• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Tanakh - Textual Criticism

The framework for the composition of much of the Bible is circumscribed only at the end. While it may be difficult to fix the earliest possible date for the composition of many texts, it may be much easier to set the latest possible date. Manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, fix the latest possible date of several texts in the third century BC, most notably the book of Samuel.

The story of Samuel is told in the first of the two books of the Old Testament which bear his name. The work as a whole is of utmost value, as it deals with a period of Jewish history on which no light has yet been shed by Babylonian, Assyrian, or Egyptian inscriptions. Modern scholars who think that these books are a compilation find each of the two sources in the account given of Samuel. The later narrative is not only much fuller, but accords to Samuel the preeminent position that he occupies in biblical tradition. Bearing in mind the general religious character of the later narrative, it is not surprising to find incidents introduced which are intended to illustrate the narrator's conception of Israel's past. So the opposition of Samuel to the kingdom is supposed by some scholars to reflect the general view of a later period which looks with disfavor upon the whole period of royalty and regards its institution as the fatal step in Israel's history.

In the opinion of some modern critics the books are a compilation of several documents more or less skillfully pieced together, with editorial comment and additions revealing the point of view from which the compiler or compilers regarded the past. The compilatory hypothesis seeks to account for alleged duplication of incidents, contradictions, and inconsistencies in the work as its stands. For example, it is believed that we have two accounts of the choice of Saul as king, two versions of David's introduction to Saul, two narratives of the death of Saul; little effort seems to have been made to harmonize the chief sources at the disposal of the compiler;. the older is characterized by its graphic style and by the simple, straightforward manner in which events are narrated, the younger by the introduction of religious views which reflect the standards of a later age and by judgment of events according to those standards. The older narrative is assigned by these scholars approximately to the ninth century BC, the later to the eighth century.

The first combination of the two sources by a redaction is supposed to have taken place in the seventh century, before the reforms instituted by Josiah (620 BC), but it is thought that in the present form of the two books may be detected a subsequent recension made with the view of bringing the narrative into accord with the religious standpoint of Deuteronomy. It is assumed that this was done mainly by the addition of summaries at the end of important sections and by the expansion of certain incidents which lent themselves to a homiletical sentiment. Other additions are thought to have teen made by a later school of editors of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, while after the separation of the Books of Samuel from the Books of Kings the appendix (2 Sam. xxi-xxiv) was added to the former embodying miscellaneous fragments, and to this late period likewise the insertion of the psalm known as the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 1-10) is assigned.

The Jews formerly reckoned the two Books of Chronicles but as one which was entitled the Book of Diaries, or Journals, in allusion to those ancient journals which appear to have been kept among the Jews. The Books of Chronicles, indeed, as well as those of Kings, were in all probability copied, as to many of their historical relations, from these ancient chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah.

The First Book of Chronicles comprises a period of 2989 years, and contains an account of the genealogies of the patriarchs from Adam to Jacob, (ch. i.); the sons of Jacob, with the genealogy of Judah to David, (ch. ii.); the posterity of David to Zerubbabel, (ch. iii.); a second genealogy of Judah, and the genealogy of Simeon, (ch. iv.); the genealogies, exploits, and captivity of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, (ch. v.) ; the genealogy of Levi and Aaron, with the offices and cities of the priests and Levites, (ch. vi.); the genealogies of Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Asher, (ch. vii.); the genealogy of Benjamin to Saul, with the children and descendants of Saul, (ch. viii.); the first inhabitants of Jerusalem, after the captivity, (ch. ix. 2—34.); the pedigree, defeat, death, and burial of Saul, (ch. ix. 35 —44. x.); the history and transactions of the reign of David, (ch. xi.—xxix.)

The Second Book of Chronicles embraces a period of 469 years, from the accession of Solomon, A.M. 2989, to the return from captivity, A.M. 3468; containing an account of the piety, wisdom, riches, and grandeur of Solomon, (ch. i.); his erection and consecration of the temple, &c.; the remainder of his reign, and death, (ch. ii.—ix.); the accession of Rehoboam; the division of Israel; and the plundering of Jerusalem by Shishak, (ch. x.—xii.); the reigns of Abijah and Asa, kings of Judah, (ch. xiii.—xvi.); the reign of Jehoshaphat, (ch. xvii. —xx.); the reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah; the usurpation of Athaliah, (ch. xxi.—xxiv.); the reigns of Amaziah, Uzziah, and Jotham, (ch. xxv.—xxvii.); the reign of Ahaz, (ch. xxviii.); the reign of Hezekiah, (ch. xxix.—xxxii.); the reigns of Manasseh and Amon, (ch. xxxiii.): the reign of Josiah, (ch. xxxiv. xxxv.); the reigns of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah; the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the temple ; and the edict of Cyrus for the return from captivity, (ch. xxxvi.).

This book appears to have been compiled before that of Nehemiah, by whom it is cited (Neh. xii. 23), though the genealogy of the descendants of Zerubbabel is said to be brought, down much below the time of Ezra; for if the Zerubbabel here, mentioned were the fame who conducted the people back from the captivity, the account may have been swelled by collateral kindred; or possibly encreafed by a subsequent edition. It is clear that the Book of Chronicles marks a very noteworthy advance upon the records in the (canonical) Book of Kings. It is now recognized that the compiler of the former has used many novel narratives of a particular edifying and didactic stamp, and scholars are practically unanimous that these are subsequent to the age of the Israelite monarchy and present a picture of historical and religious conditions which (to judge from earlier sources) is untrustworthy. At the same time various details (as comparison with the Book of Kings shows) are relatively old and, on a priori grounds, it is extremely unlikely that the unhistbrical elements are necessarily due to deliberate imagination or perversion rather than to the development of earlier traditions. The religious significance of the past is dominant, and the past is idealized from a later standpoint.

The textual critic strives with the question, What was the earliest written form of the Hebrew Bible? Scholars are very far from being able to give an entirely satisfactory answer; at the same time it cannot be denied that there have been memorable advances along a path where there will hardly be need to retrace steps. Knot after knot has been untangled, obscurity after obscurity cleared up, and a broad light diffused over the sacred page. But the solution of one problem is often found to open up a still profounder problem. At the very best, however, when all the documentary aids have been exploited to the utmost, there will still be a considerable residuum of dissatisfaction. Often enough the critic must feel that the text, in none of its attested forms, can be the original, that some primitive error lies still farther back, disturbing or hiding the sense first intended.