The main problem is whether the account of David's rule has been exaggerated, or whether the attempt has been made to throw back to the time of the first king of all Israel later political conditions.
It is a natural assumption that Damascus could still count upon Israel as an ally in 842; not until the withdrawal of Assyria and the accession of Jehu did the situation change.
And of this last passage it may be said that all the translatable portions of it can be naturally explained, if it refers to the time when the resistance of the Hasidim, whom the Sadducees had despised and shunned, had won freedom for Israel as a whole, and at no other known period; the fragment, Ps.
There were only Asmonean princes, degenerate and barely titular sons of Levi, to serve as judges of Israel - and they were at feud and both relied upon foreign aid.
And meanwhile the religious convictions of the highest minds in Israel were undergoing a marked change.
He had stood in the beauteous land - the land of Israel - with destruction in his hand.
But the problem of fitting these into the history of Israel still remains The assumption that the earlier sources for the pre-monarchical history, as incorporated by late compilers, are necessarily trustworthy confuses the inquiry (on Gen.
Heathens felt in the religion of Israel an escape from their growing scepticism, and a solution to the problem of life.
The descendants of the detested Phoenician marriage were rooted out, and unless the close intercourse between Israel and Judah had been suddenly broken, it would be supposed that the new king at least laid claim to the south.
Opposition to social abuses and enmity towards religious innovations are regarded as the factors which led to the overthrow of Omri's dynasty by Jehu, and when Israel seemed to be at the height of its glory under Jeroboam II.