Slllliiiill ! I ! 1 I i 
 
 liiltallliliili 
 
 I I PI IP P>!!) 
 iillljijl ii 1 I ' hN^ 
 
 III 
 
 ■■ill 
 
 i* 
 
 IS « 
 
 ;, iiyh iiU hii! I:.i 
 ill iil!ii:ii!t!i)l:iiil>n< 
 
 jp;;, 
 
 ^jiiiiijifc 
 
 II i 
 
 HiiHiisHJii 
 
 iiiilililiijiilili..: 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 IHi! 
 
 iiilli 
 
 Nil 
 iiiiiii 
 
 m. 
 iiipiJH; 
 
 !i 111;., 
 
 l|lp!ji| 
 
 
 ! ill iilj! plji! !; 
 
 ijiiijiipiliiiiiiiipp. 
 
 i I 11 lip'" 
 
 riipiiiifti' 
 
 
 liliii 
 

 ction, 
 
THE POLITY 
 OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 
 
 OCT 27 1919 
 
 MAYER SULZBERGER 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 JULIUS H. GREENSTONE 
 
 \912 
 
PRESS OF 
 
 CAHAN PRINTING COMPANY 
 
 218 S. FOURTH STREET 
 PHILADELPHIA. PA. 
 
The following lectures were read before 
 the Dropsie College for Hebrew and 
 Cognate Learning, Philadelphia, in the 
 month of March, \9\2, They are mere 
 studies in the public law of the ancient 
 Hebrews. The author hopes to supple- 
 ment them by further studies on other 
 branches of that interesting system of 
 jurisprudence. 
 
THE POLITY OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS* 
 
 By Mayer Sulzberger, Philadelphia 
 
 I 
 
 In accepting the flattering invitation of this learned 
 institution to deliver a course of lectures on the Institutes 
 of Government of the Ancient Hebrews, the natural re- 
 luctance to assume a novel duty was overcome by the 
 earnest suggestion that at least so much was due to the 
 cause and to the venerated Founder of this college. In 
 the course of a long and active life, he always found time 
 and opportunity to further the cause of Hebrew learning, 
 and this munificent endowment by his last will and testa- 
 ment was the fitting crown upon his lifelong labors in the 
 cause. 
 
 The western world — the world of modern civilization 
 — has always felt and evinced a transcendent interest 
 in the polity of the ancient Hebrews. The books in which 
 it is recorded were once universally accepted as literally 
 inspired, and although the modern course of thought has 
 tended to raise important dissents from this view, it is 
 still widely accepted, and even those who reject it have 
 contributed some of the most valuable aids to the under- 
 standing of the biblical literature. 
 
 *A course of four lectures delivered before the DROPSIE COLLEGE 
 FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING, March i8, 21, 25 and 28, 
 
2 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEURKWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 A phenomenon so remarkable cannot be merely casual 
 or accidental. Whereas the legislation of the great Asiatic 
 empires of India and China has merely aroused the curi- 
 osity of the scholar, the polity of the Hebrews has awak- 
 ened the earnest attention of learned and simple, of cleric 
 and layman, of statesman and poet. There is a feeling 
 that the ancient Hebrew ideals of government concur with 
 our own in their deepest meanings. Absolute autocracy, 
 the lordly disregard of the humble, the exclusive concern 
 of the individual for himself, these are all attributes which 
 appear to us to be present in the great and powerful of 
 Eastern lands, and they repel us. In the Hebrew polity 
 the ideals are the reverse. The King was to live for his 
 people, was governed by a fixed law which he had not made 
 and which he could not unmake, and was checked by a 
 national council, representative of the people. 
 
 The judicial function was, as time progressed, severed 
 from the general sovereignty and became a power which 
 owed allegiance to the law above all other masters, antici- 
 pating in this respect that distribution of sovereign func- 
 tions which is an essential attribute of modern constitu- 
 tions. 
 
 Aliens were no longer looked on as enemies, but were 
 to be treated with fairness and regarded as friends. 
 Slavery was abhorred, and the abuses of capitalism were 
 deplored and restrained. 
 
 A few years ago I had the honor to deliver a lecture 
 before the Jewish Theological Seminary at New York, in 
 which I endeavored to show that this trait was present in 
 the Hebrew people from the earliest times; that the aver- 
 sion to absolute kingly authority was not modern or transi- 
 tory, but could be traced back historically to the election 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBRE^WS — SULZBERGER 3 
 
 and control by the people's representatives of the kings 
 from the very first of them, Saul, to the very last, Zedekiah ; 
 that is, through a period of more than four centuries. I 
 also endeavored to demonstrate that this representative 
 council, which had essential qualities of modern parlia- 
 ments, was for Jong known as the 'am ha-ares, a technical 
 term w^hich, in the mutations of time and circumstance, 
 acquired other and totally alien connotations, until at last 
 the true meaning was forgotten. The very simplicity of 
 the words, the ease with which a mere tyro can translate 
 them with the help of a dictionary, became, in later times, 
 a powerful obstacle to the recovery of the true meaning. 
 
 On that occasion I said {The Am-ha-arctz, Philadel- 
 phia (Greenstone), 1910, page 58) : "The Parliament of 
 Israel had its humble beginnings at the city gate, where the 
 elders of the town, 'comers to the gate,' sat to hold the Town 
 Council and the Municipal Court. Gradually there was 
 evolved, from this institution, the tribal 'Am, which dealt 
 with the larger matters of the district inhabited by the 
 tribe. Friendliness among neighbors, and the necessity of 
 defense against enemies, produced alliances between sev- 
 eral tribes, and finally there resulted a union of all or 
 nearly all the tribes of Israel. Then only could there have 
 been formed a general gathering of delegates, an 'Am of 
 the land, our 'Am ha-aretz." 
 
 Further investigation has not resulted in finding 
 evidence that a tribal 'am ever existed. Perhaps such evi- 
 dence may be forthcoming in the future, but it is just as 
 likely, and even more so, that the actual development of the 
 'am did not follow the symmetrical and logical course I 
 had marked out for it. Life with its rich and varied aspects 
 has a way of disappointing the most rigid and exact logical 
 
4 POI.ITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 processes. This fact, however, in no wise renders doubtful 
 the main thesis that the 'am ha-ares, a great representative 
 body, played an important part in the government of 
 ancient Israel. 
 
 This present course will be limited in the main to the 
 examination of the "city gate," where the council (sekcnim, 
 hc'alim, anashini) sat, not only to hold the Town Council 
 and the Municipal Court, but to exercise much higher 
 powers. I shall endeavor to show that in pre-Israelite 
 times Palestine was composed of many little city kingdoms, 
 independent of one another, sometimes leagued together 
 for offence or defense, sometimes arrayed against one an- 
 other. They lacked large ideals. Their heaven, like their 
 earth, was parceled out among many, each with limited 
 local jurisdiction. Gods and Kings alike were profusely 
 numerous. 
 
 Upon them came down the Hebrews with their large 
 religious and national ideas. They believed at least that 
 Jiivii was the true and only God who had rule over Pales- 
 tine, and that all other Gods were in that domain rebels 
 and usurpers. The heathen's thought that the land be- 
 longed to many gods and many kings came in conflict with 
 the Hebrew notion of Canaan as one land, the portion of 
 one God (Jhvh), for the use of one nation, Jhvh's own, 
 his hclek ( Deut. 32, 9), his scgullah (Exod. 19, 5). 
 
 "When Elyon divided to the nations their inheritance, 
 
 When he separated the sons of Adam, 
 
 He set bounds for the (seventy) peoples, (Gen. 46, 27). 
 
 Their number even as the B'ne Israel 
 
 Jhvh's portion is his people, 
 
 Jacob the lot of his inheritance. 
 
 He found him in the desert land. 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HE;bRE;wS — SULZBERGER 5 
 
 And in the waste, howling wilderness; 
 
 He led him about, he instructed him. 
 
 He kept him as the apple of his eye. 
 
 As the eagle stirreth up her nest, 
 
 Fluttereth over her young, 
 
 Spreadeth abroad her wings, 
 
 Taketh them, 
 
 Beareth them on her wings, 
 
 So Jhvh alone did lead him; 
 
 With him there was no alien God" (Deut. 32, 8-12), 
 
 The Hebrews came as an army. Their purpose was 
 to wrest a country from its possessors, a task that could 
 only be accomplished by war. H they had hopes of sudden 
 and complete conquest, these were soon dissipated. The 
 strife went on for decades, if not longer, and even at the 
 end the goal was never quite reached. Some parts of the 
 country always continued in the possession of the natives, 
 while in others a mode of compromise was found which 
 enabled the natives and the invaders to live together in 
 peace. While on the march it was well for Moses to pray 
 Jhvh to scatter Israel's enemies and to protect the myriads 
 (divisions) and regiments of the Hebrew armies (Num. 
 10, 35-36), but when they were being settled on the land, 
 they were confronted with the many perplexing problems 
 with which peaceful governments must deal. 
 
 The task of ruling a country is far more complex than 
 that of governing a camp. The compactness and the unity 
 of the camp are its essential features, while the former 
 demands the scattering of the people into a thousand sev- 
 eral places, separated from each other by obstacles, natural 
 and artificial. 
 
6 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — Sl'LZBERGER 
 
 The actual condition of the country and the people, old 
 and new, had to be considered in framing the new govern- 
 ment. That they met the difficulties and practically over- 
 came them, history shows. The new territory was in the 
 end welded into a solid Hebrew state. The city-kings and 
 city-gods disappeared, and in their place came a true nation 
 and a national God — a conception which ultimately ex- 
 panded more and more until the idea of one humanity and 
 one God became deeply rooted. 
 
 Our task in this course is to ascertain what were the 
 early stages of this development, dealing in the first place 
 with the common theory of tribal organization, ascertaining 
 its true nature, and showing that its duration was less than 
 is usually believed. We shall next examine the pre-Israelite 
 city-states and their mode of government, following this up 
 by a view of the Hebrew statesmanship which, retaining the 
 form of organization of city-states, materially modified its 
 essence. The notices preserved in the Bible of the actual 
 exercise of the jurisdiction by the Hebrew cities will next 
 be considered, to be followed by a consideration of the 
 legal provisions concerning these Hebrew city-councils 
 which still survive in the Pentateuch. And lastly we shall 
 endeavor to show that by degrees the national religious 
 idea was spread by the Levites and the Ncbiim, until a true 
 Federal state evolved, with incidental remarks as to the 
 mode by which these great changes were efifectcd. 
 
 I need scarcely say that in an inquiry like this into 
 obscure points of Hebrew Constitutional history, any lan- 
 guage I may use must not be construed into dogmatic as- 
 sertion. We are all fellow-students, earnestly striving for 
 light and knowledge, with the consciousness that the task 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 7 
 
 is difficult and that the work of many minds is required to 
 give it even a semblance of completeness. 
 
 The common opinion undoubtedly is that the Hebrew 
 commonwealth was formed by the union of twelve tribes 
 (mattof, shebatim), which were subdivided into clans 
 (mishpahot), the latter into families (bct-abot), and these 
 in their turn were composed of warriors (gebarim). 
 
 The classical text on the subject is in the seventh chap- 
 ter of Joshua, which relates that the war for the conquest 
 of Canaan was auspiciously begun by the capture of the 
 walled city of Jericho ; that by Divine order, its inhabitants 
 (save a few favored for cause) were doomed to extinc- 
 tion, and, moreover, it was commanded that the victors 
 should avoid taking booty, since it was herein and as such 
 would contaminate not only the taker, but the whole camp 
 (Josh. 6, i8). A soldier yielding to temptation captured 
 and hid away a goodly Babylonish garment, two hundred 
 shekels of silver, and a golden ornament of fifty shekels 
 weight. 
 
 Instantly the Divine favor was withdrawn. The city 
 of Ai, the point of next attack, which seemed easy of 
 capture, resisted and defeated the Israelite force. Joshua, 
 perturbed, inquired of the oracle and was informed that 
 the disfavor was due to the breach of the order against 
 booty. It became his task to discover the guilty person. 
 The mode of consulting the oracle is given at length (Josh. 
 7. 16-18). A series of questions is asked, and the oracle, 
 through the priest in charge of the Ark of the Covenant, 
 makes reply. 
 
 Incidentally, too, we learn the scheme of army organ- 
 ization. A representative of each tribe being brought 
 before the Ark, the question was put: To which of these 
 
8 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 tribes (shebatim) does the offender belong? The answer 
 was, Judah. Thereupon the representatives of the several 
 clans of the tribe of Judah were placed before the Ark, and 
 the question propounded : To which of these mishpahot 
 does the offender belong? The answer was, Zerah. The 
 representatives of the several families of the Zerah clan 
 being placed before the Ark, the next question was: To 
 which of these bct-abot does the offender belong? The 
 answer was, Zabdi. Thereupon the gebarim (individual 
 warriors) of the Zabdi family, being put before the Ark, 
 the question was put: Which of these gebarim is the guilty- 
 man? And the answer was, Achan, ben Karmi, ben Zabdi, 
 ben Zerah, of the tribe (matteh) of Judah, The text is 
 slightly defective, but a careful reading of it justifies this 
 translation. 
 
 We have here a perfect scheme of organization : tribes 
 (mattot, shebatim), clans (mishpahot), families (bet- 
 abot), gebarim (individual soldiers). 
 
 It does not, however, stand alone. The scheme put 
 before Moses by Jethro is different. It divides the hosts 
 into thousands (alaphim), hundreds (me'ot), fifties 
 (hamishim) and tens {'asarot) (Exod. i8, 21). 
 
 At the selection of Saul for King (I Sam. 10, 17-25) 
 at Mizpeh the people were divided into tribes (shebatim) 
 and clans (mishpahot). The bct-abot are not mention- 
 ed, Saul being picked out of the mishpahah of Matri. 
 And there is still another difficulty. In verse 19, the word 
 alaphim is used for the mishpahot, a phenomenon which 
 occurs also in the story of Gideon (Judges 6, 15), who says 
 that he belonged to a poor clan (cleph). To add to the 
 confusion, the passage Numbers i, 16 seems to identify 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER Q 
 
 the ncsi'im of the tribes with the rasliim of the alaphim, 
 and would make the latter word mean tribes. 
 
 In later times the word cleph obtained a meaning even 
 more extended. When Saul was eager to seize David, he 
 promised to hunt him out of the fastnesses or districts 
 ialaphim) of the Judean wilderness, while Micah 5, i 
 speaks of the city of Bethlehem as among the cities 
 (alaphiui) of Judah. 
 
 A\'hether the systems of Joshua (7, 14-18) and of 
 Jethro (Exod. 18, 21) existed contemporaneously, may be 
 incapable of determination on the evidence, but the fact 
 seems scarcely probable. It may be a fair conjecture to 
 believe that the tribal system came first, and as time went 
 on the organization of the army became more perfect. So, 
 likewise, as the Hebrew army occupied and settled the land 
 piecemeal, an organization quite unlike the military organi- 
 zation in either shape would take its place. 
 
 The Jethro organization being military, pure and 
 simple, would go down first, while the tribal organization, 
 founded on notions of kinship and to a certain extent by 
 neighborhood settlement, would last longer. As the civil 
 government became more and more powerful, it would 
 easily appropriate old tribal military terms and attach them 
 to officers and circumstances of civil life, creating at the 
 same time new meanings, wholly or partially unrelated to 
 their original meaning. 
 
 So only can we explain the confusion in the term 
 eleph, which, meaning at first a regiment of soldiers, is in 
 antiquarian records confounded now with tribe, now with 
 clan, and in the speech of the day comes to mean a district 
 of land, or even a city. 
 
lO POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 On this principle Jethro's scheme becomes plain. He 
 would form regiments of a thousand (alaphim), divide 
 them into companies of a hundred (me'ot), divide each of 
 these again into half-companies of fifty (hamishim), and 
 then subdivide the latter into squads (corporal's guards) 
 of ten, each division and subdivision having a proper officer 
 (sar). 
 
 Some such arrangement appears indicated in Judges 
 20, lo, where a squad of ten men out of every hundred 
 (company) are designated to provision the army, and the 
 statement is incidentally made that there are companies 
 (me'ot), regiments (alaphim), and divisions (rcbabot, 
 10,000). 
 
 There are other passages confirming this view. In the 
 Song of Moses (Deut. 32, 30) the poet asks : "How should 
 one chase a regiment (eleph) or two a division (rcbabah) ?" 
 And in Deut. 33, 17, the military prowess of the house of 
 Joseph is based on the rebabot (divisions) of Ephraim, and 
 the alaphim (regiments) of Manasseh. The enmity con- 
 ceived by Saul for David is related as having originated in 
 the former's mortification at the extravagant language of 
 a popular song which represented David as slaughtering 
 whole divisions {rebabot), while Saul had only decimated 
 regiments {alaphim) (I Sam, 18, 8). 
 
 Perhaps even the term Jiamushim (soldiers) originated 
 from these half-companies of fifty (Exod. 13, 18; Josh. 
 I, 14; 4, 12; Judges 7, 11). And the word sar long con- 
 tinued to be applied to military officers (Isai. 21, 5; H 
 Chron. 32, 21). 
 
 H this theory be correct, we are entitled to believe 
 that as early as the time of Saul the tribal system had so 
 weakened that they used mishpahah and clcph indifi'erently 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER II 
 
 for each other and did not keep bet-abot in mind, and 
 that in later times there were still wider divergences from 
 the ancient meaning. 
 
 The whole history of the shophetim also tends to con- 
 firm this view. Gideon, whose connection with any other 
 tribe than Manasseh is not made clear, was early considered 
 the shophet of all Israel. And the same is true of his son 
 Abimelech (Judges 9, 22), as also of Jephthah (Judges 11, 
 11). More significant still is the fact that we are not told 
 to which tribe Shamgar, Deborah, Ibzan, or Abdon 
 belonged, an omission scarcely explicable if we assume that 
 each tribe had some kind of a government of its own 
 within its own territory. 
 
 There is no difficulty in concluding that the real tribal 
 organization disappeared with the conquest and survived 
 only in names and in fragments of institutions. As early 
 as the time of David, the census lumps the ten tribes to- 
 gether as Israel (II Sam. 24, 9; I Chron. 21, 5-6). 
 
 Solomon's government seems to have ignored tribal 
 authority. His twelve nissabim had jurisdiction over terri- 
 tory, but their tribal connection is not mentioned (I Kings 
 4, 7-19). Jeroboam was Solomon's supervisor of labor for 
 Beth- Joseph (I Kings 11, 28), which seems to have been an 
 alternative name for all Israel outside of Judah-Benjamin 
 (I Kings II, 28). The narrative concerning the latter's 
 strange investiture into the kingly office by the prophet 
 Ahijah would seem to allow of no other conclusion (I 
 Kings II, 31). And finally, when the rebelHon breaks 
 out, there is no mention of any tribe. All Israel (kol- 
 Israel) shouted: "To your tents, O Israel!" (I Kings 12, 
 16). 
 
12 POIvITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 Still more significant of the efifacement of tribal lines 
 is the fact that we do not know to which tribe belonged 
 Omri, Ahab, or Jehu, the three most notable kings of the 
 northern line. The evidence seems conclusive that this 
 effacement of tribal lines had gone on for a few centuries, 
 that we see the movement in progress in the Song of 
 Deborah, and that it was nearly accomplished by the time 
 of the pnest-shopJict Eli. At all events, the tradition was 
 that Deborah judged not a tribe or a small group of tribes, 
 but the B'ne-Isracl (Judges 4, 5) and that Eli (I Sam. 4, 
 18) and Samuel did the same (I Sam. 7, 16-17). And 
 although it may well be that some of the military chiefs, 
 called shophctim (judges), ruled only a section of Israel, 
 the evidence that this rule was tribal in its nature is very 
 scanty. Jephthah, one of the most renowned of them, was 
 the head of Gilead, which was not a tribe but a territory. 
 At all events, the oldest traditions of Israel were that there 
 was in those old times a national union with a national 
 head. 
 
 Assuming, then, that this military organization for 
 conquest became gradually modified as the invasion grew 
 more and metre successful, it becomes interesting to learn 
 how and why such changes took place. 
 
 The objective purpose of Moses was to overcome and 
 possess Canaan, the territory between the Mediterranean 
 and the Jordan, and to establish therein the B'ne-Israel 
 as a unified commonwealth with righteous aims and sound 
 laws. For reasons which seemed to him good and sufficient, 
 he determined that the attack should be made from the 
 east, by fording the Jordan. In a friendly way he requested 
 the ]:)Owers controlling the eastern territory to grant him 
 leave to pass. This being refused, he fought his way, and 
 
POLITY 01? ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 1 3 
 
 thus the war began in a country on which he had no hostile 
 designs and at a time earher than he had planned. Sihon, 
 king of the Amorites, was the first to go down before the 
 invaders. At the battle of Jahaz he was defeated, and in 
 consequence lost his land from Arnon to Jabbok. Israel 
 took all his cities with their banof and occupied them 
 (Numb. 21, 24-25, 32). Og, king of Bashan, was the next 
 to suffer. At Edrei he was totally routed (Numb. 21, 33, 
 35), and Israel took possession of his domain, as it had 
 before dealt with the Amorite land (Numb. 21, 34). 
 
 The advance was then made to the Jordan, opposite 
 JeHcho, from which point it had been designed to begin 
 the war. 
 
 At once the important question obtruded itself, whether 
 it were wise to abandon the conquered territory for an 
 enemy to re-occupy, or to retain it and thus enlarge the 
 portion of land which would fall to each. The B'ne 
 Reuben and the B'ne-Gad offered to send their military 
 contingent to aid in the conquest of Canaan proper, and 
 to waive their share of that land, if the territory east of 
 Jordan were assigned to them as their portion. Their offer 
 was accepted and they, together with the half-tribe of 
 Manasseh (which appears to have joined them in their 
 project), received the territory which had been reft from 
 Sihon and from Og, with the cities thereof (Numb. 32. 
 1-33), their dependencies (banot) (Numb. 32, 42), and 
 their villages (hazvwot) (Numb. 32, 41), or haserim (Josh. 
 13, 28). 
 
 The momentous nature of the question facing Israel 
 was soon realized. Two tribes and a half were to leave 
 their wives, their children, and their cattle in the conquered 
 territory, while the active warriors, all the men between 
 
14 POUTY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 twenty and fifty years of age, were to leave the country to 
 carry on in the land west of Jordan a war that might last 
 for years. The necessity of providing for the government 
 of this East-Jordanic territory was obvious. Order had to 
 be preserved, enemies guarded against, quarrels adjusted. 
 The duty naturally devolved on the sekenim, the men over 
 fifty, who had become exempt from active military service 
 in the field. Circumstances did not favor the immediate 
 establishment of a permanent tribal government in the 
 East-Jordanic territory. The vigorous and ambitious mili- 
 tary chiefs were about to depart on a long and perilous 
 expedition ; the country was already organized into a series 
 of city-states or district states, and, however faulty the 
 system, it had worked somehow. As a temporary arrange- 
 ment it may have commended itself to the best minds of 
 Israel. This nascent nation had great ambitions but no 
 past history. It had never owned land or cities, but it 
 sacredly cherished ancient ambitions which told of divine 
 promises of both. 
 
 Now it suddenly and unexpectedly became the master 
 of these little city-kingdoms. 
 
 Sentiment doubtless soon became active. Men recalled 
 the legends of old, that the first man who left Eden built 
 a city (Gen. 4, 17) ; that the patriarch Abraham sojourned 
 in the city of Gerar (Gen. 20, i) ; that Isaac was concerned 
 in the founding of Beersheba (Gen. 26, 33), and that Jacob 
 had stopped at Luz and had given it a new name (Gen. 28, 
 19). 
 
 But whatever the power of sentiment, there was always 
 in Israel a certain practical judgment which regulated it. 
 The great obstacle to the adoption of the mode of govern- 
 ment which had satisfied the aborigines, was that Israel 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 1 5 
 
 was in its governmental notions republican and not mon- 
 archical ; in its social views democratic and not aristocratic. 
 The Canaanite city-states were founded on principles which 
 revolted the Hebrews. 
 
 The twelfth chapter of Joshua (vv. 9-24) gives us a 
 list of thirty-one city-states, each governed by a king 
 (mclck) and the inference is not remote that the cities east 
 of the Jordan were similarly governed, Sihon and Og being 
 overlords, kings of the federations of city-states, each of 
 which had a kinglet of his own. The expressions "Heshbon 
 and all her cities" (Josh. 13, 17), "the cities and their 
 villages" f Josh. 13, 23. 28) used of places east of Jordan 
 give support to this view. 
 
 Such a city-state was composed in general of at least 
 three constituent elements: the fortified city proper, with 
 walls and towers of defense; several neighboring towns, 
 and a number of outlying villages. The fortified city itself 
 sustained the relation of mother (em) to the neighboring 
 towns and villages. The towns were called daughters 
 (banot), and the outlying villages hawzuot or haserim. 
 
 In the absence of powerful kingdoms, the formation 
 of such small city-kingdoms, or more properly, district 
 kingdoms, was inevitable. The relatively small territory of 
 fertile land betwen the Mediterranean Sea and the Eastern 
 Desert was then, as now, subject to incursions from the 
 Bedouins in years when a decreased rainfall narrowed their 
 grazing-ground. Driven westward by the mere instinct of 
 self-preservation, they would swoop down upon the settled 
 land and strip it bare. The shepherds and agriculturists 
 had to take measures to save themselves. Of this necessity 
 the fortified city was born. The inhabitants of villages 
 and towns were compelled to have a protected place of re- 
 
1 6 POLITY OF ANCIENT H^BRI^VVS — SULZBERGER 
 
 fuge where their hves and as much of their property as 
 they could store would be safe against the maurauding 
 hordes. This they found in the walled city, wherein the 
 inhabitants of a district within easy call could promptly 
 gather for defense against the dreaded enemy. 
 
 These overmastering necessities affecting both sides 
 created an irrepressible conflict, which was waged for ages 
 and the memory of which is preserved in the undying 
 hatred denounced against the nomadic Midianites and 
 Amalekites (Judges 6, i-6; 7, 23-25; Isai. 9, 3 (4) ; Exod. 
 17, 16; Deut. 25, 19). 
 
 It is probable that the kings of these numerous city- 
 states governed despotically by the aid of ministers of their 
 own selection. If they were aided or restrained by a con- 
 siderable body of councillors, representative of the com- 
 munity, the evidence of the fact does not survive in our 
 records. 
 
 However this may be, the advent of Israel swept away 
 all these kinglets. Whenever a Hebrew army captured and 
 occupied a city, a government by elders was at once estab- 
 lished. 
 
 That this change was disagreeable to the aborigines 
 who continued to live alongside of the invaders, is probable. 
 Of this state of feeling there is perhaps a hint in the narra- 
 tive recording Abimelech's attainment of the office of city- 
 king of Shechem. The persuasive argument in his favor 
 was the interrogatory: Do you prefer to be ruled over by 
 seventy or by one? (Judges 9, 2). 
 
 Such a disharmony between the aborigines and the 
 invaders could not have been exceptional. The notes on 
 the subject are too numerous to be disregarded or to be 
 treated lightly, and they establish the fact that the conquest 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HE;bRE;\VS — SULZBERGER 1/ 
 
 was partial in this, that the aborigines who survived the 
 wars Hved peacefully with and alongside of the conquerors. 
 
 Here are specimens of texts supporting this view : The 
 B'ne-Judah could not drive out the Jebusites from Jeru- 
 salem, but the Jebusites dwell there with them to this day 
 (Josh. 15, 63). 
 
 The B'ne-Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites 
 from Jerusalem, but the Jebusites dwell there with them to 
 this day (Judges i, 21). 
 
 Judah could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley 
 (Judges I, 19). 
 
 Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth- 
 shean and her banot; nor of Taanach and her hanot, nor 
 of Dor and her hanot, nor of Ibleam and her hanot, nor of 
 Megiddo and her hanot, but the Canaanites remained in 
 this district (Judges i, 27). 
 
 Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who lived 
 in Gezer (Judges i, 29). 
 
 Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, 
 nor those of Nahalol, but the Canaanites continued to dwell 
 with them (Judges i, 30). 
 
 Asher did not drive out the inhabitants of Acco, nor 
 those of Zidon, nor those of Ahlab, nor those of Achzib, 
 nor those of Helbah, nor those of Aphik, nor those of 
 Rehob; but the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites 
 (Judges I, 31-32). 
 
 Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth- 
 Shemesh, nor those of Beth-anath, but he lived among the 
 Canaanites who paid him tribute (Judges i, 33). 
 
 The Amorites dwelt in Mount Heres, in Aijalon and 
 in Shaalbim, but became tributaries (Judges i, 35). 
 
l8 POUTY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 From this mass of evidence it must be concluded that 
 the Hebrew conquerors found it necessary or agreeable to 
 adopt a poHcy of conciliation and compromise, in order 
 that the natives who were either too strong or too useful 
 to be eliminated, might live content with the new insti- 
 tutions and customs introduced by the B'ne-Israel. 
 
 It thus appears that at the very outset of its national 
 career, Israel had to learn how to deal wisely and justly 
 with the natives, who had different notions of government 
 and of religion and who, by the advent of the conquerors, 
 had practically become aliens in their own birthplaces. 
 
 The solution of the difificulty, so far as governmental 
 features were concerned, was found in the doctrine that 
 strangers are entitled not only to equal rights, but to 
 genuine respect and brotherly aft'ection. 
 
 Having brought the Hebrews into contact with the 
 natives and their organized governments, and having sug- 
 gested that a policy prevailed which may be called remark- 
 able, if not unique, for those times and climes, we shall 
 reserve the detailed consideration of the subject for our 
 next lecture. 
 
 II 
 
 The problems which beset an invading army are radi- 
 cally different from those which confront a settled popula- 
 tion. In the one case the purpose is aggression, in the other 
 defense. We have seen that the Hebrew conquerors of 
 Eastern Palestine had to face both kinds of difficulties. 
 They were settling in the east and conquering in the west. 
 Hence, notwithstanding the disadvantage plainly accruing 
 from a policy of compromise, they adopted it as the lesser 
 
POLITY OF AXCIENT HEBRE:vVS — SULZBERGER I9 
 
 evil and arranged to allow the natives to live with them 
 in the enjoyment of rights. Means to procure general 
 favor for this course were not wanting. Legend and 
 history could be invoked in its behalf. The patriarch 
 Abraham is made to say to the 'am ha-ares of the Hittites : 
 I am a resident alien (gcr zvc-toshab) (Gen, 23, 4) ; Moses 
 declares that he has been an alien (ger) in a foreign land 
 (ercs nokriyah) (Exod. 2, 22; 18, 3). In his proposed 
 covenant between Jhvh and Israel, he expressly recognizes 
 the ahen (gcr) in the camp (Deut. 29, 10), and in his fare- 
 well address, delivered after the capture of the cities east 
 of Jordan, he provides for national reunions in the capital 
 of the future commonwealth, and includes among the con- 
 gregants the alien (gcr) from the cities (Deut. 31, 12). 
 So likewise Joshua, when he read the whole law before 
 the whole congregation, did not forget to procure the at- 
 tendance of the gcr (Josh. 8, 35). 
 
 That the sentiment behind these utterances was strong 
 may be inferred from its persistence in later times. David's 
 friendly relations with foreigners is frequently alluded to. 
 There is no finer instance of loyal fidelity than the devotion 
 of Ittai of Gath, the captain of David's body-guard, to his 
 royal master. About to flee from the west-land in conse- 
 quence of Absalom's rebellion, he said to Ittai : Why 
 shoulclst thou an alien (nokri) share my fallen fortunes 
 when the king that is would gladly retain thee in thy office ? 
 Swearing the great oath (hai Jhvh zvc-hc adoni ha-mclck), 
 Ittai rephed : "My place is with my lord the King, for 
 death or for life !" and David said : Pass on. Between 
 these great souls scant speech sufficed (II Sam. 15, 19-22). 
 
 So too Solomon, in his great dedication prayer, re- 
 membered the nokri of distant lands (I Kings 8, 41-43 5 
 
20 POLITY OF ANCIKNT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 II Chr. 6, 32. 33), and even took a census of the gerim in 
 the country which ascertained that their number exceeded 
 150,000 (II Chr. 2, 16 (17)). 
 
 Great social facts Hke these necessarily find expression 
 in legislation, which is in the main the mere crystallization 
 of custom. Accordingly we find that the institution of the 
 Sabbath is to give rest not only to Israel but to the gcr 
 [who is in thy cities] (Exod. 20, 10; Deut. 5, 14); or 
 simply to the ger (Exod. 23, 12). 
 
 Benevolent provision for the poor comprehends the 
 gcr as well as the Israelite (Deut. 14, 28. 29; 26, 11-13). 
 
 Oppression of the ger is insistently reprehended. 
 
 "Do not vex a ger, nor oppress him, for ye were gerim 
 in the land of Egypt" (Ex. 22, 20 (21) ; 23, 9; Lev. 19, 33). 
 
 "The gcr that dwelleth with you in your land ye shall 
 not vex. He shall be to you as an ezrah (native). Thou 
 shalt love him as thyself; for ye were gerim in the land of 
 Egypt" (Lev. 19, 33. 34; Deut. 10, 19). 
 
 "Thou shalt not oppress a poor and needy hired serv- 
 ant (sakir), whether he be of thy brethren or of the gerim 
 in thy land in thy cities. Pay him his wage before sun- 
 down" (Deut. 24, 14. 15). 
 
 The ger was entitled to the equal benefit of the law. 
 
 "Ye shall have the same mishpat for ger as for ezrah" 
 (Exod. 12, 49; Lev. 24, 22; Num. 9, 14). 
 
 "Hear between your brethren and judge righteously 
 between a man and his fellow-Israelite or ger" (Deut. i, 
 16). 
 
 "Pervert not the judgment of the ger or of the yatorn" 
 (Deut. 24, 17). 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 21 
 
 The ger who has killed a man unwittingly is entitled 
 to the benefit of the city of refuge. 
 
 "The cities of refuge are for the B'ne-Israel and for 
 the gcr we-tosliab among them" (Numb. 35, 15; Josh. 20, 
 
 9)- 
 
 And though in one respect the ger was the inferior 
 of the Hebrew, in that the latter was not to be held as a 
 bond-slave, while the gcr zvc-toshab might be (Lev. 25, 45), 
 yet the latter had opportunities for social advancement. 
 Some of them had actually bought impoverished Israelites 
 as bond-slaves, and were legally entitled to hold them, 
 unless redeemed for full value (Lev. 25, 47-49). 
 
 That the policy of incorporating the natives of the 
 land into the body of the new state met with opposition and 
 was adopted with reluctance is highly probable. 
 
 Entering the trans-Jordanic country with peaceful 
 intention, Moses found none but enemies. Edom repelled 
 him, while Sihon and Og insisted on battle to the death. 
 Moab's pretended amity covered undying hatred and the 
 fraternization at Shittim caused the leaders of the people 
 to become traitors to Jhvh's cause (Numb. 25, 1-5) and 
 threatened the disruption of Israel. 
 
 Small wonder, then, that the policy of extinction 
 should find sturdy advocates. The foundation stone of the 
 new republic, the worship of Jhvh, had, in the friendly 
 intimacy of Israel with the natives, been forgotten and 
 Baal-Peor seemed triumphant. Stern measures of repres- 
 sion were necessary and were executed by the militant 
 priest Phineas, with the provost-marshals (shophctim) 
 (Num. 25, 5-9). 
 
 If the principle of the new state were to be firmly 
 established, a Pontiff was necessary to guard the national 
 
22 POUTV OP ANCIENT HEBRIJWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 religion. Phineas was chosen for the office (Num. 25, 
 11-13), the Levite with an eye single for the cause, "who 
 did not acknowledge his brethren or know his own chil- 
 dren," if they were unfaithful to it (Deut. 33, 9). 
 
 When Joshua from the east bank of Jordan looked on 
 Jericho, the whole stupendous problem must have weighed 
 him down. There was much in favor of extreme measures 
 and much against them. Even in the city he was about to 
 attack he had found friends among the natives, and doubt- 
 less there were such everywhere. 
 
 They might be won to the side of Jhvh. The spies 
 returned had but just brought him Rahab's words : "Jhvh, 
 your God, is God in heaven above and in earth beneath." 
 
 In the end Joshua decided in favor of the milder 
 course. He must have believed that the Jhvh religion 
 would, under the guidance of its sturdy priest, make its 
 way and hold its own. At all events, after the bloody days 
 of Jericho and Ai, he made a treaty with Gibeon, the great 
 city (Josh. 9, 15; 10, 2), and the new poHcy was, for weal 
 or for woe, initiated. History records that the Gibeonites 
 became servants in the Temple and for the altar (Josh. 9, 
 27), and thus this first treaty was an auspicious beginning 
 of the peace policy, a bloodless victory for Jhvh, which 
 might well inspire hope for the future. 
 
 While Joshua was thus reorganizing his city-states, he 
 took care to provide that the national idea should be wor- 
 thily represented. The ohcl-mo'ed, the tent-temple of 
 Israel, was instantly set up at Shiloh (Josh. 18, i ; Jer. 7, 
 12) ; there the tribes were gathered to attest their allegiance 
 to the cause of Jhvh ; there abode the national priest. 
 From thence and succeeding ecclesiastical capitals radiated 
 the influences which were gradually to bring the city-states 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBRElWS — SULZBERGER 23 
 
 into harmony with the Hebrew ideals of rehgion and gov- 
 ernment and were finally to transform the federation of 
 small states into one unified kingdom for the north and 
 another unified kingdom for the south. 
 
 These city-states (called for short, cities) each in- 
 cluded at least one city, several towns and villages, together 
 with fields, which were owned by the residents of the city 
 and its dependencies. Under the policy adopted, these were 
 not all Israelites, but a certain residue of the natives re- 
 mained in their old homes. 
 
 These city-states all existed before the Hebrews ar- 
 rived. Each had its king and his ministers, who ruled the 
 little kingdom. The Hebrews at once abolished the kingly 
 office and placed the government in the hands of a council, 
 substantially representative in character. They did more. 
 They established a national priesthood at Shiloh, whose 
 office was to bring the law of the constituent city-states, 
 or city-districts, into harmony with each other and with the 
 national and religious customs and ideals of the Hebrew 
 people. The difficulties in the way were enormous. A 
 landless people were to learn that the military government 
 of a camp was quite unadapted to the rule of the country 
 they had conquered. They had to realize that local gov- 
 ernments were necessary; that each of these had a center 
 or quasi-capital, and that from these quasi-capitals (the 
 fortified cities) would radiate opinions which had to be 
 reckoned with. How well they learned the lesson the 
 literature shows, since it indicates that the people's concep- 
 tion of the state was that it was an aggregation of cities, 
 and that the word "cities of the land" bfecame a mere term 
 for the land itself. 
 
24 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 Jephthah was buried in his native state of Gilead 
 (precisely where we do not know), but the historian in 
 stating this fact, simply says : Jephthah was buried in the 
 "cities" (state) of Gilead (Judges 12, 7). 
 
 In the great civil war with the B'ne-Benjamin the lat- 
 ter hastened to the rendezvous from the "cities" (Judges 
 20, 14) ; and when peace was restored they returned to their 
 cities (Judges 21, 23). To hail the triumphant David the 
 women came from all the "cities" of Israel (I Sam. 18, 6), 
 and when Asa of Judah formed alliance with Benhadad of 
 Damascus, the latter attacked the "cities" of Israel (I 
 Kings 15, 20). 
 
 When David was arranging to be anointed King of 
 Judah, he and his retinue settled in the Hebron "cities." 
 
 At the secession of Northern Israel under Jeroboam, 
 the B'nc-Israel that dwelt in the "cities" of Judah remained 
 faithful to Rehoboam (I Kings 12, 17). 
 
 When in 722 B. C. Sargon overcame Israel, he settled 
 foreigners in Samaria and they dwelt in its "cities" (II 
 Kings 17, 24. 26). 
 
 When Josiah introduced his reforms, he put down the 
 high places in the "cities" of Judah (II Kings 23, 5) and 
 in the "cities" of Samaria (II Kings 23, 19). 
 
 Isaiah in his fortieth chapter addresses the nation as 
 "cities" of Judah (Isai. 40, 9) and does the like in 44, 26. 
 
 Jeremiah does the same uniformly. "Publish against 
 Jerusalem, that watchers come from a far country and give 
 out their voice against the "cities" of Judah" (Jer. 4, 16). 
 
 "I shall cause to cease from the "cities" of Judah and 
 from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth .... and 
 the land shall be desolate" (Jer. 7, 34; 33, 10). 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 25 
 
 "I will make Jerusalem heaps .... and the "cities" of 
 Judah desolate" (Jer. 9, 10 (11); 34, 22). 
 
 "The noise of the bruit is come .... to make the 
 "cities" of Judah desolate" (Jer. 10, 22). 
 
 "Seest thou not what they do in the "cities" of Judah 
 and in the streets of Jerusalem?" (Jer. 7, 17). 
 
 Jhvh said unto me, Proclaim all these words in the 
 "cities" of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem" (Jer. 11, 
 6). 
 
 "Then shall the "cities" of Judah and inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem go and cry unto the gods unto whom they ofifer 
 incense" (Jer. 11, 12). 
 
 "Jhvh, the God of Israel, saith unto me : Take the 
 wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations 
 (goyim) to whom I send thee to drink it: 
 
 "Jerusalem and the "cities" of Judah and the kings 
 thereof and the sarim thereof .... " (Jer. 25, 15. 18). 
 
 "Thus saith Jhvh : Stand in the court of Jhvh's house 
 and speak to all the "cities" of Judah which come to wor- 
 ship in Jhvh's house .... " (Jer. 26, 2). 
 
 "In the fifth year of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king 
 of Judah, in the ninth month, they proclaimed a som (con- 
 vocation, fast ?) before Jhvh to all the people in Jeru- 
 salem, and to all the people that came from the "cities" of 
 Judah to Jerusalem" (Jer. 36. 9). 
 
 "Go back also to Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, the son 
 of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon hath made governor 
 in the "cities" of Judah .... " (Jer. 40, 5). 
 
 Thus saith Jhvh of hosts, the God of Israel : Ye have 
 seen all the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem and 
 upon all the "cities" of Judah .... " (Jer. 44, 2). 
 
26 POLITY OP ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 "My fury and mine anger was poured forth and was 
 kindled in the "cities" of Judah and in the streets of Jeru- 
 salem .... " (Jer. 44, 6. 17). 
 
 Ezekiel speaks of the land of Israel in the same 
 fashion : 
 
 "The inhabitants of the "cities" of Israel shall go 
 forth .... " (Ezek. 30, 9). 
 
 Zechariah characterizes the southern kingdom simi- 
 larly : 
 
 "How long wilt thou withhold mercy on Jerusalem and 
 from the "cities" of Judah .... " (Zech. i, 12). 
 
 From the very beginning of the conquest this notion 
 that the state is only a bundle of "cities" (city-districts) 
 had taken root. 
 
 In reading the book of Joshua, one is struck with the 
 fact that the number of cities awarded to the several tribes 
 is so large that the territory represented by them and their 
 dependencies practically covers the settled part of the 
 country and is sufficient to contain the whole population. 
 Reuben is credited with thirteen cities, whose names are 
 given, and with a group without names but described as 
 "all the cities of the plain" (Josh. 13, 17-21). 
 
 Gad has four cities named, plus "all the cities of 
 Gilead" (Josh. 13, 30. 31). 
 
 Judah has one hundred and twelve cities and their 
 villages (Josh. 15, 21-62). 
 
 Benjamin has twenty-six (Josh. 18, 12-28). 
 
 Zebulun twelve (Josh. 19, 15). 
 
 Issachar sixteen (Josh. 19, 22). 
 
 Asher twenty-two (Josh. 19, 30). 
 
 Nai)htali nineteen (Josh. 19, 38). 
 
 Dan eighteen (josh. 19. 41-47). 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 2/ 
 
 The number awarded to Western Manasseh and to 
 Ephraim is not stated, but even without them and without 
 the groups whose numbers are not given, there are more 
 than three hundred cities, each having its dependencies and 
 its outhers. "These cities were fenced with high walls, 
 gates and bars" (Deut. 3, 5; i, 28). 
 
 In time the idea of the state as "cities" was expressed 
 even more significantly by the word sha'ar, which from 
 meaning the gate of a fortified city, came to signify the 
 court which was held at the gate, then the city itself, and 
 finally all the dwelling places of the people everywhere 
 (Exod. 20, 10; Deut. 5, 14; 6, 9; 11. 20; 12, 15. 17. 18; 
 14, 27; 15, 7; 16, 5. 11; 31, 12). Indeed, so extended had 
 become the idea attached to the word that it was applied 
 even to an encampment composed only of tents (Exod. 32, 
 26. 27). 
 
 The existence of these pre-Israelite city-states, and 
 their persistence under the Hebrews as city-districts being 
 assumed, it becomes important to ascertain what were their 
 powers, their practical jurisdiction, before the conquest and 
 after the conquest. 
 
 From pre-Hebraic times we have two examples, 
 Shechem and Gibeon. Shechem lies in the valley between 
 Ebal and Gerizim, It is to-day the sacred city of the Sa- 
 maritan sectaries, the seat of the government of the prov- 
 ince, and the connecting-link of the telegraphic systems of 
 the east and west of Jordan. Its history extends back into 
 remote antiquity. Abraham and Jacob visited it, and all 
 Israel chose it for the inaugural service on taking possession 
 of the Promised Land. 
 
 Gibeon, too, has its story. It was the first of the 
 Palestinian cities to see that the countrv was doomed to 
 
28 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBRIjWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 succumb to its Hebrew invaders. It possessed an early 
 Hebrew temple (bet-elohim), in which adherents of the 
 native religion agreed to serve Jhvh; and it gave the final 
 touch to the tragedy of Saul's career by its insistence on the 
 law of blood-guilt for Nob's murdered priests, which 
 culminated in the gruesome tenderness of Rizpah (H Sam. 
 21, i-ii). 
 
 Shechem, the Hivite, the son of the nasi of the city- 
 state of Shechem, loved Jacob's daughter Dinah and began 
 to treat with her people, the B'ne Jacob, in order to arrange 
 a marriage. The narrative indicates that up to that time 
 there was no right of connubium between the two contract- 
 ing powers. Such a right, general to both parties, was now 
 proposed by Hamor, the nasi of the Hivites, coupled with 
 the privilege of settling the country, dwelling and trading 
 therein, acquiring lands and ultimately becoming one with 
 the natives. The B'ne Jacob insisted on certain indispensa- 
 ble terms, to which the nasi and his son were willing to 
 agree. At this point it is seen that the nasi and his son had 
 not the power to bind their people without obtaining the 
 consent of the council. 
 
 Hamor and Shechem duly proposed the treaty at "the 
 gate of their city," to the council there met, the anshe ha-'ir. 
 The latter accepted the terms and the part to be performed 
 by the Shechemites was duly carried out. The treaty, how- 
 ever, failed on account of the vengeful wrath of Simeon 
 and Levi (Gen. 34, 8-27). 
 
 The second example of inter-national action by one 
 of the pre-Hebraic city-states is the case of Gibeon. In 
 Joshua's plan of campaign this place was marked out for 
 early attack. Its capture would have had an enormous 
 effect in depressing the spirit of the natives. It was the 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 29 
 
 capital city of an exceptionally important district, which 
 included three other cities, besides the towns, villages, and 
 fields dependent on and appurtenant to each of them. The 
 king of the district had his royal court there; it was an 
 'ir-mclukah. Its magnates showed their vigilance and 
 ability. When they saw that the resistance of Jericho and 
 Ai were merely futile and that Joshua had relentlessly pun- 
 ished those unfortunates, they determined that peace at any 
 price was the wise policy. 
 
 The report (Josh. 9. 3-27) tells, in excellent narrative 
 fashion, how the emissaries of the zckcnim of Gibeon dis- 
 guised themselves so as to appear to have come from a far 
 country, how they entered Joshua's camp at Gilgal, how 
 they declared that they had heard of the wonderful exodus 
 from Egypt and of the great victories of Israel over Sihon 
 and Og in Eastern Palestine (carefully concealing their 
 knowledge of Joshua's late victories), and how their mag- 
 nates (sekcnim and yashebim) (not a word about their 
 nidck) had urged that an alliance with the Hebrews was a 
 desirable and necessary thing. 
 
 Captivated by these flattering tales. Joshua and his 
 councillors omitted to consult the oracle, allowed them- 
 selves to be tricked into a treaty of alliance, and ratified it 
 by the oaths of the nesi'hn of the 'edah (the twelve princes 
 of the Privy Council of Israel). 
 
 A few days later the truth leaked out. The worn-out 
 and weary wanderers lived close by, — in the cities of Gibeon 
 and its dependencies, Kephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath- 
 jearim. The conquering host was naturally indignant at 
 the deceit. The general assembly of Israel {kol ha- edah) 
 murmured at the lenity of the terms accorded, but the 
 nesi'im had ratified the treaty, had given their word. Per- 
 
30 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 sonal and national honor required that it should be faith- 
 fully carried out. 
 
 The incident of Gibeon left an abiding impression on 
 the mind of the Hebrew people. The old narrative (Josh. 
 9, 23-27) records that Joshua, while adhering strictly to the 
 terms of the treaty, found a means of punishing the Gibeon- 
 ite magnates who had tricked him into it. He sentenced 
 them to become hewers of wood and drawers of water for 
 the bet-elohim. They were glad that things were no worse, 
 and the story ends by telling that they at once took up their 
 work which they continue to perform "even unto this day." 
 
 The city, however, retained its importance in the 
 subsequent history of Israel. It is probable that Nob. 
 where David, fleeing from Saul, was succored, was either 
 one of the cities of the city-state of Gibeon, or perhaps was 
 the name of the priests' quarter of the city itself (I Sam. 
 
 21, 1-9), just as the quarter of Jerusalem in which Huldah 
 lived was called by its own name, the Mishnch (II Kings 
 
 22, 14; Zeph. I, 10). The dreadful cruelty of Saul in 
 slaughtering the priests for their innocent aid to David (I 
 Sam. 22, 9-23) was long remembered. Indeed, it is record- 
 ed that in David's reign JnvH visited Israel with a famine, 
 because this blood-guilt had been in no wise atoned for, and 
 that in order to regain Divine favor, the Gibeonites were 
 besought to accept compensation or wergild (kopher) for 
 their murdered kinsmen, that they disdainfully spurned this 
 offer, but finally consented to accept the death of seven sons 
 of Saul in satisfaction of the whole blood-guilt (II Sam. 
 21, i-io). 
 
 In the time of Solomon it was the great bamah (high 
 place) whither Solomon went to make a great sacrificial 
 feast and where he had the dream in which, asked by Jhvh 
 
POLITY O^ ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 3 1 
 
 what he wanted, he prayed for wisdom to do justice (I 
 Kings 3, 4-15). 
 
 The story was finally amplified and embellished. The 
 sacrosanct oliel mo'ed which Moses had made in the wilder- 
 ness was supposed to have been set up at Gibeon (I Chron. 
 16, 39). Of course the legend was mere poetry. History 
 establishes that the ohel mo'ed was at Shiloh (Josh. i8, i. 8; 
 19, 51; 22, 12; Judges 21, 19). 
 
 These two instances in which city-states exercised the 
 highest national functions, namely dealing with foreign 
 powers, are both pre-Israelite. The absence of such ex- 
 amples in Hebrew times is persuasive evidence of the firm- 
 ness with which the national idea had taken root. A re- 
 markable feature in both cases is that the dominant power 
 is ascribed to the council. The king or chief in the one 
 case can do nothing by himself ; in the other case he is not 
 even mentioned. That this accurately represents pre- 
 Israelite conditions is highly improbable. The abundance 
 of kinglets to which we have before alluded, speaks loudly 
 against it. Moreover, there is a hint in the story of 
 Abimelech with relation to this same city-state of Shechem, 
 which gives weight to the theory that the king had great 
 power. Gideon, the chief of the clan of Abiezer, and the 
 great man of Manasseh, died leaving seventy sons by his 
 wives, and one son (Abimelech) by a Shechemite concubine. 
 In the natural order of events a legitimate son would have 
 succeeded to the chieftainship, under whose sway stood, 
 among others, the ancient city-state of Shechem. That its 
 great families should recall with regret the good old times 
 before the Hebrew conquest, when the city-state of 
 Shechem was an independent sovereignty, of which the city 
 was the capital, was but natural. Now they owed allegiance 
 
32 POIvlTY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 to the overlord, Alanasseh's chief, whose capital was at 
 Ophrah. 
 
 With the instincts of an able demagogue, Abimelech 
 intrigued to fan the flame of Shechemite discontent by 
 comparing the present tributary condition with the former 
 independence. His chief assault was directed against the 
 leading feature of Hebrew polity, the great council of 
 seventy. He made it clear to the municipal council (anslie 
 Shcchcm, ha'ale Shechem) that any of the legitimate heirs 
 of Gideon would be faithful to this institution, and his 
 spokesman summed up the argument in his favor by the 
 question: Do you prefer to be ruled over by seventy or by 
 one? It turned the tide; Shechem revolted, and its mag- 
 nates enthroned Abimelech as king (Judges 9, 1-6). 
 
 One cannot read this story without suspecting that the 
 accounts of pre-Israelite councils at Shechem and at Gibeon 
 are deficient in not attributing to the kings of those states 
 the power which was theirs under the ancient Constitutions. 
 Nor is the omission to be wondered at. When the accounts 
 were written, these numerous independent little kings had 
 long disappeared and been forgotten. We know, too, that 
 the knowledge of the early writers concerning the remote 
 past was defective. You will recall the fact that at least one 
 of the ancient scribes naively believed that before the insti- 
 tution of the Kingdom there was no law at all. To use his 
 own quaintly simple words : "In those days there was no 
 king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his 
 own eyes" (Judges 17, 6; 21, 25). 
 
 Before leaving this subject of international dealings by 
 pre-Israelite city-states, it may, for the sake of complete- 
 ness, be well to allude to the negotiations between the B'ne- 
 Heth and Abraham. It is true that the narrative appears to 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 33 
 
 concern a larger nation than is included in a city-state, and 
 that the council is not called sckcnim nor be'alim, nor anshe 
 ha-'ir, nor ziknc ha-'ir, but has the larger title of 'am ha- 
 arcs, which designates a national council. On the other 
 hand, we know that the great Hittite empire was in the 
 north, and that the section of it with which Abraham dealt 
 must have been relatively small. Hebron was the capital, 
 and in connection with this place there survives in the 
 records one reminiscent note which seems to place it on a 
 parity with Gibeon, which, as we have seen, was a larger 
 city-state than ordinary, was, in fact, a league of cities. 
 
 When David believed that his time had come to obtain 
 the chieftainship of Judah, he consulted the oracle, was 
 afifirmed in his belief and was directed to go to Hebron. 
 He, together with all his train, went up and dwelt in the 
 "cities" of Hebron (H Sam. 2, 1-3). This passage would 
 seem to indicate that Hebron had been for long the capital 
 of a larger city-state, composed of a league of cities with 
 their appurtenant towns, villages, and fields. 
 
 When Sarah died at Hebron, Abraham desired to ob- 
 tain a burying-place of his own. It would seem, that ac- 
 cording to the customary law, an alien {gcr zvc-toshab) 
 could not acquire an indefeasible permanent estate in land. 
 He therefore applied to the council for the grant of an 
 exceptional privilege, enabling him to accomplish his pur- 
 pose. He was recognized as an important power : "Thou 
 art a ncsi elohim (a prince of God) in our midst." Every 
 one was willing to tender a burial-place for Sarah's body. 
 But this was not what Abraham wished. He wanted a 
 permanent estate {ahuzzah) and this the council finally 
 accorded to him. 
 
34 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 The proceedings were in public session of the council, 
 were presided over by Ephron, and were highly polite and 
 ceremonious. Abraham urged his request, the President 
 answered, the matter was agreed on, and the treaty was 
 solemnly consummated in the presence of the whole council 
 (Gen. 23, 3-20). 
 
 Whether this Hittite example relates to one of these 
 district-states, may remain doubtful, but the other instances 
 that have been given are sufficient to show the sovereign 
 character of these city-states, and to point out what radical 
 changes were necessary, if they were ever to constitute a 
 national federal republic. 
 
 An early example of the process is given us in the 
 case of the city-state of Ophrah. It had fallen to the share 
 of Manasseh, and the ruling clan of that tribe, Abiezer, 
 was seated there. The chief was Joash, the head of the 
 clan. From time immemorial the little state had had its 
 Baal-altar with the Asherah pertaining to it. Word came 
 through a nahi or mal'ak Jhvh, that the worship of Jhvh 
 must now be substituted. To that end it was necessary to 
 cast down the Baal altar, cut down the Asherah, and build 
 an altar to Jhvh on the height called Rosh ha-ma'oz. 
 
 The chieftain Joash had carried out the policy of 
 conciliation all too well. Baal still reigned supreme in 
 Ophrah and Joash lacked either the will or the force to 
 strengthen the cause of the Hebrew nation and its religion. 
 
 The task of making good his delinquencies was im- 
 posed on his son Gideon. When the message came he re- 
 ceived it with the usual profession of modesty which He- 
 brew writers attribute to those born to greatness : "My 
 cleph (clan) is lowly in Manasseh and I am the pigmy in 
 my bct-ah;" just as Saul, when apprised of his selection as 
 
POLITY OF ANCIE;NT HEBREWS — SULZBE;rGER 35 
 
 King of Israel, protested : "Am not I a Benjamite, of the 
 smallest of Israel's tribes? and is not my clan {mish- 
 pahah) the puniest of all the clans of that tribe?" (I Sam. 
 9, 21). To Moses in the early age (Exod. 3, 11; 4, 10), 
 and to Jeremiah in the later times (Jer, i, 6), similar mod- 
 est declaimers are credited. Gideon's scruples were, how- 
 ever, overcome, and he accepted the perilous post. 
 Knowing that he would place himself in opposition to the 
 authorities, whose chief was his own father, he determined 
 to initiate the revolution at night. With the help of ten 
 trusty men, he cast down the Baal altar, cut down the 
 Ashcrah, and burned the wood thereof in ofifering an 'olah 
 upon the Jhvh altar which he built. 
 
 In the morning the city was in commotion. The 
 anshc ha-'ir promptly viewed the situation, and the question 
 ran: Who is guilty? Doubtless the oracle was in some 
 form consulted (wayebakeshu) and the judgment was 
 pronounced (wayomru) : Gideon ben Joash has done this 
 deed. 
 
 The anshe ha-'ir demanded of Joash that he surrender 
 his son for execution. 
 
 This was in strict conformity with the law of the 
 ancient city-state, which gave its authorities the power to 
 vindicate the religion of the state. This old law survives 
 in the records in Deut. 21, 18-21. It is the law commonly 
 called that of the stubborn and rebellious son, which pro- 
 vides that the delinquent's parents shall bring him to the 
 sikne ha-'ir at the gate (v. 19), and that the latter (anshe 
 ha-'ir, v. 21) shall stone him. The details of the examina- 
 tion of this interesting and little-understood law are re- 
 served for further consideration, when we come to review 
 
36 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 the remnants of the ::ikne ha-'ir code still preserved in the 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 In Gideon's case there was an additional reason for 
 this demand upon his father Joash. The latter was not a 
 mere member of the council, but its chief. In no other 
 way can certain expressions of the text be properly con- 
 strued. It is Joash who is custodian of Baal's altar ; it is 
 from his cattle that the Jhvh sacrifice is culled; it is his 
 opposition to the Jhvh altar that is feared, and it is in 
 subordination to him that the other members of the anshe 
 ha-'ir stand (act or serve) {'amdu 'alatv), just as ha-'am 
 stood in the court of Moses {zvaya'amod ha-'am 'al 
 Mosheh) (Exod. 18, 13), as Eglon's court councillors stood 
 with him {kol ha-'omdim 'alazv) (Judges 3, 19), and as the 
 angels in the court of Heaven stood to Jhvh's right and 
 left {'omcd 'alaw) (I Kings 22, 19). 
 
 Joash met his fellow councillors with a flat denuncia- 
 tion of their action. This, he said, is a contest between 
 gods. Baal has been worsted. He could not save himself, 
 will your aid save him? Beware, the mighty power that 
 overthrew Baal will punish your puny efforts with instant 
 death, and will save my son from any harm that Baal can 
 do. 
 
 The council acquiesced and Gideon became the chief 
 with the epithet of Jernh-haal attached to his name, in 
 memory of his victory over the deposed god (Judges 6, 
 8. II. 24-32). 
 
 We see here the nation in the making. It adopts the 
 city-state without its king, but gives the power to the coun- 
 cil, which in this instance assumes to act as the highest 
 ecclesiastical authority, doubtless in strict accord with pre- 
 Israelite practice. Every autonomous district had its own 
 
POI.ITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 37 
 
 king and its own god, and the sovereign authority was not 
 differentiated into mihtary and civil jurisdiction, nor sub- 
 divided into legislative, executive, and judicial function. 
 The genius of the people was local and its outlook narrow. 
 There were then, as now, ambitious souls dreaming of 
 world-conquest, but they lived in Egypt and by the Euphra- 
 tes and not in Palestine. The entrance of the Hebrews 
 into the country brought a rush of new ideas, political and 
 religious. Palestine was to become one great state with 
 one only God. Local sovereignties and religions were to be 
 extirpated, or at least fused with institutions embodying 
 these loftier conceptions. 
 
 We have seen in the case of Gideon how this national 
 spirit made its way in one quarter. There is no reason to 
 doubt that the movement throughout the whole country was 
 conducted on similar lines. The presence and vigor of a 
 national supervising body being granted, all the rest natur- 
 ally follows. 
 
 Indeed, it is Gideon himself who energetically promotes 
 the further progress of nationalization. 
 
 As this phase of his career brings out clearly the 
 functions of the zikne ha-'ir of two cities east of Jordan in 
 Hebrew times, further description thereof may conven- 
 iently be reserved for the next lecture. 
 
 Ill 
 
 Gideon, the champion of Jhvh, w^as the chief man in 
 Manasseh. He had attained a recognized position by his 
 brave advocacy of Hebrew nationalism against the con- 
 servative pagan party, but the success of the cause was as 
 yet doubtful. 
 
38 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 An event occurred which put the matter to the proof. 
 
 The Bedouins overran the country, and if anything 
 was to be saved from these maurauders prompt action was 
 imperatively needed. Gideon aroused his Abiezer clan. 
 With three hundred picked men, shouting their way-cry, 
 "The sword of Jhvh and of Gideon," he attacked and 
 routed the invaders, drove the survivors across Jordan, 
 and hotly pursued them. When he reached the city of 
 Succoth, in Gilead, his supplies failed. He applied to the 
 council {anshc Succoth) for bread for his soldiers, as he 
 was pursuing the Bedouin kings and hoped to capture them. 
 The sare Succoth, however, reckoned that he might fail, 
 and in that case they would have to suffer the vengeance 
 of the Bedouins. Their reply, indicating the probability of 
 such an event, irritated the fiery chieftain. He retorted 
 with the ominous parting message: When Jhvh hath de- 
 livered Zebah and Zalmuna into my hand, I will treat your 
 flesh with mid bar-thorns and with briers. Abating nothing 
 of the pursuit, he reached the city of Penuel and there 
 made his application for relief. The anshe Penuel, timid 
 like those of Succoth, gave him a flat refusal. The infuri- 
 ated Gideon threatened to revisit them after he should 
 have triumphed, and to break down their tower (migdal). 
 
 Gideon overtook the fleeing enemy, won a complete 
 victory, overthrew the retreating army, and captured its 
 kings. 
 
 On his return march he punished the cities which had 
 treated him so coldly and unpatriotically. Having picked 
 up a man in the neighborhood of the city of Succoth, he 
 ascertained, by questioning, that his prisoner was a clerk 
 (na'ar) of the city council (a)ishe Succoth). Whereupon, 
 he c()mi)elled him to write a roll or list of the sariDi and 
 
POUTY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 39 
 
 cekoiim of Succoth. There were seventy-seven in all (per- 
 haps seventy ackcnhn and seven sarim). 
 
 Thus prepared, he entered the city in triumph, carry- 
 ing with him the captive kings. Then he compelled the 
 council to meet and addressed them thus : Here are the 
 kings whom you thought I could not capture. You are 
 entitled to the promised reward ! 
 
 Whereupon he took the ::iknc ha-'ir and thrashed them 
 soundly with midbar-thorns and with briers. 
 
 Penuel fared even worse. He broke down its tower 
 and slew the members of its council (anshe ha-'ir) (Judges 
 7, 7. 22; 8, 4-17). 
 
 These two incidents give us a vivid picture of the times. 
 Succoth and Penuel, two cities of eastern Palestine, are 
 governed by zekenim and their officials (sarim). They re- 
 gard alone the interests of their narrow communities. The 
 harrying of Manasseh and other districts west of Jordan 
 does not disturb them. If the Bedouins confine their 
 marauding to western districts, they will remain neutral. 
 The national consciousness has not affected them. In 
 Gideon, however, they met the man who could give im- 
 pressive lessons. 
 
 Of all the chieftains called Judges (shophctim), 
 Gideon appears to have been the most forceful, and to have 
 given the earliest and greatest impulsion to the unification 
 and nationalization of Israel. Besides his actions already 
 described, the records aver that he succeeded in getting 
 partisans out of Naphtali, Asher, and Ephraim to act with 
 Manasseh in war (Judges 7, 23. 24), and the fact that his 
 battle-cry survived, indicates how deep an impression of 
 him was stamped on the popular mind. 
 
40 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 It is plainly erroneous to see in these military leaders 
 the peaceful magistrates known by the same name in later 
 times. The experience of Israel was the same as that of 
 all other peoples whose rise depended on the success of 
 their arms. The great soldiers wielded the whole power of 
 the state, and when more peaceful times came and the bal- 
 ance of power swung to the civil side, the names of the 
 offices which had become important in the eyes of the 
 people, were transferred to purely civil offices, with radi- 
 cally different functions. Thus it is that the mclck, shophet, 
 dayan, mchokck, and sopher, who, were, of old, military 
 officers, came to designate officials whose duties were mainly 
 civil. Ha- am, which was anciently the army (that is, all 
 males between the ages of twenty and fifty) became the 
 whole body of the people. And of the process the word 
 shophctim is perhaps the most striking instance. In Num- 
 bers (ch. 25) we have the record of Israel's unwholesome 
 affiliation with Moab. Drastic measures had to be resorted 
 to, in order to cure the mischief. Moses was expressly en- 
 joined by Jhvh, to take all the chieftains (rashc ha-'am) 
 and hang them, whereupon he ordered the shophetim to 
 slay each one such of his men as had accepted Baal Peor. 
 This was an order merely military to the Provost-marshals 
 of the army, whose duty it was to execute the culprits 
 (Numb. 25, 1-5). When the contest had progressed and the 
 people were fighting for the land, conquering it and settHng 
 down on it piecemeal as they could, these shophetim as mili- 
 tary chiefs had forced upon them questions relating to the 
 civil government of the territory they commanded. Thus the 
 name of their office was preserved, while its jurisdiction 
 and functions were modified. Finally, at a much later 
 stage, it came to designate civil judges charged with the 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS— SULZBERGER 4I 
 
 administration of justice according to law, and thus lost its 
 military connotations. 
 
 The records of the shophetim book show the process 
 from an early stage. From Othniel, the first of them, to 
 Samson, the last, they were all (so far as we know anything 
 about them) successful warriors; even Deborah is not ex- 
 cepted, since she stirred up the great war against Sisera 
 and took a personal part in it. It is only with Eli and 
 Samuel that the atmosphere changes. The former, when we 
 first encounter him, is a priest, grown old in the service 
 of the Shiloh temple, while the latter begins as his acolyte. 
 War, instead of being the normal condition, has degenerated 
 into an incident, not unusual it is true, but also not abnorm- 
 ally frequent. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction has become 
 firmly fixed, and men are questioning and criticizing its ad- 
 ministration by particular officials as a corrupt departure 
 from ancient custom (I Sam. 2, 13-17). All the symptoms 
 indicate that the nation has been practically united, and that 
 the national idea of God and the state have permeated every- 
 where. Elkanah went up out of his city yearly to worship 
 and to sacrifice at Shiloh (I Sam. i, 3), and we may freely 
 accept him as a type. Substantial farmers from all sections 
 of the country did the same (I Sam. 2, 14). "And all Israel 
 from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was estab- 
 lished to be a prophet of Jhvh" (I Sam. 3, 20). 
 
 While it is true that we cannnot trace the progress of 
 nationalization before Eli, we may be sure that Gideon's 
 part in it was not small. The tradition survived that a na- 
 tional assembly of Israel (kol ish Israel) offered him the 
 royal crown, with the right of succession in his descendants 
 (Judges 8, 22), and that he made his home-city Ophrah the 
 virtual or actual capital of Israel (Judges 8, 27). 
 
42 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBRIC WS — SULZBERGER 
 
 There is another chief, Jephthah, who is said to have 
 been shophet of Israel (Judges 12, 7). Of his activity out- 
 side of his own Gilead, we know Httle or nothing. His 
 story merely emphasizes the separateness of the trans- 
 Jordanic Hebrews, which incensed Gideon and which was 
 pithily depicted in the song of Deborah: "Reuben abode 
 among his sheepfolds. Gilead abode beyond Jordan" 
 (Judges 5, 16. 17). The blame for this condition must not 
 attach to the Eastern Hebrew alone. When Gilead was 
 threatened, it applied for help to Ephraim in vain (Judges 
 12, 2), and so bitter was the feeling that it led to war be- 
 tween Ephraim and Gilead (Judges 12, 4-6). 
 
 Jephthah's career is interesting, however, for our point 
 of view. He is the rosh and kasin of the "cities" of 
 Gilead, and he became so by the independent action of that 
 league of cities. The narrative is full and complete. 
 
 The B'nc-Ammon, a non-Hebrew people dwelling in 
 Eastern Palestine, suddenly put an army in motion against 
 Gilead. The case was desperate and the sekenim of Gilead 
 bethought themselves of Jephthah as a desirable leader. 
 He, a native of the land, the son of a princely father, had 
 been exiled at the instance of his brethren, who claimed the 
 superior rights of legitimacy. He had taken up his abode 
 in the land of Tob, whither traveled a delegation of the 
 sckcnim of Gilead to fetch him home. They said to hini: 
 Come home and we will make you the head of the army. 
 He made difficulties, reminded them of their former hostil- 
 ity. They increased their ofifer, would make him first of 
 all the lords of the land {rosh lekol yoshhc Gilead). He 
 demanded an oath that they would not forget the promise 
 after the victory. They took it by the solemn formula: 
 JiivH be the witness {shome'a) between us! Whereupon 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 43 
 
 he accompanied them and was made rosh and kasin, the 
 duties of which offices he formally assumed Upline Jhvh 
 at Mizpeh. 
 
 We have here an instance in Hebrew times of a city- 
 state exercising, apparently without limitation or restraint, 
 as complete powers of sovereignty as it would have en- 
 joyed in pre-Israelite days. It is threatened by a foreign 
 power, which "made war against Israel," as the record has 
 it (Judges II, 4). No part of Israel, however, seems to 
 act except the sekenim of Gilead, who send to fetch 
 Jephthah home from his exile, and promise to make him 
 their chief (rosh). He enters into a solemn bargain with 
 them Upline Jhvh, and, in consequence, assumes command 
 in the manner of a king owing allegiance to nobody. He 
 applies for aid to Ephraim as a friendly though foreign 
 power, is refused on the ground that he does not acknowl- 
 edge allegiance to it, the claim being made that the Gilead- 
 ites were Ephraimite fugitives (Judges 12, 4). He re- 
 sents the claim, wages war against Ephraim, and demon- 
 strates the latter's foreignness by showing that no Ephraim- 
 ite could pronounce a shin as a true Gileadite would 
 (Judges 12, 6). 
 
 In short, we have here a picture of a pre-Israelite city- 
 state with its king; the only difference being that the king 
 has another title and that Jhvh is acknowledged as God. 
 
 These concessions to national feeling must, however, 
 not be overrated. They show that the federal unity, though 
 not established, had made a start. Even then the influence 
 of Shiloh must have been at work. Indeed, the old tradi- 
 tion ran that it was from Shiloh that Gilead had started to 
 take possession of its country (Josh. 22, 9), and when all 
 
44 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 Israel declared war against Benjamin, Gilead sent its con- 
 tingent (Judges 20, i), only one of its cities holding aloof. 
 
 There is another and later example of the exercise of 
 sovereign power by one of the cities east of Jordan. That 
 city was Jabesh-Gilead (Judges 21, 9). When the Federal 
 council declared war against Benjamin, it was the city that 
 refused to send its quota to the army, though the other 
 cities of Gilead did so. The result of the war was the 
 almost complete ruin of Benjamin; only six hundred of its 
 young braves survived (Judges 20, 47). The Federal 
 council, dismayed at the extinction of a tribe, cast about for 
 a method of rehabilitating it. They had all sworn not to 
 give their daughters to Benjamites. The only resource 
 was to find women of Israel whose fathers had kept aloof 
 from the Federal army and from the oath. On roll-call 
 it was found that there was no one present from Jabesh- 
 Gilead. The disaiTected city was summarily convicted of 
 high treason to the Federal cause and the total destruction 
 of its inhabitants other than young virgins was decreed. An 
 expedition was immediately fitted out, the city w^as taken, 
 and its inhabitants were killed, save four hundred young 
 virgins who were given to Benjamites for wives. 
 
 Another narrative (found in Samuel) gives a clue to 
 the true meaning of this incident. The tradition evidently 
 ran in Israel that Jabesh had maintained a relation of alli- 
 ance with the Ammonites and that this caused its refusal to 
 join the body of Israel. 
 
 After the war of the tribes against it, the revived city 
 of Jabesh was incorporated into the Federal Union. So 
 only does the narrative in I Samuel 1 1 become intelligible. 
 It is there related that Nahash (the king of the Ammonites) 
 encamped against Jajjesh-Gilead, evidently because it had 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 45 
 
 fallen off, and that the anshc Jabesh promptly offered to 
 renew their allegiance. This he arrogantly refused, unless 
 they would submit to have their right eyes thrust out as a 
 reproach and defiance to united Israel. The vindictive 
 nature of this demand must be ascribed to the transfer by 
 the same city council of the city's allegiance from Ammon 
 to Israel, for which desertion signal punishment was ne- 
 cessary. The ziknc Jabesh demanded a respite of seven 
 days to communicate this defiance to Israel and to receive 
 help from it. This Nahash magnanimously granted. The 
 zikne Jabesh sent messengers to the council (kol ha-' am) 
 of Gibeah, who broke into weeping at the tidings. When 
 Saul, returned from his day's business in the field, learned 
 the cause of the confusion, he promptly called for Federal 
 troops to aid the distressed city, and bade the messengers 
 return home with the assurance that help was at hand. The 
 anshe Jabesh received the news with enthusiasm. In due 
 time Saul arrived and defeated the Ammonites. His signal 
 victory silenced all opposition as well to the Federal union 
 as to his Kingship, and his enthronement in the Western 
 kingdom was now affirmed and celebrated in the East- 
 Jordanic territory at Gilgal, an event which greatly rejoiced 
 Samuel and the Federal Council {kol anshe Israel) (I Sam. 
 II, I-I5)- 
 
 The value of the narrative is in its indication that the 
 Jordan marked as well the political as the physical separate- 
 ness of the East and West. When stubborn old Jabesh 
 was at last convinced that a. Federal union of all Israel was 
 inevitable, the work was finished. Even then it did not 
 accept the western king as the legal head of the state until 
 he had been crowned in the East. 
 
46 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREjWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 The examples of Succoth, of Penuel, of Gilead show 
 that as regards political power the early Hebrew city-states 
 that lay to the East of Jordan seem to have exercised it 
 without restraint or control. 
 
 The instance of Ophrah shows that the same was true 
 of the Western city-states' ecclesiastical power. 
 
 Even so late as the time of Samuel we find remnants 
 of it in the West. When the Ark of Jhvh was cast adrift 
 by the Philistines and landed at Beth-Shemesh, the anshe 
 Bet-shemcsJi assumed official control over it and offered 
 'olof and zcbahim (I Sam. 6, 15), and when its presence 
 brought calamity, the anshe Bet-shcmesh sent messengers to 
 Kiriath-jearim, to induce that city to take charge of the 
 holy relic. The latter fetched it and sanctified (kiddcshii) 
 a young man to guard it. And to the last, after the federal 
 union had been established for ages, and the ecclesiastical 
 power had become nationalized, the priest-cities retained 
 the ecclesiastical powers of the old city-states. This we 
 learn from the action of the Anathoth council against 
 Jeremiah. Anathoth was a priest-city at least as early as 
 the time of Solomon. When Abiathar fell from the latter's 
 favor, he was ordered to go into retirement on his estate 
 at Anathoth (I Kings 2, 26). 
 
 Jeremiah belonged to it by birth (Jer. i, i), being "of 
 the kohanim that were in Anathoth." When he began to 
 take his own course, the anshe Anathoth ordered him to 
 desist, claiming the right to condemn and execute him if he 
 disobeyed (Jer. 11, 21). 
 
 One other important survival of the old city-state sov- 
 ereignty was the importance in the public life of the state 
 of the capital cities of the two kingdoms. Jeremiah, than 
 whom none was more familiar with political conditions, 
 
POI^ITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 4/ 
 
 addresses the state as "men (ish) of Judah and inhabitants 
 (yoshbe) of Jerusalem" (Jer. 4, 4: 17, 25; 7, 17. 34; 8, i, 
 etc., etc.), always mentioning the capital city in a manner 
 indicating that it possessed and exercised special powers. 
 
 A similar phenomenon is observable in the Northern 
 Kingdom. When Jehu had killed Ahab and was about to 
 destroy the scions of that house, root and branch, 
 he mockingly dared the sarim and zekenim of 
 Jezreel to enthrone one of Ahab's sons (II Kings 
 10. 1-3), a sorry jest, indicating, however, that the 
 council of that city had special political powers not shared 
 by the other cities of the kingdom. 
 
 So Jezebel, when she intrigued to put Naboth on trial 
 for blasphemy and lese-majesty, gave the directions to the 
 sekcnim and the sarim of Jezreel, fellow-councillors with 
 Naboth (I Kings 21, 8), to convoke the high court of the 
 nation, the rosh ha-'am (21, 12), in which they must have 
 had a specially influential position. 
 
 That these city-councils exercised ordinary municipal 
 functions was a matter of course. When distinguished 
 strangers came to the city, the council received and enter- 
 tained them. 
 
 Samuel, for instance, visited Bethlehem for an import- 
 ant purpose, which was not publicly known. The sikne 
 ha-'ir cordially met and welcomed him (I Sam. 16, 4). It 
 may be well to note here that the Authorized Version which 
 makes the sekenim tremble at Samuel's coming is based on 
 a misunderstanding of the word zvayeherdu, which besides 
 tremt^ing means also being extremely hospitable. Thus 
 Elisha. in acknowledging the anxious hospitality of the 
 great lady of Shunem, calls it haradah (II Kings 4, 13). 
 
48 POLITY OF ANCIE^NT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 When King Josiah visited Bethel he was attended by 
 the anshe ha-'ir, who promptly gave him the information 
 he was seeking (II Kings 23, 17). And when the water 
 supply of Jericho was defective, the anshe ha-'ir requested 
 EHsha to improve its quaHty (II Kings 2, 19). 
 
 Besides their political, ecclesiastical, and municipal 
 functions, the sikne ha-'ir exercised general judicial powers. 
 They tried murder cases, and if the murderer fled to a city 
 of refuge, they could demand and obtain his extradition 
 for the purpose of handing him over to the executioner 
 (go' el ha-dam) (Deut. 19, 12). If the murderer could not 
 be discovered they washed the city's hands of "innocent 
 blood" by a ceremony and a sacrifice, and thus removed 
 the blood-guilt which would otherwise have attached to the 
 city. If the murderer of the victim, whose dead 
 body was found in a field, could not be discovered, it was 
 the duty of the sikne ha-'ir to see to it that the blood-guilt 
 should not be fastened on their own city, unless, by careful 
 measurement, it should be ascertained that it was nearer 
 than any other city to the place where the body lay (Deut. 
 21, 1-9). 
 
 The sikne ha-'ir also had jurisdiction in certain delicate 
 matrimonial questions involving not only amercements and 
 other penalties, but extending also to capital punishment 
 (Deut. 22, 13-21). 
 
 Indeed, it is probable that the twenty-first and twenty- 
 second chapters of Deuteronomy were compiled from a 
 code defining the powers of the sikne ha-'ir, and that certain 
 provisions contained in those chapters were part of such 
 code, although the sikne ha-'ir are not mentioned in con- 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 49 
 
 nection with them. Such is particularly the direction to 
 build battlements for the roofs of houses (Deut. 22, 9). 
 The distinction between a criminal act perpetrated within 
 the city, and a similar act perpetrated in the field (Deut. 
 22, 23-27) may also be derived from that code. 
 
 The evidence seems sufficient to warrant the conclu- 
 sion that these councils (the anshe ha-'ir, the sikne ha-'ir) 
 combined the full judicial power with their other functions, 
 and that the administration of justice was not confided to a 
 special class of experts learned in the law until a much 
 later period. When this change came about is matter for 
 future investigation. That it had to come is perfectly 
 plain. 
 
 The country was composed of a large number of 
 cantons, called "cities." The aim was to create a nation. 
 A clash between the "cantonal" view and the "federal" 
 view was inevitable. It resulted at first in the endeavor to 
 bring the cantonal bodies to take national positions on 
 questions coming before them by sending a federal expert 
 or experts to advise them or to sit with them, and finally, in 
 the establishment of the federal courts, which should in 
 certain federal questions be supreme. 
 
 There are certain passages, obscure it is true, but 
 nevertheless significant, which warrant these conclusions. 
 We have already referred to the case of a murdered man 
 being found in a field, and of the necessity of ascertaining 
 which was the nearest city, since upon it the blood-guilt 
 would be fastened. Finally the sikne ha-'ir of those cities 
 met each other for the purpose, and, it is safe to say, 
 squabbles followed. Afterward we find that the kohanim 
 (the B'ne Levi) join them, and the explanatory note fol- 
 lowing this statement gives as a reason for the apparent 
 
50 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 intrusion that "Jhvh thy God hath chosen them to minister 
 unto him and to bless in the name of Jhvh; and by their 
 word shall every controversy (rib) and every assault 
 {ncga') be tried" (Deut. 21, 5). That these kohanim (B'ne 
 Levi) were the delegates of the federal government can 
 scarcely be doubted. 
 
 Concerning the establishment of a federal court and 
 the removal thereto of an inter-cantonal question, we also 
 have evidence. By the old zikne ha-'ir law, if a murderer 
 fled the jurisdiction and was admitted to an asylum city by 
 its zikne ha-'ir, the sikne ha-'ir of the city where the crime 
 had been committed demanded his extradition for execution 
 by the go'cl ha-dam (Deut. 19, 12). As his admission to 
 the asylum city was not granted until his application had 
 been passed upon by the sikne ha-'ir of the asylum city 
 (Josh. 20, 4), there was virtually a judgment in his favor 
 that the murder was mere manslaughter. The demand 
 for extradition necessarily attacked this judgment. The 
 old law (Deut. 19, 12) nevertheless required his surrender. 
 The inter-cantonal controversies thus arising were there- 
 fore removed to the federal court. The ::ikne ha-'ir of the 
 asylum city were forbidden to surrender the fugitive on 
 the demand of his home city (through the go' el ha-dam) 
 (Josh. 20, 5) and the national court, the 'edah, acquired 
 jurisdiction. "The 'edah shall judge between the slayer 
 and the go'el ha-dam." If it affirmed the judgment of the 
 sikne ha-'ir of the asylum city, it (the 'edah) restored the 
 defendant to it (Numb. 35, 24. 25; Josh. 20, 6). 
 
 There were, however, two classes of cases over which 
 the old cikne ha-'ir had jurisdiction which in importance 
 far overshadowed all others. In the contest to establish 
 Jhvh as the sole God of the nation, the most dangerous 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 5 1 
 
 crime was missionary apostasy, the misleading of men to 
 revert to the old paganism. This crime was technically 
 known as sarah or dibber s-a-r-a-h, and the federal author- 
 ities deemed its suppression vital to the existence of the 
 commonwealth. 
 
 In the endeavor to establish a state of prosperous 
 agriculturists among whom there should be no extreme 
 poverty, the land-laws were of the first importance. That 
 every family could have and retain its own farm and its 
 own home was the ideal of the federal statesmen. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the cantonal tribunals was unfavor- 
 able to the achievement of either of these purposes. 
 
 We have already seen in the trial of Gideon for over- 
 throwing the Baal altar, that the zikne ha-'ir, instead of 
 striving to promote the cause of Jhvh, stood by the old pre- 
 Israelite cantonal god; that they looked upon Gideon, who 
 had enlisted others in his cause, as guilty of s-a-r-a-h, the 
 offence being committed not r.gainst Jhvh, but against 
 Baal. It was also intimated that the proceedings of the 
 zikne ha-'ir, including their demand on Joash to produce 
 Gideon for execution, were by virtue' of an ancient zikne 
 ha-'ir law which survives in the Pentateuch (Deut. 21, 
 18-21). 
 
 The wording is: "If a man have a ben sorer u-morch, 
 who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of 
 his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will 
 not hearken unto them : 
 
 "Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, 
 and bring him out unto the elders of his city and unto 
 the gate of his place. And they shall say unto the elders 
 of his city : This our son is sorer u-moreh, and he will not 
 obey our voice; he is a glutton (solel) and a drunkard 
 
52 POLITY OF ANCIH;NT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 (sobe), and kol ansJie 'iro shall stone him with stones that 
 he die." 
 
 At first blush there would seem to be nothing in this 
 law to justify the view that it is leveled against apostasy. 
 A more careful examination, however, reveals certain facts 
 which cannot be ignored. The first of them is that the law 
 contains inconsistent definitions of the crime. The term 
 hen sorer u-moreh itself was probably intelligible to every- 
 body. Yet we have the following definitions : 
 
 1. Who will not obey the voice of his father or his 
 mother. 
 
 2. The same with this qualification: 
 "After they have chastised him." 
 
 3. He is a glutton and a drunkard {zolel zve-sobe). 
 Stripping it of these excrescences, we have the original 
 
 form : 
 
 "If a man have a ben sorer u-moreh, his father and 
 his mother shall lay hold on him and bring him out to the 
 elders of his city and kol anshe 'iro shall stone him to 
 death." 
 
 That the definitions are excrescences seems very plain. 
 That a son should honor his parents is a mere commonplace. 
 Indeed, by a very ancient Hebrew law, insulting parents 
 was probably punished with death, "condemned to death 
 (arur) shall be he who degrades (or insults) his father or 
 his mother," (Deut. 27, 16). Certain it is that cursing them 
 (Exod. 21, 17; Lev. 20, 9; Prov. 20, 20), or striking them 
 (Exod. 21, 15) were both capital crimes. These provisions 
 were amply sufficient to protect the parental dignity, and 
 one may well be puzzled to determine why mere disobedi- 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 53 
 
 ence or eating too much, or drinking too much, should be 
 made capital offences in a son not too old to be whipped 
 by his father or his mother. Without the definitions, how- 
 ever, no one would translate ben sorer u-moreh, "stubborn 
 and rebellious son." 
 
 The clue to the real meaning is to be found in this 
 crime of s-a-r-a-h which we are considering. Sorer is one 
 guilty of apostasy, and moreh means that he is aggressive 
 in teaching his rebellion. There is no reason for translating 
 moreh otherwise than according to its plain meaning of 
 "teacher." Accordingly, a sorer u-moreh is an apostate 
 who teaches apostasy. 
 
 The word "sorer" characterizes idolaters in many in- 
 stances (Isai. 65, 2-y ; Jer. 5, 23; Hos. 4. 15. 16; 9. 1-15) 
 and in one passage Isaiah (30, i) calls a company of men, 
 rebels to true national policy, banim sorerim. 
 
 And so moreh. Isaiah denounces the misleading 7tabi 
 as a moreh sheker (Isai. g, 14). Habakkuk applies the 
 same term to the man who trusts in his molten images for 
 guidance (Hab. 2, 18. 19), and Proverbs declares that a 
 man of Belial teaches wickedness {moreh) with his fingers 
 (Prov. 6, 12. 13). 
 
 Indeed, the terms sorer and moreh naturally go to- 
 gether, because the sorer is one who seeks to convert others 
 by argument. He speaks sarah {dibber sarah, Deut. 13, 
 6 (5V). 
 
 The nabi Hananiah is doomed to die within the year 
 because he had spoken sarah (Jer. 28, 16), and the same 
 expression is used of Shemaiah the Nehelamite (Jer. 29, 
 32). 
 
 As to gluttons and drunkards, no one dreams of their 
 being liable to capital punishment. The proverbial philos- 
 
54 POIvlTY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 ophy speaks of them much as we would in our day: The 
 sobe and solel come to poverty (Prov. 23, 20. 21) ; whoso 
 consorts with zolclim shameth his father (Prov. 28, 7). 
 
 The meaning of the law thus ascertained makes clear 
 its application to the case of Gideon at Ophrah. Gideon 
 having been adjudged sorer n-niorch, it becomes his fath- 
 er's duty to deliver him to the anshe ha-'ir for execution. 
 We need not rely on mere inference, however, for this con- 
 clusion. It happens that the offence of teaching s-a-r-a-h 
 {dibber s-a-r-a-h) is fully treated of in a later statute, when 
 the right to try it had been transferred to a Federal court 
 {kol ha-'am), and this statute is express in demanding that 
 a man must denounce not only his son, but his brother, his 
 daughter, his wife, or his bosom friend, if they have com- 
 mitted this offence, and must also, as such denunciant, 
 assist at the execution. 
 
 The words of this remarkable law are as follows: 
 
 "If there arise among you a nabi (prophet) or a 
 dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder" 
 (Deut. 13, 2 (i) ). 
 
 "And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof 
 he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, 
 which thou hast not known, and let us serve them" (13, 
 3 (2) ). 
 
 "That nabi and dreamer of dreams shall be put to 
 death because he hath spoken sarah {dibber sarah) against 
 Jiivii your God. ... to thrust thee out of the way which 
 Jhvii thy God commanded thee to walk in ...." (13, 6 
 (5) ). 
 
 "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or 
 thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 55 
 
 which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let 
 us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, 
 thou nor thy fathers" (13, 7 (6)) ; 
 
 "Namely, of the gods of the people which are round 
 about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the 
 one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth" 
 (13, 8 (7) ); 
 
 "Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto 
 him ; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou 
 spare, neither shalt thou conceal him" (13, 9 (8) ). 
 
 "Thou shalt inform upon him that he may be tried 
 and executed; thine hand shall be first upon him at the 
 execution and afterwards the hand of kol ha-'am" (13, 10 
 (9) )• 
 
 "Thou shalt stone him that he die .... " (Deut. 13, 
 II (10) ). 
 
 And there is a fragment of even an older law of 
 s-a-r-a-h which seems to have been enacted when the trial 
 was still by oracle, and to have been amended from time 
 to time as the jurisdiction was vested first in the kohanim 
 and at a later period in the shophetim. In the trial by 
 oracle, there was merely the evidence of the denunciant. 
 This consisted in a solemn statement of the charge to the 
 oracle-priest, through whom the oracle then communicated 
 the judgment. As the crime of s-a-r-a-h was not complete 
 unless the accused had spoken words of persuasion to 
 others, the denunciant was called shomea' (hearer) (Lev. 
 24, 14) which, in later times designated the righteous wit- 
 ness in contrast with the perjurer (Pro. 21, 28). In other 
 matters where the transaction was a visible one, the oracle- 
 witness was called ro'eh (seer) (Exod. 22, 9 (10)) a word 
 which finally came to mean spy (II Sam 15, 27). 
 
56 POLITY OP ANCIENT HE;bri;\VS — SULZBERGER 
 
 When the system was changed and the kohanim tried 
 the case without the oracle, the mere denvmciant disap- 
 peared and in his stead the true witness ('cd) emerged. 
 It would appear that originally, the requisite evidence 
 against the defendant being given, the court had no option 
 but to give judgment. In such a state of the \a\w, where 
 positive and direct evidence of a person who had heard or 
 seen was alone admissible, the defendant's position was very 
 perilous. 
 
 It was then enacted that in cases of s-a-r-a-h the de- 
 fendant could halt the decision by impeaching the witness 
 of perjury. The new supplemental issue thus framed 
 was originally tried by the oracle (liphne Jhvh). As 
 this mode of trial had for the main issue been superseded, 
 it could not have lasted long for the supplemental issue. 
 Accordingly, we find the words liphne Jhvh as the mode 
 of trial supplemented by the words liphne ha-kohanim, 
 which indicate that the priests themselves now tried the 
 whole question. Afterwards, when the system of regular 
 courts (shophetim) was introduced to replace the kohanim 
 courts, the judges tried the whole question. If the witness 
 was acquitted of the perjury, the defendant in s-a-r-a-h 
 suffered death, but if he was convicted, the defendant was 
 acquitted and the perjurer suffered the death by stoning 
 which he had cruelly and wickedly designed to inflict on 
 the innocent defendant. 
 
 This remarkable statute is as follows : 
 
 "If a false witness rise up against any man to accuse 
 him of sarah (apostasy)"' (Deut. 19, 16). 
 
 "Then both the men between whom the controversy 
 (;-///) is shall stand liphne Jiivii (i. e. before the kohanim 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HE:brEWS — SULZBERGER S7 
 
 and the shopJiefim) which shall be in those days)" (Deut. 
 19, I?)- 
 
 "And the shophetim shall make diligent inquisition : 
 and behold if the witness be a false witness and hath 
 testified falsely against his brother (19, 18) ; 
 
 "Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have 
 done unto his brother .... " (19, 19). 
 
 "Thine eye shall not pity, life shall go for life, eye for 
 eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (19, 21). 
 
 The text of this law presents many difficulties, due, 
 doubtless, to the fact that in it was incorporated an im- 
 portant later amendment, which provided that in certain 
 cases the evidence of one witness should thereafter be 
 insufficient (Deut. 19, 15), and to the further fact that the 
 principle established by imposing the death penalty on false 
 witnesses in s-a-r-a-h was afterwards expanded into a 
 general principle affecting false witnesses in cases of mur- 
 der and assault (Deut. 19, 21), in some of which the pen- 
 alty was less severe. Nevertheless, a careful scrutiny of 
 the text will show that the tribunal designated in its orig- 
 inal form (i. e. the oracle) was changed first to kohanim 
 and afterwards to shopctim, the notes of such change 
 having in time been transferred from the margin to the 
 text itself. 
 
 This subject of s-a-r-a-h ought not to be dismissed 
 without at least mentioning a series of other legal pro- 
 visions intended to carry into effect the general policy 
 which produced the s-a-r-a-h law. 
 
 "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto Jhvh 
 only, shall be put to death" (yahoram) (Exod. 22, 19 
 (20)). 
 
 "Thou shalt say to the B'ne-Israel, whoever he be of 
 the B'ne-Israel or of the ger that sojourn in Israel, that 
 
58 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBRKvVS — SULZBERGER 
 
 giveth any of his seed to Moloch; he shall be put to death; 
 the 'am ha-arcs shall stone him" (Lev. 20, 2). 
 
 "And if the 'am ha-arcs do anyways hide their eyes 
 from the man, when he giveth of his seed to Moloch and 
 put him not to death" (Lev. 20, 4). 
 
 "Then I shall set my face against that man and against 
 his family and will cut him off and all that follow his 
 practice to worship Moloch, from among his people" (Lev. 
 20, 5). 
 
 "If there be found among you, within any of thy 
 shc'arim (gates, cities), which Jhvh thy God giveth thee, 
 man or woman that hath wrought wickedness in the sight 
 of Jhvh thy God, in transgressing his covenant" (Deut. 
 17- 2). 
 
 "And hath gone and served other gods and worship- 
 ped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of 
 heaven, which I have not commanded" (Deut. 17, 3). 
 
 "And it be told thee and thou hast heard (the shomca') 
 and enquired diligently and behold it be true and the thing 
 certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel" (Deut. 
 17, 4). 
 
 "Then thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman 
 which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, 
 even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them until 
 they die" (Deut. 17, 5). 
 
 "At the mouth of two witnesses {'cdim) or three wit- 
 nesses shall the convict (ha-met) be put to death; at the 
 mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death" (Deut. 
 17, 6). 
 
 "The hands of the witnesses shall be lirst upon him 
 to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of kol Iia-'am 
 .... " (Deut. 17. 7). 
 
POUTY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 59 
 
 •"The nabi (prophet) which shall presume to speak a 
 word in my name, which I have not commanded him to 
 speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that 
 nabi shall die (Deut. i8, 20). 
 
 Noteworthy in this series of laws are the following 
 points, all relating to the proceedings in the Federal courts : 
 
 a. In Exod. 22, 19 (20) the word yahoram is used to 
 mean "shall be put to death." It probably indicates the 
 form of death sentence pronounced by the kohauim. during 
 their judicial pre-eminence. 
 
 b. In Lev. 20. 2 the 'am ha-ares is the Federal trial 
 court. 
 
 c. In Lev. 20, 4 the 'am ha-ares is impliedly re- 
 proached for lenity towards Moloch-worshipers. 
 
 d. In Deut. 17, 7, too, the 'am is the trial court. 
 
 In connection with this whole subject, it will be inter- 
 esting to note a reported case where the death-penalty was 
 inflicted, which case, according to ancient Hebrew practice, 
 at once became a binding precedent and was restated in 
 statutory form. 
 
 It is the case of a man who was the son of a Hebrew 
 woman by an Egyptian. He was charged with having 
 blasphemed the shem (a kind of s-a-r-a-h), being the public 
 reviling of the Ark of the Covenant, the visible power in 
 the oracle tribunal, which was called shcm (Exod. 20, 7; 
 Num. 6, 27; Deut. 5, 11; II Sam. 6, 2 ; I Kings 8, 16. 29; 
 9, 3; II, 36; II Kings 21, 4. 7; 23, 27; I Chr. 13, 6; II Chr. 
 6, 5- 6; 7, 20; 20, 8. 9; 33, 4. 7). 
 
 There was no doubt that the offence, if committed by 
 a Hebrew, was punishable with death, but the question was 
 raised whether one of the half-blood was subject to the 
 
6o POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 same penalty. The decision was that though not a pure 
 Hebrew, he came within the class of gerim and that gcrim 
 were liable in the same manner as Hebrews. 
 
 Hence the wording of the statute : 
 
 "Whosoever curseth {yekallcl) his God shall bear his 
 sin, and he that blasphemeth the shcm of Jhvh shall surely 
 be put to death ; kol ha-'cdah shall stone him, — as well the 
 gcr as the ezrah" (Lev. 24, 15. 16). 
 
 The report of the case presents other points of inter- 
 est. It estabHshes that the jurisdiction had already vested 
 in the Federal tribunal {kol ha-'cdah), but that when a case 
 came up for which there was no precedent or statute, the 
 oracle had to be consulted. It also reaffirms the general 
 principle that the witnesses must initiate the execution of 
 the criminal by laying their hands on his head, and attests 
 the law that executions must take place outside of the city- 
 gates (Lev. 24, II- 16. 23). 
 
 The wording is as follows : 
 
 "And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the sheni 
 and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses : (and his 
 mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of 
 the tribe of Dan.)" (Lev. 24, 11). 
 
 "And they put him in ward, that the mind of Jhvh 
 might be showed them" (24, 12). 
 
 "And JiiVH spake unto Moses, saying:" (23, 13). 
 
 "Bring forth the mekallel (him that hath cursed) with- 
 out the camp and let all the shomc'im lay their hands upon 
 his head, and let kol ha-'cdah stone him" (24, 14). 
 
 "And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, 
 saying. Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin" (24, 
 
 15). 
 
 "And he that blasphemeth the shcm of Jhvh shall be 
 
POUTV OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 6l 
 
 put to death ; kol ha-'edah shall stone him, as well the ger 
 as the esrah, when he blasphemeth the shem shall be put 
 to death" (24, 15). 
 
 "And Moses spake to the B'ne-Isracl, that they should 
 bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone 
 him. And the B'ne-Isracl did as Jhvh commanded Moses" 
 (24. 23). 
 
 In this connection should be mentioned another old 
 law, closely related to the law of Exod. 22, 19 (20), and ap- 
 parently designed to supplement the ancient law of s-a-r-a-h. 
 Whereas the latter crime was not complete without prose- 
 lyting activity on the part of the accused, this law punishes 
 the act even when done in secret (ba-scter). It is as fol- 
 lows : "Arur the man that maketh any graven or molten 
 image, an abomination to Jhvh, the work of the crafts- 
 man's hand, and sets it up in secret" (Deut. 27, 15). 
 
 Like the yahoram of Exod. 22, 20, this word arur 
 is probably a priestly form of death-sentence. Perhaps 
 different modes of execution are intimated by these vari- 
 ant forms. 
 
 In the next lecture, the last of this series, some 
 phases of the Hebrew land-law will be touched upon, and 
 an effort will be made to show that this branch of the 
 original jurisdiction of the sikne ha-'ir soon became a mat- 
 ter of Federal concern, as a necessary step in the policy of 
 unifying the cantons forming the state. 
 
 IV 
 
 The ::;ikne ha-'ir, who had general jurisdiction of all 
 aft"airs of their canton, must have taken cognizance of all 
 controversies relating to the possession of land. The scanty 
 remnants of the :^ikne ha-'ir law are, however, insufficient 
 
62 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 to show their procedure in such cases. The chief cause 
 of early quarrels about land was the removal of landmarks. 
 In a very early code this was accounted a crime punishable 
 by death. "Arur he that removeth another's landmark" 
 (Deut. 27, 17), and Hosea, speaking of the save Judah as 
 deserving condign Divine punishment, exhausts the lan- 
 guage of condemnation by comparing them to removers of 
 landmarks (Hos. 5, 10). 
 
 This severe treatment of what is, after all, but a 
 trespass, would seem to indicate that the honest acquisition 
 of land was a thing very difficult, if not impossible, and 
 that, in consequence, men who were greedy to enlarge their 
 holdings resorted to fraud as the readiest means to obtain 
 their ends. The conclusion is not remote that the reason 
 for this difficulty in honestly acquiring land lay in the policy 
 of the Federal government making land inalienable either 
 by deed or will, to the end that each family should hold its 
 estate in perpetuity. Such would be the natural course for 
 the conquerors of a settled country. The soldiers would 
 probably claim equal rights in the division. 
 
 This supposition finds support in the law of yabam 
 as applied in the early days of Hebrew domination: "If 
 brethren dwell together, and one of them die and have no 
 son, the wife of the dead shall not marry without to a 
 stranger (ish zar) ; her husband's brother shall go unto her 
 and take her for his wife. And the first born son (bekor) 
 that she beareth shall succeed to the name of his dead 
 brother" (Deut. 25, 5. 6). 
 
 That the custom originated in prehistoric antiquity, 
 and had meanings with which we are no longer acquainted, 
 is highly probable. The fact, however, is, as regards our 
 subject, unimportant. Perhaps the majority of the most 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 63 
 
 modern customs could, if we had the full evidence, be 
 traced back to notions held by primeval savages. Advanc- 
 ing civilization consists, and in all ages has consisted, in 
 the reshaping of established institutions, so as to conform 
 to improved thought and to become useful in furthering 
 progress. 
 
 There is no doubt that so soon as the policy of equality 
 of land-holding was adopted by the Federal government, 
 the endeavor was made to conform the yabam law to it. 
 While, originally, the brother of the deceased took the 
 widow of the latter for his wife, and there was no question 
 of estate involved, the new policy carried to the brother 
 the landed estate of the decedent, to be held by him in 
 trust for the first-born son of the new marriage, and only 
 on the failure of male issue of the new marriage did he 
 acquire the absolute estate. All this is necessarily implied 
 in the provision that the bekor of the new marriage shall 
 stand in the place of the first husband and bear his name 
 (Deut. 25, 6). 
 
 Assuming this, it would follow that a man with a wife 
 and a family of daughters, though the owner of a landed 
 estate, could not provide for the latter. They would have 
 to depend on the generosity of their uncle after he had 
 married their mother. Nor could any foresight or good will 
 of their father alter the situation. If he could have sold 
 the land for money or other portable property, he could 
 have given them the fruits of the sale, but the entail pre- 
 vented this. In short, to use the technical language of the 
 English law, the land was entailed in tail male, which 
 means that by no means whatever could the owner prevent 
 his male descendants from enjoying it. If male descendants 
 failed, the land went to the decedent's brothers; if there 
 
64 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 were none, then to the brothers of the decedent's father; 
 and if this line too failed, then to the nearest kinsman of 
 his mishpahah. So much of the ancient law we learn from 
 Numbers 27, 9-11. 
 
 It must have been at an early day that a reform was 
 demanded, though of course not before the civil government 
 had superseded the military regime. While the latter was 
 at its height, the soldiers who were conquering the land 
 from its possessors, doubtless claimed it as the fruit and 
 reward of their exertions. In this state of opinion women 
 had small chance to be considered. When, however, the 
 statesmen began to get the upper hand, the injustice of 
 leaving a man's wife and daughters to charity, while others 
 were in lawful enjoyment of the family estate, was recog- 
 nized. The general law of Numbers 27, 8 is but declaratory 
 of a precedent which had been established. The case is 
 fully stated in the twenty-seventh chapter of Numbers. 
 The five daughters of Zelophehad appeared before Moses 
 and his coadjutors, composing the high court which sat 
 at the door of the ohcl mo'ed, and asked, as a matter of 
 justice, that they might inherit their father's estate, instead 
 of its going to their uncles. Moses consulted the oracle 
 (brought their mishpat Upline Jhvh (Numb. 27, 5) ). The 
 decision was: "The daughters of Zelophehad speak right; 
 let the inheritance of their father pass unto them" (Numb. 
 27, 7). And according to the invariable practice this 
 precedent was immediately put into the form of a general 
 statute (Numb. 27, 8). 
 
 This was a momentous decision. The mother of these 
 daughters would, according to the ancient custom, still 
 marry her brother-in-law, but she would not take the 
 
POLITY OJP ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 65 
 
 family estate with her. The daughters would take it, just 
 as if they had been sons. 
 
 That brothers-in-law would not be anxious to carry 
 out the old yabam law under such circumstances is only 
 natural. Indeed, the power of the heiress to choose her 
 husband virtually substituted her for a son, and enabled 
 her to confer the name of her dead father upon her own 
 bckor. However foreign to the spirit of the old law such 
 a practice would be, it would soon satisfy people's con- 
 sciences, and fashion would do the rest. Moreover, con- 
 currently with this recognition of women as capable of 
 inheriting, the whole tone of opinion regarding the relation 
 of the sexes underwent a profound change. Especially 
 powerful was the trend toward enlarging the number of 
 prohibited degrees. In the old arur code punishment 
 (probably death) is denounced against him that married 
 his step-mother (Deut. 27, 20), his sister, his half-sister 
 (Deut. 27, 22), or his mother-in-law (Deut. 27, 23). 
 This statute was now amended. A new list of capital 
 crimes was made, which included, in addition to those of 
 the arur code, marriage with a son's wife (Lev. 20, 12). 
 Moreover, serious penalties, the exact nature of which 
 cannot now be determined, were denounced against mar- 
 riage with an aunt (Lex. 20, 19), or with the wife of an 
 uncle (Lev. 20, 20). 
 
 The feature of this amended code which is most 
 relevant to our present inquiry, is the prohibition to marry 
 a brother's wife. It is not rated as a crime punishable by 
 human law, but it is denounced as niddah (abhorrent) 
 (Lev. 20, 21). The only evil consequence threatened is: 
 "They shall be childless." That this provision is a pointed 
 condemnation of the yabam marriage, seems clear. The 
 
66 POLITY OF' ANCIENT HEBRKWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 purpose of the latter was the birth of a son who should 
 stand in the place of the dead man who had no son. And 
 now it was solemnly declared that Jhvh himself would 
 prevent the attainment of the object. They would have no 
 son. The marriage would be sterile. 
 
 In the state of public opinion thus indicated, the severe 
 blow dealt the yabam law by the Zelophehad decision was 
 much aggravated. In short, fashion and morals joined in 
 discrediting the Levirate marriage. 
 
 This, however, was not all. The great land-owners 
 of Zelophehad's kin became alarmed. The latter's estate 
 had slipped from their grasp into the hands of a bevy of 
 damsels, whose fancy might bestow them on the dreaded 
 outsider (ish zar). In the general greed for increasing 
 their holdings, land-owners from other mishpahot, if not 
 from other tribes, might come a-wooing, and by marriage 
 with the heiresses, deprive the kinsmen of their cherished 
 chance to annex the lands of failing lines. 
 
 To save what they could, the chiefs of the mishpahot 
 of Gilead appealed to the High Court to modify its decree 
 of Numbers 27, 7, by adding thereto a limitation of the 
 right of heiresses in the choice of husbands. They urged 
 that without such limitation, men of other tribes would 
 reduce the state of Gilead by coming in and marrying the 
 women of landed estate. 
 
 The tribunal heeded the protest and modified the 
 fomer decree by declaring that the daughters of Zelophehad 
 might marry whom they would, provided only that their 
 choice fell on men of their own tribe, in order that every 
 one of the tribes of the B'ne-Isracl should keep its own 
 inheritance (Num. 36, 1-9). Whether mishpahah or tribe 
 is here meant is not quite clear from the language of the 
 
POUTY OF ANCIKNT HI;bRE:WS — SULZBERGER 6/ 
 
 text. The probability, however, is that mishpahot only are 
 intended, and that by mishpahot we are to understand 
 recognizable kinsmen. As late as the time of Jeremiah, we 
 find that in the domain of the priest-city of Anathoth, a 
 man could not sell land to whom he w^ould, but that the 
 nearest kinsman had a preferential right to buy. Though 
 the existence of a custom in a priest-city at a late period 
 is no warrant for its general existence at the time through- 
 out the realm, because of the tenacity with which the priests 
 held on to their ancient rights and privileges, yet it is at 
 least good evidence of ancient customs which were, in 
 former times, general. It appears that Hanamel, the son 
 of Jeremiah's uncle Shallum, determined to sell his land, 
 and accordingly made the first offer to his cousin Jeremiah 
 as the one having the preferential right (ge'ullah). More- 
 over, he expressly stated that this preferential right was 
 based on or conjoined with the right of inheritance (yeru- 
 sliah), which can only mean that Hanamel was childless, 
 that he had no brothers, that his uncles were dead and that 
 Jeremiah was the next of kin (Jer. 32, 7-8). 
 
 We must return, however, to the Zelophehad heiresses. 
 It appears that the modification of the decree did not 
 seriously disturb them. They married their first cousins 
 and thus the estates were kept in the family (Numb. 36, 
 II. 12). 
 
 These cousins, who, in part, owed their success' in 
 wooing to the law courts, were not alone in their land- 
 hunger. We have already noticed the drastic denunciation 
 of land-thieves in the arur code. Despite everything, the 
 thing went on. Wealth and luxury increased, and the men 
 newly risen to opulence were eager for their aggrandize- 
 ment. They were not too dainty as to the means whereby 
 
68 POLITY 01^ ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 they accomplished their purpose. Some of them doubtless 
 were of the ::ikne ha-'ir, and that tribunal could not be 
 relied on to interfere with them. This is the meaning of 
 Isaiah's bitter cry: He looked for mishpat (justice) but 
 received mis pah (oppression) ; for equity — and behold 
 iniquity. Woe unto them that join house to house and 
 field to field, till there is no room for others and they 
 remain alone in the land (Isai. 5, 7. 8). Their inward 
 thought is that their houses shall endure forever ; they call 
 their lands after their own names (Ps. 49, 12 (11)). 
 
 The strife degenerated into a contest between the old 
 families and the new rich, and, as a consequence, the 
 decaying families and the poor in general fared badly 
 between the upper and nether mill-stone. 
 
 The yabam law, which was one means of securing the 
 inalienability of landed estates, was treated with scant 
 courtesy by the rising families, was assailed as immoral by 
 the Federal kohanim and statesmen, and had doubtless 
 fallen under the social ban. No appeal to antiquity could 
 save it from falling into obsolescence. 
 
 The result was inevitable. As in all nations with a 
 genius for jurisprudence, the Hebrews employed the fictio 
 juris, the legal fiction, to set aside laws and customs which 
 they dared not repeal outright. They determined that the 
 woman who could not marry anyone but her brother-in-law, 
 sheuld be free of the obligation, if the latter in proper form 
 declared he would not marry her. 
 
 This was a sul^stantial repeal of the yalnvii law, Ijy the 
 abandonment of its only effective feature, the sanction or 
 vindicatory part thereof. For once the Federal government 
 and the cantonal councils were of one mind. The ::ikiic 
 ha-'ir, as has been seen, had the largest general powers. 
 
POLITY Of ANCIEN'l HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 69 
 
 In earlier days, when they were still enforcing the yabam 
 law, they doubtless compelled specific performance of the 
 brother-in-law's duty, just as in another class of matri- 
 monial cases they deprived a man of his almost indefeasi- 
 ble right to divorce his wife (Deut. 22, 13-19). Certain 
 it is that they never hesitated to enforce their judgments 
 by punishing men in body and estate, and were by no means 
 chary of inflicting the death penalty (Deut. 19, 12. 21 ; 22, 
 21. 22. 24. 25). 
 
 That the violation of the yabam law might well be 
 punished by death appears from the story of Tamar, 
 Judah's daughter-in-law, whose husband Onan was slain 
 by Jhvh for fraud on this same law (Gen. 38, i-io). 
 
 The particular ceremony by which legal fiction effected 
 the gradual disuse of the yabam law was what came in later 
 times to be called the halisah. It is fully described in Deut. 
 25, 5-10. The details are not all comprehensible. They 
 doubtless, in part at least, simulate the proceedings which 
 were had when the trial was a very real one with serious 
 consequences to the defendant. The first step evidently 
 was that the widow explicitly asked her brother-in-law to 
 marry her, and he declined. Thereupon she instituted suit, 
 that is, she went to the city gate, to the zekenim, and made 
 this formal complaint: My husband's brother refuses to 
 marry me, will not comply with the yabam law. Where- 
 upon the zikne ha-'ir summoned him. He appeared. They 
 informed him what the complaint was. The contingency 
 of his replying that the complaint is not true, that he is 
 quite ready to marry the woman, is not mentioned. His 
 refusal was taken for granted. If he stood by it and said, 
 I do not wish to take her, this confession of his guilt was 
 followed by no judgment of the tribunal. No redress was 
 
70 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 given to the complainant, no punishment was decreed against 
 the defendant. What happened was that the woman drew 
 off one of his shoes, ceremoniously spat in his presence, and 
 uttered an antique formula, which probably had once a 
 sinister meaning, but had become harmless and even unin- 
 telligible. These were the words : "So shall it be done unto 
 that man that will not build up his brother's house. His 
 name shall be called in Israel, The house of him of the 
 loosed shoe." This accomplished, the parties went their 
 way, and probably the woman was free to marry whom she 
 would, which, after all, was what everybody had intended 
 from the first. 
 
 There is but one other instance of zikne ha-'ir law 
 which concerns us in the present inquiry. It occurs in the 
 Book of Ruth. 
 
 According to the author's presentation, the duty which 
 the law, as we know it, puts upon the yabam or husband's 
 brother, attaches to the go'cl or near kinsman of the 
 mislipahah. This duty, moreover, is not primary, but in- 
 cidental to the exercise of the right of ge'ullah, which is the 
 preferential right of the next of kin to purchase lands 
 which a member of the mishpahah wishes to sell, before 
 they can be sold to a buyer from without. The yabatn duty, 
 in short, is a mere incident of the ge'ullah. This right of 
 ge'ullah is assignable by one go'el to another in the order 
 of succession, which is determined by nearness of kinship, 
 and such assignment or waiver carries with it no reproach 
 to anybody. In order that the transaction may be legally 
 effective, certain forms are necessary. It must be at the 
 gate, in the presence of at least a quorum (ten) of the 
 zekcnim. The assignor, next of kin, addressing his suc- 
 cessor, says: "You may buy it for yourself," and with the 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 7I 
 
 words delivers to him the shoe which he has just drawn 
 from his foot. The assignee takes the shoe, and, address- 
 ing the sekenim and the by-standers, says: "Ye are wit- 
 nesses this day:" (then formally recites what he has 
 acquired) and closes by repeating the words: "Ye are wit- 
 nesses {'edim) this day." The aekenim and the by-standers 
 say in chorus; 'cdim (witnesses), and the transaction is 
 closed, — is firm and stable forever (lekayem kol dabar) 
 (Ruth 4, 7). 
 
 Needless to say, there is no tittle of evidence that 
 there ever was in Israel a compound ge'ullah-yabam law 
 such as is here described. Moreover, there is reason to 
 believe that the author knew this perfectly well, having 
 before him all the data accessible to us. His acquaintance 
 with the most ancient form of yabam law, as exemplified 
 in the story of Tamar (Gen. 38, 6-30) is attested by the 
 utterances of Ruth i, 11 and 4, 12. That he was aware of 
 the custom which allowed the woman to propose to the 
 yabam (Deut. 25, 7) is seen in Ruth 3, 9, and that the 
 drawn-ofif shoe plays a part in it (Deut. 25, 5-10) he tells 
 in Ruth 4, 7. 8. 
 
 In view of these facts, it would be rash to doubt his 
 knowledge of the law of Numbers 27, 7-10, and one can 
 hardly go wrong in supposing that he had read the ge'ullah 
 transaction of Jeremiah 32, 7-12. 
 
 Having this knowledge, it was as plain to him as to 
 us that when Mahlon died, leaving no children, no broth- 
 ers and no uncles, the inheritance went to the next of kin 
 (Numb. 27, 11), the pcloni almoni (Mr. So and So) of 
 Ruth 4. There was no power either in Naomi or in Ruth to 
 sell, because they had no title of any kind. Peloni almoni was 
 
^2 POUTV OF ANCIENT HgBRElWS — SULZBE;rGER 
 
 the absolute owner. There was no room, therefore, for 
 ge'uWah and, a fortiori, none for yabam duty. 
 
 The author, however, wrote his imaginary law for a 
 purpose. He was creating one of the great masterpieces 
 of the world's literature, with the design to show that mar- 
 riage with non-Hebrew women might not only be harmless, 
 but highly beneficial in bringing into the fold the most noble 
 and charming of foreign damsels. In the restricted life of 
 Eastern women, he could find no class to whom was ac- 
 corded the liberty of making advances, save the childless 
 widow, and she only to the yabam. The situation rendered 
 an actual brother-in-law impossible, so his part was taken 
 by the noblest gentleman of Bethlehem. Everything runs 
 on to a happy ending, and the baby-boy Obed becomes the 
 ancestor of King David. 
 
 We may therefore, with safety, eliminate from the 
 discussion the law as laid down in Ruth, though on certain 
 minor points it may be informing. 
 
 The only great land-law remaining to be considered is 
 that of Leviticus (25, 10-34). Its salient provisions are 
 as follows : 
 
 "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year and proclaim 
 liberty (deror) throughout the land to all the inhabitants 
 thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return 
 every man unto his possession (ahusaah), and ye shall 
 return every man unto his family (mishpahah)" (Lev. 25, 
 10). 
 
 "In the year of this jubilee ye shall return every man 
 unto his possession" {ahuzzah) (Lev. 25, 13). 
 
 "According to the number of years after the jubilee 
 thou shalt buy of thy neighbor; according to the number of 
 years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:" (Lev. 25, 15). 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HJjBkJjWS — SULZBERGER 73 
 
 "According to the greater number of years thou shalt 
 increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of 
 years thou shalt diminish the price of it; for it is a number 
 of crops he is selhng thee" (Lev. 25, 16). 
 
 ''The land shall not be sold in perpetuity (Lev. 25, 23). 
 
 "Ye shall grant ge'ullah (redemption) for land" (Lev. 
 25, 24). 
 
 "If "thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away 
 some of his ahuzzah (estate), and his next go' el (kinsman) 
 come to redeem it, he shall have the right to do so" (Lev. 
 25, 25). 
 
 "If the man have no go' el, but can gather the means to 
 redeem it" (Lev. 25, 26), 
 
 "Then let him count the value of the years since the 
 sale (deduct that sum from the purchase money) and pay 
 the balance unto the man to whom he sold it : then he may 
 return to his ahuzzah" (Lev. 25, 27). 
 
 "If he cannot gather the means to redeem it, then it 
 shall remain in the buyer's possession until the year of 
 jubilee : and in the year of jubilee he is entitled to return 
 to his ahuzzah" (Lev. 25, 28). 
 
 "If a man sell a dwelling-house in a walled city, he 
 may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold" (Lev. 
 25, 29). 
 
 "If it be not redeemed within the space of a full year, 
 it shall be the buyer's in perpetuity throughout the genera- 
 tions; it does not revert in the jubilee" (Lev. 25, 30). 
 
 "But houses in haserim (villages) which have no wall 
 round about them are to be treated as fields: they are sub- 
 ject to ge'ullah and revert in the jubilee" (Lev. 25, 31). 
 
74 POUTY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 "As to the Levite cities — the houses of the cities of 
 their possession, are subject to perpetual ge'ullah for the 
 Levites" (Lev. 25, 32). 
 
 "And if a man of the Levites fail to redeem a house 
 in a Levite city which he has sold, it reverts to him in the 
 jubilee" (Lev. 25, 33). 
 
 "The field in the migrasJi of their (Levites") cities may 
 not be sold; it is an ahii:;aah in perpetuity" (Lev. 25, 34). 
 
 A mere reading of this jubilee-statute shows that it 
 has no reference to the days when the sikne ha-'ir were the 
 great men of the country. The earliest alkisions to it are 
 found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The latter speaks of the 
 seller returning and makes a gloomy prediction that it will 
 not happen, the trumpet that has been blown, presaging 
 misery instead of happiness (Ezek. 7, 12. 13. 14). 
 
 He also points out that royal grants to members of the 
 royal family are nahalah, that is, are not to revert, but that 
 royal grants to others revert in the deror year (Ezek. 46, 
 16. 17). 
 
 And this allusion to the blowing of the trumpet and 
 to the dcror year recalls the statute {berit, covenant) made 
 during the reign of Zedekiah in the most solemn fashion 
 before JnvH, to wit: They cut a calf in twain, 
 and passed between the parts thereof, the sarim 
 of Judah, and the sarim of Jerusalem, the sarisim, 
 the kohanim, and kol 'am ha-ares. By the terms 
 of this deror law, every man was bound to free 
 his Hebrew slaves. On that occasion Jeremiah de- 
 nounced the non-observance of the old law forbidding 
 Hebrew slavery, and also castigated those who were violat- 
 ing the new statute (Jer. 34, 8-22). 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 75 
 
 The connection between Leviticus 25 and these pass- 
 ages from Jeremiah and Ezekiel seem clear. 
 
 We are, however, not concerned here with the slavery- 
 question, though it would appear to have been inseparably 
 connected with the land question, in view of Ezekiel's 
 words wherein the expression deror year is used for the 
 jubilee year of Leviticus. 
 
 We may take it for granted that the land-greed of 
 which something has been already said, did not abate while 
 the cantonal magnates had their own way. The jubilee 
 statute seems to be a compromise between the parties to 
 this age-long contest. By it the old Federal policy of the 
 inalienability of land was definitely abandoned. The zikne 
 ha-'ir, the magnates who dwelt in the walled cities, who 
 were, in fact, the great land barons, had finally triumphed, 
 though concessions had to be made to other interests. By 
 the terms of the compromise, the absolute inalienability of 
 land was abolished ; houses in cities were made practically 
 alienable, and agricultural lands and village-houses, while 
 they could not be sold in perpetuity, could nevertheless be 
 aliened by the owner, on condition that they should revert 
 in the jubilee year and be subject to ge'ullah at any time 
 before. The Levites (kohanim) succeeded in securing for 
 themselves the right of ge'ullah and of jubilee-reversion 
 in their walled cities, while as to their migrash fields they 
 maintained the ancient law of total inalienability. 
 
 The result was perhaps as good as could have been 
 expected. The growth of commerce and of wealth had 
 brought into more active operation economic laws which 
 defeated the plans devised by the Federalists in the earlier 
 times of greater simplicity. The great barons were now 
 authorized by law to acquire perpetual estates in their val- 
 
76 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 uable city holdings, and to extend them without hmit ; their 
 purchased agricultural estates, before held in defiance of 
 ancient law, were made secure until the deror year, and this 
 provision must have added to their power and influence. 
 
 The Levites (kohanim) retained or reconquered the 
 placid security of primitive times, while the masses of the 
 farmers, though they derived only moderate benefits during 
 their active lives, could at least hope that their children's 
 condition would be permanently improved. 
 
 The achievement, though far short of the hopes of the 
 optimists, was greater than it may seem. The old law of 
 inalienability had been so uniformly disregarded as to have 
 become practically obsolete, and the lands of the poor were 
 being gradually absorbed by the land-barons. Any degree 
 of amelioration was an advance, and none could have been 
 secured if the influence of the common people had not 
 steadily grown. At least one of the great estates of the 
 realm, the 'am ha-arcs, was making a sturdy fight for the 
 rights of the masses. In the struggle for the Zedekiah 
 statute, they took a leading part, and though the powerful 
 classes were tempted to evade the laws which hampered 
 their efiforts for control of all kinds, some progress was 
 always made. 
 
 We must not, however, prolong remarks on a subject 
 which is too remote from our main theme, to be adequately 
 treated in this connection. There are many questions of 
 equal interest which must be discussed before a proper 
 understanding of the poHty of the ancient Hebrews can be 
 attained. It is necessary to understand how the conflict be- 
 tween the centrifugal forces, represented by the sikne 
 ha-ir, and the centripetal forces of the nation was carried 
 on, and by whose activity it was finally decided in favor 
 
POUTY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 7/ 
 
 of the latter. This involves an investigation into the part 
 played by the Nehiim and the Levites (kohanim), and by 
 the former I mean, not the writing prophets, but the guild 
 which is typified by the illustrious old hero Elijah. When 
 I first began these investigations I intended to take up all 
 the laws recorded in the Bible, with the design of develop- 
 ing therefrom a complete scheme of the Hebrew Consti- 
 tution and laws. It soon became apparent that in the sikne 
 ha-'ir laws we had a system more ancient than the accepted 
 codes. Further examination revealed the cantonal basis of 
 the Federal government and showed clearly the necessity 
 of going to the bottom of the sikne ha—'ir laws. The 
 result has been that what was conceived to be the main 
 subject has scarcely been touched upon, and its considera- 
 tion must be postponed to a future occasion. 
 
 It remains only to summarize what I conceive to be 
 the result of this preliminary work. _ 
 
 At the Exodus the Hebrews were arrayed as tribes 
 with sub-divisions. As they advanced and the necessities 
 of war dictated a more efficient organization, they formed 
 into regiments (alaphim) with proper sub-divisions and 
 aggregations. Both forms of organization were in their 
 nature military, the latter specifically so. As they con- 
 quered settled territory, with established governments, they 
 learned a new lesson. The pre-Israelite inhabitants lived 
 in many cantons, each constituting a little kingdom, called 
 a "city." The name was not literally exact. The canton 
 had in it, besides the walled city, certain towns, villages, 
 and fields, and sometimes it had one or more additional 
 cities, all looking up to the royal city, which was the seat 
 of government where the King held his court. The He- 
 brews recognized and adopted this subdivision of the 
 
78 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 country, and in part accepted the mode of government as 
 a practical solution of the new and intricate problems which 
 they had to solve. They, however, abolished royalty. 
 Councils, somehow representative in their make-up, became 
 the ruling power in these little cantons, which were to be 
 the constituent elements of a central Federal government. 
 The conquest was slow, and the progress of nationalization 
 tardy. J The policy of exterminating the natives, which was 
 the obvious one for an invading horde that started out to 
 take possession of a whole country, had to be abandoned. 
 Concessions were made to the natives, who, under the name 
 of gerim, exercised much influence in the Hebrew cantons, 
 which superseded the old city-states. The national policy 
 of declaring Jhvh as the one God of the country was 
 hindered at every step by the stubborn conservatism which 
 adhered to the multifarious cantonal gods, and the central 
 government established at Shiloh found great difficulty 
 in bringing the cantonal councils to a lively comprehension 
 of the importance of stamping out the old worship. 
 
 There was one other leading feature of policy in the 
 new nation. The land for which the Hebrews so longed 
 was to be divided as equally as possible among those who 
 had won it by their blood. In this matter, too, the central 
 government had to rely on effective administration by the 
 cantonal councils. The obstacles encountered were great. 
 Leading chieftains naturally claimed greater shares, many 
 natives kept their holdings, and the theoretical idea of 
 equality, which would, under the most favorable circum- 
 stances, have been only partially translated into practice, 
 was but slimly carried out. The principle, however, that 
 family land was inalienable was adopted as law. Had this 
 been consistently carried out, there would not have arisen 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 79 
 
 a slavery question. Unfortunately, however, though shut 
 out at the front door, it slunk in at the side. The ancient 
 severe notions of debtors' law were at first accepted. The 
 new farmers were not all equally skilled or capable. Some 
 of them had to borrow, and the penalty of not paying was 
 slavery. Men with talents for accumulation were then, 
 as now, alert to seize opportunity. So long as they kept 
 within the law, they felt no reproach of conscience, and 
 often they went beyond in order to attain their ends. Many 
 of the farmers fell into debt, and not only lost their hold- 
 ings, but their liberty and that of their children. As the 
 state grew in wealth, the application of economic laws 
 became more and more certain, and though the state and 
 the successful classes prospered, the poor, at the other end, 
 were badly off. The most energetic efforts of the central 
 government to ward off these evils fell far short of success. 
 The rising men held the power in the cantonal councils, and 
 they favored their class. 
 
 There was thus a steady conflict between the central 
 government and the cantonal governments, the latter fol- 
 lowing local policies and the former working for a larger, 
 freer, unified state. 
 
 The removal of the jurisdiction over s-a-r-a-h from the 
 cantonal to the Federal courts was a long step forward. 
 The struggle to maintain the Federal land laws was less 
 successful, but, in the end, a partial victory was achieved 
 by the Nationalists, who had added to their forces a new 
 element by the introduction of representatives of the 
 poorer classes (dallim) into the great Federal council 
 {'am ha-ares). The rights of the masses came to be more 
 and more regarded, and the aristocratic tendencies of the 
 country magnates, sitting as sikne ha-'ir, were curbed by 
 
8o POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 
 
 joining with them Federal judges with plenary powers (the 
 shophctim of the later period), and by the establishment of 
 Federal courts, with superior jurisdiction in cases involving 
 great national policies. The primacy of the nation was 
 finally assured and the zikne ha-'ir sank to a subordinate 
 position. 
 
 How deeply this nationalization was rooted in the 
 minds and hearts of the people we can learn from the state 
 of affairs in Ezra's time, more than a century after the 
 downfall of the old Judean state. The burning question 
 was that of intermarriage. That it shook the state to its 
 center was inevitable. Great personages had married non- 
 Hebrew women, and all that affection, political influence, 
 and social power could effect to avoid the disruption of 
 families was put in motion. Doubtless the great literary 
 genius of the Book of Ruth was evoked by the sad situation. 
 
 Ezra, austere, single-minded, and inflexible, insisted on 
 his view as the sole salvation of church and state, and 
 however bitter the remedy, the wisest men of the country 
 agreed with him. 
 
 A general convention was called to be held at Jerusalem 
 (Ezra lO, 7-9). It was soon seen that the task of righting 
 present conditions could not be accomplished in a day or 
 two. The resolution was reached, that a special court 
 should be instituted to hear the cases, the work being so 
 arranged that it could be finally completed in three months. 
 And this was the manner of it: The men who had taken 
 alien -wives were summoned to appear, canton by canton, 
 at stated times, bringing with them their ziknc ha-'ir and 
 their shophctim, and then the special Federal tribunal de- 
 cided each case on the merits (Ezra 10, 14). 
 
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 8l 
 
 We see here completed the process which has been 
 described. The zikne ha-'ir are still a body representing 
 their canton, familiar with its people, its customs ; the 
 shophctim are their legal advisers on the law as modified by 
 Federal policies, and the Federal tribunal at Jerusalem is 
 bound to hear what they can say, and its decision is 
 supreme, binding, and final. 
 
 It is in the light of these considerations that we must 
 view the sikne ha-'ir law, which has been the main theme 
 of these lectures. If they have any value, it is in making 
 clear that the state was always viewed as a bundle of cities, 
 and that under such circumstances the volume of sikne 
 ha-'ir law must have been very great ; that the instances and 
 the statutes of that law which survive are but a small frag- 
 ment ; that scanty as are the sources, they are still the best 
 for learning the foundations of the Federal law which 
 superseded the canton law. 
 
 That the laws of the Pentateuch can be better under- 
 stood when we appreciate these facts, seems clear. May 
 time and opportunity be given me to continue the task. 
 
 In any event, I may be permitted to express the hope 
 that others who are interested in the subject may take it up 
 and add their contributions to the work of giving us a better 
 understanding of the constitutional and legal history of the 
 ancient Hebrews. 
 
INDEXES 
 
BIBLICAL PASSAGES CONSIDERED 
 
 Genesis. page 
 
 4, 17 14 
 
 20, I 14 
 
 23, 3-20 34 
 
 23, 4 19 
 
 26, 33 14 
 
 28, 19 14 
 
 34, 8-27 28 
 
 38, i-io 69 
 
 38, 6-30 71 
 
 46, 27 4 
 
 Exodus. 
 
 2, 22 19 
 
 3, II 35 
 
 4, 10 35 
 
 12, 49 20 
 
 13, 18 10 
 
 17, 16 16 
 
 18, 3 19 
 
 18, 13 36 
 
 18, 21 8, 9 
 
 19, 5 4 
 
 20, 7 59 
 
 20, 10 20, 27 
 
 21, 15- 17 52 
 
 22, 9 (10) 55 
 
 22, 19 (20) .... 57, 59, 61 
 
 22, 20 (21) 20 
 
 23, 9. 12 20 
 
 32, 26. 27 27 
 
 Leviticus. 
 
 19, 33- 34 20 
 
 20, 2. 4 58, 59 
 
 20, 5 58 
 
 20, 9 52 
 
 Leviticus, (continued) page 
 
 20, 12. 19. 20. 21 65 
 
 24, 11-16. 23 60, 61 
 
 24, 14 55 
 
 24, 15. 16 60 
 
 24, 22 20 
 
 25, 10-34 72 
 
 25, 10. 13. IS 72 
 
 25, 16. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 
 
 28. 29. 30. 31 73 
 
 25, 32. 33- 34 74 
 
 25, 45. 47-49 21 
 
 Numbers. 
 
 I, 16 8 
 
 6, 27 59 
 
 9, 14 20 
 
 10, 35. 36 5 
 
 21, 24. 25. 32. 34. 35 ... 13 
 
 25, 1-5 21, 40 
 
 25, 5-9 21 
 
 25, 11-13 22 
 
 27, 5 64 
 
 27, 7-10 71 
 
 27, 7 64, 66 
 
 27, 8. 9-1 1 64 
 
 27, II 71 
 
 32, 1-33. 41. 42 13 
 
 35, 13 21 
 
 35, 24. 25 50 
 
 36, 1-9 66 
 
 36, 11-12 67 
 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
 I, 16 20 
 
 I, 28 28 
 
 3, 5 27 
 
 85 
 
86 
 
 P.IBLICAIv PASSAGES CONSIDERED 
 
 Deuteronomy, (con.) page 
 
 5, II 59 
 
 5, 14 20, 27 
 
 6, 9 27 
 
 10, 19 20 
 
 11, 20 27 
 
 12, 15. 17- 18 27 
 
 13, 2. 3 (1-2) 54 
 
 13, 6 (5) 53, 54 
 
 13, 7-11 (6-10) 55 
 
 14, 21 '^1 
 
 14, 28. 29 20 
 
 15, 7 27 
 
 16, S. II 27 
 
 17, 2-7 58 
 
 17, 7 59 
 
 18, 20 59 
 
 19, 12, 21 69 
 
 19, 15 57 
 
 19, 16 56 
 
 19, 17-19. 21 57 
 
 21. 1-9 48 
 
 21, 5 50 
 
 21, 18-21 35, 51 
 
 22, 9 49 
 
 22. 13-21 48, 69 
 
 22, 21. 22. 24. 25 6g 
 
 22, 23-27 49 
 
 24, 14- 15- 17 20 
 
 25, 5-10 69, 71 
 
 25, 5. 6 62 
 
 25, 6 63 
 
 25. 7 71 
 
 25, 19 16 
 
 26, 11-13 20 
 
 27, 15 61 
 
 27, 17 62 
 
 27, 20. 22. 23 65 
 
 29, 10 19 
 
 31, 12 19, 27 
 
 Z2, 8-12 5 
 
 32, 30 10 
 
 2>},> 9 22 
 
 33, 17 10 
 
 Joshua. p.^ge 
 
 I, 14 10 
 
 4, 12 10 
 
 6, 18 7 
 
 7, 14-18 9 
 
 7, 16-18 7 
 
 8, 35 19 
 
 9, 3-27 29 
 
 9, 23-27 30 
 
 9, 2-7 22 
 
 12, 9-24 15 
 
 13, 17-21 26 
 
 13, 17. 23-28 15 
 
 13, 28 13 
 
 13, 30. 31 26 
 
 15, 21-62 26 
 
 15, 63 17 
 
 18, I 22 
 
 18, I. 8 31 
 
 18, 12-28 26 
 
 19, 15. 22. 30. 38. 41-47- • 26 
 
 19, 51 31 
 
 20, 4. 5. 6 50 
 
 20, 9 21 
 
 22, 9 43 
 
 22, 12 31 
 
 Judges. 
 
 I, 19. 21. 27. 29. 30. 31 
 
 32. 33. 35 17 
 
 3, 19 36 
 
 4, 5 12 
 
 5, 16. 17 42 
 
 6, 1-6 16 
 
 6, 8. II. 24-32 36 
 
 6, 15 8 
 
 7, 7- 22 39 
 
 7, II 10 
 
 7, 23. 24 39 
 
 7, 23-25 16 
 
 8, 4-17 39 
 
 8, 22. 27 41 
 
 9, 1-6 32 
 
 9, 2 16 
 
 9, 22 II 
 
BIBLICAL PASSAGES CONSIDERED 
 
 87 
 
 Judges, (continued) page 
 ii> 4 43 
 
 12, 2. 4-6 42 
 
 12, 4- 6 43 
 
 12, 7 24, 42 
 
 17, 6 32 
 
 20, I 44 
 
 20, 10 10 
 
 20, 14 24 
 
 20, 47 44 
 
 21, 9 44 
 
 21, 19 31 
 
 21, 23 24 
 
 21, 25 32 
 
 I Samuel. 
 
 1, 3 41 
 
 2, 13-17- 14 41 
 
 3, 20 41 
 
 4, 18 12 
 
 6, 15 46 
 
 7, 16. 17 12 
 
 9, 21 35 
 
 10, 17-25 8 
 
 11, 1-15 45 
 
 16, 4 47 
 
 18, 6 24 
 
 18, 8 10 
 
 21, 1-9 30 
 
 22, 9-23 30 
 
 II Samuel. 
 
 2, 1-3 ••••• 33 
 
 6, 2 59 
 
 15. 19-22 19 
 
 15. 27 55 
 
 21, i-io 30 
 
 21. i-ii 28 
 
 24, 9 II 
 
 I Kings. 
 
 2, 26 46 
 
 3. 4-15 31 
 
 I Kings, (continued) page 
 
 4, 7-19 II 
 
 8, 16. 29 59 
 
 8, 41-43 19 
 
 9, 3 59 
 
 IT, 28. 31 1 1 
 
 11, 36 59 
 
 12, 16 ., II 
 
 12, 17 24 
 
 15. 20 24 
 
 21. 8. 12 47 
 
 22, 19 36 
 
 II Kings. 
 
 2, 19 48 
 
 •4. 13 47 
 
 10, 1-3 47 
 
 17. 24. 26 24 
 
 21, 4- 7 59 
 
 22, 14 30 
 
 23, 5- 19 24 
 
 2T,, 17 48 
 
 23, 27 59 
 
 Isaiah. 
 
 9. 3 (4) 16 
 
 9, 14 53 
 
 5, 7.8 68 
 
 21, 5 10 
 
 30, I 53 
 
 40, 9 24 
 
 44, 26 24 
 
 65, 2-7 53 
 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 I, I 46 
 
 I, 6 ....;; ..35 
 
 4. 4 47 
 
 4, 16 24 
 
 5, 23 53 
 
 7, 12 22 
 
 7, 17 25 
 
 7, 17- 34 47 
 
 7, 34 24 
 
88 
 
 BIBLICAL PASSAGES CONSIDERED 
 
 Jeremiah, (continued) page 
 
 8, I 47 
 
 9, 10 (ii) 25 
 
 10, 22 25 
 
 11, 6. 12 25 
 
 II, 21 46 
 
 17, 25 47 
 
 25. 15. 18 25 
 
 26, 2 25 
 
 28, 16 53 
 
 29, 32 53 
 
 32, 7. 8 67 
 
 32, 7-12 71 
 
 33, 10 24 
 
 34, 8-22 74 
 
 34, 22 25 
 
 36, 9 25 
 
 40, 5 25 
 
 44, 2. 6. 17 25 
 
 44, 6. 17 26 
 
 EzEKlEL. 
 
 7, 12. 13. 14 74 
 
 39, 9 26 
 
 46, 16. 17 74 
 
 HosEA. 
 
 4, 15- 16 53 
 
 5, 10 62 
 
 9, 1-15 53 
 
 MiCAH. 
 
 5, I 9 
 
 Habakuk. 
 
 2, 18. 19 53 
 
 ZEPHANIAH. PAGE 
 
 I, 10 30 
 
 Zechariah. 
 
 I, 12 26 
 
 PSAtMS. 
 
 49, 12 (11) 68 
 
 Proverbs. 
 
 6, 12. 13 53 
 
 20, 20 52 
 
 21, 28 55 
 
 23, 20. 21 54 
 
 28, 7 54 
 
 Ruth. 
 
 1, II 71 
 
 3, 9 71 
 
 4, 7. 8. 12 71 
 
 Ezra. 
 
 10, 7-9. 14 80 
 
 I Chronicles. 
 
 13, 6 59 
 
 16, 39 31 
 
 21, 5. 6 II 
 
 II Chronicles. 
 
 2, 16 (17) 20 
 
 6, 5. 6. 7. 20 59 
 
 6, 32. 33 20 
 
 20, 8. 9 59 
 
 32, 21 10 
 
 33, 4- 7 59 
 
INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Abiezer, the clan of 31, 34, 38 
 
 Abimelech, king of Shechem 11, 16, 31, 32 
 
 Aborigines of Canaan 16-18 
 
 Abraham 14, 19, 27, 32-34 
 
 Achan, case of, 7, 8 
 
 ahuzzah (estate) , 22,, 72, 73 
 
 Ai 7, 22, 29 
 
 alaphim, see elcph. 
 
 'am, ha-'aiii (council, trial-court) 3, 36, 59 
 
 ha-'ani (the army) 40 
 
 'am ha-ares (federal assembly) 3, 4, 76, 79 
 
 -(federal trial-court) 58, 59 
 
 -of Hittites I9, 33 
 
 'amad 'al (act or serve) 36 
 
 Ammonites 42, 44, 45 
 
 Amorites, 13, 17 
 
 anashiin (council) , 4 
 
 anshe Anathoth 46 
 
 aiishe Beth-Shemesh 46 
 
 anshe ha-'ir 28, 2,2,, 35, 36, 39, 48, 49, 54 
 
 kol anshe 'iro 52 
 
 anshe Jabesh 45 
 
 anshe Penuel 38 
 
 anshe Shechem 32 
 
 anshe Succoth 38 
 
 Anathoth, priest city, 46, 47 
 
 Ark of the Covenant 7, 8, 59 
 
 Army Organization 7-io, 23, 40, 64, 77 
 
 arur (death penalty) 52, 61, 65, 67 
 
 arur code 65, 67 
 
 'asarot (squads of ten) 8 
 
 Asher 17, 26, 39 
 
 Asherah , 34, 35 
 
 Asylum City '. 50 
 
 Baal 34, 35, 36, 51 
 
 Baal-Peor 21, 40 
 
 89 
 
go INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 bamah (high-place) 30 
 
 banot (dependent cities ) 13. i5. I7 
 
 bc'alim (council ) 4. 33 
 
 ba'ale Shechem 31 
 
 Bedouins, incursions of 15. 38- 39 
 
 bekor (first-born son) 62. 63, 65 
 
 Benjamites, war against 44 
 
 ben sorer u-moreh (missionary apostate) 51-54 
 
 berit (covenant, statute ) 74 
 
 bet ab, bet abot ( family ) 7, 8. 1 1, 34 
 
 bet Elohim (temple) 28, 30 
 
 Bethlehem 9. 47 
 
 Beth-Shemesh 9- 46 
 
 Blaspheming the slieiii. see sarah. 
 B'ne Amnion, see Ammonites. 
 
 B'ne. Benjamin 24 
 
 B'ne Gad 13 
 
 B'ne Heth 3^ 
 
 B'ne Israel 12, 18, 24, 57, 61, 66 
 
 B'ne Jacob 28 
 
 B'ne Levi 50 
 
 B'ne Reuben I3 
 
 Canaan 4. 12, 13 
 
 Capital City 29, 46, 47 
 
 Census of geriiii 20 
 
 City, building of I4 
 
 City-gate 3. 4, 27. 28 
 
 City-gods 6 
 
 City, fortified 15, 16, 23. 27 
 
 City-kings, 6 
 
 City-Kingdoms, see City-States. 
 
 City-States (cantons) . .4. 6, 14-16, 22, 23, 27.30, 31, 33-36.43.46,77 
 
 composition of, 15. -3' 77 
 
 ecclesiastical power of, 46 
 
 pre-Israelite 14-16, 27-32. 43 
 
 Cities of Gilead 42 
 
 Cities of Hebron 33 
 
 Cities of Judah 9. 24, 2^. 26 
 
 Cities of the Land, ^3^ 24 
 
 Connubium, right of 28 
 
 Council 23. 28, 31. 32. 33. 34, 36. 38. 39. 45. 78 
 
 City- 6, 79 
 
 national- 2, 3, 44. 45 
 
INDEX 91 
 
 PAGE 
 
 dalliin (poorer classes) 79 
 
 David 9, 10, 11, 19, 24, 30, 33, 72 
 
 dayan (officer, judge) 40 
 
 Deborah n. 4i 
 
 Song of 12, 42 
 
 deror (liberty) 72, 7Z^ 75, 76 
 
 Dinah 28 
 
 'ed, 'edim (witness) 56. 58, 71 
 
 'edah (national council) 29, 50 
 
 Elders 3. 16, 52 
 
 elcph, alaphiiii, (thousands, regiments, cities) 8, 9, 10. 34, 77 
 
 Eli, priest-judge, 12, 41 
 
 Elisha 47, 48 
 
 em (fortihed city) I5 
 
 Ephraim 10. 17, 26, 39, 42, 43 
 
 Ephron 34 
 
 Ezra 80 
 
 c::rah (native) 20, 60, 61 
 
 Federal Government 43, 45, 62, 63, 68, 75 
 
 Court 50. 54. 59, 60, 80, 81 
 
 Fictio Juris (legal fiction) 68, 69 
 
 gebarim (soldiers) : 7, 8 
 
 ger, gerim (alien) 19, 20, 21, 57, 60, 61, 78 
 
 ger we-tosliah (resident alien) I9- 21, 35 
 
 ge'ullah (right of redemption) 67, 70, 72, 73, 75 
 
 ge'ullah-yabam law 71 
 
 Gibeah " 45 
 
 Gibeon 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 
 
 Gideon 8, ir, 31, 32, 34-38, 41, 42, 51- 54 
 
 Gilead 12, 24, 26, 38, 42, 43, 44, 46, 66 
 
 Gilgal 45 
 
 go' el (kinsman) 70- 7i 
 
 go'el ha-dam (executioner) 48, 50 
 
 goyim (nations) 25 
 
 Jiai Jhvh we-liai adoni ha-melek (form of oath) 19 
 
 halisah, ceremony of, 69-71 
 
 hainishim (companies of fifty) 8, 10 
 
 hammushim (soldiers) 10 
 
 Hanamel. sells his land to Jeremiah 67 
 
92 INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 haradah, waychcrdu (welcome) 47 
 
 haserim (villages ) 13, I5. 7S 
 
 hawwot (villages) 13, I5 
 
 Hebrew Commonwealth, division of, 7, 8, 49 
 
 Hebron 24, 2?> 
 
 heiek (portion) 4 
 
 herein (prohibited) 7 
 
 yahorain (priestly form of death-sentence) 57, 59. 61 
 
 High Court 47, 66 
 
 Hittites 19, 33, 34 
 
 Inheritance, status of women, 63-65 
 
 'ir melukah (capital city) .,. 29 
 
 ish (collective-men) 47 
 
 ish zar (stranger, outsider) 62, 66 
 
 Ittai of Gath I9 
 
 Jabesh-Gilead 44, 45 
 
 Jacob 14, 27, 28 
 
 Jehu 12, 47 
 
 Jephthah n, 12, 24, 42, 43 
 
 Jeremiah 24, 35, 46, 67 
 
 Jeroboam 1 1, 24 
 
 Jerub-baal ( Gideon ) 36 
 
 Jerusalem 17, 24, 25, 26, 30, 74 
 
 Jethro 8, 9, 10 
 
 Joash, chief of Abiezer 34, 35 
 
 Joseph, bet- (house of, ten tribes) 10, 11 
 
 Joshua 7, 9, 19, 22, 28, 29, 30 
 
 Josiah 24, 48 
 
 Jubilee-statute , 74, 75 
 
 (kallel), mekaUel, yekallel (curse) 60 
 
 kasin (chieftain) 42, 43 
 
 kiddeshu (sanctified) 46 
 
 kohanim (priests, federal delegates) 
 
 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 59, 68, 74. 7S, 7(^, 77 
 
 kol ha- am (council, federal court) 45, 54, 55, 58 
 
 kol 'am ha-ares (federal council) 74 
 
 kol ha-'edah (general assembly) 29, 60 
 
 kol ish (anshe) Israel (national assembly) 41, 45 
 
 kol Israel (all Israel) ^i 
 
 kopher (compensation, Wergild) 30 
 
INDEX 93 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Land Laws 51, 61 fif., "ji 
 
 lekayein kol dabar (firm, stable) 71 
 
 Levirate Marriage 62 ff. 
 
 Levites 6, 22, 75, 76 
 
 liphneh Jhvh (trial by oracle) 43, 56, 64 
 
 liphneh ha-kohaiiim (trial by priests) 56 
 
 iiial'ak Jhvh (iiabi, messenger) 34 
 
 Manasseh 10, 11, 13, 17, 26, 31, 34, 39 
 
 Marriage, prohibited degrees, 65 
 
 mattot (tribes) 7, 8 
 
 mehokek (officer) 40 
 
 melek (king) 29, 40 
 
 me'ot (companies of hundreds) 8, 10 
 
 met, ha- (convict) 58 
 
 midbar-ihorn?, 38, 39 
 
 migdal (tow^er) 38 
 
 migrash (fields) 74, 75 
 
 Military Chiefs (judges, shophetim) 12, 14, 39, 40, 41 
 
 Military organization, see Army Organization. 
 
 mishneh (quarter of Jerusalem) 30 
 
 mishpahali, mishpahot (family, clan).. 7, 8, 10, 35, 64, 66, 67,70, 72 
 
 mishpat (justice, case) 20, 64, 68 
 
 mispah (oppression) 68 
 
 Missionary Apostate, see sarah. 
 
 moreh (teacher) 53 
 
 Moses 5, 8, 12, 19, 21, 31, 35, 36, 40, 64 
 
 na'ar (clerk) 38 
 
 nabi, nebiiii (prophet) 6, 34, 53, 54, 59, // 
 
 Naboth 47 
 
 nahalah (permanent possession) 74 
 
 Nahash the Ammonite 44, 45 
 
 Naphtali 17, 26, 39 
 
 nasi, nesiim (prince) 9, 28, 29 
 
 nesi elohim (prince of God) 2>?> 
 
 nega' (assault) 50 
 
 niddah (abhorrent) 65 
 
 nissabim, of Solomon 11 
 
 Nob (city of Gibeon or priests' quarter) 28, 30 
 
 nokri, evez nokriyah (alien, foreign land) 19 
 
 Og, king of Bashan 13, 15, 21, 29 
 
 ohel mo'ed (tent-temple) 22, 31, 64 
 
94 INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 'olah, 'olot (offering) 35. 46 
 
 Ophrah, capital of Abiezer 3^. 34. 4i, 46, 54 
 
 Oracle 7, 29, 33, 55, 57, 59, 64 
 
 Palestine, pre-Israelite 4, 3i, 77 
 
 t>eloni alinoni (Mr. So and So) 71 
 
 Penuel 38, 39, 46 
 
 Phineas, chosen Pontiff 21, 22 
 
 Provost-marshals of army 21, 40 
 
 rebabot (military division) 10 
 
 Rebellious Son (see also ben sorer u-moreh) 35 
 
 rib (controversy) 5o, 56 
 
 ro'ch (oracle witness) 55 
 
 rosh (chieftain) 42, 43 
 
 rosh ha-'am (high court ) 47 
 
 rashe ha-'am (chieftains) 40 
 
 rashim of alaphiin, identilied with nesiiin, 9 
 
 rosh lekol yoshebe Gilead (, first of all the lords) 42 
 
 Rosh ha-ma'os 34 
 
 Ruth, sikne ha-'ir law in 70-72 
 
 purpose of Book, 7^ 
 
 sakir (hired servant) ' 20 
 
 Samuel 12, 41, 46, 47 
 
 sar, sarim ^officer) 10, 25, 38, 39, 47, 74 
 
 sare Judah 61 
 
 sare Succoth 38 
 
 sarisiin 74 
 
 sarah, dibber sarah (missionary apostasy) 50-61, 79 
 
 Saul 8, 9, 10, 28, 30, 34, 45 
 
 segullah (treasure) 4 
 
 seter, ba- (in secret) 61 
 
 sha'ar, she'arim (gate, court, city) 27, 58 
 
 shebatim (tribes) 7, 8 
 
 Shechem, city-state- 16, 27, 31, 32 
 
 Shechem, the Hivite 28 
 
 shem (Ark of the Covenant) 59, 60 
 
 Shiloh 22, 23, 31, 4T, 42, 78 
 
 shomea' . shoiiic'im (witness) 42, 55, 58, 60 
 
 shophet, shophetim (chieftain, judge) 
 
 II, 12, 21, 39, 40, 41, 42, 55, 56, 57, 80, 81 
 
 Sihon, king of Amorites, 13, I5, 21, 29 
 
 Slavery 2, 21, 74, 75, 79 
 
 Slaves, release of, 74 
 
INDEX 95 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Solomon II, 19, 30, 46 
 
 som (convocation, fast ) 25 
 
 sopher (officer, scribe) 40 
 
 State, an aggregation of cities, 23-27, 81 
 
 Strangers, treatment of, 2, 18-24, 33, 78 
 
 Succoth 38, 39, 46 
 
 Tamar 69,71 
 
 tail-male 63 
 
 Tribal Organization 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 
 
 wayebakeshu (consulted) 35 
 
 way mm (pronounced judgment) 35 
 
 Witnesses, false 56, 57 
 
 yabatii (see Levirate Marriage) 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72 
 
 yeriishah (inheritance) 67 
 
 yoshebim, yoshebe (magnates) 29, 47 
 
 Zcbahiiii (offerings) 46 
 
 Zedekiah-statute 74, 76 
 
 2ekenim (elders, magnates) ..4, 14, 29, 33, 39, 42, 43, 47, 69, 70, 71 
 zikne ha-'ir (elders of the city) 
 
 2,3, 35, 36, 37, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 61, 68, 69, 70, 74- 75. 7^, 77 
 
 79, 80, 81 
 
 jurisdiction of, political 42 ff. 
 
 ecclesiastical 46 
 
 municipal 47 
 
 judicial 48 
 
 cikne Jabesh 48 
 
 Zelophehad, daughters of 64, 66, 67 
 
 zolel zve-sobe (glutton and drunkard) 52, 54 
 
 Hebrew Words Considered (which see) 
 
 ahuzzah; alaphim; 'am; 'am ha-ares; 'amad 'al; anashim; 
 arur; 'asarot; bamaJi; banot; be'alim; bekor; ben sorer 
 u-moreh; berit; bet ab; bet elohim; dallim; dayan; deror; 
 'ed; 'edah; eleph; em; esrah; gebarim; ger; ger we-toshab ; 
 ge'ullah; go'el; go'el ha-dam; goyim; hai Jhvh ive-hai adoni 
 ha-melek; halisah; hamishim; hammushim; haradah; 
 haserim; hawmot; helek; herein; 'ir melukah; ish; ish zar, 
 (kallel) ; kasin; kiddeshu; kohanim; kol ha-'am; kol 'am ha-ares; 
 kol ha-' edah; kol ish Israel; kol Israel; kopher; lekayein kol 
 dahar; liphneh Jhvh; Uphnch ha-kohamm; mal'ak Jhvh; 
 
96 INDEX 
 
 iiiattot ; mchokek; nielek; vie'ot; met; vtidbar; vtigdal; 
 migrash; mislineh; mishpahah; mishpaf; mispah; moreh; 
 iia'ar; nabi; nahalah; nasi; nega' ; niddah; nissabim; nokri; 
 ohel mo'ed; 'olah; peloni alinoni; rib; ro'eh; rosh; rosh 
 ha-'am; rosh lekol Israel; sakir; sar; sarisim; sarah, dibber 
 sarah; segnUah; ba-seter; sha'ar; shebatim; sheiii; shomea'; 
 sliopJiet; som; sopher; wayebakesliu; wayomru; yabam; 
 yenishah; yoshebiiii; sebahiin; zekenim; zikne ha-'ir; zolel 
 zve-sobe 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 T* T T 2^ht 
 
 
 
 
 '> i "Vi 
 
 
 
 
 '• 'I* '' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
Ijii 
 
 ''mm 
 
 PI I iiilii 1 iiii;s'r,:;r*««« 
 
 iillii 
 
 ! Hii!!! 
 
 I 
 
 ^ I, 
 
 liiil! 
 
 lliiil 111! 
 
 lipillijii' 
 
 mm 
 
 Iji iiiiii!! 
 
 i 
 
 it 
 
 liillillliilill 
 
 iiii 
 
 P 
 
 ml 
 Wm 
 mm 
 
 [mm 
 
 -'iPlP 
 
 PI 
 ill i 
 
 Iillii iiii 
 
 isi I hi!! Hi i'i.i 
 
 -■III! 
 
 III! 
 lii 
 
 iiii » ill 
 
 tr I lu|i!|i iiii ji I? 
 
 iiiSliiiilr. 
 
 ,.;•(!»• (ill 
 
 iiiiii 
 
 -in^.^M^mnywilaililiijiiliilSil 
 Hiii! ill ilf! 'H iiii iiii! 
 
 I Iiii 
 
 iillii il 
 
 ill 
 
 Wm ! 
 I ! 
 
 i II Pi 
 
 HI! tli ids illi! ilHii! H i f a HP i i I W 
 
 illiilii iiif^^^^^^^ 
 
 till liii iiiliiiiM^b 
 
 liMM 
 
 , ,,