History of the Jewish Church : Introduction

by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, D.D.

   The History of the Jewish Church is divided into      
three great period; each subdivided into lesser por-      
tions, each with its own peculiar characteristics; each      
terminated by a single catastrophe.         
   The First is that which, reaching back for its pre-     
lude into the Patriarchal age, commences, properly      
speaking, with the Exodus; and then, passing through        
the stages of the Desert, the Conquest, and the Set-         
tlement in Palestine, ends with the destruction of the       
Sanctuary at Shiloh, and the absorption of the ancient      
and primitive state of society into the new institution     
of the Monarchy.  It includes the rise of the tribes     
of Joseph.  It is the period often, though somewhat       
inaccurately, called by the name of "Theocracy."       
Its great characters are Abraham, Moses, and Samuel.       
It embraces the first Revelation of the Mosaic Religion      
and the first foundation of the Jewish Church and         
Commonwealth.       
   The Second period covers the whole history of the     
Monarchy.  It begins with the first rise of the insti-        
tution at the close of the aristocracy or oligarchy of       
the Judges.  It includes the Empire of David and          
and Solomon; and then, dividing itself into the two sepa-      
rate streams of the Northern and Southern kingdoms,       
terminates in the overthrow of Jerusalem and the      
Temple by the Chaldean armies.  It comprehends the       
great development of the Jewish Church and Religion      
through the growth of the Prophetic Order, and the      
first establishment of the Jewish commonwealth as a      
fixed institution.  It is marked by the rise and fall     
of the tribe of Judah.      
   The Third period begins with the Captivity.  It     
includes the Exile, the Return, and the successive     
period of Persian, Grecian, and Roman dominion.  It      
is marked by the rise of the tribe of Levi in the       
Maccabean dynasty; by the growth of the Jewish     
colonies in Egypt, Babylonia, and the est; and,        
lastly and chiefly, by the formation of the last and     
greatest development of the Prophetic Spirit, out of       
which rose the Christian Church, and the consequent      
expansion of the Jewish Religion into a higher region;        
whilst at the same time the dissolution of the exist-      
ing Church and Commonwealth of Judæa was brought       
about by the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Tem-      
ple, in the war of Titus, and by the final extinction      
of the national independence, in the war of Hadrian.       
   The present volume includes the first portion of the     
History extending from Abraham to Samuel, and will,     
it is hoped, be followed by two others, bringing down          
the history to its natural conclusion.            
   It will be observed that, at the beginning of the    
several sections, I have prefixed the special authorities          
treating of the subjects contained in them.        
   Of course the main bulk of the authorities is to be       
found in the Canonical Books of the Hebrew Scrip-     
tures.  It has been at various times supposed that      
the Books of Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, were all writ-       
ten in their present form by those whose names they      
bear.  This notion, however, has been in former ages     
disputed both by Jewish and Christian theologians, and       
is now rejected by almost all scholars.  It has no foun-     
dation in the several Books themselves, and is contra-     
dicted by the strong internal evidence of their contents.      
To determine accurately the authorship and the dates     
of these and other Sacred Writings is a question      
belonging to the same Biblical Criticism, which has thus          
modified the opinion just mentioned; and to those who         
are called to enter into the details of such inquiries     
I gladly leave the solution of this problem.  But there      
are, meanwhile, certain helps to guide us in the study     
of the general history, which, though obvious in them-      
selves, often escape the notice of the ordinary theologi-         
cal student.         
   (1.)  The history of the Jewish Church and People is           
not written at length in the Jewish Scriptures        
in the form in which we should desire ulti-      
mately to possess it.  The order of the books    
as they stand in the Canon is often not their real      
order, nor are the events themselves always related in     
the order of time.  Accordingly, if we wish to have       
the full account of any event or character, we must        
piece it together from the various books or passages, often      
separated from each other by considerable intervals.       
Obvious examples of this are to be found in the illus-      
trations furnished to the life of David by the Psalms,      
and of the history of the Jewish Kings by the Pro-      
phetical writings.  Again, portions of the same historical     
events are related from different points of view, or            
with fresh incidents, or by implication, in parts of the    
historical books where we should least expect to find     
them.  Thus the slaughter of Gideon's brothers, and      
a long untold stage of his career, is suggested by a       
single allusion, in the existing narrative to events of       
which the record has not come down to us; the      
storming of Hebron by Caleb is partly made up from      
the Book of Joshua and partly from that of the Book    
of Judges; the narratives affixed to the end of the       
Book of Judges must chronologically be transferred to      
the beginning of the period.  Many of these scattered     
notices are ingeniously collected by Professor Blunt as      
undesigned evidences to the truth of the history; and,        
though his arguments are sometimes too fanciful to       
be safely trusted, yet his method is one of great     
value to the historical student, and is the same which      
has been followed out, in a larger and more critical    
spirit, and with more permanent and fruitful results,      
in Ewald's reconstruction of the history both of the     
Judges and of David.         
   (2.)  The Books of the Old Testament, in their present        
form, in many instances are not, and do not     
profess to be, the original documents on which      
the history was based.  There was (to use a happy        
expression used of late) a "Bible within a Bible," an      
"Old Testament before an Old Testament was written."        
To discover any traces of these lost works in the act-       
tual text, or any allusion to them, even when their      
substance has entirely perished, is a task of immense     
interest.  It reveals to us a glimpse of an earlier world,     
of an extinct literature, such as always rouses innocent    
inquiry to the utmost.  Such is the ancient document       
describing the conquest of the eastern kings in the     
14th chapter of the Book of Genesis; the inestimable     
fragment of ancient songs in the 21st chapter of the     
Book of Numbers; the quotations from the Book of     
Jasher, in the Book of Joshua and the First Book      
of Samuel.  Whenever these glimpses occur, they de-     
serve the most careful attention.  We are brought by        
them years, perhaps centuries, nearer to the events    
described.  We are allowed by them to see something         
of the construction of the narrative itself.  The indi-      
cations of the origin of the different documents by     
variations of style, by the use of peculiar names and      
titles, may be too minute to catch the attention of     
any except a professed Hebrew scholar.  But the points     
to which I now refer are open to the consideration of     
any careful student.          
   (3.)  Yet again, we must always bear in mind that     
the history of the Chosen People is not ex-      
clusively contained in the Authorized English     
version, nor even only in the Hebrew text from     
which that version is a translation.  The Authorized     
Version, indeed, is a sufficient account of the history         
for the general purposes of popular instruction.  But      
as no scholar thinks of reading Thucydides even in     
the best English translation, so no scholar should be       
satisfied unless he at least endeavors to ascertain how     
far the English version represents the original.  And      
in proportion to the value we attach to the actual      
words of the Bible itself, ought to be the care not     
to over-estimate the words of even the best mod-      
ern translation.  The variations are, perhaps, not im-      
portant as to the general sense.  But as to the   
precise life and force of each word, (I speak chiefly     
from my experience of a single department, the geo-        
graphical vocabulary, ) they are very considerable,      
and in a language so pregnant as the Hebrew, in-     
volve often serious historical consequences.        
   The Hebrew text, however, is not our only source     
of information as to the original materials      
of the Sacred History.  Without arguing the       
relative merits of the Hebrew and the Septuagint          
texts, we have no right to set aside or neglect       
such an additional authority as the Septuagint fur-      
nishes.  Whatever may be the value of the He-      
brew text in itself, or its authority in the present       
Jewish Church., or the present Church of West-     
ern Europe, the Septuagint was the text sanc-      
tioned probably by our Lord Himself, certainly by the     
Apostles, and still acknowledged by the whole East.      
The Septuagint must, therefore, be regarded as the      
Old Testament of the Apostolical, and of the early     
Catholic Church.  And, though we may refuse to ac-      
knowledge this its coördinate authority with the      
received text of our present Bible, it has at least      
the value of the very oldest Jewish tradition and      
commentary on the Sacred Text.  Therefore, no pas-      
sage of the Sacred History can be considered as ex-      
hausted unless we have seen how it is represented     
by the Alexandrian translators; and if, as is often     
the case, we find variations of considerable magnitude     
from the Hebrew, such variations may always be re-     
garded, if not as the original account of the matter,          
at least as explanations and traditions of high an-       
tiquity.  Such, for example, are the details of the      
descent of the eastern kings, of the passage of the     
Jordan, of the execution of the sons of Saul, of     
the coronation of Jeroboam.  The Jews of Palestine,           
in their horror of a rival text, — perhaps of a trans-      
lation which should render their sacred books acces-     
sible to the world, — held that on the day on     
which the Seventy Translators met, a supernatural      
darkness overspread the earth; and the day was to     
them one of their solemn periods of fasting and hu-      
miliation.  But to us, who know what the Septuagint    
was in the hands of the Apostles, as the means of       
spreading the knowledge of the Old Testament     
through the Gentle world — who, in the scantiness of     
any remains of the ancient Jewish literature, gladly        
welcome any additional information to fill up the void       
— who feel what a bulwark this double version of      
the Old Testament furnishes against a too rigid or           
literal construction of the Sacred History — the Sev-    
enty Translators, if not worthy of the high place to     
which the ancient Church assigned them, may well     
be ranked amongst the greatest benefactors of Bib-     
lical Literature and Free Inquiry.            
   (4.)  There is yet another class of authorities to       
which I have referred whenever occasion of-      
fered.  It has been truly said that the history      
of the Chosen People is the history, not of an in-     
spired book, but of an inspired people.  If so, any    
record that has been preserved to us of that people,      
even although not contained in their own sacred     
books, is far too precious to be despised.  These rec-      
ords are indeed very scanty.  They consist of a few      
fragments of Gentile histories preserved by Josephus,     
Eusebius, and Clement of Alexandria; a few state-     
ments in Justin, Tacitus, and Strabo; a few inscrip-     
tions in Egypt and Assyria; the traditions of the     
East, whether preserved in Rabbinical, Christian, or    
Mussulman legends; and the traditions of the Jewish        
Church itself, as preserved by Philo and Josephus.      
All these notices, unequal in value as they are to    
each other, or to the records of the Old Testament      
itself, have yet this use — that they recall to us the       
existence of the facts, independent of the authority    
of the Sacred Books.  It is true that the larger part of        
the interest and instruction of the Jewish history     
would be lost with the loss of the Hebrew Scriptures.       
But their original influence on the world was irre-     
spective of the Scriptures, and must always continue.         
   Even had we only the imperfect account of the     
Jews in Tacitus and  Strabo, we should know      
that they were the most remarkable nation of          
ancient Asia.  This argument applies with still greater       
force to the traditions of the East, and to the tradi-       
tions of Josephus.  With regard to the former, it is      
impossible, without greater knowledge than can be     
obtained by one who is ignorant of Arabic, and who        
has only visited the east in two or three fugitive     
journeys, to ascertain how far they have a substantial     
existence of their own, or how far they are mere am-         
plifications of the Koran and the Old Testament.        
Some case — such as the wide-spread prevalence of      
the name "Friend" for Abraham, too slightly no-         
ticed in the Bible to have been derived from thence,       
and the importance assigned to the Arabian Jethro or       
Shouayb — seem to indicate an independent origin.       
But, whether this be so or not, they continue to form     
the staple of the belief of a large part of mankind on     
the subject of the Jewish history, and as such I have     
ventured to quote them, partly in order to contrast     
them with the more sober style of the Sacred Records ,      
but chiefly where they fall in with the general spirit      
of the Biblical narrative, and thus furnish an instruc-    
tive, because unexpected, illustration of it.  Many         
common readers may be struck by the Persian or     
Arabian stories of Abraham and Moses, whose minds    
have by long custom become hardened to the effect    
of the narrative of the Bible itself.       
   The traditions of Josephus are yet more significant.      
It is remarkable that, of his four works, two       
run parallel to the Old Testament, and two to the     
New.  Whilst the histories of "the Wars of the Jews"             
and of his own "Life" throw a flood of light by con-    
temporary allusions on the time of the Christian era,     
the "Antiquities" and "Controversy with Apion" illus-      
trate hardly less remarkably the times of the Older     
Dispensation.  The "Controversy with Apion," indeed,       
is chiefly important for its preservation of those Gen-       
tile traditions to which I have referred.  But     
the "Antiquities" furnish an example such as hardly     
occurs elsewhere in ancient literature of a recent       
history existing side by side with most of the original      
documents from which it is compiled.  It would be a     
curious speculation, which would test the value of     
the style and spirit of the Sacred writers, to imagine      
what would be the residuum of the effect produced    
by the Jewish history if the Old Testament were lost,      
and the facts were known to us only through the      
"Antiquities" of Josephus.  His style is indeed a con-     
tinual foil to that of the Sacred Narrative — his ver-     
bosity contrasted with its simplicity, his vulgarity    
with its sublimity, his prose with his poetry, his uni-     
formity with its variety.  But, with all these draw-      
backs, to which we must add his omissions and emen-      
dations, as if to meet the critical eye of his Roman       
masters, the main thread of the story is faithfully     
retained; occasionally, as in the case of the story of Ba-       
laam, a just discernment brings out clearly the moral      
elevation peculiar to the ancient Scriptures.  But      
there is a yet further interest.  His account is filled     
with variations not to be explained by any of the dif-      
ferences just cited.  To examine the origin of these     
would be an interesting task.  Sometimes he coin-     
cides with the variations of the Septuagint; and in     
cases where he seems not to have copied from that        
Version, his statement must be considered as a confir-      
mation of the value of the text which the Septuagint        
has followed.  Sometimes he supplies facts which agree    
with existing localities, but have no direct connection      
with the Sacred Narrative either in Hebrew or Greek,       
as it is his account of the mountain (evidently Jebel     
Attaka) which hemmed in the Israelites at the Red      
Sea, of the traditional sanctity of Sinai, and of the      
still existing manna.  Sometimes he makes statements    
which are not found in the narrative itself, but which        
remarkably illustrate indirect allusions contained either      
in the history or in other parts of the Old Testa-         
ment — as, for example, the thunder-storm at the Red       
Sea, which coincides very slightly with the narrative    
in Exodus, but exactly and fully with the allusions      
in the 77th Psalm; or the slaughter in the torrent    
of Arnon, which has no foundation in the Mosaic nar-     
rative, but is the natural explanation of the ancient     
song preserved in the book of Numbers.  In a more     
critical historian these additions might be considered      
mere amplifications of the slight hints furnished by    
the original writers, but in Josephus it seems reason-    
able (and, in that case, becomes deeply interesting)        
to ascribe them to an independent source of informa-       
tion, common to the tradition which he used, and to     
the occasional allusions in the Sacred writers.  Some-     
times his variations consist simply of new information,     
capable of neither proof nor disproof, but receiving a      
certain degree of support from the simplicity and        
probability which distinguishes them from common     
Rabbinical legends; such as the story of Hur being the     
husband of Miriam, or of the rite of the red heifer     
having its origin in her funeral.  Finally, other state-       
ments exist, which agree with the Oriental and Gentile    
traditions already quoted, and thus reciprocally yield     
and receive a limited confirmation; as for instance,      
Abraham's connection with the contemplation of the          
stars, and the great deeds of Moses in Egypt.       

            ———————

   Such are the main authorities.  In using them for     
these Lectures, it will sometimes happen that they     
hardly profess, or can hardly be proved to contain,    
the statement of the original historical facts to which      
they relate.  But they nevertheless contain the near-      
est approach which we, at this distant time, can     
now make to a representation of those facts.  They     
are the refraction of the history, if not the history    
itself, — the echo of the words, if not the actual words.      
And, throughout, it has been my endeavor to lay     
stress on those portions and those elements of the    
Sacred Story, which have hitherto stood, and are       
likely to stand, the investigations of criticism, and      
from which may be drawn the most solid instruction    
for all times.       
   There may be errors in chronology — exaggerations     
in numbers — contradictions between the different    
narratives.  They may compel us to relinquish one or      
other of the numerous hypotheses which have been       
formed respecting the composition or the inspiration     
of the Old Testament.  But as they would not destroy  
the value of other history, so they need not destroy      
the value of this history because it relates to the Sacred      
subjects; or prevent us from making the very most      
of those portions of it which are undeniably his-     
torical, or full of the widest and most permanent        
lessons, both for "the example of life and instruction      
of manners," and for "the establishment of" true    
religious "doctrine."         

from The History of the Jewish Church, Vol. I : Abraham to Samuel,
Introduction
by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, D.D., Dean of Westminster
Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1879, pp. xxix - xl