ISHMAIAH
prompted
by
motives
that
were
in
part
well
considered,
if
on
the
whole
mistaken;
but
it
is
significant
that
Jeremiah
supported
Gedaliah
(40"),
in
memory
of
whose
murder
an
annual
fast
was
observed
for
some
years
in
the
month
Tishri
(Zee
7'
8").
6.
One
of
the
priests
persuaded
by
Ezra
to
put
away
their
foreign
wives
(Ezr
lO'*;
ct.
Ismael,
l
Es
9^).
R.
W.
Moss.
ISHMAIAH.—
1.
The
'ruler'
of
the
tribe
of
Zebulun
(1
Ch
27").
2.
One
of
David's
'thirty'
(1
Ch
12').
ISHUERAI.—
A
Benjamite
chief
(1
Ch
8»).
ISHFAH.
—
The
eponym
of
a
Benjamite
family
(1
Ch
8").
ISHPAN.—
A
Benjamite
chief
(1
Ch
8«).
ISH-SECHEL.—
In
Ezr
8i>
it
is
said:
'And
by
the
good
hand
of
our
God
upon
us
they
brought
us
a
man
of
understanding,
of
the
sons
of
Mahli,'
where
RV
gives
for
'man
of
understanding'
the
marginal
proper
name
'Ish-sechel.'
That
a
proper
name
is
required
is
certain,
but
whether
Ish-sechel
is
that
name
is
not
so
certain.
Isaachar
has
been
suggested.
W.
F.
Cobb.
ISHVAH.—
Second
son
of
Asher
(Gn
46",
1
Ch
7").
ISHVI.—
1.
Third
son
of
Asher
(Gn
46",
Nu
26«
P,
1
Ch
7");
patronymic
Ishvltes
(Nu
26").
2.
Second
son
of
Saul
by
Abinoam
(1
S
14").
ISIiAKD,
ISLE.
—
The
Heb.
word
'I
means
primarily
'coastlands,'
but
sometimes
lands
in
general,
and
in
one
passage
(Is
42")
'
dry
land
'
as
opposed
to
water.
In
Is
20«
Palestine
is
called
'
this
isle
'
(
AV,
but
RV
'
coast-land
').
The
islands
of
the
Gentiles
or
heathen
(Gn
IW,
Zeph
2")
are
apparently
the
coasts
of
the
W.
Medi-terranean;
the
'isles
of
the
sea'
(Est
10',
Ezk
26"
etc.)
are
also
the
Mediterranean
coasts;
'the
isles'
(Ps
72"
etc..
Is
42"
etc.)
means
the
West
generally
as
con-trasted
with
the
East.
Tyre
is
mentioned
as
an
isle
in
Is
23',
and
here
perhaps
the
term
may
be
taken
literally,
as
Tyre
was
actually
at
that
time
an
island.
The
isle
of
Kittim
(Jer
2",
Ezk
27«)
is
probably
Cyprus,
and
the
isle
of
Caphtor
(Jer
47*
mg.),
Crete.
In
the
NT
five
islands
are
mentioned:
Cyprus
(Ac
4»
11"'-
13*
15*»
21S.
i«
27<),
Crete
(27'-
«.
is.
21),
aauda
(v.'«),
MeUta
(281),
and
Patmos
(Rev
1»).
E.
W.
G.
Masterman.
ISUAOHIAH.—
A
Levite
in
the
time
of
Hezekiah
(2
Ch
311S).
ct.
Semachiah.
ISUAEL
(1
Es
g<»)
=
Ezr
10"
Isbmael.
ISUAERUS
(1
Es
g»)
=
Ezr
10«
Amram.
ISRAEL.
—
I.
HrsTORT.
—
1.
Sources.
—
The
sources
of
Jewish
political
and
religious
history
are
the
OT,
the
so-called
Apocryphal
writings,
the
works
of
Josephus,
the
Assyrian
and
Egyptian
inscriptions,
allusions
in
Greek
and
Roman
historians,
and
the
Mishna
and
Talmud.
Modem
criticism
has
demonstrated
that
many
of
these
sources
were
composed
by
weaving
together
previously
existing
documents.
Before
using
any
of
these
sources
except
the
inscriptions,
therefore,
it
is
necessary
to
state
the
results
of
critical
investigation
and
to
estimate
its
effect
upon
the
historical
trustworthiness
of
the
narratives.
Genesis,
Exodus,
Leviticus,
Numbers,
Deuteronomy,
and
Joshua
(the
Hexateuch)
are
the
product
of
one
long
literary
process.
Four
different
documents,
each
the
work
of
a
school
of
writers,
have
been
laid
under
tribute
to
compose
it.
"These
documents
are
quoted
so
literally
that
they
can
still
be
separated
with
practical
certainty
onefroraanother.
The
documents
are
the
Jahwistic
(J),
composed
in
Judah
by
Ji
before
B.C.
800,
perhaps
in
the
reign
of
Jehoshaphat,
though
fragments
of
older
poems
are
quoted,
and
supple-mented
a
little
later
by
J2;
the
Elohistic
(E),
composed
in
the
Northern
Kingdom
by
Ei
about
b
c.
750
and
expanded
somewhat
later
by
E^;
the
Deuteronomic
code
(D),
com-posed
by
Di
about
B.C.
650,
to
which
D^
prefixed
a
second
preface
about
ninety
years
later;
the
Code
of
Holiness,
compiled
by
Pi
about
B.C.
500
ora
little
earlier,
the
priestly
'
Book
of
Origins
'
written
by
P2
about
b.c
460,
and
various
supplementary
priestly
notes
added
by
various
writers
at
later
times.
It
should
be
noted
that
D'
added
various
notes
throughout
the
Hexateuch.
"The
dates
here
assigned
to
these
documents
are
those
given
by
the
Graf-Welluausen
school,
to
which
the
majority
ISRAEL
of
scholars
in
all
countriea
nowbelong.
The
Ewald-Dillmann
school,
represented
by
Strack
and
Kittel,
still
hold
that
P
is
older
than
D.
For
details
see
Hexateuch.
Judges,
1
and
2
Samuel,
and
1
and
2
Kings
were
also
compiled
by
one
literary
process.
The
compiler
was
a
follower
of
D,
who
wrote
probably
about
600.
The
work
received
a
supplement
bj^
a
kindred
writer
about
660.
The
sources
from
which
the
editor
drew
were,
for
Judges,
Samuel,
and
the
first
two
chapters
of
Kings,—
the
Jand
E
documents
InJg
6
a
poem
composed
about
b.c.
HOC
is
utilized.
The
editor
interpolated
his
own
comments
and
at
times
his
own
editorial
framework,
but
the
sources
may
still
be
distin-guished
from
these
and
from
each
other.
A
few
additions
have
been
made
by.'a
still
later
hand,
but
th^e
are
readily
separated.
In
1
K
3-11
a
chronicle
of
the
reign
of
Solomon
andan
old
Temple
record
have
been
drawn
upon,
but
they
are
interwoven
with
glosses
and
later
legendary
material.
In
the
synchronous
history
(1
K
12-2
K
17)
the
principal
sources
are
the
'Book
of
the
Chronicle
of
the
Kings
of
Israel'
and
the
'Book
of
the
Chronicle
of
the
Kings
of
Judah,'
though
various
other
writings
have
been
drawn
upon
for
the
narratives
of
Elijah
and
Elisha.
The
con-cluding
portion
(2
K
18-25)
is
dependent
also
upon
the
Judsean
Chronicle.
In
all
parts
of
Kin^
the
Deuteronomic
editor
allows
himself
large
liberties.
For
details
see
artt.
on
the
BooliB
of
Judges,
Samuel,
and
Kings.
Chronicles,
Ezra,
and
Nehemiah
are
all
the
result
of
a
late
literary
movement,
and
came
into
existence
about
b.c.
300.
They
were
composed
under
the
influence
of
the
Levitical
law.
The
history
was
re-told
in
Chronicles,
in
order
to
furnish
the
faithful
withan
expurgated
edition
of
the
history
of
Israel.
The
chief
sources
of
the
Chronicler
were
the
earlier
canonical
books
which
are
now
found
in
our
Bibles.
Where
he
differs
from
these
he
is
of
doubtful
authority.
See
Chronicles.
A
memoir
of
Ezra
and
one
of
Nehemiah
were
laid
under
contribution
in
the
books
which
respectively
bear
these
names.
Apart
from
these
quotations,
the
Chronicler
coniposed
freely
as
his
point
of
view
/^uided
his
imagination.
See
Ezra
and
Neheahah
[Books
of|.
Of
the
remaining
historical
books
1
Maccabees
is
a
first-
rate
historical
authority,
having
been
composed
by
an
author
contemporary
with
the
events
described.
The
other
apocryphal
works
contain
much
legendary
material.
Josephus
is
for
the
earlier
history
dependent
almost
exclusively
upon
the
OT.
Here
his
narrative
has
no
inde-
gendent
value.
For
the
events
in
which
he
was
an
actor
e
is
a
writer
of
the
first
importance.
In
thenon-Israelitish
sources
Israel
is
mentioned
onlj^
incidentally,
but
the
in-formation
thus
given
is
of
primary
importance.
The
Mishna
andTalmud
are
compilationsof
traditions
containing
in
some
cases
an
historical
kernel,
but
valuable
for
the
light
they
throw
upon
Jewish
life
in
the
early
Christian
centuries
.
2.
Historical
value
of
the
earlier
books,
—
If
the
oldest
source
in
the
Pentateuch
dates
from
the
9th
cent.,
the
question
as
to
the
value
of
the
narratives
concerning
the
patriarchal
period
is
forced
upon
us.
Can
the
accounts
of
that
time
be
relied
upon
as
history?
The
answer
of
most
scholars
of
the
present
day
is
that
in
part
they
can,
though
in
a
different
way
from
that
which
was
formerly
in
vogue.
Winckler,
it
is
true,
would
dissolve
these
narratives
into
solar
and
astral
myths,
but
the
majority
of
scholars,
while
making
allowance
for
legendary
and
mythical
elements,
are
confident
that
important
outlines
of
tribal
history
are
revealed
in
the
early
books
of
the
Bible.
The
tenth
chapter
of
Genesis
contains
a
genealogical
table
in
which
nations
are
personified
as
men.
Thus
the
sons
of
Ham
were
Gush
(Nubia),
Mizraim
(Egypt),
Put
(East
Africa?),
and
Canaan.
The
sons
of
Sham
were
Elam.
Assyria,
Mesopotamia,
Lud
(a
land
of
un-known
situation,
not
Lydla),
and
Aram
(the
AramEeans).
If
countries
and
peoples
are
here
personified
as
men,
the
same
may
be
the
case
elsewhere;
and
in
Abraham,
Isaac,
Jacob,
Esau,
and
the
twelve
sons
of
Jacob,
we
may
be
dealing
not
with
individuals
but
with
tribes.
The
marriages
of
individuals
may
represent
the
alliances
or
union
of
tribes.
Viewed
in
this
way,
these
narra-tives
disclose
to
us
the
formation
of
the
IsraeUtish
nation.
The
traditions
may,
however,
be
classified
in
two
ways:
(1)
as
to
origin,
and
(2)
as
to
content.
(For
the
classification
as
to
origin
see
Faton,
AJTh
viii.
[1904],
658
fl.)
