II. THE HISTORICAL USE OF THE MYTH

Scholars differ very greatly in their views as to the mythical element in Holy Scripture. There is a general tendency on the part of most critics to avoid the term. But, in fact, the term "myth" means nothing more than a primitive religious story as to the origin of the nation or race, or the association of its ancestors with the deity. There is nothing essentially polytheistic in the term. If, therefore, we distinguish between polytheistic mythology and monotheistic myths, there is no valid objection to the use of the term "myth" in connection with those stories of the origin of Israel, and the communion of the ancient heroes with the heavenly world, which are so primitive that they are beyond the reach of external history and criticism.

Take, for example, the story of the intermarriage of the daughters of men with the angels, in Gen. 64. If this story were found in any other sacred book but the Bible, no one would hesitate to regard it as a myth. Vain efforts have been made in recent times to explain away the angels in various ways, but no respectable commentator would countenance such a thing in our days. There can be no doubt whatever that the passage refers to angels. Why, then, should we hesitate to regard it as a myth? A myth is not necessarily untrue to fact; it is rather a popular, imaginative colouring of a conception of fact, or of a real fact. It is not necessary to deny that there was such a real union of angels with mankind, even if one hints that the form of the story is mythical.

It may be of value to listen to the words of several eminent scholars on this question. Dr. Moore discusses the question with reference to the story of Samson.

"The similarity, in several particulars, between the story of Samson and that of Herakles was early noticed. . . . Many modern writers have made the same comparison, and inferred that Samson is the Hebrew counterpart of the Phoenician Melqart, the Greek Herakles; and that the story of his deeds was either originally a cognate myth, or has taken up numerous mythical elements. . . . The older writers contented themselves with drawing

...

out the parallels to the Herakles myth; each begins his career of adventure by strangling a lion; each perishes at last through the machinations of a woman; each chooses his own death. Samson's fox-catching is compared with the capture of the Erymanthian boar, the Cretan bull, the hind of Artemis; the spring which is opened at Lehi to quench his thirst, with the warm baths which Sicilian nymphs open to refresh the weary Herakles; the carrying off of the gates of Gaza reminds some of the setting up of the Pillars of Hercules, others of Herakles' descent to the netherworld. Meier and Ewald even discover that Samson has exactly twelve labours, like Herakles (in late systems). Steinthal not only identifies Samson with Melqart-Herakles, but attempts to explain the whole story as a solar myth, by a thorough-going application of the method which Max Müller and his school introduced in Aryan mythology. He is followed in the main by Goldziher, Seinecke, and Jul. Braun. Wietzke identifies Samson with the Egyptian Herakles,' Horus-Ra. The Philistine women all represent 'Sheol-Tafenet'; the Philistines, with whom he is in perpetual strife, are the children of Set-Typhon. The tale of Samson follows the Sun-god through the year: Spring (chapter 14), Summer (151-8), Autumn, and Winter (158b-19); chapter 16 is his descent to the world below; he breaks the gates of Hades (161); bound by Delilah, he loses his eyes and his strength, but his might returns and he triumphs as a god over his foes (1640). The name is derived from 'sun.'... A legend whose hero bore such a name would attract and absorb elements of an originally mythical character, such as the foxes in the corn-fields, perhaps, represent; but if this be true, all consciousness of the origin and significance of the tale had been lost, and the mythical traits commingle freely with those which belong to folk-story. This explanation is at least as natural as the alternative, that an original solar myth has been transformed into heroic legend, with the admixture of a large non-mythical element. The historical character of the adventures of Samson may be given up without denying the possibility, or even probability, that the legend, which is very old, has its roots in the earth, not in the sky."1

A more cautious view is presented by Dr. Robertson. "Any traces of mythology to be found in the Old Testament are far less elaborate. They may be said to be mere traces, either remains of an extinct system or rudiments that were never developed, such as the references to the 'sons of God and the daughters of men,' Rahab, Leviathan, Tannin, and such like. These, it

1 Moore, The International Critical Commentary, Judges, 1895, pp. 364, 365.

should be observed, as they lie before us in the books, are handled with perfect candour and simplicity, as if to the writers they had become divested of all dangerous or misleading associations, or were even nothing more than figures of speech.""

III. HISTORICAL USE OF THE LEGEND

There is very much less opposition to the use of legend for the sources of biblical history. There are few real critics at the present day who would deny the legends which lie at the basis of the historical books of the Old Testament. These are simply highly coloured and richly ornamented stories of actual events which happened in the primitive times. They were handed down from father to son in many generations of popular narrative, passing through many minds and over many tongues, receiving in this way colouring, increment, condensation, changes of many kinds, which do not, however, destroy the essential truth or fact.

Ryle gives an excellent statement with reference to the early chapters of Genesis.

"The literature of Holy Scripture differs not widely in its outward form from other literature. In its prehistoric traditions, the Israelite literature shares many of the characteristic features of the earliest legends which the literature of other nations has preserved.

"What though the contents of these chapters are conveyed in the form of unhistorical tradition! The infirmity of their origin and structure only enhances, by contrast, the majesty of their sacred mission. In a dispensation where every stage of Hebrew thought and literature ministers to the unfolding of the purpose of the Most High, not even that earliest stage was omitted, which to human judgment seems most full of weakness. Saint and seer shaped the recollections which they had inherited from a forgotten past, until legend, too, as well as chronicle and prophecy and psalm, became the channel for the communication of eternal truths. "The poetry of primitive tradition enfolds the message of the Divine Spirit. Criticism can analyze its literary structure; science can lay bare the defectiveness of its knowledge. But neither in the recognition of the composite character of its writing, nor in the discernment of the childish standard of its science, is there any reproach conveyed. For, as always is the case, the instrument

1 Robertson, The Early Religion of Israel, 1889, p. 505.

of Divine Revelation partakes of limitations inalienable from the age in which it is granted. The more closely we are enabled to scan the human framework, the more reverently shall we acknowledge the presence of the Spirit that pervades it."1

Dr. Driver gives us his opinion as to one of the legends in the life of David.

"The narrative 17-185, precisely as it stands, it appears impossible to harmonize with 16123. The two narratives are in fact two parallel and, taken strictly, incompatible accounts of David's introduction to the history. In 16423 David is of mature age and a 'man of war,' on account of his skill with the harp, brought into Saul's service at the time of the king's mental distress, and quickly appointed his armour-bearer (vv. 18, 21). In 17-185 he is a shepherd lad, inexperienced in warfare, who first attracts the king's attention by his act of heroism against Goliath; and the inquiry 1755-58 comes strangely from one who in 161+23 had not merely been told who his father was, but had manifested a marked affection for David, and had been repeatedly waited on by him (vv. 21, 23). The inconsistency arises not, of course, out of the double character or office ascribed to David (which is perfectly compatible with historical probability), but out of the different representation of his first introduction to Saul. In LXX. (cod. B) 1712-31, 41, 50, 55-185 are not recognised. By the omission of these verses the elements which conflict with 161+23 are greatly reduced (e.g. David is no longer represented as unknown to Saul); but they are not removed altogether (comp. 1733, 38 ff. with 1618, 21b). It is doubtful, therefore, whether the text of LXX. is here to be preferred to MT.; both We. (in Bleek's Einleitung, 1878, p. 216), and Kuenen (Onderzoek, 1887, p. 392) agree that the translators or, more probably, perhaps, the scribe of the Hebrew MS. used by them-omitted the verses in question from harmonistic motives, without, however, entirely securing the end desired. The entire section 171-185 was, however, no doubt derived by the compiler of the book from a different source from 1614-23 (notice how David is introduced, 1712ff, as though his name had not been mentioned before), and embodies a different tradition as to the manner in which Saul first became acquainted with David." 2

There are many examples of the use of legends in their poetic form. Several of these are given elsewhere in this volume. It will be sufficient to cite one of them here.

1 Ryle, The Early Narratives of Genesis, 1892, pp. 136, 137.

2 Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Samuel, 1890, pp. 116, 117. 3 See pp. 390, 391, 393.

Joshua 1012-14 gives an account of a theophany at Beth-horon, which decides the battle in favour of Joshua and Israel. The poetic extract is from an ancient ode, describing the battle, which has been lost. It is a fragment of a strophe, taken from the book of Yashar, as stated in the context:

"Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon;

And thou, Moon, in the valley of Ayalon.

And the Sun stood still,

And the Moon stayed,

Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies."

But the previous context, Jos. 10", gives another entirely different prose legend of the theophany:

"And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, while they were in the going down of Beth-horon, that Yahweh cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with the hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword."

These two legends, the one poetic, the other prose, came from two different original documents, and were based upon two entirely different versions of the battle.

The dialogues and discourses of the ancient worthies are simple, natural, and profound. They are not to be regarded as exact productions of the words originally spoken, whether preserved in the memory of the people and transmitted in stereotyped form, or electrotyped on the mind of the historian or in his writing by divine inspiration; they are rather reproductions of the situation in a graphic and rhetorical manner, differing from the like usage in Livy and Thucydides, Herodotus and Xenophon, only in that the latter used their reflection and imagination merely; the former used the same faculties guided by divine inspiration into the truth, and restrained from error in all matters in which they were called to give religious instruction.

In the historical writings of Holy Scripture, there is a wealth of beauty and religious instruction for those students who approach it, not only as a work of divine revelation from which the maximum of dogma, or of examples and maxims of practical ethics, are to be derived; but with the higher appreciation and insight of those who are trained to the historian's art of representation, and who learn from the art of history, and the