1. "/give theft JBms
for Vie founding if. a Cotleg* in^t^UiCqlony

•YALE-waniviEiasjnnf-

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE

THE UNIVERSITY OP CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
agents
THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY
NEW YORK
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON AND EDINBURGH

SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY
OF THE BIBLE

By
Louis Wallis
Author of "An Examination of Society"
Formerly Instructor in Economics and Sociology in the
Ohio State University

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS

VI ?^s

Copyright 1912 By
Louis Waixis

All Rights Reserved

Published April 191 2

Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago. 111., U.S.A.

TO MY WIFE
(grare %Ur OTaUta
WHOSE SYMPATHY AND HELP HAVE BEEN
A CONSTANT ENCOURAGEMENT

CONTENTS

Prefatory

PART I
PRELIMINARY VIEW OF THE BIBLE PROBLEM

I. Introduction 
II. The Origin of the Hebrew Nation
III. Plan of the Present Study .

rv. v.
VI.
VII.
VIII.

IX. X.
XI.
XII.
XIII. XIV. XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII. XLX. XX.
XXI.
XXII.
XXIII. XXIV.

PART II
ELEMENTS OF THE BIBLE PROBLEM
The Making of the Old Testament
The Ancient Semitic Peoples
Kinship Institutions of Israel .
Industrial Institutions of Israel .
Early Religious Institutions of Israel
PART III
DEVELOPMENT OF BIBLE RELIGION
General Conditions of the Development
The Conflicting Standpoints. . .
Peoples and Gods in the Judges Period
Saul's Kingdom in the Hills
Coalescence of the Races
The "Increase" of Yahweh .
The Grouping of the Gods .
The Interaction of Tendencies
The Beginning of the Misbpat Struggle
The Prophets and the Mishpat Struggle
The Mishpat Struggle Takes Final Form
Religious Effect of the Exile .
The Jewish Church and the Torah
Judaism as External Authority
Judaism Rejects the Social Problem
The Struggle for Deliverance

PAGE ix

3
1725

3° 384049 62

868898
114120128133140141.147172203 209213216
220

viii CONTENTS PART IV
THE SPREAD OF BIBLE RELIGION
CHAPTER PAGE
XXV. The Work of Jesus .... 229
XXVI. Christianity and the Social Problem . 239
XXVII. The Catholic Church  242
XXVIII. Catholicism Rejects the Social Problem 248
XXLX. The Conversion of the Barbarians , . 252
XXX. Catholicism as External Authority . 255
XXXI. Justification by Works 258
PART V
THE BIBLE AND ITS RELIGION IN THE MODERN WORLD
XXXII. Protestantism and the Social Problem 264
XXXIII. Protestantism as External Authority 279
XXXIV. Protestantism Rejects the Social Problem . 285
XXXV. Modern Scientific Bible-Study . . 289
XXXVI. Separation of Church and State 292
XXXVII. The Modern Social Awakening  294
Appendix (Note on the History of Sociological Bible-Study) . 299
Index of Subjects . . ... . . . 303

PREFATORY
This book is an evolutionary study of Christendom.
Although it largely takes the form of research into ancient
history, it is in substance an inquiry into vital questions of
today. Owing to the recent separation of Church and State,
there is a tendency to take for granted that religion deals
only with matters of behef about things that have no concern
for "practical" persons, or that it relates only to private,
individual affairs. Hence the need for pointing out that the
vital rehgious ideas of Christian society took shape in response
to a social pressure as tremendous and compelling as that
in which we hve today.
The present social revival of the church is part of a wider
awakening which extends beyond the Limits of rehgious
institutions, and which has already put its deep mark on the
age. Although every period of history has its own difficulties,
there are times in which the social problem bids for attention
more acutely and insistently than at others; and the present
seems to be such a time. The purpose of this book is to state,
as clearly and simply as possible, the relation of the Bible to
the social problem. The title Sociological Study of the Bible
seems to carry much of its own explanation with it. But the
term "sociology" is a new one; and some prefatory statement
of the general drift of the treatise will therefore be of more than
usual assistance to the reader.
In the first place, this book takes the standpoint of what is
called "pure science." It seeks to know the historical facts of
the subject before it, and to interpret these facts in their
actual, historical connections. Such being the case, it is
necessary to enter upon our theme in view of what has already

x PREFATORY
been accomplished by investigators in several departments of
research. Modern scientific study has been slowly approaching a time
in which new disclosures of the connection between religious
thought and secular experience are possible. The necessary
division of scientific research into special departments, and the
consequent slowness of co-operation among specialists, have
delayed the full appreciation of scientific results among
scholars themselves, and have made it practically impossible
for the intelligent public to share in some of the most fruitful
achievements of modern scholarship.
In no lines of scientific research is this more true than in the
case of the investigations whose results come together in the
sociological study of the Bible, or, as we have sometimes called
it, biblical sociology. Hitherto, scientific investigators of the
Bible have not occupied the technical standpoint of "pure
sociology"; nor have sociologists been familiar with the
scientific approach to, the Bible. It is, therefore, no matter for
wonder that the public has been excluded from territories
which are now opening to the layman.
The view of the Bible taken by our ancestors a few genera
tions ago differed greatly from the view toward which the
professional scholarship of the modern world has been moving
in the last hundred years or so. During the Middle Ages, and
up to the opening of the nineteenth century, it was the universal
belief of the Christian church that the Bible was the product
of a mechanical sort of inspiration which left little or nothing
of essential importance for the human writers of it to do. In
the same way, it was believed that the religion of the Bible
came into the world by a sudden stroke of power, in a purely
miraculous and quite supernatural manner. These views were
formed at a time when the prevailing ideas about human
history, and about the earth on which we hve, and about the
universe at large, were much different from the ideas that now

PREFATORY xi
reign supreme in all well-informed circles. The progress of
scientific research has gradually and unobtrusively changed
the vast body of belief that characterized the Middle Ages.
The earth was formerly thought to be a solid structure fixed
at the center of the universe, with a lighting system, specially
designed for the needs of our planet, consisting of sun, moon,
and stars. But the world in which we live is now revealed as
a floating speck in a cosmos that staggers the greatest intellect.
The disclosure of this fact is one of a series of brilliant
scientific discoveries in relation to such matters as the geologic
formation and age of the world, the vast length and the evolu
tionary character of human history, man's place in nature, and
other subjects of equally vital importance.
The rising tide of discovery brought with it a slowly mount
ing scientific interest in the Bible and its religion. The truth
forced itself into the minds of careful investigators that the
Bible was compiled from other books far more ancient than the
Scriptures. It became clear that the books now standing first
in the sacred library were among the latest to be composed,
while other books, which had been hitherto supposed to be of
late composition, were among the earliest written. The old
formula, "The Law and the Prophets," was reversed, so as to
read "The Prophets and the Law." It was discovered that
the prophets were chiefly preachers to their own times; that
they were but httle concerned with predicting future events;
and that it was largely through their efforts that the rehgion
of the Hebrews was purified from its original heathen, or pagan,
elements. The new movement in biblical research took shape
among French, German, and Enghsh investigators, and at last
came to a focus around the brilliant work by Professor Well
hausen, of the University of Marburg, entitled Geschichte
Israels, pubhshed in the year 1878. In that masterly work,
the new literary, and historical study of the Bible was formu
lated and extended in such a way as to command the attention

xii PREFATORY
and assent of learned specialists; and it produced a revolution.
It has been well said by Professor Kuenen, one of the leaders of
the Dutch critical school, that the publication of Wellhausen's
Geschichte was the climax of a long campaign for scientific
study of the Bible.1
The progress of scientific research and discovery in all
departments of investigation was naturally opposed by the
constituted authorities in Church and State. Professors who
showed heretical symptoms in their opinions about astronomy,
geology, history, or the Bible were dismissed from their
chairs. But this policy advertised the new views; and as the
various aspects of scientific inquiry were better understood, it
became impossible to secure instructors who completely
adhered to the older theories. As the pubhc began to reap the
benefits of scientific research, the truth was graduaUy per
ceived that the work of science cannot be indorsed at one point,
or at a few points, without being encouraged everywhere. The
nineteenth century beheld the culmination of scientific
triumphs in the establishment of the right of untrammeled
investigation of the Bible in institutions of learning.
The new view of the Bible is bound up with a new idea of
Hebrew history and a new conception of the rehgious life of
Israel. The religious experience of Israel is now seen to have
been a rise toward a higher and purer faith, instead of a
decline toward a lower one. The new views have largely
displaced the older doctrines in all the leading universities and
theological seminaries. They are held in various forms by
different scholars; but there is a common basis of agreement
which rapidly grows larger as the fundamental facts are better
understood by professional minds.
The interested pubhc, standing outside the academic world,
is aware that great changes have taken place and are even now
going on; but the real nature of the new scientific view of the
1 Kuenen, The Hexateuch (London, 1886), Introduction, p. xxxix.

PREFATORY xiii
Bible, and the evidence upon which that view is based, are but
little understood by the laity. The public as yet scarcely
realizes the extent to which the evolutionary principle has been
applied to the rehgion of Israel. Professional investigators,
who have given the most and closest attention to the Bible,
firmly beheve that the idea of God by which ancient Israel
finally came to be distinguished, is the result of a slow process
of psychological, or spiritual, development, corresponding in
some way to stages in the national history of the Hebrews.
Professor George Adam Smith, now principal of the University
of Aberdeen, spoke as follows, in a course of lectures delivered
at Yale University, and reprinted under the title Modern
Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament:
The god of early Israel was a tribal god; and His relation to His
people is described in the same way as Israel's neighbors describe the
relation of their gods to themselves. Israel looked to Jahweh [Yahweh1]
as the Moabites looked to Chemosh  They prayed to Him to let
them see their desire on their enemies, ascribed their victories to His love
for them, their defeats to His anger, and they devoted to Him in slaughter
their prisoners of war, and the animals they captured from their foes;
all exactly as their Moabite neighbors are reported, in very much the
same language, to have done to Chemosh, the god of Moab. Moreover,
they regarded the power of Jahweh as limited to their own territory, and
his worship as invalid beyond it (I Sam. 26:19 [in the Hebrew and
modern Revised Versions]). Though, like all Semites, they felt their
zThe name "Jehovah" was never known to the ancient Hebrews. "Yahweh"
is perhaps as near as we can come to the original usage. Thus, the word "hallelujah"
means, "praise Yah," the j being pronounced like y. Sometimes the name was
abbreviated, as in Ps. 68:4: "His name is YAH." It appears repeatedly as a syllable
in the names of Hebrew persons, as Isaiah, Ehjah, Jeremiah, Hezekiah, etc. The
Hebrew manuscripts originally contained the name in the form of the Sacred Tetra-
grammaton, Y-H-W-H, mi"P. But this gives us only the consonants; not the
vowels. The Tetragrammaton occurs about six thousand eight hundred times in
the Bible. It is usually represented in the King James Version by "the Lord," or
"God" in capitals and small capitals; and rarely, as "Jehovah." The American Re
vised Version, however, takes us one step closer to the Hebrew by abandoning this
usage, and printing "Jehovah" whenever the Tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew.
We make use of the form "Yahweh" in accordance with the practice now estab
lished in modern scientific treatises.

xiv PREFATORY
duty to one God as the supreme Lord of themselves, they did not deny
the reality of other gods.1
The foregoing passage relates only to the historical, objective
aspects of the Hebrew situation. The same writer states his
theological view of the subject as follows:
Behind that national deity of Israel, and through the obscure and vain
imaginations the early nation had of him, there were present the Char
acter and Will of God himself, using the people's low thoughts and sym
bols to express himself to them, lifting them always a little higher, and
finally making himself known as he did through the prophets as the God
of the Whole Earth, identical with righteousness and abounding in
mercy.2 This view is the belief and faith of a devout scholar; and it
represents the attitude of by far the large majority of those who
have approached the problem of the Bible in a scientific way.
As a rule, the modern biblical investigator holds that the
religion of the Hebrews began on the level of what we commonly
caU "paganism," or "heathenism." He believes that "Yah
weh," the national deity of Israel, was at first regarded as a
local god, one of a large number of divinities that populated
the mind of the ancient world; that the people's thought
about him slowly rose to the height at which we find it in the
great prophets and in Jesus; and that this religious evolution
was a process guided and controlled by the one true God of
the universe, who was gradually raising men's thoughts
upward through the medium of their daily experiences. Thus,
while the devout scholar does not identify "Yahweh" with the
true God, he believes that the true God was using the idea of
Yahweh in such a way as to cause that idea more and more
to take the character of a worthy symbol of religion. This
theological position, as a matter of fact, puts far less strain on
the modern intellect than does the older orthodoxy, and makes
1 G. A. Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament (New York,
1901), pp. 128, 129.
2 Biblical World (Chicago, August, 1896), pp. 100, 101.

PREFATORY xv
it possible for men to remain within the church who would
otherwise be outside of it. The reverent scholar believes that
God uses the history of Israel, and the history of the world, for
an ineffable, divine purpose which works out slowly across the
ages. He sees that the human spirit works its purpose within
the terms of those natural "laws" of physiology, chemistry,
and pohtical economy which condition the bodily and social
existence of mankind; and he believes that the universe
expresses God's personahty in the same way that a human life
gives expression to human personality.
While it is but just and proper to speak here of the religious
and theological beliefs that characterize the body of modern
bibhcal critics, it should be said again that this book is a purely
scientific study of the Bible, which undertakes to state the con
nections between the various facts of Hebrew history and
rehgion. The limitations of our method forbid us to discuss
the inner, metaphysical, or theological aspect of the facts.
We take for granted that Bible students "must acquire the
art of historical construction by which .... they may ....
reproduce the history of Israel's religious experience, from
those early days when Jehovah [Yahweh] was a tribal God who
went out to battle against the gods of other desert tribes."1
Although the subject may be approached from a variety of
standpoints, the plan of this investigation confines our study
to one point of view.
Having indicated the road over which biblical investigators
are traveling, it is now in order to emphasize that they have
not yet reached their destination. This is admitted by the
leading exponents of modern biblical research and interpreta
tion. The central feature of the entire problem is, of course,
the development of the Yahweh religion. We can see very
plainly that the idea of Yahweh in the earlier Old Testament
documents is different from what it is in the later documents.
1 Editorial, Biblical World (Chicago, April, 1911), p. 221.

xvi PREFATORY
What is the explanation of this difference? How is the
religious evolution before us to be understood ? In what terms
are we to describe it? Professor Wellhausen himself has
lately said that we cannot teU why Yahweh of Israel, rather
than the god Chemosh of Moab, on the eastern side of the
Dead Sea, evolved into the righteous God of the universe.1
President Francis Brown, of Union Theological Seminary,
has recently written that the problem of the differentiation
of the later Yahweh from the earlier Yahweh, as weU as from
the gods of other nations, has not been solved.2 Professor
Cook, of the University of Cambridge, writes in a more
general way as follows :
While practically all students of the Old Testament agree that a
thoroughgoing traditional standpoint is untenable, opinion differs as to
the extent to which the results of modern criticism are really assured.
The great majority of scholars, however, accept the Wellhausen literary
theory, but they differ in regard to its application to the early develop
ment of Israel. External evidence, alone, clearly guarantees neither
accuracy of inference nor convergence of results, and since Old Testament
research is bound not to remain stationary, the conflicting and complex
tendencies inspire the behef that the present stage is a transitory one.3
To the same effect, Professor Sanday, of Oxford University,
says: The fashioning of the methods by which the secret of the Old Testa
ment is to be approached and elicited has taken many centuries. We are
not yet agreed about it; but I do not think that it is being too sanguine
to feel that we are drawing nearer to it.4
In a treatise on the history of Bible-study, Professor George
H. Gilbert also speaks of the "partial and imperfect dawn of a
'Wellhausen, "Israelitisch-judische Rehgion," in Kultur der Gegenwart (Berlin
1909), Teil I, 15.
2 Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Honor of William Rainey Harper (Chicago
1908), p. xxx.
3 Essays on Some Biblical Questions by Members of the University of Cambridge
(London, 1909), p. 54.
¦< Sanday, The Oracles of God (London, 1891), p. 120.

PREFATORY xvii
new era of interpretation."1 This general attitude, we believe,
is that of all candid biblical investigators whose method and
standpoint are those of the prevailing school of scientific
research. We have compared the modern school to travelers
who have not reached their destination; but another figure
may also be employed. The scientific view of the Bible is like
a house in process of construction. Most opponents of the
evolutionary view of Israel's religion make the tactical mistake
of assuming that the house is completed; and they criticize it
on the basis of that assumption. But while some of the second
hand popularizers of the modern view have committed the
same error, no rehable, first-hand authority has ever said any
thing of the kind; and the attitude of responsible scholarship
has always been to the effect of the testimony quoted above.
The "house" is in process of construction.2
These frank admissions by scientific investigators of the
Bible are to be held sharply in mind when examining the
opinions of the modern school respecting the development of
Hebrew rehgion. As the result of an inquiry whose details
need not be given here, it may be fairly said that such opinions
find an average in the proposition that the religious develop
ment of Israel is to be explained by the "genius of the great
prophets." This way of stating the case is varied by saying
1 Gilbert, History of the Interpretation of the Bible (New York, 1908), pp. 291, 292.
Cf. Jordan, Comparative Religion (New York, 1905), p. 491.
' The assumption that the modern view is a finished system is one of the mistakes
that vitiate the recent volume entitled The Problem of the Old Testament, by Professor
James Orr, of the United Free Church College, of Glasgow. While making concessions
to the modern school, Professor Orr speaks on behalf of traditionalism. It has been
observed with what appears to be great probability, that Orr's work shows signs of
having been written many years ago, soon after the publication of Wellhausen' s
Geschichte, and then retouched here and there. If this deduction is correct, it
goes a long way toward explaining the general atmosphere of Professor Orr's book.
If it were not composed soon after the publication of Wellhausen' s treatise, its
author's views were certainly formed at that time, and then taken many years later,
by unsuspecting persons, as the "latest conclusions," etc. The present writer has
discussed certain phases of Professor Orr's work in a paper in the American Journal
of Theology (Chicago, April, 1908), pp. 241-49.

xviii PREFATORY
that the creative influence of the prophets is due to "their
peculiar experience of God." It is not probable that scholars
will continue to state their opinions in this form as the scientific
interpretation of the Bible proceeds into stages of greater
maturity. It is only with feelings of respect for the modern
school, and of gratitude for its indispensable service to the
cause of scientific learning, that the writer ventures the opinion
that this view of Israel's religious evolution belongs in the
realm of theology and metaphysics only, and that it has no
standing as a matter of science and history.
Modern scientific investigation of the Bible, after all, is
only a special application of methods already employed in
examining the literature and history of the world's great
nations. Scientific biblical research, therefore, is not a thing
in a corner. It is answerable to the progress of method in the
study of all human history. The "historical method" took
its rise among the ancient Greeks, who were the first to achieve
emancipation from the reign of mythology. The beginnings
of the process are described by Professor Bury, of Cambridge
University, in his Harvard lectures on the ancient Greek
historians :
Long before history, in the proper sense of the word, came to be
written, the early Greeks possessed a literature which was equivalent to
history for them, and was accepted with unreserved credence — their epic
poems  The age of the heroes, as described in the epics, was
marked by divine interventions, frequent intercourse between gods and
men, startling metamorphoses, and all kinds of miracles  Every
self-respecting city sought to connect itself, through its ancient clans,
with the Homeric heroes, and this constituted the highest title to prestige
in the Greek world 
One of the most serious impediments blocking the way to a scientific
examination of early Greece [by the Greek historians themselves] was the
orthodox belief in Homer's omniscience and infallibility — a belief wliich
survived the attacks of the Ionian philosophers and the irony of Thucy-
dides. Eratosthenes boldly asserted the principle that the critic, in
studying Homer, must remember that the poet's knowledge was limited

PREFATORY xix
by the conditions of his age, which was a comparatively ignorant
age 
The Greeks did not suddenly create, but rather by a gradual process
of criticism evolved history, disengaging it from the mythic envelope in
which fact and fiction were originally blended 
In his Introduction Thucydides announces a new conception of his
torical writing  He saw, as we see, that the mythical element
pervaded Herodotus (of whom, evidently, he was chiefly thinking) no
less than Homer. His own experience in ascertaining contemporary
facts taught him, as nothing else could do, how soon and how easily
events are wont to pass into the borders of myth 
If the Greeks had possessed records extending over the history of two
or three thousand years, the conception of causal development would
probably have emerged, and they might have founded scientific history.
The limitation of their knowledge of the past to a few centuries disabled
them from evolving this idea.1
The process begun by the ancient Greeks was adjourned
throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, and then taken up by
modern historical scholars. One of the leading investigators
of the problem of history was the great German scholar
Niebuhr, who reconstructed ancient Roman history. As Nie
buhr said, "many of the narratives in the earhest history
of Rome betray their fabulous nature by the contradictions
and impossibilities they involve."2 AU nations have con
fidently held certain behefs about their early history, which the
scientific scholar is bound to challenge. For example, the
Romans beheved that their government was connected with
Romulus and Remus, two sons of Mars, the god of war. These
brothers were born of a virgin. When they reached manhood,
there was a dispute as to which of them should have the honor
of naming the city. The controversy was terminated by the
victory of Romulus, who had the larger number of adherents.
The city was named after him; and he became king. When
the time of his death arrived, the light of the sun was veiled;
1 Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians (New York, 1909), pp. 2, 10, 2, 189, 240, 81,
258. 3 Niebuhr, History of Rome (New York, 1826), Vol. I, p. 603.

xx PREFATORY
and while the earth was plunged in shade, the king's father,
Mars, descended in a whirlwind and carried his son to heaven
in a chariot of fire. Later, the spirit of the glorified hero
appeared to one of the Roman nobles with the message that
he would watch over the fortunes of Rome in the form of a
god. For many centuries, this mythology was a matter of
literal and serious belief among the Roman people. Its affinity
with the Homeric tales of early Greece is so close and obvious
as to require no comment.
The earhest way of treating history, then, consists in
accepting uncriticaUy all traditions that come down from the
past, and weaving these traditions together into a connected
narrative. The mythological part of tradition may relate to
"the gods," or it may turn around actual historical characters,
such as David, Charlemagne, Alfred, Napoleon, or Washing
ton. But the frame of mind which leads to the uncritical
acceptance of all tradition is fundamentahy the same, and has
been well described by Niebuhr as "the prostration of the
understanding and judgment." Whoever would really know
human history, and understand the social problem now pressing
upon us for solution, must reckon with the important fact of
mythology. It was the perception of this principle with more
or less vividness that led the ancient Greek historians to lay the
foundations of the critical, historical method. The realization
of the same truth in a fuller degree has been a factor of high
importance in the modern progress of historical science. Thus,
opposition to the historical method necessarily carries one back
toward mythology. To oppose criticism is to be uncritical.
The scientific historian, first of aU, seeks to ascertain "facts."
He does not at first undertake to interpret facts. He simply
tries to lay bare what may be called "the raw material of
history." This fundamental inquiry is dealt with by analyzing
the evidence that bears upon the situation. The Greeks, as
Professor Bury says, evolved history by "disengaging it from

PREFATORY xxi
its mythic envelope" {supra). The primary work of the
scientific investigator of history, then, is to draw the distinction
between myths and facts. On the one side, he accumulates
a mass of real or supposed myths; and on the other side, he
gathers a mass of real or supposed facts. The myths are not
cast into the limbo of mere curiosities. They are held aside
for later study and interpretation. As a rule, they are not
mere idle tales; and they teach positive lessons about history
even when they are not accepted as literally true.
After facts have been separated from their mythic envelope,
the demands upon the historian become different. There now
emerges the leading question, What are the connections between
the facts ? How are the facts related to each other ? How is
history to be controlled and interpreted? In other words,
after the historian has taken his material apart (analysis), he
is called upon to put it together (synthesis). The most fruitful
treatment of history from the synthetic point of view has been
made only in modern times, and within the last few generations.
The history of the civilized world has been carefully investi
gated and rewritten; and there has also appeared a crowd of
"historical sciences" deahng with various phases, or aspects,
of history — political, religious, moral, domestic, economic,
legal, etc.
But the modern writing of history has not exhausted the
possibilities of the subject. The consideration that now
forces itself into view is the fact that all historical specialists
are working, from different points of approach, upon the same
subject, the problem of organized human hfe. The full mean
ing of this fact, however, is not calculated to break upon the
mind at a single stroke. The political historian, for instance,
is engaged upon facts which may also be treated from other
standpoints by the economist or the morahst. The various
phases, or aspects, of history cannot be held apart as inde
pendent series of facts. No single one of these disciplines, or

xxii PREFATORY
sciences, can treat its problems without leaving its territory
and appealing to facts that confessedly stand outside of its
purview. Hence, the special historical or social sciences are
abstractions (matters abstracted, or taken away) from the con
crete sum total of human life. Thus, politics, economics,
morals, religion, etc., investigate the same human life which is
found in all the special facts. So that if human history is
ever to be really known and explained it must be treated as
an "organic whole."
Now, the investigation and description of the connecting
principles of history has taken to itself the term "sociology"
— the word about society, or the logic of society. Probably
there will never be a large number of investigators devoted
entirely to the work of pure sociology; but the sociological
standpoint is graduaUy becoming more and more common to
aU scientific workers in the field of history. Sociology was
formerly regarded in some quarters as a campaign to crowd
aside the economist, the political scientist, the moralist, and aU
other scholars, and organize their materials into a new phUoso-
phy which was to take the place of the disciphnes already
estabhshed. While some overzealous writers may have con
veyed such an impression, nothing could be farther from the
aims of responsible workers in this line of research. The aim of
scientific sociology is to help specialists in aU fields of historico-
social investigation to work more consciously in view of their
common subject-matter — human life as a whole. Speciahsts
are always in danger of devitalizing their material by treating
it abstractly; and in the degree that they realize the inter
connection of their studies, they wUl co-operate efficiently in
expounding the problems of human life.
Sociology approaches history from the standpoint of the
evolution of the " social group." Here, again, the fuU meaning
of the statement is not at once clear. "The idea of the group

PREFATORY xxiii
as a means of interpretation is emerging more clearly," writes
President George E. Vincent, of the University of Minnesota.
"Society is too vague and abstract a concept. It is useful for
symbohc purposes and for generalized description, but to have
any vividness of meaning it must be translated into more con
crete terms."1 Human history is not concerned with the
doings of isolated individuals, who, like Robinson Crusoe, live
apart by themselves. It relates to the evolution of organized
groups, or communities. The different historical disciplines,
or social sciences, approach the mechanism of society from a
number of standpoints. Thus, whUe economics, politics,
ethics, ecclesiastics, etc., are engaged upon the study of social
groups, they treat the matter from different angles. Econom
ics considers the industrial phase of group-life; politics, the
governmental forms and activities of the group; ethics, the
moral standards; ecclesiastics, the religious ideas and institu
tions; and so on. Sociology attempts to describe the structure
and life of social mechanisms, and thus to give a point of
departure for aU special studies in history and the social
problem. History is the biography of human society; and if it
is to be explained in a scientific way, it must be treated as an
" organic whole." Sociology attempts to correlate the essential
facts and forces of life in a single perspective.
The meaning of sociology, however, is best indicated, not by
the multiplication of general statements, but by an appeal to
some concrete, practical human interest. This book illustrates.
the standpoint of modern sociology in reference to the "reli
gious" interest. Its view is that the stiU unfinished historical
interpretation of the Bible can be completed only in terms of
sociology. It is written in the behef that the division of
scientific scholarship into "departments" has delayed the full
appreciation and use of scientific results among scholars them-
1 American Journal of Sociology (Chicago, January, 1911), p. 469.

xxiv PREFATORY
selves; and its form is due to the conviction that the inteUigent
public may now be taken more fuUy into the field of bibhcal
and sociological study.
It has perhaps already become clear that the book is an
examination of Hebrew history in relation to the idea of God.
The older view of the Bible and its rehgion did not suppose that
the history of the Hebrew people had anything to do with
shaping, or "causing," the religious ideas peculiar to Israel;
and the thought of such a connection is even yet a novelty to
most readers of the Bible. But it should be observed at once
that the old view of the nature and origin of Hebrew religion is
bound up with a view of Hebrew history which has been dis
credited in aU the foremost institutions of learning. According
to the old view, the nation caUed "Israel" consisted of the
descendants of a single race, or family. It was organized at a
single stroke, in the wflderness of Arabia. Taking the form of
a mighty army, under the generalship of a single commander,
the militant nation attacked the land of Canaan, drove out the
"Amorites," and then divided the entire land by lot among the
different clans or tribes which constituted the invading army.
This view is based on the first six books of the Old Testa
ment known as the Hexateuch, which comprise the titles from
Genesis through Joshua. The traditional view stated in a
"sociological" way, then, is that the group-organization of the
Hebrews was determined and fixed by law at the very beginning
of the national history, and was not the result of development
But modern historical investigation has demonstrated that
the Hexateuch in its present form is a very late product of
Hebrew life; that it was unknown to the Hebrews throughout
the larger part of their time of residence in Palestine; and that
the conception of the national history which has just been
cited is impossible. We can state only the facts in this place
leaving the study of detafls and evidence to the formal part of
our treatise. The books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings are

PREFATORY xxv
older than the Hexateuch; and the story which they teU about
the origin of the Hebrew nation departs conspicuously from
that of the narratives embodied in the first six books of the
Old Testament. According to these older documents, the land
of Canaan was invaded, not by a "nation" organized as a
grand army under one general, but by a number of independent
clans which had no common organization. These clans,
corning in from the desert, merely succeeded in planting them
selves here and there in the highlands of Judah, Ephraim, and
GUead. They did not drive out nor annihilate the Amorites;
but the previous inhabitants remained in possession of a long
list of waUed cities, most of which were in the lowlands. The
Hebrew nation, as known to history, arose at the point of coales
cence between the incoming Israelite clans and the Amorite city-
states already established in Canaan. The Amorite cities
remained for a time independent (throughout the period of the
Judges and the reign of King Saul) ; but under the House of
David, the earlier inhabitants became assimUated with the
Israehte monarchy, and lost their racial identity. During the
long period between the original invasion and the great Baby
lonian captivity, the Hebrew people and their kings did not
observe the law of the national constitution recorded in the
Hexateuch ; and this law was finaUy brought forward in its com
pleted form, and adopted after the Captivity, by the "Jews," a
remnant of the old Hebrew people.
This general view is novel to the layman; but it is a com
monplace to the scholar who is in possession of the results of
scientific investigation of the Bible. The origin of the Hebrew
nation at the point of coalescence between Israelites and
Amorites has been often pointed out by critical historians; but
whue the fact is known to aU scientific students of the Bible,
its vital and intimate connection with the problem of Hebrew
rehgion has not been worked out. This is due, not to the lack
of "evidence," but to the fact that biblical scholarship, as a

xxvi PREFATORY
whole, has not yet made the standpoint of modern sociology its
own.1 The technique of the study undertaken in this book
may be stated here in a brief, introductory form.
A great struggle arose between the standpoints of the two
races that united in the development of the Hebrew nation.
In the long run, the two sides of the struggle came to be
symbolized by the terms "Yahweh" and "Baal," which
indicate the gods of the races that combined in the national
group. By one and the same process, the national deity
Yahweh became identified with warfare against "other gods"
and warfare against "injustice." Although the process was a
very gradual one, reaching its issue only by slow stages, the
logic of the final result was present in the situation from the
time the Israehtes and Amorites combined in the same group.
Like a spirit of invisible fate, this logic tormented and pursued
the prophets, until at last the local Baal-worship, derived from
the Amorites, became the means whereby the Hebrew religion
was detached from polytheism and injustice. This pecuhar
development of religion took place within the terms of the
Hebrew group-evolution, which, as we shall presently see, was
unlike that of any other ancient people.
The Amorites, who were already planted in the land, had no
national government and no national religion. They con
sisted of independent city-states, each of which worshiped its
own god, or "Baal." These Baals were identified with the social
standpoint and economic ideas of settled civilization. They
were the divine "masters," or "owners," of the Amorite people;
and the leading men of the upper social class were likewise
called "baals," because they were the human owners of the
Amorite people. The common man was looked upon with
1 In the case of many individual scholars, however, the study of the Bible is already
moving on from the literary and historical stages into a sociological form. We do not
seek to create the impression that present-day bibhcal science is any more backward
in its tendencies than other existing scientific disciplines. The adoption of the modern
view of Hebrew history by bibhcal scholars is the proof of this.

PREFATORY xxvii
scant respect aU through ancient civilization (but not among
the nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples of the wUderness). As
a rule, to which there were few exceptions, most of the inhabi
tants in the settled countries were in the grip of some kind of
slavery; whUe a smaU, upper class used all the machinery of
government and religion to make their grip firmer. The ruling
force of ancient civilization was agamst the modern ideal of
popular government. Society was defended from barbarism
by a paid police; whUe the enslaved peasant was treated as a
base of mihtary supplies. This theory of life held sway among
the Babylonians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Amorites, and other
settled peoples.1
On the contrary, the ideas and usages of aU unsettled races
take a different form. The integrity of a wandering clan
depends upon the good treatment of its individual members.
Hence, the idea of "brotherhood" stands in the forefront of
the social consciousness of migratory, unsettled races. While
ancient civflization holds manhood at a discount, the nomadic
barbarian takes manhood at its par value. Examples are the
Germanic tribes in ancient Europe, the American Indians, the
Austrahan tribes, the clans of Arabia, and other unsettled
peoples. Now, the Israehtes, prior to the invasion of Canaan,
were a migratory people, broken up into smaU clans. Their
economic and social standpoint was expressed in their cus
tomary usage, or law, known as mishpat. This word is trans
lated in our Enghsh Bibles as "justice," "judgment," "that
which is lawful," etc. But in one passage, the Hebrew term
is represented in modern letters as the name of a fountain, or
spring, in the southern wUderness: "En-mishpat (the same is
Kadesh)."2 This was the "WeU of Justice," where the legal
1 As we shall see in the course of our study, this theory stood for the necessity of
the situation. The great civilizations that have generated and built up the progress
of history were constantly open to the attacks of barbarians; and the imperialistic
form of society was a defensive measure. Nevertheless, it was hard on the masses of
the people. 3 Gen. 14:7.

xxviii PREFATORY
usages of the wUderness clans were declared in the name of
Yahweh; and the word "Kadesh," meaning "holy," indicates
that it was a sanctuary.
The rise of the Hebrew nation at the point of coalescence
between Amorites and Israelites brought the social standpoints
of ancient civUization and the primitive clan into sharp conflict.
A great struggle was precipitated over the subject of mishpat.
"What are good law and good morals?" The conflict ulti
mately came to a center about the question whether Yahweh
should be worshiped in the character of a "civUized" Baal,
who countenanced the usages of civUization and who was
distinguished from other gods only by his might and power, or
whether he should be worshiped in his original character as a
god of the clan mishpat. The more Israelite section of the
people (the highlanders) contended for the humane view taken
by the wUderness folk; and their standpoint was voiced by the
great "insurgent" prophets, most of whom came from smaU
places in the open country. But the more Amorite part of the
nation contended for the "civUized" view, with its disregard of
the common man; and their standpoint was voiced by the
"regular" prophets, who were connected with the wealthy
nobUity. The mishpat struggle commenced in a very confused
way, taking the form of revolt against the kings. But later it
assumed a more distinctly religious form when one of the kings,
who had imported the Baal-worship of the wealthy Phoenix
cians, took away the land of a humble peasant by force. The
great prophet Elijah now came forward, from the highlands of
GUead, in defense of the old Israelite law and morals for which
the worship of Yahweh had stood in the wUderness days. This
great prophet opposed the worship of the foreign Baal, which
was in time thrust out by a violent and bloody revolution.
The social problem, however, was not settled by such means;
and the later prophets learned that it was necessary to struggle
not only against the Baal-worship imported from foreign parts

PREFATORY xxix
but to fight the native Baalism which the Hebrew nation had
inherited from the Amorite side of its ancestry. The struggle
between Yahwism and Baahsm was vastly more than a mere
conflict over the question whether the Hebrews should bow
down to this or that god. It was the form in which the great
underlying moral and economic struggle of classes came to the
surface of history.
There have been moral aspiration and endeavor among every
people under the sun. There have been struggles between
rich and poor in aU nations. The Hebrews had no patent on
ethics, and no monopoly of economic agitation. But the
struggle which at last came to a burning focus around Yahwism
and Baahsm was the religious expression of the unique political
development of the Hebrews. The peculiarity of the entire
Old Testament situation, then, lay not in its moral and
economic aspects, but in the uncommon pohtical development
of society. This is not at first clear to those who have not
completely assimilated the sociological point of view. The
secret hes in the close connection between Church and State,
Rehgion and Politics, throughout the ancient world. WhUe
other nations have had economic and moral struggles, no
national development has ever taken exactly the same political
form as that of Israel.
This is made clear by the use of a number of iUustrations.
The Israehte conquest of Canaan may be compared with the
Kassite conquest of Babylonia, the Hyksos conquest of Egypt,
or, to come nearer home, the Norman conquest of England.
The Normans, the Kassites, and the Hyksos, when going into
the lands they conquered, found national group-organizations
already formed. But in the case of the Hebrews, on the
contrary, the previous inhabitants of the land had no general
government. The Amorites were broken up into city-states,
or provincial bodies. And it was the invading Israehtes who
eventuaUy supplied the framework of national government and

xxx PREFATORY
religion. The Hebrew kingdom began in the time of Saul, as
a movement among the Israelite highlanders. The older,
Amorite population of the land was at length incorporated in
the monarchy under the House of David; and the god Yahweh
became the national deity of the entire group. In this way,
a divinity of the wUderness and the hills was introduced
with comparative abruptness to an ancient civUized people.
Although the Amorites mingled their blood with the new
comers', took the name of Israel, and lost their identity as a
race, the Amorite standpoint and the Amorite Baals remained
as powerful factors in the hfe of the Hebrew nation. Here,
for the first time in history, we encounter a nation in which the
struggle of classes takes the form of a consistent warfare
between the gods of the nation itseh. The Amorite Baals
became the dark villains of a tremendous moral drama; whUe
Yahweh became the Mighty Hero of a long struggle against
" the iniquity of the Amorite," and then at last the Redeemer
of the World. The religion of the Bible is, in truth, a new
thing. The political variation of Hebrew history from that of
other peoples generated a new "variety" of religion. The
contact between the cult of the wUderness and the cult of
civUization produced a " cross-fertUization of culture" which
led to the birth of a unique religion. A new body of spiritual
thought was born which avoided the religious evils of civUiza
tion and nomadism, and combined their virtues. As already
observed, the "substance" of Hebrew history was like that
of other nations; but its "form" opened a new channel for the
working of the human mind, suggesting thoughts that had never
before flashed through the brain of man. The imagination of
Israel's prophets took fire, and blazed up in a great spiritual
flame that has pierced through the ages and Uluminated the
history of the world. These considerations, together with the
evidence on which they rest and their bearing on present-day
problems, wUl occupy us in our sociological study of the Bible.

PREFATORY xxxi
The book is practicaUy a general thesis on the religious
phase of civUization, approaching the development of human
society from the standpoint of religious interests. It aims to
show that the Bible may be taken as a point of departure for
investigation of the entire process of social evolution. It con
tends that the Bible is not a strange thing, let down into
human history from regions lying outside the pale of common
interests. It views the Bible as an organic item of human life,
identified in its nature and purpose with the Reality that
underlies the history of the world. Accordingly, the book is
an inductive work, based not only on a direct study of the
Bible itself, but on the examination of evidence lying outside
the field usuaUy regarded as "Bible-study." Sociological
study of the Bible is interested not only in the process by
which the rehgion of the Bible was born; it is interested in the
social circumstances under which that religion propagated
itself onward in ancient, mediaeval, and modern history; and
it is also concerned with the social aspect under which the
rehgion of the Bible exists in the world now. The facts of
rehgious experience are best appreciated when the religious
phase of civilization is viewed as one process. Setting out from
this principle, we cannot limit the sociological study of the
Bible to the age that produced the Bible. Only when the
Scriptures are viewed in the light of general history can a study
hke the present be made to yield the largest benefit.
It is believed that the book wUl be chiefly serviceable in two
ways: First, by cultivating a scientific outlook upon the social
problem in ancient history, it aims to encourage a simUar
attitude with reference to the social problem now pressing upon
us. As the student "observes the evolution of political and
social hfe in Bible times and sees the consequent evolution of
moral and religious ideals, it becomes perfectly natural for him
to employ in the attempt to understand the life of his own day
and generation those very principles which have proved to be

xxxii PREFATORY
fruitful in the understanding of the Bible. He is thus pre
pared in spirit to make a positive and efficient use of the help
which social science and history furnish in the analysis and
solution of our own moral problems."1 v
The other way in which the sociological study of the Bible
should be of service lies in demonstrating that the church
organization of today should not identify itself with political
and economic programs. . The present awakening of religious
people to the social side of religion brings with it a real perU.
The reaction from the former one-sided emphasis upon "in
dividualism," and "personal wrongdoing," seems to be taking
us over toward the opposite extreme. More and more we hear
it said that the church machinery should put itself behind
projects of social reform — such as liquor legislation, chUd-labor
laws, unionism, socialism, etc. If the church should lend itself
to social reform, it would have to take up some definite position
with regard to pohtics and economics. But men have always
differed about politics; and if this view of church life prevaUs,
those who do not favor the particular program adopted by
their church cannot support the organization; and this would
convert the church into a political party. Our chief guide
here must be the testimony of experience. The witness of
history is in favor of the complete separation of Church and
State. The Church may be compared to a great electric
dynamo. The function of a dynamo is to "generate energy,"
and convert "power" into a useful form. Any proposition
that seeks to turn the Church away from its function as a
generator of moral and spiritual energy looks back to the
troublous times when religion was a pohtical issue.
Two books, dealing with special aspects of our main theme,
have been published by the author of this work. The book
now issued considers the problem in a general and systematic
way. It is a recasting of a number of papers which have
'Editorial, The Biblical World (Chicago), October, 1909, p. 222.

PREFATORY xxxiii
appeared in the American Journal of Sociology at various times
during the last ten years. The material has also been worked
over in lecture courses at the Ohio State University; the
Plymouth Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio; the First
Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio; the Abraham
Lincoln Center, Chicago, Illinois; and in a private correspond
ence course given to students in the United States and other
countries. The material has been examined, in one form or another, by
several persons to whom the writer is under various obliga
tions. If any of these are not included in the list that follows,
the omission is unintentional: Professor WUliam F. Bade, of
the Pacific Theological Seminary; Professor George A. Barton,
of Bryn Mawr CoUege; Professor George R. Berry, of Colgate
University; Professor Walter R. Betteridge, of Rochester
Theological Seminary; Professor Charles Rufus Brown, of the
Newton Theological Institution; Professor Shirley J. Case,
of the University of Chicago; Professor Arthur E. Davies, of
the Ohio State University; Professor Winfred N. Donovan, of
the Newton Theological Institution ; Professor Henry T. Fowler,
of Brown University; Rev. Allen H. Godbey, Ph.D., St.
Louis, Mo. ; Dr. Thomas W. Goodspeed, of the University
of Chicago; Rev. Edward A. Henry, of the University of
Chicago; Professor Albert E. Hetherington, of Columbian
CoUege; Dr. Daniel D. Luckenbill, of the University of
Chicago; Professor ShaUer Mathews, of the University of
Chicago; Professor George F. Moore, of Harvard University;
Professor Lewis B. Paton, of Hartford Theological Seminary;
Professor Ira M. Price, of the University of Chicago; Professor
Edward A. Ross, of the University of Wisconsin; Professor
Nathaniel Schmidt, of CorneU University; Professor Albion
W. Small, of the University of Chicago; Professor Henry
Preserved Smith, of the MeadviUe Theological School; Pro
fessor John M. P. Smith, of the University of Chicago;

xxxiv PREFATORY
Professor Martin Sprengling, of Northwestern College ; Profes
sor Crawford H. Toy, of Harvard University; Professor Lester
F. Ward, of Brown University.
Special acknowledgment should be made of the assistance
given by Professor Albion W. Small, Head of the Department
of Sociology in the University of Chicago. Professor Small's
interest in the relation between sociology and religion is of long
standing. The problem began to engage his attention at the
time when the names of Kuenen, Wellhausen, Stade, and
others were coming into prominence in the application of
historical criticism to the Bible. As far back as 1894, he pub
lished the following statement of the genetic relationship
between sociology and criticism: "Sociology is in part a
product of the critical method which has become standard in
historical investigation since Niebuhr's reconstruction of
Roman History."1 His view is, that the historical criticism of
the Bible must inevitably take sociological form. In 1905 he
said: "Every one of us was taught to believe that certain
representatives of the Hebrew race had different means of
communicating with God from those that are available today.
We consequently accepted a version of Hebrew history which
made out of it a fantastic tradition that only began to take on
the semblance of reality within the recollection of living men."2
At the same time, in referring to the psychology of ethics and
religion, he wrote: "Sociology will at last contribute in its
own way to these subjects."3 Again, writing in 1910, he said:
"I do not think that social science can ever be a substitute for
religion. It is getting plainer and plainer, however, that social
science .... is the only rational body for religion."4 Pro
fessor Small's view of this problem has been formed as the
1 Small and Vincent, Introduction to the Study of Society (New York, 1894), p. 45.
' Small, General Sociology (Chicago, 1905), p. 483.
3 Ibid., p. 465.
4 Small, The Meaning of Social Science (Chicago, 1910), p. 275.

PREFATORY xxxv
result of investigations in general sociology, and not through
special research in Hebrew history. We refer to him at some
length here, not to claim his support for any of the special
theses found in this book, but in order to exhibit the grounds
on which he has actively promoted the undertaking which the
book represents. His aid has been extended in ways too
numerous for mention in this place.
With the above exception, it would be a matter of consider
able embarrassment to single out other names from the fore
going list, however strong the temptation may be to do so.
In each case, attention and criticism have been given as a
matter of professional interest.
WhUe the book is identical in substance with the papers
published in the American Journal of Sociology, its present
form is different from that of the magazine series.
Quotations from the Bible in this work follow the American
Standard Edition of the Revised Bible (copyright 1901 by
Thomas Nelson & Sons), which is used by permission. A few
words are transliterated, such as "Yahweh," "mishpat," etc.;
and other shght differences of usage will be evident upon
comparison. Middle Divinity Hall
5855 Ellis Avenue
Chicago, Illinois
Author's Note. — In response to inquiries, the author states that he is
not at present an instructor in any educational institution, and that he does
not speak as the representative of any organization.

PART I
PRELIMINARY VIEW OF THE BIBLE PROBLEM

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The social awakening. — No demonstration is needed to
prove that the world is in the midst of a great social awaken
ing. The pressure of the " social problem " is felt in aU depart
ments of life. We meet it in business, in politics, in the
home, in the school, and in the church. The awakening of the
church to this issue is one of the most important signs of the
times. The social side of religion has not always been empha
sized as it is now. We are indeed only in the beginning of a
new epoch of thought.1
The twofold outlook of Bible religion — individual and social.
— The present awakening to the social problem brings
the church into a new attitude with reference to the Bible.
In earlier times, the chief emphasis of the church was placed
upon the salvation of the individual; whUe the Bible itself has
not only a personal outlook, but a social appeal as weU. The
importance of the situation disclosing itself in the religious
hfe of today comes before us with great power as we study
the essential nature of the religion around which the church
is organized. 1 The point of chief danger in the present social awakening of the church is not
over-emphasis upon the social factor, but the tendency to compromise the church with
programs of social reform. If the church should lend itself to social reform, it would
be forced, necessarily, to take up some definite position with regard to pohtics and
economics. But since men have always differed about politics, those who did not
favor the program adopted by the church could not support the organization; and this
would convert the church into a political party. Our chief guide here must be the
testimony of experience. The witness of history is in favor of the separation of Church
and State. The church may be compared to a great electric dynamo, whose function is
to convert power into useful forms. Any proposal that seeks to turn the church away
from its function as a moral and spiritual dynamo looks back toward the troublous
times when Church and State were connected, and religious questions were political
issues. 3

4 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
The personal, or private, appeal of the Bible religion is
so familiar that we need not dweU on it in this connection:
"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his
thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have
mercy upon him; and to our God, for he wUl abundantly
pardon" (Is. 55:7). The principle thus declared by the
prophet is tested by the psalmist: "My sin I made known to
thee; and mine iniquity I did not hide. I said, I will confess
my transgression to the Lord. Then thou forgavest mine
iniquity and my sin. Blessed is he whose transgression is
forgiven; whose sin is covered" (Ps. 32:5, 1). In dependence
upon the Old Testament, the same principle is dramatized in
the parable of the Prodigal Son, in which the wicked for
sakes his way, returns to his father, and is forgiven (Luke
15:1 1-32) . God is not only regarded as demanding righteous
ness and forgiving iniquity: he is also viewed as actively in
partnership with man in the struggle against evU : " Create in
me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me"
(Ps. 51:10).
On the other hand, the religion around which the church
of today is organized makes just as positive an appeal to the
social, or public, interest. A brief study makes the fact per
fectly clear. Thus, in contrast with passages that have a
distinctly individual bearing, we read, "Let justice roU down
like waters" (Amos 5:24); "Rulers shaU govern in justice"
(Isa. 32:1); "Hear, I pray you, ye heads of Jacob and rulers
of the house of Israel, is it not for you to know justice?"
(Mie. 3:1).
It may be said that these passages merely urge personal
uprightness on the part of government officials in the same
way that we now demand good men and righteous conduct
in public office. But the reply to this is, that the Hebrew
term translated "justice" wiU not bear a merely personal
interpretation. This term is one of the great, outstanding

INTRODUCTION 5
words of the Bible; and it conveys a wealth of meaning that
is not apparent on the surface. In the passages quoted above,
the King James Version renders "judgment," whUe the Ameri
can Revised Version translates "justice." We find the Hebrew
term itself speUed in English letters in Gen. 14:7, as follows:
m-i-s-h-p-a-t.1 The word mishpat occurs in the Bible in a
great variety of connections, and is variously translated ac
cording to the shade of meaning. It is rendered not only by
the words "justice" and "judgment," but also by "law,"
"legal right," "custom," "manner," "ordering," etc. It
points to the social arrangements, or institutions, that bind
people together in groups hke the family, the clan, and the
nation. Accordingly, the command which is translated, "Let
justice roU down like waters," means, in other words, "Let
social arrangements be just. Let the government uphold the
good laws and institutions of the forefathers." It is, indeed,
a matter of abundant evidence that the Bible is very largely
concerned with questions that pertain to the organization of
the community, and which therefore stand outside the limits
of personal and private affairs.
It is clear that earher generations neglected a large and vital
aspect of the Bible and its religion. We cannot pause here to
discuss the reason for this fact. The shifting of attention
from the mdividual to the social aspect of rehgion is ably
described in the foUowing words :
Unquestionably the general conception entertained among our
New England progenitors in the religious life was that of Christianity
as an agency for individual rescue and salvation; and of the Church
as the divinely appointed place of ingathering for souls brought home
from a lost and ruined world.
But just as plainly there has more recently risen in many minds
the conception of Christianity as the savior of society, and of the
'In this passage, En-mishpal means "Fountain of justice," or "Fountain of
judgment."

6 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Church as one instrumentality among others in an enterprise for the
general redemption of humanity. The thought ranges over a wide
scale of development in different entertainers of the comparatively
new conception. There are those who, while believing that the Gospel's
hope lies in the regeneration of individual souls, recognize, nevertheless,
the mighty influence of circumstances and environment in making this
individual redemption more or less probable  To this end,
they rejoice in whatever improves the physical and social conditions
of the community  Others, who have travelled farther in this
direction, seem to fasten about all hope for the Gospel's greater progress
on a preliminary better adjustment of society; on better relationships
between capital and labor; on a more equal division of property; on
improved habits of living and increased facilities for education, holidays,
and enjoyment  There is, as has been said, a considerable range
of diversity in these positions. But the conception of the relationship
of the Gospel to society, hitherto insufficiently recognized, has unques
tionably got a hold on men's minds, and to some extent has affected and
modified the character of preaching in almost all pulpits.1
The change of emphasis thus described is due, primarily,
not to intellectual or spiritual or theoretical causes, but to the
increasing pressure of the social problem. And since the
rehgion of the Bible has the social character just noted, the
social awakening of the church brings it into a new attitude
with reference to the Bible. The conditions of religious life
and thought are now in process of rapid change; and there is
growing interest in Bible-study from the ethical and social
standpoints. The new view of the Bible, which prevails at
all the great centers of learning, is in harmony with the present
social awakening in the religious world; whereas the older,
traditional view of the Bible agrees equally with the former,
one-sided emphasis upon individualism. It is a mistake to
suppose that the new scholarship is a mere unsanctified cam
paign to discredit the Bible by pointing out where one passage
faUs to agree with another.
The negative side of the new scholarship is merely that
'Walker, Religious Life of New England (Boston, 1897), pp. 180-82.

INTRODUCTION 7
which always goes along with a period of change; but on its
positive and constructive side, it is working out a body of
doctrine which gives admirable expression to the practical
interests and strivings of the present age. We stand at the
confluence of two great movements — the social awakening and
the modern scientific interpretation of the Bible. These move
ments appear to be foreign to each other; yet they have a
logical relation and meaning which wUl come into view as our
study proceeds.
Bible religion identifies God with the principle of righteous
ness. — It is clear that whether we approach the Bible religion
from the social or from the individual point of view, it connects
God with the demands of morality. The supreme, controUing
purpose of the Bible is very simple and practical. For it
revolves around the purpose and plan of redemption, or salva
tion, from evU. The individual is to be redeemed from his
own sin, while the world is to be redeemed from injustice.
Any interpretation of the Bible that faUs to put heavy
stress upon the moral aspect of its religion is bound to be
one-sided and insufficient. The Bible is pre-eminently ethical.
It does not make the slightest effort to "prove" the existence
of God. It takes God for granted. Nowhere in the Bible is
there to be found a scientific or philosophical argument for the
existence of God. Nowhere in the Bible do we find the means
of demonstrating the fact of a future life beyond the grave.
The Bible makes God and immortality the subjects of faith;
but it makes public and private righteousness matters of prac
tice. Therefore the Bible is a practical book; and its religion
is a practical rehgion.
Bible religion presents God as the Leading Actor in a divine
drama of redemption. — "Men shaU speak of the might of thy
terrible acts" (Ps. 145:6). Not only does the Bible identify
God with the principle of morality; but it goes farther than
this. The distinction of the Bible is not to be found in the

8 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
mere identification of God with the principle of righteousness.
The one great, outstanding peculiarity of the Bible and its
religion is to be found in the presentation of God as the Lead
ing Actor of a long story, or drama, in which mankind is
redeemed from evU. Many of the gods of antiquity were
believed by their worshipers to be patrons of righteousness.
Yet none of the religions of the ancient world, except that of
the Bible, have survived in modern civilization.
It is here that the essential feature of the Bible religion
is found. This religion has made its triumphant way in the
world, not upon the basis of the creatorhood of God, or the
doctrine of monotheism, or any other abstract notion whatso
ever. It has gone from victory to victory on the basis of the
1/ moral saviorhood of God, and nothing else. All other ideas
about God that we find in the Bible are present in other ancient
rehgions and Bibles. But no other ancient religion brings
before us the picture of a god as the leading figure in a long,
consistent drama, or story, in which the central theme is the
redemption of the human race from evU. Herein the Bible
stands alone in solitary and unapproachable majesty amid the
literature of the ancient world. Herein the rehgion of the
Hebrew nation has no paraUel among the cults of antiquity.
Everything but this feature (and it is indeed a "feature") is
present in the so-called "heathen" religions. Thus the
inaugural prayer of Nebuchadrezzar, addressed to the god
Marduk, is full of sentiments that are found in the Hebrew
Bible: O Eternal Ruler! Lord of the Universe! Grant that the name of
the king whom thou lovest, whose name thou hast mentioned, may
flourish as seems good to thee. Guide him on the right path. I am
the ruler who obeys thee, the creation of thy hand. It is thou who hast
created me, and thou hast entrusted to me sovereignty over mankind.
According to thy mercy, O lord, which thou bestowest upon all, cause
me to love thy supreme rule. Implant the fear of thy divinity in my

INTRODUCTION 9
heart. Grant to me whatsoever may seem good before thee, since it
is thou that dost control my Ufe.1
As Jastrow observes, "one cannot fail to be struck by the
high sense of the importance of his station with which the
king is inspired. Sovereignty is not a right that he can claim —
it is a trust granted to him by Marduk. He holds his great
office not for purposes of self-glorification, but for the benefit
of his subjects. In profound humility he confesses that what
he has he owes entirely to Marduk. He asks to be guided so
that he may follow the path of righteousness. Neither riches
nor power constitute his ambition, but to have the fear of his
lord in his heart." This example is one of many that occur
aU through ancient civUization. We find another instance in
a remarkable Egyptian hymn to the god Aton:
How manifold are all thy works! They are hidden from before us, O
thou sole god, whose powers no other possesseth. Thou didst create the
earth according to thy desire. While thou wast alone: Men, all cattle
large and small, all that are upon the earth, that go about upon their
feet; all that are on high, that fly with their wings. The countries of
Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt; thou settest every man in his place,
thou suppliest their necessities. Every one has his possessions, and his
days are reckoned. Their tongues are divers in speech, their forms like
wise and their skins, for thou divider, hast divided the peoples.2
These illustrations prove that in the bare ideas of crea
tive power, of righteousness, and of sovereignty, we find
nothing peculiar to the God of the Bible. It has often been
said that whUe the other nations of antiquity worshiped
"false" gods, the Hebrew nation served the "true" God, and
that therefore the Hebrew rehgion has lived while the others
have died. But this theory of the case does not fit the situa
tion that unrolls before us in the history of the Hebrews. For
the Bible religion puts the moral saviorhood of God in the
'Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), pp. 296-99. Cf.
Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians (New York, 1906), p. 348.
2 Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), pp. 373, 374.

ro SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
foreground, and focuses our attention upon that; while the
other attributes of the divine nature are, so to speak, inci
dental and secondary. It is no derogation of the Bible that
we find the ethical impulse widely present in the non-Hebrew
religions. It is rather to the credit of humanity that the
Hebrews had no monopoly of the moral principle; whUe the
glory of the Bible resides in just this fact, that it brings God
into peculiar, dramatic connection with the moral strivings
that are common to aU mankind. It is not for what God is
in the abstract that men worship him in connection with the
Bible religion, but for what he does in the promotion of justice
and righteousness. If men worshiped him simply for his
"attributes," that would be to put religion upon a purely
inteUectual basis; and no religion can long survive on such a
foundation. The Bible religion makes its way into the lives
of men by its appeal to the feelings, and not by arguments
addressed to the intellect.1
The religion of the Redeeming God is common to the Old
and New Testaments. — In its Old Testament form, the religion
of redemption was kept alive by Jewish patriotism and race-
pride. It was interpreted to the Jewish people through the
medium of their national interests. But the same considera
tion that made this religion vital and concrete to a person of
Jewish blood, made it unreal and far away to the gentUe
world. In the eyes of outsiders, the identification of God with
morality was a philosophical abstraction, without life or
meaning. The gentile could not throw aside his race, and
become a Jew, any more than one species of animal can trans
form itself into another. Thus the Old Testament form of
'Witness the downfall of the "New England theology," which obscured the
Bible religion with as much rationalism as was ever found in the anti-religious thinkers.
See Foster, Genetic History of the New England Theology (Chicago, 1907). As Profes
sor W. N. Clarke well says, "Theology must discuss God in metaphysical light,
but it is important to know that not in such discussing did the Christian doctrine
of God originate.'' — The Christian Doctrine of God (New York, 1909), p. 23.

INTRODUCTION ir
Bible religion was confined within the limits of nationality and
race. A great social barrier stood between Judaism and the
outside world.
In a later part of our study we shall consider the sociological
aspects of the relation between Judaism and Christianity.
Here we need to do little more than emphasize that the religion
of the Redeeming God is common to the Old and New Testa
ments. To deny this, would be to cut the ground from under
the feet of Christianity. The New Testament signifies not so
much a wholly new religion as a reinterpretation of religion in
such a way as to give its terms a deeper and richer meaning.
The prophets of the Old Testament gave their message in
"divers portions and divers ways." But the social barrier
between Judaism and the gentile world ("the middle waU of
partition") was at last broken down by the work of Jesus and
the preaching of Paul. The religion of redemption did not
begin to spread abroad in the world until the Old Testament
evolution was brought to a focus, or condensed, in the life of
Jesus, who incarnated the redemptive idea in his own person.
These facts may be spoken of here by way of preliminary;
but a fuller study along the indicated line of approach may not
be made untU we have considered the sociological presupposi
tions of the general problem.
Modern scientific study of the Bible comes to a focus on
the moral character of Bible religion. — Since the Bible puts
the principle of righteousness into the foreground, all Bible-
study necessarily gravitates around this fact and becomes
adjusted to it. However much the new, scientific school of
Bible interpretation may seem to be dealing with matters of
another kind, its fundamental preoccupation is with the great
moral problem of history. The chief reason why the new
scholarship has been spoken against in some quarters is because
it has not been understood.
Those who condemn the new view are generally beside the

12 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
main issues. A case in point is that of Professor James Orr,
whose recent widely heralded book, The Problem of the Old
Testament, treats the modern discussion about the Bible as
a war between "supernaturalism" and "naturalism." But
this is to put the whole subject on a purely metaphysical
plane. For nobody has ever yet drawn the line between
these terms; and there appears to be no prospect that
anybody ever wiU. Professor Orr would be closer to the
issues if he perceived that the new method of Bible interpre
tation can be neither "naturalistic" nor "supernaturalistic,"
but simply scientific.1
How did the Bible religion come into the world? — This is
the real issue at the heart of modern scientific Bible-study.
Until we learn to look squarely at this question, we shaU not
make much progress in further understanding of the Bible.
The older school, of course, finds no problem here. The ready
answer of Professor Orr and the traditionalists is, that the
religion of the Bible came into this world, and entered the
stream of human history, by "the wUl of God." We admit
that this answer is good and sufficient from the standpoints of
theology and religious faith; but it explains nothing from the
standpoint of science. On the other hand, the modern school
tells us that the religion of the Bible came into the world
through "a process of evolution." Thus, Kuenen writes, "It
is the supposition of a natural development alone which
accounts for all the phenomena."2 But this, again, is reaUy
no scientific explanation, because the terms "development"
' See Orr, Problem of the Old Testament (New York, 1906), chap, i and passim.
Also, his Bible under Trial (New York, 1907), passim. An older, but in some respects
more satisfactory, treatment of the question is that of Robertson, The Early Religion
of Israel (New York, 1892). See also Green, Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (New
York, 1895), pp. 157, 164, 165, 177- Professor Orr's work on the Old Testament is
considered by the present writer in the American Journal of Theology (April, 1908)
pp. 241-49. 2 Kuenen, Prophets and Prophecy in Israel (London, 1877), p. 585; Religion of
Israel (London, 1874), I, 11.

INTRODUCTION 13
and "evolution" are indefinite, and may be made to cover as
much dogmatism as the phrase "the wUl of God."
The problem before scientific students of the Bible is to
find out and state the conditions under which this great but
simple rehgion became the property of mankind. The best
point of approach to this problem is afforded by the dramatic
structure of the Bible. Explain the rise of the story of redemp
tion from evil, and you "explain" the Bible, so far as it lends
itseU to scientific treatment. It should be emphasized in this
connection that scientific research merely undertakes to dis
cover facts, and to find out the relations between facts. It
seeks to explain one fact in terms of some simpler fact. But
it does not profess to turn facts inside out and explain them in
a metaphysical, or absolute, sense. In other words, even if a
given coUection of facts be explained from the scientific point
of view, the facts themselves, in last analysis, wUl stUl have
a quahty of mystery which eludes the scientific investigator.
Many rehgious people have been alarmed by scientific discus
sion because they have not realized the limitations of science.
On the other hand, many scientific investigators in the past
have proceeded as U they were explaining the metaphysical
essence of the universe when they were merely setting facts
in order. But we have now entered a stage of inteUectual
progress in which the shortsightedness on both sides is being
corrected by a wider vision.
Scientific study of the Bible carries us into the domain of
sociology. — We have seen that the Bible raises the subject of
social institutions by its emphasis upon "justice," or "mishpat."
As a matter of fact aU the great moral struggles and questions
in human history have derived their controUing impulses from
social relationships. And since moral questions have this col
lective, or social, character, it foUows that the Bible (being
a moral fact above everything else) lends itself to sociological
treatment. But what do we mean by the term "sociology" ?

14 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Sociology fixes attention upon the "social group." — We are
not usuaUy conscious of society as a fact in our lives. We
go through the round of daily duties and experiences; and aU
the time we think of life in terms of private, personal, indi
vidual concerns. We do not deny that we belong to the nation,
the state, the county, the city, or the vUlage; but we accept
the fact of social organization without fuUy realizing how it
shapes and constrains our private lives. We concede readUy
enough that people fall into social groups; but then we ask
"What of it ?" We take society for granted, and then act as
if we are entitled to ignore it, just as we ignore the air we
breathe. The fact is, we are so thoroughly social that we dis
count the existence of society. We conform to social standards
without pausing to estimate the fuU meaning of the standards
themselves; and the moment we take the social mechanism,
or group, as a definite object of attention, we at once feel that
we are moving outside the common lines of thought. "The
idea of the group as a means of interpretation," writes Presi
dent George E. Vincent, "is emerging more clearly. Society
is too vague and abstract a concept. It is useful for symbohc
purposes and for generalized description, but to have any
vividness of meaning it must be translated into more concrete
terms."1 Thus it is that we find sociologists today shaping
their discussions less in terms of "society" and more in terms
of "groups." A good illustration of the group idea from a negative stand
point is found in the general disposition of Greek history. The
Greeks never succeeded in forming a national social organiza
tion. Consequently, their history lacks the dramatic interest
attaching to the fact of unity. The case is weU stated by
Professor Bury, as foUows (italics ours) :
To write the history of Greece at almost any period without dissipat
ing the interest is a task of immense difficulty, as any one knows who
' American Journal of Sociology, January, 1911, p. 469.

INTRODUCTION 15
has tried, because there is no constant unity or fixed center to which
the actions and aims of the numerous states can be subordinated or
related. Even in the case of the Persian invasion, one of the few occa
sions on which most of the Greek cities were affected by a common
interest, though acting in various ways and from various motives, it
facilitated the task of the narrator to polarize the events of the cam
paigns by following the camp of the invader and describing them as a
part of Persian history, though with Hellenic sympathy.1
In other words, the Greeks were never organized into a
single social group, as the Romans or the Hebrews were.
Consequently, it is more difficult to envisage Greek history
than it is to see the outhnes of Roman or Hebrew history.
The original social mechanism of the ancient Greeks consisted
of independent clan groups whose derivation went back to the
nomadic period, and whose development Worked out in the
construction of smaU "city-states," such as Athens and Sparta.
But these local groups never achieved any real, national unity.
Now, it is in relation to this "group idea" that our socio
logical study of the Bible takes form. The entire modern
discussion and excitement about the Bible comes to an issue
around the foUowing simple question: How did the social group
known as " the Hebrew nation " come into existence ? In search
ing for the answer to this question we unexpectedly get light
by the way upon the central problem of the Bible. We shaU
see that the origin of Bible religion can be treated to best effect
in terms of sociology. This method of approach to the Bible
is a logical apphcation of modern results in historical and social
science; and it opens before us the chapters of an intensely
absorbing story.
We are about to enter a strange land. Like all new terri
tory, it is a region full of surprises and paradoxes. The
exploration of it is not only interesting, but rewarding in ways
of which one little dreams when setting out on the journey.
And when at last we come back to modern civUization, we
' Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians (New York, 1909), pp. 22, 23.

16 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
shaU have learned that whUe the Bible seems to be only an
ancient book, it is reaUy full of modern interest. We shaU
find that Bible-study is no mere delving into the dust of an
tiquity, but the cultivation of hving questions of human hfe.
As the student "observes the evolution of political and social
hfe in Bible times and sees the consequent evolution of moral
and religious ideals, it becomes perfectly natural for him to
employ in the attempt to understand the hfe of his own day
and generation those very principles which have proved to be
fruitful in the understanding of the Bible. He is thus pre
pared in spirit to make a positive and efficient use of the help
wliich social science and history furnish in the analysis and
solution of our own moral problems."1
1 Editorial, Biblical World (Chicago), October, 1909.

CHAPTER II
THE ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW NATION
How did the social group known as "the Hebrew nation"
come into existence? — This question resolves the study of
the Bible into sociological terms. The subject, of course,
lends itself to other forms of expression; but, for present
purposes, the Bible is a matter of sociology. We want to
know, if possible, just how the social mechanism caUed "the
Hebrew nation" originated. Two answers to this question
have been given; and the contrast between them produces
a very deep impression.
The traditional view. — According to the more farrhliar view,
the nation consisted of twelve tribes that were suddenly
welded into a mighty social organism at Mount Sinai, in the
desert of Arabia. The father of these clans, or tribes, was
an Aramean patriarch, or sheikh, known as "Jacob-Israel."1
The nation which was here created was given a very elaborate,
written constitution. According to this constitution, the
people as a whole were to conduct rehgious services at one
central meeting house, or church buUding. This was caUed
"The Tent of Meeting," and was otherwise known as "The
Tabernacle of Yahweh."2 It was a portable sanctuary, to
be carried about in the desert. It contained the one altar
where sacrifices might legally be offered. It was the one
church buUding where the services of religion might proceed.
The Tent of Meeting was a virtual proclamation that here,
in the wUderness of Arabia, a new social group had come
into existence. The desert sanctuary was thus the central
'"A wandering Aramean was my father" (Deut. 26:5). See Am. Revised,
margin. The Hebrew is "Aramean," not "Syrian."
2 See footnote in "Prefatory" (p. xiii) for discussion of the name "Yahweh."
17

18 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
symbol of the nation's political integrity. It was the sign
that the twelve tribes no longer existed separately, but were
merged into a single corporation. A good point of departure
for sociological study of the Bible is, therefore, the law of the
central sanctuary as recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy.
The law reads as follows (italics ours) :
When ye go over the Jordan, and dwell in the land which Yahweh
your god causeth you to inherit, and he giveth you rest from all your
enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then it shall come to
pass that to the place which Yahweh your god shall choose to cause his
name to dwell there, thither shall ye bring all that I command you —
your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave
offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto
Yahweh  Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings
in every place that thou seest; but in the place which Yahweh shall choose
in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there
thou shalt do all that I command thee (Deut. 12:10-14).
Leaving the matter of the one, central Sanctuary for a
moment, we turn to another feature of the traditional view.
According to the Book of Joshua, the Hebrew nation crossed
the River Jordan and threw its great, united army upon the
Amorites, the inhabitants of Canaan, completely sweeping
them away. This development is chiefly set forth by the
Book of Joshua, in which various passages detaU the situation
as foUows (italics ours) :
Joshua smote all the land, the hill-country, and the south, and the
lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings, He left none remaining;
and he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh, the god of Israel,
commanded (Josh. 10:40).
So Joshua took all that land, the hill-country, and all the south,
and all the land of Goshen, and the lowland, and the Arabah, and the
hill-country of Israel, and the lowland of the same; from Mount Halak,
that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon
under Mount Hermon. And all their kings he took and smote them, and
put them to death. Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.
There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save

ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW NATION 19
the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. They took all in battle 
So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh spake
unto Moses. And Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel, accord
ing to their divisions by their tribes. And the land had rest from war
(Josh. 11:16-19, 23).
So Yahweh gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give
unto their fathers. And they possessed it and dwelt therein. And
Yahweh gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto
their fathers. And there stood not a man of all their enemies before them
.... (Josh. 21:43-44).
Thus saith Yahweh .... I brought you into the land of the
Amorites, that dwelt beyond the Jordan; and they fought with you.
.... And ye possessed their land; and I extirpated them from before
you (Josh. 24:2, 8).
And the people answered and said .... Yahweh drove out from
before us all the peoples, even the Amorites that dwelt in the land
(Josh. 24:16, 18).
The next event that we read about after the conquest is
the setting up of the one, legal place of worship, according to
Deuteronomy, chap. 12 (supra, p. 18). This was accomplished,
as we are told by the Book of Joshua, at a place caUed "Shi
loh," in the hUl-country of Ephraim. "And the whole con
gregation of the chUdren of Israel assembled themselves
together at Shiloh, and set up the Tent of Meeting there. And
the land was subdued before them" (Josh. 18:1; cf. 22:4).
In order to emphasize the legitimacy and singleness of
the altar at ShUoh, an interesting narrative is given in the
Book of Joshua concerning a great altar named Edh (witness),
which was buUt by the tribes that remained east of Jordan.
This excited the wrath of the remainder of the nation, which
rose against them to war. But before proceeding to punish
their brethren for this great crime, the assembled congregation
of Israel sent word, asking the criminals to give an account
of themselves. The reply of these tribes was, that the altar
was not intended for sacrifice and worship, but that it stood
as a mute witness to the fact that Yahweh was the god of

20 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Israel. "And the thing pleased the chUdren of Israel . . . . ;
and the chUdren of Israel spake no more of going up against
them to war" (Josh. 22:33).
The leading ideas around which the traditional view of the
origin of the Hebrew nation revolves are, therefore, these: (1)
the direct issue of the nation from the patriarch Jacob-Israel;
(2) the sudden formation of the national group out of the previ
ously unorganized tribes in the desert of Arabia; (3) the Tent
of Meeting as the symbol of national unity ; (4) the annihUation
of the Amorites, the previous inhabitants of Canaan; (5) the
establishment of the Tent of Meeting at ShUoh as a reassertion
of the national integrity and as the sole place of worship.
The view thus outhned is presented by the first six books
of the Bible, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy, and Joshua. This coUection is distinguished
by peculiarities of style and idea which mark it off clearly
from the writings that foUow it; so that bibhcal scholars
do not speak of "the Pentateuch" (or five-book coUection)
so much as formerly, but of "the Hexateuch" (or six-book
coUection). Although the Hexateuch begins with a brief
account of the creation of the world and the origin of races,
its opening chapters are merely a preface leading to the main
theme; and the entire plan of the Hexateuch, from Genesis
through Joshua, revolves around the rise and early history
of the Hebrew nation.
It has been pointed out that the view of Hebrew history
found in the six opening books of the Bible is in startling
contrast with that found in the books immediately foUowing —
Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The differences between the two
accounts are great; and the discovery of them has precipi
tated the modern scientific investigation of the Bible.
The modern view. — In contrast with the Hexateuch, the
Book of Judges presents materials for a view of Hebrew
history differing greatly from the one just summarized. For

ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW NATION 21
this book treats the Israehte invasion of Canaan as taking
place, not during the lifetime of Joshua and under his leader
ship, but after his death. To this effect we read, "And it
came to pass, after the death of Joshua, that the chUdren of
Israel asked of Yahweh, saying, Who shaU go up for us first
against the Canaanites, to fight against them?" (Judg. 1:1;
italics ours). The passages reproduced below bear directly
upon the situation. We quote the opening verse of Judges
again by way of emphasis (itahcs ours) :
And it came to pass, after the death of Joshua, that the children
of Israel asked of Yahweh, saying, Who shall go up for us first against
the Canaamtes to fight against them ? And Yahweh said, Judah shall
go up.1 .... And Yahweh was with Judah, and he drove out the in
habitants of the hill-country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants
of the valley, because they had chariots of iron  And Manasseh
did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and its villages, nor of
Taanach and its villages, nor the inhabitants of Dor and its villages,
nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, nor the inhabitants of
Megiddo and its villages; but the Canaanites would dwell in that
land  And Ephraim drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in
Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. Zebulun
drove not out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol;
but the Canaanites dwelt among them  Asher drove not out
the inhabitants of Acco, nor the inhabitants of Sidon, nor of Ahlab
nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob ; but the Asher-
ites dwelt among the Canaanites, the mhabitants of the land; for they did
not drive them out, .... Naphtali drove not out the inhabitants of
Beth-shemesh, nor the inhabitants of Beth-anath; but he dwelt among
the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land  Now the Amorites
forced the children of Dan into the hill-country; for they would not suffer
them to come down into the valley (Judg. 1 : r, 2, 19, 27, 29~34).3
1 We shall see later in our study, from an examination of Bible evidence, that
the expressions, "asked of Yahweh," "inquired of Yahweh," and "sought the face of
Yahweh," refer to the casting of lots, "Urim and Thummim," before an image called
"the ephod." The statement, "Yahweh said, Judah shall go up," means, not that
a voice was heard, but that the lot came out for the clan of Judah. This matter will
be taken up in Part II.
2 Amorite and Canaanite are alternative Old Testament terms for the previous
inhabitants of Canaan, some passages using one and some the other. For various
reasons, we shall use "Amorite."

22 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Beginning with the passages reproduced above, the books
of Judges, Samuel, and Kings picture the case very differently
from the Hexateuch. In the first place, there is no national
organization and no commander-in-chief at the time the
clans come into Canaan from the desert of Arabia. Instead
of a single imposing, united army, we see independent clan
groups. Each clan acquires a foothold in the hill-country;
whUe, at the same time, the earlier inhabitants, instead of
being annihilated, remain in possession of a long list of waUed
cities, most of which, together with adjacent villages and
fields, are in the lowlands.
Not only do these items of difference emerge at once; but
as we read on, we nowhere discover the state of things which
the Hexateuch leads us to expect. Nowhere do we find a
trace of the "one vahd, central sanctuary." Instead of this
we find sanctuaries widely scattered here and there aU through
the hill-country. These places of worship are independent
of each other; and they are identified with the separate
clans which took possession of the hill-country at the time
of the invasion. To be sure, we find a place of worship at
Shiloh; but this is only one of the many sanctuaries to which
the masses of the people and the leading men resort habitually
for the purpose of offering sacrifice to Yahweh. These "vil
lage churches (for such they may be caUed) are to be found
at such places as Bethel, Mizpah, Ramah, GUgal, Bethlehem,
Hebron, Dan, Gibeon, ShUoh, Nob, Mount of Olives, etc.1
The local sanctuaries reappear in Kings under the name of
bamoth, or "high places"; and about five hundred years after
the invasion, an attempt is made to abohsh them, so that the
religious devotion of the people may be centered upon the
temple erected at Jerusalem by Solomon. This attempt is
'See Judg. 6:24; 11:11; 17:5, 13; 18:30; 20:26; 21:2-4,5,8; I Sam. 7:5,
6,9,17; 9:12,13,14; 10:8; 11:14,15; 16:5; 20:6,29; 21:1.2,3,6,7,9; II Sam.
15:7-9, 12, 30, 32; I Kings 3:4; 8:1; and the many notices of the bamoth, or "high
places," in I and II Kings.

ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW NATION 23
made in connection with a strange writing brought forward
from the temple by a priest. But the experiment faUs for
lack of popular support; and the people soon return to the
ancient viUage churches.
Everything goes to show that the books of Judges, Samuel,
and Kings, although they stand after the Hexateuch in our
present arrangement of the Bible, were compiled before the
Hexateuch was written, and that they present material for
a more trustworthy and reasonable view of Hebrew history
than do the first six books of Scripture. Their testimony
agrees with what scientific research has discovered about the
origin of other ancient nations outside the limits of Hebrew
history, and also with what has been learned about clan hfe
among the less advanced races at the present day. We
shaU therefore temporarUy set the Hexateuch aside, reverting
to it later in our study. The fact of its disagreement with
the books foUowing it neither deprives it of aU value as a
historical witness nor invalidates it as an item in the wonder
ful process by which the religion of the Bible came into the
world. But of this, more in due course. Our immediate
concern is with the modern view of Hebrew history as that.
view is formulated in dependence upon Bible sources outside
the Hexateuch. The modern answer to the question about
the origin of the Hebrew nation may be stated briefly, in
sociological terms, as foUows:
The social group known as "the Hebrew nation" came
slowly into existence, in the land of Canaan, at the point of
junction between two previously hostile races, the Israelites and
the Amorites.
By planting ourselves firmly upon the group idea, and exam
ining the Bible from this point of approach, we begin to find
light upon many Bible facts and problems that are otherwise
enshrouded in darkness. There are some highly important
and central aspects of the Scripture and of Hebrew history

24 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
that cannot be thought through clearly without reference to
the idea of the social mechanism. The modern view of the
Hebrew nation is, that it could not possibly have originated
in the Arabian desert, as described in the Hexateuch, but
that its characteristic form is due to the gradual fusion of two
races which were at first hostUe to each other.1
' The modern view of Hebrew history is corroborated by certain passages found
here and therein the Hexateuch itself (Deut. 7:22; Josh. T3: 1-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10;
17:11-13; 23:4, 5, 12, 13, etc.). These inconspicuous verses and sentences do not
agree with the central standpoint of the Hexateuch. But they are in harmony with
Judges and Samuel, and evidently come from the same ancient documents that con
stitute the body of those works. For another interesting study of the two views,
read Ps. 44: 1-3, and then Ps. 106 : 34-40. We shall take up the interesting subject of
the making of the Old Testament in Part II.

CHAPTER III
PLAN OF THE PRESENT STUDY
At the present time, any new book dealing with the problem
of the Bible is likely to come into the hands of an inteUigent
and growing class of persons whose needs and interests ought
to be borne carefully in mind by any author who enters this
field. Large numbers of laymen are today in revolt against
many of the older statements of doctrine. Such persons are
in possession of normal intelligence and mental competence.
But for various good and sufficient reasons, it has not yet
come in their way to understand what has already been done
by scholarship to meet their difficulties. They cannot be
moved by the mere word of "authority" (the world is fast
emerging from that stage); and they can be influenced only
through an appeal to their inteUigence and the discipline
of their mental powers along new lines of thought. The
professional reader may be presumed to be able to take care
of himself. We shaU now deal with the presuppositions which underlie
the foregoing chapters. It may be taken for granted that the
method thus far pursued has caused the non-professional
reader to ask certain questions which we may now turn aside
to consider. The foremost of these questions wiU have
related to the making of the Bible. We have seen incidentaUy ^
that the Bible, in its present form, is not contemporary*
with the events described; and we are now ready to hear
something about the hterary nature of the Bible. The
reader wiU also have asked, from time to time, certain ques
tions about the social organization and habits of thought
lying at the basis of Hebrew hfe and common to the Semitic
25

26 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
peoples; and we are therefore now ready to learn something
about the ancient foundations which existed before the Bible
religion arose. We want to know more about the civUization
in which these remarkable events took place. The mUe posts
of our journey are more or less famUiar; but the land through
which we are traveling is a country of strange marvels;1 and
we would pause by the way to investigate some of its aspects
more closely. These matters we shaU take up in the foUowing
division of our study, Part II, under the title, "Elements of
the Bible Problem."
In Part III, entitled, "Development of Bible Rehgion," we
shaU go systematicaUy into the social process through which
the religion of the Bible came into existence. The line of
treatment there to be foUowed has been suggested in the
Prefatory. In Part IV, "The Spread of Bible Rehgion," we shaU take
up the sociological phase of the relation between Judaism and
Christianity, and consider the progress of the gospel of redemp
tion through the Roman empire and mediaeval Europe.
In Part V, "The Bible and Its Religion in the Modern
World," we shaU consider chiefly the social and economic
aspects of the Reformation, the rise of higher criticism, and
the reassertion of the social aspect of the Gospel.
The program thus laid down must be held rigorously
under control in order to be of the most benefit. Discussions
of metaphysical and theological problems must be avoided; for
they have no place in a course of scientific study like the
present.
' This expression comes from a private letter to the writer.

PART II
ELEMENTS OF THE BIBLE PROBLEM

FOREWORD TO PART II
This division of our study is intended chiefly for the layman.
The treatment here is not entirely, but mainly, sociological.
The foUowing chapter, for instance, on the "Making of the
Old Testament," relates to a theme which would appear to
faU entirely within the scope of literary introduction. But,
by emphasizing that the Old Testament puts forward a series
of moral verdicts on a social process already lying in the past,
we adjust the literary problem within the sociological perspec
tive. More obviously sociological are the chapters on "The
Kinship Institutions," and "The Industrial Institutions";
whUe the chapter on "The Early Rehgious Institutions" will
be found to be of substantiaUy the same character. After
we have canvassed the elements of the situation, we shall be
ready to consider the development of Bible religion.

29

CHAPTER IV
THE MAKING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Hebrew Bible was compiled from documents much older
than the Scriptures.— The ruin of ancient Israel was neces
sary to the birth of the Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible
was compUed and published in view of the national downfaU.
Its writings were coUected by editors and commentators who
lived long after the events described. The Old Testament,
as a whole, has come to us through the hands of writers who
look back on Hebrew history from a long distance in time.
The method of these authors, as they themselves indicate,
was first of aU to extract material from ancient books, word
for word. Several of these ancient sources, far older than the
Bible itself, are given by name. Thus, we find The Book of
the Wars of Yahweh quoted in Num. 21:14, 15. This work
was regarded as an authoritative "source" by the writers
of the Bible. Of sinular nature was The Book of Yashar.
This is quoted in II Sam. 1:18-27, and in Josh. 10:12,13.
More frequently referred to are certain writings caUed respec
tively The Book of the Matters Pertaining to the Kings of Israel,
and The Book of the Matters Pertaining to the Kings of Judah.1
These authorities are often mentioned (see I Kings 14:19, 29,
etc.). Then there are other facts, of a different nature, pointing
to the same conclusion, that the Old Testament was put into
its present form by writers who were not contemporary with
the events described. For instance: The Book of II Kings
'They have these titles in the Hebrew; but they are cited in Enghsh Bibles as
the books of the "chronicles'' of the kings of Israel and Judah. They are not the
books of I and II Chronicles, however; for they are said by the writers of Kings to
contain material which we cannot find in I and II Chronicles.
3°

THE MAKING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 31
takes us up to the Babylonian captivity; whence we get the
suggestion that this book was produced after that event.
In the same way, the Book of Judges, which deals with a very
early period of Israelite history, speaks of the "captivity"
(18:30). Whether this refers to the captivity of Israel in
the eighth century, or that of Judah in the sixth — in either
case, the writer occupies a standpoint many hundreds of years
removed from the events described in Judges. This is a
matter of the simplest reasoning. The process by which this
conclusion is reached is not in any way mysterious. Suppose
we pick up a history of the settlement of the Pugrims in
Massachusetts, in which there occurs a reference to the election
of Lincoln to the presidency of the United States. From
this, we at once know that the author of the book must have
written at least as late as i860, or two hundred and forty
years after the arrival of the PUgrims in America.
Again, take the foUowing passage in Genesis: "And when
Abraham heard that his brother was taken captive, he led
forth his trained men, born in his house, and pursued as far
as Dan" (Gen. 14: 14). If we now turn to the Book of Judges,
we read that the city of Dan did not receive this name untU
a period long after the Israelite invasion of Canaan, when
Abraham had been dead many years. It was given this name
by the clan of the Danites; and we are explicitly told that
the name of the city "at the first" was Laish (Judg. 18:27-
29). Why, then, does not the narrative in Genesis teU us
that Abraham pursued as far as Laish, the earlier name which
the city had in the patriarchs' day, instead of saying that he
pursued as far as Dan ? The obvious answer to this is, that
the writer of Genesis was famUiar with the later name of the
city; and that the Book of Genesis was composed long after
the Israelite settlement in Canaan. Here again, therefore,
we find ourselves facing the conclusion that a given book in
the Bible was written, or edited, by a person or persons not

32 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
living at the time of the events described. Another equaUy
strong piece of evidence regarding the date of Genesis is
found in the foUowing statements: "And Abram passed
through the land unto the place of Shechem, unto the oak of
Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land" (Gen.
12:6). The writer of Genesis thus occupies the standpoint
of that late period when the Canaanites, or Amorites, were
fused with Israel, and lost within the mass of the Hebrew
nation. In order to give local color to the history of the
patriarchs, the writer of Genesis thinks it weU to say inciden-
taUy that the Canaanites were then in the land. These inter
esting items are samples chosen from a large mass of evidence
accumulated by modern scientific study of the Bible.
In the age when the Bible was produced, there was no idea
of literary property. Books were chiefly written on rolls of
heavy paper; and the owner of a manuscript felt free to
do as he pleased with it. Writers would copy a manuscript
upon a new sheet, and intersperse their own comments. They
would copy out a number of old writings on a new roU, and
add their own remarks without giving notice to that effect.
There were no footnotes, or other devices now employed in
books. AU these considerations have to be held constantly
in mind when we are studying ancient works like the Bible.
It is now definitely established that the first six books
of the Bible (the Hexateuch) were produced after the Baby
lonian exUe by copying passages out of a number of earlier
documents, and putting these passages together so as to make
the books in their present form. This method of production,
instead of being unusual, was very common. We have already
observed a paraUel case in the composition of the Books of
Kings. Another instance is found in the old Arab historians,
who constructed their books by wholesale borrowing from
earlier sources. The writings entering into the Hexateuch
(Genesis through Joshua) are identified as foUows: The

THE MAKING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 33
earliest sources are two cycles of narratives, or stories, called
respectively the "Yahweh writings" and the "Elohim writ
ings." These appear to have been first composed in Israel
and Judah after the revolt from the house of David. They
embody many old songs and traditions coming down from the
dim past; and they are quite widely distributed throughout
the Hexateuch. The next writings in point of age are the
"Deuteronomic," found mostly in the Book of Deuteronomy.
The very latest elements in the Hexateuch are caUed the
"Priestly writings." The meaning of these terms wUl come
out more clearly farther along in our study.
It is not our place to go over the argument by which these
conclusions are suggested. For that line of study belongs
to another discipline, the literary and historical investigation
of the Bible. The scientific sociologist, approaching the
Bible from the outlook of his own fine of work, takes for
granted the generaUy established results of literary and
historical study of the Bible. These results are indispensable
to any kind of research which aims to set forward the inter
pretation of the Bible. The most fundamental form which
they take is, that the Old Testament was compiled from
earher books; and that the writers who did the compUing
hved at a late period, long after the downfaU of the Hebrew
nation. This is the most general way of stating the case.
It is a conclusion of modern science, just as definite and certain
as the established laws and principles of chemistry and physics.
This, however, is only a preliminary statement which does
not conduct us into the center of the Bible problem. When
we have digested and emphasized the fact that the Hebrew
Bible was actuaUy composed in the way thus indicated, we
are in a position to advance another step.
The Old Testament is an ethical work, which pronounces
moral verdicts on past history. — The moment that we dis
cover how the Old Testament was brought together in its

34 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
present form, at that very moment another question arises.
The Bible writers admit that they used only a part of the an
cient writings at their disposal. They do not quote aU the
material at their command. They quote only portions of the
ancient books. And they are often in the attitude of saying
to us, "If you want more information, behold it is to be
found in such and such books." The question arises now,
Upon what principle did the Bible writers choose their material
out of the ancient sources? In short, Why was the Old
Testament written?
The answer to this question is, that the Old Testament
(and ultimately the New Testament) was written to confirm
the work of the great insurgent prophets who hved before
the downfall of the nation. The purpose of the Bible is not
history in the scientific sense, but religious edification. The
writers through whose labor we get the Bible were men satu
rated and inspired by a moral purpose. They made use of
Hebrew history and tradition just as far as this ancient mate
rial served their purpose, and no farther. The controUing aim
of the Old Testament is to advance the Yahweh rehgion as
the worship of the One, righteous God, preached by the great
prophets before the ExUe. To this end, the compUers of the
Bible brought together a vast mass of material out of old
books, and interspersed this ancient material with comments
of their own, pointing out here and there the moral lessons of
past history, and working aU the time in the spirit of the
great prophets.
We now find ourselves advancing toward a clear-cut
idea of the way in which the Bible was composed and the
purpose for wliich it was written. The authors of the
Bible were virtuaUy sitting in judgment on the history of
the human race in general and their own direct ancestors
in particular. And now a further interestmg truth claims
our attention.

THE MAKING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 35
The editorial point of departure in the making of the Old
Testament is condemnation of the Hebrews for walking after
"the iniquity of the Amorite." — The editor who compiled the
Books of Kings had before him a roU, or sheet, containing
stories about the prophet Ehjah. The twenty-first chapter
of I Kings gives the story of Elijah, Ahab, and Naboth, which
is famUiar to everybody who reads the Bible. Now, the entire
chapter (I Kings, chap. 21), with the exception of two verses
(25 and 26), was copied out of the Elijah stories. The two
verses in question were introduced by the late editorial writer
for the purpose of pointing out the moral of the story. The
chapter would read more smoothly if these two verses were
omitted, for they break the literary connection of the narrative.
They are very fittingly placed in parentheses by the Enghsh
and American revised versions; but neither the Hebrew text
nor the King James translation employs that device. Vss.
25 and 26 are, in fact, no part of the story; and they simply
represent the editor's verdict, or sentence of judgment, upon
the history which he is copying out. The verses in question
read thus: "But there was none like unto Ahab, who did seU
himself to do that which was evU in the sight of Yahweh,
whom Jezebel his wffe stirred up. And he did very abomi
nably in foUowing idols, according to aU that the Amorites
did, whom Yahweh cast out before the chUdren of Israel."
It is to be observed, in the first place, that the editorial
sentence of judgment is uttered in view of a comparison
between the Israelites and the Amorites; and, in the second
place, that the Amorites are thought to have been "cast
out" by Yahweh. These considerations, indeed, give us
the point of departure in the literary construction of the Old
Testament. WhUe it is true that the Bible stands for justice
and morahty in the abstract, it is nevertheless true that the
"iniquity of the Amorite" was the concrete factor at work
in the moral development of the Hebrew nation. ParaUel

36 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
with this is the truth, already emphasized, that whUe Yahweh
is opposed to aU other gods, he is practicaUy conceived in
opposition to the Baals of the Amorites. The gods and the
morals of the earlier inhabitants are thus taken up together
into the process of Hebrew evolution.
The proof of this position develops as we go farther into the
evidence. The patriarch Abraham is told that he himself
cannot inherit the land of Canaan, "for the iniquity of the
Amorite is not yet fuU" (Gen. 15:16). The moral practices
of the Amorite, then, are the black spot in the Bible writer's
field of vision. As we move onward in the Hexateuch, the doom
of the earlier inhabitants draws near : " Defile not ye yourselves
in any of these things. For in aU these the nations are defiled
which I cast out from before you. And the land is defiled.
Therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it; and the land
vomiteth out her inhabitants" (Lev. 18:24, 2S)- "For the
wickedness of these nations Yahweh doth drive them out from
before thee" (Deut. 9:4). The aUeged expulsion of the
Amorites is described in the Book of Joshua, with which the
Hexateuch ends (cf. supra, Part I, chap. ii). The connection
of these Hexateuchal passages with the editorial judgment
upon Ahab in I Kings, chap. 21, is so obvious as hardly to caU
for comment. They aU move within the same circle of ideas
about the early history of Israel. Other passages of like
import in the Books of Kings are as foUows: "The abomina
tions of the nations which Yahweh drove out before the chU
dren of Israel" (I Kings 14:24). "Now it was so, because
the chUdren of Israel had sinned against Yahweh their god
.... and had feared other gods, and walked in the statutes
of the nations whom Yahweh cast out . . . . , therefore
Yahweh was very angry with Israel, and removed them out
of his sight  So Israel was carried away out of their
own land to Assyria unto this day " (II Kings 17:7, 8, 18, 23).

THE MAKING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 37
The concluding words, "unto this day," bring before us
the Bible writer surveying the past. These various quota
tions prove beyond a doubt what was the standpoint of the
men who gave us the Old Testament: They were a long
distance removed in time from the actual history of the
Hebrew nation. They do not undertake to construct an
accurate, or scientific, narrative. They make use of many
documents and traditions; and they make no account of
disagreements between these ancient authorities. They are
interested in history for the sake of the moral lessons which
may be drawn from it; and the concrete occasion of their
moral judgment is "the iniquity of the Amorite." In this
way the Old Testament was made.1
The considerations here brought forward are among the
"elements" of the Bible problem with which the present
division of our work deals.
1 "There is no evidence," writes Professor Briggs, "that the Divine Spirit guided
these historians in their historic investigations so as to keep them from historic errors.
The Divine Spirit guided them in their rehgious instruction in the lessons they taught
from history. But there is no evidence of other guidance." — Briggs, General Intro
duction to the Study of Holy Scripture (New York, T900), p. 566.

CHAPTER V
THE ANCIENT SEMITIC PEOPLES
Israel was one of a number of Semitic peoples. — The nation
caUed "Israel," which appears in the foreground of Bible
history, is one out of many social groups constituting the
great Semitic race. One of the important facts caUing for
attention in sociological study of the Bible is the racial con
nection of Israel with surrounding peoples. The Semites
are identified with the region lying at the junction of Europe,
Asia, and Africa. In ancient history this remarkable race
was distributed over the Arabian peninsula, the vaUeys of
the Tigris and Euphrates, the eastern seaboard of the Medi
terranean, and the vaUey of the NUe. These localities con
tained populations whoUy or partly Semite. The Arabian
peninsula was the field of the Arabs. The vaUeys of the
Tigris and Euphrates were the seats of the Babylonians.
The NUe vaUey was the home of the Egyptians. At the east
ern end of the Mediterranean, on the coast itself, were the
Phoenicians. Farther inland were the Canaanites, or Amor
ites, the Arameans, or Syrians, the Moabites, Ammonites,
Edomites,' and Israelites.
AU of these peoples have sirrular characteristics; and their
languages evidently developed out of an earlier Semitic speech
whose elements are common to aU the peoples of this race.
It has remained for modern science to point out broadly the
racial connections and affiliations of Israel. But the legends
of the Hexateuch admit the same fact. The ancestors of
Israel are said to have lived in the region of Babylonia, and
to have migrated westward into Canaan and Goshen (Gen.,
chaps, ii ff.). Israel and the surrounding nations have ties
38

THE ANCIENT SEMITIC PEOPLES 39
of common blood. The entire situation suggests that the
earher, prehistoric homeland of the Semitic race was the
peninsula of Arabia. On this point, Barton writes as foUows
in his work on Semitic evolution:
The peculiar conditions of Ufe which the Arabian deserts and oases
have presented for millenniums are the matrix in which the Semitic
character, as it is known to us, was born  The Bedawi are
always underfed, they suffer constantly from hunger and thirst, and
their bodies thus weakened fall an easy prey to disease; they range the
silent desert, almost devoid of life, where the sun is all powerful by day
and the stars exceedingly brilliant by night. This environment begets
in them intensity of faith of a certain kind, ferocity, exclusiveness, and
imagination. These are all Semitic characteristics wherever we find
the Semites; and there can be Uttle doubt but that this is the land in
which these traits were ingrained in the race.1
Comparative study of the institutions pertaining to aU the
Semitic nations has been a factor of large importance in modern
scientific interpretation of the Bible. We have already made
some reference to the Semitic neighbors of Israel; and we
shaU have occasion to do so more frequently as our study
proceeds. We shaU now turn to some of the institutions that
were common to the Semites, and which have to be reckoned
with in sociological study of the Bible.
' Barton, Semitic Origins (New York, 1902), p. 28.

CHAPTER VI
KINSHIP INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL
The fact of kinship, the tie of blood, was emphasized very
strongly in ancient society. — The nations of ancient history
were not composed of individual persons, in the modern
sense. They were made up of "houses," or families, which
were organized on the basis of blood relationship. The
famUy group takes its origin amid the darkness of prehistoric
times. It is the foundation stone of savage and barbarian
society; and it has always been a powerful factor in the life
of the great historic civilizations. The farther back we go
in ancient history, the more important the famUy becomes.
In fact, ancient society was regarded as an extension of the
famUy; and the nation Israel was commonly referred to,
in terms of kinship, as the "chUdren of Jacob-Israel," or the
"famUy of Israel." It is at first rather difficult for the modern
mind to realize the strength of the kinship idea in ancient
society. Only with an effort can we grasp the importance of
the blood bond among races more primitive than ourselves.
In ancient history, and also among the more backward peoples
now living on the earth, kinship is the only ground upon
which a social group can be constructed. It is the central
tie around which the activities of life revolve. The modern
civU state puts the tie of blood in a subordinate and incon
spicuous place; and it overlays the famUy idea with an impos
ing network of political relations. But in an ancient society
like Israel, the civU state was impossible and unthinkable.
The simpler organization of hfe in those ages thrust the bond
of blood clearly into the foreground. Not only so; but the
fact of kinship itself was treated from a standpoint unlike
that of the present day. 4°

KINSHIP INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 41
The family in ancient Israel differed greatly from the modern
family.— The standard form of the Israelite and Semitic
famUy was what is now caUed the "patriarchal." A patri
arch is simply a "ruling father." In accordance with this
idea, the head of an Israelite famUy group was called in Hebrew
the baal, b?3. Where this word occurs in the Old Testa
ment, it is variously rendered "master," "owner," "hus
band," etc.1 The baal was the legal owner of the household
group standing in contact with him. He was the proprietor
of his wffe, or wives, children, slaves, cattle, houses, lands,
etc. The various phases of domestic life in ancient Israel
were disposed with reference to this principle of subordination.
The position of the famUy head is Ulustrated to good effect
by the laws of the Book of Exodus. Thus we read: "If an
ox gore a man or a woman to death, the ox shaU surely be
stoned . . . . , but the baal of the ox shaU be quit" (Exod.
21:28). In translating this passage, the English versions
render the term by the word "owner." Again, we read:
"If thou buy a Hebrew slave, six years shaU he serve; and
in the seventh he shaU go out free for nothing  If he be
baal of a wife, then his wife shaU go out with him" (Exod.
21:2, 3). The phrase here italicized is rendered by the
English versions, "If he be married." Another example
is found in Isaiah, as foUows: "The ox knows his owner,
and the ass the staU of his baal" (Isa. 1:3). Thus we see
that the same Hebrew term indicates proprietorship of a
wUe and ownership of an animal. The word baal, used in
this way, is not famUiar to those who read the Bible only in
modern translations. But it is well known through trans-
literation as a noun commonly apphed to the local gods of the
Amorites. These gods were thought of by their worshipers
as the divine owners, or masters, of the fertUe soU of Canaan.
The term baal is also known, to some extent, as an element
' We shall discuss the application of this term to the gods later.

42 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
in "theophoric" proper names, as "Jerub-baal, who is Gid
eon" (Judg. 7:1), "Esh-baal" (I Chron. 8:33). Whenever
it occurs in the Hebrew text merely as a common noun, as in
the cases quoted above from Isaiah and Exodus, it is not
transhterated, but is rendered by terms like "owner," or
"husband." Study of this word is highly instructive regard
ing the constitution of kinship groups among the Israehtes.
In view of these considerations, the foUowing well-known
passage acquires new interest:
A worthy woman who can find ? For her price is far above rubies.
The heart of her baal trusteth in her; and he shall have no lack of gain.
She doeth him good and not evil all the days of her Ufe. She seeketh
wool and flax, and worketh wilUngly with her hands. She is Uke the
merchant ships. She bringeth her bread from afar. She riseth also
while it is yet night, and giveth food to her household, and their portion
to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it. With the
fruit of her hands she buyeth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with
strength, and maketh strong her arms. She perceiveth that her mer
chandise is profitable. Her lamp goeth not out by night. She layeth
her hands to the distaff, and her palms hold the spindle (Prov. 31 : 10-
19). It is to be observed that the ideal wife, according to this
passage, can turn her attention to almost any kind of work,
day and night. Such a woman wUl not only work by lamp
light; she wiU rise in the dark hours of the morning, prepare
breakfast, and set the household slaves to their tasks. It
is to be noticed, however, that the writer distinctly implies
that such a person is only an ideal. For he asks, Who can
find such a woman? And then he adds that, even if she
were found, she would be so valuable that her price would be
far above that of rubies.
The mention of price caUs up another phase of the subject.
The Israelite wUe was virtuaUy the property of her husband;
standing almost in a chattel relation to him. A wife was
obtained by outright purchase, either in money or goods,

KINSHIP INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 43
from her father or her male guardian. In the Hebrew lan
guage, the price of a woman is caUed the mohar, irfB . No
marriage ceremony, in our sense of the word, was considered
necessary to legalize the union of man and woman. The
legalization of marriage was just the payment of the mohar.
It is from this point of view that the Deuteronomic law
regulates the seduction of a virgin. The offender shaU pay
the damsel's father fifty shekels of sUver, and take her as his
wffe (Deut. 22:28, 29). A shghtly different version of this
law is given elsewhere, as foUows: "If her father utterly
refuse to give her unto him, he shaU pay money according to
the mohar of virgins" (Exod. 22 : 17). In the view of Hebrew
law, therefore, outrage of female virtue takes the character
of a damage to the rights of private property. The mar
riageable girl is the property of her father, the baal.
Under a social system in which the husband is the owner
of his wife, there is naturaUy no restriction upon the number
of wives he may have, except the limits imposed by his eco
nomic resources and the avaUable supply of women. Polygamy
was therefore a factor in the domestic institutions of ancient
Israel. Accordingly, we find that many Israelites had two
wives; some, three or four; whUe kings and rich men had
stiU higher numbers. Large establishments, of course, were
maintained only by the wealthy. The polygamy practiced
by men like David and Solomon must have been exceptional;
and in the latter case there is probably some exaggeration in
the narratives. Plurality of wives must have been quite
limited among the mass of the people. The case of Elkanah,
the father of the prophet Samuel, is doubtless more normal
and representative than that of Solomon: "Now there was
a certain man of the hiU-country of Ephraim; and his name
was Elkanah; and he had two wives. The name of the one
was Hannah; and the name of the other, Peninah" (I Sam.
1:1, 2). Jacob had two wives, Rachel and Leah (Gen.,

44 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
chap. 29). Lamech had the same number, Adah and ZiUah
(Gen. 4:19). It makes no difference whether Jacob and
Lamech were actual persons or not. The stories in which
they appear give an accurate reflection of the social life of
Israel after the settlement in Canaan. The underlying
social institutions of the Hexateuch are in agreement with
those of the Judges-Samuel-Kings narratives.
When the baal, the head of the famUy, died, his property
descended to the eldest son. If there were no son, the estate
went to some other male relative, or to an adopted male heir.
Inheritance must by all means go down through the male
line. This principle was absolute. A good example is found
in the case of Abraham, who declares, "I go chUdless; and
he that shaU be the possessor of my famUy is Ehezer of Damas
cus" (Gen. 15:2). By reference to the narrative, we find
that Eliezer is the steward, or chief slave, in the famUy of
Abraham. If Abraham die without male issue, the steward,
a foreigner, is to be his heir. For his wife Sarai cannot
inherit. If Isaac had not been born, Eliezer would thus
have been the successor of Abraham. An example of the
adoption of a trusted slave so that he could inherit is found in
I Chron. 2:34: "Now Sheshan had no sons, but [he had]
daughters. And Sheshan had a slave, an Egyptian, whose
name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha
his slave to wife." By such means the organized life of the
kinship group was continued under male headship, and the
famUy establishment was kept together.1
These references to adoption prove that whUe blood kinship
was regarded as the fundamental bond of society, the principle
could not be applied consistently. If the kinship theory
were strictly followed out, it would have excluded all foreign
1 " The right of daughters to inherit was not an immemorial custom  There
is no trace of the existence of such a right in the pre-exilic period; and . . .it may
be reasonably inferred that as late as the end of the seventh century B.C. the right of
daughters to inherit was still unknown." — Gray, Numbers ("International Critical
Commentary," New York, ^03), p. 397.

KINSHIP INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 45
blood from Israel. But the Israelites were frequently in
contact with foreigners who came into close relations with
them; and, as a matter of fact, it appears that the nation
caUed "Israel" was itself the product of an ethnic mixture.
In the first place, it was the result of union between the invad
ing clans from the Arabian desert and the earlier Amorite
inhabitants. As time went on, other outsiders were grafted
into the social body. Jarha, the Egyptian slave, is a case in
point. King David's grandmother was a Moabite woman of
the name of Ruth, as indicated in the Book of Ruth (4:17).
King Ahab married a Phoenician woman from the city of
Sidon (I Kings 16:31). Ezra's prohibition of marriage with
foreigners is post-exUic, as are also the corresponding laws
in the Hexateuch (Ezra 9:1, 2ff.; Exod. 34:15, 16; Deut.
7:3, 4; Josh. 23:12). In cases where these aliens were
females, they came in either through purchase, or by capture
in war, or by way of state-marriage with the kings. Where
they were of the male sex, they came in either as chattels, or
as adopted freemen. An outsider thus adopted was known
as a ger, "0 (in the plural, gerim). The Old Testament has a
great deal to say about the "stranger" and the "sojourner."
It is the gerim that are in view. Free foreigners became a
part of Israehte society by adoption into some native famUy,
after which they were treated as blood members of the kin.
These facts give us an introduction to the Israehte famUy.
PracticaUy the same arrangements prevaUed throughout
the Semitic field. Everywhere the social unit was the house,
or famUy, caUed in Hebrew bayith, Fl*3 . The house, or
famUy, was a group connected by ties of blood, real or assumed,
and hving together under the rule of a patriarchal owner, or
baal. Such a group was known as a beth-ab, or "father's
house."1 A famUy would go to great lengths in order to
' Beth is what is called the "construct" form of the noun bayith. It is produced
by a simple change of vowels, according to rule, and means "house of." Thus, the
name "Beth-lehem" has the meaning "House of bread." "Beth-el" means "House
of God."

46 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
avenge the injury or death of anyone connected with it.
Although the primitive law of blood-vengeance has a harsh
effect when viewed from outside the famUy circle, it is an
expression of group solidarity in the earlier stages of social
evolution; and when regarded from within the kinship group,
it represents the acme of kindly feeling.
Many puzzling Bible facts can be explained from the stand
point of the kinship group. — The Israelites may hold foreigners
in slavery; but they may not rule over their "brethren"
with rigor (Lev. 25:44-46). The Israelites may not use
tainted meat as an article of food; but they may give it to
the stranger who is within their gates, that he may eat it;
or they may sell it to a foreigner — a puzzling gradation of
morality, surely, but perfectly intelligible from the standpoint
of the primitive social group (Deut. 14:21). Abraham tells
a lie — but to the Egyptians, who were enemies of Israel
(Gen. 12:13). Jacob cheats — but he cheats Esau, the father
of the Edomites, who were Israel's foes (Gen. 27:35). And
whUe the Israelites admit kinship with their neighbors, the
origins of these nearby peoples are said to be blotted with
stains of dishonor. For instance, their enemies the Moabites
and Ammonites resulted from the incest of Lot, a nephew
of Abraham, with his own daughters (Gen., chap. 19). Again,
their enemies the Ishmaelites are allowed to be chUdren of
Abraham, but through a slave-woman, Hagar, who belonged to
Sarai, the wffe of Abraham (Gen., chap. 16). Their enemies
the Edomites were sprung from a grandson of Abraham who
foolishly despised the sacred privUeges of his birthright,
which he sold for a mess of pottage (Gen., chap. 25). If
we take the biblical material frankly as coming, not from
a people with modern ideas, but from a nation whose
morals are fixed by the usages of the ancient kinship group,
we shall have no difficulty with problems that wUl be
otherwise obscure.

KINSHIP INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 47
Family groups in Israel were organized into larger groups
for various purposes. — During the period contemplated by
the Book of Judges, there was a rude but powerful control of
society based on the organization of these "father's houses"
into groups known as "clans." In Hebrew, the clan is caUed
mishphachah, JTTEira . As for the nation, or kingdom, it
had no existence in the "Judges" period. "In those days
there was no king in Israel" (Judg. 21:25). The people
were in the clan stage of social evolution at the time of the
Israehte invasion of Canaan, and for long after. Each clan
had its own leader, corresponding to the Arabian sheikh of
the present day. The clan head was a kind of arbitrator
between the different families composing the association.
In this character he was known as a "judge," or shophet,
tiSTD . This word connects with the term shaphat, meaning to
decide, to administer customary justice, or to rule. From the
same origin is derived the word mishpat, now so familiar to us,
referring to the "judgment," or "justice" which prevaUed
from time immemorial in the Israehte and other Semitic
clans. In cases of dispute between families, it was the duty
of the shophet to hold a court of justice, and decide how the
clan customs found apphcation to the matter in hand; the
question being, "What was wont to be done by them of old
time ? " The judge was not in a position of absolute authority.
His verdicts were subject to the approval of a councU of elders
who represented aU the freemen of the famUies composing the
clan. It is this primitive state of things that Isaiah has in
mind when he says, "I wUl restore thy judges, as at the first,
and thy counseUors, as at the beginning" (Isa. 1:26).
The functions of these men related not only to peace but to
war. For matters of defense and offense are always of large
importance in the clan stage of history. War policy was
decided ultimately by the freemen of the clan. Sometimes
a number of clans united against a common enemy. A

48 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
case in point is the co-operation of several Israelite clans
against a number of desert clans which had likewise united
against the Israelites and invaded the land:
Then all the Midianites and the Amalekites and the children of the
east assembled themselves together; and they passed over, and en
camped in the valley of Jezreel. But the spirit of Yahweh came upon
Gideon; and he blew a trumpet; and [the clan of] Abiezer was gathered
together after him. And he sent messengers throughout all [the clans
of] Manasseh; and they also were gathered together after him; and
he sent messengers unto [the clans of] Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali;
and they came up to meet them (Judg. 6:33-35).
In this case, the clan leader Gideon, by his energy and
initiative, performed a service of great value to a number of
independent clan groups. The inevitable result was that he
acquired prestige beyond the limits of his own clan, Abiezer.
" Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us,
both thou, thy son, and thy son's son also; for thou hast
saved us out of the hand of Midian" (Judg. 8:22). Such
men as Gideon, connected with the old family aristocracy,
were caUed into prominence by the conditions of the early
period. Although Gideon did not become king, it was to
men of his class that the people turned for leadership when
the time came to unite the clans permanently into a nation.
The famUy heads and the clan leaders owed their masterful
position very largely to the terrific strain imposed upon
society in the aU-round struggle for existence in those early
and stern ages of the world. The despotic power of the
ancient Semitic baal, or house father, seems excessive when
viewed from the standpoint of our gentler modern civUiza
tion; but there was great need that the members of these
kinship associations be disciplined by a strong hand lest they
be swept out of existence by rival groups. The power of the
baal was, in fact, a useful "function" of ancient society.
We have looked at the subject in the present chapter chiefly
from the standpoint of kinship; and it now becomes neces
sary to look at the facts from another angle.

CHAPTER VII
INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL
Human slavery was an important element in the social fab
ric of ancient Israel. — The very circumstances that gave the
household baal his position and authority in Israel depressed
the other members of the famUy group in various degrees.
The baals coUectively constituted the upper social class — the
freemen; whUe the remainder of the population was in the
lower class. But within the lower class itself there were
differences of position. The most inferior place of aU was
held by the slave, or bondservant. Slavery, indeed, was not
a thing in a corner; it was an institution, bound up in the
essential structure of society. A good iUustration is given
by the foUowing passage from the Book of Leviticus:
As for thy bondmen [ebed] and thy bondmaids [amah] whom thou
shalt have: Of the nations that are round about you, of them shall
ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the
strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their
families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land;
and they shaU be your possession. And ye shall make them for an
inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession. Of
them shall ye take your bondmen forever (Lev. 25: 44-46) .J
Few readers of the Bible among the laity are aware that
slavery had the pubhc, fundamental character which this
'The Hebrew word goyim, "nations," in vs. 44, is translated "heathen" by the
King James Version, on the theory that slavery is a punishment for heathenism. But
in other cases where the same Hebrew term occurs, it is rendered correctly by the King
James Version, as in Gen. T2 : 2, where the promise is made to Abraham, "I will make
of thee a great nation." If the King James translators were here consistent with their
usage in Lev. 25 : 44, they would have to make it read, incorrectly, "I will make of thee
a great heathen." Again, in Gen. 25:23, where Yahweh says to Rebekah, "Two
nations are in thy womb," they would have to render the passage, "Two heathen,"
etc. In all these passages, the revised versions translate correctly and consistently
"nation." 49

So SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
passage indicates. We must, therefore, emphasize it further
before proceeding to deal with it from the sociological stand
point. An instructive sidelight on the passage that we have
just quoted from Leviticus is furnished by the "tenth com
mandment" (Exod. 20:17). This is a general injunction
against the sin of covetousness. As translated by the King
James and the Revised versions it reads: "Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neigh
bor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his
ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." The
words rendered "man-servant" and "maid-servant" are
exactly the same that occur in the passage previously repro
duced from Leviticus, namely ebed and amah; and they should
be translated exactly the same. The slightest thought
about this well-known commandment is enough to show that
the "servants" in question must have been regarded as prop
erty, or it would not be a sin to covet them. For there is
nothing wrong in desiring your neighbor's free, hired servant.
Clearly, then, the Hebrew and the logic of the "tenth com
mandment" indicate the fact of slavery. Again, the same
words recur in another important connection, as foUows:
"If a man smite his bondman [ebed] or his bondwoman
[amah] with a rod and he die under his hand, he shaU surely
be punished. Nevertheless, if he continue a day or two, he
shaU not be punished, for he is his money" (Exod. 21:20).
The nouns for slave in this passage are correctly rendered in
the margin of the English and American Revised versions,
but not in their text, nor anywhere in the King James transla
tion. In this last passage, the slave is frankly reckoned among
the financial resources of his master, as in the italicized clause
reading, "for he is his money." The evidence thus put
forward could be multiplied if necessary; but it is probably
sufficient for the purpose in hand.

INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 51
Slavery, however, was not peculiar to Israel ; it was common
to the ancient civuizations. — The origin of slavery is very
simple. It has no existence where labor is not able to produce
a surplus of goods over and above immediate needs. Thus,
the Masai of East Africa have no provisions to spare. They
are nomads, who hve upon herds of a constant size; and
they kUl their prisoners of war. On the other hand, their
neighbors, the Wakamba, are higher in the evolutionary
scale, being farmers and traders; and they do not kiU their
prisoners of war, but keep them for industrial purposes.1
These two tribes Ulustrate the contrast between the wander
ing and the settled periods of social progress. The nomadic
Masai have no economic surplus and no slaves. The settled
Wakamba have both an economic surplus and slaves. The
general principle at work here is not difficult to see.
If we foUow social evolution back into the nomadic stage,
we find many smaU groups warring fiercely in a great struggle
for food. Under such conditions, war is a campaign to exter
minate rivals. But in the midst of this crude, savage world,
the trend of social evolution is vastly and profoundly affected
by aU that we designate under the head of "progress in the
material arts." It is material progress that makes the gulf
between savagery and civilization. The savage cannot con
trol the physical world in which he lives; but the civUized
man is able to control and shape his environment. Progress
in the material arts brings with it the power of producing a
surplus over and above immediate needs. This changes the
issue of war. The victors, instead of slaughtering their prison
ers, begin to spare life and to make slaves of the vanquished.
Thus, material progress converts war from a struggle for
extermination into a struggle for domination, or control.
The larger, better organized, and more powerful groups con
quered and absorbed the smaUer, producing compound social
1 Ratzel, History of Mankind (London, 1896), Vol. I, p. 123.

52 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
groups, with an upper layer of freemen and a lower class
of slaves and other inferior persons. Thus there came slowly
into existence national societies, occupying favored regions
hke the vaUeys of the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates;
and the curtain at length roUed up on the stage of world-
history. These considerations, based on an overwhelming
mass of evidence, thoroughly sifted and proved by scientific
research, carry us upward by a direct route through the mists
and uncertainties of primeval ages into the hght of that
ancient period in which the Hebrew nation had its remarkable
history. Ancient Semitic civUization comes forward out of
the darkness of prehistoric times, through a haze of myth and
legend. Its progress in material art lifts it high above the
surrounding savagery and barbarism. But it moves under
the heavy stress and strain of war; and it is everywhere
stratified into two classes, whereof the lower is the property
of the upper.
Slavery arises when society passes over from the nomadic
to the settled state; and it continues untU social evolution
advances to higher levels. It was one of the pnlars upon
which the structure of society in Old Testament times was
based. Its prevalence in Israel is hardly realized untU we
study the biblical narratives and laws closely. The fact of
human bondage in Israel, and in the Semitic civUization as
a whole, is not to be viewed in the light of modern ideals;
it is to be approached from the standpoint of the social process
at large. Ancient civUization may be figured as an oasis,
green and fertUe, amid the desert of savagery and barbarism.
One of the most important functions of the upper classes in
ancient history was mUitary defense of society, in order that
the lower classes might enjoy the peace necessary to produc
tive industry. This, of course, was only one of the vital
functions of the upper orders. It would have been impossible
for free societies to achieve and organize the progress that has

INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 53
paved the world's way upward from savagery into modern
civUization. Modern democracy is as yet unaware that it
is a heavy pensioner upon culture attained through despotic
institutions.1 The superior class in Israel was upheld not only by slavery
but by ownership of the soil. — Slavery is not the only basis
of distinction between social classes. The institution of
land ownership is a great factor in the situation. When the
Israehtes entered Canaan a large part of the open country
came into their grasp. The pastures and farm lands which
thus became the spoU of war feU sooner or later into the
possession of the baals, or famUy chiefs, who ruled the clans
of Israel.2 The institution of private property in land had
been long estabhshed in the settled parts of the Semitic world;
and the passage of Israel from desert hfe into Canaan repre
sents their entrance into a new circle of ideas and practices
with reference to property. The writings of the eighth-
century prophets and their immediate successors indicate
that the soU in their day was already reduced to the category
of absolute private ownership, to aU practical intents and
purposes (Mie. 2:1, 2; Hos. 5:10; Isa. 5:8). By the time
of Jeremiah, no other treatment of the soU was considered
possible: "Men shaU buy fields for money, and subscribe
the deeds, and seal them, and caU witnesses, in the land of
Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the
cities of Judah, and in the cities of the hUl-country, and in
the cities of the lowland, and in the cities of the south" (Jer.
32:44). The baals, therefore, in addition to their ownership
of the lower class, acquired the land of the country. No
'Cf. Wallis, American Journal of Sociology (May, 1902), Vol. VTI, pp.
763 f.; and Examination of Society (1903), pp. 38-46.
2 We need not here go into the subject of the evolution of land-holding from a
real, or theoretical, common ownership to individual possession. The documentary
evidence in the Bible is of course too slender to show us just what was the actual
situation at the period of invasion and settlement. Two systems came into conflict.

54 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
other treatment of the soU would have been practicable at
that period of the world's development.
The Israelites of the country districts were organized into
agricultural and pastoral villages. — So far as we can learn,
there were no isolated houses or tents where single families
dwelt alone. Such an arrangement would be dangerous at
that period of the world's history. The pressure of enemies
from the desert and from neighboring countries made single
establishments impracticable. The rule was for a number
of related "father's houses" to unite in a rustic viUage.
This was not a "city" in any sense, but merely a hamlet
set in the midst of the fields and hUls. The country districts
were dotted with these tiny vUlages. They were coUections
of tents or houses, buUt close together for protection, without
regard to architectural beauty or symmetrical arrangement
of streets. The identification of the unwalled vUlages with
the life of the fields about them is indicated thus: "The
vUlages that have no waU round about them shaU be reckoned
with the fields of the country" (Lev. 25:31). To the dweUer
in a waUed city, like Jerusalem, these tiny hamlets were a
part of the open country life of the nation: "Let us go forth
into the field; let us lodge in the vUlages" (Song of Sol.
7:11). Every morning, aU who could work went forth into the
near-by fields; and at night they came back to the shelter of
the hamlet. A good Ulustration is found in the viUage of
Gibeah, which lay a few mUes northeast of Jerusalem in
territory pertaining to the clan of Benjamin. Gibeah was a
very small place, having only one main street. In Judg.
19: 16 we read, "And behold, there came an old man from his
work out of the field at even." Gibeah was the home of Saul,
who became king of Israel. Concerning Saul we read, "Then
came the messengers to Gibeah of Saul. And behold Saul
came foUowing the oxen out of the field" (I Sam. 11:4, 5).

INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 55
Israehte country hfe has this disposition wherever we catch
sight of it. The boy David cares for the sheep of his father
Jesse in the hiUs of Judah; but the famUy headquarters are
at the httle viUage of Bethlehem (I Sam., chap. 16). The
home of the prophet Ehsha was in the vUlage of Abelmeholah;
but his work was in the fields outside. We read that when
a visitor came to seek him, "Ehsha the son of Shaphat was
plowing with twelve yoke of oxen before him" (I Kings
19:16, 19). Likewise, the residence of the prophet Amos
was at the hamlet of Tekoa; and his business was that of a
shepherd and a dresser of sycamore trees (Amos 7:14). A
good picture of Israelite viUage life is found in the Book of
Ruth. Here, the hamlet of Bethlehem stands in the center
of the scene. One of the local baals, or household lords, is
"Boaz of the famUy of Elimelech." This man owns land
outside the viUage, and has many dependents working for him,
both male and female. AU the leading characters of the times
covered by the books of Judges and Samuel were men belong
ing to the upper class in the hiU-country. Some were, of
course, wealthier than others. We reproduce a highly instruct
ive passage concerning a sheep master in Judah:
And there was a man in [the viUage of] Maon, whose business was
in Carmel [the garden land]. And the man was very great. And he
had three thousand sheep and a thousand goats. And he was shearing
his sheep in Carmel  Now the name of the man was Nabal;
.... and he was of the clan of Caleb. And David heard in the wilder
ness that Nabal was shearing his sheep. And David sent ten young
men .... Get you up to Carmel, and go to Nabal, and greet him in
my name  And Nabal answered .... and said, Who is David ?
.... There be many slaves now-a-days that break away every man
from his master (I Sam., chap. 25).
This passage puts on view a number of the characteristic
social facts that we have been studying: Nabal was a freeman
of the Israehte upper class. He belonged to a clan which was
known as "Caleb." His home was in the rustic viUage of

56 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Maon. His business was in the neighboring fields. He
possessed much property, which included slaves. His refer
ence to the truant habits of slaves was probably suggested by
personal experience. Nabal's wealth was doubtless above
the average; but he is a type of the baal class that controlled
ancient Israelite society.
Another good Ulustration is found in the patriarch Abraham.
Although the Abraham narratives in Genesis are not accepted
as hteral history of the times before the invasion, they are
exceUent sources of knowledge about the society in whose
midst they were composed and circulated. We must bear in
mind that whUe the Book of Genesis relates to prehistoric
times, it was not written untU after the Israehtes had been
settled in Canaan for hundreds of years. This was brought
out in our study of the making of the Bible. We classify
Abraham, then, with Nabal; and we wUl now examine the
data, in order to see how the two cases compare. It is said
that when the patriarch heard that his nephew Lot was taken
captive, he set forth to the rescue at the head of three hundred
and eighteen slaves, born in his own famUy (Gen. 14: 14, 15).1
Evidently, Abraham was not the lonely wanderer sometimes
pictured, but rather a "noun of multitude." In accordance
with this, we read that he was "very rich in cattle, in sUver
and in gold" (Gen. 13 : 2). Of hke social position and wealth
was his nephew Lot. "And the land was not able to bear
them, that they might dweU together; for their substance
was great. And there was strife between the herdsmen of
Abram's cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle" (Gen.
13:6, 7). Excepting that Abraham is necessarily presented
as a wanderer, his position in the social structure is identical
with that of Nabal. Abraham's nomadism is imposed upon
the story by the conditions of the narrative, which purports
to deal with the ancestors of Israel during the nomadic period
' The word "slave," ebed, occurs in vs. 15.

INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 57
before the invasion of Canaan; but in aU other respects,
Abraham and Lot can be lifted bodUy out of the Book of Gene
sis and put alongside the leading characters in the Book of
Samuel. In the same class comes the famous Job, another
great worthy. It is entirely beside the point to ask whether
Job was a real historical person or not. He is a type, whether
he be real or ideal. In the first chapter of the book bearing
his name, we read that he had eleven thousand cattle and a
great multitude of slaves.1 Although deprived of his posses
sions by misfortune, he became, according to the story, doubly
rich in the end.
There is no evidence that, after the invasion of Canaan, all
the Israehtes moved regularly and umformly onward from the
economic activities of nomadism into those of settled hfe.
In fact, so far as the evidence permits us to form a definite
conclusion, it points the other way. No society has ever
gone smoothly over from one stage of industrial development
into another. There is always an overlapping of stages.
And if the pursuits of the more primitive period are essential
to society (as, for instance, the cattle raising of nomads),
these pursuits wUl be continued by a part of the population.
A number of modern scholars have tried to build a theory
of Israel's rehgion upon the assumption of a umform passage
from nomadism to agriculture. It is supposed that when
the Israehtes entered Canaan, they aU made terms with
the local Baal cults of the Amorites; which, translated into
economic terms, means that a number of pastoral clans
immediately became farmers. The Amorite gods were sup
posed to bless the soU, and cause the dew and rain to faU;
hence their cults were closely bound up with agriculture.
The farmer had to worship the Baal of his district in order
to have good crops. It may at once be conceded that a
'The word indicating bondservants occurs in 1:3; Abudhah rabbah, " much
slave service"; but in the English versions, "a very great household."

58 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
majority of the Israehtes became farmers after a time, and
worshiped the Amorite gods. But the assumption is impos
sible that aU, without exception, bowed the knee to the Baals.
Agriculture flourished more geniaUy in Ephraim than else
where; and here the fusion of Israehtes and Amorites was
more thorough than anywhere else. But the other two divisions
of the country— Judah and GUead — stood in closer touch
with the Arabian desert, and remained on more primitive
economic levels. Judah's rocky soU was more friendly to the
shepherd than to the farmer, as many examples prove. GUead
was "a place for cattle" (Num. 32:1). Here, the goats lay
along the mountain side (Song of Sol. 4:1). Here, people
and flock fed in the ancient days (Mie. 7:14). And here
Yahweh would bring Israel once more to the sheepfold and
the hiUs (Jer. 50:19). It is highly significant that the first
two great prophets, Elijah and Amos, are identified with
GUead and Judah respectively (I Kings 17:1; Amos 1:1).
In protesting against the corruption of the age, they are both
represented as leaving their own, more primitive homes,
and going over into Ephraim, the favored land of agriculture
and the stronghold of the Amorite gods.
No distinct, independent class of merchants and manufac
turers, in the European sense, arose in Israel. — The more
advanced forms of industry, which have had such a tremen
dous development in western civUization, were comparatively
backward in Israel and among the Semites at large. Neverthe
less, long before the arrival of Israel in Canaan, a considerable
trade in manufactured goods and natural products had arisen
between Egypt, Arabia, Canaan, Mesopotamia, Greece, and
outlying tribes.1 In connection with trade, it is necessary to
have definite centers where exchange can be regularly carried
on. Hence the growth of cities. Another stimulus to city
1 Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), p. 260; Rogers, History of
Babylonia and Assyria (New York, 1901), Vol. II, p. 280.

INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 59
life is manufacture, which tends to centralize at the points
of exchange. We have seen that waUed cities dotted the land
of Canaan long before the Israelites entered the country;
and we have shown that the invaders were not able to take
these Amorite strongholds. The confinement of the Israelite
clans to the hiU-country for several generations excludes
notice of commerce and manufactures from the narratives of
Judges and Samuel. In those books, the country landlord
stands at the forefront of the stage. Although country and
city — highland and lowland — were at length united under the
kings of Israel, the Books of Kings in their present form are
so preoccupied with religious conflicts that the economic
phase of hfe is obscured in those writings.
Among the Semites, the old nobility of the clanships retained
personal hold over commerce and manufactures, managing
these forms of industry through slaves. Even kings were not
ashamed to become traders by proxy, as in the case of Solo
mon, who in this regard foUowed the example of the rulers of
Egypt and Babylon (I Kings, chaps. 9 and 10). The figures
of the noble and his steward are famUiar in the literature
of the Old and New Testaments. The chief slave of Abraham,
"who ruled over aU that he had," stood near the top of
the social system, next under the baal himself (Gen. 24:2).
Leading slaves of this kind were everywhere favored in
proportion to their importance. In order to stimulate them
to the most faithful service, they were given commissions or
a share in the profits; and they were thus able to acquire
wealth of their own. The case of Simonides in the novel
Ben Hur (Book IV, chap, iv) is a weU-known illustration.
Such men might buy their freedom, and set up independently
of the ancient nobility if they wished, as provided for in
Leviticus: "If he become rich, he may redeem himself"
(Lev. 25:49). But the stress of war and the general inse
curity were so great in the ancient Semitic world that the

60 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
benefit of detachment from the old clanships appears to have
been outweighed by its disadvantages. Accordingly, favorite
slaves who became wealthy preferred to stand connected with
some noble famUy of established position and influence.
Thus, there was a tendency in Israel and throughout Semitic
civilization toward the rise of a distinct merchant and manu
facturing class, or "third estate," as it has been caUed in
European history. But this tendency never got fuU expres
sion; and the industrial side of hfe was never detached from
the old clanships. Much can be learned at this point by
comparison. In ancient Greece and Rome, and again in
mediaeval Europe, commerce and manufactures began under
the conditions just outlined; but their evolution went much
farther; and the tendency toward the formation of a new
social class became irresistible. The "third estate" sprang
into existence outside the limits of the old noble famUies.
An interesting situation resulted. The old nobUity of Europe,
through its control of the taxing power and the courts, hin
dered the ascent of the third estate. Great historic coUisions
resulted, the outcome of which was the admission of the new
class to a voice in the government. The basis of the state,
in Greece, Rome, and modern Europe, was thus transferred
from FamUy to Property. In Semitic civUization, however,
nothing of this kind occurred. Government remained on
the famUy basis; and the unfledged "third estate" continued
within the shelter of the ancient clanships.
Likewise the laboring class, or proletariat, never acquired
the character of distinction within Israel. — The earliest legal
codes in the Old Testament make no mention of hired labor,
but assume that slavery is the universal condition of the lower
class. These codes are in Exod., chaps. 20 and 21 ff. But
in later laws, provision is made for the free laborer, thus:
Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy,
whether he be of thy brethren [the children of Israel], or of thy sojourn-

INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 6r
ers that are in thy land within thy gates. In his day thou shalt give
him his hire; neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor and
setteth his heart upon it (Deut. 24:14, 15).
Likewise, another late law provides that "the wages of a
hired servant shall not abide with thee aU night until the
morning" (Lev. 19:13). These laws were made in fuU view
of a condition in which the price of hired labor was fixed by
the overshadowing influence of slavery. Where slavery is
an estabhshed institution, as in Israel, it would not profit
the upper classes to pay "free" labor much more than slaves
got — that is, a bare hving. This deduction agrees with the
laws just cited; for laborers who had to be paid from day to
day could not have stood above the economic level of slavery.
The industrial institutions of Israel developed under the forms
of the ancient Clan State. — In spite of a progressive tendency,
the economic side of Hebrew life always remained primitive.
The social classes that became prominent in the later civUiza-
tions were unfledged in Israel and throughout the Semitic
world. The "third estate," on the one side, and the "prole
tariat," on the other, were never organized on an independent
footing. They existed potentiaUy; but they had no means
of seh-expression, and no class-consciousness. Our survey
of Israehte industry, therefore, ends where it set out — with the
clan. From first to last, society was conceived only as a
brotherhood group.

CHAPTER VIII
EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL
All ancient peoples had gods. — It is a commonplace that all
the clans and nations of antiquity had religions, and that
they aU worshiped what were supposed to be real beings
which we caU " gods." The same is true of present-day savages
who have not been converted to a higher faith. Ancient
nations and unconverted savages, then, have this in common:
they are what we caU "pagan," or "heathen." From the
standpoint of primitive rehgion, or heathenism, there is no
single, true God, besides whom no other god exists. For
in the view of primitive religion, all gods are equaUy real : one
god is as much a real being as another. AU the written
records of antiquity, including the Bible itself, are prepared
in view of this impressive fact. Long before the dawn of
"historic time," the idea became estabhshed in the human
mind that there' are gods. No book — not even the Bible —
has ever laid open to us the secrets of the process by which the
human mind became possessed of the god-idea. Sociological
study of the Bible, therefore, is not required to investigate the
origin of rehgion in general. It presupposes, or takes for
granted, the idea of the gods and the practices of heathen
religion as data with which to begin.
In primitive religion, the gods are thought of as members
of the social group. — It is a matter of great significance for
sociology that in primitive religion the god of any people
is considered to be a member of the social circle that worships
him. The gods, in fact, had as real a place in the social
fabric as the worshipers themselves. To describe the situa
tion in modern terms, Church and State were always united
62

EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 63
in ancient society. Rehgion and pohtics were intimately
connected. The separation of Church and State was unthink
able to the ancient mind. The divorce of religion and pohtics
was impossible. Everybody was rehgious. Atheism, skepti
cism, and agnosticism, in the modern sense of these words,
were unknown. Worship of the gods was held to be vitaUy
necessary to the welfare of society. If a man refused to take
part in the rehgion of his kinship group, he thereby ostracized
himself. As nonconformity could not be tolerated, he became
an outcast. The good wUl and blessing of the gods were
conditioned upon the performance of the customary acts of
worship on the part of aU members of the group. Each group
was responsible, as a corporation, for the maintenance of
rehgion. It was the feeling of group responsibUity that was
outraged by refusal to take part in the customary acts of
worship; and it was this group sense of outrage that led to
the expulsion of the nonconformist. If he were not cast out,
as a visible expression of abhorrence, the group would be con
structively in feUowship with impiety; and this would bring
down the divine wrath upon aU alike. Thus we read: "He
that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy
money, must needs be circumcised  And the uncir
cumcised male . . . . , that soul shall be cut off from his
people. He hath broken my covenant" (Gen. 17:13, 14; cf.
Exod. 12 :44, 45). On this point, W. Robertson Smith writes:
Religion did not exist for the saving of souls, but for the preservation
and welfare of society, and in all that was necessary to this end every man
had to take his part, or break with the domestic and political community
to wliich he belonged.1
The feeling of "group welfare" goes a long way toward
explaining religious persecution. It was entangled in the
complex motives of the Reformation period, when Catholics
1 W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites (London, 1894), p. 29. Cf.
Barton, Semitic Origins (New York, 1902), chap, iii; Lagrange, Ittudes sur les
religions semitiques (Paris, 1905), pp. 70-118.

64 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
and Protestants viewed each other's worship as offensive to
God, and likely to bring down the divine wrath on the entire
community. In view of the former close connection between religion and
politics, it is not surprising to find that primitive thought
looks upon the gods in a very intimate and familiar way.
No essential or qualitative distinction was made between
divinity and humanity. The gods were in fact magnified
men. They were looked upon as personal beings, essentially
like men but more powerful; and in the ancient mythologies
they are said to have lived with men on the earth in the
springtide of history.
The social body was not made up of men only, but of gods and men.
The circle into which a man was born was not simply a group of kinsfolk
and fellow-citizens, but embraced also certain divine beings, the gods
of the fanuly and the state, which to the ancient mind were as much a
part of the particular community with which they stood connected as
the human members of the social circle. The relation between the gods
of antiquity and their worshipers was expressed in the language of
human relationship, and this language was not taken in a figurative
sense, but with strict literality. If a god was spoken of as a father and
his worshipers as his offspring, the meaning was that the worshipers were
UteraUy of his stock, and that he and they made up one natural family
with reciprocal family duties to each other.1
The Hebrew term translated "God" in modern versions
of the Bible is "el," or "elohim." — The root meaning of the
Bible word which is translated "God" is power, or might.
In the singular, it is el, bs , or eloah, ^"ibx . It appears in
the singular in Exod. 6:3; and it is transhterated in the
Revised margin of that passage, where the reader is told
that "El Shaddai" means "God Almighty." It reappears
many times in the New Testament, for instance in the words
of Jesus on the cross: Eloi, meaning "My God" (Mark
15 :34). It is found in many of the Hebrew names, as Beth-el
' W. Robertson Smith, op. cit.; cf. Fraser, The Golden Bough: Studies in Com
parative Religion (London, 1890), Vol. I, pp. 30, 31.

EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 65
"House of God" (Gen. 28:19). A striking Ulustration is
the name Isra-e/, which is said to mean "God strives" (Gen.
32:28). Consideration of this term el introduces one of the
most important aspects of the Bible problem.
In the first place, we would seem to have good grounds
for supposing that the term el (the singular form) is the term
which we always translate " God." This assumption, however,
is not correct. For it is not the singular el, but the plural
elohim, DVfbtf, which is most frequently rendered "God."
The singular form occurs only about 200 times in the Old
Testament; whUe the plural is found over 2,500 times. The
syUable im is a plural suffix in Hebrew; so that if we have
regard to grammatical form, the word elohim should always
be rendered "gods." This, however, is wrong again. For
in the picturesque Hebrew usage, the plural sometimes has
the force of the superlative mode, heightening the function
of the singular, but not changing its number. In most cases
where the plural form elohim occurs, the reference is not to
many gods but to one God. Thus, in the opening sentence of
Genesis, we read that elohim created the heavens and the
earth. In this case the context proves that the writer intends
the singular usage. And since the singular form el indicates
"power," the use of the plural in this passage means that
the work of creation was accomplished by Superlative Power,
i.e., God, viewed as one Being. But in other cases, precisely
the same plural form, elohim, has the plural sense. Take,
for instance, the words of David in the foUowing passage:
"They have driven me out this day . . . . , saying, Go,
serve other elohim" (I Sam. 26:19). Here the word is cor
rectly translated "gods" by aU the versions; yet it is pre
cisely the same combination of letters that occurs in the
opening sentence of Genesis. We have to judge the meaning
in many instances from the context alone. While there is
no difficulty in most cases, the word is frequently used in

66 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
ways that embarrass translators who seek to make popular
versions. But the difficulty of those who try to make transla
tions that can be understood by the wayfaring man is the
opportunity of purely scientific scholars. Consideration of
these embarrassing elohim passages wiU carry us farther
into the subject before us in this chapter. The first that we
shall take up under this head occurs in the account of King
Saul's visit to the witch of Endor, an ancient spirit medium.
The king wanted to consult the ghost of the prophet Samuel,
who had recently died. We are not concerned here to discuss
the reliabUity of this narrative as literal history, but merely
to examine the ideas attaching to the term elohim, which
occurs in a very starthng way in this remarkable story. We
reproduce a part of the passage:
Then said Saul unto his slaves, Seek me a woman that hath a famil
iar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his slaves
said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at
Endor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and
went, he and two men with him. And they came to the woman by
night. And he said, Divine unto me, I pray thee, by the familiar
spirit, and bring me up whomsoever I shall name unto thee  Then
said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said,
Bring me up Samuel. And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried
with a loud voice  And the King said unto her, What seest thou ?
And the woman said unto Saul, I see elohim coming up out of the earth.
And he said unto her, What form is he of ? And she said, An old man
cometh up; and he is covered with a robe. And Saul perceived that
it was Samuel. And he bowed, with his face to the ground, and did
obeisance. And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me
to bring me up? (I Sam. 28:7 ff.).
In modern versions prepared for the people at large, a case
like this tries very sorely the patience of the translators;
and the result serves only to distract the devout. In the King
James Bible, the translators make the woman say, "I saw
gods coming up." This is foUowed immediately by the ques
tion from Saul, "What form is he of ?" or "What is his form ?"

EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 67
But tf the word elohim should be rendered "gods," as the
King James Bible has it, then Saul's question should be,
"What is their form?" The Hebrew text, however, wUl
not permit this, for it goes on to talk about one person, i.e.,
Samuel. Accordingly, both Revised versions, English and
American, change the main text of the translation to the sin
gular, and make the woman say, "I see a god coming up,"
in this way securing grammatical agreement with the ques
tion, "What form is he of?" But the Revisers thereupon
place "gods" in the margin. So that the wayfaring man is
left in much perplexity. Not only so; but it surprises him
to encounter the term "god," or "gods," in the Bible with
reference to a human being. Leaving this matter open, we
turn to another instructive case in the same category, as
foUows: k
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the
earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of the elohim
saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them
wives of aU which they chose. There were giants in the earth in those
days; and also, after that, when the sons of the elohim came in unto
the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same were the
mighty men which were of old, the men of renown (Gen. 6:1, 2, 4).
In this case, the King James Bible and the Revised versions
alike turn the Hebrew phrase "the sons of the elohim" into
"the sons of God"; and aU marginal instruction for the benefit
of the laity is omitted. WhUe we cannot be dogmatic on this
point, it is probable that the phrase should be translated "the
sons of the gods," rather than "the sons of [the One] God," as
our Enghsh versions render it . What we have here, apparently,
is a fragment of primitive epic, standing on the same plane
of culture with the passage quoted from Samuel. It is a
bit of ancient mythology which came down to the editor of
Genesis from Semitic heathenism. The sons of the gods
cohabit with the daughters of men, and beget a progeny of

68 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
giants. Precisely the same thing takes place in the Greek
Bible, the Iliad, where the heroes have a double ancestry,
human and divine.1
The most common form of primitive religion is worship of
gods pertaining to family and clan groups. — FamUy religion
at first appears to be ancestor worship. This is weU repre
sented by the Chinese, with their "ancestral tablets,"
before which they bow in worship and leave offerings of food.
In ancient Rome we find the "Lares," or private famUy
gods. Concerning these, the historian Mommsen writes:
Of all the worships of Rome that which perhaps had the deepest
hold was the worship of the tutelary spirits that presided in and over
the household and the store-chamber. These were in fairuly worship
the gods of the household in the strict sense, the Lases or Lares, to
whom their share of the family meal was regularly assigned [as among
the Chinese], and before whom it was, even in the time of Cato the Elder,
the first duty of the father of the household on returning home to per
form his devotions. In the ranking of the gods, however, these spirits
of the house and of the field occupied the lowest rather than the highest
place.2 A careful study of primitive rehgion has been made at
first hand by Rev. Duff Macdonald, a Presbyterian missionary
in central Africa. His work among the Soudanese natives
brought him into contact with ideas and practices that carry
us far back into the atmosphere of primitive rehgion. He
shows that the prayers and offerings of the natives are directed
toward the spirits of household chiefs who have passed away.
"It is here," he says, "that we find the great center of the
native religion. The spirits of the dead are the gods of the
living." In view of such facts, we now begin to see why it is
that primitive rehgion always regards the gods as actual
' It is true that the definite article, when placed thus, is intended sometimes to
indicate the one, true God, as in Isa. 37:16 and 45 : 18. But would any Hebrew scholar
assimilate these lofty spiritual passages in Isaiah with the sensually suggestive passage
in Gen., chap. 6 ?
2 Mommsen, History of Rome (New York), Vol. I, pp. 213 f. (Italics ours.)

EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 69
members of the social groups that worship them. Mr. Mac
donald writes:
In all our translations of Scripture where we found the word God
we used Mulungu; but this word is chiefly used by the natives as a
general name for spirit. The spirit of a deceased man is called his
Mulungu, and aU the prayers and offerings of the Uving are presented
to such spirits of the dead. It is here that we find the great center of
the native reUgion. The spirits of the dead are the gods of the living.
Where are these gods found? At the grave? No. The vUlagers
shrink from yonder gloomy place that Ues far beyond their fields on the
bleak mountain side  Their god is not the body in the grave, but
the spirit, and they seek this spirit at the place where their departed
kinsman last lived among them. It is the great tree at the verandah
of the dead man's house that is their temple; and if no tree grow here
they erect a Uttle shade, and there perform their simple rites  The
spirit of an old chief may have a whole mountain for his residence, but
he dweUs chiefly on the cloudy summit. There he sits to receive the
worship of his votaries, and to send down the refreshing showers in
answer to their prayers  It is not usual for anyone to approach the
gods except the chief of the village. It is his relatives that are the
viUage gods. Everyone that Uves in the viUage recognizes these gods;
but if anyone remove to another village he changes his gods. He
recognizes now the gods of his new chief  Ordinary ghosts are soon
forgotten with the generation that knew them. Not so a few select
spirits, the Caesars, the Napoleons, the Charlemagnes, the Timurs of
savage empires. A great chief that has been successful in his wars
does not pass out of memory so soon. He may become the god of a
mountain or a lake, and may receive homage as a local deity long after
his own descendants have been driven from the spot. When there is
a suppUcation for rain the inhabitants of the country pray not so much
to their own forefathers as to the god of yonder mountain on whose
shoulders the great rain-clouds repose.1
The idols of Israel and other peoples had the character of
images representing the gods. — In primitive rehgion it is cus
tomary to prepare some physical token or symbol toward
which the worshiper may direct his prayers and offerings.
1 Macdonald, Africana; Allen, Evolution of the Idea of God (New York, 1897),
pp. 25-28. (Italics ours.)

70 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Thus the idols of paganism originate; and they take many
forms. Sometimes the dead body of a chief is embalmed and
worshiped. In ancient Egypt the gods were thus frequently
represented by a mummy. In that country the god Osiris
was said to have hved on the earth in early ages, and to have
been kiUed by his brother. Concerning this god, Professor
Breasted writes:
The original home of Osiris was .... in the Delta; but Abydos,
in Upper Egypt, early gained a reputation of pecuhar sanctity, because
the head of Osiris was buried there. He always appeared as a closely
swathed figure, enthroned as a Pharaoh or merely a curious pillar, a
fetish surviving from his prehistoric worship. The external mani
festations and the symbols with which the Egyptian clothed these gods
are of the simplest character and they show the primitive simpUcity
of the age in which these deities arose.1
The IsraeUtes had family gods, represented by images. —
Bearing in mind the facts adduced above, we shaU now con
sider the traces of household, or famUy, religion in Israel.
The private gods of Israel were known as teraphim. It wiU
be noticed that this is a plural form; but it may indicate
many gods or one, as its usage is analogous to that of elohim.
We find a very instructive example of household religion in
the famUy of a certain Micah, an Israelite of the upper class,
hving in the highlands of Ephraim. His date is not known;
but he is said to have hved in the "Judges" period, before
the time of the monarchy. We quote as foUows:
And there was a man of the hill-country of Ephraim whose name
was Micah  And the man Micah had a house of elohim [gods], and
he made an ephod and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who
became his priest  And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-
Judah .... who was a Levite  And the man departed out
of ... . Bethlehem- Judah, to sojourn where he could find a place;
and he came to ... . the house of Micah, as he journeyed 
And the Levite was content to dwell with the man  And Micah
' Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), p. 60.

EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 71
consecrated the Levite; and the young man became his priest (Judg.,
chap. 17).
The narrative in Judges goes on to relate the circumstances
under which the tribe of Dan, consisting of six hundred
warriors, robbed Micah of his priest and his teraphim. At
first the Levite objected; but the Danites bade him hold
his peace, asking him, "Is it better for thee to be a priest
unto the house of one man or to be a priest unto a tribe and
a famUy in Israel ?" No answer to this question is recorded;
but the story continues, "And the priest's heart was glad;
and he took the ephod and the teraphim and the graven
image, and went in the midst of the people" (Judg., chap.
18). Here we find the cult of the teraphim in a private famUy,
from which it is appropriated by a large clan. Another
trace of the teraphim is found in the home of David, as fol
lows: And Saul sent messengers unto David's house, to watch him, and to
slay him in the morning. And Michal, David's wife, told him, saying,
If thou save not thy life tonight, tomorrow thou wilt be slain. So
Michal let David down through the window. And he went and fled
and escaped. And Michal took the teraphim and laid it in the bed,
and put a pUlow of goat's hair at the head thereof, and covered it with
the clothes. And when Saul sent messengers to take David, she said,
He is sick. And Saul sent the messengers to see David, saying, Bring
him up to me in the bed, that I may slay him. And when the mes
sengers came in, behold the teraphim was in the bed, with the pillow of
goat's hair at the head thereof (I Sam. 19:11-16).
From this passage, we learn that the teraphim was an image
having a human form, or it could not have been put to the
use indicated. We quote another instance:
Now Laban was gone to shear his sheep; and Rachel stole the
teraphim that were her father's  And Laban said to Jacob ....
Wherefore hast thou stolen my gods [elohim] ? And Jacob answered
and said to Laban .... With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, he
shall not Uve  For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen

72 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
them  Now Rachel had taken the teraphim and put them in
the camel's saddle, and sat upon them. And Laban felt all about the
tent, but found them not (Gen., chap. 31).
The real nature of the teraphim is obscure to us. They
were clearly a species of elohim, or god. They were images
having a human form. They were a part of the private,
household religion that is found in aU ancient and primitive
societies. Before them were cast lots (Ezek. 21:21). Their
worship could be transferred from the auspices of a private
famUy to those of a clan, as in the case of Micah and the
Danites. But beyond these considerations we are in the
dark as to the famUy cult in Israel.
Next above the family gods in Israel were other local gods,
the Baalim, etc. — Above this humble form of worship there
developed a great superstructure of rehgious institutions
which commanded the devotion of many famUies in common.
The genesis of these more extensive and widely practiced
cults is easUy understood, for we can often see them
in process of construction. Under favorable circumstances,
a god who has but few adherents may attract a wider circle
of worshipers. It should be understood that a god can rise
to leadership in the same way a man goes up in the social
scale. A number of clans may unite against their enemies,
taking the god of the leading clan as an object of common
worship within the confederation. The establishment of
wider cults outside the limits of the household group does
not bring with it suppression of the humbler forms of religion;
for several degrees, or grades, of religious institutions can
exist within a community.
After the Israelites entered Canaan, many of them adopted
from the Amorite inhabitants a form of religion that stood out
side the limits of private, or famUy worship. This was the cult
of the Baals, or Baalim, already noticed. We have seen that
the term baal, in the singular, indicates the master and pro-

EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 73
prietor of the Israehte famUy. In the same way, the local
Baals of the Amorites were looked upon as the divine owners
and masters of different parts of Canaan. Those of the
Israehtes who intermarried with the Amorites, and took up
farming — especiaUy in Ephraim — adopted the worship of the
Baals quite naturaUy as a part of the legitimate system of
rehgion. We shaU recur to the highly important subject of
Baal worship in a later part of our study.
Above the worship of the teraphim and Baalim stood the
cult of Yahweh. — We now come to the widest form of Israel's
rehgion — to the cult which overtopped that of aU the local
gods of the people of Canaan. When the Israehtes finaUy
succeeded in forming a national social group under the kings,
the cult of Yahweh became the national religion. We cannot
now learn how general and widely diffused the worship of
Yahweh was at the time of the invasion. We do not know
how many clans took part in this movement; nor how many
of the clans which the Old Testament reckons to Israel in
the desert were formed after the settlement in Canaan. But
it is clear that certain people caUed Israehtes brought this
cult into Canaan from the desert; and that around this cult
the Israehtes and the Amorites graduaUy fused into a nation
whereof Yahweh became the divine symbol.
The idea of Yahweh, as found in the earher parts of the
Bible, is very primitive. He was at first worshiped in Israel
as a local Semitic deity. Not only were the Baals of the
Amorites worshiped at the same time with him; but the
Israehtes also admitted the reality and power of the gods
of other foreign peoples. His earlier, local character comes
distinctly into view as we examine the more ancient parts
of the Old Testament. A good iUustration is found in a speech
attributed to one of the Israelite chiefs in the Judges period,
in which he addresses the king of the Ammonites, east of the
Jordan, to this effect: "So now, Yahweh, the god of Israel,

74 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel,
and shouldst thou possess them ? Wilt not thou possess that
which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess ? " (Judg. n : 23,
2 4) . The argument here urged by the Israehte chief, is based on
the "divine right of conquest." Israel is entitled to keep the
territory that has been won by the help of Yahweh; and, in
the same way, the Ammonites ought to keep the territory
that has been given to them by their god Chemosh. This
foreign god appears to have been worshiped also by the
Moabites, who occupied neighboring lands east of the Jordan.
He appears in another passage: "Woe to thee, Moab: Thou
art undone, O people of Chemosh. He hath given his sons
as fugitives, and his daughters into captivity" (Num. 21:29).
The early Israehtes beheved in the reahty and power of
Chemosh and other foreign gods just as they believed in the
reality of Yahweh.
Another instructive reference to the god Chemosh is found
in the account of a battle between Israel and Moab. The
conflict was going against the Moabites: "And when the
king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took
with him seven hundred men that drew sword, to break
through unto the king of Edom, but they could not." So
closely were the Moabites besieged in their capital city that
they found it impossible to break out and escape. Goaded
to desperation, King Mesha now resolved upon a measure of
the last extremity: "Then he took his eldest son, that should
have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering
upon the wall. " This was done with aU solemnity upon the
waU of the besieged city, in fuU view of the Israelites, who
knew just what it meant. The king was giving up to the god
Chemosh his eldest son in the hope that the god of Moab would
thus be stimulated to fight harder for his people, and pour
the vials of his wrath upon Israel. After giving fuU detaUs
up to this point the Bible narrative ends abruptly in embarrass-

EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 75
ment. King Mesha had seized the "psychological moment"
for his awful sacrifice. "And there came great wrath upon
Israel; and they departed from him and returned to their
own land" (II Kings 3:26, 27).
The gods of Moab and Israel reappear in the background
of the Book of Ruth. An Israelite widow, Naomi, who had
been hving in Moab, set out to return to Israel. Seeing her
two daughters-in-law foUowing, she bade them return. One
of them obeyed; but the other, whose name was Ruth, would
not. Naomi thereupon said to Ruth: "Behold, thy sister-
in-law is gone back unto her people and unto her god. Return
thou after thy sister-in-law" (Ruth 1:15). In other words,
Naomi urged her Moabite daughters-in-law to return to their
people and to the worship of Chemosh, the god of Moab.
But Ruth rephed: "Where thou goest, I wUl go; and where
thou lodgest, I wiU lodge. Thy people shaU be my people,
and thy god my god." From these words, the older com
mentators and interpreters of the Bible concluded that Ruth
was a convinced adherent of Yahweh, the god of Israel. But
the httle story gets its point, not from Ruth's devotion to
Yahweh, but from her attachment to Naomi. She empha
sizes that whatever people, or god, or land, is chosen by
Naomi wUl be acceptable to Ruth. So, in the passage already
quoted from Rev. Mr. Macdonald's Africana, we read, "If
anyone remove to another viUage he changes his gods. He
recognizes now the gods of his new chief." Exactly the same
attitude was taken by Ruth and Naomi; and any other
interpretation does violence to this beautiful tale of ancient
Israel. Our object in this chapter is to become acquainted with
the atmosphere of primitive rehgion, so that we may estimate
faithfuUy the development of Israel's religion in connection
with the social process. The Moabites were neighbors of
Israel; and anything that iUustrates their practices and

76 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
ideas helps us to recover and interpret the social situation in
ancient Israel. To this end, we shaU find it instructive to
examine a few sentences from the famous "Moabite Stone."
This remarkable object was discovered in 1868 in the land of
Moab. Its language is fundamentaUy the same as that of the
Old Testament Hebrew. The translation of the inscription,
which we quote in part, is by Professor Driver, of Oxford
University: I am Mesha, son Chemosh, king of Moab. . And I made this high-
place for Chemosh . . because he had saved me from ail the assailants. .
Omri, king of Israel, afflicted Moab for many days because Chemosh was
angry with his land. . And Chemosh said unto me, Go, take Nebo
against Israel. And I went by night, and fought against it from the
break of dawn until noon. And I took it and slew the whole of it.
.... And I took thence the vessels of Yahweh, and I dragged them
before Chemosh. And the king of Israel had built Yahas and abode
in it while he fought against me. But Chemosh drave him out from
before me  And Chemosh said unto me, Go down, fight against
Horonen  And I went down.1
The inscription explains itself. King Mesha and his god
Chemosh have been previously introduced by the Old Testa
ment. The attitude of the Moabites toward Chemosh is
the same as the earlier attitude of the Israehtes toward
Yahweh. Chemosh "saves" the Moabites. He is "angry
with his land." He "said unto them" to do certain specific
things. He "drave out " the enemy. The general atmosphere
of the inscription is so much like that of the older documents
in the Bible, that if Israelite names were substituted for
the Moabite names, one might suppose the inscription to be
taken out of the Bible itseK.
We have seen that removal from a country was thought
to be equivalent to leaving the presence of the god of the land,
as in the case of Ruth and Naomi, who thought it a matter
¦ Encyclopaedia Biblica (New York, 1902), Vol. Ill, cols. 3045 and 3046. (Italics
ours.)

EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 77
of course to worship the deity of any people among whom
they took up their abode. This idea is Ulustrated impres
sively by words attributed to David at the time King Saul
was pursuing him to take his life: "They have driven me out
this day that I should not cleave unto the inheritance of
Yahweh, saying, Go serve other gods. Now therefore let not
my blood fall to the earth away from the presence of Yahweh"
(I Sam. 26:19, 20). I
In the early period, the will of Yahweh was discovered
mainly by the sacred lot — "Urim and Thummim." — The most
common way of "inquiring of Yahweh" was by means
of the ephod. "And David said to Abiathar the priest,
Bring me hither the ephod. And Abiathar brought thither the
ephod to David. And David inquired of Yahweh" (I Sam.
30:7, 8). What was the ephod? If we turn to the story of
Gideon, in the Book of Judges, we find that an ephod was
made of metal.
And Gideon said unto them, I would make a request of you, that ye
would give me every man the ear-rings of his spoil. For they had golden
ear-rings  And they answered, We will willingly give them.
And they spread a garment, and did cast therein every man the ear
rings of his spoU. And the weight of the golden ear-rings that he
requested was a thousand and seven hundred shekels of gold 
And Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah
(Judg. 8:24-27).
The ephod, then, was made of metal. But what kind of
an object was it ? And in what way was it used in the pro
cess of "consulting Yahweh" ? The detaUs are suggested by
a passage in the First Book of Samuel, which carries us another
step into this interesting subject:
And Saul said, Draw nigh hither, aU ye chiefs of the people, and
know and see wherein this sin hath been this day. For, as Yahweh
' This translation is given by the Enghsh and American Revised versions. The
King James Bible renders the second sentence, out of harmony with the thought
and atmosphere of the first, as follows: "Let not my blood fall to the earth before the
face of the Lord."

78 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
liveth, who saveth Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall
surely die. But there was not a man among all the people that answered
him. Then said he unto all Israel, Be ye on one side; and I and my
son Jonathan will be on the other side. And the people said unto Saul,
Do what seemeth good unto thee. Therefore, Saul said unto Yahweh,
the god of Israel, Give a perfect lot. And Jonathan and Saul were
taken; but the people escaped. And Saul said, Cast between me and
Jonathan my son. And Jonathan was taken (I Sam. 14:38-42).
From this passage, we learn that when people "inquired
of Yahweh," they cast lots. In the Greek translation of the
same passage (the Septuagint), we get a stiU clearer view of
the process of casting lots. For in that version, Saul asks
that, if evU be in him or his son, Yahweh wUl give Urim;
and that, if evU be in the people of Israel, Yahweh wUl
give Thummim. Going back to the Hebrew text, we find
that there were three ways of consulting Yahweh: "And
when Saul inquired of Yahweh, Yahweh answered him not,
neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets" (I Sam.
28:6). We now have before us the materials for answering our
question: The Urim and Thummim were a kind of sacred
dice, cast or shaken before a metaUic image caUed an ephod.
In the time of Judges and Samuel, these objects were a part
of the regular machinery of rehgion. They were used by all
the leading men, like David, Saul, and Gideon. WhUe the
priest, holding the Urim and Thummim, stood waiting before
the ephod-image, the inquiring worshiper would caU upon
Yahweh, saying, "Show the right!" or, "Give a perfect
lot!" just as Saul did in the passage quoted. Then the
inquirer would bid the priest to cast the lot. The questions
addressed to the oracle were always put in a form that could
be answered "Yes" or "No" (e.g., I Sam. 23:9-12; 30:7-8).
The process of consulting Yahweh could be carried on at an
estabhshed sanctuary; or, if that were out of the question,

EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 79
the priest could bring the religious equipment with him to the
inquirer. Thus, we read: "It came to pass, when Abiathar
.... fled to David to KeUah, that he came down with an
ephod in his hand" (I Sam. 23:6).
This is as near as we can come to a description of the im
portant process of "consulting" Yahweh in his character
as a local Semitic deity in ancient Israel. The reason we
have so much difficulty in getting a clear idea of the subject
is very simple: The Bible was not written for the purpose
of giving instruction about such things. It was made for an
entirely different end, with other objects in view (see supra,
chap, iv, "The Making of the Old Testament"). Hence we
should not be surprised if it is necessary to go on the track of a
subject through a great many chapters and books of the Bible,
comparing a large number of passages and verses in order
to reach the facts. This matter of the ephod iUustrates
very weU the confusion between early and late practices. Most
readers of the Bible have the impression that the ephod in
ancient Israel was always an article of dress, worn by the high
priest;] whUe the Urim and Thummim have not been con
nected with anything definite in the lay mind. This is because
we get our ideas from the later and more impressive books
of the Bible, which are placed at the very beginning of the
Old Testament. As a matter of fact, the priest in later
Judaism (i.e., after the Babyloman exUe) actuaUy wore an
article of dress caUed the "ephod"; whUe the mysterious
Urim and Thummim were kept in a pocket on the front of the
ephod, but were no longer used for casting lots in the old
heathen fashion (Exod. 28:28-30). The older practice in
Judges and Samuel was followed by the leading men of the
period; and it was condemned only by such men as the late
editor through whom the Book of Judges was compiled.1
1 "And all Israel played the harlot after it . , and it became a snare to
Gideon and his house" (Judg. 8: 27).

80 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Bible tradition suggests that the cult of Yahweh, in its
earlier form, did not originate in Israel. — Most religions of
antiquity look upon the gods as the actual, physical ances
tors of their worshipers, connected with them by ties of
actual kinship. But the Bible declares that Israel and Yahweh
became connected by a covenant, which was made at a specified
moment of time and in a particular place. In the words
of Hosea, "I am Yahweh thy god from the land of Egypt"
(Hos. 12:9). In accordance with this, we are told by the
Book of Exodus that Israel and Yahweh entered into a solemn
covenant at Mount Horeb-Sinai, just after the exodus from
Egyptian territory. The famUiar word "testament," in one
of its usages, indicates a covenant; and in this way it finds
application to the Bible. " I wUl take you to me for a people;
and I wul be to you a god " (Exod. 6:7). " And thou, Yahweh,
became their god" (II Sam. 7:24). Now, the question here
is, How came the religion of Israel to have this covenant
character? The Old Testament speaks of several transac
tions between Yahweh and the patriarchs prior to the one
at Mount Sinai. But the covenant referred to in the body
of the Hexateuch and in the books of the prophets is the
Sinai covenant. It is to this that Hosea, Amos, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and other prophetic writers refer, either expressly
or by implication. The covenant of the prophets, as David
son writes, is the covenant of Sinai, in which Yahweh became
the god of Israel.1 If Yahweh thus became the god of Israel
at a certain time and place, it foUows, according to the logic
of primitive religion, that he must have been connected with
some other people before the Israelites entered into relation
with him. The Old Testament says that the covenant was
made in the Arabian wUderness, prior to the invasion of
Canaan. Whatever this transaction was, it hes on the border-
' Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament (New York, 1904), p. 246.

EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 81
land between Israel's prehistoric, nomadic age in the desert
and the historic period after the settlement; and there is
difficulty in reconstructing its detaUs upon the basis of the
evidence at our disposal.
The material referring to this period is of too uncertain a
character for us to form a definite idea of the situation; and
the history of the Israehtes in the Arabian desert must remain
shrouded in darkness. We have seen, over and over again,
that the Hexateuchal view of the Israehte invasion and settle
ment of Canaan has much lower historical value than the
corresponding narratives in Judges and Samuel; and this
consideration, along with many others, leads us to use the
Hexateuch with extreme caution at aU points. The out
standing impression left upon us, after going over the evi
dence, is that the cult of Yahweh became current among the
Israehtes through their contact with a pastoral clan whose
wandering ground was in the Sinai peninsula. But Old
Testament scholarship is coming to agreement that we cannot
envisage the nomadic history of Israel in any clear hght.
Whatever the covenant in the Arabian desert may have been,
the history of Israel in Canaan shows that this transaction
was not looked upon as a matter of exceptional meaning or
importance for many centuries after the settlement. Cove
nants admitting strangers to the worship of local gods were
frequently made in ancient society. Moreover, a covenant,
in primitive rehgion, carries with it no different idea of morality
than is provided by the other agencies of early rehgious hfe;
and there is no ground for the view that this particular cove
nant, by which the Israehtes acquired the primitive cult of
Yahweh, brought with it anything new in the sphere of morality
or ethics. For Yahweh is interpreted by the great prophets
as the patron of that mishpat, or customary morahty, which is
identified with the primitive clan group. It was the forcing of

82 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Amorite law and morals upon the more primitive Israelites
that brought the prophets forward as champions of the old
mishpat, and emphasized Yahweh's relation to the morahty
of the desert.1
' While the hypothesis that the cult of Yahweh came to the Israelites through
5 covenant with another clan, the Kenites, appears reasonable, I cannot accept the view
of Budde, Harper, and others, that this transaction contained the seeds of Israel's
distinctive ethical development. Budde's thesis maintains that the religion of Israel
became ethical because it was a religion of choice, which established a voluntary
relation between a people and its god (as in the case of husband and wife). The Isra
elites, therefore, having adopted a strange deity, were not well acquainted with their
god's ways; and whenever they suffered misfortune, they were driven to ask what
they had done to offend this new god, Yahweh. Consequently, they acquired a very
tender conscience, which forced them to look well to their conduct. This is an ingen
ious, but artificial, view of the problem, which is not supported by the facts, and which
fails to "explain" Israel's history. Budde's argument for the Kenite derivation of
} the Yahweh cult is well sustained; but his use of the premises, after obtaining them,
has not commended his philosophy to biblical scholars in general.
Budde's theory is no more convincing than the ascription to Moses of the estab
lishment of a nation in the desert, and the consequent broadening of morality beyond
the limits of the clan. Even supposing such work to have been done by Moses, it
affords no point of departure for the actual process of religious-moral development
which took place in the Hebrew nation. More and more it is becoming evident that
the historic fact in the Hexateuch is the importation of a desert god and a nomadic
morality into the midst of settled, Amorite civilization; and even the Hexateuch
itself is not our chief source for this fact. The Judges-Samuel-Kings documents and
the prophetic books bear witness to it in more sober terms. The conditions and the
demands for the broadening of morality beyond the limits of the clan did not exist
until after the Israehte settlement in Canaan. The work of Moses was rather that
of introducing or emphasizing the cult of Yahweh than of expounding a new system of
ethics; and whatever he may have done, the vital conditions of Hebrew religious
development are to be sought in Canaan, and not in the desert. For this process,
our chief authorities are the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and the various
prophets; while the Hexateuch has only a secondary value.

PART III
DEVELOPMENT OF BIBLE RELIGION

FOREWORD TO PART III
In this division of the study we turn to our central theme,
the social process through which the rehgion of the Bible came
into the world.

85

CHAPTER IX
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT
The religion of the Hebrews acquired its distinctive character
through a long struggle. — The religion of the Bible was born
amid a great warfare. The Hebrew nation was the arena of a
mighty struggle whose echoes have resounded through the
ages. When we go behind the scenes, and begin to consider
the circumstances amid which, and through which, the Bible
religion came into the world, we are thrown back upon a local,
definite, concrete situation of great interest. Yahweh emerges
into distinction through a struggle against the Baal-worship
which was derived from the Amorite side of the nation's
ancestry. We do not connect him with warfare against Mar
duk of Babylon, or Amon of Egypt, or any other far-away
deity. It is the Baal-idea that serves as the foU against
which the Yahweh-idea takes on its distinctive character;
and even in the New Testament period the opposition to
Yahweh is condensed in Baal-zebub, the prince and leader of
aU the devUs.
The Bible-idea of God arose in connection with social move
ments. — Sociological study of the Bible is not concerned with
the question how religion in general came into the world. It
does not undertake to show how the idea of the gods arose.
Suffice it to know that all the ancient peoples, including the
Hebrews, actuaUy did have gods and religions. Sociological
study of the Bible sets out with the idea of the gods as one
of its presuppositions — one of the facts, or categories, to be
taken for granted at the beginning of the discussion. Religion
was in the world many ages before the Hebrew nation was
86

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT 87
born. Our problem is not, How did religion arise? but,
How did Bible rehgion arise?
This rehgion took form around the idea of "Yahweh."
We shaU never know how the worship of Yahweh first became
current, any more than we can trace the steps by which the
Greeks got the worship of Zeus, the Egyptians that of Osiris,
or the Babylonians that of Marduk. But there is no evidence
that the worship of Yahweh stood at first upon any different
footing than did the other cults of the ancient World. To
anticipate the argument, we shall see that the Bible rehgion
came into existence by the sifting of ancient rehgious ideas
through the peculiar national experience of the Hebrews.
This national experience was unlike that of any other ancient
people; and it set the Hebrew mind at work in channels
different from those that opened before their contemporaries.
We cannot, of course, box the truth within the compass of
mere words and phrases. The terms "evolution" and "nat
ural development" are attractive; but they do not solve the
problem before us. The problem of the Bible is that of the
connections between certain facts. What the facts are, we
shaU see in due course. The rehgion of the Bible took form
graduaUy through a series of emergencies, or crises, in which
the idea of Yahweh passed from stage to stage. The epochs
in this process have left their marks in the Bible as clearly
as the various geological periods have left their traces in the
strata of the earth.

CHAPTER X
THE CONFLICTING STANDPOINTS
The struggle that convulsed the ancient Hebrews was a con
flict between the standpoints of nomadism and civilization. —
There is a fundamental difference between the standpoint
of nomadism and the standpoint of civUization. This dif
ference is involved in the general contrast between society
in motion and society at rest. It is concretely Ulustrated by
the treatment of property in land; for manifestly, one of
the distinctions between society in motion and society at
rest is in the attitude taken up with reference to external
nature. The very circumstances of nomadic hfe make it impossible
to reduce the earth itself to private or individual property.
In the wandering clan, a given territory or district belongs to
aU in common. Although two clans may, by agreement,
respect each other's rights to wander in certain parts of the
wUderness, each clan or tribe holds its territory as a common
possession. Thus it was among the American Indians, who
knew nothing about private property in land before the
European settlement; and so it is among aU the wandering
races of mankind. With reference to the Indians of New
England before the coming of the English, we read:
The Indian did not need much government, and his manner of Ufe
did not admit of his being much subjected to its control  Personal
ownership of land was a conception which had not risen on his mind 
For the protection of life and of hunting-grounds against an enemy, it
was necessary that there should be unity of counsel and of action in a
tribe  The New England Indians had functionaries for such

THE CONFLICTING STANDPOINTS 89
purposes; the higher class known as sachems, the subordinate, or those
of inferior note or smaller jurisdiction, as sagamores.1
The primitive group moves about in search of food, and
holds together for purposes of defense. The welfare of the
individual is merged in that of the clan. The good fortune
of the clan is necessarUy the good fortune of aU its members;
and in the same way, the suffering of the clan is felt by aU
its members. Although a clan may attack and plunder
another group, its very breath of hfe is justice between its
own people. Thus, the Enghsh traveler Doughty says of
the desert Arabs, among whom he hved:
The nomad tribes we have seen to be commonwealths of brethren. }/
.... They divide each other's losses  The maUcious subtlety*"
of usury [interest] is foreign to the brotherly deaUng of the nomad
tribesmen  Their justice is such, that in the opinion of the next
governed countries, the Arabs of the wilderness are the justest of mortals.
Seldom the judges and elders err, in these small societies of kindred,
where the life of every tribesman lies open from his infancy and his
state is to all men well known.2
Since the territory over which the clan roams is regarded
as the common storehouse of provision for everybody in the
group, the clan's ideas about "justice" and "right" come to
be insensibly and subtly bound up with its relation to the
soU. There is, of course, no direct and conscious connection
in the group mind between justice and common property in
the land. Yet these ideas hang together in a way which
the individual member of the group may not be able to state
clearly, but which he feels instinctively and profoundly.
' Palfrey, History of New England (Boston, 1858), Vol. I, pp. 36, 37, 38; (itahcs
ours), except last two words; cf. Vol. Ill, p. 138; Vol. IV, pp. 364, 419; cf. Morgan,
Ancient Society (New York, T878), p. 530. Most of the contentions and troubles
arising between Indians and white men have turned around land cases, in which the
rights of the two races have been the subjects of dispute. Cf . Reports of the Indian
Rights Association (Philadelphia, Arch St., various dates), passim.
2 Doughty, Arabia Deserta (Cambridge), Vol. I, pp. 345, 318, 249.

go SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
It was in this atmosphere that the nomadic ancestors of the
Israehtes lived, moved, and had their being. The great
bulk of those that settled in the highlands of Canaan retained
their clan organization for a long time, and were forced to
continue upon a very crude economic level. They carried
some of their primitive social justice, or mishpat, clear through
the times of the "Judges" and the highland kingdom under
Saul; whUe after the estabhshment of the composite Hebrew
monarchy under David, the more backward and remote classes
in the nation were stiU greatly influenced by the ideas and
practices of the desert ancestors.
Having glanced at the tendencies which the nation got
from the Israelite forefathers, we wiU now refer to the usages
and ideas coming from the other side of its ancestry. The
Amorites occupied the cross-roads of ancient Semitic civiliza
tion. Their social system was intimately connected with
the usages of trade and commerce; and they had left the
atmosphere of the desert clan far behind. The Amorites,
hke the Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and Egyp
tians, had long ago reduced land to the category of private
property. The civUized oriental believed in law, morals,
justice, mishpat (whatever term we may use in this connec
tion); but his ideas about such things were a mystery to the
more backward Semite of the desert and the hiUs. AU the
long-settled and civilized races of the Semitic world regarded
the soil as an item of commerce, falling within the general
category of "property"; and they carried this principle to
its logical issue, just as we do in the modern world. They
bought, sold, and rented that which the nomad looked upon
as the common foundation of life. They made the soU the
basis of security for mortgage loans; and the nomad knew little
about the mystery of mortgages, and abhorred what little
he knew. They charged interest on mortgage loans; and
the nomad thought all interest was wicked. Finally, when

THE CONFLICTING STANDPOINTS 91
mortgages were not paid, the civUized Semite foreclosed by
legal process, taking over the property, and sometimes the
person of the debtor; and at this point, the mind of the nomad
ceased to foUow the logic of the situation. While the Amo
rites were swallowed up in the mass of the Hebrew nation,
their point of view, and the gods, or Baals, connected with \
that point of view, remained as factors in Hebrew life and j
history. Thus we see how two different standpoints confronted each
other during the development of Hebrew nationahty at the
point of coalescence between Israehtes and Amorites. It
should be understood that the differences about landed prop
erty do not by any means exhaust the case between the
morals of nomadism and civihzation. The nature of the
Hebrew struggle is disclosed only in part by the conflict over
the proper treatment of land. For this is but one item in
the whole circle of usages and ideas coming under the head of
mishpat.1
1 It can hardly be by accident that the Amorite Araunah, of Jerusalem, and the
Hittite Ephron, of Hebron, readily dispose of their soil (II Sam., chap. 24; Gen.,
chap. 23), while, on the other hand, the Israelite peasant Naboth is greatly scandalized
by Ahab's proposal to buy his patrimonial real-estate. "Yahweh forbid it me!"
cries Naboth (I Kings 21 : r-4). The differences of standpoint cropping out here can
hardly be explained as arising from the particular situations. The drift of the Old j
Testament goes to show that the Israelites brought into the Hebrew nation the idea i
that the soil was inalienable; whereas, the Amorites, like the Babylonians and !
Egyptians, had left this idea behind, and regarded land as a lawful item of commerce-
One of our critics attempts to make the point that the sentiment against alienation
of land in Israel could not be an heirloom from nomadic days, because in the nomadic
period there is no land to be ahenated. But land is inherited in the nomadic state
as much as under settled civihzation, though in a different way. Nomadic social
groups are always identified with certain districts which the clan, or tribe, holds in
common as its absolute property over against other groups. Thus, a given district
is continuously "inherited" by the clan from itself. We find this usage among the
desert Arabs, the Australian aborigines, the Germanic barbarians, the American
Indians, etc. But as nomads pass over into civilization, there is no social machinery
by which the soil can be administered as the common property of an entire clan; so
the sense of identity with the soil contracts into the family groups whereof the clan is
composed; and it becomes a crime, in the eyes of the more primitive classes in the
community, to remove a neighbor's landmark. This feeling never operates perma-

92 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
In the early narratives of the Hebrew social struggle, the land
question is prominent. — According to the accounts in I Samuel,
the "perversion" of mishpat was one of the causes that led to
the setting-up of the Israelite monarchy itseU.
And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons
judges over Israel  And his sons walked not in his ways, but
turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted mishpat. Then
all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to
Samuel unto Ramah; and they said unto him, Behold, thou art old,
and thy sons walk not in thy ways. Now make us a king to judge us
like all the nations (I Sam. 8: r, 3, 4, 5).1
In reply to their demand, the people are told that the
social system, or mishpat, of the kingdom wUl not be satis
factory. The central feature of Samuel's warning is, that the
king wiU take away the best of their fields, their vineyards,
and their oliveyards, and give these lands to the nobles that
surround the throne (vs. 14). Along with this, the people
wiU be heavUy taxed and reduced to slavery. In other words,
we have here a picture of the concentration of landed property,
in which the national soU comes into the grasp of the nobUity.
This, of course, involves the depression of an increasing num
ber of the people into the lower social class. It is this feature
of the situation that the prophet Isaiah has in mind when he
nently to stop the reduction of land to individual proprietorship, nor to overcome the
concentration of the soil in the hands of an aristocracy.
The process of land concentration had gone so far in Egypt and Babylonia during
prehistoric times that when these countries emerge into the light of history their soil is
already in the hands of a small upper class. (Cf. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt
[Chicago, 1906], Vol. I, p. 259; Vol. II, pp. 6, 9, 277; Vol. IV, p. 40s; and
Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians [New York, 1906], pp. 7T-78.)
' I Sam., chap. 8, in its present shape, comes no doubt from a time later than that
of Samuel; but it admirably summarizes one aspect of Hebrew history from first to
last. The supposition is not in any way impossible that Samuel knew about the
mishpat identified with the kings, or meleks, in the neighboring Amorite cities; and
it is highly probable that he knew about the unhappy experience of Israel with the
half-Amorite Abi-melek, of Shechem (Judg., chaps. 8 and 9). Samuel's prejudice
against the term melek, together with family interest, would be sufficient to give a
historical basis for the narrative in which he warns the people against the kingdom.

THE CONFLICTING STANDPOINTS 93
speaks of "them that join house to house, that lay field to
field, tUl there be no room" (Isa. 5:8). And this wUl be
the social system identified with king and kingdom. It wiU
not be a mere matter of individual, or personal, wrong
doing. For the nobles, rulers, and kings, in their capacity
as custodians of the law courts, wUl uphold the mishpat of
commercial civilization, which the forefathers in the desert
knew not.
The conflict of standpoints must be held carefully in view in the
present study. — Doughty teUs of a quaint argument between
one of the nomads and a townsman over the question,
"Whether were nigher unto "God the life of townsfolk or
of the Aarab" (wandering, Bedouin Arabs).1 The contention
of the nomad, of course, was in favor of his own class. For,
according to his view, the dweUers in the Arabian desert were
more righteous and "nearer to God" than the inhabitants of
Arabian towns and cities like Mecca and Medina. A great
deal may no doubt be said for such a view. But, funda-
mentaUy, human nature is precisely the same in both cases.
The differences of practice and view arise largely out of differ
ences of external condition. The wandering life and the
settled state respectively imply unlike institutions; and these
different social arrangements (or mishpats) give rise to unlike
practices, and lead to conflicting ideas about what is right in
a given situation.2
1Ibid., p. 228.
3 Writing on Arabia before Islam, Winckler says, "The feud between the Bedouins
and the settled population was never checked  The tribal organization, indeed,
which lies at the root of the Bedouin Ufe, was not abandoned as rapidly as the towns
were captured." — Helmolt's History of the World (New York, 1903), Vol. Ill, pp.
239-40. Hommel observes that "the Assyrian inscriptions of the eighth and seventh
centuries B.C. mention a whole host of nomadic Aramean tribes who inhabited the
narrow strip of desert between the Tigris and the Elamite highlands  These
Arameans would seem to have offered the same resistance to Babylonian civilization
as was always displayed by the Bedouin Arab tribes in Palestine." — Ancient Hebrew
Tradition (London, 1897), p. 206. See also Budde's "Nomadic Ideal," in the New
World (Cambridge, Mass., 1895).

94 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
The foregoing Ulustration from desert life agrees closely
with what the Bible has to teU us about the practices and
ideas of the Israelite clans after they left the Arabian wUder
ness. Some continued to be shepherds and cattlemen. Others
became tUlers of the soU. City life was monopolized, or
pre-empted, by the Amorites, who held the strong, fortified
places and the adjacent vUlages and fields, and melted slowly
into the new population. Thus the hiU dwellers in the Hebrew
nation were shut away from the commercial and capitalistic
standpoint; and they never developed an active, oriental city
hfe down to the last. "The great mass of the people," as
Kittel observes, "retained their simple ways and life, especiaUy
in the country and in small towns. "*¦
So we see that, although the distinction between Israehte
and Amorite was at length wiped out, the social struggle
unconsciously foUowed the original race hnes. The moral
codes of the city capitalist and the nomad were brought into
active coUision within the limits of one and the same social
group. Two different standpoints were brought into sharp
contrast in the development of the Hebrew nation. This
fundamental variance comes to the surface over and over
again. Thus, the social classes identified with the large
centers of population are actively and uniformly opposed in
the name of Yahweh, by the great literary prophets.2 Even
the legends of the Hexateuch are strongly colored by the same
reaction. Accordingly, when the chUdren of men propose
to build a city, Yahweh looks with no favor upon the enter
prise. "So Yahweh scattered them abroad from thence upon
the face of aU the earth; and they left off buUding the city"
(Gen. n : 8). Abraham the nomad, who lives in tents, is the
friend of Yahweh; but the Amorites, who hve in the cities
of Canaan, are very wicked; and when "the iniquity of the
'Kittel, History of the Hebrews (London, 1896), Vol. II, p. 297.
2 We shall go into this more fully elsewhere in the present study.

THE CONFLICTING STANDPOINTS 95
Amorite is fuU," the descendants of Abraham shaU possess the
land (Gen. 15:12-15). Yahweh teUs Abraham that the cities
of Sodom and Gomorrah are so wicked that they must be
destroyed. Abraham pleads for the preservation of Sodom
U a few righteous men be found in it. But the cities are blotted
out. We think at once how this old legend reflects the idea
of the prophet Jeremiah: "Run ye to and fro through the
streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the
broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that
doeth mishpat, that seeketh faithfulness; and I wUl pardon
her" (Jer. 5:1). Yahweh accepts the offering of the shepherd
Abel, who brings the sacrifice customary among nomads; whUe
Cain, who brings the offering of the settled worker on the soU,
is rejected (Gen., chap. 4). The Book of Genesis, being
written at a late epoch, reflects the struggle of the prophets
against the practices and ideas of their times.
Hebrew national evolution differed sUghtly from that of
other ancient peoples, and is directly connected with the reli
gious peculiarity of the Hebrews. — WhUe we must hold the
conflict of standpoints carefully in mind in the present study,
we should realize that the economic struggle between civUiza
tion and nomadism was not peculiar to the Hebrews. It is
not in the economics of the situation, but in the sociology —
the gr0w/>-development — that the distinction of the Hebrews
comes into view. An Ulustration is useful here. While aU
the oak leaves in the world resemble each other, and conform
to the same general pattern, yet no two oak leaves have ever
been found exactly alike. The universe in which we live con
tains endless possibilities of new combinations, involving
departure, or variation, from the rule. Thus, the great,
fundamental facts of social evolution are everywhere the
same; yet no two nations ever went through exactly the same
social process. A slight variation, one way or another, is
always to be found. Now, it is the "variations" that are of

96 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
epoch-making importance in aU processes of development.
The rise and progress of the Hebrew national group was a
little different from the social evolution of any other people,
ancient or modern. We have previously referred to this con
sideration (cf . supra, pp. xxix-xxx) ; and we shall need to hold
it prominently in mind in our sociological study of the Bible.
Two instances arise at once for comparison, the Kassite
conquest of Babylonia, and the Hyksos conquest of Egypt.
In both cases there is an objective resemblance to the Israelite
conquest of Canaan. For the Kassites and the Hyksos, like
the Israehtes, were primitive peoples who succeeded in con
quering settled and civilized races. But the sociological
paraUel ends here. 'The Kassites and Hyksos found group-
mechanisms already established in Babylonia and Egypt;
and the invaders were compeUed to adapt themselves to the
! social structure of the conquered races. But in the case of the
Israelites, it was the invaders, and not the earlier population,
that supplied the national government and the national
deity. A desert god was imported abruptly into the midst
of civilization. As a result of this peculiar interweaving of circumstances,
that part of the nation in which the Amorite tendency was the
stronger wanted to worship the national god in the charac
ter of an ordinary, "civUized" Baal, who countenanced the
social system of civihzation, with its universal slavery and its
disregard of the common man. But on the contrary, that
part of the nation where the old Israelite tendency was the
more powerful wanted to claim the national god as the patron
of the old, brotherhood mishpat. One party was obstinately
determined upon calling Yahweh a Baal; and the other party
was equaUy determined upon maintaining the distinction be
tween the national god and the Baals of the Amorites. As a
consequence, the evolution of Yahweh from a god of nomadism
into a god of "civUization" was obstructed. The religious

THE CONFLICTING STANDPOINTS 97
development of the Hebrews issued in what is caUed a
"cross-fertilization of culture," which avoided the vices of
civilization and nomadism, and combined their virtues.
The novelty of the situation lay in the fact that here, for the
first time in human history, the struggle between social classes
found a paraUel in the contrast between religious traditions.
The pecuhar conflict of religious traditions gave> expression to
the social struggle and at length became the symbol of that
struggle. In the midst of this deeply moving national experi
ence, the better Hebrew minds found the stimuli which prompted
them to work out along a new line of thought.1
' The scientific question here is distinct from the profounder problem of rehgion
and theology; and the progress of research ought to make it increasingly so. From
the scientific standpoint, the most that we can do is to discover the facts, and set
them in their actual, historical relations to each other. Beyond this attempt, science
may not go. For a scientific investigator to dogmatize about the metaphysical
possibilities of the case is just as illiberal as the most narrow traditionalism of the
old school. Let the facts, or categories, of Hebrew history be reduced to their barest
and most rationalistic terms; and we may, even then, hold without fear of contradic
tion that the personal God of the universe was at work within those terms, in a way
that we cannot understand any more than we can comprehend how our own per
sonahty works within the terms of our daily experience. We know empirically that
the facts of "personahty" and "natural law" are united; and this practical
knowledge is virtually taken up by religious faith and thrown over into the field of
universal being in the form of a postulate. The writer has made a statement of his
position in the A merican Journal of Theology (Chicago), April, 1908.

CHAPTER XI
PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD
The first experiences of the Israehtes in Canaan. — The age of
the Judges, or shophetim* extends from the Israelite invasion
of the land up to the founding of the monarchy under Saul.
Our chief source of information for this long stretch of time
is the Book of Judges and the first eight chapters of I Samuel.
This interesting period of history was a time of martial deeds
and thrilling adventures. An atmosphere of romance hangs
over it such as we find in the early tales of Rome, the Sagas
of the Norsemen, and the Iliad of the Greeks. The figures
of mighty heroes loom before us — Barak and Gideon and
Jephthah and Samson and Samuel. Great men move to
and fro through the shadows of that early era; and we feel
the speU of its fascination as we turn the pages of the Bible
story. Certain historical factors are projected into sharp relief in
the Judges period, the Israelites and Yahweh; the Amorites and
the Baals. — On the one side are the Israelite clans, in the hUl-
country and extending out in the direction of the wilderness
on the east and south. On the other side are the Amorites,
chiefly in the lowlands, holding the strong, fortified cities and
the adjacent vUlages and fields. These two peoples lived in
proximity for some time before they came under the cover of
one political roof and melted into the social organism of the
Hebrew nation.
In the same way, the cults of these two peoples were entirely
distinct at the outset. The worship of Yahweh was identified
' Pronounced, sho-fet-eem. The final syllable is the masculine plural, and takes
the accent. Compare "cherub" and "cherubim." 98

PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 99
with the Israelites and their social usages. Likewise, the
worship of the Baals was identified with the Amorites and
their usages, having been practiced in the land of Canaan time
out of mind. In brief, just as there was a distinction between
the two peoples in the early history, so there was an equally
sharp distinction between their gods.
Hostility between Yahweh and Baal is connected with antago
nism between Israelite and Amorite. — "Ye shall not fear the
gods of the Amorites in whose land ye dweU" (Judg. 6:10).
The characteristic warfare between religious worships in the
Bible is not between that of Yahweh and that of the Babylo
nian Marduk, or the Egyptian Amon, or the Assyrian Ashur.
On the contrary, as everyone wiU remember who has read the
Bible carefuUy, the great, outstanding struggle is between
Yahweh and the neighboring Baals. Now these deities are
precisely the gods of the races that were brought into hostUe
contact by the Israehte invasion of Canaan. "The contest
with the Canaanite rehgion," as Marti says, "naturaUy
played an important part in the struggle for the possession of
the country."1 First and last, the Baals are the divinities
against which the champions of Yahweh spend their force.
The local Baals of Canaan are, so to speak, the villains in the
mighty drama of the Bible. The term Baal, in fact, becomes a
characteristic mark of antagonism to Yahweh; and it survives
in the New Testament and in Christian theology in the name
of God's great adversary, Beelzebub, "the prince of devUs."2
The Book of Judges unroUs a dramatic picture before us:
Two races are on the stage. Two series of hostUe social groups
are placed over against each other in the same smaU territory
'Marti, The Religion of the Old Testament (London, 1907), p. 98.
2 Cf. Matt. 10: 25; 12: 24, 27; Mark 3: 22; Luke 16: 15, 18, 19. Baal-zebub was
god of the Philistine city of Ekron, adjacent to Israehte territory. Cf. II Kings
1 : 2, 3, 6, 16. The Phihstines were active enemies of Israel for many years. We
cannot discover by what obscure association of ideas this particular Baal condensed
within himself the leadership in the "opposition" to Yahweh.

ioo SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
— the one chiefly in the highlands; the other chiefly in the
lowlands. At that period of human history, politics and
religion were closely connected. Church and State were simply
the obverse and reverse aspects of the same thing. The gods
were looked upon as members of the social groups that wor
shiped them; and in aU matters of importance the gods were
consulted by casting lots or otherwise. In view of this inti
macy between religion and politics, the hostihty of social
groups against each other drew along with it the antagonism
of the respective gods. Herein we find one of the sources of
the idea of "war between the gods." In the light of this
consideration, the meaning of the title the "Book of the
Wars of Yahweh" is not mysterious (Num. 21:14). For the
battles of Israel are actuaUy caUed "Yahweh's battles"
(I Sam. 18:17; 25:28). In harmony with this principle,
during the wars between Rome and Carthage, Hannibal the
Carthaginian stood before the altar of his ancestral god and
swore eternal hatred for the people and the gods of Rome. In
the story of David and Goliath, we read that the PhUistine
cursed David by his gods; whUe David replied that he came
in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the god of the armies of
Israel. Thus we see that there is nothing unusual about
the mere idea of rivalry, or antagonism, between Yahweh
and the Baals as involved in the hostUity between Israelites
and Amorites. This, however, is only a smaU part of the story;
for these gods already symbolized the clashing standpoints
of nomadism and civilization.1
' The Israehtes may possibly have had memories of a reaction against the gods
and the usages of Egypt; but our best point of departure in the present study is the
Judges period, which lies more clearly in the light of history than the far-away times
contemplated by the Hexateuch. In any case, we begin with cultural and military
antagonism between social groups. The references to Egypt in the earlier narratives
of the Old Testament are scanty and uncertain. The Egyptian bondage is discussed
only in later documents, such as those of Exodus, which are heavily encrusted with
miracle (cf. chap, iv, "The Making of the Old Testament"). We have already seen
that the Hexateuch views the origin of the Hebrew nation, and the Israelite con
quest of Canaan, out of their true historical relations (cf. chap. ii).

PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 101
The Yahweh-Baal conflict in the Judges period stands in iso
lation from the later, "prophetic" struggle against Baal worship. —
The clash between the cults of Yahweh and the Baals is
noticed widely throughout the Old Testament; but at this
early point in our study, it becomes our duty to emphasize
that the references to the struggle have a peculiar distribu
tion corresponding to the peculiar national experience around
which the Bible turns.
Thus, a number of passages occur in the Book of Judges,
and the opening chapters of I Samuel, with reference to
Israehte reaction agamst the cults of the Amorites. These
passages begin with Judg. 2 : 11, and end with I Sam. 7 -.4..
WhUe they admit the compromise of Israel with the cults of
the Baals, they put stress upon the rejection of Baahsm by the
Israehtes. According to the final notice in the series, the
chUdren of Israel put away the Baals and served Yahweh
only. It should be emphasized that aU these passages refer
to the period before the Israehtes and Amorites united to form
the Hebrew nation. Having laid stress upon this fact, the
importance of which wUl become clear as our study proceeds,
we go on to point out another equally striking considera
tion. And this is, that setting out from the last of the notices
referred to (I Sam. 7 -.4), we read forward in Samuel and Kings
through an expanse of two thousand verses, representing a
period of about two centuries, in which there is no reference
to the gods of the Amorites. At the end of this period, the
prophet Ehjah suddenly comes before King Ahab, saying,
"Thou hast followed the Baals" (I Kings 18:18). A httle
farther on we read that Ahab " did very abominably in foUow
ing idols, according to all that the Amorites did" (I Kings
21:26). From this point onward in Kings we hear a great
deal about the Yahweh-Baal struggle. It may be asked now.
Upon what principle is this pecuhar distribution of notices\
determined ? This question wiU go with us.

102 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
In the meanwhUe, stepping outside the Judges-Samuel-
Kings narratives, we find equaUy striking facts in the writings
of the prophets who came after Elijah. This great prophet
was foUowed in the next century (the eighth) by Hosea, who
also worked in the Northern Kingdom; and the book ascribed
to Hosea puts the opposition between Yahweh and the Baals
into the foreground of its treatment. On the other hand,
the books of Amos, Micah, and Isaiah (prophets who lived in
Judah, the Southern Kingdom, during the same century with
Hosea) have nothing to say about the Baals! But coming
down to Jeremiah, who worked in Judah in the seventh and
sixth centuries, we find the same stress upon the Baals that
appears in Hosea! What is the basis of these phenomena?
Is it a mere matter of individual genius ? or does it stand in
the historical situation? This question is an item in the
problem raised by the distribution of Baal-emphasis in the
Judges-Samuel-Kings documents.1
The Deuteronomic view of the Yahweh-Baal conflict in the
Judges period. — According to the Deuteronomic editor, whose
hand is visible in the Book of Judges and as far as I Sam. 7 : 4,
the early history of Israel was marked by repeated compromise
with Amorite Baalism, foUowed in each case by sharp reaction
against it. Upon this view, the pre-national experience of
Israel in Canaan resolved itself into recurring cycles which are
described in a general way by the Deuteronomist as foUows:
(1) Baalism
And the children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of
Yahweh, and served the Baals. And they forsook Yahweh, the god of
their fathers, who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed
other gods, of the gods of the peoples that were round about them, and
bowed themselves down unto them (Judg. 2:11 f.).
' The Book of Deuteronomy is intensely preoccupied with the struggle of Yahweh
against "other gods"; and it scarcely uses the term Baal. Nevertheless, as the con
text shows, it is the local gods of the Amorites that are chiefly in the writer's mind.
See Deut. 6: r4, 15, and 12 : 2, 3, 29-31, and 31 : 16. We shall recur to Deuteronomy in
a later part of our study.

PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 103
(2) Punishment
And the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel; and he delivered
them into the hands of spoUers that spoiled them. And he sold them
into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not
any longer stand before their enemies (vs. 14).
(3) Deliverance
And Yahweh raised up judges who saved them out of the hand of
those that spoiled them  And when Yahweh raised them up
judges, then Yahweh was with the judge, and saved them out of the
hand of their enemies all the days of the judge (vss. 16, 18).
According to this interpretation, the Judges period resolved
itself into successive cycles of Baalism, Punishment, and
Dehverance; and in the final notice of the series we read that
Israel put away the Baals and served Yahweh only (I Sam.
7:4). If these recurring suppressions of Amorite Baalism be
hteral history, then there is no difficulty about the initial stage
of the religious process in Canaan: the tradition of Yahweh's
hostihty against the local Baals runs paraUel to the antagonism
between social groups and gives expression to group-hostUity.
But the editor whose comments are inserted in the books
of Judges and Samuel, views that period from the standpoint
of the Book of Deuteronomy, which was first published a
generation before the Babylonian exUe. In that important
work, the penalty for worshiping other gods is aU kinds of
misfortune (Deut. 11:26-29; 28:14-68). Among other evUs,
"Yahweh wUl cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies.
Thou shalt go out one way against them, and shalt flee seven
ways before them" (28:25). Looking at the traditions and
stories coming down from the Judges period, the Deuteronomic
editor finds that his ancestors were afflicted and oppressed by
foreigners, and that they were delivered by warlike leaders,
who rallied them to battle in the name of Yahweh. In har
mony with the Deuteronomic ideas, he reasons that the early
Israehtes could not have had misfortune unless they had for
gotten Yahweh and served other gods. He therefore draws

104 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
the inference that the periodical oppressions of early Israel
constitute first-class evidence of Baalism. Accordingly, he
brings together a number of old Israelite stories about the
Judges period, and connects these interesting stories by com
ments of his own, which are obviously far later than the
stories themselves; and the result is the Book of Judges,
which was prepared at a late period as a work of religious
edification. In the general introduction to his book (from
which we have already quoted, supra), the editor states the
phUosophy of the Judges period as an osciUation between
Yahwism and Baalism; and whenever he sees an opportunity,
he inserts the formula, "Now the chUdren of Israel did evU
in the sight of Yahweh, and served the Baals  Then
they were oppressed [by such and such a people] 
Then they were dehvered [by so and so]."1 These editorial
observations constitute what modern scholars call the "frame
work," the original narratives being compressed within the
framework. The method of the Deuteronomic editor of
Judges is perfectly clear; but his results are doubtful.
The sociological view of the Yahweh-Baal conflict in the Judges
period. — The stories in the books of Judges and Samuel are
interspersed by eight editorial notices in which the Israehtes
are said to have gone over to the worship of the Amorite
Baals.2 But it should be distinctly understood that in five
out of these eight cases there is absolutely no reference to
any connection between the Israelites and the Amorites;
whUe in the remaining cases, although the two peoples are
in contact, the prevaUing atmosphere is that of alienation
and war between therri:3 In other words, wherever there is
' This description will serve in a general way to represent the modern critical
view of Judges; but the book itself shows that the process by which it reached its
present form was even more complex.
»(i) Judg. s-.il.; (2) 3:121.; (3) 4:11.; (4) 6:1 f.; (5) 8:33 f.; (6) 10:6 f.;
(7) 13:11.; (8) I Sam. 7:4.
^Nos. 3, 4, and 5 in the preceding note. In No. 3, the Israelites defeat the
Amorites at Esdraelon; in No. 4, the two peoples are alien; and in No. 5, although
there is a temporary understanding, the Israelites finally destroy the Amorites of

PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 105
an opportunity to study the local situation, as concerns the
Israehtes and Amorites, the two peoples are stiU sundered
by hatred. In spite of the sweeping editorial statement that
the Israelites promptly intermarried with the inhabitants of
Canaan (Judg. 3:5, 6), we find only one Ulustration, and that
a case of the long-distance, or sadika, marriage, in which the
woman remains with her own people apart from her husband
(Judg. 8:31). The actual circumstances of the pre-national
period could hardly have been so regular and systematic as
the editor of Judges and Samuel supposes. WhUe there was
undoubtedly a certain measure of accommodation between
the newer and older inhabitants; and while some of the Israel
ites may have worshiped the Baals during this period; the
outstanding feature of the Judges epoch is the hostile contact
of alien social groups. Hence, no matter how much there may
be in the Deuteronomic idea of a recurrent "putting-away"
of the Amorite gods, the tradition of Yahweh's early enmity
against the local Baals is chiefly attested and guaranteed by
the principle of group-antagonism.
A tabular exhibit of coUisions between Israelites and Amo
rites in the Judges period, and extending into the time of the
early monarchy, is instructive :
TABLE I
Amorites Vanquished by Israel

Amorites of Hebron (Judg. 1 : 10)
" Kiriath-sepher (Judg. 1:11-15)
" Zephath (Judg. 1:17)
" Beth-el (Judg. 1:22-26)
" Shechem (Judg.; 9:45)
" Laish (Judg. 18:27)
under Sisera (Judg., chaps. 4 and 5)

Shechem. Kittel writes, "It is noteworthy that the statements [about Baal wor
ship] are confined exclusively to these late narrators. Accordingly there are remark
ably few concrete facts adduced in support of them." — History of the Hebrews
(London, 1888), Vol. II, pp. 97, 98. Kautsch says, "The picture which the Deute
ronomic redactor of the Book of Judges sketches .... is not true to the historical
reality." — Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (ext. vol.), p. 645.

io6

SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE

TABLE II

RIl

es Unconquered, but Later Fused wite

I

Amorites of Beth-shean

(Judg. 1:27)

2

it (

' Taanach

ii Ci

3

tt t

' Dor

ii ii

4

tt t

' Ibleam

il It

5

a t

' Megiddo

a a

6

a t

' Gezer

(Judg. 1:29)

7

tt t

' Kitron

(Judg. 1:30)

8

tt i

' Nahalol

it ti

9

tt 1

' A ceo

(Judg. 1:31)

IO

it t

' Ahlab

a tt

n

(t t

' Achzib

a tt

12

t( i

' Helbah

tt tt

13

a t

' Aphik

tt a

14

ii t

' Rehob

tt a

iS

tt t

' Beth-shemesh

(Judg. 1:33)

16

a t

' Beth-anath

l( it

17

a t

' Heres

(Judg. i:34,3S)

18

a t

' Aijalon

it li

19

a t

' Shaalbim

it it

20

it i

' Hazor

(Judg. 4:17)

21

a i

' Jerusalem

(Judg. 19:10-12)

22

a t

' Gibeon

(II Sam. 21:1-2)

From these tables it wiU be seen that the original victories
over the Amorites were confined to the hill-country. The
larger part of the earlier inhabitants were, indeed, uncon
quered by the Israelites.1
' In this connection, it is important to notice that all the sanctuaries of Yahweh
that are "authenticated" by the Book of Genesis are in the field of the first and
smaller, table, being found in the highlands (Gen. 12:6; T2:8; T3:i8; 21:33; 26:23-
25; 28:18-19; 32-3°~31', 33:r8-2o; 35:1, r4, rs; 46:1). The first book of the
Old Testament is frequently referred to in a general and vague way as evidence that
the sanctuaries "taken over" by Israel from the Amorites were later believed to have
been the scene of Yahweh theophanies during patriarchal times. In reality, Genesis
agrees with Judges in respect of the partial nature of the conquest. The Genesis
legends confine themselves to a few places in the hill-country; and, excepting the
story of Melchizedek, the patriarchal stories are not brought into connection with
the strong, walled cities of Table II. This is a good indication of the trustworthy
character of the stories in Genesis; but it gives no support to modern theories of a
wholesale validation of Amorite shrines by Hebrew tradition.

PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 107
All the leading Israelites in the Judges period were men of
the hill-country. — In accordance with the limited nature of the
Israehte conquest, the chiefs and heroes of the Judges period
were invariably men of the uplands. Thus, Othniel was
connected with the clan of Caleb in the hiUs of Judah. Ehud
lived in the highlands of Ephraim. Here also dwelt the
famous Deborah, in whose day the Amorites gathered them
selves together to make one last, mighty struggle before
acquiescing in Israel's presence. A great battle took place
in the plain of Esdraelon. Two accounts of this action have
come down to us, the one in prose (Judg., chap. 4), the other
in poetry (Judg., chap. 5, the "Deborah Song"). In the
latter account, we see that the Israelites had no national
organization at this time. Only five of their clans are men
tioned as being represented in the army (Judg. 5:14, 15);
whUe five other Israehte clans are blacklisted "because they
came not to the help of Yahweh against the mighty"
(vss. 15-17, 23).
The great battle at Esdraelon left the distribution of the
two races unchanged; but it confirmed the title of the Israel
ite clans to the hUl-country. So, as we continue onward in
the Book of Judges, the hero Gideon is found in the little
vUlage of Ophrah in the hills of Ephraim. Tola dweUs also
in the same region. Jair and Jephthah are located in the hills
of GUead. Ibzan is at Bethlehem, in the hUls of Judah.
Abdon is an Ephraimite. Samson lives in the vUlage of
Zorah, which hes on a hUl west of Jerusalem. After the
Samson stories, the remaining chapters of Judges take us
once more through the hUls of Ephraim. The attitude of
these hUl clans toward the Amorite settlements finds a good
Ulustration in the case of a certain Levite. Without going
into the preliminary detaUs, we quote:
He rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus (the same as
Jerusalem)  When they were by Jebus, the day was far spent.

io8 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
And the slave said unto his master, Come, I pray you, and let us turn
aside into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it. And his master
said unto him, We will not turn aside into the city of a foreigner that is not
of the children of Israel; but we will pass over to Gibeah .... and we
will lodge in Gibeah or in Ramah (Judg. 19: 10-13; italics ours).
The city of Jerusalem is bound up so closely with the name
of Israel that this passage comes before the reader for the
first time with the effect of a shock. Here we discover this
well-known place to be a foreign city far down in the Judges
period, long after the Israelites had settled in Canaan. Here
it stands amid the shadows of advancing night. As the sun
sinks in the west, the city waUs rise, black and forbidding, in
front of the travelers. The Israelite wUl not trust himself
to lodge there, so he continues on through the footpaths in
the hUls as the darkness faUs. The highlands, then as now,
stood round about Jerusalem. The Jebusite inhabitants of
the city were merely a branch of the Amorites. This is
remembered by the prophet Ezekiel when he writes, "Thus
saith the lord Yahweh to Jerusalem, Thine origin and thy
nativity is of the land of the Canaanite. The Amorite was
thy father" (Ezek. 16:3, 45; italics ours).1
The only attempt at pohtical union between Israelites and
Amorites in the Judges period was a failure. — The early chap
ters of Judges contain the well-known tales about the hero
Gideon (chaps. 6 ff.). The stories relating to Gideon and his
son Abimelek are in some confusion; but the sociological
factors are quite certain. On the one hand was the Israelite
clan of Abiezer, living in the hUls of Ephraim, with their
headquarters at the viUage of Ophrah. They were farmers
and shepherds, depending upon their fields and cattle for a
living. On the other hand, in the valley below Ophrah, was
the Amorite city of Shechem, whose inhabitants depended
' The terms Canaanite and Amorite are used in the same sense by different Old
Testament writers; and we shall employ the shorter term as far as possible in the
present study.

PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 109
in part upon the fertile fields outside the city, and in part
upon the commerce that flowed through their vaUey.
An adjustment of some kind was arranged between Gideon's
Israelites and the Amorites of Shechem. The leading men on
both sides reached an understanding. Gideon took a secon
dary wife, or concubine, from one of the families of Shechem —
a kind of "state-marriage"; and the woman remained with
her own folk in the city. Both Israelites and Amorites
worshiped the same divinity, who was known as the god, or
master of the "covenant" (berith, Judg. 8:33; 9:46). The
covenant church was near Shechem. Gideon had considerable
influence among the Israelites in central Ephraim. When the
Midianites from the desert came up against the land after the
manner of Israel at an earlier day, " Gideon sent messengers
throughout aU the hUl-country of Ephraim, saying, Come
down against Midian" (7:24). He fought these invaders
from the wUderness of Arabia not only on behalf of Israel,
but on behalf of the Amorites of Shechem as weU (9: 17).
It is impossible to discover just what kind of an understand
ing existed between the two peoples. Whatever it was, the
pohtical power of Gideon was of sufficient importance to
become the subject of dispute after his death. On the sur
face, the controversy was a personal quarrel; but the question
at issue was whether the seat of government should continue
in the hands of Gideon's famUy at Ophrah, or whether the
government should be in the hands of the Amorites at Shechem.
In order to accomphsh their purpose, the Amorites made use
of Abimelek, the son of Gideon's concubine. He was given a
fund, or subsidy, out of the church treasury, "wherewith
Abimelek hired vain and light fellows, who followed him.
And he went unto his father's house in Ophrah, and slew his
brethren .... three-score and ten persons" (9: if.). This
put the balance of power into the hands of the Amorites,
leaving them in possession of the only living heir of Gideon.

no SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Accordingly, "all the men of Shechem assembled themselves
together .... and went and made Abimelek king by the
oak of the pillar that was in Shechem  And Abimelek
was prince over Israel three years" (9:6, 22). This is a very
noteworthy situation. The Amorite voters elected a king
who reigned not only over Shechem but over the Israelites
in the hUls near the city. What we have here, of course, is
merely a local kingdom in the heart of Ephraim. Abimelek
did not rule over "ah Israel"; but even so, the experiment is
highly instructive and full of meaning.
Judging by the brief reign of Abimelek, the rule of the city
of Shechem could not have been very stable. For trouble
soon arose between the Shechemites and their half-breed ruler.
The king withdrew his residence, and put the city in charge
of a lieutenant. Abimelek was now repudiated by the same
Shechemite aristocracy that had elevated him to the throne.
After this, Abimelek made terms with the Israelites, led them
against the Amorites, and reduced the city of Shechem to
ruins. "And Abimelek fought against the city  And
he took the city, and slew all the people that were therein.
And he beat down the city and sowed it with salt" (9:45).
Moreover, he burned the great Tower of Shechem, which was
outside the city, "so that aU the men of the Tower of Shechem
died also, about a thousand men and women " (vs. 49). Carry
ing the war to another Amorite city in the neighborhood, he
met his death; "and when all the men of Israel saw that
Abimelek was dead, they departed every man unto his place"
(vs. 55).1
Thus we see that the only attempt at political union
between Israelites and Amorites in the Judges period was a
disastrous faUure. The dark outcome of the kingdom of
1 An echo of this situation is found in the traditions of Genesis (chap. 34). The
Amorites of Shechem enter into covenant with the Israelites; but the covenant is
broken by Simeon and Levi, who go into the city and murder all the male Shechemites.

PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD in
Shechem seems to have discouraged experiments in state-
making for a long time afterward. Each side had been
treacherous and brutal. When the awful story was noised
about the land, it could hardly have been a factor in softening
race-hatreds. Israelites would be afraid to trust Amorites,
because the men of Shechem had subsidized the slaughter of
Gideon's family at Ophrah. On the other hand, Amorites
would be afraid to trust Israelites, because Gideon's clan had
wiped out the city of Shechem.
During the Judges period, the Israelites remained in the clan
stage of social development. — The primitive social organiza
tion of Israel was continued through the Judges period.
Although the outward aspects of society in this epoch were
barbaric and rough, the internal aspects of life, as touching
the relations of the men of a clan to each other, had a strong
moral quality. Those who treat the age as a time in which
there was no organization of the moral feelings, do so from
the standpoint of our advanced modern conscience. For no
social group is ever without ethical feelings embodied in its
usages ; and no ancient clan could maintain its integrity with
out customary laws and regulations to which powerful moral
sentiments attached.1
The Israelites of the Judges period were forced to keep up
their clan organizations by the pressure of their enemies the
Amorites, Moabites, Midianites, Philistines, etc. (Judg., chaps.
i, 4, 5, 6, 7, io, n, 15, 20; I Sam., chaps. 4, 5, 6, 7). It was
by means of their clan solidarity that the Israelites were able
to cope with enemies and occasionally to fight with each other.
The sentiment of loyalty to the clan group, and the feeling
of mutual duty among the members of the fellowship, were
some of the great ruling forces of society in the pre-national
' The expression with which the Book of Judges comes to an end, "Every man
did that which was right in his own eyes," is the statement of a late compiler, and is at
variance with the clear testimony of the fundamental, early documents inclosed
within the editorial framework.

112 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
epoch. It was along this route that the doctrine of human
brotherhood passed through the course of its evolution from
its narrow beginnings in blood-revenge up to the parable of
the Good Samaritan. It was the feeling of outraged brother
hood that nerved Gideon to retaliate upon the Midianites for
the death of his kinsmen: "They were my brethren, the
sons of my mother" (Judg. 8:19). The Benjamites were
attacked by a coalition of other Israelite clans because they
refused to give up their brethren for punishment (Judg. 20:
12-14).1 Yahweh in the Judges period remained a god of the primitive,
brotherhood "mishpat." — We have seen that religion and pohtics
are always identified in ancient society, and that all social
customs and usages fall under the purview of the gods (chaps.
viii, x, supra). The mishpat of Israel in the nomadic, desert
Ihe was connected with Yahweh as a matter of course; and
this whole circle of primitive law and morality (with modifica
tions due to the changed environment) continued to be
identified with Yahweh throughout the Judges period. The
judge administered his office in the name of Yahweh. The
clan courts regularly dispensed mishpat at this time (Judg.
3:10; 4:4, 5; 10:3; 12:7, 9, 11, 13, 14; I Sam. 7:15-17);
and it was the corruption of the courts, and the "perversion"
of mishpat, that led, among other causes, to the popular
demand for a king (I Sam. 8:1-5). The judge was known in
the Hebrew language as a shophet. His act of judgment was
expressed by shaphat; whUe the usages to which he referred as
precedents were designated by the now famUiar word mishpat,
which is derived from the same root as the other two terms.
' It is to be noticed that the original circumstance around which the situation
turns is the maltreatment and murder of a woman of the clan of Judah by certain
Benjamites (Judg. 19:1, 2 f.). A number of hill clans thereupon unite in a demand
upon the murderers' clan for their punishment. This is refused by the Benjamites,
who thus become partners with the murderers. The ensuing attack on the clan of
Benjamin is led by the woman's own people (Judg. 20:18).

PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 113
The Judges period as a whole has an important place in
the development of Bible religion. Yahweh, the god of the
brotherhood mishpat, was clearly set off in contrast with the
local Baals of the Amorites. This initial emphasis upon the
distinction between the gods would have been lost if the Israel
ites had aU promptly settled down, and adopted the gods and
the standpoint of advanced, oriental civUization. Although
at a subsequent period the worship of Yahweh was brought
more closely into contact with the cults of the local deities,
the historical memories of the Judges epoch, charged with the
idea of Yahweh's distinction from the gods of the land, influ
enced the mind of later generations.1
At the close of the Judges period there was a treaty of peace
between Israelites and Amorites. — As the time of the monarchy
draws near, there comes before us a highly significant notice
touching the relations between the newer and the older inhabi
tants of Canaan. This notice occurs in the midst of the dis
joined stories about the PhUistine wars, and is as follows:
"And there was peace between Israel and the Amorites" (I Sam.
7:14). The two races were thus laying aside their hatred,
and making treaties of peace. With this happy suggestion
of concord, the age of the Judges draws on to a close.
' The name Jerubbaal, identified with Gideon, has been cited to show that the
term Baal was apphed to Yahweh at this time. But there are many more'instances
of names containing Yahweh than there are of names containing Baal. Gideon
himself had a son whose name was Jotham (Judg. 9:5). The name Jonathan, meaning
"Yahweh has given," was borne by a Danite priest (Judg. 18:30). The sons of
Samuel were called Joel and Abijah, signifying respectively "Yahweh is god" and
"Yahweh is father" (I Sam. 8:2).

CHAPTER XII
SAUL'S KINGDOM IN THE HILLS
The IsraeUte monarchy was at first a highland organization,
having no capital city, and standing apart from the Amorites. —
One of the forces leading to the development of the Hebrew
nation was the pressure of hostUe groups outside the territory
of Israel. Chief among these were the Philistines. In the
same way, the American colonies were brought together by
the pressure of England. Likewise, Germany was consolidated
by the hostUity of Austria and France. This principle is of
wide application in the development of social groups. Saul's
kingdom was an Israelite undertaking, carried through with
out reference to the Amorites. This was in sharp contrast
with the earlier movement under Abimelek, in which the two
races came together, but failed to make a permanent organiza
tion. The kingdom of Abimelek was, indeed, an abortive
undertaking, " born out of due time." But Saul's kingdom was
a less ambitious project than Abimelek's, for it was limited to
the Israelite clans of the hUl-country. Abimelek had his
capital in the Amorite walled city of Shechem; but the simple
headquarters of Saul were at a country village in the Israelite
highlands. Although a treaty of peace had been recently
made between the two races, the hour for their union had not
yet struck. The kingdom of Saul is interestingly treated by
the First Book of Samuel, from chap. 8 forward to the close
of the book.
The peace treaty with the Amorites was broken by King Saul. —
The first Israelite king was unable to overcome his prejudice
against the Amorite, as the following passage indicates:
"Now the Gibeonites were not of the chUdren of Israel, but
114

SAUL'S KINGDOM IN THE HILLS nS
of the remnant of the Amorites. And the children of Israel
had sworn unto them. But Saul sought to slay them in his
zeal for the chUdren of Israel and Judah" (II Sam. 21:2).'
The perfidy of Saul and his followers had, of course, the effect
of delaying the union of the races. Once more the news of
Israelite vindictiveness was carried through the lowlands, and
heard by the Amorites with horror. The Israelite clans had
begun the trouble in the first place by attacking the country
and seizing the highlands (Judg., chap. 1). The feud had
been emphasized by the great Deborah battle at Esdraelon
(Judg., chaps. 4 and 5). The Israelites had been faithless to
their covenant and burned Shechem (Judg., chap. 9; Gen.,
chap. 34). They had also destroyed the city of Laish (Judg.,
chap. 18). And now, in disregard of a solemn treaty, their
king had led an attack on Gibeon (II Sam., chap. 21). The
peace covenant between the two races did, indeed, pave the
way for constructive results; but Saul was not the kind of
statesman to deal with the problem.
The Philistine policy was to break Saul's kingdom, and to
hold the Israelites and Amorites apart. — The progress of the
national movement in Israel interested the Phihstines greatly,
for they dreaded the rise of a strong neighboring state. They
did not approve of the highland kingdom under Saul; and they
looked with apprehension upon the peace treaty between
Israel and the Amorites. Hence the Philistines once more
took the field against the highlanders, and shattered the power
of Saul decisively at the battle of Gilboa. The scene was
a memorable one, long talked about at the firesides of Israel.
GUboa stands among the northern hiUs of Ephraim, abutting
upon the plain of Esdraelon; and in the important action
occurring at this place, King Saul and his three sons were slain.
' This violation of the treaty seems to have been more extensive than at first
appears. The city of Gibeon was in league with a number of Amorite places, among
which was Beeroth (Josh. 9:17). It is said that "the Beerothites fled to Gittaim,"
and that two of the Beerothites murdered one of Saul's grandsons (II Sam. 4:1-7).

116 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
A fact of large meaning is found in the treatment of the
royal corpses by the Philistines. The victors carried the
bodies of Saul and his sons across the eastern end of the plain,
and fastened them to the wall of the Amorite city of Beth-shan
(I Sam. 31:8-10). This important city was one of the many
fortified places which the Israelites had failed lo reduce at the
time of the original invasion (Judg. 1:27; see Table II, p. 106).
Beth-shan had stood behind its fortifications, grim and hostUe,
through the rough times of the Judges period; and the feelings
of its people must have been very mixed as they saw the
PhUistines draw near and fasten the corpses of the Israelite
royal family to the city wall. By this act, the Philistines
virtually said to the Amorites: "When you make treaties with
Israel, you are dealing wi>h a people who are too weak to
defend themselves, and who will not respect their treaty
obligations." The Israelite outlook was very dark when the star of Saul's
kingdom sank in the dust of GUboa.
In the period of the highland kingdom, Yahweh remained a
local deity; and the hill-country became his "inheritance." —
The Israelite view of Yahweh in this epoch is interestingly
shown by certain words attributed to David when he fled
away from the anger of King Saul: "They have driven me
out this day that I should not cleave unto the inheritance of
Yahweh, saying, Go, serve other gods. Now therefore, let
not my blood fall to the earth away from the presence of Yah
weh" (I Sam. 26:19-20). In this passage the hUl-country
has become the "inheritance of Yahweh." To leave the
highlands of Israel was to go into the territory of "other gods,"
who must be served by aU persons that entered their domains.
To depart from Israel was thus the same as going away from
the "presence," or the "face," of Yahweh.1
' The American Revised Version translates the passage from David as we give it;
but the King James Version translates it in words that are out of sympathy with the
meaning of the Hebrew and the sense of the context.

SAUL'S KINGDOM IN THE HILLS 117
In the reign of Saul, Yahweh continued to be identified with
the "mishpat" of the clan brotherhood. — The highland kingdom
was little more than a loose, weak federation; and in spite of
their national movement, the Israelites remained in the clan
stage of progress all through the reign of Saul. In brief, they
had not yet come to terms with civilization in general, nor
with Amorite civUization in particular. This primitive com
munity, with its ideas of what was "right" between man
and man, worshiped Yahweh as its divine patron and the
judge of its morahty. Thus we see that three successive
historical epochs emphasized the character of Yahweh as
a god of the primitive, brotherhood mishpat — (1) the nomadic
period in the Arabian wUderness, (2) the period of the Judges,
(3) the period of the highland kingdom. Throughout all
this time, from days immemorial straight up to the death of
Saul at GUboa, the clan chiefs presided over the administra
tion of justice in the name of Yahweh. The courts operated
not primarily to manufacture law, but simply to guarantee
the apphcation of old customs to all cases. Every man who
had reached the years of discernment knew in a general way
what the clan morahty demanded. Therefore we must fix
clearly in mind that, in the very nature of the situation, the
mishpat of Yahweh was no secret. It was the common property
of the clan conscience.
Yahweh therefore continued apart from the Amorite Baals
during the time of Saul. — We have seen that the final "putting-
away" of Amorite gods is placed in the time just prior to the
estabhshment of the monarchy (I Sam. 7:4). "The contest
with the Canaanite religion," says Marti, "naturaUy played
an important part in the struggle for the possession of the
country."1 In fine with the same view, Kuenen has observed
that the struggle for nationality must have been coupled with
a more or less pronounced aversion to the local Canaanite cults,
'Marti, Religion of the Old Testament (London, 1907), p. 98.

118 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
and with a desire to preserve Israel's religious individuality.1
There is no mention of the Baals in the narratives of the high
land kingdom; and the Amorite gods evidently stood outside
the calculations of the Israelites at this time.
By the latter part of the Judges period, the highlanders
had already begun to bring offerings of bread and wine up
to the ShUoh sanctuary (I Sam. 1:24). For Yahweh had
now become a god of the hiU-country. The clouds were
believed to drop water at the presence of Yahweh, in the " Song
of Deborah," the oldest extant piece of Hebrew literature
(Judg., chap. 5). He sends dew on Gideon's fleece of wool,
as it lies on the highland threshing floor in the heart of
Canaan (Judg. 6:36 f.). It was he, not the Baals, who sent
the rains that fertilized the crops and made the grass to spring
forth in the uplands of Ephraim, GUead, and Judah. The
bread of the "presence" that stood before the altar of Yahweh
at Nob was the fruit of the ground (I Sam. 21:6). Bread and
wine, both coming from the soU, were offered at the holy
place in Bethel (I Sam. 10:3); and it cannot be claimed
that the sacrifices at the high place in Ramah were limited
to flesh food (I Sam. 9:nf.). Yahweh had conquered the
highlands, and wrested them from the power of the Amorite
Baals. "As Semitic tribes migrated and settled in new
environments, their deities naturally took on many new func
tions or attributes from the new surroundings."2
' Kuenen, Religion of Israel (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 312.
2 Barton, "Yahweh before Moses,'' a. paper in the Toy Anniversary Volume.
Budde's view is unnatural, that Yahweh got his function as a rainmaker at second
hand from the Amorite Baals. If Yahweh got his attributes in this way, how did the
Baals get their powers ? — from still other gods, ad infinitum ? There was little or no
contact between the Yahweh and Baal cults during the Judges period and the time of
Saul's kingdom. The entanglement of the two cults came later, and even then was
limited to certain parts of the country and certain classes of the people. In some
Hebrew minds, the distinction between Yahweh and the Baals remained a vital, out
standing fact straight along through the history. For instance, Hosea declares on
behalf of Yahweh, "I gave her the grain, and the new wine, and the oil" (Hos. 2:8);
and this view at length prevailed. Cf. Gen. 7:4; 27:27,28; Exod.9:33; Deut.7:i3;.
33:13-16,28; IKingsi7:i; 18:44; Amos4:7; Jer. 14:22.

SAUL'S KINGDOM IN THE HILLS 119
The god of Israel was recognized in many personal names
during this period. The name of the crown prince, Jonathan,
signifies "Yahweh has given" (I Sam. 14:39). The name of
the priest Ahijah means "Yahweh is protector" (I Sam.
14:3). That of Joab, the warrior, means "Yahweh is father"
(I Sam. 26:6).1
' There is no reason to suppose that Yahweh shared with the Baals the religious
devotion of Israel during the time of the highland kingdom. The idea that Amorite
Baal-worship was necessarily involved whenever an Israelite sowed seed in the uplands
in the reign of Saul is an assumption for which there is absolutely no warrant in the
sources. The name Ishbaal, which was given to one of the sons of Saul (II Sam. 2:8)
signifies "man of Baal." This name in II Samuel has been changed by the zeal
of some later copyist into Ish-bosheth, or "man of shame" (cf. I Chron. 8:33). If
the Baal in question be Yahweh, the fact indicates merely that this generic term was
apphed to him, but not that he had suddenly forfeited his "identity" through con
fusion with the many Baals of the Amorites. The term baal, as we have seen, denoted
the father of a family in Israel (chap, vi, supra); and so its application to Yahweh
may have been suggested as much by Israelite analogy as by Amorite usage. In any
case, the Baal-names weigh no more heavily in the scales of evidence than do the
Yahweh-names; and the highland kingdom, like the Judges period, yields more of
the latter than of the former. Professor Addis writes, on the matter of names,
"Nothmg can be made of the fact that Hebrew proper names are sometimes com
pounded with Baal" {Hebrew Religion [London, 1906], pp. 106 f.).

CHAPTER XIII
COALESCENCE OF THE RACES
The Hebrew nation came into existence under the house of
David, at the point of coalescence between Israelites and Amo
rites. — The Hebrew nation, as known to world history, did not
arise until Israelites and Amorites were brought under the
cover of one political roof. The extension of the framework
of the monarchy was the task of David, one of the most
astute statesmen that ever crossed the stage of history. With
great boldness, David located his capital at one of the Amorite
waUed cities which had not been reduced by the Israelites at
the time of the original invasion. This place, known as
"Jebus" and also as "Jerusalem," had remained a foreign
city up to the time of David. The new king took this place,
and occupied its fort, Zion, caUing it the "City of David."
Instead of exterminating the inhabitants, after the manner of
Saul, David spared the Amorite population and contracted
state-marriages with the leading famUies (II Sam. 5:6-13).
In line with the same policy, and as a further token of good
faith, David gave up to the Amorites of Gibeon a number of
the grandsons of Saul for execution. This he did by way of
atonement for Saul's perfidy in breaking the treaty with the
Amorites (II Sam., chap. 21).1
' It is to be noticed that David protected himself in this action by consulting the
ephod oracle of Yahweh; but this particular item of evidence should be taken in
connection with the whole situation. "Religion in antiquity, particularly official
rehgion, usually gave its oracles in accordance with royal or priestly policy." — Good-
speed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians (New York, 1906), p. 288. To the
same effect, see Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), pp. 522, 523. Also,
on Greek oracles, Jebb, Essays (Cambridge, 1907), pp. 156 f. Professor Jebb writes,
"There were occasions on which an oracle became, in a strict sense, the organ of a
political party." He adds, rather profanely, that the god "Apollo, in short, kept
up a series of most urgent leading articles." We have discussed the ephod oracle of
Yahweh in Part II, chap. viii. 120

COALESCENCE OF THE RACES 121
The general situation is clearly shown by a detached
notice inserted in the Book of Joshua by a later hand, as
foUows: "As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the chUdren of Judah could not drive them out; but the
Jebusites dweU with the chUdren of Judah at Jerusalem
unto this day" (Josh. 15:63). An instance of the peaceful
relations established between the races appears in the case of
Araunah the Jebusite, from whom David bought some real-
estate. Araunah caUs David, "My lord, the king" (II Sam.
24:16, 21). It is not surprising to find persons from the
Canaanite cities in David's army (II Sam. 23:32, 37); nor is
it strange that a general census in this reign accounted for
Canaanites as weU as for Israelites (II Sam. 24: 1 ff.).
David was foUowed on the Hebrew throne by his son
Solomon. This king was not born among the peasantry of the
hiUs, like his father, but in the Amorite city of Jerusalem.
Under Solomon the national process went to its logical issue.
The new monarch set up the administration of the kingdom
not only in his native city, Jerusalem, but in a number of
Amorite cities, such as Beth-shemesh, Taanach, Megiddo,
Shaalbim, Hazor, Gezer, Beth-shean, etc. (I Kings 4:1, 2, 9,
11, 12, and 4:1s).1
It is clear that under Solomon the development of national
ity came to a climax. In this reign the Hebrew kingdom
took the form of an organization including aU the social factors
that enter into the composition of a mature state. It was not
merely a loose confederacy of shepherds and farmers, as in the
time of Saul. For the monarchy now embraced not only the
more primitive and backward classes, but merchants, artisans,
bookkeepers, teachers, and financiers; and it entered with
some abruptness into the circle of oriental civUization
(I Kings 4 : 1-5 ; 9:28; 10 : 14-28) . The fact that Israel finaUy
' Compare the list of unconquered Amorite cities in Judg., chap, r, as quoted
above, p. 106.

122 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
came to disaster is no proof that the union of the races in a
single state was a bad policy. It simply proves that nobody
was able to cope with the resulting situation.
The race distinction of the Amorites was lost within the
mass of the Hebrew nation. — The sociology of the Israelite
invasion of Canaan was precisely opposite to that created
by the Norman invasion of England. In the case of the
Normans, the invaders found a social group already in
existence. The English nation was organized under a king
before the Normans crossed the channel; so that Norman
life adjusted itself within the national mold, or matrix,
furnished by English life. "As early as the days of Henry
the Second," writes Green, "the descendants of Norman and
Englishman had become indistinguishable. Both found a
bond in a common English feeling and English patriotism."1
In England, therefore, the invaders took the name of the older
inhabitants. But the Israelite invaders of Canaan did not find a national
group in possession of the land. In this case, it was the
invaders, and not the older inhabitants, who supplied the
organization. The national movement started among the
Israelites of the highlands, not among the Amorites of the
lowlands; it was Israel that gave the first national rulers,
and supplied the national religion. As a result, the older
population at length lost its identity in the mass of the Hebrew
nation, and became Israelite in name. In these contrasted
historic situations, the Hebrew and the English, the objective
circumstances were precisely opposite; and the key to the
facts in each case is found in the group organization. The
Amorites intermarried with the Israelites; and the new genera
tions caUed themselves Israelites, or Hebrews, and ignored
the Amorite side of their ancestry. The invasion of the land
by the Israelites projected itself into bold relief against the
' Green, History of the English People, Book III, chap. i.

COALESCENCE OF THE RACES 123
historical background, while the intermingling of the races
made no impression upon later generations.
AU these facts resulted in the tradition that finaUy became
current, in which the Israelites were said to have triumphantly
swept away and exterminated the Amorites. Everybody
of any consequence wanted to be known as a Hebrew, or
Israehte, descended straight from Jacob, the ancient hero,
who took the country out of the hand of the Amorite with his
sword and with his bow (Gen. 48:22). The idea that the
earlier population was totally destroyed appears, as we have
seen already, in the late Book of Joshua (see above, chap, ii) ;
but this is on the basis of popular tradition. To the same
effect, Amos declares on behalf of Yahweh, "Yet destroyed
I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height
of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks. Yet I destroyed
his fruit from above and his roots from beneath" (Amos
2:9). The idea that the Amorites were destroyed, root and
branch, is indeed one of the vague, popular notions that
survive down to the present day. Unless we take the trouble
to look below the surface, and hold the fundamental facts
in mind, we miss the real merits of the Bible situation as
it unroUs before us.
Under the house of David, the political center of gravity shifted
from the Israelite highlands to the Amorite walled cities. —
We noticed that King Saul had no fortified capital; and this
no doubt was one element of the weakness that brought him
to ruin. It now becomes of importance to observe that
under the house of David the political center of gravity in
Israel underwent a remarkable change of location. The
first two kings of Israel — Saul and David — were born in
country vUlages in the hUls, the one in Gibeah, the other in
Bethlehem; but the third king, Solomon, was a native of the
stiU Amorite city of Jerusalem. This transfer of the seat of
government was in response to military necessity. The

124 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
kingdom was constantly menaced by hostUe powers; and no
administration could be successfully established among the
vUlages of the open, unprotected highlands. Thus, the
national machinery was forced into connection with the
ancient fortified centers, where it found the only security
under which it could guard the entire land. The affairs of
the nation were now directed more and more from the city
standpoint; and the two races were soon welded into the
Hebrew nation. The Amorite blood, the Amorite point of
view, and the Amorite gods remained as factors in the situa-
tibn; but the older inhabitants themselves coalesced with
the new and vanished from history.
Bible students have been thrown off their guard by the
absorption of the Amorites. — The disappearance of the older
population of the land within the mass of the Hebrew
state has been the cause of much confusion of ideas — first,
among the compUers of the Old Testament, and second,
among those who have studied and read the Bible in aU suc
ceeding ages. The Amorites were cast out and utterly
destroyed; yet they rose miraculously from the dead. They
were demolished forever by mighty portents from heaven;
yet they remained in possession of numerous waUed cities.
This fundamental variance of ideas is not adjusted anywhere
in the Bible. The compUers and authors of the Old Testa
ment were not scientific historians in the modern sense.
They worked in the interests of moral and religious edifica
tion; and they were so absorbed in the spiritual possibilities
of Israehte history that they paid smaU heed to the material
facts. This is nothing unusual among ancient writers; nor
indeed is it strange at any period of history; for it has often
come to pass that several competing versions of the same event
have been afloat at the same time. If it should be inquired
how the compUers of the Bible could have permitted these
rival accounts to stand in the canon of sacred Scripture, the

COALESCENCE OF THE RACES 125
answer is, that the Bible was not arranged and compUed at
a single stroke; nor was it all "officially adopted" by the
ruhng powers at the same time. It is the result of the labor
of many minds, extending over hundreds of years. It rep
resents a very gradual accumulation of literary material;
and even if anybody had wanted to "edit" the Bible into
scientific and historical accuracy and consistency in the
modern sense, the circumstances of its production would
have made such a thing impossible. What we have to bear
in mind in aU these critical studies is, that the Bible has
actuaUy fulfilled the religious purpose for which it was written,
and that science and phUosophy, no matter what they may
do, cannot obhterate this great fact.
Nevertheless, the age in which we live demands that, if
possible, the embarrassments of the biblical narratives be re
solved by careful, scientific study. This becomes necessary
more and more if the Bible is to be accepted as authori
tative by the future. The conception of an essentially homo
geneous Israehte people, descended straight from the twelve
sons of Jacob, has been standing in the minds of Bible students
and Christian people as a "fixed idea." This idea has not
only shaped the popular thought, but it has influenced even
professional scholars more fully than they have always been
aware.1 And so long as this initial difficulty is not fuUy
exploited and emphasized, we cannot hope for any further
solid progress, either scientific or popular, in the understand
ing of Scripture.
An instance of the confusion of ideas about Israelites and
Amorites. — One of the writers who have promoted confusion
of mind in regard to the national history is the author of the
foUowing passage:
' Thus, modern criticism has pointed out the double ancestry of the Hebrew
nation, time and again. But, on the whole, this fact has been brought forward only
to be mentioned and then retired into the background.

126 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
As for all the people that were left of the Amorites .... which
were not of the children of Israel, their children that were left after them
in the land, whom the children of Israel were not able utterly to destroy:
of them did Solomon raise a levy of bondservants unto this day. But of
the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondservants. But they
were the men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains,
and the rulers of his chariots and of his horsemen (I Kings 9:20-22;
cf. Lev. 25:39-46).
According to this writer, the Israehtes remained in the
upper class, in a very dignified social state, whUe the Amo
rites were a distinct "remnant," reduced to bondage. But
the effort of this writer to show that Solomon did not enslave
and oppress the Israelites is impeached by other and far
higher authorities. There is clear evidence that Solomon's
forced labor was done by persons of Israelite blood ( I Kings
11:28; 5:i3f.), and that his organized oppression led, among
other causes, to the revolt of the northern tribes after his
death. Thus the son and successor of this king is reported
as expressing himself to the Israelites in the foUowing words:
"My father made your yoke heavy; but I wUl add to your
yoke. My father chastised you with whips; but I wUl chas
tise you with scorpions" (I Kings 12:14). A writer who
supposes that Solomon raised his levies of bondservants
only from the Amorites, and that the chUdren of the former
inhabitants remained apart from Israel, cannot be taken as
a guide in the study of Hebrew social development. Although
a few isolated Amorite communities may have remained in
the time of Solomon, the great mass of bibhcal evidence
proves that the two races were fusing under the house of
David, and that no sharp line of distinction could then be
drawn between them.
David brought the "Ark of Yahweh" to the city of Jerusalem;
and a temple was built for it by Solomon. — During the Judges
period, the ark, or chest, of Yahweh was a part of the temple
furniture at ShUoh, in the Ephraimite hiUs. This object was

COALESCENCE OF THE RACES 127
captured in battle by the Philistines, and then left in the
Amorite city of Kiriath-jearim, a place which was under
PhUistine suzerainty.1 After the election of David, he
advanced upon Kiriath-jearim with an armed force, and
carried the ark away. The sacred box was then placed in a
tent in the Israehte quarter at Jerusalem (II Sam. 6:1-17).
In the foUowing reign it was deposited carefuUy within the
shelter of a splendid new temple (I Kings 8:1).
Neither David nor Solomon made any attempt to abohsh
the numerous local sanctuaries of Yahweh that were scattered
through the length and breadth of the land. The people
continued to worship Yahweh at these ancient viUage churches
just as they did in earlier times.2 There is not the slightest
evidence that David knew anything about the Deuteronomic
obhgation of the one legitimate, central house of worship
(Deut. 12:10-14. Cf. chap, ii, supra.)
The ark was taken to Jerusalem in order to promote the J
growth of national sentiment. This holy object, which the
Israehtes had venerated at the temple of ShUoh, furnished
3. visible connection with the past; and it now offered a point
of attachment for the patriotic feelings of the newly estab
hshed Hebrew nation.
' The improbable story of the return of the ark by the Philistines occurs in a
passage that has been tampered with by a late priestly writer. The "Baale- Judah'
of II Sam. 6:2 is the same as Kiriath-jearim (cf. I Chron. r3:s, 6; Josh. rs:9, 10;
I Sam. 7:1).
'"How far Israel actually worshiped the local Baals at these sanctuaries is
uncertain." — Robinson, Commentary on Deuteronomy (New York), p. 115

CHAPTER XTV
THE "INCREASE" OF YAHWEH1
The evolution of ancient society brought with it an evolution
of ideas about the gods. — It is well known among students of
the history of religion that the coalescence of ancient social
groups into larger groups always brought with it the rise of
some particular deity, thrusting the cult of that god up to a
new eminence of distinction.
Thus, when the Assyrians founded their national govern
ment, and when their king became supreme over other kings,
their god Ashur became supreme over other gods.2 In
Babylonia, Marduk, the god of the city of Babylon, rose to
lordship over his local rivals.3 "The priests of Marduk,"
writes Jastrow, "set the fashion in theological thought. So
far as possible, the ancient traditions and myths were reshaped
so as to contribute to the glory of Marduk. The chief part
in the work of creation is assigned to him."4 It was the
pious behef of Hammurabi that he was the favorite of Mar
duk, and that the power of this god brought success to the
Babylonian king. In the same way, the Egyptian deity
Amon, originaUy the god of the city of Thebes, rose to an
imperial place as Thebes advanced in importance. "The
triumph of a Theban family," writes Breasted, "had brought
with it the supremacy of Amon  It was not untU now
that he became the great god of the state  He now rose
' The term "increase" comes from Jeremiah, as below.
2 Sayce, Babylonians and Assyrians (New York, 1900), p. 256.
3 Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians (New York, 1906), p. 115.
< Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), p. 691. Cf. chaps.
vii and xxi. 128

THE "INCREASE" OF YAHWEH 129
to a unique and supreme position of unprecedented splen
dor."1 In Ulustration of the same principle, Steindorff writes:
In the beginning there was no uniformity of religion in Egypt.
Every city, every town, every hamlet, possessed its own protecting deity,
its own patron. To him the inhabitants turned in the hour of need or
danger, imploring help; by sacrifice and prayer they sought to win his
favor. In his hand lay the weal and woe of the community  The
Egyptian religion entered upon a new phase of its development in the
"Middle Kingdom," when the political center of gravity of the realm
was generally shifted southward. During the internal confusion which
had brought the "Old Kingdom" to its end, the Upper Egyptian city
Thebes had acquired power and reputation. It was by Theban princes
that the reorganization of the state was successfully carried out; and
though the kings of Dynasty XII transferred their residence to the
lake district of the Fayoum, the city from which they had sprung
remained the object of their fostering care. The Theban local divinity,
Amon, identified with the sun-god and transformed into Amon-Re, was
set above other gods, and honored by new temples and costly gifts.
Later on, Thebes was the headquarters of the struggle against the
Hyksos, and after its termination, the chief city of the "New King
dom." .... Thus in the "New Kingdom," Amon became the national
god of Egypt.2
The rise of the Hebrew nation brought with it the rise of Yah
weh among the gods of the ancient world. — The foregoing in
stances help us to see by analogy how the development of
the Hebrew nation supplied the objective social basis for the
elevation of Yahweh among the gods.
Reverting to the desert period a moment, the lowest level
to wliich we can trace Yahweh is that of a local deity of the
wUderness with his seat on Mount Sinai. It was here that
one or more of the Israehte clans entered into covenant with
the Kenites, and became worshipers of Yahweh. As Jere
miah says, "Israel was consecrated to Yahweh — the first-
' Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), p. 248.
2 SteindorS, The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians (New York, 1905), pp. 17, 52, 53.
Cf. Erman, Handbook of Egyptian Religion (London, 1907), pp. 19, 57, 58, 81.

130 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
fruits of his increase" (Jer. 2:3). Elsewhere it is said that
Yahweh "became" the god of Israel, and that he "chose"
Israel in order to make himself a "reputation," or a "name"
(II Sam. 7:23; cf. Neh. 9:10). The covenant in the desert
is rightly spoken of by Jeremiah as marking the early steps
of the "increase" of Yahweh.
During the time of the Judges and of the highland king
dom, Yahweh remained a god of hiU villages and nomadic
tent dweUers in the uplands. But after the coalescence of
Israehtes and Amorites in the Hebrew nation, the cult of
Yahweh sprang into a new importance and acquired more
weight. The term Israel now represented far more than at
first. The new generations began to think not only that
Yahweh had conquered the hiU-country as his "inheritance,"
but that his power had given Israel the entire land of Canaan.
Thus Yahweh advanced from the position of a clan god to
that of a national deity.
But this was not aU. The Hebrew nation hardly came into
existence under David before it acquired an imperial position.
The PhUistines were vanquished so decisively that they ceased
to harass Israel. The Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and
Arameans were defeated and put to tribute. Thus we read:
It came to pass that David smote the Philistines and subdued them.
.... And he smote Moab  And the Moabites became slaves to
David and brought tribute. David smote also Hadadezer the son of
Rehob, king of Zobah  And when the Arameans of Damascus
came to succor Hadadezer king of Zobah, David smote of the Arameans
two and twenty thousand men. Then David put garrisons in Aram of
Damascus; and the Arameans became slaves to David and brought
tribute. And Yahweh gave victory to David whithersoever he went.
.... And he put garrisons in Edom .... and all the Edomites
became slaves to David. And Yahweh gave victory to David whithersoever
he went (II Sam. 8:1-14).
Thus we see that just as David became "king of kings,"
so Yahweh became "god of gods." The rise of David pro-

THE "INCREASE" OF YAHWEH 131
moted the rise of Yahweh; and the king himself believed
that the god of Israel was helping him wherever he went.
As a matter of sober fact, the religions of ancient society did
lead to victory by the coherence and organization which they
gave. Soldiers were always rallied to battle in the name of a
god; and the stronger the common enthusiasm for the god,
the more effective the army became. Until we saturate our
selves in the atmosphere of the ancient world, this religious
phenomenon can hardly be grasped in all its force and sig
nificance. The same principle was everywhere at work among
the ancient states. The quotation just given from the Book
of Samuel with reference to David and Yahweh can be
matched, almost word for word, from the inscriptions of
Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria. AU the ancient kings believed
their gods were assisting them; and they constantly invoked
the presence and support of these divine helpers. Religion
was a fact of tremendous reality and importance. The gods
came to their votaries in dreams; and at moments of high
excitement, such as the crisis of battle, some persons actually
thought they saw their divinity leading the charge against
the opposing army and its gods.
From these facts and examples we can see how the social
development of Israel supphed the external basis for the
"increase" of Yahweh. In the mind of the Hebrews, their
god had shown himseh superior to the gods of all peoples,
with whom Israel had thus far come in contact. The deities
of neighboring peoples feU below the level of Yahweh, who
was plainly showing himself to^be a "god of hosts, mighty in
battle." It is to the period of the Davidic empire that the
"Book of the Wars of Yahweh" is probably to be referred.
The Israehte mind at this time could easUy draw the infer
ence that Yahweh's power exceeded that of aU the gods.
For "Yahweh gave David the victory whithersoever he
went"; and the peoples with whom Israel did not come into

132 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
conflict at this particular time were either too far away, or
too feeble, to make any impression upon the religious con
sciousness of Israel. The expansion of the idea of Yahweh
had therefore an ample basis in the social condition of the
Hebrew kingdom.
The increase of Yahweh, as thus treated, cannot explain the
development of Bible religion. — The circumstances wherein
Yahweh started on the way to his position as "Lord of lords"
bring to view only a single thread, or phase, of the process
that we are investigating. The fact that caUs most loudly
for explanation, as we have pointed out several times, is not
the superiority of Yahweh over other gods in point of power,
but in point of the moral character finally connected with
him as the Redeemer of mankind. The tendency toward
monotheism is visible among many ancient peoples; and the
worship of a god who is believed to be more powerful than
other gods is frequently found in antiquity. Such a religion
has no particular advantage over polytheism, unless it be
saturated with an exclusive ethical spirit such as the cult of
Yahweh at length acquired.

CHAPTER XV
THE GROUPING OF THE GODS
The coalescence of Israelites and Amorites brought the cults
of Yahweh and the Baals into close connection. — When the two
races united in the Hebrew nation, the gods of both peoples
continued to stand. There is nowhere any hint that David
commanded the Amorites to put away their ancient cults
as a condition of entering the kingdom. To do this would
have stirred up race-prejudice once more, since religion and
pohtics were identified in ancient society. The entire policy
of David shows that he wanted to concUiate the Amorites;
and there is no sign of any struggle against the local Baal-
worship for many generations after the establishment of the
Davidic monarchy. We do not know whether David and
Solomon themselves worshiped the native Amorite gods;1
but we know that the incorporation of the Amorites would
have been impossible if they had not become worshipers of
the national deity; and we find cases in which they actuaUy
practiced the cult of Yahweh (II Sam. 21:1-9; °f- I Kings
3:4, 5). But on the other hand, the Baals were local, or pro
vincial, gods; and the founding of the nation did not bring
up the subject of the local worship. As a consequence, the
provincial gods dropped into the background until they were
finaUy thrust into notice by the fierce denunciations of the
later prophets.
The Hebrew kingdom brought with it a strong impulse to
regard Yahweh as a god of civilization. — The establishment of
the monarchy at the point of coalescence between Israelites
and Amorites brought with it a powerful tendency to forget
1 Professor Ira M. Price, of the University of Chicago, suggests that David may
have simply ignored the local Baals. i33

134 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
or ignore the connection between Yahweh and the older
usages of the desert and the hiUs. There was now an impulse
to connect the national god with the standpoint of civUiza
tion as opposed to that of the wUderness, and to claim the
patronage of Yahweh on behalf of legal usages that were
strange to the more primitive classes in Hebrew society. In
other words, the kingdom had a propensity to draw Yahweh
aside from his earlier character as a god of the primitive, brother
hood mishpat, and to regard him as a divinity having the same
nature as the local Baals. This impulse is clearly chargeable
to that part of the Hebrew nation where Amorite blood was
thickest. The tendency to "baalize" the national god came
out conspicuously into relief among the ruling classes who
stood connected with the old Amorite centers of population.
But Yahweh's early character, as a god of brotherhood "mish
pat," clung to him persistently. — The tendency to convert the
national god into a local Baal was not suffered to go unchecked.
For the old idea of Yahweh survived in vigor among certain
classes of the people. The nation, indeed, became an arena
wherein a mighty conflict was waged around this issue:
Is Yahweh a god who approves the standpoint of oriental
civUization, with its practical disregard of the common
man ? Or, is he to be worshiped as a god who sanctions the
older and higher morality of the nomadic social group, with
its greater esteem for human rights ?
In the end, the tendency to "baalize" Yahweh was defeated. —
The struggle around this issue occupies the foreground of
our sociological investigation of the Bible. The great conflict
began, as many struggles do, in a vague and confused way.
Men could not immediately think themselves into absolute
clearness about it. They had to go through stages in their
discernment of the logic underlying the main issue. It is not
the design of this chapter to put on exhibition the different
periods that marked the controversy. But it is weU to

THE GROUPING OF THE GODS 135
emphasize at this point in our study that the tendency to
baalize the Hebrew rehgion was defeated in the long run.
However strong the forces were which tended to convert
Yahweh into a god of "civUization," the rehgious develop
ment of Israel proves that these forces were largely counter
acted. The distinction between Yahweh and the local Baals was
exphcitly asserted by the prophet Hosea, in the eighth century
B.C.; by the prophet Jeremiah, in the seventh century; and
by the Deuteronomic writers, who were in part contemporary
with Jeremiah. The great monument of the Deuteronomic
school is, of course, the Book of Deuteronomy, in which the
"other gods" chiefly in view are the gods of the former inhabi
tants of Canaan. But the Deuteronomists also accomplished
work of large importance in compiling and editing the books of
Judges, Samuel, and Kings, which emphasize the distinction
between Yahweh and the local Baals.
There were several ways in which the distinction between
Yahweh and the Baals was preserved. — A number of circum
stances operated to maintain the quahtative difference between
the cults inherited by the nation from its double ancestry,
Israehte and Amorite.
1. The social diversity of the Hebrews. — It is a fact of large
and vital importance that the nation was not ironed out into
absolute social and religious uniformity. The mixture of
Israel with the Amorites was mostly in Ephraim, the north.*
It was here that most of the old Amorite cities lay (cf . chap, xi,
Table II). Accordingly, it was in Northern Israel, that Baal-
worship flourished more than elsewhere.2
But on the contrary, the people with whom the Israelites
mixed in the highlands of Judah were mostly Arabian clans,
whose habits and point of view agreed more closely with the
' G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land (London, 1904), p. 316.
"McCurdy, art. "Baal," Jewish Encyc.

136 ' SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
early mishpat of Yahweh. "The shepherd's occupation,"
writes Professor Addis, "was .... especially prominent in
Judah, where there is much less arable land than in the central
districts of Palestine."1 The influence of Judah in the direc
tion of the more primitive life and thought was reinforced by
that of GUead, on the east of the Jordan. GUead was a hill-
country, "a place for cattle" (Num. 32:1). Here the goats
lay along the mountain side; here people and flock fed in the
ancient days (Song of Sol. 4:1; Mie. 7:14). GUead was
ever one of the backward, outlying sections of Israel, touched
but little by Amorite civUization.
The Israelites of the frontier, in Judah and beyond the Jordan in
Gilead, evidently retained not a little of the ancient nomad habits,
and in part were closely allied with other tribes of the wilderness. Thus
we find from time to time expressions of that characteristic distaste for
the ease and luxuries of settled life which belongs to the genuine Bedouin.
The Nazirite vow against drinking wine and the laws of the Rechabites
are cases in point. And the Rechabites, like the Nazirites, were on the
side of the old Jehovah [Yahweh] worship, and against the Canaanite
Baal.2 As soon as we fix firmly in mind the primitive disposition
of Judah and Gilead, as contrasted with the more "civUized"
character of Ephraim, we shall be prepared to grasp the sig
nificance of two of the earliest and most effective Israehte
prophets. Elijah, of Gilead, left his home, and passed over
into the more Amorite Ephraim in order to protest against
the evUs of his time (I Kings 17:1 ff.). In the same way,
Amos left his home in the wUderness of southern Judah, and
went up into Ephraim to preach on behalf of the ancient
mishpat of Yahweh (Amos 7:10-15). These flaming prophets
were semi-nomads themselves; and they were the spokesmen
of whole classes of shepherds and cattle-raisers that lived in the
'Addis, Hebrew Religion (London, 1906), p. 82. Cf. G. A. Smith, op. cit.
2 W. Robertson Smith, The Prophets of Israel (London, 1897), pp: 381, 382. Cf.
Renan, History of Israel (Boston), Vol. II, p. 227.

^#

I*

S#*

JUDAH
IPBfllTIVE CLAN5i
tahweh-wowhip! CHIEFLY

$K8 ^S GILEAD1
^ 'PRIMITIVE CLANSl
YMVYEH-WORSHIP CHIEFLY

BAAL-PEOR OP I10AB

SCHEME OF HEBREW EVOLUTION
This diagram should be frequently consulted. The Israelite clans located them
selves in the hills of Judah, Ephraim, and Gilead. The fusion with the Amorites was
mostly in Ephraim. The "mishpat struggle" began with blind revolts against the
government; proceeded thence to expulsion of the "border-Baals"; and at length
took its characteristic, biblical form by raising the question of the local, or native,
Baals inherited from the Amorite side of the nation's ancestry.

THE GROUPING OF THE GODS 137
highlands of Judah and GUead in close touch with desert
life and ways of thought.1
2. The historical memories of the Judges period were another
circumstance that preserved the distinction between Yahweh
and the local Baals. This distinction was implied in the vivid
stories that came down across the centuries from the early
period of the settlement, enshrined in the recollections of the
people. These ancient folk-tales from the pre-monarchic
period were taken up eagerly by the Deuteronomic school,
which combined them into a treatise later known as the
"Book of Judges." In this work, the campaign against the
local Baal-worship is treated with great energy and effect.
3. The military victories of David supphed another tendency
in the direction of emphasizing the contrast between Yahweh
and the Amorite gods. The martial progress of the Hebrew
nation lifted Yahweh high above the local Baals. The
Amorite Araunah, of Jerusalem, is represented as speaking to
David about "Yahweh thy god" (II Sam. 24:23); and it was
impossible that Araunah and his Amorite neighbors could
have imagined that the strong god whose tent had been lately
set up on the lull of Zion was in any sense a deity whom their
own forefathers had venerated as a local Baal. When the
' It is a well-established law that every stage in social development finds its
point of departure in some diversity, or heterogeneity, that existed in the preceding
stage of evolution. This is treated in the writer's Examination of Society (1903).
See sec. 78 of that book with reference to the lack of uniformity among the Hebrews.
As we shall see later, the social diversity of the nation explains the pecuhar distribu
tion of emphasis upon local Baalism in the Old Testament. The final reaction against
it in the early period is placed in the time of the Judges, before the Israelites and
Amorites had coalesced (I Sam. 7:4). The local Baals are not again mentioned for
many centuries (I Kings 18: 18; 21 : 26; II Kings 21 : 2, 3). Ehjah apparently strug
gled only against foreign Baalism. The eighth-century southern school of prophecy
(consisting of Amos, Micah, and Isaiah) had nothmg explicit to say about Baalism.
The first prophet of Israel to raise the issue as a local matter was Hosea, who lived
amid the Baal-worship of the north. But the final characteristic development of the
Baal issue took place in the south, under the leadership of Jeremiah and the Deuterono-
mists, long after the time of Hosea. This interesting phase of the process will be
treated in the chapters that follow.

138 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Amorites of Gibeon sacrificed the grandsons of Saul "before
Yahweh," they could hardly have identified the national god
with the provincial Baals (II Sam. 21:1-9).
No doubt, many persons in David's time worshiped Yah
weh in the same character as the local Baals; and later on,
many people may have gone farther, and regarded the provin
cial gods as local forms of Yahweh, the great national Baal.
Yet there were clear-sighted minds among the Hebrews,
down to the very end of the national history, such as Hosea,
Jeremiah, and the Deuteronomic school. The mUitary exploits
of David, by lifting Yahweh high above the local Baals, were
among the subtle and pervasive circumstances that helped the
later prophets to keep ahve the distinction between the gods.
Hosea tells the people to cease caUing Yahweh a Baal (Hos.
2:16); and Jeremiah declares that the people have forgotten
Yahweh's "name" by reason of Baal (Jer. 23:27). In the
end, the tendency to confuse Yahweh and the Baals, both as
to "personahty" and as to "character," was overcome by the
tendency to distinguish between the gods.1
Under the Hebrew kings, the "established religion" took the
form of a pantheon, with Yahweh as the leading divinity. — " It is
nothing surprising," writes Professor H. P. Smith, "to find the
tutelary deities of all Solomon's subjects united in a pantheon."
The reason for this is, that " the religion of Yahweh was not at
this period sufficiently exclusive to protest against it."2
The actual religion of the Hebrews, before the ExUe, was
clearly a system of polytheism, in which many divinities were
included, and wherein Yahweh, the national god, was the
' Although a few Baal names date from the' time of David, which point to the
application of this common term to Yahweh, there are far more names from this period
which include the proper name of the national god. Moreover, these names are not
borne by common folk, but by persons of distinction (II Sam. 3:4; 8:16; 12:25;
13:3; 20:23; 20:24; IKingsr:s; 4:2; 4:3; 11:29).
2 H. P. Smith, Old Testament History (New York, 1903), p. 169 (italics ours).
"As empires brought different tribes or cities into political unity, pantheons were
formed." — George A. Barton, op. cit. Kuenen says that it was quite natural that the
other gods should be served in the high places beside Yahweh {The Religion of Israel
London], Vol. I, p. 351).

THE GROUPING OF THE GODS 139
leading figure. Among "other gods" the local Baals became
the most important, because the religion of Israel took on its
world-renowned character of absolute exclusiveness through the
fight against the Amorite gods.
When treated in this way, Bible-study acquires a new
interest for the modern mind. We behold the Hebrew king
dom born at the point of coalescence between Amorite civiliza
tion and Israelite nomadism. Each race contributes its own
gods and its own social point of view to the composite nation.
But there is a fundamental difference between the standpoints
of civihzation and nomadism. This conflict slowly takes form
within the nation. It is the later prophets who realize the
facts of the problem in a broad way; and only after a long
and agonizing struggle is the difference between social usages
expressed in the form of a rivalry within the "established"
Hebrew religion itself. Just here lay the heart-shattering
feature of the problem. The standpoints of nomadism and
civilization were identified respectively with Yahweh and the
Baals at the start; and the logic of history pursued the Hebrew
mind like invisible fate untU the conflict at last came to an
issue around the hostUity between Yahwism and Baalism.1
' It must be remembered that the term baal indicated ownership, and that it
implied the social system of slavery. The Amorite Baals represented a social system
in which freemen could legally be reduced to bondage. Hence, in the eyes of
prophets such as Jeremiah, this term should not be applied to Yahweh, since it did
not represent his attitude toward the clansmen of Israel (cf. pp. 160-61).

CHAPTER XVI
THE INTERACTION OF TENDENCIES
The development of Bible religion took place through the
pressure of diverse "forces." — The religion' of the Bible is not
the outcome of one special thread of influence, but the product
of many tendencies and circumstances working together.
At the beginning of this part of our study, we showed that
the Yahweh cult got its pecuhar and exclusive character through
a long struggle (chap. ix). The foUowing chapter showed
that this conflict involved the shock of opposing standpoints
represented by nomadism and civUization (chap. x). We
then took up the Judges period, showing that the Yahweh-
Baal struggle was at first an incident of the contact of alien
social groups, Yahweh retaining his character as a god of the
primitive, brotherhood mishpat (chap. xi). In the ensuing
chapter, we passed on to consider Saul's kingdom in the
highlands, which marked the beginning of the national move
ment. We saw that the Israelites continued apart from the
Amorites in this period, without taking up the standpoint of
civUization; that Yahweh became fully acclimatized as a god
of the highlands, but that he stUl represented the ancient
clan usages (chap. xii). We then took up the coalescence of
Israelites and Amorites in the mUitary Hebrew monarchy
under the house of David (chap. xiii). Our next item for
study was the effect of the new national development upon the
prestige of Yahweh (chap. xiv). Then foUowed inquiry into
the relations borne toward each other by the cults inherited
from the double ancestry of the Hebrews (chap. xv). We
saw that the nation was convulsed by a struggle wherein
the tendency to "identify" the national god with the local
gods was defeated by the principle of distinction between
Yahweh and the Baals. To this great conflict we now turn.
140

CHAPTER XVII
THE BEGINNING OF THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE
The Hebrew nation was presently convulsed by an internal
struggle. — The rise of the Hebrew state was complicated by
another social movement of tremendous importance. Within
fifty years from the time when the Amorites of Beth-shan
beheld the dead body of King Saul hanging on their outer
fortifications; within fifty years from the time when the
Amorites of Gibeon were appeased by the sacrifice of Saul's
grandsons; within fifty years from the time when David
began to contract marriages with the Amorites of Jerusalem;
before the two races had fused into one; and whUe David
stUl occupied the Hebrew throne — the new nation was con
vulsed by a tremendous internal struggle. The government
itself became an object of contention between rival parties.
The people were in revolt against the crown. -^
According to the advice attributed to Samuel, the people
would not be satisfied with the mishpat of the monarchy. The
national soU would concentrate in the grasp of the nobility;
and the masses would be forced into debt and slavery (I Sam.
8:10-17; CI- chap, x, supra, p. 92). A hint along the line of
Samuel's address is found in the famous notice about the four
hundred men who gathered about David at the cave of AduUam
in his outlaw days — " everyone that was in distress, and every
one that was in debt, and everyone that was discontented"
(I Sam. 22:2). Many slaves were breaking away from their
masters at this time (I Sam. 25:10). The introduction to the
narratives about the great revolt led by Ahitophel and Absalom
clearly implies that the courts are not working to the satisfac
tion of the people (II Sam. 15:1-6). For the people do not
find the right sort of mishpat (justice, or judgment).1 The
' The word mishpat occurs here three times: vss. 2, 4, and 6.
141

;

142 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
force that swung the balance in favor of David in the struggle
with the peasantry was no doubt the professional, hired
soldiery under command of Benaiah (II Sam. 15:18; 20:23).
But the mihtary triumph of David could not solve the
problem before the nation; and as his reign drew to a close,
the struggle began afresh in the contest over the succession to
the crown. Two candidates for the throne appeared. One of
these was Adonijah, supported by the highland peasantry; by
Joab, the leader of the peasant mUitia; and by the priest
Abiathar, of the old Ephraimite viUage of Nob (I Kings 1 : 5-
14; 2:13-15). The other candidate, Solomon, had the support
of Benaiah, the commander of the standing army at the capi
tal ; of Zadok, the priest of Jerusalem ; of Nathan, the prophet
of Jerusalem; and, no doubt, of the city class in general
(I Kings 1:8, n-14, 44-46). The victory of Solomon over the
peasantry was as clearly due to the support of the standing
army as was the earlier triumph of David over the same
elements of the population.1
In harmony with the unpopular origin of his govern
ment, Solomon oppressed the peasantry by forced labor.
This, of course, intensified the national malice against the
house of David. The taskwork of aU that part of the nation
lying north of Jerusalem (the house of Joseph) was in charge
of an official by the name of Jeroboam. This man, moved
by sympathy and ambition, "lifted up his hand against the
king" (I Kings 11 : 26 f.). In this action, he had the support'
of Ahijah, the prophet, who lived in the Josephite viUage of
'"The matter was decided by the strong men of David." — Renan, Studies in
Religious History (London, 1893) p. 70. "The body-guard was loyal to the old king;
and it held the balance of power." — H. P. Smith, Old Testament History (New York,
1903), p. 153. Large armies have not usually been necessary to hold down the
unorganized peasants and nomads of the Semitic world. Doughty, who spent two
years in Arabia, states that Ibn Rashid maintained his power with four or five hundred
professional soldiers {Arabia Deserta [Cambridge, 1888], Vol. I, p. i6r, and Vol. II,
p. 23). Mohammed won the battle of Bedr with only three hundred trained men
against three times that number. Cf. Miiller, Der Islam (Berlin, 1885), Vol. I, p. no.

BEGINNING OF THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 143
ShUoh. Although Solomon was not unseated, the growth of
insurgency, as we may now call it, continued throughout his
reign; and by the time of his death, the majority of the people
were prepared to take radical action. The son and successor
of Solomon declares: "My father made your yoke heavy, but
I wiU add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips,
but I wiU chastise you with scorpions" (I Kings 12 : 14). After
this, the vast bulk of the nation withdrew from the house of
David, setting up the kingdom of Ephraim, or Israel.1
The division was not a turning-point in the social history;
it was a minor incident in the national struggle. In the
revolt against the house of David, the nation merely shook off
a smaU county on the southern border. The vast mass of
the people north of Jerusalem set up a new government under
the old name of Israel. It was here, indeed, that the national
movement had begun. Here was the home of Saul, the
first king, and of Samuel, the last of the judges. The tiny
principality on the south was of smaU political importance.
Detached and isolated amid the rocky hills, it dropped almost
below the historical horizon.
But the issue between parties was not settled by the separa
tion of Israel from Judah. The same struggle that had con
vulsed the united kingdom soon broke out afresh with growing
intensity. For many generations, the center of interest in the
Hebrew struggle was in Israel and not in Judah. The notices
regarding social conditions in the Northern Kingdom during its
earlier period are unsatisfactory; but those that we have are
very suggestive when taken in connection with Bible evidence
as a whole. One royal house after another was raised up, and
then cast violently down. So perished the dynasties of Jero
boam and Baasha (I Kings, chaps. 14, 15, 16). The rise of
' It is probable that one element in the popular discontent with Solomon lay in
the demonetization of silver caused by the heavy influx of gold in connection with
the growth of commerce in this reign. The old silver money in the hands of the
common people dropped greatly in value (I Kings 10:10, n, 14-27).

r44 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
the next royal house was also an incident in the great struggle
that had convulsed the nation since the days of David. For
we read that "half of the people foUowed Tibni ben Ginath,
to make him king, and hah foUowed Omri. But the people
that followed Omri prevaUed against the people that foUowed
Tibni ben Ginath. So Tibni died, and Omri reigned " (I Kings
16:21,22). The victory of the successful candidate was bound
up with the fact that he, like Solomon before him, had the
support of the regular army, having been chosen king in the
camp some time before the contest with his rival. This
monarch was followed by his son Ahab, in whose reign the first
great prophet of the Hebrews came forward with an awful
curse against the king for his wickedness in connection with
the seizure of a peasant's land. This famous case, like a flash
of lightning, Uluminates the process of land concentration
which went forward among the Hebrews as it did among aU
the nations and empires of antiquity (I Kings, chap. 21).1
Another evidence of the social problem in the same period is
found in the indebtedness of a prophet and the bondage of
his children (II Kings 4:1). The situation agrees with what
we read of Assyria in the days of Sargon II.
The policy of Sargon .... involved the subordination of the Assyrian
peasantry to the commercial and industrial interests of the state or
to the possessors of great landed estates. The burdens of taxes fell
upon the farmers even more heavily. They dwindled away, became
serfs on the estates, or slaves in the manufactories  Thus the
state as organized by Sargon became more and more an artificial struc-
' It is to be noted that in the Naboth case (I Kings, chap. 21), the horror in the
first instance does not lie in the murder of Naboth, but in the king's proposal to treat
the peasant's land as an item of sale and exchange (vs. 2). It is this proposal, involv
ing the ahenation of his patrimonial soil, that arouses Naboth himself. Then it is
to be further observed that the conspiracy of Jezebel against Naboth could not be
carried out as a bare piece of robbery. It had to be given a legal form through the
court of "elders and nobles" to which Naboth was answerable (vs. 8). The murder,
in fact, was a mere incident in the case. Naboth's crime, in the eyes of Jezebel, con
sisted in Use majesli. He had spurned what the official classes viewed as a perfectly
just and reasonable demand on the part of the king.

BEGINNING OF THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 145
ture, of splendid proportions, indeed, but the foundations of which
were altogether insufficient  Assyria's sudden collapse is so
startling and unexpected as properly to cause surprise and demand
investigation  The exhausting campaigns, the draft upon the
population, the neglect of agricultural development, which is the economic
basis of a nation's existence and for which industry or commerce cannot
compensate, .... the supremacy of great landowners, and the corre
sponding disappearance of free peasants, the employment of mercena
ries and all that follows in its train — these things, inseparable from
a mUitary regime, undermined Assyria's vitality and grew more and
more dangerous as the state enlarged.1
IUustrations to the same effect are also found in Babylonia,
Egypt, Greece, Rome, and indeed throughout all the ancient
world. So far as the purely economic, or material, facts are
concerned, the Hebrew people were not in any way exceptional.
The "mishpat" struggle turned around the question, What
are good law and morals? — The coalescence of Israelites and
Amorites in one social mass produced a great confusion and
clashing of legal and moral usages and ideas. The nation as
a whole was not able to agree on what constituted "good"
law and "good" morals. There was a fundamental conflict
of standpoints. There was a gigantic, widespread, long-
continued misunderstanding, in which neither party was
infalhble, and in which right and wrong were on both sides.
The official, executive class, headed by the king, was located
in the walled cities, in close contact with the Amorite point of
view. The practical result was an irresistible tendency to put
the machinery of the national government. on the side of those
usages and ideas that came from the Amorite ancestry of the
nation. The setting-up of the monarchy brought with it the
forcible extension of Amorite mishpat, or legal usage, over the
backward clans of the hUl-country. The highlanders, under
the lead of such men as Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Jehonadab ben
' Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians (New York, 1906), pp.
263, 326, 327, 328.

?

146 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Rechab, and others, reacted against this from the standpoint
of their ancient, clan mishpat. As a consequence, the situation
involved what may be figured as a head-on coUision between
moral codes. The monarchical government enlisted the
organized force of the kingdom on the side of the usages of
settled civilization, putting the judicial and mUitary and police
J powers behind the extension of Amorite law throughout the
entire land. It is not impossible that this outcome was fore
seen by Samuel substantiaUy as we find it in the book bearing
his name. His warning was, that the king would represent a
mishpat, or legal system, in which the peasantry would be
heavily taxed and reduced to slavery, and in which their
lands would faU into the possession of a smaU wealthy class
of nobles. We are not surprised to find that the great mass
of the people revolted against the house of David; nor are we
surprised to see that the people of the Northern Kingdom
destroyed one royal dynasty after another. What is yet more
to the point, we are entirely prepared to find that these
revolutions against the kings were supported by the prophets
of Yahweh, such as Ahijah the ShUonite, Jehu ben Hanani,
Elijah, and Ehsha (I Kings, chaps, ii, 14-21; II Kings,
chap. 9).
Having considered the social struggle from the times of
David up into the ninth century B.C. (900-800), we shall now
investigate the struggle as it is reflected in the writings of the
prophets of later centuries — Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, and
others.

CHAPTER XVIII
THE PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE
The prophets were chiefly interested not in the future, but in
the problems of their own times. — As we turn from the books of
Samuel and Kings to the writings of the prophets, we find the
historical development moving onward in the same general
terms without a break; and the detaUs of the situation come
out before us with an intimacy that we find nowhere else in
the Bible.
It is just at this point that one who is turning away from
the old view of the Bible begins to get a strong sense of
the historical unfolding of Israel's experience. The literary
prophets, from Amos onward, have been largely ignored by
the older school of biblical interpretation. They have been
treated in a mechanical way, as minor incidents, not vitally
related to the Bible history. As a consequence, the prophets
have not figured much in the thought of Christian people.
They have been treated as men who were chiefly interested
in the future. It has been supposed that "prophecy" was the
equivalent of "prediction." It has been taken for granted
that the prophets were mostly talking about "things to come,"
and that their main value and significance lay in foretelling
the birth and life of Jesus. But the primary meaning of the
word "prophet," as weU as of the Hebrew term nabi, does not J
relate to prediction, but simply to preaching, li, instead of
saying, the "Book of the Prophet Amos," we should say, the
"Book of the Preacher Amos," we should convey a more accu
rate impression of the facts. For the prophets were preachers,
before everything else; and their attention was directed
chiefly upon the conditions and problems of their own age.
Beginning in the time treated by the fourteenth chapter of
147

r48 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Vii Kings, the writings of the prophets furnish a commentary
on the mishpat struggle going on around them. By studying
the prophetic books in relation to corresponding passages in
Kings, we are able to go forward in our investigation.1
The literary prophets were intensely preoccupied with the
"mishpat" struggle. — It should be emphasized at the outset that
the problem of mishpat stood at the very center of the prophetic
field of vision. The treatment of this great biblical term in mod
ern translations cannot do justice to the meaning with which it
is charged in the Hebrew. Beginning with Amos, in the eighth
century B.C., we find the classic exhortation, "Let mishpat
roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing
stream " (Amos 5:24). Advancing through the prophetic books \
that lie along the years, we find a steady and unwavering stress |
upon the same, fundamental theme, until at last the motive
clothes itself in the exalted visions of the post-exUic Isaiah.
Behold my Servant, whom I sustain — my Chosen, in whom my soul
delighteth. I have put my spirit upon him. He shall bring forth mishpat
[justice] to the nations  A cracked reed he shall not break, and
the dimly burning wick he shall not extinguish. He shall faithfully bring
forth mishpat. He shall not fail nor be discouraged till he have set
mishpat in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law (Isa. 42: 1-4). a
' Those who have not previously approached the Bible from this standpoint will
find the following procedure to be very helpful: On the margin of II Kings, r4: 16,
write, "Time, of the prophet Amos. From this point onward, the books of the literary
prophets give an intimate view of the situation." Opposite II Kings 14:23, write
"See Amos 1:1; Hos. 1:1. Compare king-names. This is Jeroboam II." Opposite
II Kings 15:1, write, "See Amos 1:1." Opposite vs. 13, write, "See Amos 1:1; Hos.
1:1; Mie. 1:1; Isa. 1:1." Opposite vs. 30, write as opposite vs. r3. Opposite II
Kings 16: 20, write, "See Mie. 1:1; Hos. 1:1; Isa. 1:1." Opposite II Kings 18: 1, write,
"See Hos. 1:1; Mie. 1:1; Isa. 1:1." Opposite II Kings 22:1, write "See Jer. 1:2;
Zeph. 1:1." Opposite II Kings 22: 8, write, "An early edition of the Book of Deuteronomy."
Opposite II Kings 23:34, and 24:18, write, "See Jer. 1:3." At the end of the Second
Book of Kings, write, "Ezekiel prophesied in Babylonia during the Exile. The Book of
Isaiah, beginning with chap. 40, is exilic and post-exilic."
2 To translate the term mishpat in this passage merely as "religion" is to obscure
the fundamental meaning. The word is here distinctly related to consideration for
the poor, who are symbolized by the reed just ready to break, and the light on the point
of extinction. As Whitehouse observes, the word is here used " to express the entirety
of 'judgments' or customs (usages) of Yahweh's religion."— Commentary on Isaiah
(New York, Frowde), Vol. II, p. 81.

PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 149
In the voices of these mighty prophets, deep answers unto
deep across the tumults of history. , In spite of differences of
expression, the same problem is common to aU the prophets. u>
Amos declares that mishpat has been turned to "wormwood"
(5:7; 6:12). This thought reappears in Hosea, where mishpat
is spoken of as springing up like hemlock, or gall, in the
furrows of the field (io^).1 Amos longs to see- mishpat
estabhshed "in the gate" (5:15). Hosea says that
Ephraim, or Northern Israel, is "crushed in mishpat" (5:11.)
Micah says that he is full of power, "by the spirit of
Yahweh and of mishpat," to declare to Jacob his transgres
sion and to Israel his sin (3:8). What does Yahweh
require, but to do mishpat, and to love kindness, and to walk
humbly with thy god? (Mie. 6:8.) Learn to do well; seek
mishpat, says Isaiah (1:17). Zion shall be redeemed with
mishpat (Isa. 1:27). Woe to those that turn aside the needy
from mishpat (10:2). Yahweh is a god of mishpat
30:18). Princes shaU rule in mishpat (32:1). Zephaniah,
making use of a beautiful figure, says that every morning
Yahweh brings his mishpat to light (3:5). Jeremiah says
that in aU Jerusalem there is not a man that does mishpat
(5:1). The needy do not get mishpat (Jer. 5:28). No longer
may Judah remain in the Holy Land unless mishpat is
thoroughly executed between man and man (7 : 5-7). Yahweh
exercises mercy and mishpat in the land (9:24). Yahweh caUs
for the doing of mishpat (21:12; 22:3). Ezekiel gives an
elaborate catalogue of the various lines of action wherein
mishpat consists (18:5-27; see 33:14, 15). Yahweh wUl feed
the people in mishpat (Ezek. 34: 16). The princes are exhorted
to do mishpat (45:9-12). \
When we have succeeded in grasping the fact that aU the*
prophets are absorbed in the same question, we have taken)
one more step toward solution of the Bible problem as a whole.
T It comes to light again in Deut. 29: 18.

rso SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
The strong emphasis of the prophets upon this question is
very impressive, and caUs for the most careful study. We
are even yet only upon the threshold of our theme.
The literary prophets all identify Yahweh with the "mishpat"
inherited from the Israelite ancestry of the Hebrew nation. —
The passages already cited, together with many others of
like force, make it clear, in the first place, that the prophets
do not regard themselves as innovators. They remember and
emphasize the connection of the national god with the ancient
ideas and practices that came into the Hebrew nation from
the Israelite side of its ancestry. Their view of the "mishpat
of Yahweh" rests back on the social experience of Israel in
the old, primitive, nomadic life of the desert, in the period of
the Judges, and in the time of the highland kingdom under
Saul. It was, indeed, the survival of these ideas and practices
among the more backward social classes of the nation that gave
the prophets their starting-point. In other words, the prophetic
thought connected itself with the mishpat that prevaUed
among the Israelites before Israel was entangled with Amorite
ideas and ways of life. Perception of this truth takes us another
step into the problem. We have seen that the Hebrew nation
was not ironed out into absolute social and religious uniformity;
and our previous results and conclusions now begin to drop
into place in the structure of biblical interpretation.
At first the prophets contended in a blind way against perver
sion of the old "mishpat." — The earlier prophets were not in a
position to realize the nature of the situation in which they found
themselves; and they could not understand the meaning and
power of the forces against which they were fighting. The later
Old Testament writers — such as the Deuteronomists, Ezekiel,
and others — awoke to the fact that the essential thing in the
national struggle was the entanglement of Israel with Amorite
usages and ideas; and the modern scholar is in a position to see
this even more clearly and certainly. But the earher prophets

PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 151
were thrown completely off their guard by the fact that the
Amorite race, as such, was no longer in existence. The previous
population of the land had been absorbed into the mass of
the nation; and the name of Israel had overspread the entire
community. Everybody in the time of the prophets believed
themselves in good faith to be "Israelites"; and the Amorite
side of the nation's ancestry was ignored. To Amos and his
contemporaries, the Amorites were a far-away fact, lying on
the horizon of Hebrew history.
Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the
height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his
fruit from above and his roots from beneath. Also I brought you up
out of the land of Egypt, and led you forty years in the wilderness, to
possess the land of the Amorite (Amos 2:9, 10).
The literary prophets and their forerunners represented (1)
the more backward social class, and (2) the Israelite ancestry
of the nation. — The prophet Ahijah came from the Israehte
viUage of ShUoh (I Kings 11:29). Elijah was identified with
the hih1 -country of GUead, east of the Jordan (I Kings 17:1).
Ehsha's home was the viUage of Abelmeholah, in Ephraim
(I Kings 19:16, 19). The home of Amos was the viUage of
Tekoa, in the hUls of southern Judah (Amos 1:1; 7:14)-
Micah's residence was in the village of Moresheth, in Judah
(Mie. 1:1). Jeremiah's home was the viUage of Anathoth,
northeast of Jerusalem (Jer. 1:1; 32 : 7-9).
By comparing these places with the territory conquered
by the Israelite clans in the early days, it is apparent that
the literary prophets and their forerunners represented the
Israehte side of the nation's ancestry, and not the Amorite
line of its descent. This is equivalent to saying that they
stood for the more backward social classes, the peasantry
of the highlands. The homes of some of the prophets (for
example, Isaiah and Hosea) are not known; but aU these
prophets are in fundamental agreement; and the controUing

1S2 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
factor in their message is the standpoint of the highland
peasantry. The literary prophets remained in an attitude of opposition
to the kings, nobles, and official classes in general. — Since the
mishpat struggle turned around the question of law, it involved
the legal arrangements of the nation; it drew the courts into its
field, and swept the kings, nobles, elders, and ruling classes
into the storm-center of dispute. The literary prophets
declaimed against and criticized the rulers of their day;
and all the prophetic emphasis upon the official class refers
fundamentally to the interests of mishpat, or justice.
Amos desires to see mishpat established "in the gate,"
meaning thereby the courts of law, which were controlled by
the upper classes (5: 15). Yahweh wiU rise against the house
of King Jeroboam II with the sword (Amos 7:9). Hosea
directs his word squarely against the house of the king (5:1).
All the princes he declares to be revolters (Hos. 9:15).
They have set up kings, but not by Yahweh (8:4). Micah
says that the heads of Jacob and the rulers of the house of
Israel do not know mishpat. They abhor it (Mie. 3:1-3,
9-1 1). Isaiah predicts that Yahweh wUl enter into mishpat
with the elders and princes because they have oppressed the
poor (3:14). There shall be woe to the rulers whose decrees
take away the mishpat of the needy (Isa. 10:1, 2). A king
shaU reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in mishpat
(32:1). Zephaniah declares that the princes are roaring
lions, and the judges are evening wolves (3:3). Jeremiah, in
his picturesque language, says that he is a fortified city and
an iron pUlar and brazen waUs against the kings and princes
(1:18). He says that surely the great men are acquainted
with the mishpat of Yahweh; but, no! They are backsliders,
who have broken the yoke (Jer. 5:5, 6). He prepares an
object-lesson for the rulers (19:1). He exhorts the royal
house to execute mishpat (21:12; 22 : 1-3). The ruling classes

PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 153
shaU drink the wine of the wrath of Yahweh (25:15-18).
Ezgkiel compares the rulers to shepherds that eat the sheep.
For this cause, Yahweh is against the rulers; and the national
god himself wiU feed the people in mishpat (Ezek. 34:1-24).
This is but a fraction of the abundant evidence proving
that the literary prophets, and the classes for whom they
spoke, were strongly opposed to the ruling powers in the
Hebrew nation.
The hostUity of the prophets to the ruling powers took an^"
interesting form in their opposition to the "gibborim." — We
saw that the great revolt under David was put down by \
the assistance of mercenary troops, or hired "strong men," J
and that by their aid Solomon was elevated to the throne
against the wishes of the peasantry {supra, pp. 141-43). In
the Hebrew text, these men of power are caUed gibborim
(plural, II Sam. 17:8). They were among the principal tools
used by the kings in maintaining the government. It was
the gibborim who garrisoned the royal strongholds that held
the country in awe. In cases where the peasants refused to
submit, bands of gibborim were sent out by the kings and the
great nobles. Through them the peasantry were "civUized";
and through them, apparently, the Amorite law was enforced
in opposition to the old mishpat.
Hence the prophets were very bitter against these tools
of the ruling class. Hosea writes: "Thou didst trust in thy
way, in the multitude of thy gibborim; therefore shaU a tumult
arise against thy people; and all thy fortresses shaU be
destroyed" (Hos. 10:13, 14). Amos, the shepherd, says that
when Yahweh shall punish the land, the gibborim shaU fall:
"Flight shaU perish from the swift .... neither shaU the
gibbor deliver himself; neither shall he stand that handleth
the bow; and he that is swift of foot shaU not deliver him
self; .... and he that is courageous among the gibborim
shaU flee away naked in that day, saith Yahweh" (Amos

iS4 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
2:14-16). In the same spirit, Isaiah classes the paid police
with the nobles who hire them. Yahweh wUl take away the
gibbor, and the man of war, and the judge, and the captain
of fifty, and the counseUor, and the honorable man, etc. (Isa.
3:1,2). At the time of the Babylonian exUe, the King of
Babylon took many of these gibborim away from Judah and
carried them into his own land (II Kings 24: 16).
The social struggle had a great deal to do with the question of
property in land. — The problem of the Bible becomes increas
ingly vivid and concrete when we realize that it had much to
do with the land question. Samuel's warning about the mish
pat of the kingdom puts heavy emphasis upon the concen
tration of landed property in the hands of the nobles (I Sam.
8:14, 15). Elijah condemned King Ahab for seizing the land
of Nahaifc (I Kings, chap. 21). Micah and Isaiah condemned
the ruung class for adding house to house and field to field
(Mie. 2:1, 2; Isa. 3:14; 5:8). Ezekiel demands that the
prince shall not seize the people's land to thrust them out;
so that the people shaU not be scattered every man from his
possession (Ezek. 46:18). The Book of Deuteronomy, which
is impregnated with the prophetic sp^at, curses the removal
of landmarks (Deut. 19:14; 27:17). ^
' The prophets make no distinction between seizing land,
as Ahab did in the case of Naboth, and foreclosing a mortgage.
In their view, all concentration of land is practicaUy in the
same category, because it alienates the soil from the ancient
families and clanships. /
The prophets regard the Hebrew nation as a clan brother
hood, or group of blood relatives. — Here, in a nutsheU, is one
phase of the idea revolving in the minds of the prophets, and
less clearly in the untutored thought of their oppressed con
stituents: The Hebrew nation was regarded as an extension
of the primitive clan. Amos refers to the people of his day as
the "clan" (mishphachah) which Yahweh brought up out of

PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 155
the land of Egypt (3:i).J Repeatedly they are caUed the
"children" (banim) of Israel (Amos 3:1; 9:7; Hos. 1 : 11; etc.).
Again, they are spoken of as the "house," or "family," of
Israel (bayith, Amos 5 : 1 ; Mie. 1:5; Hos. 5:1; etc.). These
terms are not mere symbols, or figures of speech. They are
used by the prophets in their literal sense. The Hebrew nation
is looked upon as a group of blood-relatives, descended straight
from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their nomadic forefathers.
The persistence of the ancient, clan psychology explains the
prophetic attitude on morals and economics. — Regarding the
nation in this way, as a mere extension of the clan, it was easy
for the prophets to apply the ethics of the clan to the social
problems around them. The Hebrew nation was a group of
brothers. Therefore the individual members of the nation
ought to treat each other like brothers. For instance, when
a poor Israelite is forced to borrow in order to pay taxes, or
to float himself over a bad season, the more fortunate, wealthy
Israelite should open his bounty and lend freely without
asking interest. The debtor should be treated with great con
sideration by the creditor as touching the matter of repay
ment. It was an abomination for a creditor to take the
personal property, or the land, of a poor debtor who was
unable to meet his habilities. It was equally abominable to
reduce the debtor to slavery in order to work outia loan,/ We
noticed that the debtor class augmented the following of David
at the cave of AduUam, far back in the time of King Saul
(I Sam. 22 : 2) -and a typical case is found in the time of Elishmi
in the ninth epitury: "Now there cried a certain woman,™
the wives of the sons of the prophets, unto Elisha, saying, Thy
servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy serv
ant did fear Yahweh; and the creditor is come to take unto
him my two chUdren to be bondmen" (II Kings 4:1). A
more impressive Ulustration from a later period follows :
' See "Kinship Institutions of Israel," chap, vi, supra, p. 47.

156 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Then there arose a great cry of the people and of their wives against
their brethren  We are mortgaging our fields, and our vineyards,
and our houses. Let us get grain because of the dearth. There were
also those that said, We have borrowed money for the king's tribute
upon our fields and our vineyards. Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of
our brethren, our children as their children. And, lo, we bring into
bondage our sons and our daughters to be slaves  Neither is it in
our power to help it; for other men have our fields and our vineyards
(Neh. 5 : 1-5 ; italics ours) .
Another good Ulustration is found in the Book of Job.
The famous hero of this book is "perfect and upright"; and
he fears Yahweh (1:1, 8). Job, like Abraham, represents
the primitive social type; for he is a shepherd, and has large
possessions in flocks and herds. Speaking from the standpoint
of his fear of Yahweh, his righteousness, and his primitive
social outlook, he describes the foreclosure of mortgages, and
its effects, as foUows :
There are those that remove the landmarks. They violently take
away flocks  They drive away the ass of the fatherless. They
take the widow's ox for a pledge. They turn the needy out of the way
(Job 24:2-4; italics ours).
Job goes forth to the law court at the city gate, where the
princes and the nobles hold him in profound awe and the
greatest respect. He examines the cases that are before the
court. He delivers the needy, and helps the fatherless. He
confounds the unrighteous, and rescues the helpless prey of
the wicked. His mishpat is hke a diadem and a robe (Job
29: 7-17). But aU this benignant activity is, of course, purely
ideal. It is what the prophets and their friends would like to
see, but not what actually exists. The stern reality is pictured
by Amos when he says, "They hate him that reproveth in
the gate; and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly"
(Amos 5:10).
The prophets declare that the claims of kinship avail
nothing. Wealthy creditors refuse to abandon their unbrotherly

PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 157
practices. "They hunt every man his brother with a net"
(Mie. 7:2). "No man spareth his brother" (Isa. 9:19).
"Trust ye not in any brother; for every brother wiU utterly
supplant" (Jer. 9:4).
The literary prophets do not stand for "human rights" in
the abstract. — It should now be emphasized that, in spite
of aU their championship of the needy and the oppressed,
the prophets never at any time stood for what we today call
"human rights." This is proved by ample evidence. Let
us take a concrete Ulustration: While the prophets were
against the enslavement of Hebrews by Hebrews, they did
not oppose the institution of human slavery, even among
their own people; for they thought it "right" for Israelites
to hold slaves from other nations. Thus, Jeremiah declaims
against human slavery only in a limited sense :
The word that came unto Jeremiah from Yahweh .... that every
man should let his man-slave, and every man his woman-slave, that
is a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, go free; that none should make bondmen of
them — of a Jew his brother (Jer:_i34j_8!Q).
In this passage the prophet refers to a number of laws that
had been weU known to the Hebrew people for many years.
These laws are now found scattered through the Pentateuch.
According to a regulation found in the E document, a Hebrew
might hold another Hebrew as a slave for six years .only;
and after that he was to let his "brother" go'free (Exod. 21:2).
This ordinance, or custom, or mishpat, is repeated, almost
word for word, in another place (Deut. 15:12); and it seems
to be the basis of Jeremiah's utterance (cf. Jer. 34:12-16).
Indeed, we may search the pages of the literary prophets
in vain .to find a single instance in which the question of human
slavery in the abstract is discussed. Amos passes over it in
sUence. Micah says nothing about it. Isaiah makes no men
tion of it. Hosea does not raise the subject. And so with
all the prophets. Their attitude with reference to human

158 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
slavery as an institution, and with reference to "human rights "
in the abstract, is the same as that of the Old Testament as
a whole.1 The head of the Hebrew house was the baal, or owner of
wife, chUdren, and slaves. He bought his wife; and he could
sell his chUdren (p. 41, supra). The so-called "tenth" com
mandment is a clear and absolute recognition of human slavery
(p. 50). Moreover, the institution of slavery is legahzed
and regulated by an ordinance in the Book of Leviticus, which
we have already considered, and we quote again:
As for thy bondmen and thy bondmaids whom thou shalt have: Of
the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and
bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn
among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with
you, which they have begotten in your land; and they shall be your
possession. And ye shall make them for an inheritance for your children
after you, to hold for a possession. Of them shall ye take your bondmen
forever. But over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not
rule, one over another, with rigor (Lev. 25:44-46).
Thus we find ourselves returning again and again to the
standpoint of the primitive clan. This is fundamentally the
prophetic point of view; the prophets take it, in common with
the authors of the other books of the Old Testament. It is
not right for the chUdren of Israel to hold each other as bond
men; but they may hold foreigners in slavery forever. It
is not right for the chUdren of Israel to lend to each other
upon interest; but they may lend to foreigners upon interest
(Deut. 23:19, 20; Exod. 22:25-27). The chUdren of Israel
shaU not eat tainted meat, coming from an animal that has
died of itself; but they may give it to the sojourner to eat,
or sell it to a foreigner (Deut. 14:21).
These considerations make it clear that the prophets were
not "democrats" in the modern, present-day sense of the word.
' We have already considered this phase of the subject in our study of kinship and
industry in Israel (chaps. \ i and vii, supra); so that once more the results of previous
investigation fall into place as we advance into the problem.

PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 159
They faithfuUy did their best, according to the light they had,
even to the adventuring of their lives. There can be no real
rehgious gain in viewing the prophets as "democrats." Their
morality, at its best, was a matter of partial vision. The
prophets have been credited with a loftier morality than they
reaUy expounded, for the simple reason that statements
which mean one thing in the Hebrew version appear to mean
somethmg else in a modern translation. Suppose we read
the famous passage which the King James Version translates
thus: "What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly,
and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"
Now, the modern layman reads into this passage aU the mean
ing with which these particular modern words are charged
at the present time; and the modern scholar, too, is con
stantly in danger of being caught in the same toUs, unless he
bears in mind the meaning of the Hebrew and the social situa
tion in which the Hebrew passage itself was written. A
much more literal and scientificaUy faithful translation of
the above passage reads as foUows: "What does Yahweh
require of thee but to do mishpat ?" etc. In the first place,
the idea of Yahweh has the force which we have seen attaching
to it in ancient Israel. But the central thought is the doing
of mishpat, which inevitably means no more than we have been
showing that it actuaUy meant in the writings of the prophets
and elsewhere in the Bible. The prophets, then, were not
exponents of modern morals; and this fact has to be carried
clearly in mind as we study the development of Bible religion.1
' The New Testament, as we shall s<e later, is as far from the modern point of
view as the Old Testament. The question of human rights is not considered in the
gospels; but in the epistles the legality and rightfulness of slavery are conceded.
Slaves are exhorted to be obedient unto their owners (Eph. 6:5, 8; Col. 3:22; I Tim.
6:1; Titus 2:9). In these passages, the original Greek reads "bondservant," or
"slave," as indicated in the American Revised Version, margin; but the King James
translation renders by the word "servant," without comment. The apostle Paul
sent a fugitive Christian slave back to his master (Letter to Philemon). The New
Testament, however, can be counted on the side of freedom through its principle of
brotherly love which, if carried out, leads to a broadening justice.

160 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Thus, the prophetic opposition to the wealthy had no affinity
with modern radicalism or socialism.— The Bible has been quoted
in modern times as an authority for social radicalism. The
hobby-rider has gone to it in search of material to support
his cause. Passages that seem to favor his program of revolu
tion have been cited, whUe the rest of the Bible has been
ignored. His interest in the Scriptures attaches only to a
few verses or passages. In other words, particular texts
have been used without knowing what they signify in the
original tongues, and, above aU, without studying their
context — i.e., the other material which bears on their meaning.
Our present study, as far as we have gone, shows what a
mistake it is to use the Bible in this way.
We have seen that Hebrew society, like aU ancient civUiza
tion, consisted of two classes, the upper and the lower.1 The
upper class was composed of the householders, who were
called in Hebrew the baals. This term indicates ownership,
or possession. The power of the master-class took legal form
in two ways — first, in its ownership of the remainder of the
population; second, in its ownership of the land. These
institutions were maintained by physical force. When the
Hebrew nation arose at the point of coalescence between
Israelites and Amorites, two ideas about human relations
came into conflict. Although these ideas were expressed in a
great many ways, they turned largely around the subject of
landed property, because every human being is vitaUy affected
by his relation to the land. Now, it is a law of social evolu
tion that the administration, or "government," of any social
group wiU represent the interests that are active enough to
control it.* The fact that a large part of the population was
' Chaps, vi and vii, supra, pp. 40-62.
2 This law is as absolute and certain as any law within the field of science in
general. It is illustrated by all history; and is no more true of the Hebrew nation than
it is of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Germans, English, Chinese, or
any other people.

PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 161
already organized around the commercial view of landholding
constrained the machinery of the national government in support
of that view. WhUe the more directly Israelite part of the
nation succeeded in placing a few kings on the throne, and in
promulgating a national "platform" in the shape of the
earher Old Testament "law-codes," the pressure of commercial
civilization crowded hard upon the genial sentiments which Israel
imported from the clan life of the desert.
What the prophets reaUy fought against, in their fierce
denunciations of the wealthy, was the contraction of the
master-class upon itself, and the crowding of the less fortunate
baals, their widows, and orphans into the lower, enslaved class.
The prophets never protested against human slavery, or any
other institution whose logic ultimately denies "human rights."
As a consequence, they have no affinity with modern democ
racy. The prophets are to be compared to the alert, modern
businessman who pays no heed to the "wage question" as
it affects the "laboring class," but who protests vigorously
against the competition of his big rival. Whatever the proph
ets, and the Bible in general, have to say about the subject
of wealth and property must be studied in full view of aU the
Bible facts. The writings of the prophets are virtually a
series of ex parte pamphlets in which only one phase of the
issue is voiced.1 Take the foUowing passages, for instance,
from the books of Amos and Micah; read them in view of
the considerations with which we have been occupied; and
remember that these men came from smaU country vUlages in
Judah: Woe to them that are at ease in Zion [the capital of the Southern
Kingdom], and to them that are secure in the mountain of Samaria [the
capital of the Northern Kingdom] — Lthe notable men of the chief of the
nations, to whom the house of Israel come  Ye that put far away
' It may be well to say again that we are not finding fault with the prophets,
but merely stating facts about them. They had to work in view of existing conditions;
and they did their best according to the light they had.

162 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near; that lie upon
beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the
lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall; that
sing idle songs to the sound of the viol; that invent for themselves
instruments of music, like David's; that drink wine in bowls, and
anoint themselves with the chief oils; but they are not grieved for the
affliction of Joseph  The lord Yahweh hath sworn by himself,
saith Yahweh the god of hosts: I abhor the pride of J acob , and hate his
palaces. Therefore will I deliver up the city and all that is therein (Amos
6:1,3-6,8). I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will not smell in your solemn
assemblies.1 Yea, though ye offer me your burnt offerings and meal
offerings, I will not accept them; neither will I regard the peace-offerings
of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs,
for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let mishpat roll down like
waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream (Amos 5 : 21-24).
Woe to them that devise iniquity and work evil upon their beds!
When the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the power
of their hand. And they covet fields, and seize them; and houses, and
take them away. And they oppress a man and his family, even a man
and his heritage (Mie. 2:1-2).
What is the transgression of Jacob ? Is it not Samaria ? And what
are the high places of Judah? Are they not Jerusalem? Therefore
I will make Samaria as a heap of the field, as places for planting vine
yards; and I will pour down the stones thereof into the valley; and I
will uncover the foundations thereof (Mie. 1:5, 6).
And I said, Hear, I pray you, ye heads of Jacob, and rulers of the
house of Israel: Is it not for you to know mishpat? — ye who hate the
good and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and then-
flesh from off their bones; who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay
their skin from off them, and break their bones, and chop them in pieces
as for the pot, and as flesh within the cauldron  Therefore ?hall
Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become
heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest
(Mie. 3:1-3, 12).
' In primitive rehgion, the gods were supposed to draw near and smell the smoke
of the incense and of the cooked food as it rolled upward. Thus David says to Saul:
"If Yahweh hath stirred thee up against me, let him smell an ofering" (I Sam. 26:19).
In the Iliad of the Greeks the gods do the same. In the Babylonian tablets, the gods
are described as flocking about the altar and inhaling the sacrifice.

PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 163
These highly interesting and well-written passages are not
scientific evidence about the merits of the transactions lying
in the background. They are the outcries of two very bewU-
dered countrymen, protesting in the name of their ancestral
deity against conditions and practices that bear hard on the
social class from which Amos and Micah sprang. The preju
dice of the smaU, country property-holder against the
wealthy class in the centers of population is so clearly in evi
dence that it cannot be denied. The prophetic protests read
weU; and they read stiU better if taken out of their context
as a basis for honhletic discourse. But in the present investiga
tion, we have to take them in view of the Bible as a whole.
WhUe they are not impartial, scientific evidence about the
merits of the Hebrew social problem, they are scientific evi
dence touching the thoughts of certain persons and classes in
the Hebrew nation. The prophets, indeed, raise the social
problem without solving it. WhUe they are evidently deahng
with pubhc, institutional questions, their point of view per
mits them to treat these questions only in terms of individual
ism. According to their view, aU the troubles of the world
arise from the bad wiU of certain individuals — chiefly rich
persons. For the prophets denounce the mischiefs that
spring from slavery (private monopoly of human labor)
and landownership (or private monopoly of the soU) — they
denounce the evUs attending these law-established institu
tions, whUe at the same time they either tacitly or exphcitly
advocate the continuance of these institutions. So Jeremiah,
the last of the great pre-exUic thinkers and the heir of aU the
pre-exihc prophets, demands only the release of Hebrew slaves
from bondage; tacitly indorses the institution of slavery as
touching non-Hebrews; and looks forward to the continuance
of private landownership (34:8-16; 32:15, 43, 44). In this
regard, the prophet Jeremiah stands upon common ground with
the other prophets. The troubles of humanity, according to

164 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
these men, are chiefly due to the rich, who exclude the less
fortunate Hebrew free men from a legal title to ownership in
the world.1
The prophets divided into two schools — for and against the
ancient "mishpat" of Yahweh. — It now becomes necessary to
point out that from a very early period in the national struggle
the prophets began to divide into two schools corresponding to
the parties in the great conflict. Thus the prophet Nathan,
of the Amorite city of Jerusalem, took the side of Solomon
against the peasantry. On the other hand, the prophet
Ahijah, of the Israelite viUage of ShUoh, came out on the
opposite side (I Kings 1:8, n-45; 11:26-40). Nathan and
Ahijah mark the faint beginnings of a movement that split the
company of prophets in twain. Although the kings and
wealthy officials were denounced by men like Amos, they
were supported, on the other hand, by a large and influential
class of prophets. The Amos-prophets upheld the ancient,
Israelite mishpat of Yahweh. But the other class of prophets
upheld the legal and moral usages and ideas inherited from the
Amorite side of the nation's ancestry, and they identified
Yahweh therewith. The perplexing part of the situation was,
that both classes of prophets thought they knew the wiU of
Yahweh and believed they were speaking self-evident truths.
As for the nation as a whole, it knew not which prophets to
' One of the moral tragedies of history is the assumption that the prophetic doc
trine is a final statement of the social problem, and that it can be transferred bodily
from ancient to modern times without scientific criticism or interpretation. Our
thesis at this point is, that while the prophets are actually discussing the social problem,
they conduct their argument only in terms of individualism without realizing the true
nature of their subject, and therefore without having a real social program. A case
in point is furnished by Professor A. F. Kirkpatrick, of Cambridge University, who
has given us one of the useful and scholarly modern handbooks on the prophets.
"No doubt," writes Kirkpatrick, "there were not a few among the wealthy nobles of
Micah's day who prided themselves on not being guilty of injustice. Yes! perhaps
they were entirely within their legal rights when they seized the land of some poor
neighbor who through bad seasons and misfortune and pressure of heavy taxes had
failed to pay his debts and fallen into their power. But was conduct like that
brotherly?" — The Doctrine of the Prophets (London, 1901), pp. 225, 226.

PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 165
foUow. The consequence was that a man believed the prophet
whose words appealed to him. So the nation was divided in a
way that suggests the parties in a modern political campaign.
It is hard to find the terms that wiU justly describe these
two classes of prophets. The Amos-class might in some ways
be appropriately caUed the "protestant" prophets; whUe
the others, who supported the kings and nobles, might be called
the "official" prophets. Again, the two schools might respect
ively be termed "radical" and "conservative," or "liberal"
and "tory." But there are objections to aU these terms. On
the whole, it seems best to caU the prophets who upheld the
kings and wealthy classes the "regulars," whUe the Amos-
prophets may be spoken of as "insurgents."
In the background of the writings of aU the "insurgent"
prophets, as we shaU now caU them, we can plainly see the
opposing school of prophecy. There was as much difficulty
then as now in finding words that clearly distinguish the
two schools. In most cases, the "regular" prophets are
caUed simply "the prophets"; and we have to depend upon
the context in order to find out which prophetic school is
meant. After Amos had uttered his message in the streets of
Bethel, he was told by the king's priest not to prophesy
any more in that place, but to flee away to Judah, where he
belonged, and there "eat bread" and prophesy there (Amos
7:10-13). The king's priest here touches, in a word, upon
the economic distinction between the regular and insurgent
prophets. He is well acquainted with the king's prophets
who preach for "bread," or wages; and he assumes that Amos
would not be preaching unless he were paid for it by some
body. The only way in which Amos can show the priest that
he is not a hireling prophet is by means of a paradox: He
replies that he is neither a prophet nor a son of a prophet; but
he is a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees; and Yahweh
moved him to leave his home in Judah, and go to prophesy

166 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
in Israel (Amos 7:14, 15). It is but scant courtesy that he
gets from the royal priest; and he gives but scant courtesy
in return. One can imagine that if it had not been for the
presence of a crowd of sympathetic and muscular shep
herds and farmers, attending the market-fair at Bethel,
the life of Amos would not have been worth much on the
memorable day when he invaded the streets of the Ephraimite
viUage. The line of distinction thus indicated between the two
schools of prophecy reappears again and again. Listen to
Micah: "Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of Jacob and rulers
of the house of Israel, who abhor mishpat and pervert all
equity: They buUd up Zion with blood and Jerusalem with
iniquity. The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests
thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money. "
These regular prophets make war on all who put not into
their mouths; yet they lean upon Yahweh, and say, "Is not
Yahweh in the midst of us? No evU shaU come upon us."
They are prophets of Yahweh; but they uphold the usages
and ideas which the nation got from the Amorite side of its
descent; so they are the prophets "that make the people to
err" (Mie. 3:5-11).
Isaiah declares that the most contemptible figure against
which the insurgent prophets contend is the regular
prophet; for he says that whUe the elder is the head, the
prophet who teaches "hes" is the tail (9 : 15).1 He is a drunk
ard, swaUowed up of wine, and staggering with strong drink
(Isa. 28:7). He wiU be taken away by Yahweh, along with
his employers and associates in the upper class (3 : 1-8).
He shaU stumble in the night, says Hosea (4:5). He is a
fool; and the snare of the bird-catcher is in aU his ways
' This verse is taken to be a "gloss" by many scholars; but in the present case
it makes httle difference whether the passage were written by the original prophet,
or by some later editor. In such cases, it is not necessary for the sociological student
to go into the literary and historical criticism.

PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 167
(Hos. 9:7, 8). Zephaniah declares that the regular prophet
is a hght and treacherous person (3:4).
But the bitterest invectives against these prophets were
uttered by Jeremiah, the last of the great insurgents before
the ExUe. They shaU be ashamed, along with the whole
house of Israel (Jer. 2:26). They prophesy falsely; and
then, by this means, the priests have dominion (Jer. 5:31;
6:13; 8:10). The regular prophets shaU be dashed one
against the other without pity or compassion (13 : 13, 14). The
Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem shaU be destroyed like the
House of Yahweh at ShUoh; and the city shaU be desolate
without inhabitant (26:1-9). On account of these utter
ances, Jeremiah was arrested, and brought before the court
of nobles, at the gate of the Temple. He was indicted by
the regular prophets and their friends for high treason; and
his accusers demanded that he be put to death (26:11).
It was a dramatic scene — one of the greatest moments in
Hebrew history, reminding us of the appearance of Martin
Luther before the Diet of Worms. Jeremiah's life was in
danger. But he had friends and influence, even among the
official classes whom he denounced; and although he was
frowned upon, as Amos was at Bethel, he was not condemned
by the court (26: 16-24). z The fact is, that while both
schools of prophecy wanted to be authoritative in the eyes of the
entire nation, each school had a powerful constituency; and the
nation itself was divided into parties.
The modern historical study of the Bible has focused atten
tion upon one of the great prophetic schools (the insurgent)
as a positive, creative element in the evolution of Bible reli-
1 The elders of Judah, who spoke in favor of Jeremiah upon this occasion, and
favored his release from the charge of high treason, did not necessarily indorse the
platform of the insurgent prophets; but they were aware that Jeremiah had many
sympathizers and adherents; and they knew that his death might be foUowed by a
bloody revolution such as had already occurred more than once. Jeremiah was
released on the technical ground that he had spoken in good faith "in the name of
Yahweh" (Jer. 26:16).

168 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
gion. And if we now resolve the historical method into socio
logical terms, we shaU at once hft the "regular" school into
prominence as an equally necessary factor in the national
development. It is hard for us to reahze that the insurgent
prophets of the Hebrews began their work as members of a
proscribed and iUegal sect, without official recognition by the
public authorities.

/

PROVISIONAL TABLE OF THE HEBREW PROPHETS
Exhibiting Their Division into Opposing Schools*
"Regulars" "Insurgents"

Nathan of Jerusalem (I Kings i : 8) Ahijah of Shiloh (I Kings, chap. 1 1)
Shemaiah (II Chron. 12:5-8) Jehu ben Hanani (I Kings, chap. 16)
Zedekiah ben Chenaanah (I Kings, Elijah of Gilead (I Kings, chaps.
chap. 22) 17 f.)
Jonah ben Amittai (II Kings, Micaiah ben Imlah (I Kings, chap.
14:25) 22)
Hananiah ben Azzur (Jer., chap. Elisha ben Shaphat (I Kings,
28) chaps. 19 f.)
Shemaiah the Nehelemite (Jer., *Amos of Tekoa
chap. 29)
Ahab ben Kolaiah (Jer., chap. 29) *Hosea ben Beeri
Zedekiah ben Maaseiah (Jer., *Micah of Moresheth
chap. 29)
*Nahum "Isaiah ben Amoz
*Obadiah *Zephaniah ben Cushi
Anonymous prophets (passim) *Jeremiah ben Hilkiah
Urijah of Kiriath-jearim (Jer.
chap. 26)
•Starred names are represented by books in the Old Testament canon. Time: from
David to the Babylonian exile. Note the greater proportion of insurgents in the canon as
compared with regulars. Jonah is not starred because the prophet of that name cannot
be identified with the Book of Jonah.
The issue between the opposing schools of prophecy was not
settled until the Hebrew nation was destroyed. — The more care
fully we study the Old Testament, the more we are impressed
by the unsettled nature of Hebrew history. This fact pene
trates our minds very slowly in all its breadth and meaning.

PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 169
As the layman casuaUy or devoutly reads the Bible, it seems
as if Hebrew life were based upon the firm ground of a solid,
fixed authority which everybody in that age must have been
constrained to admit and recognize. But the more closely
the situation is investigated, the more its unsettled charac
ter impresses itself upon us. Instead of being solid, fixed,
and founded in a way that was recognized by everybody,
Hebrew hfe before the Babylonian exUe was fluid, unsettled,
uncertain, doubtful. There was no point of appeal which
was final and authoritative in the eyes of the whole nation.
This highly important aspect of the Bible problem comes
before us with startling distinctness in the bitter contentions
between the two schools of prophecy, each with its assured
"Thus saith Yahweh." Here indeed the situation seems to
wind itself up into a tangle so confusing that at first no clue
appears by which we may thread the dark maze of uncertainty
and contradiction.
Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel declare that the regular prophets
preach out of their own heart; they speak not by the in
spiration of Yahweh (Jer. 23:9-40; 27:14-18; Ezek. 13:2).
And Yahweh is against these prophets when they say "He
saith" (Jer. 23 131) . They utter lies when they say "Yahweh
saith" (Ezek. 13:6, 7). StiU another way of stating the case
against the regular prophets appears in Ezekiel: They are
deceived by Yahweh himself! (14 : 9.) They say "Peace ! peace !
Is not Yahweh in the midst of us ? No evil shaU come upon
us" (Mie. 3:5, 11; Jer. 6:14; 14:13-18; 23:17; Ezek. 13:10,
15). An extremely interesting and significant notice of the
conflict between the two schools of prophecy is found in
I Kings. Upon a very memorable occasion, four hundred
regular prophets were gathered in the presence of King Ahab,
advising him, in the name of Yahweh, to go forth to war
against the Arameans. The king sat on a throne at the gate
of Samaria, the capital city of Israel. The leader of the

170 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
prophets, Zedekiah ben Chenaanah, "made him horns of iron,
and said, Thus saith Yahweh, With these shalt thou push the
Arameans untU they be consumed " (I Kings 22:11). But now
an opposing prophet comes upon the scene with a message of
doom. This man, Micaiah ben Imlah, admits that the other
prophets are inspired by Yahweh; but he says, "Behold,
Yahweh hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of aU these thy
prophets." At the same time, it is declared by Micaiah that
the real word of Yahweh is not good but evU toward Ahab,
and that the king wUl faU in battle with the Arameans (I Kings
22: 17-26). *
This interesting story implies that the test of a prophet
is the fulfilment of prediction. Exactly the same test is
put forward by the Book of Deuteronomy, as foUows: "And
if thou say in thy heart, How shall we know the word which
Yahweh hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in
the name of Yahweh, if the thing follow not, nor come to
pass, that is the thing which Yahweh hath not spoken. The
prophet hath spoken it presumptuously. Thou shalt not be
afraid of him" (Deut. 18:21, 22). This would appear to be
quite conclusive; but, in reality, it does not go to the heart
of the issue between the two schools of prophecy.
Elsewhere in the Book of Deuteronomy it is admitted
that any prophet may utter a word that wUl come true; and
in place of this test it substitutes the doctrine that a prophet
who advocates the worship of other gods beside Yahweh
(meaning primarUy the Baals of the Amorites) is not to be
foUowed, even though his words are fulfiUed and his predic
tions come to pass! (13:1-5; i8:2o.)z Thus the Book of
Deuteronomy completely eliminates prediction as a test of
'As Professor Skinner says with reference to Zedekiah, "There is no reason to
doubt the sincerity of this man's belief in his own inspiration" {Commentary on Kings
[New York], p. 266).
2 When speaking of "other gods," the Book of Deuteronomy means primarily
the Baals of the Amorites (6:14; 31 : 16).

PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 171
prophecy, and puts instead of it the purely contemporary prin
ciple that the prophets are to be distinguished by the gods whose
worship they advocate. In harmony with this test, Jeremiah
declares that the prophets who oppose him prophesy by Baal
(2:8; 23:13). These two Judean writers, Jeremiah and the
author of Deuteronomy, worked at a very late period of
Hebrew history, in the seventh century B.C., near the time of
the Babyloman exUe; and they were the first of the Judeans
to take the Baals up explicitly into the terms of the mishpat
struggle. This remarkable fact leads to another chapter of
exposition.

CHAPTER XIX
THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM
The national struggle at length took the form of a conflict
between the Yahweh and Baal factors in the Hebrew cult. — The
great Hebrew conflict over the problem of law and morals
found expression at last in the form of rivalry between the gods
inherited from both sides of the nation's descent. The con
test of Yahweh against the native Baal-principle was abso
lutely necesssary to the development of Bible rehgion. In
no other way could the religion of Israel have achieved the
double result of becoming completely identified with the
struggle for morality and of casting out polytheism. This
is the central feature of the problem. The final result of
Hebrew history was the uniting of the moral principle with
the doctrine of One God. 'The moral struggle and the
cult rivalry cannot be treated as matters independent of
each other. The religion of the Bible makes its appeal to
mankind as a principle which identifies God not only with
the worldwide struggle against injustice, but with a fierce
conflict against polytheism./ The two ideas were fused into
a single idea in the glowing heat of Israel's warfare. Poly
theism was graduaUy identified with injustice; and by the
same token, monotheism slowly came to stand for justice.
But neither monotheism nor ethics won the battle by itself.
The religion of the Bible did not achieve its victory over other
cults merely because it caUed for men to bow down to One
God rather than to many gods; nor did it rise to its final
triumph on the basis of the moral issue as an abstract prin
ciple. Neither aspect of Bible religion could have been
woven into results of permanent value on the field of history
172

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 173
without the other. Both phases of the religious evolution
of Israel had to be perceived as an identity; and this result
was at length secured when the mishpat struggle took the form
of warfare between the Yahweh and Baal ideas which came
from both sides of the nation's ancestry. It was only through
a mighty explosion within the Hebrew cult itself that the
religion of Israel became a universaUy exclusive principle.
It was only in the process of wiping out the native Baal idea
pertaining to the Hebrew religion itself that the evolutionary
process came to a clear issue. So long as Yahweh continued
to be worshiped by one party in the state as a god having the
same character as the Amorite Baals, and so long as the
gods that were inherited from the Amorites remained, the
rehgious evolution of Israel could not go on to its logical
destiny. The initial stage of the "mishpat" struggle was a blind protest
against the usages of oriental civilization. — The struggle within
the Hebrew nation at first amounted only to a reaction of
the highlanders agamst the monarchy, in which there was a
blind protest by the more Israehte part of the kingdom against
the usages of oriental civUization. The ideas and customs
of the hUl clans — especially in Judah and GUead — were very
similar to the usages of the desert people from which they
descended. They turned against the rule of David. They
were discontented under Solomon, the successor of David,
" because he burdened the people with a heavy yoke." FinaUy
they cast off the rule of Rehoboam, the successor of Solomon,
because he |would not reform the government. The hUl clans
objected to the new and strange customs that were being
introduced by the national authorities; and their abhorrence
was expressed in very forcible, dramatic ways (chap, xvii,
p. 143). Thus we see that there was no question of rival
worships in the initial stage of the mishpat struggle. Compe
tition between cults did not enter into the problem. The

174 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
struggle did not at first assume the character of a contest
between gods.1
But this is not to say that the initial stage of the struggle
within the Hebrew nation had no rehgious character in any
respect. We have repeatedly emphasized the intimate con
nection between pohtics and rehgion throughout ancient
society. The customs regulating social intercourse were
invariably under the jurisdiction of the gods. In accordance
with this principle, we have seen that the mishpat wliich the
clans of Israel brought into the hiU-country was identified
with Yahweh, so that the oppression of the free clansmen
under the monarchy was an outrage upon their ancestral
religion. From this point of view, the Hebrew struggle had
a rehgious quality, or aspect, at the very beginning, in its
first period. But it did not at once take the form which is
characteristic of the Old Testament, in which it reduces itself
to compact expression in terms of rivalry between Yahwism
and Baahsm. At first, there was nothing more than a blind
protest, in the name of the national deity, against the legal
usages that outraged the older customs of Yahweh; but this
gave a natural point of departure for the entire subsequent
unfolding of religious evolution among the Hebrews. The
different stages that now foUow draw themselves out in a
logical order, each one arising from earlier conditions in the
social life of the nation.
The second stage of the "mishpat" struggle brought Yahweh
into conflict with the "border-Baals." — The kings and ruling
classes among the Hebrew people had striven, either con
sciously or unconsciously, to identify Yahweh, the national
1 The condemnation of Solomon for worshiping the gods of surrounding peoples
(I Kings n:i-8, 32 f.) is recognized as an insertion in the spirit of Deuteronomy.
Cf. Skinner, Commentary on Kings (New York), pp. 173 f. But assuming for a.
moment that Ahijah's denunciation is historical, a number of important facts have
to be noticed: (a) the prophet's words were privately whispered in a lonely field,
vs. 29; (6) popular idolatry is nowhere alleged; (c) the references to "other gods"
mention only the deities of outside peoples, not the Baals of the Amorites, vs. 33.

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 175
god, with the usages of settled commercial civUization. They
did not abandon the worship of Yahweh. They acknowledged
his lordship over the nation; and they supposed they were
serving the same god whom the Israelite clans had brought
into the country at the time of the original settlement in the
Judges period. But the kings and official classes identified
Yahweh with the standpoint of civUization as contrasted with
the standpoint of the primitive clan. Now, civUization is a
good thing in itself; but if its benefits are overbalanced by its
abuses, it becomes an evU. If it ignore the welfare of the
humbler social classes, and provide only for the happiness of a
small, wealthy, upper class, then civUization menaces the
higher interests of mankind.
This was the disease that afflicted the Egyptians, Babylo
nians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and other advanced peoples of
the oriental world. Their social polity was untempered by the
brotherhood of the primitive clan. They smothered the ideas
of justice that prevaU among the backward nomadic peoples.
Their slaves consisted not only of alien bondmen, but of the
native-born peasantry.1 And whUe the great gods of the mighty
Semitic empires were probably once the divinities of simple
desert clansmen, these gods had been long ago transformed, or
metamorphosed, into the deities of settled civUization, identi
fied with the customs, laws, and morals of commercial society.
It was in the interest of this tendency that the official and
wealthy classes of the Hebrew nation instinctively threw the
weight of their influence. The kings and officials, as a rule,
wanted to view the national god Yahweh in the character of a
"civUized" Semitic deity, or Baal, having the same nature as
the Baals of the wealthy Phoenicians, or the Baals inherited by
the Hebrews from the Amorite side of their ancestry.
In the case of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and other civilized
' Cf. Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), p. 491; Luckenbill, Temple
Documents from the Cassile Period (Chicago, 1907), p. 12.

V

176 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Semites the evolution of religion went paraUel, in the long
run, to the movement of society from nomadism; and the gods
became the patrons of the legal usages favored by the very
wealthy. But the development of Hebrew nationality, as we
have already seen, was unlike the social evolution of any other
ancient people (chap, x, p. 95). The Israelite invaders found
the inhabitants of Canaan broken up into small provinces, and
worshiping many local Baals. The Amorites had no national
government and no national god. As a consequence, it was
the invaders, and not the earlier population, who supplied the
national politics and religion. Thus Yahweh, a god of primi
tive mishpat, was imposed with considerable abruptness upon
a civUized people. The result of this was that the transforma
tion of Yahweh into a god of commercial civUization was
obstructed. -^WhUe the kings and wealthy classes wanted to
worship the national divinity in the character of an ordinary
Amorite, or "civUized," Semitic Baal, the more backward
social classes persisted in connecting Yahweh with the morality
of their Israelite ancestors. Thus at last we see that the great
social-religious issue in the Hebrew nation came to revolve
around the question of the baalizing of Yahweh^
But the process by which the people awoke to this fact was
gradual and painful. The human mind always moves very
slowly in the perception of a complicated problem; and even
after the facts of a problem are visible to the investigator, it
is another matter of difficulty to find the appropriate words
and phrases in which to describe the situation so that it wUl
be clear to other minds. This was exactly the problem that
confronted the Hebrew nation; and it pressed with special
force on the prophets, the spokesmen of the national interests,
who were a long time in thinking themselves clear with refer
ence to the situation. The vast religious possibUities inclosed
within the national experience revealed themselves only in a
very gradual way to Israel's thinkers. The "insurgent " school

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 177
of prophecy was drawn more and more into an attitude of
opposition to the kings; and one royal house after another
was thrown violently down (I Kings 11:26-31; 14:1-18;
16:1-7). FoUowing the history once more into the ninth century B.C.
(900 to 800), it begins to be apparent that we are in the second
stage of the Hebrew conflict. We have already considered
this period from the economic standpoint (cf. p. 144); and we
now take up the religious phase of the development. We
have seen that the great prophet .Elijah comes forward as the
leading spokesman of this period. He utters an awful curse
upon King Ahab in connection with the seizure of land belong
ing to the peasant Naboth (I Kings 21:17-26). The king
had been acting under the influence of his Phoenician wife,
Jezebel, whose former home was in the wealthy, commercial
city of Sidon. Her advent as queen of Israel had been marked
by introduction of the worship of the Baal of Sidon (I Kings
16:30-32). The religious complications of the problem are
indicated as foUows by Professor Budde :
Together with Baal-worship, foreign despotic methods were creeping
into North Israel, and ever wider grew the chasm between the over-
refined and sensuous Court and the oppressed and impoverished people
who must furnish it the means for its exuberant luxury. Palestine was
a small and relatively poor country, and it must have borne hard on its
people when the king undertook to emulate the rich city-kings of the
Phoenicians.1 Here, then, for the first time, the issue took on a positive,
concrete religious form! The acts of Ahab, in importing a
foreign Baal cult and in oppressing an Israelite freeman, struck
in with terrific force upon the imagination, and gave the
prophets a new method of handling the national problem. The
pohcy of Ahab was like an electric shock to the nation; and
'Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile (New York, 1899), p. 119; italics ours;
cf. W. Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel (London, 1897), p. 95; Kent, History of the
Hebrew People (New York, 1903), Vol. II, pp. 87, 88.

178 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
it suggested a clearer and more definite appeal to the popular
conscience. The national struggle now began to be linked,
for the first time, with the clash of cults. It should be empha
sized that the warfare of the national, Hebrew Yahweh against
"other gods" began as a war agamst the Baal of a near-by
people.1 It is always easier to raise an issue by fighting your
neighbor's gods than it is by fighting the gods of your own
household. The dramatic importation of the foreign, Phoeni
cian Baal was necessary as a means of ultimately raising the
issue of the local gods. In the struggle against "other gods"
it was a matter of difficulty to begin with the native Baals
because they were many, and they confused the mind. But
the foreign Baal was one, and attention could easily be centered
upon a strange cult.
We shaU never know how far the prophet Elijah went in his
opposition to other gods. He has left us no writings of his
own, as did the literary prophets of the foUowing century.
There is no record that he conducted any struggle against the
local Baal-worship of the Hebrews; and he is connected
chiefly with the dramatic fight agamst the foreign Baal.
Reforms usuaUy come slowly; and one change at a time seems
to have been aU that the sluggish public opinion of Israel, with
its dark underlying mass of crude rehgious ideas, was capable
of putting into effect. But Elijah may have been using the
Sidonian Baal in a statesman-hke way as a means of raising
the issue of the local gods later. This conjecture agrees with
the general atmosphere of the Elijah stories; and there is one
bit of positive evidence pointing in the same direction. It is
said that when Elijah met Ahab, at the close of the great
drouth, he cast the blame for the dry season upon the king,
because he had forsaken the commandments of Yahweh
' The struggle in the Judges period was different (see chap. xi). In that case,
it stood for the mihtary antagonism of two distinct peoples; but the memory of that
struggle was operative in the minds of the prophets, as the books of Judges and
Deuteronomy prove.

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 179
and foUowed "the Baals" (I Kings 18:18). The plural,
not the singular, form is used here; and it is preceded by the
definite article "the" (ha-Baal-im) . Although Ehjah goes
on directly to oppose the Sidonian Baal, this is no proof that
he did not have the local Baals in mind as a later object of
attack.1 After Ehjah protested against the Baal of the Phoenician
city of Sidon, he spoke agamst the Baal of the Philistine city
of Ekron (II Kings 1:2, 3, 6, 16). To the same effect, the
JE documents denounce the Baal of Peor, i.e., Chemosh, the
god of Moab, and also the gods of Aramea (Num. 25 : 1, 2, 3, 5;
Gen. 35:2). The J and E writers are shown by modern criti
cism to have worked probably soon after the time of Ehjah;
and it is clear that in their documents the religious point of
view, as regards opposition to "other gods," is on a level with
Ehjah's protest against the Baals of Sidon and Ekron. We
have now reached a point in our study where the generalization
may be ventured that the Hebrew struggle entered the second
stage by putting Yahweh into opposition to the border-Baals,
the gods of neighboring lands.
As a result of the growing protest against foreign cults,
Jehoram, an early successor of Ahab as king of Northern Israel,
put away an obelisk,' or pUlaj, that had been used in Baal-
worship (II Kings 3:1, 2). ''But the climax of the campaign
waged by Ehjah and Elisha was the terrible revolution of
Jehu, in which the house of Ahab went down in torrents of
bloody/ We reproduce from Kings a passage bearing on this
awful change in the government.
And Ehsha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets, and
said unto him, Gird up thy loins, and take this vial of oil in thy hand,
and go to Ramoth-Gilead. And when thou comest thither, look out
there Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in, and
' It has been suggested that the term Baalim refers to the Sidonian Baal, in this
connection, as a "plural of dignity,'' just as elohim is apphed to Yahweh; but this
usage, with reference to a single foreign Baal, cannot be estabhshed.

180 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
make him arise up from among his brethren, and carry him to an inner
chamber. Then take the vial of oil, and pour it on his head, and say,
Thus saith Yahweh, I have anointed thee king over Israel. Then open
the door, and flee, and tarry not. So the young man, even the young man
the prophet, went to Ramoth-Gilead. And when he came, behold, the
captains of the host were sitting; and he said, I have an errand to thee,
O captain. And Jehu said, Unto which of us all? And he said, To
thee, O captain. And he arose, and went into the house; and he poured
the oil on his head, and said unto him, Thus saith Yahweh, the god of
Israel, I have anointed thee king over the people of Yahweh, even over
Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master, that I
may avenge the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all
the servants of Yahweh, at the hand of Jezebel. For the whole house of
Ahab shall perish; and I will cut off from Ahab every man-child, and
him that is shut up and him that is left at large in Israel (II Kings 9 : 1-8).
This bloody charge was carried out to the letter. Jehu
kUled not only the reigning king of Israel, who was one of the
sons of Ahab, but the king of Judah, who was visiting the
northern monarch at that time; he trod under foot the dead
body of Jezebel, and caused many of the royal princes of both
kingdoms to be assassinated. After this he destroyed all that
he could find of the priests and prophets of the Sidonian god;
violently rooted the foreign Baal-worship out of the Northern
Kingdom; and then ascended the throne as a legitimate
sovereign. "And Yahweh said unto Jehu, Because thou
hast executed weU that which is right in mine eyes, and hast
done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in
my heart, thy sons of the fourth generation shaU sit on the
throne of Israel" (II Kings 10:30).
An incident connected with this revolution is worthy of
special notice: When Jehu was in the midst of his bloody
work, he saw a man whose name was Jehonadab, the son of
Rechab, coming to meet him. Jehu saluted this man, shook
hands with him, and took him up into the chariot, saying,
"Come with me, and see my zeal for Yahweh" (II Kings
10: 15-17). This incident seems to be an isolated occurrence,

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 181
with no essential relation to the events of the hour. The
narrative gives no explicit reason for its inclusion in the Book
of Kings; and many readers of the Bible have been puzzled by
the story about Jehonadab the son of Rechab. Other parts
of the Old Testament, however, make it possible for us to see
this incident in its true perspective. Jehonadab (or Jonadab)
was the founder of a primitive sect known as the Rechabites,
named after his father. The sect was instituted about this
time as a protest against the ideas and usages of settled,
oriental civUization (Jer. 35:1-19). The most characteristic
tiling about these people was their avoidance of private prop
erty in land. They would do nothing which implied ownership
in the soU. They planted no seed, because the sowing of seed
would make it necessary to possess fields; and they drank
no wine, because the raising of grapes would make it necessary
to own vineyards. Perhaps it was the seizure of Naboth's
vineyard by Ahab that suggested their avoidance of landed
property. They may have reasoned that the private holding
of land was at the root of aU evil. By this token, if you have
no land, the kings and nobles can take no land away from you.
So the Rechabites hved in tents, and foUowed a semi-nomadic
life in the open country, away from contact with city life.
One of the biblical genealogies traces them back to the roving
Kenite shepherds of the Arabian desert, with whom the
Israelites came into covenant before the invasion of Canaan
(I Chron. 2:55). Many names occur among them which
include the syUable Yah; and it is certain that the Rechabites
were ardent champions of Yahweh. They looked back long
ingly into earlier ages when the primitive, brotherhood mishpat
of Yahweh reigned without dispute among the clans of the
desert. The life of these primitive tent-dweUers was a protest
agamst the settled civilization of the ancient world; and many
who did not foUow their way of life shared their ideals. "I
wiU yet again make thee to dwell in tents," wrote one of the

182 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
prophets (Hos. 12:9). All these interesting considerations
make it plain why Jehu, the would-be king, was anxious to have
the leader of the Rechabites know about his "zeal" for
Yahweh; and when Jehonadab struck hands with Jehu, and
entered the chariot, his action signified the support of the
Rechabites for the usurper.
A corresponding revolution occurred a few years later in
Judah, the Southern Kingdom. Athaliah, the queen, a
daughter of Ahab, was kiUed; the priest of the Sidonian Baal
met the same fate; and foreign Baal- worship was rooted out
of Judah as it had been out of Israel. In place of Athaliah was
instaUed the boy-king Jehoash (II Kings, chap, n).1
The nature of the religious development of the Hebrew
people comes before us with increasing distinctness and power
as we study the Bible from the sociological standpoint. We
see that in the second stage of the great struggle the govern
ment was revolutionized in both Israelite kingdoms. The
political machinery of society was now committed officiaUy
to the principle that no foreign Baal-worship was to be tolerated
in Israel. This was a very important step in the process by
which the Bible religion was gradually set apart from the
surrounding heathenism.
Nevertheless, the struggle against the border-Baals was an
ephemeral stage in the development. The local gods inherited
from the Amorites were stiU standing; and if they were not
eventuaUy wiped out, the war against the deities of near-by
nations would have been love's labor lost. For, so long as the
native Baals of the Hebrew nation remained, the cult of Israel
could not become a universal, exclusive principle; and the
distinctive religion of the Bible could not be born.
1 Up to this time, the sequence of events in the Southern Kingdom with reference
to the mishpat struggle is not so clear as it is' in the Northern Kingdom. There is a
vague notice of the putting-away of "idols" by King Asa many years, before (I Kings
15 : 12, 13). This is not impossible; and it may be a sign of the greater conservatism
of Judah in rehgious matters as compared with the north. The evolution did not
necessarily move in a straight line.

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 183
The prophets Amos, Micah, and Isaiah are transition figures
in the "mishpat" struggle. — Moving on from the time of Elijah,
in the ninth century B.C., into the following, or eighth, century,
our attention is at once arrested by the Judean, or southern,
school of prophecy, consisting of Amos, Micah, and Isaiah.1
These men, as we have already seen, were preoccupied by the
social struggle; and in common with aU the other prophets,
they laid heavy emphasis upon "morality" (p. 148, supra).
But they did not come to terms with the vexed question
of "other gods." Micah says nothing about the rivalry
between Yahweh and other divinities. Amos refers vaguely
to "the hes after which their fathers walked" (2:4),
"the Sin of Samaria," "the god of Dan," and "the Way
of Beer-sheba" (8:14). Isaiah speaks incidentaUy against
"idols" (2:8, 18, 20; 17:8; 30:22; 31:7). But the eighth-
century southern school of prophecy has nothing to say
about the Baals. These men did not state the problem of
their times in that distinctive and final way which at length
came to characterize the Bible. Although Amos, Micah, and
Isaiah were weU versed in mishpat, they were feeling their way
forward; and the Judean school of the eighth century may be
viewed either as closing the second, or as opening the third,
stage of the great struggle that convulsed Israel.3
The notable tardiness of southern prophecy in taking up
' By Isaiah we mean the author identified with the bulk of the first thirty-nine
chapters of the Book of Isaiah. The remainder of Isaiah is post-exilic.
2 No httle discussion has turned around the question of the originality of Amos
and the other literary prophets. Some of the earher critics hailed these men as the
creators of "ethical monotheism"; but this is a passing aberration. Amos and the
other literary prophets worked in view of the foregoing history of the Hebrews.
Yahweh had been a god of mishpat all along; and the conquests of David had imperial-
ized the national deity as a. "god of gods" (see chap xiv). Amos and his colleagues
could not possibly have supposed that they were giving utterance to essentially new
truths; and they do not, in fact, betray any consciousness of novelty in their message.
This, however, does not prevent them from unconsciously adding to the rehgious
thought of Israel by way of emphasis and inference. Cf. Davidson, Old Testament
Theology (New York, 1904), p. 209; Wallis, Examination of Society, pp. 126, 162, 163.

1 84 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
the question of local Baal- worship is perhaps to be explained
by the greater conservatism and slowness of Judah in reli
gious matters, as contrasted with Northern Israel. We have
already noticed that the Amorite mixture was mostly in the
north, whUe the foreign elements in the south were semi-
nomadic (chap, xv, p. 136) . We do not know how far the Baal-
worship inherited from the Amorites was practiced in eighth-
century Judah; and it may have been known there but little
in the time of Amos, Micah, and Isaiah. Modern investi
gators are beginning to discriminate between various parts
of the country and between different social classes in the
same parts of the land.
The Northern Kingdom of Israel was of high importance in
the development of Bible rehgion. — "It was in northern Israel,"
writes Professor McCurdy, "where agriculture was more
foUowed than in the southern kingdom, that Baal- worship
was most insidious and virulent."1 Accordingly, Professor
Addis, in his work on the religion of the Hebrews, points out
that the semi-nomadic, or pastoral, class of society was "espe
cially prominent in Judah, where there is much less arable
land than in the central districts of Palestine."2 Speaking
of the north, Professor Marti says: "The fertUe lowlands
proved to be inhabited by mighty spirits in far greater num
bers than the barren uplands, where the nomads dwelt in
tents  There mighty spirits were lords of the land;
they were the Baals of all these localities."3 In harmony
with these writers, Professor Kautsch expresses himself as
follows: "It may be that the complaint of Hosea applied in
a much larger measure to the kingdom of Israel than to that
of Judah. But, in any case, it furnishes a very notable testi
mony to the tenacity with which the belief in Baal as the god
' Jewish Encyc, art. "Baal."
2 Addis, Hebrew Religion (London, rgo6), p. 82.
3 Marti, Religion of the Old Testament (London, rgo7), p. 91.

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 185
of the land and the dispenser of its fruits persisted amongst
a portion of the people."1
The north was, indeed, of great importance in the develop
ment of Hebrew religion. The larger part of the Israelite
clans established themselves here at the time of the original
invasion. It was northern clans only that were present at
the great Deborah battle (Judg. 5:13-23). Most of the
judges were northern men. Here Samuel went from place
to place on his judicial circuit. The Israelite monarchy itself
was organized in this part of the country; and Saul, the first
king, was a northerner. When the north separated from
Judah, it retained the name of Israel. The prophets Elijah
and Elisha started the struggle against the foreign Baals in
the north. Here, in fact, was the great, pulsating center of
Hebrew life untU the kingdom of Ephraim was destroyed by
the Assyrians. The north was less in touch with the desert
than was Judah. It contained the bulk of the walled cities;
it was furrowed by the paths of commerce; and thus it was
more exposed than Judah to aU the influences of civUization.
In the third stage of the "mishpat" struggle, Yahweh at last
came into conflict with local Baahsm. — At the very time when
the eighth-century Judean school of prophecy was engaged
upon the social and religious problem, a prophetic star of the
first magnitude arose in the Northern Kingdom. Hosea ben
Beeri marks an advance upon Elijah, upon the JE documents,
and upon the southern school of the eighth century. His
ideas and language were suggested to his very sensitive
mind by the prevaUing Baal-worship in Ephraim, and also by
a harrowing personal experience. A great sadness came into
his home. He discovered that his wife was unfaithful. This
heavy affliction gave to him the figure of Israel playing the
" harlot " against Yahweh — committing " whoredom " by follow
ing the local Baals which came from the Amorite side of the
' Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, ext. vol., p. 645; italics ours.

1 86 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
nation's ancestry. It was through Hosea that these very
striking terms came into the vocabulary of expressions relating
to the national conflict. This prophet makes frequent use of
the term "Baal" (Hos. 2:8, 13, 14-17; 11 :i, 2; 13:1). By
suggesting the idea of a radical conflict between Yahwism and
the native Baalism as an expression of the entire mishpat
struggle, he makes an advance upon his predecessors and con
temporaries. A northern prophet, then, was the first old
Testament leader to bring the local Baalism into the mish
pat struggle; and we have already seen that the struggle
against foreign Baalism commenced in the north under Elijah
in the century before Hosea.
Yet Hosea did not find language that makes his idea per
fectly clear, so that one who runs may read. He talked about
mishpat as Amos did; but, unlike Amos, he also talked against
Baalism. His way of speaking does not, however, make the
connection of the two matters obvious at first glance. The
whole subject was "a new thing under the sun"; and the
problem was too vast for one man to accomphsh more than a
fraction of the task of stating it in a clear way. Hosea did
not put the prophetic thought into its final biblical form.
His rehgious thought appears to have been formed through
bitter personal experience, rather than by reflection upon the
problem. He is emotional rather than rational; and his point
of view is to be inferred from his book as a whole, rather than
from any single passage in it. With Amos, he stands for the
poor and speaks in the cause of mishpat. On the other hand,
he is greatly concerned about the local Baals, who scarcely
figure in Amos. But whUe Hosea is at the same time against
injustice and against Baalism; and whUe he evidently sees a
connection between the two; he nowhere finds the words
and phrases that bring his thought out clearly. The ultimate
development of the issue took place under the ministry of
later prophets.

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 187
Soon after the time when Hosea threw the local Baals
into the Hebrew struggle, the Northern Kingdom encoun
tered an overwhelming catastrophe. It was destroyed by the
Assyrians, who carried away the Ephraimite upper classes
into a captivity from which they never emerged. Hosea,
therefore, was the last northern prophet.
After the destruction of Ephraim, the center of interest in
Hebrew development was transferred to Judah, the Southern
Kingdom. — With the coUapse of northern Israel, the entire
Hebrew process contracted itself abruptly into the limits of
the Southern Kingdom; so that we must go on to a study
of conditions in Judah in order to reach the climax of the
prophetic movement. The struggle between parties, which had
been going forward so long on the broader stage of Hebrew
life as a whole, was now condensed within a smaU territory
and the httle Hebrew state passed through a number, of highly
interesting reactions. First, the "Amorite" influence was
in the ascendent; then the "Israelite" influence would rule
for a time; and so the evolutionary process went on, taking
up elements from both parties in the great struggle.
The "Amorite" reaction under King Manasseh. — After the
Judean prophets Amos, Micah, and Isaiah had passed away, a
great reaction against their teachings took place under Manas
seh. Their doctrines were officiaUy repudiated by the govern
ment of Judah. Now, for the first time, the Book of Kings
mentions the practice of Amorite Baalism in the Southern
Kingdom. It is said that King Manasseh did "after the
abominations of the nations whom Yahweh cast out before the
chUdren of Israel," and that "he reared up altars for Baal"
(II Kings 21:2, 3), or "for the Baals" (II Chron. 33:3).
The reaction was not a mere matter of the cultus, or the
external forms and objects of worship; for in that age of the
world, as we have repeatedly seen, religion, politics, and law \
were one and the same. Baalism was the symbol of the /

188 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Amorite standpoint. "Swearing by Baal" went along with
the legal practices contrary to the earlier mishpat of Yahweh
(Jer. 12:16). Accordingly, the narrative in Kings goes on to
say that the prophets of Yahweh testified against the king,
"because Manasseh, king of Judah, hath done these abomina
tions, and hath done wickedly above all that the Amorites
did that were before him" (II Kings 21:10, 11). This pro
voked the government into bloody measures which may be
compared to the persecution of Protestants at the time of the
Reformation. We read that "Manasseh shed innocent blood
very much, till he had fiUed Jerusalem from one end to another"
(II Kings 21:16; 24:4). The memory of this fierce persecu
tion was vivid in the recoUection of the people when the prophet
Jeremiah lived; and he probably refers to the bloodshed under
Manasseh when he says, "Your own sword hath devoured your
prophets like a destroying lion " (Jer. 2 : 30) . Truly, Jerusalem
kUled the prophets, and stoned them that were sent unto her
(Luke i3:34)-1
This persecution, set on foot in the interests of Baalism, was
an awful thing; but it was no more terrible than the bloodshed
committed in the name of Yahweh at the time of the revolution
of Jehu, when foreign Baalism was driven out of the land . Both
parties in the mishpat struggle took the same violent methods.2
Manasseh was crowned at the irresponsible age of twelve;
' Is it simply a coincidence that this king was the first and only Judean monarch
to bear a distinctly northern name? "Manasseh" was a northern clan, a "son of
Joseph," and implicated in the Baalism of Samaria (Gen. 48:1; Amos 6:6; Judg.
6:15). 2 We have seen that one of the biblical writers held that Yahweh himself set the
seal of divine approval on the wholesale assassination whereby the usurper Jehu
gained the throne (p. 180, supra, and II Kings 10:30). In the same way, the Book of
Deuteronomy, speaking in the name of Yahweh, enjoins the killing of aU Israelites that
worship the Baals (Deut., chap. 13, and Exod. 22:20). It should be said in justice,
however, that some of the prophets learned to take a higher view. Hosea, for instance,
in the name of Yahweh, condemned the bloodshed under Jehu (Hos. 1:4). These
interesting differences between the Bible writers themselves, in regard to such a vital
matter as the taking of human life, are among the many proofs that there was no
absolute authority, or law, which all parties in the Hebrew nation acknowledged as
divinely binding.

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 189
and it is not likely that the Amorite policy connected with
his name was due to the king himself (II Kings 21:1). The
events of Manasseh's reign show that the Baal party was in
the ascendant for the time being. But we are now to see the
opposite party once more in control.
The "IsraeUte" reaction under King Josiah. — All social history
tends to vibrate between the rule of different " interests." The
party that captures the legal machinery of a nation is able to
dictate the official program of society, and thus to move the
arm of the entire group. But a movement in one direction
provokes a tendency toward the opposite extreme, just as a
pendulum swings back and forth. So the Amorite policy identi
fied with Manasseh was at length reversed. An uprising of the
peasantry in the country outside the capital put the boy Josiah
on the throne of Judah at the early age of eight. Josiah " seems
to have been made king by a popular movement in opposition
to a strong party at court."1 This revolution, like earlier
ones, was an affair of blood; and it was carried through by
"the people of the land," the am-ha 'ares (II Kings 21 : 23, 24).
The struggle of parties was largely a contest between the
wealthy class in the fortified cities and the peasantry of the
highland vUlages. This is in strict harmony with the origin
of the Hebrew nation itself at the point of coalescence between
Amorite city-states and Israelite clans from the Arabian desert.
Now, it should be emphasized that social conditions in the
Southern Kingdom prolonged this reaction up to the very last.
The mixture with the Amorites was not so thorough in Judah
as it was in Ephraim, being mostly at such places as Jeru
salem, Libnah, Gibeon, Beth-shemesh, Lachish, and elsewhere
on the borders (II Sam. 5:13; II Kings 23:31; II Sam. 21:2;
Judg. 1:33; II Kings 14:11; cf. Micah i:i3).2 Up in the
' H. P. Smith, Old Testament History (New York, 1903), p. 260.
2 Libnah actually revolted from Judah in the reign of Joram (II Kings 8:22).
Lachish must have been largely foreign throughout the entire history of Israel. Cf.
G. A. Smith, Historical Geography, p. 234.

i go SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
wilder hiU-country of Judah, the foreign admixture was not
Amorite but semi-nomadic, being more in accord with the
original customs and ideas of the Israelite clans (cf. p. 136,
supra). The "civilization" of Judah was, indeed, more back
ward than that of Ephraim; and the people and environment
were more primitive. Doubtless the peasantry of the south got
some temporary measure of relief through the movement that
put Josiah on the throne; but in view of the testimony of
Jeremiah and Zephaniah who prophesied in the reign of this
king, and who took the same tone as Amos, it is clear that the
accession of the eight-year-old prince brought no permanent
benefit for the poorer classes.
Another "Amorite" revolution takes place. — Ten years after
the "people of the land" had put their candidate on the
southern throne, the powerful arm of the government in Jeru
salem was captured by a force that worked it in the opposite
direction. The entire machinery of Hebrew religion was taken
suddenly out of the hands of the country people, and centralized
in the capital city. It is clear from what followed that the
peasantry were taken by surprise. The highlanders of Judah
had conducted the worship of Yahweh at little viUage churches,
or bamoth, ever since the time of the Israelite conquest. For
instance, Absalom paid a vow to Yahweh at the church in
Hebron, a viUage in the highest part of the southern uplands
(II Sam. 15 : 7-12). It was near Hebron, the Israelites piously
believed, that the patriarch Abraham built an altar to Yahweh
(Gen. 13:18); and here, indeed, according to ancient tradition,
the ground had been sanctified by a theophany in which the
god of Israel had appeared to Abraham and told him about the
wickedness of city life (Gen., chap. 18). The entire clan to
which David's family belonged had an annual reunion during
which they sacrificed to Yahweh at the shrine of Beth-lehem
(I Sam. 20:6, 28). Here Samuel came to worship at the time
he selected the son of Jesse as the future king of Israel (I Sam.

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 191
chap. 16). Around these vUlage altars had gathered the devo
tion and faith of the Hebrew people for hundreds of years;
but now, in the eighteenth year of the boy-king Josiah, the
local sanctuaries were suddenly abolished by royal decree!
There has been a steady progress among professional
scholars toward a clearer understanding of this important
epoch in Hebrew history. The startling revolution which
took place in the reign of Josiah has been the subject of an
immense amount of discussion in modern times. On the face
of the narrative in Kings, the reformation of the cultus was
"caused" by the mere accidental discovery of a little roll, or
book, which was brought from the Temple in Jerusalem, by a
priest, and put suddenly before the young king (II Kings
22 :8 ff.). According to the account, this book was promptly
received as the word of Yahweh by everybody, from the king
down. The contents of the book are unknown to us, except
through inference; but the revolution in the forms of worship,
which occurred at this time, corresponds in many ways to our
present Book of Deuteronomy, wherein the centralization of
the cultus at one place is commanded (Deut. 12:10-14); and
it is commonly assumed that the roU of writing brought to the
king by the priest Hilkiah was the " first edition " of Deuteron
omy. It cannot be successfuUy disputed that such a writing
became public in the reign of Josiah, and that a change in the
forms of worship took place in some sort of relation to it.
Our main fault lies in the tendency to view this particular
crisis out of connection with the rest of Hebrew history.
Professor James Orr, for instance, in his work on the religion
of the Bible, says that "investigation naturally begins with the
narrative of the finding of the ' book of the law' in the eighteenth
year of the reign of Josiah."1 It is indeed natural for one
1 Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament (New York, 1906), p. 256. (Italics ours.)
We have previously considered the "Deuteronomic" revolution from our present
standpoint in a paper entitled "Professor Orr and Higher Criticism," published in
the American Journal of Theology, April, 1908, and also in a paper in the American
Journal of Sociology, May, 1907.

192 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
who has the training and presuppositions of Professor Orr to
look at such a matter out of relation to the general movement
of Hebrew history. He hghtly accepts the statement that the
newly discovered book was received as authoritative by "all
the people" (II Kings, 23:1 ff.), and bases a heavy argument
on the exact literality of the entire narrative.
But the revolution which occurred in the eighteenth year of
Josiah takes its place, along with other historical items, as one
of the steps in a process of development. The leading modern
scholars, in the course of their investigation of the Deutero
nomic problem, have already foreshadowed the view that the
startling change in the cultus under Josiah was reaUy a species
of counter-reformation. AU parties to the discussion assume
at least a general correspondence between (1) the book found
by the priest Hilkiah, (2) the Book of Deuteronomy, and
(3) the cultus changes described in II Kings, chap. 23. Reason
ing on the ground of this general assumption, CornUl justly
observes that "Deuteronomy represents a compromise and
aUiance between prophecy and priesthood, which resulted,
however, in benefiting the latter only."1 Marti says that it
was not the prophetic religion, but the priestly cultus that
profited by the reformation.2 Kautsch declares that the
reform "remained for the mass of the people simply a royal
decree which showed its effects in a variety of external matters,
but, so far as inward disposition was concerned, left every
thing as before."3 Loisy writes: "The nobis [prophets] who
helped the reformation were those rather who .... believed
in the inviolability of Zion. They were the nationalist and
optimistic prophets, whom Jeremiah treated as false prophets,
' Cornill, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York, 1907), p. 62. (Italics ours.)
2 Marti, Religion of the Old Testament (London, 1907), p. 189.
3 Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, ext. vol., p. 700. (Italics ours.) Even Driver,
with his characteristic reserve, says that the author of Deuteronomy has greater
sympathy with priestly institutions than the prophets generally {Commentary on
Deuteronomy [New York, 1906], p. xxx).

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 193
although they might be as sincere as himself in their con
victions."1 These observations help us to grasp the essential meaning
of the revolution which took place in the reign of Josiah. As
a rule, the great insurgent prophets had not been friendly to
the priesthood and the mere external forms of religion. The
dispute at Bethel, between the prophet Amos and the priest
Amaziah typifies the situation (Amos 7:10-17). The priests
were appointed by the kings; and they were consequently
the creatures of the wealthy official classes. The centraliza
tion of worship at Jerusalem was a victory for the priests, the
scribes, and the city party in general. It foreshadowed the
rise of Judaism. The great reformation of Josiah indeed
brought the Hebrew cultus into a form something like that
which we find in the New Testament period, when the Jews
held that in Jerusalem was the place where men ought to
worship (John 4:20, etc.). In the time of Jesus, the temple
at Jerusalem was popularly regarded as the one legitimate
place of sacrifice for Israel; and the great mass of the people
were under the rule of aristocratic priests and scribes. The
aristocratic ideal of the "Amorite counter-reformation" is
exphcitly declared in a late, Deuteronomic passage inserted
in the Book of Samuel: "And I wiU raise me up a faithful
priest  And it shaU come to pass that every one that
is left in thine house shaU come and bow down to him for a piece
of sUver and a loaf of bread, and shaU say, Put me, I pray thee,
into one of the priest's offices, that I may eat a morsel of
bread" (I Sam. 2:35, 36). Such was the exalted place which
the priesthood eventuaUy took as a result of the centraliza
tion of the cultus at the capital.2 The boy-monarch, without
realizing the nature of the forces that moved him, seems to
' Loisy, The Religion of Israel (New York, 1910), p. 188.
2 Of course, the insignificant priests of the village altars were not benefited by
this revolution (II Kings 23 : 9).

194 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
have fallen into the hands of the "Amorite" party; and the
pendulum had completed another swing.
History was now pressing hard upon the Hebrew people.
The Northern Kingdom was already blotted out of existence —
a ghostly memory; and the Southern Kingdom was becoming
more and more involved with the great world-powers of oriental
civUization. About fifteen years after the reform of the cul
tus, Josiah was kUled in a battle with the Egyptians at Megiddo
(II Kings 23:29).
"Israelite" reaction again. — Aroused once more to common
action, the "people of the land" asserted themselves again.
Passing over the "crown prince," Eliakim, the eldest son of
Josiah, the people chose as king another son, ShaUum, who
assumed the crown under the name Jehoahaz (II Kings 23 :3o;
Jer. 22:11; I Chron. 3:15). The popular triumph was very
brief. The new king had reigned only twelve weeks when the
pendulum swung violently back.
The "Amorites" return to power, upheld first by the Egyptians
and then by the Babylonians. — The popular sovereignty implied
in passing over the crown prince Eliakim could not be tolerated
by the Egyptian emperor. So he deposed the people's choice,
and put the crown prince on the throne, changing his name
from Eliakim to Jehoiakim. A heavy tax was laid on the
"people of the land," who were awed into submission (II
Kings 23:33-35). Judah had now become the footbaU of
the world-powers. In a few years the disposition of inter
national politics underwent a great change. The Egyptians
were defeated by the Babylonians; and King Jehoiakim, the
creature of the Egyptian emperor, transferred his aUegiance to
Nebuchadrezzar, the emperor of Babylon. It was to be
expected that Jehoiakim, ruling by grace of these foreign
masters, would be a man of no popular sympathy. Such a
monarch, being supported by the most ancient commercial
civUizations of the eastern world, naturally took the civUized,

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 195
"Amorite" standpoint rather than the more primitive Israelite
point of view; and it is not surprising to find that the insurgent
prophet Jeremiah preached fiercely against him as an oppressor
(Jer. 22:13-19).
We have gone into historical detaUs rather freely for the
sole purpose of clearing up the political and geographical
background of the mishpat struggle in its final and most
important stage; and we now turn once more away from
external events to study the evolution of ideas.
Jeremiah and other Judean writers, having local Baahsm
chiefly in view, at last identified the worship of "other gods" with
opposition to the "mishpat" of Yahweh. — After Hosea, who raised
the issue of local Baalism without stating it in compact and
logical form, the next great figure to come into notice was
the prophet Jeremiah. This interesting champion of Yahweh
came from the little country vUlage of Anathoth, "in the land
of Benjamin," several mUes north of Jerusalem (Jer. 1:1;
32:8). Like Amos and other insurgent prophets, Jeremiah
represented the standpoint of the peasantry. The land of
Benjamin lay a little to the north of Judah. On its western
border was the once Amorite city of Gibeon; whUe the once
Amorite Jerusalem stood on the southern border. Jeremiah's
home influences were such as to give him a close insight
into the needs of the peasantry; and he was not so remote
as Amos from the central currents of "civUization." After
Jeremiah began to preach, he spent a great deal of time in
Jerusalem itself. Here were most of the wealthy officials
whom he wanted to influence; and hither came crowds of
people out of the vUlages and cities of Judah on matters of
business, politics, and law.
Jeremiah was at once the heir of Amos, Micah, and Isaiah,
in the south, and of Elijah and Hosea, in the north. WhUe
the substance of his message is common to aU the prophets,
he has an individuality of his own. His remarkable emphasis

196 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
upon the Baals was taken from Hosea; but Hosea handled
the native Amorite element in the Hebrew cult like an ama
teur when compared with his foUower in the south. Jere
miah is the first of the Judean prophets to work the local
Hebrew Baal-worship over into the terms of the mishpat
struggle. This outcome was in harmony with the logic of
the entire conflict, from the beginning of the struggle in the
revolts of the peasantry against David and Solomon. The
Baals were identified by immemorial usage with the stand
point of oriental civUization; they were the divine symbols
and representatives of settled commercial and agricultural
society. But from the time when the Israelite invasion rolled
in from the desert, a large part of the nation identified Yahweh
with the law and morals of a more primitive social state.
The conflict of standpoints worked out all through Hebrew
life. The half-nomadic highlanders in Judah were even more
backward than the northern peasantry; and as a result, the
distinction between social classes was more vivid and the
conflict of standpoints more glaring in the Southern Kingdom
than anywhere else in Israel. The religion of the Hebrews
reached its final development in the south. Judean prophetic
writers formulated the Bible problem in those peculiar com
binations of words and phrases that have moved the mind of
subsequent generations aU over the world. VerUy, it was by
no accident that instruction went forth from Zion, and the
word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:3; Mie. 4: 2).1
Jeremiah carried the Hosean figure of Baalism to its logical
issue as a definite, exphcit symbol of opposition to the mish
pat of Yahweh. It was through Jeremiah and the Deutero
nomic school of writers that the social struggle at last found
expression in terms of rivalry between the local cults of the
Hebrews themselves. When Jeremiah denounces the wor-
' Concerning the eighth and seventh centuries, Professor Guthe writes : " The
old antitheses remained; but they had become subtler and more profoundly appre
hended." — Encyc. Biblica, col. 3867. (Italics ours.)

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 197
ship of "other gods," it is primarily the local Baals that he
has in mind as dreadful examples (Jer. 2 : 23 ; 7:9; 9:14; 11:13,
cf. 3:24; 11:17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13; 32:35). Over and over
again, he condemns the Baal-worship going on around him.
In order to make as clear as possible the function which
the Amorite part of the Hebrew cultus played in the devel
opment of Bible religion, a sinule may be employed here :
When a lever is used for prying an object loose, it has
to be supported upon somethmg. The means of support is
caUed a "fulcrum." Now, the native Baal-principle in the
early rehgion of Israel was the "fulcrum" used in detaching
the Hebrews from the worship of "other gods." The con
flict between the moral standpoints inherited from the Israel
ites and Amorites was at last viewed as a rivalry between
Yahweh and Baal. The moral struggle was figured as a cult
war. Thus we come back to the origin of the Hebrew people
at the point of coalescence between Amorite Baal- worshipers
and Israehte worshipers of Yahweh.
Holding these considerations in mind, let us glance at the
writings of Jeremiah as they bear on this point. Having the
local Baal-worship chiefly in view, the last great prophet
before the Babylonian exUe makes "other gods" the definite,
exphcit symbols of aU that the insurgent prophets abhor.
This evU people, who refuse to hear the words of Yahweh,
are gone after other gods (13 : 10). They have forsaken Yah
weh — and walked after other gods: forsaken Yahweh — and
have not kept his law (16:11). Walking after other gods
becomes the symbol, 'or figure, for breaking the law of Yah
weh as declared for centuries by his prophets. Yahweh wiU
utter his mishpat against the people in regard to aU their
wickedness, in that they have forsaken him and burned incense
to other gods (1 : 16). Thus, the native Hebrew Baal-worship,
representing the Amorite ancestry of the people, serves as the
foU against which prophecy throws its heaviest force in the

198 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
third stage of the mishpat struggle. The great conflict of
legal and moral ideas was at last put into its characteristic
religious terms.
The Deuteronomic parts of the Old Testament began to take
form at this time. — The method thus painfully discovered by the
religious thinkers of Israel spread itself out over Hebrew
literature as the Old Testament came into being. The Book of
Deuteronomy is a Judean product, issuing from the times
of Jeremiah, but with many later additions. As modern
critical study has proved, a primitive Deuteronomic work,
in the form of the "Hilkiah-book," was the first Old Testa
ment writing to be officially adopted as "canonical Scripture."
We have already seen that the leading feature of the Hilkiah-
book was apparently the centralization of the cultus in the
hands of the city party. Whatever the nature and extent of
this "counter-revolution" may have been, it left the local
Baal- worship standing, as the testimony of Jeremiah and
Zephaniah shows; and the present expanded Book of Deu
teronomy ranges itself alongside of Jeremiah in treating the
moral struggle as a contest between the native divinities,
regarded as two distinct principles. It is the Baal-worship
derived from the Amorites that is chiefly referred to by
Deuteronomy (7:1-5, 25; 12:2-4; 12:30; 20:16-18; 31:16).
The worship of the Baals is equated, or identified, with every
thing that the prophets abhor. Thus the people shall not
turn aside from any of the words of Yahweh to go after "other
gods" (Deut. 28:14). In another passage, of remarkable
force, walking after other gods is declared to be the precise
opposite of observing the commandments, statutes, and
ordinances (mishpatim) of Yahweh (30:16, 17). It is inter
esting to notice that, in these general passages, mishpat
means the same as hukkoth (statutes), toroth (instructions, or
laws), miswoth (commands), and eduth (testimonies).1
' Cf. I Sam. 30:25, where David made a certain rule "a hok and a mishpat for
Israel."

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 199
The Deuteronomic writers now turned back to the old
records and stories of past history, and, as they themselves
declare, worked a part of this ancient material up into our
present books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings (cf. chap, iv,
' ' The Making of the Old Testament") . We have so frequently
spoken of the Deuteronomic editors of Judges, Samuel, and
Kings that this phase of the subject wUl present no difficulty.
The method which is now before us works automatically
forward in the development of the Bible. The Deuteronomists
took pleasure in reading and studying the old narratives of
the Judges period. In these fascinating stories about the
first epoch of the Israelite invasion and settlement of Canaan,
the Israelites and Amorites were as yet apart from each other;
so that the deities of these two peoples (Yahweh and the
Baals) were distinct, sharply contrasted gods. The Deutero
nomic school made very impressive use of these old narratives,
and worked them up into a remarkable production, the
"Book of Judges" (cf. chap, xi, supra). The books of Samuel
and Kings are likewise great monuments of Deuteronomic
industry. We read in Kings that if the people do not observe
the mishpat, etc., of Yahweh, but shaU go and serve "other
gods," then Israel shaU be cut off and cast aside (I Kings
9 : 4, 6, 7). The case here stands exactly as it does in Jeremiah
and in Deuteronomy. Worship of other gods is the con
venient symbol, or figure, for breaking the mishpat of Yahweh.
The entire situation is finaUy summed up, from the Deutero
nomic standpoint, in the concluding part of Kings as foUows :
The children of Israel feared "other gods"; that is, they
walked in the statutes (hukkoth) of the nations whom Yahweh
cast out before Israel (the Amorites). Therefore Judah and
Israel were also cast out, and carried away into exUe (II Kings
17:7,8, 19, 20,35,37).
After the Amorite Baal-worship had been seized upon
for central emphasis, and carried over into the midst of the

200 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
struggle, the way was open for a broader and more phUosophi-
cal view of the entire situation. Opposition to the mishpat of
Yahweh could now be spoken of either as foUowing the gods
of the Amorites, or as walking in the mishpat of the Amorites,
precisely as in the last citation from Kings. It now began to
be seen that the Hebrew struggle was a reaction between two
different ideas of mishpat, growing out of the double ancestry
of the Hebrew nation. This way of putting the case would
have been impossible to the prophets of the eighth-century
Judean school. To Amos, the struggle was not between two
different ideas of what mishpat was. He would not so dignify
the claims of his opponents. To the simple shepherd from
southern Judah, the conflict was between the one, genuine
mishpat of Yahweh, on the one side, and "wormwood," on the
other side (Amos 5:7; 6:12). According to Micah, the official
classes were ignorant of mishpat (3:1-2). And Isaiah,
in words like those of Amos, declared that the rulers turned
sweetness into bitterness, light into darkness (5:20). The
earlier prophets could not express themselves more clearly
than this; and so they were not conclusive. They were
fighters dealing with a situation whose merits and possibUities
they could not whoUy see. But by the time of Jeremiah
and the Deuteronomists, the intellectual outlook of the
Hebrew mind was clearer; and the nature of Hebrew history
began to be a little better understood. Of course, the Bible
nowhere presents a modern scientific statement of the case;
but the later prophets began to be conscious, as the earlier
ones were not, that the force dragging the nation down to
ruin was Amorite law and morals persisting among the people.1
Jeremiah and the Deuteronomists had before their eyes the
' This explains why the earher prophets (such as Amos, for instance) never say,
"Do not do as the Amorites do." For if the earlier prophets thought about the race
matter at aU, they pictured the Amorites as destroyed root and branch (cf. Amos
2:9 f.). They did not realize that the Amorite blood and customs continued to exist
under the name of Israel. This paradox complicates the situation for ancient and
modern thinkers alike.

MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 201
spectacle of aliens who had been brought into the territory
of Northern Israel from other parts of the Semitic world, whose
mishpat (like that of the Amorites) was contrary to the ancient
usages of the Yahweh cult (II Kings 17 : 24-41). History was
always doing something to open the eyes of the prophets;
and this object-lesson could not faU to be impressive and
enlightening.1 The Deuteronomic attitude toward the Amorites had a
marked influence on the prophet Ezekiel, who wrote in Baby
lonia during the Captivity: "Cause Jerusalem to know her
abominations." "Thine origin and thy nativity is of the
land of the Canaanite. The Amorite was thy father"
(16:2-3, 45). Israel did not do after the mishpat of Yahweh,
but after that of the nations round about (11:12); and because
they did not execute the mishpat of Yahweh, he gave the people
mishpat wherein they could not live (20:24, 25). Continuing
our quest for the Deuteronomic idea, we turn from Ezekiel
to the "Code of Holiness" which composes the central part
of the Book of Leviticus (chaps. 17-26). Here we find the
same tone: Israel shaU not do after the doings of the land
of Canaan. They shaU not walk in the statutes (hukkoth) of
the former inhabitants. But — they shall do the mishpat of
Yahweh (Lev. i8:3-5).2 Finally, the Deuteronomic writers
go far back into the nomadic era, and picture Yahweh teUing
' Exception may be taken to this example on the ground that mishpat in this
passage refers only to ritual usages. But the notice exphcitly states that the imported
aliens continued to worship other gods along with Yahweh (vss. 29,30), and that they
did not keep the hukkim (masculine plural of hok, usuaUy hukkoth), the mishpatim, the
torah, and the miswah of Yahweh (vs. 37). Even on the surface, then, this case
embodies vastly more than a mere contrast in ritual usages; and we should be entitled
to infer as much in the very nature of the situation.
2 The "abominations" of the Amorites cannot be viewed as restricted to sexual
impurity by the bibhcal writers, although this form of sin is included with the rest, as
one which develops with excessive wealth. The Book of Leviticus itself, which puts
the mishpat of Yahweh over against that of the Amorites in such a broad and general
way, is careful to show that the law of Yahweh includes all that the pre-exilic prophets
had in view (Lev. 19:13-15; 25:35-4^. In order to avoid overloading the text, we
have omitted the sex problem from the argument.

202 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
the patriarch Abraham that his posterity shall inherit the land
of Canaan when the iniquity of the Amorite is full (Gen. 15 : 16).
In due time, Yahweh redeems his promise; and the Amorites
are said to have been utterly swept away (Josh. 10:40-42;
11:16-19, 23; 21:43, 44)- Thus the conception at length
emerged into view that the struggle which convulsed the
Hebrew nation throughout its entire history was a dramatic
warfare conducted by Yahweh himself against the law and
morals identified with the former inhabitants of Canaan.
The editorial point of departure in the making of the Old
Testament is condemnation of the Hebrews for walking after "the
iniquity of the Amorite." — In our study of the making of the
Old Testament, we learned in the first place, that the Hebrew
Bible was arranged by writers and editors who were not con
temporary with the events described, and who made use of
many earlier documents which they inherited from their fore
fathers. In the second place, we saw that their object, or
purpose, in all this literary activity was a moral one. The
writers of the Bible were sitting in judgment on history, and
uttering moral verdicts on the past. We are now prepared to
see that the men who gave us the Old Testament did not state
their moral views primarUy in a general, or abstract, way.
Their ideas were formed on the basis of the actual experience
through which the Hebrews had slowly passed in the long course
of their social-religious development. The editorial point of
departure in the making of Scripture is condemnation of the
Hebrews for adopting Amorite law and morals.1
1 The priestly documents, which are still later than the Deuteronomic parts of the
Old Testament, are preoccupied with matters of ritual and cognate questions. Hence
they do not discuss the Amorites, who are sufficiently treated of by their predecessors.
Yet the Deuteronomic attitude toward the former inhabitants (like the law of the
central sanctuary) is implied in the priestly documents as part of the foundation upon
which they build. The priestly ritual is ordained for the protection and conservation
of the prophetic work.

CHAPTER XX
RELIGIOUS EFFECT OF THE EXILE
The Babylonian Exile completed the destruction of Hebrew
nationality. — The ruin of Jerusalem was the climax of He
brew misfortune. The prostration of the Southern Kingdom
brought into awful rehef the fact of Hebrew annihUation; for
the kingdom of Ephraim had been already swept away. The
maelstrom of world-history had swallowed the north Israelites;
and now, far away in Babylonia, the exUes from Judah beheld
with amazement the manners and customs of a strange land.
The modern reader can best picture to himself the effect of
these things upon the Hebrew mind by putting himself in the
place of the exUes, and imagining his own feelings if his native
country were caUed upon to go through a simUar experience.
"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea, we wept
when we remembered Zion. Upon the wiUows in the midst
thereof we hanged up our harps. For there they that led us
captive required of us words of song  How shaU we
sing Yahweh's song in a strange land ?" (Ps. 137 : 1-4). This
plaintive waU has come down to us through the ages from the
distant exUic time; and while it is quite familiar, we do not
often pause to think of the circumstances that inspired it and
the heart throbs that are in it. The Captivity was the utter
prostration of Israel. "We are clean cut off. Our transgres
sions and our sins are upon us; and we pine away in them.
How then can we live ? Our bones are dried up; and our hope
is lost" (Ezek. 33:10; 37:11). No social organization re
mained in which Hebrew life and thought could express
itself. The people were humbled in the dust. The waUs
of Jerusalem were broken down. The city was destroyed.
The Temple of Yahweh stood in ruins. "Zion is become a
203

204 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation!" exclaimed a writer in the
ExUe. "Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers
praised thee, is burned with fire; and all our pleasant places
are laid waste" (Isa. 64:io-n).1
The Exile was an important factor in the conversion of the
Hebrews from polytheism to monotheism. — We can hardly
overestimate the importance of the Captivity in the develop
ment of Bible religion. The destruction of Hebrew nationality
was a vindication of the great insurgent prophets who had
agonized and suffered in the long centuries before the ExUe.
Baal-worship had been at length identified with all that the
great prophets abhorred; and as the captives marched across
the desert, the words of Jeremiah rang ever more loudly in
their ears: "Baalism brings evil to Israel!" In the light of
this thought the Hebrews learned to take the calamity of
the Exile as a vindication of the prophets. And the same
events that justified one school of prophecy discredited the
opposing school. "Where now are your prophets that prophe
sied unto you, saying, The king of Babylon shall not come
against you, nor against this land?" (Jer. 37:19). The
prophets who taught the people to swear by the name of
Baal, and who said, "Peace, peace; no evU shaU come upon
us" — these men were forever sUenced by the majestic march
of history. "Thy prophets have seen for thee false and
foohsh visions; and they have not uncovered thine iniquity
to bring back thy captivity, but have seen for thee false
oracles and causes of banishment" (Lam. 2:14). Thus the
"regular" prophets came to be branded as "false," while
Amos and his class rose to the dignity of "true" prophets.
Through these heart-shattering experiences, the Baals and
aU other gods beside Yahweh were at last thrown aside; and
the exclusive worship of the one moraUy "true" God gained
its victorious ascendency over the Hebrew mind.
' This passage comes from the late exilic, or post-exilic, part of the Book of
Isaiah (chaps. 40-66).

RELIGIOUS EFFECT OF THE EXILE 205
The exUes were not carried away aU at once, but in two
bands, and at two different times about ten years apart.
When the first band was deported, the city of Jerusalem
was left as yet untouched, under a native king, Zedekiah,
who reigned by appointment of the Babylonians (II Kings,
chap. 24). In this first band of captives there was a man who
was destined to become famous, the prophet Ezekiel. When
Ezekiel began to prophesy to the captives in Babylonia, the
city of Jerusalem was yet standing; and the last great calamity
had not faUen on the home land.
The earlier part of the Book of Ezekiel has much to say
about the wickedness and the impending destruction of
Jerusalem. This remarkable prophet of the Captivity con
demns the same sins against which the insurgent prophets
declaimed — injustice and polytheism (Ezek. 22 : 1-10; 8 : 1-17.)
The capital must soon faU. The God of righteousness and
purity can abide no longer in the corrupt city of Jerusalem.
This thought is emphasized with startling effect in Ezekiel's
awful vision of Yahweh in a terrible fiery chariot (Ezek. 1:45.).
The "Glory of Yahweh" is outraged by the abominations
committed in its presence at the Temple of Jerusalem. The
climax comes when the dreadful chariot rises grandly from the
city, emitting thunders and lightnings, and forsakes the Holy
Land! Ezekiel's peculiar vision enforced the moral lesson of
Israel's history (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4-19; 11:22-24). Other proph
ets opposed him; but he warned the people against them.
At last the Babylonian king laid siege to Jerusalem and ruined
the city. Ezekiel was vindicated and the other prophets were
sUenced (II Kings, chap. 25; Ezek., chap. 13; cf. 24:1).
The Captivity gave the rehgion of the Hebrews a world-
perspective. — The prophets before the ExUe were so much taken
up with questions close at hand that they did not spend much
time upon the broader problem of Hebrew history as a whole.
The question as to the meaning of Israel's experience, and the

206 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
place of the nation in the history of the world at large, was
hardly raised before the ExUe. Jeremiah hinted that Jerusalem
should be the gathering-place of the nations, and that the
peoples of the earth should bless themselves in Yahweh (Jer.
3:17; 4:2).1 The nations were moved about by the wiU of
Yahweh (Amos 9:7). He brought the Assyrians against
Ephraim as the instruments of divine retribution (Isa. 8:7-8).
Yet the earlier prophets were so close to Hebrew history that
they did not get a wide outlook upon it; and so they did not
clearly state a philosophy of it.
But the ExUe made it possible to look at Hebrew history on
a broader background. With the Captivity there came a
wider perspective. New vistas of spiritual insight now opened
before the eyes of the prophets. It slowly became clear that
the national experience had a universal meaning. So Ezekiel
writes: "Not for your sake do I work, saith the lord Yahweh.
.... Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house
of Israel! I work not for your sake, 0 house of Israel, but for
my holy name" (Ezek. 36:22, 32). Ezekiel's doctrine of the
name stands in logical connection with his fiery celestial
chariot. The God of Glory, who rides in the center of the
awful vision that haunts the prophet, is working forward
through the complex process of world-history with a moral
purpose. The national god of Israel at length became the Redeemer
of Mankind. — The idea of God, steadUy developing in response
to the pressure of the social problem, was becoming more and
more fit to stand at the center of a world-religion. The ExUe
enlarged the spiritual horizon of the Hebrews, and suggested
new ideas to the finer and more thoughtful minds among them.
The national downfaU confirmed the prophets in the habit of
reading the events of history in the hght of a divine purpose.
' A similar prediction is common to the books of Micah and Isaiah (Mie. 4:1-3;
Isa. 2 : 2-4) ; but this may be post-exilic.

RELIGIOUS EFFECT OF THE EXILE 207
The relation of Yahweh to Israel was now made subordinate,
or incidental, to the larger salvation of the world.
Behold my Servant, whom I sustain — my Chosen, in whom my soul
delighteth. I have put my spirit upon him. He shall bring forth
mishpat to the nations  A cracked reed he shall not break, and
the dimly burning wick he shall not extinguish. He shaU faithfully
bring forth mishpat. He shall not fail nor be discouraged till he have
set mishpat in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law (Isa. 42 : 1-4).
The mighty outlines of the gospel of redemption thus came
slowly but surely into view. Yahweh will make his holy name
known throughout aU the earth, in order that mankind shaU be
redeemed from sin, and released from the shackles of injustice.
Israel was the instrument through which this purpose was to
be accomphshed. Only thus, by deep and bitter experience,
was the human mind prepared to entertain the idea of God as
a moral person whose field of work is aU history.1
The conquest of Babylonia by the Persians awoke the prophecy
of return from Captivity. — The interpretation of history in the
hght of an overshadowing divine plan is Ulustrated by the
remarkable prophecy of Israel's release from ExUe. A great
army from the northeast, led by Cyrus, king of Persia, was
descending upon Babylon; and as the mighty host roUed
onward, a message of cheer was given to the captives: "I have
raised up one from the north; and he is come — from the rising
of the sun one that caUeth on my name. And he shaU come
upon rulers as upon mortar, and as the potter treadeth clay.
Cyrus [the king of Persia] is my shepherd, and shaU perform
aU my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shaU be buUt;
and of the temple, Thy foundation shaU be laid" (Isa. 41:25;
44:28). At last, after many years, the Captivity is to be
broken; and the exUes may return. "Comfort ye, com
fort ye my people saith your God. Speak to the heart of
1 " In the Exile, Israel's religion had attained its maturity. Virtually no more
growth can be observed in it." — Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament (New York,
1904), p. 137.

208 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her time of service is accom
plished, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she hath received
of Yahweh's hand double for aU her sins" (Isa. 40:1-2; cf.
Jer. 16:18). At length Israel is to return across the wUderness
to the home land. The prophet speaks in a figurative way
about the journey through the desert : ' 'The voice of one that
crieth, Prepare ye in the wUderness the way of Yahweh!
Make level in the desert a highway for our God ! Every valley
shaU be fiUed up; and every mountain and hUl be made low;
and the uneven shaU be made level, and the rough places
plain" (Isa. 40:3-4).'
The conception of Yahweh as Redeemer took form around the
idea of the "goel." — WhUe the biblical idea of God grew up on
the lines of the social process through which the Hebrew
nation passed, the God-idea took on its final form around one
of the most beautiful figures in Hebrew hfe. The goel, b^U ,
was a man who (among other offices) "redeemed," or "bought
free," a needy relative who had been sold into slavery through
debt (Levi. 25:48, 49). The god-idea, was applied to Yahweh
by the later Old Testament prophets. Yahweh would redeem
Israel from the Captivity (Jer. 50:33, 34; Isa. 43:14). He
would redeem Jerusalem (Isa. 52:3). The tradition of a
dramatic rescue from an Egyptian bondage now began to
take shape (Exod. 6:6; 15:13, etc.). Yahweh was the Savior
and Redeemer (Isa. 60:16). He ransomed his people from
the power of death and the grave (Hos. 13:14). He also
redeems the individual from destruction, or "the pit"; and he
executes mishpat, or "judgment," for all that are oppressed
(Ps. 103:4; Lam. 3:58). As a compassionate goel, Yahweh
became the Redeemer of mankind.
' We have made selections indicating the drift and the historic atmosphere of
this remarkable prophecy; but the opening chapters of the exilic Isaiah should be
read entire (beginning at chap. 40) in order to get their exalting stimulus.

CHAPTER XXI
THE JEWISH CHURCH AND THE TORAH
In the post-exilic epoch, Judah was reconstituted under foreign
authorities. — On the pohtical, or secular, side of history, the
outstanding fact of the post-exilic age is the re-establishment
of Judah.1 The Judeans, or "Jews," were the remnant of the
old Hebrew, or Israehte, kingdom. The characteristic figure
in the pohtical rehabilitation of Judah is, of course, Nehemiah.
This man was a wealthy Jew, attached to the Persian imperial
court. Judah had been already marked off as a province of
the empire; and Nehemiah was one of a succession of governors
appointed to rule it under the authority of Persia. He is
identified with the rebuUding of the waUs of Jerusalem. This
achievement is a fitting symbol of his relation to Judaism;
for he gave a strong impetus to the tendency to segregate
the Jewish people in distinction from the heathen peoples of
the ancient world. The foUowing quotation gives an inter
esting glimpse at the reconstructive process, and suggests the
economic and social position of Nehemiah and the leaders of
Judaism. From the time that I was appointed to be their governor in the land
of Judah, from the twentieth year even unto the two and thirtieth year
of Artaxerxes the king, twelve years, I and my brethren have not eaten
the bread of the governor. But the former governors that were before
me were chargeable unto the people, and took of them bread and wine,
at the rate of forty shekels of silver. Yea, even their servants bare
rule over the people. But so did not I, because of the fear of God.
Yea, also I continued in the work of this wall. Neither bought we any
' This chapter with those that follow, hke the rest of our sociological study, is
not an investigation of details. For the treatment of events it is necessary to go to
the many excellent historical works now available. 209

2io SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
land. And all my servants were gathered thither unto the work.
Moreover, there were at my table, of the Jews and the rulers, a hundred
and fifty men, besides those that came to us from among the nations
that were round about us. Now that which was prepared for one day
was one ox and six choice sheep. Also fowls were prepared for me; and
once in ten days store of all sorts of wine. Yet for all this I demanded
not the bread of the governor, because the bondage was heavy upon
this people. Remember unto me, 0 my God, for good, all that I have
done for this people (Neh. 5:14-19).
The work of Judaism was the consolidation, or hardening,
of the prophetic rehgion in the habits of a sufficient number
of people to make it a permanent social force in the world.
The reconstituted Israel became "the Jewish church"; and
although the Jews often lost sight of their larger mission, or
gave it a grotesque and impossible interpretation, the post-
exilic history is as full of broad human meaning and service
as the earher and more creative times of the great prophets.
The Jews, like other peoples, misunderstood their own
past. — The post-exilic Israehtes imagined themselves to be of
"pure," or "unmixed," racial origin. They did not under
stand that the Hebrew kingdom had originated at the point
of coalescence between Israehtes and Amorites. The real
facts of Hebrew history and rehgion were buried in a mass of
old writings which only the few had opportunity to examine;
and even these few lacked the training necessary to interpret
everything they read. The majority of post-exilic Jews were
so taken up with the struggle for existence that they had no
time for careful study and knowledge. The most the popular
mind could carry was a rough averaging of past history
in the form of tradition. The time before the ExUe was con
verted into an age of supernatural wonders; and Israel took
a new start amid a world laboring under difficulties and
problems of its own.
The "Torah," or "Law of Moses," was compiled and adopted
after the Captivity-. — We have already learned that the estabhsh-

THE JEWISH CHURCH AND THE TORAH 211
ment of a "canonical," or official, sacred hterature began
under King Josiah before the ExUe. At that time, the "first
edition" of Deuteronomy was brought forward from the
Temple at Jerusalem, and officiaUy adopted through the
influence of the party which had obtained control of the gov
ernment (p. 191, supra). According to the Deuteronomic
law, the entire machinery of worship was to be centralized
in the capital city. From this achievement, as a beginning,
the "Law of Moses," or "Torah," was prepared on the basis
of traditions, documents, and law codes, that had been
accumulating for many centuries.
The men who brought together into a single corpus the
comphcated material caUed the "Torah," wUl never be
known. But we have the account of Ezra, "the priest and
scribe" (Ezra 7:21), a. half -mythical figure, who looms up
suddenly in the post-exilic period with the "Torah" in his
hand. This Law, which we may suppose to be approximately
our "Pentateuch," was pubhcly adopted and acknowledged
by the Jewish authorities in the age now under consideration
(Neh., chap. 8). But it is important to observe that even the
Jewish tradition itself admits that the Law had no vogue before
the Exile. "Our kings, our princes, our priests, and our fathers
did not keep thy Torah, nor hearken unto thy commandments
and thy testimonies wherewith thou didst testify against them
(Neh. 9:34).
The other books of the Hebrew Bible were prepared and
adopted at various times between the Exile and the Christian
Era. — The Torah was the nucleus around which the Old Tes
tament, or the Hebrew Bible, took form. The times at which
the other books were written and taken up into the sacred
Uterature are not known to us; but the indications are that
the Hebrew Bible came into existence very slowly. When
the Sacred Canon was at last completed, it was referred to,
not as one book, but as "the Law, the Prophets, and the

212 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Writings" (Torah, Nebiim, u' Kethubim). Thus we see that
the Old Testament, in the form under which it stands before
us, reverses the actual order of historical development, for the
prophets did their work before the Law was known; and the
Torah was one of the results of their struggle.1
'Not until after the Exile did the word "torah" acquire the modern, technical
sense of the "Mosaic" law (Ezra 7:6 ff.). On the canon, see Wildeboer, Origin of the
Old Testament Canon (London, 1895), pp. 22, 31; and Ryle, Canon of the Old Testa
ment (London, T904); chap. v.

CHAPTER XXII
JUDAISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY
The teachings of the insurgent prophets now became one
element in a legal scheme of religion. — The preparation and
adoption of the Torah took place after the Exile because the
mind of Israel was now ready for it. If the people had not
been prepared for the Law by the experiences of their national
history, they would not have accepted it in the post-exUic
period. The history of aU the nations of antiquity records
the growth of traditions which, in one way or another, came to
be accepted as authoritative. Hebrew hfe was no departure
from this rule. In the time before the Exile, two traditions,
represented by two opposing schools of prophecy, battled for
legal recognition and status. In the final issue, the Baal
tradition was defeated; and the Yahweh tradition became
"authoritative" in the eyes of posterity. Law is not the
cause of social evolution; it is rather a deposit of history, and
a condition of subsequent experience. The Mosaic Law,
instead of being the force that set the pecuhar development of
Israel in motion, was itself the product of that evolution.
To the Jews, the Torah was the most sacred part of the Hebrew
Bible. — WhUe the entire Old Testament was looked upon as
the product of divine inspiration, the Jews venerated the
Torah as the result of a pecuharly high revelation. In the
Law of Moses, God spoke with a weight and an intensity not
found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Hence the books of
the prophets were placed on a level of inspiration decidedly
inferior to that of the Torah. This appears to be strange to
the modern Christian who has been taught that the divine
quahty attaches equally and uniformly to the entire Old
213

214 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Testament. But the Jew found nothing unnatural or difficult
in such an apprehension of the Scriptures.
The Torah enthroned the priesthood, and silenced the
prophets. — The adoption of the Torah was a visible guaranty
that the law of God was no longer a subject of party dispute.
The conflict of rival schools of prophecy had ended. From
now on, the divine wiU could not be an open question, as it had
been before the ExUe. For the commands of God were now
crystallized in the form of a book. Religion was made a matter
of minute and carefuUy prescribed rites and ceremonies
designed to guard and preserve the worship of God from aU
profane contact. The worship, or "cultus," was in charge of
administrators, or priests. The commands of God, being in
written form, the scribes and priests were its natural executors
and interpreters. The practical effect of the Torah, therefore,
was to set the priestly class in the very center of Jewish hfe.
Thus we see why there was no place for new prophets
among the controUing factors of the Jewish church. Prophecy,
which was one of the most important forces in the evolution of
the Bible, was banished from history by the Bible itself.
"There is no more any prophet!" exclaims a post-exUic writer,
whose words are a commentary on this phase of Judaism
(Ps. 74:9)-
But whUe there was no longer a field for the ministry of
new prophets hke Amos and Hosea, the work of the pre-exilic
prophets was not lost. Their essential demands were present
in the Torah itself; and their books, although viewed as the
product of a lower degree of inspiration, were included within
the Hebrew Bible. The very insistence of the Jewish church
upon the exclusive worship of One God made it impossible
to ignore the work of the remarkable men whose labors had
raised ethical monotheism into a hving power in the world.
The legal ritual did not satisfy the highest spiritual needs, but it
practically extinguished idolatry. It gave palpable expression to the

JUDAISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY 215
spiritual nature of Jehovah [Yahweh], and around and within the ritual,
prophetic truths gained a hold of Israel such as they had never had before.
The book of Psalms is the proof how much of the highest rehgious truth,
derived not from the Law but from the Prophets, dwelt in the heart of
the nation, and gave spiritual substance to the barren forms of the ritual.1
Under Judaism, Bible rehgion took the form of an authoritative
decree laid down by an oriental sovereign. — As Jewish life
dropped out of touch with the past, the pre-exilic history of
the Hebrews was less and less understood. The ancient
writings remained, it is true; but the scientific method of
historical research had not yet been born. In this atmosphere
the Hebrew Bible (our "Old Testament") reached its final
shape. Yahweh was now systematically pictured as the
Creator of the universe. The Old Testament, in fact, begins
as a kind of universal history. But in the third chapter of
Genesis the purpose of Scripture comes to hght. The problem
of "good and evU" emerges into view (Gen., chaps. 3L).
Yahweh's first method of dealing with the problem is that of
physical destruction through the Flood (Gen., chaps. 6f.).
When this faUs he tries the method of ethical redemption, by
training the chUdren of Abraham to be a blessing to all the
famUies of the earth (Gen., chaps. 12 f.). From out of the
flame and smoke and thunder of Sinai he promulgates the
"Torah," as a finality, once for aU, just as an absolute oriental
sovereign lays down his decrees (Exod., chaps. 3L). The
modern conception of historical development was impossible
to the ancient mind. So under Judaism the Bible religion
took a form which (unconsciously) denied the fact of develop
ment itself.
' W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (New York, i89r),
pp. 313, 3T4; cf. Carpenter, The Bible in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1903), p. 153.

CHAPTER XXIII
JUDAISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM
Society has always included contrary tendencies within its
developing structure. — The growth of social institutions
takes place at the point of contact between two or more
classes, races, or "interests." In the long period before the
ExUe, Hebrew society was ruled alternately by the Israehte
and Amorite traditions inherited from its double ancestry.
When the Israelite tradition was dominant, the social problem
was recognized; and when the Amorite tradition obtained
ascendency, the social problem was rejected or suppressed.
The ruin of the nation led to the triumph of the Israelite
standpoint and the establishment of "the Jewish church."
Like aU social institutions, however, the Jewish church came
into being at the point of contact between "interests."
Although Judaism developed the appearance of great fixity
and sohdity, the principles on which it was based represented
contrary tendencies. "Jewish rehgion," as has been truly
said, "is to a large extent a fusion of inconsistent elements, of
prophetic and priestly origin, respectively."1
The social problem was at length rejected by the forces that
silenced prophecy and enthroned the priesthood. — Speaking of the
priests in the Roman period, Professor Riggs observes: "The
emoluments of their office brought them wealth and luxury,
and gave them little interest in the spiritual demands of their
exalted position. ' '2 The priests and scribes were the custodians
and administrators of the Torah; and whUe in most cases
they were devoted to the worship of One God as earnestly
as the great prophets, they tended to identify religion with
1 Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life after the Exile (New York, 1898), p. 28.
2 Riggs, History of the Jewish People (New York, 1900), p. 227.
216

JUDAISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 217
the ritual forms and ceremonies by which the One God was
worshiped. Ritualism was necessary to the devotion and
consecration by which the Bible religion grew strong in the
world. " For the great majority of people, rites and ceremonies
are a necessary expression of their rehgion, and a necessary
aid to its nourishment."1 But ritualism carries its own peril
with it. The danger that lay before Judaism was the tendency
to fight the worship of "other gods" without opposing the
injustice and unrighteousness with which "other gods" were
identified by the great prophets. A large part of the member
ship of the Jewish church compromised with ritualism; and
this was true especiaUy of the leading priestly famUies and
their wealthy allies. WhUe Judaism brought much that was
noble into the world, and whUe it estabhshed a positive
rehgious advance, it included a strong tendency to bring back
the ancient "Amorite" tradition under a new and subtle form.
The work of the great prophets before the ExUe gave
expression to a prejudice against the wealthy, in which there
was httle or no attempt to draw distinctions; and it was only
as this prejudice was partly overcome that rich men like
Nehemiah (supra, p. 209) were able to share actively in the
reconstitution of Israel and the establishment of the Jewish
church. Wealth is necessary to the rehgious process. The
reconstitution of Israel was very largely the work of conse
crated rich men. These men paid the biUs of Judaism; and
in time the upper classes began to regard themselves as the
proprietors of the Jewish church. There was always a
tendency among the Jews to identify the wealthy and the
priestly classes, and merge them in a single body opposed to
the interests of the common man.
Although there could no longer be a conflict of parties over
the question, What is the wUl of God ? (since the divine Law
was now in book form), yet there could be a difference of opin-
* Editorial, Biblical World, (Chicago, November, i9n), p. 292.

218 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
ion over the interpretation of the Law. And here the priests
and scribes, and their wealthy aUies, had the advantage over
the common man. For the Law was in their official keeping
and they could interpret it in their own way. The great
prophets would have denounced the forces that ultimately
came into control of Judaism. According to the New Testa
ment, the scribes and Pharisees tithed mint, and anise, and
cummin, but left undone the weightier matters of the Torah
— especiaUy justice, or mishpat (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).
They devoured widows' houses; and then made long prayers
(Mark 12:38-40; cf. Isa. 5:8, etc.). They unconsciously
witnessed that they were the successors, or "sons," of them
that slew the prophets (Matt. 23:31).
On the whole, the social problem was rejected by the Jewish
church. The problem itself was not abohshed, of course; but
it no longer took the positive, creative place in rehgious life
that it held before the ExUe. This was because the religion of
Israel was already created. There would have been nothmg
for prophecy to do at this time, save to criticize. And thus the
rejection of the social problem went along with the sUencing
of prophecy and the enthronement of the priesthood.
The common man took the same place in Jewish society that
he had in all the ancient civilizations. — WhUe the re-establishment
of Israel brought with it a positive religious advance, and
registered a large gain on the spiritual side of the evolutionary
process, it brought no great relief to the common man. From
the purely economic standpoint, Jewish society was organized
upon the same institutional basis that prevaUed in aU the great
civilizations of antiquity.1 The Jewish upper classes held the
' The Torah enjoins kindness and charity for the poor; but even supposing
charity was actuaUy practiced as there demanded, it still remains a fact that charity
has.no effect on the rate of wages. Other things being equal, the civilization in which
there is the largest spirit of charity will be the one in which the common man will
ultimately achieve the largest liberty. But it is the rate of wages, and not the practice
of technical "charity," that measures the liberty of the people and the final success
of civihzation. The picture drawn by ben Sirach, at which we glance below, accords
with all that we are able to discover about the lower classes in Jewish society.

JUDAISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 219
lower orders in slavery, monopolized the soU, and controUed
the operations of commerce and manufacture. A most inter
esting and instructive piece of testimony relative to the Jewish
estimate of the common man is found in the Wisdom of Sirach,
which we reproduce:
The wisdom of the scribe cometh by opportunity of leisure; and he
that hath httle business shall become wise.
How shall he become wise that holdeth the plow; that glorieth in the
shaft of the goad; that driveth oxen, and is occupied in their labors, and
whose discourse is of the stock of bulls? He will set his heart upon
turning his furrows; and his wakefulness is to give his heifers their
fodder. So is every artificer and workmaster, that passeth his time by night
as by day; they that cut gravings of signets; and his diligence is to
make great variety. He will set his heart to preserve likeness in his
portraiture, and will be wakeful to finish his work.
So is the smith sitting by the anvil, and considering the unwrought
iron. The vapor of the fire will waste his flesh; and in the heat of the
furnace will he wrestle. The noise of the hammer will be ever in his ear;
and his eyes are upon the pattern of the vessel. He will set his heart
upon perfecting his works; and he will be wakeful to adorn them perfectly.
So is the potter sitting at his work, and turning the wheel about with
his feet; who is alway anxiously set at his work; and all his handywork
is by number. He will fashion the clay with his arm, and will bend its
strength in front of his feet. He will apply his heart to finish the glazing;
and he will be wakeful to make clean the furnace.
All these put their trust in their hands; and each becometh wise in
his own work. Without these shall not a city be inhabited; and men
shall not sojourn nor walk up and down.
They shall not be sought for in the council of the people; and in the
assembly they shall not mount on high. They shall not sit on the seat
of the judge; and they shall not understand the covenant of judgment.
Neither shall they declare instruction and judgment; and where parables
are, they shall not be found. But they will maintain the fabric of the
world; and in the handywork of their craft is their prayer (Sirach
38:24-34).' ' The Book of the Wisdom of Sirach was written more than a century before the
time of Christ. It was never adopted into, the Hebrew Bible. We quote from the
Revised Apocrypha (Thomas Nelson & Sons, New York), but with different punctua
tion and paragraph arrangement.

CHAPTER XXIV
THE STRUGGLE FOR DELIVERANCE
The Jews longed for dehverance from trouble. — In the midst
of social conditions hke those at which we have just glanced,
it is but natural that a great longing for dehverance and help
should grow up. The Jewish "messianic hope" has been one
of the stock themes of Christian theology. It was at first
viewed by the gentUe world as a thing essentiaUy unique,
standing out of relation to the common thought of mankind;
and the subject was not set in its true light untU recently.
Only in the last generation have we been able to see it in con
nection with the universal forces that move history.
AU peoples have had the desire to escape from difficulty
and graduate into a happier condition. Without this feehng,
the movement of progressive civUization would be unthink
able. The Jewish longing for deliverance, redemption, or
salvation, was founded upon tendencies that are potent
wherever men are found; but the hope itself took a form
peculiar to the time and the people among whom it arose.
The thoughts of the Jews naturaUy flowed in the channels
cut by their ancestry. The pre-exilic Hebrews, like other
ancient peoples, looked up to their god for help. Where
the Babylonians trusted in Marduk, and the Egyptians in
Amon, the Hebrews had faith in Yahweh. They beheved
that Yahweh would save them from their enemies and make
them triumphant over their foes, in his good time, or "day."
The original idea of the Day of Yahweh was therefore base
and materialistic. In opposition to this view, the great
prophets declared that the Day would be (i) a time of punish
ment, after which (2) a righteous remnant would be saved
and glorified. The destruction and exUe of Israel was regarded

THE STRUGGLE FOR DELIVERANCE 221
as the fulfilment of the first part of this prediction. "Israel
went into captivity for their iniquity, because they trespassed
against me" (Ezek. 39:23). After the people had received
of Yahweh's hand "double" for aU their sins (Jer. 16:18;
Isa. 40:1-2), and after Judah was reconstituted in the Holy
Land, the second part of the prophetic anticipation began to
be heralded. For it was clear to aU the people— upper and
lower classes alike — that the actual state of things prevaUing
after the Captivity could not, by any stretch of the imagina
tion, be the miraculous Utopia of the prophets. So the idea
of a coming time of dehverance worked like a ferment in the
Jewish mind. Redemption was to be accomphshed by Yah
weh through the instrumentahty of his "anointed one," or
"Messiah" (mashiach). These expectations included various
elements of a supernatural, apocalyptic nature, famUiar
enough to Christians in later ages.
The messianic hope took different forms among the different
social classes in Judaism. — Common to the expectation of aU
classes was the miraculous, apocalyptic, supernatural char
acter of the coming age of glory. But, on the ground of this
common view, there was a very sharp distinction between
the messiamc ideas held by different elements among the
Jews. Upper-class Messianism. — The great priestly famUies, the
officials, and the wealthy in general, were opposed to the
domination of Judah by foreign powers. The drain of tribute
paid to outsiders reduced the amount which the Jewish upper
classes themselves could extract from the country. They
were therefore theoreticaUy in favor of breaking the foreign
yoke. But, in a prudent spirit, they wanted to leave the
deliverance to the intervention of God himself. Being in
better circumstances than the mass of the people, they could
better afford to "wait on God." Their idea of the messianic
age, and of the Messiah himself, was in theory political; but

222 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
in practice it was tempered by a discreet accommodation to
the powers that actuaUy ruled the world. The upper-class
idea of the messianic age is found in the foUowing passage:
"Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks; and foreigners
shaU be your plowmen and your vinedressers. But ye shaU
be named 'the priests of Yahweh.' Men shaU caU you 'the
ministers of our God.' Ye shaU eat the wealth of the nations;
and to their glory shaU ye succeed" (Isa. 61 : 5-6).
Lower-class Messianism. — On the other hand, whUe the
Jewish lower classes looked also for a supernatural golden age,
their idea of the messianic time differed from that of the
aristocracy. For they desired not only to be released from
the rule of outsiders; but, in the spirit of Amos and the other
great prophets, they wanted to be freed as weU from the rule
of the Jewish upper classes. The lower-class idea found
expression in the foUowing passages: "And there shall come
forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of
his roots shaU bear fruit . . . . ; and he shaU not judge after
the sight of his eyes, neither decide after the hearing of his
ears; but with righteousness shaU he judge the poor, and
decide with equity for the meek of the land  He shall
bring forth mishpat to the nations  He shall bring forth
mishpat in truth. He shall not faU nor be discouraged tiU
he have set mishpat in the earth; and the isles shaU wait for
his law" (Isa. 11:1-4; 42:1-4).
Thus we see that the messianic idea took different forms
among the different elements of society. The upper classes
wanted foreigners to come and do their work, while the Jews
ate the wealth of the nations and succeeded to the world's
glory; but the lower classes were infected with social revolu
tion, and wanted to set mishpat, or justice, in the land.1
Unless the sociological and economic aspects of Jewish Messian-
1 The Messianism of the masses, however, does not seem to have been so sane as
that of the great prophets.

THE STRUGGLE FOR DELIVERANCE 223
ism are held sharply in mind, the real nature of the situation
wiU not be clear to us.
The long period between the re-estabhshment of Judah and
the time of the New Testament is comphcated by the rise and
faU of Jewish parties and by conflicts between Jews and
foreigners. The sources of historical evidence for this period
are scanty; and the only clue to the interpretation of the
evidence is the play of interests moving in the channels cut out
by the evolution of Israel before the Captivity. The Law was
not always interpreted in the interest of the upper classes.
In the Greek period, for instance, the Torah was the symbol of
revolt against wealthy priests and foreign oppressors. But this
revolt itself estabhshed a priestly government which in time
feU out of touch with popular interests.
A revolutionary uprising by the lower class caused the Romans
to destroy Judah. — The final catastrophe of Judaism occurred
under the Roman empire, and is directly traceable to a mes
sianic uprising of the lower class. It was begun by the common
people, and at first had the form of an insurrection against the
Roman authority. Its real nature is weU exhibited in the
chronicle of Josephus, a Jewish historian who belonged to the
aristocracy. With reference to the conduct of the upper class
in this crisis, Josephus writes:
The men of power, with the high priests, as also all the part of the
multitude that were desirous of peace, took courage, and seized upon the
upper city [Mount Sion].
Concerning the lower class at this time, he says:
The seditious part [of the people] had the lower city and the temple
in their power  They grew bolder, and carried their undertaking
further  The king's soldiers were overpowered by their multitude
and boldness; and so they gave way, and were driven out of the upper
city by force. The others then set fire to the house of Ananias the high
priest, and to the palaces of Agrippa and Berenice; after which they
carried the fire to the place where the archives were reposited, and made
haste to burn the contracts belonging to their creditors, and thereby to

224 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
dissolve their obligations for paying their debts; and this was done in
order to gain the multitude of those who had been debtors, and that
they might persuade the poorer sort to join in their insurrection with
safety against the more wealthy; so the keepers of the records fled
away, and the rest set fire to them 
At which time some of the men of power, and of the high priests,
went into the vaults underground, and concealed themselves  The
high priest was caught where he had concealed himself in an aqueduct;
he was slain, together with Hezekiah his brother  z
Being convinced that it was impossible to avoid revolution,
the upper class attempted to organize the movement, hoping
to make terms with Rome later. But this was impossible;
and the situation drifted into anarchy. At last, in the year
70 a.d., a Roman army destroyed the city of Jerusalem; and
the Hebrew nation vanished from the stage of history. Long
before this, the Jews had been widely scattered over the world;
but now they were a people without a country, save where
they became citizens of other nations.
In the midst of this time of high social stress, when the
religion of the Bible seemed to be on the point of destruction,
it went through another stage of development, and began to
spread abroad in the world under the form of Christianity.
This phase of its evolution wiU occupy us in the foUowing part
of our study.
' Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book II, chap, xvii, sees. 5, 6, 9.

PART IV
THE SPREAD OF BIBLE RELIGION

FOREWORD TO PART IV
In this part of our study we seek to learn how the rehgion
of the Bible escaped the limits of Israel and spread abroad
in the world. Without minimizing the great work of Jesus
and Paul, we try to show that the interpretation of Christian
ity, as weU as that of Judaism, should reckon with the external,.
social order. It has been claimed that the New Testament
stands for a purely personal evolution; and that Christianity
was a movement outside the existing state-rehgion. There is
a sense in which this is true; but the same truth apphes to
Judaism and the Old Testament. For at the time the great
prophets did their work, they too, hke Jesus and the early
Christians, were antagonistic to the "established" rehgion;
and the prophetic point of view did not become "official"
for several hundred years. The New Testament religion
passed through the same phases. The mere fact that a
rehgious movement in antiquity is not at once articulated
with state machinery is no proof that such a movement has
no sociological meaning.
A word of caution may be well here. Our emphasis upon
sociological and economic facts does not mean that we find in
these facts a complete phUosophy, or explanation, of history.
Sociological investigation, hke other kinds of scientific research,
deals with a series of "unknown quantities." The chemist,
for instance, gives us working-formulas for chemical reactions
between the "elements" of matter; but the elements them
selves remain a mystery. And even though chemistry has the
character of a scientific discipline, it does not reveal what an
"element" is. In the same way, sociology looks upon persons
as elements in the social process. But whUe personahty
comes within the terms of social evolution, sociology does not
227

228 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
undertake to solve the mystery of personality any more than
chemistry undertakes to solve the mystery of matter. Soci
ology, in other words, deals with a complex mass of unknown
quantities. The apphcation of the foregoing remarks to the
previous chapters, and to those that foUow, is evident. In
studying the spread of Bible rehgion, we claim only that the
work of Jesus lends itself to interpretation "within the terms
of the social process," even though the personality of Jesus
remains a mystery. The rehgion of the Bible, in its outstand
ing idea of the Redeeming God, supplies the foundation on
wliich Christian history has been transacted. Sociology aims
not to solve the problem of Jesus, but merely to assist in the
statement of the problem.

CHAPTER XXV
THE WORK OF JESUS
The religion of the Bible at length took a new form. — Chris
tianity arose within the Jewish church in a way simUar to
that in which Methodism arose within the Church of England.
Jesus was an adherent of the old faith; and the first Christians
were viewed, by themselves and by others, merely as a party
within the fold of Judaism. The confession attributed to
Paul, in the Book of Acts, indicates the standpoint of the dis
ciples of Jesus: "After the Way which they caU 'a sect,'
so serve I the God of our fathers, believing aU things which are
according to the Law, and which are written in the Prophets"
(Acts 24:14). The Christians at first could only testify
that they had a "Way." This Way had been taught by
Jesus; and he was himself the personal symbol of the Way.
Christianity, being a new phase of the fundamental religion
of the Bible, addressed itself primarily to the feelings; and the
Christians were slow in perceiving its logic. The term " Chris
tianity" does not occur in the Bible. The name "Christian"
is found in the New Testament only three times (Acts 11 : 26;
26:28; I Pet. 4:16). This name was coined apparently by
enemies of the movement. Christianity carries with it a part of
the sense of Jewish messianism, together with a new meaning.
Christianity is continuous, but not identical, with Judaism. —
In approaching Christianity and the New Testament from the
sociological point of view, we are confronted at the start by the
fact of continuity. The entire Bible is embraced within the
scope of a single process of evolution. Christianity is an
outgrowth of Judaism. The New Testament is bound up
with the Bible of the Hebrews, logicaUy as weU as physicaUy.
The Christian church is the child of the Old Testament
229

230 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
church. The Christian saint finds his prototype in the Israelite
in whom there is no guUe. In brief, Christianity is a develop
ment within the terms of the religion of Israel. To claim
anything less than this would be to cut the ground from
under the feet of Christianity. The fact of continuity has
always been recognized by the common sense of the great
leaders of the church, as weU as by the instinct of the
rank and file; although from the very first, some persons
have supposed that the Christians were setters-forth of
strange gods. Judaism and Christianity alike worship the
Redeeming God of the Bible; yet they contemplate the
redemption of the world from different points of view. The
difference between them turns around the work of Jesus; and
although the contrast is very smaU in theory, its practical
effects are of large importance.
The rehgion of the Old Testament has a tendency to take the
character of an abstract idea. — A Christian writer once told
the Hebrews that the character of God was expressed by the
Hebrew prophets in "divers portions and in divers manners"
(Heb. 1:1). The prophets evolved a long series of thoughts
which at length flowed together into the conception of the
Redeeming God. This agrees with our study of the develop
ment of Bible religion. The God-idea which breaks forth on
us from the Old Testament as a whole is the product of a long
evolution. Different parts of the finished conception were
supplied by different prophets and schools of thought. The
Jew — the post-exUic Hebrew — inherited a "phUosophy," even
though his conceptions were not evolved in the same way
that Greek or German phUosophy develops. The Greek phi
losopher went through a process of abstract thinking. The
Hebrew lived through a process of concrete experience. The
methods in the two cases were different; but the final results
are in the same category. Both Jew and Greek evolved
phUosophy, but by different routes.

THE WORK OF JESUS 231
The Jew, however, was prevented by his "group-interests"
from viewing his rehgion as a philosophical abstraction. — The
rehgion of Yahweh was bound up with the national welfare
of the Hebrews, just as the religion of Chemosh was bound up
with the national welfare of the Moabites. The battles
of Israel were the battles of Yahweh. Church and State were
united. The rehgion of Israel was the symbol of national
unity; and it was an assertion of the nation's integrity as
against the rest of the world. This principle was true not
only of the old Hebrew kingdom before the Exile; it was
equaUy true of post-exUic Judaism. Religion was bound
up closely with the interests of Jewish patriotism, and with
pride in the Hebrew race as the "chosen people of God." It
was the interpretation of his religion in terms of his own
"group-interest," then, that prevented the Jew from taking
his rehgion as a mere abstract phUosophy. It was this con
sideration alone that gave life to post-exilic Judaism; and so,
even today, orthodox Judaism is a matter of race.1
Since gentile society cannot become Hebrew, it necessarily
treats the Old Testament rehgion as a philosophical abstraction. —
For many reasons, orthodox Judaism is impossible as a cos
mopolitan rehgion. The foundation of the problem is the
conflict between the group-interests of Jews and gentUes. Any
foreign people who desired to practice the rehgion of the
Hebrews in ancient times would have had to renounce their
pohtical integrity and merge themselves in Israel. But it was
practicaUy impossible to break down the barriers between
ancient social groups in any such free and easy fashion.
Judaism, in spite of its deep spirituality and its high moral
appeal, could not be identified with the patriotism of the
gentUe because it was already identified with the patriotism
of the Jew. WhUe a few foreigners might, as individuals,
attach themselves to Israel, the gentUe world could not enter
' We are not here speaking of "reformed" Judaism.

23 2 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
into the Jewish nation and become Hebrews. Consequently,
the gentUes remained outside of Judaism. In the very
nature of the case, the non- Jewish world looks at Judaism
from the outside. And when the Old Testament rehgion is
regarded thus, in a purely external way, without being medi
ated by group-interests, it has the character of a bloodless
abstraction, devoid of life and meaning. The prophetic identi
fication of God with morality meant little or nothing to the
gentUe. This is why the Hebrew Bible interests the Christian
so little as compared with the New Testament. The Law
and the Prophets never can be so popular as the Gospels.
How, then, has the gentile world received the Bible religion? —
It is a plain matter of fact that this rehgion, which was at
first confined to a social group known as "Israel," overflowed
its barriers and spread throughout the world. How did this
result come to pass ? How did the rehgion of the Redeeming
God break through the social barrier that lay between Jew and
gentUe ? What force made a breach in "the middle wall of
partition"? How was the God of Israel appropriated by
the gentUe world? How did the Bible religion clothe itself
in the form of the Christian church ? The solution of this
problem is as mighty as it is commonplace; and it involves
far more than appears on the surface. We cannot reaUy under
stand the Christian church as a fact of human history unless
we understand the Old Testament. We shaU see the New
Testament through a clouded glass untU we are able to see
it as a logical item in the process that began far back in old
Hebrew times.
The central and most impressive ceremony around which the
Christian church is organized. — In approaching the institution
caUed "the Christian church," the sociologist at once investi
gates the most important rite, or ceremony, practiced by
organized bodies of behevers. It is not the Christian organiza
tion itself that caUs for special study and explanation. People

THE WORK OF JESUS 233
organize for aU sorts of purposes. We find social groups
everywhere. It is not the mere fact that Christians are
gathered together in groups that caUs for special attention.
Social science wants to know what the Christian church
actuaUy does, as an organization, to distinguish it from other
organizations. The central and most impressive rite, or ceremony, of the
Christian church is the "Holy Communion." In this rite,
the behever partakes of the flesh and blood of Jesus (Luke 22 :
19, 20, etc.). The Communion is the figure of a spiritual
experience in which the Christian lays hold, through Jesus, upon
the Redeeming God of the Bible. This impressive and affecting
ceremony is the sign of the bond between Jesus and his fol
lowers ; and it stands broadly for " the Christian life." In that
life, Christ is " formed " in the behever (Gal. 4:19); the disciple
is "hidden" with Christ in the Redeeming God (Col. 3:3).
AU these figures come within the symbolic meaning of the
Communion. The central ceremony practiced by the Chris
tian church bears witness that Jesus makes the God of the
Bible a reahty for the world. It signifies the essential fact of
Christian experience; but it does not explain how Jesus accom
plishes this work. The fact, and the explanation of it, are two
different things.
It is a mere, plain fact of history that the "middle waU of
partition" was in some way broken down by the man Jesus,
so that those who were "ahenated from the commonwealth
of Israel," those who were "far off," those who were "without
God in the world" — aU such were "made near" (Eph. 2:11-
14).1 This does not mean, however, that the work of Jesus
was only for the gentUe world. The New Testament, as a
whole, does not picture his mission as limited to the gentUes.
'In this great passage it is noticeable that the author of Ephesians employs
the symbol of the flesh and blood of Jesus (vss. 13 and 15), and expressly views him
as building upon the foundation of "the prophets" (vs. 20.) The author plainly
has the "social group" category in view.

234 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
The gospel was not only to those that were "far off" (i.e., the
gentUes), but to those who were "nigh," to the Jew first, and
then to the Greek (Eph. 2:17; Rom. 1:16). According to
the Book of Acts, God is no respecter of persons; but in every
nation those that fear him and work righteousness are accept
able to him (Acts 10:34, 35). This long-range observa
tion of Christianity prepares us to draw closer to the facts,
and inquire how the middle waU of partition was broken
down. The missing factor in Jewish rehgion. — We have already pointed
out that, in the eyes of the gentUe world, the Old Testament
rehgion was necessarUy an abstract, unreal thing, devoid of
life or meaning. The only consideration that prevented it from
having the same character for the Jewish people was their
"group-interests," i.e., their patriotism, and their race-pride
as "God's elect." WhUe Judaism has an immense potential
value, its propagating impulse remains therefore an affair of
nationality and race.
TheoreticaUy, Judaism is a complete and perfect rehgion.
It dramatizes God as the leading actor in the redemption
of the world. Yet, at the conclusion of the Old Testament
process, the redemptive idea of God is left suspended in the
form of an abstraction. Every idea that moves the world
at large has to be brought to a center, or condensed, in
the life of an individual. The historian Froude has observed
that "principles are identified with persons, who form as it
were the focus on which the passions concentrate."1 But in
the nature of the situation, the process of Hebrew spiritual
development could not attach itself to any one prophet. The
work of the prophets was to rebuke injustice; their mighty
contribution to the progress of the idea of God was incidental,
or secondary. They expressed the character of God in " divers
portions " and in " divers manners." No prophet, or school of
' Froude, History of England (New York, 1873), Vol. I, p. 196.

THE WORK OF JESUS 235
prophets, deserves to be credited with the fuU-orbed idea of
the Redeeming God, which flames out on us from the Old
Testament as a whole. The redemptive idea hangs in the
air as a beautiful phUosophy, to be learned in aU its fulness
only by the student who examines the Old Testament with
more care than the vast majority of persons, either Jew or
gentUe, can afford to give.
How the rehgion of redemption was thrown open to the world
through the ministry of Jesus. — Although we can never know the
early hfe of Jesus, it must be assumed that the tradition is
correct which represents him as a student of the Hebrew
Bible. He was not necessarUy a student in the scholastic,
or academic, sense; nor could he have investigated the Old
Testament in a scientific and historical spirit. But, more than
anyone, he comprehended the Scripture in the hght of its
moral and spiritual purpose. The rehgious life of Jesus was
not based on a coldly rational process; but moving on the
sure ground of genius, he saw that the world would never
be converted to the God of the Bible unless that God were
made real and vivid in a new way. So Jesus did something
that none of the prophets ever thought of doing. He made
himself "one" with the Redeeming God of the Hebrews, work
ing out in his own life the divine drama of salvation, and
caUing upon others to foUow his example. "Logicians may
reason about abstractions," writes the historian Macaulay,
"but the great mass of men must have images." That is to
say, they unconsciously demand something that strikes upon
their imagination:
God, the uncreated, the incomprehensible, the invisible, attracted
few worshipers. A philosopher might admire so noble a conception:
but the crowd turned away in disgust from words which presented no
image to their minds. It was before Deity embodied in a human form,
walking among men, partaking of their infirmities, leaning on their
bosoms, weeping over their graves, slumbering in the manger, bleeding
on the cross, that the prejudices of the Synagogue, the doubts of the

236 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Academy, the pride of the Portico, the fasces of the Lictor, and the
swords of thirty legions, were humbled in the dust.1
Where the great prophets expressed the divine character
in divers ways, Jesus was the "image" of the Redeeming
God (Heb. 1:1-3; CI- I Cor. 1:30; II Cor. 4:4). He was the
embodiment, or "incarnation," of the God of the Bible. In
him was condensed the entire process of spiritual evolution
represented by the Old Testament. While men have differed
about the "incarnation" as a matter of theology, or meta
physics, it has worked steadUy onward in human history,
whether it has been understood or not. Jesus did something
new — something peculiar to himself. Before his time, the
Bible idea of God was not a living reahty in the world at large.
Heathenism was practicaUy supreme. The gentUes were
ignorant of Bible rehgion; and that rehgion was kept alive
among the Jews chiefly by the momentum of their "group-
interests." We know, of course, that much genuine faith and
piety existed among the Jews; but this faith was not calculated
to be the rallying-point for a triumphant rehgious campaign
throughout the earth. Modern people have a tendency to
imagine that God seemed the same before the Christian era
that he does now, and that the world "before Christ" looked
the same as it looks now; but this is a mistake. For just as
the world assumes a new character in the eyes of the lover;
just as life appears different when viewed from the standpoint
of some great success; in the same way, God and the world
look different in Christian civUization than they did in ^re-
Christian times. The spiritual atmosphere of Christendom
is created by Jesus.2
Christianity will always be hard for the rationalist to define
because it is primarily "personal."— If we approach Christianity
in search of some distinctive theology, or phUosophy, we
' Macaulay, Essay on Milton, par. 38. Italics ours.
2 The name "Jesus" is a Hellenized form of the Hebrew Joshua, meaning "Yah
weh is salvation." This was a well-known Hebrew name.

THE WORK OF JESUS 237
miss its meaning as a fresh, original fact in social evolution.
The difficulty of explaining it from the rational standpoint,
as a coUection of doctrines, has prompted the somewhat mis
leading statement that, after aU, Christianity is not a doctrine
but a "life." As a fact in the history of the world, it is neither
a "hfe" nor a " doctrine" : It is partnership with God, through
Jesus, in the redemption of the world. It is Jesus making
the God of the Bible a reality to mankind. Christianity,
then, is first of aU a "personal" experience; and it is hard to
define just because it has this inner, subjective, psychological
character. It means the projection into gentUe society of the
spiritual evolution that went on among the Hebrews. It
means the appropriation of the Redeeming God of Israel by
the non- Jewish world. Christianity, of course, has its doc
trinal, theological aspect; but this is not Christianity as a
dynamic fact of history. Sociology, therefore, is concerned
with Christianity, not from the doctrinal point of view, but as
a movement linking the history of Israel to the history of
the world.
Jesus identified "knowledge of God" with doing the divine
will. — In the New Testament, the word for "knowledge" is not
used merely in the sense of rational, or inteUectual, apprehen
sion. It has also the Old Testament, prophetic sense of
"conduct." The prophet Jeremiah, for instance, asks, "Did
not thy father .... do mishpat and righteousness ? — Was not
this to know me ? saith Yahweh" (Jer. 22 : 15-16). Jesus not
only criticized conduct, as the prophets did; but he also went
about "doing good" (Matt. 4:23; Acts 10:38). He empha
sized the "doing" of good (Mark 3:4). He showed forth
"good works" from God (John 10:32). So Paul agonizes
to "do" good, and is only able to do it "through Jesus" (Rom.
7:15-25). And so the author of the First Epistle of John
writes, "Hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his
commandments" (I John 2:3).

238 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Thus, the old Hebrew Bible and the New Testament ring
true to the same fundamental theme. The more ancient
Scripture says, "Let the wicked forsake his way [i.e., his
doings], and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him
return unto the Lord, and he wOl have mercy upon him, and
to our God, for he wiU abundantly pardon" (Isa. 55:7). The
central thought of this passage is taken up into the New
Testament, and worked into the immortal parable of the
Prodigal. The erring son goes into a far country and leads
a bad life. But finaUy the wicked forsakes his evU doings and
resolves to do better. So he returns to his father and is
forgiven. There is no suggestion in the Bible rehgion that
acceptance at the hands of God is conditioned upon some
abstruse behef about matters that are unprovable in the nature
of the case. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New is
there any caU made upon men to profess a theological system
in order to find peace with God. On the contrary, in every
nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is
acceptable to him (Acts io^s).1
'The interesting problem of the relation between the "man Jesus" and the
official Christ of the church is one that falls within the scope of history proper.
The conclusions drawn in the text are independent of the consideration that the official
Christ may be in part the creation of Paul and other interpreters. Also, the discus
sion whether Jesus was or was not the Messiah predicted by the Old Testament has
only a minor sociological interest. The empirical fact is, that the religion of the
Bible spreads abroad in the world "through Jesus" in the form of "Christianity,"
and that it is propagated in no other way. Science reckons only with facts and
relations between facts. From the practical standpoint, Jesus is the only "Messiah"
that the world can ever know, because the work done by him, and in his name by his
followers, cannot now be done by anybody else. Through the messianic idea, Jesus
was connected with his own times and his own people; but his claim to be the
Messiah does not rank with his claim to be "one" with God. The latter idea has
been taken up instinctively by the New Testament writers and by the universal
church, and stated as the doctrine of the incarnation; while messianism remains in
the background of Christian thought. The emphasis of the church upon the doctrine
of the incarnation testifies to the significance of Jesus as the factor about which the
rehgion of the Bible takes a new start. The messianic idea stands for the local and
the temporary in Jesus; while the incarnation idea stands for the universal and the
timeless.

CHAPTER XXVI
CHRISTIANITY AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM
The Christian movement was not a campaign for "social reform"
in the modern, scientific sense. — We have already seen that
the Old Testament prophets were not socialists, and that the
modern movements of radicalism can claim no sanction from
the Hebrew Scriptures (supra, pp. 160-64). Precisely the same
truth holds with reference to the New Testament. Scientific
study of the Gospels, the Epistles and other parts of the
New Testament brings out the affinity of Jesus and his
foUowers with the Hebrew prophets, and) shows that the
Christian movement was not a campaign for social reform in
the modern sense of the term. It is not as a revolutionary
and radical movement that Christianity comes before the
sociologist. It is perfectly true that Jesus and his foUowers
labored in the presence of the social problem. So did the Hebrew
prophets. This is clear to the sociological investigator of the
problem. But it is equaUy clear that the New Testament has
no "social" outlook in the scientific sense of the term. It is
an appeal to the individual; and it proceeds upon the assump
tion that when aU individuals do right, the world wUl be
reformed. No other standpoint would have been possible
in that age. Only in modern times, through much pain and
labor, has it begun to be possible for men to learn that redemp
tion is both subjective, or individual, and objective, or insti
tutional. This insight was not open to the minds through
which the religion of the Bible came into being; and it would
have been of httle use in ancient times. Christianity is not
a program of political and economic reform, but an inspiration
to personal and social righteousness. 239

240 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Christianity attracted the lower classes at first more
than the upper classes. — Christianity arose in the midst of
a civilization in which the social problem was pressing hard
for solution. All social classes, upper and lower, felt the need
for salvation in one way or another. But in the Roman
empire, as everywhere, the conditions of life pressed more
heavUy upon the humble classes than upon their masters;
and the peculiar nature of Christianity was such as to attract
the lower and middle classes at first in larger proportion than
the upper class.
No straining of words, no figurative interpretation, can
change the evidence of the Gospels in regard to the attitude
of Jesus toward rich and poor (Luke 6 : 20, 24, 25 ; Luke 18 : 24,
25). He opposed the wealthy scribes and Pharisees in the
spirit of Hebrew prophecy, declaring that they were the succes
sors of those that slew the prophets (Matt. 23:13-38; Luke
20:46, 47). Our concern here is not with his "teaching about
wealth," but with his attitude toward the upper and lower
classes. His disciples were mostly humble folk. It appears that
the "common people," or the "multitude," heard Jesus gladly
(Mark 12:37). It is reported that certain of the Pharisees
asked whether any of the "rulers" had believed on him, inti
mating at the same time that he was followed only by the
multitude (John 7:48, 49). The chief priests and scribes and
leading citizens were for a time held back from destroying
him by fear of the "people" (Luke 19:47, 48; cf. Luke 20: 19).
WhUe he found a few sympathizers among the weU-to-do,
the upper class on the whole was hostile to him. When Chris
tianity began to spread abroad in the gentUe world, as a
consequence of Paul's preaching, the same class distribution is
to be observed at first. Writing to his converts at the city
of Corinth, Paul reminds them that not many wise after the
flesh, not many mighty, not many noble were to be found
among them (I Cor. 1:26; 7:21). As McGiffert observes,

CHRISTIANITY AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 241
the Christian victims of the persecution under Nero must
have been from the lowest classes, or the emperor would not
have dared treat them as he did.1 The Christian church at
first, then, was "largely composed of slaves and low people."3
In the early church, as Harnack writes, "the lower classes,
slaves, freedmen, and laborers, very largely predominated.
Celsus and CaecUius distinctly assert this, and the apologists
admit the fact. Even the officials of the Christian church
frequently belonged to the lowest class."3
But whUe Christianity began its history in the lower social
strata, there is a noticeable change in the composition of the
church, even during the New Testament period. This fact
wiU occupy us in the foUowing chapter.
'McGiffert, History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age (New York, 1900),
p. 629; cf. p. 267. Cf. Orr, Early Progress of Christianity (New York, 1899), chap. ii.
2 Rainy, The Ancient Catholic Church (New York, 1902), p. 10.
'Harnack, Christianity in the First Three Centuries (London, rgo8), Vol. II,
pp.33, 34. Cf. Dobschutz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church (London, 1904),
p. 303. The question of the actual relation between Jesus and the upper classes of
his day is here taken up without reference to what Jesus may or may not have said
on the abstract subject of wealth. The evidence indicates a state of sharp tension
between Jesus and the upper classes of his own times. We agree with the position
taken in the foUowing works on the relation of Jesus to the social classes: Mathews,
The Social Teaching of Jesus, (New York, 1902), pp. r36 f. and 170 f.; Cone, Rich and
Poor in the New Testament (New York, 1902), passim; Rauschenbusch, Christianity
and the Social Crisis (New York, 1907), pp. 74-92. But we dissent from Peabody,
Jesus Christ and the Social Question (New York, 1900), pp. T83-225.

CHAPTER XXVII
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, did not continue the emphasis
upon class-relations between rich and poor. — When we leave the
Gospels, and enter the Pauline Epistles, a change of atmosphere
is at once evident. Paul was laboring to advance the religion
of the Bible in the world at large, among aU nationalities. In
order to achieve this end, it was absolutely impossible for his
ministry to take the same form as did the ministry of Jesus.
This is clear. Jesus was the first person in human history to
embody the idea of the Redeeming God of Israel in a human
life. He was thus an example, or pattern, to be foUowed by
others. In order to extend the religion of the Bible on the lines
laid down by Jesus, it is necessary first of aU to explain the
person and work of Jesus — in short, to "preach Christ."
Now, Paul, the apostle to the gentUes, was the first person to
preach Christ to those who were "alienated from the common
wealth of Israel"; and, in his way, he was just as important to
the spread of Bible religion as Jesus himself. Jesus, of course,
did not have to preach in the way that Paul did. For whUe
Jesus declared the gospel of God in his own life, Paul could
preach that gospel only by first preaching Christ. Paul had to
create enthusiasm for Jesus among the gentUes; he had to labor
until Christ was "formed" in them. This is the fundamental
ground of difference between the Gospels and the Epistles.
The contrast which thus emerges between the preaching of
Paul and that of Jesus brings with it important consequences
for the sociological study of the Bible: If Paul were to do his
work among the gentiles, he could not go about opposing the
rich and favoring the poor, as Jesus did. Paul's object was to
create Christ in the hearts of men, and then let the spirit of
242

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 243
Jesus do its work. If Paul had raised the question of rich
and poor in the way his Master did, he would have met the
fate of Jesus; and the dissemination of the gospel would have
come to an end. It is not likely that all these aspects of the
situation were clearly present in the mind of Paul; but they
are nevertheless the considerations that governed the spread
of Bible religion. Paul acted in the line of least resistance;
and his course was guided by the instinct of genius.
Paul interpreted the gospel as a message for all men, and the
church as a home for all social classes. — Paul took the standpoint
that a rehgion which proclaimed "the brotherhood of man"
must open the door of the church to rich and poor alike. AU
who received Christ could come in, Jew and Greek, barbarian
and Scythian, bond and free, male and female: aU were one
"body" in Christ (I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11).
This doctrine had important consequences which Paul did
not foresee.
As we have already observed, Christianity appealed at the
start to the humbler social classes, rather than to the mighty.
The apostohc church evidently drew a large part of its mem
bership from the slaves and the poor freemen with which
the Roman empire abounded. Various passages testify to
the anxiety with which Paul and other New Testament writers
endeavored to keep Christian slaves in order. In one place
we read: " Slaves, be obedient unto them that according to the
flesh are your lords, .... knowing that whatsoever good thing
each one doeth, the same shaU he receive again from the Lord,
whether he be a slave or a freeman" (Eph. 6 : 5, 8).1 In other
'The King James Bible uses the word "servant" for the term here given as
"slave." On the other hand, as the scholars who produced the Revised Bible say
in the "margin," the word which their seventeenth-century predecessors translated
"servant" is more accurately rendered "bondservant." It is clear that the passage
here quoted should commence with such a term in order to agree with its conclusion,
which even the King James translators could not avoid rendering "bond or free."
Allowance ought perhaps to be made in their favor, in view of the fact that the word
"servant" carried a lower social implication in the seventeenth century than it does
now; but there is no excuse for using their translation at the present time.

244 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
passages we read: "Slaves, obey in aU things them that are
your lords according to the flesh " (Col. 3:22). " Let as many
as are slaves under the yoke count their own masters worthy
of aU honor" (I Tim. 6:1). "Exhort slaves to be in sub
jection to their own masters, and to be weU pleasing in aU
things, not gainsaying, not purloining, but showing aU good
fidelity" (Titus 2:9). In the Epistle to Philemon, we see
Paul sending a fugitive Christian slave back to his owner,
saying that he thought the slave had wronged his master by
running away. Another testimony to the presence of the
poor in the early church is found in the anxiety for collections
of money, to relieve them. Paul says that at the end of the
famous "Jerusalem Conference," the apostles Peter, James,
and John gave him the hand of feUowship, that Paul should
go to the gentUes and they to the Jews, adding "only they
would that we should remember the poor, which very thing I
was also zealous to do" (Gal. 2:10). The coUections taken
were not to be used for the poor in general, outside the church,
but for them that were of "the household of faith."
But whUe the church consisted at first mainly of poor free
men and slaves, it included a growing proportion of more
fortunate people — wealthy slaveholders and landowners. The
master PhUemon, to whom Paul sent back the runaway slave,
was a beloved feUow-worker in the gospel, and a member of a
church that met in his own house. The little churches that
met in private residences welcomed into their brotherhood per
sons like PhUemon, who contributed from their wealth to the
needs of the new religious movement. A number of passages
in the New Testament bear witness to the increase of wealthy
members in the church. Christian slaveholders, hke PhUe
mon, are spoken of when Christian slaves are exhorted not
to despise "believing masters" (I Tim. 6:2). Christian mas
ters are commanded to treat their slaves weU (Eph. 6:9). In
one passage we read: "Lords, render unto your slaves that

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 245
which is just and equal" (Col. 4:1). Thus it is clear that
the upper classes began to join the church in growing numbers.
Before the close of the first century, one of the writers of the
New Testament thought it weU to sound a note of warning
agamst the favor shown by the church to the wealthy. His
writing has come down to us under the title the General
Epistle of James; and it was issued late in the century, perhaps
about 90 a.d.1 His words on the subject of social classes are
as foUows: My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ .... with
respect of persons. For if there come into your assembly a man with a
gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile
clothing; and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing, and
say, Sit thou here in a good place; and ye say to the poor man, stand thou
there, or sit under my footstool; are ye not divided among yourselves,
and become judges with evil thoughts ? Hearken, my beloved brethren;
did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith,
and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him?
But ye have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you,
and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? (Jas. 2:1-6).
But whUe the tendency thus indicated began to be noticed
even in the first century, we learn from the writings of the
church Fathers that even in the second century the church
continued to be, in the main, a lower-class institution.2 The
apologetic, or defensive, Christian writers of the second century
endeavored to attract the upper classes, who possessed wealth
and culture.3
The third century marked the steadUy decreasing influence
of the lower class in church hfe, and a corresponding growth
of aristocratic tendencies in the Christian fold. The rich
increased their offerings, and began to leave property to the
church by wUl. Gifts and legacies at first assumed the form
'Bacon, Introduction to the New Testament (New York, 1902), p. 165.
2 Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine (New York, 1899), p. 52.
s Rainy, The Ancient Catholic Church (New York, 1902), p. 90.

246 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
of money and other kinds of movable wealth; but more and
more the possessions of the church included property in land.
Conditions in the third century are indicated by Gibbon as
foUows :
Before the close of the third century, many considerable estates were
bestowed on the opulent churches of Rome, Milan, Carthage, Antioch,
Alexandria, and the other great cities of Italy and the provinces.1
A new religious institution is thus growing up and changing
its form as we foUow it onward in history. An interesting
evidence of the spread of Christianity through the upper
class at the beginning of the fourth century is found in certain
resolutions adopted by the "Synod of Elvira," which was held
about the year 305. It was declared that the Christian
landlord ought not to permit his pagan tenants to pay rents
in flesh and vegetables if these things had been previously
offered to idols; and that the Christian master ought not to
permit pagan slaves to keep idols on his property.2 In regard
to the same period, Hallam writes:
It was among the first effects of the conversion of [the emperor]
Constantine to give not only a security but a legal sanction to the
territorial acquisitions of the church. The edict of Milan, in 313, recog
nizes the actual estates of the ecclesiastical corporations. Another,
published in 321, grants to all the subjects of the empire the power of
bequeathing their property to the church. His own liberality and that
of his successors set an example which did not want imitators.3
It is clear that between the time of Paul and the fourth
century a mighty change took place in the institution which we
call "the Christian church." — In the days of the apostle to
the gentUes, the church consisted of smaU bodies of obscure
1 Gibbon, Decline of the Roman Empire (New York, Harper, 1900), chap, xv,
P- 134. 2 Hefele, History of the Church Councils (Edinburgh, 1883), Vol. I, pp. 154, 424-26;
Vol. II, pp. 186, 301, 306; Vol. Ill, p. 169.
3 Hallam, Europe in the Middle Ages, chap. vii. Cf. Milman, History of Latin
Christianity (New York, 1889), Vol. I, pp. 507-11, 536; Rainy, The Ancient Catholic
Church, p. 278.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 247
people, with no comprehensive organization throughout the
empire, and no regularly appointed leaders. Christianity
was a forbidden cult; whUe the recognized state-religion
was pagan. But in the fourth century we find the church
with whoUy changed fortunes. It is now a state institution,
rapidly driving out paganism. Its membership is drawn from
upper and lower classes alike. It is divided sharply into
laity and clergy. Its higher officers, holding great estates
of landed and movable property in trust, are assimilated with
the secular upper class. In short, the primitive groups of
Christians were transformed into a powerful social machine —
the Cathohc church of the Roman empire.

CHAPTER XXVIII
CATHOLICISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM
The Catholic church responded to the same social forces that
shaped the organization of the Jewish church. — In the fifth cen
tury, the priesthood was generaUy supported from church
funds.1 By the sheer social momentum which it had acquired,
Christianity was now the rehgion of the multitude. Pagan
ism was outlawed; and the new faith was no longer a matter
of personal volition.2 Ritualism gained an importance com
parable to the weight of ceremonial practices under the old
Mosaic Law.
Side by side with the development of the organization of the Church
[says Adeney] there went on the increasing elaboration of its rites and
ceremonies  There was a growing approximation to pagan ritual
in the ceremonials of the Church and the feelings of awe with wliich they
were approached.3
Christianity, indeed, had slipped into the place of the old
heathenism. The tide of easy-going converts swelled the churches [writes Rainy].
A man's Christianity passed unchallenged if, having once been baptized,
perhaps in infancy, he maintained a negative goodness, joined with
some attention to ordinances.4
Formal theology underwent a marked evolution; and
Christianity became identified in the eyes of most people, not
only with the observance of rites and ceremonies, but with
acceptance of certain metaphysical beliefs about the person
of Jesus, upon which neither Jesus nor Paul had insisted as a
condition of salvation. AU these things, then, grew up
together — organization, ritualism, dogma, and wealth.
' Rainy, op. cit., p. 5T4. 2 Rainy, op. cit., p. 520.
3 Adeney, The Greek and Eastern Churches (New York, 1908), pp. 141, 142.
4 Rainy, op. cit., p. 300. 248

CATHOLICISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 249
In terms of Old Testament evolution, the Cathohc church
became tinctured with "Amoritism." — Again we stand before the
great paradox which has vexed religious thinkers for thousands
of years. Sociology takes no sides. Being a purely scientific
discipline, it observes the facts of social history in an impartial
way. We have seen that social institutions are swayed by
contrary forces. The movement known as Christianity origi
nated in view of the social problem, and partly as a protest
against that problem. Jesus emphasized the question of
rich and poor in the same way that the earlier prophets did.
But like the prophets, he attacked the social problem from the
standpoint of individual sin, without putting forward a pro
gram of social readjustment. In Paul's campaign, the pro
phetic emphasis retired into the background; and in time the
church came under control of the wealthy.
This disposition of ecclesiastical affairs brought evU ten
dencies with it, of course. But the result was inevitable, in
view of the character of ancient society. The world in which
the church arose was a pagan world, foUowing many gods, and
pursuing aU kinds of superstition. Society was divided sharply
into upper and lower classes. The superior class based itself
upon property in human flesh and property in land. The
church had no program for the adjustment of these relation
ships. Hence, it either had to die, or accommodate itself
to ancient civUization. Although the church became pagan
ized, it abohshed the worship of many gods, and concentrated
the minds of men upon the One God of the Bible. It spread
abroad the idea of charity and brotherhood; and as the
Roman empire declined, the Catholic church gathered up the
elements of ancient civUization, and became the tutor of the
barbarian races that founded the modern world.
Monasticism arose in protest against ecclesiastical worldliness,
and then became institutionalized itself. — The accommodation
of the church to society was resented by many Christians,

250 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
who retired into country places to live a "holy" life. These
persons, however, could not resist the social impulse. They
organized into groups of monks and nuns; and the church
adopted monasticism as one branch of its work. The monks
were of great assistance to the church in teaching the barba
rians. They became a part of the upper social class; and the
monastic societies acquired property in lands and serf-slaves.
The completion of the Bible was incidental to the development
of the Cathohc church. — We saw that the Old Testament was
completed under the post-exilic Judaism. By a similar process,
the New Testament was completed under Cathohcism, and
then added to the Hebrew Scriptures, thus producing the
Christian Bible. It is impossible to date this process exactly;
and the matter of chronology need not be discussed in the
present connection. The first Christians emphasized, not
the Bible, but the "religion of Christ." Christianity began
to spread abroad in the world before the New Testament was
written. It is difficult for the matter-of-fact modern mind to
reproduce the ancient situation. The various "Epistles"
and "Gospels" came into existence as the church developed.
When Paul wrote his letters to the churches, the Gospels were
not yet compUed. When the New Testament was at last
completed, the Bible as a whole existed only in hand-written
copies. There were no printed books. The manuscripts of
the Bible were copied and multiplied only by great labor.
Hence a Bible was very costly; and so the actual possession
of the Scriptures was confined to a relatively few persons in
the upper class. The Catholic church has often been denounced
by Protestants for "holding the Bible from the people";
but historical conditions in ancient and mediaeval times make
it clear that this judgment is largely unjust.
Catholicism, like Judaism before it, unconsciously rejected the
social problem. — The foregoing study has made it evident that
when Christianity assumed the institutional form, the resulting

CATHOLICISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 251
organization could not continue the emphasis of Jesus upon
the social problem of rich and poor. Cathohcism, like Juda
ism, unconsciously rejected the social problem. The same
principles apply in both cases. The Cathohc church, hke
the Jewish church, became an aristocratic institution; and
only in this form could it have passed over to the barbarians.

CHAPTER XXIX
THE CONVERSION OF THE BARBARIANS
Western civilization, like the classic and oriental civilizations,
began on the level of nomadic barbarism. — The barbarians of
Europe moved about in kinship groups under the rule of clan
chiefs. As numbers increased, the various clans and tribes
waged war in a deadly struggle to control the physical resources
of the world. The effect of war upon social evolution was to
bring competitive groups together into larger groups. When
the curtain rose on the history of Europe, the barbarians con
sisted of numerous hostUe communities, which were passing
out of the stage of nomadism, and settling here and there upon
the soU. These communities, hke their predecessors in the
great historic civilizations, were stratified into classes; the
upper class being free, the lower being in bondage.
The barbarians resembled the ancient civUized peoples
not only in their social machinery, but in religion as well.
They emerged upon the field of history on a pagan basis.
Their beliefs and practices resembled those of other heathen
peoples. It is impressive to observe how human nature and
human society obey the same forces in aU parts of the world.
Among the barbarians in the forests of Germany, as among the
Romans, the Greeks, and the Semites, religion lay within the
circle of thought and activity that made up the round of daUy,
secular life. Each clan, or social organization, had its own
god or gods; and religion was a bond holding groups together.
Among the barbarians, Christianity spread from above down
ward; whereas, in the Roman empire, it spread from below
upward. — From the sociological standpoint, the conversion of
the barbarians to Christianity was precisely opposite to that
of Roman civUization. The upper classes in France, England,
252

THE CONVERSION OF THE BARBARIANS 253
Germany, and other countries were converted by Catholic
missionaries; and then the rehgion of the chiefs became the
rehgion of aU. The Roman church appealed to the barbarians
as the heir of a great empire which had long held sway over
the world. The new peoples of the West were not converted
in the sense in which we now understand that word; and it is
more exact to say that they were converted to the church
rather than to Christianity. The conquest of barbarian pagan
ism by the rehgion of the Bible was at first the displacement
of old state-religions by a new state-rehgion. The God of the
Bible, represented by the figure of Jesus (which had now
acquired the "rehgious value" of God), was accepted by the
new peoples of Europe almost on the basis of the paganism
which they abandoned. The heathen gods were displaced by
the Roman Cathohc system, with God the Father at the head,
and in connection with him the Son, the Holy Spirit, the
Virgin Mary, and a host of saints. The new rehgion was
accepted uncriticaUy. The chiefs no doubt saw something
better in it than in the old heathenism; and the masses pro
fessed it because their leaders did. In regard to the conver
sion of the Germans we read the following:
Clovis was more than a conqueror, he was also a far-seeing states
man; no wiser pohtical move was ever made than when, in 496 a.d.,
he determined to become a Christian  The conversion took place
pubhcly and with dramatic effect. The king had registered a vow that,
should he prove successful in the battle of Tolbiacum against the Alle-
mani, he would yield to the entreaties of his Burgundian wife and accept
her God. After the battle, with a number of his followers, he received
baptism  Old heathen rites continued to be performed under
the guise of Christian ceremonial; and saints' images, hke idols, were
carried round as a protection against fire, illness, and death. It was a
change of name, but not of substance; Siegfried's dragon became the
dragon of St. George, while the virtues of the old goddesses were trans
ferred to the Virgin Mary.1
'Henderson, History of Germany (New York, 1908), pp. 14, 15.

2 54 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
The conversion of the early Enghsh people took place
under practicaUy the same social conditions:
Eadwine promised to become Christian if he returned successful
from Wessex; and the wise men of Northumbria gathered to dehberate
on the new faith to which he bowed. To finer minds, its charm lay
then as now in the hght it threw on the darkness which encompassed
men's lives  Coarser argument told on the crowd. "None of
your people, Eadwine, have worshiped the gods more busily than I,"
said Coifi, the priest, "yet there are many more favored and more for
tunate. Were these gods good for anything they would help their
worshipers." Then leaping on horseback, he hurled his spear into
the sacred temple at Godmanham, and with the rest of the Witan em
braced the rehgion of the king. But the faith of Woden and Thunder
was not to fall without a struggle  Mercia, which had as yet
owned the supremacy of Northumbria, sprang into a sudden greatness
as the champion of the heathen gods. Its King, Penda, saw in the
rally of the old religion a chance of winning back his people's freedom
and giving it the lead among the tribes around it  In 655 he met
Oswiu in the field of Winwed by Leeds  Victory at last declared
for the faith of Christ. Penda himself fell on the field. The river over
which the Mercians fled was swollen with a great rain; it swept away
the fragments of the heathen host, and the cause of the older gods was
lost forever.1
These examples of the spread of Bible religion in Europe
could be multiplied indefinitely. Another passage relating to
England is of profit in this connection:
The first missionaries to the Englishmen, strangers in a heathen land,
attached themselves necessarily to the courts of the kings, who were
their earhest converts, and whose conversion was generally followed by
that of their people. The Enghsh bishops were thus at first royal
chaplains, and their diocese was naturally nothing but the kingdom.
In this way realms which are all but forgotten are commemorated in
the limits of existing sees. That of Rochester represented till of late
an obscure kingdom of West Kent, and the frontier of the original
kingdom of Mercia may be recovered by following the map of the
ancient bishopric of Lichfield.2
' Green, History of the English People, Book I, chap. ii.
1 Green, op. cit., Book I, chap. ii.

CHAPTER XXX
CATHOLICISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY
The authoritative organization of ancient and mediaeval society
went along with an authoritative theology. — In view of the facts
already considered, it is easy to see that under the Cathohc
church the rehgion of the Bible was interpreted as a matter
of external authority. This religion was thought to have been
handed down from heaven by the Deity, in a miraculous and
purely supernatural way. The only form in which men could
understand the Christian religion was that of an "establish
ment" ordained by God in the same way that kings issued their
decrees. If some hardy inquirer had possessed the curiosity
to ask a church Father, or a mediaeval churchman, why
the law went forth from Israel and the word of the Lord from
Jerusalem, he would have encountered amazement that such
a query should even be raised, and then he would have been
crushed with the reply that the word of the Lord went forth
from Israel just because God wUled it so. But such questions
were not raised. The human mind was docUe; and people
easUy took things for granted.
The church conformed itself to the principle of external
authority when it made terms with the upper class. Theology
went hand in hand with sociology. It is not that there was
any deliberate or conscious adjustment of theological doc
trine to the social situation. The church did not say, "We
have the principle of authority in social organization; and
therefore we must have it in our theology." Matters never
work out that way. The fact is that the principle of authority
reigned over aU departments of life; and so it found expression
in theology without conscious effort on the part of anybody.
From the conventional historical standpoint, the principle of
25s

256 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
authority may of course be viewed as an inheritanee from
Judaism; for the religion of the Bible had been taught in
this way by the Jewish church before the time of Christ (chap.
xxh, p. 213). But under Judaism and Christianity alike, the
dogma of theological authority has been supported and vital
ized by the authoritative organization of society, in which
the many have been subordinate to the few.
The greatest name in Christian theology, as thus viewed,
is undoubtedly that of Augustine, a citizen of the Roman
empire in the fourth and fifth centuries (354-430 a.d.). This
theologian "submitted himself absolutely to the tradition of
the Church," and "he established more securely in the West
the ancient ecclesiastical tradition as authority and law."1
He was the master of the Middle Ages in theology. "The
history of piety and of dogmas in the West was so thoroughly
dominated by Augustine from the beginning of the fifth
century to the era of the Reformation, that we must take this
whole time as forming one period."2 Thus, the idea of religion
as a matter of external authority continued to be the prevaU
ing doctrine throughout the Middle Ages; and it survives
in many minds up to the present time. According to this
view, the religion of the Bible took its origin from a revelation
external to the mind of man. The inspired mind was an instru
ment by which the Bible-idea of God came into the world;
such a mind was a channel through which common folk
received their instruction in religious matters. On this view,
the men who wrote the Bible took the part of spirit mediums,
acting as intermediaries between heaven and earth, trans
mitting messages from God to man. From the standpoint
of this conception, there can be, of course, no problem of
rehgion and hence no problem of the Bible. This theory con-
' Harnack, History of Dogma (Boston, 1899), Vol. V, p. 5 (italics ours).
2 Harnack, op. cit., p. 3. This does not exhaust the significance of Augustine as
a thinker; but the other aspects of his work do not call for mention here.

CATHOLICISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY 257
templates the rehgion of the Bible as an ordinance promulgated
by the Almighty; and it regards the Bible as dictated by God,
and hence "infalhble." A mantle of mystery was thrown
around this entire subject all through the Middle Ages:
During this vast period one type of exegesis is found throughout the
Church  In the mediaeval period of the Church, as in the Tal
mudic period of the Synagogue, an orthodox theology, resting on tra
dition which was interpreted and backed by ecclesiastical authority,
discountenanced or anathematized independent investigation of Scrip
ture.1 The general position of the mediaeval church is weU stated
in the foUowing words:
As the sole legatee of the Roman Empire, the Church is the pre
dominant power of the Middle Ages. Outside of the Church there can
be no salvation and no science. The dogmas formulated by her repre
sent the truth. Hence, the problem is no longer to search for it. The
Church has no place for philosophy, if we mean by philosophy the pur
suit of truth. From the mediaeval point of view, to philosophize
means to explain the dogma, to deduce its consequences, and to
demonstrate its truth. Hence, philosophy is identical with positive
theology  The mediaeval Church is both church and school, the
depositary of the means of salvation and the dispenser of profane instruc
tion. As long as the people continued in a state of barbarism, the
power which she exercised in this double capacity was beneficent,
legitimate, and necessary.2
' Gilbert, History of the Interpretation of the Bible (New York, 1908), pp. 146, 179.
2 Weber, History of Philosophy (New York, 1904), pp. 201, 202, 275.

CHAPTER XXXI
JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS
The mediaeval church was grounded on the doctrine of
"justification by works." — The ruhng tendency in rehgion
during the Middle Ages can be deduced from the superior
social position of the church. We have seen that the clergy
were part of the upper class, and that the church machine
was part of the state. The church was therefore a cor
poration enjoying "special privUeges." It had an economic
advantage, or hold, whereby it could impose various kinds
of taxes on the people. It accumulated large landed estates,
and was therefore a landlord. It owned serf-slaves, and
exploited their labor. It operated the ecclesiastical courts,
which presided over many matters now coming within the
purview of secular law. It charged fees for divine service.
Since Church and State were united, membership in the church
was an element of citizenship, and was therefore involuntary.
A man was answerable to the ecclesiastical powers in regard
to many things; and he came within the jurisdiction of the
church whether he wanted to or not.
In order to be justified in the sight of the church, a man must
give the ecclesiastical authorities either labor, or money got
by laboring. Otherwise he was not right with the church,
and therefore not right with God. The church, represented
by its priesthood, was the intermediary between man and God.
From the economic standpoint, therefore, the position of the
mediaeval church may be described as that of "justification
by works." This definition of the church and rehgion during
the Middle Ages accords with the superior economic and legal
place of the church in society at that time. Although this
formulation had no place in the official theology and would
258

JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS 259
have been denied by the clergy, it states the entire case from
the economic point of view.
To give this definition of mediaeval rehgion is neither to
decry nor to commend the church. AU historians and socio
logical investigators admit that the church included possibUities
of good and evU. The situation took its course as a matter
of historic necessity. Wherever men have advanced from
savagery into civilization, they have passed through a system
of sharply defined upper and lower classes; and rehgion has
been a factor in political and state life. Christianity had to
be estabhshed in the world through existing social institutions;
else it would have perished. At the beginning of the Middle
Ages, the church was a great civilizing force. At the close of
that epoch, however, the more progressive part of society was
in rehgious revolt; and the protest against "justification by
works" was one of the factors leading out from the Middle
Ages into modern times.
In the concluding part of our study, we shaU examine the
Bible and its religion in the modern world.

PART V
THE BIBLE AND ITS RELIGION IN THE MODERN WORLD

FOREWORD TO PART V
In the closing division of the study, we examine the place
of the Bible and its rehgion in the development of modern
society. Once more the fact is emphasized that rehgious
questions have had an intimate connection with secular
history. The practical use of sociological Bible-study is
indicated in this part of the investigation.

263

CHAPTER XXXII
PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM
There was at length a great social revolt against the mediaeval
church. — The movement known as the "Reformation" can be
treated as an incident in social and economic history. This
is not to deny that Protestantism and the Reformation can be
described in spiritual terms. We cannot understand history
untU human thoughts are viewed in relation to human life as
a whole. Not long ago scholars were treating the Reformation
as if it were chiefly a matter of ideas and opinion; and* although
recent investigators have corrected this mistake, the old idea
survives in the popular mind, and appears in a great deal of
current religious opinion. "Doubtless the social problem has
waited longer than it ought for adequate formulation," writes
Albion W. SmaU, "because many men have beheved too
implicitly with Plato that 'ideas make the world.' Such men
have told the story of history as though it were a ghost-dance
on a floor of clouds. They have tried to explain how spirits
with indiscernible bodies have brought about the visible
results. They would not admit that the facts of human
association have been the work of flesh-and-blood men with
their feet on the ground."1 The older view of the Reformation
went along with reluctance about admitting that men have
bodies as well as minds, and that they hve on bread as weU
as upon ideas. The new view of this great religious movement
is part of the modern scientific interpretation of history as a
whole. It does not claim that men are only physical creatures,
nor that they live on bread alone; but it combats the notion
that history is a "ghost-dance on a floor of clouds," and it
* American Journal of Sociology, Vol. V, p. 518.
264

PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 265
tries to see material things in their true perspective as legitimate
factors in human life.
From the sociological standpoint, the Reformation was the
revolt of the lower classes against the older nobUity. Going
farther, and resolving it into terms of economics, the Reforma
tion was a protest against the special privUeges of the medi
aeval Cathohc church.1 Religious questions were political and
economic issues at that period because Church and State were
united. Rehgion, as interpreted by Catholicism, was expensive.
WhUe the outlay of capital on the church had brought solid
returns in mediaeval times, the investment yielded smaUer
and smaUer interest as the centuries roUed on. There were
mutterings of revolt in the Middle Ages. The storm had been
long gathering when it came to a head at the opening of
modern history, and burst with terrific violence. The more
progressive part of western society shook off aUegiance to the
Cathohc church and instituted the Protestant churches of
Christendom. The head and center of the Reformation was
in the rising merchant and manufacturing classes, which had
been slowly differentiating throughout the Middle Ages; but
these classes were aided by certain sections of the agricultural
peasantry, on the one side, and on the other by certain kings
and nobles who stood to profit by the dispossession of the
church from its landed estates. In economic terms, the
Reformation was a protest against expensive religion in favor
of cheap rehgion. It opposed the doctrine of "justification
by works," which cost labor and money; and it stood for the
doctrine of "justification by faith," which cost nothing. The
connection between Protestantism and the rise of commerce
1 It should be observed that the mediaeval Catholic church is not to be identified
with the modern Catholic church. There is, of course, a historical continuity between
the two; and the "official" position of that church is about the same now as in the
Middle Ages. But the facts here pointed out with reference to the Cathohc church
at the time of the Reformation are not peculiar to the church. They are facts of
human nature as displayed in that particular situation.

266 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
and manufacture has been pointed out by Professor Thorold
Rogers, of Oxford University, as foUows:
It cannot be by accident that those parts of Europe which have been
from time to time distinguished for manufacturing and commercial
activity have also been .... hostile to the pretensions of the
Church, and that they have, when possible, revolted from it. It was so
in Toulouse, before the crusade of Simon de Montfort wasted the fairest
part of France. It was so in Flanders and Holland, in the Baltic towns,
in Scandinavia, and in the eastern parts of England. It was so in the
most industrious and opulent parts of France in the sixteenth century.
It was not indeed so in Italy  It was not in human nature that it
should willingly quarrel with the process by which it became opulent,
though in the end it paid dearly for its advantages  Nor again
can it be by accident that those countries which have thrown off the
yoke of the Roman see were and have been most distinguished for
intellectual activity. The true literature of modern Europe is almost
exclusively the work of those countries in which the Reformation was
finally settled — of England, of Holland, of northern Germany.1
The beginnings of the Reformation movement in the Middle
Ages. — The absorption of land by the church went steachly
forward aU over Europe during the Middle Ages. It had
reached alarming proportions in England as early as the
thirteenth century (1200-1300). A number of statutes were
promulgated at that time to check the abuse. We quote
from the statute of 1279. The terms of the law, even as
rendered in modern language, wiU sound strange to the lay
reader; but the general sense wiU be clear:
The king to his justices of the bench, Greeting. Where of late it was
provided, that religious men should not enter into the fees of any without
license and will of the chief lords, of whom such fees be holden immedi
ately; and notwithstanding such religious men have since entered as well
into their own fees, as into the fees of other men, appropriating and
' Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages (New York), p. 360. This author
began his professional Hfe as a Church of England clergyman. Later he became a
professor of economics in Oxford; and his pioneering researches in English economic
history earned for him the dislike of the Tory classes, and prevented his re-election to
the chair of political economy at Oxford.

PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 267
buying them, and sometimes receiving them of the gift of others, whereby
the services [i.e., national taxes and labor] that are due of such fees, and
which at the beginning were provided for defence of the realm, are
wrongfully withdrawn . . . . , we therefore, to the profit of our realm,
intending to provide convenient remedy, by the advice of our prelates,
earls, barons, and other our subjects, being of our council, have pro
vided, estabhshed, and ordained, that no person, religious or other,
whatsoever he be, presume to buy or sell, or under the color of gift or
lease, or by reason of any other title, whatsoever it be, to receive of any
man, or by any other craft or device to appropriate to himself any lands
or tenements under pain of forfeiture of the same whereby such lands or
tenements may any wise come into mortmain.1
The century foUowing the passage of this famous law saw
the birth and rise to eminence of John Wikliffe, who has been
caUed the "Morning Star of the Reformation." Wikliffe was
an Enghsh patriot, an author, and a priest of the Roman
Cathohc church. He had a reputation as one of the greatest
scholars of his time. We introduce a passage from a book
which he wrote in the fourteenth century. This quotation
shows the economic views of a man who anticipated the
Reformation by more than a century. We give some of his
terms in more modern form :
Secular lordships, which clergymen have full falsely, against God's
law, and spend them so wickedly, should be given wisely by the king and
wise lords to poor gentlemen, who would justly govern the people, and
maintain the land against enemies; and then might our land be stronger
by many thousand men of arms than it is now, without any new cost of
lords, or taxation of the poor commons, [and] be discharged of great
heavy rent, and wicked customs brought up by covetous clergy, and of
many taxes and extortions, by which they be now cruelly pillaged and
robbed.2 It should be emphasized that the economic aspect of
Wikliffe's doctrine was first and foremost in his preaching.
' Adams and Stephens, Select Documents of English Constitutional History (New
York, 1908), p. 71.
2 Arnold, Select English Works of John Wiklif (Oxford, 1869-187^, Vol. Ill, pp.
216, 217.

268 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
The history going on around him was no ghost-dance on a
floor of clouds. One of the most careful students of Enghsh
conditions in the time of Wikliffe is George Macaulay Trevel
yan, who writes that "his demand for disendowment [of the
church] preceded his purely doctrinal heresies . . . . , while
his attack on the whole organization and the most prominent
doctrines of the Mediaeval Church is found in its fulness only
in his later works."1 The great Wikliffe was not alone in his
heresy. There was a strong party at his back; and the
nation was divided. At this period, indeed, Europe was
beginning to glow with the heat that broke into flame at the
Reformation. Over in Bohemia the heresy of Wikliffe was
propagated by John Hus, who was burned at the stake.2
Wikliffe himself started an association of poor preachers, who
traveled about the country disseminating his views. The
early stirrings of revolt agamst the established religious order
came to be known as the "LoUard" movement. Taking its
rise in the fourteenth century, it was a factor of importance
more than a hundred years; and it was the beginning of
English Protestantism and Puritanism in later centuries.
We quote again from Rogers :
English Lollardy was, like its direct descendant Puritanism, sour
and opinionative, but it was also moral and thrifty. They who
denounced the lazy and luxurious life of the monks, the worldliness and
greed of the prelates, and the gross and shallow artifices of the popular
rehgion, were pretty sure to inculcate parsimony and saving. By
voluntarily and sturdily cutting themselves off from the circumstance
of the old faith, they were certain, like the Quakers of more than two
centuries later, to become comparatively wealthy. They had nothing to
spare for monk or priest.3
1 Trevelyan, England in the Age of Wikliffe (London, 1899), p. 170 (italics ours).
See also Rashall, in Dictionary of National Biography (New York, 1909), Vol. XXI,
p. IT27. 2 Wratislaw, John Hus (London, 1882), p. 106.
3 Rogers, History of English Agriculture and Prices (Oxford, 1882), Vol. IV, p. 72
(italics ours).

PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 269
In the growth of Lollardy the Catholics were taken by sur
prise; but the ancient church had the advantage of long-
established position, and it soon recovered itself and prepared
to meet its foes. By Cathohc influence, an act against hereti
cal preaching was carried through Parliament in 1382. We
reproduce a part of this act:
Forasmuch as it is openly known, that there be divers evil persons
within the realm, going from county to county, and from town to town,
in certain habits under dissimulation of great holiness, and without the
licence of our holy father the pope, or of the ordinaries of the places, or
other sufficient authority, do preach daily, not only in churches and
churchyards, but also in markets, fairs, and other open places, where a
great congregation of people is, divers sermons containing heresies and
notorious errors, to the great emblemishing of the Christian faith,
and destruction of the laws, and of the estate of holy Church, to the
great peril of the souls of the people, and of all the realm of
England  It is ordained in this present parliament that the
king's commissions be directed to the sheriffs and other ministers of
our sovereign lord the king, or other sufficient persons after and
according to the certifications of the prelates thereof to be made in
the chancery from time to time, to arrest all such preachers, and also
their fautors, maintainers, and abettors, and to hold them in arrest and
strong prison, till they will justify them according to the law and reason
of holy Church.1 ....
This law proved to be too mUd. Lollardism continued to
grow; and about twenty years later (1401), another statute,
more drastic and awful, was promulgated by the English
Parliament. After giving a recital of the situation in much
the same words as those used in the previous act, the new law
went on to provide against heretics the penalty of death by
fire, "that such punishment may strike in fear to the minds
of other [people], whereby no such wicked doctrine and
heretical and erroneous opinions, nor their authors and fautors
in the said realm and dominions against the cathohc faith,
' Adams and Stephens, Select Documents of English Constitutional History (New
York, 1908), pp. 145, 146 (italics ours).

270 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Christian law, and determination of the holy church, which
God prohibit, be sustained or in any wise suffer."1
European civilization at the close of the Middle Ages reproduced
the social problem of the ancient Hebrews. — The protest against
Catholicism was of the same general nature as the ancient
prophetic warfare against Baalism. We have already seen
that the established religion of the pre-exUic Hebrews became
identified with the despotic rule of an upper class which
absorbed the landed property of Israel (Part III, chaps, x,
xvii-xxiv). The Hebrew nation arose at the point of contact
between Amorite city-states and Israelite clans from the
wilderness. The extension of Amorite law over the primitive
highland clans provoked a widespread religious and economic
revolt. A legal and moral conflict was precipitated which
came to a center about the subject of property in the soil.
A similar condition came to pass in Europe at the close of
the mediaeval period. The kingdoms of Europe arose by the
consolidation of nomadic social groups. At first, these
groups (called "clans" or "tribes") had been organized on the
same footing as the clans of Israel. Many of their ancient
customs persisted with the force of law all the way up through
the Middle Ages into the time of the Reformation; and these
old customs were slowly crowded aside by the extension of
Roman law throughout Europe. On this highly important
subject, Lindsay writes :
The universal testimony of contemporaries is that the gradual intro
duction of Roman law brought the greatest change, by placing a means
of universal oppression in the hands of the over-lords. There is no need
to suppose that the lawyers who introduced the new jurisprudence meant
to use it to degrade and oppress the peasant class. A slight study of the
Weisthumer shows how complicated and varied was this consuetudinary
law which regulated the relations between peasant and over-lord. It
was natural, when great estates grew to be principalities, whether lay or
clerical, that the over-lords should seek for some principle of codification
1 Adams and Stephens, op. cit., pp. 168-71.

PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 271
or reduction to uniformity. It had been the custom for centuries to
attempt to simplify the ruder and involved German codes by bringing
them into harmony with the principles of Roman law  But
when the bewildering multiplicity of customary usages which had
governed the relations of cultivators to over-lords was simplified accord
ing to the ideas of Roman law, the result was in the highest degree dan
gerous to the free peasantry of Germany. The conception of strict
individual proprietorship tended to displace the indefinite conception of
communal proprietorship, and the peasants could only appear in the guise
of tenants on long leases, or serfs who might have some personal rights
but no rights of property, or slaves who had no rights at all. The
new jurisprudence began by attacking the common lands, pastures, and
forests.1 The officials of the Roman Catholic church instinctively
arrayed themselves on the side of the Roman law. Augustine
and other great theologians of the early church had been
trained in Roman jurisprudence; and as the social development
of the European states approached the level of the ancient
empire, it was but natural for the church, the heir of that
empire, to assist in shaping the new European kingdoms on the
old Roman model. Two legal writers of great weight speak
as foUows :
By the civil law .... is generally understood the civil or municipal
law of the Roman empire, as comprised in the institute, the code, and
the digest of the emperor Justinian [about 530 a.d.]  The body of
Roman law, or corpus juris civilis, as published about the time of
Justinian .... fell soon into neglect and oblivion [owing to the
conquest of the empire by the barbarians]  About the year 1 130
.... a copy of the digests was found at Amain, in Italy; which
accident, concurring with the policy of the Roman ecclesiastics, suddenly
gave new vogue and authority to the civil law, [and] introduced it into
several nations.2
Roman law entered upon its new career in the West, radiating from
Italy over the lands that lay north and west of her from the twelfth to
'Lindsay, History of the Reformation (New York, 1906), Vol. I, pp. 107, ro8
(italics ours).
' Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (New York, 1890, Chase's
ed.), pp. 46, 47.

272 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
the sixteenth century. Thereafter, Spain, France, Holland, and Ger
many became the chief propagators of the imperial law.1
This legal point, of course, does not exhaust the subject.
It is merely one way of approach to a complex problem.
Wherever we turn in Europe at the period of the Reformation,
we encounter sociological and economic facts that remind us
of our inquiry into the Hebrew social question; and the results
of the two inquiries confirm each other. Everywhere, at the
time of the Reformation, we discover that the high religious
excitement was accompanied by external social conditions
about whose nature and meaning there can be no mistake.
The Reformation as a whole was a very complex movement,
involving an objective, material problem and a corresponding
inward, spiritual problem. And since these problems were
bound up so closely, the Reformation cannot be truly described
either in material or spiritual terms alone. In the centuries
immediately foUowing that period, there was no real historical
scholarship; and the spiritual side of the great changes that
issued in Protestantism was emphasized whUe the social
aspect of the movement was overlooked. UntU very recent
times, indeed, the Reformation has been understood as little
as the Bible itself. This error will be corrected as we learn
that the collision between Protestantism and Catholicism
was fundamentally of the same nature as the warfare between
the Yahweh and Baal parties among the ancient Hebrews.
"Things civil and things sacred were so inextricably mixed
that it is quite impossible to speak of the Reformation as a
purely religious movement."2
Martin Luther's personal experience of Bible religion brought
Protestantism to a center about the doctrine of "Justification by
Faith." — All social changes need a philosophy of some kind,
'Taylor, The Science of Jurisprudence (New York, 1908), p. rsi, cf. p. 46. Cf.
Adams, Civilization During the Middle Ages (New York, 1898) pp. 33 f.; Bryce,
Studies in History and Jurisprudence (New York, 1901), p. 89.
2 Lindsay, History of the Reformation (New York, 1906), Vol. I, p. 8.

PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 273
which wUl give them a point of departure and shape their
course. Otherwise they can be nothing more than blind
struggles ending in anarchy. For a long time, the reaction
of Europe against Roman ecclesiasticism was a blind protest
against the claims of the church to an ever-increasing share
of the world's wealth. Unless the world gave tribute to the
church, the world could not be right with God. This, of
course, was not a matter of theology; but it was the practical
attitude of the church. In practice, the church defined a
"heretic" as a man who would not pay his ecclesiastical bUls.
If he paid his bUls, he might believe anything at all (not in
theory, of course, but in practice); while, on the other
hand, refusal to pay church bUls was the one, infallible sign
that a man's beliefs caUed for investigation. The church was
like steel on the view that there was no redemption — no
justification — no salvation — outside of its walls. The church
view of redemption caUed for the payment of money by the
worshiper; and this payment was the solid, material sign of
adherence to the claims of the church. The conservatism of
established ideas protected the church long after Europe had
grown restless under the dominion of the priesthood. Ideas
are like running water. They cut a channel in which they
tend to flow. So long, therefore, as the minds of men were
possessed by the idea that redemption could be had only
within the waUs of the Roman church, the protest against the
economics of the church could be of little avaU.
But the temporal, economic power of Catholicism was at
last broken by Martin Luther, a German monk. Although
the Reformation itself is to be described as both a spiritual
and a material movement, Luther's personal experience can
be interpreted only in spiritual terms. The changes < that
occurred in his brain had no conscious connection with
economics. He labored under a profound sense of unworthi
ness and sinfulness; and he went through a long, bitter

274 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
struggle to find the "way" of redemption or salvation. He
wanted to be saved; and he asked how he could be justified
in the sight of God. When he began his quest, he believed
that salvation was to be found somewhere within the waUs of
the Cathohc church, as he had bee*n taught from chUdhood.
So he tried the different ways of justification provided by the
church. But the outward ceremonies and rites brought him
no inward peace; his heart was hungry and his soul was
troubled. If he had been a mere layman, who had to pay the
usual retaU price for the exercises of religion, there might be
some ground for putting an economic interpretation upon his
experience. But Luther was himself a clerical person, a
"religious" man in the technical, Roman sense; and he got
his religion, so to speak, for nothing. Hence, in his case, we
are in contact with an idea, pure and simple. The critical
point in Luther's experience came when he began to study the
Bible. It was an unusual and revolutionary thing at that
time for a person of religious training to study the Bible. This
ancient collection of writings came to Luther like a newly
found world. His discovery of the Bible can be compared
with the discovery of America I>y Columbus. A new spiritual
continent rose before the vision of the German monk. In the
Scriptures he found that redemption, or justification, is to be
had, not through ceremonies and rites, but through faith in
the God of the Bible as revealed in Jesus. If a man could
thus come into personal touch with God, where was the need
for a priesthood ? Europe was unconsciously waiting for his
message. "Its discontent was the sounding-board which
made his words reverberate."1 The speU that the papacy had
thrown over the West was broken.
Bible-study was opposed by Catholicism, but promoted by
Protestantism. — Martin Luther's use of the Bible suggests the
'Lindsay, supra, Vol. I, p. 113; Vol. II, p. 16. Cf. Preserved Smith, Martin
Luther (Boston, 1911), pp. 8-13.

PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 275
relation of the Scriptures to the Catholic and Protestant
churches respectively. The idea of translating the Bible out
of the ancient languages into a modern tongue was not original
with Luther. It had occurred many years before to John
Wikliffe, under whose leadership the Old and New Testaments
had been put into fourteenth-century Enghsh. Wikliffe's
Bibles, however, had to be toUsomely copied out by hand, for
as yet the art of making books from type was unknown. But
by Luther's time, the printer had come to the aid of the
scholar; and the Bible became one of the "best seUers" known
to the book trade of the modern world.
The attitude of the mediaeval church organization toward
Scripture study was what might naturally be expected. Luther's
ecclesiastical superior in the Roman church commanded him to
abstain from reading the Bible; and the men who undertook
to put the Bible into modern languages found themselves
hindered and treated as criminals at every turn. William
Tyndale, the first Englishman who translated and printed the
Bible in his native tongue, was forced to leave the country
when his plans were discovered; and the first printed English
Bible was made in Germany.1 Later, after the Reformation
had been established in England by law, the Bible was trans
lated and published by authorization of the King, who
appointed it to be set up and read in churches. In all Protes
tant countries, none surpassed England in the interest with
which the people received the Scriptures. This wonderful
collection of writings now first began to come before the
popular mind. The situation is weU depicted by Green :
The popularity of the Bible had been growing fast from the day when
Bishop Bonner set up the first six copies in St. Paul's. Even then, we
'Pollard, Records of the English Bible (Oxford University Press, 191 1), pp. 3 ff .
In justice to the Catholic authorities, it should be observed that Tyndale and other
translators at the time of the Reformation did not content themselves with a simple
rendering of the ancient text into modern tongues; but they embelUshed their margins
with printed notes hostile to the Roman church.

276 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
are told, "many well-disposed people used much to resort to the hearing
thereof, especially when they could get any that had an audible voice to
read to them  One John Porter used sometimes to be occupied
in that goodly exercise, to the edifying of himself as well as others. This
Porter was a fresh young man and of a big stature; and great multitudes
would resort thither to hear him, because he could read well and had an
audible voice." But the "goodly exercise" of readers such as Porter
was soon superseded by the continued recitation of both Old Testament
and New in the public services of the Church; while the small Geneva
Bibles carried the Scripture into every home, and wove it into the hfe
of every English family.
Religion indeed was only one of the causes for this sudden popularity
of the Bible. The book was equally important in its bearing on the
intellectual development of the people. All the prose literature of
England, save the forgotten tracts of Wyclif, has grown up since the
translation of the Scriptures by Tyndale and Coverdale. So far as the
nation at large was concerned, no history, no romance, hardly any
poetry save the little-known verse of Chaucer existed in the English
tongue when the Bible was ordered to be set up in churches. Sunday
after Sunday, day after day, the crowds that gathered round the Bible
in the nave of St. Paul's, or the family group that hung on its words in
the devotional exercises at home, were leavened with a new literature.
Legend and annal, war song and psalm, State-roll and biography, the
mighty voices of prophets, the parables of Evangelists, stories of mission
journeys, of perils by the sea and among the heathen, philosophic
arguments, apocalyptic visions, all were flung broadcast over minds
unoccupied for the most part by any rival learning.1
On its economic side, the Reformation took the course fore
shadowed by events in the Middle Ages. — During the century
preceding the Reformation, the peasantry aU over Europe were
in a state of restlessness which, in many localities, flamed out
into revolt. The vast lower class, on which the upper and middle
orders rested, knew but little about religion . An extensive inquiry
was made into the religious condition of the people of northern
Germany after the revolt from Catholicism. Luther's experi
ence in the Saxon Visitation was typical. After his return he
prepared a "SmaU Cathechism," in the introduction to which
' Green, History of the English People, Book VII, chap. i.

PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 277
he said, "The common people know nothing at all of Christian
doctrine, especiaUy in the vUlages! and unfortunately many
pastors are well-nigh unskiUed and incapable of teaching; and
although all are caUed Christians and partake of the Holy
Sacrament, they know neither the Lord's Prayer, nor the
Creed, nor the Ten Commandments, but live like poor cattle
and senseless swine, though, now that the gospel is come, they
have learnt weU enough how they may abuse their liberty."1
It was found by Luther "that the only application of the new
evangehcal hberty made by many of the people was to refuse
to pay aU clerical dues." General conditions were no different
in England.2 The hostUity of the merchant and manu
facturing classes everywhere toward the Roman church was
instinctive. "The trading classes of the towns," writes Green,
"had been the first to embrace the doctrines of the Refor
mation."3 And we find that "the religious reformation in
every land of Europe," as Motley says, "derived a portion
of its strength from the opportunity it afforded to potentates
and great nobles for helping themselves to Church property."4
The situation in England may be taken as a type of that in
aU countries where Protestantism became the established form
of Christianity. The English Reformation began during the
reign of Henry the Eighth (1509-1547). In his time the
pressure for economic change became too great to be resisted
any longer by the Roman church in England. The vast
landed property of the church was transferred by act of
Parhament into the hands of the King, who turned most of
it over to the nobUity. Green writes:
The bulk of these possessions were granted lavishly away to the
nobles and courtiers about the King, and to a host of adventurers who
"had become gospellers for the abbey lands." Something like a fifth of
1 Lindsay, op. cit., I, p. 409.
2 Ibid., pp. 405, 406.
3 Green, op. cit., Book VI, chap. v.
¦< Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic (Philadelphia, McKay), Vol. I, p. 272.

278 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
the actual land in the kingdom was in this way transferred from the
holding of the Church to that of nobles and gentry. Not only were
the older houses enriched, but a new aristocracy was erected from
among the dependants of the Court. The Russells and the Cavendishes
are famihar instances of families which rose from obscurity through the
enormous grants of Church-land made to Henry's courtiers.1
' Green, History of the English People, Book VI, chap. i. Cf. Froude, History of
England (New York, T873), Vol. Ill, p. 359; Vol. VII, pp. n, 40. Cf. "Cambridge
Modern History," Vol. II, The Reformation (New York, 1904).

CHAPTER XXXIII
PROTESTANTISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY
Protestantism, at the time of its legal establishment, was based
upon the union of Church and State. — When the Protestants
broke away from Cathohcism, this great revolution was accom
plished by law. The Protestant states, in their corporate
capacity as "social groups," had to dispossess the Roman
church of its property, and make the old forms of worship
iUegal. Furthermore, such principles as the toleration of
different views, and the liberty of conscience, were unknown
to the world at that time. So the Protestant states had to
make legal provision for churches of their own. As a conse
quence, the churches of the Reformation slipped into the place
of the banished Romanism. These considerations prepare us
to see that Protestantism, at first, held the same position in
the social body as did Cathohcism, Judaism, and paganism.
It was the rehgion of the state, or, as it is caUed in England,
the "estabhshed" worship. Although the external forms and
circumstances were different, the sociological meaning of
Protestantism was everywhere the same. Church and State
were everywhere united; and aU the people of a state were
compeUed to support the local church. The historian Froude
writes: "The CouncU of Geneva, the General Assembly at
Edinburgh, the Smalcaldic League, the English Parliament,
and the Spanish Inquisition held the same opinions on the
wickedness of heresy; they differed only in the definition of
the crime."1
The Protestant clergy, therefore, held a position as high as
the Catholic priesthood; and in practice they made as lofty
claims to respect as did the ministers of the Roman church.
' Froude, History of England (New York, 1873), Vol. Ill, p. 311.
279

280 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
They were appointed by officials whose authority was derived
from the state; and they could be deprived of office by the
same power. A good Ulustration is found in the famous
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, which were set
forth by national law in the year 1562. Article 23 declares:
"Those we ought to judge lawfully caUed and sent, which be
chosen and called to this work by men who have public author
ity given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send
Ministers into the Lord's Vineyard."1 John Calvin's view of
the ministry was even higher than this, for in his Institutes of
the Christian Religion he laid down the principle that the
clergy ought to rule all mankind within the terms of a theoc
racy. His autocratic tendencies were checked by the civil
power;2 but the prevaUing union of Church and State made
the church an engine of pubhc authority.
Protestantism, like the Jewish and Catholic churches, viewed
the religion of the Bible as ordained by external divine authority.
— Since Protestantism at first occupied the same social position
as the older forms of worship, it is easy to see how the Reforma
tion churches necessarUy started out by taking the ancient
view of the Bible and its religion. "Orthodox" theology was
demanded alike by the social and the mental constitution
of early Protestantism. The idea of natural, evolutionary
development of religious belief was unthinkable at that period
of human history, and was unknown to the Protestant world
for many generations.
It is a curious, but explainable, fact that the Reformation
churches did not at once perceive the logic of their position
with reference to the Bible. On the one hand, the whole
Reformation movement was an economic movement, directed
by the civU powers of the Protestant states; and these powers
considered their authority to be inherent in themselves. On
' Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York, 1899), Vol. Ill, p. 501 (italics ours).
"Lindsay, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. in, 127, 128, T29.

PROTESTANTISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY

281

the other hand, looking at the matter from the religious point
of view, the Reformers did not think of themselves as reaUy
breaking with the church of God. They had been trained in
Catholicism to regard the church institution itself as authori
tative; and they unconsciously took this view over into their
own ecclesiastical organizations, which they looked upon as
the "true church." Hence, we encounter the paradox that
the more spirituaUy minded of the Reformers, like Martin
Luther, treated the Bible with more freedom than the ration
alistic Reformers of Calvin's type. Although Luther held the
Bible to be in a general way "the Word of God," he emphasized
the believer's personal experience of God through Christ, and
considered himself at liberty to choose and criticize among
the sacred books with considerable freedom.1 The Lutheran
tendency, however, was gradually counteracted by the
influence of Calvinism, which made itself more and more felt
among the Protestant churches of all countries, even in Ger
many. Calvin's type of thought was rationalistic, systematic,
and legalistic; and it corresponded more harmoniously than
Lutheranism with the existing social constitution of the
world. Monarchy was the order of the day; and Calvin
pictured God as an Absolute Ruler, whose sovereignty was
more despotic and awful than that of the most potent
human king or emperor. Setting out from a few principles,
Calvin deduced a logical and orderly system of divinity;
and his formulas had enormous influence in shaping Protes
tant theology. Although Calvin urged a lofty place for the
ministry, he was careful to say that they should rule man
kind "in the Word of God" — that is, in the Scriptures. He
thought the words of the Bible should be received by men as
if God himself uttered these words into the ear of the reader.
"The exegesis of Calvin," as GUbert says, "was fataUy
defective in that it subordinated Scripture to the dogmas of
' Preserved Smith, Martin Luther (Boston, 1911), pp. 263-70.

282 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
the church."1 On the increasing dogmatism and appeal to
external authority in Protestant theology, several writers
make the foUowing statements :
More and more, as the first generation of Protestant leaders recedes
into the past, the theology of those who come after passes into the
scholastic stage  The Bible was looked upon as an authoritative
text-book, from which doctrines and proofs of doctrine were to be
drawn with little or no discrimination as to the use to be made of the
different sacred books. Such were the ramifications of the system that
little if any space was left for varieties of opinion, and dissent upon
any point was treated as a heresy  The impression often made
was that of a divine absolutism enthroned in the souls of men as well as
in the visible world of creatures.2
The Protestant Reformation was mediaeval, not modern, in its spirit
and interest  Bondage to an external law of faith and practice
was for a long time as complete in Protestantism as in Cathohcism, and
the one was as conservative in the field of religious thought as the
other. In their effort to guarantee the absolute infallibility of the Bible
some of the theologians of the day were carried to the furthest possible
lengths. The Bible is not in any sense a human book; it is the literal
word of God in all its parts, having been dictated by the Holy Spirit
to men acting only as amanuenses. Who the author of this or that
book might be was of no consequence, and all questions as to date and
circumstances of composition, or as to authenticity and integrity became
unimportant and irrelevant. Not simply is the Bible as a whole, or
the truths which it contains, from God, but every phrase, word, and
letter, including even the vowel points of the Hebrew Massoretic text.
It is infallible, not alone in the sphere of religion and morals, but in
history, geography, geology, astronomy, and every other field upon
which it touches.3
By the beginning of the eighteenth century the structure of scriptural
interpretation had become enormous. It seemed destined to hide for
ever the real character of our sacred literature and to obscure the
great light which Christianity had brought into the world. The Church,
' Gilbert, Interpretation of the Bible (New York, 1908), p. 213; cf. pp. 218,
219, 233-
» Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine (New York, 1899), p. 347.
s McGiffert, Protestant Thought Before Kant (New York, 1911), pp. 186, 147.

PROTESTANTISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY 283
Eastern and Western, Catholic and Protestant, was content to sit in its
shadow, and the great divines of all branches of the Church reared every
sort of fantastic buttress to strengthen or adorn it. It seemed to be
founded for eternity.1
These tendencies and views prevaUed wherever Protestant
ism estabhshed itself. In Europe, and in the new communities
of America and the other colonial possessions, the Bible and
its rehgion were taken to be the products of an absolute and
infaUible verbal inspiration. The ideas and laws by which
Israel was distinguished from the surrounding heathenism
were beheved to have been put into human history amid the
smoke, flame, and thunder of Sinai. There was no more
disposition to doubt the older theory than there was to question
whether one and one made two. The authoritative con
ception monopolized the field. The Bible and its rehgion
were practicaUy regarded as the outcome of a spiritistic seance
on a grand scale, in which God imparted messages through the
medium of certain Hebrews, and authenticated these com
munications by a display of supernatural marvels.2 This
theory was held by the Lutheran pastor, the Enghsh rector,
the preacher in the Scotch kirk, the Methodist elder, the
Congregational minister, and aU other Protestant clergymen
and laymen. Moreover, it was professed by the Roman
Cathohc and Greek churches, and by the Jewish synagogues.
It took its rise in the ancient world, on the basis of habits of
thought common to the Jews and their heathen contemporaries.
It was held by the bibhcal authors themselves (who wrote after
the event); its reign was undisputed in the Middle Ages of
Christendom; and it has, in fact, largely prevaUed throughout
modern history. It ruled, of course, in the sixteenth century,
at the time of the Reformation (1 500-1 600) ; and the same can
' White, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (New York,
1896), Vol. II, p. 311.
2 Exception has been taken to the "seance" figure as a caricature of orthodoxy;
but it certainly represents the older view.

284 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
fairly be said of the seventeenth century (i 600-1 700), despite
the critical work of such men as Spinoza and Simon. In
harmony with the spirit of orthodox Protestantism, the
seventeenth century saw the production of what is even yet
the most popular of all English renderings of the Bible, a
translation "authorized" by a monarchical British govern
ment. The King James Version was thus published by
"authority," and "appointed to be read in churches."1
1 Among those who prefer this version of the Bible, few can tell who "authorized"
it, or why it was published. The reader is duly impressed by its "authority," and in
most cases no doubt imagines the authority to be something mysterious and peculiar
to itself. By the same token, the partisan of the King James Bible is opposed to
modern "revised" versions, and usually overlooks the fact that the King James Bible
describes itself on the title-page as "diligently compared with former translations,"
and "revised."

CHAPTER XXXIV
PROTESTANTISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM
Orthodox Protestantism reproduced the attitude of the Jewish
and Cathohc churches toward the social problem. — We have seen
that Judaism and Catholicism took form in periods of great
social tension, and that they endeavored to save the world by
a legalistic redemption of the individual. In this way, they
tacitly denied the existence of a social problem, and prepared
for their own loss of influence. It now becomes our duty to
observe that the evolution of Protestantism went forward in
obedience to the same law of history.
Aided by the opening of new land in America, the reorgani
zation of European society which took place at the time of the
Reformation practicaUy solved the social problem of that age.
But as modern history took its course, and century foUowed
century, the problem of social adjustment began once more to
press for solution. The emergence of the modern social
problem is indicated by various events. Notable among these
are the English commonwealth of the seventeenth century, the
French and American Revolutions in the eighteenth century,
the European uprisings in the mid-nineteenth century, and the
progress of socialism down to the present hour.
Along with the profound social changes indicated by these
important historical facts, the Protestant churches went
through an evolution identical with that which took place in
the Jewish and Catholic churches. We saw that these older
ecclesiastical institutions became identified with the upper
social class; and the same situation is Ulustrated by the new
churches that arose out of the Reformation. Although
Protestantism derived its propeUing motives from the dis
content of all classes with Romanism, the actual break with
285

286 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Rome was engineered by the ruling authorities in the various
Protestant states; and this means that the churches of the
Reformation were instituted, not by the "people" in the
democratic sense, but by the upper classes. The logic of the
origin of Protestantism went with it from the start. Being an
upper-class institution, it soon began to alienate the lower and
middle classes. A number of considerations worked together
toward this result. The repudiation of papal authority, and
the lack of entire harmony among the Protestant sects,
were the signs of a new independence of thought. Among the
educated classes, this led toward agnosticism and atheism,
which were decidedly new phenomena, for untU modern times
aU classes of people, Christian and pagan, had agreed that
there were gods of some sort. On the other hand, the lower
social class, troubled by the pressure of poverty, feU into
indifference. The tendency of Protestantism, therefore, was
to confine the organized life of religion within the upper classes
which had established the Reformation; and whUe the vast
lower class was drifting slowly away, the new churches moved
steadily into a dogmatic legalism which reproduced the spirit
of the Jewish and Catholic churches.
Protestant legalism came to a center about the doctrine of the
person of Jesus. — The churches of the Reformation declared,
with increasing emphasis, that salvation depended upon the
acceptance of certain doctrines about the person and work of
Jesus. The Old Testament was interpreted as a huge "type,"
or "figure," of Christ; and it was resorted to as an arsenal of
proof-texts in a way which drove aU vitality out of that most
interesting and vivid coUection of documents. Building up
mainly from Paul's utterances about Jesus, Protestantism
constructed a metaphysical Christianity which took the form
of pure legalism. God was viewed as the Chief Justice of a
Supreme Court in which redemption was purchased by a
mysterious potency residing in the work of Christ. The

PROTESTANTISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 287
behever avaUed himseh of the redemptive merits of Christ by
accepting Jesus in a metaphysical, divine character as the
Savior. This, of course, was not the teaching of Jesus himself,
who, in the parable of the Prodigal, and the Sermon on the
Mount, had little or nothing in common with orthodox Protes
tantism. But the Reformation churches, held fast in the grip
of social forces which they did not understand, lost sight of the
Bible itself amid a rank upgrowth of doctrines about the Bible.
The paraUel between scholasticism in the Protestant, Cathohc,
and Jewish churches was thus complete.1
Orthodox Protestantism resolved salvation into a purely
individual process. According to this view, the world's
troubles were to be cured by the reformation of individual
sinners. If the individual was redeemed, then the world at
large could be rescued by spiritual arithmetic, through the
simple addition of one soul after another to the mass of the
redeemed. Whether or not one agrees with legalistic Protes
tantism upon the exact "method" of saving the individual, it
would be manifest foUy to deny the abstract proposition that
sinners need to be saved, and that bad people should be
reformed. In emphasizing this fact, Protestantism occupies
an impregnable position. But this is also the claim of the
Jewish and Cathohc churches. These other ecclesiastical
bodies agree with orthodox Protestantism that we need better
men and women. The only difference between them lies in
their conception of the legal process of redemption. But the
process in each case is purely a matter of individual salvation;
and hence, from the sociological standpoint, aU three churches
are in the same category.
The decline of orthodox Protestantism is due to its emphasis
upon individual rescue as the only method of redemption. —
Although the doctrine of personal salvation is profoundly
1 For Protestant confessions of faith, see Schaff , The Creeds of Christendom (New
York), Vol. III. In studying these creeds, it should be borne in mind that they took
form in the upper social class, and were established by "authority."

288 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
true, it may be handled in such a way as to be false. To
insist that individual redemption is the one, sovereign method
of reform, is to claim in effect that there is no " social " problem,
in the scientific sense, and is to ignore the fact that society, as
an organized "group," may also be a sinner. In other words,
orthodox Protestantism practicaUy discounts the existence of
social institutions, and sets up the doctrine that society is a
crowd, like the grains of sand in a heap : reform each individual,
and the world is saved. Protestantism has thus rejected the
social problem as clearly as did its great historic predecessors,
the Catholic and the Jewish churches.
Before considering the relation of sociological Bible-study
to the modern world, it is necessary to discuss two further
topics, the rise of scientific investigation of the Bible, and the
modern separation of Church and State. Social development
is a complex interweaving of many tendencies; and whUe we
long to settle the problems of history by some brief and
expeditious method, the actual course of social evolution
demands the exercise of much patience.

CHAPTER XXXV
MODERN SCIENTIFIC BIBLE-STUDY
This chapter is not a history, but an estimate. — This chapter
stands in its present position as an item in the general argu
ment, and not as an essay on the development of scientific
bibhcal scholarship. It is not a history of modern investiga
tion of the Bible; it is a brief appraisal of the meaning and
value of higher criticism in the pre-sociological stage. The
significance of sociological Bible-study wUl be considered in
the closing chapter. At present we shaU speak only of the
literary and historical forms of criticism as developed in the
Wellhausen school, and accepted in the leading centers of
academic learning.1
The general attitude of this book toward scientific Bible-
study is made clear by the previous chapters. We have seen
that the higher criticism is part of the intellectual awakening
which leads from the Middle Ages into the modern world, and
that the literary and historical forms of criticism are a neces
sary introduction to aU scientific study of the Bible. We shaU
now look at scientific Bible-study, not as an academic matter,
but as one of the influences in the complex development of
modern life.
Scientific Bible-study has largely replaced the legal view of
redemption by the moral view. — When we investigate the bearing
of modern bibhcal scholarship on religious ideas, we are at
once confronted by a problem which criticism has hardly
touched, and which in fact lies outside of its domain. Leaving
the mysteries of documentary analysis and historical recon-
' The facts in regard to the history of modem scientific Bible-study are on record
in easily accessible form; and we have referred to them briefly in earlier portions of
this work. (See Prefatory.) 289

290 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
struction behind, we pass over into the field of ethics or
morahty. The new scholarship clears away the legalistic idea
of Bible rehgion, and brings the great moral problem before
us. Scientific investigation has indeed swept aside the mass
of legalism and supernaturahsm that has obscured the Bible;
and it has thus laid open the moral questions that underlie
the history of Israel. Science has pointed to the prophets as
the great, central figures in the development of Bible rehgion;
it has demonstrated that the prophets were moral teachers;
and it has pointed out that the work of Jesus buUds up from
the work of the prophets. Consequently, in the mind of the
modern scholar, the legalistic interpretation of Christianity
and the Bible has passed away, giving place to a more natural,
understandable, and reasonable view. Modern scientific
Bible-study, then, has not only an academic meaning; it has
a practical value as weU. It has shown that religion stands
directly connected with great historical movements and every
day problems. UntU this was accomphshed, no further
advance in the study of the Bible and its religion would have
been possible.
Thus far, most men of critical scholarship, like men of
"orthodox" training, have treated redemption from the standpoint
of individualism. — The contemporary higher critic, whether he
be a professor of divinity or an active pastor, has been through
a struggle. He is conscious of the effort involved in departing
from older views; and he feels that he has passed through an
important change. The laity, however, can judge the higher
critic only by what he says. It is impossible to preach the
critical, scientific method in the pulpit, because the church is
not a university. When standing before a church audience, a
man of the "new school" may give only the results of critical
study as applied to theology and rehgion.
We have guarded against misapprehension by pointing out
the scientific meaning and value of modern critical scholarship.

MODERN SCIENTIFIC BIBLE-STUDY 291
From the standpoint of practical, or non-academic problems,
however, the higher critics thus far occupy virtuaUy the same
ground as their conservative, orthodox predecessors and col
leagues. For whUe the new school replaces the legal by the
moral view of rehgion, it stands alongside the old school in
treating redemption as an individual or personal matter. The
new school has recovered the moral standpoint of Jesus and
the prophets; but thus far, on the whole, it moves within the
terms of individualism as a gospel sufficient for the salvation
of the world. The new and the old schools have been parted by
their inteUectual perceptions, but not by any difference of
practical emphasis. The old school, in spite of its legalism
and supernaturahsm, always viewed the moral regeneration of
the individual as an incident of the redemptive process; and
up to the present time, the new school with a few exceptions,
has merely banished legahsm from theology, and put moral
regeneration to the front as the essential feature of redemption.
The struggle to estabhsh the critical method has prevented
the new school from realizing the incompleteness of its work.
The scientific discovery of the moral character of the Bible
and its rehgion does not have the finality that most critics
have assumed. Although it throws light upon older problems
regarding the nature and composition of the Bible, it brings
to view another problem in which the Bible is linked up with
the moving forces of aU history. The conclusions to which we
are now advancing wiU be indicated in the final chapter. But
before turning to these conclusions, the general argument
relates itself to another fact of large and epoch-making impor
tance in social history. WhUe this fact is a commonplace, its
connection with the problem before us is not often discussed.

CHAPTER XXXVI
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Modern society dissolves the ancient bonds between politics
and religion. — Another sociological fact of large importance now
claims our attention. We have seen that among aU primitive
and heathen peoples, religion and politics are intimately
connected. Religion is a positive, legal bond, holding social
groups together. Whoever does not worship the gods and
practice the ceremonies of a given group is an alien to that
group. It was under the dominance of this view of life, which
we have caUed "the church-and-state regime," that aU ancient
civUization existed. When we pause to recall the immemorial
connection between religious and political matters, the modern
divorce of Church and State appears not only sudden, but
almost miraculous. WhUe the religion of the Bible came into
being under the church-and-state system, and was entangled
with that system for thousands of years, it now exists in the
more progressive part of modern civUization without the
support of external authority; and the principle of the separa
tion of Church and State tends constantly to spread.
There are many good and sufficient reasons for this great
social revolution; but we shall not inquire into them. The
fact itself is before us. The "disestablishment" of religion is
complete, for instance, in the United States, where the national
constitution forbids Congress to make any law respecting the
estabhshment of religion. Although England has an "estab
lished" church, the legal recognition of "nonconformity," and
the right of "dissenters" to vote, to sit in Parliament, and to
be ministers of the Crown, completely neutralize the original
principle of state-rehgion. The same result has been attained
in other Christian countries, such as Germany and France,
292

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 293
by the passage of laws appropriate to the various locahties.
The general fact, then, comes before us that in modern society
rehgion either is, or tends to be, no longer a direct political
and economic issue. The separation of Church and State is
now a commonplace; and there is difficulty in picturing the
former condition of things to a modern audience. The modern
layman reads the Bible with the impression that David, and
Isaiah, and Jesus, and Paul acted and spoke and thought in
an atmosphere of rehgious toleration, when, as a matter of
history, the Bible can be interpreted only in view of the
church-and-state system. Bearing sharply in mind the separa
tion of rehgious and political issues, we turn to the modern
social awakening as the final topic in our study.

CHAPTER XXXVII
THE MODERN SOCIAL AWAKENING
The present age is marked by a new interest in the social
problem. — The influences that we have been tracing in our
study of modem rehgious history have now converged in the
production of a crisis through which society is passing into a
new epoch. The forces leading to the present crisis are indi
cated by the rise of scientific Bible-study, the separation of
Church and State, and the great social awakening. The
development of society is very complex; and the present age,
like aU others, is moved by the pressure of many forces. But
an epoch always gets a distinctive character from the problems
that crowd themselves into the center of its attention. In this
way, the twentieth century is more and more becoming the
age of the social problem. What is the practical bearing of
sociological Bible-study upon the present crisis? Does this
line of inquiry give results of any value in reference to the
social problems now coming up for attention ? A number of
answers to this question disclose themselves.
Sociological study of the Bible promotes understanding of the
social problem, and leads to a social habit of thought. — We aU
tend to ignore "society," and to discount its existence. We
accept the fact of society like the air we breathe. It is an
important condition of hfe; yet we commonly think as little
about it as we do about the atmosphere. We think in terms
of the individual persons with whom we come in contact.
In forming judgments about the merits of any particular
question, such as a labor strike, a dynamite outrage, or the
rise in the cost of living, our first and chief impulse is to blame
somebody. We find the "causes" of problems in the bad
habits of certain people; and we undertake to solve problems
294

THE MODERN SOCIAL AWAKENING 295
merely by reforming individuals. This tendency is caUed
"individualism;" and it has so much truth in it that it wUl
always be a factor in human thought. Nevertheless, when
individualism is uncorrected by a wider vision of human
problems, it leads to conclusions and results of limited value.
The world is now learning, through much labor and sorrow,
that human problems are caused, not only by the bad wiU of
individuals, but by defective social arrangements. Funda-
mentaUy, this is the meaning of the present "social" awaken
ing. The fact of "society," as distinct from "the individual,"
is forcing itself into the field of human vision as never before.
The "social consciousness" is rapidly growing into power.
Sociological study of the Bible, through its appeal to common
place interests in rehgion and economics, helps to give expres
sion to the new social spirit. As the student "observes the
evolution of political and social hfe in Bible times and sees
the consequent evolution of moral and religious ideals, it
becomes perfectly natural for him to employ in the attempt
to understand the life of his own day and generation those very
principles which have proved to be fruitful in the understanding
of the Bible."1 The study of the Bible, then, is no mere
delving into the dust of antiquity; it is a matter of modern
interest. When we foUow out the development of Bible
rehgion, we are studying the origin of ideas that live in the
civUization around us. The religion of the Christian world
is, to a large extent, a projection of the life of ancient Israel
across the intervening ages into modern times.
Since individualism ignores the "social group," it has done
little toward a real solution of the world's problems; and it is
now going into partial echpse. Representing an extreme
tendency of the human mind, it is at length confronted by the
opposite extreme. A new phUosophy is now spreading
rapidly among aU classes. This new view of human problems
' Biblical World (Chicago), October, 1909, p. 222. Editorial.

296 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
discounts personality as much as the ancient individualism
discounts the fact of society. The "socialist" is greatly con
cerned with "class-consciousness," the "class-war," etc.
According to socialism, the individual bears the same relation
to history that the drop of water bears to the ocean wave;
he is not a causal factor in the world's experience, but only an
atom borne along on the great cosmic flow of things. History
is interpreted as "economic determinism." In brief, the
socialist phUosophy is in aU respects the opposite of individ
ualism, and has been well described as " Calvinism with God
left out."
Individualism has been caUed the thesis whereof socialism
is the opposite, or antithesis; whUe sociology, or the scientific
interpretation of society, has been called the synthesis which
wUl in time correct the errors of the two extremes.1 Sociologi
cal study of the Bible wiU have a share in this needed corrective
work. Sociological study of the Bible suggests that the modern church
cannot have a "social program." — The present social awakening
of the church has been criticized for putting too great stress
upon the public aspect of life, and neglecting the "individual."
This protest is based on the standpoint of individualism. The
chief perU in the present awakening, however, does not lie in
overemphasis upon the pubhc side of hfe, but in the tendency
to compromise the church with programs of economic and
pohtical reform. If the church should lend itself to schemes
of public reform, it would be forced, necessarUy, to "go into
politics." But since men have always differed about politics,
those who were opposed to the program or scheme adopted by
majority vote of their church could not support the ecclesi
astical organization; and this would convert the church into
a pohtical party. There is no escape from this conclusion.
' Small and Vincent, Introduction to the Study of Society (New York, 1894), p. 4r,
in substance.

THE MODERN SOCIAL AWAKENING 297
Our chief guide here is found in the testimony of experience.
History bears witness in favor of the separation of Church and
State. Any proposal that seeks to commit the church to a
program of social reform tends to bring back the troublous
times when Church and State were connected, and rehgious
questions were pohtical issues.1 We are caUed upon to take
notice that aU former awakenings to the social problem have
taken place under the "church-and-state regime," and that
the present social awakening is the first movement of the kind
in aU history, since it occurs in the absence of connection
between rehgious and pohtical institutions.
The present relation of the church to society is that of a gen
erator of moral and spiritual energy. — The separation of Church
and State brings into view the real function of the church in
modern society. The church may be compared to an electric
dynamo. The function of a dynamo is to convert "power"
into a useful form. The church is a meeting-place where all
may find the impulse to useful service, but where no party
may seek indorsement for its own special program of reform.
It is true that the church of the past has been identified more
closely with the upper social classes than with the lower. But
this has been unavoidable. It is an incident of the historic
situation, whose adjustment may be safely remitted to the
future (cf. p. 239, supra).
There is no doubt that the church has erred in its manner
of presenting "individual regeneration" as the one, complete
cure for the world's problems. By practicaUy insisting that
individual salvation is the final word in reform, the church
has alienated many persons for whom a great moral principle
1 This consideration has no reference to charitable or educational work, which of
course may be safely undertaken by the church. Such work has been lately rechris-
tened "social service"; but in most cases, the "social gospel" turns out to be the old
individualism under a new name. The significant thing here is the attempt to conform
to the spirit of the times by giving a new name to essentially old ideas. This is one of
the characteristic signs of an age of transition.

298 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
has been made to appear like a mockery. But this mistake is
not somethmg pecuhar to the church. It simply reflects the
average opinion up to the present time. The church is
composed of people, and can move no faster than the people
move. Sociological study of the Bible has a great spiritual meaning. —
It is clear that this form of Bible-study has a great deal to do
with what we caU "materialistic" and "worldly" matters; it
suggests many ideas which the modern reader has not been
accustomed to connect with "rehgion." But it has a far
deeper meaning. Only through a long struggle with material
istic social problems was Israel fitted to see God. The pro
phetic thought revolved endlessly around the criticism of
personal conduct; and the repeated faUure of the prophets to
advance beyond the individualist conception of the social
problem threw Israel's thinkers again and again back into the
realm of the spirit, untU at last they learned the lesson that all
must learn: "Man shall not live by bread alone."

APPENDIX
NOTE ON THE HISTORY OF SOCIOLOGICAL BIBLE-STUDY
In 1880 a book was published under the title Early Hebrew Life: A
Study in Sociology. (London: Triibner & Co.) The author, John
Fenton, is otherwise unknown to me. The book is dedicated to the
German scholar Heinrich Ewald. The author is acquainted with the
Hebrew language; he is familiar with the writings of Kuenen, Well
hausen, and other European biblical critics; and he has read the works
of Spencer, Maine, Morgan, and other sociological writers of that period.
The book is more significant for what it is, than for any positive results;
and it is now almost unknown. The writer asserts the parallelism
between Hebrew social evolution and that of other historic peoples; but
he does not come within sight of the sociological problem of the Bible,
for he does not perceive the composite nature of the Hebrew social
group after the settlement in Canaan, nor the vital consequences involved
in that fact. The book will always be well worth reading.
It is impossible to give a consecutive and logical dating to the rise
of sociological Bible-study. Two books by Professor W. Robertson
Smith, of Cambridge University, have been very influential in this
direction. One of these, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, was
published in 1885; the other, The Religion of the Semites, was delivered
in lecture form about 1889, and published shortly after. These books
are distinctly sociological, in the scientific sense; and they bring the
Bible well within their field. Similar work was done by Professor
Wellhausen, of Marburg, in his Reste arabischen Heidentumes (Berlin,
1887). In 1890 it was suggested by Mr. Joseph Jacobs, a sociological
investigator, that the biblical higher critics were deficient from the
standpoint of what he termed "institutional sociology."1 In 1892
Professor Crawford H. Toy, of Harvard University, wrote: "Religion
.... may be regarded as a branch of sociology, subject to all the laws
that control general human progress."2 The term "bibhcal sociology"
was first used, apparently, by Professor Shailer Mathews, of the Uni
versity of Chicago, in the Biblical World for January, 1895. Professor
' Cheyne, Pounders of Old Testament Criticism (London, 1893), p. 330.
2 Toy, Judaism and Christianity (Boston, 1892), p. i.
299

300 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE
Mathews defined sociology in general as the attempt to discover the laws
underlying human association; and he has since been active in pro
moting social study of religion. In 1898 Professor Graham Taylor, of
Chicago Commons, also used the term, referring to "the demand for a
distinct department of research and scientific formulation dealing with
the social data of the Scriptures which ultimately is sure to create a
biblical sociology" (American Journal of Theology, Vol. II, p. 891). In
1899 Professor Frantz Buhl, of the University of Leipzig, issued a study
of social institutions in Israel under the title Die socialen Verhaltnisse
der Israeliten (Berlin). This treatise breaks no new ground; but it is
an interesting sign of the drift of biblical studies. In 1900 Professor
Graham Taylor pubhshed an elaborate Syllabus in Biblical Sociology
(Chicago). This treatise was intended mainly for the use of theological
students, as an exhibit of what had been done up to that time. In 1901
Rev. Edward Day contributed to the "Semitic Series" (New York), a
book entitled The Social Life of the Hebrews. In the same year (1901)
Professor T. K. Cheyne, of Oxford University, writing in the Encyclopedia
Biblica (col. 2057), noticed the entry of biblical criticism into a new
phase, wliich is due among other influences to "comparative study of
social customs." In 1902 Professor George A. Barton, of Bryn Mawr
College, pubhshed a notable work, entitled A Sketch of Semitic Origins,
Social and Religious (New York). This treatise cultivates the field
marked out by Wellhausen and W. Robertson Smith. It is written in
view of the results of historical criticism and many of the results of
modern sociology; and while it devotes considerable attention to bibhcal
rehgion, its chief interest is in the general Semitic field. Professor Ira
M. Price, of the University of Chicago, is preparing an exhaustive work
on the social customs of the ancient Hebrews in the light of modern
research into Semitic civilization.
In the American Journal of Sociology for May, 1902, the present
writer has a paper which treats the connection of social development
with Semitic religion and the Christian church. This paper is an
advance study of a book issued in 1903, entitled An Examination of
Society (Columbus, Ohio). A large part of that book is devoted to
sociological study of material in the Old and New Testaments; and
it foreshadows results later developed in more definite form. In 1905
the same writer published a book entitled Egoism: A Study in the Social
Premises of Religion (Chicago), in which the sociological problem of the
Bible was recognized more clearly. In 1907 the same writer contributed
to the periodical mentioned above, two papers entitled, "Sociological

APPENDIX 301
Significance of the Bible," and " Sociology and Theism." In the follow
ing year he contributed to the American Journal of Theology (Chicago,
April, 1908) a paper entitled, "Professor Orr and Higher Criticism,"
suggesting the sociological deficiency of the older interpretation of the
Bible, and the promise of development in the newer school of criticism.
In the same year (1908) he began a systematic series, in the sociological
journal mentioned above, entitled "Biblical Sociology." The first of
these papers appeared in the September issue for that year; and the
seventh and concluding instalment was published in the issue for
November, 191 1.
In the meanwhile courses having a sociological bearing on the Old
Testament were given at various institutions, as follows: Minnesota
State University, by Professor Samuel G. Smith; Chicago Theological
Seminary, by Professor Graham Taylor; [Harvard University Divinity
Summer School, by Professor Lewis B. Paton; Pacific Theological
Seminary, by Professor WiUiam F. Bade; Newton Theological Institu
tion, by Professor Winfred N. Donovan; Ohio State University, by Mr.
Louis Walhs.
In 1910 Professor Samuel G. Smith, of Minnesota State University,
pubhshed a book entitled, Religion in the Making: A Study in Biblical
Sociology (New York). This book is a useful advertisement of the
connection between sociology and the Bible; but it contains no statement
of the imphed problem, and advances no working hypothesis which
throws hght on the origin of distinctive Hebrew institutions.1
The book to which the present historical note is an appendix is a
revision of the papers published in the American Journal of Sociology by
the present writer.
BOOKS ON SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF THE BIBLE
A printed hst has been prepared for the use of those who desire to
know the titles of reliable books on the Bible from the modern scientific
standpoint. This will be supplied on receipt of four cents in stamps.
'A review of Professor Smith's book was contributed to the Biblical World
(Chicago), April, igro, by the present writer. Professor Smith used the term "biblical
sociology" in correspondence with me, before it appeared at the head of my series in
the American Journal of Sociology; but at the time the series commenced, I supposed
the term was original with me. Investigation shows, however, as indicated above,
that this combination was used as far back as 1895 at least; and it now appears to
have suggested itself to a number of writers independently.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Abimelek, 109
Abraham, 56, 94
Adams and Stephens, 267, 269
Adams, G. B., 272
Addis, W. E., 136, 184
Adeney, W. F., 248
Adoption, 44
Amorite, "iniquity of," 35-37, 94, 95,
201, 202
Amorites, xxiv, xxv; sale of land by, 91;
cities of, 105, 106; race distinction
lost, 122
Amorite and Canaanite, 21, 108
Ark of Yahweh, 126
Arabs, 89
Araunah, 91, 137
Augustine, 256
Authorized Version, 284
Authority, bibhcal, conflicting, 188
Baal, or family head, 41, 48, 158
Baals, or Baalim, local gods identified
with civilization, xxvi, 72; of the
border, 174; and Yahweh, 98, 133
Baal-class, contraction of, 161
Baal-idea, a foil, 86
Baalism, and mishpat, 195; a "fulcrum,"
197
Baal-names, and Yahweh-names, 113,
119
Baal-zebub, or Beelzebub, 99
Bacon, B. W., 245
Barton, G. A., 39, 63
Bayith, family, 45
Bible, s6ance view of, 256, 283
Ben Hur, 59
Biblical World, xv, xxxii, 16, 217, 295
Blackstone, W., 271
Book of the Wars of Yahweh, 30, 100, 131
Breasted, J. H., 9, 70, 92, 120, 128, 175
Briggs, C. A., 37
Brown, Francis, xvi

Bryce, J., 272
Budde, K., 82, 93, 118, 177
Bury, J. B., xviii, 15
Carpenter, J. E., 215
Cathohcism, and "Amoritism," 249;
and Bible-study, 250, 274
Charity, and wages, 218
Cheyne, T. K., 216
Chemosh, of Moab, 74, 76
Christianity, personal, 236; not social
ism, 239
Church and State, connected, 63
Church, present function of, xxxii, 3, 297
Civilization, despotic tendencies, 175
Clan, Hebrew, 47, 154
Clarke, W. N., 10
Cone, 0., 241
Cook, S. A., xvi
Cornill, C, 192
Dan, or Laish, 31
David, 55, 65, 77, 130
Davidson, A. B., 80, 183, 207
Day of Yahweh, 220
Deuteronomy, 135, 170, 191, 198
Deuteronomic school, and Baahsm, 198
Dobschiitz, E., 241
Doughty, C. M., 89, 93, 142
Drama, the biblical, 99
Edh, altar of, 19
Egypt, 100, 129
El, elohim, 64; sons of, 67
Ehjah, 177
Ehsha, 55
Ephod, n
Erman, A., 129
Ezekiel, 201, 205
Family, Hebrew, 41
Fisher, G. P., 245, 282
Foster, F. H., 10

3°5

306

SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE

Frazer, J. G., 64
Froude, J. A., 234, 278, 279
Genesis, and hill-country, 106
Ger, the, 45
Gibbon, E., 246
Gibborim, 142, 153
Gibeonites, 114, 120
Gideon, 48, 77, 108
Gilbert, G. H., xvi, 257, 281
Gilead, Judah, etc., 136
God, leader in redemption, 7
Gods, the, as members of society, 62;
inhale incense, 162
Goel, Yahweh as, 208
Goodspeed, G. S., 9, 92, 120, 128, 145
Goyim, 49
Gray, G. B., 44
Green, J. R., 122, 254, 276, 277
Green, W. H., 12
Group, social, 14
Hallam, H., 246
Hannibal, 100
Harnack, A., 241, 256
Hebrews, national development pecuhar,
95, 176; social diversity of, ^5-37
Hefele, C. J., 246
Henderson, E. F., 253
Hexateuch, xxiv, 20, 32, 44
Holiness Code, 201
Hommel, F., 93
Hosea, 185
Hyksos, xxix, 96
Iliad, 68, 162
Indians, 88
Individualism and socialism, 295
Interest, 89, 90, 158
Isaiah, Book of, 183
Jastrow, M., 9, 128
Jebb, R. C, 120
Jehu, 179
Jehonadab, or Jonadab, 180
Jerusalem, 107, 108, 120, 121
Jeroboam, 142
Jeremiah, 195
Jesus, n, 228 f.

Jews, xxv, 209
Job, 156
Jordan, L. H., xvii
Josiah, 189, 190, 193
Josephus, 223
Judaism, orthodox, 216, 231
Judges, shophetim, 98; Book of, 137, 199
Kassites, xxix, 96
Kautsch, E., 105, 192
Kenite, hypothesis, 82
Kent, C. F., 177
Kirkpatrick, A. F., 164
Kittel, R., 94, 105
Kuenen, A., xii, 12
Laboring class, Hebrew, 60
Lagrange, L. M., 63
Landownership, 53
Land question, 92, 154, 270
Law and Prophets, reversed, xi, 212
Law, Roman, 270
Lindsay, T. M., 270, 272, 274, 277, 280
Loisy, A., 192
Lollardy, 268
Luckenbill, D. D., 175
Luther, Martin, 272
Macaulay, T. B., 235
Macdonald, D., 68, 69, 75
Mathews, S., 241
Manasseh, 187
Manufacturing class, Hebrew, 58
Marti, K., 99, 117, 184, 192
McCurdy, J. F., 135, 184
McGiffert, A. C, 240, 282
Meat, tainted, law of, 46, 158
Merchant class, Hebrew, 58
Mesha, of Moab, 76
Messianism, 220
Milman, H. H., 246
Mishpat, xxvii, 5, 90; Samuel on, 92;
in Judges period, 112; and hok, 198;
Yahweh and, 112, 117; stages of
struggle, 173, 174, 185
Mishphachah, Hebrew clan, 47, 154
Mohar, 43
Mommsen, T., 68
Monasticism, 249

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

307

Moses, 82
Motley, J. L., 277
Miiller, A., 142
Mythology, xx, xxi
Nabal, 55
Nabi, 147
Naboth, 144
National evolution, Hebrew, 95, 96, 176
Nebuchadrezzar, prayer to Marduk, 8
Nehemiah, 209
New Testament, and slavery, 159, 243;
completion of, 250
Niebuhr, B. G., xix, xx
Nomadism, and civihzation, 88
Northern Kingdom, destruction of, 187
Old Testament, a moral work, 33
Orr, J., xvii, 12, 191, 241
Palfrey, J. G., 89
Pantheon, Hebrew, 138
Paul, 242
Peabody, F. G., 241
Peace treaty, Amorite, 113, 114
Peasantry, Assyrian, 144
Persecution, religious, 63
Philemon, 244
Phihstines, 115
Piety, Jewish, 215
Prediction, not prophetic test, 1 70
Price, I. M., 133
Priestly documents, 202
Property, male inheritance of, 44
Prophecy, banished by the Bible, 214
Prophets, "genius" of, xvii; as preach
ers, 147; and mishpat, 148, 150; not
democrats, 157, 160; two classes of,
164-68; alleged originality of, 183;
early Judean, 102, 183, 200
Protestantism, orthodox, 279, 280
Rainy, R., 241, 245, 246, 248
Rauschenbusch, W., 241
Records of the English Bible, Pollard, 275
Rechabites, 181
Reformation, and history, 264; and
Yahweh-Baal struggle, 272; chmax
of, 276

Rehgion, Bible, twofold, 3
Renan, E., 136, 142
Riggs, J. S., 216
Robinson, H. W., 127
Rogers, J. E. T., 266, 268
Romulus and Remus, xix
Ruth, 75
Samuel, 92, 141, 146
Sanctuaries, local, 22, 127, 190
Sanday, W., xvi
Saul, 114
Sayce, A. H., 128
Schaff, P., 280, 287
Seance view, of Bible, 215, 256, 282, 283
Shophet, shaphat, etc., 47, 98, 112
Silver, demonetization, 143
Sirach, Wisdom of, 219
Skinner, J., 174
Slavery, 49, 51, 158
Small, A. W., xxxiv, 264
SmaU and Vincent, xxxiv, 296
Smith, G. A., xiii, 135, 189
Smith, H. P., 138, 142, 189
Smith, Preserved, 274, 281
Smith, W. R., 63, 64, 136, 177, 215
Socialism, and individualism, 295, 296
Sociology, xxii, 13, 14, 227, 228
Solomon, 121
Southern Kingdom, and mishphat, 182
Steindorff, G., 129
Taylor, H., 272
Tent of Meeting, 17, 20
Teraphim, 70, 71
Theology, 10, 97
Third estate, 60, 61
Treaty, Amorite, 113
Trevelyan, G. M., 268
Urim and Thummim, 77
Villages, Hebrew, 54
Vincent, G. E., xxiii, 14
Walker, G. L., 6
Weber, A., 257
Wellhausen, J., xi, xvi
White, A. D., 283

308

SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE

Wikliffe, John, 267
Wildeboer, G., 212
Winckler, H., 93
Wratislaw, A. H., 268
Yahweh, the name, xiii; and Baal, xxvi;
early cult of, 73; covenant with, 80;
contrasted views about, 96; in Judges
period, 116; rain-function of, 118;

"increase" of, 128; as "god of gods,"
130; and the Amorite Baals, 133;
tendency to "baalize" him, 134, 176;
speaks to Jehu, 180; as goel, or Re
deemer, 206-8
Yahweh-Baal struggle, 101, 102, 104, 185
Yahweh rehgion, conditions of its
development, 86

¦ ypt