ISRAEL

The Biblical name of the people of God and of its eponymous ancestor who was also called Jacob. By way of introduction, this article first explains the origin, meaning, and usage of the name; then in the following sections it treats of the religion of ancient Israel and the biblical history of Israel. For information on the Catholic Church in the modern state of Israel, see the separate essay following.

1. Introduction

The Bible insists that the name Israel was conferred on the Patriarch jacob by God, yet there are divergent accounts of its bestowal on him and various theories regarding its meaning. Besides being used to designate the Patriarch, it is more frequently employed as a collective title for his blood or spiritual descendants, the "children of Israel," the "house of Israel."

Origin and Meaning of the Name. There were two different traditions in Israel regarding the origin of its name. That they were ancient can be seen in the fact that they are already combined in Hosea 12.4–5. According to one account (Gn 32.22–31) the name Israel was bestowed on Jacob at Phanuel, near the Jaboc, east of the Jordan; according to the other account (Gn 35.9–15) God changed Jacob's name to Israel after the Patriarch had left Phanuel and returned to bethel. The first account ventures a folk etymology, whereas the second offers no conjecture on the origin or meaning of the name. The first account is boldly anthropomorphic; it depicts Jacob wrestling with God or the angel of the lord and stresses the Patriarch's victory (as also in Hos 12.5).

Traditionally this mysterious passage has been interpreted as signifying the conversion of Jacob, a spiritual victory over his natural tendency to self-reliance rooted in his native cunning and great strength (cf. Gn 29.2–3,10), and the birth of his trust in God, grounded in the omniscience and omnipotence of God. It has been suggested that Israelite tradition used a pre-Israelite myth of a struggle between a river spirit and a man to dramatize the inner conflict that raged within the Patriarch. Although there is little probability to this theory, inspiration would not forbid the use or adaptation of such a pagan myth to dramatize the interior struggle between exuberant self-reliance and humble, trustful submission to God's plan, a contest between a man who represents his nation and God.

The actual derivation and meaning of yiśrā’ēl (Israel) is still uncertain. It is clear that the name is theophoric, a compound of a verb and the proper noun ’ēl [see el (god)]. If the verbal component is the root śry, the name means "God contends," or perhaps (from a related root) "God is strong, sovereign, He rules." If the verbal root is śrr or yśr (both of which occur in Arabic but not in Hebrew), the name would mean, respectively, "God shines forth" or "God heals."

Use of the Name. The name Israel is often used as a mere substitute for the personal name Jacob. It is frequent also in the phrase, "the sons [or children] of Israel" (benê yiśrā’ēl ), which is used of the immediate sons of Jacob in Ex 1.1, but which, along with such terms as the "seed of Israel," the "house of Israel," and the "assembly of Israel," is used very frequently of the more distant descendants of Jacob also.

The name Israel (alone) is applied to the immediate family of Jacob in Gn 34.7. Prior to the secession of the northern tribes and again after the restoration of the people of the southern kingdom, Israel designated the entire people of God. But during the period of the existence of the Northern Kingdom, Israel signified that kingdom in contradistinction to the Southern Kingdom, which was called Judah. In postexilic times, Israel was occasionally used to designate the laity in contrast to the priests, the levitical orders, and the Temple servants (1 Chr 9.2; Ezr6.16; Neh 11.3). As used by St. Paul, the term is complex. It may signify the elect of the new dispensation, the "Israel of God" (Gal 6.19), or the unconverted Jews, "Israel according to the flesh" (1 Cor 10.18).

Bibliography: r. de vaux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, suppl. ed. l. pirot, et al. (Paris 1928–) 4:730–31. Encyclopedia Dictionary of the Bible, tr. and adap. by l. hartman (New York 1963), from a. van den born, Bijbels Woordenboek 1086–87.

[j. a. pierce]

2. Religion of Ancient Israel

An investigation will be made here of Israel's convictions and practice with respect to God. Of the many possible approaches to this consideration, this section will adopt the historical. Accordingly, Israelite religion will first be seen as it is described in the earliest literary sources that treat it as a contemporary phenomenon. Second, an examination will be made of the formative history of this religion according to the available sources. In turn, its subsequent development within Israelite history will be pursued; and finally, with a consideration of the influence of the Exile, the changes effected in the emergence of judaism will be noted.

Early Israelite Religion. As can be seen in the references of the classical prophets of the 8th century b.c., the external forms of Israelite worship differed little from

the native Canaanite forms from which they had doubtless been principally drawn. Animal sacrifice was normative (Is 1.11; Am 5.4); there was also the offering of incense and cereal sacrifices (Is 1.13; Am 5.22). Festivals were kept at ancient shrines such as Gialgal and Bethel (Hos 4.15; Am 4.4; 5.4–5) on the occasion of Sabbaths, feast days, and new moons (Is 1.13–14; Hos 2.13; Am8.4–5). Tithes were paid for the support of these sanctuaries (Am 5.4), and sacred banquets were eaten there (Am2.8).

The motivation of this cult, however, differed sharply from that of the natural religions of the Gentiles, whose cult practices reflected and sought to control the annual cycle of nature and its seasons. Israel's God could not be controlled; rather, it was He who controlled the destiny of all peoples (Am 1.3–2.6; 9.7) as Creator of all things (Am 4.13; 5.8–9; 9.5–6) and as present, not immanent, in nature as its Lord and Master (Am 9.2–4). This God had revealed Himself and His moral will to Israel through His saving deeds (literally "justices": Mi 6.5). He revealed Himself as a loving God by calling Israel out of the slavery of Egypt (Hos 11.5; Am 3.1) and by settling it in the land of Canaan; this, the donation of the land of promise as Israel's inheritance, rather than the chthonic deities of paganism, was the source of the fertility of the soil (Hos 2.10; Am 2.9–10), which in turn was subject to yahweh's continual historical intervention (Am 4.6–10). Above all, Yahweh had given to Israel the gift of Himself, a continuing closeness revealed through prophecy (Hos 6.5; Am 2.11), whereby He might be known as He is, a God of righteousness and justice and love (Hos2.20–21; 4.1–2) who truly spoke to Israel. True Israelite religion, therefore, was to "know" this God by living His law (torah, "instruction") as He had made it known in salvation history (Hos 4.6). Yahweh's holiness was thus a constant challenge to the emulation of His people; His kingship implied a way of life to be pursued and a constant rebuke to moral shortcomings (Is 6.5).

The prophetic minimizing of the cultic expression of religion never (even in Am 5.25–27) amounted to an out-right rejection of it in principle, but displayed a concern for the distinctively moral and social character of Israelite religion (Hos 6.6). The Prophets rebuked the priesthood, not for offering sacrifice, but for dereliction in their duty to inculcate Yahweh's moral torah (Hos 4.4–6; 5.1–2; Mi3.11). Without this, no cult could ever be truly Israelite, directed to the God who had gratuitously chosen Israel to this end. It then became no different from the Gentile rites that it resembled and, in popular practice, all too frequently imitated: sacrifice on high places and under sacred trees (Is 1.29; Hos 4.13), the use of idols [Is 2.8; Hos2.15; 8.5; 10.5; Mi 1.7; see idolatry (in the bible)], fertility rites (Hos 2.7; 3.1; 4.14; 7.14), divination (Is 2.6; Hos 4.12; Mi 3.5–8), and the like.

The "ethical monotheism" of the Prophets of the 8th century was no new discovery of theirs superimposed on a folk religion of ritual and sacrifice. It was, rather, the most primitive tradition of Israelite religion, a tradition, however, that had become clouded through lack of instruction and guidance on the part of Israel's civil and religious leadership (Is 1.26; 5.13; 10.1; Hos 4.4–6). The election by Yahweh (see election, divine), in which Israel so passionately believed and which it could abuse as a false guarantee of security, was accepted by the Prophets implicitly; they found in it all the moral imperatives that they preached (Am 3.2). The moral God of the Prophets was the Yahweh of Israel's cult, whose living presence isaiah experienced in the Jerusalem Temple (Is6.1–13). Prophetic teaching nowhere opposes any of the priestly torah of the Mosaic Law; Hos 4.1–6 implies a systematic summary of the moral code like that of the Decalogue, and Hos 8.12 refers even to a written torah (see commandments, ten).

Formative History of Israelite Religion. The Prophets themselves ascribe the origins of Israelite religion to the Mosaic age and make frequent reference to

the Exodus traditions (Hos 9.10; 11.1, 5; Am 2.9–11; 3.1;4.10). They presume a knowledge of the kerygmatic interpretation (see kerygma) of Israel's history that both the pentateuch and the deuteronomists record.

Covenant Relationship. The basis of this traditional faith was Israel's experience of divine election and covenant. see covenant (in the bible). Contrary to the Canaanite conception of covenant (see Jgs 8.33; 9.46: cult in exchange for the protection of a chosen deity) and to the patriarchal conception faithfully represented by Gns 28.20–22, the Mosaic covenant signified an act of grace by which Yahweh chose Israel out of love (Dt 7.7–8), imposing on it a law of reciprocal love (Dt 6.5) as the condition of His continued protection and beneficence (Dt7.9–16). Though it is the Deuteronomic theologians, following the Prophets, who have evolved the theological language of the covenant, the distinctive concept itself (law founded on history; covenant an act of beneficence; reciprocal fealty) has been convincingly related, in the studies of G. Mendenhall (and after him W. Baltzer, W. Beyerlin), to the treaty forms of the ancient Near East current in the time of moses. The covenant explains Israelite Law, but the covenant relation itself is less legal than familial; its guiding norm is not legal justice but reciprocal loyalty (ḥesed, "steadfast love," pietas: the norm of the brotherbond between David and Jonathan, 1 Sm 20.8; see also 18.3). Through the covenant, Israel was constituted Yahweh's family (Am 3.1); Yahweh became the father (Dt 32.6; Hos 11.1; Jer 3.19) of many brethren. Hence the duty of loving God above all (Dt 6.5) is only the vertical dimension of a covenant love that is familial: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lv 19.18). The prescriptions of the Law spelled out the obligations of ḥesed to God and neighbor (see Hos 6.6; 3.4, where "knowledge of God" and "fidelity" parallel ḥesed; see also Mi 6.8). Yahweh is the "faithful God who keeps covenant and ḥesed with those who love him and keep his commandments" (Dt 7.8).

Mosaic Law. The Law of Moses, as presented in the kerygma, has the formality of covenant duty and disregards specific origins or earlier intents of the individual prescriptions. The ancient feasts and observances of the past, whatever their original meaning, have been related to the covenantal history of Israel. Similarly, the ancient dietary customs and purificatory practices have been interpreted as outward manifestations of the holiness that must characterize a people consecrated to God. It would be impossible to isolate the oldest Mosaic nucleus of the

Law from the unities discernible in the Pentateuch and Deuteronomy, since all of these presuppose progressive development and more recent formulation and collection. The form-critical studies of the Mosaic Law by A. Alt and M. Noth, among others, however, have perhaps made a more decisive contribution toward establishing its earliest dimensions. Israel's apodictic Law is substantially without parallel in the ancient Near East. This distinctively Israelitic form itself argues for the prophetic origin (and succession; see Dt 18.15–18) that Biblical tradition ascribes to Moses (Ex 33.7–11; etc.). The casuistic law, which had its origin in judicial decisions, often parallels other ancient Near Eastern law codes; however, this is the result of an independent application of common legal principles that owes little if anything to the influence of the legislations of the more advanced cultures that surrounded Israel (see law, ancient near-eastern; law, mosaic; holiness, law of).

Israel, the Product of its Religion. It is less correct to say that Israelite religion came out of Israel than that Israel itself was the product of its religion. It was a common religion with its central sanctuary at shechem (possibly a proto-Israelite center from patriarchal times; see Gn 34; 48.22; Jos 24) or Shiloh (1 Sm 1.3; Jer 7.12) that provided the first unity of the federation of tribes whose historical and ethnic complexity can still be perceived behind the traditions that have combined to make up the united history of Israel. Acceptance of the common covenant-God in rites such as the one described in Joshua 24.1–28 continually introduced new elements into the religious federation and assured the preservation and recasting of the Mosaic traditions. Israel's wars were religious wars, as is attested alike by the historical narratives and the ancient poetry preserved in them (e.g., Gn 49.22–26; Ex 15.21; Dt 33.26–29; Jgs 5.1–31). Israel's religion, with its unique conception of God and His relation to man, made this people unassimilable to either Canaanite or Philistine, and thus eventually brought it to nationhood. Even then, the constitutive influence of its religion continued to prevent Israel from ever becoming in reality "like all the nations" (1 Sm 8.5).

Relationship to Patriarchal Religion. The relation of Mosaic Yahwism to the religion of the Patriarchs is not easy to determine (see patriarchs, biblical). While the patriarchal stories preserved in the Pentateuch have retained a remarkably accurate historical contact with the social and cultural milieu they presuppose, their continuity is artificial; popular tradition had inevitably assimilated patriarchal theology to that of the later Israel. The Prophets knew the patriarchal stories (see Is 1.10; Hos 11.8; 12.2–14; Am 5.11), but they made no effort to find Israelite origins in the Patriarchs; for them, as for the Deuteronomic historians, Israel's history began with the Mosaic age. The Pentateuchal traditions, however, saw in the patriarchal history partly a remote preparation for the Mosaic covenant, partly an additional proof of Yahweh's goodness in giving Israel a land in which its earliest ancestors had dwelt merely as pilgrims and strangers (Gn 23.3; etc.). The tradition of the patriarchal "covenant" [in reality, as represented in Gn 15.7–11, 17–21 (J), etc., an unconditioned promise on the part of God] has not been simply imagined after the analogy of the covenant of Sinai. It is a distinct tradition whose omission by the preexilic Prophets may well have been calculated; with its character of unconditioned promise it was hardly the emphasis needed in dealing with a people all too prone to take election for granted and to ignore covenant duties. Historically, covenant with the tribal God, "the God of the Fathers" (cf. God of Abraham, God of Isaac: Gn 28.13; 31.53; Shield of Abraham: Gn 15.1; Mighty One of Jacob, Shepherd, Rock of Israel; Gn 49.24; etc.), corresponds to the cultural background predicated of the Patriarchs; and their worship of the Deity under the name of el (El Shaddai: Gn 17.1; 35.11, etc.; El Elyon: Gn 14.19–20; El Bethel: Gn 35.7; El Ro'i: Gn 16.13; El Olam: Gn 21.33; etc.) authentically reflects the Canaan of patriarchal times, as has been confirmed by the Ugaritic tablets, which contain some of the same titles (see ugarit; ugaritic-canaanite religion). Though Israelite

religion and Law have their proper beginnings with Moses, there must have been some real continuity with the patriarchal religion. A new religious movement rarely emerges that has not taken account of and built on prior beliefs.

Subsequent Development. The religion of Israel that began in historical events was also strongly affected by them in its subsequent development. There was a progressive revelation and an unfolding of doctrine that produced various theologies.

In the Period of the Kingdom. With the coming of Israel to nationhood and its adoption of kingship, the equilibrium between religion and people was disturbed and new postures were called forth. The covenant idea itself with its law was now challenged by the existence of a state possessed of a royal bureaucracy and ruled by kingly decrees; in any case, some of the ancient law was now manifestly inadequate in the face of changes that time had brought in culture and polity. Israelite religion responded to this threat to its existence through prophecy, which not only spoke with its own voice, but also influenced other currents of religious thought that offered partly alternative responses. The mixed reaction to monarchy discernible in the source material of the book of Samuel [1 Sm 8.4–22; 10.17–24; 12.1–25 with9.1–10.16; see samuel, book(s) of] found echoes throughout Israelite history (contrast the idealized picture of the age of the Judges in the book of Ruth with the promonarchical supplement to the book of Judges in Judges ch. 17–21; see judges, book of; ruth, book of). On both sides the reaction was a religious one: on the one hand a reluctance to abandon a distinctive theocratic polity and to incur the concomitant danger of assimilation to the ways of "all the nations" from which Israel had been called, and on the other a discernment of Yahweh's guiding hand and will in the inevitable course of human events, a progressivism equally clear in the Israelitic tradition.

Work of the Prophets. Prophecy with its living word of God provided a religious direction for monarchic Israel that is unparalleled in any other ancient people and maintained the covenant ideal imperturbably in the face of institutions that should otherwise have brought about its eventual extinction. It remained always, however, a religious force that adopted no programmatic approach to Israelite society. It stood aloof from such reactionary movements as that of the Rechabites (see 2 Kgs 10.15–16; Jer 35.1–19); its frequent evocation of the

(partly idealized) nomadic past (Jer 2.2–3; Hos 2.16; etc.) was not to support a movement of return to a more primitive economy, but like the prophetic references to paradisaic peace (Is 11.6–9; Hos 2.20), it held up the image of a vanished age of Israelitic purity (Jer 2.21; Hos 2.17; Am6.25; a viewpoint not shared by Ezekiel ch. 16 and 20). Prophecy was always harsh in its criticism of the monarchy, but it did not seek its abolition. In general, prophetic religion was indifferent, even serenely indifferent, to human institutions and spoke beyond these institutions to the popular conscience.

Development of Older Laws. Another manifestation of the vitality of Israelite religion can be seen in the development and adaptation of its legal tradition. The Deuteronomic law code (Dt 12–26), which also shows evidence of prophetic influence, was elaborated probably in a circle of Levitical priests (a Deuteronomic term) and probably in northern Israel sometime before the capture of Samaria by the Assyrians in 721 b.c. It is in part a recasting of earlier laws (cf. Ex 21.2–11 with Dt 15.12–18) and in part legislation peculiar to itself; the latter too, however, may contain ancient legal formulations. It is noteworthy for its law of the single sanctuary (Dt 12.13–14), supporting the ancient amphictyonic principle, a law that influenced the reforms of the Judahite Kings Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18.3–7) and especially Josiah (2 Kgs 22.3–23.27; the "book of the law" featured in this narrative is usually taken to have been Deuteronomy). Deuteronomy's humanitarian tone and provisions (e.g., Dt 14.27–29; 15.7–11) and its theme of covenant love as the spirit of observance of law thoroughly wedded the best in the prophetic and the legal traditions and also inspired the postexilic Deuteronomic history with its prophetic judgment on Israel's history under the covenant and the kings. A parallel legal development was the legislation of the Pentateuchal Priestly writers, which was codified and elaborated during the Exile by a school of

Sadocite priests that had some relationship to the prophetic activity of ezekiel. Like the Deuteronomic, this priestly school also redacted the Mosaic traditions of the covenantal history and brought the Pentateuch to substantially its final form.

Influence of the Liturgy. Another dimension of priestly religion in which many Israelites found their most satisfying relation to God and to one another was the liturgy. The truly spiritual and productive influence of the liturgy is reflected in many ancient Psalms (see psalms, book of), and modern scholarship tends to detect liturgical influence in many other parts of the Old Testament, including the prophetical (Is 6.1–4; Hab 2.20; Zep 1.7; Zec 2.17). The liturgy became one of the mainstays of the postexilic religion. It obviously meant much to Ezekiel and the postexilic Prophets. It was central in the thought of the Biblical chronicler, and for a pious Jew such as the late writer Ben Sirach (see sirach, book of), it concretized all of Israel's religious heritage (Sirach 45.23–25; 50.1–21).

Development of Eschatological Ideas. Israelite religion likewise developed with respect to its doctrine on the destiny of the nation. Doubtless an eschatology of some kind was a part of Israelite religion from the beginning [see eschatology (in the bible)]; election itself, when taken in the context of a total divine purpose (cf. Am 3.7), implies an eschatological idea. The cult undoubtedly made its contribution to the development of the idea, dwelling on such themes as that of the glorification of Jerusalem [Is 2.2–3; 4.2–6; Mi 4.1–4; Ps 47 (48).2–4] and the universal kingship of Yahweh [Ps 92 (93); 96 (97); 98 (99); etc.]. The early Prophets actually exploited this eschatological idea when they insisted that Israel stood under the coming judgment of God. However, whereas the preexilic Prophets had to oppose an uncritical expectation of divine intervention for good, the Prophets of the Exile and postexilic period could indulge Israel's hopes of salvation, especially in view of the doctrine of redemption through suffering, first enunciated by preexilic Prophets (e.g., Hos 2.16–22) and applied to the exilic situation especially by Deutero-Isaiah (Is ch. 41–55; see isaiah, book of). Never, however, did prophetic eschatology become an unqualified assurance of salvation as it did in some of the post-Biblical apocalyptic writings. The restoration of Israel would still be a deed of God's grace, done for His own name's sake (Ez 36.32). By it Israel would be made a sign to the nations (Ez 34.29–31; 37.28) and a means whereby they might find the God of their own salvation (Is 45.6, 14; 49.22–23).

Development of Royal Messianism. One aspect of this salvation expectation, though by no means its only or exclusive aspect, is the Old Testament doctrine of royal messianism, the belief that Yahweh's universal domination would be effected through a Davidic king, the Lord's anointed (Heb. māšîaḥ ; Aramaic mešîḥā ; hence English Messiah). This belief, rising from the promise given to David through prophecy [2 Sm 7.4–16; Ps 88 (89).3–5, 19–37], strongly influenced the authors of the royal Psalms [Ps 2; 71 (72); 88 (89); 109 (110)] and some of the Prophets, notably Isaiah (Is 7.10–17; 9.2–7, etc.; see also such passages as Mi 4.14–5.3 and the additions to Hos 3.5; Am 9.11–12; etc.). It affected in varying degrees the thinking also of the Deuteronomic writers, the Chronicler, and other theologians of the Old Testament. It may be questioned whether in any part of the Old Testament the concept of a Messiah ever became, as it did in later Judaism, applied to a once-for-all ideal king in the pattern of David; generally speaking, the messianic hope of the Old Testament is fixed on the promise of the perpetuity of a dynasty. After the Exile royal messianism inspired the thoughts of the Prophets Haggai (Hg2.21–23) and Zechariah (Zec 6.9–14), but with the passing away of the monarchy and the increasing authority of the high priesthood, it tended to disappear, though it was later revived in Judaism under apocalyptic influence. The same apocalyptic influence contributed to a rethinking of eschatology, placing it in an end time beyond history and reinterpreting in these terms other soteriological figures such as the Servant of Yahweh (see suffering servant, songs of the) and the son of man.

Postexilic Judaism. The Babylonian Exile was the final formative event of magnitude in the history of pre-Christian Israel. Not only did it shatter the unity of land, people, and religion that had characterized the preexilic faith; it also altered the direction of personal religion by focusing attention on new unities that had to be as operative outside Palestine as within the land of promise. Though exilic Prophets had looked for a restoration of Israel and Judah as a single nation (Ez 37.15–23, etc.), this hope was never realized as a political fact; nor did the exiles who returned from Babylon (probably relatively few in number) assimilate with the remnants of the Israelite population that had not passed through the experience of the Exile (Ezr 4.1–5). The Israelite religion that reemerged in Palestine was that which had been formed by Judahite exiles in Babylonia. It became the normative, shared by the far greater number of Jews who henceforth would make up the diaspora.

Development of Personal Religion. This religion evidenced a new personalism, dictated by the changed conditions of the Exile and its aftermath, and already anticipated by jeremiah (Jer 31.29–30) and Ezekiel (Ez 18.2–30). It is not true that personal religion had been impossible before the Exile or that the individual had simply been submerged in the people; the evidence of innumerable Psalms and other records of personal piety (e.g., the "confessions" of Jer 11.18–12.6; 15.10–21, etc.) disproves this. Nevertheless, the new emphases in Judaism gave rise to a different kind of personal religion. The synagogue replaced the temple for the great majority of Jews; assemblies for the reading of the Law with instruction by the scribe [see scribes (in the bible)], and the later rabbi, like that described in Nehemiah chapter 9, became the norm of Jewish observance rather than the cultic rites that could be attended by the few in Jerusalem. The prophetic doctrine of the remnant of Israel, the true Israel of faith that was expected to be the residue of Yahweh's destructive judgment (Is 1.24–27; 10.17–23), such as Jeremiah had hoped to find in the return from the Exile (Jer 24.1–7), was now applied to the postexilic community by Trito-Isaiah (Is ch. 56–66) and the other postexilic Prophets to distinguish the faithful from the faithless by the standard of obedience to the Law. The faithful were seen as the ’ănāwîm of the Prophets, that is, the "poor," the "humble," originally the economically dispossessed, who could rely on Yahweh alone (Am 2.6–7, etc.), now simply those who were wholeheartedly devoted to Yahweh as evidenced by their adherence to His Law, and thus separated from the unrighteous who ignored the Law (the "fools" of the later Wisdom literature) [see wisdom (in the bible)].

Emphasis on the Law. The disappearance of prophecy contributed to the establishment of the Law as God's final and definitive revelation to Israel. As time drew on, the lack of prophecy was still keenly felt, but more and more the era of revelation was recognized as closed, and the reappearance of prophecy itself was expected merely as a means of solving problems of interpretation of law and custom (1 Mc 4.46). The covenant norm of ḥesed itself became synonymous with obedience to the Law; hence the hasidaeans (Hebrew ḥăsîdîm, the pious), the strict observers of the Law (1 Mc 2.42), who were the forerunners of the pharisees (the separated). As the late Biblical literature can testify, this legal religion could be a truly spiritual experience far removed from a soulless legalism.

Development of Doctrine. The tradition of Judaism, like that of the earlier Israel, laid far greater stress on moral performance and ethical conviction than on doctrinal formulation. It was a religion lived in the heart rather than the head, a fact not always appreciated by Christians, who are apt to find its attitude to doctrine vague and inadequate. Faith was first and foremost a complete reliance on God rather than the source of specific affirmations about the divine nature. Nevertheless, doctrine also developed in the postexilic Judaism. The Pharisees maintained a progressive attitude toward both law and doctrine, mitigating and adjusting the former in consideration of changed conditions and supplying for inadequacies in the latter, even with the help of non-Israelite forms of thought. Thus by recourse to the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul, an attempt is made in Wis 3.1–9 to solve the problem of the future life, which was never really faced before in the Old Testament, and a parallel solution is offered in 2 Mc 12.39–45 by testifying to a developing doctrine of personal resurrection (an idea fore-shadowed in Ez 37.1–14 and Dn 12.1–3). The book of Daniel likewise shows the increasing interest of postexilic Judaism in angels and the spirit world (see angels, 1). These works are Pharisaical in spirit; by contrast, the Sadducean Sirach (see sadducees) ignores all such ideas and is content to stand on the earlier content of Old Testament revelation (Sir 24.23–29). Characteristically, too, it is in Wis 13.1–9; 14.12–21 that such doctrinal themes are continued and developed as the "theoretical" monotheism of the Deutero-Isaiah (Is 44.9–20, etc.), which considerably influenced the doctrine of the Priestly creation narrative (Gn 1.1–2.4a).

Development of Wisdom Literature. The Wisdom literature, which in substance is postexilic, is instructive in showing how varied were the currents of Jewish thought and in warning against a tendency to oversimplify the complex vitality of Judaism as it extended down into New Testament times. The Wisdom literature, moreover, is a valuable source of information on the religion of Israel as a way of life lived by its contemporaries. Laws that may be harsh in formulation may also be mild as interpreted in life. A wife who, theoretically, was the chattel of her husband might also be, in reality, his cherished partner in life (Prv 31.10–31; Eccl 9.9; Sir 26.1–4, 13–18; etc.). From this literature and from the entire Old Testament as the record of Israel's religion, there emerges a history of faith and progress that is Israel's heritage to the New Testament and to the world. Not chiefly in its inadequacies, but rather in its ability to provide a fruitful and positive interpretation of life, has the religion of Israel found a fulfillment in the New Testament.

See Also: feasts, religious; god; prophetism (in the bible); sacrifice, iii (in israel); worship (in the bible)

Bibliography: r. de vaux, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, tr. j. mchugh (New York 1961), especially 271–517. j. p.e. pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, 4 v. in 2 (New York 1926–40; repr. 1959). w. f. albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore 1946; 4th ed. 1956); From the Stone Age to Christianity (2d ed. New York 1957). w. eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, tr. j. a. baker (London 1961) v.1. g. von rad, Old Testament Theology, tr. d. m. g. stalker, 2 v. (New York 1962–) v.1. g. e. mendenhall, "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," The Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954) 50–76. a. alt, "Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts," Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Munich 1953–) 1:278–332; "Der Gott der Väter," ibid. 1:1–78. m. noth, Die Gesetze im Pentateuch (Halle 1940). s. o. mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship, tr. d. r. ap-thomas, 2 v. (Nashville 1962). j. w. gaspar, Social Ideas in the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament (Washington 1947).

[b. vawter]

3. History of Israel

Israel as a nation with its own government and its own territory is considered to have existed from c. 1200 b.c. to a.d. 70. The brief historical summation that follows will cover this period, although, at the beginning, some historical evaluation of the Israelite traditions that extended Israel's history back to its origins in Abraham's migration into Palestine (c. 19th century b.c.) must be given also. After the formative periods of the Exodus from Egypt and the conquest and settlement of the land of Canaan, Israel's history may be reviewed during the following main periods: the united monarchy (c. 1000 to c. 922 b.c.), the separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah (c. 922 to 587), and the postexilic period (538 b.c. to a.d.70).

EMERGENCE OF ISRAEL

The ancient oral and liturgical traditions of the Israelite people were the foundations upon which they built the theologically centered summation of their origins, as it is now extant in the first seven books of the Bible. It was a popular, religious summation, not a history of Israel's origin in the modern sense. It was a unique type of literature that combined authentic, historical memories with profound theological insights into God's activity in bringing Israel into existence, an activity not subject to the historian's judgment. It was therefore salvation his tory (heilsgeschichte). Recent archeological discoveries have established, however, that the theological interpretation found in this sacred history did not nullify a basically accurate sketch of the Patriarchal age, the period of the Exodus from Egypt, and the settlement of the Israelite tribes in palestine.

Patriarchal Age. The Book of genesis relates episodes from the lives of the three Patriarchs, abraham isaac, and jacob, the ancestors from whom the Israelites and some of their neighboring nations originated. At the beginning of the 20th century, historical critics had almost completely discounted that any authentic historical memories were reported in these Patriarchal narratives. They held that the earliest document, the yahwist, at the basis of these narratives, was not written down until almost 1,000 years after the events it described. It could not have given any accurate account of the events through which the Patriarchs lived and by which the Israelite people were formed and their faith awakened.

Such a negative attitude has recently been shown to have been wholly erroneous. An extensive comparison between names in Genesis and Northern Mesopotamian names, now known from extra-Biblical sources of the 1st half of the 2d millennium b.c., has established that the names Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Haran, Nahor, Serug, Benjamin, etc., were common, or of a common form, during the general period ascribed by Genesis to the Patriarch's wanderings and in the general area whence Abraham and his seminomadic group migrated, a fact not true of the later period in Palestine when the Yahwistic traditions were definitively written down. The Genesis description of Patriarchal life and wanderings, including the places where they temporarily settled on the central Palestinian ridge, fits accurately into what is now known about the tribes of ass nomads, which were in the process of becoming sedentary during the major part of the 2d millennium b.c. Even journeys of such nomads to Egypt and their quasi settlement there on the fringe of the "sown" are well exemplified during this period from non-Biblical sources. Finally, many of the customs and institutions found in Genesis are now known not to have been those of Israel and judah in the later monarchical period but ones found in sources from the mid-2d millennium b.c. from Nuzi and Mari, sources that were themselves records of more ancient customs that were prevalent in the general northern Mesopotamian region.

The honest historian should therefore conclude that Israel's remembrances of its origins, although not to be classified as history by intent and plan, were nevertheless rooted in history. Israel's traditions evoked a response of faith from those who believed in the God who chose the Patriarchs, which is not contradicted by what is now known of Near-Eastern history during the Middle Bronze (c. 2250 to c. 1500 b.c.) and Late Bronze Ages (c. 1500 to c. 1200 b.c.).

The Exodus. Israel's remembrance of its originally happy and then bitter sojourn in Egypt was so strong that it could not possibly have been legend. There would have been no reason to emphasize an inglorious period of servitude in a saga of a nation's origins. Probably not all the tribes descended to Egypt or remained there for such a long period as is ordinarily thought. The Rachel tribes, Joseph and benjamin, elements of the Levi tribe, and sections of Judah and simeon, probably entered Egypt during the Hyksos period and dwelt for a long period on the northeastern fringe of the Egyptian Delta, "in the land of Gesen." There they were able to continue their traditional raising of sheep and goats (Gn 47.3–4).

Once this minority group began to be numerous and after Egyptian nationalism had reasserted itself against the Hyksos dynasty, as happens so often in human history, the nationalists began to persecute and enslave the growing minority group and eventually forced them to leave. The memory of this escape from Egyptian oppression remained throughout Israelite history the foremost example of God's saving protection for Israel, a theological conception that goes beyond mere human history [see exodus, book of].

Desert Wandering. The exact details of the desert journey of the Israelites and its stages have been lost in the liturgical and religious accounts of God's great saving act found in the Bible. The ancient traditional site of Mt. horeb or sinai has recently been called into doubt, so that some scholars map out a completely different route than the commonly accepted one; but the reasons for identifying Mt. Sinai with a mountain in the southern part of the Sinai peninsula still remain credible. The quasi settlement of the exiting Israelite tribes around Kadesh in southern Palestine is of more certain historicity. Here the nomadic tribes took a long step forward in their process of settlement. They learned more advanced social customs from the Madianites (Exodus ch. 18) and made some attempts to move more deeply into the ridge land of Palestine from the south, joining forces with neighboring tribes such as the sons of Caleb and the Kenites. Their experience with Yahweh at the time of their pilgrimage to Sinai became, however, the central magnet, the centripetal force, that made tribes of varying background cling together until they finally established a theocratic nation.

This process was directed by God's spokesmen and representatives, such as moses, joshua (Son of Nun), the judges, and King david. Recently, historical criticism has returned to a more positive view concerning the historicity of Moses and has rescued him from being a legendary figure. There are no strong reasons for doubting that he was the leader of the Exodus, the organizer of Israel's basic religio-civil laws, and the inspired teacher of their faith.

Date of Exodus. When the formative egress from Egypt took place is still a disputed question. The arguments for dating the Exodus in the 15th century b.c. are being more and more discounted, while those indicating the 13th century are gaining probability and adherents. Some of the reasons for the latter theory are: the pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty (13th century b.c.) resided in the Delta, where they carried on extensive building programs (cf. Ex 1.11–14); the kingdoms of the edomites moabites, and Ammonites are now known not to have existed before the 13th century, yet Israel's journey in the Transjordan supposes their existence; archeology shows a distinct retrogression in arts and crafts in Palestine at the beginning of the iron age in the last half of the 13th century, which would indicate the displacement of a higher civilization by nomadic tribes, such as were the Israelites; excavations at Bethel and Lachish date a destruction of these cities in the last half of the 13th century, and, finally, the stele of Mer-ne-Ptah (1223 to 1211 b.c.) names Israel as a defeated foe but classifies them as a people and not as a country, i.e., they were not yet sedentary. The Exodus took place, then, about the mid-13th century b.c. during the latter part of the reign of Ramses II.

The Conquest and Settlement. The Book of josh ua simplified drastically the details of Israel's complex and slow conquest and settlement of the land later known by its name. The Book of judges indicates that the tribes of Judah and Simeon, along with allied, non-Israelite tribes, gradually conquered southern Palestine from the south and perhaps also from the east, over a rather long period that was not completed until David took jerusa lem and some upland Philistine cities in the beginning of the 10th century b.c. The Book of numbers and the Book of joshua recount that the main body of the Rachel tribes led by Moses and Joshua followed the Transjordanian pastoral route past Edom, Moab, and Ammon to penetrate Palestine from the east through the valley of the jordan, a constant gateway throughout history to Palestinian agricultural regions for invading Bedouin.

Time of Joshua. Although religious tradition attributed to the great hero Joshua, the successor of Moses as God's charismatic leader, many of Israel's victories that were not his or that took place after his time, he still remains the predominant leader in the conquest of central Palestine and not a mere creation of etiological legends [see etiology (in the bible)]. An initial victory at jeri cho followed by that at Bethel would have opened up for the Israelite tribes the main central ridge, which was sparsely settled at this time by seminomadic tribes similar, and probably related, to the main body of the Israelites. Other Israelite tribes, of long residence in the pastoral regions of northern Palestine, would have joined with their brothers, just arrived from the desert and their experience with Yahweh, to form at Shechem a greater Israelite federation by the acceptance of the Sinaitic covenant. This seems to be the historical background of Joshua's renewal of the covenant with Yahweh described in Jos 8.30–35 and chapter 24. Such a strong federation of nomadic tribes would have led some smaller enclaves, such as the Horites of Gibeon, to join with them in peaceful alliance (Joshua chapter 9), while the Canaanite city-states became alarmed and tried unsuccessfully to impede the growth of the Israelite federation at the battles of Gibeon (Joshua chapter 10) and the waters of Merom (Joshua chapter 11). Yet, at Joshua's death the Israelite amphictyony had really gained a strong foothold only in the hill region of Palestine. Much remained to be conquered from the three centers of strength, Judah and Simeon in the south, the Joseph tribes in the central region on both sides of the Jordan, and the northern tribes in Galilee. These Israelite islands were cut off from each other by Canaanite strongholds, such as Jerusalem and Beth-Shan, along with other cities of the Plain of Jezreel. Another, and eventually more serious, obstacle to Israelite expansion than the Canaanite population was the philistines, who had settled along the southern and central Palestinian coast shortly after the Israelites had established control of their pastures and vineyards located in the highlands.

Time of the Judges. The period that followed the original partial conquest saw Israel fighting constantly, now in one region, now in another, to maintain and expand its hold on the hill territory against three archenemies, the settled Canaanites, the aggressive and iron-armed Philistines, and the raiding camel nomads, called Madianites and Amalekites, who envied Israel's advance toward better food and stability. The repeated battles for existence brought leaders to the fore, who throughout the 12th and 11th centuries b.c. were scarcely able to maintain Israel's hold on the land given to it by Yahweh but who gradually strengthened Israel's sense of national unity. The main victory was the one at Taanach, by which control of the valley of Jezreel was won and a bridge was formed uniting the Joseph tribes with those of Galilee. Judah and Simeon remained in a somewhat cut-off position in the south, a division that was one of the causes for the later schism between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Near the end of this period of the Judges the Philistines won a great victory over Israel at Aphek (c. 1050). The central symbol of Israel's religious and national unity, the ark of the covenant, was captured, and its sanctuary at Shiloh was destroyed. The Israelites had come to a crossroads: to maintain their very existence they had to have a central leader around whom all the tribes could rally against the Philistines. Israel had to have a king.

UNITED MONARCHY

The forces threatening Israel's existence led to a popular demand for a nāgîd, a martial, charismatic leader who would direct Israel's army against its foes. This desire was reluctantly implemented by samuel when he anointed Saul as nāgîd (c. 1020 b.c.) and eventually led to the union of all the Israelite tribes under one melek, king, during the reigns of kings David and solomon.

Institution. Two varying accounts of the institution of the monarchy are juxtaposed in the First Book of sam uel. The first account (1 Sm 9.1–10.16; 11.1–15) describes how Yahweh Himself guided the secret election of Saul as king of Israel, how Saul defeated the Ammonites, and how the people acclaimed him as king. The other account (1 Sm 8.1–22; 10.17–27; 12.1–25) shows Samuel first resisting the popular demand for a king and acceding to it only because of a divine command (8.7,22). After Saul's election by lot, Samuel proclaimed the dire consequences of government by a human king (8.11–18) and in a menacing farewell discourse gave up his judgeship in the very act of exercising his role as prophet, i.e., spokesman for God (ch. 12). Both traditions are ancient, and from different points of view (to which all history is invariably subject in varying degrees) they transmit the essential facts—the need for centralized political and military control to defend against outside pressure and a nostalgic reluctance to give up the freedom of amphictyonic rule with its closer, more intimate ties with the ultimate nāgîd, God.

The type of kingship Saul exercised very likely resembled that of the kings of the recently established kingdoms of Ammon, Moab, and Edom rather than the allied tyrannies of the Philistines and the princelings of the Canaanite city-states. It was a national monarchy joining together under one warlord previously federated tribes. Much of the king's hold over these clans depended upon his success in battle and his loyalty to the basic religious elan that united Israel's disparate tribal loyalties. Thus, after Saul's initial victories over the Ammonites, the Amalekites, and the Philistines in the hill country and his repulse of Philistine attempts to invade Israelite highland strongholds via the narrow valleys leading eastward from the coast, he inevitably lost popular favor for his dynasty by the disastrous confrontation of Philistine chariots on the plain below Mt. Gilboa c. 1000 b.c. There he and his oldest sons died. Israel's collapse before Philistia seemed irremediable. Only another nāgîd, wiser and more popular than Saul, more loyal to the Yahwistic religion, and better versed in Philistine warfare could save Israel. Such a man was already upon the scene, and he gradually won over to himself the loyalty of all Israel—David, son of Jesse, of the tribe of Judah.

Reign of David. The ancient traditions recount the rise of David (r. c. 1000–c. 961) to prominence as a valiant warrior in Saul's militia, the jealousy of Saul that eventually led to David's life as the exiled leader of an outlaw band, and David's adventures as the prince of Ziklag in the employ of the Philistine ruler of Gath. These traditions have the form of popular sagas and are of different and variant origin, but they agree essentially in their picture of David as a very talented warrior and troubadour who could so charm the populace as to create violent jealousy in the unstable Saul. The loyalty he inspired in his small band of marauders and his partial friendship with certain Philistines gave him freedom to develop his power in the south, where he protected the established towns by his raids against pillaging nomads.

After Saul's death, David reigned as king in Hebron for about seven years and emerged, after Abner and Ishbaal were killed, as the only hero who could possibly save Israel from Philistine oppression. When the elders of the northern tribes had submitted to him and accepted him as the king of Israel, he wisely moved the capital to jerusalem, which had been conquered by his own army of loyal mercenaries, was not connected with tribal traditions, and was centrally located on the border between the southern and northern tribes. It became his own city, David's city, and he soon made it the central sanctuary for all Israel by bringing to it the ark of the covenant. He thus established a strong focus of unity for the northern and southern elements of Israel, although his reign always remained a divided one. He was separately the king of Israel (the north) and the king of Judah (the south) but never the king of a completely unified nation that had loyalties only to him.

By his victories over the Philistines, of which very little is known, and by his subjection of the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and aramaeans of central Syria and the Damascus area, David secured Israel from all its surrounding enemies. He thereby established a small empire whose extent was never matched under any other Israelite king. He organized the liturgy around the ark by favoring the survivors of the high-priestly clan of eli, which Saul had almost exterminated.

One problem he never solved was the dynastic succession to his throne. His sons were at odds with him and each other. Absalom rebelled against him with the aid of some of David's formerly strongest supporters and of the Benjaminites who were in favor of Saul's line. After this revolt was suppressed by his loyal mercenaries, David had to deal with another rebellion by the Benjaminites. When he was near death, his oldest remaining son, Adonijah, attempted to overthrow his favored son Solomon by claiming the kingship. David was finally forced to have Solomon anointed king while he was still alive.

The history of David in the Bible is mainly that of Jerusalem and his own family's vicissitudes. It is not a chronicle of his political and military achievements. But from the point of view of salvation history it laid down a theme that would be almost as strong throughout the remainder of Israelite history as the original Mosaic covenant and legislation, God's new covenant with Zion and the Davidic dynasty. Henceforth Yahweh would never completely desert Jerusalem or David's house. He would correct and punish, but He would never entirely reject His chosen and anointed leader, His messiah. This theme was to control the national perspectives and hopes of Israel especially after the absorption of the northern tribes by Assyria in the last quarter of the 8th century.

Reign of Solomon. The successes of David were consolidated and organized by Solomon (c. 961–c. 922 b.c.), who was fortunate to reign in a period when the great powers, Egypt and Assyria, were at their weakest, when the Sidonians were interested in maritime expansion and trade, and when the Aramaeans had not completely recovered from David's victories. Solomon and his kingdom were thus at peace, a peace ensured by the chariot army and garrisons that he established at great expense throughout his kingdom, of which the excavations at Megiddo have provided noteworthy evidence. He freely engaged in all kinds of commercial endeavors with the surrounding countries, allying himself with Hiram of Tyre in the production of metals and other trade and taking advantage of and exploiting the newly established camel trade over the vast wastelands of Arabia.

His building program included, besides the Jerusalem temple and royal palace, many fortified cities such as Gezer and Hazor, a fact confirmed by recent excavations. The phoenicians aided him with artisans and material, but the main body of his workers were enslaved Canaanites and other neighboring peoples, and even Israelites themselves were drafted into forced labor battalions in alarming numbers.

Solomon continued his father's attempts to break down tribal barriers in order to concentrate Israel around the throne. Twelve governmental units were established over which the king appointed prefects whose main duty was to collect enough tribute from each unit to provide for the royal court for a month each year. From even a rough estimate of this tribute the magnitude of Solomon's court and the terrible burden of taxation on the people are clearly apparent. The seeds of rebellion had been sown by such extravagance and economic imbalance.

Yet the 70 years during which David and Solomon ruled the united kingdoms were prosperous and fruitful for the Israelite people. They increased immensely, perhaps even doubled in the period. New towns and cities were founded. Arts and crafts were perfected. Literacy and literature became no longer an extreme rarity relegated only to a few scribes. The hebrew language, so glorious already in its oral transmission, entered its golden age as a written language in both prose and poetry. The economic oppression and draining of the still tribally oriented people, especially of the north, however, were factors too explosive to allow for a peaceful transmission of power to the next Davidic king. Add to the burden of maintaining the royal court the weakening of the pristine, centralizing Yahwism by syncretistic religious practices encouraged by Solomon's foreign harem and by his commerce with neighboring nations and one can easily see why the northerners shouted in the adamant face of Rehoboam, King of Judah (c. 922–c. 915), "What portion have we in David?" (1 Kgs 12.16).

ISRAEL AND JUDAH

Jeroboam I, King of Israel (c. 922–c. 901), led the northern tribes into a political and religious schism that lasted until the Assyrian destruction and colonization of the Northern Kingdom in the last quarter of the 8th century. After that, for another century and a half, the less important Southern Kingdom (Judah) carried on Israelite history until its destruction by the Babylonians in 587 b.c.

The Separate Kingdoms. Under the influence of prophetism (1 Kgs 12.21–24), hostilities between the two kingdoms were kept minimal, but Israel's enemies, especially the resurgent Egypt and Aram (Damascus), took military advantage of the breakup of the Solomonic empire. Early in Rehoboam's reign Shishak I, the founder of the 22nd Egyptian Dynasty (c. 935–c. 725), drastically reduced Judah's boundaries to its highland region and levied a heavy tribute that emptied Jerusalem's coffers. He must also have secured freedom for his commercial enterprises along the caravan route that led through Israel's western territory. (A stele of Shishak has been unearthed at Mageddo, the city guarding the main north-south caravan route over Mt. carmel.) Hostilities between Israel and Judah continued during the short reign of Rehoboam's son Abijah (c. 915–c. 913). In the reign of Asa, King of Judah (c. 913–c. 873), Baasha (c. 900–c. 877) of Israel conquered Rama in a part of Benjamin previously occupied by Judah as a buffer region just north of Jerusalem and caused Asa to appeal to Damascus for aid. Henceforth Israel would have to contend constantly with Damascene incursions in Galilee and Gilead.

The Northern Kingdom in the meantime had already given evidence of a problem that would sap its strength throughout its existence—its dynastic instability. Baasha had usurped the throne by murdering Jeroboam's son Nadab in the second year of his reign (c. 901–c. 900); but Baasa's dynasty lasted only into the second year of the reign of his son Elah (c. 877–c. 876), who was murdered by Zimri. Zimri in turn was killed within a week. A civil war then broke out in Israel, and only after four years did one of the strongest of Israel's kings, Omri, secure his throne (1 Kgs 16.22).

Omri. King Omri (c. 876–c. 869) changed Israel's capital from Tirzah to the city of Samaria, thus orientating his economic outlook toward the prosperous land of the Phoenicians. He cemented relations with Phoenicia by marrying his son Ahab to a Sidonian, Princess Jezebel, and thereby gained an important ally against the continuing harassment of the Aramaeans. In Transjordan Omri retook Medeba and won tribute from the Moabites, as attested by the mesha inscription. He made such an impact among the neighboring nations by strengthening Israel that even after his dynasty's violent end the Assyrians continued to refer to Israel as the House of Omri.

Ahab. Omri's son Ahab (c. 869–c. 850) continued to follow a policy of useful alliances by concluding a pact with Asa's son Jehoshaphat of Judah (c. 873–c. 849) and by the marriage of his daughter (or sister) Athalia to Jehoshaphat's son Jehoram (r. c. 849–c. 842). Continued commercial ties with Phoenicia aided the economy, and the Moabite tribute remained a source of income. Only the Damascenes caused trouble, but they were eventually defeated by Ahab near the Sea of Galilee (1 Kgs 20.22–34). An alliance was made between the two states to confront the Assyrian advance under Shalmaneser III into Syria. At the battle of Karkor (853 b.c.) Shalmaneser won a victory against a coalition of 11 kings, among whom were numbered those of Israel and Damascus; but it was so indecisive that he withdrew to Assyria. After the Assyrian threat was over, Israel, in league with Judah, again tried to win back from Damascus the former Israelite territory around Ramoth in Gilead, but it was defeated when Ahab was killed in battle.

The gravest threat to Yahwism arose at this time as a consequence of Jezebel's propaganda for Baal worship. The details of prophetic reaction to the resulting syncretism are found in the sagas of elijah and elisha recorded in the Books of kings.

Ahab's son Joram of Israel (c. 849–c. 842), brother and successor of the short-lived Ahaziah (c. 850–c. 849), allied his kingdom with Judah and Edom in an attempt to reconquer the rebellious King Mesha of Moab, but the coalition, after an initial victory, was repelled, and Moab remained independent. Relations with the Aramaeans remained fluid: Israel was allied with them against the threat of Assyria, but whenever the Assyrians retreated, the two countries renewed their rivalry. Judah during this period was very much involved with Israel's campaigns and lost control of much of its southern sphere of influence after the disastrous defeat by Mesha.

Jehu Dynasty. The Omri dynasty and its Queen Mother Jezebel, an ardent devotee of Baal, were slaughtered by a military uprising led by a certain Jehu (2 Kgs9.1–10.11) and abetted by Elisha and his brother Prophets, who were reacting to the favoritism shown to Baal worship under the Omrides. Jehu (c. 842–c. 815) became the founder of the last strong dynasty of Israel. He tried, it seems, to destroy the Davidic dynasty and take control of Judah, for, when he wiped out the Omrides, he killed also Jehoshaphat's grandson Ahaziah, who was king of Judah for only one year (c. 842). But he never succeeded in this, either because soon after his usurpation he was hardpressed by Hazael of Damascus (2 Kgs 10.32–33), who conquered Transjordan as far as the Arnon, or because Athalia, the Queen Mother of Ahaziah of Judah, quickly seized power by murdering all his sons except an infant one. The pressure from Damascus became even more intense under Jehu's son Joahaz (c. 815–c. 801), and Israel lost much of its territory and most of its army (2 Kgs 13.7). However, Damascus' strength was greatly curtailed by an Assyrian siege of that city in 802, and Joahaz's son Jehoash (c. 801–c. 786) was able to win back the Israelite territories taken by Hazael, a reconquest brought to completion under Jehoash's son, the great King Jeroboam II (2 Kgs 14.25–27).

Jehoash and Amaziah of Judah. In Judah, after Athalia's short reign (c. 842–c. 837), the only remaining son of Ahaziah, Jehoash, enjoyed a long but rather disastrous rule (c. 837–c. 800), which was plagued by Aramaean invasions and was ended by his assassination when he was still in his forties. He fostered, however, a popular reaction to the Baal worship that had been introduced in Jerusalem by Athalia. He reformed the appropriation of temple revenues to insure that the priests would not become rich to the detriment of the necessary repairs of the temple's buildings and furniture (2 Kgs 12.5–17).

The son of Jehoash of Judah, Amaziah (c. 800–c. 783), began his reign well by a victory over the Edomites, which reopened for him the lucrative commerce with arabia; but he antagonized Jehoash of Israel, who conquered the Judean army at Beth-Shemesh and sacked Jerusalem, thus disturbing the long peace between the fraternal kingdoms. The crisis led to Amaziah's murder, the result of a palace rebellion (2 Kgs 14.19).

Jeroboam II of Israel and Azariah of Judah. A period of peaceful prosperity followed for both kingdoms during the long reigns of Jeroboam II (c. 786–c. 746) in Israel and of Azariah (known also as Ozia or Uzziah; c. 783–c. 742) in Judah. Since Damascus and Assyria were impotent at the time, Jeroboam was able to regain the fullest expanse of Israel and to enrich his country by commercial enterprises. Not all the populace benefited by this prosperity; the Books of amos and hosea bear witness to the extravagant luxury of the rich and the miserable poverty of the poor during Jeroboam's rule.

The prosperity in Judah was more evenly distributed but not so equitably as to prevent the recriminations against the rich, as described in the Books of isaiah and micah, dating from shortly after this period. Azariah continued his father's policy of controlling and exploiting the southern caravan routes from Arabia and may even have dominated the commercial routes passing through Philistia (2 Chr 26.6–8). After having become a leper (2 Kgs 15.5) he ruled for eight years (c. 750–c. 742) through his son Joatham (who reigned c. 750–c. 735) before he died. Extra-Biblical evidence (see J.B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 282–83) attests that a Syrian coalition was led by Azariah (c. 743) against the reawakening power of Assyria under Tilglath-Pileser III. The Jehu dynasty had passed from history with the assassination of Jeroboam's son Zechariah (c. 746–c. 745) by the usurper Shallum only six months after he had ascended the throne. Assyria was on the march, and the whole Palestinian and Syrian coastland was threatened.

The Fall of Samaria. Tiglath-Pileser III (called also Pul, the name he took when he became King of Babylon), by victories over Urartu, had freed his armies for campaigns in Syria. Menahem of Israel (c. 745–c. 738), who had killed Shallum a month after the latter's seizure of the throne, was forced to pay tribute to Tiglath-Pileser in 738.

Aramaean-Israelite Revolt. After Menahem's son Pekahiah (c. 738–c. 737) was killed by an anti-Assyrian faction led by Pekah (c. 737–c. 732), it was not long before Pul reacted to the Israelite revolt that, in the meantime, Pekah had strengthened by making an alliance with Rezin, King of Damascus. While Israel and Damascus were trying to force Judah, now ruled by Ahaz (c. 735–c. 715), into their anti-Assyrian coalition by threatening to replace him by Ben Tabeel, the Assyrians were busy in the north, giving the final blows to Urartu. It was in these circumstances (c. 735) that the Prophet Isaiah encouraged Ahaz to trust in Yahweh alone (Is 7.1–16), but Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-Pileser for help and sent him a vassal's tribute. In 734 the Assyrians marched on Philistia to cut off any aid that might come to the coalition from Egypt, conquering a good part of Galilee as they passed through it. They then turned on Damascus, took it in 732, and in the same thrust captured Israel's possessions in the Transjordan. The kingdom of Israel was thus reduced to the small highland area around Samaria, while a large part of the Israelite population of the occupied territories was deported and their land given to colonists from other regions of the Assyrian Empire. The Assyrians had found a practical plan for deterring the repetition of a vassal's rebellion [see deportation (in the bible).]

Last Days of Samaria. Israel's misfortune led to another palace revolution. Hosea assassinated Pekah, quickly sent tribute to the Assyrians, and was thus allowed to reign (c. 732–724) as a vassal king over a very reduced kingdom. Ahaz made his vassalage official by submitting to the Assyrians at Damascus and thus rendered any move that Judah might attempt against Assyria an act of rebellion. At the same time the Assyrian religious cult was forced upon Judah, and Yahwism was endangered (2 Kgs 16.3–4, 10–18).

The next Assyrian King, Shalmaneser V, in the course of a campaign against Tyre (725), invaded Samaria and laid siege to its capital. King Hosea, who had vainly hoped to receive military aid from the King of Sais in the Egyptian Delta and had refused to give his annual tax to Assyria, was taken prisoner by Shalmaneser. But the city of Samaria withstood the siege for almost three years. A few months before Shalmaneser died (Dec. 721) it fell to the Assyrians and was destroyed. Sargon II of Assyria, who boasted of this conquest in his inscriptions because it took place in his accession year, deported most of the remaining inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom to northern Mesopotamia. Thus Israel disappeared from history. Its deported people lost their identity in foreign lands. The people who remained in the land were mixed with the new colonists, and many of them succumbed to the new religions formed by the amalgamation of various pagan creeds with an already watered-down Yahwism. Those who remained true to Yahweh were the ancestors of the later samaritans. The history of the Israelite people and their religion was henceforth to continue in Judah alone.

Judah until Its Fall. Since the invasion of Judah by Sennacherib, King of Assyria, is certainly to be dated in 701, and since it occurred in the 14th year of Ahaz's son Hezekiah, King of Judah (2 Kgs 18.13), the date c. 715 for the beginning of Hezekiah's reign seems better than that indicated by the synchronism afforded by 2 Kgs 18.1–2, 9–10. Hezekiah had a long reign (until c. 687) in a period that saw the greatest extent (even into Egypt) of the Assyrian empire. That the tiny kingdom of Judah was not completely absorbed by the mammoth empire, as Israel had been absorbed, remains one of history's tantalizing problems. Sacred history has given an answer that transcends the historian's purview: Judah was saved because of a religious and, hence, also a national revival that procured for it Yahweh's protection. Whatever his judgment of this theological interpretation, the historian must admit that Judah could not have had a national renewal without a preceding religious renewal.

Hezekiah. During the first half of Hezekiah's reign the times were generally propitious for his reform. Assyria had temporary troubles at home, and except for the campaign of the Assyrian army against Ashdod in 712 (Is 20.1), Palestine was left in peace until Sennacherib's invasion of Judah in 701. The reform, which wiped away the Assyrian cultic importations, was motivated by the pure Yahwism preached by Isaiah and Micah. It then, apparently for the first time, attempted to destroy all local sanctuaries, even those dedicated to Yahweh, and to make the temple in Jerusalem the sole focus of the orthodox cult. The vital school of religious thinkers behind the attempt, probably never successful in Hezekiah's reign, remained dormant under the long and idolatrous reign of the weak Manasseh, to reappear in its full vigor under King Josiah of Judah.

The campaign of Sennacherib (705–683) as recounted in the Bible may be a telescoping to two separate Assyrian expeditions, one in 701, the other quite some time later. This would explain the appearance on the scene of the Egyptian King Taharqo (the Theraca of 2 Kgs 19.9), who did not begin his reign until c. 685. Another possible explanation is that in 701, after Sennacherib had quickly reduced to rubble most of Judah and while he was just about to crush some stubborn fortified cities (Lachish and Libna) more essential to his coastal campaign than Jerusalem, an Egyptian army, anachronistically said to have been under the command of Taharqo (who was only nine years old at the time), advanced from the south. It was in these circumstances that a plague broke out in the Assyrian army, and Sennacherib was forced to return home, leaving Judah devastated and Jerusalem "like a shed in a melon patch" (Is 1.8). The silence in the Assyrian royal records about such a setback is understandable, given the general success of the campaign and the relative unimportance of Jerusalem as an obstacle to an Assyrian invasion of Egypt.

Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah. Under Hezekiah's son Manasseh (c. 687–c. 642) a ravaged Judah returned to its vassal status, paying tribute to Esarhaddon in 673 and to Ashurbanipal in 668. The religious reform was suppressed and God's spokesmen, the Prophets, lay hidden. The next king, Amon (c. 642–c. 640), was murdered by his own officials, but another group started a counterrevolution and gained control of the small kingdom for Amon's son josiah when he was still a boy. Josiah reigned (c. 640–609) until his tragic death in the battle of Mageddo, when he vainly tried to prevent the Egyptian army under Neco from invading Syria.

Under Josiah a religious reform, with which the Bible is almost exclusively concerned, accompanied and abetted a national resurgence that was possible because of Assyria's entrance into a fatal decline. As the Judean political and military reorganization progressed, the reform expelled from the land all foreign influences, religious and cultural. The discovery in Josiah's 18th year of at least the legislative parts of the Book of deuteronomy (2 Kgs 22.3–23.24) gave added impetus and purpose to the renewal and led to the suppression of local sanctuaries and the concentration of priests in Jerusalem. Although the reform was shortlived, it expressed a religious fervor that was to survive the ruin of Jerusalem and the Exile and be developed and formulated in the homiletical sections of Deuteronomy and the doctrines of the Book of jeremiah.

When the cities of Asshur and nineveh were destroyed in quick succession (614 and 612) by the medes and chaldeans, the Judeans rejoiced to see their old archenemy Assyria humbled. Josiah was so eager to hasten the total destruction of the remaining Assyrian forces that he tried to impede the Egyptian pharaoh Neco from marching to their aid, and he was killed in 609 at the pass of Mageddo (2 Kgs 23.29–30).

Last Kings of Judah. After the death of Josiah the anti-Egyptian faction in Judah set his second-oldest son Shallum on the throne under the name of Jehoahaz. But after a reign of only threee months he was deposed by the Egyptians and taken a prisoner into Egypt.

The Egyptians then installed, as their puppet king of Judah, Josiah's oldest son Eliakim, who took the throne name of Jehoiakim. Despite the enormous tribute that Judah had to pay Pharaoh Neco, Jehoiakim received no substantial military aid from Egypt when the Chaldean King of Babylon, nebuchadnezzar, invaded Palestine in 603, and he was forced to become a vassal of Babylon. But three years later, egged on by Egypt, he threw off the Babylonian yoke. In 598 Nebuchadnezzar set out to punish his rebellious vassal in Judah. Jehoiakim, however, died on Dec. 8, 598 b.c., shortly before the Babylonian army encamped before Jerusalem.

As the only way to save the city, his son and successor, Jehoiachin, known previously as Conia, after a reign of only three months and ten days, offered himself, his family, his whole court, and most of the nobles as prisoners (March 16, 597 b.c.). This was the first deportation of Judeans to Babylon.

On the shaky throne of Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar set Jehoiakim's younger brother Mattaniah, who took the throne name of Zedekiah. Although his nephew Jehoiachin received a somewhat liberal captivity in Babylon, so that he survived to carry on the Davidic line, Zedekiah ultimately brought a tragic end both to himself and to his kingdom. Against the pleadings of Jeremiah, who continually counseled him to submit to Babylon, Zedekiah followed the popular, stubborn nationalism in more than once seeking help from Egypt to start a rebellion. In 589 Nebuchadnezzar marched. He laid siege to Jerusalem in January 588, sent detachments to storm other Judean strongholds, and at the approach of the Egyptian king Apries (588–568) stirred up the false hopes of the fanatic defenders by sending most of his sieging forces against the Egyptians. But Egypt proved false once more: they withdrew across the sands, and Jerusalem remained alone the focus of Babylonian fury. In August 587 a breach was made from the north, and Zedekiah fled southward down the Kidron Valley; but he was captured, blinded, and imprisoned. Jerusalem was laid waste by fire, and most of the people of Judah who escaped the sword were deported as slaves.

With their temple destroyed, their last two kings held captive, their towns and country smoldering ruins, the people of God bitterly faced exile and oblivion. Yahweh had rejected His own. Yet already in Babylon a man of visions, ezekiel, had seen God's glory coming from His Temple to hover over His faithful and purified remnant, to give them new hope, and to lead them back to their home.

POSTEXILIC PERIOD

With the reduction of the kingdom of Judah to a province of the Babylonian empire, the history of what was left of God's holy people Israel reached a crisis. A thorough break with Israel's past, spelling the end of the theocratic amphictyony and monarchy, was mysteriously and sacrally changed into a renewal of the past and a resurgence of the sole rule of the one God over the Judean remnant of Israel. This dynamic rejuvenation germinated among the higher classes of the people who had been deported to Babylon, and it kept on developing after its most fervent devotees had returned to Palestine. During the Persian period it emerged as the social reality now known as Judaism, a reality so durable that it was to defy every attempt to exterminate it in the periods of Greek and Roman hegemony and, in fact, in every period up to the present day.

The Exile. First of all, it is clear that much of Judah's population remained in Palestine even after a third deportation in 582, but they were a disheartened lot, leaderless, harassed by the Edomites who occupied southern Judah, still plagued by religious syncretism, and only capable of lamenting bitterly over the ruins of Jerusalem. The sole hopeful note in their situation was that Babylon had not mongrelized them by settling foreign colonists in their midst, as Assyria had done to Samaria. However, the future of Yahwism rested rather with those exiles in Babylon who would rather have forgotten their right hand than Jerusalem and all it meant for them [Ps 136 (137).5]. In a quite liberal captivity the deportees kept a semblance of their traditional social structure ruled by the elders, priests, and Levites. Even more importantly, however, their Prophets were allowed free reign to preach their gospel of a new Israel, a new Jerusalem, and a new covenant and law written in the hearts of Yahweh's people (Ez 36.26–27; Is ch. 40–55). The religious revival borrowed almost nothing from the Babylonian culture and cult. It was a revival that defies rational explanation. God had chastized His people, had led them out into the desert again, had spoken tenderly to them through His Prophets (Hos 2.16), and had raised up for them a new school of holy men, the scribes, who kept rehearsing for them the sacred lessons of their past. When cyrus, King of Persia, gave the most enthusiastic of them leave to go to Palestine in 538, it was truly "a holy nation" and "a kingdom of priests" (Ex 19.6) who lifted their packs and followed the Lord Himself as He led them toward zion.

Persian Period. The literary and chronological problems arising from the disarranged and lacunary sources for this era (see ezra, book of; nehemiah, book of) make it difficult to give an accurate account of its various phases. The summary that follows, therefore, claims merely plausibility for the sequence of events and their dates.

Restoration of the Temple. The exiles did not return in one great caravan; they kept coming back after 538 in separate groups and at various times. Sheshbazzar, apparently a son of Jehoiachin, the king of Judah who had been deported in 598, led the first group. Their hopes of rebuilding the temple were soon frustrated by the necessity of providing food and lodging for themselves in a depopulated and desolate land and by the opposition of the Samaritans, who considered Jerusalem under their control. The first resettlers succeeded only in leveling the temple area and arranging the foundations of the temple.

Another Davidic prince, Zerubbabel, succeeded where his uncle had failed. Encouraged by the prophetic utterances recorded in the Books of haggai and Zechariah and, perhaps, by the loosening of Persian control of Palestine while the king of Persia, darius i, was securing his throne, the Judeans, under the leadership of Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua, son of Josedec, began again in 520 to rebuild the temple. Against the Samaritans' objections, they were allowed, by an appeal to the original edict of Cyrus, to continue until they completed the reconstruction in 515. It was more than 20 years since the first group of the deported had returned. The glorious hopes of Deutero-Isaiah (Is ch. 40–55) had not materialized, but at least the temple had been restored. More than half a century would pass before a new religious reform led by ezra would pave the way for a political renewal under nehemiah that would culminate in the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls.

Reform of Ezra. According to the literary analysis of R. de Vaux (Dictionnaire de la Bible, suppl. ed. L. Pirot et al., 4:764–65), the collation or telescoping of Ezra's record of his religious reform with Nehemiah's memoirs by the Chronicler (who was not Ezra) is the basis for the confusion presently recognized in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. (For opposing opinions, see A. van Hoonacker and W. F. Albright in bibliography.) This opinion holds that in the 7th year of Artaxerxes I (458), Ezra, a secretary in charge of Jewish affairs in the Persian court, came, armed with a royal decree, to reorganize the Judean community in accordance with the law of Israel's God, in which he was an expert. He read the Law of Moses (not the whole pentateuch, of course, but more than just the Priestly code) to the assembled people, which they accepted by celebrating the rites of the feast of booths (Tabernacles). The law thus became the official constitution for the hieratic society. The outcome of Ezra's severe strictures on marriages with non-Jews is unknown, for his report ends abruptly. These strictures certainly caused a great commotion among the faithful and in all probability were not very effective, as is evidenced by Nehemiah's grappling with the same problem. Ezra's commission was temporary, and he probably returned to his duties in Babylon when it expired.

Reform of Nehemiah. Ezra's religious reform gave birth to a national resurgence that had as its primary object the rebuilding of Jerusalem's fortified walls. A first attempt was thwarted by the Samaritans (Ez 4.8–22), who, by going beyond Artaxerxes' command that the work of fortification should merely be interrupted until a further decision be made, destroyed what had been accomplished (Neh 1.3; 2.3). Nehemiah, a high official in the Persian court, heard of these events and won from Artaxerxes a commission to repair Jerusalem's battlements. Soon after he arrived in Judea (445), he received a further commission as temporary governor of the Judean enclave (Neh 5.14). He stood firm against the threats and connivances of the Samaritans and their Judean collaborators and completed the basic fortifications within a few months. He then proceeded to populate the city (Neh 11.1) and regulate its social institutions (Neh ch. 5). He returned to the Persian court in 433 but was again present in Judea some years later, when he was forced to reconfirm his reform by having the community solemnly accept the obligations of God's law (Neh ch. 10).

After Nehemiah's time until the Greek conquest, i.e., for about a century (until 333), hardly anything is known of the Judean ethnarchy. Thanks to the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, Judea had become a land ruled by its own sacred law and thus enjoyed a certain autonomy and even the power to coin its own money.

The Greek Period. Before the victory of Alexander the Great at Issus (333), Greek influences had already spread into Palestine, but soon after it the whole of the Near East began to take on a Hellenistic appearance.

Domination by the Ptolemies. After the confusion following Alexander's death, Judea became a liberally controlled border land of the kingdom of the Ptolemies until they lost control of Palestine in 198 at the battle of Paneion. Under this rule during the 3d century b.c. the Jewish diaspora grew, especially in alexandria, to whose Greek-speaking Jews the translation of the Hebrew Bible called the septuagint is usually attributed. In Palestine Jerusalem was allowed to retain its ethnarchic autonomy throughout the conflicts between the Seleucid Dynasty and the Ptolemies, which are alluded to in Daniel ch. 11. When Antiochus III finally succeeded in winning control of Palestine it was not long before the relatively peaceful existence in Jerusalem was disturbed by Seleucus IV and his brother antiochus iv epiphanes.

Maccabean Period. The history of the maccabees recorded in the Books of the Maccabees recounts the direst threat to the existence of God's people since the Babylonian deportation. Antiochus IV attempted to strengthen his hold on Palestine by destroying the core of Jewish unity, dedication to Yahweh's laws, by a thorough process of Hellenization. He attacked Judaism by forbidding the practice of fundamental Jewish customs, such as their dietary laws and circumcision, and by forcing them to idolatry.

The reaction was noble in its loyalty to Yahweh and its fierce bravery. Judas Maccabee led a guerrilla war that succeeded in repelling the Greek forces sent against his rebellion and in gaining enough victories to cleanse and rededicate the temple in 165 b.c., which had been desecrated by Antiochus in 168. After the death of Judas, his brothers Jonathan and Simon continued hostilities against the Seleucids, who were involved in a dynastic struggle. By playing one claimant for the Antiochean throne against the other, the Judean leaders were successful in winning Jewish independence. The hasmonaeans (the dynasty begun by Simon's son, John Hyrcanus) thenceforth ruled in Jerusalem until the Romans conquered Palestine.

The Roman Period. The Jewish sects of pharisees and sadducees, as well as the essenes and the qumran community, originated in the troubled Maccabean period and continued their bitter rivalry during the 1st century b.c. It was a land divided and ravaged by civil war between the two claimants to the royal high-priesthood of the Hasmonaean dynasty, Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, supported, respectively, by the Sadducees and the Pharisees, that the Roman General Pompey found when he marched on Jerusalem in 63. He demanded tribute from Judea and took from the rule of Hyrcanus, whom he allowed to serve as high priest, all the coastland conquered by the Hasmonaeans. An Idumean, Antipater, who had been continually aiding Hyrcanus's cause, during the civil wars that followed Caesar's rise to power and his assassination was quite adroit at staying in the favor of whoever gained control of the Roman Empire. His son herod the great finally succeeded in having the Roman Senate recognize him as King of Judea. In 37 Herod laid siege and took Jerusalem with Roman aid, killed Antigonus, the last Hasmonaean, and began his long rule, which was to last until 4 b.c.

Herod, like his father, cleverly changed policies to fit the changes in Roman politics. After the battle of Actium (31 b.c.) he submitted to Augustus and won a good deal of independence for the internal control of his kingdom, which was expanded to almost the extent it had under the most powerful Hasmonaean, Alexander Jannaeus. Of all his building programs, that of the reconstruction of the temple was the most important in Jewish eyes; but this half-Jew never won the support of his people, because of his fostering of emperor worship, his cruelty to his own family, and the opposition of the Pharisees.

After his death the Romans disregarded his disposition of his kingdom by dividing it between three of his sons, the Tetrarchs herod antipas, Archelaus, and Philip. In a.d. 6 Archelaus was deposed by the Romans on a complaint from the Jews, and the regions of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea were placed under the direct control of Roman procurators except for the period from 41 to 44, when Herod Agrippa (see agrippa i and ii) was allowed an internal control of Samaria and Judea. The increasing tyranny of the procurators, e.g., of Pontius pilate, despite the benign rule of Porcius festus, finally led to a Jewish rebellion in 66. It was put down with merciless efficiency in the campaigns of Vespasian and Titus between 67 and 70. Jerusalem with its holy temple was captured and destroyed in April of the year 70, and thus the political history of Israel ended. Its sacred history continued in that of Christianity and in the post-Biblical history of the jews.

Bibliography: r. de vaux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, suppl. ed. l. pirot, et al. (Paris 1928–) 4:729–77; "Les Patriarches hébreux et l'histoire," Revue biblique 72 (1965) 5–28. r. de vaux, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, tr. j. mchugh (New York 1961) f. schmidtke, Lexikon für theologie, ed. j. hofer and k. rahner, 10 v. (2d, new ed. Freiburg 1957–65) 5:803–09. a. alt and e. kutsch, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 7 v. (3d ed. Tübingen 1957–65) 3:936–44. w. f. albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (2d ed. Baltimore 1957); Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore 1946; 4th ed. 1956); The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra (New York 1963). m. noth, The History of Israel, tr. p. r. ackroyd (2d ed. New York 1960). a. van hoonacker, "La Succession chronologique: Néhémie-Esdras," Revue biblique 32 (1923) 481–94; 33 (1924) 33–64. j. bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia 1959). f. f. bruce, Israel and the Nations: From the Exodus to the Fall of the Second Temple (Grand Rapids 1963). l. johnston, A History of Israel (New York 1964). w. foerster, From the Exile to Christ: A Historical Introduction to Palestinian Judaism, tr. g. e. harris (Philadelphia 1964).

[j. e. fallon/

l. f. hartman]