6-8)2 The Deuteronomic history of the monarchy actually ascribes to the Judaean king Josiah (621 B.C.) the suppression of the high-places, and states that the local priests were brought to Jerusalem and received support, but did not minister at the altar (2 Kings xxiii.
Lastly it should be recollected that the entire body of the fragments of tradition and literature belonging to northern Israel has come down to us through the channel of Judaean recensions.
The closing years of the Judaean kingdom and the final destruction of the temple (586 B.C.) shattered the Messianic ideals cherished in the evening of Isaiah's lifetime and again in the opening years of the reign of Josiah.
The writings are the result of a continued literary process, and the Israelite national history has come down to us through Judaean hands, with the result that much of it has been coloured by late Judaean feeling.
It is precisely in Saul's time that the account of the Judaean monarchy, or perhaps of the monarchy from the Judaean standpoint, now begins.
History saw in David the head of a lengthy line of kings, the founder of the Judaean monarchy, the psalmist and the priest-king who inaugurated religious institutions now recognized to be of a distinctly later character.
Israelite tradition had ascribed the conquest of Jerusalem, Hebron and other cities of Judah to the Ephraimite Joshua; Judaean tradition, on the other hand, relates the capture of the sacred city from a strange and hostile people (2 Sam.
Judaean tradition dated the sanctity of Jerusalem from the installation of the ark, a sacred movable object which symbolized the presence of Yahweh.
When the narratives describe the life of the young David at the court of the first king of the northern kingdom, when the scenes cover the district which he took with the sword, and when the brave Saul is represented in an unfavourable light, one must allow for the popular tendency to idealize great figures, and for the Judaean origin of the compilation.
Gradually strengthening his position by alliance with Judaean clans, he became king at Hebron at the time when Israel suffered defeat in the north.
Yet again, Saul had been chosen by Yahweh to free his people from the Philistines; he had been rejected for his sins, and had suffered continuously from this enemy; Israel at his death was left in the unhappy state in which he had found it; it was the Judaean David, the faithful servant of Yahweh, who was now chosen to deliver Israel, and to the last the people gratefully remembered their debt.
But the specific independent Judaean standpoint treats the unification of the two divisions as the work of David who leaves the heritage to Solomon.
The varied narratives, now due to Judaean editors, preserve distinct points of view, and it is extremely difficult to unravel the threads and to determine their relative position in the history.
Biblical criticism is concerned with a composite (Judaean) history based upon other histories (partly of non-Judaean origin), and the relation between native written sources and external contemporary evidence (monumental and.
In the former a separate history of the northern kingdom has been combined with Judaean history by means of synchronisms in accordance with a definite scheme.
Next, the Judaean compiler regularly finds in Israel's troubles the punishment for its schismatic idolatry; nor does he spare Judah, but judges its kings by a standard which agrees with the standpoint of Deuteronomy and is scarcely earlier than the end of the 7th century B.C. (§§ 16, 20).
Similarly the thread of the Judaean annals in Kings is also found in 2 Samuel, although the supplementary narratives in Kings are not so rich or varied as the more popular records in the preceding books.
The Judaean compiler, with his history of the two kingdoms, looks back upon the time when each laid the foundation of its subsequent fortunes.
Thus we may contrast the favourable Judaean view of Jehoshaphat with the condemnation passed upon Ahab and Jezebel, whose daughter Athaliah married Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat.
Moreover, of the various accounts of the massacre of the princes of Judah, the Judaean ascribes it not to Jehu and the reforming party (2 Kings x.
The Judaean annals then relate Hazael's advance to Gath; the city was captured and Jerusalem was saved only by using the Temple and palace treasure as a bribe.
Jehoash, it is said, turned away from Yahweh after the death of Jehoiada and gave heed to the Judaean nobles, " wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for their guilt," prophets were sent to bring them back but they turned a deaf ear.
The Judaean narratives do not allow us to fill the gap or to determine whether Judaean policy under the regent Jehoiada would be friendly or hostile to Israel, or whether Judaean nobles may have severed the earlier bond of union.
That the Judaean compiler has not given fuller information is not surprising; the wonder is that he should have given so much.
Moab was probably tributary; the position of Judah and Edom is involved with the chronological problems. According to the Judaean annals, the " people of Judah " set Azariah (Uzziah) upon his father's throne; and to his long reign of fifty-two years are ascribed conquests over Philistia and Edom, the fortification of Jerusalem and the reorganization of the army.
That of " Israel " and " Samaria ") is involved with the incorporation of non-Judaean elements.
Sqq.); the border-line between the rival kingdoms oscillated, and consequently the political position of the smaller and half-desert Judaean state depended upon the attitude of its neighbours.
It is naturally uncertain how far the traditions of David can be utilized; but they illustrate Judaean situations when they depict intrigues with Israelite officials, vassalage under Philistia, and friendly relations with Moab, or when they suggest how enmity between Israel and Ammon could be turned to useful account.
Tradition, in fact, is concentrated upon the rise of the Judaean dynasty under David, but there are significant periods before the rise of both Jehoash and Uzziah upon which the historical records maintain a perplexing silence.
If the impression left upon current thought can be estimated from certain of the utterances of the court-prophet Isaiah and the Judaean countryman Micah, the light which these throw upon internal conditions must also be used to gauge the real extent of the religious changes ascribed to Hezekiah.
In the long reign of his son Manasseh later writers saw the deathblow to the Judaean kingdom.
Jerusalem had suffered some serious catastrophe before Nehemiah's return; a body of exiles returned, and in spite of interference the work of rebuilding was completed; through their influence the Judaean community underwent reorganization, and separated itself from its so-called heathen neighbours.
The Fall of the Judaean Monarchy.
The book of Kings gives the standpoint of a later Judaean writer, but Josiah's authority over a much larger area than Judah alone is suggested by xxiii.
The last few years of the Judaean kingdom present several difficult problems.
(e) Finally, the recurrence of similar historical situations in Judaean history must be considered.
The scantiness of historical tradition makes a final solution impossible, but the study of these years has an important bearing on the history of the later Judaean state, which has been characteristically treated from the standpoint of exiles who returned from Babylonia and regard them selves as the kernel of " Israel."
It would certainly be unwise to draw a sharp boundary line between the two districts; kings of Judah could be tempted to restore the kingdom of their traditional founder, or Assyria might be complaisant towards a faithful Judaean vassal.
But Israel after the fall of Samaria is artificially excluded from the Judaean horizon, and lies as a foreign land, although Judah itself had suffered from the intrusion of foreigners in the preceding centuries of war and turmoil, and strangers had settled in her midst, had formed part of the royal guard, or had even served as janissaries (§ 15, end).
To this catastrophe may be due the fragmentary character of old Judaean historical traditions.
Xxxv.), when the Judaean fields could produce a Micah or a Zephaniah, and when Israel no doubt had men who inherited the spirit of a Hosea, the nature of the underlying conditions can be more justly appreciated.
Although the records preserve complete silence upon the period now under review, it is necessary to free oneself from the narrow outlook of the later Judaean compilers.