..xriitiiiniiiiiiiiiiinilillllllllfllllUllinillllllllillllllf Division B5l\Tfc Section •H6)6'3 THE EARLY RELIGION OF ISRAEL VOLUME II. ^^:^:^^^ OCT 12 1909 ^ Karly Religion of Israel AS SET FORTH BY BIBLICAL WRITERS AND BY MODERN CRITICAL HISTORIANS BY JAMES ROBERTSON, D.D. Professor of Oriental Languages in the University of Glasgow VOLUME II THOMAS WHITTAKER, 2 & 3 BIBLE HOUSE. NEW YORK. CONTENTS. VOLUME 11. CHAP. XI. THE JAIIAVEH RELIGION, PAGE 1 XII. ETHIC MONOTHEISM, 34 XIII. AUTHORITATIVE INSTITUTIONS — THEIR EARLY DATE, . 6.S XIV. AUTHORITATIVE INSTITUTIONS — THEIR RELIGIOUS BASIS, 99 XA'. THE THREE CODES, ...... 130 XVI. THE LAW-BOOKS, XVII. LAW AND PROPHECY, XVIIL CONCLUSION, . NOTES, . INDEX, . 166 195 222 255 286 CHAPTER XL THE JAHAVEH RELIGION. The Jahaveh religion characteristic of Israel— The points to be examined in this chapter: I. Its origin; II. Its specific initial significance— I. Origin sought for in (1) Indo- Oermanic; (2) Assyro-Babylonian ; (3) Egijptian ; (4) Eenite ; and (5) Canaanite language or religion— Con- clusion that it is distinctively Israelite — //. Significance — Etymological considerations — Critical derivation, " Thun- derer " — Biblical derivation — Historical considerations in its favour— Importance of determining the initial significa- tion of the name— If it is of Israelite origin, and intro- duced under definite historical circumstances, it must have a specific signification — The other explanation is open to the following objections: (1) There is no evidence that Jahaveh urns a tribal God ; (2) No reason is given for the substitution of the name Jahaveh for El; (3) Stade's- proofs are a confusion of early and late, and give no intelligible account of the initial significance of the pre- prophetic conception of Jahaveh — Conclusion that higher qualities were there from the first. The thing that distinguished Israel in early times from the surrounding nations, and in later times, was their contribution to the religious good of the world, was the possession of the Jahaveh religion. Even if we admit that, as is maintained, Jahaveh was only to them what the gods of the nations around them were to their worshippers, they had this, at least, as a distinctive mark; and it was from it as a germ that the purer religion of the i)rophets was de- 2 Frniy Belicjio}! of I.vad. vclopcd. Even if, in pre-prophetic times, the national religion was of a low type, at the bottom of it lay the belief that Jahaveh was Israel's God; nay, even if they thought it no sin to employ the names of heath- en deities in forming proper names and so forth, they were all the time professors of the Jahaveh religion, and the fnost that can be said is, that they bestowed on Jahaveh Himself those names that other nations applied to their gods. I have advanced considera- tions to show that the positions referred to as to the low character of the pre-prophetic religion are not by any means established. But I insist upon this point now, that even if they were established, the great problem has still to be solved. Two points, mentioned in a former chapter,^ still remain to be demonstrated: (1) We must be shown the origin of the Jahaveh religion, and it must be seen to have such distinctive marks as will make it characteristic of Israel, and bind them together at the most critical period of their history; and then (2) the process of development must be pointed out by which, in well- marked historical stadia, it rose to the religion which is described as ethic monotheism. Brietiy put, we must have an explanation of the Jahaveh religion at both extremities of its development, at its start and at its final development: and it is incumbent on those who refuse to take the Bil)lical account of the matter to present us with another tliat will stand the test of historical criticism. Tliey must show us {a) the source of the Jahaveh religion; {b) its specific initial significance; and (c) its historical development from ' CliHpter vl. p. 166. The Jahavch EeJirjion. 3 the lower to the higher stage. A consideration of the first two of these three points will be the subject of this chapter. I. In regard to the origin of the Jahaveh religion, as in regard to otiicr distinctive features of the his- tory-, investigations have been pursued in various directions with the view of discovering, if possible, some point of contact with o.nd dependence upon other nations with which Israel was brought into connection; and different investigators have thought that they have discovered either the actual name Jahaveh, or the idea which it expresses, in the languages and religious conceptions of different peo- ples. Inquiries of this kind are perfectly legitimate, and often lead to most instructive results. The issue of them, however, must be carefully noted. When, for example, Wellhausen says that Nabiism passed over from the Phoenicians to Israel at a certain time, that is not a final explanation of Israelite prophetism. Even if the fact were as he asserts — and it depends very much on his assertion — there still remains to be explained how the '• passing over " took place at such a time, and the more difficult fact that it passed over into so different a phenomenon; and for both these circumstances Ave have to fall back upon some pre- disposing cause, and some inherent capability in Israel. Similarly, sliould it be proved that the name Jahaveh, or the idea denoted by the name, is found among some other people, we are no nearer the so- lution of the problem. First of all, we are driven a step farther back in our search for its origin, and have to explain wlience that other people got it; and 4 Early Religion of Israel. secondly, we have to account for Israel's adopting it; and lastly, we have to explain why it became, in their hands, quite a new thing. The investigations that have been made in the di- rections indicated are interesting and exhaustive. The name, or the idea which it expresses, has been in turn sought for in (1) Indo-Ger manic; (2) in Assyro-Babylonian; (3) J]gyptian; (4) Kenite; and (5) Canaanite language or religion. We must brief- ly consider the arguments advanced for these various views. (1.) An Indo-Germanic source of the name has been sought by some scholars. Thus Yon Bohlen,^ referring to the varying forms, Jave, Jaho, and Jao {laoo)^ under which the name appears in writings of the Jews, Samaritans, and Christian fathers, says that '^in this shape it is clearly connected with the names of the Deity in many other languages " — Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit — and that the original form Avould have been Jali. This opinion has been pronounced by J. G. Miiller^ as ^'not lightly to be set aside." The idea is that the Indo-Germanic root div = shine, which lies at the basis of Jovis or Diovis, is to be recognised as also underlying the Hebrew tetragram- maton, which originally may have sounded Javo, Jevo, Jove, orJeva. But the connection of the Indo- Germanic root with the Ileln-ow vocable cannot be made out so easily as is thus done. And there are two special diflicultics in the way of such a theory, — 1 Introduction to tho Book of ftonosis. Hoywood's Translation (1855), vol. 1. p. 131 f. Compare Vatko. Blbl. Thool., p. «i7-.>. - Dio Semtten in Ihrem Verh .Itniss zu Chamitou u. Japliothlten (187-2), p. 163 L The Jahaveh Ucli'jion. 5 (a) that if Jahavrh is ()rip,-iiially tin Iiivlo-Gcrmanic word coiTCS[)()ii(liiiii' to a root div^ whicli is widely diffused in these hmguages, it docs not appear to have passed over in this sense into the Semitic hm- guagcs generally, but only to have 1)een appropriated for a special name by a small and comparatively in- significant branch of them; and (b) more particularly, there is ah'cady in the Ilel)rew language, not to speak of other l)ranches of Semitic, a common root, hawcf, from which the name can be derived by an exact an- alogy with other proper names, like Isaac, Jacob, and so forth. Ilitzig^ sought in another way to derive the name, or rather the idea, from an Aryan source. The Ar- menian name of God is Astuads (Astovads) — /.c, astvat, 'Hhe becoming one''; and Ilitzig supposed that Moses — to whom he ascribes the introduction of Jahaveh as a divine name — retlecting on the truth and depth of the thought contained in this designa- tion of the Deity, adopted it in a translated form as the name of the God whose religion he taught. AVhat gives a colour of support to this ex- planation is, that some of the earliest traditions of the Hebrews seem to come from or to be connected with Armenia and the north-east generally. ^ There remains the difficulty, however, of explaining how Moses, in the land of Egypt, should have had a knowledge of the Armenian language, and should 1 Bibl. Theol. d. AUen Test., p. 37 f. 2 Dillmann. in a paper, " Uel)er die Herkunft der urffeachirhtHi-hon Sapen der Heliraer " (Sitzun{?sherichte der Akad. d. Wissenschaften zu BerUn. '^7 April 188-2), contondH tliat ii-aiiy (»'" th(^se fradition« iint f>idy have their couiiterparlrt in Hahyli'ni.ui htMiefs. hut an* tho coinnion property of other Eastern peoples. 6 Early BelUjion of Israel. have turned to that qii;;rt'T for an idea to denote his God. It* there is any truth in the theory at all, it would rather lead to a pre-Mosaic origin of the idea. And if the early Armenians expressed the idea they attached to God by a word denoting Being or Be- coming, it is possible to conceive that the family of Abraham, travelling from Bab^ion by that way, may have reached the same notion; and that thus the idea, kept as a primitive tradition down to the time of Moses, found expression in the tetragrammaton which was its translation. (2.) Turning now to another quarter, Friedrich Delitzsch Mias lately maintained that the name Je- hovah is of Assyro-Babylonian origin. The divine name Jau, he says, the Hebrews had in common with at least the Philistines, and probably with the Cana- anites generally; and it was in fact to distinguish their own God from the Jau of the other peoples that the name was modified to the Hebrew form, in the sense of the ''becoming one.'' But, he proceeds, this Canaanite name Jah (like most other Canaanite divine names) has its root in the Bal)yl()iiian pan- theon, answering to Ja-u (corresponding to Ilu), the supreme God of the oldest Babylonian system. The name, however, is the creation of the non-Semitic people of Babylon, though it came to the Canaanites through the Semitic Babylonians. The original Ac- cadian form of the name was /, wliich the Semitic T^abvlonians transformed into Jau, in which Ibrm it reached the ranaanites: so that, instead of forms like Jah, Jahu, being ;il)br('vi;itions of tlu* longer > Wo lag dus Puradios? (1881), p. 158 Ct. The Jahni'cli neUfjlori. 1 Jaliaveh, the longer Ibi'in was produced by surccssive iii>)dirtcatioii from the ijriniary iiioiiosyllabie /. Ari to t Ids opinion, it is just as conceivable, to say the least, tliat the full name Jahaveh became contracted into Jahu, Jan, Jo, or Jah, as that the converse pro- cess took place. We have a parallel example to il- lustrate the contracting process,M)ut the lengthening process, especially as described by Delitzsch, seems highly artificial; and, in point of fact, another com- petent authority,^' in examining the question whether the name Jahaveh can be traced to Accadian-Sumer- ian origin, denies that deities of the names Jau and i were ever recognised at all in those regions. In another way it has been attempted to prove that this name came from the same quarter. It is sup- posed that Canaanitc immigrants who wandered out from the region of the Erythraean Sea ^ and came in contact with Semitic peoples, brought this name with them, and that it was adopted into Semitic. In support of this view it is pointed out that Toi, king of Hamath, in David's time sent his son, named Joram, to salute David (2 Sam. viii. 9), and that the name of this son contains the tetragrammaton in an aljbreviated form, just as certain names of Hebrew personages do. There are other isolated cases found on the cuneiform inscriptions; but seeing that they occur at a period when the religion of Jahaveh was ' As has been pointed out, there is a complete analogy in the form yishtahaveh (rim."^'*!") regularly contracted into yishtahu /^MrTr"") ■ Friedrich Philippi in Ztschr. fur Volkorpsychologie u. Sprach- wissonschatt (1883). pp. 175-19 J. " In proof of such wandering, see Kunig's Hist. Krit. Lehrgobaude der Heb. Sprache. vol. i. (18H1) j). 14 f. The proof, he maintains is not invalidated by Budde, Die Biblische Urg<^8ohirhte (i8S3), p. 32'.) ff. 8 Early FicUg ion of Israel. loiiff the acknowledged religion of the Hebrews, it is perhaps safer to regard these as isolated instances of what was not uncommon — a non-Semitic people adoj)ting the name of a Semitic god into the circle of t!ieir deities. This is the view taken by Baudissin,' and also by Schrader, Avhose cautious remarks, in favour of a concurrent derivation of the name Jahve by the Hebrews and Assyrians, are worth referring to.' (3). Let us turn now to Egypt and see whether any light can be derived from that quarter. And here we have, (a) first the attempts to trace the name itself, as by Roth,^ who identifies Jahaveh with, or makes it a modification of, the Egyptian Joh, the moon-god. lie does not explain, however, how it was that the name of a god especially associated with the moon should have been bestowed on a deity of whose connection with the moon we liavo no trace; and it is very proljable that we have here nothing UKU'C than a fortuitous coincidence of two names which never had any connection in the minds of those who employed them, (b) On the other hand, not a few have thought that the idea expressed by the name is to be found in Egyptian sources, and may have been borrowed in Hebrew form by Israel in Egypt, {a) Plutarch mentions an inscription on the temple of Isis at Sais, in which a deity is described in terms re- sembling the '' I am that I am" denoted by Jahaveh 1 Der UrsprungdesGottosnamensIato, inhis Studien, vol. i. p. 223. 2 The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Test.. Eiig. transl., vol. 1. p. 23 JT. ^ ftoschirhto unsoror Abendl'indischon Philo.sopliie, Erster Band, 2to AutluKe (l«ped however, not as a living hull as in Efrypt. but In the form of a metallic imapre. 2 VorRftljjken.!'^ TJeschiod. van de E^'ypt. en Mesopot. Godsdien- 8ten. ]). .").V.). R )ni,>on(liurn. s; rr}. 3 Geschichte dos V()lkes Israel, vol. i. p. 130 f. The JaJiaveh Belirjion. 11 We have now, however, to look at another explana- tion, which regards the name of Jahaveh as one gradually adopted with other parts of religious be- lief and practice from the Canaanites in Palestine.^ As, however, this view has been successfully at- tacked by writers of the same general school of criti- cism, it may l)e sufficient to refer to what these latter have advanced in the way of refutation. The objec- tions urged by Kuenen against Land'-^ deserve special emphasis. He argues as follows: {a) It cannot ])e denied — Land himself admits it — that, in the strug- gles that took place between the Canaanites and the Israelites, there was involved a contest between the gods of the two peoples; and since at the close of the contest the Israelites and their God were victorious, it cannot be supposed that the deity who thus asserted his superiority was originally of Canaanite origin. Further, (h) not only have we, he contends, in the names Jochebed (Moses' mother), Josliua (Moses' contemporary), and Jonathan (Moses' grand- son) — in all which tlie name Jo or Jeho enters as an eleuient — an indication that the name was known to the Israelites independently of and prior to their contact with Canaanites; but also the song of De- borah, in which Jahaveh is repi'esented as coming from Seir, furnishes a plain i)roof that the God of the Israelites was conceived as having His original home outside of Palestine. Lastly, (c) he argues riglitly 1 This view was indeppiirlontlr put forward by Colonso (Pentateuch, Part II. chap. viii.). who attorwards discovorcd (P;irt VII. cha]). xix.) that he had been anticii)at(Hl by Hartinann, Von Boiilen, and Von der Mm.. It has also been advocateil l)y Dozv (Ue Israeliten te Mecca. Germ, transl., l,s6t, p. 3'.)), Land (Tlieol. Tijdschr., 1868, pp. l.-)C-17()), and Gohlziher (Mytliolo^'y amon;^' tlie Hebrews, Eng. tr., pp. 272, 290). - \W\\^. or Israel, vol. i. pp. ;j08-403. 12 Early Lellgion of Israel that the view under consideration deviates from the whole tenor ul' Israelite tradition, which gives no support to the sui)position that Jahaveh was a God of Canaanite origin. ^' I will not,"' he says, '' assert that the latter [i.e., the Canaanite origin of the name ] must be rejected on this account alone, bat I do assert that it is only on strong grounds that it can be accepted. In other words, it must be clearly and irrefragably proved that Jahaveh was really a god of the Canaanites. The evidence with which this is attested must be of such a nature as to leave no room for reasonable suspicion of Israelite or Old Testament influence. But such proof as this is not furnished."" ^ The principle which Kuencn here lays down is of wide application, — viz., tliat the clear testimony of the religious consciousness of Israel — in other words, a persistent tradition— is only to be set aside on the most undoubted positive proof. Kuenen himself is far from observing his own canon, and Wellhausen openly contradicts it;"^ although by rejecting it we cut ourselves away from any firm ground of historical criticism. Among the writers who seek to derive the name of Jahaveh from a Canaanite source reference may be made to Yon Bohlen,^ who would place the introduc- tion of the name as late as the time of David and Solomon. Some of his arguments are of little force, and lie has found few supporters of his view; but there is one argument he employs which, though not 1 In spite of Land's rejoinder in Tliool. Tijdschr.. iii. Bd., 1869. Pit 3J7-3f)2. Knenen's position may he Ijeld as proved. So Baudissln has on this point talion Kuencu's side, Studion. vol. 1. pp. 213- "JIS. - Hist of Israel, i)p. 31f». HIO. ■'• IntrfHl notion to Genesis, Heywood's transl., vol. i. p. 153 f. The Jahaveh Religion. 13 valid for liis puri)Ose, directs our attention to a fact wiiich is worth noting. He remarks that proper names compounded with the more primitive name of God, p]l, such as Israel, Samuel, disappear from his- tory more and more from David's time, and that names compounded Avith Jeho first appear in David's reign or about his time. Now it is a fact that this element does not appear widely in proper names be- fore the time of Samuel. We have the names of Joash, father of Gideon (Judges vi. 11), Jotham, Gideon's son (Judges ix. 5, 7), and Jonathan, grand- son of Moses (Judges xviii. 30). Besides these, we have two names before the time of Samuel — viz., Joshua, the companion of Moses, whose name is said to have been changed from Hoshea (Num. xiii. 16), and Jochebed, the mother of Moses (Exod. vi. 20). In view of these it becomes no longer a question as to the introduction of the name Jeho or Jahaveh in the time of David, but how we are to explain its ex- istence in the name of Joshua, Moses' contemporary, or, allowing that to be an altered name, in the name of the mother of Moses. It is known that whereas the Jahavist writer in Genesis freely uses the name Jahaveh in reference to times antecedent to that of Closes, the Elohistic writer retains faith- fully the distinction of the periods; but the name of the mother of Moses would lead us to conclude that even before the time when the God of Israel pro- claimed His sacred name to Moses at the bush, the name itself had been known beforehand in a nar- rower circle, or at Jeast in the family of Moses himself. And this view is adoi)ted by many of the ])est inter- 14 Farr,' Religion of Israel. \)\\U:Vi^^ On this subject Kucneii says, •• ^foscs can scarcely be siipi)Ose(l to have invented the name ' Jahaveh"; in all i)r()bability it was already in use, among however limited a circle, before he employed it to indicate El Shaddai, the God of the sons of Israel; "'- and to the same elfect Wellhausen^ says that Jahaveh was before Moses a designation for El, and that he was originally a god in the family of Closes or in the tribe of Joseph. On a review of this whole inquiry, therefore, wo need not wonder that Kuenen ^ comes to the con- clusion that the name is of Israclitish origin. It may be observed in passing that it is somewhat remark- able that the attempt should always be made to de- rive the religious conceptions of the Hebrews from non-IIebrcw sources, without supposing that an in- fluence in the opposite direction may have 1-ecn exerted, from the Hebrews to their non-Hebrew neighbours. It is no doubt the case that the tradi- tion i)laces the native place of Al)raham in Chalda^a, and it is natural to suppose that the progenitors of the Israelites were affected by the thoughts of the time and country from which they came, just as the nation w^as sensibly affected by contact \\\i\\ Egy])- tians and Canaanites. It must be remembered, how- ever, that the tradition ascribes Abraham's departure from his native land to religious impulse, and Renan has dwelt upon the circumstance that religious con- ceptions remain more pure and elevated among 1 A Hat of writers who take this view Is given by Kr.nig, Hauptpro- bleme, p. '11. 2 ReUg of Israel, vol. i. p. 279 f. 3 Hist, of Israel, p. 433. < Uelig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 3'J8. The Jahaveh Beligion. 15 simple nomads than among- civilised dwellers in cities/ The exhaustive inquiry, however, that has been made by scholars, has its justification in the conclusion to which it comes, that there is no out- side source from which it can be shown that the religion of Jahaveh was derived. The use of the name is, at least, as old as the time of Moses; and whether to any extent (which in any case must have been limited) it was known before his time, he has the distinction of having impressed it upon the consciousness of the people of his time in a special way as the designation of their national God, under the aspect in which He was distinctively made known to them, and by them to be exclusively rev- erenced. The unanimous voice of Israelite tradition is that the declaration, "I am Jahaveh thy God," was made through Moses. There is not the least hint in the recollections of the people that the name was proclaimed by any other person. Between Moses and Samuel there Avas no time at which we can conceive it to have been introduced; and tlie time of Samuel itself is but a time of revival and re- formation, after which it was not unnatural that the name of the covenant God, to whom the people's heart had again turned, should appear, as has been pointed out, more extensively in the formation of proper names. In opposition to all attempts at deriving the name or conception from a foreign source, and as showing how it was regarded throughout by the people of Israel as a distinctive possession of the nation, there 1 Hist. d'Israel, vol. i. chap. iii. 16 Early Belig ion of Israel stands the hard fact that in Scripture Jahaveh is ever the God of Israel alone. According to the views of the Hebrew writers, the non-Israelite has no part or right to Jahaveh, but knows only the gen- eral name of Elohim, God, or that of his own native deity. ^ In the mouth of such a one tlie name Jaha- veh would denote a strange god — i.e., the god of the people of Israel (cf. 1 Kings xx. 23 with v. 28). So when a Hebrew speaks to a non-Israelite, he is represented as using the name Elohim, and so also when a non-Israelite addresses a Hebrew. And in such cases it is noticeable that the name Elohim is sometimes construed with a plural verb (cf. 1 Sam. iv. 8), the narrator thereby assuming for the time the standpoint of the non-Hebrew speaker or hearer. This hard fact is no^ to be set aside by any vague etymological arguments. Even if it wore shown to be certain, or even probable, that the name or the conception of Jahaveh was got from some non-Israel- ite quarter at some time or another in history, it would remain beyond dispute that, on the one hand, the name thus borrowed disappeared from the lan- guage and thoughts of the peojile from which it was derived; and on the other, that it came very soon to be regarded as the exclusive and distinguishing possession of the pco]ile who borrowed it — a suppo- sition which, considering the attributes with Avhich Jahaveh was endowed, and the readiness of i)oly- theistic nations to retain the names of any number ' This is wpll broupht out by Tuch in liis Comin. to Genesis, second edition, p. xxxii. He refers to tlies.^ and otli'^r passncros : Jud^jeg i. 7, vii. 14 ; 1 Sam. iv. 7. 8, Jonah iii. 3. where with vei'ses 5. 8, 9, 10, compare 1 Sam. XXX. 15, xxii. 3. The Jahaveh Religion. 17 of gods, especiall}^ such as had vindicated themselves as powerful, is not to be entertained. II. \\q come now to inquire whether we can de- termine what precisely was the idea attached to this name among its earliest possessors, so as to disco- ver, if possible, wherein the inner potency of the Ja- haveh religion consisted. The introduction of anew name we would expect to be accompanied with a new reference, a new attitude, a new mode of re- garding the deity; and we naturally ask whether the name itself does not furnish its own explanation. Those who seek to prove that the religion of Israel was originally a nature religion, in which the power's of nature were deified, explain the name Jahaveh in keeping with this view. Thus Daumer ^ connects the verb from which it is derived with the idea of de- stroying, and makes Jahaveh 'Hhe Destroyer," an idea which suits his notion that Jahaveh and Moloch were originally names for the same deity. The more common view of those who similarly seek the source of the name and idea in nature religion, is that the verb from which the name is derived means to "come down," "fall down," and then in its transitive form "to send down" or "cast down"; according to which Jahaveh would be a Jupiter tonans^ the Being who casts the thunderbolt, or the lightning, to the earth. In support of this view, we are pointed to the fact that the verb in Arabic (hmva), which, letter for letter, corresponds to the Hebrew verb, has the sense of gliding freely, and particularly of gliding or falling down. This sense, it is said, actually 1 Feuer und Molochdienst, p. 11. 18 Early Relirjlort oj Israel. attaches to tlic Hebrew verb itself in one place at least (Job xxxvii. 6), ^^ He saith to the snow. Fall thou on the earth." The Biblical derivation of the word, as is well known, is from the verb in the sense ^'tobe"or '' become."' It may be that from such a primary- and material sense as that of "falling," the verb in He- brew came to have the more abstract and secondary meaning of becoming — viz., to ^^ fall out," " happen," "come to pass," as in Gen. vii. 6, "the flood was upon the earth." ^ This is certain, that the sense " to fall " can at most be only detected as adhering to the Hebrew verb, which has, however, appropri- ated to itself the one signification of becoming. In other words, from the eaj'licst time at which we know the language, this ATrb was the usual one em- ployed to express the idea of " being, "not, however, in the abstract sense of " existence," but in the sense of "becoming"; there was no other verb in the lan- guage with that signitication; the meaning of " fall- ing," if it originally belonged to it, had almost dis- appeared; and another verb altogether was emj^loyed to ex])ress that idea. We can (piite easily comprehend how a verb -* to fall," and then "to send down," could, among a jiolytheistic people, or even a monotheistic people at a.pi-imative stage of culture, furnish the ^farting- l)oint for a name of the deity. He would then be the Being who "sends down" rain, or thunder, or ' For tho Idoa of boinfr and beooTiiinj:. tlio ITobrow iinos almost oxrliiHlvoly hminh ri*.". httwuh ."".T-; hoinj; found in that sense f>nly In ])OPtlc urciialf j>assaso« : as in Oon. xxvii. "i'.'. v'hr>iv Jan V> Is Messed by Isauf. •• 15(> lord ov<>r thy bntlmui, " also Isa. xvi. i, tLo <.raclo on Moab. I,at(T writers are intlueneed by Aramaic. The J((h((vc]i IMUjlon. 19 whatever it might l)e. The name wouhl stand on the same level, or, I should say, a lower one, than such names as El^ or Shaddai, the ^' strong one,'' or Baal, Adon, ''lord," or Molech, "ruler ''; for any one of these gives a fuller significance to the Being so named. Against tliis origin of the name among the Hebrews, however, we have, besides the fact that there is no proof whatever of the Hebrews adopting a god of that name from Arabic tribes as Stade will have it, or of their attaching such an idea to the name of their national god, the stronger fact just alluded to, that the verb had appropriated to itself the sense of be, become, which would be transitively to cause. That is to say, assuming that such a name was formed or introduced at some historic time, at some time when the language contained the roots or stems it now possesses, the mere utterance of the name would call up in the mind of the hearer the idea of being, becoming, causing. And this is very much the same as saying that the person who intro- duced it wished to convey by it that meaning, since he could not but have seen that it would suggest such an idea. To attach to the name the other and more physical signification, would necessitate some proof that the name is of much older origin than the time of Moses, older tlian tlie language in the form in which we have it; and that — if the primary mean- ing of descender or sender down attached to it — there must have been a constant effort in the mind to retain this anticpiarian idea, and to exclude an- other which was soon suggested and iclnchivasmore exalted. For it is a point of the ;i,-reatest significance 20 Early Relirjlon of Israel. here, that the other names of God found among the Hebrews and their neighbours are connected with stems which are in the language and have a precise and intelligible meaning. On this line of reasoning, then, I should conclude, that from the time that the verb to be, to become, was a regular constituent element of the language, tlie name Jahaveh must of necessity, if it was later than the verb, have partaken of that signitlcation. Either the name Jahaveh was directly formed from an existent verb '^ to be "; or it was formed from a verb having the meaning to descend, which meaning, however, was, if not obliterated, yet certainly overshadowed, at the earliest known stage of the language, by another sense. Of course this argument proceeds on the assump- tion that those who used the name, or at least the thoughtful part of the nation when they used it, at- tached to it some signification, which is surely very likely, and in analogy with such names as Moloch and Baal, which could not but keep in the mind the ideas of kingship or lordship. It would surely be an extraordinary supposition that the Hebrews had got hold of a non-llebrew name for their deity which they used for a time without attaching to it any sense at all, and then read into it a meaning suggested by its resemblance to a common verb in the language. It is not certainly to be concluded tliat the bare etymo- logical meaning and no more would always adhere to a word; but if this name Jahaveh starts from the idea of being, or must have suggested that idea at its first use, the expansion of the conception in the The Jahaveh Religion. 21 minds of thinking persons would be in tlie line ol' the primary meaning. Now, as we have already seen, the name w^as introduced at what the tradition makes a pretty advanced stage in tlie development of the religion. By the time of Moses the Avliole patriarchal phase of it had run its course; and, according to the Biblical account, the earlier conception of the deity had been expressed by the terms El and Shaddai, embodying the simpler ideas of strength, i)ower. Stade himself tells us that in the pre-Mosaic religion, the name El was used to denote the native spirit or spirits, and the name Elohim is certainly old. And just as the abstract idea of being, or transitively the idea of causing, is one that comes comparatively late in consciousness, or at least does not come at the primi- tive stage, so the introduction of the name of Jaha- veh, ^' He who will be," or '' who will cause to be," marks a point of advance in the conception of the national God. It is therefore fitly placed in the time of Moses; for it cannot be denied that, as the whole consciousness of Israel looked back to the period of the exodus as a new era in their national life, so tlie belief that Jahaveh was their God from Egypt on- wards, as it is expressed by Ilosea, was deeply rooted in the nation's mind and heart. It seems to me that the frank recognition of this fact, so firmly embedded in the national life and literature, would go far to explain the striking phe- nomena which criticism has brought into clear light; and, on the other hand, that the refusal to accept it frankly has led modern writers to the precarious 22 Early Rel'Kj Ion of Israel. .shirtri and extrava^ij^ant pu.sitioiis wliicli mark liic course of their disciuisitions. They look I'or de- velopinent, Init tliey will not look for it at the right place. Instead of accepting the fact, that in the l)atriarchal period there was already a knowledge of God, at least on a level with, and presumably higher than, that of the polytheistic nations around Israel, they insist on finding the transition from the barest animal religion going on in a period after that stage had, for the enlightened part of the nation, passed away. Instead of accepting the fact that the name Jahaveh denotes a high stage achieved, they insist on starting with that name as embodying the most primary conceptions; and in tracing the develop- ment of the conception in the hands of the proi)hets, they neglect the clue given to the development in the possession of the name itself. I take my stand upon the assumption that this name must have had some meaning, some suggestion, to the thinking portion of the people, and must have, to an ap})recial)le ex- tent, controlled the conceptions of God which were raised in the mind by the mention of the name. There were other names — El, Elohim, Shaddai, Elyon. Baal, Molech — all of which may have been used to denote deity; but each and all of them have a specific meaning attached to them, and Jahaveh must have also had its meaning, a specific meaning; and being a special proper name, must have been intended to denote all the others put togetlier, nay, more than all the others combined, else tliere would have been no reason for the introduction of a new nam(\ The question is, V\'liat iras that meaning? If the name The Jahaveli Religion. 23 meant merely '-tlie one that sends clown rain'' or *niiunderer," I submit that that does not go beyond El or Shaddai, and would not therelbre entitle Jaha- veh to be selected as the highest name that the best could bestow on God. Tiiere is the verb ^^to be- come " lying patent as a verb with which to connect a name which comes to supplement or to comprehend all the other names. And the name is put at the very period when the nation's consciousness of a destiny before it is represented as appearing. All this cannot be fortuitous, nor is it likely to have oc- curred as a happy thought to the early writers who have left us these traditions. The conclusion seems well justified, that, with the use of the name Jahaveh, the idea seized the mind of Moses and his successors that the God they worshipped was one of ever-de- veloping potency, an ever self-manifesting, ever actively-defending God, whose character was not so much denoted by a quality as by a constant activity, or rather (judged by the analogy of similar personal names) by a person ever active; that in fact, as a nation does not die, so their national God would ever be with them. The name comes in at a definite histori- cal crisis in the nation's life, and was meant to indicate that the deity so named was concerned, not merely with natural phenomena, but with national and his- torical events. Let us try to think of Moses proclaiming to his people a new name that they had never heard before, or heard only as the name of the sender of the light- ning, and his saying to Israel — and with eifect — ' ' this Thunderer is to be your only God for all time 24 Early Eeligion of Israel. coming." The question ^oulcl naturally arise, "Who is Jahaveh that we should serve Him? We know what is meant by a ^Strong One,' a 'Lord,' a 'Master,' a 'Most High One' (for kindred nations had called their gods by such names as far back as we have knowledge, and why should the Hebrews be placed beneath them in intelligence?). But who is the sender of rain or of thunder any more to us than the deity we already worship? What is He to us, or what are we to Him in particular, that we should be thus wedded together? " The only answer that he could conceivably have given to such most obvious questions is, that Jahaveh had done some- thing for them to claim their regard. People do not set up gods for nothing. What then had Jahaveh done for them? Wellhausen comes to our aid (though Stade refuses to go so far), and tells us that the people had experienced His power in the deliver- ance from Egypt. ^ This is a reasonable account to give; but it only raises another question, ''Who was this that interfered on behalf of a nation of slaves in Egypt, and why did He interfere?" And the only answer that all these questions admit of is just the Biblical answer, ''The God of our fathers hath appeared to me: " in other words, there is a linking on of the deliveranc3 of the present to the recollections of the past; the God of Abraham is not dead, but alive and acting on behalf of Al)raham's seed; and in commemoration of the new deliverance, 1 W.^llliaiisen. Hist of Israel, pp. 429-433: of. here Kuenen, ReHg. of Isnicl. vol i p. '^TC ff. Stade will not even admit that the Israelites, In any appreciable sense, ever sojourned in Egypt. " If any Hebrew clan dwelt in Egypt," he says. " no one knows its name. "— Geschichte, vol i. p, i:e. The Jahaveh Religion. 25 and to mark a new era, He receives or adopts a new name, distinctive from mere appellations oi' deity generally, and the God of pre-Mosaic times is the same God in fuller manifestation still. Moses, says Prof. A. B. Davidson, ''stamped an impress upon the people of Israel which was never efiaced, and planted seeds in the mind of the nation which the crop of thorns that sprang up after his death could not altogether choke. Of course, even he did not create a nation or a religious consciousness in the sense of making it out of nothing. When he ap- pealed to the people in Egypt in the name of Jeho- vah their God, he did not conjure with an abstrac- tion or a novelty. The people had some knowledge of Jehovah, some faith in Him, or His name would not have awakened them to religious or national life. In matters like this we never can get at the beginning. The patriarchal age, with its knowledge of God, is not altogether a shadow, otherwise the hi.^tory of the exodus would be a riddle. Moses found materials, but he passed a new fire through them, and welded them into a unity; he breathed a spirit into the people, which animated it for all time to come; and this spirit can have been no other than the spirit that animated himself." ^ The importance of dwelling on this question of the meaning attached to the name of Israel's national God in its initial conception and at its first use will be self-evident. It brings to a point the sharp con- trast between the Biblical account of the matter and the views presented by writers of the modern criti- 1 Expositor, third series, vol. v. p. 42. 26 Earltj Pielir/ion of Israel. cal school. We may say, in a genera] way, that the various aspects of the pre-prophetic religion, as we liave seen them put forward in the preceding chap- ters, have this in common, that they represent the Jahaveh of pre-prophetic times as a being rather of might than of moral greatness, a nature-God rather than a God of nature, the only national God of Israel indeed, yet, except in this particular, very little if anything different from the gods of the surrounding nations even in the estimation of His OAvn worship- pers. Such representations of Jahaveh are the nat- ural development of the initial conception with which these writers start. Wellliausen says^ that ''no essential distinction was felt to exist between Jehovah and El, any more than ])etween Assliur and El; " and Stadc tells us that El denotes a super- human being, though not sharjily separated from na- ture in which he operates. Each place had its El, and the collective Elim or Eloliim was the sum of these, or the expression in a plural of majesty, of the power of these superliuman beings.^ According to the view of these writers, tlien, the name Jahaveh, given originally to a family or tribal god, either of the fam- ily of Moses or tribe of Joseph, as Wellhausen"' sup- poses, or of the tribe of the Kenites as Stade thinks, implied no more than El; only, having become cur- rent within a powerful circle, it ''was on that ac- count all the more fitted to become the designation of a national God." But if there is any force at all in the considera- 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 433. - Stadc, Ge.si-hi«.-2ile, vol. i. p. 428, ■i Hist, '.f Israel, p. 433. Tlie Jaliaveh Bellgion. 21 tions that have been put forward, that this name Jahaveh is not of foreign but of Israelitish origin, that as a separate and new name it must have indi- cated something more than other names already ex- isting, and that in its derivation or innnediate sug- gestion it liad the sense of '^becoming," then we must demand for tlie initial stage of the Jahaveh re- ligion a much higher level than the critical school al- lows. In addition to this general remark, there are the following points again to be insisted on: — (1.) There is absolutely no proof that Jahaveh was originally the name of a family or tribal god in the sense understood by these writers. Even if the name of the mother of Moses be taken as an indication that the name was known in the circle of his family, there is no proof that it denoted no more than El or a superhuman nature-spirit. (2.) And then no reason is assigned for the name Jahaveh superseding El or the Elim, if, according to the hypothesis, it signified no more than these names. Dilhnann remarks ^ that wherever an actual change in the religion of a people takes place, there is ever a historical consciousness of the fact pre- served among them. The assertion that this name was a special name of El, which had become current in a powerful circle, and on that account was all the more fitted to become the designation of a national god, is, in tiie first place, destitute of historical proof, and, in the second place, most improbable. If the introduction of the name was connected with some striking event, such as the exodus, we should 1 Urspruns der AUtesU. ReUgion, p. 6, quoted by Baudissin, Jahve et Moloch, p. 77. 28 Early Religion of Israel. expect the name to mark an advance — as the Bibli- cal writers represent — on the conception; but ac- cordin^j: to the modern view, Jahaveh still remains a nature-God: although a national God, His attributes are almost entirely physical. (3.) In the next place, though the proofs from Scrip- ture which Stade, for example, advances in support of his picture of the character of the pi-e-prophetic Jahaveh, are selected and manipulated in the extra- ordinary fashion to which reference has already been made,^ yet it is exceedingly difficult to form a con- ception of the character he seeks to delineate. He roams at will over Genesis, the historical books, and even the prophets, finding in later productions proofs of a low tone, and in the earlier books proofs of a high tone of religious thought, till it is absolutely impossible to make out wiiat the initial conception of Jahaveh, in his theory, could have been. An example may be taken from his treatment of the story of Elijah. At one time, in the midst of his argument to proT'e that Jahaveh's power was confined to His own land, he tells ^ us that Elijali, who fights valiantly in the land of Israel against the worship of Baal, yet goes and lives with a widow at Sarepta, who must have been a Baal-worshipper, and eats her food, which would be consecrated by ofiering to Baal — touches for which there is absolutely no warrant, and which make the character of the ^'prophet of fire," as drawn by the narrator, simply incomprehensible. Presently he tells us that in this same story of Elijah the belief finds expression that » In chap. vin. p. 205. 2 Stade. Geschichte. vol. 1. p. 480. The Jahaveh Religion. 29 Jahaveh accompanies His worshippers in their wanderings, for lie performs miracles at Sarepta at the prophet's request, and sends him back to his own land.^ This same belief, he says, is expressed in the promise to be with Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 15, J.), in His being with Joseph in Egypt (Gen. xxxix. 2, J.), and in His going down to Egypt with Jacob (Gen. xlvi. 3 f., J. and E.) And in order to prove the same thing he refers to a passage as late as Isaiah xix., where the prophet speaks of Jahaveh riding on a swift cloud and coming to Egypt, and the idols being moved at his presence. Similarly he proceeds in speaking of Jahaveh's power. The conceptions of all-mightiness and omniscience, we are told, are not yet reached. That He was not regarded as knowing all things is seen from the patriarchal stories, which speak, for example, of God going down to Sodom to see whether its con- dition was such as the cry represented it.^ Still the same God knows Sarah's thoughts, and the belief in the oracle shows that He was regarded as having a knowledge of secrets such as children ascribe to God. His power came in the same way to be represented by the religious sentiment as adequate to anything, as appears in the saying, ^ ' Is anything too hard for Jahaveh?" (Gen. xviii. 14); and in that other say- ing, "There is no restraint to Jahaveh to save by many or by few" (1 Sam. xiv. 6). So He performs wonders, shakes the earth, overthrows cities, pun- ishes His land with famine and plague, and slays men without any apparent disease. One other ex- 1 Ibid., p. 431. - Stade, Geschlchte, vol. 1. p. 432. 30 Early Beligion of Israel. ample may be given of Stade's reasoning. Tlie preponderance of the idea of miglit in the conception of God, he says, combined with the fact that in a primitive age the difi'erence between evil and mis- fortune was not apprehended, hindered men from regarding Jahaveh as a Being who always acted for moral ends. Traces of a higher conception are not indeed wanting in the pre-prophetic age. Jahaveh, as the defender of His people and of the land, is the guardian of moral customs, the avenger of broken covenants, and so far as concerns the relations of one Israelite to another, His will is the expression of moral and just rule.^ Thus He avenges a broken oath, and fulfils the prayer of the unjustly oppressed. Especially is He the avenger of innocent blood, which cries to Him from the ground (Gen. iv. 10, xlii. 22, E.) So, as He is the God of the land, He maintains law and order in it, punishing — e.g. , Sodom and Gomorrah — for breaking it. By such advances as these the idea of holiness was enlarged and puri- fied in later times. But in earlier times these ideas did not extend to the general course of events, and to the relation of Israelites to non-Israelites and the surrounding world. In such matters moral concep- tions are so little apparent, that God is the author even of evil. Men had not reached the belief in a world in which imperfection was necessarily in- volved, and of evil left for a time even for the sake of the good. Accordingly, wlien we would say (iod permits this or that, the ancient Israelite said straight out tliat Jahaveh did it.^ P]vil and misfortune are 1 Ibid., p. 434. *- Stade. Geschichte, vol. i. p. 435. The Jaliaveh Religion. 31 exprcsst'd by one word, ra ; and Amos says (iii. (i), "Is there evil in the city, and Jahavch has not done it?" And not only outward calamities, but the evil passions and inner impulses of men, are ascribed to Jahaveh; and, as among heathen na- tions, He is believed to make people mad, or leads them on to do things which will bring down His own wrath. Thus the schism of the kingdoms, the greatest misfortune to Israel, was from Jahaveh (1 Kings xii. 15). So He sends a l3'ing spirit among the prophets of Ahab, that the king may be led to go confidently against Ramoth-Gilead, and only the prophet Micali remains unmoved (1 Kings xxii. 20 ff.) So He sends an evil spirit between Abimelech and the Shechemites. And that this is not merely or in all cases a punishment for former transgression, is proved by the remarkable passage (1 Sam. xxvi. 19) in which David says to Saul, ^^If Jahaveh hath stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering; but if it be men let them be accursed of Jahaveh." This kind of reasoning may be carried out in- definitely, but though it ma}^ make a big book, it does not amount to a strong argument. Stade does not or will not see that by thus heaping together texts referring to different periods within or beyond the prophetic period indiscriminately, he is destroy- ing the position he holds tliat the prophetic religion is an advance on the pre-prophetic. And when he finds in such a writer as Amos, or even Isaiah, in- stances of the lower type of conception, what be- comes of the position that liigher types found in 32 Early Religion of Israel. Genesis, e.r/., are ^' signs of advance" or ^M^reaking down" of narrow views? What we want to know is the alleged initial stage at which the national God was no more than El^ a nature-God; and instead of this we get this mixing up of early and late which is quite unintelligible. The truth is, the difficulty he finds in reconciling the contradictory or conflicting statements of contemporaneous authori- ties arises simply from the fact that the '^ higher" or moral conception is present from the first. In opposition to all this kind of reasoning I would take my stand upon the reasonable principle, that in Avritings belonging practically to the same period the lower expressions are to be controlled by the higher, and that one statement in plain terms should outweigh any amount of metaphorical or figurative language. The Hebrew writers employ the boldest anthropomorphisms, for example; but as Stade himself says, this was a necessity for people unaccustomed to philosophical speculation: it is more, it is a necessity of religious language. Nor are they afraid to employ the most simple and child- like expressions; but there is ever the absence of gross conceptions, and ever and anon the utterance of the most exalted ideas, showing what the essen- tial character of Jahaveh, in their opinion, was. Side by side with the boldest anthropomorphisms are found the most spiritual expressions, and the same writers who speak of Jahaveh as having a local seat ascribe to Him control over all the nations of the world. In view of all this it is sheer trifling to explain the one set of expressions as rem- The Jahaveh Religion. 33 nants of a belief in a nature-God, and the other as signs of a breaking down of narrow views. The Hebrew writers, from the earliest times at which we have access to their words, are on a higher plane of thought than the modern critics will allow; and just because they arc so firmly fixed there, they do not hesitate to employ the boldest pictorial or meta- phorical language to express their thoughts. CHAPTER XII. ETHIC MONOTHEISM. The great objection to the modern account of the Jahareh religion — /. Necessity of 2^ostulating moral elements in JahaxeKs character, and how their origin is explained by Stade — Distinctive features in the Jahaveh religion as stated by him — Jealousy, and sole reverence — Examina- tion of this: (1) Are these really distinctive? (2) If they are really so, the theory is at fault, for no sufficient ex- 2ylanation of their origin is given — II. Transition to ethic monotheism — Distinction of monolatry and monotheism — Proofs of monolatry — Jephthah — First Commandment — Naming of gods of the nations — Kuenen's argument examined — Popular conception of power nourished by political events — Agreement of prophets with popular idea in fundamental principles — Bise beyond this on the ap- pearance of the Assyrian piower — Ajyjyeal again to earliest writing prophets, in ichom monotheism is not nascent, but fully developed — The prophets claimed to be the true interpreters of the fundamental principles of the religion — The attribute o/ grace or love which is mttde central by Rosea, gives the explanatio)i of the origin of the impular and the prophetic views. The difficulties in tlie -way of accepting tlie modern account are seen to ])c greatest when we inquire wliat it was tliat distinguislied the Jnhaveh religion from the religions of neighbouring nations. We are told ad nauseam the points in which it resembled ^ Etlilc lloiiothci'Sm. 35<: them; one feature after another is toned down to the level of nature or national religion. Yet the pre- prophetic religion must have had something distinct- ive to mark out the Israelites from their neigh- bours, and give them the pride in their national faith which they })ossessed. It must have contained, moreover, some germ which by way of development enabled it to rise to the so-called ethic monotheism of the prophets. We must now examine the modern theory as to these elements. I. Stade, in drawing his picture of the pre- prophetic Jahaveh as a national deity evolved from a nature-God, is bound, as we have seen, to put in licre and there features of a more elevated and moral character. All that he can say as to the origin of these higher conceptions is, that they arise not from mental reflection, but from religious feeling and impulse. In this way, for example, 'Hhe feel- ing arises" that Jahaveh, although the God of the land of Israel only, will accompany His worshipper into a foreign country; and also, ^Hhe confidence arises " that He will be more powerful than the gods of the heathen, just as Israel itself, when in cap- tivity, bursts its bonds. These two ideas blend into the conviction that Jahaveh, brought willingly or by force into a strange land, will there show His power by inflicting evil on the heathen gods, as happened to Dagon at Gath, and as is indicated in the pas- sage of Isaiah to which reference has already been made. And, more particularly, he strives to find, amid all the features that arc common to Jahaveh and the heathen gods, some distinctive characteris- 36 Early Religion of Israel. tics which will insure the Jahaveh religion having an independent existence and a possible dcATlop- ment. In this connection he lays particular stress on two things: — (1.) While the early Israelite conceptions of Jahaveh's power and holiness are in strict analogy with the heathen conception of their gods, there is one element, he says, which distinguishes the religion of Israel. The anger of Jahaveh takes the form of jealousy of the worship of any other God- which worship He avenges and punishes. And this idea, which attains its full developmoiit in the teacliing of the prophets, is an element of the Mosaic religion. On Stade's theory the power of Jahaveh is first of all thought of as a terrifying attribute, for He is the God of the storm, and the idea is not for some time reached that divine might must be exercised on the side of good. His holiness also is merely majesty jealous of its honour, and insisting on due reverence, so that the bounds between Him and man are not to be trespassed with impunity. Instances illustrating this are found in the judgments that befell the people of Beth-shemesh and Uzzah, for looking into or touching the ark, the symbol of His presence; and the idea is found as late as Isaiah (viii. 14), who speaks of a sanctuary as an object of terror.^ This representation of Jahaveh, however, assumes a milder form and kindlier aspect from the fact that He is Israel's God, and will defend His own people. But it is to be noted that, while He is true and faithful to His own, the counterpart of His faithful- 1 Stade, Geschichto, vol. I. p. 434. Ethic Monotheism. 37 ness to Israel is His anger against Israel's foes. This is seen chiefly in war. The oldest monument of Hebrew poetry, the song of Deborah, represents Him as coming from Sinai to discomfit the army of Sisera, and Meroz is cursed because it did not come to the help of the Lord against the mighty/ A trace of the same idea is found in the title of the 'Book of the Wars of Jahaveh,' and in Abigail's speaking of David fighting Jahaveh's battles. So the ark, according to the oldest views, was taken into the battle, and Jahaveh was the ''Lord of hosts." (2.) Another fundamental point of difference be- tween the pre-prophetic religion of Israel and hea- then systems, according to Stade, is tliis:^ Whereas in Greece, Rome, and Egypt, the worship of ances- tors and reverence for founders of tribes re- mained alongside the worship of the gods — the latter remaining at the head of what came to be a family, consisting of gods, half-gods, and heroes, so that the inferior gods really came to receive the greater homage from the mass of the people — this development never took place in Israel. Tliey have no mythology, and the reason is that Jahaveh did not admit the worship either of ancestors or of heavenly bodies along with His own. His wor- ship is directly opposed to such, and so gradu- ally eliminated it. And we have neither the slight- est trace in Israel of Jahaveh being regarded as a primus inter pares, nor of His having a consort as Baal had in Astarte. 1 Geschiclite, vol. 1. p. 437. 2 ibid., p. 438 f. 38 Early lielUjlon of Israel. This (listingiiisliing feature of the Jahaveh re- ligion, Stade concludes, cannot be traced to any peculiarity in the Semitic race, for other members of the Semitic family exhibit polytheism exactly like that of Greece. It can only be explained on the supposition that from the moment Israel received the Jahaveh religion His character was differently apprehended from that of the polytheistic gods. But Avhen we expect him to tell us what the element in Jahaveh's character was which thus distinguished Ilim, this is what he tells us: The distinguishing thought which made this religion of Jahaveh dif- ferent from these can only have been that Jahaveh was the only God of Israel, and therefore His wor- shij) excluded that of all other gods. Had not this idea been firmly held from the beginning, consider- ing the temptations that lay on every side, from the time tlie tribes entered Canaan, to polytheistic views, the result could not have been the view of Jahaveh's unity that came to prevail. It goes back for initiation to the founder of the religion. This much is due to the work and the thought of Moses. ^ These statements of Stade deserve to be well weighed. They suggest two questions: — (1.) Are the points which he marks out as dis- tinctive of the Jahaveh religion actual points of dif- ference from other Semitic religions as these are understood by himself? He and other writers of his school are never tired of telling us that Jahaveh was the God of Israel or of Canaan, just as Chemosh was the god of Moab. And Kuenen says plainly ^ 1 Geschichte, vol. i. p. 439. » National Religions, p. 118. Etliic Monotheism. 39 tluit though Jaluivi'h was believed by Israel to be miglitier than the gods of other nations, there was nothing in this to distinguish the Israelite religion, for this was the belief of the Moabite Avitli regard to Camosh (Chemosh), and of the Ammonite with re- gard to Malcani (Moloch). As to the national god being able to follow his worshipper and defend him in a strange land, the inscription of Salmsezab, re- ferred to by Renan, is urged in proof that this was a common belief. As to its being a distinction that Jahaveh was at the first declared to be the sole deity to be reverenced in Israel, the neighbouring nations also had each their national and exclusive god. If Stade should reply that these nations ad- mitted the recognition and worship of other gods alongside their national god, why, this is the very thing that he and his school say the Israelites all did up to the time of the prophets. It is they also who point to the obscure passage in the book of Kings to prove that the god of the Moabites was stirred up by the horrible sacrifice of the king's first-born to defend his own people; so that the jealousy of one national god against another, which Stade makes a distinctive mark of the Jaliaveh re- ligion, is, on his own princi]:)le, a common belief (2.) If these points are really distinctive of the Jahaveh religion in any significant sense, then what l)ecomes of the whole position of Stade and his school, that the Jahaveh religion was at first a mere nature-worship? On this ground it is not a question of showing how i)re-])ropIietic Jahavism was purified and exalted ])y the prophets; it is a question of ex- 40 Early Beliglon of Israel. plaining tliis initial distinctiveness which runs back to Mosaic times. How can Stade explain the man- ner in which a mere nature-god was adopted by Israel, and made from the beginning the sole object of worship? When he says that the character of Jahaveh was from the first differently apprehended from that of the heathen gods, this is just what the Biblical writers say. But when he goes on to say that the distinguishing thing was that this God alone was to be Israel's God, he is giving no ade- quate explanation. The question is, Why was Jaha- veh regarded as Israel's God to the exclusion of all others? and Stade answers. Because from the first He was so regarded. Surely it was something in His character, something that He did or was believed to have done, that gave Him this pre-eminence. But Stade, held fast in his naturalistic theory, can- not admit this, and so lands himself in helpless con- fusion. The distinctive elements of the Jahaveh religion, as he puts them, arc not distinctive at all; or if they arc, they are distinctive in a much higher sense than he ascribes to them. II. The modern theory, it seems to me, thus breaks down utterly at this the initial point; and I do not think it can establish itself any more success- fully in explaining the development at the other end — I.e., in accounting for the alleged transition from belief in a merely national god to the ^^ ethic mono- theism," as it is called, of the prophets. On this subject writers of the modern critical school ^ draw aR intelligible distinction between monolatry and 1 Statle. Geschichto. vol. i. pp. 428 £f., 507. Ethic Monotheism. 41 monotheism — i.e.^ the worship of one God, and the belief that there is only one God.^ The ancient Israelites, says Stade, were theoretically polytheists, but practically monotheists: they believed in the ex- istence of Chemosh, the god of Moab; of Milkom (Moloch), the god of the Ammonites; and Baalzebub, the god of the Ekronites, and others, just as they be- lieved in the existence of Jahaveh, their own God. The distinction which they drew was not between God and idols, or between God and no-gods, but be- tween Jahaveh and the '' gods of the nations." This explains the expression ^'the God of the Hebrews" (Exod. iii. 18, &c.), and the other expression ^^ Ja- haveh the God of Israel" (Judges xi. 21, &c.), and even the mode of speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The idea of a universe, he says, was beyond the comprehension of a people who knew only the countries round about Canaan; and the passages that represent God as the Creator of all things are the product of later times. Such pas- sages as Amos v. 8, 9, which are from an early book, are inconvenient for this theory, and accordingly are set aside as disturbing the progress of the discourse, and probably not genuine."^ But this is a trifle. The argument at first sight seems forcible, but on examination it will be found not to sustain the posi- tion which it is used to support. No doubt the Bib- lical writers continually speak of the gods of the na- tions by name, as if they believed in their existence and operation. So docs Milton in his 'Paradise 1 See Note XXI. 2 Kuenen, National Relig., p. li:?. Comp. above, chap. vl. p. 146. 42. Earhj Rdlcjion of Isnid. Lost*' The passage (Judges xi. 24) in which Jeph- thah says to Moab, ^ ' Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess?" seems to be quite decisive on this point; and so it has been referred to constantly from Yatke ^ to Well- hausen ^ to prove that originally '■ ' Israel is a people just like other people, nor is even his relationship to Jehovah otherwise conceived of than is, for example, that of Moab to Chemosh." But, as Dr. Davidson has pointed out,^ Wellhauscn invalidates his own ar- gument when in another place * he makes this whole passage an interpolation based on Numbers xxi. 29, which would bring it well down in the age of the canonical prophets. Indeed, as Davidson points out, there is a passage of Jeremiah (xlviii. 7) wliich would prove that even he believed in the godhead of Chemosh, — a proof that such a mode of reasoning has no force. So, too, the language of the Decalogue, ^^Thou Shalt have no other gods before me," may seem at first sight to imply that the existence of other gods was taken for granted, only that Jahaveh alone was to be worshipped by Israel. On this I cannot do better than quote the thoughtful words of Dr. Davidson: — "To our minds such a statement as this, that Israel shall have no God but Jehovah, immediately suggests the inquiry, whether there be any other god but Ilim. But such questions miglit not present themselves to minds of a diHoront cast from oursatid in early times, for our minds are quickened by all the speculations 1 Blhl. Thool., i>. 258. '•; Hist, of Israel, p. 235. 3 Expositor, third .sorios, vol. v. j). 49. ■• Seo Bleok'8 Einloitun/^. -Ito Xn{\., p. 195, Eniic Monotheism. 43 about God which have filled the centuries from the days of Moses to our owu. We may uot have evidence that the mind of Israel in the earliest time put these general and abstract questions to itself. But we are certainly entirely precluded from inferring from the form of the first commandment that the existence of other gods was admitted, only that Israel should have none of them. For if we consider the moral element of the Code, we find the commandments all taking the same nega- tive form ; but who will argue that when Moses said to Israel, Thou shalt not kill, he made murder milawful merely in Israel, without feeling that it was unlawful wherever men existed? " ^ The truth is, avc have here to do with an instance of the imperfection of language and tlie freaks the human mind phnys in the use of names. How was an Israelite to speak of the heathen gods unless by using their names? And as soon as we give a thing a name, it has a certain existence for us. St. Paul tells us how hard it was for Christians in his day, accustomed to the names of heathen gods, to grasp the fact that '^an idol is nothing in the world; "^ and even at tlie present day, I doubt very much whether the majority of people who speak of Jupiter and Apollo consciously carry in their minds the conviction that these are mere names of wliat never had existence. ^ The early preachers of Christianity in pagan countries had the utmost difficulty in root- ing out the belief in heathen gods. So long as the names lingered, the unsophisticated mind assigned 1 Expositor, I.e., p. 41. ' 1 Cor. viii. 4-7. 3 An amusing Insttanco of iho facility with which the name takes the place of the thinj? is fiiniislied l>y Voltaire. In the Latin Bible the witch of Endor is calle*! Pythonissa (in the LXX. Evyao-TpiVvOos) ; and Voltaire arijued that since the name Python c-ould not have been known to the Hebrews in the days of Saul, this liistory cannot have been earlier than the time of Alexander, when the Greeks traded with the Hebrews. One wonders liow many of Voltaire's readers perceived his mistake. 44 Early Religion of Israel. to the numen an actual existence; and hence, per- haps, we may explain how the missionaries and their converts turned these pagan objects of worship into demons or evil spirits. We need not wonder, in the face of this psychological phenomenon, if the simple-minded Hebrews use language that may be drawn into a wrong sense. If they asked themselves at all wiiat they meant by such language, the com- mon people would be perhaps as perplexed as, e.g.^ an ordinary person would be if asked to explain what Allah, or Moloch, or Asshur is in his mind. The modern Jew would not admit that his nation's God is the Allah of the Mohammedan; but are we to say that the Jew is not yet a monotheist?^ I believe it may safely be asserted that there is not a single passage in the Old Testament which can be taken to prove that the leaders of religious thought — pro- phets and prophetic men — ever regarded Jahaveh as on a level with the gods of the nations, as no more to Israel, no more in the world, than Chemosh or Milcom or Baal to their worshippers. Nay, there is one passage, in an early writing too, which ought to be decisive of this matter. Elijah, on Carniel, is represented as using language in regard to the Phoenician Baal (1 Kings xviii. 27) which, if it is taken as a mockery of the conceptions of the Baal- worshippers, is in striking contrast with even the boldest anthropomorphisms applied by Israelites to their God, and, in any case, shows that this prophet had got very nearly to, if he had not actually appre- i Do not we continue to speak of the God of the Clii'lstiau, although we believe that there is none other? EtJiic Monotheism. 45 licnded, the truth that ^'an idol is nothing in the woi'hl. " This may not be monotheism in an abstract philosophical sense— for religion was to Israel not a product of thought but an instinct — yet it is infinitely moi'C than the bare monolatry of which modern writers speak. We come now to consider the arguments by which it is sought to be proved how, from a circumscribed national monolatry, in which Jahaveh was regarded as the only God of Israel, there was reached the "ethic monotheism" of the prophets, in which He is viewed as the God of the whole earth, the only God. Here we take for our guide Kuenen, who has devoted a special work ^ to the subject. In the popular conception, says Kuenen (p. 118), Jahaveh was a great and mighty God, mightier than the gods of other nations. And this popular con- ception was stimulated and supported by political events. " When David waged the wars of Yahweh with a strong hand (1 Sam. xviii, 17; xxv. 28), and when victory crowned his arms, he made Yahweh Himself rise in the popular estimation, Solomon's glory shone upon the deity to whom he had conse- crated the temple in his capital. " In this popular conception of their national deity, the attribute of micjlit was the princii)al element. The people no doubt ascril)ed to their God moral attributes (as is proved by the priestly Torah), but these were only some among many of His attributes, and in the popular conception the stage of an ethical character had not been reached (p. 115). Jahaveh as a very 1 Hlbbert Lecture for 1882,National ReUgions and Universal ReHgions. 46 FAnijj Religion of Israel. mighty One, and Jahaveh inseparably bound to Israel His people, these were tlie fundamental ideas of the popular religion. In proof of this, Kuenen appeals to the historical books of ' ' the Old Testa- ment — whose authors certainly stood higher in this respect than the great masses. " In these books 'Hhe idea comes into the foreground more than once, that Jahaveh had to uphold His own honour, and therefore could not neglect to protect and bless His people. Thus, in the conception of the people, Yahweh's might, or, if you prefer to put it so, Yahweh's obligation to display His might, must often have overbalanced both His wTath against Israel's trespasses and the demands of His right- eousness " (p. 115 f.) With this popular view the prophets so far agreed, although on essential points they differed from it. As to the agreement, I quote Kuenen's words (p. 105):^ '^ Yahioeli Israel's God, and Israel Yahiveh's people! It surely needs no proof that the canonical prophets endorse this fundamental conception of tlie popular religion, that not one of them ever thinks of deny- ing it. The wiiole of their preaching takes this as its starting-point, and leads back to it as its goal. On this latter point I w^ish to place the utmost em- phasis. " He then goes on to show that though the prophets looked forward to the extinction of the national life of Israel, and the captivity of the people into a strange land, yet in their mind this was to be followed, sooner or later, by a restoration. This is indeed to be accomi)anied by a transforma- 1 Soe also Kuonen's ReHgion of Israel (Eng. trans.), vol. 1. p. 219 £f. Ethic Monotheism. 47 tion ill tlic people themselves. ''But however great the change may be — though the wolf lie down with the lamb and the sucking child play by the adder's hole; nay, though there be new heavens and a new earth, yet the relation between Jahaveh and Israel remains the same" (p. 106 f.) So that the canonical prophets of the eighth and succeeding cen- turies are not only the legitimate successors of Elijah and Elisha, but it would be a contradicting of these prophets themselves were we to begin by loosening the tie that unites them to the Israelite nation. " We are indeed doing the prophets ill service if we conceal the fundamental thought of all their preaching. In tbis respect, Uiacos intra muros peccatur et extra. Rationalists have branded as 'particularism,' and supranaturalists have done their best to explain away or evaporate, what is really nothin,t5 l^.^s, th^iW the very essence of the Israelitish religion, io which even the greatest prophets could not be untrue without sacrific- ing that religion itself" (p. 109 f.) And now, having seen to what extent the prophets agreed with the popular religious conceptions of their time, we have to consider in what respects, according to Kuenen, they differed from them. For there is no doubt that in essential points they stood opposed to the religious opinions of their day, and held views that brought them into sharp antagonism with not only the common people, but even the offi- cial heads of the nation. ''The prophets," says Kuenan (p. 73), " while admitting the national wor- ship of Jahaveh as a fact, nevertheless condemn it from time to time in the strongest terms. It an- swers in no degree to their ideal." 48 Early Religion of Israel. "The images of Yahweh which adorned most of the bamoth as well as the temples at Dan and Beth-el, imply that the ideas men had of Him were crude and material in the extreme. Of the religious solemnities we know little, but enough to assert with confidence that they embodied anything but spiritual con- ceptions. Wanton licence on the one hand, and the terror- stricken attempt to propitiate the deity with human sacrifices on the other, were the two extremes into which the worshippers of Yahweh appear by no means exceptionally to have fallen. No one will undertake to defend all this, especially as at that very time there was already another and a higher standard vo ancient Israel opposed to the lower, and judging it" (p. 75 f.) What then was this ^^ ideal," this ^'higher stand- ard," in ancient Israel which the prophets had got hold of ? The true prophet, we are told (p. 112), was, as Jeremiah characterises him (Jer. xxviii. 8, 9), a prophet of evil. And why? Because he was < ' the preacher of repentance, the representative oi Yahweh's strict moral demands amongst a people that but too ill conforms to them." That is to say, holiness is now no longer one attribute among many others, as it was in the popular conception: ^^ in the consciousness of the prophets, the central place was taken, not by the might but by the holiness of Yah- weh. Thereby the conception of God was carried up into another and a higher sphere (p. 119)." And ''as soon as an ethical c/iaracier [as distinguished from merely a moral attribute among others] was ascribed to Yahweh, lie must act in accordance with it. The Holy One, the Righteous One, might renounce His people, but He could not renounce Himself" (p. 115 f.) ''This profoundly ethical conception of Yahweh's Ethic Monotheism. 49 being," Kucnen proceeds to reason (p. 114), '^ could not fail to bring the prophets into conflict with the religious convictions of their people." For whereas the latter had emphasised the attribute of might, and relied upon the fact that Yahweh and Israel were inseparable, so that He was bound to help them, even at the expense of His holiness, the prophets put it differently — that, being above all things holy. He was bound to assert His holiness even at the expense of His people. Thus, wiien the people, as troubles gathered on the political horizon, thought they could appease their God and secure His favour by more numerous and costly sacrifices and multiplied vows (p. 115), reckoning with certainty (Micah iii. 11) upon the help of the God who was in their midst, or when in straits they cast about for new help, lavishing even sacrifices of their ow^n children (p. 122), the prophets denounced such con- fidence as vain, and saw in the very troubles that came upon the nation the righteous hand of Yahweh Himself, asserting not only His might, but pre-emi- nently His holiness against an ungodly nation. Thus the two modes of viewing political events and nation- al experience w^ere diametrically opposed. The one, the popular view, based its faith on earthly prosper- ity and success. ^^But," says Kuenen (p. 118 f.), "it lies in the nature of the case that a faith reared upon such foundations was subject to many shocks, and under given circumstances might easily collapse. Born of tlie sense of national dignity, growing with its growth and strengthening with its strength, it must likewise suffer under the blows that fell upon 50 Early Religion of Israel. it, must pine and ultimately die when, with the in- dependence of the nation, national self-consciousness disappeared." The other, the prophetic view, mak- ing Yahweh's holiness His central attribute, and as- cribing to Him an etJiical character, was not depend- ent on the fluctuations of political events. ^' Wlien others," says Wellhausen, ^'saw only the ruin of everything that is holiest, they saw the triumph of Jehovah over delusion and error; " to which Kuenen adds (p. 124):— ''What was tlms revealed to their spirit was no less than the august idea of the moral government of the world — crude as yet, and with manifold admixture of error, but pure in princi- ple. The prophets had no conception of the mutual connection of the powers and operations of nature. They never dreamed of the possibility of carrying them back to a single cause or de- ducing them from it. But what they did see, on the field within their view, was the realisation of a single plan — everything, not only the tumult of the peoples, but all nature likewise, subser- vient to the working out of one great purpose. The name "ethical monotheism" describes better than any other the characteristics of their point of view, for it not only expresses the character of the one God whom they worshipped, but also indicates the fountain whence their faith in Him welled up." Thus then, though the prophets were regarded by their contemporaries as speaking nothing less than ])lasphemy (p. 117) when they declared that Jerusa- lem should be destroyed and its people carried into captivity, and though in effect they were the de- stroyers of the old national religion, yet they were led by the contemplation of political events, and by the working out of their own ethical conceptions, to lay the foundations of a religion of world-wide applica- Ktkic Monotheism. 51 tion and signiiicauce. They still held to the in- separability of Jahaveh and Israel; but in their glowing descriptions of the blessings of the coming age, they represented Israel as no longer the special object of God's care and recipient of His favours, but as the organ and instrument of blessings to the whole world. Thus anticipations wdiich, in- th3 popular conception, were limited, became trans- formed. ^^Many of the descriptions of Israel's restoration, and of the role which the heathen will take therein, have none but literary and a^sthetid claims on our admiration" (p. 126); whereas, on the other hand, it lay in the nature of the case that ethical monotheism, even in the period of its genesis, must give a fresh turn to expectations with regard to Yah well and the peoples. In its full develop- ment, of course, this idea of universalism took its highest flight of all, as is seen most conspicuously in the exalted ideas and comprehensive views of the prophets which culminate in the glowing anticipa- tions of the second Isaiah (p. 128). There is much truth and much suggestiveness in what Kuenen here puts forward. What he says throws much light both on the relation of the prophets to the ^^ popular religion," and also on the gradual progress in the conceptions of the prophets themselves. In speaking of the ' ' popular religion, " we must, with Kuenen, admit that ''all sincere re- ligion is true religion, and must secure its beneficent result;" that "not in vain did men thank Yahweh for the blessing of harvest, perform their work with eyes fixed upon Him, trust in His help under afilic- S2 Early Religion of Israel. tions, and turn to Him for succour in times of peril " (p. 76). And in regard to the prophetic religion, we frankly admit that the course of political events taught the prophets much, and that through out- ward events and the germination of the inner con- ception which they entertained, they reached purer and .more comprehensive views as time went on. But all this does not reach the point we wish to attain. What we wish to know is the best and highest that any in the nation had reached at the earliest times at which we can catch a view of the Jahaveh religion, and how much of that survived as a national inheritance. We wish to know whether the popular religion and the prophetic had not a common starting-point, one source from which they sprang and then separated; we want to know whether this prophetic ideal is not derived from the pre-prophetic times; and if it is not, we wish a definite explanation of its origin and its develop- ment out of the lower conceptions to which it stood opposed. And this I think Kuenen with all his ingenuity has not furnished. 1. In the first place, when Kuenen sets down as the very essence of the Israelitish religion the fun- damental article on which people and prophets agreed, Yahweh Israel's God, and Israel Yahweh's people, he only states in his own way what the Biblical writers one and all insist on, and what the Hebrew historians represent in various fashions as an election or choice of Israel by Jahaveh, or a covenant relation between the two. It is but just to Kuenen to draw attention to the fact that he Ethic lloiiotheism. 53 ascribes to Moses this amount at least of influence on Israel, in saying that 'Hhe consciousness that a peculiar and intimate relation existed between the God in whose name Moses came forward and the tribes of Israel, never died out." He would not call this a covenant in the Biblical sense/ and he insists that the conviction went no further than this brief acknowledgment, since Moses failed in im- pressing on the people his own ideas of God's moral nature. ''In one word," he says, ''whatever dis- tinguished Moses from his nation remained his per- sonal possession and that of a few kindred spirits. . . . Under Moses' influence Israel took a step forward, but it was only one step." ^ In view, how- ever, of Kuenen's clear recognition of the one funda- mental piece of common ground occupied by prophets and people, we are entitled to ask him what was tlie common conviction from which both started, seeing that both in their respective modes held so tenaciously to it. There must have been some objective fact in the history that gave a start to this common conception, or some point of time at which this relationship was pressed home on the con- sciousness of the nation, to give it this firm, incon- trovertible position with people and prophet alike. And if the conception is synchronous with the adop- tion of the Jahaveh religion — if, that is to say, as 1 Smend (Moses apud Prophetas, p. 19) says distinctly, " That a cove- nant was once on Mount Sinai concluded by Moses, is affirmed from of old by the most certain and unanimous tradition." WelUiausen, how- ever, perceiving tliat tlie admission of a covenant entered into under definite historical conditions would shatter his system, says that the word for a covenant between Jehovah and His people is not to be found in the older prophets (Hist, of Israel, p. 417 f.) See Note XXII. Cf. below, p. 838. 2 Relig. of Israel, vol. 1. p. 294. 54 • Early Relirjlon of Israel. Stadc lias concluded, from the moment that Jahaveh was accepted as the God of Israel, the impression that He and none but He was to be their god — then we go back to the time of Moses for the com- mon fountain of this conviction. That is to say, at a historical time and under some historical condi- tions, the whole nation became possessed of the idea that Jahaveh and His people were inseparably joined to one another. And tlien the question arises. What were those historical conditions? and which of the two shall we take as the better inter- preters of what that relation was — the mass of the unthinking and careless people, or the elite of the nation's religious men? Surely an idea held so tenaciously by all classes in common must rest upon something more definite and positive than tiie mere choice by a nation, or by their leader for tiiem, of some '^Thunderer." Kuenen himself is obliged to admit that, even in the popular conception, the idea of holiness was present from the very first, though not as a central attribute. If, then, the conception of holiness was there from the first, are not the prophets more likely than the common people to have preserved, to have inherited from the best of their predecessors, from their spiritual teachers, the j^lace of that attribute in Jahaveh's character? The attribute of might never disap- peared from the conception which the prophets had, nor can a time be pointed to when the attribute of might existed apart from that of holiness. Since Kuenen and his school feel themselves constrained to postulate a moral attribute from the very first, it Etliic Monotheism. 65 is much more reasonable to believe that the thinkin & and more religious part of the nation would assign to the moral a higher and more central place than to the physical. In brief, the character of Jahaveh Avas moral in its initial conception. 2. In the second place, I think his reasoning is quite insufficient to show that mere political events produced either the popular or the prophetic con- ceptions. No doubt these nourished the one idea or the other, or stimulated it to greater developments; but something deeper, in the one case and the other, must be assumed, before we can understand either set of phenomena. The popular idea, he says, was stimulated and supported by political events, so that David's wars and Solomon's magnificence reflected a glory upon the national God in the popular estima- tion;^ and that is no doubt true in a sense. But it is not so easy to follow him when he goes on to say that the popular conception, born of the sense of national dignity, was bound to suffer under the blows that fell upon it, and ultimately to die, when, with the independence of the nation, national self-con- sciousness disappeared (p. 119). We are con- fronted by historical facts that are irreconcilable with this sweeping assertion. If the popular con- ception was ^'born of the sense of national dignity," and had no firmer foundation, it would have disap- peared long before the time of the Assyrian invasions. There were times in the nation's history when the national fortunes were at the very lowest point, such > National Religions, p. 118. Compare also Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 20. 66 Early Religion of Israel. as the times succeeding Joshua, and the period im- mediately preceding tlie appearance of Samuel. If outward reverse had been able to break up the feel- ing of national consciousness, it was at such times that the thing would have happened. But it did not; and in fact it is just at times of deepest depression that the religious life of Israel makes new departures. Wellhausen, e.g.^ places the rise of Nabiism in the time when Israel was held down hardest by the Philistines. On Kuenen's own prin- ciples, therefore, we are bound to assume that (since a faith born of mere national dignity cannot stand such shocks) the popular faith had something else to sustain it. The popular faith must at these earlier times have had a confidence resting on something else than a mere belief in the arbitrary might of Jahaveh. We conclude, therefore, that what Kuenen calls the prophetic belief must have been in existence from such an early period — was indeed pre-prophetic; that in fact pre-prophetic and pro- phetic are identical, both resting on some histori- cal experience. Even more inadequate, in my opinion, is his at- tempt to prove that the prophetic belief was brought about l)j political events. Kuenen seems to be so well satisfied witli Wellhausen's statement of the case here,' that he contents himself with repeating his words almost verbatim. The passage is as follows: — "Lentil \\w time of Amos there had subsisted in Palestine and Syria a number of i)etty kingdoms and nationalities, which 1 WeHhauwen. Hist, of Israel, p. 472. Kuenen. National Religions, pp. 120-125. EtJiic Monotheism. 5t had their friendships and enmities with one another, but paid no heed to anything outside their own immediate environment, and revolved, each in its own axis, careless of the outside world, ^ until suddenly the Assyrians burst in upon them. They com- menced the work which was carried on by the Babylonians, Per- sians, and Greeks, and completed by the Romans. They intro- duced a new factor, the conception of the world — the world, of course, in the historical sense of that expression. In presence of that conception, the petty nationalities lost their centre of grav- ity, brute force dispelled their illusions, they flung their gods to the moles and to the bats (Isa. ii.) The prophets of Israel alone did not allow themselves to be taken by surprise by what had occurred, or to be plunged in despair; they solved by anticipa- tion the grim problem which history set before them. They ab- sorbed into their religion that conception of the world which was destroying the religions of the nations, even before it had been fully grasped by the secular consciousness. Where others saw only the ruin of everything that is holiest, they saw the tri- umi)h of Jehovah over delusion and error." I humbly think that the language here used is badly chosen at the very point where we want the utmost clearness. If the words are to be taken liter- ally, it is little wonder that the nationalities lost their centre of gravity, or even their gravity itself, over the performance here ascribed to a ' ^ conception. " A ^^ conception " of the world was introduced by the Assyrians; at its presence the petty nationalities lost their centre of gravity ; the prophets of Israel alone did not allow themselves to be taken by surprise; they ' ^ absorbed " into their religion that conception, '■ ^ even before it had been fully grasped by the secular con- sciousness," — and the thing was done. Let us, how- ever, try to get behind the phrases and understand the thing that is supposed to have actually happened. 1 See Note XXIII. '68 Early Religion of Israel. The Assyrians appeared upon the narrow stage on which Israel and other little nationalities moved. With their appearance arose the conception of the world in the usual historical sense — i.e., I suppose the petty nationalities came to understand that there was a world much larger than their own circum- scribed territory, and agencies at work superior to those with which they were familiar. If the most of the petty nations threw their idols to the moles and to the bats, it would be because they were convinced that these, their own gods, were of no avail to re- sist the stronger power, which, under the patronage of foreign gods, was trampling down petty nation- alities like their own. The ''conception," therefore, which is not a thing floating in the air, but a pro- duct of reflection, arose in the minds of Israel's neigh- bours as well as in the minds of the prophets. This is all plain enough; but when Ave come to the yital point, Why did the prophets of Israel take a different view? we have no explanation of the fact. We are simply told they ''absorbed the conception into their own religion, even before it had been fully grasped by the secular consciousness." That is to say, before even the secular consciousness had fully grasped the fact that there were greater powers out- side their narrow confines than their local national gods, the prophets at once started to declare tliat it was tlieir own national God tluit Avas controlling these forces — at once they leaped from the idea of a local national deity to that of a deity controlling tlie world; or, at all events, they saw a divine plan, a Providence in all tliese things, which so staggered Ethic 3Ionotliei8m. 69 others. Then, I suppose, it was that the shifting took place in the conception of the attributes of Jaliaveh, and He came to be conceived as One with not only moral attributes, but with ethical character. I cannot see that the thing is made any clearer, or " that the development is made out. What we want to know is. What enabled the prophets alone to read the signs of the times as they did? Their teaching, in face of the events, is a clear proof that from the first utterance of it they had a higher idea of their God to start with. The solution of the political problem was indeed ready before the problem pre- sented itself, just because the idea of a God whose character was ethical was a much older idea. The earliest writing prophets knew of a God different from the gods of the nations around them; and they them.selves speak of such a God as revealing Himself to prophets before them. Even the writer or writ- ers of the patriarchal stories, and the w^riter of the accounts of Elijah, at a time when there was no threatening of a collapse of the State from foreign invasion, have pure ethical conceptions of Jahaveh, and regard Him as controlling the destinies of the w^orld. The conception of Jahaveh as a Ruler of the world is much older than the time in which Kuenen and his school ^ould place it; and it is in vain that we ask the outward events of the history to give an explanation of that religious consciousness which, from the earliest times, underlies all these events. 3. But in the third place, let us leave abstract in- quiries into what must have happened, and this sub- tle following of the movement of a conception: let us 60 Early Religion of Israel. come to actual facts. If it be true that the appear- ance of the Assyrians gave the first impulse to this wider view, the view is so far removed from what is called the pre-prophetic conception that avc ought to see it growing under our eyes. At the Assyrian period, we have the contemporary writings of Amos and Hosea; and from them onwards, we have the writings of other prophets who lived through the trying times of the Assyrian invasions, and down to the Babylonian captivity. Amos speaks only in the vaguest terms of the great Assyrian power; Isaiah saw it in the land; Jeremiah witnessed the final col- lapse of Israelite independence. We ought to be able to trace the gradual expansion of the prophetic view, from its first stage to its last. Xow what do we find? We find indeed an advance from Amos to Jeremiah as to the conditions on which the relation of Jahaveh to Israel rests, and in regard to the rela- tion of the Jahaveh religion to the outside worlc; but within the range of written prophecy we do not find the development of the idea of Jahaveh Himself In regard to the conception that He controls tlie whole world, there is no diflcrence in the teacliing of Amos and Jeremiah. I know that Wellhausen and Stade would reject all passages in Amos ^ which express such high views of Jahaveh's character, on the ground that they disturb the connection. Rob- ertson Smith, ^ though he does not reject them, says mildly that they are not necessary for the under- standing of the context; and he refers, ap])nrently 1 Such passages as Amos Iv. 13, v, 8 ff.. Ix. 1-7. Seo chup. vi. p. 146. s Prophets of Israel, p. 398 f. Ethic 3Ionothei8m. 01 with favour, to WcUhauscn's explanation of tlieir presence in the text — that tliey are lyrical inter- mezzl, like those that are found so frequently in tlie Deutero-Isaiali. Lyrical intermezzi forsooth! Any one witli the least sympathy witli the writers will recognise in them the outpourings of hearts that were full of the noblest conceptions of the God whom they celebrate, and will perceive tliat they come in most fitly to emphasise the context. On this point Kuenen has to defend himself, and he explains at length^ his position as compared with that of Baudissin and contrasted with that of H. Schultz. His explanation amounts to this, that, if tlie prophets of the eighth century use expressions concerning Jahaveh's supremacy over the heathen world as well as Israel, and concerning the gods of the heathen, which practically amount to a denial of the existence of tlie latter, this shows that they belong to a period of transition or o^ nascent mono- theism. Traces of this are still to be found distinct- ly in Deuteronomy itself.^ This nascent monotheism in the prophets of the eighth century Kuenen de- scribes as '^ a repeated overstepping of the line be- tween monolatry and the recognition of one only God." He says: '^ I recognise monotheism r/e/^cto in these strong expressions of the prophets, and only deny that they had acquired it as a pennanont pos- session. Now and then they rise to the recognition of the sole existence of Jahaveh, and the denial of 'niie other gods"; '' but generally they do not get 1 National Religions, note vU. p. 317 ff. 2 Theol. Review, 1874, pp. 347-351. 62 Early Religion of Israel. beyond the monolatry in which they, or at any rate the earlier ones among them, had been brouglit up." He maintains, however, in opposition to Schultz, that ''the still older monotheism of the period be- fore the prophets has no existence." Now, if we examine this so-called nascent mono- theism, which is admitted to be de facto monotheism, we find it full-grown at its birth. Amos, the earli- est writing prophet, utters it in clear tones, as a familiar and admitted truth, in saying that Jahaveh had brought the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir, as he had brought Israel from Egypt, and in ever representing righteousness as the basis of the divine character. A being whose char- acter is ethical, and whose rule unerringly controls the destinies of all nations alike (Amos ix. 7), is in- finitely more than a national god, such as heathen nations conceived their deities; and in no case does Amos give any countenance to the so-called monol- atry, as if the monotheism he taught was held loosely in his hands. But what are we to think of Kuenen's position that this nascent monotheism is also still to be found a century after Amos in the book of Deuteronomy? It is there de facto in Amos; still a century later it is only nascent; whereas in Elijah, a century before Amos, it has no existence, although in another connection both are declared to ])c equally organs of the Jahaveh religion. And we are to accept all this on the '' I recognise '^ and '' I maintain " of Dr. Kuencn. In regard to the ethical character of Jahaveh, Amos and Ilosea were just as bold and firm in chiding the sins of their contempo- FAlUc Monotheism, 63 raries as Isaiah, wlio on tliis theory is supposed to have attained a conception ot* holiness which was only nascent in these earlier prophets; and the prophets that follow Isaiah are not more emphatic in the same strain, and yet they do not, like Isaiah, call Jahaveh the Holy One of Israel. In fact, this explanation of the rise of pure monotheism is arti- ficial in the extreme, and the '^ ethic monotheism" is merely a pretentious phrase. The same truth that Amos proclaimed finds expression in the words put in the mouth of Abraham by the Jehovistic nar- rator, ^ ' Shall not the Judge of all the world do right?" (Gen. xviii. 25); it was de facto held by Elijah and the seven thousand wiio like him would not bow the knee to Baal; it was held also by Sam- uel when he set up the stone Ebenezer, saying, Hitherto Jahaveh hath helped us: ^ and these men could not have asserted it, one after the other, so emphatically as they did, in times of deepest na- tional depression, unless it had been deeply im- pressed on the hearts of the best of the nation from the early times at which the Biblical writers assume it. 4. Lastly, let us come back to Kuenen's empha- sised assertion that the prophets agreed with the people in the tenacity with which they clung to the belief that Jahaveh and Israel were inseparable. The point is not disputed; but surely such a convic- tion must have been based upon something definite and positive, and it is most reasonable to assume that that something was believed to be inherent in 1 Ki >nig, Hauptprobleme, p. 44 f. 64 Earhj Religion of Israel. the nature of Jahaveh Himself If the nation be- lieved that He would never give them up, however far they fell from Him; if the prophets believed that He would never give them up, and even would have a special favour for them when He became the God of all the families of mankind, — there must have been in the minds of all a belief of some quality strong enough to bind Jahaveh in this inseparable manner to His own people. Neither 'might,' nor holiness in its terrifying aspect, will explain this. Now such a quality or character we do find ascribed to Him by the earliest prophets, although it is a quality to which I think Kuenen makes no reference. It is an attribute, without taking account of which we can neither understand the Old nor the New Testament. I call it, without hesitation, the quality of grace. In various ways the belief in it comes out; by various names the shades of its signification are expressed; but this variety only shows how central, to use Kuenen's own word, this attribute was in the conception. And I am not to reason from abstract principles here, or from the whole tenor of Biblical teaching. I take as witness one of the earliest of the writing propliets, who lived at the very time Kuenen's supposed development should have been taking place, and it is marvellous to me that Kuenen and other writers could have passed by a witness whose testimony is so precise. The whole of Hosea's book turns upon that idea, — God had loved Israel in the time of the nation's j^outh; and the touching story (or figure) of the wayward wife, going her own evil course, yet not rejected, — just FAhic Monotheism. 65 because her liusl)an(l had loved her at first, — and finally brought back, and hy the power of love taught to love her husband, — all this is applied for us by the prophet himself to the history of Israel/ Here is another attribute than either might or holiness — and it is here at the very dawn of written prophecy, and placed by the prophet at the dawn of the na- tional history — an attribute which surely raises the character of Jahaveh to a higher level, and casts light upon the apparent contradictions which Kuenen has exhibited. Jahaveh was, above all things, '^faithful." He had done great things for Israel (Amos ii. 9-11) in the past out of mere grace, not because they had deserved it. The prophet Amos also, though he dwells more on the righteousness of Jahaveh, does not leave out of account the divine love and mercy. These attributes are implied in the great things that had been done for the nation in the past, and emphatically taught in the 7th chapter in the repeated visions of the prophet, in which the Lord '' repents " of the evil about to be inflicted on His people: ^' It shall not be, saith Jahaveh." We get thus, instead of mere reasonings as to how con- ceptions arise, positive historical facts as the means of producing the idea which was held so tenaciously to the last. If the people perverted this doctrine, and sinned that grace might abound; if they pre- sumed that, because Jahaveh could not deny Him- self, therefore they might sin and repent, — this is no more than thousands have done in the times of the "> This is thn substance, under any interpretation, of chapters i. to iil. See also chapter xi. 8 ff , " How shaU I give thee up, Ephraim? " 66 Early Religion of Israel. Gospel. But their tenacity to the belief that He would not forsake them can hardly be explained without such a belief underlying it. Even their redoubled zeal in the matter of vows and offerings, taken in connection with this belief in Jahaveh's faithfulness, is not Avithout its significance, — not as showing that they believed these w^ould turn the faithful One from His purpose, but as showing that they recognised them as the outward expression of ^/ieiV faithfulness, or promise of faithfulness, on their part. At all events, this unconquerable conviction, wdiich the prophets held in a purer, and the people in a more corrupted form, guarantees the conclusion that both alike recognised in the character of Jahaveh an attribute which had a more personal relation to them than either the attribute of might or that of holiness, an attribute which Hosea simply calls love; which will explain, on the one side, His forgiveness of offences, and on the other His unalter- able care and regard. And therefore we are en- titled to conclude that this fundamental conception of Jahaveh underlying the views of people and prophets together, was substantially that embodied in the declaration of His character, which is by the Biblical writers placed as far back as the time of Moses (Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7, R.V.): 'Mahaveh, Jaha- veh, a God full of compassion and gracious, slow to anger and i)lenteous in mercy and truth; keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving initpiity and trans- gression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and ui)on the children's children, upon Ethic Monotheism. 67 the third and upon tlie fourtli generation." It seems to nie that if Ave phice at the outset such a concep- tion of Jahaveh, which is two-sided, and capable of expansion in two different lines, we can account for the development of the popular idea equally with that of the prophets from one common source; that we can give some explanation of the clearness with whicli the very earliest of the writing prophets represent the character of the national God, and also the persistency with which the people held to tlieir view to the last. We obtain, in a word, development from a definite starting-point, whereas on Kuenen's view we neither find a reasonable meet- ing-point for the two div^ergent tendencies, nor can follow the steps in the development of either the one or the other. ^' The principles which we see operating from the earliest times," says Professor A. B. Davidson, '' are the principles wielded by the prophets. They are few but comprehensive. They form the es- sence of the moral law — consisting of two principles and a fact, — namely, that Jehovah was Israel's God alone; and that His being was ethical, de- manding a moral life among those who served Him as His people: and these two principles elevated into a high emotional unity in the con- sciousness of redemption just experienced." ^ 1 Expositor, third series, vol. v. p. 43. CHAPTER XIII. AUTHORITATIVE INSTITUTIONS — THEIR EARLY DATE. Connection of this with the preceding — Reasons for postponing consideration of forms, (1) because ijractice is not a sure index of 2^'f'ofession, arid (2) because external forms, even ivhen authorised, are not sufficient index of the truth of ivhich they are signs — Mode of procedure as before — Three things to be distinguished, Law, Codifi- cation of Law, Writing of Law-books, on all of which the Biblical theory allows a latitude of view — Points at which the Biblical and the modei-n view are at variance — The conclusions of the modern theory, (1) Law not of Mosaic origin, (2) Codes so inconsistent that they must be of dif- ferent dates — Position similar to that before assumed — Presum-ption that Moses gave definite laws — The Covenant, how signalised — Proofs from prophetical writers; from Psalms; from admitted historical books — Conclusion that a Norm or Law, outside of prophets and superior to them, was acknowledged — Wfiat was it? Up to this point the object of our inquiry has been to determine, as far as possible, wluit the religion of Israel was, in its essential and internal elements, at the earliest period to which we have access. We have examined the testimony given by the earliest admitted written sources to the nature of the religion at the date to which they belong, and have endeavoured to estimate the value of this class of Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date. 69 witnesses lor the determination of the religion of an antecedent and early time. Without relying on dis- puted books, we have found that those which are admitted conlirm in many ways the statements of those which arc not primarily taken into account. The earliest writing prophets, though not appealing to the authority of books, appeal to admitted and undeniable facts which are asserted in these books; and our conclusion has been, that whereas the modern theory is obliged to overstrain those ad- mitted facts of history and experience which have a show of being in its favour, and to underrate those which seem to oppose it, the Biblical theory is con- firmed in the main, and that the religion of Israel had, at a much earlier stage than the modern criti- cal writers admit, the purer and more ethical character which they Avould relegate to a later time. We come now to consider whether in outward form also and positive institutions the religion of Israel had not, before the time of the earliest writ- ing prophets, or l^efore the time at which modern critical writers place such an organisation, a more defined shape and authoritative arrangement than the modern historians allow. The two things are closely connected. Religious belief and practice always act and react upon one another. According to the Biblical view, as there was an early revela- tion of spiritual truth, so there was an early institu- tion of law and religious observance. On the modern view also the two things are intimately related. Wellhausen says,^ '^ All writers of the 1 Hiat. of Israel, p. 27. 10 Early Relifjlon of Israel. Chaldaean period associate monotheism in the closest way with unit}' of worship; " and it is a fundamental clement of his theory that the process of centralisa- tion and spiritualisation Avliich marks the develop- ment of the law and worship went on under prophetic influence and pari ptcissu with the de- velopment of proi)hetic thought and teaching.' It might seem at first sight that it would have been more proper to begin with outward observ- ances, which arc so obvious and give so tangible a representation of a people's religious belief; and then to reason from them to the essential character of the religion. There are, however, these two considerations to be taken into account. (1) In the first place, outward ol)servance is not always, nor indeed generally, a faithful indication of re- ligious profession; and when we are in search, as we are in this case, of a religion which claims to have been positively given with definite fundamen- tal principles as Avell as formal institutions, it would be unfair to rest either upon the moral practice or the religious usages of a people making profession of such a religion. Forms may be per- verted, obscured, or corrupted, and the life of the people is pretty certain to hill short of their faith. We might, for example, from the mere observance of facts and phenomena gather what was the ''state of religion," as we use the phrase, in any given age of the Christian Church, but we would not be safe, from the mere contemplation of any age, in drawing a conclusion as to the essential 1 Hist, of Israel ; cf. p. 26 with 47, 81, 103. Authoritative Institutions — tJiei}- Early Date. 71 character of Christianity. To argue from custom or observance in religion to the requirements and essence of religion would, in the case before us, be begging the question, which is virtually as to whether or not there was an ideal or positive re- ligion to start with. By examining, as we have done, first of all the writings of the prophets, we gain some guiding light on this the fundamental point. And (2) in the second place, outward rites and ceremonies, in a special manner, do not furnish a sufficient indication of the truth of which they are symbols or concomitants. In such rites there has often been a carrying over and adaptation of old customary observances, which are in this trans- ference invested with a new meaning. Many of the observances of Christendom are of this description; even the sacraments of the New Testament rest, as symbolic ordinances, upon earlier usages, although in the Gospel they are invested with new meaning. So also it is well known that some of the observ- ances that are now characteristic of Islam were adopted and adapted from pre-existing Aral^ian usages. In any of these cases, to argue from the forms, without knowing what they were meant to signify, would be manifestly and grossly unfair. It would be similar to the false reasoning, which we liave had occasion to notice already, from the primary or etymological signification of a word, without taking note of the sense in which, at a given time and in a particular context, it is employed. And it is necessary now to enter this caveat, because, as we shall have occasion to notice, this mode of reason- 72 Enrly Religion of Israel. ing is not a little relied on in tlio treatment of this su1)ject. Certain observances of the Israelite re- ligion, which are represented by the Biblical writers as comineniorative or symbolical of national religious facts, have the outward forms of old observances or popular customs, and several of them are connected with the cycle of the natural year; and the conclu- sion is drawn, that down to a very recent period the sacred festivals signified nothing more than the bare outward form expressed. Hence the necessity of determining, first of all, as we have endeavoured to do, whether in religious conceptions and beliefs Israel had not at a much earlier period passed beyond the elements of a mere naturalistic faith. Hence also the necessity of caution in reasoning from the mere outward concomitants and expres- sions of religion to the essence of the thing signified. No doubt a certain prepossession, on the one side or the other, arising out of the preceding inquiry, attends us as we enter on tliis part of the subject. If we admit tlic conclusion that the religion of Israel was gradually evolved or developed from an animis- tic stage, we shall scarcely expect to find in the pre- prophetic period institutions of a high moral signifi- cance; but if, on the contrary, we are satisfied that the religion was in its earlier and fundamental stage of a more ethical and exalted character, it Avill not surprise us to find, in the period referred to, a set of religious institutions in keeping with and expressing the higher class of conceptions. We shall, however, endeavour to consider this part of tlie subject inde- pendently of any conclusions already reached; and Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date. 73 in doing so, to follow the same method of procedure as before. From the known and admitted we shall seek to make our way to the unknown or disputed; endeavouring from clear indications of the records which are unquestioned to make out the state of religious ordinances of their time, and the testimony which they may give to a greater antiquity. And here again what is primarily to be determined is, not the date of certain books in wiuch the formal statement and prescription of outward observances are contained, but the existence of the institutions, or the knowledge of the prescriptions at the time and on the part of the writers whose dates are known. If we shall find that the witnesses who are available testify to the existence of laws and ordi- nances such as arc found in the documents whose date is unknown, there is a strong presumption that these ordinances are the things we are in search of; and even if the documents in which they are embodied should be of late composition, they will to us still re- tain substantially their historical value. In the inquiry now before us there are three things which are easily distinguishable, and which ought t^o be kept distinct in our minds. These are, (a) the origin of laws and observances, (b) the codification of laws, or the formal ratification of observances, and (c) the composition of the books in which we find the laws finally embodied or the ordinances de- scribed. Laws and institutions may grow out of custom, or they may be matter of formal enactment; but in either case they may exist for a longer or shorter time without being embodied in written pre- 74 Early Religion of Israel. scriptions. Again, the writing down of such pre- scriptions may be a gradual process, and result in the Ibrniation of more than one code; but even after laws are codified and institutions enacted, all expe- rience proves that the}' may undergo modification. Finally, the writing of a book or books, in which codes or collections of laws and prescriptions of ob- servances are strung upon a historical thread, may quite conceivably be a work later than the formation of separate codes, and much later than the origina- tion of the laws or ordinances. A full investigation into all these subjects would take us very far afield; but we are kept within limitations by the nature of our present inquiry, and also by the circumstances of the case. We are not called upon, for example, to go into the abstract question of the origin of law and institutions, any more than in the former part of our inquiry we had to investigate the origin of religion. The Biblical writers maintain that from a certain historical period onwards — viz., from the time of Moses — Israel had a certain body of positive institutions (just as they assert that from Abraham's time they had a pure faith); and that these institutions arg embodied in certain law-books which are preserved to us. Our inquiry is therefore limited to a certain time, and concentrated upon certain subjects. It is also important to observe that, on all tlic three points just indicated, in so far as they arc elements of the incjuiry into the history of the religion of Israel, various views may be held, and that the Biblical theory, williin ('(>rtain linutations, leaves Authoritative Institutions — tJieir Early Date. 15 room for great latitude of view on details, (a) lleligious observances, such as sacrifice, arc si)oken of as matters of course, and existing before there was formal legislation in regard to them. Even the so-called Grundschrift or Priestly Code does not exclude sacrifices from the patriarchal age, nor represent them as originating in the time of Moses. Nor is there anything either in history or in the nature of the case to make it improbable that usage at a certain point was stamped with the authority of law. (b) Further, if we take the statements of the law-books themselves, wc are led to the con- clusion that the laws therein contained were written down at ditTerent times. Moses is said to have written this and that, and in regard to many more, it is not said who wrote them at all. In regard to the collections of laws in particular — while it is said that Moses wrote the laws of the book of the Covenant and the Deuteronomic Code — it is not said that he wrote the Levitical laws, nor are we told who wrote them, (c) And finally, the books of the Pentateuch, as composite productions, contain- ing both law and history, are anonymous composi- tions, and nmy have assumed their present form after the laws had existed for a time as a separate code or codes. ■ It is greatly to be lamented that so much has been made of the mere question of the authorship of these books containing the laws. Although other books, which are also anonymous, are accepted as materials for histoiT, although tlic books of the Pentateuch, with supreme indillerence, say nothing about their authorshij), it has been t6 Early Religion of Israel. tacitly assumed that their whole value stands or falls with their Mosaic or non-Mosaic authorship. A broad distinction is evident between the ques- tions, By whose instrumentality or authority was law given? and, By whose hands were books written which contain the law? The essential question is not as to the early or late date of the books of the Pentateuch, but as to the relation in which the legislation of the Pentateuch stands to the whole development of the history. On this deeper question of the origin and religious meaning of the laws and institutions the two theories are as much opposed as avc have seen them else- where. For just as, in the matter of religious conception and belief, the earlier phase is toned down ])y the modern historians to a naturalistic level, so in the matter of law tlie element of early positive enactment is minimised to the lowest pos- sible degree. Custom and usage are made to account for the origin of a great part of the laws; for ages the nation is supposed to have been with- out authoritative law; and the actual amount of influence exerted by Moses is so explained away as to be almost inai)preciable. On tlie other hand, though the Hebrew writers do not say anything as to who wrote the law-books, tliey assert positively that the law laid down in these books is Mosaic. Moreover, the tlieories being opposed as to tlie character of tlie Mosaic religion, their interpreta- tion of the institutions will vary. To a deity who might be worshipped anywhere, who was circum- scribed in the place of his al)ode, and who was Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date. 11 merely a storm or sun or fire god, a kind of ser- vice might be appropriate that would be without proper significance in the worship of a deity who was in his central attributes holy, and in his nature spiritual. Tiie Mosaic or pre-prophetic religion will determine the significance (if not the outward form) of the Mosaic or pre-prophetic institutions. It is clear that to determine the point in dispute, we must appeal, if possible, to some independent testimony outside tlie laws themselves or the books in which they are contained; and that the value we shall attach to these legislative books will depend on the conclusions to be drawn from such indepen- dent sources. The only use that can be made of the laws themselves in the controversy, is to compare them with one another and with the prophetical and historical literature whose authority is admitted. Such a comparison has in fact been the task of criticism. As a result, the modern historians claim to have proved, (1) that the history of the time suc- ceeding Moses, and down to a comparatively late period, does not show that the laws claiming to be Mosaic were in force, but shows, on the contrary, that the practice of the best men of the nation was inconsistent with them; from which the inference is drawn, that these laws were not up to that time in existence; and (2) that the laws themselves which are called Mosaic, when examined and compared, are so inconsistent with one another that they can- not all have been in force at the same time; particu- larly there are three codes discernil)lc, which indicate three distinct modes of observance, and must have 78 Early Religion of Israel. belonged to three historical periods, widely separated, which periods can be determined by comparing the requirements of the respective codes with the prac- tice prevailing at different times in the history. In short, gradual growth by development is to be made to explain the origin of institutions, just as it explained the origin of religious conceptions; and this growth is to be exhibited within the field in which we have the means of testing conclusions by historical documents. Accordingly, just as we had to inquire into the elements of the Mosaic religion of Jahaveh, and trace the connection of the pre- prophetic with the prophetic religion, so here we have to inquire into the origin of the laws, and the consistency of the codes which are contained in the Pentateuch, in order to determine whether, or to what extent, they may be held to be, or proved not to be. Mosaic. In the present chapter we confine ourselves to the inquiry whether there is any pre- sumptive or any positive proof that Moses gave to Israel such a positive legislation as the law-books exhibit. It occurs at once as a striking thing that the uniform tradition is, that Moses gave laws and ordinances to Israel. And that it is not a blind ascription of everything to some great ancestor, may be gathered from the fiict that there are ordi- nances and customs which are not traced to him. The Sabbath is made as old as the creation ; circumcision is a mark of the covenant with Abraham; sacrifices are pre-Mosaic; and the abstaining from tlie sinew that shrank is traced to tlie time of Jacob. The bodv of Authoritative Institutions — tliclr Earhj Date. 79 laws, liowevcr, that formed the constitution of Israel as a people, is invariably referred to Moses. There must ho some historical basis for the mere fact tliat all the three successive codes, as they are called, dating, as is alleged, from periods sepa- rated from one another by centuries,^ are ascribed to Moses; whereas another alleged code, found in the book of Ezekiel, never obtained authoritative recognition. The persistence with which it is represented that law, moral and ceremonial, came from Moses, and the acceptance of the laws by the whole people as of Mosaic origin, proves at least that it was a deeply seated belief in the nation that the great leader had given some formal legal constitution to his people. It seems to me that it is trilling witli a great subject to say, in the same breath, that Moses could scarcely have been even the author of the whole of the Decalogue, and also that he '^was regarded as the great lawgiver, and all laws which God was considered to have sanctioned were placed under his name, that being the regular and only method of conferring authority upon new enactments." ^ The testimony of a nation is not to be so lightly set aside: it is the work of criticism to explain and account for tradition, not to give it the lie. And all the circumstances of the time make it abundantly probable that the tradition rests upon some good foundation. Moses and his people came out of a country that had been long civilised, and in which ritual and 1 The separate codes will bo more particularly described in tlie next chapter. 2 Allan Menzies, National iieligiou, p. 17 f. 80 Early Religion of Israel. legislation were particularly attended to. 1'hey came into a land which, as we now know, possessed civilisation and education before they appeared in it, and they not only secured a footing, but gained supremacy and maintained it, believing all the time that they were divinely guided. Now, if the tribes whom Moses led had any unity at all, if they did not wander aimlessly into Canaan, if they had the least feeling of the necessity of adhering closely together in the face of the inhabitants whom they dispossessed,^ such a unity and cohesion would be produced or fostered by the possession of definite laws or customs, marking them off from their neigh- bours, and binding them together into one. Mere common belief, especially of th^- elementary kind which modern writers allow to them, would not have sufficed to separate them from the Canaanite inhabitants in such a way as to ensure their ultimate supremacy; a common tradition must be pnt into practical shape and active operation by common observances. Even if the work of Moses was merely the consolidation of common observances prevailing prior to the Mosaic age, these must have been stamped with special authority, supplemented by special institutions, and raised to the dignity of definite ordinance, if there is any truth at all in the unanimous ascription of law to Moses. Moreover, if ever there was a crisis in the history of Israel at which the setting up of formal institutions, the laying down of formal rules for national guidance, was naturally to be expected, it was at this stage. It is 1 See Note XXIV. Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date. 81 strange indeed that critical historians of Israel should postulate the putting forth of ^'legislative programmes " at various later points in Israel's history, and should be so unwilling to admit the same for the time of Moses. For just as individuals in their early life, when moved by a high purpose, sketch out for themselves careers and lay down rules of conduct and principles of action, it was surely the most natural thing in the w^orld for the great leader of Israel to trace out a programme of conduct, and hedge it round with precautionary measures, at a time w^hen his nation w^as to pass from a nomadic to a more settled life, and when they were liable to be led away by various tempta- tions from the simplicity of their primitive faith. Any one who can recall his plans and resolutions formed in early life, or who has perchance pre- served juvenile journals or memoranda, will admit that in such circumstances there is a natural ten- dency to run into minute details, which the exigen- cies of actual life afterwards modify or even render impracticable. The First Book of Discipline, drawn up by Knox and his associates at the Reformation in Scotland, is a striking historical instance of such a programme.^ So that, if in the post-Mosaic history of Israel we find little mention of many of the enactments ascribed to Moses and the early Mosaic time, this need not surprise us when we bear in mind the totally new environments of life of the people, and the common frailties of human nature. 1 story's Church of Scotland, Past and Present. See particularly vol. ii. p. 437, foot. 82 Early Relirjion of Israel. How much more may be implied in the undoubted fact that the succeeding books take little account of tiie detailed legislation of the Pentateuch, we need not here consider. Enough has been said to prove in a general way that a certain amount of legis- lation must be ascribed to Moses. If his name stands for any fact at all in the history of Israel, if in any conceivable way he made an abiding impres- sion upon his people, it was by producing, or by cementing an already existing intimate relation ))etween their consciousness and the national God. This relation the Biblical writers call a covenant.^ Critical writers can hardly avoid using the expres- sion, and are bound to admit the fact, by whatever name it may be called. They tell us that the com- pact amounted to this, ^^ Israel was to be Jahaveh's people, and Jahaveh Israel's God." Is it conceiv- able that at a period such as that in which this compact is placed, at a time when the nation needed outward props and helps, a time when forms of wor- ship and observance were the most natural and unavoidable, even a bare covenant like this should have been unaccompanied with any ceremonial to keep it alive in the national consciousness, and impress its significance upon their lives? Can we believe that Moses taught the people that the God whom they could not see was ''just and righteous," that by being just and righteous they could best please Him, that, in a word, '' Moses set up the great principle that the true sphere of religion is common life,"^ and yet that he left a i)eo})le 1 See Note XXII., and comparo above, p. 313. 2 Allan Menzies, National Religion, p. 24. Authoritative I institutions — tlielr Early Date. 83 such as they were without any ordinances of wor- ship, and without any haws for the gui(hince of their chiily life? A people, too, who at that very time, and in the power of their faith, were asserting their individuality! A "peculiar" people, as such a covenant necessarily made them, must have dis- tinctive outward marks; a " holy " nation, on the very lowest ideas of holiness, must be separated from what is unclean; a "holy" deity, still on the most elementary conception of the term, must be fenced off l)y some restrictions, must be reverenced by some sacred ceremonial. The very idea of a covenant, if it does not even imply sacrifice, is intimately associated with it (Ps. 1. 5). Whether the ceremonies were ada})tations oi old customs or new institutions, if such a definite thing as a cove- nant stands at the threshold of the national history, then to deny to Moses the organisation of Israel on the basis of definite observances, not only of a moral but also of a ceremonial character, is altogether an excess of arbitrariness, and leaves the unvarying tradition of later time without an}^ adequate explana- tion or support. But more precise and direct proof may be drawn from the prophetical and other accepted literature of the time to wiiich we are confining ourselves. We may not have, indeed, unequivocal "references" to the books of the Law, or to the codes in which cer- tain laws are contained; nor do we find full accounts of the observances of the minute ceremonial and lit- urgical prescriptions of the Pentateuch. It has been too much the habit of apologetic writers to look 84 Early Religion of Israel. for positive citations of tlio books of tlic Pentateuch, or to argue from the use of certain expressions in prophetical or historical books that the legislative books in which such or similar expressions also occur were then in existence and were thus con- sciously referred to.^ But critical writers have gone to the other extreme in arguing that where a law or ordinance is not mentioned by historical or prophet- ical authors, it was not known to them, and there- fore had no existence in their day. We shall have to test the value of this argument in the sequel; in the meantime we have to look at the testimony borne by the prophetical and other books on this subject. From the whole tone of the prophetical literature we may argue in a general way that there was in the times of the earliest writing prophets a universal recognition of a well-known norm or rule of conduct as possessed by the nation, though sadly dishonoured so far as concerns its observance. The attitude of reproof taken up by the prophets, and the absence of gainsaying on the part of the people whom they addressed, prove the recognition of some authorita- tive norm lying at the threshold of the nation's his- tory, according to the principles laid down by St. Paul (Rom. iii. 20), that through the law is the knowledge of sin, and (v. 13) that sin is not imputed where there is no law.^ An argument of this kind is not indeed sufficient to establish the Mosaic origin of all the legislation ot the Pentateuch; it may not 1 See before, chajiter v. p. 108. 2 So De Wette reasoned in a Review of Vatke in Theol. Sturt. u. Krit. for 1837, p. 1003. Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date. 85 even necessarily lead to the conclusion that formal codes were in existence at all; but it warrants the conclusion, not merely that guidance was given to the people, from time to time as occasion required, by prophetic or priestly men, but that some stand- ard of obedience and religious observance was ac- knowledged as set up for permanent appeal and authority. But we can go much further than this. The man- ner in which the earliest prophets refer to such an authority — if language is to retain its ordinary meaning at all — implies principles of action em- bodied in concrete recognised laws. When Amos threatens Judah, ''because they have rejected the law of the Lord, and have not kept His statutes " (Amos ii. 4), whether he is thinking of books or not, he is certainly thinking of certain standing princi- ples objectively regarded as regulative of moral and religious life. Law or Torah may conceivably have been at first, as the critics assert, no more than in- struction conveyed from time to time by prophet or priest; and this matter Ave shall consider in the next chapter. But the conjunction of the word ''stat- utes" leaves no room for doubt that the prophet referred to an objective and concrete norm. Torah may be teaching, but statutes are determinate things, not given once and then forgotten, but set up as a standing rule. Moreover, the sins for which Israel in the sequel of the same chapter is reproved, though all of a moral kind, are just such sins as are condemned in the moral parts of the Pentatcuchal codes. This prophet has no doubt, and his hearers 86 Early Rdifjloii of Israel. dare not deny, that the oppression of the poor, tlic retaining of plctlgcs,' the perversion of justice, and the like, are violations of rules which every one ad- mitted to be binding upon the nation. It is partic- ularly to be noticed that the sins for which Israel and Judah are threatened are more precise and special than those breaches of the most elementary laws of humanity against which the prophetic re- proofs of other nations, Damascus, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Amnion, and Moab, are directed; and that it is precisely in Judah, Avhere ^Maw " and '^ statutes " would be best known and most universally acknowl- edged, that their violation is singled out for repro- bation.^ The case is similar with the prophet Hosea. ^'They have wandered from me," he says (vii. 13): "they have transgressed my covenant and tres- passed against my law" (viii. 1). The sins for which he reproves the men of Israel of his time are just such sins as the moral laws of the Mosaic legis- lation condemn;^ and we have in one passage a clear indication that Avritten law, and that of con- sidera])le compass, was known and acknowledged in his days. The passage (llosea viii. 12), much as it has been commented upon, and sought to be ex- plained away in this connection, cannot be taken to give any other sense that is at all reasonable. Whether we read, with the Revised Version, ' ' though 1 Amos H. 8. Comp. Exod. xxii. 26. 2 I do not press the aUusions In Amos Iv. 4, ."i, aUhouph an argument might be drawn for tlie recognition of ritual laws, which are tlioro rep- resented as exaggerated or perverted.— See Bredenkamp, Gosotz u. Pro- pheton, p. 8'2. 3 See the whole of Uusea Iv. Authoritative Institutions—their Early Date. 87 I write for him my law in ten thousand precepts," or, with the margin, '' I wrote for him the ten thou- sand things of my law '—whether, that is to say, we take the words as positive or hypothetical, as refer- ring to the past, or to the present or future— the prophet indicates a thing that his hearers would re- gard as either done, or natural to be done, and that thing is the writing of law in a copious manner, and the writing done directly by divine authority. The manner in which Wellhausen gets rid of this passage is exceedingly characteristic. He says: ^— "In another passage (viz., this) we read, ' Ephraim has built for himself many altars, to sin ; the altars are there for him, to sin. How many soever my instructions {torothai) may be, they are counted those of a stranger.' This text has had the unmer- ited misfortune of having been forced to do service as a proof that Hosea knew of copious writings similar in contents to our Pentateuch. All that can be drawn from the contrast, ' instead of following my instructions they oflfer sacrifice' (for that is the meaning of the passage), is that the propliet had never once dreamed of the possibility of cultus being made the subject of Jehovah's directions." Here, to begin with, Wellhausen omits in his cita- tion the significant word ^' write," a proceeding which, looking to the question involved, is, at the least, not ingenuous; for the word so rendered can- not be toned down to the general sense of '^pre- scribe. " And then, if all that the passage means is what he says, '^ instead of following my instructions they oflcr sacrifice," is it not a very remarkable way of saying it, and does not the mention of '^ writing, " in this subsidiary fashion, i)i-ove all the more strongly 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 67. 88 Early Beligion of Israel. that ^vritten instructions (torothdi, and where arc such to he found if not in some code or other?) were familiar and well known? Not in this fashion does Wellhausen pass by significant words in a verse when these can be turned to the support of his the- ory. The fact that '^writing" occurs to the proph- et where he does not base his main argument upon it, is the strong point; and thus, occurring in the connection in which it stands, this single passage suffices to establish the existence of written law of considerable compass at the time of Hosea. And as if to assure us that ritual ordinance was as well known as moral precept, and as if to anticipate Well- hausen's remark that 'Hhe prophet never once dreamed of the possibility of cultus being made the subject of Jehovah's direction," the prophet goes on in the following verse to say, ''As for the sacrifices of mi7ie offerings, they sacrifice flesh and eat it." The occurrence of the single suffixal mine here, as in Isaiah i. 12, ''to tread my courts," in a passage in which that prophet is by modern critics main- tained to deny the divine authority of all sacrificial service, are much more convincing proofs to the con- trary than formal statements would have been. Both these prophets rebuke the performance of sacrifice as it went on in their day, and we need not wonder at the sharpness of the rebukes. But at the same time, both of them, in claiming Temple and o fieri ngs as belonging rightly to Jahaveh, tacitly confirm the supposition, wliich is most natural in itself, that Israel up to their time had a law of worship which was undisputed, and that the Temple, set apart to Authoritative Institutions — their Earhj Date. 89 the outward service of the national God, was pro- vided with an authoritative order and ritual/ These indications in the earliest writing prophets are entirely against the supposition that it was through the influence of the prophets that the codes of law came into existence, as they are against the idea that law was regarded by them as a thing still in flux, and given out from time to time by either prophet or priest as occasion demanded. Any ref- erences that are found to laws or ordinances in the prophetical writings are always of the nature of ref- erences to things existing and well known in their times. If, in a few passages, the law or laws are spoken of as having been given by prophetic media- tion, it will be found that the references (as in Ezra ix. 10, 11) will apply to Moses, who is regarded as a prophet and the leader of the prophets. ^ In any case, the law or norm is regarded as a thing ante- cedent to the prophets, and having a divine sanction and authority apart from themselves. Passing beyond the prophetical books — and we have only glanced at the earliest of these — we might find the same conclusion confirmed in a very strik- ing way by an examination of the Psalms, in which God's law, statutes, and commandments are referred to in such a manner as to suggest positive, well-un- derstood things as the guides of religious conduct, the comfort of a religious life. Here, however, the dates and authorship of the compositions are so much disputed, that, with the limitations we have im- posed on our inquiry, we must content ourselves 1 See Note XXV. 2 Deut. xvUl. 15; Hosea xli. 13. 90 Early Religion of Israel. with a brief reference. When all has been done that modern criticism can do to relegate the bulk of the Psalms to a late period, and make the Psalter the book of praise of the post-exilian synagogue, there still remain, even in the accepted pre-exilian Psalms, certain expressions which cannot be explained awa}'. Even so thorough-going a critic as Hitzig accepted the latter part of Psalm xix. , with its praise of the law, as Davidic, although Chejne ^ has recently pro- nounced it to be late. But if any part of the Psalter is to be ascribed to David at all, it is the 18th Psalm; and, not to speak of other references it con- tains to God's ^^ways" and His ''word," it is not easy to see what precise meaning can be attached to V. 22, 'Tor all His judgments were before me, and I did not put away His statutes from me," if there was no body of positive religious principles of action existent in his day. The ''uncritical" English reader should, however, be reminded here that it is not on linguistic considerations, but on the grounds of a higher criticism — i.e., of a theory of the reli- gious development — that so many of the Psalms are assigned to a late date. Let us next consider what conclusion is to be drawn from the undisputed portions of the books of Judges and Samuel. Though they do not give us much information as to legal observances, and are usually claimed as proving that the Deuteronomic and Levitical codes were unknown at the periods to wliich they refer, there arc certain indications in 1 The Book of Psalms; or, The Praisos of Israol. A new translation With commentary (1888). Authoritative Institutions — their Early Dat^. 91 them pointing unmistakably to the conclusion that there was a recognised order of some kind in those days. It is self-evident that the Tabernacle at Shiloh could not have existed, nor have formed the centre of worship, without some recognised ritual. Even should it be proved that the practices of Eli's sons mentioned in the book of Samuel were inconsis- tent with the requirements of the Levitical code, this is no more than might have been expected from such men. The wonder would be if the practices of men such as they are depicted were in keeping witli any conceivable autlioritative rule at all. The point, however, now insisted on is, that the Shiloh worship must have been invested with authority; and there- fore that the idea of authoritative law for ceremonial was familiar by that time. And so the sacrifices offered by Samuel, even should it be proved that his manner of performing them contradicts the require- ments of the codes, imply a recognised and authori- tative law or rule of sacrifice. They are offered to Jahaveh and in connection with the national recog- nition of Him, and must therefore have been regard- ed as sanctioned and accepted by Him. In other words, at that time there was some received legisla- tion. So in the period of the Judges there are indi- cations that the people were acquainted with some standard of authority, and accustomed to concep- tions involving national obligations. There is, for example, the incidental mention of the ark in Judges xx. 27, 28. It is true this occurs in a portion of the book which is pronounced to be late. But even if we had not this mention at all, 92 Early Religion of Israel. we come upon the ark again at the opening of the book of Sam no], wlicre it is the centre of the worship for tlie time; and we shouhl be bound to explain whence it came, and liow it had acquired this dignity. The very brevity of the allusion however, in Judges, is proof that the writer looked upon the ark as a national institution; and if the statement has any historic value at all, it proves the possession by Israel of some outward bond of religious life. In other words, they were not at this time merely a number of isolated tribes, related in some loose way to one another, and owning one common tribal god; but they had, previous to this time, been accustomed to regard themselves as one people, and, as a mark of their unity, had some form of outward worship. We must therefore go back to the time preceding the Judges for some account of this feature of their reli- gious life; and no Biblical writer gives the least hint of the existence of anything like it in the early pa- triarchal age. The reference to Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, who ministers at the ark, indicating a hereditary priesthood in the family of Aaron, of course does not suit the modern theory. It is simply called by Wellhausen^ '^a gloss which forms a very awkward interruption." Much more to his purpose is the statement (in xviii. 30) that Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, became a priest to tlie Danites, as a proof that there was no regular Aaronic priesthood — although it is added in the next verse that ^' Micah's graven image" was at Dan " all the time that the house of God was « Hist, of Israel, p. 237. Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date, 93 inShiloh." At all events we have here, in these two incidental allusions, sufficient to carry us back to a period antecedent to the Judges for an explana- tion of the religious position of the people at that time. The ark of God, a priesthood, whether here- ditary or not, a house of God at Shiloh — all these imply much more than they express. The priest must have a function, the house of God some ritual, an ark some history. These things could not have been borrowed from the Canaanites the moment the conquest was secured. Even such matters as the distinction of clean and unclean animals, the pro- hibition of certain foods, and the treatment of lepers, which may, and probably do, go back to pre-Mosaic times, imply regulation, ceremony, and, in many cases, the offering of sacrifices. All these, however, are just the things that would be taken under the sanction of the covenant, which was to set apart a holy people, and made matters of prescription by a legislative founder like Moses. For it is always to be remembered that by this time certainly the Israel- ite tribes were in possession of the Jahaveh religion. These outward arrangements, whatever their origin, were associated with their worship of Him as their only God; and as that religion, on any explanation of it, was the characteristic mark separating them from their neighbours, it is surely most extraordinary to suppose that the outward concomitants of the re- ligion should present no difference from the worship of the peoples around them. Again, it is maintained by Wellhausen and his school that the tribe of Levi was originally a 94 Early Religion of Israel. secular tribe like the others, and associated with the kindred tribe of Simeon, whose fate it shared in being dispersed in Israel; and it is maintained that the Levitical guild was a growth of much later time, when priestly development had far advanced. Now the story of Micah in the book of Judges is much re- lied on by the critics for the state of religion ^ at this early period. In that story (chap, xvii.) a young man of the family of Judah, who was a Levite, departs from Bethlehem-Judah to sojourn where he could find a place, and comes to Micah, who hires him to be his priest. It is added: '^Then said Micah, Now know I that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest." And again, in the 19th chapter, which is allowed to contain archaic matter, we find a certain Levite sojourning on the farther side of the hill-country of Ephraim. Now it might be said, these are simjily members of the extinct tribe of Levi. But it does seem remark- able that in both cases they should be seen sojourn- ing — moving about, in fact — as the Levites, accord- ing to the legal requirement, might be expected to do. And more remarkable is the fact that they are specially called Levites — though why the tribal designation is kept up when the tribe is absorbed is not clear; and most remarkable of all that Alicah, steeped to the lips in superstition, should believe that good was sure to come to him because he had a Levite for a priest. On the theory of the Old Testament writers, the fiict, notwithstanding all the surrounding superstition, is easily explained. There 1 See chapter Ix. p. 231. Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date. 95 was a tribe of Levi without tcrritorj^, witli a priestly or quasl-])v\Q^i\y fuiiction, the members of which were held in repute on that account. On the new theory, we meet with a feature of the life of that riule age that calls for an explanation, and fails to find it. To my mind such an incidental notice is a very strong corroboration of the history which de- clares that a tribe of Levi was set apart for sacred functions; and considering the age in which the events occurred, a more convincing proof of the accuracy of the book than an elaborate attempt to show that all the requirements of the Levitical law were in force. The discovery of a fact like this, in the dark- ness and ignorance of those times, sends us back to a time antecedent to the Judges for the proper basis of the religious constitution of Israel. The references we thus find in undou])tedly early compositions, though not perhaps numerous, yet just because they are incidental and indirect, estab- lish a very strong presumption that the pre-prophe- tic religion was backed up by a well-recognised sys- tem of positive enactments, and account for the per- sistent ascription of code after code to Moses. There are other considerations, pointing in the same direction, which should not be left out of ac- count. There is, e.{/., the remarkable fact that, during the whole of the regal period, we never hear of the kings making laws, while there is a constant reference to law, in some sense or other, as an au- thoritative thing in the nation. The solitary in- stance that is recorded (1 Sam. xxx. 25) only proves the rule. Again, there is the undisputed fact that 96 Early tteligion of Israel. a recognised priesthood existed in Israel from very early times. It is hardly conceivable that such an order should have existed without formal regulation and prescribed functions; and as the critical histo- rians refer to priestly circles the very earliest collec- tion of laws, contained in the book of the Covenant, and admit that the priests always appealed to the authority of Moses, the inference docs not seem un- w^arranted that a priestly law, of some extent and of a definite description, formed part of the constitu- tion given to Israel by the great lawgiver. It is, it must be confessed, somewhat remarkable that so little is said of Moses by the earlier prophets, though some have overstated the matter, and have drawn from it a conclusion which is quite unwar- ranted. Ghillan}^,^ e.g., mentions it as a circum- stance hitherto unnoticed, that the name of Moses, except in the post-exilic Malachi (iv. 4) and Daniel (ix. 11, 13), does not occur in any of the prophets; or at least he had not discovered the name anywhere else in the prophets — not even in Ezekiel. Else- where ^ he says that Moses, so renowned among the Jews after the captivity, is only named five times altogether in the whole prophetical literature, and that of all the prophets who lived before B.C. 622, the year in which the so-called Mosaic law was found in the Temple, not one mentions Moses as a lawgiver or appeals to his authority. Only in one of the prophets before that period (^licah vi. 4) is there found an exception; and this passage is declared to 1 Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebriier, p. 27. 3 Theologische Briefe von Richard von der Aim, vol. i. p. 179 fl. Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date. 97 be an interpolation. It is clear, however, that Hosca, though he does not name him, directly refers to Moses when he says that by a '^prophet" the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt (xii. 13). Jeremiah also must have had Moses in mind when he said, ^' Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day, I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them " (Jer. vii. 25, &c.) Moreover, in Isa. Ixiii. 11, Moses is expressly named. The infer- ence, however, from such texts, is rather against than in favour of the modern theory.^ So precarious is the argument from silence, that one is almost tempted to maintain the paradox that the things which are least mentioned were the most familiar. The historical fact stands undoubted, that, from first to last, legislation was ascribed to Moses; and if the critics should succeed in makingout from this silence that the earlier prophets knew little or nothing of Moses, then it is all the more difficult to explain how a person so unknown and undistinguished should have had invarial)ly the immense work of legislation ascribed to him. Much rather should we say that the work of Moses was so familiar to the national mind that there was no need to mention him by name; a mere reference to Egypt or Sinai was to the popular mind more than a verbal mention. We know how in other Scriptures, which are not from the hands of prophets, the highest place is as- signed to Moses as an organ of divine revelation 1 Konig, Hauptprobleme. p. 10; Delitzsch, Comm. on Genesis. Eng. trans., vol. i. p. 11 1 98 Early Uelifjlon of Israel. (Kxo(fsis. 101 I'roni Moses; they claimed only to preserve and guard what Moses liad left (Deiit. xxxiii. 4, 9 seq.) He counted as their ancestor (xxxiii. 8; Jutlges xviii. 30); his father-in-law is the priest of Midian at Mount Sinai, as Jehovah also is derived in a cer- tain sense from the older deity of Sinai."' When priests and prophets are mentioned together, ' ' the l)riests take precedence of the prophets. . . . For this reason, that they take their stand so entirely on the tradition and depend on it, their claim to have Moses for their father, the beginner and founder of their tradition, is in itself the better founded of the two."^ ''The prophets have notoriously no father (1 Sam. x. 12). ... We have thus on the one side the tradition of a class, whicli suffices for the occasions of ordinary life; and on the other, the inspiration of awakened individuals, stirred up by occasions which are more than ordinary."^ The priestly Torah was chiefly confined to law and morals, though the priests ''also gave ritual in- struction {e.g., regarding cleanness and unclean- ness)." In pre-exilian antiquity, however, "the priests' own praxis [at the altar] never constituted the contents of the Torah," which "always con- sisted of instructions to the laity. "* That the word Torah is applied to oral instruc- tion, and means originally, like the corresponding words did ax?} and doctrina, simply teaching, need not be disputed. It seems to have the primary idea oUhrowinfj out the hand in the gesture of guidance 1 WeUhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 396. -' Ibid., p. 397. 3 Ibid., p. 398. 4 Ibid., p. 59, notO. 102 Early Beligiou of Israel. or direction^ (which would perliaps be a better ren- dering), and it is found in this general sense in Prov. i. 8, iii. 1, iv. 2: ''The instruction of thy father, and the law of thy mother;" 'Mny law/' So that any advice, for the purpose of guidance (for that is always implied), is naturally denoted by it; and the guidance or instruction of priests or prophets, wiio were the religious guides or instructors of the people, is, as a matter of course, denoted by one common word, Torah. Examples of the use of the word to express prophetic teaching are found in Isaiah, who says: ''Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; attend to the law^ of our God, ye people of Gomorrah '' (i. 10), where he is clearly referring to his own teaching; and even if we suppose a reference to a written law, it could only be to the substance and not the letter of it that he directed attention. So when he says, " Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples" (viii. 16), though he is speak- ing of something olyective, positive, and authorita- tive, it is most natural to see a reference to what he had just said or was about to say. Probal)ly also a general sense should be given to the word in xxx. 9, "This is a rebellious people, lying children, chil- dren that will not hear the law of the Lord." Again we have mention of a specific priestlii Torah in the 1 There seoms; however, no reason to conclude that Torah, from a verb " to throw," originally referred to the casting down of some kind of dice, as, ''..'/., Urim and Thummim, to determine a course of action, as Wellliauson (Hist, of Israel, p. ;}'.»4) supposes. There Is no instance of decision hy the Urim and Thummim being called Torah; and Well- hausen himself strenuously maintains an oral Torah by the prophets, which could not have been of this description. Stade, cf course, traces back the oracle and the use of the lot to fetishistic and animis- tic practices, and the priest to the soothsayer. The prophet who, at a later time, contended with the mechanical i»riestcraft, wis also a survival of the primitive "seer."— Geschichte. vol. i. pi). 468-476. Autlwritative Institutions — Religious Basis. 103 Blcssin.ii; of Moses, one of the oldest pieces of Hebrew literature, where it is said of the tribe of Levi, ^^They shall teach Jacob Thj- judgments, and Israel Thy law: they shall put incense l)eforc Thee, and whole burnt offerings upon Thine altar " (Deut. xxxiii. 10). Whatever else we may learn from the verse, the function of the Levite to teach is clearly stated, and this means a course of instruction or acts of instruction to the people. That a distinction was drawn between the teaching of the priests and that of the prophets, we may also conclude from such a passage as Micah iii. 11, ^'The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets divine for money." A simi- lar distinction, showing the existence of a priestly law, is found in Jeremiah, ''The law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet'" (xviii. 18); in Lamenta- tions (ii. 9), ^aier king and her princes are among the nations where law is not; yea, her prophets find no vision from the Lord;" and in Ezekiel, ^^Thc law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the ancients" (vii. 26); ^Mier priests have violated my law, and profaned mine holy things," &c. (xxii. 26). In other passages, again, 'Maw" seems to be used as synonymous with ^'the word of the Lord," generally to express the whole of the truth of i-evela- tion, as in Isaiah ii. 3, v. 24, xlii. 4; IMicali iv. 2; and perhaps Amos ii. 4, and Hosea viii. 1. While, however, these distinctions are noticeable, the inferences drawn from them are not at all warrant- able. The general use of the word to denote divine 104 Early Belir/ion of Israel. revelation of truth as a whole implies a unity in that truth, and to this extent it is true that even the priestly Torah was mainly, or we should rather say, fundamentally, of a moral character; although we have seen in the last chapter good reason for con- cluding that the prophets knew of and recognised a ritual law as well. But the main point now in hand is the alleged long existence of oral apart from and antecedent to written Torah; and it may ho main- tained, even on the ground of the passages just cited, that the inference is too bold. Let us make the supposition demanded by Wellhausen, that the priests had the practice of giving oral decisions as occasion arose. Still, the question arises. Did the priests decide individual cases according to their individual judgment? and if not, what precisely were the guiding principles on which the}- acted? It is hardly conceivable that such instruction, if regularly given, up to a comparatively late time, should not have assumed, in practice, some concrete expression. The sentences uttered on various and recurring occasions must, at all events, have been regarded as self-consistent, and of concordant tenor, before they could be spoken of under this compre- hensive term of Torah or instruction. Then we have to note particularly how it is admitted that the oral priestly Torah, which is thus assumed, always claims for itself, not only high antiquity, but Mosaic sanc- tion. And, since even the priestly Torah is repre- sented as a unity, we are led to inquire whether there was not some positive guide in the form of typical decisions which would account for so firm a AHtJwritative Institutions — Beligious Basis. 105 tradition, and give some kind of uniformity to the oral sentences. If an oral teacliing l)y the prophets did not prevent them fi-om writing down tlieir dis- courses, why shoukl tlie priests, who had a teaching of a mucli more detailed and technical kind to convey, not have had a written Torali for their guidance? Wcllhausen feels the force of this, for he says it might be supposed that, even if Deuteronomy and the Lcvitical Code arc late, the Jehovistic legislation contained in the book of the Covenant (Exod. xx.- xxiii., xxxiv.) ''might be regarded as the document which formed the starting-point of the religious his- tory of Israel. And this position is in fact generally claimed for it." ^ It belongs, however, he says, to a period much later tlian the active oral Torah of the priests, and he reduces the Mosaic elements in it to the barest minimum, scarcely even admitting the Mosaic origin of the Decalogue. So that the alleged oral Torah, on the hypothesis, rests upon nothing but immemorial custom, each decision as it was given constituting a Torah or law to meet the case in hand. That this was the way the law arose, and not by the promulgation of a set of statutes, is said to be indicated by a chapter in Exodus (xviii.), which represents Moses himself as sitting hearing cases in person, and deciding each case on its own merits. But this very chapter, so much relied upon, seems itself to di-aw the distinction between legislation and administration. Moses is re- presented as discharging both functions; but the chapter tells how he was advised to separate them. 1 Hist. f)f Israel, p. 392. 106 Early Relir/ion of Israel. He set over the people able men, who were to judge the people in small matters, reserving the "great matters " for his own decision. If the critics are prepared to take this chapter as a plain historical statement, then we get a positive starting-point for Mosaic law, and that, too, of a pretty comprehensive compass. For if the decisions on great matters w^ere given by Moses, we have Mosaic legislation, since his sentences were given (presumably) on new cases or were regulations of older usages; and the small matters doubtless were controlled l)y precedents set by him. There is no reason to assume that such decisions as were given by Moses and his assessors remained unwritten, or in flux, till the time to which the book of the Covenant is brought down: and it is to be noted how care was taken, l)y the appointment of capable judges and by the teaching of the "stat- utes," that uniformity and consistency should be maintained. Unless, indeed, there was some guid- ing rule, the decisions could not have remained con- sistent with themselves, and could never have as- sumed a shape in which, collectively, they would have acquired respect. So in the passage already cited from the Blessing of Moses, where it is de- scribed as the function of Levi to teach the people the law, there is presumal)ly something definite and positive to be taught; just as the second half of the verse speaks of the otferings which they had to pre- sent on the altar. Wellhausen's position, so confi- dently assumed, that the 'teaching is only tliought of as the action of the teacher " — if the teaching is to have any consistency at all — seems to me only Authoritative Institutions — Religious Basis. 107 conceivable on the snpposition of a guidance of the teacher, an inspiration, in fact, of a kind that I fancy Wellhausen wouhl be the last to admit. It is, besides, flatly contradicted by such a passage as Hosea iv. 6, where the priest is reproached (accord- ing to the common interpretation which api)lies the passage to the priestly class) for having forgotten the law of God, as indeed by all the passages which reprove the priests for unfaithfuhiess. If everything taught by the priest was Torah, with no guiding norm, such reproofs were out of place. Yet it is to be observed that the prophets, whatever they may say about the priests as a class, always speak of their Torah as a thing of unquestioned authority; and they were not the men to speak thus of the haphazard decisions on ^'law and morals" given by a class which was too often both lawless and immoral. Looking at it from any possible point of view, in the face of this persistent ascription of law to Moses, we are bound to assume something positive and plain, of such a character that a priesthood, often ignorant and corrupt, would be guided to give forth sentences that prophetic men could speak of Avith respect. To say nothing of the intricate cases of ceremonial cleanness and defilement, which Well- hausen admits constituted an element of the Torah, there were also 'Maw and morals," as he tells us, and there must have been countless cases of casuistry and jurisprudence calling for decision at the mouth of these men, from whom there was no apjieal; and the whole, when collected, forms, we are to suppose, the legislation on these sul)jects Avhich afterwards 108 Early Religion of Israel. became sj'Stcmatised into codes. Moreover, there were the matters relating to the riglit performance of priestly functions and tlie proper observance of sacred ceremonies. Wellhansen indeed says posi- tively — although on no positive evidence — that "the priests' own praxis [at the altar] never constituted, in pre-exilian antiquity, the contents of the Torah." ^ Yet, considering the punctilious observance that must have been required in such services, and the jealousy of a priestly class to maintain forms in their rigour, one would have expected that just in matters of this kind the Torah, whether oral or written, would be most definite. Although there was no need for the priests to instruct the laity in these matters, they were of such a kind as would suggest the writing of them down in longer or shorter collections to aid the memory of tlie priests them- selves, to guide the partially initiated, and to secure accurate preservation. Many of tlie laws of Levit- icus, in fact, to an ordinaiy reader, have the ap- pearance of ^'memoranda" which might be ready at liand for insti-uction in such functions. The insist- ence on the authority of law, com])ined with the reproof of the priesthood, can thus have but one meaning — viz., that the priests were in possession of an ancient authoritative norm, according to wliich even ignorant men with technical training could have no excuse for going astray. The priests' function, indeed, was to give instruc- tion to the people, but the fact that they did so orally is no proof that there was no written or oh- ' Hist, of Israol. p I'O. note. AutJioritativG Institutions— Belicjious Basis. 100 jective standard hy wliicli tlicy taught. Nay, we have positive proof to the contrary. Botli in Hag- gai (ii. 11) and in Mahichi (ii.,.7), by whose time certainly the hiw was codified and recognised, there is mention of tlie oral teaching of the priests. And if oral instruction was necessary at that time, though co-existent witli a written law, we are not bound to conclude when Micah, for example, speaks of the priests of his time teaching for hire (Micah iii. 11), that they drew upon a tradition which was entirely in their own possession. We have still Christian pastors and teachers, although the Scriptures are in every one's hands, and expounders of the law would be more necessary in ages when printing was un- known and books rare. Indeed, if at a late time, when the law was fully codified, there was need of oral exposition, much more would oral instruction require a definite l)asis at the earlier periods when priests and people were so tempted to fall into cor- ruption. Yet during even the worst times the prophets have no doubt of the purity and fixity of the priestly Torah. In speaking of the instruction of the priests, they regard it as a thing superior to and binding upon the class and the people. '' Sen- tences," "judgments," '^statutes" could have had no coherency apart from a standard. It need not of course be concluded, that wherever 'Maw" occurs there is a reference to the Pentateuch as a whole, or to any hook whatever in the modern sense. But the alternative is not, as seems to be hastily assumed, tiiat there was no concrete law nor written code of guidance — nothing, in short, but oral law, still in 110 Early Religion of Israel. process of being delivered. Such a supposition is in itself hardly conceivable, considering the con- ditions of the nation and the long period over which this oral law is said to extend; nor is it supported by an unforced exegesis of the prophetic utterances. (2.) We have next to consider the assertion that the ceremonies and observances of the religion of Israel were not matters of divine authoritative ap- pointment at first, but were the growth of custom. " In tlie early clays," says Wellbausen, " worship arose out of tlie midst of ordinary life, and was in most intimate and mani- fold connection with it. A sacrifice was a meal— a fact showing how remote was the idea of antithesis between spiritual earnest- ness and secular joyousness. . . . Year after year the return of vintage, corn-harvest, and sheep-shearing brought together the members of the household to eat and to drink in the pres- ence of Jehovah ; and besides tliese, there were less regularly recurring events which were celebrated in one circle after an- other. . . . The occasion arising out of daily life is thus inseparable from the holy action, and is what gives it meaning and character ; an end corresponding to the situation always underlies it,"^ And this is the case even in regard to the more dis- tinctively national feasts: — "It cannot be doubted, generally speaking and on the whole, that not only in the Jehovistic l)ut also in the Deuteronomic legislation 2 the festivals rest ujmn agriculture, the ])asis at once of life and of religion. The soil, the fruitful soil, is the ol)ject of religion; it takes the })lace alike of heaven and of hell, Je- hovah gives the land and its jiroduce. lb' receives the best of what it yields as an expression of thankfulness, the tithes in 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 76. 2 These two stapros of lejrlslatlon, as will appear in the sequel, are placed by the critical .school, the former in tlie earlier writing' period. and the latter about C21 B.C. Axthorifative Jn^tltutloiis — Religious Basis. Ill recognition of liis seigiiorial right. The relation between Him- self and His people first arose from His having given them the land in fee; it continues to be maintained, inasmuch as good weather and fertility come from Him.''' So that the iiTcat feasts^ wliich were tlie prominent features ot the worship, are ultimately traceable to the Canaanitcs, just like Naluism, which was a chief characteristic of the religion. For — "Agriculture was learned by tiie Hebrews from the Canaan- ites, in wliose land they settled, and in commingling with whom they, (luring the period of the Judges, made the transition to a sedentary life. Before the metamorphosis of shepherds into peasants was effected, they could not possibly have had feasts which related to agriculture. It would have been strange if they had not taken them also over from the Canaanites. The latter owed the land and its fruits to Baal, and for this they paid him the due tribute; tlie Israelites stood in the same relation to Je- hova^i. Materially and in itself the act was neither heathenish nor Israelite; its character either way was determined by its destination. There was therefore nothing against a transference of the feasts from Baal to Jehovah ; on the contrary, the trans- ference was a i)rofession of faith that the land and its produce, and thus all that lay at the foundations of the national existence, were due not to the heathen deity, but to the God of Israel." ^ The transition from this simpler and more natural- istic phase of worship to distinctively religious and non-secular ol)servance took place, according to the theory, in connection with and in consequence of the movement for centralisation of worship, that culmi- nated in the introduction of the Deuteronomic Code and the reform in the time of Josiah. The view is, that up to that time the worship at the Banioth or 1 Hist, of larael, p. 91 f. 2 ibid., p. 93 f. 112 Early Religioyi of Israel. high places u}) and down the land ^ was the regular and normal thing, and that the reform of Josiah abolished these local sanctuaries, and conccnti-ated the worship at the one sanctuary at Jerusalem, thus severing the connection between the old joyous re- ligious worship and the daily life (p. 77). '' Deuter- onomy indeed does not contemplate such a result," and, as we have already seen, the assertion is that still in the Deuteronomic legislation the festivals rest upon agriculture. The transition was only fully effected in the Priestly Code (which dates at the earliest from the time of Ezra). "Human life has its root in local environment, and so also had the ancient cultus; in being transplanted from its natural soil it was deprived of its natural nourishment. A separation between it and the daily life was inevitable, and Deuteronomy itself paved the way for this result by permitting profane slaui!;]i- tering. A man lived in Hebron, but sacrificed in Jerusalem ; life and worship fell apart. The consequences which lie dormant in the Deuteronomic law are fully developed in the Priestly Code" (ibid., p. 77). And then as to the distinctively historical refer- ences which the feasts eventually attained, Well- hausen says: — "It is in Deuteronomy that one detects the first very i^ercep- tible traces of a historical dress being given to the religion and the worship, but this process is still confined within modest limits. The historical event to which recurrence is always made is the bringing up of Israel out of Egypt, and this is sig- nificant in so far as the bringing up out of Egypt coincides with tlie leading into Canaan, that is, with the giving of the land, so that the historical motive again resolves itself into the natural. J See before, chap. vlii. p. 199 £f. Authoritative InstittUions — Religious Basis. 113 In tliis way it cau be said tliat not merely tlie Easter festival but all festivals are dependent upon the introduction of Israel into Canaan, and this is what we actually find very clearly in the prayer (Deut. xxvi.) with which at the Feast of Tabernacles tlie share of the festal gifts falling to the priest is ottered to the Deity" (ibid., p. 92). It is, however, as has been said, in the Priestly Code that the development is fully earricd out, and " the feasts entirely lose their peculiar characteristics, the occa- sions by which they are inspired and distinguished: by the mo- notonous sameness of the unvarying burnt-ottering and sin-otfer- ing of the community as a whole, they are all put on the same even level, deprived of their natural spontaneity, and degraded into mere ' exercises of religion.' Only some very slight traces continue to bear witness to, we might rather say to betray, what was the point from which the development started — namely, the rites of the barley-sheaf, the loaves of bread, and the booths (Levit. xxiii.) But these are mere rites, petrified remains of the old custom " (ibid., p. 100). There is a certain coherence and roundness about this theory that make it very specious; but unfortu- nately it is supported by little positive proof, and it fails, besides, to give an adequate account of well- established facts. (a) In the first place, no one can ol)ject to the statement that '^ religious worship was a natural thing in Hebrew antiquity; it was the blossom of life, the heights and depths of which it was its busi- ness to transfigure and glorify" (p. 77). But just because it was so, we should have expected the wor- ship to pass beyond the ordinary level of the soil to those '' heights and le usu- ally safeguards its own existence. That this view is unhistorical is self-evident. ... It is the offspring of exilic or post-exilic Juduism."— Hist, of Israel, p. 255, 116 Early llelUjion of Israel. soiling ') that a prophet with views so advanced as Hosea saw no more in worsliip than an acknowledg- ment of vassalage, payable to the superior of the land, whoever he might be. Yet not only in the days of Ilosca, but two centuries later, Wellhausen would have us believe that Israel was in this condi- tion, for 'Mt is in Deuteronomy that one detects the first very perceptible traces^ of a liistorical dress being given to the religion and the worship." That it is, however, '' confined within modest limits," he tries to prove from the prayer or hymn which w^as uttered at the presentation of fruits. He quotes the prayer at length, but if it has any meaning at all, every clause of it contradicts the conclusion built upon it: — "A wandering Aramaean was my fatlier; and he went down to Egypt, and sojourned there a few men strong, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and poi)ulous. And the Egyp- tians evil entreated them, and oppressed them, and laid upon them hard bonda;[i;c. Then called we upon Jehovah, the God of our fathers, and lie heard our voice, and looked on our afflic- tion, and our labour, and our oi)pression. And Jeliovah l)rouuht us fortli out of E,ii:yi)t witli a miglity haiul, and with an out- stretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders; and brought us unto this jjlace, aiid gave us this land, a land where milk and honey flow. And now, he- hold, I have brought the best of the fruits of the land, ichich Thou, Lord, hast given ?«e" (Deut. xxvi.) Wellhausen emphasises the words put in italics, and concludes triumphantly (p. 02), ^^ Observe here how the act of salvation whereby Isi-ael was founded is- 1 Hist, of Israo], p. 51. - Conipun^ Kucnon's ftccount of " nascent monotheism *' jit the same period. See above, chap. xli. p. 320. Authoritative Institutions — Religious Basis. IIT sues in the gift of a fruitful land." We all knew that, as we also knew that the only gift which Israel could offer in return a\ as the i)roduee of the land. But what of all the other blessings, of a national and religious kind, which are heaped up, clause by clause, as if the suppliant would stir up his soul, and all that was within him, to forget not all the benelits bestowed upon the nation? ^'^ewent down. . . . The Egyptians evil entreated them. . . . He heard our voice and brought us forth." If the author of this prayer had not a clear recognition of the unity of the nation from the time ol the patriarchs, and of the national blessings from first to last which they had received, then language has no nieaning. It seems to me that this little basket of fruit, like Gid- eon's cake of barley-bread, upsets the whole array of Wellhausen's well-marshalled argument of feasts taken over from the Canaanites, and tribute offered indifferently to Baal or Jahaveh, as lord paramount of the land, not to speak of 'Hhe soil, the fruitful soil, taking the place alike of heaven and hell." As to the references to agricultural matters in even the earliest code, the l)ook of the Covenant, wiiich are made so much of to prove that this legislation could have had no existence till Israel came into Palestine, it is enough to say that it is taken for granted that Moses had no knowledge of agricultural situations, and that he had no idea he was leading his people into a country like Palestine, or no forethought to give them guidance for their ordinary life in it; for none of which have critical writers any authority.' 1 See Note XXIV. 118 Early ReUgloa of Israel. (b) Again, an influence altogether exaggerated is ascribed to the centralisation of worship. This, in- deed, is Wellhausen's strong point, on which he rests his whole theory. '^ My whole position," he says, "is contained in my first chapter [entitled, The Place of Worship] ; there I have placed in a clear liglit that which is of such importance for Israelite history — namely, the part taken by the prophetical party in the great metamorphosis of the worship, which by no means came about of itself."^ Speaking of Hosea and Amos, he says: — "The language held by these men was one hitherto unheard of, when they declared that Gilgal, and Bethel, and Beersheba, Jehovah's favourite seats, were an abomination to Him; that the gifts and offerings with which He was honoured there kin- dled His wrath instead of appeasing it; that Israel was destined to be buried under the ruins of His temples, where protection and refuge were soui^lit (Amos ix.) . . . That the holy places should be abolished, but the cultus itself remain as before the main concern of religion, only limited to a single locality, was by no means their wish. But at the same time, in point of fact, it came about as an incidental result of their teaching that the hit;h place of Jerusalem ultimately abolished all the other Bamoth. External circumstances, it must be added, contrib- uted most essentially towards the result " (p. 23 f.) lie then goes on to explain (p. 24) how the down- fall of tiie kingdom of Samaria left the way clear for the sanctuary at Jerusalem to assume importance. Still, although Ilezekiah is said to have even in his time made an atteiupt to abolish tlie Hamoth (p. 25), •^ it was not till about a century after the destruction of Samaria that men ventured "to draw the practi- 1 Hist, ol Israel, p. 368. 2 see below, p. 450. AiUJioritat'ive Institutions — Religious Basis. 119 cal conclusion from the belief in the unique character of the temple at Jerusalem " (p. 2G). This was done, not ^'from a mere desire to be logical, but with a view to further reforms;" and so prophets and priests combined to prepare the Code of Deuteronomy, which was officially and for the first time to author- ise the Jerusalem Temple as the place of worship. " The turning-point in the history of the sacrificial system was the reformation of Josiah ; what we find in the Priestly Code is the matured result of that event " (p. 76). " The spiritualisatiou of the worship is seen in the Priestly Code as advancing 2^n7n passu with its centralisation. It re- ceives, so to speak, an abstract religious character ; it separates itself, in the first instance, from daily life, and then absorbs the latter by becoming, strictly speaking, its proper business" (p. 81). Of the alleged influence of the prophets in bring- ing about centralisation of worship and codification of the law, and also of the alleged discrepancy of the three Codes, we shall have to speak at length in the sequel. In the meantime, attention must be drawn to this effect of centralisation on the spirit and heartiness of the worship. Wellhausen's idea is, that ^Ho celebrate the vintage festival among one's native hills, and to celebrate it at Jerusalem, were two very different things;'* that '^it was not the same thing to appear by one's self at home before Jehovah, and to lose one's self in a large congrega- tion at the common seat of worship" (p. 11); and hence that the old joyousness of the feasts was de- stroyed by the celeln^ation at the Temple at Jerusa- lem. Now, admitting for a moment that this ceu- 120 Early Tielifjion of Israel. tralisation took place in the way lie explains, it sim- ply is not the fact that the joyous feature disap- peared. Delitzsch has shown ' that in the period of the second Temple, when the Priestly Code received paramount attention, and when the national life was none of the happiest, even the most solemn feasts of Israel were occasions of joyful merrymaking, and some of them remarkably so. It is shallow and un- natural to speak, in this connection, of '^ the antith- esis between spiritual earnestness and secular jo}'- ousness" (p. 76). For a people, as Delitzsch says, '^ is and remains a natural, not a spiritual quantity, and therefore celebrates even religious festivals with a natural outburst of feeling, simple mirth, jubilant exultation. It lies in the nature of a people as such."'-^ We have only to think of the infectious in- fluence of a great throng at any public celebration, of the thorough and hearty manner in which all Orientals enter into any occasion of i)ub]ic rejoicing, and finally, of the aid to enjoyment furnished by the kindly climate, to sec that Wellhausen's position is altogether opposed to human experience. And over against this sapiont talk of the individual losing him- self in the great crowd, and the depressing inthience of ''exercises of religion," I would simply set those psalms that speak of the festive throng, and exj^ress the psalmist's delight in the j)ublic celebrations of religion. If these psalms be early, or if they be late, they tell (Mjiially against, the theory: for they ex- 1 " DanciriK ami tho Crltlolsm of tho Pontatf^urh In relation to one anotlior." now jmhlisliod alonj: with otlier papers in • Iris, Studies In Colour and Tallin about Flow(>r8,' 1889. 2 Iris, p. 19C. Authoritative Institutions — Relifjious Basis. 121 hibit a delight not only in nature, but in the God of nature, and a])ovc all, in the service of a God who had, in the nation's history, done great things for them, wliercof tliej were glad. (c) Once more, Wellhausen fails to prove that mere nature feasts passed over in the time he men- tions into the religious festivals of the Deuteronomic or Priestly Codes. That the three great cycle feasts, Passover, Pentecost, and Succoth, fell at or w^ere fixed at turning-points in the natural year, and that the celebration of them had pointed reference to the agricultural seasons, is very far from being the same as to say that they grew out of and for centuries remained merely agricultural festivals. One might as well argue that all the festivals of the ' ' Christian year" have their sole reference to the natural seasons. AVhat Wellhausen says of the soil being the basis of religion, has this much of truth in it, that the teachers of religion always, and rightly, sought to impress upon the people the material blessings which God bestowed. The task, however, before him is to explain how the historical references in these feasts came in, as they did come in some- how, sooner or later. Having described, as an in- stance of what he is pleased to call ^Hhe manner of the older worship as we are made acquainted with it in IIos. ii., ix., and elsewhere,"^ the celel)ration of the vintage festival by the Canaanite population of Shechem (not very high authorities on such mat- ters, we should say); and having referred to the yearly festival in the vineyards at Shiloh, as men- 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 107. 122 Early Beligion of Israel. tioned in tlic book of Judges/ — lio looks about for proof tliat tlicse or suchlike are the three cycle feasts prescribed in the book of the Covenant or Jehovistic legislation. And what does he find? ^' Amos and Hosea, presupposing as they do a splen- did cultus and great sanctuaries, doubtless also knew of a variety of festivals, but they have no occasion to mention any one by name " (p. 95). This is extra- ordinary meekness in one who is in the constant habit of declaring, when a prophet does not men- tion a thing, that he knew nothing at all about it be- cause it had no existence. But stay! ''More de- finite notices occur in Isaiah. The threatening that within a year's time the Ass3Tians will be in the land is thus (xxix. 1) given: 'Add ye year to year, let the feasts come round; yet I will distress Jerusalem,' and at the close of the same discourse the prophet expresses himself as follows (xxxii. 9 seq.)\ ' Rise up, ye women that are at ease; hear my voice, ye care- less daughters; give ear unto my speech. Days upon a year shall ye be troubled, ye careless women; for the vintage shall fail, the ingathering shall not come. Ye shall smite upon the breasts, for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine.'" Putting these two passages together, he ])ictures Isaiah, after the universal custom of the prophets, coming forward at a great popular autumn festival, in which the women also took an active part. But this autumn festival, he argues, takes ])lacc at the change of the year, as may be inferred from the phrase "let the feasts come round," and ''closes a cycle of festi- 1 Hist, of Isniol, p. 94; Judges ix. 27. xxi. 10 f. Authoritative Institutions — Religious Basis. 123 vals here for the first time indicated " (p. 95). It gives me pleasure to say that I quite agree with the sentence that follows: "The preceding survey, it must be admitted, scarcely seems fully to establish the alleged agreement between the Jehovistic law and the older praxis." ^' Names," he goes on to re- mark, "are nowhere to be found, and in point of fact it is only the autumn festival that is well at- tested, and this, it would appear, as the only festi- val, as the feast. And doubtless it was also the old- est and most important of the harvest festivals, as it never ceased to be the concluding solemnity of the year." All that needs to be said on this part of the argument is this: Isaiah's reference to feasts " com- ing round " may quite as suitably apply to feasts which have a religious and historical meaning as to purely agricultural celebrations, and his references in the close of his address, if they are not indeed quite general, may equally apply to the feasts as they are prescribed in the law. If on these slight notices the modern critics are satisfied to base the proof of a set cycle of agricultural feasts, we ought to hear less of the argument from silence as conclu- sive of the non-existence of the Mosaic feasts: ])ut of this again. ^ Attention should l)c given to the diffi- culty experienced by Wellhausen in accounting for the historical reference which undoubtedly is attached to the feasts in the Codes, even in the earliest.^ "Accordiiiij: as stress is laid ni)OM tlio common character of the festival and uniformity in its ol)servance, in precisely the See below, p. 401. 2 see Exod. xxlil. 15. 124 Earhj Belirjion of Israel. Liame (le*;ree does it become separated from the roots from which it sprang, and grow more and more abstract. That it is then very ready to assume a liistorical meaning may partly also be attributed to the circumstance tluit history is not, like harvest, a personal experience of individual households, but rather an ex- perience of the nation as a whole. One does not fail to observe, of course, that the festivals — which always to a certain degree have a centralising tendency — have in themselrefi a disposition to become removed from the particular motives of their institu- tion, but in no part of the legislation has this gone so far as in the Priestly Code" (p. 10.-]). •'For after they have lost their original contents and degene- rated into mere i)rescribed religious forms, there is nothing to l)revent the relilling of the empty bottles in any way accordant with the tastes of the period " (i). 102). And so in a word — "One can characterise the entire Priestly Code as the wilder- ness legislation, inasmuch as it a])stracts from the natural conditions and motives of the actual life of the people in the land of Canaan, and rears the hierocracy on the tabula rasa of the wilderness, the negation of nature, by means of the bald statutes of arbitrary absolutism " (p. 104). A great deal of this mode of representing the Priestly Code arises from ignoring or misstating tlie character of that Code, which is brief, terse, tech- nical, a manual for ceremonial to the priests, rather than a book of exhortation and guidance to the people like Deuteronomy. For the rest, Wellhatisen fails entirely to show any occasion for this late turning of the reference from agriculture to national history. These ceremonies, we are to suppose, went on from year to year with their accompaniments of presenta- tion of fruits and so forth. That is to say, they were never ''separated from the roots from which Authoritative Institutions — Religious Basis, 125 they sprang." The mere fact of centralisation might add to the richness of the ceremonies, as is ahyays the case; but this, one woukl suppose, would prevent tliem from becoming '■ ' more and more abstract." The people were as much an agricultural people after Josiah's time as before; probably they were much less of a niercantile people than they had been at an earlier period of the monarchy. If the great events of the exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and in general the experiences which had made them a nation, did not impress the national consciousness when it was plastic and fresh, are we to suppose that, for the first time when foreign nations were about to sweep them away, they began to read into their worship and cere- monial a meaning which had not occurred to them for centuries? If at a time when Hosea and Amos were reminding them of the days of the youth of the nation, and thus appealing to the strongest motives that could influence them — if at such a time there were many feasts and imposing rituals, are we to suppose that not once in all these was there a com- memoration of the founding of the nation, and of the achievement of the nation's success? No doubt the feasts, at such times as those of Hosea and Amos, would be overlaid with superstitious observances. But that is not the point. Because the modern Greeks at Jerusalem make Easter a time of riot, are we to conclude that Easter does not com- memorate the resurrection? What country has not, at one time or another, thus buried its holiest associations under carnal and sensuous forms? All 12G Early Religion of Israel. this does not suffice to show that the better meaning does not underlie the institution; much less that a better meaning is merely an afterthought, read into an empty form, just because it is empty. Fonns are never empty in the strict sense. They are full of something. The corrupt must be purged o«t before the clean can be poured in; and we can fiml no time in Israel's history at which a tabula rasa was formed, and history made out of nothing. Even the critical school has to admit, as we shall see, that the Priestly Code was a gathering up of the practice which had prevailed before the exile; and without coming so far do^vn, we see enough already in the Deuteronomic Code to convince us that the historical reference was full and clear when that Code was drawn up. Nay, even in the Jehovistic book of the Covenant, the Passover is made distinctly to refer to the coming out of Egypt. Wcllhausen's difficulties over the Passover may indeed be pointed to as evidence of the weakness of his theory at its foundation. The following is his account of the matter: As the Israelites Avere a pastoral people before they became agriculturists, their oldest feasts must have had a pastoral basis (p. 92 f.) Tiie Passover is a remnant of these, and is, from the nature of the case, tlie oldest of all the feasts, its primary form being the ollering of the firstlings; and so, with perfect accuracy, it is postu- lated as the occasion of the exodus (n. 87). The exodus was not the occasion of tlie festival, but the festival the occasion, if only a pretended one, of the exodus (p. 88). '' Let my people go, that they may Authoritative Institutions — licliglous Basis. 127 keep a feast unto me in the wilderness, with sacri- fices and cattle and sheep; " — this from the first is the demand made upon Pharaoh. And because Pharaoh refuses to allow the Hebrews to offer to their God the firstlings of cattle that are His due, Jehovah seizes from him the first-born of men. '^ But it is curious," says Wellhausen (p. 93), '' to notice how little prominence is afterwards given to this festival, which, from the nature of the case, is the oldest of all. It cannot have been known at all to the book of the Covenant, for there (Exod. xxii. 29, 30) the command is to leave the firstling seven days with its dam, and on the eighth day to give it to Jehovah." There are, however, two names given to this feast, Mazzotli (or unleavened bread), and Pesach (passover). The latter indicates the original character of the feast, as a sacrifice of the first-born; but the otlier name throws light upon the manner in which this came into the cycle of the agricultural feasts. Mazzoth, or unleavened bread, denotes the hastily made cake of the first corn, which was eaten at the time the sickle was first put in to commence the harvest, when a sheaf was pre- sented to the Lord. This happened at the season of the year when tradition fixed the exodus, the spring; and in the account of the exodus it is mentioned (Exod. xii. 34) that in their haste to leave Egypt the Israelites ''took their dough before it was leavened;" and these two circumstances assisted in the transition of the conception to a commemorative feast. '^ Probably," says Wellhausen, 'through the predominance gained by agriculture, and the 128 Early Religion 0/ Israel. feasts founded on it, the Passover [in its original sense] fell into disuse in many parts of Israel, and kept its ground only in districts where the pastoral and wilderness life still retained its importance" (p. 93). ^'The elaboration of the historical motive of the Passover," however, we are told, ''is not earlier than Deuteronomy, altliough perhaps a cer- tain inclination to that way of explaining it appears before then, just as in the case of the Mazzoth (Exod. xii. 34). What has led to it is evidently the coincidence of the spring festival with the exodus, already accepted by the older tradition, the relation of cause and effect having become inverted in course of time " (p. 88), A very ingenious piece of patch-work! But the facts are these: The book of the Covenant (Exod. xxiii. 15, 16), and the related Law of the Two Tables (Exod. xxxiv. 18 f.), which are said by critics to be older by at least two centuries than the Code of Deuteronomy, call the feast Mazzoth or unleavened bread, and in both cases give the reason for keeping the feast that in tlie month Abid the people came out of Egypt. The Code of Deuteronomy, according to AVellhausen's own authority (p. 87), is the first that mentions PesacJi, but it has tlie name Mazzoth as well; and the elaboration of the historical motive, he has just told us, is not earlier tlian Deuteronomy. '* The only view," he says, '' sanctioned by the nature of the case is, that the Israelite custom of offering the firstlings gave rise to the narrative of the slay- ing of the first-born of Egypt: unless the custom be presupposed, the story is inexplicable, and the pe- Authoritative Institutions — Religious Basis, 1-^ ciiliar selection of its victims by tlic plague is left without a motive " (p. 88). As to tliis conclusion, if critics are to (Ictermine historical questions by the nature of the case as they judge it, and to assume a liberty of putting etfects for causes when it suits them, we may get startling '' scientific results," but we make no solid progress. What requires explana- tion is the fact that Mazzoth is mentioned as a feast commemorative of the exodus, in what is pronounced the earliest legislation, ami no reference made there- in to the offering of the firstlings; and that only two centuries later the name which is supposed to point to the original character of the feast is for the first time employed, and yet the description of the feast agrees (only being fuller) with the older. - The truth is, as any fair-minded person may see, this laborious attempt to foist in the historical reference at a late date breaks down just because the historical reference was present from the first. The fundauiental fallacy of this whole argument is the assumption that '^ in the land and through the land it is that Israel first becomes the people of Jehovah." For this assertion there is not a scrap of evidence, whereas the concurrent testimony of all Israelite antiquity is, that it was because He had chosen his people, and after he had signalised His choice, that He brought them into a goodly land. And the conclusion of the matter is, that as there was a formal system of law at a much earlier time than the critical theory postulates, so also there was an earlier reference in their worship and ceremonial to the events in the nation's religious history which marked them out as Jahaveh's people. CHAPTER XV. THE THREE CODES. The legislative elements in the Pentateuch a subject of difficulty — The traditional theory makes it unnecessarily difficult, while the critical theory raises greater difficulties — The three positions of the modern theory as to the Codes: I. there are three Codes; II. far apart in time; and IIL inconsistent with one another — .I5 to I. there is nothing inconsistent with Biblical theory or nature of the case in variation or ^progression of Codes — Law is modified even after it is codified — 11. But the critical iwsition is that the Codes belong to times far apart — How this conclusion is reached — The evidence of dates is inferential — Argument examined — The book of the Covenant— No satisfactory account given of introduction of this Code at the alleged time, and ichy codification, once begun, should have stopped for two centuries — Wliat happened in the interv(ds of the Codes? — Wellhausen's position, legem non habentes, &c. — The tico i)oints involved in this x)os^tlion: (1) argument from silence and non-observance; (2) praxis and pro- gramme — ///. Alleged inconsistency of the Codes, partic- idarly as to the centralisation of worship — T7ie argument examined. The legislative parts of the books of the Pentatcurli, in their form and setting no less than in their con- tents, present many (liiricnltios. The laws are fcmnd, not colleeted together and s} stematised, but se.attered The Three Codes. 131 over several books. Not ouly is there a repetition in one collection of what may be found in another, but the same laws may be repeated with little or no alteration in the same collection/ And then there are discrepancies in the regulations found in difi'erent places on the same subject; and laws relating to subjects apparently the most diverse are brought into strange juxtaposition, as also are laws bearing upon what seem very different conditions of life and states of society. We should have expected a writer, if he were the author of all the legislation, to work more systematically: whether he was early and looked forward to the future, or late and looked back upon the past, we should have expected a better arrangement of details, a more completed whole. On what is called the traditional theory, that Moses not only gave tl e law, but wrote substantially the books in which it is contained, the literary difficulties are very great indeed, and the expedients that have been resorted to in order to remove them are very often artificial and hazardous. The modern critical theory, on the other hand, starting with a good motive, gets involved in what I consider a vicious method, and ends by raising greater difficulties than those which it attempts to remove. Advocates of the traditional theory burden themselves with an unnecessary difficulty by assuming that the books of the Pentateuch were written by Moses; for the ])ooks do not say so of themselves, and even the older Jewish tradition that Ezra ^^ restored" the law, 1 Compare Num. xv. 1-16 with Levit. i.-vii. ; Num. v. 5-10 with Levit. V. 5 ff., vi. 5 n. ; Num. xv. 22-23 with Levit. Iv. la £f. 132 Early Religion of Israel. pointed to redaction as a probable solution of many of the difficulties. Too much praise cannot be given to those who have laboured in the field of Pentateuch criticism, for the minute examination they have made of details, in the endeavour to sift and distinguish the sources; and as a literary feat, the labour may be pronounced on the whole successful, althougli it will hardly be asserted that the last word on the subject has yet been spoken.^ At the same time, it seems to me that the difficulties of the critical theory increase at every step ^^'hen the attempt is made to determine the origin of the Codes, and their relation to one another and to the history. The three lead- ing positions of the modern critical theory are: I. That there are three distinct Codes of Law. II. That these belong to three different periods far separate. III. That on essential points the Codes differ. How these positions are established, and what consequences are drawn from them, will be seen as we proceed. I. By a process of critical analysis, into which we do not here enter at length, the legislation con- tained in the Pentateuch is divided into various Codes, distinguished by certain literary and material characteristics. (1.) The Code contained in Deute- ronomy stands by itself, marked by a certain horta- tory tone, and l)y the absence of the minute ritual prescriptions and distinctions found particularly in the book of Leviticus. (2.) There is also distinguished a book of the Covenant attached to the Jehovistic historical portion of the Pentateuch, and embraced ' See Note XXVI. The Three Codes. 133 in Exotl. xx.-xxiii. ; closely related to which, and usually classed along with it, is chap, xxxiv. of the same book, sometimes called tlie Law of the Two Tables. (3.) Then, in the remaining parts of Exodus, in the whole of Leviticus, . and in some chapters of Numbers, are found a numl)er of laws, moral, civil, and ceremonial, which are all classed togetlier as the Levitical Code or Priestly Code, so named I'rom the prevalence of the ritual element in its contents. A portion of this Code, contained in Levit. xvii.-xxvi., is sometimes spoken of as a code or collection by itself, the ^ Maw of holiness," and su})posed to have a special history of its own. Moreover, there is a collection of regulations, mostly ritual, found in P^zekiel (from chap. xl. onwards) which it is customary to take into account in the critical history of the Codes. So far as the legislation of the Pentateuch, however, is concerned, we have to deal with the three collections — tlie Jehovistic book of the Covenant (witli related chap- ter), the Deuteronomic Code, and the Priestly Code; and it is maintained that they are to be historically arranged in the order in which they have just been mentioned. So far there is nothing in the modern tlieory essentially incompatible with the Biblical account of the matter, except the order of the Codes. The Biblical order is: Book of the Covenant, Levitical Code, Deuteronomic Code; but they are ascril)ed to different times, although these periods all fall within the lifetime of Moses. There is nothing unreason- able in itself in the supposition that laws or codes 134 Early Relujion of Israel. of laws were promulgated at ditlcrcnt times; and difl'ereiit sets of laws, so given, fur special purposes or on special occasions, might run severally their respective literary courses. Nor is it difficult to conceive how such several collections might overlap one another, and after a time have certain features of inconsistency. The law-books themselves give us to understand that, as the situation of the people changed, the law^ had a varying reference, and even that a law on a certain subject might be abrogated or modified to suit altered circumstances. So that, even in the Biblical theory, not to speak of what is known of the course of law generally, it is possible for law to undergo modification even after it is codified. We find, for example, within the compass of one book, a modification in the age at which the Levites were to serve at the sanctuary.' Music of an elaborate kind, we know, was introduced into the Temi)le service, though it is not prescribed, as we should expect to find it, in the Levitical Code. Again, the law of inheritance, contained in Xum. xxvii., is modified within the Levitical Code itself ])y Num. xxxvi. ; and it is notorious that by New Testament times and in modern Jewish usage there are modifications in the manner of celebrating the Passover, particularly in the use of wine and certain hymns that constitute very considerable variations from the ceremonial prescribed in the law. Nay, Ezra, to whom, on the modern theory, the introduc- tion of the Priestly Code is ascril)ed, makes a uK^di- fication on the amount of the tax payal)le for the 1 Num. iv. 3. vUl. 24 ; comp. ulso 1 Chron. xxUi. 3, 27 ; 2 Chron. xxxl. 17. The Three Codes. 135 expenses of the Temple/ fixing it at a third of a shekel, whereas the code which he is said to have drawn up fixes it at half a shekel.'^ It seems, therefore, reasonable to suppose that, just as the Passover is an institution of ancient Israel, although it has gathered about it usages of a comparatively recent time, so many of the laws con- tained in the Pentateuch may, before reaching the form in which they now stand, have been modified through changing circumstances in the national life, and yet be in their origin and character Mosaic. Even if we supposed that all the laws of the Penta- teuch were originally written down by Moses — though the Biblical writers never say that they were — there is the probability— nay, the certainty — that these were copied from time to time in whole or in portions. And seeing that practice, in regard to some things at least, varied, and there was no hesitation about introducing certain altera- tions in the observances, the transcriber in a later age, in writing out a code for practical use, might, so to speak, translate the details of prevailing ordinances into the language of his own time, and describe the thing in the form in which he know it. If such a double process went on, it would go far to account for the strange mixture of new and old that we find in these laws, some relating to and only practicable in the desert life or a more i)rimitivc state of society, and others denoting a time when the national life was in a more consolidated posi- tion. In short, we should have before us a kind 1 Neh. X. 32 ft. - Exod. xxx. 13. 136 Enrhj Beligion of Israel of history of tlio ol)sorvanccs, on the understanding, however, that the rites had been observed. The aspect of the Levitical Code, in particular, is hardly intelligible on any other supposition. To say that it was all drawn up at one time by persons setting themselves to the systematic work of framing a code without written materials before them, is to ascribe to the writers either great want of skill on the one theory, or a design to deceive on the other. In view of the only statements which the Biblical writers themselves make on the subject, there is nothing to preclude the supposition of various editings of the laws at different times, while yet the system as a whole, and e^'en the three separate Codes, had a i:)Ositive basis in Mosaic legislation. II. This, however, does not satisfy the modern critical writers. They tliiiik tliey can prove, by a comparison of the Codes, and by references to his- tory, that tlie Codes belong to ])criods very far apart. This, in fact, has been a great part of tlic laborious task of Pentateuch criticism: and while, on the one hand, it has been claimed that by pure literary criticism tlic three Codes have been distinguished from one another, it has been finally confessed, on the other hand, that tlie order of the Codes and their respcM'tivo dates cannot l)e determined solely from the Co;re.it staj^e aiound liim." And. once more. Sale notes that circumcision is held by tht> Moh.-immedans to bo an ancient divine institution, the rite having' been in use many years before Mohammed; and yet It is nut so much as ouce mentioned in the Koran. ^ Chap. iv. p. 75. Tlie Three Codes. 14Y things, we are left in like ignorance by the Scriptural writers. Graphic as their descriptions are when they exist, there are hundreds of details of daily life and ordinary custom in regard to which we would fain have information. The prophet Isaiah, in one well-known passage,^ gives a complete in- ventory of the wardrobe of a fashionable lady of Jerusalem; Init a great number of the words he employs are found only in that passage, and are such that we can only guess at the precise things they are meant to signify. And to speak more particularly of customs and observances, who shall describe to us, from information drawn from the Bib- lical books, the mode in which the Sabbath was ob- served in the time of the prophets? We know from their references to it^ that the Sabbath was spe- cially sacred; and the book of the Covenant, at the latest, vouches for the existence of the Decalogue, which enjoins the sanctity of the Sabbath: yet we remain in almost total ignorance of the manner in which its sanctity was preserved. And the same thing holds of other feasts, whether we regard them as matters of custom or of prescription. Things of daily occurrence and of standing observance, just because they are such, are most naturally passed by without notice. It is perfectly evident that the Old Testament writers contemplated as their readers those who were familiar with the most familiar things in their national life and history. As for Hebrew prophets not referring to legislative books, it is 1 Isa. iii. 16-24. a Amos viii. 5:Hosea ii. 11; Isa. i. 13: cf. 2 Kings iv. 23, xi. 5,7,9, xvi. 18. 148 Early Religion of Israel. much more remarkable that they do not refer to pro- phetical books, and scarcely make a quotation from one another. I do not know that we have positive historical evidence (of a contemporary kind) that would establish the existence of the great bulk of the existing prophetic literature before the captivity; and quite recently a French critic ^ has put forth the view that the greater part of the literature of the Hebrews is a free creation of a school of theolo- gians after the restoration. A mode of reasoning like this can be tested by one striking instance, and such an instance is fur- nished in the great day of atonement (Levit. xvi. ) A ceremonial so imposing, one would think, would not pass without notice, and the modern school points with confidence to the fact that though the institution bulks so largely in the Levitical Code, it is not once referred to in the pre-exilic history, and therefore it must have been devised first of all by Ezra or his successors. But the instance proves too much, for, as a matter of fact, there is no positive historical account of the observance till about the beginning of the Christian era, at the earliest the time of John Ilyrcanus or even Ilerod the Great, 37 B.C., a date at which it was im])ossil)le that the prescription of the ceremony could have l)een in- serted in the Law Code, which, according to Well- hauscn, was introduced in n.c. 444.''' 1 Maurice VornoB. Les Rcsultats do rExt>gi>so Bibllquo, Paris. 1890, 2 DelltZHch, P.Mitat(Mj.-h-Kritiscljo Stu; UnMltMikamj). (tcsoIz u. Pruphoton. p. 11(>. Thn fact that Ezekiel. in his [vision uf| ritual, docs not mention the day of atone- ment. Is taken by the critica to prove that ho was not aware of the Hie Three Codes. 149 But, indeed, we do not need to come so far down in history for evidence tliat the non-observance or the absence of mention of a kiw is not a proof of its non-existence. On the position of the modern criti- cal writers, the Jehovistic book of the Covenant w^as in existence two centuries before Deuteronomy. And yet, not to speak of the moral precei)ts with which the Code is charged, and which were so sadly violated in the life of the people, can distinct proof be produced that the Sabbatic year prescribed in Exod. xxiii. 10, 11, or even the w^cekly Sabbath it- self, was observed in the time during which this Code is said to have been the sole law-book? Why, the Deuteronomic law itself was systematically violated after the time of Josiah.' Down even in the times after tlie exile, among a community which had learned by misfortune tlic evil of breaking the law, and which had returned through hardship to set up a new state at Jerusalem, Ezra and Nchemiah had to contend for the observance of the most fun- damental principles that lay not only at tlie basis of the Deuteronomic Code, but at the foundation of Israel's national existence.^ So far, then, as the first part of Wellhausen's thesis is concerned, it cannot be sustained. The legislation of the Priestly Code in which it is prescribed. It is urged, however, in reply, that Ezekiel's idea of a double atonement for the sanctuary (Ezek. xlv. 18-'2J) may be an intensification of the atone- ment required in the Priestly Code. And Dillmann remarks, "Why Ezekiel should first have ]ir(>iluced the idea of such an atonement is not at all apparent, still less Imw people of a later time ventured to hit upon quite different ch;iracteri sties, and to give out those as Mosaic. 1 Compare Deut. xv. 12 f. with Jer. xxxiv. 13 f. " Compare Ezra ix. 1. 2, Neh. x, 30, xiil. 23, with Exod. xxxiv. 16, Deut. vil. 3. Compare also Neh. x. 31 with Deut. xv. 2; and Noh. x. 37, 39, with Deut, xii. 17. 150 Early Religion of Israel. arguiiient from silence docs not prove it, since we know that many things of much greater significance to the prophets than ritual are not mentioned by them. The argument from non-oljservance does not prove it, since the Deuteronomic and Lcvitical Codes themselves were broken systematically after the admitted dates of their introduction. And the existence of the book of the Covenant, or even of such a part of it as would satisfy Wellhausen's own account of its origin, flatly disproves the assertion that u}) to the time of Deuteronomy the Israelites were in the position of people ^^ having no law." (2.) The other part of Wellhausen's motto that has to be established is, that Israel, without the law, did the works of the law; in other words, that the Codes were not suddenly introduced. On this subject, the use of the two terms, ^'j^raxis " and *^ programme," plays a prominent part in the discussions; and we can understand a code coming into existence by either process. The practice or usage of the time is systematised more or less, and put down in the form of prescription; this is the codification of praxis. Or, on the other hand, a person or persons, considering the existing state of matters unsatisfac- tory or insufficient, may devise a better scheme, and set it forth in orderly form as a legislative pro- gramme. It is remarkal)le how, on either hypo- thesis, the critical writers find it difficult to get rid of the postulate of Mosaic legislation, to which they have so much objection. For they tell us that the Deuteronomic Code was a programme drawn up by prophets and priests combined for the centralisation Tlie Three Codes. 151 of worship, without wliich they saw there coiiUI be no purity of worship. It coukl not, on the hypothesis, have been a codification of tlie praxis, for the whole drift of the theory is, that up to the introduction -of this Code, worship at any place was the practice. Yet the men who brought about the introduction of this Code were the Mosaic party — the party who strove to preserve what they regarded as the true re- ligion of Israel, — and they appealed to Mosaic authority in ascribing the Code to him. AVellhausen gives us to understand that the movement for centrali- sation was connected with the growth of monotheistic conceptions. In all this there is a testimony to the fact that Mosaism, in its essence, was monotheistic, and that the Deuteronomic Code rested on Mosaism at its best, to such an extent that the authority of Moses had to be invoked to secure its acceptance. Again, Ezekiel is said to have put forth a legislative programme; this, however, he did not ascribe to Moses, and his Code was not adopted. Was there any connection between the two things? In all this talk about programme, it seems to me the critical writers are in an uncomfortable dilemma. Either the programme is something new, and then their position that the law did not suddenly come into force be- comes untenable; or else it is a departure in the spirit of the Mosaic legislation, which amounts to the Biblical view that what took place was a re- formation of the worship, not an innovation. The same perplexing situation arises when resort is had to praxis as an explanation of the origin of the Codes. This is particularly the case with the 152 Early Religion of Israel. Priestly Code. AVc are told ^ that wlien tlie Temple was ill ruins, and there was no longer a possibility of the worship being carried on, a body of men in the captivity set themselves to a careful study of the praxis as it had been carried on, and drew up what their memory had fondly preserved of the cultus, and tliat this assumed finally the form of the Priestly Code. The question at once occurs, What praxis? Was the worship of the temple, as Ezekiel and others remembered it, of the pure Mosaic type pre- scribed in the Code which men of his spirit elabor- ated? What then becomes of Wellhausen's assertion that the observance of the Priestly Code was impos- si))le in the conditions prevailing before tlie exile? What l)ecomes also of all the burden of denunciation, of which the prophetic and historical books are full, of the corruptions that prevailed? But if the praxis was corrupt, what guided Ezekiel and Ezra to pro- duce a Code which was in ' ' the spirit of the Mosaic legislation "? Again we fall back upon the Mosaic legislation, Avliicli, unless we are to give the lie to all history, was something better than the corrupt practice. Further, if the critics will have it that tlie Priestly Code is a codification of the praxis, we may employ their own argument, and ask them for historical proof of the praxis of anything that can be supposed to have formed the materials of the new Code. Wellhausen professes indeed to give what lie calls ''a sort of history of the ordinances of worship;" but he is constrained to add, ^vRude and colourless 1 WeUhausen, Hist, of Israel, pp. 69 f., 404 f. The Three Codes. 153 that history must be confessed to be — a fault due to the materials, which hardly allow us to do more than mark the contrast between pre-exilic and post-exilic, and, in a secondary measure, that between Deuter- onomic and pre-Deuteronomic. " ^ Let us, for ex- ample, take the three great feasts of the Passover, Shebuoth or Weeks, and Tabernacles. These, as agricultural feasts, are admitted by the critics to date back to the time of the settlement in Canaan, though the distinctive religious or national character attributed to them by Biblical writers is disputed. Things of such regular recurrence could not be kept hid, and surely here the critical canon of observance may be applied. Yet we have already seen ^ the difficulty Wellhausen has in proving their existence; for in regard to the celebration of the feasts in question before the exile, we have only very few notices, and these mostly very slight. The obser- vance of all the three is only mentioned twice, once in the most general terms in the book of Kings (1 Kings ix. 25), and again in the parallel passage in Chronicles (a l:)ook on which the critics are wont to place no confidence), where they are mentioned by their usual names (2 Chron. viii. 13). The celebra- tion of the Passover is mentioned at most twice — viz., in a very general way, if it is this feast that is referred to, in Isa. xxx. 29, and again at the re- formation in Josiah's reign (2 Kings xxiii. 21 fl'.) Of the Feast of Tabernacles (Succoth) we have four notices — viz., two very doubtful ones in Judges xxi. 19 and 1 Sam. i. 20, 21, and another two very general 1 Hist. Of Israel, p. 13. 2 gee before, chap. xiv. p. 374. 154 Early Religion of Israel references in 1 Kings viii. 2, xii. 32. The obser- vance of tlie Feast of Weeks is only once mentioned, and that is in 2 Chron. viii. 13, where it is mentioned with the other two. The critics are in the habit of making liglit of the statement of the chronicler and the author of the book of Kings,' that such celebra- tions as took place in the times of Ilezekiah and Josiah had not been seen since the times of the Judges, or in all the reigns of the Kings. This, they says, amounts simply to the fact that the Passover, as enjoined in the law, had not been observed at all till the late period to which the narrative refers.^ But in view of the paucity of references, and the vagueness of the references which have been pointed out, we may ask. What then was observed at all? What proof have we that even the nature feasts were kept up, on which this new religious observance might be grafted? In the same way we could argue against the whole ''praxis" of which so much is said. We have no more evidence of the existence of a praxis which could be subsequently codified than we have of the ordinances which are prescril)ed in the Codes; and the passages that may be supposed to refer to a cycle of nature feasts may as well be taken to refer to the legally sanctioned observances. III. Modern critics, however, pronounce the Codes to be so incompatible on vital points as to give indication that they cannot have ])een all the 1 2 Chron. xxx. 5, xxxv. 18, with 2 Kinjjs xxiii. 22. Of. Noh. viii. 17. 2 Ono would havo oxpwtod of thf> chronlclor, if ho was such a stickler for ceroiiioiiial. ami ho unscrupulouH in his stattMiicuts of thoir oarlior obHervauco as tho critics make him out to he, tiiat li»^ would have rather pointedly told us how faithfully the Passover liad J>een observed all along, than give this intimation that it had been persistently neglected. The Three Codes, 156 production of one man, or tlic product of one age. On one subject, in particular, it is held they give clear evidence of a progress from the simple to the complex, of a development which required centuries to accomplish, and that subject is tlic legislation relating to the place of worship. It is maintained that the book of the Covenant permits sacrifice any- where, or what amounts to that; that the Dcuteron- omic Code prescribes one central sanctuary; and that the Levitical Code makes no formal ])rcscription on the subject, taking for granted tliat a central sanctuary exists, and that worship is tlicre observed. These three stages of legislation, it is maintained, correspond to three periods in Israel's history. Up to the time of Josiah the worship of the Banioth or high places, up and down the land, at the holy places consecrated by hallowed associations, was the rule and custom. Then came the struggle wliich culminated in the victory in Josiah's time, when the high places were abolished, and the legitimate wor- ship confined to the Temple. And finally, after the Temple was no more, and the people in exile had time to reflect on the privileges they liad lost, the work of gathering up the litual praxis that Imd been observed at Jerusalem was undertaken; and when the restored community returned to their native land, they came with a book in their hand regulating tlie service of the new sanctuary, the book being the Levitical Code. It will be observed that the great diflerence on this view lies between the book of the Covenant and the Deuteronomic Code; and as the primary object 156 Early Religion of Israel. of our inquiry is the earlier condition of things, the pre-prophetic and early i)roplietic religion, this part of the subject demands more attention. Tlie ditier- encc between the two Codes in question is not one that resolves itself easily into a case of develo})ment, for the introduction of the Deuteronomic Code is represented as having l)een effected in fact by a re- ligious revolution. A true case of development would be that centralisation of worship was the idea and the ideal from the first, but that it gained real- isation by slow degrees. If this can be made out by a comparison of the Codes, and can be shown to be borne out by the history, the objection of modern critics to the discrepancy of the Codes will have comparatively little weight; and a development of the pro])er kind, from germ to full manifestation, will be established. It will then not necessarily follow that the Codes are far distant in time; or if, in their final form, they belong to periods far apart, yet they will be seen in the essential point to agree, and the stronger emi)hasis laid by the Deuteronomic Code than by the book of the Covenant on this requirement, will be explicable on the greater fulness of the longer Code, on the special object which it aimed at, or even on the sup])osition of a later editing or revision of it. I think good reasons can \w given for taking this i)osition: — (1.) No formal sanction is given by proj^hctic men before Josiah's time to a multiplicity of sanctuaries in the sense in which the modern Wi-iters sj^eak. When Amos and FTosea speak of the worship per- formed at such places as Bethel and Gilgal, there is Tlie Three Codes. 15 Y nothing in their words to lead us to suppose that these places were regarded by them as set apart by any divine authority as places of worship. They were certainly invested with old sacred associations (every country has such places) ; they were certainly, in the time of these prophets, resorted to for reli- gious purposes by the people generally, but the pro- phets mention them for the purpose of rebuking the idolatrous or corrupt religious observances of which they were the seat, and never are such expressions applied to them as to Jerusalem and Zion. It is quite possible that, in the northern kingdom after the schism, such places as these, hallowed by patriar- chal associations, were the only places, or the special places, at which those who wished to sacrifice to Jahaveh, debarred from attendance at Jerusalem, performed their worship. But as the prophets re- cognised only the Davidic house as the legitimate depository of the monarchy, so they regarded Jeru- salem as the seat of Jahaveh, and the place of His special manifestation. The very first words which Amos utters to the people of the northern kingdom are: '^Jahaveh shall roar from Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem; " ^ words which could only mean that from Zion and Jerusalem God's authority was in a special way manifested; that there, by pre- eminence. His presence was to be sought and His law to be found, just as the oracle said, ^' Out of Zion shall go forth the law " (Isa. ii. 2; Micah iv. 2). Whatever may be said of sanctuaries in the northern kingdom, there is no sanction given to such places as 1 See Note XXVII. 168 Early Religion of Israel. of co-ordinate authonty Avitli Jerusalem. Much less is there any trace of the recognition of any nuinl)er of places in the southern kingdom, as some would have us sui)pose, which were regarded as equally sacred with Jerusalem. (2.) Xor does the history prove that a multiplicity of sanctuaries, in the modern sense, was a recognised thing in the nation. When it is said that in the stories of the patriarchs the writers represent the fathers of the nation as freely erecting an altar wherever they encamped, and that therefore the writer of these stories saw nothing wrong in this proceeding, there is surely a confusion of thought, or a false inference, when it is concluded that in the writers' day a multiplicity of sanctuaries was recog- nised. For how, indeed, could the patriarchs have sacrificed at all, except in the manner indicated? There was to them no law of central sanctuary, and the writer of these accounts simply represents the patriarchs as doing the only thing that it was pos- sible for them to do. If the writer knew of tlie law of a central sanctuary, he could not have blamed the* patriarchs for ignoring it, simply because it did not exist in their day. Of course the contention is that the writer knew nothing at all about the worship of Abraham and the other patriarchs, but simply pro- jected into the past the ideas and practices of his own time, and made them do sacrifice at the various places which in the writer's day were resorted to as sanctuaries. But all this is mere assumption. The cases referred to of Samuel and the Judges, who are described as offering sacrifices at various places, Tlie Three Codes. 159 are not more conclusive on the point in hand. The places at which such sacrifices are offered are not regarded by the writers as places sacred in them- selves; nay, they are mentioned generally only on the special occasions on which sacrifice was per- formed at them, and again disappear from the his- tory. There is always some special reason for the performance of the sacrifice; there is not one of them that is spoken of as habitually the seat of worsliip, except Shiloh, which was consecrated by the presence of the ark, and which was, so long as it stood, the central sanctuary of Israel. That it was so regarded as the predecessor of Jerusalem itself is proved by the reference to it so late as the time of Jeremiah (vii. 12), a reference wdiich shows that the nation had regarded it as, for its time, similar to the sanctuary at Jerusalem in the days of its glory. (3.) Moreover, the ideal even in the book of the Covenant is that of a central sanctuary. Much has been made here of the words, ' ' In every place where I record my name, I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee " (Exod. xx. 24), which have been taken to mean a permission to worship indifferently at any place. Wellhausen indeed makes a vshow of meet- ing the limitation expressed in the words ' ' where I record my name "; but all he can say ^ in explanation of them is, 'Hhat the spots where intercourse between earth and heaven took place were not willingly re- garded as arbitararily chosen, but, on the contrary, were considered as having been somehow or other selected by the Deity Himself for His service," 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 30. 160 Early Religion of Israel. which is simply saying nothing. Tlie promise here given must be taken to mean sometiiing of a posi- tive kind, and coming after the direction how to make the altar, must be supposed to have some re- ference to worship. If, after the manner of modern critics, we were to ask the polemic the words imply, it might almost seem, on their mode of reasoning, that the writer of these w^ords was protesting against such a centralising of worship as took place in Josiah's days! ^ At all events, it seems strange that such a permission to worship anywhere should be given in this formal way at a time when, it is alleged, no one dreamed of doing anything else, for the book of the Covenant dates (on the hypothesis) from the earliest writing period, when the law of a central sanctuary was unknown.^ If the words were meant merely to sanction places which had been elevated into sacredncss by association with patriarchal thco- phanies and the like, they might be urged as an ar- gument for the worship at a certain number of places; but this is less than what the words express, and less than the example of the patriarchs would warrant, for they seem to have erected an altar as a matter of course wherever they went/ And if the words are really intended to mean that Jahaveh may be wor- ' I 800 that WolUiauson notes that " Exod. xx. 24-26 looks almost like a protest against the arrangements of the Temple of Solomon, espe- cially v. 26 "—Hist, of Israel, p. 96, footnote. - S<» that we have here something very like "a positive statement of the n(in-»'.\ist<'n(M> (if wliat had not yot mmo into being, " which Well- haiison thiiik.H it ho unreasonable to ask.— Hist, of Israel, p. 36."). •' WrlUiausfn, howfvor. says that thoy did not worship at indifTerent and casual localities, but at famous and iiiuuemorlally holy i)la«'«>s of worship; which is Jtist assuming his hypothesis.— Hist, of Israel, p. 3(). This is also the view Slade takes, connecting these sites with tlie worshii) of ancestors. The Three Codes. 161 shipped anywhere, in the sense that '^a multiplicity of altars was assumed as a matter of course,"^ it may be objected that this is hardly consistent with the materialistic conception of the national God which is ascribed to Israel. One would have ex- pected that, at a period when Jahaveh was no more than a national God, as the theory maintains, the tendency would be to a narrow centralising of wor- ship, or at least to a worship in regularly authorised places; and that, when once "ethic monotheism" w^as reached, a free and more unrestricted worship would be permissible. But this is another of the many perplexities of the modern theory, that the development was quite the other way. As it stands, the book of the Covenant is repre- sented as antecedent to the appointment of the tabernacle in the wilderness, and may therefore be taken as meant to state the fundamental idea of worship that was inculcated upon Israel. As the Covenant precedes the law and is not annulled by it (Gal. iii. 1*7), this more spiritual conception of God, as ever near to the worshipper who seeks Him in the right way, represents the idea that we find everywhere held by prophetic men. It was a pro- test, or polemic, if w^e may so say, against the localis- ing tendencies of other religions, an assurance that the God of Israel could and would come near to bless His people in every place where He recorded His name. It thus formed the guiding principle of pro- l)hetic men, to whom, as it would seem, the ordi- nances of ritual worship were '' a figure for the time 1 WelUuiusen, Hist, of Israel, p. 29. 162 Early ndlgion of hrnel. present," luid who never allowed themselves to lull into tlie belief that their God was confined to teni- l)les made with hands. Had there not been such an assertion of this fundamental principle in the very earliest legislation — the omnipresence of Jahaveh — we should no doubt have been told by modern critics that this is another proof that at this early stage of religious belief He was conceived of as limited to some high mountain, or accessible only in some special sanctuary. The duty of united worship in a central place is not incompatible with God's power to bless anywhere. The book of Deuteronomy itself, which is said to restrict worship to the Temi)l(? of Jerusalem, contains an injunction to set up an altar and offer sacrifices between Ebal and Gerizim (Dent. xi. 29; xxvii. 4, 13). Still the limitation itands. ''in every i)lace where I record my name,"" wliirli cannot simply mean " in all places indifferently. "" There was to l)e some indication of Jahaveh'^^ mime given by Himself; and after all, the old explanation that saw a reference to the movements of the tri))es through the wilderness, under the direction of God, who appointed their halting-places, and to a time before the tribes were a settled peo])lc with fixed dwelling-i)lace, though it does not seem to exhaust the reference, is not inappropriate. At most the words may imply the acceptable worshij) of Jahaveh at a number of successive places, but they do not necessarily, nor perhaps possil)ly. imply the re- cognition of simultaneous sanctuaries in dillrrent places. Witli this idea the whole tone of the i)as- sagc is at variance. Tlie i)eopU' to w honi \Uv words The Three Codes. 163 are addressed arc one people; it is not to indivi- duals that the permission or promise is given/ Wherever Israel as a whole is, and wherever Jaha- veh, their one God, records His name, there accept- able worship may be offered. The very idea of the unity of the national God, and the correlative idea of the unity of His people, imply a unity of worship and of sanctuary. The corporate reference is con- firmed by the fact that this same book of the Cove- nant ordains that three times in the year all the males should appear before Jahaveh. It is incon- sistent with the fundamental ideas of the unity of the tribes at that early time to suppose that such a command could mean that three times in the year all the males were to make a pilgrimage to some shrine or other, some tomb or holy place of a tribal ances- tor, and thus fulfil the command here given. The mere possession of a sacred ark, with a tent for its habitation, and these as the common possession of all the tribes, was in itself a centralising of worship. Though the existence of a tabernacle such as is described in the Pentateuch is denied by the modern historians, it is not denied that an ark, and a tent for its covering, were in the possession of Israel, and held in general regard in connection with the I The ten commandments, says a very docile pupil of Wellhausen. " are not addressed to individuals, but to a nation. The ' thou * to whom they speak is the peojile of Israel, and they are prefaced by a sentence in which Jehovah states how it is His right to give laws to Israel " (Allan Menzles, National Keligion, p. 42). Wellhausen would have us believe that the notion of the " congregation " as a sacred body was "foreign to Hebrew antiquity, but runs through the Priestly Code from beginning to end " (Hist, of Israel, p. 78). I think we have it here clearly marked in the " thou " of the book of the Covenant in formal connection with worship (comp. above, p. 303 f.) But indeed it was present in essence in the first self -consciousness of Israel as Jahaveh's people. 164 Early Religion of Israel. Jahavcli religion. Nor can it be denied that Shiloli was a sanctuary of a quite special importance in the times of the Judges and Samuel, and no one who l)e- lieves that the Hebrew writers knew anything at all of their history will accept the assumption that the Temple was merely the court sanctuary of the king- dom of Judah, or even only one of many co-ordinate holy places in that kingdom. Wellhausen says ^ that the principle ''one God, one sanctuary" is the idea of the Priestly Code. It is, in point of fact, the idea of the book of the Covenant also, though neither in the one nor in the other is it held to mean that the one God was only present, and could only mani- fest His power at one particular spot. ^^ An altar Shalt thou make to me," the command runs, not '' altars." The altar of God is always only one. It ceases to be an altar the moment His people and His manifestation to them are at another place. It is not the sanctity of the place that constitutes the sanctity of the altar, but the presence of Him who makes His name manifest. It is remarkable that we do not find in all the Old Testament such a divine utterance as ''my altars"; and only twice does the expression "Thy altars," addressed to God, occur. It is found in Elijah's complaint, which refers to northern Israel, at a time when the legitimate worship of Jerusalem was excluded; and in Psalm Ixxxiv., where it again occurs, no infer- ence can be drawn from it. On the other hand, Hosea says distinctly, ''Ephraim hath multiplied altars to sin" (Ilosea viii. 11). 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 34. The TJiree Codes. 165 I think, tlicreforc, it is not i)rovcd that the book of the Covenant allows worship at any indefinite number of places as co-ordinate sanctuaries; nor does the history show that this was recognised by the re- ligious leaders of the nation. Previous to the build- ing of the Temple at Jerusalem, and especially Avhen the ark was removed from Shiloh, we find what may be called a freer or less regulated practice; and this was the result of the exigencies of the period. But from the erection of the Temple, not only is there no proof that any other sanctuary was allowed, but there are positive indications that that was regarded as the one authoritative place of worship in the sense in which we here speak. The practice in the northern kingdom proves nothing, for all the asser- tions of modern writers to the effect that the history mainly evolved itself there, and that the kingdom of Judah counts for little, are opposed to the spirit and distinct utterances of the earliest prophets. Not less are they inconsistent with the earliest legisla- tion. The book of the Covenant, at whatever time written, and whether composed in the northern or the southern kingdom, makes no distinction between the two, and lays down one law for all Israel. The schism of the ten tribes was a breaking away from national unity and from the national God; and no proof can be adduced that prophetic men looked with anything but disfavour on the idolatrous wor- ship that was practised in the southern kingdom, whether at Jerusalem or at local sanctuaries. CHAPTER XYI. THE LAW-BOOKS. Distinction of Books and Codes — Wellhausen's personal ex- •perience — The hypothesis of Graf; not the result of criti- cism — TJie great objection to it its assumption of the ficti- tious character of the history, thus leaving no solid materials for a credible history — /. The book of Deutero- nomy is neither (1) p>seudonymous 7ior (2) .fictitious — 11. The books containing the Levitical Code — (1) The position that Ezekiel 2^cived the way for this Code — (2) T?ie i)ious remnant and the reformation ideas — (3) Fictitious history in an aggravated form — (4) The literary form of this Code — Multiplicity of sources a proof of long-contiJiued literary activity — But the main course of the history rests on its oicn independent proofs. In the preceding chapters we have seen reasons for concluding that the modern theory does not suffi- ciently account for the persistent ascription of law and religious ordinance to Moses; that it fails to exhibit the transition from natural to religious ob- servance, and from oral to authoritative written law; that its argument from silence tells as much against its own assumption as against the Biblical view; and that its sharp distinction of the Codes in essential matters is not well founded. Witli the literary fates of the various law-codes we arc not much concerned, The Laio-Books. 167 because this is a subject on wliich the Biblical theory, which it is our main purpose to test, leaves great latitude for different views; and the same may be said of the question of the composition of books. We must, however, look somewhat particularly into the relation of the law-books to the Codes and to the general history; for in regard to this matter the Biblical theory and the modern are radically at variance in important points. Wellhausen in one passage ^ gives us an interest- ing piece of his own personal experience. He tells us that in his early student days he ^' was attracted by the stories of Saul and David, Ahab and Elijah; " that the discourses of Amos and Isaiah laid strong hold on him, and that he read himself well into the prophetic and historical books of the Old Testament; but that all the time he " was troubled with a bad conscience, as if he were beginning with the roof instead of the foundation." At last he took courage, and made his way through the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers; but looked in vain for the light which he expected these would shed on the historical and prophetical books. ''At last," he saj's, '' in the course of a casual visit in Gottingcn in the summer of 1867, I learned through Ritschl that Karl Heinrich Graf placed the law later than the prophets, and, almost without knowing his rea- sons for the hypothesis, I was prepared to accept it; I readily acknowledged to myself the possibility of understanding Hebrew antiquity without the book of the Torah." J Hist, of Israel, pp. a, 4. 168 Early Religion of Israel. So far as his experience in tlie reading of Scripture goes, there is nothing very peculiar in it. I suppose that few of those who have formed for themselves any defined view of Bible history, have acquired this by reading through the law-books before approach- ing those that are historical. He tells us nothing of his experience in regard to the book of Genesis, whose stories of the patriarchs, one would have thought, would have as powerfully attracted the young student as the history of Saul and David; and it is difficult to fancy what idea he could have ob- tained of even the historical and prophetical books, without accepting the underlying assumption of these books that the history went back to the pa- triarchal period. The whole history hangs in the air, if we begin with Saul and David — implying, as it does, a great deal for which we must turn to the writings which Wellhausen must include in his ex- pression, ^Hhebookof the Torah." But in using this expression, and in his reference to the theory of Graf which he says he found himself ready to accept, he leads the unwary reader to confuse two things which ought to be kept distinct, and to jump to a conclusion which is not warranted by the experience which he relates. Our examination of the early prophetical writings, and of the histories which are said to be of about the same date, always threw us back upon an antecedent history, and gave at least a strong presumption of the truth of the narrative contained in tlie books of the Pentateuch. Yet for the fundamental facts and main course of the history we did not require to The Laiv-Books. 169 refer to the Pentateuchal laws, although we found a coherence and consistency between the accounts contained in the two sets of books. The history, in fact, does not turn upon laws and the observance of ceremonies, and so far it is true, as Wellhausen says he experienced it, that the history is intelligible without the Torah. But in saying ' ' the book of the Torah," if by that he means the whole Pentateuch, and not merely the legal part of it, it is not the case that the history is thus intelligible. The law-books of the Pentateuch, as is well known, exhibit two component elements, — narrative and legislation; and it has been found impossible by literary analysis to separate them. Whether the two parts originally came from different hands or not, m part or in whole, they are so inextricably blended or woven together that it has to be con- fessed they must go together. That is to say, the narratives imply that the laws were given under historical circumstances, and the laws imply the circumstances under which they were given. If, then, we are satisfied with the testimony given by later writers to the history; if, in other words, we take the references to earlier times contained in the writings of the eighth and ninth centuries as con- firming, in the main, the narrative of the Pentateuch, we might conclude tliat the laws, which are by con- fession bound so closely in the bundle of narrative as to be inseparable from it, are also the laws and statutes to which the prophets appeal. The laws would go with the narrative, in which they are en- closed. And this is what the Old Testament writers 170 Early Religion of Israel. take for granted. The reverse process, however, since the time of Graf, has been followed by those who advocate his theory. They say the narratives must follow the laws. How this conclusion was reached, and what it involves, must now be con- sidered. Graf at first attempted to make a separation be- tween the legislation and the accompanying history contained in the Pentateuch; and having proved to his own satisfaction that the narratives attached to the Levitical Code were implied in the book of Deuteronomy, and known to the writer of the latter, he said that the narratives were early, while the legislation was late. Being, however, afterwards convinced that the two elements were inseparable, he was clearly in a dilemma, from which be adopted a remarkable mode of escape. He simply said that as the laws had been proved to be of late origin, the narratives must also be of late composition — throw- ing over entirely the proofs which he had before considered sufiicient to show that the narratives of the Lcviticaf books were older than Deuteronomy, and introducing a fashion of regarding the contents of these books which is at once novel and startling. For if the laws of the Levitical Code are late in the literal sense that they became laws at a period as late as Ezra, the narratives which accompany them and describe in detail in regard to many of them the manner in which they were promulgated by Moses, cannot be true history at all: the events related as the historical setting of the laws must be nothing else than fictitious. The onlv thinur that can be said The Law-Books. 171 in their favour is, that they were invented for the good purpose of confirming and sanctioning the laws, by ascribing them to Moses, to whom the national tradition looked back as the great originator of law in Israel. The first thing that strikes one here is that the theory is not the result of a sustained and uniform line of criticism. It was a volte-face. Graf had sat- isfied himself that the narrative parts of the Penta- teuch w^re early, and were referred to or implied in pre-exilian writings. If he was equally satisfied that the laws were exilic, or post-exilic, and yet were inseparable from the narrative, the proper con- clusion was that his critical processes were incor- rect somewhere, and he ought to have searched for the error. One would think that the national testi- mony to a series of historical facts would be more clear than the recollection of a body of laws, and that laws were more liable to change by usage than the national testimony to vary in regard to funda- mental facts of history. At all events, to say bluntly that the narratives must go with the laws is no more a process of criticism than to say that the laws must go with the history. It is therefore inac- curate to describe the position of Graf as a conclu- sion of criticism. It was simply a hypothesis to evade a difiiculty in which criticism had landed him. And then, when it is considered what is implied in the position that the narratives must go with the laws, it cannot but be admitted that the hypothesis is so far-reaching and revolutionary that it should be 112 Early Religion of Israel. accepted only when every other explanation of the phenomena fails. For it amounts to a thorough dis- crediting of the historical value of the narratives of these books with which the laws are so closely inter- woven; and to an ascription of fiction, if not fraud, to the writers, which will render it extremely diffi- cult for sober criticism to rely upon any testimony which is borne by the Hebrew writers to the facts of their national history. So that here again, when pushed home to its central position, we find that the modern view, claiming to be strictly critical, in reality throws discredit on the documents which it starts to criticise,^ and which are the only sources available for obtaining information regarding the history which is to be described. But there is no necessity, except that imposed by an unyielding hypothesis, for this last resource. If laws were not given by Moses, then certainly any narratives that describe them as so given must be false. But if Moses did deliver a body of laws to his people, then even if the laws, as they stand, in- dicate divergency, even if they underwent modifica- tion, even if the codes or the books, or both, are of much later composition, in their existing forms, than the time of Moses, we may still respect the bona fides of the writers of the books, and maintain them as substantially true history. I. To begin with the book of Deuteronomy. Some who l)elieve that this book is of late date, written at the time of Josiah in order to bring about a reforma- tion, and yet seek to maintain the bona fides of the 1 Compare above, chap. vl. p. 149 f . Hie Laiu-Books. 1Y3 writer, are in the habit of saying that the book is an example of pseudonymous composition. Briggs, for example/ has argued at length and ingeniously to show that there is nothing unreasonable in the supposition of pseudonymous literature in the Bible, and by reference to the book of Ecclesiastes has tried to save this book of Deuteronomy from the category of forgery or fiction. But in point of fact, the book is not pseudonymous in the same way that Ecclesiastes is. The latter book, except the heading at the beginning and the epilogue (chap. xii. 9 ff.) at the end, is all written in one person. ''I, the preacher," did so and so throughout; and his per- sonality, ^' son of David," and magnificence, are so accentuated as to lead to the conclusion that Solomon is meant. But the writer by saying, " was king over Israel in Jerusalem," lets us at the outset into his secret, which is simply this, that he is writing in the name of Solomon, to represent what might have been Solomon's reflections upon life. There is not only no intent to deceive, but there is scarcely the possibility of deception. The circumstances of a historical kind that are introduced are so few and so general that we are not misled or misinformed as to matters of fact: all the rest is meditation, moralis- ing, and the scheme of the book is so far transparent. But it is quite different with the book of Deu- 1 Biblical Study (1887), p. 223 ff. He appeals also, among others, to Robertson Smith, " who uses the term legal fiction as a variety of literary fiction " (see Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 385). What is there described, however, as " found more convenient to present the new law in a form which enables it to be treated as an In- tegral i^art of the old legislation, " though probably applicable to the present form in which the collections of laws appear, does not seem to cover the case of the honk of Deuteronomy with which we are concerned. Compare Cheyne, Jeremiah, His Life and Times, p. 77. 174 Early Religion of Israel. teronomy. As a book, it docs not profess to be written by Moses; it is, in fact, one of the many anonymous books of the Old Testament. The writer, whoever he was, and at whatever time he lived, tells us certain things that Moses did, and especially produces long addresses which Moses is said to have uttered. These long speeches, however, are all set in a historical framework; and if the framework is not historical, the book is more than pseudonymou- — it is pseudo-historical. The speeches by them- selves might be taken to fall into the category of the book of Ecclesiastes, where the preacher is made to give the thoughts that passed through his mind. But if the writer, who has set these speeches down at definite times and under definite circumstances, is not correct as to the time and circumstances, or if the events he weaves into the speeches never oc- curred, he is manufacturing these, not studying to reproduce them by historical imagination. The book declares that at a certain time, and under cer- tain circumstances, Moses gathered the people and addressed to them long speeches recalling certain facts. If Moses never did such a thing, and if such facts never occurred, the book must be simply de- scribed as unhistorical or fictitious. And yet I do not think it is to be so regarded. Whoever was the author, and whatever time may be assigned for its composition, this is Avhat the book presents to us. It declares that Moses at the close of the wilderness journey, when the people were ready to cross the Jordan, made formal addresses to them, in which he recounted the events of their The Laiu-Books. 175 past liistory, recapitulated the laws which he had laid down for their guidance, and warned them against the temptations to which they would be par- ticularly exposed in Canaan; threatening them, in case of disobedience, with God's judgments, and promising them, in case of obedience, His blessing. Now, if Moses sustained anything at all like the office which is invariably ascribed to him in the books of the Old Testament; if he was the leader of the peo- ple to the borders of Canaan, the founder of their national constitution, the lawgiver in any positive and definite sense, — it was the most natural thing in the world that he should, at the close of his life, have given such parting counsels and addresses to the people whose history was so closely bound up with his own life's work. That is to say, the situa- tion which the book of Deuteronomy presents to us is a situation not in itself improbable, but on every ground exceedingly probable; and tlie statement by the writer of the book that this situation presented itself is such that it would be accepted as matter of fact in any secular historian. Further, if a writer, whether early or late, set himself to tell all this, he could only do so in the form in which the book of Deuteronomy comes before us. Let us not be misled by the direct form in which these speeches are expressed. Wellhausen, in one place, ^ speaks contemptuously of our being treated to long addresses instead of historical details. It is somewhat remarkable that he, and many like- minded, have not taken note of the peculiarity of ^ History of Israel, p. 340. 1 76 Early Religio7i of Israel. the Hebrew language, that it has not developed what we call the indirect speech — a peculiarity which necessitates the regular introduction of speeches or addresses. Take such a passage as the following: When the children of Israel, after their long wanderings in tlie desert, were on the point of crossing the Jordan to take possession of the land to which they had looked forward as their inheritance, Moses, who had been their constant guide and legis- lator for forty years, seeing that the close of his life was near, and solicitous for the welfare of the people whom he had hitherto guided, assembled them about him, and in various addresses recapitulated the striking events of their past history, dwelling par- ticularly on details that exhibited most clearly the guiding hand of God and the fallibility and frailty of Israel, restated the fundamental principles on wdiich the nation w^as constituted, and by warning and promise directed them to the dangers that lay in the future if they proved unfaithful, and to th© blessings in store for them if they adhered to alle- giance to their national God. Let any professor of Hebrew set himself to state in idiomatic Hebrew what all this implies in detail, and he will be bound to state it just as it is put down in this book. The absence of the indirect speech in Hebrew can be made quite clear to the English reader by a refer- ence to any page of the historical books. If a writer wishes to say that one person made a verbal com- munication to another, he must say, * ' So-and-so spake to So-and-so, saying," and must give the ip- sissima verba. And yet, strictly speaking, the Tlie Law-Books. 177 writer is not to be taken as vouching for the actual words spoken. He is simply producing, in the only way that the laws of his language allow him to pro- duce, the substance of the thing said; and from beginning to end of the Old Testament writings, the language remained at that stage, only the faintest attempts to pass beyond it being visible. It is part of that direct, graphic style of Old Testament Scrip- ture, which is of wide extent, and is based on the intuitive, presentative mode of thought of the sacred Avriters, who must describe a scene by painting it and its actors, with their words and gestures, and reproduce a communication in the actual words sup- posed to have been uttered.^ It is easy to see now how a writer, soon after or long after Moses, recalling the events which we may suppose tradition preserved in the nation's mind, and using we know not what documents, produced a book like Deuteronomy. The situation was not one of active events, but of reflective pause and con- sideration, preparatory to the arduous work of the contest, and hence the literary form of the book is difierent from that of the other books of the Penta- teuch. Not by any fiction, not by inventing a story for a purpose, but in perfect good faith, he repre- sents the aged lawgiver, surrounded by the people whose welfare lay so much at his heart, giving them such counsel, warning, and encouragement as were suited to their circumstances. It was but natural that a writer, setting himself to such a task, should 1 I may bo allowed In this connection to refer to a paper on the " Graphic Element in the Old Testament " in the Expositor, second series, vol. vi. p, 241 ff. 178 Early Religion of Israel. mingle iniich of his own in the composition. No writer can divest himself of his own personality, or write entirely without reference to the time in which he lives. And a writer succeeding Moses, at a greater or less interval, could not but sec the devel- opment of events which were only in germ in Moses' time, and could not help representing them more or less in their developed form. In this sense, and to this extent, it is true that any late writer writes under the influence of later ideas; and the objection taken ])y critical writers to such a course is an ob- jection that would apply to all writing of history. But between this — which is done in absolute good faith — and the wholesale manufacturing of incidents and situations, there is all the difference between history and fiction. We cannot think of such a writer imagining his events so as to represent Moses recapitulating a series of occurrences that (lid not take place, or which the wTiter did not firmly believe did take place, or ascribing to him laws which he did not consider to have been in their form or substance propounded to the people whom Moses addressed. Laws are indeed, as has been already said, sub- ject to change with changing circumstances, and observances are liable to assume new phases to meet new emergencies. A law, given at first with a general reference, may come face to face with actual states of society wiiich force it to take a more defi- nite shape to meet the cases that have arisen. This is development of law, but it is not change of the substance of the law. Now if, as is surely most The Laiv-Books. 179 reasonable to assume, Moses did warn his people against the idolatries of the nations of Canaan, and enjoin them to maintain their own religious faith and observances, the force of such warnings and admonitions would be accentuated when the actual dangers emerged; the law would be seen in its far- ther reference, and assume a more specific and pre- cise form in the minds ot those who looked at it. If, then, a later writer, believing in all good faith that Moses gave such admonitions, had before his eyes the actual dangers which the lawgiver had in a general way foreseen, he could not help, in restating the laws, giving them a sharper and more incisive point; but he was not thereby either changing or inventing a law. This would be to develop law in the spirit of the Mosaic legislation, on the understand- ing, however, that there was a positive Mosaic leg- islation to be developed. And all this again, it seems to me, is compatible with the good faith of the writer and with the substantial historical accu- racy of his narrative. It is, however, quite a differ- ent thing from the supposition that the writer, after he had seen certain dangers and abuses emerge, set himself to devise a law which was quite new, in order to meet these, and deliberately contrived a whole set of historical occurrences, in which it was feigned that the laws were given forth in Mosaic times. It will be remembered that those who make the Code of Deuteronomy late, usually say that the writer drew up laws in the spirit of the Mosaic leg- islation; and even Wellhausen says that the book of 180 Early Religion of Israel. ''Deuteronomy presupposes earlier attempts of this kind, and borrows its materials largely from them." ' The Biblical account of the matter is, that Moses actually wrote down the laws contained in the book. There was, in other words, a Deuteronomic Code prior to the book of Deuteronomy; this is what the critics themselves say, and what the book itself says. The question is, Did the Code, in a written form and to an appreciable extent, come from Moses him- self ? On the one side we have these vague admis- sions as to the '^ spirit of the Mosaic legislation" (and how was a late writer to know what that spirit was unless by positive enactment'/), and the equally vague admission of '^ former attempts," without positive specification of the time and extent of the attempts that were made. On the other hand, we have the positive statement that Moses, at his death, left a body of laws such as are included in the book of Deuteronomy. That we have the very words of the laws as he penned them, the custom of literary composition, and the ordinary fates of legislative codes, show us we are not forced to suppose. What became of the actual collection of laws, beyond the fact that it was delivered to the Levites, and deposited in the side of the ark,* we are not told. And moreover, at what time and by whose hands the whole of the book of Deuteronomy, as we now have it, was composed, is a matter which literary criticism alone cannot decide. It is only by infer- ences, not very clear in themselves, that the conclu- sion is reached that the book belongs to the age of 1 Hist, ol Israel, p. 402. See above, p. 399 t. > Deut. zxxL 26. The Law-Books. 181 Josiah; but even if, as a book, it belongs to that age, or later, I think the considerations advanced will show how it may be still historical and trustworthy, exiiibiting at once the working ot a later develop- ment of old principfes, and preserving also — not inventing for the occasion — elements which are ancient and Mosaic/ II. 01 the other law-books, we have to deal particularly with those that embody the Levitical Code. Here the narrative and the legal elements are very closely blended; but I think it is possible, even on the supposition that the Code underwent moditication in course of time, to accept the books as trustworthy historical records. Let us, however, first of all, see how the critical writers account for the introduction of the Code and its related narratives. It is said that Ezekiel " in the last ])art of his work made the first attemiit to record the ritual which had been customary in the Temple of Jerusa- lem. Other priests attached themselves to him (Levit. xvii.- xxvi.), and thus there grew up in the exile from among the members of this profession a kind of school of people who reduced to writing and to a system what they had formerly practised in the way of their calling. After the Temi)le was restored this theoretical zeal still continued to work, and the ritual when renewed was still further developed by the action and reaction on each other of theory and practice." ^ "So long as the sacrificial worship remained in actual use, it was zealously carried on, but people did not concern themselves with it theoretically, and had not the least occasion for reducing it to a Code. But once the Temple was hi ruins, the cultus at See Note XXVIII. 2 Well.. Hist, of Israel, p. 404; comp. 4%. 182 Early Religion of Israel. an end, its personnel out of employment, it i3 easy to under- stand how the sacred praxis should have become a matter of theory and writing, so that it might not altogether perish, and how an exiled priest should have begun to paint the picture of it as he carried it in his memory, and to publish it as a pro- gramme for the future restoration of the theocracy. Nor is there any difficulty if arrangements, which as long as they were actually in force were simply regarded as natural, were seen after their abolition in a transfiguring light, and from the study devoted to them gained artificially a still higher value.'' ^ All tliis may not be so ^^easy to understand'' to everybody as it seems to be to Wellhausen. Indeed the things that he finds 'Mio difficulty " in accepting are very often the very things lor which proof is most desiderated. As to codification being the deposit during the exile of an old, fully developed praxis, we have already had something to say (p. 400 f.); and Bredenkamp exclaims with justifiable astonishment, '^ Clouds wdiich are formed in the time of grandsires are not in the habit of raining upon grandsons. Could people not write in pre-exilic times? Must they not be allowed to write? Why tear with vio- lence the pen from the hand of the ancient Israel- it ish priests? " ^ We are told indeed by Wellhausen, on his own authority, that the praxis of the priests at the altar never formed part of the written law in pre-exilic times.^ But Dillmann, who has subjected these books to a most thorough examination, not only sees nothing against the idea, but finds posi- tive proof for it, that the priests at the Temple of Jerusalem were in the habit of writing down the • WttUhnxaon, Hist of Israel, p. 69 f. ■ Gesetz mid Prut)hHt«n, p. llfiL * Hist, of Israel, p. r>'.». The LaiO'Books, 183 laws and regulations for their ceremonial functions.' Besides, Wellhausen has to assume for the nonce that the praxis which was '^zealously carried on" anterior to the exile was just what underwent codifi- cation after it; although his general contention is that in the pre-exilic period ^' no trace can be found of acquaintance with the Priestly Code, but on the other hand, very clear indications of ignorance of its contents."'^ If, however, such 'ignorance of its contents'' prevailed, how was an exiled priest or a number of priests to carry the whole thing in memory and reduce it to writing? Moreover, what he ascribes to the time of the exile, seems ill to agree with the statement of the matter which he gives in another place. The Babylonian exile, he says, " violently tore the nation away from its native soil and kept it ai)art for half a century,— a breach of historical continuity than which it is almost impossible to conceive a greater. The new generation had no natural but only an artificial relation to the times of old; the firmly rooted growths of the old soil, re- garded as thorns by the pious, were extirpated, and the freshly ploughed fallows ready for a new sowing."^ He then goes on to say that it is "far from being the case that the whole people at that time underwent a general conversion in the sense of the prophets, . . . Only the pious ones, who with trembling followed Jeho- vah's word, were left as a remnant; they alone had the strength to maintain the Jewish individuality amid the medley of nation- alities into which they had been thrown. From the exile there 1 Die Biichor Exodus u. Leviticus, 2'<- Auflage, p. 386. He calls W'ell- hausen's position " an arbitrary assertion." 2 Hist, of Israel, p. 59. Comp. above, p. 394. ' Ibid., p. 28. 184 Early Religion of Israel. rotiirnod. not the nation, l)nt a religious sect — those, namely, who had given themselves up body and soul to the reformation ideas. It is no wonder that to these people, who besides, on their return, all settled in the immediate neighbourhood of Jeru- salem, the thought never once occurred of restoring the local cults. It cost them no struggle to allow the destroyed Bamoth to continue lying in ruins; the principle had become part of their very being, that the one God had also but one place of worship, and thenceforward, for all time coming, this was re- garded as a thing of course. This aspect of the exile as a violent wrench from old associations is hardly consistent with the view that a priestly party from the very beginnin^: of the captivity took up the minute study and arrangement of the sacrificial system which had just been broken up. Nor, although it is '^ no wonder" to Wellhau- sen, is it very clear that a people should so easily for- get all that was bad in the past worship (and how much of it was bad!) and so readily begin life anew on an entirely new principle. Indeed this Avhole ac- count of the influence of the exile on the codification of law does not by any means turn out to be so easy as Wellhausen would make us believe. (1.) In the first place, we are told that ''the transition from the pre-exilic to the post-exilic period is effected, not by Deuteronomy, but by Ezekiel the priest in prophet's mantle, who was one of the first to be carried into exile." ^ Ezekiel's so-called pro- gramme is so confidently appealed to as the precur- sor of the Levitical Code, that to assert anytliiug to the contrary at the present day is to exi)()se one's self to ridicule as incompetent to understand critical > Hl8t. of Israel, p. 69. The Laiv-Books. 186 processes. Nay, so important are the chapters in the book of Ezekiel which contain this programme, that Wellhausen says they have been called, not in- correctly, 'Hhe key of the Old Testament."' The chapters in question are xl. to xlviii. They form a connected piece, and tell us how the prophet was, '^in the visions of God," brought into the land of Israel, and what he saw and was told there. He dwells at great length on the measurements and de- tails of arrangement of the Temple, and communi- cates directions for its dedication and for its service. He also describes the waters issuing from under the house and going to fertilise the desert; and he lays out minutely the measurements of the sacred terri- tory and the situation of the tribes in the land. Now, surely, by all honest criticism, whatever mode of interpretation is applied to one part of this vision should be made to apply to the whole. If one part is a cool, deliberate programme, so should the others. If the other parts are clearly not to be taken in this sense, neither should the ceremonial part. Ezekiel is just as precise and matter-of-fact in the divisions which he makes of tlie Holy Land as in the ordi- nances he puts forth for the worship of the sanctuary. Yet the critical school proceeds in the most elabo- rate fashion to examine this code or programme, and tells us that it is the first attempt to arrange what afterwards became the Levitical Code. Why do they not say also that his geographical sketch is to be understood, say, as the starting-point for the tribal divisions of the book of Joshua, or that his » Hist, of Israel, p. 421. 186 Early Religion of Israel, sketch of tlie Temple is the groundwork of Solo- mon's? I must confess simply that I cannot under- stand the principle of a criticism that thus tears one j)iece out of connection and seeks to make it a serious historical programme, while not a word can be said in favour of treating the other parts in tlie same way. If two-thirds of the vision are clearly ideal, so must the other third, in Avhatever way w^e are to understand the ideal meaning which the prophet meant to convey. If it be urged that Ezekiel did not need to give details for ritual if a ritual law ex- isted, and that he makes no reference to any law on the subject, It can be rejoined that he speaks in the same way of Temple and land. We cannot gather from his description that the Temple of Solomon was ever built or the land ever divided among the tribes before his day. '^This," he says, ''shall be the bordei-, whereby ye shall divide the land for inheri- tance according to the twelve tribes of Israel: . . . concerning the which I lifted up mine hand to give it unto your fathers;"' ' and he gives all tlic measure- ments of some house seen in vision without referring to a house which he knew quite well as having stood for centuries. AVe need not thcrefoi-e wonder at his bringing in a detailed ritual, as if this were the first time such a thing had been heard or thought of. He is not for the first time in history trying to fix a ritual for a people who had hitherto nothing but custom to guide them. His sketch is too brief alto- gether for such an attempt. Xo i)riesthood could have carried on the service of the sanctuary and ' Ezek. xlvii. 13. 14. The Law-Books, 187 regulated the worship of the nation with such a vague and fragmentary manual. As to its being as a literary work the foundation of the later Levitical Code, it is not by any means certain that in language or matter the Levitical Code is dependent upon it. A careful examination has led competent judges to decide tliat the reverse is the case/ though I do not tliink it necessary to go into this. But it may be urged, if there was a detailed authoritative law in existence, why did Ezekiel, even in vision, deviate from it? Well, on the critical hypothesis the Dcuteronomic law at least existed as authoritative, and yet Ezekiel deviates from it. If it is still asked. How could he, prophet though he was, quietly set aside the recognised law? the ques- tion again arises. After he, a prophet speaking in God's name by direct revelation, sketched this law, how did priests in the exile pass by Ezekiel's draft, and frame a divergent code? In fact, there are in- superable difficulties on every side when this ritual of Ezekiel is taken as a cool, matter-of-fact pro- gramme of legislation, put forth as a first attempt at codification; and no argument can be based upon it for the modern theory. (2.) And then, secondly, it is quite conceivable that the people in the exile should have turned their attention to matters of law. They would be com- pelled, in order to keep themselves separate from the surrounding heathen, to attend to those matters of personal, ceremonial, and social order which 1 See, e. g., Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten, p. 116 ff. ; DUlraann, Die Biicher Exodua u. Leviticus, p. 524 ff. See also Note XXIX. 188 Early Religion of Israel. were their national distinctions, and, so far, their very existence as a separate people in the exile is a proof of pre-existing law. But it is not so clear, by any means, that they should for the first time make a study of purely Levitical and sacrificial laws at a time when they had no cultus. Nor, in view of the zeal for the law shown at a later time by the Jews in Babylon, is it so clear that only a few underwent a ^^ conversion in the sense of the prophets." Well- hausen has to suppose a school of people who gave themselves ardently to this study of ritual law. It was a large school, if the number of returning exiles is taken into account. All these must have been in Ezra's secret on this view, — all ardently devoted to the reformation ideas. Now, in point of fact, Ezra's own account is that he had a deficiency of Levitcs among his volunteers, and had to urge them to join him and to act as ' ' ministers for the house of our God" (Ezra viii. 15 ff*.) Moreover, Ilaggai shows us that the people were very far indeed from being devoted to the reformation ideas; the sacrificial system was slackly observed; and even in Ezra's and Nehemiah's time the picture of the people is any- thing but that of a community that ''had given themselves up ])ody and soul to the reformation ideas" of either morals or worship.^ (3.) But, further, difficult as it is to believe that the so-called school for the first time put down in writing wliat tliey treasured in their memories, tliis is not the whole of the hypothesis. Again, and in a much more objectionable form, comes in the sup- 1 Ezra Ix. 1 ff. ; Neh. v. 1 ff., xUl. i fl.. 15 ff., 23 ff. ; Mai. 1. 6 fl., 11. 8 ff. Tlie Laio-Books. 189 position of fiction, whereby a false historical setting was invented for the laws of the Levitical Code, by carrying them back to Moses and the desert, simply in order to give the law higher sanction. Not only, for example, was there no tabernacle, such as is described in the Pentateuch, prepared in the wilder- ness, but even at the time when the story of its construction was fabricated, there was no such tabernacle to have given rise to the fable, nor had any such tabernacle ever existed to give a start to the story. ^ It was simply the legend-spinning inven- tion of men of late time that cut down the dimen- sions of the Temple to half their size, and feigned that a tabernacle of that size existed in a portable form in the wilderness; and all this simply to make it appear that the Temple worship was of older institution than the time of the building of the Temple. So also a fictitious origin is given for what the Code represents as other early institutions. In every case in which a law is said to have been given in Mosaic times, the circumstances, if stated, must be similarly explained as invented or suggested in a late time. In this way, all sorts of divergences of the narrative of the Priestly Code from tliat of the Jehovist are accentuated, and it is made to appear — at the expense, it must be admitted, of wonderful ingenuity — that the former are of exilic time — i.e., of the date of or subsequent to the introduction of the laws.^ The question is whether the palm of ingenuity is to be assigned to the writers of these books or to 1 Wellhausen, p. 37 fl. a gee Note XXX. 190 Early Beligion of Israel the modern critics; whether a school composed of men like Ezekiel and Ezra were likely to have with boundless inventiveness concocted all this history, or our modern critics are ransacking the treasures of their wits to find an artificial explanation of a thing that is much more simple than they make it? For wdiat could have been the object in inventing history wholesale in this way? To give sanction to the laws, it is said : but on whom was the sanction to bear? If on the men of tlie priestly school them- selves, they were already, on the hypothesis, devoted to the reformation ideas; if on the people at large, the mere manufacture of a liistory that was new to them was not likely to rouse them from their lethargy and fire them with new zeal; and, so far as we can see, it did not. It is to be remembered — and the remark applies also to tlie production of Peuteronomy — that this was not a case of a person in secret devising an unheard-of scheme of history, and laying it away to ])e read l)y i)OStcrity. Nor was it, as I understan2). If he thus hopes for a puri- fication from superstitious accretions of the i)laces where Jehovah is worshipped, it is clear that he is not thinking of their t<^tal abolition " (p. '25 f.) Wo will leave the circles in wliich " appreciation of scientific results can he looked for at all " (p. '.»), to ). in which case one would sujipose there would be little use of those places of worship at all. Pyramids of •• scientific results " are poised up(m sucli precarious points, but I take it that Isaiah was not one to concern liimsolf. like the .scribes ami Pharisees, witli such dis- tinctions (Matt. xxiv. lC-18). See before, chap. ix. p. 228; com p. p. 235 f. Law and Prophecy, 207 with the Bamoth of Judah."^ And yet these two prophets are relied upon as leading witnesses to prove that tlie whole ritual S3'steni was not only without authority, but positively displeasing to God. The question is whether the inconsistency is to be attributed to the prophets or to be charged against a vicious theory; for other prophets fare no better at the hands of the critics. For, let us come down to Jeremiah, who was contemporary with the Deu- teronomic reformation, and who has even l)een sup- posed to have had a hand in the composition of the book or the Code. We find that prophet, so far from trusting to the mere acceptance of a written code for reformation, going beyond any of his pre- decessors in the inwardness of his teaching.^ He has reached, finally, the conception of personal heart religion as a thing far before a mere national adoption of a national God, and speaks of the law written in the heart. How a person with such views — not to speak of his conviction that law had no divine sanction — should labour to elaborate a book like Deuteronomy, and trust to its reception to bring about the state of things he desired, it is very hard to understand. Or if Jeremiah did in- deed help the introduction of Deuteronomy, he at the same time went far beyond it in the unfolding of its teaching; and what then becomes of the asser- tion, that the codifying of the law put an end to the free activity of the prophets? No wonder that prophecy, in reaching this position, destroyed itself, for the prophets had stultified themselves. There is 1 WeUhausen, p. 25. "^ Jer. iii. 16; xxxl. 31 ff. 208 Early Religion of Israel lierc an exhibition of inconsistency wliicli requires explanation, and the explanation that is given is peculiar. '• In his early years," we are told,' ''Jer- emiah had a share in the introduction of the law; but in later times he shows himself little edified by the effects it i)roduced; the lying pen of the scribes, he says, has written for a lie (Jer. viii^ 7-9)." To say nothing of the very doubtful determination of early and late in Jeremiah's utterances on this sub- ject, we are asked to believe not only that the })rophet had a share in the introduction of a code which pronounces a curse on those who shall not observe it^ and afterwards turned his back upon all ritual law, but also that he allowed the book of his prophecies to go forth (Jer. xxxvi. 4, 5, 32) with the record of his inconsistency on its face. Had not the pro])het of Anathoth trouble enough in his lifetime that he must be thus tortured in mod- ern days? Or are we to say that a character so vacillating deserved all that he suffered? Yet Vatke would buihl him a sepulchre, by claiming him as the earliest witness for the late origin and unliis- torical character of the Mosaic law.^ It will hardly be denied that the prototj^pe of modern critics is made to appear in rather a sorry character; for, if all this is true, he utters his own condemnation (Jer. xiv. 14). Again, it is not easy to comprehend how Kzekiol, pining over the low condition of his country- men in exile, and reaching those spiritual intuitions expressed in his vision of tlie dry bones, and the 1 Wollhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 403. 2 Bibl Theol.. p. 220 t. ; Brodenkamp, Gesetz und Prophoton, p. 106. Laio and Prophecy. 209 waters issuing from the sanctuary, should at the same time believe that the remedy tor his people's mis- Ibrtuues was to be found in a minute ol)servance of ceremonial ordinances, and occupy himself with a codification— on a limited scale— of Temple ritual, as if the putting down of Levites and the putting up of priests was to bring al)out a national revival. Nor does he, in point of fact, represent things in that order. All these things are good enough when the people are of one mind in serving their Lord, and desire to give expression to their active reli- gious life: they are absolutely powerless to produce such a life, as all the prophets well knew. In order to perceive how the prophets stood to the law, we must take into account their whole position as religious teachers, and their relation to the re- ligious movement of the nation. Kuenen, as we have seen in another connection,^ insists upon the common ground on which people and prophets stood — viz., that Jahaveh was Israel's God, and Israel Jahaveh's people. This, he says, can be traced back to Moses himself, whose ' ' great work and en- during merit " it was ^^ not that he introduced into Israel any particular religious forms and practices, but that he established the service of Jahveh among his people upon a moral footing. ' I will be to you a God, and ye shall be to rae a people.' So speaks Jahveh, through Moses, to the Israelitish tribes.^ This reciprocal covenant between Jahveh and His people, sealed by the deliverance from Egyptian bondage, is guaranteed by the fact that the ark, 1 See chap. xii. p. 307. - Exod. vl. 7; Levit. xxvi. 45; Deut. xxix. 13. 210 Early Beligion of Israel. Jahvch'i^ dwelling-place, accompanies the Israelites on the journey in the desert, and afterwards remains established in their midst." ^ Kuenen thus admits that there was a ^'reciprocal covenant between Jahveh and His people," sealed by a historical oc- currence, and vouched for by the existence of a religious symbol. We have already argued (p. 338 f.) that such a covenant is inconceivable without some attendant ceremonial institutions; and at this initial point, it seems, we may find the explanation of the real attitude of the prophets to the law. Kuenen himself hints at it when he says, '^ On their part the people must remain faithful to the conditions of the pact concluded with Jahveh. These conditions are principally moral ones. This is the great thing. Jahveh is distinguished from the rest of the gods in this, that he will be served, not merely by sacrifices and feasts, but also, nay, in the first place, by the observance of the moral commandments Avhich form the chief contents of the ten words. "-^ Quite so; and this is just what all the Biblical writers say. But why slip in this, ''not merely by sacrifices and feasts," if these are not only not commanded, but actually wrong? There can be no doubt wliatever that the people regarded sacrifices and ceremonies as observances well-pleasing to God, and signs of their adherence to tlie Covenant. It is doubtful how a people, situated as they were, could have kept up their recollection of the Covenant relation without outward service and ceremony. Have we, in this 1 Rollg. of Israel, vol. 1. pp. 292, 293. «Ibid., vol. I. p. 293. Cf. Allan Menzles, p. 21. Laiv and Prophecy. 211 nineteenth century, got so far that we can dispense with outward observances which we regard as di- vinely appointed or divinely approved? Or if the prophets disagreed with this deeply rooted feeling in the popular mind, inseparably linked with that con- viction which Kuenen says prophets and people held in common, they not only fail to give us clear indica- tions of the fact, but they are in opposition to the writers of prophetic spirit and to the prophetic men who guided the nation in early times. For from the very beginning sacrifice appears as a regular and acceptable expression of devotion. The earliest of all the codes, the book of the Covenant, occurring in a prophetic writing, and containing prescriptions of a ceremonial as well as of a moral kind, proves the close union of morality and observance from the first, and shows that, in the constitution of Israel, and in the conception of the nation, the two are inseparable. And if, according to Kuenen, the people were right in the matter of fact as to a covenant dating from the time of Moses, and had, from that time onwards, practised sacrifices and other observances as marks of their allegiance to their covenant God, it will require more than the citation of a few rhetorical passages to prove that the prophets regarded sacrifice and observance in themselves as wrong, or of mere hu- man device. Kuenen himself, in the passage quoted from him, gives the key to the true exegesis of such passages: ^^Not merely by sacrifices and feasts, ])ut also, nay, in the first i)lace, by the observance of the moral commandments. '' The prophets are, in fact, in all such polemic, combating the germ of what be- 212 Early Religion of Israel. came the monstrous doctrine of Rabbinism, that Israel was created in order to observe the law. This attitude of the prophets to the law is exhib- ited in the circumstances of the time of Josiah which culminated in his reformation. When it is said that the worship of the high places had become so cor- rupt that a reformation was felt to be necessary, let us be careful to understand what that means. It was not that at many high places there was rendered to Jahaveh a worship which should have been ren- dered to Him at one central sanctuary. The Avor- ship of the Bamoth was part of a great national defection. The needed reformation had much more to do, as Wellhausen admits, than to gather into one central place all the abuses of many high places; and it is altogether a weak understatement of the case to say that ^ ^ even Jerusalem and the house of Jehovah there might need some cleansing, but it was clearly entitled to a preference over the obscure local altars."^ There was required above all things a reformation of religion, not merely of worship; and the prophets were not the men — Jeremiah certainly was not the man — to rest satisfied with anything else. The message of Huldah the prophetess, on the occa- sion of the discovery of the law-book, foretold ''evil upon this place," '^ because they liave forsaken me and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the work of their hands" (2 Kings xxii. 17). And so we see that the work done by Josiah was of a thorough kind; the co-operation of priests, prophets, and 1 WeUhausen, p. 27. Laiv and Prophecy. 213 people Tvas indicative of a movement of the national conscience; and the evils put away are of a much more serious kind than merely the worshipping of Jahaveh at various high places. ''The king com- manded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of Jahaveh all the ves- sels that were made for Baal, and for the Asherah, and for all the host of heaven," &c., &c. (2 Kings xxiii. 4 If.), beginning with a cleansing of the cen- tral sanctuary itself. And let it not be supposed that these were recognised up till this time as ele- ments of the national worship. The book of the Covenant itself — which is supposed to have been in existence for two hundred years — had said, imme- diately before the words relied on as allowing the multiplicity of sanctuaries : ' ' Ye shall not make other gods with me; gods of silver or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto jou " (Exod. xx. 23); and had reiterated the warning against making ' ' men- tion of the name of other gods" (Exod. xxiii. 13), and bowing down to the gods of the nations, or serv- ing them, or doing after their works, but ' ' thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and break in pieces their pil- lars " (Exod. xxiii. 24). These things were indeed thoroughly inconsistent with the whole position which — by the confession of the nation as implied in the prophetic utterances — Israel sustained to Jaha- veh; and if the sin of them did not come home to them through })rophetic rebukes or through their knowledge oi' the book of the Covenant, the discovery of a hundred other codes could not liave convinced 214 Early ReUfjlon of Israel. them. The truth is that the evils had pressed upon the hearts of good men for long before: Hezekiah had partially done what Josiah now did more thor- oughly; and the powerful upheaval of public senti- ment that was produced cannot have an adequate cause in a mere, or in a primary, desire to centralise the worship. In a word, the idea of worship in one place cannot be taken by itself and apart from the nature of the worship which Jahaveh claimed. The tendency towards reform was there before the alleged contrivance of producing a code was resorted to. The book did not produce what was the essential part of the reform; and the reform is quite conceiv- able on the supposition of the discovery of any code, and had already proceeded a great way before the book of the law was brought to light. Nor were the circumstances materially different when the later reformation took place after the ex- ile. The little community under Joshua and Zerub- babcl had returned to Jerusalem, and held a strug- gling existence for more than half a century^ before Ezra made his apj^earance with his l)Ook, which is said to have been the Pentateuch law now first come into existence. It was the sense of tlicir national ])()sition and national caHing that had l)rouglit them thither; tlicy did not come for the i)urpose of ob- serving a ritual law, but for the purpose of kee})ing alive a nationality and exiiibiting their faith in the divine ])roinises. This mucli tlie teaching of the 1 Edict of CyniM, 538. Tho return uf exil<^s under Zerubbnhel nnd .Tt.Hluui was in n. c. WM\, and twiMity yoars later (HafJiTftl and Zechariah) thoTHiupli- was .-onsecrated. Tho arrival of Ezra was In 458. Law proiuulgutod, Ui. CI. WullLauseu, p. ^'Ji IT. Law and PropJiecy. 215 prophets liad effected, though the fruits of prophetic teaching were tardy, and brought to maturity by the sufferings of the exile. I am willing to admit that the influence of Ezekiel was a powerful factor in lead- ing to the restoration, but I see another direction of his influence than that of codification of law. As in a former chapter I maintained that the doubtful or figurative language of a writer should be interpreted by his clearer and more unequivocal utterances, so I should say here timt we are to look not to the pro- gramme of legislation which p]zekiel saw in vision, but to the reviving Spirit, breathing upon the dry bones, as the motive power which was uppermost in the mind of the prophet of the exile. The more closely the matter is looked at, the more clearly it will appear that it is impossible to dissever the moral from the ceremonial part of the law of Is- rael. Moses himself is represented as a prophet; ^ and prophecy has its legal, just as the law has its prophet- ical, side. The idea of holiness is common to both. The law links even the meanest ceremonial obser- vance with this moral attribute: ^^ Ye shall be holy men unto me, neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; "^ and prophecy recog- nises a clean and an unclean land and offerings.-^ Even the prophet who speaks most exclusively of the Holy One of Israel (Isa. Iv. 5) expresses abhor- rence of the eating of swine's flesh and so forth (Isa. Ixv. 4; Ixvi. 17). The rules for purifica- 1 Deut. xvlil. 15 ; Hosea xli. 13. 2 Exod. xxii. 31. Comp. Levit. xi. 44-47 ; xlx. 2, 15-19. 8 Amos vll. 17: Hosea ix. 3-5. 21 G Early Religion of Israel. tions and sacrifices indicate clearly, not only iiiat tliese observances were of an educative character, but also that they did not come in the place of moral requirements, as if they were ends in them- selves. The sacrifices and offerings do not effect atone- ment for moral offences, nor do they constitute the ^vhole religious service of Israel. The sins atoned for are those that affect the theocratic relation of the people, the offerings are the outward signs of the inward homage due to Jaliaveh. We need not, indeed, wonder that the prophets, in the situation in which they found tliemselves before the exile, laid so little stress on the ritual worship, for it was powerless to cure the evils which they deplored. To what purpose, indeed, would it have been for a preacher of righteousness like Amos, addressing a people who trampled on the most fundamental laws of humanity, to urge to the more sedulous perform- ance of outward acts of worship; or for a i)rophet with insight into God's love such as Hosea enjoyed, to direct a people openly apostate and idolatrous in heart to begin with a mere reformation of cultus? Isaiali again and his fellow-prophets of the south had before them a people — such as all ages and all coun- tries have produced — wlio thought to make up for wickedness of life and hollowness of heart hy loud- sounding devotion and ostentatious worship; and it is no wonder that such men contemptuously scouted the whole system of outward observance, which was that and notliing more. It was needless to insist upon the sign when the thing signified was wanting — for the outward form was then a gross lie; and Laio and Prophecy. 217 just because the mission of tlie prophets was to in- sist upon the underlying moral requirements of the law, for that reason they made light of its ceremo- nial elements, which had no basis nor reason for ex- istence apart from these moral requirements. On the other hand, we find the prophet Haggai, when his contemporaries in the coldness of their devotion committed the opposite mistake from pre-exilic Is- rael, reproving them for the scantiness of their offer- ings; although both he and Zechariah, who laboured for the restoration of the Temple and its service, are quite clear as to the supreme duty of heart religion and the inutility of a mere opus operatuyn.^ The position of Malachi is to be particularly noted, be- cause in him we find a distinctly ceremonial tone (chap, i.), and because he belongs to the time of the alleged introduction of the Priestly Code. It is very hard to believe that a priesthood such as he chides (in chap, ii.) was fit to be trusted with the task of elaborating an authoritative code.^ It is much more likely that the prophet reproves them for devia- tion from a standard that was far older and much higher. In any case it is to be observed that this prophet, though technical as any priest could be, is at one with all the prophets as to the essentials of religion. It is inaccurate, therefore, to represent the pro- phetic and priestly classes as opposed, and to make the history turn upon the preponderance of the one over the other. There was no greater antagonism 1 Haggai il. 12 f. ; Zech. vii. 6, 9, 10. 2 Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten, p. 120. 218 Early Religion of Israel. than that which in a normal condition of things ex- ists between the inner truth and its outward mani- festation — which, however, becomes pronounced when the outward expression is made the whole, or is represented as having the vitality and the impor- tance of the inner truth. Such times there were in the history of Israel, as in the religious history of all nations, when the priesthood, peculiarly liable to settle down to formality and routine, and peculiarly liable to the temptations besetting any privileged order, encouraged the people to boast, saying, " The temple of the Lord are we, "or even exercised their office for their own gain. At such times the pro- phetic voice was raised in scathing rebukes, whose terms almost lead one to conclude that in the pro- phetic estimation the whole priestly order, and all the ceremonies over which they presided, were in their essence wrong. Yet even in the midst of such rebukes there is a tone of respect for the law, and a recognition of the sacred function of the priest. So also when we come to any crisis in the history in which a positive advance is made, we perceive that it is not by a conquest of one party over the other, but by the hearty co-operation of both, that the movement of reform or advance succeeds. Moses, the forerunner of the prophets, has Aaron the priest beside him; and Joshua is still surrounded by priests in the carrying out of his work. Samuel is both priest and prophet; David and Solomon in the same way are served or admonished by both. In Josiah's time we see the priest Ililkiah as eager for the in- troduction of reform as the i)rophet or prophets who [Law and Prophecy, 219 prepared — as is alleged — the Code which was to be recognised;^ although the Code was not to be to the advantage of the Jerusalem priesthood, according to the modern view of it, for it was to bring to the capital all the priests of the high places who should so desire, and thus reduce the emoluments and lower the prestige of the ministers of the central sanctuary. Jeremiah was of the priests of Anathoth, and Ezekiel, too, was a priest-prophet. So that at every turning-point in the nation's life, when an ad- vance was made, or a return to a better mind, the two classes are seen working in harmon}'. Which is just saying in other words that the better mind resulted in a better life, and that faithfulness of heart was expressed in the better observance of the authoritative forms of religion. On this subject, as on many others connected with the history of Israel, we must beware of concluding that distinctions which we can abstractly draw, and of which the history shows the possibility, were act- ually drawn at the time. ' ' The passion of the human mind," says Dr. A. B. Davidson, "is for distinctions and classification. Broad distinctions are rare in the Old Testament. The course of reve- lation is like a river, which cannot be cut up into sections. The springs at least of all prophecy can be seen in the two prophets of northern Israel; but 1 And so some would have it that the Code is a coinposite work. " The Deuteronomic torah," says Cheyne, "is in fact tlie joint work of at least two of the noblest members of the prophetic and the priestly orders."— Jeremiah, His Life and Times, p. 63 f. One may obtain, from this, some idea of the critical principles on which the separation of sources is effected, and may be inclined to ask, if two writers of differ- ent tendencies could work so harmoniously here, why similar tend- encies should be put so far apart elsewhere. 220 Early Religion of Israel. the rain which fed those fountains fell in the often unrecorded past. " ^ On reviewing the history we may perceive the two currents of influence, the priestly and the proi)hetic, and in analysing the combined stream of national life we may be able to separate them in thought and assign ditferent effects to them respectively. But we are not for all that to jump to the conclusion that priests and prophets were arrayed in hostile camps, and existed like two parties in a modern state. The prophets are as free in their denunciations of prophets when these are unfaithful, as they are in their rebukes of the excesses of the priests. The truth is, that on this low view of a struggle of parties, the history of Israel is as devoid of interest, as it is incapable of explanation. When it did come to a struggle of parties in Israel, in the later stages of the history, when some leaned to Egypt and some to Assyria, the days of Israel's independence were numbered. The thing that made two parties in ancient Israel was not the question of ritual or no ritual, not the question of written Torah or oral Torah, but the question of fidelity to their national God, and purity from heathen contamination. The daily observances of the Temple nnght go on unrecorded for years — as I believe they went on far more regularly than is now supposed — and call for no remark. But as soon as these were rested in as the essentials of re- ligion, or improved and adorned by a tampering with heathen ways and an aping of idolatrous rites, then the prophetic voice was raised, and in such 1 Expositor, third series, vol. vl. p. 163. Law and Prophecy. 221 terms that we perceive how all the time these men knew wherein the essentials of true religious wor- ship consisted. Though, therefore, the legalistic tendency set in after the great prophets had done their work, the two things were not cause and eft'ect. It was not the ' ^ prophets that were the destroyers of old Israel," but it was Israel that destroyed itself. A mistake may be very readily committed from taking too narrow a view of development, and assuming that what is immediately subsequent to something else results naturally from it. There are r^.-actions and recoils as well as direct influences in the same line. The true succession of Old Testament prophets is found in the Gospel, not in the scribes. Though Jesus Christ followed the scribes. He did not develop their teaching. He did not, however, deny its his- torical basis. He was the direct successor of the prophets, but He assumed and took for granted that law preceded prophecy, and that law was also of divine authority. From His polemic with the scribes and Pharisees of His day, one might hastily claim Him as maintaining the human origin of the Codes, and the natural basis of sacrifice. Yet, though He rejected the traditions and commandments of men. He attended even to the ceremonial of the law, and in His life and teaching treated the law as given through Moses by divine authority. CHAPTER XYIII. CONCLUSION. The modern theory is " thorough-going,'^ hut does not do jus- tice to the facts of the case — Its arbitrary treatment of the writers and books of the Old Testament — Its weakness "as a whole,^' when great crises and turning-points are to be explained — Does not go to the core of the religion, hut divells on external details — Bejecting the supernatural, it is itself unnatural — Even on its literary side, not so strong as it seems — Objection to the Biblical theory that it does not make rooni for development — Objection answered: true develo2)ment exhibited — The ap2)eal to religions of '^' primitire peoples'"' considered — The Semitic disposition to religion — Beference to early chapters of Genesis — Com- parative religion — Bearing of the whole subject on Inspira- tion. We liave tlius endeavoured to estimate fairly the two theories of Israel's earlier religious history. No attempt has been made to present all the details in wliich the theories are opposed; but eonsideration lias ])een fixed on the fundamental lines and underly- ing i)rincii)les. Our conclusion has been, that the Biblical theory, when not burdened with assumptions with which it has been often "traditionally " encum- bered, will stand the test of a sober and common- sense criticism, as an account of the existence in Conclusion. 223 Israel, in early or so-called pre-prophetic times, of xerj distinctive religious conceptions and religious ordinances, obtained in connection with well-marked historical events and under well-determined histori- cal conditions. The modern critical theory, if it has been able to point out difficulties connected with the Biblical theory, especially as it has been traditionally main- tained, raises difficulties of a much more serious kind in the way of its own acceptance. At first sight, it has all the attractions of a '^good-going" hypothesis; for it promises to exhibit the growth of religious conceptions and religious observances from the lowest stage to their finally developed phases; and, considering the long course which Israel's his- tory ran, and the broad field available for observa- tion, this is what we should .expect to find practi- cable. But the theory is too thorough-going, for it goes in the teeth of evident obstacles, and refuses to bend its way to embrace plain facts; and what wc want is a tlieory that will give the best explanation of things that cannot be disputed. Were it the case tliat we knew practically nothing of the develop- ment of Israel's religion in Palestine, it might l)e rcry well for a tlieory to sketch a scheme which would be another contribution to the histoVies of religious thouglit. But there are books, there are men, there are abiding effects to be accounted for; and in face of these the modern theory shows its weakness. We have conducted our inquiry on the narrowest possible grounds, by restricting ourselves to compositions whose dates arc assigned by the critics 224 Early Religion of Israel. themselves;^ and on that narrow ground I am pre- pared to rest my objections to the two cardinal points of the theory. On the one hand, I maintain that the earliest writing prophets, Amos and Ilosea, give clear evidence that the ethic and spiritual nature of the religion was apprehended and firmly possessed in their day, and long before it — evidence which can only be set aside by a forced interpretation of some passages and an excision of others. On the other hand, I maintain that the existence, at what is called the earliest literary age, of these same books and likewise of the book of the Covenant in the heart of a Jehovistic writing, ascribing to Moses authoritative and specifically religious institutions, relating to sacrifice and ritual as well as idolatry and morals, is irreconcilable with the fundamental positions of the modern theory on the subject of law. Wcllliauscn, in one place, says it would not be surprising, considering the whole character of the polemic against Grafs hypothesis, if the next objec- tion should be that it is not able to construct the history.^ My great objection to the theory is, not that it cannot construct a history, for the ingenuity of critical writers is equal to tlmt, but that it does not leave sound materials out of which a credible history can be constructed. The hypothesis of Graf carries with it the assumption that tlie narratives accompanying the laws of the Pentateuch arc not history in the proper sense of the word at all, but tiie product of late imaginative writers, and, in short, fictitious. And not only are the narratives of ' £00 Nolo XXX.I. 3 Hl8t. or Israel, p. 367. footnoto. Conclusion. 225 tlie Pentateuch so treated; the historical and pro- phetical books are in a similar manner discredited, so as to be admissible as testimony only after they have been expurgated or adjusted on the principles of the underlying theory. The historical books, we are told, were written long after the events they relate; and even when they contain the records of historical facts, these records are overlaid with later interpretations of the facts, or even glossed over to obliterate them. Even the prophetical books are not to be relied upon to determine the religious history; for the books, in the first place, have undergone great alterations in the process of canonisation — and in the second place, even where there is an unam- biguous declaration of a prophet as to a certain se- quence of events, it is open to us to accept or reject his statement on ' ' critical " grounds. Modern criti- cal writers, in fact, can scarcely lay their hands on a single book and say. Here is a document to be re- lied upon to give a fair, unbiassed, untarnished ac- count of things as they were. The blemishes that criticism seeks to remove are not such as may be contracted by ordinary ancient documents in the course of their literary transmission. They have come into the documents in the interests of a theory (and indeed they have a wonderful coherence in tenor), and by another theory they are to be elimi- nated. The literary task of critical writers, there- fore, is not so much to discover and account for facts of a histoi-y long past, as to account for the ac- count whicli later writers give of them. The history which Wellhauscn constructs is in fact a ''history of 2-2r) Early Religion of Israel. tlie tradition ""; and in many cases it seems a labori- ciis endeavour to show how something very definite grew out of nothing very appreciable. The further one follows the processes, the more apparent it be- comes that the endeavour is not so much to find out by fair interpretation what the writer says, as to discover his motive for saying it, or what he wishes to conceal. He belongs to some class, or has some political expediency to serve; or he lives in a circle of certain ideas, and these tendencies are made to give birth to the facts, instead of being, as is more likely, the result of the facts. ' ' The idea as idea is older than the idea in history," says Wellhausen;' and he is continually applying this maxim in the sense that when an idea takes possession of the lead- ing men of a certain time, they straightway proceed to invest it with a historical character, by placing its exemplification or embodiment back at some re- mote period of the history. I think the maxim is better illustrated im the processes of Wellhausen and his school, who first find an '^ idea," and then seek by main force to read it into the unwilling documents. In this way a history is no doubt Constructed. l)ut the supporting beams of it are subjective prei)()si- tions, and tlie materials are only got by discrediting the sources from whicli they are drawn. I say this is a very serious attitude to assume^ towards the writers of the Old Testament books, ir it can in any degree be justified; and if it is not well justified, it is a very serious objection to any theory that requires it. The men wlio niouldcd the ' Hi»t. of iHi-ftol. p. ;Uk Conclusion, 227 history of Israel were the men who had most to do with the production and preservation of tlie national literature. We know what sort of men ihay were. But, on the modern theor}^, the greatest characters in Israel's history, instead of being spontaneous ac- tors in a great life-drama, are merely posturing and acting a part on a stage. What they give us as his- tory is merely their fond idea of what history should have been; in many cases it is not even so much, but pure invention to give a show of antiquity to what had to be accounted for and magnified in their own day. History was never made in this way. Men that make history such as Israel's history was, are intent on great purposes, moved by noble ends; but what we are asked to contemplate at the great crises and turning-points is a set of men thinking how they will elaborate a scheme of history. Fictions become the greatest facts, and the French critic has carried out the theory to its true conclusion when he ascribes the great bulk of the Hebrew literature to the free creation of a school of theologians after the exile. ''The theologians and writers of that time," he says, ' ' have been able to give such a character of life to the creations of their genius that posterity has been thereby deceived, and has believed in a Moses living 1500 years before our era, whereas this Moses was only created in the fourth century, and had no more reality than an incomparable fic- tion."^ And thus the great merit of the Hebrew 1 Maurice Vernes, Resultats de TExegi'se Blblique, p, 227. Of course the conclusions of Vernes are disowned by the pi-evaiUng school, but th.Q principle ot his criticism, the imagination of writers of the exilian age, is frankly avowed by Wellhausen, p. 419. See Note XXXII. 228 Early Religion of Israel. race, the great quality for which they have dis- tinguished themselves in the world, is their power of imagination! Such a mode of viewing the Old Testament writings, as the conduct of the critics shows, leaves individual critics to construct each his own scheme of the history. To most people it will appear that, if such a mode of treatment is once in- troduced, the inquiry into the true course of Israel's history is a matter of the utmost uncertainty; to many the inquiry would probably cease to have much practical interest. It is to be lamented, I think, that now at the very close of the nineteenth century a tone of criticism should reassert itself which is out of harmony v\'ith the liberal views with which we have been priding ourselves we had learned to regard all nations. So much has our knowledge of the religions of the world extended, and our sympathy for the struggles of the religious instinct been stirred, that we might expect from leaders of investigation in these sub- jects a disposition to look for the best side of all religions, and to put the most favourable construc- tion on the cftbrts of their founders. It is not so long ago that it used to be the orthodox thing to characterise the prophet of Arabia as a designer, a schemer, an impostor; but it liad come to be gen- erally admitted that, in his early struggles at least, Mohammed was a sincere inquirer, following out lines of thought and ])elief that existed in a some- what narrow circle before him. Kucncn, however, has practically come back to the old position. Ac- cording to this view, Mohammed had an eye to Conclusion. 229 Christians and Jews, and counted upon the latter particularly for recognition of his teaching. And so he framed his device of that milla of Ibrahim, of which at first he never thought, for ' ' the opinion that Mohammed came to awaken and to restore what already existed amongst his people, if only as a faint reminiscence of a distant past, finds no sup- port in the Qoran when read in tlie light of criti- cism."^ Great is criticism of the modern critics! It has discovered another scheme^ like the schemes and programmes and fictions of the Hebrew writers. And so the boasted enlightenment and toleration of the nineteenth century comes round again to explain the origin of religions by the fanaticism of prophets and the frauds of priests. ^ But, it is said, the theory must be taken as a whole, and apart from varieties of opinion that may be held on details. It is just when thus taken that I find the greatest difficulty in accepting it, because there is so marked a disagreement between the whole and its component parts. There are certain great outstanding facts whose existence cannot be ignored, — such as the prophetic activity in Israel, the belief in one national or one sole Deity, the national testimony to an early history of great moment, the ascription of legislation to Moses; and the incompetence of the modern theory to set these in their true perspective is very striking. On the one hand, the Biblical theory gives definite con- 1 National ReUgions, p. 19. 2 A melancholy example Is furnished in Llppert's ' Allgemeine Ge- schichte dos Pricsterthums,' published as recently as 1884. Kunig, Falsche Extreme, p. 2. 230 Early Religion of Israel. noctions for events, and historical occasions for transitions and advances. On tlie other liaiid, the modern theory is strong in minute analysis, but weak in face of great controlling facts. It will laboriously strain out a gnat in the critical process of determining the respective authors of a complex passage, but when it comes to a real difficulty in history it boldly swallows the camel and wipes its mouth, saying, ''I have eaten nothing." Nabiism,, or the prophetic activity, even Jahavism itself, are ])orrowed from the Canaanites or Kenites; and when it is asked why the Canaanites or Kenites did not reach the saiuc truth that Israel attained, we get no answer. And when we ask what then had Israel to distinguish it, the feeble answer is returned that when Israel (for no reason stated) assumed Jahaveh as their national deity, they also resolved and were told that He only (for no reason assigned) was to be their only God. And when the undoubtedly pure and high conceptions entertained by the prophets are pointed out, and an explanation demanded of their origin, we are told that a '^conception" was '^ absorbed" by the prophets and came out in this purified form ; but we get no sufficient account of the faculty that enabled the prophets to absorb this and that, and give forth a product Avhich is entirely unlike the thing absorbed. In the same way no satisfactory account is given of the ascrip- tion of law to Moses, and no firm basis for the vari- ous Codes. The theory is, again, strong in details of analysis, but weak in face of a historical event. No explanation is given of the origin of what is de- Conclusion. 231 Glared to be the first of all the Codes. When a great reform of religion such as took place in Josiah's days has to be explained, instead of historical criti- cism reconstructing an intelligible historical situa- tion, we are shown how a book was constructed which brought it about. Though all the scathing rebukes and denunciations of the prophets up to this time had been powerless to wean the people from their idolatries, the production in some secret conclave of this book, telling unheard-of stories about Moses, and laying down on his authority laws which were then partly impracticable, rouses a whole nation. And again, in the captivity, after the Temple had been destroyed and the people scattered for their sins, the main thing the best of them think about is the gathering together of the ritual practices of the priests, and, instead of being hum- bled for their transgressions, imagining ever so many great things their nation had been and done in the early ages. Upon the strength of this a colony braves the hardships of a long journey from Babylon to Jerusalem to set up the worship which they had agreed was the right ritual to practise. This falling back at every stage upon the introduc- tion of some new factor, which does not grow out of the history itself, but is made to give a turn to the whole history, is artificial. Jahaveh, introduced from the Kenites, becomes the distinctive deity of Israel. Prophetism imitated from the raving of Canaanites becomes the glory of Israel. Codes of laws, gathered up from a haphazard praxis or de- vised as reforming nchemes, become so sacred that 232 Early Religion of Israel. tlic nation will battle for them as for existence. In short, we are promised the exhibition of a course of development, and at decisive turning-points the theory of development fails. It may seem at first sight remarkable that there should be so much con- sensus of critical opinion in regard to these outstand- ing and testing points of the history. But if we look more closely we shall observe that, after all, tlie consensus is confined to the underlying postulate, which of course controls all the details. The theory itself is clear and thorough enough, and of course it hangs together as a whole. But it does not hold the parts together, because it does not supply the proper nexus that unites them in an orderly histori- cal development. There must be a bond of a more vital fibre, a force more deeply inherent, which the modern -theory has not penetrated to nor unfolded, to account for a religious and spiritual movement, which, looking to the broad field on which it is dis- played and the diversified circumstances under which it took place, is nothing short of majestic. The self-styled 'Miigher" criticism is indeed not high enough, or, we should perhaps more appropri- ately say, not deep enough for the problem be- fore it. The strongest objection, in fact, to the theory ^^as a whole " is, that it hardly at all touches the religion round which the whole history properly turns. Superstition there has always been among all peoples, and no doubt there was much superstition mixed up with the popular religion of ancient Israel. But re- ligion is not necessarily sui)erstition, nor does it Conclusion. 233 necessarily flow from it in natural development. Unquestionably there was among the best souls of the nation of Israel in early times — and these may have been a larger proportion of the people than we generally suppose, as the answer to Elijah (1 Kings xix. 18) in his day indicated — a strong current of true religious life, to the fountains of which we must reach, it we would understand this wonderful his- tory. To this aspect of the subject, however, the modern theory pays far too little regard. Take, for example, the treatment of the book of Psalms now in vogue in the higher circles of criticism. One would have thought that if anywhere the inquirer into the history of religious thought and life would find valu- able '' sources," it would be in this collection of the sacred and national songs of Israel. But Wellhau- sen, for example, who boasts that he could under- stand the history of Israel without the book of the Law, can also dispense with the book of the Psalms. In the ''index of passages discussed " appended to his ' History of Israel,' there is only one reference to one psalm (Ps. Ixxiii.), which too, of course, is placed very late in date. I think it a positive ob- jection to the theory, not so much that it brings down the bulk of the psalms to post-exilian times, but that it is able to dispense with them as ma- terials for a history of the older religion of Israel, and to relegate them to a time at which, according to its own showing, the religion had taken a more mechanical and formal phase. It is now the fashion to speak of the Psalter as the psalm-book of the sec- ond Temple, in the sense, not that it is a collection 234 Early Religion of Israel. of older religious compositions brought together by the piety of a later generation, but that they were composed purposely for use in i)ublic worship. Thus, by one stroke, the tongue of ancient Israel is struck dumb, as the pen is dashed from its hand, these art- less lyrics are deprived of their spontaneousness, and a great gulf is fixed between the few which a nig- gardly criticism admits to be of early date, and the full volume of devotional song which in many tones was called forth by the shifting situations of olden times. Of course the hypothesis of a low religious stage in pre-exilic times demands this, but it is an additional difficulty which the theory raises in the way of its own acceptance; for even if the psalms are late, the influence that started and produced them must lie early and must lie deeper than in legal ordinances and formal ceremonies. So far as concerns their higher tone^ which is supposed to mark a late date, it is not higher than what we meet with in the very earliest writing prophets. In the glowing periods of these prophets we have unmistakable evidence of the deep religiousness that suffused the minds of those who from the first guided the religious life of the nation. But all that side of the early religious history — and how much is that all! — might almost as well never have existed, for all that the modern his- torians make of it. The deep spirituality of Ilosea, who stands, like the Saviour of mankind, weeping over Jerusalem, full of the very love of God; the strong ethical tone of Amos and his enthusiasm for God; the lofty aspirations of Isaiah for righteous- ness, and his rapt visions of future glory, — these Conclusion, 235 surely arc not isolated phenomena in the centuries that rolled over Israel when all that is best in the history was being achieved, but indicate a strong under-current of perennial religious life. Yet for all these, even taken in their isolation, how little sjmi- pathy do our modern critical historians exhibit! Whereas Ewald, in a past generation, came to the Old Testament books with a sympathetic spirit, and Delitzsch in our own generation, with a piety par- donable in the circumstances, heard in these pro- phetic voices the echo, thrown backward over the centuries, of the Gospel of Christ, we get nowadays some dry analysis of the '^idea" and the '^ concep- tion " of each prophet, and a grudging doling out of the attributes of might and holiness in the character of God, and reluctant admissions of nascent monothe- ism here and there, but we catch no fire from the prophetic words as they are weighed and measured out in the scales of the critics.^ These men, whose words are the fittest found even yet to express all that we can think loftiest of God, are represented as groping after the idea of one God, contending for the honour of a deity that is little better than a Chemosh or a Moloch; and when they cease to write and become men of action, they are set before us as moved by paltry motives of expediency, up- holding the dignity of their order against the priest- 1 Wellhausen must needs even belittle the impression of sublimity profiuoed by the account of the Creation in the first chapter of Genesis. He is generous enough to admit that " the beginning especially is in- comparable." But " chaos being given, all the rest is spun out of it: all that follows is reflection, systematic construction ; we can easily follow the calculation from point to point " (Hist, of Israel, p. 298). He could have done it himself in short. Instead of the artless gestures of a child we have the stiff movements of a Dutch doll. But ia it the Hebrew writer or the modern critic that is wooden-headed? 236 Early Religion of Israel. hood, or conspiring with tliom to bring about a masterly movement for the concentration of religious worship directly under their own supervision. Feasts, sacrifices, incomes of the clergy, in such things, and in the centralisation of the worship at Jerusalem, the history of religion is made to consist;^ but the heart of the religion is hardly looked at, or rudely torn out of it. So that, when all is said and done, the impression on the mind of an unprejudiced reader certainly is that there is more in the religion of Israel than the modern historians are able to see or willing to ac- knowledge. Let their literary analysis be ever so tliorough, one who will read the Old Testament books as he would read any other ancient documents, must remain convinced that justice is not done to them by a criticism which ignores their most char- acteristic element. The critics object to the Biblical theory that it relies so much on the supernatural: the characteristic feature of their own is the unna- tural. The Biblical theory says there was a course of history quite unprecedented, or certainly most extraordinary; the modern theory says that the history was nothing remarkable, but there was quite an unprecedented mode of imagining and writing it. There have to be postulated miracles of a literary and psycliological kind, which contra- dict sound reason and experience as much as any of the physical miracles of the Old Testament transcend them. Even in what is its strong point, literary analysis, 1 See Wellhausen, pp. 13, 27. Conclusion. 23 1 I do not know that the modern theory is very for- midable if the underlying historical postulates are not granted. Let us suppose for a moment that it is possible on purely literary grounds to separate different portions of the Pentateuch books, and pronounce them to be from different hands. It is still confessed ^ that the relative positions and dates of these portions cannot be determined from them- selves. Only when the theory of the historical de- velopment is introduced do the original sources or diverse components fall into the places assigned to them in the scheme. But if the theory of the devel- opment can be shown to be so far untenable thst what is pronounced by it late may well have been much earlier, then the arrangement and dating of the parts are open to revision. As to the critical pro= cess of separating the sources as literary products, I regard it as a matter of secondary importance, so long as we are able, by the help of the prophetic writers, to determine in a general way that the books, in their combined form are trustworthy docu- ments, and that the views they set forth are not un- historical. It may be open to question, however, whether the separation has not been carried too far, and in a manner somewhat arbitrary and artificial. When we find a real character in flesh and blood in Hebrew history, we find him capable of entertaining more than one idea in his mind, and even sustaining apparently incompatible relations, as Samuel, who offered sacrifice, and yet seems to scout it as useless. I think it is most probable that the men who wrote 1 WeUliausen, History, p. 10. 238 Early Religion of Israel. the component parts of these books were representa- tive and public men, not mere '^priests" here or '^ prophetic men" there. I do not know, indeed, that the main ^'sources" of the Hexateuch differ more in style or substance among themselves than do the synoptic Gospels. And most certainly there is an over-driving of critical processes in the histori- cal books when narratives are cut up into contradic- tory parts, because some character in the story is represented as actuated by different motives at dif- ferent times, or playing parts which either are or seem to be inconsistent. But let it be granted that the ^' sources" of the Pentateuch books have been pretty accurately deter- mined, or let the very highest value be given to the results of critical analysis, there is one remark that occurs in regard to them. We have seen good rea- son for believing that the art of literary composition does not begin about the time of the first writing prophets, but was then well advanced. It seems to me that the existence of these ''sources" of the critics proves the same thing and proves more. There they are, combined, at a very early period of literary composition — J and E at least — so inextri- cably that they cannot be separated, to say nothing of the redaction, whether by the Deuteronomist or another. Now we are continually being told that in ancient times there was no literary copyright, and tliat the possessor of a book considered himself en- titled to treat it as his own, ])y adding to it or in- corporating his own materials with it; and that in this way we might get such combinations as these Conclusion. 239 books exhibit. It is said also that the earliest writ- ings must have been of a private or personal char- acter — i.e., not stamped with such authority as canonical writings came to possess. Now, when we look at the component parts of the Old Testament writings, as the analysis of criticism exhibits them, there is nothing that strikes us more forcibly than the care that was evidently bestowed in preserving even nnnute parts of separate documents. It may be, as is generally supposed, that when, e.g., J and E had a passage in common, the redactor who combined them adopted the one and excluded the other; but the obstinate way in which minute frag- ments, even single words, of the one intrude into the other, where presumal^ly there was some slight divergence or additional detail, and this in the case of all the sources or redactions, leads us to the con- clusion that even at that early time when these sources were combined, there was a regard for liter- ary copyright.^ Whether this is consistent with the idea that these sources were private documents is nut very certain. One would think that the writ- ing of the history of the nation on the broad scheme (comparatively) on which these writers proceed, was not left to private and irresponsible men — at least was not undertaken by any or every one who cared to do it. We should most naturally look for the authors of such writings, when great writers were rare, among outstanding and responsible men. 1 Horton, In speaking of one so late as the author of the books of Chronicles, says, when he had different authorities before him, he " preferred leaving: them unharnmnised to tampering in any way with the facts. "—Inspiration and the Bible, third edition, p. 160. 240 Early Religion of M'ael. This whole aspect of the matter would almost lead to the conclusion that the germ of a canon existed much earlier than is generally asserted. Especially if, for J and E and the like, we substitute the names of prophets or theocratic men, who guided the nation's religious life and interpreted its history, it will not be so evident that our earlier Scriptures were left to the haphazard emendation of every private hand into which they came. But now, if the knowledge of God in a pure form is to be placed so far back in history, and made to start with a simple revelation to Abraham, what be- comes of development? Well, in the first place, the modern theory also has to postulate a starting- point; and, we have seen, its difficulty is marked when it seeks to place the absolute commencement of a spiritual religion at a late period. But, in the second place, the Biblical theory is more conspicu- ously a theory of development than the modern one. It makes the advance of the religious idea really an unfolding of a germinal conception, not an advance from one attribute to another, as from might to holi- ness, but an expansion of one fundamental concep- tion into wider references and application. And it is a development marked by historical stadia. From the Being who made Himself known to the soul of Abraham, and from that time onward was the coven- ant God of one nation, faithful to His word, even though Tlis people should be unfaithful on their part, we can trace an unbroken development to the God of all the families of mankind. For if He defends Ilis own people from their enemies, and is at the same Conclusion. 241 time a merciful God to His own, the idea follows, and we see it early, that His enemies, by submitting to Him and casting in their lot with His people, will share in His people's blessings, and thus the God of Israel will become, in fact as well as of right, the God of all. Strictly speaking, the Old Testament writers never got beyond the idea of national reli- gion. Though they perceived that Jahaveh ruled all nations, and acted on strictly moral and just principles towards all, they never conceived that there was no difference between His relation to Israel and His relation to the nations. In point of fact there was a difference, as history has proved. Even in New Testament times, we see how hard it was for the apostle Peter to perceive that God was ^^ no re- specter of persons, but that in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him" (Acts x. 34, 35). St. Paul also had to fight hard for the position that ^^circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keep- ing of the commandments of God " (1 Cor. vii. 19), and to the last had to contend for the truth that the God whom he preached was not the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. The highest that the Old Testament prophets attained to was an anticipation of a condition of things under which, through Israel, blessing would come to the whole world; it was again an expansion of this when, in the New Testament, the middle wall of partition was broken down, and all who have the faith of Abraham, whether they be his seed or not, shall share in his blessinoj. The devel- 242 Eay'ly Religion of Israel. opmcnt here is unbroken; and though the history- shows, as all history does, action and reaction, yet there is an onward advance from beginning to end. Thus from Abraham on to the close of national independence there was a regular and steady devel- opment, the idea of Jahaveh and the conception of what His religion implied undergoing a steady ex- pansion in the prophetic teaching, aided by the po- litical events through Avhich the nation passed. The revival of the time of Ezra was a new starting-point, or, as we may better express it, the course of devel- opment had come round by a wide cycle to a new starting-point; for all historical movement is of this kind, in cycles which come back again upon them- selves and follow apparently the same path, though on a higher plane. What happened in Ezra's time was this: An attempt was made, on the basis of the experience of the past, to live the national life over again under new conditions. What had been already achieved was gathered up; the national life, instead of having primarily a promise of a future, fed itself on the recollections of the past; it closed around the results of the former prophetic activity, and souglit to conserve what had been attained, as the starting- point for a new round of experience. There is in the plant a similar cycle of life: the tlower l)lossoms and then decays; but before it lias fallen, it has devel- oped the seed which is to l)e the life of a coming season; and though we may think that the plant lias completed its period of life, this is not so if it has matured the seed which has vitality in itself ibr fu- tTire growth. The hard and di'ied seed-pod is not so Conclusion. 243 attractive an object as the fair blossoming flower, l)ut it not only is the result of the past, but has also promise for the future. And if, to preserve the fig- ure, the period of the Talmud exhibits men amusing themselves at play with dried peas, yet these seeds were not dead, and many even in the Talmudic pe- riod recognised their vitality. And when, finally, the fulness of the time was come, the seeds which had fallen on dry ground shot forth with new and more beautiful life: the truths reached by men of old time, which had been treated as so many dogmas or formulae, were seen to be truths endowed with per- ennial life. The teaching of the prophets, and the fond beliefs of the people, that Jahaveh would ever be Israel's God, were illustrated in a new and strik- ing manner in Him who was raised up an horn of salvation in the house of David, and the anticipa- tions of the time when Gentiles should come to the light of Israel, were fulfilled when the wall of parti- tion was broken down, and it was shown, in the light of the Gospel, that Abraham was father of all that believe, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. But M. Renan objects: This makes the religion of Israel a thing that has no beginning — a thing as old as the world — a supposition which, from his point of view, is not for a moment to be entertained. And from him and from others we hear the reiterated ap- peal to ^^ primitive peoples," ^' rudimentary ideas," and so forth, with the implication that the progress of Israel's religious life must be made to square with the progress found in other nations. To all which our simple reply is— In point of fact it was not the 244 Early Religion of Israel. same; the modern theorists themselves are bound to admit as much within the spliere of which they say we have authentic information. And there is the other fact, patent in history, that other primitive peoples, and even peoples of the same Semitic race, never got to the stage, or anything approaching the stage, that the Hebrews reached. In view of these plain facts in the world's history, it is simply trifling to insist upon making Israel's history square with that of all other peoples. The Oriental of the present day has a very expressive answer to all such arguments. He simply extends his hand, and says, '' See; are the fingers of the hand all of one length? " In the matter of religion we are not to be guided by the degree of ^^ culture " to which a nation has at- tained, or justified in speaking of early and late at all. The Egyptians and Assyi'ians were far in ad- vance of the Israelites in civilisation and outward culture, but they are not to be compared with them in the sphere of religion. Renan himself has pointed out how the simple nomad is far in advance of the settled inhabitant of the city in religious experience. The history of the world would seem in a striking manner to confirm the Biblical statements that man cannot by searching find out God: that the world by wisdom knew not God. While the most acute phil- osophers and thinkers of Greece were reasoning about these things, the simple-minded Hebrews had reached a firm position from which tlicy never re- ceded, and from which the whole thinking world, as from a starting-point, has had to advanced It is all J Bredenkamp, Gesetz u. Propheten, p. 13. Conclusion. 245 very well for us noiv — when the light shines — to formulate our arguments for the existence and char- acter of God; for we know what we want to prove. But the fact that reasoners by reason did not suc- ceed in proving it till the Hebrew race had made it known to the world, and the other fact that they did not reach it by a process of reasoning or reflection, or adding on of one attribute to another — these facts show that such a knowledge is given with more di- rect force, and in a more complete form. What seems, in fact, hard and laborious to us with our logical categories and subjective processes, seems to have come instinctively to the Abrahamic race; and even Stade has admitted that if there was not pre- cisely an instinct of monotheism in the Hebrews, they, above all others, showed a predisposition to it. In this connection it is interesting to recall an in- cident mentioned by F. W. Newman,^ from his own experience as a missionary. ''While we were at Aleppo," he says, " I one day got into religious dis- course with a Mohammedan carpenter, which left on me a lasting impression. Among other matters, I was peculiarly desirous of disabusing him of the cur- rent notion of his people, that our Gospels are spu- rious narratives of late date. I found great diffi- culty of expression; but the man listened to me with great attention, and I was encouraged to exert my- self. He waited patiently till I had done, and then spoke to the following effect: ' I tell you, sir, how the case stands. God has given to j-ou English a great many good gifts. You make fine ships, and 1 Phases of Faith, second edition, 1853, p. 32 f. 246 Early lielir/ion of Israel sharp penknives, and good cloth and cottons; and you have rich nobles and brave soldiers; and you write and print many learned books (dictionaries and grammars): all this is of God. But there is one thing that God has withheld from you and has revealed to us; and tliat is, the knowledge of the true religion, by which one ma}' be saved.' " New- man adds: ^^When he had thus ignored my argu- ment (which was probably quite unintelligible to him) and delivered his simple protest, I was silent and at the same time amused. But the more I thought it over, the more instruction I saw in the case." For my own part, I have much sympathy with the opinion expressed by the Moslem carpen- ter. He is a type of many that are to be found in the humbler ranks of society in the East at the pres- ent day, who are little qualified to follow a connected argument, but to whom religious conceptions of a high order come as a matter of course. Such men, doubtless, were those who wrote and who read many of the books of the Old Testament; and hence the books themselves, though subjected to the most har- assing criticism, and characterised as ^'spurious nar- ratives of late date," smile at all such criticism, and give forth with confidence their testimony to a faith, which is independent of time, and inditierent to modes of literary composition. Our investigations have been confined to the liis- tory of Israel as a nation, and the conclusion I have come to is that the history, as told by the Bible his- torians, is credible in all the essential points at which we have the means of testing it. The Bibli- Conclusion. 247 cal view carries back the national life and the na- tional religion to Abraham, and so far as we are able to check the accounts, we have found that without this assumption the history cannot be explained. In other words, from the 12th chapter of Genesis onwards, we conclude that we have a credible and trustworthy account of the leading events and crises of the history of Israel. As to the antecedent eleven chapters of Genesis, the matters therein treated do not fall properly within the scope of our present in- quiry. They do not constitute part of the history of Israel, strictly speaking, though in the Biblical writ- ings they are made to lead up to it and give a basis for it. These accounts of primitive and primeval times, if we place them, simply as ancient docu- ments, side by side with the early traditions and cosmogonies of other nations, are, as has been uni- versally admitted, characterised by a sobriety, pur- ity, and loftiness of conception which render them altogether unique. If we should set them down as merely the attempts on the part of the Hebrew writ- ers to give all account of origins of which no histor- ical record was in their hands, merely the consoli- dated form of legends and myths handed on from prehistoric times, we cannot but recognise the sin- gular line that myth-making took in this particular case, as distinguished from the cases of polytheistic Semitic and non-Semitic races. Such myths, if they are to be so described, are not born in a day; even if the writer of the earliest of them is set down as late as the eighth or ninth century before Christ, the folk-lore, if you will, of his people was of quite a •^48 Early Religion of Israel aniquG character before it could furnish such mate- rials; and the writer of them must already have formulated to himself, to say the least, a very definite philosophy of history, and had a much broader conception of the world and of its relation to God, than we should expect from one in the primitive stage of religion. As compared with the earliest formulated accounts of creation and primeval times contained in Assyrian literature, they are per- vaded by an entirely different spirit, emancipated from bonds of polytheistic notions, and moving alto- gether on a higher plane. If we find, as have been found, correspondences of a remarkable kind in the Hebrew and other early accounts of the creation, and so forth, we must not, as has too often been the practice, jump to the conclusion that everything which Hebrew literature and tradition have in com- mon with those of other nations must be borrowed by the Hebrews. Why should the Hebrews borrow from every side, and yet retain something so clearly distinguishing them from each and all of the others? Why should we not admit a common primeval tradi- tion, when it is thus attested by independent wit- nesses? Nay, seeing that the Hebrew tradition, at the very earliest point at which we can seize it, is purer and loftier than any other, why should it be at all incredible that in that race, from pre-Abra- hamic times and in the lands from which the faith of Abraham was disseminated, there were found purer conceptions of God and deeper intuitions into His character and operations than we find elsewhere — glimmerings of a purer faith which had elsewhere Conclusion. 249 become obscured by polytheistic notions and prac- tices? Do not the results of the study of compara- tive religion tend to show that even polytheism is an aberration from a simpler conception, and that the lowest forms of nature-religion point to a belief in a Being whose character always transcends the forms in which the untutored mind tries to represent Him, and is not summed up in all their attempts to give it expression? That being so, why should it be a thing incredible that in one quarter, a quarter which in the clear light of history is found to stand sharply defined from its surroundings, the souls of the best should have kept themselves above these degrada- tions, and nursed within themselves the higher, purer, more primary conception; and that this should have taken shape in the faith of Abraham, or, if we state it otherwise, formed the basis on which the purer faith of Abraham was reared? This will not seem incredible to any who believe that there is but one God, and that He has been the same from the beginning. It is only a statement in another form of St. Paul's words, that God has never left Himself without witness; and it is quite in keeping, I believe, with the best results of the comparative study of religions. In the foregoing chapters, I have carefully ab- stained from making any appeal to the authority of New Testament Scriptures. The first and funda- mental question is, not whether the modern theory agrees with our Christian religion and our Confes- sion, but whether it agrees with sound sense and sober reason. If the theory is to be held as proved 250 Early Religion of Israel. on these solid grounds, our views must be adjusted in regard to it. I cannot help adding, however, that if the postulates and methods of this kind of criti- cism are to be admitted, a good many other tilings besides our views of Old Testament history will re- (piire to be readjusted. The question may be put to a good many who seem disposed to accept the modern critical treatment of the Old Testament, whether they are prepared to allow the same pro- cesses to be applied to the New. I would seriously ask those Christians who regard Stade's * Geschichte' as a successful exhibition of the religious history of Israel, to ponder the application of the same princi- X>les of criticism to the life of Jesus Christ in the sec- ond volume of that work. So far as I can see, the arguments used in the one field may be employed equally well in the other, and the Gospel history be critically reconstructed out of the tendencies and views of the second century, just as the account of the pre-prophetic religion given by the Hebrew writers is made the result of the projection back- ward of later ideas. Just because the issues in this controversy are so far-reaching, is it necessary to meet the critical vie^^ on its own ground, and to examine the foundation on which it rests. Questions are involved that lie much deeper than those of the verbal inspiration or the so-called ^^ inerrancy" of Scripture. It seems to me vain to talk of the inspiration and authority of books till we are sure that they arc credible and honest compositions, giving us a firm historical basis on which to rest. My whole argument has Conclusion. 251 been to show that, examined by the light which they themselves furnish, these books are trustworthy documents; that the compositions which are un- doubted and accepted give their testimony to those that are questioned or rejected; that the books as they lie before us, so far as they can be tested by the only tests in our possession, and making all allowance for the ordinary conditions of human composition and transmission of books, give us a fair and credible account of what took place in the history and religious development of Israel. If that point is allowed to be in a fair way established, I leave the argument for inspiration and authority to take care of itself. The picture which the books present, if it is admitted to be in any sense an adequate representation of fact, will probably be sufficient to convince ordinary Christian people that in ancient Israel there was a divine control of events, a divine guidance of the best spirits of the nation, a divine plan in the unfolding of the history, which we may sum up by saying there was a divinely guided development, or, as it has been expressed,' that the history itself is inspired. How far such a description, in any specific sense, may be given of the history as it is represented by the theory I have been combating, I leave its advocates to determine. I should think, however, that that is the very mini- mum of any theory of inspiration worthy of the name. I should think, moreover, that those who do regard the history of Israel as divinely guided and inspired in a sense altogether ditferent from other 1 Horton, Inspiration and the Bible, p. 171. 252 Early Religion of Israel ancient history, instead of underrating as a vague or negative result such a conclusion as it has been my endeavour to establish on the bare ground of historical criticism, ought to rejoice if, with even a degree of probability, it can be made out. M. Renan would indeed have us believe that the idea which animated ancient Israel, and was carried over into Christianity, is played out, having received its death-blow at the French Revolution, when cer- tain thinkers came to the conclusion that there was no Providence controlling the events of man's world, no God who is to be the judge of man's actions.^ Instead of hailing with pleasure such an emancipa- tion of the human spirit, we ought gladly to wel- come any help that comes to the aid of faith in such a God as the patriarchs and prophets are repre- sented as making known — a God whose revelation of Himself has been advancing with brighter radi- ance, till it culminated in the manifestation of His Son Jesus Christ, who was the ^ night to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of His people Israel. " Such a faith as Old Testament prophets possessed has been the blessing and the guide of the best of man- kind in their achievement of the best up till this hour; such a faith is more than ever needed just at the present moment, to save the human race from losing respect for itself, and to rekindle hope and aspiration for the future. The choice has to be made, in the last resort, between such a faith and ''the divine pride of man in himself," which, we ' Souvenirs d'Enfance et de Jeunesse, p. 3b7; flistolr© du Peuple d'Israel, tome 1. pp. 27, 40, 41. Conclusion. 253 are told, is to be ^Hlie radical foundation of the new religion. " ^ And even the volatile Frenchman himself has said: '^ It is not impossible that, wearied with the repeated bankruptcies of liberalism, the world may yet again become Jewish and Christian." ^ 1 Walt Whitman, Democratic vistas (Camelot Series), p. 65. 2 Histoire du Peuple tl'Iaraeli tome i. p. vii. NOTES. Note I. vol. i. p. 7.— English readers naturally expect that scholars should be able, by mere linguistic features, to arrange the Old Testament books in chronological order; and find it difficult to understand how, in the matters of language and style, there should be so little appreciable distinction between books dating centuries apart. That the fact is so, is suffici- ently proved by the various dates assigned by different critical scholars to the same compositions. What used to be regarded as the earliest of the (large) components of the Pentateuch, is now by the prevailing school made the latest, and the linguistic features have not been considered a bar to either view (see p. 46). The uniformity of the language of the Old Testament is partly explained by the fact that the ancient mode of writing only the consonants did not provide for the preservation of those variations in vowel-sounds which usually mark the history of languages ; and when, at a late period, a system of vowel-points was adopted, a uniformity in this re- spect would be the result. The English reader must not, how- ever, conclude that there is no difference observable between early and late productions. The books of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah betray their later date by the presence of the so- called Chaldee portions ; and the book of Ecclesiastes, as Delitzsch has said, must be placed late, else there is no history of the He- brew language at all. The books of Chronicles indicate their lateness even by the matter. Still, in the great mass of the He- brew literature there are no sure linguistic landmarks denoting 256 Notes. definite literary periods. It must be admitted that in this, as in other respects, the East is more stationary than the "West; and it is therefore somewhat misleading to compare long periods of our own history with the same number of years in Hebrew his- tory (as is done, e.f/., by Horton, in 'Inspiration and the Bible,' third edition, p. 143). A modern Arabic author will write in the style of an ancient classic, without subjecting himself to the charge of pedantry; and the uniformity of the style of Assyrian documents is remarkable. When once a certain style for a cer- tain subject is fixed, it tends to stereotype itself; and one author may be master of more than one style. At all events, the deter- mination of separate authorship does not, as a rule, go far to the determination of date. Cf. below. Note XXVI. • Note II. vol. i. p. 23. — M. Renan's estimate of the historical sci- ences, to which his life has been devoted, is not very high : "Little conjectural sciences, which are unmade as fast as they are made, and which will be neglected a hundred years hence." With his sneer at the "ugly little Jew" (St. Paul) who was unable to un- derstand the goddess whom Renan on the Acropolis addressed, maybe contrasted the declaration of Heine in his ' Confessions': " Formerly I had no special admiration for Moses, probably be- cause the spirit of Hellenism was dominant within me, and I could not pardon in the lawgiver of the Jews his intolerance of all types and plastic representations. ... I see now that the Greeks were only handsome youths, while the Jews were always men, powerful, indomitable men." See 'Wit, Wisdom, and Pathos from the Prose of Heinrich Heine,' by Snodgrass, second edition, p. 256 f. Note III. vol. i. p. 25.— rTiele in his * Kompendium der Reli- gionsgeschichte,' § 3, thus lays down the fundamental lines of the whole subject: It is probable for various reasons ih'Jii primitive religion, which has left but few traces, was followed by a pre- vailing period of animism, which is still found in the so-called nature-religiojis {ov, as he prefers to call them, " polydemonis- tic-magical tribal religions"), and which, at a still early period among civilised peoples, was developed \viio polytheistic nation- Notes. 257 al religions, resting on traditional teaching. At a later time there arose out of polytheism, here and there, nomistic religions, or religious communities based on a law or sacred writing. In these polytheism was more or less overcome by pantheism or monotheism, in the last of which are found the roots of the \vorld-religions. All this, as is pointed out by Tide's French translator (Maurice Yernes, L'histoire des Religions, p. 42), is very much a repetition of Auguste Comte's famous trilogy, fet- ishism, polytheism, monotheism; with this difference, thatTiele and his followers regard monotheism as a permanent religion, while Comte and his school regard it as destined to give place to positive philosophy. It is plain, moreover, that, starting with a determination of what is to be found, the inquirer will be strongly tempted to find it, at the expense, it may be, of sober interpretation of facts. Note IV. vol. i. pp. 30, 47. — Writers of the critical school are in the habit of attacking what they call the "traditional theory." With this, however, we need not concern ourselves, except in so far as it is found in the Biblical writers. The 0. T. writers have a theory, and it is enough that we examine it, especially as the advanced critics tell us plainly that it is erroneous. (See Kue- nen, National Religions, p. 69 f.) Whether Robertson Smith gives an exact statement of the traditional theory (0. T. in Jew- ish Church, p. 208 ff.) I am not prepared to say. I agree with him, however, that the position assigned to the prophets, in the theory as he sketches it, is not consistent with the declarations of the prophets themselves (p. 216). My whole contention is, that the Biblical writers do not bind us to any theory or view of the mode of composition of books, whatever may have been " traditionally " inferred or taken for granted in the matter; but as to the sequence of events, and the religious significance of events, their language is plain and emphatic. It is with that language, and the view it expresses, not with traditional inter- pretations of it, that we have to deal. Note V. vol. i. p. 37. — Yatke, from whom Wellhausen "grate- fully acknowledges himself to have learned best and most " (Hist. 258 Notes. of Israel, p. 13), says lliat Moses must he measured by his time, ami that it is impossible that an individual should rise sudden- ly from a lower to a hi[en of the Bible" Series. It is time that an extreme criticism, which will persist in rei)resenting Israel as groping its way out of the most primitive ideas, while civilisa- tion prevailed around them, should bend to the force of facts which are multiiilying every day. Wluit has been done in the field of Homoric studies should not be without its lesson to Bib- lical students. Notes. 265 Note XIV. vol. i. p. 192.— Robertson Smith (Religion of Se- mites, first series, p. 92 ff.) has an ingenious discussion of the origi- nal signification of haal, in which he relies much on the Arabic expression (baal land), which denotes land nourished by subter- ranean waters. Whether his conclusion be right or not, it»is ev- ident that a good deal must have happened before a god under the earth beneath became the chief god in the heaven above ; and also that by the time we reach the stage of conception of the earliest Hebrew writing (not to say language), in which " baal means the master of a house, the owner of a field, cattle, or the like," we are very far indeed from the, original Semitic conception, if, indeed, that order of development took place at all. In this very learned work there are too many sudden leaps from primitive notions of Semitic peoples to such an advanced stage of thought as is represented by the prophets. In my opinion, the work would have been as valuable a contribution to our knowledge of the common Semitic religion, and much less confusing and inconsequent, had the author not proceeded on the assumption that the theory of the history of Israel set forth by Wellhausen and Kuenen is established, or, as he states the matter, that the researches of writers of that school have "carried this inquiry to a point where nothing of vital import- ance for the historical study of the Old Testament religion still remains uncertain " (Pref. , p. vii.) The precariousuess of the philological argument, so much employed by him, is seen in the fact that expressions illustrating what are claimed as primitive beliefs are found as frequently in undoubtedly late as in early writers. In the Archaeological Review (vol. iii.. No. 3, 1889) there is an article on Totemism by Jos. Jacobs, who comes to the conclusion that, although not only certain names of Edomite and even Israelite tribes, and also prohibitions of food, family feasts, and so forth, possibly allow the inference of pre-existing' totemism, there cannot be a thought of "its actual existence in historic times." And it is with historic times that we are cou' cerned. Note XV. vol. i. p. 193. — The name Elohim, which is a plural form, has been taken by many to prove that polytheism was the 266 Notes. original belief of the Hebrews. Baudissin (Sturlien zur Semit. Religions.i:;esch., Ileft I. p. 55 11.) says that the i)lural designation of God can only have arisen through the ascription to One of all the powerd that resided in dillerent deities. To which Baethgen (Beitriige zur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte, p. 132 ft", and p. 297) objects that this is to give to the word an origin in panthe- ism, of which we have no trace in any Old Testament writer; and that if the God of the Israelites were only the sum of all other gods, he could not be set over against them nor over them. As to the idea that the plural form may have been a summing up of all the gods or divine i)owers which /.v?v, 0, says that the Davidic muse had scarce- ly the prcMloniinant religious tendency which a later age pre- supposed. And Robertson Smith goes the length of .'sa.ving: *'It is very curious that the book of Amos represents David as the chosen model of the difettanti nobles of Ephraim. who lay Notes, 271 stretched on beds of ivory, anointed with the choicest perfumes, and mingling music with their cups in the familiar manner of oriental luxury " (0. T. in the Jewish Church, p. 205). It is "very curious," certainly, that a learned professor should make such an assertion, for Amos does no such thing. All that the prophet says about David in this connection is, that the nobles in question "devise for themselves instruments of music like David." To make the comparison extend to the whole passage is monstrous. The prophet tells the luxurious nobles that they are enjoying everything that is best themselves, but "are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph " ; and if there is any infer- ence to be drawn as to David's musical attainments, it is this, that his instruments had the fame of being the ne plus ultra of their kind. There may be— probably there is— irony in the prophet's words, as one might describe as a Solomon a person who made great pretence to wisdom. "When Isaiah utters a woe upon those who " are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink " (Isa. v. 22), he does not mean that all athletes are drunkards. Tlie view of iVmos in regard to the po- sition of David in history is found in chap. ix. 11. Note XIX. vol. i. p. 289.— From the form of the question in Amos V. 25, and the emphatic position of the word " sacrifices" in the original, it may be concluded that the prophet expected a negative answer to the question, " Did ye offer sacrilices to me in the wilderness forty years, house of Israel ? " But this being admitted, the difficulties of the passage only begin. Did he mean to refer to the desert period as a good time, and imply— It was not sacrifice that constituted the good feature of Israel's belia- viour then? Or did he mean to say that even in the desert they were a rebellious corrupt people, or a people under disi)leasure to such an extent that sacrifice would not have been accepted from them? Both Amos (ii. 10) and Hosea (ix. 10, xi. 1 fl'.) refer to the time of the desert as one of favour shown by Jahaveh ; but this is not inconsistent with the view that they were even then a rebellious and backsliding people, as even these prophets, as well as the historical writers, indicate. It may be, as Bred- enkamp maintains, that the forty years is given as a round '272 Notes. number to indicate the greater part of the period — viz., thirty- eight years — when the people were under chastisement (see Deut. ix. 7 ff. ; Josh. v. 6), and excluding the two years spent about Sinai, when the legal system is represented as having been organised. Apart from this, however, the dif- ficulties of the passage in the present connection begin at v. 26. For whereas some writers (as Daumer and Kuenen) see a reference to the past, and make the prophet declare that this idolatrous worship was practised in the desert, others (as Rob- ertson Smith, Konig, Schrader, &c.) take the reference to be to the future, "So shall ye take up (viz., on the road to exile) the stake (or column) of your king, and the pedestal of your im- ages," r blood claim on the other side, need not siuprise any tme who believes in a progressive education in morality. When (not so long ago) men were hanged in this country for sheep-stealing, it was done in obedience to what Notes. 2t3 were regarded as the sacred demands of justice. See Mozley'a 'Ruling Ideas in Early Ages.' Note XXI. vol. ii. p. 41. — The distinction between monotheism and monolatry is one that it is easy for us to draw. At the same time, the important point in this discussion is whether the Isra- elites worshipped only one God, and what was the character they assigned to Him. It is quite probable that it never oc- curred to them to ask themselves what precisely were the gods of the nations around them ; and, as is shown in the text, had they put such a question, they would very probably have been at a loss for an answer. We must not look in the Old Testa- ment for what it does not profess to give. Max Mliller speaks of a primitive intuition of God which he calls henotheism; which in itself is neither monotheistic nor polytheistic, though it might become either, according to the expression which it took in the languages of men (Selected Essays, vol. ii. p. 412 f.) His well-known explanation of the monotheistic turn of the Semitic races is that their languages enabled those using them to keep in memory the predicative or appellative sense of words, so that they did not run into nomina, which were confounded with numina. But the question always recurs, Whence this peculiar build of language, if not from the mind of those form- ing and employing it? So that the problem why the Semitic race (or a part of them) tJiought in this peculiar way, is no nearer solution on a merely philological basis. (Compare above, vol. i. p. 211.) Note XXIL vol. ii. pp. 53, 82. — Stade also, though he speaks of an intimate relation between Jahaveh and Israel as subsist- ing from Mosaic times, yet maintains that the designation of this relation as a covenant cannot be proved anterior to the seventh century (Gesch., i. p. 507). The Hebrew word for cov- enant (n^"l2) is no doubt etymologically connected with a verb ("IID) to cut, and in its derivation, and in the usual connec- tion with the verb n"lD (to cut), there is clear reference to sacri- ficial rites in connection with its ratification. (See Gen. xv. and Delitzsch's Comment.) Robertson Smith has pointed out the 274 Notes. old Arab usages in this matter (Kinship and Marriage, p. 47 ff. ; Religion of the Semites, 296 ff.) lie says, however, very appos- itely, that "a nation like Israel is not a natm'al unity like a clan, and Jehovah, as the national God, was, from the time of Moses downward, no mere natural clan god, but the god of a confederation, so that here the idea of a covenant religion is entirely justified." He thus seems to take the original sense of the word as (TvvBrjKri, with a reciprocal sense. Others, less properly, give it the sense of 8iaBr}Krj, from the idea of decis- ion, determination, and then institution. Though this is not to be maintained, and though the obligations resting upon God, as one party to the covenant, may not be brought into the fore- ground, as being understood, yet we cannot conceive of a cov- enant without obligations, in the form of commands, resting on man. Even Jeremiah's new covenant implies a law (Jer. xxxi. 33). See Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten, p. 22, and his reff. Note XXITI. vol. ii. p. 57. — It seems to be generally taken for granted, without proof, that the early Israelites knew little of the great outside world. Robertson Smith, e. g., says of the times of Amos, "We are led to suppose that the very name of Assyria was unknown to the mass of the Hebrews " (Prophets, p. 91). He admits, however, that Amos himself knew with sur- prising exactness the history and geography of all the nations with whom the Hebrews had any converse; but instead of taking one man as the type of many, as ho does in the case of Micah the image-maker in the book of Judges, he supposes that Amos had been a great traveller (ibid., p. 128 f.) For my part, I do not see any reason to think that Amos, who tells us plainly what his manner of life was, dillered in this particular from the average man of his time. When the Franco-Prussian war was raging in Euroi)o, there were numbers of Druze peas- ants in Lebanon, who had never been on a boat, inquiring eagerly day by day for news of the campaign, and following closely the fortunes of the combatants. Palestine was not so large a country, nor its people in those times so dull, that the great Phoenician trade could be carried on about their borders Notes. 275 Jero- boam was not the only adveuturer that went from Palestine to Egypt, nor was Jonah the only Jewish youth that ran away to sea. It has generally been taken for granted that it was only after the advance westward of the Assyrian power about the eighth century that Israel came to know of the great Eastern world (Kuobel, Die Biicber Numeri, &c., p. 579); but are we to believe that a people who traced the origin of Abraham to the East supposed that all that region had disappeared, or ceased to talk about it? The tenacity with which old traditions cling to the oriental mind is illustrated by the fact that the inhabitants of Syria at the present day speak of the Russians as Muskobi or Muscovites, a recollection of the period when Moscow was the capital (although the name Russia is known to old writers). And I would offer the conjecture for whatever it may be worth, that the name of Babel (for Babylon) retained similarly its hold on the Israelite memory as a designation of the great Eastern country, in which the supremacy oscillated between Babylon and Assyria. Schrader tells us (Cuneiform Inscriptions, on Genesis xxxvi. 31) that the name Israel does not occur in the Inscriptions as a general name for the Israelites, nor does it appear, as a rule, as the name of the northern kingdom, the designation of which is usually " land of the house of Omri. " This fact is full of suggestiveness as to the way in which " sources " may be used. Note XXIV. vol. ii. pp. 80 and 117. — One of those general statements made without reflection on its foundation or signifi- cance, is that the Israelites who left Egypt at the exodus were a horde of slaves. We must, no doubt, accept it as the best evi- dence of their servitude there that the national consciousness of a people otherwise proud of their freedom, retained so vivid a re- collection of their hard bondage and of the "high baud" by which they were delivered. Stade's off-hand dictum that if any He- brew clan ever sojourned in Egypt no one knows its name, is (not to speak of the difficulty of finding traces of the Hjksos themselves in Egji^t) opposed to the whole testimony of the na- tion, and, besides, leaves no room for the development of the 276 Notes. pre-proi)betic ideas which lie himself is so fond of tracing. But if we admit that the sojourn of the people in Egypt was a historical fact, we must consider what it implies. The things that make the deepest impression on the memory are not necessarily those that make the most lasting impression on character. Although their life was at one time made "bitter in mortar and in bricks, and in all manner of service in the field," we are not to suppose that this went on from generation to generation. Even during the time of this hard service it is probable, judging by the cus- toms of forced labour in the East, and hints in the Hebrew nar- rative, that they were far from being, as perhaps the popular concei)tion represents them, an unorganised gang of slaves. They would be arranged and drawn for labour by their families and under their own chief or heads (Exod. v. U ff.) And we know not what amount of organisation they had reached, or what experience of ordinary life they had gained during a resi- dence of several generations in a country like Egypt. The Egyp- tian /e//rt/nO« in the time of Mehemet All were probably as much oppressed as the ancient Israelites. Yet, with an army of such men, forced into the ranks, and fed on black bread and onions, Ibrahim Pasha drove the Turks from Syria. "The History of Israel," says Delitzsch (Introd. to his Commentary on Genesis), " does not begin with the condition of an ignorant, rude, and un- disciplined horde, but with the transition to a nation of a race which had come to maturity amidst the most abundant means and examples of culture." He points out also the influence of the legalism and multiformity of Egv'ptian national and private life as seen in the laws of the Pentateuch; and dates from the sojourn in Egyi)t the first impulse to literary activity among the Hebrews. I do not know that there is anything incredible in the supposition that the book of the Covenant may be the codi- fication of law and custom that prevailed even in Egypt (The Kingdom of all Israel, by James wSime, 1883, chap. v. This is a book that no doubt will be considered wild by critics, but is de- serving of attcMition for the intelligent and honest eflbrt to treat the Old Testament by the same rules of hiritorical research as have "been applied in verifying llie literature of Greece and Rome"). Notes. 277 Note XXV. vol. ii. p. 89. — There is another passage in Rosea which may be referred to in this connection, not so much because of the positive evidence which it furnishes, as because it has been explained away by those who maintain that at the time of that prophet the Levitical aspect of the law is scarcely per- ceivable. In Hosea iv. 4 we read, ' ' Thy people are as they that strive with the priest; " and advocates of the early existence of the Deuteronomic Code see in it a reference to Deut. xvii. 12, where it is said, "The man that doeth presumptuously is not hearkening unto the priest, . . . even that man shall die." On the other hand, the advocates of the late production of the Le- vitical Code, and of the lateness of the priestly authority gener- ally, seek to explain the passage as if it contained a false or corrupt reading. I think that the explanation given by them of the expression, " As they that strive with the priest," is very frigid and weak; and I am prepared to defend the reading on purely grammatical and literary grounds. The construction of the particle kaph (meaning like) with a participle is found in Hosea in so marked a manner that it may be said to be an usus loquendi of that prophet. Thus in one passage (v. 10) he says, "The princes of Judah are like them that remove the land- mark;" and in another place (xi. 4), "I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws; " and in another passage (vi. 9), "Like the waylayers of men." Cf. also the expression, "Like the dew that early goeth away" (vi. 4). Such a usage as this, I think, guarantees the reading when there is no external evidence against it, and the expression, moreover, read as it stands, fits the context better than the reading pro- posed. See Robertson Smith's discussion of the passage, Prophets, p. 405 f. Note XXVI. vol. ii. p. 132. — Not only is it the case that the dates of the "sources " are variously given by various critics, and that two at least of the sources (J and E) present a hitherto insolu- ble problem, but it is plain that critics like Dillmanu and Noldeke have come to very different conclusions as to the development of the history from tlie school of Wellhausen and Kuenen. Quite recently, too, we have had Klostermann putting forward a revo- 278 Notes. ^ lutioiiary view as to the original documents (Xeue Kirkl. Zeitaclir., i. 618 ff., 693 ff. Compare Presbyterian and Reformed Review, April 1891). And not to speak of the small school represented by M. Vernes, the articles of Halevy appearing in the ' Revue des Etudes Juives ' show that he is far from accept- ing the current conclusions of criticism. If it should come to be accepted— as the discoveries of architology and the failures of criticism seem to indicate that it will— that literary activity was much older and more common in Israel than is now admit- ted, we shall probably the better understand how, side by side with the growth and modification of religious observances, there went on a rewriting and modification of books; which is, on all points of view, a more likely thing than the supposition of lit- erature produced in the mass for certain specific temporary pur- l)oses. As to the dating very far apart of documents that now lie side by side, the critics themselves see no incongruity in two contemporaneous prophets, Amos and Hosea, the one saying nothing against the calves, and the other making them the very root of Israel's sin (R. Smith, Prophets, p. 175). Nay, they find in the person of Jeremiah two tendencies on this subject of law that are quite contradictory (see chap. xvii. p. 451). I will venture to add that the mode of composition, and transition from one style to another seen frequently in oriental authors, should be a warning not to push the " separation of sources " too far. Lane incidentally (Modern Egyi)tians, 5th ed., vol. i. p. 271 f.) furnishes an example, which could be paralleled by quotations from almost any Arabic author. He gives a long passage taken down to the dictation of his informant, and relating a vision of the prophet which was given to one Mohammed el-Bahaee to s(»ttle a diMicult matter of tradition. The narrator first relates his vision, apparently in fullest detail, till he "awoke from sleep joyful and happy." He then goes on to tell how he visited his teacher to rcjiort the occurrence, and in this relation brings in quite a new sot of details that were not hinted at in the first narrative. The two accounts show so much variety that they could easily be ascribed to difierent writers, and it would be very easy to make out that the latter is very much later than the former. Rut. iiidccd. ihc K(»ran itself, uniform as it is above Notes. 2" 9 most Arab work?, exliil)it3 ([uito a miniber of styles and not a few divergent tendencies. Note XXVII. vol. ii. p. 157. — A few words may here be said on the view of Wellhausen and his school that •• the kingdom wjjich bore the name of Israel was actually in point of fact in the olden time the proper Israel, and Judah was merely a kind of append- age to it " (Hist, of Israel, p. 188). Robertson Sniith of course re- peats the statement, €ven to the corroborative proof of the cedar of Lebanon overshadowing the thistle that grows at its foot (2 Kings xiv. 9; Prophets, pp. 93, 137). The remark might be al- lowed to pass if it referred merely to political importance, lor the northern kingdom was larger and nearer to the great powers that moulded history in those days. Yet happy is the people that has no history. The dynastic changes and internal troubles of the northern kingdom are in strange contrast with the long quiet reigns of the southern kingdom ; and from this point of view the sweeping statement of Wellhausen is a priori improb- able— .viz., that "religiously the relative importance of the two corresponded pretty nearly to what it was politically and histor- ically." Israel, he says, "was the cradle of prophecy; Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha exercised their activity there. What contem- porary figure from Judah is there to place alongside of these? " Why, Samuel belongs to the undivided kingdom, a proof, even if we had not stronger ones, that the cradle of prophecy is not to be located on geographical considerations. And who were Nathan and Gad; and where did Amos come from? Isaiah himself cannot be a sudden apparition in Judah. The quiet of the little southern state, the prestige of Jerusalem, the disposi- tion to rest on the past, all speak for Jerusalem as the centre of religious life, and for the Davidic house as, in religious regard, something quite different from the northern kingdom. Pales- tine is not so large, nor were the boundaries of the two kingdoms so firmly set by nature, that the mere distance of a few miles could make much diflTerence in the social and religious condition of the people. Yet the tone of the northern prophets, who seem to have had before them a worship full of idolatry, differs so much from that of the prophets of the south, who rejirove the "280 Notes. Doople for too much attention to forms, that we must recognise a (litfereuce in the religious associations and standing of the two kingdoms. Note XXVIII. vol. ii. p. 181.— In Cheyne's Jeremiah, His Life and Times, pp. 69-86, the English reader will find in an accessible and comprehensive form a statement of the main critical posi- tions in regard to the date and authorship of Deuteronomy. It does not fall within the scope of the present work to enter into critical questions as to the composition of books, and I have stated my reasons for believing that the Biblical theory of the history is not inconsistent with the supposition of a late date for the book of Deuteronomy. A good many of the statements of Professor Cheyne are, I think, quite controvertible ; but I can only refer briefly to one or two points bearing on the theory of the history. For instance, he does not seem to take any ac- count of the possibility of one in Moses' position foreseeing (in the ordinary and literal sense or the word) what was most likely to happen after the occupation of Canaan. And when he tells us that the author of Deuteronomy "is full of allusions to cir- cumstances which did not exist till long after Moses " (p. 71), and, guided by such allusions, brings the date later and later down till he reaches the age of Manasseh or Josiah, he some- what invalidates his own argument by adding that, after the promulgation of Deuteronomy, "even very near Jerusalem the reformation was but slight " (p. 73). For it is always open to the objector to argue that, if breaches of the law are found after the solemn national adoption of it, the earlier "circumstances" alluded to are no proof that, at the time of their occurrence, s\ich a law had not been promulgated. What I particularly dis- pute, however, is the statement that the fundamental idea of the holy people is Isaiah's, and that " it was that great prophet's function to transfer the conception of holiness from the physical to the moral sphere " (p. 73). Such a statement, even with the qualification added to it that "others had laboured in the same direction," is to my mind altogether inadequate, in view of the writings of Amos and Hosea. tlie book of the Covenant, and any- thing that can at all be ascribed to Moses himself. Whether Notes. 28 i the word be there or not, the idea of a people separated from other nations in belief and practice, and constituted as a people on an ethical basis, is fundamental and Mosaic ; and it is only on such a supposition that it can be asserted with any proper significance that Deuteronomy is in spirit Mosaic. But, indeed, is it not conceivable that this Deuteronomic spirit was a thing of development and growth, having its germ in the Mosaic re- ligion, and, instead of appearing for the first time in one late age, coming to maturity in the course of the history? In other words, instead of saying that Deuteronomy speaks as its authors supposed Moses would have spoken had he been alive, and that it abolished things which Moses might have tolerated in his own day, but would have condemned had he lived later (p. 78 f.), I think we get a more reasonable view of the matter if we suppose that it is the final expression, in the light of history, of views that had been germinating in the minds of good men from the days of Moses, the exposition of principles so firmly rooted in their minds that the writers in all sincerity regarded them as Mosaic. It is one thing to ascribe to early times an in- stitution which exists and has long existed, or an idea or tone of thought which is well defined and deeply rooted; it is not so easy to conceive of this being done with institutions newly set up, or ideas for the first time formulated. This distinction would, I think, help materially to explain the success of Josiah's reformation, as it w^ould also remove the necessity for the as- cription of any fraud or delusion, or even illusion, to those wdio were its prominent agents. I believe it would also explain the Deuteronomic colouring, as it is called, which is found in other books. Cheyne speaks of "the school of writers formed upon the book of Deuteronomy — a school which includes historians, poets, and prophets, and without which the Old Testament would be deprived of some of its most valued pages " (p. 68). It is not so very obvious how a* school could be formed upon a book. A book issuing from a school is at least as conceivable ; and the fact that the school embraced "historians, poets, and prophets," would lead us to suppose that it was of more gradual growth, under influences wider and more fundamental than a book. Even if we explain the school by the existence of the 282 Notes. book, the hook itself has to be accounted for, with characteris- tics sufticieut to give rise to a school. Note XXIX. vol. ii. p. 187.— The linguistic comparison of the various books or sources lies quite beyond the subject which I set before myself; and I have already indicated my doubts whether this kind of argument goes very far to determine the actual dates of the compositions, much less to determine the order of historical events. The student will find the linguistic veculiari- ties of the Hexateuch fully stated in Dillmann's Commentaries on those books, and in his summary statement, ' Ueber die Composition des Hexateuch' at the close of the series. De- lltzsch's new Commentary on Genesis also takes note of them; and of course, in Kuenen's Hexateuch, they are produced in de- tail. A special work on the subject is Ryssel's ' De Elohistae Pentateuchici Sermone ' (1878), which is criticised by Kayser in ' Jahrb. ftir Prot. Theol.,' 1881. Riehm treated the subject also in 'Stud. u. Krit.,' 1872, and is criticised by Wellhausen in Bleak's ' Einleituug,' 4te Aufl., p. 173 ff. There is a discussion by Klostermann of the relation of Ezekiel to the law of holi- ness (Levit. xviii.-xxvi.) in 'Zeitschr. fiir luth. Theol.,' 1877. Strack gives a brief statement of a conservative view in Zock- ler's ' Ilandbuch ' (1883), vol. i. p. 138 fl'. ; and Giesebrecht has an important discussion of the subject (Die Sprachgebrauch des hexat. Elohisten) in Stade's Zeitschr. fiir Alttest. Wissensch.,' 1881. Ryssel, who has been much criticised, concludes that it cannot be asserted that the Elohist is later in date than the exile. Bredenkamp, while laying less stress on the linguistic argument, comes also to the conclusion that no part of the Elohistic Torah was produced in the period of the language succeeding Malachi ; and he points out, in particular, the contrasts it i)resent3 to the language of Ezekiel (Gesetz. u. Propli. , p. 17). F. E. Konig, to whom I luive acknowledged my indebtedness in these pages, has a special treatise, ' De criticic sacra? argumento e linguai legibus repetito ' (1879); and he gives also a very comprehensive statement of the whole question as to the order and relation of the various documents in his ' OtTenbarungsbegriff des Alten Testaments' (1882), vol. ii. p. 321 ff. He declares himself an Notes. 283 adherent of the view of Reuss and Graf that tlie Priestly Code is later than Ezekiel ; yet he strenuously asserts that the histori- cal order, law and prophets, is to be maintained, and says that the Grafian hypothesis does not involve a denial of this order. His own position is that Moses received a veritably supernatural revelation, that through him God brought Israel in a miraculous manner out of Egypt, and concluded a covenant with Israel at Sinai, where the foundations were laid of Israel's ordinances for religion, morals, worship, and daily life (p. 333). As to the ex- tent to which Konig diflfers from the prevailing school, it may be mentioned that he defends the Mosaic origin of the taber- nacle (ibid.), and holds that the absence of mention of the Great Day of Atonement in Nehemiah is no proof that the law relating to that institution was not then known (p. 331). The laws relating to worship which he regards as belonging to the original Mosaic legislation are, besides the prohibition of images and the Sabbath law (which are in the Decalogue itself) : the erection of altars wherever God recorded His name, along with which, however, the tent or tabernacle as chief sanctuary; a priestly tribe of Levi, with high priest at its head; offerings of animals and fruits, as burnt-offerings and thank-offerings; the Sabbath; new moon; three collective festivals, &c. (p. 347). It is but just to a careful worker like Konig to present this enumera- tion (and the " &c. " is added by himself) ; for the conclusion in- volved in regard to the history and the credibility of the docu- ments differs widely from that of most of the critical writers whose views we have considered. It might be suggested that if Konig is willing to believe in the antiquity of some institutions in regard to which the history is silent, he might have been content to accept the statements of the priestly writers as to others. At all events, if all the institutions he mentions are Mosaic, it is evident that an equally ancient terminology and diction must have existed (in priestly circles at least) in regard to them. But, as I have already indicated, 1 cannot profess to have arrived at any certainty on such matters, and therefore do not hazard con- jecture on the subject. Note XXX. vol. ii. p. 189.— One or two instances of this style 284 Notes. of proof ma}' be given — it is evident that it may he carried to any length: {a) The cities of refuge are not of early institution, but the law in regard to them arose out of the old Bamoth. That is to say, an altar used to be a place of asylum, but when a multiplicity of altars was abolished something had to come in their place. (See Well., Hist., pp. 161-163.) Places thus set apart formed the germ of the idea of Levitical cities, and the compilers of the Priestly Code went on in their usual way to trace them back to Moses, imagining a condition of things neither known nor workable in their own days, {b) In Deut. there are references to the monarchy, but none in the Priestly Code, The conclusion that used to be drawn was that the Priestly Code was older than the monarchy. On Wellhausen's theory, however, that the historical sphere of the Priestly Code is one " created by itself out of its own legal premises " (p. 39), the silence as to a king is explicable by the fact that it belongs to a time when the monarchy had disappeared, and the high priest was the chief magistrate. The so-called theocracy of the pre-monarchical period is just, in short, a reading backward into history of the hierocracy of post-exilian times — p. 148 ff. (c) According to Exod. xxx. the expenses of the Temple worship are met directly out of the poll-lax levied from the community, which can only be explained by the fact that at that time there had ceased to be any sovereign — p. 80. {h) " One might per- liaps hazard the conjecture that if in the wilderness legislation of the [Levitical] Code there is no trace of agriculture being re- garded as the basis of life, which it still is in Deut. and even in the kernel of Levit. xvii.-xxvi., this also is ai)roof that the Code belongs to a very recent rather than to a very early period, when agriculture was no longer rather than not yet. With the Baby- lonian captivity the Jews lost their fixed seats, and so became a trading people" — p. 108. Note XXXI. vol. i. p. 224.— I have purposely avoided making any reference to the book of Joel, although much might be said in favour of its i)re-exilic and early date. I will not say that it is on account of their theory of the late origin of the Priestly Code that most of the modern critics relegate this book to post- Notes. 286 exilic times, or even that the tlieory in question, taken strictly, requires this. Yet, seeing that the date of the l)ook is so much disputed, and that so much, it anything at all, would have to be said on the subject, I prefer to leave it altogether out of ac- count, as I have practically done in regard to the Psalter. Note XXXII. vol. ii. p. 227.— It may be thought that I have given more importance than their views demand to the small school represented by M. Vernes, and also that the extreme posi- tions of Daumer and Ghillany are not worthy of consideration at the present time. It is, however, to be noted that many of the views of these older writers are put forth by modern critics, and on the same grounds ; and it is but fair to M. Vernes to say that his chief objection to the prevailing school is that their method is insufficient. He professes to carry out to their legitimate conclusion the principles on which they proceed ; and if, as it seems to me, the critical "circles" to which Wellhausen refers (Hist., p. 9) are concentric, we are entitled to look at the oper- ation of central principles. It may not be agreeable to the prevailing school to be called traditionalists ; yet M. Vernes has some right to ask, if the recollection of the period immediately preceding Saul and David has almost completely disappeared, how^ any one can be justified in going back centuries beyond that dim period, and talking of migrations of pre-Abrahamic peoples and suchlike matters which are shrouded in impenetra- ble darkness (Resultats, &c., p. 42 f.) So it seems to me he is only carrying out the principles of the prevailing school when he points out tliat the (so-called) pre-exilic prophets have the exile, the restoration, and the spread of religion among the heathen so clearly in their view, that the books must have been written after these events had happened or become possible (p. 213 ff.) Scepticism must always be prepared to meet scepticism ; and when critics triumphantly tell us that Amos declares that the Israelites did not sacrifice in the wilderness, and Jeremiah informs us distinctly that God never commanded sacrifice, and therefore the controversy as to the early legislation on that subject is ended, it is always open to the objector to ask what information Amos or Jeremiah had about times so remote that 286 Notes. was not v^osscssod bj' their coiitomporaries. Again. Daumer claims to be consistent and thorough ; for he not only proves the original tire and Moloch worship of Israel from tiie same texts that Kueueu relies upon, but concludes, from a i)'issage of similar tenor in Jeremiah (xlvi. 10; comp. Isa. xxxiv. «> rt.j, that this was to the last a recognised legal service (Feuer und Molochdienst. p. 25). Not without reason M. Vernes says (Pref., p. iiij, "If erudition is an excellent and indispensable thing, it cannot take the place of method. " Prof. Briggs tells us that " higher criticism is exact and thorough in its methods " (Bib. Study, J). 194). I can perceive the thoroughness; the exactness is not so apparent. INDEX. Abir, Abbir, i. 210, 245. Abraham, i. 27, ii. 240 — a "free creation," i. 139, ii. 264 — his offering of Isaac, i. 282 — inter cession for Sodom, i. 284. Adou, i. 192, 209, 271. Agag, i. 292. Agriculture learned from Canaan- ites, ii. Ill — basis of feasts, ii. 114 ff., 120 ft'., 153. Allah, i. 195, ii. 44. Alluvial deposit on tradition, i. 159. Alphabet, i. 86. Altar, horns of, i. 254 — in Egypt, i. 265— one, ii. 164 ff. Amos, i. 58, 61 f.— style, i. 64, 68, 74 — and the prophets, i. 95, 100, 172— and local cult, i. 238 — and the calves, i. 254 — and the wilderness period, 1. 288 f., ii. 271 f. — geographical knowl edge, ii. 274. Ancestors, mythical, i. 143 — na- tional, i. 145 — worship, i. 225. Animism, i. 222, 236 ff. Anthropomorphisms, ii. 32. Apis, i. 210, 243 f. Apostasy of Israel, i. 31, 126, 180. Appellative names, i. 191, 202, 205, ii. 273. Ark, sacred, i. 227 — abode of deity, i. 248— its place, i. 250— in time of Judges, ii. 91 f. Asherim, i. 262. Assyrian polytheism, i. 203 — bulls, i. 245— period, ii. 57 ff. Astarte, i. 197, 241, ii. 37. Astuads, ii. 5. Atonement, Day of, ii. 148. Baal, Baalim, i. 190 ff., 253, ii. 19, 44, 265 f. Babylonian deities, i. 198 ff., 202 ff. — influence on Palestine, i. 204. Bamoth. See High places. Bannockburn, i. 133, 150. Basket of fruits, ii. 116. Bedawin songs, i. 88 — tribes, i. 231. Belief and practice, i. 179, ii. 70. Bona fides, i. 53, ii. 178, 192. Books of Old Testament, i. 42, 47 ff., 119 f., 154, 159f.,ii. 75f. 288 Index. Calf worship, i. 240 IT. Caiiaanite iDtmina, i. 223, Canonical writings, i. 155. Caricature, i. 97, 99. Carlyle and St. Edmund, i. 115, U7. Centralization of worship, ii, G9, 111, 118 ff., 205. Character of Jahaveh, ii. 37, 45, 50, 59, 62 ff. Chemosh, i. 171, 271, ii. 38, 42. Cherubim, i. 248. Chronicles, book of, i. 30, 103, 158, ii. 153. Circumcision, i. 278, ii. 78. Clean and unclean, ii. 93. Codes, Coditication, ii. 132 ff., 138, 141, 145. Commandment, First, ii. 42. "Congregation," ii. 163. Contemporary writings, i. 50, 56 f. Copyright, ii. 238. Covenant, the, i. 27, 31, 127, ii. 53, 82 f., 161, 209 f., 273 f. Covenant, book of, i. 59, 69, ii. 75, 96, 105, 117, 122, 127, 132, 137, 139 ff., 199, 211, 213— and place of worship, ii. 159 ff. Cru.saders and topography, i. 109. Cumulative evidence, i. 293. Dada, Dodo, &c., 1. 198 ff., 202. Dan worship, i. 260, ii. 92. David, his times, i. 90 — serving other gods, i. 218 — and music, i. 104, ii. 270 f.— ephod, i. 261 his house, i. 124 f., 163. Dawn myth, ii. 268 II'. Deborah's song, i. 68, 131 f., 149, 215, 236. Decalogue, i. 77, 247 f,, ii, 79, ii. 163. Dervishes, i. 99. Deuteronomic Code, i. 157, ii. 75, 132, 137, 143, 150, 179, 219. Deuteronomy, i. 218 ff., ii. 170, 172 ff., 280 f. Development, i. 37, 176, 295, ii. 31, 40 f., 67, 78, 156, 178 f., 230, 240 ff.— prophetic, i. 161, ii. 60. Discipline, Book of, ii. 81 f. Discolouring of history, i. 33, 35, 43, 102, 129 f., 164, 175. See Alluvial, Redaction. Discredited testimony, i. 166, ii. 41, 60, 92, 225. Documents, private, ii. 239. See Sources. Dreams, i. 234. "Earlier prophets," books so named, i. 107. Ebal and Gerizim, ii. 162. Ecclesiastes, ii. 173 f. Education in Israel, i. 83. Egypt, altar in, i. 264 — civilisa- tion and ritual, ii. 79 — Israel in, ii. 24, 275 f. El, i. 210, 271, ii. 14, 19— Elim, i. 227, ii, 21, 26. Elegy, i. 69. Elijah, i, 59, 67 — and prophets, i, 94, 172— and calves, i. 251 f. —at Sarepta, ii. 28— at Carmel, i. 110, ii. 44. Index. 289 Elisha, i. 59, 67 — and prophets, i. 93 f. — and calves, i. 251. Elohim, i. 193, 271, ii. 221, 265. Elyon, i. 271. Ephod, i. 256 ff., 266 fl. EshmuD, i. 197, 208. Ethic monotheism, i. 173, ii. 40 ff., ii. 55, 161. See Character. Evil ascribed to God, ii. 30. Exile, the, ii. 183, 187. Exodus, the, i. 85, 122 f., 216, 242, ii. 25, 125 f., 128. Ezekiel, i. 223, 232, 242, ii. 79, 133, 148 f., 181, 184 ff., 208. Ezra, ii. 131, 134, 149, 188, 214, 242. Feasts, cycle, ii. 121 ff., 153 — historical reference, ii. 123. See Agriculture. Fetishism, i. 189, 222, 235 ff. Fiction, legal, ii. 173 — historical, 177, 189 ff., 227 f. Fire-worship, i. 269 ff. First-born, i. 278 ff. Fountains, sacred, i. 225. Genealogies, i. 89, 138 ff., ii. 262. Gibeonites, i. 292. Gideon's ephod, i. 257 f. Grace as a divine attribute, ii. 65, Graf, ii. 146, 167 f., 170 ff., 224. Iladad, i. 198. llaggai, ii. 109, 188, 217. Heine and Kenan, ii. 256. Ilezekiah's reform, i. 263 f., ii. 118, 214. High places, i. 224, 276, ii. 155 ff.. 206. History not annals, i. 39 — in guise of legend, i. 137 — study of, i. 102 — writing of, i. 67 f.— periods of, i. 147 — and archae- ology, i. 148. See Discolouring, Manufacture. Holiness in Jahaveh's character, ii. 49 f.— law of, ii. 133— in the law, ii. 215. Homer and writing, i. 71. Hosea, i. 58, 63— style, i. 64, 68, 74, ii. 277 — and the calves, i. 254 — and written law, ii. 86 ff., 143 — and sacrifices, ii. 88, 201 — and history, i. 165 f. Hosts, Lord of, i. 203, ii. 267 f. Image-worship, i. 249 f., ii. 48. Indirect speech, ii. 176 ff. Inspiration, ii. 250 f. Interpolations in Amos and Ho- sea, i. 165. Isaac, legend of, i. 139. Isaiah and God's dwelling-place, i. 238 f.— and ritual, ii. 198 f. — and Bamoth, ii. 206. Israel and Judah, ii. 279. Jacob, the name, i. 201— at Bethel, i. 220. Jashar, book of, i. 67 f., 74, 90. Jau, Babylonian deity, ii. 6. Jealousy, divine, ii. 36. Jehovah, pronunciation of, i. 35 —signification, ii. 17 ff. 290 Index. Jephtliah. i. 284 f.— and Chemosh, ii. 42. Jeremiah and sacrifice, ii. 203 — inconsistency, ii. 207 f. Jeroboam's calves, i. 244. Joel, book of, ii. 284. Job. moon-god, ii. 7 f. Joseph, the name, i. 201 f. Josiah, ii. 119, 160, 181, 202, 212. Joyousness of worship, ii. 113, 119 f. Judges, book of, i. 59, 130, ii. "90 —period, i. 149 f., 260, ii. 90. Kenites, ii. 10 Kings, books of, i. 58, 130. Konig, F. E., his critical position, ii. 282. Lang, Andrew, i. 3, 211. Language, imperfection of, ii. 43 f.— and the dates of documents, ii. 255 f., 282. Law, codes and books, ii. 73 — moral and ceremonial, ii. 215 — and Gospel, ii. 221. See Modi- fication, Torah. Legalism. See Prophets. Legend, i. 137, 144 f. Levites, ii. 94 f., 107, 209. Levitical Code, ii. 90, 108, 132, 136 f., 143, 170, 181 fi"., 191. See Priestly. Literary age, i. 67, 69 f. Literature, early, i. 17 — specified, i. 59 — characterised, i. 63 fl. — of India, i. 88. Localising of Deity, i. 230, 233. Love, divine, ii. 64. Ma99ebas, i, 226, 262. Malachi, ii. 109, 217. Manufacture of history, ii. 190. 284 f. Mazzoth, ii. 127 f. Memory, feats of, i. 89. Messianic idea, i. 129, ii. 261. Metaphorical language, i. 211 fl"., 231 f., 237, 274, 295. Micah and images, i. 264 — and ofl"erings, i. 290 f., ii. 201. Micah's ephod, i. 258 f. Might, divine, ii. 45. Missions, modern, i. 72 f. Moabite king, i. 286 f., ii. 39- stone, i. 199. Modification of laws and institu- tions, ii. 134 fl'., 178, 192 fl". Mohammedanism, i. 19 f., 37, ii. 71, 228, 245. Moloch, i, 171, 199, 209, 269 fl"., ii. 19, 39. Monolatry and Monotheism, ii. 40, 273 f. Monotheism, nascent, ii. 61 f.— and unity of worship, ii. 70. See Ethic. Montenegrin songs, i. 87. Mosaism, i. 177, 246, ii. 258 f. Moses, the name, i. 246 — and Ja- haveh's character, ii. 38 f., 66 — laws ascribed to, ii. 78 fl'. — his times, ii. 80, 258— little mentioned, ii. 95 f. — deciding cases, ii. 105 — his grandson, i. 261, ii. 92. Mythology, i. 209, ii. 37, 268 fl". See Legend. Index. 291 Nature feasts, ii. 72, ii. 110 — God, i. 234. Nazirites, i. 78, 126. Nebiim, i. 96, 99, 172, ii. 111. Nebo, i. 198, 201. Nebular hypothesis of history, i. 147. Newman, F. W., ii. 245. Nomad life, i. 141. Nukini nuk, ii. 9. Numina, i. 223, 271, ii. 44. Observances, religious, i. 119 f. — significance, ii. 71, 216. Omnipotence and omnipresence, ii. 29, 162. Omri, house of, i. 90, ii. 275. Oral transmission, i. 88. See Torah. Oratory and literary activity, i. 69. Palestine, i. 12— exploration, i. 109, 113— Jahaveh's house, i. 217, ii. 115. Passover, ii. 126 AT., 134, 153. Patriarchal stories, i. 59, 67, 115 f., 134 fT., 229 f.— religion, ii. 24— worship, ii. 158. Paul, St., and law, ii. 84. Pentateuch, traditional author- ship, i. 47 ff., ii. 131 — anony- mous, ii. 75 — legislation, ii. 130 ff. — criticism, ii. 136 f. — narra- tives, ii. 169 ff. Pentaur, poem, i. 85. Pesach, ii. 127 f. Philistine wars, i. 104, 227, ii. 56. Philosophy of history, i. 129. Phraseology, religious, i. 72, 75 f. Political events, ii. 55 f. Polytheism in Israel, i. 188, ii. 41. Popular religion, i. 180, ii. 51. See Prophetic. Praxis, ii. 108, 150 flf., 182, 197. Priestly Code, i. ,158, ii. 75, 119, 124, 152 ff., 164, 183. See Leviti- cal. Priests as educators, i. 117 — act- ing with prophets, ii. 218. Primitive peoples and concep- tions, i. 231, 239, 275, ii. 243, 247. Programme, ii. 81, 150 f. Prophetic and pre-prophetic, i. 57, 80, 184, 189, ii. 35— and popular, i. 172, 177, ii. 46 ff., 54 ff., 65, 211— development, i. 182. Prophets referred to by Amos and Hosea, i. 78 — background of, i. 80— false, i. 162 f.—" schools " of, i. 92 ff. — literary activity, i. 104 — guardians of tradition, i. 106 — destroyers of old religion, ii. 50 — and legalism, ii. 204 ff., 221 — acting with priests, ii. 218. Psalms and law, ii. 89 — and criti- cism, ii. 233. Pseudonymous literature, ii. 173 ff Quotations. See References. Redaction, i. 155-159. References and quotations, i. 120, ii. 83 f. 29: Index. Reformers or originators, i. 75, 78, 174— before Josiah, ii. 202. Religion of Israel, i. 16, 17 f., 23 f., 26, 30— pre-Mosaic, i. 230, ii. 21 —ideal and actual, i. 179, ii. 48 — missionary, i. 20 — universal, ii. 51— heart of, ii. 233— in old Israel, ii. 234. See Patriarchal, Popular, Prophetic, Prophets. Remnant, the, i. 129 f. Renan, i. 171, 211, 220, 271, ii. 243, 252 f., 256. Restoration, the, ii. 214. See Exile. Revelation, ii. 219. Reviews or summaries, i. 60, 130 f., 166. Rimmou, i. 198. Roeh, i. 97, 100. See Nebiim. Romance, i. 140 f. Sabbath, ii. 78, 147. Sacrifice, ancient, ii. 78 — human, see First-born. Salmsezab, i. 220, ii. 39. Samuel, i. 90, 92, 101, ii. 202 f.— book of, i. 59, ii. 90, 115. Sanctuaries, local, i. 222, 224, ii. 162— many, ii. 156 fl". Saturn worship, i. 288. Saul, name of, i. 200. Sclilt'itM-macher, i. 37. Shaddai, i. 271, ii. 19. Shiloh, ii. 91, 159, 164 f. Sifting of tradition, i. 159, ii. 225. See Discolouring. Silence, argument from, ii. 146. Sinai, name, i. 198, 201— God's dwelling, i. 215. Socin and exploration, i. 113 t. Solomon, time of, i. 90 f. — the name, i. 200, 204. Songs, transmission of, i. 66 f., 87. "Sources,'' i. 58, ii. 259, 277— free handling of, i. 228, ii. 225. Speeches, ii. 174. See Indirect. Statutes, ii. 85 f., 106, 109. Style of O.T. narrative, ii. 177. Stones, sacred, i. 226. Summaries. See Reviews. Sun myth, i. 208— god, i. 273. Symbols to denote writers, i. 62, ii. 238 fir., 259. Syncretism, i. 194 f. Tabernacle, i. 242, ii. 161, 163 f., 283. Tabernacles, feast of, ii. 153. Talmud, i. 26, ii. 243, 258. Tell-el-Amarna, i. 85, 88, 148. Temple, the, ii. 143, 152, 160, 165, 181, 202. Teraphim, i. 245, 266 f. Testimony of a nation, i. 79 f., 121, 150, ii. 15. Theophanies, i. 224, ii. 160. Theopneust, i. 174, ii. 54. Thoreau on history, i. 40, 147. Thunder, Thunderer, i. 234, ii. 17 f., 23 f., 54. Topographical accuracy, i. 108 11". Torah, ii. 85 — oral, ii. 100— priest- ly and prophetic, i. 100 fl"., 196 fl".— book of, ii. 167 fl".— Toroth, ii. 88, 142, 196. " Traditional " view, i. 38, 47 f., ii. 131, 223, 257. Index, 293 Trees, sacred, i. 225. Tribes, formation, i. 225, ii. 262 f. —Greek, &c., i. 231— tribal god, ii. 27. • Tutelary gods, i. 218. Underground criticism, i. 4, 114, 141. Urim and Thummim, i. 244, ii. 102. Vassalage, ii. 114 f. Vernes, Maurice, i. 112, 136, 142, 168, 215, ii. 148, 227, 285 f. Wars of Jahaveh, book of, i. 67 f., 74, 90, ii. 37. Weeks, feast of, ii. 153. Wilderness period, i. 127. See Amos, Exodus. World, popular and prophetic conception of, ii. 30, 50, 57 f. A^orship and daily life, ii. ] 12— place of, ii. 155 ff. Writer and his age, i. 57, 169. Writing on stone, i. 70— in Israel, i. 83— in Egypt and East, i. 85, ii. 261— in Moses' time, i. 85, 89. Zechariah, ii. 217. THE MODEny PRINTINO OOMPAXY, NEW YOEK. DATE DUE **^*^^ 1 i<* Mi^!"'^'''^ I CAYLORD PRINT ED :N U S A. BS1196.R653 1903V.2 The early religion of Israel : as set Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 00043 7873