which, however, can scarcely be recovered (seeJonah).
22This is philosophically handled by the Arabian historian Ibn Khaldūn, whose Prolegomena is well worthy of attention; see De Slane,Not. et extraits, vols. xix.-xxi., with Von Kremer’s criticisms in theSitz. d. Kais. Akad.of Vienna (vol. xciii., 1879); cf. also R. Flint,History of the Philosophy of History, i. 157 sqq.
23Cf. J. G. Frazer,Adonis, Attis, Osiris(1907), p. 67: “Prophecy of the Hebrew type has not been limited to Israel; it is indeed a phenomenon of almost world-wide occurrence; in many lands and in many ages the wild, whirling words of frenzied men and women have been accepted as the utterances of an in-dwelling deity. What does distinguish Hebrew prophecy from all others is that the genius of a few members of the profession wrested this vulgar but powerful instrument from baser uses, and by wielding it in the interest of a high morality rendered a service of incalculable value to humanity. That is indeed the glory of Israel....”
24The use which was made in Apocalyptic literature of the traditions of Moses, Isaiah and others finds its analogy within the Old Testament itself; cf. the relation between the present late prophecies of Jonah and the unknown prophet of the time of Jeroboam II. (see § 13, note 5). To condemn re-shaping or adaptation of this nature from a modern Western standpoint is to misunderstand entirely the Oriental mind and Oriental usage.
25The condemnation passed upon the impetuous and fiery zeal of the adherents of the new movement (cf. Hos. i. 4), like the remarkable vicissitudes in the traditions of Moses, Aaron and the Levites (qq.v.), represents changing situations of real significance, whose true place in the history can with difficulty be recovered.
26Formerly thought to be the third of the name.
27Perhaps Judah had come to an understanding with Tiglath-pileser (H. M. Haydn,Journ. Bib. Lit., xxviii. 1909, pp. 182-199); seeUzziah.
28The fact that these lists are of the kings of the “land Ḥatti” would suggest that the term “Hittite” had been extended to Palestine.
29So K. Budde,Rel. of Israel to Exile, pp. 165-167. For an attempt to recover the character of the cults, see W. Erbt,Hebräer(Leipzig, 1906), pp. 150 sqq.
30See G. Maspero,Gesch. d. morgenländ. Völker(1877), p. 446; E. Naville,Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archaeol.(1907), pp. 232 sqq., and T. K. Cheyne,Decline and Fall of Judah(1908), p. 13, with references. [The genuineness of such discoveries is naturally a matter for historical criticism to decide. Thus the discovery of Numa’s laws in Rome (Livy xl. 29), upon which undue weight has sometimes been laid (see Klostermann,Der Pentateuch(1906), pp. 155 sqq., was not accepted as genuine by the senate (who had the laws destroyed), and probably not by Pliny himself. Only the later antiquaries clung to the belief in their trustworthiness.—(Communicated.)]
31Both kings came to the throne after a conspiracy aimed at existing abuses, and other parallels can be found (seeKings).
32But see N. Schmidt,Ency. Bib., “Scythians,” § 1.
33So also one can now compare the estimate taken of the Jews in Egypt in Jer. xliv. with the actual religious conditions which are known to have prevailed later at Elephantine, where a small Jewish colony worshipped Yahu (Yahweh) at their own temple (see E. Sachau, “Drei aram. Papyrusurkunde,” in theAbhandlungenof the Prussian Academy, Berlin, 1907).
34Sargon had removed Babylonians into the land of Hatti (Syria and Palestine), and in 715B.C.among the colonists were tribes apparently of desert origin (Tamud, Hayapa, &c.); other settlements are ascribed to Esar-haddon and perhaps Assur-bani-pal (Ezra iv. 2, 10). See for the evidence, A. E. Cowley,Ency. Bib., col. 4257; J. A. Montgomery,The Samaritans, pp. 46-57 (Philadelphia, 1907).
35The growing recognition that the land was not depopulated after 586 is of fundamental significance for the criticism of “exilic” and “post-exilic” history. G. A. Smith thus sums up a discussion of the extent of the deportations: “... A large majority of the Jewish people remained on the land. This conclusion may startle us with our generally received notions of the whole nation as exiled. But there are facts which support it” (Jerusalem, ii. 268).
36On the place of Palestine in Persian history seePersia:History, ancient, especially § 5 ii.; alsoArtaxerxes;Cambyses;Cyrus;Darius, &c.
37The evidence for Artaxerxes III., accepted by Ewald and others (see W. R. Smith,Old Testament in Jewish Church, p. 438 seq.; W. Judeich,Kleinasiat. Stud., p. 170; T. K. Cheyne,Ency. Bib., col. 2202; F. C. Kent,Hist.[1899], pp. 230 sqq.) has however been questioned by Willrich,Judaica, 35-39 (see Cheyne,Ency. Bib., col. 3941). The account of Josephus (above) raises several difficulties, especially the identity of Bagoses. It has been supposed that he has placed the record too late, and that this Bagoses is the Judaean governor who flourished about 408B.C.(See p. 286, n. 3.)
38Thus a decree of Darius I. takes the part of his subjects against the excessive zeal of the official Gadatas, and grants freedom of taxation and exemption from forced labour to those connected with a temple of Apollo in Asia Minor (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, xiii. 529; E. Meyer,Entstehung des Judenthums, p. 19 seq.; cf. id.Forschungen, ii. 497).
39In addition to this, the Egyptian story of the priest Uza-hor at the court of Cambyses and Darius reflects a policy of religious tolerance which illustrates the biblical account of Ezra and Nehemiah (Brugsch,Gesch. Aeg.pp. 784 sqq.; see Cheyne,Jew. Relig. Life after the Exile, pp. 40-43).
40From Têma in north Arabia, also, there is monumental evidence of the 5th centuryB.C.for Babylonian and Assyrian influence upon the language, cult and art. For Nippur, seeBab. Exped. of Univ. of Pennsylvania, series A., vol. ix. (1898), by H. V. Hilprecht; for Elephantine, the Mond papyri, A. H. Sayce and A. E. Cowley,Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan(1906), and those cited above (p. 282, n. 1). For the Jewish colonies in general, see H. Guthe,Ency. Bib., art. “Dispersion” (with references); also below, § 25 sqq.
41SeeEzra and Nehemiahwith bibliographical references, also T. K. Cheyne,Introd. to Isaiah(1895);Jew. Religious Life after the Exile(1898); E. Sellin,Stud. z. Entstehungsgesch. d. jüd. Gemeinde(1901); R. H. Kennett in Swete’sCambridge Biblical Essays(pp. 92 sqq.); G. Jahn,Die Bücher Esra u. Nehemja(1909); and C. C. Torrey,Ezra Studies(1910).
42There is an obvious effort to preserve the continuity of tradition (a) in Ezra ii. which gives a list of families who returned from exile each to its own city, and (b) in the return of the holy vessels in the time of Cyrus (contrast 1 Esdras iv. 43 seq.), a view which, in spite of Dan. i. 2, v. 2 seq., conflicts with 2 Kings xxiv. 13 and xxv. 13 (see, however, v. 14). That attempts have been made to adjust contradictory representations is suggested by the prophecy ascribed to Jeremiah (xxvii. 16 sqq.) where the restoration of the holy vessels finds no place in the shorter text of the Septuagint (see W. R. Smith,Old Test. and Jew. Church, pp. 104 sqq.).
43The view that Deuteronomy is later than the 7th century has been suggested by M. Vernes,Nouvelle hypothèse sur la comp. et l’origine du Deut.(1887); Havet,Christian. et ses origines(1878); Horst, inRev. de l’hist. des relig., 1888; and more recently by E. Day,Journ. Bib. Lit.(1902), pp. 202 sqq.; and R. H. Kennett,Journ. Theol. Stud.(1906), pp. 486 sqq. The strongest counter-arguments (see W. E. Addis,Doc. of Hexat.ii. 2-9) rely upon the historical trustworthiness of 2 Kings xxii. seq. Weighty reasons are brought also by conservative writers against the theory that Deuteronomy dates from or about the age of Josiah, and their objections to the “discovery” of a new law-roll apply equally to the “re-discovery” and promulgation of an old and authentic code.
44See, for Cheyne’s view, hisDecline and Fall of Judah. Introduction(1908). The former tendency has many supporters; see, among recent writers, N. Schmidt,Hibbert Journal(1908), pp. 322 sqq.; C. F. Burney,Journ. Theol. Stud.(1908), pp. 321 sqq.; O. A. Toffteen,The Historic Exodus(1909), pp. 120 sqq.; especially Meyer and Luther,Die Israeliten, pp. 442-440, &c. For the early recognition of the evidence in question, see J. Wellhausen,De gentibus et familiis Judaeis(Göttingen, 1870);Prolegomena(Eng. trans.), pp. 216 sqq., 342 sqq., and 441-443 (from art. “Israel,” § 2,Ency. Brit.9th ed.); also A. Kuenen,Relig. of Israel(i. 135 seq., 176-182); W. R. Smith,Prophets of Israel, pp. 28 seq., 379.
45For the prominence of the “southern” element in Judah see E. Meyer,Entstehung d. Judenthums(1896), pp. 119, 147, 167, 177, 183 n. 1;Israeliten, pp. 352 n. 5, 402, 429 seq.
46See § 23 end, andLevites. When Edom is renowned for wisdom and a small Judaean family boasts of sages whose names have south Palestinian affinity (1 Chron. ii. 6), and when such names as Korah, Heman, Ethan and Obed-edom, are associated with psalmody, there is no inherent improbability in the conjecture that the “southern” families settled around Jerusalem may have left their mark in other parts of the Old Testament. It is another question whether such literature can be identified (for Cheyne’s views, seeEncy. Bib.“Prophetic Literature,” “Psalms,” and his recent studies).
47One may recall, in this connexion, Caxton’s very interesting prologue to Malory’sMorte d’Arthurand his remarks on the permanent value of the “histories” of this British hero. [Cf. also Horace,Ep.1. ii. and R. Browning, “Development.”]
48It is noteworthy that Josephus, who has his own representation of the post-exilic age, allows two years and four months for the work (Ant.xi. 5, 8).
49The papyri from Elephantine (p. 282, n. 1, above) mention as contemporaries the Jerusalem priest Johanan (cf. the son of Joiada and father of Jaddua, Neh. xii. 22), Bagohi (Bagoas), governor of Judah, and Delaiah and Shelemiah sons of Sanballat (408-407B.C.) They ignore any strained relations between Samaria and Judah, and Delaiah and Bagohi unite in granting permission to the Jewish colony to rebuild their place of worship. If this fixes the date of Sanballat and Nehemiah in the time of the first Artaxerxes, the probability of confusion in the later written sources is enhanced by the recurrence of identical names of kings, priests, &c., in the history.
50The Samaritans, for their part, claimed the traditions of their land and called themselves the posterity of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. But they were ready to deny their kinship with the Jews when the latter were in adversity, and could have replied to the tradition that they were foreigners with atu quoque(Josephus,Ant.ix. 14, 3; xi. 8, 6; xii. 5, 5) (seeSamaritans).
51The statement that the king desired to avoid the divine wrath may possibly have some deeper meaning (e.g.some recent revolt, Ezra vii. 23).
52It must suffice to refer to the opinions of Bertholet, Buhl, Cheyne, Guthe, Van Hoonacker, Jahn, Kennett, Kent, Kosters, Marquart, Torrey, and Wildeboer.
53C. F. Kent,Israel’s Hist. and Biog. Narratives(1905), p. 358 seq. The objections against this very probable view undervalue Ezra iv. 7-23 and overlook the serious intricacies in the book of Nehemiah.
54There are three inquiries: (a) the critical value of 1 Esdras, (b) the character of the different representations of post-exilic internal and external history, and (c) the recovery of the historical facts. To start with the last before considering (a) and (b) would be futile.
55For example, to the sufferings under Artaxerxes III. (§ 19) have been ascribed such passages as Isa. lxiii. 7-lxiv. 12; Ps. xliv., lxxiv., lxxix., lxxx., lxxxiii. (see alsoLamentations). In their present form they are not of the beginning of the 6th century and, if the evidence for Artaxerxes III. proves too doubtful, they may belong to the history preceding Nehemiah’s return, provided the internal features do not stand in the way (e.g.prior or posterior to the formation of the exclusive Judaean community, &c.). Since the book of Baruch (named after Jeremiah’s scribe) is now recognized to be considerably later (probably after the destruction of JerusalemA.D.70), it will be seen that the recurrence of similar causes leads to a similarity in the contemporary literary productions (with a reshaping of earlier tradition), the precise date of which depends upon delicate points of detail and not upon the apparently obvious historical elements.
56See H. Winckler,Keil. u. Alte Test., 295, and Kennett,Journ. Theol. Stud.(1906), p. 487;Camb. Bib. Essays, p. 117. The Chaldeans alone destroyed Jerusalem (2 Kings xxv.); Edom was friendly or at least neutral (Jer. xxvii. 3, xl. 11 seq.). The proposal to read “Edomites” for “Syrians” in the list of bands which troubled Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 2) is not supported by the contemporary reference, Jer. xxxv. 11.
57It is at least a coincidence that the prophet who took the part of Tobiah and Sanballat against Nehemiah (vi. 10 seq.) bears the same name as the one who advised Rehoboam to acquiesce in the disruption (1 Kings xii. 21-24), or announced the divine selection of Jeroboam (ib. v. 24, Septuagint only).
58SeeHebrew Religion, § 8 seq., and the relevant portions of the histories of Israel.
59J. Wellhausen, art. “Israel,”Ency. Brit.9th ed., vol. xiii. p. 419; or hisProlegomena, pp. 497 seq.
60An instructive account of Judaism in the early post-exilic age on critical lines (from the Jewish standpoint) is given by C. G. Montefiore,Hibbert Lectures(1892), pp. 355 sqq.; cf. also the sketch by I. Abrahams,Judaism(1907).
61Cf. the story of Phinehas, Num. xxv. 6 sqq.; on Gen. xxxiv., seeSimeon. Apropos of hostility towards Samaria, it is singular that the term of reproach, “Cutheans,” applied to the Samaritans is derived from Cutha, the famous seat of the god Nergal, only some 25 m. N.E. of Babylon itself (see above, p. 286, n. 4).
62The various tendencies which can be observed in the later pseudepigraphical and apocalyptical writings are of considerable value in any consideration of the development of thought illustrated in the Old Testament itself.
63Reference may be made to H. Winckler,Gesch. Israels, ii. (1900); W. Erbt,Die Hebräer(1906); and T. K. Cheyne,Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel(1907).
64On the writers mentioned below see articless.v.
65For the importance of the Portuguese Jews, seePortugal:History.
JEWSBURY, GERALDINE ENDSOR(1812-1880), English writer, daughter of Thomas Jewsbury, a Manchester merchant, was born in 1812 at Measham, Derbyshire. Her first novel,Zoe: the History of Two Lives, was published in 1845, and was followed byThe Half Sisters(1848),Marian Withers(1851),Constance Herbert(1855),The Sorrows of Gentility(1856),Right or Wrong(1859). In 1850 she was invited by Charles Dickens to write forHousehold Words; for many years she was a frequent contributor to theAthenaeumand other journals and magazines. It is, however, mainly on account of her friendship with Thomas Carlyle and his wife that her name is remembered. Carlyle described her, after their first meeting in 1841, as “one of the most interesting young women I have seen for years; clear delicate sense and courage looking out of her small sylph-like figure.” From this time till Mrs Carlyle’s death in 1866, Geraldine Jewsbury was the most intimate of her friends. The selections from Geraldine Jewsbury’s letters to Jane Welsh Carlyle (1892, ed. Mrs Alexander Ireland) prove how confidential were the relationsbetween the two women for a quarter of a century. In 1854 Miss Jewsbury removed from Manchester to London to be near her friend. To her Carlyle turned for sympathy when his wife died; and at his request she wrote down some “biographical anecdotes” of Mrs Carlyle’s childhood and early married life. Carlyle’s comment was that “few or none of these narratives are correct in details, but there is a certain mythical truth in all or most of them;” and he added, “the Geraldine accounts of her (Mrs Carlyle’s) childhood are substantially correct.” He accepted them as the groundwork for his own essay on “Jane Welsh Carlyle,” with which they were therefore incorporated by Froude when editing Carlyle’sReminiscences. Miss Jewsbury was consulted by Froude when he was preparing Carlyle’s biography, and her recollection of her friend’s confidences confirmed the suspicion that Carlyle had on one occasion used physical violence towards his wife. Miss Jewsbury further informed Froude that the secret of the domestic troubles of the Carlyles lay in the fact that Carlyle had been “one of those persons who ought never to have married,” and that Mrs Carlyle had at one time contemplated having her marriage legally annulled (seeMy Relations with Carlyle, by James Anthony Froude, 1903). The endeavour has been made to discredit Miss Jewsbury in relation to this matter, but there seems to be no sufficient ground for doubting that she accurately repeated what she had learnt from Mrs Carlyle’s own lips. Miss Jewsbury died in London on the 23rd of September 1880.
JEW’S EARS,the popular name of a fungus, known botanically asHirneola auricula-judae, so called from its shape, which somewhat resembles a human ear. It is very thin, flexible, flesh-coloured to dark brown, and one to three inches broad. It is common on branches of elder, which it often kills, and is also found on elm, willow, oak and other trees. It was formerly prescribed as a remedy for dropsy.
JEW’S HARP,orJew’s Trump(Fr.guimbarde, O. Fr.trompe,gronde; Ger.Mundharmonica,Maultrommel,Brummeisen; Ital.scaccia-pensieriorspassa-pensiero), a small musical instrument of percussion, known for centuries all over Europe. “Jew’s trump” is the older name, and “trump” is still used in parts of Great Britain. Attempts have been made to derive “Jew’s” from “jaws” or Fr.jeu, but, though there is no apparent reason for associating the instrument with the Jews, it is certain that “Jew’s” is the original form (see theNew English Dictionaryand C. B. Mount inNotes and Queries(Oct. 23, 1897, p. 322). The instrument consists of a slender tongue of steel riveted at one end to the base of a pear-shaped steel loop; the other end of the tongue, left free and passing out between the two branches of the frame, terminates in a sharp bend at right angles, to enable the player to depress it by an elastic blow and thus set it vibrating while firmly pressing the branches of the frame against his teeth. The vibrations of the steel tongue produce a compound sound composed of a fundamental and its harmonics. By using the cavity of the mouth as a resonator, each harmonic in succession can be isolated and reinforced, giving the instrument the compass shown. The lower harmonics of the series cannot be obtained, owing to the limited capacity of the resonating cavity. The black notes on the stave show the scale which may be produced by using two harps, one tuned a fourth above the other. The player on the Jew’s harp, in order to isolate the harmonics, frames his mouth as though intending to pronounce the various vowels. At the beginning of the 19th century, when much energy and ingenuity were being expended in all countries upon the invention of new musical instruments, theMaultrommel, re-christenedMundharmonica(the most rational of all its names), attracted attention in Germany. Heinrich Scheibler devised an ingenious holder with a handle, to contain five Jew’s harps, all tuned to different notes; by holding one in each hand, a large compass, with duplicate notes, became available; he called this complex Jew’s harpAura1and with it played themes with variations, marches, Scotch reels, &c. Other virtuosi, such as Eulenstein, a native of Würtemberg, achieved the same result by placing the variously tuned Jew’s harps upon the table in front of him, taking them up and setting them down as required. Eulenstein created a sensation in London in 1827 by playing on no fewer than sixteen Jew’s harps. In 1828 Sir Charles Wheatstone published an essay on the technique of the instrument in theQuarterly Journal of Science.